Illl'i

't t

t^

. '-.^

I pr

t ¦

1^

f

UN

»il5+ ¦^,' ,'- rif
1 "^ -ft,
tin IVKj^
"r.'
Vfc t - ' '
V
^ -
Tj
, I
.J •>''"' /
"-."¦.•- _ _ij« ^^
' ^
riMBa.v
¦a "
^^P
'4
p :
'.lii
¦"fcW''
; En*
j|ffi|jKl^t'
'3pEi§F,^fj? Pr
^f""f
1
IJ
•J^ ,J .'
''^"^^\fe"^
<.
^\ ^
1 '
1
rf. 1
11 ' .1
.'^^Tii
..^s*
¦BtojTaJJ lip- "^ —--'' "^
|i ¦ FB' it'
r ill H" >¦¦ I PSi* "¦'-
Ml -1. I »^ JlLliH
yALe univeRSity LiBRARy
Che gARVAn collection
Of
BOOKS on \nelAnb
estABLished in 1971 By
f RAncis p. 0ARVAn^ yALe 1897
In honoR of his pARcnts
pAtRiCK QARVAn
mARy CARROLL gARVAn

eioYNercocNi^A
Y M «A> N TO^C nOA ACOK«
K A lOA |A AC K A AOC
MiceocoY'^ori^eTA) KATAXApiNAAAAK ATA
O (|>eiAHHA Jo 13, 14, !*? Qause
Roin,-<4!.'4 E Cod VcU n 1209
n
rrefiAeTHCHMe
7^ceKeiNHCHa>|>*covAeico« a e
ovAeoif rreAoioieNOVNa3ov-s.e
OVXeiMHOTTHf Mark,xiii 32 CodAl^c
TH
TTCf I ACTHCHMef ACCKeiNH C
K ^ITHCCUf ^kcov^eicoiAeN
ovAeoii^rreAoieNTtuovrANtu
ovAeoYioceiMHomTHP Markxiii 32 Cod Bezce

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES;
IN A SERIES OF DISSER|ATIONS,
Critirnl, Kermnietilirnl, nnii ^itBtantaL
BY THE KEY. JOSEPH DIXON, D.D.,
PEOKES?OE OF SACEED SCBTPTTJEE AKD HEBBEW Cf THE EOTAt. COTXKGK OF 3T. PATEICK,
MATXOOTH.
*' E^o ipse qui loquebar.'' — Isaiae, Iii. fi.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.

DUBLIN:
JAMES DUFFY. 7, WELLINGTON QUAY.
MDCCCLII.

\^idA£

DUBLIN ;
PRINTED BY J. M. O'tCOLE,
13, IIAWKINS'-STHERT.

PKEFACE.

The CathoHc reader will readily .admit the necessity, which
existed, for some such work, as I have here ventured to oifer
to the Catholic public. So that, whatever apology may be re
quired of me, for the manner in which I have executed the task,
that I imposed upon myself, at least none shall be demanded
on the ground, of ray having engaged in a superfluous under
taking. Other countries have their CathoUc works — in the
language of the country — on these subjects, which are intro
ductory to the reading and study of the scripture: whereas,
with us, this field — as far as English works are concerned —
has been left almost entirely to Protestants. And, to show
that the Protestant press of these countries, has not been idle
in the department of literature of which we speak, it is suf
ficient to refer to that bulky compilation by the Rev. T. H.
Home, which has now gone through eight or nine editions. It
is at the same time, without doubt, a striking proof of the in
terest, which attaches to these subjects, that this work should
have found so many purchasers ; for, it is by no means such, as
would impress one, with a high idea of the abilities of the
compiler. No doubt, this author, who knows the pecuhar taste
of that class of readers, for whom he laboured, was fully aware,
that many defects would be passed over in a work, which con
tains such brilUant specimens of Protestant zeal as the following.
Treating of the proofs of the inspiration of scripture, in par
ticular of "the proof contained in the fulfilment of scripture
prophecies, he sets down, as one of the most convincing argu
ments under this head, the fulfilment in the person of the
Roman pontiff, of the apocalyptic prophecies respecting Anti-

PREFACE.

christ. Thus he writes : " We see the characters of the beast,
and the false prophet, and the harlot of Babylon, now ex
emplified in every particular, and in a city that is seated upon
seven mountains : so that, if the pontiff of Rome had sat for
his picture, a more accurate Hkeness could not have been
drawn." (Vol. 1, p. 328, seventh edition.) However Protestants
may rehsh this kind of writing, it is unnecessary to tell Catholic
readers, that they could not, without pain and disgust, seek
information in a work of this kind, even upon those subjects
that may be treated in an inoffensive style. And, indeed,
Protestant works upon theological subjects, must, we may say,
of necessity, be offensive to a Cathohc reader. For, should
they even be free from such stupid bigotry, as Home exhibits
in the passage just quoted, still the disregard which their
authors, as a matter of course, entertain for that authority which
Cathohcs revere, will break out occasionally in a form very
revolting to CathoUc feelings. In short, the state of the case
is this : we find on one hand, a great desire of knowledge of a
certain kind, whilst on the other hand, there is no proper means
provided, whereby this desire may be gratified. For, it is
laudable to seek knowledge of this sort ; but it is not laudable
to seek it in all sorts of books. Water from the pure fountain,
is delicious to the weary traveller; but it is better to endure
thirst, than to drink of the poisonous stream. Seeing, then,
that the want, which it is the object of the following work to
supply, is so very pressing, it is to be hoped, that a generous
pubHc will kindly overlook its imperfections. Of these I am
fully conscious. But lest I might be held responsible for defects,
which, in my opinion, are not fairly imputable to the work^ I
must declare, that my principal object has not been, to pro
vide a book for the leamed reader : because, his knowledge of
Latin, would enable him to draw fi-om other sources, the in
formation which this work supplies. But my principal aim has
been, to present to the intelligent CathoHc public generally, a
book, wherein they might read, in plain, and simple, and clear

PREFACE.

language, facts and doctrines highly mteresting to a Christian.
Hence, I have, for the most part, given the titles of works in
English; and, in general, wherever it was necessary to in
troduce a quotation in any other language, I have either sub
joined a translation of it, or embodied its meaning, substantially,
in the preceding or subsequent part of the context, in which it
is inserted. For the same reason, I have not, in the course of
the work, delayed to make erudite observations on my authorities.
Such observations break up, more or less, the continuity of a
work ; and how much soever they may contribute to' procure
for the wnter, the praise of learning, they are sure rather to repel,
than attract,! the general reader. At the same time, I should hope,
that the book will not be without its advantages, to the leamed
student also ; forasmuch as, he may find here in a condensed
form, information on several subjects, which it might require
much time and pains to collect from other sources.* Nor can it
be said, that the work contains no account of the authorities,
from which it has been compiled : for, the concluding dissertation
gives a fiiU account of these, and shows that there is no lack of
materials for a book of the kind. How these materials have
been used, it is for others to say.
In the first dissertation — on the canon of scripture — I have
not delayed, precisely, on the questions regarding the genuine
ness, integrity, and veracity of the scripture. In our CathoHc
schools at present, these questions fijrm an important part of the
theological treatise on the true Religion; and happily, the state
of our country does not render it necessary for me, to intrude
here upon the department of others. Neither have I dwelt upon
the history of the formation of the canon: because, where so
many subjects were to be discussed, and brevity was therefore
to be consulted, I thought it better to content myself with
setting forth clearly, that broad and sure foimdation — the
authority of the church — upon which, and upon which alone,
* Indeed the dissertation on Hermeneuiics, and some others, are intended iu a very
special manner for the benefit of the theological student.

PREFACE.

the canon of scripture, at least adequately taken, rests
immoveably. And, treating the question of the canon thus,
I did not think it advisable, to foUow the usual course, of
separating the question of inspiration from that of the canon.
These questions, from their very nature, are intimately united ;
and I trust that no obscurity upon the mind of the reader about
either question, wiH be the result of having treated them
conjointly. The reader will perceive, that in the concluding part of the
work, I have not confined myself to a notice of the authors,
who have written on the introduction to the scripture: but that,
without omitting these, I have devoted much more space to
the commentators on scripture. I flatter myself, that the
CathoHc reader will be grateful to me, for introducing him to so
many of our illustrious commentators. Having devoted so
many years of my life, to the reading of the works of these truly
great men — the CathoHc commentators — I could not but feel
happy, at having the opportunity, of, even thus briefly,
commemorating them ; the more particularly, when I see, how
modern English Protestant publications are never tired of
parading before the pubHc, flimsy sciolists, whom they have
dignified with the name of leamed expounders of the scriptures.
For the few -particulars of the biography of the writers on
scripture, which the limits of this work permitted me to insert,
I consulted Dupin, Simon, Moreri, Feller, Klein, and various
other sources ; and I feel confident, that I have said nothing,
either in praise or dispraise of any author, that shall not be
fiilly borne out by a reference to his works.
Some perhaps will find fault with the title of this work ; in
defence of which, I can only say, that it would be very hard to
find any title, which, without being turned somewhat from its
strict signification^ could be fitly used to designate all those
' miscellaneous treatises, that are comprised in an introduction to
the Bible.
I trust that the work is free from any typographical error

PREFACE. Vll
worth notice. There may be some slight mistakes in punctua
tion, which the intelligent reader will correct for himself
Finally, as I have devoted much time to the study of
theology, and have been particularly careful not to allow myself,
in the composition of this work, to be guided by the unsupported
assertion of any author, in whose orthodoxy I had not full
confidence, I therefore trust that nothing shall be found in this
book, that does not fully harmonize with the teaching of the
Catholic Church : but, if, notwithstanding all the pains which I
have taken, any expression should have unconsciously dropt
from me, which is not in perfect accordance with that teaching,
I hereby recall it ; and when such mistake shall be pointed out
to me, I shall do all in my power to repair it publicly.
JOSEPH DIXON,

St. Patkiok's College, Maynooth,
21s< May, 18.52.

CONTENTS OF VOL. I.

DISSERTATION I.
Page.
On the Canon of Scripture, ...... 1
Chapter I  Preliminary Observations — State of the question, ib.
Chapter II. — Nature and extent of Inspiration, . . 5
Chapter IIL — Sow is the inspiration of the Scriptures proved, 9
Chapter IV. — What are called the deMterocanonical portions of
the Old Testament, are properly placed on the
Canon of Scripture, and are of equal authority
withtheprotocanontcal parts of the Canon, . 26
Chapter V. — JReply to the objections of Protestants against our
Canon, ...... 33
DISSERTATIOX II.
Histoi-icalnoticeof the form of the Sacred Boohs, . . 49
Section I.  Of the Divisions and Marks of Distinction occurring
in the Scripture,  5S
DISSERTATION IH.
On the present state of the original texts of the Sacred Scripture, . 69
VOL. I. b

CONTENTS.

DISSERTATION IV. Page.
Of the Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible, . . . ¦ -77
Section I  Ontheantiquity.of the Hebrew Vowel Points.. ' . 80

DISSERTATION V.
Of the principal printed Editions of the HSrew Bible, . . 89
DISSERTATION VI.
0/ the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, . . 97
DISSERTATION VII.
Of the' Printed Editions of the Greek Testament, . . 108
DISSERTATION VIII.
Of the Ancient Versions of the Sacred Scriptures, . . . 121
Chapter I  Of the Targums, or Chaldaic Paraphrctses, . ib.
Chapter II. — Of the Samaritan Pentateuch, . . 125
And of the Samaritan Version of the Pen
tateuch, ...... 133
Chapter III  Of the Septuagint Version, . . .135
Chapter JV  Of the other Ancient Greek Versions, . . 152
Chapter V  Of the Latin Vulgate, . . . . 156
Chapter VI. — Of the Syriac Versions of the Scriptures, . 174
Chapter VII — Of the Egyptian Versions, . . . .180
Chapter VIII. — Of the Arabic Versions — the Ethiopian Ver
sion — the Persian Versions — and the Arme
nian Version., . . . . .183
Chapter IX  Of the Gothic and Sclavonic Versions, . . 189

CONTENTS. xi
DISSERTATION IX. Page.
Of the Principalmodern Versions of the Sacred Scripture, . 192
Chapter I. — Of the Modern Latin Versions, • . . . ib.
CuAPTEit II. — Of the English Versions, .... 197
Chapter III — Of the German and French Versions, , . 209
Chapter IV. — Of the Belgian, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese
Versions, . . . . . .214
Chapter V — Of the Polish, Bohemian, Sclavonic, Icelandic,
and other modern Versions, . . . 218
DISSERTATION X.
Of the reading of the Scriptures in the Vulgar Tongue, . . 221
DISSERTATION XI.
Of Biblical Cridcism,  252
Example, ......... 266
DISSERTATION XII.
Of Biblical Hermeneuiics, ....... 270
Chapter I. — Statement and division of the Subject. — History
of Biblical Hermeneuiics, . ... ib. '
Chapter II. — Of the various Senses of Scripture, . . 279
Chapter III. — Of the Hermeneutical Criteria of the Literal
Sense of Scripture, . , , , 289
Chapter IV  Of the Dogmatical Laws of Interpretation, . 316
Chapter V. — Criteria of the Mystical Sense, — On Facts or
Actions of a Symbolical character, thai are
related in Scripture, .... 323

coxtents.

Pacre.

Chapter VI. — ¦ Of the New Exegesis, or the Rationalistic Sys
tems of Hermeneuiics, .... 327
Chapter VII. — Some obsm-vations upon the foregoing chapter. —
Of the System of Hermeneuiics taught in the
New Testament, .... 335
Chapter VIII  On the manner of setting forth to others the
sense of the Scripture, .... 348
Example. — The Division of the Commandments. 356
DISSERTATION XIII.
Of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land; and of the prin
cipal countries about it, of which mention is made in the
Scripture, ,  368

DISSERTATIOI^ FIRST.

CHAPTEK I.
PEELIMINAKT OBSERVATIONS — STATE OF THE QUESTION.
Catholic theologians commonly treat of the inspiration
and the canon of scripture under distinct heads. We
shall take leave to follow a different plan ; for, hy
combining the notice of inspiration with that of the
canon, the object which we have in view in the following
dissertation, and which has been explained in the intro
duction, shaU be equally well attained, whilst unnecessary
repetitions shaU be avoided. And, in truth, the two
questions are most intimately connected ; for, what is
meant hy the canon of scripture? The Greek word
Kavwv signifies a rule or standard. The name is applied
to the book which has been declared by competent
authority to be inspired — ^that is the bible — because
this book is an authoritative rule or standard, although
not the sole rule, of faith and morals. And inasmuch
as the bible is made up of several distinct books, not all
written at the same time, hence, the word canon, as
applied to the scripture, has come to convey the peculiar
idea of a list or catalogue. The canon of scripture,
therefore, is that list or catalogue of inspired books
VOL. I. B

2 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
which has been made by competent authority. Any
book or part of a book, holding a place on it, is termed
canonical scripture. We see, then, from the very defini
tion of the canon, how intimately connected with it is
the question of inspiration.
All Catholics, of course, hold that the Christian canon
is truly set forth in the following statement of the
Council of Trent, sess. 4 : —
"The books of sacred scripture are the following: —
Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses: that is.
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy ;
Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of
Paralipomenon, of Esdras the first book, and the second
which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job,
the psaltery of David of a hundred and fifty psalms. Pro
verbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel,
Daniel, the twelve minor prophets, that is Osee, Joel,
Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sopho-
nias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias, two books of Macha-
bees, the first and second. Of the New Testament, the
four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke the
Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul, to the Romans, two
to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to
the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalo-
nians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the
Hebrews ; of Peter the Apostle, two epistles ; of John the
Apostle, three; of James the Apostle, one; of Jude the
Apostle, one; and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle."
The Council then proceeds to define and decree solemnly,
that the entire of these books, with all their parts, are to
be received as sacred and canonical.
Observe here, that according to a common manner
of speaking of our theologians, the books of scripture,

STATE OF THE QUESTION. 3
although all having now the same authority, are divided
into two classes — the protocanonical and deuterocanoni
cal; the protocanonical are those of whose authority
there was never any doubt entertained in the church; the
deuterocanonical are those of whose canonicalness some
in the church, at one period, entertained doubts. The
deuterocanonical portions of the scripture are the follow
ing: — In the Old Testament, the books of Esther, Tobias,
Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the two books of
Machabees, and some portions of the book of Daniel, viz. :
the history of Susanna, of Bel and the dragon, and the
Canticle of the Three Children; in the New Testament,
the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, Epistle of St.
James, Epistle of St. Jude, Second Epistle of St. Peter,
Second and Third Epistles of St. John, the Apocalypse;
and besides these books the last twelve verses of the
Gospel of St. Mark, and in the Gospel of St. Luke the
passage found in the 22nd chapter regarding the bloody
sweat of our Redeemer, and the angel coming to comfort
Him; in the Gospel of St. John, the history of the woman
taken in adultery, contained in the beginning of the 8th
chapter. Such are the deuterocanonical portions of the
scripture — of course the remainder of our canon comes
under the denomination of protocanonical. The canon
of scripture admitted by the Anglican church is given in
the sixth of the thirty-nine articles. The article says —
" In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand
those canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, of
whose authority was never any doubt in the church."
Then is added a list of the books of the Old Testament,
which the Anglican church receives as canonical. The
article continues — "And the other books (as Hierom
saith) the church doth read for example of life, and in
struction of manners; but yet it doth not apply them to
establish any doctrine. Such are these following." Here

4 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.
foUow the books not admitted by them into the canon,
all of which we admit, except the 3rd and 4th of Esdras,
and the prayer of Manasses. We find that the article
excludes from the canon all the deuterocanonical por
tions of the Old Testament with the exception of the
book of Esther, and that of this book also it excludes the
seven last chapters. As to the New Testament the
article says — " All the books of the New Testament as
they are commonly received, we do receive and account
them canonical." In the New Testament the Anglican
canon is the same as ours. The Westminster or Presby
terian confession receives the same books as the church
of England; but of those portions of the Old Testament
which it does not admit into the canon, it says — " The
books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine
inspiration, are no part of the canon of the scripture;
and therefore are of no authority in the church of God;
nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than
other human writings." — Westminster Confession, chap, i,
sect. 3. Consistently with what has been already said
in the introduction, our principal scope in the following
observations upon the canon, will be to vindicate the
Catholic church in the matter of admitting into the
canon those deuterocanonical parts of the Old Testa
ment which the Protestants of these countries exclude
from the rank of canonical scripture. The canon being
the approved catalogue of inspired books, we proceed, in
the first place, to dispose of the question of inspiration.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF INSPIRATION. 5
CHAPTER II.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INSPIRATION.
Inspiration, as understood in this matter, means, a
certain influence of the Divine Spirit upon the mind of a
writer, moving him to write, and so acting upon him whilst
he writes, that his work or writing is truly the word of
God, Inspiration does not always imply revelation, for,
inspiration extends even to those things which were
previously known to the writer.
As to the extent of inspiration, there have been, and
stiU are, various opinions even among Catholics: neither
are the Protestants, who admit the inspiration of scrip
ture, agreed among themselves as to its extent. The
very unsettled views of Protestants upon this matter shall
be referred to afterwards, in confirmation of the necessity
of having recourse to the Catholic method of proving
the inspiration of the scriptures. As to Catholics, we
may say that all are agreed thus far — that it cannot be
admitted that the sacred writers fell into any, the least,
mistake or error in their writings. We may well lay
this down as the teaching of all Catholic theologians,
for the singular opinion of Henry Holden (De Analy.
Fidei, 1 — 5,) as Father Perrone justly observes, would
lead to conclusions altogether foreign from the sense of the
Catholic church. — Perrone, de locis Theologicis, part, ii.
Cap, ii. No. 29. Holden was of opinion that inspira
tion did not secure the sacred writers from slight errors,
such as might proceed from a defect of memory in mat^
ters which did not regard doctrine. But of such an
opinion it is enough to say, in conformity with St.
Augustine's line of argument .in various ^hiQ,Q%-^(Epistol,
viii, adHieronymum andL, xi. contra Faustum,) — ^that if

6 NATURE AND EXTENT OF INSPIRATION.
it be once admitted that any error could proceed from
the sacred writers, what portion of scripture wiU be
secure from doubt and cavil ?* There is another opinion
which has been at one time advocated by certain Catholic
writers, which we also unhesitatingly reject, viz., that a
book, which in its origin was the production merely of
human industry, might become sacred scripture in con
sequence of some subsequent testimony of the Holy Spirit
to the effect that the book contained nothing false. Such
an opinion can neither be reconciled with the notions
which the faithful have always entertained regarding
sacred scripture, nor with the express and clear texts of
the fathers, as may be seen by the subsequent references
to some of the fathers contained in this dissertation.
Hence it is not wonderful that the divines of Louvain
and Doway, in the year 1588, should have condemned
the following proposition: — " Liber aliquis, qualis forte
est secundus Machabseorum humana industria sine assis-
tentia Spiritus Sancti scriptus, si Spiritus Sanctus postea
testetur ibi nihil esse falsum efficitur scriptura sacra."
Again, the opinion put forward by Cornelius a Lapide,
writing on the text of St. Paul to Timothy: " AU scrip
ture divinely inspired," &c. (2 Tim. iii. 16,) appears
still to fall short of what inspiration requires in the
writer of scripture. According to him, in those historical
portions of the sacred text in which the writer details
facts already known to him, either by his having been a
witness of them himself, or his having learned them from
the testimony of others — in all such portions of scripture,
according to this learned commentator, inspiration merely
requires a simple superintendence of the Spirit, by which
the writer is guarded against any mistake in the relation
of these facts. This opinion, we say, (although embraced
' It is but fair to state here, that some have denied, that Holden hitended to
convey the meaning which has been imputed to him, as to the natiu-e of inspiration.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF INSPIRATION. 7
by many,) falls short of what is required for inspiration:
for, in the first place, it would be difficult to understand
what better title, in this case, such portions of scripture
would have to the character of inspired writings than
the written decrees in matters of faith, made by general
councils: yet these decrees, although accurately expressing
divine truth, in consequence of the infallible assistance of
the Holy Ghost, are not considered to come under the
head of inspired writings. Again, it does not appear
that the language of the fathers, in reference to the
inspiration of the scriptures, can he at all reconcUed
with this opinion. We must here beg of the reader to
examine for himself the quotations from the fathers,
which we shall afterwards adduce when we come to the
proof of the doctrine of inspiration. He wUl find that
the language of the fathers perfectly harmonizes with
what has been the persuasion of the faithful at all times,
viz., that what we read in the scripture has been said by
the Holy Ghost, in the sense, that the whole subject
matter of the scriptures has been suggested by the Spirit,
even where the subject was already known to the writer.
And such is our opinion as to the extent of inspiration.
Of Qourse where the matter was already known to the
writer, a simple suggestion of what he should write was
sufficient; revelation being only required when there was
question of something previously unknown to him.
Many have considered even the verbal inspiration of
scripture clearly proved both by the manner in which
the holy fathers express themselves regarding inspira
tion, and by the way in which the scriptures have been
ever viewed in the church, viz., as containing the inspired
language of the Holy Ghost; nor does it appear that any
insuperable difficulty can be brought against this opinion.
Yet with St. Alphonsus Liguori — (Exposition of Council
of Trent on Session IV.,) we consider it more probable

8 NATURE AND EXTENT OF INSPIRATION.
that, generaUy speaking, the very words have not been
inspired. In the first place, neither the authority of the
scripture, nor its dignity as an inspired work, requires
of us to carry inspiration so far as this; neither, if we
carefully examine them, do the expressions of the fathers,
or the persuasion of the faithful, as to the nature of in
spiration, demand of us to admit the inspiration of the
very words. Indeed this opinion of ours, which is op
posed to the admission of verbal inspiration, appears
clearly to coincide with the doctrine of some of the
fathers at least, as St. Jerome, (Epist, ad Algas.,) and
St. Augustine, (Lib. ii. De consensu Evangelist, cap. xii.')
Moreover, in this opinion difficulties are removed, which
must appear very considerable if it be necessary to defend
verbal inspiration. Thus we see why the sacred writers
express themselves sometimes as persons would, who were
convinced of the necessity under which they lay of using
care and dUigence in the work they had undertaken.
We see why the author of the 2nd book of Machabees
could even ask pardon for his defects, meaning the defects
in his style of writing: " I will," he says, " here make an
end of my narration; which if I have done well, and as
it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not
so perfectly, it must be pardoned me." — 2 Machab. xv. 39.
Again, it is easily explained, in this opinion, why the
same sentiments and the same events are found expressed
or related by the different evangelists in different words.
But although, in our opinion, it is not necessary to
admit verbal inspiration, generally speaking, yet we must
hold that there was such a superintendence with regard
to the words, as would not permit the use of any words
other than those which would express accurately the
sentiment or fact that was to be committed to writing.
Again, it is more probable that in some places the very
words were inspired, particularly in some of the prophe-

HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED. 9
cies: thus Jeremias appears to have had the very words
suggested to him, when, as Baruch testifies, he dictated
to him (Baruch) as one reading out of a hook— Jeremias,
xxxvi. 18. But, above all, we are to admit this verbal
inspiration in those portions of the scripture in which
mysteries of faith are written; for here the doctrine itself
was, of its own nature, so obscure to the mind of the
writer, that there is a manifest incongruity in supposing
that the Holy Spirit would have left to him (the writer)
the selection of the words in which he was to express
that doctrine.

CHAPTER III.
HOW IS THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES PROVED.
Our object in the following chapter is not only — nor so
much — to prove the inspiration of the scripture against
those who deny it, but still more to probe the method of
proving inspiration, which they adopt who reject the
authority of the Catholic church; to see if this method
is sufficient to attain its object, or if it be not necessary
to abandon it, and adopt another at variance with their
own principles, and confirmatory of the doctrine of Catho
lics regarding tradition and the infallibility of the church.
When it is asked. How is the inspiration of scripture
proved f the question may be viewed in a twofold aspect.
First, it may mean," How is it proved that there is any book
in the world which has been written under that influence of
the Holy Spirit, which is called inspiration; and, secondly,
it may mean. How is it proved that a certain book in par
ticular, consisting of such and such component parts, has
been written under the influence of inspiration? And it is
to be observed that, whether we consider the question in

10 HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED.
one point of view or the other, the proof to be adduced
must be a sufficient one upon which to rest a doctrine
that is to be held as of faith, for such is the doctrine that
it is required to establish in either case.
First, then, if it be asked. How is it proved that there
is any book in the world which has been written under the
influence of inspiration? We admit that this question
presents comparatively but little difficulty. It does not
belong to our scope to enter upon it here; for, in truth,
it does not present the subject of our enquiry in a prac
tical point of view at all, and our only motive for draw
ing attention to it is, to guard the reader against imagin
ing that we are disposed to exaggerate the difficulties
that lie in the way of proving inspiration on Protestant
principles. We do admit that if the question were to be
treated in this abstract form, several, although not all,
of these difficulties would be removed. But the great
and practical question, which all who hold the inspiration
of the scriptures must entertain is this, How is it proved
that a certain book in particular, called the Bible, made up
of such and such component parts, is inspired? A satis
factory reply to this question will involve the proof of
the canon, as well as the proof of the inspiration, because
it will show how the inspiration of all the parts which go
to make up the Bible, is proved. But in examining the
method which Protestants follow in proving inspiration,
we shall consider it with reference to their own canon;
that is to say, we shall examine how far such or such
proofs of inspiration, advanced by Protestants, avail to
establish the inspiration of their own canon.
The Protestants of these countries admit with us the
great importance of this question. A high AngUcan
authority has thus expressed himself lately upon this
matter: — " To deny the inspiration of scripture is one
step towards the rejection of the gospel as a revelation

HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED. 11
from God. Against this fatal heresy 1 would earnestly
caution my younger brethren, as being one from which,
in the present state of the human mind, we have much
more to fear than from the encroachments of popery." *
We are here told, and truly, that to deny inspiration is
to embrace a fatal heresy. On the other hand, the
church of England, in her sixth article, declares that
" holy scripture containeth aU things necessary to salva
tion: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that
it should be believed as an article of faith or to be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation." We shall see just
now, how, by adhering to the doctrine of this article, any
one can be convicted of fatal heresy for denying the
inspiration of scripture.
But first, a word or two on the Presbyterian method
of proving inspiration. According to this class of Pro
testants, men may be moved to a high veneration of the
scriptures by the testimony of the church; they say,
moreover, that these scriptures show themselves forth as
the word of God by the heavenly nature of their subject
matter, the efficacy of their doctrine, majesty of their
style, agreement of their parts, scope of the whole, and
their other perfections; yet, they contend that the full
persuasion of the divine authority of the scripture must
proceed from the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the
heart of the Christian, and not from the testimony of man
or any church whatever. — Westminster Confession, chap, i.
sects. 4, 5. We see that according to this mode of proving
inspiration, the force of the proof is made to rest upon
the testimony of the Spirit in the heart of the Christian;
and they adduce the same proof for both inspiration and
• Extract from the Pastoral Charge of the Protestant Bishop of London, delivered
in St. Paul's Cathedral, 2nd November, 1850, and published in the Times of about
the same date.

12 HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED.
the canon. Now, whosoever would deny the inspiration
of scripture or the canonical authority of any of its parts,
would, most certainly, deny the existence of such testi
mony in the heart of the Christian as is here appealed to,
and thus the point at issue would remain as unsettled as it
was before. On this kind of proof the Protestant Burnet
observes: — "This is only an argument to him that feels
it, if it is one at aU; and, therefore, it proves nothing to
another person." — Burnefs Exposition of the XXXIX
Articles — on Article 6.
Anglicans generally rest their proof of this doctrine of
inspiration on the miracles and prophecies recorded in
scripture, and, in addition to these, on what are caUed
the internal evidences, viz., sublime doctrine, harmony of
parts, preservation, effects. Such is the proof set forth in
Home's Introduction. It is not unusual, however, with
Anglicans, to refer here to the tradition of the early
church; and this is done by those particularly, who com
bine together the proof of inspiration and that of the
canon of scripture, as Burnet, in the work above-men
tioned. We proceed now to prove, firstly — that mere scriptural
arguments are insufficient to establish the inspiration of
the bible; secondly — we shall then show how this doctrine
is fully and adequately proved.
Firstly. The question here is between Catholics and
such Protestants as admit the inspiration of the scrip
tures: consequently, it is admitted on both sides that the
scripture is the word of God; not only because it contains
truths revealed by God, but, because the writers of
scripture were so influenced by God in the writing of it,
that God is the principal author of the work or writing
which they have produced. The scripture, therefore, is
the word of God, not only because it contains divine
truth, but, because it was divinely written, or written

HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED. 13
under such an influence of God as we have just now
mentioned. This is a point most carefully to be kept in
view in this matter; for, a writing may contain divine
truth, and yet not be sacred scripture. This is a truth
so obvious that few wiU hesitate to admit it. It wiU be
rendered still more clear by an example: Let us sup
pose that Nicodemus, after returning to his house, had
faithfully committed to writing that discourse of our
Redeemer which is recorded in the third chapter of St.
John's Gospel, he would, in that case, have written
divine truth — sacred doctrine; but, in order that his
record of the discourse should have been moreover, sacred
scripture, as the record of this same discourse is in St.
John's Gospel, he should have had from God a commission
to write — he should have been moved and inspired to
commit to writing what he heard. Now, this commission
to write — this moving and inspiring to write — ^is not sup
posed in the case of Nicodemus. In a word, for sacred
scripture it is not enough that the matter which is
written be true, and such as can be traced to a divine
origin, but it is moreover necessary that the fact of such
matter being committed to writing, proceed from God as
the principal author of the writing.
Let us consider now the arguments for the inspiration,
which are brought from the scriptures themselves.
First. It is obvious on the face of the matter, that the
internal marks which are alleged — such as harmony of
parts, Sfc, will not prove the existence of a divine com
mission to write those books.
Secondly. The miracles and prophecies recorded in
scripture are appealed to. It is true that such miracles
and prophecies proceed from God, but consider how many
portions of the scripture relate neither miracles nor pro
phecies. Again, in order that miracles or prophecies
would prove any doctrine, they should be performed or

14 HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED.
uttered in such circumstances that to admit their truth
would involve the admission of the truth of the doctrine
in question, as, otherwise, there would be no necessary
connection between the performing of the miracle, for in
stance, and the establishing of the doctrine; now, whoever
wUl attentively examine the miracles and prophecies
recorded in scripture, shall perceive, that, with very few
exceptions, the truth of these would not be affected
by the admission that none of the writers of scripture
had received from God a commission to write or were in
spired writers.
Thirdly. Texts are quoted fromMoses,the royal psalmist,
and the prophets, containing declarations that God spoke
through them. In reply, it may be said that the expres
sions quoted from the books of Moses do not apply to
Genesis. Nor does David inform us in what number of
psalms God has spoken by him, and as to all such ex
pressions it may be asked, how do they prove that the
books in question were written under the influence of in
spiration ? We say nothing of the books of the Old Tes
tament of which the authors are unknown. Judges, Ruth,
third and fourth books of Kings, Job ; nor do we speak
of other books in which no such declarations as are here
referred to are to be found.
Fourthly. Many of those who undertake to prove the
inspiration of the scripture independently of the infallible
authority of the church, rest the proof of the inspiration
of the Old Testament principaUy on texts found in the
New. We do not reject this argument as altogether
destitute of weight ; but its perfect conclusiveness is
another question. In the way of such conclusiveness,
many difficulties may be raised. Thus — the text from
the New Testament which is always adduced in the first
place, by those with whom we are here contending, is taken
from the second epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, iii. 16,

HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED. 15
Tram jpa^rj eeoTrvevaTos, Kiii tti^eXiyuor tt/jos hiiaoKaXiav,
K, T. \, and the meaning which they put upon it is, " All
scripture is inspired of God, and is profitable," (Sfc, Now,
although this may be the meaning of the text, it is capable
of a different interpretation, viz.. All scripture, which is
inspired of God, is also profitable, ^c; audit is this latter
meaning which Grotius, no mean judge, considers the
true sense of the text. — Comment, in locum. This is also
the meaning assigned to it by our ancient Vulgate ver
sion ; according to which meaning the text does not say
what scripture is inspired of God, but merely that what
ever scripture is so inspired, is also profitable, &c. So
much for this text. Without dweUing in detaU upon the
other passages quoted from the New Testament by our
present adversaries, we may say, with an iUustrious
Catholic theologian, Perrone — De Locis Theologicis, pars
ii., cap, ii., No. 134, — that it is begging the question to
attempt to prove the inspiration of the Old Testament by
these texts, unless the divine authority of the testimonies
here referred to be first established. Thus it becomes
again necessary to fall back upon the constant faith of
the church.
We have already said that we are not disposed to deny
its proper value to the argument for the inspiration of
the Old, drawn from texts in the New Testament, The
strength of this argument is best seen in the following
mode of stating it — The Jews, in the time of our Redeemer
and his apostles, believed in the inspiration of their scrip
tures; but our Redeemer and the apostles have used repeated
expressions calculated to confirm the Jews in this belief:
therefore these scriptures are inspired. The major propo
sition we shall not dispute — and even if the whole argu
ment were conceded, the inspiration of the New Testament
would still remain to be proved. But let it be remem
bered that where this argument states that our Redeemer

16 HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED.
and his apostles used repeated expressions calculated to
confirm the Jews in the belief of the inspiration of their
scriptures, this assertion, according to Protestants, rests
exclusively upon texts of the New Testament ; the autho
rity of which texts they would find it very hard to
establish, without first proving the inspiration of the
New Testament.
Well, let us come now to the question of the inspira
tion of the New Testament. How is it to be established ?
Here the exclusively scriptural sources of proof altogether
fail us, as will be seen by examining each argument
which Protestants adduce. To refer to the sublime cha
racter of the doctrine, harmony of the parts, miracles
and prophecies therein recorded, wiU no more prove the
inspiration of the writers of the New Testament, than a
simUar mode of arguing would establish the inspiration
of the writers of the Old Testament, If texts of the New
Testament be appealed to, then we say — First, according
to what has been already more than once remarked, these
texts will not prove the inspiration of the New Testa
ment, unless their own divine authority be first conclu
sively established. Now as such texts are but few, and
by no means prominent, it is manifest that, as long as
the inspiration of the book is the point at issue, the
divine authority of these texts cannot be established con
clusively by those who reject the infallible authority of the
church. We say, secondly, that aU the texts of the New
Testament which are said to involve a promise of inspi
ration to write; such as those found in St. Matthew, x.
and in St. John, xiv. and xvi., have reference exclusively
to the apostles. Now aU the New Testament was not
written by apostles, nor is there any proof from the
scripture that those parts not written by apostles were
at least approved of by the apostles. Thus, whether we
speak of the Catholic canon or the Protestant canon of

HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED. 17
scripture, we find that mere scriptural arguments fall far
short of a full and adequate proof of the inspiration of
the sacred volume. It is not wonderful, then, that this
conclusion, to which we have arrived by a minute enquiry
into the premises, should be strongly insisted upon by
our Catholic theologians. See among others Melchior
Canus — De locis Theologicis, liber secundus, cap. 7, — Bel-
larmine — De verbo Dei non scripto, cap. iv. circa medium
' — and Milner — End of Religious Controversy, letter ix.
The proof of the inspiration of the scriptures is easy
on Catholic principles : and conformably to these princi
ples, we set forth the following as our proof of this doc- ,
trine. The church of Christ has always held and taught the
doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures :
But the church could not have held and taught this
doctrine, and erred in doing so :
Therefore, the scriptures are inspired.
The major proposition — that the church has always
held and taught this doctrine, can be easily established.
For the early period of the church's history, we need no
better witnesses of her belief and practice, than the holy
fathers. Out of the abundant testimonies bearing upon
the point in question, which might be adduced from
these, we shall cite the following : first, St. Clement, of
Rome, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, caUs the
scriptures holy, and says, that they are the oracles of the
Holy Ghost, which can contain nothing unjust, nothing
false ; and, quoting the scripture, he thus writes : " For
the Holy Spirit says, let not the wise man glory in his
wisdom." — Epistle first to Corinthians, sec. 13. Second,
St. Polycarp, in his epistle to the Ephesians, in like
manner calls the scriptures holy, and among them he
places the epistle of St.. Paul, addressed to themselves.
Third, St. Justin Martyr declares, that the words of the
VOL. I. c

18 HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED.
prophets are to be considered " not as the words of those
who were inspired, but of the Divine Word which moved
them." And he reckons Moses the first of the prophets,
and his writings he puts down as prophecy, — Apol, 1.
sec. 36, In his dialogue with Tryphon, he says of the
writers of scripture, that they spoke by the Divine Spirit
— were filled with the Holy Ghost — Oeiw irvevixan XaKrj-
ffai/rer, ayiw -TrXrjpwBevres Trvev/ndri, Fourth, St, Ire-
uEeus describes the scriptures as perfect, because the
word of God and his Spirit speaks in them, — Adversus
Haereses, lib. ii. cap. 47, Fifth, Clement of Alexandria
says, that the prophets were inspired, eix-nvevaQevre^, and
he says this on the occasion of quoting a testimony from
Proverbs, which proves that every part of the scripture
went by the name of prophecy. — Lib, 1, Stromatum xvii.
Sixth, Origen, in his 5th book against Celsus, says, that
Jews and Christians agree in this, " that the sacred books
were written by the Divine Spirit:" and in the preface
to his commentary on St, Luke, he says, that the four
evangelists wrote, being inspired by the Holy Ghost:
and again in the preface on St. Matthew, he says, that
they wrote with the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, awep
jowTos TOO aryiov Ylvev/xaros. Seventh, St. Cyprian, in
his book on the Unity of the Church, says, that the Holy
Spirit speaks by the Apostle Paul in his epistles. Eighth,
St. Athanasius says, " all our scripture, whether new or
old, has proceeded from divine inspiration." — Epist. to
Marcellin. on the interpretation of the Psalms, Ninth,
St. Augustine styles the scripture "the Epistle of the
Almighty to his creature." — Serm. 2 in Ps. xc. n. 1, and
Enarr. in Ps. cxlix. n. 5. Tenth, St. Gregory the Great,
speaking of the author of the book of Job, says, " who
wrote these things is a very superfluous question, since
it is faithfuUy believed that the Holy Ghost is the author
of the book. He therefore wrote these things, who

HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED. 19
dictated them to the writer. He wrote them, who was
the inspirer of the work, and who, by the voice of the
writer, transmitted these things to us," — (Praef. in Job,
cap. i.) It is unnecessary, in a matter so clear, to accu
mulate further individual testimonies. We might cite a
whole cloud of interpreters, aU of whom, by their manner
of interpreting — searching after a sacred meaning, not
alone in sentences, but in single words — sufficiently
manifest their views of the divine origin of the entire
scripture. And this is the public and unanimous sense
of the whole Catholic church, continued through aU sub
sequent ages down to our times; a.l1i.ough as far as it
.affirms that aM things in the scriptures were divinely
written— that is, proceeded from divine inspiration — it
has never been confirmed by a solemn definition of the
church. For, the Council of Trent, session 4th, in its
solemn decree on the scriptures and divine traditions,
manifestly abstracts from the question, whether besides
the salutary truth and discipline contained in the sacred
books the other things therein contained were divinely
either revealed or dictated — or in any manner divinely
written. The public and unanimous sense, however, of
the Catholic church attests the doctrine, that the entire
contents of the sacred books were written under the in
fluence of inspiration.
We come now to the minor proposition, viz., that the
church could not have held and taught this doctrine of
inspiration, and erred in doing so. The reason of this
is, that this sense of the Catholic church — which sense is
public and common as regards the divinity of the whole
scripture, both of the Old and New Testaments — could
not be false, unless the promise of Christ — ^to send his
Spirit for the guidance of his church — ^had failed. For,
it is abundantly proved by our theologians, passim, and
it is not only a prominent doctrine of tradition, but

20 HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED.
patent on the very face of the scriptures, that Christ
promised such assistance of the Holy Ghost to his church,
that the entire church should neither err itself at any
time, nor teach error in a matter of divine faith — either
by teaching anything contrary to dogmas divinely re
ceived, or by proposing any dogma as divinely received,
which was not such. Now the church would err in a
matter of faith, if it erred in proposing all the things
related in the scriptures — or any one of them — as in
spired by the Holy Ghost. For in this case it would
propose something to be believed on the authority of
God, which would not, in reality, have the sanction of
his authority. We see, then, how by means of the infal
libility of the church we have perfect security for the
truth of the tradition regarding the inspiration of the
entire scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament;
and thus, in conclusion, we arrive at a full and adequate
proof of the inspiration of the scriptures.
Such is our proof of the inspiration of the scriptures,
which rests upon the infallibility of the church as its
firm support. By an adequate proof of inspiration we
mean a proof which concludes for aU the parts of the
actual canon of scripture. As to the other arguments,
which are brought in support of this doctrine of inspira
tion, it is quite manifest on the very face of the question,
that whatever degree of weight one may attach to them,
he must ultimately have recourse to our proof, in order
to establish the inspiration of at least a great portion of
the New Testament. For how, without recurring to the
infallibUity of the church, could we be certain of the in
spiration of the Gospels of St, Mark and St, Luke, or of
the Acts of the Apostles ? Suppose that some one were
to say that the tradition of the ancients regarding the
inspiration of these books originated in an opinion on the
part of the pastors of the church, which they considered

HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED, 21
highly probable, but in which they were deceived ; there
would be no conclusive argument to overturn this asser
tion, if we abstracted from the infallibility of the church.
Hence we see, that Protestants, who hold the inspiration
of the New Testament, in admitting this doctrine, fall
into two manifest inconsistencies : 1st, by admitting, in a
matter of faith, what cannot be proved by the scriptures;
and 2nd, by admitting a point of doctrine, the proof of
which implies the admission of the church's infallibility.
Let us here observe, that the authority of the church —
upon which the proof of the inspiration of the scripture
must ultimately rest — determines for us also the com
ponent parts of that book which is inspired ; so that, the
true and proper proof of the inspiration of the bible is
based upon an authority, which, together with the in
spiration, proves and establishes the canon of scripture.
This shall appear more fully in the next chapter.
Before referring to the objections that are brought
against what has been said in proof of inspiration, we
shall treat briefly of the fate which this doctrine has
experienced among Protestants since the Reformation,
Reflection upon this point, will tend to confirm the
truth, that this doctrine is placed in safety only among
those who adhere to the infaUible authority of the
church. As the verbal inspiration — or the inspiration of
the very words of scripture — was the common theory in
the CathoHc schools in the sixteenth century, to this the
Protestants adhered firmly for a length of time. Grotius
was considered to have but lax notions on the venera
tion due to the scripture, because he rejected the hypo
thesis of a verbal inspiration in several parts of the
sacred volume. And, indeed, one might have expected
exalted views upon this matter, from those who professed
such an extraordinary veneration for the bible, as did
the Reformers. But soon did the principle of private

22 HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED,
judgment assert its right, to deal with this doctrine as it
pleased itself. Not only do the Unitarians and the
Anti-supernaturalists, or Rationalists, reject altogether
the hypothesis of that supernatural influence on the
writers of scripture, which is termed inspiration, but
even, those Protestants, who are ranked among the most
orthodox of the supematuralist class, such as the An
glicans, tolerate great laxity of opinion on this question.
Thus, Home, in a work so popular among Protestants
generally in these countries — although he is more careful
in his seventh edition, than in earlier ones of his In
troduction — speaks in a manner, which shows very un
defined and incorrect views upon this matter : — ^he says,
" that the authors of the historical books of the Old
Testament were occasionally inspired is certain, since
they frequently display an acquaintance with the counsels
and design of God, and often reveal his future dis
pensations in the clearest predictions. But though it is
evident that the sacred historians sometimes wrote under
the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, it does not
follow, that they derived from revelation the knowledge
of those things which might be coUected from the
common source of human intelligence. It is sufficient
to believe, that by the general superintendence of the
Holy Spirit, they were directed in the choice of their
materials, enlightened to judge of the truth and im
portance of those accounts, from which they borrowed
their information, and prevented from recording any
material error." — Home's Introduction to the Critical Study
of the Scriptures, Vol, l,p, 475, 7th Edition, But, upon
this question, as upon several others, we find the action
of that great principle of the Reformers — private judg
ment — more fully developed among the so-called theo
logians of Germany, than any where else. Even some
of the most esteemed of the Protestant theologians of that

HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED. 23
country — men who were not of the Rationalist or Anti-
supernaturalist class — have taken the most extraordinary
liberties with this question. As an instance, we may
refer to John David Michaelis, in his Introduction to the
New Testament, — Marsh's Translation, Vol, 1, p. 76,
Ml Edition, We deem it superfluous to quote the words
of Michaelis. He states fairly, however, in the place
here referred to, that " no Protestant can appeal on this
subject to the testimony of the church," Upon which
statement, his translator Marsh, observes in a note — '* It
is weU known, that the rejection of oral tradition, and the
infallibility of the church, is one of the characteristics of
Protestantism, But Augustine, in his book Contra
Epistolam Fundamenti, cap, 5, says, ' Ego vero Evan-
gelio non crederem nisi me commoveret ecclesice aucto-
ritas.'"*— Same Vol, of Marsh's Michaelis, p. 381. The
meaning of St. Augustine is, that it is upon the authority
of the church that he received the gospels, as the
genuine and inspired word of God; but it would puzzle
the reader to discover, why Marsh has put these words
of St. Augustine in juxta-position with his own assertion
respecting Protestantism, unless it was for the purpose
of showing that St, Augustine was not a Protestant.
If we pass on to the Rationalist school, which has ac
quired such notoriety in Germany, we shall find that
these reject altogether the idea of inspiration. Such has
been the fate of this question, in the country that makes
it its boast, that it was the first in these latter times, to
deny the authority of the church. The progress of
private judgment in Germany, on the inspiration of scrip
ture, until it ended in its total rejection, is accurately
described in the weU-knowu work of a Protestant writer,
the Rev. Hugh Js-mes Rose: he says, "The first step was
• That is, I would not ieUeve the gospel, did not the cmthority of the church move
me thereto.

24 HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED.
to renounce the unnecessary hypothesis of an inspiration,
extended to every word and letter in scripture. But
after proposing a variety of theories, as to the various
ranks and degrees of inspiration, after accepting for a
moment the belief that although the supposition of an
immediate supernatural agency at every instant is super
fluous, God, who had appointed the apostles to teach
Christianity, enabled them by the help of his Spirit to
teach it rightly, and to avoid error and falsehood; this
belief, too, was given up, and it was determined that all
notion of an immediate agency was to be rejected on some
strange physical and psychological grounds, that it was
repugnant to reason, that it was irreconcilable both with
the freedom of the writers and the quality of their works,
and, moreover, that it admitted of no imaginable proof.
When the declarations of scripture were urged on them,
the reply was, that no proof could be given that these
expressions were to be understood of a supernatural assist
ance, or, (to use the words of Henke, the Professor of
Divinity at Helmstadt,) in any higher- sense than the
expressions of Cicero as to the inspiration of the poets,
or those of QuintiUan respecting Plato." — Rose's State
of Protestantism in Germany, p. 106 and follow, second
edition. Here Mr, Rose gives in a note the objections
of Wegscheider against inspiration. We shaU not tran
scribe this mixture of impiety and absurdity: but let it
be observed, at the same time, that those who have
rejected the infaUible authority of the church, have de
prived themselves of the great argument by which such
objections are removed. And it is to furnish a confirma
tion of this truth that we have here pointed to the pro
gress of Protestant opinion on this question.
It remains now that we answer a few objections — of
which one is urged against our method of proof, the
others against our doctrine of inspiration.

HOW IS INSPIRATION PROVED. 25
First, we have to answer the trite objection which
Protestants urge against our method of proceeding in
this question. They say, that Catholics manifestly argue
here in a vicious circle, proving the divinity of the scrip
ture by the infallible authority of the church, and on the
other hand proving this infaUible authority of the church
from the divine attestation of the scripture.
Many answers may be given to this objection; the
foUowing one is abundantly sufficient: — In prpof of the
infallible authority of the judgment of the church in
matters of faith, we can appeal to the divine words of
Christ himself, recorded in the New Testament; but in
thus proving the infallible authority of the church, we
do not take into account that these words of Christ were
committed to writing from inspiration. We find these
words — or the texts which contain them — to be nume
rous, clear, prominent; and we simply view them as
recorded by the apostles in their character of honest and
veracious historians. We see, therefore, that there is
not a shadow of a vicious circle in this proceeding ; be
cause, in proving the infallible authority of the church,
we do not rest the proof in the least degree upon the
inspiration of the writers of the scripture, but we rest it
on the divine words of Christ, which we take as faith
fuUy recorded by honest men; and having thus arrived
at the infaUible authority of the church, we prove from
it that those books which we call the scriptures were
written through divine inspiration.
Consistently with our scope, we shall refer but briefly
to the objections that are brought against the doctrine of
inspiration. First, It is said that some things are related in scrip
ture which it was useless to mention.
We answer, with St, Alphonsus Lignori— Dogmatic
Work on the Council of Trent, on the 4ih session, — " that
although all the things that are contained in scripture

26 ON THE DEUTEROCANONICAL
are not equaUy useful, yet none of them is useless; for
they contribute to the integrity of the narrative or serve
for our instruction."
Secondly, It is said that some things are related as
uncertain, whereas, if the writers had been inspired, aU
doubts upon these matters would have been removed
from their minds.
To this we answer, that, in some cases, the Holy Ghost
has not been pleased to reveal certain circumstances, but
has suggested these things to the writer, in a manner
conformable to the common usage in relating such facts.
FinaUy, if things are related in the scripture, which
appear contrary to the Divine commands, then we shaU
always find, either that the apparent meaning is not the
real meaning of the passage, or, if it be, that the thing is
not related with approbation. In this latter case, the writer
is inspired merely to relate accurately what was said or
done, but the Holy Ghost does not give any approbation
to what was said or done. We may give as an example
the mistaken views of the friends of Job, detaUed in the
book of Job. As we do not defend the verbal inspiration,
we deem it superfluous to dweU upon objections which
have no force unless in that hypothesis.

CHAPTER IV.
WHAT ARE CALLED THE DEUTEROCANONICAL PORTIONS OF
THE OLD TESTAMENT ARE PROPERLY PLACED ON THE
CANON OF SCRIPTURE, AND ARE OF EQUAL AUTHORITY
WITH THE PROTOCANONICAL PARTS OF THE CANON.
Here again we appeal to the great argument by which
the inspiration of the scriptures is established ; that is, the
authority of the church ; which not only establishes the

PORTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 27
inspiration of the scriptures, but also determines and
estabUshes the canon of scripture. In other words, rest
ing upon that authority, we know, without the least
danger of error, what are the component parts of the
bible, that is to say, of that book whose inspiraticm we are
bound to admit. The canon set forth by the CouncU of
Trent, and which contains those portions of the Old Tes
tament here referred to — comes before us with aU the
authority of the church's teaching: therefore, that is the
true and proper canon of scripture. This councU was
(Ecumenical, and has been confirmed by the bishop of
Rome, the successor of him to whom it was said: " Feed
my Iambs — ^feed my sheep," — (John, xxi. 15, 16, 17,)
and there is nothing wanting to its decree on the canon,
to give it aU the solemnity of a dogma of faith. All
controversy, then, respecting the canon should cease; for
Christ promised infaUibiUty to his church — as is proved
by those scriptures which Protestants admit to be cano
nical, and by the clear testimony of tradition — and this
promise would faU if the church could propose to her
chUdren as the inspired word of God the uninspired
writings of men. What, in such a case, would become
of that saying of St. Augustine — (Contra Epistolam Fun
damenti,) — " but I would not beUeve the gospel, did not
the authority of the church move me thereto." Not that
the gospels and other books of sacred scripture have not
their authority from divine inspiration; but of the fact of
their being inspired the church is to inform us. St.
Irenseus, also TertuUian, and Clement of Alexandria,
appeal to the authority of the church to prove that there
are but four genuine gospels, and that the others
scattered about in their time, for the want of this autho
rity, were not to be received. We might, then, rest
satisfied with this proof of the canon from the authority
of the church; for it is enough for us to know that the

28 ON THE DEUTEROCANONICAL
church has authoritatively determined the canon, and
that she cannot have erred in doing so.
But we shall go farther. The church, in proposing
dogmas of faith, has never, since the time of the apostles,
based her decisions upon any new revelation from God,
Her function, in this solemn teaching, is to interpret the
voice of tradition; and this she does unerringly, in virtue
of the promises of her Divine Founder, Since, then, the
decree of Trent respecting the canon of scripture must
rest upon tradition, we shall examine briefly that tradi
tion, as it regards that part of our canon which Protes
tants reject. The result of this examination shall be to
confirm fully the church's decision — which we know, a
priori, must be correct.
As the enquiry here turns upon the deuterocanonical
parts of the Old Testament, we may remind the reader
that these have been described in the first chapter of this
dissertation. First, then, it is no slight evidence of the tradition in
favour of these books that we find each one of them
quoted repeatedly, as divine scripture, by the very early
fathers. The references to these numerous quotations
may be seen in the Prmloquia of Bonfrerius, republished
in the first volume of the Cursus Completus Sacrce Scrip
ture, by Abbe Migne, Paris, 1837.
Secondly. In the Latin church we find numerous mo
numents of a continued tradition in favour of the canoni
calness of these books. Catalogues of the sacred books
are given by Innocent I,, — (Epistle to Exuperius, anno
402,) — and by St, Augustine, — (Libro 2do. de Doctrina
Christiana, cap. 8, n. 13, anno 400,) These catalogues
agree perfectly with our canon: the only difference in
form being, that they include Baruch under the name of
Jeremias, The CouncU of Hyppo, held in 393; the third
Council of Carthage, held about the year 397; and a

PORTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 29
councU of seventy bishops, at Rome in 494, presided
over by Pope Gelasius — all agree with St. Augustine
and Innocent in their enumeration of the sacred books.
This third Council of Carthage was a national council of
Africa, approved of, at least, by St. Augustine, if he was
not present at it, and presided over by Aurelius, archr
bishop of Carthage. Cassiodorus, — (Lib, i, Divinarum
Lectionum,) — in the sixth century, and St. Isidore of
Seville, — (Lib, ^to. Etymologiarum, cap, Imo,,) — ^in the
early part of the seventh century, enumerate the books
of scripture as they are upon our canon. Again — in the
old Latin vulgate, the common version of the western
church before the time of St. Jerome — these books are
found interspersed among the other books; and when St.
Jerome's translation was adopted by the church, care
was taken that these books should not be disturbed from
the places which they had previously occupied in the
Latin bibles. There they continued — commented on
from time to time, like the other books — arranged in
their order in the Roman missal and breviary like the
others; untU — coming down to the time of Eugenius IV.,
we find this pope in his decree for the Armenians, setting
forth the canon of Trent one hundred years before the
objections of the Protestants were made against it.
Thirdly, We shall now pass to the Eastern churches.
Certainly the Greek church of these latter times places
these books in its canon, AU doubts upon this head
have been removed by the councUs of the modern Greek
church, which were held for the purpose of disclaiming
the doctrines of Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople,
who, in the early part of the seventeenth century, endea
voured to bring over the Greek church to a union with
the Calvinists, After the death of Cyril, his successor,
Parthenius, convened a council at Constantinople,
in 1642, in which CyrU and the Calvinists were

30 ON THE DEUTEROCANONICAL
condemned. Several of their errors are specified in the
various decrees of the councU; and in the decree last in
order they are condemned because they presumed to ex
punge from the scriptures those books which the church
in her synods had acknowledged as sacred, — See Harduin
Collectio Conciliorum, tom, asi. col. 175, Paris, 1715. The
aUusion of course is to those deuterocanonical books of
the Old Testament which the Calvinists held to be apo
cryphal. In the year 1672 another councU was held at
Jerusalem, against the same errors, under the presidency
of Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem. This councU
declares those books to be canonical — specifying them by
name, and condemns Cyril Lucar, because — to use the
words of the councU — he foolishly, ignorantly, or rather
malicioudy called them apocryphal. — Harduin, tom, xi,
col. 258. Again, in 1671, seven archbishops of the Greek
church drew up an attestation respecting the chief points
of controversy between their church and the Calvinists;
in this attestation they approve of the condemnation
of CyrU Lucar by the councU of Constantinople under Par
thenius; and in the fourteenth article they declare " that
the books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus,
Baruch, and the Machabees make part of the holy scrip
ture, and are not to be rejected as profane. This attes
tation was signed at Pera, 18th July, 1671, by Bartho
lomew of Heraclea, Jerom of Chalcedon, Methodius of
Pisidia, Metrophanes of Cyzicum, Anthony of Athens,
Joachim of Rhodes, Neophite of Nicomedia. The origi
nal of this attestation is preserved in that MS. coUection
in Paris, which contains the transactions of the Greek
church in reference to Cyril Lucar, and which belonged
formerly to the library of St. Germain des Pres. Such
has been the doctrine of the. Greek church from the
earliest times. The Greek bible in common use in that
church has always contained those books as they are

PORTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 31
found in the Latin vulgate. Indeed it was from this
Greek bible that the Latin vulgate took them. It is
weU known that the Nestorians and Eutychians or Jaco
bites do not differ from the Greek church respecting
the canon; and as these separated from Catholic faith
and unity so early as the fifth century, the authority of
that canon must have been then firmly estabUshed. In
a word, aU the other Christians of the East agree with
the Christians of the Greek church in the tradition
respecting the canon. In proof of this assertion, we
shaU quote the words of one who is universally admitted
to have been a most laborious critic, and 'eminently
qualified by his knowledge of the languages, versions of
the scripture, and theological writings of the Eastern
Christians to pronounce upon this subject — we mean the
Abbe Renaudot. The Abbe Migne has conferred a great
benefit on biblical literature, by publishing from the MSS.
in the royal library at Paris, a series of dissertations in
Latin, by Renaudot, on the Eastern versions of the scrip
ture. In one of these dissertations, which is on the
Arabic versions, Renaudot takes occasion to say: — "After
St. Jerome's version had become consecrated by the pub
lic use of the churches,  that other version, which
was according to the seventy interpreters, was not
immediately nor entirely cast aside. Not only did the
(Latin) church retain this latter version in the whole
book of Psalms, but she took from it the books which
were not extant in Hebrew. The Syrian church followed
the same discipline, even before the Syrian Christians
were broken up into three divisions by the Nestorian
and Jacobite heresies — a clear proof of a most ancient
discipline; since it survived the overthrow of the faith.
All the Syrians read the scriptures as they are found in
the translation made from the Hebrew at an early period;
they have, at the same time, after the example of the

32 ON THE DEUTEROCANONICAL
Latins, the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, the
Machabees, and some other parts of the scripture, which
are not found in the Hebrew copies." — Migne Cursus
Completus Sacrce Scripturce, tom, i,, col. 634, Paris, 1837.
And again, in this same dissertation on the Arabic ver
sions, Renaudot observes, after quoting two indexes or
lists of the books of scripture as they are arranged in
ancient Arabic bibles, " This index and the preceding
one show, that those who translated the Hebrew books
into Arabic, either from the original or from the ancient
Syriac version, did not so adhere to the Hebrew text as
to conclude that the books which were not extant in
Hebrew did not belong to the scripture, but that they
did the same as the Roman and aU the Latin churches,
as weU as the Alexandrian and Syrian churches, viz.,
acknowledged those same books as legitimate and divine
which were extant in Greek only; so far were they from
rejecting them as apocryphal — ^which the Protestants
have done, against the example and laws of the ancient
church. And this is the constant tradition of aU the
Eastern chui'ches; and all those books, as weU the books
on the canon of the Jews, as those that are placed on the
canon of the Catholic church, are cited by their theolo
gians in the Arabic translation," — Ibidem, col. 668,
669. At the council of Florence there was no discus
sion on the canon of scripture — a clear proof that the
Greek and Latin churches were then unanimous upon
this point. And when Eugenius IV, at that time, drew
up his decree for the instruction of the Armenians, in
which he specified the books of scripture exactly as they
were afterwards specified by the fathers of Trent, he
speaks in such a way as to show clearly that it was an
admitted and established truth in the church that all
those books are of equal authority. The foUowing are
the words with which he prefaces the canon: — " Since,

REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS OF PROTESTANTS. 33
by the inspiration of the same Spirit the holy men of
both testaments have spoken, whose books contained
under the foUowing titles the church receives and vene
rates." In a word, the canon was clearly determined by
the unanimous consent of the Eastern and Western
churches, centuries upon centuries before the councU of
Trent. No wonder, then, that it should have received
the unanimous sufeages of the fathers of that councU.
In replying to the objections against our canon, we shall
have occasion to develope more fuUy the testimony of
tradition on this question.
CHAPTER V.
REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS OF PROTESTANTS AGAINST
OUR CANON.
First Objection from the canon of the Jews. Second Ob
jection, from the manner in which some of the fathers
and of the early Christian vyriters speak of those books,
which ice call deuterocanonixiol.
The two objections here specified are the only ones that
are urged against the admission into the canon of the
deuterocanonical portions of the Old Testament consi
dered in their entirety. Many other difficulties are
brought against them by Protestants, founded upon their
several contents, a reply to which properly belongs to the
Special Introduction to the books of the Old Testament.
We shaU just observe here — respecting those difficulties
taken from the contents of the books — ^that they are
not more plausible than those which the infidels have
urged against the other books, taken from their contents.
Such objections, then, come with a bad grace from Pro
testants; and with a special inconsistency from AngU-
cans, for, if those difficulties were unanswerable, the
VOL. I. ^

34 REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS
books could not be proposed to be read for example of
life and instruction of manners. It is quite certain that
these difficulties are merely apparent, and vanish upon a
thorough examination of the text, as has been over and
over again demonstrated by Catholic commentators.
We come now to the two leading objections of Pro
testants, by each of which they imagine that they can
overturn at once the claim of all those books to be consi
dered canonical scripture. The first of these — taken
from the Hebrew canon — may be thus proposed: —
Objection, The Jews had a canon of scripture made
by Esdras and the great council — on it were not placed
any of the books excluded from the canon by Protestants.
Now the authority of the Jewish church ought to be
paramount on a question respecting the authority of the
books of the Old Testament, particularly with those who
admit the infallibUity of that church. That the Jews
did not place these books on the canon appears from the
testimony of the fathers, and of Josephus, who testifies
that these books were not held in the same esteem as the
others, because there had been no certain succession of
prophets from the time of Artaxerxes, that is, from the
time of Esdras.
Answer, — First, We admit that these books were not
on the canon of the Hebrew Jews, At the time of our
Redeemer's coming, and for some time previously, the
Jews were divided into two classes: first, the Hebrew
Jews — these were the Jews of Palestine; so called, be
cause they read the scripture in Hebrew in the syna
gogues, and spoke the Syro-Chaldaic, which was then
commonly caUed the Hebrew tongue. Besides these
there was another large class of Jews, known by the
name of HeUenists, They were the Jews of the disper
sion — and received the appellation of Hellenists from the
prevalence of the Greek language in the countries in

OF PROTESTANTS. 35
which they resided. They read the scriptures in the
Septuagint version — and they received those deuteroca
nonical books, as well as the other parts of scripture. It
was from the hands of the HeUenist Jews that the books
in question "passed into the possession of the church,*
Second, Let it be granted that Esdras, together with
the great council or important sanhedrin of his time
drew up a canon of scripture — yet this is not altogether
so clear, as Richard Simon shows in his Critical History
of the Old Testament, and Bergier in his Theological
Dictionary (word canon). And besides, the labours of
Esdras about the scripture must have concluded before
the books of Nehemias and Malachy could have been
added to the canon.
Third, We admit the infaUibiUty of the Jewish church
— yet this is by no means so certain as is the doctrine
of the infallibUity of the Christian church. In one word
— in order to place the objection in as strong a light as
an adversary can, with any show of reason, set it forth,
we do admit, for argument's sake, that an infallible
tribunal in the Jewish church, at, or about the time of
Esdras, drew up a canon of scripture, upon which all
these deuterocanonical books were omitted. After all,
what does this prove against us? Our proof of the
canon is based upon the tradition of the Christian
church, and hence our proof involves this truth, viz,,
that the doctrine of the inspiration of all these books
makes a part of the deposit of Christian faith communi
cated to the church by Christ and his apostles. Such
being the nature of the proof, there is nothing in the
objection here proposed calculated to disturb it. If our
adversaries could prove that the Jewish church pro
nounced that these books were not inspired, then indeed
• See more on the HeUenist Jews in the dissertation on the version of the 70.

36 REPLY TO THE OB.IECTIO\S
any one who admits — as I do — the infallibUity of that
church, would find himself in a dilemma; but this asser
tion they can by no means prove. No: the Hebrew
church merely did not formaUy declare in favour of their
inspiration. These books were held in high esteem by
aU the Jews. Thus, Josephus quotes from the book of
Ecclesiasticus, in his Apology against Appion, In the
Rabbinical writings these books are occasionaUy cited.
Maimonides, in his Preface on the Pentateuch, quotes a
book which he caUs the great icisdom, and what he in
troduces of it agrees with our book of Wisdom. — Richard
Simon, Histoire Critique du Vieux Testament, liv, i.,
chap. 8, p. 56, Rotterdam edition. In a word, it is clear
that no proof exists of the formal rejection of these books
by the Jewish church. Very probable reasons are
assigned for their omission on the Jewish canon, taken
from — the time of their appearing — the language in
which they were written — or the uncertainty about the
author. But this much is quite certain, that the objec
tion wUl have no weight unless our adversaries prove —
either that these books were formally rejected as unin
spired by the Jewish church; or that the want of a for
mal approval of them by the Jewish Church ought to be
considered a conclusive argument against their inspiration.
Now neither of these assertions admits of even a shadow
of proof The fathers show us what they thought of this
difficulty: admitting on one hand the omission of the
books on the Hebrew canon, but asserting on the other
the power of the church to place them on the canon.
To this effect are the words of St, Jerome, where he tells
us that he was informed that the councU of Nice had
reckoned the book of Judith in the number of the sacred
scriptures. " Hunc librum Synodus Nicoena in numero
sanctanim scripturarum legitur computasse." — Prcefatio
in Judith. It matters not here, as far as our argument

OF PROTESTANTS, 37
is concerned, whether or not St, Jerome reaUy beUeved
that the councU of Nice had pronounced on the canoni
calness of Judith, when he says legitur: it is enough for
us that he speaks in such a way as to show that he con
sidered the councU possessed of sufficient authority to
pronounce upon the point, and that, if it (Ud pronounce,
then the claim of Judith to be reckoned among the
sacred scriptures could be no longer contested. When St.
Augustine formed that coUection of extracts from the
sacred scriptures to which he gave the name of Speculum,
he did not pass over these books, as if they were not sacred
scripture, and the reason which he aUeges is, that the church
of Christ received them,although the Jews had not received
them. " Non sunt omittendi et hi Ubri quos quidem ante
Salvatoris adventum constat esse conscriptos; sed eos non
receptos a Judseis recepit tamen ejusdem Salvatoris eccle
sia," In another place St, Augustine thus expresses
himself: " From the rebuUding of the temple down to
Aristobulus, the computation of time is not found in the
holy scriptures which are caUed canonical, but elsewhere,
as in the books of the Machabees, which, although they
are not received by the Jews as canonical, are acknow
ledged as such by the church." — De civitate Dei, lib,
xviii. c, 36. This testimony of St, Augustine is very
remarkable — showing at once the faith of the church
respecting the book of Machabees, and furnishing a proof
of the distinction which the ancients, and after them
several writers of the middle ages, made between the
canon of the Jews and that of the church. For, this holy
doctor, after having said that the books of the Machabees
are not of the number of the canonical books, adds, two
lines after, that the church receives them as canonical,
although the Jews did not aUow them the same autho
rity. This distinction wiU serve to explain Origen, St,
Jerome, and some other ecclesiastical writers, who, in

38 REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS
giving the catalogue of the canonical books, have ex
cluded from it these books of the Machabees, and some of
the other deuterocanonical books, which, nevertheless,
they have cited as divine scripture in their commentaries
and other works. In fine, St. Isidore, of SevUle (Origin,
seu Etymolog, lib, vi), testifies that " though the church
of the Jews places these books among the Apocrypha, the
church of Christ teaches them, and honours them as
divine." It must be observed that it does not follow
from St. Isidore's using the word Apocrypha, that he was
of opinion that the Jewish church looked upon these
books as unworthy of credit, for the term has been fre
quently used to designate books or writings the authority
of which is not manifest, and such is the original signifi
cation of the word. And it is only in this latter sense
that these books were regarded as apocryphal by any
section of the Jews — as Richard Simon observes: " Les
Rabbins meme citent quelquefois ces livres: de sorte que
les Juifs ne les ont jamais rejettes entierement, mais Us
les ont seulement consideres comme des ouvrages Apo-
cryphes, c'est-a-dire, caches et inconnus, parce qu'Us n'a-
voient point ete publics par I'autorite du sanhedrin." —
Histoire Critique Du Vieux Testament, liv, i, chap, 8, p.
57, There stiU remains another objection, which is urged
by Protestants against the admission into the canon of
any of those deuterocanonical portions of the Old Testa
ment, and this is the difficulty upon which they princi
paUy insist. It may be thus set forth. If the doctrine
of the inspiration of these books had been delivered to
the church by Christ or his apostles, so many of the
fathers and ecclesiastical writers in the early times of
the church would not have excluded them from the
canon. But many of these have excluded them; there
fore, &c. In proof of the assertion that several of the

OF PROTESTANTS, 39
fathers and others in the primitive church doubted at
least of the inspiration of these books, and excluded
them from the canon — they refer to St, Athanasius in
his Synopsis of the Books of Scripture ; Origen, as
quoted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History ; MeUto,
Bishop of Sardis, quoted by the same historian, and
Eusebius himself ; St, Gregory Nazianzen, in his poem
on the Genuine Scriptures ; Rufinus, in his Exposition
of the Symbol ; St, John Damascen ; but above all the
ancients St. Jerome is appealed to, as having, say they,
fuUy expressed the Anglican view of this question, and
therefore they have introduced his words into the Angli
can Article on the Sacred Scriptures. They refer also
to the CouncU of Laodicea, held in the year 364. If we
add that a few more ancient writers are quoted by our
opponents, then aU wUl be said, which they can put for
ward in their appeal to tradition on the question of the
canon.* In reply we assert that a thorough examina
tion of the character of the (Ufficulty here put forward
will show, that it ought not to be aUowed to weigh even
for a moment against our proof of the canon. In the
first place let it be observed that not one ancient autho
rity has defended the Protestant canon precisely, but
every one whose testimony is cited in favour of that
canon, when giving the catalogue of canonical books,
either omits some portion of scripture, which Protestants
receive, or mention as canonical, some portion which
they reject. Thus the Council of Laodicea omits the
Apocalypse and includes Baruch. — Cabassutius Notitia
Ecclesiastica, Editio iv., Lugduni, p. 158. Melito
* Any one who wishes to see a.full list of the ancient authorities on both sides,
as well of those who appear to be against as of those who are in favom* of the canoni
calness of these books, may consult the Prwloqma of Bonfrerius, in the first volume of
the Cwms Completus Sacrce Scriptvrce, published by Abbe Migne. Bonfrerius treats
the question with a special reference to each of the deuterocanonical books in
particular.

40 REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS
omits Esther and mentions Wisdom. St, Athanasius
omits Esther whUst he asserts the inspiration of the His
tory of Susanna in the Book of Daniel, and so of the
others. Secondly. The ancient authorities cited by the
opponents of our canon have so explained themselves on
this subject as to prove that if they lived now they
would be clearly and explicitly with us — that is to say,
either by their manner of speaking, or by putting on
their canon some portion of scripture omitted on the
Hebrew canon, they show that they did not consider the
omission of a book on that Jewish canon to be conclu
sive against its inspiration, but that they considered it
to be the province of the church to direct us in this
matter. Thirdly, These doubts cannot be traced farther
back in the church than the time of MeUto, Bishop of
Sardis, about the year 160 or 170, He was the first to
refer to the Hebrew canon in this matter. Before his
time those very ancient writers, St. Barnabas, St,
Clement of Rome, St, Irenaeus, use these books Uke the
other scriptures, which shows what was the apostolic
tradition on the subject. Fourthly, It is exceedingly
probable that almost all those fathers and ancient Chris
tian writers, who excluded these books from the canon,
did not intend to throw the least doubt upon their in
spiration, but merely to make known to their readers
what were the books of the Old Testament, the canonical
authority of which was equaUy admitted by Jews and
Christians, and consequently what were the books from
which arguments might be drawn in the controversies
with the Jews, For, in truth, this appears to be the
only way of reconcUing these writers with themselves,
since we find these very writers, in their commentaries
and other works, quoting these books as scripture, in the
same way as they quote the other books. Thus Origen,
St, Athanasius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and even St.

OF PROTESTANTS. 41
Jerome. The passages of their works have been often
referred to, and may be seen in any of our theologians —
Bonfrerius, already mentioned, Kenrick {Tract, De Verbo
Dei Scripto-de Canone Scriptu), &c. Indeed, that the
ancient fathers have often quoted these books along with
the other scriptures is not denied even by Protestants.
Thus Cosin, in his Scholastical History of the Canon,
section 77, says, in express terms, " In the meanwhUe we
deny not, but that the ancient fathers have often cited
these controversed books, some under the name of divine
scriptures, and others under the title of prophetical writ
ings." And in other parts of his work, this determined
opponent of the Canon of Trent, does not deny the same
thing even of those fethers who are expressly quoted by
Protestants for their view of the canon. To be sure
Cosin contends, that although the fathers cited these
books as divine scriptures, and prophetical loritings, they
(Ud not cite them as inspired scripture. He appears to
think that this is quite clear, at least with regard to
those fathers, who, in other parts of their works, have
positively excluded these books from the canon. But
we reply, that in the fijst place respecting those fathers
who have cited the books as divine scriptures and pro
phetical writings, without any qualification either in the
place in which they are cited, or in any other part of
their writings, it is a most gratuitous and unwarrantable
assertion to make, that they did not intend to designate
inspired writings by such appeUations — ^the first being
the proper and usual name of the inspired writings ; the
second being one of the aptest names that could be used
to convey the idea of inspiration in those writings. And
seeing that those fathers, who, in other parts of their
works have excluded these books from the canon, have
nevertheless cited them by the same appeUations of
divine scriptui-es and prophetical writings, it ought to be

42 REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS
presumed that they, too, intended, by such names, to
designate inspired scripture ; and that, therefore, in ex-
clu(Ung the books from the canon, in other parts of their
works they did not intend to imply that they themselves
doubted of their inspiration, but that they had not been
placed upon the canon by the Jews ; and that, conse
quently, in arguing with the Jews, or with heretics, who
would be disposed to urge the authority of the Jews
against these books, they were not so avaUable as the
other books of the Old Testament, Just as now-a-days,
when Catholic theologians defend, against Protestants,
the practice of praying for the dead, from the 2nd book
of Machabees, where it is said, that " it is a holy and
wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may
be loosed from sins," — 2 Mac, xii, 46, — they fail not
to observe, that they do not argue from this as inspired
scripture — because the adversaries do not admit it for
such — but as an authentic record of the belief of the
Jewish church in the time of the Machabees, Yet these
Catholic theologians believe firmly in the inspiration of
the book of Machabees, What we have here said will
furnish a fair explanation of the meaning of Rufinus,
when he terms these books ecclesiastical. That is to say,
they are books which the church receives as inspired,
although they were not placed upon the canon of scrip
ture by several outside of the church, who admitted the
inspiration of the other books of the Old Testament,
The meaning of St, Jerome also becomes plain in those
words, quoted in the Anglican article — thus, " The
church does not apply these books to establish any doctrine."
Because so many of those, who were outside of the church,
to whom it was necessary to prove the church's doctrine,
did not admit the canonical authority of these books.
But the church, holding, as she does, the inspiration of
these books, reads them for her own children — the

OF PROTESTANTS. 43
domestics of the faith — who being already convinced of
the truth of aU the doctrine, which she teaches, have only
to seek in the scriptures example of life and instruction of
manners. Indeed, that we have here rightly explained
the meaning both of St. Jerome and Rufinus may be
clearly enough learned from themselves. Rufinus urged
it as a charge against St. Jerome, that he had " ventured
to piUage the deposit of the Holy Ghost, by taking away
from the divine iostrument, which the apostles deUvered
to the churches." He offers in proof of this charge his
treatment of the book of Daniel. He says, "For aU
that history of Susanna, which afforded an example of
chastity to the churches of God, was cut off by him and
cast aside. The Hvmn of the Three Youths, which is
sung in the church of God, has been altogether removed
from its place by him,"* To this charge St, Jerome
repUes, " As to what I state respecting the objections of
the Hebrews against the history of Susanna, and the
Hymn of the Three Youths  which are not found in
the Hebrew ; he who accuses me proves himself a foolish
calumniator. For it was not what I myself thought, but
what they are wont to say against us that I explained."t
K Rufinus had himself denied the rank of inspired scrip
ture to the deuterocanonical part of Daniel, he would
never have brought this charge against St Jerome ;

• He accuses St. Jerome of presnming " Tnstmmentnm divinum quod Apostoli
Ecdeais tradidenmt, et depoatmn Sancti Spiritus compilare  Nam onmis iHa
historia de Sosanna, quae castitatis exemplum praebebat Ecclesiis Dei, ab ipso abscissa
est et abjecta atqae posthabita. Trium pneromm hymnns qui maxime diebus solem-
nibns in Ecclesia Dei canitur ab isto e loco suo penitns erasns est." — Knfin. Apolog. in
HieromT, lib. 2do. In editione opemm St. Hieromy, per Miutianay, tom. iv. coL 446.
+ " Quod autem refero, quid adversus Snsannie historiam, et hymnom trium
puerorum  quae in volomine hebraico non habentor, Hebrsei soleant dicere ; qui
me eriminatur, stultum se sycophantam probat. Xon enim, quid ipse sentirem sed
quid aii contra nos dicere soleant expUcavi" — Liber secundus contra Rufinnm,
in editione, per Slartianay, operum St. Hieronymi, tom. iv., col. 431.

44 REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS
whilst St, Jerome, in his defence, gives us the key to the
understanding of what he said, apparently against that
part of the book, viz,, that he spoke the sentiments of
the Hebrews, not his own. Now Protestants admit that
as much difficulty Ues against this part of Daniel as
against any other portion of the Old Testament, which
they exclude from the canon. They wUl also easUy ad
mit that if the doubts of Rufinus and St, Jerome can be
explained away, so can the doubts of almost aU the other
ancient Christian writers, respecting these books.
Finally, Let it be admitted, however, that some in the
early ages of the church doubted of the inspiration of
these books — that even aU those who are cited by the
opponents of our canon doubted, stUl the belief in their
inspiration was at all times general in the church, so
that when the time came round to settle the question of
the canon ultimately, by a solemn definition, the church
could no more mistake the meaning of tradition on this
subject than she could on other matters, which she has
defined, and even according to Protestants, properly de
fined, the doubts of some in former times notwithstand
ing. That the belief in the inspiration of these books
was at all times general in the church, appears from our
proof of the Catholic canon. If the church could be
deterred, by the doubts of some, from defining that a cer
tain doctrine belonged to the deposit of faith, and was
handed down by tradition from the time of her founda
tion by Christ and his apostles, then she would never
have defined that baptism conferred by heretics is valid,
seeing the opposition which that doctrine met with, on
the part of some, in the days of St. Cyprian, But what
is more to the purpose here, the church had as much
reason to place these books on the canon as she had to
put the deuterocanonical parts of the New Testament on
that canon. Protestants are very inconsistent in receiv-

OF PROTESTANTS. 45
ing the entire of our New Testament, and objecting to
those deuterocanonical parts of the Old. In the first
place, the sixth article of the Anglican church contra
dicts itself, for it says, in one place, " In the name of the
holy scripture we do understand those canonical books of
the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never
any doubt in the church." And in a foUowing part it
says, " AU the books of the New Testament, as they are
commonly received, we do receive, and account them
canonical." Now, it is beyond aU question that about
the deuterocanonical parts of the New Testament, which
are received by Protestants, there were some doubts in
the early ages of the church, and doubts as widely spread
at least as those which regarded the parts of the Old
Testament under discussion. Take, for example, the
Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews in the time of St.
Jerome, and the Apocalypse in the time of the Council
of Laodicea, which was held in the fourth centuiy.
And are not our adversaries very inconsistent in ad
mitting one class of deuterocanonical books and rejecting
the other ? It is to no purpose to say that the authority
of the Hebrew canon is opposed to the books which they
reject, for we have (Usposed of that (Ufficulty afready, and
the whole question here turns upon the testimony of
Christian traclition, which favoxu's one class as much as
the other. We receive into the canon the Epistle of St.
Paul to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse, and aU the other
deuterocanonical parts of the New Testament ; and this
we do, influenced precisely by Christian tradition and
the authority of the church, there being no other grounds
which would justify us in looking on them as sacred
scripture ; but then we do not disparage our authorities
by accepting their testimony in favour of this class of
books in the New Testament, and rejecting their testi
mony equally given in favour of the deuterocanonical

46 REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS
parts of the Old Testament. The doubts of some have
never interrupted the general current of tradition in
favour of our canon. The proof of this, which we have
already adduced, shall acquire an additional force in our
eyes, if we consider the nature of the testimony, which
every witness to our canon, through all past ages, gives.
Every council and every father and writer that has
placed the deuterocanonical books upon the canon, must
have been fully persuaded of their inspiration. Every
one sees how injuriously towards the other scriptures
they would act, who would raise to a level with them a
book or writing of whose inspiration they entertained
any doubt. How, then, were they persuaded of their in
spiration ? By being persuaded that such was the tradi
tion of the church. For it was not in consequence of
the impressions which they themselves conceived from
reading the books, nor was it resting upon any special
revelation, which they received on the subject, that these
believed in their inspiration. Hence each of our testi
monies embodies in itself numerous other testimonies.
This foUows from the way in which they arrived at the
conclusion that these books were inspired — ^that way, I
repeat it, being the study of the church's tradition on the
subject — a way so necessary that the first Council of
Toledo, held about the year 400, among other anathe-
matisms, published the foUowing, " If any one shall say
or believe that other scriptures besides those which the
Catholic church receives are to be held in authority, or
to be venerated, let him be anathema."*
To sum up all in one word, the decision of the church,
whUst it brings to the Catholic the fuUest conviction as
to what he ought to believe to be canonical scripture, is,
* " Si quis dixerit vel crediderit alias scripturas, praster quas Ecclesia Catholica
recipit, in auctoritate habendas, vel esse venerandas, anathema sit." — Labbe, tom. ii.,
col. 1476. Venice edition, 1728.

OF PROTESTANTS. 47
at the same time, seen to rest upon arguments which no
effort of its opponents can overthrow.
It would be strange, on the other hand, if those who
have rejected the church's authority should foUow any
uniform rule in pronouncing on the canon of scripture ;
and, in point of fact, Protestants have not exhibited
greater unanimity or uniformity of belief on this matter
than on several others. Thus, they have not always
agreed in receiving the deuterocanonical parts of the
New Testament. Luther held the Epistle of St. James
in no estimation, characterising it as an epistle of straw.
Scarcely more favourable was the opinion which he enter
tained of the Apocalypse, as appears from the preface to
his German translation of this book. Nor did Luther
stand alone in these views. We find MichaeUs justifying
his own doubts about the inspiration of the Apocalypse,
by a reference to Luther. " If Luther," he says, " the
author of our reformation, thought and acted in this
manner, and the (Uvines of the two last centuries stUl
continued, without incurring the charge of heresy (ob
serve), to print Luther's preface to the Apocalypse, in
the ecUtions of the German bible, of which they had the
superintendence, surely no one of the present age ought
to censure a writer for the avowal of similar doubts." —
Marsh's Translation of Michaelis' Introduction to the
New Testament. 4ih edition, vol. iv, p. 459. The
Rationalists, those truly consistent Protestants, who have
discussed the question of inspiration with so much irre
verence, have treated with equal disregard the Christian
tra(Ution respecting the canon, even that part of the
canon which the Protestants of these countries receive.
Here we again quote from Mr. Rose, who says, " First,
I may mention that by many of those who undertook to
inquire into the authenticity and genuineness of the books
of scripture, it was determined that a great part of these

48 REPLY TO THE OB.TECTIONS, ETC.
books were spurious, suppositious, and interpolated ; that
the gospels did not proceed from the authors whose
names they bore, or at least that those authors had little
concern in them, and that many of the epistles likewise
were spurious." — State of Protestantism in Germany.
2nd edition, ^.99, This is what comes of detaching
one's-seU from the anchor of the church's authority, and
putting to sea under the guidance of private judgment,
to be driven about by every wind of doctrine. —
Ephesians, iv., 14.

