of the temple;" are added, transiens per medium eorum, sic præteriit; “ Going through the midst of them, and so passed by." Touching which addition, Beza writes thus: "These words are found in very ancient copies; but I think, as does Erasmus, that the first part, going through the midst of them,' is taken out of Luke 4. ver. 30. and crept into the text by fault of the writers, who found that written in the margin: and that the latter part, and so passed by,' was added to make this chapter join well with the next. And I am moved thus to think, not only because neither Chrysostom, nor Augustine, (he might have said, nor Hierom) make any mention of this piece, but also, because it seems not to hang together very probably; for, if he withdrew himself out of their sight, how went he through the midst of them?" &c. Thus Beza disputes against it; for which cause, I suppose, it is omitted by our first English translators, who love to follow what their master Beza delivers to them in Latin, though forsooth they would have us think, they followed the Greek most precisely; for in their translations of the year 1561, 1562, 1577, 1579, they leave it out, as Beza does: Yet in their Testament of 1580, as also in this last translation, (Bible 1683,) they put it in with as much confidence, as if it had neither been disputed against by Beza, nor omitted by their former brethren.

To this we may also join that piece which protestants so gloriously sing or say at the end of the Lord's Prayer, "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen," which not only Erasmus dislikes, but Bullinger himself holds it for a mere patch sowed to the rest," by he knows not whom ;" and allows well of Erasmus's judgment, reproving Laurentius Valla for finding fault with the Latin edition, because it wants it :-" There is no reason," says he, "why Laurentius Valla should take the matter so hotly, as though a great part of the Lord's Prayer were cut away: rather their rashness was to be reproved, who durst presume to piece on their toys unto the Lord's Prayer."

Let not my reader think, that our Latin Vulgate differs from the true and most authentic Greek copies, which were extant in St. Hierom's days, but only from such as are now extant, and since his days corrupted. "How unworthily," says Beza," and without cause, does Erasmus blame the old interpreter, as dissenting from the Greek! He dissented, I grant, from those Greek copies which Erasmus had gotten; but we have found not in one place, that the same interpretation which he blames, is grounded on the authority of other Greek copies, and those most ancient: yea, in some number of places we have observed, that the reading of the Latin text of the old interpreter, though it agree not sometimes with our Greek copies, yet it is much more convenient, for that it seems to follow some truer and better copy."

Now, if our Latin Vulgate be framed exactly, though not to the Vulgar Greek examples now extant, yet to more ancient and perfect copies; if the Greek copies have many faults, errors, corruptions, and additions in them, as not only Beza avouches, but as our protestant translators confess, and as evidently appears by their leaving the Greek, and following the Latin, with what reason can they thus cry up the fountains and originals, as incorrupt and pure? With what honesty can they call us from our ancient Vulgar Latin, to the present Greek, from which themselves so licentiously depart at pleasure, to follow our Latin ?¶

Have we not great reason to think, that as the Latin church has been ever more constant in keeping the true faith, than the Greek, so it has always been more careful in preserving the Scriptures from corruption?

Let protestants only consider, whether it be more credible, that St. Hierom, one of the greatest doctors of God's church, and the most skilful in the languages wherein the Scripture was written, who lived in the primitive times, when perhaps some of the original writings of the apostles were extant, or at least the true and authentic copies in Hebrew and Greek better known than they are now : let us then consider, I say, whether is more credible, that a translation made and received by this holy doctor, and then approved of by all the world, and ever since accepted and applauded in God's church, should be defective, false, or deceitful? or that a translation made since the pretended reformation, not only by men of scandalous, and notoriously wicked lives, but from copies corrupted by Jews, Arians, and other Greek heretics, should be so ?**

* Διελθὼν διὰ μέσω αυτῶν καὶ παρῆγεν ὕτως.

† Beza in Joh. cap. 8. v. 59.

Erasm. in Annot.

§. Bullinger, Decad. 5. Serm. 5.

Beza in Præf. Nov. Test. Anno 1556.

See the Pref. to the Rhemish Testament. Dr. Martin's Discovery. Reynold's Re

futation of Whitaker, cap. 13.

