Cotton, Henry, Ivlemoir of a French Translation of the New Testament, London, 1627. \M^^(o(^ From the COLLECTION OF OXFORD BOOKS - made by FALCONER MADAN Bodley's Librarian MEMOIR OP A FRENCH TRANSLATION OF THB NEW TESTAMENT, IN WHICH THE MASS AND PURGATORY ARE FOUND IN THE SACRED TEXT; TOGETHER -WITH BISHOP KIDDER'S REFLECTIONS ON THE SAME. ACCOMPANIED BY NOTES, Br HENRY COTTON, LL.D., ARCHDEACON OF CASSEL. LONDON: PRINTED FOR JOHN COCHRAN, IN THE STRAND. MDCCCXXVU. LONDON : PaisTED BY -W-jLiiAM Clowes, Stamford Street, M^.y<^6. 9>%n c ADVERTISEMENT. The reader of the following Memoir is desired to bear in mind, that all obser-vations of a general nature, upon points such as " the advantages of a multiplicity of versions of the Holy Scrip ture;'' " the primary importance of fidelity in a translator;" and " the real value of every version being strictly proportionate to this fidelity;" — observations which would readily arise from the subject, and might, not without a show of reason, be expected, are here designedly omitted : — the author's purpose being to lay briefly before the public some particulars respecting a Transla^ tion of very peculiar character, the existence of which, what ever may have been its object, or whoever its real authors, he thinks ought not to be suffered to fall into utter oblivion. April, 1827. MEMOIR A FRENCH TRANSLATION NEW TESTAMENT. In the year 1690, Dr. Richard Kidder, afterwards Bishop of Bath and Wells, introduced to the notice of the Enghsh pubhc, a French translation of the New Testament, then recently published, the character of which appeared to him, and not without good reason, to deserve the most serious attention and animadversion. It is well known that, during the seventeenth century, the French had taken the liberty, which prevails in Protestant countries, of publishing vernacular translations of the Holy Scriptures ; and, in fact, no fewer than four or five different French versions of the New Testament had already been printed and circulated, within the forty or fifty years preceding the pubUcation of that which called forth Bishop Kidder's anim adversions. The appearance, therefore, of an additional trans lation was by no means a circunjstance which would seem to demand any particular notice ; nor, in all probability, would this have attracted the serious attention of the Bishop, had there not been found in it some things of a nature so extraordinary, as almost to preclude the possibility of their being suffered to pass' unnoticed. He, therefore, felt it his duty to expose the principal defects of this New Testament ; and with 2 FRENCH TRANSLATION OF * this view, pubhshed his " Reflections " in the year above-men tioned. To these "Reflections," which, from length of time, and other causes, appear to have almost sunk into oblivion, I wish to recall the public attention ; and, therefore, reprint theni; accompanied by a few notes, intended to illustrate and confirm the view taken by Bishop Kidder, ofthe passages to which they refer, and preceded by this Memoir, in which several circum stances connected with the subject of this version are treated at considerable length. In the version, then, to which the present observations belong, there are (two points more prominent than the rest, which im mediately challenge remark. In the first place, it wears every appearance of coming out under false colours ; professing to be the version of a learned body, which, in all probability, had nothing at all to do with it ; and secondly, it far outstrips all its predecessors, in the hardihood of asserting and defending doc trines, belonging to a particular class of opinions, and maintained by a particular class of persons. In a version of the books of Scripture, more especiaUy those of'the New Testament,, made by an adherent of the Church of Rome, we naturally expect the bias peculiar to the members of that communiop : we look for that leaning, in the interpreta:tion of various passages, which may appear to give the warranty of Scripture to certain points both of discipUne and doctrine, which -we, as Protestants, believe to be of human and of late in vention, but which the Roman CathoUc is taught to regard as of divine institution^ as sanctioned by the authority and practice of the Apostles, and of Christ himself. That mode, however, of establishing this desiredj warranty, which has been most usuaUy and successfully employed by the divines ofthe Church of Rome, namely, hy inference or deduc tion from the acknowledged words of Holy Writ, has, in the present case, been laid aside for one of a more decisive charac ter ; and the reader must not be astonished at hearing, that, in THE WEW TESTAMENT. 3 the version whieh is now subfliitted to his notice, he will find the Romish Purgatory, and the Saceifice of the Mass, introduced in plain terms, into the Sacred Text itself! namely, the former in I Corinth, ch. iii. 15., where we read, " mais 'il " sera sauv^ quant d luy, ainsi toutefois comme par le feu du " Purgatoire ;" and the latter in Acts, ch. xiii. 2., which is thus translated ; "or comme lis offroient au Seigneur le sacrifice de " la Messe." After such an announcement, as there, must be many persons who would desire a closer account of so extraordinary a book,.! have attempted to satisfy their wishes by the following descrip tion of it, and of its contents •. — The volume is a small thick octavo, of about 760 pages, bearing for title,^ — "Le Nouveau Testament de n6tre Seigneur Jesus-Christ, " traduit de Latin en Francois, par les Th^ologiens de Louvain. " A Bordeaux, chez la veuve de G.de la Court, et N.de la " Court, imprimeur du Roy, et de Monseigneur I'Archeveque, " riie S. J&mes,* — mdclxxxvi. — Avec approbation et per- " mission." The reverse of the title is blank. — On the recto of the next leaf are found the two following approbations : — " Nous soubs-sign6s Docteurs en Th6olo^e €e rUniver5it6 " de Bdrdeaux, attestons que la pr^seiite version Frais A famous Conference between Pope Clement the " Xth and Cardinal de Monte Alto, conceming the late Dis- " covery of the Masse in Holy Scripture, made by the " worthy Father Patrick, an exceUent Engineer of the Church " of Rome in England." The tract is written in a bantering stylp and coarse language, and commences hy the Caxdinal's inquiring of the Pope for