Very possibly the word used by St. Jerome may not have been _celte_ but _cœlo_, and the corruption into _celte_ in order to make a distinction between heaven and a chisel would then at all events have been possible. The other contention involves two extreme improbabilities—the one, that St. Jerome, having in his second revision of the Bible translated the passage as “in testimonium in petris sculpantur,” should in the Vulgate have given the inaccurate rendering “certe sculpantur in silice;” the other and the more extreme of the two, that the well-known word _certe_ should have been ousted by a word like _celte_ had it been utterly new-fangled. Under any view of the case there are considerable difficulties, but as the word celt has now obtained a firm hold in our language, it will be convenient to retain it, whatever its origin or derivation. It has been the fashion among some who are fond of novelties to call these instruments “kelts,” possibly from some mental association of the instruments with a Celtic or Keltic population. From some such cause also some of the French antiquaries must have coined the new plural to the word, _Celtœ_. Even in this country it has been said[108] with regard to “the ancient weapon denominated the celt,” “Our antiquarians have commonly ascribed them to the ancient Celtæ, and hence have given them this unmeaning appellation.” If any one prefers pronouncing celt as “kelt,” or celestial as “kelestial,” let him do so; but at all events let us adhere to the old spelling. How the Romans of the time of St. Jerome would have pronounced the word _cœlum_ or _celtis_ may be inferred from the punning line of Ausonius with regard to Venus.[109] “Orta salo, suscepta solo, patre edita cœlo.” The first author of modern times whose use of the word in connection with Celts I can trace is Beger, who, in his “Thesaurus Brandenburgicus”[110] (1696), gives an engraving of a celt of the palstave form, under the title Celtes, together with the following dialogue:—