DISSERTATION IL

HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE FORM OF THE SACRED BOOKS
— ^DIVISIONS AND MARKS OF DISTINCTION OCCURRING IN
THEM,
We purpose, in this (Ussertation, to notice many things,
which- it wiU be usefid to know before coming to the
question, respecting the present state of the original
texts. And, indeed, what knowledge can be either
useless or uninteresting to the Christian, that has for
its object anything relating to the sacred books ?
First, To decide in what language each book of the
scriptures was written, belongs properly to the special
introduction to the several books. For the present let it
suffice to state, that the foUowing languages, or idioms,
embrace aU that have been used in the original com
position of the bible, viz., Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syro-Chal
daic, and Greek. Of the Old Testament, the greater
part was written in Hebrew. Chaldaic was used in the
foUowing parts : — in the eleventh verse of the tenth
chapter of the prophet Jeremias, in a great part of
Daniel and Esdras, and in the books of Tobias and
Judith throughout. In Greek were written originally
the second book of Machabees, and the book of Wisdom.
Almost aU the New Testament was written in Greek.
Syro-Chaldaic was the original of the gospel of St.
Matthew, and, according to many, of the epistle of St.
Paul to the Hebrews.
Second. The alphabetical characters used by the sacred
writers were, for the books written in Hebrew — at least
VOL. I. E

50 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE FORM
those written before the Babylonian captivity — not the
characters found in our present Hebrew bibles, which
are in truth the Chaldaic characters, but such as are
now to be found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, similar to
the old Phenician character. It has been commonly
supposed, that the characters used in our Hebrew bibles
now, were substituted for the others immediately after
the captivity, when the ancient Hebrew ceased to be
spoken by the Jews. Modern critics, however, deny
that this could have been the case, inasmuch as the old
Hebrew characters have been used upon coins several
centuries after the return from captivity; and they there
fore contend that the substitution of the one character
for the other was gradually introduced, since, indeed,
both the gradual departure from the old Hebrew, and
the gradual approximation to the Chaldaic character,
appear to be clearly marked in the inscriptions on these
coins, as they succeed each other in point of time.
The Chaldaic character is weU known. As we have
observed, it supplanted the Hebrew characters in those
books which were originaUy written in Hebrew. It was
used also in Syro-Chaldaic writing. This latter dialect,
which was in common use among the Jews of Palestine
when Christ came, and for a considerable period before,
varied from the Chaldaic by the admixture of several
Syriac words.
In reference to the Greek scriptures, it is to be ob
served that Greek manuscripts were usuaUy written in
capital or uncial letters down to the seventh century of
the Christian era, and, for the most part, even to the
eighth. It was towards the close of the tenth century
that the smaU or cursive letters were generally adopted.
To notice the various languages into which the scrip
tures have been translated, belongs to another place.
Third, As to the material, upon which the inspired

OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 51
word was first inscribed, or which was afl;erwards used
in copjdng that word, we have to observe that such writ
ing material must have been different at different times.
Perhaps, in the history of writing, the most ancient prac
tice was to carve the letters on stone. Josephus informs
us that the descendants of Seth — ^knowing that a general
destruction of the things on the face of the earth was
twice to be expected, first by water and then by fire,
wrote their discoveries in astronomy on two pUlars; one
of stone, to withstand the water, the other of brick, to
resist the fire. — (Antiq. i. 3.) The law was deUvered
to Moses on mount Sinai written on tables of stone.
Although tablets of stone or any such material could
never have been conveniently used in the formation of a
book as we understand the word, yet writing upon stone
and brick was, as early as the time of Moses, carried to
an extent which modern discoveries have shown to be
perfectly surprising. We aUude to the discoveries amid
the monuments of Egypt, Babylonia, Persepolis, and
Assyria. When wood and other more pUable but less
durable materials came into use, the practice of writing
upon stone or brick by no means ceased. These durable
materials were particularly used for the writing of laws,
treaties, alliances, and the pubUc archives of kingdoms.
One of the most recent discoveries of Mr. Layard amid
the mins at Kouyunjik (the ancient Ninive), was a
large room fiUed with what appeared to be the archives
of the Assyrian empire, ranged in successive tablets of
teri-a cotta, the writings being quite perfect. They were
pUed in huge heaps from the floor to the ceUing. Plates,
or tablets of lead and copper, were also used for such
pubUc records as we here sjpeak of Down to a compara
tively late period, it was a frequent custom to inscribe trea
ties and alliances on copper. — (See 2 Mach, xiv.) Tablets
of lead afforded greater facUity for carving the letters,

52 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE FORM
and were, no doubt, frequently used in those ancient times.
We are told that the works of Hesiod were first engraved
on plates of lead, and laid up in the temple of the ]Muses
in BcEotia. — (See Calmet, Dissertation sur la Matiere et
la Forme deles Livres Anciens.) Job speaks of a book
formed of plates or tablets of lead. " Who will grant me
that my words may be written ? Who will grant me
that they may be marked down in a book with an iron
pen and in a plate of lead, or else be graven with an
instrument in flint-stone ?" — Job, xix. 23, 24. One is
forcibly reminded of those words of Job, when he reads
of the vast number of inscriptions graven upon the slabs
of sUicious basalt, that in recent times have been dug up
from the ruins of the ancient Ninive. Wood, by reason
of the comparatively great facility which it offered for
carving or engraving, must have been much used as a
writing material in those early times. And for several
ages after other materials of a pliable kind became abun
dant, wooden tablets continued to be much used, parti
cularly in the ordinary transactions of life. For the
greater facility of writing, it was usual to overlay these
tablets with wax. Here the graving instrument or iron
pen mentioned by holy Job — afterwards called Stylus by
the Romans — ^had less difficulty in inscribing the letters,
and moreover it was easy to efface what was written, by
means of the flat top of the stylus. It was on a tablet
of this kind that the father of the Baptist wrote the
name which his son should be called, — (Luke, i. 63,)
The weU-known use of these tablets among the Hebrews,
iUustrates several expressions familiar to the sacred
volume, such as " tablets of the heart," and many others.
There is one very remarkable aUusion to this system of
writing, in the fourth book of Kings (xxi, 13), where
God says of Jerusalem, as the vulgate renders it, "Delens
vertam et ducam crebrius stylum super faciem ejus,"

OF THE SACRED BOOKS, 53
" Blotting it out, I shaU turn the pen and di-aw it fre
quently over its (the city's) face," The letters were at
fii-st written in Unes running from the right hand to the
left, and this manner of writing obtained among the
Hebrews, Egyptians, Assyrians, Phenicians, and Arabians;
and from some very old inscriptions, it appears to have
prevaUed at one period among the Greeks also. After
wards the Greeks adopted the method of making the
lines from the right to the left, and then from the
left to the right again, which manner of writing was
caUed by them hoitstroj^hedon, from its simUarity to the
way in which fuiTows are made by oxen in ploughing.
It was soon discovered, however, by the Greeks, that
the motion of the hand fi-om left to right was more
commocUous, and thenceforward the method of writing
in that direction prevaUed among them, and throughout
Europe. To form a book of wooden tablets, a number
of them were connected together by means of a string,
or in some such way. A book thus formed, was called
by the Latins caudex, or cvde.v, from its resemblance
tojthe stump, or stock of a tree.
When Calmet wrote his dissertation on the matter
and fm'm of the books of the ancients, it was commonly
believed, that Closes, in the Pentateuch, wherever he
mentions book — ^in Hebrew sepher — always designates
a tablet, or collection of tablets, such as we have now
described, and never any pUable material, such as would
be used in forming the volume, or roU, caUed in Hebrew
megiUah, a word that never occurs in the books of
Moses. But later investigations have led to the aban
donment of this opinion. Hengstenberg, in his " Dis
sertation on the genuineness of the Pentateuch," in the
chapter " on the genuineness of the Pentateuch, in re
lation to the art of writing among the Hebrews," shows
that sepher may weU designate a pliable matter — such

54 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE FORM
as the papyrus, byssus, skins of animals — and he shows,
that there is no reason for supposing that these, con
sidered as writing-materials, do not date as far back
as the time of Moses, In point of fact, amidst the
momuments of ancient Egypt, documents have been
found written on the papyrus, or byblus, as far back, at
least, as the days of the Hebrew legislator.
For the volume, or roll-form, of books, divers materials
have been used, beginning, perhaps, with the leaves
of trees, as the most simple. Thus, VirgU represents
the sybil as inscribing her prophecies on leaves. The
skins of animals were easily prepared for the purpose
of which we speak, and, consequently, must have been
in early use, as a writing material. So was the inner
bark of certain trees ; and hence it is that liber, which
signifies the inner bark of a tree, came to designate a
book among the Romans, Linen, or byssus, was used
as a writing material by the Egyptians from a very
early period, as was also the papyrus, or byblus — a
kind of bulrush, which' grew chiefly in Egypt, about the
banks of the Nile, It has been stated by many, that
the use of the papyrus commenced about the time of
Alexander the Great (about 340 years before the Chris
tian era;) but, as it has been already observed, recent
discoveries have rendered this opinion altogether un
tenable, PUuy, from whom the statement was first
borrowed, is now admitted to have erred on the point,
unless he be understood as speaking of a certain im
proved mode, of preparing the papyrus, introduced in the
time of Alexander, It continued to be used down to
the tenth century even in Europe, although very rarely
for a considerable time before that. Parchment, and
vellum, which is but a finer kind of it, was introduced
about 250 years before Christ, according to the common
opinion, which ascribes its invention to Eumenes, King

OF THE SACRED BOOKS, 55
of Pergamos. From Pergamos, the Romans gave it
the name of pergamena. Paper made from cotton, has
been in use, it is supposed, from the tenth century, but
very generally from the twelfth. Paper, manufactured
from linen, has been in use about 500 years among us:
it is said, that it was used at a much earlier period by
the Chinese. To a book formed of some pUable material,
the name volume was given, a name that stiU continues
to be applied to books, notwithstanding the shape which
they have, for a long time past, assumed, so (Ufferent
from what was at first designated by the volume. The
volume, properly so caUed, was rolled on a stick, the
end of which, from its central position, was caUed um
bilicus (the ,navel) by the Romans. The conclusion of
the writing was the first part attached to the stick, on
which the volume was roUed, that thus any one taking
it up, might first unrol the beginning of the book; and
hence, when one had arrived at that part of the volume,
which was first attached, or to be attached to the stick,
he had finished his work either in reading or wiiting
the volume. This explains that figurative expression
which was in use among the Romans, ad umbUicum ad-
ducere,SiS in Horace (Epidon Liber. Od. 14.) — "Inceptos,
olim promissum carmen, iambos, ad umbUicum adducere."
When a work was too large to be conveniently made
into one roU, then it was formed into separate roUs,
styled volumes, first, second, &c.. and this mode of
speaking stUI continues, although tome — ^which means
a division — ^is used sometimes in the same sense as
volume, but chiefly in its Latin form, by those who
write in Latin. The volume had the writing generaUy
but on one side, which the Romans caUed pagina. In
some printed books, we stiU find aUusions to the ancient
volume in such words as the foUowing, at the end of
certain divisions: explicit liber primus, liber secundus,

56 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE FORM
^c, which refer to the unfolding, or explication, of the
A^olume. For all such materials as were adapted to the
volume-form, it was not the stylus that was used to
inscribe the letters, but the reed (calamus) with ink.
With such inks as are in use among us, quiU-pens have
been found to answer this purpose better than the reed.
Now, turning to the scripture, we find the name volume
(megiUah, not sepher,) occurring for the first time in
the Book of Psalms, where we read in our vulgate — " In
capite Ubri scriptum est de me" — (in the head of the
book it is written of me); according to the Hebrew it
would be, " in volumine Ubri" — (in the volume of the
book); and thus, in Jeremias, Esdras, &g., we find the
word megiUah, which properly designates the volume,
repeatedly occurring. But though the word megiUah
does not occur in the more ancient books, yet, according
to what has been observed already, the volume-form of
book may have been in use from the earliest times. The
name sepher does not exclude it; and, indeed, St. Jerome
has often rendered this word by volumen. This form
of books will explain many expressions of the sacred
scripture; thus, for example, in the Apocalypse (vi, 14,)
it is said, " the heavens receded like a book rolled up."
In St. Luke (iv. 17, 20,) we see the form of the books,
in our Redeemer's time, and the manner of using them
in the synagogue, clearly pointed out : " And the book
of Isaias' the prophet was delivered unto him, and as he
unfolded the book, he found the place where it was
written  and when he 'h.ii^ folded the book, he restored
it to the minister." The Jews still read the scriptures
in the synagogues from the roll — the megiUah. St,
Paul, in his second epistle to Timothy (iv, 13,) marks
the distinction between the parchment-volumes, and
those made of papyrus : " Bring Avith thee," he says,
'• the books, but especially the parchments." Ordinarily,

OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 57
the writing was only on the inner surface, or page, of
the volume, A volume written over on both sides, was
unusual. Of such a volume the prophet Ezekiel (xi, 9,)
and St. John in the Apocalypse, (v. 1,) speak, " written
over on the inside and outside." In the prophet Jere
mias, we have mention made of ink, where St. Jerome
translates " ego scribebam volumine atramento — " I wrote
in a volume with ink." — Jerem, xxxvi, 18, Some, to be
sure, have found fault with St. Jerome, for under
standing the Hebrew word in this place to mean ink;
but the Chaldee paraphrase, and the Syriac version
agree with him, and there is no good reason for dis
puting the sense of the word. From a learned note on
this verse of Jeremias, in Kitto's pictorial bible, we
extract the foUowing : " From the particulars collected
by Wincklemann and others concerning the ink of the
ancients, it woxUd seem, that it differed very little from
that which the Orientals still employ, and which is
really better adapted than our own thin vitriolic inks,
to the formation of their written characters; and this is
also true of the Hebrew, the letters of which are more
easUy and properly formed with this ink than with our
own, and with reeds than with quUl-pens. The ink is
usually composed of lampblack or powdered charcoal,
prepared with gum and water, and sold in smaU par
ticles, or grains, like gunpowder. The writer who wants
to replenish his ink-horn, puts some of this into it and
adds a little water, but not enough to render the ink
much thinner than that of our printer's. Those who
use much of it, work up the ink-grains with water — in
nearly the same way that artists prepare their colours — and
then put it into their inkstand." As soon as the custom
was introduced of writing on such materials as the skins
of animals, linen, papyrus, the bark of trees, so soon
must ink, or some such substance, have been used for

58 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE FORM
the formation of the letters. Indeed, whatever Calmet
may say to the contrary, there is a clear reference to
ink of some sort in Numbers, (v. 23,) in the passage,
where the trial by the water of jealousy, of the wife
suspected of adultery is prescribed: and in Ulustration
of the particular verse to which we have referred, it
may be observed, that the ink even now in use in the
East, has in its composition no calx of iron, or other
material that can make a permanent dye; so that,
although the writing made of it has an intense and
briUiant black colour, which will remain unchanged
for ages, the characters may at any time be washed out
with water.

Section. — Of the Divisions and marks of Distinction
occurring in the Scripture.
First. — In both the Old and New Testaments, there
was always a natural division into books, or (Ustinct
writings; thus, the writings of the different prophets
were (Uvided from each other, and thus were the (Uf
ferent epistles of St. Paul naturaUy divided from each
other. It is unnecessary to go through aU the instances
in which this kind of (Uvision occurs — but in one of our
present books there was from the beginning a natural
division into several (Ustinct parts, that is the Book of
Psalms, which is made up of a number of distinct hymns
or psalms — ^the whole number is one hundred and fifty,
and in this number are agreed the Hebrew and Septua
gint, and also our vulgate, which, in the Book of Psalms,
is a translation from the Septuagint ; the two latter,
however, arrive at this number of one hundred and fifty
by a somewhat (Ufferent (Uvision of the psalms, from
that which the Hebrew makes. In the Hebrew our

of the sacred BOOKS. 59
ninth psalm is (Uvided into two, the second of which
begins With the words of verse twenty-two, which are
thus read in the vulgate, " Ut quid Domine recessisti
longe," and then the Hebrew bibles are one over us in
number, up to our one hundred and thirteenth, ''In exitu
Israel," This they also (Uvide at the verse, "Non nobis,"
which verse in the vulgate foUows the eighth verse of
the one hundred and thirteenth psaUn, but it is not
marked verse nine, but verse one, and the next verse is
marked two, and so on to the end of the psalm. Thus
our one hundred and fourteenth is their one himdred
and sixteenth ; but then they join our one hundred and
fourteenth, " Dilexi," and one hundred and fifteenth,
" Credidi propter quod ;" thus they remain one over us
up to our one hundred and forty-sixth, which they join
to the one hundred and forty-seventh, and so both con
tinue together to the end. Protestants foUow the He
brew bibles in their division of the psalms. We may
observe here that according to this natural division
of the scripture into the various writings of which
it is made up, the five Books of Moses would count only
for one, and in aU likelihood they at first formed but one
book. We shaU now speak of the manner in which the Jews
divided the scriptures. St. Jerome informs us in his
Prologus Galeatus, that the Jews made three great (Uvi-
sions of the scripture, viz., into the law, the prophets,
and the Hagiographa, or sacred writings ; of the law
they counted five books, that is, the five Books of Moses;
of the prophets they reckoned eight, viz., 1, Josue ; 2,
Judges, with which they include Ruth, because her his
tory appertains to the time of the Judges ; 3, Samuel,
which we caU first and second Kings ; 4, Kings, which,
with us, is (Uvided into the third and fourth book of
Kings ; 5, Isaias ; 6, Jeremias ; 7, Ezeckiel ; 8, the

60 historical notice of the form
twelve minor prophets, of which they made but one
book. Of the Hagiographa they reckoned nine books,
viz., 1, Job ; 2, David, or the book of psalms ; 3, the
book of the proverbs of Solomon ; 4, Ecclesiastes ; 5, the
Canticle of Canticles; 6, Daniel, whom, for a silly reason,
they excluded from the division of the prophets, viz.,
because he lived at a royal court ; 7, Dibre Hajamim,
that is, the words of the days, which we call first and
second Paralipomenon, This is by no means the book of
the words of the days referred to so often in the history
of the kings of Israel and Juda ; 8, Esdras, which, with
us, is divided into first and second Esdras ; 9, Esther;
and thus, according to these, there were twenty-two
books — the same number as the letters of the Hebrew
alphabet. It is to be observed that this is the division
which prevaUed among the Jews in St, Jerome's time,
and which continues to prevail among them. It does
not appear to have been very ancient, and was first
introduced by the Hebrew Jews, and hence our deutero
canonical books do not appear in their enumeration ; for,
as to the Hellenist Jews, they adopted that division and
enumeration and collocation of the books which we find
in the Septuagint, and which we follow in the Latin
vulgate — it is unnecessary to repeat here the well-known
names of the books. We have already established our
canon, and hence the deuterocanonical books are properly
numbered with the other inspired books; and it would
be easy to show that the arrangement and division of
the books, adopted by the Septuagint and vulgate, is far
more just and natural, than that which the Hebrew Jews
have made, and which we have explained above.
As to subdivisions of the books, which were made by
the Jews. They divided the book of Psalms into five
parts — to this division St. Jerome alludes in his Prologus
Galeatus, where he says that the Jews made of the

of the sacred books. 61
Psalms one volume, quinque incisionibus. The Jews,
moreover, (Uvided the Laic into portions, Parashiofh,
acscording to the number of Sabbaths in the year: one of
these portions was ordered to be read in the synagogue
each sabbath, and thus the entire Pentateuch would be
read in the year. These Parashioth were subdivided
into smaUer sections, termed Siderim, or orders. ^Many
suppose that this division into Parashioth was made by
Esdras. Afterwards, when in the persecution of Anti-
ochus Epiphanes, the reading of the law was not per
mitted, the Jews took from the prophets for the year's
reafUng an equal number of sections, with that into
which the Pentateuch was (Uvided — these sections of the
prophets were termed Haphtoroth. Again, when the
reading of the law was restored by the Machabees, these
sections of tte prophets continued also to be read, the
fii-st lesson on each sabbath being fi-om the law, the
second from the prophets. Haphtarah signifies dis
mission, because when the section of the prophets was
read, the people were (Usmissed. It is to be observed,
that the Haphtoroth did not comprehend the whole of
the prophets, as the Parashioth did the whole Pentateuch.
Other more minute subdivisions of the books have been
made by the Jews, but as these, in all probability, were
introduced long after the estabUshment of the Christian
church, it wiU be more convenient to refer to them in
another place.
To come now to the di^dsions made in the scripture
within the Christian period — our present division of the
bible into chapters, was not introduced for a long time
after the commencement of the Christian era — our
present division into verses, is a stUl more modem
introduction. There was a very ancient division of the
scripture into Titloi and Kephalaia. The Titloi, titles,
caUed in Latin Breves, were larger divisions. The

62 historical notice of the FORM
Kephalaia, heads, or chapters, called in Latin Capitula,
were subdivisons of the Titloi, or Breves. The summary
of the contents of the Breves was called Breviarium, and
the list of the Capitula was caUed Capitulatio. The
Greek names of these divisions are the more ancient,
because in the beginning of the church the common
edition of the scriptures was in Greek. » These titles
and chapters were marked at the head of the book, and
each of them had a letter, or cypher, prefixed to it.
These same letters and figures were marked in the
margin of the text, to indicate the commencement of
the several sections mentioned at the head of the book.
For the same purpose of marking the commencement of
the section, there was a little blank space left by the
copyist between these several divisions of the books.
With the exception then of a point, and this little blank
space to mark the division between the sections, that is,
the titles and chapters (capitula), and the break that
naturally occurred between the different books, there was
no other division whatever, of the parts, in the old manu
scripts. Such were the ancient Christian Bibles ; for
this mode of division appears to have been applied both
to the Old and the New Testament : but at what precise
period of the Christian Church, such sections were first
introduced, is a matter of dispute. Formerly, there was
a great variation between different authors, in giving the
number of these divisions. The most approved division
of Titloi or Breves, for the four Gospels, is that given by
Tatian in his Gospel Harmony (An, 172). Ammonius, a
learned Christian of Alexandria, of the third century, in
a similar work, has given the most approved division of
the Gospels into Kephalaia or Capitula, called from him
theAmmonian sections. Eusebius, the well-known eccle
siastical historian, adapted the Ammonian sections to
his canons. These Eusebian canons are frequently pre-

OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 63
fixed to e(Utions of the Greek Testament : they are ten
in number. In the first canon or table is arranged, in
order of the sections (Capitula), the Redeemer's history,
as given by aU the four EvangeUsts — ^that is, the parts
of the history that are common to aU the four. In the
second canon the portions of the history which Matthew,
Mark, and Luke concur in giving. In the third the
portions found common to Matthew, Luke, and John.
In the fourth, Matthew, Mark, and John. Fifth,
Matthew and Luke. Sixth, Matthew and Mark. Seventh,
Matthew and John. Eighth, Matthew and Mark. Ninth,
Luke and John. Tenth, the portions given by only one
of the four Evangelists. This is called a harmony : it
may be rather looked upon as simply an index to the
Gospels. The (Uvision into Kephalaia, or chapters, of the
Acts and CathoUc Epistles is ascribed to EuthaUus,
Bishop of Sulca, in Egypt, in the fifth century. He
(EuthaUus) published St. Paul's Epistles, with the (Uvi
sion of them into Capitula, that had been made by some
unknown person in the fourth century. There was
another (Uvision of the New Testament in the early
times, besides the titles and little chapters, which ought
not to be passed over without mention, viz., the (Uvision
into lessons, Avayvw^fiaTa. This division of the New
Testament into lessons (Richard Simon observes, in his
critical history of the New Testament, last chapter) is
very ancient ; and although they do not differ much from
the titles, yet, he observes, we ought not to confound the
two together, as some authors have done. Some ancient
copies of the Greek New Testament are found with the
words apxtj and Te\os inserted, to point out where one
lesson ends and another begins. EuthaUus, above men
tioned, is said to have divided St. Paul's Epistles into
AvayvwifiaTa ; and Andrew, Bishop of Caesarea, in Cap-
padocia, (Uvided the Apocalypse, at the beginning of the

64 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE FORM
sixth century, into twenty-four lessons, which he termed
Xoyoi, In some manuscripts, the beginning and ending of
the Kvayvw^jxaTa (lessons) is marked by merely the initial
letters, alpha (^apxn), and tau (TeAor). In examining
ancient manuscripts we find some divided into verses
also ; but these are very different from the verses
which we now have ; these ancient verses were caUed
ari')(pi or linece, lines. They were lines containing as
many words as ought to be read uninterruptedly ; hence
they were regulated by the sense, and were manifestly of
great use to the reader in the Church, before the intro
duction of points or stops. EuthaUus (mentioned before
for his useful labours in the (Uvision of the scripture),
when he was a deacon of Alexandria, published an
edition of the four gospels, and afterwards (when he was
bishop of Sulca) an edition of the Acts of the Apostles
and of all the apostolical epistles, in all which he made
this division into anxoi. — Wetstein, Proleg, p. 73. The
Codex Beza, Codex Claromontanus, and Codex Sanger-
manensis, are written in these an^oi ox lines.
Now, as to our present (Uvision of the bible into
chapters, some have ascribed it to Lanfranc, who was
Archbishop of Canterbury in the eleventh century ; others
would attribute it to Cardinal Stephen Langton, who was
Archbishop of the same see about the beginning of the
thirteenth century ; but the real author of it was CarcUnal
Hugo de Sancto Caro, who flourished about the middle of
the thirteenth century. It is to him that we are also
indebted for that most useful work, the Concordance of the
Scripture. When Cardinal Hugo made his division into
chapters, he subdivided these into smaller portions, which
he marked with the letters A. B, C, (fee, placed in the
margin, and this subtUvision of the cardinal's, marked
by the letters in the margin, may be stUl seen in the
early printed editions of the bible. The division into

OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 65
chapters, of which we are speaking, has been univereally
adopted by Jews and Chiistians.
As to our present division into verses. Fu-st, for the
protocanonical books of the Old Testament, we have
taken this (Uvision from the Jews. They would endea
vour to pei-suade us that it commenced with Closes and
was continued on according as the different books were
written — some of them refer it to Esdras : but it is most
probable that this (Uvision was made by the Masorets,
of whom we shaU speak just now, and that it was not
introduced before the end of the. fourth century. Rabbi
Mordecai Nathan, a Jewish teacher of the fifteenth cen
tury, was the person who introduced the chapters of Car
dinal Hugo into the Hebrew bible, but instead of the
marginal letters, he marked the first and then every fifth
verse with a numeral letter, fsf. n- '-, &c., 1, 5, 10,
<Sx. The verses in the Hebrew bible were first regularly
marked with the figures in common use, by Athias, a
Jew of Amsterdam, in the year 1661. He retained the
numeral letters of Nathan at every fifth verse, as He
brew bibles always have them at present. Long before
the time of Athias, however, viz., in 1548, Robert Ste
phens, the famous printer of Paris, had marked with the
numbers the verses of the Old Testament, in his edition
of the Latin vulgate. This same Robert Stephens is the
inventor of the verses in the New Testament. They ap
peared first in his edition of the New Testament given
in the year 1551. His son Henry informs us that he
made this (Uvision during a journey from Lyons to Paris
— inter equitandum — ^from which words some infer that
he made the (Uvision whilst actuaUy traveUing ; others
would rather understand them to mean that, when
fatigued with riding, he entertained himself at the inn
with this work. We are not to suppose, however, that
Robert Stephens was either the first inventor of verses
vol. I. F

66 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE FORM
in the New Testament, or that he was the first who
marked the verses in the Old Testament with the Arabic
numerals. James le Fevre (Stapulensis) had marked
the verses in the Psalms with figures as early as 1509;
and the learned Dominican, Sanctes Pagninus marked
the verses in this way in the Old and New Testament,
in the year 1528. It is, however, only in the Protoca
nonical Books of the Old Testament that Stephens follows
Pagninus. In marking the verses in the deuterocanoni
cal books of the Old Testament, it is highly probable
that Stephens avaUed himself of the labours of Vatablus.
In these deuterocanonical books we still follow Stephens'
editions of the Latin vulgate, in the enumeration and
division of the verses.
Our present punctuation of the bible does not date
from the very early times. In reaUty the bible was at
first written without any such distinction. The scrip
ture, says Richard Simon, has this in common with aU
the Greek and Latin books, which were also written
without any distinction, before points and commas were
invented by grammarians. The first appearance of
punctuation is the dot and the blank space, marking the
division between the sections — these are found in very
ancient manuscripts, as we have already explained. St,
Jerome was the author of a certain system of punctua
tion, which is praised by Cassiodorus. As to our present
points, however, the comma was invented in the eighth
century, the semicolon in the ninth. The other points
and stops were a stUl later invention. The Greek spirits
and accents were not earlier, in the opinion of most
writers, than the seventh century.* If the very ancient
Greeks were particular in using the H to mark the spiri
tus asper, it feU into (Ususe as early even as the first
century. Iota subscript in Greek manuscripts was in-
• See Butler's Horse Biblicffi.

OF THE SACRED BOOKS. 67
troduced in the tenth century, but it was often written
by the side of other letters, even after that time. The
Greek grammarians, it is said, used poiuts or stops, even
as early as the time of the apostles, but it is certain that
these (Ud not make their way into common use, but were
confined to the schools of the grammarians. Points,
however, were sometimes used before the present system
of punctuation was introduced. — Marsh on Michaelis, p.
892, vol. U., refers to them as seen by himself in the
Codex Alexandrinus and Codes Bezae. In the Hebrew
bibles there is a most elaborate system of punctuation
or interpunction of the verses, introduced by the Maso
rets. These were Jewish doctors, who flourished about
the end of the fifth century — they have their name from
the word Masora, which signifies tradition — ^this was the
name which they gave to the body of rules which they
drew up for the correct reading of the Hebrew text,
because they pretended that it came down by tracUtion
from the earUest times. The interpunction of the verses,
these doctors made by means of the accents ; but the
Masora comprehends various most minute detaUs regard
ing the text — thus they not only (Uvided the verses by
means of the accents — ^they also calculated the number
of verses — ^they marked the peculiarities in the letters —
if a letter were shorter than usual, or written crooked.
Thus the number of verses in Genesis is one thousand
five himdred and thirty-four — the middle verse of it is
the fortieth of the twenty-seventh chapter — the whole
bible contains twenty-three thousand two hundred and
six verses : there are two verses in the Pentateuch, aU
the words of which end in mem. Aleph occurs in the
bible forty-two thousand three hundred and seventy-
seven times. Beth thirty-eight thousand two hundred
and eighteen, and so on. This series of observations on
the text was abridged to bring it within the margin of

68 HISTORICAL NOTICE OF THE FORM, ETC

the Hebrew bibles. This first abridgment was called
the little Masora. It was found to be too short, and
then a more copious abridgment was substituted for it,
which was caUed the great Masora. The omitted parts
were added at the end of the text, and caUed the final
Masora. To these Masoretic doctors we are also to
ascribe the invention of the vowel points, and their ad(U-
tion to the Hebrew text: but of this we shall treat more
fully in another place.

DISSERTATION III.

ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE ORIGINAL TEXTS OF
THE SACRED SCRIPTURE.
As we intend here to treat briefly a question which has
been often (Uscussed by both Catholic and Protestant
writers, we shaU confine our inquiry to those books
which are admitted by Protestants, in common with us,
that is — to the books found at present in our Hebrew
bibles and Greek testaments. As to the other books of
the Old Testament not found in the present Hebrew
bibles, we propose to (Uscuss in the introduction to each
particular book the question regarcUng the language of
its original text; and also whether that original text be
still preserved or not. We would wish it to be under
stood also that we do not look upon the Greek testament
as containing the original of aU the books of the New
Testament, persuaded as we are that the Gospel of St.
Matthew, at least, was written originaUy in Syrochaldaic.
We come now to discuss the integrity of these texts
found in the Hebrew bibles at present, and in the Greek
testaments ; and first for the Hebrew bible. We find
that two extreme opinions have had their defenders.
The first, that the Hebrew bibles have been wUfuUy cor
rupted by the Jews. Although Walton in Proleg, does
not cite any Protestant authority as favouring this
opinion, yet Vossius de Septuagenta interpreti, held it,
and L. Cappel in the Critica Saera. The second opinion
is, that no mistakes whatever, even of copyists, have crept

70 PRESENT STATE OF THE
into the text. Now, as to the first opinion, we assert
against the defenders of it, that the Hebrew bibles have
not been wUfuUy corrupted, and, moreover, that no sub
stantial interpolation has found its way into them; for
were such interpolation to be admitted, then it must have
been made either before the coming of Christ or since His
coming. Now in neither one period nor the other could
it have been made. Not before His coming, for before
that time we cannot suppose that the Jews would wish
to corrupt the scriptures, and our adversaries here, whom
we suppose to be Christians, wiU admit this; for the
reason why they contend that the scriptures have been
AvilfuUy corrupted, is that desire which they ascribe to
the Jews of getting over the arguments taken from the
sacred text in favour of the Christian religion. Now
this reason manifestly can only apply to the time after
Christ's coming, and it would show a great ignorance of
the regard which the Jews had for their scriptures, to
suppose that they would have wilfully corrupted them
without any motive (see Josephus Contra Appion, lib. 1,
sec. 8) ; and even if we suppose that private motives
could have ever prevaUed with individuals to attempt
this interpolation, so much opposed to the feeUngs of the
people generally, it would have been impossible for such
an attempt to succeed, considering how well known the
scriptures were among the Jewish people. Again, we see
that our Divine Redeemer, whUst he upbraids the Scribes
and Pharisees with their many sins, does not count this
among them that they had either wilfully corrapted, or
by their negligence had permitted the interpolation of
the sacred text. On the contrary He refers them to this
text, as establishing his mission, " Search the scriptures,"
&c., or, " Ye search the scriptures," which he would not
have done if it had been a corrupt text. So much wUl
suffice for the first part of our argument, that is —

ORIGUfAL TEXTS OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURE. 71
regarding the time before Christ's coming, particularly
as this part is discussed at length in our Treatises of
Religion. This interpolation could not have been made since
Christ's coming; for if it could have been made, it would
have been either before the time that St. Jerome made
his translation or since. Now, neither at one time nor
the other can this interpolation have been made. First,
not before the time of St. Jerome's translation, for St.
Jerome, who knew the disposition of the Jews in regard
to the scriptures so weU, did not think so, that is — that
this text had been wilfuUy corrupted; neither (Ud the
church think so, which approved of his translation.
Besides, at the period of which we speak, even if the
Jews had been so disposed, they could not have intro
duced cori-uptions into the text without their conduct
becoming known, and being reprobated in the church.
Now, we are not aware that there has been ever any
reclamation on the part of the church in reference to
this matter. The church, I say, would have known the
evil attempts of the Jews, for there never were wantiug
in the Christian chui-ch those who were acquainted with
the Hebrew scriptures ; even before the time of Origen
there were from time to time Jewish converts attached to
these Hebrew scriptures and well acquainted with them;
and Origen's famous edition of this text in his Hexapla,
where he gave it both in Hebrew and Greek characters,
attracted more attention to it. Again, if the Jews had
wilfuUy corrapted the text, influenced, as our opponents
in this place say, by their hatred of the Christian reli
gion, then they surely would not have spared those pro
phecies which make so manifestly against themselves —
such as those which fix the time of the Redeemer's
coming; vet they have left all these, whilst almost every
change of the text which is ascribed to them, even if it

72 PRESENT STATE OF THE
was wUful, would not induce any important change in
the sense of the passage in which it is found. We have
said enough to show that the Jews have not corrupted
the text before the time of St. Jerome. Now, for the time
since St. Jerome's translation was made, it is beyond aU
question that this wUful corruption of the text cannot
be proved against the Jews; for throughout this period
we find an admirable agreement between St. Jerome's
version and this text, generally speaking, in every pas
sage. We conclude, then, that the Jews have not at
any time wilfully corrupted this text; and, moreover,
that their manifest veneration for it, at all times, would
not have permitted them to overlook the introduction of
any substantial interpolation into it.
We admit, however, that although the Jews have not
wUfuUy corrupted the text, yet that upon an occasion
where there were two readings, they may have rather
foUowed that one which was less favourable to the Chris
tians, whom they hated. In this way we explain the
non-appearance in the present Hebrew text of the word
1^N!D, "they have dug" (Psalm 22, in the Hebrew bibles,
verse 17); in place of which we now have *i"iN5, "as a
lion." This change in the text has been made since the
time of the Masorets, and consequently since the time of
St. Jerome ; for the Masora in the book of Numbers
states, that in this passage of the psalm the keri, that is
the word that should be read, and which was then written
in the margin of the psalm, was **1N5, but that the ketib,
or word written in the text, was l^N^- Now, we find
that the Jews have put the keri in the text, and omitted
the ketib altogether, although by interpreting the word
as they do, as a lion, they give an absurd and incon-
gi-uous sense to the passage. There are cases, also, in
which the vowel points now added to the Hebrew text
Avould give a reading different from that which St. Jerome

ORIGINAL TEXTS OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURE, 73
foUowed; but this does not prove that there has been any
conniption of the text, because the vowel points have
been added to the text after the time of St, Jerome, and
make no part of it: this we shaU prove when treating of
the Hebrew manuscripts. We do not, however, intend
to speak disparagingly of the Masoretic reading — ^that
is, the reading of the text, which is fixed by the present
vowel-point system, and which, generaUy speaking, agrees
so weU with our vulgate. Indeed we have seen just now
that that alteration of the text of the psahn (22nd in
the Hebrew bible), which is almost the only one that
introduces an important change in the sense, was not
made by the Masorets.
Having now vindicated the Hebrew text from any
wUful corruption or substantial interpolation, we have
to reply to the objection brought against this doctrUie,
taken fi-om some of the fathers, who appear to charge the
Jews with a wilful corruption of the scripture. Our
answer to this is, that these fathers do not treat of the
changes made by the Jews in the Hebrew text, but of
the corrupt representations of that text in several pas
sages of the Greek versions that passed current among
the Jews — ^that is, the versions of Aquila, Theodotion,
and Symmachus ; and in reaUty they found passages in
these which deserved censure. Thus, for example, in the
version of AquUa, the famous prophecy of Isaias (chap.
vii., V. 14) has not the true sense assigned to it, which
the Septuagint gives.
Now, on the other hand, it cannot be said that the
Hebrew text is free from sUght errors. The early so-
called Reformers of the sixteenth century were very
anxious to uphold the perfect purity of the Hebrew and
Greek texts, because since, according to them, God had
given the scriptures to be the sole rule of faith, so
they wished to make it appear that He had preserved

74 PRESENT STATE OF THE
them in their primitive purity as they came from the
hands of the sacred writers. What is here stated regard
ing the early Reformers may be learned from Walton
himself, in his Prolegomena to the Polyglot, in his disser
tation on the subject, which we are here treating; and
to show that this assertion of the complete purity of the
Hebrew text has not been without support from Catholics
also, he (Walton) there refers to Pagninus as defending it.
But most obvious and evident reasons have long since
left this assertion without defenders; for such an absolute
integrity of the text as is here in question, would sup
pose that God, by a continual miracle, had preserved the
sacred text from the slightest mistakes of copyists.
Nothing less than a continual miracle could have done
so, as we may see by the mistakes that inevitably creep
in as a consequence of frequent copying in any other
book. Now, there is no sufficient reason for thinking
that God would have derogated from his ordinary laws
for the purpose of preserving the copyists of the sacred
text from these slight mistakes. But, on the other hand,
it appears manifest that no such miracle has taken place;
for if such had occurred, then all Hebrew manuscripts
should agree, even in matters of the least importance;
whereas this is far from being the case, either with the
modern or the ancient manuscripts. The modern manu
scripts, which have been made according to the Masora,
although they agree better among themselves, because
corrected on the same principles, do not, however, agree
perfectly, since the eastern and western Jews do not
read certain places in the bible after the same manner.
The different readings of Ben-Asher and Ben-Nephtali,
which are printed in all the Jewish bibles, are a new
proof that there is not a perfect agreement among all the
manuscripts. In fine, the infinite number of various
readings collected by Kennicott and De Rossi, leave not
the slightest doubt upon this point.

ORIGINAL TEXTS OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURE. 75
The ancient manuscripts are not more in accord with
each other than the modern : for, in the first place, the
authors of the Masora admit that when they undertook
their work the manuscripts presented many variations.
Again, the Septuagint version has been made upon
ancient manuscripts, so have the versions of Aquila,
Symmachus, Theodotion, and others. Now, these neither
agree among themselves nor with the text which we
have to-day. From aU that we have said it manifestly
foUows that the Hebrew Bibles, although free from wilful
corruption or substantial interpolation, are by no means
exempt from the errors and mistakes of copyists.
Now, as to the Greek text in the New Testament that
it is not perfectly faultless is too clear to require any
proof. The immense multiplication of the copies of the
New Testament has been attended with numerous (Uscre-
pancies between these copies, proceeding from the mis
takes of copyists, either mistaking one word for another,
or inadvertently passing over words, or mistaking for a
part of the text, and, therefore, inserting quotations from
other parts of the Scripture marked in the margin, or,
in fine, confounding with the text words introduced to
mark the commencement or termination of those portions
of Scripture which were read publicly in the Church at
the time of divine worship. Yet these numerous discre
pancies, for the most part, do not greatly affect the sense,
and when they do we are not left without sufficient means
of correcting those copies in which a fault of any impor
tance is found. These means are either the coUation of
manuscripts, or the testimony of the Scripture in another
place, or the examination of ancient versions, which have
been made upon more accurate copies of the text than
any which we now have. But of this point we shall
treat more fully in our Dissertation on the Elements of
Biblical Criticism. We shall conclude our observations

76 PRESENT STATE, ETC.
for the present by remarking how unreasonable it would
be, after what we have said, to insist that everything,
which is found in a version, differing from the present
Hebrew or Greek text ought to be changed, and rendered
conformable to the present Hebrew or Greek, This was
the cry of Calvin and his associates in the Reformation,
by which they implied that these fountains (viz,, the
Hebrew and Greek) had continued to our time in aU
their primitive purity. That they have not continued
in that perfect purity will not, at the present day, be
controverted by any one who has the least pretensions to
be considered a Biblical scholar.

DISSERTATION IV.

ON THE HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE,
Our observations upon this subject shaU be but few.
Hebrew manuscripts when coUated do not present so
many (Uscrepancies as the Greek manuscripts, because
they are not so numerous, nor have we any very
ancient Hebrew manuscripts. There is no Hebrew
manuscript at present known older than the eleventh
century ; and again, aU those that we know being
of an age subsequent to the formation of the rules
of the Masora have, for the most part, been corrected
according to these rules. However there are stiU many
discrepancies between Hebrew manuscripts ; and, in the
first place, as Richard Simon weU observes, in his Critical
History of the Old Testament, we must cautiously (Us-
tinguish between the synagogue manuscripts and those
which have been made for the use of private persons.
The synagogue manuscripts or roUs have been always
made with greater care than the others — (the Jews
always use only manuscripts for the reading of the
Scriptures in their synagogues). The Talmud contains
most particular rules in regard to these manuscripts,
prescribing the utmost accuracy to the transcriber, and
various superstitious niceties, which, it is said, the Jews
always most particularly foUow. In the first place, these
roUs contain only the portions of Scripture appointed to
be read in the synagogue, viz. — first, the Pentateuch ;
second, the sections of the Prophets appointed to be read ;
and third, the Book of Esther, as it is in the Hebrew

78 HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS
Bible, which last is only read at the feast of Purim or
lots. These three portions of Scripture are never put
together, but written on separate roUs. They are written
in the Chaldee or square Hebrew character, without
vowels and accents. The parchment is prepared by Jews
only, and jnust be made from the skins of clean animals ;
then they are (Uvided into columns, the breadth of which
must never exceed half their length. The number of the
columns is fixed, as also of the lines in the column, and
of the words in each Une. Then the ink is to be pre
pared, and the copyist must purify himself before tran
scribing the incommunicable name of Jehova. When
the manuscript is finished its revision must take place
within thirty days after, and although it will not be set
aside on account of a few mistakes in the copying, yet if
they exceed a certain fixed number, which is yet very
small, the whole manuscript wUl be condemned as unfit
for the synagogue. These manuscripts for the synogogue
are taken fi-om the best exemplars ; and certainly, as far
as they are known to Christians, exhibit a great uni
formity in their text ; but then, as Richard Simon well
observes, these minute rules by which so much uniformity
is now secured in the transcription of the synagogue roUs,
are, comparatively speaking, of modern date, and, there
fore, do not prove that formerly many mistakes of copy
ists may not have crept even into the manuscripts of the
synagogue. Manuscripts which have been made for the use of pri
vate individuals are held in much less esteem than those
of which we have been speaking. They are written,
some in the Chaldee square character, and some in the
Rabbinical. Their form is left to the wUl of the tran
scriber, or of him for whose use they are made ; hence
they are found in folio, quarto, &c. They are found
either written on parchment or on cotton paper.

OF THE BIBLE. 79
or on the common kind of paper. The vowel points
are not excluded from these, but they are generally
written with ink of a (Ufferent colour from that
used for the consonants ; the consonants are written
with black ink. Initial words and letters are frequently
decorated with gold and sUver colours. But few of these
manuscripts (Simon observes. Historic Critique du Vieux
Testament, lib, 1, ch. 21) are exact ; it being difficult to
find copyists weU quaUfied for the task. However, it
wUl sometimes happen that these manuscripts wUl
scarcely yield in exactness of execution to the synagogue
roUs, when they have been made for the use of wealthy
persons, who being anxious to procure the best copies,
were, at the same time, able by their wealth to secure
the labour of the best copyists,
Richard Simon (loco citato), and many other critics
with him, form a much higher estimate of the manu
script of the Spanish Jews than they do of those of the
French and ItaUan Jews, or of the German Jews, which
last class of manuscripts they consider the most inaccu
rate of aU. These three classes of manuscripts are dis
tinguished by three different kinds of character. The
Spanish character is square and majestic. The French
and ItaUan character is somewhat more round and less
majestic. The German is sharp-cornered and leaning.
Simon adds that these good manuscripts made by the
Spanish Jews can now be found only at Constantinople,
Salonica, and some other places of the Levant, where the
Spanish Jews took refuge when they were driven from
Spain (Hist, Crit. ut Supra), The Jews acknowledge
two principal recensions or editions of the Hebrew bible,
proceecUng from their two celebrated academies of Tiberias
find Babylon. These schools flourished in the period
from the fifth to the eleventh century. The discrepan
cies between these two e(Utions have been noted, after a

80 HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS
dUigent collation of the manuscripts of the western
(Tiberias) and eastern (Babylon) Jews, made by Aaron
Ben Asher, president of the academy of Tiberias, and
Jacob Ben NaphtaU, president of the academy of Babylon,
This coUation was made about the beginning of the
eleventh century. The discrepancies almost all relate
to the vowel points, and, consequently, are not of great
importance. The western Jews, and our printed ecUtions
of the Hebrew scriptures, almost whoUy foUow the
recension of Aaron Ben Asher. In the Bibliotheca Sacra
of Le Long may be found an interesting catalogue of the
most famous Hebrew manuscripts (EcUtion by Boerner,
tom, 1st, p, 64). The same writer also fiirnishes us
with a full catalogue of the printed editions of the
Hebrew scriptures, brought down to the beginning of
the eighteenth century. This catalogue is continued by
Masch down to an advanced period of the eighteenth
century. But we must reserve for another time the
observations which we have to make on the printed
editions of the Hebrew bible. The present place will
not, however, be inappropriate for discussing the anti
quity of the Hebrew vowel points, by way of Appendix
to this (Ussertation,

Section. — On the Antiquity of the Hebrew Vowel Points.
Were we to beUeve what some of the Jews teU us on
this subject, we should look upon the points as coeval
with the text itself : however, even the Jews are, for the
most part, satisfied with ascribing their ad(Ution to the
text, to Esdras and the great CouncU that was held in
his time (Simon, Historic Critique du Vieux Testament).
Elias Levita, a German Jew, was the first, in modern
times, to (Uspute their antiquity. He wrote about

OF THE BIBLE. 81
Luther's time. He would not admit that they were
introduced by Esdras, but ascribed their invention to the
Masoretic doctors of the school of Tiberias. Buxtorf,
the father, endeavoured to refute his arguments. But
Ludovicus CapeUus, a Protestant divine of France, and
Professor of Hebrew in the Protestant University of
Saumur, replied to aU that Buxtorf advanced, in a work
entitled Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum. Buxtorf, the
son, in vindication of his father's opinion, wrote an
answer to CapeUus. This answer was not considered
satisfactory, and hence the generaUty of the learned have
adhered to the opinion of CapeUus. (Prideaux. Con
nexion of the History of the Old and New Testament.
M'Caul's edition. London : 1845. Vol. I., p. 332, and
foUowing.) The CathoUc doctors, in particular, have
never been favourable to the pretended antiquity of these
points. FoUowing these, we assert that the introduction
of these points connot be ascribed to a period earlier
than the sixth century of the Christian Church. They
were invented by the Jewish rabbins of the school of
Tiberias, and added to the text, in order that the genuine
reading of the scripture received from tradition might
be ever after preserved. These rabbins were caUed
Masorets, from having composed the Masora, us we have
observed in another place. This work, caUed by the
name of Masora, which name signifies tradition, is
defined to be "the critical doctrine regarding the right
reading and uniting of the Hebrew text of the sacred
scripture," It is to be observed that no one says that
the Hebrew text was ever pronounced without vowels,
since without these the consonants could not be pro
nounced ; but the opinion which we defend is, that none
of these vowel points were added to the text before the
time of the Masorets, and, consequently, neither by
Moses nor Esdras. This opinion is established by the
VOL. I. ^

82 HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS
following arguments : — First, the inscriptions on the
Jewish sides in the old Hebrew (Samaritan) letters want
the points. Now we have no Hebrew coins older than
the time of the Machabees, which was, as is well known,
posterior to the time of Esdras. Again, the Samaritans
have no points in their Pentateuch, which is stiU written
in the old Hebrew letters — a proof that the points were
not in use when they received this book. Let us take
the earUest date to which their getting possession of this
book wUl be ascribed, i.e., when the Hebrew priest was
sent amongst them, (See 4th Kings, xvii, 27, 28.) It
foUows, at least, that these points were not invented or
used by Moses, otherwise this book would not have been
without them. SecontUy, the sacred volumes or roUs,
which the Jews use in their synagogues, are written
without these points, nor is it lawful for the Jews to use
the points in these synagogue manuscripts — a thing that
certainly would be lawfiU if not prescribed, supposing
them to have been invented by either Moses or Esdras.
ThircUy, in the whole Talmud there is no mention made
of the vowel points, whereas in very many places there
was occasion to mention them if they existed at the
time. When, for example, there is an inquiry into the
meaning of a word which would admit of different mean
ings, according to the (Ufferent points with which it would
be joined, the Talmudists never say, read the word with
such a vowel, not with such another.
Now the Talmud was not completed untU about the
beginning of the sixth century. The Talmud is a body
of doctrine (as its name indicates,) on the whole sacred
and civil law of the Jews. It is twofold : the Talmud of
Jerusalem, finished about the year 230 of the Christian
era, or perhaps later ; and the Babylonian Talmud, which
belongs to a later date. Fourthly, St. Jerome, who
flourished in the fourth century, and was perfectly skilled

OF THE BIBLE. 83
in the Hebrew language, testifies that the Hebrews
even then were accustomed to write without the adcUtion
of vowels, and that, in consequence, there arose some
times an ambiguity in the exposition of the scripture.
For thus he writes, in his commentary on Jeremias. ix. 22,
'• Verbum Hebraicum quod tribus Uteris scribitur (voc^ales
enim in medio hoc verbum apud Hebraeos non habet sed
pro consequentia et legentis arbitrio,) si legatur, ^^'^,
d/jhar., sermonem significat, si deher, mortem ; si daber.
loquere. Unde et 70. et Theodotion junxerunt Ulud
praeterito capitulo ut dicerent : Disperdent parvulos de
foris, juvenes de plateis, morte : Aquila vero et Symmachus
transtnlerunt, AaAt/crat id est loquere." And again, the
same father, on the reading zacar and z€<:er writes thus
(Commentary on Isaias, xxvi. 14) — " Nee nos terrere
debet quod 70 masculum et caeteri interpretes memoriam
transtnlerint, cum iisdem tribus Uteris Z. C. R, utrumque
scribatur apud Hebraec^, sed quando memoriak dicimus.
legitur -ecer. quando masetdum, zacar.'' The meaning of aU
which is, that as the Hebrews write these words without
vowels, viz., "i^T and n^tj and as the words wiU bear
different senses, according to the different vowels that are
suppUed, therefore have they been translated differently
by the Septuagint, and other translators. Many other
arguments are adduced in &vour of this opinion, which
we here omit, having produced enough to establish our
conclusion. Let us now examine the objections with
which the adversaries of this opinion impugn it. The
first otjetition is, that no language can exist without
vowels, therefore neither can the Hebrew be supposed to
have existed without them. Ansvoer — No language can
be pronounced without vowels, but the same necessity
does not exist for the use of vowels in order to write the
words of a language (See Veith's Scriptura contra incre-
duhs Propugnata, de Ubro primo Esdrae-quaestio quarta,)

84 HEBREW JIANUSCRIPTS
where he exemplifies this by a reference to the Samaritan
language, ancient Arabic, &.G. (Simon, in his critical
history of the Old Testament, book i. chapter 27, has
some very appropriate observations on this same point).
Conformably to the exceUent observations of Veith, in
the work just mentioned, we say that the ancient He
brews made certain letters of the alphabet perform the
function of vowels in the writing and reading of their
books. These letters were four, Aleph, He, Vau, and
Tod. However, the use of them was attended with
many difficulties ; and for the right understanding of
the text they required the assistance of that great key
of which we shaU afterwards speak. The difficulty in
the use of them proceeded chiefly from three causes.
First, because these same letters sometimes performed
the function of consonants, which was their proper func
tion, sometimes that of vowels ; nor could it be easUy
(Uscerned when they performed one function and when
the other, that is, without the help of that key to which
we have just referred. SeconcUy, the same letters could
hold the place of (Ufferent vowels ; for Aleph was often
pronounced e, oftener a, sometimes even i and o ; He
was more frequently expressed by e, but often also by a ;
Vau in the beginning of a word was always pro
nounced u, but in the middle and end sometimes u and
sometimes o ; Yod could have the sound of i or e.
Thirdly, oftentimes none of these vowels was written in
the word, but they were left to be understood. We see
now why the Masorets invented the vowel points, which
are fourteen in number. After the invention of these the
four letters above mentioned ceased to perform the func
tion of vowels, and began to be termed quiescent letters,
because in consequence of this invention they are not
now always pronounced, even when written, but are
often quiescent ; their duty being performed by the

OF THE BIBLE. 85
vowel point which is joined to them : indeed Aleph has
at present no sound but that of the vowel point which
is under or after it.
The second objection is, that without the vowel points
the sense of the Hebrew text would be vague, doubtful,
and uncertain. Now, the adversaries say, that it cannot
be supposed that God would leave the Hebrew text in
this way down to the fifth or sixth century of the Chris
tian Church. To this we answer with Yeith, that the
meaning of the text was by no means vague, doubtfid,
or uncertain ; the ambiguity being prevented by the
continual tracUtion, use, and judgment of the Hebrew
Church ; and in the early Christian Church the correct
reading of the Hebrew text was known principaUy by
means of the version of the Seventy. TracUtion, then,
was the great means by which the correct reacUng of the
Hebrew text was known before the invention of points,
and this was the great key (to the understantUng of the
scripture at that time) to which we have already more
than once referred. From this providence in reference
to the scripture, Morinus infers weU the counsel of God,
that aU shoiUd submit themselves to the judgment of the
church, as (Ud the Israelites formerly, who knew that to
be the genuine reading of the text which was handed
down from the doctors of the law to their successors.
Nor can it be urged that we assign an improbable mode
of explaining how the true method of reading could be
preserved for so long a period without the vowel points ;
for it is not (Ufficult to be conceived how the aforesaid
tradition regarcUng the correct method of reading the
Hebrew text without points could be preserved in its
integrity for so many ages ; for there were in every age
many doctors among the Jews, who were continuaUy
occupied with the reading of the sacred scripture, and
who taught the cUsciples formed by them the true method

86 HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS
of reading according to the tradition of the fathers.
Add to this, that at least from the time of the captivity,
the whole Jewish people were accustomed to hear por
tions of Moses and the prophets read in the Hebrew,
every Sabbath in the synagogues. It is not wonderful,
therefore, that the right method of reading and pro
nouncing the Hebrew text was preserved without the
points. Lamy observes, in reference to this matter
(Apparatus Biblicus, Ub. ii. cap. 6,) that the children of
the Turks, Arabians, Persians, and, in fine, of all the
Mahometans, learn to read without the points. The
same method of preserving the true reading of Greek
and Latin books, was scarcely less necessary at the time
when these books were written as one word, without the
(Ustinctions of words, pauses, (fee.
The third objection urged is taken from the fact that in
the Masora itself there are certain observations regard
ing the points, which would seem to show that the points
were invented before the time of the Masorets. For
example, there are words marked as being irregularly
pointed. Now, our adversaries wUl say, it cannot be
supposed that the Masorets would point the words irre
gularly, and then subjoin observations on the violation
of their own rules. The answer to this objection is,
that the Masora was not the work of one doctor, or of
one age, and hence, those who added to the Masora in
later times remarked on the points which their prede
cessors invented. Again, they object from the words of
the Gospel, Matthew, v. 18, " Iota unum aut unus apex,"
&c., one jot or one tittle ; and again, in Luke, xvi. 17,
" Unum apicem," c&c, one tittle, where they understand
apex, a tittle, to mean a vowel point. The answer is, that
apex or tittle does not mean a vowel point, but a smaU
portion of a letter, as iota, or jot, designates the smaUest
of the letters. The testimony of St. Jerome is clear on

OF THE BIBLE. • 87
this point, where he says that the letter i Resh differs
from T Daleth, in apice. — Commentary on Abdias, C.
Unicum, v. 1. A certain work caUed the Book of Zohar,
is referred to among the other arguments which the
advocates of the antiquity of the points adduce. But at
present no one would appeal to such an authority on the
subject as the Book of Zohar. See the various notices
of this book by Richard Simon, in his Critical History of
the Old Testament, book i. chapter 20. At the end of
the chapter, and in several other parts of his work, he
explains weU the character of the book ; and as to its
reputed antiquity, Veith (Scriptura contra incredulos
Propugnata, in libros Esdrce, in the part cited above)
demonstrates that it is much more modern than the
Jews would have us to beUeve.
We have said enough on the antiquity of the vowel
points, which is not defended at present either by nume
rous or by learned advocates. In the days of Buxtorf
and Cappel the case was different. These have exhausted
the arguments on both sides. Walton also, in his Pro
legomena on the London Polyglot, has dwelt at consider
able length on the controversy, deciding, of course, against
the antiquity of the points. — Proleg. IIL, section 38.
We conclude this inquiry with the foUowing appro
priate observations from Yeith (loco citato) : — " Since
the vowel points are not of (Uvine authority, but a human
invention of the rabbins, who, long after the birth of
Christ, added them to the text, lest the pronunciation
might be quite forgotten, it is clear that these points,
considered precisely by themselves, have not an irrefra
gable authority. Nay, there are not wanting those who
say, with Calmet, that the purity of the text has been
sometimes corrupted by the Masorets out of hatred to
the Christian religion. In this, however, aU are agreed,
that the Masorets, with the exception of the places

88 HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS.
which, according to the opinion of some, they have cor
rupted out of hatred to the Christian religion, were very
diUgent and even minute in preserving in the genuine
state the other Hebrew texts of the scripture. Whence
it foUows that the Hebrew text can be of the greatest
service in the explanation of our Latin version ; and
that the interpreters of the bible can derive great assist
ance in their labours from a knowledge of Hebrew. They
must never lose sight, however, of the authority of the
Latin vxdgate approved of by the Council of Trent."

DISSERTATION V.

OF THE PRINCIPAL PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE
HEBREW BIBLE,
The editions of the Hebrew bible, which first claim a
notice here, are those caUed the Soncinates editions.
They got this name on account of having been printed
by Jews, of a famUy which came originaUy from Ger
many, and established themselves at Soncino, a town
in Lombardy, between Cremona and Brescia. They
were the first Hebrew printers. Some of them after
wards established themselves in Bologna, Brescia, and
Rimini. The first of these ecUtions was printed in 1488,
at Soncino, in foUo ; the text is pointed and accented.
From a Hebrew subscription at the end of the Penta
teuch we learn, among other things, the name of the
editor, Abraham Ben Chajim. Biblical critics have not
been able to discover what manuscripts were used in
preparing this e(Ution. This was the first e(Ution ever
printed of the entire Hebrew bible. The next Son
cinates e(Ution, is that printed at Brescia, in 1494, in
octavo. It was from this e(Ution that Luther made his
German translation of the bible. The third and last of the
so-caUed Soncinates editions, was printed in 1517, in foUo,
without the name of any place. — See Le Lorig, by Masch.
Pars. 1, cap. i., p. 5, et Seq. The next great eciition of
the Hebrew bible, is that in the Complutensian Polyglot,
printed in 1514-17, and taken from seven MSS. We
have next to mention, the ecUtions printed by Daniel

90 OF THE PRINCIPAL PRINTED EDITIONS
Bomberg, at Venice : there were several of these, some
in folio and some in quarto. The most remarkable of
these editions, is the second of his Rabbinical Bibles :
by a rabbinical bible is meant, one in which the text
is accompanied with the commentaries of the rabbins.
This second Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg's, was printed
in 1526, four volumes, in folio. — Le Long, by Masch.
Pars. 1, cap, i, p, 100, It was published by R, Jacob
Ben Chayim, This edition, the Complutensian Polyglot
edition, and the Soncino edition of 1488, are the three
primary printed etUtions of the Hebrew bible, being the
bases of aU the others ; but of the three, that which has
been principaUy foUowed in our modern printed bibles,
is the Bomberg e(Ution, " The text of the Bomberg
edition," says Davidson, — (Biblical Criticism, p, 222,)
" is principaUy formed after the Masora, but Spanish
MSS, were employed in making it," The editions of
Robert Stephens deserve to be mentioned : there are
two of these, the first, four volumes, in quarto, Paris,
1539-44, This ecUtion, according to an authority
quoted by Le Long, although remarkable for the beauty
of the type, abounds in errata. The second edition of
Stephens, printed also at Paris,' is in seven volumes,
16mo ; it is printed, accorcUng to Le Long, " elegantis-
sime et sat correcte." The next ecUtion which we shall
notice — and we follow the order of time — is that of
Sebastian Munster; in this ecUtion, we have the Hebrew
text with the Latin translation, made by Munster, It
was the first Latin translation made by any of the
Protestants, Sautes Pagninus, a Catholic, had pub
lished, in 1528, a Latin translation, made by himself, of
the Hebrew bible. The first volume of the first edition
of Sebastian Munster's bible, was printed in 1534; the
second volume in 1535; the second ecUtion was printed
in 1546: they were both printed at Basil, in folio.

OF THE HEBREW BIBLE, 91
Passing over various other editions of the Hebrew bible,
we may mention next, one that issued from the Plan-
tinian press in Antwerp, in 1584; with this is printed
the Latin translation of Sautes Pagninus, revised and
corrected by Ben. Arias Montanus, and some others,
Le Long caUs this editio elegantissima. We come now
to an important ecUtion of the Hebrew bible, that pub
lished by Buxtorf at BasU, four volumes, foUo, printed by
Lewis Kbnig. It is one of the rabbinical bibles, Buxtorf
having published, with the text, the commentaries of
the celebrated Jewish Rabbins Jarchi, Aben Ezra,
Kimchi, Levi Ben Gerson, and SaacUas Haggaon. He
subjoined, moreover, the Jerusalem Targum, the great
Masora, corrected and amended by himself, the various
rea(Ungs of Ben Asher and Ben NaphtaU. Buxtorf
also pointed the Chaldee paraphrase, foUowing the
analogy of the Chaldee in Daniel and Esdras. This
ecUtion is highly esteemed by Hebrew scholars, many
of whom prefer it to any of the bibles printed by Bom
berg. We may next mention a very celebrated e(Ution
of the Hebrew bible, printed at Amsterdam, by Joseph
Athias, a Jewish printer of that city. There are two
editions of this bible ; the first, in 1661, the second in
1667; they are each in two volumes, octavo, John Leus-
den was engaged in their publication, and has prefixed
Latin prefaces to them; hence, we find these e(Utions,
sometimes caUed the ecUtions by Leusden — sometimes
Athias' editions. Athias' ecUtion is remarkable for being
the first Hebrew bible, in which the verses are numbered.
The States of HoUand rewarded Athias' labours with a
present of a golden chain, with a golden medaUion
pendent. We may next mention the edition given by
Daniel Ernest Jablonski at BerUn, in 1699, in quarto; he
has prefixed a diffuse and leamed preface in Latin. The
editor principaUy foUowed the second edition of Athias;

92 OF THE PRINCIPAL PRINTED EDITIONS
but he consulted, moreover, the principal editions then
printed, together with several MSS. His text is very
accurate, and he has added a selection of the most im
portant readings, besides attending minutely to the
points and accentuation ; hence, this edition is much
esteemed, De Rossi pronounces it to be one of the most
correct and important editions of the Hebrew bible ever
printed. We come now to Van der Hooght's bible; a beautiful
and correct edition. It was published in 1705, at Am
sterdam and Utrecht, in two volumes octavo. This
edition has been so much followed in the editions of the
Hebrew scriptures which have been since published, that
it is not without reason regarded as the textus receptus of
these scriptures. Van der Hooght foUows, in the text,
the second edition of Athias, He has added notes and
prefixed a long preface in Latin, At the end he gives
the principal differences of reading which he observed
between the editions of Athias, Bomberg, Plantin, and
others. The printing of this edition is remarkably well
executed, not only in the letters, but also in the points,
which are uncommonly clear and distinct. The next
edition which claims our attention is that published by
John Henry MichaeUs, in 1720, This edition is accom
panied with the reacUngs of twenty-four editions, which
Michaelis examined, as also with the reading of five MSS.
in the library at Erfurt, which he collated. The text is
printed from Jablonski's bible, (BerUn, 1699.) This
edition has been always highly esteemed. Davidson,
however, says "that the collations of this editor were
hasty, and are not to be depended on as strictly accurate."
— Biblical Criticism, p. 223. It is hard to admit that
this censure is well founded, when we consider what
Cardinal Wiseman teUs us, viz,, that it was after thirty
years of incessant labour that MichaeUs brought out his

OF THE HEBREW BIBLE. 93
edition, — Lectures on the Connexion between Science and
Revealed Religion, Lecture x. An edition of the Hebrew
bible given at Vienna, in 1743, by a learned Jesuit,
named Lewis de Biel, deserves our notice. It is in four
volumes, large octavo, and a highly valuable edition,
although but little known in this country. It is orna
mented with vignettes, and the initial letters are on
copper engraving, representing some fact in sacred his
tory, to which the immecUate subject is applicable. The
editor has given, with the Hebrew, two Latin versions —
that of the vulgate edition, (1592,) and that of Arias
Montanus. A weU-known ecUtion of the Hebrew bible is that given
by the Rev. Charles Francis Houbigant, an oratorian.
It was published at Paris, in 1753, in four volumes
foUo, with a Latin version and prolegomena. The text
of this edition is that of Van der Hooght, without the
points. Several MSS. were occasionaUy consulted by
the author, but it is supposed that he did not collate any
one manuscript throughout, seeing that he has only
noted a few select manuscript reacUngs. He gives in
the margin of the Pentateuch the Samaritan readings.
The Latin version is made by Houbigant himself, and
expresses such a text as his critical emendations appeared
to him to recommend. The work is splendicUy printed,
but the editor has been much blamed for the excessive
use of conjectural emendation. Cardinal Wiseman,
who is by no means disposed to be a harsh critic, speaks
severely of the work. — Lectures on the Connexion, ^c.
Lecture x.
The greatest and most valuable critical edition of the
Hebrew bible that has been ever printed, is that given
by the learned Benjamin Kennicott, and printed at the
Clarendon press, Oxford, in 1776 and 1780, two volumes
folio. The learned editor occupied more than ten years

94 OF THE PRINCIPAL PRINTED EDITIONS
in preparing the materials for this great work. He
collated for it not only all the MSS, in England and
Ireland, but extended his researches over aU the conti
nent, WhUst the materials were in course of preparation
for his edition, Kennicott published each year an annual
report, informing the public of the progress that had
been made in the examination and coUation of MSS,,
editions, rabbinical writings, &g. ; for he did not confine
himself solely to the coUation of MSS, Everywhere his
undertaking met with favour, and nowhere more than at
Rome, as he himself gratefuUy acknowledges. In pre
paring the materials, Kennicott was assisted by Professor
Bruns, of the University of Helmstadt, who, under his
direction and at his expense, coUated three hundred and
fifty MSS,, whUst Dr, Kennicott himself collated two
hundred and fifty : this would make the whole number
of MSS. coUated six hundred. But, as Charles Butler
(HorcB Biblicce) observes, " There is reason to suppose
that some of the MSS, were confounded and numbered
more than once ; and hence it has been asserted that
the number of them should be reduced to about five
hundred and eighty," Cardinal Wiseman (in the lecture
quoted above) states the number to be five hundred and
eighty-one. The text of this edition is Van der Hooght's,
with which all the MSS. were coUated. In this coUation
variations in the points were overlooked, and, therefore.
Van der Hooght's text is given without the points. We
cannot pass without notice here the labours of John
Bernard de Rossi, a Catholic professor of Parma, whose
labours have contributed so much to fix the reading of the
Hebrew text, although he has not given himself an edi
tion of the bible. He coUected a great number of MSS.
and rare editions of the Hebrew text, and pubUshed the
various readings which they furnished, as supplementary
to Kennicott's collection. The first volume of this sup-

OF THE HEBREW BIBLE, 95
plement was pubUshed by De Rossi in 1784, In this
volume he gives the catalogue of four hundred and
seventy-nine MSS, in his own possession. Before the
completion of the fourth volume, in 1788, his collection
had increased to six hundred and twelve. In 1808 he
published a supplementary volume to the preceding four, in
which sixty-eight new manuscripts are described, making
in all six hundred and eighty Hebrew manuscripts; that
is, about one hundred more than Kennicott had collected,
De Rossi's various readings have not only been taken
from the MSS. and ecUtions of the Hebrew text, he has
also coUated for this purpose Samaritan MSS. and an
cient versions. Davidson (Biblical Criticism, p. 225,)
says of De Rossi's work: " This immense coUection was
made with marveUous industry and singular care by one
who displayed a better judgment than Kennicott in such
matters." An ecUtion of the Hebrew bible, which, for the pur
poses of common use may supply the want of the splencUd
but expensive editions and coUations of Houbigant, Ken
nicott, and De Rossi, is one which was printed under the
inspection of Doederlein and Meisner, in 1793, at Leip-
sic, in octavo. It is usually bound in two volumes.
The collection of various readings makes it valuable, but
as to the text of the edition, Jahn asserts that it is very
incorrect. Jahn has himself given an edition of the
Hebrew bible, which is much esteemed, in four volumes
octavo, Vienna, 1806. With the text this eminent
oriental scholar has given the most important various
reacUngs selected from the collations of Kennicott, De
Rossi, and others. The text is that of Van der Hooght,
from which the ecUtor has departed only in nine or ten
places, in which many other ecUtions had preceded
him, and which are supported by numerous and very
weighty authorities. We have now noticed the most

96 OF THE PRINCIPAL PRINTED EDITIONS,
important printed editions of the Hebrew bible. No
doubt, since that of Jahn, various other editions have
issued from the press, but in these the text of Van der
Hooght has been so generally followed, at the same time
that they add so Uttle to the materials for the criticism
of the Hebrew text, that we shaU content ourselves for
the |)resent with what has been said of the printed edi
tions of the Hebrew bible. And if, in our notice of the
ecUtions even which preceded that of Jahn, we have
passed over some that are remarkable, such as those that
are printed in some of. the Polyglot bibles, this is to be
ascribed to the exact manner in which tHe editors of
these have followed respectively some preceding edition.

DISSERTATION YI.

ON THE GREEK MSS, OF THE SEW TESTAMENT,
We have said something, in a preceding dissertation, of
the manner in which the writing of the ancient Greek
manuscripts has been executed. In the present disserta
tion we purpose to discuss briefly the claims which the
known MSS, of the Greek Testament have to be consi
dered faithful representatives of their original — or rather,
to offer a few general observations on the critical value
of the Greek MSS. of the New Testament. It is clear,
in the first plat^e. that we have no longer the autographs
of any (jf the sacred writers: and it is equaUy clear that
the manuscript copies which we hare, and which are
very numerous, speaking of the New Testament, are
more or less valuable in proportion as they represent,
with greater or less fideUty. the autographs. But to
decide on the rival claims, in this matter, of the MSS.
which have been coUated, is an exceedingly difficult un-
dertaidng, and one in which different critics have
arrived at different and even opposite conclusions. We
shall simply notice the opinions of others, who have de
voted much time to the dry labour of examining MSS.
And here, in the first place, it must be said that the
antiquity of a manuscript must have great weight in
recommending it, because, in the progress of time, as
copies are taken fix»m, and succeed to copies, mistakes
are naturaUy multipUed. However it wiU sometimes
happen that a more modem MS. wUl be preferable to a
• VOL. I. H

98 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF
more ancient one, inasmuch as the more modern one
may be an exceedingly careful transcript of a codex,
which, having otherwise much to recommend it, was
more ancient than either of these. Richard Simon, in his
Critical History of the New Testament, — (chap, xxx.) —
gives the preference to manuscripts made in the Greek
churches over those which have been transcribed by the
Latins before the time at. which St. Jerome made his
correction of the old Latin vulgate, although these latter
manuscripts may be more ancient than any of the others.
He considers that these manuscripts made by the Latins
were not remarkable for their accuracy, although he does
not ascribe the cause of this to any wish on the part of
those who transcribed them to render them conformable
to the Latin; on the contrary, he blames the opinion of
Erasmus and some other critics, who thought that such
manuscripts had been altered to make them agree with
the Latin. Simon thinks that Latin copyists did not
scruple much about fiUing up what appeared to be a
chasm in the narrative of one evangelist, by inserting a
portion of the paraUel passage as it was found in another
evangelist. Something simUar, he asserts, has been done
by them with the Epistles of St. Paul, though not, of
course, to the same extent, because paraUel passages do
not so easUy occur there. Simon considers that the
Codex Cantabrigiensis or Codex Bezae, which the critical
ecUtors of the Greek Testament at a later period gene
raUy designate by the letter D., is one of these manu
scripts which have been made by Latin copyists. He
considers that the Latin translation which accompanies
it belongs to the ante-Hieronymian vulgate, and he, in
conformity with his judgment on such manuscripts, un
dervalues both the Greek and Latin of the manuscript-
We may observe here, as an example of the difficulty which
surrounds such critical questions, that aU the placita of

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 99
Simon regarding this manuscript, although they have
been assented to by some of the critics who have come
after him, have yet been vehemently assailed by others.
We see that the readings of this manuscript have been
most highly esteemed by some; and again, if the Latin
translation which accompanies it reaUy appertains to the
ancient Latin vulgate, (which we do not admit,) that
vulgate, we shaU see, has been so much esteemed by
some even of the best Protestant critics, that they would
look upon the Greek text which it represents as the best
of aU. Having said so much about the value which
attaches to manuscripts in consequence of their antiquity,
we have now to consider whether, when the ancient
manuscripts are (Uvided upon a -reading, the reading of
the greater number of manuscripts ought always to be
preferred. There is no doubt but it may happen in
some instances that the true reading wUl be found in the
smaUer number of manuscripts, as we shaU see more at
length in the Dissertation on the Elements of BibUcal
Criticism. But then the question may be again asked —
considering manuscripts as witnesses in favour of a cer
tain reading, does it appear that the greater number of
MSS. always impUes the greater number of independent
manuscript witnesses in favour of the reading which they
contain. It wUl be readUy admitted that sometimes two
or more MSS. may be so manifestly transcripts one from
the other, that aU taken together wiU not present more
than one independent manuscript witness of a reading.
But, then, what degree of simUarity between manuscripts
ouo-ht to reduce their combined testimony to that of one
independent witness? And again, amidst the different
classes of simUar MSS., what class ought to be looked on
as presenting the best readings, these are the vexatce
qucestiones of the critics, as may be inferred from aU that
has been written about the families of manuscripts. We

100 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF
must here, therefore, devote some space to the notice of
this matter — of the families of manuscripts, AccorcUng
lu the opinion which much more commonly prevails
among the critics, numerous Greek manuscripts, which
have been collated, are found, although exhibiting slight
discrepancies, yet so to agree in various characteristics,
that they are proved to belong to one class or famUy;
whilst many other manuscripts so differ in their charac
teristics from these, at the same time that they agree
among themselves, that they are seen to constitute a
distinct family. These families are commonly termed
recensions, because they are supposed to represent — each
a cUstinct revised edition of the text. However, whether
such distinct revised editions of the text have been the
models of these families respectively, is a question among
the critics, and hence some would prefer in this mat
ter the name of famUy to that of recension; family
merely designating that class of manuscripts which was
in use in a particular part of the church. Those who
admit families of manuscripts, are not agreed upon the
number of these — some counting only two, others three,
and others four. Before proceeding farther, we may
observe how important this enquiry regarding the exis
tence of families is considered in reference to the criti
cism of the Greek text, foi if it be once admitted that
manuscripts are to be thus classified, then it follows that
sometimes the reading of three manuscripts, for example,
ought to outweigh the reading of forty; because the three
may represent three distinct famUies, whereas the forty
may aU belong to one. Bengelj a German Protestant
critic, towards the beginning of the eighteenth century,
appears to have been the first to whom the idea of this
cUstribution of manuscripts into families — which very
name he used — suggested itself. But Griesbach, weU
known as a critical editor of the Greek Testament, was

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 101
the first who examined this matter profoun(Uy. Accord
ing to him the Greek manuscripts are reducible to three
classes or recensions. First, the Alexandrine. Second,
the Occidental or Westem; and Third, the Byzantine or
Oriental. Michaelis, who otherwise agrees with Gries
bach in this classification of the manuscripts, adds a
fourth recension, which he calls the Edessene. The first
or Alexandrine recension, is so termed by Griesbach,
because, in its characteristic readings, it agrees with the
quotations of the early Alexandrine writers, particularly
Origen and Clement of AlexancUia, and is the recension
which the Greeks of Egypt foUowed. Second, the Wes
tem recension is that to which the quotations of Tertul-
Uan and Cyprian answer, and which was foUowed by the
Christians of Africa, Italy, Gaul, and the west of Europe
generaUy. Third, the Byzantine or ConstantinopoUtan
recension comprises those manuscripts which are sup
posed to have been taken from an ecUtion of the text,
which was made perhaps about the end of the fourth
(jentury, and which came into general use in Constanti
nople and the several churches appertaining to the
patriarchate of that city. Fourth, the Edessene recen
sion, which Michaelis adds to the preceding, comprises
the manuscripts which were made from that e(Ution of
the text that is represented by the Peschito or old Syriac
version of the New Testament. Mr. Nolan, an English
Protestant minister, classifies the manuscripts differently.
He makes three (Uvisions of them. The fiirst class is
represented, according to him, in the old Latin vulgate
before it received the corrections either of Eusebius (as
he says) or St. Jerome. These manuscripts he considers
the best. The second class of manuscripts contain a
text which is represented in a correction of the old
Latin vulgate, which this author ascribes to Eusebius of
VerceUi: and the third class of manuscripts is repre-

102 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF
sented in the Latin vulgate as corrected by St. Jerome.
Hug, a German Catholic critic, makes three divisions of
the manuscripts also, but after a different plan from any
of the prececUng. Some critics wUl admit only two fami
lies or recensicms, contending that what are caUed the
Alexandrine and Western recensions ought to be consi
dered as but one. Matthtei, formerly professor at Mos
cow, who has given a critical edition of the Greek
Testament, contends that aU Greek manuscripts properly
belong only to one recension or famUy: the manuscripts
of this one famUy he calls codices textus perpetui, and
any manuscript that cannot be associated with this class
he looks upon as corrupt and of no value. FinaUy, some
later critics assert that aU these attempts to reduce
manuscripts to classes or families have proved utterly
futile and vain. Among others by whom this last
opinion, as weU as the prececUng, is noticed, may
be mentioned Professor Davidson. — Biblical Criticism,
lecture 20.
Those critics, who have agreed in holcUng, that manu
scripts are reducible to' certain classes, or famUies, cUffer
again among themselves as to the relative merits of
these classes. Thus, for example, Professor Scholz of
Bonn, who admits but two classes of manuscripts — first,
the Alexandrine, which, according to him, comprises in
it the Western of Griesbach; and second, the Constantino
poUtan — gives the preference to the ConstantinopoUtan;
whUst Griesbach decides in favour of the Alexandrine.
We purpose to say a few words in our next dissertation
on the merits of these two opinions.
We shaU, for the present, conclude this subject, with
a brief notice of some of the principal manuscripts of
the Greek Testament. Manuscripts, in regard to their
age, are cUvided into uncial — or those written in capital
letters — as all the old manuscripts were; and cursive.

, THE NEW TESTAMENT. 103
or smaU-letter manuscripts. The modern German
critics, with Hug, arrange them in three classes: first,
those that preceded the practice of stichometry, which
word means that division of the text into lines or sen
tences, which we have referred to already, in speaking of
the ancient divisions of the text; second, the stichome-
trical; third, such as were witten after stichometry had
ceased to be used. The late critical editors have designated
the manuscripts by the letters of the alphabet A. B. C,
(Sec. The order in which the letters have been assigned
to the different manuscripts was not intended to mark
their age or internal value, as Davidson observes. (Bibli
cal Criticism, lecture 2.) It is more probable that it was
done at first arbitrarUy, and that it came to be univer-
saUy adopted as a convenient abbreviation.
We shaU now describe a few of these manuscripts.
First, the manuscript marked A in Wetstein, Griesbach,
and Scholz's critical editions, is caUed the Alexandrine.
It was presented by the weU-known Cyril Lucar, patri
arch of Constantinople, to Charles I. of England, and is
preserved in the British Museum. Besides the New
Testament, it contains the Septuagint version of the
Old. The New Testament is defective in the beginning,
commencing with the twenty-fifth chapter and sixth
verse of St. Matthew's gospel. Besides this defect, it
also wants a portion of St. John's gospel, and some
chapters of the second epistle to the Corinthians. It is
written in uncial or capital letters, without any accents
or marks of aspiration. It is one of those, says Hug,
which is more ancient than stichometry. Hug refers
it to the fifth century, although many critics have
assigned it a more ancient date. A fac-simUe of the
New Testament portion has been published at London,
in 1786, by Dr. Woide. The Old Testament division
has been since pubUshed, at London also, in 1819,

104 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF
under the superintendence of Mr. Baber. Second, the
codex B. This is caUed the Vatican manuscript, be
cause it is preserved in the Vatican library at Rome. It
is written on parchment or vellum, and, like the preced
ing, it contains the Old and New Testaments; the former
of which was printed from it in 1587, by order of Sixtus
Quintus. This manuscript is defective both in the Old
and New Testaments : of the Old it wants a great portion
of Genesis and some of the Psalms; and of the New, it only
contains the Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, St. Paul's
Epistles, except those to Timothy, Titus and Phile
mon, and the latter part of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
viz., from the fourteenth verse of the ninth chapter to
the end. It is written in uncial or capital letters, and
without the divisions of chapters, verses, or words. It
is one of the ante-stichometrical class. Hug, who has
examined it with care, and described it in a work
written expressly for the purpose, — De Antiquitate Codi-
cis Vaticani, Commentatio, Friburgi, 1809, in 4to., —
assigns it a higher antiquity than he aUows to the
Alexandrine. He refers it to the fourth century.
Others are not wUling to allow it so great an antiquity.
However, as Marsh infers from the omission of the Euse
bian Kephalaia and Titloi, it appears at least to have
been written before the close of the fifth century. It
has been long a matter of dispute which of these two
manuscripts, A or B, ought to be preferred, both on the
head of antiquity, and of internal exceUence. At pre
sent, however, the decision of the learned appears to be
generaUy in favour of B — the Vatican manuscript — on
both these points. We may therefore justly consider it
the most valuable Greek manuscript that has been yet
coUated. Third, the codex C, called the Codex rescriptus
Ephremi, is an old and valuable manuscript written on
veUum, It is called rescriptus, (or Palimpsest,) because

THE NEW TESTA3IENT. 105
the original writing has been in a great part removed to
make way for the works of St, Ephrem, the Syrian; yet
the original writing has not been so effectuaUy removed
as not to be stUl traceable. Besides the New Testament,
it appears to have contained originaUy the Septuagint
version of the Old: portions of which stUl remain. In
the New, there are many chasms, which have been
pointed out by Wetstein, and after him by Griesbach
and Scholz. It is written in the uncial lettei-s without
accents or division of words. Hug, who places it in the
ante-stichometrical class, makes it as ancient as the fifth
century. Others do not assign it so high an antiquity,
but it is generaUy admitted to be as old, at least, as the
seventh century. This codex is also termed Regius,
from being preserved in the royal Ubrary at Paris,
Fourth, we next notice the Codex Cantabrigiensis or
Bezce, marked D, which has been already mentioned in
this chapter. It is a Greek and Latin manuscript of
the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, written on
veUum. It is preserved in the pubUc Ubrary of the
university of Cambridge, to which it was presented by
Theodore Beza, in the year 1581. It is written in
uncial letters, without accents or marks of aspiration, or
spaces between the words. A splencUd fac-sunUe of this
codex was pubUshed by Dr. Kipling, at Cambridge, in
1793, 2 vols, folio. Many consider the Latin transla
tion as presenting a portion of the old ante-Hieronymian
version of the New Testament: a point which we shaU
examine more fuUy when treating of the ancient versions
of the scripture. The age of this manuscript has been
much contested. According to Scholz, it is not older
than the eighth century. Michaelis, on the con
trary, thinks that, perhaps, of aU the manuscripts that
are known it is the most ancient. It is written in
ffTt^ot; and, of course, Hug puts it in the stichometrical

106 ON THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF
class. He makes it belong to the end of the fifth cen
tury. The critical value of this codex is also much dis
puted, as we have before observed. Fifth, next comes
another codex, also marked D, but containing a different
portion of the New Testament from the prececUng. It
is caUed the Codex Claromontanus, for it is said to have
been procured by Beza from Clermont in France, It is
a Greek-Latin copy of St, Paul's Epistles, written on
veUum, and is preserved at present in the royal (or
national) Ubrary at Paris, It is thought to have been
written in the sixth or seventh century. It is written
in the uncial letters, and has accents and marks of aspi
ration, but not a prima manu. It is written in oTi'xpt
and, of course. Hug places it in the stichometrical
class, Richard Simon, Beza, and MiU have considered
this to be the second part of the Codex Cantabrigiensis.
Wetstein is thought to have demonstrated the contrary;
but considering the way in which Simon proposes his
opinion on the matter, I know not if he would admit
that Wetstein's proof was conclusive against him. See his
Critical History of the New Testament, chap, xxx. Sixth.
E is the Codex Sangermanensis, a manuscript of St. Paul's
Epistles, so called from having formerly belonged to the
abbey of St. Germain des Pres in Paris. It is sticho
metrical: as is also Seventh, the LaucUan, which is marked
E, in Uke manner. It has its name from having been
presented by Laud to the university of Oxford. It con
tains the greater part of the Acts of the Apostles, with a
Latin version. The principal MSS. written after sticho
metry had been laid aside, are — First, the MS. of Cyprus
now in the royal library at Paris. It is designated by
K, It contains the four Gospels, written on parchment,
in uncial oblong letters. This MS, is of the ninth
centur}^; we find in it the accents and a certain punc
tuation, that is, a point used to mark the end of each

THE NEW TESTAMENT. 107
sentence. Second, the BasU manuscript, preserved in
the library of that city. It again is designated by E.
It is of the ninth century; written in capitals, with the
points according to the present system of punctuation.
Having now noticed the principal manuscripts of the
. Greek Testament, those that are the most ancient and
the most highly valued, we conclude this subject for the
present, and proceed to treat of the printed editions of
the Greek Testament.

DISSERTATION VII.

