Defense of the Translations of the Scriptures into the English Tongue, Treatise · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
Hereticall translation against FREE VVILL.
Martin.
AGAINST free will your corruptions be1. these Ioh. 1. 12. where it is said, As many asforeign. receiued him, he gaue them power to be made the sonnes of God: some ofNo. Test. 1580. your translations say, he gaue them prerogatiue to be the sonnes of God. Beza, dignitie. Who protesteth that whereas in other places often he translated this Greke word, power and authoritie, here he refused both, in deede against free will, which he sayeth the Sophistes would proue out of this place, reprehendingVt liceret filios Dei fieri. Erasmus for following them in his translation. But whereas the Greeke word is indifferent to signifie dignitie, or libertie, he that will translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the holy Ghost and determineth it it to his owne fansie. If you may translate, dignitie: may not we as well translate it, libertie? Yes surely. For you know it signifieth the one as well as the other both in profane and Diuine writers. And you can well call to minde foreign, and foreign, whence they are deriued, and that the Apostle calleth a mans libertie of his owne will, foreign. Now then if potestas in Latine,…. Cor. 7. 17. and power in Englishe, be wordes also indifferent to signifie both dignitie and libertie, translate so in the name of God, and leaue the text of the Scripture indifferent as we doe: and for the sense whether of the two it doth here rather signifie, or whether it doth not signifie both (as no doubt it doth, & the fathers so expounde it) let that be examined otherwise. It is a common fauls with you and intolerable, by your translation to abridge the sense of the holy Ghost to one particular vnderstanding, & to defeate the exposition of so many fathers, that expounde it in another sense and signification. As is plaine in this example also folowing.
Fulke.
SEeing you confesse that the Greeke1. worde signifieth not onelyonly power, but also dignitie, and that in this place it signifieth both, it can be no corruptiō, but the best and truest interpretation, to translate foreign, dignitie, for that includeth power, whereas power may be seuered from dignitie. Where you woulde hauehave vsus vse a word, that is ambiguous, whē the sense is cleare by your owne confession, you bewray your owne corrupt affection, which desire to hauehave the Scriptures so ambiguously or doubtfully translated, that the ignorant might receiue no benefite of certaine vnderstanding by them. When a worde hath diuerse significations, a wise translater must weigh, which of them agreeth with the text in hand, & that to vse: but not to seeke ambiguous words, that may bring the matter in doubt, when the meaning to him is certaine. As here you say, there is no doubt but it signifieth both, and yet you quarrell at our translation, which comprehendeth both, and vrge the word of power, from which dignity may be seuered, whereas frō dignity, power or ability or licence can not be diuided.
MART. 2. The Apostle (1. Cor. 15. 10.) sayth thus: I labouredforeign. more aboūdantly than all they: yet not I, but the grace of god with me. Which may hauehave this sense, not I, but the grace of God which is with me, as S. Hierome somtime expoundeth it: or this, not I, but the grace of God which laboured with me. And by this later is most euidently signified, that the grace of God & the Apostle, both laboured togither, & not only grace, as though the Apostle had done nothing, like vntounto a blocke, forced only: but that the grace of God did so cōcurre as the principall agent with all his labours, that his free will wrought withall. Against which trueth and most approued interpretation of this place, you translate according to the former sense onelyonly, making it the verie text, and so excluding all other senses and commentaries, as your Maisters Caluine and Beza taught you, who should not hauehave taught you if you were wise, to doe that which neither they nor you can iustifie. They reprehend first the vulgar Latin interpreter for neglecting the Greeke article, and secondly them that by occasion thereof, would by this place proue free will. By which their commentary they do plainly declare their intent and purpose in their translation, to be directly against free will.
FVLK. 2. S. Hierome fauouring this translation of ours, as he doth in diuerse places, lib. 2. aduers. Ioui. Gratia dei quae in me est, & lib. 2. aduers. Pelag. & ad Principē. Gratia dei quae mecū est. The grace of god which is in me, or which is with me. I maruell why you count it among heretical corruptions, except you take S. Hierome for an heretike. By the later, you say it is signified, that ye grace of God, & the Apostle both labored togither, although it be no proper speech to say, the grace of God laboreth, yet that you woulde hauehave, is expressed before, where S. Paul sayth, I hauehave labored more than they al, which none but a blocke would vnderstande, that he was forced like a blocke. The grace of God vseth no violence, but frameth the will of man to obedience and seruice of God. But that S. Paule had of him selfe no free will to performe this labour, but that it was altogither of the grace of God, which gaue him this will, he confesseth more plainly, than that it can be denied, where he sayth, Not I. Whereby he meaneth, not that he was onelyonly helped by the grace of God, and did it not alone: but that he did nothing by his owne strēgth, but altogither by the grace of God, which made him willing, which of nature was vnwilling to set forth the Gospell, yea by froward zeale became a blasphemer and a persecuter thereof. Which grace gaue him not only a will to promote the Gospell, but inspired him also with diuine knowledge, by reuelation, without studie or hearing of other men: which gaue him also strength to ouercome so many difficulties, that no labour, nor trauaile, nor persecution, nor continuance of time, did make him weary, or faint in his labour. All this (I saye) he doth ascribe wholy vntounto the grace of God. And this sense doth not make Paule a blocke, nor enforced by violence, but a willing, prompt, & painefull labourer. But if you meane, that S. Paule had a free will, and strength of him selfe, which onelyonly was holpen by the grace of God, then is your sense abhominable Pelagianisme, heresie, worthy to be troden vnderunder feete, by all Christians, and of Caluin, and Beza moste iustly reprehended, who are vtter enimies to free will, that derogateth any thing frō the grace of Christ, without whome we can doe nothing: which text alwayesIohn. 15. v. 5. choked the Pelagians, and so doth it their halfe faced brethren, the Papistes.
