PERVERSIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

323

word by which the Gospel hath been preached unto you."

Thus while your clergy have been abusing our Bible as a false translation, and as a Gospel of the devil, they have actually been drawing on its pages for the correction of their own, and in many cases quoting its very words. But they must retouch their Bible again and again, for still many errors remain.

The words μετανοεω (repent) μετανοια (repentance) occur at least fifty-five times in the New Testament, in seven of which they are translated as in the Protestant version, while in two places the translation is omitted altogether, not being found in the Vulgate. In forty-six places they render them" do penance" and "penance;" but (the remark is important) in seven places* they follow the Protestant version, and depart from their principle because it would make nonsense of the passages. A clear proof that in forty-six instances they have perverted God's word to favour their doctrine of penance.

A similar perversion of Scripture is observable in their transiation of πρεσβυτερος (an elder) which occurs at least sixty-nine times in the

Mark i. 15; Luke xvii. 4; Acts iii. 19; v. 31; 2 Tim. ii. 25; Heb. xii. 17; Apoc. ii. 21,

New Testament, in six only of which it is rendered "Priest," to suit the purposes of the clergy.

"Although the word μvornolov occurs in at least twenty-four places, we find that in one passage only (Eph. v. 32.) it is translated sacrament, in which place it was considered indispensable to support the doctrine of marriage being a sacrament; and the same may be observed respecting the expression τι εμοι και σοι, which occurs six times in the New Testament, and about four times in the Old Testament, and which, in every instance, is rendered, agreeably to the authorised version, "what have I to do with thee," with the solitary exception of John ii. 4, where it would affect the unscriptural honour given to the Virgin Mary."*

Your church has no authorised commentary on the Bible.

A vast deal has been said about notes and comments, as necessary to prevent the Bible from doing mischief; and a stranger might suppose, from all this noise, that the Church of Rome, as the living, speaking, sovereign tribunal to which we are to look for an authoritative and

* See an excellent little work, entitled "A brief History of the Versions of the Bible." Dublin: Curry & Co.

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

325

infallible exposition of God's Word, had furnished such an exposition for the guidance of her people. How greatly would he be surprised to find that she has never done any thing of the kind. There are notes, indeed; but they vary in number and signification, and sometimes ascribe several different meanings to the same passage. And, strange as it may seem, they possess no authority whatever. The late Right Rev. Dr. Doyle was asked by a Committee of the House of Lords, "You consider yourselves pledged to all matters contained in those notes ?" "No: not by any means. On the contrary, there were notes affixed, I believe, to the Rhemish Testament, which were most objectionable. The notes carry, in our edition of the Bible, no weight, for we do not know the writers of many

of them!"

So, my Friend, you have no authentic English Bible, no version bearing the imprimatur of the Church, that is, the Pope in Council, which alone is binding on the faithful. Neither has her infallibility been able to furnish you with an authorised commentary on Scripture. You may purchase various editions of the Bible, all differing from one another, and having notes affixed which " carry no weight." You are told by the Council of Trent, that you must interpret Scrip

T

ture according to the "unanimous consent of the Fathers." What a boon! Pray, who are the Fathers? Can you repeat their names? How many of them are there? Have you read their works? They wrote in Greek and Latin; their works are most voluminous, and it would consume a man's life to read even a few of them. Now, how is it possible for you to ascertain whether they are unanimous on any single passage of the Word of God? What a hopeless task! you might as well sit down to interpret the Egyptian hieroglyphics. The fountain of life is streaming before your eyes, inviting your thirsty spirit to drink.

But the Council of Trent tells you you must not taste it till you get the divining cup which all the Fathers used-an article that never existed! What a mockery, to talk to the laity about the unanimous consent of the Fathers. What do they know about the Fathers? Just as much as they do about the priests of China. Thus neither Pope nor Fathers, nor Prelates nor Priests, have been able to put life into the "dead letter" of Scripture. What will you do? Do as I have done. Abandon guides that point in so many different directions, which, after all their pretensions and their boasting, serve only to distract and bewilder, or to lead you on to deeper darkness. Renounce human authority,

THE APOCRYPHA.

327

and come back to common-sense and Scripture. The Word of God is plain. It is a well-spring of life, which clearly reflects the features of all that approach it, though it be unfathomable by the line of human wisdom. "As the Word of God contains mysteries capable of exercising the most discerning minds, so it includes truths fit to nourish the most simple and ignorant. It carries in its surface wherewithal to nourish its children, and keeps in its recesses that which may wrap up in admiration the most exalted minds; being like a river, broad and deep, in which a lamb may walk or an elephant can swim." (St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, Letter to Leo, Archbishop of Seville.)

I might fill a long letter with similar extracts from the Fathers. Indeed, it is very questionable whether they were more unanimous on any single subject than they were on the right and duty of the laity to study the Word of God for themselves, and the unspeakable advantages that were thence to be derived.

But what is Scripture? All the sacred books received by Protestants are received also by your church. About these, therefore, there need be no dispute. But the Apocrypha, which forms part of your Bible, we reject on the following grounds: It was never extant in He->