answered the objections a?i_?t our English translation, we may with justice retort upon the Church of Rome, both in regard to the original Scriptures and their tnm81ations from them. 1. The Church of Rome has treated the original Scriptures with great disrespect in pronouncing the �ulgate to be autAentic, so as to be used in all sermons, expositions, and disputations. On this account many Catholics contend that the �ulgate version wu dictated by the Holy Spirit; at least was providentially guarded against all error; was conse- quently of divine authority, and more to be regarded than the original Hebrew and Greek texts, Hence the translation has taken place of the original; and their translators, instead of the Hebrew and Greek' texts, translate the Vulgate when they furnish a translation in a verna- cular language. Sometimes, indeed, when they find the Vulgate noto- riously defective, they consult the originals; but, in general, the Vul- gate is their original text, and when they translate they give us tranalation of a translation; by which more of the spirit of the original Scriptures must be lost than by going direcdy to the source. 2. In reference to the Latin �ulgate I would make a few remarks. Jerome finished his translation A.D. 384. Before his day the o/d version existed which was made about the close of the second century, and which was made from the Greek of the Seventy and the Greek New Testament. Jerome's translation was professedly made from the Hebrew and Greek origiuals, and in process of time was called the Vulgate or cominG, translation. The Council of Trent pronounced the Vulgate divine. Accordingly Sixrue V. ordered the various editions to be collected, and published an edition in 1590. The text thus revised Sixrue pronounced to be the authentic Vulgate, which had been the object of inquiry in the Council of Trent; denouncing with the greater excommunication any person who should dare to change the smallest particle, ? pa,'t/cu/a, not even to be absolved by the pope. Not- withstanding the labours of this pope, his edition was found by Clement VIII. to possess at least two thousand considerable errors. Clement published his edition in 1592, which differs considerably from the Six- tine edition. When Clement published his own edition he condemned that of Sixms, and prouounced it incorrect. It is not our intention to misrepresent or depreciate any thing belon?ng to the Church of Rome. It is therefore due to remark that though the Latin Vulgate is neither infallible nor inspired, and cannot be compared with the originals, yet it is in general a faithful translation, and sometimes exhibits the sense of the Scriptures with greater accuracy than some modern versions. The Latin Vulgate is by no means to be neglected by the Biblical scholar. For even in its present state, notwithstanding the variations between the Sixfine and Clementine editions, and that several passages are mistranslated in order to suppert the peculiar dogmas of the Church of Rome, it preserves many true readings where the modern Hebrew copies are corrupted. For a very accurate and correct account of the Vulgate we refer to Horne's Introduction, vol. if, p. 196. Notwith- standing its excellences, it contains too many errors to be received as the infallible word of God in the place of the inspired originals. 3. We may here notice the Do,?a? B/b/?. In the year 1582, the Romanists, finding it impossible to withhold the Scriptures from the common people, printed an English New Testament at Rheims: it was 1
�
