A06492:352
Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians
A commentary of M. Doctor Martin Luther upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Galatians first collected and gathered word by word out of his preaching, and now out of Latin faithfully translated into English for the unlearned. Wherein is set forth most excellently the glorious riches of Gods grace ...A commentarie of M. Doctor Martin Luther vpon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Galathians first collected and gathered vvord by vvord out of his preaching, and novv out of Latine faithfully translated into English for the vnlearned. Wherein is set forth most excellently the glorious riches of Gods grace ...
London: printed by Thomas Vautroullier dwelling wihtin sic, 1575London: printed by Thomas Vautroullier dvvelling vvihtin sic, 1575
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Here then ye see Peters offence, as Paul plainly setteth it forth.1 Paul accuseth him not of malice or ignorance, but of dissimulation and infirmity, in that he abstained from meats forbidden in the law, fearing lest the Jews which came from James, should be offended thereby, and had more respect to the Jews then to the Gentiles: whereby he gave occasion as much as in him was, to overthrow the Christian liberty & truth of the Gospel. For in that he did withdraw and utterly separate himself, abstaining from meats forbidden in the law (which notwithstanding he had eaten of before) he ministered a scruple of conscience to the faithful, thus to gather upon his example:2 Peter abstaineth from meats forbidden in the law: therefore he that eateth meats forbidden in the law, sinneth and transgresseth the law: but he that abstaineth is righteous and keepeth the law, for else would not Peter have withdrawn himself. But because he did so, and of purpose refused those meats which before he did eat, it is a sure argument that such as eat against the law do sin, and such as abstain from meats which the law forbiddeth, do keep the law and are justified thereby.
Here then ye see Peters offence, as Paule plainly setteth it forth.1 Paule accuseth him not of malice or ignorance, but of dissimulation and infirmity, in that he absteined from meates forbidden in the law, fearing lest the Iewes which came from Iames, should be offended therby, and had more respect to the Iewes then to ye Gentiles: wherby he gaue occasion as much as in him was, to ouerthrow the Christian libertie & truth of the Gospell. For in that he did withdraw and vtterly separate himselfe, abstaining from meates forbidden in the lawe (which notwithstanding he had eaten of before) he ministred a scruple of conscience to the faithfull, thus to gather vpon his example:2 Peter abstaineth from meates forbidden in the law: therefore he that eateth meates forbidden in the law, sinneth and transgresseth the law: but he that abstaineth is righteous and kepeth the law, for els would not Peter haue withdrawn himselfe. But because he did so, and of purpose refused those meates which before he did eate, it is a sure argument that such as eate against the law doe sinne, and such as abstaine from meates which the law forbiddeth, doe keepe the law and are iustified thereby.