you: I do not ask for an atom of partiality or lenient treatment; nor do I expect to be handled the more charitably, on account of my bold advances into the camp of an enemy.

testant seminaries?

66

I should be sorry

to misapprehend your meaning; but on turning back to your Journal for October last, p. 165, I discern that you really vindicate Mr. Gandolphy and Bishop Challoner, &c. for their having "reflected uncharitably on Protestants; often charging them with "being heretical, and with WIL"FULLY CORRUPTING the text "of the Holy Scriptures." You add an extract from Baker's Chronicle, "to prove that this charge is neither "false nor groundless."

You tell your readers (p. 202, Orth. Journ.) that you were "surprized" to find my first letter "contained not one "word in reply to your arguments— "not one word in defence of the con"sistency and liberality of our Pro"testant biblemen-not one word in ❝ vindication of the charge of Protest"ants having corrupted the Scrip66 tures," "* &c. &c. “Oh! no, such "things (you say) are not worth the "notice of Mr. Blair." Give me leave, Sir, to ask, Whether I ever pledged myself to wipe off all the filth with which impertinent or ill-informed railers have chosen to bespatter those who are quite as honest as themselves? Perhaps you mistake abusive reproach-gree of moral guilt! Dr. Reynolds, es and calumny for " arguments;" or you may expect us, Protestants, to 66 stoop so low" as to "notice" the effusions of ignorance and malice, which abound in the controversial writings of your forefathers.

66

Sir, I warn you not to account every error in translating wilful and corrupt, designed and base, made on purpose to falsify and pervert the sense of the original. A false and bad version may possibly be made through ignorance; but a wilfully erroneous version involves the translator in no small de

whose words you quote, does not say or insinuate what you do; that the deviations of the old English version from the original were made on purpose to deceive the unlearned-but, that the then existing translations were "not answerable to the truth of the "original." If every new or amend

Do you mean, then, to revive the charge (so often refuted) of OUR WILFULLY and corruptly altering the sacred Scrip-ed version prove former translations to tures, either in the original text itself, or in the last English version? Do you say, that wE, MODERNS, are answerable for every fault or mistake in the early translations, retailed and aggravated by your champions Martin and Ward? Or, do you only affirm, that, upon the whole, more integrity and laudable zeal have been displayed by the biblical translators of Roman Catholic colleges, than by those of Pro

* If the reader refers to page 202, he will find that Mr. Blair, if he has not been guilty of mistranslation, like the Protestant translators of the Bible, has most palpably, but unintentionally, I suppose, MISQUOTED my words, which are these: Not one word in vindica"tion of Mr. B.'s veracity in asserting that "the charge of Protestants having corrupted "the Scriptures was 'groundless and unfair."" Mr. Blair claims fairness and candid dealing from me; but why does he not act upon the same principles himself? EDITOR.

have been corrupted wilfully, I suppose your great Dr. Challoner has done no honour to the Doway and Rheims translators, by his numerous corrections; nor will you be able to justify the editions of the Latin Vulgate itself, prior to that of Pope Clement the 8th, which differs so widely from the Sixtine copy, and indeed from all others preceding it!!! I do not, however, think it fair to blame the present generation for the sins and defects of their

forefathers, unless they imitate their misconduct and adopt their principles; but, if I were disposed to retort your illiberal charge, it would be easy to confound every truly enlightened and honest Roman Catholic, by pointing out the iniquitous anti-biblical practices of many of YOUR OWN church. men, whose corruptions were those of the heart more than of the head.

It

lastly, many of the early Christian Fathers have quoted the clause as we have it.-Upon each of these points I shall offer a few words.

66

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 which captious men on your side have adduced, to demonstrate the WILFUL CORRUPTIONS made in our last authorized English Bible: I shall select an example, on which your Clergy have laid more than common stress, because they fancy a point of doctrine hangs upon it; and I have very recently had a letter from Mr. Gandolphy, in which he cites the text in question, as affording complete evidence that King James's translators lie under the heavy imputation alluded to. While I thus endeavour to remove your prejudices, let it not be imagined, Sir, that I assume the character of a biblical critic: for I make no such pretence; and it is not my design to enter far into this field of debate, which belongs rather to the learned Divine than to the unprepared Layman. I write under the disadvantage of having but little leisure for study, few books to consult, and much occupation in professional duties: so that it would very ill become me to enter the chair of " a Master of Israel."

