The Institution of Christian Religion

Neither yet do I regard the barkynges of Pyghius, or such other dogs, when they find fault with this restraint, as though in dividing faith, it did take hold but of one piece thereof. I grant (as I have already said) that the general object of faith (as they term it) is the truth of God, whether he threaten or put us in hope of favour. Wherefore the Apostle ascribeth this to faith,¹ that Noah feared the destruction of the world, when it was not yet seen. If the fear of a punishment shortly to come, was the work of faith, then ought not the threatenings to be excluded out of the definition of faith. This is in deed true. But the cavillers do unjustly accuse us, as though we denied that faith hath respect to all the parts of the word of god. For our meaning is only to show those two things, first, that faith never steadfastly standeth until it come to the free promise: & then that we are no otherwise by it be reconciled to God, but because it coupleth us to Christ. Both those points are worthy to be noted. We seek such a faith, which may make difference between y• children of God ⟨p. 121⟩and the reprobate, between the faithful and the unbelieving. If a man do believe that God both justly commandeth all that he commandeth, and truly threateneth, shall he be therefore called faithful? Nothing less. Therefore there can be no steadfast stay of faith, unless it be grounded upon the mercy of God. But now to what end do we dispute of faith? Is it not that we may learn the way of salvation? But how doth faith bring salvation but in respect that it grafteth us into the body of Christ? Therefore there is no inconvenience, if in the definition we de enforce the principal effect thereof, and do join unto the general name, in stead of a difference that mark that severeth the faithful from the unbelieving. Finally, the malicious have nothing to find fault withal in this doctrine,² but they must wrap up Paul with us in the same blame, which calleth the Gospel properly the word of faith.

Neyther yet do I regarde the barkynges of Pyghius, or suche other dogges, when they finde faulte with this restraint, as though in diuidyng fayth, it did take holde but of one peece thereof. I graunte (as I haue alredy sayd) that the general obiect of faith (as thei terme it) is the truthe of God, whether he threaten or put vs in hope of fauour. Wherefore the Apostle ascribeth this to fayth,