Author Archives: admin

Luther vs. Calvin on the New Covenant

Posted on by Posted in History MB

When it came to the New Covenant, John Calvin contradicted Martin Luther on the fundamentals. They cannot both be right. Quotations from both men are set out below, so readers can see and judge for themselves.

When Martin Luther taught about the New Covenant, he extolled its newness and uniqueness. In the quotation below, he referred to it as a “testament,” emphasizing its likeness to a last will and testament. A last will and testament is a document by which a man gives his possessions freely to his heirs (Gal. 3), and which is made irrevocable by the testator’s death. Luther also taught that the Old Testament was a temporary covenant, and that it is now “disannulled” – that is, cancelled, abolished, obsolete. I emphasize these points so that when we get to Calvin, the difference will be clear.

The New Covenant, Luther explained, is Christ’s own promise to us:

Luther: [Christ] made a promise or solemn vow, which we are to believe and thereby come to righteousness and salvation. This promise is the words just cited, where Christ says, “This is the cup of the New Testament.” These we shall now examine.

Not every vow is called a testament, but only a last irrevocable will of one who is about to die, whereby he bequeaths his goods, allotted and assigned to be distributed to whom he will…. And so that little word ‘testament’ is a short summary of all God’s wonders and grace, fulfilled in Christ.

Christ also distinguishes this testament from others and says that it is a new and everlasting testament, in his own blood, for the forgiveness of sins; whereby he disannuls the Old Testament. For the little word ‘new’ makes the testament of Moses obsolete and worthless, one that is no longer in effect. The Old Testament was a promise made through Moses to the people of Israel … a temporal testament …

But Christ, the true paschal lamb (1Co. 5:7), is an eternal divine Person, who dies to ratify the New Testament. Therefore the testament and the possessions therein bequeathed are eternal and abiding. And that is what he means when he contrasts this testament with the other. “A new testament,” he says, so that the other may become obsolete (Heb. 8:13) and no longer be in effect.[1]

William Tyndale agreed with Luther. He taught:

Tyndale: The New Testament is as much as to say a new covenant. The Old Testament is an old temporal covenant made between God and the carnal children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, otherwise called Israel, upon the deeds and the observing of a temporal law. Where the reward of the keeping is temporal life and prosperity in the land of Canaan, and the breaking is rewarded with temporal death and punishment. But the New Testament is an everlasting covenant made unto the children of God through faith in Christ, upon the deservings of Christ. Where eternal life is promised to all that believe, and death to all that are unbelieving.[2]

But against Luther and Tyndale, John Calvin taught that the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was not temporary, not abolished, not obsolete. He also, as will be seen, taught that the New Covenant was not really or substantially new. He said the covenant God made with Abraham precluded anything new, and that the Abrahamic covenant was the real enduring covenant. What need was there then for the covenant that Jesus came to inaugurate? In fact, said Calvin, the Lord came merely to confirm the Abrahamic covenant. Calvin taught that both the Old and New Covenants were merely confirmations of the Abrahamic covenant, and the only difference between them was as to the form and way of teaching.

Below are Calvin’s own words:

Calvin: Now, as to the new covenant, it is not so called because it is contrary to the first covenant, for God is never inconsistent with himself, nor is he unlike himself. He then who once made a covenant with his chosen people had not changed his purpose, as though he had forgotten his faithfulness. It then follows, that the first covenant was inviolable; besides, he had already made his covenant with Abraham, and the Law was a confirmation of that covenant. As then the Law depended on that covenant which God made with his servant Abraham, it follows that God could never have made a new, that is, a contrary or a different covenant…. God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. This subject might be more fully handled; but it is enough briefly to shew, that the covenant which God made at first is perpetual.

Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For he has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shown what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is there clearly made manifest, and whatever is necessary to be known.[3] (Emphasis added)

So Calvin said the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was not really a new thing in its time, and likewise the New Covenant was not really new. Both were just new-ish ways of confirming the Abrahamic covenant, to which God would always be faithful. Christ was a different “external way of teaching” doctrine to the Jews, as well as to the Gentiles who would also be brought into the Church. On this new foundation, Calvin developed his gospel. A few points to note about his teaching:

(1) Calvin emphasized “God’s covenant with Abraham.” The covenant that Luther emphasized was the one given by Jesus. Calvin’s different treatment undermines the primacy of the New Covenant and the agency of Christ.

(2) Calvin said Christ ratified the Abrahamic covenant, not his own, a re-emphasis which also deflects from Christ’s covenant.

(3) Calvin reinterpreted both the means and purpose of this ratification. When Luther used the word ‘ratify,’ he meant chiefly that Jesus died in order to make his covenant irrevocable and eternal. When Calvin used it, he meant that Jesus appeared in order to ratify doctrine and be a new external way of teaching.

In conclusion, Calvin made the Abrahamic covenant to be an overarching covenant that later covenants only confirmed. This meant that the New Covenant could scarcely be so called, because Christ came not to do a new thing, but to manifest or confirm the old. Thus Calvin taught a different covenant. Further, his new doctrine informed all the notes and commentaries, and even several Scripture revisions, in the Geneva Bible. His doctrine is the basis of so-called “Covenantal Theology.” It has a ring of truth, but when it comes down to it, it cannot be harmonized with Reformation doctrine. Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible looks at some of the issues more closely.

In the meantime, I have written a slightly longer (5 ½ pages) paper comparing the Matthew Bible, which agrees with Luther, and the Geneva Bible, which reflected Calvin’s doctrine, which is posted here on Academia.edu.

Endnotes:

[1] Martin Luther, “Treatise on New Testament,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 35, 84-85.

[2] “WT to Reader,” Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament, 8-9.

[3] John Calvin, Commentary on Jeremiah 31 at biblehub.com. Accessed during February 2019.

 

Sarah’s Covering: The Matthew Bible vs. the Geneva Bible

Posted on by Posted in Compare

What does Genesis 20:16 mean when it speaks of a covering to Sarah’s eyes? That depends which Bible you read.

Genesis 20 in the Old Testament relates the strange story of how Abraham, when he moved into the land of Gerar, told everyone that his wife Sarah was his sister. He instructed Sarah to go along with this falsehood, intended to deceive people about the true nature of their relationship. She obeyed. Then the king of Gerar, Abimelech, took a fancy to the beautiful Sarah and brought her into his own residence. But God appeared to the king before he had wrongful relations with her, and warned him to return her to her husband. Abimelech summoned Abraham and said to him,

Genesis 20:9-16 in the Matthew Bible: What hast thou done unto us, and what have I offended thee, that thou shouldest bring on me and on my kingdom so great a sin? Thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. And Abimelech said moreover to Abraham, What sawest thou, that moved thee to do this thing?

And Abraham answered, I thought that peradventure the fear of God was not in this place, and that they [people] would slay me for my wife’s sake: yet in very deed she is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not of my mother; and became my wife. And after God caused me to wander out of my father’s house, I said to her, This kindness shalt thou shew unto me in all places where we come: that thou say of me that I am thy brother.

Then Abimelech took sheep and oxen, menservants and women servants, and gave them to Abraham, and delivered him Sarah his wife again. And Abimelech said, Behold the land lieth before thee; dwell where it pleaseth thee best. And unto Sarah he said, See, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver. Behold, this thing shall be a covering to thine eyes, and unto all that are with thee, and unto all men an excuse.

Matthew Bible note: ‘Covering’ and ‘excuse’ is all one.

In verse 16 (italicized), William Tyndale translated the Hebrew word ‘kesooth’ as “a covering.” Here ‘kesooth’ is something that covers for an offence or injury in the eyes of the person(s) named. In his note on this verse, Rogers explained that ‘covering’ and ‘excuse’ had the same meaning. In early modern English an ‘excuse’ could be understood in a good sense, meaning something offered in mitigation of an offence. This is the same thing as a covering. Thus Abimelech’s gifts were both a covering and an excuse because they covered and atoned for any harm and appearances of evil that the king had caused.

Hebrew scholar H.W.F. Gesenius confirms that ‘kesooth’ had this meaning in Genesis 20:16:

Metaph. Covering of the eyes [is] a gift of appeasing given to anyone that he may shut his eyes (with regard to something deserving reprehension) … or a present given in order to obtain pardon, a mulct. So is the passage to be understood, which has a good deal troubled interpreters, Genesis 20:16. (Emphasis original. See Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, s.v. 3682)

The Geneva Bible: Robbing Sarah’s covering

The “covering” idiom at Genesis 20:16 did not trouble Tyndale or Rogers. However, it became troubling in the Geneva revision:

Genesis 20:15-16, GNV 1599: And Abimelech said, Behold, my land is before thee, dwell where it pleaseth thee. Likewise to Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver; behold, he is the (1)veil of thine eyes to all that are with thee, and to all others; and she was (2)thus reproved.

GNV note 1: Such a head [meaning Abraham], as with whom thou mayest be preserved from all dangers.

GNV note 2: God caused this heathen king to reprove her because she dissembled, seeing that God had given her a husband as her veil and defence.

The Geneva notes are contrary to common sense. Sarah’s head, Abraham, did not preserve her from danger, but exposed her to danger. (Perhaps he thought his lie was the least of dangers; the text does not say.) The Geneva Bible also says strangely that Sarah was reproved for dissembling, whereas in dissembling she only obeyed her husband. Obedience is a wifely obligation that the Geneva Bible repeatedly insists on. Further, since Abraham was dissembling to the whole world, was she to contradict him and thus endanger and dishonour him?

