Because we’ve had a month’s pause for #Reformation500, it would be good to review the previous seven articles that concern our salvation before we continue. Articles 9 and 10 set the extent of our guilt before God. They explain the nature of humanity’s lost condition through sin and our total inability to save oneself apart from God’s sheer grace. Articles 11-13 set out the scope of God’s grace. Our justification in Christ is by faith alone and not through works. Being impossible to justify oneself, good works are evidence of justification. Gratitude completes this section on our salvation in Articles 14-17. They set the parameters of the believer’s pursuit of holiness. Article 14 explaining the impossibility of exceeding God’s requirements in daily life while articles 15-17 sets the impossibility of reaching God’s requirements apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. 
XVI—Of Sin After Baptism

Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.
Article 16 reflects the teaching of two of Cranmer’s original articles on the same theme. Sin after baptism was article 15 in the Forty-Two Articles of 1553 followed by article 16 on the sin against the Holy Spirit. Article 16 on the sin against the Holy Spirit was omitted in Archbishop Parker’s revision in 1563. It is suggested that the Anglican divines preferred to leave the nature of the unpardonable sin less well-defined as it was in 1553. One could also suggest that the simplification’s purpose was to keep focused on the objective nature of salvation. We can see why in how article 16 continues the issue raised in article 15. Article 15 answered the question of human sinlessness in light of the unique sinlessness of Christ and article 16 examines its opposite of a hopeless sinfulness: if Christ alone was sinless, what about sins committed after baptism? Is this how we are to understand the sin against the Holy Spirit?
Two errors are confronted here that has dogged the church through the ages: either the teaching that great sins after baptism could not be forgiven or the teaching that it was impossible for the truly regenerate to sin. These errors seem to have been prevalent at the time of the Reformation. Cranmer’s Reformatio Legum affirms the same teaching of the article:
Those who believe that the justified can no longer fall into sin even though they are still living in this world, or that if they happen to do something which is forbidden by the laws of God, God will not count that as sin, also have a perverse conception of justification. Opposed to this opinion, but equally ungodly, are those who believe that any sin which may be committed by our will after we have received baptism is mortal, and who say that all such sin has been done against the Holy Spirit and cannot be forgiven [Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticorum, Gerald Bray, ed. 195].
Article 16 tracks the doctrine of our salvation by God's grace alone to its ultimate conclusion. It is easy humanly speaking to question the sincerity of a fellow Christian or in times of trial to question our sincerity. There are also those who have made a profession of faith at one time in their lives but fall away completely. What comfort is there for a family member who clutches a “decision card” completed years before? Is it possible to say, “once saved always saved?” The article rightly reminds us that the highest purpose of God’s plan of salvation in Christ, made known in Scripture, is not our blessedness, wonderful as this is. The highest purpose is God's glory. Through the gift of his Word and by the power of his Spirit, we come to gain a sense of God and his ways. We come to a sense of him. We come to understand him. But it is a limited, creaturely, understanding. As we gaze into the face of God in Jesus Christ, we say, “Heavenly Father I know you through your Son and by your Holy Spirit…” But we also say, "Oh! The depths! I will never get to the bottom of this. I will never be able to put my arms around all this, and my creaturely mind contain the wonders of it!" Articles 14-16 are very pastoral in their intention by pointing the believer back to the objective truth of their salvation rather than the stumbling block of their limited understanding.
Article 16 points out that the believer will sin after he or she comes to trust in Christ's word and work for their salvation. But those sins do not put us beyond God's forgiveness. The article is built on the truths explained in the articles that preceded it. When we understand how the article continues what came before, the point it makes is simple. We are sinners saved by God's grace. The dominion of sin has ended, but the presence of sin remains. Therefore, when we stumble and fall into sin, we can come to God in repentance and faith, trusting in his promise that we are justified in Christ. God forgives us because his wrath for our sin was propitiated on the cross. In the same way, human conceit is tempered as we are reminded that our righteousness is imputed, not inherent and that we must believe and trust that what is Christ’s is ours by adoption. Articles 14-17 remind us what a high privilege we enjoy in that God is pleased to glorify himself through the salvation of poor sinners like me and you.
For previous articles in this series, see:
  1. Introduction
  2. One God in Trinity, Trinity in Unity (Art. 1)
  3. The Incarnation and Atonement (Art. 2)
  4. The Work of Christ (Arts. 3-4)
  5. The Holy Spirit (Art. 5)
  6. The Rule of Faith: Part 1 (Art. 6)
  7. The Rule of Faith: Part 2 (Art. 7)
  8. The Rule of Faith: Part 3 (Art. 8)
  9. Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Part 1 (Art. 9)
  10. Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Part 2 (Art. 10)
  11. Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Part 3 (Art. 11)
  12. Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Part 4 (Art. 12)
  13. Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Part 5 (Arts. 13-14)
  14. Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude: Part 6 (Art. 15)

Thanks to our friends at Reformation Heritage Books we have two (2) E-Book copies of Wilhelmus à Brakel's 4-volume, The Christian's Reasonable Service

  • 1 E-Book will be for a someone in the U.S.
  • 1 E-Book will be for a someone outside the U.S.

Deadline to register is Friday, November 24.

Enter here.

Wallace Marshall, Puritanism and Natural Theology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2016), 144pp.
Wallace Marshall’s Puritanism and Natural Theology ably demonstrates that Puritanism in general not only theoretically developed but pastorally utilized a robust natural theology. More provocatively, he shows that they saw natural theology as foundational to supernatural theology with more kinship to medieval scholasticism than the Reformers allowed. Marshall challenges notions that the Puritans either had little time for natural theology or attributed to it a relatively minor role. He also contests the contemporary Reformed consensus that the Puritans saw the Scripture alone as the “principle for knowing theology” (principium cognoscendi theologiae). With a plethora of primary resources at hand, Marshall rightly argues that this consensus should be left behind. 
Marshall proceeds with the common understanding that natural theology refers to “all religious knowledge that is accessible through the use of reason independently of supernatural revelation.” Indeed, the Puritans believed that God clearly evidences himself to all mankind through the created order. However, Marshall further maintains that the Puritans used reason and theistic proofs to “demonstrate the existence and attributes of God” to both unbelievers and believers (chap. 1). Thus, Marshall deals extensively with Puritan apologetics showing that they employed natural theology as evidentialists.  
The “essential components” of this natural theology concerned arguments for “the existence of God, the human duty of loving and living for God, natural law, divine providence, and the immortality of the soul” (chap. 5). Regarding their defense of providence, Marhsall treats at length the Puritan use of natural theology to address theodicy for the vindication of  a sovereign yet good God in a world filled with evil and injustice (chap. 6). Richard Baxter, for example, extensively addressed theodicy through reason and, in the process, even made an appeal to a plurality of worlds populated by a myriad of unfallen righteous creatures. 
