Battle of the Bibles

[Berean]

Hi to all

This book will surely help several to better discern the conflict that there is with the different versions of Bibles.

My wish is everyone can make the most of this book.

This book is from H.H. Meyers

 

 

BATTLE OF THE BIBLES
H. H. MEYERS
Table of Contents
By way of introduction
Section One – The Protestant Reformation
1. Pre-Reformation Years
2. Colet and Erasmus
3. Tyndale the Brave
4. Protestantism’s Early Struggle to Survive
5. The Reformation Prospers
6. The Council of Trent
7. The Spanish Contender
8. Battle of the Bibles
9. Invasion Preparations
10. The Armada Sails
11. King James the Protestant
Section Two – “My Words Shall Not Pass Away”
12. Seeds of Apostasy
13. Early Christian Missionaries
14. Dividers of the Faith

15. Keepers of the Faith
Section Three – War on the King James Bible
16. Higher Criticism – Enemy of the Reformation
17. Kindly Light or Searing Flame?
18. The Schemers
19. The Fraud Exposed
20. The Mercersburg Movement
21. The Bible Societies
22. A Twentieth-Century Burgon
23. The Romanising of the Bible Societies
24. Interconfessional Bibles and Ecumenism
Section Four – The Ecumenical Trap
25. Unheeded Warnings
26. Rome’s Little Helper
27. Fruits of Anti Christ
28. Conclusion
General Index
Chronological Index
Trinitarian Bible Society
Inquisitive Christians
By way of introduction
For well over three centuries, when English-speaking people spoke of the Bible, it was accepted that
they were referring to the Authorised of King James I. Its appearance in 1611 was the culmination of a
century of diligent toil on the part of the Reformers who were prepared to place their lives at risk in
order that the common people might have access to the Word of God. In the process, there emerged
the Protestant Reformation which quickly dispelled the spiritual and intellectual gloom of the Dark
Ages.
By the mid-twentieth century, while adjusting to the changing values of the newly arrived atomic era,
English-speaking Protestants were subjected to a strange phenomenon. Gradually, they were
becoming accustomed to their pastors referring to curious renditions of Bible texts. At first, the version
from which they were reading was always identified and used only as an aid to amplifying the sense of
their beloved King James Bible.
After a while, some of the more daring preachers were beginning to show a decided preference for
modern versions by using them in place of the King James Version. Young people were told that the

archaic language of their old Bible was beyond their comprehension. It was suggested to their parents
that Bibles needed to be constantly tuned to modern-day relevance.
Soon, many preachers ceased to identify the version from which they read. The Bible of the
Reformation had been replaced! But replaced with what?
With a plethora of modern Bibles now being offered by numerous Bible houses, many sincere
Christians are in a quandary as to which Bible best projects God’s will for man. Then, after having
selected a new Bible, it is not long before they are told that a better one has arrived. Confusion, and
lack of confidence in changing and sometimes conflicting Scriptures, is the inevitable result.
The purpose of this book is to simply demonstrate that, fundamentally and historically, there are only
two differing Bibles and that their New Testaments issue from two basic streams of manuscripts. One,
reflecting God’s will for man, has been guarded and handed down to us by the Apostolic Churches; the
other, has been polluted by a super power which has used its corrupt Bibles in a relentless effort to
achieve global domination through total spiritual and political control.
When this fact is grasped, the reader will have no difficulty discerning on which side a particular
version stands in relation to this long-running Battle of the Bibles.
In pursuit of this goal the author has divided this work into four sections. Each deals with a particular
time period and each is a topic largely complete in itself.
It is the author’s fervent wish that the reader’s faith in God’s revelation of His will for man will be
established or confirmed, and that any doubts or reservations as to which version most faithfully
transmits that revelation will be irreversibly dispelled.
H. H. Meyers November 1993.

Section One
Chapters One to Eleven
The Protestant Reformation
“In the sixteenth century, the Reformation, presenting an open Bible to the people, had sought
admission to all the countries of Europe. Some nations welcomed it with gladness, as a messenger of
Heaven. In other lands the papacy succeeded to a great extent in preventing its entrance”.
“The war against the Bible, carried forward for so many centuries in France, culminated in the scenes
of the Revolution. That terrible out breaking was but the legitimate result of Rome’s suppression of the
Scriptures. It represented the most striking illustration which the world has ever witnessed of the
working out of papal policy” (E.G. White, “The Great Controversy”, p 265).
Chapter One
Pre-Reformation Years
When the people of England went to church in the early sixteenth century, they did so with a sense of
obligation tinged with awe and even fear, for attendance at Mass in the parish church was seen as a
ritual essential to the preservation of body and soul.

In those days their priests were seldom heard reading from the Bible; it was written in Latin. What they
did hear and understand were the prayers for an Italian prince of the Medici nobility who was known
to them as Pope Clement. The pope was virtually the indisputable ruler of Europe in temporal as well
as spiritual matters. Believing him to be a successor of the apostle Peter, and, therefore custodian of
the heavenly keys, the English were not only inclined to render him spiritual allegiance, but were
bound by ecclesiastical and civil laws to pay taxes for his support.
One of the annual taxes levied on every household was cunningly designed to reinforce the dogma of
apostolic succession. It was called, “Peter’s Pence”. When first introduced it was a mere “penny per
hearth”, but like other schemes for collecting tax, it soon demonstrated its propensity to increase as
well as to proliferate.
The pope’s tax agents were considered as set apart and above the mundane affairs of life. They were
not subject to civil laws, but if the occasion demanded it, they were tried before an ecclesiastical court.
They carried impressive titles such as Archbishop, Archdeacon and Parish Priest.
To assist the pope’s men in their holy endeavours, lay men and women were appointed as church
wardens. Besides being responsible for the upkeep and care of the church and its surrounds, they were
expected to keep Peter’s Pennies rolling in. They also had to collect other of the numerous taxes
among which were levies consisting of tithes, mortuary dues and probate fees. (See D.H. Pill, “The
English Reformation”, pp 22, 25)
And then there were the Mendicant Friars who literally swarmed over the countryside like a plague,
begging and sometimes demanding food, lodging and money.
For the pious faithful, the church had much to offer, but it was nearly all collectable in a future life. If
this was insufficient inducement for the faithless, there was the ever present spectre of an
intermediate stay in purgatory and even everlasting hellfire. But for those who openly questioned the
credibility of the system, their passage to hell was given a decided impetus with the designation of the
term, “heretic”. In the year 1519, seven “heretics” from Coventry and Birmingham were burned and
consigned to hell.
It seems that these unfortunate victims of ecclesiastical judgment imbibed Lollard-like beliefs. The
Lollards had arrived at “wicked” and “dangerous” conclusions as a result of reading Wycliffe’s English
translation of the Bible. They no longer believed such Roman Catholic dogmas as transubstantiation
and infant baptism.
John Wycliffe was born in Yorkshire in 1324. Like many ambitious young men of his era, he had
pursued theological studies at Oxford with a view to following a political career. This may seem strange
to us today. However, back then the church had a monopoly on education. It was what came to be
known as Rome’s scholastic system. The language of Rome was Latin. Therefore, as Rome controlled
the colleges and universities, the learned men of Europe spoke and wrote in Latin. Such men were
regarded by the pope as subjects of his ecclesiastical empire. Under this strange system, civil servants
could become bishops and bishops could become highly-placed civil servants. There were men
ordained as priests who had never seen, let alone read the Bible!

When Wycliffe was only twenty-four he witnessed a terrible calamity. The people of England were
struck down by a plague known as the, “Black Death”. Coming from Asia and through Europe, it left a
trail of death and misery which effectively halved both Europe and England’s populations.
To the youthful Wycliffe
“This visitation of the Almighty sounded like the trumpet of the judgment-day… Alarmed at the
thoughts of eternity, the young man… passed days and nights in his cell groaning and sighing, and
calling on God to show him the path he ought to follow” (D’Aubigne’s “History of the Reformation”,
Book XVII chapter VII).
Turning to the Scriptures (for by this time, Wycliffe was an accomplished Latin scholar), he found
solace and inspiration, and he developed a determination to make them his rule and guide in life. He
longed to see the Bible not only re-established as the authority of the church, but to make it available
in the language of the people.
Soon he was writing and preaching condemnation of the excesses of his church, and in particular the
pope’s lately assumed sovereignty over the English crown. As a result, Wycliffe won the patronage of
King Edward III who appointed him as one of his chaplains. Thus, when Wycliffe inevitably drew upon
himself the wrath of the papacy, he was able to enjoy the King’s protection.
Little by little Wycliffe’s priorities were changing. Caring less about the temporal kingdom, he devoted
more time to Christ’s Eternal Kingdom. As he studied the Bible, he came to expose the absurdities
which he perceived to be part of the Roman Catholic ritual. He longed to replace in the minds of his
people the mysteries of the Mass and Transubstantiation with the “mystery of Godliness”.
As Wycliffe’s reputation in the universities increased, he was able to inculcate in the minds of his
students the authority of God’s Word as opposed to the assumed authority of the Catholic Church and
its priests.
His obvious sincerity and love of the gospel soon imbued his students with a desire to take the Bible
and tell from it the story of Christ’s way of salvation which does not depend on works. There was much
poverty and ignorance in those days and people were still suffering from the devastating effects of the
Black Death. To those of whom Christ said: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven” (Matthew 5:3), the gospel of love contrasted pleasantly with the cajoling and threats of the
pretentious, pleasure-loving friars. As in the days of Christ, the common people received Wycliffe’s
unpretentious priests gladly. The scholasticism of Rome with its penchant for allegorising away the
Scriptures began to be replaced with faith in Jesus Christ as the one and only Saviour and Mediator
between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5, 6).
Wycliffe’s intense interest in expounding the Scriptures eventually led him to take the prestigious
degree of Doctor of Divinity. He now felt competent to undertake the ambitious and unheard of task of
making the Bible available to all by translating it into English. Being highly skilled in Latin, he set about
translating the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible. He worked on the New Testament for over ten
years, completing it in 1380. At once an enthusiastic bank of copyists set about the task of handcopying hundreds of Bibles which were soon eagerly received by the lower and upper-class alike.
This was too much for the authoritarian Church of Rome. The last thing the papacy wanted was to have
the people being led by the Holy Spirit to an understanding of Bible truths. Successive attempts to stifle Wycliffe and his work were thwarted by those who had seen the light of reform. But the great strain on
the pioneer Reformer gradually took its toll. At the age of sixty, Dr. John Wycliffe succumbed to a
stroke. He was not to know that future events would confer on him the illustrious title: “The Morning
Star of the Reformation”. Mercifully, he did not witness the terrible persecutions to which his
countrymen would be subjected, nor the intense anger of Rome which would seek to expiate its wrath
by committing the sacrilege of digging up his bones for public burning thirty years after his death!
As the missionary work of the Lollards continued expanding after Wycliffe’s death, it seemed that the
reform of the Catholic Church in England was imminent. But sinister CounterReformation forces were
at work. What the church could not do by persuasion, it would seek to carry out by using the powers of
the state. In 1390 a motion was made in the Upper House of Parliament to have all copies of Wycliffe’s
Bible seized.
But the Duke of Lancaster indignantly exclaimed, “Are we then the very dregs of humanity, that we
cannot possess the laws of our religion in our own language?” (ibid Chapter VIII).
Rome does not give in easily. By the dawn of the fifteenth century, the Primate of the Catholic Church,
Archbishop Arundel, connived with the new King, Henry IV for papal support in return for the
outlawing of the Lollards. In no time, a pious priest who refused adoration of the cross, became the
first of a long list of English martyrs. William Sowtree was his name. He was burnt alive at Smithfield in
1401.
The famous French chronicler of the Reformation, H.J. Merle D’Aubigne, D.D., gives us an inkling of the
hatred exhibited by the papacy against the Bible:
“Encouraged by this act of faith – this auto da fe – the clergy drew up articles known as the
`Constitution of Arundel’, which forbade the reading of the Bible, and styled the pope, ‘Not a mere
man, but a true God “‘ (ibid Chapter IX).
But even as Wycliffe’s ashes were cast into the River Swift at Lutterworth, to flow eventually into the
bosom of the restless sea, so his seeds of reform were to reach out far from the shores of England,
eventually to rock Roman Catholicism to its very foundations.
But the time was not yet. God’s divine programme was yet to be revealed. Vital to the success of His
plan was the restoration of His Word in unadulterated form. Wycliffe’s Bible, a bold translation of
Rome’s Latin Vulgate, was in effect an English version of Jerome’s fourth-century Bible. This was a
different Bible from that used by people like the Waldenses and Albigenses who had received and
guarded their scriptures from apostolic times. As Rome hunted down these faithful Christians, she
destroyed their Bibles, a knowledge of which was virtually forgotten by the time of Wycliffe.
Then there were the Bibles of the Eastern Churches that had early found their way from Antioch into
Persia, Armenia, India and even China. But during the long period of the Dark Ages they, along with
Greek and Eastern literature, had been sealed off from the West by Rome’s occupation of the strategic
gateway to Asia at Constantinople. With Rome’s universal use of the Latin language, knowledge of the
Greek and Hebrew languages had largely been lost. But in accordance with God’s plan a change was to
come, and it struck like an “eastwind” as the Turks invaded Constantinople. The hordes of Mahomet
advanced westward driving before them all who sought refuge. Within five years, Athens had fallen.
7
Among the refugees were numerous of the intellectual classes who fled to Italy, many of whom were
Hebrew and Greek scholars. With them they brought their literature. It was as if darkened Italy had
suddenly received a great burst of light and under its glare, Roman Catholicism was doomed to suffer.
The church, and religion generally, came under question as Catholic priests and scholars turned to the
study of Hebrew and Greek in order to devour the newly-obtained classical literature. Along with this
literature came the Byzantine Scriptures and Greek manuscripts from which they were derived.
Now the scholars of the Western World began to realise the extent to which they had been deprived of
culture and learning occasioned by the stultifying scholastic system of the ecclesia.
Shortly prior to the Turkish-driven flight of learning, there occurred an epoch-making event in the small
German town of Mainz. There the process of printing was discovered in 1440 by Johannes Gutenberg.
The subsequent growth of printing techniques paralleled the growth of the Renaissance, thus providing
a vehicle for the spread of that learning. It was no coincidence then that the new learning rapidly
forged ahead in Germany. D’Aubigne draws a very interesting comparison of the effects which the
ancient literature had on Italy and Germany:
“What had produced in Italian minds a minute and barren refinement of the understanding, pervaded
the whole being of the Germans, warmed their hearts and prepared them for a brighter light… In the
one country the foundations of the Church were undermined; in the other they were re-established on
their true basis” (D’Aubigne’s “History of the Reformation”, Book 1, Chapter VII).
Near the close of the fifteenth century, a luminary named John Reuchlin appeared on the German
horizon. By the youthful age of twenty, he was teaching philosophy, Greek and Latin at Basle. His later
interest in the study of Hebrew resulted in his being the first to publish in Germany a Hebrew grammar
and dictionary. His deep interest in things spiritual led him to study Hebrew with a view to converting
the numerous Israelites to the gospel of Christ. As a result, he brought out a Hebrew Old Testament
free from the appalling corruptions then prevailing. In so doing, he did not hesitate to depart in places
from the corruptions of the Latin Vulgate (ibid).
Such “blasphemy” inevitably brought this daring man into disfavour with the Romish establishment,
drawing the particular ire of the Dominicans, which honourable order of priests Pope Gregory IX in
1233 had entrusted with conducting the papal Inquisitions. But their evil designs on Reuchlin were
thwarted by Pope Leo X. With such lack of papal support, the Dominicans had good reason for alarm;
they were witnessing the preparatory phase of the great Protestant Reformation!
The first of the two Great Witnesses on which Protestantism was to be built had been set in place. The
next would be the New Testament.

 

