the people whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness: on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited brethren, who run their own ways, &c."

We see how they endeavour here to persuade the king and the world, that catholics are desirous to conceal the light of the Gospel: whereas, on the contrary, nothing is more obvious, than the daily and indefatigable endeavours of catholic missioners and priests, not only in preaching and explaining God's holy word in Europe; but also in forsaking their own countries and conveniencies, and travelling with great difficulties and dangers by sea and land, into Asia, Africa, America, and the Antipodes, with no other design than to publish the doctrine of Christ, and to discover and manifest the light of the Gospel to infidels, who are in darkness and ignorance. Nor do any but catholics stick to the old letter and sense of Scripture, without altering the text, or rejecting any part thereof, or devising new interpretations; which certainly cannot demonstrate a desire in them to keep people in ignorance, and darkness. Indeed, as for their selfconceited presbyterian and fanatic brethren, who run their own ways in translating and interpreting Scripture, we do not excuse them, but only say, that we see no reason why prelatics should reprehend them for a fault, whereof themselves are no less guilty. Do not themselves of the church of England run their own ways also: as well as those other sectaries in translating the Bible? Do they stick to either the Greek, Latin, or Hebrew text? Do they not leap from one language and copy to another? Accept and reject what they please? Do they not fancy a sense of their own, every whit as contrary to that of the Catholic and ancient church, as that of their self-conceited brethren the presbyterians, and others, is acknowledged to be? And yet they are neither more learned nor more skilful in the tongues, nor more godly than those they so much contemn and blame.

All heretics that have ever waged war against God's Holy church, whatever particular weapons they have had, have generally made use of these two, viz. "Misrepresenting and ridiculing the doctrine of God's church;" and, "Corrupting and misinterpreting his sacred word, the Holy Scripture:" We find not any since Simon Magus's days, that have ever been more dexterous and skilful in handling these direful arms, than the heretics of our times.

In the first place, they are so great masters and doctors in misrepresenting, mocking, and deriding religion, that they seem even to have solely devoted themselves to no other profession or place, but " cathedræ irrisorum," the school or "chair of the scorners," as David terms their seat: which the holy apostle St. Peter foresaw, when he foretold, that "There should come in the latter days, illusores, scoffers, walking after their own lusts." To whom did this prophecy ever better agree, than to the heretics of our days, who deride the sacred Scriptures? "The author of the book of Ecclesiastes, says one of them, had neither boots nor spurs, but rid on a long stick, in begging shoes:" Who scoff at the book of Judith: compare the Maccabees to Robin Hood and Bevis of Southampton; call Baruch, a "peevish ape of Jeremy:" count the Epistle to the Hebrews as stubble and deride St. James's, as an epistle made of straw: contemn three of the four Gospels. What ridiculing is this of the word of God! Nor were the first pretended reformers only guilty of this, but the same vein has still continued in the writings, preachings, and teachings of their successors; a great part of which are nothing but a mere mockery, ridiculing, and misrepresenting of the doctrine of Christ, as is too notorious and visible in the many scurrilous and scornful writings and sermons lately published by several men of no small figure in our English protestant church. By which scoffing stratagem, when they cannot laugh the vulgar into a contempt and abhorrence of the Christian religion, they fly to their other weapons, to wit, "imposing upon the people's weak understanding, by a corrupt, imperfect, and falsely translated Bible."* Tertullian complained thus of the heretics of his time, Ista hæresis non recipit quasdum Scripturas, &c. "These heretics admit not some books of Scriptures; and those which they do admit, by adding to, and taking from, they pervert to serve their purpose: and if they receive some books, yet they receive them not entirely; or if they receive them entirely, after some sort, nevertheless, they spoil them by devising divers interpretations. In this case, what will you do, that think yourselves skilful in Scriptures, when that which you defend, the adversary denies; and that which you deny, he defends?" Et tu quidem nihil perdes nisi vocem de contentione, nihil consequeris nisi bilem de blasphematione: "And you indeed shall lose nothing but words in this contention; nor shall you gain any thing but anger from his blasphemy." How fitly may these words be applied to the pretended reformers of our days! who, when told of their abusing, corrupting, and misinterpreting the Holy Scriptures, are so far from acknowledging their faults, that on the contrary they blush not to defend them. When Mr. Martin, in his Discovery, told them of their falsifications in the Bible, did they thank him for letting them see their mistakes,

* Dr. St. Dr. T. Dr. S. Dr. T. Mr. W. &c.

