The Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) 9780190069421, 9780190069438, 9780190069445, 9780190069452, 0190069422

Citation preview

Regensburg Article 5 on Justification

OXFORD STUDIES IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY Series Editor David C. Steinmetz, Duke University Editorial Board Irena Backus, Université de Genève Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Geoffrey Wainwright, Duke University Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS ON THE TRINITY AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD In Your Light We Shall See Light Christopher A. Beeley

THE REFORMATION OF SUFFERING Pastoral Theology and Lay Piety in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany Ronald K. Rittgers

THE JUDAIZING CALVIN Sixteenth-​Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms G. Sujin Pak

CHRIST MEETS ME EVERYWHERE Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis Michael Cameron

THE DEATH OF SCRIPTURE AND THE RISE OF BIBLICAL STUDIES Michael C. Legaspi

MYSTERY UNVEILED The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England Paul C. H. Lim

THE FILIOQUE History of a Doctrinal Controversy A. Edward Siecienski

GOING DUTCH IN THE MODERN AGE Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Netherlands John Halsey Wood Jr.

ARE YOU ALONE WISE? Debates about Certainty in the Early Modern Church Susan E. Schreiner EMPIRE OF SOULS Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth Stefania Tutino MARTIN BUCER’S DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION Reformation Theology and Early Modern Irenicism Brian Lugioyo CHRISTIAN GRACE AND PAGAN VIRTUE The Theological Foundation of Ambrose’s Ethics J. Warren Smith KARLSTADT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY A Study in the Circulation of Ideas Amy Nelson Burnett

CALVIN’S COMPANY OF PASTORS Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536–​1609 Scott M. Manetsch THE SOTERIOLOGY OF JAMES USSHER The Act and Object of Saving Faith Richard Snoddy HARTFORD PURITANISM Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone, and Their Terrifying God Baird Tipson AUGUSTINE, THE TRINITY, AND THE CHURCH A Reading of the Anti-​Donatist Sermons Adam Ployd AUGUSTINE’S EARLY THEOLOGY OF IMAGE A Study in the Development of Pro-​Nicene Theology Gerald Boersma

READING AUGUSTINE IN THE REFORMATION The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–​1620 Arnoud S. Q. Visser

THE GERMAN AWAKENING Protestant Renewal after the Enlightenment, 1815–​1848 Andrew Kloes

SHAPERS OF ENGLISH CALVINISM, 1660–​1714 Variety, Persistence, and Transformation Dewey D. Wallace, Jr.

THE SYNOD OF PISTOIA (1786) AND VATICAN II Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform Shaun Blanchard

THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF WILLIAM OF ALTON Timothy Bellamah, OP

REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony N.S. Lane

MIRACLES AND THE PROTESTANT IMAGINATION The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany Philip M. Soergel

Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? A N T HO N Y N .  S .   L A N E

1

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data Names: Lane, A. N. S., author. Title: Regensburg article 5 on justification : inconsistent patchwork or substance of true doctrine? / by Anthony N. S. Lane. Description: New York, NY, United States of America : Oxford University Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2019018493 | ISBN 9780190069421 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190069438 (updf) | ISBN 9780190069445 (epub) | ISBN 9780190069452 (online) Subjects: LCSH: Justification (Christian theology)—History of doctrines—16th century. | Regensburg Colloquy of 1541 (1541 Regensburg, Germany) Classification: LCC BT764.3 .L365 2019 | DDC 234/.7—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019018493 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

To Daniel, David, and Emmanuel

Contents Preface Abbreviations

ix xiii

Introduction

1

1. The Regensburg Colloquy

9

Background The Regensburg Colloquy Article 5 The Rest of the Colloquy

9 13 22 30

2. Reactions to Article 5

33

3. After Regensburg

67

4. Double Righteousness and Double Justification

89

Contemporary Protestant Reactions Contemporary Catholic Reactions Modern Assessments Debates over Article 5 The Cologne Reformation The Second Colloquy of Regensburg (1546) The Council of Trent, Decree on Justification (1546–​47)

33 46 59 67 69 83 85

Double Righteousness Prior to Regensburg The Origin of the Regensburg Formula Double Righteousness after Regensburg Double Justification

89 95 108 129

Conclusion

144

Justification of the Ungodly and Justification of the Godly Justification of Works as well as Persons Double Formal Cause of Justification

5. Text and Commentary The Text The Commentators The Commentary Conclusion

129 133 137

147 147 149 152 248

viii Contents

6. Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? The Issues

Doctrines Not Covered by Article 5 Ambiguities in Article 5 Duplex Iustitia Reliance upon the Testimony of Works The Nature of Justifying Faith The Role of Fiducia

251

251 251 253 254 257 259 263

The Participants

266

Conclusion: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?

273

Melanchthon Bucer Calvin Contarini Gropper Pflug Sed contra Concerns Conclusion

266 266 267 268 271 272 273 275 277

Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 1. The Worms Draft 2. Melanchthon’s Draft (with translation) 3. Eck’s Draft (with translation) 4. Gropper’s Draft (with translation) 5. The Final Version (with translation)

279 279 295 302 305 329

Glossary of Latin Terms Bibliography Index

335 337 363

Preface I began this study in the early 2000s, and at that stage, geography was a crucial factor. I was (and am) fortunate to have easy access to the British Library, the Cambridge University Library, and the Bodleian Library. Almost all the sixteenth-​century volumes to which I needed access were available at these three. I am particularly grateful to Lord Acton for collecting books relating to this theme, which are now in the Cambridge University Library, without which I would not have been able to embark on this project. I am also grateful to the staff of the Rare Books Reading Room there for their helpfulness, especially in providing photocopies. After an interval of some ten years, I returned to this study in 2014 and discovered that, with very few exceptions, every sixteenth-​century volume that I  needed could now be downloaded from the Internet. This is thanks overwhelmingly to two bodies—​the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich and Google Books.1 Thanks are also due to a number of individuals. Colin Smith, one of my first two research students, worked on “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification in Relation to the Sense of Sin and the Dialogue with Rome.” It was he who first kindled my interest in the present topic. I  am also grateful to Kevin Vanhoozer and Dennis Okholm for invitations to speak on justification by faith in Catholic-​Protestant dialogues at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Wheaton College respectively. Out of these lectures emerged the book Justification by Faith in Catholic-​Protestant Dialogue:  An Evangelical Assessment,2 and this led on naturally to the present study. The late Vincenz Pfnür wrote extensively on the colloquies in general and justification in particular. He offered me encouragement and kindly let me have photocopies and transcripts of Eck’s and Melanchthon’s drafts of Article 5. I am grateful that we had the opportunity to meet. The late Thomas Mayer in an extensive email exchange offered valuable help with Pole’s letters, including sharing the material before it was published and a proposed

1 The delay has also meant that I have been able to use three significant new editions: BSELK, ADRG, and MBWT. 2 London: T & T Clark (Continuum), 2002.

x Preface translation of a tricky passage. Again, I am glad that I once had the opportunity to meet him. I have corresponded with Reinhard Braunisch, who very kindly responded to my queries and generously supplied me with copies of a number of his works. As a research student and a Gasthörer at Tübingen, I enjoyed taking part in a seminar on Augustine’s De spiritu et littera, run by the late Karl-​Heinz zur Mühlen. Thereafter we met repeatedly at conferences run on the reception of the Fathers in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. We did not get to discuss the present topic, but I  am grateful to him for all his work in producing the invaluable Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche im 16. Jahrhundert, of which I have made heavy use. I enjoyed nearly twenty years of working with the late Wilhelm Neuser on the Presidium of the International Congress on Calvin Research, which he founded. I take issue with him on his assessment of Article 5, but that does not lessen my warm appreciation of all that he did and of our times together. I am also greatly indebted to those who kindly read and commented on drafts of this book. Robert Kolb commented on the Luther and Melanchthon material in particular, as did Gordon Jensen, and Brian Lugioyo commented on the Bucer and Gropper material. In many places I have added material in response to their questions and suggestions. Christopher Malloy scrutinised the relevant material from a Tridentine perspective, and I have interacted with his comments in a few places. Dermot Fenlan also read and commented on my material. I am especially indebted to Robert Kolb for engaging with the material in great detail, and for giving me many helpful leads, though he is not, of course, responsible for the line I have taken. In the course of our ongoing and detailed dialogue, he asked many penetrating questions, and these repeatedly forced me to sharpen and clarify my argument, on occasion substantially (Prov 27:17). I am very grateful to him for this. I am also grateful to Alister McGrath, for our helpful discussions of the topic of justification over a period of some thirty years and for his magisterial Iustitia Dei. In working with the original texts, I received help with specific queries concerning Latin (Steve Motyer, David Wright), Italian (Lisbet Diers, David Payne, and Emily Smuts) and German (Annette Glaw, Nathalie Hallervorden, Markus Wriedt, Berndt Hamm, and Joachim Schmid). I am also grateful to David Payne and Richard Sturch, who provided me with draft translations of the longer Latin documents in the Appendixes. I have revised these for myself, and the responsibility for the final interpretations and translations lies with me. The aforementioned folk are not to be held responsible for any

Preface  xi defects that remain. I am also very grateful to my colleague Conrad Gempf, who has over many years offered me unstinting help on computer matters, particularly related to the production of this book. During the later stages of writing the book, I have frequently enjoyed the pleasant distraction of spending time with my grandchildren. This book is dedicated to my three grandsons, Daniel, David, and Emmanuel Djabbarov, who have helped to keep me grounded in today’s world as I  wander the highways of the 1540s.

Abbreviations ADRG

ARC

ARG ASD BSELK BSELK QuM1

CC CO

COR CR

CT

CTS DTC DVRC

FSKR

Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche im 16. Jahrhundert, 3 vols., ed. K. Ganzer and K.-​H. zur Mühlen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000–​2007). Acta Reformationis Catholicae Ecclesiam Germaniae Concernentia Saeculi XVI, 6 vols., ed. G. Pfeilschifter (Regensburg: F Pustet, 1959–​74). Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (Amsterdam: 1969ff.). Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-​Lutherischen Kirche, ed. I. Dingel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-​Lutherischen Kirche: Quellen und Materialen, Band 1, ed. I. Dingel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). Corpus Catholicorum (Münster: W. Aschendorf, 1919ff.). Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss (Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1863–​1900). Ioannis Calvini Opera Omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrata (Geneva: Droz, 1992ff.). Corpus Reformatorum. Philippi Melanthonis Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. C. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil (Braunschweig and Halle: Schwetschke, 1834–​60). Concilium Tridentinum. Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum, Tractatuum Nova Collectio, edidit Societas Goerresiana (Freiburg: Herder, 1901–​76). Selected Works of John Calvin, ed. H. Beveridge, Calvin Translation Society Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983). Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, ed. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, et al. (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1923–​50). M. Bucer, De vera ecclesiarum in doctrina, ceremoniis, et disciplina reconcilatione et compositione (Strassburg: Wendel Rihel, 1542). T. C. Schlüter, Flug-​und Streitschriften zur “Kölner Reformation” (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005).

xiv Abbreviations Herminjard

JGB Kolb and Wengert,

LB LC43 LCC 22

LT43 LW MBB

MBDS MBW MBW T OS PL Regesten

Tappert

WA WA Br. WA Tr. ZKG

A. L. Herminjard, Correspondance des Reformateurs dans les pays de langue française (Geneva and Paris: H. Georg and M. Levy, 1866–​97). R. Braunisch, Johannes Gropper Briefwechsel (Münster: Aschendorff, 1977, 2006). R. Kolb and T. J. Wengert (eds.), The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). Desiderii Erasmii Opera Omnia (Leiden: Vander, 1703–​1706). P. Melanchthon, Loci Communes 1543 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia, 1992). John Calvin, Theological Treatises, ed. J. K. S. Reid, Library of Christian Classics 22 (London and Philadelphia: SCM and Westminster Press, 1954). P. Melanchthon, Loci theologici recens recogniti (Wittenberg: Peter Seitz, 1543). M. Luther, Luther’s Works (St Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955ff.). Martin Bucer (1491–​1551) Bibliographie, ed. H. Pils, S. Ruderer, and P. Schaffrodt (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005). Martin Bucer, Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus [Gerd Mohn], 1960ff.). Melanchthons Briefwechsel, vols. 1–​14, ed. H. Scheible (Stuttgart-​Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-​Holzboog, 1977ff.). Melanchthons Briefwechsel, Texte, vols. 1ff., ed. H. Scheible (Stuttgart-​Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-​Holzboog, 1991ff.). P. Barth et al. (eds.), Johannis Calvini Opera Selecta (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1926–​68 -​1st–​3rd editions). Patrologia Latina Cursus Completus . . . , ed. J. P. Migne (Paris: Migne, 1844–​55). Gasparo Contarini, Regesten und Briefe, ed. F. Dittrich (Braunsberg: von Huye’s Buchhandlung (Emil Bender), 1881). T. G. Tappert (ed.), The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959). D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883–​2009). D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Briefwechsel. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte.

 Introduction The Regensburg Colloquy of 1541 is famous for one thing above all—​Article 5 on justification. What makes the colloquy remarkable is the fact that six leading theologians, three Protestant and three Roman Catholic, in a few days drew up a brief article on which they could all agree, at least for a short time. It was a historic event, comparable to the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Yet despite this hopeful start, the colloquy soon descended into sharp disagreement, and its eventual failure led to an emphasis on polemics above conciliation, which meant that there was relatively little ongoing interest in Article 5. As Peter Matheson notes, “its importance has seldom been sufficiently recognised.”1 From the very beginning, there were two rival views of Article 5. Some (especially Luther) saw it as an inconsistent patchwork of contradictory views. Others (including Calvin) saw it as a consistent statement containing the substance of true doctrine. Furthermore, these two views survive down to the present day. Which is correct? This book will seek to answer that question by a careful analysis of the article, interpreting it through the writings of its contemporaries. Pride of place goes to those who took part in the colloquy: Melanchthon, Bucer, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, and Pflug, who drew up the article; Contarini, who was the papal legate at the colloquy; and Calvin and Pighius, who were also present at the colloquy. I will also draw upon Luther, who was not present but was kept informed about events and occasionally other contemporaries who have a relevant contribution to make, such as Pole and Sadolet. Finally, I also compare Article 5 with the Tridentine Decree on Justification that was to follow a few years later. With all of these I have concentrated mostly on the primary sources, with only limited reference to the secondary literature. When I refer to sixteenth-​century commentators I put their name in bold at the beginning of each section of material. Thus a reader wanting to know, for example, Contarini’s take on Article 5 can easily identify the relevant material. 1 Matheson, The Rhetoric of the Reformation, 228. Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony L. S. Lane, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190069421.001.0001

2  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification The heart of the book lies in ­chapter 5, where there is a sentence by sentence commentary on the article drawn especially from the writings of those mentioned. The earlier chapters set the context for this. Chapter 1 sets the article in the context of the colloquy itself and what led to it. Article 5 was not created ex nihilo, but was preceded by four drafts. The Appendix contains the text of these, together with translations of three of them, as well as the text and translation of the final version. Chapter 2 describes the different responses to Article 5, both by its contemporaries and in recent times. Chapter 3 looks at the aftermath of the colloquy—​the literary debate concerning the article; the attempted Cologne Reformation involving many of the same participants; the Second Colloquy of Regensburg (1546), which also involved the topic of justification; and, finally, the Tridentine Decree on Justification. If the teaching of Article 5 can be summarised in a brief phrase it would be “double righteousness” or “twofold righteousness” (duplex iustitia). Chapter 4 looks at the varied usage of this term, both before and after the colloquy, and at the related term “double justification” (duplex iustificatio), with which it has often been confused. After ­chapter 5, the concluding c­ hapter 6 reassesses the teaching of the article and returns to the question posed at the outset: Was Article 5 an inconsistent patchwork or the substance of true doctrine? considering it from the respective perspectives of Bucer, Calvin, Melanchthon, Contarini, Gropper and Pflug. As I was in the final stages of writing this book, the term “fake news” came into prominence. Article 5 has been subject to more than its fair share of fake news, or misinformation.2 One of the aims of this work is to unmask such errors. Among these are the following: • Article 5 teaches double justification. • The definitive article teaches the same as the original Worms draft of the article. • Gropper’s Enchiridion is the source of Article 5’s teaching on double righteousness. So what? Why does the meaning of a dead document of some 850 words matter? Does it merit a book of about half that number of pages? In fact, the 2 “Fake news” is, of course, a recent term. The word “misinformation” by contrast goes back at least to the sixteenth century. The word “disinformation” originated in the 1950s, derived from the title of a KGB department. Disinformation implies the deliberate intention to deceive, whereas misinformation refers to the inaccuracy of the information, whatever the intention. I am not accusing any of the scholars involved here of wilful disinformation, only of unintentional misinformation.

Introduction  3 book sheds light on far more than this single short document. It sheds light, in some cases new light, on the doctrines of justification of key figures such as Gropper, Contarini, Pole, and Calvin, examining them from the specific perspective of their stances on Article 5. This is a highly ideological topic, pitting Catholic against Protestant, ecumenical against polemical approaches, historians against theologians, and so I owe it to the reader to declare my interests. I am aware of the historical and political dimensions of the colloquy and have sought to heed recent scholarship; but I am primarily interested in the theological issues and am convinced these are not merely pretexts for power struggles.3 I write as an Evangelical (of a more Reformed than Lutheran persuasion) who believes in the Protestant doctrine of justification, but I have made every effort to be fair to other views. Finally, I read Article 5 with an openness to formulations that safeguard the concerns of both sides, and not with a hermeneutic of suspicion that is satisfied with nothing less than total surrender by the other side.4 When I started this study, a prime resource was volume 4 of the Corpus Reformatorum. For many (but by no means all) of the texts this has been superseded by the Acta Reformationis Catholicae Ecclesiam Germaniae, the Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche im 16. Jahrhundert, and the Melanchthons Briefwechsel. I have continued to give references to CR 4 since some readers will have access only to that, and more importantly, all the twentieth-​century literature is based on it. It is important for the reader to know precisely which texts these older works were citing. There are often differences in spelling and punctuation between the different editions. I have not drawn attention to such differences when quoting from them. I have cited such works by volume and page number, not giving the item number. The one exception is the Melanchthons Briefwechsel, where the text itself is in one volume (which I cite by pages only) but the summary is in a different (Regesten) volume, for which the item number is given.5 3 Elizabeth Gleason, in her magisterial study of Gasparo Contarini, notes that some interpretations of the Regensburg Colloquy fail to take full account of the political factors involved (Gasparo Contarini, 212 n.  110). Matheson refers to the “somewhat disembodied treatment of the professional historians of doctrine,” without denying the value of such work (Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 174). 4 For the issue of the concerns of each side, see Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-​Protestant Dialogue, 10–​13, 98–​99, 104, 112–​13, 130–​34, 148, 154, 160, 171–​74, 183–​84, 192–​94, 201–​203, 207–​ 209, 211–​14, 220–​21, 226–​28. 5 For the value of this edition, see Graybill, “Melanchthons Briefwechsel as a Biographical Source,” 295–​305. There are addenda to the Regesten volumes in MBW 9. There are also Nachträge to the Text

4  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification I have previously published five chapters related to this topic in different books: • Justification by Faith in Catholic-​Protestant Dialogue:  An Evangelical Assessment (London : T & T Clark, 2002), 45–​85. • “Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy (1541),” in Otmar Meuffels & Jürgen Bründl (eds.), Grenzgänge der Theologie (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2004), 163–​90. • “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy,” in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae (Geneva: Droz, 2004), 233–​63. • “Twofold Righteousness:  A Key to the Doctrine of Justification? Reflections on Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy (1541),” in Mark A. Husbands and Daniel J. Trier (eds.), Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), 205–​24. • “A Tale of Two Imperial Cities: Justification at Regensburg (1541) and Trent (1546–​ 1547),” in Bruce L.  McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective:  Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 119–​45. There is inevitably a limited amount of verbal overlap between what is written in these books and the present book. I am grateful to the publishers for permission to reuse this material. When the Reformers defined justification in forensic terms,6 referring to God’s attitude to us (in the belief that this is the Pauline meaning of the term) they did not mean to imply that forensic justification exhausts the meaning of Christian salvation. Yet that was how their teaching was often interpreted by their contemporary opponents (whether sincerely or for polemical ends), and they were accused of teaching that Christian conversion leads to forgiveness, but not to inner transformation. That misunderstanding has persisted to modern times. The distinguished Catholic philosopher Étienne Gilson stated that, “For the first time, with the Reformation, there volumes online:  http://​www.haw.uni-​heidelberg.de/​forschung/​forschungsstellen/​melanchthon/​ nachtraege.de.html. 6 McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2005), 212–​13 correctly identifies the definition of justification as a “forensic definition” as one of the three characteristic features of Protestant doctrines of justification between 1530 and 1730. Calvin twice uses the word “forensic” (forensis) of justification (Institutio 3:11:11 [1559]), though it is, of course, possible to teach forensic justification without using the actual word.

Introduction  5 appeared this conception of a grace that saves a man without changing him, of a justice that redeems corrupted nature without restoring it, of a Christ who pardons the sinner for self-​inflicted wounds but does not heal them.”7 The view that Gilson is attacking would not have been recognised by any of the mainstream Reformers. Justification may be limited to our standing before God, but the totality of salvation is most certainly not. They held to justification by faith alone, and yet also held that good works are necessary for salvation.8 As Reinhard Flogaus put it, the Formula of Concord advocates a purely imputative doctrine of justification, but not a purely imputative understanding of the righteousness of the justified.9 Or, to put it differently, when the Reformers distinguished between forensic justification and transformative sanctification, to say that justification is forensic amounted to little more than the statement that “the forensic side of salvation is forensic.” In the interests of accessibility, all the material in the body of the text is translated into English, except for a few technical terms, which are set out in the “Glossary of Latin Terms.”10 (But in c­ hapter 5, where a sentence of Article 5 is being discussed, I sometimes quote the Latin of the article without translation, since each sentence of the article is followed by an English translation.) Sometimes, I have also included the original, either in the text or in the footnotes. Those who know only English will be able to read the body of the text, though not all of the footnotes. The translations are mine, except where indicated. In my translations of the primary sources are many instances when my rendering of a passage is very close to being a precise quotation, but I have forborne from using quotation marks because my translation is not completely precise. I hope I have not too often justified the charge of traduttore, traditore—​or of fordítás, ferdítés. Some words about translation. The Latin words iustitia and iustificatio are obviously closely related. Catholic scholars usually bring this out by translating them as “justice” and “justification.” I  have opted to use the words “righteousness” and “justification,” despite the fact that it potentially obscures the link between them. There are many references in this discussion to duplex iustitia and duplex iustificatio. How should duplex be translated? Some refer to “twofold 7 Gilson, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy, 421. 8 For more on this see ­chapter 5, below, on §10 of Article 5. 9 Flogaus, “Luther versus Melanchthon?,” 43. 10 The aim is not to insult the intelligence of established scholars but to widen access to those without the languages.

6  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification righteousness” and “double justification.” There are two problems with such a policy. It obscures the fact that the identical Latin word is being used. Also, the English words “twofold” and “double” have different nuances. The former lays more stress on the unity between the two items; the latter more firmly stresses their duality. Where justification is concerned, the literature refers to “double justification” rather than “twofold justification”; there is not the same consensus about “twofold righteousness.” After long deliberation and having discussed the issue with a number of folk, I have decided in the interest of consistency to refer to “double justification” and “double righteousness,” except of course when quoting people who refer to “twofold righteousness.” The term iustitia inhaerens is normally translated inherent righteousness/​justice. Christopher Malloy argues rather for the translation inhering, in order to avoid “the problematic implication of being something ‘native’ or ‘intrinsic’ to the human person.”11 I fully applaud the motive of avoiding Pelagian implications, but since that does not appear to be a significant danger in the debates discussed in this book, I have opted to retain the more common translation. The Latin word poenitentia can be translated “repentance” or “penance,” with rather different connotations. The English speaker is forced to make a binary choice that the original authors did not face. I toyed with the idea of using the word “penitence,” thus retaining some of the ambiguity of the original and maintaining a consistency in translation, but to translate poenitere as “be penitent” is rather stilted. Instead, I have stayed with the words “repentance” and “repent,” unless it is clear that the sacrament of penance is being referred to.12 Some of the time I also give the Latin word. Finally, I have translated caritas, dilectio, and amor alike as “love.” I have not discerned any theological significance in the use of one rather than another of these words in the debates surrounding Article 5. The literature (especially the older literature) sometimes refers to the location of the colloquy as Ratisbon, based on the Latin name Ratisbona. In keeping with most contemporary scholarship, I  use the modern German name of the city, Regensburg. I also refer to the city of Strassburg, rather than Strasbourg, as a reminder that it was at that time still a German city. I likewise 11 Malloy, Engrafted into Christ, 103. 12 This decision was confirmed by reading Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiciae, vol. 60. In the translation of 3, qq. 84–​90, the word poenitentia is translated variously as “penance,” “penitence,” and “repentance” in a way that obscures the fact that Thomas is using the same word throughout.

Introduction  7 refer to the Flemish city of Leuven, to distinguish it clearly from the nearby Louvain-​la-​Neuve. As is normal, when a volume has numbered pages, these are given without the use of “p.” or “pp.” When it is the folios that are numbered, references will be to these with “a” and “b,” signifying the recto and verso sides, without the use of “fol.” or “fols.” When neither pages nor folios are numbered or the numeration is erratic, references will be to the printer’s signatures, with the use of “sig.” and “sigs.” With biblical references, sometimes the numeration differs between the Vulgate and modern English versions, and not only in the numbering of the Psalms. I have aimed to follow the modern English numeration in every case, even in the Latin texts in the Appendix, since giving different references for the same verse would be confusing. Finally, many contemporary letters are cited. Where no year is indicated, these are from 1541.

1 The Regensburg Colloquy Background During the early years of the Reformation, the doctrine of justification was subjected to considerable scrutiny. It was, of course, one of the major emphases of the Reformers in their protest against late medieval Roman Catholicism. The latter had well-​ defined positions on many doctrines, such as the Eucharist, which left little or no room to manoeuvre when these doctrines were challenged by the Reformers. It was different with justification. The Reformers presented the doctrine in a new light, posing new and hitherto unanswered questions. This created a problem for their opponents as there was no consensus in the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification; more importantly, there had been no authoritative pronouncements.1 Individual Roman Catholic theologians were free to develop their doctrines in different ways, and these varied from uncompromising hostility to the Protestant doctrine to almost complete agreement with it. Genuine dialogue was possible between the two sides as the Roman response to the Protestant doctrine was not predetermined. Among those in the Roman Catholic Church most sympathetic to Luther’s doctrine was an Erasmian reforming group in Italy, known as the spirituali, which included leading cardinals.2 One of these, Gasparo Contarini, underwent a conversion experience, which he described in a private letter of 1511, and which has affinities with Luther’s (later) Tower Experience (Turmerlebnis).3 In Germany, a significant group of Catholic humanists 1 For a brief survey of Catholic opinion in the early years of the Reformation, see Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2:167–​71. For a fuller account, see Laemmer, Die vortridentinisch-​katholische Theologie des Reformations-​Zeitalters, 137–​99; Pfnür, Einig in der Rechtfertigungslehre?, 272–​384. 2 Spirituali was a contemporary term, on which see Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 191 n. 23. On the group, see Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy; Firpo, Juan de Valdés and the Italian Reformation. 3 Contarini to Giustiniani (24 April [1511]) in Jedin, “Contarini und Camaldoli,” 62–​65 (53–​60 for introduction to the letters); Gleason (ed.), Reform Thought in Sixteenth-​Century Italy, 24–​28. On the letter and the parallels and differences between Contarini’s experience and Luther’s, see Jedin, “Ein ‘Turmerlebnis’ des jungen Contarini.” Cf. Ross, “Gasparo Contarini and His Friends,” esp. 204–​17. Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony L. S. Lane, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190069421.001.0001

10  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification were also seeking reform within the Roman Catholic system. Noteworthy among these was Johann Gropper, who in 1538 published his highly influential Enchiridion, a handbook for the reform of the diocese of Cologne, which set out a mediating doctrine of justification.4 Gropper shared Luther’s theological concerns and embraced such ideas as the awareness of ongoing sin in the justified.5 Among such Catholic humanists, there was widespread sympathy for the Protestant idea that Christ’s righteousness is imputed or reckoned to us. This was because in many ways, these reforming humanist Catholics shared a similar spiritual background to the Reformers. Yarnold notes that “the sense that the converted Christian still needs to throw himself on the mercy of God seems to have been in the air independently of Luther.”6 This concern was in line with much patristic and medieval piety.7 Gropper and Contarini shared the Reformers’ conviction about the imperfection of our inherent righteousness and so were willing to embrace the concept of imputed righteousness.8 Because our inherent righteousness is imperfect, Christ’s righteousness needs to be imputed to us in order for us to be acceptable to God. Gropper, as an Erasmian humanist, believed in going “back to the sources” (ad fontes), these being the Bible and the early Fathers. This provided a common ground for discussion with Protestants, but there was one critical difference between them. Gropper did not accept the idea of Scripture as the final criterion, a “norma normans non normata.” He was not open to the idea of questioning and testing the tradition, teaching, or structure of the Roman Catholic Church in the light of Scripture.9 From 1530 there was a series of colloquies10 aimed at reconciling the two sides in Germany—​to avert civil war and to enable a common front against the Turkish threat. At the beginning of January 1539, Bucer and the former Lutheran Georg Witzel debated one another at Leipzig and produced fifteen

4 On Gropper’s Enchiridion and its doctrine of justification, see c­ hapter 4 below, n. 46. 5 Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper 1503–​1559, 109. 6 Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 207–​13, quotation on 213. The theme of the perpetual need for God’s mercy runs throughout Yarnold’s chapter. See also Rivière, “Justification”; Ives, “An Early Effort toward Protestant-​Catholic Conciliation.” 7 Zumkeller, “Das Ungenügen der menschlichen Werke bei den Deutschen Predigern des Spätmittelaters,” documents this in detail. 8 I am grateful to Smith, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification in Relation to the Sense of Sin and the Dialogue with Rome,” for first drawing my attention to this point. For others in Venice and Italy sharing Contarini’s sense of the ongoing need for mercy, see Logan, “Grace and Justification.” 9 Brosseder, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” 59–​60. 10 On the colloquies in general, see especially Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:372–​91; Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten and other works listed in the bibliography.

The Regensburg Colloquy  11 agreed articles.11 The first of these concerned the transition from original sin to grace and righteousness: “How people move from inborn corruption to the grace of God, piety and bliss.”12 Luther looked favourably upon the Leipzig articles as a step forward for the current Roman Catholic territories, and unfavourably on them as a formula for all Germany, including the current Protestant territories. Augustijn notes that the great significance of Leipzig was that it showed that such a colloquy could succeed in producing agreement.13 In the light of 450 years of sharp confessional divide, this hope appears naive and unrealistic, but in 1540 the lines had not yet hardened. The greatest chance of success came in three gatherings that were held in 1540 and 1541. These began with a colloquy at Hagenau (relocated from Speyer for health reasons) in June and July 1540, but some of those expected to attend failed to appear and the two sides could not agree on how to proceed.14 The colloquy was adjourned to Worms, where it met in November, this time with a good line-​up of theologians.15 On the Catholic side were Eck, Cochlaeus, Gropper and Pighius; on the Protestant side were Bucer, Capito, Calvin, Melanchthon, and others.16 On 9 and 10 November there were preliminary talks on justification, followed later by other topics.17 After 11 Cardauns, Zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unions-​und Reformsbestrebungen von 1538 bis 1542, 1–​ 24; Fraenkel, Einigungsbestrebungen in der Reformationszeit, 7–​ 29; Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 16–​24; Fuchs, Konfession und Gespräch, 388–​ 409; MBDS 9/​ 1:13–​ 22; Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, 49–​78; Greschat, Martin Bucer:  A Reformer and His Times, 168–​70; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 137–​47. For the text of the articles, see Bucer, Ein christlich ongefährlich bedencken (1545), B1a–​G1a; also MBDS 9/​1:23–​51. There was a later Latin translation of the articles (ARC 6:1–​17). In 1562 Witzel published a very brief Warer Bericht von den Acten der Leipsischen und Speirischen Collocution zwischen Mar. Bucern und Georg. Wicelien. On Melanchthon’s brief role at the event, see Beumer, “Zwei ‘Vermittlungstheologen’ der Reformationszeit,” 514–​17. 12 “Wie der Mensch von dem Angebornen verderben zůr gnaden Gottes frombkeyt und seligkeyt komme” (Bucer, Ein christlich ongefährlich bedencken, B1a–​2a; ARC 6:2–​3; MBDS 9/​1:23–​25). Bucer commented on it in Ein christlich ongefährlich bedencken, G3a–​4a. On this article, see Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch,  75–​79. 13 Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 24. 14 Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 36–​45. For the documents relating to Hagenau, see ADRG 1/​I–​II. 15 Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 46–​58. For the documents relating to Worms, see ADRG 2/​I–​II. 16 On Calvin’s role in the colloquies, see Neuser, “Calvins Beitrag zu den Religionsgesprächen von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg”; Stolk, Johannes Calvijn en de godsdienstgesprekken tussen rooms-​ katholieken en protestanten in Hagenau, Worms en Regensburg. It is going beyond the evidence to claim that Calvin, in the French national interest, did all that he could to thwart theological agreement. Nestler, “Vermittlungspolitik und Kirchenspaltung auf dem Regensburger Reichstag,” 397, following Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V, 230. 17 Neuser (ed.), Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg, 116–​ 39 (Frecht’s diary and Wolfgang Musculus’s minutes for 9 and 10 November 1540); ADRG 2/​

12  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification long delays, Melanchthon and Eck began to debate original sin in January and agreement was reached in a few days.18 At this point, Nicholas Perrenot de Granvelle, the imperial chancellor, adjourned the debate to the coming Diet at Regensburg.19 Meanwhile, secret discussions had been taking place at Worms between Bucer and Capito on the Protestant side and the humanist Catholics Gropper and Gerard Veltwyck20 (Granvelle’s secretary).21 Gropper, with Bucer’s cooperation, went on to draw up the Regensburg Book, a collection of twenty-​three articles, which was to be used as a basis for further discussion.22 This book went through four drafts (not all of which survive), and Bucer produced a German translation.23 The German literature often distinguishes between the Worms Book (Wormser Buch), the draft produced at Worms, and the Regensburg Book (Regensburger Buch), the version which was finally presented to the Emperor Charles V at Regensburg. Contrary to normal practice in the English-​ language literature, but in the interests of greater clarity, I will refer to the first draft of Article 5 on justification, that in the Wormser Buch, as the Worms Draft. In January Bucer sent a copy to Philipp of Hesse, who forwarded it to Joachim II of Brandenburg, who in turn forwarded it to Luther.24

I:470–​78, 567–​68. On these discussions, see Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 127–​49, esp. 134–​49 on justification. 18 For the text of the debate on original sin, see CR 4:33–​78; ADRG 3/​II:902–​39; abbreviated ET in Mackensen, “Debate between Eck and Melanchthon on Original Sin at the Colloquy of Worms.” For the formula, CR 4:32–​33. On the debate, see Fuchs, Konfession und Gespräch, 409–​22; Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 215–​35. On the Worms and Regensburg articles on original sin, see Vanneste, “La préhistoire du décret du Concile de Trente sur le péché originel.” 19 For the Regensburg colloquy in general, see the bibliography for works in addition to those cited elsewhere in this chapter. I  have not managed to see K.  von Hertling, Granvella und die Reunionsbestrebungen von 1540/​41. Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Fakultät der Georg August-​ Universität zu Göttingen. Historisch-​philologische Abteilung (Göttingen, 1924). 20 On Veltwyck, see Rosenberg, Gerhard Veltwyck, esp. 26–​30. 21 Eells, “The Origin of the Regensburg Book”; Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541 und seine Rechtfertigungslehre”; Augustijn, “De Gesprekken tussen Bucer en Gropper tijdens het Godsdienstgesprek te Worms.” [French version: Augustijn, “L’esprit d’Érasme pendant le Colloque de Worms”]; Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 59–​72; Braunisch, “Die ‘Artikell’ der ‘Warhafftigen Antwort’ (1545) des Johannes Gropper”; MBDS 9/​1:323–​36; Fuchs, Konfession und Gespräch, 423–​29; Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, 181–​90. 22 Augustijn, “Das Wormser Buch: Der letzte ökumenische Konsensversuch,” considers a number of aspects and contains a German translation of key sections. See also Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, 191–​229. 23 ARC 6:24–​88 gives the Latin text with a textual critical apparatus setting out the different drafts. MBDS 9/​1:338–​483 and ADRG 2/​I:574–​701 contain the Latin together with Bucer’s rather free German translation (on which, see MBDS 9/​1:326, 330, 332–​33, 335–​36). 24 MBDS 9/​1:326. Joachim to Luther (4 February) in CR 4:92–​96; ADRG 3/​I:11–​13. Luther’s response to Joachim (21? February), expressed in general terms without any reference to the specific contents of the Book, was negative (WA Br. 9:332–​34; ADRG 3/​I:14). See also Granvelle’s report to

The Regensburg Colloquy  13

The Regensburg Colloquy The anticipated colloquy took place at the Regensburg Diet. Contarini was appointed papal legate. His official instruction left him with little room for manoeuvre and without the authority to conclude anything.25 Giovanni Morone was present as papal nuncio, as he had been at Worms. The diet was opened on 5 April.26 There were no official records of the colloquy, but a number of those present published their own editions of the Acta Colloquii.27 On 21 April the emperor selected the six debaters/​negotiators (Disputanten):  Martin Bucer, Philipp Melanchthon, and Johann Pistorius on the Protestant side; Johann Gropper, Johann Eck, and Julius Pflug on the Catholic side.28 Others, such as Calvin and Pighius, were present but not selected as debaters.29 Melanchthon had specifically requested that Calvin should attend the colloquy.30 While he was not one of the debaters, that need not mean that he had no influence upon the outcome.31 Pighius was disappointed not to be selected as a debater, Granvelle being against him.32 He may not have been a debater, but Pighius’s time at Regensburg was eventful. At the Worms Colloquy he wrote a modestly entitled Careful and Splendid Exposition of the Controversies by which the Faith Charles V on 10 January (ARC 3:334–​47, esp. 341–​43). For Philipp’s notes on the Book (but unfortunately not Article 5), see Müller, “Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und das Regensburger Buch.” 25 For the text, see ADRG 3/​I:5–​11. Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 204–​209 points to the uncompromising nature of this instruction. Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 565–​69 also comments on it. On Contarini’s role at the colloquy, see Solmi, “Gasparo Contarini alla Dieta di Ratisbona”; Mackensen, “The Diplomatic Role of Gasparo Cardinal Contarini at the Colloquy of Ratisbon”; and, especially, Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg. 26 The Emperor’s opening address is found in CR 4:151–​54; ADRG 3/​I:30–​37. For Morone’s attitude to the colloquies, see Robinson, The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone, 31–​35, and for Morone at Regensburg, see 37–​43. For relations between Morone and Contarini at Regensburg, see Ganzer, “Gasparo Contarini und Giovanni Morone.” 27 For details of these, see the beginning of c­ hapter 5. 28 CR 4:178–​79; ADRG 3/​I:53–​54. See also ADRG 3/​I:78–​79. On 19 March, Eck was lamenting to Morone that he had not been invited to attend the colloquy (Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 474). Also, on 1 April to Farnese in Schultze, “Zwei Briefe Johann Ecks,” 472–​73; ADRG 3/​I:25–​26. Summary in Regesten, 162. 29 Calvin was representing Strassburg, alongside Bucer. For the full list of Protestant theologians at Regensburg, see ADRG 3/​I:79–​80. 30 Calvin to Farel (31 January) in CO 11:146–​47; Herminjard 7:11. Calvin to Farel (4 May) in CO 11:213; Herminjard 7:105. Doumergue, Jean Calvin. Les hommes et les choses de son temps, 2:625–​26, cites a Strassburg archive. Calvin was invited to Worms in part because of his knowledge of French (Jakob Bedrotus to Peter Kunz (24 November 1540) in CO 11:120). 31 Eight years later, he described how he had declined the invitation to a discussion (colloquium) with Contarini (dedication to Commentary on Catholic Epistles (CO 14:32; COR 2:20:5)). 32 Contarini to Farnese (28 April) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 371. Summary in Regesten, 173. For the unreliability of the manuscripts used by Pastor, see Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 212 nn. 111–​12.

14  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification and Religion of Christ are Presently Harassed (hereafter referred to as his Controversies).33 Granvelle insisted that publication be delayed while the debates continued. Pighius thought that this meant only the Worms debate and had the first part of his Controversies (comprising the first nine out of sixteen Controversies) printed on his way to Regensburg. There were two problems with that. Publication would have breached the agreement of both sides to remain silent during the colloquy. Also, the first Controversy expounds an anti-​ Augustinian doctrine of original sin that was later branded as heretical. Publication was deferred until after the conclusion of Regensburg colloquy, when the complete Controversies was published, with minor changes to the first Controversy.34 At Regensburg Pighius also had an important exchange with Contarini, concerning both original sin and justification. He wrote two letters to Contarini, and the latter replied, terminating the exchange.35 All of this matters because Contarini claimed that Article 5 was “largely the view of Pighius, which I saw in his writings”36 and because some scholars have claimed Pighius to be the author of double righteousness. These claims will be assessed in c­ hapter 4. Bucer and Gropper were appointed as conciliators with the potential for reaching agreement. Bucer was the most flexible of the Protestant negotiators.37 Before the colloquy Granvelle had told Morone that Bucer was already won over (“già era guadagnato”),38 and by the time Article 5 had been agreed, Morone had been convinced that Granvelle was right.39 Contarini at the same time described how Bucer had come to visit him and how they had discussed the evils of division and how to reach concord.40 Contarini 33 Controversiarum  .  .  .  diligens et luculenta explicatio ([1541]). Cf. Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges,  34–​40. 34 For a full account of this, with publication details of the Controversies and the text of the divergent versions of the first Controversy, see Lane, “Albert Pighius’s Controversial Work on Original Sin.” For Pighius’s doctrine of original sin, see especially Feiner, Die Erbsündenlehre Albert Pigges. 35 Regesten, 381–​84 (on original sin) and 387–​89 (on justification). Contarini’s letter is in Regesten, 349–​53. None of these letters is dated. 36 See c­ hapter 2 below, at n. 119. 37 For Bucer’s role in the colloquies, see Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, 281–​ 95; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 15–​35. For Bucer’s time in Regensburg, see Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, 241–​65. Fuchs describes Bucer as “ohne Zweifel der verständigungsbereiteste bedeutende protestantische Theologe” (Konfession und Gespräch, 425). 38 Morone to Farnese (21 March) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 439. At that stage, Granvelle even had hopes of winning Melanchthon over. 39 Morone to Farnese (3 May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 454. Summary in Regesten, 178. 40 Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 373. Summary in Regesten, 177.

The Regensburg Colloquy  15 told Bucer how great the fruit of unity would be and how profound the gratitude of humanity. Bucer responded by stating that both sides were guilty, the Protestants of obstinacy and the Catholics of tolerating abuses, but that with God’s help they would find the truth and arrive at concord.41 Morone later claimed that Bucer had promised to preach the change in the substance of the eucharistic elements within two months of any such agreement being reached. Significantly, he also stated that without Bucer, the colloquy would have already ended.42 Contarini noted at the end of June that Bucer “greatly desired concord.”43 Bucer retained a good impression of Contarini after the colloquy, describing him four years later as “too learned and too pious to be a cardinal—​and also too ready for reformation.”44 But while Bucer’s method may have been flexible, his consistent aim in the colloquies was to win his Catholic partners over to the Gospel.45 Melanchthon and Eck were appointed as hardliners, whose presence was necessary for the credibility of the proceedings.46 Melanchthon came with strict instructions not to deviate from the Augsburg Confession or its Apology.47 41 Beccadelli, “Vita di . . . Messer Gasparo Contarini,” 34. 42 Morone to Farnese (11 May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 459. Summary in Regesten, 180–​81. 43 Contarini to Farnese (27 June) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 488. Summary in Regesten, 205. 44 Von der einigen rechten wegen (1545), 39–​40. 45 Augustijn, “Strasbourg, Bucer et la Politique des Colloques,” 200; Neuser, “Bucers Programm einer ‘guten leidlichen Reformation’ ”; Ortmann, “Martin Bucers Bemühungen um Reformation und Einheit der Kirche bei den Religionsgesprächen 1540/​41,” 136; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification. 46 For Melanchthon’s role in the colloquies, see Blatter, Die Thätigkeit Melanchthons bei den Unionsversuchen, 63–​143 on Regensburg; Meyer, “Melanchthon, Theologian of Ecemenism,” 201–​ 202 on Regensburg; Wengert, “The Day Philip Melanchthon Got Mad”; Augustijn, “Melanchthon und die Religionsgespräche,” 217–​24 on Regensburg and 226 on the different approaches of Melanchthon and Bucer; Lexutt, “War Melanchthon ein Ökumeniker?,” 38–​41 on Regensburg; Janssen, “Wir sind zum wechselseitigen Gespräch geboren”, 196–​280 on Regensburg; Gößner, “Reichspolitik und Religionsgespräche.” For Melanchthon’s relations with Bucer during the Worms and Regensburg colloquies, see Scheible, “Melanchthon und Bucer,” 384–​87. On the modern image of Melanchthon as a moderate rather than a hardliner, see Keen, “Melanchthon and His Roman Catholic Opponents.” 47 Johann Friedrich to his councillors (15 March) in CR 4:126–​27. Burckhard reported several times that Melanchthon was tough in the negotiations (to Johann Friedrich (13 May) in CR 4:289; ADRG 3/​I:190; to Pontanus (Gregor Brück) (21 May) in CR 4:317; ADRG 3/​I:225–​26 and (23 May) in CR 4:324). Cf. Morone to Farnese (3 May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 453: “mandato strettessimo dal Duca di Sassonia.” Summary in Regesten, 177–​78. For the unreliability of the manuscripts used by Dittrich, see Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 212 nn. 111–​12. Unfortunately, I  have not had the opportunity to consult the original manuscripts. Any resulting minor inaccuracies will affect only the background material of this book.

16  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Johann Pistorius (1502–​83), also known as Johann Becker or Niddanus, is the least known of the debaters48 and is not to be confused with his more famous son Johann Pistorius Niddanus the Younger (1546–​1608).49 Having studied in Strassburg, he became the first Protestant pastor of Nidda (in Hesse), and in 1541, he became superintendent of the diocese of Alsfeld. He was a lifelong friend of Melanchthon and took part not just in the Regensburg Colloquy but also in the Diet of Augsburg (1530), the Hagenau Colloquy (1540), two Worms Colloquies (1540 and 1557), and the second Regensburg Colloquy (1546). He worked together with Bucer and Melanchthon in the attempts after Regensburg to reform the archdiocese of Cologne.50 He is significant more as a practical churchman than as a theologian. Burckhard described him as “the Landgrave’s preacher, not unlearned (so I hear) and of whom Philipp [Melanchthon] likewise thinks highly.”51 Pistorius dropped out of the debates at the same time that Eck was taken ill, in order to maintain the balance between the two sides. He and the Catholic Pflug52 were both chosen as moderates with the aim of keeping Melanchthon and Eck in the minority. Pistorius, however, is more often than not described as siding with Melanchthon against Bucer’s over-​readiness to make concessions.53 At the end of his life, Pistorius worked on, but unfortunately failed to complete, a history of the colloquies he had attended between 1540 and 1557.54 Eck, the “Achilles of the Catholics,”55 was undoubtedly a colourful figure. Jedin brings out the different sides of his character in a brief summary: “He In 1540 there appeared the variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession, which is relevant for Article 5, as we will see in ­chapters 4 and 5. On this edition, see Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 112–​27 (118–​27 on justification). 48 When Morone told Farnese (21 April) who had been selected to be the debaters, he referred to Pistorius as “un Giovanni Pistorio,” indicating that he did not expect the name to be known (Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 445. Summary in Regesten, 171). 49 Günther, Die Reformation und ihre Kinder covers both, with Part 1 (11–​73) on the father. Briefer accounts of the father are found in Stupperich, Reformatorenlexikon, 166–​67; Tzschirner/​Mirbt, “Pistorius, Johannes (Niddanus)”; abbreviated ET in Mirbt, “Pistorius, Johannes Becker.” 50 Günther, Die Reformation und ihre Kinder, 26–​29, 32. 51 Burckhard to Brück (22 April) in CR 4:184; ADRG 3/​I:66. For further commendation, in the light of his performance at the colloquy, see Burckhard to Johann Friedrich (13 May) in CR 4:289–​90; ADRG 3/​I:190; Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (14 May) in CR 4:292–​93; Burckhard to Brück (23 May) in CR 4:324. 52 On Pflug’s irenical orientation, see Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, 158–​ 66. Pflug stressed beliefs that were shared more than those which divided (163). 53 Burckhard to Brück (5 May) in CR 4:257; ADRG 3/​I:136; Burckhard to Johann Friedrich (13 May) in CR 4:289–​90; ADRG 3/​I:190; Burckhard to Johann Friedrich (14 May) in CR 4:291; ADRG 3/​I:197; Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (14 May) in CR 4:292–​93; Burckhard to Brück (23 May) in CR 4:324. 54 Günther, Die Reformation und ihre Kinder, 62–​63; Hassencamp, Hessische Kirchengeschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, 457. 55 Quirini (ed.), Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli, 3:XLIX.

The Regensburg Colloquy  17 was well-​read, sagacious, unbeaten in dispute, endowed with an impeccable memory, but coarse, sensual, a deep drinker, a witty controversialist, sure of himself to the extent of arrogance and an enemy of compromise.”56 Eck was “the most vigorous champion of the Catholic cause.”57 Apart from his natural inclination towards belligerency, he came with strict instructions from his Bavarian rulers not to compromise.58 This was no hardship for Eck, who was opposed to the whole approach of reaching concord by a compromise formula.59 In January Contarini wrote to him from Rome telling him that Christians should not despair (desperandum) in desperate situations (desperata) but should in hope believe against hope (Rom 4:18), placing their hope in God’s providence and Christ’s mercy.60 Eck did not enjoy the Regensburg colloquy.61 He found it unfortunate and inauspicious,62 and claimed that to describe the tragedy of Regensburg would require a whole book.63 He complained that his proposals were not heeded.64 A week after the agreement on justification, on 10 May, ill health forced him to withdraw from the colloquy. “Doctor Eck has already taken to bed for several days, being sick with a fever, caused by intemperance, draining (so we hear) many pitchers, sometimes of wine, sometimes of water.”65 On hearing at one point that Eck was getting better, Calvin commented dryly to Farel that the world did not yet deserve to be set free from that wild beast, a sentiment doubtless shared on occasions by Eck’s Catholic colleagues.66 56 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:395. 57 Quirini (ed.), Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli, 3:XLV. 58 Luttenberger, “Johann Eck und die Religionsgespräche,” 208–​209 describes the instruction that Eck received before the Worms Colloquy. The Bavarians did not trust Gropper or Pflug and at one point were even concerned about Eck. (Morone to Farnese (21 April) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 445. Summary in Regesten, 171). They were not in favour of having a colloquy (Contarini to Farnese (30 March) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte I,” 164. Summary in Regesten, 162). For more on their approach, see Ganzer, “Die Herzöge von Bayern und das Regensburger Religionsgespräch.” 59 Luttenberger, “Johann Eck und die Religionsgespräche,” 194, 219. 60 Contarini to Eck (6 January) in Regesten, 314–​15. 61 On Eck and the colloquy, cf. Wiedemann, Dr.  Johann Eck, Professor der Theologie an der Universität Ingolstadt, 292–​324; Iserloh, Johannes Eck (1486–​1543), 74–​78; Luttenberger, “Johann Eck und die Religionsgespräche”; Pfnür, “Johannes Ecks Verständnis der Religionsgespräche.” 62 Eck to Morone (mid-​July), in Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 476: “infortunata, infausta et inauspicata.” 63 Eck to Nausea (20 December), in Epistolarum Miscellanearum ad Fridericum Nauseam, 330. 64 Johann Eck, Apologia . . . adversus mucores et calumnias Buceri super actis comitiorum Ratisponae, 3b, 34a. 65 Cruciger to Bugenhagen (19 May), in CR 4:306; ADRG 3/​I:218. 66 Calvin to Farel (12 May) in CO 11:217–​18; Herminjard 7:116; ADRG 3/​I:186. Eck also receives unfavourable mention in Calvin’s poem Epinicion Christo cantatum, written at Worms on 1 January 1541, but not published until 1544 (CO 5:427; de Boer, Loflied en Hekeldicht, 115. ET in Ocker, “Calvin in Germany,” 344).

18  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Eck’s relations with his fellow Catholic debaters were stormy. He later stated that he was not happy having to work with those two dubious debaters (collocutoribus) whom, in matters of faith, he never fully trusted.67 In his Apologia, he repeatedly made derogatory remarks about them and, especially, against the author of the Worms Book, whom he described as “someone so unlearned in theological matters.”68 He claimed that after his departure from the colloquy not only did they gain nothing further from the other side, but the good things that had already been achieved were lost (“in spongiam ceciderint”).69 At the end of June a Protestant report contrasted Gropper and Pflug, who were well disposed towards the Gospel, with Eck, who was opposed to it.70 Eck began the colloquy being vehemently opposed to the Worms Book. Morone wasn’t sure whether Eck was motivated by zeal for religion, hatred for his opponents, or simply the desire to dominate the proceedings, and he stated that Eck had difficulty with the emperor’s choice of the Worms Book, which he saw as “not very Catholic, but badly arranged because it had not been arranged in his way.”71 Contarini reasoned with him and brought him temporarily into compliance.72 Contarini “succeeded in taming even so difficult and pretentious an individual as Johann Eck.”73 Melanchthon noted that Eck’s colleagues had managed to restrain his violence.74 Pfnür sums up Eck’s issues:

67 Eck to Contarini (20 January 1542)  in Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 479. For further negative comments about Gropper, see Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 22, 24; ADRG 3/​ II:586–​89. 68 Apologia, 39b–​40a. Also, “duo . . . collocutores, non magni nominis in Theologia” (1a); “Si Autor libri fuisset doctus in Theologia” (36a); “Neotheologus” and “novicios Theologos” (40a–​b), all cited by Pfnür, “Die Einigung bei den Religionsgesprächen von Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41 eine Täuschung?,” 73. 69 Eck to Morone (mid-​July) in Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 476. 70 ADRG 3/​II:548 (28 June). 71 Morone to Farnese (3 May), in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 453. Summary in Regesten, 178, where it is inaccurately stated that Eck called the book “unkatholisch.” Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 620 more accurately renders it “wenig katholisch.” 72 Contarini to Farnese (28 April) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 369–​70. Summary in Regesten, 173. Morone to Farnese (28 April) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 449. Summary in Regesten, 174. 73 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:390. 74 Melanchthon to Luther (30 April) in CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/​I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682]).

The Regensburg Colloquy  19 Eck could not get over the fact that he, the great theologian, was passed over. At first, he was not invited to Regensburg, then as a basis for the negotiations a work was prescribed that had been composed by people who had “no great name in theology,” who had not graduated (“promoviert”) in theology, who were neotheologians (“neotheologus”) and novice theologians. He himself was allowed to change nothing in the [Worms/​Regensburg] Book, while they were allowed to make changes. His proposals were not given appropriate consideration. Because of illness he was unable to take further part in the deliberations. He was not even informed in advance about the final version of the Regensburg Book.75

At the time of the colloquy Pflug was bishop elect of Naumburg.76 He was unique in attending all of the colloquys from 1530 to 1557.77 Like Pistorius, he was chosen as a moderate, with the aim of keeping Eck in the minority. The records indicate that Pflug lived up to expectations, siding with Gropper against Eck. During the colloquy he took a back seat, preferring to remain in Gropper’s wake or shadow.78 J. V. Pollet has made a study of the development of Pflug’s teaching on justification.79 In 1539 Pflug was teaching that through the righteousness of Christ our sins are not counted against us, but our faith is reckoned for righteousness.80 At the Regensburg colloquy he encountered the doctrine of duplex iustitia and embraced it.81 Like Contarini and Gropper, his was a Theology of Humility (Demuttheologie) emphasising the 75 Pfnür, “Die Einigung bei den Religionsgesprächen von Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41 eine Täuschung?,” 73–​74. These complaints are drawn almost entirely from Eck’s Apologia. 76 On Pflug, see Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, 25–​ 44; Erbe and Bietenholz, “Julius Pflug of Eytra,” 77–​78; Pollet, Julius Pflug (1499–​1564). Pollet, “Julius Pflug,” 129–​ 46, 140–​44 focuses on his role as an irenical theologian in the colloquies. Müller, “Schriften von und gegen Julius Pflug bis zu seiner Reise nach Trient 1551/​1552,” contains nothing pertinent to our topic. 77 Pollet, “Julius Pflug,” 140–​41. He ceased to expect a good outcome after the failure of the Regensburg Colloquy. 78 Pollet, Julius Pflug, 134–​42 covers Regensburg, reproducing, with some changes, material from Pflug, Correspondance, 2:197–​208. In the process, the analogy of remaining in Gropper’s wake (199) becomes that of remaining in his shadow (137). 79 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 60–​92. 80 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 62–​63. 81 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 60 claims that Pflug embraced the doctrine of double justification and refers to the influence on him of Pighius as well as Gropper. In Pollet’s account of the colloquy (67–​71) Gropper’s role is argued; Pighius is (rightly) never mentioned. Regarding double justification, on p. 60 Pollet understands this to refer to the need for imputed righteousness to compensate for the imperfections of inherent righteousness, which he elsewhere describes as doppelte Gerechtigkeit (70 n. 17). The two terms also appear to be interchangeable on 88–​89.

20  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification weakness of sinners, and he believed that we should glory not in ourselves but in God.82 In addition to the six debaters, six lay witnesses were appointed, and Granvelle and Count Frederick of the Palatinate were chosen to act as presidents.83 The Emperor put the debaters under oath to seek the way to peace and unity under one true and Catholic faith, with good intentions and without bitterness or strife.84 The participants came with varied expectations. Contarini was prepared to go to great pains in the hope of saving “these lost people.”85 He was believing all things, hoping all things, and enduring all things (1 Cor 13:7).86 He urged praying for the aid of the Holy Spirit, given the importance of this opportunity.87 Morone feared that the debaters might reach an accord which was based on error.88 Melanchthon feared the colloquy as a most hazardous threat to sound doctrine. There was, however, one grain of comfort in this dangerous situation: “The danger will be less if Eck behaves more violently, as is his custom.” He goes on to state that he fears Gropper’s moderation more than Eck’s roughness and uproar.89 Burckhard expressed a similar view of Eck, describing him as a drunk sophist, more devoted to Bacchus than to any religion.90 At the Emperor’s insistence, the Worms Book became the basis for the discussion.91 Its origin was a closely guarded secret; the Emperor stated that it had been composed by learned theologians in Flanders.92 Contarini and 82 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 87. For these themes in Pflug, see Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, 211–​13. 83 ADRG 3/​I:78–​79. 84 Negri to bishop of Corfu (27 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 635. Summary in Regesten, 172. 85 Negri to? (16 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 634. Summary in Regesten, 170; Negri to bishop of Corfu (27 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 635–​36. Summary in Regesten, 172. 86 Negri to bishop of Corfu (27 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 635. Summary in Regesten, 172. 87 Contarini to Gonzaga (30 April) in Regesten, 175. 88 Morone to Farnese (21 April) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 445. Summary in Regesten, 171. 89 Melanchthon to Camerarius (23 April) in CR 4:186; ADRG 3/​I:71; MBW T10:147 (MBW 3:163–​64 [#2678]). See Melanchthon to Medler (6 April) in CR 4:154–​55; ADRG 3/​I:38–​39; MBW T10:114–​15 (MBW 3:155 [#2658]) for further mention of the dangers of the colloquy. Shortly after, Melanchthon wrote more positively about Gropper and Pflug’s moderation to Balthasar von Promnitz (1 May) in CR 4:251; ADRG 3/​I:110; MBW T10:161 (MBW 3:166 [#2684]). 90 Burckhard to Brück (22 April) in CR 4:185; ADRG 3/​I:66. 91 Fraenkel, “Die Augustana und das Gespräch mit Rom,” 98, correctly notes that the Augsburg Confession did not serve as a Grunddokument at Regensburg in the way that it had at Augsburg (1530) and Worms (1541). 92 Contarini to Farnese (28 April) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 368; ADRG 3/​I:75. Summary in Regesten, 173.

The Regensburg Colloquy  21 Morone soon realised that Gropper was the author.93 The participants were not allowed unrestricted access to it, as Granvelle brought it to the sessions each morning and took it away at the end of the day.94 Some referred to it as “the Talmud.”95 The Emperor invited the debaters to correct all in it that was contrary to “divine Scripture and truth” and thus to promote concord.96 Gropper had previously showed it to Contarini, who had made some twenty corrections to it, the most significant being the marginal addition of the word “transubstantiation” in Article 14.97 Melanchthon and Eck were both reluctant to base the debate on the Worms Book, but they eventually gave way.98 Each day the Catholic debaters met up with Contarini (“as a private person, not in his capacity as legate”), the nuncio Morone, and Tomasso Badia, the pope’s theologian (magister sacri palatii).99 They also returned after the day’s debate for a debriefing.100 On 27 April the first four articles, on human innocence before the Fall, free choice, the cause of sin, and original sin, were quickly agreed, building on the agreement reached at the Worms Colloquy.101 But even 93 Ibid.; Morone to Farnese (3 May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 454. Summary in Regesten, 178 94 Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (26 May) in CR 4:338. 95 Burckhard to Johann Friedrich (13 May) in CR 4:289–​90; ADRG 3/​I:189–​90; Protestant Report (28 June) in ADRG 3/​II:548–​49. 96 Saxon councillors to Johann Friedrich (5 May) in CR 4:254; ADRG 3/​I:133–​34. Cf. Imperial Declaration (18 May) in CR 4:297. 97 Contarini to Farnese (28 April) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 368; ADRG 3/​I:75. Summary in Regesten, 173. Contarini to Farnese (9 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 377–​78; ADRG 3/​I:155–​56. Summary in Regesten, 179. For addition of “transubstantiatis,” see CR 4:217 n. 56; ARC 6:69 n. w; MBDS 9/​1:437, n. v for the marginal addition “illis nimirum hoc est pane et vino in corpus et sanguinem domini transmutatis et transusbstantiatis distribuanter.” See Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 101, 126. ARC 6:69, n. u; ADRG 2/​I:660, n. r gives Bucer’s marginal comment in a different manuscript: “Hic videndum est, ne nos conentur vexare de figmento suo transsusbstantiationis.” 98 Report of Melanchthon (24/​29 June) in CR 4:420; ADRG 3/​II:529; MBW T10:313 (MBW 3:192–​ 93 [#2740]). Eck stated to Nausea (20 December), “Is miser et infoelix liber intrusus est Imperatori, cui ego ut indocto contradixi” (Epistolarum Miscellanearum ad Fridericum Nauseam Libri X, 330). 99 Contarini to Farnese (28 April) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 370–​71; ADRG 3/​I:76–​77. Summary in Regesten, 173. Negri to? (30 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 639. Summary in Regesten, 176. Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 372; ADRG 3/​I:115. Summary in Regesten, 177. The quotation is taken from the last of these letters. Priuli to Beccadelli (20 May) in Dionisotti, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” 267, also refers to Contarini’s role (together with Badia) “come privato et non come Legato.” 100 Contarini to Farnese (30 April) in Quirini (ed.), Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli, 3:CCLVI. Summary in Regesten, 175. Cf. Contarini to Gonzaga (30 April) in Regesten, 175. Contarini to Gonzaga (3 May) in Regesten, 324–​25. Summary in Regesten, 177. 101 Report of Melanchthon (24 May) in CR 4:332; ADRG 3/​I:265 (cf. 3/​I:263 n. 1); MBW T10:212 (MBW 3:175–​76 [#2705]): “de his locis nunc quidem rixae nullae fuerunt.” On the first four articles, see Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 246–​49; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 163–​74.

22  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification here, there was not complete agreement. Melanchthon stated that he had set aside his reservations in order not to be accused of sabotaging the colloquy without good cause.102 Eck also had reservations and thought the Worms article on original sin inferior to the agreement reached at Worms.103

Article 5 The fifth article, De restitutione regeneratione et iustificatione hominis gratia et merito, fide et operibus (the Worms Draft), was discussed from 27 April to 2 May,104 though not on Sunday 1 May.105 There is no official record, but there are a number of brief accounts from those who were present. Pflug wrote brief notes on the colloquy, which survive in a manuscript at Zeitz.106 This manuscript also contains his notes on both the agreed and the disputed articles. In these he summarises the debate about Article 5 in seven words: “De iustificatione substituitur articulus. De quo convenit” (“They produced an alternative article on justification, on which they are agreed”).107 Doubtless,

102 Report of Melanchthon (24/​29 June) in CR 4:420; ADRG 3/​II:529; MBW T10:313 (MBW 3:192–​93 [#2740]). Cf. Report of Melanchthon (25 June) in CR 4:413–​14; ADRG 3/​II:538–​39; MBW T10:303–​304 (MBW 3:190–​91 [#2738]). On 12 July, in Melanchthon’s official Reply to the Emperor concerning the Regensburg Book on behalf of the Protestant Princes and Estates, he spelt out specific ambiguities relating to Articles 2 and 4 on free choice and original sin (CR 4:484–​85; ADRG 3/​II:626; MBW T10:348–​49 (Latin); CR 4:498–​99; ADRG 3/​II:614–​15; MBW T10:340–​41 (German) (MBW 3:196–​97 [#2749])). 103 Apologia, 38b. In his discussion of the first four articles (34b–​41b) he noted that the first and the third were not necessary, there being no controversy between Catholics and Protestants on those issues (34b, 38a). He also expressed at some length his dissatisfaction with Article 4 (38b–​41b). The Saxon councillors informed Johann Friedrich (5 May) that Eck had queried various points and “so haben es die unsern auch nicht allenthalben approbirt” (CR 4:254; ADRG 3/​I:134). 104 See Appendix 1 for the text of this. On this draft of Article 5, see Stupperich, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen, 105–​19; von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 23–​26; Martens, Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders, 55–​67, which is far more about this draft than the final article; Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 204–​15; Ortmann, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, 199–​209; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 174–​88. Ortmann devotes rather less space to the final version of Article 5 (244–​45). Lugioyo demonstrates that Bucer saw this not as a finished product but as a starting point for further discussion. He also argues that this draft is compatible with Bucer’s own teaching on justification. Lössl, “Augustinus im ‘Regensburger Buch’,” 41–​43, is about this draft rather than the final version. 105 Jakob Sturm and Batt von Dunzenheim to the Strassburg Council on 2 May (Winckelmann (ed.), Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg im Zeitalter der Reformation, 3:181). 106 Notiunculae de dialogis inter catholicos et luteranos collocutores Ratisponae anno 1541. For information on this and the item covered in the next note, see http://​ivv7srv15.uni-​muenster.de/​mnkg/​ pfnuer/​pflug-​regenburg1.html. Pflug’s notes on Article 5 are found in ADRG 3/​I:83–​86. 107 Notae de articulis conciliatis et non conciliatis in colloquio Ratisponensi anno 1541. ADRG 3/​ I:237.

The Regensburg Colloquy  23 they were helped in this task by the preliminary talks on justification that had taken place at Worms in November 1540.108 Eck and Melanchthon both found the Worms Draft unsatisfactory, and it was agreed that it should be set aside and that there would be free discussion to draw up a new article.109 Contrary to the impression sometimes given, this decision was not reached immediately. Eck states that it was only after they had lost time by uselessly wasting two sessions that he proposed setting the first draft aside.110 Melanchthon later states that he saw the Worms Draft as a hodgepodge (farrago) that satisfied neither party, containing much that was obscure and ambiguous. Parts of it correctly stated that we are righteous by faith on account of Christ; other parts, that we are righteous on account of the virtues granted to us, sounding like Thomas or Plato.111 He would have strongly disagreed with those today who claim that the Worms Draft and the final version teach much the same things. Melanchthon later admitted that during the discussion of Article 5, he had been inclined to terminate the colloquy, fearing the dangers that would come from the topics yet to be discussed. Bucer and Johann Sturm had been more optimistic, and Melanchthon had given way.112 Others also refer to the discussion of the Worms Draft.113 During the discussions a number of drafts were produced, in which order there is no way of telling. Unfortunately, the records give only the sketchiest account of what took place during these days of discussion, and the precise course of events remains obscure.114 A number of modern writers are too 108 On which, see at n. 17, above. 109 Melanchthon on 23 May (CR 4:328; ADRG 3/​I:232–​33; MBW T10:206 (MBW 3:174 [#2702])), 25 June (CR 4:414; ADRG 3/​II:538–​39; MBW T10:304 (MBW 3:190–​91 [#2738])), 24/​29 June (CR 4:420; ADRG 3/​II:529; MBW T10:313 (MBW 3:192–​93 [#2740])) and 13 July (CR 4:581; ADRG 3/​ II:662–​63; MBW T10:399 (MBW 3:199–​200 [#2754])). Also, a brief Protestant Report of 20–​22 May (ADRG 3/​I:230). Cf. Report of the Saxon Counsellors on 5 May (CR 4:254–​55; ADRG 3/​I:134). 110 Apologia, 154b. Cf. the Report of the Saxon envoys (19 May), which suggests that it only took one day to draw up the agreed Article (CR 4:299–​300). 111 Report of Melanchthon (24 May) in CR 4:332; MBW T10:212 (MBW 3:175–​76 [#2705]). This is repeated almost identically in his Report of 22/​23 July in CR 4:572; ADRG 3/​II:691; MBW T10:428–​ 29 (MBW 3:207 [#2767]). ADRG 3/​I:265 contains a very similar Report by Pistorius to Heinrich Bullinger (30 May), drawing on Melanchthon’s text (ADRG 3/​I:263 n. 1). 112 Report of Melanchthon (25 June) in CR 4:414; ADRG 3/​II:538–​39; MBW T10:304 (MBW 3:190–​91 [#2738]); Report of Melanchthon (24/​29 June) in CR 4:420–​21; ADRG 3/​II:529; MBW T10:313 (MBW 3:192–​93 [#2740]); Report of Melanchthon (13 July) in CR 4:581; ADRG 3/​II:663; MBW T10:399 (MBW 3:199–​200 [#2754]). 113 The Saxon councillors (5 May) in CR 4:254; ADRG 3/​I:134. Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252–​53. (This letter appears twice in ADRG 3/​I: on 132–​33, dated 5 May, with an additional paragraph, and on 180–​81, dated 10 May, without the additional paragraph. The letter is dated 10 May, but a footnote in CR 4:253 argues that this is an error for 5 May.) Report of the Saxon envoys (19 May) in CR 4:299–​300. Report of Pistorius (c. 30 June) in CR 4:441; ADRG 3/​I:490–​91. 114 Musculus implies that Eck’s Draft was followed by Gropper’s, which was followed by Melanchthon’s, all by 30 April (ADRG 3/​I:108–​109). Melanchthon, also on 30 April, refers to “nostras

24  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification confident in ascribing responsibility for the outcome to this or that participant. Cruciger notes the debaters’ desire to keep the proceedings secret, “because of which I am unable to write much about these matters.”115 There are four definite drafts of Article 5, and there is a possibility of a fifth: (1) The Worms Draft from the Wormser Buch, which is by far the longest of the drafts, at almost 6,400 words. The text is found in Appendix 1, without a translation.116 There are significant parallels with Gropper’s Enchiridion at a number of points, but these should not be exaggerated.117 This draft teaches two justifications:  the first and initial justification freely by faith without merit or works, and the second justification by works of faith and love, as described in James 2. Claims that this draft teaches the same as the final Article are very wide of the mark, inasmuch as the Worms Draft contains many things not found in the final Article.118 Almost half of the Worms Draft is incorporated into Gropper’s Draft, with some minor verbal changes and the insertion of some extra words. The remainder is unused. The unused material includes all of §§1–​29, 31–​34, and 45, which means that the used material is from §§30, 35–​44, and 46–​71, constituting the entirety of those sections save 107 words. (2) A draft by Melanchthon, dated 29 April, which is found in manuscripts at Wolfenbüttel and Zurich and to which various sources refer.119 This formulas” (including Melanchthon’s Draft?), then Eck’s Draft, then Gropper’s Draft (CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/​I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682])). It may be that they are both using formula to refer to a specific formulation rather than a draft of the whole article. Alternatively, it may be that Musculus, not being present at the debates, was misinformed about the precise order of events. 115 Cruciger to Menius (5 May) in CR 4:259. Also, Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252–​ 53; ADRG 3/​I:132, 181. The Catholics were more concerned about secrecy than the Protestants (Eells, “The Failure of Church Unification Efforts during the German Reformation,” 173). 116 A translation is given by Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 346–​83. Pederson also expounds the teaching of this draft (235–​79). 117 Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” documents this, and also notes points of difference. For more details, see Appendix 1, below. 118 Pastor, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V, 245, claims that the first and definitive versions “inhaltlich vollkommen übereinstimmen”; Vetter, Die Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg, 91, claims that the final version does not differ much “inhaltlich” from the Worms Draft. Fuchs, Konfession und Gespräch, 443, also claims “inhaltlich” agreement. 119 Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/​I:132 and 181; Cruciger to Bugenhagen (19 May) in CR 4:304; ADRG 3/​I:217. Pflug in his Notiunculae (ADRG 3/​I:85): “Lectus est articulus concordiae Melanchthonis.” Also, probably by Wolfgang Musculus (30 April):  “Item a nostris aliam

The Regensburg Colloquy  25 is the shortest of the drafts, some 430 words. The text is in Appendix 2, together with an English translation. (3) A draft by Eck, which is found in a manuscript at Zeitz and to which various sources refer.120 This is slightly longer than Melanchthon’s Draft, some 465 words. The text is in Appendix 3, together with an English translation. A number of key points in the final article can be traced to Eck’s Draft, without implying that he is necessarily the source.121 (4) A shorter version of the original Worms Draft, produced by Gropper, which is found in a manuscript at Zeitz. On 30 April Wolfgang Musculus refers to a more tolerable (than Eck’s) formula that was proposed by Pflug and Gropper, but not accepted by Eck.122 That probably refers to this draft. The same day Melanchthon informed Luther that he had yesterday rejected “their formula” but that they had improved it to prevent us from breaking off discussions.123 That also probably refers to Gropper’s Draft, which is a modification of the Worms Draft. Cruciger reported that the Catholics had allowed “their formula” to be emended and abridged to produce the final article, and since Article 5 is drawn in part from Gropper’s Draft that is probably the “formula” to which he was referring.124 There are other references to a formula or Artikel, which could well refer to this draft.125 The text is in Appendix 4, [formulam], quae hic etiam praelecta nobis est, sed nondum ab adversariis acceptam” (ADRG 3/​I:109). Melanchthon to Luther (30 April) refers to “nostras formulas” but the plural probably implies specific formulations rather than a draft article (CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/​I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682])). The Saxon envoys reported on 5 May that the Protestants had responded to a Catholic Artikel with one of their own, which is most likely Melanchthon’s Draft (CR 4:254; ADRG 3/​I:134). ADRG 3/​I:169 identifies Melanchthon’s draft as the “Philipps schrift” referred to in Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann Friedrich (10/​11 May) in WA Br. 9:406, but the description does not fit. WA Br. 9:410 suggests that the reference is to Melanchthon’s letter of 30 April (CR 4:238–​39; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/​I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682])) or rather to a lost letter. I agree. 120 Wolfgang Musculus (30 April) refers to a “formula Ecciana” that was proposed by Bucer. He notes that it failed to mention the imputation of righteousness and was therefore (“ideoque”) rejected (ADRG 3/​I:108–​109). Pflug, in his Notiunculae (ADRG 3/​I:85):  “Dominus Eccius pollicetur se exhibiturum suam concordiam.” Melanchthon to Luther (30 April) refers to a Catholic formula (CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/​I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682])). The Saxon councillors reported on 5 May that the Catholic theologians had produced “einen Artikel von der Justification” (CR 4:254; ADRG 3/​I:134). Both of these could refer to Eck’s Draft. 121 For the details, see c­ hapter 5, below. 122 ADRG 3/​I:109. 123 CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/​I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682]). 124 Cruciger to Bugenhagen (5 May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/​I:132, 181. Similar words Cruciger to Medler (9 May) in CR 4:268. 125 The Saxon councillors reported on 5 May that the Catholic theologians had produced “einen Artikel von der Justification” (CR 4:254; ADRG 3/​I:134). Cruciger to Bugenhagen (19 May) also refers to a Catholic “formula” (CR 4:304; ADRG 3/​I:217). Both of these could refer to Gropper’s Draft.

26  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification







together with an English translation. At almost 3,600 words, this draft is a little over 55 per cent of the length of the Worms Draft. It is basically an abridged, rearranged, and revised version of the Worms Draft.126 The changes are as follows: (a) Variant readings are found in both the Worms Draft and Gropper’s Draft, and often there is a reading in common between them. (b) A number of minor verbal changes have been made to the material from the Worms Draft, including the addition of new words. This affects about ninety words of Gropper’s Draft. (c) There are completely new sentences, totalling about 325 words, and §§10, 19, and 39 are totally new. In addition, substantial new material is added to some existing sentences, totalling some eighty words. (d) Finally, the headings in Gropper’s Draft are all new, totalling seventy-​one  words.

The upshot is that about 85 per cent of the text of Gropper’s Draft is taken from the Worms Draft, with minor changes affecting about fifty words. The remaining 15 per cent of Gropper’s Draft is composed of the section headings (all new) together with some 440 new words. These new words are found especially in sections 1, 2, 10, 16, 18, 19, 35, 39, three of which are totally new. Substantial portions (230 words) of Gropper’s Draft found their way into the final version (especially §§6–​8), these words constitute most of §§10, 18–​19, 35, and 39 (of Gropper’s Draft) and a little from §40. Significantly, these 230 words are taken exclusively from the 405 words of new text mentioned under (c), above. That is, they constitute most of the significantly new material added by Gropper, nothing at all being taken from the original Worms Draft. (5) In addition to these drafts, Cruciger refers to a Catholic “formula” written, so he had heard, by Contarini.127 However, he goes on to 126 Dittrich, “Zu Art. V des Regensburger Buches von 1541,” 196–​97 refers to the manuscript, and again in his “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 3–​5, with a summary of it in 9–​12 showing how it relates to the Worms Draft. He correctly identifies this as a draft submitted at the colloquy (4). Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 120 mistakenly describes this as a memorandum written by Gropper before the Worms Colloquy and so before the Worms Draft, citing in support Dittrich, “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 7. He has misread Dittrich and cited the wrong page. Unfortunately, Schäfer, “Hoffnungsgestalt und Gegenwart des Heiles,” 209 recycles both errors. Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 189–​90, briefly expounds this draft. 127 Cruciger to Bugenhagen (5 May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/​I:132, 181.

The Regensburg Colloquy  27 say that the Catholics allowed “this formula” (the same one?) to be emended and abridged to produce the final article. Since Article 5 is drawn in part from Gropper’s Draft, that is probably the “formula” to which he was referring. Maybe what Cruciger had heard was that Contarini had played a role in drawing up Gropper’s Draft. Two weeks later Melanchthon states that Contarini himself submitted a most absurd formula (insulsissimam formulam) that was totally repudiated.128 To what does this refer? It is possible that this was a draft of the whole article, as is argued by Vetter.129 Against this suggestion is the fact that no draft has survived, unlike the other four. Also, as Matheson notes, such a direct intervention by the Legate would have been both unnecessary and inappropriate.130 Philip McNair claims (without reference to Melanchthon’s or Cruciger’s statements) that it was Contarini who proposed the duplex iustitia formula.131 McNair’s claim is definitely mistaken, as we shall see in ­chapter 4. Brieger argued that Contarini intervened only on the specific point of certainty of justification,132 on the basis of another statement by Melanchthon two months later that Contarini sent a formula (ein form) in response to a dispute about whether we should doubt that we are in God’s grace.133 Dittrich and Matheson have followed Brieger on this.134 Either way, this is not proof of Contarini’s positive influence on the outcome, since Melanchthon claims, in both statements, that everyone rejected the formula.135 Even if Melanchthon is exaggerating, it is clear that this contribution of Contarini was not accepted by the Protestants. As already noted, the various records give only the sketchiest account of what took place during these days of discussion, and it is not always clear to which drafts they may be referring. With Melanchthon’s, Eck’s, and Gropper’s Drafts we have the hard evidence of a physical copy. For Contarini, 128 Melanchthon in a letter to Luther (19 May) in CR 4:303; WA Br. 9:414; ADRG 3/​I:213; MBW T10:200 (MBW 3:172 [#2699]). 129 Vetter, Die Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg, 92. 130 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 106. 131 McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy, 15. 132 Brieger, Gasparo Contarini und das Regensburger Concordienwerk, 54. 133 Melanchthon (13 July) in CR 4:582; ADRG 3/​II:663; MBW T10:399–​400 (MBW 3:199–​200 [#2754]). 134 Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 622; Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 106. 135 See nn. 128, 133, above.

28  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification we have only three mentions of a formula/​form, which may not all be referring to the same thing. Against the idea that Contarini submitted his own draft of the article is the lack of any surviving text and the inappropriateness of such an action. Whatever the nature of Contarini’s formula/​form, Brieger warns against underestimating his influence on the outcome simply because he was not present at the debates. He quotes a letter of Priuli which states that the agreement was reached “with the counsel, approbation and consideration” of the Legate.136 Contarini’s influence on Article 5, he argues, was most extensive.137 Draft and counter-​draft were discussed.138 Eventually, on 2 May, according to the Protestant Caspar Cruciger, the Catholics “allowed that [Gropper’s?] formula to be emended and abridged to the point that it neither differed nor dissented from our view.”139 Melanchthon also implies substantial flexibility on the Catholic side.140 Anton Corvinus, an adviser to Philipp of Hesse, significantly states that the “opponents” gave way on the idea of justification by faith alone through the merit of Christ alone, not through our own works or merit, but insisted on the inclusion of repentance.141 All the parties gave their consent to the final draft, now entitled De iustificatione hominis.142 Melanchthon states that Granvelle wrote it out himself.143 Granvelle and Contarini were jubilant and the latter expressed his joy to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese (Pope Paul III’s grandson) in Rome: “God be praised, these Catholic and Protestant theologians resolved to agree on the article of justification, 136 Priuli to Beccadelli (20 May) in Dionisotti, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” 267, cited by Brieger, Gasparo Contarini und das Regensburger Concordienwerk, 53. 137 Brieger, Gasparo Contarini und das Regensburger Concordienwerk,  49–​55. 138 CR 4:242–​46; ADRG 3/​II:520–​23 contains material that may belong to this debate. 139 Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/​I:132  & 181:  “passi sunt eam formulam ita emendari et circumscribi, ut e nostra sententia non discrepet nec dissentiat.” Very similar comment in Cruciger to Medler (9 May) in CR 4:267–​68. The Saxon envoys reported to Johann Friedrich (19 May) that the agreed article came through “Disputationes und allerlei Unterrede und Emendationes” (CR 4:299–​300). 140 Melanchthon to Luther (30 April) in CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/​I:109; MBW T10:156 (MBW 3:165 [#2682]). 141 In a report from after 2 May (Tschackert, “Antonius Corvinus’ ungedruckter Bericht vom Kolloquium zu Regensburg,” 96; ADRG 3/​I:114). 142 The text is in ARC 6:52–​54; MBDS 9/​1:397–​401; ADRG 3/​I:288–​95. It is found in ­chapter 5, with a full list of textual variants and with an English translation, and the bare text (Latin and English) is in Appendix 5. 143 Report by Melanchthon (13 July) in CR 4:582; ADRG 3/​II:663; MBW T10:400 (MBW 3:199–​ 200 [#2754]). Hequet, The 1541 Colloquy at Regensburg, 53–​54, takes this to mean that Granvelle was the author of the article, but Matheson correctly sees Granvelle’s role here as scribal (Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 107), as does Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 174–​75.

The Regensburg Colloquy  29 faith and works.”144 Eck needed some persuasion to sign,145 though Gropper and Pflug later claimed that Eck had accepted all of the agreed articles as “sound and Catholic.”146 Contarini notes that, in addition to the Catholic debaters, Morone and Badia also acknowledged the article to be “Catholic and holy” and that Cochlaeus was happy with it.147 It was decided not to show it to Pighius.148 Brieger dramatically describes the accord that was reached as follows: “Without doubt, at Regensburg the Wittenberg Reformation and the reforming strand of the ancient Italian Church joined hands.”149 The initial response was predominantly positive.150 The Protestant Elector of Brandenburg even sent his musicians to serenade Contarini!151 Morone reported to Rome his hope for a good outcome to the colloquy, though he feared Melanchthon’s and Eck’s intransigence.152 Augustijn sums up the mood: “It was a golden hour in the history of attempts at union: the most important controversy between Rome and Wittenberg had been fully discussed and a result had been achieved, with which both parties could be content.”153

144 “[D]‌io laudato, questi theologi et Cattolici et Protestanti si risolsero et convennero nell’ articolo de iustificatione, fide et operibus” (Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 372; ADRG 3/​I:115). Summary in Regesten, 177. 145 Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/​I:132 & 181. Morone to Farnese (3 May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 453–​ 54. Summary in Regesten, 178. Corvinus, in a report from after 2 May, wrote that “so ists gleichwol dahin kommen, das vorgangenen tags Eccius, der grosse unschampar tichter und wescher, zusampt seinem anhang und zugeordneten (welche gleichwol viel beschedener un behertzigter sein dan derselbig shamloß mensch ist) sich unserer meinung und sententz von der justification und guten wercken unterschrieben und derselben anhengig worden sein” (Tschackert, “Antonius Corvinus’ ungedruckter Bericht vom Kolloquium zu Regensburg,” 92–​93 (also quoted on p.  87); ADRG 3/​ I:112). In his Replica Ioan. Eckii adversus Scripta Secunda Buceri apostatae super Actis Ratisponae, 44b, Eck affirms that he had not agreed with the article. 146 Pflug and Gropper to Granvelle and Count Frederick (6/​7 July) in JGB 1:194; CR 4:462; ADRG 3/​II:600. 147 Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 372–​73; ADRG 3/​I:115–​16. Summary in Regesten, 177, where the reference to Cochlaeus is wrongly summarised. 148 Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 372–​73; ADRG 3/​I:115–​16. Not mentioned in the summary in Regesten, 177. 149 Brieger, Gasparo Contarini und das Regensburger Concordienwerk, 55–​56: “Es ist keine Frage, in Regensburg hat sich die Wittenberger Reformation und die reformatorische Strömung der alten Kirche Italiens die Hand gereicht.” 150 Winkler, “Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch 1541,” 83, gives an overview. 151 Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 374; ADRG 3/​I:116. Summary in Regesten, 177. 152 Morone to Farnese (3 May) in Dittrich, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg,” 453. Summary in Regesten, 178, mentions his fears but not his hope. 153 Augustijn, “Melanchthon und die Religionsgespräche,” 220.

30  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification

The Rest of the Colloquy The joy and the hope engendered were to be short-​lived. The colloquy soon began to founder, but that was because of differences on other doctrines, such as the infallibility of councils and transubstantiation,154 not because of shortcomings in the statement on justification. Ironically, it was the same Contarini who was willing to be flexible over justification who torpedoed the colloquy with his intransigence over the word transubstantiation. He insisted on inserting it and would not countenance any compromise. He rejected Granvelle’s suggestion that discussion of the word be deferred to the end of the colloquy. While the doctrine of justification had not been defined by the church, transubstantiation had been proclaimed by the Fourth Lateran Council, which meant that it was non-​negotiable.155 Ultimately, as always, the colloquy foundered over the question of authority,156 an outcome that was foreseen in Contarini’s official instruction to the colloquy as papal legate.157 On 22 May the colloquy came to a close, the article on justification being its only significant achievement. The dream of agreement had foundered on the reality of the differences.158 On the thirty-​first the revised version of the Regensburg Book was delivered to the Emperor, together with nine new articles that the Protestants had composed in opposition to some of the articles in the Book that had not been agreed.159 On 8 June these were then laid before 154 For details, see Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, chh. 9, 10, respectively. See also Schultheis, Die Verhandlungen über das Abendmahl und die übrigen Sakramente auf dem Religionsgespräch, in Regensburg 1541. 155 Contarini to Farnese (11 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 382–​83; ADRG 3/​I:184. Summary in Regesten, 179–​80. Contarini to Farnese (13 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 385–​86; ADRG 3/​I:192–​93. Summary in Regesten, 181. 156 The authority of the church was the issue on which all the colloquies failed (Jedin, “An welchen Gegensätzen sind die vortridentinischen Religionsgespräche zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten gescheitert?”). 157 Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 565–​ 69; ADRG 3/​ I:5–​ 11. Cf. Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 204–​205. 158 The title of c­ hapter  8 of Jedin, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, 1:287, is “Der Traum der Verständigung und die Wirklichkeit der Gegensätze.” The translation, “Dream of Understanding,” in Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:355, is less happy. 159 CR 4:378. For the text of the revised Regensburg Book, see ARC 6:24–​88 (Latin); ADRG 3/​ I:268–​391 (Latin and German). For the text of the Protestant articles, see CR 4:348–​76; ADRG 3/​I:392–​437. These are described by Negri to the bishop of Corfu (28 June) as “9 articoli bestiali di questi Protestanti” (Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 641. Summary in Regesten, 206). For an account of which articles were not agreed and why, see ADRG 3/​ II:440–​46.

The Regensburg Colloquy  31 the gathered Estates.160 In July both the Catholic161 and Protestant162 parties expressed their reservations towards the Regensburg Book. The Diet finally ended on 29 July.163 Contarini would doubtless have agreed with the comment that the Emperor made to him when they parted, that more progress had been made in this diet than in any of the previous ones.164 The ultimate effect of Regensburg, as of the other colloquies, was to harden confessional differences.165 A poem was produced at the colloquy that played on the names of the debaters, of which there are many variants.166 One in more colloquial German is found in Leonhart Widmann’s Chronik von Regensburg: Mann pflügs, man egks, man grebs darzue Auff das mög Babell haben sein rue, Man melcks, man puzs, man pechs zugleich,167 Auff das Sion bestee mit irem reich; Ein kampff besteen dy zwo parthei, Rath, welcher tail got nähner sey.168 One ploughs, one harrows, one digs with the aim, That Babylon may have its peace and quiet. One milks, one cleans and bakes likewise, That Sion may endure with its kingdom.

160 CR 4:389–​91. For a more accurate text, see ARC 3:374–​77; ADRG 3/​II:465–​68. 161 CR 4:450–​55; ARC 3:380–​85 (1 July). CR 4:455–​56; ARC 3:385–​87 (4 July). ARC 3:388–​89; ADRG 3/​II:571–​72 (6 July). 162 CR 4:476–​91; ADRG 3/​II:606–​607, 623–​30; MBW T10:338–​69 (MBW 3:196–​98 [#2749–​51]). Much of this is translated in Ziegler (ed.), Great Debates of the Reformation, 152–​66. 163 CR 4:625–​30. 164 Morone to Farnese (13 August) in Laemmer, Monumenta Vaticana Historiam Ecclesiasticam Saeculi XVI Illustrantia, 389–​90. Summary in Regesten, 222. 165 Cf. Scheib, “Die Auslegung der Augsburgischen Konfession auf den Religionsgesprächen,” 663–​64. 166 These are set out and discussed by Bellardi, “Die Raetselepigramme zum Regensburger Religionsgespraech.” There were Latin epigrams too (79–​83). For epigrams on individuals present at the Worms colloquy, see Clemen, “Epigramme auf Teilnehmer am Wormser Religionsgespräch 1540/​41.” 167 Pistorius’s vernacular name was Becker. 168 Leonhart Widmann in his Chronik von Regensburg (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften:  Historische Commission (ed.), Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. Bis 16. Jahrhundert, 15:174); Bellardi, “Die Raetselepigramme zum Regensburger Religionsgespraech,”  73–​74.

32  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification The two parties are undergoing a battle; Guess which side is closer to God.

The briefest version came in a letter written when the colloquy failed: “sie pfluegen, eggen, graben, malen, putzen und backen, und richten nichts aus.”169 “They plough, harrow, dig, grind, clean and bake—​and achieve nothing.”

169 Johann Reibisch to Medler (24 May) in CR 4:335; Bellardi, “Die Raetselepigramme zum Regensburger Religionsgespraech,” 72–​73.

2 Reactions to Article 5 Initial reactions to Article 5 were mostly positive, but after the breakdown of the colloquy, those who had been willing to make concessions were criticised by their own sides. On all sides conciliation gave way to recrimination as the participants published works focused not on the limited agreement reached but on the reasons for the failure of the colloquy. The focus in all the published Acta is on the politics of the Diet, and there is little mention of Article 5 beyond including it in the text of the Regensburg Book.1 Most people’s concern was to distance themselves from the concessions that had been made.

Contemporary Protestant Reactions The initial Protestant reaction to the article was mixed. Konrad Hel reported back to Augsburg that the debaters had agreed on an article on justification, with which “our side” was very satisfied. He continued, similarly to Contarini in his report to Rome, “God be praised in eternity, amen!”2 The Saxon envoys wrote to Elector Johann Friedrich, describing the production of Article 5, The substance of it was respected by the theologians of this side as being in no way contrary to or in disagreement with the [Augsburg] Confession and Apology. They also regarded its wording as clear enough not to lead to any misunderstanding. Although such an article is rather short and in need of further clarification, it is very well explained in the Confession and Apology. . . . Apparently the article of justification, as it has been known by 1 For some of these works, see the beginning of ­chapter 5, below. Hergang, Das Religions-​Gespräch zu Regensburg i. J. 1541 und das Regensburger Buch, 46–​60 gives details of the material contained in the Acta especially Melanchthon’s. On Melanchthon’s and Bucer’s editions and for a comparison of them, see Augustijn, “Melanchthons Editionen der Akten von Worms und Regensburg 1540 und 1541.” Bucer, unlike Melanchthon, comments freely on the documents that he prints (36–​39). For his comments relating to Article 5, see at nn. 67, 105–​107, below. 2 Hel to the Augsburg Council (4 May) in Roth, “Zur Geschichte des Reichtages zu Regensburg,” 50. In his letter the same day an die Geheimen he again notes that “die unsern wohl zufriden sind; auch [Wolfgang] Musculus ist es” (51). Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony L. S. Lane, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190069421.001.0001

34  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification this side up to now, must be respected by the other side also as Christian and correct, if the article is approved by the authorities.3

The Johann Friedrich was not, however, persuaded and a few days later responded to them in forthright terms, complaining about the obscure scholastic language of the article and that it abolished, or at least darkened, the doctrine of sola fide.4 Shortly after, he wrote to them again, restating his rejection of the article and referring to the views of Luther and Bugenhagen.5 At the end of May he referred to the Regensburg Book as a whole as a “patchwork” (Flickwerk).6 By the end of June the envoys had revised their opinion of Article 5, stating to the Elector that things in it needed to be explained and expanded, as the theologians said in the debates themselves and that when the book was delivered to the Emperor they had confessed that such an article was too short and imperfect and in need of explication.7 Another early reaction came from Chancellor Burckhard of Saxony (one of the lay witnesses). He agreed with the Saxon councillors that the article was “in harmony with the [Augsburg] Confession and Apology,” although the latter were set out in more detail and more clearly. He went on to state that “our side” had maintained the confession whole and undiminished, but doubted whether the “other side” would be able to tolerate this. He concedes that the article contains terms thus far not normally used by “our side,” but that “in meaning and substance it pleases all of our side.” Never before had the other side been willing to concede things that are openly approved and confessed in this article. But there were hesitations. He found it incredible that agreement could be reached so easily in this matter, “in which there are so many matters of real (not merely verbal) controversy.” He feared that the other side would be reluctant to accept it but would seek to evade it by subterfuge (latebras et effugia). Also he doubted, presciently, whether all would be willing to accept this article unless there was agreement on all matters, which was impossible.8 He later described the Regenburg Book in general, not Article 5 in particular, as “a medley . . . which sometimes conforms neither to Papist nor to Evangelical teaching.”9 3 Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (5 May) in CR 4:254; ADRG 3/​I:134. 4 Johann Friedrich to his envoys (10 May) in CR 4:282–​83; ADRG 3/​I:163. We will consider his epistolary exchange with Luther, Bugenhagen, and Burckhard below, at nn. 26–​29. 5 Johann Friedrich to his envoys (13 May) in CR 4:284–​86; ADRG 3/​I:188–​89. 6 Johann Friedrich to his envoys (28 May) in CR 4:346. 7 Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (30 June) in CR 4:439. 8 Burckhard to Pontanus (Gregor Brück) (5 May) in CR 4:256–​57; ADRG 3/​I:135–​36. 9 Burckhardt to Johann Friedrich (13 May) in CR 4:290; ADRG 3/​I:190.

Reactions to Article 5  35 Caspar Cruciger wrote to Bugenhagen affirming that the article “neither differs nor dissents from our view” and claiming that the theologians on our side had accepted the article, believing it to agree with the doctrine of our churches. He also calls it a patchwork (consarcinatio), noting that the debaters were keeping the mode of its composition secret.10 He wrote similarly to Menius, stating that although the document was not drawn up by “our side” but was a patched together (consarcinata) by both sides, it nonetheless contains nothing contrary to “our doctrine.”11 Cruciger shared Burckhard’s scepticism regarding the prospects for agreement on the other articles.12 Later, he noted the significance of the fact that Article 5 teaches that we are accepted by God on the merit of Christ’s righteousness alone.13 Two weeks after his first letter he was more aware of the ambiguities of the article. The other side had managed to retain some of the words of their draft, “which either contained something detrimental or that they were later able to distort by their sophistry.”14 On 24 June he was no more positive, noting the Catholics’ reluctance to accept the imperfection of good works. He felt that the article had been too hastily agreed: “I do not know what capacity for judgement these people had, who imagined themselves be about to resolve in no time at all so many weighty controversies. If they had wanted to seek the truth they would have taken time to confer, judge, decide and clearly explain these so great issues.” He contrasts the article with the Augsburg Confession and Apology, which he did not doubt to be the scriptural teaching of the Early Church and of the Catholic Church.15 Luther was not impressed with the article.16 In an initial letter on 10/​ 11 May, written jointly with Bugenhagen in response to the Elector, he branded it patched and all-​embracing (“ein weitleufftig und geflickt ding”). He claimed that the two ideas, of justification by faith alone 10 Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252–​53; ADRG 3/​I:132–​33, 180–​81. (See ­chapter 1, n. 113.) Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 84–​85, cites Cruciger’s comments to Bugenhagen (19 May) in CR 4:304; ADRG 3/​I:217, but these refer to the “formula consarcinata in primo articulo,” not to Article 5. 11 Cruciger to Menius (5 May) in CR 4:259. 12 Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:253; ADRG 3/​I:133; 181. Cruciger to Menius (5 May) in CR 4:259. 13 Cruciger to Medler (9 May) in CR 4:268. 14 Cruciger to Bugenhagen (19 May) in CR 4:304; ADRG 3/​I:217. 15 Cruciger to Saxon envoys (24 June) CR 4:433–​34; ADRG 3/​II:527–​28. 16 For Luther’s view, see especially von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 29–​34, 48–​55 (cf. 26–​29), where the weakness of Luther’s arguments is spelt out. See also zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 352–​ 55; V.  Pfnür, “Die Einigung bei den Religionsgesprächen von Worms und Regensburg,” 64–​68; Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 266–​70.

36  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification without works (Rom 3)  and faith working through love (Gal 5), had been thrown together and glued together (“zu samen gereymet und geleymet”). “So they are right, and so are we.” This is like sewing a new patch onto an old garment (Matt 9). No other agreement is possible with such false people. He predicted that they would disown this article if there was no agreement on the others. What was Luther’s problem with the article at this point? He claimed that Galatians 5:6 is about how the righteous should live, not about how we become righteous, and that Article 5 falsely applied it to the latter. In other words, Article 5 teaches that we are justified not by faith alone but also through works or through love and grace, which they call “inherent.” This is false because before God only Christ is completely pure and holy.17 We will later evaluate how fair this accusation is.18 It is perhaps worth mentioning that from March to early May Luther was suffering severe pain from an ear infection, which was relieved only by the rupturing of his ear drum, and which left him suffering from tinnitus.19 That is not, of course, to imply that with better health and better information he would have approved Article 5. In mid-​June Luther wrote to Princes Johann and Georg. He states that of the four agreed articles, he has seen only the one on justification.20 That he could still regard Article 5 as one of the first four articles suggests that his knowledge of the events at Regensburg was somewhat limited. In this letter Luther objected to the reference to free choice and expressed his fear that the article would be understood to teach that “faith justifies through love.” Despite this, in the first draft of the letter, he states that such errors should not prevent agreement in the interests of unity and peace, though this statement does not appear in the final version. In the light of the next ten articles, which he saw as poisonous, the first five did not seem so bad.21 It is maybe this attitude that underlies a report of Contarini to Farnese, claiming that Melanchthon had told Granvelle that Luther greatly desired concord and 17 Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann Friedrich (10/​11 May) in WA Br. 9:406–​409; ADRG 3/​ I:169–​72. The original is in Luther’s hand (WA Br. 9:406). Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 190 n. 144, argues that it is primarily Luther’s letter, also signed by Bugenhagen. On this passage, see ibid., 184–​86. Johann Friedrich forwarded this letter to his envoys at Regensburg (CR 4:284–​86; ADRG 3/​I:188–​89). 18 See c­ hapter 5, below, on §4:5. 19 Wilkinson, The Medical History of the Reformers, 22. 20 Luther to Princes Johann and Georg (11/​12 June) in WA Br. 9:438, 440; ADRG 3/​II:477, 479. Also, Luther to Melanchthon (17 June) in WA Br. 9:452; MBW T10:291 (MBW 3:186–​87 [#2730]). 21 Luther to Princes Johann and Georg (11/​12 June) in WA Br. 9:438–​42; ADRG 3/​II:477–​80.

Reactions to Article 5  37 that it would be better to deal with him than with many other Protestant theologians.22 Luther wrote again some weeks later, jointly with Bugenhagen, taking a slightly different line. He first listed a number of things in the article with which they were completely at one (gantz eins). Then he cited eight propositions that were being taught by Catholic theologians and complained that the article did not exclude these doctrines: 1) Man has free will to do good, even in spiritual matters. 2) The grace that makes us acceptable (gratia gratum faciens) is love. 3) Infused faith is the grace that is freely given (gratia gratis data), even in the ungodly. 4) By doing his very best (quod in se est), the sinner can merit grace de congruo. 5) The righteous who have love with infused faith merit eternal life de condigno. 6) The natural man can fulfil God’s commands in his own natural powers, as regards the deed but not the intention. 7) There are twelve evangelical counsels (consilia euangelii). 8) God’s commands are not impossible for free choice. Article 5 is unsatisfactory because it fails to condemn such teaching. It is necessary not only to teach what is right but also, like Scripture, to be on one’s guard and warn against what is wrong. One must not only pasture the sheep but also with clubs and dogs restrain the wolves, otherwise the pasture is nothing. Therefore this article . . . is too weak and will cause much more disagreement and disunity than has hitherto occurred.23

We will return to Luther’s eight propositions in c­ hapter 6. In August Luther commented on the Regensburg Book as a whole that whatever the good intentions of its authors, the devil had worked his 22 Contarini to Farnese (23 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 473; ADRG 3/​I:235. Summary in Regesten, 186. 23 Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann Friedrich (29 June) in WA Br. 9:461–​62; ADRG 3/​II:557 (written by Luther in both of their names). After responding to the articles on Justification and Free Will, Luther turns to “Der dritte artickel, vom glauben und guten wercken,” where he repeats his opposition to the second, fourth, and sixth of the eight doctrines that he felt were not excluded (WA Br. 9:463; ADRG 3/​II:558). Other sources from the time were also confused about the correct numbering of the articles. See ADRG 3/​II:440, 440–​41, 552, for examples. On this letter, see J. Haussleiter, “Luthers und Bugenhagens Bedenken zum Regensburger Buch.”

38  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification poisonous evil, with the result that no more harmful writing had been directed against the Reformers since the beginning of their gospel.24 Von Loewenich correctly observes that what concerned Luther about Article 5 was the relation between faith and love, and not the idea of double righteousness, with which he does not engage.25 Johann Friedrich, the Saxon Elector, was not persuaded by the initial enthusiasm of his envoys and wrote to Luther and Bugenhagen complaining about the scholastic terminology of the article and, especially, about the ambivalent attitude towards the sola fide formula.26 He asked them for their judgement on the article.27 In another letter written the same day, he also referred to the article as a patchwork (flickwerg).28 Some days later he was taking, if anything, a stronger line than Luther, rejecting Article 5, accusing it of obscuring the holy Scriptures, and stating that it would only lead to greater error in the future.29 Not all shared this negative view. Calvin, who was present, though not one of the debaters, was sceptical about the colloquy as a whole, but positive about Article 5: The debate in controversy was more keen upon the doctrine of justification. At length a formula was drawn up, which, on receiving certain corrections, was accepted on both sides. You will be astonished, I  am sure, that our opponents have yielded so much, when you read the extracted copy, as it stood when the last correction was made upon it, which you will find enclosed in the letter. Our friends have thus retained also the substance of the true doctrine, so that nothing can be comprehended within it which is not to be found in our writings; you will desire, I know, a clearer exposition, and, in that respect, you shall find me in complete agreement with yourself. However, if you consider with what kind of men we have to agree upon this doctrine, you will acknowledge that much has been accomplished.30 24 Luther to Johann Friedrich (4 August) in WA Br 9:486. 25 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 55. Zur Mühlen, “Martin Bucer und das Religionsgespräch von Hagenau und Worms,” 668, is inaccurate when he states that Luther rejected the idea of double righteousness in Article 5. We will return to this in c­ hapter 4. 26 Johann Friedrich to Luther and Bugenhagen (9 May) in WA Br. 9:398; ADRG 3/​I:159. He wrote to his envoys at Regensburg in similar terms. See n. 4, above. 27 Johann Friedrich to Luther and Bugenhagen (9 May) in WA Br. 9:398–​99; ADRG 3/​I:159. 28 Johann Friedrich to Luther and Bugenhagen (9 May) in WA Br. 9:401; ADRG 3/​I:165. 29 Johann Friedrich to Burckhard (19 May) in CR 4:306. 30 Calvin to Farel (11 May) in CTS 4:260 (slightly altered). CO 11:215–​16; Herminjard 7:111; ADRG 3/​I:181–​82. On Calvin’s view, see Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches.” For his distinction between sound substance and imperfect clarity, see above at nn. 3 and 8.

Reactions to Article 5  39 Calvin makes a number of points. Positively, he claims that the Roman Catholic side had yielded a remarkable amount. Less positively, he concedes that Protestants could desire a clearer exposition. More precisely, he claims both that the substance of true doctrine has been preserved and that the article contains nothing that is not to be found in “our writings.”31 This claim will be examined in c­ hapters  4 and 5.  His attitude in this letter contrasts sharply with his lack of expectation a couple of weeks earlier, when he had confided to Farel that “if anything very desirable shall be attained [at the colloquy], it will so fall out beyond all my expectation.”32 This earlier pessimism turned out to be the more realistic assessment, and three months later Calvin wrote very negatively about the colloquy as a whole, but without recanting his judgement on Article 5.33 Melanchthon was no great admirer of the Regensburg Book, and in letters and two poems composed at Regensburg, he repeatedly refers to it as a “hyena.”34 He refers to a dream that he had at the Regensburg Colloquy and explains that the hyena has the ability to simulate human speech, and thus is able to lure people out of their houses at night to throttle them.35 He later annotated this, identifying the hyena with the Augsburg Interim of 1548, which in part used “our own words and voice” to fool the simple and to throttle them.36 In his preface to the Acta, he labels it a “Ulyssean trick” containing many ambiguous statements.37 Nor did Melanchthon enjoy the debates. He lamented that he could not speak his own mind as a private 31 For a defence of Calvin’s claim that the article contains nothing that is not to be found in “our writings,” indeed in “his own writings,” see Lane, “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy.” Van Veen, “Propaganda per brief,” 40–​45, criticises me for treating Calvin’s claim as factual (“als feit”) and of ignoring his aim to influence public opinion. But his desire to influence opinion arose from his positive view of the article, which is the point at issue here. 32 Calvin to Farel (24 April) in CTS 4:256. CO 11:204; Herminjard 7:89. This follows his assessment of the three Catholic debaters (CO 11:203–​204; Herminjard 7:89). 33 Calvin to Viret (3/​13 August) CO 11:262; Herminjard 7:218; CTS 4:279. It is going too far, however, to say that Calvin “did not believe in any of the theological formulations” at Regensburg (Gordon, Calvin, 102). Article 5 is the counterexample. Also, Calvin’s edition of Les Actes de la iournee imperiale, tenue en la cité de Regespourg ends on a positive note (CO 5:681–​83). 34 In various letters:  to Vitus Theodorus (Veit Dietrich) (22 June) in CR 4:409; MBW T10:296 (MBW 3:188 [#2733]); to Musculus (22 June) in CR 4:410–​11; MBW T10:297 (MBW 3:188–​89 [#2734]) (six times); to Dietrich (25 June) in CR 4:435; MBW T10:310 (MBW 3:191 [#2739]); to Brenz (11 July) in CR 4:475; MBW T10:337 (MBW 3:195–​96 [#2748]). In two poems (CR 10:576), Johann Brenz on Regensburg Book (n.d.) also refers to it as a hyena (ADRG 3/​II:506). Mundhenk, “Reformstau und Politikverdrossenheit” does not refer to Article 5. 35 CR 20:685–​87, including one of the poems from CR 10:576, together with notes on specific words. The notes refer to the Interim rather than to Article 5. The statement about the hyena’s behaviour is taken from Pliny, Natural History 8:44:106. 36 CR 20:687. 37 CR 4:668; MBW T10:516 (MBW 3:226 [#2816]) = Melanchthon, Acta in conventu Ratisbonensi, sig. A4a–​b: “Ulyssea artificia,” “dicta flexiloqua.”

40  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification individual and avoid being entangled in snares.38 Melanchthon’s prime significance lies in the claim made by a number of contemporaries that Article 5 is consistent with the Augsburg Confession and his Apology,39 which was also the opinion of Pole, as reported by Priuli.40 This claim will be tested in ­chapter 5 especially. Melanchthon’s own judgement regarding Article 5 was ambivalent.41 Soon after the accord was reached, he spoke of it in positive terms. The debaters had agreed on justification by faith and had indeed assented to the doctrine that we teach. They had composed a formula that, though shorter than the importance of the subject demanded, is still tolerable (mediocris).42 Some days later he states that the article could be improved if a church council was called. It was the word “effectual” (efficax: §4:1, 5) that concerned him most.43 Shortly after, he again described Article 5 as a formula that attributes justification to faith, in line with Evangelical teaching,44 and a week later he said that the article approves the doctrine (sententiam probat) that we teach in our churches.45 A month later, he is more reserved, beginning to stress the ambiguity of the article. In the agreed articles “many things are obscure and some even offensive to us” (“contumeliosa adversus nos”) so that many on our side reject them. As regards Article 5, there were points that he wished to see covered.46 In July, he described how he had seen the Worms Draft of Article 5 as a hodgepodge (farrago) that satisfied neither party, containing much that was obscure and ambiguous. He was much happier with the final version, which stated that we are justified “gratis” by faith on account of Christ, not on account of our virtues.47 The agreed articles (including Article 5) were not to be rejected, provided certain ambiguities could be explained clearly.48 38 Melanchthon to Luther (30 April) in CR 4:239; WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/​I:109; MBW T10:156–​57 (MBW 3:165 [#2682]). 39 The Saxon envoys reported to John Friedrich (19 May) that the Protestant debaters were concerned that Article 5 should conform with the Confession and Apology (CR 4:299). 40 Priuli to Beccadelli (20 May) in Dionisotti, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” 268. 41 On Melanchthon’s reactions, see Janssen, “Wir sind zum wechselseitigen Gespräch geboren”, 224–​26. 42 Melanchthon to Camerarius (10 May) in CR 4:281; MBW T10:174 (MBW 3:169 [#2692]). 43 Melanchthon to Luther (19 May) in CR 4:303; WA Br. 9:414; ADRG 3/​I:213; MBW T10:200 (MBW 3:172 [#2699]). 44 Melanchthon to George of Anhalt (23 May) in CR 4:328; ADRG 3/​I:232–​33; MBW T10:206 (MBW 3:174 [#2702]). 45 Melanchthon to Johann Weinlaub (29 May) in CR 4:347; MBW T10:228 (MBW 3:179 [#2712]). 46 Report of Melanchthon (25 June) in CR 4:417; ADRG 3/​II:541; MBW T10:307 (MBW 3:190–​91 [#2738]). 47 Report of Melanchthon (22/​23 July) in CR 4:572; ADRG 3/​II:691; MBW T10:428–​29 (MBW 3:207 [#2767]). Melanchthon, unlike some of today’s fiercer critics of Article 5, was fully aware that the final version did not teach the same as the Worms draft. 48 Report of Melanchthon (22/​23 July) in CR 4:576; ADRG 3/​II:693; MBW T10:433 (MBW 3:207 [#2767]).

Reactions to Article 5  41 What were these points of ambiguity? Regarding Article 5, he three times lists specific points: in a German response the Regensburg Book,49 in a Latin “Opinion” (Sententia) on it50 (both written towards the end of June), and in the official Reply to the Emperor concerning the Regensburg Book, given on 11/​12 July on behalf of the Protestant Princes and Estates, of which there is a brief earlier draft.51 Melanchthon makes six different points in these documents. (1) Sin remains in Christians in this life.52 Following from this, (2) the regenerate can never satisfy the law of God in this life.53 (3) Despite this, God is pleased with our imperfect obedience, on account of Christ.54 A related issue is (4) the question of merit de condigno.55 Another issue is (5) the distinction between those sins which do and those which do not cause us to lose grace and the Holy Spirit. Melanchthon claimed that Gropper and Pflug also agreed about the need to clarify this question.56 (6) The term fides efficax has proved dangerously ambiguous. It has been taken to imply that we are justified “by a faith that works (operante fide), i.e. by faith with works.” Alternatively, it has been taken to mean that faith prepares us for righteousness—​that is, love—​and that it is on account of love that we are accepted by God, not by faith on account of Christ.57 It is noteworthy that these

49 CR 4:419–​31; ADRG 3/​II:528–​38; MBW T10:311–​24 (MBW 3:192–​93 [#2740]), dated c. 24 June (ADRG 3/​II:528) and 29 June (MBW 3:192). 50 CR 4:413–​19; ADRG 3/​II:538–​42; MBW T10:302–​309 (MBW 3:190–​91 [#2738]) (25 June). German translation in ADRG 3/​II:543–​47. 51 CR 4:479–​ 91; ADRG 3/​ II:623–​ 30; MBW T10:365–​ 69, 348–​ 55 (MBW 3:196–​ 98 [#2751 and 2749]); Melanchthon, Acta in conventu Ratisbonensi, sig. Q3a–​S3a. Melanchthon was the author, according to CR 4:476. German translation: CR 4:491–​505; ADRG 3/​II:608–​23; MBW T10:360–​65, 340–​48 (MBW 3:196–​98 [#2751 and 2749]). The briefer earlier draft is in CR 4:476–​78; ADRG 3/​ II:606–​607; MBW T10:355–​57 (MBW 3:197 [#2750]). Zur Mühlen, Reformatorische Prägungen, 286 describes Melanchthon as the spokesman for the Protestants. 52 CR 4:418, 430, 485, 500; ADRG 3/​II:541, 537, 627, 616; MBW T10:307, 323, 350, 342. 53 CR 4:417–​18, 430, 485–​86, 500; ADRG 3/​II:541, 537, 627, 616; MBW T10:307, 323, 350, 342. Clarification on this point is also sought by Timann (14 June) in ADRG 3/​II:489; Cellarius (n.d.) in ADRG 3/​II:499 and Cruciger (24 June) in CR 4:433; ADRG 3/​II:527. Melanchthon accuses Eck of having recently published propositiones that clearly affirm that the regenerate can “dem gesetz genug thun” (CR 4:430; ADRG 3/​II:537; MBW T10:323). This probably refers to his Antithesis propositionum decem et octo:  de peccato reliquo in renatis, Wittenberge disputatarum, post Colloloquium [sic] Wormatien[se], sig. A1b (proposition 2). 54 CR 4:418, 430, 486, 500; ADRG 3/​II:541, 537, 627, 616; MBW T10:307, 323, 350, 342. 55 CR 4:418; ADRG 3/​II:541; MBW T10:307. With reference to Article 2 he also mentions the question of whether the unregenerate can merit forgiveness de congruo (CR 4:484; ADRG 3/​II:626). 56 CR 4:430, 486–​ 87, 500–​ 501; ADRG 3/​ II:537, 627, 617; MBW T10:323, 350–​ 51, 343. Melanchthon addressed this issue in Einfaltigs Bedencken, 48b–​49a and in LT43 Y6b–​7a, Z3b–​6a; LC43 103–​104, 106–​107, as previously in his Apology (BSELK QuM1:463; BSELK 348) and in his Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (1540/​41), 50b–​55a; Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans,  47–​51. 57 CR 4:430, 485, 499; ADRG 3/​II:537, 626–​27, 615–​16; MBW T10:323, 349–​50, 341–​42.

42  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification six issues do not include the idea of inherent righteousness and a double righteousness. We will return to these six issues in ­chapter 6. Although Melanchthon came to object to Article 5 on the grounds of its ambiguity, he did not cease to claim that it could be interpreted in harmony with the Augsburg Confession and the Apology. He argued that the ambiguous articles (including Article 5) needed to be interpreted with a correct and clear exposition and that the Protestants understood them in line with the Confession and Apology.58 His reservations concerned the manner in which some Catholics were interpreting it. He was not so positive about the Regensburg Book as a whole, about which he had some harsh words to say in his Preface to the Acta: In the churches there certainly needs to be proper signification and clarity in speech. Those who love this will flee ambiguous statements, of which there are many in this book, which contains a number of passages manifestly in conflict with the doctrine of our churches.59

At the end of June Pistorius wrote a report on the Regensburg Book. Here he states that he had gone along with the use of this book as the basis for the debates because the other debaters were ready to accept it.60 This coheres with the judgement that “Pistorius undervalued the significance and range of the dogmatic questions of the period. He intensely disliked doctrinal polemics, and always treated dogmatic questions from a practical point of view.”61 Regarding Article 5, he shares the view that it needs further clarification. He complains, as does Melanchthon, that some at Regensburg were claiming that Article 5 teaches that it is only through love that we are acceptable to God.62 Of the three Protestant debaters, Bucer was the most positive about Article 5, for which he was criticised by the Lutherans.63 When he published

58 Protestant Statement to the Emperor (11/​12 July) in CR 4:478; ADRG 3/​II:607; MBW T10:356–​ 57. Similarly, CR 4:480; ADRG 3/​II:624; MBW T10:361–​62, 366. 59 CR 4:668; MBW T10:516 (MBW 3:226 [#2816]) = Melanchthon, Acta in conventu Ratisbonensi, sig. A4b. 60 Report of Pistorius (c. 30 June) in CR 4:440; ADRG 3/​II:490. 61 Mirbt, “Pistorius, Johannes Becker,” 74, translating Tzschirner/​Mirbt, “Pistorius, Johannes (Niddanus),” 417–​18. Cf. Günther, Die Reformation und ihre Kinder,  64–​65. 62 Report of Pistorius (c. 30 June) in CR 4:445; ADRG 3/​II:494. 63 e.g. Luther to Jonas (16 July) in WA Br. 9:474. Cf. Burkhard to Johann Friedrich (14 May) in CR 4:291; ADRG 3/​I:197; Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (14 May) in CR 4:293; Burkhard to Brück (23 May) in CR 4:324; Spalatin to Jonas (27 July) in CR 4:611.

