Oh, but you will reply, this Church once fell into error, at least so say the first Reformers. If, most Reverend Gentlemen, I were to a.s.sert that _you_ all once committed _murder_, you would very sharply ask, _when_, _where_, and _how_? And if I could not prove _when_, _where_, and _how_, I think you would deem me (and justly too) a very near relation to the father of lies. Now, your first Reformers _said_, indeed, that the Catholic Church once fell, but _most unfortunately_, they _forgot_ to prove _when_, _where_, and _how_. As, therefore, these first Reformers, forgot to prove these _most essential_ circ.u.mstances, you must excuse _us Catholics_, if we prefer _G.o.d's infallible_ word, to the _mere ipse dixit_ of these _first celestial_ lights of the Reformation. You know G.o.d says, heaven and earth, _shall_ pa.s.s away, but His word _shall not_ pa.s.s away.

But you will, perhaps, answer, really they must have been _strange_ beings to have _a.s.serted_, that _G.o.d's infallible_ Church had fallen, and _not_ to have been able, or at least to have _forgotten, to prove_ such a bold a.s.sertion. Do you know, I was just thinking the same; and, therefore, I beg to introduce a few of these beings to your notice: and I know _none_, that has a greater claim to our first notice, than Martin Luther, _both_ for the _originality_ of his spiritual doctrines, and for the _sublimity_ of the _celestial_ revelations, with which he was honoured. And _mind_, had not Luther and his disciples, left the most _incontestible_ testimony of what I am about to advance, it would really have outraged and defied _all credibility_.

Well, then, know, and _never forget_, that Martin Luther, the first luminary of the Reformation, had a conference _with the devil_, in which Martin a.s.sures us, that he was convinced by the _devil's powerful_ argumentation, that the Popish Ma.s.s was a heap of idolatry. The following are the words of this angel of _light_ on this subject: "Being awakened at midnight, the devil began to dispute with me, according to his custom.

"Listen to me, Master Doctor," said he: "do you consider that, for fifteen years, you have said ma.s.s almost every day? What, if all this while, you have been guilty of idolatry, and, instead of adoring the body and blood of Christ, have adored only bread and wine?" I answered him, that I was a priest lawfully ordained by the bishop; and that having, from a principle of obedience, discharged my ministry with a sincere intention of consecrating, I saw no reason to doubt the validity of the consecration. "True," replied Satan; "but in the Churches of Turks and Heathens, is not everything done in an orderly manner, and in the spirit of obedience? Does that authorize their worship as orthodox, and perfectly correct? What, if your ordination were null, and your consecration as vain and useless as that of Turkish priests, in the exercise of their ministry, or of the false prophets under Jeroboam?"

Here (adds Luther) I was seized with a violent sweat, and my heart began to beat in a strange manner. The devil is very artful in adjusting his reasoning, and he also pushes his arguments with great force; he has a voice, strong and rough, and is so pressing in his objections, one after another, as scarcely to allow you time to breathe. Hence, I can conceive, how it has repeatedly happened, that persons have, in the morning, been found dead in their beds. In the first place, he may suffocate them; he may also, by his method of disputing, cause such a trouble in the soul as to render her unable to make any further resistance, and thus she may be compelled instantly to leave the body; which has nearly been my own case, more than once."

After this preface, Luther mentions five reasons which the devil alleged against the sacrifice of the ma.s.s; reasons extremely frivolous in themselves, but which Luther considered of sufficient weight to justify his yielding to them, saying to those who might blame his conduct, that "if _they_ had heard the devil reasoning in the same forcible manner as _he_ had done, they would take care not to appeal from his arguments to the practice of the Church, and the usages of antiquity, which would never satisfy them." This conference may be seen in three different editions of Luther's works, printed by the care of his disciples, viz., (Wittemberg, T. 7, p. 479. Jenae, Ed. Germ. per Thomas, p. 82. Attenberg, T. 6. p. 86.)

Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, this is a very strange history.

_Certain_, however, _it is_, that _Luther_ omits _nothing_ to persuade us of its truth: for he mentions the very words which the devil used, the tone of his voice, the nature of his arguments, the impression which the conference made on his body and soul, which sometimes follow from debating with this king of the lower regions.