what cause His HoUness wears a face of more than usual hilarity ; tlie Pope replies, " because the " mass has been found in Scripture !" On, the Cardinal's de manding, " by whom ?" the Pope answers, " by a secular " priest name^ Blather Patrick, who is invested with a rich " abbey in Burgundy, worth five hundred pounds a year, M granted for the notable services which he has viTought against " the EngUsh heretics, He hath sent to -me a Bible turned THE NEW TESTAMENT. H " into French by the Doctors of Louvain, printed at Paris in " 1664, where, in Acts xui. 2, these blessed words are to be " read, of the Apostles saying mass to the Lord I" The pamphlet proceeds by declaring that the Pope is overwhelmed with gratitude to Father Patrick, and intends to reward him hereafter by an entire delivery from purgatory, and in this life, by the present of a Cardinal's hat ; when, on a sudden, a thought strikes him, that perhaps: this acute priest might prove a Uttie too troublesome, and being possessed of so much power, might eventually employ it in hurUng his Holiness from his throne : this latter feeling entirely absprbs the fpnner, insomuch, that the Pope ends by revoking his kind intentions, and instead of rewarding the Father, disgraces him, and con signs him to an ignominious penance. r On farther search, I found that the whole of tbis tract was servilely borrowed from a little French pubUcation, bearing for title, " La Messe trouvSe dans, VEscnture," printed, without any name of place or printer, in 1647, 16mo. In this piece, the discovery is given to Francis Veron, S. T. D., an ex- Jesuit, and Cur6 of Charenton, in a French Bible published by him in the year 1646. The other contents of the pamphlet are nearly the same as those of the English translation, in which probably the date was changed from 1646 to 1664 with out sufficient reason. By these tracts, notwithstanding their raiUery and general looseness of expression, we are at least made acquainted^with the fact of the Mass being found in the text so early as the year 1646, and c^re directed to the person by whom this is said to have been dpne. The clue thus given may now be fol lowed without difficulty ; and with the assistance to be derived from P^re Simon and Le Lpng, considerably light may be thrown upon this point of our present inquiry. Le Long distinctly informs us that Francis Veron was a 12 FRENCH TRANSLATION OF Parisian, whd, having been a member of the Society of Jesus, became afterwards Cure of Charenton ; that he was a contro versial writer,* and died in 1649. Veron appears to have first pubUshed a French version of the New Testament in 1646 (12mb., Paris), concerning which Le Long makes no obser vation ; but in.the next year, 1647, he cites a second edition, in which, according to the author's statement, coiisiderable changes had been made : " Novum Testamentum ita recPgni- " tum et emendatum ut re ipsS, nova sit traductio juxta Vulga- " tam Latinam facta et collata diligepter cum Textu Graeco, " adjectis Notis, Auctore Fr. Veron. (4to., Paris.)" Of this edition the author boasts, that it is " ab omnibus sordibus " Genevensium perpurgata." Re-impressions of it are men- tioned, " 16mo., Paris, 1656 : 24mo., et 8vo., Burdigalse, " 1687.'! Qusere^Whether by this last Le Long intended to designate the one which is the particular subject of these pages, viz., that pf 1686 ? If not, I do not beUeve that any notice of it occurs throughout his work. P. Simon gives us, but more briefly, nearly the same infor ination conceming Veron and his version; but subjoins one additional fact, viz. that Veron was ^ot the original propounder of this version of Acts xiu. 2.; but that he had borrowed and adopted it from a previous translation. In speaking of this subject, Simon observes, " Not that Fr. " Veron is the first that hath translated after this manner : " CoRBiN, whose expressions are generaUy barbarous, by " reason that he too strictly follows the letter of the Vulgar, " hath nevertheless rendered it thus before him, as they cele- " brated the holy sacrifice of the mass. Father Cotton hath " also given occasion to this interpretation in his treatise, ' enti- " tied Gen&ve plagiaire, (deprav. 25.) wherein he undertakes * In the Roman Index librorum pro- styled Pridicateur du Roi pour les hibitorum, of the year 1704, Veron is controverses. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 13 " to show at large that Xitrovqystv ought to be taken in this " place for to sacrifice, or to recite iCAe mass."^Siiri6n's Crit. Hist, pfthe Versions of the New Testamerit, ch. xxxi. Of the above- mentioned Corbin, we learri from Le Long, arid from the Memoirs of Nicerori, (tome xxxvii,) that he was James Corbin, a native of Poitou, and a lawyer, who believing hini self possessed of considerable talent, exercised his pen in a variety of ways, both in prose and poetry, succeeding badly in the first and worse in the second : th'at, amongst other things, he tried controversy, a ma,tter quite out, of his sphere, and failed. Afterwards, he pubUshed a French translation of the Bible, from the Vulgate, revised by command of Louis XIII. with the approbation ofthe Doctors of Poictiers, (in eight thick volumes, 16mo.) in the year 1641 ; which appeared again, urider altered titles, in 1643, and in 1 661. Nicerori agrees' -with Le Long and P. Simon, in chairacterising his version as too literal, and his style as barbarous and coarse ; from the concurrence of which unfavourable circumstances it was holden in very little esteem. Not having been fortunate enough, in spite of all exertions and inquiries, to meet with either Veron's or Corbin's transla tions, I am unable to furnish the reader with any precise details respecting the particular features of each. I cannot help enter- tainirigthe opinion, thatthe Bordeaux Testament; of 1686, is inti mately connected with one or other of these two. Bishop Kidder, as we have seen, accuses it of falsehood in pretending to be the translation of the Divines of Louvain ; and such a charge (ac cording to the strict notions holden by him) undoubtedly may be sustained : but when we take into account that Veron's ver sion is distinctly called by Le Long a revisal of the Louvain 4nislation ; and that in all probabUity that of Corbin was the very same thing (the Louvain being, in ppint