words; yet, contrary to this rule, they translate Idolum, an image; Presbyter, an elder; Diaconus, a minister; Episcopus, an overseer, &c. Who sees not therefore but this is wilful partiality? If where the Apostle names a Pagan idolater, and a Christian idolater, by one and the same Greek word, in one and the same meaning; and they translate the Pagan (idolater) and the Christian (worshipper of images) by two distinct words, and in two divers meanings, it must needs be wilfully done. Nor does it appear to be less designedly done, to translate one and the same Greek word лaρadoσis tradition, whensoever it may be taken for evil traditions; and never so, when it spoken of good and apostolical traditions. So likewise, when they foist into their translation the word tradition, taken in ill part, where it is not in the Greek; and omit it where it is in the Greek, when taken in good part; it is certainly a most wilful corruption. At their first revolt, when none were noted for schismatics and heretics but themselves, they translated division and sect, instead of schism and heresy; and for heretic, translated an author of sects. This cannot be excused for voluntary corruption. But why should I multiply examples, when it is evident from their own confessions and acknowledgments? For instance, concerning μɛTavoɛite, which the Vulgate Latin and Erasmus translate Agite pænitentiam, "do penance:" "This interpretation," says Beza, "I refuse for many causes; but for this especially, that many ignorant persons have taken hereby an occasion of the false opinions of satisfaction, wherewith the church is troubled at this day." Many other ways there are, to make most certain proofs of their wilfulness; as when the translation is framed according to their false and heretical commentary; and when they will avouch their translations out of profane writers, as Homer, Plutarch, Pliny, Tully, Virgil, and Terence, and reject the ecclesiastical use of words in the scriptures and fathers; which is Beza's usual custom, whom our English translators follow. But to note all their marks were too tedious a work, neither is it in this place necessary: these are sufficient to satisfy the impartial reader, that all those corruptions and falsifications were not committed either through negligence, ignorance, over-sight, or mistake, as perhaps they will be glad to pretend; but designedly, wilfully, and with a malicious purpose and intention, to disgrace, dishonour, condemn, and suppress the church's catholic and apostolic doctrines and principles; and to favour, defend, and bolster up their own new. devised errors, and monstrous opinions. And Beza is not far from confessing thus much, when against Castalio he thus complains: "The matter," says he, " is now come to this point, that the translators of scripture out of the Greek into Latin, or into any other tongue, think that they may lawfully do any thing in translating; whom if a man reprehend, he shall be answered || by and by, that they do the office of a translator, not who translates word for word, but who expresses the sense: so it comes to pass that whilst every man will rather freely follow his own judgment, than be a religious interpreter of the Holy Ghost, he rather perverts many things, than translates them." This is spoken well enough, if he had done accordingly. But, doing quite the contrary, is he not a dissembling hypocrite in so saying, and a wilful heretic in so doing? Our quarrel with Protestant translators is not for trivial or slight faults, or for such verbal differences, or little escapes as may happen through the scarcely unavoidable mistakes of the transcribers or printers: no! we accuse them of wilfully corrupting and falsifying the sacred text, against points of faith and mo|| rals. (a) We deny not but several immaterial faults and depravations may enter into a translation, nor do we pretend that the Vulgate itself was free from such, before the correction of Sixtus V. and Clement VIII., which, through the mistakes of printers, and, before printing, of transcribers, happened to several copies so that a great many verbal differences, and lesser faults, were, by learned men, discovered in different copies not that any material corruption in points of faith were found in all copies; for such God Almighty's providence, as Protestants themselves confess, would never suffer to enter: and indeed these lesser depravations are not easily avoided, especially after several transcriptions of copies and impressions from the original, as we daily see in other books. : To amend and rectify such, the church (as you may read in the preface to the Sixtine edition) has used the greatest industry imaginable. Pope Pius IV. caused not only the original languages, but other copies to be carefully examined: Pius V. prosecuted that laborious work; and by Sixtus V. it was finished, who commanded it to be put to press, as appears by his bull, which begins, "Eternus ille Celestium," &c., Anno 1585. Yet, notwith standing the bull prefixed before his Bible, then printed, the same Pope Sixtus, as is seen in the preface, made Anno 