Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	charity_n	faith_n	justification_n	4,801	5	9.5998	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01325	A retentiue, to stay good Christians, in true faith and religion, against the motiues of Richard Bristow Also a discouerie of the daungerous rocke of the popish Church, commended by Nicholas Sander D. of Diuinitie. Done by VVilliam Fulke Doctor of diuinitie, and Maister of Pembroke hall in Cambridge.	Fulke, William, 1538-1589.	1580 (1580)	STC 11449; ESTC S102732	222,726	326

your selues to shadowe your heresies cannot proue you to be Christians or your church to be Catholike especially seeing you lacke the truth which Augustine in the same place confesseth to be more worth then either successiō antiquity the name of Catholike or any other thing else The eyghteenth marke is the succession of Priestes and Bishops euen from the seate of Peter vnto Pius the fifth in whose time this booke of M. Sander was written which marke is approued by Augustine by Irenaeus by Tertullian by Optatus by Hieronym as he sayth being one of the most euident of all other but therein he belyeth all these fathers whom he citeth who neuer alleaged the bare successiō of place persons but ioyned with the cōtinuance of doctrine receaued from the Apostles against new late sprong vp heresies Augustine shall speake for the rest who after he hath alleaged vnto the Donatistes the successions of Bishops from Peter in the vnity of the Catholike church among which was neuer a Donatist the iudgement of the Bishop of Rome in absoluing of Cecilianus and many such like reasons whereunto he thinketh the Donatistes shoulde yeelde yet in the ende he addeth these words Quamquàm nos non tam de istis documentis presumamus quam de Scripturis sanctis Although we doe not so much presume of this documents as of the holy Scriptures These eighteene markes M. Sander will haue to be more richly seene in them then in the Protestantes but what markes they are and how they are to be found in their church I haue briefely shewed But nowe he commeth to a general challenge to proue that we haue nothing which they lacke and we lacke many thinges which they haue First they haue a iustifying faith as well as we but not iustifying alone but with charity which is the life of faith But charitye is a fruict of a liuinge and vnfayned fayth not the life thereof 1. Tim. 1. 5. the effect not the cause and we holde with Saynct Paule that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe Rom. 3. for charitie is no instrument to apprehend the mercie of God but faith onely therefore faith onely doth iustifie We are iustified gratis steely by his grace Rom. 3. 24. therfore nothing can come in accompt of iustification before God but onely faith which seeing y e Papistes haue not they haue not a iustifying faith We haue two Sacraments and they haue seuen but seeing they haue fiue more then Christ instituted and haue peruerted the one and polluted the other they haue but one Sacrament at the most and that horribly prophaned I meane baptisme VVe haue an inward priesthood he sayth to offer vp Christ in our hartes and they offer him both in hartes and handes But our spirituall priesthood is not to offer vp Christ but spirituall sacrifices acceptable by Christ 1. Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 13. 15. and they are horrible blasphemers that take vpon them to offer vp Christ whome none could offer but him selfe by his eternall spirite Heb. 9. 14. He sayth that the Papistes beleeue as well as we that Christ by one sacrifice payed our raunsom for euer when they shewe it to the eye in the eblation of their Masse then the which nothing can be more contrary to the onely sacrifice of Christ once offred and neuer to be repeated because he founde eternall redemption thereby Heb. 10. 14. 9. 12. 25. c. He addeth that they beleue Christ to be the head of the Church and shewe it by a reall figure of one heade in earth meaning the Pope whome now he maketh a figuratiue heade as though Christ were not present with his Churche or that his Churche were a monster with two heades As laye men receyue the communion in both kindes with vs so they d●e with them in Austria by the Popes dispensation as though Christes commaundement and institution were not sufficient without the Popes dispensation Wherein also he affirmeth a monstrous absurditie that the Sacrament was not instituted in two kindes to be so receyued but by an vnbloody sacrifice to shewe the nature of his bloody sacrifice in which his soule and blood was separated from his body and flesh and yet he sayth the body and flesh of Christ is not well conteyned in the cuppe as his blood in the paten with the body and forme of breade and no separation of the one from the other and no more contayned or distributed by both then by one alone Which saying is to be receyued with whoopes and hisses of all men that haue their fiue witts They haue mariage he sayth in greater price then we because they teach it to be a sacrament but we find it not instituted by Christ to be a sacrament of