Part 7

Luther was the first, after the Reformation, who put out a Protestant translation of the Scriptures, which was _immediately_ condemned by Osiander, Rickerman, and Zuinglius. Of this translation of Luther, Zuinglius says, (Lib. de Sacra.) "Luther was a foul corrupter, and horrible falsifier of God's word. One, who followed the Marcionites and Arians, that razed out such places of Holy Writ, as were against him. Thou dost," says he to Luther, "corrupt the word of God. Thou art seen to be a manifest, and common corrupter, and perverter of the holy Scriptures. How much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee!" But Luther not only falsified, but he also added, to the texts of the Scripture. "I know well," says Luther, "that this word, alone, (which he added to St. Paul's words, Rom. iii.) is not found in the text of St. Paul, but should a Papist, annoy you upon it, tell him at once, without hesitation, that Dr. Martin Luther, would have it so, and that a papist, and an ass, are synonymous." (Tom. 5, Jena Edit. p. 141, 144.)

But Luther, soon had an opportunity of retaliating, on his disciple Zuinglius. When Proscheverus, the Zuinglian printer of Zurich, sent him a copy of the Zuinglian translation, Luther rejected it, and sent it back to him, calling at the same time the Zuinglian divines, in matters of divinity, "fools, asses, anti-christs, deceivers, and of an ass-like understanding." (See Zuing. tom. 2, ad Luth. Lib. de Sacr. fol. 338.)

Of the translation set forth by Oecolampadius, Beza says, that it "is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost." And he also condemns that of Castalio, as being sacrilegious, wicked, and heathenish. (In Respons. ad Defens. and Respons. Castal.)

We should naturally expect that Beza, after thus reproving the translations of Oecolampadius and of Castalio, would _himself_ have produced an immaculate one; but the learned Molineus observes of his translation, that "he (Beza) actually changes the text, of which Molineus gives several instances." (In sua Translat. Nov. Testi. part 20.)

Castalio wrote a whole book against Beza's corruptions of the Scriptures, and yet, he adds, "I will not note all his (Beza's) corruptions, for that would require too large a volume." (In Defens. Transl.)

Of Calvin's translation the learned Molinaeus thus speaks: "Calvin, in his harmony, makes the text of the Gospel to leap up and down. He uses violence to the letter of the Gospel; and besides this, adds to the text." (In sua Translat. Nov. Test. part 12.)

Here, then, you have Zuinglius and others against Luther's translation, and Luther against Zuinglius's translation, Beza against Oecolampadius and Castilio's translation, and Castilio against Beza's translation, and Molinaeus against Calvin's translation. Now, which of all these false translations was your scriptural Church to adopt as her only rule of faith and for that of the people? Why, you Reverends will reply, she was to adopt her _own_ English translations.

Well, then we had better examine, and see whether they were any better than _any_ of the above translations, Carlile, in his treatise on Christ's descent into hell, says of the English translators, that they have "depraved the sense, obscured the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in _many_ places, they do detort the scriptures from the _right_ sense, and that they show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth." And in an abridgment which the ministers of the diocese of Lincoln delivered to King James, they denominated the English translation, "A translation that taketh away from the text, that addeth to the text, and that sometime to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost; a translation which is absurd and senseless, perverting, in many places, the meaning of the Holy Ghost." Burges, in his Apology, sec. 6, exclaims, "How shall I approve under my hand a translation, which hath so many omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscures, sometimes perverts the sense, being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary?" And Broughton, in his letter to the Lords of the Council, gives this reason for requiring a new translation without delay, that "That which is now in England is full of errors." And, in his Advertisement of Corruptions, he tells the bishops, "That their public translations of Scriptures into English is such, as that it perverts the texts of the Old Testament, in eight hundred and forty-eight places; and that it causes millions of millions to reject the New Testament, and to run to eternal flames."

But some of you Reverends may reply, those were the Protestant translations of _earlier_ times; but we have got _better_ translations now. Well, then we must now examine the truth of your assertion. In November, 1822, the Irish Protestant Society passed the following condemnatory resolution of the Irish translators: "Resolved, that, after a full enquiry, the members of this society feel satisfied, that material and very numerous errors, exist in the version of the New Testament, edited by the British and Foreign Bible Society." According to Mr. Platt, thirty-five variations were discovered in the first ten pages, of which seven were considered to be material. "This proportion in a Testament of four hundred pages," says the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Percival, "gives fourteen hundred variations, and two hundred and eighty material errors in a single volume." We find in the Monthly London Review, page 220, "That in April, 1832, a memorial was addressed on the subject, to the vice-chancellors of the Universities of Cambridge and of Oxford, and the other delegates of the Clarendon press." It was signed by the following gentlemen:

T. Bennet, D.D. T. Blackburn. George Collinson. F. A. Cox, L.L.D. Thomas Curtis. T. Fletcher, D.D. E. Henderson. J. P. Smith, D.D. T. Townley, D.D. R. Winter, D.D.

