This is the second in a series of posts on Reginald Pole, Cardinal in the Catholic Church during the Reformations in Europe. His initial sympathies with the spirituali and their views of justification by faith were eclipsed by his allegiance to Rome and his duty to submit to the Tridentine decrees on justification. The Treatie of Justification was found among some of his writings after his death and has been attribute to him with various levels of skepticism. This post begins an analysis of this document.

Read Part 1 here.

---

Method and Influences in The Treatie of Justification

That the Treatie of Justification is scholastic in its orientation is of no particular concern, other than for those of authorship. The work is meticulously organized, as would be expected from a theological treatise of the day, appeals heavily to historical precedent, but also appeals to Scripture. The preface includes the overtly indicative need for the whole of the ensuing argument to be grounded in Scripture, or at least for it to be grounded in the traditional interpretation of the Scripture under the authority of the Church fathers, namely Augustine.(4) In fact, the author words the preface in such a way as to leave no doubt that he is prepared to offer the reader a theology of justification wholly within the traditional Roman Catholic view. If Pole did indeed author the work, this may indicate his adoption of Tridentine theology and is here attempting to distance himself from his former views.

The author seeks to provide a Via Regia as a third alternative to two dangerous interpretations of the Scriptural doctrine of justification. The first of these dangers is a Pelagian over-reliance on works, an attempt at justification without the help and grace of God. The second danger is a Lutheran over-reliance on the grace of God, an attempt at justification without the aid of good works. The proposed Via Regia, the “true and high way,” is subsequently expounded in three aspects: how the believer is made just and righteous; how the believer is restored to justice upon falling; and how the believer may finally attain to salvation and glory.

The Influence of Augustine

Given the heavy reliance on Augustinian precedent exhibited by A Treatie of Justification, some consideration of the Augustinian view is warranted. Let it first be noted that Augustine should not be read anachronistically as attempting to settle issues debated centuries after his death. However, his posthumous support can be, and is, claimed by Protestants and Catholics alike. He can certainly be credited with bringing the doctrine of justification into the fore of medieval theological dialogue and in many ways framed the boundaries of the discussion for such
of his theological posterity. His arguments can therefore be cited by both sides of the Sixteenth Century debate for support since so much can be read into and out of his words. Consider the following:

And so extreme gilt compelling them, they fled to faith. Whereby, they might deserve the mercie of pardone, and helpe of our Lorde, which made heaven and earth, that charitie being, through the holy Ghost powred in their hartes, they might doo with love those things, which were commanded against the concupiscenses and lustes of this world.(5)

An argument can be made for either the Roman Catholic or the various Protestant views from these words. The reason being that Augustine never intended for his words to be proof for a centuries later debate. Again, in a separate work, Augustine writes that the word “justify”(6) in Romans 2:13 (“the doers of the law shall be justified”) might mean “hold just” or “account just” in the sense of forensic imputation.(7) As a whole, Augustine’s theology of justification is largely understood to have included the idea of being made righteous rather than a solely forensic declaration.(8) For the Catholic tradition subsequent to Augustine, therefore, to be justified was to become a righteous person. It is upon this conclusion that the author of A Treatie of Justification seizes and builds his argument.

This is especially evident in the author’s argumentation “that faith excludeth not Charity in
our justification, that is to saie, Faith alone justifieth no man, without the help and woorking of
Charitie.”(9) Augustine similarly wrote that “no faith profiteth, but only that which the Apostle defineth: to wit, that, which woorketh through loove and Charitie: and that the same faith without woorkes, can save no man, either without fier, or by fier.”(10) Though neither were advocating a justification by charity alone, both were advocating a theology of justification (if indeed such nomenclature can be applied anachronistically to Augustine) in which justification includes the restoration of what was lost in Adam: love, faith, hope and all the ethical implications contained therein. Clearly, the modern and largely Protestant bifurcation of justification and sanctification was an alien concept to Augustine, and one rejected by Trent and therefore by the author of the Treatie of Justification.

---

4 A Treatie of Justification goes to often extraordinary lengths to link its argument with historical precedent, and especially with that of Augustine. Indeed, Augustine’s Of Faith and Workes is published together with the Treatie, along with the sections of Trent on justification. Augustine continues to play a large role in the discussion of justification and Roman Catholic and Protestant dialogue. For example, a Joint Ecumenical Commission on the Examination of the Sixteenth-Century Condemnations comprised of Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and even a few Reformed theologians produced The Condemnations of the Reformation Era (1986). The last of four principles of interpretation employed by the Commission in its discussions was, “When interpreting Trent, ‘in case of doubt, the view closest to Augustine must be preferred.’” Cited in Anthony N. S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 104.
5 Augustine, Of Faith and Workes (Farnborough, Hants., England: Gregg Press Limited, 1967 [1569 reprint]), 22. All quotations from this particular work by Augustine are from the version available to the author of this Treatie, which was also published together with it as an appendix.
6 At this point Augustine is infamously charged with ignorance of the Greek text. His understanding of the term was apparently based on the Latin iustificatio, rather than the Greek original dikaios.
7 Augustine, The Spirit and the Letter, 26:45; J. Burnaby (ed.), Augustine: Later Works. The Library of Christian Classics, vol. 8 (London: SCM Press, 1955) 228f.
8 Augustine’s The Spirit and the Letter appears to proclaim a doctrine of justification by faith, but in later Protestant terminology is more accurately a doctrine of sanctification by faith. See Lane, op. cit., 46.
9 Reginald Pole, A Treatie of Justification (Farnborough, Hants., England: Gregg Press Limited, 1967 [1569 reprint]), 36.
10 Augustine, op. cit., 24.