To be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Hi to all

Here is the Continuation of BATTLE OF THE BIBLES

Chapter Two
Colet and Erasmus
Desiderius Erasmus of Holland was twelve years Reuchlin’s junior. He was born in 1467 of parents who
had neglected the formality of wedlock; yet this did not deter them from naming their son, “Gerard”,
meaning in Dutch, “The Beloved”.
The young Gerard early showed all the classic signs of genius. His fascination and aptitude for learning
languages were soon put to practical use. He sought out the Greek equivalent of his name and
8
promptly renamed himself “Erasmus”. To this he prefixed the Latin equivalent “Desiderius”; hence a
name was coined which would within his lifetime, attract to itself a lustre rarely duplicated in any one
generation. Acclaimed as “the great genius of the age”, he was destined to do for the New Testament
what Reuchlin had done for the Old.
Although unlike his younger contemporary, Martin Luther who was born in 1483, it would not be to
the credit of the Reformers to designate Erasmus as such. Yet his life and work were indispensable to
the development of the Reformation.
As was the custom of his time, Erasmus received a monastic education, but this experience only served
to alert him to the folly of the prevailing scholasticism and the malpractices of the church. He was to
spend much of his early career sharpening his wit and literary skills in satirising the vices practised by
the clerics.
In so doing, he was only confirming the developing antisacerdotal tendency of the age, a condition
which the church blamed upon the revival of learning brought about by classical scholars whom it was
pleased to brand as “humanists”. In many cases this was true, especially as we have noted of the Italian
scholars.
But in England and Germany the scholarship of the theologians had been tempered by the now
widespread teachings of Wycliffe and his followers, a circumstance not readily available to the Italians
by virtue of their proximity to Rome. Then there was an almost constant stream of rottenness issuing
forth from the Holy See, the effects of which conditioned the minds of thinking Italians to embrace a
humanistic philosophy. Perhaps it was the divine hand of Providence that prevented Erasmus’s
monastic training from confirming him in such a course through his meeting with John Colet.
John Colet, son of a London Lord Mayor, was naturally of a religious temperament. Having spent some
time as a student at Oxford, he went to Rome to further his ecclesiastical education. There he was
imbued with the spirit of the revival of learning. But the scandalous stories he there heard about the
comparatively recent behaviour of Pope Alexander VI and Caesar Borgia, impressed him with the
urgent need for ecclesiastical reform.
Returning to Oxford, Colet lectured on the works of the church and its system of religion, condemning
its preoccupation with power, money and pleasure, and denouncing the loose morals of the clergy. As
for the popes, he spoke of them as “wickedly distilling poison to the destruction of the Church”
(Seebohm, “The Era of the Protestant Revolution”, p 77).
In evidence of his sincerity as an honest Catholic committed to reforming his church, Colet cried:
“Oh Jesu Christ, wash for us not our feet only, but also our hands and our head! Otherwise our
disordered Church cannot be far from death”. (ibid p 78)
It was into such an environment that Erasmus arrived when he accepted the invitation of an English
nobleman to attend Oxford in order to further his knowledge of Greek. There he came to know Colet.
Both were just thirty years of age.
But there the similarity ended, for Colet was a spiritual and religious reformer. He was seeking to lead
the minds of his pupils away from the scholastic system and back to the Bible as the Christian’s
authority. On the other hand, Erasmus was motivated by a thirst for a knowledge of Greek in order
that he might better appreciate the classics and the new learning. But now as he listened to Colet
9
drawing his students to the Bible and the gospel story, he was shown for the first time that salvation is
a personal experience, found only in Jesus Christ – not a ritualistic system of salvation as devised by
man and dispensed by the church.
Erasmus was fascinated by Colet’s expositions of Scripture and his historical method of interpretation.
Gradually, he came to appreciate what Colet was trying to achieve and when invited by Colet to join
him in his mission Erasmus declined, saying that he must first go to Italy to master Greek and then,
“when I feel I have the needful firmness and strength, I will join you ” (ibid p 80).
The course of history is studded with epoch-making decisions; decisions which were made on the spur
of the moment, or which were the outcome of deliberation. But here was a decision which, although
unforseen by these two scholars, was to alter the whole course of civilisation, the results of which we
all enjoy to this day.
In the event, Erasmus was not able to proceed directly to Italy. On the first stage of his intended
journey, he was robbed of his money by a customs-house officer at Dover. In France, he was
unsuccessful in raising money to continue on to Italy. In those times, many famous scholars were
dependant on the generosity of their benefactors and Erasmus was no exception. It seems that he
spent the next few years wandering around France and Holland. His biographer gives us an inkling of
his life during this period of frustration:
“If it were possible, it would perhaps be hardly worth while, to trace all the wanderings of Erasmus
during the next half-dozen years. It may suffice to say that he lived principally in Paris, Orleans, and in
the Low Countries, and spent his time in studying Greek, running away from the plague, dreaming of
Italy, and begging hard from his patrons to supply him with the means of going there” (Drummond,
“Erasmus”, Vol.1, p 92).
Typifying his problems and ambitions at this time, is this extract from a letter written from Paris (circa
1500) to one of his patrons, James Battus:
“In autumn I shall, if possible, visit Italy and take my doctor’s degree; see you, in whom I hope, that I am
provided with means. I have been giving my whole mind to the study of Greek, and as soon as I get
money I shall buy, first, Greek books, and then clothes. Farewell my dear Battus, and do not forget your
friend Erasmus. Once my health is mended I shall neglect nothing” (ibid pp 95,96).
In spite of financial and health problems, it is quite evident that Erasmus had never lost sight of his goal
to produce a Greek edition of the New Testament. As part of his preparation for this work, Drummond
tells us that he sought out and collated manuscripts wherever he had the opportunity. While yet in
Paris, “As early as the year 1505, he had appeared as a critic of the Greek text, not however in his own
name, but as editor of the Annotations of Laurentius Valla” (ibid p 307).
Such study and work had gained a recognition in England, for upon visiting there early in 1506, he was
made Bachelor of Divinity by Cambridge University. There his old friends rallied around him and within
six months he was able to set out on his second and successful attempt to visit Italy.
After a laborious trip across the Alps (for the saddle was the means of transport then), Erasmus arrived
in Turin, Northern Italy. There he remained for several weeks, during which time the prestigious
University conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Divinity. Next, he visited Florence and Bologna.
While in Bologna, Erasmus became friendly with a “public Professor of Greek” engaged by the Bologna
10
University. This friendship with Paul Bombasius was later to prove invaluable to Erasmus while
translating his New Testament. By that time, Bombasius had been made secretary to Cardinal Pucci,
who gladly assisted Erasmus by providing him with readings from the Codex Vaticanus.
His visit to Rome in 1507 appears to have been relatively short, yet he was able to make the
acquaintance of Cardinal de Medici who was so sympathetic with Erasmus’s ambitions for a Greek New
Testament that later, when he became Pope Leo X, Erasmus dedicated it to him.
Erasmus’s visit to Italy must have lived up to his expectations. There he had not only taken the
opportunity to examine rare and valuable manuscripts but he had engaged the minds of scholars who
had helped settle in his mind the line of manuscripts which he should use in his planned forthcoming
Greek translation of the New Testament. Now he would return to England as a Doctor of Divinity with
an invitation from none other than King Henry VIII.
With such illustrious credentials, and back now among his friends of Oxonian days, it is not surprising
that he was appointed Greek Professor at Cambridge, a position which he was to hold from 1510 to
1514. And now Erasmus was to find among his English pupils a student of Greek who was destined to
leave an indelible mark on English literature and society. He was William Tyndale.
The Pupils of Erasmus were fully aware of his desire to produce a Greek New Testament which scholars
of all nations could use to translate into their own language. There can be little doubt that Tyndale
there gained a desire to give the English People a Bible of their own. But it would not be a translation
of the Roman Catholic Vulgate as was the Bible of Wycliffe, for Erasmus had shown him that the Latin
Vulgate swarmed with errors” (D’Aubigne’s “History of the Reformation”, Book 1, Chap. VIII).
It was during the month of April, 1515, that Erasmus was to receive word from a friend in Basle that a
famous German printer by the name of Froben wanted to print his New Testament. Here was
wonderful news for Erasmus. By this time, his many dissertations on the state of the church had spread
his fame abroad.
Now Erasmus could fulfil his pledge to Colet in a way that could not be compared to his previous
writings. With his proposed New Testament, he would not only realise Colet’s ambition to draw men
away from the prevailing scholastic theology, but he would, “place before them, in all the freshness of
the original” a new translation of the “living picture of Christ and His Apostles contained in the New
Testament” (“The Era of the Protestant Revolution”, p 92).
It should be realised that, at this time, the Latin New Testament in use by the church was substantially
that of Jerome’s late fourth century translation. Along with the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, it
constituted the Bible shortly to be re-affirmed and authorised by the Council of Trent (15451563).
Drummond’s comments are instructive:
“To the monks and theologians of that day it was the Bible as much as if no originals had existed, or as
if Hebrew Prophets and Galilean Apostles had written in Latin” (“Erasmus”, p 309).
Drummond continues:
“No one had been sufficiently enterprising or sufficiently zealous in the cause of religious progress to
edit or to print the Christian Scriptures in the original tongue. The truth is that those who were
interested in religion cared very little for learning; while most of those who were interested in learning
cared not at all for religion” (ibid).
11
This is where Erasmus differed greatly from the learned humanists of his day. He cared for the
literature of the “new learning” but he had (thanks to Colet) great respect for God’s Word. It is a gross
insult, based on questionable motives, for his modern day critics and enemies to discredit him as a
humanist, a term devised by Rome to denigrate those scholars who threatened her religious system
with the “new learning” and which today is used to designate an irreligious class of people.
After proceeding to Basle, Erasmus busily engaged himself in finishing off his translation of the New
Testament, which consisted of two columns containing the Latin and Greek side by side, as well as his
own annotations.
The great day came, when on the first of March, 1516, Erasmus had the satisfaction of seeing his longcherished ambition climaxed with the publishing of his New Testament. The work carried a Dedication
to Pope Leo X, an indication that Erasmus ever remained a loyal Roman Catholic, in spite of the fact
that he had been so critical of the conduct of the clergy and of much of its dogma. Interestingly, it
seems that the pope was quite appreciative of the compliment, at first that is, for it was not long
before the church was branding Erasmus as a “second Lucian”.’
In his preface, Erasmus reveals his desires, which by no stretch of the imagination could be equated
with those of a humanist:
“I wish that even the weakest woman should read the Gospels – should read the Epistle of Paul; and I
wish that they were translated into all languages, so that they might be read and understood not only
by Scots and Irishmen, but also by Turks and Saracens” (“The Era of the Protestant Revolution”, p 92).
‘ “Furious monks loaded him with abuse from the pulpits: “they called him a second Lucian – a fox that
had laid waste the Lord’s vineyard” (D’Aubigne’s “History of the Reformation”, Book 1, Chapter VIII).
It is not stated to which Lucian they are referring, but as we shall see in Section 2, the text which
Erasmus used in his translation of the New Testament was virtually the one certified by Lucian of
Antioch which formed the basis of the Waldensian and Greek Bibles. These were known as the
Traditional Text and became the progenitors of the later-named Received Text.
The demand for Erasmus’s New Testament was such that another printing was needed within three
years. His second edition appeared early in 1519 and like all responsible authors, he took the
opportunity to make corrections. This edition which had a greatly improved Latin Text carried a “papal
Brief’… which spoke in the highest terms both of the scholarship and orthodoxy of the work. Yet:
“But one thing was clear to the commonest understanding: he had departed from the Vulgate
translation, and had substituted comparatively pure Latin for its intolerable barbarisms” (Drummond
“Erasmus”, Vol. 1, pp 313-314).
With such a departure from the church’s Vulgate, it is not surprising that his work was soon vigorously
attacked, and the more so as the editions multiplied. His fifth edition appeared just one year prior to
his death in 1536. These charges not only persist to this day but they have taken on a more vindictive
nature by those who wish to uphold Rome’s Bible.
One common charge is that Erasmus was too hasty in his translation which suffered from a paucity of
manuscripts. Drummond answers this charge:
12
“As to the charge that Erasmus had been guilty of carelessness and dishonesty in not consulting more
than one manuscript, it was simply absurd. He had, in fact, consulted many in England, in Brabant, and
at Basle, and at different times had had in his hands a greater number than Valla2
(ibid p 331).
2
“Laurentius Valla, the only humanist of distinction born in Rome … He combined classical with
theological erudition and attained an influence almost equal to that enjoyed by Erasmus several
generations later” (Schaff – “History of the Christian Church”, p 595).
To the above defence, we could add the experience Erasmus had gained while wandering around
Europe and Italy, both in examination of manuscripts and in his discussions with learned classical
scholars. Later critics on this score have been more generous, claiming that Erasmus had only five
manuscripts to consult in Basle. But it seems that even this is an understatement, for Drummond says:
“Erasmus himself, however, seems to say that he used at least nine manuscripts, as he says in the
Apologia prefixed to his first edition” (ibid p 311).
But what does it really matter? If Erasmus had researched his project thoroughly, and then selected
one manuscript, it would be the one which he considered representative of the purest text. Nolan, in
his definitive work, “Inquiry”, adds his weight to such a conclusion. He says:
“The two great families of Greek Bibles are well illustrated in the work of the outstanding scholar,
Erasmus. Before he gave to the Reformation the New Testament in Greek, he divided all Greek
manuscripts into two classes: those which agreed with the Received Text and those which agreed with
the Vaticanus Manuscript” (“Inquiry”, p 413).
In connection with this statement, it is here appropriate to observe that the manuscripts of the
Received Text Line are also known as the Traditional or Majority Texts, simply because they were
traditionally regarded as the purest and were overwhelmingly in the majority. Says Wilkinson:
“So vast is this majority that even the enemies of the Received Text admit that nineteen-twentieths and
some ninety-nine one-hundredths of all Greek MSS are of this class, while one hundred percent of the
Hebrew MSS are for the Received Text” (“Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 13).
It is highly significant that two of the world’s most prominent Christian scholars of the day, had no
problems with Erasmus’s New Testament. We refer to Doctors Martin Luther and William Tyndale.
Instantly they recognised his work as an instrument by which they could give to their peoples the
unadulterated gospel in their own language. The reforms planted by Wycliffe, which had lingered,
struggling to survive in the climate of a defective Bible, were now to burst forth in the full power and
beauty of the Protestant Reformation. The world would never be the same again.

To be continued if GOD want.

[Berean]

Hi to all

Continuation

The battle of the Bibles

Chapter Three
Tyndale the Brave
William Tyndale, the great Oxford and Cambridge scholar of the early sixteenth century, had a natural
bent for languages. It is claimed that he could speak as naturally in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian,
Spanish and French as in his native English.
His knowledge of New Testament Greek had been finely honed by Holland’s intellectual giant,
Desiderius Erasmus, who had graced the halls of Cambridge as a teacher from 1510-1514. Erasmus’s
13
extensive research into the history of the Greek New Testament caused him to divide the manuscripts
into two classes; those which agreed substantially with what we now call the Received Text (Textus
Receptus) as used by the Waldenses and the Byzantine church, and those which agreed with the
Vaticanus manuscript, the treasure of the Roman Catholic Church (Nolan, “The Integrity of the Greek
Vulgate”, pp 413, 414).
Both of these men stood out as intellectual towers in an age that was noted for its superb scholarship.
History has shown that Tyndale not only left his mould on English thinking for generations to come, but
he actually provided a solid base for the development of the English language which at that time was
emerging as a fine vehicle of expression.
But it was not academic training alone which fitted Tyndale for his dynamic role in shaping the social
and religious affairs of an emerging Reformationist England as a mighty bastion of Protestantism. He
was a committed Christian who determined that no obstacle should prevent the attainment of his
ambition to make available to the common people the pure Word of God.
One day, while arguing with some priests and exhorting them to study the Scriptures instead of blindly
accepting the pronouncement of the pope as authority, Tyndale gave voice to his ambition:
“If God spares my life, I will take care that a ploughboy shall know more of the Scriptures than you do. ”
(D’Aubigne, “History of the Reformation”, Book XVIII, Chapter 4)
It was this commitment which was later to lead to his martyrdom – a price which he was quite
prepared to pay in the achievement of his goal.
His great opportunity came when his mentor, Erasmus, published his printed translation of the New
Testament in Greek. At once, like the German monk, Martin Luther, Tyndale recognised Erasmus’s
translation as God’s immortal gift to man. Here was a work which rejected the text of the Catholic
Vulgate in favour of those manuscripts which were not only in the vast majority, but had an
outstanding history of Syrian, Greek and Waldensian usage. The Vulgate could boast no such pedigree.
It had been consistently used in areas where Rome had exercised political and religious control and
because of early corruptions in Alexandria and Rome, it had come to be distinguished, as were its
antecedents, as the Alexandrian and Western lines of Bibles.
With Erasmus’s translation, Tyndale knew that he now had a tool which had not been available to his
predecessor, John Wycliffe, who some one and a half centuries earlier had questioned the infallibility
of the pope and given to the English a Bible in their own language. Being a bald translation of the
Roman Catholic Vulgate, it contained most of the errors of the Alexandrian line. His Bible preceded the
invention of printing, so, being very expensive, it could only be read by a privileged few.
Although Wycliffe has been justly called “The Morning Star of the Reformation”, the world only caught
a glimmer of the daybreak as his translation from a text favoured by the papal hierarchy was not able
fully to penetrate the all-pervading fog of the Dark Ages.
Tyndale knew that his cherished task would not be easy. England was still Roman Catholic. The reigning
monarch, Henry VIII, was a Catholic and a staunch defender of ritualism. The pope had conferred on
him the title, “Defender of the Faith” which the British sovereigns carry to this day. He had no time for
Protestantism. Yet even he had been influenced by criticisms of the papacy by Colet and Erasmus
14
When he eventually quarreled with the Roman hierarchy, it was more over political differences than
religious ones. He was quite happy to maintain the ritualism and pomp of Catholic worship, but he
refused the notion of papal authority over both church and state. Later, in 1534, the English parliament
abrogated papal supremacy in favour of the King.
The High Church of England even to this day reflects Henry’s attitudes in that it is content to retain
many Roman practices and beliefs, yet it does not acknowledge, at least outwardly, the authority of
the pope.
Henry VIII had done nothing to hinder the church’s hostility to Wycliffe’s English Bible and made no
secret of his aversion to reformers like Luther. Tyndale realised that Henry would give him no support
in a likely confrontation with the Catholic clergy.
But in Germany, things were different. The invention of printing in Mainz in 1440 enabled cheap and
wide distribution of ideas. Already Luther’s pronouncements and writings against the papal system
were bearing much fruit. In 1522, Luther had been successful in bringing out his German-language New
Testament. Tyndale determined to enhance his chances of producing an English Bible by exiling himself
in Germany. In 1524 he left his beloved homeland and settled down in Hamburg to the work of
translation.
But the tentacles of Rome were long and strong. No sooner had Tyndale arranged to have his Bible
printed in Cologne than he was forced to hurriedly gather up his precious manuscripts and flee with
them to Worms. There, in 1525, he was successful in having the New Testament printed, but he still
the problem of getting the Bibles into England where Catholic bishops had been influential in obtaining
a blockade what was regarded as dangerous merchandise. And so it was and remains to this day – in
the eyes of popery.
In order to circumvent the blockade, Tyndale’s helpers were forced to invent ways to secrete the Bibles
among items of merchandise. In this way, most of the Bibles eluded seizure and the consequent
sacrilege of a public burning. Indeed, one such burning took place in 1530 when the Bishop of Long
supervised an auto da fe’ type of ceremony in the church yard of St Paul’s Cathedral. By 1534 Tyndale
had not only produced an amended edition of his New Testament, but had translated much of the Old
Testament. (“Auto da fe” is a Spanish term meaning “Act of faith”, the name given by Rome to the
ceremony of the public burning of heretics.)
In spite of continuing hostility, thousands were soon eagerly devouring the precious Words of Life. But
the very success of “Operation People’s Bible” ensured swift papal revenge. Tyndale had foreseen his
fate when he made the remark: “If they burn me also [a reference to the burning of his Testament] they
shall do no other than I look for”.
Sure enough, the papal emissaries hunted him down incarcerated him in a dungeon in Flanders. On
October 1536, he was chained to the stake. Mercifully, he was strangled before the flames of papal
intolerance and revenge were applied to the faggots, but not before he was able to utter a prayer his
beloved country: “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” He was fifty-three years of age, a hero of the
cross, a martyr and a pioneer Reformer. Did he realise that he was responsible for setting England on a
collision course with Rome and that his Bible, along with Luther’s, was the opening salvo of a broadside
of truth that would release Europe from the iron grip of the Vatican?
15
Three years later, Catholicism received another blast when French received their Olivetan Bible. All of
these translations substantially agreed with the New Testament text of Erasmus, and recognising their
strong apostolic tradition, Rome correctly branded them as “Waldensian Bibles”. (see Comba, “The
Waldenses of Italy”, p 192)

 

God bless

[Berean]

Continuation

Battle of the bibles

Chapter Four
Protestantism’s Early Struggle to Survive
Tyndale’s dying prayer for England was partially answered within three years. His Bible quickly won
many friends, one of whom was Thomas Cranmer. Like the king, Archbishop Cranmer was a Roman
Catholic; hence he saw no reason as a cleric to shun politics. He was very close to Henry VIII – so close
that he is reported to have facilitated the King’s two divorces.
Cranmer seized his advantage with the King and sought to win him over to Tyndale’s New Testament,
but Henry had no time whatever for Tyndale whom he considered of the same mould as his mentor,
Erasmus, who had well and truly outraged the church with his satirical criticism of the priesthood.
Hence he found it politically expedient to spurn Tyndale’s translation.
In 1535 there appeared in England the first complete printed Bible, by Miles Coverdale. His New
Testament was a slight revision of Tyndale’s. This was closely followed by the Matthews Bible (1537),
so named for the pen-name used by John Rogers. Tyndale had turned over to Rogers his translation
material for the Old Testament at the time of his imprisonment.
Although these Bibles were in agreement with Tyndale’s, they were more acceptable to Henry, not
only because they bore the names of other translators, but they no longer contained Tyndale’s
comments and notes.
Coverdale was soon commissioned to prepare another version, based on the Matthews Bible. This
came out in 1539 and was called the Great Bible because of its size – 16 ½ x 11 inches. This Bible
obtained the approval of King Henry and he ordered a copy to be placed in every church.
Little by little, Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, was surely becoming a Protestant Reformer. Did he
realise that his course and the influence he was having on the King would lead him to the same fate as
befell Tyndale?
As King Henry’s court was still virtually Roman Catholic, Cranmer often experienced the emotional
pangs common to the lone Reformer. But with the death of Henry in 1547, Cranmer was to gain a
staunch ally in his heir, King Edward VI. Born of Jane Seymour, the third of Henry’s wives, he became an
ardent Reformer and between them he and Cranmer were able to greatly advance the cause of
Protestantism. Reforming preachers seemed to burst forth as plants released from winter’s icy grip
reach up and absorb the life-giving warmth of the sun. Only this time, England’s clergy were
experiencing the spiritual growth that comes from the “Sun of Righteousness”. Such names as Ridley,
Latimer, Rogers, Hooper, Bradford and Saunders soon became famous Protestant identities.
But this euphoric time of emergence from popery was to be short-lived. In 1553 King Edward went to a
premature grave, but the effect which he had in nurturing the seedlings of Protestantism was vital and
long-lasting. When Archbishop Cranmer sorrowfully conducted his king’s funeral service, could he have
possibly realised that this would be his last official duty?

And so it was! Edward’s half-sister Mary, daughter of the Spanish Catherine of Aragon, and, like her
mother, fiercely Catholic, next ascended the throne of England, but only after solemnly swearing that
she would allow freedom of religion. But no sooner had she been crowned than she discarded her
pretence and proceeded to displace Protestant leaders. She ordered Cranmer to be confined to his
house and put a Roman Catholic in his place.
Within a few weeks, Coverdale, the Bible translator, together with other Reformers, found himself in
gaol. Grafton and Whitchurch, who had printed Coverdale’s Bible, fell from grace. It was soon evident
that Mary was determined to return England to Catholicism. Protestant ministers were speedily
replaced by ignorant priests whose mass and liturgy were performed in Latin. They had absolutely no
use for a Bible in the vernacular, let alone a Protestant one.
Queen Mary’s piety for the faith of her Spanish mother did not go unnoticed in the Holy Roman
Empire. Emperor Charles V, ruler of Spain and the greater part of Western Europe, had acquired much
of his empire through the fashionable expedient of inter-marriage with European royalty. As his father
had been honoured with the title of “Most Catholic King”, and had acquired vast wealth from the
spices, silver and gold from the Indies and the Americas, few potentates felt in a position to ignore his
advances. If he could arrange the marriage of his only son Philip to Queen Mary, he would not only
bring England within his own political orbit but would enlist her as an ally in subjugating his troublous
neighbour, France. Thus he would secure a sizeable block of Europe against the enemies of Spain and
the Holy Catholic Church. Furthermore, if the marriage were to produce a son, he would automatically
become the rightful heir to the English throne, and another peaceful Spanish conquest would
eventuate.
It so happened that at the age of twenty-seven, Philip was very eligible. The fact that Mary was eleven
years his senior was quite irrelevant to the cause. Philip, ever the dutiful son and a lackey of the pope,
was willing. Could Mary be persuaded to lay aside her spinster-driven thoughts of marital martyrdom
to secure the future of a papal empire? Most certainly she would!
For the English, such a match did not hold popular appeal. The possibility of an heir born to a Spanish
king and a half-Spanish queen was fraught with danger to England’s sovereignty. A poorly-prepared
insurrection led by Sir Thomas Wyatt, whose battle cry was “No Spanish match! No Inquisition!”, was a
failure and resulted in the loss of his head with others of his supporters also being executed.
On June 25, 1554, the royal pair were married in Winchester Cathedral as equals in rank, for Philip’s
father, the Emperor Charles, had kept his part of the bargain by announcing his intention of abdicating
the throne so that Mary could marry a king.
Before the year was out, the royal couple were to bask in the sunshine of the pope’s blessing by his
appointment of Cardinal Pole as Papal Legate to England. Thus was a wayward England reconciled to
Rome and accepted into the bosom of the church.
Mary lost no time in vindicating the pope’s faith in Catholic England. To the yoke of Rome she would
now add the sword of Spain! There was that troublesome Vicar, John Rogers, who recently had flouted
the laws of priestly celibacy by taking himself a wife and then having the temerity to get up at St Paul’s
Cross and condemn popery. Mary’s henchmen had been keeping a watchful eye on this heretic who
had shown his true colours back in the days of her brother’s reign when he collaborated with Tyndale
and Coverdale to produce those “wretched” Protestant Bibles. Not satisfied with that, he had gone on to produce an updated version of his own under the pseudonym of “Matthew’s” Bible. So in 1555,
amidst the protest of a great crowd of her subjects, she had Rogers burnt at the stake in Smithfield.
Having unwittingly immortalised Rogers as the first of her many martyrs, there seemed to be no limit
to the manifestations of Mary’s papal zeal. Her Catholic court instructed justices in each of England’s
counties to appoint secret informers to spy on her subjects and report on those who did not attend
Mass and who generally failed to conduct themselves in the manner of good Catholics.
A popish triumvirate consisting of Bishop Bonner of London, Bishop Gardiner of Winchester and
Cardinal Pole, was invested with the powers of deciding who should have freedom or imprisonment,
life or death. As a consequence, England’s gaols began receiving a seemingly endless stream of
“stubborn” clerics and hapless citizens. Fires of vengeance flared in Gloucester, Coventry, Hadleigh and
other parts of Suffolk, Carmarthen in Wales, Canterbury and Oxford.
Among those who perished for their faith were such prominent friends of the open Bible as Ridley,
Latimer and Cranmer, the latter having been associated with the production of “The Great Bible”.
These names are immortalised in British Protestant history and their martyrdom commemorated even
in the antipodes, where in the splendid city of Christchurch, New Zealand, is a magnificent Anglican
cathedral set amidst three civic squares, each proudly bearing one of the illustrious martyrs’ names.
It would be remiss not to mention that laymen and women also were prepared to witness to their
Protestant faith. We shall here mention the case of William Hunter, a mere youth of eighteen years,
yet in possession of a maturity of Christian experience that enabled him to be faithful unto death–even
the death of the fiery stake. His experience is especially pertinent to the purpose of this book in that it
underlines the intense hatred of Rome for the Protestant Bible and demonstrates the importance
which Rome attaches to the open Bible in relation to the part it played in the Reformation.
One day in 1554, an officer of the bishop’s court reprimanded William for reading the Bible. “Why
meddlest thou with the Bible?…. Canst thou expound Scripture?” William replied: “I presume not to
expound Scripture: … I read for my comfort and edification. ” He was reported to a neighbouring priest
who inquired of him as to who had given him permission to read the Bible. After giving the priest a
similar answer to that given to the officer, William was branded a heretic and marked for future
attention.
That attention consisted of numerous opportunities to reaffirm his rejection of transubstantiation and
the priestly confessional as he was passed along the hierarchical chain that inevitably led to free
boarding arrangements in one of Her Majesty’s prisons. There he was kept in irons for nine months,
save for periodic visits to the bishop’s inquisition which usually ended in cajoling, threats and
damnations.
On March 27, 1555, at the tender age of nineteen, he was led to the stake and kneeling down on “a
wet brown faggot” he took comfort by reading aloud the fifty-first Psalm.
And now we see an example of the almost unbelievable hatred which the Romanists harboured against
the Protestant Bible and those who trusted in it. Coming to verse seventeen, William read; “The
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise ” .