OF THE PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT.
The first printed edition of the Greek Testament, that
was published, was that edited by Erasmus, in 1516. It
was printed in folio, at BasU, by Frobenius. Masch's
Le Long Bibliotheca Sacra, vol, i, part 1, p, 281. It
was printed after one manuscript only, with which the
editor collated two others, all in cursive characters, and
consequently not so old as the tenth century. — Glaire,
Introduction, vol. ii., p. 445, It appears that his
manuscript authority was particularly scanty in the
Apocalypse; so that it is said that he was obliged to fiU
up some of the chasms there, by his own translations
from the Latin vulgate. Erasmus gave four other edi
tions of his Testament in 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535,
The two last were altered in many places, especiaUy in
the Apocalypse, from- the Complutensian edition, — But
ler's HorcB Biblicce, section 11,
Second, We give the second place to the ecUtion of
the Greek Testament printed in the Complutensian poly
glot. For, although it bears date 1514, yet it was not
allowed to be sold, generally, before 1522, before which
time Erasmus had published more than one edition of
his Greek Testament, This famous polyglot was edited
at Complutum, (Alcala) in Spain, under the auspices of
the renowned Cardinal Ximenes. The editors had
manuscripts sent to them from the Vatican library in
Rome; however, the Danish professor Birch, who collated

OF THE PRINTED EDITIONS, cScC, 109
very carefuUy the famous Vatican manuscript B, asserts,
it was not one of those of which they avaUed themselves.
They had a codex of the apostolical epistles, brought
from the ¦ Isle of Rhodes, — See Masch's Le Long Biblio,
Sacra, voL 1, part 1, p, 267, The manuscripts used by
the Complutensian editors, have been since lost.
Third. Next in order, come the editions of the cele
brated French printer, Robert Stephens; he printed four
editions — all remarkable for the beauty of the typography
— in the years 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. His son,
Henry, published a fifth ecUtion in 1569. Among these
editions, the first and third of Robert Stephens are the
most remarkable. The first edition, which is in 16 mo,
is most beautifoUy printed, and is weU known by the
name of the Mirficam edition — a name which it has
received from the first words of Stephens' preface, which
commences " 0 mirificam regis nostri optimi et prtestan-
tissind principis UberaUtatem." The third ecUtion is in
foUo, and is remarkable for having the reacUngs of six
teen manuscripts in the margin. It is also the edition
with which the readings of the textus receptus generaUy
agree. In the text of this edition Stephens foUowed the
fifth edition of Erasmus.
The next editor of the Greek Testament whom we
meet with is Theodore Beza; whose editions have had a
great influence upon the actual form of the Greek text.
His first ecUtion appeared in 1565, in foUo. The text
of this ecUtion is the third of Stephens, altered in about
fifty places. Four other ecUtions were pubUshed by
Beza, in 1576, 1582, 1589, and 1598. The text which
he foUowed in the first edition has been altered more or
less in the foUowing editions, particularly in the three
last. He has been accused of aUowing his Calvinistic
prejucUces to influence him in the choice of readings. —
BiMer, Horoe Biblicce, section 11,

110 OF THE PRINTED EDITIONS OF
Next in order come the famous Elzevir editions — the
first of which was printed at Leyden, in 1624, The
editor of this and of the subsequent Elzevir editions is
unknown; hence these editions are designated by the
name of the printers (the Elzevirs), Besides the first
edition, they gave four other editions of the text. In
the preface to their second edition, printed in 1633, they
denominate their text the textus receptus — a name which
it has ever since retained. The editor does not appear
to have consulted any Greek manuscripts. The text
which he gives is partly that of the third edition of
Stephens, and partly that of Beza. This edition of the
Elzevirs was soon reprinted, and circulated through
various countries, so that it is styled the common
Greek text, as well as the received text: and we see now
how the history of the common Greek text is traced
back through the editions of Beza and the third of
Stephens, to the fifth edition of Erasmus, and through
that, as far as the Apocalypse is concerned, to the Com
plutensian polyglot.
Walton, not confining himself to the received text,
took the third edition 'of Robert Stephens for the New
Testament text of his polyglot, comparing with it the
readings of the Alexandrian manuscript, and he has
moreover given, in the sixth volume of his polyglot, a
great number of various readings, drawn from many
manuscripts. The London polyglot was published in 1657, in six
volumes folio. — See Glaire, Introduction, tom. 1, p. 446,
Paris, 1839.
We have next to notice the edition of the Greek Tes
tament superintended by the Protestant bishop of Ox
ford, Dr. Fell. This edition was published in 1675,
at Oxford, It was accompanied with a collection of
various readings drawn from ancient versions and

THE NEW TESTAMENT. Ill
numerous manuscripts. However, many of the manu
scripts are not considered to have been of much critical
value, and the edition has fallen into disrepute, having been
edipsed by the famous edition which we have to notice
next. That edition is the one given by Dr, Mill, printed
at Oxford, in folio, in 1707; and the above-mentioned Dr,
Fell rendered a much greater service to sacred criticism
by engaging MiU to labour at this work, and by assist
ing him in the undertaking, than by bringing out his
own edition, — See Glaire, in place, cited above. The
text which MUl took for his edition is that of the third
edition of Stephens, but the editor accompanied it with a
much greater number of various readings than is to be
found in any previous ecUtion. He consulted for this
purpose the manuscripts of Walton, Fell, and many
others. The extracts that had been made from ancient
versions he revised and increased, adding numerous
quotations from the ancient fathers. To the work he
prefixed learned prolegomena. This immense apparatus
cost the editor thirty years of incessant labour, and he
only survived its publication for fourteen days. This
work opened a new era in the criticism of the New
Testament. Ludolph Kuster published at Amsterdam, in 1710, a
a new edition of Mill's Testament, having collated for
the purpose various new manuscripts, particularly the
Cpdex Ephremi, or C, which is preserved in the royal
library at Paris.
Bengel, a learned German of Wurtemberg, gave a
new edition of the Greek Testament in 1734. He did
not confine himself to the received text, but altered it
wherever he thought that it might be improved; how
ever, he did not insert in the text any reading that
was not to be found in some printed edition. The only
part in which he departed from this rule, was in the

112 OF THE PRINTED EDITIONS
Apocalypse. Under the text, he placed some select
readings; but the whole collection of various reacUngs,
and his own sentiments upon them, he reserved for his
apparatus criticus, which he subjoined to his edition of
the text. In the first part of this apparatus, he gave
the rules of criticism; in the second, the principles
which ought to direct one in the choice of reacUngs; and
in the third part, an answer to the difficulties which
might be objected against his work. Bengel, as has
been observed before, was the first person to whom the
idea appears to have occurred, of reducing all the manu
scripts to a small number of distinct families. He
reckoned but two of them, the African and the Asiatic.
Bengel's labours in the matter of sacred criticism were
highly applauded by the Lutherans, to which sect he
belonged. These labours, however, were destined to be
soon eclipsed by the work of another Protestant critic,
John James Wetstein, whose famous edition of the New
Testament was published at Amsterdam in 1751 and
1752, in two volumes, folio. — See Butler Horce Biblicce,
Glaire, Introduction, places cited above. Wetstein adopted
for his text the editio recepta of the Elzevirs. His col
lection of various readings far surpasses that of MiU or
Bengel. He examined the manuscripts with his own
eyes, and collected many which had escaped the re
searches of those who had preceded him in the criticism
of the New Testament. He added to the known rep
lugs of the ancient versions those of the PhUoxenian
Syriac version. He has, moreover, brought together a
multitude of passages drawn from profane authors,
Jewish rabbins, and fathers of the church, intended by
him to bear on the explanation of the sacred text. The
religious notions of the author, and the manifest want of
a cool judgment which he displays, must be allowed to
detract from the merit of this work.

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 113
The next edition which we have to notice is that given
by the celebrated German critic, Griesbach. He first
published the New Testament in 1775-1777, at HaUe,
in two volumes, octavo. Griesbach adopted the idea of
Bengel regarding the families or recensions of manu
scripts, and he has put it forward in a very imposing
manner. He did not adhere to the received text, but
altered it wherever he thought that a comparison of. the
documents which he possessed justified him in doing so.
As to various readings, Griesbach's object was to give a
choice coUection of those produced by MOl, Bengel, and
Wetstein, together with those extracted by himself from
various quarters, omitting aU such as are trifling in
themselves, supported by little authority, or evidently
only errata. Home has a lengthened notice of Gries
bach's ecUtion. — Introduction, vol. ii., appendix, p. 21,
seventh ecUtion. Griesbach is praised by aU for his
learning, but he is censured for the liberty which he has
sometimes taken with the text. Between the years
1782-88 Matthaei, a professor at Moscow, published a
new ecUtion of the Greek Testament, in twelve volumes,
octavo. His text is founded chiefly on the coUation of
more than a hundred Moscow MSS. which he was the first
to examine. It comes very near the received text, both of
these being in reality founded upon that junior famUy of
MSS. which passes by the name of Byzantine or Con
stantinopoUtan. Matthaei, who declares himself the
enemy of the system of families or recensions altogether,
speaks with great contempt of the ancient manuscripts
as compared with those which he foUowed. However,
his judgment in giving such preference to the Moscow
MSS. has been condemned by the generality of critics.
We have next to notice an edition of the Greek Tes
tament, given by a learned Catholic professor at Vienna,
Francis Charles Alter. This edition is enriched with the
VOL. I. I

114 OF THE PRINTED EDITIONS
various reacUngs of more than twenty MSS. preserved
in the Ubrary of that city. The ecUtion is in two vo
lumes, octavo, and was published in the years 1786, 1787,
Alter took as the basis of his text a Vienna manuscript,
marked No. 1, in the catalogue of the MSS. of the Im
perial Ubrary, made by the famous Peter Lambecius.
Alter styles it the Codex Vindobonensis. He has cor
rected it occasionaUy from the ecUtion published by
Robert Stephens in 1546, subjoining at the end of each
volume, a list of these corrections, under the title of
¦vitia codicis vindobonensis : besides the readings already
mentioned, drawn from the Greek manuscripts, he added
the readings of the Coptic version, also those of the
Slavonian version, and of two ancient Latin versions
preserved in the Imperial Ubrary. Alter is blamed for
having attached so much importance to the Codex Vin
dobonensis as to have made it the basis of his text, and
also for the inconvenient mode in which he has arranged
the various readings, which renders it necessary for one,
who wishes to compare them together, to search them
out in different places of the work. — (Butler Horce Biblicce,
sec. 11th; Glaire, Introduction, tom. l.p, 449,) In noticing
the principal ecUtions of the Greek Testament, we cannot
pass over the work of Professor Birch of Copenhagen.
He coUated for his ecUtion of the Greek Testament, the
-famous Vatican manuscript, besides many other MSS.
preserved in the libraries of Rome, and of various other
cities of Europe — ^he coUected, moreover, the readings of
the Syriac versions and prefixed to his work learned
prolegomena. He published the first volume, which con
tains the four Gospels in 1788, but a great number of
the copies of this first volume, as weU as the materials of
the second, were burned in a calamitous fire at Copen
hagen in 1795. This misfortune was the reason why
Birch confined himself to the publishing of the various

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT, 115
readings of his manuscripts, on the Acts, the Epistles,
and the Apocalypse. As to the text of this edition of
the gospels, it is based upon the third ecUtion of Stephens.
It was with the help of these new materials that Gries
bach brought out his second ecUtion of the Greek Tes
tament. It appeared in two volumes large octavo, in
the years 1796 and 1806, with the imprint on the title
page of each volume, of London and HaUe. In addition
to the various reacUngs given in his first ecUtion, Gries
bach coUated for this second, aU the Latin versions pub
Ushed by Sabatier and Blanchini: he has, moreover,
corrected the mistakes made by MUl, Bengel and Wetstein,
in their quotations from the oriental versions — ^he has
inserted the principal reacUngs collected by Matthaei,
Birch and Alter — he has given the readings, moreover,
of the SahicUc version, and he had collations made for
him, of the Armenian and Sclavonic versions. Un-
doubtecUy, Griesbach has brought together here, a vast
quantity of materials bearing upon the criticism of the
New Testament. Griesbach's judgment, however, on the
relative value of his materials, and on the selection of
the true reading, has not found favour even with many
protestants. As it is not our intention to notice all the ecUtions of
the New Testament, we pass over many minor ones, to
notice the great critical edition of the Greek Testament
breught out by Dr. Scholz, one 'of the Catholic profes
sors at Bonn. This work, which forms two volumes in
quarto, has been published at Leipsic. The first volume,
containing the four Gospels, made its appearance in
1830, and the second, containing the Acts of the Apos
tles, the Epistles of St, Paul, the CathoUc Epistles, and
the Apocalypse, in 1836, The prolegomena prefixed to
the work consists of one hundred and seventy-two pages.
In it the leamed ecUtor gives ample information respect-

116 OF THE PRINTED EDITIONS
ing the codices, versions, fathers, and councils, which he
used as authorities, together with a history of the text
and an exposition or defence of his peculiar system of
classification of MSS, Scholz spent twelve years in
preparing the materials for his work. He visited the
libraries of the principal cities of Europe, and in addi
tion to these, the Ubraries of the Greek monasteries, of
Jerasalem, of St, Saba, and the Isle of Patmos, He
collated, either entirely or in part, six hundred and six
manuscripts not previously coUated by any editor of the
New Testament. As we observed in another . place,
Scholz refers aU the MSS. to two recensions or famUies —
the Alexandrian or African and the Asiatic or Constanti
nopoUtan — in other words, the occidental, (same as
African,) and oriental: and the chief cUfference between
the ecUtions of Scholz and Griesbach proceeds from this,
that Scholz gives the preference to the oriental family
of MSS., whUst Griesbach prefers the western. In
conformity with this preference for the oriental MSS.,
Scholz has given a text that comes much nearer the
textus receptus than Griesbach's. For, as his principles
have led him to give a preference to the more modern
MSS. over the ancient, hence that close approximation of
his text to the received text, which has been confessecUy
formed upon a few junior MSS. — belonging, according
to the generally-received system of famUies, to the Con
stantinopoUtan class. As a matter of course, the admi
rers of the English Protestant authorized version have
generaUy received with great approbation the views of
Dr. Scholz, inasmuch as these views tend to support the
peculiar readings of that text, which is represented in
this English version; a version that has been so much
extolled _ by Protestants, above that English translation
of the Latin vulgate, which is in use among the Catholics
of these countries. Yet many Protestant critics, even

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 117
in these countries, contend that Scholz has advanced no
sufficient reason to justify the preference, which he has
given to the junior cocUces; and hence they continue, with
the generality of critics, to prefer those ancient MSS.
which are placed in the Alexandrian or western family,
of which our ancient Latin version is one of the re
presentatives. Catholic writers, who have examined
M, Scholz's performance carefully, have spoken severely
of it. For example. Father Secchi, a Jesuit, in a review
of the work, pubUshed in the Annali delle Scienze Re
ligiose Compilati daW Ab. Ant. de Luca, vol, 6, Num, 16,
1838, Roma; and the Abbe Glaire Introduction aux
Livres de L'Ancien et du Nouveau Testament, tom. 1,
p. 453. Glaire says, " There are, in effect, certain prin
ciples and certain assertions, which a good Catholic
sees with pain, in the work of M. Scholz."
A Greek Testament has been brought out in these
countries not many years since, which deserves to be
noticed, because it contains in reality a new recension of
the Greek text. This ecUtion is entitled »; Kaivij Aia-
Oijicrj. The Greek Testament: with English notes, criti
cal, phUological, and exegetical. By the Rev. S. T.
Bloomfield, D.D., Cambridge and London, 1832, 2 vols.
8vo. My edition of this work is the third, " carefully
corrected, greatly enlarged, and considerably improved."
London, 2 vols. 8vo. This work is highly praised by
Protestants; and doubtless it must be said that, consi
dering the religion of the editor, he has, for the most
part, brought an impartial mind to the examination of
the orcUnary Greek text. It does not belong to our pre
sent purpose to speak of his notes. Of course, like aU
simUar works by Protestants, they are replete with in
correct views of the meaning of the text.
In 1850 Bloomfield published a supplemental volume to
this edition of the Greek Testament, containing additional

118 OF THE PRINTED EDITIONS
annotations, critical, philological, and explanatory. The
critical notes in this volume appear to have been
composed with a special reference to two new ecUtions of
the Greek Testament — one by Lachmann, and the other
by Tischendorf — ^which made their appearance subse
quently to the previous labours of Bloomfield in the
criticism of the Greek text, and which have obtained
great vogue in Germany. In consequence of the adcU-
tional Ught which he supposes that these ecUtors have
thrown on the state of the text, he has not unfrequentiy
altered or modified his former opinions as to certain
readings. Bloomfield appears to think that both Lach
mann and Tischendorf have exercised a Ucentious criti
cism — and that the former particularly has treated the
received text with a degree of (Usregard that coidd only
be expected from a German Protestant. One reason,
however, why Lachmann's views shaU never be popidar
among English Protestants is, that he has ftiUy demon
strated the great inferiority of the received Greek text as
compared with the text represented in the Latin vulgate.
FinaUy, the Greek Testament is again submitted to
critical revision by an English Protestant — AUord — of
whose work the first volume, containing the Gospels, has
already appeared.
Before concluding these observations on the cUfferent
manuscripts and printed ecUtions of the scripture, we
may observe how Uttle the substantial integrity of the
sacred text is affected by aU the various readings which
the comparison of MSS. versions, and ancient quotations,
has discovered. No doubt these differences of readings
are very numerous. MiU produced thirty thousand, and
the number has increased since; but they are almost
every one of such a character as to leave untouched the
essential parts of any sentence — such as — the use of the
singular for the plural, or the plural for the singular —

OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 119
the insertion or omission of particles not affecting the
sense — ^the insertion or omission of the article in unim
portant cases — different modes of speUing — cUfferent
tenses of the same verb, or different cases of the same
noun, not affecting the substantial meaning. When bib-
Ucal criticism commenced its investigations, there were
not wanting those who, hostUe to Divine Revelation,
hoped that these enquiries would end in bringing into
doubt and uncertainty the whole text of scripture, but
they have been signaUy disappointed — and the result, so
mortifying to them, is such that, to use the words of the
learned CarcUnal Wiseman — " we must feel great satis
faction at the smaU difference between the best and the
most inferior manuscripts, and consequently at the con
soling manner in which the integrity of the inspired
records has been preserved." — Wiseman's Lectures on the
Connection between Science and Revealed Religion, second
ecUtion, p. 354.

DISSERTATION VIII.
OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES,
CHAPTER I.
OF THE TARGUMS, OR CHALDAIC PARAPHRASES.
In our notice of the ancient versions of the scripture we
give the first place to the Chaldaic paraphrases, or Tar
gums as they are caUed, not because these are the most
important or the most ancient translations of the scrip
ture, but because they are written in that language, in
which first of aU it became necessary to explain the
scriptures to the people, after that the Hebrew had ceased
to be a living language. The word Targum is derived
from a quadriliteral root Targam, and signifies inter
pretation or version : used as it is to designate the
Chaldaic versions of the scriptures, it comes to have
rather the meaning of paraphrase than version — the
name oi paraphrase being in reality better adapted to
express the character of these translations, than that of
version. There are at present eleven or twelve such
Targums extant, viz. :
First. — TheTargum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch. This
is the most esteemed of aU the Targums, both by Jews
and Christians, It is in general so literal, that it may
be well called properly a version, Onkelos is generally
supposed to have lived some time before the coming of
Christ, This is the testimony of the Talmud of Babylon,
which makes him a disciple of Hillel, who died sixty

OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS, 121
years before the Christian era. Some, however, with
Morinus and Eickhom would have it, that he lived at a
much later period ; but there is no sufficient reason for
departing from the common opinion ; on the contrary,
many things conspire to prove the great antiquity of the
work of which we speak ; first. The purity of the style
which approximates closely to the Chaldaic of Daniel and
Esdras ; second. The absence of rabbinical fables ; third.
The application of certain passages to the Messias, which
the more modem Jews would not have so explained.
The adversaries of the common opinion urge against it
the sUence of the fathers in regard to this work, but
that difficulty we shaU remove presently.
Second. — The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the
Prophets — containing the books of Josue, Judges, Samuel,
Kings, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the twelve minor
prophets. According to the Jewish tracUtion, this work
must have been written about the same tune with the
prececUng. Jonathan is also said to have belonged to
the school of HUlel, and to have been the most distin
guished of his eighty cUsciples. The style approaches a
good deal to that of Daniel and Esdras, yet not so much
as that of Onkelos ; sometimes foreign words are intro
duced, and rabbinical fables, and the interpretation is
much less literal in the books of Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel,
and the minor prophets, than in the other books. For
these reasons some would have it that this paraphrase is
the work of different interpreters, who Uved as late as
the third or fourth century of the Christian era. Yet,
notwithstanding these reasons, the common opinion can
weU stand ; for, these foreign words may have been in
troduced by some later hand : as to the rabbinical
fables, they are considered by good critics to be manifest
interpolations — and the different manner of interpreting,
that is, more or less literaUy, in different parts of the

122 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
work may be weU explained by attending to the nature
of the subject in the different parts of the sacred text.
The interpreter judged that the Uteral manner of render
ing the text, which would convey in a sufficiently
intelligible manner to the people the meaning of the
historical books, would not be equaUy adapted to convey
to them the meaning of the obscure prophecies, which
make the subject of the other books. On the other
hand, the antiquity of the work is proclaimed by the
general purity of the style, which although inferior to
that of Onkelos, is stUl much in advance of the later
Targums, which remain to be noticed — it is also pro
claimed by the application, which this paraphrase makes
of various prophecies to the Messias, which the more
modern Jews explain in quite a different manner. Now,
as to the objection against the antiquity of these Tar
gums, taken from the sUence of the fathers, let us see
what it is worth. They say that considering the argu
ments, which these Targums furnish against the Jews, it
is inexpUcable how the fathers could have passed them
over in silence, particularly Origen, S. Jerome and S.
Epiphanius, who were so weU acquainted with the lan
guage and monuments of the Jews. This is merely a
negative argument, and it is quite a sufficient answer to
it to say, that the fathers, even those who understood
the language of these books, justly considered that they
were sufficiently supplied with arguments against the
Jews, to dispense them from the study of these Jewish
writings, at a time when so many other wants of the
church demanded their attention.
Third. — The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan — a Chaldaic
paraphrase, thus named, because it has been falsely
ascribed to the above-mentioned author of the Targum
on the Prophets. The style of this paraphrase is bar
barous — the work is filled with rabbinical fables, and

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 123
foreign words abound in it. From these characteristics,
and, also from certain references to places and persons,
which could only have been made by one writing at a
comparatively late period, it is inferred, that almost the
whole of this work, cannot be of an earUer date than
the eighth century, or the seventh at the farthest. Hence,
in a critical point of view it is considered of Uttle value,
and the same may be said of aU the Targums which re
main to be noticed.
Fourth. — The Jerusalum Targum on the Pentateuch,
has its name from having been made at Jerusalem, or
from being written in the dialect of Jerusalem. It is
also comparatively modem, and abounds in faults, such
as the Pseudo- Jonathan exhibits. Sometimes it in
troduces lengthened fables, at another time it breaks
off abruptly in the midcUe of a verse, leaving the re
mainder of the verse unexplained. It appears to be
rather a coUection of fragments, than a regular con
nected work. Some late critics imagine, that they have
sufficiently cUscovered the substantial identity of this
work with the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, and they,
therefore, put it down, that this Targum exhibits the
fragments of a cUfferent recension or ecUtion of that same
work, described in the preceding paragraph, and Msely
attaibuted to Jonathan.
Fifth. — A Targum on Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, attri
buted by the Jews to Joseph the BUnd. This Jewish
doctor is said to have Uved in the third century of the
Christian era — but the work appears to be much more
modem, and it is, moreovei', unquestionable that the work
is the production not of one, but of many, cUfferent
authors. Sixth. — It is unnecessary to dweU particularly on the
remaining Chaldaic paraphrases that are known to be
extant. These are, one on the five MegiUoth or volumes.

124 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
that is, the books of Ruth, Esther, the Canticle of Canti
cles, the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and Ecclesiastes:
one on the books of Paralipomenon: three cUstinct para
phrases on the book of Esther, and a fourth on the
deuterocanonical parts of that book, AU these para
phrases, besides being fiUed with additions made to the
text and chUdish fables, are, moreover, of so modern a
date, that they are not considered to be of any value in
the criticism of the sacred text. It appears from what
has been said that Targums have been made upon aU the
protocanonical books of the Old Testament, except Daniel,
and first and second Esdras — ^but of all these, there are
only two which may be said to be valuable in a critical
point of view; that is, the Targum of Onkelos and that
of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the prophets. These are of
great importance to the biblical critic; but of stiU
greater importance to the expounder of the sacred text:
inasmuch as they exhibit the unbiassed interpretration
by the Jewish doctors of various passages regarding the
Messias, before that the rejection of our Redeemer had
induced the Jewish teachers to pervert the meaning of
these passages. Indeed, in this exegetical point of view,
some of the other Targums may even be occasionaUy of
use, inasmuch as they sometimes adhere to the tradi
tional understanding of a passage, even though that
meaning may be opposed to the actual prejucUces of the
Jewish people. In these cases the Targums AviU at least
furnish an argumentum ad hominem against the Jews,
In these Targums, moreover, numerous passages occur in
which things are ascribed to the Word of God as to a
distinct person — these places prove to us that, when St.
John, in his Gospel, designated the second Person of the
Holy Trinity by the name Aoyo^ or Word, his language
must not have appeared strange to the Jews or the con
verts from Judaism, We do not intend to imply, at the

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 125
same time, that the Jews, in general, had precise notions
regarding the mystery of the distinction of Persons in
the Godhead. Now in reference to the use of the term
Word in a personal sense, we shaU adduce one or two
examples from the Targum of Jei-usalem. First, we
have creation attributed to the Word, in Genesis i. 27.
"And the Word of the Lord created man:" and again,
in one verse. Genesis iii. 22, we find ascribed to the
Word creation, speech, and to be the only-begotten, thus —
" And the Word of Adonai, or of the Lord, said; behold!
Adam, whom I have created, is the only-begotten in
the world, as I am the only-begotten in the high hea
vens." We might quote also from Onkelos and Jona
than. In a word, the places are infinite in these para
phrases, — See Walton Prolegomenon xii., — in which
many things are attributed to the Word of God as to a
distinct Person. With regard to the printed editions
of these Targums, there is no one work which contains
so many of them as Walton's polyglot, in which are
given the Targum of Onkelos — ^the Targum, by the way,
which has been oftenest printed — also the Targum of
Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the prophets — ^the Targum of
Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch, and the Jerusalem
Targum on the Pentateuch.

CHAPTER II.
OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.
Under this head, we purpose to treat not only of the
Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, which is very
ancient, but also, and in the first place, of that Hebrew
copy of the Pentateuch, written in the Samaritan, or

126 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
ancient Hebrew character, and long preserved, with
great veneration, by the Samaritans; for, although it is
with the versions of the scripture that we are now
properly occupied, stiU the notice of this copy of the
Pentateuch may be conveniently introduced here, as
preUminary to the notice of the version of it in the
Samaritan dialect, or the Chaldseo-Samaritan language,
as Walton terms it. And first, in regard to the history
of the people called Samaritans: — the sacred scripture
informs us, that under King Roboam, the son of Solomon,
ten tribes of Israel separated from the tribes of Juda
and Benjamin, and constituted Jeroboam their king —
thus, the Israelites formed two cUfferent kingdoms, that
of Juda, of which the capital city was Jerusalem; and
that of Israel, (which name it retained down to the
Assyrian captivity) of which Samaria — ^built by Amri,
one of the successors of Jeroboam — became the capital.
We read in the 4th book of Kings, xvU. that Salmanasar,
the King of Assyria, carried captive to Assyria the ten
tribes, and replaced them with people from Babylon and
Cutha, and from Avah and from Emath and Sepharvaim.
In aU probabUity the people of Cutha were the most nu
merous of these settlers, and hence the inhabitants of the
country of Samaria have been sometimes designated from
them, Cutheans — thus Josephus often — although after
wards the name Samaritans became the fixed designation
for them. We read in the same book of Kings — same
chapter, xvii. that, after the arrival of these new colonists,
the land of Samaria was infested with lions, which
assailed and killed the people. Then it was represented
to the king of Assyria that this evil had come on the people
in consequence of their being ignorant of the manner
of worshipping and appeasing the God of the country.
Whereupon the king of Assyria, who, as we learn from
the first book of Esdras, (iv. 3,) was now Assaradon,

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 127
gave orders that one of the priests who had been brought
captive to Assyria should be sent back to the country, to
teach the people the ordinances of the God of the land.
Being instructed by this priest, they worshipped the
Lord, but yet they forsook not the worship of their idols,
— (See fourth Kings, xvii,) It is thought that, even
from the beginning, there were many Israelites dwelling
among this people — these IsraeUtes might have concealed
themselves in the mountains at the time of the captivity;
they must have belonged, also, to the poorest class of the
people. The Samaritans lived in this state under the
kings of Assyria, without having much intercourse with
the Jews. Yet we do not learn that, for a length of
time, there were any hostilities between the two peo--
pies. It was after the return of the Jews from the
Babylonish captivity that that inveterate hostUity com
menced between the Jews and Samaritans, which has
continued ever since. When the Jewish people returned
with pemussion to rebuUd the city and temple of Jeru
salem, the Samaritans wished to be allowed to unite with
them in the work; but the Jews having rejected the
proffered alliance, the Samaritans then endeavoured by
evei-y means in their power to prevent the rebuUcUng of
the city and temple. The enmity which thus commenced
between the two nations was further increased when one
of the grandsons of Eliasib, the high-priest, — (See second
Esdras, xiii. 28,) — and whose name, we learn from Jose
phus, to have been Manasses, having been deprived of the
priesthood because he would not send away his wUe — a
daughter of SanabaUat, the governor of Samaria, fled to his
father-in-law, whom he induced to buUd for him a temple
on mount Garizim, near Samaria, where he offered vic
tims in sacrifice, as they were offered in Jerusalem. Thus
was a temple raised in opposition to the temple at Jera
salem, and round this temple there were gathered, fi-om

128 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
time to time, many Jews, who foUowed the example of
Manasses in refusing to submit to the orcUnances of the
law. Hence, after the building of this new temple, at
least, the Samaritans of foreign origin were joined by
many persons of Jewish extraction; and, according to the
common opinion, they laid aside, from this same time, the
worship of idols, to attach themselves exclusively to that
of the true God. From this time the Samaritans have
always looked upon Garizim as the seat of their reUgion,
and forgetful of their pagan origin, (except, upon some
occasions, when, by a reference to it, they wished to
guard themselves against being involved in the persecu
tions which the Jews were suffering,) they have ever
since wished to be considered true Israelites, who have
preserved in aU its purity the observance of the Mosaic
law, and have had an unbroken succession of high-
priests — descendants in a right line from Phinees, the
son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron. John Hyrcanus,
one of the sons of the Jewish high-priest, Simon, demo
lished the temple of Garizim, about one hundred and
thirty years before the Christian era, and two hundred
after it had been buUt by SanabaUat, The Samaritans,
however, stUl continued to inhabit the country about
Sichem: and even to this day a remnant of them, con
sisting of about thirty families, continues to dweU in that
city, which is now caUed Naplouse, From various in
quiries made regarding these people by late writers, and
from the accounts of traveUers, who have visited them,
we learn that, although reduced to so small a number,
yet they contract no marriage with a stranger — they
believe, as in the time of Christ, that it is upon mount
Garizim that God wishes to be adored — ^they celebrate
the pasch at the site of their ancient temple upon that
mount — they practise circumcision, observe the Sabbath,
and the other festivals prescribed by the law of Moses;

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 129
of which law they are even more superetitious observei-s
than the Jews themselves; nor do the Jews surpass them
in their horror of idolatry. They expect a Messias,
whom they call Hathab. They have faithfully preserved
the pentateuch — the only part of the scripture which
they receive.
Having thus briefly noticed the origin and history of
the Samaritans, we come now to say a few words on that
copy of the pentateuch which has been long preserved
among them, written in the ancient Hebrew character.
The ancients were well acquainted with this Samaritan
copy. It is cited by Eusebius, St, Cyril of Alexandria,
St, Jerome, cfec. Afterwards, for many centuries, it was
neglected by biblical students, insomuch that its very
existence began to be questioned. In later times, when
the attention of the learned began to be turned to the
matter. Usher was fortunate enough to procure no less
than six copies of it from the East. It was, however, from
a copy purchased by Pietro della Valle, at Damascus, and
presented by him to the French ambassador at Constan
tinople, who was afterwards bishop of St. Maloes, that
the Samaritan pentateuch was first printed by Morinus,
in the Paris polyglot; and this was the copy printed
afterwards by Walton, after being collated with three of
Usher's MSS. — Moralia Introductio ad S. Scripturam,
tom. 1, p. 33. Various have been the opinions of critics
regarding the time at which the Samaritans became pos
sessed of this copy — among these opinions, however,
there are but three deserving of consideration. First,
Some suppose that the Samaritans became acquainted
with the pentateuch only after the return of the Jews
from the Babylonish captivity, at the time when Ma
nasses, the son-in-law of SanabaUat, went over to them.
The defenders of this opinion say that, at this time, the
pentateuch was introduced among the Samaritans by
VOL. I. ^

130 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
this Jewish priest, that they might become acquainted
with the Mosaic precepts and ceremonial, which were in
future to be observed by them. Second, A second opi
nion is, that when the Cutheans and the other strangers
had been sent to take possession of the land of Samaria,
they found this copy of the pentateuch in the hands of
that remnant of the ten tribes which had escaped the
captivity, by taking refuge in the mountains. Third,
The third opinion, in fine, is that which says, that the
priest who was sent by Assaradon to teach the Samari
tans the manner of worshipping the God of Israel,
brought with him, for that purpose, this copy of the
pentateuch. The first of these opinions is by no means
probable; for if the Samaritans had then, for the first
time, received the pentateuch, when their temple was
built on mount Garizim, there is no sufficient reason why,
in receiving the books of the Jews, they would have
restricted themselves to the pentateuch: moreover, the
great hatred which the Samaritans then entertained for
the Jews would have been an effectual bar to their
receiving any of their books. The arguments adduced
in support of this opinion, by a modern German critic —
Gesenius — are too weak to withstand these objections
against it, Hengstenberg, also, in his " Dissertations .
on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch," in the first sec
tion of his work, endeavours to overthrow the arguments
in favour of the great antiquity of the Samaritan penta
teuch, and to show that the Samaritans might have
received from the Jews the pentateuch — and the penta
teuch only — at a comparatively late period in the Jewish
history; that is to say, between the return of the Jews
from the captivity and the time of Christ — the time of
Manasses the priest, he appears to suppose probable
enough. But he is not successful in his reasoning, for
it still remains firm, that this book, the ritual of the

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 131
Jewish worship, was, at the time mentioned in the 4th
book of Kings, xvU., made known to the strangers from
the Assyrian empire, who settled in the country, from
which the ten tribes had been removed. AU things
harmonize in this view of the matter — the necessity
under which the people conceived themselves to be, of
learning the woi-ship of the God of Israel, made them
solicitous to procure that book, which formed the ritual
of that worship — and the pentateuch being alone suf
ficient for their purpose, they had no wish to extend
their acquaintance with the Hebrew books, to Josue or
Judges. For we see, that they continued for a long
time, after the period mentioned in the 4th book of
Kings, xvii., attached to their idols; and hence, we may
weU infer, that they were not cUsposed to receive the re
ligion of the Hebrews beyond what the necessity of the
case appeared to them to demand. In the course of time,
the manner in which their advances towards the Jews
were repulsed by the latter people, would disincline them
to receive any other of the Hebrew books.
Of the other two opinions, that which attributes the
introduction of the book to the priest sent by Assaradon,
appears far the more probable ; for, the remnant of the
ten tribes, which had escaped the captivity, belonged to
the poorest class of the people ; and if we suppose even
that these had brought with them to their places of re
fiige, copies of the books of Moses, it is not yet likely
that they would have soon ventured to go among the
new settlers, nor even if they had, would the authority
of such wretched people have been much regarded by
the latter. We see then how the Samaritans became
possessed of the pentateuch, and we see at the same
time, without noticing further the reasons which are
aUeged for this, why they receive only the books of the
law of Moses — in these they had the ritual of the Mosaic

132 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
worship, and it was this, and only this, which they
sought. Now, as to the integrity and critical character of this
Hebrew- Samaritan pentateuch. In the first place, the
substantial agreement, in almost every place, between it
and that Hebrew pentateuch, which has come down to
us from the Jewish church, affords an iUustrious con
firmation of the authenticity and integrity of the Mosaic
records ; seeing that these books have been so long in
the hands of two different nations, between whom such
continual enmities have existed, as render it impossible
to imagine, that this agreement could be the result of
any collusion between them. On the other hand, there
are various discrepancies between them, but generally
in things of little importance, and such as might happen
from the mistakes of copyists. We cannot, however,
exempt the Samaritans from the charge of wilfully cor
rupting that passage of Deuteronomy, xxii, 4 — where
they have substituted Mount Garizim for Mount Hebal ;
no doubt, for the purpose of sanctioning that leading
doctrine of theirs — that Garizim was the appointed place
for the solemn worship of God, From whatever cause
these discrepancies in the Samaritan pentateuch have
proceeded, it is now admitted by critics, that this pen
tateuch has not been corrupted by a certain Dositheus,
who taught, in the time of the apostles, most impious
doctrines, and procured some foUowers among the Sa
maritans, caUed after him Dositheans — See Moralia,place
already cited. Seeing, however, the great agreement
between the two pentateuchs, which is indisputable, it
remains to inquire what is the critical value of the
Hebrew- Samaritan copy — can it be placed on a level
with the copies of the pentateuch, which have come down
to us from the Jewish church ; and if not, how far can
it be applied as a source of emendation of the text of the

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 135
latter ? Some there are who would give a preference
even to this Samaritan pentateuch over the Hebrew-
Jewish, such as ]\Iorinus, Cappel, Vossius ; but the judg
ment of these writers, wiU not be assented to by any
modern critic. The a priori argument, which might be
deduced in favour of the Jewish copies from the words
of St. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, Ui. 2, " The
words of God were committed to them," (ra Xoyta tov deov,)
has been abundantly confirmed by the minute investiga
tions of re(;ent critics. For ourselves, then, we agree with
those who give the preference to the Jewish copies. In
regard to the critical use of this Samaritan pentateuch,
this much, at the least, must be admitted, that when this
pentateuch agrees with our Hebrew text, in those places
in which rash critics have questioned the purity of that
Hebrew text, such agreement supplies a strong argument
in favour of the fideUty of the text, which they impugn.
Of what further value, in the criticism of the Hebrew
text of the pentateuch, this Samaritan copy may be, we
leave othei-s to determine.
A word or two now on the Samaritan version of the
pentateuch, which must be cautiously distinguished from
that Hebrew-Samaritan copy, of which we have been
treating hitherto. The intercourse between the new
settlers in the land of Samaria, and the remnant of the
ten tribes, which had escaped the captivity, gave rise to
a new dialect, which was a mixture of Hebrew and
Chaldaic; — ^this is that Samaritan language or cUalect, in
which this version of the pentateuch is written ; it not
only cUffers from the ancient Hebrew, but also from that
dialect, which the Jews spoke after their return from the
captivity. The characters, however, used in writing
this new dialect, are no other than the ancient Hebrew
characters, in which, consequentiy, we find written, as
weU the Hebrew-Samaritan copy of the pentateuch as its

134 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
Samaritan version. At what precise time this Samaritan
version was made cannot be determined. No doubt, from
the first arrival of the priest sent by Assaradon, accord
ing to the directions given to him, it was necessary to
explain to the Cutheans, and the other strangers by whom
the land of Samaria was possessed, the prescribed manner
of worshipping the Lord, and that in a language different
from the Hebrew, in which alone the pentateuch was
then written. But since, as we have observed, the
Samaritan dialect in which this version is written, is
manifestly one that has sprung up from the intercourse
between the new colonists and the remnant of the
ancient inhabitants of the country, and since it is only
after a considerable lapse of time, that such a mixture
could have assumed the regular form of a language ;
hence, we are not at liberty to date the origin of this
version so far back as the time of the arrival of the
priest, who was sent by the king of Assyria, It is very
probable, that this version was made after the return of
the Jews from captivity, and at the same time, at which
the temple was built on Mount Garizim — then did the
Samaritans, in all probability, discard all idolatry ; then
did they become anxious to rival the Jews in the know
ledge and practice of the law. In the greater part of
this very ancient version, we have the Hebrew-Samaritan
text rendered very literaUy ; in those places also, in
which this text differs from the Hebrew-Jewish, How
ever, there are various places in which the translator
has taken an unwarrantable liberty in departing from
the letter of his text ; sometimes, in consequence of such
laxity, giving a meaning to passages quite irreconcilable
with the text. At the same time, this discrepancy, as
Moralia observes — Introductio in Scripturam Sacram,
tom. 1. p. 56 — does not prove that the version was not
made from the Hebrew- Samaritan text ; since on the

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 135
one hand, in aU other places, this text is literally fol
lowed ; and on the other, these differences in some places,
to which we have referred, may have proceeded either
from the translator having used a vitiated copy, or his
having permitted himself sometimes to be influenced by
his prejudices; or finaUy, his not having penetrated, in
some instances, the meaning of his test. This Samaritan
version is printed in the polyglots of Paris and London,
There is, moreover, an Arabic version of the Samaritan
pentateuch extant in Samaritan characters, but we shaU
not delay to treat of it; it is not more ancient than the
year of our Lord 1070,

CHAPTER IIL
OF THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION,
The septuagint version, if not the most ancient of aU
the versions of the Scripture, which is highly probable,
is at least the earliest of aU the Greek versions, having
been made a considerable time before the coming of our
Redeemer, In aU probability, it dates as far back as
two-hundred-and-eighty years before that event. The
name septuagint, which this version bears, has been
generally accounted for by the fact of its having been
made by seventy translators, or rather seventy-two ; but
the round number is used. (It is often designated by
the Greek letter o.) This version is remarkable for
many reasons — it was quoted by the Redeemer and the
apostles, used in the church commonly for at least the
fii-st four centuries ; for, from it was made the ancient
Latin version used in the western church before the time
of St. Jerome's version. It was held in great repute for

136 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
a long time among the Jews, and read in their syna
gogues. It is it which the great body of the fathers have
quoted in their writings. It is stiU the version used
in the Greek church, and a portion of our Latin vulgate
is a translation from it. We shaU inquire into the
origin of the version, and its consequent history — and
first, respecting its origin: —
The ancient writers generaUy quoted on this subject,
are Aristeas, Aristobulus, Josephus, Philo, S. Justin
Martyr, and S, Epiphanius, in his work De Ponderibus et
Mensuris. We have a history of the septuagint version
ascribed to Aristeas, in which he gives the following
account of the matter: — When Demetrius Phalereus was
librarian to King Ptolemy PhUadelphus, at Alexandria,
and had collected a great many books for the library
there, he was asked on one occasion by the king how
many books he had then coUected, he replied that the
whole number at that time amounted to two hundred
thousand, and that he hoped that the number would be
further increased to five hundred thousand: he at the same
time added, that the laws of the Jews were very deserv
ing of a place in it, but that they should be first trans
lated from the Hebrew, The king then promised to
have letters sent to the high priest of the Jews at Jeru
salem, with a view to procure for his library a copy
of these laws translated into Greek, Aristeas, the writer
of this history, who was favourable to the Jews, and
is supposed to have been himself a Jewish proselyte,
happened to be present. This Aristeas was a prefect
in the king's body-guard, and on hearing mention made
of the Jews, he thought of the idea, which he, in com
mon with Sosibius and Andrew — two other prefects of
the king's guards — entertained, of procuring the libera
tion of the Jews, who were numerous in Egypt, having
been brought captive thither from the Syrian and

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 137
Phcenician wars by Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, father of
Ptolemy PhUadelphus. This occasion, then, presenting
itself, these three officers said to the king, that it would
be worthy of his clemency, and altogether a very congru
ous thing, that, as he expected this favour of the Jews,
he would, on his part, liberate those of their nation who
were held captive in his dominions, especially as this
would induce the Jews to comply the more wUlingly
with his request. The king then inquired what was
the number of these captive Jews, and being informed
that they amounted to one hundred thousand, he pro
mised that he would have them liberated. He then
ordered twenty drachmas to be given to each of them,
that he might thus have the means of compensating his
master for the loss of his services; in this way he ex
pended beyond six hundred talents, and then by a
royal edict, declared the Jews to be free. He now
gave letters, addressed to the high priest Eleazar, re
questing of him to send the sacred book, and along with
it, men who were able to make a translation of it into
Greek. Aristeas and Andrew made a. part of the embassy
to the high priest, which brought suitable presents from
the king. Eleazar sent the books of the law, together
with seventy-two interpreters — six from each tribe —
quaUfied for the office of translating them; and at the
same time he sent letters, in which he extoUed the
liberality and clemency of the king.
These Jews were kindly received by PhUadelphus, who,
on their introduction, to testify his veneration for the
sacred books, made a profound adoration seven times.
He praised very much the elegance of the manuscript,
which was written in golden letters. He then gave
a grand entertainment to the seventy-two, and was so
much delighted with the answers given by nine of them
to questions proposed by him, that he prolonged the

138 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
festivity for seven days more, untU all were heard,
in reply to as many questions as there were translators.
Soon after, Demetrius Phalereus conducted them to the
island of Pharos, where a house was fitted up for them
to the north of the island, on the sea-shore, where they
were to translate the sacred books. They divided the
labour among them, and it was determined that if any
cUfficulty should occur, they would all discuss it together.
As the translation of each part was finally settled and
committed to writing, it was handed to Demetrius, who
had it transcribed by amanuenses. The translators were
employed in the work each day from morning to the
ninth hour, or three hours before sunset; then they
returned to the city (Alexandria), where they were
abundantly supplied with aU necessaries. In the morn
ing, they resumed their labours, having first washed
their hands and recited their prayers, accorcUng to cus
tom. In the space of seventy -two days the version was
finished. The work being concluded, was read in an
assembly of the Jews of Alexandria, and approved of
Such is the substance of the famous book of Aristeas,
which abounds in various details, which we pass over,
such as the description of the presents sent by the king
to the high priest, the description of the things which
the author witnessed at Jerasalem, connected with the
temple and its worship, the statement of the various
questions proposed by the king to the seventy-two in
terpreters, on the successive days of the festivity, together
with their answers, &c. &c,
Aristobulus was a Jew, who lived about two hundred
years before Christ, Both Clement of Alexandria, and
Eusebius, speak of him. His account of the origin of
this translation is very brief, as it has come down to us.
It is given by Eusebius in his Prceparatio Evange-
lica. This account simply informs us, that " the entire

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 139
interpretation of the law was made in the time of a king,
surnamed PhUadelphus, Demetrius Phalereus having
been actively employed about it," As for Josephus, he
gives us Aristeas' own history of the matter in the
twelfth book and second chapter of his Antiquities,
PhUo, in his Life of Moses, speaks of this septuagint
version, as made by men divinely inspired; he says
nothing, however, about Aristeas or Demetrius Phalereus.
St. Justin Martyr, in his Exhortation to the Greeks,
relates the matter differently from Aristeas: he says,
that Ptolemy, King of Egypt, wishing to have a trans
lation of the Jewish law, procured from Jerusalem
seventy translators, whom he sent into the isle of
Pharos, and had confined in separate cells, in order to
prove their fidelity in the work, by the agreement which
would be found to exist among the distinct translations.
He adds, that it so happened, by the Divine Providence,
that they not only aU agreed in substance, but in the
very words and number of the letters. He, moreover,
adds, that he saw himself the remains of the ceUs in the
isle of Pharos,
S. Epiphanius relates, on the authority of some
ancient writer, that the translators were shut up in
thirty-six cells — that is, two in each ceU — and that they
thus produced thirty-six versions agreeing most uniformly
together. Now, what is to be thought of these different
accounts? First, we shall not delay on the accounts
given by Justin Martyr and S. Epiphanius, who, in this
case, have merely repeated histories, resting on no suf
ficient foundation. We come then to examine the ac
count given by Aristeas, and repeated by Josephus.
We may say, that from the earliest times of the Christian
church, down to a comparatively late period, scarcely
has a doubt been hinted at relative to the authenticity
of Aristeas' book. The genuineness of the book was

140 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
called in question by Lewis Vives, a learned Spaniard,
who wrote about the midcUe of the sixteenth century —
(See Moralia Introduc. in Sacram Scripturam, tom. 1,
cap, 5, p, 59, et seq,) — and since his time many critics,
principally Protestant, have altogether rejected this
narrative of the origin of the septuagint version. No
doubt, it has had many defenders, even in these recent
times : among others,Walton has distinguished himself as
an advocate of the book in his prolegomena to the poly
glot; but since the appearance of Humphrey Hody's dis
sertation on the matter, we may say that the book has
been universally abandoned by Protestant critics. Still,
there have not been wanting Catholic writers to defend
the ancient opinion, and to show, that the arguments
of Hody, specious though they be, are by no means
conclusive. Among others, Thomas Moralia — Intro
ductio ad Sacram Scripturam, loco jam citato. And even
those Catholic critics, who have yielded so far to the
objections urged against this narrative, as to treat as
fabulous various circumstances of it, are yet far from
rejecting the substance of the historical fact which the
book contains; and without dwelling further on the
other part of the controversy, we shall insist on so much
at least, viz., that the substance of the fact related in
this book ascribed to Aristeas, must be admitted. For,
in reality, not to go into further details on the matter,
the substance of the fact is contained in those words of
Aristobulus, which we have already quoted from Euse
bius, that " the entire interpretation of the law was made
in the time of a king, surnamed PhUadelphus, Demetrius
Phalereus having been actively employed about it," Now,
this testimony of Aristobulus is not questioned by the
best critics, and Protestant writers themselves will bear
us out in this assertion — Inter alios Davidson — Biblical
Criticism, Lecture iii. That difficulty, which is urged

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 141
against the book of Aristeas — that it makes Demetrius
Phalereus Ubrarian to PhUadelphus, and a favourite
with that king, contrary to the fact, and to what might
be expected from the circumstance, that PhUadelphus
was aware, that Demetrius had advised Ptolemy Lagi
not to leave the kingdom to him (PhUadelphus) — that
difficulty, I say, whatever may be replied to it, by the
defenders of Aristeas' narrative, does not come against
this account of Aristobulus; for all that his words con
vey is, that the translation was first set on foot by
Demetrius, and finished under Ptolemy PhUadelphus,
So that his words would consist well with the opinion,
that it was with Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, and not
Ptolemy PhUadelphus, that the idea originated, of pro
curing a translation of the Jewish laws. Those who
contend for this meaning of Aristobulus' words say, that
it can be confirmed from other sources: for Plutarch
relates, that Demetrius advised Ptolemy Lagi to pur
chase and read books relating to royalty and dominion ;
and iElian informs us, that he (Demetrius) took an
active part in the laws introduced by Ptolemy, It is
also certain that this king was favourably cUsposed
towards the Jews, Seeing then that the testimony
of Aristobulus, regarding the origin of the septuagint
version stands firm, we are to ascribe the existence of
this translation to a literary motive, or rather a poUtical
one, on the part of Demetrius Phalereus, whose object
in advising the king to procure a copy of the Jewish
laws was, that he might thence learn how to govern and
regulate a state in the best manner.
Now, as to the name septuagint, by which this trans
lation is known, it becomes a matter of doubt with those,
who put no trust in the detaUed narrative of Aristeas,
whether there were actually seventy or seventy-two
persons engaged in this translation. Some there are,

142 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
who consider that the name rather originated in the
fact, that this translation was formaUy approved of by
the Jewish councU, or Sanhedrin, at Alexandria, which
consisted of seventy-two (in round numbers seventy)
persons. If we admit that this translation was made
by Jews of Alexandria, then it is most probable, that it
was executed by members of the Jewish council in that
city. In truth, if the king did not apply to Jerusalem
for translators, it appears to follow, as a matter of course,
that it was to the Sanhedrin of Alexandria that he had
his wishes conveyed on a matter, which the Jews would
consider so important; and then this body undertaking
the translation, superintending its execution, having it
executed, in aU probability, by its own members, and
approving of it when finished, might, with great pro
priety, be called the translators. We will thus see how
the whole version could be said to have proceeded from
the same seventy, or seventy-two, translators, at the
same time that different parts of the version were made
by different persons.
We have next to inquire, whether the seventy trans
lated the pentateuch only, or, at the same time, the other
books, which then having been put on the canon, were
not found in Greek, St. Jerome says (on Ezechiel, v.)
" that Aristeas, Josephus, and all the school of the Jews
assert, that the seventy translated only the five books of
Moses." He appears himself to have been in doubt on
the subject. The other opinion, appears to us to be
much better supported, which says, that they translated
all which required translation. The manner of speaking
of the fathers, and ancient writers of the church gene
rally, appears to be decidedly in favour of this opinion.
It is sustained by the testimony of Aristobulus, Bon
frerius considers this opinion by far the more probable;
and Bellarmine looks upon it as, at least, more probable.

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 143
And, in reality, there is no reason, why Ptolemy would
not have wished for, and procured, a version of the other
books, as well as of those of Moses, As to the objection
against this opinion, taken from the cUfferent manner
of translating in different books, we have disposed of that
already, by observing, that although the whole transla
tion may be properly ascribed to the same seventy, or
seventy-two, yet that different parts of it proceeded from
different persons. We may observe, moreover, that as
to anything in this version which would indicate, that
cUfferent parts of it were made at different times, aU the
length of time that would be required from the begin
ning to the finishing of the translation, in order to
explain this, will be sufficiently had by saying, that
the version was commenced under Ptolemy Lagi, and
finished under Ptolemy PhUadelphus. Thus, for ex
ample, the word yanos, used in the book of Josue to
signify a javelin, could not have been used by an Egyp
tian translator in the time of Ptolemy, son of Lagus,
because the word was then unknown in Egypt, it having
become known there first, as designating a javeUn used
by the Gauls in their wars : now, the Gauls first made
an irruption into Egypt in the time of PhUadelphus,
Another question regarding this version is, whether
the translators were divinely assisted in making it.
The affirmative appears to have been commonly, if not
universaUy held by the ancient fathers and writers of
the church, as it was also by Philo, in his Life of Moses.
Bellarmine claims St. Jerome also for this opinion. Yet
all Catholics even do not now adhere to it. Glaire has
an express proposition, asserting the opposite as more
probable. — Introduction, tom. 1, p. 204. Certainly, as
far as this opinion is supposed to have been founded on the
narrative of St. Justin Martyr, or that of St, Epiphanius,
regarding the miraculous agreement between those who

144 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
were confined in distinct cells — if we take away the
foundation with St. Jerome in his preface to the pen
tateuch, it would appear that the superstructure could
not stand. On the other hand, if we consider the im
portant ends which this version, in the designs of God
was destined to fulfil, we ought not to be surprised
at finding it so easily admitted, that God, who had in
spired the writers of his sacred word, had also inspired
the interpreters of it on this grand occasion ; for, these
interpreters were, in reality, preparing the scripture for
its publication among the gentiles, in the language
which the gentiles understood; seeing, that when in
after times the apostles were spreading the faith among
the nations, these were the scriptures which they quoted,
and to which they referred : and what the Hebrew scrip
tures were for the Jews, did this septuagint version
become for the church, which for centuries read the divine
word in it, or in versions made from it.
We shall come now to the subsequent history of this
version. So great was the esteem in which the Egyp
tian and Grecian Jews held this version at first, that
according to Philo (in the second book of his Life of Moses, )
they repaired yearly to the island of Pharos, and kept
a festival on the shore in memory of this inspired trans
lation. It is manifest, indeed, from the manner in which
the Redeemer and apostles quote the septuagint, that
the veneration for it was not confined to the Hellenistic
Jews, But we find, that about the commencement of
the second century, and subsequently, it became very
odious to the Jews, on account of their not being able
to answer the arguments brought from it by the Chris
tians, in their disputes with them. The Jews on
these occasions used to appeal to the Hebrew text, with
which they knew that the Christians generally were unac
quainted ; and it is said, that this translation became

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 145
SO odious to them, that they proclaimed a fast on the
8th day of the month Thebet — corresponding to our
December — in order to perpetuate the remembrance of
so inauspicious an event, as the making of this version,
by this annual mourning.
With the HeUenist Jews, however, this version con
tinued to be an object of veneration down to a much later
period than the second century. These HeUenist Jews
are mentioned more than once in the Acts of the Apos
tles — one instance is in Acts, vi. 1, where the word,
which we translate Greeks, is in the original EAA*;-
i/ts-rwi/, meaning Christians, who had been — not Gre--
cians — ^but Hellenist, or Grecizing Jews. Another in
stance is in ix. 29, where we read, that St, Paul cUsputed
against the Hellenists (here we again translate Greeks,)
who are there distinguished from the gentiles, and there
fore must mean the unconverted Grecizing Jews, or
Hellenists. It would appear, that this name was fii-st
given to one section of the Jews, after the formation of
this septuagint version; because at Alexandria and the
other Grecian cities, where the Jews became cUspersed,
they learned the scripture in the synagogues from this
version, therefore, were they caUed HeUenists, to cUs-
tinguish them from the Jews who read the scriptures
in the synagogue in Hebrew, and had them explained
for them in Syro-Chaldaic (which was also commonly
caUed Hebrew,) and hence were caUed, in contradis
tinction, Hebrew Jews, or Hebrews. The Hellenist
Jews adhered to their veneration for the Seventy, down
at least, to the middle of the sixth century of our era :
for, about the year 550, in the time of the Emperor
Justinian, we find that the HeUenists gave great offence
to the other Jews, by continuing to use the septuagint
in their synagogues. So great was the excitement on
this matter among the Jews, that the dispute was only
VOL. I. ^

146 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
settled by a constitution of the emperor, which is
extant, (Novel. 146,) and in which he decides in favour
of the HeUenists, declaring that they shall have full
liberty to continue the use of their version in the
synagogue. This, as has been already observed, was the great
version, in which the early Christian church, generally
at least, read the scriptures. At the same time, it did not
continue to be the same perfect translation, which it was
when leaving the hands of the translators, St, Jerome
testifies, in his preface to Paralipomenon and Esdras,
that it had been vitiated in many and various ways:
so faulty, indeed, cUd it become in the book of Daniel,
that it was set aside there, and that book was read from
the version of Theodotion, Various persons undertook
the task of correcting the mistakes which had crept
into the Seventy; but before all others, Origen deserves
to be mentioned, for his wonderful labours in this matter.
In the early part of the third century, he undertook the
laborious task of collating the septuagint text then in
use, with the original, and with the other Greek trans
lations then in existence, and from the whole to produce
a new revisal. Twenty-eight years were devoted to the
preparation of this arduous work, in the course of which he
coUected MSS. from every possible quarter. He commenced
his labour at Csesarea, in 231, and, it appears, finished
the undertaking at Tyre, but in what year is not pre
cisely known. This work of Origen's is designated, in
ancient writers, by the various names of Tetrapla, Hex
apla, Octapla, and Enneapla: Origen used for it six
Greek versions, which we shall notice more at length
in the next chapter, but which we must briefly refer
to here. First, that of AquUa, who was first a gentile,
and then a Christian. Having been excommunicated
he became a Jew, and translated the Old Testament into

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 147
Greek, about the year 150, Second, that of Theodotion,
a Jewish proselyte from having been a Marcionite heretic.
He made his translation about the year 155, Third,
that of Sjrmmachus, who became a Jew, from ha-^ ing
been either a Samaritan or an Ebionite heretic. He
translated about the year 200, The remaining three
versions are caUed the fifth, sixth, and seventh, in re
ference to the other four Greek versions, viz, the sep
tuagint, and those just now mentioned, of AquUa, Theo
dotion, and Symmachus, These three versions, i. e, the
fifth, sixth, and seventh, did not contain the entire
of the Old Testament, but some books only. Origen
seems to have first published his Tetrapla, containing in
four columns the versions of AquUa, Symmachus, the
Seventy, and Theodotion. This was merely preparatory
to his projected correction of the Seventy, for in a more
enlarged edition he added the Hebrew text, both in
Hebrew and Greek letters; and as the work then con
sisted of six columns, he gave it the name Hexapla.
The name Octapla comes from the adcUtion of two of
the remaining Greek versions — Enneapla from the ad
dition of the three, i. e. the fifth, sixth, and seventh.
The foUowing is the order of the columns, when all the
versions were used : — ^first, the Hebrew text, in Hebrew
letters. Second, the same in Greek letters. Third,
AquUa. Fourth, Symmachus. Fifth, Septuagint. Sixth,
Theodotion, Seventh, eighth, and ninth, the three ano
nymous Greek versions, viz, those called the fifth, sixth,
and seventh versions. These three last-mentioned
versions contained only some books of the scripture,
as we have already observed. The seventh version was
used in the Psalms only; and Hexapla appears to have
been the name by which the work was generally desig
nated, Origen's plan of proceeding, in giving an edition
of the Seventy, was not to alter the existing text of the

148 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
version, by erasing a word or words — he left it as he
found it. But he conducted the work in this way:
when he discovered a word in Hebrew, which was not
in the septuagint, he inserted it out of Theodotion, be
cause in his mode of translating, he came nearest the
Seventy, If Theodotion had not the supplement, he
took it from Aquila, and sometimes from Symmachus.
In every case he put the name of the translation, from
which the supplied word or words were taken, with an
asterisk (*) at the commencement, and two dots at
the end like a colon ( : ), to show how far the supplement
extended. Again, where he perceived an addition in
the Seventy, of something not found in the original, nor,
perhaps, in the other translations, he did not entirely
erase it from the septuagint, but prefixed an obelus (-7-)
to denote, that it was wanting in the original text,
putting also two dots at the end, to show how much
was referred to by the obelus. He used also two other
marks, called the lemniscus and hypolemniscus, the
signification of which is not now clear. The work,
consisting of nearly fifty volumes, does not appear to
have been copied, on account of the expense which
would have been required for that purpose. It lay
buried for nearly fifty years in Tyre, untU Eusebius, and
Pamphilus the martyr, brought it to Caesarea, where
it is thought to have perished along with the famous
library of Pamphilus, when Caesarea was taken and
plundered by the Saracens in 653. Origen's recension
of the Seventy, is called the Hexaplarian text, to dis
tinguish it from the text, as it existed before, called the
KOLvr] or common, and sometimes the ante-Hexapla-
rian. About the year 300, Eusebius and Pamphilus
gave an edition of the Seventy from the Hexaplar text,
with the whole of Origen's critical marks. It was not
only adopted by the churches in Palestine, but was also

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 149
deposited in almost every library. By the frequent
transcribing of it, Origen's notes, or marks, became
soon so much changed as to be of little use, and
were finally omitted. In the time of St, Jerome, we
find that it was impossible to distinguish Origen's cor
rections from what belonged to the translators. About
the same time with the edition by Eusebius and Pam
philus, appeared the edition of Lucian, a priest of An-
tioch, who suffered martyrdom in 311, He gave an
edition of the Koivt], which was received in all the
eastern churches from Constantinople to Antioch,
Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, about the same time,
gave another edition of the Seventy; according to St,
Jerome, it was generally 'used in the churches of Egypt,
All the MSS, of the septuagint version now known to
exist, as well as all the printed editions of it, have been
derived from these three recensions. It is at the same
time a matter of dispute among critics, to what particular
recension each manuscript belongs. The most ancient,
as well as the most famous MSS, of the septuagint now
known, are those two already mentioned, when we were
treating of the MSS. of the New Testament: — the
Roman manuscript, preserved in the Vatican library,
and the Codex Alexandrinus, preserved in the library
of the British museum. Both are supposed to belong
to the fourth or fifth century, Alban Butler, in a
note on the life of St, Lucian, (Lives of the Saints, 7th
January,) says, " that the Vatican manuscript is proved
from St. Jerome's letter to Sunia and Fretela, and from
several instances, to come nearest to the koivij and to
Lucian's edition, as Grabe, Blanchini, and Kennicott,
take notice," Of the Alexandrian MS, the same Alban
Butler observes in the same place, " that it comes nearest
to Origen's edition in the Hexapla, as Grabe, Mont-
faucon, and Kennicott agree, that in some places it

150 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
is conformable to Theodotion or Symmachus, and appears
mostly the Hesychian edition," Now, Lucian's edition
was the purest: this St, Jerome affirms, — Ef. ad Su-
niam et Fretel. tom, 2, col, 627, And according to
Kennicott (Disserta. 2, p, 397,) it is generally admitted
by modern critics. This preference given by modern
critics to the recension of St, Lucian, appears, moreover,
from the great popularity of the Vatican text, as com
pared with the other leading printed texts of the sep
tuagint. These leading printed texts, are altogether four:
the Complutensian, the Aldine, the Roman or Vatican,
and the Alexandrian, The Complutensian is the text
printed in the Complutensian polyglot, which work bears
date 1514, 1517, although not actuaUy published before
the year 1522, This text was printed after several
MSS., but of these the editors have left us no account.
The Aldine text, is that which appeared from the press of
Aldus Manutius, in Venice, 1518. It is named after
that celebrated printer, although it did not appear until
two years after his death. This text was compiled
from numerous ancient MSS, It has been supposed in
some instances to follow the readings of AquUa's version,
instead of those of the septuagint.
The Roman, or Vatican, text, was printed at Rome,
in folio, under Pope Sixtus Quintus: some copies of it
bear the date of 1586; others, and those the more
numerous, that of 1587, Cardinal Antony Carafa, who
was commissioned by the Pope to publish this edition,
called to his aid various learned men, whose names may
be seen in Le Long's Bibliotheca Sacra, — Biblia . Grceca
Impressa. anno 1587, Prefixed to the work is a dedi
catory epistle of Carafa to Pope Sixtus V, It has also a
Latin preface by Peter Morinus, and scholia appended to
each chapter, selected by the same Morinus from the
ancient Greek interpreters, Aquila, Symmachus, and

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 151
Theodotion, From the statements of Cardinal Carafa
and Morinus, quoted by Le Long, it appears manifest
that the collation of numerous MSS, confirmed the edi
tors in the high opinion which they entertained of the
Codex Vaticanus; so that we may infer not only that
this was made the basis of their text, but even the exem
plar of it. It appears that those parts which were want
ing in the Vatican Codex, were supplied by the editors
from a Venetian MS,, out of Cardinal Bessarion's Ubrary,
and from another, which was brought to them from
Calabria, The text of this Roman edition has been
generally followed by subsequent editors of the sep
tuagint. The Alexandrian printed text, appeared from the
Oxford press 1707-1720, in four volumes, folio, and eight
volumes, octavo. The whole work was prepared for
-the press by Grabe, although he cUd not live to see the
entire of it printed. The first volume has prefixed to
it the learned prolegomena of Grabe. The edition gene
rally foUows the Alexandrian manuscript, wherever that
was perfect; but where it was defective and incorrect,
the supplied passages and corrected readings are given,
partly from the Vatican MS. and partly from the Com
plutensian edition, in a smaller character than that
employed in the text, the erroneous readings of the
Alexandrian MS. being printed in the margin. With
this brief notice of the four leading printed texts, among
which the Roman, or Vatican, is by far the most im
portant, we close our observations on the septuagint
version, merely adding, that this is still the common
version of the Greek church; and we fully subscribe to
the conclusion of Moralia, " that the septuagint version
still continues free from substantial faults, that it con
tains the word of God, and is, therefore, of cUvine autho
rity." — Introductio, in S. Scripturam, tom, 1, p. 104,

152 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS.
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE OTHER ANCIENT GREEK VERSIONS,
The first of these which demands our notice is the
version of AquUa, He was born at Sinope, a city of
Pontus, and was a Jewish proselyte. He made his trans
lation about the year 150 of our Lord, He rendered
the text very literally, so that his version looks like
a dictionary of the Hebrew words. The ancients make
mention of two editions of his version. The Jews
received this translation of Aquila with great applause.
It was read in their synagogues in place of the septua
gint, with which several even of the Hellenists had
become dissatisfied on account of the esteem in which
the Christians held it. We know from that Novella
of Justinian, mentioned in the foregoing chapter, that
the Jews had been in the habit of reacUng AquUa in
their synagogues. When in the reign of that emperor the
dispute arose among the Jews, as to whether the scrip
ture should be read in the synagogues solely in the
Hebrew, with a Chaldaic interpretation, or the actual
practice be continued, by the Hellenists, of reading it in
Greek; on this occasion it was, that the emperor made
the law above referred to, by which each party was
authorized to follow its own views ; and hence the
HeUenists were authorized to continue to read AquUa,
or the Seventy, in the synagogue. For Justinian gave
them a choice of either, and his Novella proves .that even
then the Seventy had not faUen into disrepute entirely
among the Jews. — JMoraUa Introductio, tom. i, cfec. We
may observe here, that notwithstanding this arrangement
by Justinian, that party prevailed which was for exclud-

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 153
ing the Greek from the synagogue ; and fiom that time
the usage has obtained among the Jews of having the
scriptures read there solely from the Hebrew and Chal
daic. As to the character of AquUa's version, although
it is so extremely literal, there is, at the same time, no
doubt of the author's having permitted himself sometimes
to be influenced by his Jewish prejudices in the execution
of his work. This appears from the testimony of the fathers,
from which St. Jerome, so well qualified to pronounce on
the matter, does not disagree ; and Kennicott, judging
from the fragments which remain of this version, sub
scribes to the observations of St. Jerome.
Next in the order of time comes the version of Theo
dotion. It is supposed to have been made about the
year 155. It could not have been made much later, as
it is cited by St. Justin Martyr, anno 160, and St.
Irenaeus, anno 177, Theodotion, according to some,
was born in Pontus ; according to others, he was a
native of Ephesus. He is said to have been a Marcionite
heretic, and afterwards a Jewish proselyte, or Ebionite.
(The Ebionites might have been easUy confounded with
the Jewish proselytes, on account of their attachment to
the ceremonies of the old law.) In his manner of trans
lating, Theodotion approaches nearer to the septuagint
than AquUa or Symmachus, avoicUng as he does the
extremely literal manner of Aquila, and the paraphrastic
freedom of Symmachus. Hence it was that Origen took
from Theodotion, when he wished to supply in his Hexapla
wRat was wanting in the septuagint as compared with
the original ; and hence it was also, -that, when the pas
tors of the church thought right to cease to read the
book of Daniel publicly in the church out of the septua
gint, on account of the manner in which it was there
disfigured, through the mistakes of copyists, it was from
Theodotion's version that they read this book. This

154 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
translator permitted himself sometimes to be influenced
by the prejucUces of his party in the interpretation of
words or passages. We have made the same observation
already regarding Aquila, and it applies also to Symma
chus, whose version we now proceed to notice,
Symmachus is said to have been first a Samaritan, and
then, having become a Christian, is said to have gone over
to the Jews, or to have joined the sect of the Ebionites,
He made his version about the year 200, He was so far
from confining himself, like AquUa, to the literal render
ing of the text, that, on the contrary, his translation has
more the appearance of a paraphrase than of an exact
version. Besides these ancient Greek versions which we have
already noticed, there are three others which, because
their authors are unknown, are designated by the names
of the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions. The first in
order of these versions is called the fifth, relatively to
the four versions already noticed, viz., the septuagint,
AquUa, Theodotion, and Symmachus : whilst the rank
of these anonymous versions among themselves has been
determined by the place which they held in the great
work of Origen, which, when aU its columns were occu
pied, was caUed Enneapla. These three versions, if not
aU actually cUscovered first by Origen, were at least first
brought into notice by him, when he travelled into the
eastern countries to coUect materials for his Hexapla,
None of these versions contained the entire of the Old
Testament, but only some books. The fifth version com
prised the pentateuch. Psalms, Canticle of Canticles, and
the twelve minor prophets, together with the books of
Kings, AccorcUng to St, Jerome the author was a Jew.
The sixth version embraced all those books contained
in the fifth, with the exception of the books of Kings.
The author is supposed to have been a .lewish convert.

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 155
That he was a Christian at the time of making the
version appears by the manner in which he translates
the thirteenth verse of the third chapter of the prophet
Habacuc, e^XOe^ tov awaai tov Xaov aov hia Itj^ov tov
XpiaTov aov.
The seventh version contained the Psalms and minor
prophets. It is doubtful whether the author was a Jew
or a Christian. These three versions, the fifth, sixth,
and seventh, were made after those of AquUa, Theodotion,
and Symmachus, but at what precise time is not known.
They must have been made however, soon after that of
Symmachus, seeing that they were in existence before
that Origen published his Hexapla. None of these
anonymous versions were remarkably literal, if it may
be allowed to pronounce on the matter from the few
portions of them which remain. The fragments of these
versions, as well as those of the versions of Aquila,
Theodotion, and Symmachus, were first coUected and
published by Flaminius NobUius, in his notes to the
Roman edition of the septuagint. After him they were
published by Drusius, in his Veterum Interpretum Grae-
corum Fragmenta. This work of Drusius' is pubUshed
in the sixth volume of Walton's Polyglot, These frag
ments are also given by Montfaucon, in his valuable
edition of the Remains of Origen's Hexapla, 2 vols, folio,
Paris, 1713.
Besides these ancient Greek versions already noticed,
there have been others of which scarcely a fragment
remains ; for we find in MSS, of the septuagint, certain
references in the margin to other versions different from
those which we have noticed. These references are
accompanied with the renderings of certain passages
taken from the versions of which we speak. But we
need not delay longer in noticing translations of which
so little can now be known.

156 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
Before concluding this chapter, however, we may
briefly notice a Greek version preserved in St. Mark's
library, at Venice. It comprises a considerable portion
of the Old Testament, viz., the pentateuch. Proverbs,
Ruth, Canticle of Canticles, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations of
Jeremias, and Prophecy of Daniel. It was published
about the end of the last century. The manuscript in
St. Mark's library is supposed to have been written in
the fourteenth century ; but the translation of which it
is a copy, is thought by critics to have been made at
least as early as the twelfth century. It is uncertain
whether the author was a Jew or a Christian. Whoever
he was, he was weU acquainted with the Greek language,
and its different cUalects. In rendering the Chaldee
portion of his original he used the Doric dialect ; the
Hebrew he rendered in the Attic. It is manifest, from
the readings of this version, that the author translated
from a manuscript of the Masoretic recension.

CHAPTER V.
OF THE LATIN VULGATE.
I, History of the Vulgate. — By the vulgate we mean
that Latin version of the scriptures which the CouncU of
Trent, in its fourth session, declares to be authentic, and
which has been for many centuries in common use in the
Latin church. Use had given to it the sanction of the
authorised version of the Latin church, long before the
Council of Trent proclaimed its authenticity. Taking it
as a whole work, we may date its birth about the end of
the fourth century — in or about the last ten years of that
century — I say as a whole, because, on examination, we

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 157
shaU find that part of it can lay claim to a much higher
antiquity. In order, then, to trace its early history, we
must go a little further back, and see how the faithfiil of
the Latin church were provided with the sacred volume
before the above-mentioned period. The Hebrew scrip
tures were not, of course, in common use anywhere from
the commencement of the Christian church. This cannot
be said of the Greek scriptures of the New Testament or
of the septuagint version of the Old — these were read over
the entire church in its beginning — ^the Latins even,
being then weU acquainted with the Greek language.
NotwithstancUng this, Latin versions must have been
made at a very early period in the Western church —
these were exceecUngly numerous in the time of St. Au
gustine and St. Jerome. St. Augustine says — Lib. de
Doctrina Christiana — " Those who have translated the
scriptures into the Greek language, can be counted, but
the Latin interpreters are without number: for, in those
early times of the faith, when any one procured a Greek
copy, and thought that he had some facUity in both lan
guages, he attempted a translation." But among these
versions there was one in much greater esteem than any
of the others, because, as St. Augustine says, " to perspi
cuity it joined a more literal rendering of the words." St.
Jerome styles it communis, on account of its general use.
It is frequently, also, referred to by the designation of
the Vetus Italica; but however the name of Italica or
Itala may have come to adhere to it, it appears to me
that Cardinal Wiseman has proved satisfactorUy, in his
observations upon a manuscript preserved in the Ubrary
of the convent of Santa Croce at Rome, that this version
was made in Africa; and as appears from the observations
of the same learned writer, if the name Itala was ever
properly used to designate this version, then the name
must have had reference to the recension of this version

158 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
which was in use in the churches of Italy, and which
presented certain discrepancies, as compared with the
original African edition. This version — in the Old
Testament — was made from the septuagint version
and edition, (By the septuagint edition, I observe once
for all, I understand the Greek copy of the Old testa
ment, which comprised all translated by the Seventy,
and, at the same time, the other books not translated
by them.) We know not who the translator or
translators were — indeed it does not appear that it
was the work of one translator. The translators, as far
as we can judge by the parts of their work, which remain
at present, were thoroughly acquainted with the meaning
of the Greek, in the Old as weU as the New Testament;
and, generally speaking, have rendered it very literally.
This was the version commonly read in the Latin church,
in the early times. It was in use long before the time
of St, Jerome, and continued in use after him down to
the time of St, Gregory the Great, about the year 600,
St, Gregory distinguishes it from our present vulgate by
calling it vetus. We have no exact copy of this version
now — although Flaminius NobUius prepared an edition
of it, as well as he could coUect it from the writings and
commentaries of the ancient fathers. This was published
at Rome in 1558, From this ancient version a great
portion of our present vulgate has been taken. Notwith
standing this, we date our present vulgate from the end
of the fourth century, because it was then that St, Jerome
made his new translation from the original text, and his
corrections of the old version, which form so much of the
vulgate, that the whole version is usuaUy ascribed to him,
although he did not even correct some parts of it, St,
Jerome first corrected the old translation of the four
gospels, at the request of Pope Damasus; he afterwards
corrected the rest of the New Testament, aU by the

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 159
original Greek — " Novum Grtecae fidei reddidit," This was
well received, as appears from St, Augustine, and it is
this correction which is inserted in our vulgate. That
St, Jerome only corrected the ancient vulgate, and (Ud
not translate de novo, as far as regards the New Testa
ment, appears from his preface addressed to Pope Dama
sus, Again, from the number of changes which St.
Jerome, in his writings, points out as desirable in the old
vulgate of the New Testament, and which we find in ours,
we have a clear argument for the assertion, that St.
Jerome's . corrections have been adopted in the version of
the Latin church. Nor does it make against this conclu
sion that some things have not been changed, although
said to require change by St, Jerome, in his commen
taries; for, as he himself testifies, he (Ud not make aU the
changes, which he thought improvements, lest he might
alter too much, and as he wrote those commentaries be
fore his correction of the New Testament, he might have
changed his mind afterwards, as Bellarmine observes,
De verbo Dei scripto — de versione Latina Vulgata.
St, Jerome corrected many books of the Old Testament
in the ancient Italic, by the septuagint of Origen's Hexa
pla, but we are not concerned with any of his corrections
of the Old Testament, except that of the Psalms,
St, Jerome translated the Psalms from the Hebrew, but
that translation the church has not received into its edi
tion. He also translated the Psalms from the Hexaplar
edition of the septuagint. He again twice corrected the
psaltery of the old vulgate from the koivyi of Lucian the
Martyr, first at Rome in 382 or 383; again at Bethlehem
about the year 389, We have this second correction in
our vulgate edition.
St. Jerome commenced his translations from the He
brew with the books of Kings; — they, together with Job,
the great and minor prophets. Psalms, and books of Solo-

160 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
mon, were finished before 392, (This translation of the
Psalms is to be seen in his works,) Between 392 and
394 Esdras and Genesis were finished. He did not finish
the rest of the pentateuch before 404 or 405. About the
same time were translated Josue, Judges and Ruth,
Paralipomenon was not finished before the year 396.
St- Jerome also translated that part of the book of Esther,
which, in his time, was reckoned canonical by the Hebrew
Jews — in other words, which was then to be found in
the Hebrew bibles. St. Jerome, moreover, translated
Tobias and Judith from the original Chaldaic. We have
all these translations, except that of the Psalms, in our
vulgate. That we have there St. Jerome's translations
of Tobias and Judith wUl not be disputed, and for the
other books just mentioned it is equaUy certain. Our
vulgate is manifestly, in these, a translation from the
Hebrew; now, that St. Jerome was the only one among
the ancients who translated from the Hebrew into Latin, is
beyond aU question. Sanctes Pagninus, under Leo the
Tenth, was the next to follow him. Many other arguments
might be adduced, Bellarmine brings a very conclusive
argument from St. Jerome's prefaces; thus — St, Jerome
testifies, in a letter to St, Augustine, that he prefixed
prefaces to almost every book translated by him from the
Hebrew — these prefaces are stUl preserved in the ecUtions of
the vulgate; no one denies their authenticity; now it is
incredible that this custom of printing the prefaces of St.
Jerome with the vulgate would have prevailed, if his trans
lation had been rejected. In answer to what might be
objected from some discrepancies between our vulgate and
the translation which St, Jerome, in his commentaries,
sometimes recommends, we may say, that in these few
places the church preferred retaining the old version,
St, Jerome did not translate the books of Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus, the two books of the Machabees, the

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 161
prophecy of Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremias, nor the
deuterocanonical portions of Esther and Daniel, These
remain precisely as they were in the old, or ante-Hiero
nymian vulgate.
Such is the early history of our vulgate, which did
'not displace the other, or older Latin vulgate, for two
centuries — ^untU after the year 600, St, Jerome, in his
preface to Paralipomenon, says, that if the version of
the Seventy had remained pure as it came from their
hands, it would be a superfluous task to undertake a
new translation. From this observation, we see that
the mistakes of copyists had then given some handle to
the Jews in their appeals from the septuagint to the
original text; but when St, Jerome made the people
acquainted with the original, then were their clamours
effectually sUenced, St, Jerome proposed to himself to
give the sense clearly, not adhering too closely to a
literal, or verbum verbo translation of the text — at the
same time he did not overstep the limits of a translation.
Very soon after the version was completed, it was weU
received by many, notwithstanding the opposition of
some, who cUd not think it advisable to introduce a new
version among the people, so long accustomed to another.
(This difficulty proved an obstacle to St. Jerome's
translation of the Psalms ever being received. ) Lucinius,
a Spanish bishop, sent six persons from Spain, in St,
Jerome's own time, to copy his version. Many think
that the speculum of St, Augustine was made from this
version, but that is by no means probable, considering
that St, Augustine, although he himself thought highly
of St, Jerome's translation, was, perhaps, of aU others,
the most opposed to its circulation among the people,
for the reason just now mentioned. The learned Cardinal
Wiseman is of opinion, that the genuine speculum of St,
Augustine, is contained in the Santa Croce MS, to which
VOL, I, M

162 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
we have already referred in this chapter; and as to
the discrepancies between it and the quotations of scrip
ture in the other works of St, Augustine, CarcUnal
Wiseman accounts for them, with great probabUity, by
supposing, that St, Augustine generally used the Italian
recension of the old vulgate, as he first studied the scripture
in Italy, where he was baptized; but that for his speculum,
which was intended for the use of African Christians, he
used the African edition of the old translation, this being
the edition to which these people were accustomed. How
ever, St. Jerome's version spread rapidly over the church;
and although St. Gregory the Great speaks of the old and
new vulgate being both much used in his time, yet he says
of ours, that it gave more truly the sense of the Hebrew,
and that it was in all things most worthy of credit.
St. Isidore of SevUle, testifies, whilst he prefers St. Je
rome's vulgate to aU other Latin versions, that in his
time it was commonly received by the Christian churches
and approved of, because " it rendered the words more
clearly, and gave the sense of the orginal more faith
fuUy." He lived in 630, about twenty-five years
after the death of St. Gregory. In a word, this ver
sion has continued now for more than twelve hundred
years in general use in the western church. This wUl
not be denied at present. We shaU not delay to speak
of those who laboured in correcting mistakes of copiers
in the vulgate, before the introduction of printing. The
principal persons who devoted themselves to this work
of correction in the midcUe ages, were the learned Alcuin,
and Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, the former
in the beginning of the ninth century, and Lanfranc
in the eleventh. — Glaire, Introduction, tom. 1, p. 260.
The printed edition of the vulgate in the Complu
tensian polyglot, was carefully prepared. Afterwards
Robert Stephens, the famous French printer, and again

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 163
the cUvines of Louvain, and also those of Paris, gave
corrected editions of it. Some of these editors had it in
view to meet the wishes of the Council of Trent, with
respect to an exact ecUtion of the vulgate. For, that
councU in the year 1546, having declared this version
to be authentic, ordered that it should be most carefiiUy
printed. However, the task of complying with the
council's wish, was more properly undertaken by the
Holy See; and Sixtus V. gave to the public, in 1590,
the corrected edition, as prepared by a number of most
learned cardinals. He himself even inspected the press.
Sixtus was not yet satisfied, and he ordered the work
to be again submitted to correction, but he died before
another edition was prepared, and in rapid succession
there foUowed Urban VII., Gregory XIV., and In
nocent IX. It remained for Clement VIII. to finish
the work, which he cUd in 1592, in which year his
ecUtion first appeared. Another edition was given in
1593 by Clement, with some slight changes, and this is
the model of our present bibles, from which no pubUsher
or printer is permitted to depart. Even the cUfferent
readings formerly printed in the margin, must be there
omitted. Between the editions of Sixtus and Clement, there
are several discrepancies, which have been much dwelt
upon by many Protestant writers, as if they furnished
an argument against papal infaUibUity, and what they caU
the pretensions of Rome. The great hero of these doctors,
is one Thomas James, an Englishman, who wrote a
book on this subject, entitled Bellum Papale, in which
he reckons two thousand instances wherein the ecUtions
(Uffer. Lest our readers should be startled by the
number of these discrepancies, let them remember how
the leamed Protestant editor of the Greek Testament,
Mill, coUected thirty thousand various readings upon

164 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
that portion alone of the scriptures. Admitting that
the discrepancies between the editions of Sixtus and
Clement, are as numerous as James would represent
them, how could the infallibility of the pope, or what
these would call the pretensions of Rome, that is, the
infallible authority of the church, be affected thereby?
Did any one ever really imagine that the difference
between these two editions of the vulgate, furnished
the least argument against these doctrines? It is hard
to believe it; for there is not a shadow of reason for
supposing, that the Council of Trent, or either of these
popes, ever thought that it was practicable to bring out, in
any language, an edition of the scriptures, that should
be perfectly faultless. How then could the infallibility
of either council or pope be affected by the non-attain
ment of an end, which they never proposed to them
selves? The authenticity which the council or popes
claim for the vulgate, or any edition of it, does not mean
more — as we shaU see just now — than that this edition
is free from all error in faith or morals, and that it
fairly represents the original scriptures in aU important
particulars. Now, notwithstanding the discrepancies
pointed out by James, this character of authenticity,
according to this its true meaning, is sufficiently realized
in both the Sixtine and Clementine editions of the
vulgate. But they say, that Pope Sixtus' bull enjoined
that his bible should be read in all churches, without
the least alteration. We answer, that the meaning of
the decree manifestly is, that as chief pastor of the
church, he guarded — as he had a perfect right to do —
the authorized edition of the scriptures, from being
tampered with by any unauthorized critic. He had
no intention, at the same time, of depriving, either him
self or any of his successors, of the liberty of submitting
this edition to a new revision. Hence, it ought not to

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 165
be a matter of surprise to us, that Sixtus himself really
intended a new edition of the version with corrections,
and that this intention was afterwards carried out by
Clement, And even after aU that Clement has done and
decreed respecting the present edition of the vulgate,
it is quite clear, that Pius IX,, if he so pleases, has a
perfect right to order a new revision of it, AU this
being so obvious to Catholics, it is no wonder that they
should be surprised at getting such information as the
foUowing from a Protestant writer: — " These fatal
variances between editions, alike promulgated by pontiffs,
claiming infallibility, have not passed unnoticed by Pro
testant cUvines, who have taken advantage of them in
a manner, that sensibly affects the church of Rome." —
Home, Introduction, vol, ii,, p, 237, seventh edition. If
these variances were of such a character, that either
popes, by sanctioning his own e(Ution, would have
sanctioned anything that was erroneous in faith or
morals, then there would be some foundation for this
statement: but as the matter stands, to say that the
church of Rome has been sensibly affected by the state
of the weather for the past year, would be just as sensible
an observation, as that to which we are here treated by
this sapient theologian.
We come to speak now of the authority which attaches
to the vulgate, in virtue of the declaration of the Council
of Trent. We must first give the words of the council
on which we are to comment : — " Si quis libros ipsos
(nempe canonicos) integros cum omnibus suis partibus,
prout in ecclesia CathoUca legi consueverunt, et in veteri
vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis
non susceperit, anathema sit." And again: — " Sacrosancta
synodus statuit et declarat, ut ex omnibus Latinis edi-
tionibus, qute circumferuntur, vetus et vulgata editio,
quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est.

