The  Protestant rules, then, are altogether insufficient to give us the true interpretation of scripture, and to give us perfect security that we have infallibly found the true meaning of the Holy Ghost. I must confess, my dear friend, that I am astonished to see how easy it is to satisfy Protestants on the all important subject of religion. Running from one meeting house to another, they hear the sacred text expounded in different ways, often in contradictory ways: no matter to them it is still the word of God; although contradiction proves it to be, in many instances, the word of Satan, or the word of death.  I cannot conceive how I could, with any degree of devotion, nay even with patience, listen to such arbitrary explanations, unless the preacher could satisfy me, that by some means he has found the key of that precious treasure, and is himself an infallible interpreter of scripture.  Read the "Vinidication of the Doctrines of the Reformation" with the utmost attention, and you will not find anything satisfactory on this all important subject.

After what I had advanced on the subject of holy scriptures in my "Defence Of  Catholic Principles," page 14, and again page 20-22, it became the Protestant minister's duty, if he thought that I was wrong, to confute my arguments and to prove that I was mistaken when I stated---

1. That the divine books cannot be interpreted unless by a Divine authority; and,

2. That the written word could not have been intended as the supreme judge to fix our belief in matters of faith; which I proved by four arguments.

Instead of confuting those arguments, (which indeed all the Protestant synods of  the whole Protestant world are not able to do,) what does the Protestant minister do? Read his "Vindication," page 9-12 and you will find that by a kind of pious fraud, he misrepresents my very plain words, and attempts to make his readers believe, that I condemn the reading of scripture.

I wish to be plain, very plain, so plain as to be understood by the meanest capacity; so plain as to leave no chance to sophistry. And I should be happy to see the combined wisdom of the Protestant world, guided by the love of truth and fired with the heavenly fire of charity, arrayed against the arguments that are brought in support of our principles.

I say again, the volume, although is the word of God, is not the supreme judge, to fix our beliefs in matters of faith.  The letter we see, the sense we cannot see.

Christianity subsisted during many years, without the gospels or epistles.  It was established not by reading but by hearing.  (Romans x. 17.)  During fifteen centuries (printing not being invented) the sacred volume was in very few hands.  The golden age of the church, the age of martyrs, the age of saints, the age of pure and unshaken faith, was the age when the written gospel did not exist at all, or existed in very few hands.  

 To this day there are many thousands that cannot read, and yet, their faith is strong, their morals pure; and I do not know whether I would be wrong in asserting,  that the most humble, the most obedient, the most edifying Christians, the most firm believers in the gospel, are generally found among those that cannot read.

Who are those, who separating from the Catholic Church, and running in different directions, have established so many contradictory systems of religion? --Protestant bible readers.

Who are those,  who, foaming and raging continually against the Catholic church, and telling the most unwarrantable lies against her are continually sinning against truth and charity, the main duties of religion?--Protestant bible readers.

Who are those thousands and thousands, who forsakingthe very fundamentals of the Christian religion, and rejecting all its mysteries, are erecting in Baltimore and in many other cities very large and costly churches for the worship of the Socinian Divinity ?--Protestant bible readers. 

Who are those, and, not few in number, who pretending a great regard for the gospel, deny the divinity of Christ and the eternity of punishments; men high in office, great in learning (remember I can prove what I say - -)?---Protestant bible readers.

Who are those, who contrary to the precept of St. Peter, 2 Ep. i. 20. are continually calling the divine books before the judgment seat of their own limited and corrupted reason?----Protestant bible readers.

Who are those, who measuring the profound mysteries of God by the narrow and limited measure of their understanding, make void those very mysteries, thus pronouncing that "this is my body" means, it is not my body; and also that "whose sins you forgive they are forgiven," could not mean what it says, because where is that power given to a sinful creature, and one who has to answer for his own sins. ("Vindication," page 19.) I ask, who are those men ?--Protestant bible readers.

I expect, my dear friend, you begin to perceive that the reading of the sacred volume alone, is not sufficient to fix the religious principles of any person; nay, that a person might have the whole bible by heart, and yet be at a loss what religious principles to adopt.

We respect the bible at least as much as you do. We believe it to be divinely inspired. We read it with fear and trembling. We kiss the sacred text every time we read the gospel of the day, in the mass. But we do not presume to interpret it: we do not throw that precious pearl before the swine.  We caution our hearers against the danger of self interpretation; and do publicly acknowledge that we are not able by the utmost exertion of our mental powers, to fathom its profound mysteries.

We do preach from scripture, it is true; but far from presuming to put our own interpretation on the sacred text, we deliver to our hearers that interpretation which the Catholic church gives us, believing the church to be guided by the spirit of truth for ever. John xiv. 16.--Believing Christ the fountain of truth and salvation to be with his ministers until the consummation of the world. Mat. xxviii. 20.  Believing the church to be the pillar and ground of truth. 1 Tim. iii. 15. Thus all our interpretations of all essential parts of scripture, are exactly alike; and were you to listen to the Catholic minister in Pekin in China, or at Loretto in Cambria county, Pennsylvania, you would find every where the same interpretation, the very same doctrine.---The strong food of scripture digested by our holy mother the Catholic church, the sacred spouse of Jesus Christ, (Eph. 5. 25,) we suck at her breasts, reduced to pure and wholesome milk.