After the death of Luther, his disciples, and especially Melancton, took care to insert the conference in the collection of Luther's works, printed in Latin at Wittemberg, and the writers of the Luthern and Calvinistic party agree, that it was _certainly the production of Luther_.[K] (Hospinian, par. 2. Hist. Sacramentariae, p. 26, et. p. 131.)

Now Luther either _had_ or _had not_ this conference with the master of lies. If he _really had_, Luther ought to have known, that _such_ a master was not very likely, to teach him anything _very good_, and that he was not a very _fit_ person, to convince him of the idolatry of the ma.s.s. For if the ma.s.s, had _really_ been idolatry, I think the devil, would _rather_ have encouraged, _than_ tried to overturn it. But if Luther _had not_ this conference, then the ambition of Luther, for having wished to appear connected with so bad a master, indicates so strange and exotic a genius, so depraved and bad a taste, that it reflects _almost_ as much dishonour on Luther, as if this conference had really taken place.

You will perhaps object "that Luther is nothing to us." Most Reverend Gentlemen, I have not quoted him to insult you, or to throw any disrespect on you; for _you_ are certainly not to be _answerable_ for Luther's _deeds_. But I have quoted him to let you see, what kind of a genius, this father of the Reformation was, and I must now candidly ask, if you think he was _a fit_ person, to reform Christ's Church. Had he indeed begun, by endeavouring to _reform_ the devil himself, we might have pardoned his religious enthusiasm; but for him to tell us, that the _infallible_ Church of Christ, had fallen into error, and that he had come to reform it, under the instructions, and guidance of the master of lies, is _really_ most outrageous, and cannot be equalled by any thing, that I have either heard, or read on this side the grave. That the human mind, should be capable of falling into such dreadful delusion, would appear almost incredible, had not the Holy Ghost a.s.sured us, that G.o.d abandons to a reprobate sense, those who wish to change _truth_ into _falsehood_. (Romans i. 25-26.)

Zuinglius, another bright son of the Reformation, professes to have learnt his main argument against the Real Presence from a spirit, which appeared to him in the night, but whether it was a _black_, or _white_ spirit he does not remember. However, he made great account, of this nightly instruction of his _unknown_ friend; read the place of Exodus, which had been pointed out to him by his _unknown_ friend, and afterwards preached before the whole congregation, on the subject of this _wonderful_ discovery. (Hosp. ii. p. 25-26.) Luther was positive and sure, that the devil, whom Oecolampadius, (another reformer,) employed, strangled him during the night in his bed. "This is the excellent master," continues Luther, "who taught Oecolampadius that there are contradictions in the Scripture. See," says Luther, "to what satan brings learned men." (De Miss. Priv. Luth.)

Such were the nocturnal revelations, with which some of the first reformers were honoured, and I think now, you will not be surprised at the following character, which is given _them_, and the _other_ reformers, _even_ by _Protestant_ testimony. Zanchius, the celebrated Protestant professor, thus complains of the conduct of his _reforming Protestant_ colleagues: "I am indignant, when I consider the manner, in which most of us defend our cause. The _true_ state of the question we often, on _set_ purpose, involve in _darkness_, that it may not be _understood_; we have the impudence, to _deny_ things the _most evident_: we _a.s.sert_ what is _visibly_ false: the most _impious_ doctrines, we _force_ on the people as the _first_ principles of _faith_, and _orthodox_ (true) opinions, we condemn as _heretical_: we _torture_ the Scriptures, until they agree with our _own_ fancies, and boast of being the _disciples_ of the _fathers_, while we refuse _to follow their_ doctrines: _to deceive_, _to calumniate_, _to abuse_, is our _familiar_ practice: nor do we care for anything, _provided_ we can defend our cause, _good_ or _bad_, _right_ or _wrong_. Oh what times! what manners!

(Zanchius ad Stormium, tome viii. col. 828.)

"But _forgery_--I blush for the _honour_ of Protestantism while I write it--seems to have been _peculiar_ to the _reformed_ * * * and I look _in vain_, _for one_ of these accursed outrages of imposition, among _the disciples_ of Popery." "But _forgery_, appears to have been the _peculiar_ disease of _Protestantism_."--(_Vindication of Mary, Queen of Scots_, vol. iii. p. 2 and 53. _By the Rev. John Whitaker, B.D., Rector of Ruan Langhorne, Cornwall._)

You have now seen, who was the instructor of _some_ of the first Reformers, and the two above pa.s.sages (_mind, from Protestants_,) must convince you, that _they_ and _their_ reforming Protestant colleagues, appear to have been apt scholars of this master of lies. Well, I have shown you now, the character of the spiritual chemists of the Reformation. I will now show you, some of the wonderful _spiritual_ works, of some of their _supernatural_, and chemical hands.

