F. Vermigh’s Doctrine of Justification
F. Vermigh’s Doctrine of Justification
Only a modest amount of attention has been dedicated to Peter Martyr’s doctrine of justification. Charles Schmidt, writing in the mid-nineteenth century, was among the first modern scholars to pay heed to it.128 While Schmidt’s treatment is general, he elucidates Vermigh’s commitment to upholding the renewing work of the Spirit when he quotes the Italian reformer, “This doctrine [of justification] is the beginning, source and support of all piety.”129 More focused by comparison is the work of McNair, which evaluates Vermigh’s doctrine from various encounters on the Italian peninsula, particularly with Juan de Valdés and members of the Italian Spirituali such as Contarini.130 McNair argues that it was in this context that Peter Martyr originally accepted sola fide.131 In fact, according to McNair, not only did Vermigh embrace the idea, he proceeded to teach it publicly in the city of Lucca.132
While most of McLelland’s research has focused on Vermigh’s sacramental theology, he has argued that Vermigh’s view of justification properly revolves around the notion of union with Christ:133 “There is no doubt that this doctrine of union with Christ is the dynamic of Peter Martyr’s theology.”134 In keeping with this emphasis, McLelland identifies in Vermigh’s understanding of justification a two-fold righteousness in which an initial forensic declaration of imputed righteousness is its primary characteristic, followed by a “second righteousness” consisting of the sanctifying work of the Spirit.135
Klaus Sturm proposes a similar portrait of two-fold righteousness in his treatment of Peter Martyr’s theology during the Italian’s first stay in Strasbourg (1542–47).136 Sturm’s work represents the only thoroughgoing analysis of Vermigh’s doctrine of justification from this period, particularly from his Genesis commentary.137 Sturm argues that on account of Vermigh’s upbringing in the Roman Church, “Martyr’s soteriology, ecclesiastically developed, certainly has a distinct affinity for the basic ideas of Catholicism.”138 In fact, Sturm goes so far as to label Vermigh a “Reformkatholic” for the way he orients internal renewal under the aegis of justification.139 With regard to this position, Sturm acknowledges that Martyr flatly repudiated the sort of two-fold righteousness that posits two correlative causes. Thus he writes, “Martyr expressly rejected this opinion in order to categorically avoid relativizing Christ’s righteousness appropriated in faith, which God imputes for forgiveness of sins and to admit only one causa for justification: the mercy of God.”140 However, Sturm suggests that Vermigh maintained another sort of double righteousness, such that “in the final analysis . . . Martyr’s doctrine of justification concurs with that of Contarini.”141 So Catholic-friendly was his view, according to Sturm, that it is “difficult to determine whether Martyr’s doctrine of justification would be justifiably condemned on the basis of Trent’s canons on justification.”142 Our next chapter will examine whether this is in fact true.
Marvin Anderson briefly analyzes Vermigh’s doctrine of justification in two articles, the substance of which also appears in his book, Peter Martyr, a Reformer in Exile.143 Anderson’s main contribution lies in identifying the patristic sources that undergird Vermigh’s doctrine. Among his observations, he notes how Vermigh lines up numerous church fathers to support the notion of sola fide, especially Augustine and Chrysostom.144 Anderson also emphasizes the pastoral thrust of Vermigh’s doctrine of justification, which Anderson describes as “the gateway to a new life in Christ.”145 Finally, it is worth noting that Anderson locates Peter Martyr’s doctrine of justification, particularly as it is expressed in his Romans commentary (1558), “as part of a conciliatory genre originating with Contarini, Cortese, Pole, Sadoleto, Seripando and other Paulinians of Sixteenth Century Italy.”146 This is consistent with the conclusions of our research.