Ask your Protestant minister what objection he can have against this our practice? He tells us in his "Vindication," that the bible alone is infallible. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that the dead letter of scripture carries with it its own interpretation? If it does, why then so many quarrels between the first reformers; and much more so between the numerous tribes of their offspring, Lutherans, Calvinists, Zuinglians, Wiclefites, Anabaptists, Quakers, Armenians and Gomarists, &c. &c. &c. and many more differing in most essential matters, necessary for salvation ?

Although this fact stares the Protestant minister in the face, as a most stubborn proof that the Protestant rule of faith is very deficient, and that the letter of scripture alone is not a sufficient guide to salvation, yet he attempts to establish his principle by an argument a priori. "If the scripture is not plain," says he, page 9, "then we must either say that the Holy Ghost could not dictate clearly or that he would not. To say the former of which, would be blasphemy; and to affirm the latter is, in effect, to say that the scriptures are no revelation of the will of God to men."

The answer to this argument is obvious. The Holy Ghost could express himself sufficiently plain; and he also did speak plain enough to be understood by applying to the proper interpreter, which the Holy Ghost himself points out, when he commands us to "hear the church." Mat. xviii. 17.; also, when he tells the apostles, by the mouth of Christ, "he that hears you hears me," Luke x. 16.; again, when he tells us, by the mouth of St. Paul, 4 Eph. 11-15, that "he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we meet in the unity of faith, . . . . . . that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine," &c. &c.

If the old man, according to Adam, sinned by preferring his own will, at the instigation of Satan, to the will of God, and thus falling under the curse of  God, became a prey to all kinds of evils, temporal and eternal, the new man, according to Christ, treading in the steps of his Divine Saviour, the most prerfect pattern of humility and obedience, sees no surer way to recover the blessings lost, than by renouncing the treacherous light of his understanding, and the corrupt inclinations of his will.

My dear friend, ask the Protestant rninister what he means when he tells us, (page 9,) that "he will take no guide as infallible but what is written in the old and new testaments?"

From what has been stated already, you must plainly perceive that the minister's principle is very defective.  I say defective; and in order to convince yourself of it, go to him and ask him to tell you, in the name of God, whose minister he considers himself to be? What security he can give you, that he understands, and does not misunderstand, the many texts of scripture?  What security, that in expounding scripture, he never gives poison instead of wholesome food? As he lays no claim to infallibility, your questions may possibly puzzle him. Here are a few more questions which will puzzle him no less. As all the reformers have adopted the same principle of following no guide as infallible but what is written in the old and new testament, ask him by what rule you are to find out infallibly which of the many hundreds of interpretations, made at different times, and by different reformers, is the right one? Ask him to tell you what St. Paul meant when he desired the Thessalonians (2 Ep. ii. 3 4 ) to hold the traditions received by word, as well as those received by his epistle?"

Ask your minister to point out to you those unwritten traditions. Ask him also to point out to you the instructions which our blessed Saviour gave his apostles during forty days' appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God. (Acts 1. 3.) Ask the Protestant minister next, to point out to you the text of scripture which commands to keep holy the Sunday or first day of the week, and which does away the sabbath or seventh day? The next questionyou may ask your minister is, to show you the text of scripture which repeals the prohibition made by the apostles against the use of blood? (Acts, xv. 29.) Protestants eat blood puddings, and yet Protestants pretend to follow no guide as infallible, only what is written in the old and new testaments. Ask your minister why Protestant elders do not, according to the command of St. James, chap. v. 14, anoint their sick with oil? And also, why Protestants do not, according to the positive command of Christ, wash one another's feet; "You also ought to wash one another's feet for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so do you also." (John, xiii. 14, 15.)

I wish to be consistent, and I wish every person to be consistent, or to act according to those principles which each one lays down for a guideand a rule of his conduct. If your minister is sincere when he tells you that he will take no guide as infallible, but "what is written in the old and new testaments," then we must conclude that whatever is written in the old and new testaments, "is, in all cases, the minister's infallible guide, or in other words, that the minister thinks himself in duty bound to comply with all the positive injunctions of that sacred volume, and as a minister of Christ, also enforces the same injunctions on his hearers.  Consequently, (as there is not a word to befound from Genesis to Revelation repealing the command of keeping the sabbath or Saturday) the minister must think himself in duty bound, to keep the Saturday, and to check and reprimand his hearers for keeping the Sunday instead of the day clearly appointed in scripture. 

From the same principle of admitting no guide as infallible but what is written in scripture, it is evident that he ought, both by word and example, to discountenance the practice of eating blood puddings.  (Acts xv. 29.) That he is in consciencebound, to admonish his elders is to anoint their sick with oil (James, chap. v. 14.); and to instruct his hearers to wash one another's feet. (John xiii. 14, 15.)

