A. Theological Contours of Vermigli’s Doctrine of Justification
Chapter 2: Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Doctrine of Justification
A. Theological Contours of Vermigli’s Doctrine of Justification
Having considered the historical background to Vermigli’s doctrine of justification, we will now evaluate its theological content. The primary source for our study (among Martyr’s other works) is his justification locus from his Romans commentary, which appears at the conclusion of its eleventh chapter.228 In contradiction of the Roman position (as represented by Vermigli’s interlocutors), Martyr presents a classic Protestant doctrine which defines the formal cause of justification in the strict sense of a legal pronouncement grounded in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.229 In making this case, Vermigli employs forensic terminology to underscore that the basis of justification belongs to the legal domain.230 At the same time, he uses the language of justification to describe the renewal of sinners by the Holy Spirit resulting in a disposition (habitus) of righteousness.231 In defending his position, Martyr’s Romans locus on justification unfolds three propositions: (1) It is not by works, (2) It is by faith, and (3) It is by faith alone.232
Vermigli’s doctrine posits forensic “justification” as a punctiliar event—an act in which God declares a sinner to be righteous. He also uses the language of justification to describe an ongoing process of sanctification. It must be noted, however, that this secondary sense is properly distinguished from the forensic use of the word, which is primary. With both of these in view, justification involves a two-fold righteousness that is forensic and also moral.233 With regard to the former, Martyr speaks in eschatological terms, explaining how God’s end-time judgment is currently rendered in the lives of his children.234 The basis of this declaration is solely the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.235 Regarding the latter, there is an ongoing need for the moral chaos of sin to be reformed in sanctification.236 For Vermigli, it is not sufficient to simply speak of forensic justification without also connecting it to the Holy Spirit’s work of renewal. He thus recognizes “two meanings of the phrase ‘to justify,’ namely, in fact or in judgment or estimation.”237
In reading Martyr’s Romans locus, it is not long before one recognizes a confrontation with what he regards as “Pelagianism” in the Roman Church.238 Donnelly takes issue with this critique and suggests that Martyr’s portrait of Trent creates a “straw man.”239 As Frank James points out, however, “For an Augustinian like Vermigli, whose most basic theological presupposition was that all humanity after Adam’s fall is massa perditionis (a mass of perdition), Pelagianism was intolerable.”240 Furthermore, for Vermigli, the “Pelagian” problem also posed a pastoral threat:
Certainly no one understands except those who have experienced how difficult it is for a bruised heart, dejected and weary with the burden of sins to find comfort. . . . If we, like the Sophists, commanded a person to have regard for his own works, then he would never find comfort, would always be tormented, always in doubt of his salvation and finally, be swallowed up with desperation.241
It is not necessary to repeat here the careful explication of others. James, in his doctoral dissertation, “De Iustificatione: The Evolution of Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Doctrine of Justification,” traces the main lines of Martyr’s doctrine through the development of his Protestant career.242 He analyses Vermigli’s three primary writings on the subject—loci on justification from his commentaries on Genesis (1542–47), 1 Corinthians (1548–49), and Romans (1550–52),243 showing how his doctrine underwent a maturation process. James reveals how Vermigli covered essentially the same theological ground in each locus, with successive editions providing further detail and support.244 None of these developments, however, changed the essence of Vermigli’s position.
Vermigli’s doctrine draws deeply from the well of Scripture. In keeping with the sola scriptura principle of Protestantism, he appeals to the Bible as his final authority.245 Support from the church fathers and councils only carry weight insofar as they accord with Scripture. Speaking of the councils, for instance, he writes, “[T]hey should not be heard without selectivity and judgment. We ought to receive and reverence only those councils which have kept their doctrine within the rule of Holy Scriptures.”246 The council that occupies the lion’s share of Vermigli’s attention is naturally the Council of Trent (1545–63). What begins on an irenic note immediately changes to a sharp critique: “There those good holy fathers, that is, hirelings of the pope . . . .”247 The polemic that follows unleashes an array of arguments around five basic topics: the priority of grace over works,248 the efficacious nature of the Spirit’s renewal of the heart,249 opposition to a general grace which is supposedly accessible to all,250 the causes of justification,251 and the certainty that God delivers on his promises—the doctrine of assurance.252 The aggregate of these critiques amounts to Martyr’s overall argument against the notion that one “can merit and prepare for justification.”253 The following analysis will consider how these elements fit together.