The Works of Mr. George Gillespie Part 15
And besides all this, there is nothing which can urge us to say that the two tribes and the half did commendably in the erecting of this altar.(813) Calvin finds two faults in their proceeding. 1. In that they attempted such a notable and important innovation without advising with their brethren of the other tribes, and especially without inquiring the will of G.o.d by the high priest. 2. Whereas the law of G.o.d commanded only to make one altar, forasmuch as G.o.d would be worshipped only in one place, they did inordinately, scandalously, and with appearance of evil, erect another altar; for every one who should look upon it could not but presently think that they had forsaken the law, and were setting up a strange and degenerate rite. Whether also that altar which they set up for a pattern of the Lord's altar, was one of the images forbidden in the second commandment, I leave it to the judicious reader to ruminate upon.
But if one would gather from ver. 33, that the priest, and the princes, and the children of Israel, did allow of that which the two tribes and the half had done, because it is said, "The thing pleased the children of Israel, and the children of Israel blessed G.o.d, and did not intend to go up against them in battle:"
I answer, the Hebrew text hath it thus: "And the word was good in the eyes of the children of Israel," &c.; that is, the children of Israel blessed G.o.d for the word which Phinehas and the ten princes brought to them, because thereby they understood that the two tribes and the half had not turned away from following the Lord, nor made them an altar for burnt-offerings or sacrifice; which was enough to make them (the nine tribes and a half) desist from their purpose of going up to war against their brethren, to shed their blood. Again, when Phinehas and the ten princes say to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Mana.s.seh, This day we perceive that the Lord is among us, "because ye have not committed this trespa.s.s against the Lord," they do not exempt them from all prevarication; only they say _signanter_, "this trespa.s.s," to wit, of turning away from the Lord, and building an altar for sacrifice, whereof they were accused. Thus we see that no approbation of that which the two tribes and the half did, in erecting the altar, can be drawn from the text.
_Sect._ 10. But to proceed, our opposites allege for another example against us, a new altar built by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 64. In which place there is no such thing to be found as a new altar built by Solomon; but only that he sanctified the pavement of the inner court, that the whole court might be as an altar, necessity so requiring, because the brazen altar of the Lord was not able to contain so many sacrifices as then were offered. The building of synagogues can make as little against us.
For, 1. After the tribes were settled in the land of promise, synagogues were built, in the case of an urgent necessity, because all Israel could not come every Sabbath day to the reading and expounding of the law in the place which G.o.d had chosen that his name might dwell there. What hath that case to do with the addition of our unnecessary ceremonies?
2. If Formalists will make any advantage of the building of synagogues, they must prove that they were founded, not upon the extraordinary warrant of prophets, but upon that ordinary power which the church retaineth still. As for the love-feasts used in the primitive church, 1. They had no religious state in divine worship, but were used only as moral signs of mutual charity. The Rhemists(814) will have them to be called _caenas dominicas_. But what saith Cartwright against them? "We grant that there were such feasts used in times past, but they were called by the name of ???pa? or love-feasts, not by the name of the Lord's supper; neither could one without sacrilege give so holy a name to a common feast, which never had ground out of the word, and which after, for just cause, was thrust out by the word of G.o.d." 2. If it be thought that they were used as sacred signs of Christian charity because they were eaten in the church, I answer, the eating of them in the church is forbidden by the Apostle.
"What! (saith he) have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of G.o.d?" _Aperte vetat_ (saith Pareus),(815) _commessationes in ecclesia, quocunque fuco pingantur. Vocabant ???pa? charitates; sod nihil winus erant. Erant schismatum fomenta. Singulae enim sectae suas inst.i.tuebant._ And a little after: _Aliquae ecclesiae obtempera.s.se videntur. Nam Justini temporibus Romana ecclesia ???pa? non habuit._ Concerning the kiss of charity used in those times, 2 Cor. xiii. 22, we say in like manner that it was but a moral sign of that reconciliation, friendship and amity, which showed itself as well at holy a.s.semblies as other meetings in that kind and courtesy, but with all chaste salutation, which was then in use.
