REFLECTIONS ON A French Testament PRINTED AT BOURDEAUX, An. Dom. MDCLXXXVI.  
Pretended to be Translated out of the LATIN into FRENCH By the Divines of LOWAIN.  
By RICHARD KIDDER, D. D. and Dean of PETERBOROUGH.  
LONDON, Printed for Walter Kettilby, at the Bishop's Head in S. Paul's Churchyard, 1690.   

THE PREFACE.  
THAT the People have a right to read the Holy Scriptures cannot be doubted of by him that considers that matter with due Application, and without Prejudice. And that Man who reads these Holy Books with great Humility and Care, and an earnest desire to become better, will receive unspeakable Advantages by it. The Governors and Pastors of the Church are therefore obliged to promote this holy Disposition, and to furnish and assist the People, who cannot read these Books in their original Languages, with such a true Translation, and such needful Explications as may render it more profitable to them.  
The Church of Rome does not absolutely deny the People this liberty, but restrains it: For they have their Versions of the Bible in the several Popish Countries in the Language of them. But for all that, certain it is, that many of that Church do not only disparage these holy Books, but discourage the reading of them.  
And that Church, instead of assisting the devout People in their profitable reading the Holy Scriptures, and furnishing them with all due means to this purpose, hath dealt very insincerely in the whole matter.  
I. By obtruding the Vulgar Latin as that Authentic Copy of the Bible, from which, in public disputes and questions, there is no appeal to be allowed, which the Trent-Council does. The Version of the Vulgar Latin I grant, is venerable for its Antiquity, and is of great use in the Church; And is not always to be despised or declaimed against, where at first sight it does not seem perfectly agreeable to the Original Text; both because it sometime gives the true sense, where it seems in the l●tter to differ; and also because (in the N. T. especially) where it differs from the present reading, it do●s not differ from some ancient Copies. But yet after all it cannot always be defended: And it were not hard to give proofs of this beyond all exception whatsoever. This would be too great a digression in this place: And therefore I shall only add (as a competent proof of it at present) that the most samed and allowed Commentators and Interpreters of the Roman Church, do think fit very frequently to forsake the Vulgar: which I shall at any time make good against that Church whenever I shall be required to do it.  
II. By commending that for the Version of the Vulgar Latin which in truth is not so. After the above named Decree of the Trent-Council, the minds of men were in suspense and doubtful, because they knew not what Copy of the V Latin to follow. And the Pope did not, for above twenty years after, declare what certain Copy should be taken for the Authentic V. Latin. Afterwards indeed Pope Sixtus V gave notice to the Christian World what his mind was in this matter, A. D. MDLXXXIX. He puts out a Latin Bible, in the Preface whereunto he acquaints the Reader as follows: That agreeably to the aforesaid Decree of the Council of Trent, He, having called upon God, and relying upon S. Peter's Authority, for the public good of the Church, had not thought much to set forth that Bible. He sets forth his labour in choosing the best readings; his design, that according to the Decree of the Trent Council the Vulgar Bible might be printed most Correct; and his performance, viz. That he had accurately purged this Edition from various Errors, and with utmost diligence restored it in pristinam veritatem, i.e. to its ancient verity. After this declares his will, viz. He decrees that that Edition should be taken for that Vulgar Latin which the Trent Council declared Authentic. And this He tells us he does ex certâ nostrâ scientiâ, deque Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine; i.e. from his own certain knowledge, and plenitude of Apostolic Authority. And that it ought to be received as such, sine ulla dubitatione aut controversiâ, i.e. without any doubt or controversy. After this Clement the VIII. puts out his Edition of the Vulgar, and requires expressly that that be received also. And this he does A. D. MDXCII. The differences between that of Sixtus V and Clement VIII. are too many to be here related. Where'tis in Clement's Edition eduxistis, 'tis in that of Sixtus V induxistis, Exod. xuj. 3. Where the one hath opposuit, 'tis apposuit in the other, Deut. xxiv. 6. Clement hath extrinsecùs where Sixtus reads it intrinsecùs, 1 Kings seven. 8. Where Clement hath it à portá, Sixtus hath it ad portam, 2 Ezr. c. iii. v. 28. One reads latitudinem when the other reads altitudinem, Judith i 1, 2. What in Sixtus is insipientia, is sapientia in Clement, Ecclus. xxi. 15. Non respicis in Sixtus, is respicis in Clement, Hab. 1.13. Where Sixtus hath Credentes, Clement hath non Credentes, Joh. vi. 65. Where Sixtus hath interpretabilis, Clement hath in interpretabilis, Heb. v. 11. And where one hath doctas, the other hath indoctas, 2 Pet. i 16. Yet are both these to be received by the authority of Pope and Council, tho' they contradict each other. And we shall still be at the pleasure of a Pope to give us another Authentic Copy.  
III. The Church of Rome hath done very insincerely in allowing Versions which pretend to be true Versions of the Vulgar when they are not. I shall more especially consider those which were done into French; there was a French Bible printed at Antwerp, by the permission of Charles the V A. D. MDXXX. and reprinted, A. D. MDXXXIV. which differs from the present Vulgar. But this being done before the Bull of Sixtus V I insist not upon it. After this there was another Version of the V Latin into French by the care of certain Louvain Divines, deputed to this purpose: An Edition of which, Printed at Lions, I frequently refer to in the following Reflections. This was a Version of great fame and authority in the Church of Rome; and the Testament of Bourdeaux pretends to be done by these Divines. So it was, that tho' this Louvain French Bible were designed to keep the people from reading the Protestant Editions, yet it was complained of by several of the Church of Rome (as Father Simon relates) as coming too near the Sentiments of the Protestants. It will appear (by the following Reflections) that this Version does not exactly agree with the present Vulgar. Since that have been many Popish Versions in the French Tongue, which pretend to be Versions of the Latin into French, of the N. Testament, in which I am particularly concerned at present. I shall mention none but such as I have perused. The first is that of Amelote, who was chosen by the French Clergy to this employment, A. D.MDCLV. He hath Printed his Version both with and without Notes. The first, A. D.MDCLXVI. That without Notes I have seen Printed A. D.MDCLXXXVI. This was Printed with the attestation and approbation of several Prelates of France, with the permission of the Archbishop of Paris, 
Crit. Hist. de Verse. N. T.  and General of his Order. Father Simon says, that he was the first Catholic Writer that applied himself with Care to turn the N. Testament into French. I will not deny him to be a person of diligence and good fame; but yet neither is this a strict Version of the Vulgar.  
The Second is the Version Printed at Mons. This is common among us, and hath been often Printed, and is of great fame, and upon many accounts a very valuable Book. But neither is this a strict Version of the Vulgar, as I could easily show by very many instances, were it convenient in this place to do it.  
The Third is this Testament Printed at Bourdeaux, which the following Reflections relate unto. It bears the Title of, Le Noweau Testament de nôtre Seigneur Jesus Christ Traduit de Latin en François, par les Theologiens de Louvain, i. e. The New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ Translated out of Latin into French, by the Divines of Louvain. It was Printed at Bourdeaux, A. D.MDCLXXXVI. It hath the approbation of two Doctors, viz. Lopes and , as very profitable to those who shall be permitted and have capacity to read it. It hath also the permission of the Archbishop of Bourdeaux, and 'tis in that permission affirmed to be reviewed and exactly corrected.  
I shall make it appear that this is no true Version of the Vulgar Latin, that it is not the work of the Louvain Divines as it pretends to be: That is agrees neither with the Vulgar, nor the celebrated Versions of it which are allowed in the Roman Church: That is hath a considerable number of downright forgeries and falsifications, a great number of gross errors, and mistakes: That is adds to the Vulgar and takes from it: That 'tis inconsistent with itself, and by no means corrected as to the Typographical Errata. In a word, it hath not the authority of ancient Copies or various Readins to support it: I dare challenge all mankind to defend it.  

Preface to the Rhem. Testam.  Those of the Church of Rome have inveighed against the Protestants Versions. They have pretended that we have no Bible. They have scoffed and derided us on this account. They have boasted that they have been the faithful preservers of these Divine Oracles, and that what we have of them we may thank them for.  
But lo here a proof of their insincerity; here's that which may convince any honest man, even of their own Communion, that is willing to know the truth in this most important matter. And if any such should read these Papers, I must conjure him, as he loves his Soul, to take care how he trusts that Church with the Salvation of his Soul that dares falsify at this high rate. No man will in other cases trust a cheat or forger of Testaments and Deeds. But how great must this wickedness be then, when the Holy Oracles of God are corrupted to serve a turn. They that can do this can make no boggle at the most horrid and execrable Crimes.  
I did intent in the last Reign to have made, and to have published these Reflections. But I could by no means procure this Testament either here or beyond the Seas. Insomuch, that I began to suspect that either there was no such Book, or that it had not those faults in it as had been given out. But, after I had, by means of a very learned and excellent Person, procured a Copy, I found it to be, as I have in the following Reflections truly represented it to the Reader.   

