Abbot:
1)
[W. Bishop.]
…1. Reason. The faith whereby we live, is the faith whereby we are justified: but the faith whereby we live, is a particular faith, whereby we apply Christ to ourselves, as Paul says, “I live,” that is spiritually, by the faith of the Son of God, which faith he shows to be a particular faith in Christ, in the words following, “Who has loved me, and given himself for me particularly.”
Answer. [Bishop:] The Major I admit, and deny the Minor: and say, that the proof is not to purpose. For in the Minor he speaks of faith, whereby we apply Christ’s merits unto ourselves, making them ours, in the proof Saint Paul says only, that Christ died for him in particular. He makes no mention of his apprehending of Christ’s justice, and making of it his own, which are very distinct things. All Catholics believe with Saint Paul, that Christ died, as for all men in general, so for every man in particular, yea and that his love was so exceeding great towards mankind, that he would willingly have bestowed his life, for the redemption of one only man. But hereupon it does not follow, that every man may lay hands upon Christ’s righteousness, and apply it to himself, (or else Turks, Jews, Heretics, and evil Catholics, might make very bold with him), but must first do these things which he requires at their hands, to be made partakers of his inestimable merits: as to repent them heartily of their sins, to believe and hope in him, to be baptized, and to have a full purpose to observe all his commandments. Which M. Perkins [Pag. 152.] also confesses that all men have not only promised, but also vowed in baptism. Now because we are not assured that we shall perform all this, therefore we may not so presumptuously apply unto ourselves, Christ’s righteousness, and life everlasting, although we believe that he died for every one of us in particular. That which follows, M. Perkins, has no color of probability: that Saint Paul in this manner of belief, that is, in applying to himself Christ’s merits, as an example unto all that are to be saved. See the places, good read, and learn to beware the bold unskilfulness of sectaries. For there is not a word sounding that way, but only how he having received mercy was made an example of patience [1 Tim. 1:16, Phil. 3:15.].
R. Abbot.
[Abbot:]The act of truth faith is particularly to apply, has been handled before in the question of the Certainty of Salvation: but yet the place so requiring, M. Perkins though fit here to set down some few reasons for further proof thereof. The first whereof is grounded upon the words of St. Paul: “I live by the faith of the Son of God, who has loved me, and given himself for me.” M. Bishop’s exception is, that S. Paul speaks not of faith, whereby we apply Christ’s merits or justice unto ourselves making them ours, but says only that Christ died for himself in particular. But what? is not the death of Christ a part, yea, and a principal part of the merit of Christ? With us it is so, and M. Bishop we suppose when he is well advised, conceives no otherwise. If then the Apostle speak of faith, apprehending and applying unto us particularly the death of Christ, he speaks of faith, apprehending and applying unto us particularly the merit of Christ. And all parts of the merit of Christ, are parts also with us of the righteousness of Christ. As his obedience in being baptized for us [Ambros. In Ps. 118. for 8 Baptizatus1 pro nobis.], was his “righteousness” [Mat. 3:15.], so his obedience in dying for us [Phil. 2:8.], was his righteousness also. Therefore faith applying unto us particularly the death of Christ, applies unto us particularly the righteousness of Christ. Now M. Bishop tells us, that “all Catholics believe with S. Paul, that Christ died for all men in general, so every man in particular of his exceeding great love towards mankind.” But tell us further M. Bishop, was that all S. Paul meant, that Christ loved him as he loved all men; he died for him as he died for all men? Was this S. Paul’s faith, Christ loved me as he loved Judas the traitor; he died for me as he died for Simon Magus? It is written concerning Esau, “I have hated Esau” [Rom. 9:13.], and in him a pattern of all reprobates is set forth unto us; and might Esau say, as well as Paul, “Christ has loved me, and given himself for me?” Indeed as S. Augustine2 says, “as touching the greatness and sufficiency of the price, & one common cause or condition of mankind, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world;”3 but yet as he further adds, “there is a propriety of this redemption on their part for whom the Prince of this world is cast forth, and who are not now vessels of the devil but members of Christ, neither did he bestow his death upon mankind, that they also that were not to be regenerated, should belong to his redemption.” Christ in his death intended a price of such extent in value and worth, as should