The following comes from:
Anthony N. S. Lane, Regensburg Article 5 on Justification:
Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? (Oxford Studies in
Historical Theology; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 183-89
§4:5. Ita quod fides quidem iustificans est illa fides, quae est
efficax per caritatem [Gal 5:6].
Therefore the faith that truly justifies is that faith which is
effectual through love [Gal 5:6].
The sinner is justified “per fidem
vivam et efficacem” in §4:1. The significance of the last word is spelt out
here by the quotation of Galatians 5:6.
Gropper states
in his Enchiridion that justifying faith “is always effectual through
love,”262 and works through
love.263 The Worms
Draft §43 = Gropper’s Draft §4 also state that justifying faith “is
effectual and performs every good work through love.” The same thought appears
in Gropper’s Warhafftige Antwort.264 In
his Institutio Catholica Gropper argues that the only faith that justifies
is faith formed by love (fides informata charitate).265
Contarini also
argues in his Epistola that the faith which justifies is efficax per
charitatem and significantly sees this as equivalent to fides formata
per charitatem.266 In another
letter he again argues that a faith that is effectual through love (efficax
per charitatem) and that works through love (per dilectionem operatur)
(Gal 5:6) is equivalent to fides formata per charitatem, the difference
being that the word formata is found neither in Scripture nor in the
fathers, its origin being Aristotle, not the gospel.267
But Dittrich correctly notes that Contarini has in mind “not a
faith that is already before justification combined with caritas as an
act, but such a faith that is combined with caritas as a disposition (habitus)
after justification has taken place and comes in this disposition to its goal
and completion.”268 In the Scholia
Contarini states that “faith precedes the receiving of the Spirit, and love
(charitas) is that Spirit himself.”269
Eck’s Draft refers
to “this living and effectual faith,” the faith which according to Paul “works
through love,” noting that in the schools this is called a “formed faith” (fides
formata; §5). He later comments that Article 5 is acceptable if living
faith means a faith that works through love. Just as the body is dead without
the soul, so faith without love is dead and unformed (informis). So what
is said about faith in the article must be understood to refer to fides
formata— otherwise we have “the opinion of Melanchthon, not the Church.”270
According to Pflug’s notes, in the debates Eck had conceded that
“living and effectual (efficax) faith justifies.” This means that faith cannot
justify without the assistance of grace and of love. Faith is not “living and
effectual” before there is love, as is shown by 1 Corinthians 13.271
In his Enchiridion Eck states that in the usage of
Scripture, to believe in God includes “cleaving to God through love.”272
Bucer quotes this passage of Eck in his 1533 Furbereytung zum
Concilio to make the point that justification by faith does not mean
justification without love.273
Pighius,
unlike many of his fellow Catholics, acknowledged that the Protestants taught
that true saving faith is fruitful in good works, and is incompatible with
mortal sin. This implies a faith that is formed by love (fidem charitate
formatam), a faith that works through love (per dilectionem operatur).
He could not understand, therefore, why the Protestants could not embrace these
formulae.274 Pighius would
have applauded §4:5. The Tridentine Decree on Justification insists
that faith is ineffective unless hope and love are added to it (ch. 7, can.
11), but without using the words efficax or formata, in keeping
with the council’s aim to avoid technical language.
Neuser refers to §4:5 as “fully
Catholic and unacceptable to the Evangelicals.”275 In
this he is following the view of Erhard Schnepf at the colloquy. Schnepf
objected to the translation of Galatians 5:6 as “faith, which is effectual
through love,” rather than the “old” translation, “faith which works through
love.” His objection was that the new translation implies that faith receives
its power from love and therefore that it is love that turns faith into fides
formata, as the scholastics saw it. This is simply to support the ancient error
of the papists against which the Reformers had struggled for so long.276
Despite these reservations, the sentence is almost a quotation
from Calvin’s words of 1539: “we confess with Paul that no other faith
justifies except one that is effectual through love (charitate efficacem).”277
It is true that Calvin immediately proceeds to qualify this: “But
it does not take its power to justify from that working of love. Indeed, it
justifies in no other way but in that it leads us into fellowship with the
righteousness of Christ.” Substantially the same qualification is found in the
sentence that follows in Article 5 (§4:6). It must be conceded, however, that
this was not Calvin’s normal way of speaking. The idea of fides efficax comes
only this once in the Institutio and in response to Catholic teaching.