MART. 3. But concerning the Greeke article omitted inforeign. translation, if they were but Grammarians in both tongues, they might know that the Greeke article many times can not be expressed in Latine, and that this is one felicitie and prerogatiue of the Greeke phrase, aboue the Latine, to speake more briefly, commodiously, and significantly, by the article. What neede we goe to Terence, and Homer, as they are w…nt? Is not the Scripture full of such speaches? Iacobus Zebedaei, Iacobus Alphaei, Iudas Iacobi, Maria Cleophae, and the like. Are not all these sincerely translated into Latine, though the Greeke article be not expressed? Can you expresse the article, but you must adde more than the article, and so adde to the text, as you do very boldly in such speaches through out the new Testament, yea you doe it when there is no article in the Greeke: as Io. 5. 36.(vvitnesse) (sinnes.) and 1. ep. Io. 2, 2. Yea sometime of an hereticall purpose: as Eph. 3. By whom we hauehave boldnesse and entraunce withBib. 1562. the confidence which is by the faith of him, or, in him, as it is in other your Bibles. You say, confidence which isNo. Test. 1580. by faith, as though there were no confidence by workes: you know the Greeke beareth not that translation, vnlesse thereforeign. were an article after, confidence, which is not, but you adde it to the text heretically. as also Beza doth the like (Rom. 8. 2.) and your Geneua English Testaments after him, for the here sit of imputatiue iustice: as in his annotations he plainly deduceth, saying confidently, I doubt not but a Greeke articleforeign (foreign) foreign (foreign.) muste be vnderstoode, and therefore (for sooth) put into the text also. He doth the same in S. Iames, 2. v. 20. stil debating the case in his annotations why he doth so, and when he hath concluded in his fansie, that this or that is the sence, he putteth it so in the text, and translateth accordingly. No maruell now, if they reprehend the vulgar Latine Interpreter, for not translating the Greeke article in the place which we began to treate of, when they finde articles lacking in the Greeke text it selfe, and boldly adde them for their purpose in their translation. Whereas the vulgar Latine interpretation is in all these places so sincere, that it neither addeth nor diminisheth, nor goeth one io…e from the Greeke.
FVLK. 3. Concerning the omission of the Greeke article, which Caluine and Beza reproue in the olde translator, you make many wordes to no purpose: for they reproue him not for omitting it, where either it can not, or it neede not be expressed, but in this place, where both it may, and meete it is, that it should be expressed. But we (you say) to expresse the article, doe adde more than is in the text: yet in truth we adde nothing, but that which is necessarily to be vnderstoode, as when wee say Iames the sonne of Zebedee, where you had rather say Iames of Zebedee, as though you were so precise, that for necessarie vnderstanding, you would not adde a word to the text, & yet you do verie often, yea sometimes where no neede is. As Act. 8. where the Latine is Curauerunt Stephanum, you translate it, they tooke order for Stephans funerall. Doth Curare signifie to take order for a funerall? So likewise Luc. 10. Paeniterent, they had done penaunce. But to answere for our owne doings. Io 5. v. 36. where Christe saith, I hauehave a greater witnesse, than Iohns witnesse, why may not the article foreign be referred rather to foreign, that is of necessitie to be vnderstood, than to foreign. In the other place 1. Iohn. 2. v. 2. the worde sinnes, muste needes be vnderstoode in the pronoune adiectiue ours. In the thirde texte, where you accuse the translators of hereticall purpose, the sense is all one, whether you adde the article or no. For when the Apostle sayeth, by Christe we hauehave boldnesse and entrance with confidence, by faith, howe can you vnderstand confidence by workes, and whether there be confidence by workes or no, there can none be proued by this place. Where Beza vnderstandeth an article, Rom. 8. whom our English translation doth follow, it is only to make that plaine, which otherwise is necessarily to be vnderstoode. For there is no differēce betwene these sayings. The law of the spirit of life in Christ Iesus, & this, The lawe of the spirit of life which is in Christ Iesus, hath deliuered me from the lawe of sinne and death. The article or relatiue therefore declareth no more, but that the lawe of the spirit of life, is in Christ Iesus, which deliuereth vsus. For both the text sayth, in Christ Iesus, and it can not be in any other to deliuer vsus. For he sayeth not, The lawe of the spirite of life in vsus, but in Christe Iesus, and the nexte verse following doeth manifestly confirme the same, as euerie man may see that will consider it. Likewise Iames the seconde, wilt thou knowe O thou vaine man, that faith without workes is deade? If you say, the faith which is without good workes is deade, is not that the meaning of the Apostle? Where he addeth immediatly, that Abraham was iustified by such a faith, as was fruitefull of good workes. And when he bringeth example of Deuils faith, is it not manifest he speaketh of suche a faith, as is vtterly voyde of all good workes? Where you say that Beza putteth the article into the text, and translateth it accordingly, you do most shamefully belye him. For to the original text, he addeth none of his owne collection, but in his translation onelyonly, where he iudgeth that according to the sense of the place, it must of necessitie be vnderstood: which if it be a fault in articles, it must be so in other wordes also, for like cause added. Then answere to your owne translations, where beside those that I hauehave noted before, which seeme to proceede of some Popish purpose, you hauehave added to your Latine authenticall texte. As in these examples, Mat. 8. Quid nobi… & tibi? what is betweene vsus? Cap. 9. Confid…, hauehave a good hart. Cap. 22. Mal… p…rdet. he wil bring to naught. Marc. 2. Post dios, after some dayes. Accumberet, he satte at meate. Luc. 17. Ab illo, more than he. Io. 12. Discumbentibus, them that satte at the table. Non quia de egenis pertinebat ad eum, not because he cared for the poore. Act. 9. Ecce ego Domine. Loe here I am Lorde. cap. 10. gustare, to take somewhat, cap. 17. colentibus, that serued God. Nobiliores eorum qui sunt Thessalonicae, more noble than they, that are at Thessalonica, Rom. 1. Vocatis sanctis, called to be Saincts, &c.
MART. 4. But you will say in the place to the Corinthians,Non ego, sed gratia Dei mecum. there is a Greeke article, & therfore there you do well to expresse it. I aunswere first, the article may then be expressed in translation, when there can be but one sense of the same: secondly, that not onelyonly it may, but it must be expressed, when we can not otherwise giuegive the sense of the place. as Mat. 1, 6. Ex eaforeign. quae fuit Vriae. Where you see the vulgar interpreter omitteth it not, but knoweth the force and signification thereof very well. Mary in the place of S. Paul which we now speake of, where the sense is doubtfull, and the Latine expresseth the Greeke sufficiently otherwise, he leaueth it also doubtful and indifferent, not abridging it as you doe, saying, the grace of God which isforeign. with me: nor as Caluin, gratia quae mihi aderat: nor as Illyricus, gratia quae mihi adest. Which two later are more absurd thā yours, because they omit & neglect altogither the force of the preposition, cum, which you expresse saying, with me Butforeign. because you say, which is with me: you meane heretically as they doe, to take away the Apostles cooperation and labouring togither with the grace of God, by his free will: which is by the article and the preposition most euidently signified.
