« AnteriorContinua »
authorised version that very version which you pronounced to be so corrupt, that no one could rely upon it in any text whatever! In many entire verses, there is not the least discrepancy; and, in many others, only the difference of one or two unimportant words. Nay more, many interpretations which the Rhemists had stigmatized as erroneous and false, and savouring of heresy, are adopted into the new versions without the smallest compunction! And thus we find, that such a stone of stumbling, and rock of scandal, and magazine of heresies, as a Protestant translation, which has been abused from generation to generation in ponderous treatises and light pamphlets, in formal sermons and popular lectures, and familiar dialogues, and the authors of which, as Dr. Troy's* annotations tells us, ought to be abhorred to the depths of hell, may nevertheless be found very serviceable to the Catholic cause; it may afford signal assistance to your spiritual rulers in correcting their own orthodox versions, when their blunders and barbarisms can longer be endured!
But it is not merely in phraseology that we find a difference between this monument of the wisdom and skill of your ancestors, and the more polished productions of their successors. There are also material discrepancies in the sense, in point of deficiency, redundance, and flat contrariety. I request your attention to the following specimens, which are not quite the tithe of the sum total which would be furnished by an accurate collation.
Rhemish Testament of 1582. Gal. v. 13. “For you, brethren, are called into libertie: only make not this libertie an'occasion to the flesh, but by charitie serve one another."
Dr. Challoner's Testament of 1752. “For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty: only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh, but by charity of the spirit serve one another.”
Rhem. Test. Heb. vi. 18. “We may have a most strong comfort, who have fled to hold fast the hope proposed."
Test. of 1752. “We may have the strongest comfort, who have filed for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us.”
Rhem. Test, v. 8. “And truely whereas he was the Sonne, he learned by those things which he suffered, obedience.”
Test, of 1752. “And whereas indeed he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered.”.
Rhem. Test. Acts, x. 40, 41. “Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, not to al the people, but to us who did eate and drink with him after he rose againe from the dead.”
Test, of 1752. “Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses pre-ordained by God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him,” &c.
Rhem. Test. Rom. vi. 18, 19. -according to that which was said to him: So shall thy seede be, as the starres of heaven and the sand of
And he was not weakened in faith,” &c. Test, of 1752. "--according to that which was said to him, so shall thy seed be. And he was not weak in faith,” &c.
Rhem. Test. I Cor. vi. 11. And these things certes you were : but you are washed,” &c.
Test. of 1752. “And such some of you were ; but you are washed,” &c.
Rhem. Test. I Cor. ix. 12. “If others be partakers of your power ; why not we rather
many thousands of instances, they have forsaken the former, and copied the very er. pressions of the latter! If this is not approximating, I should be glad to learn what the word really means.
See the note on Hebrews v. 7, in the Dublin Bible of 1816.
Test. of 1752. “If others be partakers of this power over you ; why not we rather?”
Rhem. Test. 2 Pet. i. 16. “For not having folowed unlearned fables, have we made the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ known to you, but made beholders of his greatness."
Test. of 1752. “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but having been made eye-witnesses of his majesty.”
I need not remind you, Sir, of your dogmatically pronouncing, ex cathedrâ, that the disagreement in our copies of the 14th Psalm was a certain proof of corruption; and that the substitution of idols for images in our present version of the Scriptures was a plain acknowledgment that the old interpretation was false and indefensible. As I presume you are hostile to corruptions of Scrip!ure wherever they are to be found, I request you will, by way of shewing your impartiality, favour us with a few animadversions on the above glaring discrepancies* between Dr. Gregory Martin's New Testament, and that of Dr. Challoner, and give us a few directions to enable us to judge which is in the right. I shall next desire you to exercise the same acumen by which you detected the sinister motives of our translators, upon the corrupt performances of yours, and to inform us what were their motives for thus mutilating and disfiguring the Word of God. And, as several of the above passages, in their amended form, approximate very closely to our authorised version, both in phraseology and meaning, may we not reasonably conclude either that your correctors did not think our version quite so bad as that meek and learned polemic Thomas Ward and yourself have chosen to represent it; or that, with all its faults, it was somewhat better than the translation of your Rhemish doctors ?