The Puritans believed that natural theology was useful for helping believers struggling with remaining unbelief (through practical and speculative atheism), engaging unbelievers, and confronting skeptics (chap. 2). Some denied (e.g. William Twisse) or limited (e.g. William Gurnall) the usefulness of rational evidences for Bible-informed Christians, but most affirmed their great value to combat remaining atheism and strengthen existing faith. The Puritans also believed that we should engage unbelievers with reason as a foundation to receiving special revelation (e.g. John Eliot’s ministry to New England Indians). Finally, natural theology confronted skeptics (e.g. seventeenth-century Deism and Atheism) with proofs for God’s existence and the divine nature of Scripture, though with limited success expected against such resistant minds. 
The Puritans were convinced that reason could be employed even though the fall diminished its intellectual power and inclined it to suppress truth (chap. 3). Still, while nothing in Christianity is “contrary” to reason, some mysteries are “above” it (vs. Socinianism) and God cannot be fully comprehended with it. Thus, the Spirit with the written Word overcomes and corrects limited reason to reveal otherwise unattainable truths. Here, Marshall could have done more to interact with the Puritan emphasis (in continuity with Calvin) on the noetic influence of sin and its corruption of reason and in connection with Puritan exegesis of key passages (e.g. Rom. 1:18-21, 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). 
With their embrace of the necessity of Scripture, the Puritans knew the limits of natural theology, which could not reveal truths such as the Trinity or that essential to the gospel (chap. 4). Most importantly, natural theology could not bring people to a saving relationship with Christ who alone can forgive convicted sinners. As John Owen noted, we can “know God by the light of nature” but “cannot come to God by that knowledge.” In this way, while natural revelation provided a way to truly know God, special revelation took priority over it.
Interestingly, a minority believed that natural revelation could even be sufficient for salvation (e.g. Richard Baxter). Indeed, the Westminster Confession (10.3) argued for the salvation of regenerated “elect infants dying in infancy” never hearing the gospel and other elect individuals “incapable” (mentally) of understanding it. Individuals such as Matthew Henry went the next step in consideration of those who never hear the gospel: “[W]e cannot say, it is impossible for any of them, though they live up ever so closely to the light they have, to be saved by Christ they never heard of.” Yes, you read that correctly. Some Puritans believed (contrary to the Westminster Confession) that the light of nature could be sufficient for salvation in Christ in certain circumstances.
In the light of his findings, Marshall rightly suggests that eighteenth-century Enlightenment rationalism had more continuity with the Puritan employment of reason than originally thought. Accordingly, John Locke’s (see Marshall’s helpful appendix on him) Reasonableness of Christianity (1695) also did not radically depart from what the Puritans considered a legitimate use of reason in relation to special revelation. Still, Marshall qualifies the Puritan approach with the clear assertion, “Although the Puritans were rational theologians, they were emphatically not rationalistic.”
Authors who have told the story of the Reformation often neglect to give appropriate recognition to some of its most influential and significant figures, whom David Steinmetz dubbed, “Reformers in the wings.” These were often viewed by their contemporaries to be as significant as those figures whom history has deemed worthy of greater notice. Among these Reformers in the wings, none deserves to receive attention more than Heinrich Bullinger, successor to Zwingli as the Antistes or chief pastor of the Reformed church in Zürich, Switzerland. Though Bullinger labored after Zwingli and in the shadow of Calvin, his influence rivaled Calvin’s on the continent and on the British Isles. 
In this article I would like to contribute in a small way to the commemoration of Bullinger’s life and work by looking at his 1537 treatise, Der Alt Gloub (“The Old Faith”). Though little known it expresses one of the most significant features of Reformation defense and reminds us today of a neglected theme.
Der Alt Gloub defends the antiquity of the Christian faith, emphasizing the substantial unity of teaching between the Old and New Testaments. Its full title represents its primary thesis: “The old faith, an evident probation out of the Holy Scripture, that the Christian Faith (which is the right, true, old and undoubted faith) has endured since the beginning of the world.” Bullinger’s aim was to demonstrate that the Christian faith was centered in the revelation of redemption in Christ and that salvation by grace alone through the work of Christ was the ancient faith. Therefore the Roman Catholic objection that the Reformers were innovators was turned on its head: Rome had abandoned the old faith by its innovations and inventions.
In the Introduction, Bullinger notes that many suppose that the Christian faith commenced with the birth of Jesus. Though Bullinger acknowledges that this was the time of the fulfillment of the promises, he insists that the old covenant people of God already knew “the same salvation in Christ Jesus” that Christians know (p. 1). The difference between the people of God then and now, is a difference, not in “religion or substance” but in the degree to which salvation in Christ was openly manifest (p. 2). Old Testament believers were, consequently, “Christians” whose faith was substantially identical to that of New Testament believers (p. 2).
Section One: “Of the goodness of God and the wickedness of man.” Scripture begins with the truth of God’s creation, particularly of man as his image-bearer. Though God depends on nothing beyond himself, he freely expressed his “own grace and mercy” to create and to reveal “his unsearchable goodness” (p. 3). Among all his creatures, man stands alone as an image-bearer of God. This means God furnished man with every good gift and perfection so that he might live before God in faith and obedience. God also invited man as his image-bearer to respond in obedience and thankfulness. For this reason, God stipulated that Adam might not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, promising him life on condition of obedience and threatening him with death on condition of disobedience (pp. 7-8). The “tree of life” was ordained to be a kind of “token and sacrament” of the blessedness of human life in obedience to God. However, despite God’s goodness and grace, man fell into sin and has come under judgment and condemnation.
Section Two: “The first and right foundation of the our holy Christian faith.” God could have abandoned man in his sin and left him in bondage to the devil. However, the good news is that God has chosen to save his people in Jesus Christ, and in a way that honors his truth and righteousness. This gospel is the great foundation of the Christian faith, which God has revealed from the beginning as the only remedy for human sin. A way has been found “whereby the righteousness and truth of God should be satisfied, and in which the mercy of God should especially be exercised and declare itself; that is to say, Christ Jesus, who is given us by the manifest grace of God, was offered for our sins, satisfied and recompensed the righteousness of God, and so delivered us out of the bonds of the devil” (p. 9). When God approached Adam and Eve after disobeying his commandment, he didn’t approach to destroy in righteousness, but to promise salvation from sin through his Son in Genesis 3:15. In this promise, God declared: “I will have mercy upon him, and receive him to grace again; but in order that my truth and righteousness may be satisfied, I will cause my Son to take the very nature of man upon him. Then I will that he take upon himself the curse and damnation, and die, and with his innocent death take away that death and curse, and so to let the generation of man out of death into life, out of the dominion of the devil into his own kingdom, out of darkness into light” (pp. 12-13).
Section Three: “Of the first faithful Christians, Adam and Eve.” Adam and Eve were the first Christian believers. In confirmation of faith in God’s promise, Adam named his wife “Eve,” who would be the “mother of all living” (p. 19). Adam lived from the promise that God would bring life from death, restoring a people for himself to blessedness and salvation. As he lived under the fatherly protection and favor of God, he looked for the coming of his Son to satisfy God’s truth and righteousness, destroy the power and kingdom of the devil, and gain for him entrance into the kingdom of God (p. 22). Although Adam and Eve did not enjoy the benefit of the “rites” and “ceremonies” of the church they knew Christ under the form of the “bodily offering,” as a “representation of the sacrifice of Christ” (p. 22).