1592, after diligent examination, found that no few faults slipped into his impression, by the negligence of the printers: and therefore, Censuit atque decrevit, he both judged and decreed to have the whole work examined and reprinted; but that second correction being prevented by his death, was after the very short reign of three other popes, undertaken, and happily finished by his successor Clement VIII., answerable to the desire and absolute intention of his predecessor, Sixtus: whence it is that the Vulgate, now extant, is called the correction of Sixtus, because this vigilant Pope, notwithstanding the endeavours of his two predecessors, is said to have begun (a) See a book entitled, Reason and Religion, cap. viii., where the Sixtine and Clementine Bibles are more fully treated of. it, which was according to his desire, recognized and perfected by Clement VIII., and therefore is not undeservedly called also the Clementine Bible so that Pope Sixtus's Bible, after Clement's recognition, is now read in the church, as authentic, true scripture, and is the very best corrected copy of the Latin Vulgate. And whereas Pope Sixtus's bull enjoined that his Bible be read in all churches, without the least alteration; yet this injunction supposed the interpreters and printers to have done exactly their duty every way, which was found wanting upon a second review of the whole work. Such commands and injunctions therefore, where new difficulties arise, not thought of before, are not, like definitions of faith, unalterable; but may and ought to be changed according to the legislator's prudence. What I say here is indisputable; for how could Pope Sixtus, after a sight of such faults as caused him to intend another impression, enjoin no alteration, when he desired one, which his successor did for him? So that if Pope Sixtus had lived longer, he would as well have changed the Breve, as amended his impression. And whereas there were sundry different lections of the Vulgate Latin, before the said correction of Sixtus and Clement, the worthy doctors of Louvain, with an immense labour, placed in the margin of their Bible these different lections of scripture; not determining which reading was best, or to be preferred before others; as knowing well, that the decision of such causes belongs to the public judicature and authority of the church. Pope Clement therefore, omitting no human diligence, compared lection with lection; and after maturely weighing all, preferred that which was most agreeable to the ancient copies, a thing necessary to be done for procuring one uniform lection of scripture in the church, approved of by the see apostolic. And from this arises that villanous calumny and open slander of Doctor Stillingfleet; who affirms, that "the Pope took where he pleased the marginal annotations in the Louvain Bible, and inserted them into the text ;" whereas, I say, he took not the annotations or commentaries of the Louvain doctors, but the different readings of scripture found in several copies. Mr. James makes a great deal of noise about his impertinent comparisons between these two editions, and that of Louvain: yet among all his differences, he finds not one contrariety in any material point of faith or morals: and as for other differences, such as touch not faith and religion, arising from the expressions, being longer or shorter, less clear in the one, and more significant in the other; or happening through the negligence of printers, they give him no manner of ground for his vain cavils; especially seeing, I say, the Louvain Bible gave the different readings, without determining which was to be preferred; and what faults were slipped into the Sixtine edition were by him observed, and a second correction designed; which in the Clementine edition was perfected, and one uniform reading approved of. Against Thomas James's comparison, read the learned James Grester, who sufficiently dis covers his untruths, with a "Mentito tertio Thomas James decem millia verborum," &c., after which, judge whether he hits every thing he says; and whether the Vulgate Latin is to be corrected by the Louvain annotations, or these by the Vulgate, if any thing were amiss in either? In fine, whether, if Mr James's pretended differences arise from comparing all with the Hebrew, Greek, and Chaldee, must we needs suppose him to know the last energy and force of every Hebrew, Greek, or Chaldee word, when there is a controversy, better than the authors of the Louvain, and correctors of the Vulgate Latin, the Sixtine-Clementine edition? Again, let us demand of him, whether all his differences imply any material alteration in faith or morals, or introduce any notable error, contrary to God's revealed verities? Or are they not rather mere verbal differences, grounded on the obscure signification of original words? In fine, if he or any for him, plead any material alteration, let them name any authentic copy, either original or translation; by the indisputable integrity whereof these supposed errors may be cancelled, and God's pure revealed verities put in their place. But to do this, after such immense labour and diligence used in the correction of the Vulgate, will prove a desperate impossibility.