CHAP. I. Of the Bibles in general, as well among the Jews, as Chri­stians.

THE whole Context of Sacred Scripture is remark­ably known among the Christians by the name of The Books, that is to say, The Books so call'd for their Excellency above all others; and these Books contain both the Old and New Testament. The Jews however allow of no more than only the Books of the Old Covenant, Of the Old Testament. and those only written in the Hebrew Language; for as for those which the Church has receiv d from the Hellenist Jews in the Greek Language, they deny them to be Canonical, and there­fore will not admit them into their Synagogues. Whereas the Church inspir'd with the Holy Ghost, admits them likewise to be of Divine Authority. As to which difference, they who among Christians assume to themselves the Name of Prote­stants and Reformed, rather chuse to take the Synagogues part, than to joyn with either of the Churches, that is, the Eastern or Western. And therefore the Christians have only admit­ted into the Church those Books of the Old Testament, which [Page 2]they receiv'd from the Jews. As for the New Testament, Christ the first Author of it, committed nothing of it to wri­ting, but his Disciples after his Passion made publick those Books which we call the Books of the New Testament.The New Testament. Now who were the real Authors of those Books, some there are who very much doubt, as if the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were not assuredly theirs. For, say they, they would not then be entitl'd the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, had they been wrote by them; and thus we generally say, the Books of Moses, and not according to Moses. But the Titles of the Gospels and other Books are plainly dif­ferent. For that the Gospel which Matthew published, was not Matthews, but Christs; and therefore it is rightly inscrib'd, According to St. Matthew; that is to say, the Gospel of Christ according to the Testimony of St. Matthew, upon which the Christians ground their Faith.

Pauls Epist. to the Ro­mans.But now to return to the Jews, with whom the Oracles of God were first entrusted, as the Apostle speaks it, the Holy Bible among them is called by several Names. For sometimes they call it Mickra, The names of the Scri­pture a­mong the Jews. or Reading; in which sense those words of Nehemiah are to be taken, where he says, c. 8. v. 8. And caused them to understand the Reading. For though it be true that Nehemiah in that place discourses particularly of the Le­vites reading the Law of Moses, yet afterwards that name was not unfitly attributed by the Jews to all the rest of the Books of Holy Scripture.

Sometimes they denote the Scripture by these words G [...]es­rim ve Arbang, or Twenty four; under which name they com­prehend the number of the Books of Sacred Writ. To which St. Jerom seems to have alluded, where he says, Which are not of the Twenty four Antient, Praelections upon Nehem. and Esdr. have not equal Authority with Di­vine Writ. Now what is to be understood by the Twenty four Antient, the same St. Jerom more manifestly declares in Prolog Galeat. Neither is there any thing to be more frequent­ly found than this name of the Sacred Writings, which they generally affix to the beginning of their Manuscript Bibles; in­timating thereby the whole Context of the Old Testament: Although Josephus, a notable Witness in this Argument, af­firms the Sacred Books allowed by his Nation to be no more [Page 3]than Twenty Two. Which seems to have been so concluded, to the end the number of the Books might be the more readi­dily and stedfastly retained in the memory, by the numbers of the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, which are also twenty two. Nevertheless it is not a thing lookt upon by the Jews as much material whether they reckon twenty four, or twenty two Books, only they divide them after another manner. This was well known to St. Jerom, who informs us, that they who number'd twenty four Books of Holy Writ, separated the Book of Ruth from the History of the Judges, and the Lamen­tations of Jeremy, from the Prophesie it self; which is not con­tradicted by the Jews in our time, who attribute these two Books to the number of the Sacred Writers, but not of the Prophets.

But they who seem'd to have had the choicest Opinion of the Bible, were the Sect of the Carraitans among the Jews, who gave it the name of a Prophesie. 2 Epist. c. 1.19. Under which name St. Peter seems to comprehend it: and indeed it may be thought to have been the Antient and Genuine name of the Scripture, which was not understood by the more Modern Jews, who have invented many Subtilties concerning the Books which are inscrib'd Hanbiim, or the Prophets; and I admire to find that some Christians also listen to these acute Doctors. The Antient Division likewise of the Sacred Wri­tings into the Law, the Prophets and Cetuvim, Writings, or ac­cording to the Vulgar expression, Holy Writings, The Di­vision of Scripture. is a thing which is well known to all people. Which Division wonder­fully tormented the Brains of the Jews, who have been very laboriously inquisitive about it, and what was easie before have strangely perplexed with their Niceties. Isaac Abravanel a most acute person, complains, that none of his Rabbies have come near the mark, unless one Ephodaeus. But as to what that Rabby at large discourses concerning that matter, we thought fit to pass over in silence, as having more of wit than solidity. Taking therefore our leaves of these lighter Fan­cies, we may have some reason to believe that the name of the Prophets was given to the Books of Joshua, Judges, and other Historians, which were written before the Jews were carried out of their Country into Babylon, because at that time the Jews called them Prophets, who undertook to write the An­nals [Page 4]of the Age wherein they liv'd. Thus in the Holy Wri­tings of the Books of Samuel, frequent mention is made of Gad, Nathan, and other Prophets, because they carefully collect­ed the publick Transactions of their own Time, and then with no less diligence transcrib'd them into the publick Re­gister. Which is the meaning of Josephus, where he affirms, that it was not for every one among the Jews, to write the Publick Annals, but only for the Prophets. This Theodoret more largely explains,L. 1. advers. Apo. Theod. in Praefat. in lib Reg. Id. 2 Reg. where he boldly asserts, That there were several Prophets among the Jews, of which every one wrote the Story of their own Times, and that the greatest part of the Books by them written, are past recovery lost. And therefore he affirms it to be past all doubt, that the Books of the Kings were taken out of several Books of the Prophets. With Theodoret, Diodorus, Procopius, and others not a few, eminent for their Learning, agree. Which seems to be the True Reason, why the Books of Sacred Scripture, which were written after the death of Moses, before the Captivity were call'd by the name of the Prophets; but that after that time they were only known by the single name of Cetuvim, or Wri­tings. Not that thereby they depriv'd them of the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; for the Jews no less than the Christians, willingly admit their Divine Authority, but only content themselves with the single name of Cetuvim, or Writings, as we generally call the whole Scripture by the name of the Bible. To say truth, it is for men that have little to do, more accurately to enquire into these names, and to hunt these My­steries, of which the Antient Hebrew Writers never so much as thought.

For this reason the Christians, who in the Infancy of the Church, borrowed the Books of the Old Testament out of the Synagogues of the Jewish Hellenists, neither separated the Book of Ruth from the Judges, nor the Lamentations from the Pro­phecy of Jeremiah, as the rest of the Jews do, who refer those little Treatises to the third Classis of Sacred Writings, which are called Cetuvim. Nor is it a little to be wondred at what cruel pains that most subtle Doctor Abravanel takes, where he very angrily enquires, for what reason it was, that the Book of Ruth was not joyn'd to the History of the Judges, to which it seems to belong more especially, acknowledging Samuel to [Page 5]be the Author of both. But the Christians, according to the Example of the Hellenist Jews, have reduc'd the Books of Sacred Scripture into much better order, which seems to be the first order and disposition of the Holy Writings, which was allowed by the Antient Jews, and approved by the publick use of the Synagogues. Therefore the Jews commit a great folly, who as well in their Manu­scripts, as in their Printed Copies, separate the Prophecy of Daniel from the body of the rest; as if the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which was present with Daniel, when he pro­phesied, were not the same in all, as that wherewith the o­ther Prophets were inspired. The same absurdities they run into concerning David, whom they refuse to number in the List of the Prophets, though they confess him to have uttered many Prophecies. So true it is, that those Rabbies, who so highly value their Paternal Traditions, invented many things unknown to their Fore-Fathers, and which it seems much more rational to take out of the Books of the Christians, than the Works, especially of the more Modern Jews. For the former imitated the Antient Custom of the Synagogues, which does not seem to have descended entire to the Jews of later Ages. And therefore that Order of the Books of Sacred Scripture is to be retain'd, which is observed in the Greek and Latine Bibles of the Christians.

Neither are we to listen to those, who following the Ex­ample of the Jewish Rabbies, pervert that Antient Order in the Greek and Latine Copies of the Bible which they put forth. And yet I do not believe that Order to be so exactly necessary in smaller Editions, in regard that as to those things, neither the Jews agree among themselves, nor the Christians neither Cassiodorus divides his Work of Divine Readings into these three Heads; The Division of Scripture according to St. Jerom; The Division of Scripture according to St. Austin; The Division of Scripture according to the Septuagint. The Jews also, though most passionately devoted to their own Traditions, and wholly govern'd by the Talmudick Rabbies, observe, in the Disposal of the Books of Holy Writ, another Method than that which is approved by the Talmudists. Also the very Order of their Manuscript Copies varies in that particular.

CHAP. II. Of the Hebrew Manuscripts of the Context of the Bible.

WE may divide the Hebrew Manuscripts of the Jews into two sorts, of which the one serves for the pub­lick use of the Synagogues, the other for the particular use of private persons. Neither do they read in their Synagogues every particular Book of Holy Writ, but only such and such selected Books,The Books of Scrip­ture read in the Syna­gogues. which are adapted and accommodated to the Mysteries of their Religion, such as are the Books of Moses, from whence they derive the Precepts of their Law, and those which they comprehend under the name of the five Megilloth or Volumes. That is to say, the Canticles, Ruth, the Lamenta­tions, Ecclesiastes and Esther. For these are the Volumes that are read in their Synagogues upon certain prefix'd days; the Canticles upon Easter day, Ruth upon the Feast of Seven days, the Lamentations upon the ninth of the Month Ab. Ecclesiastes upon the Feast of the Tabernacles, and Esther upon the 14th and 15th of the Month Adar. And as for the Law, it is di­vided into so many Sections as there are Sabbaths in the year; so that they read a Section every year, with an addition of something taken out of the Prophets.

The Super­stition of the Jews in writing their Ser­vice-Books.'Tis a wonderful thing to see how ridiculously devout, and idly superstitious the Jews are in writing out the Copies which are for the use of the Synagogue. For in the first place, not content with the bare and naked Letter according as is to be seen in other Printed and Written Copies, they adorn the several Letters with little Coronets which they call Tagin. Neither are they asham'd to make God the Author of those flourishes, which they say, Moses learnt of God in Mount Sinai. R. Moses Scem Tob in his Book, where after the manner of the Cabbalists, he seeks for the Reason of the Letters of the Alphabet; tells ye many stories concerning those Coronets, complaining that they were known to few of the Jews. Thou shalt understand and hear, saith he, the Discourse which was drawn by our Ancestors of blessed memory, in the Treatise Hagiga, and shalt [Page 7]make Aleph, wherein are seven Coronets: There are seven also of the same nature in the Law; Beth, wherein are three Coronets, they are four in the Law; Gimel, which has four flourishes, three in the Law; Daleth, which has four flourishes, six in the Law. After the same manner does the same Rabby run over all the rest of the Letters; he also has been so punctual to give us a Copy of the following Flourishes, with Instruction how to make them, and how often they are to be met with in the Books of Moses. He also observ'd their differences; some of these Flourishes being fix'd close to the Letter; others set a small di­stance from the Letter, either over the Letter, or underneath it. But these were only the Dreams & Fancies of Jewish Brains, about which nevertheless those Rabbies trifle away their time very seriously. Thus Bal Masius makes Coronets for the Let­ters Zain and Heth, quite different from those which R. Scem Tob delineates from the Tradition of his Fathers. Farther, these Jewish Rabbies shew an extream Superstition and Dili­gence in the choice of their Parchment; for Paper they utter­ly reject as a new Invention. This Parchment must be very clean; nor can it be prepar'd by an Infidel or Ethnick, but by a Jew, and he neither an Apostate or a Heretick. Therefore the Samaritan Copies are altogether renounc'd by the Jews, as vile and impure. Moreover, they do not write as we do in folded Sheets, but in large Volumes, after the Custom of the Antients, which they divide into Columes or Pages, observing as it were a Geometrical Proportion, and making use of a Ru­ler to draw the Lines streight; for they have the vanity to af­firm, that Moses order'd that no Copy of the Law should be written without a Ruler; and they also pretend that Moses taught them what sort of Ink they should use. In writing care­ful in the first place, not to joyn their Letters close together; observing this proportion between the Letters and the Words, to leave the space of a Silk Thred between every Letter, and of a small Letter between every Word; that the Lines be di­stant one from another the measure of one Line, and every Line to hold thirty Letters. To these may be added the Di­stinctions of the Sections; of which some are larger, and some lesser: And then again some of these Sections are said to be close, others open. Those are call'd close, which are so en­clos'd on both sides with Letters, that the space of four Letters [Page 8]be only left, in open Sections the space of nine Letters. Be­sides these, there are also other larger Sections, which are also to be seen in the publick Exemplars of their Bibles. But those Jewish Rabbies are mainly deceiv'd, who believe that Moses was the Inventer of those Divisions or Sections, which are made in the Modern Copies. For those Distinctions were found out by the late sort of Criticks,The Antient Form of the Bibles. especially those who call themselves Mosorethae; for that in the Antient times there were no mark of Distinctions to be found either in the He­brew, Greek, or Latine Copies: For that was the business of the Grammarians; and as Elias the Levite rightly observes, the whole Law was antiently Pasuck Echad, without any di­stinction of Letters or Words; which as the Learned know was also observ'd by the Grecian Criticks, in reference to Ho­mers works. Neither do the words of Nehemiah contradict what is here said,Neh. 8.8. And they read in the Book, in the Law of God distinctly, as if the distinction of Verses had been brought in­to the Context of the Law ever since the times of Esdras: Which Opinion the Talmudick Doctors seem to favour very much.T [...]l. Tract. Nedarim. At least it could not be later than the Talmud, when the Talmudick Writers make mention of it;Baal Hattu­rim in com­pend. Talm. de lect. lib. legis. and as R. Ja­cob, Ben Ascer Baal Hatturim testifies, It was the Custom of the Antient-Talmudick-Doctors, to interpret the Law in another Lan­guage, to the end the people might understand it, because the Lan­guage of the Law was Aramean. Now the Reader could not read above one Verse to the Interpreter; for he first read one Verse, then followed the Interpretation. Then he read another Verse▪ nor could the Interpreter proceed till the Reader was got to the end of a Verse; nor could the Reader read another Verse, till the Interpreter had made an end of his Interpretation. Whence it may be collect­ed that the Exemplars of the Mosaick Law were distinguished into Verses before the Talmudists were in Being.

But all these things might well enough be observ'd as well by the Reader, as by the Expositor, from the times of Esdras, without any note of Distinction between the Context of the Verses, which the Antient Translations of the Bibles, which were publish'd in Greek before St. Jerom liv'd, apparently de­monstrate; and St. Jerom himself, who frequently distinguishes those Verses after another manner from that which is now made use of, in the Masoretick Editions generally published [Page 9]in these days. But this seems chiefly most worthy observa­tion as to our present business, that there appears nothing at all of the Points of Vowels, which as it were, confine the Mo­dern Reading of the Hebrew Context within certain bounds, nor in like manner, any thing of those Accents which are now in the room of Points, Titles, and other late invented strokes of the Pen. Then again, that there was formerly no division of Sections in the Manuscript Copies, the Samaritan Exem­plars sufficiently testifie, wherein such kind of Sections are mark'd after a distinct manner: Which had they been added to the Law by Moses himself, as the Jewish Rabbies falsly imagine, there would follow the greatest consent that could be, as to this matter, between the Jews and the Samaritans. Falsly therefore the Talmudists pronounce, that no Verse ought to be distinguish'd that was not distinguish'd by Moses. For if it were so, why do the Talmudists differ in this particular from the Masorethites, who are said to have put a hedge about the Law, Sig Le Torah? Was it impossible that the Jews, such resolute observers of their own Traditions, should not be able to retain the same Tradition receiv'd from Moses, and to preserve it entire in their several Copies?R. Moses. Nor is there any other judgment to be made concerning the Divisions of the Sections, whenas the same Masorethites, as R. Moses attests, by reason of the difference of the Copies to which they trusted, could not agree among themselves; and Moses himself ac­knowledges, that he found a very great Confusion in all the Copies that came to his hands; insomuch that rejecting all the other Exemplars, he stuck only to one which was thought to have been corrected by R. Ascer, and followed it in every thing for the making out a Copy for his own use.

As for the Time when these Marks of Sections, Com­ma's, and other Distinctions first crept into the Context of the Bible, it will be needless to make any over-curious en­quiry. For these things being only the Fancies of Criticks, will obtain no greater Authority than what it can win from the consent and publick practice of the Rabbies; for that ac­cording to the variation of Times, and succession of Ages, they were subject to various Alterations, as being things that depended meerly upon the Judgments and Conceits of men. One of the great Criticks among the Jews, Elias the Levite, that [Page 10]all these things had their birth in the School Rabbies of Ti­berias, vulgarly call'd the Masorites, after the Decease of St. Jerom and the Talmudists: so that whatever was publish'd afterward concerning the Antiquity of those Distinctions, were but the fancies and conceits of idle people, as if any other Opinion were to be conceiv'd in this particular of the Holy Writings, than of the Greek and Latine Books. For it was not necessary that Books, because they are holy, should not be permitted to come into the World without their Points and Interpunctions: as if, for Example, the pointing of the Modern Latine Version, which the Holy See has approv'd by her consent, and has thought only fit to be retain'd in all the Latine Editions of the Bible, were necessarily to be derived from the Times of the Apostles. But we have said enough upon this Subject; now to the Copies in use among private persons.