Further, in the Geneva translation of verse 16, ‘kesooth’ is translated as a “veil.” Gesenius discussed the problems with this:

Several interpreters have taken a covering of the eyes to be a veil; and have thus rendered the whole passage, arbitrarily enough, behold this is to thee a veil of the eyes, i.e. with these thousand shekels (no little price indeed!) buy a veil for thyself, for all who are with thee, and altogether for all, i.e. that it may be manifest to all that thou art a married woman. They add that married women only wore veils, and that virgins did not; but this is altogether opposed to Eastern manners, and it cannot be proved. (Ibid. Emphasis original.)

The Geneva treatment of this passage is wrong for many reasons, including:

(1) It is absurd and dishonest to blame and reprove Sarah for doing as her husband told her to do, and especially in a society where women were without power or authority.

(2) It is also absurd and dishonest to hold up Abraham, who told his wife to lie and got her into the situation, as her defence. It was God who was her defence.

(3) The Geneva Bible creates a classic double bind. On the one hand, in many notes and commentaries it says women must be obedient to their husbands, but here it reproves a woman for being obedient. The woman cannot win.

(4) The Geneva Bible dishonours Sarah, where the intent of the passage was to restore her honour.

Again and again the Geneva Bible proves itself contrary to women (not to mention also contrary to the Matthew Bible). It refuses to protect and honour women.

The issue of a “covering” for women also arose in Malachi 2, which I wrote about in an earlier post. But when I wrote that post, I was less certain of my impressions of the Geneva Bible, and my post was too weak. Now I realize I was on the right track. In Malachi also, the Geneva Bible robbed women of their due “covering.” It is part of a pervasive and misogynist pattern.  Here is a link to the revised post, Altars Covered in Tears.

Compare also the Geneva treatment of Exodus 21, which is discussed in detail in my paper on the New Matthew Bible website: Exodus 21, Virgins or Slave-wives?

The KJV and modern Bibles

Among later Bibles, the KJV largely followed the Geneva Bible. However, moderns have come close to recovering the sense given in the Matthew Bible:

KJV: Behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved.

RV: Behold, it is for thee a covering of the eyes to all that are with thee; and in respect of all thou art righted.

RSV:It is your vindication in the eyes of all who are with you; and before every one you are righted.

NIV:This is to cover the offense against you before all who are with you; you are completely vindicated.

ESV:It is a sign of your innocence in the eyes of all who are with you, and before everyone you are vindicated.

~~~

Note A: The notion of ‘reproof’ (in “and thus she was reproved”) was actually not new in the Geneva version. It also appears in the Great Bible. I have not discovered the source for this revision. It does not follow the Vulgate or the LXX. However, Geneva added even more changes to the translation, and also its notes. This will be discussed more in Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible.

~~~~~~~

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, October 2019.

Information about the New Matthew Bible Project is at   https://newmatthewbible.org

Calvin on Prophecy: 30 Pieces of Silver

Posted on by Posted in Calvin's teaching

To go from the Matthew Bible to the Geneva Bible is to step into a whole new world of commentaries. New and different doctrines were introduced into the Geneva Bible — about the Church, the New Covenant, and more. It is a huge topic, and most of it I’ll save it for Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible. Here I will only touch on one thing: Old Testament prophecies of Christ. In the Matthew Bible these prophecies were treated as … well … as prophecies of Christ. However, in the Geneva Bible they were handled differently:

(1) Some were treated as metaphors. (see my last post here, about the prophecy of Christ coming into Jerusalem on a donkey).

(2) Some were treated as prophecies of or for the Church.

(3) Others were treated as prophecies for the Jewish people only.

I have now researched about twenty Old Testament prophecies of Christ that were subjected to this treatment. This was all based on John Calvin’s teaching. For example, Calvin said the ascension of Christ was a metaphor of Christ’s aid to the Church. He said the “voice in the desert” – which is treated by all the Gospel writers as a prophecy of John the Baptist – was a promise that there would be a continual succession of prophets and divine teachers in the Church. He said the prophecies of Christ’s healing miracles in Isaiah were metaphorical, meant to depict Christ as a “spiritual physician.”

The reader who would like to learn more can see a refutation of Calvin written by a 16th century Lutheran theologian, Aegidius Hunnius. He examined many examples of this in his book, available on Amazon here: The Judaizing Calvin

Thirty pieces of silver

Of particular interest to me was to discover how one of Calvin’s metaphors inflamed the Puritan hatred of ceremonies. The Geneva Bible notes taught that ceremonies were evil. The revolutionary manifestoes of the early English Puritans, produced on secret presses during Queen Elizabeth’s reign, railed against ceremonies and Judas priests. Ceremonies were a big factor in the Puritan revolution. Theodore Beza, rector of the Geneva Academy after Calvin, said ceremonies were filthy and must be thrust out of the Church. Whence all the hysteria? I discovered that it can be traced back, at least in part, to Calvin’s treatment of the Old Testament prophecy of the 30 pieces of silver (from Zechariah 11).

All the Gospel writers, led by the Holy Spirit, treated the 30 pieces of silver as a prophecy that was fulfilled when Judas accepted them as the price to betray Christ. However, Calvin said this was a metaphor about “dirty” and “hypocritical” ceremonies. This may seem absurd, but this is what he taught. Now we see why the use of ceremonies was such a fearful thing: it was to be a Judas! Indeed, said Calvin, the value of ceremonies is to God as the wages of a swineherd, and a “dirty job”:

Calvin: By that cheap price worthy of a farmhand, he understands the frivolous nonsense by which the Jews thought they could satisfy God. For we know that they were excessively attentive in their ceremonies, as if this repayment should be of any value before God…. If the Jews would have brought themselves totally into compliance with his word. But how? If they had gotten rid of their ceremonies and other frivolous things, of course! Yes, this was a dirty job, as if they had wanted to pay off some swineherd.[1]

And by this teaching, Calvin turned a prophecy about Christ into an occasion of endless and destructive strife in the Church. He went on to say that the 30 pieces of silver (representing ceremonies) were “thrown to the potter” to show that they are unworthy of God — even like spitting in his face! He wrote:

Calvin: Afterwards he ironically calls [the 30 pieces] a magnificent and glorious price at which he was esteemed. In other words: This is my glorious price? I bore so much toil, and now they treat me just like some dirty farmer! Yet I was their Lord and Shepherd. Therefore, since they want to satisfy me in such a bogus manner, here also they want to thrust on me the cheap price of their contempt, as if to overthrow my glory or spit in my face. Throw it! Throw it to the potter, he says.… because I will not suffer my majesty to have an unworthy price so contemptuously thrust upon it…. He testifies that these things are worth nothing to him … the sacrifices offered by wicked men and hypocrites who have not the slightest sense of godliness are the highest form of abomination. Why? Because this is the highest form of insult that the reprobate hurl, as if they defiled his face with spit … [2]

Wow! Defiling God’s face with spit … this is harsh. Reverend Hunnius wrote:

Hunnius: Calvin himself understands the 30 pieces of silver as the hypocritical wages with which the people wanted to compensate the Lord for his labours and favours. He then says that these wages are external ceremonies, sacrifices, etc. But with what argument does he prove this incredibly impetuous interpretation of his? Surely it must be so, because he said so!

Not only did Calvin cause a lot of strife, he turned the gospel on its head, because – really – the Lord did suffer the unworthy price. He did so willingly. He did so humbly, not insisting on his “majesty.” More to the point: he ordained it – as he did every prophecy Calvin denied or fudged. That is what a prophecy is: the Lord tells us in advance what will happen, so that when it does happen, we will know it is of Him. In fact, it was Calvin who sold Christ for 30 pieces. But who would turn such an important prophecy into a metaphor and an occasion of disquiet and division in the Church? The apostle Paul said at Galatians 1:8, “Even if we ourselves or an angel from heaven preach any gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, hold him as accursed.”

Ruth Magnusson Davis, March 2019

[1] Aegidius Hunnius, Trans. Paul A. Rydecki The Judaizing Calvin (Texas: Repristination Press, 2012), 65. Hunnius did not cite his sources. The translator advised me that they were from Calvin’s 1617 Latin commentaries. This one is from the commentary on Zechariah, Volume 3, Part 2.

[2] Ibid, 72-73. Hunnius adds, “Perhaps you will say to me that, still, in the things that follow in his commentary, Calvin approves of the Evangelist Matthew’s exegesis. I reply: This is what we have said on several occasions – that Calvin observes this order in explaining the Prophets, with the effect that he truly weakens their prophecies with his interpretations that are primarily Jewish; and blunts their sharp edge; and cuts into the nerve of their argumentation against the unbelievers; and shakes the bedrock foundation by means of stunning tricks and intricate distortions overgrown with a thousand thorn-bushes; that is to say, by means of the deception of symbols and figures of speech, but especially with the deception of his precious metaphors.” (Pages 73-74)

The Geneva Bible on the Coming of Christ on a Donkey

Posted on by Posted in Geneva

It’s been a long journey to understand the changes the Geneva Puritans made to the Bible. I’m still learning.

