Imatges de pÓgina

every one of the episcopal order, (which it would not be an easy matter to prove) the term overseers is properly descriptive of their functions. But, you will perhaps say, the heaviest part of the offence consists in saying "feed," instead of rule or govern, which evidently proceeds from a wish of diminishing ecclesiastical authority. I shall not here stop to enquire into the probability of supposing that any such design ever entered the heads of King James's translators, most of whom held high stations in an essentially episcopal establishment, an absurdity much too glaring to need any serious refutation; but I cannot help expressing my surprise that a Roman Catholic Divine should, in his eagerness to criminate us, level a deadly blow against the head of his own Church. Have we not been told twenty thousand times, that the Pope derives his supreme power over Christians from the charge given by our Saviour to Peter, "to feed his sheep." Has not this single word been found to convey a title to all authority, temporal and spiritual; and have not the heads of your church claimed from it a right not only to feed their sheep, but to fleece them, flay them, butcher them, and roast them alive? Does not Bellarmine tell us that it gives the Pope for the time being power over wolves, that is, heretical princes, who may be excommunicated and outlawed by him; and over the rams, namely, Catholic sovereigns, to restrain and rebuke them when turbulent?$ Does not your great casuist Suarez teach the faithful that, by virtue of the power given to Peter in the commission to feed Christ's sheep, he may both deprive a Prince of his sovereignty, and free his subjects from their oath of fidelity? How comes, I pray you, this little word to be so pregnant with authority in the Gospel of St. John, and so barren of it in the Acts of the Apostles? On what consistent principle of interpretation can it make one man a sovereign of sovereigns, and subvert the more moderate rights and privileges of his younger brethren? You must either admit that the expression "feed the Church of God" implies a sufficient share of episcopal authority, or that the Pope's spiritual monarchy, deduced from "feed my sheep," is a mere chimera; or maintain that two flat contradictions are equally true.

However, you will perhaps say, as you said in your lecture, that the Protestant version of the passage in question differs from that made for the use of the faithful, and is, therefore, erroneous and wilfully corrupt, But, what if this infallible version, by which all others are to be tried, differs from itself, and agrees with the Protestant translation in an exactly parallel instance? The same charge which St. Paul gives to the elders of Ephesus, is given by St. Peter to the elders whom he addresses in his first Epistle, and in the very same phraseology. Both apostles employ the same Greek verb, and use it in reference to the same object; and it is hard to discover why it should not have in both instances precisely the same signification. Yet your English Catholic translators

• It is whimsical enough that the note on the passage in the Roman Catholic Testament of 1730, informs us, that "the original word literally means overseers." The Catholic unity of those guides of the faithful, seems to consist chiefly in agreeing to abuse Protestantism, for they disagree in almost every thing else.

+ It is generally believed that Bishop Bancroft superintended the whole undertaking, and he was assuredly the last man in the world to derogate from ecclesiastical authority. Bellarm. de Rom. Pontif. 1. v. c. 7. I transcribe one of his arguments as a sample of the ultra montane doctrine on this point. "The shepherd may separate and confine furious rams which destroy the sheepfold. Now, a prince is a furious ram which destroys the fold, when he is a Catholic in faith, but so bad as to be very injurious to religion and the church; as for instance, if he sells bishoprics, plunders churches, &c. therefore, the shepherd may shut him up or reduce him to the rank of an ordinary sheep.” Q. É.D! # Suarez De Primatu summi Pontif. 1. iii. c. 33.

1-Peter, v. 2. The only difference is that St. Paul says "the church of God," and St. Peter" the flock of God."

have in the latter case rendered it not rule or govern, but "feed the flock of God." And now, Sir, we demand, how can this very interpretation which was false, and abominable, and corrupt, and subversive of authority in the Acts of the Apostles, be sound and orthodox in the Catholic Epistles! If (to borrow a phrase from your papal Bulls)— our translators have "incurred the indignation of St. Paul," how will your's escape that of St. Peter? Either confess that the accusation brought against us of insidiously attempting to undermine ecclesiastical authority is totally unfounded, or that you yourselves are at least half as guilty as we.

But we have already dwelt too long upon a pitiful cavil, which a fourth-form schoolboy could easily refute. Let us pass on to the accusation brought against us of corrupting St. Paul's words, (1 Cor. v. 9,) by making him say, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife," instead of a woman, a sister, with a view of propagating the mischievous notion that the marriage of the clergy may be justified by the practice of the apostles.