These also may be said to be of two sorts; of which some were written out by the Vulgar Jews, and some of the com­mon people; others by men that were skilful in their Lan­guage, and for the use of those who were eminent in Authori­ty; such as were those who took upon them the Title of Nassi, or Prince. The first being written in a lesser Character and Bulk, and not so carefully corrected as they ought to have been, are found to be full of Errours. And several such Co­pies as these are found in several Libraries of the Christians. But the latter being done with great labour and cost, and from Copies the most Antient and best corrected, are far to be preferred before all others. They are written in large and most elegant Capital Letters, and which is a certain sign of a good Copy, none of those words appear to be omitted in these, which are added down in lesser Characters upon the Margin of the Leaf, as in the Books of the common Jews, which abound with those kind of faults. For they being de­ceiv'd by the similitude of words and sentences following one another, set down the maim'd and curtail'd words of the Con­text, hardly minding what they write.

Moreover, it is of great consequence from whence, and from what hands these Manuscript Copies are taken.More cor­rected Bibles. For the Spanish are much better corrected than the German, French, or Italian. For the Spanish Jews have been much more careful to correct [Page 11]their Copies, than any of the other Jews besides, that they are more curious in the neatness of Writing. Which was the rea­son that Elias the Levite, not a little practis'd in this sort of Study, after a recital of several Copies of Bibles, adds this concerning the Spanish Exemplars, The Book Aspamia,Elias. Lev. Siphre Lu [...] Choth. is a Book that contains all the Spanish Exemplars, for that they are much better corrected than others. R. David Kimchi also makes fre­quent mention of these Exemplars in his Works, and calls them Sepharim Madrigum, or Books well corrected. By which means the Spanish Jews have not a little polish'd their Lan­guage, in imitation of the Arabians, from whom they borrow­ed all the Grammar which they have, lend in all their study and industry to the correction of the Bible. The same Kimchi, who was also born in Spain, is much applauded by Aben Melech, for the great pains he took in searching after the choicest and best corrected Spanish Copies, Who, saith he,Aben Mel. in Michlol Jo­phi. ever took so much care as he did, in searching after the best corrected Copies that were in Spain? Now, how those Copies are to be distinguished and known from others, is easily apprehended. For the Spanish Characters are four-square, and of an extraor­dinary cut, like those in the Royal Bibles set forth by Plantin at Antwerp, and those other of Robert Stephens, which were cer­tainly transcribed from some Spanish Copies. The Italian and French Characters are somewhat rounder. The German imi­tate the Gothick rudeness, and may be seen in the Hebrew Books, which were first Printed in Germany, and the Hebrew Bibles that were Printed at Munster. Those Copies are very frequent in Europe, which are written in a larger form, and bigger Letters, with the Masora in the Margin,Leusden Praefa [...]. in Bibl. He­braic. Am­stel. Octavo. adorn'd with several Figures, and small Imagery. Some such Exemplar is highly extoll'd by John Leusden, Hebrew Professor at Ʋtrecht, from whence the Hebrew Bible in Octavo was lately Printed at Amsterdam. And he commends it chiefly for this, that it has a large Masora in the Margin, under the several shapes of Bears, Dogs and Bulls, and sundry other creatures: But in­deed more fit to be expos'd for Children to play with, for the sake of the Pictures. The Spanish Copies, which are of best repute, shew the Masora barely and plainly written, neither are there any Lines therein that are drawn into the shapes of living creatures, as in the last mention'd. And therefore the [Page 12]plainer the Copies of the Hebrew Bibles appear so much the chaster from Errours, and more corrected thy are. For un­der these shapes of Beasts and Plants, the Writer conceal'd his own Errours and Imperfections, neither are they more ac­curate in the Text it self, than they are in the Masora.

CHAP. III. Several of the Manuscript Copies of the Bibles are exa­min'd: Their various Readings are approv'd by the Te­stimony of the Learned Jews.

Suppositi­tious Copies of the Bible.VVHat the Jews have invented concerning some Copies of the Bible wrote by the hand of Esdras, there is no man surely in this Age, but believes to be all meer stories: As also what is related of other Copies preserv'd at Bononia, according to Tinus of Ferrara, or at Cabilo, if we may credit others. No less supposititious may we imagine that Chime­rical Piece of Antiquity to be, which the Samaritans attributed to the Copy of the Mosaick Law found at Sichem. Several other Copies have been also found among the Christians, who to de­fend the Latine Interpreter, have very much commended er­roneous and counterfeit Copies. Thus Lindanus extolled the Copy of an Hebrew Psalter, which was preserv'd in England, and agreed exactly well with the Latine Edition. But that it was plainly an adulterate piece, Isaac the Levite sagaciously discover'd, meerly by his knowledge of the Hebrew Lan­guage. Lindanus stifly maintain'd, that many things were corrupted by the Jews of set purpose, and out of their hatred of the Christians; and this he endeavours to make out from the credit of that English Copy, which he did not scruple to affirm, did formerly belong to Austin the Archbishop. But Arias Montanus, after he had long sought, and at last found out that Copy, expresses his grief to find that a person so judicious and learned, should write and teach such Stories upon Forein trust. Neither, Ar. Montan. ad appar. B. 6. reg. saith he, is the Copy Antient, nor writ by one that under­stood the Hebrew Language, but by some Latine Scribe, that knew how by the command of his men, to make a well-shap'd Hebrew Cha­racter; [Page 13]and this not above fourscore or a hundred years ago. A short Book in a short Hebrew Character, commendable rather for imitation and neatness of Writing, than the knowledge of the Writer, where every word was so corrupted, that scarcely one could be said to be true. Whence we may collect, that there is no credit to be given, not only to the Jewish Rabbies, while they vaunt the Antiquity and Integrity of their Sacred Books; but also nei­ther to the Christians, though eminent otherwise for their Piety and Learning, while they go about to obtrude false and counterfeit Copies upon the World instead of true.

The feign'd Antiquities of some Co­pies. Lib. Jucha­sin, seu Fa­nul.Among the Jews also there were some true and real Manu­scripts of the Bible, which were not of that Antiquity to which they pretended. Such was that famous and highly re­puted Copy of Hillel, concerning which there are these expres­sions in the Book Juchasin. In the year 584. there was a great Persecution in the Kingdom of Leon; at what time they brought away thence a Copy of the Books of Scripture, which Hillel had wrote out; by that they corrected all other Copies; I saw a part of it which was sold in Africa, many years after it seem'd to have been written. R. D. Kimchi makes mention of this Exemplar, as well in his Grammatical Discourse, as in his Commentaries upon the Scripture; and in his time he affirms, that there was a Pentateuch drawn from that Copy, which was kept at Toledo. Also R. David Ganz, and several other Jews, applaud that Copy, as being a piece of great An­tiquity and Exactness. And that same celebrated Name of Hillel, impos'd upon persons of great knowledge in the He­brew Language, and Sacred Criticism;R. David Ganz in Tjenach Da­vid, p. 56. Cun. l. 1. de Rep. Heb. insomuch that Cunaeus calls Hillel's Copy a Book of Venerable Antiquity, which R. Hillel Chief Priest or Governour rather of the Jews, wrote with his own hand; who came from Babylon into Syria 60 years before the Birth of our Lord Christ. Schickardus also wonderfully extols the An­tiquity and Exactness of that Copy, and brings Elias the Levite for his Witness; as if it had been the Opinion of that same Learned Jew, that Hillel returning from the Captivity of Ba­bylon, had written that Copy with his own hand. Yet for all this, Elias the Levite was of a contrary Judgment in this par­ticular, who had slain himself with his own Sword, had he pronounc'd that Judgment concerning Hillels Copy which Schickard would falsly make him guilty of. For in that Ex­emplar [Page 14]of Hillel, there are several Vowel Points, Accents, and other things, of which Elias makes the Rabbies of the School of Tiberias to be the Inventors, whom he believes to have liv'd after the Talmudists and St. Jerom. As vain and idle also are all those things which Buxtorf crowds into his Book concerning the Antiquity of Points, to prove that Hillel was Contemporary with Epiphanius, and before the Masorites of Tiberias. As little to the purpose also does the sharp-witted Capellus teaze himself with sundry conjectures concerning Hillels Exemplar. But these men, through the want of Manuscripts, seem incapable to determine any thing concerning Hillel & his Bible; though, had they consulted the Books of only one David Kimchi, who is universally read, they might easily have apprehended, that Hillel was after the Rabbies of Tiberias. For that the chiefest differences of Hillels Copy from the rest lie in the variety of Point Vowels, Mapphick and Dagesh, and other niceties of the same nature, which no person conversant among the Mo­numents of the Antients, will affirm to have been invented in the time of Epiphanius. And indeed both Cappellus and Buxtorf might have consulted the Comments of John Mercer, who sometimes also commends the Hillelian Exemplar.

Nor would it be a difficult thing to produce many readings of the Hillelian Codex different from the Masoretick, collected out of five Manuscript Bibles, and those Spanish besides, and of the best repute: But in regard they are for the most part of little moment, I shall pass them over in silence. Only some few I shall select from the Book of Joshuah, placed in the Mar­gin, of a very fair Spanish Copy, written about five hundred years since, though the Annotations, or rather Variations seem to be of a later date. Joshuah, chap. 6. in the Masoretick Copies [...] is written at large,Classicum, or the warlike noise of the Rams­horns. in the Hellelian more contract­ed, the Vau being left out [...]. C. 10. of the same, the Hil­lelian Copy reads, v. 2. [...], without a Schurec. In the same chapter for [...], with the Vowel Segol under He, it is writ­ten [...], with a Camets under He. The rest are more tri­vial, excepting one place of the Book of Joshuah, C. 21. where in the Masoretick Copies two whole Verses are wanting, which that venerable Exemplar written for the use of Nassi, or the Prince, has supply'd again. But in the Margin of the said Co­py, these words are to be read, as being added by him who [Page 15]corrected that Exemplar in many places according to the Ma­soretick. Lo Matzinou Elau Hashenin Pasikim Be Hilleli. We cannot find those two Verses in the Hillelian; by which the Masoretick Lection is confirm'd, though it seems to be faulty enough.

We have some reason to suspect Hillel to be a Spaniard by Nation, and a famous Rector of some Academy, who re­formed the Masoretick Edition in sundry places according to the Antient Copies. After his death his Copies, as being more corrected than the Vulgar, became to be high in esteem, espe­cially among his Country-men; and as Antiquity swells Mole­hills into Mountains after Death: Thus the Name of Hillel be­ing become famous, was soon made use of to gull the more ignorant; afterwards also his Name seduc'd the more Learn­ed Jews, less wary than they ought to have been. And why I should thus think, the very nature of the Hillelian Codex, which varies in very few things, and those very slight, from the Masoretick, which at that time was approv'd by the pub­lick Practice and Authority of all Schools; which seems to be confirm'd from hence, for that then several of the Rabbies, especially in Spain, even after that tedious Labour which the Masorites undertook, scrupled not to write down in their own Books, the Variations of Scripture taken out of Antient Copies. And hither ought we to refer the Animadversions of R. R. Judas, Jonas, Kimchi, and others, who have oft recourse to the Sepharim Midvikim, or corrected Copies; and hither also belongs that note frequent in the Margin, most especially of the Spanish Manuscripts, B' Sepher Achar, in the other Copy. But that Hillel was a Spaniard, is not only to be proved from hence, that his Biblick Copy was found in Spain, and first ex­toll'd by the Spanish Jews; but because I find several of the Spanish Lections quoted in the Spanish Exemplars, quite other­wise than in the German and others.

In like manner we may affirm, that the Exemplars of the Bibles, which the Jews extol under the names of Ben Ascer, and Ben Narthali, were written out by such persons, who be­ing Presidents of Publick Academys, made it their business to reform Erroneous Copies. But in what time they liv'd, is a thing not well known to the Jews themselves, very little cu­rious of their own Chronology. However common fame re­ports [Page 16]them to have liv'd about the year 1034. long after the Tyberian Masorites.R. Moses Tephil. c. 8. And this was the Opinion of R. Gedalia, R. David Gans, and several others among the Christians. It cannot be unknown what R. Moses has written concerning Ben Ascer's Manuscript, which, as he asserts, was very well known in Egypt, by which the Hierosolymitan Jews corrected their own Books. That is the Examplar, saith he, which they all use, because Ben Ascer corrected it; labouring at it for many years, and correcting it many times quite thorough. For the Gover­nours or Presidents of the Academies, formerly according to the Custom of the Jews, wrote out Copies, which afterwards were made use of by the Provinces, of which they were Chief Rulers and Princes; especially if they were in any esteem for being Learned; whence seems to have risen that variety of Readings which is found among the Manuscript Copies of se­veral Provinces, and distinct Ages. Nor do the Rabbies them­selves seem to deny it, who believe that the Western Jews follow'd R. Ascer; and the Oriental R. Naphtali in the Tran­scription of their Copies. Now, they call the Western Jews those that dwell in and about Jerusalem, and the Eastern Jews those that live in and about Babylon. The Hierosolymitan Co­dex, saith Elias the Levite,R. Elias Le­vita. is that which Rabbi Jonas the Gram­marian found, by the Testimony of R. David Kimchi, and perhaps may be that Exemplar which R. Ascer corrected, who liv'd a long time at Jerusalem.

But the Lections, about which the Rabbies themselves are at variance, are very slight and trivial, as they are in the Hille­lian: Nor will it be worth while to repeat them here, in re­gard there is a Catalogue of them annexed to the large Vene­tian, as also the Basil and English Bibles. Let it suffice to ob­serve that the Catalogue of the same Varieties in Manuscript which are fixed at the end of some Manuscript Bibles, and to which they might have recourse, do not exactly agree with those that are Printed at London, Basil or Venice, For some, which in the Vulgar Editions claim Ben Ascer for their Author, belong to those Catalogues, which indeed owe their publica­tion to R. Naphtali. Such is that which is reckon'd the sixth in number, and those which follow. Those Manuscript Ca­talogues also add some, and other Variations they omit, besides those already Printed. For where the Modern Lection makes [Page 17]use of the Accent Maccaph, the more recent Manuscripts make use of the Point Dagesh, or of some such thing. Nor could there be any other way to knit together the series of those slight niceties, because they are of little or no use. For should we observe all the Variances of this kind, which might be found in turning over those Manuscripts, with an intention to embody them in one heap; such a Collection would certainly swell into a large Volume. For I must needs say, they had leisure to spare, who lookt after the Edition of the English Polyglottons, who have not only publish'd those Lections eve­ry one in their order, as they found them in the Basil and Ve­netian Editions, but have also added the several places of Scripture, of which there was hither never any Index before. So that I wonder that men otherwise Learned, should have no better thought than to employ themselves about such trifles: But as to those differences of Readings, which before the Times of the Tiberian Rabbies commaculated the holy Text, and are of greater moment, should be so sluggishly careless: And, which is worse, having little knowledge of the Books of the Ancient Writers, but only accustom'd to the Varieties in those Manuscripts of later date already mention'd; yet they affirm a wonderful agreement of the Hebrew Copies among themselves. Here might be added also those Varieties which are, Ben Magnarabei ou Madnachei, between the Eastern and Western Jews: But in regard they are already publick, and ve­ry few that are of moment, that I may not seem to be an Am­plifier of Scripture-Variances, I shall forbear to repeat them, especially they being publish'd at the end of the Basil Bibles. However, from hence we may collect, that the Hebrew Ex­emplars do not so easily agree among themselves, that there should be no variance, as most of the Jews, and the Christians their Hebrew followers, would make us believe; whenas some of those Lections, though not so many,Various Lections among the Rabbins. produce a dif­ferent sense.

Now let us come to the Testimonies of the Rabbies, which confirm the same Opinion concerning the Discrepancy of Scrip­ture Copies.R. Jacob Haim Praef. in Mas. Mag. Buxtorf. in Antior. There are not wanting Examples of various Readings among the Talmudick Doctors, drawn from the publish'd or Masoretick Transcriptions. Of which some are cited by R. Jacob Haim, which Buxtorf, a strenuous Champion [Page 18]for the Masoretick Exemplar, though unwillingly acknow­ledges; nor will he have to be other than a very few, and those of no great weight, not contradictory to the truth of Sense; and yet they spend the greatest part of their time in writing out the words either fully, or defectively, as they term it. However, among those few which R. Jacob Haim brings by way of Example, it may be plainly demonstrated, that there are some which alter the sense of Scripture. But I may say, that we should in vain go about to find out those various Lections in the Talmudick Work now extant, which formerly might more easily be gathered from it. For that for many Ages together, the Jews have made it their business to reform all their Bibles, both Printed and Manuscript, by the Masoreticks, as in the Reading those Books I have often observ'd. However, care must be that you do not mistake that form of speech frequently made use of in the Talmud, Read not so, but so, for a various Lection. For it is a kind of Allegorical sport, very familiar with those Rabbies, who re­serving to themselves the substance, as I may so say of the word, have childishly invented several ways of Reading one and the same word. If any one has so much leisure to animad­vert upon those places of Scripture, which are extant in the Talmudick Work, there is no necessity for him to turn over those immense Volumes, so inaccessible to many men; for we have a Table which is entitled, [...], wherein all the places of Scripture which are extoll'd in the Talmud, are digested in their order, with the place and the page where they may be found in the Talmud. But what profit or advan­tage a man shall reap from such a tedious piece of labour, I cannot apprehend, unless we could have recourse to the most Antient Copies of the Talmud, which have escap'd the im­pure hands of the Jewish Criticasters.