It would be a most fatiguing task to point out all the impudent appeals of the Rhemists to pretended writings of the Fathers, which every man of learning and candour knows and acknowledges to be spurious. The references to them are scattered over their commentary, as Corinna would have said, ου 7η χειρι, αλλ' όλο 7ω θυλακή, not by handfuls, but by whole sackfuls; and there is not a superstitious opinion or corrupt. practice of their Church, which they do not countenance by the authority of some impostor in the mask of a Greek or Latin Father. I have already adverted to one instance of this, and I now request you to observe how boldly they stand up for the counterfeit Dionysius, the Areopagite.
“This,” say they in the note on Acts xvii. 34, “is that famous Denys that first converted France,t and wrote those notable and divine works, De Ecclesiastica et Cælesti Hierarchia, de Divinis Nominibus, and others, in which he confirmeth and proveth plainly almost all things that the Church now useth in the ministration of the holy Sacraments, and affirmeth that he learned them of the Apostles, giving also testimony for the Catholicke faith in most things now controversed, so plainely that our Adversaries have no shift but to deny this Denys to have been the author of them, feyning that they be another's of later age. Which is an old flight of heretickes, but most proper to these of al others :
• It would be easy to shew how the above variations originated, and to make it ap. pear that, in one or two instances, the older rendering is the better of the two; but as I do not wish to forestall Mr. S.'s vindication, Iforbear entering into any discussion of them at present.
+ It is scarely necessary to remark that Dionysius the Areopagite's mission to France is an impudent fiction of the ninth century, and now rejected every where, except in the Roman Breviary.
Who seeing al antiquitie against them, are forced to be more hold or rather impudent in this point."*
Could they have lauded Cyprian or Athanasius in more glowing terms? This flaming panegyric, and particularly the equally learned and modest assertion, that it is an old flight of heretics to deny the genuineness of the works in question, will make those smile who know that they were first produced and alleged by the Severiant hereties, in favour of their own heterodox sentiments, and immediately excepted against as spurious by the Catholic Bishop Hypatius ; and that the S most learned Romanists have demonstratively proved that they were forged in the fourth or fifth century by some Apollinarist or Eutychian!! Now, Sir, if what was lieresy in the fifth or sixth century is heresy still, low do you account for its ihus finding favour in the eyes of your spiritual guides? Does it not seem that right and wrong, and truth and falsehood, are strangely confounded, or very imperceptibly separated from each other in your "Church, when those very compositions which were branded as spurious and heretical twelve hundred years ago, are afterwards patronixed by your Popes, f and Cardinals, and Doctors of Divinity, and extolled to the very skies as the genuine and orthodox writings of a pupil of the Apostles ?
I have not at present either leisure or inclination to hunt those worthy annotators through all their citations of the false decretal epistles of the Popes, and similar spurious trash ; and will, therefore, content myself with adducing a few more instances to shew that the Pseudo-Dionysius is not the only heretic whom they produce as a witness on their behalf.
On I Tim. v. 12, after hinting pretty broadly that all married priests and religious are in a state of eternal damnation, they refer those who would know what a grievous sin this is, to St. Ambrose's treatise Ad Virginem Lapsam. That this piece was not written by St. Ambrose is now generally allowed; and Dupin and others bring several cogent arguments to prove that the author was a Novatian,-one of which is, his extravagant and heterodox notions respecting the nature and consequences of the sin in question, which are flatly opposed to the sentiments expressed in Ambrose's genuine treatise on Penance.
On 1 Cor. xi. 28, they adduce Augustine's treatise De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus, to prove the antiquity of auricular confession; and on I Tim. iv. 5, they bring it forward' on behalf of the exorcisms of the Church. Nevertheless, it certainly was not written by Augustine, but, as Bellarmine himself admits, by the Semi-Pelagian Gennadius. In the Benedictine edition, it is put among the spurious pieces in the appendix, and the Louvain editors pronounce it without hesitation to be written by one who was no Catholic.
