OF

OUR pretended Reformers, having squared and modelled to themselves a faith contrary to the certain and direct rule of apostolical tradition, delivered in God's holy church, were forced to have recourse to the scripture, as their only rule of faith; according to which, the Church of England has, in the sixth of her Thirty-nine Articles, declared, "that the scripture comprehended in the canonical books (i. e., so many of them as she thinks fit to call so) of the Old and New Testament, is the rule of faith so far, that, whatsoever is not read therein, or cannot be proved thereby, is not to be accepted as any point of faith, or needful to be followed." But finding themselves still at a loss, their new doctrines being so far from being contained in the holy scripture, that they were directly opposite to it; they were fain to seek out to themselves many other inventions; amongst which, none was more generally practised than the corrupting of the holy scripture, by false and partial translations; by which they endeavoured, right or wrong, to make those sacred volumes speak in favour of their new-invented faith and doctrine. The corruptions of this nature in the first English Protestant translations, were so many, and so notorious, that Dr. Gregory Martin composed a whole book of them, in which he discovers the fraudulent shifts the translators were fain to make use of, in defence of them. Sometimes they recurred to the Hebrew text; and when that spoke against their new doctrine, then to the Greek; when that favoured them not, to some copy acknowledged by themselves to be corrupted, and of no credit; and when no copy at all could be found out to cloak their corruptions, then must the book or chapter of scripture contradicting them be declared apocryphal; and when that cannot be made probable, they fall downright upon the prophets and apostles who wrote them, saying, "that they might and did err, even after the coming of the Holy Ghost." Thus Luther, accused by Zuinglius for corrupting the word of God, had

no way left to defend his impiety, but by impudently preferring himself, and his own spirit, before that of those who wrote the holy scriptures, saying, " Be it, that the church, Augustine, and other doctors, also Peter and Paul, yea, an angel from heaven, teach otherwise, yet is my doctrine such as sets forth God's glory, &c. Peter, the chief of the apostles, lived and taught (extra verbum Dei) besides the word of God."(a)

And against St. James's mentioning the sacrament of extreme unction: "But though," says he, "this were the epistle of St. James, I would answer, that it is not lawful for an apostle, by his authority, to institute a sacrament; this appertains to Christ alone."(b) As though that blessed apostle would publish a sacrament without warrant from Christ! Our Church of England divines, having unadvisedly put St. James's epistle into the canon, are forced, instead of such an answer, to say, "That the sacrament of extreme unction was yet in the days of Gregory the Great, unformed." As though the apostle St. James had spoken he knew not what, when he advised, that the sick should be, by the priests of the church, "anointed with oil in the name of our Lord."(c)

Nor was this Luther's shift alone; for all Protestants follow their first pretended reformer in this point, being necessitated so to do for the maintenance of their reformations, and translations, so directly opposite to the known letter of the scripture.

The Magdeburgians follow Luther, in accusing the apostles of error, particularly St. Paul, by the persuasion of James.(d)

Brentius also, whom Jewel terms a grave and learned father, affirms, "that St. Peter, the chief of the apostles, and also Barnabas, after

(a) Vid. Supr. tom. 5, Wittemb., fol. 290, and in Ep. ad Galat., cap. i.

(b) De Capt. Babil., cap. de Extrem. Unct., tom. 2, Wittemb.

Doctrine of the Church of England, &c. (c) See the Second Defence of the Exposition of the (d) Cent. 1, 1. ii., c. 10, col. 580.

the Holy Ghost was received, together with the || church of Jerusalem, erred."

John Calvin affirms, that "Peter added to the schism of the church, to the endangering of Christian liberty, and the overthrow of the grace of Christ." And in page 150, he reprehends | Peter and Barnabas, and others.(a)

These desperate shifts being so necessary for warranting their corruptions of scripture, and maintaining the fallibility of the church in succeeding ages, for the same reasons which conclude it infallible in the apostles' time, are applicable to ours, and to every former century; otherwise it must be said, that God's providence and promises were limited to a few years, and Himself so partial, that he regards not the necessities of his church, nor the salvation of any person who lived after the time of his disciples; the Church of England could not reject it without contradicting their brethren abroad, and their own principles at home. Therefore Mr. Jewel, in his defence of the apology for the Church of England, affirms, that St. Mark mistook Abiathar for Abimelech; and St. Matthew, Hieremias for Zacharias.(c) And Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament, in Galat. ii., fol. 322, charges Peter with error of ignorance against the Gospel.