the new testament therfore we receyue it as an holy ordinance contayning also a great mystery but yet no sacrament But if it be an holy sacrament why doe you thinke it vnmeete for ministers of the Church and why doth your Pope Syricius or rather some counterfeating Canonist in his name call holy matrimony a liuing in the flesh such as can not please God But although mariage be honorable in all men you saye it is not so in them that haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen who haue no more possibilitie to marye then a gelded man to ●eget children You were best then to tel the Apostle that his saying was too generall for he shoulde haue excepted them that so gelded themselues But S. Paule sayth notwithstanding your impossibilitie if a virgine doe marye she doth not sinne 1. Cor. 8. 28. You will reply he speaketh of them that haue not vowed how proue you that Christ speaketh of them that haue vowed longer then God would giue them grace to liue chast which he affirmeth to be a peculiar gift not in the power of euery man Mat. 19. 12. But what if your popish geldings by neying at euery mans wife and by tombling in all beddes where they are not kept out by force proue them selues to be stone horses are they still in the number of those that hauing gelded them selues for the kingdom of heauen may not possibly marye and yet nether we will nor can possibly liue chast But omitting these thinges which they haue as well as we now he commeth to those thinges which we lacke and yet many of them are very necessary as insufflations that is blowing vpon exorcismes that is coniuring holy oyle in baptisme chrisme in Bishopping externall priesthood sacrifice altars censing lights and so forth a large rablement of popish errors and superstitious ceremonies And that we saye falsly in saying these are naught he proueth by S. Paules saying to the Galathians praeterquam quod accepistis beside that you haue receyued for once sayth he we haue receyued those thinges of our auncestors as if S. Paule had not spoken of the Gospell but of beggerly ceremonies which because they are an other Gospell and way

particularly to euerie one of them sheweing whether it be a true and proper note of the church and if it be that it belongeth to vs and not to them Although Bristow say that this way we know full well that they shall haue the victorie flying therefore euermore to our weake false castle of only Scripture That the scripture onely is our castle we do gladly admitte but that the same is a most strong true impugnable castle none but a blasphemous heretike will deny But you must saith Bristow still labour to get them if you can with their consent out of the castle into the plaine fieldes aforesayde to make them graunt expressely that there in your handes they can not stande Nay Bristow you must beate vs from our castell if you can for we will neuer consent to goe out of it for defense except it be to offer you the aduauntage not in the playne fieldes as you cal it but among your pettie piles and small holdes And so we haue done often So did that reuerende father the Bishoppe of Salisburie in that noble challenge wherein you were shamefullie foyled in your owne grounde and many of your fortes beaten about your eares But you doe not well to teach your schollers to seeke a gentle aduersarie to fight withall which must first of all be willing to laye downe his sworde and shielde and then you are good enough for him with your manlie motiues with which when you haue treandled him about like a tenis ball you sende him backe agayne to his castell of onely Scripture to see whether they will beare him out in his opinions For example is not this Scripture manifest inough on your side and agaynst vs This is my body This is my blood Mat. 26. Verily euen as plaine as this They did all eate the same spirituall meate They all dronke of the rocke that followed thē y e rocke was Christ. 1. Cor. 10. They are both one maner of speaking and both of one matter Therefore they haue both one meaning The second exāple is By works a man is iustified not by faith only Iac. 2. And this is also Scripture knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Lawe but by faith of Iesus Christ G●lat 2. And agayne by grace you are saued through faith and that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of workes least any man shoulde boast The later being in maner of speaking contrarie to the former text doe playnly shewe that these two Apostles speake not both of one kinde of faith or iustification But that Iames speaketh of a dead faith as his wordes are playne Vers. 17. and of iustification before men Paule of a liuing faith and of iustification in the sight of God The third example is out of Iames 5. Where I must first note that Bristow in translation doth manifestly corrupt falsefie the Scripture The Latine is Infirmatur quis in vobis If any amongest you be daungerously sicke let him send for the Priests of the church and they to pray ouer him anealing him with oyle in the name of our Lord c. First Bristow addeth this word daungerously of his owne