I shall not trouble myself with discussing minutely the frivolous and often-refuted arguments of Gregory Martin, and the Rhemists on this text, which you + thought proper to bring forward for our confusion and the edification of your hearers. That the Greek word which we render wife does mean so, in thousands of places, is denied by nobody; that it actually has that meaning in the passage in question, was the opinion of Valla, Cardinal Cajetan, Catharinus, and Faber Stapulensis, all eminent men of your own communion; and what is of more importance, it is so interpreted by Clement of Alexandria, one of your own saints, and a man more likely to know the true meaning of a Greek word, and the sense usually affixed to it in the primitive ages, than all the Wards and Martins in the universe. We are assured by Polycrates,§ Clement, and Eusebius, writers of the second, third, and fourth centuries, that St. Peter and St. Philip were both husbands and fathers, and we confidently challenge you to produce any testimony of equal weight and antiquity to disprove it. Were this the place for a long historical discussion, I could easily shew that Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory of Nyssa, and many other illustrious ecclesiastics of the first four centuries, were married men; that an attempt to impose celibacy on the clergy, was formally rejected by the first Nicene Council; and that the clergy of the eastern churches had the privilege of contracting marriage long before their final rupture with the western, and have continued regularly to exercise it until the present day. For the sake of brevity, I will content myself with two testimonies, one ancient and the other modern, to which I could easily add a hundred of the like import.

There is an epistle addressed by St. Athanasius to a monk called Darcontius, who had declined a bishopric offered to him, for fear of

So it is given in three English versions" for the use of the faithful:"--the Rhemish Testament of 1582, the revised one of 1752, and the folio Bible of 1813. I believe the same word feed is employed in the edition of 1730, but I cannot at present refer to it. + The only novelty in Mr. S.'s statement of the case, was the very unexpected piece of information that "the Protestant translation certainly implies that St. Paul had a wife!!" Some Roman Catholic critics are, it seems, as sharp-sighted as the com. mentator who saw distinctly four of the monastic orders in Zechariah's vision of horses and chariots; but I must confess myself too blind or too dull to discover that it implies any more than this...that the Apostle might have had one, if he chose.

Vid. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. iii. e. 30. 1. v. c. 24. Clem. Alex. Stromat. 1. iii....Clement, it may be observed, is formally disputing with persons who condemned marriage, and asks them "if they mean to find fault with the practice of the Apostles?"---St. Basil, speaking of the excellence of marriage, adduces the example of Peter and the rest of the Apostles. Serm. de Abdicatione rerum. The author of the commentary on the Epis. tles, usually printed along with St. Ambrose's works, and evidently written in the fourth century, says all the Apostles were married, except Peter and John. In 1 Cor. c. xi.

becoming too much involved in worldly cares and engagements. Athanasius endeavors to overcome his scruples by shewing that he would still be at liberty to exercise as much abstinence as he chose. "You will be allowed," says he, "when you are a bishop, to fast and to abstain from wine. We have known monks who were great eaters, and bishops who were great fasters. Many bishops have never been married, and monks have been fathers of children, as again we have known bishops fathers of children, and monks wholly without offspring; for they are alike lawful, and neither one nor the other is forbidden to them." I shall be glad to know, Sir, what you think of those married monks and bishops," whom the orthodox Athanasius thus mentions without the slightest mark of disapprobation. As the passage is too clear and explicit to need a commentary, we will pass per saltum from the ancient saint and father Athanasius, to the modern historian Dr. Lingard.

"Though the first teachers of christianity were accustomed to extol the advantages, they did not impose the obligation of clerical celibacy."+ The petty controvertists, the drummers and fifers and trumpeters of the Romish corps, would, I dare say, almost as soon subscribe the oath of supremacy as make this frank admission; but Dr. Lingard knew that he had a literary, as well as a theological reputation to preserve. He brings, indeed, many ingenious reasons to prove that this liberty was afterwards wisely taken away :§ we, for our part, are content not to be thought wiser in this matter than the Apostles, nor holier in our practice than Cyprian, Hilary, Paulinus, Cæcilius, Gregory of Nyssa, Chaeremon, Phileas, and many other distinguished ecclesiastics of the best ages of the church, all saints in the Roman calendar, and all married.‡

• It is unpleasant to be obliged to expose the disingenuity of so respectable a writer as Dupin, who, well aware that it was impossible to reconcile this passage to the present practice of the Church of Rome, translates, or rather traduces it in the following manner :--- Bishops for the most part live in celibacy," and totally omits the clause, "we have known bishops fathers of children." In his summary of the doctrine and discipline of the time of Athanasius, he also says, in reference to the same passage, "there were priests and bishops married, though but few;" whereas Athanasius says merely that many bishops lived single, an expression which rather implies that the majority did not; and, of the celibacy of priests, he does not say a single word. They who are unacquainted with Romish controversial writers, can have no idea of their systematic and barefaced dishonesty in quoting authorities. Some thousands of glaring examples might be collected from Baronius alone.

+ Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, vol. i. p. 99. The whole of the Dr.'s artfully coloured statement reminds one forcibly of that picture of the passage of the Red Sea, in which neither the Egyptians nor the Israelites were visible; it is more remarkable for what it conceals than for what it tells.

The state of clerical morals in Spain, Italy, Portugal, and South America, is a striking practical illustration of the wisdom of this measure. See the Memoirs of Scipio di Ricci and Ulloa's Secret Reports to the Spanish Government.

It is worthy of notice that nearly all the heretics of the three first centuries were violent declaimers against matrimony; but, heretics as they were, the Romanists condescend now and then to enlist them into their service in this quarrel. On the above passage in Corinthians, Estius has a long and laboured note to prove that it ought to be rendered a woman, a sister; and he quotes Tertullian de Monogamia, cap. 8, as expressly denying that St. Paul here speaks of a wife. This is just as rational and conclusive as if he had quoted George Fox or Robert Barclay, to prove that the members of the Church of England hold silent meetings and attend divine service with their hats on; for it is notorious that Tertullian wrote this treatise when he was a decided Montanist, and that the opinions which he there advances, were generally scouted and con. demned by the orthodox. Again, Estius remarks that the declaration in Tertullian's Exhortation to chastity, cap. 8:"It was lawful for the Apostles to marry and to lead wives about with them," is an objection which he puts in the mouth of the opponents whom he is endeavouring to refute. Very true; but, who were those opponents? None other than the Catholics of his day, whom he rails at under the title of Psychici or carnal, because they were not austere and ascetic enough for him. This, by the way, is a proof that the current orthodox interpretation of the passage in Corinthians, was agreeable to the one given in our version; which is further evident from the pains

The next charge against us, is, that we have corrupted the words of St. Paul, (1 Cor. xi. 27,) by translating "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," instead of "Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup;" in order to conceal the testimony borne by the Scriptures to the lawfulness of communion in one kind. Were you ignorant, Sir, that this reading has the sanction of some of the best Greek manuscripts, and of the majority of the ancient versions, that it is so quoted by ancient commentators, and has actually been so printed in your own Latin Bibles? If you were, which is very possible, I will charitably condescend to give you a little information on the subject, not to be found in Gregory Martin, nor Ward's Errata, nor in those learned annotations, from which you derived your criticism, namely, that this is the reading of the Alexandrian and Clermont manuscripts, two of the oldest in the world; and of several others, both Greek and Latin; that it stands so in the text of the older, and the margin of the later Syriac version, as well as in the Ethiopic, Coptic, and three Arabic ones; and that it is so quoted by at least four ancient commentators :-Clement of Alexandria, Pelagius, Chromatius, and Cassiodorus,. I can further inform you, that in the library of Manchester college, there is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Colinæus in 1541, in which the passage stands in exact agreement with our version: "Itaque quicunque manducaverit panem hunc ET biberit hunc calicem," and that the jealous and sharpsighted Spanish inquisitors,+ who order a few corrections to be made in this Bible, find no fault whatever with the above text. And, what is more considerable, Syriac and Arabic Testaments in abundance have been published under the express sanction of § Kings and Emperors, Cardinals and Popes; many of them purposely for the Eastern churches in communion with Rome, and all reading the passage exactly as we do. Explain then, Sir, if you can, how this reading can be innocent in Syriac and Arabic, and yet so poisonous and pernicious in English; or why the Bishops of our Church may not lawfully do what is done and sanctioned by the heads of your own. We think ourselves sufficiently shielded by their authority, which will amply justify us in the eyes of the learned and the judicious: as for the cavils of half-learned smatterers, we have long learnt to despise them. We are far from blaming those who prefer a different reading; but we totally deny the consequences which your modern divines attempt to deduce from it; and we confidently challenge you to produce a single commentator, who, during the first thousand

which Tertullian takes to set it aside, and substitute another of his own. We may take the present opportunity of observing, that in another of his Montanist treatises, (de Jejuniis) he inculcates an extravagantly rigid system of fasting, which was derided and opposed by all his Catholic contemporaries. Nevertheless, it is so agreeable to the present doctrines and practices of the Romanists, that many of their distinguished divines have taken it under their protection, and confidently quote it as an irrefragable authority on their side. The Church of Rome converts ancient heresy and paganism into modern orthodoxy, much in the same way as she transforms the bones of heathens into the relics of saints and martyrs.