“Thou liest, heretic! Thou readest false!” came the rejoinder, ‘for the words are an humble spirit! The
translation saith ‘a contrite heart”‘ replied William. “Yes,” said his tormentor, “the translation is false;
you translate books as you please yourselves, like heretics” (Source – “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs”, p 235).
According to Foxe’s account, William Hunter claimed there was no great difference between the words
“humble” and “contrite”, which all reasonable persons could go along with. But Bonner’s bullies were
not reasonable people and here we have a striking insight into the way in which Rome translates and
then interprets Scripture to suit the occasion.
The Scriptures of the Received Text do not employ the word “humble” which was exactly what Rome’s
threats of torture were all about – humbling a man by forcing him to obey man. Whereas the word
“contrite” not only encompasses “humbleness” but has the added spiritual connotation of “being
broken-hearted for sin” (Collins). In the circumstances, what must have appeared to young William as
puerile semantics and hair splitting, can be seen in retrospect as Rome’s deadly serious abuse of
Scripture. Here is an example of the superiority of the Received Text in transmitting God’s Word to
man.
And so, with this manifestation of hatred towards God’s Word and those who treasured it, a young
“contrite heart” went to his terrible death with a vision of popish bigotry and hatred seared upon his
mind, only to be erased by the consuming flames.
Mercifully, Queen Mary had a short life and even shorter reign, dying on November 17, 1558, at the
age of forty-two. Although her reign lasted only five years, it was long enough for her to have justly
earned the title of “Bloody Mary”.
From the martyrdom of Vicar Rogers until just two days prior to her decease when five victims of her
misplaced zeal were burned at Canterbury, it is estimated by Lord Burleigh that no fewer than two
hundred and eighty-eight persons were burned at the stake. Innumerable others perished by
imprisonment, torture, sickness and starvation. (Close, “Defeat of the Spanish Armada”, p 23).
Providentially, Mary had no children to Philip, thereby denying him the satisfaction of turning England
into a Spanish dependency; a providential happening which is probably responsible for the fact that
this book is written in English – or even written at all!

 

To be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Hi all

Continuation

 

 

And so she proved to be! But this did not prevent the wily Philip of Spain from making her a proposal of
marriage. Her reply curtly informed him that she “had espoused her kingdom” (“Foxe’s Book of
Martyrs”, p 329).
Elizabeth had to proceed with what she saw as her life’s mission with the utmost sagacity and caution.
Mary’s legacy to England was a realm infested with papal plotters and Catholic preachers who
instituted a campaign to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Elizabeth’s birth and hence her succession.
During her half-sister’s reign, the pulpits had been “cleansed” of Protestant clergymen who had either
fled the country or been liquidated by her consent or command. In order to bring the churches back
under Protestant control, Elizabeth invited the exiled Reformers to return. As they re-entered their
homeland and resumed their ministry, they did so with renewed vigour and zeal, for while mixing with
the Reformers of Europe, their love of truth had been strengthened and their spirits revived. With
them they brought their Protestant Bibles from which they derived their strength.
One of Elizabeth’s first moves against Catholicism’s liturgy was to command that the Litany and the
Gospels be read in English, and that the sacrifice of the Mass be discontinued.
It is worthy of notice, and to the credit of Elizabeth and the Protestant cause, that as the Catholic
priests were replaced with Protestants, they were not arrested and punished as had been the case
when Mary was queen. In contrast, and in keeping with the teaching of the true Head of Christianity,
the displaced clergy were permitted to retire with dignity on a state pension. Where the Romanists
erected the stake as their sign of authority, the Protestants set up the English Bible as their rule of
faith. (See Close, “Defeat of the Spanish Armada”, pp 25, 26).
Another compelling reason for caution was the fact that Scotland and France had forged a papalinspired alliance. The heiress to the throne of Scotland, Mary Stuart, was the wife of France’s Catholic
King, Francis II. With the pope’s blessing, he had assumed the title and arms of England and proclaimed
his intention of using Scotland as a springboard for invading England with the aim of dethroning
Elizabeth. With his wife Mary then enthroned in her place, England would once more be returned to
the arms of a grateful pope.
But this threat was to be unexpectedly removed when on May 2, 1559, one of Scotland’s exiled
Reformers suddenly arrived in Edinburgh. He was John Knox, already well known throughout Scotland,
and his arrival caused consternation among Queen Mary’s Council. Within a few days he was declared
an outlaw by royal proclamation. This only served to broadcast the news of his return, which brought
great joy and renewed hope to the beleaguered Reformers.
Their numbers had been steadily increasing as the news and influence of the German Reformers
reached Scotland, and translations of the Scriptures were extensively circulated. (Warner and Marten,
“The Groundwork of British History”, p 299)
John Knox, although a religious man and a Reformer, was also a highly political person who believed in
action. He travelled about Scotland holding rallies, generally lifting the depressed spirits of the
Reformers. At one such meeting in Perth, he preached a sermon denouncing idolatry. His audience was
so convicted that they rushed off and attacked and destroyed monasteries and other religious houses.
“Burn the nests and the rooks will fly, ” cried Knox (ibid p 302).
20
When eventually he went the way of all flesh and rested beneath his epitaph, all would agree with the
truth written there “Here lies one who never feared the face of man”.
The tide of opinion quickly turned against the popish -controlled government, a circumstance which
soon neutralised any threat to England and resulted in imprisonment for the Scottish Queen. With
both England and Scotland now well on the way to becoming Protestant countries, they, for the first
time had a common bond which would eventually bring about that political union which we know
today as Great Britain.
But, just as importantly, with this union there arose a Protestant alliance which was to flourish
throughout the British Empire. When the Empire lost its colonies in North America, the Protestant
bond not only remained, but strengthened. Within this alliance, there arose the great Bible Societies
which propelled the Protestant Bibles to the uttermost parts of the world.

to be continued

God bless

 

[Berean]

HI all

Continuation

Chapter Six
<h3>
The Council of Trent
We have noted the great influence which the Reformation in Europe was having on England and
Scotland in particular; and it was to Protestant areas of Europe that many a persecuted Reformer fled
for safety and succour.
At the time of John Knox’s return to Scotland, Geneva had become a busy centre for Bible translation.
Calvin, a relative of the Waldensian, Olivetan, who translated the New Testament into the French
language, had edited a second edition of his Bible. This Waldensian Bible then became the basis of an
English-language Bible which came to be known as the Geneva Bible because it was translated in
Geneva. For the first time, a complete English Bible was divided into verses.
By 1560, this Geneva Bible was being enthusiastically adopted by Protestant England and Scotland
where it was to remain the leading version until it was finally superseded by the King James Version of
1611.
It was this line of Bibles which came to be known as the Received Text. This line, preserved during the
Dark Ages by the churches of the wilderness, inspired the Reformation and resulted in catastrophe for
Roman Catholicism.
Rome could not let the use of the Protestant Bible, with its religious and political consequences, go
unchallenged. In 1545 the Vatican assembled a council of war against the Reformation. Known as the
Council of Trent, it was prolonged until the year 1563.
Very early in its deliberations, the Council was seen to give recognition to, and allow itself to be
dominated by, a recently-formed sect of the Roman Catholic Church known as the Society of Jesus,
whose members are commonly referred to as Jesuits. Their principal founder, Ignatius Lyola, is
described in Collin’s Dictionary as “a crafty person, an intriguer (an opprobrious use of the word)” while
Jesuitism is defined as: “the principles and practices of the Jesuits; cunning deceit; deceptive practices
to effect a purpose”. The perceived aim of the Society is to protect Roman Catholicism by destroying
Protestantism.
21
When we consider Protestantism’s forceful and consistent denunciations of Romanism in those times,
its gross immorality, its intrigue and false religion, it would be expected that meeting these charges
would be high on the Council’s list of priorities. But this was not the case.
Instead, the very first subject to be discussed at the Council was the Scriptures and the supremacy of
the Vulgate’s Latin text. Here is cogent testimony to Rome’s acknowledgment of the prime-mover of
the Reformation – the Waldensian Bibles. The members of the Council were particularly obsessed with
Luther, his Bible and his Bible-based propositions derived there from, and so they listed four of his
propositions and condemned them outright as works of rank heresy. Below are Luther’s four
propositions:
Condemnation 1.
“That the Holy Scriptures contained all things necessary to salvation, and that it was impious to place
apostolic tradition on a level with Scripture”.
Condemnation 2.
“That certain books accepted as canonical in the Vulgate were apocryphal and not canonical”.
Condemnation 3.
“That Scripture must be studied in the original languages, and that there were errors in the Vulgate”.
Condemnation 4.
“That the meaning of Scripture is plain, and that it can be understood without commentary with the
help of Christ’s Spirit” (See Froude, “Council of Trent”, pp 174, 175).
By these condemnations the Council of Trent decreed that:
1. Church authority was of equal authority with Scripture.
2. That the Apocryphal books were as inspired as the canonical ones.
3. That the Vulgate did not contain error and required no correcting.
4. That the Scriptures needed to be, and could only be, interpreted by the Catholic Church.
Even as the Council was deliberating, news of Knox’s return to Scotland (1559) stung the Council into
renewed vigour in planning their counter-attack on the Reformation. The Isles across the Channel
came to be increasingly seen as the main threat to Roman Catholicism as the leadership of the
Reformation appeared to be passing from Germany to England. Therefore England must become the
focus of the counter-Reformation. Subsequent events have shown how a broadly based three-fold plan
of action was immediately initiated:
1. Destroy the Reformation’s spiritual base by bringing about a loss of confidence in its Bible and
replace it with the Vulgate.
2. Infiltrate Protestant pulpits, schools and public institutions and fill the country with spies, preferably
English ones.
3. Remove the Protestant government by intrigue, murder and, if necessary, by armed conquest.
22
In 1562, the year before the Council of Trent ended, the “most Catholic” of king’s son, Philip II of Spain,
opened a college at Douay, in his realm of the Netherlands.
This seminary was ostensibly established for the purpose of providing training for English Catholic
students who either found themselves unwelcome at Oxford and Cambridge or whose religious
scruples prevented them attending such colleges. J.G. Carleton, D.D. tells us that the originator of the
project was really none other than an English clergyman named William Allen, who, at Elizabeth’s
succession, found it convenient to quit his position as Canon of York and Principal of St Mary’s College,
Oxford. He became the first president of a similar college at Rheims. (“Rheims and the English Bible”, p
13).
Allen was typical of a growing number of English traitors whose loyalty to the pope and his earthly
aspirations overshadowed any notion of allegiance to the crown of England. He is described by
Carleton as one “best known as an active participator in the political intrigues of his day” (ibid).
But such a description gives little indication of the extent of Allen’s seditious activities. The real
purpose of the seminary and its Jesuit-run subsidiary college, was to train English priests who would
return to England as spies and counter Reformationists. He was also responsible for later setting up
another English college in Rome. Between them, these three colleges would orchestrate a wellplanned, double-pronged attack on England and Protestantism. The first prong would consist of the
translation of their Vulgate Bible into English and the second would consist of the training and
supervising of subversive activities in the religious and political life of England. The ultimate goal was
the installation of a papal-friendly government.
The task of translating the New Testament was given to the Jesuits at Rheims. The fact that it took
some two decades to complete is indicative of the patience and perseverance that characterises
Rome’s far-sightedness.
But the work of infiltration and intrigue began almost immediately. In 1567, two Jesuit priests,
Saunders and Parsons, both Englishmen, were discovered itinerating in England, with authority from
the pope to absolve all who would return to the Roman fold. Pope Pius sought to encourage any
wavering Catholics when in May, 1570 he openly declared papal warfare against England by issuing a
Bull excommunicating Queen Elizabeth. Especially would this encourage the support of the numerous
Roman Catholics and their political supporters who now found their Romish aspiration disadvantaged
under a Protestant regime.
Not the least of these were the deposed Roman clergy whom Elizabeth had magnanimously allowed to
live on in a civilised state of retirement – an act which no doubt the pope saw as a fortuitous oversight
which could be turned to his advantage.
Soon England was crawling with spies. Numerous plots to murder the Queen were uncovered.
Weapons such as stilettos and exotic poisons supplemented the formal clerical tools like catechisms,
rosaries and holy water. (See Close, “The Defeat of the Spanish Armada”, p 32).
The English Parliament reacted by issuing edicts making it a treasonable offence to brand the Queen as
a heretic and a usurper of the throne, and another, prohibited the publication of any Bull or absolution
from the pope.
23
It was not long before Campion, an Oxonian who had been trained by the Jesuits, put the Government
edict to the test. He was arrested while disguised as a soldier, along with three of his accomplices, all of
whom were executed for high treason. Historian Albert Close makes this comment on such traitors:
“These are the men Roman Catholic historians delude their dupes into believing were martyrs”.
Close then continues:
“Not a year passed after the arrival of the Jesuits, Campion and Parsons, without an insurrection or
plot in some part of the Queen’s dominions. The prisons of London contained numerous `massing
priests, sowers of sedition’, charged with destroying the public peace and preaching disaffection to the
Queen’s Government and person” (“The Defeat of the Spanish Armada”, p 33)</h3>
 

To be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Hi all

continuation

BOTB

Chapter Seven
The Spanish Contender
King Philip II of Spain had been watching events in Elizabeth’s realm with a suspicious eye. Ever since
she had rebuffed his offer of marriage he had been inclined to let events take their natural course,
meaning, letting Allen’s men and the Jesuits attend to England. It was entirely feasible that these
conspirators could very well succeed in placing Mary on the throne. Even after Mary had been
imprisoned, Elizabeth had shown that she was loath to take her cousin’s life. While there was life,
there was hope.
Ever the artful diplomat, Elizabeth had repeatedly assured Philip of her country’s friendship with Spain.
But some of her government’s actions had sorely tested his sense of honour. There was England’s
increasing support for the rebellious Reformers in the Netherlands. This part of the Spanish empire had
long been held in the grip of Catholicism. With the advent of the Reformation, instigated by Luther and
his Bible, a papal Inquisition had been set up which King Philip was later constrained to describe as
being more pitiless than in Spain (Grierson, “King of Two Worlds”, p 86).
Back in 1568, Philip had negotiated a large loan with Genoese bankers for the support of his satrap in
the Netherlands, the Duke of Alva. Alva was having trouble collecting sufficient taxes to support his
war against the Protestant rebels. While the treasure was being transported to Alva in a convoy of
Spanish ships, it drew the attention of some pirates. The convoy artfully dodged the pirates by seeking
refuge in some of the Channel ports around Plymouth whereupon the English Government promptly
impounded the ships and removed the treasure.
But Queen Elizabeth was not wanting for an explanation to the justifiably outraged Philip. Her
government had acted with “the utmost propriety”. She said, “As the treasure had not yet been
delivered, it was technically still the property of the bankers in Genoa. It was in everyone’s interests
that England had removed the treasure on shore to save it from almost certain seizure by the French
pirates “.
The Duke of Alva responded with alacrity and seized all English ships and merchandise in the
Netherlands ports; so Elizabeth did not feel bound to release the confiscated treasure. As it was worth
infinitely more than that seized by Alva, she was able to laugh all the way to the treasury!
Pope Gregory XIII was not slow to read Philip’s mind. Over recent years he had been urging him to
forcibly bring England into the Spanish domain and thus back into the fold of the Holy Catholic Church.
24
But Philip was not inclined to respond to the pope’s leading, for there was always that nagging thought
that the troublesome French might take advantage of a Spain that was busily engaged in a major
invasion.
Then there was the problem of neighbouring Portugal. Increasingly Spain’s “brothers in the faith” and
co-inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula, were challenging the supremacy of the sea lanes to Asia and
the newly-acquired Americas. In 1580, after failing to achieve a peaceful settlement, Philip assembled
an army under the command of the Duke of Alva, whom he had recalled from the Netherlands, and
assembled it near the frontier with Portugal. When this intimidatory manoeuvre failed, it had to be
war. Accordingly, early in 1581, Philip’s army and navy converged on Lisbon. After only a token
resistance the fighting ended and Philip found himself king of Portugal.
This was the apogee of Philip’s reign. In one bold stroke he had acquired the vast empire of Portugal
stretching from the Cape of Good Hope around the coast of Africa, across the Arabian Sea to India, the
isles and archipelagos of the Indies and even through Indo-China to China itself. To his huge empire in
the Americas, Philip had added that vast territory in South America known as Brazil – so vast that the
Amazon basin alone covered a land mass approximate in size to that great western bulge in Africa
which encompasses the Sahara Desert. And, very importantly, he had virtually doubled the size of
Spain’s navy. Truly, Philip had brought Spain to the zenith of her power! Only England stood in his way
to challenge his mastery of the seas.
Philip realised that England must be subdued. He had high hopes for the success of the subversive
actions planned by Allen through the training at his college in Douay and those in Rheims and Rome.
And then there was the long-awaited assault on the English Bible with the translation of the Vulgate
into English at Rheims. If this Bible could capture the hearts of the English and return them to their
former faith, it should be comparatively easy to topple the heretical government of Elizabeth by having
her removed from power. It would not then be necessary to mount an outright invasion of England.
Even so, Philip, ever the cautious King, was determined to be prepared for all eventualities. Now that
he had the Portuguese fleet at his disposal, an invasion of England had become a much more feasible
proposition. He would proceed to secretly build the world’s greatest armada, just in case!
Chapter Eight
Battle of the Bibles
It was not until 1582 that the long-expected Rheims version of the New Testament arrived in England.
It caused no little apprehension among the Protestant clergy. Although the text did not appear to be
much different from the Protestant Bible, yet the copious notes and explanations accompanying the
text were glaringly obvious. The Jesuits were virtually interpreting the Bible to their church’s own ends.
However, upon close examination, it became evident that the Scripture itself had in places been
corrupted, mostly to support Roman dogma.
Of particular offence to Protestants was the way in which the Bible had been changed in order to
support the confessional practice of dealing out penance for sins. Practically every time the word
“repent” occurred in the Protestant New Testament, the Jesuits had rendered it, “do penance”.

For instance, in Matthew 3:2, John the Baptist is made to say, “Do penance for the kingdom of heaven
is at hand “. Again in Acts 2:38, Peter is made to say, “Do penance and be baptised”, and so on
wherever we are exhorted in Protestant Bibles to repent – meaning to be sufficiently sorry for sin to
turn about from our wicked ways.
It is very obvious that Rome’s translation is intended to uphold her concept of salvation through
suffering or works, or even by atoning contributions of money. The same rendering is found in the
Douay Bible used presently by Roman Catholics.
Rome’s real purpose in translating the Latin Vulgate into English was a dual one:
“The principal object of the Rheimish translators was not only to circulate their doctrines through the
country but also to depreciate as much as possible the English translations”. (“Brooke’s Cartwright”, p
256).
By depreciating the Protestant Bible and destroying it as an authority, Rome could expect to restore
papal and priestly power. And that authority not only extends over religious matters but also includes
political and civil authority. The importance of the Protestant Bibles in the overall development of the
Reformation and the emergence of the British Empire is recognised by Warner and Martin in their
book “The Groundwork of British History”:
“The translation of the Bible, for one thing, had worked on the side of Protestants, for though the Bible
itself is on no side, yet the more the Bible was in man’s hands, the more they inclined to judge in
religious matters for themselves; and this habit of `private judgment’, in place of accepting private
`authority’, is the basis of Protestantism. ” (ibid p 278).
Such a statement is indicative of many made by chroniclers of the development of the Reformation,
yet they are simply stating a great Biblical truth as enunciated by the Founder of the Christian faith:
“And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
But at the Council of Trent, Rome had said:
• That the Latin Vulgate was the true Bible.
• That Scripture can only be interpreted by the church.
• That (Roman Catholic) tradition was of equal authority with Scripture.
It soon became evident that the Jesuit New Testament was not capturing the minds and hearts of
England and that the people were becoming even less disposed towards Catholicism. Increasingly,
Allen and his Jesuit friends were turning to intrigue and murder.
In the year 1586, there came yet another plot known as the Babington Conspiracy – so named after one
of the chief conspirators. It had been conceived by an English traitor named John Ballard, a product
and a fair sample of the priestly training at Rheims. There he had been taught that a sure way to earn a
crown in Paradise through acceptable service to God, was to deprive Elizabeth of life and throne.
Albert Close outlines the plan of action:
“The affair was to commence with the assassination of Elizabeth, then the Romanists in England were
to be summoned to arms; and while the flames of insurrection should be raging within the kingdom, a
foreign army was to land upon the coast, besiege and sack the cities that opposed them; raise Mary Stuart of Scotland to the throne, and establish the popish religion in England. (“The Defeat of the
Spanish Armada”, pp 33, 34).
Although the plan seemed quite feasible, it happened to be contrary to the plans of divine providence.
Sir Frances Walsingham, a brilliant statesman and loyalist, early learned of the plot. He shrewdly
allowed it to mature until he had identified the conspirators.
One of the letters intercepted by Walsingham was written by Mary, Queen of Scots, giving instructions
to the conspirators. It was used at the ensuing trial to convict her and she forfeited not only any
chance to occupy the throne of England, but also her head.
There is an interesting anecdote in connection with Mary’s trial that relates to the attitude of the Court
toward the Rheims Catholic Bible. When she was required to swear upon the Scriptures that she had
not plotted against the life of Queen Elizabeth, the Earl of Kent declined to allow her to take the oath
on the Rheims Version on the ground that, being “a popish Testament”, it was of “no value” in taking
such an oath. (Geddes MacGregor, “A Literary History of the Bible”, 1968, p 161).