Doctor Goad, in his four Disputations with Father Campion, affirms, that "St. Peter erred in faith, and that, after the sending down of the Holy Ghost upon them."(d) And Whitaker says, "It is evident, that even after Christ's ascension, and the Holy Ghost's descending upon the apostles, the whole church, not only the common sort of Christians, but also even the apostles themselves, erred in the vocation of the Gentiles, &c. ; yea, Peter also erred. He furthermore erred in manners, &c. And these were great errors; and yet we see these to have been in the apostles, even after the Holy Ghost descended upon them."(e)

Thus, these fallible reformers, who, to countenance their corruptions of scripture, grace their own errors, and authorise their church's fallibility, would make the apostles themselves fallible; but indeed, they need not have gone this bold way to work, for we are satisfied, and can very easily believe their church to be fallible, their doctrines erroneous, and themselves corrupters of the scriptures, without being forced to hold, that the apostles erred.(f)

(2) Calvin in Galat., c. ii., v. 14, p. 511.
(b) Lavater in Histor. Sacrament, p. 18.
(c) Page 361.

(d) The second day's conference.

(e) Whitaker de Eccles, contr. Bellar. Controvers. 2 q. 4, p. 223.

(f) Protestants, to authorise their own errors and fal

BEFORE I Come to particular examples of their falsifications and corruptions, let me advertise the reader, that my intention is to make use only of such English translations as are common, and well known in England even to this day, as being yet in many men's hands to wit, those Bibles printed in the years 1562, 1577, and 1579, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign; which I will confront with their last translation made in King James the First's reign, from the impression printed in London, in the year 1683.

In all which said Bibles, (g) I shall take notice sometimes of one translation, sometimes of another, as every one's falsehood shall give occasion: neither is it a good defence for the falsehood of one, that it is truly translated in another, the reader being deceived by any one, because commonly he reads but one; yea, one of them is a condemnation of the other. And where the English corruptions, here noted, are not to be found in one of the first three Bibles, let the reader look in another of them; for if he find not the falsification in all, he will certainly find it in two, or at least in one of them: and in this case, I advertise the reader to be very circumspect, that he think not, by and by, these are falsely charged, because there may be found, perhaps, some later edition, wherein the same error we noted, may be corrected; for it is their common and known fashion, not only in their translations of the Bible, but in their other books and writings, to alter and change, add and put out, in their later editions, according as either themselves are ashamed of the former, or their scholars who print them again, dissent or disagree from their masters.

Note also, that though I do not so much charge them with falsifying the Vulgate Latin Bible, which has always been of so great authority in the church of God, and with all the (h) ancient Fathers, as I do the Greek, which they pretend to translate: I cannot, however, but libility, would make the apostles themselves erroneous and fallible.

observe, that as Luther wilfully forsook the Latin text in favour of his heresies and erroneous doctrines; so the rest follow his example even to this day, for no other cause in the world but that it makes against their errors.

For testimony of which, what greater argument can there be than this, that Luther, who before had always read with the Catholic Church, and with all antiquity, these words of St. Paul," Have not we power to lead about a woman, a sister, as also the rest of the apostles?" (a) And in St. Peter, these words, "Labour, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election." Suddenly after he had, contrary to his profession, taken a wife, as he called her, and preached, that all votaries might do the same: that "faith alone justified, and that good works were not necessary to salvation." Immediately, I say, after he fell into these heresies, he began to read and translate the former texts of scripture accordingly, in this manner : "Have not we power to lead about a sister, a wife, as the rest of the apostles ?" and, "Labour that you may make sure your vocation and election," leaving out the other words " by good works." And so do both the Calvinists abroad, and our English Protestants at home, read and translate even to this day, because they hold the self-same er

rors.

