Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

The truth is, the first teachers of Protestantism || reflect honour on the Catholic clergy." (a) had reformed religion; they found it also necessary to reform the inspired writings. They had created a scriptural church without a sacrifice it was prudent to have an edition of the scriptures without any honourable mention of altars. Altars and sacrifice are correlative terms: the one naturally leads to the other. When the Christian sacrifice was abolished, altars were unnecessary. They had, of course, treated them with every species of indignity, and were too cautious politicians to permit them to be commended in the scriptures. But after the lapse of a century, circumstances were changed: the generation which had witnessed the altars and the sacrifice of the Catholic worship, had passed away. A new race of men, with new habits and new prejudices, had succeeded, no danger could arise from the adoption of the term: and the word altar was silently permitted to resume its former place in the sacred writings.

Before I close my remarks on this section, I must observe that Ward has noticed another corruption of the text, which Dr. Ryan has thought it prudent to overlook. In 1 Cor. xi. 27, the apostle says, Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, n nivŋ shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: from which disjunctive proposition Catholic controvertists have been accustomed to draw an argument in favour of communion in one kind. This is a matter of such notoriety that a divine like Dr. Ryan could not be ignorant of it. In the first Protestant Bibles this text was faithfully translated: but in the more modern it has been corrupted by the substitution of the copulative particle and, for the disjunctive particle or: a substitution of which Ward most justly complains. Now, in what manner does Dr. Ryan defend it? He is silent; he does not even remotely hint that such a corruptinn has been noticed by his adversary. Is he then conscious of the fraud, but unwilling that it should come to the knowledge of his Protestant readers? I fear this is the only consistent explanation, which his conduct will admit. It certainly is not manly but it would, perhaps, be too much to expect that every writer should have the honesty to make confessions, which would go to criminate himself. However, he may draw this lesson from it that he, who stands in need of so much indulgence himself, should be cautious how he condemns with severity the imaginary blemishes, which he may fancy that he discovers in others.

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS

AGAINST

Reader, consult Ward, and thou wilt find he says no such thing. Ward attributes the suppression of the word priest to the suppression of the sacrifice of the mass. Where there is no altar or sacrifice, there is no need of a priest. But Dr. Ryan has forged the reason which he here gives to Ward, as an introduction to the sarcasm against the Catholic clergy, which immediately follows it. "Elder," he also tells us, "is a more literal translation of the Greek word than priest, and presbytery than priesthood: so that the Protestant translators are not chargeable with a mistranslation of these words. (b) He will, however, allow me to ask, what kind of men they were, whom the sacred writers designate by the term nosoẞursgo? Were they not ministers of religious worship ordained for that purpose by the apostles? As a minister of the Established Church, he must answer in the affirmative. But if they were, what is the proper term by which such ministers are described in the English language? Not only common usage, but the very language of the Church of England decides in favour of the word priest. If then the translators of the Bible meant to speak a language intelligible to their readers, they ought to have translated the Greek word priests and not elders. Were I to request the favour of Dr. Ryan to translate the following Latin sentence : Episcopus Londinensis cum majore civitatis et duobus ecclesiæ presbyteris visitavit universitatem Oxoniensem," would he prefer as more literal such a version as this: the overseer of London, with the greater of the city, and two elders of the church, visited the generality of Oxford ?

66

He proceeds: "Ward asserts that these translators were so conscious, that their bishops had no grace to confer a sacred character, by the imposition of hands, that they put out the word grace and substituted gift in two passages of St. Paul." When will Dr. Ryan cease to deceive his reader? No such reason, as he here relates, occurs in Ward. That writer ascribes the substitution of the term gift, to the doctrine which the reformers preached, that order wa no sacrament. (c) Whoever is conversant with the sacred writings will agree with him that zagioua is not properly rendered, by gift. In scriptural language it always meant grace, or a supernatural gift.

was

I cannot follow him through all his mistakes in this section. The last seems to prove that he had hardly looked at the book he pretends to refute. "We are charged," he says, "with mistranslating the Greek word signifying deacon though all the Protestant versions of it agree with the Popish without the slightest variation!" (d) The truth, however is, that Ward

PRIESTS, PRIESTHOOD, AND HOLY does not charge them with mistranslating the

ORDERS.