How your Protestant minister will extricate himself I do not know, but I sincerely believe, nay I am certain, that the above questions, which I have taken the liberty to suggest to you, cannot be satisfactorily answered, but by the ministers of the Catholic church. Their principle is, that the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, alone can be the true and infallible interpreter of his own words. Now if Christ did not deceive us, that holy Spirit of Truth is forever in the church (John xiv. 16.) The church then, the pillar and ground of truth, (1 Tim. iii. 15,) is the grand tribunal which explains and expounds the sense of scripture; which discriminates between those commandments of scripture that continue in full force and those that have been abrogated or changed in some of their circumstances.  In consequence of that principle, and consistent with himself, the Catholic keeps holy the Sunday, although he finds clearly written in the sacred volume the commandment of keeping holy the sabbath or seventh day; because in the authority of the church, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth for ever, and which has received the Jurisdiction of Christ, (Mat. xxviii. 19. and John xx.21.) he finds a sufficient warrant for altering or transferring the obligation from Saturday to Sunday. The Protestant, on the contrary, admitting only the letter of scripture as his infallible rule, and rejecting the authority of the church, has no other alternative but to conform to every plain injunction of scripture, and therefore to keep holy the sabbath or Saturday or to acknowledge the insufficiency of the letter of scripture to be his guide. This acknowledgement is actually made in practice by nearly all Protestants, who, in many instances, deviate from plain instructions of scripture, and yet do not consider themselves guilty of any breach of the law; and the same acknowledgment is made in plain words by some eminent Protestant divines.

"There are hundreds of particulars,'' (says the Protestant bishop Montague, p. 396.) "which have been instituted by God in the point of religion commanded and used by the church, of which, we own, that the scripture delivers or teaches no such things."

It must be plain to you, my dear friend, that whatever God has instituted in the point of religion is of divine authority, let it be written or not written, let it be found in scripture or not; and that our Divine Saviour has instituted very many things that never were written; is evident from the above quoted texts. 3 Thes. ii. 14. and Acts, i. 3. also from John, xxi 25.

From the Protestant minister's principle it would evidently follow:

1. That the instructions which St. Paul delivered to the Thessalonians by word only and not in writing, are of no account whatever, because not found in the scriptures.

2. That the heavenly instructions given by our Divine Saviour to his apostles during forty days after his resurrection, are also to be despised and disregarded, because not written. From the Protestant principle of following no guide but the written word, those heavenly  instructions are entirely lost to them, although they must have been very important, as being the last ones, and as being delivered to the apostles when on the point of commencing their ecclesiastical career, and delivered to them after the resurrection of their master had fully confirmed their belief in his divinity, and of course enabled them to bear and to digest stronger food than before that glorious event.

3. From the same Protestant principle it follows, that the instructions given by St. Philip, St. Bartholomew, &c. &c. are altogether lost, and indeed very unimportant, because not transmitted in writing.

4. It also follows from the same principle that the apostles' creed, "I believe in God the Father Almighty," &c.  &c. is not at all entitled to credit, and by no means the word of God, because not found in the Scripture.

You will plainly perceive, my dear friend, that the Catholic principle levels all those difficulties, and banishes all doubts on these different subjects. Convinced that the Catholic Church is the holy spouse of Christ, we believe with a firm faith, which all the quibbles of your Protestant minister cannot shake, that this holy spouse of Christ has received the precious deposit of the Divine word, whether written or unwritten, that by the light of the Spirit of  Truth infused into that church, (John, xiv 16. 17.) she is always, and always will be, able to retain and to transmit that precious deposit of  divine revelation, pure and undefiled to the rnost remote ages. On the word of that church we receive the holy scripture as the word of  God; on her word we receive the apostles' creed as the word of God; on her word we also receive as divine, whatever we know of the sacraments, of the government and hierarchy of the church, of the celebration of Sundays and holdy days &c. &c.; from her we receive true sense and interpretation of the written word; from her we know what books are canonical, and which of the many translations of scripture is faithful and genuine. You are sensible my friend, that nothing less than an infallible authority is required, in order to satisfy us on all those different heads so as to leave no doubt on our minds. With regard to the written word or the holy scripture, we must be certain:  1. That the original scripture, viz. the old testament in Hebrew, and the new testament in Greek, is really the pure word of God, dictated by the Holy Ghost.  2. We must be certain which books belong to the canon of scripture, or in other words, which books are canonical, or of divine authority.  3. As the original scriptures have been translated into nearly all the different languages of the globe, we must be certain that the translation which is put into our hands, is a faithful translation, that does not deviate from the original, or from the sense of the Holy Ghost; for it does not require any arguments to prove that a false translation of any sentence of scripture is not the word of God.  4. Finally, As many sentences in scripture are hard to be understood, and admit of various interpretations, and as a false interpretation is not the word of God, we must have a certainty whether we understand or misunderstand scripture.

In order to acquire a perfect certainty on all those different heads, and to banish even the possibility of a doubt,  we must derive our knowledge on all those different heads from an infallible authority; from an authority that is not subject to error: and where shall we find this unerring authority? Not in the wisdom of man nor in the collected wisdom of all mankind. For as St.  Paul says, (1 Cor. iii. 19.) "the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God: for it is written, I will catch the wise in their own craftiness" And again, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will reject." 1 Cor. i. 19.