IMPRIMATUR.  
Z. Isham, R. P. D. Henrico Episc. Lond. à Sacris.  
Octob. 18. 1690.   

REFLECTIONS ON THE French New Testament, etc.  
I Will not undertake to represent all the faults of this Translation: It shall suffice to take notice of the most notorious, and greater number of them.  
I will begin with such as are notorious in an high degree, and deserve no better a name than falsifications of the Text, merely to serve a turn, and support a Doctrine that needs confirmation. The Mass, and the Sacrifice of it, sufficiently need better proofs than have hitherto been produced. These Translators, in the Contents before Matth. xxvi. v. 26. tell the Reader that Jesus Christ did there Institute the Mass. And this Institution of the Mass they mention again in the Contents before Mark xiv. And they expressly mention the Sacrifice of the Mass in the Contents before Act. xiii. And what we tender (v. 2.) As they ministered to the Lord, they render by, Or comme ils offroyent an Seigneur le Sacrifice de la Messe, i. e. as they offered unto the Lord the Sacrifice of the Mass. 'Tis certain that our English Version of that place follows the Vulgar Latin, and their Rhemist Testament agrees with it herein; and Amelote renders it, lors qu'ils estoyent occupez au Service de Dieu, i. e. when they were empolyed in the Service of God. And the old Louvain translation thus, Eux donc servans en leur Ministere an Seigneur, i. e. as they were serving in their Ministry to the Lord. But these men make no scruple to forsake the Vulgar it self, when it will not serve their purpose. I have elsewhere showed, that Act. xiii. 2. contains no proof of the Romish doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass; and do not intent to enter upon that dispute here. 'Tis enough to observe that these Translators forsake that Vulgar Latin, (which their Church commends and approves) when in the mean time they pretend to give us a Version of it.  
The Doctrine of Purgatory as 'tis taught in the Roman Church must be defended: And tho' the Scripture have nothing in it to that purpose, yet they'll rather add to the Text, and falsify that, than want a colour for their Doctrine. And indeed they have done it: where the Apostle tells us of him that shall be saved as by fire (1 Cor. three 15.) they have it, par le feu du Purgatoire, i.e. by the fire of Purgatory; without any distinction of letters at all; as if Purgatory had been in the Text as well as fire. And yet the Vulgar Latin (of which this is pretended to be a Translation) hath only per ignem, i.e. by fire, as 'tis in our English; and so 'tis in the Testament of Rheims. Nor is there any mention of Purgatory in the old Louvain Version, in that of Amelote, or Mons. But these men are hardy, and to support their Doctrine will add to the Text. The Roman Church will have Marriage to be a Sacrament. These Translators will help her out in the defence of this Doctrine, and will rather corrupt the Text than renounce that Doctrine. And therefore (1 Cor. seven. 10.) The married is rendered by Ceux qui sont conjoints par le Sacrement de marriage, i.e. They that are joined together by the Sacrament of marriage. But this is forgery, and a gross addition to the Text, not only to the Greek, but to the Vulgar Latin also; and yet these men pretend to give us a Translation of it. Again, they pursue this unexcusable error. Be ye not unequally yoked, says the Apostle: They render it, ne vous joignez point par Sacrement de marriage, i.e. join not yourselves by the Sacrament of marriage, 2 Cor. vi. 14. See also this Translation of 1 Tim. iv. 3.  
The Doctrine of Merits is not favoured by the Holy Scriptures. But these Translators have pressed them in that cause. That ye may be counted worthy, says S. Paul, (1 Thess. i. 5.) To the same sense their Vulgar hath it, ut digni habeamini, that you may be counted worthy. So the Rheims Testament: here's a great agreement. But tho' this be the sense of the Greek, their Vulgar, their Rhemist, yet this is too flat for these Translators. They will have S. Paul bear witness to their doctrine of Merits: And therefore they render it, Asin quevous meritiez, etc. i.e. To the end ye may merit the Kingdom of God. Thus when we are told that God is well-pleased with good works, Heb. xiii. 16. they will have it, on merit envers Dieu, that by them a man merits with God.  
The Roman Church boasts herself as the only Catholic Church, and pillar of Truth. The Holy Scriptures (as well as all ancient Creeds) are silent in this matter. But these Translators have by manifest forgery wrested them to testify in behalf of this matter. In the latter times (says S. Paul) some shall departed from the faith, 1 Tim. iv. 1. de la foy Roman, i. e. from the Roman faith, say the Authors of this Translation: And yet the Vulgar, the Rheims Testament, that of Mons agree with our English: And as this is the sense of the Greek, and the Versions, so 'tis manifest that the addition of Roman is nothing less than forgery and falsification of the Text; a crime so great that I want words to express it by. They have so ordered the matter that the Apostles words, which describe to us the gross defection of the Roman Church, and give us warning of their dangerous errors, are made to speak a quite contrary sense. This appears from the words of S. Paul last mentioned; and will farther appear from their translation of the following words of the Apostle. What we render the doctrines of Devils, agreeably to both their Vulgar Latin, and Testament of Rheims, they have rendered by doctrines ensignées par des diables, i.e. doctrines taught by the devils; by which they have endeavoured to divert the thoughts of the Reader from that worship of Damon's, which so visibly obtains in the Roman Church. And whereas the Apostle goes on to describe the nature of the Apostasy, against which he warns his reader (v. 3.) they have quite perverted his sense, and most dishonestly foisted in a sense that is favourable to the errors of their Church. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, they translate by, condamnans le Sacrement de marriage, l'abstinence des alimens, etc. i.e. condemning the Sacrament of marriage, the abstinence of meats, etc. And thus they turn the Apostles words upon the reformed, as if they were the Apostates which the Apostle points at, because they deny marriage to be a Sacrament, and do not think we are now obliged by that difference of meats introduced by the Roman Church. In this they deal very insincerely. And that they do so will appear to any indifferent person whatsoever. What we render forbidding to marry is not only agreeable to the Greek text, but also to the Versions received in the Church of Rome, viz. that of the Vulgar, the old Louvain, and that of Rheims, and Mons, and that of Amelote. Whereas their Version is destitute of all Authority whatsoever. For the following words in our Version, And commanding to abstain from meats: I grant indeed that, and commanding, is not in the Greek Text, and our Interpreters have given warning of it, by Printing those words in a different character from the words of the Text: But yet I will maintain that they have given the true sense of S. Paul's words. For tho' the words in the Greek are Elliptical, yet our English hath supplied the Ellipsis no otherwise than the Authors of the Mons Version have done, who have expressed it by qui obligeront de, etc. and the old Louvain gives us the same sense. Besides the Syriac Version justifies our English, and (which is more than all) the following words of the Apostle, which God hath created to be received, etc. which words make it plain enough, that they are marked out who command us to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received.  
The Church of Rome hath advanced an opinion concerning sins Mortal and Venial. I enter not into the dispute. 'Tis certain that these Translators have endeavoured to bring in the Scripture, as giving express ground for this distinction: And tho' they could not find it there, they have found a place to foist it into. There is a sin not unto death, says S. John 1 ep. v. 17. which words they translate thus, Il y a quelque pechè que n'est point mortel, mais veniel, i.e. There is a sin that is not mortal, but venial.  
I shall proceed to consider some other places, in which these Translators so order the matter, that they may beget in the Readers minds such an Idea of Christianity, as bears conformity to the present Doctrines, or usages of the Roman Church.  
Thus when the Evangelist mentions the Chief Priests (Matt. two. 4. ch. xxvii, 1, 6, 62. ch. xxviii. 11.) they render it by, Princes' des Prêtres, i.e. Princes of the Priests. This carries a show of that eminence and dignity of that Order which is now to be seen in the Roman Church. But these men are in this the less , because they do follow the letter of the Vulgar which they pretend to translate. For which reason the Authors of the Mons Version have the same rendering. But then these latter explain these Princes of the Priests by the heads of the twenty four Sacerdotal families.  
They render the word Repent (Matt. iii. 2. c. iv. 17. Luk. x. 13, etc.) by faites penitence, i.e. do penance. Where they give the Reader an occasion of a very imperfect Idea of true Repentance; it being possible that men may do penance (according to the importance of that phrase in the Roman Church) and not repent.  
'Tis said of the Parents of Jesus that they went to Jerusalem, Luk. two. 41. These Translators tell that they went en Pelerinage, i.e. in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Thus without just ground they would insinuate that they did what is now the practice in the Roman Church. But there is nothing in the Greek, or Vulgar that will justify this Translation. And several other Versions used in the Church of Rome, import no more but that they went to Jerusalem; and the Text tells us the occasion of their going. And yet these Translators are so fond of insinuating the practice of Pilgrimages, that they do it without any colour. If S. Paul mention a brother chosen to travel with us, (2 Cor. viij. 19) these Translators turn those words by, compagnon de nôtre Pelerinage, i.e. a companion of our Pilgrimage. And the strangers in S. John (ep. three v. 5.) are by these Translators turned les Pelerins, i.e. Pilgrims.  