Again, on Matthew xvii. 27, they profoundly remark that it was “a great mysterie in that he (Christ) payed not only for himself, but for
• Having thus, as they think, established the credit of those writings, they bring them forward pretty frequently to demolish heretical opponents ; and their example is very generally followed by their brother controvertists of the same calibre. I could easily collect more than a hundred confident appeals to the authorily of St. Dionysius from the writings of English Romanists of the age of Queen Elizabeth alone. + In a conference between them and the Catholics, A. D. 532.
Particularly the Dominican Le Quien in his Oriens Christianus, and Eusebius Amort in his Acta Circa Libros Agredanos, pp. 435-55. The latter has adduced many arguments to shew that it is very probable the works in question were composed by Apollinaris himself.
Namely, by Adrian I, Nicholas I, Bellarmine, Cardinal Allen, Canisius, and many others. The true reason why they were thus received into favour, was that they countenance many doctrines and practices now sanctioned by the Church of Rome, for which no authority can be found in Scripture, or in the genuine fathers of the first three centuries.
Peter bearing the person of the Churche, and in whom as the cheefe, the rest were conteyned ;” and this they fortify by an appeal to Augustine's Questions from the New Testament. Unfortunately, Possevinus -as great a stickier for Papal Supremacy as ever lived—condemns it at
no work of St. Augustine, but of some downright heretic. Dupin also observes that it is full of errors and falsehoods ; indeed, it is generally believed to be the production of Hilary the deacon, who, as Št. Jerome informs us, was a Luciferian, and died out of the communion of the Church,
Lastly, on Luke xxiv. 30, they cite the Imperfect Work on St. Matthew, (usually published together with Chrysostom) to prove the lawfulness of communion in one kind.* They who attempt to vindicate this flagrant innovation, must be content with such arguments as they can meet with or manufacture, and they have never yet produced the shadow of a good one. The value of the evidence furnished by the author of the work in question, may be estimated from Bellarmine's judgment of it, which is, that it is full of Arianism! Baronius goes still further, and affirms it to be the production of a heretic, nay, the very worst of hereties; a collection of rotten discourses, swarming with the maggots of heresy ; not containing an atom of Chrysostom, (to whom it was for a time attributed) either in diction, sentiment, or doctrine, but replete with the heresies of the Manicheans, Montanists, Arians, and Donatists!! It is a pity that this writer was not, after all, an anticipator of the ever-memorable Council of Constance in declaring that the Sacrainent ought to be administered to the laity in one kind only, notwithstanding that Christ had instituted it in two, for it seems from Baronius's account of him, that he well deserved to be so !
The above are a few specimens out of a great multitude, of the learning, ingenuousness, and critical acumen of your Rhemish annotators. Let us now examine their principles, and see what excellent maxims of toleration, charity, and humanity, they profess to extract from the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles.
On Acts x. 9, there is a long note respecting the Romish canonical hours, which, according to their usual skill in extracting any thing from any thing, (and not unfrequently from nothing,) the Rhemisis contrive to find both in the Scriptures and in Cyprian. They thence take occasion to argue "how insufficient and unlike the new pretended Church Service of England is to the primitives use, which hath no such hours of night or day,
• We can assure our readers that neither this author, nor Augustine, nor Paulinus, nor Theophylact, nor Bede, all of whom are appealed to by the Rhemists, says a single word in favour of communicating in one kind, which was a practice of the Mani. cheans, flatly condemned by two Popes, Gelasius I, and Leo I, and even by the great father of transubstantiation, Paschase Radbert !!
