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 »

Poullain:

Why Christ was subject to death.

Moreover although this Jesus Christ was thus pure, holy and just, and therefore free and exempt from all charge of sin, to which we are all by nature exposed: nevertheless after that He had taken upon Him our flesh with all its infirmities, save only sin, He willingly made Himself also subject to death. But since there was in Him no stain or charge of sin, and He Himself was the Son of God, yea, God also: this man, being filled with the substance of the Godhead, and with every grace of the Holy Spirit, could not be vanquished by sin, as Adam was; He could not even be holden of death itself. Nay though He submitted to death itself in the flesh, yet being quickened by the Spirit He procured for us eternal redemption before the throne of God’s justice and mercy, for all the elect who had believed or should believe in Him. 111erefore it came to pass, that in like manner as Adam by his trespass corrupted, ruined and destroyed together with himself his whole posterity, which were born of him after the flesh: so Christ restores anew His whole family, to wit, all the elect that are born again of His own seed by the spiritual power of the Holy Ghost, and makes them fit to enter into immortality.

Therefore I profess and believe that Jesus Christ, the true and eternal Son of God according to the divine nature that is in Himself, and likewise the true son of Mary, born in time, according to the human nature that He took upon Him, appeared and came into the world in our flesh, to make satisfaction for the sins of all, and to earn for all life eternal.

‘Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified.’

And this He accomplished fully when by the judgment of Pontius Pilate He underwent a cruel and dreadful death, shameful, yea accursed (albeit by the same judgment the judge himself pronounced Him just and innocent), and was crucified like some malefactor; to the end that He Himself in His own body might bear the curse that was awaiting us, and having taken it wholly upon Himself might consume and destroy it. Finally in order that all men might have the greater certainty of His death, His lifeless body was openly taken down from the cross and laid in the sepulcher.

‘Dead, and buried, He descended into hell.’

And lest peradventure there should seem to be lacking aught of our curse that He had not taken upon Himself, He descended also into hell. For when He was dying He endured all the sharpness of death, with the weight of God’s wrath, like unto a sinner; wherefore He cries out upon the cross that He also had been forsaken of God. But when He was dead, although in the body He lay in the sepulcher, His soul was in hell, that is, in the state of the dead, being truly separated from the body.

‘The third day He rose again from the dead.’

But when He had undergone all things to which by God’s just judgment we had been condemned, in order that God’s justice should be satisfied completely: by His own power He returned to life on the third day, taking again His body, which though laid in the sepulcher could not suffer corruption, even as His soul could not be kept in hell. Thereby He openly showed that He is truly God, and hath power over death, sin, and hell; and finally, that He is Lord over all. And I for my part acknowledge, confess and believe Him.

Read the rest of this entry »

Valdés:

And Christ, by adding, “Verily I say unto you” &c., showed clearly that He meant the destruction of Jerusalem, which it is said happened seventy-five years after the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: and this is the more confirmed by the exclamation against Jerusalem, which He adds, saying, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,” &c. Where two things are to be understood; the one, that under the name of Jerusalem, Christ meant the whole Hebrew nation; and the other, that He spoke of what had happened, and of what was about to happen.

By that: “How often would I have gathered,” &c., it appears that men can resist the will of God, so that God cannot do with men what He would, where combining this with what Christ says in John vi. 44, “No man can come to Me, unless the Father, who hath sent Me, draw him,” I think that it might be said, that we men are so far from willing what God wills, viz., that we submit ourselves to His will; that He cannot bring us to it whilst He exerts ordinary power, which He appears to have exercised towards Jerusalem, since He could not succeed in His design; whilst He reduces us by the exercise of absolute power, which, as Holy Scripture frequently states, no one can resist; and this is what God exerts upon all those whom He brings to Christ; bringing them to Christ by force, not rigorous, but loving, sweet, and grateful.

