Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII.
Hereticall translation concerning IVSTIFICATION.
Martin.
ABout the article of iustification, as it hath1. many branches, and their errours therein bee manifolde, so are their English translations accordingly many wayes false and hereticall. First, against iustification by good workes and by keeping the commaundements, they suppresse the very name of iustification in all such places where the woorde signifieth the commandements or the Lawe of God, which is both in the olde and newe Testament most common and vsuall, namely in the bookes of Moses, in the Psalme 118. that beginneth thus, Beati immaculati: in the Psalme 147. ver. 19. 1. Mach. 1. ver. 51. and cap. 2. v. 21. Luke. 1. v. 6. Rom. 2. v. 26. In all which places and the like, where the Greeke signifieth iustices and iustifications most exactly, according as our vulgar latineforeign. trāslateth, iustitias & iustificationes: there the English translations say iointly & with one cōsent, ordinances, or, statuts. For example, Rom. 2. If the vncircumcision keepe the ORDINANCESforeign. of the lawe, shall it not bee counted for circumcision? And Luc. 1, 6. They were both righteous beforeforeign. God, walking in all the commaundementes and ORDINANCES of the Lord, blamelesse. Why translateforeign. you it ordinances, and auoide the terme, iustifications? is it because you would followe the Greeke? I beseech you is not foreign, iust, foreign, to be iustified, foreign, iustifications or iustices? In the old Testament you might perhappes pretend, that you follow the Hebrue word, and therefore there you translate,foreign statutes, or ordinances. But euen there also, are not the seuentie Greeke interpreters sufficient to teache you the signification of the Hebrue word: who alwaies interprete it foreign, in English, iustifications?
Fulke.
THese matters were driuen so thinne in1. the first chapter, that you shall sooner presse out bloud, than any more probable matter. For the olde Testament, which we translate out of the Hebrue, you your selfe doe set foorth our aunswere, that we giuegive the Englishe of Chukim, when we say, ordinaunces, or statutes, and notforeign of the Greeke worde foreign, which of the Septuaginta is vsed in the same sense for preceptes, and commaundementes, as you your selfe confesse cap. 1. sect. 50. that verie often in the Scripture it signifieth commaundementes. But the Septuaginta, you say, are sufficient to teache vsus the interpretation of the Hebrewe worde, who alwaies interprete it foreign. If they had alwayes interpreted it so, it is not sufficient to teache vsus: then there needed none other translation, but according to theirs, then must you depart from your vulgar translation, which in many things departeth from them. But where, you say they alwaies interprete the Hebrue word Chukim, by foreign, it is false. For Exod. 18. v. 20.foreign they translate it foreign, Praecepta, which your vulgar translation calleth Ceremonias, ceremonies, as it doeth also Gen. 26. v. 5. where the Septuaginta translate foreign: by which you see, that iustification, is not alwayes the Englishe for the Greeke worde, which the Septuaginta doe vse. Also Num. 9. v. 3. for Chukoth they translate foreign the lawe, which the vulgar Latine callethforeign Ceremonias, ceremonies, and for the Hebrewe worde Misphatim, they giuegive foreign, comparation, the vulgarforeign Latin iustification, by which you may see, how your trāslatour vseth euen the Latin word, that you make so much a do about. Likewise in the foureteenth verse of the same Chapter, the Septuaginta translate Chukath, twise togeatherforeign foreign, and that which the vulgar Latine calleth iustification of the passeouer, the Greeke calleth foreign, the order of the pascall, Deut. 4. your vulgar Latine turneth Chukim, thrise Ceremonias, ceremonies. Andforeign Deut. 5. twise, and Deut. 6. twise, Deut. 7. once, and so commonly almost in euerie chapter. But in the chap. 11. v. 32. the Greeke for Chukim hath foreign, whereforeign as in the beginning of the chapter, he had foreign, the Latine in both Ceremonias, ceremonies. By which it is euident what the Greekes and Latines meant by those wordes. chap. 20. for this Hebrue word, and in an other the Greeke hath nothing but foreign commaundementes. So hath he 1. Reg. 2. v. 3. for foreign cōmandements. Also 1. Reg. 8. v. 58. for Chukim, he hath foreign, andforeign for Misphatim, he hath foreign, as he hath it twise in the nexte verse, where Salomon prayeth that God will defende his cause, and the cause of his people Israell, as the cause shall require. More examples might I bring, but for tediousnesse, to conuince the bolde rashnesse of this quarreller, but these may suffice all indifferent Readers: and aunswere sufficiently for vsus, within the newe Testament, we translate foreign, ordinaunces, or statuts, seeing it is proued, both by the Septuaginta which calleth the same Hebrewe worde, not onelyonly iustifications, but often commaundements, statuts, precepts, iudgements, & by the vulgar Latine Interpretor, which commonly calleth it ceremonies or precepts.