(a) Indeed, Mr. James might have just cause to exclaim, if he had found in these Bibles such corruptions as the Protestant apostle, Martin Luther, wilfully makes in his translations: as when he adds the word "alone" to the text, to maintain his heresy of" faith alone justifying;"(b) and omits that verse, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your sins."(c) He also omits these words, "That you abstain from fornication:" (d) and because the word Trinity sounded coldly with him, he left out this sentence, which is the only text in the Bible that can be brought to prove that great mystery: "There are three who bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." (e) Or if Mr. James had found such gross corruptions as that of Zuinglius, when instead of our blessed Saviour's postive words, "this is my body," he translates, "this is a sign of my body," to avoid the doctrine of the real presence, or such as are hereafter discovered in Protestant English translations: if, I say, he had met with such wilful and abominable corruptions as these, he might have had good cause of complaint; but seeing the most he can make of all his painful comparisons comes but to this, viz., that he notes such faults, as Sixtus himself observed, after the impression was finished, and as Clement rectified; I think he might have better employed (a) See the Preface to Sixtus V., Edit. Antwerp, 1599; and Bib. Max., Sext., 19, 20; Serarius, c. 19. (b) Rom. iii. 28. (c) Mark xi. 26. (d) 1 Thes. iv, 3. (e) John v. 7. To conclude this point, no man can be certainly assured of the true scripture, unless he first come to a certainty of a true church, independently of scripture: find out therefore the true church, and we know, by the authority of our undoubted testimony, the true scripture; for the infallible testimony of the church is absolutely necessary for assuring us of an authentic scripture. And this I cannot see how Protestants can deny, especially when they seriously consider, that in matters of religion, it must needs be an unreasonable thing to endeavour to oblige any man to be tried by the scriptures of a false religion; for who can in prudence require of a Christian to stand in debates of religion to the decisions of the scripture of the Turks, "the Alcoran ?" Doubtless, therefore, when men appeal to such scripture for determining religious differences, their intention is to appeal to such scriptures, and such alone; and to all such as are admitted by the true church and how can we know what scriptures are admitted by the true church, unless we know which is the true church?" (a) : So likewise, touching the exposition of scripture, without doubt, when Protestants fly to scriptures for their rule, whereby to square their religion, and to decide debates between them and their adversaries, they appeal to scriptures as rightly understood: for who would be tried by scriptures understood in a wrong sense? Now when contests arise between them and others of different judgments concerning the right meaning of it; certainly they will not deny, but the judge to decide this debate must appertain to the true religion; for what Christian will apply himself to a Turk or Jew to decide matters belonging to Christianity? or who would go to an Atheist to determine matters of religion? : In like manner, when they are forced to have recourse to the private spirit in religious matters, doubtless they design not to appeal to the private spirit of an Atheist, a Jew, or an Heretic, but to the private spirit of such as are of the true religion and is it possible for them to know certainly who are members of the true church? or what appertains to the true religion, unless they be certainly informed" which is the true church?" So that, I say, no man can be certainly assured which or what books, or how much is true scripture; or of the right sense and true meaning of scripture, unless he first come to a certainty of the true church. (a) We must of necessity know the true church, before we be certain either which is true scripture, or which is the true sense of scripture; or by what spirit it is to be expounded. And whether that church which has continued visible in the world from Christ's time till this day, or that which was never known or heard of in the world till 1500 years after our Saviour, is the true church, let the world judge. And of this opinion was the great St. Augustine, when he declared, that "he would not believe the Gospel, if it was not that the authority of the Catholic Church moved him to it :" Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiæ Catholica commoveret authoritas. (b) OF THE CANONICAL BOOKS OF SCRIPTURE. THE Catholic Church "setting this always before her eyes, that, errors being removed, the very purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the church; which being promised before by the prophets, in the holy scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first published with his own mouth, and afterwards