Obrázky na stránke



[ocr errors]



The publication of Ward's “ Errata to the from the concessions of his adversaries, that the . Protestant Bible” has disclosed a most curious fathers of this scriptural church gave it a version and important fact, that the scriptural church of the scriptures abounding with errors. And of England and Ireland was originally founded here it may reasonably be asked, whence arose on a false translation of the scriptures. It was these errors? Were they the offspring of ignothe boast of the first reformers, that they had rance, or design ? Dr. Ryan warmly contends emancipated their disciples from the shackles for the former, and endeavours to fortify his of Catholic despotism, and had restored to them | opinion by the authority of Father Simon : (a) the freedom of the children of God: it now but then, even admitting his assertions, devoid appears, that this freedom consisted in reading | as they are of proof, and liable to objection, an erroneous version of the inspired writings, what are we to think of the temerity of these and in venerating as the dictates of eternal || men, who, incompetent to the task, and conWisdom the blunders of ignorant or interested | scious of their incompetency, still presumed to translators. “The scriptures,” they exclaimed, violate the purity of the sacred volumes, and to “are the sole rule of faith. Here they are, no obtrude on their unsuspecting disciples an errolonger concealed under the obscurity of a neous version as the immaculate word of God, learned language, but exhibited to you in your and as the sole and infallible guide to religious native tongue. Here you will easily detect the truth? Ward, on the contrary, attempts to errors of Popery, and learn the true doctrine of show that the more important of their errors the Gospel.” The credulity of multitudes ac. were committed by design; and a curious circepted with joy the proffered boon; the new cumstance it is, highly corroborative of his teachers were hailed as apostles commissioned opinion, that most of their blunders are favourby heaven; and every old woman, both male and | able to their own peculiar doctrines, and unfa. female, that could read, became an adept, if | vourable to those of their opponents. But, if not in the knowledge of the Bible, at least in this be true, what judgment can any unprejuthe prejudices and errors of its translators. diced man form of these saints of the reforma

It is not for man to dispute the wisdom of|tion? For my part, I know of no crime more Providence, and arraign at the bar of his private foul in its own nature, more prejudicial in its judgment the means which God may choose for || consequences, more nearly allied to diabolic the diffusion of religious knowledge. Otherwise, | malignity, than that of designedly corrupting the I must confess, there appears to me something | holy scriptures, and, by such corruption, leading very unaccountable in the scriptural blunders of the sincere inquirer into error, and converting the apostles of the reformation. The object, they || the food of life into the poison of death. said, of their mission was the dissemination of But, from whatever source these false renevangelic truth. If the Holy Spirit selected them derings proceeded, whether their authors were for this important office, he must also have gifted guided by policy or misled by ignorance, this must them with the true knowledge of the scriptures, be conceded, that if Ward has fairly established and, if he gifted them with the true knowledge the fact, he is entitled to the gratitude of the imof the scriptures, it seems to follow that he partial reader. The impartial reader, let him ought also to have granted them the power to | be Protestant or Catholic, will, if his object be make a true translation of the scriptures. The || truth, thankfully receive the truth from whatever apostles of Jesus received the knowledge of hand may present it to him. Hence it was with no tongues, that they might instruct the different small surprise that I heard the clamour which was nations of the earth : the apostles of the church raised against the last edition of the “ Errata." of England and Ireland ought to have received In parliament and out of parliament, in newsthe knowledge of, at least, the Hebrew and papers and pamphlets, it was stigmatized as an Greek tongues, that they might form an accurate attempt to vilify the reformation, and to heap version of the scriptures. Such a version was disgrace on the Established Church. “ It was as necessary to that church, as the instructions || the work," observed an eminent senator, emiof the first apostles could be to the primitive nent for the only talent he possesses, that of churches of Christianity. If they were apostol. ical, she was scriptural. However, without

(a) Ryan's Analysis, p.5. Simon, however, in the pas.

sage'referred to, does not speak of the English translator speculating on the cause, the fact is certain, not

in particular, but of the Protestant translators in general. only from the arguments of Ward, but even | This Dr. Ryan has thought fit to conceal from his readers,

religious calumny, “it was the work of one to revenge on Popery the injuries which she hundred and twenty Popish priests leagued to inflicted on his ancestors six centuries ago. An put down Protestantism.” Such nonsense awful lesson this to the ambition of princes ! hardly deserves notice. If facts are to be hidden But let us see, how the Dr. proceeds in the work from the eye of the public, because they reflect of vengeance. He has divided his treatise into on the character of our predecessors, let history different sections, corresponding with those of at once be condemned to the flames. The || the “ Errata." In reviewing it, I shall follow evangelists did not conceal the treachery of Ju | the same order. das : why should Protestant divines wish to conceal the blunders or the frauds of the fathers of their church ?