Section Four: “That the holy Patriarchs also were Christians and saved by Christ.” The history of the Patriarchs is a history of the fulfillment of God’s promise to Adam. The Christian faith revealed to Adam was preserved through a faithful remnant in the line of Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Even when God’s wrath was poured out upon the whole world at the time of the Flood, God renewed the covenant first made with Adam by promising salvation to Noah and his family. By means of the Ark, which was a “figure of Christ” (p. 30), God saved believing Noah and his family. Since the idolatry and corrupted religious practices of the heathen arose after the period of the renewal of the covenant with Noah, we are taught that the Christian faith “is older than any other” (p. 33). Similarly, since God further revealed and renewed the covenant with Abraham long before the giving of the law through Moses, the Christian faith “is older than the Jewish faith” (p. 36). Though the Jews “boast themselves of the circumcision, and because they are called Jews and Israel,” yet we know that Abraham was justified or reckoned righteous before he was circumcised (p. 36). Indeed, “our Christian faith is 2048 years older than the circumcision, and 2449 years older than the law, the priesthood and ceremonies of the Jews” (p. 36). The history of the patriarchs proves that “from the beginning of the world until the death of Joseph, the right Christian faith endured 2300 years.
Section Five: “The law of God given by Moses, leads unto Christ, and makes mention of all his works.” In faithfulness to his covenant God brought his people through Moses out of Egypt by his power and grace. When God instituted the rite of the Passover, he gave Israel a figure of the redemption that is through the blessed seed of promise: “Therefore the Israelites were not spared because of the blood of beasts, but for the sake of the blood of the blessed seed that was promised to come. And thus the whole deliverance out of Egypt was a figure of the true redemption by which we are delivered from the power of the devil and from everlasting death through Jesus Christ, and brought into the land of promise, even to eternal joy and salvation” (p. 41). When Israel entered the land, God wrote his law upon two tablets of stone. Though given to Israel in written form, they contained “no new thing, nor ought that was not before in the world, but rather renewed the old, and the law that he hitherto had written in the hearts of holy men” (pp. 42-3). This law was added to the promise as a “schoolmaster” that teaches us to know our sin and unworthiness, as well as our need for a Mediator (p. 48) and as “a rule of our life, informing us what we ought to do, and what we ought to leave undone” (p. 49).
Sections Six–Seven: “All virtuous kings and the people of Israel, trusted unto Christ, and not to the Law.” God continued to provide for his people through Joshua, the Judges, and then through the kings of Israel and Judah. The gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ continued to be preserved through these servants. However, the greatest figure of this period was king David. An examination of his Spirit-inspired Psalms confirm that he was intimately acquainted with the person and works of Christ, his son after the flesh. The Psalms clearly testify to:
  • the deity of the eternal Son of God and the doctrine of the Trinity (p. 64);
  • the glorious and eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ (p. 65); 
  • the preaching of the holy gospel to the heathen nations (pp. 65-6); 
  • the ordination of Christ to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek (p. 67); 
  • the victory of Christ over all his and his people’s enemies (p. 66); 
  • and the passion and death of Christ that he endured for his people (pp. 68-9).
Section Eight: “All holy prophets do point unto Christ, and preach salvation only in him.” During the divided kingdom, God gave his people much success but also delivered them over into captivity when they persisted in their disobedience. Despite the decline and growing unfaithfulness of the people of God, his promises in Christ remained sure. One remarkable evidence was his provision of prophets sent to “rebuke wrong and idolatry, and to teach all righteousness and true worship of God” (p. 75). These many prophets all concur in their preaching of the way of salvation through Christ: “[T]hey all preached the sum of the doctrine and knowledge of the faith that we spoke about before, and wrote in one sum, which faith Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David had” (pp. 76-7). The preaching of these prophets anticipated everything that is taught us concerning the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament and Apostles’ Creed:
  • his deity and humanity (p. 78); 
  • the coming of John the Baptist as his messenger (p. 79); 
  • his preaching of God’s grace and performance of many signs and wonders (pp. 79-80); 
  • his kingdom and the subjection of all peoples to him (p. 80); 
  • his passion and death (p. 82); 
  • and his burial, resurrection, and ascension (p. 84).
Section Nine: “Of the time of the grace of Christ, and how that he himself testifies, that the salvation of all the world stands only in him.” The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament: “the Scriptures of the new Testament hang all together and refer themselves to the Scriptures of the old Testament, so that there can not be right understanding without the other, no more than the gloss [interpretation] with the text. The text is the law and the prophets, the exposition are the Evangelists and Apostles” (p. 91). In the fullness of time, 3974 years after the beginning of the world, Christ was born in Bethlehem according to the word of the prophets (p. 91). When the angels announced the good news of his birth, they reminded the shepherds of the word of promise to Abraham that in his seed all the families of the earth would be blessed (p. 92). In the course of his ministry, the original promise that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent was fulfilled. Unlike the first Adam, Christ overcame the devil (p. 95). Through his life, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension, all the Old Testament promises find their fulfillment. With the coming of Christ, the ceremonies and rites of the law have not so much been abrogated as perfected and completed (p. 94).
Section Ten: “That also the elect apostles preached this old faith, and declared, that all salvation is only in Christ.” Christ Jesus is the lamb of God who was slain from the foundation of the world, and the only one through whom sinners can be cleansed and saved. This gospel is the old faith that Christ wants to be preached throughout the whole world (p. 101). The apostles carried out his task by means of the preaching of the holy gospel and the administration of the two sacraments of the new covenant, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (pp. 102-104).
Conclusion. Since the time of the ministry of the apostles, the church of Jesus Christ has endured the presence of many false teachers and “unclean persons” who have corrupted and sometimes abandoned altogether the old, true faith (pp. 107-8). These unfaithful shepherds “labored more after riches, than to perform their office and charge” (p. 108). Rather than keeping the church in obedience to the simple gospel of Jesus Christ, they have introduced many new rites and ceremonies unknown to the church of old. The pope with his multitude of followers has in recent times sought “to suppress the old religion and to set up his own ordinances, which were unknown to our fathers of old time” (p. 110). However, despite the multitude of those who are captive to the inventions and innovations of the pope and his ministers, the true old religion will undoubtedly remain upon the earth until Christ comes again. If faithful believers and ministers have to suffer for the sake of this old religion at the hands of the pope and his servants, they should remember that this was the circumstance of God’s people, including the prophets and our Lord Jesus Christ himself, from the beginning (pp. 110-11).
 This post is adapted from the full article, “Heinrich Bullinger’s Der Alt Gloub (“The Old Faith”): An Apology for the Reformation.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 15 (2004): 11-32. Available here.
These days no one asks a question like this. It seems too arrogant, too outdated, grossly missing the mark of a honest religious conversation. Moreover, any reference to the Anti-Christ seems to be further marred by the fancy treatments that it has received in popular pseudo-apocalyptic novels, futurist accounts of world trends, and millenarist explanations of Christian eschatology.
