The Elk advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Elk Co., Pa.) 186?-1868, 1867-06-13
Iotal correspondence,
Fer the Elk Advocate.

to assist me further by any resources at
your command, must be my apology for
addressing you at this time. For in |
prosecuting my inquiries on the subject
of our correspondence, have found a
passage in the "Catho!ic Testament"
which seems to conflict with the state
ment made IN your first letter ; viz /:
I" We adore no saint + = Let Mary
be honored, but the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost alone be adored but no
one adore Mary" Here the word
adore is evidently used to denote that
worship which is due to God only, and
which it is idolatry to render to any
creature. This | supposed to be cor
rect statement Of the doctrine of the
Catholic Church on this point, and you
may believe was greatly surprised to
find in the Catholic translation of the
New Testament the following version of
Heb. II, 81 "By faith, Jacob dying,
blessed each of the sons Of Joseph, and
adored the top of his rod" 1t is re-
marked in foot note, "The apostle
here follows the ancient Greek Bible Of
the 70 interpreters, (which translates in
this manuer Cen. Al, 81, and alleges
this fact of Jacob, in paying relative
honor and veneration to the top of the
rod or sceptre Of Joseph, as to figure
of Christ's sceptre and kingdom, as an
instance and argument of his faith. -
Here alteration is paid, not merely to a
creature, but to a piece of inanimate
matter. But the note speaks as though
Jacob did not adore Joscph's rod, but
only paid it "relative honor and ven1
Grafton" not at all religious worship
or perhaps it might be called religious
regard on account of its relation to the
only proper object of alteration
Now among the "gods many and
lords many" ofthe heather, there are
some who are regarded as inferior di-
whites yet worship is paid to them as
we'll as the others. And if Catholics
adore images, pictures, sceptres, crosses,
&c, will Jehovah acquit them of idola-
try If this " relative honor " is ado.
ration, thea does it help the matter to
say that less degree of it is paid TO
creatures than is paid to the Creator
Or, has the doctrine of the Catholic
Church changed since the days of St.
Epiphanius, so that the Englisn transla-
ton OF Heb. IL, Fl gives the modern
doctrine
These questions suggest as some
that occur to me, and as indicating the
difficulties in the way Of accepting the
Catholic doctrine which I hope you
will he kind enough to explain to me.
But there is yet another difficulty in
the case, still more serious, in my ap-
,prehension, which is this The foot
note before quoted proceeds to say that
" Protestants, who are no friends to this
relative honor, have corrupted the text
by translating it he worshipped, lean
ing upon the top Of his staff,'" and yet
so far as my present means of infor'
nation extend-the charge Of corrupt.
ing the Scripture seems to belong to the
Catholics, and not at all to the Protest.
ants. For the Protestant version prints
the word leaning" in Italic letters, tc
indicate that it is supplied by the trans
lators, the better to express what they
regarded as the evident meaning of the
: passage. Leaving out shis word The
Protestant version would read "'wor
shipped upon the top of his staff,
which is a literal translation Of tLC
Greek text-Prosekunesen epi to akror
, tes rabdon autou-(as nearly as l car
0 give i: in English letters) which is pre-
cisely the same as the Septuagint Deut
IL, 81. Now l wish to know what tn,
r Catholics have done with that preposi
tion epi, which in our version is render
u ed upon ? | would not lightly charg
any party with corrupting the text q
Gods word, but l cannot learn fron
i my copies of the Greek Testament an'
Septuagiut that there is any variation @
MSS that would affect the case. Wi
i you please give me the reading Of tn
Latin Vulgate, if you have access to it
and also inform me if you can, whethe
% any editions or MSS OF the New Testa
ment or Septuagint, omit the prepositio
EPI; and if not, then how win you ez