Luk. iv. 8. Him only shalt thou serve. Thus our English render that place agreeably to the Vulgar, illi soli servies: And verbatim as the Rheims Testament hath it. These Translators of Louvain have to the same sense translated these words in a Parallel place, Matt. iv. 10. a luy seul tu serviras. But here these men change their style and turn the same words thus, serviras de latrie à luy seul, i. e. thou shalt serve him only with Latria. This is to keep up the distinction between the Service of doulia and latria, and preserve the shifts they are put to in the Controversy we have with them concerning their worshipping of Creatures. The Reader will easily discern their insincerity, and inconsistency with themselves, as well as the danger the unwary Reader will be exposed to by such a Version. The words in S. Matthew and S. Luke, are exactly the same both in the Greek and the Vulgar, the places parallel, and the subject matter the same, and there is no shadow of reason for a different Version. Besides, the old Louvain (which this Version ought to have followed) turns both places by the very same words, and agreeably to our English and the Vulgar, à luy seul tu serviras, i.e. him only shalt thou serve. The Versions of Amelote and that of Mons turn both places alike, and to the same sense which we do. These men take a liberty which their other Interpreters would not take, and which they themselves in S. Matthew did not.  
Rom. xv. 16. Minister: The Vulgar renders it so too. And so does the Testament of Rheims, the old Louvain, Amelote, and Mons. But these Translators, who pretend to follow the Latin, yet keep the Greek word in their Text, viz. Leytourge; but then they add even to the Text, without difference of Character, C'est à dire, Sacrificateur, i.e. that is to say, a Sacrificer. 'Tis easy to discern the intention of this; but to reconcile this to common honesty is passed my comprehension.  
1 Cor. x. 14. Flee from Idolatry. The Testament of Mons turns the words to the same sense, Fuyez l'idolatry. This agrees exactly with the Greek; the old Louvain Translation and that of Amelote agree also with our Version. But these Louvain Divines turn the words thus: Fuyez l'adoration des Idols, i.e. Flee from the adoration of Idols. And yet 'tis evident that a man may be guilty of Idolatry tho' he worship no Idol. These Translators are not to be excused in this rendering: For whatever pretence they may seem to have from the Vulgar, 'tis certain that in other places where they have equal pretence from the Vulgar, yet they do in those places render as our English doth, as may be seen by comparing their rendering, Gal. v. 20. and 1 Cor. vi. 10. with the Vulgar and our English.  
1 Cor. xi. 2. As I delivered them. This Translation is so unexceptionable, that it is what the Rhemists our adversaries, make use of themselves. Nor is there in the Vulgar any thing repugnant to it, or that does so much as insinuate unwritten Traditions, much less favour the doctrine of the Roman Church about this matter. Thus the Vulgar renders these and the foregoing words: Et sicut tradidivobis, praecepta mea tenetis. But these Divines of Louvain knew very well that their Church wanted all the help that could be got, and therefore they render the words to the advantage of their Church. Comme je vous les ay laissè par tradition, i.e. as I have left them with you by Tradition. Thus when the Faith is said to be delivered to the Saints (Judas v. 3.) these Translators lay hold of the expression, and tell the Reader how the Saints came by it, viz. par Tradition, i.e. by Tradition.  
These Translators have a great regard to the present Church of Rome, and will make their Translation speak what may serve the interest of it, and its known Doctrines and usages. I should be too long if I should operosely insist upon every instance which might be collected to this purpose. In favour of their doctrine of the Sacrisice of the Mass, the word Priests (Rev. i 6.) is rendered by Sacrisicateurs, i.e. Sacrisicing Priests. In favour of their doctrine of the seven Sacraments, the word Mystery (Rev i. 20.) shall be turned into le Sacrements, i.e. the Sacraments: with respect to the dignity of their Priests and Vestments, the Elders upon the Seats must be rendered by Priests upon their Thrones, and their white raiment by Aubes, i.e. Albs, Rev. iv. 4. And for the antiquity of their Processions, whereas the walls of Jericho are said to have fallen after they were encompassed about seven days, Heb. xi. 30. they have it, apres une Procession, etc. after a Procession of seven days. The Reader may collect more to this purpose out of this Translation of Act. iii. 1. c. x. 30.  
I shall proceed now to some other places where we shall find notorious falsities in this Translation. I shall lay some of them before the Reader.  
Matt. xv. 5. It is a gift by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me. It is a very odd rendering of these words we find in this Translation; viz. Tout don qui est de par moy, sera à ton profit, i.e. whatsoever gift proceedeth from me shall profit thee. Tho' I reckon this Translation far from the sense of our Saviour's words, yet I shall not insist on this as a charge against these Translators, because this Version of theirs is agreeable enough to the Vulgar, which they pretend to Translate: And for that reason I pass by their Translation of Luk. ix. 50. However I cannot but take notice, that the other Versions of the Vulgar, and of the greatest same in the Church of Rome, have otherwise rendered these words; and have thought the Vulgar so obscure, that they have added words to their Text, to render them more intelligible. The Authors of the Mons Translation have done this in terms that seem to be agreeable to the sense of the Vulgar: And Amelote, another of their famous Interpreters, hath done it in terms that are very different, and much more agreeable to the sense of our English Version. Besides, he hath given an Explication in the Margin, which gives a sense of the place very different from what this Version of these Louvain Divines imports, or what the Authors of the Version of Mons have given.  
Joh. xxi. 22. If I will, these Translators turn in by, Jeveux, I will: Here the Vulgar Latin will not bear them out. Tho' in the present Copy 'tis sic volo, yet Benedictus puts si in the Margin of his Edition (Printed at Paris, A. D. 1558.) in the room of sic, and with good reason. This reading is agreeable to the Greek Text. The Rhemists allow that some read it so; the reading is confirmed by the Syriac Version; and the Authors of the Version of Mons, who likewise profess to give us the Version of the Vulgar, translate by, si je veux, that is, if I will. And the old translation of Louvain does also agree with our English herein. Besides, in the Vulgar Latin Testament printed by Plantin, A. D. 1574. we find si in the Margin, and in his Edition, A. D. 1582. of the Vulgar Latin Bible, the Louvain Divines give the Reader notice that they find it si in three MSS. of the Vulgar: After all it appears from the Context that this is the true reading, as any indifferent person will easily understand. And in the French Bible printed at Antwerp, A. D. 1534. by the Order of Charles V. 'tis rendered by sy, if, as our English hath it.  
Rom. viij. 1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. Our Louvain Divines transtate thus, Il n'y a donc rien maintenant qui merite la damnation en ceux qui sont en J. Christ. i e. There is therefore nothing now that deserves damnation in them which are in J. Christ. Here the Vulgar Latin, which those men pretond to give us a Version of, agrees with our English, and does by no means favour the Louvain Version. The same may be said not only of the Greek, but the Versions of Rheims, and of the old Louvain and Amelote, and Mons also; all of them turned from the Vulgar.  
Rom. xuj. 5. Achaia. These Translators have it Asia; nor do I insist upon it, because in this they do indeed sollow the Vulgar.  
1 Cor. i 2. Unto the Church: Al' Evang ille, i. e. To the Gospel. This is so gross that there is neither shadow or defence for it.  
1 Cor. seven. 5. Defraud you not one another. The Vulgar agrees, nolite fraudare invicem. The Testament of Rheims gives the very same sense. The old Louvain Edition agrees exactly with our English, and the Versions of Amelote and that of Mons give the same sense with the English and the Vulgar. But this of the Louvain a sense that is contradictory, viz. Ne vous donnés pas le devoir l'une à l'autre. And yet is this Version obtruded upon the world as a Version of the Vulgar Latin, and the approved Version of Louvain, tho' it agree with neither of them.  
1 Cor. xv. 5. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. Thus are these words translated, Ilest uray que nous ressusciterous tous, mais nous ne serous point tous changez, i. e. it is true that we shall all be raised up, but we shall not be all changed. The Syriac Version confirms our English, and so do our ordinary Greek Copies. But since there is a various reading in the Greek, and the Vulgar favours this French Version, I shall not insist upon this place.  
1 Cor. xuj. 2. As God hath prospered him. Recondens quod ei bene placuerit, V L. Cequ'il a envy de donner. Whatever agreement may seem to be here between this French and the Version of the V Latin, 'tis certain that both Amelote and the Mons Testament give us a different sense of the words.  