On this subject Dr. Ryan observes: "According to Ward we misconstrued six texts, by rendering the Greek word elder instead of priest: he says, we did so, lest the term priest should

passage in question, 1 Tim. iii. 12. He only notices that in this verse it was translated properly: and yet in the fourth verse preceding it

[blocks in formation]

was rendered in the more ancient versions, minister. He only wishes to know why the same word, with the meaning attached to it in the Greek, should in the short space of four verses be rendered by a different word in English? In itself this is not a matter of great consequence but I thought proper to notice it to expose the artifices of Dr. Ryan, who can thus condescend to calumniate his adversary, that he may enjoy a short and dangerous triumph.

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS

AGAINST

:

In 1 Peter ii. 13, we read in the Catholic version, Be subject....whether it be to the king, as excelling in the Protestant, whether it be to the king, as supreme. Dr. Ryan observes," the Greek word dneεy signifies supreme as well as excelling; so that it is not very material, which way it is rendered."(b) It should, however, be observed that in the more ancient version, to afford some scriptural foundation for the king's claim to the title of head of the church, it was rendered, to the king, as the supreme head, a corruption which I trust Dr. Ryan will not have the temerity to defend. The rendering of the more modern Bibles is less objectionable, though it does not in my opinion exactly convey the

THE AUTHORITY OF PRIESTS AND meaning of the original to the English reader.

BISHOPS.

I HAVE joined these two sections together, because the object of both is in a great measure the same, to determine the propriety of translating certain scriptural terms, according to their general acceptation, in profane rather than ecclesiastical language. The words bishop, priest, deacon, angel, though originally borrowed from the Greek, have for more than a thousand years been naturalized among us. The three former serve to denote persons raised to certain

offices in the church: the last, one employed in the

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS

AGAINST

THE SINGLE LIVES OF PRIESTS. "WARD," observes Dr. Ryan, "says we misrendered the following text of St. Paul: Have we not the power to eat and to drink-to lead about a woman, a sister, as well as the other

apostles? (1 Cor. ix. 5.) We render, a wife, a

sister. The Greek word signifies wife as well as duty of the heavenly spirits. Their meaning is perfectly understood by every man who can speak able with misconstruing it." What idea Dr. Ryan woman: so that our translators are not chargethe English language. But the English translators, as if they had been making a version of translator, I know not but the canon which may have formed of the duties of a scriptural some profane writer, rejected these terms, and he has here laid down, is, I conceive, most sinemployed others more consonant in their forma-gular in its nature, and most pernicious in its tion to the meaning of the radicals, of which the Greek words are composed. Thus bishop, is rendered overseer; the highest functionary in the church is denoted by a term, which in common language signifies a menial servant priest is translated elder; and we are gravely told of choosing and ordaining elders, as if any thing but time could in the strict meaning of the word make an elder: deacons are called ministers, a term which properly includes all the offices of the church: angels, messengers, a word which certainly does not give a very high notion of the dignity of the heavenly spirits. These innovations Ward condemns, and, I think, with much justice. He attributes them to the unsettled state of religion, when the first English versions were made. The reformers had demolished the ancient fabric: they had not agreed what to substitute in its place. It was therefore politic in them to exclude bishops, priests, and deacons from the scripture, that the people, who from

habit had been accustomed to reverse these orders, might not conceive there was any foundation for them in scripture. From the words apostle and disciple, no danger was to be apprehended. These therefore were suffered to remain. Though, had the translators followed any general rule, they also should have been metamorphosed into messengers and scholars.(a)

(α) In the late Bibles the words Διακονοσ and Αγγελοσ are sometimes rendered properly.

