Abbreviations
Preface to the Fourth Edition
In a recent review of the burgeoning scholarship relating to the English Reformation, the historian Peter Marshall noted the challenge to ‘
maintain order and coherence in a large and untidy garden, alive with luxuriant foliage, periodic colorful blooms, and a smattering of undesirable weeds’
.
1
This image comes to mind in contemplating the expanding body of scholarly literature on the doctrine of justification which has appeared in the last twenty years, often focussing on specific individuals or historical periods. The challenge is to integrate these studies into an overall narrative, allowing them to be located within a larger picture, and thus positioning them within a grander story of reflection and development. Iustitia Dei
aims to distil, correlate and render coherent the findings of recent scholarship, and impose some order on what might otherwise seem chaotic and episodic. Some may feel that there is no overall coherence within this history. Perhaps this may prove to be true; it nevertheless remains useful to locate individual episodes within a larger narrative framework.
Iustitia Dei
was published in two volumes in 1986, and rapidly established itself as a benchmark for discussion of the doctrine, especially in the ecumenical dialogues of that era. In 1998, it was reissued in a new format, merging the two original volumes without substantial revisions, while adding some new material relating to developments in the twentieth century. Although designated a ‘
second edition’
, its new format did not allow for a thorough and detailed revision of the work. It was, however, clear that such a review was needed. A third edition followed in 2005, offering a limited revision of the original work in the light of some scholarly developments since the publication of the first edition in 1986.
By this stage intense scholarly interest in the field at every level was leading to significant reappraisals of the overall trajectory of the development of the doctrine, which would require more substantial revision of the work once something of a consensus had emerged. By 2014, it
seemed to me that sufficient scholarly stability had been established to enable a major reworking of this volume, including substantial updating of the material, and a review of the structure of the work to ensure that the issues were presented as helpfully as possible, including streamlining some more arcane discussions that slowed down the pace of the narrative. I am grateful to Cambridge University Press for their generosity in allowing such a substantial revision of this work over an extended period of time.
This fourth edition thus represents a complete reappraisal of every aspect of previous editions, including their structure and format. Those using this work for teaching purposes should thus ensure that they familiarise themselves with these structural and scholarly changes. My continuing engagement with both primary and secondary sources in this field convinced me of the need to rewrite the book, retaining what was clearly sound, reliable and useful to its readers, while correcting or modifying whatever was open to justified criticism.
The rapid pace of scholarly development in many areas –
such as the nature of
Pelagianism, or the extent of early Christian engagement with the Pauline corpus –
means that earlier editions of this work can no longer considered to be reliable in their judgements at points of importance, precisely because of such significant shifts in the scholarly consensus. Scholarship is moving at an accelerating speed, and it is doubtful whether any study of a theological theme or motif can now ever hope to be described as definitive.
Finally, I must again disappoint those who are hoping for a definitive pronouncement on what the word ‘
justification’
really means. This is a work of historical analysis, not of theological prescription. It does not attempt to define the concept of justification, but rather documents the various ways in which justification has been understood within the western theological tradition over two thousand years. That definitional task I gladly leave to others.
It is my pleasure to thank all those who have made this new edition possible, especially those who have read and commented on earlier versions of the work, but also those who have discussed its general themes with me. In particular, I wish to thank Henry Chadwick, M. D. Chenu OP, A. G. Dickens, Fergus Kerr OP, Anthony N. S. Lane, Oliver O’
Donovan, Cassian Reel OFMCap, E. G. Rupp, Beryl Smalley, Peter Southwell, Matthew J. Thomas, N. T.
Wright, E. J. Yarnold SJ and Adolar Zumkeller OESA for their comments and reflections over nearly forty years of reflection on these themes. I owe particular thanks to Cambridge University Press for being all that a good publisher should be. As always, I take full responsibility for any errors of fact or judgement that remain.