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS To me, it appears, that none among the ad. versaries of Ward have had the courage, or the

AGAINST honesty to do justice to that writer. His object

THE CHURCH. in compiling the “ Errata," was twofold: firstly, to prove that the versions of the scripture on Under this head Ward has adduced no less which the established creed was originally than seven texts in which the English translators founded, were extremely corrupt: and secondly, I had substituted the word congregation for to show that though many errors have been church ; to which Dr. Ryan replies, “ that the since corrected, there still remain many others former mistranslations of these seven texts, to correct. All this however they prudently having been corrected in the present Bible, overlook ; and by an artful confusion of times should have been excluded from the catalogue and persons, by referring to modern Bibles the of the · Errata.'(6) This plea has, I trust, been charges which he makes against those of a for- sufficiently refuted in the preceding observations. mer age, and by affecting to consider his accu- || That the correction has taken place, is indeed sation of the clergy of Queen Elizabeth as an improvement in the present Bible ; but it is directed against the clergy of the present reign, || at the same time a condemnation of its prede. they pretend 10 convict him of misrepresentation cessors. After the correction, Ward should and calumny. In this, perhaps, they may act not have imputed these errors to the corrected wisely; they certainly act unfairly. Could they copies ; neither has he done so : he should have have shown that Ward had attributed to the imputed them to the more ancient copies, and ancient English Bible errors which it did not in doing so, he is justified by the very concession contain, or that he had attributed to the present of his adversary. “But," continues the Dr., Bibles errors which have been corrected in them, “ he produces an eighth text to show that we they might have substantiated their charges |have been guilty of misconstruction to injure against him. But this they have not attempted. || his church. In the Romish version it is written : They content themselves with exclaiming that my dove is one ;(Cant. xi. 8 :) in ours, my dove many of the former corruptions have been | is but one ; a curious proof of malice to his corrected, and therefore should not have been | church! Many of his errata are of this kind; inentioned. But why should they not? The || frivolous in themselves ; and affording no proof very fact of their having been corrected is an or but feeble proofs of the propositions he mainunanswerable proof of Ward's assertion. It tains."(c) Now, reader, what canst thou infer shows beyond the possibility of a doubt, that the from this passage, but that Ward had censured church of England, however scriptural it may the Protestant version for having adopted the pretend to have been in its origin, was in reality reading, my dove is but one ? The reverse, founded on a false version of the scriptures ; a || however, is the truth. Ward did not censure, version which was a very Babel of confusion, he approved that reading. His censure was which spoke sometimes the language of God and levelled against the more ancient reading in the often the language of men, which had attempted | English Bibles, my dove is alone. “ But this,” to improve the lessons of eternal truth by the he adds, “is also amended.” Such was the addition of the whims, the ignorance, the pre candour of Ward, that he carefully pointed out judices, and the falsehoods of Tyndal, Coverdale, Il to his reader every correction. Of the candour Cranmer, &c., &c.

of Dr. Ryan I wish I could speak with equal Among the opponents of Ward, the fiercest commendation. But he has begun his analysis and the only one who has attempted a full refu- with an artifice, which it will be impossible for tation of the “ Errata," is Dr. Ryan. His at him to palliate, much less to justify. He has tempt is a consequence of the grant of Ireland suppressed the real assertion of his adversary, which Adrian IV. made to Henry II. Nay, which he could not controvert, and has substistart not, gentle reader; the most important || tuted in its place an assertion so palpably events may often be traced to remote and almost absurd that it could not fail to make an impres. imperceptible causes. The attempt of Dr. sion on the mind of the uninformed reader highly Ryan is a consequence of the grant of Ireland prejudicial to the character of Ward. Nor by Adrian IV. to Henry II. By that grant has the Dr. left his artifice to work its own the Ryans lost an extensive property ;(a) and the effect. He has aided it by his own observations: present Dr. is the champion reserved by heaven and has of consequence charged the author of

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

the “ Errata" with labouring to create disagree- | two advantages : he conceals the ancient corrupments where there was perfect harmony; and tion from the eye of his reader, and represents wishing to widen instead of contracting the Ward as a man of weak intellects, who could breach between the two churches. (a) Such thus refer to the sacrament a text which has no is the honesty of our biblical Aristarchus. But relation to it. In the corrected copies I acknowif he cannot claim the praise of honesty, he may ledge it has not ; but in the more ancient it had. claim at least that of consistency. The fraud | Ward had told us that it was so rendered by with which he has commenced his controversial || Beza, according to that reformer's own confescareer, he has been careful to repeat in every sion, in order to exclude the presence of Christ stage of it. He was fully aware that in works from the sacrament; and Dr. Ryan must have of the imagination, according to the masters of known that Protestant controvertists in England the art, perfection cannot be attained, unless have often alleged the same text for the same character be preserved throughout.