Among these, I must rank as _first_ and foremost, the wonderful spiritual deeds, of your Scriptural Church as by Law established. Most Reverend Gentlemen, The Thirty-nine Articles, are the fundamental Articles of your Protestant Creed. Now, in the Thirty-fifth of those Articles, I find, that your Scriptural Church professes to believe, in the Protestant homilies there named. Among which I find the second is, "against peril of idolatry." Now, the following, are the words of your Protestant homily against idolatry. Its words are these: "The preaching of G.o.d's word, most sincere in the beginning, by process of time became less and less pure, and afterwards corrupt, and last of all, altogether laid down and left off, &c. Not only the unlearned and simple, but the learned and wise; not the people only, but the bishops; not the sheep, but also the shepherds themselves, being blinded by the bewitchery of images, as blind guides of the blind, fell both into the _pit of d.a.m.nable idolatry_; in which all the world, as it were drowned, continued unto our age for the s.p.a.ce of eight hundred years; unspoken against in a manner, so that laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, of all ages and s.e.xes and degrees, of men and women and children of whole Christendom, (an horrible thing to think,) have been at once drowned in abominable idolatry, of all other vices most detested by G.o.d, and d.a.m.nable to men, and that for the s.p.a.ce of eight hundred years together. And to this end has come that beginning of setting up of images in churches, then judged harmless, in experience proved not only harmful, but exitious and pestilential, and to the _destruction of all good religion universally_." Thus far, your Protestant homily.

Really, most Reverend Gentlemen, if in my comments on the above pa.s.sage, I have often to use the word _d.a.m.nable_, you must really _pardon_ me, for you see, I have just been taught this _pretty_ word, by your Scriptural Church, and you know, she is master in Israel. Pray, most Reverend Gentlemen, where was your Protestant Scriptural Church, during this _eight_ hundred years of d.a.m.nable idolatry? If it was a member of _no_ Church, then, it was not a member, or part of _Christ's_ Church. But if it was a member, or part of any _one_ Church in _all_ Christendom, then, it was utterly drowned in abominable, and d.a.m.nable idolatry. I wonder how your Scriptural Church, can extricate herself out of this spiritual labyrinth.

Well, then, here we have, _according_ to _your_ Scriptural Church, a universal apostacy. The true Church decayed, the whole of Christendom drowned in d.a.m.nable idolatry, and all good religion destroyed _universally_, and _that_, for eight hundred years; and we have also _your_ Scriptural Church either not existing, or buried in this universal spiritual destruction. Really, your Scriptural Church, Sampson-like, not only demolished the _whole_ spiritual fabric of Christendom, but also perished _herself_ under the ruins of this universal spiritual destruction; but the strangest thing of all is, whilst with _one_ hand, she was endeavouring with her spiritual power, to hurl the Catholic Church, into the vortex of this universal spiritual destruction, she, with _the other_ hand, charitably saves _us_ Catholics (as Moses was saved from the waters) from this deluge of universal spiritual idolatry; and I will now show you how; for your Scriptural Church, in her sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles, teaches that, "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation." Now, this very Scripture, (the book of salvation,) declares (as I have already shown in my above description of the Catholic Church,) that, the Catholic Church should _never_ err, and of course, could _never_ fall into idolatry. And, therefore, in obedience to your Scriptural Church, and to the Scripture itself, we believe that the Catholic Church, _never_ has fallen, and _never will_ fall into idolatry. For the Scripture says, "Heaven and earth _shall_ pa.s.s away, but G.o.d's word, _shall not_ pa.s.s away." Really, your Scriptural Church, is very kind to us in this respect, and I almost begin to think, she must be a worthy descendant of Pharo's daughter, who saved Moses from the waters of the Nile.

