(1) I HAVE not set down these few examples of their additions, as if they were all the only places in the Bible that were corrupted after this manner; for if you observe well in the foregoing chapters, you will find both additions and diminutions; and that so frequently done, and with such wonderful boldness, as if these translators had been privileged by especial license to add to, or diminish from, the sacred text at their pleasures: or, as if themselves had been only excepted from that general curse denounced against all such as either add to, or diminish from it, in the close of the Holy Bible (Apocalypse xxii. 18, 19,) in these words, " For I testify to every one, hearing the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall diminish of the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and of these things that be written in this book."

Against holy images they maliciously add to the text these words "carved images, that were laid to his charge." And to what intent is this, but to deceive the ignorant reader, and to foment his hatred against the images of Christ, and his saints? as they have done also in another place, (Rom. xi. 4,) where they maliciously add the word "image" to the text, where it is not in the Greek, saying, instead of "I have left me seven thousand men, who have not bowed their knees to Baal," thus, "I have left me seven thousand men, who have not bowed their knee to the image of Baal." (a)

(2) "By conferring one scripture with another" this is added more than is in the Greek, in favour of their presumptuous opinion, that the comparing of the scriptures is enough for any man to undertsand them himself, solely by his own diligence and endeavour; and thereby to reject both the commentaries of the doctors, and the exposition of holy councils, and the Catholic Church. (b)

(4) In this place they add to the text the words "the scripture;" where the apostle may as well, and indifferently say: "The Spirit," or, "Holy Ghost," gives more graces, as is more probable he meant, and is so expounded by many. And so also this last translation of theirs intimates, by inserting the word He: "But He giveth more grace:" though this is more than they can stand by. But they will never be prevented from inserting their commentary in the text, and restraining the "Holy Ghost" to one particular sense, where his words seem to be ambiguous, which the Latin interpreter never presumed to do, but always leaves it as open to either signification in the Latin, as he found it in the Greek.

(5) IN this last place they alter the apostle's plain speech with certain words of their own; for they will not have him say, "Be unmoveable in the faith and gospel, which you have heard, which has been preached;" but, "whereof you have heard how it was preached;" and though he spoke not of the gospel preached to them, but of a gospel which they had only heard of, that was preached in the world.

The apostle exhorts the Colossians to continue grounded in the faith and gospel, which they had heard and received from their apostles. (d) But our Protestants, who with Hymenæus and Alexander, and other old heretics, have fallen from their first faith, approve not of this exhortation.

It is certain that these words, "whereof you have heard how it was preached," are not so in the Greek; but," which you have heard, which has been preached:" as if it were said, that they should continue constant in the faith and gospel, which themselves had received, and which was then preached and received in the whole world.

It is written of Luther, (c) that in his first translation of the Bible into the German tongue, he left out these words of the apostle clearly "This is the word which is evangelized to you;" because St. Peter does here define what is the word of God, saying: "That which is preached" to you, and not that only which is written.

Bible 1562. (b) Bible 1577.

(c) Lind. Dubitat., p. 88.

pose to make it seem to the ignorant people, that mass and other ecclesiastical offices ought not to be said in Latin: whereas there is nothing here either written or meant of any other tongues, but such as men spoke in the primitive church by miracle; to wit, barbarous and strange tongues, which could not be interpreted commonly, but by the miraculous gift also of interpretation: and though also they might by a miracle speak the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew tongues; yet these could not be counted unknown

(4) 1 Tim, i. 6,

tongues, as being the common languages of the world, and of the learned in every city; and in which also the scriptures of the Old and New Testament were written; which could not be said to have been written in an unknown tongue, though they were not penned in the vulgar language, peculiar to all people; but in a learned and known speech, capable of being interpreted by thousands in every country, though not by every illiterate person.

I would gladly know from our translators, what moved them to add the word "unknown" in some places, and not in others, where the Greek word is the same in all? For instance, in the fifth verse of this chapter, where the apostle wishes that all should speak with tongues; they translate exactly according to the Greek, without adding to the text; when in all the other places, where they think there may be some shadow or colour of having it meant of the general tongue, and known language of the church, they partially, and with a very ill meaning, thrust in the word "unknown." See the annotations upon this place, in the Rhemish Testament

Again, Rom. xii. 6, 7, where the apostle's words are, "Having gifts according to the grace that is given us, different, either prophecy according to the rule of faith: or ministry, in ministering; or he that teaches, in doctrine;" they, by adding several words of their own, not found in the Greek, and altering others, make the text run thus; "Having then gifts, differing according to the grace that is given us, whether prophecy (let us prophecy) according to the proportion of faith; or ministry (let us wait on our) ministering; or he that teaches on teaching."

