chapter and verse being quoted in its vindication. In short, the Established Church of England, with the Vicar himself, has at last taken just alarm at the consequences to be apprehended for herself, as well as for the State, from an unbounded and indiscriminate diffusion of Bibles, without the Prayer Book to direct its meaning. I do not find myself called upon to make any remark on the praises, which the twenty-two Protestant writers whom he quotes, bestow on their own Bible. The Vicar's citation of these twenty-two witnesses makes no more for his cause, than if I were to cite the two hundred and fifty-two Prelates of the Council of Trent who pronounced upon mine.

Speaking of the last English Translation of the Bible; the one now in use, published by K. James I., in 1611, the author of The End of Controversy said, "Though these new translators have corrected many wilful errors of their predecessors, most of which are levelled at Catholic doctrines and discipline, yet they have left a sufficient number of these behind, for which I do not find that their advocates offer any excuse." Two of these he specified as standing in direct opposition to the Original text, as it is quoted by those advocates, Dr. Ryan and the Rev. Mr. Grier.* On these two points, one of them regarding the Celibacy of the clergy, the other

* End of Controv, Let. ix. p. 72.

Communion under one kind, the last-named gentleman says: "I join issue with Dr. M."* I will state each of them briefly, yet clearly.-Our B. Saviour having condemned the Jewish practice of divorce: His disciples say unto him: if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them: All men RECEIVE NOT this saying; in Greek : ου παντες χωρούσι τον λόγον TOUTOV. Mat. xix. 2. In like manner St. Paul says, 1. Cor. vii. 7, I say therefore to the unmarried and widows: it is good for them, if they abide even as I; But if they DO NOT CONTAIN let them marry; in Greek: & de oun synрaтevovτa: Now in both these passages, the later as well as the earlier Protestant translators change DO NOT into CANNOT, in excuse for the first Reformers' breach of their vowed celibacy. With respect to the former of these falsifications, Dr. Ryan derides it, and says, "The Rhemish version agrees nearly with our own!" while the Vicar refers to his former work for a satisfactory proof

* P. 95.

+ Another falsification of the same kind, which seems to be levelled at the tenet of Freewill, occurs both in the earlier and later version of Galat. v. 17. The Apostle says: You DO NOT the things that you would. α αν θελητε ταύτα ποιητε ; this the translators turn thus: So that YOU CANNOT do the things that you would, contrary to the original Greek, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac, Arias Montanus, Erasmus, Beza, Tremellius, &c.—It is extraordinary that neither the Editor of the Rheims Testament nor Ward has pointed out this corruption. Analysis. p. 19.

that the word CANNOT " is most agreeable to the Original,"* which says DO NOT. As to the second falsification, the Vicar says, "I have been obliged to convict Dr. M. of gross ignorance of the Greek, no less than a fraudulent application of the Latin, and have proved to demonstration that the Rhemish version of this text: & de oun εypaτεvovтaι is erroneous."+ Now in what does this boasted conviction of my ignorance, and of the erroneousness of the Rhemish version, consist? Why the Vicar says that εγρατευομαι " is a verb of the middle voice," and that "the vulgate reading which agrees with it is: si vero SE non continent,‡ that is to say if they do not contain themselves; therefore according to the Vicar, the passage ought to be translated: if they cannot contain, as in the common Bible! What is it that chicanery and confidence will not attempt to prove! The other instance of still subsisting error in the latter translation of the Bible, as well as in the former, consists in the false trans

* Reply. p. 95. On consulting the Book and page here referred to, the only words relating to the translation itself, consist in a repetition of Dr. Ryan's above-quoted falsehood, namely, he says: "The Rhemish construction does not substantially differ from the Protestant one." The rest of his long dissertation is made up of his own confused exposition of the Scripture and the Fathers on the subject of celibacy. See Answer to Ward, p. p. 33, 34, 35.

+ Ibid, p. 95.

Answer, p. 35.

lation of 1 Cor. xi. 27., where St. Paul, speaking of the B. Sacrament, says: Whosoever shall eat this bread, OR drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. Ωστε ος αν εσθιη τον αρτον τούτον η πινη το ποτήριον του κυρίου αναξίως, ενοχος έσται του σώματος και αιμάτας του κυριου. This text which is so decisive in favour of the Catholic doctrine, respecting the body and blood of Christ being received under either kind in the B. Sacrament, is, on that account, falsified in both translations of the English Bible, by turning the disjunctive article OR, into the conjunctive article AND. Dr. Ryan finding this falsification (which Ward does not fail to expose) too gross to be defended, very prudently passes it by unanswered. The Vicar had in his former work, attempted to prove that and no, OR and AND are convertible articles! at present he contents himself with relating a story about Dr. Kilbie, who, he says, hearing a certain Clergyman maintain in the pulpit that there are three arguments against the translation of a certain word, in the way it has been translated, answered him that there are thirteen reasons why it should be translated as it stands; concluding thus: " to Dr. M. I leave the application of the foregoing anecdote; for it certainly affords a useful hint to a self-confident critic." Such is the issue of the contest to which the Vicar challenged me! And such are his rea

sons for shewing that the term DO NOT, should be translated CANNOT, and why the disjunctive OR, should be changed into the conjunctive AND. I hope you will not forget Dr. Kilbie: if I do not mistake, the Vicar will again introduce him to you. In the mean time, I remain,

Yours, &c.

J. M., D.D.

P.S. The Vicar's mode of reasoning on the corruption in question is of a piece with that of Luther, quoted by me in Letters to a Prebendary, Let. v. p. 187, when being called to an account for an undeniable false translation of Scripture, he answered, "sic volo, sic jubeo, Lutherusita vult et ait se doctorem esse seperate omnes doctores in toto Papatu."

LETTER IX.

VARIATIONS OF THE BIBLE FROM ITS ORIGINALS.

DEAR SIR-In a former letter you have seen the Vicar take both sides of a contested point: you will now witness two other instances of the same inconsistency, namely, in his defending the common Bible against its Originals, and again in defending the Originals against the common