MARTIN, 26. No. Test. 1580. have such a servile care, [it] is expressed in sitting upon Martin. The like transposition of words is in some of your bibles, Heb. ii. 9, thus: "We see Jesus crowned with glory and honour, which was a little inferior to the angels, through the suffering of death1." Whereas both in Greek and Latin the order of the words is thus: "Him that was made a little inferior to angels, we see Jesus, through the passion of death, crowned with honour and glory." In this latter the apostle saith, that Christ was crowned for his suffering death, and so by his death merited his glory. But by your translation he saith, that Christ was made inferior to angels by his suffering death, that is, saith Ut mori pos- Beza, "for to suffer death;" and taking it so, that he was made inferior to angels that he might die: then the other sense is clean excluded, that for suffering death he was crowned with glory; and this is one place among other, whereby it may very well be gathered that some of you think, that Christ himself did not merit his own glory and exaltation. So obstinately are you set against merits and meritorious works. To the which purpose also you take away man's free will, as having no ability to work toward his own salvation. set. See Calvin in epist. ad Philip. FULKE, 26. Fulke. Whether we say, "Christ was crowned for his suffering," or "Christ was made inferior to the angels through his suffering," the sense of either of both is good and godly, and may stand with the place; neither doth the one of them exclude the other, although but one only can be the sense of the place. And if this be the "place by which you may gather, that some of us think that Christ merited not his own glory," it is not worth a straw. We hold that Christ for himself needed not to merit, because he was the Lord of glory but that he merited for us, to be exalted in our nature, for our salvation, it is so far off that we deny, that our whole comfort resteth in his merits; and in his glory, which he hath deserved for us, we hope to be glorified for ever. When you make your transition to the next chapter, you say, we take away man's free will, as having none ability to work:" by which it seemeth that you do not only allow to man the freedom of his will, but also power to work whatsoever he will; so that he shall not only have a free will, but also a strength by the same to work towards his own salvation. [This is not quite correctly given, the word "made" being omitted was"; as the cavil is taken at the later Genevan version.] after CHAPTER X. Heretical Translation against Free Will. 66 1580. fieri. Martin. AGAINST free will your corruptions be these: John i. 12a, MARTIN, 1. where it is said, "As many as received him, he gave them power to be ἐξουσίαν. made the sons of God." Some of your translations say, he gave them No Test. "prerogative" to be the sons of God: Beza, dignity;" who protesteth that whereas in other places often he translateth this Greek word "power" and "authority," here he refused both indeed against free will, which, he saith, the sophists would prove out of this place, repre- Ut hceret hending Erasmus for following them in his translation. But whereas filios Dei the Greek word is indifferent to signify "dignity" or "liberty," he that will translate either of these, restraineth the sense of the Holy Ghost, and determineth it to his own fancy. If you may translate "dignity," may not we as well translate it " liberty"? Yes, surely. For you know it signifieth the one as well as the other, both in profane and divine writers. And you can well call to mind avreέovσios and Tò avteέovσwv, whence they are derived, and that the apostle calleth a man's liberty of his own will ἐξουσίαν περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος. 1 Cor. vii. 17. Now then, if "potestas” in Latin, and "power" in English, be words also indifferent to signify both "dignity" and "liberty," translate so, in the name of God, and leave the text of the scripture indifferent as we do: and for the sense, whether of the two it doth here rather signify, or whether it doth not signify both, as no doubt it doth, and the fathers so expound it, let that be examined otherwise. It is a common fault with you, and intolerable, by your translation to abridge the sense of the Holy Ghost to one particular understanding, and to defeat the exposition of so many fathers, that expound it in another sense and signification as is plain in this example also following. : Fulke. Seeing you confess that the Greek word sig- FULKE, 1. nifieth not only "power," but also "dignity," and that in this place it signifieth both, it can be no corruption, but the best and truest interpretation, to translate éçovoíav "dignity;" for that includeth "power," whereas power may be severed from [* Οσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτὸν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι, John i. 12. "Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri," Vulg. "Quotquot autem eum acceperunt, dedit eis hanc dignitatem ut filii Dei fierent,” Beza. 