Another treatment of Peter Martyr’s doctrine of justification is found in Donnelly’s book, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigh’s Doctrine of Man and Grace.147 Concentrating exclusively on the Romans locus (instead of the smaller and less mature loci on justification from Martyr’s Genesis and 1 Corinthians commentaries), Donnelly recognizes that “the doctrine of justification by faith alone is crucial for Martyr as for all the Reformers.”148 As the title of his monograph suggests, Donnelly is especially interested in analyzing the scholastic elements of Vermigh’s doctrine.149 In keeping with his overall thesis that Vermigh was a “Calvinist Thomist,”150 Donnelly argues that Vermigh repudiated the Protestant doctrines of simul iustus et peccator,151 perseverance of the Saints,152 and irresistible grace, since he does not use the terminology.153 However, James points out that Vermigh, like Calvin, maintains these doctrinal concepts, even though he does not employ the nomenclature.154
It is noteworthy that Donnelly agrees with McLelland’s thesis that Vermigh closely aligned the doctrines of justification and union with Christ.155 In this connection, Donnelly recognizes in Peter Martyr’s thought the distinctively Protestant doctrine of “imputed justice,” while also observing a “second inherent justice.”156 Because this second form of righteousness, expressed through good works, fails to meet the divine standard of justice, it is buttressed by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. On account of this distinction, Donnelly acknowledges that, “In teaching a second justice or sanctification, Martyr fits easily into the mainstream of Protestant tradition.”157 On the other hand, because he reads Vermigh as rejecting simul iustus et peccator, perseverance, and irresistible grace, Donnelly regards his doctrine as retaining “many Catholic nuances which Luther and Calvin left behind.”158
James has dedicated the greatest amount of attention to Peter Martyr’s doctrine of justification. His doctoral dissertation, “De Iustificatione: The Evolution of Peter Martyr Vermigh’s Doctrine of Justification,” shines a floodlight onto a relatively obscure subject. 159 He meticulously examines the development of Peter Martyr’s thought on justification from Naples into the subsequent stages of his life and ministry by analysing Peter Martyr’s three main writings on the topic (the loci from his commentaries on Genesis, 1 Corinthians, and Romans).160 As a result, he demonstrates that Vermigh’s doctrine underwent a maturation process that mirrored the trajectory of other Protestant theologians.161
Throughout his investigation, James acknowledges that Vermigh’s conception of justification owed much to the lessons he had learned in Naples. However, we will, in the next chapter, go further than James in order to maintain that Vermigh’s Neapolitan influence not only established the foundation of Martyr’s doctrine, but also continued to define its shape into its most mature form. Since James affirms the former but denies the latter, this is an appropriate place to establish our fundamental agreement on the preparatory role of Martyr’s Italian background before examining our disagreement over its abiding significance.
Underscoring the Protestant character of Martyr’s position before his exile, James rightly asserts,
The moment Vermigh embraced the doctrine of justification in Naples, his fate was sealed. . . . It also led him to a career as a Protestant theologian and staunch advocate of the doctrine he described as the “head, fountain and summit of all piety.”162
James also describes Vermigh’s view of the sacraments before his departure from Italy.
By the time of his Priorate in Lucca, [Martyr] evinced a Protestanthke soteriology and had probably rejected a traditional view of the sacraments, yet he was unwilling to abandon the Catholic Church, that is, until compelled by the Roman Inquisition.163
A final quotation from James on this point underscores the “unanimity” and “general consensus” of scholars on the question of whether the fundamental form of Vermigh’s theology was established before he crossed the Alps.
Virtually all the research of the last twenty-five years, despite differences of interpretation, have [sic] reached unanimity on one question, namely, that Vermigh’s theology was fundamentally formed before he apostatized from Italy. . . . There has been also a general consensus that, ever since Naples, he had embraced a Protestant-inspired doctrine of justification by faith alone.164
By “theology,” in this context, James refers specifically to Martyr’s doctrine of the Eucharist and the authority of Scripture. On the question of how Vermigh’s mature doctrine of justification resembled his Neapolitan beginnings, for which, as James notes, there is a “general consensus,” we shall argue that the logic of Vermigh’s position was properly grounded in a two-fold righteousness.