Popularity: 73% [?]

Catholicism, Ecclesiology, History, Soteriology | No Comments »

This is the first of a series of posts on Cardinal Reginald Pole, the theologically schizophrenic Catholic theologian during the 16th Century Reformation. He was initially sympathetic with the Reformational perspective of justification by faith alone, and was placed in a difficult position when the Pope called on him to convene the Council of Trent. The subsequent Tridentine decrees regarding justification forced him to choose between his soteriological positions and his loyalty to Rome. He chose the latter and eventually became Archbishop of Canterbury under Bloody Mary. He never wanted to have to clarify his views, and never wanted the spotlight or a position of leadership. These things were thrust upon him, and the result was a broken man. If only his soteriology had trumped his ecclesiology instead…

---

An uneasy and unsatisfied curiosity remains to the historians of Reginald Pole. At once resolute and timid, confident and diffident, deliberate and painfully reticent, Pole’s bewildering sojourn exhibits the complexity of themes, theologies, and personal pilgrimages that so plagued his conscience. These very inconsistencies, however, are what make Reginald Pole such an appealing subject for dissection. His life, career, and theology beg for a unity which so far has proven elusive to modern attempts at identifying a consistent unifying theme. One recent proposal is that Pole was a man of loyalty.(1) This is certainly true. But where did his loyalties lie and how did he reconcile opposing loyalties? And, perhaps most importantly, why? Pole was clearly a man of opposing loyalties. The crux of contemporary scholarship lies in the reasons for his choosing one loyalty over another. Indeed, this has become the foremost point of debate and the central theme for biographers.

Identifying Pole’s theology of justification in particular is a microcosm for the difficulty in understanding Pole in general. He was quite obviously reticent to express his views in written form, and did so only after much pressure from his superiors. The Tridentine statements on justification were overwhelmingly burdensome for the Cardinal, and both he and the Council grew increasingly unable to accept his nuanced positions. Neither side was satisfied with Pole and his constant reluctance to be assertive and unwavering. Eleven years after Pole’s death, a document entitled A Treatise of Justification (1568) and was attributed as having been “Founde among the writinges of Cardinal Pole.” The title page, nor anywhere else in the treatie, does not directly attribute the work to Pole’s authorship, but it clearly gives just such an impression.

The Treatie was unashamedly the offspring of Trent is its expression of the doctrine of justification. The title page indicates that the writings of Pole in which this work was found were actually “remaining in the custodie” of M. Henrie Pyning, the lately deceased secretary to the Cardinal. The clear implication is that it was intended to be received by the readership as a work of Pole, and to promote his deference to the Church of Rome over his former, and now condemned, views of justification.

Recent scholarship, however, has rightly questioned whether A Treatie of Justification was indeed authored by Pole. There would appear to be much circumstantial and critical evidence for this conclusion, the most obvious of which is that the work is not actually and directly attributed to him. Moreover, the form of the treatise is not typical for Pole in that it is overtly scholastic in its presentation as well as in its methodology.(2). It was more typical for Pole as a matter of both presentation and method, to be exegetical and to derive his argument primarily from the Scriptures. There are, however, several departures from the Tridentine theology of justification which, though not explicated at any length in the work itself, indicate some measure of uncomfortable discord with the Tridentine conclusions. It can reasonably be asserted, therefore, that although Pole possessed the work, it may not be directly attributable to his authorship with complete confidence.(3) However, attributing the authorship to Pole lends veracity to the notion that his ecclesiology did indeed trump his soteriology.

The work may be an expression of his fidelity to Rome, and therefore an explication of the aspects of the Tridentine theology of justification with which he agreed. One would not expect him to expound his now condemned perspectives on justification since his purpose may have been to illustrate his submission to Rome and not just an avoidance of the Inquisition. Incidentally, no reasonable theories have been proffered by those who tend toward the denial of the veracity of Pole’s authorship.

Be this as it may, the Treatie of Justification has not been adequately summarized and criticized in its relation to the Tridentine decrees, at least not in modern scholarship. This essay then, shall endeavor to provide a written comparison of the Treatie to the Tridentine soteriology, the question of authorship not withstanding. Though the various historians of Pole and Trent have their respective, and probably justified, conclusions on the dubious authorship of the Treatie, no significant work is in print which examines the content of the Treatie as its primary focus, even though such a comparison is not an overly burdensome task. This paper endeavors to meet that void.

---

1. Dermot Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the Counter Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 283 “. . . loyalty, in the end, was his most signal virtue.”