166 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
in pubUcis lectionibus, disputationibus, pr^cUcationibus
et expositionibus, pro authentica habeatur, et ut nemo
eam quovis praetextu rejicere audeat vel praesumat." —
Sessione sexta.
From these words it foUows, first — ^that the vulgate is
authentic in aU its parts ; seconcUy — that no one is at
liberty to reject its authority; and thircUy — ^that it is at
least preferred by the councU to aU the other Latin ver
sions then published. Any deed or writing is authentic
when it is entitled to be believed to be what it pretends
to be. In consequence, therefore, of the declaration of
the councU, that the vulgate is authentic, we must look
upon this version as a faithful translation of its original.
But must we believe it to be a correct version in every
word and iota? Leo AUatius, quoted by Richard Simon,
refers to a decree of the congregation of the councU
(interpres Concilii scUicet Tridentini), accorcUng to which
no Catholic would be permitted to hold that there is any,
even the sUghtest, defect in the version. This decree is
dated 1576; but we do not admit its genuineness, seeing
the opinions held since, by the most respectable cUvines ;
and we know, on the other hand, that there exist ficti
tious decrees of that congregation. Some theologians, at
the same time, have insisted on the truth of the conclu
sion, that in virtue of the council's decision, we must look
on the vulgate as free from the least fault on the part of
the translator. Others have adopted a far cUfferent opi
nion, viz., that the council merely declares that there is
nothing in the version opposed to faith or good morals.
The declaration of the councU appears to give a higher
authority to the version, than in this latter opinion would
attach to it. BeUarmine says, " We admit that the
interpreter was not a prophet, and could have erred; but
we say that he has not erred in that version, which the
church has approved of The church wished to make us

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 167
certain, in those things especiaUy that appertain to faith
and morals, that there are no mistakes of translators in
this version." — De verbo Dei Scripto ; de editione vulgata.
Duhamel says, " The vulgate is authentic, although it is
not entirely free from every defect or slight mistake. —
(See his dissertation prefixed to the Dublin ecUtion of
Menochius' Commentary.) Bonfrerius (in the Praeloquia)
is of opinion, that the word authentic implies more than
merely not being opposed to faith or morals ; but he
would not assert that the interpreter was, in his transla
tion, quite exempt from human infirmity; nor does he
think that the councU wished to define that he was. For
this he quotes Andreas Vega, who was present at the
council, and the cardinal president, who was afterwards
Pope MarceUus II. An authentic version must mean a
version which fairly represents its original. Now, a
version might contain nothing opposed to faith or morals,
and yet not fairly represent its original ; therefore it is
not sufficient for the authenticity of a version, that it
contain nothing inconsistent with faith or morality. The
meaning of the councU, therefore, appears to be truly
given by Girardeau : " That substantiaUy, and in all
things of any moment, this version does not depart from
the true sense of the scripture." — Proelectiones Theologicoe
de Verbo Dei Scripto.
The strictest ciefender of the accuracy of the version
wUl admit with BeUarmine, that in four cases we may
have recourse to the original : First — when there appears
to be an error of the copiers in our books; second — when
the Latin copies differ from each other, that we may dis
cover the true reading of the vulgate; third — when a
phrase or sentence is doubtful in the Latin text, in order
to remove the ambiguity; fourth — to understand the
force and propriety of words. Bellarmine adduces exam
ples of all these cases in his treatise De Verbo Dei

168 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
Scripto (liber 2dus cap. undecimum). Moreover, it is so
certain that the councU did not intend to depreciate the
originals by the sanction given to the vulgate, that the
assertion, which would imply the contrary, is classed by
BeUarmine among the lies of Calvin. (Libro jam citato,
cap. X.) The fathers speak not at aU in their decree of
the originals, but only of the Latin versions.
Another question which presents itself is this — cUd the
councU select a good version when it pronounced on the
authenticity of the vulgate ? we answer — most certainly
it did. This appears, as weU from the character of St.
Jerome, and the abundant means of arriving at the true
sense of the original, which were avaUable to him, as also
from the abundant testimonies of ancient and modern
critics in its favour. St. Jerome either translated, or
corrected by the original, aU the scripture, about the sense
of which the sectaries of these latter ages and we dispute
— except the Psalms, of which we shaU speak afterwards.
Now, St. Jerome was weU acquainted with Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew; this was not denied even by those who were
opposed to his undertaking. The Chaldaic, also, he had
studied with great care. His talents and theological
knowledge were of the highest order; then he had col
lected at Bethlehem a rich Ubrary; he had there all the
versions of the scripture. He had his instructions in
Hebrew from the famous school of Tiberias — the most
learned of the Jewish academies — regarded as such by
the most learned Jews ; he had an assistant in his labours
from it. He had the great advantage of being able to
consult the Hexapla of Origen, which has since been lost,
having been destroyed in 65 3, at the siege of Caesarea, where
it had been deposited, together with the other books of
Origen. He lived in that country where the scenes of the
scripture history had been, for the most part, laid. If we
join to all this, his great and indefatigable labour, and that

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 169
piety, for which he was so much cUstinguished, and which
would prevent him from substituting a rash conjecture for
a known truth, may we not then safely assert that our ver
sion deserves to be looked upon as a work of the greatest
merit, seeing how well quaUfied in every way St. Jerome
was for the task which he undertook.
We shaU come to the same conclusion about the merits
of this version, if we weigh well the testimonies of ancient
and modern critics in its favour. We have already noticed
the high opinion entertained of it by St. Gregory the
Great, St. Isidore of SevUle, and others. St. Augustine's
attachment to the old version, made from the Septuagint,
is weU known, and yet he thus writes in his book, (18th,
c. 43, de Civitate Dei,) " Quamvis non defuerit tempori-
bus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et
omnium trium linguarum peritus, qui non ex Graeco sed
ex Hebraeo in Latinum eloquium easdem scripturas con-
verterit; sed ejus tam Utteratum laborem quamvis Judaei
fateantur esse veracem," &c, : — " Although there has not
been wanting in our times the priest Jerome, a most
learned man, skUled in aU the three languages, who trans
lated the same scriptures, not from the Greek, but from
the Hebrew, into the Latin tongue; but although the
Jews acknowledge that his learned labour is cUstinguished
by fidelity," &g. This testimony of St. Augustine is
peculiarly valuable, inasmuch as it not only conveys to
us the high opinion which he himself entertained of the
version, but also makes us aware of the fact, that the
Jews even acknowledged its fidelity. But superior to a
hundred testimonies of ancient times is the universal
reception in the Latin church of this version, in prefer
ence to so many others.
As to modern testimonies, we shaU, for an obvious
reason, pass over those of Catholic critics. Protestant
critics, however, and those the most learned of that body.

170 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS.
may be abundantly quoted, as bearing testimony to the
fidelity and exceUence of this version. We shall, then,
cite a few of these. Grotius, confessedly a high autho
rity with biblical critics, held our version in high
esteem, alleging, as his reason, " that it contains
nothing but sound doctrine, and that its author is full of
erudition." — Grotius, Prcef. Annotationum in Vet. Test,
It was this esteem for the vulgate that induced Grotius,
as he tells us, to make that version the basis of his notes
on the Old Testament. Paul Fagius, who was appointed
by Cranmer to teach Hebrew in Cambridge, thought so
highly of the vulgate, that he treats those as half-learned
and impudent fellows, who spoke slightingly of this
famous translation. Drusius, for some time professor of
oriental languages in Oxford, speaks highly of this ver
sion, and praises the Council of Trent for the preference
which it gave it (the vulgate) above the modern versions
of the scripture. The references to Fagius and Drusius
may be seen in Richard Simon's Histoire Critique du
Vieux Testament, liv. 2, chap. 14. Walton, in the pro
legomena to his Polyglot, adds his testimony in favour
of the excellence of this version, saying, " Although we
do not call it divine, we yet say that it is highly to be
esteemed and not rashly set aside, as well on account of
its antiquity and general use throughout the west for a
thousand years, as on account of the learning and fideUty
of the translator, whom we admit to have been Jerome,
in the greater part of the work, the same who is grate
fuUy acknowledged by the most learned Protestants to
have deserved well of the church." — Prolegomenon 10,
sectio ult. He then goes on to state, that Beza in the
New Testament preferred the vulgate to all other Latin
versions, and censured Erasmus for condemning it be
cause it does not agree always with the modern Greek
copies; " whereas," says Beza, " it appears to have followed

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 171
a more correct Greek copy. Walton adds, that Beza's own
attacks on the version were severely criticised by a learned
Protestant (John Boys, prebendary of Ely, in England),
who, by the desire of Launcelot Andrews (the Protestant
Bishop of Ely), wrote a defence of the vulgate against
Beza. MUl, who spent thirty years in preparing his
famous edition of the New Testament, informs us (in
the prolegomena to his Greek Testament, p. 142), that
he considered the fragments of the old ItaUca as more
precious than gold ; he wished that St. Jerome had not
departed so much from it in his correction of the New
Testament; but yet, speaking of our version in the New
Testament, as it stands after St. Jerome's revision, he
says, " Quam certe tantum abest, ut ad Graecum excusum
quemcunque reformatam veUm, ut contra, optime cum
ea actum existimem, si MSS. exemplarium dUigenter
coUatorum ope talis apud posteros prodeat qualem eam
edicUt Hieronymus." We see, therefore, that in Mill's
judgment, to procure an exact Latin version, we ought
not to attempt to reform the vulgate accorcUng to any
printed Greek edition, but to make the required correc
tions by coUating the ancient Latin MSS. We may add
here the judgment which Lewis de Dieu, a man famous
for his knowledge of the languages, passes upon the vul
gate. The words are quoted by Walton (in the place
before cited, Prolegomen, 10, versus finem), from a work
of De Dieu's upon the gospels. De Dieu is comparing
the Syriac, Arabic, and other versions, with the vulgate
and the versions by Erasmus and Beza. His words are :
" Si vulgatum interpretem, quisquis is tandem fiierit,
doctum, imo doctissimum virum fuisse asseram, non me
peccasse judicavero; suos habet naevos fateor, habet et
suos barbarismos, sed quin passim ejus fidem judiciumque
admirer, etiam ubi barbams videtur negare non possum."
" Were I to assert that the vulgate translator, whosoever

172 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
he was (for in the New Testament he is unknown), was
learned — nay, most learned — I should not consider that
I had erred. He has his blemishes, I admit, he has also
his barbarisms ; but I cannot deny that I must admire
his fidelity and judgment, even where he appears to be
barbarous," Hence De Dieu often, among the various
readings, prefers that of the vulgate to the rest, and
defends it against Beza, Walton cites a number of
instances of this from his work. Such are the testimonies
even of the most learned Protestants in favour of our
version. No doubt several Protestants have spoken cUs-
paragingly of the vulgate, but in this they have been led
by their prejudices rather than their judgment. On this
point a recent Protestant writer thus speaks (Dr. Samuel
Davidson, Sacred Hermeneuiics, p. 625) : " This trans
lation has been highly esteemed by the most competent
judges, although, in consequence of the excessive vene
ration in which Romanists have held it since the Council
of Trent, some Protestants have injudiciously and unjustly
underrated its value. As a relic of antiquity, proceeding
in the greater part of it fi-om Jerome, it is interesting ;
and as giving a certain interpretation to the text, it
deserves to be consulted by every student of the bible.
In general it is very Uteral, so as even to express Hebrew
and Greek icUoms in barbarous Latinity, from its close
adherence to the original words."
The conclusion which we ought to deduce from aU that
has been said is, that although the Council of Trent cUd
not intend to depreciate the originals, nor to pronounce
St. Jerome inspired in making his translation, nor the
ancient interpreter either, in the parts which have been
retained from him; yet that no Hebrew or Greek MS,
extant, or printed copy of the sacred text, can be equaUy
depended upon, as containing thi-oughout the pure word
of God ; because, in the first place, we have not the same

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 173
formal testimony of the church in favour of any of these
MSS. or printed copies; and because, in the next place,
considering the high esteem in which our version has
been held, even by the most learned adversaries of the
church, and at the same time considering its general use
in the western church for so many hundred years, toge
ther with the fact, that it was made at a period anterior
to the date of the most ancient known Hebrew or Greek
MS. — we ought, in consequence of all this, and even
abstracting from the declaration of the Council of Trent,
to look upon this version as a safer guide to the know
ledge of what the sacred pensmen wrote, than any extant
copy whatever of the original text.
The limits which we have prescribed to ourselves, do
not permit us to delay much longer in treating of this
version, yet there are still some points which demand
a few words from us. First — we have observed already,
that a part of our vulgate, in the Old Testament, has
been taken from the old or ante-Hieronymian vulgate,
without any alteration. In the New Testament, we
have the ante-Hieronymian translation, as corrected by
St, Jerome, according to the original Greek. In the
Old Testament, we have one book — the book of Psalms —
taken from the old Italica, as corrected by St, Jerome,
not according to the original Hebrew, but accorcUng to
the septuagint, from which the version was originally
made. St. Jerome made a translation of the Psalms
from the Hebrew, but it was not thought prudent to
adopt it as the common version, seeing how much ac
customed the people were to the singing and reciting
of the Psalms from the ancient vulgate. St, Jerome
twice corrected the Psalms by the septuagint. He first
made a slight correction of them, which was adopted in
the Roman church. His second correction was made
with greater diligence, and was first adopted by the

174 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
churches of Gaul, hence it is caUed the Gallican Psaltery.
The former edition, that is, the first correction of St.
Jerome, having been retained for a considerable time by
the church of Rome, is caUed the Roman Psaltery. It
is the Gallican Psaltery, which we have in our vulgate.
The church at Rome adopted the GaUican Psaltery —
Mariana thinks, in the time of Charlemagne, or rather
in the time of Pope Nicholas III, — Marianae, Dissertatio
pro Editione Vulgata, cap, xix.
Secondly, — We do not deny, that the sanction of the
Council of Trent, may consist, with sUght mistakes, in
our version, or the edition of it, which we use; for,
as Mariana observes, (Ibidem, cap, x^,,) the councU
has declared it authentic cum omnibus suis partibus, not
cum omnibus suis particulis, that is, in all its parts, not in
all its particles. Such is the extent to which the council
has gone; and we trust, that enough has been said to
make it clear, that the councU had good reason for ap
proving, as it did, of this ancient version.

CHAPTER VI,
OF THE STRUC VERSIONS OF THE SCRIPTURES,
It is admitted by all, that the Christians of Syria must
have been provided with a version of the sacred scrip
tures, in their own language, from an early period of
the church; both because vast numbers of the people
in those countries, comprehended under the name of
Syria, were unacquainted with the Greek language, and
because the offices of the church, which are in such
great part taken from the scripture, have been always
celebrated there in Syriac,

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTDRES. 175
Among the Syriac versions known to us, by far the
most important is that one, which has been designated
by the Syrians the Peschito, or simple, as the word is
commonly explained. In what sense this appeUation is
given to it, is a question among critics. Some suppose,
that it is intended to express the literal character of the
version — others, the fideUty of the version, whilst others
contend, that it simply designates a translation, as op
posed to an allegorical paraphrase, or explanation of the
original text. This version was made from the Hebrew,
in the Old Testament — at what precise period, we know
not. Some Syrian writers would have us believe, that
it was made, at least in a great part, in the time of
Solomon; other Syrians refer it to the time of the
captivity of the ten tribes; and others, somewhat more
moderate, to the time of Thaddeus, the apostle; but
these statements are aU rejected by modern critics,
whilst these latter differ among themselves respecting
the time at which it was probably made, although they
are, in general, agreed in admitting its very high anti
quity. Walton, Carpzov, Leusden, and Kennicott, refer
it to the first century of the Christian era; whUst many
of the German critics think, that it cannot claim a
higher antiquity than the second or third century.
Jahn leans to the opinion, which refers it to the second
century. It is certain, that St. Ephrem, who lived in
the fourth century, often refers to this version, in a
manner, which shows that in his time it was weU known,
and of long stancUng in the Syrian churches. There is
no doubt, but this version has been made from the
Hebrew in the Old Testament; this is manifest, from the
exactness with which it generally renders that text:
however, in some places it so conforms to the septuagint
version, as to leave scarcely any doubt, but that it has
been remodelled in several places upon that version, or.

176 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
at least, accommodated in these places to other Syriac
versions, which have been made from the septuagint.
The New Testament, which has been certainly made
from the Greek text, dates as early as the second cen
tury of our era, or, at the latest, the beginning of the
third. This ancient version, both in the Old and New
Testament, has been always held in great repute by aU
the Christians of Syria, without distinction of sect or
party. Another proof of its great antiquity — ^for it
appears by this, that the version did not emanate from
any of these parties, into which the Syrian Christians
are now divided, but that it was made, when aU be
longed to the one true church.*
It would appear from the different manner of translat
ing, which is found in some parts of the Old Testament,
as compared with others, that this Peschito-Syriac was
not the work of one hand. The author, or authors, of
the version, merely translated in the Old Testament,
what was found on the canon of the Hebrew Jews; and
in the New Testament, they passed over almost all those
parts, which are termed deuterocanonical, in consequence
of partial doubts having been entertained in the church,
in the very early times, regarding their canonicalness;
hence, they have not given the second and third epistles
of St, John, the second epistle of St, Peter, the epistle of
St, Jude, and the Apocalypse, Of course, the omitted
* At present we find in the country of Syria — ^the Maronites, -n-hose name is variously
accounted for. Some derive it from John Maron, a Syrian writer of the party of the
Monothelites ; but this opinion has been successfully combated by Nairon, a learned
Maronite, who, in a dissertation pubUshed at Rome in 1679, has proved that the
name is derived from St. Maron, a celebrated anchoret of the fourteenth century,
whose life is written by Theodoret. One thing is certain, that at the present day the
Maronites profess the true faith, and are united to the Roman See. Second, we find
also at present, in the countries of Syria, the followers of the Nestorian heresy. Third,
the followers of the Eutychian heresy, more commonly called there Jacobites, from
one James the Syrian, otherwise called Baradseus, or Zanzalus, who rejected the
Council of Chalcedon, and was, after Eutyches, a great leader of the Monophysite
heretics.

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 177
books, both in the Old and New Testament, were soon
after given to the Syrian churches by means of other
versions; for, the canonicalness of aU these books has
been held in the Syrian church from a very early period,
and before that the various sects broke off from it, and
hence aU these agree in admitting the same canon of
scripture. The fundamental printed ecUtion of this Peschito ver
sion in the Old Testament, is that given in the Paris
polyglot, by Le Jay, who, in preparing it for publication,
was assisted by Gabriel Sionita, a learned Maronite.
An improved edition of it was afterwards given by
Walton in the London polyglot — it was corrected for this
edition, after four new MSS.
The New Testament portion, was first printed at
Vienna, by Widmanstad. Moses of Marden, a Maronite
priest, assisted in bringing it out. This Moses of Marden,
was the first to make known in Europe the Peschito-
Syriac: he was sent .by Ignatius, patriarch of the Ma
ronite Christians, in the year 1552, to Pope Julius IIL,
to acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman pontiff. —
Butler, Horce Biblicce, Section 13. Other editions of
this New Testament have been since printed: the best
is that printed at Leyden in 1708, and afterwards in
1717; it bears the names of John Leusden and Charles
Schaaf as editors, although Leusden died before the
work was brought as far as the gospel of St. John. —
Le Long, Bibliotheca Sacra, tom, 1 ; De Biblus Syriacis
Impressis, anno, 1708.
We have now described the principal Syriac version.
There is no doubt, but that at a somewhat later period
than the date of the Peschito, the Syrians had another
version introduced among them, made from the septua
gint, but whether they had more than one such version —
in other words, whether the names oi Figured, PhUoxenian,
VOL. I. N

178 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
Harclean, used by writers on these matters, refer to
different versions, or different editions of the same
version, it is impossible to decide. De Sacy, who has
examined, at least, one such version from the septuagint,
thinks that it was made as early as the third or fourth
century, — Glaire Introd. tom, 1, p. 289, The edition
examined by De Sacy, is that which is often referred to
by the name of the figured version, a name supposed to
be applied to it in contradistinction to the simple version,
Assemani (Bibliot. Orient., iii, 146,) however, has proved,
that the name figured has originated from mistaking
the meaning of a word used by Gregory Bar-Hebrseus,
in speaking of this version. This Gregory Bar-Hebraeus
was a celebrated writer among the Jacobites in the
thirteenth century: he speaks of two Syrian versions;
and, according to the correct reading of his words,
says, " the western Syrians have two versions — that
simple version (of which he had spoken immecUately
before,) which was translated from the Hebrew lan
guage into the Syriac, after the coming of the Lord
Christ, in the time of Addeus (Thaddeus) the apostle, or,
according to others before him, in the time of Solomon
the son of David, and Hiram king of Tyre; and another
which was translated from the Greek of the septuagint
into Syriac, a considerable time after the Incarnation
of the Saviour," We may observe here, that this writer
is quoted sometimes by the name of Gregory Bar-
Hebraeus — sometimes by that of Gregory Abulpharagius,
although in Boerner's edition of Le Long it is stated to
be an error, to confound, as many do, Bar-Hebraeus,
who was archbishop of Antioch, with Abulpharagius, who
was a celebrated physician of the same century, and a
Syrian also. — Bibliotheca Sacra, tom, 1, p, 175, But
to proceed: there are various other Syriac versions cited,
but they may be, perhaps, but different editions of that

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 179
one of which we have been speaking, denominated the
figured by many, as we have observed. Among these
other so-caUed versions, the most remarkable are — first,
the PhUoxenian, so called, because made by the orders
of Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, a celebrated Jacobite,
in the beginning of the sixth century. Second, the
Harclean, made by Thomas Heracleensis, as he is cited
by Latin writers. This is thought by many to be but
a mere revision of the PhUoxenian; and, undoubtecUy, if
we admitted the authenticity of an extract given in
Le Long, from a MS. in the library of St. Lawrence at
Florence, we should have no doubt upon the subject;
for, this extract professes to give the testimony of Tho
mas himself, to the effect that he revised the PhUoxenian
after three Greek MSS., kept in the monastery of St.
Anthony at Alexandria, in the nine hundred and twenty-
seventh year of Alexander, that is, the six hundred
and fifteenth of Christ. The four gospels of the Har
clean version, or revision, were printed at Oxford in
1778. FinaUy, there is another Syriac version, or
edition, designated by the name of the Hexaplar, because
made from Origen's Hexaplar edition of the septuagint.
This version is ascribed by Eichhorn to Paul, bishop of
Tela, who is supposed to have made it about the year
of Christ 615.
We may observe in conclusion, that amidst the con
flicting opinions of writers on the subject, of which we
are treating, the only thing that seems absolutely certain
is, that the Syrians have been from a very early period
provided with two versions, at least, of the sacred scrip
ture: the first and more ancient, the Peschito, made
from the Hebrew in the Old Testament; the other made
from the septuagint in the Old Testament.
Those who wish to see more upon the principal version
of the Syriac church — the Peschito, and particularly

180 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
upon the Karkaphensian recension of it, may consult
the learned work of the iUustrious Cardinal Wiseman,
entitled Horce Syriacce.

CHAPTER VIL
OF THE EGYPTIAN VERSIONS,
The Egyptian versions are those which are found in the
ancient language of the Christians of Egypt. This lan
guage is denominated Coptic, from the name given to
the people that used it, i. e., Copts. The Copts are the
descendants of that mixture of Egyptians, Persians, and,
above all, Greeks, who, under the Ptolemys and Constan-
tines, were long in possession of Egypt. Some derive their
names from the mode in which the Saracens pronounced
the name Jacobites, to which sect this Egyptian people
belonged when the Saracens took possession of their
country ; others derive it from the name of a city in
Egypt, Copies ; others, in fine, from a contraction of the
Greek name of Egypt, A'uyvrcTo^. When the Greeks first
established themselves in Egypt, the Greek language
became the language of Alexandria and its vicinity ; but
in remote parts of the country the people continued to
speak their ancient language, which, however, soon be
came mixed to a very great extent with Greek. It is
this mixture which is designated by the general name of
Coptic, although its various dialects differ very much
from each other. As we have observed already, the
Copts belong to the sect of the Jacobites, or Monophysites,
rejecting the CouncU of Chalcedon, which they falsely
charge with having advocated the Nestorian heresy.
The Christians of Egypt who received the CouncU of

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 181
Chalcedon, as weU as the other Christians throughout
Syria who submitted to the same councU, were denomi
nated by the Copts, Melchites, or Royalists — the Syriac
word melek signifying king. This name they gave them
because they submitted to the edict of the Emperor
Marcian, by which he commanded submission to the
decrees of the councU. As to the Melchites, down to a
late period they have celebrated the liturgy in the Greek
language; latterly, however, the difficulty of finding
priests and deacons who know how to read the Greek,
has induced them to celebrate the Mass in Arabic. The
Copts have always used the Coptic language in the
Uturgy; and even now, when it is no longer understood
by the people, it remains in the liturgy, of which they
have an Arabic translation, in order that the priests may
know the meaning of what is read in the Coptic. After
having read the lessons of the office, the epistles, and
gospels, in Coptic, they read them again from an Arabic
bible. The scripture must have been translated into the
Coptic at a very early period, seeing that the people who
used this language did not understand Greek. It is com
monly admitted that translations of the Old and New
Testaments into Coptic were made as early as the second
or third century of the Christian era. Many versions
both of the Old and New Testament are found in this
language ; and, indeed, one version could not have an
swered for aU the people who spoke the Coptic, inasmuch
as this language is split up into various dialects, which
cUffer greatly one from the other. These dialects are:
first — the Sahidic, so caUed from Said, the Arabic name
of Upper Egypt ; second — ^the Memphitic, or Coptic pro
perly so caUed, which was the cUalect of the Lower
Egypt, and receives its name from the city of Memphis,
now Grand CaUo; lastly — ^the Bashmuric dialect, so deno
minated from Bashmur, a province of the Delta, The

182 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
Coptic translations of the Old Testament were made from
the Greek of the septuagint. A Coptic version of the
pentateuch was pubUshed in London, in 1731, by David
Wilkins, The psaltery was published at Rome, by the
Propaganda, in 1744 and 1749. The ninth chapter of
Daniel was also published at Rome, by Miinter, in 1786,
both in Memphitic and Sahidic. In the year 1816
Engelbreth published at Copenhagen some fragments of
the Old and New Testaments, in the Bashmuric dialect.
Some books of the Old Testament, in the Coptic version,
cannot now be found, although known to have been trans
lated from the fact, that select portions from them are
read, at stated times, in the public offices of the church.
There are, however, always new discoveries being made
of Coptic MSS. Thus Glaire mentions (Introduc. tom. 1,
p, 225, note), that Dr, Dujardin, sent by the French
minister of public instruction, M. De Salvandy, into
Egypt, to collect Coptic MSS,, had written from Cairo,
announcing, as the result of his search, the discovery of
various books of the scripture. We may observe, that
among others, he mentions the books of Baruch and
Wisdom — a new proof of the fact, that the Copts place
upon their canon those books of the Old Testament
termed deuterocanonical, received by Catholics, and
rejected as apocryphal by the Protestants,
We have three versions of the New Testament: — one
in the Memphitic dialect, which was printed at Oxford
in 1716, under the superintendence of David Wilkins;
another in Sahidic, which appears to be as ancient as the
preceding, which is referred to the third century. Frag
ments of the gospels of this Sahidic version have beeri
often published ; Woide, in particular, undertook to pub
lish a Sahidic New Testament, but death having over
taken him before the work was completed, it was continued
after him by Ford, and printed at Oxford in 1799, —

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 183
(Glaire, ubi supra.) The third version is in the Bash
muric dialect. Of the Bashmuric New Testament there
have been published only some fragments of the gospels
and of the epistles of St, Paul. This version appears to
be as ancient as either of the preceding. See Masch's
edition of Le Long Bibliotheca Sacra, vol, i,, pars 2da,
sectio 10,

CHAPTER VIIL
I.  OF THE ARABIC VERSIONS. H. — OF THE ETHIOPIAN
VERSION. III.  OF THE PERSIAN VERSIONS. IV. — OF
THE ARMENIAN VERSION.
I. — The Arabic language was for a very long period
confined within the limits of the country from which it
derives its name ; but by the conquests of Mahomet and
his foUowers, it was spread over an immense portion of
the world It is undoubtecUy one of the most ancient
languages in existence, and excels aU others in copious
ness ; it bears a great affinity to the Hebrew. There are
various Arabic versions of the scripture; but none of
them are considered of much importance in bibUcal cri
ticism, as there is no sufficient reason for looking upon
any of them as more ancient than the age of Mahomet.
Besides, there are but few which have been made from
the original texts. The Arabic versions considered most
deserving of notice are the foUowing : First — the Arabic
version of the pentateuch and Isaias, made by Rabbi
Saadias Gaon, of Egypt, from the Hebrew text. It is
referred to the commencement of the tenth century. The
translation is in the style of a paraphrase. Saadias

184 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
is said to have translated also Job and the Psalms.
The pentateuch and Isaias have been published ; the
other books translated by him are stiU in manuscript.
Second — another Arabic version of the pentateuch made
from the Hebrew, is that one published by Erpenius, at
Leyden, in 1622 ; it is ascribed to an African Jew of the
thirteenth century. It is much more literal than the
preceding. Hence many learned men prefer it to the
other — among the rest Walton, although he has given
in his polyglot SaacUas' version in preference. Third —
the version of the book of Josue given in the Paris and
London polyglots, has been manifestly made from the
Hebrew. As Baver observes, it is sufficient, in order
to be convinced of this, to compare this version with the
Hebrew text. It is not known at what time, nor by
whom this version was made. There are various other
Arabic translations made from the Hebrew, which are
StiU unpublished. Among these the most remarkable is
a version of the pentateuch made from the Hebrew of
the Samaritan pentateuch, for the use of the Samaritans,
by a certain Abou Said, in the thirteenth century.
Fourth — among the Arabic versions made from the
Peschito-Syriac is reckoned the book of Job, found in
the Paris and London polyglots. There are some other
manuscript versions made from the same Peschito-Syriac,
It was the common opinion of the learned, that the
Arabic version of aU the books contained in the poly
glots of Paris and London, with the exception of the
pentateuch, Josue, and Job, was made from the Greek
of Hesychius' or Lucian's edition of the septuagint ; but
a German critic, named JEmilius Rcediger, in a work
upon the subject, praised by De Sacy as a masterpiece
of profound and accurate criticism, has proved that this
opinion is, with respect to a very great part of that
version, perfectly without foundation. In fact, Rcediger

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 185
has established, by a minute investigation of the matter,
that, in the first place, the source of this Arabic version
has not been the Greek septuagint ; that, seconcUy, the
foUowing parts have been translated from the Syriac
version: The books of Judges, of Ruth, and two first
books of Kings, caUed the books of Samuel ; the eleven
first chapters of the third book of Kings; the fourth book
of Kings, from verse seventeenth of the twelfth chapter to
chapter twenty-fifth, inclusively ; and the book of Nehe
mias, from verse twenty-eighth of the ninth chapter to
the thirtieth chapter inclusively. He has proved, thircUy,
that the foUowing portions have been translated from
the Hebrew : In the third book of Kings, chapter twelfth
and foUowing, to the twenty-first inclusively ; and in the
fourth book of Kings, the eleven first chapters, with a
part of the twelfth. Finally, he has proved, that the
first part of Nehemias, that is to say, from the com
mencement of the book to the twenty-seventh verse of
the ninth chapter, although translated at first by a Jew
from the original text, was afterwards interpolated by
some Christian, who foUowed the Syriac version, —
iEmiUus RoecUger, de Origine et indole Arabicce Librorum
Historicorum Interpretationis, Ubri duo, Halis Saxonum,
1829. Various ecUtions have been given of the New Tes
tament in Arabic. In some the translation has been
made from the Greek ; in others, from the Syriac ver
sion ; in others, in fine, from the vulgate. Among these
ecUtions the principal is that one of the four gospels,
given at Rome in the year 1590, with the vulgate inter
lined; it appears to have been made from the Greek.
It was inserted, with some corrections, in the Paris
polyglot, and afterwards, but with many additional cor
rections, in that of London. Erpenius pubUshed the
Arabic New Testament at Leyden, in 1616, from a MS.

186 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
written in Upper Egypt, in the year 1342. See Masch's
ecUtion of Le Long, vol. i., part. 2da. sectione 5ta.
II. Of the Ethiopian version. — Ethiopia is first known
in history by the name of Lud; this is the name by
which it is designated in several parts of the Old Testa
ment. As Charles Butler observes, it was a nation of
blacks from the banks of the Indus, who established a
powerful empire in the African Lydia, that first gave the
country the name of Ethiopia. These were conquered
by the Abvssinians, who came from the southern part
of Arabia Felix, in the reign of Constantine the Great.
This people (the Ethiopians or Abyssinians) was con
verted to Christianity in the fourth century, and towards
the ninth, feU into the Eutychian heresy: afterwards
they embraced various other errors borrowed from Ju
daism, and even paganism. — Butler, Horce Biblicce, sec.
13, with me. p. 107, The Ethiopian version of the
scripture, with which we are acquainted, is in the ancient
language of Abyssinia, not the language now in use — the
language which it most nearly resembles is the Arabic.
This version, as Glaire observes, (Introductio, tom. i., p.
293,) appears to be the same as that mentioned by S. Chry
sostom. (Horn. 2, in Joannem) and to date from the fourth
century, when Frumentius. ordained bishop by St. Athan
asius. went to preach the Christian religion in Abyssinia,
Of the Old Testament which was translated from the
septuagint there have been printed the four first chapters
of Gtenesis; published at Leyden in 1660. afterwards at
Francfort, in 1696, Avith a Latin translation, and often
since; the book of Ruth, which appeared at Leyden in 1660;
the PsaUns, which have been printed frequently — ^they
are given in the London polyglot; the Canticle of Can
ticles, Joel, Jonas. Sophonias and Malachy, printed separ-
atelv and at different places. Of this Ethiopian version
the New Testament has been also translated from the

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 187
Greek. It was printed at Rome in 1548 — (see Glaire,
ubi supra). This edition was reprinted by Walton in
his polyglot. There is in England a manuscript copy of
the entire Ethiopian scriptures, which was purchased by
one of the bible societies.
III. Of the Persian versions, — WhUe the ancient em
pire of Persia subsisted, Persia had a language of her
own. In the course of time that country became suc
cessively subject to the Greeks, the Romans, the Saracens,
and the Turks; and each of them introduced some alter
ations into the language of the Persians. The modern
language of Persia is a mixture of all; but the Arabic
and Turkish predominate. We are acquainted with three
Persian versions of the scripture — one contains only the
pentateuch; it is not more ancient than the ninth cen
tury. It was made from the Hebrew by a Jew, for the
benefit of the Jews; it is printed in the London polyglot.
Another of these Persian versions, contains the four gos
pels: it was made from the Syriac version, and it is
printed in the same polyglot, after a manuscript of Po-
cock's, which bears the date of 1314. The third version,
which contains likewise the four gospels, is considered to
be more modern than the preceding. Wheloc, professor
of Arabic in Cambridge, began to print it in 1652, but
he having cUed two years after, the work was continued
by Pierson, who finished it in 1657. Although the
editors considered that this version was made from the
Greek, yet the learned Renaudot contends that it was
made from the Syriac version. Walton mentions two
Persian versions of the Psalms — one made by a Portuguese
monk at Ispahan, in 1618, and another by some Jesuits,
from the Latin vulgate. These are yet in manuscript.
In conclusion we may observe, that the authority of St,
Chrysostom and Theodoret is adduced to prove that the
scriptures were very anciently translated into the Persian
language; but it does not appear that any fragments of

188 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
this ancient version are extant. The want of any Persic
version of the Old Testament among the Christians of
Persia, is thus accounted for by Renaudot — (Dissertatio
in libros S. Scrip, et corum versiones orientales). The
Persian Christians, for the most part, (he says) under
stand and read the Old Testament in Arabic; and again,
the Liturgy is nowhere celebrated in Persian, but in
Armenian, which aU understand.
IV. Of the Armenian version. — This is a very interest
ing version of the sacred scripture. It is ascribed by the
Armenian writers to Miesrob, who was minister of state
and secretary to Warasdates, and Arsaces the fourth,
kings of Armenia, and contemporaries with Theodosius the
Second. This Miesrob invented the Armenian alphabet.
Before his time the Armenians used Syriac letters. He
completed the translation of the scripture in the year
410 A. D, In the Old Testament he translated from the
septuagint — in the New, most probably from the original,
and not from the Old (or Peschito) Syriac, as many have
contended. The Peschito, however, was afterwards used
in correcting the version; and again, the Latin vulgate
was used also, in correcting the version, by Uscan — a
bishop sent from Armenia to Amsterdam to superintend
the printing of the Armenian scriptures. Of this printed
edition, the Old Testament appeared in 1666, and the
New in 1668, A learned Armenian — Zohrab — not sa
tisfied with the manner in which this edition had been
executed, published at Venice in 1789, the New Testa
ment, accompanied with some notes. This edition was
reprinted in 1816 without any change. But it was in
1805 that Zohrab brought out at Venice, in the house of
the Lazarites, the great critical edition of the entire
Armenian version, which he had undertaken. He col
lated for this work sixty-nine MSS,, as he informs us in
his preface; he took for the basis of the edition that MS,
which appeared to him to be the most ancient and the

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 189
most correct — the faults, which he discovered in it, he
corrected by means of the others; he added in the margin
all the various readings, a reference to the different MSS,
which authorize them, and, in fine, some critical explana
tions, as often as he thought them necessary, — Glaire, In
troduc, tom, i,, p, 296,

CHAPTER IX.
OF THE GOTHIC AND SLAVONIC VERSIONS.
I. Of the Gothic version. — This version was made in
the fifth century by Ulphilas, bishop of the Maeso-Goths,
a German tribe that settled on the borders of the Greek
empire. The version was made in the New Testament
from the Greek, and in the Old, from the septuagint.
With the exception of portions of this version which have
been discovered in the Codices Rescripti, the only part
that has come down to us, is the four gospels, which are
found, not without some chasms, however, in the Codex
Argenteus, a famous manuscript preserved in the library
of the university at Upsal, This manuscript has its
name from the sUver letters with which it is written —
the initial letters are golden. Some have supposed that
this was the very manuscript written by UlphUas, but
this is cUsproved by its having marginal readings, a cir
cumstance which indicates the existence of various copies
of the version, when this transcript was made. The part
of the version contained in this manuscript has been
several times published — ^the best edition is that by Zahn,
in 1805. Fragments of the Epistle to the Romans, found
by Knittel in a codex rescriptus, have been also published.
The iUustrious CarcUnal Mai — at that time Signer Angelo
Mai — discovered in the Ambrosian library at MUan,

190 OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS
several considerable portions of the Gothic version in
various codices rescripti. These discoveries embrace
several large portions of the New Testament, besides a
part of the books of Kings and Esdras. A specimen of
these discoveries was published by Signer Mai, assisted
by Castillionei. This Gothic version has been always
highly esteemed by critics on account of its acknowledged
antiquity. A few words here on what is meant by a codex rescrip
tus, will not be considered out ¦ of place. By a codex
rescriptus or palimpsestus, is meant a codex twice used
by the copyist, in such a way that the first writing is not
entirely effaced to make way for the second, but the first
having faded or become dim from age, the second is
written over it. Before the invention of paper, the great
scarcity of parchment in different places induced many
to use the same codex a second time, either erasing the
first writing to make way for some recent author, who
was in demand at the time, or simply writing over the
first, as already mentioned — in some instances both
writings on these codices rescripti are legible. Several
valuable remains of biblical and classical literature have
been discovered in the first writing of these MSS, No
one has enriched literature with such important discove
ries of this kind, as the iUustrious Cardinal Mai,
II. Of the Slavonic version. — The Slavonic, or old Rus
sian version was made about the midcUe of the ninth
century, by CyrU and his brother Methodius, natives of
Thessalonica, who preached the gospel to the Bulgarians
and Moravians, and invented the Slavonic alphabet. The
translation comprehends the entire bible. In the Old
Testament, the septuagint was followed — in the New, the
original. The translation is very literal — so far as to
imitate the Greek construction. This version is much
esteemed by critics, as it is found generally to agree with

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTDRES, 191
the most ancient MSS. It has been disputed whether
this version was ever altered from the Latin vulgate —
Dobrowsky, profoundly acquainted with the Slavonic
language, denies that it ever was; yet the contrary has
been re-asserted by Hug. The fundamental edition of
this version is the one printed at Ostrog in Russia, 1581.
Professor Alter's edition of the Greek testament, 8vo.,
Vienna, 1787, is enriched with a number of accurate
extracts from this version.
Before conclucUng these observations on the ancient
versions of the scripture, we may remark that it has been
frequently necessary for us to refer to polyglot editions
of the bible. A polyglot edition, as the name itself suffi
ciently incUcates, is an edition of the bible in several
languages. The most famous polyglots are, the Complu
tensian, brought out under the auspices of Cardinal
Ximenes — the Paris polyglot, edited by Le Jay — and the
London polyglot, of which Walton was the editor.

DISSERTATION IX.
OF THE PRINCIPAL MODERN VERSIONS OF THE SACRED
SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER I,
OF THE MODERN LATIN VERSIONS,
It is not our intention to refer to aU the modern trans
lations of the sacred text, but merely to describe as far
as the limits of our work wiU permit, the principal ver
sions that are in use. To begin with modern Latin
versions, we first notice those which have been made by
Catholics, First, Sanctes Pagninus, a Dominican and a distin
guished oriental scholar, was the first who published a new
Latin translation of the Old and New Testaments, He
translated from the Hebrew and in the New Testament from
the Greek. After twenty-five years of labour, he had the
work printed at Lyons in 1527, prefixing to it two briefs
of the Popes — Adrian VL, and Clement VIL, who autho
rised the printing of it. As Richard Simon observes,
Pagninus cannot be charged with any want of delibera
tion in bringing out the work: the translation is literal
and is esteemed for its fidelity. Simon, however, takes
the author to task for having departed so often from the
old translator. Pagninus does not appear to have been
so well acquainted with the Greek as he was with the
Hebrew: hence his translation of the New Testament is
not so much esteemed.

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 193
Second. — Arias Montanus, a Spanish priest and a doctor
in theology, gave a corrected edition of the version of Pag
ninus, at Antwerp, in 1572. Montanus improved upon
the literal character of the version of Pagninus. He
appears to have been more anxious to translate verbum
verbo, than to bring out a connected sense in his version.
His version, therefore, serves as a dictionary to the stu
dent of the Hebrew and Greek of the bible: hence it is
that his version is printed interlinear in the London
polyglot. Third. — In 1753, Houbigant, a priest of the oratory,
published at Paris a Hebrew bible with a Latin version and
notes, in four volumes foUo. Houbigant has rendered
his Latin version conformable to his edition of the He
brew text, of which we have spoken in a prececUng chap
ter. As to the books of the Old Testament, which are
not found in the Hebrew, he translated these from the
Greek. As Houbigant is commonly blamed for having
taken too great a liberty in the correction of the Hebrew
text, hence his Latin version is not much esteemed. At
the same time Benedict XIV. honoured him with a brief
and a medal.
Fourth. — Weitenauer, a Jesuit, gave in 1768-1773 a
translation of the Old and New Testaments, In the Old
Testament he translated from the Hebrew, and in the New
from the Greek. AccorcUng to Glaire, (Introduction, tom,
i,, p, 299) the Latinity of this version is admired.
Fifth. — For the New Testament, we may mention the
celebrated version by Erasmus. The first edition of it
appeared in 1516, and was dedicated to Pope Leo X, It
has been since frequently reprinted."
Sixth. — ^A new Latin translation of the New Testament
was published in the present century, (London, 1817,) by
Leopoldo Sebastiani, who had been superior of the Catho
lic missions in Persia. According to the notice of this
VOL. I. 0

194 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
version in Home, it appears that the learned translator
went to immense trouble to secure every critical aid that
was necessary, in order to give a faithful version con
formable to the Alexandrian class of MSS. — Home's
Introduction, vol, ii,, part ii,, p, 62, seventh edition.
We come now to the Latin translations of the bible
made by Protestants, and we commence with that. First,
of Sebastian Munster, who printed at Basil his translation
of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, in 1534. He
gave a second edition of it in 1546, in which his Latin
version is accompanied with the Hebrew text and some
notes. Richard Simon justly blames him for having
yielded so implicitly to the guidance of the modern Jews
in investigating the meaning of the Hebrew words —
at the same time, Simon rather prefers the judgment of
Huetius on this translator to that of Genebrard, who
accuses him of a want of exactness in consequence of his
attachment to Luther. Huetius, on the other hand, is
disposed to speak favourably of his learning and fidelity.
Second, — The translation, which bears the name of Leo
Juda, demands a brief notice, Leo Juda was a Zuinglian,
who translated the greater part of the Hebrew books of the
Old Testament; the rest of these books together with the
New Testament, were translated by others, and the ver
sion was first printed at Zurich, in 1543; it was after
wards, in 1545, reprinted at Paris by Robert Stephens,
without the translator's name. He printed this version
and the vulgate in parallel columns, subjoining short
notes or scholia: this is called Vatable's bible, because
these notes were printed by Stephens from a collection of
manuscript notes dictated by that eminent Hebrew pro
fessor in his public lectures, Stephens, however, mixed
up, occasionally, his own Calvinistic errors with the or
thodox notes of Vatable, and hence the work was con
demned by the Divines of Paris. Stephens attempted to

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 195
defend it, but as FeUer properly observes, (Dictionnaire
Historique, word Vatable,) his arguments were of as little
value as his erroneous notes. The divines of Salamanca
were permitted by the Spanish Inquisition to publish the
work, after making the necessary changes in it; they
printed it in 1584, making, according to Simon, but very
few changes. The style of this version is more elegant
than that of Munster, but even Protestants allow that the ,
translators have occasionally receded too far from the
literal sense.
Third. — Sabastian Castalio, or as he calls himself in
his French works, Chateillon, is the author of a Latin
version of the Old and New Testament. The object,
which he proposed to himself, was to render the originals
in elegant classic Latin. This style of translating,
brought upon him the severe censure of the doctors of
Geneva — at the head of whom was Beza. They taxed
hiifi with a want of fidelity in translating, and with a
profaneness of style. Simon, at the same time, asserts,
that Castalio was by no means deficient in the know
ledge of the languages, in which he far surpassed any of
the doctors of Geneva. However, he severely censures
his manner of translating, which is pompous, inflated,
and grievously deficient in that gravity and dignity
which the subject required. Some idea may be ibrmed
of his manner of translating, from the first words of
Genesis — Principio creavit Deus ccelum et terram, cum
autem esset terra iners atque rudis tenebrisque offusum
profundum et Divinus Spiritus sese super aquas libraret,
jussit Deus ut existeret lux, &g. Castalio's version was
frequently retouched by himself — it has gone through
several ecUtions.
Fourth. — We come now to the version of the Old
Testament, made by Junius and Tremellius. This is a
favourite version with Protestants: yet by some even of

196 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
these, for example Drusius, the translators have been
severely censured for the liberty which they took with
their text. Richard Simon (Histoire Critique du Vieux
Testament,) points out various defects in the version;
the constant rendering of the Hebrew article by the
demonstrative pronoun, is condemned by him, as not
having any solid foundation in the text.
Fifth. — John Augustus Dathe, professor of Hebrew at
Leipsic, published a Latin translation of the Hebrew
books of the Old Testament, which is held in high esteem
by Protestants. It was originally brought out in de
tached octavo volumes, the last of which appeared in
1789. There have been several editions of it since.
Glaire censures the translator for departing too much
from the letter of the text.
Sixth. — Finally, we shall notice the Latin version of the
New Testament made by Theodore Beza. This version
was first printed in 1556; it has been repeatedly printed
since. This version is highly esteemed by Protestants
generaUy, and it is an undoubted fact that the opinions
of its author, and his renderings of the text of the New
Testament, have exercised a great influence on the trans
lators of what is called the English authorised version:
this is made manifest by Ward in his history of the errata
of the Protestant bible. Now Beza has been at all times
denounced by Catholics as an unscrupulous translator,
who often departs from the received reading without ne
cessity, and, sometimes, without any authority whatever,
interpolates the sacred text at pleasure: and some of the
most learned Protestants have subscribed to the justice
of this censure — we may refer, among others, to Walton
and to MacKnight, who, in his general preface to his
translation of the Epistles, (vol, i,, p, 6,) after some other
observations, not very complimentary to Beza, says:
" Nor is this all ; he hath mistranslated a number of texts

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 197
for the purpose, as it would seem, of establishing his
peculiar doctrines, and of confuting his opponents: of aU
which, examples shaU be given afterwards. Farther, by
omitting some of the original words, and by adding others
without any necessity, he hath in his translation per
verted, or, at least, darkened, some passages; so that, to
speak impartially, his translation is neither literal nor
faithful, nor perspicuous. Nevertheless, (observe) Beza
having acquired great fame, both as a linguist and a
divine, the learned men who afterwards translated the
New Testament, for the use of the reformed churches,
were too much swayed by his opinions." What a noble
character is here given of Beza as a translator, and that
by a friend!

CHAPTER I L
OF THE ENGLISH VERSIONS.
And first — of those made by Catholics. We shall not
dweU upon the versions either of the entire scriptures, or
of portions of them, which were made in England before
the change of religion which took place at the period of
the Reformation: some of these were in Saxon, others in
English. Venerable Bede translated the entire scriptures
into Saxon, for the use of his countrymen, in the early
part of the eighth century; the other ancient versions
were made at various periods. But to proceed at once
to the modem versions. The modern Catholic version
of the entire scriptures is that one, which is named the
Rhemish and Douay version. The New Testament was
published at the English college at Rheims, in 1582. The
Old Testament was published at the English college at

198 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
Douay iu 1609 and 1610, in two volumes quarto. Both
the Old and New Testaments were translated at Rheims
by Dr, Gregory Martin, who was assisted by William (after
wards Cardinal) Allen, Dr, Richard Bristow, and Dr, WU-
liam Reynolds; these were rather revisors than joint trans
lators with Gregory Martin. The version was made
from the Latin vulgate, and was accompanied with
rather copious notes both on the New and the Old Testa
ment, The notes on the New Testament were from the pen
of Dr, Richard Bristow; those on the Old Testament were
written by Dr, Thomas Worthington. — See Dod's Ecclesi
astical History of England, folio edition, vol, ii,, p. 121,
Gregory Martin, the translator, was educated at St,
John's College, Oxford; he afterwards became tutor in
the fanuly of the Duke of Norfolk: at this time he had
not publicly professed the Catholic faith, although secretly
attached to it. After publicly professing his adhesion to
the Catholic religion, he went to the English college at
Rheims, where he was much distinguished for zeal and
learning. In proof of his qualifications for his task, as a
translator of the scripture, we may refer with Dod (ubi
supra) to the words addressed to the Duke of Norfolk,
when that nobleman visited St, John's College, Oxford,
The speaker, upon that occasion, thought fit to allude to
Gregory j\Iartin, who was then in his grace's family, in
these words: "Habes, Ulustrissime dux, Hebrceum nos
trum, Graecum nostrum, decus et gloriam nostram," This
translation was made before the correction of the vulgate
under Sixtus V, and Clement VIII, ; yet the differences
between this version, as it came from the hands of the
translator, and the present Latin vulgate, are so few and
inconsiderable, that he (the translator) must have fol
lowed a very correct Latin edition.
In the year 1750, an edition, in which the phraseology
was modernized, the notes abridged, and in some in-

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 199
stances considerably altered, was published in London,
under Dr. ChaUoner's inspection: this is the Douay bible
now current among the CathoUcs of these countries.
An English translation of the New Testament was
made by our distinguished countryman Cornelius Nary.
This learned priest was a native of the county of Kildare
— a doctor of laws of the University of Paris, and for
many years parish priest of St. Michan's parish in the
city of Dublin, where he died, in 1738. He was the
author of several learned works. He translated the New
Testament from the Latin vulgate, compared with the
original Greek and several translations in the vulgar
tongues. According to Brennan, in his Ecclesiastical
History of Ireland, (Vol. ii., p. 343,) it was pubUshed
in London in 1705, octavo. Home mentions it as
appearing in 1718-19, octavo, without the name of the
place or printer, but be quotes Dr. Geddes for the state
ment that it was printed at Dublin. (Home Introduction,
vol. ii., part ii., p. 85, seventh edition.)
A translation of the New Testament, pubUshed at
Douay, in 1730, 2 vols, octavo, by Dr. Witham, deserves
to be noticed. The translation was made from the vul
gate, which the learned translator cUUgently compared
with the Greek. That he was a perfect master of the
Greek tongue appears sufficiently manifest from the
learned and useful, although concise, notes with which
the work is enriched.
We proceed now to give some account of the English
versions made by Protestants. And this may be the most
appropriate place to observe that the Heresiarch Wickliffe
translated the bible, about the year 1380, into the
English of that time. He translated from the vulgate,
not being acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek.
The first printed EngUsh translation of the scriptures
was made by WilUam Tindal. He printed the New Testa-

200 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
ment at Antwerp or Hamburg, without a name, in the
year 1526. Home seems to think that he translated from
the original Greek. Respecting the portions of the Old
Testament which he translated. Home thinks it probable
that, as he had little or no skill in the Hebrew, he trans
lated from the Latin. The bishop of London was very
active in preventing the circiUation of Tindal's transla
tion. Sir Thomas More, in a work written against
Tindal, exposed the numerous corruptions which he had
made of the text. Among the parts of the Old Testa
ment translated by Tindal are the five books of Moses,
and in translating these he was assisted by Miles Cover-
dale. This same Miles Coverdale, who was promoted to the
see of Exeter, by Edward VI. , made a translation of the
entire scripture, which he published in 1535. This was
the first whole bible printed in English, and the first
allowed by royal authority. An edition of it, revised by
Matthew Parker, was printed in 1562, for the use of the
church ! until another would be prepared.
In 1560 a translation of the whole bible, except per
haps the deuterocanonical parts of the Old Testament,
was brought out at Geneva, in 4to. The translators
Avere, principally, Coverdale above mentioned, Gilby and
Whittingham ; — some reckon John Knox among the
number. One thing is certain, that they were aU rigid
Calvinists. In 1568 a new translation was brought out by Matthew
Parker. It was undertaken by command of Elizabeth,
and there having been eight bishops among the transla
tors, it was called the bishop's bible. " This translation,"
says Horne, " was used in churches for forty years,
although the Geneva bible was more read in private
houses." — Introduction, vol. ii.
We come now to King James' bible: but first a few

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 201
words on the before-mentioned Protestant translations.
That they were full of gross errors no unprejudiced Pro
testant even, will now deny; and that these errors were
wUful, Ward, in his Errata, satisfactorUy proves. At all
events, one thing appears quite clear — ^that the progress
of what is called the Reformation, in England, is to be
ascribed, in a very great degree, to the corruptions of
these early versions- The cry of the first Reformers!
was "abandon this church — search the scriptures, exa
mine for yourselves God's own word; prove aU things —
hold fast what is right — try this church by the scriptures
— here they are in your own language — in them you wUl
see her errors, and vain pretensions." WeU — after this,
did they give the people a true version of the scriptures ?
Far from it. The present Protestant authorized version
is a standing proof, that even the authors of it, considered
the previous translations to abound with numberless and
gross errors. Let us take one or two classes of corrup
tions — among the many pointed out by Ward — to show
how the people were imposed upon. The first class which
we shaU adduce, is the omission of the word church, and
the substitution of congregation for it, throughout, in the
ecUtions of the first English Protestant bible. See Dr.
Lingard's edition of Ward's immortal work. The Errata
of the Protestant Bible, See this author particularly in
the article, "Protestant translations against the church"
where he observes that, " in the English translation of
1562, they so totaUy suppressed the word church, that it
is not once to be found in aU that bible, so long read in
their congregations." This has been corrected in the
authorised. The mischievous effect of this mode of trans
lating eKKXrfaia, on the minds of the people, may be easily
conceived. The fear of the particular congregation to
which each one belonged, was substituted for the fear of the
church, which, up to this time, had a powerful effect in

202 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
keeping the people within the limits of their duty. The
other class of corruptions, which we shall notice, is that
which embraces the translations of the words eiiwXov,
eSwXoXaTprjs, eiEoXoXaTpeia, which, in the early English
bibles, (see Ward) were image, worshipper of images,
worshipping of images. Every one sees how they would
turn to account this corruption of the scripture. They
accused the Catholic church of idolatry on account of its
doctrine and practice with respect to sacred images, and
they adduced the texts which they had thus corrupted as
justifying the accusation. Two texts, as Dr. Lingard
observes, (Preface to his edition of Ward's Errata) proved
eminently useful to them: the first, from 2 Corinthians,
vi., 16, where the apostle was made to say — "How
agreeth the temple of God with images ?" whereas,
the apostle, as is evident from the context, is there speak
ing of pagan idols, and hence the authorised has idols;
but when the authorised was made, the other translation
had gained its end, which was to excite the people to pull
down the images, and remove aU such things from the
churches. Another text was that of St. John, 1st Epistle
v., 21 — "My little children keep yourselves from idols,"
as we have it properly translated; they translated it —
" Babes, keep yourselves from images." It is corrected in
the authorized; but in its time it served as a very appro
priate auxiliary to the foregoing text: for, after the
churches had been stript of all their Catholic ornaments,
this text was printed in large letters within the door, as
a security against any of these ornaments being brought
back. The effects, which these and such like perversions
of the scripture, produced on the minds of the infatuated
multitude, may be learned from Ward.
We shall now come to the history of King James' bible,
or the authorised English Protestant version, as it is
called. In the year 1604, in consequence of the many

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 203
objections which were made to the Bishops' bible. King
James ordered a new version to be undertaken, and for
this purpose fifty-four translators were appointed, but it
appears that only forty-seven were forthcoming when the
work commenced, which was in 1607. — Home's Intro
duction, vol. U., part ii., p. 73, seventh edition. The
translators were cUvided into six companies, two of which
met at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cam
bridge. The whole work was then (Uvided into six por
tions, and one portion assigned to each company, each
member of which was to translate the whole portion.
When a company had agreed about a book, it was sent to
each of the other companies to be revised. At the end
of about three years (we continue to state these things
on the authority of Horne, ubi supra,) a committee of six
assembled in London, to revise the whole work, two
having been deputed from the companies at Oxford, two
from those at Westminster, and two from those at Cam
bridge. It was lastly revised by Dr. Smith, (afterwards
Pretestant bishop of Gloucester,) who wrote the preface,
and Dr. BUson, Protestant bishop of Winchester. This
translation was first pubUshed in 1611. It is declared
in the title that it was made from the original tongues,
and by the king's special command. Different revisions
have been made of this version since 1611. There was
one given by a Dr. Scattergood in 1683, which appears
to be the ecUtion to which Ward refers in his Errata.
Before conclucUng this brief notice of the history of this
vei-sion, we may mention some of the orders which were
given to the translators by James, before commencing
their task, and to which orders they were bound tamely
to submit, no matter what their own sentiments might
be on the points to which these referred. The fii'St was
" that the orcUnary bible read in the church, commonly
called the Bishops' bible, should be foUowed and as little

204 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
altered as the original would peraiit," Second — "that
the names of the prophets and the holy writers with the
other names in the text should be retained as near as
might be, accordingly as they were viUgarly used," Third
— " that the old ecclesiastical words should be kept, as,
for example, the word church, not to be translated con
gregation." The other rules we omit, but we shall make
a few observations on the three here cited. From the
first rule we learn that the Bishops' bible with all its im
perfections was to be preserved, unless where those copies
of the original scriptures to which the translators could
then have access, rendered a change necessary.
The second rule exercised an important influence upon
the English orthography of scripture names of persons
and places. Whether from a wish to be unlike the church,
which they had abandoned, even in this slight matter, or
from an anxiety to exhibit their acquaintance with the
Hebrew text, the first Reformers, in their translations of
the bible, rejected the established orthography of the
scripture names, substituting for it another, which was
modeUed upon the Masoretic reading of the Hebrew text.
Hence has arisen such a frequent discrepancy between
Catholic and Protestant bibles — and of course between
CathoUc and Protestant writers — in the speUing of these
names. The Catholic will say Elias, Eliseus, Sion, whUst
the Protestant, foUowing his bible, will say Elijah, Elisha,
Zion, and so of a vast number of names of persons and
places. The Catholic orthography has been derived from
the septuagint version, and has prevailed in the church
from the very beginning, in all those places to which the
influence of the septuagint extended; and since the in
fluence of that version extended to almost the entire
Christian church, in the commencement, in such a way,
that the church read the scriptures either in the septua
gint or in versions made from it: hence it is that our

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 205
orthography of these names may be properly styled
Catholic. St. Jerome, although so well acquainted with
the pronunciation of the Hebrew text, did not think it
advisable to change the names to which the people were
accustomed, and which were recommended by a well-estab
lished usage, and the venerable authority of the Seventy.
But the Reformers undertook to reform many things, both
great and small, and among the rest, the prevalent ortho
graphy of these scripture names. However, James,
although no one ever charged him with having a supera
bundance of good sense, had stUl sense enough to perceive
that if the principle of the Reformers, in this particular,
were fuUy carried out, it would make their translation
ridiculous in the eyes of the people, who, perhaps, would
be even provoked to laughter at hearing of the five books
of Mosheh, the strength of Shimshon, or the wisdom of
Shdomoh. Now the translators, as far as the principle,
which guided them in this matter, was concerned, had
just the same right, and no more, to change Elias into
Elijah, and Josaphat into Jehoshaphat, that they had to
change Moses into Mosheh, Samson into Shimshon, or
Solomon into Shelomoh: but the reader now understands
why James thought fit to limit the operation of their
principle. As to the third rale laid down by James for the go
vernment of the translators, it is easy to perceive why
the king takes care that they shall not say congregation
in place of church. James, who, as it appears, thought
more of his ecclesiastical headship than of his temporal
dignity, had no fancy to be called the head of a congre
gation, but, by all means, the head of a church. Now,
if the word church had not been found in the scripture,
the people might have imagined that there was no such
thing as a church, whereof any one could be the head.
Moreover, the word congregation had already served its

206 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
purpose, which was to keep away the fear of the ancient
church, whilst their new church, that had now arrived to
maturity, was in its tender infancy. And perhaps the
king — who was looked upon as a shrewd genius, at least,
by himself — might have imagined that congregation could
only designate a church in its infancy, as if congregation
bore the same relation to church, that child does to man.
Having thus briefiy noticed the history of this version,
it is necessary to say a few words on the character of a
translation which is so highly extolled by those who
decry the Latin vulgate — our authorised version. Richard
Simon, who, in the judgment of Protestants, is gene
rally allowed to have been an impartial critic, says, with
reference to the Old Testament, where the translation
was made from the Hebrew, that this version has its
defects as well as the others, i. e. the preceding English
Protestant versions, assigning as his reason, in the first
place, that the translators took for their guide, the ordi
nary system of Jewish grammar. — Simon Histoire Critique
Du Vieux Testament, liv, ii,, chap, xxiii. He here
evidently implies that St, Jerome had an advantage — in
this particular — that he translated at a period anterior
to the fixing of the Masoretic text, or the systematizing
of the Hebrew grammar in its present rabbinical form;
for, although these labours of the Rabbins have been
attended with several advantages, yet it will harcUy, at
present, be asserted by any one, that they are not calcu
lated to lead their servile foUowers into mistakes, in
rendering the scripture text. Simon makes another
observation in the same place, which although favourable
to this version, as compared with the other English
Protestant versions, yet redounds to the still greater
honour of the vulgate — ^he says, " That which has made
it more exact in some places, than the preceding (English
Protestant versions) is this — ^that those who were engaged

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 207
in it had profited by the critical observations of Drusius
— and they took care not to fall into the errors, which
this learned Protestant had condemned in the version of
TremeUius." Now it is weU known that the principal
objection urged by Drusius against the version of Tre
mellius, was the fact of that translator's having departed
so much from the vulgate. As to this version in the
New Testament — ^this, in the first place, may be ui-ged
against it, that having been made upon the common
Greek text, it cannot bear a comparison with the vulgate,
which not only represents a more ancient Greek text,
but also, in the judgment even of the most learned Pro
testant critics, a different and much superior recension
of that text. As we have observed before, when treating
of the recensions or famUies of the MSS. of the Greek
testament — the common Greek text (which has been
foUowed in King James's bible) belongs to the Constanti
nopoUtan famUy or recension; whereas our vulgate
represents the Alexandrian recension, which, as I have
just observed, is, in the opinion of the most learned
critics even among the Protestants, a much more ancient
and a much superior recension of the Greek text. Indeed
this version has been far from winning the approbation
of aU Protestant critics, as appears by these words of
Horne — he speaks, of course, of Protestants in the
foUowing passage: " of late years, however, this admirable
version — ^the guide and solace of the sincere Christian —
has been attacked with no common virulence, and ar
raigned as being deficient in fideUty, perspicuity and
elegance: ambiguous and incorrect even in matters of
the highest importance." — Home's Introduc, Bibliogra
phical Appendix to vol. 2. And MacKnight, a great
Protestant authority, says, in the General Preface to his
Translation of the Epistles, " Even that which is caUed
the king's translation, though in general much better

208 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
than the rest  is not a little faulty. It is by no means
such a just representation of the inspired originals, as
merits to be implicitly relied on, for determining the
controverted articles of the Christian faith, and for
quieting the dissensions which have rent the church."
In Ward's learned work on the errata of the Protestant
bible, to which we beg to refer the reader, the leading
mistranslations in this version, are weU pointed out and
exposed. He shows there that the influence of Beza's
opinions on this version was such, as would alone be
sufficient to condemn it. — See Ward's Errata, Dublin
edition, 1810, 4to,, p, 71, As to the character of Beza's
translation of the New Testament, which had such weight
with King James' translators, we shall repeat again the
words of Doctor MacKnight — himself a foUower, at least
very generaUy, of the theological opinions of Beza. As
before observed, therefore, in the general preface to his
translation of the Epistles, p. 6, he says, " Nor is this
all; he (Beza) hath mistranslated a number of texts, for
the purpose, as it would seem, of establishing his peculiar
doctrines, and of confuting his opponents: of all which,
examples shall be given afterwards. Farther, by omit
ting some of the original words, and by adding others,
without any necessity, he hath in his translation, per
verted, or at least darkened, some passages ; so that to
speak impartially, his translation is neither literal nor
faithful, nor perspicuous. Nevertheless, Beza having
acquired great fame, both as linguist and a divine, the
learned men who afterwards translated the New Testa
ment, for the use of the reformed churches, were too
much swayed by his opinions." We have said enough to
show that Catholics do not stand alone, when they
pronounce this version to be an unsafe guide to the
knowledge of that original, which it so frequently
misrepresents.

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 209
CHAPTER III.
OF THE GERMAN AND FRENCH VERSIONS,
I. Of the German Versions. — A translation of the bible
in the German language, was printed at a very early
period — the oldest editions of it, are without a date.
The first, of which the date is certainly known, was
printed at Augsbourg in 1477. Many editions of it were
afterwards printed at Nuremberg, and at Augsbourg.
The' translation given in these ecUtions was made on the
vulgate, and published thus often, before the birth of
Protestantism. — See Boerner's Le Long, tom. ii,, in Biblia
Germanica Catholicorum ; and Dublin Review, vol, i, p.
319. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was the
first who attempted to translate the scriptures into Ger
man from the original text. Luther finished his trans
lation of the bible about the year 1532. This translation
was received with great applause, and has been always
held in high esteem by the followers of Luther's doctrine,
in Germany, It became the basis of various other trans
lations, made by Protestants into the languages of the
northern countries of Europe, Luther's great object
appears to have been, to make the style of his translation
find favour with his readers, for its purity and elegance.
In aiming at this object, he has taken much too great a
license with the text, even in the opinion of the most
learned Protestants. Thus Leusden and AldegoncUus,
quoted by Le Long, (edition by Boerner,) tom i,, p, 278,
de Bibliis Bdgicis Calvinistarum. Leusden says of Lu
ther's version, " multis scatuit vitiis," and Aldegondius —
" Inter omnes autem omnium versiones ego ingenue fate-
bor, mihi visam esse nuUam tanto abesse ab Hebr, —
VOL, I, P

210 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
veritate intervallo atque sit Lutheri versio." See an able
critique of Luther's New Testament, Dublin Review, vol.
i. p. 386. Indeed Luther was but imperfectly acquainted
with the original languages of the scripture — that we are
not over severe in reprehending this version wiU be mani
fest to any one who will take the trouble of reading the
learned critique of Father Simon on Luther's bible, con
tained in his critical history of the Old and New Testa
ment. The Synod of Dort ordered a new version of the
scripture to be made from the original, because the Dutch
version of the scriptures then in use among the adherents
of that synod, had been made from Luther's bible, which
the synod considered to be replete with faults. John
Piscator, a Calvinist, gave a translation of the bible into
German, in 1604, made from the Latin version of Junius
and Tremellius, and various other translations of the
bible into German, have been made by Protestants. Cal
met Dictionarium Biblicum, V. Biblia. Among others,
John David Michaelis and De Wette have distinguished
themselves as translators of the scripture — but of all these
Protestant translations it must be said that a love of no
velty and a licentious criticism have disfigured them with
numerous errors. The German Jews have also their
translations of the Old Testament, some printed in the
Hebrew character, some in the German character. These
versions are remarkable for an over literal following of
the Hebrew text.
We have already seen that there was a German Ca
tholic version of the scriptures before that Luther had
broached his errors — and since the publication of Luther's
bible, there have been various German translations made
by Catholics. First, that of John Dietemberger, first
published at Mayence, in 1534. Second, the translation
called by the name of Eckius' bible, although Eckius trans
lated only the Old Testament; the New Testament was

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 211
translated by Emser. It was first published in 1537,
and, as well as the preceding, has been often reprinted.
Third, the version of Ulenberg, first published in 1630,
at Cologne. It was received with great applause by the
Catholics of Germany, and has been often reprinted. In
all these Catholic versions, the vulgate has been the basis
of the translation. Ulenberg's version was made from
the Sixtine edition of the vulgate. — Le Long, edition by
Boerner, tom. ii., De Bibliis Germanicis Impressis. Be
sides these three versions which contain the Old and
New Testaments, we might specify other German trans
lations both of the Old and New Testament made by
Catholics. The names of the translators may be seen in
Glaire. We pass on now to notice the principal.
II. French versions. — The most ancient French trans
lation of the bible, of which we have any certain know
ledge, is that made by Peter Waldensis, or de Vaux, head
of the Waldensian or Vaudois heretics. It is not known
whether any copy of this version has come down to our
times. Of the French versions which have issued from
the press, the earliest is that made by Guyard des Mou-
lins, a priest, about the year 1294. It was printed in
Paris in 1488, two volumes in folio. It is the first Ca
tholic French version, and was printed before the Refor
mation, James Le Fevre, of Estaples — better known by
the name of Faber Stapulensis — published a new transla
tion of the whole scripture, from the Latin into French,
Paris, 1528, This version was often reprinted since, in
(Ufferent cities of France, A French version of the sacred
scripture was published in the year 1643, at Paris, by
James Corbin, which translation he made by the order of
Lewis XIII. It is not much esteemed by reason of its
barbarous style, the translator having servilely imitated
the Latin phraseology. A French version of the bible,
better known than the preceding, is that made from the

212 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
vulgate by Le Maistre De Sacy, a priest of Port Royal,
pubUshed in Paris in 1612, 32 vols, in 8vo. accom
panied with explanations .of the spiritual and literal
sense, which, for the most part, were not written by
De Sacy, but by Du Fosse, Hure, and Le Tourneur.
Glaire remarks, that the names of Du Fosse, Hure, and
Le Tourneur, are sufficient to put one on his guard,
in reading these explanations in De Sacy's bible, which
in effect, in more than one place, favour the errors of
Jansenius. — Introduction, tom. i.. Section Des Versions
Franqaises. The French version of De Sacy, revised in
some places, is that which Dom. Calmet has employed in
his well-known commentary on the literal sense of the
scripture. We may here remark on some versions, which embrace
only the New Testament — first. Father Amelotte published
a French version of the New Testament with notes, in
1666-1670, 3 vols. 8vo, Amelotte has the character
of a faithful translator, but his style is not admired for
its elegance. Second, Another French version of the
New Testament, is that made from the vulgate by Father
Bouhours, 2 vols, 12mo. Paris, 1697-1703, Bouhours
was assisted in the work by two other Jesuits, LeteUier
and Besnier. The style of this version is considered
a Uttle deficient in perspicuity. Third, We may also
mention the French Testament of Godeau, which holds
a midcUe place between a literal version and a paraphrase.
We cannot pass by without notice, a French version of
the New Testament, which has obtained great notoriety;
it is that which is caUed the New Testament of Mens,
It was published in the year 1665, with the permission
of the archbishop of Cambray, and the privilege of the
king of Spain, It is called the New Testament of Mens,
because it is declared in the title page, that it was
printed by Caspar Migeot of Mens, In reality, however.

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 213
it was printed at Amsterdam, by the Elzevirs. Three
were engaged in the translation — ^Anthony Le Maistre,
Anthony Arnauld, and Isaac Le Maistre de Sacy. De Sacy
composed the preface, assisted by Peter Nicole and Claude
a Sainte Marthe. In the privUege, however, granted for
the printing of the work, where it is said to have been
made by a certain doctor of the Sorbonne, Arnauld alone
is named. This version was condemned in 1668 by
Clement IX., and in 1679 by Innocent XI. The French
text, to which Quesnel appended his Reflections, is, in a
great part, taken from this version of Mons.
French translations of the scripture, have been also
made by the Protestants. The first French version
published by the Protestants, is that made by Robert
Peter OUvetan, a relative of Calvin's, by whom he was
assisted in the work. It was first printed at Neufchatel,
in foUo, 1535. OUvetan copied extensively from the
French version, which had been made by Nicholas
de Leuse, a doctor of Louvain, and which had been
pi-inted at Antwerp, by Martin L'Empereur, in 1534.
OUvetan himself was ba<Uy fitted for the work, being
but imperfectly acquainted with the French icUom, whUst
of the original language of the Old, as weU as of the New
Testament, he had harcUy any knowledge. — See Richard
Simon Histoire Critique des Versions dn Nouveau Tes
tament, Rotterdam ecUt. p. 329. An edition of this bible
was published in 1588, at Geneva. It was revised by
Beza and others: it is much more esteemed by Protes
tants, than the early ecUtions of OUvetan, and it goes
by the name of the Greneva bible. Sebastian CastaUo,
or ChateUlon, has given a version of the Old and New
Testament from the Hebrew and Greek, which he pub.
lished at Basil, in 1555. — Calmet, Diction. Bibli. V, Biblia.
He was so imperfectly acquainted with the French lan
guage, that his version was never held in any esteem

214 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
even by the Protestants. John Diodati, the same who
gave the Italian version, which bears his name, pubUshed
also a French version of the scripture, made from the
Hebrew and Greek, Geneva, 1644. As to translations
restricted to the New Testament, the most remarkable
made by the Protestants are — First, The translation of
the New Testament, by the celebrated critic, Le Clerc,
published at Amsterdam, 2 vols. 4to., 1703. It never
met with any general approbation among the Protestants,
on account of the Socinian principles, with which it is
tainted. Second, The French version, made by Beauso-
bre and L'Enfant, and published at Amsterdam, in 1718.
This version is in great repute with Protestants, — See
Janssens'.Sermmmfeca /Sacra, French translation, tom, U,,
p, 280-6,

CHAPTER IV.
OF THE BELGIAN, ITALIAN, SPANISH, AND PORTUGUESE
VERSIONS.
I. Belgian Versions of the scripture are very ancient,
and were often issued from the press before the origin
of the so-caUed Reformation, as may be seen in Le Long. —
Bibliotheca Sacra, tom. ii,, De Bibliis Belgicis Impressis.
All these versions, or editions, wanted the name of the
translator, up to the year 1548, when the version of
Nicholas Van Winghe, was printed at Louvain and
Cologne. We are here to be understood as speaking
of the entire bible, for we have the New Testament,
translated by Cornelius Hendrickz, Delft, 1524. Van
Winghe informs us, that he was assisted in making his
version by two Louvain doctors, whose names, how-

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 215
ever, he does not mention: this version has been often
reprinted since. There were other Belgian versions
made by the Catholics in the seventeenth century. The
Belgian Protestants, before the year 1636, made use of
a version of the scripture in their language, taken from
the German version of Luther. The Synod of Dort,
however, which held its sittings in the years 1618 and
1619, ordered a new version to be made from the origi
nals, and deputed certain persons for this purpose. The
version was given to the pubUc in 1636 and 1637, and
has been often reprinted.
II, Italian versions, — The most ancient of these, with
which we are acquainted, is that of Nicholas Malermi,
a Camaldulese monk, who made it from the vulgate: it
was printed at Venice in 1471, in 2 vols. Another
Italian version was made from the original languages
by Anthony Bruccioli, and published at Venice, in 1532.
Richard Simon informs us, that he had but a middling
knowledge of the Hebrew. — Histoire Critique du Vieux
Testament, liv. ii. cap. 22. His translation was put on
the index by the order of the CouncU of Trent. Sanctes
Marmochini gave a corrected edition of BruccioU's ver
sion. This might be almost considered a new version: it
was printed at Venice, in 1538, and it has been often
since reprinted. In fine, the Italian version at present
in use in Italy, is that made by Anthony Martini, arch
bishop of Florence: it was made from the vulgate. The
New Testament was published at Turin, in 1769, and
the Old Testament, in 1779. This version received the
sanction of Pope Pius VL, and has been repeatedly
printed. It is accompanied with exceUent explanatory
notes. The Protestants, also, have their Italian bibles. Fii'st
they gave an edition of the scriptures in Italian, at Ge
neva, 1562, wlych was not a new version, but taken from

21G OF THE MODERN VERSIONS
former versions which they accommodated to their views.
They principaUy followed, at least in the Old Testament,
the version of Bruccioli. Diodati published his Italian
version of the bible first in 1607, and again in 1641. —
Calmet Dictionar. V. Biblia. This version is much
esteemed by Protestants. Calmet observes that in the
same way as in his French bible, Diodati has rather
given a paraphrase, than a version in the strict sense.
Diodati's Protestant views appear in his translation.
III. Spanish versions. — The first Spanish version of
the bible, of which we have an account, is that which was
made in the dialect of Valencia, and printed in the city
of Valencia, in 1478, or, according to others, 1500.
Cyprian de Valera, a Protestant, testifies that he
saw this version — it is also mentioned by others. See
Calmet, Dictionar. V. Biblia, also Le Long, by Boer
ner, tom. ii., p. 145, It was made from the vulgate —
the author of it is not known. Passing over various
Catholic versions of certain portions of the scripture, we
come to the Spanish version of the entire bible, made
from the vulgate, by Don Felipe Scio de San Miguel, It
was published at Madrid, in 1793-4, in ten folio volumes.
Two other editions at least, of this version, have been
since published at Madrid. The translation is accom
panied with copious notes. The author of this version
was rewarded with the See of Segovia,
A Protestant version of the scriptures in the Spanish
language was given by Cassiodorus de Reyna, at Basil,
1569. In translating the Old Testament, he followed
almost entirely the Latin version of Sautes Pagninus.
A revised ecUtion of this version was afterwards given by
Cyprian de Valera, also a Protestant, It was printed at
Amsterdam, in 1602. We may also mention here a
Protestant version of the New Testament, in the dialect
of Castile, made from the Greek by Francis Enzinas

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 217
(otherwise Driander), and decUcated to the Emperor
Charles V., Antwerp, 1543. The Jews had from an
early period, a Spanish version of the Old Testament,
made from the Hebrew — of this version the pentateuch
was pubUshed at Constantinople, in 1546. This ancient
version has been attributed by some, but without suffi
cient foundation, to Rabbi David Kimchi, the celebrated
Jewish doctor, who flourished in the thirteenth century.
See Calmet Diction. V. Biblia. In 1553 a Spanish ver
sion of the Old Testament, or rather, perhaps, a revised
edition of the old version, was published by the Jews at
Ferrara. A revised ecUtion of' the Ferrara bible was
published at Amsterdam, by Manasseh Ben Israel, in
1630. An edition of the Old Testament, in Hebrew and
Spanish, was printed at Vienna, in the years 1813, 14,
15, and 16, in four volumes, 4to., for the use of the Jews
of Constantinople and of most of the cities of Turkey,
who are Spanish Jews.
IV. Portuguese versions, — A Catholic version of the
scripture in the Portuguese language, made by Antonio
Pereira, was printed at Lisbon, in 1781-3. As early
however, as the reign of John the First, the historian
Emanuel Sousa, (quoted in the Dublin Review, vol. i,, p,
384,) teUs us, that the New Testament had been trans
lated into that language. A Protestant version of the
New Testament in this language was pubUshed in 4to.,
at Amsterdam, in 1681. And a Protestant version of
the Old Testament, executed by Ferreira D'Almeida and
Jacob op den Akker, was pubUshed at Batavia, in 1748-
53, 2 vols. 8vo.

218 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS

CHAPTER V.

OF THE POLISH, BOHEMIAN, SCLAVONIC, ICELANDIC, AND
OTHER MODERN VERSIONS.
The first Polish version was made by the order of S.
Hedwige, queen of Poland. This version was made
about the year 1390. At a later period the bible was
translated from the Latin into Polish, by the command
of Pope Gregory XIII. and pubUshed with the approba
tion of Clement VIII. at Cracow, in 1599. Another
PoUsh Catholic version, viz, that of Jerome Leopolitanus,
was pubUshed in 1608, And again the bible was trans
lated into the PoUsh by Justus Rabi, a Jesuit, and printed
in 1657, — Le Long, edition by Boerner, tom, ii, p, 353,
There is also a Protestant version of the bible in the
PoUsh language, made from Luther's German translation,
and published in 1596, The bible was translated into
the Bohemian language at an early period. The entire
bible, in that language, was printed at Prague, in
1488, at Cutna, in 1498, and at Venice, in 1506 and
1511 ; aU these ecUtions were prior to the commence
ment of Luther's preaching against indulgences, — Le
Long, by Boerner, tom, U, p, 349, A Sclavonic version
of a great portion of the bible, was printed at Cracow,
in the beginning of the sixteenth century, — Dublin Re
view, vol, i, p, 384, Other versions in the Sclavonic are
mentioned by Le Long, A version of the scripture in
the cUalect of Iceland is known to have existed as early
as the year 1279, — Dublin Review, ibidem. An IcelancUc
version was also made from the German of Luther, This
version was pubUshed in 1584. Versions of the scrip
tures have been made in the Hungarian language, both
by CathoUcs and Protestants.

OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. 219
Among the modern versions of the scripture, we may
also mention the translation into the Irish language,
made by the Protestants. We extract from Horne the fol
lowing notice of it: — " The New Testament having been
translated into Irish by Dr. WUliam Daniel, (Protestant)
archbishop of Tuam. Dr, BedeU, who was advanced to
the See of KUmore and Ardagh, in 1629, procured the
Old Testament to be translated by a Mr, King, who
being ignorant of the original languages, executed it from
the EngUsh version, BedeU, (Protestant bishop of KU
more,) therefore, revised and compared it with the Hebrew,
the septuagint, and the Italian version of Diodati. He
supported Mr. King during his undertaking, to the
utmost of his abUity; and when the translation was
finished, he would have printed it in his own house, and
at his own charge, if he had not been prevented by the
troubles in Ireland. The translation, however, escaped
the hands of the rebels, and was subsequently printed in
1685, at the expense of the Hon. Robert Boyle." — Horne
Introd, Bibliographical Appendix to, vol. ii, p. 87,
It appears from the testimonies cited in Boerner, (Le
Long, tom, U,, p, 369,) that long before the Reformation
the scriptures were translated into the Irish language.
This version is attributed by some to Richard Fitz-Ralph,
who was appointed to the primatial See of Armagh in
1347. Besides versions in other languages or dialects of
Europe, which we omit to specify, the bible has been
printed in many of the modern languages of Asia, chiefly
through the means of the English bible societies. By
means of the same, or simUar societies, the scripture, or
portions of it have been translated into many of the. lan
guages of the native tribes of North America. But
native tribes of America, and different nations of Asia,
have had versions either of the whole scripture, or of

220 OF THE MODERN VERSIONS.
portions of it made for them, and published among them,
by Catholics. Of these American versions Horne says,
" Benedict Fernandez, a Spanish Dominican friar, vicar
of Mixteca in New Spain, translated the epistles and
gospels into the dialect spoken in that province, Dida-
cus de S, Maria, another Dominican, and vicar of the
province of Mexico, (who died in 1579,) was the author
of a translation of the epistles and gospels into the
Mexican tongue, or general language of the country.
The Proverbs of Solomon and other fragments of the
holy scriptures, were translated into the same language
by Louis Rodriguez, a Spanish Franciscan friar; and
the epistles and gospels appointed to be read for the
whole year, were translated into the idiom of the western
Indians, by Arnold a Basaccio, also a Franciscan friar;
but the dates of these latter versions have not been
ascertained," — Horne Introd. vol, ii,, p, 120, edition, cfec,
ut supra. And for Asia we can state, with the writer to
whom we have often referred already, that the Catholics
have printed " several editions of the Syriac and Arabic
bible, at Rome, Venice, and Vienna, for the use of the
Christian churches of the east, A translation into Ethi-
opic, was published at Rome, 1548, and some most
exquisite editions of the Armenian bible have issued from
the press of the Armenian monks, at San Lazaro, one of
the Venetian islands," — Dublin Review, vol. i,, p, 384.
We shaU now proceed to a subject naturally connected
with the history of the modern versions of the scripture,
and the discussion of which will enable us to estimate the
value of those exertions for the distribution of the scrip
tures among the people, for which the Protestant bible
societies take such credit to themselves.

DISSERTATION X.

OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES IN THE
'VTJLGAR TONGUE,
Having then noticed thus briefly the principal modern
versions of the scripture, it wiU not be considered out of
place, if we make a few observations on the subject of the
circulation of the scriptures among the people, in the
vulgar tongue — and what we have to say on this subject
shall be divided into two parts, of which the first shaU
treat briefly of the practice of the church of God in this
matter, at all times — the second shall offer a few words
in vindication of the discipUne of the CathoUc church, on
this head, in these latter times.
First, — If in the historical question, of which this first
part treats, we push our inquiries back as far as the time
of the Jewish church, we shall find that, at no period of
that church's history, did any law exist rendering it obli
gatory on the people generaUy, to read the scriptures. It
was the duty of the king and the judges to read- them,
that in the government and regulation of the people, they
might be guided by the law of God; it was the duty of
the priests to read them, " whose lips were to keep know
ledge and at whose mouth the people were to seek the
law," — Malachy, ii. 7. It was the duty of the Levites —
see 2 Paralip. xvii. — the duty, consequently, of the San
hedrin, or great council, at whatever time it may have
been instituted, and of the scribes and doctors of the law.
As to the body of the people, they were provided with

222 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
teachers, viz., the priests, scribes, Levites, through whom
they were ordinarily to learn the law, and the meaning
of the scriptures. And hence the priests and Levites had
their dwellings dispersed among the several tribes. — Josue,
xxi. Hence in doubts regarding the meaning of the orcU
nances of the law, God does not prescribe to the Jews, that
each one shall read the law after praying for Ught to under
stand it, and that then he shall follow his own judgment
as to its meaning; but in the foUowing manner does God
ordain that difficulties about the meaning of the law shaU
be decided; " K thou perceive that there be among
you a hard and doubtfiU (matter) in judgment between
blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy,
and thou see that the words of the judges within thy
gates do vary: arise and go up to the place which the
Lord thy God shaU choose. And thou shalt come to the
priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall
be at that time: and thou shalt ask of them, and they
shaU shew thee the truth of the judgment. And thou
shalt do whatsoever they shaU say, that preside in the
place, which the Lord shaU choose, and what they shaU
teach thee, according to his law; and thou shalt follow
their sentence: neither shalt thou decline to the right
hand nor to the left hand. But he that wiU be proud
and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who
ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the
decree of the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt
take away the evil from Israel" — Deuter. xvii., 8, &c.
We find it here laid down that, if in a particular case,
the meaning of the law should appear doubtful to the
inferior judges appointed in the several towns to pro
nounce according to the law, upon the cases which might
there occur; then recourse should be had to the place
which God would appoint, which from the time of Da'vid,
was Jerusalem, and before that time was the place, what-

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 223
ever it might be, in which the high priest dwelt; and
that there the high priest for the time being, in conjunc
tion with the other priests, should declare the true judg
ment in the case, and that the judge was to make his
decree in conformity with this declaration of the priests,
which decree was to be most strictly, obeyed. Vatable is of
opinion that the judge here mentioned, to whom the
appeal was to be brought, was the high priest himself ;
others suppose that it was the chief secular authority
among the Jews, who was bound to make the decree in
conformity with the judgment of the high priest and his
councU. — See Cornel, a Lapide, comment, in locum. Our
Redeemer also, in the gospel, gives us to understand in
what way the multitude, in the ancient dispensation, was
to learn the law of God, for thus we read in the beginning
of the twenty-third chapter of St, Matthew: " Then Jesus
spoke to the multitudes and to his cUsciples, saying: The
scribes and the pharisees have sitten on the chair of
Moses, AU things, therefore, whatsoever they shaU say
to you, observe and do," <&;c. Hence the ordinary mode
of learning the law and wUl of God in the scripture, as
far as the multitude was concerned, was by having re-
coui-se to the constituted teachers, not by their o'wn pri
vate perusal of the sacred volume. Hence we are not
surprised to find that, from the time of the Babylonish
captivity, when the people, commonly, ceased to under
stand the Hebrew language, up to about the time of
Christ's coming upon earth, there was no version of the
scripture made for the use of the Jews of Palestine, who
spoke the Syro-Chaldaic tongue. Of the Chaldaic phara-
phrases, the most ancient are those of Onkelos on the
pentateuch, and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the prophets
and historical books — and these at the earliest, date but
a few years before the Christian era. During that long
interval, however, the people were supplied with the

224 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
ordinary means of arriving at such a knowledge of the
sacred volume as it behoved them to possess; for, the
scriptures, i. e., select portions of them were read on the
Sabbath days in the synagogues, in the ancient Hebrew,
and afterwards explained to the people in the Syro-
Chaldaic tongue. If it be said that before the captivity,
the synagogues were not in existence, and that, therefore,
the people had then to acquire their knowledge of the
scripture from their own private reading, we answer, that
before the captivity, there were the schools of the pro
phets, in which were sung the praises of God, and where,
upon Sabbaths and new moons, the more pious people
assembled to be instructed by the prophets. Moreover,
as has been already observed, we are informed in Josue
(chap, xxi,), that the priests and Levites — the consti
tuted teachers of the people — had their cities, wherein
they abode, scattered through the several tribes, — (See
Archceologia Biblica of Jahn, De locis sacris, s, 332,)
The septuagint version, indeed, is much more ancient
than any Chaldaic paraphrase, but whatever cause may
have led to the making of that version, no ancient autho
rity, either Jewish or Christian, ever supposed for a
moment, that it originated in the desire to provide the
multitude of the Jews, who spoke the Greek language,
with the means of discharging its obligation, of perusing
the scriptures. We all know that according to the
common opinion, the idea of making such a version did
not originate with the Jews at aU, but with the king of
Egypt and his librarian Demetrius Phalereus, If the
Jews of Alexandria made this version of their own accord,
then the object appears to have been to consult for the
convenience of the doctors in the synagogues, who would
find it less troublesome to read the scripture in the Greek
language for the people, than to imitate their brethren
in Judea, who first read it in the Hebrew, and then

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 225
explained it in the language with which the people were
famUiar. As there was no obligation on the part of the
people commonly, to peruse the scriptures, so we cannot
say to what extent the custom prevailed at any time
among them, of attending to the private reading of the
scriptures. Certainly, as we have just now seen, between
the captivity and the time of Christ's coming, the people
of Palestine were not provided with the scriptures in that
language which they understood; nor is it likely that at
any time, even before the captivity, had the people gene
raUy, the means of perusing the scriptures; seeing the
cUfficulty that then existed of multiplying the copies of
the sacred volume, to the extent that would have been
requisite for this purpose. Thus, looking even to the
favoured kingdom of Juda, in the reign of king Josa
phat, we may infer from a passage in the second book of
Paralip. and seventeenth chapter, that the sacred volume
was not in the hands of the people of that kingdom gene
raUy, at that period; since the teachei-s, whom that pious
king sent through the various cities of his kingdom to
instruct his people, are expressly said to have had icith
them for that purpose, the book of the law of the Lord ;
a circumstance that would hardly have been thus men
tioned, if copies of the book of the law, had been commonly
in the hands of those whom they went to instruct. The
foUowing is the passage referred to: " And in the third
year of his reign, he sent of his princes, Benhail and
Abdias, and Zacharias, and Nathanael, and Micheas, to
teach in the cities of Juda: and with them the Levites,
Semeias, and Nathanias, and ZabacUas, and Asael, and
Semiramoth, and Jonathan, and Adonias, and Tobias, and
Thobadonias, Levites, and with them Elisama and Joram,
priests. And they taught the people in Juda, having
with them the book of the law of the Lord: and they went
about all the cities of Juda, and instracted the people."
VOL. I. Q

226 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
2 Paralip., xvii., 7-9. Several of the fathers — Origen,
St. Jerome, St. Gregory Nazianzen — assure us, that the
synagogue did not permit young persons to read certain
portions of the scriptures, that is, the beginning of Ge
nesis, the beginning and the end of Ezechiel, and the
Canticle of Canticles, which is a clear proof, that the
rulers of the Jewish church did not acknowledge the ex
istence of an obligation, on the part of the people, to
peruse the sacred volume. — See Glaire, Introduc. tom. i,,
p, 319, Here will be objected to me the words of our
Redeemer in the Gospel, addressed to the Jews — " Search
the scriptures," — St, John, v,, 39. The advocate of bible
reading will tell me, that if these words are properly
rendered in the imperative mood, then they prove the
obligation on the part of the Jews generally, to read the
scriptures; whilst, if they are to be rendered in the indi
cative, they wUl at least declare the fact, that the Jews
did generaUy read the sacred volume. But I answer —
that, whatever may be the proper way of rendering this
text, the words in question were not intended to apply to
the Jews generaUy, but only to the scribes, priests, and
pharisees, who were much given to bible reading, and
whom our Redeemer here tells, if He speaks imperatively,
not to be satisfied with a superficial perusal of the sacred
book, but to read it attentively, so as not to mistake its
meaning. That the person^ to whom these words were
addressed, were such as I have mentioned, appears by the
circumstances in which they were uttered. Our Redeemer
was after performing a most wonderful miracle — restoring
in an instant to perfect health and strength, a man,' who
had been for thirty-eight years suffering from some
grievous infirmity. The Jews, to whom our Redeemer
addresses the words in question were those, who, so far from
acknowledging the hand of God in the work which had
been performed, took occasion from it to persecute Jesus

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 227
the more, because it was upon the Sabbath day that He
told the man to take up his bed and walk. These perse
cutors must have been the priests, scribes and pharisees,
seeing that the multitude, when left to its own unbiassed
judgment, always on witnessing the wonderful works of
the Redeemer, pronounced that the finger of God was
there. The pharisees themselves acknowledged this oppo
sition to their views on the part of the multitude, and it
is curious enough, that they appear to ascribe this opposi
tion to the fact, that the multitude did not read the bible.
Thus, in the seventh chapter of St, John's gospel, verses
48, 49, the pharisees say: "Hath any one of the rulers
believed in him, or of the pharisees? But this multitude
that knoweth not the law, are accursed," Again to the
same persons, to whom our Redeemer addresses the words,
" Search the scriptures," he, a little further on, says —
44th verse of that fifth chapter of St, John — " How can
you beUeve, who receive glory one from another: and the
glory, which is from God alone, you do not seek?" by
which words he most clearly points to the scribes and
pharisees. The example of the Bereans mentioned in the
Acts of the Apostles, and to which we shaU advert more
particularly in the sequel of this chapter, does not prove,
either, that the Jews, commonly, were bound by any pre
cept to read the scriptures, or that, in the time of the
synagogue, the Jews were generaUy given to the private
reading of the bible. That neither the one point nor the
other is proved by that example, will be sufficiently clear
to any one, who will reflect for a moment upon the pas
sage of the Acts, which has reference to the Bereans. But
of this, more just now.
We now proceed to detail briefly what has been the
practice of the Christian church, with respect to the read
ing of the scriptures. We shall find upon inquiry, that
the practice of the Christian church at aU times, upon

228 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
this head, has been quite irreconcilable with the sup
position, that the Founder of that church or His apostles,
imposed any obligation upon all Christians, generally, to
read the scriptures. No doubt, it was always considered
a sacred duty, on the part of the clergy — the spiritual
guides and teachers of the people — to read the scriptures.
These should read them in the prayers and offices of the
church. They should read them also, in order to qualify
themselves for the instruction of those committed to
their care. As to the simple faithful; the rule in the
Christian church has always been, that they should learn
the doctrines of religion, and their duty to God, by means
of the instructions of the constituted teachers in the
church. The private study, or perusal, of the sacred
volume, has never been made obligatory upon them.
For a length of time after the promulgation of the new
law, there could be no question of the reading of the
New Testament, because it had not yet existed. And
even, when after the lapse of a considerable time, this
portion of the sacred writings was complete, there must
have been still many who did not read it, either because
they had not learned to read, or because copies of the book
were not so easily procured, as to leave it within the
reach of aU to possess it. For, we must remember, that
during that long period of the church's existence, which
preceded the invention of printing, copies of books were
multiplied with great difficulty, and sold at a high price.
Of course, the epistles of St, Paul must have been read re
peatedly for the assembled faithful of the several churches,
to which they were addressed. The rulers of these
churches, to whose hands, in the first instance, the epis
tles were committed, would, no doubt, consider it their
duty to have them thus read. Nor was this public
reading in the church, confined to the epistles of St,
Paul: it extended to the gospels, and the other portions

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 229
of the New Testament — nor was the Old Testament left
out. And the church, from an early period, made pro
vision for the continuance of this practice, of publicly
reacUng the scripture in the assembly of the faithful;
for, not to speak of the manner in which She has em
bodied in Her Uturgy, the several portions of the scrip
tures. She instituted the minor order of Reader, whose
duty, among other things, as the catechism of the CouncU
of Trent, observes, " was to read to the people, in a clear
and distinct voice, the sacred scriptures," — See Catechism
of the Council of Trent on the Sacrament of Orders. The
private perusal of the scriptures, was far from universal at
any time among the simple faithful, for, as St, Irenaeus
informs us, " there were many barbarous nations, who
diligently presei'ved the ancient tradition, icithout the aid of
paper and ink." This private perusal became stUl less
common in the church, in proportion as these languages,
Greek, Latin, Syriac — in which the scriptures are found
from the early days of the church, wore out of the know
ledge of the people. For not only were there nations
of other tongues brought into the church, but even
among the people who spoke the languages above men
tioned, these languages, in progress of time, became so
much altered, as to cease to be intelligible, to the great
bulk of the people, in that early dialect, in which the
scriptures were found. Now, the supply of versions at
all times, was very far from keeping pace with these
changes, by which such versions became necessary, if the
people commonly were to be afforded an opportunity of
perusing the scriptures. This point is weU proved by
the iUustrious bishop of Brages, M. Malou, in the second
volume of his work. La Lecture de La Sainte Bible en
Langue Vulgaire, p. 327, Louvain, 1846. The custom
must have prevailed for a considerable time in several
places, to read first, for the assembleci faithftU in the

230 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
church, a portion of the scripture, in one of these lan
guages, which may be weU termed ecclesiastical, and
afterwards to explain it in the language or dialect,
with which the people were acquainted. And when
versions began to be introduced, these, in various
places did not, for a length of time, extend beyond
certain portions of the sacred text, as for instance,
the epistles and gospels read in the liturgy during the
year. Hence, we may conclude from what has been
already said, that down, at least, to the period of the
invention of printing, the private reading of the scripture
must have been for great numbers in the church, an
impossibUity, which impossibility arose from one or more
of the foUowing causes: — First, the want of knowing how
to read — Second, the want of means to purchase books —
Third, the want of versions inteUigible to the people.
After the invention of printing, the reacUng of the scrip
ture, no doubt, became more general, as we may infer
from the number of editions in the modern languages,
which, as we have already seen, issued from the press,
even before the period of the so-called Reformation; yet,
even then, the obstacles before-mentioned continued,
although not to the same extent, to prevent many from
reacUng the sacred volume. After the commencement of
the Reformation, when, under the guise of a pretended
zeal for the diffusion of scriptural knowledge, the refor
mers attempted to pervert the faith of the people by
means of corrupt versions, and by exhorting every one to
interpret the scripture for himself, then the church con
sidered it necessary, to impose certain restrictions on the
liberty of reading the scripture in the modern versions.
Nor was this the first occasion, on which the ecclesiastical
authority interposed, in order to guard against the abuses
which might foUow from the unrestricted use of these
versions; for, we find Innocent III,, in the year 1199,

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 231
praising the zeal of the bishop of Metz, who denounced
to the holy see certain persons of his cUocese, who, haviiig
procured a French version of some portions of the scrip
tures, held clandestine assemblies, in which they not only
read these scriptures, but also presumptuously usurped to
themselves the ministry of preaching. Pius VIL, in his
letter to the bishop of MohUew, quotes largely from the
admirable epistle which Innocent III. adcfressed, upon
this occasion, to the faithful of Metz. Again, in the year
1229, the provincial CouncU of Toulouse prohibited to
the laity the use of versions in the vulgar tongue, — See
in Labb. the Council of Toulouse, held in the year 1229,
canon 14, The object of this decree, was to guard the
simple faithful against the artifices of the Albigenses, who
were continually attempting, to force upon the people the
most false and ridiculous interpretations of the sacred
text. However, it was after the Reformation, that that
law, in reference to the use of the modern versions, was
introduced, which prevails generally now throughout the
church, and we may say everywhere, at least as to the
substance of the law. This is the law laid down in the
rides of the index librorum. These rales were drawn up
by a number of the fathers of Trent, chosen for the pur
pose by the councU, and they were afterwards confii-med
by Pius IV, in the constitution of the 24th of March,
1564, which begins with the words Dominici gregis. The
third rule has reference to the prohibition of those ver
sions and commentaries, which proceed from condemned
authors. The fourth rule regiUates as follows: "Since
experience has made it manifest that the reading of the
bible in the vulgar tongue, if it is permitted to aU incUs-
criminately, causes through the temerity of men more
detriment than utUity, let the judgment of the bishop
or the inquisitor be foUowed in this matter, who, with
the advice of the parish priest or confessor, can permit

232 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
the reading of those versions in the vulgar tongue, that
have been made by Catholic authors, to those whom they
shall know to be fit to derive from this reading, not de
triment, but an increase of faith and piety — and let this
permission be in writing." These rules were confirmed
by Clement VIII, in 1596. In the decree of the congre
gation of the index of the 13th of June, 1757, under
Benedict XIV., it is laid down that — " These versions of
the bible in the vulgar tongue are permitted, when they
have been approved of by the Holy See, or are published
with notes drawn from the Holy Fathers or from learned
Catholic writers," Both the law laid down in the fourth
rule of the index, and this addition to that law in the
decree of the congregation of the index of the 13th of
June, 1757, have been often insisted upon by the Popes
since, as may be seen in the various documents, relating
to the bible societies, which have emanated from the Holy
See in these latter times. We deem it unnecessary to
quote the words of these documents. They are princi
pally the following — which may be seen at full in the
work of bishop Malou, above-mentioned, tom, ii., p. 520,
&c, — viz,: the letter of Pius VII. to the bishop of Gnesne,
in Poland, in 1816; letter of the same pope to the bishop
of MohUew, in the same year; notice of the bible societies
in the encyclical letter of Leo XIL, in 1824; notice of
the same societies in the encyclical letter of Pius VIIL,
in 1829; the encycUcal letter of Gregory XVI., by which
he condemns the bible society founded in America, for
the circulation of the bible in Italy: this letter bears the
date of the 8th of May, 1844. From an examination of
aU these documents — that is, the fourth rule of the index,
the decree of the congregation of the index of the 13th
of June, 1757, and the other documents to which we have
referred just now, it appears that the faithful are per
mitted to read a modern version of the scriptures, if it

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE. 233
have the approbation of the Holy See, declaring that it is
fit to be read by reason of its fideUty as a version, and of
its being accompanied with a sufficient number of notes.
But if an approbation of this kind shaU not have been
given by the Holy See to a version — then, according to
the fourth rule of the index, the bishop (or the inquisitor,
where there is such a functionaiy) is to be the judge of
how far, such a version is to be pennitted to be read or
not, (of course, as it has been observed before, this fourth
rule of the index, only speaks of versions made by CathoUc
authors.) Now it appears clear enough that the disci
pUne here stated, prevails, at least as to the substance of
the thing, throughout the whole church at the present
day, although the law of the index is not so literaUy en
forced in some places as in others. Perhaps, indeed, in
these countries, the restriction imposed upon the reading
of the scripture in the vulgar tongue, is less than ih any
other part of the church, as would appear from consider
ing, how brief and few are the notes appended to the
sacred text, in our Douay and Rhemish version, when
compared with the notes of other modem CathoUc ver
sions. We proceed to vincUcate this discipline, which, as
we have observed, prevails now, at least substantiaUy,
everywhere in the church. But before passing from the
historical part of this dissertation, we shaU just obsei-ve,
that at no period of Her existence, did the Catholic church
ever conceive the wonderful project of attempting the
convei-sion of infidel nations, by merely disseminating the
sacred text among them, in their own languages. Such
an attempt, on the foUy of which we shaU dweU more
fiUly afterwards, was reserved for the innovators of these
latter times.
To proceed now with the second part of oui- (Usserta
tion, we tmst that the foUowing observations wUl be

234 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
found to contain an ample vindication of the present
discipUne of the Catholic church, on the matter in ques
tion. We must observe, in the first place, that the
church has never prohibited to the laity, the reading of
the scripture in the original languages, or in the ancient
versions. But this permission, it will be said, is of no
use to the great body of the people, because they do not
understand these languages; it is only in the vulgar
tongue, with which they are acquainteci, that the scrip
ture is inteUigible to them; and yet, our adversaries go
on to say, the scripture in this vulgar tongue, even when
the version is acknowledged to be faithful, will not be
permitted to the people by the ecclesiastical superior,
unless upon certain conditions, which cannot be insisted
on, without excluding many from the reading of the
scripture. This is the conduct, of which our adversa
ries — the biblicals — complain, and which we defend.
We may here observe, that the conditions insisted upon
in some places are but few, as for example, in this coun
try, where it is only required that one bring to the
reading of our approved version, humility, submission to
the doctrine of the Catholic church, and a readiness to
be guided by the approved notes, which are appended to
our bible: but the arguments, which we shall adduce,
will be sufficient to vindicate the practice of the church
in those countries also, where a more stringent discipline
is enforced. In the first place, then, we lay it down as
certain, that no divine precept exists, imposing upon the
laity an obligation to read the scripture. We have seen
in the preceding part of this dissertation, that in the
practice of the church at any time, no proof is to be
found of the existence of such a precept. The reading
of the scripture, is not necessary to the laity, for the
purpose of knowing either what must be believed, or
what must be practised, in order to gain eternal life;

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 235
and such being the case, it appears unreasonable to
admit the existence of a precept to read the scriptures,
without some clear authority to that effect, either in
scripture or in tradition; and we may observe, that it
is only to a scriptural proof, that our adversaries, if
consistent, wUl attach any importance. But neither
in scripture nor in tradition, wUl they find sufficient
grounds to warrant the conclusion, that the reacUng of
the scripture is obligatory on the laity. The text from
the fifth chapter of St. John's gospel, " search the scrip
tures," is always put in the front of their arguments by
our adversaries. But this is a passage of doubtful con
struction, and, according even to many learned Pro
testants, it ought to be translated in the indicative mood.
Besides, these words were not addressed to Christians,
that is, to the cUsciples of Christ, but to the Jews; and as
we have shown in a preceding part of the chapter, they
were not addressed to the midtitude, but to the scribes
and pharisees, that is, to the teachers; and we have no
objection to admit, that the teachers of the people in the
Christian church, are bound to read and study the scrip
tures. Much less could this obligation of reading the
scriptures be inferred from the words of St, Paul to
Timothy, " aU scripture inspired of God, is profitable to
teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that
the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good
work," — 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. We admit, that the read
ing of the scripture is most profitable, not only to the
man of God, that is, the teacher of the people, to fit him
for his several duties, but to every one that is prepared
to come to the reading of it with the proper dispositions;
and this text, at the farthest, proves nothing more.
Nor does the example of the Bereans, mentioned in the
Acts of the Apostles, prove the obligation in question.
This conduct of the Bereans here referred to, is so often

236 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
lauded by the advocates of bible reading, as if it proved
everything which they require, that it becomes neces
sary to examine closely, the meaning and force of what
is said in the Acts of the Apostles, respecting them. —
(Chap. xvii. 10, 11,) — " But the brethren immediately
sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who,
when they were come thither, went into the synagogue
of the Jews. Now, these were more noble than those in
Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness,
daily searching the scriptures, whether these things
were so."
Now, in the first place, the Bereans were Jews, not
Christians, whilst they were " searching the scriptures to
know if these things were so." Again; the passage does
not contain one word, which implies an obligation, it
merely states a fact. St, Paul could not propose to the
Jews of Berea any doctrine that was not from God — ^but
this was not evident to them, untU by miracles, or other
arguments, he proved to them the truth of his doctrine.
He referred them to the scriptures, which they had in
their hands, for the prophecies concerning the Christ,
and they examined to see if these were as he had stated.
Such is the entire force of a passage, so much dwelt upon
by the biblicals; and the absurdity of quoting it, as at all
opposed to the practice of the Catholic church, appears by
this, that the Catholic church, in those countries in which
its discipline is most stringent with respect to the reading
of the scripture, in the vulgar tongue, would be always
ready to invite the Jews to imitate the conduct of the
Bereans in searching the scriptures, and seeing that
those things, in these scriptures, to which they were re
ferred by the Catholic preachers, were so. What now
are we to think of those, who put forward this passage
of the Acts as sanctioning that extravagant principle,
which, after all, is the very essence of Protestantism, viz.

IN THE VULGAR TONGLE. 237
that it is the duty of every Chiistian to be guided by
his own views of the meaning of scripture, as to whether
he wUl admit or reject any doctrine proposed by a
Christian teacher? — Thus, Dr. Whately in the " Address
to his Clergy," 1836, p. 74. It is neecUess to say, that
such a principle, on the extravagance of which we shaU
say something in another place, does not derive a shadow
of support from the passage under discussion. We see,
that St. Paul, writing to the Christian churches, insists
constantly on the indisputable truth of the doctrine,
which he teaches, and never on the part of these does
he tolerate any delay in giving assent to his preaching.
This is so clear in his epistles, that no one, but a com
plete stranger to his writings, would venture to deny it.
Had the Bereans then, been Christians, their conduct upon
the occasion in question, would have been altogether
imjustifiable, and, consequently, aU the reasoning of the
bibUcals from this passage, falls to the ground. In fine,
there is no passage of scripture, in which it is either
expressed or impUed, that aU Christians are under an
obUgation of reading the bible, nor does tracUtion estab-
Ush the obUgation in question. The bibUcals, in this
matter, appeal to tradition also — ^inconsistently enough,
seeing how often they profess their disregard for tradi
tion, and their adhesion to the bible alone. Even here,
however, they meet with no support for their theory.
The Ulustrious bishop of Bruges, M. Malou, most fuUy
proves in the first volume of his book, (La Lecture de
La Sainte Bible en Langue Vulgaire, p. 248, &c.) that
no one of the Fathers — not even St. Chrysostom, to whom,
above aU others, the bibUcals appeal, has ever asserted
the existence of a precept bincUng aU Christians to read
the bible.
St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome, to aU
of whom our opponents here refer, at the most but exhort

238 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
to the reading of the scripture; and as to St. Augustine
and St. Jerome, they have made it clear enough, that
their exhortations are addressed only to the pious and
well-instructed Christian; and St. Chrysostom, who was
in the habit of instructing the people by means of homi
lies on various parts of the scripture, is found in those
passages of his discourses, in which he insists most
strongly on the reacUng of the scripture, to be only ex
horting his hearers to read over privately, before coming
to church, that portion of the scripture which he had
announced on the previous Sunday that he would explain
for them, that thus they might be better prepared to
profit by his discourse, and that he might be spared the
additional trouble of having to teach them what the
text was, as well as the explanation of it. It is, more
over, quite certain, from many parts of the works of
these Fathers, that they all required from the reader of
the bible, a perfect submission to the teaching of the
church. Seeing, then, that no obligation is imposed on Chris
tians, generaUy, to read the scripture, it becomes an easy
matter to vindicate the discipline of the Catholic church,
with respect to the reading of the scripture in the vulgar
tongue; and this cfiscipline may be here again thus
briefly stated, viz. certain dispositions are required on the
part of fhe laity, who icish to read those vulgar versions
made by Catholics; and if they have not these dispositions,
the reading of such versions is prohibited to them. In
some places, viz. where the law of the index is strictly
enforced, permission must be obtained by each person from
the proper authority, who is to make himself acquainted
icith the dispositions of the party seeking such permission.
In other places, as in these countries, with respect to our
English version, the permission is granted generally to all
who bring the proper dispositions. To vindicate this dis-

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE. 239
cipline, it is quite sufficient to observe, that the Church
is perfectiy authorized to legislate upon a matter, such
as this, which no divine precept has withdrawn from the
sphere of her legislation. For, clear is the voice of tra
dition on the point, and numerous are the texts of scrip
ture which prove it, that Christ established a church,
and invested it with fuU authority to legislate, on aU
such matters as appertain to the spiritual good of its
chUdren, and are not already determined by some cUvine
law. The proofs of this point have been so often set
forth by CathoUc theologians, and are so weU known,
that we think it unnecessary to produce them here. But,
our biblical opponents wiU teU us, that even admitting
that the people generaUy, are not bound by any precept
to read the bible, yet, that they have a perfect right to do
so — a right with which no authority upon earth can in
terfere. Our answer to this assertion is, that the people*
have only such a right to read the scriptures, as the
church sanctions and approves; and by establishing this,
our assertion, we shall put an end to the whole contro
versy. WeU then, in the first place, since the people
generaUy, are not bound by any divine precept to read
the scriptures, they must be provided otherwise with the
means of knowing what they are tcJ believe and practise
— this means they have in the church's teaching — there
fore the church is authorised, and qualified, to teach the
people what they are to believe and practise, and this she
does by her established ministry. Again, as we said
before, and as is abundantly proved by our theologians,
the church has a perfect right to legislate upon aU such
matters, as appertain to the spiritual interests of her
chUcfren, and are not afready fixed by some divine law:
now from these considerations we infer, that the church
* We here nse the word people in contradistinction to the pastors and teachers in
the cbnich.

240 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTDRES
can withhold permission to read the scriptures, from all
such, as bring not to that reading those dispositions which
she considers necessary; and consequently, that t\iG people
have not such an independent right to read the scriptures,
as the biblicals would contend for. No — the church
asserts her right to insist upon certain conditions, and
to withold permission to read the bible, where these con
ditions are not complied with, and this right must be
conceded to the church, unless some divine law can be
produced, prohibiting her interference in this matter.
Now, no such law can be produced. On the contrary,
the right of the church in this very particular, can be
clearly and positively proved from various passages of
the scripture itself First, the existence of the right, for
which we here contend, on the part of the pastors and
teachers of the church, implies, that to these in the first
instance, the scriptures have been committed by God, to
be by them communicated, accorcUng to the rules of pru
dence, to the people; and that the scripture has been
committed, in this way, to the keeping of the pastors of
the church, is proved from the first Epistle to the Corin
thians, iv,, 1: — "Let a man so account of us as the
ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of
God," According to all interpreters, what is here said, is
not to be restricted to the apostles, but to be extended to
aU the pastors and teachers of God's church; and admit
ting, that the word mysteries refers to the sacraments, it
also designates the mysterious doctrine of God; and there
fore, it also is committed to the pastors of the church, who
as the faithful stewards of God's house, which is the
church, are to distribute to the people the spiritual food
which is the word of God, whether it is contained in the
scripture, or learned by tradition, St, Paul's own con
duct when preaching to the Corinthians, as it is detailed
by himself in this epistle, throws wonderful Ught, as well

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE. 241
upon this text which we have quoted, as upon the appli
cation which we make of it, St, Paul teUs the Corin
thians, that when preaching among them, he did not
deliver the whole doctrine of God to every one, because
every one was not fit to receive it. There was a more
profound doctrine, and a more profound explanation of
the rudiments of the Christian doctrine : this the apostle
designates by the name of wisdom, and this he withheld
from many of the Corinthians, because they were not fit
. to receive it. This the apostle communicated only to the
spiritual — to those who, by a habit of reflecting upon the
truths of the Christian religion which they had already
leamed, were prepared to estimate the wisdom of God in
any doctrine by the principles of faith, and not by the
carnal — animal notions of the unreflecting Christian,
whom the apostle calls the animal man. And the apostle
gives the Corinthians to understand, that if he had
preached this profound doctrine — this wisdom — indiscri
minately to aU, he would have acted as imprudently as the
nurse, who gives solid food to a chUd whose stomach is
incapable of bearing it. — See the first Epistle to the Corin
thians, chap, ii,, iU, In this conduct of the apostle we
recognise the faithful and prudent dispenser of the myste
ries of God. Hence, as I said, it illustrates the text,
which has been quoted from the beginning of the fourth
chapter of this first Epistle to the Corinthians : and we
shaU now see how this same conduct of the apostle
warrants us in quoting that same text of the fourth
chapter, to justify the discipline of the Catholic church,
with respect to the reacUng of the scripture by the people.
We see, in the first place, that all the Christians of
Corinth had not a ijght to insist, that all the mysterious
and holy doctrine of God which had been revealed to the
apostles, should be communicated to them. On the con
trary, it appertained to the apostle's duty, as a faithful
TOL. I, R

242 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
and prudent dispenser of the mysterious doctrine of God,
to withhold the more profound doctrine from those whom
he terms animal men, that is, from those who, for want
of reflecting upon divine things, had not as yet freed
their minds from those rude and worldly notions, which
would have prevented them from appreciating the wisdom
of God in this more profound doctrine, and would have
led them to undervalue it. In the same way, then, as
every Christian at Corinth had not a right to insist that
the apostle should communicate the whole doctrine of
God to him, so neither has every Christian a right that
the whole scripture should be thrown open to him,
because, as there were many animal men among the
Christians in Corinth, as appears by that first Epistle of
St, Paul, so, there are still to be found in the church
many animal men; and as that portion of the divine doc
trine committed to him as a faithful dispenser, which St,
Paul terms wisdom, was to be withheld from the animal
man until he acquired those dispositions which would
render this solid food nutritious and not injurious to him;
in like manner, the scriptures, which contain abundantly
that wisdom of which the apostle speaks, are not to be
put without reserve into the hands of the animal men in
the church; and the pastors of the church have succeeded
to the apostle in that stewardship of prudently communi-
cati'ng to the people the profound doctrine or wisdom, or
withholding it from them, as the case may be. We see
now how that text of the fourth chapter to the Corin
thians, first Epistle, comes to prove what I asserted, viz,,
that the right which the simple faithful have to read the
scripture, is not a right independent of the sanction and
approval of the pastors of the church. Nor wiU our ad
versaries, if they reflect for a moment, attempt to set
aside this conclusive argument by saying, that the scrip
tures do not contain that wisdom of which the apostle

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE. 243
speaks in the first Epistle to the Corinthians : for, this
woiUd be to say, that this wisdom, which, doubtless, was
communicated to the apostle for the benefit of the church,
has been handed down by tradition, whilst the scripture
contains only the plain and obvious doctrines; such doc
trines as are proportioned to the capacity of the little ones
in Christ, Now this assertion is untenable for many
reasons; but it is unnecessary for us to delay in refuting
it, seeing that it is so directly opposed to the principles
of our adversaries, who contend that the scriptures con
tain the whole apostolic doctrine. And we may observe
here, that Origen, in his first homily on the Canticle of
Canticles, expressly says that in this book is the solid
food referred to by St, Paul in his Epistle to the Hebrews,
V,, 14, — " strong meat is for the perfect," and he dissuades
those from reading it who are not perfect. We have
arrived now at these two conclusions: First, that the
simple faithful are bound by no divine law to read the
scriptures. Second, that whatever right the simple faith
ful have to read the scripture, is not a right independent
of the sanction and approval of the pastors of the church.
These two conclusions are abundantly sufficient to vindi
cate the discipline of the Catholic church, in this matter
of the reading of the scripture by the people. Let us
now consider how reasonable the conditions are which
the church requires, previously to giving her sanction
and approval to the reading of the scriptures by the peo
ple. We shaU first, however, examine a text of the New
Testament, which wonderfully confirms all that we have
said upon that text of the fourth chapter of St. Paul's
first Epistle to the Corinthians; — the text to which I
refer is found in the second Epistle of St. Peter, iU., 15,
16, "  as also our most dear brother Paul, accorcUng
to the wisdom given him, hath written to you : as also
in aU (his) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in

244 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
which are certain things hard to be understood, which
the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the
other scriptures to their own destruction." This text
proves that the sense of the scripture is not always plain
and obvious — that if parts of it are easily understood,
there are also in it certain things hard to be understood.
And again, as it appears from this passage that there
were in the church, in the time of St. Peter, unlearned
and unstable persons; so, there is no reason to say that
there are not such persons in the church still; and surely
these persons have no reason to complain if those scrip
tures, which they would wrest to their own destruction,
are withheld from them, until they comply with the con
ditions which wiU be their security against such a dread
ful evil.
To come now to the conditions upon which the church
has a right to insist, before that the scriptures shall be
thrown open to the people. We do not insist here upon
any particular order in their enumeration. We begin
with this one — First — That those who would read the
scripture in a version, must procure a Catholic version,
A most reasonable condition, surely, seeing how easy it
is for a translator, hostile to the church, to pervert the
meaning of numerous passages, and thus mislead the
unlearned reader.
Second. — The church has also a right to require that
even a Catholic version, i. e, a version made by a Catholic
author, shall not be put into the hands of the people, until it
shall have received the approbation of the proper ecclesias
tical authority: because it belongs to the duty of the
church to take care that the people shaU not be misled
by a translator, who either wilfuUy, or through ignorance,
misrepresents his original.
Third, — The church, when it pleases, has a right to
require that the people shall read those versions only which

IN THE U'LGAR TONGUE. 245
are accompanied icith evplanatory notes taken from the
fathers or approved Catholic commentators. Because,
since there is a body of teachers established in the church
whom the people are bound to hear and obey, it foUows
that the people are not at liberty to attach to the scrip-
tui-e, any meaning opposed to the teaching of the church,
or at variance with the unanimous interpretation of the
fathers — those witnesses of the apostoUc doctrine. Any
such meaning would be false. Now, without the expla
natory notes of which we speak, the people would often
be exposed to the danger of attaching these unsound
meanings to the scripture. Besides, without such notes,
various parts of the scripture, by reason of their obscurity,
would convey no instruction whatever to the unlearned.
FinaUy — the pastors of the chui-ch have a right to
prohibit the reading of the scripture altogether to those, who
are at the same time unlearned and unstable — more likely
to indulge in their own curious speculations, to the great
danger of their faith, than to be guided by the notes of
leamed Catholic writers. The pastors of the church have
a perfect right to act in this way, because by doing so,
they only consult for the true interests of such persons,
by withholding fi-om them a spiritual food, which, whUst
it is not necessary for them, would, on account of their
imperfect dispositions, prove destructive to them; in the
same way, as the nui-se consults for the physical health
of the child by withholcUng fi-om it the solid food, which
its stomach is yet incapable of converting into nutriment,
and which, consequently, would prove the ruin of its
health. But, we have now established principles more
than enough to vincUcate the most stringent discipline,
which the pastors of the church have at any time enacted
in the matter under consideration. It remains for us to
explain, why it is that the church has never imposed any
restriction upon the reacUng of the original text of the

246 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
scripture; and why it is, that the discipline of latter
times in reference to versions, is so stringent when com
pared with that which prevailed in the early times of the
church. Before explaining this, we must premise — First,
that since, the restrictions imposed upon the people, in
the reading of the scripture, appertain to discipline, we
need not be surprised that the practice of the church has
not been uniform in this matter. Second, it must be
admitted, that the church always insisted upon the people's
bringing to the reading of the scripture the essential
dispositions, of respect for the word of God, humiUty, and
submission to the church's teaching. That the two first
cUspositions were always required, wUl be admitted by
our adversaries, and that the third was also insisted upon
is manifest, from the way, in which the pastors of the
church have at aU times exacted the assent of the people
to their teaching. To explain now the question proposed,
we say — First, that in the times of primitive fervour, there
was less reason to apprehend the want of the proper dis
positions on the part of the people. That spirit of dan
gerous curiosity was not then abroad, by which these
latter times are characterised, and of which the Refor
mers avaUed themselves, exhorting, as they did, the people,
to read the scripture, and throwing off all submission to
the church's teaching, to judge for themselves. SeconcUy,
In the early times of the church, but few of the unlearned
among the people had the means of reacUng the scripture
privately. Some will object here, that the great know
ledge which Christians, in the early times, had of the
sacred text, cannot be reconciled with this statement.
But we answer that multitudes became thus acquainted
with the text, by listening to the pastors of the church
explaining it. In truth, in these early times, copies of
the scripture were not multipUed with such facUity as at
present, nor could they be procured without considerable

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 247
expense; and there were not then those wealthy Chris
tians, who, whUst they made all religion consist in read
ing the bible, paid numerous scribes for multiplying
copies, that they might furnish every poor man with a
bible gratis. For these reasons, the church did not at its
commencement, impose the same restrictions on the reading
of the scripture, as she found it necessary to impose in
these latter times. And if the church has never — not even
in these latter times — imposed any restriction on the
reading of the original texts or of the ancient versions,
the reason is, because the knowledge of the original texts
and of these ancient versions soon became limited to the
learned and weU-instructed Christians, who, in reading
them, would not be exposed to those dangers, which, even
in the time of St. Peter, proved so cUsastrous to the un
learned and unstable Christian, But the limits, which
we have prescribed to ourselves in this work, warn us to
bring this dissertation to a close. Before passing, how
ever, to another subject, we must be allowed to make a
few observations upon that extraordinary zeal which
many of those who promote bible reacUng evince, for the
diffusion of bibles among infidel peoples, as if this diffu
sion were a means weU adapted to gain over these infidels
to the Christian faith. Now, the foUy of this conduct
must be manifest to every one, who devotes a moment's
reflection to the matter : for, we ask, are there not many
things in the scripture, which, to the uninstructed infidel
wUl be uninteUigible ? many things which wUl appear to
him contradictory ? and many things which, to his proud
and carnal mind, uMl appear irreconcilable with the
notion which one ought to form of the Deity ? Of each
class of cUfficulties it would be easy to produce examples.
And if, as appears from what we have said, even the
unlearned Christian requires the assistance of a guide, or
of the commentaries of the learned, in order to read this

248 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
holy scripture without danger to his faith, and to derive
profit from it: what are we to think of those, who ima
gine that they have laid the best foundation for the
reception of the gospel by infidel nations, if they have
prevailed upon them, merely to accept copies of the scrip
ture text translated into their several languages. So far
from preparing the way for the reception of the Christian
faith, they truly by this conduct cast pearls b^ore swine,
which is prohibited in the gospel, — St, Matthew, vii,, 6,
It is no answer for them to say, that these infidels receive
willingly and thankfully the bibles that are given to
them, and therefore they are not the swine mentioned in
the gospel, who, as appears from what foUows in the con
text of the passage referred to, are hostUe to the mysteries
of the kingdom of God, and to the preachers of them.
For, we say in reply that these persons, although not
hostile to the preacher, fall sufficiently under the sentence
of the gospel, because they are only prepared to under
value the holy thing that is presented to them, as the
swine undervalues the pearl and tramples upon it. It is
an undoubted fact, moreover, that the thankfulness, with
which the pagans and Mahometans have frequently re
ceived copies of the bible from the Protestant missionaries,
is by no means to be ascribed to a disposition to embrace
the Christian faith, but often to a curiosity which led
them to admire the paper, printing, binding, (fee. of the
book. — See M. Malou's book already mentioned, tom. ii.,
p. 448, &.G. The illustrious bishop, in the place here
specified, proves this fact from the testimony of a Mr.
Malcolm, an American missionary, who, among other
things, teUs of some who were receiving bibles from the
missionaries, and were so impatient to examine closely
their binding, that they tore the books in the very pre
sence of those who gave them. It is also certain that
the biblicals cannot point to the success of their missions

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE. 249
among the pagans, as a proof of the beneficial effects of
the distribution of the bible among these people. On the
sterUity of the Protestant missions, see Malou in the place
last quoted. To prove that the advocates of bible reacUng
of whom we speak, expose the scripture to be treated with
disrespect, we need not go all the way to their missions
among the infidels; their conduct, even in caUing upon
all Christians to peruse the scriptures and judge for them
selves of their meaning, whUst it is most unreasonable,
is, at the same time, highly calculated to bring the word
of God into disrespect among the people. We could not
find better words to express briefly the foUy of this con
duct, than those used by that eloquent Protestant,
Edmund Burke, in " his speech on the acts of uniformity,"
delivered in February, 1772. — See the edition of his works
by Rivington, London, 1812, vol. x., p. 20. He says —
" The scripture is no one summary of Christian doctrine,
regularly digested, in which a man could not mistake his
way; it is a most venerable but most multifarious coUec
tion of the records of the divine economy; a collection of
an infinite variety — of cosmogony, theology, history, pro
phecy, psalmody, morality, apologue, aUegory, legislation,
ethics, carried through different books, by cUfferent
authors, at cUfferent ages, for different ends and purposes.
It is necessary to sort out what is intended, for example,
what only as a narrative; what to be understood literaUy;
what figuratively; where one precept is to be controUed
or mocUfied by another; what is used directly, and what
onlv as an argument ad hominem; what is temporary,
and what of perpetual obligation; what appropriated to
one state and to one set of men; and what the general
duty of all Christians. If we do not get some security
tor this, we not only permit, but we actuaUy pay for, aU
the dangerous fanaticism which can be produced to cor
rupt our people and to derange the pubUc worship of the

250 OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES
country." If Mr. Burke imagined, that the Protestant
church could provide any security against that deplorable
misunderstancUng of the scripture, to which the people,
when left to their own feeble judgment, are exposed, in
that he was mistaken. For, the very essence of Protes-
tanism is, the claim to the right of private judgment in
the interpretation of scripture; and were the Protestant
church, by any act, to deny such a right as belonging to
the people, she would, by the very same act, pronounce
herself to be an imposture. The limits of this disserta
tion do not permit us, to enter here into a lengthened
exposure of the folly of this Protestant principle — of the
right of private judgment, which means — that every per
son has a right to take his faith from his own interpreta
tion of the scripture. This principle naturally results
in an admirable variety of creeds; and if so many who
adopt the principle agree in faith, we can only explain
this extraordinary fact, by using the words of a Protes
tant archdeacon, and prebendary of Winchester: Many
have a singular talent of seeing everything in scripture,
which they have a mind to see. — See Milner's End of Con
troversy, letter 8. We must be permitted to observe here
also, that there is a special folly, and a special disregard
for the respect due to the sacred book, in insisting, as the
biblicals do, that it shall be used as a school-book. Let
us hear, on this point also, a Protestant authority, quoted
by Charles Butler, in his letter on the perusal of the
scriptures, published some years ago in the Birmingham
Catholic Magazine and Review. This is Mr, Benjamin
Martin, who, in the preface to his " Introduction to the
English Tongue," censures the "putting of the sacred
book into the hands of every bawling schoolmistress, and
of thoughtless chUdren, to be torn, trampled upon, and
made the early object of their aversion, by being their
most tedious task and their punishment," These are the

IN THE VULGAR TONGUE, 251
words of MartUi; and Charles Butler adds, that this
author seems incUned to ascribe the growth of irreligion,
and the contempt of holy things, to this source. In fine,
after what has been said of Christians, whether they be
of mature years, or young and thoughtless children, it
foUows, that there is no proof required to convince us,
that the promoters of bible societies act in a manner most
unreasonable, and most disrespectful to the bible, when
they place it, as they do, for indiscriminate perusal, in
the hands of pagans and infidels. But we must now
conclude this cUssertation, with the hope that no cancUd
reader, after perusing the observations which it contains,
wiU be disposed to deny, that there are cfrcumstances
which justify the church, in imposing restrictions upon
the indiscriminate perusal of the scriptures by the people.
Having admitted this, he wUl have no difficulty in ad
mitting that the church has never exceeded the limits of
a wise discretion, in the matter of these restrictions.

DISSERTATION- XL

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.

The object of biblical criticism, as we understand it here,
is to determine by what rales we ought to be guided, in
pronouncing upon the authenticity or spuriousness of any
word or passage in the sacred text, about which doubts'
have arisen : it consequently teaches us, how we are to
proceed in our endeavours to restore the text to its pri
mitive integrity, wherever that integrity has been violated
by interpolation or omission. The substantial integrity
of the scriptures is abundantly proved by extrinsic argu
ments, as may be seen in any Catholic theological treatise
on religion; and these arguments have received a striking
confirmation from the investigations of biblical criticism,
which have resulted in the same conclusion, viz., that
the substantial integrity of these sacred records is indis
putable, — See Cardinal Wiseman's Lectures on the Con
nexion between Science and Revealed Religion, lecture x.
Since, however, God has not miraculously interposed to
guard the scripture from those lighter errors, which
through a necessity proceeding from human imperfection,
find their way into all books that have been extensively
circulated, and therefore frequently copied, hence it
follows, that biblical criticism, besides confirming the sub
stantial integrity of the scripture, has yet another task,
viz,, to enable us, as far as it may be possible, to discover
these slighter errors where they exist, and to correct
them. For this purpose, biblical criticism employs various

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 253
means, of which some are extrinsic to the word or pas
sage which may be under consideration — othei-s are
intrinsic to it; and as these means are somewhat different,
as weU as the rales to be foUowed in the use of them,
when we speak of the Old Testament, from what they are
when there is question of the New, therefore, we shall
treat first of the criticism of the Old, and then of the
criticism of the New Testament ; and in treating of each
of these parts into which oui' subject is divided, it wUl be
found useful to state briefly, in the first place, the several
causes, to Avhich we are to attribute the introduction into
the text of these slight mistakes, which it is the province
of criticism to cUscover and correct.
Speaking of the Old Testament, we must observe, in
conformity with what we have established in a prececUng
dissertation, that we are not to ascribe the mistakes
occurring in the copies of this text, (if we except one or
two instances at the most) to any wUful intention on the
part of the Jews of introducing a corrupt reading. These
mistakes are to be ascribed, with the one or two excep
tions to which we have above referred, to the error of
the copyists — an error sometimes proceeding from inad
vertence, and sometimes an error of the judgment. Errors
through inadvertence have occurred, — First, by the omis
sion of words or even sentences. Such omissions may
be accounted for, sometimes, by homoiotdeuton, that is,
when, after a short interval, a word or phi-ase occurred a
second time in a passage, the transcriber having written
the word or phrase once, and looking again to the manu
script from which he was copying, happened to let the
eye fall upon the second place, where the word or phrase
occurred, and fincUng there the same thing as that which
he had just written, he thinks that he has got thus far,
and continues his copy from that place, omitting the
intermecUate part. Second, through inadvertence, copy-

254 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
ists have sometimes transposed a letter, a word, or a
phrase. Third, sometimes inadvertence has led to the
exchanging of one letter for another — of one word for
another — and sometimes even of one phrase for another.
Thus the eye of the copyist has sometimes confounded
certain letters, with others like to them in form; and
sometimes the ear of the copyist, when he was writing
from the dictation of another, confounded certain letters,
with others like to them in sound; and hence it comes,
that so many various readings are traceable to this inter
change, of the letters that are similar in form or in sound.
Again, sometimes from an error of memory, a copyist
having read a word in his exemplar, and remembering
its meaning but forgetting the very word itself, has
written some synonymous word instead of it. By an
error of memory also, a copyist who is familiar with some
passage parallel to that which he has to write, may im
perceptibly glide into the parallel passage, mistaking
what his memory suggests from it, for the words that are
placed before him. Errors of judgment have happened
either — First, from the transcriber not understanding
certain abbreviations found in the manuscript from which
he copied, or — Secondly, from his judging that the read
ings found in the margin of the manuscript from which
he copied belonged to the text, from which (as he thought)
they were excluded by some oversight. In consequence
of this error of judgment, he would insert readings in the
text, which made no part of it. Thirdly, these errors
would sometimes occur in consequence of a transcriber
thinking that he ought, by a slight change, to render some
passages intelUgible, which, without this change, were unin
teUigible to him. Fourthly, these errors have sometimes
occurred from an injudicious separation of the words of
the manuscript, from which the copy was taken : for, as
the ancient manuscripts had no division of words, it may

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 255
have happened that a copyist sometimes mistook the true
reading, and consequently united parts together which
ought to have been divided; or, on the other hand, intro
duced division where such division was inadmissible.
Fifth, finaUy, it may have happened sometimes, that a
copyist falsely judged that parallel passages, in which the
same thing is related, should correspond in every thing,
and, therefore, where he found any departure from this
perfect similarity, he would attribute this to the mistake
of some previous transcriber, and he would alter one of
the passages, to restore, as he thought, the correct reacUng.
Thus far for the causes which may have led to those
errors or sUght mistakes, that have crept into the text of
the Old Testament.
We proceed now to the consideration of the means
which criticism uses, for the purpose of cUscovering and
removing such mistakes. These means, as we observed
before, are either extrinsic or intrinsic. By extrinsic
means, we understand all such means as are distinct from
the consideration of the portion of text under cUscussion,
when viewed in itself or in relation to the context in
which it is found. These extrinsic means, when there is
question of the Hebrew text, are principaUy — First, the
paraUel passages. Second, the manuscripts and printed
editions of the Hebrew bible. Third, the Samaritan copy
of the pentateuch, and the Samaritan version of it.
Fourth, the ancient versions taken immecUately from the
Hebrew. Fifth, the quotations of the Hebrew text occur
ring in the New Testament, in the writings of the Jewish
historian Josephus, in the Talmud, and in the writings
of those fathers of the church who have referred to the
Hebrew text. Sixth, the marginal readings or keris,
which the Masora has preserved; and finaUy, the various
readings mentioned in the rabbinical writings.
Now, as to the value of these several means, we have

256 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
to observe — First, that parallel passages, that is, passages
in which the same thing is found to be repeated, tend
much to illustrate each other, as is obvious, and hence
they are available frequently for the purpose of cUscover
ing an incorrect reading, and of restoring the true one.
These passages are frequent in the Old Testament, where
we often find the same thing related in more than one of
the books — nay, sometimes, in several books. Indeed the
books of Kings and Paralipomenon may be said to con
sist respectively, to a great extent, of a parallel histoiy.
We must observe, however, that great caution is required
in the use of this critical source of emendation. Those
critics are not to be imitated, who appear to have thought,
that the sacred writers must have always related the
same event in the same words.
Second. — As for Hebrew manuscripts, they are not of
the same critical value for the correction of the Hebrew
text, as the Greek manuscripts are for the correction of
the New Testament. This is in consequence of the
Hebrew manuscripts being all modern. We have none
more ancient than the tenth century — none that are not
posterior to the correction of the Hebrew text by the
]\Iasoi-etic doctors. We have spoken in a previous disser
tation of Hebrew manuscripts. Of course, a manuscript
is of more critical value in proportion to its age; and
here, as well as in Greek manuscripts of the New Testa-
tament, critics have admitted a certain distinction of
famUies or classes, so that a reacUng must not be decided
upon, precisely by the number of manuscripts; because it
may be, that several of these are mere transcripts of some
one existing manuscript, and hence their combined testi
mony will not exceed the single testimony of their exem
plar. When, therefore, a Hebrew manuscript is adduced
in favour of some contested reading, we must first examine
its age. This will be known, sometimes from the date —

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 257
sometimes from the manuscript having been primitively
written without the masoretic points; from the words
being fidl, i, e, not wanting the quiescent letters, (for
merly the matres lectionis) performing the function of vow
els ti, il) 1> ^,' Critics also infer the antiquity of Hebrew
manuscripts from the rudeness of the character, and pale
ness of the ink; but as to these signs generaUy, great
caution is necessary to guard against being misled by
them. Of course, in proportion as more of them combine
in favour of any manuscript, there is less danger of de
ception. Again, when a manuscript is produced, we
ought to examine to what famUy it belongs, and if there
are many manuscripts adduced in favour of a reading, we
must see if they aU belong to one family, or if all the
families are represented by them. The Hebrew MSS.,
(as we have seen before, in our cUssertation upon them,
to which we refer,) are reduced to three classes or fami
lies. The first class are the manuscripts of the Spanish
Jews; the second class are the manuscripts of the Italian
and French Jews; and the third class are the manuscripts
of the German Jews. Richard Simon and many other
critics place the Spanish MSS. in the first rank — the
German in the last. Glafre (Introduction, tom, i,) puts
the German MSS, first. As to the printed editions of
the Hebrew text — in our dissertation on these, (which see)
we observed that there are but three primary editions,
viz., the Soncino edition of 1488, the edition in the com
plutensian polyglot, and Daniel Bomberg's second edition
— these being the basis of aU the others, are chiefly of
importance in the criticism of the bible.
Third. — Of the Samaritan text we have also treated
before. The circumstances in which it has been pre
served, give an independent character to its testimony,
which renders it of great value in the criticism of the
pentateuch. The Samaritan version of this text, which we
VOL. I. s

258 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
have also mentioned before, may be usefully consulted for
the purposes of criticism; as also the Arabic version
of the same, made by Abou-Said about the twelfth
century, although this last is far inferior in critical value
to the prececUng.
Fourth. — The ancient versions made immediately from
the Hebrew text, are of great and obvious use in the
criticism of that text. We have given the history of
these versions already. As they were made from manu
scripts much more ancient than any which we now have,
they stand at present in the place of these ancient manu
scripts. But before using them for the purposes of
criticism, we must examine carefully, whether the ver
sion may not have been altered at some time — ^we must
examine if the meaning of the version be clear, and
whether the cUfference between the version and our text,
might not be accounted for by supposing that the version
departed from the usual meaning of the word, rather than
that it found a different word in its manuscript. The
more ancient the version is, the greater wiU be its autho
rity (coeteris paribus) in the criticism of the text. The
versions of principal utility in criticism are, the septua
gint, the Chaldaic paraphrases, especiaUy those of Onkelos
and Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the Peschito-Syriac version,
the Latin vulgate, the versions of Aquila, and of Symma
chus, and of Theodotion — ^the fifth, sixth and seventh
Greek versions as they are called.
Fifth. — Criticism also avaUs itself, for the purpose of
correcting the text, of the quotations of the Hebrew text
found in the New Testament, in Josephus, in the works
of the fathers, and in the Talmud. However, in the
New Testament, as weU as in Josephus, the septuagint is
for the most part quoted. The quotations of the Hebrew
text found in the Talmud, must be used with great cir
cumspection, for, the authors of that work often cite from

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 259
memory. The Talmud is principaUy usefiU for its notices
of various readings, which had existed in the manuscripts
and which were changed or placed in the margin by the
scribes. As to the fathers, scarcely any of them quote
from the Hebrew, with the exception of Origen and St.
Jerome. It appears, however, that the other fathers cite
some passages of it, as it was found, in the Greek charac
ters, in the Hexapla of Origen. — See Glaire, Introduction
tom. i., p. 426.
Sixth. — The marginal readings, or keris, preserved by
the Masora, are also very important, as they represent to
us the readings of very ancient manuscripts, which are
often preferable to the readings inserted in the text.
FinaUy, the Rabbins who have come after the Masora,
can be profitably consulted, for, they remark upon several
readings which were found in manuscripts of ancient
times, that are now lost.
The intriusic means, to which biblical critics have had
recourse sometimes, for the support of the corrections
of the text which they suggested, are — ^first, the connec
tion of the discourse; second, the poetical paraUelism;
third, an acquaintance with the time, character, and style
of the author. There is no doubt that these means wiU
be of great use in assisting us to decide upon the relative
merits of reacUngs, upon which the extrinsic sources of
correction are divided; but it would appear that to alter
the text upon theU- guidance, unsupported by any ex
trinsic authority, would be in reaUty to change the text
with critical conjecture as the sole guide in doing so.
Now such a proceeding is inadmissible : for, although it
might be that an error has crept into the Hebrew text,
which no manuscript or printed edition, or version, or
coUection of various readings such as the Masora has
preserved, or quotation by an ancient author, would now
enable us to detect; yet it is better to leave things as

260 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM,
they are, than, by attempting too much in the way of
purifying the text, to introduce a principle of correction
which might lead to arbitrary changes.
We come now to treat of the rules which ought to be
followed in the application of the means, to which criti
cism can have recourse for the correction of the Hebrew
text. Since we do not admit the lawfulness of intro
ducing any change into the text, which has for its sole
support critical conjecture, hence our rules are only laid
down for the case, in which the extrinsic sources of criti-
cfsm are divided upon a certain reacUng, First, the
great and obvious rale, of course, in that case is, that
that reading should be preferred, which has in its favour
the more weighty testimony : and here, as "we observed
before, we are not to be guided by the mere number of
witnesses, but we must take into account their antiquity,
the care with which they have been preserved from cor
ruption in past ages, their independence of each other.
Second, — When the weighing of the extrinsic evidence
does not lead to a satisfactory clearing up of the doubt,
then we can have recourse to the intrinsic means of
judging of the soundness of a particular reacUng in pre
ference to another. Hence, in such a case, that reading
wUl appear preferable which agrees better with the scope
and style of the author, which unites better with the
context; which does not violate the laws of syntax, and
which, in the poetical books, preserves the parallelism.*
Third. — A reacUng which is found in all the Hebrew
MSS., ought not to be abandoned without necessity; for,
seeing that the Jews have watched with such great care over
their text, it foUows, tiiat the readings which are found
in aU their manuscripts have a very high authority.

* What is here meant by parallelism, will be fully explained in the following disser
tation on Biblical Itermeneutics.

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 261
However, if the Samaritan text and the ancient versions
should offer a contrary reading, this latter is to be pre
ferred, since it has in its favour witnesses that are more
ancient and more numerous. Hence, the unanimous
consent of all the Hebrew MSS. is not a rule to which
we must always make the versions conform, whatever the
Jews may say to the contrary, or those who, like them,
beUeve that the present Hebrew text is free from faidts
of every kind.
Fourth.- — A reading which violates syntax must not
be always rejected, since it may be that this anomalous
reading is an archaism, or a proverbial expression which
passing into common use among the people, is not always
strictly confi)rmable to the rules of syntax. It may also be,
that the sacred writer himself has sometimes not strictly
conformed to the syntax of the language in which he wrote
— a thing which happens sometimes to the best writers.
Fifth. — ^A reading more difficult and more obscure
ought to be sometimes preferred to the reading which is
more easy and more clear ; seeing that the more difficult
reading would not be likely to slip into the text with the
same facUity, as would a reading that presents an easy
and obvious sense — and experience, moreover, proves,
that copyists have sometimes not hesitated at introducing
slight changes in the text, for the purpose of removing
the obscurity of some passages. This is a fact which,
according to Glaire, the Samaritan pentateuch estabUshes
in more than one passage.
Sixth. — ^If necessity requires it, one may neglect the
Masoretic punctuation, and the division into chapters
and verses : he may even, ih such case, divide or unite
words otherwise than they are fotmd united or divided in
the present manuscripts; because, as all these divisions
did not exist in the ancient manuscripts, it may be that
the authors of them sometimes mistook the proper place

262 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
of making the division. But, let it be observed that the
necessity of which we speak here, must be of a weighty
character, proceeding, not from critical conjecture, but
for example, from the fact, that the ancient and respect
able versions, quotations by the fathers, &cc., are opposed
to the reading that is now found in the manuscripts
under cUscussion.
As to the criticism of the New Testament, It wUl be
seen at once, that many of the principles which we have
laid down in the preceding part of this dissertation, are
applicable to the criticism of the New Testament. Thus
the existence of mistakes in copies of the Greek text, is
to be accounted for by the same causes — mutatis niutan-
dis — as those to which we ascribed the introduction of
mistakes into the Hebrew text. The means also, which
criticism uses for the correction of these mistakes, are in
both cases similar. Hence, in the criticism of the Greek
text, we have recourse to the extrinsic means of correc
tion, which are — First, the manuscripts and editions of
the text. Second, the ancient versions. Third, the
quotations of this text, found in the works of the fathers
of the church. To these we add, fourthly, the Liturgical
books. Again, neither are the intrinsic means of judging
of the purity of the text, overlooked in the criticism of
the New Testament.
We have treated in a preceding part of this work, of
the manuscripts and editions of the Greek text. From
our observations in that place, may be learned the value,
which, in a critical point of view, ought to be attached
to the several manuscripts of the Greek text, and to the
different famUies of manuscripts, as compared one with
the other; and from these preceding observations, may
be also learned the relative critical value of the several
editions of the Greek text.
As for the ancient versions of the New Testament, the

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 263
critical value of these also, may be easily inferred from
the account which we have given of them in another
place. The citations of the New Testament in the works of
the fathers, and the other early ecclesiastical writers,
furnish another excellent means of judging of the relative
value of various readings; for, these early writers had
an opportunity of consulting MSS. much more ancient
than any which we now possess. In consulting, however,
these early writers for the true reacUng of the text, we
must remember, that they sometimes quote from memory,
giving the substance, but not the exact words of the
text; at the same time, accorcUng to the best critics,
it is but seldom, comparatively speaking, that the fathers
quote from memory. Again, if the works which we
consult, have been written in Syriac, we must remember,
that the scripture is there quoted according to the
Peschito Syriac version, and consequently, that it is to
the ancient state of this version that such works imme
cUately bear testimony. In like manner, should the
works have been written in Latin, the quotations will
directly and immecUately testify to the state of the
ancient Latin vulgate; unless in this case and the pre
cecUng one, the writer should declare, that he foUows the
Greek text in his quotation.
In t^e criticism of the New Testament, one can con
sult with profit the ancient liturgical books, wherein are
contained the Epistles and Gospels of the year. There
is also a large class of ancient MSS. containing merely
those portions of the New Testament, appointed to be
read on certain days in the church. These were caUed
in Greek avayvw^fiaTa — in Latin, Lectionaria, Those
MSS. which contained lessons from the four Gospels,
were caUed EvayyeXiov, (Evangdistaria,) whUe such
as were taken from the Acts and Epistles were deno-

264 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
minated aTro^oXos, or more correctly irpa^auo^oXoi.
These lectionaries have frequently, at the commencement
of their sections, certain explanatory phrases, by which
we learn who it is that speaks, or, who are they
to whom the words are addressed. Of course, these
phrases must be cautiously distinguished from the text.
With respect to this class of MSS. generaUy, it is ad
mitted, that they are not of the same authority as other
MSS. of the same date; because, the introduction of
explanatory sentences appeared to distinguish the lec-
tionary, in some way, from a regular transcript of the
sacred text, and hence it might happen, that a copyist
would not scrapie, sometimes, to change a word in his
lectionary. However, they are, unquestionably, of great
utility in the criticism of that portion of the text, which
they contain.
The intrinsic criteria of judging of the soundness of a
particiUar reading, are of the same kind, when we speak
of the New Testament, as those which we explained,
when treating of the criticism of the Old Testament.
We must observe, however, that we are not to expect
here that paraUelism in the construction of the sentences,
which is found in the poetical books of the Old Testa
ment, and which, as we observed before, furnishes one
of the intrinsic means of judging of the correctness of
certain readings in those books. This poetical parallel
ism is not to be looked for in the New Testament, all of
which, with the exception of a few canticles, is written
in prose. At the same time, we freely admit, that the
writers of the New Testament have, through their fami
liarity with the style of the Old, adopted a certain paral
lelism occasionally in the construction of their sentences:
and a like construction is discernible in the discourses
of our Redeemer,
It may be well to add a few words upon the rules, by

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, 265
which we are to be guided, in the use of these several
means of purifying the text of the New Testament, In
the first place, we must never alter the text, resting
solely upon the intrinsic means of judging of its purity.
This would be, in reality (as we explained, when treat
ing of the .Hebrew text,) to alter the text upon mere
critical conjecture. Now, if, as we showed before, the
Hebrew text must not be changed upon such a principle,
much less must the Greek text of the New Testament be
submitted to its operation, seeing that the materials of
criticism — in other words, the extrinsic means of judging
of the soundness of the text, are much more abundant
in the latter case, than in the former. As for the rest,
the rales, by which we are to be guided in giving a pre
ference to one reading above another, are quite analogous
to those which have been laid down for the Hebrew
text. The witnesses for a reading, must not be esti
mated altogether by their number, we must take into
account the character of the witnesses, their antiquity,
and independence when viewed in relation to each other.
Hence, the testimony of a small number of MSS,, which
is found to contain representatives of the several families,
or recensions of Greek MSS,, would outweigh the testimony
of many MSS,, aU of which would be manifestly tran
scripts, from some one exemplar appertaining to one of
the recensions.* Again, if we have the testimony of only
one father of the second or third century, assuring us
that a certain reacUng was found commonly in the MSS.
of his time, such a reading ought to be preferred ' to
that, which aU the actual MSS. of the Greek text would
exhibit. When treating of the criticism of the Hebrew text.

* See our obserrations in a preceding dissertation, upon the families, or recensions
of Greek MSS.

266 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
we remarked upon the modern character of the divisions
of that text; we must also remember when there is ques
tion of the criticism of the text of the New Testament,
that the division of that text into chapters and verses,
and even the division of words, as well as the divisions
by points and stops, and also the marking of the accents
— have none of them been the work of the sacred writers,
but were introduced long after their time. Hence, when
there is a good reason for departing from these divisions
in the reading of the text, we are at liberty to do so.
However, it is weU observed by Glaire, (Introduction,
tom, i,, Elemens de Critique Sacree) that when a passage
is dogmatical, and that a different punctuation would
change the sense, one ought to hold rigourously to the
actual division of the text, in the case in which that divi
sion has been sanctioned by the fathers and ancient ver
sions, or by the church in her liturgy. This observation
of Glaire's wUl apply also to the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament, Example, — The application of the rules of criticism,
which we have laid down, shall be made more intelligible
by an example. We select the following — In the received
text of the Greek testament, at the conclusion of the
Lord's prayer in the sixth chapter of St, Matthew's gospel,
we read the following words: oti sov cstiv r/ ^a^iXeia kui
rj dvva/j,K Kai rj io^a ei9 tov9 aiwvas — (For thine is the king
dom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.) Now, it is
asked do these words form a part of the sacred text? We
learn from Maldonatus, in his commentary upon Matthew
vi., 13, that, in his day, it was made a grievous charge
against the Catholic church by several of the Reformers,
that in Its version (for, the vulgate has not these words)
and in the prayers which It taught the people to say,
these words were omitted. Let us hear now what evi
dence can be produced in favour of their authenticity.

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 267
As extrinsic evidence is the great criterion by which one
is to judge in such matters, we begin with that. And it
would appear at first sight that the claim of this doxology
to be considered authentic, on the ground of extrinsic
evidence, is very strong. It has in its favour almost aU
the Greek manuscripts. It has, moreover, the Syrian
versions, both the Peschito and the PhUoxenian. It has
also for it, the Persian, Ethiopian, Armenian, Gothic and
Slavonic versions. Of the fathers, it has in its favour
St. Isidore of Pelusium, St. Chrysostom in some parts of
his works, Theophylact and some others. As for intrinsic
evidence, although this is but of slight importance in
bibUcal criticism, the passage under consideration has
none such to offer. For, it does not harmonize weU with
the context. On the contrary, its insertion gives rather
a harsh appearance to the reference which the Redeemer
makes from the fourteenth verse back to the twelfth.
Nor again, has it any support from parallelism : for, there
is no clause either going before it or foUowing it in the
context, whereof it could be considered the counterpart.
Now, against the authenticity of this doxology the
foUowing evidence can be adduced : — First, As we have
just now stated, the intrinsic evidence is unfavourable to
it. , Second, Extrinsic evidence is very far from being
altogether on the side of its authenticity. Of the very
ancient Greek manuscripts it has against it eight, includ
ing the Codex Vaticanus. There are other Greek manu
scripts in which it is marked as doubtful. It has no place
either in the ante-Hieronymian or Hieronymian vulgate.
It is wanting in some other versions. Many of the Greek
and all the Latin fathers are opposed to it. Moreover,
it militates greatly against the authenticity of this clause
that it should be wanting in St. Luke, where the Lord's
prayer is also recorded ; for, it is much easier to account
for its insertion in St, Matthew than it would be to

268 OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
account for its omission in St. Luke, if it were genuine.
No good reason could be assigned for its disappearing
from all the copies of St. Luke ; whereas, a most probable
explanation of its insertion in St. Matthew, can be ad
duced — It is the following. From what has been said, it
appears that the weight of testimony in its favour is
almost exclusively found in the Greek church. Now, it
was the custom of that church from a very early period,
to make frequent use of doxologies in the Uturgy. With
the Greek church commenced the practice, now so gen
eral, of adding the doxology Glory be to the Father, and to
the Son, and to the Holy Ghost at the end of the psalms.
And it was usual with St. Chrysostom and other Greek
preachers to add at the conclusion of their sermons ot« yot
e?T{ KpaTo<i Kui io^a Kai ^aaiXeia, or the like. It may well
be supposed, therefore, that these words in question got
into the text from the liturgy. They were first, in all
probability, written in the margin, from which they were
transferred into the gospel, through the mistakes of
copyists, who imagined that they made part of the text.
To conclude — the judgment of critics is decidecUy opposed
to the genuineness of this doxology in St, Matthew,
Bloomfield says — "With the exception of Matthaei, aU
the more eminent editors, from Erasmus and Grotius
down to Scholz, have rejected it," — Greek Testament with
English notes, vol, i,, p, 34, Notwithstanding the leaning
which Scholz had to the Byzantine or ConstantinopoUtan
family of manuscripts, which are favourable to the genu
ineness of this doxology, yet, after weighing the evidence
for and against, he subscribed to the judgment of those
critics who rejected the passage as spurious. He says —
" Egomet cum complut, Erasmo, Camerario, Grotio, Millio,
Bengelio, Wetsteinio, Griesbachio, eam ut spuriam rejeci."
Novum Testamentum Grsece — Textum recensuit Scholz,
vol. i,, p. 15, Having now arrived at the conclusion,

OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. 269
that the doxology in St. Matthew is spurious, and makes
no part of the Lord's prayer or of sacred scripture, we
may observe, that it must be very ancient, seeing that it
is found in a version of such acknowledged antiquity as
the Peschito-Syriac.

DISSERTATION XII.
OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.

CHAPTER I.
STATEMENT AND DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT. — HISTORY
OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
By hermeneutics is meant, as the name itself implies,
(ab epfxrjveveiv,) the art of interpretation, or it may be more
accurately described, as a practical science, by which rea
son is directed in discovering and expressing the sense of a
writing. Like any other practical science, then, herme
neutics lays down the rales by which its end, viz. the cUs-
covery and correct statement of the sense of a writing,
will be attained, and it demonstrates the fitness of these
rules, for attaining the end in question. Biblical herme
neutics, of which we treat, is nothing else than this
science applied to the interpretation of the bible; and,
therefore, it follows, from what has been already said,
that our subject in this cUssertation, divides itself into two
parts: — in the first of which, we shaU treat of the rules,
by which we are to be guided in cUscovering the mean
ing of the scripture; in the second, of the rules that are
to guide us in communicating the knowledge of that
meaning to others.
But first, it is desirable that we should say a few
words on the history of biblical interpretation, or herme
neutics. The learned Unterkircher very well remarks.

OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 271
(Seehis Hermeneutica Biblica Catholica, Oeniponte, 1846,)
that as very distinguished poets have flourished, before
the theory of poetry was committed to writing, so the
interpretation of the sacred scriptui-es was a long time
cultivated, before any one thought of collecting together
the rules of interpretation. In reaUty, from the very
time that the scripture was first given to the people of
God, provision was made for its interpretation: it be
longed to the priests and prophets of the old law, and to
aU who were charged with the instruction of the people
then, to attend to the interpretation of the sacred writ
ings; and when, after the captivity, the use of the
Hebrew language began to cUsappear among the Jews,
then the province of interpreter became moreover neces
sary, for the purpose of making known the contents of
the sacred volume, in a language inteUigible to the
people. In the time of Christ and the apostles, we
frequently hear of scribes and doctors of the law — ypa/j^
fULTeis, vofiiKoi — among whose duties it was not the
least to explain the scripture to the people in the syna
gogues; and this explanation was not confined to the
books of the law, but extended to the other books, as
we learn from St. Luke, iv. 16, and foUowing verses.
Many of the Jewish interpreters of that period deserved
censure, both on account of misapprehending, through
prejudice and negligence, the meaning of the oracles
regarding the Messias, and on account of corrupting the
sense of the scripture by vain human tracUtions, as we
learn from the severe manner in which our Redeemer
reprehends them in the Gospel. Among Christians,
from the earUest times, to the reading of the scripture
in the church, was joined the explanation of what was
read, or exhortation derived from it; and wherever
the language in which the scriptures were found, was
not understood by the people, translation, of course.

272 OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
became the first duty of the interpreter. Several of these
explanations of scripture, or instructions derived there
from, have come down to us in the works of the fathers,
from which we learn that the fathers seldom, compara
tively speaking, occupied themselves with the literal sense
of the scripture, either in their commentaries or their
exhortations to the people. They dwelt either upon that
spiritual or mystical sense of the sacred oracles, of which
we shall speak in the sequel, or they enlarged upon some
practical duty suggested by the sacred text, as is still
usuaUy done in sermons to the people. However, in their
controversies with the heretics, they explained well the
literal sense of the text, in conformity with the laws of
interpretation, to which they sometimes appeal expressly,
mentioning at one time, one law of interpretation, at
another time, another, as occasion may demand. Among
the ancient fathers whose works have come down to us,
St. Chrysostom and St. Jerome are the most distinguished
for the literal interpretation of the scripture. The
former, profoundly skilled in the Greek tongue, has ex
plained a great part of the bible in his homilies to the
people, in which he chiefly dweUs upon the literal sense.
These are particularly useful on the New Testament, on
account of the author's intimate acquaintance with the
original language of that part of the bible. St. Jerome,
profouncUy learned in the Hebrew and Greek languages,
besides translating so much of the Old Testament into
Latin, and correcting the New by the original Greek,
has, moreover, illustrated a great part of both, by com
mentaries, in which the literal sense is well brought out.
Contemporary with these, St. Augustine was the first
who, as far as we know, composed a book expressly on
the rules of interpreting the sacred scripture. This he
has done in his four books De Doctrina Christiana, In
the first chapter of the first book, he states in these few

OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 273
words what is required, to constitute perfectly the cha
racter of the interpreter. " Duse sunt res, quibus nititur
omnis tractatus scripturarum: modus inveniendi, quae
intdligenda sunt, et modus proferendi, quad intellecta sunt."
" There are two things upon which is based aU explanation
of the scripture; the manner of discovering that which is
to be understood, and the manner of expressing that which
is understood." These books, however, treat of some
things, which, according to the modern division, of the
matters appertaining to biblical study, do not belong to
hermeneutics; and we find, that St. Augustine, in his
own commentaries on the scripture, was not so much
concerned about evolving the literal sense, in conformity
with the rules, as about placing before his readers the
mystical sense, and occasionaUy allegorical expositions of
the text, the nature of which we shall explain in the
course of this cUssertation. Hence, the commentaries
of St. Chrysostom and St. Jerome, are found to be more
useful to the interpreter of scripture, than those of St.
Augustine. In the sixth century, some works apper
taining to this department — of hermeneutics — appeared,
viz. in the early part of that century T^iaaywyy/ a? ra?
Betas ypacfjas, by Adrian; second, two books of Juni-
Uus, De partibus Divince legis, ad Primasium, about the
year 550; and third, Aurelius Cassiodorus' book, De In-
stitutione Divinarum Literarum, anno 563. These works,
however, did not treat the subject with that fulness, that
would be desirable. For a considerable time after this,
we do not find that a regular treatise of hermeneutics
was composed; yet, during that period, the pastors and
teachers of the church were not wanting to their duty
of instructing the people from the sacred oracles; whilst
the scholastics, by the manner in which they have treated
the scriptural arguments, in their works, show them
selves to have been well acquainted with the sound
VOL. I. T

274 OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS,
principles of scriptural interpretation to which they
occasionaUy refer, more particularly St. Thomas of
Aquin, A great impulse was given to hermeneutical studies,
when, in the year' 1311, the Council of Vienne ordered,
that in the universities there should be appointed teachers
of the oriental languages, Hebrew, Chaldaic and Arabic,
These studies were further promoted, when, in the
year 1453, the occupation of Constantinople by the
Turks, drove many learned Greeks to seek a refuge in
Italy, and when the invention of printing rendered books
more numerous and cheaper. It is well observed by
Unterkircher, that so far from the so-called Reformers
having revived biblical studies, on the contrary, the
commotion, both civil and religious, which marked that
unfortunate epoch — of the Reformation — greatly retarded
them. The work which may be justly styled the grand
introduction to biblical studies in their present form,
that is, the complutensian polyglot, published through
the munificent patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, made its
appearance in the year 1517, towards the conclusion of
which year Luther commenced the Reformation,
No doubt, the Reformers, or Protestants as they are
called, did not neglect the study of the scripture; but
before we award them praise on this head, we must
consider the motives which led them to this study, and
how they have succeeded in it. It was the great prin
ciple of the Protestant system, that the whole Christian
doctrine was to be sought for in the scripture alone,
and there to be learned by each Christian, without
regard to the authority of the church, A principle so
well calculated to lead to dissension, soon produced the
fruit, which was to be expected from it. In the course
of a short time the Reformers were found to differ widely,
among themselves, about the meaning of the scripture.

OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 275
As they cUd not admit any external authority which
could settle these disputes, it was incumbent on each
party to labour to establish such rules of interpretation,
or such a system of hermeneutics, as would warrant the
views which that party adopted, in the controversy
regarding the meaning of the scripture. We see by
this, how Protestants were impeUed to this study by
their principles; and we see, at the same time, how un
likely it was, that Protestants holcUng such principles,
would ever agree upon any fixed system of hermeneutics.
And, in reality, it has so happened, that Protestants
have not yet agreed upon any fixed system of herme
neutics, nor are they at aU likely to so agree at any
future time. To say a few words now on their actual
variations on this head: — early in the Reformation, the
Sacramentarians, that they might have some appearance
of reason for rejecting the eucharist ' and other sacra
ments, were forced to interpret, in a tropical, or figui-a-
tive sense, the words of Christ, which up to that time
all Christians had understood in their proper and literal
sense. By this proceeding, a new rule of interpretation
was virtuaUy introduced, viz. that a statement of scrip
ture, no matter how clear and precise, might be diverted
by the interpreter from its proper and literal sense, to a
figurative one, on the sole ground of its appearing too
incomprehensible to human reason. The first Reformers,
indeed, did not foUow, in every instance, the rale which
they themselves had introduced; satisfied with applying
it, in some instances, which they thought " would annoy
the papacy most," they refused to adhere to it in others.
The Socinians, however, more consistent, embraced the
rule most corcUally, and carried it out to all its con
sequences. Soon, original sin, the consubstantiality of
the Word, the procession of the Holy Ghost, the mystery
of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the satisfaction of

276 OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS.
Christ, were attacked, and could not be defended in the
principles of the Reformation. But the evil did not
stop here; the fundamental principle of the Reformers,
was to be still further carried out, and a more liberal
system of hermeneutics to be introduced. — See Glaire, In
troduc, tom. i., p. 535, &c. Down to the middle of the
eighteenth century, the inspiration of the scripture had
been respected; but at this period Tcelner and Semler
attacked this dogma, and with so much success, that
it is now easy to count, upon the Continent, those Pro
testants who still adhere to the ancient belief It is
from the time at which this error commenced, that we
are properly to date the origin of what is termed the
new exegesis. The principles admitted by the early Pro
testants — that the scripture of the Old and the New
Testament was the word of God — that it could contain no
error or contradiction — that it ought to be explained by
itself — these principles were banished from the new ex
egesis. Baver, in his hermeneutics of the Old Testa
ment, and Hammon, in his remarks on the hermeneutics
of the New, regarded these principles as fruitful sources
of errors, and the greatest obstacles to the understand
ing of the scriptures. After having thus denied the in
spiration of the sacred writers, they have gone stUl
farther, and denied that any revelation is contained in
the scripture, or that it is divine in any other sense,
except inasmuch as it contains moral and religious
truths, and that it establishes ideas of God, and of crea
tion, more pure, and more natural, than those which are
to be found in the books of other peoples. As, however,
this doctrine of the new interpreters could not be sus
tained, if the miracles and prophecies, contained in the
scripture, were admitted, these were to be explained
away by any means. The prophecies, according to these
doctors, are either vague predictions of a more happy

OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS. 277
state — of a new golden age, such as are to be found in
the profane poets — or, if they regard particular events,
they contend that they were founded on a mere con
jectural knowledge; and where they think that this
explanation will not satisfy, they rcsuncUy deny, that
the prophecy preceded the event, to which it refers.
As to miracles, these, they teU us, are but natural facts,
which the credulity of Jews or Christians, or the igno
rance of the apostles, transformed into miracles — of these
facts, the new exegesis, if we believe these doctors, fur
nishes the proper explanation. But we shaU not detaU
the absurd impiety, with which they labour to remove
from each miracle, recorded in scripture, every vestige
of the supernatural. In this unholy work, have such
commentators as Hammon, Thiess, Gabler, Flugge, Ec-
kermann, Paulus, and a host of others, occupied them
selves. One idea of these Rationalists, has rendered
vast service to them, in thefr efforts to eliminate every
thing supernatural from the scripture-narratives. They
suppose that several histories in the scripture, such as the
history of the creation, of the terrestrial paradise, of the
faU of the first man, of the deluge, c&c, are to be explained
like the mythology of the pagan authors. Hence, they
have not been ashamed to teach, that these histories
turn no more upon realities, than do the metamorphoses
of Ovid. No doubt, other Protestant commentators on
the Continent, who are called, for distinction sake,
Supernaturalists, have opposed themselves to these ra
tionalistic views. But their opposition has not been
attended with much success, because, in quality of Pro
testants, they are obliged to admit the principle estab
Ushed by Luther, that it is the right of every Christian to
interpret the scripture for himself: behind this funda
mental principle of the Reformation, the Rationalists
have always intrenched themselves. Hence, it is only

278 OF BIBILICAL HERMENEUTICS.
the true Catholic doctrine, on the interpretation of the
scripture, which at once successfully combats the false
principles and false views, both of the first Reformers and
of the Rationalists. Whilst on this subject, we admit, that
several of these Protestant commentators, both Rationalist
and Supematuralist, have exhibited great learning in
the illustration of the references to natural history,
geography, ancient customs, and such like matters con
tained in the scriptures. But to acquire the knowledge
of such things from their works, would be to purchase
it too dearly, viz. at the expense of having our feelings
constantly shocked by the doctrinal views put forward
in their writings; and, fortunately, it is not necessary
for us to seek this information at so muddy a source,
seeing with what care Catholic hermeneutics, or the true
system of interpretation, has been cultivated. As Unter
kircher remarks, (Hermeneutica Biblica Catholica, p, 37,)
in the century in which the Reformation broke out,
several Catholic writers explained the sound principles
of hermeneutics, as an antidote against the false prin
ciples advocated by the Protestants, Among these stands
pre-eminent Sixtus Senensis, author of the Bibliotheca
Sancta, whose work, entitled " Ars Interpretandi Scrip
turas Sacras Absolutissima," a^'peared at Venice, in 1566,
In recent times, when hermeneutics have been treated
with more precision, as a distinct part of the introduc
tion to the study of scripture, several Catholic works
have appeared upon the subject, among which we only
refer here to a few: — First, Hermanni Goldhagen, Intro
ductio in S. Scripturam. Mogunt. 1765, Second, Her
manni Janssens Hermeneutica, Leodii, 1818. Third,
Vincentii Reichel, Introductio in Hermeneuticam Biblicam,
Viennse, 1839. Fourth, Glaire, Introduction. , .aux livres
de r ancien et du Nouveau Testament, Paris, 1839,
tom. i. Fifth, Hermeneutica Biblica Catholica, edita

OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE. 279
a Casparo Unterkircher, Oeniponte, 1846. Sixth, F. X.
Patritii, De Interpretatione Scripturarum Sacrarum, Ubri
duo, Romae, 1844. After this brief historical notice, we
shaU now proceed to point out the helps with which, the
science of hermeneutics fiirnishes us, both for discovering
and for expressing, the meaning of the inspired writers:
and, in this discussion, we trust that a sufficient refutation
will be found of the false principles of hermeneutics, to
which we have more than once referred, in the preceding
part of this chapter.