FVLK. 4. You take vpō you to prescribe rules of trā slatiō, as though you were Prince of the Critici or Aerop… gitae. But al reasonable men will cōfesse that the article is so oftē to be expressed, as it may, & maketh any thing to the sense, and vnderstanding of the place. But as for your rule, that it is not to be expressed in trāslatiō, when there may be more senses than one of the same, is so good a rule, that by the same reason, and by equitie thereof, when so euer any worde commeth in the text, that may hauehave more senses than one, we must skippe it ouer, and not translate it at all, and so wee shal leaue out fiue hundred wordes in the new Testament. A better rule I take it to be, in all such cases, to examine what is most agreeable to the common phrase of the tongue, and the scope of the text in hand: according to which I say, the verbe substantiue is both more vsuall, and also more probable to be vnderstoode in this text 1. Cor. 15. than the participle foreign.
MART. 5. And here I appeale to all that hauehave skill in Greeke speaches and Phrases, whether the Apostles wordes in Greeke sounde not thus: I laboured more aboundantlyforeign (foreign &c.) foreign. than all they: yet not I, but the grace of God (that laboured) with mee. Vnderstanding not the participle of Sum, but of the verbe going before, as in the like case when our Sauiour saith, It is not you that speake, but the holy Ghost that speaketh in you. If he had spoken short thus, but the holy Ghost in you, you perhaps would translate as you doe here, the holy Ghost WHICH IS IN YOV. But you see the verbe going before is rather repeated, Not you speake, but the holy Ghost THAT SPEAKETH IN YOV. Euen so, Not I laboured, but the grace of God labouring with me, or, WHICH LABOVRED WITH ME. So praieth the wise man Sap. 9, 10. Sende wisedome out of thy holy heauens, that she may be with me, and labour withEt mecum laboret. me as your selues translate. Bib. 1577.
FVLK. 5. And I likewise appeale not onelyonly to all that hauehave skill in Greeke speaches and phrases: but to al them whose eares are accustomed to reasonable speachs, whether it be like that the Apostle would vnderstande that participle, whereof (perhaps) there is no verbe, for where shall we reade foreign? Secondly whether hee would vnderstand the participle of an other verbe adiectiue, than wēt before, for before he said foreign. Thirdly, whether hee were so desirous to set forth his owne cooperation with the grace of God, that he woulde expresse it with two prepositions, one in apposition, the other in composition. Fourthly, whether he meant to attribute any thing to him selfe, whē, as it were correcting that which he saide of labouring, he saith, yet not I, but the grace of God. Fifthly, whether he purposed to challenge any merite of the labour to him selfe, or make his labour any thing separate or separable frō the grace of God, when he said before, by the grace of God I am that I am. Laste of all whether his wordes being resolued, if this participle be added, they conteyne not a ridiculous tautologie, or vaine repetition. I hauehave laboured more than they all, vet not I, but the grace of God which laboured togither with mee hath laboured. To conclude in your example which you faine. Because you can finde none to answere your fansie: if the wordes were as you suppose foreign, wee would and muste if wee did well, translate it thus. It is not you that speake but the holy Ghost. which is in you, and so vnderstand, speaketh. The saying of Philo, or what so euer eloquent Iewe that was, whiche gathered that booke of wisedome, is not of such importaunce, that wee neede to seeke any interpretation thereof, although it is certaine, that by wisedome, hee meaneth not the Sonne of God, the wisedome of the Father, but diuine knowledge and vnderstanding, which is a gifte of his spirite, whereof hee speaketh by a rhetoricall Prosopopoea, or fiction of person.
MART. 6. And so the Apostle calleth him selfe and his felow preachers, Gods coadiutors, collabourers, or such asforeign, S. Augustine, Cooperarij. & 2. Cor. 6. 1. foreign. labour and worke with God, which also you falsely translate, Gods labourers, to take away all cooperation, and in some of your Bibles moste foolishly and peeuishly, as though you had sworne not to translate the Greeke, Wee togither are Gods labourers. as well might you translate (Ro. 8, 17.) that we togitherforeign. be Christs heires: for that, which the Apostle saith coheires, or ioynt heires with him: the phrase and speach (as you know) in Greeke being al one. So doth Beza most falselyEph. 2. v. 5. translate, Vna viuificauit nos per Christum, for that which is plaine in the Greeke, He hath quickned vsus togither with Christ, Where the English Bezites leaue also the Greeke, andThe English translators are ashamed of their Maister. folow our vulgar Latin translation rather than Beza, who goeth so wide from the Greeke, that for shame they dare not folow him. Fie vponupon such hypocrisie and pretensed honour of God, that you will not speake in the same termes that the holy Scripture speaketh, but rather will teach the holy Ghost how to speake, in not translating as he speaketh. As though these phrases of scripture, men are Gods coadiutors, coworkers with his grace, raised with Christ, coheirs with him, compartakers of glorie with him, were all spoken to the dishonour of God and Christe, and as though these being the speaches of the holy Ghost him selfe, needed your reformatiō in your English translatiōs. Otherwise if you meane well, and would say as we say, that what so euer good we doe, we doe it by Gods grace, and yet worke the same by our free will togither with Gods grace as the mouer and helper and directer of our will: why do you not translate in the foresaide place of S. Paul accordingly?