** Such were Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Cranmer, Tindal, &c.

b

In vain therefore do protestants tell us, that their translations are taken immediately from the fountains of the Greek and Hebrew; so is also our Latin Vulgate; only with this difference, that ours was taken from the fountains when they were clear, and by holy and learned men, who knew which were the crystal waters, and true copies; but theirs is taken from fountains troubled by broachers of heresies, self-interested and timeserving persons; and after that the Arians, and other heretics had, I say, corrupted and poisoned them with their false and abominable doctrines.

Obj. 2. Cheminitius and others yet further object, that there are some corruptions found in the Vulgate Latin, viz. that these words, ipsa conteret caput tuum,* are corrupted, thereby to prove the intercession of the blessed Virgin Mary; and that instead thereof, we should read, ipsum conteret caput tuum, seeing it was spoken of the seed, which was Christ, as all ancient writers teach.

Answ. Some books of the vulgate edition, have ipsa, and some others ipse; and though many Hebrew copies have ipse, yet there want not some which have ipsa: and the points being taken away, the Hebrew word may be translated ipsa : yea, the holy fathers,† St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory, St. Bede, &c. read it ipsa, and, I think, we have as great reason to follow their interpretation of it, as Cheminitius's, or that of the protestants of our days: and though the word conteret in the Hebrew be of the masculine gender, and so should relate to semen, which also in the Hebrew is of the masculine gender; yet it is not rare in the Scriptures to have pronouns and verbs of the masculine gender joined with nouns of the feminine, as in Ruth 1. 8. Esther 1. 20. Eccles. 12. 5. The rest of Cheminitius's cavils you will find sufficiently answered by the learned cardinal Bellarmine, lib. 2. de verb. Dei, cap. 12. 13. 14.

Again, Mr. Whitaker condemns us for following our Latin Vulgate so precisely, as thereby to omit these words, "when this corruptible, shall have put on incorruption," which are in the Greek exemplars, but not in our Vulgate Latin: whence it follows, assuredly, says he "that Hierom dealt not faithfully here, or that his version was corrupted afterwards."

I answer to this, with doctor Reynolds, that this omission (if it be any,) could not proceed from malice or design, seeing there is no loss or hindrance to any part of doctrine, by reading as we read; for the self-same thing is most clearly set down in the very next lines before; thus stand the words: "For this corruptible, must do on incorruption; and this mortal, do on immortality: and when this (corruptible, has done on incorruption, and this) mortal has done on immortality." Where you see the words, which I have put down, inclosed with parenthesis, are contained most expressly in the foregoing sentence, which is in all our Testaments; so that there is no harm or danger either to faith, doctrine, or manners, if it be omitted.

That it was of old in some Greek copies, as it stands in our Vulgate Latin, is evident by St. Hierom's translating it thus: and why ought St. Hierom to be suspected of unfaithful dealing, seeing he put the self-same words and sense in the next lines immediately preceding? and that it was not corrupted since, appears by the common reading of most men, in all after-ages. St. Ambrose, in his commentary upon the same place, reads as we do. So does St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, cited by St. Bede, in his commentary upon the same chapter. So read also the rest of the catholic interpreters, Haymo, Anselm, &c.

But if this place be rightly considered, so far it is from appearing as done with any design of corrupting the text, that on the contrary, it apparently shows the sincerity of our Latin translation: for, as we keep our text, according as St. Hierom and the church then delivered it; so notwithstanding, because the said words are in the ancient Greek copies, we generally add them in the margin of every Latin Testament which the church uses, as may be seen in divers prints of Paris, Lovain, and other universities: and if there be any fault in our English translation, it is only that this particle was not put down in the margin, as it was in the Latin which we followed. So that this, I say, proves no corruption, but rather great fidelity in our Latin Testament, that it agrees with St. Hierom, and consequently with the Greek copies, which he interpreted, as with St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Bede, Haymo, and St. Anselm.

Whether these vain and frivolous objections are sufficient grounds for their rejecting our Vulgate Latin, and flying to the original (but now impure) fountains, I refer to the judicious reader.

* Gen. 3. † St. August. lib. 2. de Gen. cont. Manich. c. 18. 1. 11. de Gen. ad Literam, cap. 36. St. Ambr. lib. de Fuga Sæculi, cap. 7. St. Chrysost. in Hom. 17. in Gen. St. Greg. lib. 1. Mor. cap. 38. Beda, & alii in hunc locum. 1 Cor. c. 15. ver. 54. § See Dr. Reynold's Refutation of Whitaker's Reprehensions, chap. 10.

