THE two English Bibles, (a) usually read in the Protestant congregations at their first rising up, left out the word Catholic in the title of those epistles which have been known by the name of Catholicæ Epistolæ, ever since the apostles' time (b) and their latter translations, dealing somewhat more honestly, have turned the word Catholic into "General," "the General Epistle of James, of Peter," &c. as if we should say in our creed, "we believe the general church." So that by this rule, when St. Augustine says, that the manner was in cities, where there was liberty of religion, to ask, qua itur ad Catholicum? we must translate it, which is the way to the general? And when St. Hierom says, if we agree in faith with the bishop of Rome, ergo Catholici sumus; we must translate," then we are generals." Is not this good stuff?

(1) AND as they suppress the name Catholic, even so did they, in their first English Bible, the name of church itself:(c) because at their first revolt and apostacy from that church, which was universally known to be the only true Catholic Church, it was a great objection against their schismatical proceedings, and stuck so much in the people's consciences, that they left and forsook the church, and the church condemned them to obviate which, in the English translation of 1562, they so totally suppressed the word church, that it is not once to be found in all that Bible, so long read in their congregations: because, knowing themselves not to be the church, they were resolved not to leave God Almighty any church at all, where they could possibly root it out, viz., in the Bible. And it is probable, if it had been as easy for

:

them to have eradicated the church from the

earth, as it was to blot the word out of their Bible, they would have prevented its "continuing to the end of the world."

most beautiful spouse, the church; and in place of it, intrude their own little, wrinkled, and spotted congregation. So they boldly make the apostle say: "He hath made him head of the congregation, which is the body:" and in another place, "The congregation of the first-born:" where the apostle mentions heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God, &c.; so that by this translation there is no longer any church militant and triumphant, but only congregation; in which they contradict St. Augustine, who affirms, that "though the Jewish congregation was sometimes called a church, yet the apostles never called the church a congregation." But their last translation having restored the word church, I shall say no more of it in this place.

66

(2) AGAIN, the true church is known by unity, which mark is given her by Christ himself; in whose person Solomon speaking, says: "Una est columba mea;" that is, "one is my dove," or my dove is one." Instead of this, they, being themselves full of sects and divisions, will have it, "my dove is alone ;" though neither the Hebrew nor Greek word hath that signification; but, on the contrary, as properly signifies one, as unus doth in Latin. But this is also amended in their last translation.

(3) NOR was it enough for them to corrupt the scripture against the church's unity; for there was a time when their congregation was invisible; that is to say, when" they were not at all:" and therefore, because they will have it, that Christ may be without his church, to wit, a head without a body, (d) they falsify this place in the Epistle to the Eph., xi. 21, 23, translating, "he gave him to be the head over all things to the church," congregation with them," which (church) is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." Here they translate actively the Greek word το πληρεμενs, when, according to St. Chrysostom, and all the Greek and Latin doctors' interpretation, it ought to be translated passively; so that instead of saying," and filleth all in all," they should say, "the fulness of him which is filled all in all;" all faithful men as members, and the whole church as the body concurring to the fulness of Christ the head. But thus they will not translate," because," says Beza, "Christ needs no such compliment." And if he need it not, then he may be without a church; and consequently, it is no absurdity, if the church has been for many years not only invisible, but also, "not at all." Would a man easily imagine that such secret poison could lurk in their translations? Thus they deal with the church; let us now see how they use particular points of doctrine.

(d) Protestants will have Christ to be a head without a body, during all that time that their congregation was invisible, viz., about 1500 years.

