Point 20: Of Saving Faith

Our consent.

Conclusion 1. They teach it to be the property of faith to believe the whole word of God, and especially the redemption of mankind by Christ.

Conclusion 2. They avow that they believe and look to be saved by Christ and by Christ alone, and by the mere mercy of God in Christ.

Conclusion 3. The most learned among them hold and confess that the obedience of Christ is imputed to them for the satisfaction of the law and for their reconciliation with God.

Conclusion 4. They avow that they put their whole trust and confidence in Christ and in the mere mercy of God for their salvation.

Conclusion 5. Lastly, they hold that every man must apply the promise of life everlasting by Christ to himself, and this they grant we are bound to do. In these five points do they and we agree, at least in show of words.

By the avowing of these five conclusions, Papists may easily escape the hands of many magistrates. And unless the mystery of Popish doctrine be well known, any common man may easily be deceived, and take such for good Protestants that are but Popish priests. To this end therefore, that we may the better discern their guile, I will show wherein they fail in each of their conclusions and wherein they differ from us.

The difference.

Touching the first conclusion: they believe indeed all the written word of God, and more than all — for they also believe the Apocryphal books, which antiquity for many hundred years has excluded from the canon. Yes, they believe unwritten traditions received (as they say) from councils, the writings of the fathers, and the determinations of the Church, making them also of equal credit with the written word of God given by inspiration of the Spirit. Now we for our parts do not despise the Apocrypha, as namely the books of the Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, and the rest — but we reverence them in all convenient manner, preferring them before any other books of men, in that they have been approved by a universal consent of the Church. Yet we think them not fitting to be received into the canon of holy Scripture, and therefore not to be believed save as they are consenting with the written word. And for this our doing we have direction from Athanasius, Origen, Jerome, and the Council of Laodicea. As for unwritten traditions, they come not within the compass of our faith, neither can they, because they come to us by the hands of men that may deceive and be deceived. We hold and believe that the right canon of the books of the Old and New Testament contains in it sufficient direction for the Church of God to life everlasting, both for faith and manners. Here then is the point of difference: they make the object of faith larger than it should be or can be, and we keep ourselves to the written word, believing nothing to salvation outside it.

In the second conclusion, touching salvation by Christ alone, there is a manifest deceit: because they craftily include and couch their own works under the name of Christ. For (say they) works done by regenerate men are not their own but Christ's in them, and as they are the works of Christ they save, and no otherwise. But we for our parts look to be saved only by such works as Christ himself did in his own person, and not by any work at all done by him in us. For all works done are in the matter of justification and salvation opposed to the grace of Christ. Romans 11:6: Election is of grace, not of works; if it be of works, it is no more of grace. Again, whereas they teach that we are saved by the works of Christ which he works in us and makes us to work, it is flat against the word. For Paul says we are not saved by such works as God has ordained that regenerate men should walk in (Ephesians 2:10). And he says further that he counted all things — even after his conversion — loss to him that he might be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness which is of the law (Philippians 3:8). Again, Hebrews 1:3: Christ washed away our sins by himself — which last words exclude the merit of all works done by Christ within man. Thus indeed the Papists overturn all that which in word they seem to hold touching their justification and salvation. We confess with them that good works in us are the works of Christ, yet they are not Christ's alone but ours also, in that they proceed from Christ by the mind and will of man — as water from the fountain by the channel. And just as the channel defiled defiles the water that is without defilement in the fountain, even so the mind and will of man defiled by the remnants of sin defile the works which, as they come from Christ, are undefiled. Hence it is that the works of grace which we do by Christ, or Christ in us, are defective and must be severed from Christ in the act of justification or salvation.