||

application. There exists hardly a word in any language which is not susceptible of several different meanings and of these meanings it liberty to select that which may please him best. appears that the translator of the scriptures is at Now I think, and I trust every rational man will think with me, that, when the signification of a word is determined, as it generally is by the context, the translator is bound to adopt that signification: and that, when it is not, he is not at liberty to select the meaning that may please him best, but ought to render the ambiguity of the version: otherwise he does not offer a faithful text by an expression of similar ambiguity in the copy of the original: he does not translate but interpret: he substitutes fallibility for infallibility and gives the surmises of his own judgment or prejudice in the place of the real words of the inspired writer. It is true that the Greek word wife in its secondary, woman in its primary and yun signifies wife as well as woman. It signifies thing in the context to fix it to its secondary more general acceptation. Now, is there any meaning of wife? Nothing; so that the more ancient writers, whose judgment could not be biassed by controversial disputes, which di arise till many centuries after they woman, and explain it of an unma in their graves, without hesitation But even allowing it to be as p

(b) Anal., p. 11

Paul meant a married, as that he meant an unmarried woman, this probability should at least be preserved in the version, by the adoption of a word as equally susceptible of either meaning as the Greek word in the original. It should be translated a woman, a sister, or a sister woman, and not a wife, a sister, as in the Protestant translation. He who says, a woman, does not decide whether she were married or not: but he who says, a wife, determines the question at once, and by substituting that determination in place of the words of the apostle, corrupts the sacred volume, and deceives the credulity of his readers. The next text is thus rendered in the Catholic version: I intreat thee also, my sincere companion: in the Protestant, my true yoke-fellow. As Dr. Ryan justly observes, "the two versions seems to be the same in substance." But it should be remembered, that the Protestant translation was made for the use of the vulgar, and in the ears of the vulgar yoke-fellow sounds very much like wife. Now, why did the Protestant translators act so very differently in rendering this and the preceding text? In the former for a word of doubtful meaning they gave us another of determinate signification: in this the meaning of the expression is evident, (we have Dr. Ryan's word for it,) and yet they render it by a term, to say the best of it, of very ambiguous signification. To solve the problem, Ward asserts that their object was to teach the people to look with a more favourable eye on the married clergy and whoever reflects on the disputes which then divided the Christian world on that subject, will not think his opinion devoid of probability.

The next text is Matt. xix. 11. Our Saviour, speaking of the virtue of continency, says: Not all, they take this word; but they to whom it is given. The Protestant translation has all men CANNOT receive this word, save they to whom it is given. "A curious proof," remarks Dr. Ryan, "that we mistranslated to justify the marriage of the clergy!" The Dr. may make light of the difference between the two versions: but I must be allowed to maintain that the Protestant reading is a most palpable corruption. It is confessed that the word cannot does not occur in the original and it is evident that it cannot be added without changing the sense. It affords a ready apology to every slave to impure gratification. Though the Dr. asserts that there is little difference between do not receive, and cannot receive, I think few of our readers are so prejudiced as not to admit the distinction between power and act. Every one must know, that men frequently do not perform actions, though they can perform them. In short, let me ask why the translators added the word cannot? If it did not add to the meaning of the original, why was the addition made? If it did. where was their honesty?

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS

AGAINST

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. Or the mistranslations in the Protestant Bible a great number are owing to the peculiar opin

ions of their authors: and as these are now forgotten, those are frequently overlooked. It was the favourite tenet of Beza, that the sacraments of the new and the sacraments of the old law were of equal efficacy; and that the baptism of John was similar to the baptism of Jesus. Now there occurs a passage of contrary import in Acts xix. 3. In what, said St. Paul to the Ephesians, were you baptized? And they said, in John's baptism. Εισ τι δεν έβαπτίσθητε; δι δε ειπον. Εισ το Ιωαννα βαπτισμα. After which, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Eto to ovoμa 18 Kuqi Inas. To elude the force of this text, Beza translated: Unto what were ye baptized? Unto John's baptism: and explained John's baptism to be a metaphor expressive of John's doctrine.(a) Beza's opinion was adopted by the English translators, and with it was also adopted his version: though in the fourth verse they render the same Greek words baptized in and not unto. By this conduct they have undoubtedly disfigured and corrupted the text. Of their readers the greater part are unable to affix to it any meaning at all: and the few that do understand it, are presented with an erroneous version. Ward then was correct in numbering this passage among the Errata. Dr. Ryan in its defence only alleges, that the difference between the Catholic and Protestant versions is too trivial to be noticed: "into, unto, you and ye!!" But I would have him to reflect that the change of a single syllable will frequently cause a very important change in the sense and to recollect that the Catholic version reads in and not into, as he has thought proper to assert.