In truth, my dear friend, the greatest wisdom you can attain to in this world, is the knowledge of your own ignorance, of your insignificancy, of your dependence on the great God in every case, in every instance, and every moment.

I ask again, where shall we find this unerring authority, to establish the canon of scripture, to point out the faithful translation, and to determine the true sense of scripture? No where, my friend, but in the Catholic church; which has the promise of the Spirit of Truth for ever. (John, xiv. 16.)

1 think it necessary to dwell on each of those particular subjects.---

THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

must be determined by an infallible authority.  Your protestant minister thinks himself able to establish the canon of scripture by the powers of reason; and he gives us a specimen of his ingenuity (page 48) in the following words:

"We reject the apocryphal books which were never received by the Jews, to whom the oracles of God were committed. Of these, some are only abridgments, &c. &c.  Others have very much the resemblance of a romance, as the pretended histories of Judith and Susanna; and lastly, who would believe the history of Tobit and his dog except a Roman Catholic, who can swallow any absurdity."

My dear friend, all the ancient fathers of the church agree that Esdras was the compiler of the Jewish canon, which contained twenty-two books. This compilation took place after the Babylonian captivity; and did not comprehend any books but those that had been written before the said captivity; and it does not appear that any other book was afterwards added to that canon. But remember that our Saviour Jesus Christ does not send us to the Jews, but to his church, for instructions, and that he invests the church with the spirit of truth for ever, in order to make her a fit instructor in the ways of truth and salvation. Now, that holy church, in the third council of Carthage, Anno Domini 397, declares the Macchabees, Tobias, Judith, &c. to be divine books, as well as those contained in the Jewish canon; and the same declaration is made about 1200 years afterwards by the Council of Trent.  Nearly all Protestestants agree that the church of Christ was pure yet at the above period, Anno 397, and of course that credit is due to her declaration made at that time.

Is not the unanimous consent of the Catholic or universal church of all ages, a safer rule to establish the canon of scripture than the private and contradictory opinions of innovators? I say contradictory, for the different reformers did not agree about the different parts of scripture.  Martin Luther tells us plainly, (vol. iii. p. 40, 41.) "we will neither hear nor see Moses, for he was given only to the Jews, neither does he belong any thing to us."

Again in his Table Discourses, chapter of the laws and the gospel, Luther tells us, "I will not receive Moses with his law, for he is the enemy of Christ, (page 118,) Moses is the master of all hangmen." And in his sermon of Moses, he says, "the ten commandments belong not to Christians; let the ten commandments be altogether rejected, and all heresies will presently cease, for the ten commandments are, as it were, the fountain from whence all heresies spring."

Islebias, Luther's scholar taught the same doctrine. From him came the sect of Antinomans, who taught publicly, "if thou be a w---e, if an adulterer, or otherwise a sinner, believe, and thou walkest in the way of salvation * * * * * * * * *.  All that busy themselves about Moses, that is the ten commandments, belong to the devil; to the gallows with Moses." (See Confession of the Manfield Ministers, in Latin. Tit. de Antinomi, P. 89, 90.)

Castalio commanded the canticles of Solomon to be thrust out of the canon. (See Beza in Vita Calvini.)

Calvin rejects these words of St. Matthew, "Many are called but few chosen." (Sermon on Matthew, xx. 16.)

Swinglius and other Protestants affirm, that all things in St. Paul's epistles are not sacred, and that in sundry things he erred.

Rogers makes mention of sundry Protestants who reject as apocryphal the epistle to the Hebrews, of St. James, the first and second of John, of Jude, and the Revelations. (Defence of the Articles, art. 6. page 32.)

Calvin charges St Peter to have erred in faith and morals.  (See Calvin in Gal 2. p. 510, 511.) There are other Protestant divines who admit the very books as canonical which the Jews rejected, and which are admitted by the Catholic church.

The Calvinists of Geneva, in their preface to a bible published, anno 1551, by John Tornesius, have the following instruction to the reader: "We are not to stand to the censure of the Jews, in regard of this maiming of the canon of scripture: and in these books (rejected by the Jews) there are true prophecies and hidden mysteries, which could not be spoken but by the Holy Ghost." &c. &c.

Dr. Bancroft, in his conference before the king, (page 60,) rejects the objections of the Jews, calling them "the old cavils of the Jews," &c.

Conradas Pellican, Protestant divine at Tigure, says in his dedicatory epistle, that "those books were always counted ecclesiastical and biblical; that even from the apostles' times they were read in the Catholic church with much reverence, although they were not produced in authority against the Jews, who received not these books into their sacred canon. * * * for the most part they clearly carry the right style of the Holy Ghost." &c. &c. It is evident, then, that the very first reformers did not agree among themselves on the canon of scripture, and that your Protestant minister is much mistaken when he says (page 48,) that "the reformed church receives no other books but those which are acknowledged canonical by all Christians, &c. and reject apocryphal books which were never received by Jews," &c.  In fact there are so many reformed churches, so many different opinions and variations even among Protestants of the same denomination, and so many changes in the faith and principles of the same reformed church from time to time, that it would be more correct to say that the principles of the reformed churches (not church) is to have no fixed principle, but to be guided by mere opinions.