 

To be continued

[Berean]

Hi all

Continuation …

The battle of the Bibles

Chapter Nine
Invasion Preparations
The failed Babington Plot climaxed a series of botched conspiracies against Queen Elizabeth and her
government. The success of John Knox in favour of the Protestant cause and the imprisonment of
Scotland’s Queen Mary had brought King Philip to the realisation that Scotland could no longer be used
as a springboard for an assault on England. And now that Allen’s plans to win the hearts of wavering
Englishmen through the acceptance of the Jesuit Bible had failed, England had become indisputably
the leader of the Reformation. The hopes of a popular uprising by Roman Catholics and their
supporters had now faded.
King Philip’s plans to increase the size of his fleet for an invasion of England were progressing slowly.
Finance was his problem. But when in 1585, Sixtus V succeeded Gregory as pope, Philip saw a way out
of his dilemma. Quickly, and with great gusto, Sixtus had taken up the Vatican’s plan to crush England.
Philip would put the pope’s enthusiasm to the test and appeal to him for moral, political and financial
support. In a submission to the pope, dated February 24, 1586, the Spanish Ambassador to the Holy
See, wrote:
“Although his Majesty (Philip II) has been at different times admonished by the predecessors of his
Holiness to undertake this enterprise, he never felt so convinced of the reality of the assistance he
should obtain from them as he now confidently expects it from the courage and vigour of his Holiness”
(From the transcript of a Dispatch in the Archives of Simancas, Spain; as cited by Albert Close, “The
Divine Programme of European History”, p 100).
Among the points made in the submission was the avowed aim of the enterprise:
“To bring back that kingdom [England] to the obedience of the Roman Church, and to put in possession
of it the Queen of Scotland, [Mary] who so well deserves it for having remained firm in the faith in the
midst of such great calamities” (ibid pp 100, 101).
Having presented to the pope such a noble purpose for the proposed enterprise, Philip was not
unmindful of the need to secure for the Spanish Monarchy an eventual advantage. So he sought an
27
undertaking that after the death of Mary, the succession of the rightful heir, James, be set aside in
favour of a member of Philip’s family (ibid p 101).
The final, but vital point submitted to Pope Sixtus V, was the plea for financial help:
“His Majesty finds himself so much drained by the long wars of Flanders… that his Holiness should
contribute for his share, two million of gold” (ibid p 101).
But, much as the pope was in sympathy with the plan, he was too astute to pay out 2,000,000 gold
ducats for an expedition that had yet to materialise. He agreed only to a progressive method of
payment. Pleading an exhausted Pontifical treasury, he offered the following:
200,000 crowns as soon as the expedition sailed
100,000 crowns as soon as his army landed in England
100,000 crowns within another six months
200,000 crowns for every twelve months that the war continued. (ibid p 102).
The pope also revealed the Vatican’s mercenary instinct by insisting that its investment should be
commercially sound:
“His Holiness’s intention is that the Apostolic See should recover and be effectually replaced in the
possession of the revenues, rights, jurisdictions and actions which it formerly had in that kingdom
before Henry VIII apostatised from the faith” (ibid p 102).
(4 With the later defeat of the Spanish Armada, the Pope refused to pay a single ducat for an
enterprise “that had accomplished nothing and was now at the bottom of the sea” (ibid p 102))
Here is revealed the motivating force behind Rome’s pious outward regard for the conversion of souls.’
Obtaining mastery over the peoples’ minds is a precursor to control of their purses.
Hard on the heels of Rome’s consent to collude with Spain came the news of Mary Stuart’s execution.
New impetus was given to the preparation for the invasion. Now that the way had been opened to
allow Philip direct access to the throne of England, he committed the entire resources of his empire to
the building of a mighty fleet of ships – an “Invincible Armada”. Hume tells us that the ports and
isthmuses extending from Cape Finisterre in North Western Spain to Sicily were converted into a vast
ship-building yard (“Hume”, Vol. II, Chapter 42).
No doubt, the huge shipyards of Goa and lesser Portuguese ports in India and Ceylon also resounded to
the sounds of axe and hammer on the magnificent teak timber used in the construction of the world’s
finest ships.
Plans for the invasion called for no less than one hundred and thirty vessels, great and small. Close tells
us that the huge galleons were “of great capacity and amazing strength. Their strong ribs were lined
with planks four feet in thickness, through which it was thought impossible that cannon ball could
pierce “.
There were sixty-four of these huge, cumbersome galleons which towered like castles above the
waves. Most were heavily armed with large brass cannon. Besides the normal complement of sailors,
there was provision for quartering soldiers and even supplying comfortable quarters for the pope’s
spiritual army of monks and friars.
28
Then there were the fearsome galleasses, the highly manoeuvrable destroyers capable of being
speedily propelled by the oars of three hundred galley slaves, many of whom were serving sentences
meted out by the pope’s Inquisitors.
Built into the prow of these boats was a malevolent-looking espalone, tipped with a large iron spike for
ramming and piercing the hulls of enemy ships. Armed with formidable cannon, they were the
spearhead of the squadron which would grapple with the enemy, enabling their soldiers to swarm
aboard, wreaking havoc with their swords and fearsome halberds (a combination of spear and battle
axe).
Besides the eight thousand soldiers needed for this fearsome armada, there would be needed 2,088
galley slaves and 20,000 soldiers. But the spacious galleons could still provide ample room to
adequately accommodate the numerous “noblemen and gentlemen” who were keen to obtain the
pope’s “blessing” by volunteering their services for the humbling of England.
But this was not all! To this, the greatest sea-borne invasion force ever assembled, was to be added yet
another fleet! It was to be built and launched in the ports of the Netherlands by Philip’s new governor
of the Lowlands, the Duke of Parma, who was widely regarded as the “ablest general of the age”.
This second armada would consist of some four hundred vessels, large and small, which would meet up
with the main armada as it lay off the coast at Calais. Not only would it reinforce the main fleet but it
would be used for ferrying soldiers and supplies across the English Channel.
As the time for the invasion approached, Parma had assembled an impressive polyglot army in the
Channel ports. Close gives some details revealing the divided loyalties of the times:
“There were thirty regiments of Italians, ten of Walloons, eight of Roman Catholic Scots and eight of
Burgundians. Near Dixmuyde were mustered eighty regiments of Dutch, sixty of Spaniards, six of
Germans, and seven of English fugitives under the command of Sir William Stanley … quite a flock of
Italian and Neapolitan princes and counts repaired to his [Parma’s] banners. Believing that the last hour
of England had come, they had assembled to witness her fall ” (“The Defeat of the Spanish Armada”, p
43).
Lest any of our readers be unconvinced of the papal component of this “holy” enterprise to finish
“heretical” England, it is pertinent to note that the eventual complement of men included the VicarGeneral of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, accompanied by two hundred Dominican Friars. As it was
this Dominican Order that the Vatican had entrusted with the administration of the Inquisitions, it
requires little imagination to realise what methods the pope had in mind for bringing about the
“conversion” of English “heretics”.
A look at the then contemporary city of Goa, in India, gives an insight into the terrible abominations
committed in that Inquisition by the Dominican and Jesuit priests. It was set up in the year 1560
following the request of the Jesuit, Frances Xavier who, today, is lauded as a missionary and revered as
a saint. As a result of the unspeakable atrocities committed in Goa, the St Thomas Christian Churches
of Southern India were destroyed ere the century ended. (For information on the infamous Goa
Inquisition and its role in the destruction of the St Thomas churches, read “The Inquisitive Christians”
by H.H. Meyers).

to be continued …

God bless

[Berean]

Hi to all

The battle of the Bibles

Chapter Ten
The Armada Sails
In the merry month of May, 1588, Lisbon was agog with excitement. Now a part of greater Spain, this
port had been selected for assembling the ships of Philip’s “Invincible Armada”. With the pope’s
promise of financial help, no money had been spared to ensure the success of this “holy” enterprise.
Pope Sixtus V had added his curse on the already “damned” Queen Elizabeth and now he placed his
signal blessing on the fleet. The twelve principal ships of the armada received a papal baptism and each
was christened with the name of an apostle. Others were named after saints.
On the 28th May, there arrived a favourable wind. The proud galleons spread their canvas and, with
banners and streamers unfurled, proceeded to glide down the River Tagus in quest of their “holy”
mission. We can well envisage the proud admiral, the Duke of Medina Sidonia, in the “St Martin”,
heading the seemingly endless procession. Nothing could stop them now and soon England would be
humbled.
It seemed that every conceivable preparation and precaution had been taken to ensure the armada’s
success, even to commanding that “there shall be no sort of blasphemy on board the consecrated ships
(C.S.P. (Spanish) 1 April, 1588, cited by Grierson, “King of Two Worlds”, p 189).
But neither the pope, King Philip or Medina Sidonia had taken heed to the signs suggesting that their
plans could be at variance with the divine programme. Already, the Spaniards had made a fatal mistake
in building ships suited to the land-locked waters of the Mediterranean. Tall and cumbersome,
towering like lofty buildings tossing on the mighty Atlantic swells driven into the shallows of the English
Channel, they would be no match for the shallower draft, faster and more manoeuvrable craft of
England’s hastily-collected navy.
Then, shortly before the armada was due to sail, there was the sudden death of the armada’s
appointed chief commander, the Marquis of Santa Cruz. He was beyond doubt Spain’s ablest sea
captain. So the ineffectual Medina Sidonia, whose chief recommendation was his wealth, was hastily
appointed in his place.
Neither had there been concern for the fatal flaw in the strategic planning, except for the more
discerning Parma. He had repeatedly warned Philip of the difficulties that could be expected in linking
up his fleet with Medina Sidonia’s at a pre-determined time. To add to the vagaries of the weather,
there were treacherous tides and shoals to be negotiated with winds not always favourable to
manoeuvring in the restricted waters of the Channel ports.
And then there were the pestilent Dutch seafarers. Who could guarantee that the rebellious Reformers
would not support their fellow Protestants in England by blockading the Flanders ports, thereby
preventing Parma’s ships from reaching open waters?
But King Philip was so sure of his divinely-appointed mission and the efficacy of His Holiness’s blessing,
that he was able to shrug off Parma’s forebodings.’ “Great affairs involve great difficulties”, summed up
his philosophy which he had communicated to Parma in one of his replies.
5 Philip was not alone in his expectations. Dr Allen, now a Cardinal, had prepared a pamphlet titled,
“An Admonition to the Nobility and People of England concerning the present wars”. In essence, it was an exhortation to the Roman Catholics of England to rise up and join forces with those of the invading
forces of his Catholic Majesty’s forces. By purging the country of the iniquity of Elizabeth’s reign, they
would be assuring the salvation of their own and their children’s souls. So confident was he of the
Armada’s success, that he had the pamphlets distributed when the Armada had sailed. (Garrett
Mattingly, “The Defeat of the Spanish Armada”, pp. 324,325).
The incredible calamities contributing to the destruction of the “Invincible Armada” soon became a fact
of history. All of Parma’s forebodings were multiplied tenfold. The weather was unto-operative; the
ships were unsuitable and the Dutch had successfully blocked the Flanders’ ports. Tied to the order of
strategy laid down by the “Catholic King”, Medina Sidonia felt unable to react to changing
circumstances. The ensuing delay proved disastrous for the waiting armada. It was while anchored off
Calais that the Spaniards were introduced to England’s innovative fire-ships. What England’s Lord
Howard and his nimble fleet failed to accomplish was finished off by the elements as surviving ships
were driven northward along the Scottish coast. When the few battered survivors limped back to Spain
some four months later, the enormity of the disaster became apparent. Spain had lost dominion of the
seas.
Of the thirty thousand crusaders who had set out so confidently on the pope’s service, less than ten
thousand returned to their homes. King Philip was stunned and overwhelmed by the crushing blow. He
closeted himself in his palace and refused audience with anyone. Far from receiving solace from his
spiritual lord and master, Philip received a knockout blow inflicted on him by the pope who refused to
pay even one ducat of his promised help! Philip’s pleadings were in vain. Pope Sixtus V was not
interested in honouring his pledge to a “loser”, let alone paying for an armada that had achieved
nothing and now lay at the bottom of the ocean.
The Christian world was not slow to see through the sham of papal infallibility. The blessing of the
reputed Vicar of Christ had been shown to be worthless. Protestantism was elevated as the prestige of
England and Holland rose, while that of Spain rapidly declined. The noon of the papacy waned while
the high tide of the Spanish Empire began its protracted ebb.
The effect of the Spanish defeat on England, Scotland, the Netherlands and France was dramatic. Many
who had wavered between Catholicism and Protestantism saw the folly of putting their trust in man
and his traditions, as opposed to the Word of God.
Not the least of such was King James VI, son of Mary Queen of Scots, who in a few years’ time was to
become King James I of England, Ireland and France. As a champion of Protestantism, his name would
become immortalised in the King James Version of the Bible.

(to be continued)

God bless

[Berean]

Chapter Eleven
King James the Protestant
The dawn of the seventeenth century smiled benevolently on the British Isles. Flushed with the
magnificent victory over Spain and the thwarting of papal designs, England settled into the role of
leadership of the Reformation. But there remained one question mark which hung like a menacing
cloud on the Protestant horizon. Would the successor to the aging Queen Elizabeth secure for England
her Protestant way of life? Or would the machinations of the wily papists succeed once more in
subjecting England to the whim and demands of a European monarch whose actions would be dictated
by the rapacious aims of the papacy? The answer came in 1603. Within three days of Elizabeth’s death,
King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England and Ireland.
Although a Stuart (son of Mary Queen of Scots), James had increasingly leaned towards Protestantism.
He had received most of his childhood education in England where he had come to be regarded as
something of a prodigy due to his ability to read Latin and French, as well as being able to freely
translate them into English. He later developed a remarkable knowledge of theology and became a
skilled writer. Interestingly, he anticipated modern-day thought by writing “A Counterblast to
Tobacco”, described by the historian, C.H.K. Marten as “a violent attack upon the practice of smoking”
(“The Groundwork of British History”, p 327).
Such a man could not fail to appreciate the impact of the English Protestant Bibles on Scotland and
England. “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).
Free indeed were those countries which had grasped the basic tenet of the Reformation – that in
matters of faith, the Bible was the only authority, and that Rome had never been the custodian of that
authority!
It is not surprising then, that James was receptive to a petition from several hundred clergymen who
requested an updated translation of the Bible and that this translation should continue in the tradition
of the Byzantine, or Received Text, as used by Tyndale and that it should contain “no note or
comment” (McClure, “The Translators Revived”, pp 57, 58 – cited by Wilkinson, “Our Authorised Bible
Vindicated”, p 77).
This last requirement was a reaction to the copious explanations and notes found in the Jesuit Rheims
New Testament for the purpose of supporting Roman tradition and dogma. The Jesuit Bible was
particularly offensive to the stricter elements of Protestantism as found among the Puritans. Wilkinson
sources Brooke for the following comment:
“The language of the Jesuit Bible had stung the sensibilities and the scholarship of Protestants. In the
Preface of that book, it had criticised and belittled the Bible of the Protestants. The Puritans felt that
the corrupted version of the Rheimists was spreading poison among the people, even as formerly by
withholding the Bible, Rome had starved the people” (“Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 77).
It was also known that Allen’s men at Douay were assiduously working on the translation of the Old
Testament to complement the Rheims New Testament. What Rome could not do by force, she was
determined to accomplish by taking captive the minds of men.
At this time, the English language had arrived at what many claim to be the apogee of expression.
“Each word was broad, simple and generic” (Wilkinson). It was this language which such literary
geniuses as Shakespeare and Bacon exploited to the full, leaving to us an English heritage which has
not been surpassed. The time was ripe for Protestantism to bring forth a Bible that would not only
expose popish perversions but would become a monument to the English language and a treasure to
all who cherish truth and liberty.
And who were better qualified for this awesome task than the godly scholars who were born and bred
amidst the struggles of the Reformers? Their character had been refined by fire and shaped on the
anvil of papal persecution. Surely none were better fitted to set about the task of transmitting the
Word of God with conviction and sincerity!
King James responded to the call. He appointed fifty-four learned men, all with a reverent regard for
divine inspiration to bring into being a Bible that would reflect the greatest possible concern to achieve
fidelity of translation. By the time the work began, the number of translators had been reduced by
circumstance and death to forty-seven.
Humility, the hallmark of every true follower of Christ, was not lacking in these great men. One of their
number who was eventually appointed to write the Introduction to the finished Bible, Miles Smith, MA.
D.D., was able to write:
“There were many chosen that were greater in the other men’s eyes than in their own, and that sought
the truth rather than their own praise” (“The Translators to the Reader”).
The thoroughness with which these men were organised is well described by a modern-day admirer of
the Authorised Bible – Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Ph.D.:
“The forty-seven learned men appointed by King James to accomplish this important task were divided
first into three companies: one worked at Cambridge, another at Oxford, and the third at Westminster.
Each of these companies again split up into two. Thus, there were six companies working on six allotted
portions of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles. Each member of each company working individually on his
task, then brought to each member of his committee the work he had accomplished. The committee all
together went over that portion of the work translated. Thus, when one company had come together,
and had agreed on what should stand, after having compared their work, as soon as they had
completed any one of the sacred books, they sent it to each of the other companies to be critically
reviewed. If a later company, upon reviewing the book, found anything doubtful or unsatisfactory, they
noted such places, with their reasons, and sent it back to the company whence it came. If their should
be disagreement, the matter was finally arranged at a general meeting of the chief persons of all the
companies at the end of the work. It can be seen by this method that each part of the work was
carefully gone over at least fourteen times. It was further understood that if there was any special
difficulty or obscurity all the learned men of the land could be called upon by letter for their judgment.
And finally, each bishop kept the clergy of his diocese notified concerning the progress of the work, so
that if anyone felt constrained to send any particular observations, he was notified to do so” 6 (“Our
Authorised Bible Vindicated”, 1930, p 85).
(6 In stark contrast to such openness, we shall later note the secretive way in which the fraud of
Revision was thrust upon the English-speaking world.)
The authorised Bible of King James became available to the public in 1611. Immediately it was
accepted as the living Word of God and “a miracle of English Prose”. A comparison with the RheimsDouay Bible, the Old Testament portion of which was completed a couple of years earlier, only served
to enhance the Authorised Version’s popularity. It was immediately recognised as a death-blow to the
supremacy of Roman Catholicism in the English-speaking world.
Faber, a one-time Church of England clergyman who, like many of his ilk, endeavoured to Romanise his
church and finally abandoned his Protestant cloak by embracing Roman Catholicism, was eminently
qualified to identify Protestantism’s great bulwark. He cried out in despair:
“The printing of the English Bible has proved to be by far the mightiest barrier ever reared to repel the
advance of Popery, and to damage all the resources of the Papacy” (Eadie, “The English Bible”, Vol.11, p
158 – cited in “Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 88).
A “mighty barrier” indeed! It has turned out to be an enduring bulwark against Atheism, Modernism,
Liberalism and Catholicism. It travelled the broad waters of the British-ruled seas to lands both old and
new where it has been translated into “a thousand tongues”. It formed the basis of common law in
countries which it civilised. It stimulated the minds of men who developed the Protestant work ethic
and brought about the Industrial Revolution which built Western civilisation. In short, its illuminating
rays took the world out of the Dark Ages of ignorance and superstition and pointed the way to the
shining light of intellectual, civil and religious liberty.
Our Authorised Bible has withstood the attacks of scoffers, sceptics and self-styled scientists. It has
been challenged by numerous “newer and better” translations, yet it has remained the standard to
which succeeding translators aspire and by which all are judged. Its numeration of chapters and verses
is slavishly copied by the great majority.
After three hundred years of use, the “Ladies Home Journal” of November 1921 confidently asserted:
“Now, as the English-speaking people have the best Bible in the world, and as it is the most beautiful
monument erected with the English alphabet, we ought to make the most of it, for it is an incomparably
rich inheritance, free to all who care to read. This means that we ought invariably in the church and on
public occasions to use the Authorised Version; all others are inferior. ”
Questions then, must inevitably arise: What do the Protestant Bibles of the Received Text line have
that is lacking in others? Why did the world have to await the arrival of the “Waldensian Bibles” to
break the Roman shackles which bound it to the Dark Ages? The answer is simple. They transmit the
inspired word of God as opposed to those which are contaminated by the philosophy, interpretations
and emendations of men.
To demonstrate this claim, we shall briefly divert our attention from the glorious march of the
Authorised Bible of King James to that period of early Christianity when the church, along with its
Scriptures, first came under attack – an attack which has been sustained in varying degrees of subtlety
and intensity to this very day.

To be continued

God bless

[Berean]

 

Section Two
Chapters Twelve to Fifteen
“My Words Shall Not Pass Away ”
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8).
Chapter Twelve
Seeds of Apostasy
St John, the apostle of Jesus Christ is believed to have passed away around 100 AD. Having outlived his
fellow apostles, he was able to take an active part in collating their writings into what we now call the
New Testament (Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History”, Book III Chapter 24).