In Titus iii. 5, the Apostle says that we have been saved "by the laver of regeneration, and the renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom he (God) has poured upon us.” In this text, which evidently alludes to baptism, the Apostle clearly says that the Holy Ghost is poured upon us in that sacrament. But this did not coincide with the views of Calvin, who therefore boldly rendered δια λουτρου παλινγενεσίας, και ανακοινώσεως

vsvμatos áɣ18, 8 ¿žEXEε to uas, per lavacrum regenerationis spiritus sancti QUOD effudit in nos. The English translators reversed the authority of Calvin; and therefore preferring his version to the words of the original, they also rendered it, by the fountain of the regeneration of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us." If it be said that the relative which is ambiguous, and may be referred either to fountain or Holy Ghost, I ask, why, where the original is clear, did they prefer ambiguity? why did they select the verb to shed, which alludes rather to the fountain than the Holy Ghost, and why did they so scrupulously adhere to Calvin's version, as to suppress the very words which he suppressed? In the modern English Bibles, the words originally suppressed, are indeed restored, and fountain is changed into washing: but the ambiguous relative which, and the verb, to shed, are still retained. Dr. Ryan owns that the Catholic version is preferable.

(a) Bez. annot. in Act. xix.

8

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS

AGAINST

CONFESSION AND THE SACRAMENT
OF PENANCE.

On this subject the point at issue between Ward and Dr. Ryan is the true meaning of the Greek verb ustavosiv. According to the Doctor it implies sorrow for sin with a firm resolution of amendment, and is therefore properly rendered by the Protestant translators to repent. According to Catholics, it implies not only sorrow and a purpose of amendment, but also an external demonstration of that sorrow by good works performed in a penitential spirit, such as prayer, alms, and fasting, of which numerous instances are recorded in holy writ. The Catholic translators have therefore rendered it, to do penance. Now, that their rendering is accurate I think clear: 1stly, from some of the texts themselves, which mention bodily afflic tion as an adjunct to the sorrow and amendment required. Thus we read, Matt. xi. 21, Luke x. 13, They had done penance (repented Prot. ver.) in sackcloth and ashes; 2ndly, from the ancient Greek ecclesiastical writers, who probably understood the real import of their own language as well as the Protestant translators. Now those always style the performance of penitential works ustavoia. Thus St. Basil, speaking of the prayers, the abstinence, the sackcloth and ashes of the Ninivites, exclaims : Τοςαυτη ἡ των ἁμαρτίαις ἐνεχομενων μετανοια ;(α) 3d, from the austerities to which in the ancient church public sinners were subjected, who were then termed δι ἐν τῇ μετάνοια όντεσ ; 4th from the translator of the Vulgate and the Latin fathers, who render it by " penitentiam agere." To these I may add Ausonius the poet in the well known passage, Sum Dea, quæ facti, non factique exigo pœnas; Scilicet ut pœniteat, sic peravoia vocor,

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS

AGAINST

THE HONOUR OF OUR LADY AND
OTHER SAINTS.