MART. 2. But be it, that you may controll them in the Hebrew, which none but fooles will graunt vntounto you: in the newe Testament, what pretense hauehave you? doe you there also translate the Hebrew worde, or rather the Greeke? the Greeke vndoubtedly you should translate. What reason then can you hauehave, why you doe not? none other surely, than that which Beza giueth for him selfe▪ saying, that he reiected the word, iustifications, (notwithstanding it expressed the Greeke, worde for worde, notwithstanding the seuentie Greeke Interpreters, vsed it to signifie the whole lawe, and in Latine it be commonly translated, iustificationes,) notwithstanding all this, forAnnot. in 1. Lu…. this onelyonly cause (sayth he) did I reiect it, to auoide the cauillations that might be made by this word, against iustification by faith. As if he should say, This word truly translated, according to the Greeke, might minister great occasion to proue by so many places of scripture, that mans iustification is not by faith only, but also by keeping the law, and obseruing the commaundements, which therefore are called according to the Greeke and Latine, iustifications, because they concurre to iustification, and make a man iust, as by S. Lukes wordes also is well signified, which hauehave this allusion, that they were both iuste, because they walked in all the iustifications of our Lord. Which they of purpose suppresse by other wordes.
FVLK. 2. None but fooles considering what I hauehave brought of the vsage of that worde foreign wil iudge that it signifieth onelyonly iustifications: and all wise men may see that we hauehave good warrant to translate it otherwise in the Greeke Testament, where it must needes hauehave an other signification. The concurrence of workes with faith to iustificatiō before God, which the Apostle doth exclude. Rom. 3. we may not admit. But iustification by workes, as Saint Iames teacheth, we doe acknoweledge. I hope you will not saye, that your Latine translator against iustification by workes, translated the worde so often ceremonies, or that ceremonies of the lawe doe concurre to iustification by faith. The commaundements in deede are called iustifications, because the workes of the lawe, if a man keepe it wholy, are able to iustifie. Not that eueryevery ceremonie or obseruation of any peece of the law, is a iustification, …or maketh a man iust: which you may better say, vponupon the etymologie of the worde, than that eueryevery particular obseruation of the lawe, or good worke, doth concurre with faith vntounto iustification.
MART. 3. And hereof also it riseth, that when he can not possibly auoyd the word in his translation (as Apoc. 19. 8.foreign. Bissinum enim iustificationes sunt sanctorum, The silke is the iustifications of Sainctes:) there he helpeth the matter with this cōmentarie, That iustifications, are those goodBeza Annot. in Apoc. 19. workes which be the testimonies of a liuely faith. But our English translatours hauehave an other way to auoyd the worde euen in their translation. For they say here, the righteöusnes of Sainctes: because they coulde not saye, ordinances of Saincts: and they would not say, iustifications of Saincts: knowing very well (by Bezaes owne commentarie) that this word includeth the good workes of saincts: which workes if they should in translating call their iustifications, it would goe sore against iustification by onelyonly faith. Therefore doe they translate in steede thereof, ordinances, and, statutes, where they can, which are termes furthest of from iustification: and where they can not, there they say, righteousnesse, making it also the plurall number, whereas the more proper Greeke worde for rightuousnesse is foreign (Dan. 6, 22.) which there some of them translate vngiltinesse: because they wil not translate exactly, if you would hire them.