2 Cor. iv. 2. We have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty. Abdicamus occulta dedecoris, V L. Here's a good agreement. But these Louvain Divines render it, nous retranchons ce qui est , qu'on est oblige de Cacher. But the Testament of Amelote, and that of Mons interpret the place in a sense agreeable to our English, and to the Greek and Vulgar, and so does the old Louvain also.  
2 Cor. iv. 7. By the word of truth, by the power of God. In verbo veritatis, in virtute Dei. Here the Vulgar Latin agrees with our English exactly. But nothing can be more extravagant than our French Version is. En chastetè, en connoissance, etc. i.e. in chastity, in knowledge, etc. And so that Version goes on with those virtues mentioned (even in that Version as well as in the Text) the verse before, and after all leaves out the word of truth, tho' at last it mention the power of God.  
2 Cor. ix. 2. The forwardness of your mind. The V Latin agrees with this Version of the English: And the Testament of Rheims agrees with the Latin. But these Louvain Divines render it, la promptitùde de uótre coúrage, i. e. the forwardness of your courage.  
Gal. iv. 25. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem. Thus 'tis rendered in our French Testament, Car Sina est une montagneen Arabia, laquelle est conjointe à Jerusalem, i. e. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which is conjoined to Jerusalem. It must be confessed that the V Latin agrees hereunto. For thus the words of that Version are. Sina enim mons est in Arabia, qui conjunctus est ei, quae nunc est Jerusalem. Where, if by conjoined, be understood as much as contiguous, or conterminous, 'tis certain in matter of fact, that it was not near Jerusalem. 'Tis evident besides, that this sense agrees not with the Apostles purpose: nor is it to be imagined that the author of the Vulgar Version could have this meaning: And therefore these Louvain Divines should have better considered this matter, and not have given the ordinary reader such an occasion of a gross mistake. We sinned the Authors of other Versions of the Vulgar have been wary in this particular, well considering how easy it was to mistake in this matter. Instead of qui conjunctus est, the Testament of Rheims hath it, which hath affinity to. And the Mons Testament expresseth it by represent la Jerusalem i.e. Sinai represents Jerusalem. And the Version of Amelote of the Vulgar (Printed at Paris, A. D. 1686. with large approbations of the Bishops and Divines of the French Church) renders it thus, qui a du rapport avec la Jerusalem. Besides all this, the former Version of the Divines of Louvain, of the Latin into French, Printed at Lions, A. D. 1599 have thus translated this passage: Correspondance à la Jerusalem, i. e. Sinai was a mountain corresponding to Jerusalem. This agrees with our English, with the Greek and Syriac, and with the design of the Apostle. Whereas the other French Version is gross and inconsistent with all these. But the Authors of it on other occasions, make no scruple of departing from the Vulgar, where there was no cause for it, but adhere to it when there is.  
Eph. v. 9 Fruit of the spirit. Le Fruit de la lumiere. So does this French Version render it, viz. the fruit of the light. I will not here charge these Divines, because the Vulgar reads it so, and we find it so in a Greek Copy, and the Syriac Version follows this reading. But then the Version of Mons puts spirit for light in the Margin.  
2 Thess. two. 7. The mystery. This Version of ours agrees with the Greek, the Syriac, the Kulgar; and with the Popish Versions of the Vulgar also, viz. that of Rheims, of Mons, and of Amelote, and yet for all that our French Version hath it, le decret. So that the Authors of it can departed from the Vulgar whenever they think sit.  
Hebr. ix. 6.— The Service of God. This by our French is rendered by, les Services des Sacrifices, that is, the Services of Sacrifices. Nothing can descend these Translators but the Vulgar only, which renders it by sacrificiorum officia: yet is there nothing in the Greek to this purpose, and the Syriac is as far from it. And we know very well that the Priest's business in the first Tabernacle was the ordering the Candles, placing the Shewbread, and burning Incense. The Sacrifices were offered in the Court upon the Altar of Brass; there the blood of the Sacrisice was sprinkled, and generally the body of it was there consumed. And the oblations offered there were Sacrifices in the most common sense of the Law of Moses. 'Tis true indeed the Vulgar does in great measure excuse these Louvain Divines, and would more effectually do it, had they given us a strict Version of it. But they forsake it when 'tis not for their turn, let it be never so justifiable, but keep close to it (as in this place) when 'tis faulty. For that it is so is notorious: And this is insinuated by several Popish Versions of the Vulgar, which in this place vary from it. E. G. The Authors of the Mons Version very honestly decline the Vulgar as absurd in this place. What we render accomplishing the Service of God, thus do they express it, viz. qui exerpoient le Saint ministere, i.e. The Priests, who exercised the holy ministry. And Amelote thus, poury accomplir le Culte de Dieu, i. e. For the accomplishing the worship (or Service) of God.  
Heb xi. 8. Receive: this in our Fr. translation is expressed by Concevoir without any authority, or shadow of it.  
Ver. 19 In a figure, Fr. T. pour exemple d'obeissance: i e. for an example of obedience. This is a most gross misrepresentation of the Text: Nor will the Vulgar help out this Version. 'Tis true that Version hath it in parabolam: But this will not justify our Louvain Divines. The Rhemists indeed translate it, for a parable, but they put an Explication in the Margin, viz. i.e. in figure and mystery of Christ dead, and alive again. This is indeed to the purpose; but our Louvain Divines seem to have no shame left in their Version of the place. For they add to the Text at pleasure, the word obedience which the Vulgar hath not. Amelote renders it, comme une figure mysterieuse, i.e. as a mysterious figure. And the Version of Mons, comme d'entre les morts, en figure de la resurrection: So that in truth they render the place in a figure, just as our English. For the rest of their words are but Explication, and printed in another letter. And the old Fr. Edition of the Louvain Divines modestly render it by figure also.  
Heb. xi. 21— Worshipped leaning upon the top of his staff. Fr. translation, adora le bout du baston d'iceluy, i. e. he adored the top of his staff. V L. & adoravit fastigium virgae ejus. The Louvain Divines have here followed the Vulgar Latin, which they frequently forsake, and are not therefore to be charged with misrendering that Version. But the Greek and Syriac favour not this rendering. And the Authors of the Mons translation receive it not into their Text, but put it into the Margin: and they so turn it as it speaks only a profound inclination towards the Ensign of Joseph's grandeur, and therein a veneration of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, whose type he was; as they have explained this matter in the Margin. But our Louvain Divines have not taken that care, to preserve the simple people from Idolatry, either in the Version, or any Explication of it.  
Jam. iii. 7. For every kind of beasts, etc. Here the Louvain Divines departed from the Vulgar without any shadow of reason. For as they leave out the word Serpents; so after those words, hath been tamed, they put in par reptibles, i. e. by creeping things.  
1 Pet. iv. 15. A busy body in other men's matters. French translation, convoiteux des biens d'autruy, i.e. covetous of other men's goods. 'Tis true the Vulgar renders it appetitor alienorum; but yet there is not sufficient cause from that Version for this rendering: For the murderer and thief named before, are alienorum appetitores, in the sense contended for. The Authors of the Mons translation were so sensible of this, that they translate it thus, See mêlant temerairement de ce qui ne le regarde pas, i. e. one that rashly meddles with that which does not belong to him. This Version agrees with our English, and with the Greek. And what we render evildoer, in the same verse, they also render to the same sense agreeably to the Original Greek; tho' in the Vulgar it be now maledicus, and by the Louvain Divines is rendered medisans; it is very probable that it was in the Vulgar maleficus at first. In which conjecture I am the more confirmed from what I find in the note of Amelote upon the place, who does ingenuously confess that it is highly probable that the present Greek is to be followed, and affirms, that there is no MS. or Interpreter that hath it otherwise; and that S. Cyprian and Tertullian read maleficus.  
1 Joh. iv. 3. That confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Fr. translation, qui separe Jesus-Christ, i.e. that separates Jesus Christ. The Rhemist hath it, that dissolveth Jesus. And all this from the Vulgar who hath it qui solvit Jesum. I will not charge the Louvain Divines here with mis-translating the Vulgar; I only observe that they adhere to it stiffly when it departs from the Greek, as it does here by the confession of the Authors of the Mons Testament. Nor does it only departed from the Greek, but without sufficient ground: For whereas 'tis pretended that the Vulgar reading is grounded upon ancient Copies, and that the Nestorians, and such as divide the Divinity of Christ from his Humanity have corrupted the Text; a late learned Writer of the Church of Rome, hath sufficiently showed that there is not sufficient ground for this charge. He does maintain that the present Greek is followed by the Oriental Versions, 
P. Simon Hist. Crit. du Text. d. N.T. p. 356.  by S. Cyprian and S. Polycarp, and that that of the Vulgar is not very ancient: and that 'tis probable it came as a Marginal Note at first, and afterwards crept into the Text.  
