And even in the preface to the Clementine edition of the Vul. gate, we are told that certain things which deserved to be changed were left, to avoid the scandal of the people.

Even during the authorized revision of the Vulgate, Salmeron, who was one of the theologians of the Council, declared: "In the meantime, while the Vulgate is being revised, nothing prevents one from correcting the evident errors, either by means of the Hebrew and Greek text, or from the various readings of the Fathers, or by a clearer understanding of the text itself, provided such a one in such a grave matter is prepared to submit himself to the Church if she should decide otherwise." (Salmeron, Proleg. III. p. 24.) This is the golden rule for all theologians. Relying on this, a theologian can freely conduct any research, sustained by the thought that if he speaks true things, the Church will commend him, and she will safeguard him from error.

The opponents of our position are of two classes. The protestants insist on an absolute approbation of the Vulgate, that they may thence move an objection against the Church; Some Catholics interpret the Council's word in a like manner through mistaken zeal for orthodoxy. From one or the other of these motives they adduce the three following argu

ments:

1. Richard Simon (Hist. Crit. du V. Test. 7, p. 268) cites the following decree: "On the 17th of January, 1576, the General Congregation, through S. L. A. S. Montald. Sixt. Caraffa, declares that nothing can be asserted which is not in conformity with the Vulgate, even though it be one sentence, or a phrase or clause, or a word, or a syllable, or even an iota." Richard Simon found this declaration reproduced by Leo Allatius. It appears to be a plain forgery. Its original was never found, though diligent search was made in the archives of Rome. Franzelin declares that Father Perrone had informed him that Pius IX. had declared, by word of mouth, that even if the declaration did exist, nothing more was commanded thereby than that one should not reject the Vulgate in matters of faith and morals. (Franz. De Trad. p. 563.)

And in any case, this congregation had naught to do with matters of faith. The decree is either a forgery, or a disciplinary ruling of a council, and avails naught in the present question.

2. They insist on the former decree, which binds us to receive the books with all their parts. Now, they say, every word is a part.

The very enunciation of this proposition shows its absurdity. Every word is a mathematical part of the books, but it is not a moral part in the sense that the Council spoke. They were legislating against those who rejected the deuterocanonical parts of the Holy Books and certain passages of the Gospels, and, in virtue of their decree, every integral part of the books is sacred and canonical. And they meant not by this to imply that there was an absolute conformity between these parts and the original inspired text, but that the inspired truths had substantially endured in all the parts of the books. The Holy Ghost only guided them in the truth of the proposition, and in a general supervision of the words of their decree, so that in clothing their thoughts with words, the Fathers spoke as human agents, and their diction may at times come short of absolute clearness. The history of the several decrees and the scope of their legislation aid us in seizing the real sense of the decrees. Hence, we hold simply the divinity and canonicity of the parts, as that term was taken in the mind of the Fathers. Hence, the decree only contemplates the substantial integrity of all the books. This allows that even whole sentences should be wanting from the Vulgate that are genuine in the original, and that there may be whole sentences in the Vulgate which never were in the original, provided no error is in them contained. And there may be sentences in the Vulgate of dogmatic import, whose sense is not that of the original, provided in the same way that nothing contrary to faith or morals could result therefrom. The Vulgate reproduces sufficiently the substance of God's written message, and leaves a legitimate field to the science of textual criticism.

Hence, we are not prevented by the decree of the Vulgate from correcting the Latin of the Vulgate: "Omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur," (I. Cor. XV. 5.), in accordance with the Greek, to: "Omnes quidem non dormiemus, sed omnes immutabimur."

The text is dogmatic, and although the Vulgate has not brought out Paul's idea, it contains no error, for all men shall arise, and all shall not put on the incorruption of the elect. We maintain also that the character of the famous verse I. Jo. V. 7. must be treated independently of the Council's decree. That it contains no error we know from the authority that they gave to the book. Whether it was in the genuine Epistle of St. John or not, must be decided by means of the data of textual criticism.

3. The third argument of the adversaries hardly deserves mention. They maintain that if we are not to reject the Vulgate on any pretext, it results that we can not reject any verse or word of it.

This is mere cavil. The Council's decree here is only disciplinary, and relates to the rejection of passages wherein is contained some substantial truths of Scripture. The very conception of the argument of the opposition is an insult to the intelligence of the Fathers of Trent.

We shall not speak of the many errors recognizable in the Vulgate. We have built a basis, and in our exegesis of the Holy Text we shall judge the several passages in accordance with the data here explained.

CHAPTER XXX.

THE CORRECTION OF THE VULGATE.

The second abuse which the Council of Trent was to remedy was the corruption of the Latin codices, and the remedy was that by the authority of the Pope a correct edition of the Vulgate might be submitted to the Council, and approved by the Pope. The work of emending the Vulgate was judged by the Fathers of Trent to be so easy in execution that a corrected copy might be sent to them while yet assembled in council. On the 24th of April, 1546, Card. Cervini had written to Rome: "Staremo adunque aspettando che voi ci mandiate presto una bella Bibbia corretta et emendata per poter stamparla." (Vercellone, 1. c. p. 84.) But it took forty years to execute the correction recommended by the Council of Trent.

In the present work we can only treat briefly of the immense labor that was expended on this emendation. Ungarelli and Vercellone have ably written the history of the correction of the Vulgate.