purpose. Ward then was.perfectly correct. Serveter ad imum,

2d. The second passage is very differently renQualis ab incæpto processerit, et sibi constet, dered in the Catholic and Protestant versions : in

the former, Let us cast wood upon his bread:

| in the latter, Let us destroy the tree with the PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS

fruit thereof. It must be acknowledged that the Catholic rendering is not conformable to the


[ocr errors]

THE BLESSED SACRAMENT, AND it is conformable to the more ancient ver. THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. sions, the Greek, the Vulgate, and the Arabic,

and the consent of these versions proves that Dr. RYAN commences his strictures on this the modern reading of the Hebrew is false. (c) section by observing, that five of the texts pro- || The Protestant translators, on the contrary, duced by Ward having been corrected in the have chosen to follow that reading, and accormodern Bibles, should have been excluded from dingly have rendered to anno, let us destroy the “ Errata.” I shall not fatigue the patience the tree; but then, to make sense, they have of the reader by repeating what I have already been compelled to give to D3 a meaning, . said on the subject of these concessions : but | which, I believe, it has not in any other part of shall content myself with reminding him how scripture, and under trans the fruit thereof, extremely corrupt that version must have been, instead of his bread. Ward, therefore, was the defence of which is thus abandoned by its justified in numbering this in his catalogue of warmest advocate. He proceeds : “ The other || errata. If it be asked why he placed it under three texts have no relation to the sacrament | the head of false translations against the sacraeven in his own translations, as will appear by | ment, he answers because he suspected it to have exhibiting them. Whom heaven truly must receive been adopted in order to elude the force of a

let us cast wood upon his bread-for he was passage in the works of St. Jerom, who had rethe priest of the Most High. These three texts || ferred the original text to the holy Eucharist. (d) are thus rendered by us : Whom heaven must 3rd. The difference in the third text, Gen. receive-let us destroy the tree with the fruit there. xiv. 18, depends on the meaning which ought ofand he was the priest of the Most High. (6) to be given to the Hebrew particle 7. The These texts are no more for or against the Vulgate and the English Catholic version have sacrament than a treatise of astronomy: yet we rendered it for; and that it is susceptible of this are accused of misconstruing them from preju- meaning is evident from the Protestant transdice against it!" Softly, good Doctor! There || lators themselves, who in similar passages have may be more in some of these texts than you rendered it in the same manner. (Gen. xx. 3: seem to be aware of. Let us examine them | Thou art but a dead man for the woman which separately.

thou hast laken ; Syy ny X977 for she is a ist. Whom heaven must receive. In exhibit man's wife. And Isaiah lxiv. 5: Behold thou ing this text, (to borrow the Doctor's expres- art wroth, X2037 for we have sinned.) In the sion,) I fear he has had recourse to his favourite | present instance, they have rendered it and, artifice, which I have exposed in the preceding which Ward ascribes to their wish to elude the section. He has suppressed the text, which argument that Catholic theologians had been Ward really condemns, and substituted in its accustomed to draw from Melchizedeck's typical place one which he approves. Ward did not | sacrifice of bread and wine. condemn the corrected reading of the modern Dr. Ryan proceeds to instance another text, Bibles, which Dr. Ryan has exhibited: but he which, as he vainly flatters himself, will yield condemned the corrupted reading of the ancient him an easy victory. “In the Protestant transBibles, which the Dr. very prudently has for lation (Heb. x. 10,) it is said, we are sanctified gotten. That reading hath, whom heaven must | through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ contain; a rendering which the correction, it once for all.“Ward says that our translators has since received, sufficiently proves to have added the words for all, to take away the daily been false. But Dr. Ryan, by suppressing it, || oblation of Christ's body and blood in the mass. and substituting the corrected passage, states

(c) It was probably and in the more ancient copies. (a) Anal., p. 11. (b) Ibid., p. 12.

Errata, No. II.

