questionably; and all the ancient versions-Greek, Syriac and Arabic-bear testimony to his accuracy. So, too, do the learned Rabbins Iacchiades (R. Joseph Iachya), Aben Ezra and Saadias, who represent not only the Jewish consensus of their day (the fifteenth, twelfth and tenth centuries, respectively), but also the traditions of their earliest fathers. Candid Protestants, who spurn party dictation, like Grotius and Louis de Dieu, find no fault with St. Jerome's version. Impartial lexicographers, like Gesenius, who do not allow their learning to be clouded by sectarian prejudice, lay it down as certain that, in the text, phruk (imperative of phrak) means redeem, and Ssidka, almsgiving. The very parallelism or consonance of the two members,

"Redeem thy sins by almsgiving,

And thy iniquities by mercy to the poor,"

strongly confirms the soundness of the old renderings. Why, then, did all the "Reformers," from Luther to King James, translate wrongly? An honest Protestant confesses the reason. He says, that all translators render "break off by righteousness" or "redeem by almsdeeds," just in proportion as they believe good works to be useless or conducive to salvation; in other words, as they hold the Protestant or Catholic view of the meritoriousness of works. Now, we will take his word against his brethren, whom he accuses of translating according to their prejudices. For, all the versions with which we find fault were made after the "Reformatian," and to bolster up its doctrines. But we cannot understand how his word can apply against Catholic translations, for they were made long ago, one of them (the LXX), nearly two thousand years before the Protestant doctrine of faith and works was known or thought of in the world.

But, why did the revisers retain the error of King James in Daniel? For the same reason that they retained the mistranslations of Genesis iv., 7 and Genesis xiv., 18, which were intended to shut out from the text the Catholic doctrine that concupiscence and sin have no absolute mastery over free-will, and that there is a connection of lofty import (almost surpassing any attempt at interpretation, as St. Paul intimates, Hebrews v., 11) between Melchisedech's priesthood and his sacrifice of bread and wine. It is not anti-Catholic feeling, we feel sure, that prompted their action, or rather their unwillingness to act, but downright contempt of these petty sectarian matters. They either hold that the Bible teaches nothing concerning these points, or, if it does, that we are not to be fettered by the private notions of Matthew, James, Peter and John, which may be allowed or dismissed, as his better judgment will direct, by the enlightened theologian of to-day. Protestantism has at its back church revenues and social advantages which

deserve respect; but its positive teaching, having accomplished its work of humbling Roman supremacy, is no longer needed. In fact, its orthodox views, wherever they survive, are as bigoted as Rome's, and stand in the way of those who would like to handle the miracles, prophecies and other mythical portions of the Old Testament, that we should like to submit to scientific exegesis, as freely as is done on the Continent of Europe. But the orthodoxy or bigotry, by which we are surrounded, compels us to wear a mask until the happy day comes when speech will be as free for us as thought.

The next revision of the English Bible will be issued on this side of the Atlantic, and will contain the improvements of the American side of the Commission, many of them very sensible, many more distinguished even now by a bold neology, which will have become akin to open impiety by the time the expiration of the English bargain will leave the press free for an American Revised Bible, which will undermine still further all respect for divine inspiration. In an enterprise like this, all is progress towards the abyss; its practical motto, Vestigia nulla retrorsum. So it will be everywhere. Luther's German Bible, in a revised form, is now on trial before the people of Germany. It was thought that his bold language and dogmatical corruptions would be carefully corrected. All have been disappointed, Catholic and Protestant. The main point of the revisers seems to have been to break down the force of all the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. And this is the result of great expectations, magnificent promises, and years of weary waiting.

Scientific Chronicle.

SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION.

ONE of the many signs of scientific progress in our day is the lively interest taken in scientific education. Love for the sciences is no longer confined to the few, but has now become widespread and ever increasing; efforts are everywhere being made to render scientific education more practical and more general. Europe and America are making great strides to this end, and indeed seem to respond eagerly to the call which Sir Lyon Playfair made upon England last Summer, in his opening address at Aberdeen, before the British Association. It was his claim "that the relation of science to the State should be more intimate, because the advance of science is needful to public weal; and his words had all the more weight in that he spoke not only as a man of science, but also as a statesman. Further on in the same address he used these words: "In the United Kingdom we are just beginning to understand the wisdom of Washington's farewell address to his countrymen when he said, Promote, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge.'" Here, restricting this last word to physical and natural sciences, Sir Lyon Playfair passes on to the consideration of scientific growth in various countries. He dwells at some length on the energetic efforts made in France and Germany, and notices with pleasure the pecuniary assistance they have lent. Of our own country he said: "More remarkable is it to see a young nation, like the United States, reserving 150,000,000 acres of national land for the promotion of scientific education. In some respects this young country is in advance of all European nations in joining science to its administrative offices." In confirmation of this last assertion he cites the work of the Fish Commission and the Geological Survey.