I SHALL not dwell long on the texts enumerated under this head, as they are of minor importance. By Ward they were noticed with no other view than to show, how scrupulously anxious the Protestant translators were not to contaminate the orthodoxy of their version by any approach towards the language of Catholics. I shall give one instance. In Psalm cxxxix. 17, occurs the following passage:-Thy friends, O God, are become exceedingly honourable: their princedom is exceedingly strengthened. In the Catholic service this text is applied to the saints; a sufficient argument for its exclusion from a Protestant Bible. That the Hebrew word - originally meant thy friends, and n

(a) St. Bas. hom. in fame et siceitate.

their

princedom, cannot be denied. They had been rendered so by the Greek translator, and the Latin translator, and the Syriac translator, and the Arabic translator, and the Ethiopic translator, and the Chaldaic paraphrast. But then it was the misfortune of these writers to live before the reformation. Hatred of Popery had not disclosed to them all the mysteries of the Hebrew language. Our Protestant translators applied to the task; and by the magic touch of their pen, the friends of God, and their princedom, were translated into the thoughts of God and their sum. "How precious are thy thoughts unto me, O God! and how great is the sum of them." But this version, if it cannot lay claim to accuracy, has at least one advantage. It offers to the piety of the orthodox churchman a new subject of meditation, the sum of God's thoughts. Truly, if men are determined to corrupt the language of scripture, let them at least make it speak sense.

To pervert it from

its true meaning is guilt sufficient: to transform it into nonsense is a work of supererogation: it is more than is necessary for the support of orthodoxy.

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS

AGAINST

THE DISTINCTION OF RELATIVE
AND DIVINE WORSHIP.

IN Hebrews xi. 21, it is said of Jacob, оσεκύνησεν επι το άκροντησ ραβδε αυτε : which in the Catholic translation is rendered, according rod: in the Protestant, worshipped, leaning on to the Vulgate, adored the top of his (Joseph's) the top of his staff. Among the ancient writers there were two opinions respecting the meaning of this passage, and that to which it alludes, Genesis xlvii. 31. St. Augustine expounded them to mean that Jacob adored God, leaning on his staff, and St. Jerom countenances this opinion by translating the Hebrew: "adoravit Israel deum, conversus ad lectuli caput." But the general opinion was, that Jacob in this instance directed his respect not immediately to God, but to his son Joseph. Those, however, who held this opinion, were divided in their manner of explaining it. Joseph," says Theophylactus, " pointing out the "He worshipped worship of the whole people. But how did he worship? On the top of his staff: that is, supporting himself on his staff on account of his age. But some say he worshipped towards the top of Joseph's rod, signifying by the rod the sceptre of the kingdom which would be afterwards worshipped." (b) Of these two opinions the former was adopted by Theodoret; "Israel sat resting on his staff, and worshipped bending

(δ) Προσεκύνησε τῳ Ιωσεφ, την παντος του λαου προσκύνησιν δηλων. Πωσ δε προσεκύνησεν ; επι το άκρον της ρασδου αυτου, τουτέστιν, επερεισθεισ τηραβδῳ δια το γερασ. Τινες δε επι το

άκροντησ ραβίου του Ιωσεφ, φασι, προσεκύνησε, σημαίνων το τησ βασιλειασ σκήπτρον δια τησ ραβδου προσκυνηθησεσθαι μελλον. Theophyl. in cap. xi. ad Hæb.

his head on his staff:" (a) the latter by St. Athanasius, who in quoting the passage inserts the words die dve "the rod of his son," (b) and by St. Chrysostom, who says, "though an old man he worshipped Joseph, foretelling the future worship to be rendered by the whole people." (c) In such diversity of sentiment no translator can be blamed for adopting either opinion. I would translate it, He bowed to the top of Joseph's staff.