Well, Most Reverend Gentlemen, you see your scriptural Church, has now hurled the whole of Christendom, into the vortex of universal, abominable, and d.a.m.nable idolatry, and either involved herself, in this sweeping deluge of abominations, or committed suicidical destruction on herself; but, _strange_ to say, she has _charitably_ saved us benighted Papists, from these abominable, and universal waters of idolatry, as Pharo's daughter, kindly saved Moses from the waters of the Nile. Now, _how_ your scriptural Church as by law established will contrive to gather together again, and unite all the various parts of this universal, spiritual edifice, just destroyed by her hands, I am at a loss to determine. If _she really can_ collect, unite, and form these various spiritual parts, into a _more_ perfect, and durable edifice, than _G.o.d Himself_ had made it, I shall _then_ begin to think, that she is invested with powers, which _even G.o.d Himself_ does not possess. But by _what_ spiritual art of chemistry, is she to perform this wonderful, and _superhuman_ operation? If she has recourse to _the Scriptures_, she will _there_ learn, that G.o.d had built this spiritual edifice on an _imperishable_, infallible, and incorruptible foundation. And surely, for her sake, G.o.d will not _contradict_ Himself; and if she has recourse to her thirty-nine articles, they have already annihilated her. O poor scriptural Church! thou hast often made _sad_ work with _other_ Churches; but _at last_, alas! thou art in _sad_ straits thyself. O! how thou remindest me of the man, who

"Halting on crutches of unequal size,-- One leg by truth supported, one by lies, Thus saddled to the goal, with awkward pace, Secure of nothing but to lose the race."

Well, but you will say, this immense spiritual edifice _must_ for the sake of the _salvation_ of mankind, be _re_-built. Should I offer _my officious_ services, to a.s.sist in this pious work of reconstruction, your scriptural Church might perhaps say, I destroyed _more_ than I built.

Well, she could not, even then, justly complain of this; for _she_ has _just_ cut into pieces, demolished, and annihilated the _whole_ of Christendom, with her destructive weapons of universal, abominable, and d.a.m.nable idolatry.

In all _material_ edifices, it is considered of the greatest importance that the _foundation_ should be _firm_, _safe_, and substantial. Of course, we have reason to expect _these_ requisites in the foundation of all _spiritual_ edifices; and of course, we may _naturally_ expect them, in the new erection of G.o.d's work which your Church has just destroyed, but which she is _now_ going to re-construct into a _more_ perfect and durable form than _G.o.d_ had made it. Now, upon _what_ foundation will your Church _re_construct this demolished spiritual edifice? In her twenty-first article of her thirty-nine articles, (and mind, she has sworn to these articles as G.o.d's truth,) I find the following words: "General councils may not be gathered together without the commandment, and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an a.s.sembly of men, whereof all be not governed by the Spirit, and word of G.o.d,) they _may err_, and _sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto G.o.d_."

Now, please tell me, Most Reverend Gentlemen, of _what_ is your new spiritual Church to be built? Surely not of brick and mortar! but of course, it is to be erected, on the testimony of man, or of some body of men. But your article says, men may err, and _have_ erred, _even in things pertaining to G.o.d_. Therefore, your council, or councils, of your new Church _may err_, and therefore, how will you build upon these _fallible_ men an _infallible_ foundation?

But you will indignantly reply, the article intimates, that they may err _unless_ governed by the _Spirit_, and word of G.o.d. Well, Most Reverend Gentlemen, is it likely G.o.d will give _them_ his Spirit, and unerring word to _re_construct a new Church, when they have just destroyed the infallible, and beautiful work of _G.o.d's own hands_? Is it in the nature of things, that _G.o.d_ should _contradict_ Himself, to second the BABEL ideas, of your scriptural Church, yet to be formed?

Really, Sir, some of you Reverends will exclaim, _how_ you are _garbling_ that twenty-first article! Why have you _slyly_ omitted to quote the _last_ part of that article?--Well, as you have called, for the _last_ part of this article, I will now quote it; and as your Church (_first_, indeed, unfortunately destroying herself) has just so charitably saved us, benighted papists, from the waters of idolatry, I do sincerely hope this _last_ part of your article, may enable you, to _re_build a G.o.dly and spiritual edifice. Well, then, now for the _last_ part of this twenty-first article, which you say, I have _slyly omitted_. It runs thus verbatim: "Wherefore, things ordained by them, as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they be taken out of Holy Scripture." Now, Most Reverend Gentlemen, as you have just asked _me_ a question, allow _me_ to ask _you another_. If any of you, were wishful to purchase an estate, would you not _first_, have the t.i.tle deeds of that estate, _carefully_ examined by some eminent and respectable lawyers, _to be sure_ that the t.i.tle deeds, were perfectly good, and satisfactory, _before_ you advanced the money? Now we have just learnt, from the _last_ part of your twenty-first article, that the Scriptures, properly speaking, are the deeds of a _Christian_, by which he is to obtain a _good_ t.i.tle to salvation. Of course, therefore, we may _naturally_ suppose, that your scriptural Church would hand down to her followers the Scriptures, in the _most perfect_ and _unmutilated_ state.