Far more Varieties of this nature are found in the Books of the more Modern Jews, although they pretend themselves most stout Asserters of the Masoretick Reading. Thus R. Da­vid Kimchi, does not so devoutly adhere to the Masoretick Copies, but that he sometimes forsakes them; and therefore upon those words of Ezekiel the Prophet Le Mickdash Megnat, he makes this observation,R. Kimchi Comment. in Ezek. 11. the word Mickdash is a word mark'd with a Pathack underneath the Daleth: Neither is Megnat a [Page 19]Noun Adjective, but a Substantive, as I have found in some cor­rected Copies; in others I have met with Camots, and so it may be an Adjective. Where we read in our Modern Copies the Earth was fill'd with blood Damim, Kimchi reads it in his Co­py Chamas, or Violence; yet he observes the other Lection to be extant in some other Versions. Concerning the word El­gavis, in the 12th chap. of the same Ezekiel, he thus discourses; The stones Elgavis, are stones like hail-stones; for in some corrected Editions the word El and Gavis are divided, in others it is all one. But I make too long a stay upon these things, when there is nothing more frequent in that Rabbies Dictionary, and his Comment upon the Scripture, than such kind of Expressions, in the corrected Book; in some corrected Books, and the like. For, more frequent are those which you meet with in the Com­mentaries of R. Aben Melech, who acknowledges that he com­pil'd his Treatise out of the Works R. R. Judas, Jonas Aben Ez­ra, Kimchi, and other Grammarians. He in the 24th chap­ter of the same Prophet Ezekiel upon the word Harkach, which in the Masoretick Editions is read with the Vowel Pa­thack under the Letter He; Harkach is the Infinitive or Impe­rative of the Conjugation Hiphil. R. Jonas writes that he found the same word in the Hierosolymitan Copy noted with a Camets under the Letter He;Aben M­lech ad cap. 24. Ezek. v. 10. and so it will be the Infinitive of the Conju­gation Hophal. He also writes, that he met with the same word in the Babylonick Copy, noted with a Pathack, and R. D. Kimchi testifies that he found it so transcribed in the corrected Copies.

From this variety of Reading may those words of Isaiah be illustrated, Hashmen Leb Hagnam Hazzeh, which the LXX. Interpreters have translated one way, St. Jerom another. For they reading the word [...] with a Camets under the Letter He, read and translated the words thus,Isa. c. 6. [...], The heart of this people was hardened. Whom the Writers of the New Testament have imitated. But St. Jerom, as be­ing addicted to the Reading of the Jews in his Time, translates the same words thus, Blind the heart of this people; Hier. ad c. 6. Isa. and with much anxiety demands why St. Paul in the New Testament spake not according to the Hebrew, which he knew to be true, but according to the Septuagint. Wherein he shews himself a more tenacious observer of the Reading which he had been taught by his Masters. For the various Interpretations of that place [Page 20]might have been easily reconcil'd, and in the same manner as Kimchi and other Rabbies have referr'd the various Interpreta­tions of the word Harkach to the difference of Reading. For the LXX Interpreters read the word Hoshman in Hophal, whereas St. Jerom read it Hashmen in the Imperative of the Conjugation Hiphil.

I might here add several other passages out of the Works of the Eben Esra, sirnamed by the Jews, the Wise; who as he was a very skilful Critick, so would he not altogether depend upon the Copies and Readings of the Masorites; but he ra­ther minds the sense, than the Letters of his Copy. For which reason, to omit all others, he believes that the Letters Aleph, Vau, Jod, which are vulgarly call'd the Mothers of Reading, were added or neglected by the Transcribers at their own plea­sures.Aben Esr. Praefat. Comment. in teg. Nevertheless it is a wonder to see how carefully those Letters were observ'd by the Tiberian Doctors; that is to say, how often they were, how often they were not to be made use of. But that most Learned Rabbi did not deem himself so religiously bound to follow the Decrees of the Masorites and their Exemplars, that he thought it a crime to depart from them. Therefore at the end of his Book Jesed Mora he thus writes;Id. in lib. Jesed Mora. There is no necessity at all to observe, that those Letters Jod, He, Vau, Aleph, being chang'd one into another, are some­times added, sometimes left out, &c. Wherefore in his Wri­tings he does not so much regard the manner, as the reason of the Transcription. Thus in his Commentary upon Psal. 5. he believes the word Nasah written with a Samech and He, Id. in Psa. 5. to be the same with [...], Nasa, written with a Sin and an Aleph. It was not from the purpose, saith he, that He should be the same with Aleph, and Samech the same with Sin. In like manner, expounding the 2d Chapter of Joel, after he has ob­serv'd that the word [...] proceeds from the Root Peer, he presently tells ye, that R. Japhet deriv'd the same word from another Root. As if the Letter Aleph were in the num­ber of those Letters that are superfluous, as the Masorites term them, and unprofitable, as if the word were to be read [...], without an Aleph, and were Lashon Shachoth, or the significa­tion of shining Blackness. In which sense this word is taken by most of the Interpreters; and this Reading is confirm'd by Ju­daeus, who compil'd the Masoreth, with this Marginal Note [Page 21]added to the Hebrew Text; This word is of the number of those which are written with an Aleph in the middle that is never ex­press'd.

Lastly, There seem not to have been wanting among the Jews certain Criticks, who have employ'd all their time in noting the Readings of the various Copies. Of whom the principal are Rabbi Menahem de Lonzano in a Treatise en­titled Schethe Jadoth, and the Author of a certain other Trea­tise entitled Minchath Cohen. He divides his whole work in­to two parts; and every part or hand contains five fingers, of which the first illustrates all the various Lections which he could find in the several Manuscripts of the Mosaical Law, by the help of ten written Copies; which he thinks to have been written within this five or six hundred years; and he compares them with the second Edition of Bomberg in Folio, which is the most accurate of all; he also strictly examines the Words, the Letters, Points and Accents of this Edition. But all this indefatigable labour and diligence of R. Menahem, tends no farther than to demonstrate, that the various Readings of Scripture, which are found in the several Copies of the Bibles, ought to be tryed by the Masora, as the most cer­tain Rule of Reason and Writing. Of the same Opinion is the Author of the Little Treatise called Minchath Cohen, who there most acutely discourses of what words are to be writ­ten fully, and which defectively: And studies to reduce se­veral Lections to their natural exactness by the help of the Masora, and the corrected Books. Of necessity therefore those Masoretick Copies are to be examined, whose since­rity is so highly applauded by the Jews; whether they are so pure and correct, that it may be thought a point of Faith to swerve from them.

CHAP. IV. Of the Publish'd Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are Masoretick. Of the Art of the Masorites. Of its Original, and what Opinion we are to have of it.

Of the Mo­dern Copies of the Bible.IN the latter times the Exemplars of the Biblick Contest are no other, than what are vulgarly call'd Masoretick. For the Jews for many Ages together have acknowledged no other, and from them they came into the hands of the Christians. Whence arose that general Agreement between so many Co­pies of several Places and Times; excepting those few and trivial Niceties, which are rather the slips of negligent Transcribers, than various Lections. For how could it other­wise be, whenas the Jews, who look upon the Masora to be as it were descended from Heaven, scruple not to make that their Rule for the Reformation of all Bibles, rasing out of all other Manuscript Copies, Letters, Words, and whole Sen­tences, to make them conformable to the Masora? And this is easie to be observ'd by those that run over all the Manu­script Copies that have been written for these four or five hundred years last past; and hence it is that there is such a wonderful concurrence among the Printed Bibles. To which, while not only the Jews, but also the most Learned among the Jews, do not give a sufficient respect, admiring over­much the Exactness of the Hebrew Copy, they shew them­selves the Promoters of the latter, with a more than needful Zeal. Therefore Arias Montanus boldly affirms, that the He­brew Context has been preserv'd with so much care by the help of the Masora, that it never could be discern'd by the most diligent and piercing Wit or Judgment to have admitted the least variance in several Exemplars. In like manner. Bux­torf, a person that had very much, and long turmoil'd in these studies, extols the Masora even to excess in these words, as if it had been sent from Heaven. Herein as far as the East and West extend, the Word of God is to be read in one Language, and after one manner. Here is to be seen a general Consent of all the [Page 23]Books that are in Asia, Africa, or Europe, without any variance. [...] never happened that we find such a felicity has befallen any Books either of the Chaldeans, Greeks, Romans, or any other People.

However, this egregious Applauder of the Masorites speaks rather out of a preconceiv'd Opinion of the Jews, than accord­ing to the verity of the Thing. He has seem'd to translate in­to his Commentary upon the Masoreth, all the Fables of those his Masters, to whom he wholly dedicated himself. And by that means he has drawn in most of the Protestant Divines, especially the Northern, to his own, or rather the Jews Opi­nion of the Exactness of the Hebrew Context, being as it were overwhelmed under the Testimonies of the Rab­bins. They who have been conversant among the Monuments of the Antients, especially in the Commentaries of St. Jerom, and are therefore better experienc'd in Critick Learning, think far otherwise of that Work: Nor do they presently swallow those things for Truth, with which the Jews, half asleep, are illiterately contented. Rather Elias the Levite is to be listened to in this particular, who alone among the Jews, apply'd him­self to the study of the Masora, then to the Rout of the Jews, who were altogether ignorant of it. That most Learned Rabbi, being requested in a Letter by Munster, Elias Levit. in Epist. ad Sebast. Mun­ster. to tell him what sort of persons the Masorites were, especially those of Tyberias, thus answered in the Jewish Language: R. Jonas writes, that the Jews of Tyberias were well vers'd in the holy Language. R. Aben Ezra also writes, that from them the Authors of the Masora, point­ing, and accenting, took their Original, contrary to the common Sentiments of our Fathers of blessed memory, who affirm that Ezra the Scribe was the first that order'd and appointed those Reforma­tions. Thus what Elias reports concerning the Learning and Skill of the Jews of Tyberias in the Hebrew Language, agrees with what has been written by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerom upon the same Subject. He testifies that he sent for an Hebrew Master from the School at Tyberias, who assisted him in transla­ting the Chronicles out of the Hebrew into Latine. Toward the end of the fifth Action of the 2d Council of Nice, mention is made of a certain Jew of Tyberias, who in the Reign of Leo Isauricus, was the Author of the Decree against the Images of the Christians. Whence it is apparent, that the Jewish School at Tyberias, to whom the Masoretick Work, or the Emenda­tion [Page 24]of the Biblick Exemplar now in use among the Jews and Christians is attributed, was the most famous in the time of our Fore-fathers, and was in great Authority, especially among the Jews. Whence it came to pass, that their Critical Ani­madversions upon several Exemplars of the Bibles then pub­lickly dispersed, were the more readily receiv'd by the rest of the Jewish Nation.

They are Trifles therefore, and the Delirium's of the Fe­verish Jews, which the most of them, and by their seduce­ment many of the Christians vainly chatter concerning the Ori­ginal and Antiquity of their Masora; as if Moses himself had been partly the Author of it, and partly Esdras, with the Se­nators of the Sanedrim. For the thing it self demonstrates that the Masora was invented long after the LXX Interpreters, and St. Jerom, who made use of Rabbies of Tyberias, but ne­ver makes mention of the Masora. There were indeed among the Jews, as among other all other People, persons addicted to Criticism, who had reform'd their Language, and correct­ed their Works, by the help of Critical Learning, and the assistance of Manuscript Copies. And the Variations of Scrip­ture which those Criticks observe, and which they place in the Margin of the Hebrew Context, manifestly prove that several Exemplars of Manuscript Bibles were by them re­view'd and corrected. But what Divinity or Inspiration could be asserted from hence? What was not perform'd with much more success in the Greek and Latine Copies? But the Jews, who were born rather to Superstition than Religion, being altogether ignorant of the Critical Science, which was after­wards brought to a greater perfection by the Greeks and La­tines, feigned a thousand monstrous Opinions, which some of the Christians afterwards too greedily embrac'd. Elias the Le­vite, who had frequented the company of Learned Men at Rome, Venice, and other parts of the World, neglecting the Traditions of his Fathers, rightly observes that there is no other Judgment to be given of the Jewish Bibles, than of the Greek and Latine; and for Adherers to his Opinion, among the Christians, he had all those who had any knowledge of the Greek, Latine, or Critical Learning. Yet I think the Trea­tises of Cappellus, and John Morinus, are to be cautiously read, who shewing themselves somewhat so eagerly incensed against [Page 25]the Jews and Hebraists in the heat of Disputation, do not right­ly apprehend what is profitable, and what of no use in the Ma­sora; as if it were therefore wholly to be rejected, because it was first communicated to us by the Jews. Rather it ought to be receiv'd by us for that very reason, as being deriv'd to us from persons skilful in the Language, and vers'd in the Ma­nuscripts. For from whence could the Tradition of the He­brew Pronunciation be better communicated to us, than from those who had retain'd it in their Synagogues and Schools. However, we are not to adhere to the Decrees of that Tradi­tion, as being humane, and subject to Errour; though the several Emendations may be admitted, as being the Labour of the Doctors of a most famous Academy.

The number of the Masorites is hardly to be reckon'd up, as Elias the Levite affirms; and to use his own words, Hundreds and Thousands there were succeeding one another for many years; nor is the time certain when they began, nor when they compleated their work; that is, the prefixed time. For he constantly af­firms, that it was since the Talmud, and he refers the begin­ning of it to the year of Christ 506. So that I believe it might have its first beginning about the year 600. at what time the Arabians took it into their hands, to whom the Jews are be­holding for all that they have of Grammar and Criticks. They have a Masora belonging to their Alcoran, not much unlike that of the Jews: The Letters, Words and Verses of that Book being numbred, which they seem to have borrowed from the Greek and Latine Bibles, which they translated into their own Language. At first I am apt to think that the Masora was transcrib'd apart into particular Books, by the Doctors of Tyberias, for exercise of their Scholars within the walls of the School. For that they durst not presume to introduce their Vowel Points, and other marks of Masoretick Ingenuity in­to the Hebrew Text, is something probable from hence, be­cause the pointed Vowels, Accents, and the like, were not in our time to be seen in the Manuscripts which were pub­lickly us'd in the Synagogues. And the most approv'd Copies of Manuscripts for the use of private persons, wanted those In­novations, as I have observ'd by their reading; but were added afterwards by the Jewish Criticasters. But then the Transcribers, understanding the benefit of Points and Accents [Page 26]for the reading and distinction of the Hebrew Context, made no scruple to insert those New Additions. Thus by degrees from those Masoretick Notes, which nevertheless were grown to an immense bulk, the more choice, or at least those which were contain'd in the distinct Copies of the Masora, were col­lected for the benefit of those Copies which they had daily occasion to transcribe, as may be seen in most of the Manu­script Copies of the Jewish Bibles; but chiefly in the Venetian Bibles of the second and third Edition, which being collected from sundry Books, were first published by R. Jacob Ben Ha­jim, who reduc'd the scatter'd parts of the Masora into the Form which now they observe. From whence it was intro­duc'd, and added to those Bibles which Buxtorf procur'd to be Printed at Basil.

Now from what has been said, who can believe that the Jews could ever be able, by the help of their Masora, to pre­serve their Bibles from all manner of Errours, when those Criticks, who lent their healing hands to the Copies of their Times, were neither Prophets, nor inspir'd by the Holy Ghost, but only men, who being the Governours of a most famous Academy, review'd the whole Context of Sacred Scrip­ture, and sought as far as in them lay, to bring it to a com­pliance with its most Antient and uncorrupted Exemplars, as the Doctors of Lovain undertook St. Austin's Works. So that we may rightly compare the Masoretick Labour to the Toil of Lucas Brugensis, about the Latine Interpreter. For he, so soon as the Latine Edition by the command of Sixtus Quintus, and Clement the VIII. was compar'd with the most Antient & best Esteem'd Translations, and thereby refin'd from its Errours, Bibles should be afterwards Printed with their Errours. Ne­vertheless, no man of Judgment will say, that that same La­tine Version is free from all mistake, when Baronius, Bellar­min, Lucas Brugensis, and others, some of whom assisted at this Correction, make no dispute that many Errours remain very necessary to be amended. Some of the Jewish Rabbies indeed there are, who highly commend the Diligence and Industry of the Masorites, for that with so much Labour and In­dustry they took an account of the Letters, Words, and Verses of the Hebrew Context, to prevent the future depra­vation [Page 27]of Holy Writ. But who can thence think it possible to be prov'd, that the Sacred Books were thereby restor'd to to their Antient Form? True it is, that the Doctors of Tybe­rias might number the Letters, Words and Verses of the Books extant in their Time: However, those Books were on­ly Copies, and not Originals. I will also grant that they were most perfect in the Hebrew Language, and that they made use of the most corrected Exemplars of the Bible, which by dili­gent search they could find out for the carrying on their Cri­tical Design: But yet their Materials were still deficient, when they could have no recourse either to the Greek Interpreters, nor to the Latine Version, who in their Translations made use of Copies differing from the Masoretick. Then again Tradi­tion combates for the friends of the Masorites, which the sig­nification of the word insinuates, as if by the assistance of Points and other Characters, they had render'd the Reading and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Context receiv'd into use for many Ages certain and indubitable. The Sect of the Car­raeans also became strenuous Champions for the Masora of the Jews, and the Exemplars set forth, who though they reject the most of the Jewish Traditions as old Womens Fables, yet admit of the Biblick Context in the same manner as it was re­form'd by the Masorites of Tyberias, together with the Titles, Vowels, Accents, and other marks of the Masorites.

