Martin Bucer has usually been portrayed as a diplomat who attempted to reconcile divergent theological views, sometimes at any cost, or as a pragmatic pastor who was more concerned with ethics than theology. These representations have led to the view that Bucer was a theological light-weight, rightly placed in the shadow of Luther and Calvin. This book makes a different argument.Bucer was an ecclesial diplomat and a pragmatic pastor, yet his ecclesial and practical approaches to reforming the Church were guided by coherent theological convictions. Central to his theology was his understanding of the doctrine of justification, an understanding that Brian Lugioyo argues has an integrity of its own, though it has been imprecisely represented as intentionally conciliatory. It was this solid doctrine that guided Bucer's irenicism and acted as a foundation for his entrance into discussions with Catholics between 1539 and 1541. Lugioyo demonstrates that Bucer was consistent in his approach and did not sacrifice his theological convictions for ecclesial expediency. Indeed his understanding was an accepted evangelical perspective on justification, one to be commended along with those of Luther and Calvin.

Martin Bucer has usually been portrayed as a diplomat who attempted to reconcile divergent theological views, sometimes at any cost, or as a pragmatic pastor who was more concerned with ethics than theology. These representations have led to the view that Bucer was a theological light-weight, rightly placed in the shadow of Luther and Calvin. This book makes a different argument. Bucer was an ecclesial diplomat and a pragmatic pastor, yet his ecclesial and practical approaches to reforming the Church were guided by coherent theological convictions. Central to his theology was his understanding of the doctrine of justification, an understanding that Brian Lugioyo argues has an integrity of its own, though it has been imprecisely represented as intentionally conciliatory. It was this solid doctrine that guided Bucer's irenicism and acted as a foundation for his entrance into discussions with Catholics between 1539 and 1541. Lugioyo demonstrates that Bucer was consistent in his approach and did not sacrifice his theological convictions for ecclesial expediency. Indeed his understanding was an accepted evangelical perspective on justification, one to be commended along with those of Luther and Calvin.

Richard Hooker and his Early Doctrine of Justification explores the doctrine of justification, the doctrine of faith and grace, and the doctrine of Scripture and use of reason in the early theology of Richard Hooker. In order to prove that Hooker was a Protestant Reformed theologian, Simuþ concentrates on Hooker‘s doctrine of justification as reflected in his Learned Discourse of Justification, which is the most important work of his early theology. Unlike previous books on Hooker which use primarily the theology of Luther and Calvin to draw conclusions, this book brings together quotations and ideas from the works of Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin and Beza to show that Hooker was a Protestant Reformed theologian. Simuþ also discusses the theological context of Hooker‘s career by offering an analysis of the doctrine of justification in the theology of John Jewel, John Whitgift (Hooker‘s patrons), and Thomas Cartwright and Walter Travers (Hooker‘s Puritan opponents).

James Buchanan (1804–1870) was a Scottish minister and theologian. He joined the Free Church of Scotland in 1843, and succeeded Thomas Chalmers as professor of systematic theology at the New College of the Free Church in Edinburgh in 1847, a post he held for twenty-one years. Buchanan's magnum opus was The Doctrine of Justification, which still has great value as a classic treatment of the article by which Martin Luther says the church stands or falls. He covers biblical, systematic, and historical ground in his work, but is never far from a warm-hearted evangelical delight in the doctrines he is expounding.

"Argues persuasively that Christian teaching about the Spirit (pneumatology) has much to offer to a correct understanding of justification.... We have here a book of singular consequence."ùWilliam G. Rusch, Yale Divinity School --

The question of the justification of sinners is one of the most complex regions of Christian theology. The Regensburg article on justification proposed a solution that it was hoped would be acceptable to both sides, Protestant and Catholic. In 1541 at the Regensburg Colloquy, three leading Protestant theologians (Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius) and three leading Catholic theologians (Eck, Gropper, and Pflug) debated with the aim of producing a commonly agreed statement of belief. The colloquy as a whole eventually failed, but it began with a statement on justification by faith agreed by all the parties, Article 5", leading to an initial burst of optimism. There were two contrasting reactions to Article 5. Some, like Calvin, maintained that it contained the substance of true doctrine; others, like Luther, called it an inconsistent patchwork. These two rival assessments have persisted over the centuries. The aim of this book is to decide between them. It does so by viewing the article in the light of the publications of the key participants and observers, as well as by comparing it with the Tridentine Catholic Decree on Justification. Anthony Lane puts the Regensburg article under the microscope, offering both a wide-ranging study of the article's history and a line-by-line analysis of its content, presenting the original Latin text together with an English translation and running commentary.