_Sect._ 11. As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public and common prayer), or prophesying (that is, singing, 1 Sam. x. 10; 1 Chron. xxv. 1), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human inst.i.tution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings; wherefore that distinction of habits which they used for decency and comeliness in their common behaviour and conversation, the Apostle will have them, for the same decency and comeliness, still to retain in their holy a.s.semblies. And further, the Apostle showeth that it is also a natural sign, and that nature itself teacheth it; therefore he urgeth it both by the inferiority or subjection of the woman, ver. 3, 8, 9 (for covering was then a sign of subjection), and by the long hair which nature gives to a woman, ver. 25; where he would have the artificial covering to be fashioned in imitation of the natural. What need we any more? Let us see nature's inst.i.tution, or the Apostle's recommendation, for the controverted ceremonies (as we have seen them for women's veils), and we yield the argument.
Last of all, the sign of imposition of hands helpeth not the cause of our opposites, because it has the example of Christ and the apostles, and their disciples, which our ceremonies have not; yet we think not imposition of hands to be any sacred or mystical sign, but only a moral, for designation of a person: let them who think more highly or honourably of it look to their warrants.
Thus have I thought it enough to take a pa.s.sing view of these objected instances, without marking narrowly all the impertinencies and falsehoods which here we find in the reasoning of our opposites. One word more, and so an end. Dr Burges would comprehend the significancy of sacred ecclesiastical ceremonies, for stirring men up to the remembrance of some mystery of piety or duty to G.o.d, under that edification which is required in things that concern order and decency by all divines.
Alas! what a sorry conceit is this? Divines, indeed, do rightly require that those alterable circ.u.mstances of divine worship which are left to the determination of the church be so ordered and disposed as they may be profitable to this edification. But this edification they speak of is no other than that which is common to all our actions and speeches. Are we not required to do all things unto edifying, yea, to speak as that our speech may be profitable unto edifying? Now, such significations as we have showed to be given to the ceremonies in question, as, namely, to certify a child of G.o.d's favour and goodwill towards him,-to betoken that at no time Christians should be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ,-to signify the pureness that ought to be in the minister of G.o.d,-to express the humble and grateful acknowledgments of the benefits of Christ, &c.,-belong not to that edification which divines require in things prescribed by the church concerning order and decency, except of every private and ordinary action, in the whole course of our conversation, we either deny that it should be done unto edifying, or else affirm that it is a sacred significant ceremony.
CHAPTER VI.
THAT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE CEREMONIES IS FALSELY GROUNDED UPON THE HOLY SCRIPTURE; WHERE SUCH PLACES AS ARE ALLEGED BY OUR OPPOSITES, EITHER FOR ALL THE CEREMONIES IN GENERAL, OR FOR ANY ONE OF THEM IN PARTICULAR, ARE VINDICATED FROM THEM.
_Sect._ 1. It remaineth now to examine the warrants which our opposites pretend for the lawfulness of the ceremonies. But I perceive they know not well what ground to take hold on. For instance whereof, Hooker defendeth the lawfulness of festival days by the law of nature.(816) Dr Downame groundeth the lawfulness of them on the law of G.o.d,(817) making the observation of the sabbaths of rest appointed by the church, such as the feasts of Christ's nativity, pa.s.sion, &c., to be a duty commanded in the law of G.o.d, and the not observing of them to be a thing forbidden by the same law. But Bishop Lindsey proveth the lawfulness of those holidays(818) from the power of the church to make laws in such matters. "As for the Lord's day (saith he) which has succeeded to the Jewish Sabbath, albeit G.o.d hath commanded to sanctify it, yet neither is the whole public worship, nor any part of it appropriated to that time; but lawfully the same may be performed upon any other convenient day of the week, of the month, or of the year, as the church shall think expedient. Upon this ground Zanchius affirmed, _Ecclesiae Christi liberum esse quos velit praeter dominicos dies sibi sanctificandos deligere_. And by this warrant did the primitive church sanctify those five anniversary days of Christ's nativity," &c.
Nay, let us observe how one of them wavereth from himself in seeking here some ground to rest upon. Paybody groundeth the lawfulness of kneeling at the sacrament on nature, part 2, cap. 4, sect. 1, on the act of Parliament, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 31; on an ecclesiastical canon, part 3, cap. 1, sect. 33, on the king's sovereign authority, part 3, cap. 1, sect.