But though these, and many other Arguments of the same nature may be brought in defence of the Masora, and the Mo­dern Context of the Bible, and to prove that the Copies re­form'd by the Doctors of Tyberias are no way to be despised, because the correction was perform'd by persons well skill'd in the Language, who determin'd the manner of reading the Hebr. Context not according to their own pleasures, but the receiv'd Tradition; nevertheless, no man ought thence to collect, that all other Exemplars of the Bible are to be reform'd and cor­rected after the Emendations of the Masorites, as most of the Jews would obstinately maintain. For the Greek Interpreters, and St. Jerom, had also their Masora, or Tradition, for the Reading and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Context, who nevertheless very frequently vary from the Reading of the Masorites. And which is worthy observation, the most Learned Rabbies of the Jews, R. Juda, Jona, Aben Esra, [Page 28]Kimchi, and others not a few, while they illustrate the Scrip­ture with their Commentaries, are not so devoted to the Ma­soretick Lection, but that sometimes they correct it, and com­mend other Manuscripts which they call corrected, though they differ from the Masoreticks. Therefore as I do not think they are altogether to be favour'd, who being offended with the Jews, detract from their Copies, so neither are they to be imitated, who dote upon the Masoretick Structure, and look upon it as a piece of Divinity. For those upholders of Jewish Superstition, shew themselves unskilful in Criticism. There­fore the Modern Masoretick Lection of the Context of the Bible, is not altogether to be contemned, because it was not done by the Authority of men that were Prophets, and inspi­red with the Holy Ghost; for by that reason the Bibles of most of the Eastern Nations would be rejected, there being as much to be said against the Chaldee, Syriack, and Arabick Exemplars, as against the Hebrew. There is none of them that make use of Tittl'd Vowels, which confine the Pronun­ciation and Reading within certain bounds, which were all in­vented by the Criticks; for that without their help the Reading not being ascertained, was subject to a humour & fancy. By this means the followers of that famous Impostor rendred the Read­ing of their Alcoran certain, which before was dubious and uncertain. And from these 'tis very probable that the Jewish Rabbies had their Points, and some other things which they introduc'd into the Hebrew Manuscripts, to the end they might be read with more ease and readiness.

CHAP. V. The Parts of the Masora in relation to the Manuscript Co­pies, are weighed and illustrated. The True Original of the Masora.

THE great pains and labour of the Masoreticks consists in numbring up the Verses, Words and Letters of the He­brew Context; for that by this means the former Variances being observ'd, the Reading might be preserv'd more certain [Page 29]and constant for the future, and the Holy Writings be free for the future from all alteration.Of the Ma­soretick Art. That the Words and Verses were numbred by the Masorites, there is no question to be made. The greatest Dispute arises about the Letters, in regard that R. Jacob Ben Hajim, Elias the Levite, and Buxtorf, who have with all imaginable diligence perus'd the several parts of the Masora, deny that this part of it was ever made publick: By whose Authority Morinus being sway'd, affirms that that work was never undertaken by the Masorites; which seems the more probable, in regard the Enumeration of the Letters of the Hebrew Text which is already publish'd, is very far from the Truth. But that there was an account taken of them by the Jews before the Talmud was publish'd, may be prov'd by those Arguments, which are usually drawn from the Tra­ctates Kidduschin, and the Scribes, where the letter Vau in the word [...], or Gachon, the belly, Levit. 11.43. is said to be the middlemost letter of the Law. Nor do I believe that part of the Masoreth to have been neglected by the Masorites: For I observ'd it in turning over several Manuscript Bibles at the end of an Exemplar written about some four hundred years ago, where among many other things collected out of the Ma­sora; there is the same account of the Letters, which I shall set down in the same manner and words, as it is there deli­ver'd, that the Criticks may judge whether it be exact or no.

The Sections of the Book of Genesis call'd Parshoth, are reckon'd to be twelve; the other Sections call'd Sedarim 43. Verses 75 34. Vords 20713. Letters 78100. and these words are in the middle of the Book Gnal Charbekah Tihijeh. By thy Sword thou shalt live.Gen. 27.40. The Parshoth of Exodus are numbred to be 11. the Sedarim 33. Verses 1209. Words 16513. Let­ters 63467. the middlemost words Elohim lo Tehallel, Exod. 22.28. Thou shalt not revile the Gods. The Parshoth of Leviticus are 10. the Sedarim 25. the Verses 859. the Words 11902. the Let­ters 44989 the middlemost words Hannogeang Bibsar Hazab, Leviz 15.7. He that touches the slesh of him that has a running Issue. In Numbers Parsheth 10. Sedarim 33. Verses 1388. Words 16707. Letters 62529. the middlemost words Ve Hajah Haisch Asher Ebchar, And the man whom I shall chuse. Deuteronomy has Parshoth's 10. Sedarim 30. Verses 9055. Words 16394.Numb. 17.5. Let­ters 54892. The middlemost words Ve Gnasitha Gnal Pi Had­dabar. [Page 30]And thou shalt do according to the Sentences.Deut. 19.10. As for the rest of the Hebrew Context, there is no number of the words.

But if we compare this Enumeration of the Letters of the Mosaical Law, with that which is set forth in the Venetian and Basil Bibles, you will find this to be very erroneous. For that allows to Genesis no more than 4395 Letters, whereas the for­mer reckons up 78100. and therefore seems to be farthest from Truth. But why such an indefatigable diligence in numbring the Letters of the Hebrew Letters with the Maso­rites, should be call'd the hedge of the Law, by the benefit of which it is preserv'd entire and uncorrupted from Errour or Mistake, I cannot well apprehend: Whenas they who were so anxiously laborious, number'd in other Letters than those of their own Books, which no wise man will look upon to be so free from faults, or to be compar'd with the Original. Then, as Aben Esra rightly observes, the Letters Aleph, He, Vau, and Jod, are frequently added, frequently omitted, ac­cording to the fancy of the Transcribers. Certainly no man that understands any thing of Critical Learning, will from thence only, because the Masora observes such a word some­times fill'd up, sometimes defective, presently infer, that all other Biblick Exemplars are not of that value, because they vary in their Lections; but imbracing both Lections as pro­bable, will determine nothing certain in a thing of so much in­certainty, as being taught by the Examples of the LXX Inter­preters, Aquilas, Symmachus, Theodotion, and St. Jerom, who many times not only vary from the Masoreth, but from one another. And therefore the Jews, and the Idolizers of the Masorites, are miserably deceiv'd, who believe that the Ho­ly Writ was restor'd to its Antient Form by a bare Enume­ration of the Words and Letters made by the Doctors of Ty­berias, and cry it up in the place of the Authentick Original. Than which there could be nothing more fabulously invented, especially after such a long succession of years, that the He­brew Language has been as it were buried, and the Traditions of the dead almost entomb'd, at least most strangely interrupt­ed. And therefore the more prudent Aben Esra rightly compares the Masoreticks that have so carefully enumerated the Letters and Words of the Hebrew Context to those who should number the Leaves and Pages of a Physick-Book, which [Page 31]would nothing contribute to the health of a sick Patient.

As for the Distinction of the Verses which appears in the Masoretick Editions, I think the same sentence is to be pro­nounced, as concerning the numbring of Letters and Words; in regard that the Authors of this Enumeration have observ'd no other than the Rules of Criticism, in distinguishing the Verses after the manner of the Grammarians. But if we listen to the Talmudists, they cry, Every Verse which Moses does not distin­guish, we never distinguish. But if that Tradition were receiv'd From Moses, wherefore do not the Talmudists agree in all things with the Masorists in this particular? Why also was not that Tradition of which Moses is feign'd to be the Author, known likewise to those Jews, that liv'd in Time of the Greek Interpreters, and St. Jerom? For they also differ in ma­ny things from the Masorites. The whole Context of Sacred Writ was formerly in Antient Times written in a continu'd series of words, as it had been one entire Verse, as Elias Levi­ta well observes: As also were the Books of the Antient Greeks and Latines; which may be collected from the Proem of Eustathius to his Commentaries.Eustath. in Iliad. Hom. The Poem of the Iliads was and continu'd a well compacted body of words; which the Gramma­rians so continu'd by the command of Pisistratus King of Athens, and fitted as they pleas'd themselves. The chief of which was Aristarchus, and after him Zenodotus; But because it was prolix and intricate, and by that means irksom to the Reader, they divided it into several parts, which Sections they would not call the first, se­cond and third Book, &c. as Quintus did in his continuation of Ho­mer: But in regard the Composition was large enough for several Sections, they thought fit to divide them into Sections under the four and twenty Letters. And Illatius commends one Comatas, who distinguish'd and pointed the Sentences of Homer's Poem,Apud Leon. Allati ani­madvers. in Antiq. He­trus. which never had any subdistinctions before; as appears by the following Verses.

In Antient times also the Verses of the Poets were not se­parated one from another by any such notes of distinction, as we find in the Printed Editions: Nor can the Grammarians themselves rightly distinguish the Odes of Pindar. But why do I spend time? There's no reason why the Jewish Books in this particular should have better luck than the Greek Exem­plars of the New Testament, which 'tis well known were but lately distinguish'd into Verses; as is not only to be seen in several of the Manuscript Copies, but also in many Editions that are Printed according to the Antient Copies. True it is, that ever since the time of Ezra, the Verses of the Law were distinguish'd in Reading. But for all that the Amanuenses ne­ver made any distinction in their Transcripts, as was afterwards done by the Criticks of Tyberias; to whose Laws the Jews are no more oblig'd, than we to the Decrees of the Apostolick See, which after the Correction of the Latine Interpretation, decreed that no other Interpretation should be Printed for the future, unless it were examin'd by the Vatican Standard: Which Edict was for the procurement of Peace and Concord: And to this as much as is possible, they who gave the Roman Church her Name, will adhere in explaining the Latine Inter­pretation, if they be wise, observing the Points, and all the marks of distinction in that Edition. Nevertheless, that a clearer and more probable sense will rise from another man­ner of distinction, they do not scruple to prefer it before the Vulgar Distinction in their Commentaries. In which parti­cular the Jews agree very well with the Catholick Divines, who do not depend so much upon the Masoretick Distinctions, as to make it a point of Conscience not to depart from them, when the receiv'd Distinctions will not yield a sense so proper and consentaneous to the Context. To which we may add the Infinite Variety of Manuscript Copies, which differ many times as to these matters as well from themselves, as from the Masoreticks.

The Antient use of the distinction of Verses.There is also another sort of Verses, of Verses, of which they seem not to have made mention, who have handl'd this Subject; from whence I am apt to believe, that all the Masoretick Drudgery drew its Original. These the Greeks call'd [...], Rows, the Latines Lineas, or Lines. These Verses were com­prehended under a certain number of words. And the setters forth of the Book were wont at the end of their works, to add the number of the Verses therein contain'd, that thereby they might prevent Additions or Diminutions, which might be obtruded upon them. Thus Diogenes Laertius tells us the largeness or smalness of the Books which he cites in his Histo­ry, by giving an account of the number of the Verses of which they consist. In the same manner were the Volumes of Ori­gen compil'd, as St. Jerom seems to intimate, where he says, that there were seven or eight hundred Verses wanting. In the Book of Job, according to the Antient Edition of the La­tine Interpreter, the Verses are frequently reckon'd up at the end of the Samaritan, Syriack and Arabick Copies. So that 'tis probable that the Jews deriv'd this Custom from the Ara­bians, and they from the Greeks, which afterwards the subtle Rabbies enlarg'd according as their Fancies prompted them. But there was a necessity for them to distinguish other Verses, by reason of their Readings and Lessons in the Synagogues; to which they put a full stop, not according to the number of words or letters, but according as the sense guided them. For that from the time that the Hebrew Language began to fail the Jews, they never read the Law without an Interpreter, who repeated it, as it was read to the people, in the Language they understood. And thus the Interpreter follow'd the Rea­der when he had read one Verse, which was such a short Sen­tence as might easily be deliver'd to the People, without op­pression to the memory; which being read and interpreted, then the Reader read another, and then another, till he came to some new matter; so that his Lessons for Morning and Evening were therefore divided into Verses. Nor can there be invented any other Original of those Verses which are point­ed by the Doctors of Tyberias in the Sacred Context, to be seen in the Editions of every Bible, Although there were another sort of Verses well known to those of Tyberias, be­cause they do sometimes reckon up the Words and Letters of which the Verses consist.

Another sort of Ver­ses.A third sort of Verses the Criticks seem to acknowledge, which, the Doctors of Tyberias, the Authors of the Masora seem not altogether to be ignorant of. The word [...], which the Greeks borrowed from Military Discipline, does not only signifie a Line, but a certain Order or Rank of Lines, and con­sequently of Verses. In which sense Hesychius compos'd a Tractate under this Title [...], The distinction of the Twelve Prophets. To which the word Sita answers in the Masora; and from the same Fountain the word Sedarim or Orders seems to have proceeded; where it signifies the same with the Greek word [...], which distinctions and subdistinctions were invented, Cassio. de Di [...]in. L [...]t. that the breath being tired by a long Sentence, might recover it self by the means of allow'd Pauses, as Cassiodorus rightly observes. Of the same nature were those distinctions, which the Greeks call [...], the Latines Capitula, or small heads differ­ing from those which we now call Chapters. For these [...], divided the whole Context of the Books into lesser Sections, and the Heads of these were placed at the front of the Book. This is to be seen in the New Greek Testament Printed at Ve­nice, Anno 1538. and in the Greek Edition of the same, by Robert Stephanus, which was copy'd from the Manuscripts pre­serv'd in the most Christian King's Library. Had the Cri­ticks consider'd more seriously these things, and some other things, which I pass over in silence, while they were making their Animadversions upon the Original of the Masoretick Art, they would not have wasted so much time and labour, in refuting the Jewish Miracles, who talk of nothing but of Moses and Esdras.

To this I will add something concerning the Notes which the Jews call Taamin, the Latines Accentus, or Accents, which serve in the room of Colons and Comma's to distinguish the Hebrew Context; in the same manner as the Greeks make use of points and stroaks. However, in this the Rabbies seem to have exceeded the Greeks and Latines, because they not only found out the marks of Accents for the distinction of Senten­ces, and their Members, but also invented other Accents for marks of continued speech, as if what was not distinguish'd was not continu'd. The Original of those Accents they take from Esdras himself: But how vainly, any man may judge by what has been already said concerning those other sorts of Di­stinctions. [Page 35]For indeed they have no other Authors but the Doctors of Tyberias, who in this particular acted the part of Grammarians. Neither are the Jews so strict in observing them, as to make it an Article of their Belief, that they are not to be departed from, especially where another Distinction produces a better sense.In Lib. Tsa­chuth. Thus Aben Esra makes mention of a certain Learned Rabbi, by name Moses Coheu, who took little notice of those Masoretick marks in distinguishing the Sentences of the Biblick Context. And yet I have the same Opinion of these,De Divi [...]. Lect. as Cassiodorus had of the Points that were added to the Edition of the Latine Interpreter by the Criticks. These Points, saith he, are as it were certain Paths of the Senses, and Lights of Sentences. But they must of necessity dote as the Jews do, who look upon those Periods of the Hebrew Context, to be the Effects of Divinity, and thereby shew themselves ab­solute strangers to Criticism. Nor do I wonder that the whole Nation of the Jews embrac'd those marks as well in transcribing their Copies, as in the Explanation of the Con­text; seeing all that profess the Faith of the Roman Church, so religiously adhere to the Vatican Edition of the Latine Inter­pretation with points and stroaks, and never swerve from it, but when they play the Criticks in their Commentaries, which that it was also a thing much practis'd by the Jewish Rabbies, their Comments upon the Scripture abundantly declare.

CHAP. VI. Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manu­script Bibles, are examined. Their True Original, and the Masoretick Lection confirm'd.