It is your minister's opinion that the histories of Judith and Susanna have very much the resemblance of a romance; and that the history of Tobit and his dog is an absurdity.

Ask your minister what he thinks of Balaam and his ass, and also of Samson and his foxes? Ask him also how he will ever succeed in establishing a firm unshaken belief in his canon of scripture, when he cannot bottom it upon an infallible unerring authority?

ought also to be pointed out by an infallible or unerring authority, as nothing short of an infallible authority can give a perfect certainty to the readers of scripture in the vulgar language that what they read is the pure word of God.

The Protestant minister tells you "that the Roman church, or its rulers, in order to hide the absurdities they taught, were obliged to make a bible for themselves, so unlike the true translation of that sacred book that they who can read it in the original, would scarce know it to be the same." (Page 133 of the Vindication.)

Those that live in the neighbourhood of the Protestant minister, have a very good opportunity of reading the English Catholic bible, if they chose so to do; and any one clear sighted enough to discover the priest's spittle and the live coal in the holy water, (Vindication, page 75,) will also be able to discover the enormous difference between the Catholic and the Protestant bibles.

The truth is, my dear friend, the two bibles are not quite so different as the minister would persuade you; but still there are some differences even in some essential points, which, however, may escape the notice of the reader, unless he reads very attentively.

The question then is, (and a very important question,) which translation is the genuine one?

The minister will tell you at once, that it is the Protestant bible. If he does, ask him which of all the Protestant translations he means? For you must know, my friend, that there are many Protestant translations, differing from one another, as well as from the original; and you must know that the translations made by some Protestants are most bitterly condemned by other Protestants.

Zwinglius, writing to Luther about his German translation, has the following words:  "Thou dost corrupt the word of God; thou art seen to be a manifest and common corrupter and perverter of the holy scripture: how much are we ashamed of thee," &c. &c. vol. 2 of the Sacrament, p. 412, 413.  

 Keckman, another Protestant divine, affirms, that "Luther's German translation of the old testament, &c. has its blemishes, and those no small ones." (See Keckman's System of Divinity, book 1. p. 138.)

I shall only mention two of Luther's wilful corruptions. ----

Where St. Paul (Rom. iii. 28,) says "we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law," Luther translates, "justified by faith alone,'' &c. to support his aversion to good works; and when admonished of this foul corruption, his answer was:---"Sic volo, sic jubeo, sit, pro ratione voluntas," &c. that is, "so I will, so I command, let my will be for a reason; Luther will have it so.  The word alone, must remain in my new testament, although all the Papisits go mad. If thy Papist shew himself angry for the word alone, forthwith tell him a Papist and an ass are the same thing." &c. (See Luther's German writings vol.5, p 141-144.)

Also where it is said, (2 Peter, i. 10,) "Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election.'' Luther here omitted these words "by good works," which are also omitted in most of the English Protestant translations.

On the other hand we find Luther rejecting the translation of the Zwinglians, and calling them "fools, asses, antichrists, deceivers," &c. (See Zwinglius, vol 2. ad Luth. the Sacram. p. 388, &c.)

The Tigurine translation was condemned by other Protestant divines; and as Hospinian writes in his book called "The Concord of Discord," p. 238, it was rejected with great anger by the elector of Saxony.

The translation set forth by Oecolampadius and the Protestant divines of Basil is reproved by Beza, "as wicked in many places, and altogether differing from the sense of the Holy Ghost."

The translation of Castalio, another Protestant, which Dr. Humfrey affirms to be, "thoroughly conferred, examined and polished," (see Humfrey De Rat. Interpret. vol. 2, p. 62, 63, &c.) is also condemned by Beza as sacrilegious and wicked," &c. (See Beza in Test. 1556, in Praef. and in Annot. in Mat. 3, in 1 Cor. and. in Mat. 4. &c. &c.)

Concerning Calvin's translation, the famous Protestant, Charles Molineus, affirmeth, that "Calvin 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." (See Molineus in his Translation of the New Testament, part II p. 110.)

The same Molineus also charges Beza "to change the text in his translation."

King James thinks the Protestant translation of Geneva to be "the worst of all." (See Conference before his Majesty, page 46.)

Thus you see, that the very first reformers already quarrelled about their different translations of scripture. Now to speak more particularly of the English Protestant translations, we find great complaints made against them by Protestants themselves.

In the petition presented to king James by numbers of the Protestant clergy, page 75, they complain that "the book of Psalms alone, differs from the Hebrew in at least two hundred places."

Mr. Carlisle, a Protestant divine, asserts that the "English translators have depraved the sense of scripture, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant: that they shew themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth." (See p. 116, 117 &c. of Christ's descending into hell.)

The Protestant ministers of the diocese of Lincoln affirm, that "the English translation take's away from, and adds to, the text, and that, sometimes to the changing or obscuring the meaning of the Holy Ghost; a translation "which is absurd and senseless," &c. (See the Abridgment which the ministers of Lincoln delivered to his majesty, page 11.)  

