V U L 



V U L 



VULGAR Arithmetic, Fraclions, and Purgation. See 

 the fiibftantives. 



VULGATE, a very ancient Latin tranflation of the 

 Bible ; and the only one the church of Rome acknowledges 

 to be authentic. 



The ancient Vulgate of the Old Tefiament was tranflated, 

 almoft word for word, from the Greek of the Scptuagint. 

 The author of the vcrfion is not known, nor fo much as 

 -gueOed at. See Veusidn, /ta/ic and Latin. 



It was a long time known by the name of the Italic, or 

 old verfion ; as being of very great antiquity in the Latin 

 church. It was the common, or vulgar verlion, before St. 

 JiTom niade a new one from the Hebrew original, with 

 occafional recurrences to the Septuagint ; whence it has its 

 iiame Vulgate. 



Nobihus, in 1558, and F. Morin, in 162S, gave new edi- 

 tions of it ; pretending to have reflored, and re-collated it, 

 from the ancients who had cited it. The Vulgate was held, 

 by St. Augulline, to be preferable to all the other Latin 

 verfions then extant ; as rendering the words and fenfe of 

 the facred text more clofclv and judly than any of the reft. 

 It has fince been retouched from the correction of St. Jerom ; 

 and it is this mixture of the ancient Itahc verfion, and fome 

 correftions of St. Jerom, that is now called the Vulgate, 

 and which the council of Trent has declared to be au- 

 thentic. 



It is this Vulgate alone that is ufed in the Romilh church, 

 excepting for fome pafTages of the ancient Vulgate left in 

 the MiflTal, and the Plalms ; which are ilill fung according 

 to the old Italic verfion. 



St. Jerom declares that, in his revifal of the Italic vcr- 

 fion, he ufed great care and circumfpeftion, never varying 

 from that vcrfion but when he thought it mifreprefcnted the 

 fenfe. But as the Greek copies to which he had accefs 

 were not fo ancient as thofe from which the Italic verfion 

 had been made, fome learned authors have been of opinion 

 that it would have been much better if he had collefted all 

 the copies, and by comparing them, have reftored that 

 tranflation to its original purity. It is plain that he never 

 completed this work, and tl;at he even left fome faults in it, 

 for fear of varying too much from the ancient verfion, liiite 

 he renders in his commentaries fome words otherwife than 

 he has done in his tranflation. This verfion was not intro- 

 duced into the church but by degrees, for fear of offending 

 weak perfons. Rnfinus, nolwithllanding his enmity to 

 St. Jerom, and his having exclaimed much agninll this per- 

 formance, was one of the firft to prefer it to llie Vulgar or 

 Italian. This tranflation gained at lafl fo great an autho- 

 rity, by tlie approbation of pope Gregory I. and his de- 

 clared preference of it to every other, that it was fubfe- 

 qucntly in public ufe through all the Wrilern churclies, 

 although it was not regarded as authentic, except by the 

 council of Trent : it is certainly of conliderable ufe, as it 

 may fcrvc to lUullratc feveral pafl'ages botli of the Old and 

 New Tellameiit. 



The two principal Popifli editions of the Vulgate arc thofe 

 of popes Sixtus V. and Clement VI II. The former vrus print- 

 ed in 1590, after pope Sixtus had coUetted the moll ancient 

 MSS. and bell printed copies, fninmoned the moll learned 

 men out of all the nations of the Chrillian world, affembkd a 

 congregation of cardinals for their afTiilancc and counfel, and 

 prelided over the whole himfelf. This edition was declared 

 to be corrected in the very bell manner polhble, and piib- 

 lilhed with a tremendous excommunication of every perfon, 

 who fhould prcfumc ever afterwards to alter the lead parti- 

 cle of the edition thus authentically promulgated by his 

 holinefs, fitting in that chair, in qua Petri vivit pote/laj, el 



Vol. XXXVII. 



esce/lit au8oritas. The other edition was publiftied in 1592, 

 by pope Clement VIII. ; which was fo different from that 

 of Sixtus, as to contain two ihoufand variations, fome of 

 whole verfes, and many others clearly and delignedly con- 

 tradictory in fenfe ; and yet this edition is alfo pronounced 

 authentic, and enforced by the fame fentence of excommu- 

 nication with the former. See Kennicolt's State of the 

 printed Hebrew Text, &c. vol. ii. p. 198, Jcc. 