So carefully were the writings which form the New Testament chosen, that no Christian Church Council
dared to question what the early church had set aside as inspired Scripture until the convening of the
papal Council of Trent in 1645 (Dean Stanley, “Essays on Church and State”, p 136).
John foresaw that the fledgling Christian Church would come to be seen as an enemy of the pagans.
Just as the Prince of Darkness had sought to destroy the Word Incarnate (John 1:14), so the Word of
Inspiration would surely come under attack. Therefore, before concluding his Revelation of Jesus
Christ, John recorded one of God’s most terrible warnings to mankind:
“If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this
book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city” (Revelation 22:18, 19).
The evil philosophies issuing from pagan countries at the commencement of the Christian era were
numerous. Because they contrasted greatly with the quality of love which God had so dramatically
demonstrated by sacrificing His “only begotten
Son” that all who truly believe might have eternal life (John 3:16; 1 John 5:13), the pagan religions
could not compete with Christianity. Therefore, the Arch-deceiver needed to come up with a
counterfeit Christianity which in reality was a modified form of paganism. This “Christianity” would play
on the people’s ignorance and present a pleasing alternative to those un-regenerated hearts which
found the Christian demands of obedience to God’s Law irksome.
Dr. B.G. Wilkinson, in his comprehensive work: “Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, notes three
warnings given by the apostle Paul as to what the Christian Church could expect:
1. “False Knowledge Exalted Above Scripture”
Paul warns of the intrusion into Scripture of “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20). Wilkinson
reminds us that the Greek word used by Paul for science is “gnosis”, which means “knowledge”. He
notes that the apostle did not condemn knowledge, but “false knowledge” and comments:
“False teachers were placing their own interpretations on Christian truth by reading into it human
ideas. This tendency grew and increased until a great system, bearing the name of Christianity, known
as “Gnosticism” was established” (“Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 8).
Wilkinson backs his argument by quoting Milman:
“The later Gnostics were bolder, but more consistent innovators on the simple theme of Christianity”
(“History of Christianity”, Vol. II p 107).
2. “Spiritualising the Scriptures Away”
This phase of the apostasy was foretold in Paul’s letter to Timothy:
“But shun profane babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as
doth a canker … saying that the resurrection is passed already; and overthrow the faith of some” (2
Timothy 2:16-18).
Wilkinson comments thus: “The prediction of the apostle was fulfilled in a great system of Bible
spiritualising or mystifying which subverted the primitive faith. Turning the Scriptures into an allegory
was a fashion in those days” (“Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 11).

3. “Substituting Philosophy for Scripture”
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after
the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8).
Celebrated historian Harnack supports Wilkinson’s view: “Greek philosophy exercised the greatest
influence not only on the Christian mode of thought, but also through the institutions of the Church”
(“History of Dogma”, Vol. I p 128).
So it is quite clear that the real enemy of Christianity was not the obvious threat of heathenism or
paganism, but the more subtle adulteration of Christianity. As we progress through this book we shall
see that the above methods of perversion have k been incorporated into the spurious renditions of
Scripture which remain to this day in various modern versions – namely, Gnosticism, allegorising and
Greek philosophising.
We know that this process of Scriptural depravation commenced even during the lifetime of some of
the apostles and that the purpose was to destroy the fledgling church:
“Even before the death of the apostles, there was a strong disposition on the part of the great outlying
world to destroy the new religion” (Hurst, “History of the Christian Church”, Vol. I p 149).
Then we are told:
“The attack on Christianity dealt largely with the Scriptures” (ibid p 187).
Writing of the Gnostic Marcion, Irenaeus shows how the attack continued into the second century:
“Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not
acknowledging some books at all; and, curtailing the Gospel according to Luke and the epistle of Paul,
they assert that these alone are authentic, which they themselves have shortened” (“Anti-Nicene
Fathers”, [Scribners] Vol. I pp 434, 435).
Justin Martyr was born in Greece of pagan parents in the very year in which John the Revelator is
thought to have died (100 AD). He is credited with conversion to Christianity and became a Christian
teacher, but could not entirely divest himself of his heathen upbringing and so he clung to some
heretical ideas.
One of his pupils was the famed Tatian, who built upon the heresies of his teacher by embracing
Gnostic philosophy. He wrote what is known as the Diatessaron meaning “four in one”, which he
claimed harmonised with the Gospels. But they were so severely corrupted that a Bishop of Syria was
astonished to find some of his parishioners actually coming to believe in them as though they were
genuine Scriptures. He was so alarmed that he threw out some two hundred copies! (“Encyclopedias”,
“Tatian”).
As the way of pupils who emulate their mentors, one of Justin Martyr’s pupils who came to be known
as Clemens of Alexandria, did just that. In his college which he founded, he determined that he would
not teach true Christianity, but would mix it with pagan philosophy. Commenting on this J.W. Burgon,
DD says:”He [Clemens] habitually mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired Scriptures” Burgon attributes
Clemens’ careless attitude toward Scripture to his familiarity with the works of “Marcion and the rest
of the Gnostic crew” (“Revision Revised”, p 336).
Naturally, such teachings continued to be reflected in following generations. One of Clemens’ pupils,
Origen, had a penchant for allegorising the Scriptures to the extent that he came to the place where he
could say:
“The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written” (“McClintock and
Strong Encyclopedia”, article: “Origen”).
With such observations, one is led to ponder just what use for Scripture Origen had in mind. Certainly
it was not what the Author of Scripture intended, for had not God said:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness; That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).
It can readily be seen that Clemens’ philosophy would enable the Scriptures to be interpreted to
support practically any belief or dogma capable of being devised by man. Thus Origen came up with
the notion that the soul existed from eternity. After death, it migrated to another form of life
commensurate with one’s conduct during the human life span (shades of Buddhism!). His fantasies led
him to believe that even the stars and planets had souls which, like men, were on trial to learn
perfection. (“Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 18).
So we see a new type of Bible emerging which Wilkinson describes as “an adaptation of the Word of
God to Gnosticism “.
The learned Dr. Scrivener summed up the effect of this tragic prostitution of God’s Word, when he
wrote some sixteen centuries after Clemens:
“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New
Testament has been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus
(AD 150), and the African fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far
inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later,
when moulding the Textus Receptus” (“Introduction to New Testament Criticism”, 3rd Edition p 511).
We shall now proceed to follow the early Christian Church and see how Origenism came to flood the
emerging Roman Catholic Church through Eusebius and Jerome in the fourth century; and how that
very distinguished Catholic theologian of the mid-nineteenth century, Cardinal Newman, was able to
show what a powerful hold Origen still held over the philosophy of Catholicism:
“I love … the name Origen. I will not listen to the notion that so great a soul was lost” (Newman,
“Apologia pro vita sua”, Chapter VII, 3rd Edition p 282).

to be continued

God bless

[Berean]

 

Hi to all

Chapter Thirteen
Early Christian Missionaries
37
It is easy for present-day Christians to forget that the first Christians, as with Jesus and His disciples,
were Jews. With the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD there was a great migration to Syria, including
the area around Antioch where the followers of Christ were first called “Christians”.
The writings of the apostles, which were in Koine Greek (or the common language of the day), were
carefully collected and taken to Antioch where they were translated into Syriac about the year 150 AD.
This translation came to be known as the Peshitta, or common language Bible (See Hort,
“Introduction”, p 143).
Copies of this Bible were eagerly sought by the expanding Syrian Church and were taken by its
missionaries eastward into Persia, India and even into China!
But there was also a great need for a Latin translation, for it must be remembered that at the time, the
Roman Empire included Asia Minor (now the Western portion of Turkey), Greece, Italy, Southern
Europe and parts of Britain. Paul and Barnabas had already introduced Christianity to the Jews and the
pagans of Galatia, which was then a Roman province.
The Galatians were descendants of a fiery Celtic race of Gauls who occupied an area in what is now
known as France. They had subdued Italy over four centuries earlier, and then, being driven out by the
emerging Roman Empire, had remained isolated in Asia Minor. Hence the name “Galatia” (Ridgeway,
“The Early Age of Greece”, Vol. I p 356).
The Galatians still maintained links with the Gauls and although they used the Latin language of the
Roman Empire, they also retained their Gallic language. They were ideally suited to take Christianity
westward. To suit their needs the Koine Greek manuscripts from which the Peshitta originated, were
translated into Latin in 157 AD. This was a forerunner of what came to be known as the Itala Bible. It
was eventually carried westward by Celtic missionaries as far as Britain, for these people also had come
to know Latin from their Roman conquerors.
It will be recalled that, after leaving Galatia, Paul continued his missionary journey to Greece. Such
places as Athens, Philippi, Thessalonica and Corinth are inseparably connected with early New
Testament history. The letters which Paul wrote to the believers were in Greek, so they had received
much of the New Testament Canon first-hand. In God’s providence, within the lifetime of the
generation following the apostles, the civilised world had the benefit of the gospel recorded in Greek,
Latin and Syriac languages.
In the middle of the third century, there was born in Antioch one who was to have a lasting influence
on Christianity. His name was Lucian. Antioch by this time was a thriving Roman metropolis, but it was
also a centre of Greek life and culture.
Perhaps more importantly, it had, by Lucian’s time, superseded Jerusalem as the centre of Christianity.
When he was about ten years of age, Lucian was brought face to face with the realities of imperial
politics when Shapur I, the Persian Monarch, waged war against Rome and took the Emperor captive.
Antioch now came under Persian rule. Many Syrian Christians were taken to Persia as captives and with
them they took their Peshitta Bibles.
But it was not long before the Roman Empire was revitalised by an energetic Emperor named Aurelian.
He regained most of the lost territories, including Antioch. By this time Lucian was a very well-educated
man in his early twenties. Erelong, Roman and Alexandrian Bishops arrived, and began pressing their

Romanised doctrines onto the Bishop of Antioch. Lucian noticed that the Scriptures which they used
were substantially different from those being used by Syrian Christians. Being a committed Christian in
the apostolic tradition, he determined to resist the Gnostic philosophy that characterised these Bibles,
and to reject the growing notion of the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome who was exalting his position
by using deceptive writings of an Apocryphal nature which supported the primacy of Peter (Source –
Shotwell and Loumis, “The See of Peter”, p 122. Cited by Wilkinson in: “Truth Triumphant”, pp 49, 50).
Lucian was associated with the creation of a theological school in Antioch in which he taught and
where he strove to protect the Apostolic Church from the inroads of heresy. Wilkinson cites Gilly,
Fisher and Eusebius who tell us that in Lucian’s day there
“Were at least eighty heretical sects all striving for supremacy” and that “Mutilations of the Sacred
Scriptures abounded because each took unwarranted licence in removing or adding pages to the Bible
manuscripts” (“Truth Triumphant”, p 50).
As a counter to spurious Scriptures, Lucian determined to certify the Apostolic New Testament by
editing the Peshitta and he also translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek. According to Nolan,
this version held sway in Constantinople and in most of the East (“The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate”,
p 72).
Thus we can attribute to this Christian scholar the honour of producing a complete Bible which
established what has become known as the Traditional or Byzantine Text from which eventually came
the Textus Receptus Bibles (Received Text) of the Protestant Reformation. (See the “Oxford Dictionary
of the Christian Church”, 1958 p 826).
Like so many of the following champions of the Traditional and Received Text, Lucian met a martyr’s
death in 312 AD.

 

God bless

12) And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
[13] But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.(Math.24:12,13)

[Berean]

Hi to all

Continuation

The Battle of the Bibles

Chapter Fourteen

Dividers of the Faith

The Christians of the early fourth century must have welcomed the news of Emperor Constantine’s
conversion to Christianity (circa 313 AD). For long and weary years, they had felt the oppressive heel of
Diocletian, the pagan Roman Emperor, who used the forces of the State in a cruel but futile effort to
crush their faith.
Did those Christians realise that Constantine’s “conversion” was merely a political ploy to unite his
Christian and pagan subjects under a form of government that espoused an acceptable mixture of their
two philosophies? Where persecution had failed to check the spread of Christianity, it was thought
that compromise would bring about peace and unity. Constantine looked around for a form of spiritual
authority by which he could control the hearts and minds of both parties. What better authority than a
Bible contaminated by Origen’s penchant for allegorising Bible events or a Bible that could be
interpreted to suit both pagan and Christian philosophies!
B.G. Wilkinson makes this interesting observation: “His [Constantine’s] predilection was for the type of
Bible which readings would give him a basis for his imperialistic ideas of the great state church, with
ritualistic orientation and unlimited central power. The philosophy of Origen was well suited to serve
Constantine’s religio political theocracy” (“Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, pp 19, 20).
39
It so happened that Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea, had recently (331 AD), edited Origen’s Bible in
the Greek. Constantine recognised his work as a fulfilment of his need. He ordered fifty copies to be
produced on vellum (animal skins) and had them distributed among the churches around
Constantinople. In so doing, it is pertinent to here note that, as Emperor Constantine had assumed the
role of spiritual father of the Christian Church, he was in fact laying the foundation of the Roman
Catholic system of religion, for the name itself is expressive of the union of a State and a Catholic, or
universal church.
But not all Christians were prepared to accept Constantine’s judgments on faith and order. Not the
least of their objections centred on his Eusebio-Origen Bible which contrasted unfavourably with
Lucian’s Bible.
In an attempt to overcome this drawback, and in line with the desire of the emerging Roman Catholic
Church to cut Western Europe off from Eastern culture and learning, Pope Damasus in 382
commissioned Jerome, one of his learned monks, to bring out a Bible translation in Latin.
Henceforth, the Greek language with its literary treasures was to be shunned by Rome, a fact which
played no small part in bringing on the Dark Ages (476 – 1453).
Jerome had access to the famous library of Eusebius and Pamphilius in Caesarea where the many
manuscripts of Origen were preserved (Swete, “Introduction to Greek Old Testament”, p 86). In his
book, “Catholic and Protestant Bibles”, Jacobus tells us that among them was a Greek Bible of the
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus type (p 4). Jerome used this Bible as the basis of his Latin translation.7
7. The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are considered to be survivors of the type of Bible ordered by
Constantine (Price, “Ancestry” pp 69, 70).
However, Jerome didn’t slavishly follow Eusebius. At that time, Lucian’s (Traditional) Greek Bible held
great sway around Constantinople, being much preferred to the Bible which Constantine had obtained
from Eusebius. This was one reason why Rome was anxious for a Latin Bible. It could also help to wean
the Latin speaking populous away from their Greek Bible. Jerome, according to Dr E.F. Hills, consulted
old Greek manuscripts and Hills backs his conclusion by citing Hort:
“One of the Greek Manuscripts which Jerome used was closely related to Codex A, which is of the
Traditional text type” (“The King James Version Defended”, p 187).
Dr Hills’ own conclusions are similar:
“Among the Latin-speaking Christians of the West the substitution of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate for the Old
Latin Version may fairly be regarded as movement toward the Traditional (Byzantine) text type” (ibid).
Therefore, because Jerome’s Bible came closer to the Traditional Text whilst still retaining much of
Eusebius’ Origenism, it was still highly acceptable to Rome as, what we today would call, an ecumenical
Bible. Interestingly, Jerome did not want to include the apocryphal books in his Old Testament, yet at
the insistence of the pope he was forced to include them.
Wilkinson sees this as proof that even at this early stage of development, the papacy upheld tradition
as being of equal authority with Scripture (“Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 46).
Thus around 400 AD, Jerome gave to the Roman Catholic Church a Bible which has been used as a basis
for its official Bible translations, eight of which have been produced to the middle of the twentieth
40
century. Jerome’s work did not readily gain acceptance with the masses and some nine hundred years
were to pass before it came to be known as the Vulgate (Jacobus, “Catholic and Protestant Bibles”, p
4).
Such actions which secured for Rome much of the corrupted Origen-Eusebian Bible ensured that,
henceforth, the Christian Church would never again be united. Three great branches of Christianity
arose, each having its own Bible and liturgy. To the east there was the original Apostolic Church which
branched out from Greece and Syria and quickly spread into Persia, India and even into China and
Japan. They came to rely on Lucian’s Greek Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta (Burgon and Miller, “The
Traditional Text”, p 128).
To the west there arose the great Latin communities of Northern Italy and the numerous Celtic
communities of Christians who spread from Galatia into what is now France, and from there to
England, Scotland and Ireland. These Christians took with them the Itala or Latin Bible which dates back
to the mid-second century. Evidence for this is given by Fulton:
“The old Italic version into the rude Low Latin of the second century held its own as long as Latin
continued to be the language of the people. The critical version of Jerome never displaced it, and only
replaced it when the Latin ceased to be a living language, and became the language of the learned”
(“Forum”, June 1887, cited, “Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 27).
Milan, being strategically placed became a focal point of numerous Church Councils of the Eastern and
Western clergy (See Gordon, “World Healers”, pp 210, 211, 237, 238).
The third great branch into which Christianity separated lay to the south, in the Roman portion of Italy
and in North Africa, especially around Alexandria. It was this branch of Christianity which increasingly
gorged itself on pagan philosophy and set up its religio-political headquarters in Rome. Its authority
was a mixture of Jerome’s Origen-impregnated Bible and the traditions of man. Its Bishop, the pope,
declared himself head of all the Christian churches and set about imposing his leadership and corrupt
Bible on the rest of Christianity. This battle of the Bibles, on which depends Roman Catholic supremacy
in religion and politics, continues to this very day.

 

God bless

[Berean]

Chapter 15

The Guardians Of The Faith
We must now briefly trace the progress of the Bibles and of Christianity in their march through the West. At the time when Jerome was engaged on the
translation and release of his Latin Bible, there was a young slave in Ireland named Patrick who had
Patrick who had been taken from a “land by the Irish Sea”. He was born around
360 AD in the northern Roman province of Strathclyde now known as Scotland. Patrick left us an interesting account of his young life
I, Patrick, a sinner, the roughest and least of all the faithful, and the most despicable to most
despicable to most, had Calpurnius for a father, a deacon, son of the late
Potitus, the priest who lived in the village of Banavan, Tiberniae, for he had a
small farm near the place where I was captured. I was barely sixteen years old. I did not know the true God, and I was brought to Ireland in captivity with thousands of
of men in accordance with our actions, because we were walking away from God and
from God and did not keep His commandments. Patrick’s Confessions” cited by Wilkinson:
“Truth Triumphant” cited by Wilkinson: “Truth Triumphant”, p. 79
But during those seven years of slavery, Patrick apparently learned obedience
through suffering. He had plenty of time to consider his duty to the apostolic faith in which he was
the apostolic faith into which he was born. After escaping, he realized that his former captors, whom he had come to know and love in Ireland, were themselves slaves to paganism, and that they were not the only ones who had been slaves.
slaves to paganism, and he was determined to return to the island of his captivity as a
as a missionary of Jesus Christ. And the time of his return to Ireland was around
390 A.D. Ibid, p. 82
Patrick preached from the Bible with remarkable results. The Bible he used was of the Itala lineage. He set up Bible schools that later grew into colleges and very large universities. These schools had no
relationship to the papacy because the Bible was their only authority, nor did they pay attention to
the pope’s decrees concerning religious feasts, the observance of Sunday and the liturgy.
Sunday observance and liturgy.
Long after Patrick’s death, these schools continued to produce famous students of the apostolic faith. There was Columba, who introduced Christ to Scotland. Aidan, who
Aidan, who turned England away from its pagan rituals, and Columba, with others who Christianized Germany, France and Switzerland. The schools they established became great centers for the
centers for the distribution of their handwritten Bibles. These Bibles were beautifully copied as befits the performance of a holy task: “In the delicadelicacy of hand manipulation and meticulous but impeccable execution, the entire
the whole range of paleography offers nothing comparable to these early Irish manuscripts. Tymms: “The Art of Illumination as Practiced in Europe from Earliest Times
as Practiced in Europe from Earliest Times”] p. 15
Historian Cathcart’s comments indicate a very high level of learning among these early Celtic missionaries: “Columba had a
education. He was familiar with Latin and Greek, secular and ecclesiastical history,
the principles of jurisprudence, the law of nations, the sciences of medicine, the
laws of the mind. He was the greatest Irishman of the Celtic race in mental faculties
and he founded in Iona the greatest scholarly school of the British Isles, and probably
of Western Europe for a long period. Cathcart, “The Ancient British and Irish
Churches”, p. 185
The indefatigable Columba is credited with establishing over three hundred churches, many of which
schools or monasteries, and some became centers for the copying of
the copying of the Scriptures. Columba himself, says that he copied with his own hand three hundred
New Testaments. From these numerous writings and poems there is evidence that he used the Itala Bible. See Wilkinson: “Truth Triumphant,” p. 103.
It is very significant that these and all the other churches that revered the lineage of
lineage of apostolic Bibles such as the Itala, Peshitta and Lucian Vulgate (as opposed to the Roman Bibles of Eusebius and Jerome), continued to keep the Seventh Day Sabbath as a day of worship.
Day Sabbath as a day of rest. The British Isles were no exception
as shown in the following statements: “The Celts used a
Bible (Itala) as opposed to the Vulgate (of Jerome) and kept Saturday
as a day of rest”. Flick “The Rise of the Medieval Church”, p. 237
Having continued his work in Scotland for thirty-four years, he (Columba)
predicted his death clearly and openly, and one Saturday, June 9, he said to his disciple
Diermit: “This day is called the Sabbath, which it is, the day of rest, and such as it will be
truly for me, for it puts an end to my labors. Butler, “Lives of the Saints,” vol.
Lives of the Saints”, vol. 6, p. 139
Historian Andrew Lang confirms the practice of Sabbath observance in Celtic churches
churches: “They worked on Sunday but kept Saturday in a sabbatical
sabbatical manner. Lang: “A History of Scotland,” vol. I, p. 96

Readers may be puzzled by the fact that two saints proclaimed by
Rome observed the biblical seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday). But the sobering facts are that neither
that neither Patrick, Columba nor the Celtic churches in general had any connection with the
any connection with the bishop of Rome. Wm. Catheart, Doctor of Theology, says: “There is
solid evidence that Patrick had no Roman commission in Ireland. All
churches in Ireland, their brethren in Britain repudiated the supremacy of the
the supremacy of the popes, all knowledge of the conversion of Ireland through
ministry must be suppressed (by Rome at all costs). “The Ancient British and Irish
Churches”, p. 85

“In addition to the note on the previous page, it is worth noting B.G. Wilkinson’s insightful observation
B.G. Wilkinson’s insightful observation: “One is struck by the absence of any reference to Patrick in ‘The Ecclesiastical History of England
written by that staunch Vatican follower, the Englishman Bede, who lived about two hundred years after the death of the
the death of the apostle in Ireland… The reason apparently is that when this historian
this historian wrote, the papacy had not yet made its decision to claim Patrick.” “Truth Triumphant,” p. 88
Perhaps no other name is more famous in the history of the struggle of the Apostolic Church
against the doctrines and dogmas of the Papacy than that of the Waldensians.
Writers sympathetic to the papacy have attempted to fix their origins at the time of
Peter Waldo in the late twelfth century. This is at best a mistake, if not a deliberate fraud. Wilkinson reminds us that: “The historical name of this people as properly
derived from the valley where they lived, is Vaudois. “Our Authorised Bible Vindicated, p. 34
Then he proves his point: “In the ancient Waldensian language, we still have “The Noble Lesson.
The Noble Lesson” (La Nobla Leycon), written around 1100 CE, which attributes the first opposition of the Waldensians to the Church of Rome to the time of Constantine the Great, when Sylvester
the Great, when Sylvester was pope”. idem, pp. 34, 35
Before seeking asylum in the valleys of Piedmont in northern Italy because of the
the growing hostility of the papacy, the Waldensians were part of the Apostolic Church and lived around
and lived around Milan. The reason for their falling out with Rome was due to their insistence on following the Bible as their rule of faith. As we have already seen, this Bible
was the Itala. Wilkinson refers to the historian Comba who makes this significant remark:
“It is believed that the pre-Vaudois Christians of northern Italy could not have
doctrines purer than Rome’s unless their Bible was purer than Rome’s, it was a Bible
Rome, it was a Bible that did not come from the falsified manuscripts of Rome. ibid. p. 31
(This axiomatic statement of Comba’s is just as valid today and should
be recalled by all Protestants who bear the name seriously).
Helvidius is the name of a notable northern Italian scholar who opposed the papal style
style of church practice. He had studied under Auxentius, the Bishop of Milan, where
the church prized his Itala Bible. It contrasted with those used by Rome,
which included the Greek Bible edited for Constantine by Eusebius. Helvidius publicly challenged
publicly challenged the Catholic Jerome for using corrupted Greek manuscripts.
It was such criticism of Eusebius’ Greek Bible of Constantine by prominent scholars that caused Jerome to be cautious.