as indeed men, endued with the spirit of sincerity and honesty would have done? No, they were so far from that, that Fulk, as much as in him lies, endeavours very obstinately to defend them: and Whitaker affirms, that "their translations are well done," (why then were they afterwards corrected?) "and that all the faults Mr. Martin finds in them are but trifles; demanding what there is in their Bibles that can be found fault with, as not translated well and truly "* Such a pertinacious, obstinate, and contentious spirit, are heretics possessed with, which indeed is the very thing that renders them heretics; for with such I do not rank those in the list, who, though they have even with their first milk, as I may say, imbibed their errors, and have been educated from their childhood in erroneous opinions, yet do neither pertinaciously adhere to the same, nor obstinately resist the truth, when proposed to them; but, on the contrary, are willing to embrace it. How many innocent, and well-meaning people, are there in England, who have scarce in all their life-time, ever heard any mention of a catholic, or catholic religion, unless under these monstrous and frightful terms of idolatry, superstition, antichristianism, &c.? How many have ever heard a better character of catholics, than bloody-minded people, thirsters after blood, worshippers of wooden gods, prayers to stocks and stones, idolators, anti-christs, the beast in the Revelations, and what not, that may render them more odious than Hell, and more frightful than the Devil himself, and that from the mouths and pens of their teachers, and ministerial guides? Is it then to be wondered at, that these so grossly deceived people should entertain a strange prejudice against religion, and a detestation of catholics?

Whereas, if these blind-folded people were once undeceived, and brought to understand, that all these monstrous scandals are falsely charged upon catholics; that the catholic doctrine is so far from idolatry, that it teaches quite the contrary, viz. That whosoever gives God's honour to stocks and stones, as protestants phrase it, to images, to saints, to angels, or to any creature; yea, to any thing but to God himself, is an idolator,, and will be damned for the same; that catholics are so far from thirsting after the blood of others, that, on the contrary, their doctrine teaches them, not only to love God above all, and their neighbour as themselves, but even to love their enemies. In short, so far different is the Roman catholic religion from what it is by protestants represented, that, on the contrary, faith, hope, and charity, are the three divine virtues it teaches us: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance, are the four moral virtues it exhorts us to : which Christian virtues, when it happens that they are, through human frailty, and the temptations of our three enemies, the world, the flesh, and the Devil, either wounded or lost; then are we taught to apply ourselves to such divine remedies, as our blessed Saviour Christ has left us in his church, viz. his holy sacraments, by which our spiritual infirmities are cured and repaired. By the sacrament of baptism we are taught, that original sin is forgiven, and that the party baptized is regenerated, and born anew unto the mystical body of Christ, of which by baptism he is made a lively member: so likewise by the sacrament of penance all our actual sins are forgiven; the same holy Spirit of God working in this to the forgiveness of actual sin, that wrought before in the sacrament of baptism to the forgiveness of original sin. We are taught, likewise, that by partaking of Christ's very body, and his very blood, in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, we by a perfect union dwell in Him, and He in us; and that as himself rose again for our justification, so we, at the day of judgment, shall in him receive a glorious resurrection, and reign with him for all eternity, as glorious members of the same body, whereof himself is the head. It further teaches us, that none but a priest, truly consecrated by the holy sacrament of order, can consecrate and administer the holy sacraments. This is our religion, this is the centre it tends to, and the sole end it aims at ; which point, we are further taught, can never be gained but by a true faith, a firm hope, and a perfect charity.

To conclude, if, I say, thousands of well-meaning protestants understood this, as also that protestancy itself is nothing else but a mere imposture begun in England, maintained and upheld by the wicked policy of self-interested statesmen; and still continued by misrepresenting and ridiculing the catholic religion, by misinterpreting the holy Scriptures; yea, by falsifying, abusing, and, as will appear in this following treatise, by most abominably corrupting the sacred word of God: how far would it be from them obstinately and pertinaciously to adhere to the false and erroneous principles, in which they have hitherto been educated? how willingly would they submit their understandings to the obedience of faith? how earnestly would they embrace that rule of faith, which our blessed Saviour and his apostles, left us for our guide to salvation? with what diligence would they bend all their studies, to learn the most wholesome and saving doctrine of God's holy church? In fine, if once enlightened with a true faith, and encouraged

* Whitaker, page 14.

with a firm hope, what zealous endeavours would they not use to acquire such virtues and Christian perfections, as might enflame them with a perfect charity, which is the very ultimațe and highest step to eternal felicity? To which, may God of his infinite goodness, and tender mercy, through the merits and bitter death and passion of our dear Saviour, Jesus Christ, bring us all. Amen.