But his great point in this discourse was to emphasize the urgent necessity of scientific education. From the example of Continental Europe and our own country he goes on to show that the great English Universities-far advanced though they be-have not the support and encouragement of which they are certainly deserving. As instances of the liberality of other countries, he mentions the Universities of Strasburg and Leipsic, each of which receives from the State £10,000 more than the Universities of either Ireland or Scotland. Words such as these should make us thoughtful and fill us with new life in a noble cause. Gratifying though it is to see that our work is held in esteem abroad, and that our efforts as a nation to promote scientific knowledge are looked upon with pleasure and highly appreciated, still we should. bear in mind that there is yet much to be done. True, on account of peculiar circumstances, our Universities are not supported by the

National Government, nor is it desirable that they should be; still they are prospering and making progress, especially in the physical and natural sciences. And this is seen not only at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Pennsylvania Universities, but also in the younger institutions, as the Johns Hopkins and others. One and all show a common energy and vitality, and there is every prospect of a glorious future, especially if what we have lately heard be true, that California is to have a new University with a foundation of $20,000,000, the gift of Senator Stanford. Everywhere new and costly buildings spring up for scientific purposes; everywhere new museums, new libraries and laboratories for physics, chemistry, and biology, numerous and well-equipped observatories are scattered over the land, and not a few of them have gained a world-wide reputation. The National Observatory and the Lick Observatory at Mt. Hamilton, Cal., are, or soon will be, provided with powerful telescopes, and their work, like that of our Cambridge Observatory, is second to none.

What we say of scientific progress in our Universities, holds good likewise for our colleges and schools; for they, too, have given the sciences a place in the regular course. Indeed, it must be granted that in many cases the enthusiasm in this direction has led to excess either in the method or in the matter, an excess that has been oftentimes fraught with regretful results; but for the most part the change is being brought about skilfully and quietly, and each day tells the story that the good work is fast gaining ground. All that wealth and untiring efforts can do is being done to promote scientific education, and give it a place along with the more purely literary studies of our schools.

Our Catholic institutions, as the Report of the Smithsonian shows, —and since that Report the advance is still more marked,-follow the general movement; and though the efforts in this respect are not yet as energetic as many lovers of science would have them, still there is a progress, and we have every reason to cherish bright hopes of the future. It is greatly to be desired that Institutions may soon rise up among us that will rank among the highest and be illustrious for the excellence of their scientific course. It must, beyond doubt, be evident to all how important it is that we should hold a prominent place in this line; for as the learned Benedictine, Cardinal Pitra, justly remarked about a year ago, "It is good that the clergy, who have in their theology the key to all the sciences, should neglect none of them, and we ought also to have our specialists. . . . it is important that, with a rich store of the science of the Sanctuary, the clergy should not be strangers to that other knowledge of which the world is proud. . There is in these studies, which are dry at first sight, pure and healthy delight, which grows towards enthusiasm in the measure in which one cultivates with perseverance the at first thorny field. It is well that the clergy should consecrate their leisure and spare energies to these labors."

ASTRONOMY.

NEW STAR IN ANDROMEDA.

The phenomena of "Nova Andromeda " that for the past few months have so much engaged the attention of astronomers, seem at length capable of a satisfactory explanation. The nebula in Andromeda is one of the largest and most conspicuous in the heavens. On favorable nights it is visible to the naked eye and has the "appearance of a faint oval patch of silvery light." Viewed through a small telescope, it answers the description that Marius gave of it in 1614, namely: It resembles a light seen through a piece of horn. In the opinion of some astronomical authorities, the nebula of Andromeda has a tendency to be resolved into stars, but though several hundreds of stars have been detected within its limits, it cannot be distinctly resolved even by such telescopes as Lord Rosse's, the one at Pulkowa, or that at Washington. It is, therefore, classed among the unresolved nebulæ. Still the spectroscope seems to indicate what was suspected from telescopic appearances, namely, that this nebula is in an intermediate state between nebulæ proper and star clusters. For, unlike most of the nebulæ, its spectrum is not a bright-band spectrum, but rather a continuous one, resembling that of a gas at high pressure. Hence we are led to believe that the nebula in question is in an intermediate state, and that, according to Laplace's hypothesis, it is a nebular mass slowly condensing into stars.

Towards the end of August, as is well known, a new star became visible near the nucleus of the nebula. The star's appearance was very sudden; for the nebula was closely examined at Brussels, at the beginning of August, without anything being perceived, while a few days later several observers found that its central portion was growing brighter. This unexpected phenomenon at once attracted the closest attention, and everywhere both spectroscope and telescope were directed to its investigation. The suddenness of the change could not at all be reconciled with the gradual formation of centres, in accordance with the Laplace theory, which, notwithstanding several difficulties accompanying it, is generally admitted by astronomers.

All were, therefore, anxious to know whether such a transformation was, in truth, taking place. At first, it was with difficulty that the star could be distinguished from the nucleus of the nebula, but when its brightness reached that of a star of the seventh magnitude it was seen to be distinct from it. It is now growing less bright, at the rate of one magnitude every three weeks, its lustre being at present (early in December) equal to that of a star of the eleventh magnitude.

In the beginning, the spectroscope indicated that the star belonged to the nebula, because its spectrum and that of the nebula appeared to be identical. But a closer examination, made by Dr. Higgins, of London, and confirmed at other observatories, as at Stonyhurst, seems to show that a bright-band spectrum was overlying a continuous spectrum between the lines D and d, and this appearance leads to the opinion