FVLK. 3. When foreign Apoc. 19. are translated iustificationes, they signifie iuste works, as I hauehave already proued the significatiō of the word to beare, beside that it is so vsed by Aristotle in his Ethicks, who of iustificatiō before God (whereof wee speake) vnderstoode neuer a whit. Therefore, if in steede of rightuousnesse, which is the singular number, it were translated rightuous or iust workes, it were not amisse in mine opinion. Although by rightuousnesse in that place, is nothing meant, but good or rightuous workes, as Bezaes note doth tel you.Bib. of the yere 1577. most approued.
MART. 4. And therefore as for, iustice, and, iustifications, they say righteousnesse: so for, iuste, they translate, righteous. and by this meanes, Ioseph was a righteous mā, Mat. 1. 19.rather than a iust man: and Zacharie and Elisabeth wereLuc. 1. 6. both righteous before God, rather than iust: because when a man is called iust, it soundeth that he is so in deede, and not by imputation onelyonly: as a wise man, is vnderstoode to be wise in deede, and not only so imputed. Therefore doe they more gladly and more often say, righteous men, rather than, iust men, & when they doe say, iust men, as sometime they doe least they might s…eme wilfull inexcusably: there they vnderstande, iust by imputation, & not in deede, as is to be seene in Bezaes Annotations vponupon the Epistle to the Romanes. Note also that they put the word, iust, when faith is ioyned withall, as Rom. 1. The iust shal liue by faith, to signifie that iustification is by faith. But if workes be ioyned withall, and keeping the commaundementes, as in the place alleaged Luc. 1. there they say, righteous, to suppresse iustification by workes.
FVLK. 4. This is a maruelous difference, neuer heard of (I thinke) in the English tōgue before, betwene iust & righteous, iustice & righteousnes. I am sure there is none of our translatours, no nor any professer of iustification by faith onelyonly, that esteemeth it the worth of one haire, whether you say in any place of Scripture iust or righteous, iustice or righteousnesse: and therefore freely they hauehave vsed sometimes the one worde, sometimes the other. Therefore, it is a monstrous falshoode, that you fain them to obserue this distinction, that they ioyne iust with faith, and righteous with workes. Doe they not translate Rom. 2. ver. 13. the hearers of the lawe are not righteous before God, but the doers of the lawe shall bee iustified. HaueHave you not again, the righteousnesse of God is made manifest without the law &c. by the faith of Iesus Christ. And where you reade the iust shall liue by faith, hauehave you not immediatly, the righteousnesse of God is reuealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the iust shall liue by faith? Who then but the Diuell, which hath his name of sclaundering, woulde here inuent a distinction of iust and righteous?
MART. 5 And certaine it is, if there were no sinister meaning, they would in no place auoide to say, iust, iustice, iustification,foreign, &c. foreign iustum est. foreign. Non enim iniustus est Deus. where both the Greeke and Latine are so, woorde for word, as for example. 2. Tim. 48. In all their Bibles▪ Henceforth there is laid vp for me a crowne of RIGHTEOVSNES, which the Lorde the RIGHTEOVS iudge shall GIVE mee at that day. And againe 2. Thess. 1. Reioyce in tribulation which is a token of the RIGHTEOVS IVDGEMENT of God, that you may be counted worthie of the kingdome of God for which yee suffer. For it is a RIGHTEOVS THING with God, to recompence tribulation to them that trouble you: and to you that are troubled, rest with vsus, in the reuelation of our Lorde IESVS from heauen. And againe Heb 6. 10. God is not VNRIGHTEOVS to forget your good woorke and labour, &c. These are very pregnant places to discouer their false purpose in concealing the worde, iustice, in all their Bibles. For if they will say, that iustice is not an vsuall English word in this sense, and therefore they say, righteousnesse: yes I trow, iust, and vniust, are vsuall and well knowen. Why thē would they not say at the least, in the places alleadged, God the IVST iudge, A token of the IVST IVDGEMENT of God, It is a IVST thing with God, God is not VNIVST to forget &c? Why is it not at the least in one of their English Bibles, …eeing so both in Greeke and Latine?