MOst of the Jewish Rabbies not unwillingly acknowledge that the Sacred Manuscripts of the Old Testament do not altogether retain that Form,The Antient disagree­ment of the Heb. Bibles according to the Rabbies. which the most Authentick and Original Copies represented; and they believe that this Alteration of their Bibles happen'd after they were carry'd in­to Captivity, at what time they had no Rabbies, to read to them the Mosaick Law, their Form of Worship being utterly [Page 36]abolish'd; and their Civil Affairs in that deplorable condition, that they had no time to look after their Books. Therefore D. Kimehi frequently asserts in his Works,R. D. Kim. That they perish'd in the Babylonish Captivity, and they being destroy'd, nothing but con­fusion follow'd; with many other expressions of the same na­ture.R. Ephod. R. Ephodaeus is also of the same Opinion, who writes, That in those Seventy years of the Babylonish Captivity, cor­ruption and confusion began to overwhelm the Sacred Wri­tings: For that, as Kimchi says, the Doctors of the Law were dead. From thence therefore, that before the time of Esdras, the Sacred Writings vary'd in several places, they believe it may be made out, that Esdras, who examin'd those Books, left several Lections which he met with in the Copies of his Time unmedl'd withal in the Books which he himself examin'd; and for this reason, they give great credit to the differing Scrip­tures, which were mark'd by the Criticks of Tyberias, as if they proceeded from Esdras, who was inspir'd with the Holy Ghost; than which there is nothing more idle or remote from Truth.Aben Mel. in li [...]. 1. Para­li [...]. This Aben Melech observes upon the words Diphath and Rodanim. Diphath in the Book of Chronicles is written with a Daleth, and in the Book of Genesis with a Resch. Rodanim is written with a Resch, and in Genesis with a double Daleth, be­cause Resch and Daleth are alike in their form; and they who ever viewed the Books of Genealogies written in the Antient Times, some write Daleth, others Resch. Therefore in the Book of Genesis the word was written one way, in the Chronicles after another, to shew that the word was the same whether written with a Daleth or a Resch. Thus Jod and Vau are written promiscu­ously, because they are alike in their figure. And the same is to be said for the mute Letters, Aleph and He in the end of a word, as in the word [...] with a He in the end, which is the same as [...] with an Aleph in the end. For Aleph and He are agreed to be both Aspirates, and every one makes use of them at his pleasure.

Thus has Aben Melech written almost word for word, from the Commentaries of R. D. Kimchi.

The same Aben Melech produces many other Examples of several other varieties of the same nature, which he testifies to have collected out of the Tractates of R. Judas, Jonas, Aben Esra, Kimchi, &c. Thus he observes Alin and Alevan to be [Page 37]read in Scripture promiscuously, with a Jod sometimes, and sometimes with a Vau. Hemeran and Hemdan with Resch or with Daleth. Jaakan and Vaakan with Jod or with Vau; with many others, which I omit for brevities sake. They never minded, saith he, the change of a Letter or two, and he observes it to have been frequently done. He also makes mention of the transposition of words, and upon those words in Chro­nicles, Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel, he makes this obser­vation, Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel, she is Bathsceva the Daughter of Eliam, (2 Sam. 11.) which some read Barsceba, Aben Mel. ad c. 3. Chron. others Bathsceba, because they are near in pronunciation: In the same manner Amiel and Eliam are the same, but that the Letters are transposed; which transposition of Letters is to be observ'd in the first place, there being several Examples to confirm it in the Hebrew Copies, of which the LXX Inter­preters made use. R. Levi Ben Gersom makes the same obser­vation upon the word Jabes. R. L. Ben Gersom. I believe Jabes with an Ain to have been one of the Judges, and to have been that person, who in the 12th of the Judges is call'd Abetson with an Aleph: For Aleph and Ain are near in pronunciation, and often changed one into another. Don Joseph also the Spaniard, R. Joseph Comment. in Chron. in his Exposition of the Book of Chronicles, inquiring why there appears so much difference in the Genealogies, between that Book and the Books of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and Kings, unfolds this que­stion in these words; That Esdras seem'd to have found those words or hard names in some Compendium, and so wrote them down as he found them. Then observing a vast difference of names and things, he presently adds, Neither ought that to be a wonder, for that in the Series of many Ages, great alterations happen both of names and things. But Esdras wrote down those Families in the same manner as he found them scatter'd in little Manuals, some out of one place, some out of another, and in words abbreviated. And therefore the Family which he mentions is described in many places without order and method.

Lastly, The same Rabbi believes that the Jews had forgot their Genealogies, and that Esdras wrote what occurr'd to his memory, though it were written without order,R. Jos. ad l. 1. Chron. c. 9. and at several times.

And therefore most of the Jewish Rabbies rather chuse to accuse the Books which they believe Esdras made use of in [Page 38]digesting the Context of the Bible, than the oscitancy and carelesness of the Scribes that came after. In this indeed the Fathers of the Church agree with those Jews, that both ascribe to Esdras the Title of Restorer of the Sacred Context at that time in great confusion; only the Fathers believe that being inspir'd with a Prophetical Spirit, he reform'd it from many faults.In Pr [...]fat. in Psal. That most admirable Esdras, saith Theodoret, transcrib'd those Sacred Writings, which by the carelesness of the Jews, and the Impiety of the Babylonians were entirely corrupted. And these are rather to be believ'd than the hair-brain'd Jews, who will have Esdras to publish the Scriptures deprav'd and corrupted as they were with all their faults; and so they attribute all those various Lections which the Masorites denote under the terms of Keri and Cetib, to the same Esdras; as if those various Readings, which the Criticks daily remark upon the Margins of their Books, were to be attributed to men inspir'd by God. We must therefore conclude that the Masorites of Tyberias, by the help of the Antient Copies, and assistance of good Judg­ments, corrected what Errours had crept into the Copies of their Times, through the Ignorance of the Scribes. But bear­ing a Veneration too superstitious toward the Sacred Wri­tings, they durst not insert into the Context the various Le­ctions, though the truth of their Authority were past contro­versie, but plac'd them in the Margin of their Bibles, with this mark Keri, The Origi­nal of the various Lections in the Margins of the Heb. Bibles. which is as much as in Greek [...], write; intimating thus the true Lection of the word: For Keri is the same as in Latine, Lectio or Reading. And that this is true, the Manuscript Exemplars of the Bibles prove, especially the Spanish, which are Printed without the greatest part of those Alterations which are mark'd Keri: So that by the help of those the Masoretick Bibles now extant might easily be re­duc'd to their former form. Nor will it be amiss here to produce some Examples of those various Lections, compar'd with the Spanish Exemplar, elegantly set forth about some 10 years since; to which purpose let us make use of the Book of Joshuah. The Masorites have mark'd the wordMy Si­sters. [...], Josh. 2.10. with a censorious mark, by putting Keri in the Margin to [...], but erroneously; for that in seve­ral other places of the Law, as in the plural Achoth, in the 16th chapter of Ezekiel it is written without any Masoretick [Page 39]mark [...], thy Sisters; and so in Joshuah it is truly writ­ten Achothai, my Sisters, and needs no emendation. For that way of writing is not erroneous from the Masora it self. In the 4th verse of the 3d chapter of Joshua, in the Context is writtenBetween it. [...], with a Keri in the Margin, [...], as if the Let­ter Jod had been omitted in the latter end of the word; which is really read in the Spanish Copy; whence we may manifestly perceive the Original of the Masoretick Annotation. In the same chapter, v. 16. as well in the Manuscript as Masoretick Edition, it is written in the Context,The pro­per name of a City. [...], with a Keri in the Margin, [...], from the City Adam. In which man­ner the sense teaches us it should be read; so that that fault might easily be corrected without the help of other Copies, by reason of the similitude between the Letters Mem and Beth, especially in some Manuscripts, where the Letters are dotted at the top like the [...]. In the 4th chap. v. 18. the word is in the Context Bagnaloth, the Keri against it is Cagnaloth, as they ascended out, as it is really written in the Spanish Bible, with the Letter Caph, and not with the Letter Beth. But in other Spanish Exemplars, which I have consulted, I find it written Bagnaloth with a Beth, though without the Masoretick note. Wherefore in this place the Masorite Exemplars va­ry, which is evident by the absence of the Keri upon this place in some of the Bibles extant. Chap. 5. v. 1. in the Context it is Gnal Gnabranou; the Keri reads it Gnabram, till they passed over; as it is without emendation in the Spanish Edition, Chap. 6. v. 8. the Context reads the word Thok'gnau, the op­posite Keri reads it Thok'gnei, as if Vau had crept in instead of Jod, which Reading the Spanish admits without any more trouble. Chap. 8. v. 16. the Context reads Ba Gnair, the Keri alters it, Ba Gnai, in Ai, as if the Resch were to be cast away, which the Spanish Edition does to their hands. Chap. 10. v. 8. the Context reads it [...], over against which Jathir Jod, cast away Jod; which the Spanish Copy does without intimation, which confirms the exactness of the Masoretick Corrections. Chap. 15. v. 47. the Context reads Hajam Hagabol, the Keri alters it Hagadol, the Great Sea, as it is read in the Spanish Edition. So that the Doctors of Tyberias did not make their Corrections out of their own brains, but took them from the choicest Manuscript Exemplars. The rest I omit, for fear of [Page 40]being tedious. For thus it is manifest what we may think of the Keri and Cetib, or the written and read, being the marks of the Doctors of Tyberias. And that it may be more mani­fest, we shall add some few more Examples, to shew that they made use of the most Antient and most Authentick Co­pies they could get; and these out of the Chronicles, with other Spanish Manuscripts.

Lib. 1. Chron. c. 1. v. 11. the Context read Ludiim with a double Jod; therefore the Masora in the Margin adds Jathir Jod, leave out Jod, and reads it Ludim, as it is in the Spanish Copy. V. 36. In some Copies, of which one was accurately Printed at Amsterdam, by Judaeus Manasses, over against the name Tsephi, the Keri reads Tsephu with a Vau, not with a Jod, as it is in the cited Edition, which confirms the Masora. The same Edition also reads Dodanim, with a Daleth, as in the Pentateuch, not Rodanim, with a Resch, as in the Vulgar Editions. For Shephi, v. 40. with a Jod, this Edition read Shephiu with a Vau. V. 46. the Context reads Gnaiuth with a Vau after the Jod, the Keri alters it Gnavith, or Avith, as it is corrected in the Spanish Edition. Lastly, V. 51. the Context reads Duo Gnaljah; the Masora corrects it Gnalvah, as it is in the Spanish Copy. So that the Spanish Edition above recited, observes no other than the Masoretick Emendations. In the last verse of the 3d chap. the Context reads Hodijahu, the Keri Hodavaihu, as if the Jod and Vau had been transpos'd, which Emendation of the Keri is observ'd in the Spanish Edition. Chap. 4. v. 7. The Context reads Jetsochar, the Keri alters it Vetsochar, which the Manuscript Copy follows. V. 41. the Context reads Hamgninim, their Habitations, the Ke­ri in the Margin writes Hamgnonim, as if the Jod had crept into the place of the tittled Vau. Which Masoretick correction is observ'd by the Manuscript Copy. Chap. 6. v. 26. the Context reads [...], with a Vau, instead of [...], with a Jod; nor is it otherwise written in the Spanish Edition. In the same chapter the Context reads Tsiph instead of Tsoph, corrected by the Masorak, and confirmed by the Authority of four Manuscripts. In the 7th chap. v. 1. the Context reads Jashib, the Keri Jashub, and in one Manuscript the Masoretick Emendation is followed. But for these particulars let this suffice. For it may seem superfluous to note the rest, seeing [Page 41]there is the same reason for the one as for the other. For if those Lections which are added in the Margin of the Hebrew Context in most Bibles under the Directions of Keri and Cetib, were but compar'd with five or six of the Spanish Manuscripts, which are to be preferr'd before the rest, we should find all the Masoretick Corrections to agree with them. Whence it appears that the Criticks of Tyberias, in imitation of the other Criticks, made no alterations, at least in this particular, without the assistance of the Manuscript Copies. And first it is worthy observation, that the more of Antiquity and Exact­ness those Manuscript Copies appear to have, the more they agree with the Masoretick Emendations. Therefore as Eye­witnesses, we may perceive the genuine Original of Keri and Cetib. But in vain do some Learned men seem to labour, while they enumerate these varieties of Lections, thence to make out that there are varieties of Readings to be also found in the Hebrew Context. For that, no man of judgment ever deny'd, even among the Jews; though they bring all varian­ces of Scripture to the Masora as to a certain standard. It would be much better therefore to examine the Masoretick Corrections of Keri and Cetib, by the Manuscript Copies of the Bible, than to extend them out into a long series, and mul­tiply their number by all manner of ways. Whenas it is ap­parent, that the greatest part of them are the manifest Errours of the Transcribers, which might be easily reform'd without the Manuscript Copies. But in this the Doctors of Tyberias seem'd to be more devout, who durst not put their Emenda­tions in the Context, though they were certain they were on­ly the manifest Errours of the Scribe; but either they referr'd to them in the Margin, or put them apart in sheets by them­selves. Which Religion, if not rather Superstition of the Ma­sorites, carry'd headlong the Jews that followed them, into several Fictions concerning those Critical Annotations. While they adventur'd to spend their judgments, not so much from the truth of the thing, or the Rules of true Criticism, but out of their own brains accustom'd to imagine Miracles and Stories.

Besides those varieties of Lections already by us repeated, there are also others that may be referr'd to Keri and Cetib; such as are those words, which the Masorites mark under the [Page 34]directions of Keri and Cetil, or read, and not written, in re­gard that really they are not inserted in the Text it self; only there is a vacant space left, and the Vowels mark'd with Points, which are erroneous in those words; and written whole in the Margin, with this note Keri velo Cetib, read, but not written. But these things will be made much plainer by Examples, and their Original will be the more easily found, if they be examin'd by the Copies of the Manuscript Bibles.

In the 20th chapter of Judges, v. 13. the Text is thus Printed [...], to which the Masora supplies Be­nei in the Margin with this note Keri velo Cetib, that is the word [...] or sons were to be read, though it were not writ­ten. Though in a Spanish Manuscript, and that of good Au­thority, the whole Sentence is writ at length, without any in­terruption; which a Jewish Criticaster was so impatient to see, that after he had added the Masoretick note in the Mar­gin, he ras'd out the word Benei out of a most lovely Copy, to make way for the void space and the mark of the Masorites, which you shall often find done by those Idolizers of the Ma­sora, especially in the Spanish Manuscripts, which they strive to reform according to the Masoretick Corrections. Thus in the 3d chapter of Ruth, v. 4. [...], He shall tell, is read in the Text with a gap, and over against it in the Margin Ke­ri velo Cetib, to be read, but not written; because [...], thee, is omitted, which the Spanish Exemplar supplies. 2 Sam. c. 18. v. 18. [...], opposite to which stands Keri velo Ce­tib, which however is right in our Manuscript. The same passages may be observ'd 1 Sam. c. 14. 2 Sam. c. 20. and in other places, which nevertheless are written in the Manu­scripts, as the Masora directs them to be read. In 2 Kings 29.31. The Zeal of the Lord hath done this; Tsevaoth, of Hosts, is omitted; and therefore the Masora makes this note in the Margin; The word Tsevaoth ought to be read, but let it not be written; yet it is written down in the Manuscript Copy. Now what has been said concerning Keri velo Cetib, to be read, and not written, is likewise to be said of the quite contrary Maso­retick note, Cetib velo Keri, to be written, not read. Thus Ruth, c. 3. v. 12. The Text reads Chi 'im Goel Anoki, That I am thy near Kinsman. Where the Masorites note that [...], Im, is not to be read, though it be written. This is then the diffe­rence [Page 35]between Keri and Cetib, and Cetib and Keri, that the one supplies the defect of words in the publish'd Editions, with words of more Authority out of the Manuscripts; the other cuts off such as are deem'd superfluous. So that there is no­thing at all of Mystery, as the Jews vainly dream in the Animadversions of the Doctors of Tyberias, which in this m [...]tter has not been before perform'd by other Criticks in the Greek and Latine Bibles, and that with more success, and less Superstition.

The same is to be said of certain words, which the Masore­tick Criticks thought fit to expunge out of the Text, as seeming to them to be somewhat obscene. For as R. Moses testifies, the Hebrew is called the Holy Language, which will not ad­mit any words that carry any semblance of obscenity. But the falshood of this is easily proved. Besides, that alteration is not easily discern'd in the Manuscript Copies, and therefore is to be little regarded. And therefore I would be a means, that what words are left out of the Text without any cause, should be again restor'd to it. Now from what has been said, it may be concluded, that many of the various Lections are unprofitably mark'd by the Masoreths, which were the pal­pable Errours of the Scribes. In which thing Cappellus and Morinus shew themselves the more inveterate against the Jews, while they multiply the number of the various Read­ings out of sundry Editions of the Bible compar'd together; whereas the manifest Errours of the Scribes ought not to be accounted various Readings. On the other side John Viccars lessens their number more than he ought, affirming, that in several Manuscript Bibles, which he found in sundry Libraries of Italy, he met with no such thing as Keri and Cetib. True it is, there are much fewer in the Manuscript Copies, espe­cially the Spanish; but I never met with any Manuscript yet, where diversity of Reading was altogether absent.

CHAP. VII. Some things unprofitably and superstitiously noted by the Masoreticks, are illustrated out of the Manuscript Copies of the Bibles.

