......

be taken even with the works of poets,. every reader alters to suit his own whim."]"

but here

In the preface to the Leipsic Correctorium, it is said, "We have comprised as much as we could, in a short space, from the glosses of St. Jerome and other teachers, from the books of the Hebrews, and the most ancient manuscripts, written before the time of Charlemagne ; and we have inserted here in short notes what we thought...... was doubtful or superfluous in various modern Bibles. . . . . . . Therefore, in the text of the books of the Old Testament, which are contained in the Hebrew canon, wherever you see a red point over a word or syllable, or between two words, you may know that it rests on the authority of many expositors, and ancient books, and was received among the Hebrews. But if a word, or phrase, has a red line beneath it, it shows that the ancient books, and the ancient copies, did not contain it; and especial heed must be taken when a red point is placed under a word, for that shows the word was in the Hebrew."

a

* De Lat. Vulg. Erroribus, cited in Hody, p. 420.

• Quantum in brevi potuimus, ex glossis benedicti Hieronymi et aliorum Doctorum et ex libris Hebræorum et antiquissimis exemplaribus, quæ jam ante tempora Caroli M. scripta fuerunt, hic in brevissima notula scripsimus ea, quæ ex novis et diversis Bibliis propter varias litteras magis dubia vel superflua credebamus....... Ubicunque ergo in textu librorum V. T., qui in Hebræo canone continentur, punctum de minio super aliquam dictionem vel syllabam vel inter duas dictiones videris, scias, illuc cum auctoritate multorum expositorum et antiquorum librorum etiam sic apud Hebræos haberi. Si vero dictio illa, vel amplius, linea de minio subjecta fuit, hi libri expositorum et antiqui non habent, et tunc maxime cautum est, si juxta Hebræos punctum de minio suppositum habeat.

The following is a specimen of the Correctorium of Cologne. Gen. vi.: Non permanebit Spiritus meus in homine in æternum. Hebraica veritas habet: Non disceptabit Spiritus meus in æternum. Expositio Chaldaica sic habet: Non erigetur generatio putrida contendere coram me in æternum. Secundum Paulum Burgensem sic: Non vaginabitur spiritus meus in ho

§ 72.

HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT OF THE VULGATE.

After the invention of printing, the variations in the text of the Vulgate appeared more plainly, and, at the same time, critical attempts were made to amend it."

[Stephens was the first to take any important measures to restore the text of this version. His first edition,

mine. Præcarens; media correpta, i. e. diligenter cavens. Horatius in sermonibus: vade, vale, cave, ne titubes, mandataque frangas.

• The first editions contain no mention of the time or place of their publication. See Le Long. ed. Masch, vol. ii. p. 258. For a notice of a copy in the royal library at Berlin, see ibid., p. 67, sqq., and Berlin Biblioth. vol. i. p. 169, 429.

The first edition, in which the time and place are named, was published at Mentz, 1462; again, at Rome, 1471; (reprinted at Nürnberg, 1475;) Nürnberg, 1471; Piac. 1471, 1475; Paris, 1475; Naples, 1476; Venice, 1475, 1476, all in folio. This edition has often been reprinted. Le Long, 1. c. p. 98. [It is printed without a title-page, but at the end of some copies is this subscription: Pñs hoc opusculü artificior ad inventione impiendi seu characterizandi absque calami ex aracon in civitate Mogunti sic effigiatu et ad eusebia die industria per Joh' em fust civé et Pelrum Schoiffher, de gerns' heym. Consummatus anno dñ M CCCC IXII. &c.]

The following are more critical editions: Bib. Lat. emend. per Angelum de Monte; Ulrici. Bresc. 1496, 4to., [here we find the first attempt at a criticism on the printed text of the Vulgate; it contains many errors; see Rosenmüller, 1. c. p. 204, sqq.,] reprinted at Venice, 1497, 8vo.; 1501, 8vo.; the editions of J. Parvus, (Johannes Petit,) and J. Prevel, Par. 1504, sqq., fol., with the emendations of And. Castellani; that of Jac. Sacon, Lug. 1506, sqq., fol., with the same emendations and variants; that of And. Castellani, Venice, 1511, fol.; that in the Complutensian Polyglot, [the text of which was derived from several old MSS. compared with critical care,] 1517; reprinted at Nürnberg, 1527, 8vo.; in the Antwerp Polyglot; the editions of Colina, Par. 1525, sqq., fol.; those of Rudel, Col. 1527, 1529, fol.; that of Hittorp, Col. 1530, fol.; those of Robert Stephens, Par. 1527, 1532, 1533, fol., with an improved text, 1540, fol., with variants in the margin; that of Benedictus, (Benoist,) Par. 1541, fol. (ad priscorum probatissimorumque exemplarium normam, adhibita interdum fontium autoritate;) that of Isid. Clarius, Venice, 1542, small fol. (ad Hebraicam et Græcam veritatem emendatum.) See Le Long, 1. c. p. 143—222.

