Reactions to Article 5

This chapter sets out the reactions to Article 5. It starts with contemporary Protestant reactions, focusing especially on Luther, Calvin, and Melanchthon. This section includes an account of all the Protestant objections, which are considered in the remainder of the book. Catholic reactions include Contarini, Eck, Gropper, Pflug, and Pighius, as well as reactions from Rome. The views of Sadolet and (especially) Pole are also considered. The chapter concludes with an account of modern assessments of the article, especially by Protestants. There is a stark contrast between the more positive assessment of Peter Matheson, for example, and the very negative approach of much German scholarship, as with Athena Lexutt.

Introduction

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

Text and Commentary

This chapter contains the Latin text of Article 5, together with a sentence by sentence commentary. This commentary draws upon the six debaters (Bucer, Melanchthon, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, Pflug), together with Contarini, Calvin, Luther and Pighius. The chapter also compares Article 5 with the Tridentine Decree on Justification. The conclusion asks to what extent Article 5 can be said to retain “the substance of the true doctrine,” from the perspective of either the Protestant or the Catholic party. This flags a number of issues which need to be resolved in the concluding chapter.

The Regensburg Colloquy

This chapter places Article 5 in its wider context. First it considers the colloquies prior to Regensburg. Then it describes the Regensburg Colloquy prior to Article 5, focusing especially on the participants in the debates (Bucer, Melanchthon, Pistorius, Gropper, Eck, Pflug), as well as those who were also present at the Diet (Contarini, Pighius, Calvin). The heart of the chapter is an examination of the process leading to the writing of Article 5, so far as can be ascertained from the brief accounts that we have, together with a description of the various earlier drafts, the texts of which are to be found in the Appendix. Finally, there is a brief account of the further progress and dissolution of the colloquy.

Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine?

This chapter aims to resolve the question posed in the title: is Article 5 an inconsistent patchwork or does it retain the substance of true doctrine? A number of issues are considered: doctrines that have not been covered, ambiguities, duplex iustitia, reliance upon the testimony of works, the nature of justifying faith, and the role of fiducia. Then the initial question is asked in turn of Melanchthon, Bucer, Calvin, Contarini, Gropper, and Pflug. The conclusion is that the article does retain the substance of true [Protestant] doctrine. Then it was asked why many Protestants did not recognise this. The article is also assessed from the perspective of the differing concerns underlying Protestant and Catholic doctrines of justification. 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.

Double Righteousness and Double Justification

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

After Regensburg

This chapter sets out the ongoing debates over justification in the aftermath of Article 5. From 1541 to 1543 Bucer engaged in a literary controversy over the article with Eck and Pighius. There followed the controversy surrounding the attempted Cologne Reformation, in which Bucer (and to a lesser extent Melanchthon) engaged in a literary exchange with Gropper especially. This involved disputes about the events surrounding Article 5, as well as the theological issues arising from it, such as twofold righteousness and imputed righteousness. Gropper also had to respond to criticisms from the Leuven theology faculty. Gropper continued to hold the ideas he had embraced at Regensburg in the final months of his life. There was a second colloquy of Regensburg, in 1546, also involving Bucer, which involved discussion of Article 5. Finally, the Tridentine Decree on Justification rejected the ideas of twofold righteousness and imputed righteousness.