Reactions to Article 5  43 his Acta, Luther stated that Bucer stank (foetet) and that he would never trust him again after Regensburg, though neither statement specifically mentions Article 5.64 Bucer continued to defend the article vigorously after the colloquy, as we shall see in the following chapters. He, too, was aware that Pighius and others were claiming that justification is by love, and he argued that this was mistaken and contrary to the teaching of Article 5.65 At a Protestant consultation about the Regensburg Book in July, Bucer commented that Gropper and Pflug had been at one with them over justification. Edhard Schnepf from Stuttgart objected to this assertion, claiming that if they had understood justification correctly, they would not have erred on the mass and purgatory. Bucer responded that Augustine must have understood justification correctly but was incorrect on the need to offer satisfaction.66 If people do not agree on the implications of a doctrine, does that mean that they do not agree on the doctrine itself? We will return to this issue in ­chapter 6. In his German edition of the Acta, Bucer refers glowingly to the first five articles. They explain briefly and clearly (“mit guten, claren, gewissen worten”) all that we need to know about original sin, grace, redemption, correct faith, and good works—​in short, all that is necessary to be newborn before God, righteous, and blessed.67 There is a pattern that fits much of the Protestant response to Article 5—​ initial enthusiasm followed by reservations. There are two prime reasons for this. The first is the failure to reach agreement on other articles. The enthusiasm that greeted Article 5 was enthusiasm at the prospect of reaching agreement across the board, not enthusiasm for the idea of agreeing on one point only.68 As with negotiations within the European Union today, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” Any concessions made in negotiations do not come into force until the entire deal is agreed. Events were soon to prove how unrealistic this hope was. It should be noted that while failure to agree on other articles dramatically undermined the value of Article 5 in the context of the colloquy, this does not of itself indicate that the agreement on justification was not genuine. 64 Luther to Justus Menius (10 January 1542) in WA Br. 9:590; WA Tr. 5:166 (#5461). 65 Bucer, De vera  .  .  .  reconcilatione et compositione [DVRC], 138a–​39a, 170a–​210a (especially 172b–​79b, 189b–​90a), 214a–​15b. 66 Report of Konrad Zwick (4/​5 July) in ADRG 3/​II:568. 67 Bucer, Alle Handlungen und Schriften zu vergleichung der Religion (1541/​2), 133b–​34b; MBDS 9/​ 2:293–​94. See n. 1, above. 68 Johann Friedrich to his envoys (13 May) in CR 4:285; ADRG 3/​I:188, states that the agreement on justification is nothing without agreement on the other articles.

44  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification The second reason was the way in which some Catholics were interpreting the article and the awareness of its ambiguities. Probably the greatest concern came from Eck’s claim that the article teaches that we are accepted by God, on account of love, and not by faith on account of Christ. As we have just seen, Melanchthon and Pistorius were concerned about this. Other Protestants at the colloquy shared this concern. Johannes Cellarius (Johann Kellner) of Dresden complained about Eck’s interpretation that love justifies and that it is only through love that we are pleasing to God.69 Johann Timann (Johannes Amsterdamus) from Bremen makes the same complaint and asks what this is but to bury the gospel.70 Caspar Cruciger of Leipzig wrote an entire document in response to Eck’s sophistries at Regensburg, concerning justification and the mass in particular. He notes that Eck believes in justification by grace, but not justification by faith alone. His understanding is that we are justified by the infusion of virtues.71 What are we to make of this? As we shall see shortly, Eck’s written verdict was that Article 5 was a harmful, maimed, mutilated, infantile declaration.72 There is no suggestion in his writings that Article 5 teaches justification by love. Were the Protestants spreading fake news about Eck? That is not likely, given the number of different witnesses to it. The most natural explanation is that Eck verbally claimed that Article 5 teaches justification by love in an attempt to justify his assent to it. Once that constraint had gone and he was no longer required to defend his acceptance of the article, he was able to interpret it according to its manifest sense and to heap abuse on it accordingly. We will return to this issue in c­ hapters 5 and 6. Regarding the interpretations given to the article, we must distinguish between unfounded claims made about its teaching, such as the claim that it teaches that we are accepted by God through love alone, and genuine ambiguities that lie in the text itself. Although the former was a matter of concern for the Protestant party at the time, only the latter need detain us as we examine its teaching today. Other Protestants present at Regensburg offered their assessments. Johann Brenz from Schwäbisch Hall complained that the article sought to satisfy both sides, the result being that many things need a fuller explanation. He did 69 Cellarius on Regensburg Book (n.d.) in ADRG 3/​II:499. 70 Timann (14 June) on Regensburg Book in ADRG 3/​II:489. Spiegel, “Johannes Timannus Amsterodamus und die Colloquien zu Worms und Regensburg” is mostly about Worms. 71 Remarks of Cruciger (n.d.) in ADRG 3/​II:520–​26, at 520. 72 See below, at n. 111.

Reactions to Article 5  45 not want Article 5 to be imposed on the churches in the interests of reaching agreement.73 Johann Timann likewise complained about the article’s ambiguity, citing specific examples. His personal preference was to reject the entire Regensburg Book.74 Ambrosius Blarer of Constance likewise complained that those things that were correctly stated in the article were then obscured by false teaching, of which he gives specific examples.75 Edhard Schnepf was very negative towards Article 5, which he saw as confused, obscure, and dangerous. He notes that surrounding articles, on matters such as satisfaction, purgatory and the sacrifice of the mass prove that the “other side” do not in fact agree with “us” on justification. In particular, the Catholic distinction between eternal punishment and temporal punishment is incompatible with a true understanding of justification.76 A more positive reaction is from Balthasar Käuffelin of Tübingen, who remarks that the article undermines almost all papist superstition and abuse.77 Bullinger was not present at the colloquy and, like Luther, was dependent upon reports from others.78 Two years later he published a short essay on the true justification of the Christian,79 and it has been claimed that Bullinger intended it as a response to the Regensburg search for compromise.80 It is true that he begins by saying that he is going to talk not about human debates but about the Word of God, who does not lie, but there is no reason to suppose that he is thinking specifically of Article 5. There is no mention of Regensburg or of Article 5, and the scope of the essay is far more general than a response to Article 5 would be, and does not contain any discussion of the controversial points found in the article. He expounds the scriptural teaching on 73 Brenz on Regensburg Book (n.d.) in ADRG 3/​II:506. 74 Timann (14 June) on Regensburg Book in ADRG 3/​II:488. The specific examples will be discussed in c­ hapter 5, below, on §8:2, 3. 75 Blarer on Article 5 (n.d.) in ADRG 3/​II:487. The specific examples will be discussed in ­chapter 5,  below. 76 Schnepf on Regensburg Book (n.d.) in ADRG 3/​II:514–​15. Cf. n. 66, above. 77 Protestant Report (28 June) in ADRG 3/​II:551. 78 Strohm, “Frontstellungen, Entwicklungen, Eigenart der Rechtfertigungslehre bei Bullinger,” 549–​52. Strohm’s sources demonstrate that Bullinger was kept informed and received Bucer’s Acta (Schieß, Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer 1509–​1548, 2:86–​88, 91, 93, 95), but they make no mention of Article 5. As the example of Calvin shows, dissatisfaction with the colloquy as a whole can coexist with approval of Article 5. Rudolf Walthart in his report to Bullinger on the colloquy gives a one-​sentence factual account of Article 5 (Weisz (ed.), “Schweizerquellen zur Geschichte des Regensburger Reichstages von 1541,” 99). 79 “De vera hominis Christiani iustificatione” in his In divinum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium secundum Ioannem, Commentariorum libri X, aa2a–​bb6b. In 1546 this was published separately in German: Von warer rechtfertigung eins Christen menschens, und von rechtgeschaffenen gutten wercken. 80 Strohm, “Frontstellungen, Entwicklungen, Eigenart der Rechtfertigungslehre bei Bullinger,” 552–​57.

46  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification justification with no mention of any later “debates” other than the odd reference to Augustine.81

Contemporary Catholic Reactions The initial Catholic response came from Contarini. He sent to his friends, together with the article, a short explanatory note (Scheda Minor) on justification, defending it at two crucial points: dependence on imputed righteousness and the failure to mention merit.82 Zur Mühlen describes this as “an astonishing document for the dogmatic openness of pre-​tridentine Catholic reform theology.”83 Contarini also engaged in lengthy correspondence with colleagues in Italy. Later in the month (25 May), Contarini wrote an Epistola de iustificatione (Letter on Justification),84 in which he defended himself against the criticisms of Messer Angelo, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga’s theological adviser.85 Here he expounded his own understanding of justification in the context of the Regensburg article, which he mentions only occasionally. Contarini cites Thomas Aquinas five times in this letter, and his exponents have noted his failure adequately to reconcile the Thomist and Lutheran strands in his thought.86 Matheson states that Contarini’s formal theological works “exhibit 81 Strohm’s case is not helped by the fact that he misrepresents the Worms draft as a clear rejection of sola fide (cf. §§. 44, 46 of the draft) and accuses Article 5 of adopting the doctrine of double justification expounded in the Worms Draft (“Frontstellungen, Entwicklungen, Eigenart der Rechtfertigungslehre bei Bullinger,” 550–​51). 82 CT 12:313–​14. Also in Brieger, “Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 591–​95; ADRG 3/​I:114–​15. On the dissemination of this, see Brieger, “Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 592–​93. To the recipients there listed should be added Farnese, to whom Contarini sent a copy on 10 July at his request (Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 494. Summary in Regesten, 211–​12). According to Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini:  Un Magistrato Veneziano al Servizio della Cristianità, 62, this infringement of confidentiality was a grave error by Contarini. 83 Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 348. 84 Contarini, Epistola de iustificatione in CC 7:23–​34; ADRG 3/​I:242–​50. Also in CT 12:314–​22, where variant readings are given. The text adopted by CT (as opposed to the variant readings given) varies from CC 7 in ten places, none of which is significant for our purposes. 85 See Contarini to Gonzaga (3 May) in Regesten, 324 (summary in Regesten, 177) for the sending of Article 5 to Gonzaga to be forwarded to Angelo. For the sending of the Epistola, see Contarini to Gonzaga (30 May) in Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura tratti dai manoscritti di Monsignor Ludovico Beccadelli I/​2, 149. Extract in Regesten, 190. For the correct date, see Regesten, 190 n. 1. For Contarini’s apprehensions about Gonzaga’s reactions to it, see Contarini to Gonzaga (19 July) in Friedensburg, “Der Briefwechsel Gasparo Contarini’s mit Ercole Gonzaga nebst einem Briefe Giovanni Pietro Carafa’s,” 216. 86 Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 104–​106; zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 349–​ 51; Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 233. Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 4–​47 brings out the influence of Thomas on Contarini’s earlier works, especially his Confutatio Articulorum

Reactions to Article 5  47 a profoundly unoriginal mind” and lead one to wonder whether he “ever had an original thought in theology.”87 Whatever may be said of his other writings, this is not at all true of his Epistola de iustificatione, which has teased the minds of his interpreters. His doctrine of justification (as there set out) has been the subject of considerable controversy. It has been variously understood as Catholic,88 as Protestant,89 or as a compromise between the two.90 The rival interpretations go back to the sixteenth century. On returning to Italy in 1541, Contarini was disturbed to hear that in Rome he was regarded as a Lutheran.91 However, the 1571 Paris edition of Contarini’s works contains two commendations from the Sorbonne, explicitly endorsing his Epistola de iustificatione as Catholic.92 This view was not shared Lutheranorum. Stupperich, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen, 100; Mackensen, “Contarini’s Theological Role at Ratisbon,” 46–​49 rightly question Rückert’s excessive emphasis on Contarini’s Thomism. Jedin observes that while the teaching of Thomas was Contarini’s starting point in the struggle against Luther, it did not suffice, and he went on to study the Bible and the Fathers, especially Augustine (Jedin, “Contarini (Gasparo),” 781–​82). Pauselli, “Note sugli Scholia di Gasparo Contarini ad Efesini e Galati,” 148–​51 notes ways in which Contarini, in his Scholia, distances himself from Thomas’s doctrine of justification. 87 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 173; he is considerably kinder to Contarini’s letters (174), which, as Gleason notes, remain a good read after nearly half a millennium (Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 247). 88 Advocates of this view are listed in CC 7:XXI. Also Jedin, Kardinal Contarini als Kontroverstheologe, 16; Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, 1:383; “Contarini (Gasparo),” 781. Jedin’s position is that while it is not Tridentine, nor is it Protestant. It was a legitimate Catholic position prior to Trent. For an account of various assessments of Contarini, see Ricca, “I Colloqui di Ratisbona: l’azione e le idee di Gaspare Contarini,” 226–​34; Arnold, Die Römische Zensur der Werke Cajetans und Contarinis,  31–​41. 89 Advocates of this view are listed in CC 7:XXI–​XXII. The leading exponent of this view, Brieger, qualifies it to a limited extent in his “Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 578–​81. 90 Advocates of this view are listed in CC 7:XXII. Also Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 80–​106; Mackensen, “Contarini’s Theological Role at Ratisbon”; von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 38–​47; Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 171–​81; zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 345–​ 52; Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 230–​35; Luca Baschera, Tugend und Rechtfertigung, 194–​99—​at least, in the sense that none of these sees Contarini’s doctrine of justification as purely Protestant or purely Catholic. Hünermann, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Kardinals Gasparo Contarini,” is an especially clear, though not necessarily convincing, exposition of this point of view. Jedin, with an uncharacteristic naivety, comments that this view “is obviously untenable, for in the sphere of faith there can be no middle course, that is, there is no half-​truth but only truth and error” (History of the Council of Trent, 1:383). 91 Contarini to Farnese (23 August) in Regesten, 346–​47. Extract in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 500. Summary in Regesten, 223–​24. His response was that his accusers must be ignorant of the actual teaching of the Lutherans, not to mention of Augustine and Thomas. He also pointed out that Luther had rejected Article 5 and that the Protestants had stated, at the end of the Diet, that they wanted the article to express their views better. A month earlier (22 July) he was aware of accusations and expressed to Cervini the naive hope that on his return to Italy there might be “un bel simposio sopra li articoli, nei quali discordano, perchè sin hora non li intendo bene” (Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura tratti dai manoscritti di Monsignor Ludovico Beccadelli I/​2, 185. Extract in Regesten, 217–​18). The time had passed for such free discussion in Italy. 92 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, sig. a3, dated 1570 and 1571. CC 7:XXX.

48  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification by the Venetian Inquisitor, Marco Medici, who insisted on emending the letter in the 1578 and 1589 Venice editions of Contarini’s works.93 The great majority of recent interpreters see Contarini’s doctrine as lying somewhere between the Catholic and Protestant doctrines. This should not be taken to imply that there is any consensus, since this position is akin to stating that an American town lies somewhere between Los Angeles and New York. The variety of opinions could be taken to indicate that prior to Trent it was still possible to hold a doctrine of justification that was acceptable to both Protestants and Catholics. There is no serious doubt that Contarini’s doctrine is not consistent with Trent. Our present concern, however, is not primarily to give it a label, or even to expound it for its own sake, but rather to establish what he taught in order to use his works as an aid to the interpretation of Article 5. On the Catholic side, Contarini’s enthusiasm94 was not shared by all. Eck had never been never happy with the progress of the colloquy, even if he was brought temporarily into compliance.95 After the end of the colloquy Eck reverted to his original opinion and on 4/​5 July delivered his verdict on the Regensburg Book: This stupid book, in which I have discovered so many errors and defects, neither was, nor is, nor will be pleasing. Therefore my judgement is, as it always was, that it should not be accepted by Catholics, because having abandoned the way of speaking of the Church and of the Fathers it “Melanchthonises.”96

Eck also claimed that not only did he not agree with version of the book that was submitted to the Emperor, but he had never even seen 93 For details of the changes, see CC 7:XXXIII–​XXXVII; Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 679. 94 For Contarini’s reaction to Article 5, see Lane, “Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy.” 95 See c­ hapter 1, n. 145. 96 Eck on Regensburg Book (4/​5 July) in CR 4:459–​60; ADRG 3/​II:567; ARC 3:387. This statement is included in Eck, Apologia . . . adversus mucores et calumnias Buceri super actis comitiorum Ratisponae (1542), 151b. Eck makes a similar comment earlier in this volume (41b). He also states that, despite claims to the contrary, barely two articles were agreed on which there was not prior agreement (44b–​45b). When the meaning of Eck’s Latin was not clear, I consulted the German translation by Michael Wagner: Auff Butzers falsch außschreiben der handlung im Reichßtag zu Regenspurg. Anno M.D.XLI. (1542). For comments on Eck’s statement, see Burckhard to Johann Friedrich (8 July) in CR 4:466–​67; Melanchthon to Brenz (11 July) in CR 4:475; MBW T10:337 (MBW 3:195–​96 [#2748]). For a further reference to “insulso et erroneo libro,” see Eck to Contarini (20 January 1542) in Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 479.

Reactions to Article 5  49 it.97 On 6 July he wrote a Responsum to the Regensburg Book.98 Contarini responded to it point by point,99 and Eck replied.100 Pflug also responded to Eck, but unfortunately only his responses to the first four articles survive, and not his response to Article 5.101 Gropper and Pflug were offended by Eck’s 5 July statement and responded with their own statement to Granvelle and Count Frederick, the presidents of the colloquy.102 They pointed out that Eck had been with them in the debates as far as the article on the Eucharist and had acknowledged, not just verbally but in writing, that the agreed articles were sound and Catholic. The presidents had heard him “endorse for us with his own mouth all those things that were at every point produced by him.” Indeed, they went so far as to claim that he had gladly assented to Article 5, of which “he alone was the principal author.”103 The Emperor responded with an attestation in favour of Gropper and Pflug.104 (Bucer also, in his Acta, printed Eck’s “false testimony” concerning the proceedings,105 gave his own comments siding with the “pious and honourable” Pflug and Gropper, printed the responses of Gropper and Pflug and of the Emperor,106 and concluded with further comment against Eck’s “openly false testimony”).107 Eck wrote a “friendly response” to Pflug and Gropper’s “Supplication” in his Apologia, published in 1542 in response to 97 Eck on Regensburg Book (4/​5 July) in CR 4:460; ARC 3:387; ADRG 3/​II:567. In Apologia, 153b, he again complains that he had neither seen nor read the final version of the book that was presented to the Emperor. For Bucer’s reaction to this and the previous (at n. 96, above) statement of Eck, see at nn. 105–​107, below. 98 Published in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 12–​19; ADRG 3/​II:574–​83. The material relevant to Article 5 (“Miscellanea Ratisbonensia ,” 12, 14; ADRG 3/​II:574, 577) is also found in Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 69–​70. 99 Published in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 19–​22; ADRG 3/​II:583–​86. The material relevant to Article 5 (“Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 19–​20; ADRG 3/​II:583–​84) is found in Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 70. 100 Published in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 22–​25; ADRG 3/​II:586–​89. A short extract (from 25/​589) is found in Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 70. 101 ADRG 3/​ II:589–​ 98; The Prologue only is published in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 25 and Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 71. For more on the remainder, see Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 7–​8. 102 Pflug and Gropper to Granvelle and Count Frederick (6/​7 July) in JGB 1:190–​96; CR 4:460–​64; ADRG 3/​II:599–​602. Summary in Pflug, Correspondance 2:235–​38. 103 Pflug and Gropper to Granvelle and Count Frederick (6/​7 July) in JGB 1:194–​95; CR 4:462–​63; ADRG 3/​II:600–​601. 104 Pflug, Correspondance 2:239. Contarini informed Farnese of the row (9 August) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte I,” 184. Summary in Regesten, 219. 105 See at n. 96–​97, above. 106 See at nn. 102–​104, above 107 Bucer, Alle Handlungen und Schriften zu vergleichung der Religion, 225b–​36a; MBDS 9/​ 2:396–​403.

50  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Bucer, towards whose slander (maledicentia) he was less than friendly.108 He furiously denied the charge of authorship of either the initial or the final draft of Article 5,109 and the accounts of the Protestant participants would seem to vindicate him on this point.110 Regarding the charge that he had assented to Article 5, he pleads guilty, but continues that it was not divine faith that persuaded him to approve of this harmful, maimed, mutilated, infantile declaration.111 What he does not mention is that it was only under pressure from Granvelle that he had signed.112 Eck had not liked the first draft of Article 5 (the Worms Draft), later declaring that in the whole book he had heard nothing less learned than the exposition of that article, and referring to its “puerile and sophistical allurement.”113 He did not think much better of the final draft and vehemently repudiated any responsibility for its composition. He expressed his determination not to make a “monkey” of himself, by abandoning the ecclesiastical way of speaking and copying Luther, Bucer and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession by allowing that we are justified by faith alone. “God forbid and I pray God never to allow me to sink into such insanity.”114 But of course Eck did give his assent to the final draft, a fact that he would have preferred to forget. He explains that although he had perceived it to be “at variance with the Catholic way of speaking,” he did not want to fight over words—​ especially as “the adversaries interpreted soundly words that to me appeared suspect.”115 For Eck the prime issue with Article 5 was the wording,116 which he recognised could be given a satisfactory meaning, seeking verbal loopholes as Melanchthon complained.117 It was this recognition that left 108 Apologia, 152b–​55b. 109 Apologia, 154a–​b. 110 Cruciger to Bugenhagen ([5]‌May) in CR 4:252; ADRG 3/​I:132 & 181; Saxon envoys to Johann Friedrich (5 May) in CR 4:254; ADRG 3/​I:134; Report of Melanchthon (13 July) in CR 4:581; ADRG 3/​II:663. 111 Apologia, 154b. 112 As Caspar Peucer testifies: “Eccium etiam cum descriptae formulae testimonium Chirographi addendum esset, tergiversantem, et astute renuentem, facere id [Granvella] coegit” (Operum Reverendi Viri Philippi Melanthonis Pars Quarta, sig. a4b (Epistola Dedicatoria)). 113 Apologia, 154a; cf. 151a. 114 Apologia, 154b. 115 Apologia, 151a. Pfnür, “Johannes Ecks Verständnis der Religionsgespräche, sein theologischer Beitrag in ihnen und seine Sicht der Konfessionsgegensätze,” 248 credits Eck with seeing the terminological differences clearly. 116 See Apologia, 41b: “hic totus quasi Melanchtonisat, nullius sancti patris secutus sententiam, aut modum loquendi” (also in ADRG 3/​II:770). Cf. A.  P. Luttenberger, “Johann Eck und die Religionsgespräche,” 204; Pfnür, “Die Einigung bei den Religionsgesprächen von Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41 eine Täuschung?,” 72. 117 Melanchthon maintained to Luther (30 April) that Eck “non repugnat de articulo iustificationis; tantum querit verborum latebras” (CR 4:239, WA Br. 9:385; ADRG 3/​I:109).

Reactions to Article 5  51 him vulnerable to the pressure from his fellow Catholics to sign the article. Shortly after the closure of the diet, on 13 August 1541, Eck wrote a letter dedicating the new (and definitive) edition of his Enchiridion to Cardinal Farnese, in which he mentions an “ignorant book,” referring to the Regensburg Book.118 Despite this, nothing in the work significantly impinges on Article 5. The view of Pighius is less clear. Contarini, when he sent Article 5 to Farnese observed that it “is largely the view of Pighius, which I  saw in his writings, now printed but kept suppressed,” referring to Pighius’s Controversies.119 Indeed, some scholars have claimed Pighius as the author of double righteousness. Eck, however, claimed that Pighius was displeased with the Regensburg Book.120 These rival claims will be assessed in c­ hapter 4. Although Contarini wrote to Rome that the article was “very Catholic” (cattolichissimo) and contained no ambiguity,121 it was there greeted with deep suspicion, and he was repeatedly forced to write in defence of it. Pole sent his friend Alvise Priuli to Rome to sound out key figures, and Priuli reported to Contarini’s secretary, Lodovico Beccadelli, at Regensburg. He found little enthusiasm for the article. There was general agreement with Cardinal Gian Pietro Carafa that it could be given a Catholic interpretation, but fear about how the Protestants would interpret it. They were likely to try maliciously to persuade others that Catholics (li nostri) had been won over to their view. He was worried about the novelty, not of the term “imputed righteousness,” but of the term “inherent righteousness.” He was particularly concerned about the idea of double righteousness and the failure to mention merit. He also found the article wanting on works after justification and failing to explain eternal life. Cardinal Marcello Cervini (later Pope Marcellus II) warned of the danger of gaining support in Germany at the cost of losing it in Italy. He was not fully satisfied with the novel teaching of double righteousness (distintion di giustitia), though he accepted that it could be given a good meaning.122 118 Eck, Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae (CC 34), 14–​ 16 (quotation at 15). On this edition, see ibid., 89*; Metzler (ed.), Tres Orationes Funebres in Exequiis Ioannis Eckii Habitae (CC 16), XCVII. 119 Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 372–​73. Summary in Regesten, 177. For Pighius’s Controversies and his activities at Regensburg, see Lane, “Albert Pighius’s Controversial Work on Original Sin.” 120 Apologia, 34a. 121 Contarini to Farnese (9 June) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation (1541),” 478–​79. Summary in Regesten, 194. 122 Priuli to Beccadelli (20 May) in Dionisotti, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” 266–​68. Summary in Regesten, 185. Bembo alerted Contarini to this (21 May) in Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia

52  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Pietro Bembo and Frederico Fregoso were the only two cardinals who clearly supported Contarini. Even Fregoso had second thoughts, specifically hesitations about the distinction between two types of righteousness (“distintione di queste due iustitie”), but he thought it could be given a good and Catholic and Christian interpretation. (Fregoso shortly after left Rome for Gubbio, where he died on 22 July.) Bembo reported to Contarini on 27 May that his letter of 5 May reporting the agreement regarding Article 5 had been discussed that day in consistory. He commented that among the cardinals there was as many opinons as heads (“quot enim capita, tot sententiae”). He described how Fregoso had defended it learnedly and spiritedly.123 The following month, Bembo expressed his approval of Contarini’s Epistola de iustificatione.124 Bernardino Ochino alleged, after his defection to Protestantism, that Fregoso had told him that of the fifty cardinals due to discuss the matter in consistory, at least thirty would not know what justification was, that most of the remainder would oppose the article, and that anyone defending it would be considered a heretic!125 Cardinal Farnese sent Contarini two letters of official response to the article. In the first, of 29 May, he states that the pope had not wanted it to be widely seen so it was not read in consistory [on 27 May]. Those who had seen it said that though the sense might be Catholic, the wording was too ambiguous. The pope had neither approved nor disapproved of the article. It is noteworthy that the charge against Article 5 in these early stages was ambiguity, not unorthodoxy, and even Carafa, who would shortly set up the Roman Inquisition, thought that it could be given a Catholic interpretation. Farnese reminded Contarini that he had no authority to decide anything. Nor should he let the Protestants give the impression that he had favoured their doctrines.126 A further letter was sent on 14 June. The pope and the college of cardinals had unanimously decided not to allow any toleration of the

Letteratura I/​2, 148–​49. Extract in Regesten, 185. For Bembo’s involvement, see Simoncelli, “Pietro Bembo e l’evangelismo italiano,” 23–​31. 123 Bembo to Contarini (27 May) in Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura I/​2, 167–​69; Brieger, “Zur Correspondenz Contarini’s während seiner deutschen Legation,” 506. Extract in Regesten, 187–​88. On this letter, see Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 682–​83). 124 Bembo to Contarini (11 June) in Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura I/​2, 177. Extract in Regesten, 196–​97. Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 252 wrongly refers this comment to Article 5. 125 Regesten, 187; Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 682. 126 Farnese to Contarini (29 May, but not sent till 14 June) in Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli 3:CCXXXII–​III (wrongly numbered CCXXII–​III); ADRG 3/​I:257–​58. Summary in Regesten, 188. On the authorship of this letter, see Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 242, n. 231; on the deficiencies of the printed edition, see ibid., 243, n. 233. ADRG 3/​I:257–​58 is taken not from Quirini but from the original Vatican manuscript. Cf. Cardauns (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 7:20.

Reactions to Article 5  53 damnable opinions (opinioni dannate) of the Protestants.127 Rome turned its back on Regensburg, though Article 5 itself was never condemned. Contarini and the Emperor were happy with Article 5, but they were also clear that unless there were agreement on all articles the agreed articles would have no status.128 Also of interest is the reaction of two of Contarini’s friends:  Cardinals Reginald Pole129 and Jacopo Sadoleto. On 3 May, Contarini sent Pole a copy of Article 5, together with a covering letter, and the latter responded on 17 May.130 In this letter Pole eloquently and at length expresses his joy at the harmony of views, at the great foundation of peace and concord, and at this foundation of the whole Christian faith: Indeed I  felt myself flooded with such joy when I  saw this accord of opinions. No melody, however sweet, would ever have been able to have soothed the spirit and the ears so greatly. I felt this way not only because I saw that a mighty foundation of peace and concord had been laid, but also because I recognized this foundation as the one that above all, as it seems to me, adds lustre to Christ’s glory. It is the very foundation of all Christian teaching. For even if matters seem to be treated under different heads, as concerning faith, concerning works, or concerning justification, nevertheless they are all referred back to the single head of justification. And I am most devoutly grateful at this, that the theologians of both parties have agreed concerning it, and I give thanks to God through Christ, who has chosen you [plural] to be this kind of servant of him and equipped you to construct so resplendent an agreement on so solid a basis.131 127 Farnese to Contarini (14 June) in Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli 3:CCXLIII–​CCXLV. Summary in Regesten, 199. On the date and the state of the text, see Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 247, n. 246. Cf. Cardauns (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 7:20–​22; Brieger, “Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 595–​604. 128 See Contarini to Farnese (14 June) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 482. Summary in Regesten, 198; Contarini to Farnese (5 July) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 489. Summary in Regesten, 209–​10; Contarini to Farnese (19 July) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte I,” 180. Summary in Regesten, 216. The Protestants were of the same opinion (Vetter, Die Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg, 100–​101). 129 Pole came within one vote of being elected pope in 1549/​50. See Mayer, “The War of the Two Saints: the Conclave of Julius III and Cardinal Pole.” 130 Mayer (ed.), The Correspondence of Reginald Pole, 1:263–​65 (#322). Previously in Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli 3:25–​26. Extract in Regesten, 184–​85. On this letter, see Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet, 108–​109. Contarini’s letter to Pole is missing, but Pole’s reply begins by referring to it, with its date. 131 Mayer (ed.), Correspondence, 1:264; Anderson, “Biblical Humanism and Roman Catholic Reform,” 701–​702.

54  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification This letter used to be taken to indicate Pole’s support for Article 5, but more recent scholarship has questioned this, on three main grounds.132 Immediately before the summarised passage, Pole expressed himself rather enigmatically, in a brief and somewhat obscure passage: Quod vero ipse sensi, cum tuas literas legi, a me potius intelliges, quam quod sentio. Quid enim sentiam jampridem cognovisti, nec opus est de hoc plura dicere.133 You will understand more from me what I felt when I read your letter than whatever I myself feel at the present moment, for what my feelings are, you have already known for a long time. Nor is it necessary to say more.134

Some have taken this as a non-​committal veiling of his own view. But that is unlikely given the enthusiastic and fulsome praise for the article that immediately follows—​especially as it begins “Indeed I felt” (Sensi vero). Secondly, Pole disappointed Contarini by not going to Rome to defend the article in consistory.135 Clearly, Pole was reluctant to give his support in that way, but disagreement with the teaching of the article is certainly not the only possible explanation of this hesitation. A few years later he was also to withdraw from Trent when the going got tough,136 and he behaved similarly on other occasions.137 It has been suggested that the issue each time was Pole’s personality, his desire to avoid face-​to-​face confrontation.138 More serious is the remark that he made in his next letter, on 16 July.139 Here he begins by approving Contarini’s work: 132 e.g. Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy, 60–​61; Simoncelli, “Vom Humanismus zur Gegenreformation,” 97–​99; Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 249–​50. Simoncelli also refers to Priuli’s silence about Pole’s view in a letter of 15 July (“Vom Humanismus zur Gegenreformation,” 100). In another letter to Beccadelli, however, Priuli indicates Pole’s agreement with a key element of the article: not depending upon inherent righteousness (Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli 3:LXXII). 133 Mayer (ed.), Correspondence, 1:263–​64. 134 I am grateful to Tom Mayer for sending me (in a private email) his proposed translation of this passage, which is largely followed here. 135 On Pole’s absence, see Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet, 105–​12. Contarini expressed his disappointment to Bembo (28 June) in Regesten, 341. Summary in Regesten, 207. Pole attempts to explain his absence in his letter to Contarini of 16 July (Mayer (ed.), Correspondence, 1:269–​70). 136 Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet, 153–​56. 137 Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet, 192–​93, 200. 138 Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet, 105, 110, 154, 193, 200; Edwards, Archbishop Pole, 99–​100 and (in Pole’s own words) 269. Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Italy, 56 also suggests that Pole was “taking the easy way out,” though he also claims that Pole had reservations with the article. 139 Mayer (ed.), Correspondence, 1:268–​71. Previously in Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli 3:26–​30. Extract in Regesten, 213–​15. On this letter, see Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet, 109–​10.

Reactions to Article 5  55 As I  see it, in this very difficult matter of justification, you excelled in your letter, and moreover came to a conclusion which perfectly fits with Scripture and the mind of the Church; so as I read I was overjoyed, for it should help many (I hope) by removing many stumbling-​blocks.

But he follows this by expressing his regret that Contarini had not been forced, by stronger [Catholic] opposition, to demonstrate the scriptural foundation of his doctrine: The only thing I thought lacking was a more energetic opponent, who could have given you the opportunity to respond from the Scriptures to those points that are usually alleged against the position you defend. There seem to be several of these, and such as to call for explanation, and for you to do the explaining.140

This has been taken to imply Pole’s unhappiness with Article 5, but there are two reasons to question this view. First, it is not necessary to treat the affirming sentence as merely the sugar to coat the pill of disagreement. Pole says clearly enough that he agrees with Contarini’s conclusions but has reservations about the way in which they were argued. He goes on to refute the charge that Contarini is approving novel teaching, responding that it was rather the “foundation and head of the teachings of all the ancient forefathers of the Church.” It was like a precious jewel which the church had always held, partly hidden and partly disclosed.141 But even if we concede that Pole’s reservations were more fundamental, the remarks were made concerning Contarini’s own statement on justification “in that letter.”142 To what letter is he referring? Since he had sent Priuli to Rome “with the two writings on the matter of justification,” Pole had certainly received Contarini’s Scheda Minor on justification, as well as Article 5.143 Contarini had written a letter to Pole on 3 May, and by July Pole will have received the copy of Contarini’s Epistola de iustificatione sent to him 140 Mayer (ed.), Correspondence, 1:268–​69. 141 Mayer (ed.), Correspondence, 1:269–​70. The context is Pole’s defence of his failure to argue Contarini’s case at Rome. Could the “margaritam preciosam” (270) echo the “praeciosa margarita” of Contarini’s Epistola de iustificatione (CC 7:30; ADRG 3/​I:247)? 142 Mayer (ed.), Correspondence, 1:268. 143 Priuli to Beccadelli (20 May) in Dionisotti, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” 266 (my emphasis). Cf. Brieger, “Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 592; Simoncelli, “Vom Humanismus zur Gegenreformation,” 97.

56  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification by Bembo.144 It makes more sense to refer the jubilation of Pole’s first letter (17 May) to Article 5 (to which it explicitly refers), and the hesitations of his second letter to Contarini’s own writings, since Pole there explicitly refers to Contarini’s own views and exposition. Indeed, the timing of this letter (16 July) makes it likely that Pole is referring to the (recently received) Epistola de iustificatione, which is what he probably means by “that letter.” Pole returned to this theme in August, in a letter that has been hitherto overlooked in the scholarship.145 Contarini had evidently asked which passages of Scripture were being used by his opponents who were opposing, as Pole put it, “not your view (sententiam) on our justification through Christ, but the Church’s view as explained by you.” Pole goes on both to affirm that Contarini’s view was consonant with Scripture and to express his confidence in the latter’s ability to answer such objections. Finally, Pole wrote again to Contarini, on 1 May 1542, with positive comments about his doctrine of justification.146 Given these positive affirmations, it is too Machiavellian to claim that Pole does not agree with Article 5 or with Contarini’s view. It makes more sense to see the reservations he expresses as lying precisely where he states that they lie, with Contarini’s manner of exposition rather than his views. But even if he also had reservations concerning the latter, there are no grounds for extending these to Article 5 itself. In short, there are no valid grounds for denying Pole’s approval of Article 5.147 It was Pole’s misfortune to be mistrusted everywhere. In the words of Pietro Carnesecchi, in Rome he was seen as a Lutheran; in Germany, as a papist; in Flanders, as French; and in France, as on the side of the Emperor!148 Sadolet’s views are less ambiguous.149 He received from Pier Paulo Vergerio at Regensburg copies of Article 5 and of Contarini’s Scheda Minor 144 Bembo to Contarini (25 June) in Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura I/​2, 181. Extract in Regesten, 204. 145 Pole to Contarini (22 August) in Coleti (ed.), Epistolae Angelimariae Quirini, 564. Not in Regesten. Brieger, “Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 593 describes this as a “bisher übersehene wichtige Brief,” and to my knowledge, there has been no reference to it since then. Pallavicino, Istoria del Concilio di Trento, 1:417 (= Vera Concilii Tridentini Historia, 1:407) refers to the letter, dates it, and states that he is in possession of the original. Tom Mayer informs me that Pallavicino had good access to the Pole correspondence registers at Rome and that his claim to have had the original is compelling (private email, 15 June 2002). For more on Pallavicino see Mayer (ed.), Correspondence, 1:10. I am grateful to Mayer for a very helpful email exchange on Pole’s letters. 146 Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli 3:52–​ 54 at 53. Extracts in Regesten, 232–​ 33; Mayer (ed.), Correspondence, 1:285–​86. On this letter, see Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet, 125. 147 For Pole’s later interaction with Contarini, see Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet, 124–​ 30. See also Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 292–​98. 148 Firpo and Marcatto (eds.), I Processi Inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi (1557–​1567), 2:492. 149 See Douglas, Jacopo Sadoleto: 1477–​1547, 158–​60.

Reactions to Article 5  57 on justification,150 to which he responded with a document asking whether we should depend on our inherent righteousness or the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.151 In it, he responds to the “minore schedula,” meaning Contarini’s Scheda Minor, from which he quotes at length,152 discussing the first part of the two points covered in the Scheda—​whether we should rely on inherent righteousness or imparted righteousness. Sadolet sent this little treatise (piccolo discorso) to Vergerio and (not realising who the author of the Scheda Minora was153) also asked his nephew to send it to Beccadelli so that he could show it to Contarini. The teaching of the Scheda, he felt, inclined very much to the Lutheran opinion and would give birth to moral licence. He considered it a greater danger to true Christianity than the concession of clerical marriage.154 Sadolet also wrote to Ambrogio Catarino Polito at this time, contrasting the latter’s newly published De perfectione iustitiae with the teaching of Article 5, to the disadvantage of the latter.155 Sadolet was upset when he discovered that he had been attacking Contarini’s own teaching,156 and got his nephew Paul to write an apologetic letter to Beccadelli. In the Scheda that was previously so dangerous there now remained “a little ambiguity,” and rather than inclining very much to Lutheranism, it was now capable of being twisted in that direction.157 Essentially, both the Protestant and Catholic responses were twofold. Some maintained that the Regensburg article was compatible with their own teaching.158 Others regarded it as a compromising patchwork that 150 Paulo Sadoleto to Beccadelli (22 June) in Sadolet and Sadolet, Lettere del Card. Iacopo Sadoleto e di Paulo suo Nipote, xxi–​xxii, reprinted in full in Regesten, 202–​203, announces that Vergerio has sent Sadolet “queste due cedule.” Also Sadolet to Tommaso Campeggio (1 August) in Jacobi Sadoleti Epistolarum Appendix (Rome, 1767), xxvi–​xxvii. 151 Votum de justitia nobis inherente, et de justitia Christi nobis imputata, utra debeamus niti (Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura I/​2, 162–​67; CT 12:322–​25). For the contents of this Votum, see Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 692–​94. See ­chapter 5, below, at nn. 386–​87. 152 It is not Contarini’s Epistola de iustificatione to which Sadolet is responding, pace Douglas, Jacopo Sadoleto: 1477–​1547, 158. 153 For his ignorance, see Sadolet to Campeggio (1 August) in Jacobi Sadoleti Epistolarum Appendix, xxvii. 154 Paulo Sadoleto to Beccadelli (22 June) in Lettere del Card. Iacopo Sadoleto e di Paulo suo Nipote, xxi–​xxii, reprinted in full in Regesten, 202–​203 and (from the original) in Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini: Un Magistrato Veneziano al Servizio della Cristianità, 66, n. 151. 155 Sadolet to Catarino (June) in Jacobi Sadoleti Epistolae, vol. 3 (Rome, 1764), 267. Extract in Regesten, 203. Simoncelli, “Vom Humanismus zur Gegenreformation,” 100, notes the influence of Catarino upon Sadolet’s Votum. 156 Sadolet to Campeggio (1 August) in Jacobi Sadoleti Epistolarum Appendix, xxvii. 157 Paulo Sadoleto to Beccadelli (31 August) in Lettere del Card. Iacopo Sadoleto e di Paulo suo Nipote, xxi–​xxii, reprinted in full in Regesten, 224. Fuller extract (from the original) in Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini: Un Magistrato Veneziano al Servizio della Cristianità, 66–​67, n. 151. 158 Francesco Contarini, the Venetian ambassador, reported to the Senate (29 May) that each side was claiming that the other had embraced their opinion, referring to Article 5, among others (Regesten, 189).

58  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification was dangerously ambiguous rather than actually false. Both sides agreed that further explanation was necessary. Gleason rightly comments that the objections of both Rome and Wittenberg concerned not so much the content of Article 5 as fear of how the other side would exploit it. Unlike the participants at Regensburg, neither Luther nor the Curia was willing to settle for anything short of total victory.159 Eck was unwilling to accept the idea of imputed righteousness; Luther was concerned about how inherent righteousness was understood, though without being totally opposed to the idea of duplex iustitia.160 Those who saw the need for both inherent and imputed righteousness viewed Article 5 more positively, though this positive attitude did not extend to the colloquy as a whole. One response to the irreconcilable nature of the split between the two sides was the papal bull Licet ab initio (21 July 1542), which reorganised the Inquisition. The results were unpleasant for the Italians who had been involved at Regensburg. Contarini avoided the attentions of the Inquisition by the expedient of dying shortly after the promulgation of the bull (24 August). A year before this, he was already suspected of Lutheran sympathies.161 Some years later, Morone was imprisoned for a period in the Castel Sant’ Angelo, at the instigation of Pope Paul IV. The prime charge against him was that he believed Article 5 in a Lutheran sense.162 Contarini and Badia (who had died in 1547) were both accused of Waldensianism, justification again being a key issue.163 The Italian hand that had joined hands with the German Reformation164 was to be cut off with the sword. What many had considered an acceptable Catholic position had now become heresy.165 159 Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 244. Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​ katholieken en Protestanten, 102 refers to the mistrust between Rome and Wittenberg. Eells, “The Failure of Church Unification Efforts during the German Reformation,” 171 points out that it was useless for the debaters to agree if those above them did not. 160 See Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 102, though he is wrong to suggest that Luther was totally opposed to the idea of duplex iustitia. See above, at n. 25, and also c­ hapter 4, below. 161 Contarini to Farnese (23 August) in Regesten, 346–​47. Extract in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 500. Summary in Regesten, 223–​24. For Contarini’s reception in Italy after the colloquy, see Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 257–​60. 162 Simoncelli, “Vom Humanismus zur Gegenreformation,” 103–​10. For Morone’s trouble with the Inquisition, see Robinson, The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone, 87–​109, esp. 99–​107, and 103 on justification; for his view of justification, see 59, 74–​80. For the accusations against Morone concerning justification, see also Firpo, Juan de Valdés and the Italian Reformation, 151. 163 Simoncelli, “Vom Humanismus zur Gegenreformation,” 111–​12. For the political as well as religious side to this controversy, see Firpo, Juan de Valdés and the Italian Reformation, 166–​68. 164 Cf. the comment by Brieger cited in c­ hapter 1 at n. 149, above. 165 From the Tridentine perspective this can be compared to the manner in which Nicene orthodoxy excludes most if not all of the trinitarian theologies of the second and third centuries, by clarifying the issues. I am grateful to Christopher Malloy for making this point in a private email.

Reactions to Article 5  59

Modern Assessments Regensburg did not have a good press. After the colloquy, the prevailing judgement was negative.166 But with the more recent shift from a polemical to an ecumenical approach, this judgement has been reconsidered. So, for example, the 1983 U.S. Common Statement Justification by Faith concludes its account of Regensburg with the statement that Article 5 indicates that “the two ways of explaining justification are not necessarily exclusive.”167 The 2013 Report of the Lutheran-​Roman Catholic Commission on Unity, From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, commented that “the negotiators achieved a remarkable text on the doctrine of justification in the Regensburger Buch (1541), but the conflict concerning the doctrine of the eucharist seemed to be insurmountable.”168 This points to the need to distinguish between the colloquy in general, which clearly failed, and Article 5, which did produce agreement. Matheson’s pithy (and exaggerated) judgement on the colloquy is widely quoted: “The dialogue between Protestantism and Catholicism at the Diet of Regensburg in 1541 did not fail. It never took place.”169 But his judgement on Article 5 is much more positive: The article is certainly a product of diplomacy, yet it is by no means lacking in theological substance. It is a finely balanced piece of conciliation, but it exhibits an integrity all its own. It falls outside the confessional categories certainly; its language, however, is that of conviction, not caution. It is no mere mediatorial formula, offering a crumb of theological comfort to every grouping. It takes up a clear line, and it is because of this uncomfortable clarity, not because of an alleged ambiguity, that it was later rejected by Catholic and Protestant confessionalists. The two main characteristics of the article are an insistence on the entirely gratuitous character of our justification, and secondly on the impossibility of driving a wedge between faith and love. Everything else follows from these two basic convictions.170

166 Hall, Humanists and Protestants, 143, documents this, especially on the Catholic side. 167 Justification by Faith §§45–​48 (Anderson, Murphy, and Burgess (eds.), Justification by Faith. Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 32–​33). 168 Lutheran–​Roman Catholic Commission on Unity, From Conflict to Communion, 34 (§73). 169 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 181, the final words of the book. 170 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 107–​ 108. Pfnür, “Die Einigung bei den Religionsgesprächen von Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41 eine Täuschung?,” 76–​77 calls the article “nicht eine Täuschung, sondern durchaus sachgemäß.”

60  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification He goes on to state that the article was “an attempt to provide a statement of the essential Christian beliefs on justification while leaving ample room for a continuing theological debate on the knottier issues.” Thus he concludes that “there is no prevarication or self-​contradiction,” although “many points are left open, but this, after all, was the aim of the whole exercise: to take a firm stand where it was necessary, but for the rest to have the courage and the tolerance to let discussion proceed.”171 Not all are convinced. Nestler states that “after lengthy deliberations they reached agreement on a very watered down formula.”172 Stupperich bluntly calls the article a deception (Täuschung) leading to disillusionment (Enttäuschung).173 McGrath concurs with the judgement that Article 5 was a “scissors and paste job.” “It is clear that Article V de iustificatione represented a mere juxtaposition of the Catholic and Protestant positions, with a purely superficial engagement with the serious theological issues at stake.”174 Gleason likewise states that “both style and content make it obvious that Article 5 was the work of a committee. The modern reader will search in vain for logical consistency, since the essence of the agreed-​upon text was a compromise between two basically incompatible positions.”175 Braunisch, in his study of Gropper, likewise describes the formula as a hybrid (Zwittergestalt) that blurs rather than clarifies and satisfied no one. The readiness to compromise led to the illusion that a vague formula that veiled differences could bring the two sides together.176 Ziegelbauer likewise claims that the article is built upon inadequate foundations, there being an irreconcilable gulf between inherent righteousness and a purely alien imputed righteousness.177 Matheson pre-​empts such criticisms. “Does this not, however, seem to indicate a rather unrealistic theological purism? What else could a public theological document like this be but a compromise? How were the decrees of the 171 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 108. 172 Nestler, “Vermittlungspolitik und Kirchenspaltung auf dem Regensburger Reichstag von 1541,” 399. 173 Stupperich, Der Unbekannte Melanchthon, 98. 174 McGrath, Iustitia Dei (1986), 2:60–​61. The [inaccurate] quotation (“scissors and paste job”) is taken from Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Italy, 55. It is dropped in his third edition, Iustitia Dei (2005), 315–​16. In his forthcoming fourth edition (Cambridge: CUP, 2020), he adds a new section (­chapter 4:3) on Regensburg which assesses Article 5 more positively, citing the present study. 175 Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 227–​28. Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​ katholieken en Protestanten, 102 concurs. Similarly, Franzen, Bischof und Reformation, 66–​67: “Es war Diplomatie, die diese Formel eingab, nicht theologische Zustimmung.” 176 Braunisch, Die Theologie der Rechtfertigung im “Enchiridion” (1538) des Johannes Gropper, 58, 423; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper,” 176; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559), 119. 177 Ziegelbauer, Johannes Eck: Mann der Kirche im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, 242.

Reactions to Article 5  61 Council of Trent arrived at if not by a series of compromises?”178 Clearly, zur Mühlen is correct when he states that the article is in need of interpretation (interpretationsbedürftig)!179 Jedin criticises it for falling short of (later) Tridentine orthodoxy, but claims that while it “lacks the Tridentine ring,” “it does not emit a Protestant sound.” This analysis is based on the presupposition that Contarini’s later Epistola de iustificatione is “an authentic commentary on article 5.”180 Lipgens also offers a broadly Catholic interpretation of the article, though only by reading in things that it does not say and even then he is is aware of its shortcomings.181 “Gropper, under the unusually powerful pressure towards unity at the Regensburg Reichstag [Imperial Diet], for several weeks thought less clearly than in the Enchiridion.”182 Matheson, by contrast, states that “it was generally agreed [at the time] that there was nothing in the agreed article to which one could take exception from the Protestant point of view,” and speaks of the “undeniable fact that hitherto unthinkable concessions had here been made by the Catholics,” echoing Calvin’s judgement.183 Fenlon expresses a similar view: Apart from its concession to an (ineffectual) inherent justice the orientation of the formula was Protestant. . . . The Regensburg agreement was designed to legitimate the proclamation of salvation “de sola fide”: the “addition” of good works in reality conceded the Protestant case.184

Blatter likewise describes the article as a victory for the Protestant doctrine and notes that “the other side” here for the first time acknowledged things that had not previously been admitted.185 Lugioyo, concurs with

178 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 175–​76. 179 Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 332. This was also the verdict of the Saxon Councillors to Johann Friedrich (30 June) in similar words (“in need of further clarification”) (CR 4:439). Zur Mühlen, Reformatorische Prägungen, 287 states that Article 5 was so imprecise (allgemein) that each side could read it differently. 180 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:382–​83. Von Loewenich queries whether this is a legitimate assumption (Duplex Iustitia, 38). 181 Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 128–​29. His summary includes statements about the natural knowledge of God, about free will and about the causes of justification which are not to be found in the final draft of the article. On 129–​30 he cites CR 4 for statements that are not found where indicated. 182 Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 132. 183 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 109–​10. 184 Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Italy, 55. The idea of “an (ineffectual) inherent justice” was for Protestants like Calvin no concession. See c­ hapter 4. 185 Blatter, Die Thätigkeit Melanchthons bei den Unionsversuchen, 82.

62  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Matheson’s judgement that Article 5 takes a clear line and is not an ambiguous mediatorial formula, and affirms that it is “good Bucerian theology.”186 Which of these diverse interpretations is correct? In an attempt to answer this question, we will, in ­chapter 5, analyse the article sentence by sentence. This detailed analysis will help to avoid the broad generalisations that have been made by some commentators in the past. At the same time, there will be the need to review the article as a whole. Simply treating it as a series of sentences without considering the overall effect would be very misleading. Neuser expounds the article by dividing it into Catholic and Evangelical sections: Part of the distinctiveness of the Justification article is that always two statements in adjacent sentences belong together. Evangelical didactics follows Catholic, or vice versa. Evidently the sentences are meant to correct each another. If one pays attention to this structure the train of thought becomes clear.187

As a hermeneutical tool this approach has some value. Clearly, the article was drawn up by Catholics and Evangelicals together, and clearly each made some contribution. Some specific phrases can be attributed to one side or the other. But while this method makes a good servant, it is bad master. To attempt to analyse all (or even most) of the text this way gives a false impression.188 Thus for Neuser the Evangelical and Catholic portions can (on occasions) be described as forgiveness of sins and imputed righteousness versus the Gnadengabe (gift of grace) of the Holy Spirit; justification versus renewal. But this seems to imply that the Evangelical party had to be pressured into conceding the renewing work of the Holy Spirit. For Calvin, for one, this was no concession but something in which he believed as fervently as in imputed righteousness. To balance statements about justification and sanctification is not to glue Evangelical and Catholic statements together but to be faithful to the heart of Protestant theology. Neuser’s conclusion is that “the Catholic insistence on good works and the Evangelical insistence on assurance of salvation are combined, as best as possible.”189 But how fair 186 Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 204. 187 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 186. 188 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 108 comments that “it is not particularly helpful to extrapolate from the article its “Protestant” elements on the one hand . . . or its “Catholic” elements on the other hand.” 189 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 189.

Reactions to Article 5  63 is the implication that for the Protestants good works were not a matter of urgency? This is hardly the impression that one derives from the history of Geneva in Calvin’s time. Luther and Melanchthon, likewise, while rejecting justification by works, were emphatic on the need for love and good works. The article does indeed attempt a balance, but this is not simply a matter of pasting incompatible Evangelical and Catholic statements together. The aim is, rather, to meet differing concerns.190 Thus the article affirms that acceptance is based upon imputed righteousness, while making clear that this is inseparable from inherent righteousness. Salvation is by faith (alone), but this faith is inseparable from love. Good works are rewarded, but as the fruit of faith and the Spirit. Rather surprisingly considering some of his comments about individual sentences, Neuser proceeds to argue that Calvin was completely consistent in agreeing to the article. This he was able to do, Neuser argues, because both he and Article 5 taught a doctrine of double justification.191 Daphne Hampson agrees with Luther that the agreement was glued together, and questions the consistency of coupling an Augustinian belief in transformation with the idea of imputed righteousness.192 The weakness of her case is that she tests Article 5 against the criterion of a radical Lutheran tradition (found in some of the more extreme statements of Luther and in figures such as Kierkegaard) and finds it wanting.193 The Reformed tradition by contrast, together with much of the Lutheran tradition, seeks to hold transformation and imputed righteousness, sanctification and justification, in balance. It is not so surprising that Calvin was able to accept Article 5 given that he had himself carefully integrated justification and sanctification. Rather more promising is Gerhard Winkler’s idea of an “exchange of confessionally specific vocabulary” (Austausch des konfessionsspezifischen Vokabulars).194 Clearly, the article involved each side accepting terminology that was associated with the other side, as was noted on both sides at the time.195 The Protestants accepted fidex efficax per caritatem, iustitia inhaerens, and liberum arbitrium. The Catholics accepted iustitia imputata 190 For an exploration of the concerns involved, see c­ hapter 6. 191 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 189–​94. On double justification, see further in c­ hapter 4. 192 Hampson, Christian Contradictions, 65–​66, 180–​81, 206. 193 A few years ago, I was at a symposium in London discussing her Christian Contradictions, and the Lutheran participants said that they did not recognise her presentation of the Lutheran paradigm. 194 Winkler, “Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 86. Maffeis, “La teologia paulina nella riforma cattolica del XVI secolo,” 288 also draws attention to this. 195 By Calvin (see at n. 30, above) and by some Catholics (see at n. 126, above).

64  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification and sola fide. But this approach, too, must be used with caution. There are other words, such as poenitentia and fiducia, which may especially be associated with one side, but which were nonetheless regularly used by the other side.196 Also, of the words listed above, some Protestants were happy to talk about liberum arbitrium; and some Catholics, to talk about iustitia imputata, without any pressure from the other side.197 Again, one must distinguish between terminology and content. Protestants did not speak of iustitia inhaerens, but they had no problem with the idea of a real inward change brought about through regeneration by the Holy Spirit. There has been a tradition, in German Protestant scholarship, of interpreting Article 5 with an (in my view) extreme hermeneutic of suspicion. The fullest expression of this is found in Athena Lexutt’s Rechtfertigung im Gespräch: Das Rechtfertigungsverständnis in den Religionsgesprächen von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41. She sets the article in the context of the earlier colloquies and various documents from before the colloquy, such as the Confessio Augustana Variata and Gutachten on it. Very little attention is paid to the responses to the article.198 My aim in the present volume is to focus more precisely on contemporary material relating to Article 5. Lexutt concludes that in the article we have an opaque blend of Catholic and Protestant formulas which is incompatible with the Protestant understanding of justification.199 This blend was reconcilable with neither the traditional nor the Reformation position.200 Throughout my commentary, I will interact with her interpretation. A number of the critiques of Article 5 read into it the teaching of the Worms Draft, not allowing for the fact that this draft was rejected and set aside.201 Others argue explicitly for the continuity of teaching. Thus, for example, von Loewenich expounds both versions and concludes: “In terms of content there is no substantial difference between the draft and the final version of Article 5.”202 Melanchthon was certainly not of this view, and the present work seeks to refute it.

196 Winkler, “Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 86 gives the impression that repentance, “fear of God,” “judgement,” “good works,” “reward,” and “striving for perfection” are somehow “Catholic” terms that balance out the Protestant sola fide. They do indeed qualify sola fide, but to imply that they are terms of Catholic as opposed to Protestant discourse is wide of the mark. 197 See c­ hapter 5, below, on §8:3. 198 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 260–​70, mainly Contarini and Luther. 199 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 260. 200 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 269–​70. 201 See c­ hapter 1, n. 118 202 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 23–​26, expounds the Worms draft, then expounds the definitive Article 5 (34–​38), reaching this conclusion (38).

Reactions to Article 5  65 Karl Hausberger, in an article on the colloquy, having briefly summarised the teaching of Article 5, states:  “we do not here need to occupy ourselves further with the centuries long dispute over the orthodoxy of this union formula.”203 Resolving that dispute is the aim of this book.

203 Hausberger, “ ‘Ein kampff besteen dy zwo parthei, rath, welcher tail got nähner sey’,” 39. Jedin, “Wo sah die vortridentinische Kirche die Lehrdifferenzen mit Luther?,” 94, argues that union negotiations like Regensburg warrant much more careful study than hitherto.

3 After Regensburg Debates over Article 5 After the colloquy, Bucer engaged in controversy with two Catholic theologians concerning its events. This was prompted by the publication of his own version of the Acta colloquii, which provoked two responses. The first was from Eck, who late in 1541 wrote an Apologia in response to Bucer’s edition of the Acta,1 a work in which “that pestilential man Bucer perfidiously wrote his comedy acts mingled with so much impiety that no Catholic could bear with it.”2 The Apologia contains a limited amount of material relating to Article 5. The second Catholic response came from Pighius in his Ratio componendorum dissidiorum (Rule for Resolving Disagreements).3 His cure for resolving disputes and attaining concord is simply submission to the teaching authority of the church. This work touches only briefly upon justification, seeing it as an issue that could easily be resolved from Scripture.4 In a lengthy work, De vera ecclesiarum . . . reconcilatione et compositione (On True Reconciliation and Agreement of the Churches), Bucer responded to Eck and (mainly) to Pighius,5 focusing on the doctrines of original sin and justification. These doctrines are not prominent in Pighius’s Ratio componendorum 1 Apologia . . . adversus mucores & calumnias Buceri, super actis Comiciorum Ratisponae (Ingolstadt, 1542). This work was completed in December 1541 (sig. A4b, fol. 156b). There were other editions in Antwerp and Paris. For details, see FSKR #18; Metzler (ed.), Tres Orationes Funebres in Exequiis Ioannis Eckii Habitae, CXXX–​CXXXI. Because “apostata Bucer librum suum vertit germanice . . . ego ei jam etiam germanice respondeo” (Eck to Contarini (2 May 1542)  in Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 483). This German translation was made by Michael Wagner: Auff Butzers falsch außschreiben der handlung im Reichßtag zu Regenspurg. Anno M.D.XLI. (1542). For details, cf. Metzler (ed.), Tres Orationes Funebres in Exequiis Ioannis Eckii Habitae, CXXXI. 2 Eck to Contarini (20 January 1542)  in Friedensburg, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” 479. Summary in Regesten, 230. 3 Ratio componendorum dissidiorum, et sarciendae in religione concordiae (1542). For details, see FSKR #6; Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges,  43–​44. 4 Ratio componendorum dissidiorum, sigs. I3b–​4b. 5 De vera ecclesiarum in doctrina, ceremoniis, et disciplina reconcilatione et compositione (1542) [DVRC]. There was a further edition the next year (MBB #125). The earlier part of this work (to 32b) is published in ARG 31 (1934), 145–​91, but not any of the material on justification. Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony L. S. Lane, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190069421.001.0001

68  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification dissidiorum, but, as the title page indicates, this is a response to Eck’s insult against the Acta Ratisponensia (i.e. his Apologia) and to Pighius’s calumnies against the [Augsburg] Confession and Apology (i.e. his Controversies).6 In his Preface (sig. a3a), Bucer refers also to Pighius’s writing against his Acta (i.e. his Ratio componendorum dissidiorum). In that work Pighius considered the issue of authority to be paramount. Bucer, by contrast, identifies reconciliation with God and good works as the two key issues (sig. aa2b). Bucer responds to Pighius’s Ratio componendorum dissidiorum by discussing the means of removing religious discord (“Qua ratione dissidium relig. tollendum”) (21b–​32a). He then turns to the first four Regensburg articles (33a–​45a) before attacking the doctrines of original sin of Pighius (45a–​117b) and Eck (117b–​ 120b). This is followed by eighty-​six pages of Exposition and Conciliation of the Controversy concerning Justification.7 That work begins by engaging with issues such as the definitions of justification and of faith at length, and then turns to refuting the claims of “the new Pelagian Pighius” (154a). The final paragraph affirms the good intentions of Article 5 and warns against deviating to the right by the pursuit of approval by God and confidence through good works, or to the left by a perverse security that neglects good works (163b). Finally, there are a further 105 pages of Exposition and Defence of the Formula on Justification that was Proposed at Regensburg in order to Resolve the Controversy.8 That begins by engaging with Article 5, but then mostly takes the form of a refutation of Pighius’s teaching, as found in the second book of his Controversies.9 Eck in turn responded to Bucer in a Replica (Reply) (1543), complaining of the latter’s failure to respond to the objections that he had raised his Apologia.10 Eck had not been impressed by Bucer’s account of justification, and had accused him of blurring and confusing everything to the point that For Bucer’s view of Pighius at this time, see Bucer to Vadian (12 August 1542) in CO 11:424: “Quum vero Albertus Pighius Campensis, homo doctus et acutus sed sophista impius, et calumniandi summus artifex, universam doctrinam nostram argutissime certe venenatis suis calumniatus sit magnis libris, praecipuas huius calumnias depellere constitui.” 6 On the Controversies, see ­chapter 1, at nn. 33–​34. 7 Explicatio et Conciliatio Controversiae de Iustificatione (121a–​163b). The attention focuses on Pighius from 137a. 8 Explicatio et Defensio Formulae, quae Ratisponae ad componendam controversiam, De Iustificatione proposita est (164a–​216a). 9 Bucer’s marginal references (177b, 196a, 196b, 197a–​b, 214a) show that he was using the first edition of that work (Ingolstadt, 1541). The reference to “folio 69” on 187a refers back to Bucer’s own earlier discussion. References to Article 5 decrease and the argument turns to Pighius, but there is no clear line of demarcation. Pighius is again accused of Pelagianism (199b). 10 Replica Ioan. Eckii adversus Scripta Secunda Buceri apostatae super Actis Ratisponae (1543), 1b–​2a and title page:  “Accusatur contumatia Buceri nihil respondentis ad obiecta in Apologia.” Concerning this work, Peter Lemberg asked: “An nostrum soeculum, maledicentia, sicut aliis viciis

After Regensburg  69 he neither understood himself nor was understood by his readers.11 But because Bucer’s attack was against Pighius especially, Eck resolved to leave the battle to him save for a short section concerning sola fide.12 Pighius also reponded to Bucer in his last work, another Apologia.13 Here, as before, his emphasis is on the teaching authority of the Church rather than justification.

The Cologne Reformation One short-​term result of the colloquies was that extended personal contact led to a personal rapport and friendship between Gropper and Bucer. They understood each other’s concerns and looked upon each other as fellow Christians with whom agreement was possible.14 The warmth of their relationship was soon to cool, however, with the involvement of Bucer and Melanchthon in the attempted “Cologne Reformation,”15 to which Gropper was opposed. mire foecundum, ullum unquam Scriptum vidit arrogantius, vanius, impudentius, obscoenius, et maledicum magis?” (Epistola de doctrina et morte Eccii (1543), sig. A4a). Lemberg’s volume did not go unanswered; Joannes Salicetus responded with a verse elegy: Elegia Ioannis Saliceti Eckij, contra Petri Lempergij Gorlicensis calumniam (1544). 11 Replica, 43a: “Anaxagoricus Theologus omnia confundit, commiscet omnia, et ita involvit, ut nec seipsum intelligat, nec intelligatur a suis.” The reference is to the ancient philosopher Anaxagoras. He also calls Bucer the beast of the Apocalypse (42b)! 12 Replica, 43a. 13 Apologia . . . adversus Martini Buceri Calumnias (Mainz, 1543). There were also Paris editions of that year published by Jean Foucher and Guillaume Richard. On this work, see Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 45–​46. Pighius had not completed the work and it ends with a notice of his death (sigs. o3b–​4a). This is an important testimony to the correct date for Pighius’s death. See Lane, “When Did Albert Pighius Die?” 14 Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 104. Bucer later referred to his “freuntlich gesprech” with Gropper at Hagenau and Worms (Von den einigen rechten wegen, 65—​on this work, see n. 83, below). In 1539, by contrast, Melanchthon had written to Hermann von Wied disparaging Gropper’s Enchiridion, accusing it of obscuring the truth in a fog (17 March 1539) in CR 3:652; MBW T8:348 (MBW 2:420 [#2163]). Personal contact did not always lead to greater respect. Girolamo Negri, Contarini’s vicar in the diocese of Belluno, had held Melanththon, the “gran Dottor heretico,” in “gran veneratione,” but was most unimpressed when he met him. He described him as a small skinny man, “che non degna a nissuno” (Negri to? (30 April) in Schultze, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” 638. Summary in Regesten, 176). 15 A title coined by Melanchthon to Duke Wilhelm of Julich (17 July 1543) in CR 5:146; MBW T12:275 (MBW 3:411 [#3280]): “die Colnische Reformation.” Mülhaupt, “Die Kölner Reformation,” 92, argues that geographically it was not a Cologne Reformation but a “Bonn Reformation.” Remy argues that the attempted Reformation was neither [Protestant] fish nor [Catholic] fowl but a a failed attempt at a “third way” (“Hermann von Wied—​Schicksalsjahre eines Erzbischofs,” 35–​36), but this makes the questionable assumption that all the other options can be reduced to just two ways. Kuropka, “Melanchthon und Köln,” 513–​31, is mostly about Melanchthon’s dealings with Cologne in the late 1520s, mentioning the Cologne Reformation only briefly at the end. Scheible, “Melanchthon und Bucer,” 387–​88, looks at Melanchthon’s relations with Bucer during the attempted Reformation.

70  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification At the conclusion of the Regensburg Diet, Contarini called upon the bishops to undertake a “Christian reformation,”16 and the Emperor called upon them to introduce “Christian order and reformation.”17 1543 Hermann von Wied, the archbishop of Cologne, responded to this by seeking to reform his diocese.18 A vast amount of literature was published over the course of this attempted reformation,19 but we will focus on the most relevant items, those pertaining to justification and to the relations between Gropper and Bucer and Melanchthon. On 5 February 1542, Bucer20 and Gropper met with the archbishop in his hunting lodge at Buschhofen, near Bonn, to discuss the proposed reformation. For a while it looked as if they could work together.21 The previous October Gropper had written positively to Bucer about his Acta of the Regensburg Colloquy.22 In August 1542 he wrote to Bucer, addressing him in superlative terms and assuring him of his abiding friendship and respect.23 At first, Hermann’s initiative met with a positive reaction on all sides, but as the nature of the proposed reformation became clearer, the Cologne cathedral chapter became implacably opposed. Bucer moved to Bonn (where the archbishop resided) in December 1542 and began to preach there regularly. The Cologne cathedral chapter immediately 16 CR 4:509; ARC 4:7; ADRG 3/​II:605. This was delivered verbally on 7 July and in print on 12 July. 17 CR 4:628. 18 For a useful account that includes the relations between Bucer and Gropper, see Franzen, Bischof und Reformation: Erzbischof Hermann von Wied in Köln vor der Entscheidung zwischen Reform und Reformation, 69–​106. On the nature of Hermann’s reformation plans and their relation to the colloquies, see Remy, “Die Reichsreligionsgespräche von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg (1540/​41) als Ausgangspunkt für die Kölner Reformation,” 29–​49. For Hermann’s personal weaknesses, see Jedin, “Fragen um Hermann von Wied,” 347–​59. On Hermann, see also Pollet, Martin Bucer: Études sur les Relations de Bucer avec les Pays-​Bas, L’Électorat de Cologne et l’Allemagne du Nord, 1:222–​34. 19 See FSKR for full details of the contemporary literature. Two hundred and sixty-​six items are catalogued on pp. 160–​355 and these are referred to by item number (#). Many of the texts are found in MBDS 11/​1–​3. The contemporary literature is graphically described by Franzen as “die lange Reihe der Schmähliteratur” (Bischof und Reformation, 89). 20 On Bucer’s role in the Cologne Reformation, see de Kroon, “Bucer und die Kölner Reformation,” 493–​506. For his correspondence with Gropper, see Braunisch, “Reformatio–​Restauratio–​Libertas Ecclesiae. Johannes Groppers Kardinalat im Spiegel seiner Korrespondenz zwischen Interim und Inquisition,” 156–​60. 21 Gropper and Bucer later offered different interpretations of this event. Gropper, Warhafftige Antwort, 44a–​45b, 50a, to which Bucer responds in Von den einigen rechten wegen, 90–​91, 100. Franzen, Bischof und Reformation, 73–​75, analyses these, though his page references are incorrect. 22 Gropper to Bucer (10 October 1541)  in JGB 1:222–​23. Bucer printed this, together with his German translation and notes, in his 1545 Von den einigen rechten wegen, 93–​94, 95–​98. For further comments, see Gropper to Bucer (30 October 1541) in JGB 1:229–​30. This letter was also printed in Von den einigen rechten wegen, 94–​95, with a German translation on 98–​100. 23 Gropper to Bucer (8 August 1542) in JGB 1:240–​42. Bucer printed part of this, together with his German translation and notes, in his 1545 Von den einigen rechten wegen, 101–​105. Gropper addresses Bucer as “eximie ac longe doctissime,” “optime” and “dulcissime.”

After Regensburg  71 protested to the archbishop,24 and in February 1543 presented him with a judgement against the validity of Bucer’s calling, which does not raise the topic of justification.25 In January, Bucer wrote a firm letter to Gropper defending his calling and affirming his Protestant allegiance,26 to which Gropper replied a few days later.27 Bucer wrote again at the end of the month, telling Gropper that he looked up to him as “a member of Christ, furnished with noble qualities.” He did not doubt that the glory of Christ and the defence of his kingdom were in Gropper’s heart.28 But despite the genuine warmth of their friendship after Regensburg, the result of the conflict at Cologne was that it was replaced by open hostility.29 For Gropper, Bucer as a dialogue partner was one thing; Bucer seeking to reform Gropper’s church at Cologne was quite another.30 In March 1543 Bucer sought to defend his actions in Cologne against the charges of the cathedral chapter in a book setting out Was im Namen des Heiligen Euangeli . . . ietzund zů Bonn . . . gelehret vnnd geprediget würdt (What is Presently Taught and Preached . . . in Bonn).31 He starts with soteriology, touching on the themes of justification, faith, the need for good works, and their reward, without specifically touching on points of controversy.32 In May, Eberhard Billick, the Prior Provincial of the Carmelites, issued a Iudicium  .  .  .  de doctrina & vocatione Martin Buceri ad Bonnam (Judgement  .  .  .  on the Teaching and Calling of Maritin Bucer in Bonn) in

24 Cathedral Chapter to Hermann von Wied (19 December 1542)  in Stupperich, “Unbekannte Briefe und Merkblätter Johann Groppers aus den Jahren 1542–​1549,” 100–​101. 25 Sententia delectorum per venerabile capitulum ecclesiae colonensis, de vocatione Martini Buceri (MBDS 11/​1:437–​46). This was first published, in Latin and with a German translation, at the end of Gropper’s Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung, 150b–​153b (Latin); 154a–​161a (German). (For full details of this work, see n. 47, below.) For details, see FSKR #21. 26 Bucer to Gropper (2 January 1543) in JGB 1:282–​86. 27 Gropper to Bucer (7 January 1543) in JGB 1:286–​88. 28 Bucer to Gropper (31 January 1543) in CR 5:26–​31; JGB 1:294–​300. 29 For the deterioration in relations between Bucer and Gropper after Regensburg, see Pollet, Martin Bucer: Études sur les Relations de Bucer, 1:161–​77. In 1544 Gropper maintained that he had always been consistent in regarding Bucer as belonging to the opposing party, but that at Regensburg, the latter had deceptively portrayed himself as seeking peace and had misled Gropper who was “simplicem et talium fraudum inexpertum” (Gropper to Hoetfilter (11 December 1544)  in JGB 1:355–​56 and in Pollet, Martin Bucer: Études sur les Relations de Bucer, 2:114–​15). Similarly, Gropper to Hoetfilter (19 October 1545) in JGB 1:376. For their controversy, see Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 132–​36. Their friendship foundered over the same issue as the colloquies (see ch. 1, n. 156), the issue of authority (Varrentrapp, Hermann von Wied und sein Reformationsversuch in Köln, 1:132). 30 Cf. Franzen, Bischof und Reformation, 74. 31 Was im Namen des Heiligen Euangeli vnsers Herrenn Jesu Christi ietzund zů Bonn jm Stifft Cöllen gelehret vnnd geprediget würdt. MBDS 11/​1:29–​131. For details, see FSKR #22. Second edition with different title (1544): MBB #132; FSKR #103. 32 Sigs. a4b–​b4b (MBDS 11/​1:32–​38), the first five teachings that Bucer sets out.

72  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification response.33 Billick admits that some of what Bucer teaches is orthodox, but accuses him of mixing this with error on a range of topics.34 These include concupiscence after baptism, the origin of repentance, and the merit and efficacy of good works,35 but Billick is more interested in topics like the intercession of the saints and the sacraments. Bucer responds in July with Die ander verteydigung und erklerung der Christlichen Lehr (Another Defence and Declaration of the Christian Doctrine).36 This discusses a number of articles, the second of which concerns good works and their merit,37 in which he responds to some of Billick’s specific charges.38 Melanchthon also responded to Billick,39 with a small amount of material indirectly relevant to justification.40 Bucer, together with Melanchthon, also produced a brief Christliche und ware Verantwortung (Christian and True Defence), addressed to Hermann and responding to criticisms. This does not significantly touch upon justification.41 Billick responded in 1545 with a defence of his earlier Judgement—​Iudicii Universitatis et Cleri Coloniensis . . . Defensio.42 Of greater interest is the series of works in May 1543, in which Bucer, joined by Melanchthon, engaged in controversy with Gropper. (Pistorius also joined Bucer and Melanchthon for a while.43) This began when Bucer and Melanchthon drew up an Einfaltigs Bedencken (Simple Consideration), published under the name of Hermann von Wied in August/​September 33 Iudicium Deputatorum Universitatis & Secondarii Cleri Coloniensis de doctrina & vocatione Martin Buceri ad Bonnam. For details, see FSKR #27, 28. I have used the second of these. German translation (1543 & 1544): FSKR #31, 106. On Billick, see Postina, Der Karmelit Eberhard Billick, especially 39–​80 on his opposition to the Cologne Reformation. Also, Fabisch, “Eberhard Billick OCarm (1499/​1500–​1557),” 97–​116, esp. 99–​109. 34 Sigs. A3a–​b. For the topics: sigs. A3b–​E3a. 35 Sigs. A3b–​4a, B3a–​4a. 36 MBDS 11/​2:31–​247. For details, see FSKR #46. Later edition (1544): MBB #131; FSKR #104. 37 11a–​18b (MBDS 11/​2:51–​62). 38 e.g. to Billick’s charge concerning Mary and Martha (Iudicium, sigs. B5a–​b) in 12b–​13a (MBDS 11/​2:54). 39 Responsio Philippi Melanthonis ad scriptum quorundam delectorum à Clero Secundario Coloniae Agrippinae (Bonn, 1543)  and other editions in other cities. Modern edition in Stupperich (ed.), Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, 6:381–​421. There were two different German translations (ibid., 381–​82). For details, see FSKR #37–​40. 40 Sigs. B1a–​4a. Stupperich (ed.), Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, 6:389–​93. 41 Christliche und ware Verantwortung an den Hochwirdigsten Fürsten vnnd Herrn, den Ertzbischoffe vnd Churfürsten zu Cöln (1543). MBDS 11/​1:135–​44. For details, see FSKR #48. There is a very brief mention of matters relating to justification on sig. b2a; MBDS 11/​1:141. This work was also published in Stupperich, Der Unbekannte Melanchthon: Wirken und Denken des Praeceptor Germaniae in neuer Sicht, 209–​20. 42 Iudicii Universitatis et Cleri Coloniensis adversus calumnias Philippi Melanthonis, Martini Buceri, Oldendorpij, et eorum asseclarum, defensio (Cologne, 1545). There was also a Paris edition that year by Jacob Bogardus. For details, see FSKR #119–​20. This focuses on original sin and baptism more than justification, but see 134–​36. 43 Günther, Die Reformation und ihre Kinder, 32.

After Regensburg  73 1543.44 This covered a range of doctrines, including material on justification,45 for which Melanchthon was responsible.46 Much of the text consists of quotation from Scripture, with significant theological interpretation. The Einfaltigs Bedencken gave birth to an ongoing literary conflict. Gropper responded to the Einfaltigs Bedencken by publishing, in the name of the canons of Cologne Cathedral, a Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung (Christian and Catholic Counterblast).47 Gropper’s personal handwritten copy survives in the Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln, and this copy was presented to Hermann von Wied on 6 October 1543.48 Gropper claimed to have written it in three weeks.49 It was not published until February 1544,50 and there are significant differences between the manuscript and the printed version.51 It was also published shortly after in a Latin translation by Eberhard Billick with the title Antididagma.52 Because 44 Von Gottes genaden unser Hermans Ertzbischofs zu Cöln /​vnnd Churfürsten &c. einfaltigs bedencken /​warauff ein Christliche /​in dem wort Gottes gegrünte Reformation . . . anzurichten seye. MBDS 11/​1:163–​ 432. For details, see FSKR #49. Later editions (1544 and 1545): MBB #138–​40; FSKR #98, 99. Hermann’s name indicates authorisation rather than authorship (Mülhaupt, “Die Kölner Reformation,” 75). On the origin and teaching of this book, see Köhn, Martin Bucers Entwurf einer Reformation des Erzstiftes Köln; Krüger, “Reform und Einheit der Kirche nach Bucers ‘Einfaltigem Bedenken’.” Luther was not impressed with it. Luther to Brück (August 1544) in WA Br. 10:618. There was a Latin translation (Simplex ac pia deliberatio) in 1545. For details, see FSKR #166. This was made by Albert Hardenberg (Janse, Albert Hardenberg als Theologe, 19–​20, 490). Also an English translation in 1547 under the title A Simple and Religious Consultation (MBB #180), with a further edition the next year (MBB #182). 45 39b–​45a on justification; 45a–​49a on good works; 49b–​50a on definition of faith (MBDS 11/​ 1:231–​47). On the teaching of this material, see Köhn, Martin Bucers Entwurf einer Reformation des Erzstiftes Köln, 85–​103. 46 Melanchthon to Cruciger (23 May 1543) in CR 5:113; MBW T12:216 (MBW 3:396 [#3250]). 47 Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung eyns erwirdigen Dhomcapittels zu Cöllen (1544). For details, see FSKR #57. This also responds to Bucer’s Was im Namen des Heiligen Euangeli and Die ander verteydigung und erklerung der Christlichen Lehr (MBDS 11/​3:11). 48 Rößner, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ‘Gegenberichtung’,” 77–​81, 83. Melanchthon seems to have received a copy by November 1543 (Melanchthon to Bucer (4 November 1543) in CR 5:220; MBW T12:409 (MBW 3:443–​44 [#3364])). 49 Van Gulik, Johannes Gropper (1503 bis 1559), 100, cites the manuscript of Gropper’s 1559 Apologia, which has since been published. Here Gropper claims that the book was “per me intra tres septimanas  .  .  .  compositum, primo quidem Germanice” (JGB 2:621). Rößner, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ‘Gegenberichtung’,” 87, argues that the three weeks is the time that it took Gropper to produce the manuscript. Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 142, mentions eight weeks, but without giving specific documentation. 50 Rößner, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ‘Gegenberichtung’,” 80–​81. At the end there is a letter to Hermann von Wied dated 4 February (162a), though not all copies contain this (Rößner, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ‘Gegenberichtung’,” 87–​88). 51 For the differences between the manuscript and the published version, see Rößner, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ‘Gegenberichtung’,” 91–​103. The printed version is more polemical than the manuscript, but the theological sections, setting out Catholic teaching on doctrines such as justification, are not substantially changed (102). 52 Antididagma, seu, Christianae et Catholicae religionis  .  .  .  Propugnatio (Cologne:  Jaspar Gennepaeus, 1544). For details, see FSKR #60. Eberhard Billick took three weeks to translate the book into Latin (Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 143).

74  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification there was a Latin response to the Latin translation, we will refer to both the German and the Latin versions. Again, there is extensive material on justification.53 Despite the polemical circumstances, this work does not go back on the teaching of Article 5. The bulk of the section on justification is devoted to positive exposition, with just a brief criticism of the Einfaltigs Bedencken.54 The Antididagma came to the unfavourable attention of the Leuven (Louvain) theological faculty, which on 9 July wrote a letter to the Cologne theological faculty attacking the teaching of the Antididagma.55 The Leuven faculty argued that the Antididagma departed from the teaching of the Fathers received by the Catholic Church and inclined towards the heresy of Luther and Melanchthon. There were two responses to this. On 26 July the Cologne theology faculty responded to the Leuven theological faculty, defending the teaching of the Antididagma, especially on imputed righteousness, and appealing for a united front against Protestant heresy.56 Gropper himself responded. He presented as four “articles” on justification four statements that claimed to summarise the teaching of the Antididagma, which he had extracted from the Leuven letter (he reversed the order of the second and third articles), and responded to these in turn in his Articuli antididagmatis (Articles of the Antididagma).57 He began by noting that the “articles” had 53 Von unser rechtfertigung (Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung, 17a–​22a), including War durch wir gerechtig werden (19b–​20b), Von zweierlei vertrauwen oder sicherheit (20b–​21b), and Was hier wider das Buch der angebner Reformation lehre (21b–​22a). Also, Von den güten wercken (22a–​ 23b) and Von dem lohn und der vergeltung der güter werck (24a). The section Von den güten wercken is not relevant to our theme. 54 The section on justification ends with a page on Was hier wider das Buch der angebner Reformation lehre (21b–​22a). The section Von dem lohn und der vergeltung der güter werck cites biblical passages and then ends with the cryptic comment that “wie das Buch [Einfaltigs Bedencken] von verdienst und vergeltung gütter werck lehret wirdt der fleissiger Leser hyn und widder wol fynden” (24a). 55 Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” 12–​14, for the exchanges covered in this paragraph, see 3–​16. 56 Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate iudicia,” 14–​16. The original manuscript is Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, Nachlaß Pflug, Katalog p.  23 L, 53a–​55a/​105–​ 109 (the manuscript contains both folio and page numbers), which can be read online, http://​ archive.thulb.uni-​jena.de/​korax/​rsc/​viewer/​Korax_​derivate_​00001585/​VDS_​Z_​pflug_​ctpg_​23_​n_​ L3_​054.tif. 57 “Articuli antididagmatis notati per Theologos Lovanienses” in van Gulik, Johannes Gropper, 207–​23. Pflug, Correspondance, 3:553 n. 5, comments that this edition has “de nombreuses fautes.” I have, therefore, checked all of my quotations against the original manuscript: Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, Nachlaß Pflug, Katalog p. 23 L, 42a–​53a/​83–​105, which can be read online, http://​archive.thulb.uni-​ jena.de/​korax/​rsc/​viewer/​Korax_​derivate_​00001585/​VDS_​Z_​pflug_​ctpg_​23_​n_​L3_​043.tif. In the relatively small amount that I quote there are indeed missing words and misread words. See n. 87, below, and c­ hapter 4, n. 155. The four articles by no means exhaust the criticisms of the Leuven letter. Gropper ends the Articuli antididagmatis with the statement that the remaining accusations are not worthy of response (“Articuli antididagmatis,” 222). One of them concerned Gropper’s failure to mention a fiducia

After Regensburg  75 been distorted by abridgement and the order rearranged.58 If they are understood in the sense that they had in their original context, it will be seen that they are opposed neither to the consensus of the Fathers nor to more recent Catholic theology, and that far from drawing close to Lutheranism, they are diametrically opposed to it, points he spells out again, more fully, at the end.59 According to Gropper, the Leuven faculty were mollified by his response.60 The Articuli antididagmatis make an unexpected reappearance in Gropper’s final work, the Apologia, written at the end of his life.61 In 1545 Bucer replied to the Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung with a Bestendige Verantwortung (Resolute Defence), which responds to Gropper’s accusations.62 A Latin translation of this work appeared in the seventeenth century, entitled Constans Defensio, which claimed to be based on a hitherto unpublished manuscript of Bucer’s.63 At the end of this work, Melanchthon gave his own response.64 Bucer had early that year also published a further work on consensus and reform, Wie leicht vnnd füglich (How Easily and Fittingly).65 This work touches on doctrine, including (briefly) themes relating to justification.66 The same year, Gropper responded to Bucer with a Warhafftige Antwort und Gegenberichtung (Truthful Answer and Counterblast),67 in which he operum, a charge to which the Cologne letter responds (Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate iudicia,” 13, 15). 58 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207:  “truncatim tamen nec ordine excerptos.” Cf. “Articuli antididagmatis,” 209: “truncatim et mala fide docent.” 59 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 220–​21. 60 Gropper to Pflug (11 December 1552) in Pflug, Correspondance, 3:553; JGB 2:379. 61 See below, at nn. 113–​15. 62 Bestendige Verantwortung auss der heiligen Schrifft, vnd war catholischer Lehre, vnd haltung der algemeinen christlichen Kirchen, des Bedenckens vonn christlicher Reformation. MBDS 11/​3:23–​672. For details, see FSKR #114–​116. Material on justification is found on fols. XLa–​XLVIb, LIIIa–​b. For Bucer’s appeal to the Fathers in this volume, see Burnett, “Martin Bucer and the Church Fathers in the Cologne Reformation.” 63 Constans Defensio ex S.  Scriptura, et vera Catholica Doctrina, atque Observatione Universalis Christianae Ecclesiae Deliberationis de Christiana Reformatione (1613) (MBB #288–​89. I have used the latter.) The translation was by Albert Hardenberg (Janse, Albert Hardenberg als Theologe, 19–​20, 501). The response to the section on justification in the Antididagma is found on pp. 84–​94, 105. There was a reprint in 1618 (MBB #294). There was also an English translation of extracts relating to the Eucharist (MBB #186), on which see Hope, “An English Version of Parts of Bucer’s Reply to the Cologne Antididagma of 1544.” 64 Melanchthon’s Iudicium is found in Constans Defensio, 473–​82: 479 on justification. It is not found in the Bestendige Verantwortung. 65 Wie leicht vnnd füglich Christliche vergleichung der Religion/​vnd des gantzen kirchendiensts Reformation/​bey unß Teutschen zu finden/​vnd in das werck zu bringen. MBDS 11/​2:355–​454. For details, see FSKR #122. 66 See xvi–​xxi, cxxxviii. 67 An die Römsche Keyserliche Maiestat unsern Allergnedigsten Herren Warhafftige Antwort und Gegenberichtung. For details, see FSKR #123.

76  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification opposes Bucer’s attempted Cologne “Deformation.”68 This work contains three relevant sets of articles.69 The first of these is simply the text of the Regensburg Book. Secondly, Gropper gave in German a set of articles (Artikell), including articles on justification and good works, which, he claimed, Bucer had at Worms and Regensburg recognised as “Christian and in accordance with the teaching, order and custom of the Catholic Church.”70 There has been some controversy over the origin of these articles as they obviously bear some relation to the Regensburg Book but differ significantly from it in order, length, and wording. Article 5 now becomes two separate articles on justification (Von der rechtfertigung des menschen) and good works (Von den guten wercken).71 Walter Lipgens, following earlier scholarship, proposed that this was Gropper’s preliminary draft of the Wormser Buch which he and Bucer revised at the Worms Colloquy.72 This theory has been decisively refuted by Cornelis Augustijn and Reinhard Braunisch, who show the clear dependence of the Artikell on revisions to the Wormser Buch made at Regensburg.73 Their positions are not identical, in that Augustijn, unlike Braunisch, allows that the Artikell may bear some relation to an actual draft Gropper submitted at Worms.74 Perhaps any affinity between the Artikell and Gropper’s ideas before the Wormser Buch would be better explained by the fact that in the former, Gropper would wish to accentuate his own contribution to the process, at the expense of whatever Bucer may have contributed along the way. Either way, it is agreed that the Artikell in their present form are an abbreviation of the Regensburg Book and that their wording is Gropper’s. Bucer complained that Gropper had mendaciously stitched together articles that 68 Warhafftige Antwort, 47b, 51a. He again calls it a “deformation” in Gropper to Pflug (11 December 1552) in Pflug, Correspondance, 3:552; JGB 2:379 and in his Apologia (JGB 2:610). 69 For disentangling the complex relationship between the different works published in 1543–​ 1545, Braunisch, “Die ‘Artikell’ der ‘Warhafftigen Antwort’ (1545) des Johannes Gropper,” esp. 540–​ 42, is invaluable. 70 Artikell on 7a–​ 19a; quotation on 19a with similar quotation on 7a:  “als Christlich und Catholischer Kirchen Lehr, Ordnung und herkommen gemeß erkennet.” The Artikell are printed in MBDS 9/​1:484–​501. 71 Warhafftige Antwort, 9b–​10a. 72 Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 124, followed by zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 335. 73 Augustijn, “De Gesprekken tussen Bucer en Gropper tijdens het Godsdienstgesprek te Worms,” 227–​30; Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 61; Braunisch, “Die ‘Artikell’ der ‘Warhafftigen Antwort’ (1545) des Johannes Gropper.” Their conclusion is generally accepted (cf. ARC 6:22). Vetter, Die Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg, 99, claims that Gropper used Melanchthon’s German translation of the definitive Article 5. 74 The difference between the two is spelt out in MBDS 9/​1:329.

After Regensburg  77 had been agreed at Regensburg with others that had never entered his mind (the Artikell), and that he would rather die than profess most of these.75 It is noteworthy that all of the more Protestant elements of Article 5 are absent from the Artikell version, though this silence does not necessarily mean that Gropper now wished to deny these doctrines. The Warhafftige Antwort also contains a third set of articles, Die Antilogi des Bucers, a collection of articles allegedly by Bucer, whose arrangement corresponds to most (but not all) of Die Artikell, with two extra topics added at the end.76 But while the arrangement corresponds to Die Artikell, the content is drawn from Hermann von Wied’s Einfaltigs Bedencken.77 Again, there are separate articles on justification and good works,78 but this time the article on good works bears no relation to Article 5, but rather concerns other issues (from the Einfaltigs Bedencken), such as fasting. For each article Gropper prints Bucer’s (alleged) teaching, together with his own response. The section on justification (Von der Rechtfertigung) contains nine paragraphs attributed to Bucer. Seven of these are composed of extracts taken fairly precisely from the Einfaltigs Bedencken. The final two brief sections contain the accusation that the Einfaltigs Bedencken teaches that the justified believer can remain forever persistently disobedient to God and obstinate.79 It was presumably material like this that Bucer had in mind when he said that in the Antilogi Gropper had attributed to him statements that were “full of the most evident lies and the most defamatory sophisms.”80 Since the section on justification in the Einfaltigs Bedencken was by Melanchthon, none of the material on justification is strictly from Bucer, but in his response he does not disclaim responsibility for the contents. The Warhafftige Antwort also contains accusations concerning Bucer’s actions during the Worms and Regensburg colloquies.81 Bucer responded to these accusations in two further works later in 1545, both of which respond in detail to Gropper’s interpretation of events at Worms and Regensburg: his De concilio (On the Council) (which also responds to Cochlaeus and Latomus)82 and his Von den einigen rechten wegen (On the Only Right 75 De concilio, sig. p2a. On this work, see n. 82, below. 76 Warhafftige Antwort, 20b–​33b. 77 Warhafftige Antwort, 20b. 78 Article Von der rechtfertigung on 23b–​25a; article Von guten Wercken on 25a–​b. 79 Warhafftige Antwort, 25a. 80 De concilio, sig. p2a. 81 Warhafftige Antwort, 38a–​44a. 82 De Concilio et Legitime Iudicandis Controversiis Religionis, Criminum ... Confutatio. MBDS 15:116–​244. For details, see FSKR #140. See MBDS 15:104–​109 for the circumstances of its writing and the opponents to which Bucer is responding. See sigs. n3a–​q4a especially on Gropper’s mendacia

78  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Way).83 Justification was a significant issue in both responses.84 Gropper did not respond with any further works. In Von den einigen rechten wegen, Bucer says that he had intended to respond to the Artikell and the Antilogi, but then had realised that they simply repeated the charges made in Gropper’s Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung, to which he had already responded in his recent Bestendige Verantwortung.85 As Braunisch points out, this was not true of the Artikell. Bucer at this stage did not wish to be reminded of the mediating theology of Worms and Regensburg and was much happier to focus attention on the proposed Cologne reformation. He was helped in this aim by the fact that Gropper’s Artikell do not keep exactly to what was agreed at Worms or Regensburg and that they are drawn up in the light of the current controversy, making it easier for Bucer to disown them. By this stage, Bucer and Gropper alike are concerned about the struggle for Cologne, not about a disinterested reconstruction of the historical facts concerning Worms and Regensburg.86 In defending the Antididagma against the Leuven theology faculty, Gropper does not give way at all on his more controversial (i.e. more Evangelical) beliefs about justification, but he is at pains to claim that his position is distinct from Lutheranism. He claims that he has sufficiently demonstrated that the Antididagma, in the excerpted Leuven articles, in no way approaches Lutheranism. For what is more foreign to Lutheranism than the teaching of the Fathers, from which Gropper’s teaching has been faithfully derived and put together? Whether you look at the character and form of the language or at the views expressed, nothing could be written that was more opposed to Lutheranism. There was no better way to destroy the pretended reformation than that which we used in the et calumniae, although he states that “non est locus omnia Gropperi mendacia & calumnias refutandi” (p2a). 83 Von den einigen rechten wegen vnd mitlen Deutsche nation inn Christlicher Religion zu vergleichen. MBDS 11/​2:253–​349. For details, see FSKR #124. Bucer includes a “Warhaffte Antwort auff D. Groppers falsches anklagen” (46–​117). He also claims that he had stood firm on the teaching of the Augsburg Confession “before, in and after” the Regensburg Colloquy (83–​87). 84 In De Concilio, sigs. o4b–​p1a, Bucer rejects Gropper’s claims concerning justification in his Warhafftige Antwort, 41b, as he does in Von den einigen rechten wegen, 89. Justification also features in De Concilio, sigs. p2b–​3a and Von den einigen rechten wegen, 51, 57–​60. 85 Von den einigen rechten wegen,  69–​72. 86 Braunisch, “Die ‘Artikell’ der ‘Warhafftigen Antwort’ (1545) des Johannes Gropper,” 540–​42. The Lutheran Adolf Hasenclever remarks in a review of van Gulik, Johannes Gropper, that Bucer’s accounts keep closer to the facts than do Gropper’s (“Literaturbericht,” 385–​87). Conrad Varrentrapp assesses them in the light especially of Bucer’s correspondence with Philipp of Hesse in November and December 1540 concerning Worms (Hermann von Wied und sein Reformationsversuch in Köln, 2:28–​52).

After Regensburg  79 Antididagma.87 Despite these strong words, the points of difference from Melanchthon that Gropper goes on to mention concern terminology more than substance.88 The controversy between Bucer and Gropper generated more heat than light. In the Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung Gropper mainly expounded his own view, but he also criticised the Einfaltigs Bedencken on various points. Its definition of justification did not include adoption as children of God through regeneration, renewal by the Spirit through infused love, and the gift of eternal life.89 Its definition embraced only the initial justification of the ungodly, not the subsequent justification by works of James 2, and not the daily forgiveness for venial sins.90 Bucer, though he was himself open to using the broader definition of justification used by Gropper,91 defended the narrower definition given by Melanchthon in the Einfaltigs Bedanken. He claimed that the latter work included mention of ongoing justification in the section on the conversion of sinners and repentance.92 On this matter, he thought that anyone who compared the Einfaltigs Bedanken and the Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung with a Christian, non-​ partisan disposition would see that the latter was seeking a quarrel where there was no occasion.93 Again, when it comes to the four parts that Gropper included under the heading of justification, Bucer points out that all these and more are rightly seen as inseparable from justification. “There are not just four but fourteen items all of which the Holy Spirit describes as necessary appendages of justification, such as reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins and acceptance in his grace.” Because the Einfaltigs Bedanken did not

87 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 220: “Et licet hoc ipso quoque satis ostensum sit, Antididagma in excerptis articulis non accedere quovis modo ad Lutheranismum (nam quid alienus a Lutheranismo quam doctrina patrum, ex qua illud fideliter sumptum ac concinnatum est), videbimur tamen operae pretium quoque facturi, si commonemus adeo non accedere illud ad Lutheranismum (sive habitum et formam dictionis sive sententiam spectes), ut nihil scribi possit, quod cum Lutheranismo magis compugnet, deinde non potuisse alia meliori rationi ea, quae minus catholice in obtensa reformatione sunt exposita subverti, quam illa, quae in Antididagmate usi sumus.” The two words in italics are in the manuscript (Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, Nachlaß Pflug, Katalog p. 23 L, 50b/​100) but not in the printed edition. 88 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 220–​21. 89 Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung, 21b; Antididagma, 15a, building on 17a–​b/​11b–​ 12a, referring back to Einfaltigs Bedenken, 43a; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 33b. 90 Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung, 21b; Antididagma, 15a, building on 18a–​19a/​12a–​ 13a, referring back to Einfaltigs Bedenken, 42b; Simplex ac pia deliberatio,  33a–​b. 91 See c­ hapter 5, below, on §5:1. 92 Bestendige Verantwortung, 40a–​41a; Constans Defensio, 85–​86, referring back to Einfaltigs Bedenken, 114a–​16a (Von bekerung von sunden, warer büs, und Christlichem Bannen); Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 99b–​101a. 93 Bestendige Verantwortung, 41a; Constans Defensio, 86.

80  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification include all of these within its definition of justification, Gropper was arguing as if it taught that it was possible to be justified without them.94 Bucer again accuses Gropper of fabricating a quarrel in order to prevent a Christian reformation.95 Melanchthon commented briefly on this, making the same points and accusing his opponents of calumny, alleging differences where none existed. “In order not to behave argumentatively, I concede that on justification they differ at no point at all from the true view, which is ours.”96 Gropper was not mollified and returned to the attack with greater vigour in his Warhafftige Antwort. There he once again chides the Einfaltigs Bedanken for failing, under the heading of justification, to include more than forgiveness of sins and imputed righteousness.97 Bucer’s argument that things such as renewal by the Spirit and the gift of love are taught, but are not included within the definition of justification, is ignored. More seriously, after some pages of fairly accurate quotation from the Einfaltigs Bedanken, Gropper then proceeds to attribute to Bucer statements to the effect that believers remain perpetually and persistently disobedient to God and obstinate and that what God requires of us is so pure that only the Spirit can perform it, with no human involvement.98 From the time that they had spent together,99 to say nothing of the Bestandiger Verantwortung, Gropper must have been aware that these statements were gross caricature. It was sad that the genuine meeting of minds at Regensburg so soon gave way to misrepresentation and caricature.100 In April 1546 the attempted Reformation of the Cologne church ended with Hermann von Wied’s suspension as archbishop, followed by his 94 Bestendige Verantwortung, 41a–​42b; Constans Defensio, 86–​88. Quotation at 41b/​87. 95 Bestendige Verantwortung, 42b; Constans Defensio, 88. 96 Constans Defensio, 479. 97 Warhafftige Antwort, 23b–​24b. 98 Warhafftige Antwort, 25a. In his DVRC, Bucer repeatedly complains about the calumnia (of Pighius especially) that the Protestants teach justification by a dead faith, by a faith devoid of repentance or love (166b–​67a, 168b, 169b, 171a–​b, 172b, 174b, 178b, 190b, 205b–​206a, 210a–​b, 213a). 99 Bucer states that at Worms he had explained this point to Gropper “das best ich kondte” (Von den einigen rechten wegen, 57) and that Gropper ought to have known better (De Concilio, sigs. p2b–​ 3a). See more in c­ hapter 5, below, on §4:1. 100 See Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 197, for further examples of this accusation. By contrast, the Leuven theologian Adam Sasbout recognised that Lutherans acknowledged the necessity of a righteousness of works based on “inchoate obedience” and “new spiritual life,” but denied that eternal life is given on account of this righteousness (Sasbout, In Esaiam prophetam commentaria, 242). In his earlier commentary on Galatians, however, he states that Protestant acknowledge only imputed righteousness, not inherent righteousness (Sasbout, In omnes fere.D. Pauli, et quorundam aliorum Apostolorum, epistolas explicatio, 168 (on Gal 2:15–​16)). I  am grateful to Gerace, Biblical Scholarship in Louvain, 124–​25, for drawing my attention to these passages. Also Gerace and Gielis, “The Ambiguous Reception of the Doctrine of Duplex Iustitia in Leuven,” 116–​18.

After Regensburg  81 excommunication and deposition. Hermann protested and resisted for a while, but the following year he announced his resignation from the archbishopric and left Cologne. This can be regarded as the end of the phase of attempted Reformation.101

After Cologne Gropper returned to the theme of justification in a number of significant works. He wrote a catechism for youth, his Capita institutionis ad pietatem (1546). This contains a Summa totius sacrae scripturae, which summarises the teachings of the Bible, including those on faith, justification, sanctification, works, and assurance.102 Shortly after, he produced a catechism for grown-​ups, the Institutio Catholica (1550),103 a “praxis-​orientated compendium of dogma.”104 This has a similar structure to the Capita institutionis ad pietatem, and follows it verbally in places.105 The Institutio Catholica contains an extended section on “What Justification Is” (Quid sit Iustificatio), a much shorter version of which appears in the 1553 edition of the Capita institutionis ad pietatem.106 It is in this section that we find material relating to the present controversy, Gropper taking care to accentuate the differences between himself and “Lutheranism.” In September 1558 Gropper came to Rome at the command of Pope Paul IV. Shortly after, Bishop Zacharia Delfino claimed that thirteen passages from Gropper’s writings were heretical and submitted them to the Inquisition.107 Gropper responded twice. First, in December he wrote a shorter defence of his teaching, including his doctrine of imputed righteousness and duplex iustitia and his teaching on certitude.108 With both topics he takes care to differentiate his position from that of the heretics and claims that his position 101 See zur Mühlen, “Die Religionsgespräche von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41,” 334. 102 Capita institutionis ad pietatem, with the relevant material on sigs. G7b–​H1a. There were many reprints, and I have consulted the editions of 1546, 1549, and 1553. On this work, see Filser, Ekklesiologie und Sakramentenlehre des Kardinals Johannes Gropper,  65–​66. 103 Institutio catholica, Elementa Christianae pietatis (Cologne: Jaspar Gennepaeus, 1550). 104 Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” 121. 105 Filser, Ekklesiologie und Sakramentenlehre des Kardinals Johannes Gropper, 67. 106 Institutio catholica, 537–​603; Capita institutionis ad pietatem (1553), sigs. K7a–​8b. In both works this is part of an Isagoge ad pleniorem cognitionem universae Religionis Catholicae (337–​875) /​ doctrinae Ecclesiae Catholicae (sigs. H1a–​N5b). 107 Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 212–​13; Braunisch, Die Theologie der Rechtfertigung im “Enchiridion” (1538) des Johannes Gropper, 42–​44; Braunisch, “Reformatio–​Restauratio–​Libertas Ecclesiae,” 194–​98. 108 Schwarz, “Römische Beiträge zu Joh. Groppers Leben und Wirken,” 594–​607, with the text itself on 598–​606, and the relevant material on 602–​606.

82  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification is consistent with the Tridentine Decree on Justification. He then wrote a much fuller Apologia at the beginning of 1559, defending the Enchiridion and Antididagma especially.109 This contains substantial material on the same two issues.110 In both of these works Gropper notes that his works were [mostly] written before the council and in submission to the holy see.111 The Apologia also contains a defence of his teaching on justification against a number of contemporary Catholic authors.112 Finally, Gropper concludes by including almost the entire text of his earlier Articuli antididagmatis.113 This is substantially identical to the original version, but with a few significant differences.114 He carefully removes almost all reference to the Leuven faculty.115 The inclusion of this material in the Apologia is highly significant. Gropper was obliged to defend his published works, which were in the public arena. He was not obliged to defend his Articuli antididagmatis, in which he had vigorously defended his more controversial (i.e. more Evangelical) beliefs about justification. He could have quietly ignored the Articuli antididagmatis, but he chose instead to include an almost identical version of them in his final Apologia. Clearly, Gropper had not turned back on the new insights that he had acquired at Regensburg, though he took care to differentiate them from Lutheranism and to argue their compatibility with Scripture, with the Fathers and with the Tridentine Decree on Justification.116 Delfino’s 109 JGB 2:593–​670. For the circumstances of its writing, see notes 1  & 2 (664–​66). Gropper mentions his earlier, briefer defence (594). 110 JGB 2:594–​603, 605–​21. 111 Schwarz, “Römische Beiträge zu Joh. Groppers Leben und Wirken,” 604, 606; JGB 2:593–​95,  663. 112 JGB 2:626–​47. 113 JGB 2:647–​63 = “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207–​22. See n. 57, above, for details of the printed source of the Articuli and the original manuscript. Where the Apologia version differs, the manuscript has been checked to ensure that the source is not an error in the printed version. So far as I can see, there is no mention in JGB 2:593–​670 of the fact that Gropper is reproducing the Articuli antididagmatis. 114 The marginal notes are not included, except for most of those which are corrections of the text and one longer note written in a different hand (found in “Articuli antididagmatis,” 217, n. 11). A little new material is added, including two new paragraphs, being quotation from Bernard and Augustine (JGB 2:659–​60). Generally the “we” of the original Articuli becomes “I” in the Apologia. Most the minor differences are simply the mark of a hasty copying, as with many of the changes between the Worms Draft of Article 5 and Gropper’s Draft. 115 Thus the opening sentence is revised (207/​647) and the closing paragraphs (222–​23) are dropped. References to theologi Lovanienses or facultas Lovaniensis in the original become “Paris and Leuven” or are changed to “ii, qui mea notarunt” or “censores mei” or “Catholicorum” or “viri boni.” Once though, “theologi Lovanienses” becomes “facultas Theologica Lovaniensis” (209/​650). Gropper also changes Lutherani to Novatores, while leaving references to Luther and Melanchthon as individuals. 116 On the accuracy of Gropper’s claim to conformity with Trent, see ­chapter 4, below, at nn. 206–​ 207. Unlike Morone (Robinson, The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone, 77, 83), Gropper did not take refuge in the fact that the decree had not yet been formally ratified by the pope.

After Regensburg  83 attack had included references to Article 5,117 but in his responses Gropper confined himself to defending his own writings, without ever mentioning Article 5. Gropper was vindicated,118 but he died shortly after, on 13 March. The funeral oration was given by Pope Paul IV, who also in consistory criticised Gropper’s slanderers, meaning Delfino.119 Questions remained, however, and in 1596, following sharp criticism from Bellarmine, Gropper’s Enchiridion was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, though without specifying the name of the author.120 His rehabilitation had to wait until the beginning of the twentieth century.121 In 1562 Pflug also wrote a catechetical work, his Institutio Christiani Hominis.122 There has been some dispute over how much of this is Pflug’s own work.123 Either way, it does not matter for our purposes because Pflug presumably agreed with what he put out under his own name, however dubious its provenance. The Institutio addresses the issue of imputed righteousness.124

The Second Colloquy of Regensburg (1546) Prior to the Imperial Diet at Regensburg in 1546 there was another colloquy, which started on 27 January and ended on 10 March with a Protestant 117 JGB 2:664, n. 1; Braunisch, “Reformatio–​Restauratio–​Libertas Ecclesiae,” 195. 118 Bishop Giulio Grandi to the Duke of Ferrara (11 January 1559)  in van Gulik, Johannes Gropper, 271. 119 Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 216–​17; Schwarz, “Römische Beiträge zu Joh. Groppers Leben und Wirken,” 596–​97 and for Delfino’s response in a letter of 17 March, see 607. 120 Index Librorum Prohibitorum cum Regulis Confectis Per Patres à Tridentina Synodo delectos, 12b or 34 (different editions) lists “Enchiridion doctrinae Christianae, concilii Coloniensis” as among the “prohibiti . . . nisi expurgentur.” Cf. Meier, “Das ‘Enchiridion christianae institutionis’ (1538) von Johannes Gropper,” 310–​13; Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 44, 322–​25; Braunisch, “Reformatio–​Restauratio–​Libertas Ecclesiae,” 198–​200. Sotomayor, Index Librorum Prohibitorum et Expurgandorum Novissimus, 374, states that the entire Tractatus de Iustificatione hominis (163a–​ 177a) is “deleatur.” For Bellarmine’s 1601 Zensur of the work, see Arnold, Die Römische Zensur der Werke Cajetans und Contarinis, 322–​32. 121 Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” 124. 122 On this, see Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, the bulk of which is an analysis of this text. 123 Kaliner, Julius Pflugs Verhältnis zur “Christlichen Lehre” des Johann von Maltitz, 67 concludes that the bulk of Pflug’s Institutio is simply an “überarbeitete Übersetzung” of von Maltitz’s Christliche Lehre (cf. Kaliner, Katechese und Vermittlungstheologie im Reformationszeitalter). Pollet, however, regards Pflug as the true author of the Christliche Lehre, citing contemporary witnesses (Pollet, Julius Pflug (1499-​1564) et la Crise Religieuse dans l’Allemagne du XVIe Siècle, 98; Pollet, ‘Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,’ 89–​92). 124 On which, see c­ hapter 4, below.

84  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification walk out.125 This time there were four debaters/​negotiators (Kolloquenten, Collocutores) on each side. Pedro de Malvenda, Eberhard Billick, Johann Hoffmeister, and Johann Cochlaeus represented the Catholic side; Martin Bucer, Johann Brenz, Erhard Schnepf, and (in place of Melanchthon) Georg Major represented the Protestant side. Pistorius and Pflug were also present. In May or June, Bucer published a brief Truthful Account of the colloquy.126 Georg Major also published his own Short and Truthful Account.127 The Catholic party, in turn, published a Most True Narrative of the colloquy.128 Pflug may well have been its author,129 and there was a German translation by Cochlaeus.130 It gives a brief account of the events up to 4 February, followed by the Acta Colloquii, which cover the period from 5 February and contain significant documents.131 Two years later Bucer published a massively more detailed volume of the events of the colloquy, his Disputata Ratisbonae.132 Five topics were identified for discussion,133 but most of the debate was on the second of these, “on justification, faith and good works, etc.”134 On ?5 February Malvenda set out the Catholic position, summarising the key points (summa) in ten theses.135 On 9 February Bucer stated the teaching of the Augsburg Confession in four theses.136 He then divided the Catholic claims into three groups:  seven articles on which there was agreement (confessa utrique parti);137 five articles listing points of ambiguity (ambigua);138 and 125 See Vogel, Das Zweiter Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1546. 126 Ein warhaffter berichte vom Colloquio zu Regenspurg (Strassburg: Rihel, 1546). MBDS 15:529–​ 39. There were five other editions that year (MBB #163–​67). 127 Kurzer und warhafftiger bericht, Von dem Colloquio (1546). This and Bucer’s warhaffter berichte are reproduced in Hortleder, Der Römischen Keyser und Königlichen Maiestetē, 1:392–​95 and 361–​92. On Major’s role in the colloquy, see Dingel, “Georg Majors Rolle auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1546.” 128 Actorum Colloquii Ratisponensis ultimi, quomodo inchoatum ac desertum, quaeque in eodem extemporali oratione inter partes disputata fuerint, verissima narratio (1546). There were further editions the next year at Ingolstadt and Leuven. 129 There is a copy in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek at Munich (4 H Ref 572) on the titlepage of which someone has written “Auctore Julio Pflug Nurnburgensi ut vidi ipsius manu adscriptum exemplar.” 130 Der Handlungen des letzten Colloquiums zu Regenspurg gehalten, wie es angefangen und verlassen, Auch was darinn zwischen bayden Partheyen in freündlichem gesprech disputirt worden ist. Warhafftige erzelung (1546). 131 The Verissima Narratio is on 3a–​15a, and the Acta Colloquii on 15b–​45a. 132 Disputata Ratisbonae, in altero colloquio, Anno XLVI. There was a later edition with a different title (MBB #288). Bucer’s Berichte spans 13 pages, Pflug’s Narratio 85 pages, Major’s Bericht 135 pages, Bucer’s Disputata 692 pages. 133 Actorum Colloquii Ratisponensis . . . narratio, 4b. 134 Actorum Colloquii Ratisponensis . . . narratio, 16b. 135 Actorum Colloquii Ratisponensis . . . narratio, 19b–​20b; Bucer, Disputata Ratisbonae,  28–​29. 136 Actorum Colloquii Ratisponensis . . . narratio, 25a–​b; Bucer, Disputata Ratisbonae,  62–​63. 137 Actorum Colloquii Ratisponensis . . . narratio, 26a–​b; Bucer, Disputata Ratisbonae, 72. 138 Actorum Colloquii Ratisponensis . . . narratio, 26b–​27b; Bucer, Disputata Ratisbonae,  72–​76.

After Regensburg  85 six points where the Catholic theses were contrary to Bucer’s and Evangelical doctrine (adversa).139 Bucer had wanted the colloquy to include Article 5 from 1541 and related documents in its official records, but the Catholic side refused.140 Bucer includes the text of Article 5 in his Disputata Ratisbonae, with marginal notes explaining where Malvenda contradicted it.141 He also includes various responses to Article 5 from the colloquy itself, including Gropper and Pflug’s statement to Granvelle and Count Frederick, with marginal notes pointing out Eck’s calumnies.142 Bucer continued corresponding with Pflug after the colloquy, reminding him of their agreement over Article 5.143

The Council of Trent, Decree on Justification (1546–​47) The breakdown of the Regensburg Colloquy revealed the irreconcilable nature of the split between the two sides. Conciliation and negotiation had failed. The need now was for clear lines of demarcation. It was with that in mind that the Council of Trent was called. The council (1545–​63) set out clearly to demarcate Catholic dogma from Protestantism, and this is true in particular of the Decree on Justification.144 A number of the delegates were more or less favourable to Luther’s teaching on justification,145 but the eventual decree was firmly anti-​Lutheran. The 139 Actorum Colloquii Ratisponensis . . . narratio, 27b; Bucer, Disputata Ratisbonae,  76–​79. 140 Vogel, Das Zweiter Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1546, 359–​60; Erster Bericht der evangelischen Delegierten vom Regensburger Kolloquium ([10 February] 1546) in MBDS 15:356–​57; Zweiter Bericht der evangelischen Delegierten vom Regensburger Kolloquium ([10/​11 March] 1546) in MBDS 15:388–​90. See also Bucer, Ein warhaffter berichte vom Colloquio zu Regenspurg, sigs. A2b–​3a; Bucer, Disputata Ratisbonae, 44–​45, 61–​62; Major, Kurzer und warhafftiger bericht, sig. C1b. 141 Bucer, Disputata Ratisbonae,  45–​48. 142 Bucer, Disputata Ratisbonae, 49–​59. For Gropper and Pflug’s statement, see ­chapter 2, above, at nn. 102–​103. 143 Bucer to Pflug (26 March, 1546) in MBDS 15:457–​64. Bucer to Pflug (13 April, 1548) in MBDS 17:422–​38; Pflug, Correspondance, vol. 3, 78–​74. 144 Latin and English texts in Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2:671–​81. For the Decree on Justification I use my own translation, based on previous ones. On the Tridentine decree on justification, cf. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, 2:166–​96, 234–​35, 239–​61, 283–​316. Also Rückert, Die Rechtfertigungslehre auf dem tridentinischen Konzil. I have not managed to consult A. Stakemeier, Glaube und Rechtfertigung: Die Verhandlungen und Lehrbestimmungen des Trienter Konzils über den Glauben als Anfang, Fundament und Wurzel aller Rechtfertigung (Freiburg: Herder, 1937). J. Stufler summarises its argument in a review (Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 61 (1937), 631–​32). For a comparison of Regensburg with Trent, see Lane, “A Tale of Two Imperial Cities: Justification at Regensburg (1541) and Trent (1546–​1547).” 145 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.172–​73, 177, 180–​81, 187–​93, 279–​80, 290–​91.

86  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification debate opened on 21 June 1546, and the final version of the decree was promulgated on 13 January of the following year. The legates began by posing six questions for the council’s attention: (1) What is the meaning of justification both as regards the name and the thing? (2) What are the causes of justification? What is God’s part in the process and what man’s? (3) How are we to understand the assertion that man is saved by faith? (4) Do works play a role in the process of justification—​both before and after—​and in what way? What is the role of the sacraments in that process? (5) Let them describe the process of justification—​what precedes, accompanies, and follows it. (6) By what proofs from Scripture, the Fathers, the Councils, and the apostolic traditions is the Catholic doctrine supported?146 There were two issues that proved to be especially contentious at the council: the idea of duplex iustitia and the possibility of a certitude of being in a state of grace.147 The first of these is highly relevant to Article 5 and will be considered further in c­ hapter 4. Jedin states that the Roman charge that Article 5 was “equivocal” was correct “if we compare its wording with that of the Tridentine decree on justification.”148 But while it may be fair to describe the article as equivocal from the perspective of pre-​Tridentine Catholicism, it is, in the light of the Tridentine decree, unequivocally un-​Catholic. The contrast between the article and the decree is stark. The decree rejects the idea that faith includes confidence that one’s sins are forgiven; it rejects the Protestant definition of justification; it rejects the idea of duplex iustitia or of iustitia imputata; it rejects the idea that works remain imperfect and the ongoing need for mercy; it rejects the idea of assurance that is found in the article; and finally, it excludes the use of the sola fide formula.149 Not all of these ideas were formally condemned at Trent, 146 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2:176. For the theologians’ answers to these questions, see ibid., 2:177–​80. 147 For discussions of the latter at Trent, see Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.249–​53, 285–​ 86, 288–​90, 297–​98. Also Rückert, Die Rechtfertigungslehre auf dem tridentinischen Konzil, 191–​216; Stakemeier, Das Konzil von Trient über die Heilsgewißheit, especially 171–​87 on the final outcome. 148 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:382. 149 These contrasts will be documented in ­chapters 4 and 5.

After Regensburg  87 and some were rejected only in the sense that they were excluded from the decree, either by implication or by omission. But parts of the decree, such as the statement that our works fully satisfy God’s law, are plainly contrary to Article 5. At Trent, a part of the previous Catholic tradition, whose roots went back to Bernard of Clairvaux150 and Augustine, was anathematised. The council excluded what had previously been acceptable Catholic teaching on justification. “By the end of the century much was no longer tolerated that prior to Trent and even at Trent could be expressed without complaint.”151 Article 5 could be branded as ambiguous in 1541; in 1547 it could be branded as heretical.