In

prepared when he was quite a young man, was a wonder for those times. It was distinguished by the elegance of its typographical execution, and by the improved character of its text, which he had corrected from manuscripts and editions. It excited the indignation of the Paris theologians, who condemned it to be burnt. the next edition, there were still further improvements. He collated all the good Latin manuscripts he could find, and derived important aid from two codices, one in the library of St. Germain de Pres, the other in that of the Abbey St. Dionysius. His fourth edition, of 1540, is the most valuable: fourteen of the best and most ancient manuscripts, and three editions, were collated to furnish the text, and the various readings were printed in the margin. Richard Simon calls this a masterpiece among editions of the Bible. His next edition, of 1545, besides the Vulgate, contained a new version, in better Latin. That of the Old Testament was made by Leo Juda, Theodore Bibliander, and Peter Cholinus; the version of the New Testament was that of Erasmus, corrected by Rudolph Gualter. There were explanations in the margin, collected from the note-books of the pupils of Francis Vatable. His sixth edition is merely a reprint of that of 1540. His two next editions contain no important improvements, except the insertion of Pagninus's version of the Old Testament, Beza's of the New Testament, and Badwell's of the Apocrypha."

Benedict attempted to restore Jerome's text. He marked with obelisks and asterisks the passages where the Vulgate added to the original, or omitted something

[Rosenmüller, 1. c. p. 220, sqq. See, also, the preface (of Peter Cholinus?) ad Biblia Lat. Test. V. et N. &c.; Tiguri, M. D. L.]

from it. His edition has little merit compared with the work of Stephens."

In the sixteenth century, the renovated study of the original languages of the Bible had disclosed the faults of the Vulgate; various attempts had been made to remedy its defects. Sometimes it was used as the basis for a better work; sometimes parts of it were improved; and sometimes a new version was used instead of it. These causes produced great confusion in the church. Therefore, to remedy these evils, the council of Trent decreed that the Vulgate alone should be publicly used in the church, and should have the same authority as the Hebrew and Greek originals.]

"Moreover," says the decree of the council, in 1546, "this same most holy council, considering that no small advantage will accrue to the church of God, if, from all the Latin editions of the most holy books which are in circulation, it should designate which is to be held as authentic, does decree and declare that this ancient and Vulgate edition, which has been proved in this church by the long use of so many ages, shall be held authentic in public readings, disputations, preachings, and expositions, and that no man shall dare or presume to reject it, on any pretence whatever." Thus, by this decree, the admission of exegetical inquiry into the public doctrines of the church is forever prevented. [But Jahn contends, and apparently with justice, that the council did not design to discourage the use of the Scriptures in the original tongues; that, in declaring the Vulgate authentic, it merely pronounced this version free from important errors, which would render it unfit

for the purpose it was designed to serve; and, in fine, when the council forbids any one to reject the Vulgate, its meaning is, that this version shall be preferred to any other Latin version in common use at that time, for the Greek Catholics have always used the Septuagint; the Syrians, the Syriac version; the Arabians, the Arabic; and Catholic as well as Protestant theologians use the Greek and Hebrew originals. However, Möhler, a recent and very able Catholic writer, takes a less liberal view of the purport of this decree."

Private editions, issued without the authority or sanction of the church, did not furnish an authentic copy of this edition, for learned Catholics had long acknowledged the numerous mistakes in the received editions of the Vulgate. Isidore Clarius had pointed out eighty thousand errors. In such a state of the text, men naturally looked to the council itself, or to the holy see, for a correct edition of the authentic text; and, therefore, the council decreed and ordained that, henceforth, "the Vulgate edition of the sacred Scriptures should be printed as accurately as possible."

Concil. Trid. Sess. IV. Decr. 2: Insuper eadem sacrosancta Synodus considerans, non parum utilitatis accedere posse ecclesiæ Dei, si ex omnibus Latinis editionibus, quæ circumferuntur, sacrorum librorum, quænam pro authentica habenda sit, innotescat, statuit et declarat, ut hæc ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quæ longo tot sæculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prædicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur, et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis prætextu audeat vel præsumat. See what may be said to mitigate the severity of this decree in Marheinecke, Syst. der Kath. vol. ii. p. 246. [See Jahn, vol. i. p. 230, sqq. Möhler, Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze der Katholiken und Protestanten, &c. 5th ed.; Mainz. 1838, § 41 and 42.]

Concil. Trid. 1. c.: Ut posthac sacra Scriptura, potissimum vero hæc ipsa vetus vulgata editio, quam emendatissime imprimatur.

[The council itself appointed a committee of six, to prepare a correct edition of the Vulgate, who commenced the work assigned them, but were