XIX. Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, were in their times all preachers of God’s truth; some by word, some by writing, some by both1. This they did partly as faithful Witnesses, making mere relation what God himself had revealed unto them; and partly as careful Expounders, teachers, persuaders thereof. The Church in like case preacheth still, first publishing by way of Testimony or relation the truth which from them she hath received, even in such sort as it was received, written in the sacred volumes of Scripture; secondly by way of Explication, discovering the mysteries which lie hid therein. The Church as a witness preacheth his mere revealed truth by reading publicly the sacred Scripture. So that a second kind of preaching2 is the reading of Holy Writ.
For thus we may the boldlier speak, being strengthened3 with the example of so reverend a prelate as saith, that Moses from the time of ancient generations and ages long since past had amongst the cities of the very Gentiles them that preached him, in that he was read every sabboth4 day. For so of necessity it must be meant, in as much as we know that the Jews have always had their weekly readings of the Law of Moses; but that they always had in like manner their weekly sermons upon some part of the Law of Moses we nowhere find.
Howbeit still we must here remember, that the Church by her public reading of the book of God preacheth only as a witness. Now the principal thing required in a witness is fidelity. Wherefore as we cannot excuse that church, which either through corrupt translations of Scripture delivereth instead of divine speeches any thing repugnant unto that which God speaketh; or, through falsified additions, proposeth that to the people of God as Scripture which is in truth no scripture: so the blame, which in both these respects hath been laid upon the church of England, is surely altogether without cause.
Touching translations of holy Scripture, albeit we may not disallow of their painful travails herein, who strictly have tied themselves to the very original letter; yet the judgment of the Church, as we see by the practice of all nations, Greeks, Latins, Persians, Syrians, Æthiopians, Arabians, hath been ever that the fittest for public audience are such as following a middle course between the rigour of literal translators and the liberty of paraphrasts, do with greatest shortness and plainness deliver the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Which being a labour of so great difficulty, the exact performance thereof we may rather wish than look for. So that, except between the words of translation and the mind of the Scripture itself there be contradiction, every little difference should not seem an intolerable blemish necessarily to be spunged out.
Whereas therefore the prophet David5 in a certain Psalm doth say concerning Moses and Aaron, that they were obedient to the word of God, and in the selfsame place our allowed translation saith they were not obedient; we are for this cause challenged as manifest gainsayers of scripture, even in that which we read for scripture unto the people. But for as much as words are resemblances of that which the mind of the speaker conceiveth, and conceits are images representing that which is spoken of, it followeth that they who will judge of words, should have recourse to the things themselves from whence they rise.
In setting down that miracle, at the sight whereof Peter fell down astonied before the feet of Jesus, and cried, “Depart, Lord, I am a sinner,” the Evangelist St. Luke saith 6the store of the fish which they took was such that the net they took it in “brake,” and the ships which they loaded therewith sunk; 7St. John recording the like miracle saith, that albeit the fishes in number were so many, yet the net with so great a weight was “not broken.” Suppose they had written both of one miracle. Although there be in their words a manifest shew of jar; yet none, if we look upon the difference of matter, with regard whereunto they might both have spoken even of one miracle the very same which they spake of divers, the one intending thereby to signify that the greatness of the burden exceeded the natural ability of the instruments which they had to bear it, the other that the weakness thereof was supported by a supernatural and miraculous addition of strength. The nets as touching themselves brake, but through the power of God they held.
Are not the words of the Prophet Micheas touching Bethleem, “Thou Bethleem the least8?” And doth not the very Evangelist translate these words, “Thou Bethleem not the least9?” the one regarding the quantity of the place, the other the dignity. Micheas attributeth unto it smallness in respect of circuit; Matthew greatness, in regard of honour and estimation, by being the native soil of our Lord and Saviour Christ.
Sith therefore speeches which gainsay one another must of necessity be applied both unto one and the same subject; sith they must also the one affirm, the other deny, the selfsame thing: what necessity of contradiction can there be between the letter of the Prophet David, and our authorized translation thereof, if he understanding Moses and Aaron do say they were not disobedient; we applying our speech to Pharao and the Egyptians, do say of them, they were not obedient? Or (which the matter itself will easily enough likewise suffer) if the Egyptians being meant by both, it be said that they, in regard of their offer10 to let go the people when they saw the fearful darkness, disobeyed not the word of the Lord; and yet that they did not obey his word, inasmuch as the sheep and cattle at the selfsame time they withheld. Of both translations the better I willingly acknowledge that which cometh nearer to the very letter of the original verity; yet so that the other may likewise safely enough be read, without any peril at all of gainsaying as much as the least jot or syllable of God’s most sacred and precious truth.