The Super­stitious writing of the Hebrew Bible in some places.'TIS a very strange thing how laboriously, if I may not say, superstitiously, the Masorites have preserv'd in the He­brew Context, certain Letters differing in their shape from the rest, of which they have most sedulously form'd an Al­phabet. The Jews vulgarly believe some Mystery lies con­ceal'd under these things. And Buxtorf, who solely depends upon the Jewish Writings, thus delivers himself concerning those Letters. There is no question, says he, but the causes of those diversities seem'd worthy and just to those wise and prudent persons in former Ages, Buxt. Comment. Masor. but the various Exilements, and grievous Calamities of their Posterity, have buried them in oblivion, or al­ter'd them into various Figments and fond Mysteries. Thus Bux­torf rather chuses to make himself a Patron of Masoretick Su­perstition, than to enquire into the cause of that Superstitious Writing; which Superstition shews it self in this, that the Modern Exemplars of the Bibles, which were examin'd by the Doctors of Tyberias, are some lesser, some bigger than others; some turn'd inward, others hanging downward. The cause of which seems to be no other, than that the hands of the Scribes could not so make the Letters of Lines extended in length, as to be every way equal one with another; whence it happen'd that some varied in shape from the rest. It might so fall out also, that some Letters at the beginning of the Vo­lume, might be made bigger of set purpose; as Aleph and Beth; of which the one is the first Letter in the beginning of the Chronicles, the other of Genesis. But the Jews, who knew how to fetch out a Mystery out of the least tittle of a Letter, began to conceit new Fictions upon this Writing; which af­terwards by virtue of the Authority of the Doctors that first invented these Fables, being receiv'd by the rest of the Jews, were easily propagated to Posterity.

But though the use, or rather abuse of those Letters seems to be very antient, and long accustom'd by the Masorites, yet have I found a vast difference in the observance of those De­lineations between the Exemplars of the Manuscript Bibles and those: For in those there are fewer Examples of those Letters; or if you meet with any, the form of the Letter is hardly discern'd to differ from the other. Thus the bigness of the Letter Aleph, which is the first in the Book of Chronicles, and Beth in the beginning of Genesis, in many Spanish Copies, is scarcely to be discern'd; so small is the difference between them and the rest. In one Spanish Copy written about some 10 years since those trifles are altogether neglected. Thus Isaiah, c. 56.10. In the Masoretick Bibles the word Tsophau, or Watchmen, is Printed with a great [...] Tsade; but in the Ma­nuscript Copy, the same word is written without any man­ner of distinction from the rest; and so it is likewise written in another Manuscript. Thus in the 44th chapter of the same Prophet, where we read in the Text [...], He planted an Ark, with a small Nun at the end of the word is writ as it should be with a proportionable Nun. So vain and supersti­tious is that Masoretick Annotation upon that place, There happen three small Nuns. In the 6th chapter of Daniel, v. 20. [...], is written in the Masoretick Bibles with the latter Pe, very large, whereas there is no such thing in the Spanish and other Manuscripts. In other two Spanish Manuscripts there is a great Pe to be seen, but with this difference, that the one enlarges the first Pe, the other the second. In the 3d Chapter of the Prophet Malachi, according to the Hebrew, but the 4th in the English Translation; and v. 4. [...], remember, is written with a large Zain, but in the two Spanish Copies there is not the least appearance of any such thing; nor in the Bibles of Menasseh Ben Israel Printed at Amsterdam.

The same account is to be given of Letters turn'd and rais'd above the rest, as in the Hebrew Exemplar, as of Letters lesser or larger. Thus in the 18th of Judges, v. 3. the word [...], or Manesses is written with a little Nun rais'd above the rest, which is also advanc'd in the Manuscript Copies, but not in that manner, for only the top of the Nun is rais'd a little above the other, not the whole body of the Letter. Therefore the Jewish Grammarians erroneously give these Letters the Title [Page 38]of Rais'd Letters, is it were separated and set above the other, when it could be nothing but the fault of the Scribe, who was not so steady at that time. There is one Spanish Copy also that will not own the depressed Caph in the word [...], to weep for her, Gen. 23. v. 2. nor the great Zain in the word [...], a Harlot, Gen. 34.31. Nor is the word Shilleshi M so written in the Manuscript with a capital Mem, as in the Ma­soretick Editions. Only one word of this Book, Gen. 2.4. [...], when they were created, is written with a small [...]. He, as the other Copies have it.

To search the Scriptures any farther for these trifles, will be a vanity, since they are only the dreams of idle Fan­cies. And I could wish that custom might be utterly rejected for the future. The same fond Superstition also was the occa­sion of so many Figments about Aleph, Jod, He and Vau, which were the Original Vowels of the Hebrew Language, especial­ly omitted in the writing. For Example, in 2 Sam. c. 9. you find the Negative [...] Lu, with a Kibbuts, without the Letter Vau, which should otherwise have been writ thus [...], upon which I found this Masoretick note in the Margin;Jerom [...] quest in Gen. Lo is twice defective, because Absolom did not overcome. And that this the Jews observ'd ever since the time of St. Jerom, his own words sufficiently testifie. As we have here put it in the Hebrew his first name is written Ephran; yet after he was over-ruled to take money for a Burial-place, though he were pressed to it by Abra­ham the Letter Vau, which is read among them, was taken out of his name; and instead of Ephron he was called Ephran; the Scrip­ture thereby intimating that he was not a person of true and perfect generosity. Here, as frequently in other places, St. Jerom does not speak his own, but the mind of the Jews. However, it is probable that this variety of Character, which at first proceed­ed only from the careless and negligent humour of the Scribes, as Aben Ezra observes,The me­thod of writing the Heb. Text uncertain. gave the Jews an occasion to ground many Mysteries upon it, as being persons that will spring a Mi­racle out of a Shoe-latchet. As for the writing of Aleph, it was always uncertain from the very time that the Authen­tick Originals of the Sacred Text were lost by the Jews: So that it solely depends upon the will of the Jews, as may be ea­sily prov'd by comparing the most Authentick Manuscripts with the publish'd Editions. For they differ in a thousand [Page 39]places, so that I could number above six thousand of those Letters which are not extant in the publick Exemplars.

Therefore the Criticks of Tyberias in vain turmoil'd and weari'd themselves in counting how many times this or that word was full, and how many times defective. For example, they diligently consider how many times the word Otham is written at large in the Text; they observe that it was written in the Law thirty nine times full, or with the Letter Vau; and thus they run through all the Books of Scripture. But upon comparing the Manuscripts together, they could never once agree among themselves after what manner the said word was to be written. Moreover, this word [...] being fully thus written, does not only signify them or those, which is its true and genuine signification, but sometimes, with them, as if it were written Ittham; and were defective in the writing. So true it is that in these words, the sence and not the Cha­racter is to be regarded. But above all there is nothing like the Superstitious niceness of the Jews in writing the word Ierus­chalaim, while they diligently observe all the places of Scrip­ture, where it is to be writ at length with a Jod, and where without. And yet neither the Hebrew Manuscripts, nor the Masoretick Examplars, agree one among another. How many fictions have they raised about the word [...] Meoroth or Lights, which in the Beginning of Genesis is written without a Vau, contrary to the rules of Proportion; and because the Jewish Rabbies have raised a thousand fictions from this man­ner of writing such a Notable word, hence the Scribes have been very careful to observe that manner of spelling,

True it is that the Insertion or Omission of those letters, which depend upon the pleasure of the Scribes, seldom preju­dice the sense, and therefore in such cases, neither the one nor the other, is of any moment. But sometimes it happens, that they alter the sense. As 2 Sam. 20. In the third of Sophonia where we read Nogue, Sad, as the Interpreters vulgarly render it from Jaga, Rabbi Solomon expounds it remote or forraign as if it came from the Root Haga, without any regard to the Masoretick reading. There are not wanting some Rabbies, who derive the word Nechiloth in the Title of the 5. Psalm from Chalal, as if it were to be written without a Jod; not much heeding the Rules of the Masorites, for full and defective [Page 48]words. I omit above six hundred of this nature frequently to be met with in the Commentaries of the Jews, by which the Greek Translations of the LXX. Interpreters, and the Latine of St. Jerome may be Illustrated in many places. Neither is St. Jerome to be commended for this, that he blames the Greek Interpreters, for differing sometimes from him in that sort of reading. For this reason he taxes those, who in the 14. Chapt of Isaiah, for Angels, as it is in the Hebrew Exemplar, translate Kings, because that in their Copies they find the word Malkim, without the Letter Aleph, not [...] with the Letter Aleph, as St. Jerome had it. But the Greek Interpreters were not to be governed so much by the reading of Copies, as by the sense which was most proper to the place, espe­cially when the Manuscripts and printed Editions, do not agree about the Insertion of the Letter Aleph. As in Jeremy the Se­venth v. 18. Where the modern Exemplars read Limleketh, to the Queen, without an Aleph, yet in a single Manuscript, it is written with an Aleph [...]. And hence arose those Masoretick observations, of Redundant Letters.

CHAP. VIII. Some Examples of differing Writings; are produced from the Manuscripts, which vary from the Masoretick Lecti­ons.

AFter that the Hebrew Language ceas'd to be familiarly spoken among the Jews, and that the Chaldee Language became the Speech of the Country, the Writers made many alterations in their Transcriptions, by reason of the Affinity of the Languages. Nor were they so curious of neat Letters as they were before. From whence without question it came to pass, that the Letter Aleph, so much in use among the Chal­daeans, is many times mistaken for the Letter He, and added to words without any reason. And from hence I suppose it happened, that there are so many Chaldaeisms in the Hebrew Text; as Shelechebeth, Flame by the Addition of the Letter Schin, according to the custom of the Chaldeans. Magnath [Page 49]abin and Calabin instead of Magnathabim and Calabim, with several others of the same nature, which I omit, that I may come to those other variations of writing, frequent in the Manuscript Copies of most credit and Authority.

In the writing of these words El, Elohim, Jehovah, Col and the like, which are frequently redundant with the Greek Interpreters, the Manuscript Copies do not a little vary from the printed Masoreticks. Which, because they are more frequent in speech, are sometimes inserted, sometimes omitted by the Scribes. Thus in the beginning of the 16. Psalm, the word Jehovah, is thus repeated in one Spanish Copy: Thou hast said Jehovah, L' Jehovah, Jehovah, to Jehovah, thou art my Lord; but in the modern exemplar only once. In the same exemplar, Ezech. 30. v. 3. The word Jehovah is thus, twice repeated, The day of the Lord, the day of the Lord approaches. But the Masoretick Copy repeats the Lord but once; nor does St. Jerom seem to have read it otherwise in his exemplars. Neither do the Seventy Interpreters repeat the sentence, say­ing no more then once, the day of the Lord approaches. On the other side, in the same Spanish Manuscript, Judges 1.1. The word Col is omitted; and the Lection is thus: The Children of Israel went forth, but in the printed Editions, Col Benei, All the Children of Israel went forth. But it is needless to repeat any more examples of these Variances, which nevertheless, St. Jerom writing to Sunias and Fretelas very carefully enumerates, for the thing it self informs us, that those sorts of words, might easily have been added or omitted in the transcribing of the Copies.

Moreover in the Spanish Manuscript already recited, to­ward the end of the 2d. Chap. of the 1 Book of Chronicles, the Lection is conformable to the Greek Interpreters, and to what St. Jerom had read in his Copies. Maacha Calebs Concubine; brought forth Seber and Thirana. The Spanish Copy reads, Jal­dah brought forth, in the Faeminine Gender, but in the Ma­soretick Editions, it is written Jahad in the Masculine Gender, he begot, and so cannot be joyned with the Faeminine Concu­bina, or Concubine. Wherefore the modern Interpreters of the sacred Text, who follow the Masorites over zealously, for fear of erring against the rules of Grammar, make use of this Periphrasis, Maacha Caleb's Concubine, of whom he begat [Page 50]Sebar and Thirana. In the 3d Chapter v. 19. of the same Book, where we find in the Printed Books, Ʋben Zerubbabel with a Masoretick marking the margent, denoting the Opinion of the Masorites, that it should be read in the Plural Number Benei, and not in the singular Ben, in the Spanish Copy, it ap­pears to be Benei, in the Plural. In the 6 Chap. of the same Book, instead of Michael, as it is in our Exemplars, the Manu­script Copy, reads Malachie; and in another place, instead of Ʋzziah, another Manuscript reads Azaria. In the eighth Chap. of Josuah. v. 22. The Manuscript Copy, reads Lo in the sin­gular Number, with this note in the Margent, Lahem in another Copy, which Lection is now observed in the modern context: The Particle Lo, Not, and Eth which is the sign of the accusative case, are not always written in the same man­ner, in the Manuscripts, as in the Printed Exemplars.

Of far greater moment is that difference, which is found in 21. Chap of Joshua, wherein there is a want of two verses, which are notwithstanding both in the Greek and Latine Editions, which that they ought not to have been left out, the thing it self declares, when in recounting the Cities allotted to the Levites out of every Tribe; the Tribe of Reuben, could not have been omitted. Besides these verses are supplied by five Spanish Manu­scripts of best note, as also by the Royal Parisian the English, the Ʋenetian of Bemberg, and Bragand in Quarto, the Plantinian in Quarto, Robert Stephanus's and that of Amsterdam and other. Against all these the learned Masius opposes the Animadver­sions of the Masora and R. D. Kimchi. From whence it is ma­nifest, that none of those verses were extant in the Ancient Manuscripts. And Masius farther observes, that none of those Bibles wherein those verses are to be found, make any mention of Jordan, Jericho, or the Cities of Refuge. Only in one Spanish Manuscript, there is mention made of a City of Refuge, which none of the exemplars, hitherto printed, allow: But there was no need of men­tioning Jordan or Jericho, because the number of the Cities is made up without them. Johannes Morinus, who has commented more largely upon this place, believes these verses to have been obli­terated by the injury of time, & the negligence of th Jews; which seems most probable: But in the same place, he erroneously observes, that the two Comma's which were in the Manuscript by him cited, were afterwards eras'd by him that transcribed it, this [Page 51]annotation being added in the Margin, we found not these two verses in the Hillelian Exemplar; for in perusing that Manu­script, I perceived that note to be added by some Jewish Cri­ticaster, long after the transcribing of the Copy, who ad­ded to it some of the tittled Vowels and some parts of the Masora beside. For that same Criticaster was desirous, that his Exemplar should conform in all things, to the Masoretick, and to gain the more credit to his Emendation, he cited the Hillelian Manuscript. Therefore D. Kimchi, seems more addicted then was needful to the Lection of the Masorites, while he affirms that he never saw those two verses, which are wanting in the Masoretick Edition, in any ancient corrected Exemplar, but only noted in. Neither does Grotius weigh those verses, with a sufficient accuratness, suspecting them to have been added out of Chronicles, to the Book of Josua; after Kimchi's time, and thence crept into the Greek and Latine versions. On the other side Morinus believes them to have been tran­slated out of the Book of Josua, into the Chronicles by Esdras, and afterwards left out through the carelesness of the Scribes. Which mistake of the Scribes, might in this particular more easily happen by reason of the frequent repetition of the word, Ʋmematteh, and of the Tribe, &c. Whence it came to pass, that afterwards, the several Manuscripts did not constantly retain the same order of sentences. In a manner not much unlike to this, the ancient Jewish Scribes made many more mistakes, especially in the accompts of their families. For the same words, and the same Phrases often occurring to their fancies, as they wrote, great confusion by that means crept into the Books of sacred Scripture, as may be easily apparent to any one that shall compare the Books of Chronicles, with the other Historians. For tho it be not permitted, to correct the first from the latter, yet is it most apparent, that there are many things wanting in both, that might be restored from the anci­ent, especially the Greek Interpretations; the authors of which had Copies differing from the publick Exemplars of the Bible: Whose different writings I pass over in silence, as being obvious to all, and aiming only at those which may be taken out of the Manuscript Copies of the Jews. And indeed those Errours have been in the Hebrew Codex of an ancient standing. But when any Jewish Rabbi has got himself a name [Page 52]for le [...]rning among his Country-men, presently taking a preposte­rous course, they reformed their own Manuscripts by such a ones Copy, rejecting the more ancient Books. Such among the Jews, were the Doctors of Tyberias, R. R. Ben Ascer, Ben Naphtali, Hillel, and several others to us unknown. By this means it came to pass, that the Ancient Exemplars of the Bible being laid aside, the differences of writing in things of greatest moment were likewise lost. All which things may be demonstrated from other Books of the Jews. For if we com­pare the written with the printed, and those which were pub­lisht in several times and at several places, 'tis a wonderful thing, to see how they differ one from another. Thus the lit­tle Book entitled Jetsira, or, of the Creation, which the Jews falsely attribute to Abraham the Patriarch, differs egregiously from it self in several Editions, and still there is more disagree­ment between the Printed Copies. Moreover the Latine version of this little treatise, in many things disagrees as well from the Manuscripts as printed Editions. So that they who lookt after the Mantuan Edition, found the vast difficulty of publishing that small. Tract, to consist as well in quantity as quality. The same publishers also observed, that the Inter­preters, who adorned it with their commentaries, do very much differ in the reconciliation of the Text. And indeed in the Mantuan Edition, there is extant another Copy of that Book, not much different from the first. In like manner if you compare the Manuscript Copies of that famous piece en­titl'd Zohar, either with themselves or with the printed Copies, you will find a very great discrepancy among them. Nor need you look any further then the Edition of that Book printed at Cremona, wherein the various Lections, which are almost infinite, are sedulously noted. The same may be observed in the vari­ous Copies of the Book entitl'd Cozri, of which one was written. But I shall insist no longer upon these things. Certainly the extream diligence and Industry of the Jews is highly to be applauded, who have so studiously observed the readings of various Exemplars. On the other side they were highly to be blamed, who making no mention of the Books from whence they took their Editions, make corrections of them as they think fit themselves.