The real primary version of the Geneva Bible (“GB”) was the Matthew Bible (“MB”). The MB was the combined work of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. Then their friend John Rogers added commentaries and published the MB in 1537. It went on to be progressively revised as shown:

Matthew Bible (1537: Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers)
          ↓
Great Bible (1539: Reviser Myles Coverdale)
          ↓
Geneva Bible (1560: Revisers William Whittingham with Puritan Church leaders in Geneva)

The Puritans based many of their revisions on the teaching of John Calvin. They significantly changed the Scriptures, commentaries, and chapter summaries. What are chapter summaries? They are brief introductions to each chapter of the books of the Bible which explain the main topic or topics. John Rogers wrote the chapter summaries for the MB, which the Great Bible kept for the most part. However, the GB often changed them. One disturbingly consistent change was to substitute “the Church” for Christ.

An issue that emerges upon a careful comparison of summaries is how the GB handled prophecies of the Messiah. I’ll give one example only. It doesn’t seem too serious at first, but on deeper enquiry reveals a terrible error. Compare:

Chapter summaries on Zechariah 9:
Matthew and Great Bibles: The conversion of the Gentiles. The coming of Christ sitting on an ass.
Geneva Bible: The threatenings of the Gentiles. The coming of Christ.

Why did the GB cut out the prophecy about Jesus? It didn’t smell right to me.

I found the answer in a 16th century book written by Dr. Aegidius Hunnius, a Lutheran professor at the Wittenberg Academy in Germany. He wrote a confutation of Calvin in 1593 entitled The Judaizing Calvin. Back then, Calvin’s unorthodoxy was better known, and it was a real concern to the Lutherans. Hunnius showed what Calvin taught, which explains the omission. It is not a happy explanation:

When Zechariah says, “See! Your King comes to you riding on a donkey and on a colt, the foal of a donkey,” the evangelists take the words ‘donkey’ and ‘colt’ in their proper meaning, without any ambiguity whatsoever…. But Calvin … put forth another interpretation:

[Calvin said] “It is certainly true that the words of the prophet are metaphorical, when he says that the King will come riding on a donkey. This is a figurative saying. For the prophet understands that Christ would be a rather poorly known man who does not extol himself above the common measure of the multitudes. This is the genuine sense. This is true, but nevertheless it does not hinder Christ from also putting forth an example of this when he mounts that donkey.”[1]

In other words, Calvin says this was NOT a prophecy – it was just a figurative way of speaking! Later, Jesus supposedly decided to act it out by using a donkey. But it gets worse. According to Calvin, Jesus’ purpose in doing this was to show that he wanted to be considered a common man, not above the multitudes, and even that he would be “poorly known.” But for one, Jesus is not poorly known – not to His, at least. Further, he never taught that he was “common.” He showed us that he was humble, but that is a totally different thing. But see how the devil uses false semantics. ‘Humble’ does not mean ‘common.’ Jesus indeed modeled humility, but he exalted himself as uncommon: the uncommonly humble and at the same time most high Lord and King of Israel, Master, Chief Shepherd, and Son of God. And he also that that he must be obeyed: “Ye call me Lord and Master, and so I am,” he said, (Joh. 3:13).

When Hunnius concluded on this section, he did not mince words:

Indeed, Calvin always seems to feel that deep, innate itch to twist the Word of God, so that with his figurative language and metaphors, the good-for-nothing deceives the more pious mind in such a serious and lofty matter, as charlatans mislead people with their tricks and deceit.[2]

The little-known unorthodox teachings of Calvin seem to be forgotten and lost in history, but their fruit is manifest in the Geneva Bible.

[1] Aegidius Hunnius, The Judaizing Calvin, translated by Rev. Paul A. Rydecki. Link to buy: The Judaizing Calvin

[2] Ibid., page 66.

For the fascinating story of the making of the Matthew Bible, go here for more information about our book.

When the Party of the Puritan Moses Slew Their King

Posted on by Posted in Puritans

On January 30, 1649, the revolutionary Oliver Cromwell, working with his rebel parliament, beheaded King Charles I in England. Cromwell styled himself a “Puritan Moses,” and believed he was guided by the finger of God. He was also known as the “General of the Parliament.” His military successes buttressed his view that he was divinely appointed to establish Christ’s kingdom on earth and the long-awaited reign of the saints in the Church.

First the Puritan party, which had gained control of the English Parliament, held King Charles prisoner for three years. During that time, Cromwell constantly pressed the king for concessions to remove his power and increase parliament’s. But the beleaguered king would not agree to more than he had already given away (which was too much), so finally the time came to do away with him. The rebels brought a charge of treason against the lawful head of the state.

I can’t go into all the background here, but I will in Part 2 of the Story of the Matthew Bible. (It’s important, in order to understand many of the changes made to the Scriptures, and especially the notes, in the Geneva Bible.) Suffice to say, to help trump up a treason charge against Charles, parliament passed a resolution shortly before the trial declaring that “by the fundamental laws of the kingdom, it was treason in the king of England for the time being to levy war against the parliament and the kingdom of England.” The prosecutor at the specially constituted tribunal fanatically denounced Charles as the very image of “Nimrod, the first tyrant.”

Charles protested that the proceedings were illegal, because a king could not be tried by any superior jurisdiction on the earth. But these men were a law unto themselves. After they obtained Charles’ conviction on January 20, 1649, they stayed his execution for ten days to pass an Act prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the dominions thereof. This made it an offence to proclaim a successor after the King died. Now no one, not even Charles’ lawful heir, could fill his shoes after they killed him. The goal was of course to undo the monarchy entirely, so that they could call the shots.

Finally then, with all their ducks in a row, the party of the Puritan Moses, after a long season of humiliating their true and right king, slew him. As his severed head fell from his body, there was a stunned silence, and then a long groan from the onlookers. Soon after, Charles’ statue was thrown down, and on the pedestal was engraved the inscription Exit tyrannus regum ultimus or The last of the tyrant kings passes away. Thus was he dishonoured right to the end.

When foreign governments would not deal with Cromwell’s illegal government, parliament appointed the poet John Milton as Latin Secretary to the Council of State, a kind of foreign ambassador, to champion their cause. Milton was the poet who had earlier penned the line, “Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large,” but he sold out to the Presbyters. Historian Goldwin Smith explains “It is on a principle something like that of the social contract that [Milton] bases the responsibility of kings, and maintains the right of tyrannicide in default of more regular justice.”(1)

But what is this principle of the “social contract” or “compact”? It was straight from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and other writings, which developed a doctrine of revolution based on God’s “natural law” and a “king’s compact.” To put is simply and clearly, Calvin taught that if a king or other high ruler breached his supposed “compact” with the people required by the supposed natural law, then lower level public officials may rise up against him. Therefore, Calvin’s “natural law” trumps the laws of the state.

Oxford Professor Herbert Foster put Calvin’s teaching together quite clearly in his essay The Political Theories of Calvinists before the Puritan Exodus to America. Foster is sympathetic to Calvin and the Puritans, but the discerning reader will (hopefully) see the terrible leaven that lurks herein. (It is always best to go to the source and learn what the advocates themselves say.)

For more study, see Theodore Beza’s book Droits des Magistrats. In it, Beza justified revolution to protect the people’s liberty, and also justified regicide as “tyrannicide.”  Beza’s treatise became a major manifesto of Puritanism, and the constant war-cry “tyrant, tyrant” was one of the slogans that stirred up simple,  gullible people, and fuelled the Puritan revolution in England.

(1) Goldwin Smith, The United Kingdom: Political History, Vol. I (Toronto: The Copp Clark Company, 1899), page 576.

Dedication to Queen Elizabeth, 1560 Geneva Bible

Posted on by Posted in Geneva
© Ruth Magnusson Davis, 2019
All rights reserved. No part of this work is in the public domain. New and original labour has been expended upon the Dedication. This work may not be copied, retrieved, stored, sold, or distributed, without express written permission from the publisher. Contact for further information.

To my knowledge, this is the only place on the internet where you can read the Puritan dedication to Queen Elizabeth from the 1560 Geneva Bible. For some reason the 1560 preface is widely reproduced, but not this dedication. I typed it out myself, checked it diligently against the original, and modernized the spelling. It is set out below, with paragraph numbers for easy reference.

The dedication was dated April 10, 1560. It was unsigned and anonymous in my copy. I suspect the primary author was the zealous Puritan William Whittingham, who revised Tyndale’s New Testament in 1557, and/or John Calvin. I say this because some things written here strongly echo Whittingham’s dedicatory epistle to a book by the Puritan Christopher Goodman: How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects and Wherein They May Lawfully by God’s Word Be Disobeyed and Resisted. The purpose and topic of Goodman’s book is evident from the title.  Goodman was not a popular  man with European rulers. It seems to me that neither Whittingham nor Calvin could affix their name in an epistle to the queen and expect a good reception, because of their revolutionary writings and affiliations with men like Goodman. However, I cannot be sure about authorship, and in any case, it is not important to know. What matters is the content of this dedication to the queen. The reader should understand that it is consistent with the teachings that came from the leaders and scholars of Geneva at this time, though they are often forgotten or overlooked. This dedication gives important insight into the spirit and purpose of the Geneva Bible. It also reveals why Queen Elizabeth and King James did not like it.

A note on Christopher Goodman’s book: It was typical of the revolutionary rhetoric of the Puritans. It was also diametrically opposed to William Tyndale’s book, The Obedience of a Christian Man. Whittingham’s endorsement of Goodman’s book shows how contrary his spirit was to Tyndale. It also raises questions about the changes Whittingham made to Tyndale’s New Testament. I examine some of these changes in Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible, including how Whittingham interpreted Jesus’ words to Peter about the use of the sword. It is fascinating, but disturbing too.

