[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 many4 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.]


R. Abbot.

What our Savior meant by saying in every instant of his giving up the ghost, “it is finished” [John 19:30.5], we may conceive by the Apostle, making, as it seems application of that word when he says, “With one oblation he has consummated or made perfect forever them that are sanctified” [Heb. 10:14.6]. By that one oblation he performed whatsoever was necessary for our full and perfect sanctification and reconciliation unto God. And therein he “fulfilled all prophecies” that were written of atonement and peace to be made betwixt God and man, the effect whereof S. Peter expresses saying, “to him give all the Prophets witness that through his name all that believe in him shall receive remission of sins” [Act. 10:43]. Says S. Paul, “through his blood even the forgiveness of sins,” [Ephe. 1:17.]. Now as the author to the Hebrews infers, “where remission of these things is, there is no more offering for sin” [Heb. 10:18.], so we may infer, where remission of sins is, there is not more satisfying for sin, because sacrifice and satisfaction have one and the self-same respect to sin. Seeing then Christ has done that, that yields us perfect forgiveness of sins, it must follow that there remains no further satisfaction to be performed for sin. And thus much is contained in M. Bishop’s words, but that like Caiphas, he says well and understands not what he says. “Christ,” says he, “endured all such torments as God would impose upon him for the redemption of mankind.” And what is redemption, but a payment of full and perfect satisfaction?Because the passion of Christ,” says Thomas, “was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sin of mankind and guilt of punishment, his passion was as it were a price or payment, by which we were set free from obligation both those ways. For the satisfaction whereby a man satisfies either for himself or for another, is called a price by which a man is redeemed (or buys out) himself for another from sin and punishment.” “Now Christ,” says he, “has made satisfaction by giving himself for us, and therefore the passion of Christ is said to be our redemption.”7 If then the passion of Christ be therefore our redemption, because he has paid a sufficient and superabundant satisfaction to free us from obligation of guilt and punishment, how can it stand that after Christ’s redemption the obligation should still remain, and that there should be yet a further satisfaction to be made? Either it must be said that Christ has not made a full redemption; or else it must be acknowledged, that Christ has taken away all temporal satisfaction. But Christ in saying, “It is finished” testifies that in is death he fully finished our redemption. Therefore he testifies that he has left no place for any further satisfaction. This cannot be shifted off. A perfect redemption takes away all obligation of further satisfaction, or else it cannot be called absolutely perfect. Christ’s redemption therefore being simply and absolutely perfect, must necessarily infer a denial of temporal satisfaction. Albeit in very name of temporal satisfaction in this case is absurd, because the guilt of sin being only infinite and eternal, and so in no sort temporal, as before was said. 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), 749-750. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal Scripture references cited inline; Latin marginal notes not included; footnotes and footnote values mine; and underlining mine.]

Of general interest:

1) We must think that somewhat was wanting to the sufferings of Christ, to set us free from temporal punishments, and towards that S. Paul paid his shot, and having suffered enough for his own discharge, would add somewhat to serve in common to ease the burden of other men. But against this wicked and blasphemous fancy, the Apostle himself instructs us, when he says, “Was Paul crucified for you?” [1 Cor. 1:13.]. If we believe M. Bishop, Paul also was crucified for us. Therefore he teaches us to say, “God forbid that I should rejoice but in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” [Gal. 6:14.], not in the cross of Paul, not in the cross of Peter, but only in the cross of Jesus Christ. If M. Bishop say true, we have to rejoice in the cross of Peter and in the cross of Paul, and in the crosses of the rest of the Saints, as having redeemed us from Purgatory, and from temporal pains; but we are taught to rejoice in nothing but the cross of Jesus Christ, that it may be true which he has said, “I have trodden the wine-press alone, and of all people there was none with me” [Isa. 63:3.]. Therefore Ambrose says, “Christ have died for us, why do we impute his grace and benefit to other men to his wrong?”8 Very fully to this purpose says Leo Bishop of Rome: “Albeit the death of many Saints has been precious in the Lord’s sight, yet the killing of no Saint has been the propitiation of the world. The just received crowns, but gave none, and of the fortitude of the faithful, have grown examples of patience, no gifts of righteousness. Their deaths were several all in every [one] of them, neither has any man by his death paid the debt of another man, seeing amongst the sons of men it was only our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom all were crucified, dead, buried and raised again.9 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), 752. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal Scripture references cited inline; Latin marginal notes not included; footnotes and footnote values mine; and underlining mine.]

2) Thus in all matters betwixt them and us, the judge speaks clearly on our side: his words are so plain as nothing more can be more plain. Yet notwithstanding they tell us, that all these things have another meaning, which we must take upon the Popes word. The common dement10 (forsooth) is meant of the idols of the Gentiles, not of the law of images of Saints. As if a whore-monger should say, that the law forbids whoredom of Christians with heathens, not one with another. The Scripture, they say, intends there to no other Mediator of redemption but one, but Mediators of intercession there are many. As if an adulterous woman should say, that she may have but one husband of this or that sort, bit of another sort she may have many. And yet they make them mediators of redemption also, because they make them mediators of satisfaction, and redemption is nothing else but the payment of a price of satisfaction. 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), 968. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal Scripture references cited inline; Latin marginal notes not included; footnotes and footnote values mine; and underlining mine.]


1[Abbot’s Greek spelling is unclear here.]

2[Abbot refers to Augustine as Austin (which he sometimes spells as Austine) for the most part in this work. For consistency and clarity, I have substituted Augustine in the place Austin. I have also modernized Abbot’s spelling for Jerome.]

3[Extended marginal Latin comment not cited.]

4[Hereon marginal references for this page are not included as they are unreadable for the most part.]

5[The Greek word in the margin is fairly unreadable. Abbot may be referring to tetelestai.]

6[The Greek here is obscured and faded. Abbot is probably referencing teteleioken.]

7[Abbot’s marginal citation of Aquinas in Latin is unreadable.]

8[Latin marginal reference not included.]

9[Extensive marginal note referring Leo is unreadable, and so is not cited.]

10[Archaic word, meaning to ‘drive mad.’]

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 22nd, 2010 at 8:36 am and is filed under Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed at this time.