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, asses, anti-christs, deceivers, and of an ass-like understanding." (See Zuing. tom. 2, ad Luth. Lib. de Sacr. fol. 338.)

Of the translation set forth by Œcolampadius, 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 Œcolampadius 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 Molinæus 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 Œcolampadius and Castilio's translation, and Castilio against Beza's translation, and Molinæus 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 hell, 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 Advertisement 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 assertion. In November, 1822, the Irish Protestant Society passed 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:

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."