36. Yet again he saith, that this kneeling is grounded upon the commandment of G.o.d, part 3, cap. 3, sect. 11.
Well, I see our opposites sometimes warrant the lawfulness of the ceremonies from the law of G.o.d, sometimes from the law of man, and sometimes from the law of nature, but I will prove that the lawfulness of those ceremonies we speak of can neither be grounded upon the law of G.o.d, nor the law of man, nor the law of nature, and by consequence that they are not lawful at all, so that, besides the answering of what our opposites allege for the lawfulness of them, we shall have a new argument to prove them unlawful.
_Sect._ 2. I begin with the law of G.o.d. And, first, let us see what is alleged from Scripture for the ceremonies in general; then, after, let us look over particulars. There is one place which they will have in mythology to stand for the head of Medusa, and if they still object to us for all their ceremonies even that of the Apostle, "Let all things be done decently and in order," 1 Cor. xiv. 40. What they have drawn out of this place, Dr Burges(819) hath refined in this manner. He distinguished betwixt _praeceptum_ and _probatum_, and will have the controverted ceremonies to be allowed of G.o.d, though not commanded. And if we would learn how these ceremonies are allowed of G.o.d, he gives us to understand,(820) that it is by commanding the general kind to which these particulars do belong. If we ask what is this general kind commanded of G.o.d, to which these ceremonies do belong? he resolves us,(821) that it is order and decency: And if further we demand, how such ceremonies as are inst.i.tuted and used to stir up men, in respect of their signification, unto the devout remembrance of their duties to G.o.d, are in such an inst.i.tution and use, matters of mere order? as a magisterial dictator of _quodlibets_, he tells us(822) that they are matters of mere order, _sensu largo_, in a large sense. But lastly, if we doubt where he readeth of any worship commanded in the general, and not commanded, but only allowed in the particular, he informeth us,(823) that in the free-will offerings, when a man was left at liberty to offer a bullock, goat, or sheep at his pleasure, if he chose a bullock to offer, that sacrifice, in that particular, was not commanded, but only allowed. What should I do, but be _surdus contra absurdum_? Nevertheless, least this jolly fellow think himself more jolly than he this, I answer, 1st, How absurd a tenet is this, which holdeth that there is some particular worship of G.o.d allowed, and not commanded? What new light is this which maketh all our divines to have been in the mist, who have acknowledged no worship of G.o.d, but that which G.o.d hath commanded? Who ever heard of commanded and allowed worship?
As for the instances of the free-will offerings, Ames hath answered sufficiently,(824) "that though the particulars were not, nor could not be, determined by a distinct rule in general, yet they were determined by the circ.u.mstances, as our divines are wont to answer the Papists about their vows, councils, supererogations _not by a general law, but by concurrence of circ.u.mstances._ So Deut. xvi. 10, Moses showeth that the freest offerings were to be according as G.o.d had blessed them, from whence it followeth, it had been sin for any Israelite whom G.o.d had plentifully blessed, to offer a pair of pigeons, instead of a bullock or two, upon his own mere pleasure. Where that proportion was observed, the choice of a goat before a sheep, or a sheep before a goat, was no formal worship."
_Sect._ 3. How will Dr Burges make it appear that the English ceremonies do belong to that order and decency which is commanded? Bellarmine(825) would have all the ceremonies of the church of Rome comprehended under order and decency, and therefore warranteth them by that precept of the Apostle, "let all things be done decently and in order." The one shall as soon prove his point as the other, and that shall be never.
For, 1. The Apostle only commanded that each action and ceremony of G.o.d's worship be decently and orderly performed, but gives us no leave to excogitate or devise new ceremonies, which have not been inst.i.tuted before. He hath spoken in that chapter of a.s.sembling in the church, prophesying and preaching, praying and praising there.