Some things to bear in mind:

(a)  When I say ‘Puritan,’ I mean it in the classic, original sense, referring to the men with a post-millennial dream who returned to England from Geneva after Queen Elizabeth I ascended the throne in 1558. They believed they were called to purify and restore the Church and inaugurate the reign of the saints.  As the reader will see, they considered certain Old Testament punitive practices (as they interpreted them) to be relevant under the New Covenant, to the extent that they, the Puritans, should “minister God’s law” and execute severe punishments, including the execution of false prophets, heretics, and anyone who stood in the way of building God’s Church. The highly esteemed Puritan Theodore Beza advocated ‘tyrannicide’ if need be. ‘Tyrannicide’ was a euphemism for ‘regicide’; i.e., revolutionary execution of kings or queens by their subjects.

(b) When you see a reference in the dedication to “God’s mouth” or the “mouths of the Lord,” understand that it means Puritan ministers. Whittingham and his associates believed they were God’s mouth. Thus paragraph 5.2 means that the queen should consult with Puritan leaders. This is only one example. And where the dedication speaks of obeying the will of God “immediately” (para 8:3), it means obeying the instructions of Puritan ministers immediately. Paragraphs 9.2- 9.3 make this clear.

(c) Note that all the emphasis here is on building the Church. John Roger’s dedication to King Henry VIII emphasized giving the Bible to the people. Further, the reader will see how frequently the Puritans urged the queen to seek their counsel concerning the will of God, and ONLY their counsel. They never once urged her to read the Bible, but said they were the ones chosen by God to understand and teach what it meant (para 9.2). On the other hand, Rogers in his dedication urged the king to read the Bible, and he warned the king that false prophets would surround him and try to influence him. I hope to get a chance to post Rogers’ dedication soon.

(d) Note the mention in paragraph 8.2 about executing people who will not seek the Lord. The Puritans drew on Old Testament stories as precedents to follow for building the Church and governing the people. This is why they talk about such things as putting false prophets to death. Paragraph 5.1 refers to rooting out, cutting down, and destroying. But there are no particulars at all. What exactly is to be rooted out? Who are the people who will not seek the Lord? Who are the false prophets? The Puritans were holding their cards close to their chest. Because they were writing to the queen, they could not afford to be clear about their goals, which included terminating her role as the head of the Church so that they could establish a Presbyterian model.

(e) Items in round brackets are original. Items in square brackets are added by me: [italicized words] are modern synonyms and [regular font] indicates words that I added to complete the sense.

(f)  I added a few more notes at the end.

*****

Dedication to Queen Elizabeth I, 1560 Geneva Bible

To the Most Virtuous and Noble Queen Elizabeth, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, etc. Your humble subjects of the English Church at Geneva, wish grace and peace from God the Father through Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 How hard a thing it is, and what great impediments let [hinder], to enterprise any worthy act, not only daily experience sufficiently showeth (most noble and virtuous Queen) but also that notable proverb doeth confirm the same, which admonisheth us, that all things are hard which are fair and excellent. And what enterprise can there be of greater importance, and more acceptable unto God, or more worthy of singular commendation, than the building of the Lord’s Temple, the house of God, the Church of Christ, whereof the Son of God is the head and perfection?

2 When Zerubbabel went about to build the material Temple, according to the commandment of the Lord, what difficulties and stays daily arose to hinder his worthy endeavours, the books of Ezra and Esdras plainly witness: how that not only he and the people of God were sore molested with foreign adversaries, (whereof some maliciously warred against them, and corrupted the king’s officers, and others craftily practiced under pretence of religion) but also at home with domestic enemies, as false prophets, crafty worldlings, faint-hearted soldiers, and oppressors of their brethren, who as well by false doctrine and lies, as by subtle counsel, cowardice, and extortion, discouraged the hearts almost of all: so that the Lord’s work was not only interrupted and left off for a long time, but scarcely at the length with great labour and danger after a sort brought to pass.

3.1 Which thing, when we weigh aright, and consider earnestly how much greater charge God hath laid upon you in making you a builder of his spiritual Temple, we cannot but partly fear, knowing the craft and force of Satan, our spiritual enemy, and the weakness and inability of this our nature: and partly be fervent in our prayers toward God that he would bring to perfection this noble work which he hath begun by you:

3.2  and therefore we endeavour ourselves by all means to aid, and to bestow our whole force under your grace’s standard [to rally all our forces under your grace’s flag], [you] whom God hath made as our Zerubbabel for the erecting of this most excellent Temple, and to plant and maintain his holy word to the advancement of his glory, for your own honour and salvation of your soul, and for the singular comfort [strengthening/ encouragement] of that great flock which Christ Jesus the great shepherd hath bought with his precious blood, and committed unto your charge to be fed both in body and soul.

4.1 Considering therefore how many enemies there are, which by one means or another, as the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin went about to stay the building of that Temple, so labour to hinder the course of this building [work of building] (whereof some are Papists, who under pretence of favouring God’s word, traitorously seek to erect idolatry and to destroy your majesty: some are worldlings who, as Demas, have forsaken Christ for the love of this world: others are ambitious prelates, who, as Amasah and Diotrephes can abide none but themselves; and as Demetrious, many practice sedition to maintain their errors), we persuaded ourselves that there was no way so expedient and necessary for the preservation of the one, and destruction of the other, as to present unto your Majesty the holy Scriptures faithfully and plainly translated according to the languages wherein they were first written by the holy Ghost.

4.2 For the word of God is an evident token of God’s love and our assurance of his defence, wheresoever it is obediently received: it is the trial of the spirits, and as the Prophet saith, It is as a fire and hammer to break the stony hearts of them that resist God’s mercies (1) offered by the preaching of the same. Yea it is sharper than any two edged sword to examine the very thoughts and to judge the affections of the heart, and to discover [reveal] whatsoever lieth hid under hypocrisy and would be secret from the face of God and his Church. So that this must be the first foundation and groundwork, according whereunto the good stones of this building must be framed, and the evil tried out and rejected.

5.1 Now as he that goeth about to lay a foundation surely, first taketh away such impediments as might justly either hurt, let [hinder], or deform the work, so is it necessary that your grace’s zeal appear herein, [so] that neither the crafty persuasion of man, neither worldly policy, or natural fear, dissuade you to root out, cut down, and destroy these weeds and impediments, which do not only deface your building, but utterly endeavour, yea and threaten the ruin thereof.

5.2 For when the noble Josiah enterprised the like kind of work, among other notable and many things he destroyed, not only with utter confusion the idols with their appurtenances, but also burnt (in sign of detestation) the idolatrous priest’s bones upon their altars, and put to death the false prophets and sorcerers, to perform the words of the law of God: and therefore the Lord gave him good success, and blessed him wonderfully, so long as he made God’s word his line and rule to follow, and enterprised nothing before he had inquired at the mouth of the Lord.

6 And if these zealous beginnings seem dangerous and to breed disquietness in your dominions, yet by the story of King Asa it is manifest that the quietness and peace of kingdoms standeth in the utter abolishing of idolatry, and in advancing of true religion. For in his days, Judah lived in rest and quietness for the space of five and thirty years, till at length he began to be cold in the zeal of the Lord, feared the power of man, imprisoned the Prophet of God, and oppressed the people: then the Lord sent him wars, and at length took him away by death.

7 Wherefore great wisdom, not worldly, but heavenly, is here required, which your grace must earnestly crave of the Lord, as did Solomon, to whom God gave an understanding heart to judge his people aright, and to discern between good and bad. For if God for the furnishing of the old temple gave the Spirit of wisdom and understanding to them that should be the workmen thereof, as to Bezaleel, Aholiab, and Hiram, how much more will he endue your grace and other godly princes and chief governors with a principal Spirit, that you may procure and command things necessary for this most holy Temple, foresee and take heed of things that might hinder it, and abolish and destroy whatsoever might impair and overthrow the same?

8.1 Moreover, the marvelous diligence and zeal of Jehosaphat, Josiah, and Hezekiah, are by the singular providence of God left as an example to all godly rulers, to reform their countries and to establish the word of God with all speed, lest the wrath of the Lord fall upon them for the neglecting thereof. For these excellent Kings did not only embrace the word promptly and joyfully, but also procured earnestly [took earnest measures] and commanded the same to be taught, preached, and maintained through all their countries and dominions, binding them and all their subjects both great and small with solemn protestations [public declarations] and covenants before God to obey the word, and to walk after the ways of the Lord.

8.2 Yea and in the days of serving Asa it was enacted that whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be slain, whether he were small or great, man or woman. And for the establishing hereof and performance of this solemn oath, as well Priests as Judges were appointed and placed through all the cities of Judah to instruct the people in the true knowledge and fear of God, and to minister justice according to the word,(2) knowing that, except God by his word did reign in the hearts and souls, all man’s diligence and endeavours were [would be] of none effect. For without this word we cannot discern between justice and injury, protection and oppression, wisdom and foolishness, knowledge and ignorance, good and evil.

8.3 Therefore the Lord, who is the chief governor of his Church, willeth that nothing be attempted before we have enquired thereof at his mouth. For seeing he is our God, of duty we must give him this pre-eminence, [so] that of ourselves we enterprise nothing but that which he hath appointed, who only knoweth all things, and governeth them as may best serve to his glory and our salvation. We ought not therefore to prevent [go before] him, or do anything without his word, but as soon as he hath revealed his will, immediately to put it in execution.

