« PreviousContinue »
you: I do not ask for an atom of par- testant seminaries? I should be sorry tiality or lenient treatment; nor do I to misapprehend your meaning; but expect to be handled the more charita. | on turning back to your Journal or bly, on account of my bold advances October last, p. 165, I discern that into the camp of an enemy.
you really vindicate Mr. Gandolphy You tell your readers (p. 202, Orth. and Bishop Challoner, &c. for their Journ.) that you were surprized” to having reflected uncharitably on Profind my first letter contained not one 5 testants; often charging them with " word in reply to your arguments-1“ being heretical, and with WIL" not one word in defence of the con 6 FULLY CORRUPTING the text “ sistency and liberality of our Pro 1 of the Holy Scriptures." You add “testant biblemen—not one word in | an extract from Baker's Chronicle, " vindication of the charge of Protest. “to prove that this charge is neither "ants having corrupted the Scrip- “ false nor groundless.” "tures,""* &c. &c. “Oh! no, such Sir, I warn you not to account every " things (you say) are not worth the error in translating wilful and corrupt, "notice of Mr. Blair.” Give me designed and base, made on purpose to leave, Sir, to ask, Whether I ever falsify and pervert the sense of the ori. pledged myself to wipe off all the filthginal. A false and bad version may with which impertinent or ill-informed possibly be made through ignorance; railers have chosen to bespatter those but a wilfully erroneous version inwho are quite as honest as themselves? | volves the translator in no small dePerhaps you mistake abusive reproach- gree of moral guilt! Dr. Reynolds, es and calumny for “arguments;" or whose words you quote, does not say you may expect us, Protestants, “to or insinuate what you do; that the de
stoop so low” as to " notice" the viations of the old English version effusions of ignorance and malice, from the original were made on pure Whichabound in the controversial writ- pose to deceive the unlearned-but, ings of your forefathers. Do you that the then existing translations were mean, then, to revive the charge (so of." not answerable to the truth of the ten refuted) of our wilfuLLY and “ original.” If every new or amendcorruptly altering the sacred Scrip-ed version prove former translations to tures, either in the original text itself, have been corrupted wilfully, I supor in the last English version? Do you pose your great Dr. Challoner has done say, that WE, MODERNS, are answera- no honour to the Doway and Rheims ble for every fault or mistake in the translators, by his numerous correcearly translations, retailed and aggra- tions; nor will you be able to justify rated by your champions Martin and the editions of the Latin Vulgate itself, Ward? Or, do you only affirm, that, prior to that of Pope Clement the 8th, upon the whole, more integrity and which differs so widely from the Sixlaudable zeal have been displayed by tine copy, and indeed from all others the biblical translators of Roman Cal preceding it !!! I do not, however, tholic colleges, than by those of Pro think it fair to blame the present gene
ration for the sins and defects of their . If the reader refers to page 202, he will torei
forefathers, unless they imitate their ind that Mr. Blair, if he has not been guilty misconduct and adopt their principles; of mistranslation, like the Protestant trans but, if I were disposed to retort your lators of the Bible, has most palpably, but un- iMiberal charge, it would be easy to intentionally, I suppose, MISQUOTED my words, Leonfound every truly enlightened and
Ich are these: “ Not one word in vindica- | tion of Mr. B.'s veracity in asserting that
honest Roman Catholic, by pointing " the charge of Protestants having corrupted out the iniquitous anti-biblical prac
e Scriptures was 'groundless and unfair."" Blair claims fairness and candid dealing
ng | tices of many of your own churchme; but why does he not act upon the men, whose corruptions were those of same principles hiinself? EDITOR.
1 the heart more than of the head. It
" the So Mr. Blai
is better, by far, to bury all such an- | isting, in which the conjunctive particient deeds of darkness in eternal ob-cle and” occurs: thirdly, some of livion.