Besides their additions here, they pervert the text, by changing the word "rule" of faith into "proportion" of faith; whereby they would have their readers to gather no more from this place, than only that their new ministers are to prophecy or preach, and wait on their ministering according to the measure or proportion of faith or ability, less or more, that they are endued with. Whereas by this text, as also by many other places of holy writ, we may gather that the apostles, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, before they divided themselves into divers nations, made among themselves a certain rule and form of faith and doctrine, containing not only the twelve Articles of the Creed; but all other principles, grounds, and the whole platform of the Christian Religion; which rule was before any of the books of the New Testament were written, and before the faith was preached among the Gentiles; by which rule not only the doctrine of all other inferior teachers was to be tried, but also the preaching, writing, and interpreting, which is here called prophecying, of the apostles and evangelists themselves, were by God's Church approved and admitted, or reproved and rejected according to this rule of faith. This

form or rule every apostle delivered by word of mouth, not by scripture, to the country by them converted, which was also by the apostolical men, and those who received it entire from the apostles, delivered also entire to the next following age; which also receiving it from them, delivered it as they had received it, to the succeeding age, &c., till this our present age.

And this is the true analogy of faith, set down and commended to us everywhere for apostolica tradition; and not the fantastical rule or square, which every ministerial guide, according to his great or small proportion of faith, pretends to gather out of the scriptures, as understood by his own private spirit, and wrested to his own heretical purpose; by which he will presume to judge of, and censure the fathers, councils, church, yea, the scripture itself. In the primitive church, as also in the church of God, at this day, all teaching, preaching, and prophecy. ing are not measured according to the proportion of every man's private and public spirit, but by this rule of faith, first set down and delivered by the apostles: and therefore, whatsoever novelties or prophecyings will not abide this text, they are justly, by the apostles, condemned, as contrary and against the rule of faith thus delivered.

I cannot omit taking notice, in this place, of two "notorious and gross corruptions" in their first translation, seeing they much concern the Church of England's "priesthood." The first is in Acts i. 26, where, instead of saying: “He, Matthias, was numbered with the eleven;" they translate it, "He was, by a common consent, counted with the eleven.' The other, already mentioned, is, " Acts, xiv. 22, where, for, " When they had ordained to them priests in every church," they say: "When they had ordained elders by election in every congregation." In one of these texts, the words, "by a common consent," and in the other, "by election," are added on purpose to make the scripture speak in defence of their making superintendents and elders by election only, without consecration and ordination, by imposition of hands: by which corrupt additions it evidently appears to have been the doctrine of the Church of England, in those days, that election only, without consecration, was sufficient to make bishops and priests.

But in their last translation, made in the beginning of King James the First's reign, they have corrected these places, by expunging the words formerly added. And this was done by the bishops and clergy, for their great honour, dignity, and authority; knowing that consecration, which they thought now high time to pretend to, must needs elevate them much above the sphere of a bare election, in which they formerly moved. And perhaps, another no less prevalent reason was, that they might more securely fix themselves in their bishoprics and benefices; thinking, perhaps, that bishops consecrated, might pretend to that jure divino,

which men only elected by the congregation or prince, held at the mercy and good liking of the electors what other motives induced them to this, matters not. However, they thought it now convenient to pretend to something more than a bare election; to wit, to receive an episcopal and priestly character, by the imposition of hands whereas we find not, that their prede. cessors, Parker, Jewel, Horn, &c., ever pretended to any other character, but what they received by the Queen's letters patent, election, and an act of parliament; as is plain from the 23rd and 25th of their 39 Articles, as well as from the statute 8 Eliz. I., and therefore were content to have the scripture read, "He was, by a common consent, counted with the eleven;" and, "When they had ordained elders by election."(a)

