Here he had an opportunity of seeing some of the best documents respecting the History of England, from which he did not neglect to make numerous and useful quotations.-Controversy again became his favourite study, which was soon interrupted be accepting a commission in the pope's guards, in which he remained for five or six years, during which time he served in the maritime war against the Turks. His military career ended with the war, and he returned to England, at the pressing solicitations of his wife and relations, in the 34th year of his age. On his arrival, he was patronized and received on terms of friendship by lords Derwentwater and Lumney, col. Thomas Radcliff, Mr. Thornton, and others, to whom he was recommended by his learning, his wit, and a suavity of manners peculiarly his own. About this period he set about writing his Errata to the Protestant Bible, which was published in the year 1688. His Monomachia, or Duel with Dr. Tillotson, appeared next, but anonymously; which made Dr. Tillotson observe, that it must have been written by some able jesuit, not imagining that so much force of argument and theological research, could be possessed by a layman. His Tree of Life, an ingenious device, presenting at one view an epitome of church history, according to the most exact chronology; his Controversy of Ordinations truly stated; his Conference with Mr. Richlew, Minister of Hexham; his Notes on the 39 Articles and the Book of Homilies, all followed one another in rapid succession, and soon after appeared his well known work, the Reformation, a burlesque poem, in which he imitates Butler with considerable success. The notes to this poem, collected from the most approved historians, as Stow, Camden, Speed, Baker, Burnet, Heylin, Clarendon, &c. form a complete History of Ecclesiastical Affairs in England, from Henry the Eighth's time to the end of Oates's plot. This was the last publication that came from the pen of Mr. Ward, though he afterwards compiled and wrote the History of England. It is much to be regretted, that a coincidence of untoward circumstances, and, particularly, his being obliged to fly the country and go over to France, prevented this work from being ever given to the world: the documents for it were collected by him with great diligence, and he himself esteemed it his best production. The manuscript is now in possession of the editor, and may, perhaps, in due time, be offered to the public. He died in the 56th year of his age, anno 1708, and was buried at St. Germain's, in France, where his obsequies were performed with a solemnity becoming so pious and learned a man. The enemies of Mr. Ward, who, on account of his religious opinions, and his boldness in defending them, were many, seem to have conspired against his character, and have maliciously confounded him with another of the same name, a man of dissolute morals, and no education, but of a prolific turn in producing works of low ribaldry and shameful obscenity. The productions of this man, whose name was Edward, and who all his life kept a public-house in Moorfields, have been attributed to our author by Jacob, Oldyss, and even the writers of the Biographical Dictionary, published in London, in 1798. The London Spy, a book entitled Apollo's Maggot, a dramatic piece called the Humours of a Coffee-House, Don Quixote, turned into Hudibrastic verse, are among the number of those publications, which have been always, though wrongfully, imputed to the writer of the Reformation. There is, moreover, a great difference as to the time of their death, for Edward Ward lived to the year 1731, and we find a poetical will of his printed in Appleby's Journal in the September of that year.* Mr. Ward was a man of a comprehensive and versatile genius, that embraced and cultivated studies of an almost opposite nature. He possessed a deep fund of ancient and modern learning. He knew the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, and was well skilled in French and Italian. He was one of the best controvertists of his time, as Tillotson and Burnet both acknowledged. He loved poetry, particularly of the burlesque kind, to which a lively eccentric fancy strongly inclined him. He often indulged in it for amusement; and perhaps he chose that ludicrous channel for conveying the history of the Reformation to the public, because he saw it most adapted to the taste of the times, and most agreeable to common conception. His Errata to the Protestant Bible, though little known, for want of publication in a country to which it was obnoxious, is a work of such learned merit, such nice arrangement, and such clear disquisition in all the controverted points of religion and Scripture, that it will convey Mr. Ward's name to the latest posterity as a man of genius, judgment and erudition. His disposition was generous and mild, though not incapable of being provoked to resentment: he even fought two duels in his youth, from which his religion would certainly have restrained him, if he had courage enough to be a coward. When in the army, he was the model of a Christian soldier; he joined piety to bravery; he fought and prayed; and his intervals of leisure from duty, were filled up by reading. He was, in fine, a theologian, a poet, and a soldier; and passed his life with fame and honour to himself. * See the Perth edition of the Encyclopædia, article Ward, where they are properly discriminated. AMONG the many and irreconcilable differences between Roman catholics and the sectaries of our days, those about the Holy Scriptures claim not the least place on the stage of controversy: As, first, whether the Bible is the sole and only rule of faith? Secondly, whether all things necessary to salvation are contained in the Bible? Or, whether we are bound to believe some things, as absolutely necessary to salvation, which are either not clear in Scripture, or not evidently deduced out of Scripture?