answered the objections against our English translation, we may with justice retort upon the Church of Rome, both in regard to the original Scriptures and their translations from them.

1. The Church of Rome has treated the original Scriptures with great disrespect in pronouncing the Vulgate to be authentic, so as to be used in all sermons, expositions, and disputations. On this account many Catholics contend that the Vulgate version was dictated by the Holy Spirit; at least was providentially guarded against all error; was consequently of divine authority, and more to be regarded than the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Hence the translation has taken place of the original; and their translators, instead of the Hebrew and Greek texts, translate the Vulgate when they furnish a translation in a vernacular language. Sometimes, indeed, when they find the Vulgate notoriously defective, they consult the originals; but, in general, the Vulgate is their original text, and when they translate they give us a translation of a translation; by which more of the spirit of the original Scriptures must be lost than by going directly to the source.

2. In reference to the Latin Vulgate I would make a few remarks. Jerome finished his translation A. D. 384. Before his day the old Italic version existed which was made about the close of the second century, and which was made from the Greek of the Seventy and the Greek New Testament. Jerome's translation was professedly made from the Hebrew and Greek originals, and in process of time was called the Vulgate or common translation. The Council of Trent pronounced the Vulgate divine. Accordingly Sixtus V. ordered the various editions to be collected, and published an edition in 1590. The text thus revised Sixtus pronounced to be the authentic Vulgate, which had been the object of inquiry in the Council of Trent; denouncing with the greater excommunication any person who should dare to change the smallest particle, minima particula, not even to be absolved by the pope. Notwithstanding the labours of this pope, his edition was found by Clement VIII. to possess at least two thousand considerable errors. Clement published his edition in 1592, which differs considerably from the Sixtine edition. When Clement published his own edition he condemned that of Sixtus, and pronounced it incorrect. It is not our intention to misrepresent or depreciate any thing belonging to the Church of Rome. It is therefore due to remark that though the Latin Vulgate is neither infallible nor inspired, and cannot be compared with the originals, yet it is in general a faithful translation, and sometimes exhibits the sense of the Scriptures with greater accuracy than some modern versions. The Latin Vulgate is by no means to be neglected by the Biblical scholar. For even in its present state, notwithstanding the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine editions, and that several passages are mistranslated in order to support the peculiar dogmas of the Church of Rome, it preserves many true readings where the modern Hebrew copies are corrupted. For a very accurate and correct account of the Vulgate we refer to Horne's Introduction, vol. ii, p. 196. Notwithstanding its excellences, it contains too many errors to be received as the infallible word of God in the place of the inspired originals.

3. We may here notice the Douay Bible. In the year 1582, the Romanists, finding it impossible to withhold the Scriptures from the common people, printed an English New Testament at Rheims it was

translated, not from the original Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate, and is, therefore, a translation of a translation. Indeed the translators laboured to suppress the light of truth under one pretence or other. The Old Testament was translated into English from the Vulgate at Douay in 1609. Annotations also were subjoined. Both of these form the English Bible, which alone is used by the Romanists who speak English.* Both the notes and translations of the Douay Bible are very faulty.

Let us examine some of the translations of the Douay Testament. They render Matt. iii, 2, by," Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand;" and thus rendering μeтavolere, from μera, signifying change, and vous mind, do penance. The word certainly means a change of mind or disposition, and is very improperly rendered by the words, do penance; for what connection hath this word with bodily austerities? Again, Heb. xi, 21 is rendered thus: "By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped the top of his rod." They render the first clause of the second commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven thing," instead of "image." And the phrase, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them," they render, "Thou shalt not adore them."

After noticing these mistranslations, we shall attend to some comments. "Confess your sins one to another," James v, 16. Upon this text, the Douay Testament, sanctioned by the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, observes, "That is, to the priests of the church, whom he had ordered to be called for, and brought to the sick." Take as specimens the notes in the Rhemish Testament on the following texts: Matt. x, 41, “He that receiveth a heretic into his house, and a false preacher, doth communicate with his wicked works." Matt. iii," Heretics may be punished and suppressed, and may and ought, by public authority, either spiritual or temporal, to be chastised or executed." Gal. i, 8, "Catholics should not spare their own parents, if heretics." Heb. v, 7, "The translators of the Protestant Bible ought to be translated to the depths of hell." Rev. xvii, 6, " But the blood of Protestants is not called the blood of saints no more than the blood of thieves, mankillers, and other malefactors; for the shedding of which, by the order of justice, no commonwealth shall answer."†

66

4. Although the Catholic Church has limited the reading of Scripture to translations made by members of her own communion, which must always be accompanied with notes extracted from the fathers, or from their own approved divines, she has not fixed on any translation or even notes as standards, but leaves this important matter a subject of dispute and doubt. Dr. Paynter in his examination before the House of Commons stated this fact. Neither the text nor the comments attached to the different editions of the Douay Bible received the formal approval of the Church of Rome. The original Douay notes were merely the effects of the labours of the Douay doctors. Dr. Challoner

* For an account of this version sce Horne's Introd., vol. ii, p. 246.