Therefore I would have it, that those places of sacred Text [Page 53]which bad Connexion tells us to be false or corrupted, should be restored by the assistance of the most Ancient Interpreters, seeing in things of lesser consequence, the Manuscripts may help. For the mistakes are very ancient, but the Written Copies of a later age, and reformed according to the rule of the Masora. So that although as well in the Manuscripts as in the printed Copies, the 13. verse of the 145. Psalm be wanting, it might be easily supplyed out of the Ancient Interpreters, which have it in their translations. It is not to be doubted, says Grotius,Grot. in Psal. 145. but that this verse was lost out of the Hebrew Copies through the negligence of the Transcribers, for there wants a verse which should begin with the letter Nun. And soon after he adds, How will they answer this, who would have us stand to all the decrees of the Masorites? In which words he aims at our Masora worship­pers, by whom the Hebrew Text is lookt upon to be the same with what it was in the times of the Prophets. So obsti­nate are they in the defence of their Masora. But in these and the like defects, the versions of the Ancient Interpreters as well Greek as Latin, supply the place of the Hebrew Exemplar: Nor is it unusual for the Criticks who Translate Greek or Latin into any other Language, to have recourse to more Ancient Tran­slations, to Illustrate the Lections of those books which they tran­slate: Which was successfully observed by some in the Translation of the N. Testament, who called the Latin Interp. to their ash stance.

Lastly, That the plenty of Jewish Exemplars of the Hebrew context, fell very short toward the assistance of the Jews of Tyberias, is prov'd, not only by the Testimonies of R. R. Judas, Jonas, Aben Esra, Kimchi and others, who sometimes quote the Manuscript Copies, and those the most corrected; but also by the Annotations of Ben Hajim, who first collected into one Body, the dispers'd parts of the Masora, and set them forth in Print. For he has added other Lections besides the Masoretick to the Margent of the Venetian Bible, which he assures us he had gathered from most approved Manuscripts. Thus upon the word Chesoos, as a crane, Isaiah. 38.14. He has made this ex­traordinary annotation in the margent; In some Copies it is written ch'sis with a Jod, and the notes direct it to be read Ch'soos, but I found not this in the Catalogue of those words which having Jod in the middle, are to be read with the Letter Vau. In like manner the same Rabbi, upon the word ch' Ari, makes this observa­tion, [Page 54]which egregiously confirms the Translations of the Greeks, and St. Jerome of the 22. Psal. v. 13. In some corrected Copies I have seen the word spelt with a Vau, with a note in the Margent, that it was to be read with a Jod. I search'd the Cato­logue of words which are written with a Vau at the end and read with a Jod; but I could not find this word in the Number, nor in the Catalogue of different Writings between the Eastern and the Western Copies. Gene­brard Comment. in Psal. 22. Therefore Genebrard mistook in this place, who attributes this Critical Animadversion of R. Jacob Hajim, restorer of the Masora, to the Authors of the great or final Masora.

There are also many other Examples of such like Discre­pancies, which that Rabbi produces out of several approv'd Copies of the Bible, which were never taken notice of by the Masorites. I will here only add, to make the business more plain, what offer'd it self to his observation in perusing the Manuscripts, concerning the Pronoun [...], ille, or He. Now the Criticks of Tyberias were very accurate in their observa­tions, how many times, and in what places [...] in the Femi­nine Gender was made use of instead of [...] in the Masculine. But that laborious toil seem'd to be very unprofitable, seeing that the Manuscript Copies so frequently differ from the Print­ed in that particular, no less than the Antient Interpreters of Sacred Writ. Thus Judges 14.4. [...], That it was of the Lord, is read in the Text without any Marginal Note of the Masorites, yet in one Spanish Copy it is written [...]. In the 21th chap. of the same Book, the Masoretick Editions constantly read [...], without any Marginal Annotation, yet in one Manuscript it is written [...]. In like manner Dan. 2. one Manuscript Copy reads [...], whereas in the Printed Ex­emplars it is written [...]. Now if these things, and many others of the same nature, which at present I pass by, had been rightly known to most of the Protestants, they had not blam [...]d the Latine Interpreter, whom we have read for these many Ages, rendring the words in Gen. 5.15. She shall bruise thy head, for that only reason, because the word is not [...] in the Text, but [...].Sixtim. Anam. in Antibarb. Here, saith Sixtinus Amama, it is written [...], not [...], nor is the place corrected by the Masora; as if the Masorites had examin'd all the Copies in the World. The Masoretick Le­ction seems so much the more probable indeed, because that in many Copies of the Latine Interpreter and those in good [Page 55]esteem, in other places we find Ipse, He, and not Ipsa, She, as in the modern version: So that that version Ipsa, She, was not presently to be condemned, because it differ'd from the Maso­retick context. For it might be that the Latin Interpreter found it [...] in his own Copy, for that in the writing of this Pronoun the Transcribers might easily mistake, is apparent from the Manuscript Exemplars.

Now from what has been produc'd concerning the Masore­tick Exemplars, there is no man but will easily determine what judgment to pass of the Hebrew Bible, now so generally made use of by the Christians as well as Jews. But here it may not be improper to add a few words more concerning the most select Editions of those Bibles. The Hebrew Bibles,The most Select Edi­tions of the Hebrew Bibles. whose Editions were over-lookt by the Jews, are far more corrected than those which were publish'd by the Christians. Wherefore Elias Levita rejected the Bible which was set forth by Bomberg in Folio at Venice, Anno 1518. Felix Pratensis leading the way, as not being well corrected, especially in the Masora, which Pratensis seems not to have well understood. Therefore that Bible was of much more credit, which was publish'd by R. Ja­cob Hajim, Restorer of the Masora at the cost and charges of the same Bomberg. For in this there is not only Printed the Hebrew Text, but the Targum, or Chaldee Paraphrase, with Commentaries of the most Learned Jews, both upon the Scri­pture, and both the Masora's, as well the larger as the less. The same Bibles were again Printed at Venice Anno 1618. But this Edition was much inferiour to the rest, there being many things reform'd and amended, or rather spoil'd by the Inqui­sitors, especially in the Commentaries of the Rabbins. Ano­ther Bible was also set forth at Venice by Daniel Bomberg, but less exact. Nevertheless, those are not to be contemn'd which the Jews caus'd to be put forth for their own use at Pisaurum, Sabionesa, Mantua, Frankfort, and other places. Buxtorf also publish'd a new Edition of Bomberg's Bible, which was over­look'd by R. Jacob Ben Hajim, which he believes to be cor­rected in many things by himself, especially in reference to the Tittl'd Vowel of the Chaldee Text. But as for the Edi­tion Printed at Basil 1608. it seems much inferiour to that of Bomberg, out of which it was taken, and is contemn'd by the Jews. Imperfect also are the Bibles Printed by Robert Stephens [Page 56]in Quarto and Decimo Sexto, and by Plantin in Quarto, and in other Volumes, compar'd with that which R. Menasseh Ben Israel and other Jews caus'd to be Printed at Amsterdam in Quarto 1635. and in Octavo 1661. Moreover, the Jews, espe­cially they who inhabit the Eastern parts, highly commend an Edition set forth at Venice in Quarto, in a large Paper by Lom­brosus, which contains the Literal Notes. The Rabbi also himself explains the most difficult places of the Text in the Spanish Tongue. To these might be added other Editions of the Bible, and those a great many publish'd by the Jews, not only in Italy and Germany, but at Constantinople, Thessalonica, and Hadrianople, but it suffices to have given an account of the most remarkable. We have also said, that the Christian Bibles are not so accurate as those set forth by the Jews, but the Christian Characters are far superiour to those of the Jews. The Five Books of Moses also are set forth apart by them­selves, with a threefold Targum and the Commentaries of Solomon Isaac. Thus was the Pentateuch printed at Hanovia 1611. with verses distinguished by Number according to the Latin Editions.

CHAP. IX. Whether the Jews corrupled their Bibles of set purpose. The Opinion of the Fathers concerning this matter examined.

ALthough there be a very great difference between the Exemplars of the Hebrew Context, which are now extant, and those which the Seventy Interpreters and St. Je­rom made use of, and that in our days they very much vary one from another; yet we ought not thence to conclude, that the Jewish Bibles were by themselves corrupted, in hatred of the Christians, as some Divines bearing no good will to the Jews,Leo Castro. have been pleas'd to report. Leo Castro, a Spanish Di­vine, urges highly for this the common opinion of the Fathers, and produces a great train of their Testimonies. After the same manner Johannes Morinus shews himself somewhat too severe against the Jews, for though he adjudge this Opinion [Page 57]not altogether so probable, yet he musters up a long Catalogue of the maintainers of it, to impose upon the more ignorant. And what seems to exceed all belief, Isaac Vossius, among the Heterodox, has uttered many bitter reproaches against the Jews as adulterators of sacred Writ. But if the weight of their reasons be considered, rather than the number of their reasons, we shall find their accusations to have quite another face. True it is, that they condemn under the name of the Jews, the versions of Aquilas, Theodotion and Symmachus, in regard that the Jews continually set them up in opposition to the Septuagint. Therefore as often as the Fathers question the Jews for corrupt­ing the sacred Scripture, they only speak of those versions, or of something like them, as hereafter we shall make it appear. Upon which accompt St. Jerom labouring to excuse himself, for having translated the Scripture out of Hebrew into La­tin, gives this reason:Epist. 89. I have not so much endeavoured to abolish the Ancient, as to produce those Testimonies, which by the Jews are either omitted or corrupted, that ours might understand what the Hebrew truth contains. In which words he sharply taxes Aquilas, Symmachus and other Interpreters, whom he frequently calls by the title of Semi-Christians. For when the Fathers in their disputes with the Jews, concerning the truth of the Christian Religion, made use against them, of no other Scrip­ture but the Septuagint; on the other side, the Jews still had recourse to the Hebrew Books, that is, to Aquila and other In­terpreters, who had made new translations out of the Hebrew; for this reason chiefly was St. Jerom induc'd, to make a new translation from the same fountains: And for the same reason Origen before him had compos'd his Hexapla with wonderful Art.

Justin Mar­tyrs Opinion explained.The first that comes into the field is Justin Martyr, who disputing against Tryphon accuses the Jews, of false and crafty exposition of the Scripture: As when he objects to them, their ignorant and malicous applying the words of the Psalm, Psal. 110. The Lord said to my Lord, to Ezechiah, which are only to be understood of Christ: As also their misapplication of the words of Isaiah, Before a child knows to call his Father and his Mother, &c. To the same Ezechiah; which as he demonstrates, ought to be interpreted concerning Christ. Then he affirms many things to have been taken out of Scripture, by the per­verseness of the Jews, because they favoured the Christian [Page 58]Religion; and then that some words were changed into o­thers. However in all this there is nothing argu'd against, but the perverse exposition of the context, or misinterpretation, not against the text it self; in regard Justin could give no Judgment concerning the Integrity or falshood of that, as being one that was utterly Ignorant of the Hebrew Language, which is palpable from the Etymology, which he gives of the word Israel. This name Israel saith he, signifies a man overcoming Power; For Isra is a man, and El Power. But this above all the rest is most worthy observation, that Justin by the word Scripture un­derstands nothing but the Translation of the seventy Interpreters. So that when he accuses the Jews for depraving the Scripture, he also taxes the version of Aquila, which in many things dif­fers from the Septuagint. Which led several learned men into mistake, not heeding what Justin meant by the name of sacred Scripture. And thus he condemns the Jewish Rabbies for rashly asserting that there was never any such thing wrote by Isaiah, as, Behold a Virgin shall conceive, but Behold a young Woman shall conceive. The whole con­troversie lies about the Translation of the word Gnal­mah, which the Seventy Interpreters Translate [...], virgo, a virgin: But Aquila [...], puella, and after Aquila, the Jews of that Age. Which Interpretation nothing alters the Hebrew Text. But Justin allowing no Scripture but that which was publickly received for the use of the Church, that is, the Septuagint, opposes the Authority of that Translation against the Jews. But you, saith he, in these things presume to alter the expositions of your Fore-Fathers, who lived with Ptolomy King of Egypt, saying, that it is not so in the Scripture, as they translated it, but behold a young Woman shall conceive, &c. Now there, by Scripture is meant nothing but the version of Aquila, to which the Jews always adher'd in their disputes with the Christians. In like manner Justin accuses the Jews to have eras'd out of their. Bibles these words, [...], à ligno, from the wood, Psal. 95. But if we consider the matter more atten­tively, those words seem rather to have been obtruded upon the place, then omitted. And therefore they must of necessity be deceived, who too unwarily follow Justin Martyrs opinion, too peremptorily giving his Judgment upon things which he did not altogether so well understand. I should for my [Page 59]part rather hearken to Trypho the Jew, whom Justin brings in answering his Dialogue concerning the mutilation of the Scripture, done by the Princes of the Jews. The thing seems incredible; I say it seems to be incredible: it is more horrible then casting the Molten Calf, or Children offered to Devils, or the killing of the Prophets themselves. Certainly the Jews had such a Re­verence for their Holy Bibles, which would not permit them to corrupt them on set purpose. Moreover by the answers of Trypho, which Justin supplies, it is apparent that the Jews at that time so zealously devoted to the letter of the Scriptures, and the subtleties of Allegories, adhered the more closely to the Hebrew Text, that they might the more vigorously in­force them upon the Christians. For which reason they made Greek Translations, which might more truly correspond with the Hebrew Text, then the Septuagint. For which reason Justin also many times praises as well the Jewish as Christi­an Version, to the end that disputing with the Jews, he might convince them out of their own Books. Lastly, there is no reason why the Jews should be called in Question for depra­ving the Copies of their Bibles, if they have translated one and the same Hebrew word in that signification, which was most proper for their business; as when Justin in the same Dialogue objects against Trypho, that the Jews read the 49th of Genesis amiss, [...] donec veniant quae reposita sunt ei, Till those things shall come which are laid up for him. Where­as the words in the Greek version of the Septuagint are, [...], until he shall come for whom this is laid up. For the Hebrew Word Shilo, may be rightly rendered in either sense, neither is it certain whether the ver­sion, which Justin so confidently avers to be that of the LXX Interpreters, was really theirs or no, whereas the Roman Edition owns that for the true one, which Justin attributes to the Jews, where the Scholiast observes that it is the same in Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Cyrill, Cyprian and Austin among the Latin Fathers.

The next in order is Irenaeus, who accuses the Jewish Rab­bies,L. 4. c. 25. for setting up their Law contrary to the Law of Moses; where­in they add some things, take away others, The Opi­nion of Ire­naeus. and other places they in­terpret as they please. But the blessed Irenaeus there explains himself, and professes himself only to speak of the Constitu­tions [Page 60]of the Rabbies, who, as he says, make a mixture of Tra­ditions with the Precepts of God; and confirms his meaning out of the words of St. Matthew; Why transgress ye the Pre­cepts of God through your Traditions? In which place Christ ne­ver thought in the least of the depravation of the Bible. Nor is there any more weight in any other of the Testimonies of the Fathers, which are commonly brought to destroy the Jewish Exemplars;Morinus tax'd. and I wonder that John Morinus, a most Learned person, who in reckoning up the Fathers, that thought the Hebrew Bibles to be corrupted, numbers Irenaeus, and af­firms it from these words of his; Which Jews, had they thought there would have been Christians, Ire [...]l. 32.5. and that they would have made use of Testimonies out of their Scriptures, would never have scrupl'd to have burnt their Bibles, which make it evident, that all other Na­tions participate of Salvation; whereas the contrary may be ra­ther asserted from thence. For there by the Scriptures Irenaeus means the Translation of the LXX Interpreters, which was made use of in the Synagogues; which Translation being be­fore the Nativity of Christ, and made by the Jews, he blames from thence the Version of Aquila as naught and deceitful, and infers the propensity of the Jews to destroy the Bible from that Translation which they allow'd in hatred of the Christian Faith, forsaking the Version of the Septuagint, which was compil'd by their own Country-men. So far was Irenaeus from asserting the Jews to have maim'd the Bible, that he rather confirms their entireness, and denies them to be really depra­ved, only adding a conjecture of his own, of what might have been probable. Only this depravation of the Holy Scrip­tures Irenaeus acknowledges with the rest of the Fathers, which got footing in the Hebrew Manuscripts, when the Jews re­main'd in Captivity, and which afterwards was reform'd by Esdras, Prince of the Great Sanhedrim, the Hebrew Exem­plars being restor'd to their former Purity by his Industry.

