even as Christ himself saith, "Without me you can do nothing," John xv. 5. But every young Grecian (say you) knoweth that do Oevns is weak, feeble, infirm, and not altogether without strength. And is there then any old Grecian that will prove, that do0erns alway signifieth him that is weak, but not void of strength? Doth dobevn's always signify him that hath some strength? Certain it is, that the apostle speaketh here of those that were void of strength; for the same he calleth in the same verse doeßeis, ungodly, or void of religion, for whom Christ died. How say you then? had ungodly persons any strength to be saved, except Christ had died for them? Therefore he that in this place translateth do@evns, weak, feeble, infirm, must needs understand men so weak, feeble, and infirm, as they have no strength. For how might it else be truly said, "What hast thou that thou hast not received?" 1 Cor. iv. 7. Yes, say you, we have some piece of free will at least, some strength to climb to heaven, even without the grace of God, without the death and redemption of Christ. If you say no, why cavil you at Beza's translation and ours? The Greek word ἀσθενὴς, as great a Grecian as you would make yourself, signifieth weak or infirm, sometime that which yet hath some strength, sometime that which hath no strength at all, as I will give you a plain example out of St Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 43. The dead body is sown ev do@eveía, in weakness: it riseth again in power. Doth not weakness here signify privation of all strength? It is marvel but you will say, a dead body is not altogether void of strength. Beza telleth you out of St Paul, Rom. viii. 6, that the wisdom of the flesh without Christ is death, it is enmity against God, it is neither subject unto the law of God, neither can it be: where is the strength of free will that you complain to be taken away by our translation? Beza doth also tell you,

that St Paul calleth all the ceremonies of the law άo@evn, as they are separated from the Spirit of Christ, the weak and beggarly elements, Gal. iv. Are they not void of strength and riches, which are void of Christ's grace and Spirit? But your purpose was only to quarrel, and seek a knot in a rush; and therefore you regarded not what Beza hath written to justify his translation.

27.

Martin. If Calvin translate, Non ego, sed gratia Dei quæ mihi aderat, MARTIN, may not mean Grecians control him, that he also translateth falsely 1 Cor. xv. against free will, because the preposition oùv doth require some other j σùv éμoí. participle to be understood, that should signify a co-operation with free will, to wit, σvykomιáσaσa, “which laboured with me"? See chap. x. numb. 2.

27.

Fulke. The Greek is, ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοὶ, Ενικε, "the grace of God which is with me." A mean Grecian will rather understand the verb substantive, than the participle, as you do, and then must needs again understand the verb Koríaσe, "hath laboured." For thus the sense must be, if your participle be understood, 'I have laboured more than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which laboured with me, hath laboured.' Who would commit such a vain tautology? The sense is therefore plain, which the apostle's words do yield in the judgment of better Grecians than ever G. Martin was, or will be. I have not laboured more than the rest of the apostles, of mine own strength or will; but the grace of God which is in me, or with me, hath given me greater strength and ability to travail in the gospel, than to them.' But you are afraid lest it should be thought, that the apostle had done nothing, like unto a block, forced only a blockish fear, and a forced collection. For when the apostle first saith, he hath laboured, and after denieth, and saith, I have not laboured; what sensible man will not gather, that in the former he laboured as a man endued with life, sense, and reason, and in the latter that he laboured not by his own strength or virtue, but by the grace of God, to which he attributeth all that he is in such respect? "By the grace of God I am that I am," saith he; which manifestly excludeth natural free will, to that which is good and appertaining to the glory of God. For which cause he denieth that he laboured more than the rest: "Not I, but the grace of God which was present with

28.

Martin. If when the Hebrew beareth indifferently, to say, Sin lieth MARTIN, at the door1; and unto thee the desire thereof shall be subject, and thou Gen. iv. 7. shalt rule over it; the Geneva English bible translate the first without an. 1579.

[1 Explained in the margin, "Sin shall still torment thy conscience." Geneva bible, 1560.]

scruple, and the latter not, because of the Hebrew grammar; is not this also most wilful against free will? See chap. x. numb. 9.

Fulke. I grant this to be done willingly against free will, but yet no false nor corrupt translation. For in the participle robets, which signifieth lying, is a manifest enallage or change of the gender, to declare that in chataoth, which word being of the feminine gender signifieth sin, is to be understood auon, or some such word as signifieth the punishment of sin, which may agree with the participle in the masculine gender, that the antithesis may be perfect. 'If thou doest well, shall there not be reward or remission? if thou doest evil, the punishment of thy sin is at hand.' But that the latter end of the verse can not be referred to sin, but unto Cain, not only the grammar, but also the plain words and sense of the place, doth convince. For that which is said of the appetite, must have the same sense, which the same words have before, of the appetite of Eve towards her husband Adam, that in respect of the law of nature, and her infirmity, she should desire to be under his government, and that he should have dominion over her. So Abel the younger brother should be affected toward his elder brother Cain, to whom by the law of nature he was loving and subject, and therefore no cause why Cain should envy him as he did. Otherwise it were a strange meaning, that sin, which is an insensible thing, should have an appetite or desire toward Cain, who rather had an appetite to sin, than sin to him. But you are so greedy of the latter part, that you consider not the former. I know what the Jewish rabbins, favourers of heathenish free will, absurdly do imagine to salve the matter; but that which I have said may satisfy godly Christians.

