In

sidered to have pronounced it to be inerrant. this decision every Roman Catholic must acquiesce, as he receives the Scripture from the Church, under her authority, and with her interpretation. See Natalis Alexander, de Vulgatá Scripturæ versione, quæstio 5, utrum et quo sensu Vulgata editio sit authentica; et quæstio 6, de sphalmatis et mendis, quæ, in Vulgatá versione Latiná Bibliorum jussu Clementis VIII. emendatá, etiamnum supersunt, quæ ecclesiæ auctoritate corrigi possunt; a note in Fabricy, Titres primitifs, T. II. p. 164. and Father Mariana's Dissertatio pro editione Vulgata, published by Father Tournemine at the end of his edition of Menochius, a treatise which clearly proves that our ancestors were further advanced in Biblical criticism than is generally thought. Some Roman Catholic and even Protestant writers of eminence have contended, that, considering the present state of the Greek text, the Vulgate expresses more of the true reading of the originals, or autographs of the sacred penmen, than any Greek edition that has yet appeared, or can now be framed.

Among the modern editions of the Vulgate, that printed by Didot, Paris, 1785, in four volumes octavo, is particularly recommended by the neatness of its typography.

XV.

We now come to THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

OF THE BIBle.

XV. 1. There are many Anglo-Saxon versions of different parts of the Old and New Testament. Of the Translation by the Archbishop Elfric, in the tenth century, we have,—of the Old Testament, the Heptateuch, published by Edmund Thwaites, at Oxford, 1699,—and, of the New Testament, the Gospels only, by Matthew Parker, London, 1571, 4to. These were reprinted by Franciscus Junius and Thomas Marshall, at Dodrect, with the Mæso-Gothic Version, 1665, 4to. reprinted at Amsterdam, 1684. As this AngloSaxon version is supposed by some to have been made from the Latin version in use before St. Jerom, it is highly valued by those who are curious after the readings of the Old Italic. But Professor Alter, (Memorabil. VI. St. No. IX. and VIII. St. p. 185), considers it to have been made from the Vulgate, as the Anglo-Saxon version of the Psalms, published by Spelman, certainly was. An imperfect account of the former of these versions is given in the following work; A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament, written about the time of King Edgar, by Adelfricus Abbas, published by William Lisle, London, 1623, 4to. which was afterwards reprinted with this title:" Diverse Antient Muniments, in the

Saxon Tongue, written seven hundred years ago, 1638. It may be added, that Elfric's translation is so very loose as to make it difficult to collect any ancient readings from it.

XV. 2. The most ancient English translation is that of Wickliff. It was finished about the year 1367. It was revised by some of his followers. Both the original and the revised translation are still extant in manuscript: the printed copies of it are not uncommon. The manuscript copies of the latter are more rare than those of the former.

XV. 3. The principal printed editions are, 1st, those of Tyndal and Coverdale; 2d, the Genevan Bible, or the translations made by the English, who fled to Geneva, to avoid the persecutions of Queen Mary; 3d, the Episcopal translation, made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, under the direction of Matthew Parker, the celebrated archbishop of Canterbury; 4th, King James's Bible: -it was printed in 1611, and is that, which is at present used in all the British dominions; the original copy, with the manuscript corrections, is in the Bodleian library; 5th, the English translations made by the Roman Catholics. The chief of these are, the Rhemish Testament, printed at Rheims in 1582. In the year 1589, Dr. Fulke, master of Pembroke-Hall, Cambridge, reprinted this translation, together with the Bishop's Bible, in two columns. It is a curious performance, and very much deserves the attention of those who

study the subjects in controversy between the Roman Catholics and Protestants, particularly such as turn on Scriptural interpretation. The Doway Bible is printed in two volumes quarto, in 1609, 1610. It is said to be made from "the authentic Latin." A new edition of it was published in five volumes octavo, in 1750, by the late Dr. Challoner. Besides these, a translation in two volumes large octavo was published at Doway, in the year 1730, by Dr. Witham. It is enriched with useful and

concise notes.

XVI.

It remains to observe a striking peculiarity of the Old and New Testament,-its division into

CHAPTERS AND VERSES.

XVI. 1. The division of the Hebrew text into chapters was made by the Jews, in imitation of the division of the New Testament into chapters. But the chapters spoken of in this place must not be confounded with their Paraschioths or greater and less sections, into which, for the regular reading of it in the synagogue, they have divided the Pentateuch, a much more ancient division, and still retained in the rolls of the synagogue. Their division of the Old Testament into verses, was more ancient than the division of it into chapters, being probably of the same date as their invention of the vowel points. Much of the labour of the Masorites was consumed in calculating the verses,

and their literal peculiarities. Thus they discovered, that the verses in the book of Genesis amounted to 1534; that its middle verse was the fortieth of the twenty-seventh chapter; that the whole Bible contained twenty-three thousand two hundred and six verses; that the Pentateuch contains two verses, all the words of which end with a Mem; that three verses consist of eighty letters; that fourteen verses consist of three words; twentysix, contain all the letters of the alphabet; one, contains all the final letters, &c. &c.

XVI. 2. The ancients divided the New Testament into two kinds of chapters. The TTA01, or larger portions, are written either in the upper or lower margin, and generally in red ink; the xεαλα, or small portions, are numbered on the side of the margin. They are clearly represented in Erasmus's edition, and in R. Stephens's edition of 1550. These chapters differ in different copies. The most celebrated, and one of the most ancient divisions, was that of Ammonius. From him it had the appellation of the Ammonian sections. Eusebius retained them, and adapted to them his ten canons or tables. But by the example and influence of Cardinal Hugo de S. Caro, the old division was entirely laid aside in the Latin Church, and in Latin manuscripts: Greek manuscripts continued to be written with the old divisions to the end of the fifteenth century; when that, in present use, was adopted. Robert Stephens was