Now let all these things, and every other action of G.o.d's worship, ceremonies and all, be done decently and in order. _Licit ergo Paulus_, &c. "Albeit, therefore (saith John Bastwick),(826) Paul hath committed to the church the judging both of decency and order, yet hath he not granted any liberty of such mystical ceremonies as by their more inward signification do teach the duty of piety; for since the whole liberty of the church, in the matter of divine worship, is exercised only in order and decency, it followeth that they do impudently scorn both G.o.d and the Scriptures, who do extend this liberty to greater things, and such as are placed above us. Most certain it is, that Christ, the doctor of the church, hath, by his own written and sealed word, abundantly expounded unto us the will of G.o.d. Neither is there further need of any ceremonies, which by a secret virtue may instruct us: neither is it less evident that order consisteth not in the inst.i.tution or use of new things, but only in the right placing of things which have been inst.i.tuted before." "Decency (saith Balduine)(827) is opposed to levity, and order to confusion."
_Spectat autem hic ordo potissimum ad ritus ecclesiae in officiis sacris in quibus nullum debet esse scandalum, nulla confusio._
Then, in his judgment, order is not to the rites of the church a general kind, but only a concomitant circ.u.mstance; neither are the rites of the church comprehended under order as particulars under the general kind to which they belong; but order belongeth to the rites of the church as an adjunct to the subject. And, I pray, must not the rights of the church be managed with decency and order? If so, then must our opposites either say that order is managed with order, which is to speak nonsense, or else, that the rights of the church are not comprehended under order. But if not, then it followeth that the rites of the church are to be managed with levity, confusion, and scandal; for every action that is not done in decency and in order must needs be done scandalously and confusedly. 2.
Order and decency, whether taken _largo_ or _stricto sensu_, always signify such a thing as ought to be in all human actions, as well civil as sacred; for will any man say, that the civil actions of men are not to be done decently and in order? The directions of order and decency(828) are not (we see) _propria religionis_, but as Balduine showeth(829) out of Gregory n.a.z.ianzen, order is in all other things as well as in the church.
Wherefore sacred significant ceremonies shall never be warranted by the precept of order and decency, which have no less in civility than in religion.
_Sect._ 4. Now to the particulars. And first, that which Christ did, Matt.
xix. 13, 15, cannot commend unto us the bishopping or confirmation of children by prayer and imposition of hands; for as Maldonat saith rightly,(830) _Hebreorum consuetudinem fuisse, ut qui majores erant et aliqua polle bant divina gratia, manuum impositione inferioribus benedicerent, constat ex_ Gen. xlviii. 14, 15, _hac ergo ratione adducti parentes, infantes ad Christum afferebant, ut impositis manibus illis benediceret_. And as touching this blessing of children and imposition of hands upon them (saith Cartwright),(831) it is peculiar unto our Saviour Christ, used neither by his disciples nor his apostles, either before or after his ascension, whereunto maketh that the children being brought, that he should pray over them, he did not pray for them, but blessed them, that is to say, commended them to be blessed, thereby to show his divine power. These being also yet infants, and in their swaddling clouts, as by the word which the evangelist useth, and as by our Saviour Christ's taking them into his arms, doth appear, being also, in all likelihood, unbaptised. Last of all, their confirmation is a notable derogation unto the holy sacrament of baptism, not alone in that it presumeth the sealing of that which was sealed sufficiently by it; but also in that, both by a.s.severation of words, and by speciality of the minister that giveth it, it is even preferred unto it.
_Sect._ 5. The act of Perth about kneeling would draw some commendation to this ceremony from those words of the psalm, "O come let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker," Psal. xcv. 6. Which is as if one should argue thus: We may worship before the Lord, therefore before a creature; we may kneel in an immediate worship of G.o.d, therefore in a mediate; for who seeth not that the kneeling there spoken of is a kneeling in the action of solemn praise and joyful noise of singing unto the Lord? I wish you, my masters, more sober spirits, that ye may fear to take G.o.d's name in vain, even his word which he hath magnified above all his name. Dr Forbesse goeth about to warrant private baptism,(832) by Philip's baptising the eunuch, there being no greater company present, so far as we can gather from the narration of Luke, Acts viii.; as likewise by Paul and Silas's baptising the jailer and all his in his own private house, Acts xvi. Touching the first of those places, we answer, 1. How thinks he that a man of so great authority and charge was alone in his journey? We suppose a great man travelling in a chariot must have some number of attendants, especially having come to a solemn worship at Jerusalem. 2. What Philip then did, the extraordinary direction of the Spirit guided him unto it, ver. 29, 39. As to the other place, there was, in that time of persecution, no liberty for Christians to meet together in temples and public places, as now there is. Wherefore the example of Paul and Silas doth prove the lawfulness of the like deed in the like case.