I, however, can well affirm this concerning myself, that I was so compelled to come to Christ, that I am certain that I could not have resisted it had I wished; and thinking this to be the same with every one of those, who are incorporated into Christ, I think that God exerts absolute power with them, forcing them and compelling them to leave the kingdom of the world and to enter into the kingdom of God; to leave the image of Adam and to assume the image of Christ, by acceptance of the grace of the gospel. As to the manner in which I understand that God forces us and compels us, I remit myself to what I have stated in a consideration (xxiii.)

It may likewise be said here that some persons assign two wills to God, and that they call one, voluntas signi the will of intimation, and the other voluntas beneplaciti the will of complacency. So that Christ’s meaning may be, that God had made many demonstrations to Jerusalem, of His desire to bring her back and to unite her to Himself, but that she would not; for men can resist this will of God, manifested by signs and external admonitions, such as were those made to Jerusalem; to which prophets, wise men and scribes were sent; whilst it is impossible to resist the will of God, that is deliberate and determined, because such is His will and pleasure. According to this distinction, it is to be understood that whenever Holy Scripture states that men resist the will of God, it means the one that is called “the will of intimation;” and that whenever it states that men cannot resist the will of God, because it carries out all He wills, it means, that which is called “the will of complacency”

This apprehension is good, but the former pleases me more and edifies me more; and I hold it to be more certain, as well from my personal experience of it, as also because the depravity of our depraved nature is more discovered by it; whilst the glory of God in His goodness and in His liberality is more illustrated by it; since it is so, that God seeing that men resist His ordinary power, exerts His absolute power when He wills, and upon whom He wills; giving them to recognize His goodness and mercy, putting Christ before their eyes, and showing to them the happiness of the life eternal, and thus with a loving and gracious violence. He makes them do His will.

Juan de Valdés Commentary Upon the Gospel of Matthew, (London: Trüber & Co, 1882) 413-415. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

à Lasco:

We are also taught by this same name of Jesus that he, who in this manner was conceived and born of the virgin mother by Divine power, is truly that which is proclaimed, namely, the true and all sufficient savior of the entire world, except where someone would voluntarily despise him and his benefits through an obstinate and absolutely rebellious impiety, and thus, drive him from himself. To this, indeed, all Angels, Prophets, and Apostles unanimously testify (Mt. 1; Acts 1; Isa. 53). Thus, they, who establish or look for other saviors of some kind or patrons of their salvation, apart from this Jesus, the son of the virgin Mary, or along with him, do not really know the name of Jesus in that Ecclesiastical faith. There is, indeed, no other name under heaven, in which we must be saved (Acts 4). . . .

The Church of Christ is the assembly of those men along with their offspring who were called and are yet to be called from the remaining multitude of men in the entire earth. They have been called from our first parent Adam and will so continue to be called by the voice of God, delivered through Angels, Prophets, Christ, and his Apostles. until the consummation of the world. They believe and profess either publicly or privately, by mouth, by the observance of ceremonies instituted by Christ. and by the performance of duties as each calling requires, that Jesus is truly the son of that Virgin Mary, that is man from man, namely from the virgin mother; that he was conceived and born by the action of the Holy Spirit as our brother in the flesh and, thus, was precisely able to die in our place for our sins, and to be now in the society of our flesh the all sufficient savior of the entire world; that he is also equally God, and that none is savior except God himself. Next, they believe and also profess that this Jesus is that true Christ who was continuously foretold by Angels and Prophetic teachers from the beginning of the world itself; that he is that one, supreme and eternal King, Prophet, and High Priest for the entire world, who shall have dispelled and utterly abolished all types of carnal law by the light of his advent. Finally, they believe and profess that same Jesus Christ to be true, natural, and only begotten Son of God the Father, begotten from God the Father himself in the same existence of his Divinity, just as the man consented to be conceived and born from man, namely from the virgin mother, that he might be and atone for the sin of the entire world; he is to be praised along with the Father and Holy Spirit, the one true God in heaven. Amen.
John à Lasco, “The Compendium of Doctrine Of the One True Church of God and Christ,” in Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, ed. James T. Dennison, (Grand Rapids Michigan: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 1:563 and 576-577. [underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »