Commentary on Romans, Chapter 11 · Part (5 of 5)

Commentary on Romans · Chapter 11 · Part (5 of 5)

p. 402Pighius hath framed an other obiection out of the. 18. chapiter of Ezechiel. If the wicked man (ſaith the Prophete vnderunder the perſon of God) ſhall repent him of all his iniquities, and ſhall doe all my commaundements, I wil no more remember all his iniquities. Here ſaith Pighius, we ſée that iuſtification which is the forgiueneſſe of ſinnes is not promiſed vntounto faith, but vntounto perfect repentaunce, and vntounto the obſeruation of the law of God. And here his briſtles ſo ariſe, as though we muſt nedes now giuegive place. But this argument, if it be more narowly conſidered, is bothe vayne and trifling. For we eaſely graunt, that if a man perfectly repent him of all his iniquities, and doe all the commaundements of God, he ſhall hauehave iuſtification by workes. None of vsus euer denied this. But here is the payne, this is the trauayle, to finde ſuch a one as being not yet iuſtified hath performed this. And where I pray thée Pigghius is that thine interpretation wherein thou before ſaydſt, that God requireth not that we ſhould performe all the commaundements: but that he of his mercy remitteth many thinges. For here thou haſt brought a moſt manifeſt teſtimony agaynſt thy ſelfe. But to returne to the matter. Foraſmuch as mā neither performeth, nor alſo cā performe thoſe things which are ſet forth both of y^e Prophet & of y^e law, what reſteth there then, but that he ſhould come humbly vntounto Chriſt, and hauing through fayth fréely receaued iuſtification of him, ſhould by grace and the ſpirite now giuen vntounto him do perfect repentaunce (ſo muche as this life will ſuffer) and beginne by an obedience to obey the law of God? Entreting of this argument, there came to my remembrance the olde Philoſopher Antisthenes. For when a certaine glorious yong man, which was one of his ſcholers, boaſted that he had a ſhip laden with excellent marchaundiſes, and when it were arriued, he would giuegive vntounto him an excellent gifte, and this ſong was euermore in his mouth, ſo that he was irkſome to the hearer, Antisthenes brought him forth into the market place, and in a certaine ſhop bought a few elles of cloth, and hauing them in his hand, when Antiſthenes not hauing paid the money, began to go his way, the Marchaunt called him backe againe, Hoo, good fellow, ſaith he, before thou depart pay me my money. Then Antiſthenes ſhewing him the yonge man, This man (ſaid he) ſhal pay thée ſo ſoone as his ſhip is arriued. So will I anſwers vntounto Pighius, when thou ſhe weſt me one, which, being not yet regenerate, by his owne ſtrengths repenteth him of all his iniquities, & obſerueth al the commaundements of God, we wil ſay that he is iuſtified by his works. But when will this ſhip ariue? wherfore let him ceaſe to boaſt of the words of y^e law. For thoſe words what ſo euer they be, whether they pertaine vntounto promiſes or vntounto proceptes, we will after this maner interprete.

But he ſaith moreouer, that Chriſt alſo ſayd, He that dothe the will of my father, ſhall enter into the kingdome of heauen. But the Lord ſaide not (ſaith he.) He which beleueth. Yea but I ſay that in an other place he did, and maketh no mention of any worke. For this (ſaithe he) is the will of my father, that he which ſeeth the ſonne, and beleueth in him, hauehave eternall life. Let not Pighius then from henceforth deny, that the Lord euer ſpake this. But that no man ſhould thinke that the ſcriptures ſpeake things contrary, I anſwere that theſe two ſentences are not repugnant, but agrée very well together. Pighius by the will of the father, vnderſtandeth a great heape of good workes. But Chriſt ſaith, this is the work of God, that ye beleue. And after this action of beleuing, follow many other good workes. Wherefore the holy ſcriptures are not repugnant one to the other. And Pighius argument is left weake, and of no efficacie.

But bicauſe Pighius ſéeth himſelfe vrged with the word of God, for that ſo oftentimes is red in the holy ſcriptures, that man is iuſtified by faith. He ſaith that that is to be vnderſtande of a liuely and ſtrong faith, which hathe ioyned with it other vertues. As thoughe forſothe we euer ſpake of any other faith. If he ſpeake this from the heart, he beleueth the ſelf ſame thing that we beleue. Wherfore lay aſide the contention, and the controuerſie being ended, let vsus all agrée in one. But Pighius cannot abide that this agréement ſhould take place. For afterward, when he expoundeth how we are iuſtified fréely, he ſaith that that is nothing elſe, but that God will fréely impute vntounto vsus vntounto righteouſneſſe the works of faith, hope, and charitie. What hauehave we héere to do? Doubtleſſe it ſéemeth vntounto me, that this man doth not with a ſound iudgment read the ſcriptures, but doth with a corrupt affection, wreſt them at his pleaſure. For where workes are, Paule denyeth that there is any frée imputation: for theſe two are repugnāt one to the other. Wherfore in that Pighius goeth about to ioyne them together, doeth he not ſéeme moſt manifeſtly to be againſt the Apoſtle? Thus muche of Pighius: vntounto whome our Smith the eight wiſe man of Gréece, and the firſt wiſe man of Englande, adioyneth himſelfe a companion as Theſeus did vntounto Hercules. But in very déede, h… bringeth nothing elſe, but that which he hath drawne out of the ſinks of this man and other ſuche like.

Firſt he ſaith that faith is not touching remiſſion of ſinnes: and therefore we fondly faine that iuſtification is had by it. For the faith (ſaith he) wherby Chriſtians are diſcerned from no Chriſtians, is in Ieſus Chriſt. Which thing alſo (as though it made much to the purpoſe) he goeth about to proue by y^• holy ſcriptures, and by a teſtimony of Ierome. But I would hauehave this man to anſwere me, if euer he learned the Hebrew tongue, what is the ſignification of this name Ieſus. Vndoubtedly amongſt all the Hebrewes this word Iaſchag ſignifieth to ſaue: wherefore Ieſus may in Latine rightly be turned Seruator that is, a ſauior. But if (which thing I thinke) true he be ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, yet he ought at y^• leaſt to hauehave beleued y^e Angel, which ſo interpreted that name. Thou ſhalt call his name (ſaith he) Ieſus: for he ſhall ſaue his people from their ſinnes. How then can faith be in Chriſt Ieſus, vnleſſe it be alſo touching the remiſſion of ſinnes through Chriſt?

Afterward he is not aferd to cite that alſo out of the Epiſtle of Peter: Charitie couereth a multitude of ſinnes. Behold (ſaith he forgeuenes of ſinnes is here aſcribed not vntounto fayth, but vntounto charitie. He that will hauehave a mete axe to cutt thoſe knots a ſo…der, let him attentiuely conſider the holy ſcriptures, and diligently ſée, from whence thoſe places, which are cited in the new teſtament, are taken out of the old. This ſentence of Peter is had in a maner out of the 10. chap. of the Prouerbs For there it is thus written, Hatred stirreth vp rebukes. For whome a man hateth, he vncouereth and publiſheth abroad his faultes as much as in him lieth. But contrariwiſe Charitie hideth and couereth the ſinnes of his brother. For they which truly louelove one an other, are wont to defend one and other, and to couer one an others p. 403faults, ſo much as they ſe by conſcience they may. And this is a moſt true ſentence of Salomon. Wherfore Peter going about to exhort Chriſtians vntounto Charity wiſely and aptly borowed this ſentence out of Salomon. But Smith not vnderſtanding, nor conſidering this, thinketh that Peter thought, that remiſſion of ſinnes is gotten by Charity. But he is moſt fowly deceaued, as oftentimes he is wont to be. But leauing theſe men aſide let vsus this remember, that if any time the Fathers ſeme to attribute righteouſnes vntounto workes, the ſame is not to be vnderſtand of that righteouſnes, which God fréely imputeth vntounto vsus thorough Chriſt, but of y^• inward righteouſnes cleauing vntounto vsus, which we continually get and confirme by vpright life. Or if thoſe thinges which they ſpeake doo manifeſtly pertayne vntounto the righteouſnes imputed, that is, vntounto the remiſſion of ſinnes, we muſt alwayes as we hauehave before taught run vntounto the foundacion of good workes, namely, vntounto a liuely fayth in Chriſt. Which rules and ſuch like if our aduerſary would conſider, they would neuer ſo impudently & obſtinately defend ſo manifeſt lyes. Although if I ſhould ſpeake any thing touching Pighius, foraſmuch as I ſée that he is nether of dul wit nor vnlearned, I can not ſay, that he in earneſt and from the hart wrot touching this matter: but when he had once taken the matter in hand, he counted theſe thinges for paſtime and pleaſure.

But now to proſecute that order which I hauehave appoynted, let vsus come vntounto the Fathers, and ſée how muche they make on our ſide. And vndoubtedly for thys matter ſhall we not nede any great nomber of teſtimonies. For euen as to vnderſtand of what taſt the water of the ſea is, it is not nedeful y^• a man drinke vp the whole ſea, ſo, to vnderſtand, what the Fathers thinke touching this, we ſhall not nede to go thorough all theyr ſayings.

Ireneus a moſt auncient author in his 4. booke and 30. chapter, agaynſt Valentine writeth ſomewhat touching this matter although briefly. And I ſuppoſe that he for this cauſe wrote ſo briefely of it, for that this truth was in thoſe firſt times ſo confeſſed and certayne, that it was not of any man called into doubt. But yet by that litle which he hath may ſufficiently be vnderſtand, what his iudgement was: as the ſaying is that Protogenes knew Apelles: by the draught of one line only. Ireneus ſayth, that the old Fathers euē thoſe alſo which were before the law, were iuſtified by fayth. For firſt when he had ſpoken of Abraham, he aſcēdeth from him vntounto Loth, them vntounto Noe, and vntounto Enoch, and afterward he addeth a reaſon why in theſe mens time the law was not written. Bycauſe ſayth he, they were alredy iust, vntounto whome the law was not geuen. For the iuſt hauehave the law written in theyr hartes. But paraduenture thou wilt ſcarcely admitte this teſtimony, bycauſe Ireneus in that place, when he ſpeaketh there of Enoch, ſayth, that he was ſent a legate vntounto the Angells: which may ſeme to be Apocriphall. But I thinke that the ſame is cited, not ſo much out of any booke which is counted apocriphall, as out of ſome old tradition. For many things were as it were by hand deliuered vntounto the elders, which indede are not to be riected, ſo that they be not repugnant with the holy ſcriptures. Otherwiſe if for that cauſe we reiect this teſtimony, why do we not alſo reiect the epiſtle of Iudas? For he alſo citeth a ſentence of Enoch, that God ſhall come with thouſands vntounto iudgement. But wheras Ireneus ſayth that Enoch was a Legate vntounto the Angells, I ſuppoſe that it may thus bee vnderſtande to ſay that thoſe Angells were men which were princes and great kinges, or ſuch as were borne of the famely of Seth. For ſo in Geneſis the ſonnes of God are ſayd to hauehave ſene the daughters of men, that they were fayre. Paraduenture Enoch was ſent vntounto them by God to reproue them. And thus much out of Ireneus.

Tertullian in his booke of Baptiſme ſayth, that a perfet fayth hath ſecurity of ſaluation. Wherfore it is not we alone that hauehave brought in a perticular fayth touching the remiſſion of ſinnes. Neyther ought it any thing to moue vsus, that in that booke he defendeth moſt manifeſt errors touching Baptiſme, and exhorteth men to differ Baptiſme till they come to ripe age, and not to make haſt vntounto it before they marry. For although we allow not theſe things yet in y^• meane time whileſt he entreateth hereof, he hath many thinges which ought not to be contēned, which were at that time receaued and confeſſed in the Church. So Ciprian when he entreateth of rebaptiſing of heretikes, when they returned vntounto the Church, hath in the meane time many true and weighty teſtimonies, which we can not reiect, although in the very ſtate of the queſtion we vtterly diſagrée from him. And what father I pray you is there amongeſt them all, which in ſome one place defendeth not ſome ſentence which is not to be allowed, and yet ought not all theyr workes therfore to be contemned. For there is no Pomegranet ſo fayre, which hath not in it ſome rotten carnells.

Nowe let vsus come vntounto Origen. He in his firſt booke vppon Iob (if yet that be Origens worke) thus writeth: All thinges which men do, whether it be in virginity, or in abſtinency, or in chaſtity of the bodye, or in burning of hys fleſhe, or in diſtribution of his goodes, all theſe thinges I ſay they doo Gratis, that is in vaine, if they doo them not of fayth. In this place, whereas he ſayth Gratis, all men vnderſtande in vaine. Whiche thing doubtles Pigghius and his companions will not admitte. For they will hauehave theſe thinges to be certaine preparations vntounto iuſtification. But, that Origen is by expreſſe wordes againſt them, thoſe wordes which follow do more plainly declare. For thus he writeth, That all holines and righteouſnes which a man doth without faith he doth it in vaine, and to his owne destruction. And he citeth this ſentence of Paul, whatſoeuer is not done of faith is ſinne: I am ſure that neither Pigghius can deny, but that Origen in this place maketh on our ſide: & that he in that ſence vnderſtoode theſe woordes of Paul, whatſoeuer is not of faith is ſinne: whiche wordes yet he crieth out that we are accuſtomed to abuſe. Althoughe not onelyonly Origen, but alſo Auguſtine, Baſilius, and other fathers as we hauehave before taught, expound thoſe wordes after the ſelfe ſame manner. Wherfore he doth vniuſtly and impudētly accuſe vsus: but if he will ſay that we muſt not ſo much regard, what interpretacion the fathers bring, but muſt ſée whether the place in the texte may ſo be taken, therin we commend him. For we gladly admit appealing from the Fathers vntounto y^e word of God. But he ought to hauehave remembred, that it is not the point of a good man to reproue that in others, which he doth himſelfe. Wherefore he ſhould ſuffer vsus alſo on the other ſide, when the matter ſo requireth to appeale from the Fathers vntounto the ſcriptures. But as touching the very matter, we hauehave els where declared, that that ſentence of Paul as it written in his Epiſtle, is ſo to be expounded, that of it may be inferred that the woorkes of men not regenerate are ſinnes. Origen afterward addeth: Of whome ſhall he receaue a rewarde? Of him thinke you whome he ſought not for? whome he hath not acknowledged? in whom he hath not beleued? He ſhall not ſayth he receaue of him a rewarde but iudgement, wrath, and condemnation. If theſe thinges be rendred vntounto ſuch woorkes, who will denye but that they are ſinnes? Afterward he bringeth a ſimilitude. Euen as (ſaith he) he which buildeth without a foundation loſeth his labour, and hath onelyonly trauaile and ſorrow: euen ſo it is with him which will build vp good workes without faith. And euen as vntounto him whiche beleueth all thinges are poſſible to finde refreſhing at his handes in whome he hath beleued, ſo vntounto him that beleueth not nothing is poſſible. Euen as the earth without the Sun bringeth not foorth fruites, ſo except the truth of God do through faith ſhine forth in the hartes, the fruite of good workes ſpringeth not forth. For ſo (ſayth he) all that whole yeare, wherin Noe was ſaued from the floud, for that the Sunne ſhined not forth, the earth could bring forth no fruite. Thus much hath Origen in that place which we hauehave now cited, by whiche we conclude that faith ſormeth and maketh perfect al good workes which follow, and not that it as theſe men (I can not tell who) hauehave fained, taketh and boroweth his forme of them. The ſame Origen vponupon the. 4. chap. vntounto the Romanes thus reaſoneth: If he which beleueth that Ieſus is Chriſt be born of God: & he which is born of God ſinneth not: thē is it certain that he which beleueth in Christ Ieſus ſinneth not. This kinde of argumēt is called Sorites, & is allowed of y^• Logicians. For y^• Stoikes were wont oftētimes to vſe it. The aſſumptes of this argumēt cannot be denied. For they are takē out of the holy ſcriptures. But he addeth afterward, And if in caſe he ſinne, then is it certayne that he beleueth not. This of neceſſitie followeth of the former concluſion. For if eueryevery one which beleueth ſinneth not, then doubtles whoſoeuer ſinneth, beleueth p. 404not. Let Pigghius now go laugh, for that we ſay, that by greuous ſinnes true faith is loſt, or is in ſuch a dead ſlepe, that it hath not his act. And let him aggrauate the matter as much as he can, that he which ſinneth greeuouſly neither beleueth that there is a God, nor alſo the reſt of the articles of the faith. Origen both thinketh & writeth the ſelfe ſame thing that we do. And he ſaith moreouer, that there is a tokē of true fayth, where ſinne is not committed: as contrariwiſe where ſinne is committed, it is a token of infidelitie. Again he addeth in the ſame chap. If peraduenture that which is ſaid of the Apoſtle, to be iuſtified by faith, ſeme to be repugnant with that, which is ſayd that we are iustified freely (For if fayth be offred firſt of the man, he can not ſeme to be iuſtified frely) we must remember that euen fayth it ſelfe is geuen of God: and this he proueth by many teſtimonies. But this thing our Pigghius can not abide. For he derideth vsus as often as we ſay, that fayth is had by the breathing of the holy goſt. For he ſaith y^• it is wonderfull y^• the holy goſt wil hauehave his abiding & worke in thē which do not as yet beleue. The ſame Origen vponupon Leuiticus in his 3. boke & 3. chap. The holy ſicle, ſayth he, repreſenteth our fayth. For if thou ſhalt offer fayth vntounto Chriſt, as a price vntounto the imaculate ramme offred vp for a ſacrifice, thou ſhalt receiue remiſsion of ſinnes. Here alſo we hauehave expreſſedly, that remiſſion of ſinnes is obtayned by y^• fayth (I ſay) which is directed vntounto Chriſt, deliuered vntounto death and ſacrificed for vsus. There can nothing be more manifeſt thē theſe teſtimonies which Origen hath brought for vsus. But theſe mē are ſo obſtinate, that they wil not be led from y^• opiniō which they hauehave once take in hand to defēd, although thou bring neuer ſo gret light with thē, leaſt they ſhould ſéeme to any of theirs to hauehave defended an il cauſe.

Cyprian beſide thoſe thinges, which we hauehave ſpoken of the coniunction of fayth with a good life writeth alſo in his 3. booke to Quirinus, that fayth onelyonly profiteth, and that we are able ſo much to performe as we do beleue. The firſt part of this ſentēce pertayneth vntounto the third article of this queſtion: but the latter ſerueth very much for that which we are now in hand with. It is a wonderfull ſaying doubtles, that ſo great is the force of fayth, that by it we are able to do whatſoeuer we will. And yet did not Ciprian thinke it ſufficient abſolutely to pronounce this, but hath alſo confirmed it by many and ſundry teſtimonyes of the ſcriptures.

As touching Baſilius, and Gregorius Nazianzenus that ſhal ſuffice which I hauehave before cited. Chriſostome in his ſermon, which he hath entitled, de fide, lege naturae, & ſpiritu, ſayth, that euen fayth is of it ſelfe able to ſaue a man. And for an example he bringeth forth the thief, who he ſayth onelyonly confeſſed and beleued. But workes, ſayth he, alone can not ſaue the workers without fayth. After that he compareth workes done without fayth wyth the reliques of dead men. For dead carkaſes, ſayth he, although they be clothed wyth precious and excellent garments, yet draw they no heat out of them. So (ſayth he) they which want fayth although they be decekd with excellent workes, yet are they by them no thing holpen. And the ſame father vponupon the epiſtle vntounto the Romanes, vponupon thoſe wordes of Paul, But the righteouſnes which is of fayth, Thou ſeeſt (ſayth he) that this is chiefely peculiar vntounto faith, that we all treading vnderunder foote the complain… of reaſō, ſhould enquire after that which is aboue nature, and that the infirmity of our cogitations being by the vertue and power of God caſte away we ſhoulde embrace all the promiſes of GOD. Here we ſée that by faith wee obtaine the promiſes of God: and although by it we aſſent vntounto all that whiche is contained in the holye Scriptures, yet it peculiarly hath a regard vntounto the promiſes of God. This is alſo to be conſidered that he ſaith, that the infirmity of our cogitacions in beleuing is by the vertue and power of God caſt away. For this maketh agaynſt them which contend that this is done by humane ſtrengthes: as though we ſhould hauehave fayth of our ſelues and that as though it goeth before iuſtification. The ſame Chriſostome vponupon the 29. chapiter of Geneſis in his 54. homely. This (ſayth he) is the true fayth not to geue hede vntounto thoſe thinges which are ſeene, although they ſeeme to be agaynſt the promiſe, but onelyonly to conſider the power of him that promiſeth. Let thē well conſider this, which will hauehave vsus to hauehave a regard not onelyonly to the power and promiſes of God, but alſo chiefely to our own preparations. And expounding theſe wordes in Geneſis. Abraham beleued God & it was imputed vntounto him vntounto righteouſnes, let vsus alſo, ſaith he, learne, I beſech you, of the patriarch of God to beleue his ſayinges, and to truſt vntounto his promiſes, & not to ſerch them out by our owne cogitations but to ſhew a great gratitude. For this can both make vsus iust, and alſo cauſe vsus to obtayne the promiſes. Here alſo are two thinges to be noted. The one is that we are made iuſt by fayth, the other that by the ſame we obtayne the promiſes: which two things our aduerſaries ſtoutly deny. The ſame father vponupon theſe wordes of Paul vntounto Timothe, Of whome is Himeneus, and Alexander, which hauehave made ſhipwracke as concerning fayth, So, (ſayth he) he which once falleth away from the fayth, hath no place to ſtay himſelfe, or whether to go. For the hed Workes dead without faith.being corrupted and lost, what vſe can there be of the reſt of the body? For if fayth with out works be dead, much more are workes dead wythout fayth. Here is to be noted that this is an argument a minori, that is, of the leſſe. For he ſayth, that workes are more dead without fayth, then is fayth without workes. The ſame author in his ſermon de verbis Apoſtoli, vppon theſe wordes of the Apoſtle, Hauing one and the ſelfe ſame ſpirite of fayth, For it is impoſſible (ſayth he) it is doubtles vnpoſsible, if thou liue vnpurely, not to wauer in faith. By this we ſée how great Chriſoſtom thought y^• cōiunctiō to be betwen faith & good works. The ſame father expoūding theſe words of y^• Apoſtle, do we thē deſtroy the law by faith? God forbyd, yea rather we confirme the law. So ſoone as (ſayth he) a man beleueth, ſtraight way he is iuſtified. Wherfore fayth hath cōfirmed the will of the law, whilſt it hath brought to an end euē that for which the So ſone as a man beleueth h… is …law did all things. How thē doth Pighius ſay that fayth is only the foundaciō, & therfore is very farre from the perfection of iuſtification? Or to what purpoſe is that, that after fayth he putteth ſo many degrées and meanes by which we come vntounto iuſtification. For Chriſoſtome ſpeaketh farre otherwiſe, y^• a man is iuſtified ſtraight way ſo ſoone as euer he beleueth. Farther he attributeth vntounto fayth euen this alſo, that it maketh men iuſt, when as the law was not able to performe that, although it by many wayes endeuored it ſelfe therunto. Moreouer when he expoundeth theſe wordes, They being ignoraunt of the righteouſnes of God, and going about to establiſh theyr owne righteouſnes, are not ſubiect vntounto the righteouſnes of God. This righteouſnes of God (ſayth he) he calleth the righteouſnes of fayth, which is wholy geuen by grace from aboue, and not for our labours. And vponupon theſe wordes: Behold I put in Siō a stone of offence. Thou ſeeſt thē (ſayth he) that faith hath with it cōfidence and ſecurity. Here he manifeſtly appointeth a perticular fayth and a certainty touching the remiſſion of ſinnes: which thing our aduerſaries ſo much reſiſt. Farther when he expoundeth that ſaying in the 11. chapter, And if they abide not in theyr incredulity they alſo ſhall agayn be grafted in, If fayth, ſayth he, could graft thee, when thou waſt a wild oliue tree, into a good oliue tree, it can alſo reſtore them into theyr owne good oliue tree. Here alſo the power to be grafted into Chriſt by iuſtification, and the power to reſtore them which are cut of, is attributed vntounto fayth. I could now paſſe ouer to Ierome, if there were not ſomwhat which calleth me backe agayn vntounto Chriſostome. For the ſelfe ſame man writeth, that fayth only is not ſufficient vntounto ſaluation. And ſuch ſentences are oftentimes read in the Fathers: which our aduerſaries continually wreſt agaynſt vsus. Although to ſpeake the trouth ſuch an obiection is no ſuch a maner of weapō, that it nedeth ſo greatly to be feared. For it may eaſely be anſwered in one word. For he ſayth not, that faith is not ſufficient vntounto iuſtification, but only vntounto ſaluation. For fayth is of it ſelf ſufficient vntounto iuſtificatiō. But after we are once iuſtified, it is not inough to the obteynement of ſaluation to ſay, I beleue: We muſt put to alſo an holy life & good workes: for by them, as it were by certaine degrées God bringeth vsus to felicitie. And after this maner we may interprete all y^e ſentences of the Fathers which ſeme to tend this way. And if in caſe theyr wordes (as ſometimes it happeneth) will not beare ſuch an expoſition, then as it is moſtWe muſt appeale vntounto the ſcriptures. right we will appeale from them writing negligently vntounto the ſelfe ſame fathers writing in an other place more ſoundly and more catholikely: as did wooman in times paſt, which appealed from Phillip being dronke vntounto the ſelfe ſame Phillip being ſober.

Ierome vponupon the epiſtle vntounto the Galathians vponupon theſe wordes, And we knowyng p. 405that man is not iuſtified by the workes of the law, but by the fayth of Ieſus Christ, ſayth, That all the old fathers were iuſtified by the ſelfe ſame fayth in Chriſt, by which All the fathers were ſaued by fayth in Chriſt.we are now at this day iustified. And this ſentence he confirmeth by induction of many examples: firſt he reckoneth vp Abrham, for of him he ſayth Chriſt thus ſpake. He ſaw my day, he ſaw it and reioyſed: after him he maketh mencion of Moſes: for of him he ſayth, it is thus written in the epiſtle vntounto the Hebrewes, that he counted the reproches of Chriſt greater riches then the treaſures of Egipt: and that he refuſing to be in the court of Pharao did chuſe rather to embraſe the croſſe of Chriſt. And he addeth that Iohn Euangeliſt in his 12. chapiter most manifestly teacheth, that all thoſe thinges whicg Eſay hath put in writing touching the glory of God, when he ſaw the Lord ſitting vponupon an high throne lifted vp, are to be vnderſtand of the ſonne of God. He adddeth moreouer out of the epiſtle of Iudas, that the Lord Ieſus Christ deliuered the people of Iſraell out of Egipt, and after that ſmote the vnbeleuers. In which place I very much meruaile that Ierome, a man otherwiſe excellēt in the Greke toung, turned it thus the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, when as in our text is had only this word Lord: vnles we will ſuppoſe that his exemplar was differing from that which we now vſe. Which I ſpeake not as thoughe I doubted, whither thoſe thinges whiche at that time happened, were done by Chriſt the ſonne of God or no. For Iohn ſayth, No man hath ſene God at any time: but the ſonne which is in the boſome of the Father, he hath Whatſoeuer hath ben vttred vntounto men touching thinges diuine, hath bene vttered by the ſonne of God. Faith is not ſeperated frō charity.declared him. Wherfore whatſoeuer is vttered vntounto men touching things diuine, is vttered by the ſonne of God, who hath moſt truly geuē him ſelfe vntounto mankind a faithfull interpreter of God his father. And Paul in his firſt epiſtle vntounto the Cor. the 10. chap. ſaith, They dranke of the ſpirituall rocke following thē: And that rocke was Chriſte. Alſo, Let vsus not tempt (ſayth he) Chriſt as certayne of them tempted him. The ſame Ierome vponupon y^e epiſtle vntounto the Galathians, where he reckeneth vp the fruites of the ſpirite, when he cōmeth vntounto faith, thus writeth, If charity be abſent, fayth alſo departeth away together with it. Theſe woordes manifeſtly declare, that his iudgement was, that true fayth cannot be deuided from charitie: which thing we alſo teach and defend. But Pighius with his, hiſſeth at it, and crieth out againſt it: but let him gruntle as much as he will, it ſufficeth vsus that this doctrine agréeth both with the ſcriptures and with the fathers.

Ambroſe expounding theſe wordes out of the Epiſtle vntounto the Romanes. For it is one God which iustifieth circumciſion by fayth: Becauſe (ſayth he) there is but one God, he hath iustified all men after one and the ſelfe ſame maner, foraſmuch as nothing cauſeth merite and dignitie, but fayth. And afterward vponupon theſe wordes, Therefore by fayth according to grace, that the promiſe might be firme vntounto all the ſeede. The promiſe (ſaith he) cannot be firme vntounto all the ſeede, that is, vntounto all manner of men of what nation ſo euer they be, except it be by faithe. For the beginning of the promiſe is of fayth, and not of the law, for they which are vnderunder the law are guiltie: but the promiſe cannot be geuen vntounto them that are guiltie: and therefore they ought firſt to be purified by faith that they may be made worthy to be called the ſonnes of God, and that the promiſe may be firme. And towardes the beginning of the. 5. chapter, vponupon theſe wordes, Being iustified by fayth we hauehave peace towardes God, Fayth (ſaith he) and not the law cauſeth vsus to hauehave peace with God. For it reconcileth vsus vntounto God, when our ſinnes are taken away which had before made vsus enemies vntounto GOD. And afterwarde vppon theſe wordes, The law of the ſpirite of life. It is fayth, (ſayth he) which iustifieth them that flye vntounto it to remit vntounto them, that which the law helde them guiltie of, that liuing vnderunder faith, they might be free from ſinne. And in his 2. boke vponupon the Goſpell of Luke he ſaith, that Peter wepte not, but when the Lord had looked backe vponupon him. And he addeth that the Lord brought forth in him both repentance, and the power to weape.

But Augustine when he entreateth of this matter ſéemeth to be in his owne field, ſo that to hunt in him for teſtimonyes touching this controuerſie, is, as the common ſaying is, to ſéeke water in the ſea. Howbeit it ſhal not be ſtrange from our purpoſe to picke ſomewhat out of him alſo. In the ſermon of the Lord vponupon the mountaine, touching the wordes of the Goſpell in Mathew in his. 7. Sermon towardes the end: If thou preſume of thine owne worke, a reward (ſayth he) is rendred vntounto thee, and not geuē vntounto thee by grace. I demaund now, Beleueſt thou, o ſinner? I beleue. What beleuest thou? that thy ſinnes may by him freely be forgeuen thee? Then hast thou that which thou beleueſt. In his preface vponupon the 31. Pſalme. Thou hast done no good: and yet remiſsion of ſinnes is geuen thee. Thy workes are conſidered, and they are al found nought, If God ſhould render vntounto theſe woorkes that which is dew, doubtles he ſhould condemne thee. And in his booke de Spiritu & Litera the 12 chapiter. We gather that a man is not iuſtified by the rules of good life, but by the fayth of Ieſus Christ. And in his booke agaynſt the 2. epiſtles of the Pelagians in his 3. boke and 5. chapter. Our fayth (ſayth he) that is, the catholike fayth diſcerneth the iuſt from the vniust, not by the law of workes, but euen by the law of fayth. And Auguſtine and Alpius in his 106 epiſtle. of righteouſnes is of fayth whereby we beleue that we are iustified, that is, that we Note diligētly what grace we ought to confeſſe.are made iuſt by the grace of God thorough Ieſus Christ our Lord. The ſame father agaynſt Pelagius and Coeleſtius in his 1. booke and 10. chap. It is not inough (ſayth he) to confeſſe what grace thou wilt, but that grace whereby we are perſwaded, whereby we are drawen, and whereby euen that which is good is geuen. This maketh planly agaynſt thē, which put I know not what generall grace, and will hauehave it to lye in eueryevery mans power either to admitt or to refuſe the ſame. But this grace wherby we are ſo perſuaded, is nothing ells but fayth. Which fayth indede is neceſſary to iuſtifie, but thoſe workes which are done before we be iuſtified, doo nothing auaile. For theWorkes which ſeme good are turned into ſinnes. ſame Augustine agaynſt the 2. epiſtles of the Pelagians the 3. booke and 5. chapter: Euen as workes (ſayth he) which ſeme good, are vntounto the vngodly turned into ſinnes. &c And in his booke de Spiritu & Litera the 28. chapter. Euen as (ſaith he) there are certayne veniall ſinnes, without which euen the iuſt men can not liue: and yet they hinder vsus not from ſaluation, ſo are there certayne good woorkes, without which euen the most wicked men can very hardly liue: which workes yet nothing profite them vntounto ſaluation. And that we ſhould not thinke that this faith whereby we are iuſtified is a thing common,What may be aunſwered to be the cauſes why one man is perſuaded and an other is not. and ſtraying at pleaſure, he addeth afterward in the 34: chap. Why is this man ſo inſtructed, that he is vtterly perſuaded, & an other not ſo? There are onelyonly two thinges, which I thinke good to anſwer: O the deapth of the riches. &c. Alſo what is their iniq…ity with God? He that is diſpleaſed with this anſwere, let him ſeeke (ſaith he) men better learned, but let him beware of preſumptuous perſons. If we ſhould geue credit vntounto our aduerſaries this had ben a very rude & blind doubt. For they would hauehave ſtraight way anſwered at one word: that the one was perſwaded, becauſe he would: & the other was not perſwaded becauſe he would not. But Auguſtine conſidering y^• matter more depely, namely, that it is god, which worketh in vsus, both to wil & to performe according to his good wil, & perceiuing y^e Paul himſelfe (being ouercome with y^e admiratiō of this thing) made ſuch exclamatiō, thought it moſt mete rather to referre y^e whole matter vntounto God: who diſtributeth vntounto eueryevery man y^• which ſemeth vntounto hym good, & that without doubt iuſtly: although we ſée not y^e reaſons of his iuſtice. Yea neither is it méete for vsus to ſearch them out: vnles we will hauehave that to happen vntounto vsus, which commonly happeneth vntounto flies: which, being allured by theThe grace which the Pelagians taught was ſet forth to be common vntounto al men was nature. Grace is geuen vntounto ſome, and is not geuen vntounto other ſome. light of the candell and flying more nigh vntounto it, are oftentimes burnt with the ſlame thereof. The ſame Augustine de Predeſtinatione ſanctorum in his 5. chapiter reproueth Pelagius, for that he had fayned that common grace vntounto all the ſaints: which he would hauehave to be nothing els but nature: which ſelfe thing our aduerſaries alſo at this day do, when as they cry out that that grace is ſet forth as it were openly vntounto all men, and that it lieth in eueryevery mans power to receaue it ſo that he will. The ſame author ad Vitalem in his 107. epiſtle, Ʋnto thoſe, ſayth he, whoſe cauſe is a like, with thoſe vntounto whome grace is geuen, vntounto whome yet it is not geuen: that they vntounto whome it is geuen might vnderſtand how freely it was geuen vntounto them. And in the ſelfe ſame place he playnly declareth, that it is God, which of vnwilling maketh vsus willing, and taketh away our ſtony hart, and geueth vsus a fleſhy hart. This manifeſtly declareth, that it is fayth whereby we are iuſtified: and that God diſtributeth it according to his good will. The ſame father de dogma tibus eccleſiaſticis in the 4. chap. (for that booke, whoſoeuer was the author thereof, beareth the name of Auguſtine) To be purged from ſinnes, (ſaith he) God tarieth p. 406not for our will, and in the 44. chapter, The holy ghoſt maketh vsus to chuſe, thinke, and conſent vntounto eueryevery good thyng pertaynyng vntounto ſaluation. And in his 13. booke and 17. chapiter de Trinitate, The word of the ſonne of God, ſayth he, toke vponupon hym the nature of mā without any maner of merite. And after the ſelfe ſame maner alſo is the grace of God geuen vntounto vsus. This compariſon is taken of the greater. For if that man which was made the ſonne of God, obtayned the ſame without any merite: much more are we without any merite either of cōgurity or of worthines receaued intoIt is not in our power to be touched with that ſight wherby the will may be moued vntounto faith. adoption. And vntounto Simplicianus in the firſt booke and 2. queſtion, who (ſayth he) can lyue vpryghtly, and worke iuſtly, except he be iustified by fayth? Who can beleue, except he be touched by ſome calling, that is, by ſome testification of thyngs? who hath in hys power to hauehave hys mynde touched wyth ſuch a ſight, whereby the wyll may be moued vntounto fayth? And in his 61. ſermon vponupon Iohn: All ſinnes (ſayth he) are comprehended vnderunder the name of infidelity. And he addeth, That fayth can not be wythout hope and charity. Which thing alſo he moſt playnly teacheth vponupon the 31. Pſalme. The ſame father in his 1. booke and 19. chapiter againſt the 2. epiſtles of the Pelagians, at large entreateth after what maner we are drawen of God, and amongſt other thinges ſayth, that the Pelagians would to much triumph ouer the Chriſtians, if they had not the worde of drawing in the holy ſcriptures. But foraſmuch as that word is expreſſed euen in the Goſpell, they hauehave now vtterly no place whereunto to flye. There are infinite other places in Augustine which confirme thys ſentence: whiche nowe for briefenes ſake I thinke good to ouerpaſſe.

Cyrillus agaynſt Iulianus in his 1. booke and 14. page ſayth, The fayth of Abraham and ours is vtterly one and the ſame. And the ſame author vponupon Iohn in the 3. booke and 31. chapiter expounding this ſentence, This is the worke of God, that ye beleue in hym, whom he hath ſent, For fayth (ſayth he) bryngeth ſaluation, and grace iuſtifieth: but the commaundements of the lawe rather condemneth. Wherefore fayth in Christ is the worke of god. In theſe words we ought to note, that faith is it wherby is brought ſaluation: and that we are iuſtified by grace. And he declareth theſe things more plainly vponupon John in his 9. booke and 32. chapiter vponupon theſe words,The fathers were iuſtified by the fayth of thoſe promiſes which we beleue. And whether I go, ye know, and ye know the way. For we are iuſtified by fayth, and are made pertakers of the diuine nature by the participation of the holy ghoſt.

Leo in his 13. Sermon of the Paſſion of the Lord, The fathers (ſayth he) beleued together wyth vsus, that the bloud of the ſonne of God ſhould be ſhed. Wherefore there is nothyng (dearely beloued) ſtraunge in Christian religion from the old ſignifications, nor at any tyme from the iuſt men that hauehave gone before vsus, but that ſaluation is in the Lord Ieſus Christ which was hoped for. This and many other like teſtimonies confute thoſe chiefe which dare ſay, that Abraham was indéede iuſtified, but not by in Chriſt, but by faith touching earthly promiſes. But the ſame author may ſéeme to make agaynſt vsus in that that we ſay, that true fayth is not found without charity. For in his Sermon de Collect: & eleem: he thus writeth of Sathā: He knowing that God is denied not onelyonly in wordes, but alſo in deedes, hath taken away charity from many, from whome he could not take away fayth: and poſseſſing the field of theyr hart with the rootes of couetouſnes, he hath ſpoiled of the fruit of good works thoſe whom he hath not depriued of the confeſsion of their lippes. Theſe wordes if they be déepely conſidered make nothing at all agaynſt vsus. For we ſpeake of a true, ſound, and liuely fayth. But Leo vnderſtandeth onelyonly a certaine outward profeſſion of faith. For when he would render a reaſon whereby it might appeare that fayth was not taken from them, he ſetteth forth onelyonly an outward confeſſion of the lippes: which we alſo graunt may conſiſt without charity, & is oftentimes boaſted of of many men which yet are moſt wicked. And after this maner I ſuppoſe are to be expounded ſuch like teſtimonies if any happen in the fathers.

Gregory Byſhop of Rome in his 19. homely vppon Ezechiell. We come not, (ſayth he) to fayth by workes: but by fayth we attayne vntounto vertues. For Cornelius the Centurian came not vntounto fayth by workes: but by fayth came vntounto workes, For it is ſayd, Thy prayers and almes, But how prayed he if he beleued not. But that he now knew not that the mediator was incarnate, by workes he came vntounto a more fuller knowledge. Hereby I would hauehave our aduerſaries to know, y^• fayth neceſſarily goeth be fore al good workes. For they contend y^• morall works, which are done of Ethniks and of men not yet beleuing in Chriſt, are good. Which thing is in this place of Gregory confuted. The ſame author in his 2. booke and 25. chapiter de moralibus, ſpeaking of the ſame thing thus writeth: Ʋnles fayth be firſt gotten in our harts, all other thynges whatſoeuer they be can not in deede be good although they ſeeme good.

Bede vponupon the 2. chapiter of Iames: He onelyonly beleueth truely, which by working excerciſeth that which he beleueth. For fayth and charity can not be ſeperated a ſender. And this ſhall ſuffice as touching the Fathers.

But what theſe counſels Aphricanum, Mileuitanum, and Arauſicanum teach concerning iuſtification, fayth, grace, and workes, we hauehave before at large declared in the firſt article. This onelyonly wil I now adde, that our aduerſaries, when they ſay, that God offreth his grace vntounto all men and geueth his giftes vntounto men that deſire them and take hold of them, and forgeueth ſinnes to them that do that which they ought to do, foraſmuch as in the meane tyme they omit the breathing of the holy ghoſt, and the power of God which draweth vsus, and the inward perſwaſion of the mynde, and all thoſe things which are moſt chiefly required in this matter, are moſt manifeſtly againſt thoſe coūſels which we hauehave now cited. Howbeit I can not leaue vnſpoken, y^• in the counſell of Mence, which was celebrated vnderunder Carolus Magnus, in the 1. chapiter is cited Gregory who thus writeth: He beleueth truely, which by working excerciſeth that which he beleueth. Foraſmuch therefore as we hauehave now hetherto ſpoken as touching this article, namely, that men are iuſtified by fayth in Chriſt, and hauehave confirmed the ſame by ſcriptures, & hauehave ouerthrowen the obiections of our aduerſaries, and alleadged teſtimonyes of the Fathers to confirme our ſentence, let vsus nowe come vntounto the third article.