FVLK. 6. S. Paule saith 1. Cor. 3, 9. that hee and Apollo are foreign, ioyned togither in the worke and businesse of God, he saith not that they are helpers of God, for God needeth no helpe. A helper is of him that lacketh strength, which is blasphemous to say of God. Therefore euen Faber Stapulensis (as Beza telleth you) reproueth that terme adiutores, which your vulgar translator vseth, and you your selfe in fauour of your heresie of freewill, doe not translate, but flie to the Greeke worde foreign, and say Coadiutors, which if you would expresse in English, signifieth fellow helpers of God. The word Cooperarij, which S. Augustine vseth (as Beza also telleth you) may bee referred to the ioynt labour of the ministers, in seuerall offices of planting and watering. And although it be referred to God, that he as the Lorde and Maister, and they as the seruauntes, altogither by his grace and strength, doe worke togither, the sense is not euill, yet not proper for this place. Because the Apostle doth not here sette out the dignitie of the ministers, but abaseth their labour and submitteth all to God. For hee had to doe with them, that did attribute too much vntounto the ministers worke, with whome it was vnseasonable, to extoll their labours, and make them coadiutors or fellow helpers of God. But contrariwise hee ascribeth the fruite of all their labours to God, and to take away the Schismes that were among them, by depending of one minister more than an other, declareth that they altogither are Gods labourers, Gods husbandmen, &c. In the other place 2. Cor. 6. v. 1. foreign, it is more proper to say; that the Apostles ioyned their labours vntounto Christe offering his grace, that it shoulde not bee receyued in vayne. Where neuerthelesse the strength of mans free will, is not auouched, but the grace of God, who worketh by his ministers, giuing them strength to labour, and fruite to their labours. Nexte followeth an open outcrie against Beza, for false translation, & our translators, for being ashamed to follow him. If we mislike Bezaes translation, are wee by and by ashamed to followe him? And if his translation be false, as you affirme, and we ashamed to folow him in falsehood: do we deserue to be defied as hypocrits, because we prefer the truth before the credite of our maister, as you call him. O how glad you are, when you hauehave neuer so small an occasion to set abroad the sailes of your railing, & reuiling oration. But let vsus see, whether Beza deserue so much blame, as you charge him withall. Beza hauing translated (as he thought) most neare to the Apostles meaning, Eph. 2. v. 5. in his annotation vponupon the place, thus writeth: Conuiuificauit, &c. The vulgar, and Erasmus translate, he hath quickened vsus togither with Christ, which sense I doe in no wise reprehend. But yet nothing shall be detracted from the selfe same matter, and perhaps it may be sayde more aptly, that the preposition foreign, in this place, is vsed rather to declare the vniting togither of the Gentiles and Iewes in one Christ: after which maner, the word foreign, which signifieth to be builded togither, is afterward vsed, verse 22. This is Bezaes iudgement, not cō trary to the common translation, and ours, but agreeing in the sense thereof, and comprehending a further matter, whereof the Apostle in that chapter speaketh. But our translators thought best to followe the plaine and common vnderstanding, not for shame of Beza, or his translation, but for desire of sinceritie and plainenesse. Contrariwise, where your vulgar translator is sometimes so barbarous, that his phrase hath no sense according to the text, it may wel be thought you were ashamed to follow him, lest you should hauehave bene ridiculous to all men. As you translate Timoratus, religious oftētimes. Non quia de Ioh. 12.egenis pertinebat ad eum, which in English is, not because of the poore it pertained to him, but you hauehave, trāslated, not because he cared for the poore. Vna sabbathi, the firstIoh 21. Act. 1. Act. 14. of the Sabboth. Sabbati habens iter, hauing the iourney of a Sabboth, you translate, distant a Sabbats iourney. Yea you are bold to correct your text, and for Italia, toAct. 25. Ibid. say Attalia. Ad abluenda crimina, which is, to washe away the crimes you say, to cleare him selfe of the crime. Cum multa ambitione, which is, with much ambition, you saye, with great pompe. Exhortentur, which is a deponent, you1. Cor 14. 1. Cor. 15. translate, may be exhorted: ad reuerentiam vobis, which is, for reuerence to you, you saye, to your shame: and such like. I doe not blame you that you are ashamed to follow your vulgar Latine text in these phrases, but that you are not ashamed to allowe that translation, as the onelyonly authentical text, which no man for shame will follow in many places. To conclude, our meaning for free will, is, that we confesse it at all times, to be free from cōstreint, but neuer free to embrace that which is good in deede, but only when it is reformed by the grace of God: who also in all good thinges that we take in hande, doth not onelyonly make vsus willing, but also giueth all the strength we hauehave to performe them. If this be your meaning (as I am afrayde it is not) by your termes of working and helping, and directing, (as though it coulde goe alone with a litle helpe and direction) we ioyne with you: but if you thinke you can doe any thing that good is, without the grace of God, like to Pelagius Celestius, and other like Heretikes of the deuils blacke gard, we leaue you.
MART. 7. You saye moreouer in some of your Bibles,Eib. 1561. foreign. thus: So lyeth it not then in a mans will or running, but in the merciemercy of God. Whatsoeuer you meane, you knowe this translation is very dissolute, and wide from the Apostles wordes, and not true in sense. for saluation is in willing and running: according to that famous saying of Saint Augustine,Aug. Serm. 15. de verb. Apostoli. He that made thee without thee, will not iustifie thee without thee: that is, against thy will, or, vnlesse thou be willing. and the Apostle sayth, No man is crowned, vnlesse2. Timoth. 2. 1. Cor. 9. he fight lawefully. and againe, So runne THAT YOV MAY obtayne. and againe. The doers of the Lawe shallRom. 2. Mat. 19. be iustified. And our Sauiour, If thou wilt enter into life, keepe the commaundements. We see then, that it is in willing, and running, and doing: but to will, or runne, or doe, are not of man, but of Gods mercye. and so the Apostle speaketh, It is not of the willer, nor runner, but of God that hath merciemercy. And it is much to be marueled, why you sayde not, It lyeth not in the willer, nor in the runner: which is neare to the Apostles wordes, but so farre of, in a mans will and running.
FVLK. 7. The translation you reprehend, I graunt is not proper for the words, and therefore is reformed in the later translations, yet in sense it is all one: for saluation lyeth not in the will, or running of man, but in the merciemercy of God: euen as S. Iohn saith, the children of God are not made of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but they are borne of God. But thus you reason against it. We are not saued, except we will, and runne, ergo, saluation lyeth in willing and running. I denye your argument, which is as good as this; we are not saued from sinne, except we hauehave committed sinne, ergo, saluation from sinne, lyeth in committing sinne. The famous place of Augustine, is a famous corruption of Papistes, to establish the strēgth of free will, cleane cōtrary to S. Augustines minde, where a point interrogatiue is chaunged into a periode: for in auncient written copies, it is redde with interrogation. Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustifica… sine te? He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not iustifie thee without thee? And the whole discourse of that father, both before and after, requireth that reading. For thus he writeth. Si hominem te fecit Deus, & iustum tu te facis, melius aliquid facis, quam fecit Deus, sed sine te fecit Deus. Non enim adhibuisti aliquem consensum, vt te faceret Deus. Quo modo consentiebas qui non eras. Qui ergo fecit te sine te, non te iustificat sine te? Ergo fecit nescientem, iustificat volentem. tamen ipse iustificat, ne su iustitia tua. If God hauehave made thee a man, and thou makest thy selfe a iust man, thou makest some better thing than God hath made: but God made thee without thee. for thou gauest no consent, that God shoulde make thee? howe diddest thou consent which wast not. He therefore that made thee without thee, doth he not iustifie thee without thee? Therefore he hath made thee not knowing, but he iustifieth thee being willing, yet it is he, that doth iustifie thee, that it should not be thy iustice.
