(1) IT is certain, that this is a false translation; because the prophet's words (Mich. v., cited by St. Matthew) both in Hebrew and Greek, signify only a Ruler or Governor, and not a Pastor or Feeder. Therefore, it is either a great oversight, which is a small matter, compared to the least corruption; or else it is done on purpose; which I rather think, because they do the like in another place, (Acts. xx.) as you may see below. And that to suppress the signification of ecclesiastical power and government, that concurs with feeding, first in Christ, and from him in his apostles and pastors of the church; both which are here signified in this one Greek word, noμalva; to wit, that Christ our Saviour shall rule and feed, (a) yea, he shall rule with a rod of iron; and from him, St. Peter, and the rest, by his commission given in the same word, noiuave, feed and rule my sheep; yea, and that with a rod of iron as when he struck Ananias and Sapphira with corporal death; as his successors do the like offenders with spiritual destruction, (unless they repent) by the terrible rod of excommunication. This is imported in the double signification of the Greek word, which they, to diminish ecclesiastical authority, rather translate "feed," than "rule or govern.' : (2) FOR the diminution of this ecclesiastical authority, they translated this text of scripture, in King Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. times, "Unto the king, as the chief head," (1 Pet. ii.) because then the king had first taken upon him this title of "Supreme head of the Church." And therefore, they flattered both him and his young son, till their heresy was planted; making the holy scripture say, that the king was the "chief head," which is all the same with supreme head. But, in Queen Elizabeth's time, being, it seems, better advised in that point, (by Calvin, I suppose, and the Magdeburgenses, who jointly inveighed against that title; (b) and Calvin, against that by name, which was given to Henry VIII.,) and because, perhaps, they thought they could be bolder with a queen than a king; as also, because then they thought their Reformation pretty well established; they began to suppress this title in their translations, and to say, "To the king, as having pre-eminence," and, "To the king, as the superior;" endeavouring, as may be supposed by this translation, to encroach upon that ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction they had formerly granted to the Crown. But however that be, let them either justify their translation, or confess their fault and for the rest, I will refer them to the words of St. Ignatius, who lived in the apostles' time, and tells us, "That we must first honour God, then the bishop, then the king; because in all things, nothing is comparable to God; and in the church, nothing greater than the bishop, who is consecrated to God, for the salvation of the world; and among magistrates and temporal rulers, none is like the king." (c) (a) Psalm ii.; Apocalyp. ii. 27; Job. xxi. (b) Calvin in cap. vii. Amos; Magdebur. in Præf. Cent. 7, fol. 9, 10, 11. (c) Ep. 7, ad. Smyrnenses. (3) AGAIN, observe how they here suppress the word "bishop," and translate it "overseers ;" which is a word, that has as much relation to a temporal magistrate, as to a bishop. And this they do, because in King Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth's time, they had no episcopal consecration, but were made only by their letters patent; (d) which, I suppose, they will not deny. However, when they read of King Edward VI. making John à Lasco (a Polonian) overseer or superintendent, by his letters patent; and of their making each other superintendents or pastors at Frankfort, by election; and such only to continue for a time, or so long as themselves or the congregation pleased, and then to return again to the state of private persons or laymen; (vid. Hist. of the Troubles at Frankfort ;) (e) and also of King Edward's giving power and authority to Cranmer and how Cranmer, when he made priests by election only, I suppose, because they were to continue no longer than the king pleased, whereas priests truly consecreated are marked with an indelible character,-pretended to no other authority for such act, but only what he received from the king, by virtue of his letters patent. Fox, tom. 2, an. 1546, 1547. And we have reason to judge, that Matthew Parker, and the rest of Queen Elizabeth's new bishops, were no otherwise made, than by the queen's letters patent; seeing that the form devised by King Edward VI. being repealed by Queen Mary, was not again revived till the 8th of Queen Elizabeth. To say nothing of the invalidity of the said form, as having neither the name of bishop nor priest in it, the like doubt of their consecration arises from the many and great objections made by Catholic writers (f) against their pretended Lambeth Records and Register; as also from the consecrators of M. Parker, viz., Barlow, Scorey, &c., whom we cannot believe to have been consecrated themselves, unless