the most ancient versions, in different Nevertheless, I am willing to exa | languages, agree with our own: and mine ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL INSTANCES lastly, many of the early Christian Fa. which captious men on your side have thers have quoted the clause as we adduced, to demonstrate the WIL- have it. Upon each of these points I FUL CORRUPTIONS made in our shall offer a few words. last authorized English Bible: I shall | First, with regard to the context: select an example, on which your You will find in the 26th verse, 66 As Clergy have laid more than common " often as you shall eat this bread and stress, because they fancy a point of “ drink this chalice;" again in the doctrine hangs upon it; and I have 28th verse, “So let him eat of that very recently had a letter from Mr. “ bread and drink of the chalice;" Gandolphy, in which he cites the text again in the 29th verse, “He that in question, as affording complete evi-“ eateth and drinketh unworthily, eatdence that King James's translators" eth and drinketh judgment to him. lie under the heavy imputation alluded “ self.” (See the Rheims' translation to. While I thus endeavour to re- of the Vulgate, from which I quote move your prejudices, let it not be these words.) Now, Sir, it seems clear imagined, Sir, that I assume the cha- that the sense, as well as the context, racter of a biblical critic: for I make requires and rather than or in the no such pretence; and it is not my de 27th verse; “ Whosoever shall eat sign to enter far into this field of de- “ this bread and drink (not or drink) bate, which belongs rather to the learn- « the chalice of the Lord unworthily." ed Divine than to the unprepared Lay- &c. Besides this, Phavorinus, Rosen. man. I write under the disadvantage muller, and Schleusner, with other of having but little leisure for study, eminent critics, shew that among the few books to consult, and much occu- Greeks or is often put indiscrimi. pation in professional duties: so that nately for and; as indeed is someit would very ill become me to enter times done by the Seventy, in their the chair of “a Master of Israel.” translation from the Hebrew text of the
The voluntary error charged upon Old Testament; and which might also our translators of the Holy Scripture, have been fairly done in rendering seand so heavily complained of by a host veral passages of the New Testament of anti-biblemen (if you will allow me into English-e.g. Eph. v. 3. 2 Cor. to adopt one of your elegant epithets), i. 13. Luke xx. 2. Matt. xxi. 23. is found in 1 Cor. xi. 27. 66 Whoso- 1 Pet. i. 11. and Acts i. 7. It is there. “ ever shall eat this bread and drink fore a manifest abuse of words to infer 6 this cup of the Lord unworthily.” (as the Romish commentators generally The word “and” constitutes the ala do), that the disjunctive particle - oris ledged error, as it is 6 or” in most in 1 Cor. xi. 27, will justify the praccopies of the Greek and Latin: but, tice of your Clergy, in withholding Sir, I do not at all concede that this the wine of the holy Eucharist from is a mis-translation; much less do I the Laity. But this is not all I have admit that it is a corrupt and wilful to advance in defending our English one, even if it could be proved errone- Protestant version. ous. For the context, in the first Secondly, in point fact, there are place, affords a sanction to our trans- very ancient Greek manuscripts of the lation; and renders it probable that New Testament, in which we find the Greek text was originally, in the “und" instead of 66 or drink,” &c. earliest copies, conformable thereto: I have not immediate access to any secondly, there are manuscripts of other of them than the Alexandrine great antiquity and authority still ex. | M$. in the British Museum; but Wetstein and Griesbach (if I remember | Bishop Challoner and the Rev. Mr. right) refer to the Claromontane and Gandolphy, in having a reflected un. Lincoln MSS. Nor are we without a “ charitably on Protestants, often manuscript copy of the Vulgate itself, “ charging them with being heretical, wherein "et" occurs, and not "vel;" " and with wilfully corrupting the text which will, probably, be more deci “ of the Holy Scriptures.”-Now, in sive in your estimation than even the the first place, I beg leave to observe, Greek copies!
that Mr. B. has not stated the matter THIRDLY, the most early transla- | fairly. The real question is the justions have the word "and" instead of tification of his assertion, “ that the Sor;" such as, the Syriac, made in the charge was ALTOGETHER ground. second or third century; the Ethiopic, “less and unfair;" not my vindicathe Arabic, and the Coptic versions: all tion of it. In the next place I deny, which very materially strengthens the that to charge the founders of the Reevidence in favour of our English ren formation with wilfully corrupting the dering, and make it still more proba. sacred Scriptures, and to establish ble that the Greek should be Kab. such charge with a view of guiding ig
FOURTHLY, I add, that Clemens of norant persons into the way of Truth, Alexandria, Cyril, Athanasius, &c. is a breach of Charity, but, on the quote the text according to our view contrary, is meritorious in the highest of it, and not yours. Surely these degree; and I think the objection venerable Fathers will have some comes with a very bad grace from one weight in the general argument; and who so pointedly asserts, without a may repress the severity of criticism, if shadow of proof; that many of the you or your Clergy be determined to Roman Catholic clergy were guilty oppose us. With these few brief ob- of iniquitous anti-biblical practices, servations, (written in great haste and 66 whose corruptions were those of the disturbed by frequent interruptions) I“ heart more than of the head.” Mr. conclude my present letter.