The meaning of Saint Augustine is, that we hauehave no more free will to be iustified, before we be preuented by the grace of God, than we had will to be created. For it is Gods grace, that maketh vsus willing to be iustified, and saued, not the strength of mans free will, as he proueth at large throughout the whole Homilie. Nowe to the textes of Scripture, which you cite, I aunswere, there is not one, that proueth any strength or swaye of mans free will, towarde the true goodnesse, before, of an vngodlye man, and enimie of God, he be reconciled by the grace and merciemercy of God, and made an obedient childe in some parte, willing to doe the will of his father. First, those textes of fighting, and running, proue, that fighting and running is necessary for them, that are exhorted thereto, but not that fighting or running are in the free will of man, or that saluation lyeth in them. Eating and drinking are necessarie for the life of man, yet the life of man lyeth not in eating and drinking. Where the Apostle sayth, the doers of the lawe shall be iustified, he meaneth them that fullfill the lawe, and doth our Sauiour Christ, aunswering to the question of him that asked, what she should doe to obtaine life, declare, that there is no way to enter into life by doing, but onelyonly by doing of Gods commaundements. For the man that doth them shall liue by them. But if he were asked which is the way to eternall life, as he was by Thomas, he will aunswer, IIoh. 14. am the way, the truth, and the life. Those textes therfore declare not, howe a man, that is a transgressor of the lawe, may be saued, but that to obtayne saluation by workes, it is necessary for a man to keepe the whole lawe and commaundements of God, or else he is accursed.
MART. 8. Againe, touching continencie and the chast single life you translate thus: All men can not receiue thisforeign. Maruelous strang translation. De gra…. & li…. arb. c. 4. saying. Mat. 19. v. 11. Now you wot well, that our Sauiour sayth not, All men can not, but, all men doe not receiue it: and that therefore, (as S. Augustine sayth) because all will not. But when our Sauiour afterward sayeth, He that CAN receiue foreign.it, let him receiue it: he addeth an other Greeke word to expresse that sense. Whereas by your fonde translation he might hauehave said, foreign. And againe by your translation, you should translate these his later wordes thus: He that can or is able to receiue it, let him be able to receiue it. For so you translate foreign before, as though it were all one with foreign. Doe you not see your follie, and fashoode, and boldnesse, to make the reader beleeue that our Sauiour shoulde say, Euerie man can not liue chast, it is impossible for them, and therefore no man should vowe chastitie, because he knoweth not whether he can liue so or no?
FVLK. 8. The Greeke worde foreign doth signifie to be able to hold, or containe, and so it is vsed Mar. 2. foreign. Which you translate, so that there was no place, no not at the dore. Doe you not meane, that the place about the dore, was not able to hold that multitude? Your vulgar Latin is. Ita vt non caperet neque ad ianuam, in barbarous words, but in sense as I hauehave sayd before. So Iohn. 2. the sixe pottes, when they were emptie are sayed foreign, able to receiue euerie one of them two or three measures. Likewise, Iohn. 22. where the worde is foreign, you your selues translate not able to containe. Seeing the worde therefore signifieth not onelyonly to receiue, but also to be able to receiue, it is rightly translated, Matth. 19. and according to the meaning of our Sauiour Christ, all men can not receiue this saying, but they to whom it is giuen, which he doth after euidently confirme, when he addeth the participle foreign, he that is able to receiue it, let him receiue it. Which were vainly said, if all men were able that would, and if it were giuen to all that would: for then he should say, all men doe not receiue this saying, but they that will, let them receiue it. Where you call Augustine to witnesse of your foolishe glose, you doe him shamefull iniurie, for he sayeth not all men doe not, because all will not: but these are his wordes in the place by you quoted: Non omnes capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus datum est: quibus enim non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non implent quod volunt, quibus autem datum est, sic volunt vt impleant quod volunt. All men receiue not this word, but they to whom it is giuen, for they to whom it is not giuen, either they will not, or else they fulfill not that which they will: but they to whome it is giuen, doe so will, that they fulfill that which they will. Augustine is plaine to the contrarie, that it is not in euerie man that wil, to be continent, but it is the speciall gift of God that any both will, and be able to performe it, for which he citeth also the saying of the wise man Sap. 8. which with you is Canonicall Scripture. When I knewe that otherwise I coulde not be continent, except God should giuegive it, and this same was wisedom to know whose gift it is, I went vntounto the Lorde and prayed to him. These things considered, our translation is iustified, both according to the word, which signifieth sōetime to be able to receiue: and according to the sense, which here must needes require, that it shoulde be so translated. Wherefore it is vnpossible for any man to liue chast▪ except he hauehave the gift of God, whereof vnlesse a man be certayne, he doeth foolishly, and presumptuously to vowe that, which he knoweth not, whether he shall be able to performe.
MART. 9. Againe in some of your Bibles (Gen. 4.…i…. 1…79. v. 7.) where God saith plainely, that Caine should receiue according as he did well or euil, because sin was subiect vntounto him, and he had the rule and dominion thereof, euidently declaring his free will: you translate it thus, If thou doest well, shalte thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not wel, sinne lieth at the doore: and also vntounto thee HIS desire shall be subiecte, and thou shalt rule ouer HIM. By which relatiues falsly put in the masculine gender, you exclude the true antecedent sinne, and referre them to Abel Caines brother. as though God had saide, not that sinne should be in his dominion or subiect vntounto him, but his brother Abel. But that this is most false and absurd, we prooue many waies. Firste S. Augustine saith directly the contrarie: Tu dominaberis illius: nunquidLi. 15. c. 7. de ciuit. Dei. Fratris? absit. cuius igitur nisi peccati? Thou shalte rule (saith he) ouer what? ouer thy brother? Not so. ouer whatQuest. Heb. in Genes. then but sinne? S. Hierome also explicateth this place thus: Because thou haste free wil, I warne thee that sinne hauehave not dominion ouer thee, but thou ouer sinne. Moreouer, the text it selfe, if nothing else, is sufficient to conuince this absurditie. For where this worde, sinne, goeth immediately before in the same sentence, and not one worde of Abel his brother in that speach of God to Cain, howe is it possible, or what coherence can there be in saying as you translate, Sin lyeth at the dore, and thou shalt hauehave dominion ouer him, that is, thy brother? But if we say thus, Sinne lieth at the dore, and thou shalte hauehave dominion thereof: it hath this direct and plaine sense, If thou doest ill, sinne lyeth at the dore readie to condemne thee, because it is in thee to ouer rule it.