9.1 Now as concerning the manner [design] of this building, it is not according to man, nor after the wisdom of the flesh, but of the Spirit, and according to the word of God, whose ways are divers from man’s ways. For if it was not lawful for Moses to build the material [earthly] Tabernacle after any other sort than God had showed him by a pattern, neither to prescribe any other ceremonies and laws than such as the Lord had expressly commanded, how can it be lawful to proceed in this spiritual building any other ways, than Jesus Christ the Son of God, who is both the foundation, head, and chief corner stone thereof, hath commanded by his word? And forasmuch as he hath established and left an order in his Church for the building up of his body, appointing some to be Apostles, some Prophets, others Evangelists, some pastors and teachers, he signifieth that everyone according as he is placed in this body which is the Church, ought to enquire of his ministers concerning the will of the Lord, which is revealed in his word. For they are, saith Jeremiah, as the mouth of the Lord: yea, he promiseth to be with their mouth, and that their lips shall keep knowledge, and that the truth and the law shall be in their mouths.

9.2 For it is their office chiefly to understand the Scriptures and teach them. For this cause the people of Israel in matters of difficulty used to ask the Lord either by the Prophets, or by the means of the high Priest, who bare Urim and Thummin, which were tokens of light and knowledge, of holiness and perfection, which should be in the high Priest. Therefore when Jehosaphat took this order in the Church of Israel, he appointed Amariah to be the chief concerning the word of God, because he was most expert in the law of the Lord, and could give counsel and govern according unto the same. Else there is no degree or office which may have that authority and privilege to decide concerning God’s word, except withal he hath the Spirit of God, and sufficient knowledge and judgement to define [make a precise statement] according thereunto. And as everyone is endued by God with greater gifts, so ought he to be herein chiefly heard, or at least that without the express word, none be heard, for he that hath not the word, speaketh not by the mouth of the Lord. Again, what danger it is to do anything, seem it never so godly or necessary, without consulting with God’s mouth, the examples of the Israelites, deceived hereby through the Gibeonites: and of Saul, whose intention seemed good and necessary: and of Josiah also, who for great considerations was moved for the defence of true religion and his people, to fight against Pharoah Necho King of Egypt, may sufficiently admonish us.

10.1 Last of all (most gracious Queen) for the advancement of this building and rearing up of the work, two things are necessary.

10.2 First, that we have a [illegible] and steadfast faith in Christ Jesus, who must dwell in our hearts, as the only means and assurance of our salvation: for he is the ladder that reacheth from the earth to heaven: he lifteth up his Church and setteth  it in the heavenly places: he maketh us lively [living] stones and buildeth us upon himself: he joineth us to himself as the members and body to the head. Yea, he maketh himself and his Church one Christ.

10.3 The next is, that our faith bring forth good fruits, so that our godly conversation [manner of life] may serve as a witness to confirm our election, and be an example to all others to walk as appertaineth to the vocation [calling] whereunto they are called, lest the word of God be evil spoken of, and this building be stayed [delayed] to grow up to a just height,(3) which cannot be without the great provocation of God’s just vengeance and discouraging of many thousands through all the world, if they should see that our life were not holy and agreeable to our profession.

10.4 For the eyes of all that fear God in all places behold your countries as an example to all that believe, and the prayers of all the godly at all times are directed to God for the preservation of your majesty. For considering God’s wonderful mercies toward you at all seasons, who hath pulled you out of the mouth of the lions, and how that from your youth you have been brought up in the holy Scriptures, the hope of all men is so increased, that they cannot but look that God should bring to pass some wonderful work by your grace to the universal comfort of his Church. Therefore even above strength, you must show yourself strong and bold in God’s matters: and though Satan lay all his power and craft together to hurt and hinder the Lord’s building, yet be you assured that God will fight from heaven against this great dragon, the ancient serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, till he have accomplished the whole work and made his Church glorious to himself, without spot or wrinkle.(4)

10.5 For albeit all other kingdoms and monarchies, as the Babylonians, Persians, Grecians, and Romans have fallen and taken end, yet the Church of Christ even under the Cross hath from the beginning of the world been victorious, and shall be everlastingly. Truth it is, that sometime it seemeth to be shadowed with a cloud, or driven with a stormy perfection [sic; persecution?], yet suddenly the beams of Christ the sun of justice shine and bring it to light and liberty. If for a time it be covered with ashes, yet it is quickly kindled again by the wind of God’s Spirit: though it seem drowned in the sea, or parched and pined in the wilderness, yet God giveth ever good success. For he punisheth the enemies, and delivereth his, nourisheth them and still preserveth them under his wings.

10.6 This Lord of lords and King of kings who hath ever defended his, strengthen, comfort, and preserve your majesty, [so] that you may be able to build up the ruins of God’s house to his glory, the discharge of your conscience, and to the comfort of all them that love the coming of Christ Jesus our Lord.

From Geneva. 10.April.1560.

**********

Notes:

(1) Para 4.2 There are two teachings here about God’s word which, coupled with what is missing, indicate a distorted understanding and a lack of true Christian knowledge. One is the idea that God’s word is but a “token of his love.” The other is that it is a “hammer.” What is missing is the understanding that the preaching of the Word, who is Jesus, is a preaching of mercy and forgiveness for salvation, in the power of the Holy Spirit. This explains many changes the Puritans made to the New Testament. See for example my post about 1 Peter 13 and also Psalm 23.

(2) Para 8.2 This is a veiled reference to appointing Puritan ministers and officials in secular and Church offices throughout the country, with effective judicial and executive control over civic and Church affairs, so they could run the country according to “God’s laws.”

(3)(4) Para 10.3 and 10.4 These passages express the Puritan postmillennial vision for the Church. This was the zeal that (in part) fuelled the Puritan revolt and murder of King Charles I in England in 1649. They believed that after they slew all who stood in the way of building the Church, whether “great or small,” the Church would grow to a glorious perfection according to the Geneva model. However, their dreams were dashed quite quickly, when the throne was restored to Charles II in 1661.

It seems to me that Puritan history and the English revolution, in which over 200,000 people lost their lives, is often misunderstood by the evangelical Church today, or painted with a false rosy hue. But a sense of the early Puritan spirit, and their willingness to take up the sword to build their Church, can easily be gained from this dedication. King James’ misgivings about the Geneva Bible were prophetic: Charles, whom the Puritan revolutionaries beheaded, was his own son.

Puritans, Democrats, and Revolutions

Posted on by Posted in Geneva

Part 1 of The Story of the Matthew Bible was about the non-revolutionary Reformation and its peaceful soldiers, William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, and the men who fought for the word of God. Those men did not fight with violence, but only suffered violence. They helped build the Church of England, and were a small group.

But now, for Part 2 of The Story I have been researching the revolutionary Reformers, who sought from the very beginning to tear down the CofE. These were the Puritans, a large group. Religious zeal caused them to build an army and go to war violently to “complete the Reformation,” and to establish the kingdom of Christ with a Church built on the Geneva model. I have traced their writings and manifestos from their exile in Frankfort and Geneva in 1553, when Queen Mary came to the throne, to their revolution in the next century, in which there were over 200,000 war-related deaths. The Puritan Oliver Cromwell, known as “General of the Parliament,” beheaded his king. Peaceful he was not.

I’ve noticed that many modern writers sentimentalize or even justify the Puritan revolution. This is dangerous and irresponsible. I’ll have to wait for Part 2 of The Story to share more (which I’d rather not share) about the intrigue, false trials, and evils of the whole miserable affair. One historian observed in this context:

It may be open to doubt whether the arbitrament of force is morally much worse than the arbitrament of factious strife, with the malignity, the trickery, the lying, and the corruption which it involves. (1)

Comparison with situation in the USA

What has this to do with the Democrats? I keep seeing parallels between the Puritan revolt and the present Democratic revolt in the USA. “Rome, Rome!” was the battle cry against King Charles. “Russia, Russia!” is the cry against President Trump. These are both false appearances, which stir up fear, outrage, and fanaticism.

Please note, I do not deny the evils of Rome. Anyone who read Part 1 of The Story knows that. But I reject how the Puritans incited people to rage through a fiction that the Church of England, which Thomas Cranmer built and died for, was the shadow of Rome. Rome killed Cranmer, but the Puritans would have us believe he was a Roman lackey who left “Romish dregs” in the liturgy. (Some people reading this will still believe it, as I myself once did; that’s the Puritan legacy.) Anyway, this “Rome, Rome!” business is similar to the Democrat fiction that Trump is a lackey of Russia.

I suppose every revolution has the same ingredients, just with different flavours. To compare them is an eye-opener. It reveals the same tactics:

Ingredients of a revolution Puritan flavourDemocratic flavour
First war cry:Rome, Rome!Russia, Russia!
Second war cry:Papist, papist!Racist, racist!
Third war cry:Tyrant!White supremacist!
Accusation:TreasonTreason
Leader to depose:King Charles IPresident Trump
Take down of chief aides:Strafford and Laud executedCohen and others imprisoned
Popular supporters labelled: Delinquents (Royalists)Deplorables (Trump voters)
Note: Puritan leaders labelled people who supported the king as “Delinquents,” and the rogue parliament passed laws to confiscate their estates and property.

 

Ingredients Puritan flavourDemocratic flavour
Objects of righteous wrath:Ceremonies and liturgyBorder walls and immigration law
Political machinery:Rogue parliamentMueller commission
Popular preachers: Puritans in the pulpits of the ChurchLeftists in television and radio pulpits
Note: Oliver Cromwell paid ministers to preach against bishops and the Prayer book liturgy. Who is paying media personalities to preach against Trump?