Mr. Burges, another Protestant, in his "Apology," sect. 6, excuses himself for not subscribing to that Protestant translation.----"How shall I approve," says he, "under my hand, a translation which has many omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscureth, sometimes perverteth the sense, being, sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary."

Mr. Broughton, a Protestant divine of great learning, wrote an epistle to the lords of the council, desiring them to procure a new translation of the scripture, and assures the Protestant bishops that "the English translation perverts the text of the old testament in eight hundred and forty-eight places; and causes millions of souls to run to eternal flames."

Had not king James then just cause to complain "that he could never yet see a bible well translated into English." (See Conference before his Majesty, page 46.)

Take notice, my dear friend, that the reformation had already existed about one hundred years, when these complaints were made; and remember, here your minister's assertion, that nothing is to be taken as infallible but what is written in the old or new testament, which, however, according  to the Protestant doctor Whitaker, "is not the word of God, unless it faithfully expresses the meaning of the authentical (or original) text."  (See Whitaker's answer to Rein, page 235.)

From the testimonies of Protestants themselves then, you plainly see upon what foundation the edifice of the reformation was raised; to wit, upon the dead letter of scripture, corruptly translated, curtailed, and perverted, which of course was not the word of God, and which besides, every one was to interpret for himself.  

The English Protestant bible, they pretend, is a faithful translation from the Hebrew and Greek originals.  This, I declare to be impossible. Why so?  Because the Hebrew and Greek originals are no longer in existence.  Time, that demolishes the strongest monuments, raised by the hands of men, has also destroyed the originals of scripture. The present Hebrew and Greek texts are only copies, which in many places deviate from the original; of which I shall give you a few instances.

First, in the present Hebrew old testament we read, Isaias ix. 6, "he shall call wonderful," &c. whereas it is evident from the context, and Calvin owns to it, that it must be "he shall be called wonderful," &c.  Again, in Psalm xxi. 17, where all Christians read "they have dug my hands,", the Hebrew text says, "like a lion," which has no sense at all.  In psalm, xviii. 5. where we read "their sound hath gone forth into all the earth," which is quoted by St. Paul in the very same words, Rom. x 18. the Hebrew text says, "their line or perpendicular went forth into all the earth," which the Protestant minister is perhaps more capable of explaining than I am.  

Again, Genesis viii. 7, where we read "the raven went forth and did not return," &c. the Hebrew text says "did return."  From the translation of the Septuagint, and from all the ancient fathers who have quoted that text, it must be "did not return.''

There are besides, whole sentences omitted in the present Hebrew text; for instance, in Exod. ii. 22.  "And she bare another whom he called Eliezer saying, for the God of my father, my helper, hath delivered me out of the hand of Pharao." These words must have been in the Hebrew original, as they are found in the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation from the Hebrew original, and also in St. Jerome's translation.

The present Greek text is not pure neither, which I shall prove by a few instances.

1 Cor. xv. 47. Where we read, "the first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man from heaven, heavenly;" which Calvin confesses to be the true way of reading. The Greek text says, "the second man, the Lord from heaven."

Rom. xii. 11.  Where the vulgate, as well as the Protestant testament says "serving the Lord," many Greek copies say "serving time;" which is evidently wrong, as appears from all the Greek fathers who have quoted the above text.

Moreover, it is evident that in many Greek copies, words are added to the sacred text; as, for instance, to the Lord's prayer, Mat. vi. the words "for thine is the kingdom, power and glory," &c. which words are not to be found in any of the ancient fathers that have quoted and explained the Lord's prayer from the holy scripture.

In most of the Greek copies, considerable parts of holy writ are omitted; for instance, the last chapter of St. Mark and the history of the woman apprehended in adultery. John viii.

The present Hebrew and Greek, then, of which the Protestant bible is said to be a translation, is not pure; of course the translation cannot be pure, admitting it to be a faithful translation; which, however, is not the case, as I have proved by many Protestant authorities.

It is true that upon so many complaints being brought before king James, the bible was revised; but the most of its errors remained untouched, and continue in it to this day.

The Catholic church makes use of the Latin bible, called the vulgate, which was published by St. Jerome, under the pontificate of pope Damasus, sometime about the year 370. This is the bible which, the Protestant minister says, "the Roman church, or its rulers, made for themselves, in order to hide the absurdities they taught, and which is so unlike the true translation, that they who can read it in the original, would scarce know it to be the same."

Many learned Protestant ministers are of a different opinion.  Hear what Beza says, in his preface to the New Testament: "I do embrace, for the most part, the vulgate edition, and prefer it before all others." And in his Annotations on Luc. i "the old interpreter seems to have interpreted  the holy books with greatest religion."

Dr. Humphrey, a Protestant minister, confesseth that "the old interpreter was much addicted to the propriety of words, and that over- scrupulously, which yet (says he) I interpret "him to have done upon religion, and not upon ignorance." (See Humphrey de Ratione Interpret. book i. p. 74.)