FVLK. 9. The relatiues be the masculine gender in the Hebrue tongue, and therefore referred to Abel, and not to sinne, which is of the foeminine gender. Againe, sinne hath no appetite to Cain, but rather Cain to it, therefore euen as it was sayed to Eue, thy appetite shall be to thy husbande, so it is sayed of Abel, his appetite shall be to thee. Sainct Augustine followeth the corrupt translation of the Septuaginta, which for appetite reade conuersion, and therefore there is the lesse account to be made of his authoritie, being also ignoraunt in the Hebrue tongue, and not regarding the Greeke relatiue to be also of the masculine gender. Hierome also in that place, interpreteth not appetite, but societie, and fantasie, ththat chataoth is the masculine gender, and notforeign the foeminine. Whereas it is neuer read but in the foeminine gender, out of this place of controuersie. But the text it selfe (you say) is sufficient▪ to conuince this absurditie, because in this speache of God to Cain, there is no word of Abel. It is somwhat that you say, if this that Moises reporteth were all that God sayd to Cain, but seeing it is certaine, that God at large discoursed wyth him, of the cause of his enuie againste his brother, wee may easily vnderstande in this speach, two arguments to reproue Caines enuie, the one of the person of God, the other of the person of Abel. For God doth reprooue his enuie by his owne iustice, and by Abels innocencie. Which latter argumēt your false translation doth vtterly suppresse. But that a Relatiue is referred to an Antecedent, whiche in the same verse is not expressed, it is no strange thing, to them that reade the scripture. Examples I will giuegive you, Iob 26. v. 6. 11. & 12. and cap. 27. v. 9. & 10. yea it is verye vsuall, when the antecedent maye bee easily vnderstoode, as heere, both by the gender, and also by manner of speache, whiche beeing the same that was spoken of Eues infirmitie & subiection to hir husband, must needes here hauehave the same sense of Abel towarde Caine his elder brother.
MART. 10. Now if against the coherence of the texte, and exposition of the holy Doctours, and of the whole Churche of God▪ you pretend the Hebrewe grammar forsooth, as not bearing such construction: not to trouble the common reader that cannot iudge of these things, and yet fully to satisfie euerye man euen of common vnderstanding, we request here the Aduersaries themselues to tel vsus▪ truely according to their knowledge & skill, whether the Hebrewe construction or point of grammar beforeign not al one in these wordes, Sinne LYETH at the doore? and in these, the desire THEREOF shall be subiect to thee, and thou shalt rule ouer IT. If they say (as they must nedes) that the Hebrewe construction or Syntaxis is al one, then wil it folow that the Hebrewe beareth the one as wel as the other: and therefore when the selfe same translation of theirs maketh no scruple of Grammar in the former, but trāslate as we do, Sinne lieth at the doore: a blinde man may see that in the latter wordes also, the Hebrue is but a foolishe pretence, and that the true cause of translating them otherwise, proceedeth of an hereticall humour, to obscure and deface this so plaine and euident Scripture for mans free wil.
FVLK. 10. I hauehave shewed before, the cause of theCap. 1. sect. 28. foreign change of the gender in the worde robets to be, for that by sinne is meant here the punishment of sinne. Sanctes Pagninus taketh the worde sinne, for an oblation for sinne. And for the punishment of sinne, it is taken, Zach. 14, 19. The Septuaginta also doe plainly referre these relatiues vntounto Abel, and therefore they are in the masculine gender, foreign, the cōuersion of him pertaineth to thee, and thou shalt rule ouer him.
MART. 11. And as for the Hebrewe grammar in this point, were it not for troubling the Reader, we could tell thē that the word, sinne, in Hebrew is not here of the foeminine gender, (as they suppose) but of the masculine. so sayth S. Hieror. expreslyq. Hebr. in Genes. vponupon this place, who had as much knowledge in the Hebrew tongue, as all these new Doctors. Aben Ezra also the great Rabbine, in his Hebrew commentaries vponupon this text, sayth, it is a meere forgerie and fiction, to referre the masculine relatiue otherwise than to the word, sinne: which, though elsewhere it be the feminine gender, yet here it is a masculine, according to thatQuinquarboreu… ▪ rule of the Grammarians, that the doubtfull gender must be discerned by the verbe, adiectiue, pronoune, or participle, ioyned with the same: as the sayd Hebrew Doctor doth in the word, paradise, Gen. 2. which there by the pronounes he pronounceth to be a feminine, though elsewhere a masculine. Lastly, if the worde sinne, were here, and alwayes only a feminine, and neuer a masculine: yet they hauehave litle skill in the Hebrue tongue, that thinke it straunge to matche masculines and feminines togither in very good and grammaticall construction. Whereof they may see a whole chapter in Sanctes Pagninus with this title, Foeminea masculeis iuncta. that is, Feminines ioyned with masculines.
FVLK. 11. Not only the Hebrue Grammar, but the same phrase vsed before, maketh plainely for our translation. That S. Hierome saith, the Hebrue is of the masculine gender, as great an Hebritian as he was, he may not carrie the matter away with his authoritie, except he bring an instance, where it is of the masculine gender. The Iewish Rabbins, patrones of free will, as ignorant of the grace of God, erre in this place, as they doe in a thousand more, and are forced to inuent straunge applications of the worde, appetite, to make their sense probable. How the gender of Hebrew wordes may be found out, we are not now to learne, which because you hauehave but lately learned, you thinke all men ignorant thereof, but your selfe. By the chapter of Pagninus, where he sheweth that feminines are ioyned to masculines, you might learne that chataoth is the feminine gender, although it be ioyned with a participle of the masculine gēder. Whoforeign also might hauehave taught you, the difference of nounes ending in he, praecedente camets, to be this, that feminines hauehave the accent in the last syllable, masculines in the last…ilr… & milel. foreign saue one, and therefore chataoth in this place, hauing the accent in the last syllable, notwithstanding the participle, which is masculine, must needes be of the feminine gender.
MART. 12. Now for the last refuge, if they will say all this needed not, because in other their Bibles, it is as we woulde hauehave it: we tell them, they must iustifie and make good all their translations, because the people readeth all, and is abused by all, and al come forth with priuiledge, printed by the Queenes Printer, &c. If they will not, let them confesse the faultes, and call them in, and tell vsus which translation or translations they will stand vntounto. In the meane time they must be content to heare of all indifferently, as there shall be cause and occasion to touch them.