— Thirdly, whether every individual person, of sound judgment, ought to follow his own private interpretation of the Scripture? If so, why one party or profession should condemn, persecute, and penal-law another, for being of that persuasion he finds most agreeable to the Scripture, as expounded according to his own private spirit? If not, to what interpreter ought they to submit themselves, and on whom may they safely and securely depend, touching the exposition and true sense and meaning of the same?Fourthly, whence have we the Scripture? That is, who handed it down to us from the apostles who wrote it? And by what authority we receive it for the word of God? And, whether we ought not to receive the sense and true meaning of the Scripture, upon the same authority we receive the letter? For if protestants think, the letter was safe in the custody of the Roman catholic church, from which they received it, how can they suspect the purity of that sense, which was kept and delivered to them by the same church and authority? With several other such like queries, frequently proposed by catholics; and never yet, nor ever likely to be, solidly answered by any sectaries whatever. It is not the design of this following treatise to enter into these disputes; but only to show thee, Christian reader, that those translations of the Bible, which the English protestant clergy have made and presented to the people for their only rule of faith, are in many places not only partial, but false, and disfigured with several corruptions, abuses, and falsifications, in derogation to the most material points of catholic doctrine, and in favour and advantage of their own erroneous opinions: for, As it has been the custom of heretics in all ages to pretend to Scripture alone for their rule, and to reject the authority of God's holy church; so has it also ever been their practise to falsify, corrupt, and abuse the same in divers manners. 1. One way is, to deny whole books thereof, or parts of books, when they are evidently against them: So did, for example, Ebion all St. Paul's Epistles; Manicheus the Acts of the Apostles; Luther likewise denied three of the four Gospels, saying, that St. John's is the only true Gospel; and so do our English protestants those books which they call Apocrypha. 2. Another way is, to call in question at the least, and make some doubt of the authority of certain books of holy Scriptures, thereby to diminish their credit: So did Manicheus affirm, that the whole New Testament was not written by the apostles, and particularly St. Matthew's Gospel: So does Luther discredit the epistle of St. James: so did Marcion and the Arians deny the epistle to the Hebrews to be St. Paul's; in which they were followed by our first English protestant translators of the Bible, who presumed to strike St. Paul's name out of the very title of the said epistle.* 3. Another way is, to expound the Scripture according to their own private spirit, and to reject the approved sense of the ancient holy fathers, and catholic church: So do all heretics, who seem to ground their errors upon the Scriptures; especially those, who will have Scripture, as by themselves expounded, for their only rule of faith. 4. Another way is, to alter the very original text of the holy Scriptures, by adding, diminishing, and changing it here or there for their purpose: So did the Arians, Nestorians, &c. and also Marcion; who is therefore called Mus Ponticus, from his gnawing, as it were, certain places with his corruptions; and for the same reason, may Beza not improperly he called the Mouse of Geneva. 5. Another way, not unlike this, is, to make corrupt and false translations of the Scriptures for the maintenance of their errors: So did the Arians and Pelagians of old, and so have the pretended reformers of our days done, which I intend to make the subject of this following treatise. * See Bibles, 1579, 1580. Yet, before I proceed any further, let me assure my reader, that this work is not un. dertaken with any design of lessening the credit or authority of the holy Bible, as perhaps some may be ready to surmise: For indeed, it is a common exclamation among our adversaries, especially such of them as one would think should have a greater respect for truth, that catholics make light of the written word of God: that they undervalue and contemn the sacred Scriptures: that they endeavour to lessen the