St. Beda, in 1 Cor. c. 15.

But now, how clear, limpid, and pure, the streams are, that flow from the Greek and Hebrew fountains, through the channels of protestant pens, the reader may easily guess without taking the pains of comparing them, from the testimonies they themselves bear of one another's translations.

Zuinglius writes thus to Luther, concerning his corrupt translation;* "Thou corruptest the word of God, O Luther; thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the Holy Scripture; how much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee beyond all measure, and prove thee to be such a man!"

Luther's Dutch translation of the Old Testament, especially of Job and the prophets, has its blemishes, says Keckerman, and those no small ones,† neither are the blemishes in his New Testament to be accounted small ones; one of which is, his omitting and wholly leaving out this text in St. John's Epistle; "there be Three who give testimony in Heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are One." Again, in Rom. 3. 28. he adds the word "alone" to the text, saying, “we account a man to be justified by faith alone, without the works of the law." Of which intolerable corruption being admonished, he persisted obstinate and wilful, saying, "So I will, so I command; let my will be instead of reason, &c." Luther will have it so; and at last thus concludes, "The word alone, must remain in my New Testament, although all the papists run mad, they shall not take it from thence: it grieves me, that I did not add also those two other words, omnibus & omnium, sine omnibus operibus, omnium legum; without all works of all laws."

Again, in requital to Zuinglius, Luther rejects the Zuinglian translation, terming them, in matter of divinity, fools, asses, anti-christs, deceivers, &c.§ and indeed, not without cause; for what could be more deceitful and anti-christian, than instead of our Saviour's words, "this is my body," to translate "this signifies my body," as Zuinglius did, to maintain his figurative signification of the words, and cry down Christ's real presence in the blessed sacrament.

When Froscheverus, the Zuinglian printer of Zurich, sent Luther a bible translated by the divines there, he would not receive it; but as Hospinian and Lavatherus witness, sent it back, and rejected it.

The Tigurine translation was, in like manner, so distasteful to other protestants, "that the elector of Saxony in great anger rejected it, and placed Luther's translation in room thereof."¶

Beza reproves the translation set forth by Oecolampadius, and the divines of Basil; affirming, "that the Basil translation is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost."

Castalio's translation is also condemned by** Beza, as being sacrilegious, wicked, and ethnical; insomuch, that Castalio wrote a special treatise in defence of it: in the preface of which he thus complains :-" Some reject our Latin and French translations of the Bible, not only as unlearned, but also as wicked, and differing in many places from the mind of the Holy Ghost."

That learned protestant, Molinous, affirms of Calvin's translation, "that 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."

And touching Beza's translation, which our English especially follow, the same Molinæus charges him, that "he actually changes the text;" giving likewise several instances of his corruptions. Castalio also, "a learned Calvinist," as Osiander says, "and skilful in the tongues," reprehends Beza in a book wholly written against his corruptions; and says further, "I will not note all his errors, for that would require too large a volume."‡‡ In short, Bucer and the Osiandrians rise up against Luther for false translations; Luther against Munster; Beza against Castalio; and Castalio against Beza; Calvin against Servetus; Illyricus both against Calvin and Beza.§§ Staphylus and Emserus noted in Luther's Dutch translation of the New Testament only, about one thousand four hundred heretical corruptions. And thus far of the confessed corruptions in foreign protestant translations.

If you desire a character of our English protestant versions, pray be pleased to take it' from the words of these following protestants; some of the most zealous and precise of whom, in a certain treatise, entitled, " A Petition directed to his Most Excellent Ma

* Zuing. T. 2. ad Luth. lib. de S. † Keckerman, Syst. 8. Theol. lib. 2. p. 188. 1. S. Joh. 5. 7. To. 5. Germ. fol. 141, 144. § See Zuing. Tom. 2. ad Luth. lib. de Sacr. fol. 388, 389. Hosp. Hist. Sacram. part. ult. folio 183. Lavath. Hist. Sacram. 1. 32. Hospin. in Concord. Discord. fol. 138. ** In Respons. ad Defens. & Respons. Castal. in Test. 1556. in præf. & in Annot. in Mat. 3. & 4. Luc. 2. Act. 8. & 10. 1 Cor. 1. tt In sua Translat. Nov. Test. part. 12. fol. 110. # In Test. part. 20, 30, 40, 64, 65, 66, 74, 99, & part. 8, 13, 14, 21, 23. ́§§ In Defens. Trans. p. 170. See Lind. Dub. p. 84, 85, 96, 98.