FVLK. 12. We tel you that wee may not iustifie any fault committed in our translations, but we hauehave reformed them (if any were espied) in the later. Neuerthelesse those faults are not so great, that we neede call in al the Bibles in which is any fault, it is sufficiēt that we admonish the reader in our later editions of such faults as are escaped in the former: especially when the faults, are such about which mē are not agreed, as in this place you should rather cōmend our equity, that suffer such trāslations to be in the peoples handes, in which is some colour of maintaining your errors against vsus. But if you be so rigorous, that a booke of Scripture may not be red, in which there is any fault, I charge you call in your translation of the new Testament, for therein are shamefull faults, and such as you can not defend or excuse, except it be by the fault of the Printer, whereof yet you hauehave not admonished the reader. I will giuegive you a tast of some, and let all men iudge whether they be not intolerable faultes. For they are no lesse than detracting and taking away from the word of God. As 1. Cor. 14. v. 38. where both the Greeke and the Latine is, If they will learne. Your translation is: If they learne any thing. Likewise Actes 5. v. 4. where bothe the Greeke and Latine is: Festus answeared that Paule is kepte at Caesarea: you translate. Festus answered that Paule is in Caesarea: leauing out the worde (kepte) as before you lefte out the worde (will) or (desire) whiche altereth the sense very much. But in a place of greater moment, and in a matter of some controuersie, of Gods particuler preordination, and fore appointment, you leaue out a whole clause Act. 10. v. 41. For where it is bothe in the Greeke and in the Latine, that God made the resurrection of his sonne manifest: not to all the people, but to the witnesses chosen before of God, to vsus which did eate and drinke with him, &c. Your English translation hath no more but thus: Not to all the people, but to vsus, who did eate and drinke with him, &c. Leauing cleane out that which is in your Latine text, Testibus praeordinatis à Deo. Also in the Epistle to the Hebrues cap. 7. v. 28. where bothe the Greeke and your vulgar Latine hath. The law appointeth Priests, men that hauehave infirmitie, your translation is, the lawe appointeth Priests them that hauehave infirmitie, leauing out Homines, a word very material in this place▪ to obserue the oppositiō betweene the Priesthood of mē & the Priesthood of the sonne of God. These faultes in the new Testament being some of them whiche I by no diligent reading hauehave obserued, nowe you be admonished of them, we shall see whether you will call in your translation, or cō maunde your disciples to burne their bookes: If you will not, I pray you be good maister to vsus, and let our Bibles goe abroad stil, for any faults we hauehave our selues amended, and admonished all diligent Readers thereof by our later translations. And because you cracke so much of the exposition of the Doctors and of the whole Churche of God against vsus: I muste let the Reader vnderstand that the whole Greeke Churche which for the most parte knewe none other text but the Septuaginta, must needes expound the place of Abel as we do, because the Greeke text is manifestly in the Masculine gender. And so doth Chrysostome in Gen. Hom. 18. expound the place in these words.
Ne putes inquit licet tuum auersatus sim sacrificium ob prauam mētem, fratris que oblationem acceptam habuerim ob sanam intentionem, quod ideo primatu te destituam, & primogeniturae dignitatem à te auferam. Nam licet honore ego illum prosecutus fuerim, accepta que fuerint illius dona, &c. Thinke not (sayeth he) that although I hauehave refused thy sacrifice, for thy naughtie minde, and hauehave receiued thy brothers oblation, for his good and sound meaning, that therefore I will depriue thee of the primacie, and take away from thee, the dignitie of the birthright. For although I hauehave vouchsafed him of honour, & that his gifts hauehave bene receiued, yet vntounto thee belongeth his conuersion, and thou shalt rule ouer him. And this I permit after thy sinne, that thou mayest enioy the priuiledges of thy birthright, and I commaund him to be vnderunder thy power and dominion. You were best now to rayle vponupon Chrysostome and charge him with heresie, and schismaticall exposition, contrarie to the holy Doctors, and the whole Church of God, against freewill of man. Which because it is your quarrell, you hauehave S. Ambrose also your enemie, De Caine & Abel, lib. 2. cap. 7. Who although as he redde it in Latine, did thinke it must be referred to him, and not to his brother, yet he expoundeth it not of the strength of free wil, but chargeth Came to be author of his owne errour, Culpae ipsius ad …e conuersio est. The cō uersion of the fault it selfe is vntounto thee. For his brother is not added to him, but errour is ascribed, whereof he him selfe is author to him selfe. The crime (sayth he) will returne vponupon thee, which began of thee. Thou hast not whereby to accuse necessitie more than thyne owne minde. The wickednesse is retorted backe vponupon thee, thou art Prince of it. He sayth well, thou art Prince of it, for impietie is the mother of sinnes, &c You see therefore, that if you could obtaine that these relatiues were referred to him, yet your free will were not by and by to be builded vponupon the place, and that all be not heretikes, which drawe that text to an other exposition, than standeth with your good liking.
MART. 13. Againe they translate in some of their BiblesNo. Test 1580. agaynst free wil, thus, Christ, when we were yet OF NO STRENGTH, died for the vngodly, Rom. 5. v. 6. Theforeign Apostles word doth not signifie that we had nostrength, but that we were weake, seeble, infirme. Man was wounded in free will, by the sinne of Adam (as he that in the Gospell went downe fromLuc. 10. Hierusalem to Iericho, which is a parable of this thing) he was not slayne altogither. But I stande not here, or in any place to dispute the controuèrsie, that is done else where. This onelyonly I say, because* they falsely holde, that free will was altogither losteVVhitakers, pag. 18. by Adams sinne, therefore they translate accordingly, When we had no strength. But the Greeke worde is well knowen, both in profane authors, and Ecclesiasticall, and specially in the newe Testament it selfe, throughout, to signifie nothing else, but, weake, feeble, sicke, infirme. Looke me through the newe Testament,Multi inter vos infirmi sunt, &c. 1. Cor. 11 v. 30. Cum infirmor, tū petens sum. 2. Cor 12. v. 10. & alibi. wheresoeuer infirmitie, feeblenesse, languishing, and the like are spoken of, there is founde this Greeke worde to expresse it. What Grecian knoweth not (be he but simply acquainted with phrases, and nature of wordes.) what foreign, doe signifie. When the Apostle sayth, Quis infirmatur, & ego non vror? Who is weake and infirme,2. Cor. 11. 29. and I am not much grieued? shall we translate, who is of no strength, &c. or let them giuegive vsus an instance, where it is certaine that this word must needes signifie, of no strength. foreign and à priuatiuum. foreign. …exicon magnum Basileae. foreign.Will they pretend the etymologie of the word? a ridiculous and absurd euasion. we aske them of foreign, a worde of the very same signification, which being compounded in like maner as the other, what doth it signifie? any thing els but infirmitie and feeblenes? Yea it is so farre from signifying, no strength, that the greatest Grecians say, it is not spoken properly of him that for weakenes keepeth his bed, which is foreign, but of him that is il disposed, and distempered in body. Yet the etymologie is all one with that worde which these men will hauehave to signifie him that hath no strength. And if they will needes vrge the etymologie, we tell them, that foreign and foreign, signifie, robur, that is, great strength, such as is in the strongest and stoutest champions. and so the etymologie may take place, to signifie a man of no great strength, not, of no strength. But M. Whitaker putteth vsus in goodPag. 209. hope, they will not stand vponupon etymologies.