The third conclusion concerns the imputation of Christ's obedience, which some of the most learned among them acknowledge. The difference between us stands on this manner. They hold that Christ's obedience is imputed only to make satisfaction for sin, and not to justify us before God. We hold and believe that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us even for our righteousness before God. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:30: Christ is made unto us of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Hence I reason thus: if Christ is both our sanctification and our righteousness, then he is not only unto us inherent righteousness, but also righteousness imputed. But he is not only our sanctification — which the Papists themselves expound of inherent or habitual righteousness — but also our righteousness, for thus by Paul are they distinguished. Therefore he is unto us both inherent and imputed righteousness. And very reason teaches thus much. For in the end of the world at the bar of God's judgment, we must bring some kind of righteousness for our justification that may stand in the rigor of the law according to which we are to be judged. But our inherent righteousness is imperfect and stained with manifold defects and shall be as long as we live in this world, as experience tells us — and consequently it is not suitable to the justice of the law. And if we go out of ourselves we shall find no righteousness serving for our turns either in men or angels that may or can procure our absolution before God and acceptance to life everlasting. We must therefore have recourse to the person of Christ, and his obedience imputed unto us must serve not only as a satisfaction to God for all our sins, but also for our perfect justification — in that God is content to accept it for our righteousness, as if it were inherent in us or performed by us.

Touching the fourth conclusion: they hold it the safest and surest course to put their trust and confidence in the mercy of God alone for their salvation. Yet they agree that men may also put their confidence in the merit of their own works and in the merits of other men, so it be in sobriety. But this doctrine quite mars the conclusion, because by teaching that men are to put confidence in the creature, they overturn all confidence in the Creator. For in the very first commandment we are taught to make choice of the true God for our God, which thing we do when we give to God our hearts, and we give our hearts to God when we put our whole confidence in him for the salvation of our souls. Now to put confidence in men or in works is to make them our gods. The true and ancient form of making confession was on this manner: I believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit — without mention making of any confidence in works or creatures. The ancient Church never knew any such confession or confidence. Cyprian says: He believes not in God who puts not his trust concerning his salvation in God alone. And indeed the Papists themselves, when death comes, forsake the confidence of their merits and flee to the mere mercy of God in Christ. And for a confirmation of this I allege the testimony of one Vlinbergius of Cologne, who writes thus: there was a book found in the vestry of a certain parish of Cologne, written in the Dutch tongue in the year of our Lord 1475, which the priests used in visiting of the sick. And in it these questions are found: Do you believe that you cannot be saved but by the death of Christ? The sick person answered, Yea. Then it is said unto him: Go then, while breath remains in you, put your confidence in this death alone. Have trust in nothing else. Commit yourself wholly to this death. With it alone cover yourself. Plunge yourself in every part into this death; in every part pierce yourself with it; enfold yourself in this death. And if the Lord will judge you, say: Lord, I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and your judgment, and by no other means do I contend with you. And if he shall say unto you that you are a sinner, say: Lord, the death of my Lord Jesus Christ I put between you and my sins. If he shall say unto you that you have deserved damnation, say: Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between you and my evil merits, and I offer his merit for the merit which I should have and have not. If he shall say that he is angry with you, say: Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and your anger. Here we see what Papists do and have done in the time of death. And that which they hold and practice when they are dying, they should hold and practice every day while they are living.

In the last conclusion they teach that we must not only believe in general but also apply unto ourselves the promises of life everlasting. But they differ from us in the very manner of applying. They teach that the promise is to be applied not by faith assuring us of our own salvation, but only by hope in likelihood conjectural. We hold that we are bound in duty to apply the promise of life by faith without making doubt thereof, and by hope to continue the certainty after the apprehension made by faith. We do not teach that every man living within the precincts of the Church, professing the name of Christ, is certain of his salvation and that by faith — but that he ought so to be, and must endeavor to attain thereto. And here is a great point in the mystery of iniquity to be considered: for by this uncertain application of the promise of salvation and this wavering hope, they overturn half the doctrine of the gospel. For it enjoins two things: first, to believe the promises thereof to be true in themselves; second, to believe and by faith to apply them unto ourselves. And this latter part — without which the former is void of comfort — is quite overturned. The reasons which they allege against our doctrine I have answered before, and therefore I let them pass.

To conclude: though in colored terms they seem to agree with us in doctrine concerning faith, yet indeed they deny and abolish the substance thereof — namely, the particular and certain application of Christ crucified and his benefits unto ourselves. Again, they fail in that they cut off the principal duty and office of true saving faith, which is to apprehend and to apply the blessing promised.