FVLK. 5. Certaine it is, that no Englishman knoweth the difference betweene iust and righteous, vniust & vnrighteous, sauing that righteousnesse & righteous are the more familiar English wordes. And that we meane no fraude betweene iustice and righteousnesse, to apply the one to faith, the other to workes, reade Rom. 10. v. 34. 5. and 6. of the Geneua translation, where you shall see, the righteousnesse of the law, & the righteousnesse of faith. Reade also against this impudent lie, in the same translatiō Luc. 1. Zacharie and Elizabeth were both iust. Cap. 2. Simeon was iust. Mathew the firste, Ioseph a iust man; and else where often times, and without any difference in the worlde, from the worde righteous. Who euer heard a difference made, betweene a iuste iudge and a righteous iudge, this trifling is too too shameful abusing of mens patience, that shall vouchsafe to reade these blotted papers.
MART. 6. Vnderstand gentle Reader, and marke well,The Scriptures most euident for iustification, by workes, agaynst only faith. that if S. Paules wordes were truely translated thus, A crowne of IVSTICE is laid vp for me▪ which our Lord the IVST iudge will RENDER vntounto me at that day, and so in the other places: it would inferre, that men are iustly crowned in heauen for their good workes vponupon earth, and that i… is Gods iustice so to do, and that he wil do so because he is a iust iudge, and because he wil shew his IVST IVDGEMENT, and he wil not forget so to do, because he is not vniust: as the auncient fathers (namely the Greeke doctors S. Chrysostom, Theodorete,Psal. 57. Si vtique est fructus iusto, vtique est Deus iudicans eos in terra. and Oecumenius vponupon these places) do interprete and expound. In so much that Oecumenius saith thus vponupon the foresaid place to the Thessalonians, foreign &c. See here, that to suffer for Christ procureth the kingdome of heauē according to IVST IVDGEMENT, and not according to grace. foreign.Which least the Aduersarie might take in the worse parte, as though it were onelyonly Gods iustice or iuste iudgement, and not his fauour or grace also. S. Augustine excellently declareth how it is both the one and the other: to witte, his grace and fauour and merciemercy, in waking vsus by his grace to liue and beleeue well, and so to be worthy of heauen: his iustice and iust iudgement, to render and repaye for those workes whiche him selfe wrought in vsus, life euerlasting. Which he expresseth thus: How should he render or repay as a iust iudge, vnlesse heAug. de gra. & lib. arb. ca. 6. had giuen it as a merciful father? Where S. Augustine vrgeth the wordes of repaying as due, and of being A IVST IVDGE therefore. Both which the said translatours corrupt, not onelyonly▪ saying, righteous iudge, for, iust iudge: but, that he will giuegive a crowne, whiche is of a thing not due, for thatforeign. which is in the Greeke, He will render or repay: whiche is of a thing due and deserued, and hath relation to workes going before, for the which the crowne is repaied. He saide not (saith Theophylacte vponupon this place) hee will giuegive, but, hee will render or repay, as a certaine de…te. For he being iust, will define and limite the reward according to the labours. The crowne therefore is due debte, because of the iudges iustice. So saith he.