FVLK. 13. This cauill is fully aunswered, cap. 1. sect. 26. therefore I wili not spende many wordes here about it. The worde foreign, we knowe signifieth weake, that is of small strength, and sometimes so weake, that there is no strength. As Gal. 4. where Saint Paule, calleth the ceremonies of Moses lawe, nowe exspired, the weake and beggerly elements, that is voyd of all strength and riches. Likewise the Apostle to the Hebrewes, cap. 7. saith, the commundement of the Aaronicall priesthood is abolished, foreign, because it was weake and vnprofitable without Christ, as vnprofitable is void of profit, so is weake voyd of strength. S. Paule, 1. Cor. 15. saith, our dead bodie is sowed in weaknes: Is there any strēgth of a dead body? Moreouer Rom. 8. that which was vnpossible by the law, foreign, by meanes it was weake, is not that voide of strength to saue vsus, which hath no possibilitie to doe any thing? These instances may serue to proue, that foreign may signifie that which is so weake, that it hath no strength. VponUpon the etymologie alone we stand not, But where you say, that man was wounded in free will, by the sinne of Adam, not slayne altogither, (grounding your assertion vponupon a fond & false allegorie of him that fell among theeues, which is no parable of a man in this case, but of man in necessitie to be helped by right of neighbourhood) I praye you, howe came man to be dead altogither in sinnes? Eph. 2. Col. 2. & in many other places of the Scripture. Beside, is there any freedom of wil to godlines, remaining in them that are altogither dead in sinne? But we are not now to handle cō trouersies, but translations, as you doe wel admonish vsus.
MART. 14. When they hauehave bereaued and spoyled a man of his free will, and left him without all strength, they goe soBeza in annot: Rom. 2. 27. farre in this point, that* they saye, the regenerate them selues hauehave not free will and abilitie, no not by and with the grace of God, to keepe the commaundements. To this purpose they translate, (1. Io. 5. 3.) thus: His commaūdements are not grieuous, Mandata eius grauia non sunt. foreign.rather than thus, His commaūdements are not heauye, for in saying, they are not heauye, it would followe, they might be kept and obserued: but in saying, they are not grieuous, that may be true, were they neuer so heavy or impossible, through pacience. As when a man can not doe as he would, yet it grieueth him not, being pacient & wise, because he is content to doe as he can, & is able. Therefore doe they choose to translate, that the commaundements are not grieuous, where the Apostle sayth rather, they are not heauy. much more agreeably to ourforeign. Sauiours wordes, My burden is light! & to the wordes of God by Moyses, Deut. 30. This commaundement which I commaund thee this day, is not aboue thee (that is, beyond thy reache) but the word is very neare thee, in thy mouth, & in thy hart, that thou mayst doe it: and to the common signification of the Greekeword, which is, heauy. Beza would saye somewhat in his commentarie, howe the commaundements are heauy or light, but his conclusion is against free will, and that there can be no perfection in this life, in…cying against them that woulde proue it out of this place: which is as much to say (but he is ashamed to speake plainely) that we can not keepe the commaundements: which the holy Doctors hauehave long since condemned and abhorred, as most absurd, that God should commaund that, vnderunder paine of damnation, which is impossible to be done.
FVLK. 14. Seeing our English word grieuous, cō meth of the Latine word graue, which is not only weightie, but also troublesom, It better aunswereth both the Greeke and the Latine, than heauye, which is properly that which is of great weight, and the same worde being both in Greeke and Latine, 2. Cor. 10. you your seluesforeign. translate sore: his epistles are sore and vehement: but in effect there is no great difference. We acknowledge that his commaundemēts are not heauy to him that is borne of God, which ouercometh the world by faith, otherwise the yoke of the lawe, as the Apostle confesseth, is such a burthē, as neither we, nor our fathers were able to beare, but beleeue to be saued by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ, who hauing taken away the curse of the lawe, and satisfied for our transgressions of the law, hath also giuen vsus grace to louelove the law, and commaundements of God, and in some weake measure to obserue them. So that the curse being taken away, our transgressions aunswered in Christ, and our harts framed by his grace, to louelove his commaundements, and some strength giuen vsus to keepe them, they are not heauy, they are not burdenous, or grieuous. That which God speaketh, Deut. 30. is of the knowledge of the law, which was plainely reuealed, and not of the strength that men hauehave to keepe it, and therefore is by the Apostle referred vntounto faith, for the obseruation thereof, Rom. 10. for by faith in Christ, which hath fulfilled the lawe for vsus, we are accounted to hauehave fulfilled it in him. Beza speaketh plainely enough, if you had grace to vnderstand him, and therefore is nothing ashamed to saye, that we can not keepe the commaundements of God, not onelyonly without the grace of God, but neyther hauing the grace of God in such measure, as God giueth it to no man but that he sinneth. Otherwise, what grace God is able to giuegive, we doubt not, but what he doth, and will giuegive to any man in this life wee speake. That God should commaunde vnderunder paine of damnation, that which is impossible to be done, is no absurditie: seing for them whom God will hauehave to be saued, he prouided an other way of their saluation, than by keeping the lawe, namely the redemption of Christ. As for the reprobate voyde of Gods grace, say you (if you dare) that they are able to keepe the lawe without grace, or without grace hauehave so much as any will to desire to hauehave grace.
MART. 15. Thus hauing taken away free will to doe good, and possibilitie to keepe the commaundementes, and all merite or valure and efficacie of good workes, their nexte conclusion is, that we hauehave no true iustice or righteousnesse in vsus, but an imputatiue iustice, that is, Christes iustice imputed to vsus, be wee neuer so foule and filthie in our soules, so that wee beleeue onelyonly, and by faith apprehend Christes iustice. For this purpose they corrupt the Scriptures in their English Bibles, thus.
FVLK. 15. The iustice whereby wee are accompted iuste in the sight of God, is not inherent in vsus, but in Christe, which is the Lord our righteousnesse. Ierem. 23. Not withstanding it is the onelyonly true iustice, and we are truely iuste by it. And yet wee are not voyde of the spirite of sanctification, whiche is a fruite, and consequent of iustification, by which we hauehave grace to withstand sinne, and to worke righteousnesse, not whereby we should be made righteous before God, but whereby wee are declared to be righteous in parte, vntill the body of sinne being abolished, wee shall be wholy renewed according to the image of God.