The voluntary error charged upon our translators of the Holy Scripture, and so heavily complained of by a host of anti-biblemen (if you will allow me to adopt one of your elegant epithets), is found in 1 Cor. xi. 27. "Whoso66 ever shall eat this bread and drink "this cup of the Lord unworthily." The word "and" constitutes the alledged error, as it is "or" in most copies of the Greek and Latin: but, Sir, I do not at all concede that this is a mis-translation; much less do I admit that it is a corrupt and wilful one, even if it could be proved erroneous. For the context, in the first place, affords a sanction to our translation; and renders it probable that the Greek text was originally, in the earliest copies, conformable thereto: secondly, there are manuscripts of great antiquity and authority still ex

FIRST, with regard to the context: You will find in the 26th verse, As "often as you shall eat this bread and "drink this chalice;" again in the 28th verse, "So let him eat of that "bread and drink of the chalice;" again in the 29th verse, 66 "He that "eateth and drinketh unworthily, eat"eth and drinketh judgment to him"self." (See the Rheims' translation of the Vulgate, from which I quote these words.) Now, Sir, it seems clear that the sense, as well as the context, requires and rather than or in the 27th verse; "Whosoever shall eat "this bread and drink (not or drink) "the chalice of the Lord unworthily," &c. Besides this, Phavorinus, Rosenmuller, and Schleusner, with other eminent critics, shew that among the Greeks or is often put indiscriminately for and; as indeed is sometimes done by the Seventy, in their translation from the Hebrew text of the Old Testament; and which might also have been fairly done in rendering several passages of the New Testament into English-e. g. Eph. v. 3. 2 Cor. i. 13. Luke xx. 2. Matt. xxi. 23. 1 Pet. i. 11. and Acts i. 7. It is therefore a manifest abuse of words to infer (as the Romish commentators generally do), that the disjunctive particle "or" in 1 Cor. xi. 27, will justify the prac tice of your Clergy, in withholding the wine of the holy Eucharist from the Laity. But this is not all I have to advance in defending our English Protestant version.

SECONDLY, in point fact, there are very ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, in which we find "and" instead of "or drink," &c. I have not immediate access to any other of them than the Alexandrine MS. in the British Museum; but Wet

66

THIRDLY, the most early translations have the word "and" instead of "or;" such as, the Syriac, made in the second or third century; the Ethiopic, the Arabic, and the Coptic versions: all which very materially strengthens the evidence in favour of our English rendering, and make it still more probable that the Greek should be Kai.

FOURTHLY, I add, that Clemens of Alexandria, Cyril, Athanasius, &c. quote the text according to our view of it, and not yours. Surely these venerable Fathers will have some weight in the general argument; and may repress the severity of criticism, if you or your Clergy be determined to With these few brief observations, (written in great haste and disturbed by frequent interruptions) I conclude my present letter. Remaining, &c.

oppose us.

66

66

stein and Griesbach (if I remember | Bishop Challoner and the Rev. Mr. right) refer to the Claromontane and Gandolphy, in having "reflected unLincoln 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 fairly. The real question is-the justification of his assertion," that the charge was ALTOGETHER ground"less and unfair;" not my vindication of it. In the next place I deny, that to charge the founders of the Reformation with wilfully corrupting the sacred Scriptures, and to establish such charge with a view of guiding ignorant persons into the way of TRUTH, is a breach of Charity, buł, on the contrary, is meritorious in the highest degree; and I think the objection comes with a very bad grace from one who so pointedly asserts, without a shadow of proof, that many of the Roman Catholic clergy were guilty of iniquitous anti-biblical practices, "whose corruptions were those of the "heart more than of the head." Mr. B. says that the charge HAS BEEN OFTEN REFUTED; and that Dr. Reynolds, whom I quoted, did not say or insinuate what I did; "that the devia"tions of the old English version from "the original were made on purpose, "to deceive the unlearned: but that "the then existing translations were "not answerable to the TRUTH of the "original.'" As to the bold assertion of Mr. B. that the charge HAS been often refuted, I shall lay such facts before my readers as will shew it to be utterly impossible; and if Dr. Reynolds does not precisely say what I do, he said that the translations were CORRUPT: now what is meant by this word every person knows.-My opponent thinks the errors in the Protestant translation may arise from ignorance; but he forgets that he thereby justifies the Catholic church in her laudable endeavours to prevent the sacred text from falling into the hands of the ignorant and ill-designed. Besides, does not this admission, that

WILLIAM BLair.

Great Russell-street,
Bloomsbury-square.

Dec. 16, 1813.