(1) THE turning of blessings into bare thanksgiving, was one of the first steps of our pretended reformers, towards denying the real presence. By endeavouring to take away the operation and efficacy of Christ's blessing, pronounced upon the bread and wine, they would make it no more than a thanksgiving to God.: and that, not only in translating thanksgiving for blessing, but also in urging the word eucharist, to prove it a mere thanksgiving; though we find the verb suyagigi used also transitively by the Greek fathers, saying, 10 910 tuzuginoviα, panem, et chalicem eucharistisatos; or, panem, in quo gratiæ actæ sunt; that is, "the bread and cup made the eucharist ;" ;""the bread, over which thanks are given;" that is, "which, by the word of prayer and thanksgiving is made a consecrated meat, the flesh and blood of Christ." (a) St. Paul also, speaking of this sacrament, calls it, (1 Cor. x.) "the chalice of benediction, which we do bless;" which St. Cyprian thus explicates, "the chalice consecrated by solemn blessing." St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, in their liturgies, say thus, “Bless, O Lord, the sacred bread;" and "bless, O Lord, the sacred cup, changing it by thy Holy Spirit :" where are signified the consecration and transmutation thereof into the body and blood of Christ.

(2) AND, by this corrupt translation, they would have Christ so included in heaven, that he cannot be with us upon the altar. But Beza confesses," that he translates it thus, on purpose to keep Christ's presence from the altar;" which is so far from the Greek, that not only Illyricus, but even Calvin himself, dislikes it. And you may easily judge, how contrary to St. Chrysostom it is, who tells us, "that Christ ascending into heaven, both left us his flesh, and yet ascending hath the same." And again, "O miracle!" says he, "he that sits above with the Father in the same moment of time is handled with the hands of all." (b) This, you see, is the faith and doctrine of the ancient fathers; and it is the faith of the Catholic Church at this day. Who sees not, that this faith, thus to believe the presence of Christ is in both places at once, because he is omnipotent, is far greater than the Protestant faith, which believes no farther than that he is ascended; and that therefore he cannot be present upon the altar, nor dispose of his body as he pleases? If we should ask them, whether he was also in heaven, when he appeared tó Saul going to Damascus ; or whether he can be both in heaven, and with his church on earth, to the end of the world, as he promised; perhaps, by this doctrine of theirs, they would be put to a stand. (3)

Consider further, how plain our Saviour's words, "this is my body," are for the real pre

(a) St. Justin in fine, 2 Apolog., St. Irenæus, lib. 4, 34. (b) Hom. 2, ad popul. Antioch., lib. 3, de Sacerdotio.

TO

sence of his body and for the real presence of his blood in the chalice, what can be more plainly spoken, than "this is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which chalice is shed for you." (c) According to the Greek, to ποτήριον το εκχυνόμενον, the word “which must needs be referred to the chalice in which speech chalice cannot otherwise be taken, than for that in the chalice; which sure, must needs be the blood of Christ, and not wine, because his blood only was shed for us; according to St. Chrysostom, who says: "That which is in the chalice is the same which gushed out of his side." (d) And this deduction so troubled Beza, that he exclaims against all the Greek copies in the world, as corrupted in this place.

(4) "LET us cast wood upon his bread;" "that is," saith St. Hierom, (e)" the cross upon the body of our Saviour; for it is he that said, I am the bread that descended from heaven." Where the prophet so long before, saying bread, and meaning his body, alludes prophetically to his body in the blessed sacrament, made of bread, and under the form of bread; and therefore also called bread by the apostle, (1 Cor. x.) so that both in the prophet and the apostle, his bread and his body is all one. And lest we should think the bread only signifies his body, he says, "Let us put the cross upon his bread;' that is, upon his very natural body that hung on the cross. It is evident, that the Hebrew verb is not now the same with that which the seventy interpreters translated into Greek, and St Hierom into Latin; but altered, as may be supposed, by the Jews, to obscure this prophecy of their crucifying Christ upon the cross. though Protestants will needs take the advantage of this corruption, yet so little does the Hebrew word, that now is, agree with the words following, that they cannot so translate it, as to make any commodious sense or understanding of it; as appears by their different translations, and their transposing their words in English, otherwise than they are in the Hebrew. (ƒ)

And

(5) IF Protestants should grant Melchizedek's typical sacrifice of bread and wine, then would follow also, a sacrifice of the New Testament; which, to avoid, they purposely translate "and" in this place; when, in other places, the same Hebrew particle vau, they translate enim, for; not being ignorant, that it is in those, as in this place, better expressed by "for" or "because," than by "and." See the exposition of the fathers upon it. (g)