1 Joh. v. 1. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, Fr. Tr. Quicónque croit que Jesus Christ est le Christ. These Divines of Louvain have no pretence from the Vulgar, nor (I dare affirm it) from any Version extant. 'Tis their own entirely: whosoever believeth that Jesus Christ is the Christ, is the sense of their Version. Any man that understands common sense amongst Christians must see the egregious folly of it. And these men do, where there is only Jesus in the Text, not only here but, v. 5. of this Chapter, add the word Christ, and that without the warrant of the Greek or Vulgar, tho' they spoil the sense of the place by it. I pass by their rendering of, v. 6, 8. of this chapter: they agree with the Latin; and I should be too long if I should insist upon all the differences between the Vulgar, and the present Greek; upon which consideration also I pass by their Version of Judas v. 22.  
Rev. v. 10, 12. Kings, v. 10. Fr. Tr. Royaumes, i.e. Kingdoms; 'tis indeed Regnum in the V Latin, but the Authors of the Mons translation agree with the English and the Greek and Syriac, and so does Amelote also: I have also reason to believe that the Copy of the Vulgar, before Clement VIII. had it Reges. I find in a French Bible, printed 1534. at Antwerp, which is a Translation of the then Vulgar, and was printed by order of Charles the V that 'tis rendered to the same sense with our English. This agrees with what follows also, viz. Priests, which our Fr. translation (after its manner) turns into Sacrificateurs, i. e. Sacrificers. If the first were duly translated by Kingdom, the following might as well have been turned by Priesthood. What we render riches, v. 12. the French translation turns by divinitè, according to the Vulgar.  
Rev. xviii. 20. Holy Apostles. French translation, Saints, Apostres, i.e. Saints, Apostles. Thus do these Louvain Divines render it. And yet the Vulgar Latin agrees with our Version, and so do the Versions of the Vulgar also, viz. that of Rheims, of Mons, of Amelote; and the old Version of the Louvain, printed at Lions, and that printed at Antwerp, 1534.  
Matt. 1.11. About the time they were carried away to Babylon. Fr. translation, quand ils furent transportez en Babylon, i. e. when they were transported in Babylon. 'Tis very certain as to the matter of fact, that it was before the transportation that Josias begat his children, for he died before that captivity. Nor will the rendering of the Vulgar, in transmigratione Babylonis by any means justify this Fr. translation. For, besides that it does not answer this French Version, so it is not hard to give a sense of the Vulgar, that is consistent with the matter of Fact. Thus the Vulgar renders the whole verse, Josias antem genuit Jechoniam, & fratres ejus in transmigratione Babylonis. Now the fratres ejus, may be said to be in transmigratione Babylonis, tho' the genuit cannot. The other Popish Versions of the Vulgar have showed greater care. That of Rheims keeps strictly to the Vulgar: that of Mons and Amelote render it, vers le temps, etc. i.e. towards the time that the Jews were carried into Babylon, in which they agree with the Greek, with our English, and with matter of Fact.  
Matt. i. 25. Till she had brought forth, etc. Fr. Tr. quand elle enfanta, i.e. when she brought forth. And yet the P. Latin hath it, donec peperit, agreeably to our English, and to the Greek; and the Testament of Rheims is conformable to them: nor is there any reason we should forsake this Version: we can defend it, as it is, both against the Jews and the followers of Helvidius.  
Matt. nineteen, 1. These say, Fr. Tr. Ces propos. By an obsolete word, used indeed in the old Louvain Edition, printed A. D. 1599 But the later Interpreters have thought sit to choose a word of common and present use. Amelote renders it, son discourse, the Mons Version, ces discourse.  
Mark three 29. In danger of eternal damnation. Fr. Tr. Coupable d'un peché eternel, i.e. guilty of an eternal sin. I do not blame our Louvain Divines here, because the Vulgar hath it reus aeterni delicti. But yet there is no reason however to adhere to the very words of the Latin here, because the sense of those words may be more intelligibly expressed. And this Amelote hath done, who renders it by, Coupable d'un crime qui ne sera jamais pardonne, i.e. guilty of a crime that shall never be forgiven. The same may be said, as to Luk. two. 15. where what we render this thing, these Louvain Divines have rendered by ce verb, i.e. this word: wherein indeed they exactly follow the letter of the Vulgar, and so far I charge them not: but then they more adhere to the letter than the sense of the place. And this the Authors of the Version of Mons were ware of, and therefore have only ce, and take no notice in their Text of Verbum in the Latin; Amelote does the same. And the old Louvain Version renders it, ceste chose, i.e. this thing, as our English does. 'Tis well known that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only word but thing, and that according to the subject matter, to which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek answers exactly.  
Luk. seven. 3. The Elders. Fr. Tr. des Prêtres, i. e. the Priests. These Louvain Divines are singular in their Version here, and whereas they pretend to translate the V Latin, yet they depart from it whenever they please. For the Vulgar here agrees with our English Version, and renders the Greek by, Seniores; the Mons Testament by, Senateurs; Amelote by, Anciens; and so does the old Louvain; and the Rhemists by, the Ancients.  
Rom. i 4.— with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead; which words are thus rendered by the Vulgar in virtute, secundùm spiritum sanctificationis ex resurrectione mortuorum, etc. This Version agrees well with our English. Let us see how our Divines of Louvain render the V Latin. Thus they do it. Par la puissance qu'il a recue de faire les miracles, par l'esprit de sanctification des scions, & par la resurrection des morts, i.e. By power which he received to work miracles, by the spirit of sanctification of his own, and by the resurrection of the dead. Let any man judge if this be a true Translation of the Vulgar: 'tis a Paraphrase rather, or short Comment, an addition to the Text without any notice to the Reader, by any different character, what is Text and what is not. This is very unfair, and does not become men of Probity and Sincerity, but rather speaks great negligence, or fraud: for it is to be considered that these men add to the Text. They consider not the variety of Particles, not only in the Greek Text, but in the version of the V Latin. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; the Latin, In, secundùm, ex, are all rendered alike by these Louvain Divines, viz. by Par. Amelote indeed was so careful that he renders them by three several French particles, viz. dans, selon, and par. The Authors of the Mons translation do so also; so do the Rhemists also observe a difference, and turn them by, in, according to, by. Our Louvain Divines are not so nice; 'tis no matter what the Vulgar does, they'll use their freedom.  
Gal. v. 19 Lasciviousness; V I. Luxuria; Mons, la dissolution; Amelote, la lascivité; Rhemist, lechery. But, tho' here be a considerable agreement in these Versions, our Louvain Divines turn it by, insolence.  
1 Cor. iv. 5. Praise. Fr. Tr. lafoy lo●ange qui luy est due, i. e. the praise that is due to him. Whereas there is nothing but praise in the Vulgar, the rest is added by the Louvain Divines, without any distinction of character.  
1 Cor. xi. 10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the Angels. Fr. Tr. Partant la femone à cause des Anges, qui la voyent, doit avoir sur sa téte, un en seigne qu'elle est sous puissance, i. e. Therefore the woman because of the Angels, who see her, aught to have upon her head a mark that she is in subjection. V L. ideò debet mulier potestatem habere supra caput propter Angelos. The fault which I find with these Louvain Divines is only this, That they do not give us the strict Version of the Vulgar, which they pretend to translate, but add words of their own to the text without any different character; which our English hath not done, nor ought any Interpreters to do.  
Eph. iv. 12. For the perfecting of the Saints. V L. ad consummationem Sanctorum. Fr. Tr. pour l'assemblage des Saints, i.e. for the coagmentation (or, joining together) of the Saints. I do not deny but that the Greek word may insinuate such a sense, and I will allow that it refers to Architecture, and that it is well enough expressed by this French word, which implies no less. But these men pretend to turn the Vulgar, and all the question betwixt us is, whether or no they have done that truly. Our English expresseth the sense of the Vulgar better. And the Popish Versions agree in the same sense. The old Louvain Version renders it by, pour la consummation des Saints. The Rhemists, to the consummation of the Saints. That of Mons by, a fin qu'ils travaillent a la perfection des Saints; i.e. that they may labour for the perfection of the Saints. And Amelote thus, pour rendre les Saints perfaits, which amounts to our English, for the perfecting of the Saints.  
Phil. two. 17. Service. V I. Obsequium. Fr. Tr. lafoy Liturgy. I appeal to any indifferent man, whether this be a Translation of the Latin or not. The Rhemists render it as we do, by the word Service; so does Amelote: and so it is in the old Edition of Louvain, printed at Lions, A.D. 1599 and in an older Edition of the Fr. Bible, printed at Antwerp, A.D. 1534. These men retain the Greek word, and are so far from the regard which was due from them to the Latin, that they render it not at all. The Reader, who considers how they have rendered Acts xiii. 2. and knows the doctrine of that Church, will easily understand the drift of these Louvain Divines in this place.  