150 Cf. Lane, Calvin and Bernard of Clairvaux, 47–​71, esp. 69–​71. 151 Meier, “Das ‘Enchiridion christianae institutionis’ (1538) von Johannes Gropper,” 310. The placing of Gropper’s Enchiridion on the Index of forbidden books illustrates this. See also zur Mühlen, “Martin Bucer und das Religionsgespräch von Hagenau und Worms,” 665.

4 Double Righteousness and Double Justification Double Righteousness Prior to Regensburg Underlying Article 5 is the idea of double righteousness (duplex iustitia). Conversion brings a double righteousness: an inherent righteousness (the righteousness wrought within by the Holy Spirit)1 and an imputed righteousness (the reckoning to our account of the righteousness of Christ).2 There is repeated reference to both and they are clearly contrasted with each other. Furthermore, Article 5 does more than merely distinguish and juxtapose these two iustitiae. It also states clearly that the latter is needed because of the imperfection of the former. The reason we need imputed righteousness in order to be acceptable to God is that our inherent righteousness does not suffice to make us acceptable before the throne of God’s justice.3 The term itself (duplex iustitia) is not found in the article, but these two iustitiae are foundational to it. Where did this doctrine originate? To what extent was it genuinely shared by the participants or to what extent was it merely a verbal compromise? In order to answer these questions we need first to be clear about what the doctrine actually involves. The problem is that the term duplex iustitia has numerous legitimate meanings and should not be used without making it clear what sense is intended. There are many different doctrines of double righteousness and most of these are not relevant to Article 5.4 We will also need to distinguish carefully between double righteousness and double justification, ideas which have been confused in some of the literature.5 Double justification, like double righteousness, has a variety of different legitimate 1 §§ 5:1 (twice); 5:3; cf. 4:3 (“infundatur caritas”); 4:6 (“iustitiae . . . communicatae”). 2 §§3:6; 4:4, 6; cf. 5:2 (“reputamur iusti”). 3 §§4:2, 6; 5:1–​2. 4 I have drawn in part upon Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia: The Sixteenth Century and the Twentieth,” 205–​207, who gives a number of examples. 5 On the translation of the terms duplex, iustitia, and iustificatio, see the Introduction, above. Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony L. S. Lane, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190069421.001.0001

90  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification meanings and we will also need to distinguish between these. Unfortunately, these distinctions have often not been made with care, resulting at times in seriously confused accounts of Article 5. Paul contrasts the righteousness that we have outside Christ with the righteousness that comes from God (Rom 9:30–​31, 10:3; Phil 3:9). The Reformers all made the same contrast and Melanchthon used the term double righteousness to refer to it.6 This is not relevant to Article 5, which is about a double righteousness that comes from God. Also not relevant is Augustine’s distinction between the perfection of righteousness that consists in fulfilling the two great commandments of love and a lesser righteousness (quaedam iustitia minor) that can be attained in this life.7 Thomas Aquinas mentions a distinction that is rather more relevant to the sixteenth-​century debates. He distinguished between iustitia in habitu and iustitia in actu, between the habit or disposition of righteousness (habitus iustitiae) and the performing of acts of righteousness (executio iustitiae). These are, respectively, infused and acquired righteousness (iustitia infusa/​ acquisita).8 It is in this sense that Erasmus refers to duplex iustitia. The first iustitia is innocence, which is restored by faith and baptism; the other works by faith through love.9 This contrast is equivalent to that between habitual grace and actual grace. Is this distinction found in Article 5? There is a single reference to a righteousness of works (iustitia operum):  “And on account of the righteousness inherent in us we are said to be righteous, because the works which we perform are righteous” (§5:3). But while inherent and acquired righteousness are both mentioned in this sentence, it would be going too far to state that there was any clear distinction between them. The idea of a righteousness that exists apart from God’s gift of justification is irrelevant to our present theme. That leaves three types of righteousness 6 Melanchthon, Loci communes seu hypotyposes theologicae (1523), 95a; CR 21:227–​ 28. Melanchthon, Dispositio orationis, in Epistola Pauli ad Romanos (1530), A3b; CR 15:444. This is missing from the first edition of this work: Melanchthon, Dispositio orationis, in Epistola Pauli ad Romanos (1529). He develops at length the contrast between the righteousness of reason/​the law and the righteousness of faith in Christ in his Apology (BSELK 276–​87; Kolb and Wengert 124–​27 (4:20–​47)). 7 Augustine, De spiritu et littera 36:64–​65. 8 Summa theologiae 2/​1 q. 100, art. 12. See further Summa theologiae 2/​1 q. 63, art. 4 on the distinction between infused and acquired virtues. Altenstaig, Vocabularius Theologie, 127b refers to triplex iustitia: innata (natural righteousness, without grace), acquisita,and infusa. 9 Erasmus, Enarratio Triplex in Psalmum XXII (1530), 52; LB 5:325B; ASD 5/​2:349. In his De Sarcienda Ecclesiae Concordia (1533), 97; LB 5:500D; ASD 5/​3:304, he distinguishes between iustitia as innocence, which “cleanses the inner abode of our mind,” and the iustitia which “adorns and enriches it with good works,” but in this passage without referring to a duplex iustitia. ET: Erasmus and the Seamless Coat of Jesus, 87.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  91 that need to be considered. First is an infused, imparted or inherent righteousness, a righteousness within that is brought about by the transforming work of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, flowing from that as its fruit, there follows an acquired or actual righteousness, a righteousness of works. Finally, there is an imputed righteousness, a righteousness that is reckoned to our account because of Christ. To disentangle the topic it is important to bear in mind the distinction between these three types of righteousness. The task is complicated by the fact that many of the theologians we are studying fail to distinguish clearly between all three. The early Luther also contrasted two or more different types of righteousness. He preached a sermon on double righteousness (de duplici iustitia), which was published in 1519.10 The first righteousness is “alien and infused from without,” the righteousness of Christ given to us, and is contrasted with original sin. As with original sin it appears to be double, including both an imputed and an imparted righteousness, though these are not clearly distinguished. It is not given all at once but progresses throughout life. The second righteousness is our own righteousness, contrasted with our personal sins. It is the fruit of the first righteousness and consists in following Christ’s example. At around the same time Luther preached another sermon, on triple righteousness (de triplici iustitia).11 Here a third righteousness is added, an external civil righteousness that need not correspond to any genuine righteousness within. This dimension is mentioned at the end of the other sermon, but is not there described as a third righteousness.12 This would support the idea that the sermon de triplici iustitia was preached after that de duplici iustitia, being a further development of the theme,13 though the order of the sermons is not important for our purposes. In 1521 Luther responded to the Leuven theologian Jacob Masson, also known as Latomus, in his Rationis Latomianae Confutatio. Here he does not refer to a duplex iustitia, but makes a distinction similar to Article 5, but in different words. Following Romans 5:15–​21, he distinguishes between grace and gift. Grace is God’s favour and acceptance, bringing peace and the 10 WA 2:143–​52. Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia: Luthers Stellung zu einer Unionsformel des 16. Jahrhunderts,  2–​5. 11 WA 2:41–​47. Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 6–​8. On both sermons, see von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia,  9–​13. 12 WA 2:150–​52. 13 Neither the precise date of each sermon nor the order in which they were preached is known. See von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 9–​11. For the contrast between iustitia fidei and iustitia civilis in Luther and (especially) Melanchthon, see Maurer, Historical Commentary on the Augsburg Confession,  89–​97.

92  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification forgiveness of sins, in dependence upon Christ’s righteousness. The gift is an inner renewal that heals the corruption of nature. This gift is “infused” and he refers to it as righteousness, while making it clear that this righteousness/​ renewal is gradual and always remains imperfect in this life.14 Luther does not use the words imputed and inherent righteousness, but by “grace” and “gift” he clearly refers to these two types of righteousness, as they are set forth in Article 5. Luther returned to the theme of duplex iustitia in the 1530s. The Argument of his 1535 Lectures on Galatians is devoted to the contrast between active and passive righteousness. The former is a righteousness that we achieve, whether political righteousness, ceremonial righteousness or, especially, the righteousness of the Law, the righteousness of works. The latter, by contrast, is the “promise of grace offered in Christ,” the “righteousness of faith,” “the righteousness of Christ.” This righteousness “God imputes to us through Christ without works.” Luther’s concern is to maintain “a precise distinction between these two kinds of righteousness.” When it comes to peace with God, to the remedy for an afflicted conscience, we should hold to passive righteousness alone. But once the passive righteousness of faith is established, we should go on to seek an active righteousness of works. For “both are necessary,” and we should “perform good works whenever the opportunity arises,” but not suppose that it is the way to be put right with God, to be justified.15 These two kinds of righteousness are imputed righteousness and the righteousness of works, without any mention of inherent righteousness. The “two kinds of righteousness” reappear in the body of the commentary. So, for example, expounding 3:10, Luther states that justified believers receive the Holy Spirit through faith and then love God and neighbour and go on to fulfil the law and perform righteous works. This looks very much like inherent righteousness giving birth to the righteousness of works.16 Earlier, however, expounding 3:6, Luther had rejected the idea that righteousness is “in us in a formal sense,” instead affirming that it is “outside us, solely in the grace of God and in his imputation” (reputatione divina).17 He is not 14 WA 8:105–​26; LW 32:226–​57. See especially 8:105–​107/​32:227–​29; 8:111–​12/​32:235–​36; 8:114/​32:239–​40. Cf. Peura, “Christ as Favor and Gift: The Challenge of Luther’s Understanding of Justification”; Turnbull, “Grace and Gift in Luther and Paul.” These both point to Luther’s other use of grace/​gift terminology throughout his career. 15 WA 40/​1:40–​52; LW 26:4–​12. Cf. Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 244–​45. I am grateful to Matthew Thomas for advice on Luther’s Lectures on Galatians. See also Greschat, Melanchthon neben Luther, 80–​109; Fink, “Martin Luther’s Reading of Galatians.” 16 WA 40/​1:400–​402, 407–​409; LW 26:255–​56, 259–​60. 17 WA 40/​1:370; LW 26:234. The theme of imputation is developed at length (WA 40/​1:364–​72; LW 26:229–​35). His emphasis is on the imputation of righteousness for the sake of Christ, rather than the

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  93 contradicting himself but wishing to state two complementary truths. First, and most important, he is concerned to stress that it is by faith alone that we are put right with God, not by the righteousness of works, and also that this righteousness remains imperfect. We do not stand before God’s judgement seat on the basis of our works. Having established that, Luther is happy to concede that there is an inner change wrought by the Holy Spirit and that this does lead to love and (imperfect) good works. The two complementary truths relate to two different questions, which Luther later distinguishes in his response to Article 5: how we become righteous and how the righteous should live.18 This is a crucial distinction, to which we will return many times. Luther again refers to duplex iustitia in the Disputation concerning Justification that took place in 1536.19 Theses 27 to 29 refer to the righteousness of Christ that is foreign to us (aliena nobis) and that is embraced by faith alone, and not by our works. In God’s eyes we are justified by Christ alone, through faith alone, without works.20 But because of the danger of hypocrisy, we need to demonstrate this righteousness by its fruit, outward works which follow from love. He refers to this as a duplex iustitia.21 Von Loewenich states that this has little relevance for Article 5 as the issue here is how we are seen by other people to be righteous, rather than our status before God.22 That is true, but Article 5 also touches on the issue of perceived righteousness, stating that “we are said to be righteous, because the works which we perform are righteous” (§5:3). Luther also calls this a double justification, and we will return to this passage when we consider double justification later in the chapter. Around this time, probably in November 1536, Luther and Melanchthon had a private debate, arising out of a controversy concerning justification caused by Conrad Cordatus.23 Both parties are keen to preserve justification imputation of Christ’s righteousness. In this commentary Luther refers to Christ’s righteousness and to imputed righteousness, but never brings these two ideas together. 18 Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann Friedrich (10/​11 May) in WA Br. 9:407. 19 WA 39/​I:82–​126; LW 34:151–​96. See Greschat, Melanchthon neben Luther, 224–​28. 20 WA 39/​I:83; LW 34:153. 21 WA 39/​I:91–​93; LW 34:160–​62. 22 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 62, 76. 23 On the debate and its context, see Greschat, Melanchthon neben Luther, 230–​42; Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia, 206–​ 10; Seifrid, “Luther, Melanchthon and Paul on the Question of Imputation,” 138–​41. The text of the debate is found in Bindseil (ed.), Philippi Melanchthonis Epistolae, Iudicia, Consilia, Testimonia aliorumque, 344–​49; WA Br. 12:189–​95. Melanchthon attached it to a letter to Osiander (c. 1 January 1552)  (MBW 6:244–​46 [#6294]). A  sixteenth-​century German version (with slight variations) is found in WA Tr. 6:148–​53. This was by Johannes Aurifaber, rather than Melanchthon, so I will confine myself to citing Melanchthon’s Latin original.

94  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification by faith alone and by free imputation, and are also concerned not to deny the need for good works. Each is suspicious of the way in which the other safeguards the need for works, and each clarifies his own position in the debate. Melanchthon notes that Luther allows a double righteousness (duplicem iustitiam), the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of a good conscience. In his response Luther accepts the description, explaining the contrast between the perfect righteousness by mercy alone, which puts us right with God, and the external righteousness of works, which cannot make us holy in this life.24 Luther discussed duplex iustitia again the following year in his Disputation for the Promotion of Palladius and Tilemann.25 “There are two different righteousnesses (duae diversae iustitiae).”26 “Thus there will be a double righteousness here: a perfect righteousness that is by perfect imputation; an imperfect righteousness, from one’s own nature, and this is from our works, not from faith.”27 Here he states more briefly what he had spelled out at length in the Argument of his 1535 Lectures on Galatians. How do Luther’s various statements about duplex iustitia relate to Article 5? Von Loewenich correctly notes that Luther uses duplex iustitia language over the years in a variety of different ways and that most of these are not directly relevant to Article 5. He also notes that Luther’s statements in the Disputation for the Promotion of Palladius and Tilemann come close to Regensburg’s duplex iustitia and observes that in the light of this one might have expected Luther to have responded to Article 5 more leniently than he did.28 This conclusion is reinforced when one also considers the Argument of Melanchthon, also in response to the Cordatus controversy, wrote a letter explaining his position: Melanchthon to Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen and Cruciger (1 November 1536) in CR 3:179–​ 81; WA Br. 7:579–​83; MBW T7:262–​264 (MBW 2:276–​77 [#1802]). See further, Cordatus to Melanchthon (14 April 1537) in CR 3:341–​42; MBW T7:421–​22 (MBW 2:312 [#1887]); Melanchthon to Cordatus (15 April 1537) in CR 3:342–​46; MBW T7:424–​28 (MBW 2:313 [#1889]); Melanchthon to Veit Dietrich (22 June 1537) in CR 3:383–​84; MBW T7:463–​65 (MBW 2:322 [#1914]). 24 Bindseil (ed.), Philippi Melanchthonis Epistolae, Iudicia, Consilia, Testimonia aliorumque, 345; WA Br. 12:191. 25 WA 39/​I:203, 233–​41, esp.  233, 241. See Greschat, Melanchthon neben Luther, 242–​47; von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 65, 67–​68. 26 WA 39/​I:233. By contrast, in his earlier Rhapsodia seu Concepta in Librum de loco Iustificationis (1530), Luther opposes the idea of “duae diversae Iusticiae,” affirming instead “una Iusticia simplex fidei et operum” (WA 30/​2:659, as noted by von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 16, 76). But Luther here rejects duplex iustitia in the sense of making a separation between iustitia fidei and iustitia operum, in the manner of the scholastics (“more Sophistarum”). It is not that Luther changes his mind between 1530 and 1537, but rather that Luther’s duplex iustitia terminology is fluid, as noted by von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 77. 27 WA 39/​I:241. 28 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 73–​78, especially 77.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  95 Luther’s 1535 Lectures on Galatians, a work not discussed by von Loewenich. On the other hand, as von Loewenich himself observes, what concerned Luther about Article 5 was the relation between faith and love and not the idea of double righteousness, with which he does not engage.29 So while Luther may not have reacted leniently to Article 5 in general, his response to duplex iustitia in particular was much more lenient. What he affirms in 1535 and 1537 is the righteousness of works rather than inherent righteousness, and these are not identical, despite the fact that many writers do not clearly distinguish between them. On the other hand, he does refer to receiving the Holy Spirit through faith and then loving God and neighbour, which looks rather like inherent righteousness.30

The Origin of the Regensburg Formula Who originated the doctrine of duplex iustitia as it was understood at Regensburg? Some older scholars attributed it to Pighius, claiming that he in turn passed it on to Gropper.31 Jedin rightly argues that there is no evidence to support the claim that Pighius influenced Gropper or that the latter was the former’s pupil. He also carefully analyses the unpublished manuscript of Pighius’s De nostrae salutis et redemptionis mysterio et quibus modis gratiam iustificationis assequimur contra Confessionis Augustanae auctores vera et catholica assertio, which was completed by March 1540. This work is evidence for Pighius’s views after the publication of Gropper’s Enchiridion (1538) and before his engagement with the second (1539) edition of Calvin’s Institutes. It is innocent of the idea that we are justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and differs markedly from Gropper’s Enchiridion, apart from a shared belief in the centrality of Christ to justification.32 Pighius does cite the Pauline contrast between the righteousness of our works, which

29 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 55. Zur Mühlen, “Martin Bucer und das Religionsgespräch von Hagenau und Worms,” 668, is inaccurate when he states that Luther rejected the idea of double righteousness in Article 5. 30 Commenting on Article 5, Luther refers disparagingly to “inherent” love and grace, but the issue there is the claim that this is the ground for justification (Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann Friedrich (10/​11 May) in WA Br. 9:407). 31 Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 96–​97, gives examples. Others include Linsenmann, “Albertus Pighius und sein theologischer Standpunkt,” 581, 640–​44; Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 660, 663–​69. The theory goes back to Ignaz Döllinger. At Trent, Seripando cited Pighius as a Catholic theologian who had taught duplex iustitia (CT 5:486–​87). 32 Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 98–​111, 121–​23.

96  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification does not justify us, and the righteousness of/​from God, which does justify us,33 but this is not the duplex iustitia of Article 5. The decisive step for Pighius came in 1541 with his Controversies.34 Here Pighius again refers to “duplex . . . iustitia,” the contrast this time being between our righteousness before other people (coram hominibus) and the righteousness by which we are righteous before God. This latter he sees as threefold (trifariam).35 There is our own personal righteousness, compared with God’s righteousness, and the only one who can be justified by this righteousness is Christ himself. There is justification before the divine tribunal, where God’s righteousness is accommodated to our weakness, but here also we all fall short.36 Our hope, therefore, lies not in our own works, not in our own righteousness, but God’s mercy pardoning our sins. Romans 4 teaches that we can depend on no other righteousness than that which is imputed to us, apart from our works. It is in Christ that we are justified before God, not in ourselves. It is not our righteousness but his, which is imputed to us, who are already partakers in him (cum illo communicantibus). Here Pighius refers to the example of Jacob being covered by the smell of Isaac (Gen 27:27), quoting without acknowledgement from Calvin’s citation of Ambrose.37 All of this is because of Christ’s work on the cross, God putting him forward as a propitiation. This way God, who cannot justify the ungodly and unrighteous without some satisfaction, without payment, can be righteous while justifying those who have no righteousness of their own on which to rely, through faith (i.e. trust in Christ).38 Pighius explains this further in his second letter to Contarini.39 Here he questions the idea of an infused disposition (habitus) of love and insists that our righteousness before God must be full conformity to God’s righteousness, not merely a disposition of love. Since we all lack this, we need to be justified by an alien righteousness, the righteousness of Christ.40 Jedin 33 Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 110. 34 On this work, see ­chapter 1, at nn. 33–​34. I am quoting from Controversiarum . . . diligens et luculenta explicatio (Cologne: Melchior Novesian, 1542). On what follows, cf. Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 111–​12. Jedin quotes from a different edition. 35 Controversiarum, 36b. 36 Controversiarum, 36b–​37b. 37 Controversiarum, 37b–​38a. Cf. Calvin Institutio 3:11:23 (OS 4:207). For the imputation of righteousness, see also Pighius, Ratio componendorum dissidiorum, sigs. I3b–​4b. 38 Controversiarum, 38b–​39a, echoing Romans 3:25–​26. 39 Regesten, 387–​89. On this letter, see c­ hapter 1, at n. 35. 40 Regesten, 387–​88. See on this Amann, “Pighi (Albert),” 2102–​04. Pighius’s opposition to inherent grace and love was noted at Trent (CT 5:455), as was his teaching on imputed righteousness (CT 5:541). Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 115, 123 and Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 210, attribute Pighius’s ideas to Nominalism and Scotism.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  97 correctly concludes that Pighius’s teaching in 1541 is not that of double righteousness as it was held by Gropper or Contarini.41 So what is the source of Pighius’s new teaching? Gropper’s influence cannot be totally excluded,42 but much clearer is the influence of Calvin’s 1539 Institutes. Calvin himself accused Pighius of plagiarism, of copying passages from the Institutes into his second Controversy.43 Ruard Tapper, a former colleague of Pighius, concurred, stating that the latter opposed the idea of inherent grace, having been bewitched by the error and seduced by the reading of Calvin’s Institutes.44 If Pighius’s doctrine is not the duplex iustitia of Gropper, Contarini and Article 5, how is it that Contarini could state that the teaching of Article 5 “is largely the view of Pighius, which I saw in his writings, now printed but kept suppressed,” referring to Pighius’s Controversies?45 The cardinal was probably thinking of Pighius’s teaching on the imperfection of human righteousness and the need for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, ideas that are crucial to the article. That does not mean that Pighius had embraced the idea of duplex iustitia. So if Pighius is not the author of the idea of duplex iustitia, who is? Many have associated it with Gropper’s Enchiridion46 and Jedin states that he was the author of the formula.47 There are problems with this claim. First, as 41 Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 114–​15. Mackensen, “Contarini’s Theological Role at Ratisbon in 1541,” 44–​49, also argues against the theory that Pighius influenced Contarini. 42 Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 123. Jedin also suggests that the possible influence of Bucer deserves thorough examination. Braunisch, Die Theologie der Rechtfertigung im “Enchiridion” (1538) des Johannes Gropper, 432–​37, expounds and concurs with Jedin’s account of the differences between Pighius and Gropper. 43 Calvin, Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii (CO 6:246; COR 4:3:90–​91). See at n. 37, above. Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 115–​17, finds Pighius guilty, citing specific passages. Van ’t Spijker, “Albert Pigge over het geloofsbegrip van Calvijn,” is more generous to Pighius. 44 Tapper, Explicationis articulorum venerandae facultatis sacrae theologiae generalis studii Lovaniensis . . . tomus secundus (1557), 32 (sig. d4b, which is wrongly numbered 30 in one printing). 45 Contarini to Farnese (3 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation (1541),” 372–​73. Summary in Regesten, 177. See c­ hapter 1, above, n. 36, and c­ hapter 2, n. 119. 46 On this work, see Meier, “Das ‘Enchiridion christianae institutionis’ (1538) von Johannes Gropper.” This was a very popular work and Meier identifies six different forms of the first edition. See also Filser, Ekklesiologie und Sakramentenlehre des Kardinals Johannes Gropper, 55–​59. Between 1538 and 1560 there were as many (44) editions of Gropper’s Enchiridion as of Eck’s Enchiridion (ibid., 59). For Gropper’s doctrine of justification in this work, see especially Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 103–​33. Both of these stress the Christological, ecclesiological, and sacramental context of his doctrine of justification. For more on this, see c­ hapter 5, below, on §4:4. Cf. also Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 80–​116; McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2005), 312–​15. 47 Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 96–​97; Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, 2:257–​58. Others have followed him, such as Logan, “Grace and Justification: Some Italian

98  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification we have seen, Luther had earlier used the formula in a sermon preached in 1518 and published in 1519 and in various works between 1535 and 1537, albeit mostly not in the same sense as Article 5. More seriously the formula is not actually found in the Enchiridion.48 Fundamental to the chapter on justification in that work is the idea that this involves the two elements of remission of sins and inner renewal, but the former element is referred to negatively as remission of sins rather than positively as the imputation of righteousness, so this cannot be called a double righteousness.49 While there are a few references to imputation in the Enchiridion, his attitude towards imputed righteousness is equivocal. In the chapter on justification the word iustitia appears over seventy times50 and is used in a variety of ways. Gropper mentions the righteousness of a good conscience, external righteousness/​the righteousness of the flesh, the righteousness of Christ, the righteousness of God, the righteousness of faith, human righteousness, the righteousness of the law, and spiritual righteousness. Gropper does occasionally refer to imputed righteousness. He notes that some people call prevenient grace and justification the gratuitous imputation of righteousness or acceptance by God, because we are reckoned righteous on account of Christ and then our work and incomplete obedience is pleasing to God, even though it does not satisfy the law.51 He does not at that point object to such language, but later expresses his reservations in the chapter on justification. There he states that one should not seek to discernere “the imputed righteousness of God (iustitiam dei imputativam) from the righteousness of a good conscience.” Discernere could mean either “distinguish between” or “separate” and the Reformers would of course wish to do the former but not the latter. The distinction between “distinguish between” and “separate” is lost on Gropper at this stage and he does not allow

Views of the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,” 69. Many others have traced the formula to the Enchiridion, some of whom are listed by Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 425–​27. 48 Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 660 states that the doctrine is found in the Enchiridion “noch etwas unbestimmt.” Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 97, finds Dittrich’s qualification unfathomable (unerfindlich). 49 Enchiridion, 163a:  “Iustificatio duo proprie complectitur nempe remissionem peccatorum et interioris mentis renovationem seu repurgationem.” He also refers to the non-​imputation of sin (e.g. 82b), a commonplace of the Catholic tradition based on Psalm 32:2. 50 Not counting marginal references as these normally duplicate what is already in the body of the text and because one cannot be sure to what extent they were produced by Gropper or by the publisher. 51 Enchiridion, 129b. On imputatio and acceptatio, see Maurer, Historical Commentary on the Augsburg Confession, 335–​41.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  99 for the possibility that the Reformers might wish to do one without the other. Instead he emphasises the unity of iustitia and denies that there might be two iustitiae: “It is by entirely the same righteousness that God, when we are justified through the Holy Spirit, works in us both the remission of sins and the renewal of the mind—​not one righteousness and another.”52 This is the only time that there is any mention of two iustitiae, and the idea is rejected. Gropper also considered it dangerous to use the word justification only for the imputation of righteousness,53 and denied that works performed before justification are imputed for righteousness.54 Far from originating the duplex iustitia formula, Gropper’s Enchiridion comes closer to denying it. While Gropper’s attitude to imputed righteousness is equivocal, elsewhere in the Enchiridion he does have more positive things to say about the concept of imputation, though without mention of righteousness.55 It is not without the assent of our wills that we begin to acquire merit out of the free imputation of God (ex gratuita imputatione dei).56 Our works please God imputatively through grace (imputative per gratiam) and through Christ we fulfil the law imputatively (imputative).57 Such is God’s liberality that the things that he works in us, with our consent, he imputes as merit.58 The nearest Gropper comes to teaching imputed righteousness is in his affirmation that Christ clothes us with his own righteousness, which supplements the imperfection of our own righteousness.59 Citing this, Jedin once makes the more modest claim not that that Gropper’s Enchiridion teaches duplex iustitia, but that the “root” of it is found there. There is certainly some truth in this, though other roots can also be found elsewhere, such as in Bucer’s teaching. Jedin goes too far, however, by immediately adding that the elements of duplex iustitia are found in the Enchiridion, though not yet formulated.60 Zur Mühlen more accurately notes that the 52 Enchiridion, 163b: “eadem omnino sit iustitia, qua deus per spiritum sanctum cum iustificamur, utrunque, nempe remissionem peccatorum et mentis renovationem per fidem operatur, non alia atque alia.” 53 Enchiridion, 170b. 54 Enchiridion, 176a. 55 References to the non-​imputation of sins (cf. Ps. 32:2) are ignored as this is a commonplace of the Catholic tradition. 56 Enchiridion, 130b. 57 Enchiridion, 132a. 58 Enchiridion, 132b; cf. 133a. 59 Enchiridion, 168a. For more on this, see at n.  291–​95, below. Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” 3, traces back to the Enchiridion Gropper’s claim that infused righteousness is not sufficient for salvation. He later makes the more dubious claim that Gropper first taught “de duplici iustitia” in the Enchiridion (ibid., 10). 60 Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 119–​20, concluding his exposition of the Enchiridion (117–​20).

100  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Enchiridion teaches not a double righteousness but a double aspect of the one justification whose goal is to make us righteous.61 As Braunisch notes, in the Enchiridion Gropper’s response to the imperfection of our works righteousness is the need for these works to be counted righteous on the basis of Christ’s merit, not the need for an imputed righteousness alongside our inherent righteousness. “The righteousness of Christ is not imputed to the Christian as a supplement to inherent righteousness for the perfection of justification. Rather, by virtue of union with Christ by faith, it remains open for the justified as a court of appeal, by means of the imputative revaluation of his insufficient works. That is some difference!”62 Gropper had not yet arrived at a clear formulation of imputed righteousness as a partner to inherent righteousness, but there is sufficient positive teaching about imputation in the Enchiridion (but, significantly, not in the chapter on justification) to show that this would involve just a small and primarily terminological step for him.63 This picture is confirmed by the fact that term does not appear at all in the Worms Draft of Article 5 and comes but once in Gropper’s Draft: “that righteousness, which is perfect in him, he shares by gratuitous imputation with those who believe in him” (§3). Both drafts do, however, contain the idea of God imputing works to us “in meritum” (Worms Draft §68 = Gropper’s Draft §26) and of faith as receiving and applying to us the righteousness of Christ and the forgiveness of sins (Worms Draft §43 = Gropper’s Draft §4). In the Worms Draft also, the role of faith is to accept, receive and apply to us the forgiveness of sins (§7) and the grace of God (§40). Braunisch rightly argues that the “real break” (eigentliche Systembruch) in Gropper’s doctrine of justification lies between the Enchiridion and the final version of Article 5, though he adds that given Gropper’s belief in the imperfection of our own righteousness it is not so surprising that he made the break. At Regensburg Gropper met Melanchthon more than half way.64 Elsewhere 61 Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 338. Also, zur Mühlen, “Martin Bucer und das Religionsgespräch von Hagenau und Worms,” 665–​66. 62 Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 429. Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 101, 107, claims that Gropper teaches the imperfection of works, not the imperfection of effective justification or of inherent righteousness. It is not obvious that Gropper makes such a distinction in the Enchiridion. 63 ADRG 2/​II:783–​84 contains an undated “Altgl. Gutachten unbekannter Herkunft bzgl. der Rechtfertigung des Sünders” which states that Christ’s righteousness is reckoned (zugerechnett) to us. 64 Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 426–​ 31, quotation at 431; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper zwischen Humanismus und Reformation,” 207–​209. Pollet, “Note sur Joh. Gropper et la doctrine de la justification au XVIe siècle,” 369, is critical of Braunisch on this point. Braunisch’s book highlights the relation between the Enchiridion and Melanchthon’s thought.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  101 he states that this is proof of Gropper’s utopian willingness to compromise at the colloquy.65 Braunisch also states that the phase of an irenic mediating theology was for Gropper an “Episode,” meaning that this is something that he put behind him.66 In what sense? This Braunisch explains in a later work. Following the breach with Bucer in January 1543, Gropper changed from a confessionally irenic mediating theologian into a conservative polemical theologian. This much is clear from the relationship between them during the attempted Cologne Reformation.67 But did Gropper ever reject the doctrines that he affirmed in Article 5? Braunisch goes on to state that Gropper’s change from 1543 did not mean that he renounced the central insights of his earlier reflection on the doctrine of justification, continuing to defend his duplex iustitia teaching with an appeal to Augustine and Bernard. Imputed and inherent righteousness can be distinguished for teaching purposes, but they are indissolubly bound together as integral parts of justification. Those who are ontologically and effectively justified and incorporated into the Christ-​ community by inherent righteousness still remain sinners, yet in faith rest on the imputation of Christ’s meritorious righteousness.68 We will examine shortly the question of whether Gropper ever rejected the doctrines that he affirmed in Article 5, and then return to the question in the final chapter. Contarini, like Gropper, accepted the idea of imputed righteousness at Regensburg, but the former, unlike the latter, had not previously used the term.69 His conversion experience and his conviction about the imperfection of our inherent righteousness, together with his quest for assurance of salvation, paved the way for his acceptance of imputed righteousness at Regensburg,70 but it was not until that colloquy that he came to this acceptance. In the chapter on justification in the preface to his Romans commentary, Bucer comes closer to teaching duplex iustitia. He is concerned to Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 341, rightly notes that in Article 5, unlike Gropper’s Enchiridion or the Worms Draft, imputed righteousness has the priority. 65 Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 58:  “allzu optimistische Kompromißbereitschaft”; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” 119: “illusionistische Kompromißbereitschaft.” 66 Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 58; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” 119. 67 Braunisch, “Reformatio–​ Restauratio–​ Libertas Ecclesiae. Johannes Groppers Kardinalat im Spiegel seiner Korrespondenz zwischen Interim und Inquisition,” 136. 68 Ibid. 69 Lane, “Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy,” 181–​82. See below at nn. 135–​46. 70 See c­hapter  1, above, at nn. 3, 6–​ 8. Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis,  86–​88.

102  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification teach the inseparability of justification and sanctification. He uses the term iustitia primarily for the latter, to refer to the righteousness which is communicated to us (“verae iustitiae communicationem,” “iustitiae communionem”), which is effected in us (operatur) by the Spirit. This is the internal righteousness which is manifested in good works. Alongside this imparted righteousness, God also imputes righteousness to us. Bucer only once in this chapter uses the noun iustitia for this (imputat iustitiam), normally using the adjective instead. Thus, God pronounces us righteous. As believers we are considered (haberemur), reckoned (reputamur) and pronounced (pronunciamur) righteous. Similar language is also used: declared righteous (iustis  .  .  .  iudicatis) and to be estimated righteous (iustum censeri).71 Thus Bucer’s preferred terminology in this chapter is to say that in justification righteousness is imparted and the believer is reckoned righteous. This comes very close to the language of duplex iustitia. Fink rightly points out that in his Romans Commentary Bucer does not state that it is Christ’s righteousness that is imputed to us.72 He does, however, state that “God saves us by his mercy alone and by the contemplation of the merit of Christ, which, when we believe in Christ, is given to us and becomes ours.”73 Shortly before, he states that we should rely upon Christ’s merit alone. Later he refers to “the righteousness of Christ, by which he merited for us and bestows the secret power of his Spirit,”74 though this is not a reference to imputed righteousness. As Fink and Lugioyo both observe, at this stage Bucer’s concept of the positive imputation of righteousness is rather undeveloped and it is stated more clearly in the 1540s, especially in his exposition of Article 5 in 1542.75 What did Melanchthon teach about imputed and inherent righteousness prior to Regensburg?76 The Augsburg Confession, in Article 4, teaches that 71 Metaphrases et Enarrationes Perpetuae Epistolarum D.  Pauli Apostoli (1536), Preface 11–​14; Wright (ed.), Common Places of Martin Bucer, 160–​67. Later in the commentary he does refer to iustitia imputata (Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 218). For the structure of the commentary, see Parker, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans 1532–​1542,  34–​62. For Bucer’s doctrine of justification, see Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer, 48–​70; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification. For his doctrine in the Romans commentary in particular, see Barnikol, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung, dargestellt an seinem Römerbriefkommentar.” 72 Fink, “ ‘The Doers of the Law will be Justified’: The Exegetical Origins of Martin Bucer’s Triplex Iustificatio,” 510. 73 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 129, as cited by Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 51. 74 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 263, as cited by Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 51. 75 Fink, “ ‘The Doers of the Law will be Justified’,” 510; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 51–​52. See below at nn. 215–​22. 76 For Melanchthon’s doctrine of justification, see Kolb, “Rechtfertigungslehre.”

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  103 faith is imputed for righteousness, without using the term iustitia imputata, and the same is true of the Apology.77 The Editio princeps of the latter does, however, state that is “on account of the alien righteousness of Christ” that we are pronounced righteous. “Our righteousness is the imputation of an alien righteousness,” that is, the righteousness of someone else, namely Christ.78 Also, article 20 of the 1540 Confessio Augustana Variata Secunda twice refers to “the imputation of righteousness.”79 In the 1532 and 1540 editions of his Romans commentary, on ­chapter 4, there are many references to imputed righteousness, to the fact that it is gratuitous (gratuita) and given freely (gratis), and to its appropriation by faith alone, but no mention that the righteousness imputed is Christ’s righteousness.80 This suggests that prior to Regensburg, Melanchthon believed strongly in imputed righteousness, and that he also believed that it was Christ’s righteousness that was imputed, but that this last point was not one that he often made. What about inherent righteousness? Melanchthon does not use the word “inherent,” but does he concede the existence of a personal righteousness that is not imputed? First, he repeatedly states that such a righteousness is unable to justify us before God, unable to put us right with him. That can happen only through the promise of mercy won by Christ the Mediator. But, granted that, does Melanchthon acknowledge that the believer has a personal righteousness? Faith always leads to receiving the Spirit, love of God and neighbour, producing obedience to the law and good works. Does Melanchthon refers to this as “righteousness”? He repeatedly emphasises the imperfection of such righteousness and its inability to justify, but in the Apology he does acknowledge the existence of an “imperfect righteousness of the law.”81 It For the essential unity between Luther and Melanchthon on justification, see Greschat, Melanchthon neben Luther; Flogaus, “Luther versus Melanchthon? Zur Frage der Einheit der Wittenberger Reformation in der Rechtfertigungslehre”; Mattes, “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective,” 264–​73. 77 e.g. BSELK 307, 309; Kolb and Wengert 136 (4:89). For the edition cited, see c­ hapter 5, below, at nn. 14–​17. The German text of Article 4 states that we “receive forgiveness of sins and become righteous” but article ends with a quotation of Romans 3 and 4, implying that the righteousness received is imputed rather than inherent righteousness. 78 BSELK QuM1 479; Tappert 154 (4:305–​306). 79 BSELK QuM1:134. LT43 T5a, T6a, V1a; LC43 91, 93, also refers to the imputation of righteousness. 80 Melanchthon, Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (1532), sigs. G1a–​K3b; Melanchthon, Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (1540/​41), 117a–​135a; Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, 106–​21. 81 BSELK 339; Kolb and Wengert 149:  “haec imperfecta iustitia legis.” Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole, 33–​40, argues that duplex iustitia is compatible with Melanchthon’s Apology. See also Arand, “Two Kinds of Righteousness as a Framework for Law and Gospel in the Apology.”

104  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification would be going too far to state that Melanchthon here affirms an inherent righteousness, even by another name. Article 6 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession, however, affirms that “when we are reconciled by faith, a righteousness of good works ought to follow” and even presents a form of double righteousness: “the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of good works.”82 It is not hard to see how at Regensburg Melanchthon could have accepted the affirmation of an inherent righteousness with the qualifications that it remains imperfect (Article 5, §4:6, 6:1), that it does not justify us (§4:6), that we are not to depend upon it (§5:1), and that it is because of Christ the Mediator that we are pleasing to God (§6:1). At Worms, Melanchthon urged (in response to Osiander) that the Protestants should teach the righteousness of faith, which is imputed to us on account of Christ, not the righteousness by which we obtain new movements in the heart. His concern was not to deny the existence of the latter but rather, as his next sentence shows, where to point troubled consciences.83 What about Calvin? He did not use the term duplex iustitia prior to Regensburg, but the idea in the sense that it is understood in Article 5, is found in his references to a double grace (duplex gratia), referring to justification and sanctification.84 In the chapters of the Institutio on justification there is a strict contrast between human righteousness, which is soiled, and the imputed righteousness of Christ.85 The exceptions to this come mainly in the chapter in which he expounds God’s acceptance of believers’ works as righteous, where he is more positive about them, though as the fruit of our relationship with God, not the cause of it.86 The tone is slightly different in the 82 BSELK QuM1:126: “nec fidei iustitiam nec iustitiam bonorum operum.” On this see Maurer, “Confessio Augustana Variata,” 130–​31, where he mistakenly names Gropper as the origin of the teaching on double righteousness, having been misled by Lipgens. Wengert, “Justifying the Variata:  Observations on Melanchthon’s 1540 Edition of the Augsburg Confession,” examines the teaching of the 1540 Variata, on justification especially, and detects “faint glimmers” of the double righteousness propounded at Regensburg (233). For the necessity of obedience, see Article 20 (BSELK QuM1:135). On the role of works in the Augsburg Confession, see Pfnür, Einig in der Rechtfertigungslehre?, 198–​208. 83 Neuser (ed.), Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg, 129; ADRG 2/​ I:473–​75 (Wolfgang Musculus’s minutes for 9 November 1540). 84 Institutio 3:11:1 [1539]. For references to Institutio the date is given of the first edition where it appears. This is important where we are considering what Calvin taught before and after the colloquy. Cf. Rainbow, “Double Grace: John Calvin’s View of the Relationship of Justification and Sanctification,” 99–​105; Garcia, Life in Christ:  Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology; Helm, Calvin at the Centre, 196–​226. 85 In these chapters (Institutio 3:11–​18) Calvin recognises that believers are those who pursue and obey righteousness. 86 Relative to the wicked believers are righteous (3:17:14 [1539]) and God accepts their works as righteous (double justification, on which see below). While they are called righteous because of their holiness of life, this consists more in the pursuit of righteousness than in actually fulfilling it (3:17:10 [1539]).

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  105 chapters on sanctification. Calvin did not use the term iustitia inhaerens, but his teaching on regeneration and sanctification is all about an inner renewal by the Holy Spirit. The fruit that the Spirit brings is buds of righteousness, obedience to God’s righteousness, and true righteousness.87 Repentance involves the love for and practice of iustitia.88 Thus, inclination to iustitia leading to iustitia is one of the fruits that follow renewal (renovatio).89 As we grow in the Christian life we become increasingly like God, righteous.90 It is true, as Paul Helm points out, that Calvin mostly uses other terms to describe the fruits of regeneration,91 but he does use righteousness language to a significant extent. Why is Calvin in his Institutio more willing to concede human righteousness in one context than in the other? When the question is growth in the Christian life, he is happy to refer to human righteousness, but when the issue is acceptance by God, he emphasises the worthlessness of human righteousness. In the former context the reality of human righteousness is the issue; in the latter its imperfection. (These two questions/​ issues are the same as those identified by Luther.92) For this reason, although in the context of sanctification Calvin is happy to talk of a human righteousness, he does not set this alongside imputed righteousness as a “second righteousness.” When he wishes to juxtapose the two, he prefers to echo the language of 1 Corinthians 1:30 and so he repeatedly refers to our [imputed] righteousness and [inherent] sanctification—​which is the way in which Calvin expresses his own version of the Regensburg duplex iustitia. At the Worms Colloquy, immediately prior to Regensburg, Calvin raised the issue of whether our incomplete and imperfect righteousness (inchoata et imperfecta iustitia) pleases God in its own right without participation in the perfect righteousness of Christ, and concluded, of course, that it does not. He acknowledges that there is a righteousness of works, but it must be subordinated to our righteousness of faith.93 He makes no mention of the duplex iustitia formula but does here (contrary to his practice 87 Institutio 3:1:3; 3:3:14; 3:3:19 [all from 1539]. 88 Institutio 3:3:20 [1539]; 3:4:36 [1536]. 89 Institutio 3:3:8–​9, 20 [1539]; 3:6:1–​3, 5 [1539 and 1559]; 3:7:3 [1559]. 90 Institutio 3:3:9 [1539]. 91 Helm, Calvin at the Centre, 211–​12. 92 See at n. 18, above. 93 Neuser (ed.), Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg, 129, 131; ADRG 2/​I:475 (Wolfgang Musculus’s minutes for 9 November 1540).

106  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification in the Institutio) set alongside one another a righteousness of faith and a (strictly subordinated) righteousness of works. Calvin was the Protestant theologian at the Worms Colloquy most willing to concede a righteousness of works,94 so he is likely to have encouraged those who worked for agreement at Regensburg. Verbally, this comes closer to Regensburg than does the Institutio, but not in terms of content. The double righteousness of Regensburg is imputed and inherent. Inherent righteousness refers to the inner righteousness brought about by the Holy Spirit, which Calvin would call sanctification or regeneration. Good works are the fruit or outworking of this. The only reference to a righteousness of works in Article 5 comes in §5:3. We need to distinguish between the doctrine of duplex iustitia and the terminology of duplex iustitia. It is possible to have the former without the latter. Article 5 has the terminology to the extent that inherent and imputed righteousness are held together, but it does not actually use the phrase duplex iustitia. The great majority of Protestant theologians would have held to the doctrine to the extent that they believed both in a genuine change wrought by the Holy Spirit (regeneration and sanctification) and in our acceptance by God on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us (justification). But not all of these theologians would have used righteousness language (the word iustitia and cognates) to describe the former. Again, some, like Calvin, were prepared to refer to the fruit of sanctification in terms of righteousness but did not go so far as to link the two righteousnesses together into a duplex iustitia. So it can be said that the great majority of Protestant theologians held to the doctrine of duplex iustitia to the extent that they distinguished justification from sanctification and held that because of the imperfection of the latter, we are accepted on the basis of imputed righteousness. But mostly they did not use duplex iustitia language to explain this. For these theologians, the Regensburg formula represented a terminological rather than a doctrinal concession. None of the theologians thus far considered uses the terminology of duplex iustitia in the sense that it is found at Regensburg, where the two iustitiae are inherent righteousness and imputed righteousness. The Regensburg doctrine also implies more than simply believing that God both makes us righteous and reckons us righteous. The Council of Trent affirmed this in the very

94 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 178–​83.

It is unclear why Léonard, A History of Protestantism, 1:244, should have suggested that it was Calvin who helped to harden Melanchthon’s attitude.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  107 process of refusing the Regensburg doctrine of duplex iustitia. As Christians, “we are not merely considered to be righteous but are truly called righteous and are righteous.”95 Christian initiation involves both being made righteous and being counted as righteous, but this distinction does not imply a doctrine of duplex iustitia. For Trent, we are counted as righteous because we actually are, while for the Regensburg doctrine of duplex iustitia, we need imputed righteousness because our inherent righteousness is inadequate. So the Regensburg doctrine of duplex iustitia requires not just the distinction between these two types of righteousness (inherent and imputed) but also the belief that the latter is needed because of the imperfection of the former. We need imputed righteousness to be acceptable to God because our inherent righteousness does not suffice to make us acceptable before the throne of God’s justice. Was the duplex iustitia formula simply a compromise produced for purpose of reaching agreement? It would be rash to deny that the search for a consensus formula played some role, but Yarnold rightly argues that it was also based upon deeply felt conviction, from the belief held on both sides at Regensburg that throughout this life and at the Last Judgement the Christian is in need of the mercy of God.96 Gropper and Contarini were able to accept the idea of double righteousness because they understood and shared fundamental Protestant theological concerns—​in particular the fear that talk of merit undermines God’s grace and the awareness of ongoing sin in the justified. Eck, by contrast, never grasped this religious motivation. Conversely, the Protestants were able to appreciate the fundamental Catholic concerns about the need for repentance, good works and holiness, concerns that are addressed in Article 5.97 There remains, however, an important distinction. For the Protestants, soteriology was primary, and ecclesiology secondary; for the Catholics, the reverse was true. For the Catholics, justification was incorporated into the sacramental system. So, for example, justification is expounded in Gropper’s Enchiridion in the context of the sacrament of penance.98 This does not necessarily imply that the agreement reached on 95 Decree on Justification, ch. 7 (Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2:673). For the Tridentine decree I use my own translation, based on previous ones. 96 Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 207, 212. 97 Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 103. For the concerns of Catholic reformers, see Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage,  48–​49. 98 See, e.g. Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 104–​105, 131–​33, 202–​203. See further on this in ­chapter 5, below, on §4:4. Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 180, rightly notes that Contarini (unlike Luther) did not remould his doctrine of the Church in the light of his understanding of justification.

108  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification justification was illusory, but it does help to explain why the colloquy foundered on the topics of ecclesiology and sacramentology.

Double Righteousness after Regensburg The idea of duplex iustitia is fundamental to Contarini’s Epistola de iustificatione.99 He uses the phrases duplex iustitia100 and utraque iustitia.101 All references to either phrase were removed from Contarini’s Epistola by the Venetian Inquisitor.102 The idea of “the righteousness of Christ given and imputed to us” (iustitia Christi nobis donata et imputata) recurs repeatedly in these and similar words in the Epistola.103 From the structure of the letter as a whole it is clear that the phrase iustitia Christi nobis donata refers to imputed rather than inherent righteousness. This phrase is always used in parallel with imputed righteousness and contrasted with inherent righteousness, grace, and love. All references to imputation were also removed by the Venetian Inquisitor, the word imputo thrice being replaced by communico.104 At the end of his life Contarini wrote some Scholia in Epistolas Divi Pauli (Notes on the Letters of Paul), which contain material relevant to our theme.105 Here, on Philippians 3:8–​9,106 the phrase duplex iustitia appears with the same meaning as in the Epistola. The double righteousness is, of course, inherent and imputed. The theme of imputed righteousness also comes repeatedly in the Scholia. Where Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 (in Romans 99 For this and the next three paragraphs, see Lane, “Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy,” 175–​77. 100 CC 7:28:12–​13, 29:19. 101 CC 7:28:17, 29:9. 102 CC 7:XXXVI–​XXXVII. 103 Donata alone: 27:25, 29:29, 36, 30:15, 24; imputata alone: 28:16; both together: 29:4, 22, 27, 31:1–​3, 31:5. Cf. 27:25:  “omnem iustitiam ... nobis imputat.” Jedin, “Kardinal Pole und Vittoria Colonna,” 187, surprisingly claims that Contarini in his Epistola avoids using the term “iustitia Christi imputata.” 104 In CC 7:27:25, 31:1, 5. Cf. CC 7:XXXVI–​XXXVII. 105 First published in 1571 in Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 435–​530. Cf. Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 834–​43. For their date, see Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 838–​39; Anderson, “Biblical Humanism and Roman Catholic Reform,” 704; Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 283; Pauselli, “Note sugli Scholia di Gasparo Contarini ad Efesini e Galati,” 132. In the 1589 Venice edition the censor has changed many of the more “Protestant” passages. For examples, see Pauselli, “Note sugli Scholia di Gasparo Contarini ad Efesini e Galati,” 133–​38. Maffeis, “La teologia paulina nella riforma cattolica del XVI secolo:  Gasparo Contarini e il Colloquio di Religione di Regensburg,” 314, states that Contarini was open to Reformation ideas because of his study of Paul, as well as his own spiritual experience. He sets out Contarini’s teaching on duplex iustitia in 300–​304. 106 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 494H.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  109 4:3–​5) Contarini notes that this is not a reckoning righteous on the basis of works, but an imputation of righteousness which is attributed to faith.107 On Romans 5:12–​21 he parallels the imputation of Adam’s sin to all with the imputation to us of righteousness and Christ’s merit.108 Contarini did not, of course, cease to believe in inherent righteousness. He explains the duplex iustitia as both inherent (“which is incomplete and is continuously being completed”) and imputed (“which is full and complete”).109 To the members of Christ, those things which they lack from perfection of righteousness are imputed from the righteousness and merits of Christ.110 Contarini continued to hold to the belief in imputed righteousness after the breakdown of the Regensburg Colloquy. Von Loewenich argues that Contarini’s understanding of the imputation of righteousness was not purely or exclusively forensic.111 He argues this on the basis that in his Epistola de iustificatione the passion and merit of Christ are given and imputed to us in baptism,112 that it is because we are incorporated into Christ and put on Christ that we receive both inherent and imputed righteousness113 and that these can both be lost.114 At this point he cites Rückert, who points to Contarini’s Christ-​mysticism (Christusmystik).115 What exactly is von Loewenich claiming? It is clear that for Contarini, the Christian does not relate to Christ purely externally, and union with Christ is fundamental to salvation. But it is equally clear that through 107 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 437D. 108 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 438G–​439A. Christ obeyed the moral law for us, therefore “eius etenim iustitia et merita, nostra sunt” (ibid., 478H on Galatians 3:19). God bestows on us sanctitas, which we begin to have in this life. But in the sight of God, who bestows Christ’s righteousness on us and views us through him, we already have sanctitas and thus we are immaculate in his sight (ibid., 483A on Ephesians 1:4). 109 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 494H, 495B on Philippians 3:8–​ 14. Brieger, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Cardinal Contarini, kritisch dargestellt und verglichen mit der des Regensburger Buches,” 128–​29, aptly parallels this with Hooker’s position in his Sermon 2:3, 6, 21. Cf. at nn. 238–​40, below. 110 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 494H, 495B. For further references to imputed righteousness, see ibid., 468H–​469A on 2 Cor 5, Summary; 470E on 2 Cor 5:21 and for the imputation of Christ’s divitiae, see ibid. 487C on Eph 3:8. 111 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 45–​46. Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 263, claims that imputed righteousness becomes a quality in the regenerate, thus opening the way to include the works of the regenerate in justification. She does not take sufficiently into account that Contarini is using the word justification in a broader sense than Calvin, say, to include what the latter would understand by sanctification. Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 211, also states that for Contarini imputed righteousness “is not forensic, but is grounded on the fact that we are ‘grafted (inserti) into Christ and put on Christ’.” He does not explain why the latter should exclude the former. 112 CC 7:30:37–​31:2. 113 CC 7:29:19–​23. 114 CC 7:33:11–​16. 115 Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis,  88–​90.

110  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification the imputation of righteousness we are accepted as righteous and can have a confidence before God, despite the imperfection of inherent righteousness and good works. Dittrich rightly rejects the view that Contarini spoke of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness only in the sense of an imputation of merit or an imparting of the fruits of it, that his views are limited to the Catholic understanding. He argues, to the contrary, that Contarini had truly made the Protestant concept of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness his own.116 It is true that for Contarini salvation flows from our union with Christ and is not purely forensic. But imputed righteousness in particular, which is only one aspect of salvation, involves the reckoning to us of the righteousness of Christ to render us acceptable before God’s judgement seat and this is what is normally meant by “forensic”—​even though it is “in Christ” that we are reckoned righteous. In Contarini’s Epistola de iustificatione imputed righteousness is “not inherent.”117 Union with Christ plays an important role in the Scholia. It is to the members of Christ that those things which they lack from perfection of righteousness are imputed from the righteousness and merits of Christ.118 It is in Christ, not in ourselves, that we are justified, and Christ acts as our Mediator so that God sees us in him.119 Through union with Christ all that is his is ascribed to us.120 As with Adam, what Christ has done for us we did “in him.”121 At Regensburg Contarini spoke to Pighius about justification, which provoked a letter from Pighius. Contarini responded with a letter terminating the discussion.122 In it he stresses the link between imputed righteousness and being implanted in Christ.123 But how do we come to be in Christ? Rückert claims that this is brought about by inherent righteousness.124 The clearest evidence for this comes in Contarini’s letter to Pighius. In response to Pighius’s denial of habitual righteousness, he states that it is necessary for us to be implanted in Christ by an immanent habit or disposition.125 In his Scholia he also states that it is by

116 Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 676–​77. 117

CC 7:28:15; cf. 7:30:37–​31:2. See c­ hapter 6, below, for more on this. Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 495B on Phil 3:12. 119 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 477C–​D on Gal 3, Summary. 120 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 486E on Eph 2:5–​6. 121 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 439A on Rom 5:12–​21; 494H on Phil 3:8–​9. 122 Regesten, 387–​89, 349–​53. Neither letter is dated. 123 Regesten, 350. 124 Rückert, Theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis,  89–​91. 125 Regesten, 350: “necesse est inseri nos per habitum immanentem.” 118

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  111 faith and love that we cleave to and are incorporated into Christ,126 as well as by grace and the Holy Spirit.127 But he also states that it is through faith that we are incorporated into Christ and put on Christ and are one in him.128 Indeed, Christ is of no benefit to those who are not conjoined with him by faith.129 It is through faith that we are incorporated into Christ, from whom we derive grace and the Holy Spirit.130 How are these apparently contradictory positions to be understood?131 One explanation might be that Contarini has failed to harmonise his newer teaching on salvation by faith with his older teaching132 on union with Christ by faith and love. Another possibility is that union with Christ by faith refers to the initial union with him, which comes about through the appropriating act of faith.133 Through this union we receive both inherent and imputed righteousness. This ongoing union is, then, a union through the dispositions of faith and love. We cannot remain in union with Christ without inherent grace, the Holy Spirit, faith, and love. Thus grace, the Holy Spirit, and love can all be described both as the cause of union with Christ and as its fruit.134 Contarini continued after Regensburg to affirm imputed righteousness and duplex iustitia. But when did he begin to affirm them?135 McNair claims that there is no evidence that there was a change in Contarini between his arrival at Regensburg and his death.136 In the light of this, he could suggest that it was Contarini who proposed the duplex iustitia formula at Regensburg.137 Contarini’s writings prior to the colloquy do not support either claim. There is no mention of imputed righteousness in any of his writings prior to Regensburg, such as his Confutatio Articulorum seu Quaestionum Lutheranorum, written at some point between 1530 and 126 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 439A on Rom 5:12–​21; 483A on Eph 1:3–​4. 127 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 483B on Eph 1:6. 128 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 479D on Gal 3:26–​29. 129 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 480H on Gal 5:2. 130 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 484E on Eph 1:13. 131 A number of Contarini’s interpreters have drawn attention to his weaknesses as a systematic theologian (Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 108; von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 47; Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 232). 132 As in his Letter 2 to Giustiani (24 April 1511) in Jedin, “Contarini und Camaldoli,” 64; Gleason (ed.), Reform Thought in Sixteenth-​Century Italy, 26. 133 On faith as an appropriating act, see c­ hapter 5, below, on §4:2. 134 For love as its fruit, cf. Scholia on Galatians 5:22ff. (Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 481A): [the dispositions of] love and faith are the fruit of the Spirit. 135 For this and the next two paragraphs, see Lane, “Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy,” 181–​ 82. In addition to the literature cited below, Vetter, Die Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg, 101–​103 discusses the issue. 136 McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy, 234. 137 Ibid., 15.

112  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification 1535 in response to some of the articles of the Augsburg Confession.138 Rückert notes its absence from his De sacramentis, written in 1539/​40. He also argues that Pole’s letters to Contarini in May and July 1541 imply that he was already familiar with Contarini’s teaching. This would mean that Contarini must have embraced the idea of imputed righteousness during 1540, although Rückert adds the important qualification that these religious thoughts were already alive in him.139 This is perhaps to build too much on Pole’s general remarks,140 which need not apply to every last detail of Contarini’s exposition. What in 1540 might have induced Contarini to embrace the concept of imputed righteousness? Rückert lays the blame on Gropper’s Enchiridion,141 but as we have seen, Gropper’s attitude to imputed righteousness in this work is highly equivocal, and it does not, in fact, teach duplex iustitia in the sense that it appears at Regensburg. In a final, lengthy footnote, Rückert acknowledges the possibility that at Regensburg Contarini moved beyond Gropper to a Lutheran view of justification.142 A  comparison of Contarini’s and Gropper’s teaching before and after Regensburg suggests that they both moved to a wholehearted acceptance of the idea of imputed righteousness as a result of the intensive debates at the colloquy and continued to maintain it afterwards. For Contarini this was but a small step, as it was consistent with long-​ held convictions. His sense of the inadequacy of human merit and the need to rely upon Christ’s atoning passion is found in his early letters to Paulo Giustiniani.143 From this I conclude that any man that lives is but nothingness and that we must justify ourselves through the justice of another, namely Christ. 138 The first two of these articles were on justification by faith and good works. CC 7:XI–​XIII, 1–​ 5; German translation in Jedin, Kardinal Contarini als Kontroverstheologe, 19–​24. On the contents, see ibid., 5–​18; Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 304–​16; Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 16–​34. In this work as in other earlier works Contarini is heavily, though not exclusively, influenced by Thomas Aquinas. 139 Rückert, Die Theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 95–​106: “diese religiösen Gedanken bereits in ihm lebendig waren” (103). Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 476, agrees about the fully Catholic nature of the teaching of the De sacramentis. 140 For more on which, see c­ hapter 2, above, at nn. 129–​47. 141 Rückert, Die Theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 96–​106. Also Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 194. Contarini knew the Enchiridion (Meier, “Das ‘Enchiridion christianae institutionis’ (1538) von Johannes Gropper,” 299). Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 661–​69, claims that Contarini learned it from Pighius, which Rückert, Die Theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 98, disputes. 142 Rückert, Die Theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 106–​108. 143 Contarini to Giustiniani Letters 2 and 30 (24 April 1511; 7 February 1523) in Jedin, “Contarini und Camaldoli,” 64, 117; Gleason (ed.), Reform Thought in Sixteenth-​Century Italy, 25–​26,  32–​33.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  113 Joining ourselves to him, his justice becomes ours. We must not trust ourselves at all but say: “For ourselves we could find no outcome but death.”144

Jedin graphically states, on the basis of these letters that Contarini was “predestined” to seek, perhaps for the last time, to build a bridge from Catholicism to Protestantism because of the similarity of his experience to Luther’s. He understood Luther even if he could not follow him.145 But while there is continuity between the young Contarini and the older cardinal, his earlier stance need have led him no further than an Augustinian stress on the need for grace to provide an inherent righteousness.146 The acceptance of imputed righteousness was not so inevitable as to occur when he responded to the Augsburg Confession in the early 1530s. It was at Regensburg that Contarini’s sense of the ongoing need for God’s mercy translated for the first time into an explicit belief in the need for an imputed righteousness. At least, this was the first time that he put it in writing. It may be that the ideas had already begun to take life in him through his contacts with other spirituali, but we have no evidence for that. After Regensburg Gropper did not abandon the duplex iustitia formula. In his 1544 Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung,147 Gropper clearly affirmed imputed righteousness. The remission of sins is “through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.” We are justified by a double righteousness (iusticia duplici), that is, by imputed and inherent righteousness. These two are together the formal causes of justification.148 The Leuven (Louvain) theology faculty was not happy with the idea of duplex iustitia and complained about it in their 9 July letter to the Cologne theology faculty,149 but Gropper stuck to 144 Gleason (ed.), Reform Thought in Sixteenth-​Century Italy, 33. Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 677–​ 78, argues that Contarini’s view on relying on imputed righteousness was reached on ethical, mystical, ascetic rather than dogmatic grounds. Similarly Braun, Kardinal Gasparo Contarini oder der “Reformkatholizismus” unserer Tage im Lichte der Geschichte, 65–​76, esp. 69; von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 47. 145 Jedin, “Contarini und Camaldoli,” 60. Mackensen, “Contarini’s Theological Role at Ratisbon in 1541,” 50–​55, argues similarly. 146 At this point I concur with the reservations expressed by Anderson, “Biblical Humanism and Roman Catholic Reform,” 691–​92. 147 Gropper, Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung (1544). Latin translation by Eberhard Billick = Antididagma, seu, Christianae et Catholicae religionis . . . Propugnatio (1544). 148 Gegenberichtung, 19b–​20a; Antididagma,13b–​14a. Antididagma, 14b states that the people should be taught “de duplici ista iustitia,” but this is a mistranslation of “von disem zweierlei vertrauwen” (Gegenberichtung, 21a). Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper 1503-​1559, 145–​46, claims that Gropper does not understand Zurechnung in a truly imputative sense, which is odd given that he translates it as imputatio. Lipgens implausibly seeks to portray the Gegenberichtung as a retreat from “der ganzen Lehre der duplex iustitia” as found in the Enchiridion and in Article 5. 149 Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” 12–​14. See ­chapter 3, above, at n. 55. Not all theologians at Leuven agreed with the faculty. The Franciscan theologian Adam Sasbout in his commentary on New Testament letters refers to

114  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification his guns.150 Three of the four “articles” that Gropper excerpted from this letter made mention of the imputation of righteousness, the first objecting to the fact that justification includes “the remission and washing of sins through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”151 In his response, Gropper first defends from Augustine and Thomas the inclusion of “the remission and washing of sins,” but then he acknowledges that the real objection is to this coming “through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.” He does not apologise for his earlier stance but defends it, from Scripture (Rom 3–​5 especially), tradition (Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Peter Lombard) and contemporary authors (Driedo and Pighius).152 In his response to the other articles, he also repeatedly defends the idea of imputed righteousness.153 He appealed to [Pseudo-​]Augustine, who, he argued, clearly distinguished between “the righteousness of Christ, on which alone we should depend, and inherent righteousness.”154 In opposing Protestant heresy one must not also condemn those things “which are not only taught expressly in the apostolic writings, but have also always been received by the Fathers and the Church, which indeed are such that the entirety of Christian salvation and wisdom is located in them. One such is [the belief] that sins are forgiven us in the blood of Christ, provided of course that his righteousness or merit is imputed to us.”155 Although in the 1544 Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung and in his defence of it against the Louvain faculty, Gropper clearly proclaims imputed righteousness as well as to infused, inherent righteousness (Sasbout, In omnes fere.D. Pauli, et quorundam aliorum Apostolorum, epistolas explicatio (1556), 45–​46 (on Rom 4:1–​8)). Later in the commentary, however, he implies that inherent and imputed righteousness are exclusive alternatives (168 (on Gal 2:15–​16)). I am grateful to Gerace, Biblical Scholarship in Louvain, 121–​28, for drawing my attention to these passages. 150 In his “Articuli antididagmatis notati per Theologos Lovanienses,” in van Gulik, Johannes Gropper (1503 bis 1559), 211, 213. See c­ hapter 3, above, at n. 57. 151 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207, quoting Antididagma, 11b; Gegenberichtung, 17a. 152 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207–​209. He cites Driedo, De captivitate and redemptione humani generis (1534), without further specification, and Pighius, Controversiarum, 33a–​?40a (Gropper obligingly uses the same edition as I do.) In their response to Leuwen, the Cologne faculty mention not just Pighius but the Paris theologian Ioannes Gagnaeius (Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” 14, 15). On this see ibid., 6–​8, and Gagnaeius, Brevissima and facillima in omnes divi Pauli epistolas scholia (1543), sigs. ¶7b–​8a, 6a–​b. 153 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 210–​15, 217–​19. 154 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 215:  “iustitiam Christi, qua sola nitendum est, et iustitiam inherentem.” 155 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 221: “quae non modo in literis apostolicis expressim docentur, sed etiam a Patribus et Ecclesia semper fuerunt recepta, immo quae talia sunt, ut in his tota salus totaque sapientia christianorum sit constituta, quale est, quod nobis in sanguine Christi remittuntur peccata, dum scilicet iustitia eius seu meritum nobis imputatur.” The word “fuerunt” is missing from the printed version, but is found in the manuscript (Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, Nachlaß Pflug, Katalog p. 23 L, 51a/​101)

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  115 a duplex iustitia, he thereafter became much more defensive about the concepts of imputed righteousness and duplex iustitia. In the Artikell, written in 1545, Gropper makes no mention of imputed righteousness, preferring to speak five times of a “gerecht machen,” which he understands as a translation of “iustificare.”156 In his response to Die Antilogi des Bucers, which like the Artikell is found in the Warhafftige Antwort, Gropper responds to Bucer’s teaching of imputed righteousness by affirming that the righteousness to which Paul refers in Philippians 3:9 is not the righteousness by which Christ himself is righteous, “but the righteousness through which he makes us righteous, which is heartfelt (embrüstige) love for God and neighbour.” Again, “we are made righteous in such a way that alongside the righteousness that is Christ’s own and is in his person alone, we receive from him a righteousness that is inherent to us becomes our own, is in us and remains in us.”157 Gropper does not deny either imputed righteousness or duplex iustitia, but he speaks in terms of a polarisation between imputed righteousness only (of which he accuses Bucer and Melanchthon) and inherent righteousness only (since he no longer mentions imputed righteousness). The same polarisation is found the following year in his Capita Institutionis ad Pietatem. Here Gropper, in answer to the question “What is justification?” reverts to the teaching of his Enchiridion, that justification consists in two things—​the remission of sins through faith and the renewal of the inner person through love. Against this he sets the insanity of the heretics who deceitfully claim that it consists solely in the confidence or presumption that sins are forgiven and not in inner renewal.158 Gropper employed exactly the same tactic in his Institutio Catholica (1550). Here he repeatedly contrasts justification by imputed righteousness alone with justification by inherent righteousness, by a true sharing and imparting (“vera communicatione et impartitione”) of Christ’s righteousness.159 To be justified means nothing other than being conformed to the likeness of Christ’s death and resurrection.160 The Lutheran view is portrayed as justification by the bare, naked, alien righteousness of Christ alone.161 Elsewhere, 156 Warhafftige Antwort, 9b–​10a (the articles Von der rechtfertigung des menschen and Von den guten wercken). 157 Warhafftige Antwort,  24a–​b. 158 Capita Institutionis ad pietatem, sigs. K7b–​8a. See also c­ hapter 5 below, on §5:1. 159 Institutio catholica, Elementa Christianae pietatis (1550), 537, 542, 546. The same point is made earlier, in his account of the doctrine of baptism (111–​12). 160 Institutio catholica, 538. 161 Institutio catholica, 592: “in sola, mera et nuda imputatione iustitiae Christi, . . . quatenus videlicet aliena est et aliena permanet.” Also, 589–​90.

116  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification however, Gropper, alluding to Romans 4, states that in initial justification to those with a faith that embraces obedience God imputes their faith as righteousness, through his gratuitous and most generous acceptance.162 So from 1545, Gropper is silent concerning imputed righteousness. Had he ceased to believe in it or was he just keeping quiet about it? How did he react to the unfavourable reception afforded to imputed righteousness and duplex iustitia at Trent? Fortunately for us, he answered this question clearly and explicitly, in a private letter sent to Pflug in 1552. There he addresses the question, “What about the imputed righteousness of Christ?” He dryly calls imputed righteousness that righteousness “which alone the Lutherans press and of which our side are scarcely permitted to make mention.” He acknowledges the obligation not to think otherwise on this than was agreed at Trent, but then argues that this does not exclude the idea of imputed righteousness.163 Fortunately, we have more than this very brief statement to judge whether or not Gropper had gone back on his convictions of 1544. As already mentioned, at the end of his life Gropper faced accusations of heresy on the grounds that his doctrine of duplex iustitia was contrary to the Tridentine Decree on Justification, and responded to them twice. Here, far from “scarcely mentioning” imputed righteousness, he argues vigorously for it. In the shorter defence of his teaching, he maintains that he has avoided “that most vain and false imputative righteousness of our adversaries.” They say that it comes about solely because we trust that our sins are forgiven on account of Christ, having absolutely no regard for the inherent righteousness communicated to us (“nulla prorsus habita ratione iustitiae nobis communicatae et inhaerentis”). Some Catholic writings reject the use of the word “imputation” in the matter of justification on the grounds that it was unknown to the ancients, but how can one completely reject the word when Paul uses it in Romans 4? Gropper does not reject the word but seeks to interpret it correctly, consistently with the teaching of Trent.164 These points are developed much more fully in his Apologia.165 As in his Institutio Catholica (1550), he refutes Lutheran accusations that Catholics

162 Institutio catholica, 580–​81. Similarly, 570–​71. 163 Gropper to Pflug (11 December 1552) in Pflug, Correspondance, 3:552–​54; JGB 2:378–​80. For more on this, see the discussion on the double formal cause of justification below. 164 Schwarz, “Römische Beiträge zu Joh. Groppers Leben und Wirken,” 594–​607, with the text itself on 598–​606. The quoted material is on 603. 165 JGB 2:593–​670. For the circumstances of its writing, see notes 1 and 2 (664–​66). Gropper mentions his earlier, briefer defence (594).

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  117 teach justification by inherent righteousness alone.166 He also accuses Calvin of teaching that the regenerate put on Christ (Gal 3:27) purely extrinsically.167 Gropper himself argues vigorously for imputed righteousness, claiming that it is taught both by Paul and by the early Fathers, and that he has clearly shown that those who deny this are merely dreaming (hallucinari).168 So “there can be no doubt that sins are remitted only by the divine non-​imputation that is granted to us through the imputation of the merits of Christ.” Again, “[t]‌his non-​imputation of sins cannot happen other than through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or merit, that is, of the satisfaction for our sins that was completed on the cross,” he writes, citing Romans 3:25.169 It is important to distinguish between imputed and inherent righteousness, between free forgiveness through imputation and sanctification or inner renewal.170 It is because inherent righteousness remains imperfect that imputed righteousness is needed.171 By imputed righteousness we are restored and made complete despite the imperfections of inherent righteousness.172 Gropper is happy, therefore, to defend the duplex iustitia formula, comparing it with the double effect of Adam’s sin.173 In addition to this extended defence of duplex iustitia and imputed righteousness, the end of the Apologia reproduces the text of the Articuli Antididagmatis, which also vigorously defends these points. Pflug continued after Regensburg to hold to imputed righteousness, even after the Tridentine Decree on Justification. In a short unpublished treatise on good works he argues that because of remaining sin, even the regenerate and holy need the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Clearly he felt defensive about this view, saying that he did not see how it could be censured given that it was in line with the authority of Scripture and with divine tradition, and that it was contrary neither to the glory of Christ nor to any dogma of the Church.174 In another unpublished work, written in the form of a dialogue between himself and two Lutherans, he argues that justification includes forgiveness of sins, renewal of the Spirit and 166 JGB 2:610. 167 JGB 2:617, citing Institutio 3:11:23, where Calvin is quoting Ambrose. 168 JGB 2:605–​608. He also appeals to the “scholastic doctors” (615–​16). 169 JGB 2:609. 170 JGB 2:609, 619. 171 JGB 2:609–​15, 620. 172 JGB 2:605–​606, 609–​12, 615, using the word supplere especially. 173 JGB 2:610–​11, 616–​17. 174 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 71–​72. Pollet adds references to Rom 4:8 and 2 Cor 5:24—​presumably an error for 5:21.

118  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification the communication of Christ’s righteousness. The last he understands as reckoning of an imputed righteousness. He claims that Luther derived this from the Catholic tradition (altgläubigen Doctoren) and also, on dubious grounds, that this is compatible with the Tridentine decree.175 In his 1562 Institutio, he twice refers to the imputation of righteousness. God imputes our faith as righteousness. Even in the imperfection of this life our faith is imputed as righteousness, as if nothing was lacking to it for the highest perfection of righteousness.176 As has been argued, the Protestants held to the idea of duplex iustitia before the colloquy, and for them, the acceptance of it in Article 5 was a terminological concession. On the Catholic side, Contarini and Gropper at Regensburg accepted both the idea and the terminology of duplex iustitia and continued to maintain both in the years following the colloquy.177 Duplex iustitia, and related issues, were keenly debated at the Council of Trent.178 The idea of double righteousness was put forward by Girolamo Seripando, the Superior General of the Augustinian Order, who shared with the other spirituali the belief in the Christian’s ongoing need for mercy. He held that the “imperfect justice which the just person is able to attain deserves to be rewarded with eternal life only when it is complemented by Christ’s justice.”179 Therefore the Christian at the last judgement should “appeal to God’s mercy and put his trust in the merits of Christ.”180 This was a doctrine of double righteousness in the sense that inherent righteousness is insufficient 175 Ibid, 79–​80. Pollet questions the appeal to Trent (80, n. 22; 87–​88). 176 Institutio Christiani Hominis, 45, 46. Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, 213–​14, says that Pflug here explicitly mentions “die duplex-​iustitia-​Lehre,” but then goes on to deny that Pflug held fast to that teaching in his Institutio. It is more accurate just to note that Pflug reaffirms the imputation of righteousness, but without any explicit mention of double righteousness. 177 Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 112, argues that Contarini could no longer uphold (“handhaven”) the agreement on justification after the failure of the colloquy. The evidence of Contarini’s writings does not support the idea that he no longer believed the teaching of Article 5. It seems that Morone may also have shifted his view at Regensburg (Robinson, The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone, 67, 83). 178 For discussions of this at Trent, cf. especially Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.241–​49, 253–​58, 284–​85, 286–​88, 308. Also, Ehses, “Johannes Groppers Rechtfertigungslehre auf dem Konzil von Trient”; Rückert, Die Rechtfertigungslehre auf dem tridentinischen Konzil, 217–​56; Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando, 348–​92; Pas, “La doctrine de la double justice au Concile de Trente”; McCue, “Double Justification at the Council of Trent: Piety and Theology in Sixteenth Century Roman Catholicism,” (which qualifies the arguments of Pas); Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 213–​22; McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2005), 324–​34; Malloy, Engrafted into Christ:  A Critique of the Joint Declaration, 59–​122. For studies which concentrate more on Seripando’s doctrine, see Henninger, S. Augustinus et doctrina de duplici justitia, 9–​33; Stakemeier, Der Kampf um Augustin auf dem Tridentinum, 130–​82, 209–​22; Schäfer, “Hoffnungsgestalt und Gegenwart des Heiles: Zur Diskussion um die doppelte Gerechtigkeit auf dem Konzil von Trient,” especially 216–​27. 179 Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, 335. Cf. Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 214, 223. 180 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.284.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  119 and needs to be complemented by imputed righteousness. This imperfection was due to the effects of concupiscence.181 In drawing up the second draft of the decree, submitted in August 1546,182 Seripando included a chapter entitled De duplici iustitia.183 Before being submitted to the council, on 23 September, this draft was radically revised by a committee.184 The idea of double righteousness was expressly rejected in favour of a single righteousness. “There are not two righteousnesses given to us, God’s and Christ’s, but the one righteousness of God through Jesus Christ, that is love or grace, by which the justified are not merely considered to be righteous but are truly called righteous and are righteous.”185 But this revised draft also contains the statement that when we are justified Christ’s righteousness “is communicated and imputed to us, as if it were our own.”186 Jedin refers to this passage as the “Achilles heel of the September draft.”187 Seripando raised the issue again in October, questioning the rejection of the doctrine of double righteousness, which was, he stated, held by Catholic theologians in Italy and Germany, such as Contarini, Pighius, Pflug and Gropper.188 The legates put this issue to the council as follows: Has the justified, who has performed good works through grace and divine help . . . and who has thus preserved inherent righteousness, so completely met the claims of divine righteousness that when he appears before the judgement seat of Christ he obtains eternal life on account of his own merits? Or is he in need, in addition to his own inherent righteousness, of the mercy and righteousness of Christ, that is, of the merits of his Passion, in order to supplement what is wanting in his own personal righteousness? And is this in such wise that this righteousness is imparted to him in the measure of his faith and love?”189

These questions were discussed in October. There was some sympathy for Seripando at the level of practical piety, but it was felt that his view was 181 Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, 315–​25. 182 For the text of this draft, see CT 5:821–​28, 828–​33. 183 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.241, 243. Chapter 8 (CT 5:829). 184 For the text of this revised, submitted draft, see CT 5:420–​27. 185 CT 5:423. “Ita non sunt duae iustitiae, quae nobis dantur, Dei et Christi, sed una iustitia Dei per Iesum Christum, hoc est caritas ipsa vel gratia, qua iustificati non modo reputamur, sed veri iusti nominamur et sumus.” 186 CT 5:423. “Eius enim iustitia proinde nobis, quando iustificamur, communicatur et imputatur, ac si nostra esset.” 187 Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, 355. Cf. Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.243. 188 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.247–​48. CT 5:486–​88. 189 CT 5:523. Translation of Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.249, with minor changes.

120  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification defective theologically.190 Some spoke of demanding eternal life as of right at the Last Judgement, such as the Fransiscan Ludovicus Vitriarius: When the justified man appears before God’s judgement seat, God asks him “What is your request?” He responds: “I demand eternal life.” “On what grounds?” “Because you are obliged to give it to me.” “By what law?” “Yours, because it says in your law that you will reward each according to what they have done [Psalm 62:12].” 191

He was opposed by Richard of Le Mans, who thought that to boast of good works at the Last Judgement was to be like the Pharisee in the parable.192 By contrast, Diego Lainez branded double righteousness a Lutheran novelty and warned against turning the throne of justice into a throne of mercy.193 Seripando was faced with the thankless task of producing the next draft,194 and he concluded it with a further reference to the ongoing need for mercy: But since no one may judge himself, lest he fall into the devil’s snare, the righteous shall not cease to call on God’s mercy for their sins, offences and negligencies and to trust in the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ since every human life will be examined and judged not in a human tribunal but in the hidden tribunal of God.195

This draft was revised as a result of the council debates.196 The inscrutability of God’s judgement remains, but the opposite conclusion is drawn. Instead of the exhortation to call on mercy or trust Christ’s merits there is the following statement: Nothing more is needed for the justified to be said (provided they have worked with that affection of love which is required in this mortal life) to 190 McCue, “Double Justification at the Council of Trent,” 39–​56, argues that the doctrine of double justification exposed the tension between piety and theology in sixteenth-​century Catholicism. Jedin, who does not sympathise with Seripando’s theology, acknowledges the strength of his appeal to the need for mercy at the Last Judgement (Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, 363–​64). 191 CT 5:569. Pas, “La doctrine de la double justice au Concile de Trente,” 23, 35, gives examples of those who hold that eternal life may be demanded as a debt. 192 CT 5:536. 193 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.253–​58. For these and Lainez’s ten other arguments against double righteousness, cf. Maxcey, “Double Justice, Diego Laynez, and the Council of Trent,” 269–​78. For the text of Lainez’s speech, cf. CT 5:612–​29. 194 For the text of this draft, dated 31 October, see CT 5:510–​17. 195 CT 5:515. Translation of Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, 377, with minor changes. 196 For the text of the revised draft, dated 5 November, cf. CT 5:634–​41.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  121 have fully satisfied God’s law and, as it were moistened everywhere by divine grace, to have truly merited eternal life.197

This statement of the adequacy of works is repeated, with minor changes, in the final decree (ch. 16) and will be cited in the commentary in the next chapter, under §6. Seripando felt betrayed and wrote in the margin that the whole passage was the work of someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about or who is afraid of falling into Lutheran error.198 In November, feeling hard done by, Seripando gave an impassioned speech over the course of two days, defending his orthodoxy.199 Here he proposed two further additions in an attempt to retain the idea of the need for ongoing mercy. The first, to follow the last quoted statement, was “Let those who know that they have not acted with the fervour of love that is demanded in this earthly life, or who are in doubt about it, repent and call upon God’s mercy through the merits of Christ’s passion.”200 The second was that where it was stated that the Christian should keep before his eyes the strict judgment of God there should be added: “so that by reflecting on this he may take refuge in the mercy of God through the merits of Christ with the sorrow of repentance.”201 Both proposals were rejected.202 Seripando was thwarted at every point. His doctrine of double righteousness was rejected, though not formally condemned.203 His belief in the need for ongoing mercy was rejected. “No place is made [in the Tridentine decree] for the statement for which Seripando had fought so valiantly, namely that the just man must continue to have recourse to the merit of Christ’s passion for the mercy he needs.”204 Instead, the sufficiency of inherent righteousness is affirmed. Seripando has been criticised for failing to make

197 CT 5:639. See Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, 378. On whether Trent affirms condign merit, see Washburn, “The Transformative Power of Grace and Condign Merit at the Council of Trent.” 198 CT 5:663, n. 2; Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, 378; Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 219. 199 CT 5:666–​76. 200 CT 5:672. See Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.287–​88; Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, 386. 201 CT 5:672. See Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.288. 202 Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent, 386–​87; Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.292. 203 While the September draft spoke of one righteousness, the final decree speaks of the righteousness of God as the sole formal cause of justification. The change in position of the one/​sole removes the direct contradiction of Seripando’s doctrine (Pas, “La doctrine de la double justice au Concile de Trente,” 45–​46; von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 80). 204 Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 222.

122  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification a distinction between imparted/​infused righteousness and acquired righteousness/​the righteousness of works. It is the shortcomings of the latter that he accentuates.205 Recognising the distinction does not, however, resolve the issue. For the spirituali, the problem was not just the failings of their works but the weakness of their love. Also, according to the Tridentine decree, it is by works that eternal life is merited. The final decree was not hospitable to the idea of imputed righteousness. Rondet states that at Trent “imputed justice in all its forms was formally rejected,”206 but that is perhaps putting it too strongly. As we have seen, the idea of duplex iustitia, of imputed and inherent righteousness, was excluded from the decree, but not formally condemned. The idea that we are merely reckoned righteous is rejected: “we are not merely considered to be righteous but are truly called righteous and are righteous” (ch. 7). Similarly, the idea is anathematised that “people are justified either by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone or by the remission of sins alone, to the exclusion of grace and the love which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit and inheres in them” (can. 11). These statements reject the idea of a purely imputed righteousness, but do not explicitly condemn the idea of a duplex iustitia. Canon 10, however, anathematises the idea that “people are justified without the righteousness of Christ, by which he gained merit for us, or that they are formally righteous by that [righteousness of Christ] itself.” This would appear to exclude any idea of a double formal cause of justification, whether Contarini’s or Gropper’s.207 The teaching of the decree does appear to exclude duplex iustitia.208 Gropper and Pflug may have believed that their position was consistent with Trent, but their claims do not survive careful examination. How did the Protestants respond to the duplex iustitia terminology after the colloquy? Luther, reacting to Article 5 in his joint letter with Bugenhagen, rejected the papist idea that we are justified not by faith alone but also by faith working through love (Gal 5). Galatians 5:6 is about how the righteous should live, not about how we become righteous, and Luther accused Article 5 of falsely applying it to the latter. Article 5, he claimed, teaches that we are justified not by faith alone but also through works or through love and grace, which they

205 Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 2.253; Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 216, 220. 206 Rondet, The Grace of Christ, 299. 207 208

On which, see below, at nn. 305–​309, 314–​21, 333–​39. In chh. 7 and 16; can. 10. See Malloy, Engrafted into Christ, 74–​84, and n. 173 (on p. 116).

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  123 call “inherent.”209 Luther refers disparagingly to “inherent” love and grace, but the issue here is the claim that this is the ground for justification. Article 5 rejects such a claim, stating that we are not justified by inherent righteousness, since that is imperfect (§4:6, 5:1–​2). Von Loewenich rightly observes that Luther has “grossly misinterpreted” Article 5 on this point and also notes that what concerned Luther about Article 5 was the relation between faith and love rather than the idea of double righteousness.210 Two years later, in a disputation, Luther reaffirms that our imperfect love cannot justify us, but also states that the work of the Spirit is “the infusion of love, hope, faith.”211 Ironically, Luther’s distaste for the term “inherent righteousness” was shared by Cardinal Gian Pietro Carafa in his initial comments on Article 5. He was concerned by the novelty of the term, citing the custom of heretics to attempt to deceive Catholics with words.212 Melanchthon expressed a number of reservations about Article 5, but these did not include the use of the term “inherent righteousness.”213 In his 1543 Loci Theologici he refers to the righteousness of works and to the righteousness of a good conscience.214 Bucer’s De vera ecclesiarum . . . reconcilatione et compositione (1542) analyses Article 5 in detail. He clearly (like Melanchthon) did not regard the issue of duplex iustitia as especially controversial as he devotes very little space to it.215 He refers a number of times to inherent righteousness,216 and indeed, he states that it is necessary for salvation.217 At the same time, he insists that 209 Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann Friedrich (10/​11 May) in WA Br. 9:407–​408; ADRG 3/​I:170. Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 186. On this letter, see c­ hapter 2, n. 17. 210 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 49, 55. For an assessment of Luther’s interpretation of Article 5, see ­chapter 5, below. 211 Die Promotionsdisputation von Johnann Marbach (16 February 1543)  in WA 39/​2:214. See Green, How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel, 193. 212 Priuli to Beccadelli (20 May) in Dionisotti, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” 266. Carafa also objected to the failure of Article 5 to mention merit, the second point covered by Contarini’s scheda minor. Brieger argues, on the basis of this, that Carafa’s objection concerning iustitia inhaerente refers to the first point covered by the scheda, “quod non debemus niti iustitia nobis inhaerente” (“Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 592). But if that was indeed Carafa’s point, Priuli has grossly misrepresented him. Given that Carafa specifically refers to the novelty of the term (“termine inusitato,” “novità del vocabulo”) and goes on to query “quella distintion di iustitia,” the natural reading is that he was questioning the very idea of duplex iustitia, not the specific issue covered in the scheda. 213 See c­ hapter 2, above, at nn. 52–​57. Flogaus, “Luther versus Melanchthon?,” 22, argues that for Luther and Melanchthon alike “forensic and effective justification” go together. This is close to the double righteousness of Article 5. 214 LT43 T4a, V8a, Y2a–​b, a6b–​7a; LC43 91, 97, 101, 106, 111. 215 DVRC, 164a, lists the five topics to be discussed, and these do not include duplex iustitia. 216 DVRC, 177b–​80a, 212b. Baschera, Tugend und Rechtfertigung, 193, criticises Bucer for failing to define inherent righteousness clearly enough. 217 DVRC, 178b–​80a.

124  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification it remains imperfect and is unable to put us right with God, to justify us.218 It is on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ that God accepts us.219 Bucer cannot be accused of confusing the two questions posed by Luther.220 Bucer post Regensburg is clear that the righteousness imputed to us is Christ’s righteousness, something that was not so clear in his earlier Romans commentary.221 Fink notes this shift and states that it needs to be explained, but had himself already mentioned the explanation.222 Just as at Regensburg Gropper and Contarini took the significant step of embracing the idea of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, so also did Bucer, though for him the shift was relatively minor. The one time that Calvin mentions the term duplex iustitia is in a negative sense, when he is opposing Osiander’s teaching on justification.223 There is no reason to think that he also has Article 5 in mind, since the Article does not use the term. He could not have been thinking of Contarini’s Epistola at this point, which does use the term, as he would not have seen it. In his polemical works of the 1540s, Calvin continued to affirm his belief in duplex gratia. Thus in his 1547 Antidote to the Tridentine decrees, he comments that grace is double (duplex), because Christ both justifies us and sanctifies us.224 He also states that there is a double grace in baptism, in which we are offered both forgiveness and regeneration.225 Two years later, in his response to the Interim, he again refers to this double grace that Christ bestows on us.226 He does, however, in 1559 add to his 1539 affirmation of duplex gratia a criticism of Osiander for confusing it.227 218 DVRC, 172a–​b, 177b–​78a, 180b, 184b, 188b. 219 DVRC, 122a–​b, 173b, 209b. Bucer more often uses the language of §5:1 of Article 5, referring to the iustitia Christi nobis donata. This he sees as referring to imputed righteousness, as can be seen from 209b. 220 See at n. 18, above. 221 See at nn. 72–​75, above. 222 Fink, “ ‘The Doers of the Law will be Justified’,” 510 n. 74. He also claims that Bucer, in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, for the first time uses the Lutheran term “alien righteousness” (iustitia aliena), on “p. 203,” but it is not on 203a–​b. There appears to be an error for 163a (whose indistinct page number could be mistaken for 203), where the word “alienis” occurs, but not regarding iustitia. 223 Institutio 3:11:11–​12 [1559]. For Calvin’s polemic against the Lutheran Osiander, in addition to sections in works on his doctrine of justification in general, see Niesel, “Calvin wider Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre”; Weis, “Calvin versus Osiander on Justification”; G. Zimmermann, “Calvins Auseinandersetzung mit Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre”; Garcia, Life in Christ, 43–​45, 197–​252. For Osiander’s own doctrine, see Ritschl, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Andreas Osiander.” 224 CO 7:448; CTS 3:115. 225 CO 7:425; CTS 3:86. 226 CO 7:595; CTS 3:245. 227 Institutio 3:11:6 [1559]:  “duplicis gratiae confusione.” Cf. Rainbow, “Double Grace:  John Calvin’s View of the Relationship of Justification and Sanctification,” 99–​105.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  125 It is in response to the Augsburg Interim of 1548 that Calvin comes closest to affirming a double righteousness. The Interim repeatedly affirms inherent righteousness but also admits that it is imperfect and that we need to be forgiven through the perfect righteousness of Christ—​though without using the phrase “imputed righteousness.”228 Calvin’s response is moderate. He admits that it is impossible to be reconciled to God without also having inherent righteousness—​but insists while these two (reconciliation and inherent righteousness) cannot be separated they need to be distinguished, like justification and sanctification. It is on the basis of imputed righteousness that we are accepted by God.229 This is the one time that Calvin speaks positively about inherent righteousness, and he does so only because he has to respond to the Interim, but it shows that he did not reject the idea, even though it was not his preferred terminology. It was the content of Article 5, rather than its clarity of exposition, that Calvin had affirmed in his letter to Farel.230 As well as admit the existence of both inherent and imputed righteousness, he also admits that the believer has a righteousness of works as well as a righteousness of faith, although the former is subordinate to the latter. Calvin does not appear to be making any distinction between inherent righteousness and the righteousness of works. That is, he is not distinguishing between infused and acquired righteousness. The righteousness of faith is imputed righteousness and the righteousness of works is inherent righteousness. Calvin’s complaint is not against those who affirm these two kinds of righteousness but against those who confound them together.231 In his response to the teaching on justification in the Interim, Calvin affirms, in a way that is not so explicit elsewhere, the idea of double righteousness (both inherent and imputed, the righteousness of works and of faith), though using the term duplex gratia, rather than duplex iustitia.232 Given this moderate response to the Interim, whose doctrine of justification is considerably less Evangelical than that of Article 5, it is not surprising that Calvin’s assessment of the article should have been so favourable. Indeed, it is likely that Article 5 helped to make Calvin more open to the idea of inherent righteousness. Calvin’s general opposition to talk of a double righteousness was because he understood it to mean that our acceptance by God is based in part on our

228

CO 7:555–​58; CTS 3:196–​99. CO 7:594–​97; CTS 3:244–​48. See c­ hapter 2, above, at n. 30. 231 CO 7:596–​97; CTS 3:246–​48. 232 CO 7:595; CTS 3:245. 229 230

126  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification own works righteousness (which is explicitly denied by Article 5). Thus in his 1557 commentary on Psalm 143:2 he affirmed, against the papists, that there is no middle path between justification by faith and justification by works. David did not imagine a double righteousness (“duplicem illam iustitiam”) in this passage.233 But while Calvin generally avoided and occasionally denied talk of double righteousness, he consistently approved talk of a double grace. Although he had hesitations about the duplex iustitia formula of Article 5, he consistently affirmed the substance of Regensburg’s duplex iustitia doctrine with his own duplex gratia terminology. So we have seen that the doctrine (as opposed to the wording) of duplex iustitia, in the version found in Article 5, is consistent with the teaching of Luther, Melanchthon (including the Augsburg Confession and Apology), Bucer, and Calvin before the colloquy. Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin support it in their teaching after the colloquy either directly (Bucer) or indirectly (Melanchthon and Calvin). For Contarini and Gropper (and probably Pflug), the acceptance of duplex iustitia was a significant development from their earlier teaching. They all continued to affirm it after the colloquy, though Gropper felt for a time that he needed to keep quiet about imputed righteousness. Finally, it should be noted that the idea of double righteousness, of the existence of both imputed and inherent righteousness, is found in a number of later classic exponents of the Protestant doctrine of justification, without suggesting that inherent righteousness is the basis for our acceptance by God. First, Chemnitz, in his Examination of the Council of Trent, initially published in 1565, the last edition supervised by Chemnitz himself being in 1578. Chemnitz in places responds to the arguments put forward by Diego Andrada de Payva, who had attacked him in 1564.234 Andrada claimed that Chemnitz believed only in imputed righteousness and argued in response that “Christ has merited for us not only remission of sins, or only the imputation of His righteousness, but He has earned also this for us, that we, renewed, by the Holy Spirit, may have the new obedience, or inherent righteousness.” Chemnitz’s does not disagree with this but adds that though this our inherent righteousness has its place, its praises, and also its rewards, nevertheless, because it is imperfect and incomplete in this life 233 CO 32:401; Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 5:251. 234 Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, 1:13–​14, 21–​22. Andrada’s Orthodoxorum Explicationum Libri Decem was published both at Venice and at Cologne in 1564.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  127 on account of the flesh, it cannot stand in the judgment of God, so that we should be for its sake absolved from the sentence of damnation, adopted as children, and accepted to life eternal.235

Chemnitz here carefully distinguishes between the two questions/​issues identified by Luther.236 Secondly, the Formula of Concord, after quoting Luther’s distinction between these two issues, affirms that there are two kinds of righteousness. Believers become righteous before God by the righteousness of faith, on account of the merits of Christ. There follows, then, “the righteousness of new obedience or good works that are begun in [believers].” These two kinds of righteousness are not to be confused, since the latter remains imperfect in this life and cannot be used “to stand before God’s judgment throne.”237 Thirdly, Richard Hooker, in 1586, preached a sermon on Habakkuk 1:4, which was published in 1612 with the title of “A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown.”238 Here he affirms a double righteousness: There is a glorifying righteousness of men in the world to come: and there is a justifying and a sanctifying righteousness here. The righteousness, wherewith we shall be clothed in the world to come, is both perfect and inherent. That whereby here we are justified is perfect, but not inherent. That whereby we are sanctified, inherent, but not perfect.239

And a little later, he explicitly refers to “two kinds of Christian righteousness”: We have already shewed, that there are two kinds of Christian righteousness: the one without us, which we have by imputation; the other in us, 235 Chemnitz, Examinis Concilii Tridentini  .  .  .  Opus integrum (Frankfurt:  [Fabricius], 1578), 163; Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, 1:525–​26. Chemnitz states Andrada’s argument in his own words, summarising the content of passages like Andrada de Payva, Orthodoxorum explicationum libri decem (Cologne:  Maternus Cholin, 1564), 481–​ 83; Andrada de Payva, Orthodoxorum explicationum libri decem (Venice:  Jordan Zileti, 1564), 197a–​198a (the last page, sig. Ccc2a, is wrongly numbered 200). Andrada is not as positive about imputed righteousness as Chemnitz’s summary implies. 236 See at n. 18, above. 237 Solid Declaration 3:32 (BSELK 1:1400–​401; Kolb and Wengert 567–​68). I  am grateful to Gordon Jensen for drawing my attention to this passage. 238 Hooker, Sermon 2 in The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine Mr Richard Hooker, 3:482–​547. 239 Hooker, Sermon 2:3 in Works, 3:485.

128  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification which consisteth of faith, hope, charity, and other Christian virtues; and St. James doth prove that Abraham had not only the one, because the thing he believed was imputed unto him for righteousness; but also the other, because he offered up his son. God giveth us both the one justice and the other: the one by accepting us for righteous in Christ; the other by working Christian righteousness in us.240

Finally, Jonathan Edwards preached a sermon on Titus 3:5, arguing that “None are Saved by Their Own Righteousness.”241 In this he argues for a twofold righteousness: There is a two-​fold righteousness that the saints have: an imputed righteousness, and ‘tis this only that avails anything to justification; and an inherent righteousness, that is, holiness and grace which is in the hearts and lives of the saints. This is Christ’s righteousness as well as imputed righteousness:  imputed righteousness is Christ’s righteousness accepted for them, inherent holiness is Christ’s righteousness communicated to them. They derive their holiness from Christ as the fountain of it. He gives it by his Spirit, so that ‘tis Christ’s holiness communicated, ‘tis the light of the sun reflected. Now God takes delight in the saints for both these: both for Christ’s righteousness imputed and for Christ’s holiness communicated, though ‘tis the former only that avails anything to justification.242

Immediately before and after this passage Edwards emphasises the imperfection of our inherent righteousness.243 Again, Edwards carefully distinguishes between the two questions/​issues identified by Luther, as indeed have all of the Protestant writers that we have considered. These four examples indicate that the terminology of double righteousness, of the existence of both inherent and imputed righteousness, is not a temporary aberration confined to Article 5 but was embraced in mainstream Lutheran and Reformed theology. All four acknowledge that believers have an inherent as well as imputed righteousness and that the former remains imperfect in this life and is unable to justify us.



240 Hooker, Sermon 2:21 in Works, 3:507. 241

Minkema (ed.), Jonathan Edwards: Sermons and Discourses, 1723–​1729, 332–​56. Ibid., 340–​41. 243 Ibid., 340–​42. 242

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  129

Double Justification Unfortunately, much modern scholarship confuses duplex iustitia with double justification.244 Braunisch traces this confusion back to Robert Stupperich’s influential Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen (1936), where Erasmus is seen as the source for the doctrine of double justification.245 But what is meant by double justification? There are at least three distinct, and not mutually exclusive, ways in which the term is used, at least two of which are found in the Regensburg participants. All of these are different from the idea of duplex iustitia.

Justification of the Ungodly and Justification of the Godly The first and most straightforward version was well established in the Catholic tradition,246 where the first and second justification correspond, respectively, to infused and acquired righteousness. Gropper and Contarini both teach this. Gropper in his Enchiridion teaches a double justification. The initial justification of the ungodly (iustificatio impii) is by faith (Rom 3, 4) and not on the basis of any preceding works.247 The justified sinner now has the Spirit of God, is inwardly transformed and can perform works of faith and love, becoming more and more justified. In terms of sanctification, “Let the righteous be further justified.”248 Thus there is a second justification, a completion of the righteousness of Christ communicated to us, which is by 244 e.g. Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 60, where “doppelte Rechtfertigung” refers to the need for imputed righteousness to compensate for the imperfections of inherent righteousness, which he elsewhere describes as doppelte Gerechtigkeit (70 n. 17). 245 Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 419–​25; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper zwischen Humanismus und Reformation,” 205–​209. Braunisch cites especially Stupperich, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen, 10–​36. For further criticism of the confusion, see Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​ katholieken en Protestanten, 2–​3, 102–​103; Augustijn, “Die Religionsgespräche der vierziger Jahre,” 49–​51. A clear example of this confusion is found in Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541 und seine Rechtfertigungslehre,” 92. Worms Draft §3 introduces the two justifications, the initial iustificatio impii and the subsequent iustificatio operum. Stupperich offers as parallel for this a passage in Gropper’s Enchiridion stating that justification embraces both forgiveness and renewal (166b). Gropper is here referring entirely to the iustificatio impii, not to a double justification. 246 e.g. Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, q. 76. 247 In the Worms Draft §50 and Gropper’s Draft §5, the first justification is related to the baptism of infants, of which there is no mention in the definitive article. In Gropper’s Gegenberichtung, 17a; Antididagma, 11b it is referred to baptism, without explicit mention of infants. 248 Rev 22:11 Vulgate variant reading: “Qui iustus est, iustificetur adhuc,” cited in Enchiridion, 176a.

130  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification works as stated in James 2:14–​26.249 This teaching is repeated both in the Worms Draft (§3, 52–​71)250 and in Gropper’s Draft (§7, 13–​14, 43). In the Antididagma this now becomes a triplex iustificatio. In addition to the justification of the ungodly (Rom 4:5) and justification by works (Jas 2:21, 24), there is the forgiveness of daily venial sins.251 In the Institutio Catholica the title of the extended section on “What Justification Is” ends by specifying both primary and secondary justification, and the transition from the former to the latter is marked by a subheading.252 His Apologia refers to “primary justification,” implicitly making the distinction with secondary justification, but does not develop the distinction.253 Contarini also held to the idea of double justification. In the Confutatio he contrasted the initial grace of justification, which is unmerited, and the subsequent justification (referred to by James) which is by works and not by faith alone.254 His Epistola also speaks of a second justification, by which the righteous become more righteous.255 This involves a growth in love, grace and faith, “and thus we are more and more justified.”256 This is not optional in that those who do not progress will relapse and lose the Spirit and both righteousnesses (utramque iustitiam).257 This second justification is by works in the sense that “by them we are more justified and press on to perfection” and that the initial justification is made plain (ostenditur) by the works that follow, as in James 2.258 This growth is a growth in inherent righteousness, not in imputed righteousness, which one either has or does not have. The Tridentine Decree on Justification likewise teaches an initial justification of the ungodly followed by an increase in justification in which the justified grow in righteousness and so are justified by works: 249 Enchiridion, 173b–​176b. 250 The exposition of the teaching of this draft in Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 235–​79, is structured round the contrast between the two justifications. Scheible, Melanchthon: Vermittler der Reformation: Eine Biographie, 162, attributes the teaching of “doppelten Gerechtigkeit” in the Worms draft to Contarini, but he was not involved in the production of the Wormser Buch. 251 Gegenberichtung, 17a–​19a; Antididagma, 11b–​13a. He notes at the end that for grave post–​ baptismal sins penance (Buß/​poenitentia) is needed. He criticises the Einfaltigs Bedencken for having only a single justification (Gegenberichtung, 21b; Antididagma, 15a). Cf. Gropper, Warhafftige Antwort und Gegenberichtung, 41b–​42a for a brief reaffirmation the following year of the need both for repentance (rew) and for the sacrament of penance, building on the Artikell (9b). 252 Institutio Catholica, 537, 544. 253 JGB 2:611. 254 CC 7:3. 255 CC 7: 32–​34, twice citing Rev 22:11. 256 CC 7: 33; cf. 34. 257 CC 7:33. In his letter to Pighius, Contarini explains that the Spirit remains in us so long as we do not grieve him by mortal sin or by turning away from the good (Regesten, 351). 258 CC 7:33–​34.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  131 Those justified and made friends and members of God’s household (Eph 2:19), . . . increase in that righteousness which they have received through the grace of Christ, faith cooperating with good works, and are more and more justified, as it is written: “He that is righteous, let him be further justified” (Rev 22:11); and again, “Do not wait until death to be justified” (Ecclus 18:22); and also, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas 2:24). [Ch. 10]

There is a chronological dimension in that the second justification is subsequent to the first. Seripando, prior to the Council of Trent in 1543, argued for a sixfold justification.259 While double justification in the sense outlined is found here in both the Worms Draft and Gropper’s Draft, there is no trace of either the language or the content of it in the definitive Article 5. This teaches duplex iustitia not in the sense of a first leading to a subsequent justification but in the sense a double righteousness, where both, imputed and inherent, are given simultaneously at the beginning. How did the Reformers react to the theory of two justifications? Melanchthon, commenting on the Worms Draft, felt that the account of the first justification was correct; the second, on the contrary, taught that we are righteous on account of the virtues granted to us, sounding like Thomas or Plato.260 This was in line with his Apology, where he opposes this idea of a double justification.261 Bucer was happier with the Catholic distinction. Before the colloquy, in his Romans commentary, he makes the distinction between the justification of the ungodly (iustificatio impii), as taught by Paul, and the justification of the godly (iustificatio pii).262 After the colloquy he repeatedly reaffirmed the distinction. He sets it out in his De vera . . . reconcilatione

259 Six modi iustificationis (CT 12:824–​49, especially 831–​47), expounded in Stakemeier, Der Kampf um Augustin auf dem Tridentinum, 132–​51, esp. 138–​48. 260 Report of Melanchthon (24 May) in CR 4:332; ADRG 3/​I:265; MBW T10:212 (MBW 3:175–​76 [#2705]), repeated almost identically in his Report of 22/​23 July in CR 4:572; ADRG 3/​II:691; MBW T10:428–​29 (MBW 3:207 [#2767]). ADRG 3/​I:265 contains a very similar Report by Pistorius to Heinrich Bullinger (30 May). 261 BSELK 335, 337, 339; Kolb and Wengert 147–​49. For James 2, see BSELK 359, 361, 363; Kolb and Wengert 157–​59 (4:244–​52). 262 Metaphrases et Enarrationes 218. On this distinction in Bucer, see Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer, 53–​55; Barnikol, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung,” 99–​103, 108–​21.

132  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification et compositione, despite the fact that it is not found in Article 5.263 Three years, later he returns to the theme in his Bestendige Verantwortung. James is describing how God commended and rewarded Abraham and Rahab for their works. But it is not as if works justify us, since, as the other side admits, they always remain incomplete and imperfect.264 In the De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, he also goes a step further and refers to triple justification (triplex iustificatio), three types (tria genera) of justification, three justifications. What are these? The first is the forgiveness of sins, acceptance by God, and adoption as his children; the second is the renewal by which we become new creatures and receive love and inherent righteousness; the third is the final judgement when our good works are rewarded.265 If Bucer is willing to talk of a double or triple justification, in this sense, and some of his Protestant colleagues were not, does that mean that their theologies differ? Not necessarily. That there is an inner renewal by the Holy Spirit and that God rewards our good works was not controversial. The only issue here is whether or not the word justification can be used to describe this. Whether we can be put right with God on the basis of the inner renewal is also of crucial importance, but on this issue all the Protestants that we have considered speak with a single voice, maintaining that our acceptance by God is by Christ alone, received by faith alone. Luther, in his 1536 Disputation concerning Justification presents a version of double justification. He draws a contrast between righteousness before God (coram Deo) and righteousness before people (coram hominibus). In God’s eyes we are justified by Christ alone, through faith alone. But because of the danger of hypocrisy we need to demonstrate this righteousness by its fruit, outward works which follow from love. There is therefore a double justification. We are actually justified by faith; we are seen to be justified by works of love.266 Calvin discusses the relation between James 2 and Paul first in his 1539 Institutes, then further in his 1550 Commentary on James. He insists that 263 DVRC, 123a–​b, 164b. 264 Bestendige Verantwortung, 42b–​43b; Constans Defensio, 88–​90, responding to Gegenberichtung, 20a–​b; Antididagma, 13b–​14a. Bucer refers back to Einfaltigs Bedencken, 39b–​49a; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 31a–​39a, of which the most relevant is 44a–​b, 46a–​47a/​34b–​35a, 36b–​37a. The same idea is found in his Ephesians commentary: Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios,  61–​62. 265 DVRC, 172b–​79b. Bucer gives a different version of triple justification in his Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 130, harmonising (Conciliatio) Rom 2:13 and 3:20. ET in Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer, 52–​53; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 224. Fink, “ ‘The Doers of the Law will be Justified’,” 515–​23, analyses this version of triple justification. 266 WA 39/​I:91–​93; LW 34:160–​62.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  133 James be interpreted in the light of his authorial intention,267 which leads him to claim that Paul and James are using the word “justification” with different meanings. When Paul teaches justification by faith he means that faith wins us the verdict of righteousness in God’s sight—​that is, Paul understands justification forensically, as the imputation of righteousness.268 When James teaches justification by works he is not stating how we attain righteousness, but rather that our righteousness is made known and approved by its fruits.269 James is speaking of “the declaration, not the imputation, of righteousness.”270 So for Paul justification refers to the “free imputation of righteousness before the judgment seat of God”; for James it refers to “the demonstration of righteousness from its effects, in the sight of men.”271 His position here is very similar to that of Luther, just described.272 In summary: [James] is not discussing in what manner we are justified but demanding of believers a righteousness fruitful in good works. And as Paul contends that we are justified apart from the help of works, so James does not allow those who lack good works to be reckoned righteous.273

Thus in his exegesis of James Calvin acknowledges a second justification. He begins his exegesis of this passage with the statement that it is wrong to use James’s testimony to prove that we are justified by works,274 though he does proceed to show what James (rightly) meant by that statement.

Justification of Works as well as Persons There is second sense in which the Regensburg participants held doctrines of double justification. This is the belief that through the merits of Christ God accepts or justifies not only our persons but also our (imperfect)

267 Institutio 3:17:11–​12 [1539]; Comm. Jas 2:20. 268 Comm. Jas 2:21. 269 Comm. Jas 2:21, 23. 270 Institutio 3:17:12 [1539]. 271 Comm. Jas 2:21. 272 Bucer also refers to our acceptance as righteous by other people (Barnikol, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung,” 123–​26). 273 Institutio 3:17:12 [1539]. 274 Comm. Jas 2:20.

134  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification good works. Such teaching is found in both Protestant and Catholic participants.275 In his official Reply to the Emperor concerning the Regensburg Book, on behalf of the Protestant Princes and Estates, on 11/​12 July, Melanchthon notes that God is pleased first of all with our persons “on account of Christ,” then with our imperfect obedience that follows because we believe that such obedience pleases him “on account of Christ the High Priest.”276 He expresses the same idea in the Einfaltigs Bedencken.277 Such teaching was not new for him and is found in his Apology. This states that our imperfect law keeping pleases God because we are in Christ.278 It is faith that makes our works acceptable, because of Christ.279 We need mercy even in our works because they are impure.280 “The fulfillment of the law pleases God not on account of itself but because by faith we grasp Christ and believe that we have a gracious God, not on account of the law but on account of Christ.”281 These points are reiterated in Articles 6 and 20 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession.282 The former twice states that God reckons our obedience as righteousness.283 The same teaching is found in Melanchthon’s 1543 Loci Theologici.284 Luther also states that our works please God and are accounted as righteous, on account of faith.285 In his debate with Melanchthon he states that Paul’s works are righteous because Paul himself is righteous. Works are pleasing or displeasing [to God] on account of the person doing them.286 Bucer affirms the same doctrine in his De vera  .  .  .  reconcilatione et compositione. There he rejects as slanderous the claim that Protestants deny that God counts our personal righteousness as righteousness. Our inchoate righteousness may be imperfect, but Scripture teaches that God counts it 275 It was also held by Seripando. See Henninger, S. Augustinus et doctrina de duplici justitia, 21–​ 22, 28, citing CT 5:671, 667. 276 CR 4:486; ADRG 3/​II:627; MBW T10:350 (MBW 3:196–​97 [#2749]). See c­ hapter  2, above, at n. 54. 277 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 46a–​47a; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 36b–​37a. 278 BSELK 324, 332; Kolb and Wengert 142, 146 (4:140). 279 BSELK 331, 333, 337, 339, 393; Kolb and Wengert 145–​46, 148–​49, 171. 280 BSELK 335, 391; Kolb and Wengert 147, 170. 281 Kolb and Wengert 148; BSELK 335, 337. 282 BSELK QuM1:126, 136–​37. 283 BSELK QuM1:126. 284 LT43 X6a–​Y6a; LC43 99–​103. For similar ideas in other works around this time, see Wengert, Law and Gospel, 186–​91. 285 Rhapsodia seu Concepta in Librum de loco Iustificationis (WA 30/​2:659):  “opera vero ipsa propter fidem probari, iusta censeri et placere.” This theme also appears in his Commentary on Gal 3:6 (WA 40/​1:364–​72; LW 26:229–​35). 286 Bindseil (ed.), Philippi Melanchthonis Epistolae, Iudicia, Consilia, Testimonia aliorumque, 346–​ 48; WA Br. 12:192–​94.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  135 (haberi, censeri) as righteousness. Those who are offended by such statements should remember that this happens only because of Christ and his righteousness, as Article 5 teaches.287 Calvin states that when we approach God in faith we are accepted as righteous, in Christ, but it is not only we who are accepted. God also accepts our good works in Christ, overlooking whatever defects and impurities may remain in them.288 Our good works do not justify us in their own right not because they are totally bad but because they are less than totally pure, because, being tainted, they fall short of the standards of God’s holiness. In Christ, God accepts these works by overlooking their blemishes and accepting what is genuinely good in them. “Everything imperfect in them is covered by Christ’s perfection, every blemish or spot is cleansed away by his purity.”289 God looks with favour on both the godly and their good works because he embraces them “in Christ rather than in themselves.”290 A similar view was held by Catholic participants who believed in the imperfection of inherent righteousness and its inability to make us wholly acceptable to God. It is found in Gropper’s Enchiridion. Gropper notes that some people call prevenient grace and justification the gratuitous imputation of righteousness or acceptance by God, because we are reckoned (reputemur) righteous on account of Christ, and then our work and incomplete obedience is pleasing to God, even though it does not satisfy the law.291 Again: Our good works are imperfect, even if done through faith, and unless they have been done in Christ cannot escape the accusation of the law, which requires perfect obedience. Therefore we should take care to hold fast to the idea that they always need to be joined with faith, on the basis of which we believe that although they remain imperfect they please God, not on account of us but on account of Christ, in whom they are done, since we have already been made members of Christ and children of God.292 287 DVRC, 178b, 180b–​81a, 209a–​b, 211b. Barnikol, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung,” 121–​ 23, contrasts Bucer’s teaching on justification by works with Calvin’s on the justification of works. He is right to distinguish the two ideas, right to say that Bucer focusses more on the former and Calvin on the latter, wrong to imply that either taught one of these only. 288 Calvin briefly stated this doctrine at the Worms Colloquy. See Neuser (ed.), Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg, 129, 135; ADRG 2/​ I:475, 477 (Wolfgang Musculus’s minutes for 10 November 1540). It is spelt out especially in Institutio 3:15:3–​4, 3:17:3–​10 [both mainly 1539]. 289 Institutio 3:17:8 [1539]. 290 Institutio 3:17:5 [1539]. 291 Enchiridion, 129b. 292 Enchiridion, 174b.

136  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Because the state (affectus) of repentance and love of righteousness remains imperfect in this life, the righteousness of Christ (of whom we are members) supplements our imperfect righteousness as he clothes us with it.293 Our imperfect works please God “not indeed on account of the worth of our will or our work but by imputation (imputative), through grace.” Christ’s righteousness is made ours. “Through Christ, who alone has fulfilled the law, we fulfil the law by imputation (imputative).”294 Christ’s righteousness makes up for the imperfections of our inner renewal and our works.295 This teaching is also found in Gropper’s Antididagma, in which he teaches that it is on account of the merit of Christ’s blood that our sins are forgiven and our works are made acceptable to God in faith.296 In his Apologia Gropper’s emphasis changes from our works being imputed as righteous to the need for imputed righteousness to make up for the imperfection of our inherent righteousness.297 Pighius echoes Gropper more briefly, noting that God makes good the imperfections of our works and completes them. God in his paternal indulgence and goodness covers over their imperfection, deems them worth to be called righteous and mercifully imputes them to righteousness.298 How does this compare with the Reformers’ teaching? Both sides are agreed that God accepts the imperfect good works of the godly and does so on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. To that extent, their doctrines are substantially in agreement. There follows the related question of whether we ourselves are accepted by God as righteous on the basis of imputed righteousness alone or on the basis of inherent righteousness supplemented by imputed righteousness. Sadolet appears to have taken the latter position, in opposition to Contarini.299 After the colloquy Gropper and Contarini, by contrast, both clearly affirmed that our acceptance by God is based on imputed, not inherent, righteousness. Gropper entered into dispute with Bucer about whether inherent righteousness has a role in our confidence before God, but 293 Enchiridion, 168a. 294 Enchiridion, 132a. Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1541,” 337, rightly notes that the Enchiridion teaches not an imputed righteousness alongside inherent righteousness but the reckoning of good works as meritorious on the basis of Christ’s merit. 295 Cf. Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 100–​108. Lipgens claims that it is only our works and not our inherent righteousness that is imperfect (107). Gropper never states that in the Enchiridion and in the Gegenberichtung, 20a; Antididagma, 13b, explicitly states that inherent righteousness is imperfect. 296 Gegenberichtung, 15b; Antididagma, 10b. 297 JGB 2:609–​15. 298 Controversiarum, 39b. Similarly, Pighius, Ratio componendorum dissidiorum, sig. I3b. 299 See in c­ hapter 5, below, on §5:1.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  137 what was at issue there was not the (objective) basis on which God accepts us but the way in which we can have (subjective) certainty that our faith is genuine.300 In December 1540, at the Worms Colloquy, Eck, with Billick, wrote a report/​opinion (Gutachten) on the Augsburg Confession,301 in which he affirms that the good works of the justified merit reward not because of their inherent worth but through divine acceptation. This reflects late medieval Nominalist ideas of justification and is not to be equated with the doctrine of double justification here expounded, but the two doctrines have in common the idea that our works are imperfect and require God’s gracious acceptance.302 The nearest the final version of Article 5 comes to a doctrine of double justification in this sense is the statement that while we are reckoned righteous by faith, we are also called righteous because of our inherent righteousness and works (§5:2–​3). This is far too weak to merit the title “double justification.”