Such, reader, are the remarks sent me by Mr. B. to ward off the effect of those arguments which I adduced in my reply to his last. My reasoning seems to have been so far conclusive to the mind of my opponent, that, although he has neither the candour nor manliness to acknowledge his discomfiture, he indirectly proclaims his defeat, by shifting the ground, and taking up another position; and now he expects to overcome me, I suppose, by an illogical dissertation on the translation of ONE word. To enter into a regular discusion on this precious document is next to impossible; I shall therefore confine myself to the principal matter which he has brought forward to refute my vindication of

the following observation:-"How 66 many heresies the first translation of "Tindall produced in few years, let "my Lord Herbert's History of Henry " the Eighth inform you; insomuch "that for the gross errors in it, and the great mischiefs it occasioned, a "sentence passed on the first edition

the translations of the scriptures into English 66 were not answerable to the "truth of the original" prove, that the blessed Reformation, so far from being a regeneration from the errors of Popery, was itself founded upon a FALSE translation of the Word of God, which the people were taught to 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 sa"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 pósThese were the errors found in the sible that they could creep in unintenSixtine edition, which you notice, not tionally? 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 Petiplete the work. But let us see if this "tion directed to his most excellent case applies to the Protestant transla- "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. himsays that a wilfully erroneous

self

66

66

comprised in our Book of Common "Prayer, both, in addition, substrac" version involves the translator in no 66 tion, and alteration, differ from the "small degree of moral guilt.”—I “truth of the Hebrew in at least rwo shall not refer Mr. Blair to manuscript 66 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;" calltified in his assertion, that the ing it yet further, "a translation 66 charge was ALTOGETHER groundless" which is absurd and senseless, per"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 translation, Dryden, in the preface to his poem of "A Layman's Faith," makes

66

66

66

public translation of Scriptures into "English is such, that it perverts the "text of the Old Testament in eight

since they consider themselves as Ministers of that God who neither can deceive nor be deceived? Why, then, so angry at being shewn the Truth? Ought not every Christian to seek sincerely for this most important object? And yet for a strict adherence to TRUTH, and the Faith of their ancestors, are Catholics held out as deserving of persecution and suspicion!But what is the cause of this injustice? The question is natural: I shall endeavour to answer it. If you consult the history of this country, you will find, that as the Reformation arose from the wickedness and corruption of a few abandoned persons, it was grounded on forgery and supported by calumny. By the former, plots were hatched up, to give countenance to the most cruel code of laws against the Catholics that ever disgraced a civilized country; by the latter, the most horrid and impious doctrines were laid to their charge, in order to raise up hatred against them. To shew that this is not the opinion of Catholics alone, I shall give a quotation from the Rev. Mr. Whitaker's (a Protestant clergyman) Vindication of Mary Queen of Scots. Speaking of the detestable habit of fabrication and lies in the chief Reformers, the Rev. author says, "Forgery, I blush for the honour of "Protestantism while I write it, seems "to have been peculiar to the Reform❝ed. I look in vain for one of these

“hundred and forty-eight places, and "that it causes millions of millions to 66 reject the New Testament, and to 66 run to eternal flames."-In consequence of these exposures, a conference was held before James, and a new translation agreed on, in which some of the corruptions were corrected, and not a few retained; viz. elder for priest, messenger for angel, &c. &c. Having, then, most clearly established the charge, that Protestants HAVE "wilfully corrupted the Holy Scriptures," and are consequently involved "in no small degree of moral guilt," I shall leave the reader to form his own opinion of the weight due to Mr. Blair'a assertions, and of the effects which have resulted from a Reform so blasphemously begun.-But, says my biblical antagonist, "I do not "think it fair to blame the present ge"neration for the sins and defects of "their forefathers, unless they imitate "their conduct and adopt their prin66 ciples."—In this we are perfectly agreed. However, let me ask Mr. B. if he really does think thus, why he labours so hard to prevent the Catholics of the present day from being restored to those privileges formerly enjoyed by their ancestors, who were unjustly deprived of them by the intrigues of the fanatical reformers of that period? Why does he devote that small space of time which he has to spare from the practice of his professional duties, in writing and pub-"accursed outrages of imposition lishing UNJUST INSINUATIONS AND PALPABLE MISREPRESENTATIONS, which I have shewn are contained in the Correspondence & Fifth of November pam-testantism! phlets? Why thus endeavour to injure his neighbours, who have given him no just cause of offence? Catholics have no malice, no ill-will against their Protestant brethren: they seek to live in the bonds of peace and unity with their fellow-christians, as citizens of the same soil and country. And if the Catholic Clergy do, in their writings or their sermons, point out the various errors of Protestantism, is it not their bounden duty to elicit Truth,

66

among the disciples of Popery."What a contrast is here drawn, in a few short lines, between Popery and Pro

Yet this system is not relinquished even at the present day. Is not the Press made the daily instrument for keeping alive those infamous fabrications raised against the Catholics? Is it not a fact, that the most pernicious works are now constantly circulated, tending to inflame the vulgar mind against the Papists, as Catholics are opprobriously termed, imputing to them doctrines which they never professed, and holding them out as the basest and most seditious of