Defense of the Kings Authority and Supremacy in the Church, Part – Postscript
A word or two of falſe Tranſlations.
I Do find, by reading of learned Expoſitors on the Bible, that many words and Texts concerning the bleſſed Trinity, are falſely tranſlated: I hold it my duty, no longer to conceal it, but to make it known, that it may come to the knowledge of the King and Parl. who I hope will take it into conſideration, and in due time ſee that it be amended: And for a taſte, I will give you ſome of the Texts, and ſhall be ready to ſhew many more.
1. See Eccl. 12.1. Remember thy Creators: ſo it is plurally in the Hebr. Text, as if there were more then one Creator of the World: And St. Paul ſaid, God created all things by Jeſus Chriſt, Epheſ. 3.9. But it is falſely tranſlated Creator ſingularly, as if there were but one.
2. See Pſal. 149.2. Let Iſrael rejoyce in his makers: ſo it is plurally in the Hebr. Text, as if there were two or three makers of the world: And St. Paul ſaid, God made the world by his ſonne, Heb. 1.1, 2. But it is falſly tranſlated Maker, or Him that made; as if there were but one.
3. See Gen 1.2. The ſpirit of the Gods moved on the waters: ſo it is plurally in the Hebrew; as if there were two or 3 Gods: But it is falſly tranſlated God ſingularly, as if there were but one God.
4. See Epheſ. 2.12. And ye were without Gods in the world: ſo it is in the Greek Text plurally, as if there were more then one God in the Trinity: But it is falſly tranſlated God ſingularly, as if there were but one God in the Trinity.
5. See Gen. 20.13. When the Gods, they cauſed me to wander: ſo it is in the Heb. Text plurally, both noun and verb are plural, as if there were two or three Gods in the Trinity. Geneſ. 3.22. The man is become like one of us. but it is falſly tranſlated ſingularly, both in the noun and verb, as God cauſed me: as if there were but one God in the Trinity.
6. See Gen. 35.7. The Gods, they appeared unto him. So it is plurally in the Hebr. Text, both the noun and verb are plurall: as if there were two or three Gods, as God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghoſt: But it is falſly tranſlated, both in in the noun and verb ſingularly, as God appeared: as if there were but one God in the Trinity.
The Church ſaith, there is but one God: Now Tranſlators, unfaithfully to maintain the Doctrine of the Church, tranſlate falſly, to draw Scripture to the Church: but like honeſt men, they ſhould tranſlate word for word, number for number, to draw the Church to the Scriptures.
FINIS.
A Poſtſcript, further proving, that Biſhops uſurp the Kings Authority, and devest him of his Supremacy.
THe King is the Fountain of all Authority and Juriſdiction: and whoſoever exerciſes Juriſdiction in this Kingdome, wtthout authority from the King, they uſurp the Kings authority, and make voyd his ſupremacy; and this Biſhops do: For
1. There are two eſſentiall parts of a Biſhops office as they hold, Ordination and Juriſdiction. Now they lay as much claim to the power of Juriſdiction, as to Ordination, and receive them both from the ſame hand and Donor: As the one therefore is from God, not from the King, ſo is the other, even both from one and the ſame Donor, but neither of them from the King. 2. a Biſhop is created, by his Metropolitan and other Biſhops, who by Impoſition of their hands, do confer upon him as from God, the office of juriſdiction as they ſay, now this Office is not derived from the King, nor can be: for the King doth not lay hands on the Biſhop created. 3. Biſhops claim their authority and juriſdiction in the Church, from Peters Keys Mat. 16.19. but not from the King, for Peters Keys were not delivered to Kings or lay perſons, but to the Clergy. 4. All this Biſhops confeſt in their writings, concerning this ſimilitude, the patron gives the Benefice or Living to the Incumbent, but the Biſhop gives him his orders; ſo the King gives the Biſhoprick to the Biſhop, that is his large maintenance of 2 or 3000. a yeare, but God gives him his Office, and makes him a Biſhop: ſo then a Biſhop doth derive his Office of juriſdiction from the King. 5. Biſhops in diſputation ſay their Office is Ius Divinum: ſo then they own not the Kings Authority in Eccleſiaſticals: for this is Ius Humanum.