Phil. iii. 2.— the concision. V L. concisionem. Fr. Tr. lafoy circoncision. These men seem to have no regard to truth. For here not only the Greek, but their Vulgar, that of Antwerp, their old Louvain translation, that of Rheims, and Amelote, are against them. They all agree with the English, but these Divines stand alone by themselves.  
Col. two. 18. Worshipping of Angels. V L. Religione Angelorum. Fr. Tr. Religion donnée à Moise par des Anges, i. e. Religion given to Moses by Angels. According to this account of things, the words contain only a warning against being seduced by the law of Moses. I will by no means enter into disputes, but keep myself to my design. 'Tis most certain that these Louvain Divines have not dealt sincerely with the Reader, in pretending to translate the Vulgar; when they do in truth add to it, and put their own sense upon it. The Religion of Angels can never be proved to import the Law of Moses. These Divines add to the Text to avoid its force against the practices of the Roman Church. Whereas the old Divines of Louvain keep strictly to the V Latin without any such addition; so do the Rhemists also, and the Antwerp Bible. The Syriac understands the place of the worship of Angels: and the Mons Testament, and Amelote also interpret the place of the superstitious worship of Angels. The latter of these (in his Preface to this Epistle) tells us of certain Philosophers, followers of Plato, who held the Angels to be Gods, and Architects of the world, and paid them particular honours, served them with certain Ceremonies, and advanced them above Jesus Christ, and feigning that they were by certain visions engaged to this worship: and that S. Paul does in this Chap. fortify them, to whom he writes this Epistle, and in these very words of this xviii. verse, against these illusions, he adds, That these seem to be the Angelici mentioned by S. Augustin; a Sect that had taken root in Phrygia, and condemned by the Council of Laodicea, Canon xxxv. And that Theodoret affirms that this Sect had built several Oratories to S. Michael; to which was opposed the Temple of S. Michael at Coloss, where God alone was adored, and the Archangel honoured as a creature.  
1 Tim. three 11. Grave. Fr. Tr. Publiques, i.e. public. The Vulgar renders it by padicas. Nothing can defend this Version of our Louvain Divines. We may indeed suppose it an error of the Press: but there is no notice of it. And we shall find a great number of those errors besides.  
2 Tim. iv. 11. For the ministry. V.L. in ministerium. The Rhemists, for the ministry. Amelote, dans le ministere. Mons Tr. pour le ministere de P Evangile. Old Louvain Tr. pour Servir. Here's agreement sufficient, and all comes to the same sense. But these Louvain Divines render it, pour me servir de Diacre, i. e to serve me as a Deacon.  
Heb. i. 7. Ministers. The Vulgar hath it, Ministros. The other Popish translations agree with the Vulgar, as our English version doth. That of Rheims renders by ministers: that of Amelote hath it, ministers. So 'tis also in that of Mons, and so it is also in the old Edition of the Louvain Divines. It ought to be so in this translation of the Louvain Divines. But these men have a turn to serve, they must justify their translation of Act. xiii. 2. the Greek word here must therefore either not be turned (vid. Phil. two. 17. with our French translation,) or if it be it must serve their purpose. And therefore, tho' against all reason, and authority whatsoever, they translate it here by Sacrificateurs, i.e. Sacrificers? 'tis very certain, that there was no reason for their interpreting, Act. xiii. 2. as they have done, unless they do think that a good reason, which Monsieur Veron once gave, 
Simon. Hist. Cris. des versal. N.T.  when he was asked, why he turned that place to the same sense; the reason he gave was, Because he had been often demanded by the Calvinists what Scripture mentioned that the Apostles said mass  
Heb. seven. 22. a Surety. Fr. Tr. Caution. Here these Louvain Divines take a great liberty; for they depart from the V Latin, which renders it sponsor: and the Rhemist Interpreters of the Vulgar render it surety, as we have done. That is also the meaning of the Greek and Syriac word: Nor does the Mons translation, Amelote, or old Louvain Version render it by caution, as these men do without any reason or authority.  
Heb. ix. 10. Until the time of reformation. Here our Louvain Divines add to the Text, without any difference of character. For whereas the Vulgar renders it, ad tempus correctionis, they render it, jusques au temps que ces choses soyent corrigées. A liberty this is, which the old Louvain Divines did not take; they keep close to the Vulgar. And tho' the Authors of the Mons Version add to the Text, yet they do it in a character which gives warning of it to the Reader.  
I shall now reflect upon some other questionable places, which the Translators of the N. T. into French are accountable for; such are these that follow.  
Act. xii. 30.— Elders. This Version of ours well agrees with the Greek and Syriac; the Vulgar renders it by Seniores; the Rhemists by, Ancients. But these men render it by Prétres, i. e. Priests. Whereas the old Louvain Edition renders to the same sense that our English do.  
Act. xvii. 6.— The world. Fr. Tr. la Ville, i.e. the City. I must confess that our Louvain Divines have some pretence for this Version, because the present Vulgar renders it by urbem. Nor should I have mentioned this Version, had they in other places kept to their Copy, and had there not been great presumptions that the Vulgar did not from the beginning thus turn the Greek word? 'tis an easy change from orbem to urbem, and 'tis very probable that it ought in this place to be orbem in the Latin Copy of the Vulgar. My reasons are these 

[1.] The Vulgar never renders the Greek word in any other place of the N.T. as 'tis supposed to do here by urbem, but constantly by orbem, as I suppose it should be here.  it renders this Greek word besides in the N.T. it is constant to itself. This will appear to any man that will compare the Greek and the Vulgar in the following places, Matt. xxiv. 14. Luk. two. 1. iv. 5. xxi. 26. Act. xi. 28. xvii. 31. nineteen. 27. xxiv. 5. Rom. x. 18. Heb. i. 6. two. 5. Apoc. iii. 10. xii. 9 These, with this, Act. xvii. 6. are all the places in which this Greek word is found and translated by the Vulgar, and 'tis constantly (excepting this one place, Acts xvii. 6.) turned agreeably to orbem which I contend for here. Indeed the Greek word is found in our present Greek Copy, Apoc. xuj. 14. But there the word is not turned by the Vulgar at all. Of which 'tis no hard matter to give an account were it not too great a digression.  
[2.) This rendering which I contend for is more agreeable to the Context. These that have turned the world upside down, (& huc venerunt, V.L.) are come hither also. 'Twould be nothing to the purpose to have said, That they who disturbed that City were come thither also. But very pertinent to warn the Citizens that they had disturbed other places before.  
[3.] Nor do I want authority on my side. The Greek and Syriac Version give great assurance that this is the meaning of the place.   And we may collect something to the same purpose from the Popish Versions also. The Rhemists are strict Interpreters of the Vulgar, and yet they render it by world (agreeably to orbem,) the Translation of Mons by toute la Terre, i.e. all the Earth (as 'tis in the Syriac Version:) the old Louvain translation hath le monde, i.e. the world. 'Tis true indeed that Amelote (in his first Edition at Paris, A.D. 1666.) renders it, la ville, as our Louvain Divines do. But than it is as true, that the same man (in his Edition at Paris, A.D. 1686.) hath rendered it by, toute la terre, i.e. all the earth, and hath altered his former Version in the remaining words of the verse also, which does much confirm what I contend for. For whereas in his former Edition, he turns those words, are come hither also, by, & qui sont venus icy, i.e. and who are come hither: In his latter Edition he turns them thus, & qui sont venus ici pour le mesme effet, i.e. and who are come hither for the same purpose. I may add to what hath been said, that it is certain that several Copies of the V Latin have orbem in the Text. We have two printed by Plantin (before the Copy of Clement VIII. which is now followed) one of the N. Testament by the Divines of Louvain, A.D. 1574. Another of the whole Bible printed by him also, A.D. 1582. and that by the care of the Divines of Louvain also. In both these we find orbem in the Text, and whoever under stands the care of those men cannot suspect their integrity in this matter. Moreover in the French Bible, printed by the order of Charles V viewed by the Louvain Divines, and printed accordingly at Antwerp, A.D. 1534. 'tis from the Vulgar rendered le monde, i.e. the world, as our English hath it.  
Act. xvii. 9 Security. Fr. Tr. Pexcuse, i.e. excuse. It is very plain that this is no true rendering of the Vulgar, which renders it by satisfactione, i. e. satisfaction: The Mons renders it by Caution, the old Louvain by satisfaction, agreeably to the Vulgar Version and the English, and Testament of Rheims.  
— ver. 30. Winked at. Fr. Tr. Ayant pity, i.e. having pity. This is an extravagant translation: for the Vulgar renders it by despiciens: and the other Popish Versions are very far from agreeing with this Version.  
