it--seems to have been _peculiar_ to the _reformed_ * * * and I look _in
vain_, _for one_ of these accursed outrages of imposition, among _the
disciples_ of Popery." "But _forgery_, appears to have been the
_peculiar_ disease of _Protestantism_."--(_Vindication of Mary, Queen of
Scots_, vol. iii. p. 2 and 53. _By the Rev. John Whitaker, B.D., Rector
of Ruan Langhorne, Cornwall._)
You have now seen, who was the instructor of _some_ of the first
Reformers, and the two above passages (_mind, from Protestants_,) must
convince you, that _they_ and _their_ reforming Protestant colleagues,
appear to have been apt scholars of this master of lies. Well, I have
shown you now, the character of the spiritual chemists of the
Reformation. I will now show you, some of the wonderful _spiritual_
works, of some of their _supernatural_, and chemical hands.
Among these, I must rank as _first_ and foremost, the wonderful spiritual
deeds, of your Scriptural Church as by Law established. Most Reverend
Gentlemen, The Thirty-nine Articles, are the fundamental Articles of your
Protestant Creed. Now, in the Thirty-fifth of those Articles, I find,
that your Scriptural Church professes to believe, in the Protestant
homilies there named. Among which I find the second is, "against peril of
idolatry." Now, the following, are the words of your Protestant homily
against idolatry. Its words are these: "The preaching of God's word, most
sincere in the beginning, by process of time became less and less pure,
and afterwards corrupt, and last of all, altogether laid down and left
off, &c. Not only the unlearned and simple, but the learned and wise; not
the people only, but the bishops; not the sheep, but also the shepherds
themselves, being blinded by the bewitchery of images, as blind guides of
the blind, fell both into the _pit of damnable idolatry_; in which all
the world, as it were drowned, continued unto our age for the space of
eight hundred years; unspoken against in a manner, so that laity and
clergy, learned and unlearned, of all ages and sexes and degrees, of men
and women and children of whole Christendom, (an horrible thing to
think,) have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other
vices most detested by God, and damnable to men, and that for the space
of eight hundred years together. And to this end has come that beginning
of setting up of images in churches, then judged harmless, in experience
proved not only harmful, but exitious and pestilential, and to the
_destruction of all good religion universally_." Thus far, your
Protestant homily.
Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, if in my comments on the above passage,
I have often to use the word _damnable_, you must really _pardon_ me, for
you see, I have just been taught this _pretty_ word, by your Scriptural
Church, and you know, she is master in Israel. Pray, most Reverend
Gentlemen, where was your Protestant Scriptural Church, during this
_eight_ hundred years of damnable idolatry? If it was a member of _no_
Church, then, it was not a member, or part of _Christ's_ Church. But if
it was a member, or part of any _one_ Church in _all_ Christendom, then,
it was utterly drowned in abominable, and damnable idolatry. I wonder how
your Scriptural Church, can extricate herself out of this spiritual
labyrinth.
Well, then, here we have, _according_ to _your_ Scriptural Church, a
universal apostacy. The true Church decayed, the whole of Christendom
drowned in damnable idolatry, and all good religion destroyed
_universally_, and _that_, for eight hundred years; and we have also
_your_ Scriptural Church either not existing, or buried in this universal
spiritual destruction. Really, your Scriptural Church, Sampson-like, not
only demolished the _whole_ spiritual fabric of Christendom, but also
perished _herself_ under the ruins of this universal spiritual
destruction; but the strangest thing of all is, whilst with _one_ hand,
she was endeavouring with her spiritual power, to hurl the Catholic
Church, into the vortex of this universal spiritual destruction, she,
with _the other_ hand, charitably saves _us_ Catholics (as Moses was
saved from the waters) from this deluge of universal spiritual idolatry;
and I will now show you how; for your Scriptural Church, in her sixth
article of the Thirty-nine Articles, teaches that, "Holy Scripture
containeth all things necessary to salvation." Now, this very Scripture,
(the book of salvation,) declares (as I have already shown in my above
description of the Catholic Church,) that, the Catholic Church should
_never_ err, and of course, could _never_ fall into idolatry. And,
therefore, in obedience to your Scriptural Church, and to the Scripture
itself, we believe that the Catholic Church, _never_ has fallen, and
_never will_ fall into idolatry. For the Scripture says, "Heaven and
earth _shall_ pass away, but God's word, _shall not_ pass away." Really,
your Scriptural Church, is very kind to us in this respect, and I almost
begin to think, she must be a worthy descendant of Pharo's daughter, who
saved Moses from the waters of the Nile.