Thus, as we can see, instead of translating
the Bible of Eusebius from the Greek into the Latin language, he also searched the Greek
Greek manuscripts and came out with a Bible that was closer to the Itala
or the Traditional Text, but it still retained many corruptions.
It is important to remember the influence that these pious Waldensians had on
It is important to remember the influence that these pious Vaudois scholars had on Jerome, for his Bible became the Authorized Latin Vulgate that the Church of Rome authenticated at the Council of Trent. This explains why its descendant, the Douai Bible,
is closer to the King James Version than all the other versions which have
almost turned back to the type of text used by Eusebius. We will explain this phenomenon in more
We will explain this phenomenon in more detail in part four.

Jovinian, a learned compatriot of Helvidius, offended Jerome and his followers by
his superior education and his condemnation of the pagan superstitions that Jerome
nurtured and practiced. For Jerome encouraged an ascetic form of worship that
resulted from the pagan monasticism practiced by Roman priests and other religious zealots (co-religionists) to that day. See Lilly, “Vigilantius and His Time,” p. 3.
His Time,” p. 246
Public actions were taken against Jovinian in Rome and Milan, according to A.H.
Newman, this forced Jovinian and his co-religionists to seek refuge in the Alpine valleys
valleys [among the Waldensians]. “A Manual Of Church History,
vol. I p. 376
The testimony of history compels us to agree with Wilkinson’s conclusions
about the Waldensians and their Bible: “Thus, when Christianity emerged from the
persecutions of pagan Rome, was brought to imperial favor by the emperor Constantine, the
Constantine, the Italian Church of northern Italy – later the Waldensians – is seen standing
in opposition to papal Rome. Their Bible was of the Itala family of fame.
It is this Latin translation that represents the Received Text. Its very name “Itala” is
derived from the Italic district, the regions of the Waldensians”. (“Our Authorised Bible Vindicated
Bible Vindicated,” p. 35).
As for the purity of the Waldensian Bible in relation to its contemporaries, let us listen to the recognized authority in Rome, Augustine, to whom the Catholic Church likes to pay a
holy homage. Around 400 A.D., he declared: “Now, among the translations themselves, the Italian [l’Itala] is to be preferred to the others, because it remains very close to the words without prejudice to the clarity of the text.
of the words without prejudice to the clarity of expression”. * Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers”], [Christian Lit Edition] Vol. II p. 542 – quoted by Wilkinson; ibid.
Dr. Scrivener confirms the antiquity of the Waldensian Itala Bible: “The Latin Bible, the Itala, was translated from the Greek no later than 157 A.D.” “Scrivener’s Introduction”
[Scrivener’s Introduction”, Vol. II, p.43

It is difficult to imagine Bibles closer to the apostle’s autographs than the
Peshitta and the Itala, whose translators could very well have been born during the lives
of some of Christ’s disciples. It is also reasonable to assume that
John, in his last years, was present at the gathering of the books of the New Testament canon. Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical History” Book III, Chapter 24
Therefore, Christians can be confident when they read from the King James Version of the New Testament, or
the New Testament, or any other linguistic translation of the Received Text, from the King James Version.
Received Text. They are indeed reading the Word of God, for its pedigree goes back
the apostolic era. Indeed, we can only agree with the sentiments of one of the most respected
of the world’s most respected Christian commentators: “The Waldensians were among the
the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures… They
* Let the reader beware of the importance of this praise coming from one of the revered fathers of
Rome. On the other hand, we can only marvel at the contempt and hatred generated later by
Rome against the Bible that Augustine so rightly celebrated.
61
the pure truth, and this made them the special objects of hatred and persecution…
persecutions… A thousand years ago the witnesses to the truth maintained the ancient faith
the ancient faith… But in a more wonderful way it [the Word of God] has been preserved uncorrupted through all the centuries of darkness (The Middle Ages). White, “The
Great Controversy between Christ and Satan,” pp. 65, 66, 69
How different things could have been! Did not Jesus Christ promise:
“My words shall not pass away”? * Matthew 24:35

 

* For a considerable account of how the Syriac Bible was preserved in isolation in India during the Dark Ages (the Middle Ages), the author recommends his book,
“The Inquisitive Christians” available from “New Millennium publications”,
available from New Millennium publications] – PO Box 290, Morisset. NSW. 2264. Australia

to be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Hi to all

Continuation

The War Against
The King James Bible

“The English (as well as the Greek) of the new
“revised version” is hopelessly wrong….”
“It is, however, the systematic depravity of the underlying Greek
which offends me so seriously, because it is nothing but poisoning
from the River of Life to its sacred source” Dean Burgon, “The Revision Revised” –
[“The Revised Revision”], Dedication, p. VII
3
63
I
Chapter 16
The High Criticism –
The Enemy of Reform
Having briefly traced the development of the divergent streams of Scripture
within the framework of early Christianity, we can appreciate, at least in
to some extent, the great disparity between the Bible which prompted and later consolidated
the Protestant Reformation, and Jerome’s Latin Bible which Rome calls the Vulgate.
It is through this last Bible that Rome sought to control the religious and political destiny of men during the Middle Ages and later through the Douai Bible.
with which it sought to stem the tide of the Reformation.
With the failure of the Reims-Douai Bible to impress the English-speaking world, the Authorized King James Bible remained supreme. His success was reflected
faithfully in the prosperity of emerging countries such as the British Empire, the state churches of England and Scotland, and the many original Protestant churches which derived their beliefs from study from the open Bible.
But even as the Reformation flourished in the Anglo-Saxon world, its decline
continued elsewhere, particularly in France and Germany. There, the Reformation
quickly drowned in the rising tide of modernism and “high
criticism of the Bible.
If Rome had failed to replace the Protestant Bible with its own, its new
tactic was to cause Protestants to lose confidence and faith in their Bible.
This is what we mean when we talk about “high criticism”.
One of the earliest contributors to the art of critical thinking was a French scholar,
Richard Simon. The Catholic Encyclopedia proudly bestows upon him the title of “Father of
Biblical Criticism » Vol. IV, pp. 492-493.
Between the years 1689 and 1695 he continued to attack the Word of God by publishing
a series of commentaries on the text of the New Testament. Needless to say, he
had a soft spot for the text used by the Jesuit translators of the Reims-Douai Bible, an anglicized version of Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. His discrediting of the lineage of Received Text Bibles opened the floodgates of doubt on the true basis
of Protestantism while many critics approached theories and conjectures that tore various parts of the Bible to pieces, especially those dealing with the supernatural. 8
It is not surprising that this climate of doubt and questioning has gradually
led to a general loss of faith in Christianity, and in France there was a savage reaction against the organizers of the debacle. In 1773, the order of the Jesuits or
the Society of Jesus was banished. This action was simply a precursor to the impending bloody French Revolution that would occur sixteen years later.
Over the next quarter century, Napoleon’s revolutionary armies were unleashed on Europe in an orgy of anti-religious conquests that were witnessed by
some like “The Beast which rises from the bottomless pit (from the abyss)”. (Revelation 11:7).
Even the pope was dethroned and Christianity, especially as practiced by
the Roman Catholic Church, appeared to have received a mortal wound. Students
watchers of prophecy realized they were looking at the fulfillment of prophecy where the beast of Revelation was “wounded to death.” (Revelation 13.3).
If these same students had studied with more understanding, they would have noticed that the “mortal wound” had to be “healed” later. (Verse 12).
After the overthrow of Napoleon in 1812, in which the British played
a great role, a confused and changed Europe emerged. In France we see the
faithful lackeys of the pope – the Bourbons – be quickly restored to power and the
reintegration of previously banished Jesuits.
Although England had escaped the upheavals of the revolution, plans
were quickly set up to train the English in the Catholic seminaries
Europeans so that they could re-enter Britain as warriors
Roman theologians. Many of them were clergymen who had been
trained in the newly acquired Church of England in the Cambridge tradition and
Oxford. One of these people was Nicolas P.S. Wiseman who had gone to Rome under
pretext to undertake Oriental studies. Yet incredible, he returned to England as an “expert” in textual criticism! His theories denigrating the Text
Received and therefore the Authorized King James Bible, were eagerly adopted by
the scholars whose names had been synonymous with revisionists, not only of the
authorized version, but of Anglicanism itself.
However, we are indebted to Wiseman for revealing the true source of
his theories which stem from his close association with the Jesuits. Later in
his life, he admitted: “Without this training I would not have thrown myself into the controversy
puseyiste…”. (Ward, “Life and Times of Wiseman,” vol. I, p. 65).
(The Puseyist controversy referred to here refers to the activities of Dr. Pusey who took the
place of Newman in the Oxford movement). No wonder Wiseman passed
openly to Romanism and was later rewarded with the post of cardinal.

Another of Dr. Wiseman’s contemporaries, John H. Newman of Oxford, also defected to Roman
Catholicism after going to Rome and exposing himself to the poison of the papal virus.
In order that the reader may gain insight into this era of papal intrigue and subversion of English
clerics, we will devote the next chapter to a more detailed account of Newman’s fatal attraction
to the ritualism and traditions of Rome. Its history will graphically illustrate the importance that Rome
strives to move the Bibles of the Received Text and
how Newman and his ilk established in the principal theological college of Anglicanism a malignant virus
which quickly evolved into what is known as the Oxford movement, also known as tractarianism.9
9 The Movement published ninety “Tracts for the Times” (1833-1841). In addition to having written twenty-four
them Newman edited the entire series. (“Encyclopedia Britannica” 1986 Vol IX p 30).

To be continued

 

God bless

[Berean]

 

 

Chapter Seventeen
Kindly Light or Searing Flame?

 

“Lead Kindly Light amid the encircling gloom,
Lead thou me on!
The night is dark and I am far from home;
Lead thou me on. ”
Countless numbers of Christians have sung these stirring words penned by Church of England
clergyman Dr John H. Newman. No doubt many have drawn from them strength and courage in their
resolve to follow their Master.
But it is quite unlikely that many would attach to them the sentiments which inspired the author of this
famous hymn.
In the year 1833, Newman was returning to England by ship, following a visit to Rome. There, he and
his compatriot and companion, Herrell Froude had fallen under the bewitching spell of the “city of
celestial traditions”. As he stood on deck, gazing out into the blackness of a Mediterranean night, his
thoughts wandered back to his Protestant upbringing. He now realised that
“The superstitions of his youth, that Rome was the ‘Beast” which stamped its image on mankind, the
‘Great harlot’ who made drunk the-kings of the earth, were dispelled” (Cadman, “Three Religious
Leaders”, p 496).
47
So enthralled by the pomp and splendour of the papacy were these two Oxford professors, that they
were presumptuously led to inquire of the papal prelates as to the terms on which the Church of Rome
would receive the Church of England back into her bosom.
“7he answer came straight and clear, without any equivocation – the Church of England must accept
the Council of Trent” (Wilkinson, “Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 128).
Both Newman and Froude were very much aware of the first four resolutions adopted by the Council
of Trent back in the mid sixteenth century. These had to do with papal authority in relation to the
Bible. Briefly stated, the resolutions claimed that:
1. Papal tradition was on level with Scripture.
2. The Apocryphal books were equal with the Canonical.
3. The Roman Vulgate Bible contained no errors. 4. Only the Roman Catholic clergy had the right to
interpret Holy Writ.
And, when the papacy referred to “Holy Writ” it was not talking about the Authorised Bible of the
Church of England. No, No! It had scornfully been dubbed: “7he Protestant’s paper pope”, for it had
become Britain’s rule of life and had overthrown the authority of papal tradition.
Newman loved tradition and ritualism. As for the Bible, well, he had already imbibed so much of
Origen’s philosophy that he looked upon it largely as allegory; hence it needed tradition to be its
interpreter. And who were the custodians of tradition? Were they not the fathers of the Roman
Catholic Church?
A sudden lurch of the ship caused Newman to grasp the handrail:
“Keep thou my feet, I do not ask to see The distant scene;
One step enough for me. ”
Newman’s mind was made up. Within five days of arriving back in England in July 1833 he took that
“step” by initiating what later became known as “The Oxford Movement”. It eventually led him to
openly embrace Catholicism and become a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church..
Oxford University was the logical place for an assault on Protestantism for this institution had become
the bastion and backbone of the Church of England. While a student at Oxford, he and others of his
friends had fallen under the spell of Jesuit influences from Germany and France. Froude’s father was a
High Churchman “who loathed Protestantism and denounced Evangelicals and brought up his son to
do the same” (Cadman, “Three Religious Leaders”, p 459).
Newman’s early fond attachment to his friend Froude had become so great that later. “Following the
early death of his friend, he wrote endearing verses to his memory … Newman himself had chosen the
celibate life, and no doubt Froude’s passionate tendency towards Romanism answered in Newman’s
breast those social yearnings which men usually satisfy in married life” (Wilkinson, “Our Authorised
Bible Vindicated”, p 127).
It is not surprising then, that with such a friendship, Newman’s infatuation with ritualism and
formalism should be bolstered by Froude’s hatred of Protestantism. Dr Wilkinson tells how they
attracted to their cause many Oxonians who banded themselves together with “Aggressive
determination to attack weak points wherever they could make their presence felt by precipitating
48
crises in the control of the University…. They grouped round them the students of the University and
changed the course of Oxford thinking. They published a series of tracts which threw a flood of
fermenting thought upon the English mentality …. By voice and pen, the teaching of Newman changed
in the minds of many their attitude toward the Bible. Stanley shows us that the allegorising of German
theology under whose influence Newman and the leaders of the movement were, was Origen’s
method of allegorising. Newman contended that God never intended the Bible to
teach doctrines. Much of the church history read, was on the Waldenses and how they had through
the centuries from the days of the apostles, transmitted to us the true faith. The Tractarians
determined that the credit of handing down truth through the centuries, should be turned from the
Waldenses to the Papacy” (“Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”, pp 130, 131).
Thus the work of subverting Protestant England through its own institutions continued in many forms
and many areas. Another imposter who became a notable Romaniser was Dr Pusey. He “Scandalised
some of the less ardent spirits by visiting the Catholic monasteries in Ireland to study monastic life,
with a view to introducing it into England” (ibid p 131. See Walsh, “Secret History”, p 282).
Perhaps it was because of the growing influence and success of the Puseyites that Dr Newman felt that
the time had come when he could take another “step” by discarding his role as a traitor and come out
into the open to embrace Roman Catholicism. Wilkinson describes the scene:
“On the night of October 8, [18451, Father Dominic of the Italian Passionists arrived at Newman’s
quarters in a downpouring rain. After being received, he was standing before the fire drying his wet
garments. He turned around to see Newman prostrate at his feet, begging his blessing, and asking him
to hear his confession” (ibid p 135).
Newman, the traitor had indeed arrived “home” where he belonged, and the mantle of leadership now
fell on Pusey’s shoulders. From now on, the Church of England rapidly took on a ritualistic form of
service: “The passion to introduce the Mass, the confession, the burning of candles, holy water, the
blessing of oils, and all other gorgeous accompaniments of Catholic ritualism went forward so strongly
that the movement since 1845 is known rather under the name of Ritualism” (“Our Authorised Bible
Vindicated”, p 136).
The ritualistic climate was very favourable to the spread of Catholicism. According to Ward, during the
period from 1830 to 1863 the number of priests in England alone increased from 434 to 1242! During
this time, the convents increased from a mere sixteen to one-hundred and sixty-two! (“Life of
Wiseman”, Vol. II p 459).
And now came the opening salvo of the expected attack on the Authorised Bible of King James. In 1860
there appeared a series of essays by prominent Church of England clergymen against such vital
Protestant doctrines as “the inspiration of the Bible” and “justification by faith”; also the Protestant
stand against purgatory was attacked.
Dr Fenton J.A. Hort was invited to contribute to the attack on the Scriptures but he declined – probably
because he was already secretly engaged with Bishop Brooke F. Westcott in translating their Greek
New Testament from the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts of Rome. He realised that without a
Catholic slanted English Bible any attempt to refute Protestantism in England was premature and likely
to fail.
49
In recognition of the role which the Received Text had played in the success of the Protestant
Reformation, the Roman Catholics and their sympathisers displayed bitter hostility towards the King
James Bible. Dr Faber, a passionate Romaniser and associate of Newman, referred to the King James
Bible as “That stronghold of heresy in England” and Newman claimed that it could not be a true
comment on the original text as it was made and authorised by “Royal commands” (Newman, “Tract
90”).
Soon after declaring himself a Roman Catholic, Newman was invited to return to Rome. The Vatican
had concluded that Newman could be entrusted with the task of bringing about the demise of the King
James Bible, disparagingly referred to by the papists as: “7he paper Pope of the Protestants” (Von
Dobschutz, “The Influence of the Bible” p 136)
In a letter written from Rome to his compatriot Wiseman, dated January 17, 1847 Newman, disclosed
some details of his mission to Rome:
“7he Superior of the Franciscans, Father Benigno, in the Trastevere, wished us out of his own head to
engage in an English Authorised Translation of the Bible. He is a learned man, and on the Congregation
of the Index.10 What he wished was, that we would take the Protestant translation, correct it by the
Vulgate … and get it sanctioned here. This might be our first work if you Lordship approved of it. If we
undertook it, I should try to get a number of persons at work (not merely our own party). First, it
should be overseen and corrected by ourselves, then it should go to a few select revisers, eg. Dr Tait of
Ushaw, Dr Whiny of St Edmunds, (a Jesuit)” (Ward, “Life of Wiseman”, Vol. I p 454 – Cited in “Our
Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 147).
It is very important that the significance of Ward’s documentation be noted. Here is a traitor to
Anglicanism confiding instructions from the Congregation of the Papal Index to another English traitor.
Note that the King James Version had obviously been condemned, banned and damned by the
Congregation of the Index and that all concerned were aware of the vital importance of the King James
Version to Protestantism and therefore, the necessity to nullify it. To achieve this goal, it should be
“corrected” by the Latin Vulgate by a group of Catholics and non-Catholics under the supervision of
both Wiseman and Newman, and then be finally reviewed by Catholic scholars, one of whom was a
Jesuit by the name of Whitty. Patently, the inclusion of non-Catholics was simply a farcical ploy to
make it appear a Protestant initiated effort to produce an authorised update of the King James
Version.
[10] The Index is a list of books or writings prohibited by the papacy. Obviously, this included the
Protestant Bible.
But such a deception was more easily proposed than carried out. In order for the plan to succeed,
important, timeconsuming ground work needed to be put in place. First, a whole generation of
theological students at Oxford and Cambridge, as well as influential clergy, must become sympathetic
to Romanism with its ritualistic forms of worship. Such subverters would need the moral support of a
revitalised Roman hierarchy in Britain.
In 1850 the pope had invested Wiseman with the princely title of Cardinal and appointed him
Archbishop of Westminster. He soon established a chain of command throughout England consisting of
twelve Catholic bishoprics through which Roman philosophy and religion could now be broadcast.
50
A measure of the hostility to this increased Roman activity can be gauged by Protestant reaction in
Salisbury, where effigies of the pope, Wiseman and the twelve bishops were paraded and then burned.
Ward describes the scene:
“Castle Street was so densely crowded that no one could pass to the upper part of it. Shortly after,
some hundreds of torches were lighted which then exhibited a forrest of heads … The effigies were
taken to the Green croft where, over a large number of faggots and barrels of tar, a huge platform was
erected of timber; the effigies were placed thereon, and a volley of rockets sent up” (“Life of
Wiseman”, Vol. I pp 551, 552).
Such outbursts only emphasised the need for further caution and more preparation on the part of the
Romanists.
By this time, Anglican clergymen were being caught up in a new type of theology engendered by a
terrific barrage of German Biblical Criticism. Many tracts appeared containing essays and reviews
attacking the Protestant position on the inspiration of the Bible, justification by faith and Protestant
objections to Roman dogma, such as purgatory and the Mass.
As an example of the tremendous turn-around taking place in the Protestant clergy. B. G. Wilkinson
cites the case of a Protestant writer:
“One of these essays was written by Professor H.B. Wilson, who earlier had denounced Newman’s
“Tract 90″ for its views on the Thirty-nine Articles [of the Church of England]. Twenty years later,
however, he argued in favour of the very views which he had denounced previously” (“Our Authorised
Bible Vindicated”, p 140).
In his “Tract 90”, Newman had also portrayed the King James Bible as a spurious text, devoid of divine
authority, having been authorised by royal command and he contrasted it with the Catholic Vulgate
which was “A true comment on the original text “.
Of the many Anglican clerics who had been influenced by the bombardment of pro-Catholic writings
emanating from the Newman-led Oxford Tractarians, there are two names which stand out as
examples of the success attending the efforts of the ex-Anglicans, Cardinals Wiseman and Newman.
They are the Oxford trained Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort.
As these two men were shortly to emerge as the leading players in Rome’s plan to destroy the
authority of the King James Bible we shall dwell a little on their background.
At the age of twenty-two, Westcott revealed his doubts on the inspiration of Scripture. In a letter to his
fiancee, dated Advent Sunday, 1847 he wrote:
“The battle of the inspiration of Scripture has yet to be fought, and how earnestly I pray that I might
aid the truth in that” (“Life of Westcott”, Vol. I p 95).
In the same year, he wrote from France to his fiancee disclosing his fascination for the Catholic
doctrine of Maryworship:
“After leaving the monastery, we shaped our course to a little oratory which we discovered on the
summit of a neighbouring hill … It is very small; with one kneeling place; and behind a screen was a
“Pieta “, the size of life. [The Virgin holding the dead Christ in her lap] … I could have knelt therefor
hours” (ibid Vol. I p 81).
51
Eighteen years later he divulged his pre-occupation with the mystery of Mariolitary when he wrote to
Archbishop Benson:
“I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolitary bears witness” (ibid Vol. I p 251).
About this time, his compatriot Hort, revealed his affinity with Westcott, and his deplorable lack of
understanding of the plan of salvation:
I have been persuaded for many years that Mary worship and ‘Jesus’ worship have very much in
common in their causes and results” And, in 1867 Hort wrote to Dr Lightfoot confirming his penchant
for the ritualistic worship of the priesthood:
“But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist”** (“Life of Hort”, vol II pp 49, 86). (** One who believes in
the system of the priesthood)
Among Hort’s subverted friends in the Anglican ministry we could mention a brilliant student of Oxford
and Cambridge, Frederick Maurice. The son of a Unitarian minister, he had written books which Hort
claimed “Deeply influenced him” (ibid p 155).
Because of his gross heresy, Maurice was eventually dismissed from his position as principal of Kings
College, London. (The effects of this association with Unitarians will be apparent as we later note the
composition of the committee appointed for the revision of the King James Version).
Hort’s son claimed that his father had been profoundly impressed by Samuel Taylor Coleridge whose
strange religious philosophy had been expressed in many of his writings. In discussing Coleridge, Hort
wrote to Westcott in 1864:
“I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial church is vanity and
disillusion; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so long ago by expressing a belief that
‘Protestantism’ is only parenthetical and temporary” (“Life of Hort”, Vol. II p 30).
Again he shows his affinity with Coleridge and his Higher Criticism when writing to John Ellerton:
“I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (7 mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that
Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues”
(“Life of Hort”, Vol. I p 78).
Hort’s friend, Westcott, had no problem with such criticism. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury
in 1890: No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a
literal history – I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they
did” (“Life of Westcott”, Vol. II p 69).
One could go on reciting the aberrations of these men who drew their stipend from the Anglican
Church. But, in terms of shear hypocrisy, it would be hard to imagine a situation more morally
bankrupt than the following citation of the proverbial “biting of the hand that feeds it”. Hort wrote to
Westcott in 1864:
“With that world Anglicanism, though by no means without a sound standing, seems a poor and
maimed thing beside the great Rome” (“Life of Hort”, Vol. II P 30).

