H. Peter Martyr’s Locus on Justification
H. Peter Martyr’s Locus on Justification
Vermigli’s nearly six years in England were full and fruitful.201 He started to lecture on Romans in March 1550.202 According to Anderson, whose article, “Peter Martyr on Romans,” provides a general overview of the commentary’s scope and sequence, “Martyr viewed his lectures as a means of reforming the English Church.”203 Toward this end, Vermigli sought to expound the text and explain its theological implications by means of two theological loci: one on the doctrine of predestination204 and the other on justification.205 The latter of these, de iustificatione, will be the object of our attention for understanding Vermigli’s doctrine.206 We will focus here, rather than on the earlier loci from his Genesis and 1 Corinthians commentaries, because the Romans locus is his most extensive and mature treatment.207
The loci method, which was experiencing a revival in Martyr’s day, might be likened to a surgical procedure for its relatively narrow scope and logical precision.208 More than any other figure, Aristotle (384–22 BC) is credited for having popularized the approach, followed by Cicero (106–43 BC), who had himself first encountered it in the Philosopher’s Topica.209 This method also drew from the humanist tradition represented by the likes of Lorenzo Valla (1407–57), with its trenchant historical, grammatical, and rhetorical analysis.210 In Vermigli’s context, the writing of theological loci often amalgamated dialectical and rhetorical methodology.211 With regard to the former, it was a way to systematically focus argumentation by granting, denying, and admitting proof (concedo, nego, admitto casum). Concerning the latter, it brought the tools of exegesis to bear upon texts.
There is a long and significant debate on the relationship of scholastic and humanist methodology in Peter Martyr’s work, the origin of which is typically associated with Brian Armstrong’s portrait of Vermigli in his work, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy (1969).212 While an examination of the debate is outside the scope of this book, it bears mentioning. Armstrong argued that the Italian reformer, along with Theodore Beza and Girolamo Zanchi, modified the biblical vision of Calvin according to Aristotelian philosophy, resulting in a tradition of Reformed Scholasticism. It was nearly two decades until Richard Muller disputed Armstrong’s thesis as overly simplistic, particularly in regard to the portrait of Calvin as the chief codifier of Reformed theology (ignoring the collegial involvement of Bullinger, Musculus, Vermigli, et al.) and the apparent equation of Aristotelian categories with full-blown “scholasticism.”213
A few years before Muller’s critique, Donnelly appropriated much of Armstrong’s case, concluding that Vermigli was a “Calvinist Thomist.”214 On the other side of the spectrum from Donnelly was the position championed by Anderson, which stressed Vermigli’s humanist orientation.215 Between them is McLelland’s mediating position, which summarizes Vermigli’s method as a synthesis: “Pietro Martire Vermigli above all,” he contends, “provides a case study in the interaction between humanism and scholasticism. [He was] a Florentine who studied at Padua.”216 McLelland’s via media is the predominant view in contemporary Vermigli scholarship and the one that we find most convincing.217
The Romans lectures were presented between 1550 and 1552,218 but it was six years after their completion, in 1558, that the commentary was published. Unlike previous loci on justification, the polemic of this exposition manifests a serrated edge, the principle targets of which are Richard Smith, and, to an even greater extent, the Dutch Catholic theologian, Albert Pighius.219 Of these two interlocutors, Vermigli regards Pighius as far more serious,220 calling him the “Achilles of the Papists.”221
The other target of Vermigli’s locus is the Council of Trent and its Decree on Justification, which had been released just five years earlier.222 According to James, “The polemical tone in the Romans commentary should be seen against the larger backdrop of the Council of Trent.”223 Indeed, the thrust of Peter Martyr’s locus is aimed at defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone (contra Trent); at the same time, there is an ethical orientation to his doctrine that clearly distinguishes it from the teaching of Luther. In this respect, Vermigli was very much like his colleague, Martin Bucer. The words of Bucer’s biographer, Martin Greschat, on this point may be equally applied to Vermigli: “If Luther emphasized the unsurpassed importance of the sinner’s justification by God, Bucer stressed the intimate connection between justification and the gift of an ethically renewed better life all the more.”224 How exactly Vermigli held these two forms of righteousness together in the name of justification will be the central question of our next chapter.