+ It is no uncommon thing for Romanists of this stamp to abuse the Reformers for this crime of abrogating the seven canonical hours, as if they had been guilty of re. nouncing the ten commandments. “The Lutherans," says the Spanish Franciscan Philip Diez, in his Summa Prædicantium, "condemn the praises of God (gy. where ?} and the canonical hours. What, ye impious Lutherans, did the holy Scripture mean in the book of Joshua, by relating that the walls of Jericho fell down when the priests went seven times round the city sounding their seven trumpets, except that the devices of the devil would be demolished by the trumpets of the seven canonical hours?" Might he not have proved, quite as efficaciously, the benefit of having three hundred instead of seven, by the example of Gideon and his three hundred trumpets, which put the Midianites to flight much more quickly than the walls of Jericho were brought down by Joshua's seven? Unfortunately for Diez's learned exposition, Palladius affirms that Pachomius's Tabennesian monks had a precept from an angel that they were to observe only three canonical hours; and Cassian, in his treatise on Divine Service, tells us that anciently the Egyptians only observed two! He remarks, indeed, that the oriental monks gradually added to the number; and, in his time, it was increased to seven in the great monastery at Bethlehem, in order to keep the monks from laziness. Thus, it seems, we have greater antiquity to plead for our morning and evening prayers than the Roman.
saving a little imitation of the old Matins and Even song; and that in schisme and heresy, and therefore, not only unprofitable, but also damnable."
On Mark iii. 12, they remark-" The divel acknowledging our Saviour to be the Son of God, was bidden hold his peace. Therefore, neither heretickes’ sermons must be heard ; no not though they preach the truth.* So is it of their prayer and service, which, being never so good in itself, is not acceptable to God out of their mouths ; yea, it is no better than the howling of wolves.”.
We will next contemplate their most graphic delineation of the heretics themselves.
“Heretikes being ever ready to contend, do pretend victorie ; and counterfeit gold; in shape as men; as smothe and delicate as women ; their tongues and pennes ful of gall and venim ; their hartes obdurate ; ful of noise and shuffling ; their doctrine as pestiferous and ful of poison as the taile and sting of a scorpion, but they endure but for a little season.” Note on Rev. ix. 7.
The following passages will help us to discover why those pestilent creatures are so short-lived, at least in Catholic countries :
“ He warneth Bishops to be zealous and stout against false prophets and Heretikes of what sort soever, by alluding covertly to the example of holy Elias that in zeale killed 450 false prophets of Jezabel, and spared not Ahab nor Jezebel themselves, but told them to their faces that they troubled Israel, that is, the faithful people of God. And, whether there were any such great womant there, a furtherer and promotour of the Nicolaites, whom the prophet should here meane, it is hard to say." Note on Rev. ii. 20.
Again, on Rev. xvii. 6.—"The Protestants foolishly expound it, (viz. the woman drunk with the blood of the saints] of Rome; for that there they put heretikes to death, and allow of their punishment in other countries, but their blood is not called the blood of saincts, no more than the blood of theeves, mankillers, and other malefactors; for the shedding of which by order of justice, no commonwealth shal answer.”
Many Romanists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were no mean proficients in those lessons of humanity; but many others could not help demurring to them, and alleging that Christ had said that both the wheat and the tares were to grow together unto the harvest. Let us see how satisfactorily our Rhemish Doctors obviate such foolish scruples.
"The good must tolerate the evil, when it so strong that it cannot be redressed without danger and disturbance of the whole Church, and committe the matter to God's judgement in the later day. Otherwise where il men (be they Heretikes or other malefactors) may be punished or suppressed without disturbance and hazard of the gooil, they may and ists have for their seven canonical hours; and, if we chose to trifle with Scripture as they do, we might assume that our services were prefigured by the two silter trumpets which Moses was directed to make, and then it would be easy to demonstrate their great superiority : for, was not Moses greater than Joshua, and is not silver much more precious than rams' horns?
• To the same effect the Jesuit Maldonatus declares that Luther and Calvin are not to be followed when they say things agreeable to the Holy Scriptures ; and that their disci. ples, even when they speak the truth, are no more to be hearkened to than the deril. Com. ment. in Matt. xvi. If so, what becomes of Brerely's Protestant Apology for Catho. lics, and so many other compilations of heretical sayings, which the Romanists drag forward by the head and shoulders whenever they can extract from them any thing like a testimony in their own favour?
+ A very pointed and intelligible allusion to Queen Elizabeth! Need we wonder at the conspiracies of Parry and Babington, and so many other Romanists, against their lawful sovereigns, when such were the principles instilled into them by their spiritual guides?