_Sect._ 6. Hooker muttereth some such matter as a commendation of the sign of the cross from these two places, Ezek. ix. 4; Rev. vii. 3; alleging, that because in the forehead nothing is more plain to be seen than the fear of contumely and disgrace, therefore the Scripture describeth them marked of G.o.d in the forehead, whom his mercy hath undertaken to keep from final confusion and shame.(833) Bellarmine allegeth for the cross the same two places.(834) But for answer to the first, we say, that neither the sign whereof we read in that place, nor yet the use of it can make aught for them. As for the sign itself; albeit the ancients did interpret the sign of the letter _Tau_, to have been the sign of the cross, yet saith Junius, _Bona illorum venia; Tquidem Graecorum, Latinorumque majusculum, crucis quodam modo signum videtur effingere, verum hoc ad literam Haebreorum_ Tau _non potest pertinere. Deinde ne ipsum quidem Grcaecorum Latinorumque T, formam crucis quae apud veteres in usu erat quum sumebantur supplicia, representat._(835)
Whereupon dissenting from the ancients, he delivers his own judgment, that _tau_ in this place is taken _technicos_, for that sign or mark of the letter wherewith the Lord commanded to mark the elect for their safety and preservation. And so there was no mystery to be sought in that letter more than in any other. As for the use of that mark wherewith the elect in Jerusalem were at that time sealed, it was only for distinction and separation. It had the same use which that sprinkling of the posts of the doors had, Exod. xii. 7, only the foreheads of men and women, and not the posts of doors were here marked, because only the remnant according to election, and not whole families promiscuously, were at this time to be spared, as Junius noteth.
But the use of the sign of the cross pretended by Formalists, is not to separate us in the time of judgment, but to teach that at no time we ought to be ashamed of the ignominy of Christ.
Shortly, the sign wherewith they in Jerusalem were marked, was for preservation from judgment; but the sign of the cross is used for preservation from sin. Thus we see, that neither the sign nor the use of it, had any affinity with the cross. Now, the surest interpretation of that place, Ezek. ix. 4, is to take _Tau_ for an appellative noun, signifying generally and indefinitely a mark or sign, so that there is no mark determined by this word; only there was a commandment given to set a certain mark, some sign or other, upon the foreheads of the elect. So have our English translators taken the place.
This exposition is confessed by Gasper Sanctius,(836) to be followed almost by all the Hebrew masters, and by the most ancient interpreters, to wit, the Septuagint, Aquilla and Symmachus. The word beareth this gloss, even according to the confession of those who expound it otherwise in this place, to wit, for an image or representation of the cross. _Tau_ (saith Sanctius) _commune nomen est, quod signum indefinite significat_.(837) _Tau_ is expounded by Bellarmine(838) to signify _signum_ or _terminus_.
Well then: our adversaries themselves can say nothing against our interpretation of the word _tau_. We have also Buxtorff for us, who in his Hebrew Lexicon turneth _tau_ to _signum_, and for this signification he citeth both this place, Ezek. ix. 4, and Job. x.x.xi. 35. _Taui signum meum._
Lastly, If _tau_ be not put for a common appellative noun, signifying a mark or sign, but for the figure or character of the letter _tau_ as an image of the cross, by all likelihood this character only should have been put in the Hebrew text, and not the noun fully written; _vehithvith a tau_, and mark a mark. As to the other place,(839) Rev. vii. 3, Pareus observeth, that there is no figure or form of any sign there expressed, and he thinks that seal was not outward and visible, but the same whereof we read, 2 Tim. ii. 19, and Rev. xiv. 1, which cannot be interpreted _de signo transeunte; nam Christianum semper nomen filii, et patris in fronte oportet gerere_, saith Junius.(840)
Dr Fulk, on Rev. vii. 3, saith, that the sign here spoken of is proper to G.o.d's elect, therefore not the sign of the cross, which many reprobates have received.
