65
article, Considerazioni imparziali, &c., appears one of the date of May 2, 1838. We find likewise in it the remarkable omissions upon which some attention has been bestowed in considering the original Index. So that, hardly any evidence of identity is wanting.
field, with hearty repentance, I doubt not, at least of others for him, for his temerity. Romanists think they have a triumph in the number of early vernacular versions of the Scriptures by their community. The work was principally done before the Reformation had shewn its danger to the Papal edifice. It was likewise a private voluntary work, not a work of the Roman Church. We never denied that there were some righteous in Rome, even in her worst times: it was from such that the Reformation sprang. And we may add, that the proscribing Indexes of the unreformed and unreformable Church, as well as the preface to the reluctant translation of Rhemes, give little encouragement even to the versions of their own community, except as defending their people from Protestant and purer translations; they view it plainly as an evil, and only to be tolerated as a less, rebus sic stantibus. The laborious and valuable Le Long, in his Bibliotheca Sucra, led the way in this unsuccessful, indeed to his Church, treacherous argument, i. ix. x. Præf. Paris, 1723; and a large class of minor heroes has followed to partake in the supposed triumph. But the impracticable condition of understanding the Scriptures according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers is quite enough, and was known to be so; for what priest or pope will venture to say what that non-existent consent is? And then, how are the commonalty to know it? The pretence that Protestant versions are condemned for their infidelity or corruptions, is the most unprincipled subterfuge and falsehood that can be conceived; since there does not exist a Romanist of the humblest pretensions to general information, who does not