Double Formal Cause of Justification There is a third sense that is given to the term double justification. Alister McGrath defines it as “a doctrine of a double formal cause of justification,” and sees this as the “proper” or “strict” meaning of the term.303 Clearly this is a meaning of the term, but I see no reason to privilege it above the other two meanings. Contarini deals thoroughly with this issue. In the Confutatio (1530–​ 35), he simply states that we are formally justified by grace, which is a spiritual quality infused into the soul by God and a participation in the divine nature.304 After Regensburg, however, he has embraced the idea of duplex iustitia, which means that his doctrine becomes more complex in his Epistola. Because of the duplex iustitia and the double sense of justification, it follows that there is a double formal cause of justification: “love and the grace 300 See in c­ hapter 5, below, on §5:1. 301 ARC 3:306–​307; ADRG 2/​I:541. On this report see zur Mühlen, “Die Edition der Akten und Berichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau und Worms 1540/​41,” 57–​58. 302 On imputatio and acceptatio, see Maurer, Historical Commentary on the Augsburg Confession, 335–​41. 303 McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2005), 312–​13 (his emphasis). 304 CC 7:2.

138  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification of God inhering in us and the righteousness of Christ given and imputed to us.”305 Von Loewenich, however, is not fully convinced and sees evidence for a single formal cause of justification, inherent righteousness, in Contarini’s statement that “to be justified is nothing other than to be made (fieri) righteous and for this reason also to be considered (haberi) righteous.”306 This interpretation has some plausibility if the passage quoted is considered in isolation, but makes nonsense of the argument of the letter as a whole. Contarini places heavy emphasis on the need to rely not on inherent righteousness but on imputed righteousness alone, because of the imperfection of the former. The most natural way to interpret Contarini is to relate the two causes to the two sides of justification (in his sense): “love and the grace of God inhering in us” is the formal cause of inner renewal; “the righteousness of Christ given and imputed to us” is the formal cause of acceptance by God as righteous. This interpretation has the merit of agreeing with Contarini’s own statement on the matter.307 In his letter to Pighius, Contarini twice states that it is by inherent righteousness that we are formally righteous, but each time adds the qualification that this righteousness remains imperfect and incomplete so that we need the imputed righteousness of Christ to make up the lack.308 This statement indicates how Contarini could move from the definition of “to be justified”309 to the need for a double formal cause of justification. Gropper in his Enchiridion states that the formal cause of justification is the mercy, grace and love of God which brings us renewal. His aim is to exclude from this role any worth (dignitas) of our own wills.310 Some of his contemporaries saw the formal cause as infused love, poured into our hearts (Rom 5:5). But because this remains imperfect, it can be seen as the formal cause only to the extent that it is a gift of God and proceeds from God.311 305 CC 7:29: “charitas et gratia Dei nobis inhaerens et iusticia Christi nobis donata et imputata.” So, correctly, Laemmer, Die vortridentinisch-​katholische Theologie des Reformations-​Zeitalters aus den Quellen dargestellt, 192; Brieger, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Cardinal Contarini, kritisch dargestellt und verglichen mit der des Regensburger Buches,” 104–​109; Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 672, 675; Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 86; Gerace, Biblical Scholarship in Louvain,  97–​98. 306 CC 7:24. Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 41, 44. Von Loewenich cites as “seltsam” a statement of Rückert on p. 88, but appears to have missed the latter’s justification of it on p. 86. It is true, though, that Rückert goes on to state that imputed is on the basis of infused righteousness (pp. 90–​95, 106–​ 107). McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2005), 315, is also critical of Rückert. 307 CC 7:29. 308 Regesten, 350–​51. 309 CC 7:24, cited at note 306, above. 310 Enchiridion, 167b, 172a. On this and the other causes of justification in the Enchiridion, see Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 129–​31. 311 Enchiridion, 172a.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  139 There is no mention of the righteousness of Christ as part of the formal cause of justification. The Worms Draft declares the formal cause of justification to be “the grace, mercy and righteousness of God” (§10) or “the righteousness of Christ” (§43).312 There is no mention of formal (or other) causes in the definitive article. Bellarmine, nonetheless, accuses it of teaching “a double righteousness . . . by which we are formally justified,” proceeding to quote from §5:1. Interestingly, Bellarmine attributes Article 5 to Bucer, being unwilling to acknowledge that any Catholics had a role in producing it. He does, however, proceed to note that “Albert Pighius in his second Controversy and the authors of the Cologne Antididagma fell into the same opinion, or rather error.”313 It is in his Antididagma, as Bellarmine notes, that Gropper moves for the first time to the position which we have claimed for Contarini, that as we are justified by a double righteousness there are two formal causes of justification: the imputed and the inherent righteousness of Christ.314 In their 9 July letter to the Cologne theological faculty, the Leuven theology faculty objected to Gropper’s inclusion of imputed righteousness in the formal cause of justification.315 Here again Gropper is unrepentant, claiming that a careful examination of Augustine shows that there and everywhere he teaches the same as the third article objected to by the Leuven faculty.316 He appeals to further passages in Ambrose and Augustine, as well as from Paul. He also appeals to Pighius.317 But does Gropper in fact go beyond the Antididagma here?318 He asks the question whether the imputed righteousness of Christ might be the 312 This draft also lists other causes of justification:  efficiens, subefficiens, materialis, disponens subiectum, finalis (§10, 40). It also calls works of the Spirit meritorious causes of the the justification of works (§63), though not of the remission of sins (§70). 313 Bellarmine, De iustificatione 2:1 in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini Tomus Quartus, 893. He refers to “Martinus Bucerus in libro Concordiae” and to “libello Imperatori Ratisbonae exhibito a Lutheranis (quorum princeps Bucerus erat).” 314 Gegenberichtung, 19b–​20a; Antididagma, 13b. In this passage he lists the many different causes of justification: causa efficiens, causa operans, causa meritoria, causa praeparativa, causa dispositiva, causa susceptiva, causa formalis, causa finalis, causa receptiva, causa effectiva. Gegenberichtung, 19b–​20a, contains all of these terms in Latin, except for causa operans and causa praeparativa; Antididagma, 13b–​14a, contains all except for causa effectiva. There is some overlap with the Worms Draft §10. 315 Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” 12–​14; “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207 (the third article), paraphrasing Antididagma, 13b. 316 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 211: “si Augustinus penitus introspiciatur, illic et ubique idem dicit, quod habet articulus Antididagmatis.” The printed version has the abbreviation Aug., but the manuscript spells his name in full (Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, Nachlaß Pflug, Katalog p. 23 L, 45b/​90). Gropper refers back to the controversy with Leuven over the double formal cause in Gropper to Pflug (11 December 1552) in Pflug, Correspondance, 3:552–​53; JGB 2:379. 317 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 211–​13. Gropper (212) quotes from Controversiarum, 38a, on which see at n. 37, above. Gropper obligingly uses the same edition of Pighius as I do. 318 As is argued by Gerace, Biblical Scholarship in Louvain, 100–​105.

140  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification formal cause of our justification—​without any mention of inherent righteousness. Is the question whether imputed righteousness is a formal cause of justification [i.e. together with inherent rightousness] or the [sole] cause? He goes on to state that the righteousness of Christ alone, applied to us through faith, brings us forgiveness of sins in the blood of Christ so that we are called justified. But he then adds that the love that is poured out in us when our sins have been forgiven is the formal cause (formale) not of the forgiveness of sins but only of our renewal.319 So what is Gropper saying here? He has already defined the initial justification of the ungodly as including both the forgiveness of sins and renewal by love poured out in our hearts.320 What he appears to be saying here is that imputed righteousness is the sole formal cause of the forgiveness of sins and that love/​ inherent righteousness is the formal cause of renewal. Thus the formal cause of justification is the righteousness of Christ, but this righteousness is double: imputed and inherent. At the beginning of his response to the Leuven article, Gropper reaffirms the teaching of the Antididagma. At the conclusion of his response, he notes that the Leuven faculty are not that far removed from the views of the Antididagma, since they do not simply regard our love for God and neighbour as the sole formal cause of justification but add: “ ‘or rather inseparably conjoined with it,’ by which is clearly to be understood the righteousness of Christ, which is inseparably conjoined with our infused love and without which our love immediately fades away and is truly nothing.”321 In the body of his response he likewise defends the Antididagma and does not go beyond it to teach that imputed righteousness is the sole formal cause of justification. That this interpretation is correct is shown by the fact that at the end of his life Gropper twice reaffirms the teaching of the Antididagma on this topic, as we shall see shortly. After the colloquy Eck rejected as absurd the idea that our righteousness or love is not the Holy Spirit but Christ himself, who is formally our righteousness. Those who hold that reject dialectic and thus fall into an abyss of ignorance. This heresy relies on many deceitful disguises to hide.322 He 319 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 211–​12. 320 Gegenberichtung, 17a; Antididagma, 11b. 321 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 213:  “aut cum ea inseparabiliter coniunctam, quo nimirum intelligitur, iustitiam Christi, quae est inseparabiliter cum nostra infusa charitate coniuncta et sine qua nostra charitas statim evanescit atque adeo nulla est.” “aut cum ea inseparabiliter coniunctam” is a quotation from their 9th July letter (Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” 13); the rest of the quotation is Gropper’s gloss. 322 Replica (1543), 40b.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  141 claims that on this point Pighius has already strangled Bucer,323 but Pighius in fact stated that formally and properly speaking, neither our faith nor our love justifies us before God but the one righteousness of God in Christ, the one righteousness of Christ in which we partake (nobis communicata).324 The Tridentine Decree on Justification teaches that the “sole formal cause” of justification is “the righteousness of God—​not that by which he himself is righteous, but that by which he makes us righteous—​that he gives to us and by which we are renewed in the spirit of our mind (Eph 4:23). Thus we are not merely considered to be righteous but are truly called righteous and are righteous” (ch. 7). It also rejects the idea that we are formally righteous through the righteousness of Christ (can. 10), probably aimed at the idea of imputed righteousness.325 How did Gropper react to this teaching of Trent?326 This he answered clearly and explicitly in a private letter sent to Pflug in 1552.327 Having outlined the teaching of his Enchiridion, the Antididagma, and the ensuing controversy with the Leuven theologians, together with his Isagoge and Institutio catholica, he comments that he is now not permitted to think differently about this than was recently determined at Trent. Having quoted the Tridentine statement about the “sole formal cause” of justification, he states that though the wording is different from his, if one examines the underlying content it does not differ much from the teaching of the Antididagma.328 When the Tridentine Fathers state that “we are not merely considered to be righteous but are truly called righteous and are righteous,” they are acknowledging that “in justification the imputation of Christ’s righteousness comes together with inherent righteousness.”329 Again, when Trent shortly after states that no one can be righteous unless the merits of Christ’s passion are communicated to them, this refers to “that imputation of Christ’s righteousness through faith.”330 Gropper had thus managed to reconcile his previous teaching with Trent, at least to his personal satisfaction.331 But his confidence 323 Ibid. 324 Controversiarum, 49a. 325 For the secondary literature, see n. 178, above. 326 Contarini was, of course, dead by this time so the only way he could react was by turning in his grave. I have visited his tomb three times but have not been able to ascertain whether the body has turned. Gropper was present at the council in 1551/​52, but justification was by then no longer the topic of debate (Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 203–​207). 327 Gropper to Pflug (11 December 1552) in Pflug, Correspondance, 3:548–​54; JGB 2:376–​80. 328 Pflug, Correspondance, 3:552–​54; JGB 2:379–​80. 329 Ibid., 553/​379. 330 Ibid., 553/​379. 331 Lortz, “Wert und Grenzen der katholischen Kontroverstheologie in der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts,” 28, argues that Gropper’s (and Contarini’s) double righteousness (“doppelte

142  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification in this reconciliation is limited in that he noted that it was a difficult and dangerous topic. He is aware that Catholics are scarcely (vix) permitted to mention imputed righteousness,332 and after 1544 he ceased to refer to it in his publications. Thus while in his public teaching Gropper retreats from the positions reached at Regensburg and defended in 1544, it was not because he had ceased to believe them. Clear proof of this is found at the end of his life, where he defends his earlier teaching vigorously and publicly in his two responses to the charge of heresy. In his shorter defence, Gropper reaffirms the teaching of the Antididagma about two formal causes of justification. The first is the infinite merit of Christ, not solely external to us (as the Lutherans imagine), but both imputed to us as righteousness through faith and communicated with us, in line with Romans 4:23–​ 25. The second is inherent righteousness, poured into our hearts by the renewal of the Holy Spirit and the diffusion of love. In what way, he asks, does this disagree with the Tridentine decree? The latter states that the one formal cause is the righteousness of God by which he makes us righteous, and that we are not merely considered to be righteous but are truly called righteous and are righteous. This does not rescind imputed righteousness but joins it with inherent righteousness. The merit of Christ, which Gropper had called the formal cause, Trent calls the meritorious cause. How does that differ, he asks, if we consider not the wording but the meaning of what he had written before the council (submitting it to the judgement of the holy see)? We have to distinguish between our own inherent righteousness and the infinite merit of Christ as it is applied to us by faith, and it is on the latter that we are primarily to depend.333 In his fuller Apologia, Gropper again defends his teaching on the two formal causes of justification.334 He argues for the existence of imputed righteousness alongside inherent righteousness, and rather optimistically states that “no one can deny that that righteousness, that is sprinkled on us and imputed to us through the forgiveness of sins in baptism through the blood of Christ, is a formal cause of justification. By it we are washed from sins, renewed by the bath of regeneration and transformed from being members of the old Adam to

Gerechtigkeit”) can be accommodated in the Tridentine formulation. See also Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” 10–​12. Bellarmine was not of that persuasion (De iustificatione 2:7 in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini Tomus Quartus, 915).

332

Gropper to Pflug (11 December 1552) in Pflug, Correspondance, 3:552, 554; JGB 2:379–​81. Schwarz, “Römische Beiträge zu Joh. Groppers Leben und Wirken,” 603–​604. 334 JGB 2:595, 605–​18, esp. 605, 611, 617–​18. 333

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  143 members of Christ.”335 He concludes his argument by stressing that he does not wish to separate imputed righteousness from inherent righteousness.336 The end of the Apologia reproduces the Articuli Antididagmatis, which also defends at length the two formal causes of justification.337 He also argues vigorously for the compatibility of his earlier teaching with the Tridentine decree, along different lines from those he used in the shorter defence. He argues that Trent distinguishes between the infinite merit of Christ’s passion and inherent grace, as between cause and effect. He claimed that his double formal cause of justification was the same as Trent’s single formal cause in that the latter consists of both free forgiveness and inner renewal.338 But surely, Trent never affirms imputed righteousness? Gropper argues that the decree teaches the imperfection of inherent righteousness and (by implication) the role of imputed righteousness. If one compares the Antididagma with the decree, one sees that the wording differs, but if one looks beyond that to the underlying sense, they are in harmony.339 The Protestants had less to say about the formal cause(s) of justification, and when they do refer to it they are not always using the term in the same sense as the Catholics. Calvin makes various contradictory comments on the subject, identifying the formal cause as the righteousness of Christ, faith, or the preaching of the Gospel.340 Schützeichel rightly notes that Calvin does not use the ideas of material and formal cause in the classical sense.341 Bucer engages with the issue at greater length than the others, but again appears to use the term less precisely than the Catholics. In his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, he discusses at length the different types of causes of justification.342 His main focus is on the appropriating cause of justification, which is faith alone and not love,343 but he also considers the formal cause, 335 JGB 2:611. 336 JGB 2:618, without at this point actually using the word “imputed.” 337 JGB 2:647–​63. 338 JGB 2:618–​19. 339 JGB 2:620–​21. 340 Calvin points out that can. 10 of the Tridentine decree rejects the idea that it is by Christ’s righteousness that we are formally righteous (Acts of the Council of Trent: with the Antidote, 6th Session, can. 10 (CTS 3:151–​52; CO 7:477)). In his own account he equates the formal cause with the instrumental (faith) (Institutio 3:14:17; Comm. Rom 3:24) or else portrays it as the preaching of the Gospel, through which we are brought to faith (Comm. Eph. 1:8–​10). 341 Schützeichel, Die Glaubenstheologie Calvins, 204–​205. 342 DVRC, 172b–​79b, 188b–​90a, 209a, 212a–​b. McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2005), 252–​53 asks whether Bucer held to a double formal cause of justification, without giving a clear answer. The fuller earlier account in McGrath, “Humanist Elements in the Early Reformed Doctrine of Justification,” 11–​12, gives the clear answer no. 343 DVRC, 172b–​177b, 189b (causa recipiens, causa subiecti dispositiva, ac receptiva, i.e. dispositio

144  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification which is the righteousness of Christ.344 The formal cause of justification, that is, that by which we are held to be righteous and are righteous, is triple (triplex), since justification itself is triple.345 The formal cause of the first justification, our acceptance by God, is solely the righteousness of Christ, as Article 5 teaches. Bucer is less clear about the formal cause of the second justification, the renewal that has begun in us, but it could be taken to be our inherent righteousness. The formal cause of the third justification is those gifts of God by or with which (quibus) he rewards us.346 Bucer is not using “formal cause” in as precise as sense as do his Catholic opponents. When discussing the formal cause of each of the three justifications, he appears at times simply to be describing the nature of that justification, except for the first justification, where he is keen to affirm that the ground for this is the righteousness of Christ and his merit.347

Conclusion While the idea of duplex iustitia, if not the phrase, is fundamental to Article 5, it is misleading to state (as do many commentators) that it teaches “double justification.”348 The article affirms both iustitia imputata and iustitia inhaerens, but that does not make a theory of double justification. None of the three doctrines of double justification that have been described here is found in the final Article 5. The article is very explicit that it is on the basis of imputed, not imparted, righteousness that we are accepted by God as righteous. The statement that while we are reckoned righteous by faith, we are also called righteous because of our inherent righteousness and works (§5:2–​3) is far too weak to merit being labelled “double justification”—​especially as, in contrast to both Gropper’s Enchiridion and the Worms Draft, imputed

proxima recipiendae iustificationis). 344 DVRC, 172b–​3a, 177b–​78b, 188b–​89a. 345 For triple justification, see above at n. 265. 346 DVRC, 177b–​78b. 347 See also DVRC, 188b–​89a. 348 Smith, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification in Relation to the Sense of Sin and the Dialogue with Rome,” 140–​42, lists the many offenders, including the otherwise generally reliable “History of the Question” in Anderson, Murphy and Burgess (eds.), Justification by Faith. Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII, 32–​33. Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 227, states that the article offered “a theory that came to be called, not entirely accurately, double justification.” Hequet, The 1541 Colloquy at Regensburg, 52–​55 repeatedly states that Article 5 teaches double justification. In her translation of the article (90–​94) she once translates “iusti” (§5:3) as “justified” (92).

Double Righteousness and Double Justification  145 righteousness is clearly in the foreground.349 The Worms Draft, unlike the final version of Article 5, explicitly teaches two justifications: the first and initial justification freely by faith without merit or works, and the second justification by works of faith and love, as described by James. The final draft confines itself to affirming a double righteousness, imputed and inherent, not a double justification.

349 Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 336–​39, 341, 343.

5 Text and Commentary The Text This chapter contains the Latin text of Article 5, sentence by sentence, together with commentary.1 The English translation is my own. Both are given at the beginning of each section of commentary and can also be found in Appendix 5. The original text has not survived, and the text below is based on four contemporary printed sources:2 • B  =  Bucer, Acta colloquii in comitisis imperii Ratisponae habiti (Strassburg, 1541—​the quarto edition), 5b–​6a. This appeared in other editions in 1541 and 1542, of which I  have checked the 1541 octavo edition and the 1542 Strassburg edition.3 A  German translation was published in 1541/​2.4 The Latin and German texts are found in MBDS 9/​ 2:122–​227 and 232–​428. 1 Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole, 20–​56, also offers a (briefer) sentence by sentence commentary. He concludes that Article 5 is entirely Evangelical in substance, though not everywhere in wording. Its teaching accords with Melanchthon’s Apology. Protestants can embrace it, without giving up the teaching of the Augsburg Confession and Apology (55–​56). 2 In addition, Calvin also published, in French only, Les Actes de la iournee imperiale, tenue en la cité de Regespourg (1541), consisting mostly of a French translation of Bucer’s Acta (CO 5:509–​684. Cf. Peter and Gilmont, Bibliotheca Calviniana, 1:89–​91). For the way in which Calvin has used and rearranged Bucer’s material and for the sources of Calvin’s material, see Stolk, Johannes Calvijn en de godsdienstgesprekken tussen rooms-​katholieken en protestanten in Hagenau, Worms en Regensburg, 295–​317, 335–​39. Antonius Goinus also published Acta Colloquii in Comitis Ratisponae habiti (1541) but this does not contain the Regensburg Book and contains other documents only in an abbreviated form. In 1542 Miles Coverdale published a brief English translation, drawn from Bucer’s and Melanchthon’s Acta (MBB #122). 3 Stupperich, Bibliographia Bucerana, 55–​56, lists some but not all of these. MBB #113 claims to be by Johann Blawe at Wesel and the Cambridge University Library is cited in support. This library has two octavo copies from 1541. One is by Rihel at Strassburg. The other is identical in every respect, save for the last three lines of the title page which, instead of “ARGENTORATI /​Mense Septembri /​M. D. XLI.” read “WESALIAE /​per Ioannem Blawe. Anno /​M. D. XLI” (MBB #113). This is in fact simply a separate issue of the Rihel edition (which is not mentioned in MBB), with a changed title page, as can be seen by the fact the the colophon in both copies reads “Argentorati, Anno M.D. XLI.” (sig. y4a). 4 The German translation is undated, but the Vorred is dated 22 December 1541 (sig. A4b), which is why the identical edition is variously described as being from 1541 and 1542. MBB #121 claims to be a 1542 edition of the German translation of Bucer’s Acta, but is in fact the translation of Melanchthon’s (not Bucer’s) Acta. An abridged English translation (not containing the text of Article 5) is found in Ziegler (ed.), Great Debates of the Reformation, 143–​77. Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony L. S. Lane, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190069421.001.0001

148  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification • E = Eck, Apologia . . . adversus mucores et calumnias Buceri super actis comitiorum Ratisponae (Ingolstadt, 1542), 8a–​10a. There were other editions of this work. • G = Gropper, An die Römsche Keyserliche Maiestat unsern Allergnedigsten Herren Warhafftige Antwort und gegenberichtung (Cologne, 1545), 59b–​60b. • M = Philipp Melanchthon, Acta in conventu Ratisbonensi (Wittenberg, 1541), sigs. C2a–​4a. This also appeared in German translation:  Alle Handlungen die Religion belangend (Wittenberg, 1542) and in his collected works: Operum Reverendi Viri Philippi Melanthonis Pars Quarta (Wittenberg, 1564), both of which I have checked.5 The textual notes also refer to several other sources: • ADRG = ADRG 3/​I:288–​94, which is based on manuscripts (especially a manuscript in Staatsarchiv at Würzburg) and printed editions.6 There are three minor differences in the main text, which have been noted,7 but the textual notes of this edition have not been noted. Where my textual notes differ from ADRG for Bucer, Eck or Melanchthon I have rechecked my readings against the editions that I have used. • ARC = ARC 6:52–​54. As this is a standard edition, I have noted two errors that occur, as well as the two points where I have adopted a different reading. • CR 4 = the older edition in CR 4:198–​201, which introduces readings from the apograph found in “Cod. Galli.,” a seventeenth-​ century Parisian manuscript (CR 4:VII–​IX). Where this leads CR 4 to adopt a different reading this has also been noted. As the older secondary literature drew on this edition, it is important to be aware of where it departs from modern editions.

5 His Colloquium Wormaciense . . . Acta Ratisbonensia adiugenda editioni nostrae proximae (1542) contains official documents, but not the text of the theological articles. On these editions and for a comparison of Melanchthon’s with Bucer’s Acta, see Augustijn, “Melanchthons Editionen der Akten von Worms und Regensburg 1540 und 1541,” 281–​88. The second of two prefaces from the Acta (Acta in conventu Ratisbonensi, sig. K3b–​L4b) was published separately in Melanchthon, Warhaffter bericht und Urteil von dem übergeben Buch und gehalten gesprech zu Regenspurg. M. D. XLI (1542). Also in CR 4:668–​76; MBW T10:517–​24 (MBW 3:227 [#2817]). Melanchthon there ignores the first five articles, focusing instead on the later articles and the differences between the two sides. 6 ADRG 3/​I:XXIX, 268. 7 §§7:1, 8:1, 9:1, below.

Text and Commentary  149 • CR 10 = the rendering of Article 5 alone in CR 10:112–​15, taken from a manuscript of Melanchthon’s. • Disp  =  the version found in Bucer’s Disputata Ratisbonae, in altero colloquio, Anno XLVI (1548), 45–​48. • MBDS 9/​1  =  the edition in Cornelis Augustijn and Marijn de Kroon (eds.), Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, 9/​1:397–​401. This is based not on the printed editions but on a contemporary manuscript and introduces two variant readings. • HAB = Herzog August Bibliothek (Wolfenbüttel), MS Cod.Guelf. 140 Helmst., 129b–​132a = Formula Concordiae in Loco Iustiticationis It will be seen from the textual notes that there are a considerable number of minor variations, but fortunately, only one of these significantly affects the sense of the text. This is the variation between “patientia” and “poenitentia” in §6. There is no doubt that the former is the correct reading and that the latter has crept in from an earlier draft.8 The original editions vary in capitalisation, spelling, punctuation and even paragraph divisions. Most do not number the paragraphs, and those that do, do not do so consistently. I have divided the paragraphs into sentences, so (for example) §3:5, §4:4. Paragraphs 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 have only one sentence each, but I have numbered these as 1:1, etc., so as to avoid ambiguity when, for example, citing §3:5, 6 as to whether the “6” refers to §3:6 or §6. Where there is no ambiguity, I may drop the “:1.”

The Commentators The commentary will draw upon the assessment of Article 5 by ten of those present at the colloquy or in touch with it: Contarini9 and the six debaters/​ negotiators, together with Calvin and, to a lesser extent, Luther and Pighius. There will also be occasional mention of others who commented on the article, such as Pole and Sadolet. Finally, we shall consider the relation between 8 For the row between Bucer and Gropper and concerning the alleged falsification of the text, cf. Braunisch, “Die ‘Artikell’ der ‘Warhafftigen Antwort’ (1545) des Johannes Gropper,” 544–​45; ARC 6:22–​23. Stupperich, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen, 120, rightly comments that “Rechnet man die Schreibfehler ab, so bleibt kaum eine wesentliche Änderung übrig.” 9 On Contarini, see Lane, “Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy.” Marranzini, “I Colloqui di Ratisbona:  l’azione e le idee di Gaspare Contarini,” 174–​80, discusses Contarini and Article 5.

150  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Article 5 and the Tridentine Decree on Justification.10 I have sought always to include the views of Melanchthon (especially the Augsburg Confession and Apology, because of the claims made for them), Bucer, Calvin, Gropper and Contarini (to all of whom we will return in ­chapter 6) and of the Council of Trent. In the commentary, I  will start by listing variant readings and giving my own comments. Then I will move on to the various sixteenth-​century figures—​usually starting with the views of the early (pre-​Article 5) Gropper, followed by Contarini’s responses immediately after the event, then other Catholic responses, and then Protestant responses. Finally, I  will interact with today’s commentators. Information on many of the works cited will be found in ­chapter 3. Apart from these: • Gropper’s 1538 Enchiridion Christianae Institutionis (Cologne:  Peter Quentel, 1538) is cited by folio number in the first edition. I mostly confine myself to his chapter De iustificatione hominis, except for relevant ideas which are found only in other chapters. • For Contarini’s Epistola de iustificatione I have made use of, but not always followed exactly, the as yet unpublished translation by Edwin Tait. I am grateful to him for sharing this with me. • For the Augsburg Confession, the authoritative version is unquestionably the one presented at the diet in 1530 and published the following year. The 1540 variata secunda is, however, of considerable significance for Article 5. It was published in October that year, after the Hagenau colloquy, as an official document of the Schmalkaldic League, with an eye to the forthcoming colloquies11 and with the aim of winning the support of Catholic theologians who were sympathetic to Protestant concerns.12 The articles most relevant to our study (4, 5, 6, 20) are all substantially longer than in the 1531 edition.13 As will be seen, there are a number of parallels between the teaching of the variata secunda 10 For the Tridentine decree, see Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2:671–​81. I use my own translation, based on previous ones. 11 Maurer, “Confessio Augustana Variata,” especially 136–​50. For the text, see BSELK QuM 1:119–​ 67. See also Fraenkel, “Die Augustana und das Gespräch mit Rom, 1540–​1541”; Kretschmar, “The Diet of Regensburg and the 1541 Variata of the Augsburg Confession,” 85–​102, which contains just one sentence on justification (97). 12 Maurer, “Confessio Augustana Variata,” 144–​45. 13 For the changes to the material on justification, see Maurer, “Confessio Augustana Variata,” 123–​33.

Text and Commentary  151







and Article 5. While these might not be relevant to the dogmatic issue of whether the article conforms to the definitive Augsburg Confession, they are relevant to its historical origins and to the question of its conformity with Melanchthon’s teaching. • Melanchthon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession appeared in two early editions:14 In late April or May 1531 an initial quarto edition was published, the Editio princeps,15 but Melanchthon was dissatisfied, with the treatment of justification especially. Having consulted with colleagues, Melanchthon published a revised edition in early September of that year, the octavo edition—​the Editio secunda.16 Article 4 on justification is substantially revised in this edition. Melanchthon regarded this as the definitive text, and it was this version that appeared in the first edition of the Book of Concord (1580). Some later editions of the Book of Concord included the quarto version instead. In the light of this, when referring to this work, I have prioritised the Editio secunda, but also refer to some material in the Editio princeps.17 • Melanchthon’s Loci theologici (1543) is of interest as the first new edition published after the colloquy. Relevant passages are cited.18 • Especial attention will be paid to Bucer’s De vera ecclesiarum in doctrina, ceremoniis, et disciplina reconcilatione et compositione (1542) [DVRC], as this is his full and detailed response to Article 5. • With Calvin’s Institutio, except where otherwise indicated, the passages cited are found wholly or substantially in the 1539 edition, and are thus a reliable indicator of what Calvin taught before the colloquy.19 When quoting in English, I have mostly followed the Battles translation,20 but have sometimes modified this to keep closer to the Latin.

14 For the history of the two editions, see Kolb and Wengert, 107–​109; BSELK 229–​34. See also Arand, “The Texts of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession,” 461–​84. 15 BSELK QuM1:427–​590; Tappert, 98–​285. 16 BSELK 236–​709; Kolb and Wengert 109–​294. (I have cited the Latin edition only, not the German translation.) 17 Tappert’s English translation numbers all paragraphs, enabling one to locate material much more precisely. Kolb and Wengert give these paragraph numbers for the material in the Editio secunda that comes from the Editio princeps. I will also give them, in brackets, for material found in the Editio princeps. 18 Loci theologici recens recogniti (1543) [LT43]; ET: Loci Communes 1543 [LC43]. 19 I have made use of the concordances to the 1539 and 1559 editions of the Institutio by Richard Wevers. 20 Institutes of the Christian Religion (1960).

152  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification

The Commentary De iustificatione hominis. §1:1. Nulli Christiano dubitandum est post lapsum primi parentis omnes homines, ut inquit Apostolus, nasci filios irae [Eph 2:3] et inimicos Dei [Rom 5:10] aeoque esse in morte [Rom 5:21; Eph 2:1] et servitutea peccati [Rom 6:16–​20]. No Christian should doubt that after the fall of our first parent all men are, as the apostle says, born children of wrath [Eph 2:3] and enemies of God [Rom 5:10] and thereby are in death [Rom 5:21; Eph 2:1] and slavery to sin [Rom 6:16–​20].

a—​a: B, E, Disp: eoque in mortem et servitutem As is implied by the opening words, the teaching of this paragraph was not in dispute, so there is no need to document the ideas in all our authors. Pederson notes that the strong affirmation here (“Nulli Christiano dubitandum est”) and at the beginning of §2 is found nowhere else in the Regensburg Book,21 though a similar claim is found in Melanchthon’s Draft (“Nihil dubium est” §3:1). The first paragraph of Eck’s Draft is similar, though it allows the proviso that sinners might be able to perform morally good works. The ideas of being children of wrath and in death are repeated from the preceding article, Article 4 (de originali peccato). The reference to bondage to sin is less explicit in that article. The citation of Ephesians 2:3 is also found in the Worms Draft §1 and in the Tridentine Decree on Justification (ch. 1). The claims of this paragraph are paralleled in Article 2 of the Augsburg Confession.22 Bucer reaffirms §1 in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione.23 §2:1. Item nulli Christiano ambigendum est nullum hominem posse Deo reconciliari itemque liberari a servitute peccati, nisi per Christum unum mediatorem Dei et hominum [1 Tim 2:5], per cuius gratiam, ut inquit apostolus ad Romanos, non tantum reconciliamur Deo [5:10] et liberamur

21 Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 282. 22 BSELK 95, 97; Kolb and Wengert 37, 39. 23

DVRC, 164b–​65a.

Text and Commentary, §2:1  153 a servitute peccati [6:18, 22], sed etiam efficimur consortes divinae naturae [2 Petr 1:4] et filii Dei [Rom 8:14–​16]. Likewise, no Christian should question that nobody can be reconciled with God, nor set free from slavery to sin, except by Christ the one mediator between God and men [1 Tim 2:5], by whose grace, as the apostle said to the Romans, we are not only reconciled to God [5:10] and set free from slavery to sin [6:18, 22], but also made sharers in the divine nature [2 Pet 1:4] and children of God [Rom 8:14–​16].

As is implied by “nulli Christiano ambigendum est,” the teaching of this paragraph was also not in dispute. The reference to the sole mediatorship of Christ would, of course, have pleased the Protestants. Christ is frequently called the Mediator in Article 4 of Melanchthon’s Apology. The Tridentine Decree on Justification points to the mediatorial role of Christ, though without using the word “mediator” (ch. 2). The Catholics would have been pleased to establish that the grace of Christ brings not merely reconciliation but also adoption and partaking in the divine nature. Lexutt rightly notes that the Protestants might have wondered what implications the other side might draw from “consortes divinae naturae,”24 especially as this is described as a present reality. The reference to 2 Peter 1:4 and consortes divinae naturae is found in the Worms Draft §11. Gropper also reaffirms it in the Artikell that he composed for his Warhafftige Antwort.25 Contarini, in his earlier Confutatio Articulorum seu Quaestionum Lutheranorum, states that through justification “we are made sharers in the divine nature, and adopted as children of God.”26 He cites 2 Peter 1:4 four times in his Epistola,27 and also speaks of adoption as children of God.28 Luther cited 2 Peter 1:4 in his 1535 Lectures on Galatians, with the comment that “faith makes a man God.”29 Bucer states in his Romans Commentary that Paul’s reference to the Spirit indwelling us refers to a “more real and more effectual communion in divinity.”30 He reaffirms §2 in 24 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 251–​52. 25 Warhafftige Antwort, 9b. 26 CC 7:2. 27 CC 7:24–​25, 25, 28, 29. 28 CC 7:24, 25, 27, 32. 29 WA 40/​ 1:182; LW 26:100. Mannermaa, “Justification and Theosis in Lutheran-​ Orthodox Perspective,” points to Luther’s use of the concept of theosis, though his claim that it is “at the core of ” Luther’s theology (25) would by no means be accepted by all. 30 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 323. Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 192, cites a similar passage from Bucer’s 1535 Axiomata Apologetica (MBDS 6/​1:86).

154  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione.31 Calvin cited 2 Peter 1:4 in his account of the Christian’s future hope,32 but in 1559 criticised Osiander for applying it to the present life.33 In 1536, however, he affirms of the present life (with reference to the Lord’s Supper) that Christ “makes us sharers in his divine immortality,” and this remains in subsequent editions.34 There is no serious issue here since no one at Regensburg sought to break the tension between the “already” and the “not yet.” The Protestants did not wish to deny that the process begins in this life; the Catholics did not wish to deny that it is incomplete in this life. §3:1. Item perspicuum est, quod adulti non consequuntur haec beneficia Christi nisi praeveniente motu Spiritus Sancti, quo eorum mens et voluntas movetur ad detestationem peccati. Likewise, it is quite clear that adults do not obtain these blessings of Christ, except by the prevenient movement of the Holy Spirit, by which their mind and will are moved to hate sin.

This paragraph refers to the prevenient movement of the Spirit, rather than prevenient grace, though there is no great significance in the difference of terminology. The issue of prevenient grace was not controversial, as Contarini notes. He states that Melanchthon had written two good chapters on the subject of works before grace, but that Eck saw no need to mention this in the article since there was no discord with Lutherans over such works.35 While this would be true of all the debaters, it was not true of Pighius. In both his 1541 Controversies36 and his De libero arbitrio of the next year,37 he expounded a doctrine of original sin38 which led both Bucer and Calvin to accuse him of Pelagianism.39 Lest these Reformed 31 DVRC, 165a. 32 Institutio 3:25:10. 33 Institutio 3:11:10. 34 Institutio 4:17:4. 35 Contarini to an unnamed cardinal (22 July) in Brieger, “Zur Correspondenz Contarini’s während seiner deutschen Legation,” 517. Summary in Regesten, 218. Also in Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura I/​2, 187. 36 On the Controversies, see ­chapter 1, at nn. 33–​34. 37 Pighius, De libero hominis arbitrio et divina gratia. 38 For Pighius’s doctrine of original sin, see especially Feiner, Die Erbsündenlehre Albert Pigges. In defence of Pighius against the charge of Pelagianism, see ibid., 99–​100; Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 104–​108. 39 Bucer, DVRC, 154a, 199b, responding to the Controversies. Calvin wrote his Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii (1543) against Pighius’s De libero arbitrio, and repeatedly accuses him of Pelagianism (COR 4:3:175, 264, 269–​71, 280, 298–​99; CO 6:304, 360, 364–​65, 372, 384; The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, 104, 185, 189–​91, 199, 217).

Text and Commentary, §3:1  155 theologians appear biased, it should be noted that the same charge was brought at the Council of Trent, where Pole stated that while Pighius wanted to refute the [Protestant] adversaries on original sin, he just about lapsed into Pelagianism himself.40 The theology faculties of Leuven and Douai branded Pighius’s doctrine of original sin as semi-​Pelagian,41 and both his first Controversy and his De libero arbitrio were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books at Lisbon in 1624.42 Gropper refers in his Enchiridion to the operation of prevenient grace,43 and asserts that “those who dare to say that the human will justifies itself, are not only ungodly but completely insane.”44 Conversion involves a heartfelt hatred of those sins that previously caused pleasure.45 The Worms Draft affirms the need for prevenient grace (§§16, 20, 30, 40),46 and Gropper’s Draft §§1, 2 repeats the material from Worms Draft §§40, 30, respectively. The need for detestation of sin is clearly explained by Gropper in his Enchiridion: “Now since that faith is conjoined with the love (affectu) of and desire for the forgiveness of sins, it cannot take pleasure (delectari) in sins, whose forgiveness it seeks.”47 Contarini in his Epistola describes at length the prevenient work of the Spirit, followed by the loathing of sin. He proceeds to cite Thomas Aquinas for this movement of the soul (motus animi), which is a movement of faith (motus fidei).48 Thomas also states that the movement of free choice involved in justification is consent to the loathing of sin and to approaching God (cf. §3:5).49 Contarini cites Thomas five times in this letter and his exponents have noted his failure adequately to reconcile the Thomist and Lutheran strands in his thought.50 The Tridentine Decree on Justification affirms the need for prevenient grace (ch. 5; can. 3),51 and affirms that the Holy Spirit “moves” us (ch. 6).

40 CT 1:82–​83. 41 Linsenmann, “Albertus Pighius und sein theologischer Standpunkt,” 591. 42 Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, 1:565. 43 Enchiridion, 171a, 173a, 174a; cf. 127b–​129a. 44 Enchiridion, 172a. 45 Enchiridion, 167b; cf. 136a. 46 On which, see Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 253–​56. 47 Enchiridion, 172b. 48 CC 7:26–​27. Summa theologiae 2/​1 q. 113, art. 4. 49 Summa theologiae 2/​1 q. 113, art. 7, ad 1 (cf. art. 5). 50 See c­ hapter 2, above, n. 86. 51 On the question of whether the decree allows the possibility of de congruo merit prior to justification, see Oberman, “The Tridentine Decree on Justification in the Light of Late Medieval Theology,”  31–​54.

156  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification The need for prevenient grace is taught by the Augsburg Confession, Article 18.52 Bucer, reaffirms section 3:1 in his De vera  .  .  .  reconcilatione et compositione.53 He explored at length the question of whether good works have a role in preparing us for justification, arguing (together with Augustine) that before grace, sinners have only evil merits. There is no question of meriting the first grace either de congruo or de condigno, by doing one’s very best (faciendo quod in se est), for example.54 Bucer concedes, however, that a renunciation (detestatio) of sin precedes justification, the remission of sins, and confidence (fiducia) of God’s favour, and that there is no reconciliation with God without repentance and hatred of sin, though this is itself the fruit of the prevenient movement of God’s grace.55 The description of prevenient grace as a motus was not alien to Calvin.56 §3:2 Nam impossibile est, ut inquit Augustinus, novam vitam inchoare, nisi prioris nos poeniteat.57 3:3 Item Lucae ultimo Christus iubet praedicaria in nomine suob poenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum [24:47]. 3:4 Johannes etiam Baptista missus ad parandas vias Domini praedicavit poenitentiam, inquiens: Poenitentiam agite, appropinquatc enim regnum coelorum [Mt 3:2]. For, as St. Augustine says, it is impossible to begin a new life if we do not repent of the former one. Likewise, in the last chapter of Luke, Christ commands that repentance and forgiveness of sin should be preached in his name [24:47]. Also, John the Baptist, sent to prepare the way of the Lord, preached repentance, saying: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is drawing near” [Matt 3:2].

a: Disp: praedidicare b: CR 10:113: eius [= Vulgate] c: Disp: appropinquavit [= Vulgate] This passage contains four mentions of poenitentia or poeniteo. Bucer translates the first of these as “rewet,” the remaining three as “buss” (twice) 52 BSELK 113, 115; Kolb and Wengert 51, 53. 53 DVRC, 166a–​b. 54 DVRC, 164b–​65b. 55 DVRC, 166a–​69b. 56 Institutio 2:3:5, 9–​10, 13; 2:5:15. 57 Sermo 351:2: “caeterorum hominum nullus transit ad Christum, ut incipiat esse quod non erat, nisi eum poeniteat fuisse quod erat” (PL 39:1537).

Text and Commentary, §3:2–4  157 and “Thun buss.”58 Melanchthon goes for greater variety, translating them as “Rewe,” “Buss,” and “Bessert euch” (blurring together the two references in §3:4).59 Gropper in his Enchiridion argued that for faith to be a living, “formed,” saving faith, poenitentia is needed. When the apostles excluded works from justification their point was that penitential deeds do not merit justification, not that they are unnecessary.60 The need for poenitentia is also mentioned in the Worms Draft §59 (cf. §19), in the context of a full discussion of mortification, a passage which is repeated in Gropper’s Draft §16. Contarini objected to Farnese that some were complaining that while the Article 5 might be “the truth” it was nevertheless scandalous because those believing it will give up on doing good and will persevere in evil. In response he drew attention to this section of the article.61 The Tridentine Decree on Justification also affirms the need for repentance (ch. 6). It should not be imagined that the Protestants had any difficulty with the points made here. In 1527 Melanchthon, in collaboration with Luther, drew up some brief Articles in Latin for use with a visitation of the churches in Electoral Saxony.62 The following year a drastically revised edition was published, in German, with a preface by Luther, who also introduced some changes into the text. There was a further revision of this edition in 1538, which was reissued the following year for use in the Duchy of Saxony.63 Here the same point is made as in §3:2–​4, but much more forcefully. At the very beginning Luke 24:47 is cited. There is no forgiveness of sins without repentance and to preach the former without the latter leads people astray. They will think that they are already forgiven and lapse into a false sense of security without the fear of God. At this juncture, the view of Johann Agricola, that repentance does not precede faith, is mentioned. This is rejected in line with general Lutheran teaching on the relation between law and gospel.64 Again, preachers are to proclaim 58 Alle Handlungen und Schriften zu vergleichung der Religion, 37a. 59 Alle Handlungen die Religion belangend, 11b. 60 Enchiridion, 173a–​b; cf. 122b–​123a, 129a. 61 Contarini to Farnese (10 July) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 494. Summary in Regesten, 212. 62 Articuli de quibus Egerunt per Visitatores in Regione Saxoniae in CR 26:1–​28. See H. Bornkamm, Luther in Mid-​Career 1521–​30, 485–​500. 63 Unterricht der Visitatorn an die Pfarhern im Kurfurstenthum zu Sachssen in CR 26:29–​96; WA 26:175–​240. CR and WA give variant readings from the earlier editions. 64 Section Von der Lere (CR 26:51–​52; WA 26:202–​203). For law and gospel, cf. the final section De Lege in the Latin edition (CR 26:28).

158  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification the Ten Commandments and to warn people of the judgement that follows from disobeying them. They are to be taught that there is no saving faith without repentance, contrition, and the fear of God.65 The same points are made in the section on the sacrament of penance, where there is again a warning against those who think that it suffices to have faith without the fear of God and contrition. Such arrogance and carnal security are worse than all of the earlier errors under the papacy.66 Luther made a similar point in his Third Antinomian Disputation of 1538. Here he argues that at the beginning of the Reformation the gospel was preached to those burdened with sin, those with anxious consciences. Now the situation was different, people having become secure and evil. The Antinomians “want to preach sermons for a time of the contrite in a time of the secure.” Those who are secure, lazy, and licentious need a different message from those who are afflicted and contrite.67 Melanchthon also highlights the need for repentance in his Apology,68 where he again quotes Luke 24:47.69 This verse is also quoted explicitly in Articles 4 and 20 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession and implicitly at the beginning of Article 5 of the Confession.70 Melanchthon also began the section Von vergebung der sünden und unser rechtfertigung, which he composed for the Einfaltigs Bedencken, by stressing the need to bring people to a true sorrow for sin, again quoting Luke 24:47.71 Bucer begins his exposition of Article 5 by asserting that it is impossible to be justified unless we repent.72 There are no grounds, he claims, for accusing the Protestants of teaching that justification is possible without repentance or of allowing sinners to be secure in their sins. Protestants preach not only the forgiveness of sins but also the need for repentance, citing Luke 24:47. These two are inseparable, flowing from the one work of the Spirit. Confidence (fiducia) in God’s mercy is likewise inseparable from repentance.73 65 Section Von den zehen geboten (CR 26:52–​53; WA 26:203). 66 My emphasis. Section Von der rechtschaffen Christlichen Busse (CR 26:69; WA 26:217–​18). The reference to the papacy comes from a similar passage in the 1527 Latin version (CR 26:9). For the specific point being made in this paragraph, see Bornkamm, Luther in Mid-​Career, 490, 492, 494–​95. 67 WA 39/​1:571–​74; ET in McCue, “Luther and the Problem of Popular Preaching,” 37–​38. 68 BSELK 285, 325; Kolb and Wengert 127, 142 (4:45, 142) and many other passages. 69 BSELK 293, 295, 445,483; Kolb and Wengert 130, 192, 207 (4:62; 12:30, 122). 70 BSELK QuM1:124–​25, 132. On the necessity of repentance, see BSELK QuM1:135. 71 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 39b–​40a; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 31a–​b. It is also quoted twice in LT43 R2b, S2a; LC43 82, 86. 72 DVRC, 164a. 73 DVRC, 166a–​69b.

Text and Commentary, §3:2–4  159 In 1545 he repeatedly reaffirmed the need for repentance—​in his response to Gropper’s Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma (citing Luke 24:47),74 in setting out his programme for concord and reformation,75 and in responding to Gropper’s Warhafftige Antwort (citing Luke 24:47).76 The law-​gospel framework of §3 was congenial both to the Lutherans and to Gropper, whose Enchiridion gives it some prominence.77 It plays a role in the Worms Draft (§§18, 32–​33) but not in Gropper’s Draft, nor in the final version. It did not come so naturally to Reformed theologians like Calvin. At first sight, the teaching of §3:2–​4 contradicts the latter’s strong emphasis that repentance does not precede saving faith but is a fruit of it.78 But by repentance (and regeneration) he understands the lifelong process of renewal, which follows union with Christ through faith. He does not deny that there is an initial process of turning from sin involved in coming to faith, and he can himself talk of a process like that described here.79 In his Responsio ad Sadoletum (1539) he says that pastors should first point people to the tribunal of God to discover their sin and guilt and then show them the mercy of God made known in Christ.80 As proof for this claim he mentions his Genevan Catechism, where the same pattern is found.81 In Calvin’s 1554 Commentary on Acts 20:21, the twofold relation between faith and repentance is clarified. “The beginning of repentance is a preparation for faith.” He goes on to explain this “beginning” as “the dissatisfaction with ourselves, which drives us, when we have been moved by a serious fear of the wrath of God, to seek for a remedy.”82 Calvin would have understood the statements about poenitentia in §3:2–​4 to refer to this “beginning of repentance.” In his second Sermon on Justification (1560) he describes at length how the law shows us our sin and

74 Bestendige Verantwortung, 41b–​42a; Constans Defensio, 87. 75 Wie leicht unnd füglich, 16. 76 Von den einigen rechten wegen, 51. 77 Enchiridion, 163b–​166a especially. 78 Institutio 3:3:1–​2. 79 Institutio 3:3:2, 5, 19–​20. In Institutio 3:3:19, which dates from 1536, Calvin like Article 5 twice cites Luke 24:47 as well as Matt. 3:2, with the latter also using the phrase “poenitentiam agite.” But in 1539 he adds the qualification that “nemo enim peccatum unquam odit nisi prius iustitiae amore captus” (Institutio 3:3:20). Thomas Aquinas taught similarly (Summa theologiae 2/​1 q. 113, art. 8). The Formula of Concord also acknowledges a similar double sense of repentance, also citing Luke 24:47 (Solid Declaration 5:7–​8 (BSELK 1:1434–​35; Kolb and Wengert 582)). I am grateful to Robert Kolb for drawing my attention to this. 80 OS 1:469; CO 5:397; CTS 1:41–​42; LCC 22:234–​35. 81 OS 1:381–​82 (1537 Catechisme); CO 5:326–​27 (1538 Catechismus); COR 3:2:8–​11; Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary,  10–​11. 82 CO 48:462–​63; COR 2:12/​2:181–​82; Calvin’s Commentaries:  The Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, 176–​77.

160  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification need and leads us to turn to Christ to receive true righteousness. Part of the process by which “God disposes his elect to receive free righteousness (la justice gratuite)” is that we should repent of our sins.83 Lexutt comments that the article does not spell out whether the poenitentia here required is simply an acknowledgement of sin and sorrow for it or whether it also includes the initiation (Initialzündung) of a new life in the sense of the awakening of dormant virtues which can contribute to justification.84 There can be little doubt that the former is intended. Throughout the article, inherent righteousness is consistently portrayed as a gift of the Holy Spirit given to faith. Either way, Lexutt adds, there is no doubt that in Article 5 repentance, as a human act, has a place in the event of justification.85 This is true, but the blame for this can be laid at the feet of the apostles and shared with the Lutheran Instructions for Visitors. Bucer in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione argues proleptically against Lexutt’s interpretation of this passage.86 §3:5. Deinde a Spiritu Sancto movetur hominis mens in Deum per Christum et hic motus est per fidem, per quam hominis mens certo credens omnibus, quae atradita sunt a Deoa, etiamb certissime et sine dubio assentitur promissionibus nobis exhibitis a Deo, qui, ut dicitur in Psalmo, fidelis est in omnibus verbis suis [145:13 (LXX)], et ex eo fiduciam capit propter promissionem Dei, qua pollicitus est se cremissurum peccata gratisc et adoptaturum in filios credentes in Christum, eos inquam, quos prioris vitae poenituerit. Next, man’s mind is moved toward God by the Holy Spirit through Christ and this movement is through faith. Through this [faith] man’s mind believes with certainty all that God has transmitted, and also with full certainty and without doubt assents to the promises made to us by God who, as stated in the Psalm, is faithful in all his words [145:13]. From there he acquires confidence on account of God’s promise, by which he has pledged that he will remit sins freely and that he will adopt as children those who believe in Christ, those I say who repent of their former life.

83 Engammare (ed.), Jean Calvin. Sermons sur la Genèse, 756–​57; Calvin, Sermons on Melchizedek and Abraham, 123–​24. 84 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 252. 85 Ibid. 86 DVRC, 164b–​70b. Cf. Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 192–​93.

Text and Commentary, §3:5  161 a—​a: CR 4:199, HAB: a Deo tradita sunt b: MBDS 9/​1:399: om. c—​c: CR 10:113, HAB: gratis remissurum peccata Gropper in his Enchiridion has a threefold division of faith. First, there is historical faith by which we believe that God is (credimus deum), as do the demons. This faith on its own is dead or unformed (informis). Secondly, there is the faith by which both righteous and unrighteous believe God’s promises and threats (credimus deo). This faith is imperfect or defective. Thirdly, there is faith, peculiar to the pious, which is fiducia, by which we submit totally to God (credimus in deum). This living or whole (integra) faith is joined with hope and love and is the “faith working through love” of Galatians 5:6. The first two types of faith are found in the intellect, the third however does not just illuminate the intellect but also fires the will with love.87 The first two types are described in the Worms Draft §12 but not in Gropper’s Draft. The three stages described in §3:5 of the final article are slightly different. In his Institutio Catholica Gropper teaches that the faith that saves involves not merely assent but also, and especially, the obedience of faith.88 Pflug in 1562 makes the same threefold division as Gropper. First, we believe God to be one and creator (credamus Deum). Secondly, we believe and assent to all that God has revealed (credamus Deo). Thirdly we believe in God (in Deum credamus), bestowing our hope and trust (fidutiam) on him.89 In his post-​colloquy dispute with Bucer, Gropper states that we are justified through faith, by which without wavering we are steadfastly confident that our sins are pardoned on account of Christ, we who truly repent of our sins.90 This is the second of the four “articles” that he chooses to defend in response to the accusations of the Leuven theology faculty.91 He defends from Scripture and from the Fathers the claim that the trust (fiduciam) by which we receive the forgiveness of sins, and by which without wavering we are steadfastly confident that our sins are forgiven on account of Christ, ought to be certain.92 Later, in response to the fourth article and in opposition to Melanchthon, he takes care to distinguish between “faith, by which are disposed and prepared for justification, through true repentance and contrition” 87 Enchiridion, 121b–​122a; cf. 166a–​b. On Gropper’s doctrine of faith in the Enchiridion, see Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 118–​21. 88 Institutio Catholica, 570. 89 Institutio Christiani Hominis, 4. 90 Antididagma, 13b; Gegenberichtung, 19b. 91 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207. 92 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 209–​11, quoting loosely from 210.

162  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification and “trust (fiducia), by which we receive forgiveness.”93 He was not always so careful to distinguish faith from trust. In his 1553 Capita Institutionis ad Pietatem, he states that those who repent of their old life receive forgiveness of sins through faith, by trust in the merits of the passion of Christ.94 In his 1559 Apologia Gropper firmly rejects the idea that saving faith necessitates a confidence that one’s sins have been forgiven. He had been wrongly accused of teaching that in his Enchiridion, but he sees it as a Lutheran heresy condemned at Trent (can. 13).95 That does not, however, cause him to reject the idea of a fiducia or certitudo of the forgiveness of sins, which he sees taught in Fathers like Bernard.96 For Contarini and Thomas on the movement by the Spirit and through faith, see on §3:1. The progression from believing all of God’s revelation to assenting to his promises and having trust (fiducia) in them is echoed by Contarini in his Epistola. He gives four definitions of fides: as the content of the faith; as the dispisition (habitus) of believing God’s revelation; as an act (actus) of faith involving not just the intellect but the will; as trust (fiducia) in God’s promises (citing Psalm 145:13), which is closely related to hope.97 Following Thomas, he describes our turning to God as a movement of the soul (motus animi) or an act, which we call faith. This begins with the obedience of the will, leading to the assent of the intellect and trust in God’s promises. This produces “a firm trust (fiduciam), which pertains to the will.”98 Contarini makes frequent mention of God’s promises,99 of trust (fiducia),100 and confidence (confidentia).101 Faith involves both assent (assensus) and trust (fiducia).102 Gleason correctly observes that “like Luther, Contarini conceives of the essence of faith as trust and hope in God’s mercy.”103 In his Scholia he states that Ephesians 3:12 explains how Paul understands 93 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 221, which reads “iustitiam” where the manuscript reads “iustificationem” (Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, Nachlaß Pflug, Katalog p. 23 L, 51b). 94 Capita Institutionis ad pietatem, 79b. 95 JGB 2:594. 96 JGB 2:595–​603. 97 CC 7:25–​26. 98 CC 7:27. 99 CC 7:25, 26, 27. 100 CC 7:25, 26, 27. 101 CC 7:26. 102 Cf. Scholia on Rom 1:17:  “Ad fidem, vero refert ad nos, quorum assensus et fiducia nititur promissioni divinae” (Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 435D). For faith as fiducia, see Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 497B on Col, Argument. 103 Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 231. Cf. Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 84–​85; Maffeis, “La teologia paulina nella riforma cattolica del XVI secolo: Gasparo Contarini e il Colloquio di Religione di Regensburg,” 296–​97.

Text and Commentary, §3:5  163 “through faith” in many other passages. Because we believe in Christ and on him we live lives of faith and of doing good and trust him. This leads to trust (fiduciam) in God and also approaching God with confidence (confidentia).104 Contarini does little more than spell out the meaning of the verse, but it is significant that he saw this progression from fides to fiducia and confidentia as a normative pattern for Paul. Eck rejects the idea of faith as “not only knowledge (notitiam) of dogma but trust (fiduciam) in mercy promised on account of Christ.” This was wrong because it is the role of faith to believe, of hope to trust. Also, the object of faith is all of the articles of faith, not just God’s promises. Because they neglect these other articles, Lutheran faith is a maimed faith (fides manca).105 The Tridentine Decree on Justification, like Eck, limits faith to believing God’s revelation in general and the promise of justification in particular. It is hope that brings trust (fidentes) that God will be gracious to us for Christ’s sake (ch. 6). At the same time, there is a whole chapter warning against “the vain confidence (fiduciam) of heretics” (ch. 9) and an anathema against the idea that “justifying faith is nothing other than trust in the divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake” (can. 12). Pighius, in his Controversies, expounds different meanings of the word faith, based on the diverse and manifold usage of the term in Scripture. Here he distinguishes between faith in all that God has revealed and the trust (fiducia) which is born out of hope.106 In his Romans Commentary Bucer closely parallels the present definition of faith.107 The beginning of faith is accepting all that God has imparted about himself; the next stage is to give assent, especially to God’s promises. This assent leads to a wholehearted trust (fiducia) in God.108 But the heart of the definition, for Bucer, is giving assent to God’s promises of salvation.109 Again in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, Bucer devotes some 104 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 487D. 105 Apologia, 148a–​b (the first of the two folios numbered 148, i.e. CXXXXVIII (sig. n4) rather than CXLVIII). Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 252, is wrong to claim that the view of faith as notitia, assensus and fiducia is in agreement with both Catholic and Protestant views. 106 Controversiarum, 30a–​33a, to which he refers later in 41a. He refers to fides acquisita, infusa, infirma, sana, modica, magna, mortua and viva. On Pighius’s understanding of faith, see Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 99–​100, 102–​103; Mackensen, “Contarini’s Theological Role at Ratisbon in 1541,” 47–​48, 107 On this, see Barnikol, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung, dargestellt an seinem Römerbriefkommentar,” 53–​72; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification,  80–​87. 108 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, Preface 15–​16; Common Places, 176–​77. 109 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, Preface 14 (quoting Melanchthon in support), 16; Common Places, 173, 177.

164  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification space to defining the words “believe” and “faith,” in support of §3:5, engaging with Pighius in particular.110 He concludes with a brief definition of faith and an affirmation of Article 5.111 He also cites Psalm 145:13.112 Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession states that it is the Holy Spirit that works faith in us.113 Melanchthon’s Apology explains what is meant by faith in ways similar to §3:5. First, he stresses that justifying faith is more than a merely intellectual head belief in certain historical events,114 more than giving assent to certain doctrines.115 This does not mean that Melanchthon held that faith can exist without believing “with certainty all that God has transmitted,” but that it involves more than this. In particular, the “more” is a personal faith that one’s own sins are forgiven because of Christ.116 Faith apprehends Christ the Mediator117 and God’s promise of grace and righteousness.118 It is repeatedly described as firmly accepting and receiving the promise of mercy.119 It is desiring and accepting the offer of forgiveness and justification.120 Melanchthon repeatedly describes faith as trust (fiducia) in God’s promised mercy.121 Relating to the conclusion of §3:5, he insists that the promise must not be separated from the fact that it is free (gratuitam) and that Christ’s merits are the price and propitiation.122 In his 1543 Loci Theologici there is an extended discussion of the meaning of word fides, taking the same position as the Apology.123 In the Einfaltigs Bedencken Melanchthon argues that saving faith includes assent to the gospel and indeed to the whole of Scripture and every word of

110 DVRC, 125a–​63b, including 125a–​28b on Scripture, and 128b–​29b on the Fathers. He presents six conclusions in his Epilogus (162b–​63a). 111 DVRC, 163a–​b. He also reaffirms §3:5 in 170b, 171b. 112 DVRC, 148b. 113 BSELK 101; Kolb and Wengert 41. See also Article 20 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession (BSELK QuM1:134). 114 BSELK 287, 289, 385; Kolb and Wengert 128, 168 (4:48, 50, 337). This is also taught in Article 4 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession (BSELK QuM1:125). 115 BSELK 457; Kolb and Wengert 197 (12:60). See also Article 20:23, 25–​26 of the Augsburg Confession (BSELK 123, 125; Kolb and Wengert 57). 116 BSELK 285, 457, 469; Kolb and Wengert 127, 197, 202 (4:45; 12:60, 88). 117 BSELK QuM1:488; Tappert 165 (4:378). This passage is not found in the Editio secunda. 118 BSELK QuM1:488; Tappert 165 (4:383). This passage is not found in the Editio secunda. See also BSELK 285, 291, 293; Kolb and Wengert 127, 129 (4:43). 119 BSELK 287, 289, 291; Kolb and Wengert 128–​29 (4:48, 50, 55–​56). 120 BSELK 287; Kolb and Wengert 128 (4:48). 121 BSELK 285, 291, 301, 385, 387; Kolb and Wengert 127, 129, 133, 168–​69 (4:44, 58, 79–​80, 337, 339). 122 BSELK 289; Kolb and Wengert 128 (4:53). 123 LT43 S3b–​ T4b; LC43 86–​ 91. For more on Melanchthon’s doctrine of faith, see Kolb, “Rechtfertigungslehre,” 354–​59.

Text and Commentary, §3:5  165 God, in order to attain to assurance of salvation.124 Again, true faith is not just a belief in the history of Christ, such as the devils have (Jas 2:19) but a trust in the heart that because of Christ God is gracious to us and makes us heirs of eternal life.125 At the Worms Colloquy a report/​opinion (Gutachten) from the Jülich theologians states that the faith that justifies cannot be idle but leads to good works. Such faith cannot exist where there is no trust (fiducia) in the mercy of God or works of love. People must be taught this and called to repentance and good works, lest they suppose that a historical faith on its own (sola fide historica) can save.126 In commenting on Galatians 3:11, Luther likewise distinguishes between a true faith and a counterfeit faith, which is a head knowledge of doctrinal matters and does not renew or change the heart.127 For Calvin’s use of movere/​motus, see on §3:1. The opening clause of §3:5 (the opening sentence in the ET above) is trinitarian in a manner reminiscent of Calvin’s definition of faith, and of Bucer’s earlier definition in his Romans Commentary.128 His definition of faith is similar to Melanchthon’s and closely parallels §3:5. Faith accepts the Word of God in its totality, while the prime object of faith is the promise of God.129 Faith starts with intellectual assent to facts but does not stop there. According to his definition of faith, it is “both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit.”130 Faith gives birth to confidence (fiducia), and indeed “the word ‘faith’ is very often used for confidence.”131 In short, true faith includes confidence (fiducia) in the forgiveness of one’s sins and the expectation of salvation.132 Neuser claims that faith as assent to the totality of revelation is Catholic, while faith as trust in the promise is Evangelical,133 but a different picture emerges when the sentence is viewed as a whole. If the present sentence had stopped with the idea of faith as assent to revelation, it would have been 124 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 49b; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 39b. 125 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 44b; Simplex ac pia deliberatio,  35a–​b. 126 ARC 3:311–​12, 316–​17 (variant versions); ADRG 2/​I:552. Earlier published in Redlich (ed.), Jülich-​Bergische Kirchenpolitik am Ausgange des Mittelalters und in der Reformationszeit, 1:310–​11; Lipgens, “Theologischer Standort fürstlicher Räte im sechzehnten Jahrhundert,” 50–​51. 127 WA 40/​1:420–​22; LW 26:268–​69. 128 Institutio 3:2:7; Bucer, Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 6; Common Places, 196, n. 1. 129 Institutio 3:2:6–​7, 29. 130 Institutio 3:2:7. 131 Institutio 3:2:15. 132 For more on this, see Lane, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Assurance Revisited,” 271–​75. 133 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 186.

166  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification distinctively Catholic, but as a whole its teaching is fully in accord with that of the Reformers. The Protestant objection to the Catholic idea that faith is assent to revelation is not so much that it is wrong as that it is incomplete, an objection that does not apply to this sentence. Neuser also claims that the future tense of remissurum “again adulterates the Evangelical sentence in the Roman sense. Only the perfect tense suffices here. God has forgiven the sins of believers, they are adopted by him.”134 Such a criticism would apply equally to Paul in Acts 16:31 (“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”). Is not a promise to do something by definition a statement of what one will do in the future? There is no suggestion in this article that those who have saving faith do not immediately receive forgiveness, as is indeed implied by the following sentence. §3:6. Et haca fide erigitur in Deum a Spiritu Sancto ideoque accipit Spiritum Sanctum, remissionem peccatorum, imputationem iustitiae et binnumera aliab donac. By this faith, he is lifted up to God by the Holy Spirit and so he receives the Holy Spirit, remission of sins, imputation of righteousness and countless other gifts

a: E: haec b—​b: B, E, Disp: innumerabilia c: B, E, M, Disp: bona The first mention of the Holy Spirit refers to the role of prevenient grace; the second refers to the indwelling of the Spirit. In Catholic terms, actual grace leads to habitual grace. Martens refers to the word erigere as Melanchthonian.135 That faith brings forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of righteousness is taught in the Augsburg Confession, Article 4,136 and repeatedly in the Apology. The latter also repeatedly teaches that we receive the Holy Spirit through faith.137 In 134 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 186 (his emphases). 135 Martens, Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders, 58, n.38. 136 BSELK 99; Kolb and Wengert 39, 41. 137 e.g. BSELK 285, 311, 319, 321, 323; Kolb and Wengert 127, 137, 140–​41 (4:45, 99, 127, 132, 135). Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole, 21–​24, responds to Döllinger’s claim that the article teaches justification fide formata. Considering §3:1–​6 as a whole, he concludes that it is not contrary to Melanchthon’s Apology.

Text and Commentary, §3:6  167 Article 5 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession, he states that the Holy Spirit is given to us at the same time (simul) as the forgiveness of sins.138 The emphasis on the role of the Spirit in uniting us to God by faith is in line with Calvin’s approach in the first chapter of Book 3 of his Institutio, most of which is from 1559. Remission of sins and the imputation of righteousness are juxtaposed in Calvin’s definition of justification, added to the Institutio in 1543.139 Calvin also uses the word erigere in ways similar to the present context.140 Gropper emphasised in his Enchiridion that the role of faith was merely to receive or apprehend justification, not to merit it. It is actual, not habitual faith that achieves this.141 For imputed righteousness in Gropper, Contarini, and the Tridentine Decree on Justification, see ­chapter 4. Eck opposed the idea in his Replica. Referring to the Protestant use of 1 Corinthians 1:30, he argues that to claim that “Christ is our righteousness” means “not our own inherent righteousness but imputed righteousness” is to follow Melanchthon’s way of speaking, not that of the holy Fathers. He also argues that this would mean that Christ’s wisdom and sanctification are also imputed, not inherent. Catholic doctors more correctly state that Christ is our righteousness effectively or causally, by bringing about inherent righteousness in us. Also, meritoriously, by meriting our righteousness, wisdom, and redemption through his passion.142 Underlying Eck’s argument is the assumption that inherent and imputed righteousness are alternatives. Contarini, in his Epistola, writes that “the movement of faith . . . lifts the mind up to God and turns the soul to him.” Contarini also argues, at length, that justification and sanctification are not given in return for works but are given to faith, not because it merits them but because it accepts them. In support of this he cites Thomas Aquinas.143 The faith that justifies is not the

138 BSELK QuM1:125. He made the same point the same year in his Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (1540/​41), 25b; Commentary on Romans, 25. Also in LT43 sig. S2b; LC43, 86. 139 Institutio 3:11:2. 140 Institutio 3:2:23; 3:11:1; 3:12:8. 141 Enchiridion, 173a–​b. In 129a–​b he again argues that faith simply accepts or apprehends justification. He denies that justification can be merited, “nisi meriti vocabulo per catachresim propremodum abutamur, uti dicamus hominem credentem mereri iustificationem, non quidem ex obligatione seu ex operibus quae fecimus nos . . . sed tantum ex condecentia, quod meritum congrui appellant.” The context makes clear Gropper’s lack of enthusiasm for such talk of merit de congruo. 142 Replica Ioan. Eckii adversus Scripta Secunda Buceri apostatae super Actis Ratisponae, 40b–​41a. 143 CC 7:27–​28; Summa theologiae 3, q. 49, art. 3 ad 1.

168  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification habit of faith, but the act,144 an idea that is already found in his Confutatio Articulorum seu Quaestionum Lutheranorum.145 Neuser sees this sentence as a juxtaposition of the Protestant belief in forgiveness and imputation and the Catholic belief in repentance (end of §3:5) and the gift of the Spirit.146 But this appears to imply that the Reformers were reluctant to speak of repentance and receiving the Spirit. Bucer, in his Romans Commentary, emphasises that those who are justified immediately receive the Spirit, who conforms them to Christ.147 He reaffirms §3:6 in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione,148 and again argues for the inseparability of forgiveness and renewal.149 In §3:5–​6 there is no arbitrary gluing together of contrary ideas but a principled holding together of justification and sanctification. The way that the two sides are held together reflects the emphasis of Book 3 of Calvin’s Institutio well. §4:1. Firma itaque est et sana doctrina per fidem vivam et efficacem iustificari peccatorem, nam per illam Deo grati et accepti sumus propter Christum. So it is a reliable and sound doctrine that the sinner is justified by living and effectual faith, for through it we are pleasing and acceptable to God on account of Christ.

The meaning of fidem vivam is spelt out in the following sentence (§4:2). The meaning of fidem efficacem is spelt out in §4:5. The implication of the final clause is that to be justified means to be pleasing and acceptable to God on account of Christ. Eck’s Draft contains a statement very similar to this: “[T]‌his living and effectual faith is rightly said to justify the sinner” (§5). In December 1540, at the Worms Colloquy Eck, together with Billick, wrote a report/​opinion (Gutachten) on the Augsburg Confession150 in which he affirms that living 144 CC 7:29; cf. 7:25. 145 CC 7:2. Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 24–​25, traces this back to Contarini’s use of the Thomist expression motus fidei. 146 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 186–​ 87:  “Ein Glaubensprozeß wird geschildert, in dem auf des Menschen Bußwerk das Handeln des Heiligen Geistes folgt.” This description would presumably apply equally to Peter’s statement in Acts 2:38. 147 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, Preface 12; Common Places, 162–​63. 148 DVRC, 173b. 149 DVRC, 122a–​b. See also Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification,  87–​90. 150 ARC 3:305–​307; ADRG 2/​I:539–​42. Earlier published in Lipgens, “Theologischer Standort fürstlicher Räte im sechzehnten Jahrhundert,” 45–​46. On this report see zur Mühlen, “Die Edition der Akten und Berichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau und Worms 1540/​41,” 57–​58.

Text and Commentary, §4:1  169 faith justifies, and he glosses this to mean faith that works through love, for more on which see on §4:5.151 According to Pflug’s notes, in the debates Eck had referred to fides viva et efficax,152 and it is possible that he was the source of this phrase in the article. In his Replica, Eck claims that it is Catholics, with their disciplining of the flesh and ascetic works of mortification, that have true fides viva, while idle Lutherans who teach justification by faith alone have no good works but only a dead faith.153 Gropper, in his Enchiridion, refers to a faith which is living as opposed to dead,154 which “is immediately effectual through love (efficax per charitatem).”155 He also teaches that forgiveness of sins comes on account of Christ through such faith.156 The Worms Draft §44 (= Gropper’s Draft §§33–​34) states that justification by faith alone is by a living faith (fides viva). The Worms Draft §43 (= Gropper’s Draft §4) also refers to effectual faith (fides efficax). In his Institutio Catholica, Gropper again teaches the need for a living faith, faith without works being dead.157 Bucer revealed that in their discussions at the colloquies, Gropper had thought that the Protestants taught that a dead faith could justify. Bucer explained to him, “as best he could,” that for the Protestants, justifying faith was not lifeless or ineffectual, but that it brings regeneration and the indwelling of Christ.158 Bucer’s “best” was not good enough because Gropper persisted in his misunderstanding (cf. on §4:5). In his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, Bucer reaffirms §4:1159 and again insists that neither the dead faith referred to by James [2:17, 26], nor the counterfeit (ficta) faith described by Paul [1 Tim 1:5], nor the temporary faith mentioned by Jesus [Luke 8:13] is able to save.160 Contarini, in his Epistola, never uses the language of being “Deo grati et accepti.” He uses instead terms such as “considered righteous” (iustos haberi) and “called righteous” (dici iustos),161 as well as the imputation of righteousness (see on §3:6) 151 ARC 3:307; ADRG 2/​I:541. 152 ADRG 3/​I:84. 153 Replica,  6b–​7b. 154 Enchiridion, 173a; cf. 122a: vivida. 155 Enchiridion, 172b. 156 Enchiridion, 165a, 166a–​b. 157 Institutio Catholica, 550–​51, 572. 158 Von den einigen rechten wegen, 57: justifying faith is “nit ein todt menschen gedicht/​auch nit allein ein zeitliche/​stucklechte/​und zur widergeburt onkrefftige erleuchtung Gottes.” 159 DVRC, 170a. 160 DVRC, 139b, 162b–​63a. Cf. 129b–​30a on dead faith. 161 CC 7:30.

170  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification The Tridentine Decree on Justification also insists that faith needs to become effectual, though without using that word, in the sense that repentance and love are also required for justification (ch. 6). The statement that it is by living and effectual faith that we are justified raises one of the most significant issues in this article. Melanchthon was never happy with the word efficax. He states that had opposed it when the various drafts were being debated.162 In his 29 June Response to the Regensburg Book and in the official Protestant Reply to the Emperor of 11/​12 July,163 he expressed concern about the way in which Article 5 was being interpreted to teach that we are accepted by God by love alone (sola dilectione), a charge also made by Pistorius,164 Cellarius,165 and Timann,166 referring to Eck.167 Either the word should be removed or a clarifying declaration should be added, he stated.168 He complained that some were perverting justification “by effectual faith” (§4:1) to mean “by faith with works.” There was a popular (vulgaris) view on the “other side” that when Paul said that we are justified by faith, he meant that faith prepares us for righteousness, that is, for love, and that we are then accepted by God because of our love, not by faith on account of Christ.169 An example of the interpretation that Melanchthon feared can be seen in Cardinal Sadolet’s Letter to the Senate and People of Geneva170 that, in turn, prompted Calvin’s famous Reply to Sadolet.171 Sadolet affirms that we obtain salvation “by faith alone and in Jesus Christ.” He then states that he does not mean by this a mere credulity and confidence (fiduciam) in God that, if separated (seclusa) from love, persuades us that the cross and blood of Christ deal with our sins. Such “credulity and confidence” is a necessary but not sufficient starting point. He then concludes, “When we say, then, that we can be 162 Melanchthon to Luther (19 May) in CR 4:303; WA Br. 9:414; ADRG 3/​I:213; MBW T10:200 (MBW 3:172 [#2699]). 163 CR 4:430, 485, 499; ADRG 3/​II:537, 626–​27, 615–​16; MBW T10:323, 349–​50, 341–​42 (MBW 3:192, 196–​97 [#2740, 2749]). 164 CR 4:445; ADRG 3/​II:494. 165 ADRG 3/​II:499. 166 ADRG 3/​II:489. 167 According to Pflug’s notes, in the debates Eck affirmed both that “fides iustificat” and that “charitas iustificat” (ADRG 3/​I:84).The Confutatio unius et viginti propositionum de differentia legis et evangelii, deque fide iustificante Wittenberge disputatarum (1541), sig. C1b (proposition 21) states that it is love (charitatem), more noble than faith, that receives the promise of God. Metzler (ed.), Tres Orationes Funebres in Exequiis Ioannis Eckii Habitae, CXXIX, attributes this work to Eck. It was later placed on the Index (Index Librorum Prohibitorum cum Regulis Confectis Per Patres à Tridentina Synodo delectos (1596), 8b). 168 CR 4:485, 499; ADRG 3/​II:626, 615; MBW T10:349, 341. 169 CR 4:485, 499; ADRG 3/​II:626, 615; MBW T10:349, 341. 170 OS 1:441–​56; CTS 1:3–​22. 171 OS 1:457–​89; CTS 1:25–​68.

Text and Commentary, §4:1  171 saved by faith alone in God and Jesus Christ, we hold that in this very faith love is essentially comprehended as the chief and primary (princeps et potissimum) cause of our salvation.”172 Sadolet refers to salvation in general, rather than justification in particular. Where the latter is concerned, the Reformers would all agree with Sadolet that justifying faith is not separated from love (seclusa caritate), but would have totally rejected the idea that this love is “the chief and primary cause of our salvation.” Calvin, in his response to Sadolet, reaffirms that justifying faith is inseparable from holiness and good works, but professes to be extremely astounded (vehementer obstupefactus) by the suggestion that love is the “chief and primary cause of our salvation.”173 The nineteenth-​century Scottish theologian James Buchanan regarded Article 5 as satisfactory on all points save this one alone, which he saw as opening the door to acceptance on the basis of inherent righteousness.174 But despite Melanchthon’s (and Buchanan’s) concern, in the context of Article 5 as a whole there is no ground for taking “faith effectual through love” to mean acceptance on the basis of inherent righteousness. That interpretation is in fact clearly rejected elsewhere in the article (§§4:6; 5:2; 6:1). We will return to this issue in the next chapter. Melanchthon feared (not without justice) how the “other side” would interpret the idea of “living and effectual faith” but in fact his Apology affirms that justifying faith is effectual. It regenerates us, brings the Holy Spirit and leads to love and fear of God and thus to obedience to his law.175 The Apology immediately proceeds to state that we are forgiven and avoid God’s wrath not because of the merit of our love but because of Christ the mediator and propitiator.176 This very point is made in the in the second half of the present sentence, which states that through faith “we are pleasing and acceptable to God on account of Christ.” In the official Reply to the Emperor concerning the Regensburg Book, given by Melanchthon on 11/​12 July on behalf of the Protestant Princes and Estates, Melanchthon explains that when “our side” refers to “living or effectual faith” they show that they are referring “not to a bare historical faith (as found in the ungodly), but to a trust (fiducia) which apprehends the mercy promised in Christ and lifts up terrified minds.”177 172 OS 1:446–​47; CTS 1:9–​10. 173 OS 1:469–​71; CTS 1:41–​44. 174 Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, 143–​52. 175 BSELK 285; Kolb and Wengert 127 (4:45) and repeatedly throughout the Apology. 176 BSELK 287; Kolb and Wengert 127 (4:46). 177 CR 4:485; ADRG 3/​II:626; MBW T10:349 (MBW 3:196–​97 [#2749]); Melanchthon, Acta in conventu Ratisbonensi, sig. R3a.

172  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Luther also refers to faith as “something living and effectual” in a passage quoted by the Formula of Concord.178 Neuser comments that in this and the following sentence, “again Catholic and Evangelical statements are combined together in that the process begins with a Catholic formula (Formel) and ends with an Evangelical formula.”179 But while he is right that Melanchthon queried the manner in which this article speaks of effectual faith, it should be noted that Calvin could affirm in 1539: “we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies except one that is effectual through love (charitate efficacem).” Calvin goes on to state that while it is true that faith always gives birth to love, it justifies us not because of the love but because it causes us to share in Christ’s righteousness.180 This is precisely the point made in §4:6, following the reference to Galatians 5:6 in §4:5. Lexutt argues (on the basis of §4:3) that living faith is understood as “the infusion of love, healing the will.” Thus the viva et efficax fides of §4:1 has the effect of grace that makes us acceptable (gratia gratum faciens) and so we have not the justification of the sinner but the justification of one who has already in some way been made acceptable to God.181 This is a misinterpretation of the article. It is true that faith leads to the gift of love which heals the will, but the Reformers did not wish to teach that it was possible to be justified without such a transformation also happening. The suggestion that acceptance is on the ground that we have been made acceptable by this transformation is clearly rejected by the article (see on §§4:4, 6; 5:2; 6:1). It could be said that the article does not teach the justification of the sinner in that the justified one is also transformed by the Spirit and the gift of love; but it does teach the justification of the sinner in that the transformed one remains imperfect and unworthy of acceptance on the basis of inherent righteousness. §4:2. Vocamus autem afidem vivama motum Spiritus Sancti, quo vere poenitentes veteris vitae eriguntur ad Deum et vere apprehenduntb misericordiam in Christo promissam, ut iam vere sentiant, quod remissionem peccatorum et reconciliationem propter meritum Christi gratuita Dei bonitate acceperunt, et clamant ad Deumc: Abba pater [Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6]. And living faith is what we call the movement of the Holy Spirit, by which those who truly repent of their old life are lifted up to God and truly 178 Solid Declaration 4:10 (BSELK 1:1418–​19; Kolb and Wengert 576), quoting from Luther’s 1522 Preface to Romans. 179 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 187. 180 Institutio 3:11:20. 181 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 253.

Text and Commentary, §4:2  173 appropriate the mercy promised in Christ, so that they now truly recognise that they have received the remission of sins and reconciliation on account of the merits of Christ, through the free goodness of God, and cry out to God: “Abba Father” [Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6].

a—​a: HAB: vivam  fidem b: Disp: apprehenderunt c: CR 10:113: eum On “living faith,” see on §4:1; on “movement of the Holy Spirit” see on §3:1; on “lifted up to God,” see on §3:6. §4:2 states that “remission of sins and reconciliation” are on account of Christ’s merits. §4:6 states that mercy and imputed righteousness are on account of Christ and his merit. Finally, §5:2 states that we are accepted through Christ’s merits. In the Regensburg debates there was little or no discussion of the meritorious cause of justification. Braunisch states that in Gropper’s Enchiridion Christ’s righteousness “retains the function of the absolute meritorious cause of justification.”182 This is not supported by any specific citation, and so far as I can see Gropper never in the Enchiridion refers to a “meritorious cause.” In his Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma, Gropper states that Christ himself is the meritorious cause since he merits our justification, but without mentioning Christ’s righteousness.183 Gropper in his Enchiridion speaks of faith supplying our needs, “not out of its own worth, but out of the mercy of God that it receives or appropriates (accipit seu apprehendit).”184 Apprehendere and accipere are again juxtaposed elsewhere.185 Forgiveness is on account of the merit of Christ.186 The Spirit bears witness to our spirits that we are children of God (Rom 8:16).187 The Worms Draft (§§16, 23, 39, 43, 47, 49) and Gropper’s Draft (§§4, 32, 37,

182 Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 429. This claim is found in the identical words in Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper zwischen Humanismus und Reformation,” 208; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” 122. Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 222–​23, also states that inherent righteousness comes to us “through Christ’s merits.” Both are seeking to undercut the Protestant accusation that reliance upon inherent righteousness is to turn from Christ’s merits to our own. 183 Gegenberichtung, 19b; Antididagma, 13b. Cf. Worms Draft §41, quoted in the next paragraph. Braunisch contrasts Gropper’s understanding of Christ’s righteousness as the “absolute meritorious cause of justification” with the alleged Protestant error of isolating the double righteousness from membership of the body of Christ (Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper zwischen Humanismus und Reformation,” 208–​209; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” 122–​23). On the latter point, see on §4:4, below. 184 Enchiridion, 122a. 185 Enchiridion, 166a. 186 Enchiridion, 167b, 171b, 173b. 187 Enchiridion, 169b, 172a.

174  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification 40) both also quote Romans 8:15–​16 and teach that forgiveness is owed to the merit of Christ (Worms Draft §68 = Gropper’s Draft §26). “Should it be asked to whom merit for the first justification should be directly ascribed, the answer must be, to Christ, who was delivered for our sins and who rose again for our justification” (Worms Draft §41; very similar in Gropper’s Draft §2). Contarini also writes in his Epistola of the movement of the soul, which is a movement of faith, which we call faith and which lits the mind up to God (erigit mentem ad deum), culminating in our prayer of “Abba, Father.”188 (For its Thomist origins, see on §3:1.) He also defends the Protestant idea of “apprehending” mercy against its Catholic critics. It means not intellectual knowledge (cognitio intellectus), but attaining to something after movement on our part (post motum nostrum). We are given “the righteousness of Christ and all his merit.”189 The Tridentine Decree on Justification refers repeatedly to the obtaining of mercy, but rejects the idea that “justifying faith is nothing other than trust in the divine mercy” (can. 12). While it accepts that “sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted, except freely by the mercy of God for Christ’s sake,” it rejects the confidence implied by this paragraph that one’s sins are forgiven (ch. 9). Melanchthon’s Apology refers to the movements of the Holy Spirit, but these are movements that follow faith, leading to love and good works.190 It also states that by faith we appropriate the mercy promised in Christ (“apprehendimus promissam in eo misericordiam”), in words very similar to here.191 The defence of Article 4 in the Apology opens with the statement that we are forgiven freely for Christ’s sake, not because of our own merits.192 The denial of our own merit(s) is oft repeated and, less often, there is reference to the merit(s) of Christ.193 The gospel is about the free (gratuitus) forgiveness of sins.194 Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession states that justification is on account of Christ’s merit, not ours.195 The official Reply to the

188 CC 7:27 189 CC 7:28. 190 Faith brings the Holy Spirit and produces spirituales motus (BSELK 319; Kolb and Wengert 140 (4:125)). See also BSELK 337; Kolb and Wengert 148. 191 BSELK 303; Kolb and Wengert 134 (4:82). Similarly, in BSELK 305, 313, 319, 327; Kolb and Wengert 135, 138, 141, 144 (4:86, 106, 129, 153), where apprehendere is translated “grasp” or “take hold of.” 192 BSELK 267; Kolb and Wengert 120 (4:1). 193 BSELK 273, 289, 297, 357; Kolb and Wengert 122, 128–​29, 131, 156 (4:15, 53, 69, 238). 194 BSELK 277, 291, 315, 317, 341, 343; Kolb and Wengert 124, 129, 139–​40, 150 (4:20, 57, 110, 121, 188). Also the free promise (BSELK 285, 289, 343; Kolb and Wengert 127–​28, 150 (4:43, 53, 188)), the free promise of the forgiveness of sins (BSELK 341; Kolb and Wengert 150 (4:186)) and free acceptance (gratuita acceptatio) (BSELK 311; Kolb and Wengert 137 (4:102)). 195 BSELK 101; Kolb and Wengert 41.

Text and Commentary, §4:2–3  175 Emperor concerning the Regensburg Book, given by Melanchthon on 11/​ 12 July on behalf of the Protestant Princes and Estates calls efficacious faith a eager movement (motus), which consoles, relies on Christ and gives life.196 Bucer, in his De vera  .  .  .  reconcilatione et compositione, reaffirms the teaching of §4:2. Faith is a movement and work of the Holy Spirit, by which we are lifted up to God through Christ, appropriate the mercy promised in Christ and cry out “Abba, Father.”197 Our redemption is based on grace, by means of the one merit of Christ, given freely to us.198 Calvin was not accustomed to use the phrase vere poenitentes,199 though he did of course believe that it was important that repentance should be genuine. In 1543 he spoke of the Holy Spirit lifting up (erigere) our spirits to cry out “Abba, Father!”200 The ideas of mercy promised in Christ and forgiveness on account of Christ’s merits through God’s free goodness were of course highly congenial to Calvin. §4:3. Id quod tamen nulli obtingita, nisi etiam simul infundatur caritas sanans voluntatem, ut voluntas sanata, quemadmodum divus Augustinus ait,201 incipiat implere legem. But this happens to no one unless also at the same time love is infused which heals the will so that the healed will may begin to fulfil the law, just as Saint Augustine said.

a: Disp: obtinget §4:3 uses the language of healing. In §8:1 the language of regeneration and renewal is used. Gropper, whose definition of justification includes both remission of sins and inner renovation (see on §5:1) sees these as ocurring simul,202 being under the impression that this distinguishes his position from that of

196 CR 4:485; ADRG 3/​II:626; MBW T10:349 (MBW 3:196–​97 [#2749]); Melanchthon, Acta in conventu Ratisbonensi, sig. R3a. 197 DVRC, 170b–​71a, 173b. 198 DVRC, 179b, 189a. 199 The only time that the phrase occurs in the Institutio is in the context of discussing Catholic teaching (3:4:1 (1536)). 200 Institutio 3:20:1. 201 De spiritu et litera 9:15:  “ut sanet gratia voluntatem, et sanata voluntas impleat legem” (PL 44:209; CSEL 60:168). 202 Enchiridion, 165a, 166b, 167b; cf. 122a.

176  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification the Protestants.203 The Worms Draft also uses the word simul in a similar context (§34). Contarini in his Epistola also emphasises the simultaneity: “both [of these righteousnesses] are given to us at the same time (simul tempore) and we arrive at them both by faith.”204 He once speaks directly of the healing work of the Spirit,205 but more often uses the illustration of healing to explain the difference between formal and efficient causality.206 Contarini also emphasises that our fulfilment of the law only “begins” in that our love is imperfect.207 The Tridentine Decree on Justification also affirms the infusion of love and the need to fulfil the law (chh. 6, 7, 11; can. 19–​21). Melanchthon’s Apology refers to the scholastic doctrine that we are righteous through the disposition of love infused in us by God. He rejects this as an account of how we merit grace and eternal life, or how we become acceptable to God.208 His objection was to the idea that we can be justified by love, not to the idea that the Holy Spirit bestows love on us, which he repeatedly affirms.209 His objection was to the idea of infused love as the answer to the question of how we become righteous, not to the question of how the righteous should live. He does not use the actual word simul, but it is abundantly clear that he does not allow the possibility of someone being justified without at the same time having love. Indeed, one cannot lose love and keep one’s faith, however strong that may be, because one cannot keep the Holy Spirit without love.210 He does not explicitly mention the “healing” of the will, but he certainly affirms that the justified, having been regenerated and having the Holy Spirit, will begin to obey the law.211 The thrust of his argument is not that this is impossible, but that it cannot be done without justification, regeneration and the Holy Spirit.212 In Article 5 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession he states that the Holy Spirit is given to us simul 203 Enchiridion, 171a. 204 CC 7:28. 205 CC 7:27. 206 CC 7:25, 29. 207 CC 7:32; cf. 7:29. 208 BSELK 273, 275, 301, 303, 335, 337; Kolb and Wengert 122–​23, 133–​34, 147–​48 (4:17, 81). 209 BSELK 285, 319, 321, 327; Kolb and Wengert 127, 140–​41, 143 (4:45, 125, 147). That saving faith cannot exist without love is repeatedly affirmed in LT43 T3a, a1b, b3a–​b, b5b–​6a; LC43 90, 109, 113–​ 15. In 1531 Melanchthon issued a number of Theses (37 plus a two-​part summary) arguing that “we are justified by faith and not by love” (Dispositio, quare fide iustificemur, non dilectione (Wittenberg, 1531); ET: Kolb and Nestingen (eds.), Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, 140–​43. 210 BSELK 323, 325, 349, 351; Kolb and Wengert 142, 153–​54 (4:141, 219). The same point is made in LT43 Y6b–​7a, Z3b–​6a; LC43 103–​104, 106–​107. 211 BSELK 319, 323; Kolb and Wengert 140, 142 (4:124, 136). 212 BSELK 319, 321; Kolb and Wengert 140–​41 (4:126–​30).

Text and Commentary, §4:3  177 with the forgiveness of sins.213 Brieger compares the simul here with before and after language in Melanchthon’s Apology and points out that there is no conflict since the latter refers not to a temporal priority but to a priority of causation.214 In Luther’s 1536 Disputation concerning Justification, Thesis 28 refers to faith being infused (infunditur) by the Holy Spirit.215 After the colloquy Melanchthon in the Einfaltigs Bedencken stressed that there is no saving faith which is not also accompanied by love of God leading to obedience to his commandments, leading to good works and to a living love for neighbour. Otherwise it is the dead faith to which James refers.216 He likewise stressed that there was no justification which was not also accompanied by reception of the Holy Spirit.217 For the simultaneity of reconciliation and renewal in Bucer, see on §3:6, above. In his Romans Commentary he affirms that saving faith cannot exist without hope and love.218 He maintains the same after the colloquy, in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione,219 where he also reaffirms §4:3.220 He objects, however, to Pighius’s claim that trust (fiducia) is born out of love, arguing that the reverse is true.221 Calvin repeatedly affirms that together with justification and reconciliation we simul receive the righteousness that follows from the sanctification of the indwelling Spirit.222 Indeed he specifically mentions obedience to the law.223 He refers to the inseparability of faith and love.224 Calvin again speaks of simultaneity, arguing that it is not possible to taste the divine goodness without simul being inflamed to love God in return.225 The language of “infusion” (infundatur) is foreign to Calvin, though he of course believed strongly that it is the Holy Spirit who brings about love in the human heart. The idea of the will being healed is found in Calvin. He uses the verb sano in responding eighteen 213 BSELK QuM1:125. The same point is made in LT43 S3a, a6a; LC43 86, 111. 214 Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole,  28–​30. 215 WA 39/​I:83; LW 34:153. 216 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 49b–​50a; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 39b–​ 40a. Similarly, Einfaltigs Bedencken, 43a; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 33b. 217 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 43a–​b; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 33b–​34a. 218 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 16; Common Places, 177. 219 DVRC, 138b, 162b. Cf. Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 196–​98. 220 DVRC, 171a. 221 DVRC, 141b. As the marginal note puts it, “Ex fiducia amor, non ex amore fiducia.” Similarly, 162b–​63a (Epilogue 4) and 163a–​b (definition of faith). 222 Institutio 3:2:8, 3:3:19, 3:14:9, 3:16:1 (3 times). 223 Institutio 3:14:9. 224 Institutio 3:2:41, 3:11:20. 225 Institutio 3:2:41.

178  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification months later to Pighius’s attack on him, stating that the will “can conceive nothing good until it has been healed, restored, and also prepared.”226 The Worms Draft contains the same citation from Augustine, to the effect that the healed will might fulfil (impleat) the law (§40). Where the Worms Draft accurately quotes Augustine this is here significantly qualified to become “might begin to fulfil (incipiat implere) the law,” departing from his wording if not his meaning. This change was not uncongenial to Gropper since his Enchiridion already states that through the help of the Spirit, “we might begin to keep the law.”227 In his 1545 Artikell he also speaks of beginning to obey the law (“anfahe das gesetz zu erfullenn”).228 In this and the previous sentence, says Neuser, “justification and renewal are closely combined together by the word simul.”229 This is true but should not be taken to imply a tying together of Catholic and Evangelical views. It is not fair to this sentence to state with Lexutt that, “a person must first at least be put again in the position of being able to obey God’s command, before God entirely grants them his grace.”230 This makes of the capacity to obey a precondition (“before”) in a way that is alien to the article. §4:4. Fides ergo viva eaa est, quae etb apprehendit misericordiam in Christo ac credit iustitiam, quae est in Christo, sibic gratis imputari et quae simul pollicitationem Spiritus Sancti et caritatem accipit. So living faith is that which both appropriates mercy in Christ, believing that the righteousness which is in Christ is freely imputed to it, and at the same time receives the promise of the Holy Spirit and love.

a: B, E, G, Disp: om. b: M, CR 4:199: om. c: CR 10:113, HAB: nobis Most of the ideas in this sentence have already appeared. For “living faith,” see on §4:1; for “apprehendit” and “accipit,” see on §§3:6; 4:2; for imputation, see on §3:6; for “simul” see on §4:3; for the reception of the Spirit, see on §3:6;

226

COR 4:3:179; CO 6:306; Bondage and Liberation of the Will, 107. Enchiridion, 175a; cf. 165a. 228 Warhafftige Antwort, 9b (in the article Von der rechtfertigung des menschen). 229 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 187. 230 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 253. 227

Text and Commentary, §4:4  179 for the reception of love, see on §4:3. For the implications of the reception of love, see further on §4:5. Bucer reaffirms §4:4 in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione.231 Here and elsewhere (§§4:2, 6; 8:3) we see that the gifts of acceptance and renewal are both found “in Christ.”232 A number of commentators have unfairly claimed that in Article 5 the relationship between imputed and imparted righteousness is not explained,233 and that the former is not linked with the Christian’s relationship to Christ as members of his body. Yarnold, for example dichotomizes imputed righteousness as “sharing by the members of Christ’s body in the merits of the head” and as “a mere forensic transaction.” He claims that for Gropper, when he accepted Article 5, imputed righteousness was “no longer linked with the doctrine of the body of Christ.”234 He draws the contrast between imputed righteousness as forensic and as grounded on the fact that we are grafted into Christ and have put on Christ.235 Braunisch also makes the same contrast, arguing that Gropper moves from holding the former in his Enchiridion to the latter when he accepted Article 5.236 But Article 5 does not question the fact that “we are grafted into Christ and have put on Christ” and indeed here states that it is “in Christ” that we obtain mercy and that our imputed righteousness is “in Christ.” Similarly, mercy is promised to us “in Christ” (§4:2). Contarini after Regensburg, in his Epistola, clearly associates justification with participation in Christ. Christ’s righteousness is assigned to those who put on Christ,237 and no one can make use of Christ’s righteousness who does not have the Spirit of Christ and does not live in Christ.238 The righteousness of Christ is given and imputed to us, because we have been grafted into Christ and have put on Christ.239 Yarnold and Braunisch are wrong to imply that the Protestant theologians did not see imputed righteousness as grounded on the fact that we are grafted into Christ and have put on Christ. Calvin very clearly refutes this 231 DVRC, 173b. 232 Martens, Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders, 64–​65, rightly draws attention to this. 233 Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 228–​29. 234 Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 208. 235 Yarnold, “Duplex iustitia,” 211. 236 Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 428–​31; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper zwischen Humanismus und Reformation,” 208–​209; Braunisch, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” 122–​23. For Gropper and Melanchthon on union with Christ, see Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 267–​85. Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 107, likewise polarises imputation and belief in the corpus Christi mysticum. Similarly, on p. 129. 237 CC 7:32. 238 CC 7:33. 239 CC 7:29. For these ideas in his Scholia, see ­chapter 4, above, at nn. 118–​21.

180  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification representation. Justification is in Christ alone and by Christ alone. “We are reckoned righteous before God in Christ and apart from ourselves.”240 The concept of union with Christ is central to Calvin’s doctrine of salvation.241 This is seen most clearly from the structure of his Institutio. Having in Book Two expounded his doctrine of the person of Christ and what he has achieved for us, in Book Three he turns to “The Way in which we Receive the Grace of Christ.”242 There he starts by affirming that “as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”243 Until we are united with Christ what he has achieved for us helps us no more than an electricity mains supply that passes our house but is not connected to it. It is the Holy Spirit that unites us with Christ, by faith, which brings us two major benefits—​justification and sanctification.244 The very structure of the Institutio is based on the premise that imputed righteousness is grounded on the fact that we are grafted into Christ and have put on Christ. Luther in his Freedom of a Christian (1520) argues that faith unites the soul with Christ, so that they are one flesh and truly married. It is this union with Christ that is the basis for our forgiveness and righteousness.245 Luther repeats these ideas in his 1535 Lectures on Galatians. The believer is one with Christ. “So far as justification is concerned, Christ and I must be so closely attached [coniunctissimos] that He lives in me and I in Him.” If Christ’s person is divided from ours, we have no justification but are dead in the eyes of God.246 Melanchthon states in his Apology that mercy is promised “in Christ.”247 It is because we are “in Christ” that God is pleased with us and our works.248 240 Institutio 3:11:4 [1559]. Cf. Institutio 3:11:23 [1539] “Our righteousness is not in us but in Christ, . . . we possess it only because we are partakers in Christ.” 241 For an important study on union with Christ in Calvin, see Tamburello, Union with Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard. 242 Institutio 3:title [1559]. 243 Institutio 3:1:1 [1559]. 244 Institutio 3:3:1 [1559]: “Now, both repentance and forgiveness of sins—​that is, newness of life and free reconciliation—​are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith.” 245 WA 7:25–​26 (German); WA 7:54–​55 (Latin original); LW 31:351 (from the Latin). 246 WA 40/​1:283–​85; WA 26:167–​68—​quotation at 284/​167. How to understand this union with Christ has become controversial with the rise of the so-​called “Finnish School.” See, e.g. Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification. But that justification is based on union with Christ is not controversial. On the controversy, see Braaten and Jenson (eds.), Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther. 247 BSELK 285; Kolb and Wengert 127 (4:44). 248 BSELK 323, 331; Kolb and Wengert 142, 146 (4:140). Article 6 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession states that “persona est in Christo reconciliatur fide,” but this could be translated “reconciled by faith in Christ” (BSELK QuM1:126).

Text and Commentary, §4:4  181 Bucer, already in his 1527 Ephesians Commentary, states that whoever comes to faith in the gospel “has already been grafted into Christ” and so goes on to bear fruit in good works.249 In his Romans Commentary he states that in baptism “the death of our sins and the life of God are so perfectly presented that we are said to be buried into the death of Christ, incorporated into Christ, clothed with Christ.”250 In his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, Bucer states that forgiveness of sins, adoption as God’s children and regeneration in Christ are connected in a necessary union. Renewal of the Spirit in Christ cannot exist without the life of Christ in us. We are, at initial justification, grafted into Christ.251 Yarnold and Braunisch are on stronger ground where the link between justification and ecclesiology and sacramentology is concerned. It would be wrong, however, to suggest that for the Reformers salvation is possible outside the church. Bucer stated that “God is a God of community. Thus as our Lord and head, Christ desires to rule and bless us as his limbs in this way: that he would not carry out the work of salvation for us except through all the limbs and the true community of these.”252 Luther held that “outside the Christian Church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation,” though in the context of anti-​papal polemic.253 More significantly, he makes the same point emphatically in his Large Catechism.254 Lugioyo rightly observes that, “the statement that justification occurs through the Church is an affirmation that both Luther and Bucer repeatedly make when speaking of justification in relation to the ministry of preaching and especially in the sacrament of baptism.”255 Calvin devoted the longest book of his Institutio to the doctrine of the visible church and stated of it that “there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels. . . . Furthermore, 249 Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios, . . . In eandem Commentarius ([1527]), 54b, cited by Stephens, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer, 73. 250 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 290. Barnikol, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung,” 95, 103–​ 105, agrees that for Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin justification is grounded on our Christusgemeinschaft, but argues that Bucer disagrees. He argues this on the incorrect ground that Bucer “knew of no imputative justification” (104). 251 DVRC, 179b–​80a. 252 Bucer to Philipp of Hesse (5 April 1546)  as cited by Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 5. 253 Luther, Kirchenpostille on Luke 2:15–​20 (WA 10/​I:1:140; LW 52:39–​40). 254 BSELK 1064–​67; Kolb and Wengert 438. 255 Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 143, in response to the accusations of Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch,  75–​79.

182  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation.”256 Where Yarnold and Braunisch are correct is the claim that for the Protestants, soteriology was primary and ecclesiology secondary, while for the Catholics the reverse was true. Again, the Reformers retained the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, but these are secondary to preaching and faith.257 For the Catholics justification was incorporated into the sacramental system. So, for example, justification is expounded in Gropper’s Enchiridion in the context of the sacrament of penance.258 While this does not prove that there was not genuine convergence on the doctrine of justification, it does mean that any such convergence has less significance than was implied by Contarini’s “dio laudato.”259 A stark illustration of this comes in Bucer’s 1550 disputation at Cambridge with the Catholic theologian Thomas Sedgwick. The latter raised the question of whether catechumens who died before baptism are justified. Bucer insists that those who truly believe and die before baptism have eternal life, and are already members of the Church, so long as they sincerely desired baptism. The baptism of believers does not confer justification for the first time, but seals, confirms, and increases it. Sedgwick, by contrast, argues that believing catechumens are not yet members of the church, nor justified.260 The Worms Draft §49 (= Gropper’s Draft 39) states that it is through the boundless mercy of God that our sins are forgiven, when we have grace and the Holy Spirit. The Tridentine Decree on Justification does not favour the reference to imputed righteousness, but does affirm the receipt of the Holy Spirit and of love (chh. 6–​7; can. 11). Neuser refers to this as double justification,261 but it is more accurately described as double righteousness. 256 Institutio 4:1:4 [1559, drawing on similar material from 1539]. 257 This is stated with brutal clarity in the Smalcald Articles 2:1, which states that on the article on Christ’s redemption and justification by faith alone “stands all that we teach and practice against the pope, the devil, and the world. Therefore we must be quite certain and have no doubt about it. Otherwise everything is lost” (Kolb and Wengert 301; BSELK 728–​29). Luther made other such statements, as in his In XV Psalmos Graduum, on Ps 130 (WA 40/​3:335, 352) and in his Disputation for the Promotion of Palladius and Tilemann (WA 39/​1:205). 258 This point is clearly brought out by Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 12, 104–​ 105, 128, 131–​33, 202–​203. See ­chapter 4, above at n. 98. 259 See c­ hapter 1, n. 144, above. 260 Bucer, Scripta Anglicana fere omnia (1577), 730–​732; ET: Gorham, Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears, 158–​60. 261 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 187.

Text and Commentary, §4:5  183 §4:5. Ita quod fides quidem iustificans est illa fides, quae est efficax per caritatem [Gal 5:6]. Therefore the faith that truly justifies is that faith which is effectual through love [Gal 5:6].

The sinner is justified “per fidem vivam et efficacem” in §4:1. The significance of the last word is spelt out here by the quotation of Galatians 5:6. Gropper states in his Enchiridion that justifying faith “is always effectual through love,”262 and works through love.263 The Worms Draft §43 = Gropper’s Draft §4 also state that justifying faith “is effectual and performs every good work through love.” The same thought appears in Gropper’s Warhafftige Antwort.264 In his Institutio Catholica Gropper argues that the only faith that justifies is faith formed by love (fides informata charitate).265 Contarini also argues in his Epistola that the faith which justifies is efficax per charitatem and significantly sees this as equivalent to fides formata per charitatem.266 In another letter he again argues that a faith that is effectual through love (efficax per charitatem) and that works through love (per dilectionem operatur) (Gal 5:6) is equivalent to fides formata per charitatem, the difference being that the word formata is found neither in Scripture nor in the fathers, its origin being Aristotle, not the gospel.267 But Dittrich correctly notes that Contarini has in mind “not a faith that is already before justification combined with caritas as an act, but such a faith that is combined with caritas as a disposition (habitus) after justification has taken place and comes in this disposition to its goal and completion.”268 In the Scholia Contarini states that “faith precedes the receiving of the Spirit, and love (charitas) is that Spirit himself.”269 262 Enchiridion, 172b; cf. 176a. 263 Enchiridion, 122a, 173b, 174b. 264 Warhafftige Antwort, 41b, drawing on the earlier Artikell (9b). 265 Institutio Catholica, 554. 266 CC 7:29; cf. 33. 267 Contarini to an unnamed cardinal (22 July) in Brieger, “Zur Correspondenz Contarini’s während seiner deutschen Legation,” 517–​18. Summary in Regesten, 218. Also in Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura I/​2, 187. In his Scholia on Col 2:2–​7, Contarini states that “fides inchoat, et charitas perficit hoc spirituale aedificium” (Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 499A). See also Pauselli, “Note sugli Scholia di Gasparo Contarini ad Efesini e Galati,” 141–​42. 268 Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 654, cf. 675. Cf. Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 83: justifying faith leads to love, “aber das geschieht erst in der Rechtfertigung selbst; soweit also der Glaube auf sie vorbereitet, ist er ohne Liebe.” 269 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 481A, on Galatians 5:22–​26. The text has spiritus, not Spiritus.

184  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Eck’s Draft refers to “this living and effectual faith,” the faith which according to Paul “works through love,” noting that in the schools this is called a “formed faith” (fides formata; §5). He later comments that Article 5 is acceptable if living faith means a faith that works through love. Just as the body is dead without the soul, so faith without love is dead and unformed (informis). So what is said about faith in the article must be understood to refer to fides formata—​otherwise we have “the opinion of Melanchthon, not the Church.”270 According to Pflug’s notes, in the debates Eck had conceded that “living and effectual (efficax) faith justifies.” This means that faith cannot justify without the assistance of grace and of love. Faith is not “living and effectual” before there is love, as is shown by 1 Corinthians 13.271 In his Enchiridion Eck states that in the usage of Scripture, to believe in God includes “cleaving to God through love.”272 Bucer quotes this passage of Eck in his 1533 Furbereytung zum Concilio to make the point that justification by faith does not mean justification without love.273 Pighius, unlike many of his fellow Catholics, acknowledged that the Protestants taught that true saving faith is fruitful in good works, and is incompatible with mortal sin. This implies a faith that is formed by love (fidem charitate formatam), a faith that works through love (per dilectionem operatur). He could not understand, therefore, why the Protestants could not embrace these formulae.274 Pighius would have applauded §4:5. The Tridentine Decree on Justification insists that faith is ineffective unless hope and love are added to it (ch. 7, can. 11), but without using the words efficax or formata, in keeping with the council’s aim to avoid technical language. Neuser refers to §4:5 as “fully Catholic and unacceptable to the Evangelicals.”275 In this he is following the view of Erhard Schnepf at the colloquy. Schnepf objected to the translation of Galatians 5:6 as “faith, which is effectual through love,” rather than the “old” translation, “faith which works 270 Eck, Responsum in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 14; Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 69; ADRG 3/​I:577. In his December 1540 report/​opinion on the Augsburg Confession, he affirms that the living faith that justifies “per dilectionem operatur” (ARC 3:307; ADRG 2/​I:541). 271 ADRG 3/​I:84. 272 Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae, ed. Fraenkel, 98; ET: Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church, 59. 273 Furbereytung zum Concilio, D1a. 274 From the manuscript of his De nostrae salutis et redemptionis mysterio et quibus modis gratiam iustificationis assequimur contra Confessionis Augustanae auctores vera et catholica assertio (complete by March 1540), as cited by Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges, 103. 275 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 187.

Text and Commentary, §4:5  185 through love.” His objection was that the new translation implies that faith receives its power from love and therefore that it is love that turns faith into fides formata, as the scholastics saw it. This is simply to support the ancient error of the papists against which the Reformers had struggled for so long.276 Despite these reservations, the sentence is almost a quotation from Calvin’s words of 1539: “we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies except one that is effectual through love (charitate efficacem).”277 It is true that Calvin immediately proceeds to qualify this: “But it does not take its power to justify from that working of love. Indeed, it justifies in no other way but in that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ.” Substantially the same qualification is found in the sentence that follows in Article 5 (§4:6). It must be conceded, however, that this was not Calvin’s normal way of speaking. The idea of fides efficax comes only this once in the Institutio and in response to Catholic teaching. Thus this is something that Calvin conceded rather than chose to teach of his own accord,278 but nonetheless it is a (terminological) concession that he had already made in his Institutio before the Regensburg Colloquy, and one that he did not withdraw after the colloquy. He was more ready to refer to the need for faith to be “living” (§4:1, 4) of his own accord,279 not just when making a concession to an opponent, as in the passage quoted above.280 Bucer goes further than Calvin and in his Psalms Commentary supports the teaching of justification fide formata.281 He returned to the issue after Regensburg, in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione. He objected to Aquinas’s view, based on the distinction between fides informis and fides formata, that love is accidental to faith and does not pertain to the substance of faith. He admits that the conjunction between love and dead faith is accidental, but insists that this conjunction is a natural one where true and living faith is concerned. In other words, there can be no true faith that is not conjoined with righteousness and other virtues.282 Calvin opposed the Catholic

276 ADRG 3/​II:514. 277 Institutio 3:11:20. 278 In the French translation “charitate efficacem” becomes “conoincte avec charité.” But this might simply be due to Calvin’s practice of minimising technical language in his French translations. 279 Institutio 3:2:42; 3:14:8. 280 At n. 277 above. 281 S. Psalmorum Libri Quinque ad Ebraicam Veritatem Versi, et Familiari Explanatione Elucidati (1529), 28a–​29a. In the next edition there are changes in wording, but the support for fide formata remains (Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque, ad Ebraicam Veritatem Genuina Versione in Latinum Traducti (1532), 21a–​b). See further on this under §10, below. 282 DVRC, 140a. I am not aware that Bucer ever cites Gal 5:6 in this work.

186  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification distinction between fides formata and fides informis, but on the ground that an “unformed faith” is not worthy of the name faith. Without godliness, fear of God, and godly affection there is no true faith.283 He objected to the idea that we are justified fide formata not because he imagined that the faith that justifies can be “unformed” but because it could be used to teach that it is the good works done in faith that justify.284 After the colloquy Bucer continued to affirm that faith and love go together and that justification comes “with the sort of faith that is active through love, unto all good works.”285 In his Warhafftige Antwort, however, Gropper affirmed that justifying faith must be a living faith that is vigorous (krefftig) through love, and stated that both before and after the colloquy Bucer had been constrained to part company with his master Luther and accept that “we become justified, pious, and blessed, not through a barren, workless faith, but through a true living faith, that is active through love.”286 Bucer was annoyed by this “blatant falsehood . . . which [Gropper] wrote in folio 41 of his deceitful (calumnioso) book,” namely that Luther taught justification “through a faith that is barren and ineffectual for good works,” and that the other Protestants were inclined to follow him. Bucer insists that an examination of their writings will show that the Protestants consistently teach that while it is only faith that justifies, justification does not come through a faith that is stripped bare of the pursuit of good works and is ineffectual for good works. Speaking for all Protestants he affirms: “we preach always, eloquently and with a clear voice, that a faith that is not conjoined with love, that is not involved in the pursuit of good works, is not the real and living faith of the gospel, which makes us children of God.”287 Melanchthon had reservation about the use of the term efficax, as we have seen under §4:1. In his Apology he attacks the scholastic concept of faith “formed by love,” which he maintains leads to attributing justification to love alone (tantum dilectioni).288 But this does not prevent him from shortly afterwards affirming that justifying faith is faith that is effectual through love (fides per dilectionem efficax), quoting Galatians 5:6 slightly differently from here, but with the key word efficax.289 Melanchthon’s issue was not

283

Institutio 3:2:8–​10. Institutio 3:15:7. 285 Wie leicht unnd füglich, 16–​17, 138. Cf. Bestendige Verantwortung, 46a; Constans Defensio, 94. 286 Warhafftige Antwort, 24b, 41b, echoing Bucer as quoted in the previous footnote. 287 De concilio, sigs. o4b–​p1a; cf. p2b–​3a. Similarly Von den einigen rechten wegen, 89. 288 BSELK 313, 315; Kolb and Wengert 138 (4:109). 289 BSELK 315; Kolb and Wengert 139 (4:111). 284

Text and Commentary, §4:5  187 with the need of justifying faith to be efficax but with the way in which the “other side” were interpreting it. In other words, Melanchthon objected not to the actual content of §4:1, 5, but to the way in which it was being (mis-​) interpreted, to its potential for abuse. In fact, the next sentence clearly refutes such misinterpretations. Our acceptance and reconciliation are “not on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness communicated to us in Christ,” that is, not on the basis of an infused disposition of love. Rather, faith justifies not by being meritorious or giving birth to merit but because “it appropriates the mercy and righteousness which is imputed to us on account of Christ and his merit” (§4:6).290 Luther took exception to this sentence. He claimed that the two ideas of justification by faith alone without works (Rom 3) and faith working through love (Gal 5)  had been thrown together and glued together (“zu samen gereymet und geleymet”). This is like sewing a new patch onto an old garment (Matt 9).291 Yet elsewhere, in his debate with Melancthon, he states bluntly that “faith is effectual, otherwise it is not faith.”292 What is Luther’s concern? He distinguishes between two questions: how we become righteous and how the righteous should live. Galatians 5:6, he states, is about the latter, not the former.293 This point is explained fully in his 1535 Commentary on Galatians 5:6. Luther rejects the claims of his opponents that the verse teaches that faith justifies through love or that faith makes us acceptable through love. This he denies, together with the idea that it is love that makes us acceptable. Luther is very happy with, and affirms, the idea of faith working through love as a description of “how the righteous should live.” What he rejects vehemently is the idea that love has a role to play in “how we become righteous.” Paul “says that works are done on the basis of faith through love, not that a man is justified through love.” He represents Paul as stating that “It is true that faith alone justifies, without works; but I am speaking about genuine faith, which, after it has justified, will not go to sleep but is active through love.”294 The same distinction between the two 290 Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole, 24–​33, likewise interprets the efficax of §4:1, 5 in the light of §4:2, 4, 6 and concludes that despite some of the language used, §4 is in full harmony with Evangelical doctrine. 291 Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann Friedrich (10/​11 May) in WA Br. 9:407–​408; ADRG 3/​I:170. 292 Bindseil (ed.), Philippi Melanchthonis Epistolae, Iudicia, Consilia, Testimonia aliorumque ad eum Epistolae quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur, 347; WA Br. 12:193. On this debate, see ­chapter 4, above, n. 23. 293 Bindseil (ed.), Philippi Melanchthonis Epistolae, Iudicia, Consilia, Testimonia aliorumque ad eum Epistolae quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur, 347; WA Br. 12:193. 294 WA 40/​2:34–​39; LW 27:28–​31.