Well, we will now see whether she _has_ done _this_, and _then_ we shall be able to determine, if she can _re_build her G.o.dly, and spiritual edifice on so heavenly a foundation. We will now consider how she got the sacred Scriptures, after her shipwreck amid the perils of idolatry, and whether, _after_ she got them, she handed them down to her followers in the perfect and unmutilated state, in which she _first_ received them from the _Catholic Church_. Luther, the father of the Reformation, even after he had left the Catholic Church, candidly says, in his Commentary on the 16th chapter of St. John's Gospel: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists, that with them is the word of G.o.d, which _we_ received from _them_, otherwise we should have known _nothing at all about it_." And, in his book against the Anabaptists, he makes the following confession: "Under Papacy are many good things, yea, _everything_ that is _good_ in _Christianity_. I say moreover," continues he, "under Papacy is _true_ Christianity, even the _very kernel_ of Christianity." From these two pa.s.sages of Luther, it is evident, that your scriptural Church, _first_ received the Scriptures from the _hand_ of the _Catholic_ Church, and that she received them, in a _perfect_ and _unmutilated_ state; otherwise, how could Luther's words be true, (and _mind_, he uttered these words _after_ he had left the Catholic Church) when he a.s.sures us, that under Papacy is "true Christianity, yea, everything that is good in Christianity, nay, the _very kernel_ of Christianity."

Now let us see _how_ your scriptural Church, corrupted and mutilated the sacred volumes which she had received from the Catholic Church in a _perfect_ and _unmutilated_ state.

Luther was the first, after the Reformation, who put out a Protestant translation of the Scriptures, which was _immediately_ condemned by Osiander, Rickerman, and Zuinglius. Of this translation of Luther, Zuinglius says, (Lib. de Sacra.) "Luther was a foul corrupter, and horrible falsifier of G.o.d's word. One, who followed the Marcionites and Arians, that razed out such places of Holy Writ, as were against him.

Thou dost," says he to Luther, "corrupt the word of G.o.d. Thou art seen to be a manifest, and common corrupter, and perverter of the holy Scriptures. How much are we ashamed of thee, who have hitherto esteemed thee!" But Luther not only falsified, but he also added, to the texts of the Scripture. "I know well," says Luther, "that this word, alone, (which he added to St. Paul's words, Rom. iii.) is not found in the text of St.

Paul, but should a Papist, annoy you upon it, tell him at once, without hesitation, that Dr. Martin Luther, would have it so, and that a papist, and an a.s.s, are synonymous." (Tom. 5, Jena Edit. p. 141, 144.)

But Luther, soon had an opportunity of retaliating, on his disciple Zuinglius. When Proscheverus, the Zuinglian printer of Zurich, sent him a copy of the Zuinglian translation, Luther rejected it, and sent it back to him, calling at the same time the Zuinglian divines, in matters of divinity, "fools, a.s.ses, anti-christs, deceivers, and of an a.s.s-like understanding." (See Zuing. tom. 2, ad Luth. Lib. de Sacr. fol. 338.)

Of the translation set forth by Oecolampadius, Beza says, that it "is in many places wicked, and altogether differing from the mind of the Holy Ghost." And he also condemns that of Castalio, as being sacrilegious, wicked, and heathenish. (In Respons. ad Defens. and Respons. Castal.)

We should naturally expect that Beza, after thus reproving the translations of Oecolampadius and of Castalio, would _himself_ have produced an immaculate one; but the learned Molineus observes of his translation, that "he (Beza) actually changes the text, of which Molineus gives several instances." (In sua Translat. Nov. Testi. part 20.)

Castalio wrote a whole book against Beza's corruptions of the Scriptures, and yet, he adds, "I will not note all his (Beza's) corruptions, for that would require too large a volume." (In Defens. Transl.)