It seems that on the Anti-Christ is better to maintain a silent attitude if not an agnostic approach. It is there in the Bible, but we don’t know what it looks like and we are bound to stay away from any polemical discourse or unhelpful conjecture. Ecumenical correctness imposes a dialoguing code that demands that only “nice” things can be said in inter-faith conversations.
In this overly hesitant position there is also a clear-cut theological judgment on the way in which the Protestant tradition has been understating the nature of the Anti-Christ for centuries. From Martin Luther to C.H. Spurgeon, from John Wesley to the Puritans, there has been a consistent, coherent and univocal interpretation of the identity of the Anti-Christ. The Protestant Reformation did not invent this reading of the Papacy as the Anti-Christ but carried it on from strands of Medieval teachings and gave it a deeper theological basis.
Here is how the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith aptly summarizes this widespread and long-standing Protestant consensus:
There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, the man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the church, against Christ and all that is called God” (art. 25.6).[Followed by The Savoy Declaration (1658), art. 26 and The London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), art. 26]
Francis Turretin (1623-1687) is perhaps the greatest Reformed theologian of the XVII century. His major work, the Institutes of Elenctic Theology, has been one of the most influential theological textbooks of the continental Reformed tradition. In his section on the Church, Turretin extensively deals with the Papacy, as he always engages in “apologetic” theology. His more comprehensive treatment of the Pope as the Antichrist, however, is his 7th Disputation on the Antichrist that, in turn, is part of a larger work entitled Concerning our Necessary Secession from the Church of Rome and the Impossibility of Cooperation with Her (1661).[Published as Whether It Can be Proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist]. Here we find perhaps the most detailed and systematic Protestant argument for the identification of the Pope as the Antichrist. Turretin endeavors to exegete Scripture and evaluate the facts of church history for the purpose of saving the Church of Christ from committing spiritual fornication.
After noting that it is the common opinion of Protestants that the Pope is the Antichrist, Turretin explains that Scripture reveals the place of the Antichrist (the temple), his time (from apostolic times onward), and his person (an apostate from the faith, a performer of spurious miracles, one who opposes Christ, a self-exalting figure, a man of sin, an idolater). Turretin goes as far as analyzing the name and number of the Beast of Revelation 13:17-18. Gathering all these elements together, he does not find these marks among the Jews or Turks (Muslims), nor among the Greek Orthodox. In his view, they only fit the chief authority of the Roman Church.
Turretin is convinced that the Antichrist is not a single person but must refer to an office or succession of persons in office that began operating in apostolic times. To the Catholic objection that Popes have never denied Christ, Turretin replies that the Antichrist will not openly deny Christ as a professed enemy but as a professed friend of Christ who praises Him with their words, yet fights Him with his actions. He sees this attitude in Popes who arrogate to themselves the three offices of Christ (Priest, Prophet and King), but bury the Gospel under their own traditions and undermine His work of redemption by their masses, purgatory, indulgences, and false worship.
Referring to the doctrine of Papal supremacy, the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (882). Turretin’s analysis of the Papacy may seem harsh and trenchant, but fits the presentation of the official teaching of the Roman Church on the Papacy. The Pope as Vicar of Christ with full, supreme and universal power, coupled with the political status of the papacy, is indeed an institution that claims titles and prerogatives which must be Christ’s and Christ’s only and is also an institution that blurs religious and political fundamental distinctions!
These views are certainly far from being “ecumenically correct.” Yet, whatever one makes of them, it is important to appreciate the fact that they do not stem from slandering invectives or bandying insults. Theologians like Turretin built a highly sophisticated Biblical and theological argument and were not driven by resentment alone. The Roman Church, while not being static, nor a monolithic reality, does not really change in its fundamental commitments. It expands itself but does not purify itself. It embraces new trends and practices but does not expel unbiblical ones. It grows but it does not reform itself according to gospel standards. The discussion on the Anti-Christ must be revived and worked out with biblical soberness and historical awareness.   
This post originally appeared here.
The Papacy has always had its critics throughout the centuries. It is fair to say, however, that it was the XVI century Protestant Reformation that developed the most comprehensive and massive argument against the Papacy pulling together biblical, doctrinal, historical, moral, and institutional threads in order to do so. The Protestant critique reached its peak with the identification of the Pope as the Antichrist. According to the New Testament the Antichrist is someone who is against Christ and His church by wanting to take His place and destroy His work (e.g. 2 Thess. 2). For Christians the Antichrist is the enemy par excellence. This equation stirred the religious emotions more than many subtle theological arguments.
The Protestant Reformation was not the first movement that referred to the Pope as the Antichrist. There was a robust Medieval European tradition – from the Waldensians to Wycliffe, and down to the Hussites – that had denounced the Pope in such a radical way. This is why a recent Roman Catholic and Lutheran dialogue in the United States acknowledges this fact: “In calling the pope the ‘antichrist’ the early Lutherans stood in a tradition that reached back into the eleventh century. Not only dissidents and heretics but even saints had called the bishop of Rome the ‘antichrist’ when they wished to castigate his abuse of power.” Even in this case the Reformers were not necessarily innovative but relied on previous strands of thought well attested for in Church history. Here is how John Calvin argued his case against the Papacy.
The French Reformer John Calvin dealt with Roman Catholic representatives at various times and in different ways (see The Calvin Handbook, 104-112). His major work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion (first edition: 1536) contains frequent interactions with Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. Here Calvin develops his argument that the Pope is the Antichrist (Institutes 4.7.25). The historical Pope that Calvin had in view was Paul III (1534-1549) but his critique never focuses on his person, but rather on the Papal institution.
After underlining the fact that the Antichrist sets his tyranny in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ, Calvin writes that the Antichrist “abolishes not the name of either Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask” by robbing God of his honor. This is, for him, a clear picture of the Pope and therefore he concludes by saying that “it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom.” Calvin is not speaking of a particular historical Pope, but he is referring to the Pope as representing the institution of the Papacy.
An Antidote to the Papacy
Calvin’s main critical analysis of the Papacy is found in two works in particular. In 1543 the theological faculty of the Sorbonne published twenty-five articles that candidates had to subscribe to as a kind of oath to remain faithful to the Catholic Church. The following year, Calvin wrote a refutation of this summary of Catholic doctrine in his Articuli a facultate sacrae theologiae parisiensi by quoting each article and providing a critical review, i.e. an “antidote.” (This word “antidote” would come back in Calvin’s 1547 refutations of the Acts of the Council of Trent in Acta synodi Tridentinae cum Antidoto)Article XXIII treats the primacy of the See of Rome and rehearses Catholic proofs for it. In response, Calvin argues that while Scripture often speaks of Christ as the head of the Church, it never does so as far as the Pope is concerned [see also Institutes 4.6-7). 
The unity of the Church is based on one God, one faith and one baptism (Eph. 4:4), but there is no mention of the necessity of the Pope in order for the Church to be the Church. Moreover, in listing the ministries and offices of the Church, Paul is silent about a present or future Papacy. Peter was Paul’s co-worker, not his pope-like leader. The universal Bishop of the Church is Christ alone. To this Biblical argument for the headship of Christ, Calvin adds a historical reference to some Patristic writings that support the same New Testament view. Even Cyprian of Carthage, who is often considered a Church Father who favored an early form of a Papacy, calls the bishop of Rome a “brother, fellow-Christian, and colleague in the episcopate,” thus showing that he did not have in view the kind of primacy that was later attributed to the Pope.