188  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification questions comes elsewhere in the commentary. Thus he insists that Galatians 2:16 is not about how we should live but about how we are justified. The answer to that question is “solely by faith in Christ, not by works of the Law or by love.” We are justified by faith alone, “without love and before love,” not by faith formed by love.295 So what is Luther’s problem with this sentence? He claims that Article 5 teaches that we are justified not by faith alone but also through works or through love and grace, which the Catholics call inherent. This is false because before God only Christ is completely pure and holy.296 But is Luther’s interpretation fair to the article? Taking this sentence out of context it would appear to be fair, but not if we take §4:3–​5 as a whole. Living faith appropriates mercy and imputed righteousness in Christ and also receives the Holy Spirit, who infuses love. Justifying faith is “that faith which is effectual through love” not because the love and good works play a role in appropriating justification but because they are gifts received at the same time as justification. Luther’s accusation is unfair. Von Loewenich rightly observes that Luther has “grossly misinterpreted” Article 5 on this point.297 Why would he have done that? He was writing at a time when Eck was verbally claiming that the article teaches justification by love. It is in the light of that claim that Luther makes the charges that he does. But when he comes to write on Article 5, Eck takes a very different line, branding it as a harmful, maimed, mutilated, infantile declaration. Eck’s earlier verbal claim is not be understood as a serious exposition of what Article 5 actually teaches, but as Eck’s attempt to defend that fact that he had given his assent to it.298 It is unfortunate that this gross misrepresentation of Article 5 stoked the fears of some Protestants then and is still taken seriously today by people who ought instead to look carefully at what the article actually teaches. At the Worms Colloquy the theologians of electoral Brandenburg in a report/​opinion (Gutachten) commented that the scholastic term fides formata presupposes the understanding of faith as a mere notion (notitia) so that love (called justifying grace) is our formal righteousness. When the Augsburg Confession states that we are justified freely by faith, it means not a mere notion but the work of the Spirit regenerating and sanctifying people. This



295

WA 40/​1:239–​40; LW 26:137. Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann Friedrich (10/​11 May) in WA Br. 9:407–​408; ADRG 3/​I:170. 297 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia: Luthers Stellung zu einer Unionsformel des 16. Jahrhunderts, 49. 298 See c ­ hapter 2, above, at n. 72. 296

Text and Commentary, §4:5–6  189 faith is not without virtues, and it cannot coexist with mortal sin.299 The same day (15 December) the theologians of electoral Palatinate used a briefer version of this in a report.300 That saving faith cannot coexist with mortal sin is taught in the Apology,301 and reiterated in Articles 6 and 20 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession.302 Luther affirmed the same in his 1535 Lectures on Galatians.303 Lexutt expresses surprise that the article dispenses with the sola fide formula, and suggests that this might be because to use it in conjunction with the efficax per caritatem formula is to pervert the Reformation understanding of sola.304 Leaving aside the fact that the article does give (qualified) approval of sola fide in §10, Bucer and Calvin clearly did not think that they were perverting the Reformation understanding when they insisted that justifying faith is efficax per caritatem. Zur Mühlen, more perceptively, argues that the juxtaposition of §§4:5 and 4:6 met the requirements of both sides, but left open the question of how fides efficax per caritatem was to be reconciled with the imputation of righteousness on account of Christ and his merit.305 We will return to this question in c­ hapter 6. §4:6. Sed interim hoc verum est, quod hac fide eatenus iustificamur, aid esta acceptamur et reconciliamur Deo, quatenus apprehendit misericordiam et iustitiam, quae nobis imputatur propter Christum bet eius meritumb, nonc propter dignitatem seu perfectionem iustitiae nobis din Christod communicatae. Nevertheless it remains true, that it is by this faith that we are justified (i.e. accepted and reconciled to God) inasmuch as it appropriates the mercy and righteousness which is imputed to us on account of Christ and his merit, not on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness communicated to us in Christ. 299 ARC 3:321–​ 22; ADRG 2/​ I:545. Earlier published in Lipgens, “Theologischer Standort fürstlicher Räte im sechzehnten Jahrhundert,” 47–​48. On this see zur Mühlen, “Die Edition der Akten und Berichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau und Worms 1540/​41,” 60–​61. 300 ARC 3:323; ADRG 2/​I:549. Earlier published in Lipgens, “Theologischer Standort fürstlicher Räte im sechzehnten Jahrhundert,” 49. On this see zur Mühlen, “Die Edition der Akten und Berichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau und Worms 1540/​41,” 61. 301 BSELK 295, 315, 325; Kolb and Wengert 131, 139, 142–​43 (4:64, 115, 143–​44). 302 BSELK QuM1:126, 137. 303 WA 40/​2:34–​35; LW 27:28. 304 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 253–​54. 305 Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 342–​43. Similarly, zur Mühlen, “ ‘Die Gemeinsame Erklärung zur Rechtfertigung 1997’ im Lichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41,” 97.

190  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification a—​a: Disp: et b—​b: CR 10:113, HAB: om. c: CR 10:113, HAB ad.: autem d—​d: CR 10:114, HAB: per Christum For more on the definition of justification, see §5:1. Here it is defined as acceptance and reconciliation to God and happens on the basis of imputed righteousness, not on the basis of the [inherent] righteousness communicated to us. Winkler suggests that the formula of imputed righteousness could be given a more than merely juridical meaning and also be taken ontologically.306 By “ontological,” here he appears to mean that imputed righteousness can refer to sanctification as well as justification. There is no doubt that there is in this sense an ontological side to the double righteousness described in the article, but this side is found in the iustitia inhaerens, not in the iustitia imputata. The present sentence, in attributing acceptance and reconciliation to imputed righteousness, takes care to deny that they happen on account of inherent and ontological righteousness. As we have seen, this sentence answers the fears that §4:1, 5 teach that we are justified by the infused disposition of love. For “apprehendit” and “accipit,” see on §§3:6; 4:2. For Christ’s merit, see on §4:2. The article states that we are not accepted and reconciled “on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness communicated to us in Christ.” The basis for acceptance is iustitia imputata, not iustitia communicata, which could be seen as a synonym for iustitia inhaerens. For this reason, the Venetian Inquisitor thrice replaced the word imputo by communico in Contarini’s Epistola (see on §3:6). Eck’s Draft contains a similar statement about the imperfection of the righteousness imparted to us in this life: “this righteousness communicated by the Father to the son as he returns is imperfect in us according to the state of this life, since it is absolute and perfect only in Christ, in whom is the fullness of grace, truth and righteousness” (§4). Despite this, Eck is puzzled by this sentence. He claims that the article is contradictory in claiming that we are accounted righteous and accepted by God through Christ’s merits, and not on account of inherent righteousness. Since the latter is grace, who can think that people have the wedding garment, have the grace of God and yet are not pleasing and acceptable to God?307 This suggests that he had failed to 306 Winkler, “Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch 1541,” 86. 307 Eck, Responsum in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 14; Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 69–​70; ADRG 3/​I:577.

Text and Commentary, §4:6  191 grasp one of the central points of the article. Contarini responds to Eck by conceding that we please God by inherent righteousness, but denying that we should rely on this to entirely satisfy the divine justice. It is for this purpose that we need the imputed righteousness of Christ.308 Eck would have been far happier with the Tridentine Decree on Justification, which affirms that the justified have “by those works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life” (ch. 16). Gropper in his Enchiridion teaches similarly to this sentence. Faith is effective “not because of its own worth (dignitate), but because of the mercy of God which it receives or appropriates.”309 Remission of sins is not “on account of our worth.”310 Justification, he emphasises, is not “on account of the worth of this renewal,” nor “on account of the worth of our repentance or contrition.”311 Forgiveness of sins comes “on account of Christ,”312 and his merit.313 Justification includes renewal, but this remains imperfect, so the righteousness of Christ (of whom we are members) supplements our imperfect righteousness.314 Our imperfect works please God “on account of the worth of our will or our works, but by imputation (imputative) through grace.” Christ’s righteousness is made ours.315 The Worms Draft §48 (= Gropper’s Draft §38) also alludes to the idea of our righteousness being supplemented by Christ’s perfect righteousness. We can thus make good by faith what is lacking in us. This teaching does not appear in Gropper’s 1545 Artikell.316 The thrust of this sentence coheres fully with the emphasis of Article 4 of the Augusburg Confession,317 and Melanchthon’s Apology on that article. More particularly, the second half of this sentence echoes Article 4 of the 1540 Confessio Augustana Variata Secunda:  justification and remission of sins are given “on account of Christ” and are not conditional upon our worth, nor given on account of any preceding works or on account of the worth of 308 Contarini in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 20; Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 70; ADRG 3/​I:584. 309 Enchiridion, 122a. 310 Enchiridion, 165b. 311 Enchiridion, 167b. 312 Enchiridion, 165a, 166a–​b. 313 Enchiridion, 167b, 171b, 173b. 314 Enchiridion, 168a. 315 Enchiridion, 132a. 316 Warhafftige Antwort, 9b–​10a (the articles Von der rechtfertigung des menschen and Von den guten wercken). 317 BSELK 99; Kolb and Wengert 39, 41.

192  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification any subsequent works.318 Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession states that justification is on account of Christ’s merit, not ours, and Article 6 teaches that justification is on the basis of faith, not works.319 Melanchthon argued similarly in the debate, according to Pflug’s Notiunculae. He admits that character (habitus) and virtue are poured into us and that faith and Christ are not divided asunder. But when someone is justified by faith it is not on account of any kind of worth that they have,320 echoing the wording of the Article at the end. He objected to the way in which the Catholic party introduced virtues, as if our righteousness consisted in our worthiness. We please God on account of the Son of God, not our own worthiness. (In the Einfaltigs Bedencken, he argues that it is for Christ’s sake that we are accepted by God, not because of our own righteousness or merit.321) Eck conceded in response that even if we abounded with every virtue, this would be nothing without the Mediator.322 Neuser sees §4:6 and §4:5 as “two mutually exclusive formulas of justification” (zwei sich ausschließende Rechtfertigungsformeln),323 but this shows the weakness of treating the document as separate sentences each to be interpreted as Catholic or Protestant. The previous sentence is immediately qualified by the present sentence, which carefully rules out the idea that acceptance is on the basis of inherent righteousness (such as love). The two sentences together are closely matched by Calvin in 1539,324 as is noted under §4:1 and §4:5. Melanchthon’s Apology also refers to the “alien righteousness” of Christ which is communicated (communicatur) to us through faith, and immediately adds that our righteousness is the imputation of an alien righteousness.325 We have already seen Bucer’s affirmation of various components of this sentence. In his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, he reaffirms this sentence as a whole.326 He also argues repeatedly, in this work (as elsewhere), for the imperfection of our personal righteousness in this life and its

318 BSELK QuM1:124:  “non pendere ex conditione dignitatis nostrae nec dari propter ulla praecedentia opera aut dignitatem sequentium.” This passage is cited by zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 342. 319 BSELK 101, 103; Kolb and Wengert 41. 320 ADRG 3/​I:84. 321 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 44b–​45a; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 35b. 322 ADRG 3/​I:85. 323 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 187–​88. 324 Institutio 3:11:20. 325 BSELK QuM1 479; Tappert 154 (4:305). This passage is not found in the Editio secunda. 326 DVRC, 170a.

Text and Commentary, §4:6–§5:1  193 inability to secure our acceptance by God without the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.327 Lexutt comments that the article speaks of the perfection of the righteousness communicated to us and adds that this perfection comes through good works, through a life of active obedience.328 This is somewhat disingenuous, as the article is clear that such righteousness is never perfect in this life (§6), and the point of the present sentence is to deny that we are justified by perfect righteousness. Of course, the article does commend a life of good works and active obedience, but it would be wrong to suggest that the Reformers were not in favour of this. She also notes that justification is defined as acceptance and reconciliation, without mention of the promise of eternal life. This means that justification in the full sense is still owing.329 Lest too much be read into this silence it should be noted that in the chapter of the 1559 Institutio devoted to the definition of justification, Calvin mentions eternal life only once, there attacking the way in which Osiander has brought the concept into his doctrine of justification.330 This would suggest that a satisfactory Reformation account of justification is perfectly possible without the mention of eternal life. Lexutt goes on to state that the failure to mention eternal life in §4:6 means an acceptance of the teaching of the Worms Draft, that the promise of eternal life is deferred to the “second justification,” the iustitia operum.331 This interpretation is excluded by §8:3, where we read that the inheritance of eternal life is due to the regenerate as soon as they are reborn in Christ. §5:1. Etsi autem is, qui iustificatur, iustitiam accipit et habet per Christum etiam inhaerentem, sicut dicit apostolus:  Abluti estis, sanctificati estis, iustificati estis etc.a [1 Cor 6:11] (quare sancti patres “iustificari” etiam pro eo, quod est “inhaerentem iustitiam accipere,” usurparunt) tamen anima fidelis huic non innititur, sed soli iustitiae Christi nobis donatae, sine qua bomnino nullab cest nec esse potestc iustitia. Although the one who is justified receives righteousness and through Christ also has inherent [righteousness], as the apostle says: “you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified, etc.” [I Cor 6:11] (which is why the holy 327 DVRC, 177b, 180b, 184b, 188b. 328 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 254. 329 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 254. 330 Institutio 3:11. In 3:11:10 (1559) accuses Osiander of over-​realised eschatology, applying to the present life passages which refer to the heavenly life. 331 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 254–​55.

194  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification fathers made use of [the term] “to be justified” even to mean “to receive inherent righteousness”), nevertheless, the faithful soul depends not on this, but only on the righteousness of Christ given to us as a gift, without which there is and can be no righteousness at all.

a: CR 10:114, HAB: om. b—​b: CR 10:114, HAB: nulla omnino c—​c: B, E: esse necesse potest; Disp: potest esse

The Definition of Justification The article notes the traditional Catholic meaning of justification (“inhaerentem iustitiam accipere”). The word usurpo should not be seen to imply that this was an abuse of the term,332 but there is no doubt that the article opts for the Protestant meaning. This is explicit in §§4:6; 5:2, is implied by §4:1, and is consistent with the other occurrences of the word. Here is the first mention of the term iustitia inhaerens, though in §4:6 we already have the idea of iustitia nobis in Christo communicatae. The present sentence also raises the important questions of the formal cause of justification and the righteousness upon which we should place our reliance.333 The article states that “the holy fathers made use of [the term] ‘to be justified’ even to mean ‘to receive inherent righteousness’,” but it is not quite so simple. Cardinal Gian Pietro Carafa expressed his concern about the novelty of the term inherent righteousness.334 His claim is supported by the fact that Johann Altenstaig’s important theological dictionary, Vocabularius Theologie, makes no mention of inherent righteousness in its entries on iustitia, referring instead to infused righteousness.335 The claim made about the fathers should be seen as referring to the concept of inherent righteousness, not necessarily to the use of the actual word inherent (as opposed to infused or imparted).336 The Tridentine Decree on Justification, uses the 332 Gropper, in his Enchiridion, refers to those who claim the word “usurpari apud Paulum hebraica consuetudine” without suggesting that they were accusing Paul (163a). Even more clearly, Bucer states that Scripture uses the terms iustificari and iustificatio “auff mancherley weise” (Bestendige Verantwortung, 40a; Constans Defensio, 85). 333 For more on this, cf. the discussion on the double formal cause of justification in c­ hapter 4. 334 See c­ hapter 2, above, at n. 122. 335 Altenstaig, Vocabularius Theologie, sig. 126b–​28a, esp.  127b. I  am grateful to Christian Washburn for pointing me to Thomas’s reference to grace expelling guilt by inhering (De veritate, q. 28 a. 7 ad 4), but it does not actually use the terminology of iustitia inhaerens. However, the language of inherent righteousness could have arisen from talk of gratia inhaerens. 336 Bellarmine, De iustificatione 2:8 in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini Tomus Quartus, 519–​21,

Text and Commentary, §5:1  195 term (once): our righteousness is ours “because we are justified through its being inherent in us” (ch. 16; cf. can. 11). Who was responsible for the introduction of the word “inherent” into Article 5? It is not found in the Worms Draft, nor in any of the other extant drafts, except for one mention in Gropper’s Draft, in the heading of §8: “Concerning the imperfection of inherent righteousness in those reborn.” This portion of Gropper’s Draft did not make its way into the final article, but it does suggest that Gropper might have been the one to put the word forward. That would leave open the possibility that Contarini proposed it to him in one of his daily sessions with the Catholic debaters.337 I have yet to find any use of the term (iustitia inhaerens) in any work of Contarini, Gropper, Eck or Pflug prior to the colloquy. All four made use of the term after the colloquy.338 Gropper, in his Enchiridion, defines justification as comprising both remission of sins and inner renovation or cleansing of the mind.339 He rejects the idea that justification is purely forensic, though his argument against this is the fact that there can be no remission without renewal.340 He was under the impression that because the Protestants did not include inner renovation as part of justification, they taught that the former followed (sequi) the latter, the implication being that this happens at a later time.341 See on simul under §4:3. Gropper also cited 1 Corinthians 6:11,342 and cited the fathers in support of his usage.343 (The final Article 5 acknowledges the patristic evidence but does not, unlike Gropper, regard it as normative.) The Worms Draft §2 also gives a similar twofold definition of justification.344 Luther throughout his life defined the term justification in more than one way.345 At times he understood it forensically, as referring to the imputation of righteousness. In his 1536 Disputation concerning Justification, he states baldly that the word “to be justified” indicates to be counted righteous sets out the traditio veterum patrum on inherent righteousness. His aim is not to show that the Fathers used the word “inhaerens,” but to show that “they assigned the grace of justification to internal renewal and santification, not solely to the remission of sins” (519). 337 On which, see c­ hapter 1, at nn. 99–​100. 338 For details of which, see c­ hapter 4. 339 Enchiridion, 163a. He does not object to those who wish to add the gift of eternal life as a third element (ibid.). On Gropper’s doctrine of justification in the Enchiridion, see Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 124–​29. 340 Enchiridion, 163a–​b; cf. 165a, 166a–​67a, 176b–​77a. 341 Enchiridion, 171a. 342 Enchiridion, 176a. 343 Enchiridion, 163a, 166b, 167a. 344 See more on this in Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 238–​39. 345 See Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 226–​27.

196  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification (iustum computari).346 In 1542, in the Promotionsdisputation von Heinrich Schmedenstede, Luther states that in Romans 5, Paul includes under justification both grace (imputed righteousness) and gift (renewal).347 Melanchthon’s Apology normally understands justification as the forensic declaration of righteousness, as is implied by Article 4 of the confession. He does, however, acknowledge that it can “also” mean being made righteous or being regenerated, since Scripture also uses the term this way.348 He sometimes himself follows this usage.349 He does not there refer to “inherent righteousness,” but it is easy to see why he could accept the concept in the way that it is expounded in Article 5.350 The definition of justification became the subject of controversy in the post-​colloquy disputes. Melanchthon, in the Einfaltigs Bedencken, defined justification as purely forgiveness of sins and the gift of Christ’s righteousness,351 and was faulted for this by Gropper. In the Gegenberichtung/​ Antididagma, Gropper enlarges the definition of initial justification to include four elements:  remission of sins through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, reconciliation with God and adoption as sons through regeneration, renewal by the Holy Spirit through the pouring out of love in our hearts and the gift of eternal life, of which we become heirs through hope.352 He criticises the Einfaltigs Bedencken for its narrower definition.353 In his response to the Leuven theology faculty, he again criticises the Einfaltigs Bedencken for its narrow understanding of justification.354 Bucer had already, in his Romans Commentary, commented on the patristic usage, referring to Augustine, Chrysostom and Ambrose (i.e. Ambrosiaster). He himself, unlike Article 5, takes justification to refer both to the remission of sins and the imparting of righteousness by the Spirit.355 In his response to the Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma, however, Bucer

346 WA 39/​1:98; LW 34:167. 347 WA 39/​2:202; LW 34:320. 348 BSELK 299; Kolb and Wengert 132 (4:72). In LT43 S3a; LC43 86, Melanchthon refers to the forensic definition alone, commenting that “all educated people understand that this is the thrust of the Hebrew expression.” For the changes in Melanchthon’s view on this topic, see Wengert, Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia, 179–​85. 349 BSELK 301, 317; Kolb and Wengert 133, 139 (4:78, 117). 350 For justification of this, see c­ hapter 4, at nn. 81–​82, 213–​14. 351 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 42b–​43a; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 33b. 352 Gegenberichtung, 17a; Antididagma, 11b. 353 Gegenberichtung, 21b; Antididagma, 15a. 354 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 220–​21. 355 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, Preface 12–​13; Common Places, 163–​64. For Bucer’s use of the term justification in this commentary, see Barnikol, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung,” 91–​98.

Text and Commentary, §5:1  197 makes no mention of his own earlier usage but maintains Protestant unity by defending Melanchthon, though without excluding his earlier approach. He notes that the words iustificari and iustificatio are used in different ways in Scripture, and that they are sometimes (etwan) used as Melanchthon defines them.356 In his De vera  .  .  .  reconcilatione et compositione, Bucer acknowledges that the words can be taken two ways in Scripture, again citing Augustine, Chrysostom, and Ambrose.357 Because the scholastics, following Augustine, understood justification as being made righteous, they, accordingly, did not hold that we become righteous and are righteous by faith alone.358 In 1545 Gropper in his Warhafftige Antwort dropped the reference to imputed righteousness and emphasised inherent righteousness. He criticises the Einfaltigs Bedencken for defining justification as purely forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness. In response he defines the word not as earlier in terms of duplex iustitia but as a making righteous (Gerechtmachung) through an inherent indwelling righteousness, as the fathers rightly understood it. Forgiveness of sins has a role to play, but there is no longer any mention of imputed righteousness.359 In the Artikell likewise, the implication is that “make righteous” means “the reception of such an inherent and indwelling righteousness.”360 Gropper was concerned to differentiate his position against the Reformers, initially (1544) stressing that justification involves inherent as well as imputed righteousness, then (1545) speaking of the former without mention of the latter, though without actually denying it. In his Apologia, Gropper again takes issue with the Reformers for their definition, citing the teaching of his Enchiridion and of his Antididagma. We are justified by a double righteousness and justification embraces both inherent and imputed righteousness.361 How did Contarini use the word? In his Confutatio Articulorum seu Quaestionum Lutheranorum he is clear that justification is nothing other than “being made a partaker in divine righteousness” or “a spiritual birth”

356 Bestendige Verantwortung, 40a; Constans Defensio, 85. For more on Bucer’s definition of justification, see Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 47–​53. In his earlier Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum (1534), sigs. B5b–​6a, he interprets justification purely in terms of forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. 357 DVRC, 121b–​125a. 358 DVRC, 164a–​b. Cf. 170a–​b. He reaffirms §5:1 in 178a. 359 Warhafftige Antwort, 24b. 360 Warhafftige Antwort, 10a (in the article Von der rechtfertigung des menschen). 361 JGB 2:609–​11.

198  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification (generationem).362 But in his Epistola, written after the colloquy, his usage is less clear. Iustifico/​iustificatio comes some forty times in the letter, but despite this, Contarini’s meaning remains obscure. He starts with a definition: “To be justified, then, is nothing other than to be made righteous, and therefore also to be considered (haberi) righteous.” But all is not quite so simple because “righteousness is taken (sumitur) in many ways.”363 Contarini is interested not in righteousness before people (coram hominibus), but only in the sight of God.364 There are two justifications—​the first by which “an ungodly adult from being unrighteous becomes righteous,” and the second by which “someone from being righteous becomes more righteous.”365 Thus far, his usage appears thoroughly Catholic and in line with later Tridentine usage. But because he holds to a duplex iustitia, inherent and imputed, his view of justification is also complex. Faith justifies, “because by faith we arrive at both righteousnesses” (attingimus ad utramque iustitiam).366 It is on the basis of imputed righteousness that we reckon ourselves to be justified coram deo, not on account of inherent righteousness.367 Justification is also paired once with sanctification in a Protestant manner.368 In his Scholia on Galatians 3:26–​29 Contarini again offers a definition of justification: “we are justified, i.e. reconciled to God, made children of God, and receive the Holy Spirit.”369 Earlier, however, he states that Abraham was able to be justified before people, that is, “considered and proclaimed (haberi & pronunciari) righteous.”370 Thus regarding Contarini’s terminology, his use of the word “justification,” it is true that he, unlike the Regensburg article, holds to a compromise position between the Catholic and Protestant usage. Contarini poses the question of whether inherent or imputed righteousness “comes first by nature.” This question pertains more to scholastic disputations than to the business of faith. Together with the question of whether remission of sins and reconciliation with God or the infusion of grace comes first by nature, it is deferred to a more suitable time.371 A number of his interpreters nonetheless affirm that for Contarini, inherent

362

CC  7:1–​2. CC 7:24. CC 7:24–​25. 365 CC 7:26, 32. The Worms Draft also speaks of the two justifications (e.g. §3). 366 CC 7:29. 367 CC 7:29–​31. 368 CC 7:27. 369 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 479D. 370 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 437C on Rom 4:1ff. 371 CC 7:28. 363 364

Text and Commentary, §5:1  199 righteousness is primary and the premise of imputed righteousness.372 If this really is the case, what motive did Contarini have for concealing the fact from a purely Catholic audience to whom he was trying to demonstrate his orthodoxy? Has sufficient attention been given to the possibility that neither is prior because both flow from the union with Christ and the putting on of Christ that comes by faith?373 Calvin, throughout his writings, attacks Catholic writers for their use of the word “justification,” but does not stop to observe that the difference to some extent was one of terminology. There is a striking contrast here with his approach to the term liberum arbitrium, where he repeatedly acknowledges the fact that Augustine gave it a different meaning, although such a sympathetic hearing is not given to later Catholic Augustinian theologians. Calvin concedes to others the right to use the term in a sound (Augustinian) sense, but he advises that the term be avoided.374 With “justification” Calvin again distances himself from Augustine’s terminology,375 but he (unlike his fellow Reformers) never concedes that there might be a legitimate use of the Catholic terminology, including regeneration within the definition of justification. Why this difference in approach? First, liberum arbitrium was a non-​ biblical term, for which there was no biblical definition, while justification was a key Pauline term and to allow another definition would open the door to Pauline passages being interpreted in line with it. In his 1547 Antidote to the Tridentine decree, in the context of interpreting Paul’s teaching, he comments that he would be unwilling to dispute about the definition of a word (justification) did not the whole cause (gratuitous acceptance on the basis of faith) rest upon it.376 In his 1549 response to the Augsburg Interim, Calvin expresses his fear that including inherent righteousness377 in the definition of justification will lead to the idea that it is also part of the ground for our acceptance before God, which will undermine peace of conscience. He

372 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 41, 44–​46 (on the basis of CC 7:24, 33); Hünermann, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Kardinals Gasparo Contarini,” 16–​17; Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 90–​95, 106–​107. Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 262, rightly questions von Loewenich here. 373 CC 7:29. 374 Institutio 2:2:8. 375 Institutio 3:11:15. 376 CO 7:448; CSW 3:115. While Calvin’s definition is an integral part of his argument, the whole cause did not rest on it in the sense that Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer were all able to work at times with the wider definition. 377 For his attitude to inherent righteousness in that work, see ­chapter 4, above, at nn. 229–​30.

200  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification affirms that there is a double grace, but is concerned that this not be taken to imply that our acceptance by God is on the ground partly of forgiveness and partly of works. Grace is manifold; the ground of acceptance is not.378 He clearly distinguishes the two questions posed by Luther: how we become righteous and how the righteous should live. The Tridentine Decree on Justification defines justification as “not merely the remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner person. This occurs through voluntarily accepting those grace and gifts by which a person changes from unrighteous to righteous, from an enemy [of God] to a friend, so that he becomes an heir ‘according to hope of eternal life’ ” (ch.7; cf. can. 11).

Reliance upon Christ Melanchthon, in his Apology, repeatedly argues that we should rely upon God’s promised mercy, upon the righteousness received by faith, not upon our own merits. Christ condemns trusting in our own works, not trusting in his promise.379 If faith relies (“nitatur”) upon our works, it will lose certainty because of the imperfection of our works.380 Article 6 of the Augsburg Confession also teaches that we should not rely upon the merit of works when it comes to justification.381 Article 20 of the 1540 Confessio Augustana Variata Secunda states that we need to rely on mercy alone, and not on our own worth.382 In keeping with this, Melanchthon argued at the colloquy that faith needed to rely upon one thing and that to add the worth of our behaviour (dignitatem morum) was to introduce doubt. Bucer likewise argued that we should rely upon Christ alone and Melanchthon added that to have faith is to rely upon Christ.383 This was in line with Bucer’s Romans Commentary.384 Contarini, in the scheda minor de iustificatione that he sent to Rome with the article, comments on the issue of reliance. He summarises the teaching of the article as that 378 CO 7:594–​96; CTS 3:244–​46. A similar concern underlies his comment in his 1547 Antidote to the Tridentine decree that while grace is double the cause of justification is not (CO 7:448; CTS 3:115–​16). 379 BSELK 387; Kolb and Wengert 169 (4:339). 380 BSELK 473; Kolb and Wengert 203 (12:95). 381 BSELK 101, 103; Kolb and Wengert 41. 382 BSELK QuM1:133. 383 According to Pflug’s Notiunculae (ADRG 3/​I:85). 384 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 13; Common Places, 164.

Text and Commentary, §5:1  201 we should not depend (niti) on our inherent righteousness, by which we are made righteous and perform good works, but we should depend on the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to us on account of Christ and the merit of Christ. It is by this latter [righteousness] that we are justified before God, that is considered (habiti) and reckoned (reputati) righteous.

He concludes that “we hold this conclusion to be most true, Catholic and very godly (piam).” This he defends from Scripture (Dan 9:18; Ps 143:1–​2) and Augustine’s sermons. These teach that we remain sinners, which is a statement of fact, not an expression of pious modesty.385 Sadolet opposed this position at some length in his Votum de justitia nobis inherente, et de justitia Christi nobis imputata, utra debeamus niti.386 He sees it not as Catholic but as pointing to a Lutheran disparagement of the dignity of good works. To suggest that inherent righteousness is of no value for obtaining God’s promises and the reward of heaven is plainly unscriptural. Scripture repeatedly states that “we are accepted by God according to our works and merits.” This does not mean that we should trust our inherent righteousness more than is appropriate. Our hope should be in God and his mercy rather than our merits. But if our righteousness were purely in Christ and based on his merit alone, it would suffice to be baptised and to believe, which Paul denied. To say that we should rely upon Christ’s righteousness to the exclusion of inherent righteousness is to undermine zeal for good works. Sadolet agrees that we still sin, but he sees this as ruling out perfection, not inherent righteousness. His conclusion, which he claims to be “sound and Catholic,” is that we should rely to some extent upon inherent righteousness and our good works (recognising that this comes from God, with the cooperation of our free choice) but that our greater hope and trust should be in Christ’s righteousness and merit. The alternative view found in the scheda is contrary to Scripture and causes great scandal in the church by undermining the zeal for good works. Having repeated these points a number of times, Sadolet concludes: Thus, to conclude, if we say that we should not depend (niti) on our own righteousness, nor our good works, but should rely (confidere) only on the

385 CT 12:313–​14. 386 Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura I/​2, 162–​67; CT 12:322–​25. Cf. ­chapter 2, above, at nn. 150–​54.

202  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification merit and righteousness of Christ, people will be led away from all zeal and effort to work in a godly and holy way.387

Pole does not seem to have shared Sadolet’s reservations on this point. Priuli wrote that Pole was not relying upon his own inherent righteousness, though he had more grounds for doing so than many of those who were scandalised by this “blessed determination”—​to whom Paul’s words in Romans 10:2 apply.388 Interestingly, according to the Gallican historian Jacques-​Auguste de Thou, when the Emperor Charles V was on his deathbed, he fixed his eyes on an image of the crucified Christ, declaring that he “placed all hope of his salvation in him alone.”389 In his Epistola, Contarini returns to the question (not, of course, aware at this point of Sadolet’s objections). He notes that we receive a duplex iustitia, inherent righteousness and imputed righteousness. That leaves the question of which of these we should rely upon and on account of which we should consider ourselves to be justified before God. Which righteousness suffices in the eyes of God—​inherent righteousness and love or Christ’s righteousness given and imputed to us? Contarini reckons that it is godly and Christian to say that we should rely upon the righteousness of Christ given to us, not upon our holiness or inherent grace. This is because the latter is imperfect and insufficient, in the sight of God, for us to be held to be good and holy. But Christ’s righteousness given to us is true and perfect righteousness, acceptable to God. It is on this righteousness alone that we should rely, and on this basis alone that we should believe ourselves to be justified before God, that is, “considered and proclaimed (haberi & pronunciari) righteous.” The more we progress in holiness, the more aware we become of our sin, and the more displeased with ourselves. Following an appeal to Thomas Aquinas, the conclusion is reached that we should rely not on inherent righteousness but on the “the righteousness of Christ given and imputed to us.”390 387 Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura I/​2, 167; CT 12:325. 388 As reported by Priuli in a letter to Beccadelli, cited in Quirini (ed.), Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli 3:LXXII. 389 De Thou, Historiarum sui Temporis Tomus Primus, 724. This was first published in 1604. Brandi, Kaiser Karl V, 551, reports that “Der Erzbischof von Toledo reichte es [ein Kruzifix] ihm mit dem Hinweis auf den Kreuzestod Christi als die entscheidende Quelle der Gnade,—​was dem altkirchlichen d’Avila als sehr protestantisch erschien und später noch in dem Inquisitionsprozeß gegen den Erzbischof ausgespielt werden sollte.” [The ET, Brandi, The Emperor Charles V, 643, is loose: “The Archbishop of Toledo pressed [a crucifix] between his fingers, reminding the Emperor at the same moment that Christ’s death was the only source of mercy for sinners. The Catholic d’Avila, overhearing, thought this a very Protestant sentiment, and the Archbishop was to be reminded of it later when he stood his trial by the Inquisition.”] 390 CC 7:29–​31.

Text and Commentary, §5:1  203 This is followed by a long paragraph which responds to biblical passages that are cited against this view. David’s claims to righteousness in Psalms 7:8, 18:20–​ 22 are made by comparison with his enemies, not coram deo. Other passages of Scripture are cited to show the insufficiency of inherent righteousness before God. So those who appeal to Scripture against the Regensburg article have not understood it correctly.391 In taking this stance, Contarini was acting consistently with long-​held convictions. His sense of the inadequacy of human merit and the need to rely upon Christ’s atoning passion is found in his early letters to Paulo Giustiniani.392 From this I conclude that any man that lives is but nothingness and that we must justify ourselves through the justice of another, namely Christ. Joining ourselves to him, his justice becomes ours. We must not trust ourselves at all but say: “For ourselves we could find no outcome but death.”393

Gropper, in his Enchiridion, sought to answer the objection that including inner renewal and the infusion of a good will within justification will undermine assurance of reconciliation with God, since we can never love God with all of our heart and soul.394 In responding, he does not deny the imperfection of our love and good works, but our confidence that we are justified is not derived from the worth of our renewal, repentance, or contrition. Our confidence is not in our own deeds but “in the defence of our advocate.”395 He quotes Bernard to the effect that “our whole confidence, our unique comfort and the whole reason for our hope” rests on (consistit) God’s promise and mercy.396 He also states that for justification it does not suffice merely to believe in general terms that the forgiveness of sins is given on account of Christ to those who truly repent; it is also necessary to believe that one’s own sins are forgiven on account of Christ through faith. With the support of Bernard, he claims “sins are forgiven to no one, unless they believe themselves to have obtained forgiveness through Christ.”397 How can I determine that God is 391 CC 7:31–​32. 392 Contarini to Giustiniani Letters 2 and 30 (24 April 1511; 7 February 1523) in Jedin, “Contarini und Camaldoli,” 64, 117; Gleason (ed.), Reform Thought in Sixteenth-​Century Italy, 25–​26,  32–​33. 393 Gleason (ed.), Reform Thought in Sixteenth-​Century Italy, 33. 394 Enchiridion, 167a–​b. 395 Enchiridion, 167b. 396 Enchiridion, 169b. 397 Enchiridion, 168b–​169a; cf. 137a. It is not true, however, that all who believe their sins to be forgiven through Christ are in fact forgiven, the counter-​example being heretics who are “extra ecclesiam,” and so lack love (169b). The passage from Bernard is from Sermones in annuntione domini

204  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification well-​disposed towards me when I am so imperfect and so weak? Not because of the value of my faith or my works. “For who would presume that their own wisdom, or righteousness, or holiness is sufficient for salvation?” Our confidence lies in the passion and the blood of Christ shed for us.398 Similar material from Bernard is quoted, more briefly, in the Worms Draft §§35–​37, 42 and repeated in Gropper’s Draft §28–​30, 27. In the latter, it is also taught that “our entire confidence” is in Christ’s death and resurrection and that he shares his righteousness by gratuitous imputation with those who believe in him (§3), the Worms Draft containing only the first part of this (§42). The Worms Draft also affirms that the foundation of faith is Christ’s perfect and absolute righteousness, on which it wholly depends (innititur) (§34). The influence of the Regensburg debates can be seen in Gropper’s Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma. We are to rely and trust principally on the imputed righteousness of Christ. Because inherent righteousness is imperfect, we are not to rely primarily on it, but the inward experience of it is proof that we are forgiven, that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us and that he dwells in us by faith. Our inner renewal through love is a pledge (arrabonis—​Eph 1:14) or, at least, a taste of forgiveness and imputed righteousness.399 Gropper draws short of Contarini’s position, that our trust should be in imputed righteousness alone, but he draws near to it. Imputed righteousness does not merely supplement inherent righteousness. It is the former that we trust, though with a subsidiary confirmatory role for the latter. He expounds this further in a section on double trust or certainty (Von zweierlei vertrauwen oder sicherheit).400 Our confidence in the forgiveness of sins (fiducia remissionis peccatorum) is based only and entirely on the Lord Jesus Christ and his merit. But alongside this there is the confidence of a good conscience (fiducia bonae conscientiae), as described in 1 John 3:18–​22, 2:5, 4:16–​17; 2 Corinthians 1:12. The people are to be taught about this double trust.401 Gropper offers a summary of this teaching: 1:3. For Bernard on this topic, cf. Lane, Calvin and Bernard of Clairvaux, 64–​68. Bellarmine criticises auctor Enchiridii Coloniensis for teaching not just that it is possible to know that one’s sins are forgiven but that this is necessary for forgiveness, quoting from 168b. “Certe in modo loquendi doctrinam Melanchthonis, et Buceri valde redolet” (De iustificatione 3:3 in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini Tomus Quartus, 949). 398 Enchiridion, 170a. 399 Gegenberichtung, 20a–​b; Antididagma, 13b–​14a. Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 145, badly misrepresents Gropper here, stating that there is no longer any mention of the imperfection of inherent righteousness in the Gegenberichtung. 400 Gegenberichtung, 20b–​21b; Antididagma,  14a–​b. 401 Gegenberichtung, 20b–​21a; Antididagma, 14a–​ b. The Latin phrases are found in the Gegenberichtung. The “zweierlei vertrauwen” of Gegenberichtung, 21a, is mistranslated as “duplici ista iustitia” in Antididagma, 14b.

Text and Commentary, §5:1  205 To sum up, the true Christian ought to place all of his confidence for the forgiveness of sins in Christ alone. At the same time he should make such a confidence in forgiveness sure and certain through the confidence of a good conscience. Christ alone is our physician, from whom alone health is to be hoped for, expected and sought. If we want to experience with certainty in ourselves whether we have truly received this health or not, we must truly examine our consciences and do what the Lord says: rise up, take up your bed and walk.402

This secondary role of the confidence of a good conscience was important for Gropper, as he goes on to criticise the Einfaltigs Bedencken for failing to mention it.403 The Leuven theology faculty was not happy with Gropper’s position but particularly objected to the idea that “we should not rely (innitimur) primarily on inherent righteousness, because it is imperfect,” and to the subsidiary role given to the confidence of a good conscience in the passage just quoted.404 Gropper again defends the Antididagma, devoting more space to this article than to the other three put together. Much of this space is given to patristic citation, from Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Mark the Hermit, Leo, and, especially, Augustine and Bernard.405 What can be said more clearly than all these words to prove that we should not rely primarily upon our own inherent righteousness, but on Christ’s perfect righteousness, which becomes ours by imputation and which makes good (supplet) the imperfection of our own righteousness?406

Gropper’s argument is based on the imperfection of inherent righteousness, on which see §6. Gropper further defends this position in his Apologia. Here he repeatedly affirms that we should rely principally on imputed righteousness, because

402 Gegenberichtung, 21a–​b; Antididagma, 14b. 403 Gegenberichtung, 21b–​22a; Antididagma, 15a, to which Bucer responds in Bestendige Verantwortung, 44b–​45b; Constans Defensio,  92–​93. 404 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207 (the fourth article), quoting Antididagma, 13b; Gegenberichtung, 20a. Cf. Gegenberichtung, 21a–​b; Antididagma, 14b. In their 9 July letter to the Cologne theology faculty, the Leuven theological faculty objected to Gropper’s failure to mention a fiducia operum, to which the Cologne faculty responded (Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” 13, 15). 405 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 213–​19. 406 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 217.

206  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification of the imperfection of inherent righteousness, and rejects Protestant claims that Catholics relied solely on inherent righteousness.407 He also refers to a double confidence (duplex fiducia) in slightly different terms from those that he has previously used. Our primary trust is in the mercy of God, but there is a secondary trust in the testimony of a good conscience.408 The Apologia ends with the Articuli Antididagmatis, thus reaffirming all that Gropper had there stated on this issue. Pighius, in his Controversies, touches on this issue. Our hope of acquiring salvation from God lies not in our works, not in our righteousness, but simply in God’s mercy that forgives our sins. Romans 4:6–​ 8 implies that we are to rely (niti) on no other righteousness than God imputes to us, apart from our works.409 We are to seek righteousness not in our works (as did the Pharisee in the parable), but in Christ’s blood. Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith means justification by trust (fiducia) in Christ and his blood.410 The Tridentine Decree on Justification, like Article 5, teaches that Christians should never rely (confidat) or glory in themselves rather than in the Lord (ch. 16). But, unlike Article 5, this is not based on any admission as to the imperfection of works. Seripando’s attempts to incorporate such an admission were repeatedly thwarted.411 After justification, “we are not merely considered to be righteous but are truly called righteous and are righteous” (ch. 7). This does not favour the idea of relying only upon Christ’s righteousness given to us. Bellarmine, in his Controversy on Justification, defends the Tridentine decree and argues that the confidence of believers is born not of faith alone but of good merits. But having done this, he concludes that “on account of the uncertainty of our own righteousness and the danger of vain glory it is safest to repose one’s entire confidence in the mercy and kindness of God alone.”412 Bucer responds to the charge of Gropper’s Gegenberichtung/​ Antididagma413 in his Bestendiger Verantwortung, complaining as ever 407 JGB 2:610–​11, 613. 408 JGB 2:614–​15. 409 Controversiarum, 37b. 410 Controversiarum, 49b. 411 See c­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 179–​205. 412 Bellarmine, De Iustificatione 5:7 in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini Tomus Quartus, 1092–​96, a passage that has been much quoted over the centuries. Bellarmine followed his own advice since in his will he beseeches God “not as the valewer of merit, but as a giver of pardon, to admit me among His Saints and Elect” (Brodrick, Robert Bellarmine, 2:441). 413 At n. 403, above.

Text and Commentary, §5:1  207 that the other side were seeking a quarrel with no good cause.414 Gropper had quoted 1 John 3:18–​22, 2:5, 4:16–​17, and 2 Corinthians 1:12, 13:5.415 Bucer acknowledges these passages but denies that they teach a confidence of the good conscience (vertrauwen des guten gewissens /​ fiducia bonae conscientiae). He argues that they teach the need to perform good works and the importance of self-​examination.416 Scripture says absolutely nothing about putting our confidence (vertrauwen/​fiducia) in a good conscience, but commends rather the role of conscience as a witness.417 Bucer’s own position amounts to two points: His first point is that because of the imperfection of works (conceded by the other side) the only ground to stand before God on the day of judgement is through trusting in the forgiveness of sins. We are to depend on the grace of God and the merit of Christ alone. Before God’s judgement seat our total trust must be in God’s grace. We are to depend (beruwen/​inniti) only and entirely on the free grace of God and the merit of Christ, not on any of our works, nor on any witness of our conscience or our good deeds, since these remain imperfect and defective. Our conscience cannot testify that we have wholly obeyed God’s commandments. Therefore, our whole trust remains always in the grace of God and the merit of Christ, on which we depend. Our confidence, our peace of conscience, faced with the last judgement, is in God’s grace and the merit of Christ, on which alone we are to depend. The good working of the Holy Spirit in us is a sign and a proof of this grace.418 Trusting in Christ and trusting in our conscience or works are as compatible as fire and water.419 Bucer remains faithful here to the teaching and wording of §5:1 (“tamen anima fidelis huic non innititur, sed soli iustitiae Christi nobis donatae”).420 Bucer is also willing to concede (the second of his two points) that we are to examine ourselves to see the work of the Spirit producing love and obedience to God’s commands and that although these are imperfect they are the “seal and affirmation of divine adoption and of the inheritance of eternal life.”421 These two points are answers to two different questions. Regarding the basis of our acceptance by God, the answer is that this is on the basis of 414 Bestendige Verantwortung, 43b–​46b; Constans Defensio, 90–​94. Quotation at 43b/​90. 415 Gegenberichtung, 20b–​21a; Antididagma,  14a–​b. 416 Bestendige Verantwortung, 43b–​44a; Constans Defensio,  90–​91. 417 Bestendige Verantwortung, 45b; Constans Defensio, 93. 418 Bestendige Verantwortung, 44a–​b; Constans Defensio,  91–​92. 419 Bestendige Verantwortung, 45b; Constans Defensio, 93. 420 The words inniti and nititur come three times in Constans Defensio, 91–​92. He also reaffirms this part of §5:1 in DVRC, 179a–​b. 421 Bestendige Verantwortung, 43b–​44b; Constans Defensio, 90–​92. Quotation at 44b/​92.

208  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification God’s grace and Christ’s merit alone, received by faith. But how can we be sure that we have genuine faith, that we are not among those who falsely presume upon a dead faith? It is in answer to this question that Bucer acknowledges a role for the testimonium bonae conscientiae.422 Bucer distinguishes between confidence in the forgiveness of sins as the basis for our standing before God and the testimony of a good conscience as the confirmation that we have true faith. Gropper uses the word fiducia for both, but is his doctrine actually different? In the section from the Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma cited above he states that confidence in the forgiveness of sins should be placed in Christ alone. But the confidence of a good conscience is needed to make this certain and indubitable.423 Bucer is very critical of the idea that confidence (fiducia) in Christ can be uncertain and doubtful,424 but here he is failing to read Gropper carefully—​or unwilling to expound him accurately. Gropper goes on to state that it is Christ alone who can heal us, but that the confidence of a good conscience has a role in establishing whether we have yet received his healing. This is precisely the context in which Bucer allows a role for the testimony of a good conscience.425 He concedes that the passages cited by Gropper teach that such a working of the Holy Spirit in us and the good witness of our consciences bring us a confidence in God’s grace and a peace so that in every affliction we can call confidently upon God and beseech from him whatever may be good for us and also stand fast in his final judgement.426

The difference between the two theologians here amounts to little more than whether the role of the good conscience should be described as fiducia or testimonium. Here, as elsewhere in this exchange, Gropper and Bucer were both picking a fight.427 Their exchange produced more heat than light, and 422 Bestendige Verantwortung, 43b–​44b, 46a; Constans Defensio, 90–​91, 94. 423 Gegenberichtung, 20b–​21b; Antididagma, 14a–​b, cited at n.  401. In his response to the Leuven theology faculty Gropper speaks of the need for “iustitiam inhaerentem certificare nos de remissione peccatorum, quae fit sola imputatione iustitiae Christi” (“Articuli antididagmatis,” 219, my emphasis). Later he again teaches that we may not presume that our sins are forgiven through imputed righteousness unless this is certified by the experience of inner renewal and love (“Articuli antididagmatis,” 221, where there is a word missing from the manuscript (Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, Nachlaß Pflug, Katalog p. 23 L, 51b)), perhaps because it is hard to read. 424 Bestendige Verantwortung, 45b–​46a; Constans Defensio, 93. 425 Bestendige Verantwortung, 43b–​44b, 46a; Constans Defensio, 90–​91, 94. 426 Bestendige Verantwortung, 44a; Constans Defensio, 91. 427 Bucer repeatedly accuses Gropper of this (Bestendige Verantwortung, 41a, 42a, 42b, 43b, 53b; Constans Defensio, 86, 87, 88, 90, 105)  but on this point sees genuine ground for disagreement (Bestendige Verantwortung, 44b–​45a, 46a–​b; Constans Defensio, 92, 94).

Text and Commentary, §5:1  209 an essential agreement on content was masked by a deliberate focus on differences in terminology. The dispute shows the extent to which Bucer and Gropper had lost the will to seek common ground and were beginning to polarise even at points where there was no substantial difference. Matters were to get worse the following year. In Gropper’s Artikell all mention of relying on imputed righteousness disappeared.428 The observation that the debate was degenerating into an argument about words is not of recent origin. Melanchthon, in his Iudicium (which concludes Bucer’s Constans Defensio and comments on the Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma) noted that “the confidence of a good conscience does not establish the acceptance (acceptatione) of the person, but only of individual works,” and also noted the unreliability of judging oneself. But granted that, his view was that “this article in the Cologne writing [Gegenberichtung] is consistent (congruit) with the true way of thinking and with ours.” “It may be that this man [Gropper], being contentious and seeking a battle over the form of words, can make a great scene over it (‘magnas tragoedias movere posset’), but where the substance is concerned, I do not seek endless brawls.”429 Perhaps because he, unlike Bucer, was not involved in a fiery dispute with Gropper, Melanchthon was able on this occasion to remain more detached than Bucer and to recognise where verbal differences did not reflect substantial differences—​a reversal of their respective roles at Regensburg! While Gropper squabbled with Bucer over the existence of a confidence of a good conscience, he faced a more substantive challenge from the Leuven theology faculty. In the Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma he continued to maintain the position of the Enchiridion, not found in Article 5, that the receptive cause (causa susceptiva) of justification is a faith which includes the conviction that one’s sins are forgiven.430 This did not meet with the approval of the Leuven faculty, who objected to the claim that justification comes “through faith, by which without doubt we are firmly assured (firmiter confidimus) that to us, who have true repentance, our sins are forgiven on account of Christ.”431 Gropper is unrepentant and defends his view from Scripture (Rom 4; Gal 3:14; Acts 10:43; Heb 4:16; Eph 3:12) and tradition (Hilary, Ambrose, 428 Warhafftige Antwort, 9b–​10a (the articles Von der rechtfertigung des menschen and Von den guten wercken). 429 Constans Defensio, 479. Melanchthon’s Iudicium (473–​82) is not found in the Bestendige Verantwortung. 430 Gegenberichtung, 19b; Antididagma, 13b–​14a. 431 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207 (the second article), quoting Antididagma, 13b.

210  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Augustine, and especially Bernard—​quotation from Bernard takes up about half of Gropper’s total response).432 In his Institutio Catholica, Gropper becomes more polemical over the issue of fiducia, repeatedly citing Bernard’s reference to a faithless trust (infidelis fiducia). Bernard was referring to those who trust in their salvation without an inner renewal. Gropper sees this error in the Lutherans, who teach that we are justified solely by trust in God’s mercy, without regard for obedience or love.433 True faith (as opposed to Lutheran presumption) requires obedience and love.434 Gropper returns to this issue in a shorter defence of his teaching at the end of his life.435 Here, echoing Trent, he claims that all his books repudiate the belief that one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has been justified. When Paul says that we are justified by faith, this faith does not signify such a certainty. Catholic faith, by which we believe “to be true what God has revealed and promised” is (as in the Tridentine decree) to be distinguished from hope and confidence (fiducia) by which someone is assured that their sins are forgiven. Here Trent is doubtless following Augustine, Bernard, and other Fathers in teaching that we should place all our hope and certainty in the precious blood of Christ. The Lutherans slanderously accuse Trent of leaving us in doubt, whereas it teaches that we can have hope and a specific confidence (fiducia specialis) that our sins are forgiven, albeit subject to error. Gropper concludes by rejecting accusations based on things that he had written before, not after, the Tridentine decree and in submission [to the judgement of Rome].436 For more on this theme, see on §6. Pflug continued after Regensburg to hold to the imperfection of inherent righteousness. He held that justification includes both forgiveness and renewal. There is a genuine inner righteousness from the Spirit, but this is not so perfect that we no longer need the mercy of God and the merits of Christ.437 We should rely not upon our own merits, since the righteousness infused in us is imperfect, but on Christ’s merits.438 As late as 1562, he was arguing that we should not follow the arrogance of the Pharisee, who 432 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 209–​11. 433 Institutio Catholica, 552–​53, 562–​64, citing Bernard, Sermo 3:3 in annunitatione domini. 434 Institutio Catholica, 564–​67. 435 Schwarz, “Römische Beiträge zu Joh. Groppers Leben und Wirken,” 594–​607, with the text itself on 598–​606. 436 Schwarz, “Römische Beiträge zu Joh. Groppers Leben und Wirken,” 604–​606, citing the Tridentine Decree on Justification 9, 12, 6. 437 In his 1548 work on the Interim Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 73–​74). Cf. ibid., 88. 438 In the dialogue with two Lutherans (ibid., 76–​78).

Text and Commentary, §5:1  211 depended (nitebatur) on his own innocence for the hope of salvation, but the humility of the publican, who placed his trust in God’s mercy. Our righteousness is not perfect in this life, and through the Holy Spirit we believe in God and place our hope and trust in him.439 Bucer in 1545 commented that the dispute over justification at the colloquies was not about the necessity of rebirth and obedience for salvation, nor about God’s promise to reward such obedience, none of which the Protestants questioned. The point at issue was rather whether we should trust the righteousness that we have in us through the new birth before God’s judgement to obtain forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Or should our confidence and hope of eternal life be based only on the merit and obedience of Christ, which he has bestowed on us together with all his righteousness?440 Bucer was right in his identification of the key issue, and here Article 5 unequivocally opts for the second of his alternatives. Calvin would be in complete agreement with the statement in this sentence that our trust should not be in any inherent righteousness but only in Christ’s (imputed) righteousness given to us. In his doctrine of assurance he was emphatic that we place our trust in Christ and not on anything in ourselves.441 In his will, made at the end of his life, he testified that “I have no other defense or refuge for salvation than his gratuitous adoption, on which alone my salvation depends (nititur).”442 Also, because of his imperfections, “I testify and declare that I trust to no other security for my salvation than this, and this only, viz., that as God is the Father of mercy, he will show himself such a Father to me, who acknowledge myself to be a miserable sinner.”443 As regards the testimony of a good conscience, Calvin recognised a role for this so long as it was strictly subordinated to our primary trust in Christ alone.444 Lexutt interprets §5:1 to mean that the righteousness that is credited for salvation is not a iustitia aliena extra nos but is one that active in us and at the same time a quality in us.445 That there is such a righteousness in the believer is clearly taught; that it is this righteousness that is credited for salvation is clearly denied (§§4:6; 5:2). It is true that §5:3 taken on its own could imply 439 Institutio Christiani Hominis, 116, 119. Cf. ibid., 45. 440 Von den einigen rechten wegen,  57–​58. 441 For a discussion of these issues, see Lane, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Assurance Revisited,” especially 275–​83. 442 CTS 1:lxxxvi; CO 21:162. 443 CTS 1:lxxxvii; CO 21:163. 444 See Lane, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Assurance Revisited,” 277–​79. 445 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 255–​56.

212  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification the opposite, but to take it to mean that our standing before God is on the basis of good works is both to go beyond what it says and to contradict the explicit teaching of other parts of the article. §5:2. Et sic fide in Christum iustificamur seu reputamur iusti, id est accepti pera ipsius merita, non propter nostram dignitatem autb opera. And thus by faith in Christ we are justified or reckoned to be righteous, that is we are accepted through his merits and not on account of our own worthiness or works.

a: CR 10:114, HAB: propter b: Disp: et Again, justification is defined as being reckoned as righteous, being accepted on the basis of Christ’s merits not our own worth or works, on which see on §4:6. Bucer, in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, reaffirms the teaching of this sentence, without explicitly citing it.446 §5:3. Et propter inhaerentem iustitiam eoa iusti dicimur, quia quae iusta sunt operamur, iuxta illud Ioannis: Qui facit iustitiam iustus est [1 Ioan. 3:7]. And on account of the righteousness inherent in us we are said to be righteous, because the works which we perform are righteous, according to the saying of John: “whoever does what is right is righteous” [I John 3:7].

a: HAB om. The central issue of this sentence is the affirmation that we perform righteous works and so are called righteous. On this, see the discussion of inherent righteousness in c­ hapter 4, and under §5:1. Gropper in his Enchiridion teaches a second justification, a completion of the righteousness of Christ communicated to us, which is by works, as stated in James 2:14–​26,447 and this also appears in the Worms Draft §§52–​71 (= Gropper’s Draft §§7–​11, 13–​20, 22–​27, 42–​43). After the colloquy, Gropper cited 1 John 3:7 in this context, in his Warhafftige Antwort.448

446

DVRC, 205b. Enchiridion, 174a–​76b. 448 Warhafftige Antwort, 24b, building on the Artikell (10a). 447

Text and Commentary, §5:3  213 Contarini, in his Epistola, also speaks of a justification by works in that the initial justification is made plain (ostenditur) by the works that follow, appealing to James 2:14–​26.449 Eck cited I John 3:7 in his Enchiridion,450 so it is possible that he was the one who proposed its inclusion here. The Tridentine Decree on Justification supports this sentence. After justification, “we are not merely considered to be righteous but are truly called righteous and are righteous” (ch. 7). Our works are certainly righteous, given that they “truly merit eternal life” (ch. 16). Melanchthon, in his Apology, acknowledges the existence of an “imperfect righteousness of the law.”451 Article 6 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession affirms that “when we are reconciled by faith, a righteousness of good works (iustitia bonorum operum) ought to follow” and even presents a form of double righteousness: “the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of good works.” It also twice states that God reckons our obedience as righteousness.452 Melanchthon also cited I John 3:7 in the section Von vergebung der sünden und unser rechtfertigung, which he composed for the Einfaltigs Bedencken, in a passage teaching that Christians receive the gift of the Spirit and should bear fruit in good works.453 Luther, in his 1536 Disputation concerning Justification, makes a statement that is similar to this sentence. He draws a contrast between righteousness before God (coram Deo) and righteousness before people (coram hominibus). In God’s eyes, we are justified by Christ alone, through faith alone (as stated in §5:2). But because of the danger of hypocrisy we need to demonstrate this righteousness by its fruit: outward works which follow from love. We are actually justified by faith; we are seen to be justified by works of love (as stated in §5:3).454 He comes even closer to the wording here in his debate with Melanchthon shortly after this disputation, where he states that having been put right with God by mercy alone, the believer is said to be righteous by the work or fruits that God requires and rewards.455 449 CC 7:33–​34. 450 Eck, Enchiridion locorum communium, 89; Enchiridion of Commonplaces, 53. 451 BSELK 339; Kolb and Wengert 149. 452 BSELK QuM1:126. 453 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 44a, in the context of 43a–​44b; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 35a. 454 WA 39/​I:91–​93; LW 34:160–​62. 455 Bindseil (ed.), Philippi Melanchthonis Epistolae, Iudicia, Consilia, Testimonia aliorumque ad eum Epistolae quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur, 345; WA Br. 12:191.

214  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Bucer, in his Romans Commentary, argues that those who are justified at the same time receive the Spirit and, though they fall short in many ways, are seen as righteous by others.456 In his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, he reaffirms this sentence.457 Neuser sees this sentence as the Catholic corrective (Korrektur),458 which is true in the sense that Catholics were keen to affirm it, but not in the sense that Protestants were reluctant. Calvin had already, in 1539, acknowledged that believers are called righteous because of their holiness of life, as well as imputed righteousness.459 This he conceded both in the light of the “countless” passages of Scripture that speak this way, and on the basis of his doctrine of double justification, described in ­chapter 4. At the Worms Colloquy, immediately prior to Regensburg, Calvin raised the issue of whether our incomplete (inchoata) and imperfect righteousness pleases God in its own right, without participation in the perfect righteousness of Christ, and concludes, of course, that it does not. He acknowledges that there is a righteousness of works, but it must be subordinated to the righteousness of faith.460 Stupperich comments that the emphasis on love in §4 is with the aim of involving works in justification. He sees in the present sentence both double justification and justification by faith and works (as in the Worms Draft).461 That teaching was certainly found in the Worms Draft, and it was doubtless held by some of the Catholic party, but it is not taught in the final form of the article. Lexutt interprets this sentence to mean that in the last resort it is not the righteousness of Christ that is credited for salvation but that which this righteousness achieves in the believer.462 As has already been noted on §5:1, that is not what this sentence states, and it is contradicted by the rest of Article 5. The key point is whether this sentence supports the Catholic idea of gratia gratum faciens, that the function of grace is to bestow or infuse the gift of love and that it is because of this love that we now become acceptable to God. It is easy to see that someone reading this sentence out of context could take it that way, but is that what the article really teaches? First, the sentence says no more than that the one who performs righteous deeds is rightly called righteous. In 456 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 10. 457 DVRC, 178a–​79a. 458 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 188. 459 Institutio 3:17:10. 460 Neuser (ed.), Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg, 129, 131 (Wolfgang Musculus’s Protocol for 9 November 1540). ADRG 2/​1:475. Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 178–​83, draws out the implications of this. 461 Stupperich, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen, 122–​23. 462 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 256. Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 198–​ 99, responds.

Text and Commentary, §5:3–§6:1  215 itself, this says nothing about the basis for our acceptance by God. Where that is concerned, the article is perfectly clear that it is on the basis of imputed and not imparted righteousness that we are accepted by God (§§3:6; 4:4, 6; 5:1–​2). From this point on there is little in the article that is not drawn from Gropper’s Draft, and most of it is taken verbatim. §6:1. Et quanquam in renatis semper crescere debent timor Dei, patientiaa etb humilitas et aliae virtutes, cum renovatio sit imperfecta et haereat in eis ingens infirmitas, tamen docendum est, ut qui vere poenitent semper fide certissima statuantc se propter mediatorem Christum Deo placere, quia Christus est propitiator, pontifex et interpellator pro nobis, quem pater donavit nobis et omnia bona cum illo [Rom 8:32]. Although fear of God, patience, humility, and other virtues ought always to grow in the regenerate, because this renewal is imperfect and enormous weakness remains in them, it should nevertheless be taught that those who truly repent may always hold with most certain faith that they are pleasing to God on account of Christ the mediator. For it is Christ who is the propitiator, the High Priest and the one who prays for us, the one the Father gave to us and with him all good things [Rom 8:32].

a: CR 4:200, CR 10:114, HAB: poenitentia b: HAB: om. c: CR 10:114: sentiant We saw that §5:1 teaches that we are to depend not on inherent but imputed righteousness. Why should this be so? The answer is found in the present paragraph, which points to the imperfection of inherent righteousness. Gropper, in his Enchiridion, also spoke about the importance of growth in righteousness.463 “After justification faith should not slumber, but be kept more and more busy.”464 There needs to be a continual and perpetual increase (auctione) in justification, perfection being reserved for the life of the age to come.465 But while Gropper emphasised that justification involves an

463

Enchiridion, 168a. Enchiridion, 170b. 465 Enchiridion, 174a–​b. 464

216  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification inner renewal, he was equally clear that in this life our righteousness is always imperfect: Our good works are imperfect, even if done through faith, and unless they have been done in Christ cannot escape the accusation of the law, which requires perfect obedience. Therefore we should take care to hold fast to the idea that they always need to be joined with faith, on the basis of which we believe that although they remain imperfect they please God, not on account of us but on account of Christ, in whom they are done, since we have already been made members of Christ and children of God.466

Despite the imperfection of our righteousness, assurance is possible. Citing Bernard, Gropper points out that Christ’s merits are ours, and that our hope is in his death. Our trust is in the promise and mercy of God.467 The Worms Draft likewise refers to the need for growth (§§57, 63). It also teaches that certainty of forgiveness should not be hindered by the “contemplation of the imperfection of our righteousness” (§§48, 54–​56). The entire paragraph 6, however, is taken from Gropper’s Draft §37, with just two variations: in Gropper’s Draft the initial word is “Itaque” rather than “Et,” and his draft also (like CR 4:200) has “penitencia” in place of “patientia.” Lugioyo sees the change from Gropper’s Draft as “eliminating a Gropperian sacramental slant.”468 In Gropper’s Draft, §§35–​40 are composed entirely of material from the Worms Draft, apart from the heading of §35 and some new material added in §37. Significantly, paragraph 6 comprises all the of the new material in §37 and none of the material taken from the Worms Draft—​a pattern that is repeated in §7 and §8:1. This illustrates the extent to which Gropper’s Draft did, and the Worms Draft did not, significantly affect the final version. After Regensburg, Gropper continued to affirm the imperfection of inherent righteousness. He affirms it clearly in the Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma,469 and this was one of the four articles that Gropper defended in his Articuli Antididagmatis against the accusations from Leuven.470 He also repeatedly affirms it in his Apologia,471 the end of which reproduces the Articuli Antididagmatis. 466 Enchiridion, 167b–​68a, 174b, quotation at 174b. Earlier he acknowledges that God “digna reputat” our imperfect works and “imputat” merit to them, going on to note that “recentiores” call this meritum condigni (133a). While Gropper does not appropriate the language of condignity for himself, he goes on to talk of a merit “non ex dignitate operis, sed ex gratia dei et merito Christi.” 467 Enchiridion, 168b–​170a. 468 Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 199. 469 Gegenberichtung, 13b; Antididagma, 20a. 470 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207, 213–​22. 471 JGB 2:609–​20.

Text and Commentary, §6:1  217 Contarini, in his Epistola, stresses the need for growth in grace,472 and also the imperfection of our inherent righteousness.473 The more we progress in holiness, the more aware we become of our sin and the more displeased with ourselves.474 Yet assurance is possible by relying not on our imperfect inherent righteousness but upon the imputed righteousness of Christ “as on something stable which will certainly hold us up.”475 The citation of Romans 8:32 is also paralleled.476 Eck’s Draft also refers to growth in grace (§§3, 5). It proceeds to state that “this righteousness communicated by the Father to the son as he returns is imperfect in us according to the state of this life, since it is absolute and perfect only in Christ, in whom is the fullness of grace, truth and righteousness” (§4). Elsewhere, he is ambivalent about the idea of sins remaining in those who are holy (in sanctis), and distinguishes between those [venial] sins by which grace is not lost and those [mortal] sins which drive it out.477 In his December 1540 report/​opinion on the Augsburg Confession, he abhors the idea that we are justified only by a faith that believes that God looks favourably upon us through Christ. Such a statement will be twisted by ordinary folk, and they will imagine that one can be saved by a faith that believes that Christ has offered satisfaction for them even if they have no experience of the renewal of the Spirit or the fruit of good works.478 The Tridentine Decree on Justification also teaches a growth in righteousness (ch. 10), but without the teaching on the imperfection of inherent righteousness or the possibility of relying upon imputed righteousness. The sufficiency not just of inherent righteousness but of works is forcefully stated: We must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited (vere promeruisse) eternal life, to be obtained also in its due time, so long as they depart in a state of grace. (ch. 16) 472 CC 7:33. 473 CC 7:29. For the linking of these two ideas in Contarini, see Maffeis, “La teologia paulina nella riforma cattolica del XVI secolo,” 303–​304. 474 CC 7:30. 475 CC 7:29–​31. 476 CC 7:28. 477 Apologia, 148a (sig. n4a). 478 ARC 3:307; ADRG 2/​I:542. (Different manuscripts have a different reading.) For more on this,

218  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification This has significant implications for the possibility of assurance of justification. While Article 5 seeks to safeguard the possibility of assurance, the Tridentine decree was forthright in rejecting the Protestant view (ch. 9; cf. can. 13–​14). The idea of Christ as propitiator is found in Gropper’s Enchiridion,479 as in the Worms Draft §61 (quoting 1 John 2:2). This and the next paragraph contain an acknowledgement of ongoing need of the Christian for mercy, the belief that was so important for the Italian spirituali, and which Seripando tried unsuccessfully to have incorporated into the Tridentine decree. The Protestants, however, felt that this point could be made more clearly. Melanchthon wanted it to be made clearer “that the regenerate do not satisfy the law, and are unable to do so in this life” and “that sin remains in those who are holy (in sanctis), and how our incomplete (inchoata) obedience might be pleasing [to God].”480 Despite Melanchthon’s fears, this was not a contested issue in the aftermath of the colloquy. In the Einfaltigs Bedencken, Melanchthon stressed the need for imputed righteousness because of the imperfection of our own virtue, appealing to Psalm 143:2, Isaiah 64:6, 1 Corinthians 1:30, and Philippians 3:9.481 Gropper does not dissent from this in the Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma. He affirms a role for “works of repentance and of mercy towards one’s neighbour” but qualifies this: it is not because of the worth of such works but on account of the merit of Christ’s blood that our sins are forgiven and our works are made acceptable to God in faith.482 The reason we should depend primarily upon imputed rather than inherent righteousness is that the latter is imperfect.483 Indeed, Bucer bears witness that in Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma his opponents acknowledged that “all our works, so long as we are in this flesh, are imperfect and defective.”484 He himself continues to affirm this as a vital doctrine.485 Gropper’s teaching on the imperfection of inherent righteousness did not please the Leuven theology faculty, who objected to the idea that “we

see on §10, below. 479 Enchiridion, 166a, 171b. 480 CR 4:417–​18, 430, 485–​86, 500 (ADRG 3/​II:541, 537, 627, 616). Cruciger (CR 4:433; ADRG 3/​II:527), Cellarius (ADRG 3/​II:499) and Johannes Amsterdamus (ADRG 3/​II:489) all seek clarification on this point. Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole, 42–​43, responds to this. 481 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 42b–​43a; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 33a–​b. Similarly, 41a/​32a. 482 Gegenberichtung, 15b; Antididagma, 10b. 483 Gegenberichtung, 20a; Antididagma, 13b. 484 Bestendige Verantwortung, 44a; Constans Defensio, 91. 485 Bestendige Verantwortung, 44a–​b; Constans Defensio, 91; Wie leicht unnd füglich, 19; Von den

Text and Commentary, §6:1  219 do not depend (innitimur) principally on inherent righteousness, because it is imperfect.”486 As noted under §5:1, Gropper defends his belief in the imperfection of inherent righteousness. He claims that the statement to which the faculty objected, far from deviating from Catholic teaching, contains the whole quintessence (medulla) of it. Christian wisdom teaches that the infused righteousness that we receive from God is not sufficient for salvation, unless made good through the perfect righteousness of Christ.487 He defends this claim with extensive citation from the fathers (Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Mark the Hermit, Leo, and, especially, Augustine and Bernard).488 But in 1545, in his Warhafftige Antwort, Gropper denies that Philippians 3:9 refers to imputed righteousness, though without actually denying the imperfection of inherent righteousness (see on §3:6).489 In the Artikell, the teaching of §§6–​8 on growth, works, and cooperation with grace is repeated, but the idea of confidence before God has dropped out.490 Bucer reaffirms §6 in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione.491 As regards the role of Christ, he notes that God justifies us on account of the satisfaction and merit of Christ.492 Many of the themes of this sentence are found in Melanchthon’s Apology. He repeatedly states that the Holy Spirit produces in us the fear of God.493 He also refers to patience, which is listed as a virtue.494 There must be increase and growth in keeping the law.495 The imperfection of this renewal is also a theme that runs throughout the whole of Article 4 in the Apology. In particular, he states that our fear of God and patience always fall short.496 einigen rechten wegen, 58, where he insists that even the most godly still need to pray Psalm 143:2. 486 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 207 (the fourth article). Cf. Antididagma, 13b; Gegenberichtung, 20a. 487 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 213, which reads “summa” where the manuscript reads “medulla” (Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, Nachlaß Pflug, Katalog p. 23 L, 46b): “Hic sane articulus tam non est recedens a doctrina catholica, ut potius in eo fere tota illius medulla sita est. Haec est enim proprie sapientia christianorum scire, quod nostra iustitia etiam a Deo nobis infusa non est sufficiens ad salutem nisi suppleta per iustitiam Christi consummatam.” 488 “Articuli antididagmatis,” 213–​19. 489 Warhafftige Antwort, 24a. 490 Warhafftige Antwort, 10a (the article Von den guten wercken). 491 DVRC, 191a–​b. 492 DVRC, 164a. 493 e.g. BSELK 285, 319, 323, 325; Kolb and Wengert 127, 140–​42 (4:45, 125, 135, 141). 494 BSELK 327; Kolb and Wengert 143 (4:151). There are repeated references to the cultivation of virtues in LT43 S3a, T6b, V1b, a1b, a5a, a6a; LC43 86, 92–​93, 109–​111. In the first of these, LC43 translates “virtutes” as “powers.” 495 BSELK 319, 323; Kolb and Wengert 140, 142 (4:124, 136). See also Article 20 of the 154 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession (BSELK QuM1:135–​37). 496 BSELK 337; Kolb and Wengert 148 (4:167). Referring to fear only, see BSELK 387; Kolb and Wengert 169 (4:342).

220  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification He also describes our keeping of the law as imperfect,497 and as weak and feeble.498 The ideas of Christ as Mediator and Propitiator and High Priest are all found frequently,499 and all three are once juxtaposed.500 Calvin was as concerned as the Catholics about the need for growth. Indeed, the very structure of his Institutio, discussing regeneration before justification, was designed to demonstrate first of all “how little devoid (otiosa) of good works is the faith, through which alone we obtain free righteousness by the mercy of God.”501 That our renewal remains imperfect and that it is on account of Christ the mediator and propitiator that we are pleasing to God would, of course, be highly congenial to him. But what of the statement that it is those who “truly repent” who have this assurance? It should not be imagined that Calvin or the other Protestants wished to teach that there was an assurance of faith without true repentance (see on §§3:2–​4; 10). Brieger responds to objections to the phrase “qui vere poenitent,” arguing that it does not undermine the role of Christ as the sole cause of salvation. He also argues that it is consistent with Melanchthon’s Apology.502 It is odd to suggest that assurance of salvation might be available to those who do not truly repent. Lexutt derives from this paragraph the equivalence of virtuous human performance and divine beneficence. Being in the image of God means growing in Christian virtues.503 It is not altogether clear how this follows from the paragraph. In her concluding summary of the article, she states that for Protestants good works remain unworthy but that “God has nevertheless justified us.” This decisive point, she claims, is not found in Article 5.504 It would, however, appear to follow from §§6–​7, and that is how Contarini understood these paragraphs. §7:1. Quoniam autem perfecta certitudo in hac imbecillitate non est suntquea multae infirmae et pavidae conscientiae, quae cum gravi saepe

497 BSELK 331, 335, 353; Kolb and Wengert 145–​46, 148, 155 (4:175) 498 BSELK QuM1:476; Tappert 151 (4:290). This passage is not found in the Editio secunda. 499 Mediator most frequently, Propriator not quite so frequently, High Priest less often. For Mediator and Propitiator together, see BSELK 285, 287, 301, 329; Kolb and Wengert 126–​27, 133, 145 (4:40, 46, 80, 81, 157). For Propitiator and High Priest together, see BSELK 303; Kolb and Wengert 134 (4:82). 500 BSELK QuM1:456; Tappert 130. This passage is not found in the Editio secunda. 501 Institutio 3:11:1. 502 Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole,  41–​43. 503 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 256. 504 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 259–​60 (her emphasis).

Text and Commentary, §7:1  221 dubitationeb luctantur, nemo est a gratia Christi propter eiusmodi infirmitatem excludendus, sed convenit tales diligenter adhortaric, ut iisd dubitationibus promissiones Christi fortiter opponant et augeri sibi fidem sedulis precibus orent, iuxta illud:  Adauge nobis eDomine fideme [Luc. 17:5]. Seeing that in our weakness there is no perfect certainty and that there are many weak and fearful consciences, which often struggle against great doubt, nobody should be excluded from the grace of Christ on account of such weakness. Such people should be earnestly encouraged boldly to set the promises of Christ against these doubts and by diligent intercession to pray that their faith may be increased, according to the saying: “Lord increase our faith” [Luke 17:5].

a: MBDS 9/​1:399: sintque b: ARC 6:54 falso: dutitatione c: CR 10:114, HAB: hortari d: ARC 6:54, CR 10:114, HAB: his; ADRG 3/​I:292: hiis e—​e: CR 10:114: domini fidem Christi; HAB: fidem Domine For the themes of our imperfection and confidence before God, see on §6. For the latter, see on §3:5. Gropper, in his Enchiridion, also speaks of the infirmity of our faith and cites Luke 17:5.505 This paragraph also is taken from Gropper’s Draft §41, with just a few minor changes. The whole of §41 and parts of the first sentence of §42 are new material inserted into an extended section (§§38–​43) of material taken from the Worms Draft. As with §6, above, it is the material that is new to Gropper’s Draft that makes it way into the final version. After the first twenty-​two words, §41 comprises §7 of the final version; the new material at the beginning of §42 finds its way into §8:2. Here again (as with §6) we see that it is the material new to Gropper’s Draft that finds its way into the final article, not any of the long section from the Worms Draft into which it had been inserted. As noted above (on §3:5), Contarini, in his Epistola, makes frequent mention of God’s promises.506 As noted on §5:1, he taught that we should rely not

505 506

Enchiridion, 173b. CC 7:25–​27.

222  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification on inherent righteousness, but on imputed righteousness alone. Unlike the Tridentine Decree on Justification (ch. 9), this sentence attributes lack of certainty to weakness of faith and proposes greater faith in the promises of God as the remedy. The idea that those with fearful consciences should be pointed to the promises of Christ is a frequent theme in Melanchthon’s Apology.507 This also refers to the reality of the temptations and struggles faced by faith, as well as the need for it to grow.508 Bucer, in the definitions of justification and of faith in his Romans Commentary, states that faith delivers us from all doubt and uncertainty that our sins are forgiven.509 But at the same time, he recognises that some believers do doubt, either because of the weakness of their faith or because they have not properly understood what Scripture teaches on this topic.510 In his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, Bucer again recognises that, while the nature of faith is to believe without doubting, as well as believing we suffer from unbelief (incredulitas), citing Mark 9:24 on the need for faith to increase.511 He reaffirms §7.512 That the cure for faltering assurance was to pray for an increase in faith in the promises of Christ was highly congenial to Calvin.513 But what of the statement that there is no “perfecta certitudo” in our present weakness? At first sight, this might appear to contradict Calvin. He insists that to have faith is “to strengthen the mind with constant assurance and perfect confidence,”514 and that faith “requires full and fixed certainty.”515 But while it is the nature of faith to be certain, in the believer faith is always in conflict with unbelief: “in the believing mind certainty is mixed with doubt.”516 It is dangerous to require perfect confidence of heart since this excludes everyone. Christians only ever have faith such that they need to pray the Lord to help their unbelief (Mark 9:24).517 It is the role of the sacraments to increase our 507 BSELK 291, 339, 353, 385; Kolb and Wengert 129, 149, 155, 168. Other passages refer to God’s mercy, the same point but in different words. 508 BSELK QuM1 485; Tappert 160 (4:350). This passage is not found in the Editio secunda. See also, BSELK 447; Kolb and Wengert 193 (12:37). 509 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 11–​12, 14, 17; Common Places, 161–​62, 172–​73, 181–​82. For Bucer’s concern for fearful consciences, see Barnikol, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung,” 85–​87. 510 Metaphrases et Enarrationes,17; Common Places, 180. 511 DVRC, 127a. See also 130b–​34a on infirmitas fidei. 512 DVRC, 192b. Cf. 191b–​93a. 513 For a discussion of these issues, see Lane, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Assurance Revisited,” especially 275–​307. 514 Institutio 3:13:3. 515 Institutio 3:2:15. 516 Institutio 3:2:18. In the 1539 edition the word order was different (OS 4:29, n. b). 517 Petit Traicté de la Saincte Cene (1541) (CO 5:444; OS 1:513–​14; CTS 2:177–​78; LCC 22:151–​52).

Text and Commentary, §7:1–§8:1  223 faith.518 The article attributes the imperfection of our certainty to our weakness and to the struggle with doubt, as does Calvin. Brieger notes the contradiction between the statement in §6 that despite our weakness “those who truly repent may always hold with most certain faith that they are pleasing to God on account of Christ the mediator” and that of §7 that “in our weakness there is no perfect certainty.” He resolves this by stating that our certainty is never perfect and absolute, but it is nonetheless most certain and most steadfast. He also points out that §7 is addressed to “weak and fearful consciences.”519 §8:1. Itema Christiano cuique debet esse compertum non in hoc datam esse nobis hanc gratiam et hanc regenerationemb, ut in eo gradu innovationis nostrae, quemc primum nacti sumus, otiosi consistamus, sed crescamus in ipsum per omnia, qui est caputd [Eph 4:15]. Likewise, every Christian should learn that this grace and this regeneration have not been given to us so that we might remain idle in that stage of our renewal which we at first obtained, but so that we may grow in everything into him who is the head [Eph 4:15].

a: B, E, CR 4:201, Disp: om. b: B, E: generationem c: ADRG 3/​I:292: quam d: CR 10:114 ad.: Christus On the need for growth, see on §6. The Worms Draft §5 contains a similar statement about growing into the Lord (Eph 2:20–​21). This is not taken up in Gropper’s Draft, but §12 of the latter also talks about the need for growth. This (Gropper’s Draft §12) begins by referring to “hoc datam regenerationis gratiam,” after which it continues identically to the final version: “ut in eo . . . caput.” Thus the present sentence is substantially Gropper’s, with minor changes. Here again (as in §6 and §7) it is the material that was new to Gropper’s Draft that has been used, not the surrounding material (almost all of §§5–​17) which has been taken from the Worms Draft.

518

Institutio 4:14:9.

519 Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole,  44–​45.

224  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Contarini in his Epistola observes that the grace of Christ (inherent love and the Spirit) cannot be idle (ociosa).520 The need for growth is also affirmed by the Tridentine Decree on Justification (ch. 10). Melanchthon’s Apology states that faith regenerates us.521 It also declares that justifying faith is not to be confused with an idle knowledge (otiosa notitia).522 Bucer, in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, reaffirmed §8:1.523 Calvin warns of the dangers of idleness in his teaching in the Institutes both on the Christian life and on justification.524 §8:2. Ideoque docendus est populus, ut deta boperam huic augmentob, quod quidem fit per cbona operac, et interna et externa, a Deo mandata et commendata, quibus Deus promisit propter Christum in pluribus dlocis evangeliid clare et manifeste mercedem, bona tam corporis quam spiritus, in hac vita, prout divinae providentiae visume fuerit, et post hanc vitam in coelis. Therefore, the people must be taught to devote effort to this growth which indeed happens through good works, both internal and external, which are commanded and commended by God. To these works God has, in many passages from the Gospels, clearly and manifestly promised on account of Christ a reward—​good things in this life, as much for the body as for the soul (as much as seems right to divine providence) and after this life in heaven.

a: ARC 6:54 falso: de b—​b: B, E, G, Disp: augmento huic operam c—​c: B, E, G, Disp: opera bona d—​d: B, E, G, Disp: evangelii locis e: CR 10:114: virum

Growth Almost all of §8:2 is taken from different parts of Gropper’s Draft: “docendus  .  .  .  augmento”; “et interna  .  .  .  commendata” (§42, altered); 520 CC 7:33. 521 BSELK 285, 339, 361; Kolb and Wengert 127, 149, 158 (4:45, 247). 522 BSELK 315, 361; Kolb and Wengert 139, 158 (4:115, 249). Cf. BSELK 295; Kolb and Wengert 131 (4:64): “otiosa cogitatio.” 523 DVRC, 210a. 524 Institutio 3:8:4, 5, 9; 3:11:1.

Text and Commentary, §8:2  225 “promisit . . . in coelis” (§20, with a phrase omitted and changes in order). As with §§6, 7, 8:1, the material taken from Gropper’s Draft is only the new material that Gropper added (not the old material taken from the Worms Draft), and it is almost all of the new material to be found in §§20, 42. Thus the whole sentence is effectively an edited and rearranged version of new material that Gropper had introduced into his draft. It is likely that Gropper took account of Melanchthon’s Draft (§3:1–​2) when introducing this new material. Contarini, in his Epistola, lays considerable stress on the need for growth in grace. He also brings out the need for both internal and external works.525 The Tridentine Decree on Justification teaches growth through good works (ch. 10). It also goes beyond this sentence, teaching not just that God rewards our works but that “nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life” (ch. 16; can. 26, 32) Melanchthon’s Apology repeatedly states that faith gives birth to good works, which are necessary.526 “Faith without good works is hypocrisy,”527 and without the fruit of good works any alleged “repentance” is hypocritical.528 Articles 6, 12 and 20 of the Augsburg Confession also affirm the inevitability and necessity of good works.529 Calvin also saw the lifelong process of regeneration and sanctification as one of growth. He had no expectations of instant transformation or perfection but looked for modest daily progress and perseverance in this.530 By contrast, Ambrosius Blarer, commenting on Article 5, objects to the idea of faith growing through good works, on the ground that faith is a gift of God that grows through the grace of God, for which we should pray. To this end, he quotes Luke 17:5, which is cited in §7. He also argues that since works are the fruit of faith, faith cannot itself be the fruit of works. He regarded this way of speaking about works and free choice as dangerous. There was too much emphasis on our effort and not enough on Christ’s grace. Those who are still blind in the papacy do not see the glory of Christ’s grace.531 525 CC 7:33. 526 BSELK 343, 363, 393, 395; Kolb and Wengert 150–​51, 159, 171–​72. In the preliminary talks at Worms Melanchthon spoke of the necessity of keeping the commandments (Neuser (ed.), Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg, 133; ADRG 2/​1:476). 527 BSELK 395; Kolb and Wengert 172. 528 BSELK 371; Kolb and Wengert 162. 529 BSELK 101, 103, 107, 109, 125; Kolb and Wengert 41, 45, 47, 57. 530 Institutio 3:6:5. 531 ADRG 3/​II:487.

226  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Martens refers to this as an increase in justification (augmentum iustificationis),532 which is unwarranted. Such a description would be fair of Gropper’s Enchiridion, the Worms Draft or Contarini’s Epistola, all of which teach a second justification, an increase in righteousness through works. The present sentence, however, teaches no more than that there needs to be a growth in Christ through good works.

Reward and Merit Article 5 twice refers to reward (§8:2, 3), but makes no mention of human merit. Eck’s Draft, by contrast, maintains that “God performs in us meritorious works of life and glory in eternal life” (§5). He also states there that “God promised this reward and recompense everywhere in the Scriptures” (§5). Good works are the fruit of justification, of the love poured out in our hearts by the Spirit (§3). Gropper in his Enchiridion discusses the question of reward in the context of whether eternal life may be considered a reward, on which see §8:3. The Worms Draft §63 mentions temporal benefits as well. Good works “are meritorious, not only of temporal goods, but also of spiritual, and even more of eternal life,”533 words omitted when §63 is incorporated into §20 of Gropper’s Draft. According to a manuscript at Bern,534 the Protestant party discussed that statement at the colloquy at the beginning of the discussions on Article 5. Bucer defended it (which is not surprising as he was one of the authors of the Worms Draft) but the remainder rejected it, on the ground that eternal life is a gift of God (Rom 6:23) and because that statement obscures the glory of the grace of Christ and undermines the consolation of consciences. In his Confutatio Articulorum seu Quaestionum Lutheranorum, Contarini teaches clearly about reward and merit. Good works, according as they arise from grace and divine powers infused into our souls, are rightly called meritorious, and eternal life and participation in divine felicity are deservedly (merito) owed to them. He proceeds to support this with passages from the Gospels and elsewhere, concluding that works receive recompense (retributio).535 Reward and merit is the second issue that Contarini covers in

532 Martens, Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders, 61. 533

Using the translation of Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 378. ADRG 3/​I:86–​87. 535 CC  7:4–​5. 534

Text and Commentary, §8:2  227 his scheda minor. He notes that the word “merit” is not used with reference to good works. He appeals to Thomas Aquinas536 and Duns Scotus against the unqualified (simpliciter or absolute) idea of merit. Catholic theologians should not be tied to the word, since Article 5 contains the same meaning (sensus).537 There was a distinct reluctance in Rome to accept this explanation. The following month Contarini was repeating the same arguments to Cardinal Farnese in an attempt to refute the charge that Article 5 taught that our works after grace are not meritorious.538 A few days later he was rehearsing the same arguments to Cardinal Bembo, explaining that the Protestants did not deny that works performed after grace were efficacious but that they rejected the word “merit” because they took it in a strict sense, while Catholics understood it in a looser sense.539 These explanations did not convince and a month later he was forced to defend himself further to another cardinal, noting that merit is not an essential article of faith like the Trinity. He also repudiated the idea that God rewards works “through debt and obligation” rather than “from his kindness, mercy and generosity.”540 In his Epistola he refers to the merit of Christ,541 but makes no mention of human merit, nor even (unlike Article 5) of reward. In the Scholia the next year, however, he is happy to state that once we are Christians, we can merit eternal life542 and that God gives celestial glory to believers who live well.543 Melanchthon frankly affirms in his Apology that believers, justified by faith, go on to receive both bodily and spiritual rewards for their works. He 536 Citing “2a 2ae ult. q. art. 1.” This is an error for Summa theologiae 2/​1 q. 114, a. 1. 537 CT 12:314. 538 Contarini to Farnese (22 June) in Brieger, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Cardinal Contarini,” 144–​50 (Latin) and in Cardauns (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 7:9–​13 (Italian). Summary in Regesten, 201–​202 This letter received a very dusty response from the pope via Farnese, warning him how the Protestants would interpret such statements in their own sense and suggesting that it would be better for Contarini to keep quiet about justification (Farnese to Contarini (7 July) in Cardauns (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 7:24. Summary in Regesten, 210. Cf. Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 691–​92). In the meantime, Contarini wrote again to Farnese (10 July) complaining about further Roman misunderstanding of his stance on merit (Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 494–​95. Summary in Regesten, 211–​12). 539 Contarini to Bembo (28 June) in Regesten, 341. Summary in Regesten, 207. 540 Contarini to an unnamed cardinal (22 July) in Brieger, “Zur Correspondenz Contarini’s während seiner deutschen Legation,” 517–​19. Summary in Regesten, 218. Also in Beccadelli, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura I/​2, 187. Carafa was unhappy with the failure to mention merit (Priuli to Beccadelli (20 May) in Dionisotti, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” 266). 541 CC 7:28. 542 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 482G on Eph 1:3–​4. 543 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 510E on 1 Tim 4:10. Rückert, Theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis, 94–​95, accuses Contarini of a residual “zweideutige Haltung” because he also states that eternal life is a gratuitous gift of God (Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 439C on Rom 6:23). Surely, this is simply Augustinian teaching that when God crowns our merits he crowns his own gifts.

228  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification also, unlike Article 5, speaks of these rewards being merited. It follows that the saints receive differing degrees of glory, as taught in 1 Corinthians 3:8. In fact, the level of reward corresponds to the level of the work.544 Article 6 of the 1540 Confessio Augustana Variata Secunda also states that our obedience “merits rewards.”545 So Melanchthon was prepared to accept talk of meritorious works and of degrees of reward varying according to works, but with one key proviso—​that it is clear that we cannot truly merit justification or eternal life, these being gifts promised to faith on account of Christ.546 The same emphasis appears in Melanchthon’s Draft, which acknowledges that “good works done in genuine faith . . . are even meritorious.” “They do not merit the remission of sins, the reconciliation of the person or the gift of eternal life, yet they do merit enormous rewards, physical and spiritual, which will be granted not only in this life, but also after this life” (§3:2). In the Einfaltigs Bedencken, he refers at length to reward as one reason why we should do good works.547 Reward is also a significant theme in his 1543 Loci Theologici, where the same points are repeated, including the idea that rewards can be merited.548 Bucer, in his Romans Commentary, repeatedly affirms that God rewards our good works.549 The issue emerged in his debate with Gropper after the colloquy. In the Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma Gropper reaffirmed the role of reward and concluded that it was definite that God rewards good works with eternal life out of his gracious will and unmerited goodwill.550 Bucer responded to this in his Bestendiger Verantwortung, noting that the other side had conceded the gratuity of the reward. He also noted that the doctrine had been taught in the Einfaltigs Bedencken,551 and reaffirmed that God rewards works both in this life and with eternal glory.552 He later again reaffirmed 544 BSELK 391, 393; Kolb and Wengert 171. 545 BSELK QuM1:126. Similarly, Article 20 (BSELK QuM1:136–​38). 546 In an explanatory letter (on which see c­ hapter 4, n. 23), Melanchthon emphasises (“Dico clare”) that good works are not the price of eternal life and do not merit it: Melanchthon to Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen and Cruciger (1 November 1536)  in CR 3:180; WA Br. 7:580; MBW T7:263 (MBW 2:276–​77 [#1802]). 547 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 47a–​48b; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 37a–​38b. 548 LT43 Y8b–​Z3b, b5a–​7a; LC43 104–​106, 114–​15. 549 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 115–​120, 129–​30. ET of 115–​20 in Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 209–​22. 550 Gegenberichtung, 24a; Antididagma, 16b. The Latin words dignatione gratuita are inserted into Gropper’s German, in parenthesis. The Leuven faculty responded that eternal life is “non sola gratuita dignatione dei” (Dittrich, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” 13). 551 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 47b–​48b; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 37b–​38b. 552 Bestendige Verantwortung, 53a–​b; Constans Defensio, 105.

Text and Commentary, §8:2–3  229 that doctrine,553 as did Gropper.554 In his De vera  .  .  .  reconcilatione et compositione, Bucer reaffirms §8:2,555 and repeatedly affirms the reality of rewards, these constituting the third stage of his triple justification.556 The failure to discuss merit was also criticised by Melanchthon, who felt that the article needed to be expanded to clarify what Catholics meant by merit “de condigno.”557 Calvin was not keen on the word “merit,”558 but had no problem with the New Testament concept of reward. He was willing not just to speak of heavenly rewards but frankly to acknowledge that in Scripture eternal life itself is called the reward of works.559 In a report/​opinion (Gutachten) from the Worms Colloquy the theologians of electoral Brandenburg acknowledge that the good works of the justified please God and merit rewards, both bodily and spiritual, in this life and after this life, preempting some of the language of §8:2.560 The same day (15 December) the theologians of electoral Palatinate used the identical wording in a report.561 §8:3. Ideoque quamvis hereditas vitae aeternae proptera promissionem debeatur renatis, etiam cum primum in Christo renati sunt, nihilominus reddit Deus etiam bonis operibus mercedem non secundum substantiam operum neque secundum quod sunt a nobis, sed quatenus in fide fiunt et sunt a Spiritu Sancto, qui habitatb in nobis, concurrente libero arbitrio tanquam partiali agente. Therefore, although the inheritance of eternal life is due to the regenerate on account of the promise, as soon as they are reborn in Christ, nevertheless God also renders a reward to good works, not according to the substance of the works, nor because they come from us, but to the extent that they are performed in faith and proceed from the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, free choice concurring as a partial agent. 553 Wie leicht unnd füglich, 19; Von den einigen rechten wegen,  58–​59. 554 Warhafftige Antwort, 10a, in the Artikell. 555 DVRC, 210a–​b. 556 DVRC, 170a, 173a, 174a–​75a, 176b, 177b–​78b, 190a, 211b–​12a. 557 CR 4:418. Cf. CR 4:430, for the German version. 558 Institutio 3:15:1–​4. 559 Institutio 3:18:1. 560 ARC 3:321; ADRG 2/​I:545. On this see zur Mühlen, “Die Edition der Akten und Berichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau und Worms 1540/​41,” 60: “bona opera iustificatorum placeant deo et sint meritoria praemiorum corporalium et spiritualium, quae cum in hac vita, tum post hanc vitam redduntur.” 561 ARC 3:323; ADRG 2/​I:549. On this see zur Mühlen, “Die Edition der Akten und Berichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau und Worms 1540/​41,” 61.

230  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification a: Disp: per b: M: habitant. This is a purely typographical error and is corrected in the German translation and in a later edition.562

Reward Gropper in his Enchiridion teaches both that eternal life begins with justifying faith and that the soul is glorified in eternal life when it leaves the body.563 Eternal life is accepted by faith on account of the mercy promised in Christ, but Scripture is at the same time not afraid to call it a reward (mercedem) for good works. This is not because our works are worthy of it nor because it is owed on account of the worth (dignitatem) of those works (“for who is so stupid as to think that?”), but because God has freely promised it to faith, which exercises itself through such works in us. In short, the reward is based on promise (“merces quia pollicita”). God is so good that the works which he effects in us he calls ours, merely because of our feeble assent. Indeed we can even speak of meriting eternal life by works, not because they are worthy of such a reward (which is a gift merited for us through Christ) but because we would not attain it without giving our assent or without good works.564 Works of faith following justification are brought about by God’s Spirit, but “we in justification do not do entirely nothing.” The grace of God comes first and assists us, but we cooperate with it through the assent and effort of the will on our part.565 As Augustine put it, God “who made you without you, does not justify you without you.” 566 The Worms Draft emphasises the role of the will in initial justification and indeed calls the will the material cause of justification (§40; cf. §10). The whole of §8:3, however, is taken without alteration from Gropper’s Draft §21, once again a new paragraph contributed by Gropper, not material taken from the Worms Draft. Eck touched on the question of merit when commenting on the Augsburg Confession. He acknowledges that our works have no worth in themselves 562 Alle Handlungen die Religion belangend, XIVb:  “wonet”; Operum Reverendi Viri Philippi Melanthonis Pars Quarta, 705. 563 Enchiridion, 163a, 166b, 174a, 176a. 564 Enchiridion, 176a–​b. 565 Enchiridion, 171a–​b. 566 Enchiridion, 130a, cf. 172a. On this, see Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 123–​24.

Text and Commentary, §8:3  231 and are not deserving (condigna) of future glory, but God accepts them of his mercy alone, makes them worthy by his grace and rewards them.567 Eck returned to the theme in his December 1540 report/​opinion on the Augsburg Confession.568 Here he insists that God’s grace cannot be idle but that it bears fruit in us that is meritorious and worthy of reward. This is not because our works are worthy in themselves; it is because God mercifully decides to accept and bestow an incomparable reward on the works which are driven and perfected by his grace. He argues for the use of the word “merit.” It is not surprising, therefore, that Eck raised no objections against this portion of the article, though he might have wished for the inclusion of the word “merit.” Pflug, in the dialogue with two Lutherans, affirms that God rewards our good works not according to their worth but according to his mercy, so that we should glory not in ourselves but in God.569 In general, Pflug uses the idea of reward cautiously, seeking to remain within biblical limits.570 The Tridentine Decree on Justification also refers to eternal life as both a grace that is promised and as a reward for good works (ch. 16). But unlike Article 5, which states that the reward is “not according to the substance of the works,” Trent states that eternal life is truly merited (vere promeruisse) by our deeds (ch. 16). That good works “are performed in faith and proceed from the Holy Spirit” is in line with Trent, as is the reference to the agency of free choice (ch. 5). Melanchthon’s Apology admits that Scripture calls eternal life a reward, but one that is owed because of God’s promise, not our works.571 It also affirms the rewards offered to good works, on which see §8:2, and, indeed, refers to these as merited. It is because of faith that our works are rewarded,572 though Melanchthon described this as being because we are in Christ,573 rather than because the works proceed from the Spirit (although, of course, he did believe that good works proceed from the Holy Spirit).574

567 Müller, “Johann Eck und die Confessio Augustana,” 226. “Utcunque autem opera hominis de se sint nulla, assistente tamen gratia Dei, monente quoque et et impellente, ex sola misericordia Dei acceptantur et praemiis afficiuntur, nulla dignitate operum in se, sed quos Deus sua gratia facit illa esse digna et remunerat de pia iustitia, quae de se non sunt condigna ad futuram gloriam.” According to Spalatin, Eck spoke similarly during the debates at Augsburg (Förstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages zu Augsburg im Jahre 1530, 2:224). For the two documents concerned, see further on §10, below. 568 ARC 3:306–​307; ADRG 2/​I:541. 569 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 81–​84. 570 Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, 212. 571 BSELK 391; Kolb and Wengert 171. 572 BSELK 391, 393; Kolb and Wengert 171. 573 BSELK 323; Kolb and Wengert 142 (4:140). 574 BSELK 319; Kolb and Wengert 140 (4:123–​27).

232  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification For Bucer on rewards for our good works, see on §8:2. Bucer addresses and reaffirms §8:3 in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione.575 He also, in his Romans Commentary, harmonises the idea of eternal life as the reward of works with the statement that no one can be justified by works.576 Calvin understood the New Testament teaching on reward (including the reward of eternal life) as “not servants’ wages but children’s inheritance.” The ground for reward is not human merit but the promise of God.577 Calvin taught that God accepts our good works, not because of their inherent worth, but in Christ rather than in themselves.578 In regarding such works, God overlooks their blemishes and accepts what is genuinely good in them.579 This is not exactly the same as is here stated, that works are rewarded “quatenus in fide fiunt et sunt a Spiritu Sancto,” but this language is not foreign to Calvin. “It is no absurdity that man is so justified by faith that not only is he himself righteous but his works are also accounted righteous above their worth.”580 Furthermore, “the Lord cannot fail to love and embrace the good things that he works in [believers] through his Spirit.”581 Ambrosius Blarer criticises the article for teaching that the quantity of glory in eternal life would be according to (iuxta) the quantity of good works, which is perhaps reading into the article what is not there.582 Lexutt refers the statement “hereditas vitae aeternae propter promissionem debeatur renatis” to the reward owed to good works,583 but fails to note that the sentence continues “etiam cum primum in Christo renati sunt,” which can hardly be a reference to works.

Free Choice For a fuller account of the role of free choice (liberum arbitrium) before the Fall, after the Fall, after restoration (reparationem), and after glorification, see Article 2 (De libero arbitrio), already agreed, on 27 April. 575 DVRC, 212a. 576 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 115–​20. ET in Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 209–​22. 577 Institutio 3:18:2–​4, quotation at 3:18:2. 578 Institutio 3:17:5. 579 Institutio 3:17:8. 580 Institutio 3:17:9. 581 Institutio 3:17:5. 582 ADRG 3/​II:487. 583 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 257 (her emphasis).

Text and Commentary, §8:3  233 Eck’s Draft contains a very similar statement (“partiali sua activitate libero arbitrio concurrente”; §5) and it may be that Gropper drew on Eck at this point. Eck referred to free choice in similar terms in ­chapter 31 of his Enchiridion.584 Eck’s Draft also goes on to state that we should not attribute any worthiness in itself to this activity of free choice, but should assign it all to God’s grace and mercy (“let us not attribute [to this activity] any worthiness in itself, but let us assign all this worthiness that we have received to the grace and mercy of God”; §5). Contarini, in his Epistola, argues that prevenient grace brings about a conversion which is “voluntary, not in any way coerced (coacta).”585 Gropper reaffirms the role of free will as partiale agens in his Warhafftige Antwort.586 Melanchthon stated that Luther disliked the reference to free choice as “partiali agente,” but that he himself did not want to reject it, “since it is true.”587 Such a concession is not to be found in Article 18 of the Augsburg Confession or in the discussion of it in the Apology, but these do not actually deny what is stated here in §8:3.588 Melanchthon’s views on the topic had changed between the writing of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology in 1530/​31 and the Regensburg Colloquy.589 Ambrosius Blarer, commenting in Article 5, noted that the mention of liberum arbitrium was dangerous, apart from the fact that this was not the right place for it (unlike Article 2).590 Bucer had no qualms about accepting the term in his Romans Commentary, using it in the Augustinian sense. He claimed to follow Augustine in both substance and terminology, defining free choice (liberum arbitrium) as a free will (voluntatem liberam) voluntarily (ultro) following the choice (arbitrium) of its own reason.591 Regarding the action of free choice, Bucer comments that though it is God who acts on us to cause us to will and to work, “surely we do will and work, and do act when acted upon.”592 Bucer affirms the use of the term here in the article.593 584 Eck, Enchiridion locorum communium, 322: “aliqua dat agente libero arbitrio,” “non negatur per hoc liberum arbitrium concurrere active ad merita.” ET: J. Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces, 217. 585 CC 7:26–​27. 586 Warhafftige Antwort, 25a. 587 Melanchthon to Camerarius (21 June) in CR 4:407; MBW T10:295 (MBW 3:187–​88 [#2732]). 588 On Melanchthon and the Apology, see zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 343–​44. 589 For the development of Melanchthon’s thought, see, e.g. Kolb, Bound Choice, Election and Wittenberg Theological Method, 70–​ 102; Graybill, Evangelical Free Will:  Philipp Melanchthon’s Doctrinal Journey on the Origins of Faith, especially 199–​234. 590 ADRG 3/​II:487. 591 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 400–​404; Common Places, 145–​54, quotation at 400/​146. I have translated the key technical terms differently from the ET cited here. 592 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 403; Common Places, 152. 593 DVRC, 210b.

234  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Calvin held that the human will acts voluntarily and not from coercion.594 He accepted the concept of liberum arbitrium if it is understood in this Augustinian sense.595 Calvin had not been so explicit on this point at the time of the colloquy, but in responding to Pighius’s attack on him eighteen months later, he argues much as Bucer: “It is not that we ourselves do nothing or that we without any movement of our will are driven to act by pressure from him, but that we act while being acted upon by him.”596 This teaching then finds its way into the 1559 edition of the Institutio.597 Von Loewenich remarks that this sentence is capable of being taken either as Dialektik or as Kompromiß.598 Lexutt comments of the article in general that, in the event of justification, everything can be attributed to God, and at the same time, “not nothing” can be attributed to us.599 This is true, but is only a problem for those who understand sola gratia to imply human inactivity. Even Calvin, for all his fierce monergistic rhetoric, admitted the role of human activity. With reference to the present passage, Lexutt comments that justification and salvation are not brought about by faith alone, Christ alone, or grace alone but by the cooperation of grace, free will, and works.600 There is an element of confusion here. If she is claiming that justification is brought about by works, that is a misrepresentation of Article 5. If her point is that final salvation involves some activity on the part of the human [free] will and some performing of good works, this is indeed the teaching of Article 5, and of Bucer and Calvin. Calvin did not reject the idea of cooperation if it is understood in an Augustinian sense.601 Gleason observes that “the relative importance of the prevenient motion of the Holy Spirit and the response of the human intellect and will is left unclear.”602 This is true but is a problem only if one supposes that the article has to resolve all theological issues. Article 2 has more to say on the topic. Brieger states that Protestants can subscribe to the whole of §§8–​ 9 with most cheerful hearts (libentissimis animis), as it can all be proved by arguments taken from Melanchthon’s Apology.603 594 Institutio 2:2:7, 2:3:5, 2:5:1. 595 Institutio 2:2:8. 596 COR 4:3:227; CO 6:337; Bondage and Liberation of the Will, 152. 597 Institutio 2:5:14–​15. Cf. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers, 188–​89. 598 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 37. 599 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 254. 600 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 257. Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 201, responds. She makes similar comments about Contarini (265–​66). 601 Institutio 2:3:11–​13. The same themes are worked out more fully in his response to Pighius. Cf. Lane, “Bondage and Liberation in Calvin’s Treatise against Pighius,” 41–​43. 602 Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 228. 603 Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole, 48–​50, though he does go on to affirm Melanchthon’s requests for greater clarity on some points (51–​53).

Text and Commentary, §9:1  235 §9:1. Et amplior et maior aerit felicitasa eorum, qui maiora et plura opera fecerunt, propter augmentum fidei et caritatis, in qua creverunt huiusmodi exercitiis. The joy of those who have performed more and better works will be greater and more abundant, on account of the increase of faith and love, in which they have grown through exercises of that kind.

a—​a: M, ARC 6:54, CR 4:201, MBDS 9/​1:401, ADRG 3/​I:292: felicitas erit For increase of faith, see on §7. It is harder to find precedent for the idea that faith grows through “more and better works.” Contarini, in his Epistola, speaks of a justification by works in the sense that by them “we are justified more and more and aim towards perfection.”604 In his Confutatio Articulorum seu Quaestionum Lutheranorum, he also refers repeatedly to the felicitas brought by good works.605 The Tridentine Decree on Justification makes no reference to joy, but affirms that the church prays for the increase of faith and love (ch. 10). Melanchthon’s Apology refers to the need for growth in faith606 and in keeping the law.607 I am not aware that Bucer, in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, ever refers to §9. Neuser, however, denies that this sentence can be given an Evangelical sense.608 For Martens’s claim that this implies an augmentum iustificationis, see on 8:2. Lexutt comments that this is no longer a justification of the sinner but a justification of the righteous, based on a ius talionis.609 First, the article speaks here of reward, not justification—​unlike the Worms Draft §§3, 52–​71 and Gropper’s Draft §§5, 7, 13–​14, 43, both of which differentiate between the initial justification of the ungodly and a subsequent justification of the works of faith (iustificatio operum fidei). This teaching is not to be found in the final article. Secondly, it should be recognised that Calvin was also capable of stating that the Lord embraces our works as “inferior causes” of 604 CC 7:32–​34. 605 CC 7:4. 606 BSELK QuM1 485; Tappert 160 (4:350). This passage is not found in the Editio secunda. See also, BSELK 447; Kolb and Wengert 193 (12:37). 607 BSELK 319, 323; Kolb and Wengert 140, 142 (4:124, 136). 608 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 189: “eine Absicherung des Satzes im evangelischen Sinne findet sich nicht.” 609 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 258. Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 201, responds.

236  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification our salvation.610 Holiness is the way by which the elect are led into God’s kingdom.611 §10:1. Qui autem dicunt, “sola fide iustificamur,” simul tradere debent doctrinam de poenitentia, de timore Dei, de iudicio Dei, de bonis operibus, ut tota summa praedicationis constet, sicut Christus inquit: Praedicantes poenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum in nomine meo [Luc. 24:47]. 10:2. Idque ne haeca loquendi formula aliter quam praedictum est intelligatur. Now those who say, “we are justified by faith alone,” should at the same time teach the doctrine of repentance, of the fear of God, of the judgement of God and of good works, so that all the chief points of the preaching may remain firm, as Christ said: “preaching repentance and the remission of sins in my name” [Luke 24:47]. And that is to prevent this way of speaking [i.e. sola fide] from being understood other than has been previously mentioned.

a: B, E: hac There was discussion of sola fide at the Worms Colloquy on 9 November 1540.612 Gropper discusses sola fide in his Enchiridion. He acknowledges that the formula is Catholic, citing Bernard especially, as well as Origen, Ambrose, and Hilary. But it is dangerous to use it in preaching to the people, with whom one should only use words which are clear and edifying. The common herd (indocta plebs) are easily led astray and when they are taught that justification is by faith alone, are liable to lapse into presumption and a false sense of security.613 He was concerned about this and concludes his section on De Iustificatione Hominis with a warning from Augustine that we should especially avoid giving people a false security whereby they deem it sufficient to have faith, regardless of how they live.614 The Worms Draft §§44, 46 and Gropper’s Draft §§33–​34 both refer to “this formula of speech, ‘we are justified by faith alone’.” They acknowledge that the 610 Institutio 3:14:21. 611 Institutio 3:18:4. 612 For the text of this discussion, see Neuser (ed.), Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg, 123, 125, 127, 129; ADRG 2/​1:471–​74. 613 Enchiridion, 170a–​171a, 176b. 614 Enchiridion, 177a.

Text and Commentary, §10:1–2  237 fathers used the formula, and they define the conditions for preaching sola fide to the common herd (indocta plebs). Both drafts stress the danger of sola fide leading to carnal security (as does the Enchiridion), whereas the final version focuses on the cure for this without explicitly mentioning the danger. In the Artikell, all mention of sola fide has disappeared.615 In his Institutio Catholica, Gropper rejects as shameless the vain faith of the Lutherans, to which alone they ascribe justification without consideration of works.616 When Paul said that we are justified by faith, he did not mean faith alone, sundered from love (sola fides seclusa charitate). He meant rather that by faith alone in Christ, we receive the gift of justification with all its components and effects: remission of sins through the blood of Christ and renewal of the heart through love.617 The Protestants would have no difficulty in saying Amen to that, save only for the terminological issue of the meaning of the word justification. Elsewhere, however, Gropper raises the stakes considerably. He describes six kinds of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.618 The first of these is “presumption of freedom of punishment for sin.” This is found in contemporary heretics (such as Luther, who is named) who make statements like “Faith alone without any good works justifies and saves,” against which Gropper cites James 2:24.619 According to a manuscript at Bern,620 at the colloquy, the Protestant party discussed this issue at the beginning of the discussions on Article 5. They all wanted to keep the formula, though Balthasar Käufflin suggested that since this wording was not found in Scripture, it would suffice to keep the Pauline word “freely” (gratis). To this, Erhard Schnepf responded that the word homoousion is not found in Scripture, but the orthodox faced persecution and exile to retain it. It was also reported that Joachim of Brandenburg had told his theologians at Worms not to come home unless they had retained the word “sola.” Contarini had acknowledged in his earlier Confutatio Articulorum seu Quaestionum Lutheranorum that Paul teaches justification by faith, but he added that because it is not enough just to believe certain facts, we can also say, with James, that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.621 615 Warhafftige Antwort, 9b–​10a (the articles Von der rechtfertigung des menschen and Von den guten wercken). 616 Institutio Catholica, 584. 617 Institutio Catholica, 549–​50. 618 Institutio Catholica, 503–​32. 619 Institutio Catholica, 508–​12, quotation from 509. Thomas Aquinas says that the presumption that despises God’s justice through an inordinate confidence in his mercy is a sin against the Holy Spirit (Summa theologiae 2/​2 q. 130, art. 2). 620 ADRG 3/​I:86. 621 CC  7:2–​3.

238  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Contarini never mentioned the sola fide formula in his Epistola. He was compelled to address it, however, by Eck’s Responsum, which forcefully rejects it as “never to be allowed” (nunquam admittendum). Contarini agrees with Eck that the discrete (modesta) approach would be to withdraw it rather than assert it. But granted that justifying faith is fides efficax per caritatem (§4.5), the formula is not to be censured (reprehendum).622 In the Scholia he is more positive about the formula. Scripture assigns imputed righteousness to nothing other than faith.623 Explicitly, “the first justification before God is only through faith in Christ” (solum per fidem Christi).624 Eck was even less happy about permitting the preaching of sola fide, though he allowed that it can have a sound meaning. It is a question to which he returned many times, in response both to the Augsburg Confession and to Article 5. Regarding the former, Eck wrote two brief documents at the time: a Iudicium for the archbishop of Mainz and Duke George of Saxony625 and a similar but fuller Concordia.626 There are also accounts of his stance at the debates from Melanchthon627 and Spalatin.628 He also wrote a further brief report for the Hagenau Colloquy in July 1540,629 and a report/​opinion on the Augsburg Confession at the Worms Colloquy in December 1540.630 In these works he maintains that justification is brought about by faith working through love,631 indeed, “more love than faith.”632 Concerning a living and effective faith which works through love, which we call “formed” (formatam), “we do not doubt that in the presence of (coram) the learned it is confessed that we are justified by that faith alone, because it includes faith and love.” But he was not willing to have sola 622 Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 14, 20; Pollet, “Lehre der Rechtfertigung,” 70; ADRG 3/​I:584. For other Italian attitudes to sola fide, cf. Anderson, “Luther’s Sola Fide in Italy: 1542–​1551,”  25–​42. 623 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 437D on Rom 4:3–​5. 624 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 497B on Colossians, Argument. 625 Schirrmacher, Briefe und Acten zu der Geschichte des Religiongespräches zu Marburg 1529 und des Reichstages zu Augsburg 1530, 203–​208. 626 Oblata confessione Augustensi Protestantium Eckius pacis amans hanc offert concordiam in Müller, “Johann Eck und die Confessio Augustana,” 225–​42. For reasons to date this at the beginning of August 1530, cf. ibid., 205–​18. 627 Melanchthon to Luther (22 August 1530) in WA Br. 5:554–​56; CR 2:299–​300; MBW T4/​2:579–​ 80 (MBW 1:428–​29 [#1036]). 628 Spalatin’s Bericht is found in Förstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages zu Augsburg, 2:219–​30. 629 CR 3:1054–​59. Eck also had a significant role in the composition of other documents, such as the Confutatio Pontifica, but in such works he did not have the same freedom to express his own views clearly. 630 ARC 3:305–​307; ADRG 2/​I:539–​42. 631 Schirrmacher, Briefe und Acten, 203; Förstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages, 2:224. 632 Förstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages, 2:225. Cf. CR 3:1055.

Text and Commentary, §10:1–2  239 fide preached to the common herd (coram rudi populo).633 He opposed the formula primarily on the grounds that it would mislead the simple.634 But this was controversy purely about words (sola verbalis contentio),635 and Melanchthon reported that while Eck was opposed to the preaching of sola fide, he did not, however, condemn the matter itself.636 Eck gave further reasons for opposing the formula, which he repeated in response to Article 5.637 Eck’s Draft states that “preachers should hereafter restrain themselves from preaching [sola fide] but should link faith with repentance, the fear of God and love” (§6). He mentions some of his objections to the term: that it is not scriptural and that it creates stumbling blocks (scandala) for ordinary folk, citing the Saxon Visitation. In assenting to Article 5 at Regensburg, Eck acknowledged the legitimacy of preaching sola fide, with qualifications. This was obviously a painful experience for him, and, as a result, his opposition to the formula hardened after the colloquy. Now, it is never to be allowed.638 He states that he had resisted this concession at Augsburg in 1530 and at Regensburg,639 for a number of reasons. (1) It is not a scriptural formula, and the Lutherans are always shouting that nothing should be received that is not set out in Scripture.640 (2) At Augsburg, the Lutherans gave way on this word, which Luther branded a most hurtful error.641 In his Replica, Eck supports this with a long quotation from Augsburg.642 (3) He appeals to the Saxon Visitation643 and to Luther’s statement that “such preaching gives birth to many scandals, and leads people 633 Müller, “Johann Eck und die Confessio Augustana,” 226 (my emphasis). Similarly ARC 3:307; ADRG 2/​I:541. 634 Schirrmacher, Briefe und Acten, 203; WA Br. 5:555; Förstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages, 2:225; ARC 3:307; ADRG 2/​I:542. 635 Müller, “Johann Eck und die Confessio Augustana,” 226. 636 WA Br. 5:555. 637 Förstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages, 2:225–​26; Müller, “Johann Eck und die Confessio Augustana,” 226. He also opposed sola fide in his Enchiridion locorum communium, 95–​99; Enchiridion of Commonplaces,  57–​60. 638 Responsum in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 14; Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 70; ADRG 3/​II:577. Cruciger noted Eck’s opposition to sola fide: “Concedit hanc propositionem Eccius: gratis iustificamur. Sed non concedit hanc: sola fide iustificamur” (CR 4:242; ADRG 3/​II:520). 639 Apologia, 151a: “non probavi”; Replica, 43a, 44a. 640 Apologia, 151a; Replica, 43b–​44a. 641 Apologia, 151a; Replica, 44a. For Augsburg, cf. Pfnür, Einig in der Rechtfertigungslehre?, 256–​64. In a Responsio of 4 September 1530 the Lutherans expressed a willingness, given certain concessions, “se non pugnare de vocabulo SOLA, quia adversarii querebantur, quod illa vox offenderet imperitos” (Schirrmacher, Briefe und Acten, 254). For discussion of the Scriptural basis of sola fide, see Pfnür, Einig in der Rechtfertigungslehre?, 238–​40. 642 Replica,  43a–​b. 643 Responsum in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 14; Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 70; ADRG 3/​I:577.

240  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification to carnal security.”644 Eck fills out hese statements in his Replica, where he appeals to “Luther’s many words in the older Saxon Visitation,” followed by further words of Luther “in the newer Saxon Visitation of Duke Henry.”645 The passages cited are all taken from the Instructions for Visitors (cited at §3:2–​4), where the content of Eck’s quotations will be found.646 Eck had also raised the Saxon Visitation during the debates at Regensburg, according to Pflug’s notes.647 In his Replica, Eck claims that Lutheran preaching of sola fide had led to worthless and less-​Christian living.648 (4) It is contrary to Paul (Rom 2:13; 1 Cor 13:2; Gal 5:6) and James (2:17, 26).649 “How could Eck agree with the adversaries, that faith alone justifies, contrary to so many heroes, indeed contrary to the Holy Spirit?”650 Eck noted that Bucer had argued “by faith alone” from “freely though grace (gratis per gratiam; Rom 3:24), and he asks from which grammar Bucer had learned that gratis means sola.651 (5) Eck also claims that while Bucer had taught sola fide when he ranted about Matthew, on Psalms he had come to a better opinion, rejecting the idea that faith makes it unnecessary to bother with good works.652 Nothing, Eck states, will ever induce him to agree that faith alone justifies.653 This affirmation might have been more convincing had Eck not a few months before given his assent to Article 5. He complains that all of these most clear and efficacious arguments

644 Apologia, 151a. This clearly also refers to the visitatio Saxonica. Cf. the passages cited under §3:2–​4, above, and also those cited in n. 646. Cf. also the earlier Latin version: “ubi doctrina fidei sine lege traditur, infinita scandala oriuntur, vulgus fit securum, . . .” (CR 26:28). 645 Replica, 44a. 646 The passages cited are taken from WA 26:217:34–​218:2; 202:10–​13; 202:34–​203:4; 203:27–​28, 31–​32. Eck refers all but the first to the nova visitatio of 1539, but in fact they are all found in the 1528 edition. This is because he derived the first passage from the 1528 edition, citing it identically in his 1530 Concordia (Müller, “Johann Eck und die Confessio Augustana,” 226). A decade later he read the revised edition and took more material from that, not checking whether this new material was also in the original 1528 edition. There was a Latin translation by Bugenhagen, published in 1538 and 1539 (details in WA 26:191). I have checked both of these editions and it is clear that Eck is giving his own Latin translation of the German original. The words are Melanchthon’s rather than Luther’s, but Luther did collaborate in the project. 647 In his Notiunculae (ADRG 3/​I:84). 648 Replica, 43b. 649 Responsum in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 14; Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 70; ADRG 3/​I:577; Apologia, 155a. In Replica, 44a–​b, he refers to his citation of Scripture in the Apologia. Spalatin reports that at Augsburg he also cited 1 Cor 13:13; Eph [4:16?] as well as appealing to the Fathers. Brenz challenged him, appealing to Ambrose, Hilary and the apostle Paul (Förstemann, Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages, 2:225–​27). 650 Apologia, 155a. 651 Replica, 44a. 652 Apologia, 151a–​b. It is unlikely that Bucer would have seen any conflict between the two statements. 653 Apologia, 151b. He again rejects sola fide as false in his Confutatio unius et viginti propositionum de differentia legis et evangelii, deque fide iustificante Wittenberge disputatarum, sigs. B2a–​3a, B4a–​b, C1b (propositions 14, 15, 17, 19, 21).

