Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? by Anthony N. S. Lane

Abstract

Reviewed by: Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? by Anthony N. S. Lane Suzanne Hequet Regensburg Article 5 on Justification: Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? By Anthony N. S. Lane. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. 370 pp. The title presents readers of Regensburg Article 5 with a dichotomy. The author's work validates Calvin's view that the article is the substance of true doctrine, rather than an inconsistent patchwork, a comment attributed to Luther (1). This work, the product of almost twenty years of research, is fully footnoted. It includes an appendix with drafts of Article 5 from Worms, Melanchthon, Eck, Gropper, and the final version. All but the Worms draft appear in two columns, with the Latin to the left and English to the right (279–333). It also includes a glossary of Latin terms, a bibliography, and index (335–370). Chapter one focuses on historical context, summarizing the background and theological perspectives of the six collocutors (Protestants Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius, and Roman Catholics Gropper, Eck, and Pflug). Also included are the positions of Contarini, Calvin, and Pighius (13–22). After his summary of meetings leading up to and including the 1541 colloquy, Lane highlights the importance of the compromise reached on justification in the fifth article, but notes "the joy and the hope engendered were to be short-lived" (30). The second chapter reviews reactions to Article 5. As word spread beyond Regensburg, Elector John Frederick rejected the article, saying it obscured scripture and would lead to greater error (38). The pope neither approved nor disapproved, but his problem with Article 5 was ambiguity not unorthodoxy (52). "On all sides conciliation gave way to recrimination as the participants published works focused not on the limited agreement reached but on the reasons for the failure of the colloquy" (33). Debates following the collapse of the colloquy are summarized in chapter three. Thereafter, a second brief colloquy in 1546 in Regensburg set the stage for discussions on justification at the Council of Trent, where the eventual decree "was firmly anti-Lutheran" (85). [End Page 363] Foundational to Lane's analysis of Article 5 are his definitions for duplex iustitia in chapter four. He traces the roots of this term (89), arguing that definitions of and the differences between double righteousness and double justification are key to understanding duplex iustitia. The uses of double righteousness—inherent and imputed—are traced in the writings of Pighius, Calvin, Bucer, Gropper, and Melanchthon (95–105). A further distinction is made between the doctrine of duplex iustitia and the terminology of duplex iustitia (author's italics, 106). Lane argues inherent and imputed righteousness are held together in the article, even though the term duplex iustitia does not appear (106). Nevertheless, Protestants and Roman Catholics did not agree on the formula of duplex iustitia as embraced in the article. "For Protestants, soteriology was primary, and ecclesiology secondary; for the Catholics, the reverse was true" (107). The second half of chapter four focuses on double justification, as distinct from double righteousness, with Lane noting that, unfortunately, much modern scholarship confuses duplex iustitia with double justification (129). Lane concludes that while an earlier attempt in the Worms Draft taught two justifications, the final draft of Article 5 "confines itself to affirming a double righteousness, imputed and inherent, not a double justification" (145). Chapter five is a phrase-by-phrase analysis of the article, interspersed with Lane's comments on inherent and imputed righteousness in writings of the 1541 collocutors, Contarini, Calvin, Luther, and Pighius. The views of modern scholars are interwoven here. Lane's work is thorough and detailed, leaving readers room to evaluate his assertions. In the final chapter Lane concludes, "… from the perspective of a Reformation theology of justification, Article 5 does indeed contain the substance of true doctrine" (273). Lane's assertion is true if, as the subtitle implies, Article 5 can be understood in only one of two ways—an inconsistent patchwork or the substance of true doctrine. Unfortunately, Lane does not address the third option—that of ambiguity as mentioned in chapter two (52). This leaves open the key question of whether...