of fact,, the only version then used by the strict Roman Catholics of France) : — 14 FREn6h TRANSLATION > OF when we also remember tha,t an impression of Corbin's version was put forth in 1661, and thatonfe of the approbations prefixed tothe BordeauxTestamerit of 1686, is dated in that very year, 1661 ; and when, likewise, we are distinctly told ihat both ver-' sions insert the obnoxious expressions, " sacrifice of the mass" into the Sa;cred Text, I riiust confess myself so swayed by these Goncurreint cireumtonces as to be both * unwUUng and unable to dismiss the idea, 'that -the anonymous editors of i^e New Testament of Bordeaux have given to us a version, which must be more or Idss attributed to one of tbe two translators who have been mentioned above. I do not find that Bishop Kidder toPk any farther notice of this Testament, after the pubUcation ofhis Refiections, except it be in a note on Hebrews, ch. xi. 26., occurring in one of his later pribUcations, which runs thus : — " worshipped, ^c. Indeed "the Rheriiists strictly fpUoW the Vulgar Latin ; they render it, " adored the top of his rod; and he that knows them will not " wonder at it. As Uttle cause hath he to expectrany better " from the French version, printed at Bordeaux in 1686. That " version renders the "word tfcus, ddora le bout de son baston. " But that translation (though the Divines of Louvain are said " to be the authors of it) is very corrupt, and designed to .serve " a present tum. I have made public some Reflectio-its upon " it many years ago, to which I refer the reader." — ^Critical Reimarks on some Difficult Passages of Scripture, Svo. 1719 Pi 65. The errate in the Bordeaux Testeiment, upon someof which BishPp Kidder animadverts, I have reason to think are much more numerous ; but no arguirient ought in fairness to be founded upon these, unless it could be shown that they were " of malice prepense." Yet it would not have been too much to^resume that an edition of the Sacred Scriptures, disfigured THE NEW TESTAMENT. 15 with so many event-ypo^rcephical errors, might fairly have been subjected to the censure of the Roman Index. No such thing, however, (as far as I can leam) has ever taken place: ift it have, imy search for it has been vain. I have carefully looked into the " Index Librorum Prohibitorum Innocentu P.M. jussu "editus, &c. usque ad annum 1681, cum appendice usque ad " mensem Junu, 1704. 12mo. Romae typis Rev. Camerae Apos- " tolicse, 1704;" — into another Roman edition, coming down to the year 1711, with successive appendices to 1716, to 1718, and to 1734; yet cannot find in ahy of them the slightest notice or hint concerriirig this Testament of 1686. While Rome condemns, without scruple arid without mercy, all books of Scripture, published by those who are not of her com munion, [Biblia heereticorum opera impressa, ^c, omnino prohi bentur: and agairi, Biblia vulgari qitocunque idiomate con scripta,'] no sentence of condemnation against this flagrant instance of adulteration is to be found in her Index. Yet it must not be supposed ithat all versions pvMished by Rdmari Catholics are exempt from censure. Whensoever any, even of these, is judged to contain matter offensive to the Court of Rome, it takes its place in this condemned list by the side of its heretical brethren. Thus we find, amongst the books prohibited to the faithfiii, the New Testamerit of P^re Simon, (Trevoux, 1702 ;) that of Pascal Quesnel, (Paris, 1699 ;)- that of Charles Hure, (Paris, 1702;) and that of Mons, (1667, &c. &c.) This last translation appears to have been morethan usually lobnoxious', being prohibiteditirgfite locorum et quocunque idiomate impressus et ittip-rimendus ! May it not be said of her theological censors, that they strain' at a gnat, whilst, at -the same time, they swallotb a camel: that, too deeply busied in detecting the mote iii our eyes, they overlook that grosser beam which obstructs their own powers of vision? What version, we may fearlessly ask, can be pointed out, the composition of any Protestant, abound- 16 FRENCH TRANSLATION OF ing in errprs so- dangerous, in deceits so barefaced, as this which is solemnly ushered into public notice, under the express sanction and recommendation of a prelate of the Romish Church? Well might Dr. James exclaim,, in the indignant language of Elizabeth's days, " The Papists are ready to oppose " and object still unto us our different translations ofthe Bible, " when there may be veiy good reason given out of the ori- " ginals for both readings ; little considering their own gro'sse " errors, and palpable absurdities in the setting forth of their t-wo " Bibles, authorised by two Popes, within two yedrsj &c. &c. " &c." — [James, Corruptions of the Scripture, Councils, and Fathers; by the Prelates, Pastors, and PiUars of the Church of Rome, 4to, London, 1612.] Is this, we ask, the even-handed justice which she, who is ''the professed source of church-infallibility," the " mother and " mistress of all thefaithful in Christ Jesus," dispenses to her confiding children ? Alas ! how widely different was the mea sure dealt out to our early English translators of the Bible ; when poor Tyndal complained that so maliciously alert- and severe were his critics, that " if they found so much as a " single i which lacked the tittle over its head," they? pointed it out to the ignorant laity as an instance of heretical" cor raption! Hear his own words: — "As for my translation, in " which they affirme unto the laye people (as I have heard " say) to be I wotte not how many thousand heresies, so " that it cannot be mended or correct, they have y6t taken " so great payne to examine it, and to compare it unto that "they would fayne have it, and to their owne imaginations " and iugglyng- termes, and to have somewhat to rayle'i^, and " under that cloke to blaspheme the truth, that they niight, with " as little labour, (as I suppose) have translated the most part ".ofthe Bible. " For they which in tymes past were wont to looke on no more " Scripture then they found in theyr Duns, or suche Uke devil- THE NEW TESTAMENT. 