Is it any wonder that these two Anglican traitors caught the attention of other kindred spirits in the
persons of the aforementioned apostates – Wiseman and Newman. With their cooperation, it would
now be possible to have professing Protestants substitute the Latin Vulgate for the Protestant Bible
and all this could be achieved under the guise of a Protestantinspired revision!
It was quite apparent to most scholars that the Rheims-Douay Bible was a dead horse. One reason for
its poor acceptance was due to its New Testament parentage – the Latin Vulgate. Therefore a new
Greek Testament, to counter that of Erasmus’s would provide an “authentic” source. With this plan in
mind, back in 1853 Westcott and Hort had quietly started work on a Greek translation of the New
Testament. That it should take twenty years to complete is indicative of the patience and dedication so
often displayed by those who, like moths which exhibit a fatal fascination for a searing flame, respond
to a seemingly irresistible urge to embrace and promote the hellish mysteries of Rome.
That the real purpose of this Greek translation of the New Testament remained hidden from all except
a few trusted revisionists who quietly injected the Vulgate into the “Revision”, is yet another indication
of the stealth employed by Rome and her facile minions in order to achieve their subversive goals.
All that was needed now was a program of agitation for Bible revision. As we shall now see, the Oxfordled disciples of Newman and their followers were not backward in supplying it.

to be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Hi to all

Continuation

BATTLE OF THE BIBLES 2
H. H. MEYERS
Chapter Eighteen
The Schemers
Unlike Erasmus, who had constructed his Greek New Testament from the Traditional Text line, as
handed down from the apostles through the churches in the wilderness, Westcott and Hort went for
Eusebius’ Greek Bible. Jerome had replaced Eusebius’ with a Bible in Latin.
Among the fifty copies of this Bible ordered by Constantine it is reasonably assumed two have survived
to this day, simply because they were written on durable vellum and also because they fell into disuse
when Jerome’s Bible was adopted by Roman Catholicism some sixty year later (See “Our Authorised
Bible Vindicated”, p 248).
Of these manuscripts, one has survived for centuries locked up in the recesses of the Vatican. There it
remained in seclusion until “rediscovered” in 1844. Another survived the ravages of time, protected by
the dry air of the Sinai desert. It was rediscovered in 1859 amongst the rubbish of the St Catherine
Monastery at the foot of Mt Sinai. It had been tossed out by some monk who obviously regarded it as
worthless junk.
These two Origen-impregnated manuscripts have been named Vaticanus (or B) and Sinaiticus (or
“Aleph”). Westcott and Hort seized on these Greek New Testaments as a basis for their work for very
good reasons. One is that the Origenism with which these manuscripts are impregnated, suited their
modernist philosophy and ritualistic desires.
Another circumstance which Westcott and Hort could turn to their advantage was the fact that,
although these manuscripts are believed to be two of the fifty commissioned by Constantine, they
were so corrupted that they differed significantly in over three thousand places in the Gospels alone12
53
So, by using an eclectic method, these two schemers could choose from either manuscript the reading
that best suited their philosophy. Furthermore, whereas the Rheims-Douay Bible was not radically
different from the King James Version, they could now produce a Greek New Testament as an
“authoritative” basis for a “revised” Bible that would bring forth a totally new translation, which would
not only please Rome, but would also appeal to the ritual-loving modernistic apostates of
Protestantism.13 The finished Bible would be further from the Received Text than the Rheims-Douay
Bible.
(12 Hoskier cited in “Which Bible” p 136.)
(13 To this day, we see well meaning Protestants appealing to this corrupt text of Westcott and Hort as
though it were a faithful translation of the original Greek!)
Again, by using the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, they could claim that because these manuscripts date
back to around 331 AD, the revision would be given credibility by virtue of the supposition that the
older the manuscript, the more likely it would follow the autographs.
But, as we have seen, this theory is a fallacy on two counts. Firstly, older is not necessarily purer; and
secondly, the Waldensian Bibles were of the Antiochan-Itala family, the original of which is reliably
dated by the historian Allix and by Scrivener, one of the foremost English critics, at 157 AD.
While Westcott and Hort were busy with their new Greek Testament, agitation for the Revision was
increasing. Most of this agitation emanated from the Oxford Movement which, as we have been, was
the brain-child of Dr Newman.
The Church of England at this time, consisted of two Convocations – North and South. Neither showed
any interest in the proposed revision. A trio of bishops, led by an eminent Revisionist, Bishop Ellicott,
sought to overcome this problem by persuading Queen Victoria to appoint a Royal Commission for
Revision, but they were flatly refused.
In the Southern Convocation was a very influential bishop of Oxford named Samuel Wilberforce.
Ellicott was able to persuade him that a revision of passages where there were plain errors and
obsolete words was desirable. Accordingly, in 1870 the Southern Convocation passed a resolution
expressing the extent to which they would allow revision, and an amendment was added to included
the Old Testament. It read:
“Whether by marginal notes or otherwise, in all those passages where plain and clear errors, whether in
the Hebrew or Greek text originally adopted by the translators, or in translation made from the same,
shall on due investigation, be found to exist” (W.F. Moulton, “The English Bible”, p 215).
A committee of sixteen then sought the support of the Northern Convocation. But this Convocation
was obviously awake to the true motives of the revisionists, so they declined saying.
“The time was not favourable for revision, and that the risk was greater than the probably gain” (ibid p
216).
So, the Southern Convocation decided to proceed alone, but with certain precautionary rules and
provisos:
“That Revision should touch the Greek text only where found necessary; should alter the language only
where, in the judgment of most competent scholars, such change was necessary; and in such necessary changes, the style of the King James should be followed” (Wilkinson, “Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”,
p 164).
Here is indisputable evidence that the Received Text, which included the Greek text of Erasmus, had
the complete confidence of the Church of England. One has only to read the preface to the King James
Bible to realise that this text was regarded as truly reflecting the original (or apostolic tongues).
Accordingly, in 1870 a Revision Body consisting of eighteen members was formed, seven of whom
were to take care of the New Testament; the remainder, the Old Testament. Prominent among the
New Testament Seven was Dr Moulton who had been a leading advocate of revision and was an open
admirer of the Jesuit-Rheims New Testament. He revealed his critical bent when he claimed:
“The Rheimish Testament agrees with the best critical editions of the present day” (Moulton, “The
English Bible”, p 185).
The Seven then sent out invitations which were accepted by eighteen others, thus bringing the New
Testament Revision Committee to twenty-five. Not surprisingly, Dr Newman and his successor in the
Oxford Movement, Dr Pusey, were among the invitees. Surprisingly, at first sight, they both declined,
but in hindsight, it proved to be a very wise decision, for these men had openly declared their apostate
positions and, being very sagacious, they were not about to cause unnecessary alarm. They knew that
the Anglican clerics, Drs Westcott and Hort, now had an opportunity to inject their Romanised Greek
New Testament into the “Revised” Bible and it was vital that they be elected. Furthermore, it would be
preferable to have the “Protestants” do the job themselves. In the end, both were elected, along with
Moulton’s colleagues, Drs Lightfoot and Ellicott – all committed ritualists and critical revisers.
One fly in the ointment was Bishop Wilberforce who, as we have seen, had been persuaded to support
revision on the understanding that as little alteration as possible be made to the Authorised Bible. It
was his assent that had led to the consent of the Southern Convocation, so it was virtually mandatory
that he be elected as Chairman.
The Old Testament Committee, which also elected others, built up their numbers to twenty-seven. But,
for the purpose of this book, our attention will settle on the affairs of the New Testament revisers and
the politics employed by Westcott and Hort to ensure the success of their scheme to destroy the
Protestant Bible.
Prior to getting down to business, Westcott indicated his traitorous intentions to disregard the Terms
of Reference as laid down by the Convocation. He wrote:
“The rules though liberal are vague, and the interpretation of them will depend upon decided action at
first” (Hemphill, “History of the Revised Version”, p 44).
Westcott would have no doubt about Hort’s willingness to participate in such dishonest conniving. As
far back as 1851, even before they had commenced their Greek New Testament, Hort had expressed
his hatred of the Received Text:
“Think of that vile Textus Receptus” (“Life of Hort”, Vol. I p 211).
It is quite evident that Ellicott, the Bishop of Gloucester, was a kindred character, for Westcott was able to reassure Hort: “The Bishop of Gloucester seems to be quite capable of accepting heartily, and adopting personally a
thorough scheme” (“Life of Westcott”, Vol. I p 393).
And, as to the purpose of the “scheme”, Westcott had left no doubt, when he wrote to his friend,
Benson, on November 7, 1870:
“In a few minutes, I go with Lightfoot to Westminster. More will come of these meetings, I think, than
simply a Revised Version” (ibid p 367).14
(14 Let this miserable confession be noted by those who persist in claiming that the Revised Version is a
genuine revision of the King James Bible. The very name of this version is as dishonest as the schemers
themselves.)
It did not take long for the conspirators to put their “scheme” into action. At the very first meeting,
Chairman Wilberforce was made to see just what the majority of committee members were about. He
gave vent to his despair in a letter to a colleague: “What can be done in this miserable business?”
(Hemphill, “History”, p 36).
No wonder! There on the revision team was a non-Christian, the well known Unitarian, Dr G. Vance
Smith. Westcott had recently enraged English Christians by encouraging this unbeliever in the divinity
of Christ to participate in a communion service at Westminster Abbey!
Wilberforce found the situation so upsetting that he effectively resigned by refraining from attending
any future meetings. (He died a very disillusioned man some three years later). The schemers were
delighted. They promptly installed Ellicott as Chairman.15 The “scheme” was now assured of success!
(15 The practice of resigning as a form of objection is fatally flawed. All too often error has been
allowed to prosper simply because good men vacate the floor to make way for the bad.)
A relatively small minority, represented principally by Dr Scrivener, were now left to uphold the
integrity of the Revision. Scrivener, one of the foremost Greek New Testament scholars, in the mould
of another of his contemporaries, Dean Burgon, inevitable clashed with Dr Hort. Relentlessly, Westcott
and Hort substituted their Greek text for the Received Text. Ellicott later referred to Scrivener’s
objections as “A kind of critical duel between Dr Hort and Dr Scrivener” (“Ellicott Addresses”, p 61).
Needless to say, Scrivener and his minority supporters were systematically and consistently out-voted.
The learned Bishop Gore is adamant that the Greek text used by the revisers followed the Vaticanus
and Sinaiticus Manuscripts (“New Commentary”, Part III p 721).
Therefore it was inevitable that, far from “A few necessary changes in the interests of clarity”, the
Revised New Testament was altered in thousands of places – 5,337 of these related to the Greek Text.
(Dr Everts, “The Westcott and Hort Text Under Fire”, Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1921).
Perhaps no stronger evidence of the fact that the so-called revision was a Roman-inspired plot to
replace the Protestant Bible with a Catholic one, comes from the traitorous Cardinal Wiseman, who,
along with Newman, devised the whole dastardly scheme. When it became evident that the “Revision”
was about to become an accomplished fact he could no longer contain his exuberance, saying,
“When we consider the scorn cast by the Reformers upon the Vulgate, and their recurrence, in
consequence, to the Greek, [Vaticanus and Sinaiticusj as the only accurate standard, we cannot but
rejoice at the silent triumph which truth has at length gained over clamorous error. For, in fact, the principal writers who have avenged the Vulgate, and obtained for it its critical pre-eminence are
Protestants” (Wiseman, “Essays”, Vol. I p 104).
Although the revisers worked in great secrecy, it is obvious from the above quote that Wiseman was in
close touch with his Protestant dupes. He and Newman were now about to see the successful
conclusion of the commission given them some thirty-three years earlier by Father Benigno – the Superior of the Franciscans.

 

to be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Chapter Nineteen

The Fraud Exposed

As the day for publication of the Revised Version approached, there was great expectation in the
English-speaking world. Although the revisers had remained secretive and had consistently refused to
release details of their work, yet those responsible for its marketing had been very active. In Britain
and America, Christians were anticipating an improved version of their beloved King James Bible.
Drs Westcott and Hort had preserved similar secrecy with their Greek New Testament and only
allowed it to be released by the publisher a few days prior to the publication of the New Testament
portion of the Revised Version, which materialised on May 17, 1881. The Old Testament did not appear
until a little later. The reason for such secrecy soon became apparent. Scholars soon came to realise
that the “Revision” was a misnomer and that Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament was a
resurrected Eusebius text.
One of the first and outstanding objections to this blatant betrayal of the commission given by the
Southern Convocation, came from one of the Church of England’s ablest Greek scholars, Dr John W
Burgon.
Although a clergyman of the High Church, he was against Ritualism and Higher Criticism. Educated at
Oxford, he was one of the few whose belief in Christ’s dictum that “My words shall not pass away”
(Matthew 24:35), enabled him to remain unscathed by the raging controversies brought on by the
Oxford Movement and Tractarianism. His Brilliant scholastic ability was rewarded with a Fellowship of
Oriel College and later, as
Vicar of the University Church of St Marys. After becoming Gresham Professor of Divinity, he spent his
remaining twelve years as Dean of Chichester.
His conviction of the inerrancy of Scripture and his outstanding knowledge of New Testament Greek,
gave him great confidence in the traditional New Testament Text which he believed to have been
handed down from apostolic times. Predicably, he did not find himself on the revision team.
It is easy to imagine the interest with which he awaited the Revised Version’s release, for he would be
aware of the great danger to which the revision had been exposed when placed in the hands of so
many ritualistic Higher Critics. What he eventually found galvanised him to prompt action. He wrote
three articles for the “Quarterly Review”.
In the first article, “The New Greek Text” he claimed that: “The very citadel of revealed truth [was]
undergoing systematic assault and battery, [and that the revision was] founded on an entirely new
revision of the Greek Text” (“Article, 1 pp 1, 2).
57
In other words, far from being a revision, it was a new translation!
Article II dealt with “The New English Version” [of the New Testament]. Referring to the reckless way in
which the revisers had deliberately disregarded the Convocation’s instructions to make as few
alterations as necessary to remove ‘plain and clear errors”, Burgon lamented the fact that it had not
been foreseen that:
“The Revisionists, [besides systematically removing out of sight so many genuine utterances of the
Spirit] would themselves introduce a countless number of blemishes, unknown to it before “16
(16 Burgon makes a point in connection with the appearance of modern versions. Generally speaking,
the “blemishes” have increased in number, until today, the so-called Protestant Bibles and recent
Catholic Bibles have moved much further from the Received text than the Catholic Douay Version.)
Article III, “Westcott and Hort’s New Textual Theory” was quite a lengthy tome, showing that their
theory was based on a false presumption that the older the manuscripts, the purer they must be.
It should not be thought by the reader that Dr Burgon was alone in his objection to the “fraud of
revision”. Indeed, we have noted the continual battle which the heroic Dr Scrivener waged for ten
years during the period of revision. When Burgon later had his three “Quarterly Review” articles republished under the title: “The Revision Revised”, there also appeared a scholarly work: “Introduction
to the New Testament” by Dr Scrivener, debunking Westcott and Hort’s textual criticism. Concerning
the system devised by Westcott and Hort which was used as the basis for the Revision, he said:
“There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure if its foundations have been laid on the
sandy ground of ingenious conjecture …. Dr Hort’s system [therefore], is entirely destitute of historical
foundation” (“Scrivener’s Introduction”, 1883 pp 531, 537).
One would suppose that had the Revisers carried out their instructions to make a good Bible better, it
would have become immensely popular, and superseded the King James Version. But under the
circumstances this was not the case. Although, initially sales were very good, this was entirely due to
the curiosity and expectations aroused in people’s minds by the terrific barrage of advertising
propaganda. No doubt Bishop Wordsworth summed up the general feeling when he compared the
Revised Version with the King James Bible while addressing the Lincoln Diocesan Conference:
“To pass from one to the other, is as it were, to alight from a well built and well hung carriage which
glides easily over a macadamised road, and to get into one which has bad springs or none at all, and in
which you are jolted in ruts with aching bones over the stones of a newly mended and rarely traversed
road, like some of the roads in our North Lincolnshire villages” (Cited in “Revision Revised”, p 112).
Although the Revised Version did not succeed in replacing the King James Version, it set in motion a
series of so-called revisions, translations and paraphrases which has resulted in a plethora of Bibles,
each one claiming to address the inadequacy of its predecessors. Almost invariably, these modern
translations have relied on the New Testament of Westcott and Hort, or Greek New Testaments based
on those few minority manuscripts used by them – in particular the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. As an
example we could cite the Greek New Testament of Nestle.
In order to verify the truth of this assertion it is only necessary to note some changes from the King
James Version appearing in the Revised Version and see how many of these are repeated in other
versions. One quick check can be made by comparing 2 Peter 2:9. Notice how most of the modern
58
versions follow the Revised Version in placing punishment prior to the judgment. If this were the case,
there is no purpose in having a judgment. Furthermore, this text can be used to uphold the dogma of
purgatory!
Or, compare Mark 15:28 where we are reminded that Christ had fulfilled the Messianic prophecy by
being: “numbered with the transgressors”. In all versions following Westcott and Hort’s Greek New
Testament, the whole verse is missing.
In the same vein, Acts 8:37 is missing. This is where the eunuch made his confession: “I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God”. And, we could go on.
Jasper James Ray, in his book “God Wrote Only One Bible”, tests forty-four Bible versions with 162
selected Scriptural departures from the King James New Testament and the Textus Receptus. Only two
New Testament translations pass the test – Martin Luther’s and Erasmus’s! (He does not list Tyndale’s
NT, probably because of it’s close affinity with the KJV). Westcott and Hort’s New Testament fails 151
times, The New International Version heads the list of failures 160 times, the Revised Standard Version
158 times, while Nestle’s Greek Text is listed 155 times! These 162 citations are only some of the
hundreds of departures from the Received Text.
Meanwhile, in America, initial sales of the Revised Version were tremendous. But, once again, the
Revised Version failed to gain popularity. It was thought by some that an Americanised edition of the
Revised Version would overcome many of the perceived problems. There was no lack of enthusiasm
for an American Version among the growing throng of Bible merchants who were anxious to hear once
more the sweet tinkle of their cash registers.
In the following chapter we shall see how the Romanisers of German Protestantism were only too
willing to jump on the American bandwagon as had been done in England, through the Oxford
Movement.

to be continued

 

God bless

 

[Berean]