 

Personal exposé and slander:Puritan: King’s private letters to his wife published as “King’s Cabinet Opened.”Democrat: Private tapes, Stormy Daniels, and fake dossiers.
Note: After Cromwell’s army captured the king, they found his personal papers, which they published in newspapers under the title “King’s Cabinet Opened.” They deceptively made his natural efforts to find foreign help look like treason. Trump’s natural business ventures are being made to look like treason.

 

Evil holiday:Puritan: Christmas (too pagan)Democrat: Christmas (too Christian)
Note: Under Puritan rule, the celebration of “Christ-Mass” was made illegal. The emphasis was on the “Mass.” Many Democrats today also object to Christmas, with emphasis on the “Christ.” Anti-Christian regimes suppress Christmas (Communism, Islam).

The spirit of revolution disregards moral and civil obligations

These are not the tactics of peacemakers, nor of men who fight only with the sword of truth. Historian David Hume (History of Great Britain) observed the state of affairs in the country before the Puritans finally toppled the government of King Charles:

The distempered imaginations of men were agitated with a continual dread of popery, with a horror against prelacy, with an antipathy to ceremonies and liturgy, and with a violent affection for whatever was most opposite to these objects of aversion. The fanatical spirit, let loose, confounded all regard to ease, safety, interest, and dissolved every moral and civil obligation. (2)

Change a few words, and see how this fits today:

The distempered imaginations of men are agitated with a continual dread of Trump, with a horror against white supremacists, with an antipathy to border walls and immigration laws, and with a violent affection for whatever is most opposite to these objects of aversion. The fanatical spirit, let loose, has confounded all regard to ease, safety, interest, and dissolved every moral and civil obligation.

We see all this in the US today. The Puritan parliament confiscated the property of Delinquents, but the Dems have to be content with refusing restaurant service to Deplorables. What would happen if they had all the power they wanted?

The same spirit is behind all this: the prince of this world, the father of lies. He wants to divide, to make war and unrest. His leaven is pious-sounding falsehood, and by it he deceives the simple. It is certain that none of this is the work of the Holy Spirit.

The true Reformation was law-abiding

The true English Reformation, which began under King Henry and was completed under his son Edward, was not accomplished through revolution – unless we call it a spiritual revolution. The soldiers fought with prayer and hard work, in weakness. There was no army, no uprising to depose the secular powers. To be sure, there was upheaval. But, as Luther was fond of saying, the word of God is the only sword Christians may lawfully use to effect change. That, and the lawful work of men whom God placed in King Henry’s court at just the right time, brought about the true Reformation.

The period of the rebel Puritan rule in England is known as the Commonwealth or Interregnum. ‘Interregnum’ is a Latin word that means temporary rule during a suspension of the usual government. During the Interregnum, religious coercion – or freedom, as the Puritans called it – was severe, and so people turned against them. They went down, and the fickle people welcomed Charles’ son back with delirious joy, happy to have a king again.