Thus this is something that Calvin conceded rather than chose to teach of his
own accord,278 but nonetheless
it is a (terminological) concession that he had already made in his Institutio
before the Regensburg Colloquy, and one that he did not withdraw after the
colloquy. He was more ready to refer to the need for faith to be “living”
(§4:1, 4) of his own accord,279 not just
when making a concession to an opponent, as in the passage quoted above.280
Bucer goes
further than Calvin and in his Psalms Commentary supports the teaching of
justification fide formata.281 He
returned to the issue after Regensburg, in his De vera . . . reconcilatione
et compositione. He objected to Aquinas’s view, based on the distinction
between fides informis and fides formata, that love is accidental
to faith and does not pertain to the substance of faith. He admits that the
conjunction between love and dead faith is accidental, but insists that
this conjunction is a natural one where true and living
faith is concerned. In other words,
there can be no true faith that is not conjoined with righteousness and other
virtues.282 Calvin opposed
the Catholic distinction between fides formata and fides informis,
but on the ground that an “unformed faith” is not worthy of the name faith.
Without godliness, fear of God, and godly affection there is no true faith.283
He objected to the idea that we are justified fide formata not
because he imagined that the faith that justifies can be “unformed” but because
it could be used to teach that it is the good works done in faith that justify.284
After the colloquy Bucer continued
to affirm that faith and love go together and that justification comes “with
the sort of faith that is active through love, unto all good works.”285
In his Warhafftige Antwort, however, Gropper affirmed
that justifying faith must be a living faith that is vigorous (krefftig)
through love, and stated that both before and after the colloquy Bucer had been
constrained to part company with his master Luther and accept that “we become
justified, pious, and blessed, not through a barren, workless faith, but
through a true living faith, that is active through love.”286
Bucer was annoyed by this “blatant falsehood . . . which [Gropper]
wrote in folio 41 of his deceitful (calumnioso) book,” namely that
Luther taught justification “through a faith that is barren and ineffectual for
good works,” and that the other Protestants were inclined to follow him. Bucer
insists that an examination of their writings will show that the Protestants
consistently teach that while it is only faith that justifies, justification
does not come through a faith that is stripped bare of the pursuit of good
works and is ineffectual for good works. Speaking for all Protestants he
affirms: “we preach always, eloquently and with a clear voice, that a faith
that is not conjoined with love, that is not involved in the pursuit of good
works, is not the real and living faith of the gospel, which makes us children
of God.”287
Melanchthon had
reservation about the use of the term efficax, as we have seen under
§4:1. In his Apology he attacks the scholastic concept of faith “formed by
love,” which he maintains leads to attributing justification to love alone (tantum
dilectioni).288 But this does not
prevent him from shortly afterwards affirming that justifying faith is faith
that is effectual through love (fides per dilectionem efficax), quoting
Galatians 5:6 slightly differently from here, but with the key word efficax.289
Melanchthon’s issue was not with the need of justifying faith to
be efficax but with the way in which the “other side” were interpreting
it. In other words, Melanchthon objected not to the actual content of §4:1, 5,
but to the way in which it was being (mis- ) interpreted, to its potential for
abuse. In fact, the next sentence clearly refutes such misinterpretations. Our
acceptance and reconciliation are “not on account of the worthiness or
perfection of the righteousness communicated to us in Christ,” that is, not on
the basis of an infused disposition of love. Rather, faith justifies not by
being meritorious or giving birth to merit but because “it appropriates the
mercy and righteousness which is imputed to us on account of Christ and his
merit” (§4:6).290
Luther took
exception to this sentence. He claimed that the two ideas of justification by
faith alone without works (Rom 3) and faith working through love (Gal 5) had
been thrown together and glued together (“zu samen gereymet und geleymet”).