Text and Commentary, §10:1–2  241 did not persuade the others. He was in a minority and “complained to the reverend lord legate of blessed memory.” But when the Book was given to the princes, Eck spoke out against this particular error.654 As already noted, Contarini, in his response to Eck’s Responsum, agrees with him regarding sola fide that the discrete (modesta) approach would be to withdraw it rather than assert it. But granted that justifying faith is fides efficax per caritatem (§4.5), the formula is not reprehendum.655 Cruciger wrote an entire document in response to Eck’s sophistries at Regensburg, concerning justification and the mass in particular. He notes that Eck believes in justification by grace, but not by faith alone. His understanding is that we are justified by the infusion of virtues.656 Eck explains that in the debate on Article 5, he had pointed out that all agreed with the sequence sin–​faith–​love–​works. Where they did not agree was in the meaning of the words, and to which one justification is owed. Does justification come at the second or third stage? Protestants say that the believing sinner is justified; Catholics say that this does not happen until there is love.657 Eck seems to have been under the impression that the Protestants held that it was possible to be justified without love, though their position was that while justification was not by love, it did not take place without love. As has already been quoted from Calvin: “we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies except one that is effectual through love (charitate efficacem).”658 Whether deliberately or through misunderstanding, Eck misrepresents the Protestant position. Gropper, by contrast, in his Enchiridion, carefully and at some length argues the same position as Calvin. (Saving) faith, hope and love cannot be separated, but it is the role of faith (not hope or love) to appropriate forgiveness and the promised Spirit.659 Gropper compares this to the way in which the [sun’s] rays are simultaneously and inseparably heat and light,660 an analogy Calvin would later use for the relation between justification and sanctification.661

654 Replica, 44b. 655 Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 14, 20; Pollet, “Lehre der Rechtfertigung,” 70; ADRG 3/​I:584. 656 ADRG 3/​II:520–​26, at 520. 657 Apologia, 154b–​155a. Eck refers to the Worms Draft as “multiloquentia sophystica libri” and to Article 5 as “illa recens suppositicia et macra declaratio.” 658 Institutio 3:11:20. Or, as he later stated in his Acta Synodi Tridentinae cum Antidoto, 6th Session, can. 9 (CO 7:476): “quod hominem sola fide iustificari quum dicimus, fidem non fingimus caritate vacuam: sed ipsam solam iustificationis causam esse intelligimus.” 659 Enchiridion, 172b–​73a. 660 Enchiridion, 122a. 661 Institutio 3:11:6 [1559].

242  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Pflug later returned to the question of sola fide in the dialogue with two Lutherans. He expressed hesitation about the formula because it can lead to isolating faith from repentance, hope, and love, which is a great error. Here he appealed for support to Article 5, as well as to a statement by Luther that faith without repentance is presumption. It is faith that appropriates righteousness, but not naked faith. There are too many who profess Christ with their lips but blaspheme him by their lives. Because many of these appeal to sola fide for support, it would be better to follow Bucer’s advice and to refrain from the formula, whether in preaching or writing.662 Pflug appeals to Article 5 and also cites the Reformers for support rather than to refute them. However, this is done to prevent that which Article 5 explicitly sanctions (with safeguards)—​the preaching of sola fide. Sadolet also objected, stating that he could never be persuaded that “faith alone, per se, without good works should be supposed to be sufficient to inherit (adipiscendum) the kingdom of God.” Far better was the view of Ambrogio Catarino Polito that “what is required for true justification is faith conjoined with works.”663 Pighius, in his Controversies, touches on the issue of sola fide. Faith alone does not suffice for justification, he argues, citing Matthew 7:22–​23. Likewise, faith alone does not make us children of God.664 Later, he again confronts the teaching of Melanchthon and Luther that we are justified by faith alone, not by love. He responds that “it is neither by faith nor by love that we are justified before God, if we speak formally and properly, but by the one righteousness of God in Christ, the one righteousness of Christ shared (communicata) with us.” But how do we obtain this righteousness? Faith and love are both necessary, but it is more correct to state that we are justified by love (charitate) than by faith.665 Vittoria Colonna reported to the Inquisition that Pole had told her to apply herself to faith as though salvation were by faith alone and to apply herself to works as though her salvation were to reside in works.666

662 Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” 78–​79. For Eck’s statements on the matter at Augsburg, cf. Pfnür, Einig in der Rechtfertigungslehre?, 257–​60, 262–​ 63. The reference to Bucer could well be derived from Eck. Cf. n. 652, above. 663 Sadolet to Catharino (June) in Jacobi Sadoleti Epistolae, 3:267. Extract in Regesten, 203. 664 Controversiarum, 41b–​42a. He flagged up the issue earlier in 29b–​30a. He also refers to the issue later in his Ratio componendorum dissidiorum, sig. I3b–​4b, without there giving a resolution. 665 Controversiarum, 49a–​b. Bucer responded to Pighius at length in his DVRC, 170a–​210a, arguing that his position was neither correct nor in harmony with Article 5. 666 Firpo and Marcatto (eds.), I Processi Inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi (1557–​1567), 2:431. Cf. Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage: The Correspondence of Marguerite D’Angoulême and Vittoria Colonna.

Text and Commentary, §10:1–2  243 The Tridentine Decree on Justification repeatedly rejects the sola fide formula. Faith without hope and love will not unite us to Christ, nor make us living members of his body (ch. 7). We should not flatter ourselves that we can obtain our inheritance by faith alone, without suffering with Christ (ch. 11). Canon 9 rejects the idea that we can be justified by faith alone, without a movement of our own wills. Canon 12 rejects the idea that we are justified by trust (fiducia) in God’s mercy alone. Canon 14 rejects the idea that we are justified solely by faith that we are in fact justified. Canon 29 rejects the idea that the lapsed can be restored by faith alone, without the sacrament of penance.667 Where Article 5 approves the use of the formula, under certain conditions, Trent simply condemns it. That is, the decree condemns five statements that contain the words “faith alone,” but does not necessarily mean that there can never be a legitimate use of those words.668 Of the specific condemned statements, the only one that might affect the teaching of Article 5 is found in canon 12, which might be seen to condemn §4:6. Melanchthon and Luther had no grounds to object to §10; they had expressed the same point more strongly in their Instructions for Visitors, cited at §3:2–​4 and quoted by Eck. There Luke 24:47 is quoted, and there is repeated reference to repentance, the fear of God, the judgement of God and good works. Of course, Melanchthon and Luther were opposed not to the preaching of justification by faith alone (unlike Eck) but to the preaching only of justification by faith, with no mention of repentance, the same concern as in §10. Eck quotes at length from the Instructions for Visitors, but its teaching fully supports the position taken in this paragraph. Melanchthon in the Einfaltigs Bedencken states that preachers are to emphasise the scriptural teaching on the new birth, the work of the Holy Spirit, which leads to good fruit. Those who are new godly creatures in Christ must walk in new good works.669 Timothy Wengert demonstrates the way that holding together forensic justification by faith alone and the need for repentance and good works was a concern that consistently underlay Melanchthon’s works,

667 Apart from the canons in this decree, sola fide is also condemned in the Decree on the Sacraments canons 4 and 8 on the Sacraments in General (Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2:684–​85). 668 So in the “Annex to the Official Common Statement,” 2C, of the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, it somewhat ungrammatically states that, “Justification takes place “by grace alone” (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works (Rom 3:28, cf. JD 25)” (Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-​Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment, 257, 184–​85). 669 Einfaltigs Bedencken, 44a–​b; Simplex ac pia deliberatio, 35a. The preacher must “oft anziehen, getreuwlich erklären und fleyssig eintreyben” and “gantz fleyßig underweisen.”

244  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification and not a concession made for the purpose of reaching agreement with Catholics.670 Article 6 of the Augsburg Confession states that we are justified sola fide, quoting from Ambrose. The Confutatio Pontifica twice rejects this,671 Melanchthon’s Apology responds by arguing vigorously throughout for justification sola fide. But that does not mean that it is inhospitable to the concerns expressed here, as can be seen from many passages that have already been cited. There is no saving faith without repentance,672 the fear of God,673 or good works (see on §8:2). God’s wrath and judgement is a recurring theme in the Apology, and it points to the need for forgiveness of sins and justification by faith.674 Luke 24:47 is quoted.675 Luther’s Smalcald Articles opposes those who maintain that all who once have received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sin or have become believers, should they sin after that, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not harm them. They shout, “Do what you will! If you believe, then nothing else matters. Faith blots out all sin.” . . . I have encountered many such foolish people, and I am concerned that such a devil is still present in some.676

Bucer, as Eck noted, expressed reservations concerning the sola fide formula in his 1529 Psalms Commentary, which he calls “this paradox.” No one should imagine that when we say that we are justified sola fide, good works are excluded, since justification is nothing other than to be equipped for good works. When theologians, whether ancient or modern, talk of all things being given to faith, they are to be understood to be referring to a faith which is living, firm, and (as recent theologians put it) formed (formata)—​ that is, equipped with love through which it works. They are mistaken who think that it suffices to have faith without pressing on to good works, since there is no true faith without works, any more than there is fire without heat.

670 Wengert, Law and Gospel, passim. See, e.g. 205–​206. 671 Confutatio Pontifica art. 5, 6 (CC 33:88–​91). ET:  Kolb and Nestingen (eds.), Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord, 109–​10. 672 e.g. BSELK 285, 325; Kolb and Wengert 127, 142 (4:45, 142). 673 e.g. BSELK 285, 319, 323, 325; Kolb and Wengert 127, 140, 142 (4:45, 125, 135, 141). 674 e.g. BSELK 271, 277, 283, 303, 327; Kolb and Wengert 121, 124, 126, 134, 143 (4:9, 20, 38, 82, 150). 675 BSELK 293, 295, 445, 483; Kolb and Wengert 130, 192, 207 (4:62; 12:30, 122). 676 Smalcald Articles 3:42 (Kolb and Wengert 318–​19; BSELK 764–​65).

Text and Commentary, §10:1–2  245 Conversely, when James and some of the Fathers opposed sola fide, they were thinking of a dead faith, devoid of works. Bucer acknowledges that some have been led astray by the phrase sola fide and wonders whether it might not be better to teach justification fide formata or some such formula—​or simply to keep to a scriptural “we are justified by faith.”677 In his 1536 Romans Commentary, Bucer makes sparing, but unqualified, reference to sola fide.678 Bucer returned to the theme after the colloquy. In his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, he defends and explains the doctrine of sola fide at some length against Pighius.679 He equates sola fide with by faith “per se” or “ex se.”680 He also defends sola fide in his works of 1545 in response to Gropper. He claimed that in their secret discussions at Worms, Gropper had accepted the idea of justification “by faith in the gospel alone, faith in Christ,” with the sole reservation that this should not give occasion for a false security based upon a dead faith without good works.681 He insisted that his teaching was that forgiveness should not be preached without repentance and obedience to all of God’s commandments, citing Luke 24:47.682 In his works after the colloquy, Bucer moved closer to the mainstream Protestant doctrine than he had done in some of his earlier works. Thus, for example, he defended Melanchthon’s definition of justification in terms of imputed righteousness alone, from the Einfaltigs Bedencken, whereas earlier in his Romans Commentary, he had inclined to a broader definition of justification which included sanctification. Calvin had no reservations about the sola fide formula,683 but he would not have found the present paragraph uncongenial. The structure of his Institutio, discussing regeneration before justification, was designed to show 677 S. Psalmorum Libri Quinque ad Ebraicam Veritatem Versi, et Familiari Explanatione Elucidati, 28a–​29a. In the 1532 edition some sentences are changed, but the points being made are the same (Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque, ad Ebraicam Veritatem Genuina Versione in Latinum Traducti, 20b–​21b). In a letter to Bucer of 12 January 1538, Calvin is critical of Bucer’s teaching here (COR 6:1:302; CO 10/​2:143). 678 Metaphrases et Enarrationes, 202 (on 3:28, quotation from Origen); ibid., 211–​12 (on 4:9–​12). It is significant that the index in the 1562 edition (sigs. Ee1a–​Ff3a) contains no reference to sola fide. On this question, see Barnikol, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung,” 18–​19, 83–​84, 105–​108, 115–​19. 679 DVRC, 213a–​16a, especially. Also earlier in 164a–​b, 172a–​73a, 174a–​b, 176b. He reaffirms §10:1–​2 in 213a–​b. 680 DVRC, 172b–​73a, 174a, 176b. 681 De concilio, sigs. p2a–​3b. 682 Von den einigen rechten wegen, 51. 683 In his 1539 Institutio the phrase sola fide(s) appears thirteen times (Institutio 3:11:19, 20, 3:13:4, 3:14:8, 17, 3:15:1, 3:17:1, 3 (x2), 7, 8 (x2), 11). These refer to justification (eight times), righteousness (three times), reconciliation and purification of heart (once each).

246  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification that there could be no justification without sanctification.684 Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence of Calvin’s preaching prior to Regensburg as none of his earlier sermons survive.685 What is known of Calvin’s ministry in Geneva hardly suggests that he preached an easy faith without amendment of life. This conclusion is borne out by his later sermons.686 He acknowledged that some use people the doctrine of justification by faith without works as an excuse to behave as they wish.687 Luke 24:47 is given a prominent role in the article by being quoted twice. Calvin also acknowledged its significance. It is clear that the whole substance (“totam . . . summam”) of the gospel is contained under the headings of repentance and forgiveness of sins.688 In his accounts of the apostolic preaching of the gospel in his later commentary and sermons on Acts, Calvin again portrays repentance and the forgiveness of sins as the two parts of the gospel689 and states that Christian doctrine consists in these two points, which may on no account be separated690 and should be preached daily.691 These two points correspond broadly to sanctification and justification for Calvin. In his Ezekiel lectures, given at the end of his life and published the year after his death, Calvin makes a point similar to §10. The statement that faith without works justifies is true, yet needs a skilled and sound interpretation. Indeed, it can be said to be both true and false, depending on the sense in which it is used. To state that “faith without works” justifies is false because faith without works is nothing, is dead and a purely fictional. On the other hand, it is true that faith “justifies without works.” Faith and works cannot be separated any more than the sun and its heat. Yet it is by faith alone that we are reconciled to God, so that he loves us not in ourselves but in Christ. Works have no role to play in this.692

684 Institutio 3:3:1 [1559]; 3:11:1 [1539]. 685 Parker, Calvin’s Preaching, 57–​58; de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin, 110. 686 Cf. Parker, Calvin’s Preaching, 114–​28. Cf. on Calvin’s second Sermon on Justification under §3:2–​4,  above. 687 Calvin, Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles, 184 (sermon 21, on 5:33–​35, 38–​39). 688 Institutio 3:3:19. 689 e.g. Comm. Acts 2:38 (CO 48:51; COR 2:12/​1:80; Fraser (tr.), Calvin’s Commentaries: The Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 78). 690 Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles, 22, 25 (sermon 3, on 2:38). Cf. ibid., 170, 173 (sermon 20, on 5:30–​32). 691 e.g. Comm. Acts 2:38 (CO 48:52; COR 2:12/​1:81; Fraser (tr.), Calvin’s Commentaries: The Acts of the Apostles 1–​13, 79; Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles, 22 (sermon 3, on 2:38). 692 Comm. Ezek 18:14–​17 (CO 40:439; Myers (tr.), Commentaries of the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel by John Calvin, 2:238, which is misleading in one place).

Text and Commentary, §10:1–2  247 Neuser interprets §10 to mean that sola fide must be understood in the sense of double justification (meaning duplex iustitia).693 That is, justification by faith alone refers to imputed righteousness, not to renewal which must be taught at the same time. Fenlon observes that “the Regensburg agreement was designed to legitimate the proclamation of salvation ‘de sola fide’: the ‘addition’ of good works in reality conceded the Protestant case.”694 Lexutt rightly observes that for Article 5 faith is always active, but goes on to make the claim that good works are always a constituent part of (mit konstitutiv für) justification.695 This last claim is not fair to the article. Hequet argues that there were underlying differences over justification that emerged only as other articles were discussed. In particular, she states that Eck used the reference in §10:1 to repentance, the fear of God, the judgement of God, and good works to demonstrate the need for a papal church order and hierarchy when it came to the discussion of Article 19.696 This may tell us something about Eck’s thought but has little relevance for the assessment of Article 5. None of the Reformers that we are considering questioned the need to teach about repentance, the fear of God, the judgement of God and good works, though it is true that Luther’s language about the last of these could be equivocal. It would be bizarre to suggest that they would have stopped preaching about these matters simply in case Eck might refer to them when arguing for a papal church order. Martens claims on the grounds of the earlier (§4:1, 5) fides efficax that sola fide is not so clear that the Reformation view of faith is unambiguous,697 although of course sola fide is explicitly allowed §10:1–​2. Clarity on the question of the basis of acceptance compensates for any ambiguity concerning sola fide. The essential point being made by §10 is that justification by faith alone is true, but needs to be qualified. This is a point that the Protestants were all making already, outside the context of ecumenical discussion.

693 Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” 189. 694 Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Italy, 55. 695 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 259. Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 202, responds. 696 Hequet, The 1541 Colloquy at Regensburg, 27–​28, 53, 62–​63. 697 Martens, Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders, 61.

248  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification

Conclusion The first point to note is that all parties made terminological concessions in accepting Article 5, especially in the use of the terms iustitia imputata and iustitia inhaerens. There is no one whose practice before the colloquy was to use all the terms found there. More importantly, to what extent could the participants say, with Calvin, that “the substance of the true doctrine” has been retained and that the article contains nothing “which is not to be found in our writings”?698 It was frequently claimed at the time that the article was fully compatible with the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, and we have found nothing in this chapter to question that claim. The same applies to the personal teaching of Melanchthon. Bucer seems to have embraced explicitly for the first time that the righteousness imputed to the believer is Christ’s righteousness.699 He continued to affirm this after the colloquy and is the one participant to continue openly to affirm the whole of Article 5 after the colloquy.700 Calvin, who made the “substance of the true doctrine” claim, did not go back on this and, indeed, moved closer to the article when he explicitly accepted the term inherent righteousness.701 So much for the Protestant participants, but what of the Catholics? For both Contarini and Gropper, acceptance of Article 5 involved not just terminological concessions, but the embracing of new ideas. This is truer for the former than the latter, whose Enchiridion paved the way for the acceptance of these ideas, even though it still involved a significant move. After the colloquy, Contarini does not back off these new ideas and, indeed, incorporates them into his Scholia. He is lukewarm about sola fide, but does not deny that it has a valid meaning. What about Gropper? He lived longer than Contarini and, unlike the Italian, found himself in bitter controversy with Bucer over the attempted Cologne Reformation. This certainly colours his language, causing him to cease referring to imputed righteousness, for example, but his letter to Pflug and, more significantly, his Apology at the end of his life, show that he had not reversed his beliefs and was willing to reaffirm his Articuli antididagmatis, which had defended his Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma. 698 For Calvin’s claim, see c­ hapter 2, at n. 30. 699 See c­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 215–​22. 700 In his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione and at the 1546 Regensburg Colloquy. 701 For the substance of what is claimed for Calvin in this book, gathered in one place, see Lane, “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy.”

Text and Commentary, Conclusion  249 These claims need to be qualified. We have seen with some of the sentences of Article 5 that Bucer and, especially, Gropper did not appear to see eye to eye after the colloquy. They had a spat over the issue of relying upon the testimony of good works (§5:1). There were also disputes, embracing more than just Bucer and Gropper, over the definition of justifying faith and, in particular, its relation to trust (fiducia) and to love (§§3:5, 4:1, 5). Also, Contarini, Pflug, and especially Gropper become less sympathetic to the use of the sola fide formula after the colloquy. There are two further questions to be considered in the next chapter. Luther, for example, complained that a whole raft of false doctrines were not excluded by the article.702 Also, there were complaints about the ambiguity of the article, especially regarding Eck’s claim that it teaches justification by love.703



702 703

See c­ hapter 2, above, at n. 23. See c­ hapter 2, above, at n. 57, 62, 69–​71.

6 Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Is Article 5 an inconsistent patchwork or does it contain the substance of true doctrine? We will approach this question in a variety of ways. First, we will consider a number of issues raised by the article and debates surrounding it. We will begin by considering doctrines not covered by Article 5, in particular those mentioned by Luther. Then we will consider possible ambiguities in the article, looking at the points raised by Melanchthon in three documents that he produced at the time. Finally, we will review four key issues that emerge: duplex iustitia, reliance upon the testimony of works, the nature of justifying faith, and finally the role for fiducia. Secondly, we will consider the participants. We will review the attitudes of Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin, and (to a lesser extent) Luther. We will also consider Contarini, Gropper, and Pflug. Eck gave his assent at the time, but we can accept as his more considered verdict his description of it as a harmful, maimed, mutilated, infantile declaration,1 not to mention his other colourful language about it. Finally, we will reach our conclusion.

The Issues Doctrines Not Covered by Article 5 There were complaints about what the article did not cover. Luther complained that eight propositions being taught by Catholic theologians were not excluded by the article: 1) Man has free will to do good, even in spiritual matters. 2) The grace that makes us acceptable (gratia gratum faciens) is love. 1 See c­ hapter 2, above, at n. 111. Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony L. S. Lane, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190069421.001.0001

252  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification 3) Infused faith is the grace that is freely given (gratia gratis data), even in the ungodly. 4) By doing his very best (quod in se est), the sinner can merit grace de congruo. 5) The righteous who have love with infused faith merit eternal life de condigno. 6) The natural man can fulfil God’s commands in his own natural powers, as regards the deed but not the intention. 7) There are twelve evangelical counsels. 8) God’s commands are not impossible for free choice.2 Five of these are in fact excluded by Article 5. The claim that free will (presumably unaided) can do spiritual good (1) is excluded by the emphasis on bondage to sin and the need for prevenient grace (§§1:1–​3:1), as is the claim that initial grace can be merited de congruo (4). The claim that it is love that makes us acceptable (2) is excluded by the statement that we are accepted by God “on account of Christ and his merit, not on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness communicated to us in Christ” (§4:6). (We will return to this issue as it relates to Eck’s claims as to what Article 5 actually teaches.) The claim that we can merit eternal life de condigno (5) is excluded both by §4:6 and by the statement that “this renewal is imperfect and enormous weakness remains” in the regenerate (§6). The imperfection of renewal and inherent righteousness also excludes the claim that free choice (whether aided or unaided) can perfectly fulfil God’s commands (8). So why does Luther imply that these five propositions are not excluded by Article 5? Maybe he expected Article 5 not just to make statements that excluded these propositions (e.g. the possibility of meriting grace by doing one’s very best (quod in se est)), but an explicit naming and shaming of each proposition. It is not altogether clear why Luther included the sixth claim, since he himself believed that the “natural man” is capable of performing outwardly righteous acts. Again, it is not altogether clear what the problem is with the third claim, since Luther himself believed that faith is a gift of God’s grace. Finally, the issue of the “evangelical counsels” is indeed not covered by Article 5. It might have been desirable for the article to cover this issue, as well as the precise nature of what constitutes “good works,” but the aim of this book is to analyse Article 5 as it is, not to discuss what other topics it might have included. 2 See c­ hapter 2, above, at n. 23.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  253

Ambiguities in Article 5 Secondly, there were complaints at the time about the ambiguities of the article. Most significant are the six issues raised by Melanchthon in three documents of the time, embracing points that Melanchthon wished to affirm (1–​3), issues that need to be clarified (4–​5), and a specific area of ambiguity:3 (1) Sin remains in Christians in this life. (2) Following from this, the regenerate can never satisfy the law of God in this life. (3) Despite this, God is pleased with our imperfect obedience, on account of Christ. (4) A related issue is the question of merit de condigno. (5) Another issue is the distinction between those sins which do and those which do not cause us to lose grace and the Holy Spirit. Melanchthon claimed that Gropper and Pflug also agreed about the need to clarify this question. (6) Finally, the term fides efficax has proved dangerously ambiguous. It has been taken to imply that we are justified “by a faith that works, i.e. by faith with works.” Alternatively, it has been taken to mean that faith prepares us for righteousness—​that is, love—​and that it is on account of love that we are accepted by God, not by faith on account of Christ. The first two issues are points that Melanchthon wished to emphasise, although they are in fact taught by Article 5. In teaching that we are not accepted “on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness communicated to us in Christ,” §4:6 implies that this inherent righteousness is imperfect, and that is stated explicitly in §6. The reference in §5:3 is to justified Christians performing righteous works and so being “said to be righteous” on account of inherent righteousness. Taken in isolation this could appear to deny Melanchthon’s first two points, but in the wider context that is not a reasonable interpretation: we are not justified “on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness communicated to us in Christ” (§4:6); our renewal is imperfect and enormous weakness remains in us (§6).4 3 See c­ hapter 2, at nn. 49–​51, above. For the six points, see c­ hapter 2, at nn. 52–​57, above. 4 Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole, 40, states that the one thing missing in §5 is a statement that our inherent righteousness is incomplete, imperfect and weak, but then acknowledges that this point is indeed made in §6. He later concedes that the point is not given sufficient weight (parum aestimari) (53).

254  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Melanchthon’s third issue is covered by the second sense of “double justification” (discussed in ­chapter 4). There we see that Melanchthon’s statement would have been approved by Luther, Bucer, and Calvin on the Protestant side and by Gropper and Pighius on the Catholic side. Eck’s teaching is similar. I am not aware that it appears in Contarini’s writings. Melanchthon’s fourth issue, merit de condigno, is not covered in Article 5 and, as can be seen by a perusal of the previous chapter, scarcely figures in the writings of the participants concerning the colloquy. It is an issue, like that of the “evangelical counsels,” one may have liked them to discuss, but they did not. The same applies to Melanchthon’s fifth issue, the distinction between sins which do and sins which do not cause us to lose grace and the Holy Spirit. These three issues (3–​5) are relevant and might have been covered by Article 5, but were not. As already stated, the aim of this book is to analyse Article 5 as it is, not to discuss what other topics it might have included. Melanchthon’s sixth issue is the most serious. It concerned not just a theoretical ambiguity but the actual claims made by Eck and noted by others.5 This issue also emerged in the debates over Article 5, as seen in c­ hapter 5. We shall consider it shortly.

Duplex Iustitia Is Article 5 an inconsistent patchwork or does it contain the substance of true doctrine? At first sight, the doctrine of duplex iustitia appears to be a perfect example of the former. Catholics spoke of an inherent, imparted righteousness, the inner transformation of sinners by the gracious act of the Holy Spirit so that they actually become righteous, so that God accepts them as righteous because they really are. Protestants spoke of an imputed righteousness, of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to our account so that, unworthy as we are, we are accepted by God on account of Christ. Regensburg links these two together and affirms that in conversion, we receive both types of righteousness. Surely, Luther was right to say of this “So they are right, and so are we”?6 Or was that criticism actually addressed to the idea of duplex iustitia? We need to reassess carefully the attitudes of all the participants to that doctrine. 5 See c­ hapter 2, above, at nn. 57, 62, 69–​71. 6 See c­ hapter 2, above, at n. 17.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  255 Neither Contarini, nor Gropper taught a doctrine of duplex iustitia before Regensburg. There is no evidence for Pflug. All three embraced it at the colloquy. Gropper’s Enchiridion paved the way for it to some extent, but Braunisch is right to describe his acceptance of it as a real break in his doctrine of justification.7 The break was even greater for Contarini, though helped by his conversion experience and his conviction about the imperfection of our inherent righteousness, together with his quest for assurance of salvation.8 Contarini defended Article 5 vigorously after the colloquy and reaffirmed duplex iustitia in his final work, his Scholia.9 Gropper also continued to affirm the doctrine in his 1544 Gegenberichtung (Antididagma) and vigorously defended it against the Leuven theological faculty in his Articuli Antididagmatis of the same year.10 Thereafter he went quiet on it, though his 1552 letter to Pflug indicates that it was politics rather than conviction that caused this silence.11 That is confirmed by the fact that in his final writing, his Apologia, he defends his earlier teaching on duplex iustitia, to the extent of reproducing the text of the Articuli Antididagmatis, which also vigorously defends the doctrine.12 Pflug also continued to affirm it.13 So for Contarini, Gropper, and Pflug, this was a new doctrine that they accepted at Regensburg and continued to hold thereafter, despite its inconvenience for them. What about the Protestants? Ironically, it is Luther who most used the language of duplex iustitia prior to the colloquy, on occasions in a sense very close to Article 5—​ironically, as Luther was one of the article’s bitterest opponents. This is not so surprising when one recognises that Luther’s criticisms of the Article 5 do not extend to its duplex iustitia doctrine. Luther’s objection to inherent righteousness was when it was cited as an answer to the question of how we become righteous, not when it was given as an answer to how the righteous should live.14 Melanchthon was not accustomed to use the phraseology of duplex iustitia prior to the colloquy, though Article 6 of the 1540 variata secunda of the Augsburg Confession comes very close to it.15 Bucer and Calvin

7 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at n. 64.

8 See c ­ hapter 1, above, at nn. 3, 6–​8.

9 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 105–​106.

10 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 148–​55. 11 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at n. 163.

12 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 168–​73. 13 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 174–​76. 14 For these points, see c ­ hapter 4.

15 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at n. 82. See also ­chapter 4, at nn. 76–​83.

256  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification were innocent of the terminology before the colloquy. For Calvin Article 5 represented a terminological concession. For Bucer the terminological concession was less, but there was the more substantive issue of accepting the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.16 Accepting the doctrine at Regensburg was not difficult for any of them. Imputed righteousness and inherent righteousness correspond to what Protestant theology normally calls justification and sanctification, and this distinction was accepted by all the Protestants, even though their terminology (especially the meaning of “justification”) was still fluid, apart from Calvin. For the Protestants, accepting duplex iustitia was a terminological step, and a minor step in that they were all on occasions to use the language of “righteousness” when speaking of justification. The key issue for Luther (explicitly) and also for all the Protestants concerns the distinction between two questions—​how we become righteous and how the righteous should live.17 Does Article 5 present inherent righteousness as an answer to the first or only to the second of these questions? We will return to that shortly when considering the nature of justifying faith. After the colloquy Bucer continued to defend Article 5 vigorously, with its doctrine of duplex iustitia.18 Calvin never mentioned the article again, but moved closer to it with his acceptance of the language of inherent righteousness.19 Melanchthon never objected to the article’s affirmation of a double righteousness and taught something similar.20 As has already been noted, Luther’s objections to the article did not extend to this point. So we have seen that the doctrine (as opposed to the wording) of duplex iustitia, in the version found in Article 5, is consistent with the teaching of Luther, Melanchthon (including the Augsburg Confession and Apology), Bucer, and Calvin before the colloquy. Melanchthon, Bucer and Calvin in their teaching after the colloquy support it either directly (Bucer) or indirectly (Melanchthon and Calvin). For Contarini and Gropper (and probably Pflug), the acceptance of duplex iustitia was a significant development from their earlier teaching. They all continued to affirm it after the colloquy, though Gropper felt for a time that he needed to keep quiet about imputed righteousness.



16 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 215–​22. 17 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at n. 18.

18 Especially in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione. 19 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 228–​29. 20 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 213–​14.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  257

Reliance upon the Testimony of Works Article 5 teaches that “faithful soul depends not on [inherent righteousness], but only on the righteousness of Christ given to us as a gift” (§5:1). Contarini took this on the chin, arguing in his Epistola that it is on Christ’s righteousness alone that we should rely, and on this basis alone that we should believe ourselves to be justified before God—​that is, “considered and proclaimed righteous.”21 Gropper, however, appeared to resile from this after the colloquy, as we saw in the last chapter, on §5:1. We shall here restate those findings more briefly. In his Gegenberichtung (Antididagma), Gropper has a doctrine of duplex fiducia (double trust/​confidence). He states that we are to rely and trust principally on the imputed righteousness of Christ, not our imperfect inherent righteousness. But the inward experience of inherent righteousness is proof that we are forgiven, that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us and that he dwells in us by faith. Gropper draws short of Contarini’s position that our trust should be in imputed righteousness alone. It is in imputed righteousness that we trust, though with a subsidiary confirmatory role for inherent righteousness. Our confidence in the forgiveness of sins is based only and entirely on the Lord Jesus Christ and his merit, but alongside this there is a fiducia bonae conscientiae (confidence of a good conscience). This secondary role of the fiducia bonae conscientiae was important for Gropper, as he went on to criticise the Einfaltigs Bedencken for failing to mention it. Gropper further defends this position in his Articuli Antididagmatis and his Apologia. In the latter, he refers again to a duplex fiducia. Our primary trust is in the mercy of God, but there is a secondary trust in the testimony of a good conscience. Bucer responded to the charge of Gropper’s Gegenberichtung in his Bestendiger Verantwortung, complaining as ever that the other side were seeking a quarrel with no good cause. He denied that the biblical passages cited by Gropper teach a confidence of the good conscience, and argues that what they teach is the need to perform good works and the importance of self-​examination. Scripture says absolutely nothing about putting our confidence (fiducia) in a good conscience; rather, it commends the role of conscience as a witness. Bucer’s own position amounts to two points. His first point is that because of the imperfection of works (conceded by the other side) the only ground to

21

CC 7:29–​30.

258  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification stand before God on the day of judgement is through trusting in the forgiveness of sins. We are to depend on the grace of God and the merit of Christ alone, not on any of our works, nor on any witness of our conscience or our good deeds, since these remain imperfect and defective. Our conscience cannot testify that we have wholly obeyed God’s commandments, though the good working of the Holy Spirit in us is a sign and a proof of God’s grace. Bucer remains faithful here to the teaching and wording of §5:1. Bucer is also (his second point) willing to concede that we should examine ourselves to see the work of the Spirit producing love and obedience to God’s commands, and that although these are imperfect they are the “seal and affirmation of divine adoption and of the inheritance of eternal life.” Bucer’s two points are answers to two different questions. Regarding the basis of our acceptance by God, the answer is that this is on the basis of God’s grace and Christ’s merit alone, received by faith. But how can we be sure that we have genuine faith, that we are not among those who falsely presume upon a dead faith? It is in answer to this question that Bucer acknowledges a role for the testimony of a good conscience. Bucer distinguishes between confidence (fiducia) in the forgiveness of sins as the basis for our standing before God and the testimony of a good conscience as the confirmation that we have true faith. Gropper uses the word fiducia alike of both, but is his doctrine actually different? In the section from Gegenberichtung cited above he states that confidence in the forgiveness of sins should be placed in Christ alone. But the confidence of a good conscience is needed to make this certain and indubitable. Bucer is very critical of the idea that confidence (fiducia) in Christ can be uncertain and doubtful, but here he is failing to read Gropper carefully—​or unwilling to expound him accurately. Gropper goes on to state that it is Christ alone who can heal us, but that the confidence of a good conscience has a role in establishing whether or not we have yet received his healing. This is precisely the context in which Bucer allows a role for the testimony of a good conscience. The difference between the two theologians here amounts to little more than whether the role of the good conscience should be described as fiducia or testimonium. Here, as elsewhere in this exchange, Gropper and Bucer were both picking a fight. Their exchange produced more heat than light, and an essential agreement on content was masked by a deliberate focus on differences in terminology. The observation that the debate was degenerating into an argument about words is not of recent origin. Melanchthon, in his Iudicium, concluded that

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  259 “this article in the Cologne writing [Gegenberichtung] is consistent with the true way of thinking and with ours.” On this point there is no significant difference and no reason for accusing Gropper of reneging on what was agreed at Regensburg.

The Nature of Justifying Faith There were disputes over the definition of justifying faith and, in particular, its relation to trust (fiducia) and to love, for which see c­ hapter 5, on §§3:5, 4:1, 5. Bucer, in his exposition of Article 5, correctly described this as the chief question in the controversy over justification. He summarises the issues well: The parties agreed that we are justified through faith, or by faith. They debated, however, and were not all of the same view, whether justification is received by faith in such a way that love and other virtues contribute nothing to it, or whether justification is completed (perficiatur) by love and other virtues, and not by faith alone. That is, whether we are justified by faith per se and on its own account, or how far it has love joined together with it, and the remaining powers of the new life, by which faith is effectual not merely for works but also effectual in that it is true and living or, as the scholastics say, it has received its form and perfection.22

First, it will help to clarify the issues on which all were agreed. All of the participants were agreed that a purely intellectual faith (as described by James, for example) is not sufficient for salvation.23 All were agreed that a saving faith is one that is living and effectual (efficacem) and, indeed, effectual through love (efficax per caritatem), as is taught by §4:1, 5. Bucer, Calvin, and Melanchthon all taught the same here. Despite this, there was a concern, voiced especially, but not exclusively, by Melanchthon, about how some Catholics were interpreting the statement that the faith which justifies is a faith which is effectual through love. The article states that we are justified or accepted as righteous on the basis of a living and efficacious faith (§4:1). Again, justification does not happen without the

22 DVRC, 170a.

23 See c ­ hapter 5, above, on §3:5.

260  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification infusion of love and the faith that justifies is effectual through love (§4:3, 5). None of the Reformers wanted to state that it was possible to have saving faith without love. That saving faith is a living faith accompanied by love leading to good works was not controversial. But the (separated) statements that we are justified on the basis of efficacious faith and that faith is effectual through love could be taken to mean that justification is on the basis not of faith alone but (to use the Catholic formula) of “faith formed by love.” Thus it was claimed by some Catholics at Regensburg, in particular Eck, that the article taught justification by love alone. Here was Luther’s chief concern with Article 5. But none of the Protestants wished to suggest that we can be saved by a faith that does not issue in love. Indeed, Bucer was annoyed that Gropper could suppose that the Protestants taught that and accused him of slandering Luther by accusing him of teaching justification “through a faith that is barren and ineffectual for good works.”24 All the Protestants were happy to affirm the role of love in answer to the question of how the righteous should live, not in answer to the question of how we become righteous. So, if all were agreed that saving faith “works through love” (Gal 5:6), why the controversy? The Reformers did not wish to deny that the faith that justifies “works through love.” The crucial issue, however, concerns the basis for our acceptance by God. Are we accepted on the basis of the righteousness of Christ reckoned or imputed to our account and received by faith? (Together with this faith other virtues like love may be found, but it is not these that lay hold of Christ’s righteousness.) Or are we accepted on the basis of the righteousness that now inheres within us and, in particular, the love bestowed by the Holy Spirit which makes us acceptable to God? (So justification may be by “faith formed by love,” but it is essentially love that justifies.) Here is not a minor verbal quibble but the difference between two fundamentally irreconcilable doctrines of justification. As we have seen, Eck argued that Article 5 could be taken to teach that we are justified by love. It should be noted, however, that we are dependent upon Protestants at Regensburg for this account of Eck.25 In his own writings he makes no attempt to justify Article 5 by claiming that it teaches justification by love but, freed from the obligation to assent to it, vilifies it as a harmful, maimed, mutilated, infantile declaration.26 There is no doubt, however, that the danger identified by the Protestants at Regensburg was real. We have seen

24 See c ­ hapter 5, above, on §4:1, 5.

25 See c ­ hapter 2, above, at nn. 57, 62, 69–​71.

26 See c ­ hapter 2, above, at nn. 96, 111, 113–​15.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  261 how Sadolet could interpret sola fide: “When we say, then, that we can be saved by faith alone in God and Jesus Christ, we hold that in this very faith love is essentially comprehended as the chief and primary cause of our salvation.”27 Again, Pighius argued that while faith and love are both necessary, it is more correct to state that we are justified by love than by faith.28 On the other hand, neither Sadolet nor Pighius claimed that Article 5 taught this, and the former rejected the teaching of the article.29 Melanchthon did not resile from the claim that Article 5 is compatible with the Augsburg Confession and the Apology, but he did complain about the ambiguity of the article, in the light of Eck’s interpretation. Luther went further and claimed that Article 5 was an inconsistent patchwork. He claimed that the two ideas of justification by faith alone without works (Rom 3) and faith working through love (Gal 5) had been thrown together and glued together. “So they are right, and so are we.” This is like sewing a new patch onto an old garment (Matt 9). What was Luther’s problem here? He distinguishes between two questions: how we become righteous and how the righteous should live. Galatians 5:6, he states, is about the latter, not the former. He is very happy with, and affirms, the idea of faith working through love as a description of “how the righteous should live.” What he rejects vehemently is the idea that love has a role to play in “how we become righteous.” He claims that Article 5 teaches that we are justified not by faith alone but also through works or through love and grace, which they call inherent. This is false because before God only Christ is completely pure and holy.30 So is it true that Article 5 is ambiguous here or that it teaches two contradictory views? It was ambiguous to the extent that Eck could suggest that it teaches justification by love alone. But this claim should not be accepted uncritically. The fact that someone offers a divergent interpretation of a document does not necessarily mean that the original was ambiguous. The divergent interpretation might in fact be a blatant misinterpretation, whether wilful or sincere. Having acknowledged the claim (whether by Eck or by Luther) that the article

27 See c­ hapter 5, above, on §4:1. 28 See c­ hapter 5, above, at n. 665. 29 See c­ hapter 2, above, at nn. 150–​57. Pighius considered justification an issue that could easily be resolved (Ratio componendorum dissidiorum, sigs. I3b–​4b) but never gave his assent to Article 5. On the claim that the article is “largely the view of Pighius,” see c­ hapter 4, above, at n. 45. 30 For Luther in the last two paragraphs, see c­ hapter 2, above, at n. 17; ­chapter 5, above, on §4:5.

262  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification teaches acceptance by God on the basis of love, we must ask whether this is in fact a legitimate interpretation or an illegitimate misinterpretation. Taking §4:5 out of context, it would appear to be a legitimate interpretation, but not if we take in the context of the article as a whole. Living faith appropriates mercy and imputed righteousness in Christ (§4:2) and receives the Holy Spirit, who infuses love (§4:3). Justifying faith is “that faith which is effectual through love,” not because the love and good works play a role in appropriating justification, but because they are gifts received at the same time as justification. Again, §4:6 states that “it is by this faith that we are justified (i.e. accepted and reconciled to God) inasmuch as it appropriates the mercy and righteousness which is imputed to us on account of Christ and his merit, not on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness communicated to us in Christ.” This clearly states that we are accepted by God not on account of the love that accompanies faith (as Luther feared), nor even on account of the worthiness or perfection of our faith itself, but “on account of Christ and his merit.” Acceptance on the basis of inherent righteousness (such as love) is very carefully excluded. The same point is made in §5:2, which states that “we are accepted through [Christ’s] merits and not on account of our own worthiness or works.” The article goes on to state that our renewal remains imperfect, and so it is “on account of Christ the mediator” that we are pleasing to God (§6). Article 5, like Luther, understands Galatians 5:6 to refer to how the righteous should live, not how we become righteous. Again, to state the same point in different terms, most of our participants at some stage understand justification to refer both to our acceptance by God and to the renewal brought by the Holy Spirit.31 Article 5 relates Galatians 5:6 to the latter, not the former.32 So on the question of justification by love, Article 5 is not actually ambiguous. Eck’s “interpretation” of the article, which he never put in writing, which he contradicted in his later writings, and for which we are solely dependent upon the testimony of his Protestant critics, is not a genuine interpretation of the article but a clear misinterpretation, a short-​term strategy to justify his action in (temporarily) giving his assent to the article.



31 See c ­ hapter 5, above, on §5:1.

32 Bucer, DVRC, 170a–​210a, argues at length against Eck’s interpretation of Article 5.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  263

The Role of Fiducia There is one more issue to be considered, which arose in the debates that followed the colloquy. What is the role of fiducia in the appropriation of justification and in the Christian life? Melanchthon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession sees saving faith as more than a mere historical or intellectual faith. It involves a personal faith that one’s own sins are forgiven because of Christ, trust (fiducia) in God’s promised mercy. After the colloquy, in his 1543 Loci Theologici, he argues at length that faith involves both assent to God’s Word (and the promises especially), and trust (fiducia) in God’s promised mercy. Bucer is equally clear on the importance of trust in God’s promised mercy, but less clear than Melanchthon in including it as part of the definition of faith. Calvin is as clear as Melanchthon that faith includes trust (fiducia) in God’s promised mercy.33 The Tridentine Decree on Justification uses the word fiducia only in negative terms. Chapter 9 is headed “Against the Vain Confidence of Heretics” (Contra inanem hæreticorum fiduciam). This states: Yet it should not be said that sins are forgiven, or ever have been forgiven, to those who boast of their confidence (fiduciam) in and certainty of the remission of their sins and rest on that alone. For this vain and ungodly confidence (fiducia) may exist (and in our day does exist) among heretics and schismatics and is preached with great vehemence in opposition to the Catholic Church.

It goes on to refute any understanding of faith in these terms: Neither is it to be asserted that those who are truly justified must settle within themselves, without any doubting whatever, that they are justified; nor that no one is absolved from sins and justified unless he believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; nor that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone—​as if anyone lacking this belief doubts God’s promises and the efficacy of Christ’s death and resurrection.



33 For this paragraph, see c ­ hapter 5, above, on §3:5.

264  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification This is based upon the claim that “no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.” The same points are made in canon 12: If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing other than trust (fiduciam) in the divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or that it is this trust (fiduciam) alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema.

There are two key points to which the decree objects: the claim that it is possible to know that one is in a state of grace “with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error” and the inclusion of “confidence (fiduciam) in and certainty of the remission of their sins” in the definition of justifying faith. But it should not be imagined that the decree allows no role for fiducia. Earlier, in describing the path to justification, faith is understood in intellectual terms: “believing to be true what God has revealed and promised—​in particular that God justifies the ungodly ‘by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’.” This then leads to hope, which involves “being confident (fidentes) that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake” (ch. 6). Again, the final chapter quotes Hebrews 10:35 to the effect that Christians should not “throw away your confidence (confidentiam), which has a great reward.” Also, a Christian should not “either trust (confidat) or glory in himself and not in the Lord” (ch. 16). This coheres with the earlier statement that “sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted, except freely by the mercy of God for Christ’s sake” (ch. 9). What does Article 5 have to say to this? Not very much. Faith is described in terms of assent in §3:5, which goes on to state that the believer then “acquires confidence [fiduciam] on account of God’s promise, by which he has pledged that he will remit sins freely and that he will adopt as children those who believe in Christ, those I say who repent of their former life.” This may appear to favour Trent’s progression from faith to confident (fidentes) hope (ch. 6). However, §3:6 proceeds to state that it is by this faith that the believer “is lifted up to God by the Holy Spirit and so receives the Holy Spirit, remission of sins, imputation of righteousness and countless other gifts.” This rather favours the idea that fiducia is essential for justifying faith. Again §4:4 states that living faith believes “that the righteousness which is in Christ is freely imputed to it,” which would seem to suggest that confidence that one has received imputed righteousness is essential for justifying faith. Finally, §6 states that “those who truly repent may always hold with most certain

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  265 faith that they are pleasing to God on account of Christ the mediator,” which appears to contradict the later teaching of Trent. There is no reason to suppose that the Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer or Calvin were unhappy with Article 5 on this point. But what of Contarini, Gropper and Pflug? Contarini after the colloquy fully embraces §3:5 and his definitions of faith include trust (fiducia) in God’s promises. Gleason correctly observes that “like Luther, Contarini conceives of the essence of faith as trust and hope in God’s mercy.” He continued with this understanding in his Scholia, his final work, written after Article 5 had ceased to be a live political option. Pflug, in 1562, still followed the threefold division of §3:5, the third being that we believe in God, bestowing our hope and trust (fidutiam) on him.34 Gropper’s position is more complex. In his Enchiridion he has a threefold division of faith similar to §3:5, including fiducia, by which we submit totally to God. He also quotes Bernard to the effect that “our whole confidence, our unique comfort and the whole reason for our hope” rests on God’s promise and mercy. In his Gegenberichtung (Antididagma) after the colloquy, Gropper introduced the idea of the confidence of a good conscience, but alongside this continued to affirm that our confidence in the forgiveness of sins is based only and entirely on the Lord Jesus Christ and his merit. He states that we are justified through faith, by which, without wavering, we are steadfastly confident that our sins are pardoned on account of Christ, we who truly repent of our sins (cf. §4:2, 6:1). The Leuven faculty objected to this, but Gropper stuck to his guns, claiming that the trust (fiduciam) by which we receive the forgiveness of sins, and by which without wavering we are steadfastly confident that our sins are forgiven on account of Christ, ought to be certain. In his 1553 Capita Institutionis ad Pietatem, he states that those who repent of their old life receive forgiveness of sins through faith, by trust in the merits of the passion of Christ. In his 1559 Apologia, however, he firmly rejects the idea that saving faith necessitates a confidence that one’s sins have been forgiven, seeing this idea as a Lutheran heresy condemned at Trent. He still, however, affirms the idea of a fiducia or certitudo of the forgiveness of sins. He also at that time claims that all his books repudiate the belief that one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has been justified. He does, however, claim that Trent teaches that we can have hope and a specific confidence (fiducia specialis) that our sins are forgiven, albeit subject to error.35

34 For this paragraph, see c ­ hapter 5, above, on §3:5.

35 For this paragraph, see c ­ hapter 5, above, on §3:5; 5:1.

266  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Article 5 is less specific on this issue than on others, such as the role of imputed righteousness. Contarini, Gropper, and Pflug remain faithful to the article on this point; Gropper and Pflug, even after the Tridentine Decree on Justification.

The Participants Next, we will seek to answer our initial question (Is Article 5 an inconsistent patchwork or does it contain the substance of true doctrine?), from the perspectives of Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin on the Protestant side and Contarini, Gropper, and Pflug on the Catholic side.

Melanchthon It was frequently claimed at the time that the article was fully compatible with the Augsburg Confession and the Apology.36 In ­chapter 4 we found that the doctrine (as opposed to the wording) of duplex iustitia, in the version found in Article 5, is consistent with the teaching of the Augsburg Confession and Apology, and with the wider teaching of Melanchthon. In ­chapter 5, likewise, we found no reason to question the claim that nothing in the article is inconsistent with the teaching of the Augsburg Confession and Apology and with the wider teaching of Melanchthon. Of course, not every single statement in Article 5 can be paralleled precisely in these credal documents or in Melanchthon’s writings, and as we have already noted, the article involved terminological compromises on all sides. It is hard to prove a negative conclusively, but the compatibility of the article with these documents was and remains widely acknowledged. Critics of the article have focused on areas of ambiguity, without claiming that it is incompatible with the Augsburg Confession and Apology.

Bucer Of the six figures we are considering, Bucer was undoubtedly the most enthusiastic about Article 5. Unlike the others, he defended the article after the

36 See c ­ hapter 2 above, at nn. 3, 8, 39, 40, 58, 114. Cf. c­ hapter 2, at n. 15.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  267 colloquy in great detail, in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione. At the second Regensburg Colloquy, in 1546, Bucer unsuccessfully sought to have Article 5 accepted as it had already been agreed.37 How consistent was he in accepting Article 5? There is a reason to question Bucer’s consistency more than that of our other five figures. Bucer has a reputation for irenicism and has been described as “without doubt, of the eminent Protestant theologians the most prepared to reach agreement.”38 But Brian Lugioyo has argued at length that though Bucer’s method may have been flexible, his consistent aim in the colloquies was to win his Catholic partners for the Evangelical doctrine of justification by faith.39 The present study reinforces Lugioyo’s conclusion. Bucer’s support for Article 5 was consistent with his earlier teaching. If there is any change involved, it is in a more Protestant direction. He came to support the definition of justification in terms of imputed righteousness alone; whereas earlier in his Romans Commentary, he had inclined more to a broader definition of justification which included sanctification. Also, at the colloquy he seems to have embraced explicitly for the first time that the righteousness imputed to the believer is Christ’s righteousness.40 He also at the colloquy, and especially in his De vera . . . reconcilatione et compositione, embraced the sola fide formula more enthusiastically than previously. These changes are mostly terminological, though the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is a small, but significant, development of content.

Calvin Calvin claimed that “nothing can be comprehended within [Article 5] which is not to be found in our writings,” and ­chapters 4 and 5 have confirmed this. Not all the terminology of the article can be found in Calvin’s writings, but this study has found “nothing” in the article which is not found in Calvin’s writings, at least as regards the substance. There should be no surprise at this conclusion. Calvin admitted that Farel would desire, as he himself would, “a more distinct explication and statement of the doctrine.” This is tantamount 37 See c­ hapter 3, above, at nn. 140–​42. 38 See c­ hapter 1, above, at nn. 37–​43. The quotation is from Fuchs, Konfession und Gespräch, 425. 39 Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, passim, especially 3–​12, 15–​17, 24–​35, 135–​37, 205–​208. For others on this, see c­ hapter 1, above, n. 45. 40 See c­ hapter 4, above, at n. 221.

268  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification to saying that the way in which the doctrine is expressed was not altogether to his liking, though the substance was acceptable. Calvin was not inflexible when it came to terminology. In his response to the Augsburg Interim he denies that he is one of those who will not allow anything that does not totally satisfy them.41 He was not one of those who are unable to distinguish between the substance of doctrine and its wording. The central theme of the two iustitiae, imputed and inherent, both received simul by faith exactly fitted his (and Melanchthon’s and Bucer’s) own schema of justification and sanctification. Calvin preferred to refer to a double grace, and from his point of view, the concessions made in the article were primarily linguistic. Inherent righteousness he normally referred to as sanctification. Nothing is claimed of the former that Calvin was not ready to grant of the latter. He had already conceded the language of fides efficax per caritatem, though this was not how he chose to express his teaching for himself. The concession of a role for free choice is expressed in terms that Calvin would not have used voluntarily, but he repeatedly conceded that similar language had been used by Augustine in an orthodox sense. Calvin could have signed Article 5 without any difficulty.

Contarini At Regensburg Contarini embraced for the first time (for which we have any evidence) the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ and held that we should depend upon that, rather than inherent righteousness, for our standing before God. Despite the failure of the colloquy, Contarini continued to hold these beliefs for the brief remainder of his life. He was not merely concerned to find a compromise formula for the purpose of concord, though that consideration was not, of course, totally absent. His acceptance of imputed righteousness was based on a previously deeply felt conviction, that throughout this life and at the Last Judgement, the Christian is in need of the mercy of God.42 Von Loewenich comments that with the best will one cannot say that the unclear formulations of Article 5 are made much clearer by Contarini’s Epistola de iustificatione. This helps to explain how the cardinal’s theology can be taken in such different ways. Von Loewenich goes on to state that the

41 CO 7:595; SWJC 3:244.

42 See c ­ hapter 1, above, at nn. 6–​8.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  269 one thing that is clear is that Contarini was concerned to give Article 5 a Catholic meaning (sensus catholicus), but denies that he succeeded in this aim.43 There are good reasons for his doubts. In some respects, the letter can be seen as “more Catholic” than the article, such as the mention of fides formata per charitatem,44 the way in which he uses the word justification, the explicit mention of a justification of/​by works,45 and the failure to mention sola fide. But in a number of other respects the letter appears to be “more Protestant” than the article. Contarini is more explicit than the article on the need to rely upon imputed righteousness and defends this at considerable length. Related to this, the imperfection of inherent righteousness is more explicit in the letter than in the article.46 The letter, unlike the article, makes no mention even of reward, let alone merit. Finally, the letter is more explicit than the article on the possibility of assurance of salvation. All this would suggest that Contarini was concerned in his letter not just to give the article a Catholic interpretation but, at least as much, to argue for and defend his own doctrine of justification.47 He vigorously defends his new-​found belief in imputed righteousness and the need to depend on that, rather than inherent righteousness, for our standing before God. Contarini also defended these beliefs in his other writings about Regensburg48 and, at the end of his life, in his Scholia.49 He consciously adopted “Lutheran” ideas, believing them to be true and Catholic. In the last month of his life he sent Pole a piece on paenitentia.50 Here he stated that, where forgiveness and reconciliation are concerned, “the foundation of the Lutherans’ edifice is most true. We ought not in any way contradict them, but should accept it as true and Catholic, indeed as the foundation of the Christian religion.”51 Fenlon argues that Contarini’s and Pole’s

43 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 44. 44 CC 7:29. 45 CC 7:33. 46 Brieger, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Cardinal Contarini,” 117, correctly notes that Contarini is “weniger zurückhaltend” than Article 5 at this point. 47 Brieger, “Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” 578, points out that “Contarini die Regensburger Vergleichsformel über die Rechtfertigung, über deren unkatholischen Charakter man füglich nicht mehr streiten sollte, allen römischen Angriffen und Verdächtigungen zum Trotz unentwägt als Darlegung der katholischen Lehre behauptet hat.” 48 See c­ hapter 2, above, at nn. 82–​83. 49 See c­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 105–​10. Pauselli, “Note sugli Scholia di Gasparo Contarini ad Efesini e Galati,” 141–​53, especially 142, 153. 50 Contarini, Cardinali Polo de paenitentia (July/​August 1542)  in Regesten, 353–​61. See on this Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 820–​24; Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 293–​98. 51 Regesten, 358.

270  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification quasi-​Lutheran views on justification were inconsistent with their other Catholic beliefs, such as purgatory.52 This does not necessarily follow, as Gleason shows. Contarini argues that some mortal sins transgress against three laws: divine law, natural law, and human or civil law. A repentant murderer is forgiven the trespass against divine law (justification by faith), but still faces the penalty of civil law (execution). Likewise, natural law involves the need to offer satisfaction for sins, through penance (paenitentia) and purgatory.53 (This is effectively the Tridentine distinction between eternal and temporal punishment.) Contarini saw no contradiction at this point between his “Lutheran” doctrine of justification and his Catholic beliefs. His argument is persuasive to the extent that he talks of offences against God, the state, and the church, but less so in that satisfaction and purgatory concern our debt not to the church but to God. Underlying Contarini’s approach here is the fact that while for Luther justification by faith was the article by which to test all other doctrines, for Contarini “its relevance tends rather to be restricted to the realm of private piety, to the spiritual life of the individual.”54 Overall, Gleason faults Contarini for “his inability, perhaps also his unwillingness, to understand that the Catholicism of his time and justification sola fide could not be harmonized.”55 Perhaps this should be modified to read “the Catholicism of the emerging Counter-​Reformation and the Council of Trent.” No one doubts that Contarini’s doctrine is contrary to the later Tridentine decree. If it is maintained (as by Jedin, for example56) that it was orthodox by the standards of 1541 Catholicism, this only goes to show the extent to which the Council of Trent excluded what had previously been acceptable Catholic teaching.57

52 Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Italy,  62–​68. 53 Regesten, 358–​61. Cf. Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 295–​97. As Gleason notes (298), Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini, 822–​ 23, does not consider Contarini’s position here to be in line with Catholic dogma. 54 Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg, 179. Ricca, “I Colloqui di Ratisbona:  l’azione e le idee di Gaspare Contarini,” 224, comments that Contarini was at the same time very close to Protestantism and very distant from it. 55 Gleason, Gasparo Contarini, 276. 56 Advocates of this view are listed in CC 7, XXI. Also Jedin, Kardinal Contarini als Kontroverstheologe, 16; Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, 1:383; Jedin, “Contarini (Gasparo),” 781. Jedin’s position is that while it is undeniably not Tridentine, it is not Protestant. It was a legitimate Catholic position prior to Trent. 57 The same can be seen with the teaching of Bernard. Cf. Lane, “Bernard of Clairvaux:  A Forerunner of John Calvin?” For the Tridentine response to this, see ­chapter 2, above, n. 165.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  271

Gropper Gropper’s influence upon Article 5, as the prime author of the Worms Draft and as the author of a subsequent draft which was substantially incorporated, is undoubted. But is the teaching of the final article the same as that of the Enchiridion, or is there is significant shift between the two? Recent scholarship is divided on this issue. Lipgens notes that there are clear lines of connection between Gropper’s Enchiridion and the final article, but also a deep difference between them.58 He also notes that “Gropper, under the unusually powerful pressure towards unity at the Regensburg Reichstag, for several weeks thought less clearly than in the Enchiridion,” and had overstepped the limits of Catholic theology.59 Von Loewenich, however, questions whether there is such a fundamental divide between the Enchiridion and Article 5.60 Braunisch, in his careful study of Gropper, unravels the widespread confusion (“die babylonische Begriffsverwirrung”) between double righteousness and double justification,61 and shows how Gropper did not clearly teach the former until his 1544 Gegenberichtung. This was the result of the Regensburg discussions, and while the development doubtless had its roots in the Enchiridion, it involved a clear break from it, seen especially in the double formal cause of justification taught in 1544.62 As with Contarini, Gropper’s change had roots in his previously deeply felt conviction, that throughout this life and at the Last Judgement the Christian is in need of the mercy of God.63 We have seen that there was a marked change of tone in Gropper’s writings between 1544 and 1545. In 1544 he was proclaiming a vigorous doctrine of imputed righteousness; from 1545 he is silent about it and suggests a polarisation between Protestant doctrines of imputed righteousness alone and Catholic teaching of inherent righteousness alone.64 Does that mean that 58 Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 129. 59 Lipgens, Kardinal Johannes Gropper, 132. 60 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia, 37–​ 38. Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1541,” 338–​ 39, supports Lipgens. 61 Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 419–​25, quotation at 423. 62 Braunisch, Theologie der Rechtfertigung, 426–​31. Bellarmine was perceptive enough to discern this and to blame the Gropper of the Gegenberichtung/​Antididagma, not the Enchiridion, for the doctrine of duplex iustitia (De iustificatione 2:1 in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini Tomus Quartus, 893). McGrath criticises Bellarmine as if he had blamed Gropper’s Enchiridion (McGrath, Iustitia Dei (1986) 2:57–​58). A shorter version appears in McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2005), 312. 63 See c­ hapter 1, above, at nn. 6–​8. 64 See c­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 147–​62.

272  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Gropper had rejected the doctrine of imputed righteousness? Had he gone back on the points that he had accepted when he agreed to Article 5? Clearly, as a result of the attempted Cologne Reformation Gropper’s friendly attitude towards Bucer changed. His search for a mediating position was replaced by strongly polemical opposition to the Reformers. Despite this, there is clear evidence that what had changed was Gropper’s estimate of what it was prudent to state, not his beliefs as such. That is the implication of his private letter to Pflug.65 It is also the implication of his lengthy and very public Apologia, his final work. Here Gropper states that he has always defended the Catholic Church and the Catholic religion. He claims conformity with the sacred Scriptures, with the ancient holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church. He also claims to be refuting the insanities and perverse dogmas of the [Protestant] heretics and submits to the judgement of Holy See and the Inquisition. Gropper is also keen to show that his teaching is consistent with Trent. But all of this is offered, not by way of recantation of his earlier writings nor of correction, but as a defence of his Enchiridion and Antididagma.66 Moreover, he repeats almost verbatim his Articuli Antididagmatis, in which he had vigorously defended the Antididagma.67 It is clear that Gropper had not turned back on the new insights that he had acquired at Regensburg. At the end of his life he was probably concerned to set the record straight on this, and more willing to stick his neck out, knowing that he did not have long to live. The one qualification of this concerns the sola fide formula. Gropper had been open to this prior to Regensburg, but became more hostile after the colloquy. Indeed, the statement that “faith alone without any good works justifies and saves” is given as an example of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.68

Pflug Pflug shared Bucer’s irenical orientation and stressed beliefs that were shared more than those which divided.69 We have less evidence of his teaching than of our other five figures. What little we know of Pflug’s 65 See c­ hapter 4, above, at n. 163. 66 JGB 2:593. On Trent see, e.g. 597, 601–​602, 603–​604, 618–​21. On the accuracy of Gropper’s claim, see c­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 206–​208. 67 JGB 2:647–​63. 68 See c­ hapter 5, above, on §10:1–​2. 69 Offele, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit, 163.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  273 teaching before the colloquy suggests that he came with an approach similar to Gropper and Contarini.70 Like them, at the colloquy he embraced the ideas of duplex iustitia and the imputed righteousness of Christ. After the colloquy, he continued to hold and profess these ideas.71 Bucer testified to Gropper’s and Pflug’s agreement with the Protestants over justification.72 The little evidence that we have for Pflug indicates that he continued to hold to Article 5 after the colloquy,73 with one exception. As did Gropper and Contarini, he backed off the sola fide formula, ironically appealing to Article 5 for support in this!74

Conclusion: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Sed contra We have seen that, from the perspective of a Reformation theology of justification, Article 5 does indeed contain the substance of true doctrine. We have seen that in substance, though not in terminology, it coheres with the teaching of Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin before and after the colloquy. We have also seen that Contarini and Gropper both moved beyond their previous teaching in accepting the article, Contarini more than Gropper, and that both continued to hold their new beliefs, though Gropper did not parade this after 1544 until the end of his life. We have not claimed that Article 5 is consistent with the teaching of Eck, or of Roman Catholic theology in general, let alone the Tridentine Decree on Justification. “In the light of massive terminological agreement, why did the two sides not recognize truly a coming together?”75 Why were Luther and some other Protestants so opposed to the article? Why have some Protestants, such as Lexutt and Neuser, interpreted it so negatively? I have sought to show why the negative interpretations of the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries are, in fact, inaccurate and misrepresent Article 5. And yet, and yet. There are a number of factors to consider.

70 See c ­ hapter 1, above, at nn. 79–​82.

71 See c ­ hapter 4, above, at nn. 174–​76. This was recognised at Trent (­chapter 4, above, at n. 188). 72 See c ­ hapter 2, above, at n. 66. 73 See c ­ hapter 5, above, passim.

74 See c ­ hapter 5, above, on §10:1–​2.

75 Question posed by Robert Kolb in response to reading c ­ hapters 4 and 5 (from a private email).

274  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. On this basis, the colloquy was clearly a failure and Article 5 lost the significance that it was meant to have. But does the failure of the rest of the colloquy refute our interpretation of the article? Luther complained about Catholic propositions that the article does not exclude, though I have argued that most of them actually are excluded.76 Melanchthon also sought greater clarity on some points.77 At the colloquy, Edhard Schnepf went beyond complaining about beliefs that were not excluded, and argued that the beliefs of the other side on matters such as satisfaction, purgatory, and the sacrifice of the mass proved that they had not, in fact, understood justification correctly.78 If people do not agree on the implications of a doctrine, need that mean that they do not agree on the doctrine itself? The biggest difference between the Catholics and Protestants at Regensburg was not their doctrine of justification (apart from Eck), but the role that they were prepared to give to justification in the rest of their theology, the implications that they chose to draw from it. This poses the question of hermeneutical approach. Some, then and now, approach the article with a hermeneutic of distrust, not accepting convergence when it seems to have occurred and sometimes seeking quarrels for no good reason. This was the situation when Bucer and Gropper picked a fight over the role of conscience in assurance, where Melanchthon was able to see that there was no substantive difference.79 Experience shows that no two people who think for themselves will ever agree fully, and there will always be some basis for an argument if they are determined to disagree.80 Zur Mühlen recognised that Regensburg presented an opportunity in that the most important Catholic conversation partners, Gropper and Contarini, thoroughly understood the central concern of the new reformed theology and were prepared to adopt it. But, he goes on to observe, they adopted it into a pattern of thought that was always determined by an Aristotelianism, and this paradoxical situation marked the limits of pre-​Tridentine Catholic Reform theology.81 Clearly, there is truth in this observation, but how should it be interpreted? Is the fact that Gropper and Contarini came to the subject 76 See at n. 2, above. 77 See at n. 3, above. 78 See c­ hapter 2, above, at nn. 66, 76. 79 See c­ hapter 5, at n. 429. 80 As President Lyndon Johnson is widely reputed to have said, “If two people agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking” (also attributed to that most prolific of authors, Anonymous). 81 Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 355.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  275 from a different perspective of itself evidence that Article 5 does not represent a genuine convergence? Or does it rather show that from their different starting points the debaters/​negotiators nonetheless managed to reach a genuine convergence on the points of substance set out in the article? There is another divergence that is more significant than the role of Aristotle, not least because a number of Protestants became zealous Aristotelians soon after this time. This concerns the relation between justification on the one hand and ecclesiology and sacramentology on the other. As has been noted,82 for the Protestants justification was primary and ecclesiology secondary, while for the Catholics the reverse was true. While this does not prove that there was not genuine convergence on the doctrine of justification, it does mean that any such convergence has less significance than was hoped when it first occurred. Also, when the substantial differences emerged on the Eucharist and ecclesiology, it probably made both sides more wary about the accord that they thought they had reached on the question of justification.

Concerns Modern ecumenical discussions have often, very helpfully, focused not just on the differing doctrines of either side, but also on the differing concerns that underlie these doctrines. This is helpful because it is often possible to recognise and share the concerns of the other side, even where one is not able to accept the doctrines to which these concerns have led. Also, as often as not, the concerns of the other side reflect and arise out of the weak point of one’s own side, which means that there is profit in taking the concerns seriously. What are the concerns that underlay the Regensburg debate? I shall list the key theological concerns on each side relating to justification, and consider the extent to which these concerns are met by Article 5.83 It is important, however, not to imagine that any of these concerns are necessarily exclusive to one side only. Many Catholics were also concerned to stress the seriousness of sin and the gratuity of justification, for example. The Protestants were 82 See c­ hapter 4, above, at n. 98; ­chapter 5, above, on §4:4. 83 I discuss the various concerns of Reformation and recent times in Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-​Protestant Dialogue, 12, 78, 98–​99, 104, 107, 113, 131–​33, 148, 154, 160, 174, 183–​84, 192, 194, 201–​203, 207–​209, 212–​14, 220–​21, 226–​28. I list here those concerns that applied in 1541. For the broader concerns of the different parties relating to the colloquy as a whole, see Augustijn, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten, 132–​35.

276  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification concerned to safeguard the renewal brought by the Holy Spirit and the need for good works. The Protestants were concerned to maintain the following points: (1) The seriousness of sin. For this, see §1. See also Article 4 (On original sin). (2) The gratuity of justification, which is based upon nothing in us. For this, see §§5:1–​2. (3) Our total dependence upon God’s grace, not on our own righteousness. For this, see §§2:1, 4:6, 5:1–​2, 6:1. (4) Our continuing need for mercy. Human moral achievements, even under grace, do not constitute an entitlement conferring a right to salvation. Reliance for salvation should be placed entirely upon God. For this, see §§4:6, 5:1–​2, 6:1. (5) The importance of assurance of the forgiveness of sins. For this, see §§3:5, 4:2, 6:1, 7:1. Arising from these, the Protestants feared that reliance upon inherent righteousness leads to a dependence upon one’s own righteousness and a corresponding loss of assurance as well as a weak view of sin. For this, see §§4:6, 5:1–​2, 6:1, 7:1. The Catholics were concerned to maintain the following points: (1) The reality of the renewal that grace effects in our lives. For this see §§3:6,  4:3–​5. (2) Related to that, they feared the idea of a purely external righteousness, a purely notional righteousness which leaves the sinner unchanged. For this, see §§4:3–​5, 5:1, 8:1–​3. (3) The effective work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. For this, see §§3:1, 5, 6, 4:1, 4. (4) The necessity to “cooperate” with the grace of God. For this, see §8:3, 10:1. (5) The need for good works and their value before God; the need for incentives to active obedience. For this, see §§5:3, 6:1, 8:1–​3, 9:1, 10:1. Arising from these, the Catholics feared that the idea of imputed righteousness would lead to neglect of the transforming work of the Spirit and give rise to people with unchanged lives who have an assurance of salvation. For this, see §§3:1–​4, 4:3–​5, 10:1.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?  277

Conclusion Is Article 5 an inconsistent patchwork or the substance of true doctrine? Or, as zur Mühlen poses the question, does the article go beyond expressing the mutual will for unity to express a substantial drawing together?84 This study has sought to show that there is no inconsistency in the article and that Calvin could justifiably claim that it contains “the substance of true doctrine.” The article is not inconsistent, but it has had to face the more plausible charge of ambiguity, in part due to the newness of some of the terminology and partly due to the “fake news” initially spread by Eck. Against the interpretations of Eck and others, one must set a careful study of the text itself (not interpreting sentences out of the context of the article as a whole), and a reading of it in the light of the writings of those involved. Dermot Fenlon was right to say that “apart from its concession to an (ineffectual) inherent justice the orientation of the formula was Protestant,”85 though one might quibble with the word “ineffectual.” Paulo Ricca concludes that Article 5  “can be considered substantially Protestant, or close to the Protestant position, in that it can at least be read and interpreted in a Protestant key.”86 Why should this be so? First, because before Trent Catholic teaching on justification was largely undefined, permitting much more room for manoeuvre.87 Secondly, because the Protestants were allowed considerable leeway in revising the draft of Article 5. The Catholic hope was that if agreement was reached on justification, the Protestants would prove more amenable on the other articles, which were of greater concern to them.88 The Catholics hoped that being flexible on the Protestants’ red line on justification might cause the latter to be more flexible on the Catholics’ red lines on the church and the sacraments.89 And thirdly, most importantly, because

84 Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 341. 85 Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy, 55, cited in c­hapter  2, above, at n.  184. Wiedemann, Dr.  Johann Eck, 315, notes that the article was “unläugbar dem protestantischen Systeme viel günstiger als dem katholischen.” 86 Ricca, “I Colloqui di Ratisbona: l’azione e le idee di Gaspare Contarini,” 239. 87 Hall, Humanists and Protestants 1500–​1900, 169, compares the Tridentine decree to “the Berlin Wall, an aggressive rejection of the possibility of union with the probability of death for infringement of it.” 88 Melanchthon to Johann Friedrich (13 July) argued that Granvelle’s plan was by subtlety and apparent moderation to bring the Protestants back to the old ways (CR 4:578; ADRG 3/​II:661; MBW T10:395 (MBW 3:199–​200 [#2754]). 89 A point made by Ricca, “I Colloqui di Ratisbona: l’azione e le idee di Gaspare Contarini,” 234–​35.

278  Regensburg Article 5 on Justification Gropper and, especially, Contarini held to a doctrine of justification that was not so far removed from the Protestant doctrine. Article 5 was not a merely political manoeuvre, but represented a genuine meeting of minds between Bucer, Melanchthon, and Pistorius, on the one side, and Contarini, Gropper, and Pflug on the other.

APPENDIX

The Drafts of Article 5 The four surviving drafts are printed below, with translations of all but the lengthy Worms Draft,1 a translation of which already exists.2 Capitalisation has been standardised. The material in square brackets is not in the original. This includes all of the paragraph numbers in the Worms Draft and Gropper’s Draft, which are also not found in any previous printing of them. Psalms references are given according to the Hebrew Bible, not the Vulgate.

Appendix 1. The Worms Draft There are three versions of this draft, only one of which survives. (1) The draft submitted by Gropper to the secret committee of himself, Veltwyck, Bucer, and Capito. This version is lost. (2) The revision of this draft by the committee. Philipp of Hesse’s copy survives in the Marburg archives.3 Bucer also translated the text into German.4 (3) At Regensburg, prior to the Colloquy, Contarini, Morone, and Gropper read the book and Contarini made a little over twenty corrections (“circa poco più di 20 luoghi”). This version is lost, though it is known that Contarini added an explicit reference to transubstantiation.5 The Latin text of Article 5 was published in the nineteenth century by Max Lenz6 and, more recently, in ARC 6:30–​44 and, alongside the German translation, in MBDS 9/​1:352–​97; ADRG 2/​I:588–​629. The text below notes differences between ARC, MBDS and ADRG. My aim is not to list the errors in the original manuscript nor to establish the “true” text of the Worms Draft but simply to note the different possible readings, which are relevant when considering correct readings for Gropper’s Draft. 1 I am very grateful to David Payne, who provided a first draft of each document, and to Richard Sturch, who offered much helpful advice with the revision of these drafts. Responsibility for the final interpretation and translations lies with me, and the aforementioned gentlemen are not to be held responsible for any defects that remain. 2 There is an English translation of the Worms Draft in Pederson, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg,” 346–​83. This is made from the text as found in Lenz (ed.), Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipp’s des Großmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, 3:41–​60, which differs in a number of points from the text given here. 3 On this see MBDS 9/​1:323–​35. 4 MBDS 9/​1:326, 330, 332–​33, 335–​36. The German text is published (in parallel with the Latin) in MBDS 9/​1:338–​483 and ADRG 2/​I:574–​701. 5 Contarini to Farnese (28 April) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 368; ADRG 3/​I:75. Summary in Regesten, 173. Contarini to Farnese (9 May) in Pastor, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation,” 377–​78; ADRG 3/​I:155–​56. Summary in Regesten, 179. 6 For details see n. 2, above.

280  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 Stupperich draws parallels with Gropper’s Enchiridion at a number of points,7 some of which are more convincing than others. Where this involves textual dependence it is noted below. Significantly, many of the patristic citations are found also in the Enchiridion, but the Worms Draft often contains material not found in the Enchiridion, showing that the quotation has not simply been copied.8 Cardauns argues that the Leipzig articles (1539) had a direct influence upon the wording of the Worms Book.9 Whatever may be the case for the other articles, the parallels that he claims for Article 5 are not convincing.10 The paragraph numbers are mine. De restitutione regeneratione11 et iustificatione hominis, gratia et merito, fide et operibus. [1.] Cum omnes nascamur natura12 filii irae (Ephes. 2[:3]), remissione peccatorum et reconciliatione cum deo et renascentia seu regeneratione nobis opus est, sine qua nemo potest videre seu introire in regnum dei (Ioan. 3[:3, 5]). [2.] Est itaque iustificatio et hominis regeneratio gratuita per Christum peccatorum remissio et cum deo reconciliatio, adferens spiritum sanctificationis, quo fit spiritualis et mirifica metamorphosis seu transformatio hominis animalis, qua divinitus è13 potestate tenebrarum ereptus in admirabile lumen transfertur et a nativa servitute corruptionis in libertatem spiritualem adducitur. Qua gratificatus in dilecto conformis efficitur imaginis filii dei, in eo14 remissionem peccatorum, donum iustitiae et vitam aeternam accipiens et indipiscens (Colos. 1; 1 Petri 2; Ephes. 1; Romanorum 3, 4 et 8; 2 Corinth. 3). [3.] Docendi vero gratia et ut scripturarum, quae in hac re in speciem dissidere15 videntur, concordia elucescat, iustificationem duplicem in scriptura proponi consideramus:  unam, quam Christus regenerationem appellat (Ioan. 3[:5–​ 7]), apostolus vero Paulus iustificationem impii vocat [Rom 4:5], quae nullis nostris praecedentibus operibus aut meritis debetur, sed gratis per fidem accipitur. Qua indepta remissionem peccatorum et spiritum regenerationis seu adoptionis ex impiis et inimicis filii dei efficiuntur, qui credunt in eum (Ioan. 1[:12]): dans, inquit, eis potestatem filios dei fieri his, qui credunt in nomine eis. Et Rom. 4[:5]: et qui non operatur, credenti autem in eum, qui iustificat impium, reputatur fides eius ad iustitiam. Alia est iustificatio operum ex indeptae fidei et charitatis radice promanantium et ipsam fidem, ut divus Jacobus ait, consummantium [2:22], quae ut indissolubili vinculo priori cohaeret et tota innititur, ita de illa testimonium 7 Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541 und seine Rechtfertigungslehre.” 8 A point noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 96, 105. 9 Cardauns, Zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unions-​und Reformsbestrebungen von 1538 bis 1542,  16–​24. 10 Cardauns, Zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unions-​und Reformsbestrebungen von 1538 bis 1542, 20–​21, where the German of Leipzig Article 1 is compared with the Latin of Article 5 both in the Worms Book and in its final form. Stupperich, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen, 47 and ARC 6:1 concur in denying any direct influence of the Leipzig articles upon the wording of the Worms Book, given that the similarities are so general. 11 ARC 6:30:  regenerationis. Like MBDS 9/​1:353 and ADRG 2/​I:588, I  follow Bucer’s German translation. 12 ARC 6:30: naturae 13 ARC 6:31: a 14 ARC 6:31: quo 15 ARC 6:31: discedere

WORMS DRAFT  281 praebet, de qua idem apostolus dixit, vides, quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo, et non ex fide tantum [2:24], et Paulus Rom. 2[:13]: non auditores legis, sed factores legis iustificabuntur. Et haec saepe in scripturis sanctificatio quoque nuncupatur.16 [4.] Ut autem in omni re ad duo respicere17 oportet, nimirum in id, quod est ipsius rei basis et unicum fundamentum, in quo tota quanta est inclinata recumbit, deinde ad totam rei rationem et eas partes, quibus constat, sic et in restitutione et iustificatione explicanda fieri est necesse. [5.] Constat vero unicum fundamentum et basim iustificationis nostrae et salutis restitutae, cui ea tota innititur, esse Christum Iesum, sicut Paulus ait (1 Corinth. 3[:11]):  fundamentum, inquit, aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id, quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus. Hic enim petra illa immobilis, super quam sapiens aedificat domum suam (Matth. 7[:24]), et lapis ille angularis, qui est fundamentum apostolorum et prophetarum, in quo omnis aedificatio constructa crescit in templum sanctum in domino (Eph. 2[:20–​21]), lapis vivus a deo electus et honorificatus, in quem qui crediderit non pudefiet (Esaiae 28[:16]; Rom. 9[:33]; 1 Petri 2[:4, 6]). [6.] Cum enim natura omnes peccatores simus et egeamus gloria, hoc est restauratione imaginis dei in nobis (Rom. 3[:23]), et ex nobis impotentes simus hanc imaginem reducere et reparare, deus iuxta beneplacitum suum, quod proposuit in se ipso ab aeterno, decrevit per Christum Jesum filium suum summatim omnia instaurare, et quae in coelis sunt et quae in terra (Ephes. 1[:9–​10]). [7.] Huic ergo omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent, remissionem18 peccatorum accipere per nomen eius omnes, qui credunt in eum (Actorum 10[:43]). Quoniam sic scriptum est, quod oportet Christum pati et resurgere a mortuis tertia die et praedicari in nomine eius remissionem peccatorum in omnes gentes (Lucae ultimo [24:46–​47]). Quod mysterium tandem, cum venisset plenitudo temporis misso filio dei de coelis facto ex muliere, revelatum est per evangelium, quo docemur ut credamus, quia Jesus est Christus filius dei, et ut credentes vitam habeamus in nomine eius (Rom. 1[:5–​6]; Galat. 4[:4–​5]; Joan. 20[:31]; 1 Petri 1[:12], 2 eiusdem; 1 Joan. 1). [8.] Haec est ergo basis illa cui totam iustificationis et restitutionis nostrae rationem ac, ut ita dicamus, structuram inniti oportet.19 [9.] Ubi vero de tota ratione iustificationis et regenerationis quaeritur et in quo illa sit, tum et ad causas et ad partes, quibus constat et conficitur, respicere oportet. [10.] Causae itaque iustificationis, ut cuiuslibet alterius rei, quatuor sunt. Efficiens, quae deus est (Rom. 8[:33]); causa subefficiens, mediator dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus, qui dedit pretium redemptionis semet ipsum pro omnibus (1 Timot. 2[:5–​6]; Hebr. 5[:8–​9] et 10[:10, 12, 14]). Causa materialis, mens hominis atque adeo homo totus. Causa formalis gratia, misericordia et iustitia dei (Eph. 2[:4–​5]), tum ut est in ipso supra omnem captum, tum ut se20 in nobis per lavacrum regenerationis spiritus sancti, quem effudit in nos abunde per Jesum Christum salvatorem nostrum, ut iustificati illius gratia heredes fiamus secundum spem vitae aeternae [Tit 3:5–​7]; causa disponens subiectum, et qua forma illa recipitur, fides est; causa



16 e.g. Rom 6:19, 22; 1 Cor 1:30. 17 ARC 6:31: resipiscere

18 ARC 6:31: nos remissionem 19

ADRG 3/​I:592 ad.: in se continens

20 ARC 6:32: ut se = vitae

282  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 denique finalis est, ut iustificati gratia ipsius heredes simus secundum spem vitae aeternae (ad Titum 3[:7]) utque simus nova factura creati in operibus bonis, ut in illis ambulemus (Ephes. 2[:10]), reportantes finem fidei nostrae salutem animarum nostrarum (1 Petri 1[:9]), ut denique simus in laudem gloriae suae (Ephes. 1[:14]).21 [11.] Iam ut omnis transmutatio duobus terminis et medio conficitur, ita iustificatio et regeneratio hosce duos terminos habet:  mortificationem et vivificationem, mortificationem veteris hominis et regenerationem seu sucinationem22 novi (Rom. 6 et 7; 2 Corinth. 6; Colos. 2 et 3; 2 Timoth. 2; 1 Petri 2 et 3). Medium autem, quo hii termini duo coniunguntur, est fides. Hac enim a nobis, hoc est a corruptione veteris hominis in nos propagati eximus et ad deum reformatorem constupratae imaginis accedimus (Heb. 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12), ut divinae naturae consortes rursus effecti societatem cum deo et vitam aeternam habeamus (2 Petri [1:4]; Joan. 2 [= 1:6]; 1 Joan. 3 [= 5:13]). [12.] Vom Glauben23 Fidem autem hoc loco intelligimus non quamlibet, sed eam, quae est donum dei et non ex nobis (Ephes. 2[:8]). Est enim et in impiis, nedum renatis fides, quae deum esse et quae de deo dicuntur, historiae tantum credit, impiis cum daemonibus communis, qui credunt et contremiscunt (Jacob. 2[:19]). Quam beatus Augustinus in libro de spiritu et littera cap. 32 iis, qui nondum renovati “sub lege sunt et timore poenae iustitiam suam facere conantur, attribuit. Credunt siquidem et illi. Nam si omnino non crederent, nec poenam utique legis formidarent.”24 Quae certe fides per lumen naturae sive aliquo novo seu speciali dei beneficio nobis conciliari videtur, qua deus deique voluntas utrumque cognoscuntur (Rom. 1 et 2); suos etiam gradus habens, quibus in non renatis cum ex contemplatione naturae seu creationis mundi, tum ex literali tantum legis intellectu pro modo exercitii crescit ac augescit, qualem in Paulo ante renovationem praecipuam et insignem admodum, etiamdum Christum et ecclesiam dei persequeretur, fuisse constat. [13.] Von der gnaden25 Hanc ut gratiae dei acceptam feramus, haec, tamen non est illa gratia, de qua evangelium et apostolus contionantur, sed gratia ut vocant naturae seu “gratia dei,” ut Augustinus inquit, “qua creati sumus, ut nonnihil essemus nec ita essemus, ut cadaver, quod non vivit, aut arbor, quae non sentit, aut pecus, quod non intelligit, sed homines essemus et viveremus et sentiremus et intelligeremus.” Quae vel huic26 generali appellatione “gratia dici potest, quia non praecedentium aliquorum operum meritis, sed gratuita bonitate dei donata est,” qua natura praedita “quodammodo irrigatur extrinsecus,”27 sed intrinsecus non sanatur. [14.] Iam enim per lapsum primi hominis corrupta est natura, ut eius vires et potestas ad faciendum dei iustitiam sine nova gratia plane sint inefficaces. Quapropter omnis

21 Gropper, Enchiridion, 171a–​173a, considers the different causes of justification, but without much overlap with this section. 22 ARC 6:32 om: seu sucinationem 23 The German has a subheading at this point. 24 Augustine, De spiritu et littera 32:56 (CSEL 60:213). 25 The German has a subheading at this point. 26 ARC 6:33: hinc 27 Augustine, Epistola 177:7 (CSEL 44:676). Much, but not all, of the quotation is also found in Gropper, Enchiridion, 127a, some of the overlap being noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 95.

WORMS DRAFT  283 sanctorum ecclesia talibus viribus naturae non renovatae omne meritum obtinendae iustificationis detrahit et abrogat (Rom. 3 et 4; Galat. 2[:15–​21]; ad Titum 2 et 3). [15.] “Alia itaque est gratia, qua praedestinati vocamur, iustificamur, sanctificamur et glorificamur, ut dicere possimus: si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos! Qui filio suo proprio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus traditit illum (Rom. 8[:30–​32]), quo salvamur ex fide Christi” gratia utique proprie dicta, “de qua dictum est: non irritam facio gratiam dei, nam si per legem iustitia, Christus frustra mortuus est (Galat. 2[:21]), item: si autem gratia, iam non est gratia (Rom. 11[:6]).”28 [16.] Huius species seu gradus sunt: Gratia praeveniens, qua praedestinati vocamur et anticipamur, quae et gratia praedestinationis, electionis et vocationis appellatur; nimirum qua deus nos ante mundi constitutionem in filio suo Christo Jesu praedestinavit et elegit in adoptionem filiorum secundum placitum voluntatis suae, in laudem gloriae et gratiae suae (Ephes. 1[:4–​6]). Qua item, quos ad vitam praedestinavit, eadem sua gratia et benevolentia ad se vocat et trahit, sicut apostolus ait:  Cum autem bene placuit deo, qui me separaverat ab utero matris meae et vocavit per gratiam suam (Galat. 1[:15]). Et deinde gratia iustificans, qua quos elegit et vocavit in dilecto etiam filio suo29 gratos sibi facit, praebens fidem, qua corda purificans [cf. Ac 15:9] spiritum suum verbo suo assentientibus impartitur et immittit, regenerantem nos in filios dei et clamantem in nobis abba, pater (Ephes. 1[:4–​6]; Rom. 8[:15]).30 Ad haec est gratia, quae subsequens dicitur, qua deus in nobis operatur velle et perficere pro sua bona voluntate (Philipp. 2[:13]), qua dum suo auxilio, sine quo nihil boni possumus, nos prosequitur et sibi cooperantes facit. Unde est illud: Vestram ipsorum salutem cum timore et tremore operamini [Phil 2:12]. Quare et cooperans gratia non absurde dicitur. Est denique et ipsa vita aeterna in nobis quandoque perficienda et consummata felicitas nihil nisi gratia, quam pro gratia Christi nobis donata accipimus. Ut habet psalmus 103[:4]: Qui coronat te in misericordia et miserationibus, et Rom. 6[:23]: Donum dei vita aeterna. Hos vero omnes gradus non aliter quam fide, qua deo credimus, per Christum indipiscimur.31 [17.] Est autem huius fidei proprium atque adeo adaequatum obiectum veritas, firmitas seu immobilitas verbi divini, ut fide certo certiores simus, verbum dei et veritatem eius in aeternum permanere et non posse non fieri, quicquid deus futurum esse pronuntiat (Esai. 40[:8]; 1 Petri 1[:25]),32 qua confortati praeter spem in spe credimus ac deo gloriam damus, plenissime scientes, quia quaecunque promisit deus potens est et facere (Rom. 4[:18, 20–​21]; Heb. 6[:17–​18] et 11). [18.] Usus Legis33 Porro initium gratiae iustificantis deus a lege facit. Cum enim deus opera legis in non renatis et proinde onere seu iugo externae literae pressis et, qua damnationem 28 This paragraph is almost entirely a quotation from Augustine, Epistola 177:7–​8 (CSEL 44:676–​ 77), continuing where the quotation in para 13 ends. The final clause looks like an accidental compression of Rom 11:6: “si autem gratia non ex operibus, alioquin gratia iam non est gratia,” found in full in Augustine. Much, but not all, of the quotation is also found in Gropper, Enchiridion, 127b, 129b, some of the overlap being noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 96, though it is not clear how much Gropper is there quoting Augustine or just quoting Paul. 29 ARC 6:33: suos 30 Bucer’s German also cites Gal 4[:6], which is closer. 31 Gropper, Enchiridion, 127a–​128b, discusses different types of grace, including the four categories mentioned in this section. 32 ARC 6:34: 1 Petri 5 33 In the margin. The German has a subheading at this point.

284  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 eius elabantur, non videntibus, arcana sui spiritus insinuatione uti incipit, sic ut per eam opus esse nobis salvatore ostendat, qui nos de maledicto legis [Gal 3:13] liberet et legis factores efficiat, vocationem nostram orditur, in quam sententiam dixit apostolus: Lex est paedagogus in Christum [Gal 3:24], et Christus in evangelio:  Spiritus sanctus arguet mundum de peccato [Jn 16:8], et rursus apostolus: Revelatur enim ira dei super omnem impietatem et iniustitiam hominum eorum, qui veritatem dei in iniustitia detinent (Rom. 1[:18]). [19.] Hac fide, quae opera legis exercetur, primum augescit in nobis peccatum per occasionem. Ostenditur enim per legem concupiscentia in membris nostris haerens et legi dei repugnans [Rom 7:7–​12], revelatur naturae corruptio ac multiplex legis praevaricatio, qua coram deo ut peccati et aeternae mortis rei statuimur, accusamur, damnamur, damnati morti et inferno destinamur, et inevitabilis iudicii dei inculcatione terremur atque exanimamur.34 Atque haec est mortificatio seu contritio primus terminus iustificationis primae et restitutionis nostrae, quae nisi haberet adiunctam salvatoris quaerendi notitiam in desperationem plane adigeret, de qua contionatur Petrus Judaeis (Actorum 2[:38] et 3[:19]): Poenitentiam, inquit, agite et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum, et Paulus gentibus (Actorum 17[:30–​ 31]): Deus cum hactenus dissimularit huius ignorantiae tempora, nunc annuntiat hominibus, ut omnes ubique poenitentiam agant, eo quod statuit diem, in quo iudicaturus est orbem in aequitate, in viro, in quo statuit fidem praebens omnibus, suscitans eum a mortuis. [20.] Deus itaque in hunc modum territo per legem fidem quandam et sitim quaerendi salvatoris ingenerat et mentem peccato oppressam ad qualemcunque appetentiam verae salutis exuscitat atque naturae vires peccati tenebris et sordibus obfusas et obrutas coelestis iustitiae desiderio sic invitat et exstimulat, ut quodammodo ad innocentiam capiendam aspirent, impietatem vero paulatim ex animo quoque, non tantum metu poenae, odisse incipiant. In quo statu praevenientis gratiae Cornelius ille centurio in Actis apostolorum ante regenerationem fuisse describitur, ut qui studium audiendi verbi salutiferi divino afflatu indeptus eleemosynas multas faciebat plebi et deprecabatur deum semper (Actorum 10[:2]). [21.] Quo propius autem spiritus sanctus nos ad salvatorem adducit eundemque ob oculos ponit, eo magis magisque ad indipiscendam gratiam iustificantem proficimus, ut simus veluti quibus in densissimis tenebris versantibus primum rarescit caligo, deinde dubia quaedam lux ostenditur, donec apertis tandem et reseratis oculis in plena luce perspicue videamus, quod in evangelico35 illo caeco adumbratum est, qui primum nihil videt, deinde videt homines veluti arbores deambulantes, mox clare cernit omnia (Marci 8[:22–​26]). [22.] Vom Evangelio36 Cum enim legi evangelium succedit, contionatur per verbi ministerium homini spiritus sanctus37 Christum Jesum in carne venisse deum simul et hominem. Adfert quoque in hanc rem testimonium patris, cuius vox audita est: Hic est filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi beneplacui, ipsum audite [Mt 3:17, 17:5]. Adfert sui spiritus testimonium, quod idem visus sit in eum descendisse et mansisse super eum [Jn 1:32–​34].

34 ARC 6:34: examinamur 35

ADRG 3/​I:600: Evangelio

36 The German has a subheading at this point. 37 ARC 6:35 ad: per

WORMS DRAFT  285 [23.] Ostendit in eo immensam potentiam, ineffabilem sapientiam et infinitam bonitatem, ut et ipsum esse credamus deum, qui peccatum, mortem et diabolum divina virtute destruere, vitam novam et regnum auspicari et elargiri, veterem hominem abolere, novum creare, spiritum servitutis eximere et spiritum adoptionis filiorum [Rom 8:15] dei in nos inbuere possit ac velit, et in ipso quoque quis et qualis sit deus pater, cum quo per essentiam unum est, agnoscamus, sicut ipse dixit Philippo: qui videt me, videt et patrem [Jn 14:9], quo cum38 cognoscimus deum esse omnipotentem, nobis et omnibus praesidiis diffisi illi toti innitamur, quod Christus sui abnegationem et renunctiationem omnium, quae possidemus, atque adeo perditionem animae vocat, ut eam in deo inveniamus [Mt 16:24–​ 25]. Rursus, dum eum ineffabili sapientia videmus, fiduciam concipimus, quod eo nos servante nullis neque mundi neque satanae fraudibus et insidiis obrui possimus, ut dicamus: Dominus protector vitae meae, a quo trepitabo? [Ps 27:1] Si deus pro nobis, quis contra nos? (Rom. 8[:31]). Rursus, cum summe bonum contemplamur, intelligimus eum ut potest ita velle salvare, quo in nobis dei caritas suscitatur. [24.] Ostendit quoque spiritus, cur et homo sit Christus et cur in carnem venerit, nimirum ut factus oboediens patri usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis [Phil 2:8], hostia propitiatoria pro nostris, immo pro totius mundi peccatis fieret [1 Jn 2:2], ut vel hinc elucesceret summa illa et ineffabilis erga humanum genus caritas, qui pro nobis etiamnum impiis, inimicis et peccatoribus filium suum tradere statuerit [Rom 5:6, 8, 10, 8:32]. [25.] Eo ubi ventum est, nascitur in nobis fides, quae iam non tantum deo, sed etiam in deum credit. Etsi haec quae in deum dicitur non semper sit illa, quae iustificationem adferat, sed sit quandoque inter ea, quae iustificationem praecedant. [26.] Diserte enim evangelium duplicem in deum fidem esse testatur. Est enim, quae dulcedine verbi demulcita veritati eius simpliciter innititur; est, quae exhibitione quoque et acceptatione veritatis fulcitur et, quod adhuc accepto muneri deesse sentit, de plenitudine gratiae, quae est in Christo Jesu, per fidei plenitudinem mutuat ac supplet. [27.] Priorem fidem habuisse videntur, de quibus scriptum est:  Multi crediderunt in nomine eius videntes signa eius, quae faciebat, ipse autem Jesus se non credebat eis, eo quod ipse nosset39 omnes etc. (Joan. 2[:23–​24]), et iterum Joan. 12[:42–​ 43]:  Verumtamen et ex principibus multi crediderunt in eum, sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebantur, ut ne40 e synagoga eiicerentur; dilexerunt enim gloriam hominum magis quam gloriam dei. Item Matthaei 7[:22–​23]: Multi dicent mihi in illa die:  domine, domine, nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus, et in nomine tuo daemonia eiecimus, et in nomine tuo virtutes multas fecimus? Et tunc confitebor illis: quoniam nunquam novi vos. [28.] Est et haec nimirum illa fides, quam Christus temporariam appellat, quae dulcedine quadam verbi cor afficit, sed non permollit, qualis est in his, quos evangelium petrosis fundis comparat. Hi enim verbum audiunt et continuo cum gaudio accipiunt illud, sed non habent in se radicem. Ad tempus ergo credunt et in tempore tentationis recedunt (Matthaei 13[:20–​21; Lc 8:13]), qualis fuisse describitur

38 “qui videt . . . quo cum”: ARC 6:35: cum quo 39 ARC 6:35: noscet 40 ARC 6:35: non

286  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 eorum discipulorum, qui dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo, et quis potest eum audire? [Jn 6:60] [29.] Credebat certe, qui traditurus erat eum Judas, Christum esse Messiam, per cuius nomen remitterentur peccata, quin et miracula per fidem nominis eius edebat. Fidem ergo habebat, quae donum quidem esset insigne dei, sed inutile sibi. Non itaque credebat fide, qua iustificantur credentes. [30.] Hactenus ergo de operibus gratiae praevenientis seu vocantis dictum sit, quae sane non ut opera legis mortua, sed ut opera spiritus parantis in nobis viam domini [Is 40:3, etc.] habenda sunt. Et ut iis operibus non sit meritum iustificationis, quae gratis datur (quemadmodum et ipsa opera), adscribendum, in genere tamen suo bona sunt et bonitatis laudem in scripturis habent adque ea41 apostoli sententiam pertinere putandum non est, qua pronuntiat omne, quod non est ex fide, esse peccatum (Rom. 14[:23]). [31.] Ceterum iactis his fidei initiis tandem spiritus sanctus fidem suggerit, per quam iustificantur credentes; quae et veritati promissionis et iustitiae, quae est in Christo Jesu, complete et perfecte42 indubitato innititur et exhibitione promissionis, hoc est remissionis peccatorum,43 promissi spiritus fulcitur44 (Rom. 5 et 8; Galat 3). Promissio autem, cuius acceptione haec fides fulcitur, est apud Hieremiam 31[:31–​34 = Heb 8:8–​12] in haec verba: Ecce, inquit, dies venient, et consummabo super domum Israel et super domum Judae testamentum novum, non secundum testamentum, quod feci patribus eorum in die, qua apprehendi manus eorum, ut educerem illos de terra Egipti, cum ipsi non permanserunt in testamento meo et ego neglexi eos, dicit dominus. Quia hoc est testamentum, quod disponam domui Israel, dicit dominus: dabo leges meas in mentem eorum et in corde eorum superscribam eas, et ero eis in deum, et ipsi erunt mihi in populum; et non docebit unusquisque proximum suum et unusquisque fratrem suum, dicens:  cognosce dominum. Quoniam omnes scient me a minore usque ad maiorem eorum, quia placatus ero iniquitatibus eorum et peccatorum eorum iam non memorabor.45 Quae promissio explicatur ab apostolo partim 2 Corinth. 3, partim 5, Heb. 8 et aliis in46 locis; quam divus Joannes repromissionem vitae aeternae et societatis cum deo appellat (1 Joan. 1[:3] et 2[:25]). [32.] Hac47 veteris et novi testamenti discrimen,48 de quo apostolus 2 Corinth. 3 et Galat. 4 proprie constat. Sub veteri enim testamento sunt, qui literam legis quidem in tabulis lapideis conscriptam arguentem, sed non iustificantem peccatorem intuentur, qui quantacunque legis cognitione praestent, nondum indepta novitate spiritus innovantis carnales, animales et sub maledicto sunt. [33.] Qui vero huiusmodi promissionem nobis in Christo promissam per spiritum 41 ARC 6:36: eam 42 ARC 6:36 ad: et 43 ARC 6:36 ad: et 44 ARC 6:36: fulcitus 45 This quotation from “Jeremiah” [= Heb 8:8–​12] is found almost identically in Gropper, Enchiridion, 165a–​b, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 102–​103. 46 ARC 6:36 om: in 47 ARC 6:36: Hoc 48 These opening six words are found in Gropper, Enchiridion, 165a, just before the quotation of “Jeremiah” [ =  Heb 8:8–​12] repeated here in §31, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 103.

WORMS DRAFT  287 innovantem acceperunt, hi sub novo testamento esse dicuntur, ut recte dixerit Augustinus in libro de spiritu et litera:49 non eatenus proprie vetus testamentum a novo discerni, quod aliud iubeat seu etiam promittat vetus, aliud vero novum, sed quod ibi promittitur et iubetur, hic50 gratis exhibetur, accipitur et operante cooperanteque spiritu dei adimpletur (Rom. 1 et 1 Joan. 2[:7–​8]). [34.] Haec ergo fides, quae fundamentum habet perfectam illam et absolutam in Christo Jesu iustitiam, cui tota innititur, et simul huius iustitiae communicationem pro sua mensura accipit et in mente recondit, ea, inquam, una et sola est, qua corda nostra purificantur, qua ex terra petrosa, spinosa et quae secus viam est in terram bonam adferentem fructum redigimur et transmutamur (Matth. 13[:1–​9, 18–​23]), et ex arboribus malis efficimur bonae arbores, idoneae ad fructum in tempore suo adferendum (Matth. 7[:15–​20]). Ut verum sit, quod Joannes ait: oportere novum mandatum, hoc est novum testamentum et verum esse in ipso et in nobis (1 Joan. 3 [= 2:8]). Ut vere dicere possimus, sicut promiserat et implevit, quae locutus est (Genes. 21[:1]; Josuae 23[:15]; 2 Petri 1[:4]; Actorum 15[:9]). Haec denique est illa fides, qua duo illi termini, mortificatio et vivificatio accepta remissione peccatorum in iustificatione prima, quae est iustificatio impii, coniunguntur, ut impleatur iustificationis opus in nobis (Rom. 8[:4]). [35.] Divus certe Bernardus scite ac praeclare fidem iustificantem hisce membris constare docet: “Nempe ut omnium primo credamus, quod remissionem peccatorum habere non possumus, nisi per indulgentiam dei per Christum Jesum. Sed et hoc addamus, ut certo credamus, quia per ipsum nobis peccata donata sunt. Hoc est,” inquit, “testimonium, quod perhibet in corde nostro spiritus sanctus dicens: dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua [Mt 9:2, 5]. Sic enim arbitratur apostolus: gratis iustificari hominem per fidem (Rom. 3[:24–​25]). Deinde, ut credamus, quod nihil prorsus iustitiae habere possimus, nisi et hoc dederit ipse; nam si stare non potuit humana natura adhuc integra, quanto minus potuit per se ipsam resurgere tam corrupta.” De plenitudine ergo eius nos omnes accipere oportet gratiam pro gratia [Jn 1:16]. “Sed et hoc si credis, non posse habere iustitiam nisi per ipsum, non sufficit, donec spiritus tibi perhibeat testimonium veritatis, quia51 habes ea52 per illum, praevenienti siquidem misericordiae ut veritas nostrae conversionis occurrat necesse est. Utque deinceps sanctimoniam sectemur et pacem, sine qua nemo videbit deum [Heb 12:14].”53 [36.] “Postremo ut credamus, quod aeternam vitam nullis possimus operibus promereri, nisi gratis detur et illa.54 Scimus enim, quia55 non sint condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam [Rom 8:18], nec si unus omnes sustineat. Et ut opera 49 For the general idea, cf. Augustine, De spiritu et littera 19:33–​20:35 (CSEL 60:186–​89). Gropper, Enchiridion, 164a–​66a, discusses this theme and mentions De spiritu et littera nine times, but without precisely matching this section. 50 ARC 6:37: his 51 ARC 6:37: quod 52 In Bernard the “ea” refers back to “merita”. 53 An amalgum of passages from Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:1, 3, 5 (SBOp 5:13–​ 16). There is a little more quotation than is indicated by MBDS 9/​1:375. Quotation of Bernard overlapping with the present quotation is found in Gropper, Enchiridion, 169a, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 105. 54 A very similar sentence is found in Gropper, Enchiridion, 169a, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 105. 55 ARC 6:37: quod

288  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 in iustificato dignatione dei meritoria sint, non tamen sic meritoria, ut propterea vita aeterna ex iure debeatur aut deus iniuriam aliquam faceret, nisi eam donaret. Nam ut taceam,” inquit vir ille, “quod omnia dona dei sunt, ut sic homo magis propter ipsa debitor sit deo quam deus homini, quid sunt meritoria omnia ad tantam gloriam! Denique quis meliorem se glorietur propheta, cui dominus ipse tam insigne testimonium perhibet dicens: Virum inveni secundum cor meum [Act 13:22]. Verumtamen et ipse necessum habuit dicere deo: non intres in iudicium cum servo tuo, domine [Ps 143:2].” Sed et hoc huic membro addendum est, “ut simul quoque credamus utque spiritus testimonium habeamus, quod ad vitam aeternam divino simus munere perventuri. Ipse enim,” ut subdit ille, “peccata condonat, ipse donat merita, et praemia nihilominus ipse redonat.”56 [37.] “Haec autem fides,” ut idem ille addit, “testimoniis validissimis fulcitur. Nam de remissione peccatorum validissimum teneo argumentum, dominicam passionem. Vox siquidem sanguis eius invaluit multo plus quam vox sanguinis Abel [Heb 12:24], clamans in cordibus electorum remissionem omnium peccatorum. Traditus est enim propter peccata nostra [Rom 4:25]. Nec dubium, quin potentior et efficacior sit mors illius in bonum quam peccata nostra in malum. De bonis autem operibus argumentum nihilominus efficax mihi est resurrectio eius, quia resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram [Rom 4:25]. Porro de spe vitae aeternae testimonium certum eius est ascensio, quia ascendit propter glorificationem nostram,”57 ut cum illo in caelestibus consideremus (Ephes. 1 [= 2:6]). [38.] In eandem sententiam beatus Augustinus lib. de spiritu et litera psalmum 102 [=  103] interpretatur:  “Qui propitiatur,” inquit, “omnibus iniquitatibus tuis:  hoc agitur in baptismatis sacramento. Qui sanat omnes languores tuos [Ps 103:3]: hoc agitur in hac vita fidelis hominis, dum caro concupiscit adversus spiritum et spiritus adversus carnem [Gal 5:17]; nam si perseverante intentione proficiamus de die in diem crescente novitate, sanamur ex fide, quae per dilectionem operatur [Gal 5:6]. Qui redimit de corruptione vitam tuam: hoc fit in ultima resurrectione mortuorum. Qui coronat in misericordia et miserationibus [Ps 103:4]: hoc fit in iudicio, ubi cum rex iustus sederit in throno, redditurus unicuique secundum opera eius [Mt 16:27; Rom 2:6]. Quis gloriabitur castum se habere cor aut mundum se esse a peccato! Coronat ergo in miseratione et misericordia [Ps 103:4], sed etiam sic secundum opera: quoniam iudicium sine misericordia, sed illi, qui non fecit misericordiam [Jas 2:13]; beati autem misericordes, quoniam ipsorum miserebitur [Mt 5:7].”58 Hactenus ille. [39.] Iam quisquis talem nactus est fidem, per quam, ut inquit Bernardus, “misericordia et veritas sibi in mente nostra obviam fiunt et iustitia et pax osculantur [Ps 85:11], is,” inquit, “secure glorietur, sed in eo, qui sibi testimonium perhibebit in spiritu, utique veritatis, in eo, qui per fidem habitat in cordibus nostris Christus [Eph 3:17].”59 Hoc est enim in domino gloriari [1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17]. Sic gloriatur apostolus Paulus: Vivo autem iam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus [Gal 2:20]. “Atque haec est, ut idem apostolus ait:  gloria nostra, testimonium conscientiae nostrae [2 Cor 1:12], non quidem tale testimonium quale ille superbus Pharisaeus



56 Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:1–​3 (SBOp 5:13–​15). 57 Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:4 (SBOp 5:15). 58 Augustine, De spiritu et littera 33:59 (CSEL 60:218–​19).

59 Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:5, 4 (SBOp 5:16, 15).

WORMS DRAFT  289 habet, seducta et seductrice cogitatione testimonium perhibens de se ipso [Lu 18:9–​ 14], et testimonium eius verum non erat.” Hoc est vero testimonium, “cum spiritus ipse testimonium perhibet spiritui nostro,”60 quod simus filii dei (Rom. 8[:16]). [40.] Cum ergo quaeritur, quomodo iustificemur iustificatione illa prima, respondendum est, nos iustificari gratis nullis praecedentibus meritis et sine operibus legis [Rom 3:28],61 id est sine adiutorio legis; non tamen simpliciter sine lege nec sine operibus spiritus seu gratiae praevenientis, sed non ex illorum merito, quod iustificatione sit dignum. Item iustificari gratis, non per propriam voluntatem, hoc est voluntatis viribus, sed tamen non sine nostra voluntate, quam oportet accipere per fidem gratiam sanantem, ut sanata “impleat legem non constituta sub lege nec indigens lege,” ut testatur Augustinus lib. de spiritu et litera cap. 9.62 Ut verum sit, quod idem ait: “Qui creavit te sine te, non iustificabit te sine te.”63 Siquidem voluntas est causa iustificationis materialis. [41.] Denique si quaeratur, cui meritum iustificationis primae simpliciter sit adscribendum, respondendum est: Christo, qui traditus est propter delicta nostra, et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram [Rom 4:25]. [42.] Rursus si quaeratur, in quo tota nostra fiducia collocanda sit, respondendum est: in virtute passionis et resurrectionis domini nostri Jesu Christi. Scite enim Bernardus exclamat:  “Passio tua, o Christe, ultimum refugium, singulare remedium. Deficiente sapientia, iustitia non sufficiente, sanctitatis64 succumbentibus meritis illa succurrit. Quis enim de sua vel sapientia vel iustitia vel sanctitate praesumat sufficientiam ad salutem? Non quod sufficientes, inquit apostolus, simus aliquid cogitare a nobis tanquam ex nobis, sed sufficientia nostra ex deo est [2 Cor 3:5]. Itaque, cum defecerit virtus mea, non conturbor, non diffido, scio, quid faciam, calicem salutaris65 accipiam et nomen domini invocabo [cf. Ps 116:13]; nisi enim sanguis tuus interpellet pro me, salvus non sum.”66 [43.] Causa ergo formalis iustificationis nostrae est iustitia Christi,67 recipiens autem eam et nobis applicans est fides in Christum, qua remissionem68 peccatorum sortem inter sanctos et spiritum caritatis percipimus (Actor. 26[:18]; Rom. 5[:5] et 8[:15]). Quae fides efficax est et operatur omne bonum per dilectionem (Galat. 5[:6]). [44.] In hanc sententiam veteres usi leguntur hac loquendi formula:  “sola fide iustificamur,”69 id est sola illa fide viva et nulla alia re donum iustitiae accipitur; hoc

60 Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:1 (SBOp 5:13). 61 A similar passage to “nos . . . legis” is found in Gropper, Enchiridion, 173b, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 106. 62 Augustine, De spiritu et littera 9:15 (CSEL 60:168). 63 Augustine, Sermo 169:11:13 (PL 38:923). This quotation is also found in Gropper, Enchiridion, 172a. The point made in the previous sentence (minus the quotation from De spiritu et littera) is also found there, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 106–​107. Gropper does not there refer to a causa iustificationis materialis. 64 ARC 6:39: sanctitate 65 ARC 6:39: salutis 66 Bernard, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum 22:8 (SBOp 1:134–​35). A quotation from Bernard overlapping with this one is found in Gropper, Enchiridion, 170a, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 107. 67 Cf. §10, above. 68 ARC 6:39: remissione 69 This point is made, in loosely similar words, by Gropper, Enchiridion, 170b, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 107.

290  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 est ea res, per quam deus nos a peccatis absolvit, in filios adoptionis adsciscit, ex iniustis iustos facit et sibi iam acceptos esse pronuntiat. [45.] Debet autem hic radix diserte a fructibus discerni. Fides per dilectionem operans radix est; opera fidei et caritatis, quae iustificatum sequuntur, fructus sunt. Haec non sunt proprie de ratione iustificationis primae, sed certe radix illa in ratione iustificationis includitur, quae sufficit in renatis, qui continuo post regenerationem decedunt, quale videre est in latrone [Lc 23:40–​43]. Non sufficit autem in his, qui post acceptam in baptismo iustificationem adolescunt aut supersunt, nisi sequantantur et fructus; quod divus Jacobus in epistola sua gravissimis testimoniis confirmat [2:14–​26] et docet Augustinus in lib. de fide et operibus.70 [46.] Quoniam vero haec loquendi formula, “sola fide iustificamur,” ab indocta plebe, quae securitatem carnis quaerit, facile in impium sensum [trahitur], si simpliciter et absque iusta explicatione proponatur seclusa caritate aut sola illa opinione, quam sibi fingit, quod scilicet Christus pro se satisfecerit, etsi nullum spiritus experimentum in se sentiat iustificari:71 idcirco hac verborum formula in contionibus non est temere utendum, sed sincere exponendum, quo pacto ea sententia intelligi debeat et revocetur populus ad faciendum periculum, an fidem illam vivam iam possideat. Quemadmodum facit Paulus in Corinthiis: Vosmet ipsos, inquit, tentate, si estis in fide; ipsi vos probate, an non cognoscitis vosmet ipsos, quia Christus Jesus in vobis est, nisi forte reprobi estis (2 Cor. 13[:5]), proinde atque si dicat: Reprobi estis, donec fide experiamini, Christum in vobis habitare. [47.] Et pulchre quidem Bernardus:  “Fortassis,” inquit, “requiras, quomodo nosse poteris, utrum consecutus sis indulgentiam peccatorum. Attende, quod ait Jesus paralytico:  confide, fili, remittuntur tibi peccata tua [Mt 9:2]. Attende quoque signum, quo invisibilem probat potestatem:  Ut sciatis, inquit, quia72 potestatem habet filius hominis in terra dimittendi peccata [Mk 2:10]. Tunc ait paralytico: surge, tolle lectum tuum [Mt 9:6] et ambula [Jn 5:8]. Et tu ergo, si iam surgis desiderio supernorum, si grabatum tollis corpus, scilicet a terrenis elevans voluptatibus, ut iam non feratur anima concupiscentiis eius, sed73 magis ipsa, ut dignum est, regat illud et ferat, quo non vult [Jn 21:18]—​sic74 demum ambulas, quae retro sunt obliviscens, ut ad ea, quae ante te sunt, te extendens [Phil 3:13] desiderio et proposito proficiendi curatum te esse non dubites. Neque enim surgere poteras, si non aliquatenus onus esset alleviatum, et nec grabatum tollere nisi exoneratus. Propterea fiducialiter iam postulare potest, qui huiusmodi est, nihil haesitans, modo videat ne male petat (Jacab. 4[:3]).”75 Qui tali fide praeditus non est, is invocare non potest: quomodo enim invocabunt, si non crediderunt (Rom. 10[:14]). Docendum itaque est nos certe oportere credere, nobis remissa esse peccata. Sed interim addendum est, ut Cyprianus lib. 2 epist. ad Donatum ait, quod hoc prius sentiatur

70 Augustine, De fide et operibus 14:21–​26:48 (CSEL 41:61–​95). Gropper cites this work in Enchiridion, 171a, 173a (twice), 174a, 175b, 177a (twice), usually in conjunction with James 2. 71 The argument of §46 to this point is made, in loosely similar words, by Gropper, Enchiridion, 171a, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 108. 72 ARC 6:40: quod 73 ARC 6:40: se 74 ARC 6:40: si 75 Bernard, Sermones de Diversis 25:4–​5 (SBOp 6/​1:189–​90). A similar quotation, less accurate, is found in Gropper, Enchiridion, 169a–​b, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 109, where a point similar to the next two sentences is also made.