Ruth Magnusson Davis, December 2018.

~~~~~~

Check out The Story of the Matthew Bible and our other books on our new shopping page: https://baruchhousepublishing.com/book-store/

More information about the Puritan war on the Church of England and their rejection of the Reformation under Kings Henry VIII and King Edward VI is here: https://newmatthewbible.org/The-Puritan-Rejection-of-the-Tyndale-Matthew-Bible.pdf

Note (1) Quotation is from Goldwin Smith, D.C.L., The United Kingdom: Political History, Vol. I (Toronto: The Copp, Clark Company, 1899), page 530.

Note (2) Quotation is from David Hume, Esq., The History of England, Stereotype edition in ten volumes, Vol. VII (London: A. Wilson, 1810), page 373.

 

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God (Matthew 5:9)

Tyndale: Don’t Tamper with My Translation and Call It a “Diligent Correction”

Posted on by Posted in History MB

Tyndale was a humble man. He always wanted to do better and he welcomed sound criticism. But he had a message for men who took his translations, changed them, and then promoted their work as a “diligent correction.” With a moment’s thought, we will realize that this would in any event be the height of effrontery. But when it came to God’s word, which Tyndale loved as gold, and over which he laboured painstakingly to make true and faithful, he had every right to be indignant.

There were a few offenders, but here we’ll see two.

George Joye

George Joye was a scholar who had an interest in bible translation. He was working as a proofreader and corrector for a printer in Antwerp who happened to be working on a new edition of Tyndale’s New Testament.  Without Tyndale’s knowledge or consent, Joye revised  the text. In particular, he changed the word ‘resurrection,’ because he had his own unique ideas about it. At the close of the book was the statement:

Here endeth the new Testament diligently ouersene and corrected, and prynted now agayn at Antwerpe … In the yere of oure Lord m.cccc. and xxxiiij. in August.[1]

Tyndale complained:

[Some]one brought me a copy and shewed me so many places, in such wise altered, that I was astonished and wondered not a little what fury had driven him to make such change and to call it a diligent correction. For throughout Matthew, Mark and Luke perpetually: and oft in the Acts, and sometimes in John and also in Hebrews, where he findeth this word ‘resurrection,’ he changeth it into ‘the life after this life,’ or ‘very life,’ and such like, as one that abhorred the name of the resurrection. …[2]

The Geneva Bible

The Geneva Bible was the work of Puritans living in Geneva during the Marian exile, after Tyndale’s death. They first revised Tyndale’s New Testament in 1557, and then the whole Bible in 1560. In their preface they claimed, among other things, to have received a new revelation of light from God. Further, though Coverdale and Tyndale were of the same generation, they characterized their work as “from the infancy of those times” and as needing greatly to be “perused and reformed” – that is, reviewed and corrected by them:

Preface, 1560 Geneva Bible: We thought that we should bestow our labours and study in nothing which could be more acceptable to God and conformable to his Church than in the translating of the Holy Scriptures into our native tongue; the which thing, albeit that divers heretofore have endeavoured to achieve [i.e. Tyndale and Coverdale], yet considering the infancy of those times and imperfect knowledge of the tongues, in respect of this ripe age and clear light which God hath now revealed, the translations required greatly to be perused and reformed.[3]

They then went on to revise the Scriptures and promote it as a corrected Bible.

Tyndale: Play fair

Tyndale protested that if men want to make a Bible, they should translate it themselves. That is fair game. But it is not right to take another man’s work and present it as a correction:

It is lawful for who will to translate and show his mind, though a thousand had translated before him. But it is not lawful (thinketh me) nor yet expedient for the edifying of the unity of the faith of Christ, that whosoever desires should by his own authority take another man’s translation, and put out and in, and change at pleasure, and call it a correction.[4]

Many are the difficulties caused by proceeding like this, aside from the offence to the original author. But for Tyndale, the greatest risk was falsifying God’s word. If the text itself is “corrected” to support a false opinion of the “corrector,” there is no way for the sheep to find the truth:

If the text is left uncorrupted, it will purge herself of all manner false glosses, however subtly they be feigned, as a seething pot casteth up her scum. But if the false gloss is made [to be] the text “diligently overseen and corrected”, how then shall we correct false doctrine and defend Christ’s flock from false opinions ?[5]

Don’t touch my translations, he said. Leave them alone. Or if they must steal and change it, call it their own, and put their own names to it, and leave him out of it.

But did Tyndale request that his work be corrected?

Four years before the Joye fiasco, Tyndale wrote words that have been misused to justify later revisions. He said in the preface to his 1530 Pentateuch,

Notwithstanding yet I submit this book, and all others that I have either made or translated, or shall in time to come (if it be God’s will that I shall further labour in his harvest), to all who submit themselves to the word of God, to be corrected of [by] them, yea and moreover to be disallowed and also burnt, if it seem worthy when they have examined it with the Hebrew, so that [provided] they first put forth of their own translating another that is more correct.[6]

People have seized on these words to argue that Tyndale would have welcomed the Geneva and KJV “corrections.” But this overlooks his last sentence. Let them correct as they will, he says, but by means of their own translation – and, furthermore, don’t cast his aside until theirs is done. So, Tyndale did not want men tampering with his work.

The silver lining

Truth be told, there are only two true “diligent corrections” of Tyndale’s New Testament. Those are the two he performed himself, one in 1534 and the other in 1535. However, it was no doubt in the providence of God that Tyndale’s work furnished the base of the major English Bibles. Computer studies have shown that over 83% of the KJV New Testament is straight Tyndale. We may thank the Lord for not answering Tyndale’s prayer, however much we know that he would regret many of the changes made. His voice was largely preserved, especially in the New Testament, and has been greatly used by the Holy Spirit.

However, it cannot be said that Tyndale wanted his work to be corrected this way.

 

To learn about Tyndale’s work with the Scriptures, and his friendship with Myles Coverdale and John Rogers, which led to the making of the Matthew Bible, read our new book, The Story of the Matthew Bible.

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, October 2018

Endnotes:

[1] Herbert’s Catalogue of Printed Bibles, page 6.

[2] 2nd foreword to Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament, modern spelling edition by David Daniell, page 13.

[3] Preface to the 1560 Geneva Bible. Reproduced in 1599 Geneva Bible, modern spelling Tolle Lege edition, beginning at p. xxvii.

[4] Tyndale, 2nd foreword, 1534, pages 13-14.

[5] Ibid, page 14.

[6] Tyndale, “W.T. to the Reader,” 1530 Pentateuch, David Daniell’s modern spelling edition, pages 5-6.

Obsolete English and punctuation may be silently updated in quotations from the early 16th century.

Recognizing Evil(1) Proverb 11:23, Evil Disquiets

Posted on by Posted in Proverbs
By R. M. Davis, October 2018

Their ways are so crooked, that whosoever walks therein, knows nothing of peace — Isaiah 59:8, Matthew Bible

Certain proverbs in the Matthew Bible stand out for their practical value. In this short series I want to look at some that distinguish the behaviors and attitudes of good and bad people – what they do, how they treat others, and what motivates them. This instruction assists us to judge the people we meet and to walk wisely in the world. The proverbs were meant to teach practical wisdom and prudence (Proverbs 1:2-3), and such teaching is part of it. These proverbs are Myles Coverdale’s translations from his 1535 Bible, which John Rogers then incorporated in the 1537 Matthew Bible.

But Coverdale’s lessons were soon lost when the Matthew Bible came under red pens. Here is a look at what happened.

Background

Since this is the first post of the series, I’ll give a little history here.

After the Matthew Bible was published in 1537, it was revised by Coverdale himself for the 1539 Great Bible. The chief purpose was to appease the Roman Catholics, who preferred the Latin Bible translated by St. Jerome. Coverdale restored many renderings of the Latin Bible. He also bowed to pressure to be more “literal.”

Then came the 1560 Geneva Bible. It was a wholesale re-write of Tyndale’s New Testament and the Old Testament of the Great Bible, by English Puritans living in Geneva. Their revision was characterized by a great leap to grammatical literalism. Also, sometimes they followed the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from the 2nd century BC, where Tyndale and Coverdale had followed the Hebrew text — or vice-versa.

The Bishops’ Bible and the KJV were further, incremental revisions of the Scriptures we first received from Tyndale and Coverdale. The KJV followed the Geneva Bible quite closely, though computer studies show that the KJV New Testament is still 83% straight Tyndale from the Matthew Bible.

Literalism, the Latin Bible, following the Septuagint, or a simple preference for the familiar “old wine” of traditional doctrine, are only some of the influences that might account for some of the revisions to the proverbs that we will see in this series.

My intention is not to try to prove the Matthew Bible right and others wrong (though I unabashedly love the Matthew Bible). Even if I had a PhD in Biblical Hebrew, it would be a vain effort. Too much is ambiguous, too much lost in the mists of time, too much a matter of interpretation. I may point out problems I see with clarity, semantics, and so forth, but I know there is always room for disagreement.

Coverdale’s sources

Where did Coverdale get his translations? Who or what were his sources for his 1535 Bible? From his preface:

To help me herein, I have had sundry translations, not only in Latin, but also of the German interpreters [translators], whom, because of their singular gifts and special diligence in the Bible, I have been the more glad to follow for the most part, according as I was required [requested].

The most important influences were the German translators, Martin Luther and the Zurich Reformers. As to the Latin, Coverdale had Jerome and Pagninus. Also, while he was working on his Old Testament in Antwerp, he regularly met and consulted with that master linguist, William Tyndale. Tyndale could not be mentioned, however, because he was a banned author in England. I understand also that the Reformers often consulted with Jewish Old Testament scholars.

Proverb 11:23

Let us see now Proverb 11:23 in the MB, being Coverdale’s original translation. From it, we learn that just people desire and labour for peace and tranquility. However, ungodly people pursue “disquietness.” They may sow disquietness in a house, office, church, or society at large, but it struck me how relevant this is to what is happening nationally now in the USA, especially with opposition and media agitations to undermine duly elected authority.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines disquietness as “the quality or state of being disquiet; want of quiet; unrest; disturbance.” The OED sample quotations speak of disquietness in home or nation (“realm”). Do you see persons or groups who agitate for unrest, disturbance, insurrection? Who deliberately upset others? Understand: they are unjust, they are motivated by evil. Understand, and govern yourself accordingly. But only Coverdale gives that lesson here:

Proverbs 11:23

Wycliffe 1380 (From the Latin): The desire of just men is all good; (but the) abiding of wicked men is strong vengeance.

Coverdale 1535 and the Matthew Bible: The just labour for peace and tranquility, but the ungodly for disquietness.

Great Bible 1540:  The desire of the righteous is acceptable, but the hope of the ungodly is indignation.

Geneva Bible (1560 & 1599): The desire of the righteous is only good: but the hope of the wicked *is indignation.

(Geneva note: *They can look for nothing but God’s vengeance.)

KJV: The desire of the righteous is only good: but the expectation of the wicked is wrath.

NIV: The desire of the righteous ends only in good, but the hope of the wicked only in wrath.

ESV: The desire of the righteous ends only in good, the expectation of the wicked in wrath.

Wycliffe translated from the Latin Bible. In the Great Bible, we see a taste of its “old wine,” when Coverdale revised his own translation to follow the Latin Bible more closely. Coverdale’s “new wine” in 1535, his original translation, was the lesson that just people work for peace; they desire tranquility. Of course, they will not be perfect. But the thrust of their desire and deeds is for and toward this good. On the other hand, ungodly people want and work for disquietness. It is not just that they sometimes find themselves in the midst of an upset, get caught up in an argument, or are sorry because they said the wrong thing in a moment of anger. No. They intentionally labour to disturb. The idea is that very evil people will demonstrate a pattern of upsetting and disquieting, and this is deliberate.

However, it can be difficult to perceive and understand the purposeful nature of this evil. Perhaps most of us have difficulty recognizing it for what it is, even if the signs are manifest. Evil-doers are manipulative. They hide their purpose behind charm and falsehood. They divide and confuse with flattery and accusation, with fair words and foul. They posture, promise, and slander, mislead and deceive. In the case of personal abuse, a perpetrator shows one face to his victims and another to the world. In political insurrection, revolutionaries sow divisive rhetoric along with utopian lies. But this we must understand: despite the pious pretences, despite the show, where this pattern is, there is evil intent. And where evil has its way, there will be suffering.

This is a truly important teaching, but is rarely adequately addressed, so at the end of this article I give some resources that develop this and related topics.

Translation issues

There are many issues of translation that suggest themselves. I review several in a longer paper posted on Academia.edu, linked below, touching on such issues as loss of antithesis in some of the versions, why the KJV changed ‘hope’ to ‘expectation,’ etc. For this post, I just want to make a note on the verbs.

In Proverb 11:23, in the Hebrew text, there is no verb. In some contexts, Hebrew does not use linking verbs (‘is,’ ‘seem,’ etc.). If such is to be understood, it may be derived from word order. This was obviously suggested to the early translators who used ‘is.’ However, Coverdale in 1535, and the modern translators, understood a sense of movement or direction toward an end – albeit different ends – which they expressed by action verbs:

Coverdale (1535) and Matthew Bible: The just labour for peace and tranquility, but the ungodly for disquietness.

NIV: The desire of the righteous ends only in good, but the hope of the wicked only in wrath.