Act. xxvii. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. V.L. cum sustulissent de Asson. Fr. Tr. ayant louè l' Anchre d' Asson. These Louvain Divines have added to the Text without giving notice to the Reader by a different character. 'Tis true that the Vulgar seems to understand Asson to be the name of a place, and therefore 'tis no wonder this Version should follow that. And tho' it do not appear that it signify any place, yet I cannot blame these men for following their Copy. But this will not excuse their addition. I pass by the following verse, because therein these Interpreters follow the Vulgar. And so they do ch. xxviii. 11. Where what we render, Castor and Pollux, they render by Castor's. Tho' the old Louvain Version, Amelote and that of Mons agree with our English Version.  
1 Cor. two. 13. Comparing spiritual things with spiritual. V.L. Spiritualibus spiritualia comparantes. Here's a perfect agreement between the English and V. Latin. The Rhemists turn it, comparing spiritual things to the spiritual. But our Louvain Divines render it by, approprians les choses spirituelles à ce●●… quisont spirituels, i.e. appropriating spiritual things to spiritual persons. I leave it to any indifferent person to judge which of these Versions best agrees with the Vulgar. The case is plain, that we have rendered comparantes in the Vulgar better than they have done, who are not agreeable to the Text of the Vulgar, and render it very differently from Amelote, and the Authors of the Mons Testament.  
1 Cor. viij. 4. And that there is none other God but one. V L. Fr quod nullus est Deus nisin●us. Whoever considers the Greek, the Syriac, the Vulgar, and the Context, cannot doubt of the truth of our English Version of this place. But besides all this, 'tis farther justified by the most celebrated Versions of the Vulgar that are in vogue with the Church of Rome. The old Louvain Version agrees exactly with ours. The Rhemists turn to the same sense, and so does Amelote, and the Authors of the translation of Mons. But these Louvain Divines turn the words to another sense against all the reason of the thing, the Authority of the Vulgar, and of the other Popish Versions: For thus they turn these words, Et qu'il n'y a aucun Dieu, i.e. And that there is no God.  
1 Cor. ix. 3. Examine. V L. Interrogant. Our rendering agrees with the Vulgar, and with the Rhemists: The old Louvain renders it by Examinent; but those Louvain Divines by Contróllent.  
Phil. two. 11. And that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father. V L. & omnis lingua consiteatur, quia Dominus J. Christus in gloria est Dei Patris. Thus these words are rendered by our Louvain Divines, & que toute langue confesse que le Seigneur J. Christ est en la gloire de Dieu le Pere, i.e. and that every tongue confess that the Lord J. Christ is in the glory of God the father. The words of the Vulgar, as they are distinguished in the ordinary Copy, do not infer the sense which this Version gives them. For the Confession may well belong to what goes before; and then the ground of it follows, quia Dominus Jesus, etc. But I lay no great stress upon this reflection.  
Heb. xi. 3. Of. V L. Ex. Fr. Tr. Par, i. e. by; which quite destroys the sense of the place, and by no means agrees with the Vulgar Latin, which these men pretend to translate.  
I shall next observe some gross omissions in this translation of these Louvain Divines. I shall pass by those of the Vulgar, and only mention such omissions as the Vulgar will not warrant.  
Rom. xii. 9 Cleave to that which is good. The word good is in the Vulgar, but is left out of the Text by these Louvain Divines.  
Rom. xv. 3. Of them that reproached thee. These words are in the Vulgar, but are omitted by these Translators.  
Rev. i 4. Seven. This is in the Vulgar, but omitted in our French translation.  
Joh. seven. 22. Therefore. V.L. Propterea. This is omitted by this Translation, both in the 21, and 22. verses: For 'tis a question to which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belongs.  
2 Cor. iv. 2. Commending ourselves to every man's Conscience. Thus 'tis also in the V Latin. But this translation leaves out what is in the Latin, tho' it quite spoil the sense of the place: Thus 'tis rendered by these Louvain Divines, nous approuvans toute conscience, etc. i.e. we approving every conscience of men. In the very next verse, if our Gospel be hid: The French translation leaves out the word, hid, tho' it be in the Vulgar, and the sense of the place be imperfect without it.  
2 Cor. seven. 2. What clearing of yourselves. This is omitted by these Louvain Divines. But 'tis rendered by defensionem in the Vulgar, and by defence in the old Louvain Version.  
Eph. iv. 31. With all malice. V L. cum omni malitià. These words are also left out by our Divines of Louvain. But the old Louvain Divines have these words.  
Col. two. 14. Which was contrary to us. The Vulgar reads thus: and the Rhemists have it so, and the old Louvain agrees with them, yet our new Louvain Divines omit these words.  
1 Thess. i. 1. Grace. This is in the Vulgar and the old Louvain, tho' omitted in this Version.  
Heb. viij. 12. They omit for, tho' it be in the Vulgar, and ch. xii. 27. Things that are shaken, which the Vulgar expresseth by mobilium, is omitted in this translation.  
1 Joh. two. 1. Righteous. The Vulgar Latin hath it. So hath the old Louvain: These Translators omit it, tho' it cannot be spared, Again, ver. 9 These Translators leave out the particle and. And then their translation amounts to thus much. He that saith he is in the light hateth his brother, etc.  
The other omissions are not to be charged upon our Divines of Louvain, because they are such as are warranted by the Vulgar, which they pretend to translate. These are such as follow, Matt. vi. 4, 6, 13, 18. Luk. xi. 2. Joh. x. 42. Act. xxiii. 9 1 Tim. iv. 12. 1 Pet. i. 7. Rev. i 10. ch. two. 9.15.  
I shall now reflect upon the Additions which these Lou. Divines have made to the Text, and such as the Vulgar will not warrant. Some of these I have upon occasion named already; the rest follow.  
Rom. iii. 10. No not one. The Louvain Divines add to these words out of their own heads, devant la foy, i.e. before the Faith. The Vulgar hath no such thing; nor the old Louvain Version.  
1 Cor. vi. 13. The Lord of the body. Fr. Tr. le Seigneur pourvoira all corpse. Here they add to the Text, which the Vulgar, and old Louvain do not.  
1 Cor. ix. 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife: These Lou. Divines add, pour nou● servir en l' Evangile, & nous souvenir de ses biens, i.e. To serve us in the Gospel, and relieve us out of her goods. In the Vulgar and old Louvain there is nothing to this purpose.  
1 Cor. xi. 26, 27, 28. Bread. There is no Epithet in the Vulgar, in any of these places, nor in the old Louvain, But these men render it ver. 26. by pain vivant, i.e. living bread; ver. 27. by pain de vie, i.e. bread of life; and ver. 28. by pain vif.  
2 Cor. i 12. For our rejoicing is this. These men add, à s●avoir le tes moinage de notre gloire, i. e. viz. the testimony of our glory. There's nothing of this in the Vulgar or old Louvain.  
Gal. iv. 3. Elements of the world. These men add, sous la loy; the Vulgar hath it not, nor the old Louvain.  
1 Thess. iv. 13. That sleep in Jesus. Fr. Tr. qui dorment du sommeil de paix en Jesus. The old Louvain and Vulgar will not warrant this addition.  
Heb. v. 7.— was heard, in that he feared. These Louvain Divines add these words, quand il a estè resuscitè. i.e. when he was raised again. But there is no such thing either in the old Louvain, or Vulgar  
Heb. viij. 2, 6. To minister. ver. 2. (which our Interpreters render by Litourge, in which they do not follow the Vulgar.) they add the word Sacrificattur. And to the word ministry, ver. 6. (which they render by Litourgie, rejecting the Vulgar Version) they add, Sacrificature. And yet the Vulgar and old Louvain give them no occasion for so doing.  
Heb. x 9, 18. To these words, v. 9 He taketh away the first, our Translators make bold to add to the Text the word Sacrifice. And v 18. to those words, there is no more offering, they add Legale, i. e. such as the law of Moses required. There's nothing in the Vulgar, or old Louvain Version will justify these additions. But these Louvain Divines make no scruple to add these words that they may support the Romish doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. These are soul arts indeed, and they have no reason to pretend, not shadow of authority for their excuse.  
1 Pet. three 15. Of the hope. These men add, & de la foy. But there is no such thing in the Vulgar.  
1 Pet. v. 3. Over God's heritage. In the Greek, 'tis only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Vulgar Latin renders it, in cleris, keeping to the Greek word; so far is the Vulgar from determining the sense to persons onthings, much less to particular persons or a separate order of men. But our Louvain Divines are not scrupulous and nice in this matter. They have it thus, sur le Clerge. ou sur les heritage's du Seigneur. i.e. over the Clergy, or over the heritage's of the Lord? 'Tis not agreed yet, that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text is meant persons; and if it were, 'tis not certain that the Clergy exclusively to the rest of God's people are meant. Be all this as it will, these men have not done sincerely, nor as becomes strict Interpreters, not having kept to the Vulgar which they pretend to translate. Father Amelote in his notes upon this place does observe, that in Cleris, in the Vulgar here, does not signify dans le Clergé. And therefore he does not render it thus: nor do the Authors of the Mons translation expound heritage by Clergy in the Text of their Version: but render the word as our English doth.  