'To them gave he power," Cranmer, 1539, Authorised version, 1611. govoría is rendered "power" in the Genevan, Rhemish, Tyndale's, and Wiclif's versions.] MARTIN, 2. ἡ χάρις σὺν ἐμοί. dignity. Where you would have us use a word that is ambiguous, when the sense is clear by your own confession, you bewray your own corrupt affection, which desire to have the scriptures so ambiguously or doubtfully translated, that the ignorant might receive no benefit of certain understanding by them. When a word hath diverse significations, a wise translator must weigh which of them agreeth with the text in hand, and that to use: but not to seek ambiguous words, that may bring the matter in doubt, when the meaning to him is certain. As here you say, "there is no doubt but it signifieth both," and yet you quarrel at our translation which comprehendeth both; and urge the word of "power," from which dignity may be severed, whereas from " dignity" power, or ability, or license, cannot be divided. Martin. The apostle, 1 Cor. xv. 10, saith thus, "I laboured more abundantly than all they, yet not I, but the grace of God with me1." τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ Which may have this sense, "not I, but the grace of God which is with me," as S. Jerome sometime expoundeth it; or this, "not I, but the grace of God which laboured with me." And by this latter is most evidently signified, that the grace of God and the apostle both laboured together, and not only grace, as though the apostle had done nothing, like unto a block, forced only: but that the grace of God did so concur as the principal agent with all his labours, that his free will wrought withal. Against which truth and most approved interpretation of this place, you translate according to the former sense only, making it the very text, and so excluding all other senses and commentaries, as your masters Calvin and Beza taught you; who should not have taught you, if you were wise, to do that which neither they, nor you, can justify. They reprehend first the vulgar Latin interpreter for neglecting the Greek article, and secondly, them that by occasion thereof would by this place prove free will. By which their commentary they do plainly declare their intent and purpose in their translation, to be directly against free will. FULKE, 2. Fulke. St Jerome favouring this translation of ours, as he doth in divers places, lib. II. advers. Jovi. Gratia Dei quæ in me est; and lib. 11. adver. Pelag. et ad Principem Gratia Dei quæ mecum est, "The grace of God which is in me," or "which is with me;" I marvel why you count [ ἀλλὰ περισσότερον αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα· οὐκ ἐγὼ δὲ, ἀλλ ̓ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοί, 1 Cor. xv. 10.] it among heretical corruptions, except you take St Jerome for an heretic. By the latter you say it "is signified, that the grace of God and the apostle both laboured together:" although it be no proper speech to say, the grace of God laboureth, yet that you would have is expressed before, where St Paul saith, "I have laboured more than they all;" which none but a block would understand, that he was forced like a block. The grace of God useth no violence, but frameth the will of man to obedience and service of God. But that St Paul had of himself no free will to perform this labour, but that it was altogether of the grace of God which gave him this will, he confesseth more plainly than that it can be denied, where he saith, "Not I." Whereby he meaneth, not that he was only helped by the grace of God, and did it not alone; but that he did nothing by his own strength, but altogether by the grace of God, which made him willing, which of nature, was unwilling, to set forth the gospel, yea, by froward zeal became a blasphemer and a persecutor thereof. Which grace gave him not only a will to promote the gospel, but inspired him also with divine knowledge, by revelation, without study or hearing of other men which gave him also strength to overcome so many difficulties, that no labour, nor travail, nor persecution, nor continuance of time, did make him weary or faint in his labour. All this, I say, he doth ascribe wholly unto the grace of God. of God. And this sense doth not make Paul a block, nor enforced by violence; but a willing, prompt, and painful labourer. But if you mean that St Paul had a free will and strength of himself, which only was holpen by the grace of God; then is your sense abominable Pelagianism, heresy, worthy to be trodden under feet by all Christians, and of Calvin and Beza most justly reprehended, who are utter enemies to free will, that derogateth any thing from the grace of Christ, "without whom we can do nothing:" which John xv. 5. text always choked the Pelagians, and so doth it their halffaced brethren, the papists. Martin. But concerning the Greek article omitted in translation, MARTIN, 3. if they were but grammarians in both tongues, they might know xápis i that the Greek article many times cannot be expressed in Latin, and that this is one felicity and prerogative of the Greek phrase σὺν ἐμοί. (witness.) Nov. Test. στεως. TOU TVEÚ ματος (τοῦ) (i). FULKE, 3. above the Latin, to speak more briefly, commodiously, and signifi- Fulke. Concerning the omission of the Greek article, which Calvin and Beza reprove in the old translator, you make many words to no purpose: for they reprove him not for omitting it, where either it cannot or it need not be expressed, but in this place, where both it may, and meet it is that it should be expressed. But we, you say, to express the article, do add more than is in the text: yet in truth we add nothing but that which is necessarily to be understood; as when we say, "James the son of Zebedee," where you had rather say, James of Zebedee, as though you were so precise, that for necessary understanding you would [ Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν παῤῥησίαν καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐν πεποιθήσει dià Tηs TíσTEWS avrov, Ephes. iii. 12. "In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him," Authorised version.] |