Well, Most Reverend Gentlemen, you see your scriptural Church, has now
hurled the whole of Christendom, into the vortex of universal,
abominable, and damnable idolatry, and either involved herself, in this
sweeping deluge of abominations, or committed suicidical destruction on
herself; but, _strange_ to say, she has _charitably_ saved us benighted
Papists, from these abominable, and universal waters of idolatry, as
Pharo's daughter, kindly saved Moses from the waters of the Nile. Now,
_how_ your scriptural Church as by law established will contrive to
gather together again, and unite all the various parts of this
universal, spiritual edifice, just destroyed by her hands, I am at a loss
to determine. If _she really can_ collect, unite, and form these various
spiritual parts, into a _more_ perfect, and durable edifice, than _God
Himself_ had made it, I shall _then_ begin to think, that she is invested
with powers, which _even God Himself_ does not possess. But by _what_
spiritual art of chemistry, is she to perform this wonderful, and
_superhuman_ operation? If she has recourse to _the Scriptures_, she will
_there_ learn, that God had built this spiritual edifice on an
_imperishable_, infallible, and incorruptible foundation. And surely, for
her sake, God will not _contradict_ Himself; and if she has recourse to
her thirty-nine articles, they have already annihilated her. O poor
scriptural Church! thou hast often made _sad_ work with _other_ Churches;
but _at last_, alas! thou art in _sad_ straits thyself. O! how thou
remindest me of the man, who
"Halting on crutches of unequal size,--
One leg by truth supported, one by lies,
Thus saddled to the goal, with awkward pace,
Secure of nothing but to lose the race."
Well, but you will say, this immense spiritual edifice _must_ for the
sake of the _salvation_ of mankind, be _re_-built. Should I offer _my
officious_ services, to assist in this pious work of reconstruction, your
scriptural Church might perhaps say, I destroyed _more_ than I built.
Well, she could not, even then, justly complain of this; for _she_ has
_just_ cut into pieces, demolished, and annihilated the _whole_ of
Christendom, with her destructive weapons of universal, abominable, and
damnable idolatry.
In all _material_ edifices, it is considered of the greatest importance
that the _foundation_ should be _firm_, _safe_, and substantial. Of
course, we have reason to expect _these_ requisites in the foundation of
all _spiritual_ edifices; and of course, we may _naturally_ expect them,
in the new erection of God's work which your Church has just destroyed,
but which she is _now_ going to re-construct into a _more_ perfect and
durable form than _God_ had made it. Now, upon _what_ foundation will
your Church _re_construct this demolished spiritual edifice? In her
twenty-first article of her thirty-nine articles, (and mind, she has
sworn to these articles as God's truth,) I find the following words:
"General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment,
and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as
they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed by the Spirit,
and word of God,) they _may err_, and _sometimes have erred, even in
things pertaining unto God_."
Now, please tell me, Most Reverend Gentlemen, of _what_ is your new
spiritual Church to be built? Surely not of brick and mortar! but of
course, it is to be erected, on the testimony of man, or of some body of
men. But your article says, men may err, and _have_ erred, _even in
things pertaining to God_. Therefore, your council, or councils, of your
new Church _may err_, and therefore, how will you build upon these
_fallible_ men an _infallible_ foundation?
