have been patronized by their fupreme ecclefiaftie authority. For the edition by pope Sixtus V. (though, in his bull prefixed, he approved it by the apoftolic power, which the Lord Jefus Chrift had committed to him, and enacted its univerfal use as true and incontestable, forbidding to change any, even the fmalleft particle, and declaring that fuch alteration fhould have no faith nor weight,) and that by pope* Clement VIII. his fucceffor, in the year 1592, do often differ; while this pope again in his preface, after all his rectifications of it in feveral places, and fome of them important ones, owns there was ftill room to mend and improve the tranflation. Accordingly, we know many doctors of that church have been endeavouring in later times, to render it more perfect and accurate. Nay, father Houbigant within these few years hath given the world a new Latin verfion of the whole Old Teftament from the Hebrew; an evidence he thought there might be a jufter one than it was; as indeed, though he counted it more excellent than any of the former translations, he hath not fcrupled to depart from its fense ‡ frequently,

This edition by Clement, was only three years later than Sixtus's. The varieties between these two editions, were collected and published by Thomas James, Bodleian library-keeper in the year 1600. in a small book thence ftiled Bellum Papale, that he might expofe to contempt the claim of the pope to infallibility. And fome of them are manifeft inconfiftencies and contradictions, as thefe, Exodus, xxiii, 18. Sixtus's edition has tuae, Clement's meae. Deut. xvii. 8. Sixtus's has inter lepram et non lepram, Clement's inter lepram et lepram. Joshua, ii. 18. Six. has fignum non fuerit; Clem. has fignum fuerit, &c.

See his Prolegomena to his Hebrew Bible, and notes paffim.

and even to reason against it in many inftances. Besides, Mr. Voltaire himself, though he hath sometimes laid hold of the sense of the Vulgate as the sure and infallible one, where it gave him any colour or pretext to laugh, hath at other times given a fense very different and contrary, where fuch defertion of it was needful to answer his view, and gratify him with the pleasure of deriding the facred writings. So that he will with a very bad grace alledge its authenticity to be an article of his creed, either in the more rigorous or moderate sense which hath been put upon that term of the council, in excufe for his mifleading his readers by adherence to it, in the paffages which I have cenfured. Of this we have feen an example or two a little before. But I produce below, fome others to juftify the remark more fully. The rather that I am scarce to take any more notice of them.

Thus in the forty-third chapter of his Phil. of Hiftory, 'Micaiah,' fays he, having prophefied misfortunes to king Ahab and Jofaphat, a'nother prophet named Tzedekiah, fon to Cana, gave him a flap on 'the face, faying, The Spirit of the Eternal has paffed from my "hand upon thy cheek." pag. 204. But were these his words according to the Vulgate? No. They are there, 'Lord then forfaken me, and spoken to thee?

Hath the Spirit of the
Mene ergo dimifit Spi-

ritus Domini, et locutus eft tibi ?' 3 Reg. xxii. 24.

ty-eighth chapter again, he fays, according to the Jews,

-In the for

God walks

Once

⚫ in the garden at mid-day.' pag. 230. But in the Vulgate it is, At ⚫ the breeze after noon; Ad auram poft meridiem.' Gen, iii. 8. which agrees much with our translation, In the cool of the day. more, in his Philofophical Dictionary he writes, Ezekiel, in the 28. ⚫ chapter of his Revelations, gives the appellation of Meffiah to the king of Tyrus, whom he alfo calls, Cherubim.' But is this account of the addrefs, which the Lord bids the prophet make to the king of Tyrus

So much for his mifreprefentations of Scripture, on the authority of the Vulgate verfion. And must it not appear a great want of candour in him, to have cavilled at its accounts thereof, when it is acknowledged to labour under many inaccuracies and miftakes, by the most learned of that communion where it is moft admired, and is in fact difagreeable to the original, in the paffages which he ftudies to expofe from it to ridicule? Is not this conduct also the more inexcufable in him, that he himself discovers fo fmall deference and veneration for it, as not seldom to give a different view of the meaning of the Sacred Books from that which it exhibits?

