The corruptions to which the text of the Vulgate has been exposed have caused it to be regarded with considerable suspicion ; and some have even gone the length of asserting that we no longer possess the translation of Jerome (see Pfeiffer, CrzY, Sac., Opp. p. 790 ; and Carpzov, Crit. Sac., p. 680). The reasons adduced by these writers are not without weight ; but the general opinion of scholars is, that they have failed to establish their position to the extent they have desired.
4. History of the printed text. —Among the earliest uses to which the discovery of printing was put, was the multiplying of copies of the Latin Bible ; the first edition which has the place and year of publication noted is that of Mentz, 1462 ; for earlier editions, see Le Long, ii. 2, 58, ff., ed. Masch. As the MSS., however, from which these were executed were in a corrupt state, it is not to be wondered at that the earliest printed editions were sadly incorrect. The diffusion of copies, indeed, only made the corrupt state of the text more apparent and more generally known. IIence attempts began to be made at a critical re vision of the text, and editions having critical apparatus appended were issued. Of this class are the editions of Gumelli, Paris 1504 ; of Cas tellan, Venet. 1511 ; of the Complutensian Poly glott, 1517 ; of Colinaeus, Paris 1525 ; of Rob. Stephen, Paris 1527, and especially the fourth edition, 1540, and following editions ; of Benedic tus (Benoist), Paris 1541 ; and of Isid. Clarius, Venet. 1542 (Le Long, /. c.) As the eme'ndations in these editions, however, were often arbitrarily made, and in sorne cases were really new trans lations, the condition of the text was still such as to give occasion for serious complaint.
During the fourth session of the Council of Trent, a commission under the presidency of Arch bishop Filhol was appointed to report on the state of the text of the Vulgate. Their report was given in on the t7th of March 1546, and was to the effect that the text was so corrupt, that only the Pope could restore it to its original integrity. Hot debates ensued, in the course of which it was pro posed that a new translation should be n-iade from the original Hebrew and Greek, and pronounced to be alone authentic. Others contended that all that was required was an amended Vulgate ; but much discussion arose as to the merits of Jerome's translation, and doubts were cast by some on the claims of the existing Vulgate to be regarded as Jerome's work at all. The result was a resolution, adopted on the 8th of April, declaring that the vetus et Vulgata editio' was alone to be held authentic, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prxdicationibus et expositionibus ;' and discharg ing all persons from presuming on any pretext to reject it. Some doubt has arisen as to whether this decree was intended to preclude in all cases an appeal to the original Scriptures as the final autho rity. Such seems unquestionably to be its obvious meaning ; for if not even in controversy may any one presume to set aside the translation, there can in no case be a legitimate appeal to the original from the translation. 'But Hug says that the meaning is plainly this : As in civil affairs an authentic instrument is valid evidence, so in public religious matters the Vulgate is a document from which valid argument may be drawn, without pre judice, however, to other documents' (Introd., p. 279). If this was all the Council meant, it is a pity they said so much more than this, and bound their church by an edict which undoubtedly has operated to the discouragement of all true Biblical exegesis within her pale.
Whilst thus asserting the supremacy of the Vul gate, the Tridentine divines did not attempt to decide which of the differing editions was the one to be preferred ; they only enacted that henceforth the Vulgate should be imprinted in the most emended form possible (Sep. 4 ; Decr. 2). They appointed, however, a commission to effect a correct edition of the Vulgate ; but this was sud denly suspended by order of the Pope Paul III. An attempt was also made by Hentenius, under the auspices of the theologians of Louvain, to pro duce a correct text by printing a revised edition of the fourth Stephanie impression, Louvain 1547. The proceedings in this matter of the Council ex cited derision at Rome, and provoked displeasure among scholarly men in the Romish Church, of whom such men as Maffei and Farnesi openly sig nified their dissatisfaction. The Court of Rome, however, seized the occasion for exerting its autho. rity, and assumed the prerogative of issuing the authentic Scriptures. This work, begun under the auspices of Pius IV. and V., was hastily completed by Sixtus V. who fitted up a press in the Vatican for the purpose of printing it, and himself cor rected the press. It appeared under the title Biblia Sacra Vulgatee editionis tribus tomis distincta, Romx ex Typogr. Apostol. Vat., 1590, fol. ; a second title page announces that this edition is 'ad Concilii Tridentini prxscriptum emendata, et a Sixto V., P. M., recognita et approbata.' The manifold deficiencies of this edition were apparent even before it was issued, and an attempt was made to remedy or conceal them by erasing, past ing corrections over the errors, or correcting by the pen ; nevertheless the work was sent forth with the highest pretensions, all other editions were interdicted, and the alteration of the minutest particle was prohibited. Pope Gregory XIV., however, saw it necessary to send forth a. more worthy edition of the Vulgate text, and the work which he began was completed by Clement VIII. This, which appeared in 1592, though professing to be Sixti V. jussu recognita et Clementis auc toritate edita,' differed very much from the Sixtine edition, copies of which the popes endeavoured to buy up and destroy, so that it is now one of the rarest of books. In 1593 Clement sent forth another edition, which contained many alterations. The errors of the Clementine recension, and the discrepancies between it and that of Sixtus, though both issued under the supreme papal sanction, have been fully exposed by James in bis Bellum Papale, sine concordia discors Sixtz. quinti et Cie nte/ells octavi circa Hieronymiananz editionenz, Lond. 1600 ; and Prosper Marchand, in Schel horn's Anzomitates Litteraria, iv. p. 433, ff. ; see also Hody, p. 505 ; and Amama, Cezzszzra vulg. vers. quinque libb. Franeq. 1620. In 1593 an edition in 4to of the Clementine text was issued from the Vatican press, and another in 1598, sm. 4to. Both the folio and quarto editions contain the preface of Bellarmin, in which he describes the desigm of the editors, and the rules by which they were guided. The quarto"editions have marginal references, explanations of the Hebrew names, and an index rerum ; both are very incorrectly printed, and the text they present differs considerably from that of the edition of 1592. A reprint of this edition in 4to and Svo was issued from the Plantine press, Antwerp 1599; which, however, in many places differs from its original. Almost all subsequent editions have slavishly followed that of Clement, copying even its manifest errors (see a list 111 Le Long—Masch ii. 3, p. 249, ff.) Recent editions are those of L.