I would gladly know of our English Protestant translators, whether they reject the Vulgate Latin text, so generally liked and approved by all the primitive Fathers, purely out of design to furnish us with a more sincere and simple version into English from the Greek, than they thought they could do from the Vulgate Latin? If so, why not stick close to the Greek copy, which they pretend to translate? but, besides their corrupting of it, fly from it, and have recourse again to the Vulgate Latin, whenever it may seem to make more for their purpose. Whence may be easily gathered, that their pretending to translate the Greek copy was not with any good and candid design, but rather, because they knew it was not so easy a matter for the ignorant to discover their false dealings from it as from the Latin; and also, because they might have the fairer pretence for their turning and winding to and fro from the Greek to the Latin, and then again to the Greek, according as they should judge most advantageous to themselves. It was also no little part of their design, "to lessen the credit and authority of the Vulgate Latin translation," which had so long, and with so general a consent, been received and approved in the church of God, and authorized by the general Council of Trent, for the only, best, and most authentic text.

Because, therefore, I find they will scarcely be able to justify their rejecting the Latin translation, unless they had dealt more sincerely with the Greek; I have, in this following (a) 1 Cor. ix. 5, Mulierem sororem. 2 Pet. i. 10, Ut per bona opera certam vestram vocationem et electionem faciatis.

work, set down the Latin text, as well as the Greek word whereon their corruption depends; yet, where they truly keep to the Greek and Hebrew, which they profess to follow, and which they will have to be the most authentic text, I do not charge them with heretical corruptions.

The left-hand page I have divided into four columns, besides the margin, in which I have noted the book, chapter, and verse. In the first I have set down the text of scripture from the Vulgate Latin edition, putting the word that their English Bibles have corrupted in a different character; to which I have also added the Greek and Hebrew words, so often as they are, or may be necessary, for the better understanding of the word on which the stress lies in the corrupt translation.

In the second column, I have given you the true English text from the Roman Catholic translation, made by the divines of Rheims and Doway; which is done so faithfully and candidly from the authentic Vulgate Latin copy, that the most carping and critical adversary in the world cannot accuse it of partiality or design, contrary to the true meaning and interpretation thereof. As for the English of the said Rhemish translation, which is old, and therefore must needs differ much from the more refined English spoken at this day, the reader ought to consider, not only the place where it was written, but also the time since which the translation was made, and then he will find the less fault with it. For my part, because I have referred my reader to the said translation made at Rheims, I have not altered one syllable of the English, though indeed I might in some places have made the word more agreeable to the language of our times.

In the third column you have the corruption, and false translation, from those Bibles that were set forth in English at the beginning of that most miserable revolt and apostacy from the Catholic church, viz., from that Bible which was translated in King Edward the Sixth's time, and reprinted in the year 1562, and from the two next impressions, made Anno 1577, and 1579. All which were authorised in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, when the Church of England began to get footing, and to exercise dominion over her fellow sectaries, as well as to tyrannize over Catholics; whence it cannot be denied, but those Bibles were wholly agreeable to the principles and doctrines of the said Church of England in those days, however they pretend at this day to correct or alter them.

In the fourth column, you find one of the last impressions of their Protestant Bible, viz., that printed in London by the assigns of John Bill, deceased, and by Henry Hills and Thomas Newcomb, printers. to the King's most excellent Majesty, Anno Dom. 1683. In which Bible, wherever I find them to have corrected and amended the place corrupted in their former translations, 1 have put down the word "corrected;" but where the falsification is not yet rectified, I have set down likewise the corruption and that indeed is in most places, yea, and

:

in some two or three places, they have made it rather worse than better: and this indeed gives me great reason to suspect, that in those few places, where the errors of the former false translations have been corrected in the latter, it has not always been the effect of plain dealing and sincerity; for if such candid intention of amending former faults had every where prevailed with them, they would not in any place have made it worse, but would also have corrected all the rest, as well as one or two, that are not now so much to their purpose, as they were at their first rising.

mon among Catholics, than justly to stigmatize such with the same infamous character. I am not ignorant how ill the Protestants of our days resent this term, and therefore do avoid, as much as the nature of this work will permit, giving them the least disgust by this horrid appellation: nevertheless, I must needs give them to understand, that the nature of the holy scripture is such, that whosoever do voluntarily corrupt and pervert it, to maintain their own erroneous doctrines, cannot lightly be characterized by a less infamous title, than that of heretics; and their false versions, by the title of heretical translations, under which denomination I have placed these following corruptions.