jesty King James the First," complain," that our translation of the Psalms, comprised in our Book of Common Prayer, doth, in addition, subtraction, and alteration, differ from the truth of the Hebrew in, at least, two hundred places." If two hundred corruptions were found in the Psalms only, and that by protestants themselves, how many, think you, might be found from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of the Apocalypse, if examined by an impartial and strict examination? And this they made the ground of their scruple, to make use of the Common Prayer; remaining doubtful, "whether a man may, with a safe conscience, subscribe thereto:" Yea, they wrote and published a particular treatise, entitled, "A Defence of the Minister's Reasons for refusal of subscribing;" the whole argument and scope whereof, is only concerning mis-translating : Yea, the reader may see, in the beginning of the said book, the title of every chapter, twenty-six in all, pointing to the mis-translations there handled in particular.* †

Mr. Carlile avouches," that the English translators have depraved the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant : that in many places they detort the Scriptures from the right sense, and that they show themselves to love darkness more than light; falsehood more than truth:" which Doctor Reynolds objecting against the church of England, Mr. Whitaker had no better answer than to say, "What Mr. Carlile, with some others, has written against some places translated in our Bibles, makes nothing to the purpose; I have not said otherwise, but that some things may be amended."

The ministers of Lincoln diocess could not forbear, in their great zeal, to signify to the King, that the English translation of the Bible, "is a translation that takes away from the text, that adds to the text, and that, sometimes, to the changing or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost;" calling it yet further, " a translation which is absurd and senseless, perverting, in many places, the meaning of the Holy Ghost."§

For which cause, protestants of tender consciences made great scruple of subscribing thereto : "How shall I," says Mr. Burges," 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?"||

This great evil of corrupting the Scripture, being well considered by Mr. Broughton, one of the most zealous sort of protestants, obliged him to write an epistle to the Lords of the council, desiring them with all speed to procure a new translation: “Because,” says he, "that which is now in England is full of errors."¶ And in his advertisements

of corruptions, he tells the bishops, "that their public translations of Scriptures into English is such, that it perverts the text 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." A most dreadful saying, certainly, for all those who are forced to receive such a translation for their only rule of faith.

King James the First thought the Geneva translation to be the worst of all; and further affirmed, "that in the marginal notes annexed to the Geneva translation, some are very partial, untrue, seditious, &c."** Agreeable to this are also these words of Mr. Parkes to Doctor Willet:-"As for the Geneva Bibles, it is to be wished, that either they were purged from those manifold errors which are both in the text and in the margin, or else utterly prohibited."

Now these our protestant English translations being thus confessedly "corrupt, absurd, senseless, contrary, and perverting the meaning of the Holy Ghost;" had not King James the First just cause to affirm, "that he could never see a Bible well translated into English?" And whether such falsely translated Bibles ought to be imposed upon the ignorant people, and by them received for the very Word of God, and for their only rule of faith, I refer to the judgment of the world; and do freely assert with Doctor Whitaker, a learned protestant," that translations are so far only the word of God, as they faithfully express the meaning of the authentical text."++

The English protestant translations having been thus exclaimed against, and cried down not only by catholics, but even by the most learned protestants,§§ as you have seen; it pleased his majesty, King James the First, to command a review and reformation of those translations which had passed for God's word in King Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth's days.||| Which work was undertaken by the prelatic clergy, not

* Petition directed to his Majesty, pag. 75, 76. † That Christ descended into Hell, pag. 116, 117, 118. 121. 154. Whitaker's Answer to Dr. Reynolds, pag. 255. § See the Abridgment which the Ministers of Lincoln diocess delivered to his Majesty, pag. 11, 12, 13. || Burges Apol. sect. 6. and in Covel's Answ. to Burges, pag. 93. See the Triple Cord, pag. 147. **See the Conference before the King's Majesty, pag. 46 and 47. Apologies concerning Christ's Descent into Hell at Ddd. † Conference before his Majesty, pag. 46. # Whitaker's Answer to Dr. Reynolds, pag. 235. §§ Dr. Gre

gory Martin wrote a whole treatise against them. Bishop Tunstal discovered in Tindal's New Testament only, no less than 2000 corruptions.