And whereas our present ministerial guides of the Church of England, would gladly have people believe them to have a succession of bishops from the apostolic times to this day; yet so far was Mr. Parker, Jewel, and the rest of their first bishops, from pretending to any such episcopal succession, "if they had been truly consecrated, they must of necessity have owned and maintained a succession among them," that, on the contrary, they published and preached many things to discredit the same: and to that

purpose, falsified and corrupted the scripture against succession, for in the defence of the apology of the Church of England, they write thus: " By succession Christ saith, that desolation shall sit in the holy place, and anti-christ shall press into the room of Christ;" for proof of which, they note in the margin, Matt. xxiv. And in another place of the same defence, they say of succession: St. Paul says to the faithful at Ephesus: "I know that after my departure hence, ravening wolves shall enter and succeed me; and out of yourselves there shall, by succession, spring up men speaking perversely;" whereas St. Paul has never a word about succession or succeeding; nor is succession named in the 24th of St. Matthew (c) So that you see, the first bishops of the Church of England, not only corrupted the sacred text, in translating many places of the Bible against ordination; but also in their other writings, falsified the scripture with their corrupt additions against succession.(d) Two sufficient reasons for us to believe, that they neither had nor pretended to either consecration, or episcopal succession in those days; consequently were not consecrated at Lambeth, by such as had received their consecration and character from Roman Catholic bishops, who claim it no otherwise than by an uninterrupted succession from the apostles, and so from Christ. And this obliges me to digress a little into (d)

(b) IN the beginning of King James the First's reign, a new translation of the Bible being undertaken, the said falsifications of scripture corrected, and a full resolution put on of assuming to themselves the character of consecrated bishops and priests; they thought it absolutely necessary to derive this character from such bishops as had been, as they thought, consecrated by Roman Catholic bishops; by whose hands they would now make the world believe, the first of their predecessors, Matthew Parker, was consecrated with great solemnity at Lambeth. To which purpose, they presume to obtrude upon the world certain, before unheard of, records or registers. But the age in which the sun first shone upon these records, viz., anno 1613, not being so easily imposed upon as was expected, the said Lambeth Register became suspected, and, for divers reasons, detected as a forged instrument. Fitzherbert, a man of great sincerity and authority, writ against these Lambeth Records, in the very year

(a) Dr. Tenison and A. B., in the Speculum Considered, p. 49, tell us," That in the Church of England they have a succession of bishops continued down from the apostolic times to this day; but to name or number them," they say," is neither necessary nor useful." They might have added, not possible.

(b) The Lambeth Records Considered.

that Mr. Mason, workman to Dr. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, first published them to the world. These are his words: (e) "It was my chance to understand, that one Mr. Mason, lately published a book, wherein he endeavours to prove the consecration of the first Protestant bishops, by a register, testifying, that four bishops consecrated Matthew Parker, the first archbishop of Canterbury. Thou shalt therefore understand, good reader, that this our exception, touching the lawful vocation and consecration of the first Protestant bishops in the late queen's day, is not a new quarrel, now lately raised, but vehemently urged divers times heretofore, by many other Catholics, many years ago; yea, in the very beginning of the late queen's reign as namely, by two learned doctors, Harding and Stapleton, who mightily pressed them with the defect of due vocation and consecration, urging them to prove the same, and to show how, and by whom they were made priests and bisheps." Thus he.

(c) See the Defence of the Apol., pp. 132, and 127. (d) The first Protestant bishops and clergy were so far from pretending to either consecration or succession, that they corrupted the scripture against both.

(e) See Fitzherbert's Appendix to the Discovery of Dr. Andrews' Absurdities, Falsities, and Lies, printed anno 1613.

And to give you the words of the said doctors thus writes Dr. Harding to Mr. Jewel, pretended bishop of Salisbury: "It remains, Mr. Jewel, you tell us, whether your vocation be ordinary or extraordinary: if it be ordinary, show us the letters of your orders; at least, show us that you have received power to do the office you presume to exercise, by the due order of laying on of hands, and consecration: but order and consecration you have none; for which of all these new ministers, howsoever else you call them, could give that to you, which he has not himself?" These are his very words to Mr. Jewel; having but a little before urged him also, in the words of Tertullian, thus : "You know what Tertullian says of such as you be, Edant origines ecclesiarum suarum; we say likewise to you, Mr. Jewel; and what we say to you, we say to each one of your companions: tell us the original, and first spring of your church; show us the register of your bishops continually succeeding one another from the beginning; so as that the first bishop may have some one of the apostles, or of the apostolical men, for his author, and predecessor, &c.(a) Therefore, says he, to go from your succession, which you cannot prove, and to come to your vocation: How say you, sir? you bear yourself, as though you were bishop of Salisbury; but how can you prove your vocation? by what authority usurp you the administration of doctrine and sacraments? what can you allege for the right and proof of your ministry? who has called you? who has laid hands on you? by what example has he done it? how, and by whom are you consecrated? who has sent you? who has committed to you the office you take upon you?" &c. In this manner was Mr. Jewel urged to all which he never replied, by sending Dr. Harding to any register of his, or his metropolitan's consecration or by telling him, that their consecration at Lambeth, was upon record or that they had authentic testimonies to show who imposed hands upon them. And how easily had such answers been given to these hard questions, if there had then been extant any authentic register or records of his own, or of Matthew Parker's consecration at Lambeth.