Notwithstanding, I would have the Protestant reader to take notice, that I neither name nor

All which I have contrived, in as short and compendious a method as I possibly could, knowing that there are many, who are either not able, or at least not willing to go to the price of a great volume. And because my desire is to be beneficial to all, I have accommodated it not only to the purse of the poorest, but also, as near as possible, to the capacity of the most ignorant; for which reasons also, I have passed by a great many learned arguments brought by my author, Dr. Martin, from the significations, etymologies, derivations, uses, &c. of the Greek and Hebrew words, as also from the comparing of places corrupted, with other places rightly translated from the same word, in the same translation; with several other things, whereby he largely confutes their insincere and disingenuous proceedings: these I say, I have omitted, not only for brevity sake, but also as things that could not be of any great benefit to the simple and unlearned reader.

As for others more learned, I will refer them to the work itself, that I have made use of through this whole treatise, viz., to that most elaborate and learned work of Dr. Gregory Martin, entitled, a "Discovery of the manifold. Corruptions of the Holy Scriptures," &c., printed at Rheims, Anno 1582, which is not hard to be found.

Have we not great cause to believe, that our Protestant divines do obstinately teach contrary to their own consciences? For, besides their having been reproved, without amendment, for their impious handling the holy scriptures, if their learning be so profound and bottomless, as themselves proudly boast in all their works, we cannot but conclude, that they must needs both see their errors, and know the truth. And therefore, though we cannot always cry out to them, and their followers, "the blind lead the blind," yet, which is, alas a thousand times. more miserable, we may justly exclaim, "those who see, lead the blind, till with themselves, they fall into the ditch."

As nothing has ever been worse resented by such as forsake God's holy church, than to hear themselves branded with the general title of heretics; so nothing has been ever more com

who hold errors contradictory to God's church, but such as pertinaciously persist in their errors.

So proper and essential is pertinacity to the nature of heresy, that if a man should hold or believe ever so many false opinions against the truth of Christian faith, but yet not with obstinacy and pertinacity, he should err, but not be an heretic. Saint Augustine asserting, that "if any do defend their opinions, though false and perverse, with no obstinate animosity, but rather with all solicitude seek the truth, and are ready to be corrected when they find the same, these men are not to be accounted heretics, because they have not any election of their own that contradicts the doctrine of the church." (a) And in another place, against the Donatists, "Let us," says he, suppose some man to hold that of Christ at this day, which the heretic Photinus did, to wit, that Christ was only man, and not God, and that he should think this to be the Catholic faith; I will not say that he is an heretic, unless when the doctrine of the church is made manifest unto him, he will rather choose to hold that which he held before, than yield thereunto."(b)

Again, "Those," says he, "who in the church of Christ hold infectious and perverse doctrine, if when they are corrected for it, they resist stubbornly, and will not amend their pestilent and deadly persuasions, but persist to defend the same, these men are made heretics :"(c) by all which places of St. Augustine, we see, that error without pertinacity, and obstinacy against God's church is no heresy. It would be well, therefore, if Protestants, in reading Catholic books, would endeavour rather to inform themselves of the truth of Catholic doctrine, and humbly embrace the same, than to suffer that prejudice against religion, in which they have unhappily been educated, so strongly to bias them, as to turn them from men barely educated in error, to obstinate heretics; such as the more to harden their own hearts, by how much the more clearly the doctrine of God's holy church is demonstrated to them. When the true faith is once made known to men, ignorance can no

(a) S. Aug. Ep. 162.