Our consent.

Conclusion 1. They teach that it is the property of faith to believe the whole word of God — and especially the redemption of humanity by Christ.

Conclusion 2. They declare that they believe and expect to be saved by Christ and by Christ alone, and by the pure mercy of God in Christ.

Conclusion 3. The most learned among them hold and acknowledge that the obedience of Christ is imputed to them for the satisfaction of the law and for their reconciliation with God.

Conclusion 4. They declare that they place their whole trust and confidence in Christ and in the pure mercy of God for their salvation.

Conclusion 5. Finally, they hold that every person must personally apply the promise of eternal life through Christ to himself — and they acknowledge we are bound to do this. On these five points they and we agree, at least in the words used.

By affirming these five conclusions, Roman Catholics can easily escape the scrutiny of many authorities. And unless the inner workings of Roman Catholic teaching are well understood, an ordinary person can easily be deceived — taking a Roman Catholic priest for a genuine Protestant. For this reason, so we can better detect their deception, I will show where they fall short in each of their conclusions and how they differ from us.

The difference.

Regarding the first conclusion: they do believe the entire written word of God — and more than that — for they also believe the Apocryphal books, which Christian antiquity for many centuries excluded from the canon. They also believe unwritten traditions received (as they claim) from councils, the writings of the fathers, and the decisions of the church — treating these as equal in authority to the written word of God given by the inspiration of the Spirit. We, for our part, do not despise the Apocrypha — for example, the books of Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, and the rest. We treat them with due respect, placing them above all other human writings in that they have been approved by the universal consent of the church. Yet we do not regard them as fitting to be received into the canon of Holy Scripture — and therefore they are to be believed only insofar as they agree with the written word. In this we follow the guidance of Athanasius, Origen, Jerome, and the Council of Laodicea. As for unwritten traditions — they fall outside the scope of our faith, and rightly so, because they reach us through human hands that can both deceive and be deceived. We hold and believe that the proper canon of the books of the Old and New Testaments contains sufficient direction for God's church to lead them to eternal life, in both faith and practice. Here is the point of difference: they make the object of faith broader than it should be or can be, while we hold to the written word alone — believing nothing to salvation beyond it.

In the second conclusion, regarding salvation by Christ alone, there is an obvious deception: they cleverly conceal their own works under the name of Christ. They say that works done by regenerate people are not their own but Christ's working in them — and as Christ's works, they contribute to salvation, but not otherwise. We, for our part, look to be saved only by the works that Christ Himself performed in His own person — not by any work done by Him in us. For all works that we do are, in the matter of justification and salvation, set in opposition to the grace of Christ. Romans 11:6: 'But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.' Furthermore, when they teach that we are saved by the works of Christ which He works in us and enables us to perform, this is directly contrary to the word. Paul says we are not saved by the good works that God has ordained for regenerate people to walk in (Ephesians 2:10). He also says that he counted everything as loss — even after his conversion — so that he might be found in Christ, 'not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law' (Philippians 3:8). Again, Hebrews 1:3: 'He made purification of sins' by Himself — which final words exclude the merit of any work done by Christ within a person. In this way the Roman Catholics overturn in practice all that they claim to hold in theory about their justification and salvation. We agree with them that good works in us are the works of Christ — yet they are not Christ's alone but ours as well, since they proceed from Christ through the mind and will of the person, just as water from a spring flows through a channel. And just as a contaminated channel contaminates water that was pure at the source, so the mind and will of a person — defiled by the remains of sin — contaminates the works that, as they come from Christ, are undefiled. This is why the works of grace that we do through Christ, or that Christ does in us, are defective — and must be set aside from Christ in the act of justification and salvation.

