A. Newman and Vermigli in Conversation
Chapter 5: A Comparison of Newman and Vermigli on the Doctrine of Justification
I.
A. Newman and Vermigli in Conversation
We have thus far recognized a combination of similarities and differences between Newman’s and Vermigli’s doctrine. With regard to similarities, we have noted that despite three centuries of distance, their doctrines of justification were motivated by similar concerns, such as the danger of meritorious works, cheap grace, and a proper relationship between forensic and actual righteousness. They also possess common theological commitments, notably an Augustinian harmartology, union with Christ, the need for a forensic imputation, the internal renewal of the Holy Spirit, and duplex iustitia. Most interesting and significant is the fact that the Catholic Newman maintains forensic imputation and that the Protestant Vermigli upholds the Spirit’s work of renewal, issuing forth in good works, under the rubric of justification. The term duplex iustitia has served as a way to describe these anomalies.
Furthermore, probing more deeply into their respective positions, we have also observed how Newman and Vermigli give attention to many of the same sources. They are both biblical exegetes, rock-ribbed in their commitment to the authority of Scripture. This is especially apparent in Vermigli’s work, where he explores Hebrew and Greek etymology.848 Of course, the genre of Martyr’s locus, embedded in his commentary on Romans, encourages such analyses. But it must be acknowledged that Newman is no exegetical slouch. Even though his Lectures were intended to be more systematic in their scope and sequence, he does not hesitate to examine the meaning of words in their biblical context.849
Also in the vein of similarities, Newman and Vermigli give considerable attention to non-biblical sources, particularly church fathers and councils.850 The outstanding difference in their use of these sources largely consists of Newman’s heavy reliance on the eastern fathers, his interaction with Luther, and his references to the Caroline Divines (who of course followed Vermigli by the better part of a century). While it is true that Vermigli’s doctrine of sola scriptura leads him to use the fathers and church councils largely as a means of supporting the authority of Scripture, he is, like Newman, concerned to prove his doctrine from the broader Christian tradition, that is, so long as Scripture is assigned the priority.851 When this order is confused, however, as Martyr perceived to be the case among his interlocutors, he objects in forceful terms. Thus, he clarifies, “We have certain adversaries who judge little or nothing at all on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, but measure all their religion by the Fathers and councils, so much that they can be called Patrologi instead of Theologi.”852 With regard to church councils, Vermigli asserts that they “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.”853 Newman would agree with this notion in principle, although he spends less time trying to chasten conciliar statements with the explicit teaching of Scripture.
For all of their similarities, Newman and Vermigli also have differences in their doctrines of justification. This is especially true concerning other sets of theological commitments and the conclusions that logically follow from them. Such commitments include the sacramental framework of justification and sola fide. The theological outworking of these commitments bring Newman and Vermigli to contrasting conclusions, most significantly on justification’s formal cause, on habitus, on the doctrine of perseverance, and on merit.
In this chapter we trace the lines of continuity and difference between Newman’s and Vermigli’s doctrines. We begin each section with Newman’s thought as a point of departure, since his position is relatively more complex, examining the essence of his thought on a given topic, before contrasting it with Vermigli’s position, followed by a brief summary. With such perspective, we will be poised to reflect on contemporary implications for dialogue at the Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestant intersection, which follows this chapter as an overall conclusion.