This is like sewing a new patch onto an old garment (Matt 9).291
Yet elsewhere, in his debate with Melancthon, he states bluntly
that “faith is effectual, otherwise it is not faith.”292
What is Luther’s concern? He
distinguishes between two questions: how we become righteous and how the
righteous should live. Galatians 5:6, he states, is about the latter, not the
former.293 This point is
explained fully in his 1535 Commentary on Galatians 5:6. Luther rejects the
claims of his opponents that the verse teaches that faith justifies through
love or that faith makes us acceptable through love. This he denies, together
with the idea that it is love that makes us acceptable. Luther is very happy
with, and affirms, the idea of faith working through love as a description of
“how the righteous should live.” What he rejects vehemently is the idea that
love has a role to play in “how we become righteous.” Paul “says that works are
done on the basis of faith through love, not that a man is justified through
love.” He represents Paul as stating that “It is true that faith alone
justifies, without works; but I am speaking about genuine faith, which, after
it has justified, will not go to sleep but is active through love.”294
The same distinction between the two questions comes elsewhere in
the commentary. Thus he insists that Galatians 2:16 is not about how we should
live but about how we are justified. The answer to that question is “solely by
faith in Christ, not by works of the Law or by love.” We are justified by faith
alone, “without love and before love,” not by faith formed by love.295
So what is Luther’s problem with this
sentence? He claims that Article 5 teaches that we are justified not by faith
alone but also through works or through love and grace, which the Catholics
call inherent. This is false because before God only Christ is completely pure
and holy.296 But is Luther’s interpretation
fair to the article? Taking this sentence out of context it would appear to be
fair, but not if we take §4:3– 5 as a whole. Living faith appropriates mercy
and imputed righteousness in Christ and also receives the Holy Spirit, who
infuses love. Justifying faith is “that faith which is effectual through love”
not because the love and good works play a role in appropriating justification but
because they are gifts received at the same time as justification. Luther’s
accusation is unfair. Von Loewenich rightly observes that Luther has “grossly
misinterpreted” Article 5 on this point.297 Why
would he have done that? He was writing at a time when Eck was verbally
claiming that the article teaches justification by love. It is in the light of
that claim that Luther makes the charges that he does. But when he comes to
write on Article 5, Eck takes a very different line, branding it as a harmful,
maimed, mutilated, infantile declaration. Eck’s earlier verbal claim is not be
understood as a serious exposition of what Article 5 actually teaches, but as
Eck’s attempt to defend that fact that he had given his assent to it.298
It is unfortunate that this gross misrepresentation of Article 5
stoked the fears of some Protestants then and is still taken seriously today by
people who ought instead to look carefully at what the article actually
teaches.
At the Worms Colloquy the theologians
of electoral Brandenburg in a report/opinion (Gutachten) commented that
the scholastic term fides formata presupposes the understanding of faith
as a mere notion (notitia) so that love (called justifying grace) is our
formal righteousness. When the Augsburg Confession states that we are justified
freely by faith, it means not a mere notion but the work of the Spirit
regenerating and sanctifying people. This faith is not without virtues, and it
cannot coexist with mortal sin.299 The same day
(15 December) the theologians of electoral Palatinate used a briefer version of
this in a report.300 That saving faith
cannot coexist with mortal sin is taught in the Apology,301
and reiterated in Articles 6 and 20 of the 1540 variata secunda
of the Augsburg Confession.302 Luther affirmed
the same in his 1535 Lectures on Galatians.303
Lexutt expresses surprise that the
article dispenses with the sola fide formula, and suggests that this
might be because to use it in conjunction with the efficax per caritatem formula
is to pervert the Reformation understanding of sola.304
Leaving aside the fact that the article does give
(qualified) approval of sola fide in §10, Bucer and Calvin clearly did
not think that they were perverting the Reformation understanding when they
insisted that justifying faith is efficax per caritatem. Zur Mühlen,
more perceptively, argues that the juxtaposition of §§4:5 and 4:6 met the
requirements of both sides, but left open the question of how fides efficax
per caritatem was to be reconciled with the imputation of righteousness on
account of Christ and his merit.305
Notes
for the Above:
262 Enchiridion, 172b; cf.
176a.
263 Enchiridion, 122a, 173b,
174b.
264 Warhafftige Antwort, 41b,
drawing on the earlier Artikell (9b).
265 Institutio Catholica, 554.
266 CC 7:29; cf. 33.
267 Contarini to an unnamed cardinal
(22 July) in Brieger, “Zur Correspondenz Contarini’s während seiner deutschen
Legation,” 517– 18. Summary in Regesten, 218. Also in Beccadelli, Monumenti
di Varia Letteratura I/ 2, 187. In his Scholia on Col 2:2– 7,
Contarini states that “fides inchoat, et charitas perficit hoc spirituale
aedificium” (Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera, 499A). See also
Pauselli, “Note sugli Scholia di Gasparo Contarini ad Efesini e Galati,”
141– 42.
268 Dittrich, Gasparo Contarini,
654, cf. 675. Cf. Rückert, Die theologische Entwicklung Gasparo Contarinis,
83: justifying faith leads to love, “aber das geschieht erst in der
Rechtfertigung selbst; soweit also der Glaube auf sie vorbereitet, ist er ohne
Liebe.”
269 Gasparis Contareni Cardinalis
Opera, 481A, on Galatians 5:22– 26. The text has spiritus, not Spiritus.
270
Eck, Responsum in Dittrich (ed.), “Miscellanea Ratisbonensia,” 14;
Pollet, “Die Lehre der Rechtfertigung in den unedierten Werken von Julius
Pflug,” 69; ADRG 3/ I:577. In his December 1540 report/ opinion on the Augsburg
Confession, he affirms that the living faith that justifies “per
dilectionem operatur” (ARC 3:307; ADRG
2/ I:541).
271 ADRG 3/ I:84.
272 Enchiridion locorum communium
adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae, ed. Fraenkel, 98; ET: Eck, Enchiridion
of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church, 59.