be of power and ability to save all, and therefore should be offered indifferently to all; but yet in love he payed this price only for them, to whom of love he intended fruit and benefit thereby, in love he gave his “soul or life a redemption for many”4 he shed his blood for many, not all,” says Jerome, “but for many, that is, for them that should be willing to believe,” who are, “so many as are ordained unto eternal life.” If he had loved Judas, he would have loved him to the end, because “whom he loved, he loved to the end.” If he had loved universally all, he would have prayed for all, but now there is a world of men, of whom he says, “I pray not for the world, but for them which you have given me out of the world;” that we may know that there is “a world which God loves,” even “the world which Christ has gained by his blood,” which is “the Church of God,” the same Church being reckoned “a special kind of universality, as it were a whole world redeemed or delivered out of the whole world;” and that there is a world of which Christ says, “I am not of the world,” and “I pray not for the world,” which therefore he cannot be understood to love: and according to this difference, the Church of Smyrna writes that “Christ suffered for the salvation of the whole world of them that are to be saved.” Properly therefore to speak of the intention of Christ’s death, he died not generally for all, but only for them that were to be saved thereby. Therefore S. Augustine having mentioned the words of the Apostle, “Who spared not his own Son, but gave himself for us,” asks the question, “But which us? Even us,” says he, “whom it follows, “who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?” So S. Ambrose, “Though Christ died for all yet specially he suffered for us, because he suffered for his Church.” For the elect, then Christ has died in peculiar and special wise, to give unto them the benefit that should arise of his death: for them only he has given himself in love, with purpose to make them partakers of his love. And in this meaning it is, that the Apostle says, “Christ has loved me, and given himself for me,” which because it is the voice of faith, it follows that by faith we have particular application of Christ’s towards ourselves, and do believe that having “given himself for us,” and being “given unto us” he is wholly ours; the merit and righteousness of that he has performed in giving himself, else to live and to die for us, is ours, to the forgiveness of our sins and everlasting life. Now then every true believing man has by the Gospel this boldness ministered unto him, to make application to himself of the death of Christ, and the benefit thereof; and yet it follows not that Turks, Jews and heretics, lewd Catholics may make bold with Christ in that behalf, because they have not faith whereby to conceive this boldness; and we cannot but wonder, that so drunken a conclusion should proceed from hi that carries the name and reputation of a learned man, “They must first,” says he, “do those things which he requires at their hands, to be made partakers of his inestimable merits, as to repent heartily of their sins, to believe and hope in him.” “First,” says he, “they must do these things, but having so done, may they may then apply unto themselves the merit and righteousness of Christ? If so, then he says nothing against us, who teach no to salvation, but according to the rule of Christ, “Repent and believe the Gospel;” [Mar. 1:15.]; no remission of sins, but according to the like rule, that “repentance and remission of sins are preached in the name of Christ,” [Luke 24:47.]; and again, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” [Acts 2:28.]. We say with Augustine, “No man runs to the forgiveness of sins, but he that is displeasing to himself” [August. In Psal. 41. Nemo currit ad remissionem peccatorum nisi qui displicet sibi.]: and again, “No man enters into the body of the Church, except he be first slain; he dies as touching that he was, that he may be that he was not.” [Idem in Psal. 123. In ecclesie corpus nemo intrat nisiprius accisus: moritur quod fuit ut sit quod non fuit.]: Now if having done these things, he may not yet apply unto himself the righteousness and merit of Christ, then M. Bishop does but trifle and mock his Reader, in saying, “first, he must do these things.” And yet how does he say that a man thus doing, “is made partaker of Christ’s inestimable merits,” if he may not apply the same unto himself? Robert Abbot, A Defence of the Reformed Catholicke of M. W. Perkins, lately deceased against the bastard Counter-Catholicke of D. Bishop, Seminary Priest, (Londini: Impensis Thomæ Adams, 1611), 435-438. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal Scripture references cited inline; All but two Latin marginal notes not included; footnotes and footnote values mine; and underlining mine.]
Read the rest of this entry »