17 " ishe doctrine, have yet now so narowly loked on my trans- " lation, that there is not so much as one i therein, if it lack a " tittle over his bed, but they have noted it, and number it " unto the ignoraunt people for an heresy." — ^Tyndale's Preface to his translation ofthe Pentateuch, 12mo. 1530. Must we not blush at remembering that among those chUdish but mischievous triflers, and prominent among them, was the Lord ChanceUor, Sir Thomas More ? a man who undertook to refute that Reformer's version, and who allowed himself to indulge in the most unmeasured abuse of it, and of its unas suming author. In " a Dialogue of Sir Thomas More, knight, " wherein are treated diverse matters, as of the veneration and " worship of images and relics, praying to saints, and going on " pilgrimage ; with many other things touching the pestilent " sect of Luther and Tyndale, by the one begun in Saxony, and " by the other laboured to be brought into England," (folio, London, 15.30, 1531.) In book ui. chap. 8, we read the follow ing passages: speaking of the New Testament, translated by Tyndale, Sir Thomas says : " Which whoso calleth the New " Testament caUeth by a wrong name, except they will call it " Tyndale's Testament, or Luther's Testament. For so had " Tyndale, after Luther's counsel, corrupted and changed it from " the good and wholesome doctrine pf Christ to the deviUsh, " heresies of their o\»ti, that it was clean a contrary thing. " Why, quoth your friend, what faults were there in it ? To " tell you all that, quoth I, were in a manner to rehearse you all " the whole book ; wherein there were found and noted, wrong " and mis-translated, above a thousand texts by tale." Chap. ix. " A^d therewithal I showed your friend a book (i. e. a copy " of Tyndale's Testament) with the places ready noted, which " book I had by licence a little before lent unto me for the " nonce." After all the remarks which have been made upon that trans lation of the New Testament, which is the subject ofthe pre- G 18 FRENCH TRANSLATION, ceding, as well as of the following pages, whal are thfe senti-* ments most likely to arise in every serious and soberly-thinking mind ? How great was the guilt of those, who would have imposed this version on the people : how deep the blindness and ignorance of those, who would have received it for the pure unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ! Thanks be to God, that we of this age and country are not bound under a yoke so heavy and degrading. Our minds and hands are equaUy unfettered. We have free access to the written Oracles of God ; and have liberty of drawing for ourselves, even from the pure fpuntain- head, the living and saving waters of etemal Ufe. Thus freed, empowered, enriched with Heaven's best gift, shall we not endeavour to preserve a sense of the value Pf that blessing, and study the means of using it tp our own and our brethren's benefit ? Let us not only cling with ardour to the possession of this treasure, and through it " stand fast in the " Uberty wherewith Christ has made us free ;" but also seek out the best and most efficacious mode of employing it to the accompUshment of that purpose for which it was given : ever mindful of the importance of the trust committed to us, and remembering that, according to the magnitude of the deposit, will be the increase to be demanded at a future day. With these views, let us press forward " steadfast and unmoveable," hoping and humbly praying for the aid of the Almighty in the prosecution of our labours ; and that his Holy Spirit may bless to our use and eternal profit, the Gospel of his Son, our Sa viour, and Redeemer. REFLECTIONS FRENCH TESTAMENT, PRINTED AT BORDEAUX AN. DOM. MDCLXXXVI. PRETENDED TO BE TRANSLATED OUT OF THE LATIN INTO FRENCH BY THB DIVINES OF LOUVAIN. BY RICHARD KIDDER, D.D,, AND DEAN OF FETEKBOROUOH. LONDON : PRINTED FOR WALTER KETTILBY, at the BISHOP'S HEAD, IN ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD. 1690. C 2 THE PREFACE. That the people have a right to read the Holy Scriptures can not be doubted of by him that considers that matter vrith due application, and vrithout prejudice. And that man who reads these holy books with great humUity and care, and an earnest desire to become better, wiU receive unspeakable advantages by it. The govemors and pastors of the church are therefore obliged to promote this holy disposition, and to ftirnish and assist the people, who cannot read these books in their original languages, with such a true translation, and such needful explications as may render it more profitable to them. The Church of Rome does not absolutely deny the people this liberty, but restrains it : for they have their versions of the Bible in the several Popish countries in the language of them. But for all that, certain it is, that many of that church do not only disparage these holy books, but discourage the reading of them. _ And that Church, instead of assisting the devout people in their profitable reading the Holy Scriptures, and furnishing them with aU due means to this purpose, hath dealt very insincerely in the whole matter. I. By obtruding the vulgar Latin as that authentick copy of the Bible, from which, in pubUc disputes and questions, there is no appeal to be allowed, which the Trent Council does. The version of the Vulgar Latin, I grant, is venerable for its anti- 22 PREFACE. quity, and is of great use in the Church, and is not always to be despised or declaimed against, where at first sight it does not seem perfectly agreeable to the original text ; both because it sometimes gives the true sense, where it seems in the letter to difier ; and also because, (in the New Testament especially,) where it differs from the present reading, it does not differ from some ancient copies. But yet, after all, it cannot always be defended, and it were not hard to give proofs of this beyond aU exception whatsoever. This would be too great a digression in this place, and therefore I shaU only add, as a competent proof of it at present, that the most famed and allowed commentators and interpreters df the Roman Chnrch do think fit, very /ref quenUy, to forsake tbe Vulgar, which I shaU at any time make good against that Church, whenever I shall be required to do it. II. By commending that for the Version of the Vulgar Latin,, which in truth is not so. After the above-named decree ofthe Trent Council, the minds of men were in suspense, and doubt ful, because they knew not what copy Pf the Vulgar Latin to foUow, and the Pope did not, for above twenty years after, declare what certain copy should be taken for the authentic Vulgar Latin. Afterwards, indeed. Pope Sixtus V. gave notice td the Christian world what his mind was in this matter, a.d. siDLxxxix. He puts out a Latin Bible, in the Jjreface where unto he acquaints the reader as foUows : " That agreeably to ,' the aforesaid decree ofthe Counfcil of Trent, he having called " upon God, and relying upon St. Peter's authority for the " pubUc good of the Church, had not thought much to set " forth that Bible. He sets forth his labour in chusing the best " readings ; his design that, accPrding to the decree of the " Trent CouncU, the Vulgar Bible might be printed most cor- " rect, and his performance, viz.. That he had accurately " purged this edition from various errors, and with utmost " diligence restored it in pristinam veritatem, i. e., to fis unt^ent " verity. After this declares his will, viz.. He decrees that PREFACE. 