But it must be admitted that the compound 1 xa {xaoinv fue gav ou nepoogepóuer ; nepooms pouev, Greek word, which Romanists render once should || áll avquvnou nouovpEvot tov Oavatov Avrovxat be rendered once for all ; only once and for a mai totiv duin xal ou nolla .... tov yag autov short time : that the words for all are improperly &ei nipoo papouer du vuv usv étapov, ávpiov dovteomitted in the Popish translations, and without | por, all' &8l to auto. Wote uia doTLV Juola, In serving the cause for which Catholics contend."(a) || Epist. ad Heb. c. ix. hom. xvii. He is an unskilful or an unfortunate champion, who cannot aim a stroke at his adversary without inflicting a wound on his friends. When

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS Dr. Ryan condemns the Catholic, his censure bears still more heavily on the Protestant trans

AGAINST lators : and he chooses to praise them at the very

THE BLESSED SACRAMENT, AND moment when they condemn him. The Greek

THE ALTAR. word spanat occurs frequently in the New Tes. || tament: (b) yet in no one instance can I discover Dr. Ryan opens his remarks on this section that the Protestant translators have rendered it || in his usual maner. “ Ward charges us with once for all, except in this passage, Heb. x. 10. misrendering three texts ; this is a curious If then, as the Doctor asserts, the words for all | charge, when our last translation of two out of are improperly omitted in the Popish translations, the three agrees exactly with the Popish; and I trust, he will acknowledge that they are also || when we have no translation of the third.” It improperly omitted in the Protestant translations; will not be a difficult task to unravel the web and thus contribute his mite towards comple- of his sophistry. Ward did not charge the last ting Ward's catalogue of errata. The truth, but the more ancient Protestant translations however, is, that the Protestant translators, in- || with misrendering the three texts, and that his stead of thinking the words for all improperly charge is true, is evident from Dr. Ryan's omitted, were conscious that they formed no part | attempts to shift the question from one version of the sacred texts, and therefore printed them to another. As to the assertion that there is no in italics, as an indication that they occurred translation of the third ; it can only mean that not in the original, but were useful to form a || by Protestants it is not accounted part of the right notion of the apostle's meaning. Thus is | inspired writings, but occurs in one of the books Dr. Ryan condemned by his own clients. But, || which they have classed among the Apocrypha. continues the Doctor, “The term once without | He proceeds thus : “Nor need our first transthe addition of the words for all, would not jus- lators have been afraid of using the word altars ; tify a daily oblation : for where we are sanctified as there is no evidence that the Popish altars through the offering of Jesus Christ once, it resembled those of the apostolic age.” Did must be unnecessary to repeat it: it does not ever writer trifle more egregiously with the follow that, because Christ's body was offered judgment and the patience of his readers ? once for sinners, it should be daily offered for There is no evidence that the Popish altars rethem." (c) Is not this a controversial stratagem, sembled those of the apostolic age : therefore, the a ruse de guere, to draw off the attention of the first Protestant translators need not have been reader from the real state of the question ? Ward | afraid of using the word altars ! But is Dr. did not say that because Christ's body was of- || Ryan then willing to admit that Christians made fered once, it follows that it ought to be offered use of altars as early as the apostolic age ? For daily. He was not so weak a logician. But he || what purpose did they make use of them? It did say, that the Protestant translators added must have been for sacrifice : otherwise there the words for all, in support of their favourite could have been no more need of altars among doctrine that he was not to be offered daily : and Christians in the apostolic age, than among I confess, I think he is not mistaken : for on no Protestants in the present. But if it were for other ground can I account for their having || sacrifice, that sacrifice would have been no other added the words for all in this passage, and in substance than what Catholics call the sacri. having omitted them in every other in which the || fice of the mass. Greek term panus occurs. As to the assertion “ The first Protestant translators need not that, “ where we are sanctified by the offering of | have been afraid of the word allars !” Why Jesus Christ once, it must be unnecessary to l then did they substitute temple in its place ? Dr. repeat it," I beg leave to refer Dr. Ryan to the Ryan cannot here have recourse to his former commentary of St. Chrysostom on this very plea of their ignorance of the original languages. epistle, a writer who probably understood the | The veriest smatterer in the Greek tongue Greek language as well as modern translators. | could have informed them that Quorasnprov meant From that ancient father he will learn, that not a temple but an altar. Their own conduct though Christ was offered once, and his offering | in falsifying these texts shows, that they were sufficeth for ever, yet we offer him daily : but afraid of the word. For what but fear, and that it is one and the same sacrifice, because || that too of a very urgent nature, could have we offer one and the same victim. Anač impelled men, who had assumed the office of nipoonvexon,' sai èıs to ali ngxegg ... TL OVY ; tubes apostles, and whose existence as such depended (a) Anal., p. 12.

on their reputation, to pollute that office, and (6) Rom. xi. 10 ; Heb. vii. 28 ; ix. 12.

hazard that reputation, by thus wilfully and de(c) Anal., p. 13.

Il liberately corrupting the sacred volumes ?

« PredošláPokračovať »