Hebrew, (including the books of Judith und Tobit, which he translated from the Chaldee), and of the New Testament from the Greek, is the origin or stock of our present Vulgate, except with respect to the Psalms; which, we have observed, rests on St. Jerom's second edition of the old translation. The genuine version of St. Jerom of the Old and New Testament, from a beautiful manuscript at Paris, was published there, in 1693, by Dom Martianay, and Dom Pouget, under the title, "S. Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonens. Presbyteri Operum Tom.I. seu Divina Bibliotheca antehac inedita, complectens Translationes V. et N. Testamenti, cum ex Hebræis tum e Græcis fontibus derivatas, innumera quoque scholia marginalia antiquissimi Hebræi cujusdam scriptoris anonymi, Hebræas voces pressius exprimentis. Prodit e vetustissimis MSS. codicibus Gallicanis, Vaticanis, &c. Studio et labore Monachorum ordinis S. Benedicti e con

gregatione S. Mauri. Parisiis apud Ludov. Boulland 1693, fol." This version has been reprinted in the edition of the works of St. Jerom, by Dominic Vallarsi and Scipio Maffei, at Verona, 1734-1742, in 11 volumes, folio. St. Jerom's version had the fate of many considerable works of genius: it had warm advocates, particularly among the truly learned; and violent enemies, particularly among the ignorant. By degrees its merit was universally acknowledged, and it almost universally superseded every other version.-Such was the

Vulgate translation, as it came originally from the hands of St. Jerom.

XIV. 3. It did not escape the general fate of manuscripts during the middle age. Partly by the mistakes or errors of transcribers, partly by corrections made by unskilful persons, partly by alterations from the citations in the works of the fathers, and partly by insertions made in it by way of explanation, the text was exceedingly disfigured and corrupted in many places. One circumstance in particular introduced variations into every part of it. The old uncorrupted version was intermixed with it throughout. Cassiodorus, and after him Alcuin, used their utmost endeavours to restore the version to its pristine purity. The library of the College of Dominicans at Paris contained a manuscript copy of the Latin Bible, made in the thirteenth century, by some French religious of that order. It is comprised in four large volumes in folio, and is written on fine parchment, in the half Gothic letter. By a regulation of the general chapter of the order held in 1236, directions were given, that all the Bibles of the order should be corrected and made to conform to that copy and at a general chapter, held in 1748, a transcript of it was ordered to be made by the Students in the noviciat. The labours of Lanfranc, the archbishop of Canterbury, in procuring correct copies, both of the Old and New Testament, are mentioned by Baronius, Cave, Dupin and Wetstein. At the

revival of letters, several persons of learning exerted themselves to procure a good edition of the Latin Vulgate. The chief editions of it published on this plan, are those of Robert Stephens, in 1540, 1545, and 1546; that of Hentenius, in 1547, accurately and elegantly reprinted at Frankfort on the Mayn, 1566, folio; and that of the Louvain Divines, 1573, in three volumes, both in octavo and duodecimo, reprinted in 1580, in quarto and octavo, with the addition of the valuable notes of Lucas Brugensis, by whom those editions were chiefly conducted.

XIV. 4. It was afterwards revised and promulgated by papal authority. The Council of Trent took the state of the versions into consideration. It declared the ancient and common edition should be considered the authentic edition; and that the Bible should be printed as correctly and as expeditiously as possible, principally according to the Ancient and Vulgate edition. In consequence of this, it was published by Sixtus Quintus, in 1590. He himself watched over the work with admirable attention and zeal; he perused every sheet, both before it was committed to the press, and after it was printed off. The principal persons employed in this edition were, Cardinal Caraffa, Flaminius Nobilius, Antonius Agellius, Petrus Morinus, and Angelus Rocca. But his edition scarcely made its appearance, before it was discovered to abound with errors. The copies therefore were called in, and

a new edition was printed by Clement the VIIIth, his immediate successor, in 1592; and afterwards, with some variations, in 1593. The difference between the two papal editions is considerable. Dr. James, in his celebrated Bellum Papale, reckons two thousand instances, in which they differ; Father Henry de Bukentop, a Recollet, made a similar collection, but denied the consequences which Dr. James professed to draw from the variations.-Lucas Brugensis has reckoned four thousand places, in which, in his opinion, the Bible of Clement the VIIIth may be thought to want correction. Cardinal Bellarmin, who had a principal part in the publication of the edition, praised his industry, and wrote to him, that those concerned in the work had not corrected it with the utmost accuracy, and that intentionally they had passed over many mistakes. "Scias velim," says his eminence," Biblia vulgata non esse a nobis "accuratissime castigata: multa enim de indus

66

triá, justis de causis, pertransivimus." When it is examined critically, it evidently appears the work of several hands. A scrupulous adherence to the text is observable in most parts of it; but in some it is carried further than in others, and sometimes it apparently leads to barbarous expressions, and absolute solecisms; as dominantur eorumrepletæ sunt nuptiæ discumbentium-videns quoniam (for quod) illusus esset a Magis-noluit consolari-benedixit eos-ubi erugo et tinea

demoliunt-edunt, for ediderunt fructus suos,— illuminare his, qui in tenebris,-nihil nos nocebit, -vapulabis multis. Other accusations of solecisms or barbarisms of a similar nature might be produced. Many of these expressions are defended by Father Filesacus, in his Versio sacræ Scripturæ Latina Vulgata Defensa, published at the end of Father Tournemine's edition of Menochius. At any rate they do not detract from its general merit. Not only Roman Catholics, but separatists from the Church of Rome, agree in its praise. It is universally allowed, that it does not suffer in a comparison with any other version. Dr. Mill, whose whole life was spent in the study of the manuscripts and printed editions of the original and the translations from it, professes the greatest esteem for the Vulgate, and, in his choice of readings, defers considerably to it. Grotius speaks of it highly; Walton and Bengel praise it much. In his Histoire Critique du Texte et des Versions du Nouveau Testament, Father Simon has pointed out its real merit. The Church of Rome treats it with the greatest veneration. Some divines have supposed it to be absolutely free from error, and that no one is at liberty to vary from it, in translation or exposition. This is going to an extreme: the Council of Trent, in pronouncing it to be authentic, did not pronounce it to be inspired or infallible: but, where the dogmas of faith or morals are concerned, the Council must be con