FVLK. 6. What so euer you may cauill vponupon the wordes iuste and iustice, you may doe the same, with as great aduauntage, vppon the wordes righteous and righteousnesse. That God as a iust iudge rewarde… good workes, of them that are iustified freely by his grace, by fayth without workes, with a crowne of iustice, it proueth not eyther iustification by workes, or the merite or worthinesse▪ of mennes workes, but all dependeth vppon the grace of God, who promiseth this rewarde of his meere merciemercy, and of the worthinesse and merites of Christe, whiche is our iustice, whereby wee beyng iustified before God, our workes also, whiche hee hath giuen vsus, are rewarded of his iustice, yet in respecte of Christes merites, and not in respecte of the worthinesse of the workes. Againe, God is not vnmindefull of his promise, to rewarde our workes, for then he should be vniuste: he is iuste therefore to performe what so euer he hath promised, though wee nothing deserue it. Neyther hath Chrysostome, or Theodorete, any other meaning. That you cite out of Oecumenius a late writer in comparison, is blasphemous against the grace of God, neyther is S. Augustine, that liued 500. yeares before him, a sufficient interpreter of his saying, to excuse him. With Augustine we say, GodIn psal 70. & in Psal. 101. crowneth his giftes, not our merites. And as he acknowledgeth Gods merciemercy, and also his iustice, in rewarding our workes, so do we. Where foreign is translated he wil giuegive, I confesse it had bene more proper, and agreeable to the Greeke, to hauehave saide, hee will render, or repaie, which yet is wholy of merciemercy in respecte of vsus, or our deseruing, but of iustice in respecte of his promises, and of Christes merites, vntounto which is rendred, and repayed, that whiche hee deserued for vsus. The crowne therefore is due debte, because it is promised to vsus for Christes sake, not because any workes of ours are able to purchase it.
MART. 7. Whiche speaches beyng moste true as beyng the expresse wordes of holy Scripture, yet wee know howe odiously the Aduersaries may and doe misconster them to the ignoraunt, as though wee chalenged heauen by our owne workes, and as though wee made God bounde to vsus. Whiche wee doe not, God forbidde. But because he hath prepared good workes for vsus (as the Apostle saith) to walke inEphe. 2. v. 10. them, and dothe by his grace cause vsus to doe them, and hath promised lyfe euerlasting for them, and telleth vsus in all his holy Scriptures, that to doe them is the waye to heauen▪ therefore not presuming vponupon our owne workes as our owne or as of our selues, but vponupon the good workes wrought through Gods grace by vsus his seely instruments, wee hauehave great confidence (as the Apostle speaketh) and are assured that theseHeb. 10. workes proceeding of his grace, be so acceptable to him; that they are esteemed and be worthie and meritorious of the kingdome of heauen. Against which truth, let vsus see further, their hereticall corruptions.
FVLK. 7. If you would abide by your first protestation▪ we should not neede to contend much aboute this question. But after you hauehave in the beginning magnified the grace and mercy of God, and abased your owne merites, you come backe againe with a subtill compasse, to establish your owne free will, the worthinesse of your workes, and your merite of the kingdome of heauen. First, you say God telleth vsus in all his holy Scriptures, that to doe good workes, is the way to heauen. In deede to fulfill the lawe, is to deserue heauen. But who so euer is guiltie of sinne, must seeke an other way, than by good workes to come to heauē, namely to Iesus Christ, who is the onelyonly way to heauen, the truth, and the life, by whose bloud, when he is purged from his sinne, and reconciled vntounto God, and the kingdome of heauen purchased for him, then he hath the way of good workes appointed him to walke in, towarde the same. Secondly, you say you presume not vponupon your owne workes, as your owne, or as of your selues, but vponupon the good workes wrought by Gods grace, by you his seely instrumentes, you hauehave great confidence. Thus while you would seeme to flie from Pelagia…isme, you fall into flatte Pharisaisme. For you trust that you are righteous in your selues, though not as of your selues. Suche was the Pharisee of whom Christe telleth the parable, whichLuc. 18. ascribing all his workes to the grace of God, had confidēce in them, that he was iust before God by them. God I thāke thee (saith the Pharisee). He acknowledgeth the grace of God, as author of all his workes: yet against such as he was, Christe telleth that parable. And whereas you call the Apostle, Heb. 10. to witnesse of your errour, you doe him great wrong, for he speaketh not of any confidence to bee had vponupon good workes, wrought by the grace of God by vsus: but in the newe couenant of remission of sinnes, by the sacrifice of Christes death, by whom we hauehave accesse to God, that we may be acceptable to him, not for any meritorious workes wrought by vsus, but by the only oblation of his bodie once for all, by which he hath made perfect for euer, those that are sanctified.