23 " that edition should be taken for that Vulgar Latin ivhich " the Trent Council declared authentic. And this he tells us " he does ea; certd nostra scientia, deq-ue ApostoUcce potestatis "plenitudine ; i, e., from his own certain knowledge, and "plenitude of Apostolic authority. And that it ought to be " received as such, sine ulla dubitatione aut controversid, i. e. " without any doubt or controversy ." After this Clement VIII. puts out his edition of the Vulgar, and requires expressly that that be received also; and this he does a.d. mdxcii. The differencesbetweenthat of Sixtus V. and Clement Vlll. are too many to be here related. Where it is in Clement's edition eduxistis, it is in that of Sixtus V., induodstis, Exod. xvi. 3. Where the one hath opposuit, it. is apposuit in the other, Deut. xxiv. 6. Clement hath extrinsecUs, where Sixtus reads it intrinsechs, 1 Kings vu. 8. Where Clement hath it a porta, Sixtus hath it ac? porfem, 2 Ezr. iii. 28. One reads Zoiifodi- nem, when the other reads altitudinem, Judith i. 1, 2. What in Sixtus is insipientia, is sapientia in Clement, Ecclus. xxi- 15. JYon respicis in Sixtus, is respicis in Clement, Hab. i. 13. Where Sixtus hath credentes, Clement hath non credentes, John vi. 65. Where Sixtus hath interpretabilis, Clement has. in tnierpretabilis, Heb. v. 11. And where one hath doctas, the Other hath indoctas, 2 Pet. i. 16*. Yet are both these to be i«ceived by the authority of the Pope and Council, though they contradict each other ; and we shall still be at the pleasure of a Pope to give us another authentic copy. III. The Chtirch of jRome' hath done very insincerely in allowing versions which pretend to be trae versions of the Vul gar, when they are not. I shall more especially consider those^ which were done into French. There was a French Bible printed at Antwerp, by the permission of Charles V. a.d, mdxxx. * See the variations between these Tract, entitled, Bellum Papale, by two editions detailed minutely in a Dr. Thomas James, 4to, leOO. 24 PREFACE. and reprinted a.d. mdxxxiv., which differs from the present Vulgar. But this being done before the bull of Sixtus V., I insist not upon it. Afl:er this, there was another version of the Vulgar Latin into French by the care of certain Louvain divines, deputed to this purpose, an edition of which, printed at Lyons, I frequently refer to in the following Reflections. This was a version of great fame and authority in the church of Rome ; and the Testament of Bordeaux pretends to be done by these divines. So it was, that though this Louvain French Bible were designed to keep the people from reading the Protestant editions, yet it was complained of by several ofthe church of Rome (as Father Simon relates) as coming too near the sentiments of the Protestants. It will appear, by the following Reflections, that this version does not exactiy agree with the present Vulgar. Since that have been many popish versions in the French tongue, which pretend to be versions of the Latin into French, of the New Testament, in which I am particularly concerned at present. I shall mention none but such as I have perused. The first is that of Amelote, who was chosen by the French clergy to this employment, a. d. mdclv. He hath printed his version both with and without notes. The first a. d. mdclxvi. That without notes I have seen printed a. d. mdclxxxvi. This was printed with the attestation and approbation of several pre lates of France, with the permission ofthe Archbishop of Paris, and general of his order. Father Simon says *, that he was the first Catholic writer that applied himself with care totum the New Testament into French. I wiU not deny him to be a person of diUgence and good fame ; but yet neither is this a strict version of the Vulgar. 'i The second is the version printed at Mons. This is common among us, and hath been often printed, and is of great fame, and, upon many accounts, a very valuable book. But neither * Hist. Cdt. des Vers, du N. T. PREFACE. 25 is this a strict version of the Vulgar, as I could easily show by very many instances, were it convenient in this place to do it. - The third is this Testament, printed at Bordeaux, which the fbllowLng Reflections relate unto. It bears the titie of Le Nou veau Testament de notre Seigneur J4sus Christ, traduit di Latin en Francois, par les Theologiens de Louvain, i. e. The New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, translated out of Latin into, French, by the Divines of Louvain, It was printed at Bordeaux, a.d. mdclxxxvi. It hath the approbation of two doctors, vis. Lopes and Germain, as very profitable to those who shall be permitted and have capacity to read it. It hath also the permission of the Archbishop of Bordeaux ; and it is in that permission affirmed to be , reviewed and exactly corrected. I shall make it appear that this is no true version of the Vul gar Latin ; that it is not the work of the Louvain divines, as it pretends to be ; that it agrees neither with the Vulgar nor the celebrated versions of it which are allowed in the Roman church ; that it hath a considerable number of downright for geries and falsifications, a great number of gross errors and mistakes ; that it adds to the Vulgar, and takes from it ; that it is inconsistent with itself, and by no means corrected as to the typographical errata. In a word, it hath not the authority of ancient copies or various readings to support it : I dare chal lenge aU mankind to defend it. , Those of the church of Rome have inveighed against the Protestant versions : they have pretended that we have no Bible.