The names, attached to this memorial, are too respectable not to communicate a great degree of importance, to any statement to which they are affixed. This memorial states, "That the modern Bibles, issued from the press of the University of Oxford, abounded with deviations from the authorized version of King James the First. That, though some of these errors were merely typographical, yet of those that were intentional, the number was of a serious amount. That in the Book of Genesis, there were upwards of eight hundred errors; in the Psalms, six hundred; in the Gospel of St. Matthew, four hundred and sixteen; and in about the fourth part of the Bible, an aggregate of two thousand, nine hundred and thirty-one."

The same Monthly London Review, for February, 1833, speaking of the pamphlet of Thomas Curtis, of Grove House, Islington, on his discoveries of the falsification of the Bible, says: "In this comparatively brief pamphlet, we find the exposition of one of the most singular deceptions, to which the world has yet been exposed. The imposition, is nothing short of a downright falsification of the text of Scripture. Need we add a syllable more, to rouse the attention of the thinking community?" In the same pamphlet Mr. Curtis remarks: "About twenty years ago, an intelligent reader at one of the printing offices, where the Bible was in a course of printing, took the trouble of drawing up a specification of a number of gross errors, which he found in the very copy, _that had been selected by the proper authorities_, as the _standard_ of correctness to which he was to adhere. The errors pointed out by the penetrating reader, amounted to no less, than seven hundred and thirty-one, and these occurred in the various chapters, from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of Jeremiah."

Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, it is plain from what I have stated (and where is the person who can contradict what I have stated), that the _first_ Protestant foreign Reformers, corrupted and falsified the sacred Scriptures, that your English Protestant Reformers, did also the same, and that even at the present day, your English Protestant translations of that sacred volume, are in a most awful and corrupt state. And would to heaven I could stop here!

But what will the English people say, when they learn, that your Protestant scriptural Church, has _not only_ falsified and corrupted the Scriptures, but that she has had the audacity, to expunge from the canon of the Scripture many books, which are _as much canonical_ (that is, as much the inspired word of God) as those, which she still retains in her present Protestant canon. I will now prove this. The Protestant Church, received at first (as Luther truly informs us) the Scriptures from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, therefore, must be good authority in this respect, otherwise how can the Protestant Church be, sure that her first Scriptures, were the real word of God? Now, the Catholic Church has ranked, for at least fourteen hundred years, many books as _canonical_, which _your_ Protestant Church rejects as _uncanonical_. In the year 397, a Catholic council was held at Carthage, at which the learned and pious St. Augustine assisted. In that council, the canon of the Scripture, was satisfactorily determined; and in that very council, many books were declared to be _canonical_ (that is, the inspired word of God,) which your Church, has had the audacity to tell the people, are _not canonical_, that is, they are not to be considered the inspired word of God. But _what_ reason had your scriptural Church, to assume the audacious power, to condemn as _uncanonical_, books, which were declared by this illustrious, numerous, and learned body of Christians, _to be canonical_, (that is, the inspired word of God?) I ask you, _what_ reason had your scriptural Church for this _audacious_ step? I answer, none. O but I fancy I hear some of your reverends exclaiming, You are wrong _for once_, old papish botheration. Look at the passage in the sixth of our articles, between _our canonical_ and _un_canonical books, and there you will find a good reason for your _popish_ question.

Thank you, courteous clerks; I will now quote the passage, and give _your_ scriptural Church the benefit of it. "And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read, for example of life, and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine." (Art. 6, Ch. Eng. P. Book.) Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, _truth_ and _falsehood_ are in this passage, mixed up together _to a nicety_. In the first part, your scriptural Church tells the people that she, like Hierom (and mind, St. Hierom was a great Catholic Saint), reads her _un_canonical books, for example of life and instruction of manners. Well, _her object_ for reading these books, as far as it goes, is very good; but then, your scriptural Church _slyly_ adds, "but yet doth it not apply them _to establish_ any doctrine:" an artful inuendo that St. Hierom did the same. Now St. Hierom wished, indeed, the Catholic Church to read these books, for example of life, and instruction of manners; but St. Hierom, at the same time, included in the Catholic canon _all_ the books, which had been ranked in the Catholic canon by antiquity. Now, if your scriptural Church, quoted St. Hierom's authority in confirmation of the _first_ part of this passage, why does she slyly intimate, to follow him in the _second_ part, where she contradicts St. Hierom, by asserting that certain books of the Scripture, are _uncanonical_, which St. Hierom believed, and taught were _really canonical_? Come, Reverend Gentlemen, your Church _must_ have had some _sly_ reason, for this _contradictory_ conduct. Now, _do_ tell us _what this_ reason was. Well, if _you_ will not tell, _I_ must.