THE

T RU T H

OF

PROTESTANT

TRANSLATIONS OF THE
THE BIBLE

EXAMINED.

OUR pretended reformers, having squared and modelled to themselves a Faith, contrary to the certain and direct Rule of Apostolical tradition, delivered in God's holy church, were forced to have recourse to the scripture, as their only rule of faith; according to which, the church of England has, in the sixth of her 39 Articles, declared, that the scripture comprehended in the canonical books (i. e. so many of them as she thinks fit to call so) of the Old and New Testament, is the rule of faith so far, that whatsoever is not read therein, or cannot be proved thereby, is not to be accepted as any point of faith, or needful to be followed. But finding themselves still at a loss, their new doctrines being so far from being contained in the Holy Scripture, that they were directly opposite to it; they were fain to seek out to themselves many other inventions; amongst which, none was more generally practised, than the corrupting of the Holy Scripture by false and partial translations; by which they endeavoured, right or wrong, to make those sacred volumes speak in favour of their new-invented faith and doctrine.

The corruptions of this nature, in the first English Protestant translations, were so many, and so notorious, that Dr. Gregory Martin composed a whole book of them, in which he discovers the fraudulent shifts the translators were fain to make use of, in defence of them. Sometimes they recurred to the Hebrew text; and when that spoke against their new doctrine, then to the Greek; when that favoured them not, to some copy acknowledged by themselves to be corrupted, and of no credit: and when no copy at all could be found out to cloak their corruptions, then must the book or chapter of scripture contradicting them, be declared Apocryphal : and when that cannot be made probable, they fall downright upon the Prophets and Apostles that wrote them, saying, That they might, and did err, even after the coming of the Holy Ghost.* Thus Luther,† accused by Zuinglius for corrupting the word of God, had no way left to defend his impiety, but by impudently preferring himself, and his own spirit, before that of those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, saying, Be it that the church, Augustine and other doctors, also Peter and Paul, yea, an angel from heaven, teach otherwise, yet is my doctrine

* Vid. Supr.

Tom. 5. Wittemb, fol. 290. & in Ep. ad Galat. cap. 1.

such as sets forth God's glory, &c. Peter, the chief of the Apostles, lived and taught (extra verbum dei,) besides the word of God.

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

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

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

Brentius also (whom Jewel terms a grave and learned father,) affirms, That St. Peter, the chief of the apostles, and also Barnabas, after the Holy Ghost received, together with the church of Jerusalem, erred.

John Calvin§ affirms, That Peter added to the schism of the church, to the endanger. ing of Christian liberty, and the overthrow of the grace of Christ: and in page 150, he reprehends Peter and Barnabas, and others.

Zanchius mentions some Calvinists in his Epist. ad Misc. who said, If Paul should come to Geneva, and preach the same hour with Calvin, they would leave Paul, and hear Calvin.

And Lavatherus|| affirms, that some of Luther's followers, not the meanest among their doctors, said, They had rather doubt of St. Paul's doctrine, than the doctrine of Luther, or of the confession of Ausburg.

This desperate shift being so necessary, for warranting their corruptions of Scripture, and maintaining the fallibility of the church in succeeding ages, (for the same reasons which conclude it infallible in the apostle's time, are applicable to ours, and to every former century; otherwise it must be said, that God's providence and promises were limited to few years, and Himself so partial, that he regards not the necessities of his church, nor the salvation of any person that lived after the time of his disciples ;) the church of England could not reject it without contradicting their brethren abroad, and their own principles at home. Therefore Mr. Jewel, in his Defence of the Apology for the Church of England,¶ affirms, That St. Mark mistook Abiathar for Abimelech; and St. Matthew, Hieremias for Zacharias. And Mr. Fulk against the Rhemish Testament, in Galat. 2. fol. 322, charges Peter with error of ignorance against the gospel.

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

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

* De Capt. Babil. cap. de Extrem. Unct. Tom. 2. Wittemb.

† See the second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, &c.

Cent. 1. 1. 2. c. 10. col. 580.

§ Calvin in Galat. c. 2, v. 14, p. 511.

Lavater. in Histor. Sacrament. page 18.

¶ Page 361.

** The second day's conference.

†† Whitaker de Eccles. contr. Bellar. Controvers. 2. q. 4. p. 223.