Hi to all

continuation

The Battle of the Bibles

Chapter Twenty
The Mercersburg Movement
(And Its Influence On American Revision)
The contagion of the Oxford Movement soon found victims in North America. Its contaminating
theories found ready acceptance among German “Reformationists” in Pennsylvania who were
responsible for what came to be known as Mercersburg Theology. What Newman and the Oxford
Movement were to Britain, so Dr Philip Schaff and the Mercersburg Movement came to be in America.
Like Newman, Schaff was really an ardent Romanist. Both were traitors to Protestantism. In 1844 Dr
Schaff arrived in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, from the University of Berlin, where as a professing
Protestant he had shown remarkable aptitude in accepting the Mystical Presence of Christ in the Lord’s
Supper. Dr Appel described him as
“A gift from the fatherland to the daughter Church on this side of the ocean /America]” (Appel, “Life of
John W Nevin”, pp 200, 201).
In describing Schaff’s penchant for Romanising, one Protestant Reviewer wrote:
59
“Through the misty drapery of Dr Schaff’s philosophy, every essential feature of the papal system
stands forth with a prominence so sharply defined, as to leave doubt impossible, and charity in despair”
(“New Brunswick Review”, p 23).
The same magazine expressed the anxious concern that Protestantism in America was experiencing a
repeat of what happened in England:
“It is quite time that the churches of our country should awake to the extent and tendencies of this
movement in the midst of American Protestantism. After a series of advances and retractations,
strongly resembling the tactics of the Tractarian party in England, we have at length a bold avowal of
the primacy of Peter’ the fundamental and test doctrine of the Papacy, followed by a concession of
every vital point of Christianity – Church, Ministry, Worship, Sacraments, and the right of Private
Judgment – to Romanism, and that too, while the name and the forms of Protestantism are (as far as
possible) studiously retained” (ibid p 62).
From the foregoing brief glimpse of Dr Schaff’s philosophy, it is not hard to believe that, had his
conscience been guided by the Christian ethic of honesty, he would have renounced all pretence of
being a Protestant. On the contrary, he was seen by the enemies of Bible-believing Protestants as the
ideal counterpart of such people as Westcott, Hort and Ellicott who had foisted the fraud of Revision
on the English-speaking world.
Bishop Ellicott revealed the English involvement in the American Revision by requesting Dr Schaff to
take the initiative in leading out in the formation of the American Revision Committee and then its
work. This he was quite happy to do. His predilection for a version that would please Roman Catholics
is illustrated in his “Church History” where he translated Matthew 16:18 in a way which would favour
the apostle Peter as being the first pope. The New Brunswick Review commented on his audacity in
this way:
“Dr Schaff has laid his hand on the text itself. With unparalleled audacity he has translated Matthew
16:18, ‘thou art a rock,’ and ‘on this rock,’ etc., as if ‘Peter’ and the ‘rock’ were expressed in the original
by the same word. Bellarmine has not ventured to do this nor any other Romanist within our
knowledge” (ibid May 1854 p 57). 17
<h6>
17 Dr Schaff’s attitude to Matthew 16:18 is still alive and well among so-called Protestants. A senior
theology lecturer at Avondale College writes for the Seventh-day Adventist out-reach journal in
Australasia, “Signs of the Times”.
“The name Peter, in both Aramaic and Greek means ‘rock’ …. Jesus wisely declared that he would
establish His community on a firm foundation. ‘You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church’
(Matthew 16:18). …
“Jesus however, didn’t intend to build his community on Peter as such – but on Peter as the first of
those who would recognise Him as Messiah.
“It was Peter’s confession, ‘you are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Matthew 16:16), that made
him the suitable person from which to begin to build the Messianic community” (“Signs”, Vol 107, No
8, 1992).                       </h6>
<h5>Such statements clash with true Protestantism as expressed in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary: “The name peter is derived from the Greek petros, a stone, generally from a small slab of
stone. The word ‘rock’ is the Greek petra, the large mass of rock itself ….
“It [Peter’s affirmation] is incidental, not fundamental, that Peter was the first to recognise and declare
his faith …. But Jesus is ever and only the ‘Rock’ on which the entire [Church] structure rests” (“SDA
Bible Commentary”, vol 5, pp 430, 431)</h5>
An example of Schaff’s domineering efforts to reflect Romanism in the text of the American Revision is
seen in his insistence that the Committee alter the rendering of Acts 20:28 to read “bishops” instead of
“overseers”.
As with the English revisers, there was a Unitarian on the American Committee. His name was Dr Ezra
Abbott. Hence it was not unexpected that he should argue strongly to portray Romans 5:9 as a
doxology to God, rather than to Christ. He succeeded in expressing his view in the margin (See Riddle,
“Story of the American Revised Version”, p 32).
Briefly, we have seen how the pagan and papal leprosy of Origen and Jerome seeped into England and
America through the Higher Critical theology of Germany via two traitors to Protestantism, Newman
and Schaff. Thus Rome had sought to stem the tide of Protestantism’s Reform which was flowing from
the English-speaking world like a veritable flood of lifegiving truth.
At the forefront of the tremendous efforts exerted by English-speaking Protestants in disseminating
the King James Bible and translations into foreign languages was the British and Foreign Bible Society.
Formed in 1804 by Protestants for the spread of Bibles based only on the Received Text, it was shortly
to be followed by other Bible Societies such as The New York Bible Society in 1809 (Now New York
Bible Society, International), and the American Bible Society founded in 1816.
When the Revised Version of 1881 came out in England, the Society immediately recognised it for what
it was – a Roman inspired Bible and refused to distribute it. It was only logical then, that the Protestant
Bible Societies should receive the attention of Rome, for only a devitalised society could be expected to
distribute a devitalised Bible.
In the following chapters we shall briefly trace the history of the Bible Societies and document their
relationship to the Received Text.

 
<h2>Chapter Twenty-One</h2>
<h2>
The Bible Societies</h2>
<h4>
On March 7, 1804 thirty-six Protestants assembled in London and formed the British and Foreign Bible
Society. Fifteen of its members were Anglicans, fifteen were of other Christian communions and six
were Christian foreigners who were resident close to London.
At the first annual meeting it was realised that an amendment to Article one of their constitution was
necessary. This was because the founding members had taken it for granted that there was only one
genuine English-language Bible. The amendment now removed any doubt about the founders’
intention for the Society by adding:</h4>
“The only copies in the language of the United Kingdom to be circulated by the Society shall be the
Authorised Version [King James Bible] without note or comment” (Canton, “The History of the British
and Foreign Bible Society”, 1904, Vol. I p 17).
Canton comments on Protestant philosophy behind this amendment:
“It echoed the cry of the martyr-Church of the Waldenses, ‘The Bible whole and alone “‘ (ibid).
As the Society’s work moved into Europe, especially into countries where the Reformation had been
subverted by Romanising “Protestants”, there was considerable agitation to have the Society bring out
Bibles which contained extracanonical material such as the Apocrypha.
Accordingly, the British and Foreign Bible Society allowed its foreign societies discriminatory powers,
providing no notes or comments were used (ibid p 335).
It seems that such permission to print the Apocrypha was aimed at keeping European patronage, but
the change was brought about without the knowledge of other British supporters. When it was
discovered that their money was being used to further the Roman cause there was trouble.
On December 20, 1824 the Society’s Committee sought to clarify the situation by refusing any funding
of spurious Scriptures. A resolution was passed which stated:
“That no pecuniary grant be made by the Committee of this Society for the purpose of aiding the
printing or publishing any edition of the Bible, in which the Apocrypha shall be mixed and interspersed
with Canonical Books of Holy Scriptures” (ibid p 337).
Much controversy and dissatisfaction arose among some of the European Societies, but the parent
Society made a fresh resolve to keep its hands clean of Roman contamination and in 1826 the
resolution became law (ibid). Again in 1839 the Society found it necessary to pass a resolution, this
time refusing to recognise Bibles derived from the Roman Vulgate as the Word of God. But those who
favoured Roman Bibles were persistent and again in 1856 and 1857 the Society emphatically refused
the distribution of Bibles based on the Vulgate, saying that they were in the business of promoting the
King James Version (ibid p 63).
Another controversy had also arisen quite early in the Society’s history and this dealt with
Unitarianism. Problems had arisen over the apparent reluctance of some to open the Society’s
meetings with prayer, the reason being, that if prayer to God was offered in the name of Jesus Christ,
the few Unitarians belonging to the Society would take offence. After much discussion in which it was
unsuccessfully urged that the Society and all its members subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity, a
break away Society was formed, known as the Trinitarian Bible Society. The year was 1831 and the
Society is s active to this day, remaining firm in its resolve.
With the advent of the Revised Version in 1881, the British and Foreign Bible Society Committee’s
report for that year records its attitude to the New Testament Revision. Because of the First
Amendment restricting distribution in the English language to the King James Version, much difficulty
ensued. Obviously, some on the Committee had been fooled into believing that England had been
given a genuine Revision, while others, like Burgon and Scrivener, had seen through the Romish plot to
give England a Catholic Bible.

By the year 1901, the Society caved in to mounting pressure and by a majority vote it was agreed to
include the Revised Version in its own published editions (Roe, “A History of the British and Foreign
Bible Society”, Introduction).
But the Trinitarian Bible Society would have nothing to do with the Revised Version. Its members had
noted that Unitarians had been on the Committee of Revisers and consequently concluded that the
Revised Version must be tainted. Some members of the British and Foreign Bible Society were already
transferring their support to the Trinitarian Bible Society. In July 1902 the Trinitarian Bible Society
officially rejected the Revised Version (Brown, “The Word of God Among All Nations”, p 84).
In spite of the acceptance of the Revised Version by the British and Foreign Bible Society, it failed to
replace the Authorised Version which Protestants had grown to love and revere, which just illustrates
how pressures for change towards apostasy usually come from the top.
Meanwhile, as mentioned in the previous chapter, Societies had been formed in America. In 1817 the
British and Foreign Bible Society entered Australia by forming an Auxiliary in Sydney, which soon
became known as the British and Foreign Bible Society (in Australia).
The British and Foreign Bible Society quickly showed that it was living up to its name by disseminating
Bibles on a global scale. As the Scriptures were brought within easy reach of the literate, so the
economics of large production made them easily affordable by the masses.
In many places around the world, people were seriously studying the Bible but unlike the Roman
Catholic Bibles, there were no explanatory notes, and people were the more likely to interpret
Scripture as the Holy Spirit directed them. This had always been Rome’s great fear and the very reason
why she had bitterly opposed the free use of Scripture among her laity.
Hence there arose a great number of non-conformist sects, many of which were to blossom into wellknown and highly respected Protestant denominations. Especially was this so in North America where
the American Bible Society flourished as a Protestant institution.
As to the apostolic pedigree of the Authorised King James Bible, we can be certain that the American
Bible Society had no doubts. As recently as 1939 their periodic publication, “The Book of a Thousand
Tongues”, made this highly significant statement:
“Our Gospels also existed separately in Syriac dress. They were termed the Gospel of the Separated, to
distinguish them from Tatian’s work [Alexandrian Text] …. It passed from East to West. It took a Latin
form, as Dr Wace has shown in the sixth century, and then in the ninth century was turned into old
Saxon …. In this form, says Dr Wace, the Gospel lived in the heart of the German people, and in due
time produced Luther and the German Bible, thus binding together the second century and the
sixteenth, the East and the West” (p 902).
Can an honest reader doubt that the American Bible Society is here referring to the King James Bible?
“Our Gospels” Positively identified their Bible as the only Bible that had been translated into anything
like a “Thousand Tongues”. Their tracing of the lineage of their New Testament from the Syriac
(Antioch/Peshitta) Bible and the “Latin form” (Itala), through to the Bible of Luther, can only apply to
the Received Text used by Luther and Tyndale, enabling the King James translators to produce the
Authorised Bible.

The American Bible Society made doubly sure that “Our Gospels” could not be confused with the
Roman Vulgate, by identifying the King James Version as the progeny of the “Bible of the Separated” –
not the Alexandrian, not the American Revised Version, not any of the plethora of modern versions
that were pouring off the revisionists’ presses. No! It was the Bible of King James to which they
referred!
Neither was the American Bible Society alone in placing its trust and confidence in the King James
Version as the true Word of God. In 1924, the Presbyterian Church paper, “The Herald and Presbyter
Times”, had issued this very discerning and timely insight into the confusion arising among Protestants:
“There is an idea in the minds of some people that scholarship demands the laying aside of the
Authorised [King James] Bible, and taking up the latest Revised Version. This is an idea, however,
without proper foundation. This Revised Version is in large part in line with what is known as
Modernism, and is peculiarly acceptable to those who think that any change, anywhere and in
anything, is progress. Those who have already investigated the matter, and are in sympathy with what
is Evangelical, realise that the Revised Version is part of the movement to “Modernise ” Christian
thought and faith, and do away with established truth” (July 16, 1924).
How much more pertinent would such comment be to the situation today! It is precisely because the
Revised Version and its imitators were rejected by discerning Christians that Protestants grew up using
a standard Bible and thus were able to memorise and uniformly repeat the jewels contained therein.
But things were to change and, strange to say, pressure to change was to come from Protestant
churches and institutions. It came slowly at first, almost imperceptibly, as the colleges of the
Protestants increasingly introduced modern versions to their theological students. This should not be
the least surprising as we have already seen how the Jesuits quickly put into practice the plan
formulated at the Council of Trent to infiltrate Protestant colleges and institutions.
As Protestant graduates went out to occupy the pulpits, their use of the new versions began to give
credence to the thought expressed in the “Herald and Presbyter Times” that those with “educated”
discernment had discovered Bibles which they thought were more reliable than the King James
Version.
Strangely, the exposure of the fraud of the “Revision” by Scrivener and especially Dean Burgon, was
little headed, if not ignored. In North America it is doubtful whether the warnings from England had
been given any significant exposure. But, in every age, God has His messengers who give warnings and
reproof commensurate with the need of the times. One such man was Dr Benjamin G. Wilkinson of the
USA.
It will be profitable to divert our attention from the Bible Societies in order to devote a chapter to this
modern-day Burgon.

 

To be continued

God bless

[Berean]

HI TO ALL

 

CONTINUATION

 

BATTLE OF THE BIBLES

 

Chapter Twenty-Two
A Twentieth-Century Burgon
Benjamin G. Wilkinson Phd, Dean of Theology at Washington Missionary College, Washington D.C., was
a man with a very inquiring mind. Brought up in the best Protestant tradition of the “Bible and the
Bible only”, he was concerned that the Bible on which his faith had been founded was increasingly
64
being neglected. In fact, in the academic world in which he moved, the idea was gaining ground that
those who persisted with the King James Authorised Version were merely evincing inferior judgment
and poor scholarship.
Wilkinson had devoted considerable study to the history of Christianity and the preservation of
apostolic truth throughout the Dark Ages, also the hazardous struggles of those who launched and
consolidated the Protestant Reformation. He was later to record his research in his classic work, “Truth
Triumphant”, which was published in 1944 by Pacific Press Publishing Association, and ran into several
reprints. During his research, he found that the history of the New Testament Text was inextricably
entwined with the struggle to maintain apostolic Christianity against paganism and, later, factional
Christianity. It became clear that it was the church which was “driven into the wilderness” that had
maintained apostolic truth because it had also been the guardian of God’s Holy Word. This line of
Scripture is what was known as the Traditional or Byzantine Text, which was later incorporated into the
Greek New Testament by Erasmus and then used by Luther, Tyndale and the King James translators. It
is now commonly known as the Received Text.
Wilkinson realised that he had sufficient material to bring out a book on this subject alone, so in 1930
he published his findings under the title, “Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”. Apparently he had
difficulty in finding a publisher for his book, an indication perhaps of a growing preference for modern
versions, for he had to act as his own publisher. Hence, the book’s comparatively restricted circulation
during his lifetime.
Wilkinson’s book indicates that he was in possession of Dean Burgon’s “Revision Revised” and that he
was in complete agreement with Burgon’s contention that the very title “Revised Version” is a
misnomer and a fraud. But Wilkinson went much further. He dealt with his subject in its historical
settings and demonstrated how the diversions from the Received Text affect basic Christian doctrine;
eg. the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the way in which they are biased toward Roman Catholic
theology and against fundamental Protestantism.
But further, he demonstrated the highly damaging effect on the beliefs of the church which employed
him as an ordained minister – namely the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Incredibly, although his book enjoyed wide acceptance among his ministerial colleagues, it was
rejected outright by a “Committee of Review” set up in 1930 by the General Conference of Seventhday Adventists with headquarters in Washington D.C.
The term “incredibly” is used deliberately, for this denomination was one which arose in America
around the mid-nineteenth century as a direct result of the prevalent interest in the study of the Bible
and its prophecies. Many students of prophecy in various Protestant denominations in both Old and
New Worlds were convinced by the signs given in Matthew 24 and other parts of the Bible, that
Christ’s promised return was close at hand. Among such people were members of the Methodist and
Baptist Churches who decided that they should lay aside all preconceived beliefs and creeds and turn
prayerfully to a thorough study of the Bible and the Bible only.
Naturally, the Bible which they studied was the Protestant King James Version. Having determined to
follow only those things revealed in God’s Word and to let the Bible be its own interpreter, they soon
found themselves in a dilemma. For one thing, they found that the “law of the LORD is perfect” (Psalm
19:7), and that Christ has said that he had not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it and that it would
65
remain as long as heaven and earth should last (Matthew 5:17, 18). Why had they then, along with
other Christian churches, ignored one of God’s Commandments – the fourth – by keeping holy the first
day of the week instead of the seventh? (Exodus 20:8-12). Why had Jesus closed His Revelation to John
with the words:
“Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they might have right to the tree of life, and may
enter in through the gates into the city”? (Revelation 22:14).
As these inquiring people continued in prayer and study, they were greatly impressed by the message
of the three angels found in Revelation 14:6-11, followed by verse twelve which says:
“Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of
Jesus”.
In the first angel’s message (Verses six and seven), they came to see that at the time of the end “the
everlasting gospel” was to include a call to prepare the world for Christ’s imminent second advent and
its attendant judgment. This was to be accomplished by emphasising the importance of returning to
the true way of worshipping the Creator by keeping holy the day on which God rested from His
creative work – the seventh day of the fourth Commandment.
In keeping with their earlier resolve to follow the Bible only, they decided to keep holy the Biblical day
of rest (Saturday) and eventually, in the year 1860 the name Seventh-day Adventist was formally
adopted, the name being expressive of their beliefs. How then, some seventy years later, could the
leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church reject the work of B. G. Wilkinson, one of their own
educationalists who upheld the purity of the very Bible from which SDA pioneers had discerned their
beliefs? In fact, his church had already smeared the integrity of the King James Version, at least within
its own theological curricula.
In 1926, the SDA’s Berrien Springs College Press published a booklet, “Doctrines for use in Seventh-day
Adventist Colleges”, in which it claimed the American Revised Version to be “more accurate, more
scholarly, more valuable” than the Authorised Bible (p 59).
The author has had the opportunity of examining the SDA General Conference’s review of Wilkinson’s
book. He has to agree with Wilkinson that it is more of an attack than a review, for his unnamed
reviewers entirely ignored the historical aspect which involved the papal led intrigue, conceived at the
Council of Trent, to replace the Protestant Bible with Rome’s counterfeit, the 1881 Revised Version.
So patently devoid of common logic and scholarship is this so-called “Review”, that the main reason for
rejecting Wilkinson’s book is adequately summed up by the fear expressed therein by the reviewers
themselves:
“We would become the laughing stock of the reverent Christian scholarship of the world” (“Committees
Review”, Section I p 39).
So, the leaders of the SDA Church that had proudly proclaimed themselves as “The people of the
Bible”, succumbed to the pressure of their peers in a system of Protestantism that scarcely regarded
them as anything more than leaders of a cult! What a contrast to the unwavering resolve of the brave
army of martyrs in the mould of Tyndale and others who sacrificed their lives in order that the world
might be given the very Bible which had been responsible for bringing Protestantism in general, and
Adventism in particular into existence!
66
Apparently Wilkinson’s book had stirred up a hornet’s nest. Within a year the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists decided to cool the debate by issuing a directive saying “That the controversy
over the use of versions should be avoided”. Then they threw a sop to both sides by stating that “the
1611 King James Version and the 1901 American Revised Version shall serve us without
discrimination”. Their chief motivation for concern was made known when they appealed for unity by
“Leaving all free to use the version of their choice” (see “Problems in Translation”, pp 74, 75, a General
Conference Publication, authors undeclared).
In consideration of the fact that we have seen that the King James Version is a Protestant Bible
(Received Text), while the Revised Version and the American Revised Version contain Roman Vulgate
implants, and that they disagree with the KJV in numerous places in matters of importance (see
Chapter Twenty-Seven), we can only conclude that at least some Seventh-day Adventist leaders have
absolutely no idea as to which book is God’s Word! Hence, seeing their beliefs are claimed to be
Biblically-based, they have a problem of gargantuan proportions. They should expect massive doctrinal
confusion to follow!
For instance, having noticed the importance which the pioneers of the SDA Church attached to the
judgment-hour message of the first angel of Revelation chapter fourteen, we can only wonder why
today they should be interested in warning people of a judgment that, in the Revised Version,
American Revised Version and New International Version, is placed after a period of punishment! How
nicely such a rendition fits with papal dogma of purgatory! (2 Peter 2:9, RSV etc). On the other hand,
the King James Version portrays the judgment correctly as a means of determining who are to be
punished and who are not.
If both versions of the text are equally inspired, we have to ask the question, “Inspired by whom?”
Surely we are not expected to believe that our God is a God of confusion! If so, we would have to
reject 1 Corinthians 14:33: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches
of the saints” (KJV).
Fortunately, for Seventh-day Adventism, the laity took absolutely no notice of the General
Conference’s dualism. As with Protestant churches generally, the King James Bible continued to reign
supreme in their homes, their churches and to a large extent, in their primary and high schools. Their
young people grew up like other Protestants, learning to give an answer for their faith by memorising
and repeating Bible texts in uniformity.

 

to be continued

 

GOD BLESS

 

[Author]

Posts