2 Pet. three 17. Error of the wicked. In the Vulgar it is, Insipientium errore, i. e. the error of the foolish. This is by our Louvain Divines expressed by, erreur des mechans' heretics, i. e. the error of wicked heretics.  
1 John two. 14. The wicked one. These Louvain Translators without any regard to their Copy, the Vulgar, or their Predecessors, the old Louvain Divines; have out of their own heads, added to the Text, & says ministers, i.e. and his Ministers.  
Rev. xviii. 20. Holy Apostles. This agrees with the Vulgar, and with the old Version of the Louvain Divines; but these new Divines will render it, Saints, Apostres.  
There are indeed in this Translation, a very great number of additions to the Text, if by the Text we understand the present Greek. But these Louvain: Divines are not to be charged with them, because they are found in the Vulgar. The Reader that is curious may find some of them in the following places, Matt. xxv. 1. Act. xviii. 7. xxiii. 25. Rom. iv. 5. viij. 28. 1 Cor. xii. 28. xuj. 19 2 Cor. i 6, 7. Phil. iv. 8. 1 Pet. v. 2. 1 Joh. two. 14. Rev. ix. 11. xviii. 20.  
I might add to what hath been said, very fitly in this place, that these Louvain Divines, instead of giving the Reader a strict Version of the Vulgar do impose upon him a sense of their own, and take the liberty of a Paraphrast instend of keeping to the strict rules of a good Interpreter.  
Thus they do (1 Cor. xi. 10.) as I have remarked upon another occasion. And ch. xuj. 9 Where we read a great door and effectual: And the Vulgar hath it, ostium magnum & evidens: these men ●ender it by ●esgrande & favourable occasion. This is a liberty which the old Louvain Divines would not take. They truly render the Vulgar by une grande 〈◊〉 evidente porte. I do not contend about the sense of the place: But these men ought not to give a Comment when they undertake a Version only And though they thought fit thus to turn the place, they ought to have added some Marginal note or remark for the Readers use. Thus, Coless. two. 20. Living in the world. These men add to the very Text, & dessous la Loy, by way of explication, when there is no such thing in the Vulgar, nor in the old Louvain Edition. Amelote takes not this liberty, and the Authors of the Mons make a distinction of character between the Text and their Supplements: ver. 22. they take the same liberty, where, after the word using they add, est a●●… establies, i.e. being established; And yet the Vulgar, and old Louvain Edition hath nothing like it. Again, Heb. ix. 22. We read it, without shedding of blood is no remission. Both the Vulgar, and old Louvain Version agree exactly with ours. These men render it thus, sans effusion de sang des b●s●es la sovilleure legalen'est point ostée● i.e. without the effusion of the blood of beasts legul impurity is not taken away. There are several other such places as these where these men add to the Text of the Vulgar, viz. 1 Pet. i 4. 2 Pet. i. 14. & ch. two. 4.  
Having showed in many particulars how inconsistent this Version is with the Vulgar, which it pretends to translate, and that of the old Louvain Divines, whose it pretends to be. I shall now show how inconsistent it is with itself.  
Matt. iv. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. This place is perfectly parallel to Luke. iv. 8. There can be no pretence for any difference in the Version. And yet these Louvain Divines are herein inconsistent with themselves; for they give a Version of one place different from what they had given of the same words before, as hath been observed elsewhere upon another occasion. The same may be said of Matt. xv. and v. 5. and Mark seven. 11. where (without the authority of the Vulgar Latin) those men give us a different rendering of the same words, tho' they are parallel places.  
Act. xi. 30. What we render Elders, they render by Pretres, i.e. Priests, and yet the Vulgar hath it Seniores. This they do also, Act. xv. 22. and ch. xxi. 18. where the Vulgar hath it as before. This is not to follow their Copy; nor do they consist with themselves. For in other places they render the same word by Anciens, Matt. xxvii. 1, 3, 12. And by Vieillard, 1 Tim. v. 1. So that they do not follow the Vulgar, nor agree with themselves. They depart from it frequently, and follow it where there is least reason. And instance of which we have, and a notorious one in Act. xx. 17. The Elders of the Church, one might have expected they should have translated by Priests of the Church, considering how  they are of translating the word Elders by Priests in other places: no wonder they should translate Elders by Anciens, Matt. xxvii. 1. because they are expressly said to be Elders of the people, and consequently to be reckoned among the Laity. But th●se ●●d called Elders of the Church. And these very Translators, ch. xiv. 43. where 'tis said, They ordained Elders in every Church, translate the word Elders by Pretres, i.e. Priests. Yet in this place they translate Elders of the Church by, les plus ages de l'Eglise: i.e. the more aged of the Church. The V Latin hath it indeed, majores natu Ecclesia: But the Context assures us they were Ecclesiastics. Father Antelote renders it by Prestres, i.e. Priests, so does the Mons Testament also, and these men might have done it here with more show of reason than elsewhere. But they who regard not the Vulgar elsewhere are tenacious of it where there is no cause.  
Act. xxvi. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fr. Tr. Commanca a rendre raison, i.e. began to render a reason. I do not quarrel about their rendering, because herein these men follow the Vulgar Latin. I only show that they do not the part of good Interpreters in that they are not consonant to themselves: For ver. 24. where there is the same word in the Greek, and the same rendering in the V Latin, and the very same subject matter, yet they altar their phrase: There they render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by, comme il se defendoit; which is an argument of great levity in Interpreters; and especially in them who pretend to be the Louvain Interpreters; whereas the old Louvain translation is in both places conformable to the Vulgar, and consonant to itself.  
Act. xxvi. 24, 25. In the same Chapter we find as great a Blunder as that mentioned above. Festus said unto Paul Mairy, i.e. Thou art mad. Fr. Tr. Vous perdez le sense, i.e. You have lost your wits. I dispute not the translation, but truly represent the folly and levity of the translators. For whereas the Greek word is the same, the Vulgar Version the same, the subject matter the very sames yet these Interpreters have used three several ways of rendering the same Greek and Latin word. The first as is said, they render by, vous pardez le sense: The second by fou, i.e. a fool: The third by, insensè, i.e. one that hath not his sense. In this they did not follow the old Louvain Version, the Authors of that took greater care.  
1 Cor. x. 14. Flee from Idolatry. Fr. Tr. Fuyez l'adoration des idols, i.e. flee the adoration of Idols. I do not here charge these men with departing from their Copy, the Vulgar, in this place. That which they are  for, is that in another place, where there is not only the same Greek word, but the Vulgar translates it to the same sense as it does here, these Louvain Divines, as inconsistent both with the Vulgar and themselves, render it by Idolatry, as may be seen by consulting their Version of Galat. v. 20.  
1 Cor. xuj. 9 with 2 Cor. two. 12. Whereas in one of these places they render door by occasion (as I have observed before on another occasion) these new Louvain Divines forget themselves when they come to the latter of the abovenamed places. And tho' the Vulgar use the same word, ostium, in both places, and the subject matter be one and the same, yet what they render by, occasion, in one place, in the other they render by, la porte.  
I shall conclude with representing to the Reader some Errata of the Press. These indeed are the least faults, but yet not to be excused in a work of this nature. Those to whom this care belonged aught to have prevented these Errata, or to have given the Reader some notice of them, whereas they have done neither of them.  
Matt. xxvii. 7. This Version hath Haseldama, where the V Latin hath Haceldama; and the old Louvain, Acheldemach. Luk. i. 27. This Version hath Anne, for Aune, as the old Louvain hath it. Luk. iii. 1. Cesa, for Cesar. Joh. ix. 2. Sa instead of sa more. Act. xii. 2. where the following words are repeated voulant le produire apres Pâques. 1 Cor. seven. 9 Li for i'll. ch. ix. 15. Nom for Mon. ch. xv. 29. notal●ment for Totalement, as it is in the old Louvain, Gal. two. 9 Centils for Centil's, as 'tis in the old Louvain. Coloss. two. 13. Ensembe for Ensemble, is 'tis in the old Louvain. 2 Thess. iii. 6. Tradiction for Tradition, as in the old Louvain. Heb. xii. 26. Mes for Mais. ch. x. 30. pleuple for peuple. Jam. i. 1. tribus for Tribus. 1 Joh. i 1, 3. ven ovy for ven & ovy, as 'tis in the old Louvain. Rev. vi. 16. Tone for Throne. ch. seven. 4. Tributs for Tribu●. xi. 18. Non for Nom, as it is in the old Louvain. ch xvii. 17. aevures for coeurs, as 'tis in the old Louvain. ch. xx. 5. Testes, for rest, as in the old Louvain. ch. xxii. 2. Sanctè for Santè, as 'tis in the old Louvain.