commanded to be preached, to every creature, by the apostles, as the fountain of all, the wholesome truth, and moral discipline contained in the written books, and in the traditions not written, &c., following the example of the orthodox fathers, and affected with similar piety and reverence; doth receive and honour all the books both of the Old and New Testament, seeing one God is the author of both," &c. (c) These are the words of the sacred Council of Trent; which further ordained, that the table, or catalogue, of the canonical books should be joined to this decree, lest doubt might arise to any, which books they are that are received by the council. They are these following, viz.: Of the Old Testament. Five books of Moses; that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Four of the Kings. Two of Paralipomenon. The first and second of Esdras, which is called Nehemias. Tobias, Judith, Hester, Job, David's Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Hieremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel. Twelve lesser prophets; that is, Osea, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Michæas, Nahum, Abacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias. The first and second of the Machabees. Of the New Testament. Four Gospels, according to St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John. The Acts of the Apostles, written by St. Luke the Evangelist. Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, viz., to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews. Two of St. Peter the Apostle. (b) S. Aug., lib. contr. Epist. Manich., cap. v. (c) Concil. Trident., Sess. 4, Decret. de Canonicis Scripturis; Mark c. ult. Three of St. John the Apostle. And the Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle. To which catalogue of sacred books is adjoined this decree : "But if any man shall not receive for sacred and canonical these whole books, with all their parts, as they are accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are in the old Vulgate Latin edition, &c., be he anathema. " The third Council of Carthage, after having decreed, that nothing should be read in the church under the name of divine scripture, but canonical scriptures, says, "that the canonical scriptures are Genesis, Exodus," &c.; (a) so reckoning up all the very same books, and making particularly the same catalogue of them, with this recited out of the Council of Trent. St. Augustine, who was present at, and subscribed to, this council, also numbers the same books as above. (b) Notwithstanding which, several of the said books are by the Protestants rejected as Apocryphal their reasons are, : because they are not in the Jewish canon, and were not accepted for canonical in the primitive church; reasons by which they might reject a great many more, if it pleased them but, indeed, the chief cause is, that some things in these books are so manifestly against their opinions, that they have no other answer but to reject their authority, as appears very plainly from those words of Mr. Whitaker: "We pass not," says he, "for that Raphael mentioned in Tobit, neither acknowledge we these seven angels whereof he makes mention; all that differs much from canonical scripture, which is reported of that Raphael, and savours of, I know not what, superstition. Neither will I believe free will, although the book of Ecclesiasticus confirms it an hundred times." (c) This denying of books to be canonical, because the Jews received them not, was also an old heretical shift, noted and refuted by St. Augustine, touching the book of Wisdom; (d) which some in his time refused, because it refuted their errors: but must it pass for a sufficient reason amongst Christians to deny such books, because they are not in the canon of the Jews? Who sees not that the canon of the Church of Christ is of more authority with all true Christians, than that of the Jews? For a canon is an assured rule, and warrant of direction, whereby (says St. Augustine,) the infirmity of our defect in knowledge is guided, and by which rule other books are known to be God's word" his reason is, "because we have no other assurance than the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and other books, are the true word of God, but by the canon of the church." 66 (a) 3 Concil. Carthag., Can. 47. (d) S. Aug., lib. de Prædest. Sanct., c. 14. (e) Whereupon the same great doctor uttered that famous saying: "I would not believe the Gospel, except the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereto." And, that these books which the Protestants reject, are by the church numbered in the sacred canon, may be seen above: however, to speak of them in particular, in their order: THE BOOK OF TOBIAS Is, by St. Cyprian, "de Oratione Dominica," alleged as divine scripture, to prove that prayer is good with fasting and alms. St. Ambrose calls this book by the common name of scripture, saying, "he will briefly gather the virtues of Tobias, which the scripture in an historical. manner lays forth at large;"(f) calling also this history prophetical, and Tobias a prophet: and in another place, he alleges this book, as he does other holy scriptures, to provide that the virtues of God's servants far excel those of the moral philosophers. (g) St. Augustine made a special sermon of Tobias, as he did of Job. (h) St. Chrysostom alleges it as scripture, denouncing a curse against the contemners of it. (i) St. Gregory also alleges it as holy scripture. (k) St. Bede expounds this whole book mystically, as he does other holy scriptures. St. Hierom translated it out of the Chaldee language, 'judging it more meet to displease the Pharisaical Jews, who reject it, than not to satisfy the will of holy bishops, urging to have it." Ep. ad Chromat. et Heliodorum. To. 3. In fine, St. Augustine tells us the cause of its being written, in these words : "The servant of God, holy Tobias, is given to us after the law, for an example, that we might know how to practise the things which we read. And if temptations come upon us, not to depart from the fear of God, nor expect help from any other but from him." OF THE BOOK OF JUDITH. THIS book was, by Origen, Tertullian, and other fathers, whom St. Hilary cites, held for canonical, before the first general Council of Nice; yet St. Hierom supposed it not so, till such time as he found that the said sacred council reckoned it in the number of canonical scriptures; after which he so esteemed it, that he not only translated it out of the Chaldee tongue, wherein it was first written, but also, as occasion required, cited the same as divine scripture, and (e) S. Aug., lib. 11, c. 5, contra Faustum, et lib. 2, c. 32, contra Cesconium. (f) S. Amb., lib. de Tobia. c. i. (g) Lib. 3, Offic., c. 14. (h) S. Aug., Serm., 226. de Tem, (i) S. Chrysost., Hom. 15, ad Heb. (k) S. Greg., part. 3, Pastor, curæ admon. 21. OF ECCLESIASTICUS. WHAT has been said of the foregoing book, may be said also of this. The holy fathers above named, and several others, as St. Cyprian, de Opere et Eleemosyna, St. Gregory the Great, in Psal. 1. It is also reckoned for canonical by the third Council of Carthage, and by St. Augustine, in lib. c. 8, Doct. Christian, et lib. 17, c. 20, Civit Dei. By the Council of Laodicea and Carthage, this book was declared canonical; and by most of the ancient fathers esteemed as divine scripture; only two or three, before the said councils, doubted of its authority. And though St. Hierom in his time, found not certain parts thereof in the Hebrew, yet in the Greek he found all the sixteen chapters contained in ten: and it is not improbable that these parcels were sometime in the Hebrew, as divers whole books which are now lost. But whether they ever were so or not, the church of Christ accounts the whole book of infallible authority, reading as well these parts, as the rest in her public of- Of BARUCH, with the Epistle of JEREMY. fice. (b) OF THE BOOKS OF WISDOM. Ir is granted, that several of the ancient fathers would not urge these books of Wisdom, and others, in their writings against the Jews, not that themselves doubted of their authority; but because they knew that they would be rejected by the Jews as not canonical and so St. Hierom, with respect to the Jews, said these books were not canonical; nevertheless, he often alleged testimonies out of them, as from other divine scriptures; sometimes with this parenthesis, Si cui tamen placet librum recipere, in cap. viii. and xii. Zachariæ: but in his latter writings absolutely without any such restriction, as in cap. i. and lvi. Isaiæ, and in xviii. Jeremiæ ; where he professes to allege none but canonical scripture. (c) As for the other ancient fathers, namely, St. Irenæus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, &c., they make no doubt at all of their being canonical scripture, as appears by their express terms, "divine scripture, divine word, sacred letters, prophetical sayings, the Holy Ghost saith, and the like." And St. Augustine affirms, that, "the sentence of the books of Wisdom ought not to be rejected by certain, inclining to Pelagianism, which has : MANY of the ancient Fathers supposed this prophecy to be Jeremiah's, though none of them doubted but Baruch, his scribe, was the writer of it; not but that the Holy Ghost directed him in it and therefore by the fathers and councils it has ever been accepted as divine scripture. The Council of Laodicea, in the last canon, expressly names Baruch, Lamentations, and Jehe found it in the Vulgate Latin edition, and that remiah's Epistle. (e) St. Hierom testifies, that it contains many things of Christ, and the latter times; though because he found it not in the Hebrew, nor in the Jewish canon, he urges it not against them. (f) It is by the Councils of Florence and Trent expressly defined to be canonical scripture. (a) See the Argument in the Book of Judith in the Doway Bible, Tom. 1. (t) Vide Doway Bible, Tom. 1. (d) S. Aug. in lib.de Prædestinat. Sanct., cap. 14. Et lib. de Civit. Dei, 17, c. 20. (e) See the Argument of Baruch's Prophecy in the (f) St. Hierom., in Præfat. Jeremiæ. (c) Vide Doway Bible, Tom. 2, and Jodoc., Coce. Doway Bible, To. 2. Tom. 1. Thesau. 6, Art. 9. |