* They have scoffed and derided us on this account. They have boasted that they have been the faithful preservers of these divine Oracles ; and that what we have of them we may thank them for. * Prefece lo the Rhemish Testament. 26 PREFACE. But Id! hereisa'proof of their insincerity; here ia that which may convince any honest man, even of their own communion, that is wiUing to know the truth in this most important matter. And if any such should read these papers, I must conjure him, as he loves his soul, to take care how he trasts that church with the salvation of his soul that dares falsify at this high rate. No man will, in other cases, trast a cheat or forger of testa ments and deeds. But how great must this wickedness be then, when the holy Oracles of God are corrupted to serve a turn ! They that can do this can make no boggle at the most horrid and execrable crimes. I did intend, in the last reign, to have made, and to have pubUshed, these " Reflections." But I could by no means procure this Testament, either here or beyond the seas ; inso much, that I began to suspect, either that there was no sucb book, or that it had not those faults in it, as had been given out. But after I had, by means of a very learned and excel? lent person, procured a copy, I found it to be as I have, in the foUowing " Reflections," truly represented it to the reader. Oct. 18, 1690. Imprimatur, Z. IsHAM, R. P. D. Henrico, Episc. Lond. o Sacris. 27 REFLECTIONS ON A FRENCH NEW TESTAMENT, Sfc, I WILL not undertake to represent all the faults of this trans lation : it shall suffice to take notice of the most notorious, and greater number of them. I will begin with such as, are notorious in an high degree, and deserve no better a name than falsifications of the text, merely to serve a turn, and support a doctrine that needs confirmation. The Mass, and the Sacrifice of it, sufficientiy. need better proofs than have hitherto been produced. These translators, in the contents before Matth. xxvi. v. 26, tell the reader that Jesus Christ did there institute the Mass. And this institution of the Mass they mention again in the contents' before Mark xiv.* And they expressly mention the Sacrifice of the Mass in the contents beJFore Acts xui. And what we render (v. 2) as they ministered to the Lord, they render by, or comme ils offroyent au Seigneur le Sacrifice de la Messe ; i. e., as they offered unto the Lord the Sacrifice of the Mass, It is certain that our English version of that place follows the Vulgar Latin,f and their Rhemish Testament agrees with it * Yet in the first edition of the du Seigneur ;" and in the latter, " la Louvain French Bible (folio, Lou- CSne est institute." vain, 1550), we read in the former of t " Ministrantibus autem illis." — these places, " Institution de la C^ne Vulgate. 28 REFLECTIONS ON A herein;* and Amelote renders it, lors qu'ils estoyent occupez au service de Dieu ; i.e., when they were employed in the service of God: and the Old Louvain translation thus, eux done servans en leur ministere au Seigneur ; i. e., as they were serving in their ministry to the Lord. But these men make no scruple to forsake the Vulgar itself, when it will not serve their purpose. I have elsewhere showed,f that Acts xiii. 2, contains no proof of the Romish doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass ; and do not intend to enter upon that dispute here ; it is enough to observe, that these translators forsake that Vulgar Latin (which their Church commends and approves), when in the mean time they pretend to give us a version of it. J The doctrine of Purgatory, as it is taught in the Roman church, must be defended; and though the Scripture bave nothing in it to that purpose, yet they will rather add to the text, and falsifie that, than want a colour for their doctrine. And indeed they have done it : where the apostle tells us of * Yet the Rhemists, in their note on preached at St.Martin Outwich, Lon- the passage, admit that if they had so don. See pp. 237, 241, 245, ot a pleased, it was competent to them to volume entitled " Twelve Sermons render the word ministering by sacri- " preached upon several occasions, ficing, OI eyen sayi-ng masse ;" hut," " by R. Kidder, D.D." 8vo., 1697. say they, " we keep our text, as the J It may be well to remark, thai " translators of the Scriptures should the expressions Kimuiyiu, Xunii^yia, "do most religiously." A piece of Xeiraojy/xof.Xs/Tawfyis, occur about six- good counsel, which these " Doctors teen times in the New Testament, and of Louvain" do not appear to have are rendered in the following variety duly valued. Although these trans- of raanner by the authors of thia ver- lators of Rhemes bave not the hardi- sion : hood to introduce the Mass into the Ximv^y'va sacrifier, offrer le sacrifice sacred text itself, yet they omit no de la messe administrer. opportunity of asserting its divine Xsmii{y<(»— oblation, office, minis- institution in the notes j more espe- tere, liturgie, liturgie s^rifica- cially in that upon Heb. c. v., v. 1 1 , ture, service. a note which, for boldness of asser- xunu^ymis — administrateur. tiott and inconclusiveness oJ reason' xuniifyk — leytourge sacrificateur, ing, is particularly pointed- out to the ministre, administrateur, sacrifl-. reader's attention. cateur. t Vis., in a sermon on Acts ii. 42, FRENCH NEW TESTAMENT. 29, him that shall be saved as by fire (1 Cor. iu. 15), they have it, par tefew du Purgatoire; i. e., by the fire of Purgatory ; without any distinction of letters at all ; as if Purgatory had been in the text, as well as fire. And yet the Vulgar Latin (of which this is pretended to be a translation) hath onlyp^r ignem;"' i.e., by fire, asit is in our English; and so. it is in the Testament of Rhemes. Nor is there any mention of Pur gatory in the old Louvain version, in that of Amelote, or Mons. But these men are hardy, and to support their doctrine will add to the text. The Roman Church will have Marriage to be a Sacrament. These translators wiU help her out in the defence of this doctrine; and will rather corrapt the text than renounce that doctrine: and therefore (1 Cor. vn. 10), ^Ae married is ren- ' ^ dered by ceux qui sont conjoints par le sacrement de mariage ; i. e., they that are joined together by the sacrament of marriage. But this is forgery, and a gross addition to the text, not only to the Greek, but to the Vulgar Latinf also j and yet these men pretend to give us a translation of it. Again, they pursue this unexcusable error. Be ye not unequally yoked, says the " "¦ apostie ;% they render it, ne vous jaignez point par le sacrement < de mariage ; i. e., join not yourselves by the sacrament of marriage, 2 Cor. vi. 14. See also this translation of 1 Tim. iv. 3 .