heade which is neither in the Greeke nor vulgare Latine text to draw the text of Iames violently to their popish greasing which they vse only when a man is desperatly sicke and past hope of recouerie in thei● iudgement Whereas Iames speaketh generally of any kinde of sickenes wherewith any of the faithfull were molested Secondly Bristowe leaueth out the wordes following which are these and the prayer of faith shall saue the sicke person and the Lord shall restore him or raise him vp the Latine is alle●iabit shall ease him which wordes declare that the Apostle speaketh not of a perpe●uall Sacrament of the church but of a ceremonie vsed by them that had a speciall gift of healing the sicke in the primitiue Churche whiche ceremonie must needes cease with the gift except it be among apes that practise outward gesture and actions without effect The other two examples out of the 2. of Machabees the one of praying for the deade the other of Ieremie praying for the people are no partes of the castell of Canonicall Scripture and therefore with other errours in the same bookes I omit them The last exāple is out of Genesis 48. The saying of Iacob the Patriarke of Iosephs two childrē God who hath fed me from my youth euen to this day The Angell who hath deliuered me out of all aduersities blesse these children which is sayth Bristow as if one would say God and our Ladie blesse them Nay rather God by Iesus Christ blesse them for what other Angell but Christ the Angell of the great councell was the deliuerer of Iacob which when he wrestled with him in a vision and mystery Gen. 32. he doubted not to call God Euen the same Angell which led the children of Israel through the wildernes whō S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. calleth Christ who was not an Angel by nature but by office in that as the Mediator he was sent to deliuer the people before he came in the flesh But if we should vnderstand the Angell of whom Iacob speaketh for sōe priuate Angel appointed of God to protect him yet is it not as if one would say now God our Lady blesse thē For that God vseth the ministery of Angels to defend prosper his seruaunts but not the ministery of Saincts in heauē for any such purpose that we can learne by the holy Scriptures Iacob might therfore pray y t God would send his Angell to protect those children euen as he had done for him As for that vaine brag that all Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalipse is for thē against vs is nothing els but a false alarme as though he woulde on all sides assalt our castel of only Scriptures wheras he purposeth nothing lesse But this can not be borne that he sayeth some places of Scripture be so playne against vs that we can not aunswere them but by plucking the pen of the holy Ghost out of his hand that wrote thē meaning that we deny the auctority of such books as be not Canonicall the Machabees especially But this he sayth can not be For either they are proued mu●ncibly to be of the holy Ghostes indighting or no Scripture at all is proued to be suche as you may remember the common saying of S. Augustine Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I shoulde not beleue the Gospell it selfe vnlesse the Catholike Churches auctoritie did compell What shall I say to this impudent blasphemer that alloweth none other tryall of holy Scripture but the authoritie of the Church because Augustine supposing that hee were an Heathen Againe sayth he would not beleeue the Gospell except the authoritie of the Church with other thinges did moue him his woorde is Commoueret whiche Bristowe not so ignorauntly as

whatsoeuer Luther sometime helde and after repented But the confession of Zurich with the consent of the churches of Heluetia and Sabaudia writeth thus of it Iacobus ille dixit c. That Iames sayed that workes doe iustifie not speaking agaynst Sainct Paule otherwise he were to be reiected Here saith M. Sāder they thinke it possible that S. Iames might be contrarie to Sainct Paule and so his Epistle to be no holy Scripture A wise collectiō I promise you S. Paule him selfe sayed If I my selfe or an Angell from heauen should preach any other Gospel then you haue already receaued let him be accursed Ergo S. Paul thought it was possible y t him selfe or an Angell shoulde be auctor of a new Gospel so his preaching should not be y e Gospel Who seeth not y e madnes of this cōsequēce But S. Iames his epistle he sayth hath alwayes bene clearely admitted among true Catholikes for witnes hereof he quoteth most impudenly Euseb. lib. 1. ca. 23. in which booke and chapter Eusebius clearely affirmeth that it is a counterfet epistle I say not this to allowe the iudgment of Eusebius but to shewe the impudencie of M. Sander But he saith we reiect S. Iames because he is contrary to our deuilesh doctrin of only faith We teach only faith none otherwise thē the apostle teacheth that a man is iustified by faith without workes We teach not that a man is iustified by a dead faith which is voide of good workes but by a liuing faith which worketh by loue We say with Sainct Iames if a man