You have seen, how the first reformers _falsified_ the Scriptures, to make the sacred text, harmonize with their _reformed_ ideas; but _what puzzled_ them _most_ was, they found there were certain books, which they could not _possibly tune_ to _their new_ ideas. They _durst_ not indeed, _entirely_ reject these sacred books; for they knew in _what_ veneration, they had been _always_ held by _antiquity_; but on the _other_ hand, they _durst_ not admit them as _canonical_; for _then_, the _testimony_ of _these_ books, would upset _their new-fangled_ ideas; they thought, therefore, the _most convenient_ method, was to make _flesh_ and _fish_ of them, and _then_, they could either _admit_, or _contradict_ them, according to their _own spiritual convenience_.

And that I am speaking the truth, I will give you _one single_ instance, and from this _one_, you will be able to judge of _the rest_, of their sly method, of squaring the scripture to their _new_, and _re_forming ideas. Of all the tenets of the Catholic creed, there is _none_, that has been _more lustily_ inveighed against, and accordingly, _none_ that sound _so awfully_, to an _English Protestant_ ear, as Purgatory, and Prayers for the dead. (_O keep your seats, Most Reverend Gentlemen, I am not going to put you into Purgatory, although you may imagine it smells very strongly of it on this side the grave._)[L] Well, mind this doctrine of Purgatory, and of Prayers for the dead, was the belief of the Jews, and of all the first Christians, and continued even to the time of the Reformation. Now in the book of _Machabees_, this doctrine is so _plainly_ laid down, that no man in his senses, can contradict it. Read the following passage, and tell me, if I am not speaking the truth. "And making a gathering, he (Judas Machabeus) sent 1200 drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice, to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well, and religiously, concerning their resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain, should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous, and vain to pray for the dead.) And, because, he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." II. Mac. xii. 43-46.

Now this passage was so _clear_, and _positive_ a proof of purgatory, and of prayers for the dead, that the first Reformers found, that they could not get rid of it, _without denying the divine_ authority of the book. _Accordingly_, these new soul-menders, told the people that the two Books of Machabees, were not included in the Jewish Canon, but _unfortunately_, they _forgot_ to tell the world _the reason_, (viz.,) because the Jewish Canon was compiled by Esdras, _long before_ the Books of Machabees were written. And now, you may understand the _sly_ words of your sixth article, "but yet it doth not apply them (these books) to _establish any doctrine_," viz., to establish the _Catholic_ doctrine, and to _overturn their new-fangled_ ideas.

Now, Gentlemen, is it not plain that your _Church_, hath _both corrupted_ the Scriptures, and expunged from her _Protestant_ Canon, many of the _inspired_ books of those sacred volumes?

And now, allow me to quote the _first_ part of the sixth Article of your Church, and then, tell me _what_ the _people_ are to do, to save their souls, and how your Scriptural Church, _is ever_ to be raised again, to a new spiritual life. "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that, whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be approved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or to be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church."

Now this part of your Article, assures us, in the strongest manner, that the Holy Scriptures, contain all things necessary for salvation, that they are the sure palladium of a Christian, and his title-deeds to eternal life; and it also says, that in this sacred volume, are to be included all the books of whose authority, was never any doubt in the Church. Now, it is also plain from what I have advanced, (and find me a person who can overturn by _solid_ argument what I have advanced,) it is plain, I repeat it, that your Church has _both_ falsified the text of the Scripture, and expunged from her _Protestant_ Canon, many books, whose authority and divine inspiration, were held by antiquity in the greatest veneration. Now, most Reverend Gentlemen, do tell me what the people are to do. On the _one_ hand, your Church tells the people, there _is no_ salvation _without_ the Scripture: and on the _other_ hand, your Church has falsified the text, and also expunged from her _Protestant_ Canon, many _inspired_ Books of the Scripture. Really, can you obtain the possession of property by _corrupt_ and mutilated title-deeds? Certainly not. How, _then_, are your people to obtain eternal life by your _false_, and mutilated title-deeds of the Scripture? Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, if the prejudices of my popish education do not strongly deceive me, your Protestant mutilation of the Scripture, and your Sixth Article, are pregnant with the most _paradoxical_ consequences. O how justly may I apply to _your_ Scriptural Church, the observations which a distinguished minister of the Church _of England_, applied to the operations of the Bible Society; these are his words: "Surely, it is enough to make a Christian's blood run cold, to think of the sacrilegious presumption of a Society, which dares thus to tamper, and trifle with the revelation of the Almighty, and dares publish to the heathen, and attempt to pawn upon its credulous supporters, these schoolboy exercises of its agents, as the Sacred Word of God! It is the circulation of such translations as these, that, more than once, at the meetings of this Society, have been blasphemously compared to the miraculous gift of tongues. And such a system is supported, and such comparisons applauded by many, who, on other occasions, lay claim, and justly, to the characters of piety and intelligence."[M] O how justly might he have applied these observations to his own Church.[N]

