General Councils, that is, by all the Catholick Bifhops in Europe, Afia, and Africa, long before the Greek Schifin. In the mean Time, Mr. L's Syftem of Boniface III. is a Demonftration, that both He and Dr. Barrow came above a Thoufand years too late to Reform it.

§. VI.

French-Tranflations of the Scripture.

IS Probable Mr. L. had not much Work at Home, when he carried his English Reader, p. 55. to Rue S. Jaques in Paris, in the purfuit of French-New-Teftaments. For, if our Rhemes Bible varied from the Latin (of which it was a Tranflation) there would have been no need of a Journey. If it does not; why should his Reader be frighted with it, unless it be out of a Brotherly Concern, for the French Huguenots ? But, what do we Learn from his Travels?

Firft, PAGE 55. There is a Collection (printed at London) of many Texts abufed in a French-NewTeftament fuppreft at Paris.

I Anfwer, there is a Collection (printed in Germany) of above a Thousand Texts, very much Abufed in the first Proteftant-Tranflation that ever was, and which was never Suppreft.

Secondly, PAGE 56. A Louvain Translation printed anno 1701. has Act. 13. ver. 2. When they had Offerr'd to the Lord, the Sacrifice of the Mafs.

Ant. First, WHO was the Author of this Tranflation? Mr. L. is Silent. But, according to the Donatift's Logick, and Dr. Patrick's, the Catholick Church (which knows nothing of the Matter) must be Accountable for him, and bear

the

the Blame, whoever he was. Secondly, Was it his Fault, or the Printer's, that the last three Words were not fet in a different Character? However it is, λειτεργέντων αὐτῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ properly fignifies, as Erasmus tranflates it, As they [St. Paul, St. Barnabas, &c.] were Sacrificing to the Lord. And it is now near Thirteen Hundred years, fince the Chriftian Sacrifice was call'd the Mafs. For the Apoftolical Ufe of which Sacrifice, this Text is an excellent Proof; Tranflate it as you please. Thirdly, Tis no new thing in the Proteftant Bible, either in the Old or New Teftament, to give us the Expofition instead of the Text, without fearing the Curfe in the Revelation. St. Mat. 16. ver. 25. “Os yde av den. Thr ψυχὴν αὐτὸ σῶσαι, ἀπολέση αυτήν. ὡς δ ̓ ἂν ἀπολέση των ψυχω αὐτὸ ἕνεκεν ἐμέ, εὑρήση αὐτώ. For, whofoever will Save his Life, fhall Lofe it & And whosoever will lofe it for my fake, fhall findhig. But, if it had no greater Faults than this, we fhould never quarrel with it. See more Inftances of this kind, Ifai. 17. ver. 5. Ifai. 54. ver. 5. St. Joh. 2. ver. 10, * &c.

His third Exception, p. 57, is both against the Louvain Teftament, and the Vulgate, Heb. 11. ver. 21, Adoravit faftigium virga ejus. Which probably fignifies, that Jacob Bow'd to the Scepter of Jofeph. And, if he did: it was .no more Idolatry,than Bowing to the Chair of State is fo at prefent.

BUT the Tranflator, fays Mr. L. omitted the Præpofition,ἐπί. Καὶ πρὸς προσεκύνησεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς pa dur, which is in the Proteftant Bible, And he Worshipped, leaning upon the Top of his Staff.

I Anfwer, First, Mr. L. if he pleafes, may Difpute this Point with St. Jerom. For he left K 4

out

out the Præpofition, and ('). Translated the words of St. Paul, exactly as we have them in the Latin.

Secondly, It is not du in (2) St. Paul and the Septuagint, Gen. 47. ver. 31, whom he follows; but du which fhews, it was not Jacob's Staff, which is here fpoken of, but the Rod, or Scepter of Jofeph, who was a Type of our Saviour; and was call'd by Pharaoh, Gen. 41. ver. 45, Zaphnath-paaneah, which St. Jerom tranflates, Saviour of the World. Aud this, utterly defeats Mr. L's Pun of Jacob's Crutch.