These kinds of biblical and patristic arguments against the Papacy can be found in another giant of the Protestant Reformation of the XVI century, namely Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), especially in his 1542 Trattato della vera chiesa e della necessità di viver in essa (Treatise of the true church and the necessity to live in her). They appear to be standard controversial treatments of the magisterial Reformation.
What is Wrong with the Papacy?
Returning to Calvin, another of his works that deals with the Papacy was written in 1549. When Charles tried to find a compromise solution to the Augsbug Interim, Bucer and Bullinger urged Calvin to respond. He wrote the treatise Vera Christianae pacificationis et Ecclesiae reformandae ratio, in which he described the doctrines that should be upheld, including justification by faith. In expounding the doctrine of the Church, Calvin devotes a section to the Papacy. Here he criticizes the standard Catholic reading of John 21, a New Testament text that is considered to be one of the Biblical foundations of the Papal office. In commenting on the passage, Calvin notes that the threefold command to Peter to shepherd the sheep is to be related to the threefold denial of Jesus by Peter.
This office is not exclusive given the fact that Peter exhorts his fellow-elders to do the same (1 Peter 5:2). Furthermore, according to Calvin the Papacy is totally invalid because in the New Testament there is no injunction given to Peter to find successors in a juridical sense. To keep the unity of the Church, Christ is all we need. Calvin then comments on the choice of Rome as the chosen See for the Pope. “Why Rome,” Calvin asks. In writing to the Romans, Paul mentions many individual names, but Peter is not on the list. And even if Peter would later go to Rome, why was the city selected as the special and central place for future Popes? Why not Jerusalem? Or Antioch? Calvin, however, does not address the political and historical importance of Rome as reasons for locating the Papacy there.
Finally, Calvin once again accuses the Pope of being the Antichrist because of his “tyranny,” “destruction of the truth,” “corruption of the worship of God,” “breaking of His ordinances,” and the “dispersion of the order of His Church.” Here we see many similarities with Luther, with the exception that with Calvin the apocalyptic tone is not as strong and is less evident than that of the German reformer. Rather than passionate eschatological concerns, Calvin relies on lucid theological and Biblical arguments in his effort to grapple with the Papacy.
This is an excerpt from my book, A Christian’s Pocket Guide to the Papacy (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2015). It also appeared here
Luther and the Pope have long been perceived as representing the two enemies within Western Christianity. Their persons embodied the religious conflict that took place in the XVI century giving rise to the Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Before Luther rejected the Pope, the Pope had already rejected Luther by condemning him first in 1520 and then excommunicating him in 1521. So it is difficult to establish who first broke fellowship with the other.
In fact, before burning the 1520 Papal bull Exsurge Domine that contained his condemnation, Luther was a devout Roman Catholic and highly esteemed the Pope. His acceptance of the Papacy was totally uncritical. He believed that the problem lied with the curia around the Pope, not with the Pope himself. Even after nailing the 95 Theses in 1517 he had hopes of finding a hearing with the Pope concerning the need to correct certain moral abuses and doctrinal errors. In the Theses Luther is chiefly concerned with limiting the powers of the Pope, not considering them self-referential and unlimited, but instead under Gospel standards (e.g. Thesis 5). For example, Popes have no power over the souls who are in Purgatory, only God does (Theses 22 and 25). Popes cannot give absolution if God has not granted it (Thesis 6). Popes can only act within the boundaries set by the Word of God.
At this stage, Luther begins to counter the absolute claims of the primacy of the Pope or of the Councils with the primacy of Scripture. In writing against the Catholic theologian Johannes Eck in 1519 Luther develops his critical approach towards the Papacy with a fuller set of arguments (Resolutio Lutherana … de potestate papae). The authority of Popes and Councils should be subordinate to that of the Bible. The Papacy was not instituted by Christ, but was instead established by the Church in the course of its history. So it does not come from “divine law”, but is instead a human institution. The “rock” of Matthew 16 is not a reference to Peter, but is his confession of Jesus on behalf of the whole church or Christ himself. He alone is the solid foundation of the Church. The Roman Popes have nothing “petrine” about them, nor is there anything “Papal” in Peter. The Papacy is not commanded nor foreseen by Scripture, and therefore obedience to the Word of God must take precedence over obedience to the Pope. If the Pope disobeys the Scripture, the faithful Christian should follow the latter without hesitation. Christians are not obligated to obey an unfaithful Pope.
Although the debate was becoming hotter, it was only after his definitive excommunication in 1521 that Luther elaborated his even more radical critique of the Papacy. At this point, Luther became convinced that the supreme adversary of the Christian faith was its supreme representative, i.e. the Pope. The Papacy had become a power structure and could no longer serve the cause of the Gospel, but served instead the carnal interests of the Church. In his response to Ambrogio Caterino (an Italian Dominican monk who had written a defense of the Pope and against what Luther had published on the topic) the German reformer turned his opposition to the Papacy into an apocalyptic argument. In commenting on Daniel 8:23-25, Luther identifies the ferocious king of the passage who devastates the saints as the Pope. Playing with the double meaning of the Greek word anti, Luther argues that the Pope is against Christ and takes his place by claiming to act on his behalf. He is a counterfeit Christ. He is therefore the Antichrist. According to Luther, his times were marked by the imminent end of the world; this then demanded that the situation be painted in black and white. The Pope and the Turks were the representatives of the Antichrist and were focusing their final attack on the Church of Christ.
In 1534 Luther drafted the Smalcald Articles, which are a summary of Christian doctrine from a Lutheran perspective. In art. 4, Luther speaks of the Pope’s power as “false, mischievous, blasphemous, and arrogant” mainly interested in “diabolic affairs.” His critique, however, is not confined to his contemporary experience of the Papacy, but draws on historical and theological arguments.
In the same article he writes: “it is manifest that the holy Church has been without the Pope for at least more than five hundred years, and that even to the present day the churches of the Greeks and of many other languages neither have been nor are yet under the Pope. Besides, as often remarked, it is a human figment which is not commanded, and is unnecessary and useless; for the holy Christian [or catholic] Church can exist very well without such a head, and it would certainly have remained better [purer, and its career would have been more prosperous] if such a head had not been raised up by the devil. And the Papacy is also of no use in the Church, because it exercises no Christian office; and therefore it is necessary for the Church to continue and to exist without the Pope”. A church without the Pope captures Luther’s vision at this point.
In 1545, one year before dying, Luther wrote his final fierce thoughts on the Papacy. In his work Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil, he is aware that the final, eschatological hour is at hand. The Pope is a child of the Devil who wants to destroy the Church through the sword  of the Turks and through the lies of the Pope. It is an eschatological emergency reaching its final stage. No compromise is possible under these circumstances and evil is to be denounced and fought against relentlessly. Luther’s views of the Papacy developed over his life from an initial acceptance to a final and total rejection of it. His apocalyptic views served to shed a sinister light on the Pope and shaped his harsh language against him. Yet Luther, the superb Biblical scholar he was, was also an excellent Christian theologian who easily dismantled the superficial Biblical and theological arguments in favor of the Papacy.