B. says that the charge HAS BEEN OFRemaining, &c.
TEN REFUTED; and that Dr. Reynolds, WILLIAM BLAIR. whom I quoted, did not say or insiGreat Russell-street,
nuate what I did; " that the deviaBloomsbury-square.
" tions of the old English version from Dec. 16, 1813.
" the original were made on purpose
" to deceive the unlearned: but that Such, reader, are the remarks sent" the then existing translat ons were me by Mr. B. to ward off the effect 1666 not answerable to the TRUTH of the of those arguments which I adduced 6 original.'” As to the bold asserin my reply to his last. My reasonation of Mr. B. that the charge has ing seems to have been so far conclu been often refuted, I shall lay such sive to the mind of my opponent, that, facts before my readers as will shew although he has neither the candour it to be utterly impossible; and if Dr. nor manliness to acknowledge his dis- | Reynolds does not precisely say what comfiture, he indirectly proclaims his I do, he said that the translations were
efeat, by shifting the ground, and CORRUPT: now what is meant by taking up another position; and now he this word every person knows.-My expects to overcome me, I suppose, by opponent thinks the errors in the Pro. an illogical dissertation on the translatestant translation may arise from ig. tion of ONE word. To enter into norance; but he forgets that he there. & regular discusion on this precious by justifies the Catholic church in her document is next to impossible; I laudable endeavours to prevent the sashall therefore confine myself to the cred text from falling into the hands principal matter which he has brought of the ignorant and ill-designed Be. forward to refute my vindication of sides, does not this admission, that the translations of the scriptures into the following observation:-“ How English “ were not answerable to the many heresies the first translation of
truth of the original” prove, that " Tindall produced in few years, let the blessed Reformation, so far from “ my Lord Herbert's History of Henry being a regeneration from the errors of the Eighth inform you; insomuch Popery, was itself founded upon a that for the gross errors in it, and FALSE translation of the Word of the great mischiefs it occasioned, a God, which the people were taught to“ sentence passed on the first edition believe was genuine, and to ground of the Bible, too shameful almost to their faith upon it by their own pri.“ be repeated.”_ Queen Elizabeth vate interpretation ? And such be- and her Bishops, in 1560, published a ing really the case, how is it possible translation, in which the word church for that doctrine to be true which had is blotted out, and that of congregation FALSEHOOD for its origin?-But, says substituted. They also translate love my correspondent, “ I warn you not for charity, elder and minister for “ to account every error in translating priest, gift for grace, mystery for sa66 wilful and corrupt, designed and crament, washing for baptism, repent“ base, made on purpose to falsify the unce for penance, messenger for angel, € sense of the original.” Indeed, Mr. embassador for apostle, anointed for B. I consider this caution quite need. Christ, holy wind for Holy Ghost, less, since I am too often reminded, as &c. &c. &c. Now these are only a a printer, of the errors of the Press. few of the corruptions, and is it. posThese were the errors found in the sible that they could creep in unintenSixtine edition, which you notice, nottionally? What man of common sense corruptions in points of faith and mo- would ever entertain such an idea ? rals; and these faults Sixtus himself But let us hear what Protestants themintended to have had corrected, had selves say of these corruptions. In he lived long enough, but it was re- James the First's reign, a treatise was served for Clement to perfect and com- published under the title of " A Peti. plete the work. But let us see if this * tion directed to his most excellent case applies to the Protestant transla 6. Majesty, &c.” in which it is stated, tors of the Scriptures, which I think “ That our translation of the Psalms, the more necessary, since Mr. B. him “ comprised in our Book of Common self says that 6 a wilfully erroneous “ Prayer, both, in addition, substrac16 version involves the translator in no 5 tion, and alteration, differ from the 6 small degree of moral guilt.”—I" truth of the Hebrew in at least TWO shall not refer Mr. Blair to manuscript “ HUNDRED PLACES.”—The Miniscopies, but to the printed editions; ters of Lincoln diocese signified to the nor shall I content myself with my same King, that the English translaown opinion, but give the opinions of tion of the Bible, “is a translation that Protestants themselves; the reader “ takes away from the text, that adds will then be able to judge whether I to the text, and that, sometimes, to am right in vindicating Bishop Chal. “ the changing or obscuring of the loner, or whether Mr. Blair was jus. “ meaning of the Holy Ghost;" call. tified in his assertion, that “the ing it yet further, "a translation 6 charge was ALTOGETHER groundless “ which is absurd and senseless, per6 and unfair."