agreeable to the Vulgate tranflation? Far otherwife. Whereas he makes the prophet fay to him, Thou waft the feal of the likeness of God,' The Vulgate hath no more than, Thou waft the feal of likeness. Tu fignaculum fimilitudinis;' which is expounded by moft commentators that allow the juftice of this rendering, of his having the perfection of the likeness or fimilitude of a king, though deftitute of extenfive territory. And whereas he represents the prophet to continue, Thou 'waft the Lord's garden of Eden.' It hath, Thou waft in the delights of the Paradife of God.' In deliciis Paradifi Dei fuifti.'-And, not to point out all differences there, whereas he makes the prophet fay, "Thou hast a Cherubim, a Messiah.' It hath not one syllable of Messiah or Anointed, but runs, Thou art a foreign Cherub,' or as fome would read it, 'Thou art a Cherub ftretched out and covering. Tu

Cherub externus (ut alii extenfus,) et protegens,' on account of the defence and tuition the prince of Tyre afforded to other cities and states. See the Dictionary, article Meffiah, page 265. and compare Ezek. xxviii. 12, 13. in Vulgate verfion.—But it were endless to enumerate all his deviations from it, in his details from, and profeffed citations of Scripture, and to convict him thereof, by inftituting a comparifon betwixt the one and the other. Enough must strike every reader in the next chapter.

1

CHAPTER II.

Of his mifreprefentations of Scripture, for which he cannot plead the authority of any translation.

HAV

AVING now pointed out feveral falfe accounts of the meaning of Scripture by Mr. Voltaire, for which he had, as feemed candid to acknowledge, the authority of the Vulgate, version; I proceed to his far more numerous misrepresentations, thereof, in which he is unfupported by any tranflation. And certainly he must be here much more criminal. I do not however intend to produce all inftances of this kind that might be collected, even from these treatifes of the author which I criticife. Nor can I think it neceffary. It may be fufficient to fhew, that he is with great frequency guilty of fuch difingenuous conduct. For muft not this fatisfy every perfon, that he ought to be very cautious about receiving his accounts of the Bible implicitely, who appears fo keen to traduce it, that he pays little regard to truth in his details from it, wherever to neglect this, can ferve his end of expofing the Sacred Books to ridicule? and by confequence, guard him

This feems to me the character of all the inftances I mention except two or three, and I have thought it needlefs, as they are fo few, to use any restriction in the title of this chapter. What pretence there is of the authority of a tranflation, shall be taken notice of upon thefe articles, as they occur, when I hope it will alfo appear, that the meaning he affixes to the words thereof is unreasonable, and that another fenfe is to be preferred to that which he hath chofen amidft fome ambiguity.

against being impofed on, through a flothful omiffion to read and examine the fame.

SECTION I.

Of his faying, that the Jews are reproached for copulation with he and fhe-goats in the defert, and forbidden the fame, in chapter fecond of his Philofophy of History.

IN chapter fecond of his Philofophy of History, Voltaire having obferved, Herodotus in his fecond book fays, that in his voyage into Egypt, there ❝ was a woman in the province of Mendes, who publicly copulated with a he-goat; and calls all Egypt to witness the truth of it.' He fubjoins, It is forbidden in Leviticus, chap. xvii. to commit abominations with he and fhe-goats. Thefe copulations. muft then have been common,' &c. Again in chap. xxxv. † having affirmed, The Jews carried on the trade, (of magic,) as foon as they were difperfed over the world. The forcerers fabbath is an evident proof of this.' He adds,' And the he-goat with which the forcereffes were fuppofed to have copulated, is derived from the antient correfpondence the Jews had with goats in the defert, with which they are reproached in Levit. xviii.' And the fame thing he had said in his Treatise on Toleration, with fome enlargement, as will appear prefently.

According to our author then, the Jews were cenfured for this deteftable crime in particular, and a fpecial caveat against it was contained in their law + Page 166.

Page 7.-8.