Martin. If Calvin affirm that άrò evλaßeías cannot signify propter reverentiam, because drò is not so used, and Beza avoweth the same more earnestly, and the English bible translateth accordingly, (which may be confuted by infinite examples in the scripture itself, and is confuted by Illyricus the Lutheran ;) is it not a sign either of passing ignorance, or of most wilful corruption, to maintain the blasphemy that hereupon they conclude? See chap. vii. numb. 42, 43.

Fulke. If Beza, Calvin, and the English translations be deceived about the use of the preposition άrò, it proveth

not that they are deceived in the translation of the word evλaßeías, which is the matter in question. They have other reasons to defend it, than the use of the preposition, although you slander Calvin in saying he affirmeth that άπò is not used for propter, For he saith no more, but that the preposition is arò not vrèp, or some such like, that may design a cause, quæ causam designet; that is, that certainly may point out a cause, and cannot otherwise be taken. Likewise Beza saith, Atqui non facile mihi persuaserim, proferri posse ullum exemplum in quo arò ita usurpetur: 'But I cannot easily persuade myself, that any example may be brought forth, in which arò is so used,' that is, for propter, or secundum, for which διὰ, κατά, or ὑπὲρ were more proper and usual. Now, if Illyricus have helped you with a few examples where arò is so taken, what say Beza or Calvin against it, but that it doth not usually and certainly signify so? Their judgment upon the place remaineth still grounded upon other arguments, although that reason of the acception of arò be not so strong, as if drò had never been so taken. But as for the blasphemy, you say, they conclude upon that place, [it] will redound upon your own neck; for their exposition is honourable and glorious to God the Father, and Christ his Son, and to the Holy Ghost, by whom that epistle was indited, to the confusion of your popish blasphemies, of the sacrifice propitiatory offered in the mass.

30.

Martin. If Beza in the self-same place contend, that evλáßela MARTIN, doth not signify reverence or piety, but such a fear as hath horror and astonishment of mind; and in another place saith of the self-same word clean contrary; what is it but of purpose to uphold the said blasphemy? See chap. vii. numb. 39, 40.

30.

Fulke. Beza in the same place doth bring many FULKE, examples to prove, that the Greek word evλáßeia doth signify a great fear, and so is to be taken Heb. v. [7.] But it is an impudent lie to say, he doth contend that it never signifieth reverence or piety: and therefore that he saith it signifieth piety in another place, is nothing contrary to that he spake in this place; for the word signifieth both, as no man that will profess any knowledge in the Greek tongue can deny.

Martin. If he translate for God's foreknowledge', God's providence; for soul, carcase; for hell, grave": to what end is this, but for certain heretical conclusions? And if upon admonition he alter his translation for shame, and yet protesteth that he understandeth it as he did before; did he not translate before wilfully according to his obstinate opinion? See chap. vii.

Fulke. Beza doth indeed translate προγνώσει providentia; but he expoundeth himself in his annotation: id est, æterna cognitione. For what heretical conclusion he should so do, you do not express, neither can I imagine. To your other quarrels, of soul and carcase, hell and grave, I have said enough in answer to your preface. Sects. 46 and 47.

Martin. If to this purpose he avouch that sheol signifieth nothing else in Hebrew but a grave, whereas all Hebricians know that it is the most proper and usual word in the scriptures for hell, as the other word keber is for a grave; who would think he would so endanger his estimation in the Hebrew tongue, but that an heretical purpose against Christ's decending into hell blinded him? See chap. vii.

Fulke. Nay, rather all learned Hebricians know, that sheol is more proper for the grave, than for hell; and that the Hebrews have no word proper for hell, as we take hell, for the place of punishment of the ungodly, but either they use figuratively sheol, or more certainly topheth, or gehinnom. For sheol is in no place so necessarily to be taken for hell, but that it may also be taken for the grave. That keber signifieth the grave, it is no proof that sheol doth not signify the same; and therefore you shew yourself to be too young an Hebrician, to carp at Beza's estimation in the knowledge of the tongue.

Martin. And if all the English bibles translate accordingly, to wit, for hell grave, wheresoever the scripture may mean any lower place that is not the hell of the damned; and where it must needs signify that

[проуσι тоû →eoû ěkdoтov. Acts ii. 23. "Præscientia Dei traditum." Vulgate. "Providentia Dei deditum." Beza. All the English versions have foreknowledge, except the Rhemish, which has prescience.]

[The versions of Wiclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and of James, all render eis adov hell; the only ones having grave, being the Genevan versions of 1557 and 1560.

66

Quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno." Vulg. "Cadaver meum in sepulcro." Beza. Acts ii. 27.]