WORMS DRAFT  291 quam discatur, neque enim (ut subiicit) “per moras temporum longa agnitione colligitur, sed compendio gratiae maturantis hauritur”76 et revocandus homo ad internum testimonium spiritus [Rom 8:16]. [48.] Nec hanc certitudinem remissionis, modo sit confirmata spiritus testimonio, remorari debet contemplatio imperfectionis iustitiae nostrae. Sed hoc [eo]77 magis fide in iustitiam, quae in Christo absoluta est, intueri oportet, et hic per fidem supplere, quod nobis deest.78 Et tum maxime ruminandum est illud psalmistae:  Memor est verbi tui servo tuo, domine, in quo mihi spem dedisti [119:49], ut ab auditione mala non timeam [112:7], sed beata magis auditio refocillet et confirmet. [49.] Et ut nemo sciat, an odio vel amore dignus sit [Eccl 9:1], hoc est, nemo satis intelligat, an omnia in se deus comprobet, quod cor hominis et sibi ipsi sit inscrutabile [Jer 17:9]—​in quam sententiam dixit apostolus: Nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus sum [1 Cor 4:4]—​nihilo secius tamen credendum est, quod nobis gratiam et spiritum Christi nos innovantem retinentibus illa occulta per immensam dei misericordiam remittuntur. Et ut nemo scit, an fragilitate sua sit rursus lapsurus et propterea nobis semper timendum sit—​iuxta illud apostoli: Qui putant se stare, videant, ne cadant 1 Corinth. 10[:12] nihilominus tamen de praesenti nostro statu per fidem certi esse possumus, cum spiritus reddit testimonium spiritui nostro, quod simus filii dei (Rom. 8[:16]); spiritus quidem, qui ex deo est, ut sciamus, quae a deo donata sunt nobis (1 Corinth. 2[:12]). [50.] Hactenus de iustificatione prima et regeneratione dictum sit,79 quae suo quoque modo, etsi [arcano]80 afflatu spiritus, in parvulis baptizatis efficitur. Operante enim in illis per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis spiritu81 [Tit 3:5] Christi non tantum labes originalis peccati tollitur et concupiscentiae fomes82 restinguitur, sed et novi motus83 spirituales etsi nobis incogniti gignuntur, qui quoque faciunt, ut cum adoleverint, ad intelligendum evangelium sint aptiores. [51.] Debet vero populus de hac iustificatione et sui restitutione propterea diligenter doceri, ut intelligat, quantum donum in baptismo acceperit et quam diligenter in eo conservando, excitando et perficiendo adiuvante gratia dei promovendum sit, tum84 praesumptione propriarum virium abiecta, in solum vero deum per Christum coniecta, quemadmodum Paulus apostolus ad Romanos et Galatas et ubique docet. [52.] Restat de iustificatione operum fidei, de qua apud divum Jacobum cap. II[:14–​26] Constat in homine renato post baptismum manere concupiscentiam seu vitiosum illum habitum inclinantem ad peccatum:  quae lex membrorum [Rom 7:23] est relicta in nobis in exercitium humilitatis et fidei, quae assiduam pugnam gignit, de qua apostolus dixit:  Caro enim concupiscit adversus spiritum, spiritus autem adversus carnem. Haec enim sibi invicem adversantur, ut non, quaecunque vultis, illa faciatis (Galat. 5[:17]).

76 Cyprian, Ad Donatum 2 (CSEL 3/​1:4:16–​18). 77 MBDS 9/​1:385; ADRG 2/​I:616 om: [eo] 78 The thrust of these two sentences is found, mostly in different words, in Gropper, Enchiridion, 168a, as noted by Stupperich, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541,” 110. 79 MBDS 9/​1:385: est 80 ARC 6:41: absque 81 ADRG 2/​I:618: spiritus 82 ARC 6:41: fames 83 ARC 6:41: mores 84 ARC 6:41: omni tamen

292  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [53.] Constat quoque hac concupiscentia fieri, nullum in hac vita hominem esse quamlibet iustum, qui nullum habeat omnino peccatum, et cui non sit necessarium ab illo esurire et sitire iustitiam [Mt 5:6], qui panis est vivus [Jn 6:51] et apud quem est fons vitae [Ps 36:9]. Qui sic operatur iustitiam in sanctis suis in tentatione huius vitae laborantibus, ut tamen sit quod petentibus largiter adiiciat et quod confitentibus clementer ignoscat. [54.] Constat, quod primum et quod illi proximum est iustitiae praeceptum, quibus iubemur deum diligere ex toto corde, ex tota anima, ex tota mente et ex virtute [Mc 12:30], et proximum sicut nos ipsos [Mt 22:39; Lc 10:27], absoluta et perfectissima completione non hic, sed illic demum, cum videbimus facie ad faciem [1 Cor 13:12], complebimus. [55.] Constat, quod sancti non humilitatis tantum, sed veritatis quoque causa de se testentur: si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus et veritas in nobis non est; si vero confiteamur peccata nostra, fidelis est et iustus, ut remittat nobis peccata et mundet nos ab omni iniquitate (primo Joan. 2 [= 1:8–​9, 2:1–​2]). Et proinde85 nos semper opus habere remissione et propitiatione mediatoris. [56.] Constat iustitiam quandam esse, qua iustus ex fide vivit [Gal 3:11], quae praesenti vitae convenit, quam apostolus iustitiam ex parte vocat,86 quae nunquam hic, sed demum in futura vita supereminentissima perfectione clarissimae cognitionis et visionis dei et caritatis absolvetur, quando etiam fides, ex qua nunc vivitur et qua in hac vita iustitia illa, quae ex parte est, concipitur et retinetur, evacuabitur [1 Cor 13:10, 12]. [57.] Quae cum se sic habeant, scripturae etiam de iustificatione illa, quae nostri studii et bonorum operum est, loquuntur ac docent, qua iustus iustificatur adhuc [Rev 22:11] et qua iustitia Christi in nobis in dies augescit, incrementum sumit et perficitur, adimplenda tandem in vita futura. [58.] Haec87 quoque suam mortificationem et vivificationem uti terminos et fidem operosam veluti medium88 habet. [59.] Mortificatio enim in hac iustificatione est perpetua illa et quotidiana per totam vitam perdurans poenitentia. Quae duabus rebus constat. Principio quidem cruce, qua veteris peccati reliquiae in nobis post regenerationem haerentes mortificantur, de qua mortificatione dixit apostolus 2 Corinth. 4[:10]:  Semper mortificationem Jesu in corpore vestro circumferentes. Deinde perpetuo luctu ob concupiscentiae malum in nobis haerens et subinde recrudescens, quo ad peccandum non solum sollicitamur, sed et peccatis, quae fragilitate humana quotidie committuntur (a quibus nemo immunis est), inplicamur (1 Joan. 1[:8–​10]). De quo luctu dominus in evangelio dixit: Beati, qui lugent, quoniam ipsi consolabuntur [Mt 5:4]; et alibi: Si poenitentiam non habueritis, omnes similiter peribitis [Lc 13:3, 5]. [60.] Haec est illa mortificatio, de qua nos docuit apostolus Roman. 6[:6, 12]: Hoc, inquit, scientes, quia vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est ut destruatur corpus peccati, ut ultra non serviamus peccato. Non ergo regnet peccatum in vestro mortali corpore, ut oboediatis concupiscentiis eius. Et iterum Roman. 12[:1–​2]:  Obsecro vos, ut exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viventem, sanctam, acceptam deo, rationale obsequium vestrum, et nolite conformari huic saeculo; et de ea praecepit Colossens. 3[:5]: Mortificate membra vestra, quae sunt super terram; et fere in singulis epistolis hanc miro studio inculcat, in qua quotidie pungimus corda nostra dicentes: Dimitte nobis debita nostra [Mt 6:12].

85 ARC 6:41 ad: [constat]

86 A reference to 1 Cor 13:10, 12, cited shortly after, though the word iustitia is not found there. 87 ARC 6:42 ad: [iustificatio] 88 ARC 6:42: media

WORMS DRAFT  293 [61.] Fides vero, qua mortificatio ista vivificationi coniungitur, ea est, cuius meminit Joannes in priori epistola cap. 1[:8–​9] et 2: Si dixerimus, inquit, quoniam peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus et veritas in nobis non est. Si confiteamur peccata nostra, . . . et emundet nos ab omni iniquitate; et cap. 2[:1–​2]: Filioli mei, haec scribo vobis, ut non peccetis. Sed et si quis peccaverit, advocatum habemus apud patrem Jesum Christum iustum. Et ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris, non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi. [62.] Hac fide in vivificationem, alteram huius iustificationis operum partem, pertingimus. Si enim credimus, quia mortui sumus cum Christo, credimus quoque, quia simul etiam vivemus cum illo, et hac fide suffulti mortificantes concupiscentiam et fructus illius exhibemus nos deo tanquam ex mortuis viventes et membra nostra arma iustitiae deo (Roman. 6[:8, 13]). Et reformamur in novitate sensus nostri, ut probemus, quae sit voluntas dei bona et beneplacens et perfecta (Roman. 12[:2]). Vivificamur in operibus spiritus, quae ibidem89 recenset apostolus, induentes viscera misericordiae, benignitatem, humilitatem, modestiam, patientiam, super omnia autem haec caritatem, et cetera, de quibus ad Coloss. cap. 3[:12–​17]. [63.] Haec itaque nostri quotidiana renovatio et reformatio et quae hinc nobis existit apud deum et homines iustificatio bonis operibus semper augetur et provehitur, at non operibus legis seu mortuis, verum operibus spiritus, quae sunt caritas, gaudium, pax, patientia, longanimitas, bonitas, benignitas, mansuetudo, fides, modestia, continentia, castitas (Galat. 5[:22–​ 23]). Ita ut huius iustificationis operum ita augescentis huiusmodi opera spiritus quodammodo causae dicantur et meritoria sint, non tantum bonorum temporalium, sed et spiritualium, atque adeo vitae aeternae, non quidem ex sua sufficientia, sed dei dignatione, quae gratuita benevolentia coronat90 sua in nobis.91 [64.] Habent quoque haec opera dignatione dei propterea meritum, quod ita a deo statutum sit, ut velit illa maioris virtutis incremento cumulare, iuxta illud: Habenti dabitur [Mt 25:29], et quod ait Augustinus:  Dilectio meretur incrementum dilectionis, cum videlicet exercetur.92 [65.] Adferunt quoque haec opera conscientiae gloriationem iuxta illud 2 Corinth. 1[:12]:  Gloriatio nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae, quod in simplicitate et sinceritate dei, non in sapientia carnali, sed in gratia dei conversati sumus in hoc mundo. [66.] Perficiunt quoque salutem nostram, ut scribitur ad Philippenses 3[= 2:12]: Cum timore vestram ipsorum salutem perficite; et 2 Corinth. 4[:17]:  Momentaneum tribulationis nostrae incomparabilem et aeternam gloriae magnitudinem operatur in nobis, et 1 Timoth. 4[:16]: Permane in his! Haec enim faciens et servabis te ipsum et eos, qui te audiunt. [67.] Haec denique opera fidei sunt, quae de prima iustificatione testimonium ferunt, sicut Joannes ait:  In hoc cognoscimus, quod ex veritate simus, et coram eo persuadebimus corda nostra. Quoniam si condemnet nos cor nostrum, maior est deus corde nostro et novit omnia. Carissimi, si cor nostrum non condemnet nos, fiduciam habemus erga deum, et quicquid petierimus accipimus ab eo, quoniam

89 ARC 6:42: itidem 90 ARC 6:43 ad: opera 91 Augustine often speaks of God crowning his own gifts. Gropper’s Draft, in a passage drawing on this paragraph, explicitly cites Augustine for the the statement that God crowns his own works (Enarrationes in Psalmos 137:18 (PL 37:1784)). 92 Thomas Aquinas’s quotation of Augustine, Epistola 186:3:10 (CSEL 57:53) in Summa Theologiae 2/​1, q. 114, a. 8, appears to be the closest.

294  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 praecepta eius custodimus et ea, quae sunt placita coram eo, facimus (1 Joan. 3[:19–​ 22]). Item: In hoc, quod servamus mandata eius, perfecta est dilectio dei. In hoc cognoscimus, quod in ipso simus etc.93 Qui manet in caritate, in deo manet et deus in eo. In hoc est perfecta caritas nobiscum, ut fiduciam habeamus in die iudicii (Joannes 894 et 1 Joan. 4[:16–​17]). [68.] Interim tamen hoc semper retinendum est, quod etsi haec opera dignatione95 dei talia sint, quod nihilominus remissio peccatorum debetur merito Christi, qui semper adstat advocatus pro nobis et operatur haec opera in nobis, ut retinentes initium substantiae eius [Heb 3:14] per haec opera viva sua dona, quae tamen nobis in meritum imputat, magis ac magis iustificemur iuxta illud Apocalypsis 22[:11]:  Iustus iustificetur adhuc, et sanctus sanctificetur adhuc, donec tandem proficientes96 de die in diem hac corruptione mortalitatis exutos immortalitate induat ac glorificet [1 Cor 15:53]. [69.] Semper quoque hoc retinendum est, ne anchoram salutis nostrae in haec opera figamus, quod adhuc imperfecta sint, sed in deo vivo, qui nobis ea per Christum donavit et supplet, etsi interim fiduciam nostram suo modo fulciant ac stabiliant iuxta illud 1 Joan. 3[:21–​22]:  Si cor nostrum non reprehenderit nos, fiduciam habemus ad deum, et quicquid petierimus, accipiemus ab eo, quoniam mandata eius custodimus et ea, quae sunt placita coram eo, facimus. [70.] Proindeque exhortationes ad perficiendam sanctificationem nostram bonis operibus diligenter faciendae sunt. Non quod ipsa sint causa remissionis peccatorum in renatis ex sese, sed quod deus illis peccata illa quotidiana velut antidotis contrariis expurget et concupiscentiae vim mortificet, atque adeo per illa nos iustificatos esse declarat. Id quod hae97 et similes sententiae testantur: Remittuntur ei peccata multa, quoniam dilexit multum [Lc 7:47], item Peccata tua eleemosynis redime (Danielis 4[:27]); et in Tobia [4:11]:  Eleemosyna ab omni peccato et a morte liberat; item Lucae 8 [= 11:41]: Date eleemosynam, et ecce omnia munda sunt vobis; item Lucae 6[:37]: Remittite, et remittetur vobis; Matthaei 6 [= 5:7]: Beati misericordes, quia misericordiam consequentur; et similes. [71.] Et propterea non est absurdum dicere, quod renati per huiusmodi opera fidei et caritatis sanctificentur et iustificentur, modo fiant in fide, quae, in iustificatione prima accepta, ea ad deum tanquam omnis boni autorem refert et eorum imperfectionem de plenitudine iustitiae, quae est in Christo Jesu, supplet, dans totam gloriam deo, non sibi; qua fide, ut Abacuc testatur [2:4] et Paulus confirmat [Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11], iustus vivit, nimirum non confisus nec acquiescens ullis humanis praesidiis, sed fide, qua novit se deo curae esse. Qua spiritu filiorum subarratus intelligit omnia sua bona se a deo accepisse; qua subnixus futuram felicitatem certissime exspectat; qua vixerunt quotquot unquam iusti fuerunt; quae in ipsis iustitiam, pacem et gaudium in spiritu sancto [Rom 14:17], hoc est verum divinae iustitiae studium, mirificam animi tranquillitatem et ineffabile gaudium de immensa dei bonitate peperit. Et revera medium illud fuit, quo in iudicium non venientes transierunt de morte in vitam [Jn 5:24]. 93 Cf. 1 Jn 2:5, 5:2. 94 The 1 John passages suffice as sources for the quotations. John 8 is probably an error, though it is possible that vv. 31 or 51 are in mind. 95 ARC 6:43: dignationis 96 ARC 6:43 ad: et 97 ARC 6:43: haec

MELANCHTHON’S DRAFT  295

Appendix 2. Melanchthon’s Draft This text is taken from a photocopy of the manuscript Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod. 140 Helmst., fols. 127a–​129b. ADRG 3/​I:106–​108 (Nr. 65) contains a slightly different text taken from Staatsarchiv ZürichE II 350, 93a–​94b. Where the text below is underlined, this indicates a difference in wording and the ADRG/​Zurich reading is given in a footnote. Omissions and additions are noted with Om. and Ad. In two places material found only in the Zurich manuscript is included, underlined and with an explanatory footnote.98 Paragraph numbering is partly from the manuscript, with my additions in square brackets. MBW T10:152–​55 (MBW 3:165 [#2681]) publishes the text, based on the two manuscripts mentioned above and three others. This lists most, but by no means all, of the variations between Wolfenbüttel and Zurich. MBW follows the former over the latter, so has the same text as below, except where I have twice introduced Zurich material into the text. Unlike MBW, I have sought to retain the punctuation and capitalisation of the Wolfenbüttel text. Where ADRG expresses uncertainty about a reading (e.g. “praemia[?]‌”) and neither the Wolfenbüttel text nor MBW contain any variant, I have taken that as confirmation of the correctness of the ADRG reading. On the teaching of this draft, see Janssen, “Wir sind zum wechselseitigen Gespräch geboren”: Philipp Melanchthon und die Reichsreligionsgespräche von 1540/​41, 219–​21.



98 See nn. 121, 139, below.

296  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [127a] Sententia nostrorum de Iustificatione exhibita penultima Aprilis99 [I.] Etsi magna est infirmitas humanae naturae post lapsum primorum parentum, tamen fatendum est homines etiam nondum renatos, posse praestare disciplinam, hoc est100 externam obedientiam legi divinae, sicut scriptura vocat iustitiam carnis, hoc est,101 quam homines non renati efficere102 possunt. De hac disciplina inquit Paulus: Lex est iniustos posita [1 Tim 1:9]. Item, Lex est paedagogus in Christum [Gal 3:24]. Quare propter quatuor causas docenda est. Prima est, quia103 Deus eam flagitat ab omnibus. Secunda, ut poenae vitentur. Certum est enim violationem disciplinae divinitus puniri praesentibus, et perpetuis poenis, sicut testantur praecepta Decalogi, secundum104 et quartum [Ex 20:7, 12], et vox illa legis: Qui fecerit ea vivet in eis [Lev 18:5]. Tertia est ut conservetur societas humani generis, et vita politica, quam deus cum propter alias multas causas conservari vult, tum vero maxime, ut Ecclesiae erudiri possint. Nec vero potest retineri politica societas sine disciplina. Quarta causa gravior est caeteris. Eatenus enim haec disciplina necessaria est, quia hi105 qui perseverant in delictis contra conscientiam resistunt spiritui sancto, ne convertantur, et fiant filii Dei.

The opinion of our people regarding justification, delivered on the penultimate day of April [I.] Although the weakness of human nature since the fall of our first parents is great, yet it must be admitted that even those not yet born again are able to fulfil the discipline, namely an outward obedience to the divine law. Scripture calls this the righteousness of the flesh, i.e. that which the unregenerate are able to accomplish. Of this discipline Paul says, “The Law is laid down for the unrighteous” [1 Tim 1:9]; similarly, “The Law is our schoolmaster unto Christ” [Gal 3:24]. There are therefore four reasons why the Law is to be taught. The first is because God requires [obedience to] it of everyone. The second is to avoid punishments. For divine punishment is certain for those who violate the discipline, with both present and everlasting penalties. The commandments of the Decalogue attest to this (the second and the fourth [Ex 20:7, 12]), as does this statement of the Law: “He who does them shall live by them” [Lev 18:5]. The third reason is that the community of the human race should be preserved, as well as political life, which God wishes to be preserved not only for many other reasons, but especially however in order that the Churches should be instructed. Indeed, no political society can be maintained without discipline. The fourth reason is more important than the others. For this discipline is necessary to the extent that those who persevere in sins against their conscience are resisting the Holy Spirit so as not to be converted and become children of God.

99 Om. Also, Ad.:  De paedagogia. + marginal note:  Haec Philippi sunt, sed non admissa ab adversariis. 100 licet 101 licet 102 facere 103 quod 104 ADRG has difficulty reading this. According to MBW the Zurich reading is secundum scilicet 105 si hii

MELANCHTHON’S DRAFT  297 Paulus igitur legem non simpliciter vocat paedagogum, [127b] sed addit in Christum [Gal 3:24], et106 quia prodest disciplina ad erudiendos, et vocandos homines ad Evangelium, et quia non est efficax Christus in his, qui non desinunt ruere contra conscientiam. Porro in hac disciplina alii antecellunt aliis, et habent dissimilia dona naturalia, ante conversionem, ut Stephanus antecelluit Latroni.107 Quanquam igitur disciplina flagitanda et praestanda est, tamen sciendum est, haec opera nec remissionem peccatorum, nec iustificationem mereri, nec esse iusticiam coram Deo, nec opera spiritualia, quae docet Evangelium, seu108 placentia Deo.

Paul therefore does not simply call the Law a schoolmaster but adds “unto Christ” [Gal 3:24], because the discipline is useful to those who need to be instructed and to be called to the Gospel, and because Christ is not at work in those who do not cease from running against their conscience. Moreover, some surpass others in this discipline and have differing natural gifts before conversion, just as Stephen surpassed the thief [on the cross]. So although the discipline must be required and fulfilled, nevertheless it must be recognized that these works merit neither the remission of sins nor justification, that they are neither righteousness in the sight of God nor the spiritual works taught by the Gospel nor pleasing to God.

II.109 Cum autem Deus per immensam misericordiam suam miserit filium suum in mundum, ut filius110 fieret hostia pro genere humano, et patri aeterno nos reconciliaret, et liberatis a peccato, et morte aeterna redderet novam et aeternam vitam, et iusticiam, et evangelii ministerium institutum sit, ut haec inenarrabilia111 beneficia innotescerent hominibus et exhiberentur, et Christus iusserit praedicari poentientiam et remissionem peccatorum in nomine suo [Lu 24:47], fatemur homines sic consequi remissionem peccatorum, et reconciliationem, seu iustificationem. Cum mentes per praedicationem poenitentiae [128a] perterrefactae agnitione irae Dei adversus112 peccata credunt sibi remitti peccata, et se iustos reputari propter mediatorem Christum gratis, hoc est,113 non propter merita propria, hac fide vere consequuntur remissionem peccatorum, reconcilationem, iustificationem et donationem spiritus sancti.

II. Since, however, God through his boundless mercy sent his Son into the world, so that the Son should become a sacrifice for the human race, and should reconcile us to the eternal Father, and should bring forth new and eternal life and righteousness to those freed from sin and eternal death, and should establish the ministration of the Gospel (so that these indescribable benefits might become known and displayed), and [since] Christ commanded that repentance and the remission of sins in his name should be preached [Lu 24:47], we confess that this is how people obtain the remission of sins and reconciliation, or justification. When human minds, thoroughly terrified by the preaching of repentance at the perception of God’s wrath against sins, believe that their sins are remitted, and that they are reckoned righteous because of the mediation of Christ by grace (that is, not because of their own merits) by this faith they truly obtain the remission of sins, reconciliation, justification and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

106 Om. 107 The contrast appears to be between Stephen, the first Christian martyr, and the thief on the cross. 108 nec 109 Om. Also, Ad.: De iustificatione. 110 Om. 111 Crossed out in Wolfenbüttel text; mg: menarrabilia. 112 contra 113 licet

298  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 Sicut et114 Paulus clarissime docet, fide iustificati pacem habemus erga deum, per dominum nostrum Iesum Christum [Rom 5:1]. Ut autem hac fide concipitur spiritus sanctus, sicut Paulus inquit, ut promissionem Spiritus accipiamus per fidem [Gal 3:2], ita ipsa fides est motus in mente hominis ortus a Spiritu sancto, qui per Evangelium est efficax, cum mens in terroribus assentitur promissioni, et confidit propter Christum sibi donari115 reconciliationem. Et quia iam agnoscit inenarrabilem misericordiam Dei, incipit Deum diligere, et inchoat universalem obedientiam, iuxta illud. Omnis qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, quia semen eius in eo manet [1 Jn 3:9]. Quanquam116 igitur ut dictum est poenitentia seu contritio necessaria est, quanquam117 impossibile est ab hac fide, quam scriptura testata esse motum a spiritu Sancto ortum, divellere dilectionem. Sicut impossibile est a luce solis calorem divellere, tamen scriptura clamitat nos118 fide accipere remissionem peccatorum et reconciliationem, ut doceat nos haec accipere propter [128b] Christum mediatorem, non propter nostras virtutes. Nec docendi sunt homines, quod agenti poenitentiam dubitandum sit de remissione peccatorum, sed luceat haec fides in omni invocatione, in omnibus operibus bonis,119 quod propter mediatorem Christum placeamus Deo, exaudiamur,120 et Deo curae simus, iuxta illud, omne, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est [Rom 14:23];121 quomodo invococabunt nisi credent [Rom 10:14]. Item Ephesios 3[:12] per quem audemus accedere in fiducia quae122 est per fidem in ipsum. Rho. 8. Christus, qui est ad dextram Dei interpellat pro nobis [Rom 8:34].



Just as Paul teaches most clearly, “justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” [Rom 5:1]. However, in order that the Holy Spirit should be received by this faith, in order that we should receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (as Paul says [Gal 3:2]), faith itself is therefore a movement of the human mind which is aroused by the Spirit, which is effective through the Gospel, when the mind in terror assents to the promise and trusts that through Christ reconciliation will be given to it. And because he already perceives the indescribable mercy of God, he starts to love God and begins total obedience, in line with that [word]: “Nobody born of God commits sin, because his seed dwells in him” [1 Jn 3:9]. So although, as stated, repentance or contrition is necessary, although it is impossible to separate love from this faith, which Scripture testifies to be a movement aroused by the Spirit (just as it is impossible to separate the heat of the sun from its light), nevertheless Scripture cries out to us to accept by faith the remission of sins and reconciliation, in order to teach us to accept these things on account of Christ the mediator and not on account of our virtues. People are not to be taught that there is any doubt about the remission of sins for one who repents, but let this faith shine forth in every prayer, in all good works, that we may be pleasing to God on account of Christ the mediator, that we may be heard [by God] and that we may be the objects of God’s care, in line with that [word]: “all that does not proceed from faith is sin” [Rom 14:23]; “how will they call upon [the Lord] unless they believe?” [Rom 10:14] Likewise Ephesians 3[:12]: through whom we dare to draw near, in the confidence which is through faith in him. Rom. 8[:34]: “Christ, who is at the right hand of God intercedes for us.”

114

Om.

116

ADRG reads: Quiaque [?]‌; MBW notes no variants here.

115 dari

117 quoque 118

Om. Om. 120 & exaudiamur 121 These words are found in the Zurich manuscript, but not in the Wolfenbüttel manuscript. 122 quod. The Wolfenbüttel manuscript reads “qua”, which MBW silently emends to “quae”. 119

MELANCHTHON’S DRAFT  299 Et123 Ebr. 4[:14, 16]: Habentes talem Pontificem124 accedamus cum fiducia ad thronum gratiae. Ioh. 14[:6, 13]: Ego sum via, vita et veritas;125 quidquid petieritis patrem in nomine meo hoc faciam. Denique perpetua vox Evangelii de hac fide concionatur, et iubet non fiducia nostrae dignitatis, sed fiducia mediatoris Christi petere, et accipere remissionem peccatorum, et statuere quod propter mediatorem Christum Deo placeamus, seu iusti, id est126 accepti reputemur.

And Heb. 4[:14, 16]: “having such a high priest [. . .] let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace.” John 14[:6, 13]: “I am the way, the life and the truth; [. . .] whatever you ask the Father in my name I will do it.” Finally, the constant word of the Gospel about this faith is proclaimed, and commands us to aim not at confidence in our own worthiness but at confidence in Christ the mediator, and to receive the remission of sins, and to believe that on account of Christ the mediator we are pleasing to God, or reckoned righteous, namely accepted [by him].

III[:1].127 Nihil dubium est necessariam esse novam obedientiam erga Deum, iuxta omnia mandata nobis tradita ac Deo debitam. Sicut Paulus inquit, debitores sumus [Rom 8:12]. Et ut inchoatur dato Spiritu Sancto, ita crescere debet assidua mortificatione nostrae vetustatis, assiduis [129a] exercitiis, invocationis, dilectionis pacientiae, castitatis et aliorum virtutum. Sicut iubet Paulus128 renovari imaginem [Col 3:10]. Nec retinentur gratia, fides iustificans et spiritus Sanctus, cum admittuntur delicta contra conscientiam iuxta illud: Qui peccatum facit ex diabolo est [1 Jn 3:8]. Non igitur retinent semen Dei, sed cum haec inchoata obedientia nondum satisfaciat legi, et cum sancti129 habeant multiplicia peccata, simul docendi sunt homines, quomodo haec obedientia placeat Deo.

III[:1]. Without doubt a new obedience towards God is necessary and owed to God, in line with all the commands we have received. As Paul says, “we are debtors” [Rom 8:12]. And for that to begin, the Holy Spirit having been given, one must grow in this way: by constant mortification of our old life, by constant exercises, invocations, by the love of endurance, purity and other virtues. It is just as Paul commands our image to be renewed [Col 3:10]. (Nor are [God’s] grace, justifying faith and the Holy Spirit retained when transgressions against one’s conscience are permitted, in line with that [word]: “whoever practises sin is of the devil” [1 Jn 3:8]. The seed of God, therefore, is not retained [in such circumstances].) But since this imperfect “beginner’s” obedience does not yet satisfy the law, and since the saints have many sins, people are to be taught at the same time how this obedience may be pleasing to God.



123

Om. Talem pontificem habentes 125 veritas & vita 126 licet 127 Om. Also, Ad.: De nova obedientia. 128 Paulus iubet 129 Ad.: homines 124

300  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [2]‌Vitanda est arrogantia eorum, qui putant se sine peccato esse, legi satisfacere, et impletione legis iustos esse, cum dicat David.130 Non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vivens [Ps 143:2]. Rursus131 consulendum est piis et pavidis conscientiis, ne desperatione obruante, cum agnoscant132 suam infirmitatem. Tenendum est igitur dictum Pauli. Non estis sub peccato sed sub gratia [cf. Rom 6:14]. Placet Deo inchoata obedientia, quia133 persona fide iustificata et reconciliata est, ac agnoscit suam infirmitatem et credit eam condonari propter Christum, et hos cultus quanquam imperfectos, tamen134 Deo propter ipsum135 placere. Haec est misericordia in Evangelio revelata quod ostendit propter filium Dei, qui victima pro nobis factus est, et remitti nobis peccata, et donari Spiritum Sanctum, et placere inchoatam obedientiam, etiam si legi non satisfacit. Sicut et [129b] usitate dicitur placere bona opera propter gratiam. Et haec opera, quae vera fide fiunt, non solum debita sunt, sed etiam meritoria. Etsi enim non merentur remissionem peccatorum, et136 reconciliationem personae, et donationem vitae aeternae, tamen merentur ingentia praemia corporalia, et spiritualia, quae cum in hac vita, tum post hanc vitam reddentur. Et ipsa vita aeterna, quanquam propter Christum donatur, qui liberavit nos a morte aeterna et meruit gratiam et gloriam.



130

Om.

131 Rursum

132 agnoscunt 133 qua 134

Om.

136

revisionem &

135 Christum

[2]‌We must shun the arrogance of those who think that they are without sin, that they satisfy the law, and that they are righteous by fulfilling the law. As David says, “no living being will be justified in your sight” [Ps 143:2]. On the contrary, we should look out for devout and anxious consciences, lest they be overwhelmed by desperation, since they perceive their own weakness. So Paul’s saying must be kept [in mind]: “you are not under sin but under grace” [cf. Rom 6:14]. Imperfect obedience is pleasing to God, because the person is justified by faith and reconciled and perceives his own weakness, and believes it is pardoned on account of Christ; and he knows that these observances, although imperfect, are yet pleasing to God on account of him. This is the mercy revealed in the Gospel, which shows that (on account of the son of God who was made a sacrificial offering for us) our sins are remitted, the Holy Spirit is given, and imperfect obedience is pleasing [to God] even if it does not satisfy the law. In the same way it is commonly stated that good works are pleasing [to God] on account of grace. And these works, when done in genuine faith, are not only owed [to God] but are even meritorious. For although they do not merit the remission of sins, the reconciliation of the person or the gift of eternal life, yet they do merit enormous rewards, physical and spiritual, which will be granted not only in this life, but also after this life—​as is eternal life itself, although it is given on account of Christ who delivered us from eternal death and who merited grace and glory.

MELANCHTHON’S DRAFT  301 Lex enim nec peccatum nec mortem abolere potuit. Sed hoc proprium beneficium Christi137 est, sicut ipse inquit, haec est voluntas patris ut omnis qui credit in filium habeat vitam aeternam [Jn 6:40], tamen simul est compensatio bonorum operum, laborum et certaminum qua sancti sustinent.

For the law could not destroy sin or death. But this is the particular benefit of Christ, as he himself said: “this is the will of the Father, that everyone who believes in the Son should have eternal life” [Jn 6:40], yet at the same time it is the reward of the good works, labours and struggles which the saints endure.

[3]‌Iustis redditur vita aeterna, ut autem iusti sumus fide propter Christum, non propter propriam dignitatem aut legis impletionem, ita eadem fide efficimur haeredes vitae aeternae propter mediatorem Christum. Nec certa138 esset spes vitae aeternae, si dignitate nostra niteretur. Ideo ea fide datur haereditas, ut firma sit promissio.139

[3]‌Eternal life is granted to the righteous; moreover, as we are righteous by faith on account of Christ, not on account of our own worthiness or fulfilment of the law, so by the same faith we are made heirs of eternal life on account of Christ the mediator. Nor would the hope of eternal life be certain if it depended on our worthiness. Therefore that inheritance is given to faith, so that the promise might be secure.

137 Christi beneficium 138 Following MBW, against ADRG: recta 139 This paragraph is found in the Zurich manuscript, but not in the Wolfenbüttel manuscript. For the last word, following MBW, against ADRG: permissio

302  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5

Appendix 3. Eck’s Draft This draft is found in Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, 2° ms chart lat ctpg 75/​gamma, fols. 67–​69. It is also published in ADRG 3/​I:95–​96 (Nr. 63). It can be read online at https://​ a rchive.thulb.uni- ​ j ena.de/ ​ k orax/ ​ r sc/ ​ v iewer/​ Korax_​ d erivate_​ 0 0002656/​ 2mschartlatctpg_​75_​gamma_​034.tif. I have worked primarily from a photocopy of the manuscript. The paragraph numbering is from the original. [67] Eccianum De Iustificatione140

Eck’s Statement on Justification

1.

Conuenit inter nos peccatorem in odio 1. We agree that the sinner is subject to esse Dei et inimicitia et ideo a iusticia God’s hatred and enmity and for that iustificante alienum, vtcumque opera reason far from justifying righteouspossit forte facere uel moraliter uel in ness, though he may perhaps be able speciem bona. to do works that are good either morally or in appearance.

2.

Cum autem Deus misericors velit 2. However, since the merciful God omnes homines saluos fieri, stat ad oswishes all people to be saved, he tium etiam peccatoris pulsando, ut sibi even stands at door of the sinner to aperiatur per internas inspirationes, knock [Rev 3:20] so that it will be per tractus, quando tangit et mouet opened for him through his inwardly mentem hominis ad parandam viam influencing and drawing [the sinner], Domini, vbi etiam si contingat howhen he touches and moves the minem bona opera facere, quia tum human mind to prepare the way of praecedunt iustificationem et viuam the Lord [Is 40:3] Even if this moves fidem nihil merentur, possunt tamen the person to do good works, because aliquod initium, licet remotum, at that time [these works] precede et praeparatio dici futurae iam righteousness and living faith, they iustificationis, adeo ut iam ei incipiant merit nothing. They can neverthedisplicere peccata sua et de his less be something of a beginning, conteratur, quia offenderit pijssimum however remote, and can already be su[u]‌m creatorem. called a preparation for future justification to the extent that that [the sinner’s] sins already begin to displease him and he is afflicted by them because they offend his most beneficent creator.

3.

Quo fit, ut contritione quasi impulsa 3. It thus happens that the conscience, conscientia exercet fidem suam et driven as it were by contrition, motum cordis, intelligens per verbum exercises its faith and movement of Christum nobis promissum et datum the heart, understanding through the cum passione et meritis in remissionem word the Christ who was promised peccatorum nostrorum et totius mundi. and given to us with [his] passion and merits for the remission of our sins and those of the whole world.

140 This heading is in Pflug’s handwriting. See http://​ivv7srv15.uni-​muenster.de/​mnkg/​pfnuer/​ pflug-​regenburg1.html.

ECK’S DRAFT  303 Et sic currenti filio ad Patrem pedibus fidei, agnitione peccatorum, Pater occurrit filio, recipiens illum in amplexus suos et vlnas, dando spiritum sanctificationis et adoptionis filiorum, gratiam suam, charitatem diffundendo in corde suo, et sic eum iustificando proprie, et omnia peccata ei remittendo propter ipsum Christum solum et merita Passionis eius, sine quo non est omnino, nec esse potest ulla remissio peccatorum. Vnde mox sequuntur fructus [68] bonorum operum attestantium praesentiam Christi et Spiritus ac Charitatis, quibus gratia Dei semper magis et magis augetur.

And so the Father runs to meet the son as he is running toward the Father (with the feet of faith and the perception of [his] sins) receiving him in his embracing arms [Lu 15:20], by giving him the spirit of sanctification and the adoption of sons, his grace, by pouring out love in his heart [Rom 5:5], and so especially justifying him, and by remitting all his sins on account of Christ himself alone and the merits of his Passion, without which there is not, nor can be, any remission of sins whatever. Hence the fruits of good works soon follow, which testify to the presence of Christ and of the Spirit and of Love, in which the grace of God always grows more and more.

4.

Haec autem justitia a Patre 4. However, this righteousness commucommunicata, redeunti filio pro statu nicated by the Father to the son as he huius vitae in nobis imperfecta est, returns is imperfect in us according cum sola absoluta et perfecta sit in to the state of this life, since it is abChristo, in quo est plenitudo gratiae, solute and perfect only in Christ, in veritatis et iustitiae, tamen eam whom is the fullness of grace, truth perficiendam et auctius nobis a Christo and righteousness, yet we hope that it communicandam in futura gloria will be perfected and communicated speramus, vbi etiam minimus in regno to us more abundantly by Christ in caelorum maior fuit Joanne Baptista future glory, where even the least in viatore, vtcumque alius non esset maior the kingdom of heaven is greater than inter natos mulierum. John the Baptist the pilgrim, even though there was nobody greater among those born of women [Mt 11:11].

5.

Hanc ergo iustitiam et iustificationem 5. We therefore cannot merit this nullis nostris meritis praecedentibus righteousness and justification mereri possumus. Quare Pelagianos through any of our previous merits. damnamus, qui opinati sunt nostris That is why we condemn the proprijs viribus nos posse iustitiam aut Pelagians, who are of the opinion gratiam Dei promereri, sed accepta that we can merit the righteousness gratia Dei et assistente, Deus in nobis or grace of God in our own strength. agit opera meritoria vitae et gloriae But [we hold that] when we have in vita aeterna et auctioris gratiae in received the grace of God and and praesenti. with its help, God performs in us meritorious works of life and glory in eternal life, and of increasing grace in the present life.

304  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 Quam mercedem et retributionem ubique promisit Deus in scripturis, partiali sua activitate libero arbitrio concurrente. Non tamen ut ullam tribuamus dignitatem in se, sed totam hanc dignitatem gratiae Dei et misericordiae feramus acceptam. Jtaque fides illa viua et efficax recte dicitur iustificare peccatorem, quam Paulus affirmat per dilectionem operari, et in scolis compendio loquendi dicta est fides formata.

God promised this reward and recompense everywhere in the Scriptures, free choice concurring by its partial activity. Yet let us not attribute [to this activity] any worthiness in itself, but let us assign all this worthiness that we have received to the grace and mercy of God. And so this living and effectual faith is rightly said to justify the sinner. Paul affirms that faith works through love [Gal 5:6] and in the schools they call this a “formed faith,” as a shorthand way of speaking.

[69] At quia sacra scriptura non utitur 6. Because the holy scriptures do not 6. exclusione, quod sola fides iustificet, et use the exclusive term, that faith in plebe multa sequuntur scandala, vt alone justifies, and because it leads habet visitatio Saxonica, et in Dominijs to many stumbling blocks for ordiPrincipis Electoris et in Dominio Ducis nary people (as stated by the Saxon Henrici, ut id scandalum pupillorum Visitation, both in the realms of the caueatur, qui credit sacramenta, opera, Prince-​Elector and in the realm of Charitatem et alia excludi a tali modo Duke Henry) to avoid this stumloquendi, deinceps coram populo bling block for the little ones (who in declamationibus predicatores se believe that sacraments, works, love contineant, sed fidei poenitentiam, and other things are excluded by timorem Dei et charitatem adiungant. such a way of speaking [sola fide]), preachers should hereafter restrain themselves from preaching [sola fide] but should link faith with repentance, the fear of God and love.

GROPPER’S DRAFT  305

Appendix 4. Gropper’s Draft This draft is found in Stiftsbibliothek Zeitz, Nachlaß Pflug, Katalog p. 23 L, fols. 87a–​98a, which can be read online at http://​archive.thulb.uni-​jena.de/​korax/​rsc/​viewer/​Korax_​ derivate_​00001585/​VDS_​Z_​pflug_​ctpg_​23_​n_​L3_​089.tif. I have worked on it online, but I have also been to Zeitz to view the original.141 It has twice been published. The first time was in ARC 6:44–​52, though with many mistakes, some major. It is also published in ADRG 3/​I:96–​105 (Nr. 64), here also not without mistakes. The errors in ARC are too numerous to enumerate, but I signify in the footnotes all the places where I have departed from ADRG. These occur for two different reasons. In a number of cases, ADRG has misread the manuscript;142 in the other cases, the manuscript itself is mistaken.143 On what grounds can one declare the manuscript to be mistaken? First, it was clearly written in haste. In one place a whole line has been left out (§30), the copyist having missed a line because of the repetition of “peccata nostra.” Shortly after, he makes the same mistake again, being misled by the repetition of “hoc agitur,” spots it, and then crosses out one and a half lines of incorrect text (§31). Towards the end of §32 the copyist is misled by the repetition of “testimonium” and repeats the words “quale ille superbus” before realising his error and crossing them out. The great majority of this draft is taken straight from the Worms Draft—​which is how we know about the missing line. In a number of places where the Worms Draft makes good sense the manuscript changes this to text that makes no sense. So, for example, the “Dilectio meretur” of the Worms Draft has become “Dilecto mereatur” in the manuscript (§22). Some minor changes from the Worms Draft make sense, but where the changes serve only to obscure, I have retained the reading of the Worms text which was being copied. The final text does not always make good sense, and in a few places towards the end the translation has sought to impose a more coherent meaning than can be found in the Latin. I have consistently followed the paragraph divisions of the manuscript, unlike ARC and ADRG. The numbering is mine. Like the two previous editions, I have made no attempt to follow the erratic punctuation and capitalisation of the manuscript. In particular, since the capitalisation of spiritus is erratic and sometimes ambiguous, I have followed ADRG in using lower case throughout. In the translation I have used my judgement. It is misleading to refer to this as the Zweite Fassung or the “Second Version”144 since there were a number of other drafts and this one is unlikely to have been the second draft. It is even less appropriate to call the final version the Dritte Fassung.145 141 On the teaching of this draft, see Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 236–​43. 142 Over thirty (mostly minor) examples will be found in the footnotes below. Why is my transcription that much more accurate? The editors of ADRG transcribed many hundreds of pages; I have only had to do Appendixes 2–​4. I have worked intensively with the text and have also translated it. This confirms the judgment of the late Wilhelm Neuser that to edit a text properly one needs to translate it. A good number of the variants only emerged in the course of translation. I have also had the advantage of being able to return repeatedly to the MS and to view it online, which is more effective than looking at the original because the text can be enlarged. Finally, I have compared Gropper’s Draft with the Worms Draft, from which most of it is taken. 143 A  number of times, ADRG gives the correct reading, but without any indication that it is departing from the MS. 144 ARC 6:44; Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 236; Lugioyo, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification, 189. 145 ARC 6:52; Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch, 250.

306  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 Unfortunately, I was not aware of the existence of an English translation of the Worms draft146 until the translation of Gropper’s Draft was completed. I have since made minor revisions to the latter in the light of the former. [87a/​173] Gropperi haec sunt.147 [1.]

Quomodo justificemur gratis.

These are Gropper’s [opinions] [1.]

Cum ergo queritur, quo justificetur impius [Rom 4:5], respondendum est, impium justificari gratis nullis precedentibus meritis et sine operibus legis [Rom 3:28]. Id est sine adiutorio legis, non tamen simpliciter sine lege, nec sine operibus spiritus seu gratie prevenientis.148 Sed non ex illorum merito, quod justificatione sit dignum. Item iustificari gratis non per149 propriam voluntatem, hoc est, voluntatis viribus, sed tamen non sine nostra voluntate, ut verum sit, quod idem ait: “Qui creavit te sine te, non iustificabit te sine te.”150 Siquidem voluntas est justificationis subiectum.151

[2]

Eadem ratione, si queratur, cui meritum justificationis impii simpliciter sit adscribendum, respondendum est, Christo, qui traditus est propter delicta nostra et resurrexit propter justificationem nostram [Rom 4:25].152

How we may be freely justified. When it is asked by what means the ungodly man is to be justified [Rom 4:5], the answer must be that the ungodly man is justified freely, with no preceding merits, and without works of the law [Rom 3:28]. That is, without the help of the law, yet not utterly without the law, nor without the works of the spirit or prevenient grace—​but not by reason of any merit of these things that might be worthy of justification. Likewise, we are justified freely, not by our own will (i.e. by the power of will), yet not without our will, so that the words of the same [Augustine] may be true: “He who created you without you will not justify you without you.” Indeed the will is the subject of justification.

[2]

By the same reckoning, should it be asked to whom merit for the justification of the ungodly should be directly ascribed, the answer must be, to Christ, who was delivered for our sins and who rose again for our justification [Rom 4:25].

146 See n. 2, above. 147 This heading is in Pflug’s handwriting. Braunisch points out that any doubt about Gropper’s authorship are removed by the contents (“Die ‘Artikell’ der ‘Warhafftigen Antwort’ (1545) des Johannes Gropper,” 527). The MS contains folio numbers in the top right-​hand corner, page numbers at the bottom of the page. Hereafter I will give page numbers only. 148 Following Worms Draft §40; MS: pervenientis 149 Following Worms Draft §40; MS om.: per 150 Augustine, Sermo 169:11:13 (PL 38:923). 151 §1 (apart from the heading) is taken from Worms Draft §40. 152 This sentence is taken from Worms Draft §41.

GROPPER’S DRAFT  307 ‌ am ut justificationem nostram N opera gratiae prevenientis153 antecedant, iis tamen iustificationis (quae gratis uti et ea opera datur), meritum nulla154 ex parte est adscribendum, quamvis interim illa non ut opera legis mortua, sed ut opera spiritus parantis in nobis viam domini [Is 40:3, etc.] sunt habenda, quibus etiam scriptura bonitatis laudem, sed in suo genere, defert, ut ad ea apostoli sentencia detorquenda non sit, [174] qua pronuntiat omne, quod non ex fide esse pecatum. Ro. 14[:23].155 Sunt enim et haec opera ex fide, etsi nondum perfecta. [3.]

[4.]



153

Cui justiciae fiducia nostra innitatur.

[3.]

On what our confidence in righteousness depends.

Rursus si queratur, in quo tota nostra fiducia remissionis peccatorum et reconciliationis cum Deo collocanda156 sit, respondendum est, in virtute passionis et resurrectionis domini nostri Jesu Christi.157 Et ea iusticia, quae in ipso est perfecta, quae credentibus in eum gratuita imputatione fit communis.

Again, should it be asked on what our entire confidence in the remission of sins and reconciliation to God is to be placed, the answer must be that it is on the power of the passion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that righteousness, which is perfect in him, he shares by gratuitous imputation with those who believe in him.

In summa: Justicia, qua justi, id [4.] est accepti et reconciliati Deo sumus,158 est justicia Christi, recipiens autem eam et nobis applicans est fides in Christum, qua remissionem159 peccatorum sortem inter sanctos et spiritum charitatis accipimus. Act. 26[:18], Ro. 5[:5] et 8[:15]. Quae fides efficax est et operatur omne bonum per dilectionem. Gala. 5[:6].

To sum up: the righteousness, by which we are righteous (i.e. accepted and reconciled to God) is the righteousness of Christ, but it is faith in Christ which receives this and applies it to us, and by it we receive the remission of sins, an inheritance among the saints and the spirit of love (Acts 26[:18], Rom 5[:5] and 8[:15]). This faith is effectual and performs every good work through love (Gal 5[:6]).

Following Worms Draft §30; MS: pervenientis

154 ADRG, falso: ulla 155

For even if works of prevenient grace should precede our justification, yet the merit of justification is not to be ascribed to them to any extent because [justification] is given freely as also are these works—​although however they are to be considered not as dead works of the law but as works of the Spirit who is preparing in us the way of the Lord [Is 40:3, etc.]. Scripture also bestows upon [these works] the praise of goodness, though in its own way, so that the apostle’s opinion about them should not be distorted, in which he declares that everything not of faith is sin (Rom 14[:23]). For these works are also of faith, though not yet perfect.

This long sentence is mostly taken from Worms Draft §30, with some changes. Following Worms Draft §42; ADRG correctly reads the MS: collanda 157 This sentence is taken from Worms Draft §42, with a phrase from §§1–​2. 158 From this point, §4 is taken from Worms Draft §43. 159 ADRG, falso: remissione 156

308  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [5.]

Hactenus de justificatione impii [5.] seu regeneratione dictum sit, quae suo quoque modo etsi arcano afflatu spiritus in parvulis baptizatis efficitur. Operante enim in illis per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis spiritus [Tit 3:5] Christi non tantum labes originalis [175] peccati tollitur et concupiscencie fomes160 restinguitur, sed et161 nova gratia spiritualis etsi nobis incognita impartitur, quae quoque facit, ut, cum adoleverint, ad intelligendum evangelium sint aptiores.162

Thus far we have been speaking about the justification or the regeneration of the ungodly, which is also brought about in baptized infants, each in their own way, by the secret inspiration of the Spirit. For by its working in them through the bath of regeneration and the renewal of the Spirit [Tit 3:5] of Christ, not only is the stain of original sin removed and the hunger of lust quenched, but also new spiritual grace is imparted, even if unknown to us, which also makes them more ready to understand the Gospel when they have grown up.

[6.]

Debet vero populus de hac [6.] justificatione et sui restitutione propterea doceri, ut intelligat, quantum donum in baptismo acceperit et quam diligenter in eo conservando, excitando et perficiendo adiuvante gratia Dei promovendum sit, omni tamen presumpcione propriarum virium abiecta in solum vero Deum per Christum coniecta. Quemadmodum Paulus apostolus ad Ro. et Gala. et ubique docet.163

Truly the people need to be taught about this justification and therefore about its restoration, so that they may know what a great gift they have received in baptism and how diligently it is to be increased with the help of God’s grace, by preserving it, by arousing it and by perfecting it, yet with every presumption of their own strength cast aside, and [their hope] truly placed in God alone through Christ: just as the apostle Paul teaches in Romans, Galatians and elsewhere.

[7.]

Restat de iustificatione operum fidei, de qua apud D.164 Jacobum ca. 2[:14–​26] paucis dicere.165

[7.]

It remains to say a few words about the justification of works of faith, concerning which St James ­chapter 2[:14–​26].

[8.]

De imperfectione iusticiae inherentis in renatis. Constat in homine renato post baptismum manere concupiscenciam seu viciosum illum habitum inclinatum ad peccatum, quae lex membrorum [Rom 7:23]

[8.]

Concerning the imperfection of inherent righteousness in those reborn. It is agreed that after baptism there remains in the reborn lust or even a corrupt disposition inclined towards sin, and this law of our members [Rom 7:23]



160 ADRG, falso: fames 161 ADRG, falso: ut 162

§5 is taken from Worms Draft §50. §6 is taken from Worms Draft §51. 164 ADRG, falso: divum 165 §7 is taken from Worms Draft §52. 163

GROPPER’S DRAFT  309 est relicta in nobis in exercitium166 humilitatis et fidei, quae assiduam pugnam gignit, de qua apostolus dixit: Caro enim concupiscit adversus spiritum, spiritus autem adversus carnem. Haec enim sibi invitem adversantur, ut non quecumque vultis, illa faciatis. Galath. 5[:17].167 [176] [9.]

Constat quoque hac concupiscentia fieri nullum in hac vita hominem esse qualibet justum, qui nullum habeat omnino peccatum et cui non sit necessarium ab illo esurire et sitire iusticiam [Mt 5:6], qui panis est vivus [Jn 6:51] et apud quem est fons vitae [Ps 36:9], qui sic operatur justiciam in sanctis suis in tentatione huius vitae laborantibus, ut tamen sit quod petentibus largiter adijciat et quod confitentibus clementer ignoscat.168

was left in us to train us in humility and faith. This produces a constant struggle, about which the apostle said: For the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, so that you do those things that you do not wish (Gal 5[:17]).

[9.]

It is also agreed that this lust means that no one anywhere is righteous in this life, having no sin whatever and having no need to hunger and thirst for righteousness [Mt 5:6] from him who is the living bread [Jn 6:51] and with whom is the fount of life [Ps 36:10], who thus creates righteousness in his saints as they labour in the trials of this life, so that he adds bountifully to those who seek and mercifully forgives those who make confession.

[10.] Constat, quod primum et [10.] It is agreed that it is not here we quod illi proximum est iusticie shall fulfil the first commandment preceptum, quibus iubemur of righteousness and the one next to Deum diligere ex toto corde et it, in which we are commanded to ex tota anima et ex tota mente love God with all our heart, with all et ex tota virtute [Mc 12:30] et our soul, with all our mind and with proximum sicut nos ipsos [Mt all our strength [Mc 12:30], and our 22:39; Lu 10:27] absoluta et neighbour as ourselves [Mt 22:39; Lu perfectissima completione169 10:27], in absolute and perfect fulfilnon hic, sed illic demum cum ment, but there when at last we shall videbimus facie ad faciem [1 Cor see face to face [1 Cor 13:12]. 13:12] complebimus.170



166

Following Worms Draft §52; MS: exercitum §8 (apart from the heading) is taken from Worms Draft §52. 168 §9 is taken from Worms Draft §53. 169 ADRG, falso: complectione 170 §10 is taken from Worms Draft §54. 167

310  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [11.] Constat, quod sancti non [11.] It is agreed it is not merely because humilitatis tantum, sed veritatis of humility but also because of truth quoque causa de se testentur, si that the saints testify concerning dixerimus, quia peccatum non themselves: if we were to say that we habemus, ipsi nos seducimus et have no sin, we deceive ourselves and veritas in nobis non est, si vero the truth is not in us, but if however confiteamur peccata nostra, we confess our sins, he is faithful and fidelis est et justus, ut171 remittat righteous, so that he remits our sins nobis peccata et mundet nos and cleanses us from all iniquity [1 Jn ab omni iniquitate [1 Jn 1:8–​9]. 1:8–​9] 1 John 2[:1–​2]: And therefore 1. Joan. 2[:1–​2]: Et proinde nos we always have need of the Mediator’s semper opus habere remissione remission and propitiation. et propiciatione mediatoris.172 [177] [12.] Constat, quod non in hanc173 [12.] It is agreed that we should not remain datam regenerationis gratiam, ut idle towards this grace of regenerin eo gradu innovationis nostrae, ation given [to us], [remaining] in quem primum nacti sumus, ociosi that degree of renewal which we first consistamus, sed crescamus in obtained, but in all things should ipsum per omnia, qui est caput grow into him who is the Head [Eph 4:15].174 [Eph 4:15]. [13.] Constat iusticiam quandam esse, [13.] It is agreed that there is a particqua iustus ex fide vivit [Gal 3:11], ular righteousness, by which the quae presenti vitae convenit, righteous live by faith [Gal 3:11], quam apostolus iusticiam ex which is appropriate to our present parte vocat,175 quae nunquam life, which the apostle calls “partial hic, sed demum in futura vita righteousness,” which will never be supereminentissima perfectione completed here but finally in the clarissime cognitionis et visionis future life with the most outstanding Dei et charitatis absolvetur, quando perfection of the clearest knowledge etiam fides, ex qua nunc vivitur et and vision of God and of love, when qua in hac vita justicia illa, quae ex even faith, by which we now live parte est, concipitur et retinetur, and by which in this life that parevacuabitur [1 Cor 13:10, 12].176 tial righteousness is obtained and maintained, will be done away with [1 Cor 13:10, 12].

171 Following Worms Draft §55 and Vulgate. ADRG correctly reads the MS: non 172 §11 is taken from Worms Draft §55. 173 ADRG reads “hoc”; the MS appears to read “hac”, which is probably an error for “hanc”. 174 §12 is new material. 175 Paul never refers to righteousness as “ex parte” but does use this term of other things in 1 Cor 13:9–​10, 12, as quoted in the rest of the section. 176 §13 is taken from Worms Draft §56.

GROPPER’S DRAFT  311 [14.] Quae cum se sic habeant, scripture [14.] While these things are so, the etiam de justificatione illa, quae Scriptures also speak and teach about nostri studii et bonorum operum that justification which comes from est, loquuntur ac docent, qua iustus our zeal and good works, by which the justificatur adhuc [Rev 22:11 v.l.] et righteous man is thus far justified [Rev qua iusticia Christi in nobis indies 22:11 v.l.] and by which the righteousaugescit,177 incrementum sumit et ness of Christ increases in us day by perficitur ad implenda tantum in day, achieves growth and is perfectly vita futura.178 completed only in the future life. [15.] De tota ratione justificationis operum. Haec quoque suam mortificationem et vivificationem179 seu continuam renovationem uti terminos habet et fidem operosam, qua hii termini coniunguntur.180 [178] [16.] De mortificatione, que constat cruce et perpetuo gemitu. Mortificatio enim in hac justificatione est perpetua illa et quotidiana tota vita perdurans penitentia, quae duabus rebus constat. Principio quidem cruce, qua veteris peccati reliquie in nobis post regenerationem herentes mortificantur, de qua mortificatione dixit apostolus 2. Corinth. 4[:10]: Semper mortificationem Jesu in corpore vestro circumferentes. Deinde perpetuo luctu ob concupiscencie malum in nobis herens et subinde recrudescens, quo ad peccandum non solum solicitamur, sed et peccatis, quae fragilitate humana quotodie committuntur (a quibus nemo immunis est) implicamur.181 1. Joan. 1[:8–​10].

[15.] Concerning the whole reason for the justification of works. This also has its own mortification, vivification and ongoing renewal as its goals, and a hardworking faith in which these goals are brought together. [16.] Concerning mortification, which consists in the cross and constant lamentation. For in this justification mortification is that constant and daily repentance, which lasts throughout life and consists in two things. First, indeed, in the cross, by which the vestiges of old sin clinging to us after regeneration are put to death. The apostle spoke about this mortification in 2 Corinthians 4[:10]: always bearing the death of Jesus in your body. Next with constant mourning on account of the evil of lust clinging to us and repeatedly breaking out again, by which we are not only tempted to sin but are also entangled in sins which are daily committed in [our] human weakness (from which nobody is immune) (1 John 1[:8–​10]).

177 Following Worms Draft §57. ADRG correctly reads the MS: agnoscit 178 §14 is taken from Worms Draft §57. 179 Following Worms Draft §58; MS: “vifivicationem”? 180 ADRG, falso: coniungantur §15 (apart from the heading) is taken from Worms Draft §58, apart from the final four words, which are taken from Worms Draft §11. 181 ADRG, falso: implacamur

312  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 De quo luctu dominus in evangelio dixit: Beati, qui lugent, quoniam ipsi consolabuntur [Mt 5:4], et alibi: Si penitentiam non habueritis omnes similiter peribitis [Lu 13:3, 5].182

The Lord said of this mourning in the Gospel: Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted [Mt 5:4]; and elsewhere: If you do not repent you will all likewise perish [Lu 13:3, 5].

[17.] Haec est illa mortificatio, de [17.] This is that mortification about which qua nos docuit apostolus Ro. the apostle Paul taught us in Rom. 6[:6, 12]: Hoc (inquit) scientes, 6[:6, 12]: Knowing this (he says), that quia vetus homo noster simul our old man was at the same time crucrucifixus est, ut destruatur corpus cified with him, so that the body of sin peccati, ut183 ultra non serviamus should be destroyed and we should peccato. Non ergo regnet peccatum no longer be slaves to sin. Therefore in vestro mortali corpore, ut184 let not sin reign in your mortal body obediatis concupiscenciis eius. to make you obey its lusts. And again, Et iterum Ro. 12[:1–​2]: Obsecro Rom 12[:1–​2]: I appeal to you to prevos, ut exhibeatis corpora vestra sent your bodies as a living sacrifice, hostiam [179] viventem, sanctam, holy, pleasing to God, which is your Deo placentem, rationabile reasonable obedience, and do not be obsequium vestrum, et nolite conformed to this age. And he teaches conformari huic seculo. Et de ea about this in Col. 3[:5]: Put to death precipit185 Collos. 3[:5]: Mortificate your members which are on earth. membra vestra, quae sunt super186 And he emphasizes this in almost all terram. Et fere in singulis epistolis his individual letters with extraorhanc miro studio inculcat, in qua dinary zeal, whereby we prick our quotidie pungimus187 corda nostra hearts daily, saying: Forgive us our dicentes: Dimitte nobis debita debts [Mt 6:12]. nostra [Mt 6:12].188 [18.] De fide, qua renovemur de die in diem in operibus bonis. Fides vero, qua mortificatio ista vivificationi coniungitur, ea est, que nos in tribulationibus huius mundi sustentat et alacres facit, de qua dixit apostolus: Non solum per fidem gloriamur in spe glorie filiorum Dei, sed et gloriamur in tribulationibus scientes,



[18.] Concerning the faith by which we are renewed from day to day by good works. Truly faith, in which that mortification is joined with vivification, is what supports us and cheers us in the tribulations of this world, about which the apostle said: Through faith let us boast not only in the hope of the glory of the children of God, but let us also boast in tribulations,

182

§16 (apart from the heading) is taken from Worms Draft §59.

184

Following Worms Draft §60; MS unclear.

186

Following Worms Draft §60 and Vulgate; ADRG correctly reads the MS: supra

188

§17 is taken from Worms Draft §60.

183 ADRG, falso: et

185 ADRG, falso: precepit

187 ADRG, falso: purgimus

GROPPER’S DRAFT  313 quod tribulatio operatur patientiam. Paciencia autem probationem. Probacio vero spem, spes autem non confundit, quia charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris. Ro. 6 [= 5:2–​5]. Rursus ea fides, que nos perpetuo lugentes adversos quotidianos lapsus consolatur,189 cuius meminit Joanni priori epistola ca. 1[:8–​9] et 2190 cum ait: Si dixerimus, quoniam peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus et veritas in nobis non est. Si confiteamur peccata nostra, fidelis est et justus, ut remittat nobis peccata nostra. [180]

knowing that tribulation produces endurance, endurance moreover [produces] approval, approval indeed [produces] hope, and hope does not perplex us, because the love of God has been poured into our hearts (Rom 6 [= 5:2–​5]). Again, it is faith, which comforts us as we constantly mourn our daily failings, which the first epistle of John mentions in ­chapters 1[:8–​9] and 2 when it says: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.

[19.] Hac fide vivificatio seu quotidiana [19.] Vivification or that daily renewal of illa innovatio spiritus, alter huius the spirit, another goal of this justijustificationis terminus priori fication, is linked by this faith with termino coniungitur. Si enim the earlier goal. For if we believe that credimus, quia mortui sumus cum we have died with Christ, we also Christo, credimus quoque, quia believe that we shall live with him simul eciam vivemus cum illo, as well, and supported by this faith, et hac fide suffulti mortificantes putting to death lust and its fruit we concupiscenciam et fructus illius present ourselves to God as those exhibemus nos Deo tamquam ex who are alive from the dead and our mortuis viventes et membra nostra members to God as our weapons of arma justiciae Deo. Ro. 6[:8, 13]. righteousness (Rom 6[:8, 13]). And Et reformamur in novitate sensus we are transformed in the renewal nostri, ut probemus, quae sit of our understanding, so that we apvoluntas Dei bona et bene placens et prove what is the good, well-​pleasing perfecta. Ro. 12[:2]. Et vivificamur and perfect will of God (Rom 12[:2]). in operibus spiritus, que ibidem And we are made alive in the works of recenset apostolus. Induentes visthe spirit, as the apostle relates on the cera191 misericordiae, benignitatem, same matter: Putting on the bowels of humilitatem, modestiam, mercy, kindness, humility, modesty, patienciam super omnia autem hec endurance but above all these love charitatem et caetera, de quibus ad etc., on which see Col 3[:12–​17]. Collos. 3[:12–​17]. 192 189 ADRG, falso: concolatur The first nine words of §18 (apart from the heading) are taken from Worms Draft §61, as is the rest of the paragraph from this point, except for the last nine words. The material in between is new. 190 Worms draft, unlike this draft, goes on to quote 1 Jn 2:1–​2. 191 Following Worms Draft §62 and Vulgate; MS: viscero 192 §19 is taken from Worms Draft §62, though the first sentence incorporates some material from Worms Draft §§11, 34.

314  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [20.] De merito et dignitate bonorum operum nihil derogante merito Christi.

[20.] Concerning the merit and worth of good works which in no way detracts from the merit of Christ.

Haec itaque nostri quotidiana renovatio et reformatio et que hinc nobis existit apud Deum et homines justificatio bonis operibus semper augetur et provehitur, at non operibus legis seu mortuis. Verum operibus spiritus, que sunt charitas, gaudium, pax, pacientia, longanimitas, bonitas, benignitas, mansuetudo, fides, modestia, continentia, castitas. [181] Galath. 5[:22–​23]. Ita ut huius justificationis193 operum ita augescentis huiusmodi opera spiritus quodammodo194 causae dicantur et meritoria sint non quidem ex sua sufficientia, sed Dei dignatione,195 qui in pluribus196 evangelii locis clare et manifeste huiusmodi operibus gratuita benignitate propter Christum promisit mercedem,197 bona tam corporis, quam198 spiritus in hac vita, pro ut sue divinae providenciae visum fuerit, et post hanc vitam in coelis. Ipse enim, ut Augustinus ait, coronat opera sua in nobis.199

So this daily renewal and reform of ours is always increasing and progressing by good works, together with what springs from it in us, justification in the sight of God and men—​yet not by works of the law or dead [works] but by works of the Spirit, which are love, joy, peace, endurance, long-​suffering, goodness, kindness, gentleness, faith, moderation, self-​control, chastity (Gal 5[:22–​23]). So works of the spirit are in a certain way called the causes alike of this justification of works as of this sort of increase and are meritorious—​not indeed of their own sufficiency but by God deeming them worthy. God in many places in the Gospel clearly and manifestly promised (of his free benevolence because of Christ) a reward to works of this sort, good things as much of the body as of the spirit in this life (as seemed right to his divine providence) and after this life in heaven. For he himself, as Augustine says, crowns his own works in us.

[21.] Ideoque quamvis haereditas vite [21.] For that reason, although the inaeterne propter promissionem heritance of eternal life is due to the debeatur renatis, etiam cum reborn because of the promise, even primum in Christo renati sunt. when they have first been reborn in Nihilominus reddet Deus etiam Christ, nevertheless God still grants bonis operibus mercedem non the reward for good works not acsecundum substanciam operum, cording to the substance of the works, neque secundum quod sunt a nor according to what comes from us, nobis, sed quatenus in fide fiunt et but to the extent that they are done in sunt a spiritu sancto, qui habitat in faith and are from the Holy Spirit who nobis, concurrente libero arbitrio dwells in us, free choice concurring as tamquam partiali agente.200 a partial agent. 193 MS: justificatacionis 194 Following Worms Draft §63; MS obscure. 195 §20 to this point (apart from the heading) is taken from Worms Draft §63. 196 MS: plaribus 197 ADRG correctly reads the MS: mercede 198 ADRG correctly reads the MS: tam 199 Augustine often speaks of God crowning his own gifts, but for the idea of crowning his own works, see Enarrationes in Psalmos 137:18 (PL 37:1784). Worms Draft §63 states that God “coronat [opera] sua in nobis” without mentioning Augustine. 200 §21 is new material.

GROPPER’S DRAFT  315 [22.] Habent quoque haec opera [22.] These works also have merit by God dignatione Dei propterea meritum, deeming them worthy for this reason, quod ita a Deo statutum sit, ut velit that it is ordained by God that he illa maioris virtutis incremento should wish them to accumulate cumulare iuxta illud: Habenti by the growth of greater virtue, as dabitur [Mt 25:29]. Et quod ait [Scripture] says: To him who has shall Augustinus: Dilectio meretur201 be given [Mt 25:29]. And the stateincrementum dilectionis, cum viment of Augustine: Love merits an delicet exercetur.202 [182] increase in love, when it is evidently exercised. [23.] De fiducia et gloriatione bonorum operum innixa203 fiducie, quae est in Christo. Adferunt quoque haec opera conscientiae gloriationem iuxta illud 2. Corinth. 1[:12]: Gloriatio nostra haec204 est testimonium conscientie nostre, quod in simplicitate et sinceritate Dei, non in sapientia carnali, sed in gratia Dei conversati sumus205 in hoc mundo.206

[23.] Concerning confidence and boasting of good works, based on the confidence which is in Christ. These works also bring boasting of conscience, according to 2 Cor 1[:12]: Our boast is this: the witness of our conscience, that we have behaved in this world in candour and godly sincerity, not in carnal wisdom, but by the grace of God.

[24.] Perficiunt quoque salutem [24.] [Good works] also complete our nostram, ut scribitur ad Philipp. 3 salvation, as is written in Phil 3 [= [=2:12]: Cum timore et tremore 2:12]: Complete your own salvation vestram ipsorum salutem with fear and trembling. And in 2 Cor perficite. Et 2. Corinth. 4[:17]: 4[:17]: Our fleeting tribulation creates Momentaneum tribulationis in us an incomparable and eternal nostre incomparabilem et magnitude of glory. And in 1 Tim aeternam glorie magnitudinem 4[:16]: Continue in these things, for operatur in nobis. Et 1. Timoth.207 by so doing you will save both your[4:16]: Permane208 in his, hoc enim self and your hearers. faciens et servabis teipsum et eos, qui te audiunt.209

201 Following Worms Draft §54; ADRG correctly reads the MS: Dilecto mereatur 202 Following Worms Draft §64; ADRG correctly reads the MS: “exercitur”. Thomas Aquinas’s quotation of Augustine, Epistola 186:3:10 (CSEL 57:53) in Summa Theologiae 2/​1, q. 114, a. 8, appears to be the closest. §22 is taken from Worms Draft §64. 203 ADRG correctly reads the MS: innixe 204 Following Worms Draft §65; ADRG correctly reads the MS: hoc 205 ADRG falso om.: sumus 206 §23 (apart from the heading) is taken from Worms Draft §65. 207 ADRG, falso: Timoth. 4 208 Following Worms Draft §66; ADRG correctly reads the MS: Permaneo 209 §24 is taken from Worms Draft §66.

316  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [25.] Haec denique opera fidei sunt, [25.] Finally, these are the works of faith, quae de prima iustificatione210 which bear witness to initial justestimonium ferunt, sicut Joan. tification, as John says: By this we ait: In hoc cognoscimus, quod know that we are of the truth and ex veritate sumus, et coram eo shall convince our hearts before him. persuadebimus corda nostra. Because if our heart should condemn Quoniam si condemnet nos cor us, God is greater than our heart nostrum, maior est Deus corde and he knows everything. Beloved, nostro et novit omnia. Charissimi, should our heart not condemn us, si cor nostrum non condemnet we have confidence towards God nos, fiduciam habemus erga and whatever we ask we receive from Deum et quicquid petierimus, him, because we keep his commandaccipimus ab eo, quia praecepta ments and do those things that are eius custodimus et ea, que sunt pleasing to Him (1 John 3[:19–​22]). placita coram eo, facimus. [1.] Likewise: In this is the love of God Joan. 3[:19–​22]. Item: In hoc, perfected, that we keep his comquod [183] servamus mandata mandments; by this we know that we eius, perfecta est dilectio Dei, in are in him. Etc. Whoever abides in hoc cognoscimus, quod in ipso love abides in God and God in him. simus.211 Etc.212 Qui manet in By this love is perfected in us, so that charitate, in Deo manet, et Deus we may have confidence in the day in eo, in hoc est perfecta charitas of judgement (John 8 and 1 John nobiscum, ut fiduciam habeamus 4[:16–​17]). in die judicii. Jo. 8.213 Et 1. Joan. 4[:16–​17].214 [26.] Interim tamen hoc semper [26.] Meanwhile, however, this must be retinendum est, quod etsi haec always kept in mind that even if these opera dignatione215 Dei talia works are such by God deeming them sint, quod nihilominus remissio worthy, nevertheless the remission peccatorum debetur merito of sins is owed to the merit of Christ, Christi, qui semper adstat who always stands as an advocate for advocatus pro nobis et operatur us and carries out these works in us, haec opera in nobis, ut retinentes so that holding on to what we initially initium substanciae eius [Heb 3:14] received [Heb 3:14] through these per haec opera viva sua dona, quae living works, his gifts, which he nevtamen nobis in meritum imputat, ertheless imputes to us as merit, we magis ac magis iustificemur juxta shall be more and more justified, acillud Apocalip. 22[:11 v.l.]:  cording to Rev 22[:11 v.l.]: 

210 Following Worms Draft §67; ADRG correctly reads the MS: iustificationem 211 Cf. 1 Jn 2:3, 5. 212 ADRG gives the most natural reading of the text: “25”. Worms Draft §67 reads “etc.”, which makes sense (unlike “25”) and is also a possible reading of the text. 213 The 1 John passages suffice as sources for the quotations. John 8 is probably an error, though it is possible that vv. 31 or 51 are in mind. 214 §25 is taken from Worms Draft §67. 215 Following Worms Draft §68; ADRG correctly reads the MS: dignationis

GROPPER’S DRAFT  317 Justus justificetur adhuc et sanctus sanctificetur adhuc, donec tandem proficientes de die in diem hac corruptione216 mortalitatis exutos immortalitate induat ac glorificet [1 Cor 15:53].217 [27.]

Let the one who is righteous be justified still and let the one who is holy be sanctified still, until at last [God] clothes with immortality and glorifies those who are making progress from day to day, having been stripped of this corruption of mortality [1 Cor 15:53].

Semper quoque hoc retinendum [27.] This too must always be kept [in mind], est, ne anchoram salutis nostre in so that we do not fasten the anchor of haec opera figamus, quod adhuc our salvation onto these works: that imperfecta sint, sed in Deo vivo, they are still imperfect; rather [we qui nobis ea per Christum donavit, fasten it] onto the living God who etsi interim fiduciam nostram suo gave them to us in Christ, even if in modo fulciant ac stabiliant juxta the meantime in their own way they illud 1. Joan. 3[:21]: Si cor nostrum support and establish our confidence, non reprehenderit218 nos, fiduciam as 1 John 3[:21] says: If our heart has habemus etc.219 Scite ergo, not condemned us, we have confiBernardus exclamat: “Passio tua, o dence, etc. So you must understand, Christe, ultimum [184] refugium, as Bernard exclaims: “Your passion, O singulare remedium. Deficiente Christ, is [our] final refuge, our only sapiencia, justicia non sufficiente, remedy! If wisdom is lacking, rightsanctitatis succumbentibus220 eousness inadequate and the merits of meritis, illa succurrit. Quis enim de holiness founder, that [passion] gives sua vel221 sapiencia vel justicia vel aid. For who considers his own wisdom sanctitate presumat sufficienciam or righteousness or holiness sufficient ad salutem? Non quod sufficientes, for salvation? Not that we are sufficient inquit apostolus, simus aliquid of ourselves, says the apostle, to think cogitare a nobis tanquam ex nobis, of anything as coming from ourselves, sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est but our sufficiency is of God [2 Cor [2 Cor. 3:5]. Itaque cum defecerit 3:5]. Therefore when my virtue fails, virtus mea, non conturbor,222 non I am not dismayed, I do not despair, diffido, scio, quid faciam, calicem I know that whatever I do will receive salutaris accipiam et nomen the cup of salvation and call upon the domini invocabo [Ps. 116:13], nisi Lord’s name [Ps 116:13], for unless enim sanguis tuus interpellet pro your blood is interposed for me, I am me, salvus non sum.”223 not saved.”

216 Following Worms Draft §68. ADRG correctly reads the MS, adding “mortalitatis executos” which is not found in Worms Draft §68, and which makes no sense here. The MS then proceeds “immortalitatis”, which is crossed out. The writer clearly failed also to cross out the incorrect “mortalitatis executos”. 217 §26 is taken from Worms Draft §68. 218 Following Worms Draft §69 and Vulgate; ADRG correctly reads the MS: reprehenderet 219 §27 to this point is taken from Worms Draft §69, “etc.” representing the remainder of the quotation on 1 John 3:21–​22 in §69. The remainder of the paragraph is taken from Worms Draft §42. 220 ADRG, falso: succubentibus 221 ADRG correctly reads the MS with a redundant second “vel” on the next line. 222 Following Worms Draft §42 and Bernard; ADRG: “conturbet”, which the MS could read, but “conturbor” is also possible and is the correct reading. 223 Bernard, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum 22:8 (SBOp 1:134–​35).

318  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [28.] Idem sanctus vir totam rationem [28.] The same holy man summing up justificationis fidei et operum clearly teaches the whole plan of justicomplexus preclare224 docet, fication of faith and of works, and that fidem justificantem hisce justifying faith is composed of these membris constare.225 “Nempe, parts. “Certainly, let us believe first of ut omnium primo credamus, all that we cannot have the remission quod remissionem peccatorum of sins except through the kindness habere226 non possumus nisi per of God through Christ Jesus, but this indulgentiam Dei per Christum we also add, let us firmly believe, that Jesum, sed et hoc addamus, ut our sins are forgiven through him. certo credamus, quia per ipsum This,” he says, “is the testimony that nobis peccata donata sunt. Hoc the Holy Spirit bestows in our hearts, est,” inquit, “testimonium, quod saying: Your sins are forgiven you [Mt perhibet in corde nostro spiritus 9:2, 5]. For thus the apostle testifies sanctus, dicens: Dimissa sunt that a person is freely justified by faith tibi peccata tua [Mt 9:2, 5]. Sic (Rom 3[:24–​25]). Then let us believe enim arbitratur apostolus, gratis that we can have no righteousness justificari hominem per fidem Ro. whatsoever unless he himself has 3[:24–​25]. Deinde ut credamus, given it. For if human nature was unquod nihil prorsus [185] iusticie able to stand while still sound, how habere possimus,227 nisi et hoc much less could it raise itself by itself dederit ipse. Nam si stare non now that it is corrupt.” Therefore of potuit humana natura adhuc his fullness we must all receive grace integra, quanto minus228 poterit per upon grace [Jn 1:16]. “But if you also se ipsam resurgere iam corrupta.” believe this, that it is impossible to De plenitudine ergo eius nos omnes have righteousness except through accipere oportet gratiam pro gratia him, it does not suffice until the Spirit [Jn 1:16]. “Sed et hoc si credis, non bestows upon you the testimony of posse habere justiciam229 nisi per the truth that you have these [merits] ipsum, non sufficit, donec spirthrough him, since it is necessary that itus tibi perhibeat testimonium the truth of our conversion should veritatis, quia habes ea per meet with [God’s] prevenient mercy. illum, praevenienti230 siquidem So let us continually pursue holiness misericordie veritas nostre and peace, without which nobody conversionis occurrat necesse est. shall see God [Heb 12:14].” Utque deinceps sanctimoniam sectemur et pacem, sine qua nemo videbit Deum [Heb 12:14].”231 224 §28 after this point is taken from Worms Draft §35. 225 ADRG, falso: costare 226 ADRG, falso: habens 227 This appears to be the reading of the MS, but as there is no dot over the “i” it could conceivably read, with ADRG: possumus 228 ADRG correctly reads the MS, which adds a redundant “adhuc” here, contrary to both Worms Draft §35 and Bernard’s original. 229 Bernard’s mentions “merits” rather than iustitia, and the “ea” later in the sentence refers back to these merits. 230 Following Worms Draft §35, which follows Bernard; ADRG correctly reads the MS: pervenienti 231 An amalgum of passages from Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:1, 3, 5 (SBOp 5:13–​16).

GROPPER’S DRAFT  319 [29.] “Postremo ut credamus, quod [29.] “Finally, let us believe that eternal aeternam232 vitam nullis life cannot not be merited by any possimus operibus promereri; works, unless that too were freely nisi gratis detur et illa. Scimus given to us. For we know that the enim, quia non sunt233 condigne sufferings of the present time are passiones huius temporis ad not worthy [to be compared] with futuram gloriam [Rom 8:18], ne the future glory [Rom 8:18], not quidem si unus omnes sustineat. even if one person should bear them Et ut opera in iustificato234 all. And it is by God deeming them dignatione Dei meritoria sint,235 worthy that works in the justified are non tamen sic236 meritoria, ut meritorious—​yet not meritorious in propterea vita aeterna ex iure such a way that eternal life is owed debeatur aut Deus iniuriam [to them] as of right or that God aliquam faceret, nisi eam donaret. would be guilty of some injustice if Nam ut taceam” (inquit vir ille) he did not grant it. For not to men“quod omnia dona Dei sunt, tion,” says that man, “[the fact that] ut sic homo magis propter ipsa they are all gifts of God, so that beDeo debitor sit quam Deus cause of them man is more a debtor homini, quid sunt merita omnia to God than God to man, what are all [186] ad tantam237 gloriam? these merits [compared with] such Denique quis meliorem se great glory? Finally, who would boast glorietur propheta, cui Deus that he was better than the prophet ipse tam insigne testimonium on whom God himself bestows such perhibet, dicens: Virum inveni a remarkable testimony, saying: I secundum cor meum [Act 13:22]. have found a man after my own Verumtamen et ipse necesse heart [Act 13:22]? Yet in fact he too habuit dicere Deo: Non intres in needed to say to God: Do not enter judicium cum servo tuo, domine into judgement with your servant, [Ps 143:2].” Sed et hoc huic Lord [Ps 143:2].” But to this point membro addendum est, “ut simul must also be added: “at the same quoque credamus utque spiritus time we must also believe that we testimonium habeamus, quod have the witness of the Spirit that ad vitam eternam divino simus we shall attain eternal life by divine munere perventuri. Ipse enim” gift. For he himself ” (as [Bernard] (ut subdit ille) “peccata condonat, adds) “forgives sins, he himself gives ipse donat merita et premia merits and nevertheless bestows nihilominus ipse redonat.”238 rewards.”



232

Following Worms Draft §36, Bernard and ADRG; MS: aeterna Following Bernard and Vulgate, against Worms Draft §36 and MS: sint. ADRG, falso: fuit 234 Following Worms Draft §36; ADRG correctly reads the MS: justificate 235 Mg: meritum vitae eternae. 236 Following Worms Draft §36 against ADRG: “sit”, which is the more likely reading of the MS. 237 ADRG, falso: tantum 238 Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:1–​3 (SBOp 5:13–​15). §29 is taken from Worms Draft §36. 233

320  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [30.] “Haec autem fides” (ut idem ille [30.] “Moreover this faith” (as he also addit) “testimoniis validissimis adds) “is supported by the most fulcitur. Nam de remissione powerful witnesses. For as regards peccatorum validissimum the remission of sins I have a most teneo argumentum, dominicam powerful argument [namely] the passionem. Vox siquidem sanLord’s passion. Indeed the voice of guinis eius invaluit multo plus his blood was much more effective quam vox sanguinis Abel [Heb than the voice of Abel’s blood [Heb 12:24], clamans, in cordibus 12:24], proclaiming in the hearts of electorum remissionem omnium the elect the remission of all sins. For peccatorum. Traditus est enim he was delivered up for of our sins propter peccata nostra [Rom 4:25]. [Rom 4:25] and there is no doubt Nec dubium, quin potentior et that his death is more powerful and efficacior sit mors illius in bonum effective for good than our sins for quam peccata nostra239 in malum. evil. As regards good works, however, De bonis autem operibus arguhis resurrection is no less an effective mentum nihilominus mihi efficax argument for me, because he rose est resurrectio eius, quia resurrexit again for our justification [Rom 4:25]. propter iustificationem nostram Again, as regards the hope of eternal [Rom 4:25]. Porro de spe vitae life his ascension is a reliable witness, aeterne testimonium certe eius because he ascended for our glorificaest ascensio, quia ascendit propter tion,” so that we might be seated with glorificationem nostram,”240 ut him in the heavens (Eph 1 [= 2:6]). cum illo in coelesti [187] bus consideremus. Ephe. 1 [= 2:6].241 [31.] In eandem sentenciam Beatus [31.] St Augustine, in his The Spirit and the August. lib. de spiritu et litera Letter, interprets Psalm 102 [= 103] psalmum 102 [= 103] interpretatur. in the same sense: “He who pardons “Qui propiciatur,” inquit, “omnibus all your iniquities [Ps 103:3]—​this is iniquitatibus tuis [Ps 103:3], hoc effected in the sacrament of baptism. agitur242 in baptismatis sacraHe who heals all your infirmities [Ps mento, qui sanat omnes languores 103:3]—​this is effected for the betuos [Ps 103:3], hoc agitur in hac liever in this life, when the flesh lusts vita fidelis hominis, dum caro against the spirit and the spirit against concupiscit adversus spiritum the flesh [Gal 5:17]. For if with peret spiritus adversus carnem severing purpose we progress with [Gal 5:17]. Nam si perseverante increasing newness from day to day, intencione proficiamus de die in we are healed by faith, that works diem crescente novitate, sanamur through love [Gal 5:6]. ex fide, quae per dilectionem operatur [Gal 5:6]. 239 The italicised text is in Bernard and in the Worms Draft, but is absent in the MS and ADRG. When the text was copied for this draft, the copyist’s eye missed a line because of the repeat of “peccata nostra”. 240 Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:4 (SBOp 5:15). 241 §30 is taken from Worms Draft §37. 242 At this point in the MS the words “in hac . . . adversus spiritum”, which belong after the next occurrence of “hoc agitur” are written then crossed out. Clearly, the copyist was working from a copy of the Worms draft, skipped a line by mistake (because of the repetition of “hoc agitur”), realised his mistake and crossed the words out.

GROPPER’S DRAFT  321 Qui redimit de corruptione vitam tuam [Ps 103:4], hoc fit in ultima resurrectione mortuorum. Qui coronat in misericordia et miserationibus [Ps 103:4], hoc fit in judicio, ubi cum rex iustus sederit in throno, redditurus243 unicuique secundum opera eius [Mt 16:27; Rom 2:6]. Quis gloriabitur castum se habere cor aut mundum se esse a peccato? Coronat ergo in miseratione et misericordia [Ps 103:4], sed eciam sic secundum opera, quoniam judicium sine misericordia, sed illi qui non fecit misericordiam [Jas 2:13], beati autem misericordes, quoniam ipsorum miserebitur [Mt 5:7].”244 Hactenus ille.245 [188]

He who redeemed your life from corruption [Ps 103:4]—​this comes about at the last resurrection of the dead. He who crowns you with in mercy and compassion [Ps 103:4]—​this comes about at the judgement. Then, when the righteous king will sit on the throne, to render to each person according to his works [Mt 16:27; Rom 2:6], who will boast of having a chaste heart or of being pure from sin? For he crowns in mercy and compassion [Ps 103:4]—​but this likewise according to works, since judgement is without mercy, but [only] to him who has shown no mercy [Jas 2:13]; but blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy [Mt 5:7].” Thus far [Augustine].

[32.] Ergo quisquis246 talem nactus [32.] Therefore whoever who has obtained est fidem, per quam (ut inquit the sort of faith through which, says Bemardus) “misericordia et veritas Bernard, “mercy and truth meet each sibi in mente nostra obviam fiunt et other in our mind and justice and justicia et pax osculantur [Ps 85:11], peace kiss each other [Ps 85:11], he” is,” inquit, “secure glorietur, sed in (he says) “boasts securely, but in him eo, qui sibi testimonium perhibet who bears witness to him especially in spiritu utique veritatis in eo, by the Spirit of truth, in him who qui per fidem habitat in cordibus by faith dwells in our hearts, Christ nostris Christus [Eph 3:17].”247 Hoc [Eph 3:17].” For this is to boast in the est enim in domino gloriari [1 Cor Lord [1 Cor 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17]. Thus 1:31; 2 Cor 10:17]. Sic gloriatur the apostle Paul boasts: Nevertheless apostolus Paulus: Vivo autem, iam I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in non ego, vivit vero in me Christus me [Gal 2:20]. “Moreover this is our [Gal 2:20]. “Atque haec est, ut boast, as also the apostle says, the idem apostolus ait, gloria nostra, witness of our conscience [2 Cor testimonium consciencie nostre 1:12]. Not indeed the sort of witness [2 Cor 1:12]. Non quidem tale that the proud Pharisee had, bearing testimonium, quale ille superbus witness to himself in his deceived and Phariseus habebat, seducta et deceiving opinion [Lu 18:9–​14]; seductrice cogitatione testimonium perhibens de se ipso [Lu 18:9–​14]



243 ADRG, falso: rediturus

244 Augustine, De spiritu et littera 33:59 (CSEL 60:218–​19). 245

§31 is taken from Worms Draft §38.

246 ADRG, falso: quisque

247 Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:5, 4 (SBOp 5:16, 15).

322  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 et testimonium eius non erat verum.” Hoc est vero testimonium “cum spiritus ipse testimonium perhibet spiritui nostro,”248 quod simus filii Dei. Ro. 8[:16].249 [33.] De forma sermonis: Sola fides justificat In hanc sententiam veteres usi leguntur hac loquendi formula: “Sola fide justificamur,” id est, sola illa fide viva et nulla alia re quam fide donum justicie accipitur, hoc est: Est [189] ea res, per quam Deus nos a peccatis absolvit, in filios adoptionis adsciscit, ex iniustis iustos facit et sibi iam acceptos esse pronuntiat.250

and his witness was not true.” This is truly the witness, “when the Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit” that we are children of God (Rom 8[:16]). [33.] Concerning the formula “faith alone justifies” This is the sense in which the ancients are read when they use this formula of speech, “we are justified by faith alone”: the gift of righteousness is received by that living faith alone and by nothing other than faith. That is, [faith] is that thing by which God absolves us from sins, receives us as [his] children by adoption, makes the unrighteous righteous and declares them to be now acceptable to him.

[34.] Quoniam vero haec loquendi for- [34.] Since in fact this formula of speech, mula, “sola fide justificamur,” ab “we are justified by faith alone,” can indocta plebe, que securitatem easily be taken in an ungodly sense carnis querit, facile in impium by untaught folk who seek the secusensum, si simpliciter et absque rity of the flesh, if it is set forth simply iusta explicatione proponatur, and without any proper explanation, capi posset, ut intelligat de sola so that they understand by “by faith fide seclusa charitate aut sola illa alone” as “by a faith sundered from opinione, quam sibi fingit, quod love” or as “by that opinion alone” scilicet Christus pro se satisfecerit, which imagines to itself that Christ etsi nullum spiritus experimentum certainly made satisfaction for them, in se sentiat iustificari. Idcirco hac even though they feel no experience verborum formula in concionibus of the Spirit in themselves that they non est temere utendum, sed are justified. For this reason this form sincere exponendum, quo pacto of words should not be used carelessly ea sententia intelligi debeat, et in sermons, but it should be soundly revocetur populus ad faciendum expounded in what way that statepericulum, an fidem illam vivam ment [faith alone] ought to be underiam possideat. stood and the people called again to test whether they already possess that living faith.



248 Bernard, Sermones in Annuntiatione Domini 1:1 (SBOp 5:13). 249 250

§32 is taken from Worms Draft §39. §33 (apart from the heading) is taken from Worms Draft §44.

GROPPER’S DRAFT  323 Quemadmodum facit Paul. in Corinth: Vosmetipsos, inquit, tentate, si estis in fide, ipsi vos probate, an non cognoscitis251 vosmetipsos, quia Christus Jesus in vobis252 est, nisi forte reprobi estis [2 Cor 13:5], perinde atque si dicat: Reprobi estis, donec fide experiamini Christum in nobis habitare. 2. Corinth. ultimo 1.253 [190] [35.]

Just as Paul does in Corinthians: Test your very selves, he says, whether you are in the faith, examine yourselves. Or do you not know yourselves, that Christ Jesus is in you, unless perhaps you are reprobates? [2 Cor 13:5], It is as if [Paul] said: You are reprobates, until by faith we experience Christ living in us (2 Cor, the end of ­chapter 1).

De certitudine iustificationis254 seu [35.] Concerning the assurance of justificaremissionis peccatorum. tion or remission of sins. Et pulchre quidem Bemardus: “Fortassis” (inquit) “requiras, quomodo nosse possis, utrum consequtus sis indulgenciam peccatorum. Attende, quod ait Jesus paralitico: Confide, fili, remittuntur tibi peccata tua [Mt 9:2]. Attende quoque signum, quo invisibilem probat potestatem. Ut sciatis, inquit, quia potestatem habet filius hominis in terra dimittendi255 peccata [Mk 2:10]. Tunc ait paralitico: Surge, tolle lectum tuum [Mt 9:6] et ambula [Jn 5:8]. Et tu ergo, si iam surgis desiderio supernorum, si grabbatum tollis corpus scilicet a terrenis elevans voluptatibus, ut iam non feratur anima concupiscentiis eius, sed magis ipsa, ut dignum est, regat illud et ferat, quo non vult [Jn 21:18], si demum ambulas, que retro sunt obliviscens, et ad ea, que ante te sunt, te extendens [Phil 3:13] desiderio et proposito256 proficiendi, curatum te esse non dubites.

In fact Bernard puts it beautifully: “Perhaps,” he says, “you ask how you could know whether you have attained pardon for your sins. Pay attention to what Jesus said to the paralytic: Be of good courage, son, your sins are forgiven you [Mt 9:2]. Notice too the sign by which he proves his invisible power: So that you may know, he says, that the Son of Man has power on earth to remit sins [Mk 2:10]. Then he says to the paralytic: Rise, take up your bed [Mt 9:6] and walk [Jn 5:8]! You too, therefore, if you now arise with desire for heavenly things, if you now take up your bed (i.e. your body), raising it above earthly pleasures, so that your soul is not now moved by the lusts of [the body] but rather, as is fitting, rules it and moves it to where it does not want [Jn 21:18], if at last you walk, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching out towards the things which lie ahead of you [Phil 3:13], with the desire and determination to progress, then you should not doubt that you have been healed.

251 Following Worms Draft §46 and the Vulgate; ADRG correctly reads the MS: cognoscetis 252 Following Worms Draft §46 and the Vulgate; MS probably reads “nobis” 253 §34 is taken from Worms Draft §46. 254 ADRG, falso: satisfactionis 255 Following Worms Draft §47, Bernard, and the Vulgate; ADRG, falso: “admittendi”, which was the original reading of the manuscript but is there corrected to “dimittendi”. 256 Following Worms Draft §47 and Bernard; ADRG correctly reads the MS: proposicio

324  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 Neque enim surgere poteras, si non aliquatenus onus esset alleviatum et nec grabbatum tollere, nisi exoneratus.”257

For you would not be able to rise if the load were not to some extent lightened, nor able to take up your bed unless unburdened.”

[36.] “Propterea fiducialiter iam [36.] “Therefore such a person can now postulare potest, qui huiusmodi make requests confidently, without est, nihil hesitans, modo videat, hesitation, so long as he takes care not ne [191] male petat. Jacob. to ask wrongly (Jas 4[:3]).” Whoever 4[:3].”258 Qui tali fide preditus is not endowed with such faith is not non est, is invocare non potest, able to call upon [God], for how shall quomodo enim invocabunt, si non they call upon [him] if they do not becrediderunt? Ro. 10[:14].259 lieve (Rom 10[:14])? [37.] Itaque quamquam in renatis [37.] And so, though the fear of God, resemper crescere debent timor pentance, humility and the other Dei, penitencia et humilitas et alie virtues should always be increasing virtutes, cum renovatio sit imin the reborn, since the renewal perfecta et hereat in eis ingens is incomplete and huge weakinfirmitas. Tamen docendum ness clings to them, nevertheless est, ut qui vere penitent semper it should be taught that those who fide certissima statuant, se are truly repentant should always propter mediatorem Christum be convinced, with the most sure Deo placere, quia Christus est faith, that they are pleasing to God propiciator, pontifex et interon account of Christ the Mediator, pellator pro nobis, quem pater since Christ is the propitiator, high donavit nobis et omnia bona cum priest and intercessor for us, whom illo [cf. Rom 8:32]. Atque hoc260 the Father gave to us and every addendum est (ut Cyprianus good thing with him [cf. Rom 8:32]. ait), quod hoc prius sentiatur And this should be added, that (as quam discatur, neque enim (ut Cyprian says) this is felt before it subijcit) per moras temporum is learned, for (as he suggests) it is longa agnitione colligitur, sed not acquired over a space of time compendio gratiae maturantis by lengthy perception but is taken hauritur261 et revocandus homo in by a swift act of ripening grace, ad internum testimonium spiritus and people should be recalled to the [Rom 8:16]. inner witness of the spirit [Rom 8:16].



257 Bernard, Sermones de Diversis 25:4 (SBOp 6/​1:189–​90).



258 Bernard, Sermones de Diversis 25:5 (SBOp 6/​1:190).

§35 (apart from the heading) is taken from Worms Draft §47.

259

§36 is taken from Worms Draft §47. §37 from this point is taken from Worms Draft §47. The earlier material is new. 261 Cyprian, Ad Donatum 2 (CSEL 3/​1:4). 260

GROPPER’S DRAFT  325 [38.] Nec hanc certitudinem [38.] Nor should contemplation of the remissionis, modo sit imperfection of our righteousness confirmata262 spiritus testimonio, hinder this certainty of remission, remorari debet contemplatio provided that it is confirmed by the imperfectionis iusticie nostre, witness of the spirit, but we should all sed hoc magis fide in iustitiam, the more look to the righteousness quae in Christo absoluta est, which is perfect in Christ, and in this intueri oportet et hic per fidem matter make good by faith what is supplere,263 quod nobis deest. Et lacking in us. And then we should estum264 maxime [192] ruminandum pecially ruminate upon the psalmist’s est illud psalmiste: Memor esto words: Be mindful of your word to verbi tui servo tuo, domine, in quo your servant, Lord, in which you gave mihi spem dedisti [Ps 119:49], ut me hope [Ps 119:49], so that I have ab auditione mala non timeam [Ps no fear of bad tidings [Ps 112:7], but 112:7], sed beata magis auditio rather may blessed news revive and refocillet265 et confirmet.266 encourage [me]. [39.] Et ut nemo sciat, an odio vel [39.] And although nobody knows amore dignus sit [Eccl 9:1], hoc whether he deserves hatred or love est, nemo satis intelligat, an omnia [Eccl 9:1], i.e. nobody understands in se Deus probet,267 quod cor sufficiently whether God approves of hominis et sibi ipsi sit inscrutabile everything in him, because the heart [Jer 17:9], in quam sententiam of man is unknowable even to himdixit apostolus: Nihil mihi conscius self [Jer 17:9] (in which sentiment the sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus apostle said: I know nothing against sum [1 Cor 4:4], nihilosetius myself, but I am not hereby justitamen credendum est, quod fied [1 Cor 4:4]), yet nevertheless we nobis gratiam et spiritum Christi must believe that those hidden [sins] nos innovantem retinentibus are forgiven through the boundless illa occulta per immensam Dei mercy of God as we hold fast to the misericordiam remittantur. Et grace and spirit of Christ renewing nemo scit, an fragilitate sua sit us. And nobody knows whether in rursus lapsurus, et propterea nobis his weakness he will backslide, and semper timendum sit iuxta illud268 therefore we should ever be afraid, as apostoli: Qui putat se stare, videat, the apostle says: Whoever thinks he ne cadat. 1. Corinth. 10[:12].269 stands, let him beware lest he fall (1 Cor 10[:12]).



262 ADRG, falso: conformata 263 ADRG, falso: supplens 264

Following Worms Draft §48; ADRG correctly reads the MS: tam

266

§38 is taken from Worms Draft §48.

265 ADRG, falso: refollicet 267 ADRG, falso: probat 268 ADRG, falso: illus 269

§39 is taken from Worms Draft §49.

326  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 [40.] Nihilominus tamen de presenti [40.] Nevertheless, however, we can nostro statu per fidem certi esse through faith be certain of our prepossumus, cum spiritus reddit sent status, when the Spirit bears testimonium spiritui nostro, quod witness with our spirit that we are simus filii Dei Ro. 8[:16], spiritus children of God (Romans 8[:16]), quidem, qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus, even the Spirit who is from God, that quae a Deo donata sunt nobis. we might know what gifts have been 1. Corinth. 2[:12]. 270 given to us by God (1 Cor 2[:12]). [41.] Haec tamen, que de certitudine [41.] However, these things which have remissionis [193] peccatorum been said concerning certainty of dicta sunt, sic271 docenda erunt, ut the remission of sins will have to be omnes intelligant, hunc tamquam taught, so that all may understand ad scopum esse contendendum, that this is to be striven for as a goal neque enim perfecta certitudo in so to speak, for complete certainty hac imbecillitate requiri potest, cannot be sought in this state of proinde cum multe sint infirme weakness—​hence there are so many et pavide272 consciencie, que cum weak and cautious consciences gravi sepe dubitatione luctantur. that frequently struggle with seNemo enim a gratia Christi rious doubt. For nobody should be propter huius infirmitatem273 excluded from the grace of Christ excludendus, sed convenit tales because of this weakness, but it is diligenter adhortari, ut hijs proper that such people should be dubitationibus promissionem diligently urged strongly to bring Christi fortiter opponant et augeri forward the promise of Christ against sibi fidem sedulis precibus orent these doubts, and plead with zealous iuxta illud: Adauge nobis, domine, prayers that their faith might infidem [Lu 17:5].274 crease, as Scripture says: Lord, increase our faith [Lu 17:5]. [42.] Preterea docendus est populus, [42.] Moreover, the people should be ut det operam huic argumento, taught to give attention to this aret exhortationes ad perficiendam gument, and exhortations should sanctificacionem nostram bonis be diligently made to complete our operibus tam internis quam sanctification by good works, both externis a Deo mandatis et internal and external, as commanded commendatis diligenter faciendae and recommended by God. Not that sunt. Non quod ipsa sint causa they are of themselves the cause of the remissionis peccatorum in renatis remission of sins in the reborn, ex sese,



270

§40 is taken from Worms Draft §49.

271 ADRG falso om.: sic

272 ADRG, falso: provide 273 274

With ADRG; MS: infirmitate §41 is new material.

GROPPER’S DRAFT  327 sed quod Deus illis peccata illa quotidiana veluti antidotis contrariis expurget et concupiscentie vim mortificet atque adeo per illa nos iustificatos esse declarat. Id quod hec et similes sentenciae testantur: Remittuntur ei peccata multa, quoniam dilexit multum [Lu 7:47]. Item: Peccata tua elemosinis redime275 Danielis 4[:27]. Et in Tobia [4:11]: Elemosina [194] ab omni peccato et morte liberat, item Luce 8 [= 11:41]: Date elemosinam et ecce omnia munda sunt nobis. Luce 6[:37]: Remittite et remittuntur vobis.276 Math. 6 [= 5:7]: Beati misericordes, quia misericordiam consequentur, et similes.277

but because God purges those daily sins as if with these remedies, and mortifies the power of lust, and so declares us to be justified by means of these [remedies]. That is what this and similar passages bear witness to: Many sins are forgiven her because she loved much [Lu 7:47]. Or again: Make amends for your sins by almsgiving (Dan 4[:24]). And in Tobit [4:11]: Almsgiving frees from all sin and death. So too Luke 8 [= 11:41]: Give alms, and behold, everything is clean for us. Luke 6[:37]: Forgive and [your sins] will be forgiven you. Matthew 6 [= 5:7]: Blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy. And similar passages.

[43.] Et propterea non est ab[43.] So it is not absurd to say that the resurdum dicere, quod renati born should be sanctified and justiper huiusmodi opera fidei et fied through such works of faith and charitatis sanctificentur et love, provided that they are done in iustificentur, modo fiant in fide, faith, which is received in [the first] que in iustificatione fidei accepta, justification by faith and ascribes ea ad Deum tamquam omnis these things to God, as the origin of boni authorem refert et eorum all good, and makes good their imimperfectionem de plenitudine perfection from the fullness of rightjusticie, quae est in Christo Jesu, eousness which is in Christ Jesus, supplet, dans totam gloriam Deo, giving all the glory to God, not to non sibi. Qua fide, ut Abacuck itself. It is by this faith that the righttestatur [2:4] et Paulus confirmat eous man lives, as Habakkuk testifies [Rom 1:17; Gal 3:11], justus [2:4] and Paul confirms [Rom 1:17; vivit, nimirum non confisus Gal 3:11], not of course trusting in nec acquiescens ullis humanis nor resting satisfied with any human presidiis, sed fide, qua novit se supports, but on faith. By faith he Deo cure esse, qua spiritu filiorum knows that he is in the care of God, subarratus,278



275

Following Worms Draft §70 and Vulgate; MS: redimo Following Worms Draft §70 and the Vulgate; MS probably reads “nobis”, as does ADRG. 277 Apart from parts of the first sentence, §42 is taken from Worms Draft §70. 278 Following Worms Draft §71; ADRG correctly reads the MS: subaratur 276

328  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 intelligit omnia sua bona se a Deo accepisse, qua subnixus futuram felicitatem certissime expectat, qua vixerunt quotquot unquam iusti fuerunt, que in ipsis justiciam, pacem et gaudium in spiritu sancto [Rom 14:17], hoc est verum justicie studium, [195] mirificam animi tranquillitatem et ineffabile gaudium de immensa Dei bonitate peperit, et revera medium illud fuit, quo in judicium non venientes transierunt de morte in vitam [Jn 5:24].279

by which he is sealed280 with the spirit of son[ship] [Rom 8:15], and understands that all his good [works] have been accepted by God, supported by which he most certainly expects future happiness. It is by [faith] that righteous people, however many there have been, have lived, that produces in them righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit[Rom 14:17], that is true zeal for righteousness, [and] wonderful tranquillity of soul and ineffable joy from the boundless goodness of God, and indeed that has been the means by which they have not come to judgement but have passed from death to life [Jn 5:24].

279 §43 is taken from Worms Draft §71. 280 This translation assumes that Gropper intended the rare medieval word subarrhatus and also follows Bucer’s loose German translation (MBDS 9/​1:396) in referring this to sealing by the Holy Spirit in line with Eph 1:13.

FINAL VERSION  329

Appendix 5. The Final Version The text of the final version, Latin and English, is found in ­chapter 5, together with text critical apparatus. Because this is scattered sentence by sentence throughout that chapter, the entire text (without apparatus) is repeated here for convenience of access. De iustificatione hominis.

The Justification of Man

1.

(1) Nulli Christiano dubitandum est 1. post lapsum primi parentis omnes homines, ut inquit Apostolus, nasci filios irae [Eph 2:3] et inimicos Dei [Rom 5:10] eoque esse in morte [Rom 5:21; Eph 2:1] et servitute peccati [Rom 6:16–​20].

(1) No Christian should doubt that after the fall of our first parent all men are, as the apostle says, born children of wrath [Eph 2:3] and enemies of God [Rom 5:10] and thereby are in death [Rom 5:21; Eph 2:1] and slavery to sin [Rom 6:16–​20].

2.

(1) Item nulli Christiano ambigendum est nullum hominem posse Deo reconciliari itemque liberari a servitute peccati, nisi per Christum unum mediatorem Dei et hominum [1 Tim 2:5], per cuius gratiam, ut inquit apostolus ad Romanos, non tantum reconciliamur Deo [5:10] et liberamur a servitute peccati [6:18, 22], sed etiam efficimur consortes divinae naturae [2 Petr 1:4] et filii Dei [Rom 8:14-​16].

2.

(1) Likewise, no Christian should question that nobody can be reconciled with God, nor set free from slavery to sin, except by Christ the one mediator between God and men [1 Tim 2:5], by whose grace, as the apostle said to the Romans, we are not only reconciled to God [5:10] and set free from slavery to sin [6:18, 22], but also made sharers in the divine nature [2 Pet 1:4] and children of God [Rom 8:14–​16].

3.

(1) Item perspicuum est, quod adulti 3. non consequuntur haec beneficia Christi nisi praeveniente motu Spiritus Sancti, quo eorum mens et voluntas movetur ad detestationem peccati. (2) Nam impossibile est, ut inquit Augustinus, novam vitam inchoare, nisi prioris nos poeniteat. (3) Item Lucae ultimo Christus iubet praedicari in nomine suo poenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum [24:47]. (4) Johannes etiam Baptista missus ad parandas vias Domini praedicavit poenitentiam, inquiens: Poenitentiam agite, appropinquat enim regnum coelorum [Mt 3:2].

(1) Likewise, it is quite clear that adults do not obtain these blessings of Christ, except by the prevenient movement of the Holy Spirit, by which their mind and will are moved to hate sin. (2) For, as St. Augustine says, it is impossible to begin a new life if we do not repent of the former one. (3) Likewise, in the last chapter of Luke, Christ commands that repentance and forgiveness of sin should be preached in his name [24:47]. (4) Also, John the Baptist, sent to prepare the way of the Lord, preached repentance, saying: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is drawing near” [Matt 3:2].

330  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5

4.

(5) Deinde a Spiritu Sancto movetur hominis mens in Deum per Christum et hic motus est per fidem, per quam hominis mens certo credens omnibus, quae tradita sunt a Deo, etiam certissime et sine dubio assentitur promissionibus nobis exhibitis a Deo, qui, ut dicitur in Psalmo, fidelis est in omnibus verbis suis [144/​5:13], et ex eo fiduciam capit propter promissionem Dei, qua pollicitus est se remissurum peccata gratis et adoptaturum in filios credentes in Christum, eos inquam, quos prioris vitae poenituerit. (6) Et hac fide erigitur in Deum a Spiritu Sancto ideoque accipit Spiritum Sanctum, remissionem peccatorum, imputationem iustitiae et innumera alia dona.

(5) Next, man’s mind is moved toward God by the Holy Spirit through Christ and this movement is through faith. Through this [faith] man’s mind believes with certainty all that God has transmitted, and also with full certainty and without doubt assents to the promises made to us by God who, as stated in the Psalm, is faithful in all his words [145:13]. From there he acquires confidence on account of God’s promise, by which he has pledged that he will remit sins freely and that he will adopt as children those who believe in Christ, those I say who repent of their former life. (6) By this faith, he is lifted up to God by the Holy Spirit and so he receives the Holy Spirit, remission of sins, imputation of righteousness and countless other gifts.

(1) Firma itaque est et sana doctrina 4. per fidem vivam et efficacem iustificari peccatorem, nam per illam Deo grati et accepti sumus propter Christum. (2) Vocamus autem fidem vivam motum Spiritus Sancti, quo vere poenitentes veteris vitae eriguntur ad Deum et vere apprehendunt misericordiam in Christo promissam, ut iam vere sentiant, quod remissionem peccatorum et reconciliationem propter meritum Christi gratuita Dei bonitate acceperunt, et clamant ad Deum: Abba pater [Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6]. (3) Id quod tamen nulli obtingit, nisi etiam simul infundatur caritas sanans voluntatem, ut voluntas sanata, quemadmodum divus Augustinus ait, incipiat implere legem. (4) Fides ergo viva ea est, quae et apprehendit misericordiam in Christo ac credit iustitiam, quae est in Christo, sibi gratis imputari et quae simul pollicitationem Spiritus Sancti et caritatem accipit.

(1) So it is a reliable and sound doctrine that the sinner is justified by living and effectual faith, for through it we are pleasing and acceptable to God on account of Christ. (2) And living faith is what we call the movement of the Holy Spirit, by which those who truly repent of their old life are lifted up to God and truly appropriate the mercy promised in Christ, so that they now truly recognise that they have received the remission of sins and reconciliation on account of the merits of Christ, through the free goodness of God, and cry out to God: “Abba Father” [Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6]. (3) But this happens to no one unless also at the same time love is infused which heals the will so that the healed will may begin to fulfil the law, just as Saint Augustine said. (4) So living faith is that which both appropriates mercy in Christ, believing that the righteousness which is in Christ is freely imputed to it, and at the same time receives the promise of the Holy Spirit and love.

FINAL VERSION  331 (5) Ita quod fides quidem iustificans est illa fides, quae est efficax per caritatem [Gal 5:6]. (6) Sed interim hoc verum est, quod hac fide eatenus iustificamur, id est acceptamur et reconciliamur Deo, quatenus apprehendit misericordiam et iustitiam, quae nobis imputatur propter Christum et eius meritum, non propter dignitatem seu perfectionem iustitiae nobis in Christo communicatae.

(5) Therefore the faith that truly justifies is that faith which is effectual through love [Gal 5:6]. (6) Nevertheless it remains true, that it is by this faith that we are justified (i.e. accepted and reconciled to God) inasmuch as it appropriates the mercy and righteousness which is imputed to us on account of Christ and his merit, not on account of the worthiness or perfection of the righteousness communicated to us in Christ.

5.

(1) Etsi autem is, qui iustificatur, 5. iustitiam accipit et habet per Christum etiam inhaerentem, sicut dicit apostolus: Abluti estis, sanctificati estis, iustificati estis etc. [1 Cor 6:11] (quare sancti patres “iustificari” etiam pro eo, quod est “inhaerentem iustitiam accipere,” usurparunt) tamen anima fidelis huic non innititur, sed soli iustitiae Christi nobis donatae, sine qua omnino nulla est nec esse potest iustitia. (2) Et sic fide in Christum iustificamur seu reputamur iusti, id est accepti per ipsius merita, non propter nostram dignitatem aut opera. (3) Et propter inhaerentem iustitiam eo iusti dicimur, quia quae iusta sunt operamur, iuxta illud Ioannis: Qui facit iustitiam iustus est [1 Ioan 3:7].

(1) Although the one who is justified receives righteousness and through Christ also has inherent [righteousness], as the apostle says: “you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified, etc.” [I Cor 6:11] (which is why the holy fathers made use of [the term] “to be justified” even to mean “to receive inherent righteousness”), nevertheless, the faithful soul depends not on this, but only on the righteousness of Christ given to us as a gift, without which there is and can be no righteousness at all. (2) And thus by faith in Christ we are justified or reckoned to be righteous, that is we are accepted through his merits and not on account of our own worthiness or works. (3) And on account of the righteousness inherent in us we are said to be righteous, because the works which we perform are righteous, according to the saying of John: “whoever does what is right is righteous” [I John 3:7].

6.

(1) Et quanquam in renatis semper 6. crescere debent timor Dei, patientia et humilitas et aliae virtutes, cum renovatio sit imperfecta et haereat in eis ingens infirmitas, tamen docendum est, ut qui vere poenitent semper fide certissima statuant se propter mediatorem Christum Deo placere, quia Christus est propitiator, pontifex et interpellator pro nobis, quem pater donavit nobis et omnia bona cum illo [Rom 8:32].

(1) Although fear of God, patience, humility, and other virtues ought always to grow in the regenerate, because this renewal is imperfect and enormous weakness remains in them, it should nevertheless be taught that those who truly repent may always hold with most certain faith that they are pleasing to God on account of Christ the mediator. For it is Christ who is the propitiator, the High Priest and the one who prays for us, the one the Father gave to us and with him all good things [Rom 8:32].

332  Appendix: The Drafts of Article 5 7.

(1) Quoniam autem perfecta 7. certitudo in hac imbecillitate non est suntque multae infirmae et pavidae conscientiae, quae cum gravi saepe dubitatione luctantur, nemo est a gratia Christi propter eiusmodi infirmitatem excludendus, sed convenit tales diligenter adhortari, ut iis dubitationibus promissiones Christi fortiter opponant et augeri sibi fidem sedulis precibus orent, iuxta illud: Adauge nobis Domine fidem [Luc 17:5].

(1) Seeing that in our weakness there is no perfect certainty and that there are many weak and fearful consciences, which often struggle against great doubt, nobody should be excluded from the grace of Christ on account of such weakness. Such people should be earnestly encouraged boldly to set the promises of Christ against these doubts and by diligent intercession to pray that their faith may be increased, according to the saying: “Lord increase our faith” [Luke 17:5].

8.

(1) Item Christiano cuique debet 8. esse compertum non in hoc datam esse nobis hanc gratiam et hanc regenerationem, ut in eo gradu innovationis nostrae, quem primum nacti sumus, otiosi consistamus, sed crescamus in ipsum per omnia, qui est caput [Eph 4:15]. (2) Ideoque docendus est populus, ut det operam huic augmento, quod quidem fit per bona opera, et interna et externa, a Deo mandata et commendata, quibus Deus promisit propter Christum in pluribus locis evangelii clare et manifeste mercedem, bona tam corporis quam spiritus, in hac vita, prout divinae providentiae visum fuerit, et post hanc vitam in coelis. (3) Ideoque quamvis hereditas vitae aeternae propter promissionem debeatur renatis, etiam cum primum in Christo renati sunt, nihilominus reddit Deus etiam bonis operibus mercedem non secundum substantiam operum neque secundum quod sunt a nobis, sed quatenus in fide fiunt et sunt a Spiritu Sancto, qui habitat in nobis, concurrente libero arbitrio tanquam partiali agente.

(1) Likewise, every Christian should learn that this grace and this regeneration have not been given to us so that we might remain idle in that stage of our renewal which we at first obtained, but so that we may grow in everything into him who is the head [Eph 4:15]. (2) Therefore, the people must be taught to devote effort to this growth which indeed happens through good works, both internal and external, which are commanded and commended by God. To these works God has, in many passages from the Gospels, clearly and manifestly promised on account of Christ a reward—​good things in this life, as much for the body as for the soul (as much as seems right to divine providence) and after this life in heaven. (3) Therefore, although the inheritance of eternal life is due to the regenerate on account of the promise, as soon as they are reborn in Christ, nevertheless God also renders a reward to good works, not according to the substance of the works, nor because they come from us, but to the extent that they are performed in faith and proceed from the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, free choice concurring as a partial agent.

FINAL VERSION  333 9.

(1) Et amplior et maior erit felicitas 9. eorum, qui maiora et plura opera fecerunt, propter augmentum fidei et caritatis, in qua creverunt huiusmodi exercitiis.

(1) The joy of those who have performed more and better works will be greater and more abundant, on account of the increase of faith and love, in which they have grown through exercises of that kind.

10. (1) Qui autem dicunt, “sola fide 10. (1) Now those who say, “we are justified iustificamur,” simul tradere debent by faith alone,” should at the same time doctrinam de poenitentia, de teach the doctrine of repentance, of the timore Dei, de iudicio Dei, de fear of God, of the judgement of God bonis operibus, ut tota summa and of good works, so that all the chief praedicationis constet, sicut Christus points of the preaching may remain inquit: Praedicantes poenitentiam et firm, as Christ said: “preaching repentremissionem peccatorum in nomine ance and the remission of sins in my meo [Luc 24:47]. (2) Idque ne name” [Luke 24:47]. (2) And that is to haec loquendi formula aliter quam prevent this way of speaking from being praedictum est intelligatur. understood other than has been previously mentioned.