§ The doctrine of Merits is not favoured by the HOly Scrip tures ; but these translators have pressed them in that cause. * Yet in the index to it this passage "point a,vec les infideles," Louvain of St., Paul is cited as one from which B. Ed. 1550.—"' Beare not the yoke the existence of a Purgatory may be " with infidels," Rhemists (with a proved. The note of the Rhemist note, ' it is not lawful for Catholikes translators follows the same course. 'to marie with- Heretikes or Infi- •t " Qtii matrimonio juncti sunt.' • dels'). — ^Vulg. § " Condamnans le Sacretjient de J " NoUte jugum ducere cum infi- " Mariage," &c. " delibus." — Vulg. " Ne voHsallyez 30 REFLECTIONS ON A IPhat ye may be counted worthy, says St. Paul (2 Thess. i. 5). To the same sense thriir Vulgair hath it, ut digni hdheamini, that you may be coumted worthy. So the Rhemes Testament :* here is a great agreement. But thoiigh this be the sense of the Greek, thfcir Vulgari their' Rheinist, yet this is too flat for these translators: they wiU have St. Paul bear witness to their doctrine of* Merits ; and Aerefore they render it, Afin que vous meritiez, &b. ; i. e., ta the end jfe may rrwrit the Mngdom of God. Thus, when we are told that Godis well pleased with good works (Heb. xin. 16), they will bave it; ore wifite envers Dieu, that by them a niian merits with 6od.-\- The Roman Church boasts herself as the only CatholiB Church, and piUar of truth. The^ Holy Scriptures (as weU as all ancient creeds) are silent in this 'matter. But these trans lators have by manifest forgery wrested them to testify in behalf of this matter. In the latter times (says St. Paul) some shall depart from the Faith (1 Tim. iv. 1) : de la foy Romaine ; i. e., from the Roman fdith, sa.y the authors of this translation ; and yet the Vulgair, the Rhemes Testament, and that of Mons, agree with our EngUsh : and as this is the sense ofthe Greek, and the Versions, so it is manifest that the addition of Roman is nothing less than forgery and falsification of the text; a crime so great, that I want words to express it by. They have so ordered the inattei", that the Apostle's words which describe to us the gross defection of the Roman Church, and give us warning of their dangerous errors, are made to speak a quite contrary sense. This appears from the words of St. Paul last mentioned ; and wUl further appear from their * The doctrine, however, is itisinu- " paise par telz sacriflces :" the Rhe- ated by the Rhemists in their note ; mists, not undesignedly, nor very + The Vulgate here reads " tali- intelligibly, " for with such hostes " bus enim hostiispromeretur Deus:" " God is promerited." the Old Louvain, " Car Dieu est ap- FRENCH NEW TESTAIVEENT. 31 translatioii of the foUowing wordsi of the Apostle. What we render the Doctrines of Devils, agreeably to both &eir. Vulgar Latin and Testament of: Rhemes, they have rendered; by doc trines enseignees par des diables, i. e. doctrines taught by the Devils ; by which they have endeavoured to divert the thoughts of the reader from that worship of Daemons which so visibly obtains in the Roman Church. And whereas, the Apostle goes on to describe the nature of the apostacy, against which he warns his reader (v. 3), they have qiiite perverted his sense, and most dishonestly foisted in a sense that is favourable to the errors of their Church. --'*^*-i' "-''"' v-^.^'*'-^' '¦''^ ¦;¦¦?..'='"¦ - Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, they translate by, condamnans le Sacrement de mariage^ I'abstinence des alimens, &c. i. e. condemning the Sacrament of marriage, the abstinence of meats, &c. : and thus they turn the Apostie's words upon the reformed ; as if they were th,e apostates which the Apostie points at, because they deny marriage, to be a sacrament, and do not think we are now obliged by that dif ference of meats introduced by the Roman church. In this they deal very insincerely ; and that they do so, wiU appear to any indifferent person whatsoever. Wbat we xendier forbidding to marry, is not only agrpeable to the Greek text, but also to the versions received in the church of Rome, viz. that of the Vulgar,* the old Louvain, | that of Rhemes, and Mons, and that of Amelote. Whereas their version is destitute of all authority whatsoever. For the foUowing words in our version, and com^ manding to abstain from m^ats, I grant indeed that, and com manding, is not in the Greek text, and our interpreters have given warning of it, by printing those words in_^a different cha racter from the words ofthe text ; but yet I wiU maintain that they have, given the true sense of St. Paul's words ; for though *'' Prohibentium nubere," Vulg. +" Defendans soy marier," Louv. 1550. 32 REFLECTIONS ON A the words in the Greek are elliptical, yet our English hath sup plied the ellipsis no otherwise than the authors of the Mons. version have done, who have expressed it by qui obligeront de, &c. ; and the old Louvain gives us the same sense. Besides, the Syriac version justifies our English, and (what is more than all) the following words of the Apostle, which God hath created to be received,' ^c, which words make it plain enOugh, that they are marked out who command us to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received. The church of Rome hath advanced an opinion concerning Sins Mortal and Venial. I enter not into the dispute. It is certain that these translators have endeavoureid to bring in the Scripture, as giving express ground for this distinction ; and though they could not find it there; they have found a place to foist it into. There is a siii not unto death, says St. John, 1 ep. V. ver. 17, which words they translate thus, II y a quelq-iie pech4, qui n'est point mortel, mais veniel, i. e. There is 'a sin that is not mortal, but venial.