From the premiſes it is cleare, 1. That Biſhops have and exerciſe as high Authority in the Church, os the King hath in the Common Wealth: how then can the King be ſolely next under Chriſt? yea, the Biſhops have the ſole authority in the Church, but the King hath none at all: where is then the Kings authority, ſuperiority, and ſupremacy in Eccleſiaſticals? the Biſhops have all authority from God, in themſelves: they derive none from the King: wherefore they own not the Kings authority, ſoveraignty, ſuperiority, nor ſupremacy: no more then Papiſts do.
True it is, that Biſhops pray for the King as ſupreme, and uſe their authority in his name: but for all this, as you have ſeen they do not own his authority, but deny it: they do but diſſemble: for when they ſpeak really and cordially, they reject his authority: but when they intend to flatter, then in words, they pray for the King as ſupreme, Thoſe Exorciſts, Act 19.13. did name over thoſe that had evil ſpirits, the name of the Lord Jeſus: but had no authority ſo to do, and their end was evil: ſo Biſhops, uſe the name of the King and his authority: but have no authority from the King ſo to do as you have ſeen proved: wherefore they uſurp his authority: and their end therefore cannot be good.
Two or three things added to my poſtſcript, further proving that Biſhops were Popiſh.
SInce my former writings, a booke came to my hands, intituled, Reaſons for the neceſſity of a reformation in Diſcipline &c. Wherein I note beſides others, 2 things: and I ſhall add a third.
1. That Biſhops have foiſted into the Book of Common Prayer many Apochriphal Scriptures, which by the Law ought to be read in Churches: and which worſe is, they have rejected 100 Chapters of the ſacred Canonical Scriptures, and placed 100. Chapters inſtead of them, of Apochryphal Scriptures: Oh abhominable fact! do they deſerve the name of proteſtant Biſhops, who Pope-like, make Apochrypha Scriptures, of equal authority with the Holy word of God? was it not high time for the long Parliament to root them out?
2. In the Letany of old, there was this Proteſtant prayer from the Biſhop of Rome, and all his deteſtable enormities, Good Lord deliver us, but in our books of Service, afterwards printed, this prayer was rejected by Biſhops, and not one word of it, were not thoſe Biſhops think you, greater friends to Papiſts than to Proteſtants? for they would not ſuffer us to pray againſt Popery.
3. About 50 years agone, Biſhops perſecuted many godly and painfull Miniſters for the Croſs and Surpliſſe, but within about 20. year after, what a troop of popiſh ceremonies more did they peſter our Church withall? then they brought in 1. High Altars 2. The ſecond ſervice at the high Altar. 3. Bowings and cringing towards the Eaſt and the high Altar. 4, Waxe Candles on the high Altar in Biſhops Chappels. 5. Railes before the high Altar. 6. the Sacrament was denyed to thoſe that refuſed to come up to the high Altar for it: I cannot remember all their trinkets 100. Apochriphal Chapters inſtead of 100 Canonical Chapters. 8. No prayers to be made for the King in pulpit. 9. That the prayer in the Letany, againſt popery, muſt no more be uſed. All theſe have ſprung up long ſince my time: and had not the long Parliament prevented it, by rooting out Biſhops, we may feare that by this time or not long hence, England would have been another Rome. Judge I pray by theſe particulars, whether that was true or not, which I wrote at the beginning of this Book ſaying, not only Biſhops tyranny, but alſo the feare of popery, cauſed thouſands of the people to deſert the King, at the beginning of the unhappy warr. Thoſe that had eyes in their heads might eaſily ſee what a crew of Popiſh Biſhops we had: for my part I never look to ſee them better, unleſs for a monethmonth or two or ſo long as our Gracitious King live: who I beleeve will awe them for his time: but what ſhall become of us afterward?
FINIS.
End of the text · Theophilus Brabourne, Defense of the Kings Authority and Supremacy in the Church (1660)