273 Furbereytung zum Concilio,
D1a.
274 From the manuscript of his De
nostrae salutis et redemptionis mysterio et quibus modis gratiam iustificationis
assequimur contra Confessionis Augustanae auctores vera et catholica assertio (complete
by March 1540), as cited by Jedin, Studien über die Schriftstellertätigkeit
Albert Pigges, 103.
275
Neuser, “Calvins Urteil über den Rechtfertigungsartikel des Regensburger
Buches,” 187.
276 ADRG 3/ II:514.
277 Institutio 3:11:20.
278 In the French translation
“charitate efficacem” becomes “conoincte avec charité.” But this might simply
be due to Calvin’s practice of minimising technical language in his French
translations.
279 Institutio 3:2:42; 3:14:8.
280 At n. 277 above.
281 S. Psalmorum Libri Quinque ad
Ebraicam Veritatem Versi, et Familiari Explanatione Elucidati (1529), 28a–
29a. In the next edition there are changes in wording, but the support for fide
formata remains (Sacrorum Psalmorum Libri Quinque, ad Ebraicam Veritatem
Genuina Versione in Latinum Traducti (1532), 21a– b). See further on this
under §10, below.
282
DVRC, 140a. I am not aware that Bucer ever cites Gal 5:6 in this work.
283 Institutio 3:2:8– 10.
284 Institutio 3:15:7.
285 Wie leicht unnd füglich,
16– 17, 138. Cf. Bestendige Verantwortung, 46a; Constans Defensio,
94.
286 Warhafftige Antwort, 24b,
41b, echoing Bucer as quoted in the previous footnote.
287 De concilio, sigs. o4b–
p1a; cf. p2b– 3a. Similarly Von den einigen rechten wegen, 89.
288 BSELK 313, 315; Kolb and Wengert
138 (4:109).
289
BSELK 315; Kolb and Wengert 139 (4:111).
290 Brieger, De Formulae Concordiae
Ratisbonensis Origine atque Indole, 24– 33, likewise interprets the efficax
of §4:1, 5 in the light of §4:2, 4, 6 and concludes that despite some of
the language used, §4 is in full harmony with Evangelical doctrine.
291 Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann
Friedrich (10/ 11 May) in WA Br. 9:407– 408; ADRG 3/ I:170.
292 Bindseil (ed.), Philippi
Melanchthonis Epistolae, Iudicia, Consilia, Testimonia aliorumque ad eum
Epistolae quae in Corpore Reformatorum desiderantur, 347; WA Br. 12:193. On
this debate, see Chapter 4, above, n. 23.
293 Bindseil (ed.), Philippi
Melanchthonis Epistolae, Iudicia, Consilia, Testimonia aliorumque ad
eum Epistolae quae in Corpore
Reformatorum desiderantur, 347; WA Br. 12:193.
294
WA 40/ 2:34– 39; LW 27:28– 31.
295 WA 40/ 1:239– 40; LW 26:137.
296 Luther and Bugenhagen to Johann
Friedrich (10/ 11 May) in WA Br. 9:407– 408; ADRG 3/ I:170.
297 Von Loewenich, Duplex Iustitia:
Luthers Stellung zu einer Unionsformel des 16. Jahrhunderts, 49.
298 See chapter 2, above, at n. 72.
299 ARC 3:321– 22; ADRG 2/ I:545.
Earlier published in Lipgens, “Theologischer Standort fürstlicher Räte im
sechzehnten Jahrhundert,” 47– 48. On this see zur Mühlen, “Die Edition der Akten
und Berichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau und Worms 1540/ 41,” 60– 61.
300 ARC 3:323; ADRG 2/ I:549. Earlier
published in Lipgens, “Theologischer Standort fürstlicher Räte im sechzehnten
Jahrhundert,” 49. On this see zur Mühlen, “Die Edition der Akten und Berichte der
Religionsgespräche von Hagenau und Worms 1540/ 41,” 61.
301 BSELK 295, 315, 325; Kolb and
Wengert 131, 139, 142– 43 (4:64, 115, 143– 44).
302 BSELK QuM1:126, 137.
303 WA 40/ 2:34– 35; LW 27:28.
304 Lexutt, Rechtfertigung im
Gespräch, 253– 54.
305 Zur Mühlen, “Die Einigung über den
Rechtfertigungsartikel auf dem Regensburger Religionsgespräch,” 342– 43.
Similarly, zur Mühlen, “ ‘Die Gemeinsame Erklärung zur Rechtfertigung 1997’ im
Lichte der Religionsgespräche von Hagenau, Worms und Regensburg 1540/ 41,” 97.