CHAPTER II.
OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE.
First, then — On the means with which the science of
hermeneutics furnishes us for discovering the sense of
scripture. As a preliminary to this part of our subject, we must
say something of the various senses which may be rightly
attributed to the scripture. And here, in the very out
set, we must guard against a confusion of ideas, which
might arise from mistaking the meaning of the expression
literal sense of scripture. The danger of confusion pro
ceeds from this — that the phrase literal sense of scripture
admits of two different meanings, which must be carefuUy
distinguished from each other. The literal sense of scrip
ture, as it is contradistinguished from the spiritual or
mystical sense, is not the same with the literal sense of
scripture as contradistinguished from the figurative or
tropical sense. Literal sense, in this latter acceptation,
is termed by some the grammatical sense; others give
it a different name. But, attention to the following

280 OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE
explanation will guard us against any confusion of ideas
respecting this matter. The literal sense of the scripture,
as distinguished from the mystical or spiritual sense, is
that sense which the speaker or writer intends proximately
and directly to convey. Now the sense, which the speaker
or writer intends proximately and directly to convey,
will be often based upon a tropical or figurative accepta
tion of the words which he uses. On the other hand,
the literal sense of the scripture, as distinguished from
the figurative or tropical sense, is the sense which the
words in their proximate usual meaning would convey.
From this statement we perceive at once, that, when the
language of the speaker or writer is not tropical, then —
and only then, are these two literal senses identified, AU
this shall become more clear by an example. Take the
words of the Baptist, used by him in pointing out our
Divine Redeemer — " Behold the Lamb of God," — John, i,
29, The literal sense of these words, as distinguished
from any mystical sense which they might have, is that
sense which the Baptist intended proximately and directly
to convey to those who heard him : yet this sense is based
upon a tropical use of the word lamb. If the Baptist
had been understood to use these words in that literal
sense which would exclude the use of any trope or figure,
then he would have been understood to point to some real
lamb. Again, when we contend that the prophecies re
specting the glory of Solomon's reign, have a higher sense
than the literal sense — there we take literal sense, as dis
tinguished from the mystical sense of these prophecies
which is verified in Christ — the mystical Solomon, But
when we contend, against the Sacramentarians, that the
words of the institution of the Eucharist — " This is my
body" — are to be taken in their literal sense, there we
take literal sense as distinguished from tropical or figura
tive sense. Having now explained the twofold meaning

OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE. 281
of the expression literal sense of scripture, we have only
to add that throughout this dissertation we always use
the expression literal sense, as it is distinguished from
mystical or spiritual sense, unless where the reader is
expressly warned that such is not our meaning. If the
scripture were a mere human composition, there would
be no question of any sense besides the Uteral, But, as
St. Thomas says — " Auctor scripturse sacrae est Deus, in
cujus potestate est, ut non solum voces ad significandum
accommodet, sed etiam res ipsas — lUa ergo prima signifi-
catio, qua voces significant res, pertinet ad primum
sensum, qui est sensus historicus vel literalis. lUa vero
significatio, qua res significatae per voces, iterum res alias
significant, cUcitur sensus spiritualis, qui super literalem
fundatur, eumque supponit," — that is, " The author of the
sacred scripture is God, in whose power it is, not only to
accommodate words to signify things, but also to make the
things themselves significative. That first signification,
therefore, by which the words signify things, belongs to
the first (or primary^ sense, which is historical or literal.
But that signification, by which the things signified by
the words, again signify other things, is called the spiri
tual sense, which is founded upon, and supposes, the Uteral
sense." — Summae, p. i., q. 1, art. 10. That, besides the
literal sense, this second sense, denominated by St.
Thomas the spiritual, is to be admitted in the scripture,
is manifest from the New Testament itself, where this
spiritual sense of the Old, is frequently adduced. — See
St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, and other parts of the
New Testament.
We lay it down, in the first place, that all parts of the
scripture have a literal sense, and consequently, even
those parts which have a spiritual sense : in reaUty, this
must be immecUately admitted, seeing, as St. Thomas
accurately observes, in the passage which we have already

282 OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE.
quoted from his sum, that the spiritual sense is founded
upon the literal. — See Patrizi, de Interpretatione Scrip,
tom. i., p. 9,
Another question, however, there is, which is much
disputed among interpreters of the scripture, viz,, whether
any passage of scripture has more than one literal sense,
Estius, in one of his Orationes Theologicoe, — the 19 th,
which is on this point, informs us, that before his time,
this question had not been treated ex professo by any
one. He says, that he himself was inclined rather to
deny that the scripture had in any place more than one
literal sense; although he admits that almost aU the
theologians and interpreters up to the time at which he
spoke, in 1612, wherever they touched upon the matter,
admitted that the same place of scripture might have
more than one literal sense. In holding to this assertion —
he informs us — that they were greatly influenced by the
authority of St, Augustine and St, Thomas, who were
considered by them to have held this opinion. So general,
indeed, was the opinion in favour of more than one
literal sense in parts of the scripture, before the time of
Estius, that he informs us in this same discourse, that
Dominick Bannes declared it to be rash to reject it.
However, since the days of Estius, numerous and learned
interpreters have not hesitated to lean to the other
opinion : among recent writers may be mentioned Glaire,
Unterkircher, Patrizi, This question is treated most
profoundly by the learned professor of scripture and
oriental languages, in the university of Louvain, John
Theodore Beelen, who has, in fact, exhausted the subject.
For our own part, as the limits of this chapter will not
allow us to dwell longer on this point, we have no hesi
tation in subscribing to the conclusion of Professor
Beelen, who thus writes in the proemium of his Disser
tatio Theologica on this subject, printed at Louvain, in

OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE, 283
1845 : " Istius autem inquisitionis exitus is fiiit, ut nunc
mihi certissimum sit, non esse uUo sat firmo argumento
hactenus probatum, unius ejusdemque scripturse loci lit-
terales sensus plures quam unum alicubi esse agnoscen-
dos." " The result of this inqiUry has been, that it is
now to me most certain, that no argument has yet been
advanced, sufficiently strong to prove, that one and the
same passage of scripture has anywhere more than one
literal sense." So far for the literal sense.
We come now to the spiritual or mystical sense, by
which we understand that more profound sense which
lies concealed under some type, which type is manifested
by the Uteral sense. We must admit, as it has been
already observed, that this mystical sense is to be found
in divers parts of the scripture. The ancients subdivided
this sense into the allegorical, the tropological (or moral),
and the anagogical; hence, these well known verses:
" Littera gesta docet, quid credas AUegoria;
Moralis quid agas; quo tendas Anagogia,"
We see by these words, as weU as by the explanations
appended to them by the ancient expositors, that the
allegorical sense meant that mystical sense, which has
reference to the church upon earth — or, in other words,
to faith, which after this life is changed into vision.
The tropological refers to moral conduct — the anagogical
refers to the church in its glorious state — that is in
heaven: but, we shaU not embarrass the matter of which
we treat by attending to this subcUvision, but we shaU
simply speak of the mystical sense, which includes the
three. It has been asked, whether or not aU the scripture has,
besides its literal sense, a spiritual or mystical sense also:
upon which point some have embraced an extreme
opinion, asserting that all parts of scripture have such a

284 OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE.
sense — these are called figurists. Their opinion is
refuted, by considering the very nature of the mystical
sense — for, as it is well said by St. Thomas, in the words
already quoted from his sum, " That signification, by
which the things signified by the words, again signify
other things, is caUed the spiritual sense, which is
founded upon, and supposes the literal sense." According
to this most correct notion of the mystical sense, we see
that it is only in those parts of scripture where that
which is expressed according to the literal sense, is a
type of something else, that the mystical sense is found.
Hence we perceive at once, as Professor Patrizi observes,
that all those parts of the New Testament, Avhich according
to the literal sense regard the church after its complete
introduction on the day of Pentecost, have no mystical
sense, because what is said literally of the church from
that time forward, is not typical of future things. Hence
it would be vain to seek for the mystical sense, for
example, of the Epistles of St. Paul, It is, moreover,
the common doctrine of interpreters, that that is an
extreme and unfounded opinion, which holds that the
entire of the Old Testament has a mystical sense; because,
although the Old Testament was typical of the New;
and, hence we are justified in inferring, that its rites and
sacrifices, and that various ordinances of the old law,
pointed, in their mystical signification, to certain things
in the new law; it by no means follows, that we are to
admit a mystical sense in the entire scripture of the Old
Testament, It is going to an opposite extreme, on the
other hand, to contend, that there is no mystical sense to
be admitted in the scripture of the Old Testament, unless
in those passages which are quoted in a mystical sense
in the New. The defenders of this opinion are called
anti-figurists. We justly term this opinion extreme and
unreasonable; because, seeing the manifest connexion.

OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE. 285
which exists between the Old and the New Testament,
as between type and anti-type, it appears quite unreason
able to suppose, that all the mystical references to the
New Testament, that are contained in the scripture of
the Old, • are to be found in that comparatively smaU
number of quotations above referred to.
As to the question regarding the use of the mystical
sense in theological arguments, there is no doubt, but
the mystical sense supplies a solid argument: hence we
find, that Christ and the apostles, in the New Testament,
have argued from it. Again, since the mystical sense,
wherever it is found, must have the Holy Ghost for its
author, as well as the literal sense, it is not lawful to
question the soUdity of the argument which is based
upon it. However, in practice, theological arguments
must be principally drawn from the literal sense of the
scripture. For, it is only when the mystical sense is
certain, that a conclusive argument can be taken from it.
Now this sense is indeed certain, when the scripture
itself points it out; as happens in those texts of the Old
Testament, which are quoted in the mystical sense in the
New. In other places it is not easy to arrive with
certainty at this sense; and, if the adversary should caU
in question the existence of such a sense, in any parti
cular passage, we cannot convince him of its existence
by the same hermeneutical means, which enable us to
demonstrate the literal sense of the passage. However,
in its proper place we wUl not omit to point out the
means, by which the commentator is enabled to perceive
this mystical sense. For the present we shaU conclude
this point with the observation of a learned CathoUc
theologian — Molina — "that, although each of those
spiritual senses, where they are not so certain, wiU
fiirnish only a probable argument, for the confirmation of
the faith, yet, that the harmony of so many figures of

286 OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE.
the Old Testament, by which the things of the New have
been so vividly delineated and expressed, supplies an
argument of no slight importance for confirming the
faith, and one which can be used even against the
infidds." We come now to say a few words of the Accommoda-
tiones Scripturce and Allegoremata ; in other words, appli
cations of scripture texts, or passages, to subjects of which
the scripture, in those places, does not treat, either in its
literal or mystical sense; and Allegorizing interpretations
of scripture. The first of these, that is, the application of
the scripture to something, of which there is not question in
the passage quoted, either in the literal or mystical sense of
that passage, is called by some the sense by accommoda
tion — sensus accommodatus or accommodatitius ; but im
properly, inasmuch as it is not the sense of the scripture
at all. The nature of this application of scripture requires
not many words to explain it. It is that to which
preachers constantly have recourse in their sermons; and
such application is not only allowable, but highly useful
and edifying, when kept within its proper limits. There
are two ways, in which this adaptation of the words or
sentences of scripture may be made. One, by extending
the signification of the word or passage, to some matter
like to that of which the scripture there speaks; as, for
example, if one should excuse his fault, by saying, in the
words of Eve, "The serpent deceived me;" — Gen. iii. 13
— or, if one should bewail his loss of sight, by saying,
with Tobias, " What joy shall I have, who sit in dark
ness, and see not the light of heaven ?" — Tobias, \, 12.
The other way of making this adaptation of the scripture
is, when, by the words of the scripture, we convey an
allusion to some subject quite different from, or unlike
to that of which the scripture that is quoted really
treats; as, for example, if one, by quoting the words of

OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE. 287
the Psalm (xvii. 27,) " With the holy man thou shalt be
holy;" intended to point out the beneficial effects. of good
company; whereas, the Psalmist really addresses these
words to God; and their true sense is, that with the good
and merciful man, God wUl show himself kind and mer
ciful. It is obvious that, of these two modes of applying
the scripture, the first is much to be preferred. In fact,
the second mode cannot be used without the greatest
caution, and never without some reasonable foundation
for the aUusion; as otherwise, the application of the text
would be absurd, and consequently irreverent towards
the scripture.
It is asked, whether or not the inspired writers have
ever quoted the scripture in this way of adaptation, or,
per accommodationem. Some interpreters of scripture
deny that the scripture is ever thus quoted by an in
spired writer; they say that the quotation is always
adduced, either in the literal or mystical sense of the
passage cited : however, several learned and orthodox
commentators have no (Ufficulty in admitting, that the
writers of the New Testament sometimes quoted from
the Old in this manner — per accommodationem. Thus,
many say that what Moses said of Legal justice in Deu
teronomy (c. xxx.) is adapted by St. Paul to Evangelical
justice. — Romans, x. 6, and following verses. They
produce, also, some other instances of this manner of
quoting the Old Testament in the New. But these
interpreters justly observe, that this manner of quoting
is very rare in the scripture, and that the form of citing,
on these occasions, is never such as would imply that the
passage is adduced in its real signification. Hence, we
must not admit that the scripture is merely cited for the
purpose of adaptation, when the sacred writer introduces
the quotation by such words as. Thus God says, or. The
scripture says, or. In order that the scripture might be

288 OF THE VARIOUS SENSES OF SCRIPTURE.
fulfilled, because the sacred writer, by saying any of
these things of the words cited, gives us to understand
that he adduces the passage, in the sense which really
belongs to it in that place from which he quoted it.
Again, if the object of the sacred writer, in the place
where the quotation is introduced, is to confirm some
truth of faith, we may conclude that the words are not
quoted in that adapted sense of which we speak; seeing
that it must be the real sense of the text that is adduced,
when there is question of proving anything by scripture.
By an allegorizing interpretation of scripture is under
stood, the attributing to anything related in scripture a
certain symbolical signification, which, that it was really
intended by the Holy Ghost — the author of the scripture
— no sufficient reason induces us to think. For exam
ple, if what is said in Leviticus (xiii,) about avoiding
the society of those infected with leprosy, one would
explain as symbolically signifying, that the society of
heretics was to be avoided. Several of the ancient
fathers have been much given to this manner of explain
ing scripture, and in their hands it has been attended
with great edification to the faithful. Doubtless, it re
quires to be used with great caution, and it must not be
confounded with the allegorical sense of scripture ; al
though these allegorizing interpretations of scripture are
sometimes improperly caUed the allegorical sense. The
allegorical sense, we have seen already, is one of the sub
divisions of the mystical or spiritual sense of scripture,
which, wherever it exists in the scripture, was as truly
intended by God — the author of the . sacred records — as
the literal sense ; whereas, these aUegorizing interpreta
tions are not put forward as being in reality the sense
of the scripture at all, but as mere adaptations of the
scripture-narrative, in a symbolical manner.
Having said so much of ihe senses of the scripture

OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA, ETC. 289
both real and adapted, it remains to say a few words of
that sense which it has been in these latter times so
much the fashion among the Rationalists of Germany
falsely to ascribe to the scripture. We refer to what
they call the mythical sense, sensus mythicus. The fivBos
is an aUegorical fable, invented to explain the existence
of some fact, or to convey some moral. The metamor
phoses of Ovid may be referred to, as examples of the
jjLvOoi. Now, the Rationalists contend that the scrip
ture contains these nvdoi or myths ; and they say,
moreover, that what has happened to other peoples with
respect to their ancient books, has happened to Jews and
Christians respecting the scripture, viz., that in progress
of time, these fivBoi, have been themselves mistaken for
facts ! ! ! Of course, it is unnecessary to observe, that it
is a glaring impiety to attribute any such sense as this
to the Word of God. But we shaU have more to say of
these men before concluding this cUssertation.

CHAPTER III.
OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERLA. OF THE LITER.VL SENSE
OF SCRIPTURE.
We proceed now to explain the hermeneutical helps by
which we are enabled to cUscover, the literal sense of the
scripture : afterwards we shaU add a few words on the
means of arriving at, the mystical sense.
The authority of the church is, of course, the chief
guide to the CathoUc, in the investigation of the sense
of the scripture. That this is most reasonable we shall
show hereafter, when about to conclude these observa
tions on the hermeneutical criteria. It is in consequence of
VOL, I, u

290 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
this principle, that Catholic biblical hermeneutics is not
a system of ever-vaiying rules, resulting in diversity of
opinion (or belief, if you so caU it) on the most important
matters contained in the scripture. At the same time,
in the Catholic church, none of the hermeneutical
criteria is by any means overlooked. It is only required
(and that most reasonably) that no one will, in conse
quence of his presumed acquaintance with any herme
neutical rule or rules, consider himself to be independent
of the church's guidance, in this matter of the investiga
tion of the sense of scripture.
We shall begin now with the consideration of that
hermeneutical criterion of the sense, which is termed the
usus loquendi, or usage of language. In order to
discover the meaning of any writer, we must learn the
sense of the words which he uses; and if we are
careful not to go astray in learning the sense of the
words, we must make ourselves acquainted with the
meaning which the people, among whom the language
prevailed, were accustomed to attach to these words.
We see then, at once, of Avhat importance it is to attend
to the usus loquendi, or the usage of language, prevailing
among the people to whom the language of the writer was
familiar. And since the usage of language is variable,
so that people who speak the same language as their
ancestors, do not always attach to words the same sense
which their ancestors attached to them, it becomes neces
sary, then, for one who wishes to understand a writer, to
make himself acquainted with the usage of language
which prevaUed at the time at which he wrote; since
it is to be presumed, that any one writing in a living
language, writes in such a way as to be understood by
the people of his own time. This usage of language
must be consulted, not only for the purpose of knowing
the literal or grammatical sense of words and phrases.

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OP SCRIPTURE. 291
but also for the purpose of learning their figurative or
tropical sense. Since, on the same obvious principle,
that an author who writes in a living language, writes
with a view to be understoood by those who speak that
language, we infer that he cannot be supposed to use
words or phrases in such a figurative sense, as the
usage of the people, among whom the language prevaUed,
never attached to them. We see now how important it
is to the interpreter of scripture, to make himself
acquainted with the biblical usage of language — in other
words, with the usage of language as regards the original
languages of the sacred records. The original language
of much the greater part of the Old Testament, is
Hebrew; Chaldaic is the original of a part of it, and
Greek of another part. In the New Testament, the
original language is Greek, if we except the Gospel of
St. Matthew, and, according to some, the Epistle of
St, Paul to the Hebrews, which, they say, was written,
like St, Matthew's Gospel, in Syro-Chaldaic, or that
Aramean dialect of the Chaldaic, which was spoken in
Palestine in the time of the apostles.
First, then, with respect to the usage of the Hebrew
language — since, in truth, the only ancient Hebrew book
which we have, is the Bible itself — it foUows, that the
great help which we now have towards acquiring a
knowledge of the Hebrew usage of language, is the
attentive perusal of the whole Hebrew scripture. By
means of this, we are enabled to compare one part with
another ; and thus to bring to the examination of pas
sages, when the signification of certain words is doubtfid,
that Ught which is afforded by other passages, where the
signification of the same words is clearly manifested.
Another great help which we have towards discovering
the usage of the Hebrew language, is the study of the
cognate dialects — Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic. Although

292 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
Chaldaic and Syriac approach more nearly to the Hebrew,
than Arabic does, yet this latter has this advantage, that
it is stiU the spoken language of a numerous people, and
that the books written in it are many.
Another help in the study of this usage of the Hebrew
language, is furnished by the ancient versions, particu
larly the septuagint. Of course, before undertaking to
discover, by the means laid down, the usage of the
Hebrew language, one ought to make himself well
acquainted with the Hebrew grammar, Hebrew gram
mars and lexicons have been made with the help, first,
of the traditional interpretation of the Hebrew scripture ;
secondly, with the help of the knowledge of the cognate
dialects ; thirdly, with the help of ancient versions, that
is, the septuagint, Chaldaic paraphrases, and such other
ancient keys to the knowledge of the bible, or any parts
of it, as were known when Hebrew grammars and
lexicons were first constructed in that order, in which
we now find them.
As to the Chaldaic portions of the Old Testament, the
interpreter of scripture will make himself acquainted
with the usage of the language in which these are
written, in the like manner : first, by an attentive
perusal of all this part of the scripture ; secondly, by the
study of the Chaldaic paraphrases, which, although
written at a much later period than those portions of
the bible, will yet throw considerable Ught upon the
usus loquendi, or usage of the scripture Chaldaic ;
thircUy, by means of the cognate dialects and ancient
versions. As for the books of the Old Testament which were
originally written in Greek, whatever shall be said of
the nature and usus loquendi of the Greek of the New
Testament, will be applicable to them ; since, the biblical
Greek is all of the same kind. Coming then to the New

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 293
Testament, we may observe, in the first place, that, since
the original of that part of it, which was written in the
Syro-Chaldaic, has now cUsappeared, we need not dweU
on the investigation of the usage of that Syro-Chaldaic
dialect. At the same time, it is manifest that it wUl not
be without its utUity, even in the study of the other
scriptures, to make ourselves acquainted with this pecu
liar dialect, which was commonly spoken in the time of
Christ and his apostles, by the Jews of Jerusalem and
Palestine generally. We may learn it by the help of
ancient Jewish writings in this dialect, (such as the Tal
mud of Jerusalem, from which Lightfoot has drawn
several useful observations, tencUng to throw light on the
New Testament in various places,) and by the study of
the other Semitic dialects.
We come now to consider, how we are to learn the
usage of language in reference to that biblical Greek, in
which almost the whole of the New Testament, and a
portion of the Old, have been written. When Alexander
the Great, about three huncfred and thirty years before
Christ, established the Grecian monarchy over the east,
then it was, that Greek and GentUe became synonymous
among the Jews. Those Jews who Uved out of Pales
tine, in other parts of the Grecian monarchy, or of the
provinces into which it was divided after the death of
Alexander, were caUed Hellenist Jews ; the Jews of
Palestine retaining the name, for distinction sake, of
Hebrew Jews. These HeUenist Jews spoke the Greek
language as their vernacular tongue, but not with the
classic purity of the ancient Greeks. From these Jews,
that Greek, which was spoken in the east, under the
monarchy of Alexander the Great and afterwards, and in
which the Greek books of the bible were written, is
denominated Hellenistic Greek. Even in Greece itself,
the usage of the language had now undergone a change ;

294 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
words were introduced into common use, or ancient
words had meanings attached to them, which were seldom
or never to be met with in the ancient classics. But, the
Hellenistic biblical Greek admitted, moreover, some
words, and significations of other words, which were
derived from the Hebrew language and its dialects.
And in considering the usage of that biblical Greek lan
guage in which the books of the New Testament are
written, we must not forget that some words and phrases
must be taken in that sense, which is conformable to the
peculiar Christian use of the language. For, the Chris
tian religion partly introduced new ideas, and partly
elevated former ones to a greater perfection: it moreover
introduced new institutions in regard to sacred rites and
offices in the church, c&c. Now it was necessary that the
first Christians — and the authors, therefore, of the books of
the New Testament — should use new and peculiar forms of
speech, to express these new and peculiar notions. This
is what we here mean by the Christian use of language.
Well, then, in order to acquire a knowledge of
the usage of the language, as regards the Hellenistic
Greek, in which nearly all the New Testament, and a
portion of the Old, were written, we have various helps: —
First, The attentive perusal of the entire of this part
of the scripture. Second, The study of the septuagint
version of the Old Testament, which is written in Hel
lenistic Greek, Third, The fragments of the other Greek
versions, which were edited in Origen's Hexapla, i. e.
the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the
others. Fourth, The Apochryphal Greek books, both
of the Old and the New Testament, Fifth, The writings
of the Apostolic Fathers, Sixth, Since the sound know
ledge of classical Greek is so necessary a qualification
for interpreting any book, that is written properly in
the Greek tongue, it follows, as a matter of course, that

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 295
the interpreter of the New Testament cannot overlook the
study of the Greek classics. At the same time, the study
of such classic authors as approach nearer to the time of
the apostles, will be of special service, in making us
acquainted with the usage of the language in which these
sacred penmen wrote. The following authors, therefore,
may be read with peculiar advantage: Poly bins, Dio-
dorus Siculus, Arrianus, and Herodian. But outside of
the range of the early Christian writings, which have
for their direct object the interpretation of the scripture,
there are no authors who will be of such utility in this
matter, as Philo and Josephus, The time at which
these wrote — the people to which they belonged — their
acquaintance with the 'ancient scriptures — all these
circumstances combine to render their writings of the
greatest value, in illustrating the usage of the biblical
Greek language. From what has been observed before,
respecting the Hellenistic Greek, it is obvious, that a
knowledge of the Hebrew and its dialects, will be of
vast importance to the interpreter of the Greek scrip
tures. Finally, as to that Christian usage of lan
guage, of which we spoke, and the knowledge of which
is necessary, for the understanding of the Greek scrip
tures of the New Testament, this will be learned from
the early Christian writers — in the first place, from the
interpreters of the scriptures, and from the ancient
versions; then, from the writings of the Fathers, &g.
Having said so much now, of this important criterion
of the sense of scripture — the usage of language, we
must be permitted to observe, that its importance has
been overrated by several Protestant writers on herme
neutics, particularly on the Continent. In fact, if their
placits were admitted, it would follow, that in all the
difficulties to be met with in the interpretation of
the scripture, the supreme decision rests with the

296 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
grammarians. That their theory is unsound, is suf
ficiently manifest, from the results to which it has led:
first, interminable dissensions, about the application of
their rules : and, secondly, in many cases, the setting aside
of the obvious and natural sense, to make way for some
erudite conception of the grammarians, which yields but
a frigid sense, that, even at first sight, appears mani
festly foreign to the scope of the writer, and to the
whole context. No: we must cautiously guard ourselves
against supposing, that the grammarians are the su
preme arbiters in this matter of the sense of scripture.
The Catholic church, whilst it impresses upon those,
who are charged with the explanation of the scripture,
the importance of making themselves well acquainted with
this usage of language, wisely reminds them, at the same
time, that they are to use this help to the understanding
of scripture, with a due submission to that supreme
authority of the church, constituted for the purpose of
preserving the unity of faith among the members of
Christ's mystical body. We have said enough on this
point; but U our limits permitted it, we could show, more
over, that the adversaries, with whom we are here at
issue, have much overrated the helps, which the cognate
dialects furnish, towards the understanding of the Hebrew
usage of language; and since it is natural to suppose,
that the style of the writers of the New Testament, is
strongly characterised by a Hebrew turn of expression,
hence it foUows, that what is here said of the Hebrew
usage of language, is not without its appUcability to the
New Testament itself. Now, I am aware, that in the
beginning of the last century, Albert Schultens, and
many others, influenced by his opinions, appeared to think,
that the Arabic language, with the copious works written
in it, left nothing to be desired by any one, who wished
to be introduced to a perfect knowledge of the Hebrew

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 297
language and phraseology. Schultens' school, however, is,
in latter times, much diminished, and not without reason.
In reality, the Arabic is more removed from the Hebrew
icUom, than either the Syriac or Chaldaic; and not one
of these, nor all together, can be considered an infalUble
guide to the knowledge of the Hebrew usage of language:
First, Because the etymology of words, particularly
when the roots are to be foimd in a different language or
dialect, is far from being a safe guide to the knowledge
of the meaning, which usage gives to the derivatives.
This every one, who has devoted ever so little time to
the comparative study of languages, must know full
weU. SeconcUy, Because, all these dialects have under
gone important changes, since the time when the Hebrew
was a living language. Now, it is evident, that, ac
cording to the extent of these changes, to the same
extent wiU these dialects become less useful to us, in
our search after the Hebrew usage of language, which
was contemporary with the authors of the Hebrew books.
We can trace these changes in Chaldaic; — first, in the
difference between the ancient Chaldaic, in which, por
tions of the scripture are written, and the earliest of the
Chaldaic paraphrases; and again, in the difference of
style and language between the early paraphrases, and
those of a later date. With respect to all these dialects,
Chaldaic, Syriac, and that peculiar dialect, which was
spoken in Judea in the time of our Redeemer, and which
may be looked upon as a kind of compound of these
two, and hence it is often styled Syro-Chaldaic, other
wise Aramean — as to all these, I say, the monuments
of them which exist, aU bear testimony to that progres
sive change. All these, it may be said, have long since
ceased to be living languages. Hence, in this matter,
the great stress is laid upon the Arabic, on account of
its copiousness, the many works written in it, and the

298 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
fact, that it is stiU the spoken language of a numerous
people. But neither has the Arabic been exempt from
the vicissitudes, to which all living languages are liable.
The Arabians of the present day, are far from speaking
the language of the Koran; and if such has been the
change in this language, during the twelve centuries, which
have elapsed since the writing of the Koran, are we to
admit, without any proof, that during a period of almost
twelve centuries, which intervened between the Baby
lonian captivity and the writing of the Koran, the Arabic
language continued fixed and immutable? It is no
wonder, then, that a more mature reflection, has with
drawn many from that admiration, with which the views
of Albert Schultens were at first received.
Having said so much of the biblical usage of language,
we now proceed to discuss the other hermeneutical
criteria of the sense of scripture. For, even if we had
become perfect masters of the biblical usage of language,
yet, since in all languages, several words are used in
various meanings and various shades of meaning, according
to the circumstances in whidh they are applied, hence it
becomes necessary for him, who would discover the exact
meaning of scripture, to invoke the aid of these additional
hermeneutical means for determining the sense. At
some of these criteria we arrive, by a close inspection of
the sacred writings themselves, and these are called the
internal criteria of the sense. Some other of these criteria
are derived from certain circumstances, which are more or
less extrinsic to the sacred Word itself, and these are
caUed the historical or external criteria of the sense.
FinaUy, the remaining hermeneutical means of arriving
at the sense, are drawn from the dogmatical laws of
interpretation. The internal criteria of the sense are, first, the
context — second, the paraUelism. By the context we

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 299
understand the conjunction and mutual relation, of the
thoughts expressed by a speaker or writer. In interpreting
any author, it is of the greatest importance to attend
well to the context, as it is admitted on all hands, that a
sense, which would be opposed to the context, cannot be
the sense intended by the author. On the other hand,
however, it must be observed, that a sense might agree
with the context, and stUl not be the sense intended;
since, not only the words of an author, but sometimes
even long sentences, may admit a sense, of which he
never thought, when writing them. But, if only one
sense should be found to suit the context, then that
indeed must be the true sense. There are various kinds
of contexts, according as the foundations are different,
upon which this connexion between the thoughts of the
writer is based. Sometimes, the connexion is founded
upon the logical principles, by which thought and its
expression are regulated, and this is termed the logical
context. Sometimes, the connexion is founded upon the
association of ideas — and to this, some give the name of
the psychological context. Sometimes, the connexion is
based upon the historical or chronological relation, which
the events, that are narrated, bear to each other — this is
called the historical context. Sometimes, in fine, the con
text is of a mixed character, in consequence of the
connexion between its parts, being based upon more than
one foundation. So much for the various kinds of
context. Again, the context is cUvided into the prox-
imate and remote. The proximate appertains to the
series and mutual relation of the notions expressed in
the same sentence; the remote is extended to many
sentences, which, however, are united by some thought,
which forms a common bond between them.
A knowledge of the logical context will be found to
serve our purpose, when we are engaged in the interpre-

300 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
tation of dogmatical statements, or of the argumentative
portions of the scripture. When there is question of simple
statements, we shall be guided in the interpretation by
attending, in conformity with sound logical principles, to
the subject ot the assertion or proposition on the one
hand, and to the attribute or predicate, on the other; at
the same time, paying due regard to the relation existing
between them, in the passage of which there is question.
Again, when engaged in the interpretation of a connected
argument, or chain of reasoning, we must in the first
place discover the thesis, or the assertion which the sacred
writer is proving, or illustrating. This we will discover
with the help of our logical rules, and by attending
moreover, accurately, to the manner in which the
argument or reasoning is introduced, and to the conse
quences inferred from it. Having discovered the thesis
of the sacred writer in the passage under consideration,
then we have the key to the whole logical context. But,
upon the nature of the logical context, we need dwell no
longer; seeing, that Catholic theological students, for
whom our labour is principally undertaken, are perfectly
grounded in the sound principles of logic — a science
which has been always taught in our Catholic ecclesi
astical schools, with a fulness and an accuracy, which
would be in vain sought for, elsewhere.
The psychological context (as some term it), is found
there, wherever the connexion of the discourse is based
upon the association of ideas; for, since the association
of ideas is accounted for, by certain psychological laws,
hence, this gets the name of the pyschological context. An
acquaintance with the nature of this kind of context, is
of great importance for the right understanding of the
scriptural imagery; and under the head of imagery, we
here include all these figures of speech, by means of which,
an idea, or train of ideas, is expressed in a more lively and

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 301
striking manner, than it would be by the use of plain
unadorned language. By means also of this psychological
context, we explain the connexion between parentheses,
and the discourse or passage in which they are inserted.
And, first, we shall say something of the imagery of
the bible, which is properly cUscussed under the head of
the pyschological context, inasmuch as all imagery is
founded, in some way, on the association of ideas. For
instance, an author wishing to convey to the reader a
very lively idea of the great qualities of his hero, is led,
by means of the association of ideas, to think of some
object, or objects, in which these qualities are very
prominent ; and he then avaUs himself of such object,
or objects, in order to make, in a more forcible manner,
the desired impression upon the mind of the reader.
Thus, to Ulustrate the matter by a trite example. If an
author wished to convey an exalted idea of the bravery
or courage of Alexander the Great, he would be led to
think of a lion, in which this quality is most prominent,
and he would then avaU himself of this image to attain
his object. All imagery is resolved into something like
this. In the explanation of these images of speech, three
things are to be carefuUy attended to : first, the nature
of the object or thing which is used as an image or
representation ; as, in the example given, we ought to
know the nature of the lion, as, otherwise, the author
would faU to convey to us the idea which he intended ;
seconcUy, we ought to know what it is, in the context,
which the image is intended to iUustrate — as in this
example, it is Alexander the Great to whom the image
applies ; thircUy, we ought to know what is the idea, or
what are the ideas, which the author would have us to
consider as common, to the image, and to that which the
image Ulustrates. This is a most important considera
tion ; for, since the image and that which it Ulustrates,

302 OF THE HERJIENEUTICAL CRITERIA
are not supposed to have all their properties like to each
other, it is a matter of the greatest moment not to
mistake the points of agreement, which the author would
have us to attend to.
The principal forms, in which the imagery of the bible
is presented to us, are, the metaphor and the allegory,
the simile and the parable, on each of which we shall
offer a few observations.
And, first, of the metaphor. The metaphor may be
said to be, a figure of speech by which a writer or speaker
substitutes some image, for the thought, which that image
is intended to illustrate. This substitution takes place
on account of a tacit comparison, which the mind makes
between the image and the thought. So that the metaphor
is nothing else than a virtual comparison, between the
image, and the thought which is Ulustrated by the image.
The metaphor is to be numbered among the most simple
forms of scriptural imagery; for, if the metaphorical
description run into many words, it wUl be properly
termed an aUegory. As to the metaphors in the scrip
ture, it must be first laid down as an unquestionable rale,
that we are not to admit a metaphor in any passage,
unless where the nature of the imagery clearly points
out the metaphor, or unless such a metaphor be sanc
tioned, by the well-known tropical usage of language
among those for whom the scripture was written. Unless
this rule were admitted, the interpretation of the scripture
would become quite arbitrary. As to the mode of inter
preting the metaphorical language of scripture, we must,
in like manner, be guided, either by the obvious tendency
of the image which is employed, or by an acquaintance
with the scriptural metaphorical usage of language.
As I observed above, if the metaphorical description
run into many words, it wiU be properly termed an
aUegory. The commencement of the fifth chapter of

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 303
Isaias wiU furnish us with an example of the aUegory:
. . . . " My beloved had a vineyard on a hUl in a
fruitfiU place. And he fenced it in, and picked the
stones out of it, and planted it with the choicest wines,
and buUt a tower in the midst thereof, and set up a
wine-press therein: and he looked that it should bring
forth grapes, and it brought forth wUd grapes. And
now, 0 ye inhabitants of Jerusalem! and ye men of Juda,
judge between me and my viheyard. What is there that
I ought to do more to my vineyard that I have not done
to it? Was it that I looked, that it should bring forth
grapes, and it hath brought forth wUd grapes? And
now I wUl shew you what I wUl do to my vineyard. I
wiU take away the hedge thereof, and it shaU be wasted:
I wUl break down the waU thereof, and it shaU be
trodden down. And I wiU make it desolate; it shaU not
be pruned, and it shaU not be cUgged: but briers and
thorns shaU come up : and I wiU command the clouds to
rain no rain upon it." — Isaias, v. 1-6. We perceive at
once, that the aUegory is only a prolonged metaphor.
We must observe here, that an aUegory occurring in
scripture, is not the same thing as that allegorical sense
of scripture of which we spoke in a preceding part of
this dissertation; and which aUegorical sense is one of the
names given to that mystical or spiritual sense, which
Ues under the Uteral sense, in several parts of the Old
Testament. We must cautiously distinguish been the
two things, because in one case, there is merely question
of a figure of speech; in the other case, there is question
of the mystical sense of scripture.
The simile is a figure of speech, by which two things
are formaUy and expressly compared together, fiir the
purpose of illustrating one of them. It differs from the
metaphor in this particular, that the metaphor is an
impUcit and virtual comparison between two things.

304 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
whereas, in the simile, the comparison is express and
formal. To illustrate this difference by an example — if
one should say of Alexander the Great, that he was a lion,
that would be a metaphor ; but if he should say, that
he was like a lion, it would be a simile. In the simile,
as is obvious, there is no word turned from its natural
signification. Hence, the simile is not classed with those
figures of speech, which are called tropes. On the other
hand, the metaphor belongs to the class of tropes,
because in the metaphor, the word expressing the image
is turned from its natural signification. Thus, in the
example, Alexander was a lion, the word lion cannot be
taken in its natural signification, as otherwise the sense
would be, that Alexander was literally the beast caUed
the lion. Hence, the word lion, as it stands in the meta
phor, is turned from its natural meaning, and made to
designate a brave and courageous person. There are
other tropes besides the metaphor, viz., metonymy, synec
doche, irony, and altogether the figures of speech are
very numerous; but as it is not our object here, to write a
treatise on rhetoric, we must refer the reader to his
elementary books for these, reminding him, at the same
time, that a knowledge of them all, wUl be most useful
to him, as well for understanding the scripture, as for
understanding our commentators, most of whom seldom
fail to designate the figure of speech by its technical
name. The only remaining form of the scriptural imagery, on
which we intend to speak, is the parable. The parable
appears to bear the same relation to the simile, that the
allegory bears to the metaphor ; and hence, in scripture,
the parable is generally introduced by some such form as
" the kingdom of heaven is like unto," &lg. — ^from which
it would appear, that the parable is but a prolonged
simile. But, whatever may be thought of this relation

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE, 305
of the parable to the simile, it is at least certain, that the
nature of the scripture parables cannot be easily mis
taken. The scripture parable is, a continued and weU-
arranged narrative, of some possible but fictitious event,
applied to the Ulustration of some sacred truth. The
custom, of conveying instruction by means of parables, is
very ancient among the eastern nations. It has the
advantage of fixing the attention of the hearer, whose
curiosity is excited, to penetrate into the meaning of the
parable — and on account of the greater attention of the
hearer, as well as by reason of the more vivid impression
made upon his mind by the imagery of the j)arable, the
instruction thus conveyed, is longer and better remem
bered by him. Instruction by means of the parable, had
also another advantage, referred to by our Redeemer in
the thirteenth chapter of St, Matthew's gospel ; this was,
that it protected the sacred word, from the cUsrespect
with which the ill-disposed would have received it, had it
been plainly announced. Such persons would not, on
the other hand, listen to our Redeemer with that atten
tion of mind, required to penetrate into the meaning of
the parable, and to derive, from that mode of instruction,
aU the advantage above mentioned ; and hence it is said
of them in the gospel that they had ears and heard not.
In the explanation of the scripture parables, two things,
principaUy, must be attended to — first, that in the para
ble, often, persons are not compared with persons, nor
the parts of the parable, precisely, with the parts of
the thing signified ; but the whole parable is compared
with the whole thing which it illustrates. Thus, in the
Gospel of St. Matthew, (xUi. 24,) in the parable which
begins thus, " The kingdom of heaven is like to a man
who sowed good seed," cfec, were we to apply to each
other, those parts of the parable and of the thing signified,
which appear at first sight to be compared together, we
VOL. I X

306 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
should mistake the object and meaning of the parable:
because, for instance, it is not precisely the sower, in this
parable, who is like to the kingdom of heaven; he is rather,-
in reality, like to the king of heaven; but the meaning of
the parable is — that some such thing takes place in the
kingdom of heaven, as would happen, were a man to sow
good seed in his land, and that, afterwards, an enemy
would come and sow tares over the good seed, (fee. The
second thing to be attended to, in the interpretation of
parables is, that, in the parable, all things are not to bo
applied to the thing signified; for, some things in the
parable are introduced, merely for the purpose, of render
ing the narrative consistent throughout, and like to
what might be supposed to happen in real life: such
things are not, of course, intended for the illustration of
the thing signified, but are mere ornaments of the narra
tive. In distinguishing those parts of the parable which
are necessarily to be applied, to the illustration of the
thing signified by the parable, from those, which are
merely ornamental, we shall be guided by the scope and
end of the parable. The scope and end of the parable
will be learned, from the context in which it is found,
and sometimes there will be also certain historical helps
avaUable, for the purpose of learning the object of the
speaker or writer, in that place where the parable is
introduced. Having said so much of the imagery of scripture, we
may say a word or two, on that other kind of pyscholo
gical context, which we have mentioned before, viz., the
connexion of parentheses with the passages in which
they are introduced. It is well known, that the association
of ideas in the mind of a writer, will sometimes suggest ob
servations, which could not be regularly admitted into the
discussion of the matter on hand; and hence, if the writer
wishes to record such observations, they must be inserted

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE, 307
parenthetically. These parenthetical observations are
frequently met with in the scripture, more particularly
in the writings of St, Paul, Sometimes, thefr connexion
with the context appears almost inexpUcable. Tet, by
dUigently considering, what may have been the associa
tion of ideas in the mind of the sacred writer, the
connexion of the parenthesis, with the context in which
it is found, wUl discover itself to us, if not with absolute
certainty, at least with great probability. Take, for
example, in the first Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, the
twenty-third verse of the fifth chapter, "Do not still
drink water, but use a Uttle wine for thy stomach's sake,
and thy frequent infirmities." It appears, at first sight,
hard to perceive any reason, why this observation should
be inserted, in an advice to Timothy, regarcUng the
manner in which he should govern his clergy, and the
caution with which he should admit persons to holy
ordei-s. But, it would appear to me, that minute atten
tion to the Apostle's words, might warrant the foUowing
explanation of the connexion. The Apostle had told
Timothy in the twenty-second verse, not to impose hands
upon any one without due caution; as by doing so, he
would make himself a partaker in another man's sins.
He teUs Timothy, on the other hand, to keep himsdf pure;
and although he may have used this word pure, with
the intention, primarily, of w^arning Timothy against
ordaining unfit persons, and thus defiUng himself by a
partnership in other men's sins; yet, since this yiord pure
also conveys the idea of chaste, St, Paul is reminded, of
the extraordinary mortifications practised by Timothy,
for the greater security of his chastity — one of these
was complete abstinence from wine — and this practice
(as it was not necessary for St, Timothy) St, Paul tells
him to moderate, on account of the sickly state of his
stomach, and his frequent infirmities.

308 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
The historical, or chronological context, is found, where-
ever there is a connected narrative of events, according to
their chronological order. An acquaintance with sacred
chronology, as also an acquaintance with the history of
the Jews and Christians, down to the termination of the
period embraced by the scripture records; and, more
over, an acquaintance with the history, down to the same
time, of the unbelieving nations mentioned in the scrip
ture, wUl throw much light upon this kind of context.
As our limits will not permit us to dwell further upon
the context, we now pass on to the other internal criterion
of the sense — the parallelism.
By parallelism, we here understand, the occurrence of
the same sentiment, or the same word, in different
places of the scripture. The occurrence of the same
word in different places, is called verbal parallelism —
the occurrence of the same sentiment, is called real paral
lelism. Verbal paralleUsm is particularly to be attended
to, in the investigation of the scriptural usage of lan
guage. However, since writers, in repeating the same
sentiment, will commonly repeat some of the words, at
least, in which they expressed the sentiments before
hence, we cannot here separate the verbal, from the
real parallelism. This parallelism is, manifestly, of great
use in the interpretation of scripture: — First, If we per
ceive, by several indications in the context, that the
same inspired writer repeats the sentiment, or narrative,
which he had previously expressed, or related, then,
whatever obscurity there was about the first expression
of it, is removed by this repetition, on the plain principle,
that any writer (but particularly an inspired writer,)
is the best interpreter of his own sentiments and language.
Secondly, If the same thing is related, or expressed, by
different inspired writers, in this case also, the narrative,
or statement, of one, will serve for the explanation of

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 309
the other; the great reason of which is, the well-esta
blished truth of the inspiration of scripture, from which
it follows, that all the scriptures proceed from one
principal author — the Holy Ghost.
The paraUelism of the members of the same sentence, or
of the members of the same proximate context, is also of
great use in the interpretation of scripture; for, whether
Ave speak of the case, in which this paraUelism is found
to consist, in the repetition of the same sentiment — or,
whether we consider the case, in which it lies in the
juxta-position of opposite sentiments, it wUl, in both
cases, as is quite manifest, throw great light, as weU on
the sentiments as on the language, of the text. This
kind of paraUelism prevails throughout the poetical
parts of the scripture, and is found to enter, more or
less, into the composition of several other parts of it.
Since, as it has been already observed, paraUel pas
sages wUl be found to agree in many, at least, if not in
aU, of the words; hence, for discovering the paraUel
passages, concordances of the bible, as they are caUed,
wiU be of great use. These are coUections of the words
of the scripture, written in alphabetical order, together
with an incUcation of the texts, in which they are found.
Cardinal Hugo a Sancto Caro, a Dominican, who made
a concordance of the Latin vulgate, about the year 1262,
is said to have been the first, who conceived a work of
this kind.
Observe, that under this head of paraUelism, may
be classed the quotation, in the New Testament, of texts
from the Old. Sometimes these texts are quoted, without
adhering closely to the letter of the text, as it occurs in
the Old Testament; and sometimes they are quoted,
merely according to the sense. In both these cases,
additional light will be thrown on the meaning of the
passage, as it lies in the Old Testament. Even, when

310 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
the text is quoted, strictly according to the letter; still,
the object to which it is applied in the New Testament,
will serve as a guide to its meaning in the Old.
As we must be brief, we shall now proceed to say a
few words, on the historical or external criteria of the
sense. These may be reduced to four heads: — First, Who is
the person who speaks or writes? Second, Who are the
hearers, or the first readers, of that which is spoken or
written? Third, What was the occasion of the discourse
or writing, and in what circumstances was it spoken or
written? Fourth, What was the design or scope, of the
speaker or writer?
Very little requires to be said, in order to show the
importance, to the interpreter of scripture, of attending
particularly to all these questions. And, first, as to the
person who speaks or writes; without attention to this
point, we might sometimes place on a level with the rest
of scripture, the words of some uninspired person, who is
introduced, as speaking, in the sacred volume. For
example, a great deal of the book of Job, is taken up
with the discourses of his friends, who, certainly, were not
inspired to speak as they did, although the writer of that
book, was inspired to commit to writing, without intending
to approve of, what they said. Even in the case of
inspired speakers or writers, it will be of great utility,
to know their history; as by means of this knowledge,
we shall understand many aUusions, the force of which
would otherwise escape our notice. Moreover, this
acquaintance with the history of the various characters
introduced in the bible, and with the history of the
writers of the bible, will enable us to account satisfactorily
for the variety, of style and manner of expression, so
apparent in the sacred volume. For, as it is commonly
admitted, the Holy Ghost, although He inspired all the

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 311
writers of the scripture,* yet, ordinarily. He did not
elevate their style to a higher degree of excellence, than
might be expected from their education and opportunities
of learning; but. He merely suggested to them the
sentiments, which they committed to writing, guarding
them, at the same time, from any error in the manner of
expressing them.
Secondly, The interpreter must also cautiously endea
vour to ascertain, to what class of hearers, the discourses
contained in the scripture, were addressed, and who the
persons were, for whose immediate benefit, the epistles,
and the other parts of the bible, were composed. The
importance of attending to this point, is obvious. Every
prudent speaker wUl be influenced, in the manner of his
address, by the nature of his audience. Hence, we see
what a difference there is, between the discourse delivered
by St. Paul in the synagogue of the Jews, at Antioch
in PisicUa (Acts, xiii.), and that which he addressed to
the Athenians in the Areopagus (Acts, xvii.) We see
also, how fuU and explicit our Redeemer is, when
addressing His disciples, as compared with His manner
when replying to those, who proposed questions for the
purpose of tempting Him, and entrapping Him in His
words. We say, moreover, that it behoves the inter
preter to know, who the first readers were, for whom the
epistles and other parts of the scripture were composed:
for, seeing that these writings were composed, to meet
some urgent necessity of the faithful, without which,
they would not have existed, (for example, if aU the
Galatians had persevered steadily in the faith which they
had received, the epistle to the Galatians would never
have been written:) from this it foUows, that those
writings must have been accommodated, to the special
wants and requirements of those to whom they were
first addressed. Hence, the more we know of the state

312 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
and circumstances of the peAons to whom they were
addressed, the more perfectly shall we acquire, the
knowledge of the sense of these writings. Again, we
shall find that these writings contain certain, brief forms
of expression, and certain allusions, at first sight very
obscure. The reason of this is, that these writings
having been specially intended, for those to whom they
were first addressed, the writer knew, that for them, these
brief forms of expression, and these aUusions, had no
obscurity. Hence, it follows, that the better acquainted
we shaU become, with the history and circumstances of
those first readers, the more completely shall this obscurity
be removed, for us, from these writings. We shall learn
the history of these first hearers of the scriptural dis
courses, and first readers of the scriptural writings,
partly from the scripture itself, and partly from other
historical sources. In the same way shall we learn, the
history of those, who are introduced as speaking, in the
scripture; and the history of the inspired writers.
We come now to the third external criterion of the
sense, viz: what was the occasion of the discourse or writ
ing, and in what circumstances was it spoken or written?
To know that which gave occasion to any discourse, or
written document, is evidently of vast importance
towards the right understanding of what is said or
written. Take, for example, the epistle of St, Paul to
the Romans — at first sight it might seem, that the
apostle there asserts, that a man cannot merit in any
sense, by his works, either first or second justification.
But, if we attend to that which gave occasion to this
epistle, the difficulty will be removed, St. Paul was
moved to write the epistle in consequence of learning,
that disputes had arisen between the Jewish and Gentile
converts at Rome, regarding their respective claims to
the gospel benefits. The Jews urging their observance

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE, 313
of the written law, as having entitled them to these
benefits; whilst they contended, that the GentUes obtained
these benefits as a pure mercy from God, seeing the state
of iniquity, in which they had previously lived. The
GentUes, on the other hand, boasted, of their own obser
vance of the natural law, as giving them a claim to these
blessings of the gospel, whilst they upbraided the Jews
with having, by their gross violation of the written law,
disentitled themselves to the benefits in question; conse
quently they inferred, that for the possession of these
benefits, the Jews stood indebted to the pure bounty of
God, Such being the nature of the controversy, which
gave occasion to St, Paul's letter, we see, at once, how he
is to be understood, when he declares, equivalently, that
a man's works in no sense merit, either first or second
justification. He must be understood to speak, of works
done by a man's own strength — not of works done under
the influence of the grace of Christ: because, the question
between the two parties at Rome, did not turn upon the
co-operation of either party with the grace of Christ;
but, upon the claims, which each party contended that it
had, to this grace of Christ; of course, on account of
works done previously to the grace, and consequently
not done under its influence.*
That which gave occasion to the writing of any book,
or portion of scripture, wUl be learned sometimes suffi
ciently, from the scripture itself. Thus, it is abundantly
manifest from the first epistle of St. Paul to the Corin
thians, that what gave occasion to the writing of that
epistle was, first, a report made to St. Paul, of the
existence of certain abuses in the church at Corinth,
* Whatever salutary works were performed by Jew or Gentile, before the pro
mulgation of the gospel, were performed, no doubt, through the grace of Christ — but,
from the nature of the controversy between the Jewish and Gentile converts at
Some, it is manifest, that both parties overlooked this consideration.

314 OF THE HERMENEUTICAL CRITERIA
and secondly, an application by letter, made to the apos
tle for the solution of certain difficulties, by which the
faithful at Corinth were then perplexed. Sometimes, the
occasion which called forth the inspired writer, may be
learned, partly from the scripture, and partly from other
sources. The knowledge, moreover, of the circumstances of
time, place, &c., in which any book or portion of scrip
ture was written, will contribute wonderfully to clear up,
several allusions and references, which, without a know
ledge of these circumstances, would be but imperfectly
understood. This point is too clear, to require any illus
tration. Hence, introductions to the particular books of
scripture, never fail to determine these circumstances, of
the time and place of writing, &g., as far as the contents
of the book and other historical sources, enable one to
determine them. Of course, the more perfectly the in
terpreter makes himself acquainted with such circum
stances, the better will he perform his task; but, we
would not be understood as saying, that, for a right un
derstanding of any book of scripture, a minute and accu
rate knowledge, of all such circumstances, is essential.
Finally, the design or scope of the speaker or writer is a
criterion of the sense, which claims the particular atten
tion of the interpreter. In fact, we may say, that the
great key, to the interpretation of any speaker or writer,
is to know, what his aim is in his discourse or composi
tion. By the help of the knowledge of this aim or scope,
the meaning of words, which admit of a variety of senses,
will be determined; viz,, to that sense, which agrees with
the scope of the author : the omission, of certain particu
lars in a narrative, will be accounted for; viz,, by the
reason, that the mention of these particulars, would con
duce nothing, to the end which the narrator had in view.
In a word, the whole meaning of a discourse or composi-

OF THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. 315
tion, is affected by^the end or aim, which the speaker "or
writer proposed to himself, insomuch, that the same
words, or even the same sentences, wiU put on different
meanings, according as the (Uscourses or compositions, in
which they are found, have different ends in view. As a
knowledge of the scope is of such importance, it is, conse
quently, a matter of the greatest moment for the inter
preter of scripture, that he should not mistake this scope.
In the scripture, sometimes the inspired writer himself
informs us, what the end is, which he proposes to himself.
Thus St. John marks the end, which he had in view in
writing his Gospel, in these words, (xx. 31,) "  These
things are written, that you may believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God : and that beUeving you may
have life' in his name." Sometimes, the frequent re
ferences to a particular point, wiU enable us to discover,
the scope of the writer. Thus, in the Epistle of St. Paul
to the Hebrews, we know that the scope of the apostle is,
to induce the Hebrews to persevere in the Christian
faith, notwithstanding the persecutions and trials, to
which they were then subjected on account of the profes
sion of it. We collect this scope of St. Paul in this
epistle, from several things in the epistle itself, which
combine to point it out. First, From what he says of the
value of the Christian faith ; then, from what he says of
the necessity of persevering in the profession of this faith,
under aU the sufferings which the enemies of it may
inflict ; again, from his pointing to several examples of
patience under such persecutions, &c. Sometimes, the
occasion being known, which caUed forth any particular
epistle or book, that wiU suffice, to make us acquainted
with the scope, which the writer had in view in such
epistle or book. Thus, what gave occasion to the Epistle
to the Galatians, was the fact, that certain Judaizing
teachers had come amongst them, and had even succeeded

316 OF THE DOGMATICAL
so' far, as to withdraw some of them frem the faith. Such
having been the occasion, which called forth this epistle,
we should naturally expect, that its scope would be, to
point out the intrinsic infirmity of the Jewish ceremo-
monies, their abrogation, and the impossibility of uniting
a sound Christian faith, with the belief that these cere
monies continue obligatory : and such is really the scope
of that epistle. In fine, sometimes, ecclesiastical history
wUl help us towards the knowledge, of the scope of a book
or portion of scripture ; inasmuch as, the sacred writer,
although he did not mark down in his book, the end
which he had in view in writing it, yet may have orally
communicated this end to others, who transmitted the
knowledge of it, to those who came after them.

CHAPTER IV.
OF THE DOGMATICAL LAWS OF INTERPRETATION.
We must refer now, for the present, briefiy, to the dog
matical laws of interpretation. These laws are deduced
from two dogmas of the Christian religion. The first of
which dogmas is. The scripture is divinely inspired. The
second is. It belongs to the church, to judge of the true sense
and interpretation of scripture.
The truth of these two propositions is abundantly
established, in treatises on dogmatical theology; and on the
first of them, we have ourselves enlarged somewhat, in a
previous part of this work. We shall here content our
selves, with pointing out some consequences, which are
deducible from them, and which bear on the matter in
hand. And first, as to the inspiration of scripture, of
the nature and extent of which, we have treated in a

LAWS OF INTERPRETATION 317
former chapter, from this dogma we deduce, as an
obvious consequence, that no inspfred writer can contra-
cUct himself or any other inspired writer; and again,
that there is nothing contained in scripture, at variance
with any truth, either historical or phUosophical ; in
other words, that the scripture cannot contradict itself,
nor, in fine, contracUct any truth, in whatever depart
ment of knowledge that truth exists. The reason of aU
this simply is, that truth can never be at variance with
itself: now, accorcUng to the dogma of the inspiration of
scripture, the entire sacred volume proceeds from one
principal author — the Spirit of Truth, who is truth itself.
When, therefore, it is aUeged, that there is a contracUc-
tion between any two texts of scripture, we ought first
to examine, whether both, apparently contradictory asser
tions, proceed from inspired authors : for, since, in the
bible, several persons are introduced as speaking, who
were not inspired, such as the friends of Job, and the
scribes and pharisees in the Gospel ; and since, the scrip
ture does not guarantee the veracity of these, it foUows,
that such persons may contracUct themselves or each
other, or, in fine, may contradict some inspired writer ;
and yet, nothing wUl result from this, injurious to the
doctrine of the inspiration of scripture. If the two,
apparently contradictory assertions or statements, proceed
from inspfred writers, then, if we consider, attentively, the
different circumstances, in which each statement was
made — ^if we weigh weU the sense, which the context
and other hermeneutical considerations, require to liave
affixed to each passage, we shaU discover, that the con
tradiction is only apparent, not real. In fine, if, in the
case of two statements, proceeding from inspired authors,
a real contradiction should manifest itself, in the sacred
volume as it is found at present, then, we must conclude
that the reading, of at least one of the passages, is erro
neous ; and, (if a case of the kind reaUy exists,) bibUcal

318 OF THE DOGMATICAL
criticism will enable us to discover the error. If, how
ever, biblical criticism would not, in some case, enable
us to discover the error in the reading, we should be
equaUy certain, from arguments a priori, of the exis
tence of that error; seeing the solid grounds, upon which
the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture, rests.
In like manner, if any statement of scripture, appears
to be in contradiction with any truth, historical, philoso
phical, or from whatever source derived, our first busi
ness is to examine, if this truth, which is alleged as in
opposition to the scripture, be really well founded, so as
to deserve the appeUation of a truth; for, we know that
many phUosophical doctrines have, from time to time,
passed current among superficial enquirers, which have
since been rejected, as baseless and untenable; and other
philosophical doctrines may, hereafter, experience a similar
fate. If, however, that which is brought forward as,
apparently, in contradiction with scripture, should be
really a truth, then we shall proceed to examine, whether
the particular statement contained in scripture, is there
attributed to an inspired writer or speaker, or whether it
be not the statement or assertion, of some uninspired
person, whose words are recorded in the scripture, whilst
his veracity is not guaranteed by it. If the passage in
cj^uestion, should be ascribed to the writer of the scripture,
or to some speaker whose veracity the scripture guaran
tees, then we must examine, if we have, really, caught the
meaning of the scripture in this place, and if the mean
ing should be clear, we must, lastly, proceed to discover
the error of reading, being certain a priori, as I observed
before, that no passage of scripture, according to its
correct reading, can be at variance with any truth, in
whatever department of knowledge that truth lies, always
excepting those discourses and statements, of uninspired
and fallible persons, which the scripture records.
We shall now say a few words of the influence, on the

LAWS OF INTERPRETATION . 319
Catholic interpreter, of the other dogmatical law of in
terpretation. This law is — that it belongs to the church,
to judge of the true sense and interpretation of scripture.
Dogmatical theology abundantly proves, that Christ has
established in His church, a pastoral authority — an infal
lible teacher and guardian, of that faith delivered by Him
and His apostles. This same pastoral authority, has been,
also, constituted the guardian and interpreter of the
written word. The proof of these positions, is so easUy
to be met with, in any course of Catholic dogmatic theo
logy, and is so familiar to Catholic readers, that we omit
it here. In conformity with this arrangement, of the
Divine Head of the Christian Church, the CouncU of
Trent decrees — we subjoin the words of the council — in
the fourth session: — "Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia
decernit (S. Synodus) ut nemo suje prudentiae innixus,
in rebus fidei, et morum, ad sedificationem doctrinse Chris-
tianse pertinentium, sacram scripturam ad suos sensus
contorquens, contra eum sensum quem tenuit et tenet
sancta mater ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et
interpretatione scripturarum sacrarum, aut etiam contra
unanimem consensum Patrum, ipsam scripturam sanctam
interpretari audeat." The sum of this decree is, that no
one is to presume, to interpret the scripture against that
sense, which the church has held and holds, nor against
the unanimous consent of the fathers. Seeing, then,
that the interpreter of scripture is not at liberty, to go
against that sense of scripture, which the church holds, it
is important for him to know, what this sense is : now,
this he wiU cUscover in the same way, as that, by which he
learns the rest of the Christian faith ; for, this sense of scrip
ture, being handed down by tradition, belongs to the deposit
of faith. There are two modes, then, by which the
church may manifest her interpretation of scripture — the
first of these modes is direct, the other indirect. The

320 . OF THE DOGMATICAL
direct mode is used, when the church explicitly declares,
that she attaches a certain sense, to a particular passage
or text of scripture. The church uses the indirect mode
of manifesting her interpretation of scripture, by declar
ing to us, that we must always interpret the scripture, in
a manner conformable to the analogy of faith.
As to the direct mode — the church may declare in two
ways, her interpretation of a passage of scripture — first,
by a solemn definition; secondly, by the universal assent
of the dispersed church, continued down from the
earliest times. We must observe, however, that the
obligation imposed by the law of Trent, of adhering to
the interpretation of the church, only holds in rebus
fidei, et morum, ad cedificationem doctrines christiance perti
nentium — that is, "in matters of faith, and of morals,
appertaining to the edification of christian doctrine."
Hence, the law regards not, for example, matters apper
taining to geography, computation of time, and such
like. Indeed, with regard to aU such things, it is not
the custom of the church, to decide upon the meaning of
scripture; unless in some instances, where the matter
will be bound up, under some respect, with the " matters
of faith, and of morals, belonging to the edification of
christian doctrine," and in such cases, of course, this law
of Trent will be obligatory upon us.
There are but few texts of scripture, of which, the
meaning has been decided, by a solemn definition of the
church. We must observe, however, with Professor
Patrizi (Hermeneuti; vol. 1, p. 62), that the church,
sometimes, in a solemn definition of a point of doctrine,
so uses some text of scripture, as a proof of the doctrine
defined, that it is not allowable for us, to depart from the
meaning there assigned to the text, although, the direct
object of the church's definition, in the circumstances, is
not the interpretation of the text.

LAWS OF INTERPRETATION. 321
The universal assent of the dispersed church, continued
down from the earUest times, is quite sufficient to mani
fest the church's authoritative interpretation of any text
or passage of scripture, according to the weU-known
words of Vincent of Lerins, (Commonit. c. 3,) that that
is to be held, " quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omni
bus creditum est:" " which has been beUeved everywhere,
which has been beUeved always, which has been believed
by aU." But what sufficient means have we of learning
this assent, of which we speak, on the part of the dis
persed church? An abundantly sufficient — as weU as the
principal means — of learning this assent of the dispersed
church is had in the writings of the holy fathers — ^those
famous witnesses of the tradition of the church. Nor
¦wiU it be objected against thefr authority, that they
Uved at a period remote from us ; for, the deposit of faith
is ever the same, and whensoever the church decides
upon the meaning of any passage of scripture, she only
proclaims the tracUtion that has come down from the
apostoUc times, regarding that passage of scripture — and
it is in order that she may proclaim this tracUtion accu
rately, that she is assisted by the Holy Ghost in her
decision. The CouncU of Trent, then, has weU laid it
down in the law afready cited, that we must not inter
pret the scripture against the unanimous consent of the
fathers. And such weight is attached to their unani
mous consent, not precisely on account of their personal
authority, whether we view them incUviduaUy or coUec-
tively, but because they are most faith-worthy witnesses
of the beUef of the church in their own time. Here we
must observe, first, that in order to be bound by the
interpretation of the fathers, they must have aU, moraUy
speaking, agreed in that interpretation ; for, the councU
speaks of the unanimous consent of the fathers. In a
word, the agreement of these ancient witnesses, and the
VOL. I, Y

322 OF THE DOGMATICAL
manner in which they treat the scriptural text or pas
sage, must be such, as to show, that the interpretation
was, in their time, universal in the church. Hence, for
example, if the fathers aUegorize, or speak doubtingly in
their interpretation, there is no bar put to our striking out
a different course for ourselves, in the explanation of the
passage. Secondly, we must again consider here, whe
ther the things, in the interpretation of which the fathers
agree, regard the matters of faith and morals belonging to
the edification of Christian doctrine,* or not. If they do
not, we are not forbidden to depart from their interpre
tation ; yet we ought not, without the strongest reasons,
to desert any interpretation of scripture, which has in its
favour the unanimous consent of the fathers: such autho
rity being always entitled to the highest respect.
Having said so much of the direct mode by which the
church manifests to us her interpretation of scripture,
we come now to say a word or two of that indirect mode
by which the church points out the meaning of the sa^
cred volume, and by which she controls us in the inter
pretation of the entire scripture. The church, as was
said before, uses this indirect mode, in declaring to us,
that we must always interpret the^ scripture in a manner,
conformable to the analogy of faith. By analogy in
general is meant, a certain likeness and agreement. By
the analogy of faith is meant, the agreement which sub
sists between aU the parts of the Christian doctrine; in
other words, between all the parts of the deposit of faith.
This agreement necessarily subsists, seeing that, all the
parts of that deposit of faith, proceed from the same
Spirit of Truth, Who cannot be at variance with Himself
* As the English word edification is taken here in rather a quaint and unusual
sense, we may explain these words of the Council of Trent, by saying, that the
council refers to all matters of faith, and of morals, or such general discipline as is
bound up with the integrity of the Christian doctrine.

LAWS OF INTERPRETATION. 323
Hence, we must not by any means, attach to any text of
scripture such a sense, as would be irreconcUable with
any portion of the doctrine, which the church teaches.
We must, therefore, when engaged in the interpretation
of scripture, always remember, that there is a body of
doctrine taught by the church, part of which she derives
from the written, and part from the unwritten, word ;
and that we must take care, that with this body of doc
trine, no interpretation given by us to scripture, shaU
ever be found to clash. This wholesome restraint upon
the Uberty of the Catholic interpreter, is a manifest con
sequence, of his belief in the power, which Christ gave to
the pastors of his church, to teach aU nations, as weU as
of his beUef in the security against error, which Christ
promised to the pastors of His church, in the exercise of
that power, to the end of time. And in reality, from the
earliest days of the Christian church, the liberty of the
interpreter of scripture, was restricted in the same way.
For, no part of the New Testament (and this can be
easUy shown in the introduction to each of the books of
it,) was written with the view, that infidels should learn
the Christian faith by reading it ; but all the parts or
books of it, were written, in order that those, who had
already received the faith, might be more fuUy instructed
and confirmed in the faith, and induced to regulate
thefr Uves in accordance with their faith. Such being
the case, the faithful, to whom these writings were
first committed, must have been careful not to take
any meaning from them, which would be at variance
with the doctrine, that they had been taught afready.
For example, if St. Peter or St. James, or any other
apostle, had adcfressed an epistle to the Christians of
Galatia, these would have been bound, not to affix to any
part of that epistle such a sense, as would bring it into
opposition with the doctrine preached by St. Paul, when

324 OF THE DOGMATICAL LAWS OF INTERPRETATION.
he founded the churches of Galatia. So true is this,
that St. Paul, writing to these Galatians, pronounces
anathema against any one, should it be even himself
or an angel from heaven, who would preach (and we may
safely add or write) to them, what would be at variance
with the gospel, which he had already preached to them ;
(see the first chapter of his epistle to the Galatians).
There are some of those who complain of this restriction
of the liberty of the interpreter in the Catholic Church,
who yet say, that if Catholics had the same security
against error, in following the teaching of their church, as
the Galatians had in following the preaching of St. Paul,
there would be nothing to complain of in this restraint
upon the interpreter. Our answer is, that according to
our belief — and that this belief rests upon the firmest
foundation, our theologians abundantly prove — the same
spirit of truth that inspired St. Paul, and preserved him
from error in his preaching, assists the pastors of the
church, preserving them from error in their teaching.
Of course, we here speak of that kind of teaching, on
the part of the pastors of the church, to which, according
to the well-known Catholic doctrine, the prerogative of
infallibility attaches. We have said enough on this
point. We may, however, in conclusion observe, that it
was only, when heresy had taught presumptuous men to
emancipate themselves from this necessary restraint of
which we speak, that those perversions of scripture first
began to make their appearance, which have gone on
advancing in impiety and folly, until at length, in the
commentaries of the Rationalists, they have divested the
scripture of everything supernatural and sacred. The
Socinians thought that they had as good a right to get
rid oi all mysteries, in their interpretation of scripture,
as the heresiarchs who went before them had, to discard
some mysteries from the sacred volume, which were

CRITERIA OF THE MYSTICAL SENSE, 325
as clearly expressed there as any others: and the
Rationalist commentators thought, that they were as
well entitled to remove everything supernatural, as the
Socinians were to remove everything mysterious from the
bible. We see then, how necessary for the interpreter of
scripture, is this submission to the church's teaching.
It is only in the Catholic Church, that this salutary
restraint exists, and hence we are fully justified in saying,
that it is only Catholic , hermeneutics that is truly
entitled, to be called the science of the interpretation of
scripture, CHAPTER V,
CRITERIA OF THE MYSTICAL SENSE — ON FACTS OR ACTIONS
OF A SYMBOLICAL CHARACTER, THAT ARE RELATED
IN SCRIPTURE.
This appears to be a convenient place for saying a few
words of the criteria, by which we may arrive at the
mystical meaning of the scripture; and also of the herme
neutical helps to the understanding of those parts of scrip
ture, in which the facts related are merely symbolical.
As has been explained before — wherever that which is
related in scripture, as having been said or done, is
typical of something in the Redeemer or His church,
there, the scripture has two senses — the literal, which
we discover by the foregoing rules — and the mystical or
typical, which is based upon the literal sense, and has its
fulfilment in Christ and His church. The first source,
whence we are to draw the knowledge of this mystical
sense, is the scripture itself; for, we find that the inspired
writers of the New Testament, often refer to the mystical
meaning of the Old: thus, the precept given regarding
the paschal lamb, " Ton shall not break a bone of it,"

326 ON SYMBOLICAL ACTIONS.
(Exod. xU., 46,) is declared by St. John in his gospel
to have been typical of Christ, (xix,, 33-36,) In like
manner, St. Paul, in the epistle to the Hebrews,
throughout the ninth chapter, affirms, that the Mosaic
rite of purifying, what was legally unclean, by blood,
had reference to the death of Christ — " It is necessary
that the types of the heavenly things be cleansed by
these; but the heavenly things themselves, by better
victims than these, (ix. 23.) , Sometimes, although the
inspired writer does not adduce formally the mystical
sense of the Old Testament, yet he makes such allusion
to it, as leaves no doubt of its being referred to. Take
for example the first Epistle to the Corinthians, v. 7,
where St. Paul says, "Purge out the old leaven, that you
may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ
our pasch is sacrificed." Here the apostle sufficiently
intimates, that the law prohibiting the use of leavened
bread, during the paschal solemnity, mystically incul
cated that purity and holiness in which Christians ought
to live. Finally, we may discover, (of course with more
or less of certainty,) the typical meaning of several parts
of the Old Testament, that are not explained in the
New. For — remembering the general typical character
of the Old Testament — if we find anything appertaining
to that portion of scripture, which bears a striking simi-
liarity to something in the New Testament, we need
have but little hesitation in looking on the two things, as
type and antitype. Thus, from the great similarity
between the two events, we might infer that the history
about Abraham going to immolate his son, was typical of
the death of Christ upon the cross ; even, if this had not
been pointed out in the scripture, — See Epistle to He
brews, xi, 19,
As to the parts of the scripture in which symbolical ac
tions are related, these are to be found both in the Old and

OF THE RATIONALISTIC SYSTEMS, &C, 327

the New Testament, For, the symbolical sense, unlike the
typical, has not necessarily its fulfilment in Christ and
His church; but, the symboUcal sense is simply that sense,
to which some action points, inasmuch as that action is
viewed in the light of a symbol. In order to understand
the symboUcal actions of scripture, observe, first, that
often the sacred writer himself marks down the sense,
which such an action is intended to convey. Thus, in
Jeremias, (twenty-seventh chapter, second verse and fol
lowing,) we read, " Thus saith the Lord to me, make
thee bands and chains, and thou shalt put them on thy
neck, and thou shalt send them to the king of Edom and
the king of Moab;" (and the prophet subjoins the mean
ing of this symbolical action,) .... " And now I have
given all these lands into the hands of Nabuchodonosor,
king of Babylon, .... and aU nations shaM serve him."
Secondly, as it has been customary with every nation to
use certain actions as signs of honour, contempt, c&c. ;
therefore, in order to arrive at the symbolical sense of
scripture, we ought to keep in view what these actions
were, to which the Jewish nation attached these several
meanings. ThircUy, if an action is related as having
been performed by a prudent man, or commanded by
God, which would be manifestly an unmeaning or useless
action, ^unless it were viewed as symboUcal ; then, what
ever may be the particular sense which it is intended to
convey, we must look upon the action itself as merely
symbolical. CHAPTER VI.
OF THE NEW EXEGESIS, OR THE RATIONALISTIC SYSTEMS
OF HERMENEUTICS.
We have already, more than once, in the course of this
dissertation, glanced at the mode in which the Rationa-

328 OF THE RATIONALISTIC
lists dispose of the sense of scripture. We think it
advisable, however, for more reasons than one, to devote
a short chapter to a regular statement of their views on
this matter. First, Because the RationaUsts do not
agree, precisely, in any one system of hermeneutics.
Secondly, And this is the principal reason — because,
the glaring aberrations of these men furnish an addi
tional justification, of the wise conduct of the Catholic
church, in insisting that the interpreter of scripture
shall, in all things, submit himself to her authoritative
teaching. Nothing is more usual, than to find Protes
tant writers descanting upon the slavish submission, as
they term it, to His church, in which the Catholic inter
preter is forced to execute his task, when he undertakes
to explain any part of the sacred volume. This re
straint, they say, altogether cramps his energies, and
unduly limits the field of his enquiries. Now, enough has
been said already to show, that the Catholic church acts
most reasonably in this particular. Whilst she exercises
the authority with which Christ has invested her, and which
is necessary for the preservation of unity in faith, she
does not shut out the interpreter of the scripture, from
any truly rational use, of those ordinary means, by
which the sense of a writing or discourse is penetrated.
But here, we turn to those Protestants, for, of such we
speak, who, in common with us, bewaU the licentiousness
with which many on the continent, and particularly in
Germany, calling themselves theologians, have approached
the interpretation of scripture, and we ask, what has led to
this licentiousness? Simply, the removal of the Catholic
principle of authority, and the substitution, of the prin
ciple of private judgment, in its stead — and those who
have set up this principle of private judgment, as
the guide in interpreting scripture, have no right to
control others in its exercise. Let us now beholcl some

SYSTEMS OF HERMENEUTICS. 329
of the fruits of this principle, in those systems of biblical
interpretation, which the German Rationalists have pro
pounded, and which they have dignified with the name of
the New Exegesis.
All the Rationalists agree in this, that they approach
the interpretation of scripture with a preconceived
'system of phUosophy, which they caU, the teaching of
reason; and everything in the scripture, which 'does not
square with this, is either explained away by some means or
other, no matter how far-fetched or absurd, or it is at once
pronounced erroneous. Agreeing in this point, they stUl
follow cUfferent methods, in order to set aside the obvious
sense of scripture, wherever it is opposed to their views.
First — There is the system of moral interpretation, very
different from the moral or tropological sense of scrip
ture, as understood in Catholic schools, and which has
been afready explained. This system of moral inter
pretation, owes its origin to Kant, formerly professor of
logic and metaphysics in the university of Konigsberg.
The great end, which Kant proposed to himself in his
moral phUosophy, was the inculcation of what he terms,
the pure religion of reason. Now, it appears manifest,
from the teaching of this philosopher, that this was but
another name for Deism — and that the establishment of
this pure religion of reason, would involve the total
subversion of Christianity. With these preconceived
notions, Kant proceeds to the interpretation of scripture.
He admits that the bible proceeds from God. From this
he infers, that none but the most perfect notions should
be conveyed by it. The literal sense, he contends, must
be overlooked as not conveying these perfect notions:
and as, according to him, the moral amendment of
mankind, is the proper object of the entire religion of
reason, hence the only sense, which is to be taken from
the scripture, is one which tends to the moral amendment

330 OF THE RATIONALISTIC
of man, in conformity with the religion of reason. Kant
teaches, that the historical part of the scriptures, con
tributes nothing to make men better, and is, therefore,
purely indifferent, and may be disposed of, as we please.
In the other parts of scripture, Kant's system permits
the most fanciful constructions to be put upon the text,
provided, that by this means, a sense could be educed, '
which would contribute to what he considered, the
moral amendment of mankind. Of course, this system
of Kant's, like the other Rationalistic systems of inter
pretation, only requires to be known, in order to be
reprobated; nor is it necessary to adduce examples of
interpretation, in conformity with such systems, which
are not more impious than they are absurd. The object
of such systems is not reaUy to discover the sense of
scripture, but to invent a sense foreign to it, which they
may impose upon it. What Wegscheider says of Kant,
wUl hold true for aU these systems, " Sensum inferens
non efferens," (Institutiones, s, 24, p, 91,) And, we
may observe, that the book of Wegscheider's, here quoted,
is reputed the text-book of Rationalism; so that, the
author describes himself here, as well as Kant.
Second — Another such system of interpretation, is what
is caUed the Psychologico-historical, It has been chiefly
set forth and evolved by Paulus and Eichhorn. Accord
ing to it, one must, in order to flnd the sense of scrip
ture, not only attend to what is recorded in the scripture,
but he must, moreover, form to himself a proper notion,
of the state of mind of the narrator, at the time of gi'vdng
the narrative contained in the text. They say, that by
this means, one wUl be enabled to divest the narrative
of several circumstances, having no foundation in fact,
but altogether ascribable to the over-credulous simpUcity
of the narrators. They do not attack the honesty of the
sacred writers, but view them in the light of simpletons.

SYSTEMS OF HERMENEUTICS, 331
who exalted into supernatural events, what more en
lightened men would have explained in a natural way.
Thus, these interpreters get rid of the miraculous in the
scripture ; in a word, of everything, which would sup
pose the direct interference of the Deity, or would, in any
way, clash with what they consider contrary to reason.
It is unnecessary to say, that such a system of interpre
tation as this, is incompatible, not only with the inspi
ration, but even with the veracity of the scripture
records. It is, therefore, to be rejected with abhorrence.
Thfrd — ^A system of more straightforward impiety
than the preceding, is what is caUed the accommodation
system; accorcUng to which, our Redeemer and His
apostles are, blasphemously, said to have accommodated
themselves to the ignorance and prejudices of the Jews.
This had been, for a long time, a favourite system with
the RationaUsts of Germany, before the writings of Sem
ler gave it a new impulse, and rendered it stUl more
popular among the miscaUed theologians of that country,
by some of whom, it has been even more fully developed,
than by Semler himself. In conformity with this mode
of interpretation, the notions of the Jews respecting
demons, 4ind angels, the Holy Spirit, reconciliation to
God by sacrifice, the person and kingdom of the Messias,
the resurrection, and the judgment, are supposed to have
been retained by our Redeemer, and His apostles, in con
descension to the current beUef ; their own teaching, being
adapted to, and engrafted upon these notions ! ! !
Fourth — Among these systems, the mythic interpre
tation holds a prominent place. The mythus is a certain
fanciful cfress, in which a writer or speaker, for some
reason, envelopes the idea or truth which he wishes to
communicate. AccorcUng to this system, the historical
facts of the Old and New Testaments, were not actual
occurrences, but myths. The mythological school dis-

332 OF THE RATIONALISTIC
tinguish several kinds of mythi, viz., the historical,
philosophical, etymological, and poetical. They say, that
aU these can be discovered in the scripture. The purely
historical mythus, say they, relates an occurrence, not as
it actually took place, but only in such a manner, as it
must have appeared to a rude age. The phUosophical
mythus, they define to be, either a pure fiction, framed
for the purpose of conveying some phUosophical idea or
truth ; or, at least, a fiction to this extent, that the his
torical truth, upon which it is based, is enlarged and
dressed out, by the phUosopher, in a manner agreeable
to his own views and purpose. Etymological mythi,
according to these doctors, are compounded of the his
torical and phUosophical, and belong to such as are caUed
mixed. They contain some historical truth, with a
measure of philosophical speculation. When this was
founded on the etymological signification of a word, it
was denominated an etymological mythus, FinaUy, the
poetic mythi, they describe to be, fictions, framed by the
Hebrew poets, to amplify and adorn their writings. By
means of their system, the mythological school have
thrust aside every event recorded in the Old Testament,
which is removed from the sphere of daUy experience,
and, in place of such, they have substituted certain re
fined ideas, cUctated by phUosophical systems. Nor has
the mythus been applied to the Old Testament alone, as
a key to its interpretation. The awful impiety of the
" Lives of Christ," from the pens of Strauss and Weisse,
show how this school has attempted to destroy the sacred
character, and veracity, of the New Testament, But we
have said enough of this class of profaners of the scrip
ture. It is quite manifest, that their system was framed
for the express purpose, of setting aside the historical
veracity of the sacred volume, and substituting, in its
place, a series of learned fables, which would have no

SYSTEMS OF HERMENEUTICS. 333
more foundation in fact, than the Metamorphoses of
Ovid. ¦
Fifth — There stiU remains what is speciaUy caUed, the
rationalistic mode of interpretation, H this mode of inter
pretation differs from the others afready described, it is,
in dealing more summarUy, with whatever is supposed to
contradict reason, in the sacred volume. If anything
in scripture appears to them inconsistent with what they
think the cUctates of reason, as would be, they say, any
mfraculous work, or real prophecy, then, if they cannot
at once discover some perverse mode of explaining away
the clear statement of the text, the doctors of this
school, unceremoniously set aside the testimony of the
inspfred writer.
Thus, we see, how aU these rationalistic systems agree,
in wUfuUy and impiously misinterpreting the holy word of
God. And, lest it might be said, that we have exagge
rated the impious extravagance of these systems, in this
brief statement of thefr characteristics, let it be observed,
that to whatever subterfuges the authors of these sys
tems may, occasionally, have recourse, for the purpose of
concealing, somewhat, thefr hideous impiety, stUl there is
nothing here stated, which is not fiiUy admitted, even by
the Protestant writers, who have criticised the productions
of the RationaUst school. We may refer to Dr. David
son, in his Sacred Hermeneutics (chapter 7th.) The
foUowing is the censure passed upon these interpreters,
in a Protestant work, afready more than once referred to
— The State of Protestantism in Germany. By the Rev,
Hugh James Rose. — " No language can describe the dis
gust with which page after page of the commentaries on
scripture, by this party, is turned over, and page after
page suppUes fresh instances of the defiance of every law
of thought, of sense, of language, and of truth. I would
refer to any of these commentators — to Hezel, for example.

334 RATIONALISTIC SYSTEMS OF HERMENEUTICS.
or Augusti, or Eckermann, or, as an extreme in
stance, to those of Paulus, a professor of theology, and in
them, I would desire no selection of any especial absur
dity ; but, I would venture to say, that the explanation
of the first miracle, which shall occur, will present an
example of improbable reasoning, and false and misap
plied philology, such as no church, no nation, no age, can
furnish, except the philosophical school of divinity,
erected in the Protestant church of Germany, in the
eighteenth century." (page 129, and following. Second
edition.) It yet remains, that we say a word or two of the
system of interpretation, followed by the Pietist school
in Germany. The Pietists, like the Quakers, have but
little regard for the external words of scripture. They
refer everything to the inward light, which, they say, is
the guide to true faith, and pure morality. Hence,
according to this system, the obvious meaning of the
text is, in a great measure, overlooked, and vague and
arbitrary meanings are affixed to the words of scripture,
according to the fancies of individuals. In fact the
feelings, rather than the understancUng, are consulted
and followed, as a guide to the meaning. It is unneces
sary to dweU further upon a system, which opens the
door to the wildest fanaticism.
Having now seen the result of the principle of private
judgment, when applied to the interpretation of scripture,
we behold, in this, a striking confirmation of the excel
lence of the Catholic system of hermeneutics, which,
whUst it avaUs itself of every reasonable aid for the
discovery of the sense of the scripture, is careful never
to emancipate itself from that authority, which Christ
has established in His church, to preserve, inviolate, the
deposit of faith, to the end of time, "Go," said our
Redeemer to His apostles, and in them to their successors,

OF THE SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS, &.C. 335
" go teach all nations . . . and behold I am with you
aU days, even to the consummation of the world." —
St. Matt. xxvUi., 19, 20.