[ocr errors]

In Ps. xcviii. 5, it is said, according to the Catholic version, adore the footstool of his feet, because it is holy in the Protestant, worship at his footstool, for he is holy. The former version is favourable to the exhibition of religious respect to creatures; the latter does not necessarily exclude it. I do not, however, think that the Protestant rendering is accurate. The Hebrew phrase is applied in the scriptures to the true God, to imaginary gods, and to creatures: and the nature of the worship, which it denotes, is determined by the nature of its object. But the reformers had rejected that respect, which Catholics allow on religious motives to be sometimes paid to creatures and it was of course improper to permit any traces of it to be found in the sacred volumes. Thus the same phrase adopted different meanings at the will of the translaior : and the same preposition on one occasion pointed out the object of worship, at another excluded it: on manon is rendered, thou shalt not bow down thyself To them: and worship AT his footstool. If in the former passage the Hebrew phrase means to bow down to, how comes it to mean to worship at, in the latter? I fear, that in this text, as in many others, the prejudices of the translators prevailed over their respect for the original. In the Catholic version we read, for it is holy; in the Protestant, for he is only. The Hebrew text will bear either meaning.

PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS

AGAINST

[ocr errors]

pers. No less than thirteen different words in the Hebrew, and nine in the Greek scriptures, were invariably rendered image in the English version: so wonderfully comprehensive is the meaning of that single word in orthodox language. Of the texts, which had been thus corrupted, two proved eminently useful. In 2 Cor. vi. 16, the Apostle was made to say: How agreeth the temple of God with images? and this corruption furnished every iconoclast preacher with a most powerful text, when he urged the credulity of his hearers to deface the ornaments with which Catholic piety had been accustomed to decorate religious edifices. The other text occurred 1 John. v. 22, babes, keep yourselves from images; and this, when the house of God had been purged from every trace of Popish idolatry, was constantly painted in large characters within the door. Useful, however, as these texts have been, they no longer appear in the sacred volumes. They were suffered to effect the purpose of their authors, and then were directly consigned to oblivion. The same has been the fate of several others of similar import, as Dr. Ryan acknowledges: "but then," he adds, "having been corrected, Ward should not have inserted them in his list." Why not? Did they not originally exist in the Protestant version? Were they not received by the people as part of the original text? Undoubtedly. Ward then could not have omitted them without betraying the cause he had undertaken to defend.

But though several of these texts have been corrected by men, whose more moderate orthodoxy cold blush at the daring effrontery of their predecessors, Ward still complains that several are also left, which equally require correction. In the Protestant version of the decalogue are read, thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, instead of graven thing. "But where," says Dr. Ryan, "is the difference? When a thing is graven, it becomes an image, and a graven thing must be the image of something real or imaginary." (d) If the authors of the Protestant version reasoned in this manner,

SACRED IMAGES AND AGAINST THE they deserved no less praise as logicians than as

USE OF THEM.

AMONG the different arts by which the apostles of the reformation contrived to inflame the animosity of their disciples against the Church of Rome, few were more efficacious than the clamour which they raised against the worship of images. According to the new gospel, every species of religious respect offered to inanimate objects was idolatrous and to prove the truth of this doctrine, almost every page of scripture was improved by new denunciations of vengeance against images, and their worship

(α) Εκαθεσθη βακτέρια δε κεχρημενοσ επιστηρίζετε αυτῃ. Προσεκύνησεν ἐπικλινασ τη ραβδω την κεφαλήν. Theod. in Gen. interrog. 109,

(b) Homil. in St. Patres, 11, p. 693.

(c) Και γέρων ών, ήδη προσεκύνησε τω Ιωσεφ, την παντοσ του λαου προσκύνησιν δηλων την εσομένην αυτῷ. Hom. xxvi. in epis. ad Heb.

[ocr errors]

translators. Every graven thing must necessarily be an image, why, then I suppose every graven ornament is to be called an image, the pillars that adorn our porticoes will be images: even our houses of polished and ornamented stone must become images. That the Hebrew word in its original meaning denotes a graven times mean an image, I will allow. But in what thing, cannot be denied: and that it may somesense does Dr. Ryan wish it to be taken? If in the latter, yet from the context it is evident that it denotes an image to which divine worship is to be paid and such an image in plain English is an idol. Thus it was rendered by the Greek translators, and thus it ought to have been rendered by the Protestant. But if he takes it in the former sense, the present rendering is also false as it restrains the prohibition to

() Anal., p. 25.

« PredošláPokračovať »