But you will indignantly reply, the article intimates, that they may err
_unless_ governed by the _Spirit_, and word of God. Well, Most Reverend
Gentlemen, is it likely God will give _them_ his Spirit, and unerring
word to _re_construct a new Church, when they have just destroyed the
infallible, and beautiful work of _God's own hands_? Is it in the nature
of things, that _God_ should _contradict_ Himself, to second the BABEL
ideas, of your scriptural Church, yet to be formed?
Really, Sir, some of you Reverends will exclaim, _how_ you are _garbling_
that twenty-first article! Why have you _slyly_ omitted to quote the
_last_ part of that article?--Well, as you have called, for the _last_
part of this article, I will now quote it; and as your Church (_first_,
indeed, unfortunately destroying herself) has just so charitably saved
us, benighted papists, from the waters of idolatry, I do sincerely hope
this _last_ part of your article, may enable you, to _re_build a godly
and spiritual edifice. Well, then, now for the _last_ part of this
twenty-first article, which you say, I have _slyly omitted_. It runs thus
verbatim: "Wherefore, things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation,
have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they
be taken out of Holy Scripture." Now, Most Reverend Gentlemen, as you
have just asked _me_ a question, allow _me_ to ask _you another_. If any
of you, were wishful to purchase an estate, would you not _first_, have
the title deeds of that estate, _carefully_ examined by some eminent and
respectable lawyers, _to be sure_ that the title deeds, were perfectly
good, and satisfactory, _before_ you advanced the money? Now we have just
learnt, from the _last_ part of your twenty-first article, that the
Scriptures, properly speaking, are the deeds of a _Christian_, by which
he is to obtain a _good_ title to salvation. Of course, therefore, we may
_naturally_ suppose, that your scriptural Church would hand down to her
followers the Scriptures, in the _most perfect_ and _unmutilated_ state.
Well, we will now see whether she _has_ done _this_, and _then_ we shall
be able to determine, if she can _re_build her godly, and spiritual
edifice on so heavenly a foundation. We will now consider how she got the
sacred Scriptures, after her shipwreck amid the perils of idolatry, and
whether, _after_ she got them, she handed them down to her followers in
the perfect and unmutilated state, in which she _first_ received them
from the _Catholic Church_. Luther, the father of the Reformation, even
after he had left the Catholic Church, candidly says, in his Commentary
on the 16th chapter of St. John's Gospel: "We are obliged to yield many
things to the Papists, that with them is the word of God, which _we_
received from _them_, otherwise we should have known _nothing at all
about it_." And, in his book against the Anabaptists, he makes the
following confession: "Under Papacy are many good things, yea,
_everything_ that is _good_ in _Christianity_. I say moreover," continues
he, "under Papacy is _true_ Christianity, even the _very kernel_ of
Christianity." From these two passages of Luther, it is evident, that
your scriptural Church, _first_ received the Scriptures from the _hand_
of the _Catholic_ Church, and that she received them, in a _perfect_ and
_unmutilated_ state; otherwise, how could Luther's words be true, (and
_mind_, he uttered these words _after_ he had left the Catholic Church)
when he assures us, that under Papacy is "true Christianity, yea,
everything that is good in Christianity, nay, the _very kernel_ of
Christianity."
Now let us see _how_ your scriptural Church, corrupted and mutilated the
sacred volumes which she had received from the Catholic Church in a
_perfect_ and _unmutilated_ state.
Luther was the first, after the Reformation, who put out a Protestant
translation of the Scriptures, which was _immediately_ condemned by
Osiander, Rickerman, and Zuinglius. Of this translation of Luther,
Zuinglius says, (Lib. de Sacra.) "Luther was a foul corrupter, and
horrible falsifier of God's word. One, who followed the Marcionites and
Arians, that razed out such places of Holy Writ, as were against him.
Thou dost," says he to Luther, "corrupt the word of God. Thou art seen to
be a manifest, and common corrupter, and perverter of the holy
Scriptures. How much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed
thee!" But Luther not only falsified, but he also added, to the texts of
the Scripture. "I know well," says Luther, "that this word, alone, (which
he added to St. Paul's words, Rom. iii.) is not found in the text of St.