Wherefore we ſay that iuſtification conſiſteth of fayth only. Which ſentenceThe third article. We are iuſtified by faith onelyonly. all thoſe places of ſcriptures proue, which teach that we are iuſtified fréely: and thoſe which affirme that iuſtification commeth without workes: and thoſe alſo which put an antitheſis or contrariety betwene grace and workes: All theſe places (I ſay) moſt truely conclude, that we are iuſtified by fayth onelyonly: Although this word, OnelyOnly, be not red in the holy ſcriptures. But that is not ſo much to be weighed, for the ſignification of that word is of neceſſity gathered out of thē. Farther this alſo is to be noted, euen as we hauehave already before tought, that we affirme not that that fayth whereby we are iuſtified is in our myndes without good workes although we ſay that it is it onelyonly which taketh hold of iuſtification and remiſſion of ſinnes. So the eye can not be without a head, braynes, hart, liuer, & other partes of the body: and yet the eye onelyonly apprehendeth colour and the light. Wherefore they which after this maner reaſon agaynſt vsus: Fayth, as ye ſay, iuſtifieth: But fayth is not alone, Ergo, Fayth alone iuſtifieth not, do fall into a fowle paralogiſme. As if a man ſhould thus conclude, onelyonly the will willeth. ButFallacia compoſition is & diuiſionis. the wyll is not alone in the mynde: Ergo, not the wyll alone wylleth. Here euen litle childrē may ſée the fallace or deceate, which they call, of compoſition & of diuiſion. And is it not a fowle thing that ſo great diuines ſhould not ſée it? But here Smith, the light forſoth of diuinity, ſetteth himſelfe agaynſt vsus. He of late cryed out euen till he was hoarſe, that we falſely affirme that thoſe places of theOf the aduerbe gratis that is freely. ſcripture, which teſtify that we are iuſtified gratis, that is fréely, ſhould ſignifie all one with this to be iuſtified by fayth onelyonly. For this worde gratis is not all one wyth Solum, that is onelyonly. O dull gramarians that we are, which without thys good maiſter could not vnderſtand this aduerbe ſo much in vſe. Howbeit thys Grammaticall Ariſtarchus, leſt he ſhoulde ſéeme wythout ſome reaſon, to playe the foole. It is written (ſayth he) in Geneſis, that Laban ſayde vntounto Iacob, Foraſmuch as thou art my kinſman, ſhalt thou ſerue me gratis? Here ſayth he, put this word, Only, and thou ſhalt ſée, what an abſurd kind of ſpeach it will be. And in the booke of Nombers, The people ſayd, that in Egipt they dyd eate fiſhes gratis. And in the Pſalme, They hauehave hated me gratis. Here ſayth he can not be put this aduerbe Only. Wherefore we raſhly and very weakely conclude, that for that in the ſcriptures p. 407a man is ſayd to be iuſtified gratis, he is therefore ſtrayght way iuſtified by fayth only. But this ſharpe witted man & one ſo wel exerciſed in y^• concordance of the Bible ſhould hauehave remēbred, that this word, Gratis, ſignifieth without a cauſe, or without a reward and price. And therefore we rightly ſay, that Iuſtification conſiſteth of fayth only, bycauſe it is ſayd to be geuen gratis. For if workes were required, there ſhould be a cauſe, or a reward or a price to the obteynement of righteouſnes. But foraſmuch as Gratis, excludeth all theſe things, of y^• word is rightly and truly inferred, only fayth. And thoſe places which this man hath alledged are not hard to confute. For Laban ſayth, Shalt thou ſerue me gratis, that is, without this condition that I ſhould geue the any thing which is, only to take, and nothing to repay. And the Iſraelites when they ſayd that they did eate fiſhes gratis, ment, that they did eate them with out any price payd. And this, They hauehave hated me gratis, is nothing ells then w^tout a cauſe, or without any my deſert. Wherfore if this word, Gratis, take away price & merite, foraſmuch as Paul ſayth, that we are iuſtified gratis, we muſt nedes vnderſtand that it is doone without any our price or merite. Which doubtles ſhould not be true, if works ſhould be required as cauſes and merites. And bicauſe we once brought a place out of the epiſtle to the Galathians,Of this aduerbe Niſi that is, except. But when as we knew that man is not iustified by the workes of the Law, except it be by the fayth of Ieſus Christ, and of this particle, Except, concluded, that iuſtification conſiſteth of fayth only, this man according to his wiſedome rageth and ſayth, that this word, Except, is not all one with Only. For, ſayth he, Ioſeph in Geneſis ſayd vntounto his brethern, Ye ſhall not ſe my face except ye bring your youngeſt brother: & Chriſt (ſayth he) ſayth, Except ye eate the fleſh of the ſonne of man, ye ſhall not hauehave llfe in you. Who (ſayth he) wil ſay, that life is had only by the eating of the Sacramēt: wherfore (ſayth he) theſe thinges can not be expounded by this word Only. Yes doubtles but they may. For in the booke of Geneſis, what other thing ment Ioſeph then to admoniſh his brethern, that they ſhould vponupon this condition only come agayne into his ſight, namely, if they brought theyr youngeſt brother with them▪ And Chriſt in the 6. of Iohn entreated not of the eating of the Sacrament: for he had not as yet inſtituted it: wherefore by this word to eate he ſignifieth to beleue. And he ſayth that they which are of full age herein only hauehave life, if they eate hys fleſh and drinke his bloud: that is, if they beleue that the ſonne of God was deliuefor them for the remiſſion of theyr ſinnes: And that this is the only way whereby they may be ſaued. But Smith addeth, that from Iuſtification is not to be excluded hope and charitie and other good workes. I graunt indede, that thoſe are not to be excluded from a man that is iuſtified. Howbeit I doo not attribute vntounto them the power of iuſtifieng. For that which Paul ſaith y^• a man is not iuſtified by workes, ſhould not be true, if we ſhould be iuſtified by any kind of workes. For if a man ſhould ſay, that an artificer woorketh not with his fingers, and afterward ſhould confeſſe, that he vntounto that worke which he doth vſed fingers, he were worthy to be laughed at: although being conuict he would ſay, that he excepted only the litle finger and the third finger, and not the thombe, forefinger or middle finger. For he which vſeth thrée fingers, vndoubtedly vſeth fingers. But why doth this man ſay, that hope and charitie are not excluded? Bycauſe (ſayth he) euen ye your ſelues will hauehave vsus to be iuſtified by a liuely fayth: which doubtles is not without theſe. We graunt that theſe vertues are always ioyned with true fayth. But yet we doo not in them put any part of our iuſtification before God. In this argument is aFallacia accidentis. fallace or diſceate of the Accident. For vntounto thoſe things which are adioyned is attributed that which is proper vntounto that vntounto whome they are adioyned. As if a mā ſhould ſay, The Sunne is round and high, ergo, the roundnes and highe of the Sū doo make vsus warme. What workes then doth Smith exclude from iuſtification, when as he includeth hope and charitie? I ſuppoſe ſurely, he excludeth outward workes, faſtinges, almes, and ſuch like. But with what face can he ſo ſay or teach, when as he appointeth and defendeth workes preparatory? But this ſharpe witted man thinketh, that he hath trimely eſcaped, for that he ſayth that theſe things are not of neceſſity required vntounto iuſtification but only if they be preſent they are profitable vntounto iuſtification. But this is worthy to be laughed at. For we hauehave before moſt playnly taught, that all workes which are doone before iuſtification are ſinnes. So far is it of that they can ſerue any thing vntounto iuſtification. And if they ſhould by any meanes profite vntounto iuſtification, our glorieng ſhould then not be excluded. For we might glory, that we had doone thoſe thinges by whoſe helpe and ayd we were iuſtified. But of this (ſayth he) we can not boaſt, for that they were done by a certayne grace of God preuenting. But this is chiefly to be marked, that theſe men attribute a great part of ſuch works vntounto frée will. And therfore in y^• be halfe at y^e leaſt we may glory. Neither alſo ſhall y^• be true which the Apoſtle ſayth what haſt thou, that thou hast receaued? And agayne, why dost thou boast, as though thou hadst not receaued? Here ſome of thē anſwer y^• we can not glory of this liberty of will, for that we hauehave it not of our owne. For it is God which hath endued vsus with this faculty, and gaue vsus frée will when he created vsus. But this is not ſufficientThe Pelagians f…ed vntounto the common grace of creation. to take away boaſting. Firſt, for that this were to fly vntounto the cōmon grace of creation, which thing the Pelagians did: and by that meanes ſhould at the leſt may be left vntounto vsus a good vſe of frée will, of which we might glory. For although we hauehave the ſame of God by creation, yet the right vſe thereof is ours: namely, to aſſent vntounto God when he calleth vsus, and to apply our ſelues vntounto good workes which of God are ſet forth vntounto vsus. And therefore vtterly to take away all glorying, it is nedeful y^• we continually hauehave this in our mynde which Auguctine hath admonyſhed vsus of in his booke de ſpiritu & Litera the 24. chapiter, That not onelyonly the wyll and election of well doyng is of God, becauſe by creatiō he hath geuen choyce & free wyll, but alſo becauſe by the perſwaſion of thynges ſene he hath made vsus both to wyll and to beleue: and that not onelyonly by the outward preaching of the Goſpell, but alſo by inward perſwaſion. For he doth not onelyonly ſtirre vp the hart, but alſo perſwadeth draweth and boweth it to beleue: I graunt indéede, that it is the office of the will, to will and to embrace that which God offreth: for we do not will by vnderſtanding or by memory, but by will. And yet for all that I doubt not, but that it is God which maketh vsus to wil and to follow good things. Farther our aduerſaries think that although workes concurre vntounto iuſtification, yet is that notwithſtanding true which the holy ſcriptures teach, namely, that we iuſtified fréely. Becauſe ſay they thoſe workes are geuen of God, and are done of grace. If this refuge mought helpe, then had not Paul done well, when he tooke away from ceremoniall works the power of iuſtifiyng. For a Iew might ſay, Our fathers which in the old tyme were circumciſed, and performed other obſeruations of the law, did not the ſame by their owne naturall ſtrengthes, but by the grace of God both helping them and ſtirring them vp thereunto. Wherefore if other workes which were commaunded in the lawe coulde profite vntounto iuſtification to merite it, as ye ſpeake, of congruity, why coulde not ceremoniall workes do▪ the ſame? Neither will this any thing helpe, to ſay, that Paul taketh not away from them the power iuſtifiyng, but onelyonly after the comming of Chriſt. For he manifeſtly ſpeaketh of Abraham, which was iuſtified by fayth, and not by circumciſion, and vſeth a teſtimony of Dauid, of whome it is moſt certayne that he liued vnderunder the lawe. But whereas this man ſayth that charity and hope can not be excluded, I would gladly know of hym, whether the workes of theſe vertues be iuſt or no. I know he will graunt that they are iuſt. What will he then anſwere vntounto Paul, who vntounto Titus ſayth, Not by the workes of righteouſnes which we hauehave done. But I know theſe mēs fond deuiſes. They anſwere, that ſuch workes alſo are excluded, if they be done by the law, and by frée will without grace. But what nedeth to exclude that which canA ſtrong reaſon to proue that faith onelyonly iu…tifieth. not be? For who will either louelove God or hope in him without grace? Farther in what maner ſo euer they be done they can not ſerue to iuſtification: for we are iuſtified by grace, as it playnly appeareth by the holy ſcriptures. But betwene grace and workes is ſo great contrariety, that Paul ſayth: If of grace, then is it not now of workes: and if of workes then is it not of grace. Neither ought theſe men to be p. 408ſo much diſpleaſed, for y^• we vſe this word, Only. For we neceſſarily conclude it of that which Paul ſayth: Firſt, that we are iustified by fayth: and afterward addeth, without workes. How aptly we thus conclude, I will declare by a ſimilitude in the 6. chapiter of Deutronomy, if we follow the truth of the Hebrew, it is thus written, Thou ſhalt feare the Lord God and hym thou ſhalt ſerue. Here as thou ſéeſt wanteth this particle Only, yet becauſe there followeth, Thou ſhalt not go after straunge Gods, The ſeuenty interpreters hauehave thus turned that place, Thou ſhalt feare the Lord thy God, and hym onelyonly ſhalt thou worſhip. Theſe men, of the firſt propoſition, being affirmatiue that God is to be worſhipped, and of the other beyng negatiue, that ſtraunge Gods are not to be worſhipped, concluded that God onelyonly is to be ſerued. Whoſe authority ſhould not be of ſo great waight with me, but that Chriſt himſelfe hath cited that place in that ſort. For thus he rebuked the deuill, Depart from me Sathan, for it is written, thou ſhalt worſhip the Lord thy God, and hym only ſhalt thou ſerue. Here we ſée that to diſproue the worſhipping which is geuen vntounto a creature this particle only, is neceſſary: which although it be not had in the Hebrew yet is it neceſſarily gathered out of it. Now when as we alſo after this maner reaſon, why ſhould theſe men ſo much be offended? Let them conſider that the beſt and the moſt aunciēſt Fathers abhorred not from this word. It is a thing ridiculous to ſée with how colde toyes and poore ſhifts Smith goeth about toThe fathers vſed this worde, OnelyOnly. reſiſt them. Firſt he ſayth that they ment nothing els but to repreſſe men, that they ſhould not waxe inſolēt. But let Smith in one word according to his good wiſdome aunſwere me, whether the Fathers ſpake this truely or falſely? If they ſpake it truely, then make they on our ſide: and why doth this man ſo much impugne it? But if falſely, this good end nothing helpeth thē to repreſſe the inſolency of men. For euen as euill is not to be committed, that good may enſew, ſo falſe doctrine is not to be affirmed, to ouerthrow other falſe doctrine. But this man vndoubtedly is ſo farre beſides him ſelfe that he ſayth that this was lawfull for the Fathers to do? For in his booke de votis, which not many yeares ago he ſet abrode, he ſayth that Auguſtine in his booke de Bono viduitatis, whereas he writeth that their matrimonies which had vowed a vow of virginity or of ſole life are true mariages & not adulteries wrote the ſame for no other end but to perſwade Iuliana the widow vntounto whome he wrote the booke, that mariages in generall are not euill. And ſo in Gods name he confeſſeth, that Augustine ſetteth forth one falſe doctrine, to ouerthrow an other falſe doctrine. And with the like wiſedōe in the ſame booke he fayneth, that Clemens Alexandrinus wrote that Paul had a wife (which he thinketh to be moſt falſe) only to proue that mariage is good and honorable. And if it be lawfull ſo to mingle true thinges with falſe, and to confound all thinges, when then ſhall we beleue the Fathers? What thing can at any time be certaine vntounto vsus, but that we may be deceaued by them? Farther he fayneth that Paul excluded from iuſtification only workes of the law. But this we hauehave before aboundantly confuted and hauehave taught that the reaſons of Paul are generall. Yea the Fathers ſaw euen this alſo: For Augustine in many places affirmeth, that Paul entreateth not only of ceremoniall works, but alſo of morall works. But bycauſe the authority of Auguſtine is I can not tell by what meanes ſuſpected vntounto our aduerſaries,Ierome alſo was of the opinion that not only ceremoniall works are to be excluded from iuſtification let vsus ſe what Ierome ſayth. He vntounto Cleſiphon agaynſt the Pelagians vponupon theſe wordes, By the workes, of the law no fleſh ſhalbe iustified, thus writeth, By cauſe thou thinkeſt this to be ſpokē of the law of Moſes only and not of all the commaundements which are conteyned vnderunder this one name law, the ſelfe ſame Apostle ſayth, I conſent vntounto the law of God. There are others alſo of the Fathers which teach the ſame: but I now ouerpaſſe them. Let it ſuffice to ſhew that this other fayned inuē tion of Smith is vaine and trifling.