--Tindall's translation“ verting, in many places, the meanof the New Testament only, in Henry "ing of the Holy Ghost."Another the 8th's time, had no less than two | Protestant writer, Mr. Broughton, in THOUSAND corruptions in it. Could his advertisements of corruptions, tells these be involuntary errors in the the Bishops in that reign, that “ their translator or printer? Of this trans- “ public translation of Scriptures into lation, Dryden, in the preface to his English is such, that it perverts the poem of " A Layman's Faith,” makes " text of the Old Testament in eight "hundred and forty-eight places, and since they consider themselves as Mi. " that it causes millions of millions to nisters of that God who neither can " reject the New Testament, and to deceive nor be deceived? Why, then, "run to eternal flames.”_In conse- so angry at being shewn the Truth? quence of these exposures, a confer- Ought not every Christian to seek sinence was held before James, and a new cerely for this most important object? translation agreed on, in which some And yet for a strict adherence to of the corruptions were corrected, and TRUTH, and the Faith of their ances. not a few retained; viz. elder for tors, are Catholics held out as deservpriest, messenger for angel, &c. &c.
m ing of persecution and suspicion!Having, then, most clearly established But what is the cause of this injustice? the charge, that Protestants HAVE The question is natural: I shall en“ wilfully corrupted the Holy Scrip deavour to answer it. If you consult tures,” and are consequently involved the history of this country, you will “ in no small degree of moral guilt," find, that as the Reformation arose I shall leave the reader to form his from the wickedness and corruption own opinion of the weight due to Mr. of a few abandoned persons, it was Blair'a assertions, and of the effects grounded on forgery and supported by which have resulted from a Reform calumny. By the former, plots were 50 blasphemously begun.-But, says hatched up, to give countenance to my biblical antagonist, "I do not the most cruel code of laws against the "think it fair to blame the present ge- Catholics that ever disgraced a civiliz“neration for the sins and defects of led country; by the latter, the most "their forefathers, unless they imitate horrid and impious doctrines were laid " their conduct and adopt their prin to their charge, in order to raise up ha. "ciples.”—In this we are perfectly tred against them. To shew that this agreed. However, let me ask Mr. is not the opinion of Catholics alone, B. if he really does think thus, why I shall give a quotation from the Rev. he labours so hard to prevent the Ca- Mr. Whitaker's (a Protestant clergytholics of the present day from being man) Vindication of Mary Queen of restored to those privileges formerly Scots. Speaking of the detestable enjoyed by their ancestors, who were habit of fabrication and lies in the unjustly deprived of them by the in-chief Reformers, the Rev. author says, trigues of the fanatical reformers of 6 Forgery, I blush for the honour of that period? Why does he devote « Protestantism while I write it, seems that small space of time which he has to have been peculiar to the Reformto spare from the practice of his pro- " ed. I look in vain for one of these fessional duties, in writing and pub- " accursed outrages of imposition lishing UNJUST INSINUATIONS AND PAL “ among the disciples of Popery."PABLE MISREPRESENTATIONS, which I What a contrast is here drawn, in a few have shewn are contained in the Cor. short lines, between Popery and Pro. respondence & Fifth of November pam- testantism! Yet this system is not rephlets? Why thus endeavour to injure linquished even at the present day. Is his neighbours, who have given him not the Press made the daily instruno just cause of offence? Catholics ment for keeping alive those infamous have no malice, no ill-will against fabrications raised against the Cathotheir Protestant brethren: they seek lics? Is it not a fact, that the most to live in the bonds of peace and unity pernicious works are now constantly with their fellow-christians, as citizens circulated, tending to inflame the vulof the same soil and country. And if gar mind against the Papists, as Ca. the Catholic Clergy do, in their writ- tholics are opprobriously termed, imings or their sermons, point out the puting to them doctrines which they Various errors of Protestantism, is it never professed, and holding them out not their bounden duty to elicit Truth, as the basest and most seditious of
on Partes that arises flie