say he haue faith and hath not workes his faith shall not saue him For Abrahās faith which was imputed to him for righteousnes by God was not without good workes as appeared by his obedience in offering his sonne wherein God tried him neither to know him nor to iustifie him whom he knew and iustified before but to shewe his obedience to iustifie him before men So it is true that S. Iames sayeth a man is iustified of workes and not of faith onely For a solitarie srutles faith doth not iustifie before God but a faith which is fruteful in good workes is the onely instrument to apprehend iustification and the workes as Augustine sayth follow and shewe a iustified man they goe not before to iustifie Thus our doctrine agreeth verie well with the Epistle of S. Iames Sainct Paules doctrine wherefore we haue no neede to reiect the Epistle of Sainct Iames as contrarie to our doctrine But the Protestantes do not onely make them selues iudges of the whole bookes but also ouer the very letter saith he of Christs Gospell finding fault with the construction of the Euangelists and bring the text it selfe in doubt Example hereof he bringeth Beza in his annotations vpon Luk 22. of the words This cup is the new Testamēt in my blood which is shed for you In which text because the word blood in the Greke is the datiue case the other worde that followeth is the nominatiue case Beza supposeth that S. Luke vseth a figure called Soloecophanes which is appearaunce of incongruity or else that the last worde which is shed for you might by error of writers being first set in the margēt out of Mathew Marke be remoued into the text Hereupon M. Sander out of all order measure raileth vpon Beza vpon al Protestantes But I pray you good Sir shall the only opinion of Beza that but a doubtful opiniō in dite all the Protestants in the world of such high treason against the worde of God For what gaineth Beza by this interpretation Forsooth the Greeke text is contrary to his Sacramentary heresie For thus he should translate it This cuppe is the newe Testament in my blood which cuppe is shed for you Not the cup of gold or siluer saith he but the liquor in that cuppe which is not wine because wine was not shed for vs but the bloode of Christ. Why then the sence is this This blood in the cup which is shed for you is the newe Testament in my blood What sence in the world cā these words haue By which it is manifest that the words which is shed for you cā not be referred to the cup but to his his blood For the cup was the newe Testamēt in his blood which was shed for vs which sense no man can deny but he that will deny the manifest word of God Neither doth the vulgare Latine translation geue any other sense although M. Sander is not ashamed to say it doth The vulgare Latine text is this Hic est calix nouum Testamētum in sanguine meo qui pro vobis fundetur What grammarian in construing would referre qui to calix and not rather to sanguine Againe Erasmus translateth it euen as Beza Hoc poculum nouum Testamentum per sanguinem meum qui pro vobis ●ffundit●r Now touching the coniecture of Beza that those words by errour of the scriuener might be remoued from the margent into the text is a thing that somtime hath happened as most learned men agree in the 27. of Mathew where the name of Ieremy is placed in y e text for that w c is in Zachary yet neither of the Prophets was named by the Euangelist as in most ancient recordes it is testified The like hath bene in the first of Marke where the name of Esay is sette in some Greeke copies and followed in your vulgare translation for that which is cited out of Malachie which name was not set downe by the Euangelist but added by some vnskilfull writer is reproued by other Greke copies But this place you say is not otherwise found in any old copy as Beza confesseth then remaineth y e second opinion y t S. Luke in this place vseth Soloe cophanes w c is an appearance of incōg●uity and yet no incongruitie Wherein I can not maruayle more at your malice M. Sander then at your ignorance which put no difference betwene soloecismus soloecophanes but euen as spitefully as vnlearnedly you affirme that Beza should teach that S. Luke wrote false Greeke whereas Soloecophanes is a figure vsed of the most eloquent writers that euer tooke penne in hande euen Cicero Demosthenes Greeke and Latine prophane and diuine and euen of S. Luke him selfe in other places whereof for examples I referre you to Budaeus vpon the word Soloecophanes The apparance of incongruitie is that it seemeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the nominatiue case shold agre with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the datiue case wheras in deed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed as a relatiue for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is often and the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which wanteth is vnderstoode as it is commonly in the Greeke tongue and so the translation must be hoc poculum nouum Testamentum est in sanguine meo qui pro vobis effunditur or effusus est So that this is