Thirdly (he ſayth) that they ment to exclude workes, as he calleth them, penal namely, thoſe woorkes I ſuppoſe which men repentant doo but to ſhew how rediculous this is alſo, ſhall nede no long declaration. For firſt ſuch workes were required of men, not that by them they ſhould be iuſtified before God, but only to approue themſelues vntounto the Church: namely, leſt they ſhould by a fayned and diſſē bled repentance ſeke to be reconciled. Farther it is not very likely that Paul ſpake of any ſuch workes. For they were not at y^t time in vſe. In dede Ambroſe when he excludeth woorkes frō iuſtification, hath hereunto once or twiſe a reſpect. But we ought not ſo much to conſider what one or two of y^e Fathers ſay, but what agréeth with the holy ſcriptures. Smith addeth moreouer, that it is certayne that God requireth much more of vsus then fayth. For in Marke it is thus written, Repent ye and beleue. Here (ſayth he) vntounto fayth is adioyned repentāce. And in an other place He that beleueth and is Baptiſed ſhalbe ſaued. He addeth alſo that in the epiſtle to the Epheſians: the Church is ſayd to be ſanctified with the lauacre of water in the word, And y^t Peter in his 3. chap. of his firſt epiſtle ſayth, That Baptiſme hath made vsus ſafe: Ierome alſo thus writeth vponupon the firſt chapiter of Eſay, The lauacre of regeneration only remitteth ſinnes. Behold (ſayth he) iuſtification and remiſſion of ſinnes is aſcribed not only vntounto fayth, but alſo vntounto the ſacraments. As touching the firſt we graunt that Chriſt requireth more of vsus then faith. For who doubteth, but that he will hauehave men that are iuſtified to liue vprightly, and to exerciſe them ſelues inGod requireth more of men then faith. all kindes of vertues, otherwiſe they ſhall not come vntounto eternall ſaluation? But theſe are fruites of fayth, and effectes of iuſtification, and not cauſes. But as touching y^e ſacramēts, we hauehave many times taught how iuſtification is to be attributed vntounto them. For they are in the ſame reſpect vntounto it, as is the preaching of the Goſpel and the promiſe concerning Chriſt which is offred vntounto vsus, vntounto ſaluation. And very oftentimes in the Scriptures that which belongeth vntounto the thing is aſcribed vntounto the Sacrament or ſigne. And bicauſe Baptiſme promiſeth remiſſion of ſinnes by Chriſt, and ſignifieth it, and ſealeth it in them which are waſhed, therfore Ierome of all other ſacraments attributeth this vntounto it only. Wherefore the wordes of the Fathers ought nothing to moue vsus when as they thus write. That fayth alone is not ſufficient vntounto ſaluation. For they vnderſtand that of eternall ſaluation, vntounto which we come not, except ſome fruite follow our fayth. But of theyr ſayings we ought not to gather, y^e a man is not iuſtified by faith only. And though at any time thoſe ſelfe ſame fathers ſeme to referre theyr wordes vntounto iuſtification, yet are they to be vnderſtand, that theyr meaning was to expreſſe the nature of the true and iuſtifieng fayth. For it in very dede is neuer alone, but hath euer hope and charitie and other good workes as companions. Sometimes alſo by iuſtification they vnderſtand the righteouſnes which cleaueth vntounto vsus: of which it is moſte certayne that it conſiſteth not of fayth only. They thinke alſo, that this maketh agaynſt vsus, for that Paul writeth vntounto the Romanes. By hope ye are made ſafe: NeyſeThe righteouſnes which cleaueth vntounto vsus conſiſteth not of faith only. they, that hope is there taken for the laſt regeneration, which we hope we ſhall one day obteyne in our countrey. For the Apoſtle a litle before ſpake of it. And vndoubtedly we poſſeſſe that ſaluation onelyonly in hope not as yet in very déede. If there be any paraduenture, whō this moſt iuſt and moſt true ſolution wil not ſatiſfy, let him follow the interpretation of Origen. For he vppon that place ſayth, that hope is there put for faith: which is no rare thing in the holy ſcriptures.

But they hauehave found out yet an other fond deuiſe, whereby as much as lieth in them they goo about to lenifie this worde, Only, which is ſo often vſed of the Fathers, namely, that fayth only hath the beginning, and as it were the firſt degrée of iuſtification, which afterward is made perfect and full when other good workes come vntounto it. But how vayne this is Paul himſelfe ſufficiently teacheth. For he doth not onelyonly ſay that we are iuſtified by faith onelyonly, but alſo he addeth, without workes. Farther this alſo maketh againſt theſe men which is written in in the 15. chapter of wiſdome, To know is full righteouſnes. In which place it is a ſport to ſée, how our Smith writeth himſelfe. Firſt he dareth not deny the ſentēce for he counteth that booke for canonicall: but as he is of a ſharpe witte, at the laſt this he fayneth: That God is not knowen by fayth onelyonly, but alſo by louelove. But who euer would ſo ſay, but this man onelyonly? Vndoubtedly by louelove we know not, but by louelove we louelove. But that which is ſpoken in the booke of wiſedome (whiche p. 409yet with me is not of ſo great authority) Chriſt himſelfe hath moſt manifeſtly teſtified in the Goſpel, ſaying, This is eternall life, that they know thee the onelyonly true God. Although of this ſaying alſo of our ſauior, Wincheſter hath fained a new deuiſe I know not what: namely, that to know God is not properly eternall life, although it ſomewhat helpe forwarde thereunto. But foraſmuch as neither the Fathers, nor Paul, nor Chriſt himſelfe can ſatiſfy theſe men, there is no hope that we ſhall any thing preuayle with our reaſons.

They adde moreouer. That the fathers ſay, that onelyonly faith iuſtifieth, that is, is the principalleſt thing whereby we are iuſtified. I confeſſe indéede, that only, ſometime ſignifieth, principall. But this ſenſe can not agrée with Pauls purpoſe.This word Only, ſome tymes ſignifieth principall. For if charity be compared with faith, charity is excellenter and better as Paul ſayth. Wherefore if both of them iuſtify (as theſe men will hauehave it) then ſhoulde charity hauehave the chiefeſt part and not faith. And this alſo is a great let vntounto theſe men, which I hauehave oftentimes ſpoken of, that Paul ſo aſcribeth iuſtification vntounto faith, that he ſayth, without workes.

But Auguſtine ſay they, vntounto Simplicianus writeth, That by fayth we beginne to be iuſtified. VntoUnto this we may anſwere two maner of wayes: firſt that that beginning is ſuch, that in very déede it hath the very full and whole iuſtification. So that Augustines meaning is, that we are iuſtified, ſo ſoone as we hauehave faith. Or if this pleaſe them not, we will ſay as the truth is indéede, that Augustine ment of the righteouſnes which cleaueth in vsus.

They cite alſo Ambroſe vpō the 5. chapiter vntounto y^• Galathians, In Chriſt. &c. For (ſaith he) we hauehave nede of fayth onelyonly in charity to iuſtification. Behold ſay they vntounto iuſtification we hauehave no leſſe nede of charity then of fayth. But they are far deceaued: For by thoſe words Ambroſe ment nothing els, but to make a diſtinction betwene true faith and a vaine opinion. Therfore he ſayth, that we hauehave néede of faith only, namely, which is ioyned with charity.