+ See several specimens in London Prot. for 1831, p. 51; also Glasgow Prot., vol. ii, p. 752. And as proofs of the unwillingness with which they furnished the English Douay Bible, see some extracts from the preface of the Rhemish Testament in Glasgow Prot., vol. i, p. 246. See also the notes on the following texts, 1 Tim. iii, 2, 4; Titus i, 6; 1 Cor. ix, 5; 2 Tim. iii, 15-17.

in his edition reversed or abridged them; and this underwent a farther emendation in Dr. Troy's edition; and in any one's edition they are the interpretation of individuals, not of the church. Nevertheless, though the Douay Bible has not received the direct authoritative sanction of a pope or council; yet, both it and its notes are the result of the decrees of the Council of Trent, and, therefore, are binding on every Roman Catholic's conscience until they are revoked.

5. No Greek edition of the New Testament, or Hebrew edition of the Old, that is, the original Scriptures, has issued from the press of the Vatican, or even of Rome. One of the former was projected by Pius V., but countermanded. So little cause has the Church of Rome to boast that she has preserved the Holy Scriptures. Indeed, according to the decrees of the Council of Trent, the original Scriptures are overlooked in the formation of the standard Scripture edition.

XII. Difficulties attending the Roman Catholic plan.

Whatever difficulties stand in the way of consulting the Scriptures stand infinitely more in the way of referring to the records of the church and of unwritten tradition. To make this appear, let us suppose a popish priest attempting the conversion of a heathen. The priest tells him that the church is to expound the word of God, and authoritatively to demand his obedience. He will ask, How do you prove that the church has any such authority? This will be a difficult question indeed. But admitting, for the sake of the argument, this difficulty is removed, the man will ask, Which is the true church, and by what marks can I know it? The priest will answer, By its antiquity, holiness, unity, universality, &c. Now how can a man discover these marks without exercising that private judgment which the priest in all similar cases condemns? We will suppose him, however, to try the church by one of them, and he will be told that the antiquity of the church is one of its distinguished marks. Here he must plod through ancient history in search of the marks of this antiquity. Suppose him to have made up his mind on this point, we refer him to sanctity of doctrine. Now except he be previously acquainted with theology and divinity, how will he be able to judge of sanctity of doctrine? Thus to ascertain these two marks alone, he must be acquainted with divinity and general history.

66

How much more easy and direct is the way which the word of God points out? Ask, and it shall be given you," Matt. vii, 7. "If any lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him," James i, 5. The man's case is exactly met by the sacred volume. He knows himself to be a sinner, and here he is pointed to the Saviour of sinners, through whom he obtains peace and pardon. He is surrounded by the sorrows of the world; here he finds the way of consolation. He sees himself a dying creature; here he sees death conquered, and life and immortality brought to light. Such a one may not be able to refute all the sophistry of the infidel; but having the witness in himself, he can confidently trust in the Rock of ages.

1

:

CHAPTER III.

TRADITION.

I. THEIR DOCTRINE DEFIned. Council of Trent quoted. Bishop Hay quoted. Also Dr. Milner. Protestant views of tradition.-II. TRADITION EXPLAINED. 1. Scriptural use of the word: 2. The traditions approved of in Scripture were delivered by inspired men: 3. All important things delivered by the apostles were committed to writing: 4. The doctrines of the heathen philosophers were called traditions: 5. The traditions of the Jews.-III. TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME EXAMINED. 1. What they mean by tradition: 2. Examination of the Scripture texts brought for their support. Traditions of the Corinthians and Thessalonians. "They that hear you, hear me," &c., Rom. xvi, 17; John xvi, 12: 3. Their argument from unwritten law: 4. Patriarchal traditions examined: 5. Propagation of the gospel by preaching instead of writing, considered.-IV. ARGUMENTS AGAINST ORAL TRADITION. 1. The Scriptures are against it: 2. Oral tradition, in its nature, is uncertain and changeable, and cannot be a rule of faith: 3. Some traditions claiming to be apostolical are false, and others are apocryphal : 4. Some are contrary to each other, and to Scripture 5. Some traditions are become obsolete: 6. The Church of Rome has invented many new ones: 7. In point of clearness they present more difficulties than Scripture: 8. They are attended with pernicious effects: 9. Romanists very discordant in their sentiments respecting tradition: (1.) Some make them equal to Scripture; (2.) Others say they are inferior to Scripture; (3.) Others make them superior to Scripture ; (4) Discordant sentiments on tradition entertained by the divines of Trent.V. WHETHER PROTESTANT SRECEIVE SOME THINGS ON THE AUTHORITY OF TRADITION, THAT THEREFORE they ought to receive OTHERS. 1. Scripture does not depend on tradition 2. Nor the baptism of infants: 3. Nor the observance of the Christian sabbath: 4. Nor the procession of the Holy Spirit: 5. Nor eating of blood: 6. Nor the divinity of Christ.-VI. OF THEIR WRITTEN TRADITIONS.-VII. TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS. 1. Preliminary remarks. Character of the fathers. Weight of their testimony. Nature of the first traditions: 2. Fathers of the second century. Ignatius: 3. Fathers of the third century. Irenæus. Tertullian. Clemens of Alexandria. Origen. Cyprian: 4. Fathers of the fourth century. Hippolitus. Eusebius Pamphilus. Athanasius. Ambrose. Hilary. Gregory Nyssen. Cyril, of Jerusalem: 5. Fathers of the fifth century. Chrysostom. Theophilus Alexandrinus. Jerome. Augustine. Cyril of Alexandria. Theodoret: 6. Fathers of the sixth century. Anastasius Sinaita. John Damascene.