VtLUATE of the NiW Tejlament. This the Romanifts 

 generally hold preferable to the common Greek text, be- 

 caufe it is this alone, and not the Greek text, that the 

 council of Trent has declared authentic : accordingly that 

 church has, as it were, adopted this edition, and the priells 

 read no other at the altar, the preachers quote no other iu 

 the pulpit, nor the divines in the fchools. 



Yet fome of their bell authors, F. Bouhours for in- 

 flance, own, that among the differences that are found be- 

 tween the common Greek and the Vulgate, there are fome 

 wherein tlje Greek reading appears more clear and natural 

 than that of the Latin ; fo that the ftcond might be cor- 

 refted from the firft, if the holy fee fhould think fit. But 

 thofe differences, for the generality, only conlifl in a few 

 fyllables, or words ; they rarely touch the fenfe. Befides, 

 in fome of the moft conliderable, the Vulgate is authorized 

 by feveral ancient manufcripts. Bouhours fpent the laft 

 years of his life in giving a French tranflation of the New 

 Tcftament, according to the Vulgate. In 1675, a new edi- 

 tion of the Greek Teftamcnt was publifhed by the univer- 

 fity of Oxford ; and great care taken therein to compare 

 the common Greek text with all the moft ancient manu- 

 fcripts in England, France, Spain, and Italy ; and to note 

 the differences obfervcd therein. 



In the preface of this work, the editors, fpeaking of the 

 divers verfions of the Bible in the vulgar tongues, obferve 

 of the Vulgate, that there is no verfion of any language to 

 be compared with it. And this they juftify, by comparing 

 paffages that occur in the moil celebrated Greek manufcripts, 

 with the fame paffages in the Vulgate, where there is any 

 difference between that and the common printed copy. Iu 

 effcdl, it is probable, that at the time the ancient Italia or 

 Vulgate vcrfion of the New Teftanient was made, and at 

 the time it was afterwards compared with the Greek ma- 

 nufcripts by St. Jerom, as they were then nearer the timet 

 of the apollles, they had juller Greek copies, and thofe bet- 

 ter kept, than any of thofe ufed when printing was firll fet 

 on foot. 



" Highly as the Vulgate is extolled by the church of 

 Rome," fays profeilor Michaclis, " it has been depreciated 

 beyond meafure at the beginning of the i6tli century by 

 feveral learned Proteflants, whofe example has been fol- 

 lowed by men of inferior abilities. At the reiloralion of 

 learning, when the faculty of writing elegant Latin was the 

 higheft aecomphlhment of a fcholar, the Vulgate was re- 

 garded with contempt, as not written with claffical purity. 

 But after the Greek manufcripts were difcovcred, their 

 readings were preferred to thofe of the Latin, becaufe the 

 New Teftamcnt was written in Greek, and the Latin was 

 only a fcrfion ; but it was not confidercd that thefe Greek 

 manufcripts were modern in comparifou of thofe originals 

 from which the Latin was taken ; nor was it known at that 

 time, that the more ancient the Greek MSS. and the other 

 »erfions were, the clofer was their agreement with the Vul- 

 gate. Thit, has been alreadv evinced by Simon, who made 

 It a particular objeft of his attention in his ' Hift. Crit. du 

 Tcxte ct des Verfions du N. T.,' and has pointed out 

 the real merits of the Latin verfion. Our ablfft writers, 

 fuch as Mill and Bcngel, have been induced by this treatife 



4 H to 