they can first show us records of Barlow's consecration; and secondly, tell us, by what form of consecration Coverdale and Scorey were made bishops; the Rom. Cath. ordinal having been abrogated, and the new one not yet devised, at the time that Mason says they were consecrated, which was Aug. 30, 1551. And as for the suffragan, there is such a difference about his name, (g) some calling him John, some Richard; and about the place where he lived, some calling him suffragan of Bedford, (h) some of Dover, (i) that it is doubtful whether there was such a person present at that Lambeth ceremony. But these things being fitter for another treatise, which, I hope, you will be presented with ere long, I shall say no more of them in this place. (d) K. Edw. VI. Let. Pat. Jo. Utenti. p. 71; Regist. Eccles, peregr. Londin. Calvin. p. 327, Resp. ad Persecut. Angl. (e) Hist. Fra. p. 51, 60, 62, 63, 72, 73, 74, 87, 97, 99, 125, 126, &c. (f) Fitzherb. Dr. Champ. Nullity of the English Clergy Prot. demonst. &c. (g) See Dr. Bramhall, p. 98. (A) Mason, Bramhall, &c. (4) Dr. Butler Epist. de Consecrat. Minist. (1) "IF," says St. Hierom, " none of the laity, or of the faithful, can pray, unless he forbear conjugal duty, priests, to whom it belongs to offer sacrifices for the people, are always to pray; if to pray always, therefore perpetually to live single or unmarried." (a) But our late pretended reformers, the more to profane the sacred order of priesthood, to which continency and single life have always been annexed in the New Testament, and to make it merely laical and popular, will have all to be married men: yea, those that have vowed to the contrary: and it is a great credit among them, for apostate priests to take wives. And therefore, by their falsely corrupting this text of St. Paul, they will needs have him to say, that he, and the rest of the apostles, "led their wives about with them," (as King Edward the Sixth's German apostles did theirs, when they came first into England, at the call of the Lord-protector Seymour ;) whereas the apostle says nothing else, but a woman, a sister; meaning such a Christian woman as followed Christ and the apostles, to find and maintain them with their substance. So does St. Hierom interpret it, (b) and St. Augustine also, both directly proving, that it cannot be translated "wife." (2) Neither ought this text to be translated "yoke-fellow," as our innovators do, on purpose to make it sound in English, man and wife;" indeed, Calvin and Beza translate it in the masculine gender, for a "companion." And St. Theophylact, a Greek father, saith, that "if St. Paul had spoken of a woman, it should have been yunsa, in Greek." St. Paul says himself, he had no wife, (1 Cor. vii.) and I think we have a little more reason to believe him, than those who would gladly have him married on purpose to cloak the sensuality of a few fallen priests. In the first chapter of the Acts, ver. 14, Beza translates, cum exoribus, "with their wives," because he would have all the apostles there esteemed as married men; whereas the words our cum mulieribus," with the women," as our English translations also have it; because, in this place, they were ashamed to follow their master Beza. 46 (3) AGAIN, for the marriage of priests, and all sorts of men indifferently, they corrupt this text, making two falsifications in one verse: the one is, "among all men :" the other, that they make it an affirmative speech, by adding "is" whereas the apostle's words are these: "Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled;" which is rather an exhortation; as if he should say, "let marriage be honourable in all, and the bed undefiled;" as appears, both by that which goes before, and that which follows immediately; all which are exhortations. Let, therefore, Protestants give us a reason out of the Greek text, why they translate the words following, by way of exhortation, "Let your conversation be without covetousness ;" and not these words also in like manner, "Let marriage be honourable in all." The phraseology and construction of both are similar in the Greek. (4) MOREOVER, it is against the profession of continency in priests and others, that they translate our Saviour's words respecting a life," and the unmarried state, thus, "all men cansingle not," &c., as though it were impossible to live continent, where Christ said not," that all men cannot," but " all men do not receive this saying." St. Augustine says, "Whosoever have because they will not have it, or because they not this gift of chastity given them, it is either fulfil not that which they will: and they that have this word, have it of God, and their own free will." (c) given to all that ask for it." (d) "This gift," says Origen, "is (5) NOR do they translate this text exactly, nor, perhaps, with a sincere meaning; for, if there be chastity in marriage, as well as in the single life, as Paphnutius the confessor most truly said, and as themselves are wont often to allege, then their translation doth by no means express our