Thirdly, FOR ought we know, Jacob was upon his Bed, at the time mention'd by St. Paul, viz. Gen. 47. ver. 31, where the Proteftant Bible has it, and Ifrael bowed himself upon the Bed's-head. If fo; what need had he of the Proteftant Crutch, Heb. 11. ver. 21? And may not the Addition fall as well within the reach of that Curse, Rev. 22. ver. 18. If any Man fhall ADD unto these things; God fhall Add unto him, the Plagues that are in this written Book ?

2

Fourthly, If we retain the Præpofition, the English will still be: He Worshipped to (or, towards) the Top of his Rod, (3) or of his Scepter. But this no more favours the Worshipping of Wood (as Mr. L. understands the Name of Worship) than Bowing to the Chair of State, favours the worshipping of Joint-stools.

(*) See the Ox

(') T. 1. ult. Edit Par. p. 1665. F. 6. ford New-Teftament, Heb. 11. ver. 21. and the Septuagint

in Dr. Walton's Polyglot, Gen. 47. ver. 31. (3) As the Huguenots in the Margin of one of their Editions Vers le Sommet de la verge d'iceluy.

ཕ་

His laft Exception, p. 58, is, that in another French Translation, paffing through the Fire, 1 Cor, 3. ver. 15. is boldly render'd the Fire of Purga

tory.

But this trifling Objection, might well have been Spared. For, tho' the Tranflation was made without Authority; it was fuppreft by it, p. 56. and the French Government ought to be Commended for it: but Some are hard to be pleas'd. In the mean time, my Lord is Dunce enough to suppose, that thefe Grub-ftreet Editions come out with the Approbation of Doctors, Universities, &c. p. 59.

§. VII.

Proteftant Translations of the Scripture.

F Mr. L. be one of thofe, I hope he is, that will not Pawn his Soul for a Party: he cannot take it ill, if I tell him freely my Ŏpinion of the Proteftant Bible; Which in fhort is this; That the Compilers had 'Erudition enough, to have made an excellent Tranflation; but that they wanted due Refpect to the Sacred Text, which they evidently Corrupted in several Places, in favour of their Opinions.

I Cor. xi. ver. 27.St. Paul fays,Wherefore, whofoever Shall eat this Bread, ή πίνη τὸ πο]ήριον το Κυρίκ avažias 02 Drink the Cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.

THIS 02 feem'd to hint, First, That Chriftians, in the Apostles Time, did not always receive the Sacrament under Both Kinds: Secondly, that both the Body and Blood of Chrift is con

tain'a under either of them. Thus Catholicks always understood and urg'd this Text against the the Protestants. What do the Compilers? they evidently corrupt the Text by putting and inftead of 0; And fo it ftands in the Bible to this Day: Wherefore whofoever fhall eat this Bread and. drink, &c.

BELL ARMIN did not alter the Text of Joh. 6. v. 53. but only faid that and is to be understood for 02, (which yet is not necessary, unJefs our Bleffed Saviour fpeaks there of the Sacrament which Proteftants deny) and what a Peal does a certain Gentleman ring over him for it, p. 169? That is to fay, I may understand all the ands in the Creed to be 028, and instead of faying I Believe this, and this, and this, I may fay, I believe this, or this, or this: So that if I believe any one Article, it is fufficient, tho' I believe never another. If you fent your Servant to Market, and bid him bring Beef and Mutton and Pork, and he buys only Beef, and fays he understood all your ands for Ors. And fo if you bid him bring fo much Meat and fo much Drink, and he brings fo much Meat for the fame Reafon. Thus we may easily get over the Commands of God, and give the Reverse to St. James, ch. 2. v. 10. that He who offends in one Point, is guilty of all. No, But He who keeps one Point, keeps the whole Law. This is Bantering, inftead of Arguing. And it fhews a Caufe to be very deftitute, when fo great a Man as Bellarmin could content himself with fuch an Anfwer. Whether Bellarmin was guilty enough to deserve all this, is another Question. But will not Men of Judgment be apt to conclude that the Reformation must be fomewhat Deftitute, when fo Great Men as the Compilers of the Bible, to get rid of an Objection, were fore'd

to