We have now seen, most Reverend Gentlemen, the falsification, and mutilation of the Sacred Scriptures, by the Protestant Reformers. Your Sixth Article tells the people, that the Scriptures are the only means of salvation; but of course, she must mean _correct_ copies, and _authenticated_ translations of those sacred volumes. Now, what are the people to do for eternal life, placed as they are, on the one hand, between your falsified, corrupt, and mutilated Scriptures, and on the other hand, the absolute necessity (according to your Sixth Article) of culling their religion from the Scriptures? But, as there is no hope of salvation, for the people in this awful fix, do you think, you could raise a church for the people, instead of these falsified scriptures? But then, it is evident, that you cannot raise that church, on the frail foundation of these falsified, and mutilated scriptures. Really I am sorry, that I declined the assistance of the Spanish chemist, as he might, perhaps, have thrown some new light, on this subject by his wonderful chemical operations. O! but a very bright idea, has just popped into my mind, that your Protestant prayer-book, was first made 'by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God.' Surely, we shall now succeed, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the noble object of God's honour. Well, then, we will now see, how this prayer-book, was first made by men, 'aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God;' we will then see, how these very men who at first declare, that this prayer-book, which was made by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God, afterwards most solemnly swear, that all these inspirations of the Holy Ghost were heretical, and contrary to true religion, and then, how they bring back this prayer-book, and enact the most severe penalties on all, who will not adopt its use.

In the reign of Henry the Eighth, the faith of Protestantism, and defection from the Catholic faith, first partially began. In the reign of his son, Edward VI., Protestantism, made a-head, and Catholicism, rapidly declined. It was in the reign of this youth Edward VI., (only eleven years of age,) that the Protestant prayer-book, was made by Act of Parliament. In the preamble of this Act (i. & ii. Edward VI.) we are informed that Edward (only eleven years of age) appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, and others, who, "aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God," made this prayer-book. Take notice that this Act (i. & ii. Edward VI.) declares, that this Protestant prayer-book, was made by these men, "aided by the Holy Ghost, and for the honour of God." This Act of Parliament, provided also, that if any clergyman, refused to use this prayer-book, in the public service, he should, for the first offence, forfeit to the King one year's income of his benefice, and be imprisoned for six months; for the second, he should be deprived of the whole of his benefice, and be imprisoned for one year; and for the third offence, he should be imprisoned for his whole life. But this Act, was not confined merely to the clergy, it extended also to the laity. It enacted, that if any layman, should by interludes, plays, songs, rhymes, or by other open words, declare, or speak anything to the derogation of the said common prayer-book, penalty after penalty, was to follow, until he had forfeited all his goods, and chattels to the King, and to be imprisoned for life. Such, was the first formation, of your Protestant prayer-book, as the Act of Parliament, (i. & ii. Edward VI.) plainly shews.

Now, let us see the result, in the next reign. Edward died seven years afterwards, and was succeeded by his sister, Mary, who was a Catholic. Almost, as soon as Mary had ascended the throne, the very men repeal the whole of the famous Act, for making the common prayer-book, and that too, on the grounds that this prayer-book, was contrary to true religion, although, in the former reign, they had solemnly declared, they had been assisted, "by the Holy Ghost" in the making of this prayer-book; they also abolished all the pains, and penalties, which they had enacted, in the former reign, against the clergy, and laity, for not using this common prayer-book, and this too, on the express ground, that they had been for years, wandering in error, and schism, although, they had had the barefacedness to assert, in the previous reign, that the Holy Ghost, had assisted them in the formation of this common prayer-book.