credit and authority of the holy Bible. Thus possessing the poor deluded people with an ill opinion of catholics, as if they rejected, and trod under feet, the written word: whereas it is evident to all, who know them, that none can have a greater respect and veneration for the holy Scripture, than catholics have, receiving, reverencing, and honouring the same, as the very pure and true word of God; neither rejecting, nor so much as doubting of the least tittle in the Bible, from the beginning of Genesis, to the end of the Revelations; several devout catholics having that profound veneration for it, that they always read it kneeling on their knees with the greatest humility and reverence imaginable, not enduring to see it profaned in any kind; nor so much as to see the least torn leaf of a Bible put to any manner of unseemly use. Those who, besides all this, consider with what very indifferent behaviour the Scripture is ordinarily handled among protestants, will not, I am confident, say, that catholics have a less regard for it, than protestants; but, on the contrary, a far greater. Again, dear reader, if thou findest in any part of this treatise, that the nature of the subject has extorted from me such expressions, as may perhaps seem either spoken with too much heat, or not altogether so soft as might be wished for; yet, let me desire thee, not to look upon them as the dictates of passion, but rather as the just resentments of a zealous mind, moved with the incentive of seeing God's sacred word adulterated and corrupted by ill-designing men, on purpose to delude and deceive the ignorant and unwary reader. The holy Scriptures were written by the prophets, apostles, and evangelists; the Old Testament in Hebrew, except only some few parts in Chaldee and Syriac; the greatest part of the New Testament was writtten in Greek, St. Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew, and St. Mark's in Latin. We have not at this day the original writings of these prophets and apostles, nor of the seventy interpreters who translated the Old Testament into Greek, about 300 years before the coming of Christ; we have only copies; for the truth and exactness whereof, we must rely upon the testimony and tradition of the church, which in so important a point God would never permit to err: So that we have not the least doubt, but the copy, authorized and approved of by the church, is sufficiently authentic. For what avails it for a Christian to believe, that Scripture is the word of God, if he be uncertain which copy and translation is true? Yet, notwithstanding the necessity of admitting some true authentic copy, protestants pretend, that there is none authentic in the world, as may be seen in the preface to the Tigurine edition of the Bible, and in all their books of controversy; seeing therein they condemn the council of Trent, for declaring that the old translation is authentic, and yet themselves name no other for such. And, therefore, though the Lutherans fancy Luther's translation; the Calvinists that of Geneva; the Zuinglians that of Zuinglius; the English, sometimes one, and sometimes another: Yet, because they do not hold any one to be authentic, it follows, from their exceptions against the infallibility of the Roman catholic church in declaring or decreeing a true and authentic copy of Scripture, and their confession of the uncertainty of their own translations, that they have no certainty of Scripture at all, nor even of faith, which they ground upon Scripture alone. That the Vulgate of the Latin is the most true and authentic copy, has been the judg ment of God's church for above those 1300 years; during which time, the church has always used it; and therefore it is, by the sacred council of Trent, declared authentic and canonical in every part and book thereof. Most of the Old Testament, as it is in the said Latin Vulgate, was translatedt out of Hebrew by St. Hierom; and the New Testament had been before his time translated out of Greek, but was by him‡ reviewed; and such faults as had crept in by the negligence of the transcribers, were corrected by him by the appointment of Pope Damas us. "You constrain me," says he, "to make a new work of an old, that I, after so many copies of the Scriptures dispersed through the world, should sit as a certain judge, which of them agree with the true Greek. I have restored the New Testament to the truth of the Greek, and have translated the old according to the Hebrew. Truly, I will affirm it confidently, and will produce many witnesses of this work, that I have changed nothing from the truth of the Hebrew," &c.§ Con. Trident. Sess. 4. † S. Hierom. in lib. de viris Illustr. extremo, & in Præfat. librorum quos Latinos fecit. Hier. Ep. 89. ad Aug. quæst. 11. inter Ep. Aug. § See his preface before the New Testament, dedicated to pope Damasus, and his Catalogue in fine. And for sufficient testimony of the sincerity of the translator, and commendations of his translation, read these words of the great doctor St. Augustine: "There was not wanting," says he "in these our days, Hierom the priest, a man most learned and skilful in all the three tongues; who not from the Greek, but from the Hebrew, translated the same Scriptures into Latin, whose learned labour the Jews yet confess to be true."