The third conclusion concerns the imputation of Christ's obedience, which some of the most learned among them acknowledge. Our difference is as follows. They hold that Christ's obedience is imputed only to make satisfaction for sin — not to justify us before God. We hold and believe that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as our righteousness before God. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:30: 'Christ Jesus has become to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption.' From this I reason: if Christ is both our sanctification and our righteousness, then He is not only our inherent righteousness but also our imputed righteousness. He is not only our sanctification — which the Roman Catholics themselves interpret as inherent or habitual righteousness — but also our righteousness, since Paul distinguishes these two. Therefore He is to us both inherent and imputed righteousness. Reason itself leads to the same conclusion. At the end of the world, before God's judgment seat, we must bring some kind of righteousness for our justification — a righteousness that can stand up under the strict demands of the law by which we will be judged. But our inherent righteousness is imperfect and stained with countless flaws, and will remain so as long as we live in this world, as experience confirms — and therefore it cannot satisfy the demands of the law. If we look outside ourselves, we will find no righteousness sufficient for our purposes either in men or in angels — nothing that can secure our acquittal before God and our acceptance to eternal life. We must therefore turn to the person of Christ. His obedience, imputed to us, must serve not only as satisfaction to God for all our sins, but also as our perfect justification — in that God is pleased to accept it as our righteousness, as if it were inherent in us or performed by us personally.

Regarding the fourth conclusion: they hold it the safest and surest course to put their trust and confidence in God's mercy alone for their salvation. Yet they also teach that people may place confidence in the merit of their own works and in the merits of others — provided this is done in moderation. But this teaching completely undermines the conclusion — for by teaching that people are to put confidence in a creature, they overthrow all confidence in the Creator. The first commandment teaches us to choose the true God as our God, and we do this by giving Him our hearts — and we give God our hearts when we place our whole confidence in Him for the salvation of our souls. To place confidence in people or in works is to make them our gods. The true and ancient form of confession was: 'I believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit' — with no mention of any confidence in works or creatures. The ancient church never knew any such confession or confidence. Cyprian says: 'He does not believe in God who does not put his trust concerning his salvation in God alone.' Indeed, even the Roman Catholics themselves, when death approaches, abandon confidence in their merits and flee to the pure mercy of God in Christ. As confirmation, I cite the testimony of Vlinbergius of Cologne, who writes that a book was found in the vestry of a parish in Cologne, written in Dutch in the year 1475, used by priests when visiting the sick. In it, these questions were found: 'Do you believe that you cannot be saved except by the death of Christ?' The sick person answered, 'Yes.' Then the priest said to him: 'Go then, while breath remains in you, put your confidence in this death alone. Trust in nothing else. Commit yourself wholly to this death. Cover yourself with it alone. Plunge yourself entirely into this death; in every part pierce yourself with it; enfold yourself in this death. And if the Lord should judge you, say: "Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Your judgment, and by no other means do I contend with You." And if He should say you are a sinner, say: "Lord, the death of my Lord Jesus Christ I place between You and my sins." If He should say you have deserved damnation, say: "Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between You and my evil merits, and I offer His merit in place of the merit I should have but do not." If He should say He is angry with you, say: "Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Your anger."' Here we see what Roman Catholics do and have done at the time of death. And what they hold and practice when they are dying, they should hold and practice every day while they are living.

In the last conclusion, they teach that we must not only believe in general terms but also apply the promises of eternal life to ourselves personally. But they differ from us in the very manner of applying. They teach that the promise is to be applied not by faith that assures us of our salvation, but only by a probable, conjectural hope. We hold that we are bound in duty to apply the promise of life by faith — without wavering about it — and by hope to sustain that certainty after faith has grasped it. We do not teach that every person living within the bounds of the church, professing Christ's name, is already certain of his salvation by faith — but that he ought to be, and must strive to attain it. This is a major point in the mystery of iniquity to consider: through this uncertain application of the promise of salvation and this wavering hope, they overthrow half the doctrine of the Gospel. The Gospel requires two things: first, to believe that its promises are true in themselves; second, to believe and by faith to apply them to ourselves personally. This second part — without which the first brings no comfort — is entirely overturned. The objections they raise against our teaching I have already answered elsewhere, and so I pass over them here.

In conclusion: though in carefully chosen words the Roman Catholics appear to agree with us on the doctrine of faith, they in fact deny and destroy its substance — namely, the personal and certain application of Christ crucified and His benefits to ourselves. Furthermore, they fall short in that they cut off the primary duty and purpose of true saving faith — which is to receive and apply the promised blessing.