* ¦ ' '¦ '• I shallproceed to consider some other places; in which these translators so order the matter, that they may beget in tbe reader's minds such an idea of Christianity, as bears conformity to the present doctrines, or usages of the Rornan church. '•'"'' Thus, when the Evangelist mentions the Chief Priests, (Matt. ii. 4., ch. xxvu. I, 6, 62;, ch. xxvui. 11.) they render it by. Princes des Pr4tres, i. e. Princes of the Priests, This carries a show of that eminence and dignity of that order which is now to be seen in the Roman church. But these nien are in this the less blameable, because they do follow the letter of the Viilgar, which they pretend to translate ; for whicb rfeasoni : r : |9!1*;t,' 3 * Tlie readings of this passage are "mort." Ed. Louv. 15150.' "Arid as follows; "et est peccatum ad mor- "there is a sin to death (withthe " tem (w ith ' non,' as a marginal read- "marginal reading, ' not to death,')" " ing,)" Vulg.—" Et est pechfi a Rhemists. FRENCH NEW TESTAMENT. 33 the authors of the Mons version have the same rendering. But then these latter explain these Princes of the Priests i by the heads pfthe twenty-four sacerdotal families."' They render the word repent (Matt. ni. 2., ch. iv. 17. Luke X. 13., Sec.) hy faites penitence, i. e. do penance. Where they give the reader an occasion of a very imperfect idea of true repentance ; it being possible that men may do penance, (ac cording to the import of that phrase in the Roman church,) and not repent, f 'Tis said ofthe Parents of Jesus, that they went to Jerusalem. (Luke ii. 41.) These translators tell that they went eft Pelerinage, i. e. in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Thus, without just ground, they would insinuate that they did what is now the practice in the Roman Church. But there is nothing in the .Greek or Vulgar that will justifie this translation ; and several other versions, used in the Church of Rome, import no more but that they went to Jerusalem, and the text tells us the occasion of their going ; and yet these translators are so fond of insinuating the practice of pilgrimages, that they do it without any colour. If St Paul mention a brother chosen to travel with us, (2 Cor. viii. 19.), these translators tum those words by compagnon de notre Pelerinage, i. e. companion of our Pilgrimage ; and the strangers in St. John (Ep. in. v. 5.) are by these translators turned les Pelerins, i. e. Pilgrims, Luke iv. 8. Him only shalt thou serve. Thus our English renders that place, agreeably to the Vulgar, iHi soli servies. And verbatim, as the Rhemes Testament hath it. These translators of Louvain have to the same sense translated these words in a parallel place, (Matt. iv. 10,) a luy seul tu serviras. But here these men change their style, and turn the same words thus : * The Rhemists, however, read in + We cannot forget the doctrine of the first, of Jhese three passages, a«riU'o«, with its train of melancholy " highe pteestes;" and in the two consequences, as aUowed and taught last, "chiefe preestes." in the Church of Rome. D 34 REFLECTIONS, ON A sereiras de latrie,d, l-iiy seul, i. e. thoy.,. shalt serve hi-rfi only with liat'r^. Thist is to keep up the distinction between the service of Doulia and Latria, and preserve .the shifte they are put to in the controversy we have with theOi concerning: their wor shipping of creatures. The reader ;i!viU, easily discern their insincerity, and inconsistency with themselves, as vyell, as the, danger the unwary reader will be exposed to, by such a ver-i sion. The words in St. Matthew, and in Sti Lukq, are exactly, the same both in the Greek and the Vulgar, the plates paraUel,) and .the subject matter the spme, and there is no shadow of reason fbr a different version. Besides, the old Louvain (wjiidi this version ought to have followed) turns both places by the very same words, and agreeably to our English E^nd the Vui-, gar,.d luy sevitu serisira,s,,i. e. kdmonly shalt th^ serve. The versions of Amelote and that of Mons turn both places alike, and to the same sense which we dp- These Jnen !bake a liberty which, their other iateipretets wouldnot take, ai)d. .which tjiey themselves in St. Matthew did not. Romans XV. 16. Jl&iisfer : The Vulgar renders it so too. And so does the Testament of Hhemes^ the old Louvain, Ame lote, and Mons. . But these translators, Whp pretend to follow the Latin, yet keep the Greek word in their text, iii*. leyimirge; but then they add even tothe text, without differ ence of character, C'est a dire, sacrificateur, i.e. that is do say,. asacrificer*. It is easy to discern the intention of this ; but to reconcile this with common honesty is past my comprehen sion. 1 Cor. X. 14. Flee from idolatry. The Tefetamfint of Jf ores * The entire veise runs til us: — . Compare Heterewsjriii. 2,6, where the " D'estre Leytourge, c'est a dire Minislry is rendered by Liturgie sa- " Sacrificateur, de Jesus-Christ entre crificatUre ; and minister by Litourge " les Geptils, en vacquant au sacrifice sacrificateur. In several passages of " de I'Evangile de Dieu, a de que this Epistle, our Saviour is den'oniii- " roblation des Gentils soit agreable riMed vn Prince ties sacrificateurs, " estant sanctifie par le S. Esprit." Sfc. ' . ' FRENCH NEW TESTAMENT. 35 turns the wOrds tp the same sense^ Fuyez T idolatrie. This agrees exactly with the Greek. The old Louvain translation, and that of Amelote, agree also with our version. But these Loavain Divines turn the words thus : Fuyez I'adoratian des Idoles,i. e. Flee fromthe adoration of Idols. And yet it is evident that a man may be giuilty of Idolatryi though he wor ship no Idol, These translators are not to be excused in this rendering. For whatever pretence they may seem to have from the Vulgar, it is certaim that in other places where they have equal pretence froin the Vulgar, yet they do in those places rraider as our English doth ; as may be seen by com paring their rendering. Gal. v. 20*, and 1 Cor. vi; lOf , with the Vulgar and our English. ' 1 Cor. xi. S. As I delivered them. This translation is so unexceptiohable, that it is >what iti or that do^ so much as insinuate unwriiten traditions, much less favour the doctrine of the Roumn Church about this matter. Thus #).