Which truth as in this we do not violate, so neither is the same gainsayed or crossed, no not in those very preambles placed before certain readings, wherein the steps of the Latin service-book have been somewhat too nearly followed. As when we say11 Christ spake to his disciples that which the Gospel declareth he spake12 unto the Pharisees13. For doth the Gospel affirm he spake to the Pharisees only? doth it mean that they and besides them no man else was at that time spoken unto by our Saviour Christ? If not, then is there in this diversity no contrariety. I suppose it somewhat probable, that St. John and St. Matthew which have recorded those sermons heard them, and being hearers did think themselves as well respected as the Pharisees, in that which their Lord and Master taught concerning the pastoral care he had over his own flock, and his offer of grace made to the whole world; which things are the matter whereof he treateth in those sermons. Wherefore as yet there is nothing found, wherein we read for the word of God that which may be condemned as repugnant unto his word.
Furthermore somewhat they are displeased in that we follow not the method of reading which in their judgment is most commendable14, the method used in some foreign churches, where Scriptures are read before the time of divine service, and without either choice or stint appointed by any determinate order. Nevertheless, till such time as they shall vouchsafe us some just and sufficient reason to the contrary, we must by their patience, if not allowance, retain the ancient received custom which we now observe15. For with us the reading of Scripture in the church is a part of our church liturgy, a special portion of the service which we do to God, and not an exercise to spend the time, when one doth wait for another’s coming, till the assembly of them that shall afterwards worship him be complete. Wherefore as the form of our public service is not voluntary, so neither are the parts thereof left uncertain, but they are all set down in such order, and with such choice, as hath in the wisdom of the Church seemed best to concur as well with the special occasions, as with the general purpose which we have to glorify God.
← Of public teaching, or preaching, and the fi · Contents · Of Preaching by the public →
Footnotes
-
[“The translation of the LXX interpreters, commonly so called, … prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written Preaching, as St. John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.” Translators [of the Bible] to the Reader. London. Rt. Barker. 1633.] ↩
-
[See Bp. Taylor’s Holy Living, c. iv. § 4.] ↩
-
[Acts xv. 21. This verse had been quoted by Whitgift to the same purpose. Answ. 211.] ↩
-
[“Sabboth,” A.] 1886. ↩
-
[See Strype, Whitg. i. 490. “One Dr. Sparks is brought in” (by Martin Marprelate in one of his libels) “as being too hard for the Archbishop and some other Bishops, and putting them to a nonplus in some conference with them; and that before some noblemen. It was about the supposed wrong reading of the 28th verse of the cv. Psalm… To this the Archbishop said, that their honours that were present, could and would, he was sure, answer for the Bishops for this untruth. And that they made report to divers in public places, and some to the highest, of that conference, after another sort, and to another end, than the libellers did… … That the translation read in our churches was in that point according to the Septuagint, and was correspondent to the analogy of faith. For that if the word were understood of the Israelites, then it was true to say, that they were not obedient to his commandment. But if of the signs and wonders that Moses and Aaron did before Pharaoh, or of Moses and Aaron themselves, then was it on the other side true, that they were not disobedient to his commandment.”Barlow’s Account of the Conference at Hampton Court, in Phœnix, i. 157. “Dr. Reynolds … . . moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed … were corrupt. For example, Ps. cv. 28,” with two more. “To which motion there was, at the present, no gainsaying: the objections being trivial and old, and already in print often answered.”In Saravia’s collected works is an Epistle to an anonymous friend, who had published certain Articles of exception to the Canons of 1603: the second of which Articles is, “Fieri potuit ut in iis quæ publice leguntur non pauca Scripturis dissona reperiantur. Quale est illud, e. g. in Ps. cv. 28. ‘Non obedierunt verbo Dei:’ cum Veritas Hebraica legat, ‘Et paruerunt.’ Resp. וְלאׁ מָרוּ ‘et non rebellarunt verbis ejus.’ Pii interpretes transtulerunt, ‘Et rebellarunt.’ Quid enim מָרוּ significaret non ignorarunt, sed quia non viderunt quis esset nominativus verbi מָרוּ, et de Israelitis vel de Ægyptiis cum non posset intelligi commode, quos rebellasse Deo constat, intellexerunt Ægyptios. Præcedunt enim verbum מָרו, tria quædam, a quibus nominandi casus supplendus est: nempe Signa, Ægyptii, Moses et Aaron: qui duo proxime præcedunt, et de ipsis commode intelligitur: qui quamvis arduum et periculi plenum esset adire tyrannum … non fuerunt tamen Deo inobedientes … . Potest etiam non absurde interpretari locus de Mose et Aarone, quod verbo Dei paruerint, mandantis ut miracula illa ederent . . Ad tenebras et ad alia miracula referri similiter potest, ut intelligantur tenebræ et aquæ verbo Dei obtemperasse … Sed non satis commode de Mose et Aarone intelligi id posse crediderunt nostri interpretes. Regis et servorum ipsius rebellio ita hærebat in eorum mente, ut eam ibidem notari crederent, et illis aptandum esse sermonem. Non enim tam fuit erratum in rei veritate, quam in applicatione. Itaque cum non rara apud Hebræos לא accipiatur pro לו ‘ei,’ ולא transtulerunt ‘et ei rebellarunt,’ referentes aut ad Ægyptios aut ad Israelitas, quos semper fuisse rebelles verbis Dei legimus: cum id proprie intelligi debeat vel de Mose et Aarone, vel de miraculis quæ per eos edita sunt. Habebant præterea LXX Græcam Versionem, quæ habet, ὅτι παρεπίκραναν τοὺς λόγους αὐτου̑: quod de Mose et Aarone non dici potest, sed de Ægyptiis. Scelus, mi frater, esse censes huic versioni subscribere? Et ob tantillam variationem nolle approbare constitutiones Anglicanæ Ecclesiæ?” Saravia, ubi sup. p. 2.Prynne supposed the error a mere misprint: obedient, for disobedient obedient. Pacific Exam. of some Exuberances, &c. p. 6. 1661.A like objection was brought against Ps. cvi. 30. “Then stood up Phinehas and prayed:” וַיֽפַלֵל; more properly “executed judgment.” Sanderson, Sermons, i. 128. “The word hath three significations: to judge, to pray, to appease… And I doubt not but Phinehas, when he did lift up his hand … did withal lift up his heart. In which respect, (especially if the word withal will bear it, as it seemeth it will,) some men should have done well not to have shewn so much willingness to quarrel at the church translations in our service book, by being clamorous against this very place as a gross corruption, and sufficient to justify their refusal of subscription to the book.”] ↩
-
Luke v. 6, 7. ↩
-
John xxi. 11. ↩
-
Mich. v. 2. [לִהְיוֹח צָעַיר. LXX. ὀλιγοστὸς εἰ̑. St. Matth. οὐδαμω̑ς ἐλαχίστη εἰ̑. Lightfoot (i. 442.) and Grotius and De Dieu (ap. Pol. Synops. in loc.) explain צָעִיר “it is a light thing [to thee];” in support of which it may be urged that וִעִיר is very frequently used in the Targum for מִעַם, which stands usually for the phrase “it is a light thing,” in the Hebrew. Pococke (on Mich. p. 42, ed. 1740.) pleads for a double signification of צָעִיר: i. e. that it may mean “great” as well as “little:” of which idiom there are examples in the Semitic languages. Compare Hammond on the place of St. Matthew.] ↩
-
Matt. ii. 6. ↩
-
[Exod. x. 24.] ↩
-
The Gospel on the Second Sunday after Easter, and on the Twentieth after Trinity. ↩
-
John x. 11; Matt. xxii. 1, 2. ↩
-
[See Barlow’s Account, &c. 163. “His Majesty, keeping an even hand, willed that the word Disciples should be omitted, and the words Jesus said, to be printed in a different letter.” And so in subsequent Prayer Books we find it.] ↩
-
T. C. lib. ii. p. 381. “Although it be very convenient which is used in some Churches, where before preaching-time the Church assembled hath the Scriptures read; yet neither is this nor any other order of bare public reading in the church necessary.” h. d. [Is this an abbreviation of “hoc dicit,” implying that the preceding quotation gives the substance not the words of T. C.? For the passage runs literally thus: “Yet a number of churches which have no such order of simple reading cannot be in this point charged with breach of God’s commandment; which they might be, if simple reading were necessary.”] ↩
-
“Facto silentio, Scripturarum sunt lecta divina solennia.” Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. xxii. c. 8. [§ 22. t. vii. 672.] That for several times several pieces of Scripture were read as parts of the service of the Greek church, the Fathers thereof in their sundry Homilies and other writings do all testify. The like order in the Syrian churches is clear by the very inscriptions of chapters throughout their translation of the New Testament. See the edition at Vienna, Paris, and Antwerp. ↩