Molinaeus, another Protestant, deaclares that "he can hardly depart from the vulgar and accustomed reading, which also (says he) "I am accustomed earnestly to defend: yea I prefer  the vulgate edition before Erasmus, Bucer, Ballinger, &c, also before John Calvin and all others " (See Molinaeus on the New Test. part 30 and on Luc. 17.)

Conradus Pellican,  another Protestant minister, finds "the vulgate edition of the psalter to agree for the sense with such dexterity,  learning and fidelity of the Hebrew, that I doubt not (says he,) but the Greek and Latin interpreter was a man most learned, most godly, and of a prophetic spirit." (See part 2 of the Def. of the Minister, p. 136.)

"We grant it fit," says Dr. Dove, in his Persuasion to Recusants, page 16, "that for uniformity in quotations of places, in schools and pulpits, one Latin text should be used.  And we can be contented for the antiquity thereof with the vulgate before all other Latin books."

In confirmation of this antiquity, Dr. Covell, in his Answer to Burges, page 94, tells you that "it was used in the church thirteen hundred years ago;" that is at present more than fourteen hundred years, or more than eleven hundred years before the pretended reformation; and he himself doubts not "to prefer that translation before others;" and he adds, that "whereas there are many Protestant translations that disagree among themselves, the approved translation authorised by the church of England, is that which cometh nearest to the vulgate, and is commonly called the bishops' bible." (Covell to Burgess, page 91.)

You see then, my dear friend, that all Protestants do not agree with your minister in condemning our Catholic bible; and I do not think that he is able to give any other proofs for his assertion, that the Roman Catholic rulers made that bible to hide the absurdities of their doctrine, except his hatred against the Catholic church.

Hatred and spite, my friend, are dangerous passions, that blind the sight and obscure the understanding.  Persons actuated by those passions lose sight of the very first principles of logic, and of all the rules of sound criticism, and condemn merely because they are determined to condemn.

According to the rules of sound criticism the vulgate bible used by the Catholic church deserves the preference before all the translations of the reformers.---

1st.   Because it was translated from the Hebrew and the Greek nearly 1400 years before the pretended reformation, at a time that those original sources were much purer than they are at present.

2d. Because St. Jerome, the translator and reviser of that divine book, was, not only a man of very great learning, but in particular a most complete master of the three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

3d. Because, after being appointed by pope Damasus to revise and translate the holy scriptures, he transported hirnself from Rome to Jerusalem, and spent several years in perfecting himself in the knowledge of Hebrew, and in examining and comparing all the ancient manuscripts of the bible, which he was able to procure.

4th.  Because the said bible, thus translated and revised by St. Jerome, was received by the whole Catholic church, at a time when even our adversaries confess it to have been the true church. The most of them suppose the whole world to have been buried in superstition and idolatry during the space of about eight hundred years before the pretended reformation, viz. from about the year 700 to 1500; but the above translation, adopted by the Catholic church, was made about the year 370.

Judge then, my dear friend, whether the vulgate translation, which the Catholic church has adopted as her standard of scripture, is not far more to be depended upon, as being the genuine pure word of God, than any of those modern translations made by reformers, and made from a spirit of spite and opposition to the Catholic church? --- Made at a time when the original Hebrew and Greek did no longer exist in their purity.---And made without the help of that infallible and unerring Spirit of Truth, which undoubtedly guided the holy Catholic church in approving and adopting the translation of St. Jerome: for Christ had promised, (John xiv. 16, 17. and xvi. 13.) that the Spirit of Truth, the Paraclete, should guide his church into all truth, and should guide her forever.  And certainly never was the fulfiling of that promise more necessary than on the solemn occasion of determining the important question, "Which is the pure and genuine trans1ation of the original written word of God?"

The reformed translators of scripture were left to the light of their own limited and corrupted reason only, when they undertook, out of corrupted and polluted sources, to draw the pure and heavenly doctrine of salvation. No wonder then, if those translations deviate in many instances from the pure word of God, as has been proved by the testimonies of numbers of Protestants.

You will now understand the several positions contained in the pope's brief against bible societies, which the Protestant minister pub1ishes in a tone of triumph (page 136-138); because in it he finds it completely proved that the Roman Catholic church opposes the reading of scripture. The leading positions in that brief are:---

1. That the bible printed by heretics is to be numbered among prohibited books.

2. That the holy scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the territory of men, produced more harm than benefit.

3.  As a consequence of 1. and 2. that no versions of the bible in the vulgar tongue be permitted except such as are approved by the apostolic see, or published with annotations extracted from the writings of the holy fathers of the church.

I do not find in the whole of the pope's brief, any expressions more forcibly, more energetically, expressing the danger of false translations than those above-quoted expressions of the Proestant minister Broughton, in his epistle to the lords of the council, "that the English translation (used in his time) perverts the text of the old testament, &c. "and causes MILLIONS OF SOULS TO RUN TO ETERNAL FLAMES."

The pope calls the circulating false transactions of scripture, and scattering the same by millions among the nations of the globe, "a defilement of the faith imminently dangerous to souls."   This is certainly correct.

If adding to, or taking away from, the words of God's revelation, will, according to Rev. xxii. 18, 19, accumulate on the person guilty of that sacrilege all the woes announced in the sacred volume, what else but curses and the most dreadful punishments have those to expect who overflow the world with false translations of the word of God, and thus practice the most criminal deception on millions of souls.