+ Yea, the truth and purity of this translation is such, that even the bitterest of protestants themselves are forced to confess it to be the best, and to prefer it before all others, as also to acknowledge the learning, piety, and sincerity of the translator of it; which Mr. Whitaker, notwithstanding his railing in another place, does in these words: "St. Hierom, I reverence; Damasus, I commend; and the work I confess to be godly and profitable to the church." Dr. Dove says thus of it: "We grant it fit, 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, to prefer that (the Vulgate) before all other Latin books,"§ And for the antiquity of it, Dr. Covel tells us, "that it was used in the church 1300 years ago:" not doubting but to prefer that translation before others. Dr. Humphrey frees St. Hierom, both from malice and ignorance in translating, in these words: "The old interpreter was much addicted to the propriety of the words, and indeed with too much anxiety, which I attribute to religion, not to ignorance."¶ In regard of which integrity and learning, Molinous signifies his good esteem thereof, saying,** "I cannot easily forsake the vulgar and accustomed reading, which also I am accustomed earnestly to defend :" yea,tt "I prefer the vulgar edition, before Erasmus's, Bucer's, Bullinger's, Brentius's, the Tigurine translation; yea, before John Calvin's, and all others." How honourably he speaks of it! And yet, Conradus Pellican, a man commended by Bucer, Zuinglius, Melancthon, and all the famous protestants about Basil, Tigure, Berne, &c. gives it a far higher commendation, in these words: "I find the vulgar edition of the Psalter to agree for the sense, with such dexterity, learning, and fidelity of the Hebrew, that I doubt not, but the Greek and Latin interpreter was a man most learned, most godly, and of a prophetical spirit.” Which certainly are the best properties of a good translator. In fine, even Beza himself, one of the greatest of our adversaries, affords this honourable testimony of our vulgar translation: "I confess," says he, "that the old interpreter seems to have interpreted the holy books with wonderful sincerity and religion. The vulgar edition I do, for the most part, embrace and prefer before all others."§§ You see, how highly our Vulgate in Latin is commended by these learned protestants: see likewise, how it has been esteemed by the ancient||| fathers: yet notwithstanding all this is not sufficient to move protestants to accept or acquiesce in it; and, doubtless the very reason is, because they would have as much liberty to reject the true letter, as the true sense of Scriptures, their new doctrines being condemned by both. For had they allowed any one translation to have been authentic, they certainly could never have had the impudence so wickedly to have corrupted it, by adding, omitting, and changing, which they could never have pretended the least excuse for, in any copy by themselves held for true and authentic. Obj. But however, their greatest objection against the Vulgate Latin is, that we ought rather to have recourse to the original languages, the fountains of the Hebrew and Greek, in which the Scriptures were written by the prophets and apostles, who could not err; than to stand to the Latin translations, made by divers interpreters, who might err. Answ. When it is certain, that the originals or fountains are pure, and not troubled or corrupt, they are to be preferred before translations: but it is most certain, that they are corrupted in divers places, as protestants themselves are forced to acknowledge, and as it appears by their own translations. For example, Psal. 22. ver. 16. they translate, "they pierced my hands and my feet:" whereas, according to the Hebrew that now is, it must be read, "As a lion, my hands, and my feet;" which no doubt, is not only nonsense, but an intolerable corruption of the later Jews against the passion of our Saviour, of which the old authentic Hebrew was a most remarkable prophecy. Again, according to the Hebrew, it is read,¶¶ Achaz, king of Israel; which being false, they in † St. Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. 18. c. 43. & Ep. 80. ad Hierom c. 3. & lib. 2. Doct. Christi, c. 15. Whitaker in his answer to Reynolds, page 241. § Dove, Persuasion to Recusants, p. 16. || See Dr. Covel's Answer to Burges, page 91, 94. Dr. Hum de Ratione Interp. lib. 1. page 74. ** Molin in Nov. Test. Part. 30. Et in Luc. 17. # Pellican in Præfat. in Psalter. ann. 1584. §§ Beza in Annot. in Luc. 1. 1. Et in Præfat, Nov. Test. S. Hierom. & St. Aug. supr. St. Greg. lib. 70. Mor. c. 23. Isidor. lib. 6. Etym. c. 5.7. & de Divin Offic. lib. 1. cap. 12. S. Beda in Martyrol. Cassiod. 21. Inst. &c. 11 2 Chron. 