I. As already observed, we quote the standard acknowledged authorities of the Church of Rome, in stating what their doctrines are. The authentic decree of the Council of Trent,* already quoted on the article on Scripture, embraced also the subject of tradition. The council says, speaking of the gospel as preached by Christ and his apostles, that it was contained in written books and in unwritten traditions. It then states, in regard to traditions, that "they have come down to us, either received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or transmitted by the hands of the same apostles, under the dictation of the Holy Spirit that these traditions relate both to faith and morals, have been preserved in the Catholic Church by continual succession, are to be received with equal piety and veneration (pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ) with Scripture, and whosoever shall knowingly and deliberately despise these traditions is accursed." The council here betrays its usual ambiguity, for it does not say how these traditions were preserved and transmitted down to the present time. The same uncertainty is seen in placing tradition on the same footing with Scripture; for as this of itself

* Sess. iv, De Scripturis Canonicis.

has no certain meaning, unless as explained by the church, tradition. is left in a vague, undetermined sense, liable to such constructions as the church, at any time, may see fit to put on it.

To show more clearly the doctrine of tradition as held by the Church of Rome, we will quote some of her standard writers. Bishop Hay holds the following language on this subject:-"QUES. What is meant by tradition? ANS. The handing down from one generation to another, whether by word of mouth, or by writings, those truths revealed by Jesus Christ to his apostles, which either are not at all contained in the Holy Scriptures, or at least are not clearly contained in them. Q. What is the principle upon which tradition proceeds? A. It is the laying down, as an invariable rule, to be observed in every generation, firmly to adhere to the doctrine received from the preceding generation, and carefully to commit the same to the succeeding generation, without addition or diminution."* Dr. Milner asserts that the Roman Catholic rule of faith is "Scripture and tradition, and these propounded and explained by the Catholic Church. This implies that we have a twofold rule or law, and that we have an interpreter or judge to explain it, and to decide upon it in all doubtful points." Speaking of the preaching of the apostles, he says that Christ "inspired some of them and their disciples to write CERTAIN PARTS of these doctrines and precepts, namely, the canonical gospels and epistles." In his eleventh letter he says, "The Catholic rule is the whole word of God; together with her living authority in explaining it: as whatever points of religion are not clear from Scripture are supplied and illustrated by tradition; and as the pastors of the church, who possess that authority, are always living and ready to declare what is the sense of Scripture, and what the tradition on each contested point which they have received in succession from the apostles." Dr. Milner also says, "The first part of this rule conducts us to the second part; that is to say, tradition conducts us to Scripture."

Protestants both acknowledge and maintain that the gospel was first proclaimed by word of mouth and then set down in writing; and that the church of Christ in all succeeding ages was bound, not only to preserve these writings delivered to her, but also to deliver to her children and to the world, by word of mouth, the form of wholesome words contained therein. When, therefore, Romanists boast that the commission of preaching and teaching was specially given to the apostles, they cannot claim more, nor even as much as Protestant ministers can, who far excel them in preaching and teaching the truths of religion. Traditions therefore, of this nature, that is, of preserving the Scriptures and preaching the gospel, come not within the compass of our controversy. Again: in this controversy we speak of doctrines delivered as the word of God; and not of rites and ceremonies left to the disposal of the church. Traditions, therefore, of this kind are not embraced in this controversy. But that traditions of men should be obtruded on us for articles of religion or for parts of God's worship; or that any traditions should be accepted for portions of God's word besides the Holy Scriptures and such doctrines as are contained in them, we have reason to + Idem. End

Sincere Christian, vol. i, p, 160. of Contr., p. 54.

+ End of Contr., p. 53.