2. This reason is most persuasive according to both Fenlon, op. cit., 198, and also to J. Fischer, “Essai Historique sur les Idees Reformatrices Des Cardinaux Jean Pierre Carafa (1476–1559) et Reginald Pole (1500–58),” Ph. D. Diss. (Paris: University of Paris, 1957), 364 n53. Although Fischer rejects Pole’s authorship of the work, he does argue that his views of justification were in reality not different from those of the Council. Fenlon disagrees quite strongly with Fischer at this point.

3. Fenlon rightly argues that for this reason the Treatie on Justification is not directly helpful in elucidating Pole’s theology of justification. Fenlon then turns his attention to “certain positive indications that Pole [did alter] his ideas on justification, so as to bring them into line with the decision of the Council.” Clearly, by 1554 he had indeed adopted the Tridentine soteriological decrees.

Popularity: 89% [?]

Catholicism, Ecclesiology, History, Reformation, Soteriology | 1 Comment »

While surfing Early English Books Online (our library recently purchased perpetual access), I found this anonymous ballad on the resurrection of Christ penned somewhere between 1658 and 1664. I’ve retained the original punctuation and spelling, though I have converted the typeset to modern lettering. Have a blessed Easter Day!

A most Godly and Comfortable Ballad of the Glorious
Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, how he Triumphed over Death, and Hell and Sin,
whereby we are certainly perswaded of our Rising again from the Dead.
The tune is, Rogero.

What faithful froward sinful man,
so far from grace is fled;
That doth no in his heart believe
the rising of the Dead?
Or why do wicked mortal men,
their Lives so painly frame,
Which being dead they do suppose
they shall not rise again.

For why if that the dead indeed,
which now consuming lies,
Shall not by God be rais’d again,
then Christ did never rise:
And if so be our Saviour sweet,
did not rise from the death,
Our Preaching is of no effect,
and vain our hope on earth.

If Christ rose not again I say,
then are we yet in Sin,
And they that fall asleep in him,
no part of joy shall win:
Of all the Creatures Living then,
which God on earth did frame,
Most wretched are the states of men,
which spend there days in vain.

But Christ is risen up from death,
as it was right and meet,
And thereby trod down death and hell
and sin under his feet:
And that the same to simple men,
the plainer might appear,
The glorious rising of the Lord,
his word declareth clear.

When he within the Grave was laid,
the Jews did watch-men set,
Lest by his friends his Corps from thence
should secretly be fet:
A mighty stone likewise they did,
on his Sepulchre role;
And all for fear his body should
away from thence be stole.

But in the dead time of the night,
a mighty Earth-quake came,
The which did shake both Sea and Land
and all within the same:
And then the angel of the Lord
came down from heaven so high,
And rol’d away the mighty stone,
which on the ground did lye.

His face did shine like flaming fire,
his cloaths were white as Snow,
Which put the watch-men in great fear,
who ran away for woe;
And told unto the high priest plain,
what I do now rehearse,
Who hired them for money straight
that they would hold their peace.

And say quoth he his servants came,
whom he sometimes did keep,
And secreetly stole him away,
while ye were fast asleep;
And that Herod hear thereof,
we wil perswade him so,
That you shall find no hurt at all
wherever you do go.

But faithful Mary Magdalen,
and James here Brother too,
They brought great store of oyntment
as Jesus were wont to do;
Who rose up early in the morn
before that it was day,
The body of the Lord ‘t anoint,
in Grave whereas he lay.

And when unto the Grave they came;
they were in wondrous fear,
They saw a young-man in the same
but Christ they saw not there:
then said the Angel unto them
why are you so afraid?
The Lord whom you do seek I know
is risen up he said.

Then went these women both away
who told these tydings than,
To John & Peter who in hast
to the Sepulchre ran:
Who found it as the woman said,
and then away did go,
But Mary stayed weeping still,
whose tears declard her woe.

Who looking down into the grave
two angels there did see,
Quoth they why weeps this woman so,
even for my Lord quoth she:
And turning then her self aside
as she stood weeping so,
the Lord was standing at her back,
but him she did not know.

Why doth this woman weep he said,
whom seek’st thou in this place?
She thought it had the gardiner been,
and thus she inews her case
If thou hast born him hence she said
then tell me where he is
And for to fetcht him back again,
besure I will not miss.

What Mary then our Saviour said.
dost thou lament for me
O Master livest thou again
my soul doth joy in thee:
O Mary touch me not he said,
e’re I have been above,
Even with my God, the only God,
and Father whom we love.

And oftentimes did Christ appear,
to his disciples all;
But Thomas would not it believe
his faith it was so small
Except that he might thrust his hand
into the wound so deep
And put his finger where the sphear
did pierce his tender side.

Then Christ which know all secrets
to them again came he
Who siad to Thomas here I am
as plainly thou may’st se
See here the hands which nails did pierce
and holes are in my side
And be not faithless thou man
for whom these pains I bide.

Thus sundry times Christ shew’d himself
when he did rise again
And then desended into heaven
in glory for to reign
Where he prepares a place for those
whom he shall raise Likewise:
To live with him in heavenly bliss,
above the lofty Skies.

Popularity: 60% [?]

Poetry, Soteriology, Theology | 2 Comments »