CHAPTER VII.
SOME OBSERVATIONS UPON THE FOREGODJG CHAPTER  OF
THE SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS TAUGHT IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT.
Notwithstanding the observations, with which we have
accompanied our brief notice of the Rationalistic systems
of bibUcal interpretation, we feel, that we almost owe an
apology, to the CathoUc reader, for having noticed them
at aU; so blasphemously irreverent are they, towards that
sacred volume, which is one of the greatest gifts con
ferred upon man, by the Father of lights and God of aU
consolation. But, we wished to show the unsoundness of
the great Protestant principle, the right of private judg
ment, in the interpretation of the scripture, by exhibiting
this principle in certain advanced stages of its develop
ment. For, as the development of any plant tests the
quality of the seed, from which it springs; so does the
development of a principle, test the soundness of that
principle. It is no answer to say, that the Rationalists
abuse the right of private judgment — and, that we might
as weU condemn human Uberty, because so many abuse
it. For, how are we to know, whether or not a certain
line of conduct be the use or abuse of the principle, to
which it is attributed? By asking ourselves, whether, if
we admit the principle, we can, consistently, deny the
right to foUow the Une of conduct in question. For, if
the conduct in question be an abuse of the principle,

336 OF THE SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS
then, we can, even admitting the principle, deny the
right to act in such a manner. Now, what consistent
Protestant, can deny, to a German commentator, the
right to adopt the views respecting the scripture, which
have been described in the foregoing chapter? Take, for
example, that man, who was so well known in Germany,
in late years, by the name of Doctor Paulus, doctor and
professor of theology. Suppose, that Paulus had been
called upon, to defend his views of scripture against some
one, who had stopped much shorter, than he did, in the
career of Protestant development: would he not have
been justified, on Protestant principles, in saying to such
a one — "Ton may differ from my interpretation of
scripture, you may condemn my views, but, you cannot
consistently condemn myself for adopting these views?"
" For," he might say, " these views are the result of the
application, of my private judgment to the explanation
of scripture; and, remember, when the ancient church
condemns you and me, for our views respectively, as
regards the meaning of scripture, we are defended on a
common principle — ^the right of private judgment. As,
therefore, you defend yourself against th.e ancient church,
by asserting your right to be guided, by your own
judgment, in these matters; in the same way, do I defend
myself against you, by asserting my right to foUow my
own judgment; and, if you deny me this privilege, you
are not a true Protestant, but, an inquisitor in disguise."
All genuine Protestants would have pronounced this
defence to be triumphant; and, in point of fact, although
Paulus was so often and so severely attacked by Protes
tant writers, yet, the style and title of doctor and pro
fessor of theology, which he claimed on Protestant
principles, was never withheld from him by these
adversaries. And, what kind of man was Paulus?
And, what are we to think of the principles, which

TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, 337
would justify such a man in claiming the title of doctor
and professor of theology? Why, Paulus was a man,
who taught his pupils, that in the whole scripture, from
the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelations, not
one real miracle or real prophecy was recorded. He
was a man, who taught his pupils to treat the mani
festations of the power and knowledge of God in the
scripture, with less respect, than did the magicians of
Egypt treat the miracles of Moses; for, the magicians
admitted, that the finger of God was there (Exod, viii,
19); an admission, that Paulus never made, in com
menting on the miracles or prophecies of the bible. We
ask any candid reader, is there not a certain degree of
blasphemy against the holy name of God, in giving to
such a man the title of professor of theolog^l If he had
been styled professor of demonologj, we could understand
the reason of the appellation. And, now, because the
teaching of the Catholic Church alone, effectually guards
the scripture against such perversions of its meaning,
as those upon which we are commenting; for such
teaching, is that church calumniated every day, in the
most popular treatises upon what is called, Protestant
divinity. We might adduce numerous examples of this.
Take, for example, the foUowing, from the Lectures on the
Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible, by Dr. Marsh,
not many years ago, Protestant bishop of Peterborough
— a work that has been repeatedly printed. In a lecture
on the interpretation of the bible, he says, (and we give
the italics of the author) " Shall we imitate the Church
of Rome, and, rejecting the aid of human learning,
resolve the interpretation of scripture, into the decrees
of a council, on the presumption, that it interprets under
the influence of the spirit, and therefore that its interpre
tations are infallible? Or shall we imitate the modern
enthusiast, who likewise rejects the aid of human learning,
VOL. I. Z

338 OF THE SYSTE3I OF HERMENEUTICS
who likewise aspires to the influence of the spirit, and
acting on the same principles as the Church of Rome,
determines with equal ease, and with equal confidence
in his own decisions? Or shall we follow the example of
our reformers, who, when they had rejected tradition as
a guide to the meaning of scripture, supplied the place of
that tradition \)j reason and. learning?" — p. 312, edition oi
1842, London. As to what is here said about the Church
of Rome rejecting the aid of human learning; for one,
who knew so well as Marsh, that the Church of Rome has
furnished many of the most learned commentators, this
part of his statement is to be considered as simply fabulous
— a mere myth on the part of the learned author. As
to what he says about resolving the interpretation of
scripture into the decrees of a council; we have already
explained, to what extent, tradition and the infalUbility
of the church, control, and justly control, the interpreter •
of scripture. But it would be very hard to discover what
precise ideas Marsh attached, here, to the words reason and
learning. This, however, we do know, that the most
profane interpreters of scripture, which German Protes
tantism has produced, have endeavoured to justify their
impiety, precisely by an appeal to reason and learning.
Why, their very name of Rationalists is derived from the
prominent part, which they assign to reason in the inter
pretation of the bible. And it is well known, that the
Rationalists look upon themselves as the greatest profi
cients, in that kind of learning, which the despisers of
tradition admire. We know, moreover, what ideas, these
men — such men as Doctor!! Paulus — attach to reason
and learning. With them, reason' is the intolerable arro
gance, of the human mind refusing to admit any truth, no
matter how clearly revealed, which exceeds the compre
hension of its own limited powers, or is opposed to its
preconceived notions: and learning is the substitution of

TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 339
the Lexicographers for the Holy Fathers, a dealing in fan
ciful etymologies; together with a great parade of anti
quarian research, respecting the beasts, and birds, and
vegetables, and such like subjects, mentioned in the
scripture. These men have a great ambition to merit
that praise given to Solomon, where it is said, "He
treated about trees, from the cedar, that is in Libanus,
unto the hyssop that cometh out of the wall: and he dis
coursed of beasts, and of fowls, and of creeping things, and
of fishes." (3 Kings iv. 33.) In their hands, the scripture
is made to teach phUosophy — according to their system,
grammar — also upon a plan of their own, natural history,
geography, every thing, in a word, except its principal
subject — theology.
The true system of Catholic hermeneutics — which,
whUst it assigns their proper place and due importance
to reason and learning, pays also a due respect to tradi
tion, and the teaching of the church— is clearly pointed
out in the New Testament. Indeed, so clearly, that it
would be wonderful to us, how any one could faU to per
ceive it, did we not remember, that the reception of
sound doctrine, belongs to the gift of i^ith, which pro
ceeds from the grace of God. The grand feature, which
distinguishes Catholic hermeneutics, from every other
system of interpretation, is this — that CathoUcs hold,
that there is in the Church of Christ, a certain standard
of interpretation, distinct both from, the scripture itself, and
the private judgment of the reader, to which standard, ,aU
interpretation of the scripture must conform. This standard
has, positively declared the meaning of some parts of the
scripture, and in these parts of scripture, this meaning
must be given to the sacred text. As to the other parts
of scripture, which are not positively explained by this
standard, we must take care, not to give to these parts
of scripture any meaning, which would be opposed to this

340 OF THE SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS
standard. Behold the great distinguishing feature of
Catholic biblical interpretation. I said, that we would
find this doctrine in the New Testament, When our
Redeemer founded His church. He made it the depository
of those ancient scriptures, which, before, had been in
trusted to the Jewish church. (Romans iii,, 2,) To these,
the scriptures of the New Testament were afterwards
added. What now is our standard of interpretation, ex
trinsic both to this bible, and to our own private judgment?
It is, that body of doctrine, of which the apostolic teaching
was composed. That body of doctrine, which St. Paul
delivered to the churches, which he founded; which St,
Peter delivered to the churches, which he founded; and
so on, of the other apostles. How has this body of
doctrine, which the apostles delivered, been preserved in
the church? — By tradition. How has this body of doc
trine been kept free from any admixture of error, at every
point of time, since the days of the apostles ? — By the
infallibility, of the actual church, at each point of time,
from its foundation to the end of the world. For, this is
the proper function of the infallibility, of the actual
church subsequent to the days of the apostles; not, to
make known to us any new revelation, but, to teach us
infallibly, what has been the apostolic doctrine. By means
of this standard or rule — which is the apostolic doctrine,
or doctrine delivered to the church, by the apostles — ^unity
of faith is preserved. And truly, the Divine Founder of
the church, attached the greatest importance to this
unity of faith. For, He has proclaimed to us, by His
apostle, that His church is, one body, having one faith.
(See Epistle to the Ephesians, iv,, 4, 5,) This body of
doctrine, of which we speak, was communicated, by Christ,
t(* His apostles, when He prepared them to execute that
commission, to go and teach all nations, (St, Matthew,
xxviii., 19.) The apostles, then, knew at once, that it

TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, 341
would be unlawful, to attach, to any part of the bible, a
meaning which would be irreconcilable with the truth of
any part of the doctrine, which Christ had' commissioned
them to teach. Here, then, we behold, in the hands of the
apostles, the standard or rule, by which, the lawfulness of
any interpretation of the scripture, was to be tested. If, in the
days of the apostles, any one had wished to know whether a
certain meaning, which he was (Usposed to attach to a
text of scripture, could be lawfuUy attached to it, he could
have learned this from any of the apostles, by asking
him — " Would such a meaning be at variance with the
truth of any part of the doctrine, which you have received
from Christ ?" If the apostle had answered, that it would,
then it would have been a duty, instantly to reject such a
meaning, no matter how plausible it might have appeared.
So far, all is clear. But was this standard or rule, lost
to the church, when the last of the apostles died ? — By
no means. This rule or standard, that is, the body of
apostolic doctrine, was a deposit in the hands of the apos
tles, which they were to commit, or deliver over, to trust
worthy persons, who were, in turn, to ddiver it over to
others, and, in this way, it was to be perpetuated in the
church. Let us turn to St. Paul. We read, in the Acts
of the Apostles (xx.), how the apostle, when passing up to
Jerusalem, assembled, at MUetus, the neighbouring bishops
of Asia, and addressed them upon their duties ; he says,
" I have not spared to declare unto you aU the counsel of
God. Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock,
wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops 
I know, that after my departure ravening wolves wiU
enter in among you  and of your own selves shall
arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away dis
ciples after them." (Acts, xx., 27, 28, 29, 30.) We find the
apostle here remincUng these pastors of the church, that he
had made them the depositaries of the whole counsel of

342 OF THE SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS
God (yramv Trjv BovXrjv), that is, the whole doctrine of
the gospel ; and he warns them to guard against perverse
teaching, that is, any teaching opposed to this counsel of
God, this apostolic doctrine, St, Timothy, the beloved
disciple of St, Paul, was an illustrious depositary of this
rule or standard — this body of doctrine of which we speak.
Thus St, Paul addresses this bishop, Timothy — " As I
desired thee to remain at Ephesus, when I went into
Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some not to teach
otherwise, nor to give heed to fables and genealogies, with
out end, which minister questions, rather than the edifi
cation of God, which is in faith," (1st Timothy, i., 3, 4,)
In these fables and genealogies, there is reference to the
Judaizing teachers, or to the precursors of the Gnostic
heretics. How was Timothy to treat these ? He was to
charge them not to teach otherwise. To teach otherwise is, in
Greek, one word, eTepodiha^KaXeiv, which means to teach
a different doctrine. Now, we ask, different from what ?
The answer is obvious, different from the apostolic doc
trine. And this is the meaning, which the Protestant,
Bloomfield, gives to the word. See, then, how St.
Timothy, who was neither an apostle, nor an inspired
writer, was yet the depositary of a test or standard, by
which he would know what interpretation oi the Old Tes
tament, he would tolerate in a preacher, and what inter
pretation he would proscribe and denounce. Again, St.
Paul writes to Timothy — " If any man teach otherwise,
and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and to that doctrine, which is according to gocUi-
ness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about ques
tions and strifes of words : from which arise envies; con
tentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions." (1st Timothy,
vi., 3, 4.) Here we have the same Greek word, express
ing to teach otherwise, or to teach a different doctrine ; but
he points out, moreover, what the false doctrine, or false

TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 343
interpretation of scripture, cUffers from; fi-om the sound
words of our Lord Jesus Chiist — those words, which
Christ adcfressed to St, Paul, when He Himself vouch
safed to instruct the apostle of the GentUes in the gospel
(Galatians, i., 12); and which words, St. Paul ddivered
to his disciple, St. Tunothy. Again, St. Paul, writing to
Timothy, caUs upon him, in the most earnest manner,
" To guard the deposit (ttjv -jrapaOrjicvv), avoiding pro
fane and vain words, and oppositions (or antitheses), of a
knowledge falsely so caUed, which some professing, erred
conceming the faith." (1st Tunothy, ^d., 20, 21.) Here
St. Timothy is again renunded, that he is the depositary
of the sound doctrine — ^the apostoUc doctrine. He is
warned to guard this deposit most cautiously, even against
being suUied by profane novelties of words; and he is
specially warned against those, who, laying claim to great
knowledge, hesitated not to attack this deposit, and to in
troduce error concerning the faith. St. Paul, in this
word knowledge, points to the Gnostic heresies, which
were then commencing. They took thefr name from the
Greek word yvwais, which signifies knowledge. The
Gnostics were persons, who, like Dr. Marsh, and the
Reformers, rejected tradition, that is, the doctrine ddivered
by the apostles to the churches, which they founded ; and
which doctrine, the apostles committed in trust to Timothy
and the other bishops, who were to succeed them as depo
sitaries of the said doctrine. In place of this tradition,
the Gnostics, like Dr. Marsh and the Reformers, would
substitute reason and learning, which they caUed by one
word, knowledge; knowledge being the result of the com
bination of learning with reason. We come now to the
second Epistle to Timothy, where we read as foUows,
" Thou, therefore, my son, be strong in the grace which is
in Christ Jesus : and the things, which thou has heard
of me by many witnesses, the same intrust to faithful

344 OF THE SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS
men, who shall be fit to teach others also." (2 Timothy,
ii., 1, 2.) Here St. Paul reminds Timothy, that when he
(St. Paul), gave him episcopal consecration, he, at the
same time, solemnly delivered to him the body of gospel-
doctrine, whereof he, Timothy, as a bishop, was consti
tuted a depositary ; this doctrine, he delivered to him in
the presence of many witnesses. He now tells Timothy
to look out for other depositaries, to whom this doctrine
shall be intrusted. The Greek word, which we here
translate by intrust, is irapaOov , the verb from which is
derived TtapaOtjKij, deposit. As the principal quality re
quired in a depositary, is fidelity to his trust, hence
Timothy is told to seek out faithful men, for the office in
question. We see now how the standard of sound doc
trine, and, consequently, of sound interpretation of the
scripture, was to be continued in the church. Titus was
another of these depositaries, constituted by St. Paul.
Thus St. Paul writes to him — " A man that is a heretic,
after the first and second admonition, avoid." (Epis. to
Titus, iii., 10.) How was Titus to know the heretic ? —
By means of the deposit — ^the standard, which he had in
his hands. Let us hear a Protestant commentator on
the sense of aipeTiKos (heretic), in this place. Bloom
field gives it the meaning of " one who takes up any
doctrine in opposition to, or inconsistent with, the funda
mental truths of the gospel." We ask, by what right
does Bloomfield put in the word fundamental here ? As
if it were a slight matter to impugn the veracity of Christ
and His apostles, as regards any truth of the gospel ! !
No, the heretic is any one, who will not submit his own
judgment to the judgment of the church of Christ, as
regards this deposit, of which we speak, and as regards
any truth contained in this deposit; which deposit, con
tains all the truths of the gospel.
This rule or standard of sound doctrine, and of sound

TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 345
interpretation of scripture, shall continue in the church of
Christ to the end of the world: for, when Christ told his
apostles, to go and teach all nations this doctrine. He added,
that He would be with them all days, even to the consumma
tion of the world, (Matthew xxviii, 19. 20.) Therefore the
apostolic doctrine, which was taught, first by the apostles,
and afterwards, by their successors the pastors of the
Church, was to continue in the church to the end of the
world. And as this doctrine is to be believed, and not to be
merely matter of opinion, it is necessary, that it should be
always known with certainty in the church; and therefore
it is necessary that there should be always an infallible
authority, to make it known to us; because, a fallible
authority could not point it out with certainty. Then
there wiU be at all times in the church, an unerring
standard of judgment, distinct, from the scripture itself,
and from the private judgment of the individual; by
which standard we can know, what interpretation of scrip
ture may be tolerated, and what interpretation must be
rejected. St. Paul, in his own time, told the Galatians to
use this standard. After, he had planted the faith among
the Galatians, some Judaizing teachers came, to endeavour
to pervert these new Christians. St. Paul wrote an epistle
to them, lamenting that these false teachers had been al
lowed, to make such progress among them. Let us suppose,
that the Galatians attended to the instructions conveyed
in that epistle, and let us suppose, that after they re
ceived it, one of these Judaizing teachers appeared among
them. This teacher, like those, who went before him in
the unholy work, would attack tradition, that is, the
doctrine delivered, to the churches of Galatia, by St. Paul;
he would appeal to scripture, to those many texts of the
old Testament, which, to a superficial reader, would
appear to say, that the ceremonies of the law were to be
of perpetual obligation; perhaps, he would also quote, in a

346 OF THE SYSTEM OF HERMENEUTICS
wrong sense, some texts of St. Matthew's Gospel. To all
this, the Galatians would answer, " it is unnecessary for us
to enter into any discussion with you, or into any exami
nation of these scripture texts; it is enough for us to
know that the interpretation, which you put upon these
texts, is at variance with St. Paul's doctrine, which he
preached to us; for, St. Paul has pronounced anathema
against any one, who will teach any doctrine at variance
with what he has taught." (Galat. i. 8, 9.) In like manner,
at the present day, if the faithful are attacked by false
teachers, they will defend themselves by adhering firmly
to the doctrine delivered by the apostles; and any inter
pretation of the scripture, which would come against this
doctrine — this tradition, which is preserved in the church,
they will unhesitatingly reject. Our adversaries will tell
us, that times are changed since the days of St. Paul,
because now, the apostles are all dead, and the writings
of the New Testament are complete. But, we say that
these changes by no means prove, that a standard of
sound doctrine and of sound interpretation of the scrip
ture, distinct from the scripture itself and the private
judgment of the individual, has disappeared from the
church. The unity of the faith requires its continuance;
and, the whole economy, of the institution of the church,
and of the pastoral office, proclaims the truth, that it shall
continue to the consummation of the world. Hence we
find this standard applied by the church, in the case of
the Reformers. When the Reformers came, they rejected
tradition, that is, they denied that the deposit of apostolic
doctrine was preserved in the church, except inasmuch as
it was contained in the scripture, where each Christian
was to find it by the help of his own private judgment.
They denied that this deposit was preserved after the
manner of a deposit, that is, by being handed down
through a succession of depositaries, who, having received

TAUGHT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 347
and learned it from those wfio went before them, made it
known and intrusted it to others, who were to succeed
them in the guardianship of it. This living tradition,
which was distinct from the written word, the Reformers
rejected, because they knew that this tradition condemned
them. On the other hand, the Catholic Church atten
tive to the lesson taught by St. Paul, in his Epistle to
the Galatians, explained the deposit of the apostolic doc
trine, as regarded the teaching of the Reformers, and
declared that any one was to be anathema, who would
assert such and such doctrines, opposed to tracUtion, that
is, opposed to the deposit of apostolic doctrine, preserved
in the church. See the councU of Trent.
We shaU conclude this chapter by observing, that
high Protestant authority can be adduced in proof of the
congruity of such a dispensation of Providence, as the
Catholic system of biblical interpretation insists upon.
The Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Whately, in
an address to his clergy, in 1836, upon the subject, of
which we are treating, has the following: " The diver
sities, indeed, and errors to which private judgment is
liable, in all matters not admitting of mathematical
demonstration, might, naturaUy, lead some persons, fol
lowing thefr own conjectures, to suppose, that in a divine
dispensation, a provision is requisite, and, therefore, to be
expected, for a power of infallibly interpreting scripture,
and deciding, finally, all questions that may arise; to be
permanently established on earth, in some person or
body, whose authority should be ascertained and sup
ported by unquestionable miracles." — p. 81. We have
explaineci already what is meant, when we say that the
church infaUibly interprets the scripture. And here we
have a man, of Dr. Whatdy's phUosophical mind, ad
mitting that it is natural to suppose, that God would
have furnished His church with such an authority as we

348 OF THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
contend for. In what he adds about miracles, he ap
pears to insinuate, that each dogma of the Christian
religion, requires a special set of miracles, in proof of
itself in particular: So that we are to ask, where are the
miracles, in proof of the necessity of grace? Where are
the miracles, in proof of the Trinity of Persons in the God
head? Where are the miracles, in proof of the Unity of
Person in Christ? and so on. This is, indeed, striking
out a new path in Christian theology. We say, that
this infallible authority of the church, is a prominent
and leading doctrine of the Christian religion, and there
fore, that it is sustained by aU those miracles, upon which
the Christian religion rests. We admit, that although
philosophy can enable a man to see the congruity of this
dispensation of Providence, faith is required, to believe
in its existence. And this explains why it is, that Dr.
Whately should go on to assure his clergy most posi
tively, that God has not done, (that is, in his opinion,)
what the whole Catholic church, has always believed, that
He has done.

CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH TO OTHERS, THE SENSE
OF THE SCRIPTURE.
The interpreter of scripture must not imagine, that with
the sole investigation of the sense of scripture, his task
concludes: the duty still remains for him, to convey to
others, what he has now, by the application of the proper
rules, learned himself We must observe here, that we
do not treat of that popular interpretation of scripture,
which belongs to the preacher or catechist. The inter
preter of scripture, strictly so caUed, with whose duty we
are concerned, must adopt some one, of four different

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE. 349
forms or modes of conveying the sense of the sacred
volume; for, he must either propose to himself, (first,) to
render the original text into some other language; or he
must propose to himself, to remove the obscurity of the
sacred text; either, (second,) by retaining the form of a
continued narrative or discourse, and adding explana
tions, as it were in the name of the sacred author; or, by
subjoining notes, by which, the sense of the text wiU be
iUustrated; and in these, he wiU either, (third,) confine
himself to a simple explanation of the sense, omitting, or
but slightly referring to the reasons, upon which his in
terpretation rests; or, (fourth,) he will purpose to explain
the sense at length, as weU as to give the reasons, by
which it is proved, that the sense, which he assigns to
the text, is genuine. In the first case, he will give a
version; in the second, a paraphrase ; in the third, scholia
or notes ; and in the fourth, a commentary,
Ffrst. — In a version, what one must attend to, is, prin
cipally, fiddity, not only in the matter, but also in the
form — ^that is to say, the translator must, not only, con
vey the sense of the original ; but he must, moreover,
retain the style and manner of the original, as far as the
genius of the language, into which he translates, wiU at
aU admit. In one word, the translator of the scripture,
ought to change nothing but the language. Hence, if
words are ambiguous in the original, the ambiguity ought
to be preserved in the translation. We must observe,
however, that it does not follow, that, because a version
is excessively Uteral, it is, therefore, to the same extent
faithful; for, seeing that languages differ, so much, in
thefr i(Uomatic construction, this exceeding great Ute-
rality, may be attended with obscurity, and hence lead to
mistakes about the sense of the original. At the same
time, an over free version, is less likely to be faithful,
than that, which is over literal; for, if the version, which

350 OF- THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
is too literal, leaves an obscurity about the sense of the
original, that, which is over free^ goes farther, and easily
conveys a false meaning to the reader. We may remark,
that the defects of the ancient versions are, generally, on
the side of too great a literality, whilst the defects of
modern versions are, almost all, on the side of an over-
freedom of translation. .The person, who would qualify
himself, to give a good and faithful version of the bible,
must be convinced, in the first place, that he who under
takes to give such a version, undertakes a work of no
ordinary cUfficulty. In order to be prepared for it, he
must be perfect master, both of the original language —
or of the language from which he translates — and of the
language into which he translates. He must not only
know, perfectly, the meaning of words, in both languages;
but he must, moreover, be well acquainted with the pecu
liar idioms of these languages. He must be an excellent
theologian, as, otherwise, he might easily admit into his
version, a sense, which would be not only incorrect, but
heterodox. He must be well acquainted with the
archaiology of the bible — or the Jewish antiquities.
Without this knowledge, the force and meaning, of several
words and phrases, in the original text, would escape
him. In brief, if we compare together, the respective
labours, of the translator, the paraphrast, the annotator,
and the commentator, we shall find, that the labour of
the translator, requires the highest qualifications, because
it is attended with far the greatest difficulty in the per
formance. The paraphrast, annotator, and commentator,
wiU often meet with passages of the sacred author, where
the sense may be readily seized, by the reader of scrip
ture, without his finding it necessary, to recur to note or
comment, or even paraphrase, to make it clearer than it
is. But, the path of the translator, is beset with diffi
culties at every step: he must consider well, every pas-

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE. 351
sage and every word, as they stand in the language from
which he translates; and he must wisely balance these,
with the corresponding words and passages, which he gives
us in his version. In a preceding part of this work, we
have spoken of the merits of the principal ancient and
modern versions, as fully as the limits, which we have
fixed for ourselves in this introduction, would permit.
We come now to speak of the paraphrase. Its object
is, to remove the obscurity, which stiU conceals from us,
more or less, the meaning of the sacred author, even
afl;er we have made ourselves acquainted, (by means of a
version, if necessary,) with the language in which he
wrote. An accurate version, wiU neither increase nor
diminish the obscurity, which it is the aim of a para
phrase to remove. The paraphrase is, a fuller and
clearer explanation of the inspfred word, set forth in the
name of the sacred author. Knowing the object of the
paraphrase, we easily perceive the qualities, which ought
to recommend it. First, It ought to be faithful; for, it
is the sense of the scripture, not the notions of the inter
preter, which the readers seek to know. When the
meaning of a passage in the text, is ambiguous; since,
ordy one sense can be given by the paraphrase, the other,
ought to be added in a note, in the margin, or at the
end of the verse. The paraphrase ought also to adhere,
faithfuUy, to the forms of expression of the text, as far,
as attention to this point, can be combined with perspi
cuity; for, to give the sense perspicuously, must he the
great aim of the paraphrast. We therefore put it down
as the second quality, requfred in a paraphrase, that it
be perspicuous. It is for the very purpose, of consulting
for this perspicuity, that the circumlocutory form of
expression is used. The paraphrast, then, must iUus
trate the sense of the text, wherever he sees, that the
strangeness of the matter, would be, without such Ulus-

352 OF THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
tration, an occasion of misconception. He ought to
change metaphors into comparisons ; concise and preg
nant expressions, he ought to evolve ; and the leading
propositions of the sacred writer, he ought to set forth
more conspicuously. FinaUy, a paraphrase ought to be
succinct, that is to say, it ought not to heap together,
words, when a few words, would, equally well, express the
sense. An unnecessary multiplication of words, ought to
be everywhere avoided, but particularly, in a paraphrase,
where, such verbosity, so far from rendering the sense
more clear, would, on the contrary, often, be an addi
tional cause of obscurity. The best specimen, of a para
phrase on the scripture, to which we can refer, is the
paraphrase on the Epistles of St. Paul, by Bernardinus
a P iconic, in his work, so weU known by the name of the
Triplex Expositio,
Notes, or scholia as they are sometimes called, are brief
observations, iUustrative of the sense of the text, and
written apart from the text. It is the duty of the anno
tator. First — To explain obscure words. Secondly — To
explain the matter of the text, as often as, the strange
ness or obscurity of the matter, renders such explanation
necessary. ThircUy — To point out briefiy, the principal
idea of the sacred writer, the connexion of his thoughts
and arguments, the parallelism, the various readings, the
discrepancies between the ancient versions. Fourthly —
In the more difficult passages, to give, in a few words,
the reasons, upon which his interpretation rests. The
work of the annotator, ought to be marked by fidelity,
and also by brevity, as far as the latter quality, can be
combined with sufficient perspicuity. Among those who
have written notes upon the scripture, the Jesuit Mariana,
holds a distinguished place. In his learned scholia, he
has Ulustrated, by far the greater part of the entire
scripture.

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE. 353
By the biblical commentary, we understand, a fuU and
eru(Ute explanation, of the sense of the scripture, con
firmed and sustained by solid arguments. Like the
schoUa or notes, the commentary, is written apart from
the text; although, both a version and a paraphrase, may
find a place in commentaries. The difference, between
notes and a commentary, consists in this, that the latter is
more- diffuse, and dweUs, at much greater length, upon
the arguments, by which it is proved, that the sense,
ascribed to the text, is the true and proper one. Since,
the commentary is, the most complete form of bibUcal in
terpretation, hence, it wiU be expected to contain — First,
a preface or introduction, to the explanation of the parti
cular book of scripture, of which there may be question.
This introduction, ought to furnish us, with that pre
liminary knowledge, so essential for the right understand
ing of the book; that is, it ought to inform us, who was
the author (if that can be known); who were the first
readers of the book; what was the occasion; and what is
the scope of the book. It ought to inform us, what the
subject matter of the book is, and what is its general
arrangement ; in other words, it ought to present to us, an
analysis of the theme, as it is termed. FinaUy, this in
troduction ought to tell us, in what language the book
was written, and what is the general character of its
style. Second. — The commentary ought to contain, a notice of
such various readings, as affect the sense, wherever these
may occur. It ought, also, to decide upon the value of
these, accorcUng to the rules of sound criticism: for, the
genuine reading must first be determined, before one
proceeds to inquire, into the sense of what is said.
Thfrd. — Wherever, the usage of language is uncertain
or vague, it ought to be determined, as far as may be, by
the citation of testimonies: or, if needs be, it ought to
VOL. I. 2 a

354 OF THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
be iUustrated, by the etymology of the word, or the analogy
of the language.
Fourth. — In general, wherever a passage is obscure or
ambiguous, it is there, the duty of the commentator, to
show, how the hermeneutical criteria, internal and ex
ternal, concur, in deciding in favour of that sense, which
he attributes to the passage.
Fifth. — Things, slightly touched upon, or left to be
understood, having been passed over in silence, because
weU known to the first readers — such matters being, no
longer, immediately obvious to every one — such are his
torical, geographical, and political matters, &c, — these,
and suchlike matters, ought to be explained, if possible,
in the very words of the authors, whose testimonies the
commentator cites, in iUustration of them. The com
mentator must, also, dfrect his special attention, to the
explanation of the imagery and figurative language of the
bible. Sixth. — The commentator must, also, take care, to
clear up any apparent contradiction, between different
parts of the inspfred word. He must, also, cautiously
distinguish, those instructions or admonitions, which are
to be understood, with some modification, or are of a tem
porary character, from such, as are absolute, and of per
petual obligation, and acknowledged as such, by the
church. Seventh, — Wherever a passage has been interpreted
in different ways, if the commentator should adopt some
one interpretation, in preference to the rest, it wiU be his
duty, to notice the other interpretations, which have pro
bable reasons to recommend them. He wUl not omit, at
the same time, to point out the reasons, which induce
him, to give a preference to that interpretation, which he
adopts. Eighth, — Finally, the commentator wiU notice, briefly.

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE, 355
the use of the passage, in a catechetical and ascetic point
of view. This wUl be of great service to clerical readers,
for whose benefit, in a more special manner, commentaries
are generaUy written.
The quaUties, by which, a good commentary wUl be
recommended, are — -First, Fiddity, not only in properly
determining and proposing the sense of the scripture, but
also, in regard to the Ulustrations brought from other
sources of knowledge. The necessity of this quality, is
manifest. Second. — A singular perspicuity, as, without this, the
diffaseness, which distinguishes the commentary from
scholia or notes, would fiiil to attain its object.
Third. — A good commentary ought to be compjlete, that
is to say, it ought to contain every thing, that is requfred,
in order to determine, and set forth, in a clear Ught, the
meaning of the text. It ought, moreover, to contain, a
iuU statement of the arguments, by which, the interpre
tation is established; as weU as, a satisfactory solution, of
the difficulties urged against it.
Fourth. — The commentary ought to be succinct; hence,
words ought not to be multipUed, without necessity; nor
should there be, an unnecessary display of erudition,
which tends, Tatiier, to fatigue the reader, than to Ulus
trate the sense of the scripture.
Some might think, that this would be a fitting place,
for treating, of the principal commentators on the scrip
ture. However, considering, that so few have written on
the entire scripture, we think that a notice of the com
mentators, belongs, rather, to a particular introduction to
the several books, of which the sacred volume is made up.
At the same time, that we may not conclude this chapter,
without referring to some specimen of the commentary, we
shaU observe, that, in our humble judgment, the most
complete and able commentary, on the scripture, to be

.356 OF THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
found in any language, is, that of Estius, on the Epistles
of St. Paul. But, whUst we assign this high place, to
that commentary, we must not be understood, as at aU
assenting, to the extreme opinions upon grace and predes
tination, which the author so frequently advances.
Example. — As we subjoined, to our cUssertation on
biblical criticism, an example, Ulustrative of the rules,
there laid down, so, it may be useful, here, too, to bring
forward, as an illustration of our rules, the interpretation
of some passage of scripture. We shall select the com
mencement of the 20th chapter of Exodus, 1-6, which
is thus read in the Douay version — " 1, And the Lord
spoke aU these words: 2, I am the Lord thy God, who
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house
of bondage, 3. Thou shalt not have strange Gods before
me, 4. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing,
nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or
in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the
waters under the earth. 5. Thou shalt not adore them,
nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the chUcfren,
unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate
me: 6, And showing mercy unto thousands, to them
that love me, and keep my commandments," In the
Protestant authorised version, the same passage is read
as follows — "1, And God spake aU these words, saying:
2, I- am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, 3,
Thou shalt have no other Gods before me, 4. Thou shalt
not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,
5, Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them: for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visit
ing the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE. 357
the third and forth generation of them that hate me, 6,
And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me,
and keep my commandments," This latter version is
faulty in more than one particular. But, the point,
which we intend to cUscuss, for the present, is: whether
this passage contains, two commandments of the decalogue,
or only one. The opinion, which prevails, at present,
among Catholics, we may say, universaUy, is, that there
is, here, but one commandment; whUst all the Protes
tants, of these countries,* hold, that this passage contains
two of the commandments. And this diversity of opinion,
has given rise to a calumny, against the Catholic church,
which, although often refuted, is stUl repeated; so that,
it has Uved longer, than that other calumny, respecting
the suppression of the doxology in the Lord's prayer.
The shape, which this calumny assumes, is the foUowing:
Protestants say, that, the second commandment, com
mencing with the 4th verse, in this passage, condemns
the Catholic usage, of making and venerating sacred
images. They say, moreover, that, in Catholic catechisms,
from which the people are to learn the Christian doctrine,
this second commandment is suppressed, for the purpose,
of conceaUng fi-om the people, the violation of the com
mandment, by the aforesaid practice of making and vene
rating sacred images. Before concluding our observa
tions upon the point under discussion, we shall explain
this matter, respecting the catechism: and we shaU, also,
explain any difference of opinion, which may exist among
Catholic interpreters, respecting the precise manner of
dividing the commandments, as weU as, respecting the
precise nature, of the prohibition laid down in these verses.
We proceed now, to submit to a strict hermeneutical ex
amination, the question already proposed, viz.: — Do we
* The Lutherans divide the commandments as we do.

358 OF THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
find, in the passage quoted, two commandments of the deca
logue, or only one? We answer, only one; and, we con
tend, that, not one solid hermeneutical principle, can be
advanced, in favour of the other opinion. In the scrip
ture, we are informed that the number of the command
ments is ten: they are called the ten words (Exod., xxxiv.,
28): but, the scripture, nowhere tells us, by what parti
cular mode of dividing these words, the number ten is to
be made out. The guide, of course, to be followed in this
division, is, the distinction and difference, of objects,
either prohibited, or commanded. Those, who make two
commandments of the passage, which we have quoted
from Exodus, are obliged, in order to keep to the number
ten, to make but one commandment, of the prohibitions,
against coveting the neighbour's wife, and against 'covet
ing the neighbour's goods; and, here we find the first
argument against them. They are altogether astray, in
uniting, these two prohibitions, in one "commandment.
Every one admits, that the prohibitions of adultery and
theft, are two distinct commandments; because, these
acts have, distinct and very different objects. Now, to
covet the neighbour's wife, is the internal act of adultery,
according to our Redeemer Himself, in the gospel —
" Whosoever shall look on a woman to covet her, hath
already committed adultery with her in his heart," (St,
Matt,, v., 28,) To covet the neighbour's goods, is the
internal act of theft. Again, the distinction and differ
ence, of objects, is as clearly marked, in the case of internal
acts, as it is, in the case of external acts. Therefore, by
the same rule, which makes us look upon, the prohibitions
of adultery, and theft, as two distinct commandments, we
ought to look upon, the prohibitions, against coveting the
neighbour's wife, and against coveting the neighbour's
goods, as two distinct commandments, A further proof
that these internal acts are prohibited, by two distinct

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE, 359
precepts, is found, in the repetition of the words, Thou
shalt not covet, which words are used twice — " Thou shalt
not covet thy neighbour's wife. Thou shall not covet thy
neighbour's house, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor
his ox, (fee." The conclusion is, that, since there are two
precepts against coveting, there can be only one precept
in the passage under discussion, that is, a precept prohi
biting aU idolatry. Consequently, there is no precept
against making, and venerating, sacred images.
Against this argument, one objection is urged, which
is taken from the arrangement of the several clauses of
the 17th verse, of this 20th chapter of Exodus, which
stands thus — '" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's
house; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his
servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor
anything that is his." Now, it is said, if the command,
not to covet the neighbour's wife, were intended to be a
distinct precept, it would not be inserted, thus, amidst
the prohibitions, which specify several parts of that pro
perty, of the neighbour, which it is forbidden to covet.
The answer to this objection is, that the clauses of this
17th verse, 20th chapter of Exodus, do not stand now, as
they were written by Moses. Which is proved thus: —
We find the ten commandments written again, in the
Book of Deuteronomy, 5th chapter; and there the words,
Thou shcdt not covet thy neighbour's wife, are written be
fore the words, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house.
Now, the ten commandments, were proclaimed from
Mount Sina, and they were written by the finger of God,
upon the two tables of stone; and these commands, against
coveting the neighbour's house, and against coveting the
neighbour's wife, must have been proclaimed from the
mount, and arranged upon the tables, in some one way;
either in that order, in which they are found, in Deute
ronomy, or in that order, in which they are found in

360 OF THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
Exodus. In favour of which of these ways, of arranging
the words, shall we decide ? Deuteronomy has this in
its favour, that it foUows the order of the prohibition of
the external acts; for, as. Thou shalt not commit adultery,
comes before. Thou shalt not steal, it is natural to suppose
that, " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife," would
come before the command, not to covet his goods. More
over, the arrangement of these clauses in Deuteronomy,
as far as we know, has been always the same; whereas
Exodus, cannot lay claim to uniformity upon this matter.
The copy of Exodus, which the Seventy used, had the
clauses arranged, as they are in Deuteronomy; and hence
the septuagint version, both in Exodus and Deutero
nomy, has the clause. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's
wife, placed first; and the Christian church, which, in its
commencement, almost universally, read the scriptures,
either in the septuagint, or in versions made from it, has
always followed this arrangement. Now, if there are two
witnesses, who differ upon a certain point, and that one
of these, is never known to have varied in his statement,
whilst the other is known to have varied, to which of
them, wUl a prudent man give the preference ? The
answer is obvious. We conclude, then, that the order
of the clauses, has been disturbed in Exodus, through the
negligence of copyists.
The second argument in favour of our assertion, that
there is but one commandment in the passage under
examination, is taken from the words, which follow the
preceptive part of the passage, God, to show that He
will not tolerate the violation of what is here commanded,
declares, that He is a jealous God, Here we have,
jealousy attributed, by a figure, to God. According to
the custom of the scripture, jealousy, in its proper sense,
is ascribed peculiarly to the husband ; that is, of course,
the husband, in whom the passion is excited, through the

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE. 361
apprehension of infideUty on the part of his wife. So
that, as in several other places in the Old Testament, we
have, here, the union between God and His chosen people,
"VTrtuaUy compared, to the union between husband and
wife. And we see, by these words, that the sin, which
is forbidden in the preceding words, is that sin, which,
in scripture language, is compared, to the infideUty of a
wife to her husband. Now, that sin is idolatry. This
is quite clear from numerous passages of the Old Testa
ment. No more usual name for idolatry, in the denun
ciations of the prophets against it, than fornication.
And, although the crime of the wife, to which there is
aUusion, is, strictly speaking, adulteiy, yet the scripture
does not attend, commonly, to this distinction ; as we
learn from the words of our Redeemer, in the Gospel,
where He terms this infidelity of the wife, fornication,
" Whosoever shaU put away his wife, excepting the cause
of fornication," c&c. (Matt. v. 32; xix. 9.) From what
we have said, it follows, that the crime prohibited in the
passage under consideration, is simply idolatry — aU
making of idols, and worshipping of false gods. Such
being the case, there is but one commandment in the
passage ; which, therefore, contains no precept against
making and venerating sacred images.
The third argument, in favour of our assertion, is
taken from the authority of the septuagint. The word
in the original, which we translate graven thing, and
which the Protestants translate, graven image, is Pesd;
which word has its precise meaning given by the vulgate,
SculptHe, and by our EngUsh version, a graven thing.
The Pesd, according to scriptural usage, means a certain
land of representation or likeness, of something real or
imaginary. To oR such likenesses, the name Pesd
is given, because, they were usuaUy made by graving,
carving, or hewing smooth; although, sometimes, the

362 OF THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
Pesd of scripture, might have been made by fusion, or
in some other way. Hence, the following part of the
fourth verse of this twentieth chapter of Exodus, merely
specifies different classes of objects, whereof, the Pesd
might be the representation or likeness, viz., celestial
objects, terrestrial, and aquatic objects. To know, then,
the sense of the entire verse, it is sufficient to know
what the Pesd was. Now, there is no doubt in the
world about the meaning, which the septuagint trans
lators have assigned to Pesd, They have translated the
word, e&aiXov ; which word means, indeed, an image, but
an image of a particular kind, viz., an image, which
either represents a false god, or which is considered to
be, itself, a god. This is made perfectly clear by St. Paul,
who, addressing the well-informed Christians at Corinth,
says of himsdf and them, " We know that an idol
(eilwXov), is nothing in the world." (1 Cor. viii. 4),
Now, St, Paul must here give the meaning to e£wXov,
which we have mentioned. For, let us take, as an
example of the eihwXov, the likeness of some celestial
thing, for instance, an image of the sun. Then, it could
not be said of this, that it is nothing, as to the matter of
which it is made ; for, under this respect, it is something,
either stone, or wood, or metal, or some such thing.
Again, if we view this as, simply, an image of the sun,
we cannot say that it is nothing ; because, since the sun
has a real existence, it can have a representation. But,
taking eSwXov in the sense, which I have given it, we
see at once, how this image of the sun is nothing. If it
be looked upon as a god — it is no god. Viewed under
such a respect, it is nothing. Again, if it be viewed as, the
representation of that which is accounted a god, viz,, the
sun, it is nothing, also ; because, the sun has no existence
as a god; and of that, which has no existence, there can
be no representation, St, Paul goes on to show us stUl

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE, 363
more fully, the meaning, which he attaches to eSwXov,
by saying, equivalently, that if the e&wXov were any
thing in the world, there would be more gods than one.
We see, then, what eSioXov means in St, Paul. Now, it
must mean the same thing in the septuagint version.
For, St. Paul puts it down as certain, that, weU-informed
Christians at Corinth, had no doubt about this meaning
(1 Cor. vUi.); and they, certainly, would have had
doubts about it, if the septuagint had ever used the word
in a different sense ; for, it was, unquestionably, in the
septuagint version that the Christians at Corinth read
the Old Testament. From aU that we have said, it
foUows, that we have the authority of the septuagint
translators, for looking upon the fourth verse as merely
prohibiting aU idolatry; and, therefore, we have their
authority for saying, that there is but one commandment
in the passage under examination. And when the sep
tuagint translators gave the meaning, to -this passage,
which they have ascribed to it, they were, doubtless,
guided in doing so, by the judgment of the Jewish
Church. Our fourth argument in favour of the assertion, that
there is but one commandment in this passage of Exodus,
is derived from the fact, that aU images of a saCred
character, were not proscribed in the Jewish religion.
We might refer to several instances, of the use of images
in connexion with the worship of God, in the old law.
The two following, however, very remarkable instances,
wiU be sufficient for our purpose here. The first of
these, is, the cherubim of the sanctuary. Of aU the places
set apart for the worship of God, in the Jewish Church,
the most holy was, the sanctuary, or sanctum sanctorum,
first, of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple.
This, its very name indicates. This was the place of the
special presence of God among his cihosen people. As

364 OF THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
Jerusalem was the city of the Great King, (Matt. v. 35,)
so, the mercy-seat of the sanctuary was His throne.
Well, one of the most conspicuous ornaments of the
sanctuary, was the images of the cherubim, standing
upon the ark of the covenant. And if it be said, that
these images were not exposed to public view, inasmuch
as the people were excluded from the sanctuary ; it may
be replied, that they were often brought before the minds
of the people, in those words, by which God is so often
described in the scripture, as He who sits upon the cheru
bim; the allusion being here, to that special presence of
God, over the ark of the covenant.
More remarkable still, was the image of the brazen
serpent, which was to be exposed to the view of all the
people ; the end, which it was, immediately, intended to
serve, being the cure of all those, who having been
bitten by the fiery serpents, would look upon it. That this
image was not destitute of a sacred character, appears
from the fact, that it was a most illustrious type of Christ,
accorcUng to the explanation of the Redeemer Himself,
in His cUscourse with Nicodemus, (John, iii, 14, 15,)
Having now explained the proof of our assertion, we
have to answer an argument, which our adversaries urge
against. us, taken from the authority of the Jews, The
Jewish rabbins divide the commandments as the Protes
tants cUvide them : doing so, they say, that this passage
under discussion, contains two of the commandments ;
and for this cUvision, they can quote Josephus and Philo,
Our answer to this is, that the authority of those Jewish
rabbins, who taught about the period of our Redeemer's
ministry on earth, is of no weight, on this matter of the
division of the commandments. The reason of this is,
that those doctors, altogether mistook the meaning of
the words, thou shalt not covet; and, therefore, it is
not surprising, that they should have failed, to mark

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE. 365
the proper distinction between the precepts directed
against coveting. So far were they, from understanding
rightly, the force of the words, thou shalt not covet, that
they did not look upon acts, that were merely internal,
as at aU sinful. This appears from the sermon of our
Redeemer on the mount, wherein He so explains some of
the commandments, as to show us that the justice of ihe
Scribes and Pharisees made no account of the mere
intemalact. (See Matt. v. 20, 21, 22, 27, 28.) And,
Josephus leaves no room for doubting of his sentiments
upon this point. For, he censures Polybius for saying,
that " Antiochus Epiphanes cUed, because he had a pur
pose to plunder the temple of Diana in Persia." The
reason, which he gives for censuring Polybius is, that
" the purposing to do a thing, but not actuaUy doing it,
is not worthy of punishment." — Antiq. xU. 9. In these
prohibitions, then, of the decalogue, these doctors must
have understood the word covet, to imply external acts of
some sort, preparatory to the consummation of crime:
They misunderstood, entfrdy, the meaning of covet, and,
therefore, as I said before, it is not wonderfid, that they
should have faded, to perceive the distinction of the
precepts, by which it is prohibited to covet.
Some CathoU(^s, also, have marked the cUvision of the
commandments in the same way, as the Protestants have
done ; thus making two precepts of the passage in
question. But, these CathoUc theologians, to whom we
refer, (and they are, comparatively, very few in number,)
give to the second commandment, a meaning very diffe
rent from that, which Protestants assign to it. Let us
take, for example, Frassen, who divides the command
ments in this way : he thus states the meaning of the
two first commandments; First, One only God is to be
worshipped. Second, AU idolatry is to be avoided, and
aU honouring of false gods. — Disquistiones in Penta-

366 OF THE MANNER OF SETTING FORTH
teuchum — in caput xx. Exodi. We may weU say, that
Frassen, here, makes a distinction, without showing a
cUfference. At all events, such a view of the question as
this, can have no influence upon the controversy between
Catholics and Protestants, respecting the division of the
commandments. There is another view of this subject, to which we
must refer, as it is not destitute of Catholic support : it
is this; that the first commandment of the decalogue,
partly belongs to the natural law, and partly to the
positive Jewish law; and that, as a positive law, it
forbade the Jews, on account of their special proneness
to idolatry, to make even sacred images. Thus, Vasquez;
who says, that God dispensed in this positive law, when
He commanded Moses to make the brazen serpent. But
this opinion, as appears from what we have already said,
has no solid foundation in the text of scripture. How
ever, it is unnecessary to dweU upon it; inasmuch as,
those laws, which were merely Jewish, have nothing to
do with Christians. The Judaizing heresy, which taught
the contrary, has been always reprobated in the church.
And here we can, finally, and in confirmation of aU that
has been said, appeal to that dogmatical law of interpre
tation, the judgment of the church; which has ever
clearly declared, that there is no natural law, or positive
law imposed on Christians, prohibiting to make, or to
pay due veneration to, sacred images. We find this
declaration of the church, implicitly recorded in her
practice at aU times : we find it explicitly recorded in
her condemnation, of the Iconoclast heresy, and of the
revival of that heresy by the Calvinists,
To say a word or two, now, respecting the form, in
which the preceptive part of this passage in Exodus, is
given, in our shorter catechisms; yiz, — / am the Lord,
thy God; thou shalt have no other Gods but me. It is

THE SENSE OF THE SCRIPTURE, 367
quite clear, from what we have said, that, as far, at least,
as Christians are concerned, these few words give the fuU
meaning of aU that is commanded. On the other hand,
in this brief form, it is more easy to commit to memory,
and to retain there, what is commanded. But, if any
one wishes to read this preceptive passage, at fuU length,
he wUl easUy find it in our larger catechisms, not to speak
of the Douay Bible, at aU.
The tenth commandment is, also, abbre"nated, in our
shorter catechisms. In them, there is no mention made
of the house, or the servant, or the ox, c&c. ; but, it is sim
ply said. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods. It
is wonderful, that our adversaries never said, that the
Catholic clergy adopted this brief form, for the purpose
of, more effectuaUy, keeping away the attention of the
people, from some deep designs of their own, against the
houses and oxen of thefr neighbours. Such a calumny,
no doubt, would be very absurd, Tet, it would have,
just as much foundation in fact; it would exhibit, as great
an amount of common sense in the propounder of it, and
as thorough an acquaintance with the whole subject of
the decalogue, as the calumny which we have been
refiiting.

DISSERTATION XIII,

OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE HOLY LAND; AND
OF THE PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES ABOUT IT, OF WHICH
MENTION IS MADE IN THE SCRIPTURE,
The importance, of being well acquainted with biblical
archfeology, (that is, with biblical antiquities,) in order
to a right understanding of the sacred volume, is too
obvious to require proof Biblical archaeology is, often,
designated by the name of Jewish antiquities, because, it
almost exclusively, appertains to the ancient history of
the Jewish people.
Biblical antiquities are divided into political, religious,
and domestic antiquities. Before entering upon any of
these parts of the subject, it is desirable to form as accu
rate a notion, as we can, respecting the geographical
position, and the physical character, of the land, which
that people inhabited, of whose antiquities, we are about
to treat. We refer, of course, to the ancient country of
the Jews; but, before speaking of that, we shall say a few
words, of those countries, which bordered upon the Jewish
possessions; and of which, the names, often occur in the
bible. Among these, the most important to be known,
are, Aramcea, or the country oiAram, Assyria, Phoenicia,
Media, Persia, Susiana, and Elymais, Babylonia and
Chaldea, Arabia, Egypt, The region designated in the
scriptures by the name oi Aram, or Aramcea, was a tract
of country of great extent, having PhcEuicia on the west,
Palestine on the south, Arabia deserta and the river

OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY, ETC. 369
Tigris on the east, and the mountain-range of Taurus on
the north. The country appears to have been cUvided,
anciently, into three parts, having the names of Aram
Beth Rohob, Aram Naharayim, and simply Aram. Aram
Beth Rohob, accorcUng to some, designates Assyria. This
opinion, although advocated by Jahn, is not considered
very probable, because, contrary to the common opinion,
it would extend the limits of Aramsea, to the country
beyond the Tigris. At present, it is not known with
certainty, what were the Umits of Aram Beth Rohob.
Second. — Aram Naharayim, or Aram of the two rivers,
was so caUed, because it lay between the two rivers — the
Tigris and the Euphrates. This is the country, which
was caUed, by the Greeks, Mesopotamia. Third. — Aram,
without any qualification, ordinarUy designates. Western
Syria, or Syria properly so called. This country, situated
between the 33rd and 37th degrees of N. latitude, was
bounded upon the north by Mount Taurus, on the west
by the MecUterranean Sea and Phoenicia, on the east by
the Euphrates, and on the south by Palestine and the
desert of Arabia. It comprised many small states, such
as, the kingdoms, of Damascus, of Maacha, of Tob, of
Emath or Hemath, and of Gessur.
Assyria was, at first, but a smaU province beyond the
Tigris. Its limits, in early times, are unknown. Having
been graduaUy enriched, by the accession of new pro
vinces, it, at length, extended as far as Syria and Pales
tine, and became exceecUngly powerful and celebrated,
under the name of the Assyrian empire. Its capital,
Ninive, was situated on the eastern bank of the Tigris,
opposite to the present Mosul, WhUst the Assyrian
empfre flourished, Ninive was the most considerable city
of Asia. We learn from the book of Jonas, that, in the
days of that prophet, Ninive was exceedingly populous,
and of vast extent. The last verse of the book gives us
TOL. I 2 b

370 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
to understand, that there were in the city 120,000
children so young, as not to be able to distinguish between
their right hand and their left. It must have occupied a
vast space of ground, since it is said to have been " a
great city, of three days' journey," (Jonas, iii,, 3,) It is
doubted, whether or not the three days' journey lay in a
straight line, through the city. Some suppose that the
space of three days, was required to go through aU the
chief streets, and public places. In either case, the
ground occupied by the city, must have been very great.
But it is not necessary to suppose, that it was all occu
pied by streets and houses; as the large cities of Asia had
not only gardens, but even fields in the midst of them.
Ninive has been for ages a heap of ruins.
Assyria is, in an especial manner, entitled to our notice,
by reason of its connexion with the history of the Hebrew
people. For a long time, did its princes continue to
harass the two kingdoms of Juda and Israel; until, at
last, they took away captive, the people of the latter king
dom, and re-peopled their country from the Assyrian
dominions. After the reign of Asor-Haddan (mentioned
1st Esdras, iv, 2), the Medes having shaken off the yoke,
the Assyrian empire began to decline. It continued to
exist, however, until the defeat of its last monarch, Sar-
danapalus II,, by Cyaxares, king of Media, and Nabopo-
lassar, viceroy of Babylon, about .620 B.C., when Ninive
was taken, and Assyria, having been reduced to a pro
vince of Media, suddenly disappeared from sacred and
profane history; and thus continued a blank, for a long
succession of ages; so that, at length, incredulous men
were found, who treated as a fable, not only what profane
history related of the splendour of ancient Assyria, but
even, what the scripture contained, respecting, the great
ness of Ninive in the days of Jonas the prophet, and the
vast military resources of the Assyrian monarch. Modern

OF THE HOLY LAND, ETC. 371
discoveries, we may say, have more than confirmed what
the scripture relates; as may be seen, by the specimens,
of the former grandeur, of the country of which we speak,
that have been forwarded to Paris and London, by the
two distinguished explorers of the ancient Ninive, Botta
and Layard. The rains, which have been hitherto ex
plored, are truly wonderfid : palaces of vast cUmensions,
•with gigantic ornaments, in the shape of winged bulls
and Uons; bearing on thefr sciUptured walls, the records
of battles, sieges, triumphs, the bringing of tribute by
various conquered peoples; as weU as the record of feasts
and amusements. These discoveries, also, prove, to a
demonstration, that at that early period, so many ages
before the Christian era, the arts of life, were better
known, and more skilfuUy cultivated, than they are at
this day, in those countries. These cUscoveries, therefore,
Ulustrate several aUusions to the arts and usages of life,
found in the scripture; upon which, they throw even a
greater light, than do the researches amidst the monu
ments of Egypt. And, indeed, this was to be expected,
considering the relation in which Assyria stood towards
Palestine, as it is recorded in the sacred volume. More
over, the written records of the Assyrian monarchy, which
are so abundant, on the waUs of the palaces, at Khors-
abad and Nimroud, and wherever else excavations have
been made, round about the site of the ancient Ninive,
promise, to throw a stUl greater light, on these ancient
times, and their usages; as soon as, a satisfactory pro
gress shaU have been made, in deciphering the cuneiform
and arrow-headed characters of these Assyrian inscrip
tions. It is gratifying to know, that the attempts, which
have been already made, to decipher these characters —
in which attempts. Major Rawlinson, an Englishman, is
principally distinguished — are of such a kind as to in-

372 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
spire the greatest hopes, of ultimate success in this highly
interesting inquiry.
Phoenicia is the name of a province of Syria, which
extended from the gulf of Issus, where it bounded Cilicia
on the north, along the coast southwards, to the termina
tion of the ridges of Libanus and AntUibanus near Tyre,
where it met the border of Palestine. In breadth, it only
comprehended the narrow tract, between the continuation
of Mount Libanus and the sea. Its principal cities were,
Sidon and Tyre, which are frequently mentioned in the
scriptures, although the name of Phoenicia does not occur
there. Sidon was a city of great importance, in the time
of Josue, who refers to it by the name of the great city.
(Josue, xi,, 8, xix,, 28,) Tyre, more recent than Sidon,
became more celebrated. Having been destroyed by
Nabuchodonosor, it was rebuilt upon a site adjacent to that
of the ancient city. It was afterwards overturned by
Alexander the Great, and from that time, although again
restored, it never recovered its former, greatness.
Media was a country, which extended from the 32nd
to the 40th degree of north latitude, bounded on the west
by Assyria and Armenia, on the north by the Caspian
Sea, on the east by Hyrcania and Parthia, and on the
south by Persia. Its metropolis was Ecbatana, now
caUed Hamdan,
Persia is that tract, which extends from MecUa on the
north, as far as the Persian Gulf to the south. In its
extended sense, it comprehended Elymais and Susiana.
In a more restricted sense, however, it excluded both
these, and had Susiana to the west, and Caramania to
the east.
Susiana, of which the metropolis was Susan, was
situated between Persia and Babylonia, having to the
south the Persian Gulf It is now caUed Chuzistan, or
Khouzistan.

OF THE HOLY LAND, ETC. 373
Elymais, so caUed from Elam, the son of Sem, was
formerly taken to designate aU Persia ; although, rigour
ously speaking, it was but a province of that empfre,
situated to the north of Susiana, and to the north-east
of Babylon; having on another side MecUa. Its limits
cannot be accurately defined.
Babylonia, so caUed from its capital city Babylon so
celebrated in history, is the country, of which Moses
speaks by its ancient name of Sennaar (Gtenesis, x. 10).
Ptolemy assigns its limits : to the north, Mesopotamia ;
to the east, the Tigris, after its junction with the
Euphrates; to the west Arabia Deserta; and to the
south, a part of the Persian Gulf, and the extremity of
Arabia Deserta. Chaldea, which, strictly speaking, was
but a part of Babylonia, has sometimes been used to
signify the entire of that country ; for, in Jerenuas, as
in aU the writings of his time, when there is question
of the Chaldeans, we must understand the inhabitants
of the country round about Babylon. It is in the same
sense, that Ezechiel places Babylon in Chaldea (Ezechiel,
XU. 13). What the precise Umits of Chaldea strictiy
taken, were, is a matter of dispute. According to
RosenmuUer, in his Biblical Geography of Central Asia
(chapter eighth), Chaldea was the south-western part of
Babylonia, lying towards Arabia Deserta.
Arabia is an extensive country of Asia, situated to
the west of the Tigris and the Euphrates, and to the
east and south of Palestine. By the inhabitants
of Palestine, it was caUed the eastern country ; but,
by the Babylonians, the western country. Hence,
even in the scripture, its inhabitants are sometimes
designated, as the people of the east; sometimes, as the
people of the west. (Compare Judges, vi. 3 ; 1 Kings,
iv. 30 ; Isaiah, xi. 14; Jer. xlix. 28; 2 Para. xvii. 11 ;
and xxi. 16.) The division of this countiy, by Ptolemy

374 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
and others, into Arabia Felix, Petrea, and Deserta, is not
observed in the bible, nor is it known to the Arabians
themselves. Arabia Felix, so caUed on account of its fertility, was
called also Sabea, and Saba or Seba ; whence its inhabi
tants have been designated by the name of Sabeans : it
was bounded, on the east, by the Persian Gulf; on the
south, by the Indian Ocean; on the west, by the Red
Sea; and on the north, by the mountains, which separated
it from the two other parts of Arabia.
Arabia Petrea, so called from its capital city, Petra,
lay along the Red Sea; being bounded, on the north, by
Palestine ; and on the east and south, by Arabia Deserta,
and a part of Arabia Felix.
Arabia Deserta, according to the ancient geography,
was bounded on the west by Trachonitis; on the north,
by the country of Damascus, Syria, and Mesopotamia;
and on the south by Babylonia, and by the mountains,
which separated it from Arabia Felix. Arabia Deserta,
was the ancient abode of the Edomites, the Moabites,
the Madianites, the Amalekites, and, in fine, of the
Israelites, for forty years after their departure from
Egypt : its capital was Bosra, called also Bostram, or
Bostra, Egypt is a well-known country of Africa, which, in
the ancient geography, might have been about five
hundred mUes in length ; but its breadth was not con
siderable. On the east, it was bounded by Arabia
Petrea and the Red Sea ; on the south, by Ethiopia, or
rather. Nubia ; on the west, by the deserts of Lybia ; and
on the north, by the Mediterranean Sea, It was
divided into two, and sometimes into three parts, viz,,
northern, or the lower Egypt, which is called the Delta ;
and southern, or the upper Egypt, caUed, by the Arabians,
Zaid, and by the Greeks, Thebais. The lower part of

OF THE HOLY LAND, ETC. 375

the upper Egypt, was sometimes reckoned a third part,
and caUed Heptanomis, because it consisted of seven
districts. The celebrated river NUe, which, in the scrip
ture, is usuaUy designated by the name of Yeor (the river),
divides the country into two parts. Each year, in the
months of August and September, it overflows its banks,
and by the deposit, which it leaves, fertilizes the country
round about. The NUe empties itself into the Mediter
ranean by two mouths : these alone, of the seven which
it formerly had, now remain. The more remarkable
cities of Egypt, were — Thebes, or the great Diospolis,
the metropolis of upper Egypt, celebrated by Homer for
its hundred gates, and still famous by its ruins; Memphis,
near the confines of the lower and upper Egypt, on the
western shore of the NUe ; Tanis, now caUed Menzaleh ;
it was the seat of the kings of the twenty-first and
twenty-third dynasties of Manetho, and, according to
some, the bfrth-place of Moses. It was fi-om this city,
that one of the principal branches of the NUe, took the
name of Tanitic. Alexandria : this city is situated on
a tongue of land, formed by the Mediterranean Sea, and
the Lake Moeris. This superb city was built by
Alexander the Great, who named it after himself : it was
the residence of the Ptolemys, and the capital of Egypt
during the period of the Roman domination. It ac-
qufred great renown for its beautifiU port, and stiU more
for its library and museum. The ruins, which yet
remain of the ancient city, may give us some idea of
what it formerly was.
The land of Gessen, which the IsraeUtes inhabited in
Egypt, was a fertUe country, weU adapted for pasturage.
Interpreters and geographers are much divided, as to the
true situation of this country. Glaire adopts, as most
probable, the opinion, which places it in lower Egypt, to
the east of the Pdusiac branch of the Nile, between

376 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
Heliopolis and Heroopolis. — Glaire Introduc, tom. ii.
page 16.
One of the limits of the land of Gessen, was the
Torrent of Egypt, which is often mentioned in the scrip
ture. Some interpreters have thought, that this Torrent
of Egypt referred to the Nile. Jahn has brought
together several very probable reasons, to show that it
ran near the place, formerly caUed Rhinocorura, now
El-arisch. Although it does not fall within our scope, precisely,
to dweU upon the history of countries, which lay outside
of the limits of the Holy Land, yet, there are special
reasons, why we should not pass over Egypt, with this
mere geographical notice of its boundaries and extent.
It cannot be denied, that before the time, when Jacob
and his family went down to Egypt, by the invitation of
Pharao, the Egyptians were acc^uainted with agriculture,
and all those arts of civilization and government, which
indicate a social existence, extending backwards ¦ for a
considerable time. This appears from several statements
in the books of Moses, which are confirmed, in a striking
manner, by architectural remains, that have survived
the ravages of above thirty centuries. For, while the
Israelites, under the immediate successors of Josue, were
stiU warring with the Chanaanites, for the possession of
the land of promise ; or yet earlier, while they were yet
slaves in Egypt ; that most interesting land was distin
guished for palaces, temples, porticoes, obelisks, statues,
and canals, which declare, that they had been preceded
by a considerable period of civUisation, and which stUl
remain the admiration of the world. The Israelites,
therefore, during the four huncfred and thirty years, that
they remained in Egypt, must have learned much, from
a people so far advanced in the arts of civilised life.
Moses, in particular, having been brought up at court.

OF THE HOLY LANT), ETC. 377
had thus an exceUent opportunity of making himself
acquainted with the learning of the Egyptians, and with
the advanced state of the arts and sciences among them.
And, indeed, St. Stephen, in the Acts of the Apostles
(vu., 22), informg us, that he (Moses) ¦• was instracted
in aU the wisdom of the Egyptians; and that he was
mighty in his words, and in his deeds." The inspfred
volume — ^particularly the wi-itings of Moses — is not only
the best authority, which we possess, on the, early history
of Egypt; but, after aU the labour, that has been bestowed
on the attempt, to decypher the hieroglyphics, it stUl con
tinues to be, also, the fuUest authority on the subject.
The interesting view, of ancient Egypt, which so many
references in the scriptui-e give us, and which is so strik
ingly confirmed by many monuments, has induced men
of profound learning, and great powers of mind, to en
gage, with extraordinary ardour and perseverance, in the
attempt to decypher the hieroglyphics. It is considered
stUl, even after all that has been made known, by the
highly interesting works, of Toung, ChampolUon, and
many others, that the success has been, by no means,
commensurate with the labour that has been expended
upon this object : and that the progress made in reading
the hieroglyphics, or the amount of knowledge, as yet
acMjuired by means of them, is not at aU as great, as the
pubUc was led to expect. Whatever knowledge, how
ever, has been acqufred, as to the state of ancient Egypt,
by any channel distinct from the sacred writings, has
been found to harmonise foUy with those inspfred records;
as Christians knew a priori, should be the case. And,
if the revelations, which have been, up to the present time,
drawn from the hieroglyphics, are comparatively meagre,
there is yet another class of monuments, that suppUes
us with most abundant and important disclosures, respect
ing the ancient history of the Egyptians. These are, the

378 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
paintings and sculptures, with which that people left the
walls of their tombs and temples decorated, in forms and
colours, which have not yet faded from the sight. The
author, of the article on Egypt, in Kitto's Cyclopaedia of
Biblical Literature, observes: — "Let any one visit the
Egyptian gallery, in the British Museum, and he will
be surprised and delighted, to find Egypt almost resus
citated. The tombs have given up their dead. Buried
treasures, over whose silence centuries had rolled before
our era began, crowd on the sight, and gratify the mind.
And paintings, too, strike the eye, which may not, indeed,
conform very exactly to the laws of perspective, but
which lay open, and set before the spectator, the Egyptian,
as he was in the days of his glory and pride. Indeed,
from the paintings and sculptures which have been dis
covered and described, we are enabled to follow this most
singular and deeply interesting people, through all the
classes of society, through all the operations of science
and husbandry, into the transactions of public life, the
details of housekeeping, the achievements of war, the
amusements of hunting, fishing, feasting, and the solemn
rites of a most imposing religious ceremonial." — Kitto's
Cyclopcedia, vol. I., p. 603.
Some, whose object it was, to depreciate the religious
institutions of Moses, have said, that the Hebrew legis
lator, was, in this matter, a mere copyist of the Egyptian
ritual, as it then existed. Others, although not
influenced by so unworthy a motive, have advanced
opinions, which would give too great a sanction to this
assertion. Thus Hengstenberg, in his work, Egypt and the
Books of Moses, whilst he demonstrates, from the monu
ments of Egypt, the falsehood of the opinion, which would
assign a later date to these books than the age of Moses,
is justly blamed for the tendency, which he shows, to
throw doubts on the originality of the Mosaic legislation.

OF THE HOLY LAND, ETC, 379
And, long before the time of Hengstenberg, Spencer, in
his well-known work, De Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus
et eorum Rationibus, has taught, that almost all the
Mosaic religious rites, were borrowed from the Gentile —
particularly from the Egyptian ritual. But these opi
nions are by no means, admissible. The two Protestant
authors here mentioned, do not deny the divinity of the
Jewish religion; then it ought to be a sufficient answer
to them, to say, that Moses, the inspired legislator of the
Jews, could only deliver that law to this people, which
God commissioned him to deliver. Now, it cannot be
supposed, that God, in His wisdom, would use the profane
ceremonies of the Gentiles, to foreshadow His future
church; or, that for the pure worship of Himself, the true
God, He would prescribe a ritual associated, in the minds
of the people, with a debasing, idolatrous, worship. Besides,
Moses speaks in such a manner of his law, and ordinances
of worship, as is quite irreconcilable with the opinion,
which we are here combating ; he says, in Deuteronomy
(iv,, 6-8) — " For this is your wisdom, and understanding
in the sight of nations, that hearing all these precepts,
they may say : behold a wise • and understanding people,
a great nation  For what other nation is there so
renowned, that hath ceremonies, and just judgments, and
all the law, which I wUl set forth, this day before your
eyes ?" Now, if the Jewish ceremonial had been a copy
of the Egyptian, how could Moses have made such a state
ment as this, in the presence of the people, who would
have at once said, that it could not possibly be a matter
of astonishment to the Egyptians, to hear of rites, with
which they were already so familiar in their own worship ?
Moreover, it is the repeated injunction of Moses to the
Hebrews — Not to do to the Lord their God as the nations
of Chanaan did to their Gods: thus he speaks in Deuter,
(xii,, 4,) and in other places. And, doubtless, whilst

380 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
Moses thus expressed his abhorrence of the idolatrous
rites of the Chanaanite worship, he would not, at the
same time, have honoured Egyptian idolatry so far, as to
have incorporated its ritual with his own law. If it
be said, that the ceremonies of Chanaanite idolatry were
specially revolting, we can say, on the other hand, that
the brute-worship of Egypt, gave a special character of
degradation, to the rites of that country. In fact, since
the time, when Hengstenberg wrote his book on Egypt
and the Books of Moses, the alleged basis of his doubts,
has been removed by more recent researches among the
monumental records of that country: and the answer,
which had been given, long since, to the objection, taken
from the similarity between certain Mosaic and Egyptian
rites, has been strikingly confirmed. The true state of
the case, then, is: — First. — That the code of Jewish law,
was derived from no previously existing institutions.
SeconcUy. — That the Mosaic institutions, in aU their
great, and prominent, and substantial features, were dif
ferent from, and opposed to, the peculiar institutions of
the Gentile nations. We say peculiar^ because some
things, such as the offering of sacrifice, we hold to have
come down from the primitive tradition — from the in
structions, given by the first parents of the human race,
to their chUdren, as to how God was to be worshipped;
the vestiges of which instructions, were not entirely obU-
terated, even among the Pagans. Thirdly. — Where an
agreement, in some minor matters, is discovered, between
the Mosaic, and Egyptian rites or observances, this may
be accounted for, by supposing, that the Egyptians bor
rowed the rites in question, from the Mosaic institutions:
or, if one should insist, that the rite first existed among
the Egyptians, then it may be said, that there was some
natural fitness in the thing, on account of which, it was
prescribed by God, without any reference to its previous

OF THE HOLY LAND, ETC, 381
adoption by any other people. On this head the learned
Hooke, suppUes another answer — that is, that admitting,
that all the rites, that were common to Egyptians and
Hebrews, were derived from the former people, such
admission, would by no means detract from the divine
authority of the law : for, after it had been made known
to the people, by signs and wonders, that the Mosaic re
ligion proceeded from God ; after innumerable laws had
been sanctioned, altogether opposed to the superstitions
of Egypt, and which would make an everlasting sepa
ration between the two peoples ; it was not, by any means,
inconsistent with wisdom, to preserve those rites and
usages, which were afready known to the people, and
which could be easily converted to a good end, (See
Hooke, De Vera Rdigione — Editio cursus completi, Tom.
ii., coL 789.)
We shaU here observe in conclusion, that when we
pass from the Mosaic legislation, to investigate the an
cient state, of the arts and sciences among the Hebrews,
and of their domestic antiquities generally ; we find,
that in that department, their residence in Egypt for so
long a period, exercised a direct and most important
influence. We come now to treat, immecUately, of the Historical
Geography of the Holy Land — and, we cannot better
preface our remarks upon the subject, than by quoting
the words of St. Jerome, (Epistola ad Domnionem et Ro-
gatian,) adduced by Jahn and Glafre, in which this holy
father beautifuUy points out the utility of this study
for the interpreter of the scripture, "Quomodo Graecorum
historias magis inteUigunt qui Athenas viderint, et ter
tium VirgUii Ubrum, qui a Troade per Leucatem et
Acroceraunia ad SicUiam, et nde ad ostia Tiberis navi-
gaverint; ita sanctam Scripturam lucidius intuebitur
qui Judseam ocuUs contemplatus sit, et antiquarum

382 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
urbium memorias, locorumque vel eadem vocabula, vel
mutata cognoverit, Unde et nobis curae fiiit cum erudi-
tissimis viris hunc laborem subire ; ut circumiremus pro-
vinciam, quam universse Ecclesiae Christi sonant,"
The country of the Hebrews has been designated by
several names : thus it has been called, first. The land of
Chanaan, because, after the deluge, it was inhabited
by the descendants of Chanaan the son of Cham, or the
Chanaanites. The sons of Chanaan, who divided this
country among them, and were for a long time, by their
descendants, masters of it, were — Sidon, Heth, Jehus,
Amorrh, Gerges, Heve, Arac, Sin, Arad, Samar and
Hamath, (Gen, x, 15-19,) Second, The Land of Pro
mise, or the promised land, because, God had promised
it to the descendants of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, Third, The land of the Hebrews or Israelites,
after Josue had divided it among the twelve tribes of
Israel. Fourth, The kingdoms of Juda and of Israel, on
account of the two kingdoms, which were formed, at the
time of the schism under Roboam the son of Solomon ;
of which, one was called the kingdom of Juda, composed
of the two tribes of Juda and Benjamin; and the other
the kingdom of Israel, which comprised the other ten
tribes. Fifth, Judea, because, after the return of the
Hebrews" from the Babylonian captivity, the greater part,
of those who again took possession of their ancient
country, belonged to the tribe of Juda, Sixth, Palestine,
a name given to it by the Greeks and Romans, and
derived from the name of one of those peoples, who
anciently inhabited the country, viz,, the Palestinians,
called by us in imitation of their Hebrew name, PhUistines,
Seventh, in fine. The holy land, in memory of the Na
tivity, Life, Passion, and Death of our Redeemer; and of
aU the Divine prodigies whereof it has been the theatre.
This name, which has been given to it by Christians, is

OF THE HOLY LAND, ETC. 383
the one, which is most appropriately employed, when we
speak of this country.
As regards the limits of the Holy Land, Jahn (Archce
ologia Biblica) observes," Chanaan, the country promised
by God to Abraham and his posterity, and which was at
first occupied in part by the Chanaaneans, and in part by
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had for its boundaries round
about, the river Jordan and the Dead Sea, Arabia-Petrea,
the Mediterranean Sea, and Syria : but, the promises of
God, at the same time, regarded those countries, which
the Hebrews in after times, when provoked to arms,
should subject to their own dominion. Hence, in the
very outset, that they might be able to penetrate into the
country, which the patriarchs had occupied, they en
countered the kings of that tract of country beyond the
Jordan, which extended, from the river Arnon to the foot
of Mount Hermon, or AntUibanus; and having overcome
these kings, they took possession of their lands (see 21st
chapter of Numbers); and in after ages, they reduced
other neighbouring countries under their sway," Hence,
as the country of the Hebrews, was at some times more
extensive than at others, we need not be astonished, that
the scripture does not always, define the Umits of this
country in the same way. However, according to the
more ordinary acceptation of the Holy Land, we may with
Glaire, fix its boundaries as follows: — on the north
Phoenicia, and Mount Libanus, which separated it from
Syria; on the east the mountains of Galaad and of Arabia;
on the south Mount Seir; and on the west the MecUter
ranean Sea. The exact extent of this country, has been
variously estimated by geographers; accorcUng to the most
accurate maps, it appears to have been nearly two
huncfred mUes in length, and in breadth to have varied
from eighty to near a huncfr-ed mUes.
Before the arrival of the twelve tribes in the promised

384 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
land, it was occupied by the descendants of Chanaan, the
son of Cham. Before Abraham entered the country, it
was inhabited by eleven nations, whose names were taken
from the eleven sons of Chanaan. These were, first — the
Sidonians; second, the Hethites; third, the Jebusites;
fourth, the Amorrhites; fifth, the Gergesites; sixth, the
Hevites; seventh, the Aracites; eighth, the Sinites; ninth,
the Aradians; tenth, the Samarites; and eleventh, the
Hamathites, These had the country and its several
cities, portioned out among them. When, however, God
promised the land to Abraham, as related in the fifteenth
chapter of Genesis, we find that the possessors of the
country, were somewhat differently named, and formed
but ten nations, viz,: — the Cineans, Cenezites, Cedmonites,
Hethites, Pharizites, Raphaim, Amorrhites, Chanaanites,
Gergesites, and Jebusites (Gen, xv, 19-21), In the days
of Moses, we find the country in the hands of seven
nations, viz,: — first, the Hethites; second, the Gergesites;
third, the Amorrhites; fourth, the Chanaanites; fifth, the
Pherezites; sixth, the Hevites; and seventh, the Jebusites,
These were the seven nations, with which the children of
Israel were to make no league, but which they were
utterly to destroy, (Deut, vii, 1-2; see also Josue, iii, 10,
and xxiv, 11,) The Hethites, the Pherezites, the Jebu
sites, and the Amorrhites, dwelt in the mountains or hiU
country of Judea, southward: The Chanaanites dwelt in
the midland; by the sea, westward; and by the coast of
Jordan, eastward : the Gergesites, along the eastern
side of the sea of Galilee: and the Hevites, in Mount
Libanus, under Hermon, northward. Of all these nations,
the Amorrhites became the most powerful; so as to extend
their conquests over a considerable tract beyond the river
Jordan: whence, they are sometimes put for the whole
seven nations, as in Genesis, xv, 16. In compliance with
the command of God, to exterminate these people, we find

OF THE HOLY LAND. 385
that within the period of seven years, Moses conquered
two powerful kingdoms on the east; and Josue, thirty-one
smaUer kingdoms on the west of the Jordan; and gave their
land to the IsraeUtes: Though it appears, that some of
the old inhabitants were permitted by God, to remain, to
prove the fidelity of the Israelites to the Divine commands ;
and for their infidelity to these commands, the nations
thus spared, were afterwards permitted to oppress them
with great severity: nor were they finaUy subdued, untU
the reigns of David and Solomon, who reduced them to
the condition of slaves. (2 Kings, v. 6-8; 3 Kings, ix.
20.) Solomon employed 153,600 of them, in the most
servUe parts of his work, in the building of the temple,
and of his palace, &g.
Besides these devoted nations, there were others, either
settled in the land at the arrival of the Israelites, or in
its immediate environs, with whom the latter had to
maintain many severe conflicts : they were six in number.
First. — The PhUistines,'wh.ose territory lay along the sea
shore, in the southwest of Chanaan. They had seized this
country from the Hevites, who possessed it previously.
The PhUistines were descended from Mizraim the father
of the Egyptians: their name is not Hebrew, and hence
the septuagint styles them aXXo<pvXoi, i, e, alienigenoe,
foreigners: they had frequent wars with the Jews, and
became so considerable a nation, that the Greeks caUed
the whole land of Chanaan, after thefr name, Palestine
TlaXaiaTivrj. It was only by Judas Machabseus, that
thev were completely subdued, and brought under the
dominion of the Jews.
Second. — The Madianites were the descendants of
Madian, the fourth son of Abraham, by Cethura. These
are the people, who sent their daughters to solicit the
Israelites to sin, and to worship the idol Phogor; at the
same time, that the Israelites committed sin with the
VOL. I. 2 c

386 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
daughters of Moab, and worshipped their idol Bedphegor;
as related in the 25 th chapter of Numbers. They
oppressed the Israelites exceedingly, in the time of the
judges, until Gedeon succeeded in shaking off their yoke.
Their country lay to the east of the Dead Sea, and to the
south of Moab. We find also in the scripture, that
Madianites dwelt to the east of the Red Sea, near Mount
Sinai. Here dwelt Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses.
Some suppose, as Calmef, (diction, voce Madian,) that
these were descended from another Madian, who was a
son of Chus, the eldest son of Cham: and indeed we find
Sephora, the wife of Moses, called a Chusite. (Numb. xii.
1 in Heb.) Others think, that the Madianites were all
descended from Abraham ; but that these, who dwelt to
the east of the Red Sea, occupied the country which had
been formerly held by the Chusites.
Third. — The Moabites, a people descended from Moab,
the son of Lot. They dwelt beyond the Jordan and the
Dead Sea, on each side of the river Arnon. They had
taken possession of that country, after expeUing a gigantic
race, the Emims. (Deut. ii. 11-12.) The Moabites, in
their turn, were forced to give up a part of the country
to the Amorrhites. Moses, as we see by Deut. ii. 9,
would not be permitted by God to destroy this nation.
They carried on several wars against Israel, in after times.
They, together with the Ammonites, were conquered by
David, and made subject to the Israelites. After the
separation of the ten tribes, they fell to the part of the
kingdom of Israel. After the death of Achab, they
rebelled, and were severely chastised by Joram, the son of
Achab, King of Israel. The precise state of the nation,
after that time, is not well known.
Fourth. — The Ammonites, were a kindred people to the
Moabites, being descended from Ammon, the other son of
Lot. Their country lay to the northeast of the Moabites.

OF THE HOLY LAND. 387
It had been formerly held by a gigantic race, caUed the
Zomzommims. (Deut. ii. 19-20.) We read in this
place here quoted, that the Israelites were forbidden to
fight against them, or to take their land. Before the
entrance of the Israelites into the land of Chanaan, the
Amorrhites had taken a portion of their country from the
Moabites and Ammonites: this part, Moses, having
recovered from the Amorrhites, gave to the tribes of
Ruben and Gad. In the time*of Jephte, the Ammonites
made war on the IsraeUtes, on account of this land ; but
Jephte completely overcame them in battle, and preserved
these possessions for Israel. We find that, generally, the
Moabites and Ammonites were leagued together, in the
harassing wars which they carried on against the Israel
ites ; and hence, we have seen above, that David attacked,
at the same time, and subdued both these nations. The
occasion of this was, that David, who had been a friend
to the King of the Ammonites, sent, on hearing of his
death, to Hanon, his son and successor, ambassadors, to
condole with him on the death of his father. Hanon, sup
posing that these were spies, treated them ignominiously ;
whereupon David, to avenge the honour of his ambassadors,
made war upon, and subdued the Ammonites, together
with thefr aUies of Moab.
Fifth. — The Amalechites were, accorcUng to Calmet, the
descendants of Amalech, the son of EUphaz, and grand
son of Esau, mentioned in Genesis, xxxvi. 12. The
Amalechites were a powerful people, that formerly dwelt
in Arabia Deserta, between the Dead Sea and the Red
Sea, or between Hevila and Sur. (1 Kings, xv. 7.)
These attacked the IsraeUtes in the desert of Raphidim,
very soon after they had passed over the Red Sea ; and
they cruelly put to death aU those who, through labour
or fatigue, had fallen behind on the march, (Exodus,
xvii. 8 :) for this, they were first punished by Josue, who

388 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
gained a great victory over them, whilst Moses held up
his hands in prayer, on the mount, or hill, near where
the battle was fought; Aaron and Hur sustaining the
arms of Moses. (Exodus, xvU. 12.) The Amalechites
were, moreover, doomed by God to utter destruction,
which was commenced by Saul, and finished by David.
Sixth. — The Edomites, or Idumeans, were the descend
ants of Esau, who was also called Edom, and was the elder
brother of Jacob. Idumsea, their country, was a province
of Arabia, lying southward of Judea, and was originaUy
possessed by the Horites. It was, principally, a moun
tainous tract, including the mountains of Seir and Hor.
The Edomites were inveterate foes to Israel. They were
made tributary by David, and, for 150 years, continued
subject to the kingdom of Juda : thus was fulfilled the
oracle of God to Rebecca, that Esau would serve Jacob.
(Genesis, xxv. 23.) After various attempts, they re
volted, in the reign of Joram, the son of Josaphat
(2 Paralip. xxi.), and ultimately succeeded in rendering
themselves independent. In after times, however, we
are informed by Josephus, that John Hircanus completely
subdued them, and subjected them to cfrcumcision, and
the other legal observances. — Antiq. book xiii, c, 17,
We come now to speak of the division of the Holy
Land among the twelve tribes, made by Josue. He suc
ceeded to Moses, as chief of the people of God; and he
it was, who parcelled out to the Hebrew tribes, their
portions of the land of promise. We find this distribu
tion minutely detailed in the book of Josue, xiii, to xix.
We consider a minute detail of that distribution, not so
necessary now, seeing the great change that has come
over the entire face of Palestine, since that division was
made. We shall, therefore, indicate briefly, after Glaire,
the position of the twelve districts, assigned to the
twelve tribes of Israel by Josue, The tribes of Israel

OF THE HOLY L.iND, 389
were then thirteen; the sons of Joseph, Manasses and
Ephraim being the heads of distinct tribes ; but the tribe
of Levi had not a cUstinct territory assigned to it. The
Levites, cUspersed among the several tribes, inhabited
forty-eight cities, which were given to them. This, then,
was the arrangement of the twelve districts of the
twelve tribes of Israel : —
Ffrst. — The district of th^ tribe of Ruben was situ
ated beyond the Jordan; and formed the southern part of
the possessions of Israel, on that eastern side of the
Jordan. Second. — The tribe of Gad was placed to the north of
that of Ruben : the Jordan bounded it on the west,
and the mountains of Galaad on the east.
Thfrd. — The tribe of Manasses was situated, one-half
beyond the Jordan, where it occupied the ancient country
of Basan ; the other half tribe of Manasses was situated
on the inner, or western, side of the Jordan : the limits
of its district are not so accurately defined by Josue ;
but it appears, that it occupied the district to the north
of the tribe of Ephraim; and that, on one side, it
extended to the MecUterranean Sea, but on the other,
reached not as far as the Jordan.
Fourth. — The tribe of Juda had its territory in the
southern part of Palestine, along the eastern coast of the
Dead Sea ; it was bounded on the north by the tribe of
Benjamin; and on the south, by the mountains of Sefr,
which divided it from Idumea. This tribe was the most
important of aU; whether we consider the extent of its
territory, or that from it, were descended the kings of
the people (whence it was called the royal tribe) ; or, in
fine, that from it was to be born the Redeemer of the
world. Fifth. — The tribe of Simeon was situated to the south
and west of Juda ; it had to the north, the tribe of Dan,

390 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
and the PhUistines ; to the west, the Mediterranean ;
and to the south, Arabia Petrea,
Sixth, — The limits of the tribe of Dan have not been,
precisely, traced by Josue, Its district lay on the coast
of the Mediterranean; on the north of Simeon, and on
the west of Juda, We find, also, that a colony of
Danites fix;ed its seat in the city of Lais, on the northern
extremity of the Holy Land, This city was afterwards
called Dan.
Seventh, — The tribe of Benjamin was bounded, on the
north, by that of Ephraim, and on the south, by the
tribe of Juda ; it had the Jordan on the east ; on the
western side, it did not extend as far as the Mediter
ranean, the territory of Ephraim lying between it and
the sea.
Eighth, — The tribe of Ephraim lay to the south of
that half tribe of Manasses, which was situated on the
inner side of the Jordan, The territory of Ephraim,
from east to west, extended from the Jordan, to the
Mediterranean, or the Great Sea,
Ninth, — The tribe of Issachar, situated in the plain of
Jezreel, or Esdrelon, had to the south the district,
belonging to the half tribe of Manasses, which was on
the eastern side of the Jordan ; to the north, it had the
tribe of Zabulon ; to the east, the Jordan ; and to the
west, the Mediterranean,
Tenth, — The tribe of Aser, placed to the north-west of
Palestine, was bounded, on the north, by Mount Libanus;
on the south, by the valley of Jephtael ; on the east, by
the tribe of Nephthali, and on the west, by the Mediter
ranean. Eleventh. — The tribe of Zabulon had for its limits, to
the north, the tribes of Aser and of Nephthali; to the
south, the torrent of Cison ; to the east, the Sea of Galilee
(which was a lake formed by the Jordan) ; and to the

OF THE HOLY LAND. 391
west, the Mediterranean ; although it is not quite cer
tain, that it extended as far as the sea. The way, from
the Sea of Galilee to the MecUterranean, lay through
Zabulon ; and hence, this district is called, the way of
the sea. — Isaias, ix. 1 ; Matthew, iv, 15,
Twelfth,— The tribe of NephthaU, This district
stretched along the northern part of Palestine : it was
bounded by the tribes of Aser and Zabulon, by the lake
of Genesareth (the Sea of Galilee), and the Jordan,
After the death of Solomon, the country was cUvided
into two kingdoms : one, formed by the two tribes of Juda
and Benjamin, was caUed the kingdom of Juda ; its
metropolis was Jerusalem, the chief city of the entire
land. It compiised the territories of these two tribes,
together with so much of the territories of Dan and
Simeon, as were intermixed with the possessions of Juda,
The boundary line, of the two kingdoms of Juda and
Israel, was the northern limit of the tribe of Benjamin,
The kingdom of Israel, included all the northern and
midcUe parts of the Holy Land, occupied by the ten
tribes, of which the kingdom was formed. Its capital was
Samaria, in the tribe of Ephraim, situated about thirty
miles north-east of Jerusalem, This division ceased, on
the subversion of the kingdom of Israel, by Salmanasar,
king of Assyria; after it had subsisted two hundred and
fifty-four years. The last king of Israel was Osee, The
kingdom of Juda continued for one hundred and twenty-
seven years longer; until, in the reign of its last king,
Sedecias, the people were brought captive to Babylon,
After the return of the people, who had formed the
kingdom of Juda, from captivity, they were subject, in
succession, to the kings of Persia, Egypt, and Syria ; and
it was only under the Machabees, that they recovered
their independence. Afterwards, the country became a
Roman province. It was next given by the senate, to

392 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
Herod the Great, with the title of king. After his death,
his three sons, Archdaus, Herod Antipas, and PhUip,
divided the country among them, and governed it, but
without the kingly title. After them, the Romans be
came again the immediate rulers of the country ; which
was placed under the presidency of a governor from
Rome, In the time of our Redeemer, the holy land was divided
into five provinces, viz,, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, Persea,
and Idumasa,
I, Judea was bounded on the west by the Mediter
ranean, on the south by Arabia Petrea, on the east by
the Dead Sea and the Jordan, and on the north by
Samaria, Jerusalem, the chief city of the holy land, was
in this province. In extent it was nearly equal to the
former kingdom of Juda,
II. Samaria; this province was so called from the city
of Samaria, the ancient capital of the kingdom of Israel,
It comprised the territories, which had formerly belonged
to the tribe of Ephraim, and to that half tribe of Ma
nasses, that lay on the western side of the Jordan, Samaria,
lay exactly in the midcUe between Judea and GalUee, so
that any one, who wished to go directly from Galilee to
Jerusalem, should of necessity pass through it, (St, John,
iv, 4,)
III. Galilee comprised the northern part of Pales
tine, It was bounded on the north by Phoenicia and
Syria ; on the east by the Jordan and the lake of Genesa
reth ; on the south by the plain of Esdrelon ; and on
the west by the Mediterranean and a part of Phoenicia,
It was cUvided into upper and lower, or northern and
southern Galilee, Upper GalUee was also called Galilee
of the GentUes, because it reckoned a great many GentUes
or Pagans among its inhabitants. In the territory of
the upper Galilee, were situated the twenty cities which

OF THE HOLY LAND. 393
Solomon gave to Hfram king of Tyre. (3 Kings, ix. 11.)
It was in GalUee, in the city of Nazareth, that our
Divine Redeemer was conceived, and brought up; it was
there, that He dwelt for the greater part of His mortal
Ufe ; in GalUee it was, that He commenced His pubUc
ministry, and performed a great number of His mfracles.
He was caUed, on this account, the GalUean. Sometimes
also, the name of GalUeans was given to His apostles,
and to the first Christians.
rV. Percea; this province lay beyond, that is, on the
eastern side of, the Jordan. Its name is derived from
the Greek word -nepav beyond. According to the most
accurate geographers, it contained the eight foUowing
cUstricts. Percea properly so caUed, Galaad, Gaidonitis,
Bathancea, A uranitis or Ituroea, Trachonitis, Abilene, and
a part of Decapolis,
1. Percea, properly so caUed, or in its restricted sense,
included the southern part of the country beyond Jordan;
lying south of Ituraea, east of Judea and Samaria : it was
anciently possessed by the two tribes of Ruben and Gad.
Within this district was the fortress of Machserus, me
morable as being the place, in which St. John the Baptist
was put to death.
2. Galaad was situated to the north of the torrent or
river of Jaboc. It embraced a considerable part, of the
possessions of Israel beyond the Jordan.
3. Gaidonitis was a tract on the east side of, the lake
of Genesareth and the river Jordan. It extended as far as
the mountains of Hermon. This district is not referred
to, by name, in the new Testament.
4. Bathancea was situated to the north-east of Gau-
lonitis. This district is not noticed in the New Testa
ment. 5. Auranitis or Ituroea. This cUstrict anciently be
longed to the half tribe of Manasses, which settled on the

394 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
east of the Jordan. It was situated to the north of
Bathansea, and the east of Gaulonitis. It is mentioned
by St. Luke, (iii. 1,) by its name of Ituraea.
6. Trachonitis was situated to the north of Auranitis,
and to the east of Caesarea Philippi, the ancient city of
Dan. Trachonitis was famous for its caverns; which even
in the time of Herod the Great, were still inhabited.
We find from the third chapter of St. Luke's gospel,
first verse, that when the Baptist commenced his mission,
Philip, the brother of Herod Antipas, was tetrarch of
Itureea and this district of Trachonitis.
7. Abilene was the most northern of these districts : it
was situated between the mountains of Libanus and Anti-
libanus. It is supposed to have been within the borders
of the tribe of Nephthali; although it was never subdued
by the Israelites. At the time of the Baptist's mission,
it had for tetrarch Lysanias. (Luke iii. 1.)
8. Decapolis. — This district, which received its name
from ten considerable and celebrated cities, which it con
tained, is supposed by many eminent geographers, to have
formed a part of the province of Persea. But, concerning
the limits of this district, and the names of its ten cities,
geographers are by no means agreed. It would appear,
indeed, that all the cities were not beyond the Jordan,
and consequently, that the whole district was not in
Persea; because, at least Scythopolis, which was the chief
city, was on the west of the Jordan. The other cities
were, according to Pliny, Philadelphia, Raphana, Gadara,
Hippos, Dion, Pella, Gerasa, Canatha, and Damascus.
Decapolis is mentioned in the New Testament. (Matt. iv.
25 ; Markv. 20.)
V. Province of Idumcea. — This province was added by
the .Romans, on their conquest of Palestine. It com
prised the extreme southern part of Judea, together with
a small part of Arabia. It would appear, that it was

OF THE HOLY LAND. 395
dui'ing the Babylonian captivity, that the Idumeans seized
upon this tract, which had been left uninhabited. These
Idumeans, afterwards, were subjugated by the Machabees,
and, in the end, embraced Judaism. Tet, this tract of
country, in the time of Christ, and for a considerable
period afterwards, continued to retain the name of
Idumsea. The most remarkable towns in these provinces, at the
time of our Redeemer's coming, were the foUowing — ^in
Judaea; besides the great city of Jerusalem, Arimathea,
Azotus, Bethania, Bethlehem, Bethphage, Emmaus,
Ephraim, Gaza, Jericho, Joppe, Lydda, and Rama. In
Samaria; the city of Samaria, Sichem, and Antipatris.
In Upper GalUee; Csesarea PhUippi. In Lower GalUee;
Tiberias, Corozain, Bethsaida, Nazareth, Cana, Caphar-
naum, Naim, Cesarea of Palestine, and Ptolemais. The
other remarkable towns of the Holy Land, have been
afready mentioned, under the head of Decapolis.
1. Jerusalem, caUed at a former period, Jebus, (Jos.,
xviU., 28,) and Salem (Hebr., vii., 1,) signifies the vision
of peace. This city, at the first cUvision of the Holy
Land, feU to the lot of Benjamin. (Jos., xviU., 28.) After
the capture of the city by Josue, (Jos., x.) the Jebusites,
its former inhabitants, were not expeUed; but, it was
jointiy inhabited, by Hebrews and Jebusites, for about
five hundred years ; untU the time of David, who, having
expeUed the Jebusites, made it his residence. This city
appears sometimes to be reckoned, in the scripture, among
the possessions of the tribe of Juda. It was on the con
fines of the two tribes of Juda and Benjamin; and is, at
one time, attributed to one tribe, and again, to the other.
As Calmet observes; by the right of the primitive distri
bution, under Josue, it belonged rather to the tribe of
Benjamin; but, by the right of conquest, Juda had a
stronger claim to it; having twice taken it from the

396 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
enemy; first, under the Judges ; although, at that time,
the Jebusites were not expelled, as has been already ob
served ; and, secondly, under David. However, after
God had chosen this city to be the seat of His temple, it
became the metropolis of the whole kingdom; and, after
wards, did not belong, properly, either to Juda or Ben
jamin, but was the common property of all the Hebrew
people. The city of Jerusalem stood upon two hiUs, sur
rounded by a chain of mountains. In the time of our
Redeemer, it had become a vast city. When David took
it from the Jebusites, it merely comprised within its limits,
the mountain, which lay to the south of the mount, on
which the temple was afterwards buUt; that is, to the
south of Mount Sion. On this Mount of Sion, David
built a new city, called by his name; the City of David.
In this City of David, was built the royal palace; and
upon Mount Moria — a part of the same Mount of Sion,
the temple of the Lord was erected. Between these two
mountains, i. e., the mount on which stood the ancient
city of Jebus, and the Mount of Sion, on which stood the
city of David, there lay the vaUey of Mello; which, having
been filled up with earth, under David and Solomon,
united together the two cities. After the reign of Manas
ses, we find a second part of the city mentioned; (2 Para
lip,, xxxiv,, 22,) which is supposed, by Calmet, to have been
a considerable addition to the former city. Afterwards,
Josephus informs us, that the Machabees, having made
some adcUtions, extended the city, principaUy on the side
of the north; so that it took in, a third hill. According
to the same authority, a fourth hUl, called Bezeta, was
added by Agrippa; so that the city had never been more
extensive, than it was when besieged by the Romans,
It was, also, exceedingly strong, for that time; being sur
rounded with three walls. Those three walls, moreover,
were provided, at certain distances, and in the most

OF THE HOLY LAND. 397
exposed places, with quadrangular towers, forty feet. in
breadth and height, which served for their better protec
tion ; and, among these, the tower of Antonia, on the
outermost waU, resembled a regular fortress, and, being
a huncfred and forty feet high, had an extensive view.
On the first waU there were sixty, on the second fourteen,
and on the third, ninety towers. Following the course
of the external waU, the whole circuit of the city was
about eight miles. The ordinary number of its inha
bitants was, from a hundred and twenty, to a hundred
and fifty, thousand men ; but, at the time of the great
feasts, it amounted to much more than a mUlion, owing
to the procUgious influx of Jews, from aU countries;
and this explains how so many Jews perished, at the
destruction of this city, by Titus. Those, who, at the
time of the festivals, could not find accommodation in the
city itself, encamped in tents in the vicinity. During
the time of Chi-ist, Jei-usalem was adorned with numCr
rous ecUfices, both sacred and civil; but its chief glory
was the temple, which shall be described afterwards.
2. Arimathea, a city of Judsea, remarkable, as having
been the city of Joseph, who took care of the burial of
Christ. (See St. Luke, xxUi., 50-51.) According to
St. Jerome (in Epitaph, Paullce), it was situated between
Lydda and Joppe. It is now caUed Ramla.
3. Azotus, — This town, in the cUvision imder Josue,
had been assigned to the tribe of Juda. It was, however,
detained a long time by the PhUistines, and, among the
five principalities of the Philistines, it was considered the
most powerful. It lay between Ascalon and Accaron.
It is mentioned, in the New Testament, as the place in
which, Philip the deacon, was found, after baptising the
Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts, viU,, 40,) It is, at present, an
inconsiderable place. In its vicinity are numerous reUcs
of antiquity.