Paul, but should a Papist, annoy you upon it, tell him at once, without
hesitation, that Dr. Martin Luther, would have it so, and that a papist,
and an ass, are synonymous." (Tom. 5, Jena Edit. p. 141, 144.)
But Luther, soon had an opportunity of retaliating, on his disciple
Zuinglius. When Proscheverus, the Zuinglian printer of Zurich, sent him a
copy of the Zuinglian translation, Luther rejected it, and sent it back
to him, calling at the same time the Zuinglian divines, in matters of
divinity, "fools, asses, anti-christs, deceivers, and of an ass-like
understanding." (See Zuing. tom. 2, ad Luth. Lib. de Sacr. fol. 338.)
Of the translation set forth by Oecolampadius, Beza says, that it "is
in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy
Ghost." And he also condemns that of Castalio, as being sacrilegious,
wicked, and heathenish. (In Respons. ad Defens. and Respons. Castal.)
We should naturally expect that Beza, after thus reproving the
translations of Oecolampadius and of Castalio, would _himself_ have
produced an immaculate one; but the learned Molineus observes of his
translation, that "he (Beza) actually changes the text, of which Molineus
gives several instances." (In sua Translat. Nov. Testi. part 20.)
Castalio wrote a whole book against Beza's corruptions of the Scriptures,
and yet, he adds, "I will not note all his (Beza's) corruptions, for
that would require too large a volume." (In Defens. Transl.)
Of Calvin's translation the learned Molinaeus thus speaks: "Calvin, in his
harmony, makes the text of the Gospel to leap up and down. He uses
violence to the letter of the Gospel; and besides this, adds to the
text." (In sua Translat. Nov. Test. part 12.)
Here, then, you have Zuinglius and others against Luther's translation,
and Luther against Zuinglius's translation, Beza against Oecolampadius
and Castilio's translation, and Castilio against Beza's translation, and
Molinaeus against Calvin's translation. Now, which of all these false
translations was your scriptural Church to adopt as her only rule of
faith and for that of the people? Why, you Reverends will reply, she was
to adopt her _own_ English translations.
Well, then we had better examine, and see whether they were any better
than _any_ of the above translations, Carlile, in his treatise on
Christ's descent into hell, says of the English translators, that they
have "depraved the sense, obscured the sense, obscured the truth, and
deceived the ignorant; that in _many_ places, they do detort the
scriptures from the _right_ sense, and that they show themselves to love
darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth." And in an
abridgment which the ministers of the diocese of Lincoln delivered to
King James, they denominated the English translation, "A translation that
taketh away from the text, that addeth to the text, and that sometime to
the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost; a
translation which is absurd and senseless, perverting, in many places,
the meaning of the Holy Ghost." Burges, in his Apology, sec. 6, exclaims,
"How shall I approve under my hand a translation, which hath so many
omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscures, sometimes perverts
the sense, being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary?" And Broughton,
in his letter to the Lords of the Council, gives this reason for
requiring a new translation without delay, that "That which is now in
England is full of errors." And, in his Advertisement of Corruptions, he
tells the bishops, "That their public translations of Scriptures into
English is such, as that it perverts the texts of the Old Testament, in
eight hundred and forty-eight places; and that it causes millions of
millions to reject the New Testament, and to run to eternal flames."
But some of you Reverends may reply, those were the Protestant
translations of _earlier_ times; but we have got _better_ translations
now. Well, then we must now examine the truth of your assertion. In
November, 1822, the Irish Protestant Society passed the following
condemnatory resolution of the Irish translators: "Resolved, that, after
a full enquiry, the members of this society feel satisfied, that material
and very numerous errors, exist in the version of the New Testament,
edited by the British and Foreign Bible Society." According to Mr. Platt,
thirty-five variations were discovered in the first ten pages, of which
seven were considered to be material. "This proportion in a Testament of
four hundred pages," says the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Percival, "gives fourteen
hundred variations, and two hundred and eighty material errors in a
single volume." We find in the Monthly London Review, page 220, "That in
April, 1832, a memorial was addressed on the subject, to the
vice-chancellors of the Universities of Cambridge and of Oxford, and the
other delegates of the Clarendon press." It was signed by the following
gentlemen:
T. Bennet, D.D.
T. Blackburn.
George Collinson.