Because of this rich display of Christian wisdom, his radical criticism cannot be explained in psychological terms as if he were driven by resentment only. His theological assessments set the tone for the wider Reformation movement.

This post is an excerpt from my book A Christian’s Pocket Guide to the Papacy (Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2015). it also appeared here.
In the last article, I looked at John Davenant’s discussion on the formal cause of our justification. Now I will turn to his discussion of the role of good works in light of our justification in Christ.
Davenant is at pains to refute the common Romanist accusation that Protestants deny the necessity of good works. In particular, he focuses upon correcting Bellarmine’s caricature of the Protestant position which is that Protestants believe that good works are not conditionally connected to salvation and are only necessary to attest or evidence true faith; and answering Bellarmine’s criticisms of the Protestant position on good works. In so doing, he fervently and repeatedly affirms that good works play an active and positive role in salvation.
Davenant defines good works as those which are "wrought by the regenerate now, and flow from a heart purified by faith" and they may be external like feeding the hungry or internal such as trusting God. Good works are necessary for a variety of reasons. Believers must engage in good works in order to submit to God’s command, express gratitude, satisfy one’s conscience, avoid punishment, be assured of salvation, edify one’s neighbor and glorify God. There is even a causal necessity to good works in that if the Spirit abides in a person then he will bear fruit. But what is more, Davenant affirms that good works are conditionally necessary for salvation.
The good works that are conditionally necessary for salvation are not perfect works, which are demanded by the law. Rather what is required and demanded by the gospel are "those works of inchoate holiness, which through the efficacy of grace are wrought by the regenerate." In other words, sincere, not hypocritical, obedience is necessary for salvation. Another important caveat is that good works are not meritorious in any sense. They do not merit justification or the preservation and increase of salvation. These two points are intricately related. Sincere obedience cannot be meritorious. Therefore, since the good works that are necessary for salvation are imperfect, they are not meritorious. And since they are not meritorious they can be quite imperfect and even intermittent. Indeed, a believer can fall into grievous sin or backslide and still be saved. Nevertheless, sincere obedience, which is akin to perseverance, is still necessary for salvation and pleasing to God because of the gospel. This is one difference between the law and the gospel. The law could not accept sincere obedience because it demands perfect obedience and condemns for the slightest sin. But the gospel, which "treats with the justified, who are delivered from death through faith in Christ, and graciously appointed to life, allows sinners an advocate, by whose intercession they obtain the constant remission of sins," can require and even reward the sincere but imperfect works of believers because they are "accepted by God the Father, in Christ the Mediator."
Davenant clearly states that justification and the right to eternal life is by faith alone. Good works are demanded from the justified and thus not for their justification. Yet, he is also willing to admit that some good works are necessary to justification as "concurrent or preliminary conditions." Here Davenant has in mind internal good works such as a hatred for sin and a turning to Christ for mercy. These internal works, which essentially amount to faith and repentance, are conditionally necessary for justification in terms of order and not causality. They are not an efficient or meritorious cause of justification. Nevertheless, a sinner must believe and repent in order to be justified. Davenant uses the example of being knighted. A man must go through the ceremony in order to become a knight, but his role in the ceremony is not the meritorious ground or cause of his knighthood.
Good works, in the sense of internal and external works, are conditionally necessary for the justified believer both negatively and positively. Negatively, they are necessary to avoid condemnation or to retain and preserve the state of justification. They are the "means or conditions, without which God will not preserve in men the grace of justification." Once again Davenant stresses that good works are not causes which effect or merit this preservation. They are the means or conditions by which God preserves his people. In order to remain alive a person must avoid those things which will kill him such as poisons. Likewise, in order to maintain spiritual health a person needs to avoid those things which kill, which in turn requires a believer to continually do good works, that is, to repent, trust, and obey. "But these acts do not properly and of themselves preserve the life of grace by securing the effect itself of preservation; but indirectly and incidentally by excluding and removing the cause of destruction."
Positively, good works are conditionally necessary for salvation in order to grow in grace and make it to glory. Echoing his predecessors, Davenant says that good works are necessary because they are God’s appointed path to attain eternal life. There are three goals or ends for good works: the glory of God, the welfare of one’s neighbor, and one’s own salvation. This last end indicates that there is a personal salvific interest or motive to doing good works. The road to glory is paved with good works and he who would arrive at the celestial city must walk on this narrow road. Davenant writes:
Besides, we ought to regard eternal life as our goal and end; but this goal is never reached except in the way of good works. For that broad way of licentiousness and impiety leads straight to hell, as Christ himself assures us, Matt. vii. 13, 14. It being understood then, that we are seeking the kingdom of heaven, we must necessarily enter upon the way which leads to the kingdom of heaven—the way of good works.
Yet again, the Englishman stresses that good works are not proper efficient causes of eternal life, but are necessary by a necessity of order. They are necessary "as the way to the kingdom, not as the causes of reigning." Matthew 19:17, Heb 10:36; 1 Tim 2:14-15, 2 Cor 4:17, and Rom 8:13 teach that law keeping, perseverance, sanctification, patience and mortification are necessary as the non-meritorious divinely ordained road to glory. Good works therefore "follow justification, and precede glorification as the way ordained thereto," making them a subsequent condition of justification and an antecedent condition to salvation.
It is in this respect that Davenant can speak of good works as being rewarded with heaven and as causes of salvation. Indeed, with respect to the latter, he is even willing to refer to good works as efficient causes. Works are often denied to be an efficient cause in salvation by Protestants, as Davenant himself does, but only in the sense of meriting or being the ground of salvation. This is why the key point between the Romanists and the Protestants, at least according to Davenant, was not that good works are in some sense a cause of salvation. Rather, the dispute was over the kind of cause attributed to good works. Romanists affirmed that good works are meritorious or properly efficient causes. Davenant, on the other hand, admits that good works are an efficient cause, but only in an improper, non-meritorious or broad sense. In responding to Bellarmine’s claim that Phil 2:12 teaches that good works are necessary as efficient causes, Davenant carefully distinguishes between efficiency in its broad and narrow senses. He writes:
We do not deny efficiency altogether to works in relation to salvation, but meritorious efficiency, or efficiency properly so understood: namely, such as reaches or produces the effect itself of salvation: but efficiency taken in a broad sense, that is to say, as working something preceding the effect of salvation, we willingly grant to spring from good works. For good works lead to progression in the way of salvation, which consequence is antecedent to salvation itself, although it is not the meritorious or efficient cause of the same. And in this sense, he who performs good works is said to work out his salvation, not by effecting his salvation, through the inherent virtue or merit of his works, but by advancing forward to salvation by the way of good works.