⚫ It may be found, nearly totidem verbis, in the notes to the Romish Testament of 1752.

+ Vid. the Spanish Index Expurgatorius of 1667, pp. 125-9.

It would be tedious to enumerate all the editions published by Roman Catholics, I shall, therefore, confine myself to a few of the most remarkable ones. 1. The Syriac New Testament, Vienna, 1556-62, patronised by the Emperor Ferdinand, and edited by Albert Widmanstad, the Imperial Chancellor. 2. The Antwerp Polyglott, 1560-72, patronized by the King of Spain, and approved by the Louvain divines, several cardinals, and Pope Gregory XIII. 3. The Paris Polyglott, 1628-45, approved in the General Assembly of the Gallican Church. 4. The Syriac and Arabic New Testament, printed at Rome by the College of the Propaganda, 1703. Many others are enumerated by Le Long, Boerner, and Masch, to whom I refer the reader.

[blocks in formation]

years of the christian æra, attempted to justify communion in one kind, either from this text or any other.

Your next attempt to fasten a charge of corruption upon us for reading images instead of idols or idolatry, in three passages in the Epistles, (Colossians iii. 5., Ephesians v. 5., and 1 John v. 21,) we repel by a charge of gross and shameful disingenuity against yourself. You knew, or ought to have known, that the word images does not occur in one of the above texts in our authorized version, the only one with which we have any concern; and yet you left it to be inferred by your hearers that it was the reading regularly received among us, and introduced in order to excite an unfounded prejudice against the image-worship of the Romish Church. When this excited some public animadversion, you, with some difficulty, found a Bible printed two hundred and fifty years ago, to justify an accusation which you had levelled against the whole body of modern Protestants. Your grand argument was- "Protestants cannot have faith, because their versions of the Scripture are corrupt :" but how, we demand, can the faith of the great mass of them be affected by the faults of a version which not one in a million is in the habit of using? If the Protestants of the sixteenth century are to be censured for the mistranslation, ought not we to be allowed the credit of the correction? But this is the regular system of your controvertists. Coute qu'il coute, the present Church of England must be rendered as odious as possible; and, therefore, she is made responsible for the sayings and doings, not only of Cranmer and Queen Elizabeth, but of Luther, Calvin, and the Anabaptists of Munster.+

I intend, ere long, to discuss the image-controversy in a more ample manner than my present limits will allow, and shall, therefore, at present, wave all examination of the threadbare arguments which you produced at second and third hand from the Rhemists, from Martin, and from Ward's Errata.§ I shall only observe that, in your eagerness to convict us of falsification, you yourself seem to have fallen into downright heresy. You solemnly disclaimed all adoration of images, which you said the faithful were instructed to regard only as memorials to excite their gratitude and devotion. Are you aware, Sir, that the second Nicene Council, one of the very highest authority, solemnly declares in one of its actions, that those persons who say that sacred images are meant for memorials only, and not for adoration, are guilty of blending falsehood with truth, that it deplores their madness; and proceeds formally to anathematize them and cut them of from the body of the church? Now the doctrine of this synod is formally received by the Council of Trent, and if your infallible councils are to be regarded as meaning what they say, you appear to have incurred an ipso facto excommunication, from the effects of which you can only be released by the Pope in person.

• If my opinion of the accuracy of the old version of the passages in question is called for, I freely acknowledge, that it does not give the sense of the original cor. rectly, because it is not sufficiently comprehensive. It only specifies one kind of idolatry, instead of using terms descriptive of every kind. However, if the vindicating of it were not totally foreign to my present purpose, I could easily prove that in the time of Queen Elizabeth, image and idol were used by our best writers as synonimous terms, that the ancient Greek Lexicographers tell us that idwλoy and eikwy have the same meaning, that idolum and simulachrum are used indifferently, not only by the Latin clas. sics and fathers of the western church, but even in the Vulgate, and that Erasmus employs the word simulachra in every one of the texts objected to by Mr. S.

+ It would be just as logical and equitable to charge us with all the misdeeds of the old British Druids, and Pagan Anglo-Saxons; and this I dare say the Romanists would have done ere now, if the argument had not been equally cogent against themselves.

Though this was the work professedly quoted by Mr. S., most of his objections were couched nearly in the very words of Gregory Martin and the Rhemish annotators.

« AnteriorContinua »