But even admitting the translation to be genuine, it is not by throwing the sacred volume, by millions among the nations, that they will be converted to Christianity. Throwing the pearl before the swine (which is expressly forbidden) will never turn those swine into rational beings and teach them to esteem that pearl.

The Catholic missionaries, who in all ages have preached the gospel, and converted many nations in every part of the globe, found it necessary to adopt a far different method, in order to bring under the yoke of Christ millions of savages that had of human nature nothing but the outward form; that were more brutal than the tigers of the forest. With the most ardent charity, with the most heroic courage, and the most persevering patience, they hunted them up in their almost impenetrable forests, and renouncing all the commodities of life, they adapted the same mode of living, the same nourishment, had nothing but the cold earth for their beds, in short they became savage with the savages, in order to gain them to Christ.  (1 Cor. ix. 20, 22.)  Many of those missionaries were massacred before ever they had any chance of announcing to them the tidings of salvation. Their persevering endeavours were crowned with success.  About three hundred thousand families of savages in South Arnerica alone, were persuaded to leave their forests and their vagabond way of living to form settlements and to range themselves >under the cross, the standard of christianity; and it is proved by the testimonies of the Spanish governors under whose jurisdiction those Indian settlements were, and also by the testimonies of numbers of travellers, that those Indians were examples of Christian virtue and perfection, and that those vices which are so very common among the Christian nations were entirely unknown to them.

Take notice, my friend, that those nations, were not converted by reading the bible, but, as St. Paul says, by hearing, (Rom. x. 17.) for none of them had any idea of a letter, and even after their conversion very few of them ever learned to read.  Their days were spent in praying and labouring. Without ever diving into the profound mysteries of scripture, they listened and submitted with the docility of children to their fathers in Christ, and received from the church the doctrine of salvation.  In short they were not bible readers, but Practisers of its commandments.

They were not improved enough to measure the immeasurable abyss of Omnipotence, but they had a sufficient share of learning to know that nothing is impossible to Omnipotence.

They were not wise enough to comprehend the profound mysteries of revelation, but had humility and grace enough to believe them. 

They were not philosophers enough to pronounce on the possibility or impossibility of the mysteries, but had common sense enough to know that the God of truth could not be the author of lies and deception.  

They had not pride enough to sit in judgment over the divine revelations, and to determine their sense and meaning by the feeble light of their reason, but they had sense enough to know that a church guided forever by the Spirit of Truth, and being the pillar and ground of truth, could never deceive them.  

They could not read the bible, but they received the heavenly doctrine therein contained, digested and accomodated to their limited understanding, from their spiritual fathers; in hearing them they heard Christ himself, (Luke x. 16.) and not being ingenious enough to know the wonderful power and virtue belonging to the words "it means," which changes flesh into bread, life into death, power into weakness, substance into shadow, they simply believe, without scrutinizing.  They were all united in the bonds of faith and charity.  Thus what the mere reading of the bible never was able to produce, was accomplished by humility and obedience.

Put the bible into the hands of the proud, luxurious and corrupt man, and guided by the corrupt inclinations of flesh and blood, he will find in it what will authorise his criminal practices; especially when he is told to interpret for himself.  Thus the most abominable heresies, the most impious systems, and the most immoral practices have been deduced from the sacred volume.

It is not the reading of the bible itself, then, that the pope condemns in his brief, but reading with a bad disposition; reading with pride and self-conceit; reading without deference to the interpretation of the church; and especially reading false translations condemned by the church.

Luc, ii. 14.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

Glory be to God in the highest, and on earth earth peace to men of good will.

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT.

  Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men.

Matth. xix. 11.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

He said to them:  All men receive not this word, but they to whom it is given.

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT. 

He said to them: All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

John ii. 4.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

And Jesus saith to her: Woman what is it to me and to thee?  my hour is not yet come. 
    
PROTESTANT TESTAMENT. 
 
Jesus said unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

Acts xix. 35.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

And when the town-clerk had appeased the multitudes, he said:  Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there, that knoweth not that the city of Ephesians is a worshipper of the great Diana and of Jupiter's offsping?

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT.

And when the town-clerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?

Rom. xi. 4.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal.

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT.

I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

1 Cor. ix. 5,

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

Have we not power to lead about a woman a sister as well as the rest of the apostles, &c.?

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT.

Have we not power to lead about a sister a wife, as well as other apostles, &c.?

1 Cor. xi. 27.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, &c.

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT.

Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily &c.

Gal v. 17.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

The flesh lusteth against the spirit, &c. so that you do not the things that you would.

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT.

Phil. iv. 3.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

And I intreat thee also, my sincere companion, help those women, &c.

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT.

And I entreat thee also, true yoke fellow, help those women, &c.

Heb. xi. 21.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshipped the top of his rod.

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT.

By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph, and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.

Heb. xiii. 4.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.

Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, &c.		

PROTESTANT TESTAMENT.

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled.

2 Peter i. 14.

ROMAN CATHOLIC TESTAMENT.