_Sect._ 7. Bishop Andrews will have the feast of Easter drawn from that place,(841) 1 Cor. v. 8, where he saith, there is not only a warrant, but an order for the keeping of it; and he will have it out of doubt that this feast is of apostolical inst.i.tution, because after the times of the apostles, when there was a contention about the manner of keeping Easter, it was agreed upon by all, that it should be kept; and when the one side alleged for them St. John, and the other St. Peter, it was acknowledged by both that the feast was apostolical.
I answer, The testimony of Socrates deserveth more credit than the Bishop's naked conclusion.
"I am of opinion (saith Socrates(842)), that as many other things crept in of custom in sundry places, so the feast of Easter to have prevailed among all people, of a certain private custom and observation."
But whereas Bishop Lindsey, in defence of Bishop Andrews, replieth, that Socrates propoundeth this for his own opinion only:
I answer, that Socrates, in that chapter, proveth his opinion from the very same ground which Bishop Andrews wresteth to prove that this feast is apostolical. For while as in that hot controversy about the keeping of Easter, they of the East alleged John the apostle for their author, and they of the West alleged Peter and Paul for themselves, "Yet (saith Socrates), there is none that can shew in writing any testimony of theirs for confirmation and proof of their custom. And hereby I do gather, that the celebration of the feast of Easter came up more of custom than by any law or canon."
_Sect._ 7. Downame (as I touched before) allegeth the fourth commandment for holidays of the church's inst.i.tution. But Dr Bastwick allegeth more truly the fourth commandment against them:(843) "Six days shalt thou labour." This argument I have made good elsewhere; so that now I need not insist upon it. There are further two examples alleged against us for holidays, out of Esth. ix. 17, 18, 27, 28, and John x. 22.
Whereunto we answer, 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the people, as is plain from Esth. ix. 32, and 1 Maccab. iv. 59. Therefore, they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them.
2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which the kingdom or commonwealth hath received. For they are not called the holidays of Purim, but simply the days of Purim,-"A day of feasting and of sending portions one to another," Esth. ix. 19, 22. No word of any worship of G.o.d in those days. And whereas it seemeth to Bishop Lindsey,(844) that those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them; he must know that the text interpreteth itself, and it is evident from ver. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labour, for waiting upon the worshipping of G.o.d, but only a rest from their enemies.
_Sect._ 9. But Bishop Andrews goeth about to prove by six reasons, that the days of Purim were holidays, and not days of civil joy and solemnity only.(845)
First, saith he, it is plain by verse 31, they took it in _animas_, upon their souls,-a _soul matter_ they made of it: there needs no soul for _feria_ or _festum_, play or feasting. They bound themselves _super animas suas_, which is more than _upon themselves_, and would not have been put in the margin, but stood in the text: thus he reprehendeth the English translators, as you may perceive.
_Ans._ The Bishop could not be ignorant that _nephesch_ signifieth _corpus animatum_, as well as _anima_, and that the Hebrews do not always put this word for our souls, but very often for ourselves. So Psal. vii. 2. and Psal. lix. 3, we read _naphschi_,-_my soul_ for _me_; and Psal. xliv.
25,-_naphschenu, our soul_ for _we_; and Gen. xlvi. 26, _col-nephesch_-_omnis animae_, for _omnes homines_.
What have we any further need of testimonies? Six hundred such are in the holy text. And in this place, Esth. ix. 31, what can be more plain, than that _nighal-naphscham, upon their soul_, is put for _nghalehem, upon themselves_, especially since _nghalehem_ is found to the same purpose, both in ver. 27 and 31.
If we will make the text agree well with itself, how can we but take both these for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Secondly, saith he, the bond of it reacheth to all that _religioni eorum voluerunt copulari_, ver.
27, then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need any joining in religion for a matter of good fellowship?
_Ans._ There is no word in the text of religion. Our English translation reads it, "all such as joined themselves unto them." Monta.n.u.s, _omnes adjunctos_; Tremellius, _omnes qui essent se adjuncturi eis._ The old Latin version reads it indeed as the Bishop doth.