But Ierome vppon the 5. chapiter vntounto the Galathians ſayth, That it is charity onelyonly which maketh cleane the hart. What other thing els ſhall we here aunſwere, but y^• this his ſaying if it be vrged roughly & ſimply, is falſe? For it is faith alſo which purifieth the hartes, as it is written in the Actes of the Apoſtles. And Paul to Timothe ſayth, Charity out of a pure hart, good conſcience &c. By which words it is playne t…at the hart muſt of neceſſity firſt be pure, before charity can come. Wherefore we will interprete that ſentence by the effect, and as touching our knowledge: For then is it moſt certayne, that we are regenerate and hauehave a cleane hart, when we be endued with charity. After this maner alſo …aue we before expounded this, Many ſinnes are forgeuen her, becauſe ſhe hath loued much. And by the ſelfe ſame meanes alſo may that ſaying of Augustine in his booke de natura & Gratia the 38. chapiter be aunſwered vntounto: It is the charity of God (ſaith he) by which onelyonly he is iuſt, whoſoeuer is iust. But this ſéemeth vntounto me beſt, to vnderſtand ſuch ſayinges of the fathers of that righteouſnes which cleueth vntounto vsus. For that conſiſteth not onelyonly of fayth, but alſo of all vertues and good workes. But becauſe amongſt all vertues charity is the principalleſt, therefore the fathers ſometimesWhy our righteouſnes is attributed ſometymes vntounto charity. attribute righteouſnes vntounto it onelyonly. And that which our aduerſaries hauehave moſt vniuſtly vſurped, to expound this word Only, for principall or chiefe, may in this place moſt iuſtly ſerue vsus. For here we entreat not of that iuſtificatiō which is had by imputation, but of that which we attayne vntounto after regeneration. Wherefore in this our propoſition we exclude not from a man that is iuſtified hope, charitie, and other good woorkes: but this only we ſay, that they hauehave not the power, or cauſe, or merite of iuſtifieng. And when we ſay that a man is iuſtified by fayth only, we ſay nothing ells vndoubtedly, but that a man is iuſtified only by the mercy of God and by the merite of Chriſt only: which we can not apprehendWe muſt not leaue o… from vſyng this worde Only. by any other inſtrument then by fayth only. Neither muſt we geue place vntounto our aduerſaries, not to vſe this worde, Only: though they cry out neuer ſo much that of it ſpringeth great offence, and mens mindes are by this perſuaſion ſomwhat weakned in the excerciſe of vertues. For by ſound doctrine we may eaſely remedy theſe diſcommodities. For we alwayes inculcate, that it is not true iuſtification, or true fayth, which wanteth the fruites of good life. But we ſe the ſubtle and craftie deuiſe of theſe men: For if we ſhould ſay, that a man is ſimply iuſtified by fayth, leauing out this word Only, Sreight way they would adde of theyr own, that a mā indede is iuſtified by faith, but yet is he no les iuſtified by hope, and charity, and other good woorkes. For this ſelfe ſame cauſe the Catholikes in times paſt would not permit vntounto the Arrians this word, foreign: that is, of like ſubſtance: bicauſe they wouldA like example. ſtreight way hauehave ſayd, That the ſonne indede by appellation or name is GOD like vntounto the father, & in a maner equall vntounto him, but yet not of one and the ſelfe ſame nature and ſubſtance. Wherefore they did with tooth and naile defend and kepe ſtill this word foreign that is, of one and the ſelfe ſame ſubſtance, as a word moſt apt to expreſſe the truth of that controuerſie: which they might alſo by good right doo, and chiefely for that they ſaw that that word was of neceſſity concluded out of the holy ſcriptures: out of which alſo is moſt euidently concluded thys our word, Only: and is thought of vsus a word moſt mete to confute the errors of thoſe which would hauehave iuſtification to come of workes.

Moreouer Gardiner biſhop of wincheſter counted this our propoſition to be abſurd: and agaynſt it amongſt other arguments vſed this, and it is to me more then wonderfull, how much it is eſtemed of certayne Papiſts his paraſites: The righteouſnes (ſayth he) that is geuen vsus of God wherby we are iuſtefied pertayneth to all the faculties of the mind, or rather to the whol… man. Ergo, we are not iuſtified by fayth only: For, that pertayneth only vntounto the higher part of the ſoule. Here gentle reader, leſt thou ſhouldeſt be deceaued, lieth hidden a double fallace or diſceate. For firſt graunt that that righteouſnes which is geuen vntounto vsus pertayneth vntounto the whole man, and vntounto all the faculties of the mind. Shall it therefore follow, that that righteouſnes which is offred of God, is not apprehended by fayth only? Vndoubtedly the meate which we eate is deſtributed into all the members, and into the whole body. And yet is it receaued with the mouth only, and not with theThe righteouſneſſe wherby we are iuſtified is in God and not in vsus. whole body. Farther the diſputation is not about any righteouſnes which cleaueth vntounto vsus, which in very dede is diſperſed into the whole man, but about iuſtificatiō, which is the forgeuenes of ſinnes. But this righteouſnes hath no place or ſeate in our mindes, but in God only by whoſe will only our ſinnes are forgeuen vsus.

But now foraſmuch as this article hath ben ſufficiently defended agaynſt the cauillations of importunate men, we will omitt this, and briefely declare, that the auncient fathers abhorred not from thys woorde Only, which our aduerſaries ſo muche deteſt.

Origen vponupon the epiſtle vntounto the Romanes, vponupon theſe woordes: Thy glorieng is excluded, By what law? by the law of dedes? No. But by the law of fayth. For we ſuppoſe that a man is iuſtified by fayth without the woorkes of the law: The iuſtification (ſayth he) of fayth only is ſufficient, that a mā only beleuing ſhould be iuſtified, although he hauehave done no good woorke at all: and for example he bringeth forth that thiefe which was crucified together with Chriſt: and that wooman vntounto whome Chriſte anſwered, Thy fayth hath made thee ſafe. Afterward he obiecteth vntounto him ſelfe, that a man hearing theſe thinges mought be made ſecure and contemne good woorkes. But he anſwereth, that he which after iuſtification liueth not vprightly caſteth away the grace of iuſtification. For no man (ſayth he) receaueth forgeuenes of ſinnes to vſe licence to ſinne. For pardon is geuen not of faultes to come, but of ſinnes paſt. Then which ſentence can nothing be ſayd more conformable vntounto our doctrine.

Ciprian to Quirinus in his 42. chapiter, Fayth (ſayth he) only profiteth and looke how much we beleue, ſo much are we able to doo.

Baſilius in his ſermō de Humilitate writeth, that a man is iustified by faith only.

Hilarius alſo vponupon Mathew the 8. chapter. Fayth (ſayth he) only iuſtifieth.

Ambroſe vponupon the 3. chapter vntounto the Romanes vponupon theſe wordes: Being iustified freely: Becauſe (ſayth he) they woorking nothing, nor rendring turne for turne, p. 410are by faith onelyonly iustified by the gift of God. The ſame author vponupon theſe wordes: According to the purpoſe of the grace of God, So Paul (ſayth he) ſayth it was decreed of God, that the law ceaſing, onelyonly faith ſhould be required vntounto ſaluation. And ſtraight way after, God hath ordeyned, that men ſhould by faith onelyonly without labour and any obſeruation be iustified before God. The ſame father vponupon the. 1. chapter of the. 2. epiſtle vntounto the Corrinthians. It is appoynted (ſayth he) by God that he which beleueth in Chriſt ſhould be ſaued without workes by faith only. And he hath the like ſentences in his booke de vocatione Gentium.

Out of Chriſoſtome I could bring a greate many places to confirme this ſentence: but of them I will picke out onelyonly a few. VponUpon the 3. chapter vntounto the Romanes vponupon theſe wordes, Thy glory is excluded, In this (ſayth he) is ſet foorth the might and power of God, in that he hath ſaued, iuſtified, and wroughte glorification by faith onelyonly without workes. And at the beginning of the 4. chapter, That a man being destitute of workes ſhould be iustified by faith, peraduenture it may appeare to be well. But that a man being adorned with vertues & good workes, is not for all iuſtified by thē, but by faith only, this aſſuredly is wonderfull. Hereby our aduerſaries may vnderſtand, that although faith hauehave as companions hope, and charitie, and other good workes (which thing cannot be doubted of Abraham) yet they ſerue nothing to the apprehending of righteouſnes. And vponupon the. 10. chapter vponupon theſe woordes, They being ignorant of the righteouſnes of God and going aboute to establiſh theyr owne righteouſnes, were not ſubiect vntounto the righteouſnes of God, He calleth (ſayth he) the righteouſnes of God that righteouſnes which is of fayth. Bycauſe we are without labour by fayth only iustified thorough the gift of God.

Of Auguſtine I will ſpeake nothing. For he is full of this agaynſt the Pelagians, and any man may eaſely by his writings proue this ſentence.

Heſichius vponupon Leuiticus in his firſt booke and ſecond chapiter, Grace (ſayth he) is comprehended by fayth only: not of woorkes: Which ſelfe thing in a maner he hath in his 4. booke and 14. chapiter.

Theophilactus vponupon the 3. chapiter vntounto the Galathians, expoūdeth theſe words Bycauſe by the law no mā is iuſtified before God: Now (ſayth he) Paul playnly declareth, that fayth euen alone hath in it the power to iuſtifie.

Phocius vponupon the fift chapiter vntounto the Romanes, Iustification (ſayth he) conſiſteth of fayth only.

Acacius in Oecumenius vpō the firſt chapiter vntounto the Romanes. He hath (ſaith he) by fayth onelyonly rayſed vp and quickened vsus being mortified by ſinnes.

Bernardus in his 22. Sermon vponupon the Canticles By fayth only (ſayth he) he that is iuſtified ſhall hauehave peace. And in the ſelfe ſame ſermon, That wanteth (ſayth he) of grace, whatſoeuer thou aſcribeſt vntounto merites. Grace maketh me iuſtified freely.

Whome theſe things ſuffice not let him reade Genuadius vponupon the 5. chap. to the Romanes: Cirillus in his 9. booke 3. chapiter vponupon Iohn: Theodoretus vponupon the 5. chapiter to the Romanes. Didimus vponupon the 2. chapiter of Iames Euſebius in his Eccleſiaſticall hiſtory the 3. booke and 27. chap. Ciprian (or whatſoeuer he were, in his expoſition of the ſimbole: Liranus vponupon the third to the Galathians: The ordinary gloſſe vponupon the epiſtle vntounto Iames: Haimo vpō the Goſpell of Circumciſion: Sedulius vponupon the 1. and 2. chapiters vntounto the Romanes. Thomas vponupon the 3. to the Galathians Bruno vponupon the 4. vntounto the Romanes. Arnobius vponupon the 106. Pſalme. Now I thinke I hauehave ſpoken inough as touching this queſtion. Wherfore I will now returne to the expoſition of the wordes of the Apoſtle.