The first movement to execute the Council's recommendation was made by the University of Louvain. The Dominican, John Henten (†1566) was appointed by the faculty to revise the Vulgate. Henten brought to the task a fair knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. The work appeared at Louvain in 1547. under the title: Biblia Latina ad Vetustissima exemplaria recens castigata. Henten collated about twenty codices in the preparation of this work, but none of his codices go back beyond the tenth century, so that the edition can not be con

sidered a great critical work. The work of Henten was very favorably received, and many editions of it were issued by the press at Louvain.

After the death of Henten, the faculty of Louvain selected Lucas of Bruges to revise the work. He was assisted by Molanus, Hunnaeus, Reinerius and Harlem. Henten's text was allowed to stand, but the revisers added an Apparatus Criticus from upwards of sixty codices. The edition was printed by Plantin. These Bibles enjoyed great authority, and were of service to the Roman correctors of the Vulgate.

The Council of Trent closed on the fourth of December, 1563. Immediately after its close, Pius IV. commissioned four Cardinals to restore the text of the Vulgate to its pristine purity. The Cardinals were Mark Antony Colonna, William Sirleti, Louis Madrutius, and Antony Caraffa. Sirleti was considered the greatest linguist of his age.*

The first of their labors was the accurate collation of the Codex Paulinus, which Sirleti held in high esteem.

Under Pius V. the correction of the Vulgate was hindered for the reason that the learned men were occupied in correcting the Breviary, Missal and Martyrology. Pius V. was by no means negligent in the great work of correcting the Vulgate, and for this reason appointed the most learned men of Rome to cooperate in the work. Principal among the theologians

* Sirleti was born in Calabria in Italy in 1514. He studied at Naples, and acquired such a command of Hebrew, Greek and Latin that they became as his mother tongue. He studied mathematics, philosophy and theology in Greek, and was considered one of the most learned men of his age. He was held in great esteem by Pope Marcellus II. Pius IV. thought so highly of him that he committed to his care his nephew Charles Borromeo, and at Charles' request he created Sirleti Cardinal. After the death of Pius IV., there was thought of creating Sirleti Pope, but the judgment prevailed of those who thought that the drift of his mind was too much given to letters, to permit a strong practical administration in those stormy times. He was chosen as one of the revisers of the Vulgate by Pius IV. and continued on that Congregation under his successor Pius V. He assisted in revising the Missal and Breviary under Paul V. and was also at the head of the Vatican Library. He enriched the Library by many valuable works in the Oriental, Greek, and Latin languages. He was beneficent in character, and greatly assisted needy students. He died in 1583. His contemporaries, without reserve, place him as the first scriptural scholar of his age, One of them declared that the dreams of Sirleti were more learned than the waking creations of many learned men; for often in sleep he was heard to discourse in Greek and Latin of some difficult theme." (Eggs, Purpura Docta, I. 5, 11). Latinus Latinius declared in a letter to Masius (Op. Latinii Tom. II. p. 134) that from personal knowledge he judged Sirleti alone to equal all the others who were associated with him in correcting the Vulgate. This remarkable man has left nothing of importance in writing.

were Antonio Agellius and Emmanuel Sa. The commission proceeded slowly, and with great labor. From the 28th of April to the 7th of December of the year 1569, they spent in revising Genesis and Exodus. The theologians had held twenty-six general conferences before the Cardinals to confer on this portion of their labors. The fundamental error of the time was to consider the work easy, and to be performed quickly. Without doubt those men had selected the right method, and if vexation over the delay had not obstructed their labors, we might have had a much better text.

Card. Buoncompagno succeeded Pius V. in 1572, and took the name of Gregory XIII. He was one of the first canonists of his age, and as such had sat in the Council of Trent. He brought to completion the correction of the liturgical books, and then turned his attention to the correction of the Calendar and the revision of the Corpus Juris. His claim to immortality in history rests mainly on the correction of the Calendar, a work much needed and well wrought.

At this juncture a remarkable man came into important relations in the Church. This was Card. Peretti.*

He moved Gregory XIII. to add to the body commissioned to revise the Vulgate, certain consulting theologians, chief among whom were Robert Bellarmine, Peter Morini, and Flaminius Nobilius. The design of Peretti was to correct first

*Felix Peretti was born in 1521, in a small village of the Marches of Ancona. His father was a vine-dresser, and being unable to rear the boy, gave him to a farmer, who set him to herd sheep and swine. While thus engaged, a Franciscan monk passed that way, who was at a loss to find the road to Ascoli. Felix directed him and accompanied him to the convent. The Franciscans, recognizing the natural endowments of the youth, instructed him. He entered the Order, and became an able philosopher and theologian. He was ordained priest in 1545, and soon after, was created doctor and appointed professor at Sienna. It was at this juncture that he took the name of Montaltus, by which he is sometimes known. He became famous as a preacher, was made consulter of the Inquisition and procurator-general of his Order. Pius V. made him general of his Order and then Cardinal. We are informed by Gregory Leti that during the pontificate of Gregory XIII. Peretti aspired to the Papal throne, and that to promote his design, he withdrew somewhat from public affairs, affected feeble health, and seemed intent only on preparing for death. On the death of Gregory XIII. there was a deadlock in the conclave, and they finally agreed on Card. Peretti and elected him Pope on the 24th of April, 1585. He took the name of Sixtus V. As soon as he was assured of his election, he threw away his cane, stood erect, and intoned the Te Deum in a voice that shook the chapel walls. Whether we accept this account or not, it is certainly true that often, when men are called to elect a man for an office which they themselves ambition, in their inability to place themselves in the coveted place, they will be disposed to favor the candidacy of one whose condition of health and period of