so much, it is to be feared, for the zeal of truth, as appears by their having corrected so very few places, as out of a design of correcting such faults as favoured the more puritanical part of protestants (Presbyterians) against the usurped authority, pretended episcopacy, ceremonies, and traditions of the prelatic party. For example: the word "congregation" in their first Bibles, was the usual and only English word they made use of for the Greek and Latin word innλncia ecclesia, because then the name of church was most odious to them; yea, they could not endure to hear any mention of a church, because of the catholic church, which they had forsaken, and which withstood and condemned them. But now, being grown up to something (as themselves fancy) like a church, they resolve in good earnest to take upon them the face, figure, and grandeur of a church; to censure and excommunicate, yea, and persecute their dissenting brethren; rejecting therefore that humble appellation, which their primitive ancestors were con tent with, viz. congregation, they assume the title of church, the church of England, to countenance which, they bring the word church again into their translations, and banish that their once darling congregation.

They have also, instead of ordinances, institutions, &c. been pleased in some places to translate traditions; thereby to vindicate several ceremonies of theirs against their puritanical brethren; as in behalf of their character, they rectified," ordaining elders, by election."

The word (image) being so shameful a corruption, they were pleased likewise to correct, and instead thereof to translate (idol,) according to the true Greek and Latin. Yet it appears that this was not amended out of any good design, or love of truth; but, either merely out of shame, or however to have it said that they had done something. Seeing they have not corrected it in all places, expecially in the Old Testament, Exod. 20. where they yet read image, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image;' the word in Hebrew being pesel, the very same that sculptile is in Latin, and signifies in English a graven or carved thing; and in the Greek it is eidolon, (an idol): so that by this false and wicked practice, they endeavour to discredit the catholic religion; and, contrary to their own consciences, and corrections in the New Testament, endeavour to make the people believe, that image and idol are the same, and equally forbidden by Scripture, and God's commandments; and consequently, that popery is idolatry, for admitting the due use of images.

They have also corrected that most absurd and shameful corruption, (grave); and, as they ought to do, have instead of it translated (hell,) so that now they read, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell;" whereas, Beza has it," Thou wilt not leave my carcass in the grave." Yet we see, that this is not out of any sincere intention, or respect to truth neither, because they have but corrected it in some few places, not in all, as you will see hereafter; which they would not do, especially in Genesis, lest they should thereby be forced to admit of Limbus Patrum, where Jacob's soul was to descend, when he said, "I will go down to my son into Hell mourning," &c. And to balance the advantage they think they may have given catholics where they have corrected it, they have (against Purgatory and Limbus Patrum) in another place most grossly corrupted the text for whereas the words of our Saviour are, "Quickened in spirit or soul. In the which spirit coming, he preached to them also that were in prison," they translate, "Quickened by the spirit, by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." This was so notorious a corruption, that Dr. Montague, afterwards bishop of Chichester and Norwich, reprehended Sir Henry Saville for it, to whose care the translating of St. Peter's Epistle was committed: Sir Henry Saville told him plainly, that Dr. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Smith, bishop of Gloucester, corrupted and altered the translation of this place, which himself had sincerely performed. Note here, by the bye, that if Dr. Abbot's conscience could so lightly suffer him to corrupt the Scripture, his, or his servant Mason's forging the Lambeth Records, could not possibly cause the least scruple, especially being a thing so highly for their interest and honour. These are the chiefest faults they have corrected in this their new translation; and with what sinister designs they have amended them, appears visible enough; to wit, either to keep their authority, and gain credit for their new-thought-on episcopal and priestly character and ceremonies against puritans or presbyterians; or else, for very shame, urged thereto by the exclamations of catholics, daily inveighing against such intolerable falsifications. But because they resolved not to correct either all, or the tenth part of the corruptions of the former translations; therefore, fearing their over-seen falsifications would be observed, both by puritans and catholics, in their Epistle Dedicatory to the King, they desire his majesty's protection, for that" on the one side, we shall be traduced, say they, by popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy truth to be yet more known unto

* 1 Peter 3. ver. 18, 19.