After the same manner he is set upon by Dr. Stapleton, in his answer to Mr. Jewel's book, entitled, a reply, &c.: "How chanced then, Mr. Jewel," says he, "that you and your fellows, bearing yourselves for bishops, have not so much as this congruity and consent; I will not say of the Pope, but of any Christian bishops at all, throughout all Christendom; neither are liked and allowed by any one of them all; but have taken upon you that office, without any imposition of hands, without all ecclesiastical authority, without all order of canons and right? I ask not, who gave you bishoprics, but who made you bishops?" Thus he to Jewel.(6)

(a) We also at this day still urge our Protestant bishops to prove their succession. But they, instead of doing

it, waive us off with these words: "To name or number our bishops, is neither useful nor necessary." Vide Supr. (b) See Stapleton's Return of Untruhts. His Challenge 'to Jewel and Horn, and his Counterblast against Horn.

And thus again, in his Counterblast against Horn, pretended bishop of Winchester: "Is it not notorious," says he to Horn, "that you and your colleagues, Parker, &c., were not ordained according to the prescript, I will not say of the church, but even of the very statutes? How then can you challenge to yourself the name of the lord bishop of Winchester ?" And in another place he urges Mr. Horn with his "being without any consecration at all of his metropolitan, Parker; himself, poor man," says he, " being no bishop neither." Who, I say once again, can imagine Jewel and Horn should have been so careless of their character and honour, as not to have produced their Lambeth register and records, if any such authentic writings had then been extant, when not only their own credit, but even the credit of their metropolitan, Parker, and all the rest of Queen Elizabeth's new bishops; yea, the whole succession of that race, were so miserably shipwrecked? Yea, in how great stead would such Lambeth writings have stood Mr. Horn, when he durst not join issue with bishop Bonner upon the plea, "That he was no bishop, when he tendered Bonner the oath of supremacy."

The case was thus :(c) By the first session of that parliament, 5 Eliz. I., power was given to any bishop in the realm, to tender the oath of supremacy, enacted 1 Eliz., to any ecclesiastical person within his diocese; and the refuser was to incur a premunire. By virtue of this statute, Mr. Robert Horn, pretended bishop of Winchester, tenders the oath to Doctor Bonner, bishop of London, but deprived by Queen Elizabeth, and then a prisoner in the Marshalsea, which was within the diocese of Winchester: Bonner refuses to take it. Horn certifies his refusal into the King's Bench; whereupon Bonner was indicted upon the statute. He prays judgment, whether, he might not give in evidence upon this issue, Quod ipse non est inde culpabilis, eo quod dictus episcopus de Winchester non fuit episcopus tempore oblationis sacramenti. "That he was not culpable, because the said Horn, called bishop of Winchester, was not bishop when he tendered him the oath." And it was resolved by all the judges at Serjeants'Inn, in judge Cattlin, the chief justice's chamber," that if the verity and matter be so, indeed, he should well be received to give in evidence upon this issue, and the jury should try it." Now, what the trial was, appears by that he was not condemned, nor ever any further troubled for that case, though he was a man especially aimed at. And at the next sessions of that parliament, which was the 8th of Elizabeth, they were forced for want, you see, of a better character, to beg they might be declared bishops by act of parliament.

Besides, it is no more credible, that such knowing and conscientious men, as Dr. Stapleton, Dr. Harding, Constable, Kellison, &c. then living in England, and probably at London, would question so public and solemn an action,

(c) See Abridg. of Dyer's Reports, fol. 234.