Glossary of Latin Terms Acta colloquii  Acts of the Colloquy certitudo certainty coram deo  before God coram hominibus  before people de condigno meritum  condign merit de congruo meritum  congruous merit duplex fiducia  double trust/​confidence duplex iustificatio  double justification duplex iustitia  double righteousness fides caritate formata  faith formed by love fides efficax per caritatem  faith effectual through love fides formata per caritatem  faith formed by love fides informis  unformed faith fiducia  trust, confidence gratia gratis data  grace that is freely given gratia gratum faciens  grace that makes us acceptable habitus disposition iustificatio impii  justification of the ungodly iustitia imputata  imputed righteousness iustitia inhaerens/​inherens  inherent righteousness liberum arbitrium  free choice poenitentia/​paenitentia  repentance, penitence, penance (sacrament of) sola fide  by faith alone sola fides  faith alone triplex iustificatio  triple justification

Bibliography Sixteenth-​and Seventeenth-​Century Editions Actorum Colloquii Ratisponensis ultimi, quomodo inchoatum ac desertum, quaeque in eodem extemporali oratione inter partes disputata fuerint, verissima narratio (Ingolstadt: A. Weissenhorn, 1546). Altenstaig, Johann, Vocabularius Theologie (Hagenaw: Gran, 1517). Andrada, Diego de Payva, Orthodoxorum explicationum libri decem (Cologne: Maternus Cholin, 1564). Andrada, Diego de Payva, Orthodoxorum explicationum libri decem (Venice: Jordan Zileti, 1564). Bellarmine, Robert, Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini Tomus Quartus (Cologne: B. Gualtherus, 1619). Billick, Eberhard, Iudicium Deputatorum Universitatis & Secondarii Cleri Coloniensis de doctrina & vocatione Martin Buceri ad Bonnam (Cologne: Melchior Novesian, 1543). Billick, Eberhard, Iudicii Universitatis et Cleri Coloniensis adversus calumnias Philippi Melanthonis, Martini Buceri, Oldendorpij, et eorum asseclarum, defensio (Cologne: Jasper von Gennep, 1545). Bucer, Martin, Epistola D. Pauli ad Ephesios, . . . In eandem Commentarius ([Strassburg: Johann Herwagen, 1527]). (MBB #25) [Bucer, Martin] Aretius Felinus, S. Psalmorum Libri Quinque ad Ebraicam Veritatem Versi, et Familiari Explanatione Elucidati (Strassburg: G. U. Andlanus, 1529). (MBB #37) [Bucer, Martin] Aretius Felinus, Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque, ad Ebraicam Veritatem Genuina Versione in Latinum Traducti (Strassburg: G. U. Andlanus, 1532). (MBB #49) Bucer, Martin, Furbereytung zum Concilio (Strassburg: Matthias Apiarius, 1533). (MBB #59) Bucer, Martin, Defensio adversus Axioma Catholicum (Strassburg: Matthias Apiarius, 1534). (MBB #62) Bucer, Martin, Metaphrases et Enarrationes Perpetuae Epistolarum D. Pauli Apostoli (Strassburg: Wendel Rihel, 1536). (MBB #76) Bucer, Martin, Acta colloquii in comitiis imperii Ratisponae habiti (Strassburg: [Wendel Rihel], 1541, the quarto edition). (MBB #112) Bucer, Martin, Acta colloquii in comitiis imperii Ratisponae habiti (Strassburg: [Wendel Rihel], 1541, the octavo edition) (cf. MBB #113)1 Bucer, Martin, Acta colloquii in comitiis imperii Ratisponae habiti (Wesel: Johann Blawe, 1541, the octavo edition). (MBB #113).

1 Cf. ­chapter 5, above, n. 3.

338 Bibliography Bucer, Martin, Alle Handlungen und Schriften zu vergleichung der Religion . . . auff jüngst gehaltnem Reichstag zu Regenspurg verhandlet und einbracht Anno D.M.XLI (Strassburg: Wendel Rihel, 1541/​2).2 (MBB #114). Bucer, Martin, Acta colloquii in comitiis imperii Ratisponae habiti (Strassburg: [Wendel Rihel], 1542). (MBB #119) Bucer, Martin, Acta colloquii in comitiis imperii Ratisponae habiti (Wesel: Johann Blawe, 1542). (MBB #120) Bucer, Martin, De vera ecclesiarum in doctrina, ceremoniis, et disciplina reconcilatione et compositione (Strassburg: Wendel Rihel, 1542). (MBB #124). [DVRC] Bucer, Martin, Die ander verteydigung und erklerung der Christlichen Lehr (Bonn: Laurenz von der Mülen, 1543). (MBB #128) Bucer, Martin, Was im Namen des Heiligen Euangeli vnsers Herrenn Jesu Christi ietzund zů Bonn jm Stifft Cöllen gelehret vnnd geprediget würdt (Marburg: Hermann Bastian [= Bonn: Laurentius von der Molen], 1543). (MBB #127) Bucer, Martin, Bestendige Verantwortung auss der heiligen Schrifft, vnd war catholischer Lehre, vnd haltung der algemeinen christlichen Kirchen, des Bedenckens vonn christlicher Reformation, das Herman Ertzbischoff zü Cöllen hieuor hat aussgeben (Bonn: Laurentius von der Müllen, 1545). (MBB #152) Bucer, Martin, De Concilio et Legitime Iudicandis Controversiis Religionis, Criminum . . . Confutatio (Strassburg: Johann Knobloch, 1545). (MBB #151) Bucer, Martin, Ein christlich ongefährlich bedencken (Strassburg: [Kraft Müller], 1545) (MBB #143). Bucer, Martin, Von den einigen rechten wegen und mitlen Deutscher nation inn Christlicher Religion zu vergleichen (Strassburg: Wendel Rihel, 1545). (MBB #145) Bucer, Martin, Wie leicht vnnd füglich Christliche vergleichung der Religion/​vnd des gantzen kirchendiensts Reformation/​bey unß Teutschen zu finden/​vnd in das werck zu bringen (Strassburg: Kraft Müller, 1545). (MBB #150) Bucer, Martin, Ein warhaffter berichte vom Colloquio zu Regenspurg, dis jars angefangen, und von dem abzug der Auditoren und Colloquenten, die von Fürsten und Stenden der Augspurgischen Confession dahin verordnet waren (Strassburg: Wendel Rihel, 1546). (MBB #162) Bucer, Martin, Disputata Ratisbonae in altero Colloquio, Anno XLVI (Basel: Johann Oporinus, 1548). (MBB #185) Bucer, Martin, Metaphrasis et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Basel: Peter Perna, 1562). (MBB #223) Bucer, Martin, Praelectiones doctiss. in Epistolam D. P. ad Ephesios . . . habitae Cantabrigiae in Anglia Anno M D. L. & LI (Basel: Peter Perna, 1562). (MBB #229). Bucer, Martin, Scripta Anglicana fere omnia (Basel: Peter Perna, 1577). (MBB #258). Bucer, Martin, Constans Defensio ex S. Scriptura, et vera Catholica Doctrina, atque Observatione Universalis Christianae Ecclesiae Deliberationis de Christiana Reformatione, quam . . . Hermannus Archiepiscopus Coloniensis . . . iam ante publicavit. . . . Nunc primo e manuscripto Buceri in lucem editus (Geneva: I. A. Sarceni & A. Pernet, 1613). (MBB #289) Bucer, Martin, and Philipp Melanchthon, Christliche und ware Verantwortung an den Hochwirdigsten Fürsten vnnd Herrn, den Ertzbischoffe vnd Churfürsten zu Cöln (Nürnberg: Johan vom Berg & Ulrich Neuber, 1543). (MBB #129) 2 The Vorred is dated 22 December 1541 (sig. A4b), which is why the identical edition is variously described as being from 1541 and 1542.

Bibliography  339 Bullinger, Heinrich, In divinum Iesu Christi Domini nostri Evangelium secundum Ioannem, Commentariorum libri X (Zurich: Froschauer, 1543) Bullinger, Heinrich, Von warer Rechtfertigung eins Christen Menschens, und von rechtgeschaffnen gutten Werken (Bern: Matthias Apiarius, 1546) Calvin, Jean, Les Actes de la iournee imperiale, tenue en la cité de Regespourg ([Geneva: Jean Gerard], 1541). Calvin, Jean, Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii (Geneva: Jean Gerard, 1543). Chemnitz [Kemnicius], Martin, Examinis Concilii Tridentini . . . Opus integrum (Frankfurt: [Fabricius], 1578). Cochlaeus, Johann, Der Handlungen des letzten Colloquiums zu Regenspurg gehalten, wie es angefangen und verlassen, Auch was darinn zwischen bayden Partheyen in freündlichem gesprech disputirt worden ist. Warhafftige erzelung (Ingolstadt: A. Weissenhorn, 1546). Contarini, Gasparo, Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera (Paris: S. Nivellius, 1571). Driedo, Johann, De captivitate & redemptione humani generis (Leuven: Rutger Rescius, 1534). [Eck, Johann], Antithesis propositionum decem et octo: de peccato reliquo in renatis, Wittenberge disputatarum, post Colloloquium [sic] Wormatien[se] ([Ingolstadt: A. Weissenhorn], 1541). [Eck, Johann], Confutatio unius et viginti propositionum de differentia legis et evangelii, deque fide iustificante Wittenberge disputatarum ([Ingolstadt: A. Weissenhorn], 1541). Eck, Johann, Auff Butzers falsch außschreiben der handlung im Reichßtag zu Regenspurg. Anno M.D.XLI. (Ingolstadt: A. Weissenhorn, 1542). Eck, Johann, Apologia pro Reverendis. et Illustris. Principibus Catholicis, ac aliis ordinibus Imperii adversus mucores et calumnias Buceri super actis comitiorum Ratisponae (Ingolstadt: A. Weissenhorn, 1542). Eck, Johann, Replica Ioan. Eckii adversus Scripta Secunda Buceri apostatae super Actis Ratisponae (Ingolstadt: A. Weissenhorn, 1543).3 Erasmus, Desiderius, Enarratio Triplex in Psalmum XXII (Basel: Froben, 1530). Erasmus, Desiderius, De Sarcienda Ecclesiae Concordia (Basel: Froben, 1533). Gagnaeius, Ioannis, Brevissima & facillima in omnes divi Pauli epistolas scholia (Paris: Simon Colinaeus, 1543). Goinus, Antonius, Acta Colloquii in Comitis Ratisponae habiti (Antwerp: 1541). Gropper, Johann, Enchiridion Christianae Institutionis (Cologne: Peter Quentel, 1538). Gropper, Johann, Antididagma, seu, Christianae et Catholicae religionis . . . Propugnatio (Cologne: Jaspar Gennepaeus, 1544). Gropper, Johann, Christliche vnd Catholische Gegenberichtung eyns erwirdigen Dhomcapittels zu Cöllen (Cologne: Jaspar Gennepaeus, 1544). Gropper, Johann, An die Römsche Keyserliche Maiestat unsern Allergnedigsten Herren Warhafftige Antwort und Gegenberichtung (Cologne: Gennepaeus, 1545). Gropper, Johann, Capita institutionis ad pietatem (Cologne: Jaspar Gennepaeus, 1546). Gropper, Johann, Capita institutionis ad pietatem (Cologne: Jaspar Gennepaeus, 1549). Gropper, Johann, Institutio catholica, Elementa Christianae pietatis (Cologne: Jaspar Gennepaeus, 1550). Gropper, Johann, Capita institutionis ad pietatem (Cologne: Jaspar Gennepaeus, 1553).

3 I have used two different printings that meet this specification and the footnote references apply to them both.

340 Bibliography Hortleder, Friedrich, Der Römischen Keyser und Königlichen Maiestetē, auch des Heiligen Römischen Reichs Geistlicher und weltlicher Stände, Churfürsten, Fürsten, Graffen, Reichs-​und anderer Stätte . . . Handlungen und Aussschreiben . . . Von den Ursachen des Teutschen Kriegs Kaiser Carls des Fünfften, wider die Schmalkaldische Bundts . . . , vol. 1 (Frankfurt: H. Palthenius, 1617). Index Librorum Prohibitorum cum Regulis Confectis Per Patres à Tridentina Synodo delectos . . . Nunc Demum S. D. N. Clementis PP. VIII. iussu, recognitus, & publicatus (Rome: Impressores Camerales, 1596). Lemberg, Peter, Epistola de doctrina et morte Eccii (Nuremberg: Ioannes Montanus & Ulrich Neuber, 1543). Maior, Georg, Kurzer und warhafftiger bericht, Von dem Colloquio: So in diesem xlvi. jar, zu Regenspurg, der Religion halben gehalten (Wittenberg: Georg Rhaw, 1546). Melanchthon, Philipp, Loci communes seu hypotyposes theologicae. Adiecta sunt themata . . . de duplici iustitia: regimineque corporali et spirituali (Strassburg: Johannes Hervagius, 1523). Melanchthon, Philipp, Dispositio orationis, in Epistola Pauli ad Romanos (Hagenau: Johann Sec, 1529). Melanchthon, Philipp, Dispositio orationis, in Epistola Pauli ad Romanos (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1530). Melanchthon, Philipp, Dispositio, quare fide iustificemur, non dilectione (Wittenberg, 1531). Melanchthon, Philipp, Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1532). Melanchthon, Philipp, Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1540/​41). Melanchthon, Philipp, Acta in conventu Ratisbonensi (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1541). Melanchthon, Philipp, Alle Handlungen die Religion belangend (Wittenberg: Hans Luft, 1542). (MBB #121)4 Melanchthon, Philipp, Colloquium Wormaciense . . . Acta Ratisbonensia adiugenda editioni nostrae proximae (Wittenberg: Joseph Klug, 1542). Melanchthon, Philipp, Warhaffter bericht und Urteil von dem übergeben Buch und gehalten gesprech zu Regenspurg. M. D. XLI ([Augsburg: Valentin Otmar], 1542). Melanchthon, Philipp, Loci theologici recens recogniti (Wittenberg: Peter Seitz, 1543). [LT43] Melanchthon, Philipp, Responsio Philippi Melanthonis ad scriptum quorundam delectorum à Clero Secundario Coloniae Agrippinae (Bonn: Laurentius Mylius, 1543). Melanchthon, Philipp, Operum Reverendi Viri Philippi Melanthonis Pars Quarta (Wittenberg: J. Crato, 1564). Nausea, Frederic, Epistolarum Miscellanearum ad Fridericum Nauseam Libri X (Basel: Johann Oporinus, 1550). Pallavicino, Sforza, Istoria del Concilio di Trento, Part 1 (Rome: Angelo Bernabo, 1656). Pallavicino, Sforza, Vera Concilii Tridentini Historia, Part 1 (Antwerp: Balthasar Moret, 1670). Pflug, Julius, Institutio Christiani Hominis (Cologne: Johann Quentel & Gervin Calenius, 1562). Pighius, Albert, Controversiarum, quibus nunc exagitatur Christi fides et religio[,] diligens 4 Cf. ­chapter 5, above, n. 4.

Bibliography  341 et luculenta explicatio ([Ingolstadt: Alexander Weissenhorn, 1541]). Pighius, Albert, Controversiarum praecipuarum in comitiis Ratisponensibus tractatarum, quibus nunc potissimum exagitatur Christi fides et religio, diligens et luculenta explicatio (Cologne: Melchior Novesian, 1542). Pighius, Albert, De libero hominis arbitrio & divina gratia (Cologne: Melchior Novesian, 1542). Pighius, Albert, Ratio componendorum dissidiorum, et sarciendae in religione concordiae (Cologne: Melchior Novesian, 1542). Pighius, Albert, Apologia . . . adversus Martini Buceri Calumnias (Mainz: [Behem], 1543). Salicetus, Joannes, Elegia Ioannis Saliceti Eckij, contra Petri Lempergij Gorlicensis calumniam (Ingolstadt: Alexander Weissenhorn, 1544). Sasbout, Adam, In omnes fere .D. Pauli, et quorundam aliorum Apostolorum, epistolas explicatio (Leuven: Antonius Maria Bergagne, 1556). Sasbout, Adam, In Esaiam prophetam commentaria (Leuven: Antonius Maria Bergagne, 1558). Sotomayor, Antonio A., Index Librorum Prohibitorum et Expurgandorum Novissimus (Madrid: Didago Diaz; 1667). Tapper, Ruard, Explicationis articulorum venerandae facultatis sacrae theologiae generalis studii Lovaniensis . . . tomus secundus (Leuven: Martin Verhasselt, 1557). von Wied, Hermann, Von Gottes genaden unser Hermans Ertzbischofs zu Cöln /​vnnd Churfürsten &c. einfaltigs bedencken warauff ein Christliche /​in dem wort Gottes gegrünte Reformation . . . anzurichten seye (Bonn: Laurenz von der Müllen, 1543). (MBB #126) von Wied, Hermann, Simplex ac pia deliberatio (Bonn: Laurenz von der Müllen, 1545) (MBB #141)

Later Editions of Sixteenth-​Century and Earlier Works Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiciae, vol. 60, ed. Reginald Masterson and T. C. O’Brien (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, and New York: McGraw-​Hill, 1966). Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Historische Commission (ed.), Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. Bis 16. Jahrhundert, vol. 15: Die Chroniken der baierischen Städte. Regensburg. Landshut. Mühldorf. München (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1878). Beccadelli, Lodovico, Monumenti di Varia Letteratura tratti dai manoscritti di Monsignor Ludovico Beccadelli I/​2 (Bologna: Instituto Nazionale, 1799). Brieger, Theodor, “Zur Correspondenz Contarini’s während seiner deutschen Legation,” ZKG 3 (1878–​79), 492–​523. Brieger, Theodor, “Aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” ZKG 5 (1881–​82), 574–​622. Bucer, Martin, Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus [Gerd Mohn], 1960–​). [MBDS] Bucer, Martin, Common Places of Martin Bucer, ed. David F. Wright (Appleford, Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay, 1972). (MBB #402) Calvin, Ioannes, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. Gulielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss (Braunschweig and Berlin: Schwetschke, 1863–​1900). [CO] Calvin, Ioannes, Opera Selecta, ed. Petrus Barth, et al. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1926–​68 [1st–​3rd editions]). [OS]

342 Bibliography Calvin, Ioannes, Opera Omnia denuo recognita et adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrata (Geneva: Droz, 1992–​). [COR] Calvin, Jean, Sermons sur la Genèse Chapitres 1,1–​11,4 + 11,5–​20,7, ed. Max Engammare [Supplementa Calviniana 11/​1–​2] (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000). Calvin, John, Commentaries of the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel by John Calvin, tr. Thomas Myers, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948 reprint). Calvin, John, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, tr. James Anderson, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949 reprint). Calvin, John, Theological Treatises, ed. John K. S. Reid, Library of Christian Classics vol. 22 (London: SCM and Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954). [LCC 22] Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, tr. Ford Lewis Battles, Library of Christian Classics 20–​21 (London: SCM and Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960). Calvin, John, Calvin’s Commentaries: The Acts of the Apostles 14–​28, tr. John W. Fraser (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1966). Calvin, John, Selected Works of John Calvin, ed. Henry Beveridge, Calvin Translation Society edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983 reprint). [CTS] Calvin, John, Sermons on the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Willem Balke and Wilhelmus H. T. Moehn, Supplementa Calviniana 8 (Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994). Calvin, John, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius, ed. Anthony N. S. Lane, tr. Graham I. Davies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996). Calvin, John, Sermons on Melchizedek and Abraham (Willow Street, PA: Old Paths Publications, 2000 [reprint of 1592 edition]). Cardauns, Ludwig (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland 1533–​1559, vol. 7 (Berlin: A Bath, 1912). Chemnitz, Martin, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1971). Concilium Tridentinum. Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum, Tractatuum Nova Collectio, edidit Societas Goerresiana (Freiburg: Herder, 1901–​76). [CT] Contarini, Gasparo, Gegenreformatorische Schriften (1530c.–​ 1542), ed. Friedrich Hünermann (CC 7) (Münster: W. Aschendorf, 1923). [CC 7] Dingel, Irene (ed.), Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-​ Lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). [BSELK] Dingel, Irene (ed.), Die Bekenntnisschriften der Evangelisch-​Lutherischen Kirche: Quellen und Materialen, Band 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014). [BSELK QuM1] Dionisotti, Carlo, “Monumenti Beccadelli,” in Miscellanea Pio Paschini: Studi di Storia Ecclesiastica, vol. 2 [= Lateranum 15 (1949)], 265–​68. Dittrich, Franz, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg 1541,” Historisches Jahrbuch 4 (1883), 395–​472. Dittrich, Franz, “Lovaniensium et Coloniensium theologorum de Antididagmate Ioannis Gropperi iudicia,” Index Lectionum in Lyceo Regio Hosiano Brunsbergensi (Braunsberg: R. Siltmann, 1896), 3–​16. Dittrich, Franz (ed.), Gasparo Contarini, Regesten und Briefe (Braunsberg: von Huye’s Buchhandlung (Emil Bender), 1881). [Regesten] Dittrich, Franz (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia a. 1541,” Index Lectionum in Lyceo Regio Hosiano Brunsbergensi (Braunsberg: R. Siltmann, 1892), 3–​29. Eck, Johann, Enchiridion locorum communium adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae, ed. Pierre Fraenkel (CC 34) (Münster: Aschendorff, 1979).

Bibliography  343 Eck, John, Enchiridion of Commonplaces against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church, tr. Ford Lewis Battles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979). Edwards, Jonathan, Sermons and Discourses, 1723–​1729, ed. Kenneth P. Minkema [The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 14] (New Haven, CT: Yale University Presss, 1997). Erasmus, Desiderius, Desiderii Erasmii Opera Omnia (Leiden: Vander, 1703–​1706). [LB] Erasmus, Desiderius, Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (Amsterdam: 1969ff.) [ASD] Erasmus, Desiderius, Erasmus and the Seamless Coat of Jesus: De Sarcienda Ecclesiae Concordia (On Restoring the Unity of the Church). With Selections from the Letters and Ecclesiastes, tr. Raymond Himelick (Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Studies, 1971). Firpo, Massimo, and Dario Marcatto (eds.), I Processi Inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi (1557–​1567), vol. 2, Collectanea Archivi Vaticani 48 (Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 2000). Friedensburg, Walter, “Beiträge zum Briefwechsel der katholischen Gelehrten Deutschlands im Reformationszeitalter: V. Dr. Johann Eck,” ZKG 19 (1898–​99), 211–​ 64, 473–​85. Friedensburg, Walter, “Der Briefwechsel Gasparo Contarini’s mit Ercole Gonzaga nebst einem Briefe Giovanni Pietro Carafa’s,” Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 2 (1899), 161–​222. Ganzer, Klaus, and Karl-​ Heinz zur Mühlen (eds.), Akten der deutschen Reichsreligionsgespräche im 16. Jahrhundert, 3 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000–​2007). [ADRG] Gleason, Elisabeth G. (ed.), Reform Thought in Sixteenth-​Century Italy (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). Gorham, George Cornelius, Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears, during the Period of the Reformation in England and of the Times Immediately Succeeding; A.D. 1533 to A.D. 1588 (London: Bell and Daldy, 1857). Gropper, Johann, Johannes Gropper Briefwechsel I: 1529–​1547, ed. Reinhard Braunisch (CC 32) (Münster: Aschendorff, 1977). [JGB 1] Gropper, Johann, Johannes Gropper Briefwechsel II: 1547–​1559, ed. Reinhard Braunisch (CC 44) (Münster: Aschendorff, 2006). [JGB 2] Gropper, Johann, Christliche und catholische Gegenberichtung [Martin Bucers Deutsche Schriften, Ergänzungsband] (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006). Herminjard, Aime L., Correspondance des Reformateurs dans les pays de langue française (Geneva: H. Georg & Paris: M. Levy, 1866–​97). [Herminjard] Hooker, Richard, The Works of that Learned and Judicious Divine Mr Richard Hooker, ed. John Keble, vol. 3 (Oxford: OUP, 1888 [3rd edition]). Kolb, Robert, and James A. Nestingen (eds.), Sources and Contexts of the Book of Concord (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). Kolb, Robert, and Timothy J. Wengert (eds.), The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000). Laemmer, Hugo, Monumenta Vaticana Historiam Ecclesiasticam Saeculi XVI Illustrantia (Freiburg: Herder, 1861). Lenz, Max (ed.), Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipp’s des Großmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 3 (Leipzig: G. Hirzel, 1891). Linsenmann, Repetent, “Albertus Pighius und sein theologischer Standpunkt. Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik der vortridentinischen Theologie,” Theologische Quartalschrift 48

344 Bibliography (1866), 571–​644. Luther, Martin, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883–​2009). [WA] Luther, Martin, Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress, and St Louis, MO: Concordia, 1955–​86, 2008ff.). [LW] Melanchthon, Philipp, Corpus Reformatorum. Philippi Melanthonis Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, eds. Karl. G. Bretschneider and Heinrich Ernst Bindseil (Braunschweig and Halle: Schwetschke, 1834–​60). [CR] Melanchthon, Philipp:, Philippi Melanchthonis Epistolae, Iudicia, Consilia, Testimonia aliorumque ad eum Epistolae quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur, ed. Heinrich Ernst Bindseil (Halle: Gustav Schwetschke, 1874). Melanchthon, Philipp, Commentary on Romans (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia, 1992). Melanchthon, Philipp:, Loci Communes 1543 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia, 1992). [LC43] Metzler, Johannes (ed.), Tres Orationes Funebres in Exequiis Ioannis Eckii Habitae (CC 16) (Münster: W. Aschendorf, 1930). Migne, Jacques-​Paul (ed.), Patrologia Latina Cursus Completus . . . (Paris: Migne, 1844–​ 55). [PL] Müller, Christian Gottfried, Epistolae Petri Mosellani . . . aliorumque virorum doctorum seculi xvi. pleramque partem ad Iulium Pflugium, ipsiusque Iulii Pflugii (Leipzig: J. A. Barth, 1802). Müller, Christian Gottfried, Formula sacrorum emendandorum in Comitiis Augustanis anno MDXLVIII. Iussu Caroli V. Imperatoris a Iulio Pflugio, episcopo Numburgensi, composita et proposita (Leipzig: Siegfried Lebrecht Crusius, 1803). Neuser, Wilhelm H. (ed.), Die Vorbereitung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974). Pastor, Ludwig von, “Die Correspondenz des Cardinals Contarini während seiner deutschen Legation (1541),” Historisches Jahrbuch 1 (1880), 321–​92, 473–​501. Pfeilschifter, Georg (ed.), Acta Reformationis Catholicae Ecclesiam Germaniae Concernentia Saeculi XVI, 6 vols. (Regensburg: F Pustet, 1959–​74). [ARC] Pflug, Julius, Correspondance, vol. 2, ed. Jacques V. Pollet (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973). Pflug, Julius, Correspondance, vol. 3, ed. Jacques V. Pollet (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977). Pole, Reginald, Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli S. R. E. Cardinalis at Aliorum ad ipsum Pars 3, ed. Angelo Maria Quirini (Brescia: J.-​M. Rizzardi, 1748). Pole, Reginald, The Correspondence of Reginald Pole, vol. 1, ed. Thomas F. Mayer (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002). Quirinus, Angelus Maria, Epistolae Angeli Mariae Quirini, ed. Nicolò Coleti (Venice: S. Coleti, 1756). Redlich, Otto R. (ed.), Jülich-​Bergische Kirchenpolitik am Ausgange des Mittelalters und in der Reformationszeit, vol. 1 (Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1907). Reusch, Heinrich, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher, vol.1 (Bonn: Max Cohen & Sohn, 1883). Sadolet, Jacobo, Jacobi Sadoleti Epistolarum Appendix (Rome, 1767). Sadolet, Jacopo, and Paulo: Lettere del Card. Iacopo Sadoleto e di Paulo suo Nipote (Modena: Carlo Vincenzi, 1871). Scheib, Otto, “Erzbischof Albrecht von Brandenburg und die Religionsgespräche,” in Friedhelm Jürgensmeier (ed.), Erzbischof Albrecht von Brandenburg (1490–​1545): Ein Kirchen-​und Reichsfürst der Frühen Neuzeit (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1991), 140–​55. Scheible, Heinz (ed.), Melanchthons Briefwechsel, vols. 1–​14 (Stuttgart-​Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-​Holzboog, 1977ff.). [MBW]

Bibliography  345 Scheible, Heinz (ed.), Melanchthons Briefwechsel, Texte, vols. 1ff. (Stuttgart-​Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-​Holzboog, 1991ff.). [MBW T] Schieß, Traugott, Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer 1509–​1548, vol. 2 (Freiburg: Friedrich Ernst Fehsenfeld, 1910). Schultze, Victor, “Zwei Briefe Johann Ecks,” ZKG 1 (1876–​77), 472–​74. Schultze, Victor, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte I,” ZKG 3 (1878–​ 79), 150–​84. Schultze, Victor, “Actenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte II,” ZKG 3 (1878–​ 79), 609–​41. Schwarz, W, “Römische Beiträge zu Joh. Groppers Leben und Wirken,” Historisches Jahrbuch 7 (1886), 594–​607. Spiegel, Bernhard, “Johannes Timannus Amsterodamus und die Colloquien zu Worms und Regensburg 1540. 1541,” Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 42 (1872), 36–​49. Stupperich, Robert, “Unbekannte Briefe und Merkblätter Johann Groppers aus den Jahren 1542–​1549,” Westfälische Zeitschrift 109 (1959), 97–​107. Stupperich, Robert (ed.), Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, vol. 6 (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1955). Tanner, Norman P. (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2 (London: Sheed & Ward and Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990). Tappert, Theodore G. (ed.), The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959). Tschackert, Paul, “Antonius Corvinus’ ungedruckter Bericht vom Kolloquium zu Regensburg 1541,” ARG 1 (1903/​4), 84–​97. Weisz, Leo (ed.), “Schweizerquellen zur Geschichte des Regensburger Reichstages von 1541,” Zeitschrift für Schweizerische Kirchengeschichte 28 (1934), 51–​64, 81–​104. Wevers, Richard F., Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin, 1539 Text and Concordance, vols. 1–​4 (Grand Rapids, MI: Meeter Center for Calvin Studies at Calvin College and Seminary, 1988). Wevers, Richard F., A Concordance to Calvin’s Institutio 1559 Based on the Critical Text of Petrus Barth and Wilhelmus Niesel, vols. 1–​6 (Grand Rapids, MI: Digamma, 1992). Winckelmann, Otto (ed.), Politische Correspondenz der Stadt Strassburg im Zeitalter der Reformation. Dritter Band 1540–​1545 (Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1898) [= zweite Abtheilung of Urkunden und Akten der Stadt Strassburg]. Ziegler, Donald J. (ed.), Great Debates of the Reformation (New York: Random House, 1969).

Secondary Literature Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966). Amann, Émile, “Pighi (Albert),” DTC 12, 2094–​2104. Anderson, H. George, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess (eds.), Justification by Faith: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985). Anderson, Marvin W., “Biblical Humanism and Roman Catholic Reform: (1501–​1542) Contarini, Pole, and Giberti,” Concordia Theological Monthly 39 (1968), 686–​707. Anderson, Marvin W., “Luther’s Sola Fide in Italy: 1542–​1551,” Church History 38 (1969), 25–​42.

346 Bibliography Arand, Charles P., “The Texts of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession,” Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1998), 461–​84. Arand, Charles P., “Two Kinds of Righteousness as a Framework for Law and Gospel in the Apology,” Lutheran Quarterly 15 (2001), 417–​39. Arnold, Claus, Die Römische Zensur der Werke Cajetans und Contarinis (1558–​1601): Grenzen der theologischen Konfessionalisierung (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2008). Augustijn, Cornelis, “De Gesprekken tussen Bucer en Gropper tijdens het Godsdienstgesprek te Worms in December 1540,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 47 (1965–​66), 208–​30. Augustijn, Cornelis, De Godsdienstgesprekken tussen Rooms-​katholieken en Protestanten van 1538 tot 1541 (Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1967). Augustijn, Cornelis, “L’esprit d’Érasme pendant le Colloque de Worms (1540),” in Colloquia Erasmiana Turonensia, vol. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972), 381–​95. Augustijn, Cornelis, “Strasbourg, Bucer et la Politique des Colloques,” in Georges Livet, Francis Rapp, and Jean Rott (eds.), Strasbourg au Coeur Religieux du XVIe Siècle (Strasbourg: Istra, 1977), 197–​206. Augustijn, Cornelis, “Die Religionsgespräche der vierziger Jahre,” in Gerhard Müller (ed.), Die Religionsgespräche der Reformationszeit (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1980), 43–​53. Augustijn, Cornelis, “Bucer und die Religionsgespräche von 1540/​41,” in Christian Krieger and Marc Lienhard (eds.), Martin Bucer and Sixteenth-​Century Europe, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 2:671–​80. Augustijn, Cornelis, “The Quest of Reformatio: The Diet of Regensburg 1541 as a Turning Point,” in Hans R. Guggisberg, et al. (eds.), The Reformation in Germany and Europe (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1993), 64–​80. Augustijn, Cornelis, “Bucer’s Ecclesiology in the Colloquies with the Catholics, 1540–​41,” in David F. Wright (ed.), Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community (Cambridge: CUP, 1994), 107–​21. Augustijn, Cornelis, “Das Wormser Buch: Der letzte ökumenische Konsensversuch Dezember 1540,” Blätter für pfälzische Kirchengeschichte und religiöse Volkskunde 62 (1995), 7–​46. Augustijn, Cornelis, “Melanchthon und die Religionsgespräche,” in Günter Frank (ed.), Der Theologe Melanchthon (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke, 2000), 213–​26. Augustijn, Cornelis, “Melanchthons Editionen der Akten von Worms und Regensburg 1540 und 1541,” in Johanna Loehr (ed.), Dona Melanchthoniana: Festgabe für Heinz Scheible zum 70. Geburtstag (Stuttgart-​Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-​Holzboog, 2001), 25–​39. Barclay, John M. G., “The Text of Galatians and the Theology of Luther,” in Michael Allen and Jonathan A. Linebaugh (eds.), Reformation Readings of Paul: Explorations in History and Exegesis (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 49–​69. Barnikol, Horst-​Martin, “Bucers Lehre von der Rechtfertigung, dargestellt an seinem Römerbriefkommentar,” doctoral dissertation, Georg-​August-​Universität, Göttingen, 1961. Barth, Hans-​Martin, et al., Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch im Jahr 1541 (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1992). Baschera, Luca, Tugend und Rechtfertigung: Peter Martyr Vermiglis Kommentar zur Nikomachischen Ethik im Spannungsfeld von Philosophie und Theologie (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2008). Bellardi, Werner, “Die Raetselepigramme zum Regensburger Religionsgespraech,” Archives de l’Église d’Alsace ns 21 (1974), 65–​85.

Bibliography  347 Beumer, Johannes, “Zwei ‘Vermittlungstheologen’ der Reformationszeit: Philipp Melanchthon und Georg Witzel,” Theologie und Philosophie 43 (1968), 502–​22. Blatter, August, Die Thätigkeit Melanchthons bei den Unionsversuchen, 1539–​1541 (Bern: PhD dissertation, 1899; reprint: Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2009). Bornkamm, Heinrich, Luther in Mid-​Career 1521–​30 (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983). Braaten, Carl E., and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). Brandi, Karl, Kaiser Karl V (Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1937). Brandi, Karl, The Emperor Charles V (London: Jonathan Cape, 1939). Braun, Wilhelm, Kardinal Gasparo Contarini oder der “Reformkatholizismus” unserer Tage im Lichte der Geschichte (Leipzig: A Deichert (Georg Böhme), 1903). Braunisch, Reinhard, “Die ‘Artikell’ der ‘Warhafftigen Antwort’ (1545) des Johannes Gropper. Zur Verfasserfrage des Worms-​Regensburger Buches (1540/​41),” in Remigius Bäumer (ed.), Von Konstanz nach Trient (Munich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1972), 519–​45. Braunisch, Reinhard, Die Theologie der Rechtfertigung im “Enchiridion” (1538) des Johannes Gropper: Sein kritischer Dialog mit Philipp Melanchthon (Münster: Aschendorff, 1974). Braunisch, Reinhard, “Johannes Gropper zwischen Humanismus und Reformation: Zur Bestimmung seines geistigen Standorts bis 1543,” Römische Quartalschrift 69 (1974), 192–​209. Braunisch, Reinhard, “Johannes Gropper,” in Martin Greschat (ed.), Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, vol. 6 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1981), 171–​83. Braunisch, Reinhard, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” in Erwin Iserloh (ed.), Katholische Theologen der Reformationszeit, vol. 1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1984), 116–​24. Braunisch, Reinhard, “Reformatio–​Restauratio–​Libertas Ecclesiae. Johannes Groppers Kardinalat im Spiegel seiner Korrespondenz zwischen Interim und Inquisition. Zugleich eine biographische Skizze,” Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein 212 (2009), 117–​201. Available online at https://​freidok.uni-​freiburg.de/​ data/​9252. Brieger, Theodor, De Formulae Concordiae Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole (Halle: Reichardt, 1870). Brieger, Theodor, Gasparo Contarini und das Regensburger Concordienwerk des Jahres 1541 (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1870). Brieger, Theodor, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Cardinal Contarini, kritisch dargestellt und verglichen mit der des Regensburger Buches,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 45 (1872), 87–​150. Brodrick, James, Robert Bellarmine, vol. 2 (1928; reissue, London: Longmans, Green, 1950). Brosseder, Johannes, “Johannes Gropper (1503–​1559),” in Hans-​Georg Link, Hermann Deeters, and Theodor Schlüter (eds.), 450 Jahre Kölner Reformationsversuch: zwischen Reform und Reformation (Alfter bei Bonn: Stallberg, 1993), 57–​60. Brosseder, Johannes, “Die Reformationsschrift von 1543 und das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil,” in Johannes Brosseder and Hans-​ Georg Link (eds.), Gemeinschaft der Kirchen: Traum oder Wirchlichkeit? (Zurich: Benzinger Verlag and Neukirchen-​Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 41–​58. Buchanan, James, The Doctrine of Justification (1867; repr. London: Banner of Truth, 1961).

348 Bibliography Burnett, Amy Nelson, “Martin Bucer and the Church Fathers in the Cologne Reformation,” Reformation & Renaissance Review 3.1/​2 (2001), 108–​24. Cameron, Euan, “The Possibilities and Limits of Conciliation: Philipp Melanchthon and Inter-​confessional Dialogue in the Sixteenth Century,” in Howard P. Louthan and Randall C. Zachman (eds.), Conciliation and Confession: The Struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415–​1648 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004), 73–​88. Cardauns, Ludwig, Zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unions-​und Reformsbestrebungen von 1538 bis 1542 (Rome: Loescher, 1910). Clark, R. Scott, “Iustitia Imputata Christi: Alien or Proper to Luther’s Doctrine of Justification?,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 70 (2006), 269–​310. Clemen, Otto, “Epigramme auf Teilnehmer am Wormser Religionsgespräch 1540/​41,” ZKG 50 (1931), 441–​54 = Kleine Schriften zur Reformationsgeschichte (1897–​1944), ed. Ernst Koch, vol. 5 (Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1984), 441–​54. Collett, Barry, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage: The Correspondence of Marguerite D’Angoulême and Vittoria Colonna 1540–​1545, Studies in Reformed Theology and History N.S. 6 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000). de Boer, E. A., Loflied en Hekeldicht: De geschiedenis van Calviijn’s enige gedicht. Het Epinicion Christo cantatum van 1 januari 1541 (Haarlem: AcaMedia, 1986). de Greef, Wulfert, The Writings of John Calvin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994). Dingel, Irene, “Religionsgespräche IV. Altgläubig—​ protestantisch und innerprotestantisch,” in Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol. 28 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 654–​81. Dingel, Irene, “Georg Majors Rolle auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1546,” in Irena Dingel and Günther Wartenberg (eds.), Georg Major (1502–​1574). Ein Theologe der Wittenberger Reformation (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005), 189–​206. Dingel, Irene, “Konfessionen im Gespräch? Die Regensburger Religionsgespräche (1541 und 1546)” in Harriet Rudolph (ed.), Die Reichsstadt Regensburg und die Reformation im Heiligen Römischen Reich (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2018), 51–​70. Dittrich, Franz, “Die Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg 1541,” Historisches Jahrbuch 4 (1883), 395–​472, 618–​73. Dittrich, Franz, Gasparo Contarini 1483–​1542 (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1972 [Nachdruck of Braunsberg, 1885 edition]). Dittrich, Franz, “Zu Art. V des Regensburger Buches von 1541,” Historisches Jahrbuch 13 (1892), 196–​97. Douglas, Richard M., Jacopo Sadoleto: 1477–​1547. Humanist and Reformer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959). Doumergue, Émile: Jean Calvin. Les hommes et les choses de son temps, vol. 2 (Lausanne: Bridel, 1902). Edwards, John, Archbishop Pole (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014). Eells, Hastings, “The Origin of the Regensburg Book,” Princeton Theological Review 26 (1928), 355–​72. Eells, Hastings, Martin Bucer (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1931). Eells, Hastings, “The Failure of Church Unification Efforts during the German Reformation,” ARG 42 (1951), 160–​74. Ehses, Stephan, “Johannes Groppers Rechtfertigungslehre auf dem Konzil von Trient,” Römische Quartalschrift 20/​2 (1906), 175–​88. Erbe, Michael, and Peter G. Bietenholz, “Julius Pflug of Eytra,” in Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas B. Deutscher (eds.), Contemporaries of Erasmus, vol. 3 (Toronto etc.: University

Bibliography  349 of Toronto Press, 1987), 77–​78. Fabisch, Peter, “Eberhard Billick OCarm (1499/​1500–​1557)),” in Erwin Iserloh (ed.), Katholische Theologen der Reformationszeit, vol. 5 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1988), 97–​116. Fagerberg, Hoslten, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Confessio Augustana und Apologie,” in Barbara Hallensleben and Erwin Iserloh (eds.), Confessio Augustana und Confutatio: Der Augsburger Reichstag 1530 und die Einheit der Kirche (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980), 325–​45 + 375–​88 [transcript of ensuing discussion]. Feiner, Johann, Die Erbsündenlehre Albert Pigges. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der kath. Kontroverstheologie in der Reformationszeit (Rome: Dissertatio ad Lauream in Facultate Theologica Pontificae Universitatis Gregorianae) [Zurich, 1940]. Fenlon, Dermot, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and Counter Reformation (Cambridge: CUP, 1972). Ferrara, Orestes, Gasparo Contarini et ses Missions (Paris: Albin Michel, 1956). Filser, Hubert, Ekklesiologie und Sakramentenlehre des Kardinals Johannes Gropper: Eine Glaubenslehre zwischen Irenik und Kontroverstheologie im Zeitalter der Reformation (Münster: Lit, 1995). Fink, David C., “Divided by Faith: The Protestant Doctrine of Justification and the Confessionalisation of Biblical Exegesis,” PhD dissertation, Duke University, 2010. Fink, David C., “‘The Doers of the Law will be Justified’: The Exegetical Origins of Martin Bucer’s Triplex Iustificatio,” Journal of Theological Studies 58 (2007), 485–​524. Fink, David C., “Martin Luther’s Reading of Galatians,” in Michael Allen and Jonathan A. Linebaugh (eds.), Reformation Readings of Paul: Explorations in History and Exegesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2015), 23–​48. Firpo, Massimo, Juan de Valdés and the Italian Reformation (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015). Flogaus, Reinhard, “Luther versus Melanchthon? Zur Frage der Einheit der Wittenberger Reformation in der Rechtfertigungslehre,” ARG 91 (2000), 6–​46. Förstemann, Karl E., Urkundenbuch zu der Geschichte des Reichstages zu Augsburg im Jahre 1530, vol. 2 (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1835). Fragnito, Gigliola, Gasparo Contarini: Un Magistrato Veneziano al Servizio della Cristianità (Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1988). Fraenkel, Pierre, Einigungsbestrebungen in der Reformationszeit: Zwei Wege—​Zwei Motive (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1965). Fraenkel, Pierre, “Die Augustana und das Gespräch mit Rom, 1540–​1541,” in Martin Brecht and Reinhard Schwarz (eds.), Bekenntnis und Einheit der Kirche: Studien zum Konkordienbuch (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1980), 89–​103. Fraenkel, Pierre, “Trois passages de l’Institution de 1543 et leurs rapports avec les colloques interconfessionnels de 1540–​1541,” in W. H. Neuser (ed.), Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevensis Custos (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984), 149–​57 Franzen, August, Bischof und Reformation: Erzbischof Hermann von Wied in Köln vor der Entscheidung zwischen Reform und Reformation (Münster: Aschendorff, 1971). Friedensburg, Walter, “Zur Geschichte des Wormser Konvents 1541,” ZKG 21 (1900–​01), 112–​27. Friedrich, Reinhold, “Martin Bucer Ökumene im 16. Jahrhundert,” in Christian Krieger and Marc Lienhard (eds.), Martin Bucer and Sixteenth-​Century Europe, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 1:257–​68. Friedrich, Reinhold, Martin Bucer—​ Fanatiker der Einheit? Seine Stellungname zu theologischen Fragen seiner Zeit (Abendmals-​und Kirchenverständnis) insbesondere

350 Bibliography nach seinem Briefwechsel der Jahre 1524–​ 1541 (Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 2002). Fuchs, Thomas, Konfession und Gespräch: Typologie und Funktion der Religionsgespräche in der Reformationszeit (Cologne: Böhlau, 1995). Ganzer, Klaus: “Gasparo Contarini (1483–​1542),” in Erwin Iserloh (ed.), Katholische Theologen der Reformationszeit, vol. 1 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1984), 107–​15. Ganzer, Klaus, “Die Herzöge von Bayern und das Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1541,” Beiträge zur Geschichte des Bistums Regensburg 43 (2009), 67–​80. Ganzer, Klaus, “Gasparo Contarini und Giovanni Morone. Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1541 und das Werden einer Freundschaft,” Cristianesimo nella storia 30 (2009), 99–​133. Garcia, Mark A., Life in Christ: Union with Christ and Twofold Grace in Calvin’s Theology (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008). Gerace, Antonio, Biblical Scholarship in Louvain in the ‘Golden’ Sixteenth Century (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2019). Gerace, Antonio, and Gert Gielis, “The Ambiguous Reception of the Doctrine of Duplex Iustitia in Leuven (1544–​1556),” Augustiniana 68 (2018), 91–​123. Gilson, Étienne, The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1936). Gleason, Elisabeth G., Gasparo Contarini (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). Gößner, Andreas, “Reichspolitik und Religionsgespräche,” in Günter Frank and Axel Lange (eds.), Philipp Melanchthon. Der Reformator zwischen Glauben und Wissen. Ein Handbuch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017), 97–​107. Gordon, Bruce, Calvin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009). Graybill, Gregory B., Evangelical Free Will: Philipp Melanchthon’s Doctrinal Journey on the Origins of Faith (Oxford: OUP, 2010). Graybill, Gregory B., “Melanchthons Briefwechsel as a Biographical Source,” in Matthias Dall’Asta et al. (eds), Philipp Melanchthon in der Briefkultur des 16. Jahrhunderts (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2015), 295–​305. Green, Lowell C., How Melanchthon Helped Luther Discover the Gospel: The Doctrine of Justification in the Reformation (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict, 1980). Greschat, Martin, Melanchthon neben Luther: Studien zur Gestalt der Rechtfertigungslehre zwischen 1528 und 1537 (Witten: Luther-​Verlag, 1965). Greschat, Martin, Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004). Günther, Hans-​Jürgen, Die Reformation und ihre Kinder—​dargestellt an Vater und Sohn Johannes Pistorius Niddanus. Eine Doppel-​Biographie (Nidda: Niddaer Heimatmuseum, 1994). Gutiérrez, Constancio, “Un Capítulo de Teología Pretridentina: el Problema de la Justificación en los Primeros Coloquios Religiosos Alemanes (1540–​1541),” Miscelanea Comillas 4 (1945), 7–​31. Haar, Johann, Initium creaturae Dei: Eine Untersuchung über Luthers Begriff der “neuen Creatur” in Zusammenhang mit seinem Verständnis von Jakobus 1, 18 und mit seinem “Zeit”-​Denken (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1939). Hägglund, Bengt, History of Theology (3rd edn, Saint Louis, MO: Concordia, 1968). Hall, Basil, Humanists and Protestants 1500–​1900 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990). Hampson, Daphne, Christian Contradictions: The Structures of Lutheran and Catholic Thought (Cambridge: CUP, 2001). Harper, George W., “Regensburg Redux: Have Colson and Neuhaus Succeeded Where Bucer and Contarini Failed?,” Evangelical Review of Theology 30 (2006), 309–​21.

Bibliography  351 Hasenclever, Adolf, “Literaturbericht,” Historische Zeitschrift 98 (1907), 382–​87. Hassencamp, Friedrich W., Hessische Kirchengeschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, vol. 2 (Marburg: Elwert’sche Universitäts-​Buchhandlung, 1855). Hausberger, Karl, “ ‘Ein kampff besteen dy zwo parthei, rath, welcher tail got nähner sey.’ Verlauf und Scheitern des Regensburger Religionsgesprächs vom Frühjahr 1541,” in Hans-​Martin Barth et al., Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch im Jahr 1541 (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1992), 31–​46. Haussleiter, Johannes, “Luthers und Bugenhagens Bedenken zum Regensburger Buch vom 29. Juni 1541,” Theologisches Literaturblatt 30 (1909), 193–​97. Helm, Paul, Calvin at the Centre (Oxford: OUP, 2010). Henninger, Joseph, S. Augustinus et doctrina de duplici justitia (Mödling: St. Gabriel, 1935). Hequet, Suzanne, The 1541 Colloquy at Regensburg: In Pursuit of Church Unity (Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag, 2009). Hergang, Karl T., Das Religions-​Gespräch zu Regensburg i. J. 1541 und das Regensburger Buch (Kassel: Theodor Fischer, 1858). Hesselink, I. John, Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997). Hollerbach, Marion, Das Religionsgespräch als Mittel der konfessionellen und politischen Auseinandersetzung im Deutschland des 16. Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1982). Hope, C., “An English Version of Parts of Bucer’s Reply to the Cologne Antididagma of 1544,” Journal of Theological Studies 11 (1960), 94–​110. Hünermann, Friedrich, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Kardinals Gasparo Contarini,” Tübinger Theologische Quartalschrift 102 (1921), 1–​22. Ives, Robert B., “An Early Effort toward Protestant-​Catholic Conciliation: The Doctrine of Double Justification in the Sixteenth Century,” Gordon Review 11 (1968–​70), 99–​110. Janse, Wim, Albert Hardenberg als Theologe: Profil eines Bucer-​Schülers (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994). Janssen, Wibke, “Wir sind zum wechselseitigen Gespräch geboren”: Philipp Melanchthon und die Reichsreligionsgespräche von 1540/​41 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009). Jedin, Hubert, “Ein Streit um den Augustinismus vor dem Tridentinum (1537–​1543),” Römische Quartalschrift 35 (1927), 351–​68. Jedin, Hubert, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit Albert Pigges (Münster: Aschendorff, 1931). Jedin, Hubert, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando (St Louis, MO: B. Herder, 1947). Jedin, Hubert, Kardinal Contarini als Kontroverstheologe (Münster: Aschendorff, 1949). Jedin, Hubert, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, vol. 1 (Freburg: Herder, 1951 [2nd edition]). Jedin, Hubert, A History of the Council of Trent, 2 vols. (London: Thomas Nelson, 1957, 1961). Jedin, Hubert, “Contarini (Gasparo),” in Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques, vol. 13 (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1956), 771–​84. Jedin, Hubert, “An welchen Gegensätzen sind die vortridentinischen Religionsgespräche zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten gescheitert?,” Theologie und Glaube 48 (1958), 50–​55. Jedin, Hubert, “Contarini und Camaldoli,” in Archivio Italiano per las Storia della Pietà, vol. 2 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1959), 51–​117.

352 Bibliography Jedin, Hubert, “Ein ‘Turmerlebnis’ des jungen Contarini,” in Kirche des Glaubens; Kirche der Geschichte, vol. 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), 167–​80. Jedin, Hubert, “Fragen um Hermann von Wied,” in Kirche des Glaubens; Kirche der Geschichte, vol. 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), 347–​59. Jedin, Hubert, “Kardinal Pole und Vittoria Colonna,” in Kirche des Glaubens; Kirche der Geschichte, vol. 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), 181–​94. Jedin, Hubert, “Wo sah die vortridentinische Kirche die Lehrdifferenzen mit Luther?,” Catholica 21 (1967), 85–​100. Kaliner, Walter, Julius Pflugs Verhältnis zur “Christlichen Lehre” des Johann von Maltitz: Untersuchungen zur Verfasserfrage der “Christlichen Lehre” des Johann von Maltitz und zu ihrer Bedeutung für Julius Pflugs Buch “Von Christlicher Buße” und für seine “Institutio Christiani hominis” (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1972). Kaliner, Walter, Katechese und Vermittlungstheologie im Reformationszeitalter: Johann VIII., Bischof von Meissen, und seine “Christliche Lehre” (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1981). Keen, Ralph, “Melanchthon and His Roman Catholic Opponents,” Lutheran Quarterly 12 (1998), 419–​29. Köhn, Mechtild, Martin Bucers Entwurf einer Reformation des Erzstiftes Köln: Untersuchung der Enstehungsgeschichte und der Theologie des “Einfaltigen Bedenckens” (Witten: Luther-​Verlag, 1966). Kolb, Robert, Bound Choice, Election and Wittenberg Theological Method: From Martin Luther to the Formula of Concord (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005). Kolb, Robert, Martin Luther: Confessor of the Faith (Oxford: OUP, 2009). Kolb, Robert, “Philipp Melanchthon’s Reading of Romans,” in Michael Allen and Jonathan A. Linebaugh (eds.), Reformation Readings of Paul: Explorations in History and Exegesis (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2015), 73–​96. Kolb, Robert, “Rechtfertigungslehre,” in Günter Frank and Axel Lange (eds.), Philipp Melanchthon. Der Reformator zwischen Glauben und Wissen. Ein Handbuch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017), 347–​62. Kretschmar, Georg, “The Diet of Regensburg and the 1541 Variata of the Augsburg Confession,” in Carter Lindberg (ed.), Piety, Politics and Ethics. Reformation Studies in Honor of George Wolfgang Forell (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal, 1984), 85–​102. Kretschmar, Georg, “Der Reichstag von Regensburg 1541 und seine Folgen im protestantischen Lager,” in Hans-​ Martin Barth et al., Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch im Jahr 1541 (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1992), 47–​91. de Kroon, Marijn, “Bucer und die Kölner Reformation,” in Christian Krieger and Marc Lienhard (eds.), Martin Bucer and Sixteenth-​Century Europe, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 1: 493–​506. Krüger, Friedhelm, “Reform und Einheit der Kirche nach Bucers ‘Einfaltigem Bedenken’,” Monatshefte für evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlands 43 (1994), 19–​28. Kuropka, Nicole, “Melanchthon und Köln: Reform der Wissenschaften und Reformatorische Bemühungen,” in Rudolf Mohr (ed.), “Alles ist euer, ihr aber seid Christi.” Festschrift für Dietrich Meyer (Cologne: Rheinland Verlag, 2000), 513–​31. Laemmer, Hugo, Die vortridentinisch-​katholische Theologie des Reformations-​Zeitalters aus den Quellen dargestellt (Berlin, 1858; unchanged repr. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1966). Lane, Anthony N. S., “Bernard of Clairvaux: A Forerunner of John Calvin?,” in John R. Sommerfeldt (ed.), Bernardus Magister (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1992), 533–​45. Lane, Anthony N. S., Calvin and Bernard of Clairvaux, Studies in Reformed Theology and History N.S. 1 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996).

Bibliography  353 Lane, Anthony N. S., “Bondage and Liberation in Calvin’s Treatise against Pighius,” in John H. Leith and Robert A. Johnson (eds.), Calvin Studies IX (Davidson, NC: Davidson College and Davidson College Presbyterian Church, 1998), 16–​45. Lane, Anthony N. S., John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999). Lane, Anthony N. S., “When Did Albert Pighius Die?,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 80 (2000), 327–​42. Lane, Anthony N. S., “Albert Pighius’s Controversial Work on Original Sin,” Reformation and Renaissance Review 4 (2000), 29–​61 + Erratum in Reformation and Renaissance Review 3.1/​2 (2001), 215. Lane, Anthony N. S., Justification by Faith in Catholic-​Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (London: T&T Clark, 2002). Lane, Anthony N. S., “Calvin and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy,” in Herman J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus Praeceptor Ecclesiae (Geneva: Droz, 2004), 233–​63. Lane, Anthony N. S., “Cardinal Contarini and Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy (1541),” in Otmar Meuffels and Jürgen Bründl (eds.), Grenzgänge der Theologie (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2004), 163–​90. Lane, Anthony N. S., “Twofold Righteousness: A Key to the Doctrine of Justification? Reflections on Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy (1541),” in Mark A. Husbands and Daniel J. Trier (eds.), Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 205–​24. Lane, Anthony N. S., “A Tale of Two Imperial Cities: Justification at Regensburg (1541) and Trent (1546–​1547),” in Bruce L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 119–​45. Lane, Anthony N. S., “Calvin’s Doctrine of Assurance Revisited,” in David W. Hall (ed.), Tributes to John Calvin: A Celebration of His Quincentenary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010), 270–​313. Lau, Franz, and Ernst Bizer, A History of the Reformation in Germany to 1555 (London: A & C Black, 1969). Leijssen, Lambert, “Martin Bucer und Thomas von Aquin,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 55 (1979), 266–​96. Léonard, Émile G., A History of Protestantism, vol. 1 (London: Thomas Nelson, 1965). Leva, Giuseppe De, “La Concordia Religiosa di Ratisbona e il Cardinale Gaspare Contarini,” Archivio Veneto 4 (1872), 5–​36. Lexutt, Athena, Rechtfertigung im Gespräch: Das Rechtfertigungsverständnis in den Religionsgesprächen von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg 1540/​ 41 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996). Lexutt, Athena, “War Melanchthon ein Ökumeniker? Die Rolle Melanchthons auf den Religionsgesprächen 1540/​41,” Luther: Zeitschrift der Luther-​Gesellschaft 72 (2001), 23–​43. Link, Hans-​Georg, Hermann Deeters, and Theodor Schlüter (eds.), 450 Jahre Kölner Reformationsversuch: Zwischen Reform und Reformation (Alfter bei Bonn: Stallberg, 1993). Linsenmann, Franz X., “Albertus Pighius und sein theologischer Standpunkt: Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristik der vortridentinischen Theologie,” Theologische Quartalschrift 48 (1866), 571–​644. Lipgens, Walter, “Neue Beiträge zum Reformationsversuch Hermanns von Wied aus dem Jahre 1545,” Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein 149/​150 (1950/​51),

354 Bibliography 46–​73. Lipgens, Walter, Kardinal Johannes Gropper 1503–​1559 und die Anfänge der katholischen Reform in Deutschland (Münster: Aschendorff, 1951). Lipgens, Walter, “Theologischer Standort fürstlicher Räte im sechzehnten Jahrhundert: Neue Quellen zum Wormser Vergleichungsgespräch,” ARG 43 (1952), 28–​51. Logan, Oliver M. T., “Grace and Justification: Some Italian Views of the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 20 (1969), 67–​78. Loewenich, Walter von, Duplex Iustitia: Luthers Stellung zu einer Unionsformel des 16. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1972). Lortz, Joseph, “Wert und Grenzen der katholischen Kontroverstheologie in der ersten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in August Franzen (ed.), Um Reform und Reformation (Münster: Aschendorff, 1968), 9–​32. Lössl, Josef, “Augustinus im ‘Regensburger Buch’ (1541),” ZKG 11 (2000), 28–​55. Lugioyo, Brian, Martin Bucer’s Doctrine of Justification: Reformation Theology and Early Modern Irenicism (Oxford: OUP, 2010). Lutheran-​Roman Catholic Commission on Unity, From Conflict to Communion: Lutheran Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt and Paderborn: Bonifatius, 2013). Luttenberger, Albrecht Pius, Glaubenseinheit und Reichsfriede: Konzeptionen und Wege Konfessionsneutraler Reichspolitik 1530–​1552 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Luttenberger, Albrecht Pius, “Johann Eck und die Religionsgespräche,” in Erwin Iserloh (ed.), Johannes Eck (1486–​1543) im Streit der Jahrhunderte (Münster: Aschendorff, 1988), 192–​222. Luttenberger, Albrecht Pius, “Kaiser, Kurie und Reichstag: Kardinallegat Contarini in Regensburg 1541,” in Erich Methuen (ed.), Reichstag und Kirche (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 89–​136. McCue, James F., “Double Justification at the Council of Trent: Piety and Theology in Sixteenth Century Roman Catholicism,” in Carter Lindberg (ed.), Piety, Politics and Ethics: Reformation Studies in Honor of George Wolfgang Forell (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal, 1984), 39–​56. McCue, James F., “Luther and the Problem of Popular Preaching,” Sixteenth Century Journal 16 (1985), 33–​43. McGrath, Alister E., “Humanist Elements in the Early Reformed Doctrine of Justification,” ARG 73 (1982), 5–​20. McGrath, Alister E., Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2 vols. (Cambridge: CUP, 1986). McGrath, Alister E., Iustitia Dei. A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: CUP, 2005 [3rd edition]). Mackensen, Heinz, “The Diplomatic Role of Gasparo Cardinal Contarini at the Colloquy of Ratisbon of 1541,” Church History 27 (1958), 312–​37. Mackensen, Heinz, “Debate between Eck and Melanchthon on Original Sin at the Colloquy of Worms,” Lutheran Quarterly 11 (1959), 42–​56. Mackensen, Heinz, “Contarini’s Theological Role at Ratisbon in 1541,” ARG 51 (1960), 36–​57. McNair, Philip, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford: OUP, 1967). Maffeis, Angelo, “La teologia paulina nella riforma cattolica del XVI secolo: Gasparo Contarini e il Colloquio di Religione di Regensburg (1541),” in Giuseppe Ghiberti

Bibliography  355 (ed.), Paolo di Tarso a 2000 anni dalla nascita (Turin: Effatà Editrice, 2009), 279–​314. Malloy, Christopher J., Engrafted into Christ: A Critique of the Joint Declaration (New York: Peter Lang, 2005). Mannermaa, Tuomo, “Justification and Theosis in Lutheran-​ Orthodox Perspective,” in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 25–​41. Mannermaa, Tuomo, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005). Marranzini, Alfredo, “I Colloqui di Ratisbona: l’azione e le idee di Gaspare Contarini (Tavola rotunda),” in Francesca Cavazzana Romanelli (ed.), Gaspare Contarini e il suo Tempo (Venice: Studium Catholicum, 1988), 167–​206. Martens, Gottfried, Die Rechtfertigung des Sünders—​ Rettungshandeln Gottes oder historisches Interpretament? (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). Matheson, Peter, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg (Oxford: OUP, 1972). Matheson, Peter, The Rhetoric of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998). Mattes, Mark, “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective,” in Robert Kolb, Irena Dingel, and L’ubomír Batka (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: OUP, 2014), 264–​73. Maurer, Wilhelm, “Confessio Augustana Variata,” ARG 53 (1962), 97–​151. Maurer, Wilhelm, Historical Commentary on the Augsburg Confession (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). Mayer, Thomas F., Cardinal Pole in European Context: A via media in the Reformation (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), ch. 4: “The War of the Two Saints: the Conclave of Julius III and Cardinal Pole.” Maxcey, Carl E., “Double Justice, Diego Laynez, and the Council of Trent,” Church History 48 (1979), 269–​78. Meier, Johannes, “Das ‘Enchiridion christianae institutionis’ (1538) von Johannes Gropper. Geschichte seiner Entstehung, Verbreitung und Nachwirkung,” ZKG 86 (1975), 289–​328. Meyer, Carl S., “Melanchthon, Theologian of Ecemenism,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 17 (1966), 185–​207. Mirbt, Carl, “Pistorius, Johannes Becker,” in Sam M. Jackson and George W. Gilmore (eds.), The New Schaff-​Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. 9 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1911), 74–​75. Moses, Reinhold, Die Religionsverhandlungen zu Hagenau und Worms 1540 und 1541 (Jena: Hermann Pohle, 1889). Mühlen, Karl-​ Heinz zur, “Die Einigung über den Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1541—​eine verpaßte Chance?,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 76 (1979), 331–​59. Mühlen, Karl-​Heinz zur, “Die Edition der Akten und Berichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau und Worms 1540/​41,” in Heiner Faulenbach (ed.), Standfester Glaube: Festgaben zum 65. Geburtstag von Johann Friedrich Gerhard Goeters (Köln: Rheinland-​Verlag, 1991), 47–​62. Mühlen, Karl-​Heinz zur, “Martin Bucer und das Religionsgespräch von Hagenau und Worms,” in Christian Krieger and Marc Lienhard (eds.), Martin Bucer and Sixteenth-​ Century Europe, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 2: 659–​69; also in Reformatorische Prägungen, 293–​303, with a slightly different title (“die Religionsgespräche”). Mühlen, Karl-​Heinz zur, “‘Die Gemeinsame Erklärung zur Rechtfertigung 1997’ im Lichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41,” in

356 Bibliography Anne-​Kathrin Finke and Joachim Zehner (eds.), Zutrauen zur Theologie: Akademische Theologie und die Erneuerung der Kirche (Berlin: Wichern-​Verlag, 2000), 82–​101. Mühlen, Karl-​Heinz zur, “Die Religionsgespräche von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41: Chancen und Grenzen des kontroverstheologischen Dialogs in der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts,” Blätter für pfälzische Kirchengeschichte und religiöse Volkskunde 72 (2005), 319–​34. Also in Reformatorische Prägungen, 323–​40. Mühlen, Karl-​ Heinz zur, Reformatorische Prägungen: Studien zur Theologie Martin Luthers und zur Reformationszeit, ed. Athena Lexutt and Volkmar Ortmann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011). Mülhaupt, Erwin, “Die Kölner Reformation,” Monatshefte für Evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlandes 11 (1962), 73–​93 Müller, Gerhard, “Johann Eck und die Confessio Augustana: Zwei unbekannte Aktenstücke vom Augsburger Reichstag 1530,” Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 38 (1958), 205–​242. Müller, Gerhard, “Landgraf Philipp von Hessen und das Regensburger Buch,” in Marijn de Kroon and Friedhelm Krüger (eds.), Bucer und seine Zeit:Forschungsbeitrage und Bibliographie (Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1976), 101–​116. Müller, Gerhard (ed.), Die Religionsgespräche der Reformationszeit (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1980). Müller, H, “Hermann von Wied † 15.8.1552: Seine Stellung innerhalb der deutschen Reformation,” Monatshefte für Evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlandes 1 (1952), 161–​72. Müller, Otfried, “Schriften von und gegen Julius Pflug bis zu seiner Reise nach Trient 1551/​1552,” in Erwin Iserloh and Konrad Repgen (eds.), Reformata Reformanda, vol. 2 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1965), 29–​69. Mundhenk, Christine, “Reformstau und Politikverdrossenheit. Melanchthons Briefe vom Regensburger Reichstag 1541,” in Irene Dingel and Armin Kohnle (eds.), Philipp Melanchthon: Lehrer Deutschlands, Reformator Europas (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2011), 51–​63. Nestler, Hermann, “Vermittlungspolitik und Kirchenspaltung auf dem Regensburger Reichstag von 1541,” Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte 6 (1933), 389–​414. Neuser, Wilhelm H., “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger Buches,” in Martin Greschat and J. F. Gerhard Goeters (eds.), Reformation und Humanismus (Witten: Luther-​Verlag, 1969), 176–​94. Neuser, Wilhelm H., “Calvins Beitrag zu den Religionsgesprächen von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg (1540/​41),” in Luise Abramowski and J. F. Gerhard Goeters (eds.), Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie der Reformation (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 213–​37. Neuser, Wilhelm H., “Bucers Programm einer ‘guten leidlichen Reformation’ (1539–​ 1541),” in Marijn de Kroon and Marc Lienhard (eds.), Horizons Européens de la Réforme en Alsace (Strasbourg: Istra, 1980), 227–​39. Neuser Wilhelm H. (ed.), Die Vorberietung der Religionsgespräche von Worms und Regensburg 1540/​41 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974). Niesel, Wilhelm, “Calvin wider Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre,” ZKG 46 (1927), 410–​30. Niessen, Josef, “Der Reformationsversuch des Kölner Kurfürsten Hemann V. von Wied (1536–​1547),” Rheinische Vierteljahresblätter 15/​16 (1950/​51), 298–​312. Oberman, Heiko A., “The Tridentine Decree on Justification in the Light of Late Medieval Theology,” Journal for Theology and the Church 3 (1967), 28–​54.

Bibliography  357 Ocker, Christopher, “Calvin in Germany,” in Christopher Ocker et al. (eds.), Politics and Reformations: Communities, Polities, Nations and Empires. Essays in Honor of Thomas A. Brady, Jr. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 313–​44. Offele, Wolfgang, Ein Katechismus im Dienste der Glaubenseinheit: Julius Pflugs “Institutio Christiani Hominis” als katechetischer Beitrag zur interkonfessionellen Begegnung (Essen: Ludgerus-​Verlag Hubert Wingen, 1965). O’Malley, John W., Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013). Ortmann, Volkmar, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche: Martin Bucers Einigungsbemühungen bei den Religionsgesprächen in Leipzig, Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg 1539–​1541 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2001). Ortmann, Volkmar, “Martin Bucers Bemühungen um Reformation und Einheit der Kirche bei den Religionsgesprächen 1540/​41,” in Matthieu Arnold and Berndt Hamm (eds.), Martin Bucer zwischen Luther und Zwingli (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2003), 127–​46. Overell, Anne, Italian Reform and English Reformations, c. 1535–​c. 1585 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008). Paas, Steven, A Conflict on the Church and the Sacraments: How Rome and the Reformation Differed at Regensburg in 1541 (Zomba, Malawi: Kachere Series, 2006). Parker, Thomas H. L., Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans 1532–​1542 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986). Parker, Thomas H. L., Calvin’s Preaching (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992). Pas, Paul, “La doctrine de la double justice au Concile de Trente,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 30 (1954), 5–​53. Pastor, Ludwig von, Die kirchlichen Reunionsbestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V (Freiburg: Herder, 1879). Pauselli, Maria Cristiana, “Note sugli Scholia di Gasparo Contarini ad Efesini e Galati,” ARG 83 (1992), 130–​53. Pederson, Phillip Edward, “The Religious Colloquy of Regensburg (Ratisbon), 1541,” PhD dissertation, Chicago Divinity School, 1978. Peter, Rodolphe, and Jean-​François Gilmont, Bibliotheca Calviniana, vol. 1 (Geneva: Droz, 1991). Peura, Simo, “Christ as Favor and Gift: The Challenge of Luther’s Understanding of Justification,” in Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), 42–​69. Pfnür, Vinzenz, Einig in der Rechtfertigungslehre? (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1970). Pfnür, Vinzenz, “Die Einigung bei den Religionsgesprächen von Worms und Regensburg 1540/​ 41 eine Täuschung?,” in Gerhard Müller (ed.), Die Religionsgespräche der Reformationszeit (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1980), 55–​88. Pfnür, Vinzenz, “Johannes Ecks Verständnis der Religionsgespräche, sein theologischer Beitrag in ihnen und seine Sicht der Konfessionsgegensätze,” in Erwin Iserloh (ed.), Johannes Eck (1486–​1543) im Streit der Jahrhunderte (Münster: Aschendorff, 1988), 223–​49. Pfnür, Vinzenz, “Colloquies,” in Hans J. Hillerbrand (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, vol. 1 (Oxford: OUP, 1996), 375–​83. Pils, Holger, Stephan Ruderer, and Petra Schaffrodt (eds.), Martin Bucer (1491–​1551) Bibliographie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2005). [MBB]

358 Bibliography Pollet, Jacques V., “Johann Gropper und Julius Pflug nach ihrer Korrespondenz,” in Paul-​ Werner Scheele (ed.), Paderbornensis Ecclesia: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Erzbistums Paderborn (Munich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1972), 223–​44. Pollet, Jacques V., “Julius Pflug,” in Martin Greschat (ed.), Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte, vol. 6 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1981), 129–​46. Pollet, Jacques V., Martin Bucer: Études sur les Relations de Bucer avec les Pays-​Bas, L’Électorat de Cologne et l’Allemagne du Nord, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1985). Pollet, Jacques V., Julius Pflug (1499–​1564) et la Crise Religieuse dans l’Allemagne du XVIe Siècle (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990). Pollet, Jacques V., “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius Pflug,” in Elmar Neuss and Jacques V. Pollet (eds.), Pflugiana: Studien über Julius Pflug (1499–​1564) (Münster: Aschendorff, 1990), 60–​92. Postina, Alois, Der Karmelit Eberhard Billick: Ein Lebensbild aus dem 16. Jahrhundert (Freiburg: Herder, 1901). Rainbow, Jonathan H., “Double Grace: John Calvin’s View of the Relationship of Justification and Sanctification,” Ex Auditu 5 (1989), 99–​105. Remy, Jochen, “Hermann von Wied—​Schicksalsjahre eines Erzbischofs. Anfang und Ende der reformatorischen Bewegung im Rheinland,” in Johannes Brosseder and Hans-​Georg Link (eds.), Gemeinschaft der Kirchen: Traum oder Wirklichkeit? (Zurich and Neukirchen-​ Vluyn: Benzinger Verlag and Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 17–​39. Remy, Jochen, “Die Reichsreligionsgespräche von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg (1540/​41) als Ausgangspunkt für die Kölner Reformation,” Monatshefte für evangelische Kirchengeschichte des Rheinlands 43 (1994), 29–​49. Ricca, Paulo, “I Colloqui di Ratisbona: L’azione e le idee di Gaspare Contarini” (Tavola rotunda),” in Francesca Cavazzana Romanelli (ed.), Gaspare Contarini e il suo Tempo (Venice: Studium Catholicum, 1988), 223–​42. Ritschl, Albrecht, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Andreas Osiander,” Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie 2 (1857), 795–​829. Rivière, Jean: “Justification” in DCT 8:2159–​64 Robinson, Adam Patrick, The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509–​1580): Between Council and Inquisition (London: Routledge, 2017). Rondet, Henri, The Grace of Christ (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1967). Rosenberg, Manfred, Gerhard Veltwyck: Orientalist, Theolog und Staatsmann (Göttingen: Georg-​August-​Universität Inaugural-​Dissertation [1935]). Rößner, Maria Barbara, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ‘Gegenberichtung’ in der Auseinandersetzung um den Kölner Reformationsversuch Hermanns von Wied,” Jahrbuch des kölnischen Geschichtsvereins 64 (1993), 75–​103. Ross, James B., “Gasparo Contarini and his Friends,” Studies in the Renaissance 17 (1970), 192–​232. Ross, James B., “The Emergence of Gasparo Contarini: A Bibliographical Essay,” Church History 41 (1972), 22–​45. Roth, Friedrich, “Zur Geschichte des Reichtages zu Regensburg im Jahre 1541 II: Bis zum Beginn des Religionsgespräches am 27 April,” ARG 3 (1905–​6), 18–​64. Rückert, Hanns, Die Rechtfertigungslehre auf dem tridentinischen Konzil (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Weber, 1925). Rückert, Hanns, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis (Bonn: A. Marcus and E. Weber, 1926).

Bibliography  359 Rüetschi, Kurt Jakob, “Fünf ‘Conciones’ Melanchthons. Rudolf Gwalthers Nachschrift am Regensburger Reichstag 1541,” in Hans Ulrich Bächtold, Rainer Henrich, and Kurt Jakob Rüetschi, Vom Beten, vom Verketzern, vom Predigen. Beiträge zum Zeitalter Heinrichs Bullinger und Rudolf Gwalthers. Prof. Dr. Alfred Schindler zum 65. Geburtstag (Zug: Achius, [1999]), 53–​107. Schäfer, Philipp, “Hoffnungsgestalt und Gegenwart des Heiles: Zur Diskussion um die doppelte Gerechtigkeit auf dem Konzil von Trient,” Theologie und Philosophie 55 (1980), 204–​29. Scheib, Otto, “Die Auslegung der Augsburgischen Konfession auf den Religionsgesprächen,” in Barbara Hallensleben and Erwin Iserloh (eds.), Confessio Augustana und Confutatio: Der Augsburger Reichstag 1530 und die Einheit der Kirche (Münster: Aschendorff, 1980), 652–​67. Scheib, Otto, “Erzbischof Albrecht von Brandenburg und die Religionsgespräche,” in Friedhelm Jürgensmeier (ed.), Erzbischof Albrecht von Brandenburg (1490–​ 1545) (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1991), 140–​55. Scheible, Heinz, “Luther and Melanchthon,” Lutheran Quarterly 4 (1990), 317–​39. Scheible, Heinz, Melanchthon: Vermittler der Reformation: Eine Biographie (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2016). Scheible, Heinz, “Melanchthon und Bucer,” in Christian Krieger and Marc Lienhard (eds.), Martin Bucer and Sixteenth-​Century Europe, 2 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993), 1: 368–​93. Schlüter, Theodor C., Flug-​und Streitschriften zur “Kölner Reformation”: Die Publizistik um den Reformationsversuch des Kölner Erzbischofs und Kurfürsten Hermann von Wied (1515–​1547) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005). [FSKR] Schirrmacher, Friedrich W., Briefe und Acten zu der Geschichte des Religiongespräches zu Marburg 1529 und des Reichstages zu Augsburg 1530 (Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1876). Schultheis, Saskia, Die Verhandlungen über das Abendmahl und die übrigen Sakramente auf dem Religionsgespräch in Regensburg 1541 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). Schützeichel, Heribert, Die Glaubenstheologie Calvins (Munich: Max Hueber, 1972) Seifrid, Mark A., “Luther, Melanchthon and Paul on the Question of Imputation: Recommendations on a Current Debate,” in Mark A. Husbands and Daniel J. Trier (eds.), Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 137–​52. Simoncelli, Paolo, “Pietro Bembo e l’evangelismo italiano,” Critica Storica 15 (1978), 1–​63. Simoncelli, Paolo, Evangelismo Italiano del Cinquecento: Questione Religiosa e Nicodemismo Politico (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per l’Età Moderna e Contemporanea, 1979). Simoncelli, Paolo, “Vom Humanismus zur Gegenreformation. Das Schicksal des Regensburger Buches in Italien: Versuch einer Rekonstruktion,” in Elmar Neuss and Jacques V. Pollet (eds.), Pflugiana: Studien über Julius Pflug (1499–​1564) (Münster: Aschendorff, 1990), 93–​114. Smith, Colin S., “Calvin’s Doctrine of Justification in Relation to the Sense of Sin and the Dialogue with Rome,” MPhil. thesis, London Bible College, 1993. Solmi, Edmondo, “Gasparo Contarini alla Dieta di Ratisbona,” Nuovo Archivio Veneto 13 (1907), 5–​33, 69–​93. Stephens, W. Peter, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge: CUP, 1970).

360 Bibliography Stakemeier, Adolf, Das Konzil von Trient über die Heilsgewißheit (Heidelberg: F. H. Kerle, 1947). Stakemeier, Eduard, Der Kampf um Augustin auf dem Tridentinum (Paderborn: Bonifacius, 1937). Stolk, Johannes Maarten, Johannes Calvijn en de godsdienstgesprekken tussen rooms-​ katholieken en protestanten in Hagenau, Worms en Regensburg (1540–​1541) (Kampen: Kok, 2004). Strohm, Christoph, “Frontstellungen, Entwicklungen, Eigenart der Rechtfertigungslehre bei Bullinger,” in Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz (eds.), Heinrich Bullinger: Life–​ Thought–​Influence, 2 vols (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2007), 2: 537–​72. Stupperich, Robert, Der Humanismus und die Wiedervereinigung der Konfessionen (Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1936). Stupperich, Robert, “Der Ursprung des ‘Regensburger Buches’ von 1541 und seine Rechtfertigungslehre,” ARG 36 (1939), 88–​116. Stupperich, Robert, Bibliographia Bucerana (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1952). Stupperich, Robert, Der Unbekannte Melanchthon: Wirken und Denken des Praeceptor Germaniae in neuer Sicht (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1961). Stupperich, Robert, Reformatorenlexikon (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984). Tamburello, Dennis E., Union With Christ: John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994). Tedeschi, John, with James M. Lattis, The Italian Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture: A Bibliography of the Secondary Literature (ca. 1750–​1997) (Ferrara: ISR and Modena: F. C. Panini, 2000). Thompson, Nicholas, Eucharistic Sacrifice and Patristic Tradition in the Theology of Martin Bucer, 1534–​1546 (Leiden: Brill, 2005). Thou, Jacques A. de, Historiarum sui Temporis Tomus Primus (London: S. Buckley, 1733). Turnbull, Stephan K., “Grace and Gift in Luther and Paul,” Word and World 24 (2004), 305–​14. Tzschirner, P. M./​Carl Mirbt, “Pistorius, Johannes (Niddanus),” in Albert Hauck (ed.), Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, vol. 15 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1904 [3rd edition]), 415–​18. Vacant, Alfred, and Eugène Mangenot et al. (eds.): Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1923–​50). [DTC] van Gulik, Wilhelm, Johannes Gropper (1503 bis 1559) (Freiburg: Herder, 1906). Vanneste, Alfred, “La préhistoire du décret du Concile de Trente sur le péché originel,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique 86 (1964), 500–​510. van ’t Spijker, Willem, “Albert Pigge over het geloofsbegrip van Calvijn,” Theologia Reformata 36 (1993), 347–​69. van Veen, Mirjam G. K., “Propaganda per brief: Calvijns brieven aan Farel over het godsdienstgesprek te Regensburg,” Theologisch Debat 2 (2005), 40–​45. Varrentrapp, Conrad, Hermann von Wied und sein Reformationsversuch in Köln, 2 vols. (Leipzig: von Duncker & Humblot, 1878). Varrentrapp, Conrad, “Zur Charakteristik Hermanns von Wied, Bucers und Groppers,” ZKG 20 (1899–​1900), 37–​58. Vetter, Paul: Die Religionsverhandlungen auf dem Reichstage zu Regensburg (Jena: Hermann Pohle, 1889). Vogel, Lothar, Das Zweiter Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1546 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2009).

Bibliography  361 Vogelsanger, Peter, “Ökumenismus im 16. Jahrhundert: Zur Geschichte des Religionsgespräches von Regensburg 1541,” in Johannes Brantschen and Pietro Selvatico (eds.), Unterwegs zur Einheit (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Freiburg and Vienna: Herder, 1980), 631–​48. Washburn, Christian D., “The Transformative Power of Grace and Condign Merit at the Council of Trent,” The Thomist 79 (2015), 173–​212. Weis, James, “Calvin versus Osiander on Justification,” The Springfielder 29/​3 (Autumn 1965), 31–​47. Wengert, Timothy J., “The Day Philip Melanchthon Got Mad,” Lutheran Quarterly 5 (1991), 419–​33. Wengert, Timothy J., Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker and Carlisle, 1997). Wengert, Timothy J., “Justifying the Variata: Observations on Melanchthon’s 1540 Edition of the Augsburg Confession,” in Charles P. Arand et al. (eds.), From Wittenberg to the World (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 207–​25. Wiedemann, Theodor, Dr. Johann Eck, Professor der Theologie an der Universität Ingolstadt (Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1865). Wilkinson, John, The Medical History of the Reformers (Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 2001). Winkler, Gerhard B., “Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch 1541,” in Dieter Albrecht (ed.), Regensburg—​Stadt der Reichstage (Regensburg: Universitätsverlag Regensburg, 1980), 72–​87. Yarnold, Edward, “Duplex iustitia: The Sixteenth Century and the Twentieth,” in Gillian R. Evans (ed.), Christian Authority (Oxford: OUP, 1988), 204–​23. Ziegelbauer, Max, Johannes Eck: Mann der Kirche im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung (Sankt Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1987). Zimmermann, Gunter, “Calvins Auseinandersetzung mit Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre,” Kerygma und Dogma 35 (1989), 236–​56. Zumkeller, Adolar, “Das Ungenügen der menschlichen Werke bei den Deutschen Predigern des Spätmittelaters,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 81 (1959), 265–​305.

Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages.   Pre-modern Individuals Altenstaig, Johann, 90n8, 194–​95 Ambrose, 96, 113–​14, 116–​17n167, 139, 196–​97, 205, 209–​10, 218–​19, 236, 239–​41n649,  244 Andrada, Diego de Payva, 126–​27 Aquinas, Thomas, 6n12, 23, 46–​47, 47–​48n91, 90, 111–​12n138, 113–​14, 131–​32, 155, 159–​60n79, 162, 167–​68n143, 167–​68n145, 174, 185–​86, 194–​95n335, 202, 226–​27, 236–​37n619, 293n92, 315n202 Aristotle, 183, 274–​75 Augustine, 42–​43, 45–​46, 46–​47n86, 47–​ 48n91, 81–​83n114, 87, 90, 100–​1, 113–​ 14, 129–​30n246, 139, 156, 175, 178, 196–​97, 199, 201, 205, 209–​10, 218–​19, 230, 233, 236, 268, 282, 283n28, 286–​ 87, 288, 289, 290, 293n91, 293, 306, 314, 315, 320, 329–​30   Badia, Tomasso, 20–​21, 28–​29, 58 Beccadelli, Ludovico, 14–​15n41, 20–​21n99, 27–​28n136, 39–​40n40, 46–​47n85, 47–​48n91, 51, 52nn123–​124, 54n132, 55–​56nn143–​144, 56–​57, 123n212, 154–​55n35, 183n267, 201n386, 201–​2n387, 202n388, 226–​27n540 Bellarmine, Robert, 83, 138–​39, 141–​ 42n331, 194–​95n336, 203–​4n397, 206, 271n62 Bembo, Pietro, 51n122, 52, 54n135, 55–​56,  226–​27 Bernard of Clairvaux, 81–​83n114, 87, 100–​1, 162, 203–​4, 205, 209–​10, 216, 218–​19, 236, 265, 270n57, 287–​89, 290–​91, 317–​20, 321,  323–​24 Billick, Eberhard, 71–​72, 73–​74, 83–​84, 113–​14n147, 137,  168–​69

Blarer, Ambrosius, 44–​45, 225, 232, 233 Brenz, Johann, 39–​40n34, 44–​45, 83–​84, 239–​41n649 Bucer, Martin, 10–​13, 14–​15, 15n46, 16, 20–​ 21n97, 22–​23n104, 23, 25n120, 33n1, 42–​43, 45–​46n78, 48–​49n97, 49–​51, 61–​62, 67–​73, 73–​74nn47–​48, 75–​78, 79–​80, 83–​85, 96–​97n42, 99–​102, 114–​ 15, 123–​24, 126, 131–​32, 132–​33n272, 134–​35, 136–​37, 138–​39, 140–​41, 143–​44, Chapter 5 passim, 251, 254, 255–​56, 257–​60, 262n32, 263, 265, 266–​67, 268, 271–​73, 274, 277–​78, 279, 280n11, 283n30, 327n281 Bullinger, Heinrich, 45–​46 Burckhard, Franz, 15n47, 16, 20, 20–​21n95, 34n4, 34–​35, 38n29, 48n96   Calvin, John, 1, 4–​5n6, 11–​12, 13, 17, 38–​24, 45–​46n78, 61, 61n184, 62–​63, 63–​64n195, 95–​97, 104–​6, 116–​17, 124–​26, 132–​33, 135, 143–​44, Chapter 5 passim, 251, 254, 255–​56, 259, 263, 265, 266, 267–​68, 273, 277 Capito, Wolfgang, 11–​12, 279 Carafa, Gian Pietro, 51, 52–​53, 123, 194–​95, 226–​27n540 Cellarius, Johannes, 41–​42n53, 44, 170, 218n480 Cervini, Marcello, 47–​48n91, 51 Charles V, 12–​13, 18, 20–​21, 21–​22n102, 30–​31, 34, 41–​42, 42n58, 48–​50, 52–​53, 56, 70, 134, 170, 171–​72, 174–​75,  202 Chemnitz, Martin, 126–​27 Chrysostom, 113–​14, 196–​97, 205, 218–​19 Cochlaeus, Johann, 11–​12, 28–​29, 77–​78,  83–​84 Colonna, Vittoria, 242

364 Index Contarini, Gasparo, 9–​10, 13–​15, 16–​17, 18, 19–​21, 26–​31, 33, 36–​37, 46–​49, 48n96, 49–​50n104, 51–​57, 58, 61, 64n198, 67nn1–​2, 69n14, 70, 96–​97, 101, 107–​13, 118, 119, 122, 123n212, 123–​ 24, 126, 129–​30, 136–​39, 141–​42n326, 141–​42n331, Chapter 5 passim, 251, 254, 255, 256–​57, 265, 266, 268–​ 71, 272–​73, 274–​75, 277–​78, 279 Corvinus, Anton, 28–​29 Cruciger, Kaspar, 17n65, 23n113, 23–​24, 24–​ 25n119, 25–​27, 28–​29, 35, 41–​42n53, 44, 49–​50n110, 72–​73n46, 93–​94n23, 218n480, 227–​28n546,  239–​41 Cyprian, 205, 218–​19, 290–​91, 324   Delfino, Zacharia, 81–​83 Driedo, Johann, 113–​14   Eck, Johann, 11–​12, 13, 15–​22, 23, 23–​ 24n114, 25–​26, 27–​29, 31, 41–​42n53, 44, 48–​51, 57–​58, 67–​69, 85, 97–​ 98n46, 107–​8, 137, 140–​41, Chapter 5 passim, 251, 252, 254, 259–​62, 262n32, 273, 274, 277, 302–​4 Edwards, Jonathan, 128 Erasmus, Desiderius, 90, 129   Farnese, Alessandro, 13n28, 13–​14n32, 14–​15nn38–​40, 14–​15nn42–​43, 15n47, 16n48, 16–​17n58, 18nn71–​72, 20n88, 20–​21nn92–​93, 20–​21n97, 20–​21nn99–​100, 28–​29, 30–​31n155, 30–​31n164, 36–​37, 46n82, 46–​47n91, 49–​50n104, 51, 51n121, 52–​53, 58n161, 97n45, 157, 226–​27, 279n5 Fregoso, Frederico, 52   Gagnaeius, Ioannis, 113–​14n152 Granvelle, Nicholas de, 11–​12, 12n24, 13–​15, 20–​21, 28–​31, 36–​37, 49–​50, 85, 277–​78n88 Gropper, Johann, 2, 9–​10, 11–​12, 13, 14–​15, 16–​17n58, 18, 19–​21, 24, 25–​26n126, 28–​29, 41–​43, 49–​50, 61, 69–​71, 72–​80, 81–​83, 85, 87n151, 95–​101, 103–​4n82, 107–​8, 111–​12, 113–​17, 118, 119, 122, 123–​24, 126, 129n245, 129–​30, 135–​37, 138–​40, 141–​43, 144–​45, Chapter 5 passim,

251, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257–​60, 265–​66, 271–​73, 274–​75, 277–​78, 279, 280, 281–​82n21, 282n27, 283n28, 283n31, 286n45, 286n48, 286–​ 87n49, 287n53, 287–​88n54, 289n61, 289n63, 289n66, 289–​90n69, 290n70, 290n71, 290–​91n75, 291n78 (see also Gropper’s Draft)

  Hel, Konrad, 33 Hilary of Poitiers, 205, 209–​10, 218–​19, 236, 239–​41n649 Hooker, Richard, 108–​9n109, 127–​28   Joachim II of Brandenburg, 12, 237 Johann Friedrich, Elector, 15n47, 16n51, 16n53, 20–​21nn94–​96, 21–​22n103, 24–​25n119, 28–​29n139, 33–​34, 34n9, 35–​36n17, 37n23, 37–​38n24, 38, 39–​40n39, 42–​43n63, 43n68, 48n96, 49–​50n110, 61n179, 92–​93n18, 94–​95n30, 122–​23n209, 187n291, 188n296, 277–​78n88   Käuffelin, Balthasar, 44–​45   Lainez, Diego, 120 Le Mans, Richard of, 120 Luther, Martin, 1, 9–​11, 12, 18n74, 24–​ 25n119, 25n120, 25–​26, 26–​27n128, 34, 35–​38, 39–​40n38, 40n43, 42–​43, 45–​46, 46–​47n86, 47–​48n91, 50–​51, 57–​58, 62–​63, 64n198, 72–​73n44, 74–​75, 81–​83n115, 85–​86, 91–​95, 97–​ 98, 102–​3n76, 105, 107–​8n98, 113, 117–​18, 122–​24, 123n213, 126, 127, 128, 132–​33, 134, Chapter 5 passim, 251–​52, 254, 255–​56, 259–​60, 261–​62, 265, 269–​70,  273–​74   Major, Georg, 83–​84, 85n140 Malvenda, Pedro de, 83–​85 Melanchthon, Philipp, 10–​11n11, 11–​12, 13, 14–​15n38, 15–​17, 18, 20–​22, 23, 23–​24n114, 24–​29, 33n1, 36–​37, 39–​42, 44, 48, 49–​50n110, 50–​51, 62–​63, 64, 69–​70, 71–​73, 73–​74n48, 74–​75, 76–​77n73, 77, 78–​80, 81–​83n115, 83–​84, 90, 91n13, 93–​94, 100–​1, 102–​4, 105–​ 6n94, 114–​15, 123–​24, 126, 131–​32, 134, Chapter 5 passim, 251, 253–​54,

Index  365 255–​56, 258–​60, 261, 263, 265, 266, 268, 273, 274, 277–​78, 295–​301 Morone, Giovanni, 13, 14–​15, 15n47, 16n48, 16–​17n58, 17n62, 18n69, 18, 20–​21, 28–​29, 30–​31n164, 58, 83n116, 118n177, 279   Negri, Girolamo, 20n84, 20nn85–​86, 20–​21n99, 30–​31n159,  69n14   Ochino, Bernardino, 52 Osiander, Andreas, 93–​94n23, 103–​4, 124, 153–​54,  193   Paul III, pope, 20–​21, 28–​29, 52–​53, 226–​27n538 Paul IV, Pope, 58, 81–​83 Pflug, Julius, 13, 16, 16–​17n58, 18, 19–​20, 20n89, 22–​23, 24–​25n119, 25n120, 25–​26, 28–​29, 31, 41–​43, 48–​50, 75n60, 75–​76n68, 83–​84, 85, 116, 117–​ 18, 119, 122, 126, 139n316, 141–​42, 161, 168–​69, 170n167, 184, 192, 195, 200n383, 210–​11, 231, 239–​41, 242, 248–​49, 251, 253, 255, 256, 265, 266, 272–​73, 277–​78, 302n141, 306n147 Philipp of Hesse, 12, 28–​29, 78n86, 181–​82n252,  279 Pighius, Albert, 11–​12, 13–​14, 19–​ 20n81, 28–​29, 42–​43, 51, 67–​69, 80n98, 95–​98, 110–​87, 111–​12n141,

113–​14, 119, 130n257, 136, 137–​39, 140–​41, 154–​55, 163–​64, 177–​78, 184, 206, 234, 234n601, 242, 245, 254,  260–​61 Plato, 23, 131–​32 Pole, Reginald, 1, 2–​3, 39–​40, 51, 53–​56, 111–​12, 149–​50, 154–​55, 202, 242,  269–​70 Priuli, Alvise, 20–​21n99, 27–​28, 39–​40, 51, 54n132, 55–​56, 123n212, 202, 226–​27n540 Sadolet, Jacopo, 1, 53, 56–​57, 136–​37, 149–​50, 170–​71, 201–​2, 242, 260–​61 Sasbout, Adam, 80n100, 113–​14n149 Schnepf, Erhard, 42–​43, 44–​45, 83–​84, 184–​85, 237, 274 Seripando, Girolamo, 95–​96n31, 118–​22, 131, 133–​34n275, 206, 218 Sturm, Johann, 23   Tapper, Ruard, 96–​97 Timann, Johann, 41–​42n53, 44–​45, 170   Veltwyck, Gerard, 11–​12, 279 Vitriarius, Ludovicus, 119–​20 von Wied, Hermann, 69nn14–​15, 70–​71, 72–​74, 77,  80–​81   Witzel, Georg, 10–​11

Pre-modern Documents, etc. Augsburg Confession, 15, 20–​21n91, 33–​ 35, 39–​40, 42, 67–​68, 78n83, 84–​85, 102–​3, 103–​4n82, 111–​12, 113, 126, 137, Chapter 5 passim, 256, 261, 266 Augsburg Confession variata, 15n47, 64, 102–​4, 134, 150–​51, 158, 164nn113–​ 114, 166–​67, 176–​77, 180n248, 188–​ 89, 191–​92, 200, 213, 219–​20n495, 227–​28,  255–​56 Apology of the Augsburg Confession, 15, 33–​35, 39–​40, 41–​42n56, 42, 50–​51, 67–​68, 90n6, 102–​4, 126, 131–​32, 134, Chapter 5 passim, 256, 261, 263, 266 Augsburg Interim, 39–​40, 124–​25, 199–​ 200, 210–​11n437,  267–​68 Cologne Reformation, 16, 69–​81, 83, 248,  271–​72

Eck’s Draft, 23–​24, 25, 27–​28, 152, 168, 184, 190–​91, 217, 226, 233, 239, 302–​4   Formula of Concord, 4–​5, 127, 159–​60n79,  171–​72 Gropper’s Draft, 23–​24, 25–​29, 81–​83n114, 100, 129–​30, 131, 155, 157, 159–​60, 161, 169, 173–​74, 182, 183, 191, 195, 204, 212, 215, 216, 221, 223, 224–​25, 226, 230, 235–​37, 271, 279, 293n91, 305–​27 Leipzig Colloquy 1539, 10–​11, 280 Leuven theology faculty, 74–​75, 78–​79, 81–​83, 113–​14, 139–​40, 141–​42, 154–​55, 161–​62, 196, 205, 208n423, 209–​10, 216, 218–​19, 228–​29n550, 255, 265

366 Index Melanchthon’s Draft, 23–​25, 27–​28, 152, 224–​25, 227–​28, 295–​301   Regensburg Colloquy 1546, 16, 83–​85, 248n700,  266–​67   Trent, Council of, 46–​47n88, 47–​48, 54, 58n165, 60–​61, 81–​83, 85–​87, 95–​96n31, 96–​97n40, 106–​7, 116, 117–​22, 124, 126, 130–​31, 141–​43, 143–​44n340, Chapter 5 passim, 263, 264–​66, 269–​70, 272, 272–​73n71, 273, 274–​75,  277–​78   Worms Colloquy 1540/​41, 11–​12, 13–​14, 15n46, 16, 16–​17n58, 17n66, 20–​ 21n91, 21–​23, 25–​26n126, 31n166, 33n1, 44n70, 69n14, 76–​78, 80n99, 103–​4, 105–​6, 135n288, 137, 165, 168–​69, 188–​89, 214, 225n526, 229, 236, 237, 238–​39, 245 Worms Draft, 2, 11–​12, 22–​26, 40, 45–​ 46n81, 49–​51, 64, 76–​77, 81–​83n114, 100, 100–​1n64, 129n245, 129–​30, 131–​32, 138–​39, 144–​45, 152, 153, 155, 157, 159–​60, 161, 169, 173n183,

173–​74, 175–​76, 178, 182, 183, 191, 193, 195, 197–​98n365, 204, 212, 214, 216, 218, 221, 223, 224–​25, 226, 230, 235–​37, 241n657, 271, 279–​ 94, 305n142, 305, 306nn148–​149, 306nn151–52, 307n153, 307n155, 307nn156–​157, 307n158, 308n162, 308n163, 308n165, 309nn166–​167, 309n168, 309n170, 310nn171–​ 172, 310n176, 311nn177–​178, 311nn179–​180, 311n182, 312n184, 312n186, 312n188, 313nn189–​190, 313nn191–​192, 314nn194–​195, 314n199, 315nn201–​202, 315n204, 315n206, 315nn208–​209, 316n210, 316n212, 316n214, 316nn215–​217, 317nn218–​219, 317n222, 318n224, 318n228, 318n230, 319nn232–​ 234, 319n236, 319n238, 320n239, 320n241, 320n242, 320n245, 321n249, 322n250, 322nn251–​ 253, 323nn255–​257, 324n259, 324n260, 325n264, 325n266, 325n269, 326n270, 326nn275–​277, 327nn278–​279

Modern Individuals Augustijn, Cornelis, 10–​11, 11–​12nn14–​ 15, 11–​12nn21–​22, 14–​15n45, 15n46, 22–​23n104, 28–​29, 33n1, 35n10, 57–​ 58nn159–​160, 60n175, 69n14, 76–​77, 107–​8n97, 118n177, 129n245, 148n5, 149, 275–​76n83   Barnikol, Horst-​Martin, 101–​2n71, 131–​ 32n262, 132–​33n272, 134–​35n287, 163–​64n107, 181n250, 196–​97n355, 222n509, 244–​45n678 Blatter, August, 15n46, 61–​62 Bornkamm, Heinrich, 157–​58n62, 157–​58n66 Braunisch, Reinhard, 12n21, 60, 70–​71n20, 75–​ 76n69, 76–​77, 78, 81n104, 81–​83n107, 81–​83n117, 83nn120–​121, 96–​97n42, 97–​98nn46–​47, 99–​101, 129, 149n8, 173, 179–​80, 181–​82, 255, 271, 306n147 Brieger, Theodor, 26–​29, 46–​47n82, 46–​47n89, 52–​53n127, 55–​56n143, 56n145, 58n164, 103–​4n81,

108–​9n109, 123n212, 137–​38n305, 147n1, 166–​67n137, 176–​77, 186–​ 87n290, 218n480, 220, 223, 234, 253n4, 268–​69nn46–​47 Buchanan, James, 171   Cardauns, Ludwig, 10–​11n11, 52–​53nn126–​127,  280   Dittrich, Franz, 13n25, 15n47, 18n67, 18n71, 25–​26n126, 26–​27, 30–​31n157, 47–​48n93, 48–​49nn98–​101, 52n123, 52n125, 56–​57n151, 74–​75nn55–​57, 95–​96n31, 97–​98n48, 99–​100n59, 108–​9n105, 109–​10, 111–​12nn138–​139, 111–​12n141, 112–​13n144, 113–​14n149, 113–​14n152, 137–​38n305, 139n315, 139–​40n321, 141–​42n331, 183, 184n270, 190–​91nn307–​308, 203n393, 205n404, 226–​27n538, 228–​29n550, 237–​38n622, 239–​41n638, 239–​41n643, 239–​41n649, 239–​41n655, 269–​70n50, 269–​70n53

Index  367 Eells, Hastings, 11–​12n21, 23–​24n115, 57–​58n159   Feiner, Johann, 13–​14n34, 154–​55n38 Fenlon, Dermot, 9–​10n2, 54n132, 54n138, 60n174, 61, 247, 269–​70, 277 Filser, Hubert, 81n102, 81n105, 97–​98n46 Fink, David C., 92n15, 101–​2, 123–​24, 131–​32n265 Firpo, Massimo, 9–​10n2, 56n148, 58nn162–​163, 242n666 Flogaus, Reinhard, 4–​5, 102–​3n76, 123n213 Fraenkel, Pierre, 10–​11n11, 20–​21n91, 150–​51n11 Franzen, August, 60n175, 70nn18–​19, 70–​71n21, 70–​71n30   Ganzer, Klaus, 13n26, 16–​17n58 Gerace, Antonio, 80n100, 113–​14n149, 137–​38n305, 139–​40n318 Gleason, Elisabeth G., 3n3, 9–​10nn2–​3, 13n25, 13–​14n32, 15n47, 30–​31n157, 46–​47nn86–​87, 46–​47n90, 52n124, 52–​53nn126–​127, 54n132, 56n147, 57–​58, 58n161, 60, 108–​9n105, 111nn131–132, 112n143, 112–​ 13n144, 144–​45n348, 162, 179n233, 203n392, 203n393, 234, 265, 269–​70 Greschat, Martin, 10–​11n11, 92n15, 93n19, 93–​94n23, 94n25, 102–​3n76   Hampson, Daphne, 63 Hausberger, Karl, 65 Helm, Paul, 104–​5 Hequet, Suzanne, 28–​29n143, 144–​45n348,  247 Jedin, Hubert, 9n1, 9–​10n3, 10–​11n10, 13–​14n33, 16–​17, 18n73, 25–​26n126, 30–​31n156, 30–​31n158, 46–​47n86, 46–​47n88, 46–​47n90, 61, 65n203, 67n3, 68–​69n13, 70n18, 85–​86nn144–​ 145, 86n146, 86n147, 86–​87, 95–​98, 96n34, 99–​100, 108n103, 111n132, 111–​12n138, 112n143, 113, 118–​ 19nn178–​181, 119, 119n188, 119n189, 119–​20n190, 120n193, 120n195, 120–​ 21n197, 121n198, 121nn200–​202, 121–​22n205, 154–​55n38, 163n106, 184n274, 203n392, 270

Kolb, Robert, 102–​3n76, 159–​60n79, 164n123, 233n589, 273n75   Lexutt, Athena, 10–​11n12, 11–​12nn17–​18, 15nn46–​47, 21–​22n101, 22–​23n104, 35–​36n16, 64, 109n111, 153, 160, 163n105, 172, 178, 181–​82n255, 189, 193, 198–​99n372, 211–​12, 214, 220, 232, 234, 235–​36, 247, 273, 305n141, 305nn144–​145 Lipgens, Walter, 9–​10n5, 61, 70–​71n29, 73n49, 73n52, 76–​77, 81–​83n107, 83n119, 97–​98n46, 99–​100n62, 103–​4n82, 111–​12n141, 113–​14n148, 136n295, 141–​42n326, 165n126, 168–​69n150, 179n236, 204n399, 271 Loewenich, Walter von, 22–​23n104, 35–​ 36n16, 37–​38, 46–​47n90, 61n180, 64, 91nn10–​11, 91n13, 93, 94nn25–​26, 94–​95, 109–​10, 111n131, 112–​13n144, 121–​22n203, 122–​23, 137–​38, 188, 198–​99n372, 203n393, 234, 268–​69,  271 Lugioyo, Brian, 10–​11n11, 14–​15n37, 14–​ 15n45, 21–​22n101, 22–​23n104, 25–​ 26n126, 61–​62, 80n100, 97–​98n46, 101–​2, 107–​8n98, 131–​32n265, 138–​ 39n310, 153–​54n30, 160n86, 161n87, 163–​64n107, 168n149, 177n219, 181–​82, 182n258, 195n339, 196–​ 97n356, 214n462, 216, 228–​29n549, 230n566, 232n576, 234n600, 235–​ 36n609, 247n695, 267, 305n144 Luttenberger, Albrecht P., 16–​17nn58–​59, 17n61, 50–​51n116   Mackensen, Heinz, 11–​12n18, 13n25, 46–​47n86, 46–​47n90, 96–​97n41, 113n145, 163n106 Maffeis, Angelo, 63–​64n194, 108–​9n105, 162n103, 217n473 Malloy, Christopher, 6, 58n165, 118–​ 19n178, 122n208 Martens, Gottfried, 22–​23n104, 166, 179n232, 226, 235–​36, 247 Matheson, Peter, 1, 3n3, 13n25, 20–​21n97, 26–​27, 28–​29n143, 30–​31n154, 46–​ 47, 59–​63, 107–​8n98,  269–​70 Maurer, Wilhelm, 91n13, 98–​99n51, 103–​4n82, 137n302, 150–​51n11, 150–​51n13

368 Index Mayer, Thomas F., 53nn129–​130, 54n134, 54nn135–​139, 56nn145–​147 McCue, James, 118–​19n178, 119–​20n190, 158n67, 203n393 McGrath, Alister E., 4–​5n6, 60, 97–​98n46, 118–​19n178, 137, 137–​38n306, 143–​44n342,  271n62 McNair, Philip, 26–​27, 31 Mühlen, Karl-​Heinz zur, 35–​36n16, 37–​38n25, 41–​42n51, 46, 46–​47n86, 47–​48n90, 61, 76–​77n72, 80–​ 81n101, 87n151, 94–​95n29, 99–​100, 100–​1n64, 136n294, 137n301, 144–​45n349, 168–​69n150, 188–​ 89nn299–​300, 189, 191–​92n318, 229nn560–​561, 233n588, 271n60, 274–​75,  277 Müller, Gerhard, 12n24, 19–​20n76, 230–​31n567, 238–​39n626, 238–​ 39n633, 238–​39n635, 238–​39n637, 239–​41n646   Nestler, Hermann, 11–​12n16, 60 Neuser Wilhelm H., 11–​12n16, 14–​ 15n45, 24n30, 62–63, 105–​6n94, 165–​66, 168, 172, 178, 182, 184–​ 85, 192, 214, 235–​36, 247, 273, 305n142   Ortmann, Volkmar, 10–​11n11, 11–​12nn21–​ 22, 14–​15n37, 14–​15n45, 22–​23n104

Rondet, Henri, 122 Rückert, Hanns, 46–​47n86, 46–​47n90, 85–​86n144, 86n147, 97–​98n48, 101n70, 109, 110–​12, 111n131, 118–​ 19n178, 137–​38nn305–​306, 162n103, 167–​68n145, 183n268, 198–​99n372, 226–​27n543   Scheible, Heinz, 15n46, 69n15, 129–​30n250 Schlüter, Theodor C., 67n1, 67n3, 70n19, 70–​71n25, 71–​72n31, 71–​72n33, 71–​72n36, 71–​72n39, 71–​72nn41–​ 42, 72–​73n44, 73–​74n47, 73–​ 74n52, 75n62, 75n65, 75–​76n67, 77–​78nn82–​83 Simoncelli, Paolo, 51n122, 54n132, 55–​ 56n143, 56–​57n155, 58nn162–​163 Smith, Colin, 9–​10n8, 144–​45n348 Stakemeier, Adolf, 85–​86n144, 86n147 Stakemeier, Eduard, 118–​19n178, 131n259 Stephens, W. Peter, 101–​2n71, 131–​ 32n262, 131–​32n265, 181n249 Stupperich, Robert, 11–​12n21, 16n49, 22–​ 23n104, 24n117, 46–​47n86, 60, 70–​ 71n24, 71–​72n41, 129, 147n3, 149n8, 214, 280, 282n27, 283n28, 286n45, 286n48, 287n53, 287–​88n54, 289n61, 289n63, 289n66, 289–​ 90n69, 290n71, 290–​91n75, 291n78

Parker, Thomas, 101–​2n71, 245–​46nn685–​686 Pauselli, Maria Cristiana, 46–​47n86, 108–​ 9n105, 183n267, 269–​70n49 Pederson, Phillip Edward, 24n116, 28–​29n143, 35–​36n17, 92n15, 122–​ 23n209, 129–​30n250, 152, 155n46, 195n344, 226n533, 279n2 Pfnür, Vinzenz, 9n1, 17n61, 18n68, 18–​19, 35–​36n16, 50–​51nn115–​116, 59n170, 103–​4n82, 239–​41n641, 242n662 Pollet, Jacques V., 19–​20, 48–​49nn98–​101, 70n18, 70–​71n29, 83n123, 100–​ 1n64, 117–​18nn174–​175, 129n244, 184n270, 190–​91nn307–​308, 210–​ 11nn437–​438, 231n569, 237–​38n622, 239–​41n638, 239–​41n643, 239–​ 41n649, 239–​41n655, 242n662

van Gulik, Wilhelm, 73–​74n49, 74–​75n57, 78n86, 83n118, 113–​14n150 Varrentrapp, Conrad, 70–​71n29, 78n86 Vetter, Paul, 24n118, 26–​27, 31, 53n128, 76–​77n73, 111–​12n135   Wengert, Timothy J., 15n46, 93–​94n23, 196n348, 243–44, 103–​4n82, 134n284 Winkler, Gerhard, 28–​29n150, 63–​64,  190   Yarnold, Edward, 9–​10, 89–​90n4, 96–​ 97n40, 107–​8, 109n111, 118nn178– 179, 121n198, 121–​22nn204–​205, 173n182, 179–​80,  181–​82   Ziegelbauer, Max, 60

Index  369 Topics baptism, 71–​72, 90, 109, 115–​16n159, 124, 129–​30n247, 129–​30n251, 142–​43, 181–​82, 288, 290, 291, 308, 309, 320 concerns, 3, 9–​10, 19–​20, 26–​27, 33, 37–​38, 39–​40n39, 40, 44, 51, 57–​58, 63, 69, 78, 92–​95, 101–​2, 103–​4, 107–​8, 122–​ 23, 150–​51, 170, 171, 187–​88, 194–​95, 197, 199–​200, 220, 222n509, 236, 243–​44, 255–​56, 259–​60, 268–​69, 272, 274–​76,  277–​78 dependence/​reliance, 46, 54n132, 56–​57, 91–​92, 96, 101–​2, 103–​4, 112, 112–​ 13n144, 113–​14, 123, 137–​38, 142, 162n102, 190–​91, 193–​94, 200–​12, 215, 217, 218–​19, 221–​22, 249, 257–​ 59, 268–​69, 276, 281, 285, 286, 287, 301, 307, 331 double justification, 2, 5–​6, 19–​20n81, 45–​46n81, 63, 89–​90, 93, 104–​5n86, 119–​20n190, 129–​45, 182, 203n393, 212–​13, 214, 247, 254, 271, 280–​81, 291–​94, 308, 310–​11, 327 double righteousness, 2, 5–​6, 13–​14, 19–​ 20n81, 37–​38, 41–​42, 51, 57–​58, 81–​ 83, 86–​87, Chapter 4 passim, 173n183, 182, 190, 197–​98, 202, 204n401, 213, 247, 251, 254–​56, 266, 271, 272–​73 ecclesiology, 97–​98n46, 107–​8, 181–​82,  275 Eucharist, 9, 14–​15, 20–​21, 30–​31, 49–​50, 59, 75n63, 182, 275, 279 facere quod in se est, 37, 156, 252 faith, definition of, 67–​68, 72–​73n45, 161–​ 66, 177n221, 222, 249, 259–​60, 263, 264, 265, 268 faith, efficacious, 40–​42, 63–​64, 168–​72, 175, 183–​89, 191, 226–​27, 237–​41, 247, 253, 254, 259–​60, 262, 289, 298, 304, 307, 330 faith formed by love, 157, 161, 166–​ 67n137, 183–​89, 238–​39, 244–​45, 259–​60, 268–​69,  304 faith alone (sola fide), 4–​5, 28–​29, 34, 35–​36, 38, 44, 45–​46n81, 50–​51, 61,

63–​64, 68–​69, 86–​87, 92–​94, 102–​3, 122–​23, 130, 131, 132, 143–​44, 165, 169, 170–​71, 182n257, 187–​88, 189, 196–​97, 206, 213, 220, 234, 236–​47, 248–​49, 259–​61, 263, 267, 268–​69, 270, 272–​73, 289–​90, 304, 322, 333 free choice, 21–​22, 36–​37, 63–​64, 155, 199–​ 200, 201, 225, 229, 231, 232–​34, 251, 252, 268, 304, 314, 332 justification, definition of, 4–​5, 67–​68, 79–​ 80, 86–​87, 137–​38, 139–​40, 167, 175–​ 76, 190, 193–​200, 212, 222, 245, 267 justification, formal cause of, 113–​14, 116n163, 121–​22n203, 122, 137–​44, 188–​89, 194, 242, 271, 281–​82, 286 law, [in]ability to keep, 41–​42, 120–​21, 178, 191, 217, 218, 225, 252, 253 love, justification by, 24, 35–​37, 41–​43, 44, 94–​95n30, 119, 122–​23, 129–​30, 131–​32, 137–​41, 143–​45, 170–​71, 172, 176–​77, 184, 185, 186–​88, 190, 192, 213, 214, 238–​39, 241, 242, 249, 251, 252, 253, 259–​62 merit, 24, 28–​29, 35, 37, 41–​42, 46, 51, 71–​72, 99–​102, 107–​10, 112, 113–​14, 116–​17, 118–​19, 120–​22, 123n212, 126, 127, 130, 133–​34, 136, 137–​38, 138–​39n312, 138–​39n314, 141–​42, 143–​45, 155n51, 156, 157, 161–​62, 164, 167–​68, 171–​75, 176–​77, 179, 186–​87, 189, 190–​92, 200, 201–​2, 203, 204, 206–​8, 210–​11, 212, 213, 216n466, 216, 217, 218, 219, 225, 226–​29, 230–​31, 232, 233n584, 252, 253, 254, 257–​58, 262, 265, 268–​69, 280–​81, 282–​83, 286, 287n52, 287–​88, 289, 293, 294, 296–​98, 300, 302–​3, 304, 306–​7, 314, 315, 316–​19, 330–​31 penance, 6, 107–​8, 129–​30n251, 157–​58, 182, 243, 269–​70 prevenient grace, 98–​99, 135, 154–​56, 166, 233, 234, 252, 283, 284, 286, 287, 289, 306–​7, 318, 329 purgatory, 42–​43, 44–​45, 269–​70, 274

370 Index repentance, 6, 28–​29, 63–​64, 71–​72, 79–​80, 80n98, 104–​5, 107–​8, 121, 129–​30n251, 136, 149, 156–​60, 161–​62, 165, 168, 170, 172–​73, 175, 179–​80n244, 191, 203–​4, 209–​10, 215, 218, 220, 223, 225, 236, 239, 242, 243–​ 44, 245, 246, 247, 264–​65, 269–​70, 284, 292, 298, 304, 311, 324, 329–​30, 331, 333 reward, 63, 63–​64n196, 71–​72, 118–​19, 120, 126–​27, 131–​32, 137, 143–​44, 201, 211, 213, 224, 225, 226–​29, 230–​ 32, 235–​36, 264, 268–​69, 287–​88, 295, 300, 304, 314, 319, 332 righteousness, alien, 60, 91, 93, 96–​97, 102–​3, 115–​16, 123–​24n222, 192,  211–​12 righteousness, imperfect pleases God, 41–​ 42, 99, 105–​6, 133–​37, 180, 190–​91, 192, 214, 216, 229, 253 righteousness, imperfection of, 9–​10, 19–​20n81, 89, 91–​93, 94, 97, 99–​101, 103–​4, 105–​7, 109–​10, 116–​19, 122–​24, 125, 126–​27, 128, 129n244, 134–​35, 136, 137–​39, 143, 172, 190–​ 91, 192–​93, 195, 202, 203–​4, 205–​6, 210–​11, 213, 214, 215–​17, 218–​20, 252, 253–​54, 255, 257, 262, 268–​69, 291, 303, 308, 324–​25, 331 righteousness, imputed, 4–​5, 9–​10, 19–​20n81, 25n120, 46, 51, 56–​58, 60, 62–​64, 74–​75, 80, 81–​83, 86–​87, Chapter 4 passim, 166–​67, 168, 169, 173, 178–​80, 181n250, 182, 186–​87, 188, 189, 190–​91, 192–​93, 195–​96, 197–​99, 201, 202, 203n393, 204, 205–​6, 208n423, 208–​9, 211, 214–​15, 216n466, 217, 218–​19, 221–​22, 237–​38, 245, 247, 248, 254, 255–​56, 257, 260, 262, 264–​65, 266, 267, 268–​69, 271–​73, 276, 307,  329–​30 righteousness, inherent, 6, 9–​10, 19–​ 20n81, 35–​36, 41–​42, 51, 54n132, 56–​ 58, 60, 61, 63–​64, 80n100, Chapter 4

passim, 160, 167, 171, 172, 173n182, 188, 190–​91, 192, 193–​95, 196, 197–​ 200, 201, 202–​3, 204, 205–​6, 208n423, 210–​11, 212, 215, 216–​17, 218–​19, 221–​22, 224, 232, 248, 252, 253, 254–​ 56, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 268–​69, 271–​72, 276, 277, 308, 331 sacraments, 97–​98n46, 107–​8, 181–​82, 275 sin, mortal, 41–​42, 124, 130, 176–​77, 184, 188–​89, 217, 253, 254 sin, remaining, 9–​10, 41–​42, 100–​1, 107–​8, 117–​18, 201, 217, 218, 253 triple justification, 129–​30, 131–​32, 143–​44,  228–​29 triple righteousness, 90n8, 91 trust/​confidence (fiducia), 63–​64, 67–​68, 74–​75n57, 86–​87, 96, 109–​10, 112–​ 13, 115, 116, 118–​19, 120, 136–​37, 156, 158, 160, 161–​65, 170–​72, 174, 177, 200, 201, 203–​11, 216, 218–​19, 221, 222–​23, 236–​37n619, 243, 249, 251, 257–​59, 263–​66, 285, 289, 293–​ 94, 298, 307, 315, 316, 317, 329 works, imperfection of, 35, 41–​42, 86–​87, 92–​93, 94, 99–​100, 103–​4, 109–​10, 127, 131–​32, 133–​34, 135–​37, 191, 200, 203–​4, 206–​8, 216, 217, 218, 230–​31, 253, 257–​58, 294, 299–​300, 317, 327 works, justification by, 24, 35–​36, 41–​42, 79–​80, 111–​12n138, 125–​26, 129–​33, 144–​45, 185–​86, 188, 212–​13, 226, 234, 235, 237–​38, 242, 253, 268–​69 works, justification of, 99–​100, 104–​5, 133–​37, 180, 191, 232 works, necessity of, 2–​3, 62–​63, 67–​68, 71–​72, 80n100, 92–​94, 157, 165, 169, 170–​71, 177, 184, 186, 217, 220, 225, 239–​41, 243–​45, 246, 257, 259–​60,  275–​76 works, testimony of, 205–​6, 207–​9, 211, 249, 251, 257–​59