Saviour's meaning, when they say, "there are some chaste, who have made themselves chaste," &c., for a man might say all do so, who live chastely in matrimony. But our Saviour speaks of such as have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven; not by cutting off those parts which belong to generation, for that would be an horrible and mortal sin; but by making themselves unable and impotent for generation, by promise, and vow of perpetual chastity, which is a spiritual castration of themselves. St. Basil calls the marriage of the clergy "fornication," and not "matrimony." "Of canonical persons," says he, "the fornication must not be reputed matrimony, because the conjunction of these is altogether prohibited; for this is altogether profitable for the security of the church." And in his epistle to a certain prelate, he cites these words from the Council of Nice; "It is by the great council forbidden, in all cases whatsoever, that it should be lawful for a bishop, priest, or deacon, or for any whomsoever, that are in orders, to have a woman live with them; except only their mother, sister, or aunt, or such persons as are void of all suspicion."(e) (c) Lib. de Gratia et Liber. Arbitr., cap. 4. (d) Tract 7, in Matth. (e) St. Basil, Ep. 1, ad Amphiloch.; Ep. 17, ad Paregor. Presbyt. Con. Nice. in Cod. Græ. Can. 3. THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. In the beginning of the reformation, they not only took away five of the seven sacraments, but also deprived the rest of all grace, virtue, and efficacy; making them no more than poor and beggarly elements; at the most, no better And this, bethan those of the Jewish law. cause they would not have them by any means helpful, or necessary towards our salvation; for the obtaining of which, they held and asserted, that "faith alone was sufficient." (a) For which reason Beza was not content to say, with the apostle, (Rom. iv. 11,) "That circumcision was a seal of the justice of faith ;" but because he thought that term too low for the dignity of circumcision, he (to use his own words) "gladly avoids it;" putting the verb instead of the noun, quod obsignaret, for sigillum. And in his annotations upon the same place, he declares the reason of his so doing to be, the dignity of circumcision equal with any sacrament in the New Testament. His words are, "What could be more magnificently spoken of any sacrament? Therefore, they that make a real difference between the sacraments of the Old Testament and ours, never seem to have known how far Christ's office extendeth :" which he says, not to magnify the old, but to disgrace the new. (1) THIS is also the cause, why the first English Protestant translators corrupted this place in the Acts, to make no difference between John's baptism and Christ's, saying: "Unto what then were you baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism." Which Beza would have to be spoken of John's doctrine, and not of his baptism in water; as if it had been said, "What doctrine do ye profess?" and they said, "Johns;" whereas, indeed, the question is, "In what then?" or "wherein were you baptized?" and they said, "In John's baptism;" as if they would say, we have received John's baptism, but not the Holy Ghost, as yet: whence immediately follows, then they were baptized in the name of Jesus:" and after imposition of hands, "the Holy Ghost came upon them :" whence appears, the insufficiency of John's baptism, and the great difference between it and Christ's. And this so much troubles the Bezaites, that Beza himself expresses his grief in these words: "It is not necessary, that wheresoever there is mention of John's baptism, we should think it the very ceremony of baptism; therefore they, who gather that John's baptism differs from Christ's, because these, a little after, are said to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, have no sure foundation." See his annotations on Acts xix. Thus he endeavours to take away the foundation (a) Twenty-fifth of the Thirty-nine Articles. 57 of this Catholic conclusion, that John's baptism Beza confesses, that the Greek ɛls 1ì is often "that (2) BUT no wonder, if they disgraced the baptism of Christ, when some (b) of them durst presume to take it away, by interpreting these "Unless a man be born words of the Gospel : again of water, and the Spirit," &c., in this But, if I blame our English translators, in this place, for making it indifferent, either "which fountain," or "which Holy Ghost he shed," &c., they will tell me, that the Greek is also indifferent: but, if we demand of them, whether the Holy Ghost, or rather a fountain of water, may be said to be shed, they must doubtless confess, not the Holy Ghost, but water: and consequently, their translating" which he shed," instead of "whom he poured out," would have it denote the "fountain of water;" thereby agreeing with Calvin's translation, and Beza's commentary; for Beza, in his translation, refers it to the Holy Ghost, as Catholics do. (b) Beza in Jo. iv. 10, and in Tit. iii. 5. |