Of Calvin's translation the learned Molinaeus thus speaks: "Calvin, in his harmony, 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." (In sua Translat. Nov. Test. part 12.)

Here, then, you have Zuinglius and others against Luther's translation, and Luther against Zuinglius's translation, Beza against Oecolampadius and Castilio's translation, and Castilio against Beza's translation, and Molinaeus against Calvin's translation. Now, which of all these false translations was your scriptural Church to adopt as her only rule of faith and for that of the people? Why, you Reverends will reply, she was to adopt her _own_ English translations.

Well, then we had better examine, and see whether they were any better than _any_ of the above translations, Carlile, in his treatise on Christ's descent into h.e.l.l, says of the English translators, that they have "depraved the sense, obscured the sense, obscured the truth, and deceived the ignorant; that in _many_ places, they do detort the scriptures from the _right_ sense, and that they show themselves to love darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth." And in an abridgment which the ministers of the diocese of Lincoln delivered to King James, they denominated the English translation, "A translation that taketh away from the text, that addeth to the text, and that sometime to the changing, or obscuring of the meaning of the Holy Ghost; a translation which is absurd and senseless, perverting, in many places, the meaning of the Holy Ghost." Burges, in his Apology, sec. 6, exclaims, "How shall I approve under my hand a translation, which hath so many omissions, many additions, which sometimes obscures, sometimes perverts the sense, being sometimes senseless, sometimes contrary?" And Broughton, in his letter to the Lords of the Council, gives this reason for requiring a new translation without delay, that "That which is now in England is full of errors." And, in his Advertis.e.m.e.nt of Corruptions, he tells the bishops, "That their public translations of Scriptures into English is such, as that it perverts the texts of the Old Testament, in eight hundred and forty-eight places; and that it causes millions of millions to reject the New Testament, and to run to eternal flames."

But some of you Reverends may reply, those were the Protestant translations of _earlier_ times; but we have got _better_ translations now. Well, then we must now examine the truth of your a.s.sertion. In November, 1822, the Irish Protestant Society pa.s.sed the following condemnatory resolution of the Irish translators: "Resolved, that, after a full enquiry, the members of this society feel satisfied, that material and very numerous errors, exist in the version of the New Testament, edited by the British and Foreign Bible Society." According to Mr. Platt, thirty-five variations were discovered in the first ten pages, of which seven were considered to be material. "This proportion in a Testament of four hundred pages," says the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Percival, "gives fourteen hundred variations, and two hundred and eighty material errors in a single volume." We find in the Monthly London Review, page 220, "That in April, 1832, a memorial was addressed on the subject, to the vice-chancellors of the Universities of Cambridge and of Oxford, and the other delegates of the Clarendon press." It was signed by the following gentlemen:

T. Bennet, D.D.

T. Blackburn.

George Collinson.

F. A. c.o.x, L.L.D.

Thomas Curtis.

T. Fletcher, D.D.

E. Henderson.

J. P. Smith, D.D.

T. Townley, D.D.

R. Winter, D.D.

The names, attached to this memorial, are too respectable not to communicate a great degree of importance, to any statement to which they are affixed. This memorial states, "That the modern Bibles, issued from the press of the University of Oxford, abounded with deviations from the authorized version of King James the First. That, though some of these errors were merely typographical, yet of those that were intentional, the number was of a serious amount. That in the Book of Genesis, there were upwards of eight hundred errors; in the Psalms, six hundred; in the Gospel of St. Matthew, four hundred and sixteen; and in about the fourth part of the Bible, an aggregate of two thousand, nine hundred and thirty-one."

The same Monthly London Review, for February, 1833, speaking of the pamphlet of Thomas Curtis, of Grove House, Islington, on his discoveries of the falsification of the Bible, says: "In this comparatively brief pamphlet, we find the exposition of one of the most singular deceptions, to which the world has yet been exposed. The imposition, is nothing short of a downright falsification of the text of Scripture. Need we add a syllable more, to rouse the attention of the thinking community?" In the same pamphlet Mr. Curtis remarks: "About twenty years ago, an intelligent reader at one of the printing offices, where the Bible was in a course of printing, took the trouble of drawing up a specification of a number of gross errors, which he found in the very copy, _that had been selected by the proper authorities_, as the _standard_ of correctness to which he was to adhere. The errors pointed out by the penetrating reader, amounted to no less, than seven hundred and thirty-one, and these occurred in the various chapters, from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of Jeremiah."

Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, it is plain from what I have stated (and where is the person who can contradict what I have stated), that the _first_ Protestant foreign Reformers, corrupted and falsified the sacred Scriptures, that your English Protestant Reformers, did also the same, and that even at the present day, your English Protestant translations of that sacred volume, are in a most awful and corrupt state. And would to heaven I could stop here!

But what will the English people say, when they learn, that your Protestant scriptural Church, has _not only_ falsified and corrupted the Scriptures, but that she has had the audacity, to expunge from the canon of the Scripture many books, which are _as much canonical_ (that is, as much the inspired word of G.o.d) as those, which she still retains in her present Protestant canon. I will now prove this. The Protestant Church, received at first (as Luther truly informs us) the Scriptures from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, therefore, must be good authority in this respect, otherwise how can the Protestant Church be, sure that her first Scriptures, were the real word of G.o.d? Now, the Catholic Church has ranked, for at least fourteen hundred years, many books as _canonical_, which _your_ Protestant Church rejects as _uncanonical_. In the year 397, a Catholic council was held at Carthage, at which the learned and pious St. Augustine a.s.sisted. In that council, the canon of the Scripture, was satisfactorily determined; and in that very council, many books were declared to be _canonical_ (that is, the inspired word of G.o.d,) which your Church, has had the audacity to tell the people, are _not canonical_, that is, they are not to be considered the inspired word of G.o.d. But _what_ reason had your scriptural Church, to a.s.sume the audacious power, to condemn as _uncanonical_, books, which were declared by this ill.u.s.trious, numerous, and learned body of Christians, _to be canonical_, (that is, the inspired word of G.o.d?) I ask you, _what_ reason had your scriptural Church for this _audacious_ step? I answer, none. O but I fancy I hear some of your reverends exclaiming, You are wrong _for once_, old papish botheration. Look at the pa.s.sage in the sixth of our articles, between _our canonical_ and _un_canonical books, and there you will find a good reason for your _popish_ question.

Thank you, courteous clerks; I will now quote the pa.s.sage, and give _your_ scriptural Church the benefit of it. "And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read, for example of life, and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."

(Art. 6, Ch. Eng. P. Book.) Well, most Reverend Gentlemen, _truth_ and _falsehood_ are in this pa.s.sage, mixed up together _to a nicety_. In the first part, your scriptural Church tells the people that she, like Hierom (and mind, St. Hierom was a great Catholic Saint), reads her _un_canonical books, for example of life and instruction of manners.

Well, _her object_ for reading these books, as far as it goes, is very good; but then, your scriptural Church _slyly_ adds, "but yet doth it not apply them _to establish_ any doctrine:" an artful inuendo that St.

Hierom did the same. Now St. Hierom wished, indeed, the Catholic Church to read these books, for example of life, and instruction of manners; but St. Hierom, at the same time, included in the Catholic canon _all_ the books, which had been ranked in the Catholic canon by antiquity. Now, if your scriptural Church, quoted St. Hierom's authority in confirmation of the _first_ part of this pa.s.sage, why does she slyly intimate, to follow him in the _second_ part, where she contradicts St. Hierom, by a.s.serting that certain books of the Scripture, are _uncanonical_, which St. Hierom believed, and taught were _really canonical_? Come, Reverend Gentlemen, your Church _must_ have had some _sly_ reason, for this _contradictory_ conduct. Now, _do_ tell us _what this_ reason was. Well, if _you_ will not tell, _I_ must.

You have seen, how the first reformers _falsified_ the Scriptures, to make the sacred text, harmonize with their _reformed_ ideas; but _what puzzled_ them _most_ was, they found there were certain books, which they could not _possibly tune_ to _their new_ ideas. They _durst_ not indeed, _entirely_ reject these sacred books; for they knew in _what_ veneration, they had been _always_ held by _antiquity_; but on the _other_ hand, they _durst_ not admit them as _canonical_; for _then_, the _testimony_ of _these_ books, would upset _their new-fangled_ ideas; they thought, therefore, the _most convenient_ method, was to make _flesh_ and _fish_ of them, and _then_, they could either _admit_, or _contradict_ them, according to their _own spiritual convenience_.