(b) Lib. 4, contr. Donat., c. vi. (c) De Civit. Dei, lib. xvii., c. 51.

longer secure them from that eternal punishment to which heresy undoubtedly hurries them: St. Paul, in his Epistle to Titus, affirming, that "a man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." (a)

Whatever may be said, therefore, to excuse the ignorant, and such as are not obstinate, from that ignominious character: yet, as for others, especially the leaders of these misguided people, they will scarcely be able to free themselves either from it, or escape the punishment due to such, so long as they thus wilfully demonstrate their pertinacity, not only in their obstinately defending their erroneous doctrines in their disputes, sermons, and writings; but even in corrupting the word of God, to force that sacred book to defend the same, and compel that divine volume to speak against such points of Catholic doctrine as themselves are pleased to deny.

In what can an heretical intention more evidently appear, than in falsely translating and corrupting the holy Bible, against the Catholic church, and such doctrines as it has by an uninterrupted tradition, brought down to us from the apostles? As for example:

1. Against the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. 2. Against the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

3. Against Priests, and the Power of Priesthood.

4. Against the Authority of Bishops. 5. Against the sacred Altar on which Christ's Body and Blood is offered.

6. Against the Sacrament of Baptism. 7. Against the Sacrament of Penance, and Confession of Sins.

8. Against the Sacrament of Marriage. 9. Against Intercession of Saints. 10. Against sacred Images.

11. Against Purgatory, Limbus Patrum, and Christ's Descent into Hell.

12. Against Justification, and the possibility of keeping God's Commandments.

13. Against meritorious Works, and the Reward due to the same.

14. Against Free Will.

15. Against true inherent Justice, and in defence of their own Doctrine, that Faith alone is sufficient for Salvation..

16. Against Apostolical Traditions.

Yea, against several other doctrines of God's holy Church, and in defence of divers strange opinions of their own, which the reader will find taken notice of in this treatise: all which, when the unprejudiced and well-meaning Protestant reader has considered, I am confident he will be struck with amazement, and even terrified to look upon such abominable corruptions!

Doubtless, the generality of Protestants have hitherto been ignorant, and more is the pity, of this illhandling of the Bible by their translators: nor have, I am confident, their ministerial guides ever yet dealt so ingenuously by them, as to tell them that such and such a text of scripture is

(a) Titus iii. 10.

Does it appear to be done by negligence, ignorance, or mistake, as perhaps they would be willing to have the reader believe, or rather designedly and wilfully, when what they in some places translate truly, in places of controversy, between them and us, they grossly falsify, in favour of their errors ?

Is it not a certain argument of a wilful corruption, where they deviate from that text, and ancient reading, which has been used by all the fathers; and instead thereof, to make the exposition or commentary of some one doctor, the very text of scripture itself?

So also when in their translations they fly from the Hebrew or Greek to the Vulgate Latin, where those originals make against them, or not so much for their purpose, it is a manifest sign of wilful partiality: and this they frequently do.

What is it else but wilful partiality, when in words of ambiguous and divers significations, they will have it signify here or there, as pleases themselves? So that in this place it must signify thus, in that place, not thus; as Beza, and one of their English Bibles, for example, urge the Greek word yuvaiza to signify wife, and not to signify wife, both against the virginity and chastity of priests.

What is it but a voluntary and designed contrivance, when in a case that makes for them, they strain the very original signification of the word; and in the contrary case neglect it altogether? Yet this they do.

That their corruptions are voluntary and designedly done, is evident in such places where passives are turned into actives, and actives into passives; where participles are made to disagree in case from their substantives; where solecisms are imagined when the construction is most agreeable; and errors pretended to creep out of the margin into the text: but Beza made use of all these, and more such like quirks.

Another note of wilful corruption is, when they do not translate ȧlike such words as are of like form and force; example: if Ulcerosus be read full of sores, why must not Gratiosa be translated full of grace?

When the words, images, shrines, procession, devotions, excommunications, &c. are used in ill part, where they are not in the orginal text; and the words, hymns, grace, mystery, sacrament, church, altar, priest, Catholic, justification, tradition, &c. avoided and suppressed, where they are in the original, as if no such words were in the text: is it not an apparent token of design, and that it is done purposely to disgrace or suppress the said things and speeches?

Though Beza and Whitaker made it a good rule to translate according to the usual signification, and not the original derivation of