In expressing the sense of working toward the desired object, Coverdale drew out a primary meaning of the English word ‘desire’:

Oxford English Dictionary, ‘Desire’: that feeling or emotion which is directed to the attainment or possession of some object from which pleasure or satisfaction is expected.

So then, from this proverb in the Matthew Bible we learn that just people find their pleasure and satisfaction in peace and tranquillity. They therefore desire it, and will labour for their desire. However, we need to understand that there are people who find their pleasure and satisfaction in disquietness, and direct themselves to that end.

__________________________

Notes

(1) Quotations from modern Bibles are from BibleGateway.  For Wycliffe’s Old Testament, I use Terry Noble’s modern spelling edition.

(2) The Puritans were themselves agitators. See The Puritan Rejection of the Tyndale/Matthew Bible

(3) Read The Story of the Matthew Bible  for the fascinating history of this unknown Bible which formed the base of the KJV.

(4) If anyone is interested, I examined some translation issues in greater depth in this paper:

https://www.academia.edu/37597512/Recognizing_Evil_Proverb_11_23_-_Evil_Disquiets

_________________

Resources

Pastor Jeff Crippen has developed a sermon series that examines evil in practice from a Christian perspective. His focus is abuse in the home or in the church, but he points out that evil operates essentially the same way everywhere. He uses a modern Bible that I don’t like, but the teaching is edifying:  Link to Sermon series

 

 

Thomas Cranmer’s Homily on Holy Communion

Posted on by Posted in MB

This is Cranmer’s homily on common prayer and the sacraments, first published in the mid 1550s, and now gently updated. Article 35 of the Articles of Religion requires this homily (along with others) to be read regularly in the churches — “diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.” However this is not done today.

From the Homilies on Common Prayer and Sacraments and the Worthy Receiving of the Sacrament

By Thomas Cranmer

Dear Christians: Among the many exercises of God’s people, none are more necessary than public prayer and the proper use of the Sacraments.

On prayer

In prayer we ask from God all such things as we cannot otherwise obtain.  In the Sacraments, God embraces us and offers Himself to be embraced by us.  Let us consider what prayer is and what a Sacrament is.

Saint Augustine teaches that prayer is the devotion of the mind; that is to say, returning to God through a godly and humble affection, inclining the mind towards God.  As for the Sacraments, he calls them “holy signs.” Writing about the baptism of infants, he says, “If Sacraments had not a certain likeness to those things whereof they are Sacraments, they would be no Sacraments at all.” From this likeness they receive for the most part the names of the things they signify.  By these words Saint Augustine allows the common description of a Sacrament: that it is a visible sign of an invisible grace, which sets before the eyes and outward senses the inward working of God’s free mercy, and seals in our hearts the promises of God.

As to prayer, in the Scriptures we read of three sorts. Two are private, the third is common [that is, shared by the congregation].

The first sort of private prayer Saint Paul speaks of in his first epistle to Timothy: “I will that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands without wrath or striving.”  It is the devout lifting up of the mind to God without speaking aloud the heart’s grief or desire.  We have examples of this: Anna, the mother of Samuel, in the heaviness of her heart, prayed in the temple, desiring to be fruitful.  She prayed in her heart; no voice was heard.  This way must all Christians pray…as Saint Paul writes to the Thessalonians, “without ceasing.”  Saint James writes, “The continual prayer of a just man is of much force,” or is very effective.

The second sort of prayer Jesus taught in the Gospel of Matthew: “When you pray, enter into your secret closet, and when you have shut the door, pray to your Father in secret, and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.” Cornelius, a devout man, said to Peter that when he was in his house in prayer at the ninth hour, there appeared to him one in a white garment.  This man prayed to God in secret and was rewarded openly.  So the first form of private prayer is mental, the other vocal.

The third form of prayer is public, or common.  Our Saviour Christ speaks of this prayer when he says, “If two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” By the histories of the Bible it appears that common prayer avails greatly before God, and must be esteemed among us who profess to be one body in Christ.

When the city of Nineveh was threatened to be destroyed within forty days, the Prince and the people joined themselves together in public prayer and fasting and were preserved.  In the prophet Joel, God commanded a fast to be proclaimed, and the people to say with one voice: “Spare us, O Lord, spare thy people, and let not thine inheritance be brought to confusion.”…When Peter was in prison, the congregation joined themselves together in common prayer, and Peter was wonderfully delivered.  Common or public prayer is of great force to obtain mercy and deliverance at our heavenly Father’s hand.

I beseech you, brethren, even for the tender mercies of God, let us be no longer negligent in this behalf: but as the people willing to receive at God’s hand such good things as in the common prayer are asked, let us join ourselves together, and with one voice and one heart ask all these things of our heavenly Father.

On the Sacraments

Turning to the Sacraments, you will hear how many there are, instituted by our Saviour Christ, to be continued and received by every Christian in due time and order, for the purpose our Saviour willed them to be received.  As for the number of those which should be considered according to the precise sense of a Sacrament – namely as visible signs, expressly commanded in the New Testament, which are joined with the promise of free forgiveness of our sin and of our holiness and union in Christ – there are but two: Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

For although Absolution [Penance] has the promise of the forgiveness of sin, the promise is not joined with the visible sign, which is the laying on of hands.  For this visible sign is not expressly commanded in the New Testament to be in absolution, like the visible signs are in Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Therefore Absolution, lacking the visible sign, is not a Sacrament like Baptism and Communion are.  And the ordering of Ministers lacks the promise of the remission of sin.  Therefore neither it nor similar things are sacraments in the same sense as Baptism and Holy Communion.

In a general sense, a sacrament may be anything by which a holy thing is signified.  The ancient writers gave the name “sacrament” not only to the seven Sacraments but also to other ceremonies, such as the oil, washing of feet, and the like, not meaning them to have the same significance as the first two named.  Saint Augustine, weighing the true significance and meaning of the word, affirms that the most excellent Sacraments of the Christians are few in number, and makes mention expressly of two: The Sacrament of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.  Although by the order of the Church of England there are certain other rites and ceremonies— the institution of Ministers in the Church, Matrimony, Confirmation of children, and likewise for the Visitation of the Sick – yet no man ought to take these as Sacraments like Baptism and Holy Communion.  They are godly states of life, necessary in Christ’s Church, and therefore worthy to be set forth by public action and solemnity through the ministry of the Church; or for the instruction, comfort, and edification of Christ’s Church.

On the use of a known tongue (language)

Now let us see if the Scriptures or examples of the primitive Church allow any spoken private or public prayer, or any manner of Sacrament or other public rite, in an unknown tongue [or language], which is not understood by the Minister and people. To this we must answer, no.

As for Common prayer and the administration of the Sacraments, reason, if it ruled, would soon persuade us to have these in a known tongue. To pray commonly means that the people are asking one and the same thing, with one voice and agreement of mind.  But we do not need to flee to reasons and proofs.  We have both the plain and manifest words of Scripture and also the consent of the most learned and ancient writers.

St Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “Let all things be done for edifying” [that is, for instruction and building up in understanding].  This cannot be done without prayers and administration of Sacraments in the language known by the people. When the trumpet blown in the field gives an uncertain sound, no man can tell what is piped.  When prayers are in a language unknown to the hearers, who will be stirred to lift up his mind to God?  Who in the administration of the sacraments will understand what invisible grace is to be wrought in the inner man?  Saint Paul says, “He who speaks in a tongue unknown will be to the hearer a stranger and foreigner.” This, in a Christian congregation, is a great absurdity.  For we are not strangers one to another, but citizens with the Saints, and of the household of God.

From the time of Christ until Rome began to spread itself and impose on the nations of Europe the Roman language, there was no strange or unknown tongue used in the congregations.  St Justin Martyr, who lived 160 years after Christ, said of the administration of the Lord’s Supper in his time, “The head minister offers prayers and thanksgiving with all his power, and the people answer, Amen.”  These words plainly declare that not only were the Scriptures read in a known language, but also that prayer was made in the same.  Saint Ambrose says, “If you speak the praise of God in a tongue unknown to the hearers, there is no profit.”  Nothing should be done in the church in vain and to no profit.

On the benefits of the Lord’s Supper

[As for the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper], the great love of our Saviour Christ towards mankind appears not only in the dearly bought benefit of our redemption and salvation by his death and passion, but also in that he so kindly provided that this merciful work may be had in remembrance.  As a tender parent, our Lord and Saviour thought it not sufficient to purchase for us his Father’s favour again (which is the deep fountain of all goodness and eternal life) but also wisely devised the ways, [or means of grace,] whereby they might redound to our benefit and profit.

So our loving Saviour has ordained and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his Passion, in the institution of his heavenly supper. In this we all must be guests, not onlookers, but feeding ourselves.  To this his promise beckons: “This is my body which is given for you,” and “This is my blood, which is shed for you.”  So then we must of necessity be partakers of this table.

But Saint Paul says, “He who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks his own condemnation.”  Therefore we must clearly understand that three things are requisite: First, a right and worthy estimation and understanding of this mystery; second, to come in a sure faith; and third, to have newness or pureness of life in order to effectively receive and possess the Sacrament.

We must be sure especially that this supper be ministered as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded to be done, as his holy Apostles used it, and as the good Fathers in the Primitive Church practised it.

Saint Paul blamed the Corinthians for profaning the Lord’s Supper. He demonstrates that ignorance of the thing itself and its true meaning was the cause of their abuse, for they came irreverently, not discerning the Lord’s Body.  What has been the cause of the ruin of God’s religion, but ignorance of it?  Let us try to understand the Lord’s Supper, so that we are not the cause of the decay of God’s worship or of idolatry, so we may more boldly have access, for our comfort.  We need not think that such exact knowledge is required that everyone must be able to discuss all the high points of doctrine. But we must be sure we understand that in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony. It is not just a bare sign. It is not an empty figure of something that is absent. As Scripture says, it is the Table of the Lord, the Bread and Cup of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the Annunciation of his death, and the Communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord, in a marvellous embodiment and realization which, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, is wrought through faith in the souls of the faithful. By it not only do their souls live to eternal life, but they trust confidently to gain for their bodies a resurrection to immortality.

Holy Communion: Union between the body and the head

This result and union which is between the body and the head — that is, the true believers and Christ — the ancient Catholic Fathers both perceived themselves and commended to their people. Some of them were not afraid to call this Supper the “salve of immortality” and “sovereign preservative against death.” Others called it a “deifical Communion” [that is, a communion that is deifying, or makes us to be holy like God]. Others called it the sweet food of the Saviour, and the pledge of eternal health; also the defence of the Faith, the hope of the Resurrection; others still, the food of immortality, the healthful grace and conservation for eternal life, as we find in the writings of St Irenaeus, Origen, St Cyprian, St Athanasius.

All these things both the Holy Scripture and godly men have correctly attributed to this celestial banquet and feast.  If we would remember them, O how they would inflame our hearts to participate in these mysteries… always holding fast and cleaving by faith to the rock from which we derive the sweetness of everlasting salvation.  Here the faithful may see, hear, and know the mercies of God sealed, Christ’s satisfaction for us confirmed, the remission of sin established.  Here they may experience the tranquillity of conscience, the increase of faith, the strengthening of hope, the spreading abroad of brotherly kindness, with many other sundry graces of God.

That faith is a necessary instrument in all these holy ceremonies, we may assure ourselves.  As Saint Paul says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” As the bodily food cannot feed the outward man unless it be truly digested in the stomach, no more can the inward man be fed unless his food be received into his soul and heart in faith.  St Cyprian said, “With sincere faith we break and divide that whole bread.”  The food we seek in this Supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of our soul, a heavenly reflection.

Thus, beloved, we see that when we gather to this table we must pluck up all the roots of infidelity, all distrust in God’s promise, so that we may make ourselves living members of Christ’s body; so that we receive not only the outward Sacrament but the spiritual thing also: not the figure, but the truth; not the shadow only, but the substance; and this not to death, but to life; not to destruction but to salvation… which thing may God grant us to do through the merits of our Lord and Saviour, to whom be all honour and glory for ever.  Amen.