F. A. Cox, L.L.D.
Thomas Curtis.
T. Fletcher, D.D.
E. Henderson.
J. P. Smith, D.D.
T. Townley, D.D.
R. Winter, D.D.
The names, attached to this memorial, are too respectable not to
communicate a great degree of importance, to any statement to which they
are affixed. This memorial states, "That the modern Bibles, issued from
the press of the University of Oxford, abounded with deviations from the
authorized version of King James the First. That, though some of these
errors were merely typographical, yet of those that were intentional, the
number was of a serious amount. That in the Book of Genesis, there were
upwards of eight hundred errors; in the Psalms, six hundred; in the
Gospel of St. Matthew, four hundred and sixteen; and in about the fourth
part of the Bible, an aggregate of two thousand, nine hundred and
thirty-one."
The same Monthly London Review, for February, 1833, speaking of the
pamphlet of Thomas Curtis, of Grove House, Islington, on his discoveries
of the falsification of the Bible, says: "In this comparatively brief
pamphlet, we find the exposition of one of the most singular deceptions,
to which the world has yet been exposed. The imposition, is nothing short
of a downright falsification of the text of Scripture. Need we add a
syllable more, to rouse the attention of the thinking community?" In the
same pamphlet Mr. Curtis remarks: "About twenty years ago, an intelligent
reader at one of the printing offices, where the Bible was in a course of
printing, took the trouble of drawing up a specification of a number of
gross errors, which he found in the very copy, _that had been selected by
the proper authorities_, as the _standard_ of correctness to which he was
to adhere. The errors pointed out by the penetrating reader, amounted to
no less, than seven hundred and thirty-one, and these occurred in the
various chapters, from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of Jeremiah."
Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, it is plain from what I have stated (and
where is the person who can contradict what I have stated), that the
_first_ Protestant foreign Reformers, corrupted and falsified the sacred
Scriptures, that your English Protestant Reformers, did also the same,
and that even at the present day, your English Protestant translations of
that sacred volume, are in a most awful and corrupt state. And would to
heaven I could stop here!
But what will the English people say, when they learn, that your
Protestant scriptural Church, has _not only_ falsified and corrupted the
Scriptures, but that she has had the audacity, to expunge from the canon
of the Scripture many books, which are _as much canonical_ (that is, as
much the inspired word of God) as those, which she still retains in her
present Protestant canon. I will now prove this. The Protestant Church,
received at first (as Luther truly informs us) the Scriptures from the
Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, therefore, must be good authority
in this respect, otherwise how can the Protestant Church be, sure that
her first Scriptures, were the real word of God? Now, the Catholic Church
has ranked, for at least fourteen hundred years, many books as
_canonical_, which _your_ Protestant Church rejects as _uncanonical_. In
the year 397, a Catholic council was held at Carthage, at which the
learned and pious St. Augustine assisted. In that council, the canon of
the Scripture, was satisfactorily determined; and in that very council,
many books were declared to be _canonical_ (that is, the inspired word of
God,) which your Church, has had the audacity to tell the people, are
_not canonical_, that is, they are not to be considered the inspired word
of God. But _what_ reason had your scriptural Church, to assume the
audacious power, to condemn as _uncanonical_, books, which were declared
by this illustrious, numerous, and learned body of Christians, _to be
canonical_, (that is, the inspired word of God?) I ask you, _what_ reason
had your scriptural Church for this _audacious_ step? I answer, none. O
but I fancy I hear some of your reverends exclaiming, You are wrong _for
once_, old papish botheration. Look at the passage in the sixth of our
articles, between _our canonical_ and _un_canonical books, and there you
will find a good reason for your _popish_ question.