Thus, on the one hand, Davenant says that it is God who saves his elect from start to finish. By grace alone, God brings them into a state of justification, preserves them in that state and finally glorifies them. He flatly denies that their good works, indeed their feeble efforts, acquire "the efficacy or character of a meritorious cause for the preserving of justifying grace, or the attaining to heavenly glory." Yet, on the other hand, he freely admits that "God preserves and increases the gifts of grace in those who apply themselves to good works, and by the zeal of good works draws them on to the goal of salvation." So, although good works are not causes, which effect or merit salvation, "they cause the doers of them to advance in the way of salvation."
One of the key criticisms by Roman Catholics against the Protestant doctrine of justification was that it nullified the necessity of and the incentive to do good works in part because they viewed Protestants as only teaching that good works are necessary in order to prove the existence of faith. John Davenant, however, as we have seen above, aptly defended the Protestant position from this criticism. Good works are indeed conditionally necessary for salvation as the way to glory.
One of the key theological battles between the Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic Church was over the doctrine of justification. This important battle continued on into the seventeenth century and indeed it continues unabated today. John Davenant, the Bishop of Salisbury and a British delegate to the Synod of Dort, wrote a treatise on justification (published in 1631) wherein he defended the Protestant and Reformed position over against the Roman Catholic position, particularly as it was championed by Robert Bellarmine. In this article, I will focus on what Davenant says about the basis or ground of our justification before God. He refers to this as the formal cause of justification.
By formal cause Davenant means "nothing else than that by which we stand, in the sight of God, freed from condemnation, innocent, and graciously accepted unto life eternal" (1:211). In others words, the issue at hand is "what, and of what kind, that righteousness is, which justifies man before God, and in the view of which, God himself pronounces man to be free from sin, and the penalty of sin, and accounts him worthy of his favour and eternal life" (1:157).
The Roman Catholic position is that the formal cause of justification is the infused or inherent righteousness in believers. They teach, according to Davenant, that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers, not with respect to itself but only in terms of its effects. Christ merited infused grace and that meritorious work is imputed to believers in that they are infused with grace. This infused or inherent grace achieves two things in justification. First, it entirely removes everything in the believer that has the formal nature of sin, including every aspect of original sin. Sin, therefore, is not just cast down but cast out altogether. Second, infused grace enables believers to be righteous in themselves, which in turn makes them worthy of eternal life. In short, Christ merited infused grace so that we might merit eternal life by our own personal righteousness.
Davenant dismantles the Roman Catholic view primarily by showing that sin remains in the regenerate believer. He cogently argues that although the guilt of original sin is removed completely, the "contagion of it is not altogether extirpated out of his nature" (1:25). Sin no longer has dominion over the believer as the Apostle Paul notes in Romans 6, nonetheless the believer must still battle against the presence of sin in his own heart and life as indicated by Paul’s command to not let sin reign in his mortal body, to make him obey its passions.  
This is not to say that Davenant denied that there was inherent or infused grace in the justified believer. Contrary to the repeated misrepresentations by various Roman Catholic authors, Davenant emphatically and at length argued that Protestants in accord with Scripture strongly affirm the presence of infused grace in the justified and at the moment of justification. The justified are new creatures "not from our justification strictly taken, but from sanctification, its invariable companion" (1:168). Moreover, the justified are called righteous in Scripture "not by imputation only, but on account of the real inherence of the inchoate [not fully formed] righteousness which is not, in any measure, inherent in the unregenerate" (1:13). In fact, Davenant is willing to grant that the inherent righteousness of the justified believer may be seen as the formal cause of justification in the sense of making just. However, this inherent righteousness is imperfect and inchoate so that it "renders a man just, but imperfectly and inchoately" (1:160). Since this is the case, inherent righteousness cannot be the formal cause of justification because justification requires an absolute, perfect righteousness. And this is Davenant’s main but devastating point against his Roman Catholic opponents. Sin continues to plague the believer until the day he dies, and therefore his own personal righteousness simply can’t be the basis of his justification before God. Davenant writes:
This then is the force of this argument: No righteousness but that which is perfect, according to the exact rule of the law, justifies before God; but our inherent righteousness is not such, nay in its best and innermost parts it labours under faults and defects…But we all sin every day. Every day we seek remission, and in the article of death do so most urgently and humbly. Consequently we acknowledge that we do not stand justified, or worthy of heaven, by the quality of righteousness permanently inherent in us, but that by remission of sins and Divine grace, life eternal for Christ's sake is bestowed upon us, though most unworthy of it…The plain reason of it is this: the best of the regenerate, in order that they may be justified and saved, need the daily pardon of sins and the unceasing mercy of God. They are consequently not justified by the quality of their inherent righteousness (1:217, 229, 230).
So, what then is the formal cause of our justification? The answer is the obedience and righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to believers by faith alone. Davenant notes that this is the "common opinion of all of our divines" (1:161). The righteousness by which we are justified is and remains Christ’s own perfect, personal righteousness. Nonetheless, our justification is not a legal fiction because of our union with Christ, which enables what properly belongs to Christ to "become ours in the way of bestowal and saving participation" (1:187). This means that God does not regard us as righteous "merely because he looks upon us covered with the righteousness of our Redeemer; but because, according to his own appointment, he regards all who believe and are united into one person with Christ, as become truly partakers of his righteousness and obedience" (1:177).
The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the reason we are absolved from the guilt and punishment of our sins. It is also the reason we are delivered from the curse of the law and obtain the reward of eternal life that is promised to the observers of the law. In other words, the imputation of Christ’s whole obedience (passive and active) is the formal cause of our justification.
Davenant draws upon a number of arguments to prove this Protestant position. He notes that since the benefit of justification is placed in apprehending Christ by faith then justification must arise from imputation and not infusion. He also appeals to the analogy with Adam in Romans 5. We are guilty in Adam by imputation and we are righteous in Christ by imputation. He writes:
Spiritual regeneration and the closest union with Christ, as with a new root, are equally availing that his obedience should be imputed to us for the effect of justification, as that natural generation and union with Adam, the old root, availed, so that his disobedience was imputed to the effect of condemnation. Since then it is certain, that the actual disobedience of Adam is imputed to us, so that through it we stand condemned; no reason can be brought, why the obedience and righteousness of Christ should not also be so imputed, that by it we should stand justified" (1:237-238).
Furthermore, the Scriptures speak of the imputation of penal satisfaction in Isaiah 53 and Matthew 20:28. And "if the righteousness of Christ making satisfaction becomes ours by imputation, why not also the righteousness of Christ fulfilling the law" (1:239)? The Scriptures also declare that the righteousness of Christ becomes ours (1 Cor. 1:30) and this cannot be understood except by imputation.
The verses that might appear to contradict the Protestant position are the ones that speak of faith being counted for righteousness (e.g. Rom. 4:5). Davenant argues that this means that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers because "faith, considered as a quality, can no more be imputed for righteousness, than other qualities infused by the same Spirit; but it must be necessarily understood thus, viz. as far as it apprehends its own object, namely Christ with his saving righteousness, and applies it to the believer" (1:249). Besides, it is common "to attribute to the appropriating cause, that which properly and immediately pertains to the thing appropriated. Hence because faith apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ to us, there is attributed to faith itself, what is due in reality to Christ" (1:249).