28. ver. 19. some of their first translations read, Achaz, king of Juda, according to the truth, and as it is in the Greek and Vulgate Latin. Yet their Bible of 1579, as also their last translation, had rather follow the falsehood of the Hebrew against their own knowledge, than to be thought beholden to the Greek and Latin in so light a matter. Likewise, where the Hebrew says, Zedecias, Joachin's brother, they are forced to translate Zedecias his father's brother, as indeed the truth is according to the Greek. So likewise in another place, where the Hebrew is, "He begat Azuba his wife and Jerioth;" which they not easily knowing what to make of, translate in some of their Bibles, “He begat Azuba of his wife Jerioth ;" and in others," He begat Jerioth of his wife Azuba." But without multiplying examples, it is sufficiently known to protestants, and by them acknowledged, how intolerably the Hebrew fountains and originals are by the Jews corrupted: amongst others, Dr. Humphrey says, "The Jewish superstition, how many places it has corrupted, the reader may easily find out and judge." And in another place; "I look not," says he, "that men should too much follow the rabbins, as many do; for those places, which promise and declare Christ the true Messias, are most filthily depraved by them.+" "The old interpreter," says another protestant, "seems to have read one way, whereas the Jews now read another; which I say, because I would not have men think this to have proceeded from the ignorance or slothfulness of the old interpreter: rather we have cause to find fault for want of diligence in the antiquaries, and faith in the Jews; who, both before Christ's coming and since, seem to be less careful of the Psalms, than of their Talmudical Songs."§ I would gladly know of our protestant translators of the Bible, what reason they have to think the Hebrew fountain they boast of so pure and uncorrupt, seeing not only letters and syllables have been mistaken, texts depraved, but even whole books of the prophets utterly lost and perished? How many books of the ancient prophets, sometime extant, are not now to be found? We read in the Old Testament, of a Liber Bellorum Domini, "The Book of the Wars of our Lord; the Book of the Just men, protestants call it the Book of Jasher. The Book of Jehu the Son of Hanani; the Books of Semeias the Prophet, and of Addo the Seer: and Samuel wrote in a book the law of the kingdom, how kings ought to rule, and laid it up before our Lord: and the works of Solomon were written in the book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the books of Ahias the Shilonite, and in the vision of Addo the Seer." With several others, which are all quite perished; yea, and perished in such a time, when the Jews were "the peculiar people of God," and when, of all nations, "they were to God a holy nation, a kingly priesthood:" and, now, when they are no national people, have no government, no king, no priest, but are vagabonds upon the earth, and scattered among all people; may we reasonably think their divine and ecclesiastical books to have been so warily and carefully kept, that all and every part is safe, pure, and incorrupt? that every parcel is sound, no points, tittles, or letters lost, or misplaced, but all sincere, perfect, and absolute? How easy is it, in Hebrew letters, to mistake sometimes one for another, and so to alter the whole sense? As for example, this very letter vau for jod,¶ has certainly made disagreement in some places; as where the Septuagint read, τὸ κράτα με πρὸς σέ φυγαξω, Fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam, "My strength I will keep to thee;" which reading St. Hierom also followed: it is now in the Hebrew y fortitudinem ejus, "His strength I will keep to thee."** Which corruptions our last protestant translators follow, reading, "Because of his strength will I wait upon thee;" and to make sense of it, they add the words "because of," and change the words " keep to" into "wait upon," to the great perverting of the sense and sentence. A like error is that in Gen. 3. (if it be an error, as many think it is none) Ipsa conteret caput tuum, for Ipse or Ipsum, about which protestants keep such a clamour.tt. As the Hebrew has been by the Jews abused and falsified against our blessed Saviour Christ Jesus, especially in such places as were manifest prophecies of his death and passion so likewise has the Greek fountain been corrupted by the eastern heretics, against divers points of Christian doctrine; insomuch that protestant themselves, who pretend so great veneration for it, dare not follow it in many places; but are forced to fly to our Vulgate Latin, as is observed in the preface to the Rhemish Testament; where also you may find sufficient reasons, why our catholic Bible is translated into English rather from the Vulgate Latin, than from the Greek. To pass by several examples of corruptions in the Greek copy, which might be produced, I will only, amongst many, take notice of these two following rash and inconsiderate additions: first, Joh. 8. ver. 59. after these words, exivit è templo, " Went out 4 Kings, 24. ver. 17, 19. † Humph. 1. 1. de Rat. interp. pag. 178. Lib 2. p. 219. § Conrad. Pell. Tom. 4. in Psal. 85. v. 9. || Numb. 21. v. 14. Josh. 10. v. 13. 2 Kings, 1. v. 18. 2 Paral. 20. ver. 34. 12. ver. 15. 1 King. 10. v. 25. 2 Paral. 9. ver. 29. ** Psal. 58. v. 10. in Prot. Bible, it is Psal. 59. ver. 9. †† Gen. 3. v. 15. הוא היא |