398 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
4, Bethania was a town, situated at the foot of Mount
Olivet, to the east of Jerusalem, on the way leading from
Jericho to Jerusalem, Here dwelt Martha and Mary,
and their brother Lazarus, whom Jesus restored to life.
Here, also, Mary anointed our Redeemer's head, with
precious ointment, Bethania was only fifteen furlongs
distant from Jerusalem. It is now a miserable village.
5. Bethlehem, a town of the tribe of Juda. Its name
signifies the house of bread. It was commonly caUed
Bethlehem of Juda, to distinguish it from another town
of the same name, in the tribe of Zabulon. It was, also,
called Ephrata, and its inhabitants Ephrateans. It was
not remarkable for greatness or riches. However, it was
a place of note among the Jews, as the seat of the family
of David, and the birth-place of David himself (Ruth, ii,,
1-4 ; iv,, 14-17 ; 1st Kings, xvi,, 1 ; xvii,, 12, 15,)
But it has acquired the greatest celebrity, in consequence
of being the birthplace of our Redeemer. Bethlehem is
about six mUes south-west from Jerusalem. It is said to
contain at' present, between a thousand and fifteen hun
cfred inhabitants.
6, Bethphage, a viUage at the foot of Mount Olivet,
between Bethania and Jerusalem, To this place, our
Redeemer, coming from Bethania, sent his cUsciples, that
they might procure an ass, on which he would ride into
Jerasalem, (St, Luke, xix., 29, and St, Matt,, xxi,, 1,)
7. Emmaus, a smaU village of Judea, sixty furlongs
distant from Jerasalem, on the northern side of the city.
It is celebrated, on account of the conversation, between
our Lord and two of the disciples who were going thither,
on the day of the resurrection, (St, Luke, xxiv,, 13,)
8, Ephraim, or rather Ephrem, a considerable city of
Judea, eight mUes north of Jerasalem, and near a desert
of the same name; to which our Redeemer retired, after
raising Lazarus from the dead, (John, xi., 54,)

OF THE HOLY LAND, 399
9. Gaza, was a celebrated city of the Holy Land. At
the cUstribution under Josue, it fell to the lot of the tribe
of Juda. (Josue, xv., 47.) It was one of the five prin
cipalities of the Philistines; and we find it, for a consi
derable time after Josue, a formidable city to the Jews.
Samson carried away its gates, (Judges, xvi., 1,) and
there Samson died, having puUed down the temple of
the god of the PhUistines. (Judges, xvi., 30.) In after
times, Gaza fell, successively, under the dominion of
several masters. At length, it was laid waste by Alex
ander the Great.. After which event, a new and smaUer
town of the same name, being built nearer to the sea, the
ancient Gaza fell to decay. The Gaza mentioned in Acts
(viU., 26,) is the ancient city, which is now desert. The
ancient city was cUstant about sixty mUes south-west
from Jerusalem.
10. Jericho, a celebrated city in the tribe of Benjamin,
often mentioned in the New Testament. It was distant
about nineteen miles from Jerusalem, It was the first
city taken from the Chanaanites, by Josue, The won
derful manner, in which it was taken, is described in the
book of Josue, (vi., 1.) Josue pronounced an anathema
against any one, who would rebuUd it, saying, " In his
first bom let him lay the foundations thereof, and in the
last of his chUcfren let him put on the gates:" a curse
which was literaUy fulfilled, afterwards, in Hid, the
BetheUte. (3 Kings, xvi., 34.) After being rebuUt by
Hid, it became a flourishing town, and, in the time of
our Redeemer it was rich and populous. Here He per
formed some of His miracles; and here was the house of
Zacheus, the pubUcan, which he honoured by His pre
sence. Jericho is, at present, a wretched vUlage. Its
modern name is Rihah.
11. Joppe was a maritime city of Palestine, the only
port of the Mediterranean, frequented by the Jews. This

400 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
city is frequently mentioned, both in the Old and New
Testament. It is now called Jaffa,
12, Lydda — This town of Judea was called in later
times Diospolis, it is now known by the name of Loudd,
It was not far distant from Joppe, lying on the way, from
the latter place to Jerusalem, It is celebrated in the
Acts of the Apostles, for the cure of a paralytic, named
Eneas, by St, Peter, (Acts ix, 32, 33, 34,)
13, Rama, a small town in the tribe of Benjamin,
about thirty miles north of Jerasalem, This place is
frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, St, Matthew
also mentions it, (ii, 18,) where he quotes a passage of
Jeremias, with reference to the massacre of the Innocents.
Rama appears to have been a place of great importance,
formerly. It was advantageously situated, lying im
mediately in the high road from Joppe to Jerusalem. At
present, the number of its inhabitants, is not much above
five thousancT,
In Samaria, the remarkable towns, at the time of our
Redeemer's public ministry, were :
I. The City of Samaria. — From about the year 935
before Christ, this city was the capital, of the kingdom
of Israel, as distinguished from' the kingdom of Juda.
After the rain of the kingdom of Israel, by the Assyrians,
it became the chief seat of the people, whom the king of
Assyria planted in the desolated country ; who were hence
called Samaritans. The town was utterly destroyed by
Hircanus, the high priest and ruler of the Jews, in the
year 129 before Christ. In this state it remained, until
the time of Herod the Great; who, being pleased with
the situation, rebuilt the city, and called it Sebaste, (a
Greek word, equivalent to the Latin Augusta) in honour
of the emperor Augustus. At present, there is only to
be found on the site of the ancient city, a miserable
village, called Sebustien, (the Arabic form of Sebaste )

OF THE HOLY LAND. 401
The city of Samaria is scarcely ever referred to, in the
New Testament ; but, the district or province of Samaria,
is often mentioned.
II. Sichem, caUed also Sichar, now Naplouse or Na-
polose, a city of the province of Samaria, about forty
mUes cUstant from Jerusalem. After the destruction
of Samaria by Hircanus, it became the metropoUs of the
Samaritans. Beside it, is the well of Jacob, memorable
for our Saviour's discourse with the Samaritan woman,
(John, iv, 6,) Beside the city, was " the part of the field,
which Jacob had bought of the sons of Hemor," which
Jacob afterwards gave to Joseph, as an addition to his
inheritance, and in which the bones of Joseph were
buried. (Josue, xxiv. 32.) The remains of the sect of
the Samaritans, now but few in number, chiefly reside
here. III. Antipatris, a smaU town of the province of Sa
maria, lying on the way, between Jerusalem and Cesarea
of Palestine. It was only from the time of Herod the
Great, that it had the name of Antipatris; which Herod
gave to it, in honour of his father Antipater. Herod,
moreover, rebuUt and beautified the town. Antipatris is
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, as the place to
which St. Paul was brought by night, after his appre
hension at Jerusalem. (Acts, xxUi. 31.)
In upper GalUee, the most remarkable town, in con
nexion with the gospel history, was Csesarea PhUippi.
Cesarea Philippi, formerly caUed Paneas, was situated
at the foot of Mount Paneas, near the source of the
Jordan. It was first caUed Lais. When the tribe of Dan
made themselves masters of it, they gave it the name
of Dan. (Judges, xviU. 7-29.) However, Eusebius and
St. Jerome say that Csesarea Philippi, (formerly caUed
Paneas,) was a distinct place from Dan, (formerly
called Lais,) and that these two to-wns were four mUes
2 D

402 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
asunder. It is thought, that the name Paneas was im
posed upon it, by the Phoenicians — or rather, the name
which it originaUy had was Banias, which the Greeks
and Romans called Paneas, It was rebuilt, or at least
beautified, by PhUip the tetrarch, who gave to it the name
of Csesarea, in honour of Tiberius Csesar. Caesarea was
a day's journey from Sidon, and a day and a-half from
Damascus. In the vicinity of this city, took place the con
versation between our Redeemer and His apostles, in
which such Ulustrious promises were made by Him to
St. Peter above aU the rest. (Matt, xvi.) This city has
dwindled into an insignificant vUlage, and has resumed
again the name of Banias. — In lower GalUee, there were
many cities, Ulustrious in the Gospel history.
1. Tiberias, a celebrated city of lower GalUee, situated
on the coast, of the sea of Genesareth, which was also caUed
the lake or sea of Tiberias. It was buUt by Herod the
tetrarch, and named Tiberias in honour of Tiberius Csesar.
At present, it is called by the natives Tabaria or Tab-
bareah, and has a population of between fifteen hundred
and two thousand souls, who are principaUy Jews.
2, Corozain, a town on the western coast of the sea
of GalUee, not far distant from Caphamaum, It was one
of the places most frequently favoured, by our Redeemer's
preaching and miracles. Its obdurate inhabitants, how
ever, not having corresponded with the graces bestowed
upon them, are severely upbraided by the Redeemer in
the Gospd. (St, Matt. xi. 21 ; St, Luke, x. 13.) This
town has long since disappeared.
3. Bethsaida, was a town beyond the Jordan, on the
coast of the sea of Tiberias. Its situation was, near the
entrance of the Jordan into this sea of Tiberias. PhiUp,
the tetrarch, enlarged and ornamented this city, and gave
to it the name of JuUas, in honour of the daughter of
the Roman emperor Augustus. It was the residence of

OF THE HOLY LAND. 403
the Apostles, Peter, Ancfrew, and PhUip, (John, i. 44.)
Like Corozain, it was frequently visited by our Redeemer,
during His public ministry : it heard His discourses, and
witnessed His mfracles ; but, it imitated Corozain in its
infideUty. See St. Matthew (xi. 21). It must be ob
served here that Rdand in his Paloestina, p. 653, is sup
posed by many, to have accurately distinguished two
Bethsaidas, one on the western, and the other on the
north-eastern, border of the lake or sea of Tiberias. The
former was the city of Ancfrew and Peter. The other
was the Bethsaida of Gaulonitis, afterwards caUed JuUas.
Both of these towns have cUsappeared.
4. Nazareth; a smaU city in the district of Zabulon,
in the lower GalUee. It is celebrated in the scriptures,
as having been the residence of our Divine Redeemer for
so many years : there He became incarnate : there He was
brought up, in subjection to Joseph and Mary : from it,
He was caUed a Nazarene. At present, it is caUed
Nassara: the number of its inhabitants is stated to be
about 3,000, mostly Christians.
5. Cana, a small town of GalUee, remarkable as being
the place, in which our Redeemer performed His first
mfracle. It was caUed Cana of GalUee, to distinguish it
from another Cana, which belonged to the tribe of Aser,
and was situated near to the city of Sidon. (Josue, xix. 28.)
It is commonly supposed to have been the place now
eaUed Kefr Kenna. It is stUl a neat viUage, having a
large spring in the neighboui-hood, supposed to be that,
from which the water was drawn, at our Lord's -nsit. Dr.
Robinson (Biblical Researches, vol. 3, p. 204^208,) does
not subscribe to this common opinion, about the present
site of Cana.
6. Caphamaum, a town of GalUee, on the coast of
the sea of Tiberias, and on the borders of the districts, of
the tribes of Zabulon and NephthaU. It was the usual

404 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
abode of our Redeemer, during the greater part of the
time of His public ministry. Hence, it is caUed His
own city, (Matthew, ix, 1,) Notwithstanding the many
miracles, which they witnessed, the great mass of its
inhabitants, were inattentive to our Saviour's instructions.
Hence, He pronounces a woe upon them (Matt, xi, 23,)
Near to this "vity was the Custom-house, in which St,
Matthew, then a publican, sat, when he was caUed by
Christ to be His disciple. It was, obviously, a place of
great consideration, at the time, of which the gospel
history treats; but at present, there is scarcely a remnant
of it to be found,
7, Naim, a town of Galilee, not far from Caphamaum;
where Christ raised to life, a widow's son, whom they
were carrying to the tomb, (St, Luke, vU, 11-15,) It is
now a small hamlet, having the name of Nein,
8, Caesarea of Palestine, was so called, because, when
the Romans governed Palestine, they made Csesarea the
metropolis ; and there, was the residence of the Roman
governor. This city was about thirty-five miles from
Jerasalem. It had been formerly called the Tower of
Strato. It was Herod the Great, who, having enlarged
and beautified the city, named it Csesarea, in honour of
Augustus. It is very frequently mentioned in the New
Testament. Here St. Peter baptized Cornelius, the
centurion. (Acts, x.) Here St. PhUip, the deacon, resided.
(Acts, xxi. 8.) Here St. Paul was detained by the
Roman governors, Felix and Festus, before being sent to
Rome; at which time he made his defence, against the
Jews and their orator TertuUus: (Acts, xxiv.) and again
before departing from the city, he justified his conduct in
the presence of King Agrippa. (Acts, xxvi.) Wherever,
in the scripture, Caesarea is mentioned without any addi
tion, this is the city, which is designated. At present,
Csesarea retains nothing of its former splendour.

OF THE HOLY LAND, 405
9. Ptolemais, anciently called Acco, (Judges, i. 31,) is
situated on the coast of the Mediterranean, on the
confines of lower and upper Galilee, Here St, Paul rested
for one day, on his journey from Ephesus to Jerusalem,
(Acts, xxi, 7,) The crusaders gave to this city, the name
of St, John D'Acre. It is now commonly known by the
name of Acre.
We shaU not delay to make any particular observations
on the cities of Decapolis, the names of which, according
to the more probable opinion, we have already given ; of
these, Scythopolis, the chief city, was on the western side
of the Jordan. Gadara, according to Josephus, was the
metropolis, of Pereea, or of the region beyond the Jordan.
Damascus, the celebrated capital of Syria, is a very
ancient and celebrated city; but, although it occasionaUy
fell under Hebrew or Jewish dominion, it does not appear
that it could, properly, be caUed a Hebrew city. Mention
is made of it, both in the Old and New Testament. Some
have ascribed the buUding of it to Abraham. The city
certainly existed, as early as the days of Abraham ; as is
clear from Genesis, xiv. 15; xv. 2 ; but, the way, in which
it is spoken of, in these passages, shows, that even at the
time to which they refer, it was not a new, nor an
unknown place. In the New Testament it is mentioned,
in connexion with the conversion and first preaching of
the Apostle St. Paul. (Acts, ix. 3-20.) The spot where
Saul, on his way to Damascus, saw the light from heaven,
is still pointed out, accorcUng to the tracUtion preserved
among the Christians of the country ; as is also the part
of the waU, at which the apostle was let down in a basket,
to escape the indignationof the Jews. (Acts, ix.) Damascus
is stiU an important city. Lamartine estimates its popu
lation at 300,000, of whom 30,000 are Christians. Others,
however, are of opinion, that this writer has much over
rated the number of its inhabitants.

406 OF THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY
We shaU now conclude this part with observing, that,
of aU the once splendid and populous cities of Palestine,
scarcely anything but some rains remain, to attest their
ancient grandeur. Where their sites are stUl marked by
modern towns, these are, comparatively, but poor and
insignificant. If we may except Jerusalem — ^yet, Jeru
salem itself, steeped in poverty, its inhabitants not
exceeeding at the most 15,000 souls, is but the shadow
of that city, which was once so powerfiU and magnificent.

END OF FIRST VOLUME.

J. M. O'TooLE, Printer, 13, Hawkins'-street, Dublin.

A CATALOGUE

or

MUx)i Cntjinlir Wnh

AKD

BOOKS RELATING TO IRELAND,
PUBLISHED BY JAMES DUFFY,

No. 7, WELLINGTON ftUAY, DUBLIN.

A liberal allowance will be made on Booh piirchaied
for Reading Rooms, Parochial Libraries, Poor
Law Unions, or for Gratuitous Distribution
wnongst the Poor.

NOVEMBER, 1851.

WQBES IN THE FSESS.

James Duffy has the honor to announce that on the
first of February will be ready for delivery, in two
handsome volumes, %vo., cloth, price £1, Is., i
A GENERAL INTRODUCTION

SACKED SCRIPTURES:
IN A SERIES OF DISSEETAnONS,
CKITICAL, HERMENEUTICAL, AND fflSTOEICAL,
BY THE REV, JOSEPH DIXON, D,D.,
Professor of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew m the Royal Collie
of St. Patrick, Maynooth.
A Geandfathek's Stokt Book: being the Legends and
Tales of a Poor Scholar. By Wm. Bernard Mac Cabe, Esq.
St. Francis de Sales on the Love of God. 8vo.
Alton PARK,by the author of the Prize Book. 18mo.
The Draper's Daughter. Translated fi:om the French,
by Frank Thorpe Porter, Esq. 12mo.
O'Ruark; or, Chronicles of The Ballkjuin Family.
By Henry J. Monahaxi, Esq. 8vo.
Parson's Christian Directory. 12mo.
Ward's Errata of the Protestant Bible. 8vo.
Observations on Proselytising. By Rev. James Maher,
P.P., Carlow. 12mo.
Ecclesiastical Architecture. By J.J.M'Carthy, Esq. 8vo.
The Life and Speeches of The Rt. Hon. Richard Lalor
Sheil. ' By Thomas Mac Kevin, Esq. PoS* 8vo.
The Life and Speeches of The Rt. Host. Henry
Grattan. By Daniel Owen Madden, Esq. Post 8vo.
The Life and Speeches of The Rt. Hon. John Philpot
CuRRAN, By Thomas Davis, Esq. Post 8vo.

A CATALO&UE OF
tttithri CflttiDlir WnU,
PUBLISHED AND SOLD
BY JAMES DUFFY,
No. 7, WELLINGTON QUAY, DUBLIN.

Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine for
the Use of the Faithful, 32mo. - - 0 0 1
Altar Charts ; a great variety, at reduced prices.
An Exercise of Short and Devout Meditations on
the Holy Passion, for every day in the month.
Translated from the original Itahan, by the late
Rev. Wm. V. O'Grady, D. D. 18m6. cloth, 0 16
An Invitation to Sing the Divine Praises ; with
Practical Instructions on Singing in Churches.
By the Rt. Rev. Peter-Aloysius Parisis, Bishop
of Langres. Translated from the French by
the Rev. J. Hughes, Dean of Carlow College,
post 8vo. cloth, - - - 0 1 0
Archer's Sermons, on various Moral and ReHgious
Subjects, for all Sundays and some of the
principal Festivals of the year, 2 vols.
foolscap 8vo. fancy cloth, - - - 0 4 0
" This weU-known, eloqnent, and yet popular expo
sition of the doctrines of the Chnrch, developed as they
gradaally nnfold themselves in the services of the year,
can never be too often re-produced, or too much com- .
mended. The truly Christian liberality of its tone,
when touching on controverted points of doctrine, the
ample defence and clear exposition of the creed and
practices of the Christian Church, are above praise,
Mr, Dafiy's edition is neat and cheap," — The Tablet.

JAMES Duffy's catalogue,

£ s

Angehcal Virtue, or a Treatise on Holy Purity,
by M. Claude Arvisenet, 32mo. cloth, 0 0 4
Appleton's Sermons and Discourses for all Sun
days and Festivals of the Year, 8vo. cloth, - 0 6 0
Augustine's (St.) Confessions, or Praises of God,
32mp. fancy cloth, - - - - 0 1 4
Bonaventure's (St.) Life of our Lord Jesus
Christ, royal 32mo. fancy cloth, - 0 1 4
 embossed roan, gilt edges, - 0 1 8
 elegantly bound in morocco super
extra, - - - .--036
Bossuet'fi History of the Variations of the Protegr
tant Churches, 2 vols, post 8vo. fancy cloth, - 0 5 0
Bos?uet'jS Exposition of the Controverted Doc
trines of the CathoHc Church, with notes by
Dr. Fletcher, 18mo. cloth lettered, ^. 0 0 8
Brennan's Ecjclesiastical History of Ireland, from
the introduetjon of Christianity into that
country to the yeaj 1829, 2 vpls. 8vo. neatly
half bounds scarce, - - - - - 0 14 0
Butler's (Most Rev. Dr.) Catechisms : —
First size, per dozen,
Second size, per dozen,
Third size, per dozen, -
Butler's (Rev, Alban) Lives of the Fathers,
Martyrs, and other principal Saints, compiled
from Original Monuments, &c. carefuUy and
beautiftdly reprinted from Miirphy's splendid
edition, and embelHshed with 24 illustrations
on steel, by the most eminent artists, 12 hand
some vols, post 8vo. - - - 2 2 0
" By comparison with Coyne's and the Derby editions,
and with those of an older date, we may term this the
Library edition of the most popular and indispensable of
CathoUc calendars. The volumes are of a large octavo,
and handsome appearance; the text is accurate, and in
a clear bold type ; and the edition is a cheap, as weU as
a good one. We may very cordially recommend it as a
family book, and as the foundation of a Catholic library,
where that remains to be formed."— T^e Tablet.

0

0 6

0

0 8

0

1 0

/, wellingtox quay.

M s

Butler's (Re^. Alban) Feasts, Fasts and Annual
Observances, of the CathoHc Church, with
Continuation by the Eight Rev. Dr. Walsh',
Bishop of Halifax, N. Scotia, 2 volfi. post 8vo. 0 8 0
Buder's (Rev. Alban) Meditations and Dis
courses on the SubHme Truths and Important
Duties of Christianity, revised and corrected
by the Rev. Dr. Lanigan, 1 vol. 8vo. cloth, 0 7 0
Carmelite Manual, containing all the approved
Devotions to the ever Glorious and Blessed
Virgin Mary, compiled by the Very Rev. Dr.
Spratt, post 8vo. beautifully printed in large
type, embossed roan, - 0 5 0
 morocco extra, - - 0 8 0
 '—^ — velvet, with rich gold edgings,
clasps, &c. - - - - 1 6 0
CathoHc Lady's Keep^d^e; or, Gleanings to
increase the store-of the young Ladies educated
at St. Mary's, by a member of the Ursuline
Community, Waterford, post 8vo. cloth, gilt
edges, - - • - 0 3 0
CathoHc Piilpit (The); being a CoUection of
Sermons on the SubHme Truths and Important
Duties of the Christian ReHgion. By St, Al
phonsus Liguori, MassUlon, Rev. Joseph
Morony, S. J., Rev. William Gahan, O.S.A. ;
the Abbe Mac Carthy, S. J. ; Appleton, &e.
&c. 6 vols. 8vo. beautifiiUy half bound, - 2 2 0
CathoHc (The) Gentleman's Keepsake ; or, Fami
liar Instructions on the various Duties of Life.
By SUvio PeUico, 18mo. cloth, gUt, - - 0 1 0
Ceremonial of the National Synod, 4to. cloth, - 0 5 0
ChaUoner's Meditations for every Day in the Year,
complete in one volume, 12mo. best edition,
strongly and neatly bound in &ncy roan, - 0 2 8
ChaUoner's CathoHc Chiistian Instructed in the
Sacraments, Sacrificje, Ceremonies, and Observ
ances of the Church, by way of Question and
Answer, royal 32mo. fancy cloth, 0 10

6 JAMES DUFFY S CATALOGUE,
Children of Mary — our Blessed Redeemer Speak
ing to the Hearts of the Children of Mary;
or. Reflections for every Day in the Month,
with the Little Office in honour of the Holy
Name of Mary, royal 32mo. sewed, - - 0 0 6
 cloth, gilt edges, - 0 1 0
Christian (The) Traveller; or, a Sure Guide to
Eternal Happiness. By Thomas a Kempis,
royal 32mo. cloth, - ,- - - 0 1 4
Circles of the Living Rosary, for every Month of
the Year, with Aspirations, &c., and the Names
of the Patron Saints, price per doz. sheets, 0 0 6
1^^ The Sheet, or Circle, contains fifteen tickets, and
each ticket is embellished with a beautiful engraving
explanatory of one of the Mysteries of the Holy Kosaiy.
Cochin's Instructions on the Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass, translated by W. Jos. Walter, 12mo.
2 vols, in one, bound, - - - 0 3 6
Companion to the CathoHc Church; being a
Choice Manual of Devout Prayers, ISmo.
beautifully printed from large type, on superfine
paper, neat plain binding, - - 0 10
 embossed cover, richly gilt, - 0 ,2 0
 French morocco, extra, 0 3 0
Daily Exercise for Children, with Abridgment
of Christian Doctrine, 32mo. fine engravings, 0 0 6
 '—  richly bound in French morocco, 0 10
De Sale's (St. Francis) Manual of Practical
Instructions and Spiritual Maxims for Devout
' Souls. Compiled by a Member of the UrsuHne
Community, Blackrock, Cork, royal 32mo.
cloth, - - - - 0 1 0
De Sale's (St. Francis) Introduction to a Devout
life, royal 32mo. cloth, - - - 0 1 0
Devotions to" the Sacred Heart of Jesus, 24mo.
cloth, - - -
 »^ — French morocco, richly gilt,
^  morocco extra, -

0

1

2

0

2

0

0

3

6

t, WELLINGTON QUAY. 7
A BEAUl'U^UL nXFSTEATED EDITION,
WITH NOTES, ANNOTATIONS, REFERENCES,
etc., etc.,
published wrra the appkobation of
lis (Bxm tlfj SKnst %m. Sr. Mnm% f f
AECHBISHOP OF DUBLIN,
ASD E1IBEI.USHEO WTTR
TWELVE BEAVTmil. STEEL ENGSAVINGS,
FBOM DESIGNS
BY OVEBBECK AND OTHER GREAT
in one handsome volume.

MASTERS,

^e s

D

- 0 6

0

- 0 8

0

Post 8vo., strongly bound in fancy leatiier,
The same, elegantly bound in fancy calf,
The same, splendidly bound in morocco, super
extra, richly gUt, - - - - 0 12 0
APPROBATION.
" This new edition of the English version of the Bible, printed
with our Permission, by James Duffy', 10, Wellington Quay,
Dublin: carefully collated, by our direction, with the Clementine
vulgate, likewise with the Douay version of the Old Testament of
1609, and with the Rhemish version ' of the New Testament of
1582, and with other approved English versions. We, liy our
authority, approve. And We declare that the same may be used by
the faithfid with great spiritual profit, provided it be read with due
reverence and with the proper dispositions.
^ D. MURRAY.
« Given at DubUn, this 4th November, 1846."
In submitting this important edition to the Catholics of Great
Britain and Ireland, the Publisher begs to say, that the Engravings
alone are worth more than the price charged for the Work; and
that, in point of beauty and accuracy, it will not suffer by a
comparison wih any edition that has ever appeared in any Icmguage
or in any country. From the portability of the size, and the
deamess and beauty of the type, it will be found a most convenient
COMPANION FOR the PULPrT OE THE CLOSET.
The want of such an edition has been long and painfully felt bv
the Clergy and Laity; and no expense has been spared to render
the Work in some measure worthy of the kind patronage and
liberal support which the Publisher has ah-eady received from the
Catholic Hierarchy, Clergy, and Laity both at home and abroad.

£ s

0

1 0

0

1 4

0

3 6

8 JAMES DUFFY S CATALOGUE.
Douay Testament. — The New Testament of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (a choice pocket
edition), beautifiiUy printed in royal 32mo.
with Approbation of His Grace the Most Rev.
Dr. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, bound in
fancy roan, . . _ -
 embossed and gilt,
 morocco extra,
APPROBATION.
" This new edition of the English Version of the New Testament,
printed, with our Permission, by James Dnfiy, 7, Wellington-quay,
Dublin, carefully collated, by our direction, with the Clementine
Vulgate, also with the Rhemish Version of the New Testament of
1582, and with other approved English Versions, We, by our
authority, approve. And We declare that the same may be used
by the Faithful with great spiritual profit, provided it be read with
due reverence and with the proper dispositions.
^ D. MURRAY.
'¦'¦ Given aiBullin this llth' of August, 1851,"
Devout Communicant; or. Pious Meditations
and Aspirations for three days before and after
Receiving the Holy Eucharist, new edition,
with the Masses before and afiter Communion,
royal 32mo. cloth, - - - 0 1 0
:  French morocco, - - 0 2 0
 morocco extra, richly gilt, - 0 3 6
Difference (The) Between Temporal and Eteir-
nal, 12mo. bound, - - - - 0 3 6
Douay Bible, Mr. Coyne's beautiful edition, with
approbation of the Archbishops and Bishops
of Ireland, royal 8vo. large paper, scarce,
fancy roan, - - - - -0 10 0
 -¦ — ¦  morocco, super extra, gorgeously
bound, - - ' - -110
^g" An early application is necessary as there are
but a few copies of this edition left.
Douay Testament. — The New Testament of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, revised and
corrected, with the Approbation of his Grace
the most Rev. Dr. Mac Hale, Archbishop of
Tuam, 360 pages, beautifully printed, 12mo.
bound, - - - - 0 1 6

7, WELLINGTON QUAY,

£ s

Doyle's (Rt. Rev. Dr.) Abridgment of the
Christian Doetrine, 18mo, boundj - - 0 0 6
Dutfjr's Irish CathoHc Magazine, for 1847 and-
1848 ; a Monthly Review, devoted to National
Literature, the Eiue Arts, Antiquities, Eccle-
aastical History, Biography of. IUustrious
Irishmen, and Military Memoir^. . Complete ^
in 2 vols, imperial 8vo, bound in one,
reduced to - - - - - 0 12 0
Duffy's CatiioHcLibrary'^hisng a series of Valu
able Works, hy St. Atphoinsus Liguori,
published in parts, containing 32 pages, royal
32mo. printed on superfine paper, and neatly
done up in fancy wrapper, price only - 0 0 1
1, — The Means of Acquiring Perfection.
2, — Consolation and Encouragement to a Soul in
a State of Spiritnal Desolation,
3. — Conversing, continually and familiarly with
God.
4. — ^Divine Love, and the means of acquuihg it.
5. — The Practice of Meditation and Practice of
Perfection.
6  Conformity to the Will of God.
7. — Rules of a Christian LiSS
8  ^Practice of the Christian Virtues.
9  Explanation of the Sacrament of Penance.
10  Obligations of Children and Parente towards
each other.
11. — ^Novena to the Sacred Heart of Jesus,'
12.^The- Vh-tue of Chastity,- the Enormity of the
Sin of Impurity, with Remedies against
this horrible Vice.
13.  On the Injuries done to our Neighbour, in
his Character, Person, Froperty, &c
^*^ In ordering from the Catalogue, it will be
sufficient merely to state the number.
^° Each part of this beaulafhl series is complete
in itself.
The thirteen parts, as above, may be had, neafly
bound in one volume, fancy doth. Is. 4d.

10 JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE,
£ S D
Duffy's Juvenile Library, a series of Tales for
the Instruction and Amusement of Youth,
royal 32mo. fancy wrapper, each. - -001
The following are now ready:
1. — Eulalie St Aubert.
2. — Beatrice Alfieri ; or, the Festival of the Rosaiy.
3.— The Broken Vow.
4. — Anger; or, Alice Mordaunt.
5. — The Little Culprit; or, the Golden Necklace,
6  Rose Arlington ; or. Detraction. «
7. — Walter and Emily ; or, the Fatal Effects of Disobedience.
8  Forget-Me-Not.
9  The Cakes.
10  The Fire-Fly.
Duffy's Cottage Library, a series of Moral Tales,
by eminent CathoHc Writers, and admirably
adapted for Presents and School Prizes.
The following are -now ready, and may be had ele
gantly bound in cloth, gilt edges, price One
Shilling each.
Zonosius; or, the Pilgrim Convert, by Dr. Pise.
Tears on the Diadem; or, the Crown and the
Cloister, by Mrs. Dorsey.
The Sister of Charity, 2 vols, by Mrs. Dorsey.
The Elder's House ; or, the Three Converts.
Father Felix, a Tale.
Lost Genevieve; or, the Child of an Especial
Providence.
Father Drummond and his Orphans; or, the
Children of Mary.
Mary, the Morning Star, translated from the French
by a Member of the Ursuline Community, Cork.
Helena; or, Hopes Deceived, by Mary Hackett.
The Bishop turned Slave, translated from the
German.
The Virgin Mother and the Child Divine, by the
Authoress of " Lost Genevieve," 2 vols.
The above can also be had in fancy cover, price
Eight Pence each.

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 11
Duffy's Standard Library of CathoHc Divinity,
beautifiiUy printed on fine paper, and neatly
done up in fancy vrrapper, price only Two
Pence each. The foUowing are now ready for delivery:
I, — The Little Garden of Roses, by Thomas a
Kempis,
2  Exclamations of the Soul to God, by St.
Teresa, with Introduction, by the Right
Rev, Dr, Milner,
3. — Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, by Father
Ribadinera.
4  Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
5  Devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
6  Life of St. Teresa.
7  Life of St. Mary of Egypt.
8  Instructions and Devotions for Confession
and Communion, by Gother.
9  Instructions and Devotions for the Sick and
Dying, by St. Alphonsus Liguori.
10. — Life and Miracles of St. Winifred.
11  Life of St. Francis.
12  Life of St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland.
13  A Sure way to find out the True Religion.
14. — On the Virtue of the Blessed Virgin Maiy,
by St. Liguori.
15. — Instructions on the Holy Eucharist, and
Devotions before and after Communion.
16  Hell opened to Christians, with engi-avings.
17.  Fleury's Historical Catechism, containing a
Summary of Sacred History.
18  The Manual of the Living Rosaiy, seventeen
engravings.
19,  A Treatise on the Holy Scapular, with OflSce
of the Blessed Virgin Mary, &C, revised
by the Veiy Rev. Dr. O'Hanlon.
20  Think Well On't, by Rt. Rev, Dr, Challoner,
21  ^A Method of Meditation, on the plan of St,
Ignatius, translated by a Catholic Priest.
22  The Rules of the Order of St, Frauds,
instituted for persons who desu-e to Live
Religiously in the Worid, by a Clergyman
of the Order of St, Frauds,

12 JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE,
£ S D
23, — Month (rf' Mary ; or. Meditations fcr Each
Day of the Month of Mayw
24. — The Soul united to Jesus in the Adorable
Sacrament,
25  The Office for the Dead, in English.
26.— The Stations of the Most Holy Way of the
Cross, 14 engravings,
27. — Practical Reflections and Meditations for
every Day in the Month.
*^ Each Volume is complete in itself.
^g° In ordering from the Catalogue, it will be gofficient
merely to state the number,
Duffy's Golden Library:—
Angelical Virtue; or, a Treatise on Holy Purity, by
M, Claude Arvisenet, - - 0 0 4
Four Maxims of Christian Philosophy, drawn, for
our Considerations on Eternity, - 0 0 4
Pinamonti's True Wisdom ; or, Considerations for
every Day of the Week, - - - 0 0 4
Pinamonti's Cross in its True Light; or, the Weight
of Tribulation lessened, - - 0 0 4
Pinamonti's One Thing Necessary; or, Considerations
on the Value and Excellence of the Soul of Man, 0 0 4
Pinamonti's Meditations on the Four Last Things,
adapted for such as, labouring in the important
affair of Salvation, aspire to Christian Perfection, 0 0 4
Six Volumes 32mo, elegantly bound in scarlet cloth,
richly gilt, in a fancy case, forming a beautiful
and portable Library, Price only - 0 5 0
The same in morocco extra, richly gilt, - 0 10 0
Duffy's Popular Library, a series of intferesting
Works for the Instruction of Youth, square
16mo. scarlet cloth :
Little Joseph ; or, the Young Savoyard,
Maiy Anne O'Halloran ; or, the Favorite Child, -
Valentine Redmond ; or, the Cross of the Forest,
Hail Mary; or, the Beauties of the Angelical
Salutation, - - 0 0 6

0

0

6

0

0

6

a

0

6

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 13
£ s d
Duties of Man; addressed to Young Persons;
translated from the ItaHan of SUvio PelHco,
18mo. cloth^ gUt, - - - - 0 1 0
Eloquenck--A. Grammar of Eloquence adapted
to the Use of CoUeges, Schools, and Students
aspiring to the Leamed Professions, Secular
and EcclesiasticaL By the Rev. M. Barry,
Profe^or of Rhetoric in the CoUege of All
HaUows, DubHn ; post 8vo. 590 pages, strcmgly
bound in. fency roan, - - - Q 5  6
Fairplay's Notes on thb Wandebinq Jew, 
18mo. cloth,  0 10
Father Drummond and his Orphans; or, the
CHldren of Mary. A CathoHe Tale by Mary
C. Edgar, 18mo. cloth gUt, - - - 0 1 0
Fenelon on the Education of Daughters, 18ma
cloth, - - - - - 0 1 0
First Communion.—— Instructions on the Holy
Sacrament of Penance and First Communion,
by an Irish Priest, 18mo. cloth, fine frontis
piece, . . - - -
Fleury'a Historical Catechism, 4 parts, l8mo.
cloth, - - - - 0 1 0
 — abridged for the use of ChUdren,
18mo. sewed, . - - - - 0 0 1
Fleury's Manners of the IsraeUtes. Translated,
witii Notes, by the Rev. John H'Hugh, 12mo.
cloth,  0 10
Four M^TTTtna of ChiistiaQ Philosophy, drawn
for OUT Considerations on Eternity, 32mo.
cloth,  0 0 4
Gahan's Catholic Piety, 18mo. with Supple
ment and frontispiece, plain, - -
 ¦ — — — embossed cover, richly gUt, -
 . —  cape morocco, richly gUt,
Cuban's CathoHc Peity, 32mo. neatly printed,
and strongly boimd in plain leather.

0 0 6

0 1

t)

0 -t

8

f) 8

0

0 0 4

0

2 0

0

3 0

0

5 6

14 JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE, ,;£' S D
Gahan's CathoHc Piety, embossed roan, richly gilt, 0 0 8
 French morocco, neat, - 0 1 6
Gahan's CathoHc Piety, large 18mo. with a
Supplement, and Epistles and Gospels for aU
Sundays and Festivals of the year. New edi
tion, carefuUy and beautifiiUy printed from
a large type, on superfine paper, fancy roan,
sprinkled edges, - - -
 embossed roan, richly gilt,
 morocco extra, richly gUt,
 velvet, with rich gUt edgings,
clasps and frontispiece, adapted for Wedding
presents, &c. - - - - 1 1 0
Gahan's History of the Church of Christ, post
8vo. bound, - - 0 3 0
Gahan's CathoHc Piety, royal 32mo. with Epistles
and Gospels, beautifiiUy printed on fine paper,
embossed, and richly gUt, - ~ -
 French morocco,
 morocco, super extra, -
 velvet, with rich gilt edgings,
clasps, &c. - - - - - 0 12 6
Gahan's Sermons and Moral Discourses, for aU
the Sundays and principal Festivals of the
year, 8vo. cloth, - - - 0 6 0
GaUagher's (Rev. J.) Sermons in tiie Irish Lan
guage, 12mo. boimd, - - 0 2 0
Garden of the Soul, with Supplement, containing
the Ordinary of the Mass, the Rosaries, &c.
royal 32mo. neatly printed, and strongly bound
in leather, - ...
 :  embossed roan, richly gUf,
 cape morocco, extra, richly gUt,
 morocco, super extra, -
 richly bound in velvet, with
edgings, clasps, &c. 0 12 6

0

1 0

0

2 0

0

3 6

0

0

6

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

3

0

0

2

0

0

3

0

0

6

0

1

1

0

/, WELLINGTON QUAY. 15
£ S D
Garden of the Soul, 18mo. large type, printed
on fine paper, with Supplement, and the Gos
pels and Epistles for aU Surfdays and Festivals
of the Year, strongly bound in fancy roan,
sprinkled edges, - - -
 embossed cover, richly gUt,
 morocco, super extra, -
 velvet, with rich ^t rim, clasp, -
Greraldine, a Tale of Conscience, complete in
one volume, 12mo. - - - - 0 5 0
Glover's Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass, 18mo. clotii, - - - - 0 0 6
Gobinet's Instructions for Youth in Christian
Piety, best edition, 12mo. strongly hound, -024
Gfofher's Instructions on the Episties and Gospels
for aU the Sundays and Festivals of the Year,
and every day during the holy season of Lent,
12mo. cloth, new edition, just published, 0 4 0
Gother "s DaUy Lessons ; remodeUed and adapted
to the present Church Calendar, by the Rev.
F. C. Husenbeth, in 2 vols. 12mo. - - 0 9 0
Gother's Sinner's Comphunt to God; being
Devout EntertainmenlB of the Soul with God,
royal 32nio. clotih,
 ¦ elegantly bound in morocco extra,
Hay's (Right Rev. Dr.) Slkcebe Christian
Instructed in the Faith of Christ from the Writ
ten Word, ^mo. edition, complete in one vol.
ilay's Devout Chiistian, complete in 1 vol, 18mo.
History of Eingland, from the Invasion of the
Romans to the dose of the Reign of WUHam
rV. hy a Member of the Ursuline Community,
St Mary's, Waterford, second edition, revised
and enlarged, by Townsend Young, L. L. D.
post 8to. hound,
Histoiy of the life of our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, translated from the French of
the Rev. Father De Ligny, of the Sodety of
Jesus, with beautifiU Blustrations.Svo. fancy cl. 0 8 0

0

1

4

0

3

6

0

2

4

0

2

4

0 2 6

16 JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE,

£ s

Hierurgia ; or, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by
Daniel Rock, D.D. in one vol. 8vo. with
plates, new edition, - - - - 0 16 0
Horse Diumse Breviarii Romani ex Decreto SS.
ConcUH Tridentini, royal 32mo. morocco
extra, - - - 0 7 6
Homihold's Instructions on the Commandments
and Sacraments, 12mo. bound, - - 0 3 6
How to Enslave a church; or, the ReHgious
Tyranny of Prussia, translated by Frederick
Lucas, Esq. post Syo. sewed, - - -
Hughes' Ceremonies of Low Mass, 12mo.
Hughes' (Rev. Dean) Ceremonies of High Mass
and Benediction, 12mo. . . -
Hughes' Pontifical Ceremony, 12mo. sewed, -
Hughes' Ceremonies and Responses on Serving
at Mass, 32mo.
Imitation of Christ, royal 32mo. bound,
-n  embossed covers, richly gilt, -
 French morocco,
 morocco, super extra, superbly
gilt, .... 0 3 6
Imitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, royal 32mo.
printed in the best manner, on a superfine
paper, fancy cloth, - - -
 -. — r,  embossed cover, gilt e%es,
- morocco, super extra, richly gilt,
Interior (The) of Jesus and Mary, translated
from the French of the Rev. John Gtou, of the
Society of Jesus, by a Member of the UrsuHne
Community, Black Rock, Cork, in 2 vols.
18mo. cloth,  0 3 6
Jessie Linden; or, the Seven Corporal
Works of Meecy, 18mo. cloth, (American
edition,) - - - 0 2 0

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

1

6

0

1

6

0

0

3

0

1

2

0

1

8

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

1

4

0

3

6

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 17
£ S D
Jesuit's (The) Book of CathoHc Prayers and Pious
Exercises,, fotthe use of those who wish to Live
Piously and Die HappUy, CompUed by one
of the Society of Jesus, 18mo. embossed cover,
richly gUt, - - 0 5 0
 r  morocco, super extra, flexible
back, joints, &c. - 0 7 6
1  :  gorgeously boundinFrenchvelvfit,
with richly gilt rims, clasps, &c. - 110
Journal of Meditation, roan, - 0 4 0
Kenbick's {The Right Rev. Dr.) Primacy of
THE Apostolic See Vindicated, 8vo. new
edition, cloth, - - 0 8 0
Kenrick on the VaUdity of Protestant Ordina
tions, 8vo. new edition, - - - 0 6 0
Kenrick's New Veraon of the Four Gospels, 0 10 0
Key of Heaven, (the Portable) and CathoHc
Christian's DaUy Companion, Containing
Morning and Evening Devotions ; Prayers at
Mass, and Benediction; Seven Penitential
Psalms; Litany of the Saints, and Serving at
Mass ; 48mo. roan, gUt,
 tuck, richly gUt,
 .  morocco, richly gUt,
 morocco flexible.
Key of Heaven, a new and beautifiil edition,
revised by tiie late Eight Rev. Dr. Murphy,
Bishop of Cork, 32mo., beautifiiUy printed on
fine paper, embossed and gUt,
 <r^. — cape morocco, richly gUt,
 ¦  morocco extra, ¦¦
 velvet, rich gUt edgings, clasp, &c.
Key of Heaven, Improved and Corrected by the
Eight Eev. Dr. Murphy, royal 32mo. bound
in strong, pMu leather, - - - 0 0 6
 -^ superfine paper, embossed and - 0 1 0

0

0

4

0

0

8

0

1

0

0

2

0

0 1

0

0 1

6

0 2

6

0 10

0

gilt,

in cape morocco, super exti-a, - 0 2 0

0

1

8

0

2

6

0

3

6

0

12

6

0

1

6

0

2

6

Is JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUi:,
Key of Heaven, with Supplement, containing
Masses before and after Holy Communion, and
other approved Devotions, beautifuUy printed
on fine paper, with the Approbation of His
Grace The Most Eev. Dr. Murray, Archbishop
of Dublin, royal 32mo. embossed roan, gilt
edges, - ...
 French morocco, richly gUt,
 morocco, super extra,
 richly bound in velvet, with gilt
rims, clasp, &c. - . - -
Key of Paradise, 18mo., bound,
 embossed covers, gUt,
Knowledge and Love of the Sacred Heart of
Jesus; or. Meditations on the Sacred Heart,
royal 32mo. cloth, - - - 0 1 0
Lanzi's Instructions for the Devout at the
Benediction of the Holy Sacrament, with
Pious Reflections on the Most Holy Viaticum,
royal 32mo. fancy wrapper, - 0 0 2
Lanigan on the Eucharist, 18mo. cloth, 0 10
Letters of his Grace the Most Eev. Dr. MacHale,
including the entire series pubHshed under
the respective signatures of " Hierophilos,"
" Bishop of Maronia," " Bishop of KUlala,"
and " Archbishop of Tuam." One thick vol.
8vo. cloth, fine portrait, - - 0 10 6
Library of CathoHc Divinity — Sacred Biogra
phy, containing : the Life of Christ — Blessed
Virgin — St. Patrick — St. Francis — and St.
Winifred, in one volume, post 8vo cloth, - 0 1 0
 (Second Series), Meditations,
containing: Think WeU On't — ^Method of
Meditation — HeU Opened to Christians — and
Sure Way to Find the True Eeligion,' in one
volume post 8vo, cloth, - - - 0 1 0

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 19
£8 1)
Life of St. Angela ; containing a History of the
Ursuline Order, its Origin, &c. 18mo. cloth, - 0 0 6
Life of St. Dominick, translated from the French
of Father Lacordaire, by George W. Abra
ham, A.B., 12mo. cloth, - - 0 2 0
Life and Death of the Most Eev. Dr. Oliver
Plunket, Primate of Ireland, by the Rev.
George CroUy, D. D. post 8vo. cloth, 0 3 0
Life of the Most Rev. Dr. CroUy, Primate of aU
Ireland, by the Eev. George CroUy, D.D. post
8vo. - - - 0 3 6
Life and Death of the Most Rev. Francis Kirwan,
Bishop of KUaUa. Translated from the Latin
of John Lynch, Archdeacon of Tuam, with
Notes, &c. By Rev. C. P. Meehan, square 8vo.
fancy cloth, - - - - 0 4 0
Life and Pious Labours of St. Vincent of PaiU,
founder of the Congregation of the Missions,
and of the Sisters of Charity. Translated from
the French of the Rev. M. CoUet, carefuUy
revised and corrected by»a Clergyman of St.
Vincent's CoUege, Castieknock, 12mo. cloth, - 0 2 0
Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
taken from the Traditions of the East, the
Manners of the IsraeUtes, and the Writings of
the Holy Fathers, translated from the French
of the Abbe Orsini, by the Rev. Patrick Power,
post 8vo. splendid frontispiece, fancy cloth, 0 3 0
Liguori's (St.) Explanation and Defence of AU
the points of Faith discussed and defined by
tiie Sacred CouncU of Trent; along with a
Refutation of the Pretended Reformers, post
8vo. fancy cloth, - - 0 4 0
Liguori's Discourses, Meditations, and Novenas,
second edition, 18mo. cloth, fine portrait, - 0 2 0

20 JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE,

£ S D

Liguori's Fourteen Stations of the Most Holy
Way of the Cross, embelHshed with beautiful
engravings by eminent artists, 18mo. fancy
cloth,  0 0 8
Liguori's Glories of the Blessed Virgin Mary. A
Paraphrase on the salve regina: treating of
the frequent and abundant Graces which the
Mother of God obtains for her devout CHents,
royal 32mo. now ficrst translated from the
ItaHan, by a CathoHc Clergyman, fancy cloth,
fine frontispiece, - 0 10
Liguori's Glories of Mary, complete edition, con
taining the Second Part, which treats of the
principal Festivals of the Blessed Virgin, of her
Dolours, of her heroic Virtues, and of the
exercise of Devotion to be practised in her
honour, 2 vols. 18mo. cloth, - - 0 3 0

» »
*

This translation is the only genuine one, and is

quite different from another edition which has been in
circulation for some time past, and which contains only
a portion of the Jirst volume.
Liguori's History and Refutation of the Various
Heresies. Translated from the ItaHan, by the
Et. Eev. Dr. Mullock, 2 vols'. 8vo. cloth, - 0 12 0
Liguori's Instructions to Preachers, 12mo. cloth, - 0 1 0
Liguori's Instructions on the Commandments
and Sacraments, royal 32mo. new edition,
beautifiiUy printed in large type, and pubHshed
with approbation of His Grrace the Most Rev.
Dr. Murray, cloth, - - - 0 10
Liguori's Life, by the Eight Eev. Dr. Mullock,
12mo cloth, fine portrait, 0 2 0
Liguori's Moral Dissertations on Purgatory — •
Antichrist — The Last Judgment — The Gene
ral Eesurrection, &c. &c. &c. royal 32mo.
cloth, - 0 1 0
Liguori's Treatise on Prayer, royal 32mo. fancy
cloth, 0 10

7, WELLINGTON QU.4Y. 21
T- •, T^ ¦ J' S D
Liguon's Preparation for Death; or Considera
tions on the Eternal Maxims. UsefiU to all
as a Book of Meditations, and to Priests as a
coUection of matter for Sermons, 12mo. 0 3 0
Liguori's Eeflections and Affections on the
Passion of Jesus Christ. Translated from the
ItaHan by a CathoHc Clergyman, royal 32mo.
cloth, ." 0 10
Liguori's Sermons for aU the Sundays in the
Year. Translated from the ItaHan by a Catho
Hc Clergyman, 8vo. fancy cloth. Third
edition, - 0 6 0
Liguori's True Spouse of Christ; or the Nun
Sanctified. New edition, beautifuUy printed
in one volume, post 8vo. fancy cloth,
Liguori's Spirit, royal 32mo. fancy cloth,
Liguori's Visits to the Blessed Sacrament. New
edition, with additions, royal 32mo. cloth,
beautifuUy printed on fine paper, price
 cape morocco, gUt,
 morocco extra, richly gilt,
Liguori's Victories of the Martyrs, and the
Miserable End of the Persecutors of God's
Church. Translated from the ItaHan, with
Notes, &c. by the Eev. Dr. Mac Loughlin, post
8vo. cloth, 0 2 6
Liguori's Way of Salvation, royal 32mo. cloth, - 0 1 4
The same in morocco extra, richly gUt, - 0 3 6
Lingard, (Eev. Dr.) A History of England from
the first Invasion of the Eomans. Fourth
edition. In 13 vols, small 8vo. reduced to - 2 8 0
Lingard's History and Antiquities of the Anglo-
Saxon Church, 2 vols. 8vo. cloth lettered, -,140
Little Joseph, or the Young Savoyard, a Tale
for Youth, by A. ]M. S. 16mo. fancy cover, 0 0 6
Louisa; or the Virtuous Villagers, cloth gUt, 0 10

0

6

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

3

6

22 JAMES DUFFY'S CAT.iLOGUE,

£ S D.

M'Carthy's (Pere) Sermons. Translated from
the French, with a Notice of his Life and Cha
racter, 8vo. cloth, - - 0 8 0
M'Carthy's (Pere) Discourses on Devotion to the
Blessed Virgin Mary, 18mo. sewed, - 0 0 6
Maginn's (Right Rev. Dr.) Refutation of Lord
Stanley's Calumnies against the Catholic
Clergy of Ireland, with the lamented Prelate's
last Pastoral Letter to the Clergy and Faithful
of the Diocese of Derry, 12mo. 0 0 6
Manning's Moral Entertaimnents, - - 0 3 6
Manning's Celebrated Answer to LesHe's Case
Stated, 8vo. - - - 0 4 0
Manual of Practical Devotion to the Glorious
Patriarch St. Joseph, including the Masses,
Novenas, Litanies, and other Pious Exercises
for the Feasts of the Holy Spouse of the
Blessed Virgin. Translated from the ItaHan of
Father Patrignani, S. J. and revised by one of
the Society of Jesus, 18mo. cloth, 0 16
Mary, the Cause of our Joy ; or Meditations on
the Holy Litany of Loretto, by St Alphonsus
Liguori, royal 32mo. beautifiU frontispiece, 0 0 2
Mary Anne O'HaUoran ; or, the Favourite Child,
an Irish Tale, by a retired Priest, 16mo. fancy
cloth, - - - - - 0 0 6
^^ A sweet little volume, admirably adapted for
presents or School prizes.
Mary the Morning Star, 18mo. cloth, - - 0 1 0
Meditations and Considerations for a Spiritual
Retreat of Eight Days. By the Very Rev.
Father Stone, S. J. late of Stoneyhurst CoUege,
Lancashire, 18mo. cloth. Reprinting.
Meditations and Devotions to the Sacred Heart
of Mary. Translated from the ItaHan, by M.
D. F. royal 32mo .cloth, - 0 0 6
Memorial of a Christian Life, royal 32mo cloth, 0 14

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 23
. £ S D
Method of Saying the Holy Rosary, with addi
tional Reflections on the Mysteries, Devotions
of the Fifteen Saturdays, and the Little Office
of St. Dominick, 18mo. sewed, - 0 0 6
Missions and Travels over the Rocky Mountains
by Father P. J.DeSmet, of the Society of Jesus ;
with an Introductory Memoir of the Oiregon
Territory and its ilissions. Numerous Illus
trations and a ]\Iap. Post 8vo. fancy cloth, - 0 6 0
Missal (Complete) for the Use of the Laity, con
taining the Mass, vrith the Inlioit, CoUect,
Episties, Gospels, &c. for every day throughout
the year, 18mo. beautifiiUy printed on a super
fine paper, plain roan, - - 0 2 4
 embossed and richly gUt, 0 3 6
 elegantly bound in morocco extra, 0 6 0
 morocco, super extra, flexible
back, with joints, &c. - - - 0 12 6
in velvet, with rich gUt edgings.

clasps, &c - - 1 1 0
Missal (Pocket) for the Use of the Laity, with
Epistles and Gospels for aU Sundays and Fes
tivals of the Year, royal 32mo. plain, 0 10
 neatiy bound in embossed covers,
richly gUt, - - - - 0 16
 — — morocco super extra, richly gUt, 0 2 0
 ¦ morocco extra, richly gUt, 0 3 6
bound in velvet, with rich gUt

edgings and clasps, - - . 0 12 6
Month of January — Sanctified by Meditations
for every day of the Month, with Prayers and
Examples, 18mo. cloth, - - 0 16
Month of Mary, containing Meditations for each
day of the Month of May. Translated from
theFrenchofA. M. S. 18mo. 0 0 6
 fancy cloth, rich gUt back, 0 10

24 JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE,

£ S D

Month of Mary, by a Member of the UrsuHne
Community, Black Rock, Cork, royal 32mo.
cloth, gilt back, - . - 0 1 0
Month of June; or Devotions to the Sacred
Heart of Jesus, 18mo. sewed, - 0 0 6
Month of September Sanctified by a Daily
Remembrance of the Dolors of Mary, 12mo. 0 0 4
More's CathoHcse, or the Ages of Faith, by Digby,
3 vols, royal 8vo. cloth, 3 18 6
NovENA ; Or, Nine Days Devotion to the Ever
Glorious and Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount
Carmel, 18mo. fancy wrapper, 0 0 1
Office of the Immaculate Conception of the
Most Sacred Virgin Mary, approved of by Pope
Innocent XI. Translated from the French,
with Preface, copious Notes, &c. by J. Han-
bury, Esq. late of the College of Carlow,
gilt edges, only 0 0 4
Path to Paradise, thick 32mo. plain,
 fine paper, embossed and gilt, -
 French morocco.
Path to Paradise, beautifully printed in 48mo.
fine paper, embossed cover,
 cape morocco, richly gilt,
.  in tuck, -
 morocco, flexible.
Passion and Crucifixion of our Blessed Redeemer
Meditated — A fine engraving of the Crucifixion
with extracts from the Sacred Scriptures and
the Writings of the Holy Fathers, arranged by
the Rev. WilHam Young, beautifully printed
in red and black, on a large sheet of fine
vellum paper, with a handsome border, price
only - .- 0 0 1
*^* Each verse, or quotation, forms a separate point
of meditation for eveiy day in the month.
Parsons' Christian Directory, Guiding Men to
their Eternal Salvation, post 8vo. reprinting 0 4 0

0

0

4

0

0

8

0

1

0

0

0

8

0

0

10

0

0

10

0

2

0

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 25
£ S D
Pauline Seward, a CathoHc Tale of Real Life,
by John D. Bryant, Esq. 2 volumes in one,
post 8vo. fancy cloth, - - - 0 5 0
Perpetuity of the Faith of the CathoHc Church
on the Eucharist, 8vo. boards, - - 0 2 8
Pinamonti — True Wisdom, or Considerations
for every Day of the Week, 32mo. cloth, - 0 0 4
Pinnamonti's Meditations on the Four Last
Things, adapted for such as, labouring in the
important affair of Salvation, aspire to Christian
Perfection, 32mo. cloth, - - 0 0 4
Pinamonti — The One Thing Necessary, or Con
siderations on the Value and ExceUence of the
Soul of Man, 32mo. cloth, 0 0 4
Pinamonti — The Cross in its True Light, or the
Weight of Tribulation Lessened, 32mo. cloth, 0 0 4
Poor Man's (The) Catechism. By the Rev. John
A. Mannock, O.S.B. royal 32mo. new edition,
fancy cloth, - 0 14
Portrait of his Grace the Most Rev. Dr. Mac
Hale, Archbishop of Tuam, painted by John
F. O'KeUy, Esq. and engraved by J. Cochran,
Esq. (uniform with Carrick's Portrait of
O'ConneU,) reduced to
Portrait of his Grace the Most Rev. Dr. Plunket,
D.D. Archbishop of Armagh, from the Original
Portrait (in crayons) taken during his confine
ment in Newgate, and now in the possession of
the Rev. Dr. CampbeU, Clogher, - - 0 1 0
Practical Methods of Performing the Ordinary
Actions of a Christian Life, 18mo. cloth, 0 10
Practical Reflections on the Principal Feasts of
the Year, with a Prayer or Novena for each.
By a Member of the Ursuline Community,
Black Rock, Cork, 18mo. cloth, 0 16
Prize Book; by the Author of "Alton Park,"
12mo. cloth, - - - 0 3 0

0 1 0

/

0 14

26 JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE, £ S D.
Reilly's Catechism, per dozen, - 0 0 10
Red Scapular — The Scapular of the Sacred
.j^ Passion of our Blessed Redeemer, beautifuUy
printed in red, 12mo. fancy wxapper, - 0 0 2
Reeve's General History of the Christian Church,
from its EarHest EstabHshment to the Present
Century, 12 weekly numbers, each - 0 0 4
Eeeve's History of the Holy Bible, revised by
the late Eev. W. Gahan, 18mo. fancy cloth,
numerous engravings, price, -
Eeeve's History of the Holy Bible, 12mo. best
edition, bound, In ihe Press. - - 0 2 0
Eeeve's Practical Discourses and Eeflections on
the Works of God, 12mo. bound, - - 0 1 6
Eodriguez's EeHgious and Christian Perfection,
3 vols. 12mo. cloth, reduced to - - 0 8 0
Eules of a Christian Life. Selected from the
most approved Spiritual Writers, by the Eev.
C. Premord, A. M. L. L. 2 vols. 12mo. cloth,
Eoman Ritual, 32mo. French morocco,
The same, morocco extra, ...
Science of Salvation. A Series of Devout
Meditations on the Life and Sufferings of our
Blessed Eedeemer, for every day in the
Month, with Prayers and Examples, 18mo.
cloth, gilt edges, 0 16
Sermons and Exhortations for all the Sundays
and Festivals of the Year, on the Sacred Mys
teries and most Important Duties of the
Christian EeHgion, by the Eev. Joseph
Morony, S. J. 8vo. cloth, - - 0 6 0
Seven Joys and Seven Dolors of the Blessed
Virgin, royal 32mo. cloth, - - - 0 0 2
Sick Calls from the Diary of a Missionary Priest,
post 8vo. cloth, gilt edges, 0 6 0
Sinner's Guide ; being a fiUl and Ample Exhor
tation to the Pursuit of Virtue, 12mo. bound, - 0 3 6

0 7

0

0 2

0

0 3

0

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 27
£ s n
Spiritual (The) Garland ; or Manual of the Cliil-
dren of our Immaculate Lady, containing
Psahns from the Psalter of St. Bonaventure;
Antiphons. and Prayers for each day in the
week ; a most useful Practise for assisting with
great fruit at the Holy Sacrifice ; Devotions to
the Dolours and Joys of St. Joseph ; and the
Office of the Immaculate Conception, translated
by a CathoHc Priest, royal 32mo. - 0 0 6
The same, cloth gUt, - 0 1 0
SoHloquy of the Soul, by Thomas a Kempis,
royal 32mo. cloth, . . . .010
Soul on Calvary, meditating on the Sufferings of
Jesus Christ, and Finding at the Foot of the
Cross Consolation in her Troubles, by the
Author of the " Elevation of the Soul," royal
32mo. cloth,- - - - -010
Spiritual Consolations ; or, a Treatise on Interior
Peace. By the Authoress of " The Ursuline
Manual," 12mo. cloth, . - 0 3 0
Spiritual Maxims of St. Vincent of Paul, 12mo. 0 10
Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius, and the
Sinner's Conversion, 18mo. cloth, - 0 1 0
Spratt's (Very Rev. Dr.) Manual. The Sincere
Christian's Manual, containing a selection of
beautifiU Prayers and various Practices of
Piety, 18mo, fine paper, new and improved
edition, fancy roan, - - - -
 embossed roan,
 French morocco, richly gilt,
 morocco extra, -
Sundays at Lovel Audley ; or. Conversations on
the Lives of the Saints. Dedicated to his
Eminence Cardinal Wiseman, post 8vo. cloth, 0 3 0
St. Teresa's Select Works — Meditations on the
Lord's Prayer — Letter to the Bishop of Osma
— ^Method of Visiting the Convents, and Eela-
tions found after her Death, translated from the
Spanish, by the Eev. John Dalton, 18mo. cloth, 0 10

0

1

8

0

2

6

0

4

0

0

6

0

2S JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE,

£ S

Sufferings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
2 vols. 12mo. cloth, 0 4 0
System of a Devout Life, approved and recom
mended by the late Father Kenny, S.J. royal
32mo. - - 0 0 1
The Festival of the Eosary, and other Stories
iUustrating the Commandments, by Agnes M.
Stewart, royal 32mo. cloth, - - 0 1 0
Tales Designed Chiefly for the Young ; translated
from the German of the Venerable Christopher
Von Schmid, Canon of Augsburg, by the Eev.
Charles WUHam EusseU, Professor of Eccle
siastical History, and the Eev. Matthew KeUy,
Professor of Belles Lettres, St Patrick's Col
lege, Maynooth, 3 vols, 8vo. fancy cloth, beau
tifuUy printed, with numerous Illustrations, 0 13 6
Tales of the Sacraments, by the authoress of
" Geraldine," 2 vols, post 8vo. 0 10 0
The Father's Present,a series of DeHghtfiU Tales
for the Instruction and Amusement of Youth.
Translated from the German by the Rev. C.
W. EusseU, Professor of Ecclesiastical History,
and the Eev. Matthew KeUy, Professor of
Belles Lettres, in the Eoyal CathoHc CoUege
of St. Patrick, Maynooth ; post 8vo. numerous
Illustrations, richly bound in cloth, gilt edges, 0 4 6
The Gxiide to Grace, being an easy method of
Preparation for Confession, with an Examina
tion of Conscience, &c., revised and approved
by the Very Eev. Thomas O'Connor, P. P.,
Loughglynn, &c., 18mo, fancy wrapper, - 0 0 3
The Holy Gospel according to St. John, in Latin,
beautifiiUy printed on fine paper, 18 copies on
a sheet, price per sheet - - 0 0 4
The Lord is my portion ; or Letters and Instruc
tions on Perseverance after Communion. By
the author of " The Great Day Approaches,"
royal 32mo. cloth Hmp, - 0 0 6
The same, fancy cloth, gilt edges, 0 10

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 29
£ S D
The Life of St. EHzabeth of Hungary. Trans
lated from the French of Count Montalembert.
By Mary Hackett, post 8vo. fancy cloth, - 0 3 0
The Mother's Keepsake ; a coUection of DeHght
fiU Tales, designed chiefly for the Young.
Translated from the Gierman of Canon Schmid,
by the Translators of •' The Father's Present,"
post 8vo. cloth, richly gUt, with numerous
engravings, - 0 4 6
The Spirit of Devotion, a Manual of Prayer, for
the Use of the FaititfiU, beautifiiUy printed in
large type, on superfine paper, 72mo. French
morocco,
 tuck, -
 morocco extra, flexible.

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

Although this is the smallest Prayer Book that
has ever been issued from the Irish press, it contains
Morning and Evening Prayers — the Mass — Devotions
for Benediction — ^Prayers for Confession and Commu
nion — Seven Penitential Psalms — the Litanies — serving
at Mass, and other excellent Devotions,
Treatise (A) on the duties and Sanctity of the
Monastic State, translated from the French, by
a EeHgious of the Abbey of MeUary, La
Trappe, 2vols. 12mo. bound, (pub. at 12s.) 0 7 0
Ursuline History of England. — ^An impartial
History of England, from the Invasion of the
Eomans to the close of the Eeign of WilHam
IV. By a member of the Ursuline Community,
St. Mary's, Waterford. Second edition, enlar
ged, by Towsend Young, L.L.D. post 8vo.
strongly bound, - 0 2 6
Ursuline Manual ; Mr. Coyne's new edition beau
tifiiUy printed on fine paper, with neat border
round each page, 18mo. embossed covers,
richly gUt, -
 cape morocco,
 morocco extra, richly gUt,
 georgeously bound in velvet, with
lims, clasp, and shield, richly gilt, 110

0

4

0

0

6

0

0

7

6

.•^0

JAMES DUFFY S CAT.ALOGUE,

£ S D

UrsuHne Lenten Monitor, being a series of prac
tical Meditations" and Prayers, for every day
during the holy season of Lent, with Litanies
of the Blessed_Sacrament, the Sacred Passion,
Hymns for the Feasts of the Cross, and a
Novena in honour of the Dolours of the Blessed
Virgin Mary. By a Member of the UrsuHne
Community, Black Eock, Cork, royal 32mo.
fancy cloth, - - - 0 14
Valley of LiHes, and Meditations on the Incar
nation, Nativity, Passion, and Eesurrection of
Christ, by Thomas a Kempis, royal 32mo. cloth, 0 10
Wiseman's Lectures on the Principal Doctrines
and Practices of the CathoHc Church, 2 vols.
in 1, 12mo. cloth, - - - 0 4 6
 The Eeal Presence of the Body
and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ
in the Blessed Eucharist, proved fi-om Scrip
ture. In Eight Lectures, deUvered in the
EngUsh College, Eome. Second edition, 12mo.
cloth, lettered, - 0 4 6
 Four Lectures on the Offices and

Ceremonies of Holy Week, as Performed in
the Papal Chapels, deUvered in Eome in the
Lent of 1837. Illustrated with Nine Engrav
ings and a Plan of the Papal Chapels, 8vo.
cloth, - - - 0 5 0
 Twelve Lectures on the Connexion

between Science and Revealed ReHgion, with
Map & Plates, 2 vols, small 8vo. cloth lettered, 0 10 0
Ward's Errata of the Protestant Bible, with.
Preface by the Rev. Dr Lingard, and a
Defence by the Rev. Dr. Milner, reprinting.
Wheeler's Sermons on the Gospel for every Sun
day throughout the year, 2 vols, reduced to - 0 18 0
Works of the Right Rev. Dr. England, First Bishop
of Charleston, coUected and arranged by his
immediate successor. The Right Rev. Dr.
Reynolds, 5 vols, royal 8vo. fancy cloth, 2 2 0

7, 'WELLINGTON QUAY. 31
PRINTS.
ninstrations to the Holy Scriptures,
Engraved on Steel, by the most eminent Artists,
PRICE ONLY TWO PENCE EACH.

Moses with the Tables of the Law.
The Redeemer.
Taking down from the Cross.
The Crucifixion.
The Holy Family.
Daniel in the Lions' Den.

The Judgment of Solomon.
The Captivity of the Israelites.
The Transfiguration.
Judith Slaying Holofemes.
The Mother of Resignation.
The Virgin and Child.

The above may be had in neat Rosewood Frames, 23. each.
Gallery of the Saints,
In a series of Eleven splendid Engravings, with lUnminated Borders.
PRICE ONLY THREE PENCE EACH.

St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland.
St. Catherine of Sienna.
St John of the Cross.
St. Francis of Sales.
St. Mary Magdalene.
St. Aloysios Gonzaga.

St. Francis Xavier.
St. Teresa.
St. Francis of Assisium.
St. Ignatius of Loyola.
St Mary Magdalene of Fazzi.

PRINTS.
Taking down from the Cross, from the celebrated
Painting by Reubens, engraved on steel by
Messrs Brown and Young, royal 4to., fine
impressions, .010
The Holy Family, by Carlo Maratta, engraved on
steel by Messrs. Brovm and Yoimg, royal 4to. 0 10
The Dead Christ, Hthographed by J. H. Lynch,
Esq., royal 4to. - 0 10
FEENCH PEINTS.
J, D, has just received from the most eminent French
Publishers a splendid Collection of Plain and Coloured
Prints, which he is enabled to offer full fifty per cent,
nnder the former prices.
No. 1 — ^A series of twenty sheets of Prints, each
sheet containing ten to sixteen Engravings of
Saints and other Devotional subjects, executed
in the most beautifiU manner, and admfrably
adapted for iUustrating Prayer Books, School
Prizes, &c., price per sheet, - 0 0 6

32 JAMES dqffy's catalogue,

£

No. 2 — A series of sheets of Prints, from Ten to
Seventy-five Engra-^ings on each sheet, with
rich gold borders round each engraving, price
per sheet, - - 0 0 10
No. 3 — ^A similar series, with rich gold borders,
and each engraving beautifiiUy coloured, price
per sheet, 0 12
No. 4 — ^A similar series, printed on coloured ena
meled paper, price per sheet, - - 0 1 4
No. 5 — A similar series, printed on richly co
loured enameled paper, with splendid gold
border round each Engraving, price per sheet, 0 18
^g° An assortment of about Fifty Sheets of each
series can be given. In ordering from this Catalogue it
will be sufficient to state merely the number and price
of the series.
No. 6 — ^A series of beautifiil Prints, richly co
loured, size 12 by 9 inches, price 0 0 8
Just received, an extensive supply of Altar
Charts, richly iUuminated, Stations of the
Holy Way of the Cross, plain and coloured,
which vdU be sold at very reduced prices.
J. D. has also received an extensive assortment of
Rosary Beads, which will be sold to the Trade
on the most reasonable terms.

A magnificent set of the Fourteen Stations of the
Holy Way of the Cross.
Gorgeously coloured, after designs by the great
masters, size 37 by 31|- inches, richly mounted
in rosewood frames, gUt mouldings, strong
sheet glass, &c., nett price, - 16 16 0
Several sets of a smaller size at reduced prices.

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 33
Works Relating to Ireland.
iuftYn ICikartj of Srdatiit.
23 Vols. 18mo. fancy doth, only is. each.
Barry's Songs of Ireland.
Carleton's Art Magnire, or the Broken Pledge.
Carleton's History of Paddy-Go-Easy and his wife Nancy.
Carleton's History of Rody the Rover, the Irish Detective.
Davis's Literary and Historical Essays.
Davis's Poems and Ballads.
Doheny's History of the American Revolution.
Duffy's Ballad Poetry of freland, 6th edition.
Ellis's Songs of Ireland.
French's (Rt. Rev. Dr.) Bleeding Iphigenia.
French's (Rt Rev. Dr.) Unkind Deserter of Loyal Men and
True Friends.
Hay's History of the Irish Rebellion of 1798.
Madden and Davis's Lives of Grattan and Curran.
M'Carthy's Book of Irish Ballads.
M'Carthy's Poets and Dramatists of Ireland.
MacMahon's Casket of Irish Pearls.
MacNevin's Histoiy of the Confiscation of Ulster.
MacXevin's History of the Volunteers of 1782.
M'Gee's History of the Irish Writers of the 17th century.
M'Gee's Life and Conquests of Art MsicMurragh, King of
Leinster.
Meehan's (Rev. C. P.) History of the Confederation of Kil
kenny.
Meehan's (Rev. C. P.) History of the Geraldines, Earls of
Desmond.
Mitchel's Life and Times of Hugh O'Neil.
^^ Duffy's Library of freland may be had, bound in 1 1 vols.
cloth, richly gilt, price 21s.
Dufiy's Fireside Magazine, a Monthly MisceUany
containing Original Tales and Legends by the
most esteemed writers; Reviews of Popular
Works ; Selections from the works of the most
eminent authoi-s ; Narratives ftunished by the
Tourist and the TraveUer; Original Poetry,
&c., for the Amusement of the Old, and the
Instruction of the Young ; now publishing in
monthly numbers, price only * - 0 0 4
1^" The First Volume is now ready, price Five
Shillings, scarlet cloth, gilt back, (or Six Shillings free
by Post).

. 3 1 JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE,

.^ S D

History of Ireland, Ancient and Modem — ^by
Way of Question and Answer, by W. J.
O'XeiU Daunt, Esq., 18mo. . . .010
Homer's IHad, Books 1. and H., Translated into
Irish by his Grace the Most Rev. Dr. Mac Hale,
Archbishop of Tuam, 8vo. fancy wrapper,
price each book, - - - 0 2 0
 Book ni. in the press.
Hugh Talbot ; a Tale of the Confiscation of Ire
land, by W. J. O'NeUl Daunt, Esq., post 8vo.
" cloth, - - - - 0 4 0
Ireland and her Agitators, by W. J. O'NeiU
Daunt, post 8vo. cloth, reduced to - 0 3 0
Josephine, a Tale for Young Ladies. Translated
from the French by Mary Hackett, 18mo. cloth, 0 4 0
Last days of O'ConneU, by WilHam Bernard
Mac Cabe, Esq., Author of " A CathoHc His
tory of England," &c., cloth, - 0 3 0
Levy's Grenuine Report of the Three Days' Dis
cussion on the Repeal of the Union, in the
Corporation of DubHn, 8vo. - - 0 2 0
Life and Speeches of Daniel O'ConneU, Esq.,
M. P., edited by his son, John O'ConneU, Esq.
2 vols, fancy cloth, - - - 0 12 0
Mac Geoghegan's (Abbe) National History of
Ireland, translated from the French by Patrick
O'KeUy, Esq., beautiftdly printed on a super
fine paper : complete in one volume, bound in
fancy cloth, richly gUt, reduced to 0 6 0
Memofr of Ireland, Native and Saxon, by Daniel
O'ConneU, Esq., M. P., neatly bound in fancy
cloth, - - 0 3 0
Moore's Melodies. Translated into Irish, by his
Grace the Most Rev. Dr.Mac Hale, Archbishop
of Tuam. Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8vo. sewed, each, 0 0 6
 Faxt 5, SYO.sewed, just published, 0 0 6
Madden's Life and Times of Robert Emmet, post
8vo. cloth, - - - 0 3 0

7, WELLINGTON QUAY. 35
£ S T>
Madden's (Ife-) Lives and Tiines of tiie United
Irishmen, First, Second and Third Series, com
plete in 7 vols, post 8vo, fancy clotiij numerous
portraits, (published at ^3 3s.) reduced tQ 1 12 6
 — Connexion of the BSngdcan of
Ireland with the Crown of Eh^^d, 8vo, - 0 3 0
Easter Oflfering; or, Memorials

of Those Who W^e and Are Not 16ino.
scarlet cloth, gUt edges, - - - 0 1 0
Music and Poetry of Ireland ; or, the Songs and
Ballads of tiie Natdon, with Mx^c, original and
selected, and ihe Names of the Writers, in one
handsome volume, small quarto, beautiftdly
printed on tiie finest veUum paper, and ele-
gantiy bound in cloth, gilt edges, - - 0 10 (j.
Observations on tiie Address deUvered by tiie
Preadent of Queen's CoUege, Galway, at the
close of the Sesapn 1849-50^ by Rev. James
Maha-, PP., Carlow, sewed, - - 0 1 0
Portrait of the late Thomas Davis, M.R.IA.,
from a Painting by F.W. Burton, Esq., painter
of " The BHnd Gfrl at tiie Holy WeU," proofe
on India paper, 0 10
Portrait of Daniel O'ConneU, Esq., M.P., engraved
by Carricki proof impressions ji a 0 1 0
— ;  in neat fi:ame,_ glazed, - - 0 i 0
Reports of the Parliamentffly Committee of tiie
Loyal National Repeal Association of Ireland,
3 vols, dbth, scarce, - - - 0 12 0
Rcanances and BaUads of Ireland, by tiie late
James Clarence Mangan and others, edited hy
Hercules EUis, Esq., 18mo. cloth, - 0 2 0
Saints and SnnerSr a Tale of Modem Times, fry
W. J. O'NeUl Daunt, Esq., 2 vols, hound m
ODB,, reduced io . - . - - - 0 5 0
Stark's Tour in tiie South of Ireland in 1850,
beautifidly printed in 1 tsoL post 8vo., with
numerous Ulustrations by M. Angelo Hayes,
Esq., faaey clotii, - - - - 0 5 0

36 JAMES DUFFY'S CATALOGUE,

£ S D

Stories of Richard Coeur de Lion, for the Instruc
tion andAmusement of Young People. Square
8vo. cloth, gilt, - - - _ - 0 2 0
Tales and Stories, iUustrating the Traditions,
Sports, and Pastimes of the Irish Peasantry,
by WiUiam Carleton, Esq., with numerous
illustrations by " Phiz," 8vo. fancy cloth, 0 6 0
Valentine M'Clutchy, the Irish Agent ; or Chro
nicles of Castlecumber ; together with the pious
aspfrations, permissions, ,vouchsafements, and
other sanctified privUeges of Solomon M' Slime,
a religious' Attorney. With 20 illustrations
by " Phiz," 8vo. cloth gUt, reduced to r 0 6 0
Wonderful Book ; or Tales for the Merry, Stories
for the Studious, and MarVels for the Morose,
translated from the Arabic ; edited by Mrs.
Belinda Mac Cabe, 18mo, cloth, gilt edges, - 0 16
Walker's Critical Pronoimcing Dictionary, with
Classical Key and 2500 Additional Words, by
Townsend Young, LL.D. 8vo, cloth, - 0 5 0
Works of the late Gerald Griffin, with Life by
his Brother, 8 vols, post 8vo. reduced to - 1 10 0
Johnson's Dictionary of the EngUsh Language,
a new and beautifiU edition, with 2000 addi
tional words, by Townsend Young, LL.D.,
18mo. large type, fancy roan, - - 0 1 0

FRAGRANT INCENSE
ir(0)iE ^uri tor^i ©i" fni as.^.^ie.
Prepared by Mr. T. MAETIN, Chemist, Liyerpool,
JAMES DUFFY, WHOLESALE AGENT FOR IRELAND,
Fine quality, in packages of lib. - 2s. &d.
Do. do. do 21b. - 4 6
Superfine quality, in packages of lib. 4 0
Do. do. do. 21b. 7 6
^ A LIBERAL DISCOUNT ALLOWED TO THE TRADE.
THE END.

Printed by J.-M. O'TootE,' 13, HawkinsVstreet, Dnbliu.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

lllilliilililliliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiu o
3 9002 01498 1394 O

. 1 J

-!C-,-«.

.3^

1 "

II t

"-t

"""'In

1 il'

4V-

liu. 1

< r

-fSj:*'^ Sir
¥="¦
/ ' "^ ""I
'.1 If^"
1 '' >'- " r
lS*s
3t:
¦^.111 5,i-'i,'^"
r- 1 ''¦"  .
V J .as*' 1 ir
"I ¦)'
3b 2<
'-" I-
1 I
— — 'l5i
¦ l£rl L -•
._ ¦ XI. ,
r £bl. t1
"? ¦¦•T'"si-.=a.-