One of the main debates between Protestants and Roman Catholics was over the formal cause of justification. Roman Catholicism has argued that our inherent righteousness is the basis for our justification, while Protestantism has argued that it is the imputed righteousness of Christ. The difference between these two positions is enormous, and it is one reason the church desperately needed a Reformation.
We need to make a distinction between the various forms of debate that historians classify as "polemical theology." Anti-Catholic preaching at St. Paul's Cross was something different because it addressed a lay audience untrained in the theological details of the question at issue. The strategy was to attack the character or the ethos of the opposition. Aristotle wrote that the speaker’s ethos was one of the three forms of persuasion (along with pathos, the compassion of the speaker and logos, the care in which he uses content and structure to communicate clearly). If an opponent is shown to speak misleadingly, then their case is overthrown without discussing it in detail. Jewel used ethos effectively to persuade his hearers to be suspicious of the Roman Catholic argument because of man's sinfulness and rebellion against God; there is an inevitable corruption of divine worship as God commanded. Jewel’s opponents were examples of this continuing tendency to idolatry. He then uses the early Church Fathers as examples of the right use of Scripture and as men of godliness that preserved worship as Christ commanded.
Jewel, therefore, begins by making the case that holy things can be abused. The Lord’s Supper can be abused in five practices that Jewel labels as abuses but which the Roman Catholic Church did not consider corrupt: the use of Latin in worship rather than the language the people understand; the reception of communion in only one kind; the wording of the canon of the mass, what Anglican will call the prayer of consecration; the adoration of the host, and the private mass. Turning the Roman Catholic argument on its head that Protestant theology is a new order, he underlines how these abuses are a recent novelty of its clergy:
But in the mass, as it hath been used in this latter age of the world, the priest uttereth the holy mysteries in such a language, as neither the people nor oftentimes himself understandeth the meaning. (Challenge Sermon, 9)
This is the greatest antiquity of the whole matter: about three hundred years ago it was first found out, and put in practice; but Christ and his apostles, the holy fathers in the primitive church, the doctors that followed them, and other learned and godly men whatsoever for the space of a thousand and two hundred years after Christ, never heard of it. (Challenge Sermon, 10)
Jewel emphasizes the threat of idolatry involved in the Roman Catholic devotions to the consecrated elements of the Communion, a threat previously unknown to the laypeople of England’s parishes. 
Thus we see, even by the confession of …their own doctors, that he that goeth to the mass, and worshippeth the sacrament, unless he be learned and take good heed, may soon commit idolatry. The doctrine of itself is new, the profit of it such as the church of God for the space of twelve hundred years was well able to be without it, the jeopardy of it great and horrible, and scarcely possible to be avoided. (Challenge Sermon, 12)
But Jewel's purpose is not to explain debates over the Lord's Supper here because only the Roman Catholic position is discussed in detail. The effect of his examination of Roman Catholic practices is to make one group of clergy appear to offer complex arguments for dangerous teachings, while the Protestant clergy asserts simple truths from the plain sense of the Scriptures. Where the Roman Catholic wrest Scripture, the Protestant, “…bring you nothing but God's holy word; which is a sure rock to build upon, and will never fleet or shrink. And therefore are we able truly to say with St Paul: Quod accepimus a Domino, hoc tradidimus vobis: “We have delivered unto you the same things that we have received of the Lord.” (Challenge Sermon, 16)
The comparison is not just between doctrines, but between teachers of doctrine. And only one group of teachers is said to bring “God’s holy word” to the people. It is from this comparison of teachers that the “challenge” of the sermon works to devastating effect. Jewel sets out the history and teaching of the Church Fathers throughout the centuries. He uses his patristic knowledge to show that they, like the Protestant clergy of the Church of England, based their teaching firmly upon the Scripture.
The strength of Jewel’s challenge lay in the precision with which he makes his critique. All the abuses of the Roman Catholic Mass were recent, the product of medieval scholastic or devotional habits. For example, Jewel did not ask for proof of the real presence of Christ in the elements because, “some color or shadow of the doctors might be produced by the Catholic side” (Controversy with Doctor Cole, 28). Instead, he demanded patristic statements that Christ is “substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally” present in the elements and that only the “accidents” of bread and wine persist after the consecration. Terms such as “accidents” do not predate the explanation of Eucharistic theology in the years leading up to the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. As the “challenge” demanded explicit statements from the first six hundred years, Jewel could rest assured that he would not be forced to recant.
And that ye may the more marvel at the wilfulness of such men, they stand this day against so many old fathers, so many doctors, so many examples of the primitive church, so manifest and so plain words of the holy scriptures; and yet have they herein not one father, not one doctor, not one allowed example of the primitive church to make for them. (Challenge Sermon, 20)
Jewel goes on to tell his hearers that the Roman Catholic clergy (now ranked against the hearers as “our adversaries”) had over-awed the laity in the past by claiming the authority of the Church Fathers for their practices, “an easy matter it was so to do, especially before them, that lack either the leisure, or judgment to examine their proofs.” Jewell is now challenging them to produce the evidence of the antiquity of which they had boasted. Of course, the hearers are not being asked to examine the proofs. They still lack the "leisure, or judgment to examine" them. Jewel's argument is about the reliability of the teachers of doctrine. And the proof of his trustworthiness is apparent in the confidence of his challenge.
I remember I laid out then here before you a number of things that are now in controversy, whereunto our adversaries will not yield. And I said, perhaps boldly, as it might then seem to some man; but, as I myself and the learned of our adversaries themselves do well know, sincerely and truly, that none of all them, that this day stand against us, are able, or shall ever be able, to prove against us any one of all those points, either by the scriptures, or by example of the primitive church, or by the old doctors, or by the ancient general councils. (Challenge Sermon, 20)
Jewel’s “challenge” sermon places the laity as judges between Catholic and Protestant theologians (not as judges of Protestant and Catholic theology). This address to the laity was to be sustained in the controversy that followed which led Jewel to write his Apologia. He chose issues on which the Roman Catholic Church can be shown unambiguously to have departed from the practice of the early Church. A proper use of the Church Fathers, therefore, is to give evidence of these early practices and to set out their theological method in their fidelity to the Scriptures. In the controversy that followed the publication of Jewel's Apology in 1564, he continued to question the ethos of his opponents in their use of the Fathers. If anyone doubts our teaching, Jewel writes, they ought to do what the Fathers did, and check it by Scripture: 
For the catholic fathers and bishops of those days nothing doubted but that our religion could be sufficiently proved out of the divine Scriptures; nor did they ever dare account any one an heretic, whose error they could not plainly and clearly disprove out of the same Scriptures. ...Wherefore, if we are heretics, and they [as they would be called) catholics, why do they not the same that the fathers, true catholic men, ever did? Why do they not convict us out of the holy Scriptures? Why do they not recall us to be tried by them? Why do they not shew that we have departed from Christ, from the apostles, from the prophets, from the holy fathers? Why do they hesitate? What is it they are afraid of? (Apology, 22-23)