The third in order is Tertullian, but the Arguments which he brings against the Jewish Manuscripts are so frigid,Tertul. lib. de. habit. mul. c. 3. that they scarce deserve a Refutation. First, these words of his are pro­duc'd. We read that the Scripture being proper for Edification, was inspir'd from Heaven; that afterwards it was therefore re­jected by the Jews, as all other things that savour of Christianity: Neither is it any wonder, that they rejected any Scriptures speaking [Page 61]concerning him, The Judg­ment of Tertullian. when they would not receive him speaking to them. However, there is not a word of the Corruptions of the Text in this Testimony of Tertullian. Only Tertullian endeavours to vindicate a Book of Enoch's, which most men deservedly su­spected to be an Imposture, and they correspond with the proof which was taken from the Authority of those Jews, who did not reckon that Book among the Canonical; and therefore he says, those Doctors condemned many things as Apocryphal, which afterwards the Church receiv'd as inspir'd. I know, saith he, that this Treatise of Enoch, which attributes this Order to the Angels, is not receiv'd by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish Magazine. Nor did Tertullian say, as his words are ci­ted by Morinus, that the Scripture was resected, or mangled, but rejected by the Jews. For there is no mention there made of the Scripture mutilated, but of whole Volumes, which the Jews, suspicious of their credit, rejected. And this is confirm'd out of the Editions of Tertullian's Works by Rhenanus, Pamelius, and others. Nor is there any more strength in those other words of Tertullian. This Heresie will not admit of certain Scriptures, Tertul. de Praescrip. adv. her. c. 17. or if she receive any, she perverts them to her own purposes by Additions and Omissions; or if she receive them, she does not receive them whole; or if she do that, nevertheless she perverts them by feign'd Expositions; Adulterated Sense being an equal Enemy to Truth, with a corrupted and mutilated Text. But here Tertullian plainly taxes the Hereticks, not the Jews. Now from these words you may give a shrewd ghess, whether that Learned person had just reason to break forth into these passionate expressions, af­ter he had produc'd the Testimonies of Justin, Irenaeus, and Ter­tullian, against the Jewish Bibles. From hence then, says he,Morin. Ex­ercit. Bib. that Principle or Foundation is apparent, that the Jews corrupted both their own, and our Bibles in hatred of Christ and the Christians, and ras'd some Books out of the Canon, was taken for granted by our most holy Fathers, and upon the confidence of that Foundation, they did sometimes unfold several occurring difficulties, and answer'd the Objections of the Hereticks and Jews. But with the good leave of that most learned Man, I must needs say that he never con­sulted the Fathers in this matter, but only made use of what he had read in other Authors, and in the works of Leo Castro, a mortal Enemy of the Jews, and inserted their words verba­tim into his Exercitations: Nor am I one who believe an [Page 62]obligation of standing to the Opinion of the Fathers in this mat­ter. Their Authority is of great moment in matters of Faith, but in Critick Learning it is then to be esteem'd, when it a­grees with Truth; and for this we have the Authority of the Prince of the Latine Divines St. Austin, who as he was a man of a most acute Wit, and piercing Judgment, was not afraid to recede from the Opinion of other Fathers upon that Ar­gument, which is now the Subject of the Controversie, be­cause he thought it less probable. So that when he came to consider the difference of the Greek and Hebrew Copies, in the years of Methusalem's Age, he could not favour their Opi­nion, who preferr'd the Greek before the Hebrew Copies. Though St. Austin readily acknowledges with the rest of the Fathers, that work to be the work of the Prophets. He re­lates the Opinion of some persons of his Age in these words. They admit not that here might be a greater mistake of the Interpre­ters, De Civit. Dei, l. 15. c. 11. rather than that it should be false in that Language, from whence the Scripture was translated into our Language by the Greek; but they say it was not likely that the LXX Interpreters, who at one and the same time agreed in sense, could err, or would impose a falshood, where no Interest could sway them. But the Jews, while they bear us ill will, because the Law and the Prophets are become common with us by Interpretation, have made some alterations in their Copies to lessen the Authority of ours. This Opinion, or rather Suspition, let every one accept as he thinks good; but certain it is that Methuselah liv'd after the Flood. Here St. Austin seems to be guided rather by the weight of reason, than a cloud of Writers, who, as he well knew, did not make a right computation of Methuselah's Years. Wherefore handling the same Argument again, he openly affirms that he cannot agree with them who believ'd that the Jews had corrupted their Scripture of set pur­pose. He denies that the Jews, being a People scatter'd into all parts of the World, could joyn in such an Universal Con­spiracy to a Falshood that should be never discover'd. At length he adds; I could never doubt but that it would be well done, that when there is any thing of variance found in both Copies, when there cannot be Truth in both, let the Truth be judged by that Language out of which the Translation was made by the Interpreter. And that St. Austin should be of this Opinion contrary to the Judg­ments of almost all the Doctors of his Age, nothing but the [Page 63]Truth over-rul'd him. I wish that other with St. Austin would rather consider the things themselves, then the Au­thority of others. For this Diversity in Opinion might easily be reconcil'd. I pass by the Testimony of other Fa­thers, of whose names Leo Castro gives us a long scroll to little purpose: for it will be sufficient to produce them who under­stood the Hebrew Language. For it would be an idle thing to produce Witnesses that know nothing of the business.

Among the Greeks, only Origen, among the Latines, only Jerom applied himself to the understanding of the Hebrew Lan­guage. For to omit all the rest, Epiphanius, whom Jerom cryes up for his knowledge of five Languages, having a smattering of Hebrew, understood nothing of the Critical Learning. St. Jerome scrupl'd not to call Origen, next after the Apostles, Master of the Church, by reason of his singular Learning, es­pecially in the Scriptures; but if we seriously consider Origens Hebraick Industry, we shall find him but meanly vers'd in that Language. But for that he is to be pardo­ned; that grasping at many things, he sometimes speaks not so exactly, imitating Philo, and such kind of Authors. But he was furnished with Hebrew Learning sufficient to un­derstand the discrepancies of various Editions,Origens Opinion concerning the Jewish Manuscr. explained. though he were inferiour to St. Jerome in that particular. Therefore his Judg­ment concerning the Purity of the Hebrew Text, is not to be despis'd. These Writers that promote the Jewish Copies, bring many Quotations out of Origen, by which they seem to traduce the Jews for being Corrupters of the Sacred Wri­tings. Thus in reference to the words of Jeremy; The Sin of Juda is written with an iron Pen, he argues the Jews to have plainly falsify'd, who translate the words their Sin, instead of the Sin of Judah. Again in the Epistle which he wrote to A­frican, concerning the History of Susanna, he asserts that the Jews have cut off many passages from their Bibles, lest they should be read by the Plebeians. We must say, that as to those things which contained the Reproach of Elders, Magistrates, and Judges, they took away as much as they could from the knowledge of the people, which are kept among their Arca­na. And as an example of that Corruption, he brings what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews relates of Isaiah; and affirms that the words there written concerning [Page 64]the Prophets, they were stoned, they were sawed, and put to seve­ral deaths, are not in the publish'd Bibles: but that the words concerning Isaiah's being cut in two with a Saw, were taken by Tradition, and preserved in some secret place. Which, saith he, was craftily, & of set purpose done perhaps by the Jews, some unde­cent words being inserted into Scripture, to abrogate the belief of the whole. Other Examples he adds, but of the same kind, in the same place, and all to prove the same thing; which Christ in the New Testament objects to the Jews, as being taken out of the Old, yet are not there to be found. Such are the words, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who slewest the Prophets, and stonedst them who were sent unto thee, &c. The same story is related of Zecha­ria, slain between the Temple and the Altar, which because they do not appear in Scripture, he therefore suspects to have been taken out by the Rabbies. Wherefore, saith he, there was nothing more which the Seers, and Princes, and Elders of the People more desir'd, then to blot out those passages which contained their misdeeds among the People. And therefore it is no wonder, that they who were not much unlike those Elders in their practices, should steal, and remove out of the Scriptures the true Story of Su­sanna, against whom the lascivious Elders laid their unjust Accusa­tions

Many other Examples might be heaped together out of Ori­gens Works, to prove the same thing; which many Writers abuse, to subvert the Hebrew Text; not understanding Ori­gens genius, and his proper method of writing. Which Eu­stathius was not ignorant of,Eustath. dis­sert. de En­gastr. adv. Origen. Hie­ron. Apol. adv. Ruffin. who reproves Origen, for every where inserting Opinions contrary to his Writings. And this, Jerom long before had observ'd not only of Origen, but of Eu­sebius, Methodius, and Appollinarius, who sometimes speak not what they think, but what is necessary. That too much liberty of Origen was the reason, that when he prattl'd without judgment whatever he had drawn out of other Authors, he was looked upon as a Heretick for delivering the Opinions of others as his own thoughts. These things are therefore diligently to be ob­served, if you would reconcile Origen to Origen, never to ob­trude for Origens what he wrote only upon probability, proper for the Times and the Persons to whom he applied himself. Otherwise Origen, unconstant to himself, will be thought to speak alway contrary to himself, as by the example of the pre­sent [Page 65]controversie concerning the purity of the Hebrew Text, it is no difficult thing to make out: For the same Origen, who never speaks well of the Jews, as corrupters of the Sacred Scrip­ture, is cited by Jerom for a most eager defender of the Hebrew truth. But if any one shall say, saith Jerom, that the Hebrew Bibles were afterwards falsified by the Jews, Comment. in c. 6. Isai. let him hear what Origen, in his eight volume of Explanations of Isaiah, an­swers to this Question, that the Lord Christ, and his Apostles, who severely reprove the Scribes and Pharisees for the rest of their sins, never made the least mention of this, which was the greatest. But if they shall say that the Bibles were falsified after the coming of our Lord & Saviour, and the preaching of the Apostles, I cannot but laugh that our Saviour, the Evangelists and the Apostles, should produce Testimo­nies, how the Jews would afterwards falsify. Here Origen does not play fast and loose, but freely and plainly delivers his opinion what he thinks of the Jews. But why the same Origen sometimes affirms the Contrary, the same St. Jerom, who well understood his humour, teaches us in these words.Prooem. Quest. Heb. in Genes. I pass by Adamantius whose name, if we may compare little with great things, is the more envyed for my sake, who in his homilies which he speaks to the people, following the Common Edition in his larger Disputation sur­rounded with Hebraick verity & troops of his own followers, sometimes seeks the aid of a forraign Language. Thus Origen proceeded one way with the learned, and made use of another method with the common sort, and as they say, wise with a few, what he had gathered from many, made those things publick. Agree­able to this are those things which Origen writes against Celsus. For after he had produced some things concerning the Cir­cumcision of Eleazar the Son of Moses, according to the Edition published at that time, he presently adds the Text it self with this note; But these things which seem more nice, L. 5. ad [...]. Cels. and not fit for vulgar ears, &c. That is, when Origen had observed many things concerning the power of names in various Languages, according to the principle of the Magi & Cabbalists, & had noted something superstitiously concerning the circumcision upon the eighth day, the words of Scripture being cited both Greek and Hebrew, as it were correcting himself, he omits many things which he thought too far remote from the knowledge of the vulgar, acting the part of a Doctor, whose business it was to teach the multitude according to the principles of Christian Religion, not of Judaism.

Were these and other things, which in prudence I omit, but rightly observed, in reference to Origens Genius and man­ner of writing, it might be easily discerned, how he came to be induced to tax the Jews of falsifying Scripture. For in his Homilies to the people he was bound to act the part of a vul­gar person, and so in his epistle which he wrote to Africanus, he followed the opinion of the Ancient Fathers, concerning the Hebrew and Greek Copies; not daring to depart from it, lest he might seem to joyn with the Jews, as by the words in the same Epistle he plainly intimates: Take care therefore lest through imprudence and ignorance we abrogate those exemplars, which are received in the Churches, and give an ill example to the Fraternity, to lay aside those sacred books which are frequent among them, and give credit to the Hebrew Copies, as those wherein there is nothing of mistake. Then he calls to mind what a dammage it would be to Christianity, to favour the Opinion of the Jews concerning the Translation of the Septuagint. Upon which occasion he farther adds; Consider whether it be not good to re­member what is written, Thou shalt not remove the Eternal bounds, which thy Ancestors have appointed. These things I say, not that I fear to search the Jewish Scriptures, and to compare theirs with ours, and to see where they differ; for if it be not arrogancy to say so much, we have done to the utmost of our power, to exercise our stu­dies in all Editions and their differences, at what time we more sedulously examined the Interpretation of the Septuagint, lest we might seem to have introduc'd any thing of false and Adulterate, into the Churches under Heaven, and should give an occasion to those who seek a pretence to calumniate those which are in the middle be­tween both, and to accuse those which are commonly used. By which it is manifest that Origen did not entirely approve the Opinion then vulgarly received concerning the Jewish Copies, but only for Government and convenience sake; in regard that among the Learned he taught the quite contrary, nor does he seem much to value the Reasons which he produces in his Epistle. For he adds a conjectural expression, as it were doubt­ing. Which perhaps, saith he, was done by craft on set purpose by the Jews. To all which we may add that the probations of these things, which he produces, are very shallow, and full of them­selves; neither do I believe him to be the Author of them. But as he was a man of unexhausted reading, he only quoted [Page 67]what he had read in other Authors. For how highly he valued the Jews, Origen openly testifies, when he made use of them as his instructors in the Hebrew Language, and by frequent discourse and conversation with them, far exceeded all the other Doctors of the Church in the knowledge of the Scriptures.

The Opi­nion of Je­rom touch­ing the Jewish Bibles.In like manner Jerom seems to have a different Opinion of the Jewish Bibles, so that the Learned men of his Age scrupl'd not to tax him of inconstancy as well in this as other Argu­ments: And in our times Ribera, who was very industrious upon St. Jerom's Works, perceiving the difficulty of reaching his sense, affirms, that Jerom was not to be read by a droanish and illiterate Reader. Yet you shall observe many, who though they hardly ever saw Jerom, will pretend to make him their Patron, who of necessity must be often deceiv'd, who rashly cite not so much his Opinion, or why he thinks so, as what he speaks. Therefore that we may not appear like to them, it will be expedient to explain the Genius of St. Jerom, and what his method of Writing is, that by this means we may under­stand what he wrote stedfastly as his own Opinion, what upon probability, and from the dictates of others.

Jerom in his Youth was a great declaimer in the Schools, and one that us'd to bandy Arguments on both sides, well read in the Books of the Grammarians, Rhetoricians and Philosophers, especially the Peripateticks and Stoicks, as being the most skilful in Logick. He had made Aristotle & his Interpreter Alex­ander the Aphrodisian his Familiars, whose Commentaries he had made free of the Roman Language.L. 2. Apoi ad. vers. Russin. Almost from our Cradle, saith he, we convers'd with Grammarians, Rhetoricians and Philosophers. Which made him frequently deride his Antago­nists, as ignorant of Logick, and such as had never read [...] Aristotelis, the Predicaments of Aristotle, nor his Trea­tise [...], or concerning Interpretation, nor his Topicks. How much he profited in Aristotles School he abundantly shews, and tells us what leaden Adversaries he had in point of Logical Defences. We have read, most Learned men, saith he, those Aristotelian Principles as well in the Schools, as flowing from the Fountains of Gorgias. We have read that there are several sorts of Elocution, and that it is one thing to write [...] for exercise sake, and another [...] for positive Instruction. The first is only a Vagous way of Disputation, propounding now one [Page 68]thing, now another, arguing at pleasure, speaking one thing, and thinking another, &c. By this means Hierom wip'd off the ac­cusation of childish Inconstancy, as if he maintain'd Paradoxes for his own pleasure. What he seem'd to affirm [...], or sin­gularly, those things he makes out to be only said [...], and [...], or secundum quid, that is, for Governments sake, and ac­cidentally. And thus in one place he calls Origen Master of the Church, in another Heretick; declaring that he only prais'd him for what he was praise worthy. I call him our Ori­gen for his great Learning, not for the Truth of his Assertions. The same things he speaks of Eusebius, and upon the same account he calls Aquila sometimes a most diligent and acurate Inter­preter, sometimes contentious and idle: Yet Jerom cannot be said to differ from himself, who according to the variety of the Argument, has a different Opinion of one and the same Interpreter.

Having thus display'd St. Jerom's Genius, and his method of Writing, let us come to our purpose. Johannes Morinus, who not unfrequently contradicts himself, seems to reproach the Inconstancy of St. Jerom in reference to the present Argument in these words.in Exerci­tat. Bib. Jerom in his Youth lookt upon the Translation of the LXX Interpreters as approv'd by Christ and his Apostles—at length he accus'd the Jews of envious corrupting the Bible in hatred of the Christians. But being grown in years, and using the com­pany of several Rabbies, for the attaining the Hebrew Language, he so chang'd his Opinion, that he not only asserted the Hebrew Copies to be free from all Mutilation, but shew'd himself most violent in de­fending his Assertion. But Jerom himself makes answer to Ruffi­nus and others, who objected the same things against him, that he was no such fool to forget in his Old Age what he had learnt in his Youth; nor do we so invent Novelties as to destroy old things. We are therefore first to consider what has been already observ'd concerning St. Jerom's method of Writing.

First, St. Jerom being bred up in the Church, had the Bible in great honour, and translated the Holy Writings corrected by most Antient Copies into his own Language, which was the Latine. Wherefore having embraced the vulgarly re­ceiv'd Opinion of their Authentickness, he cry'd out their Au­thors, as others did, for so many Prophets, that thereby he might persuade men to read them the more diligently, and [Page 69]with the greater veneration. But whether they were to be in the Catalogue of Prophets or Interpreters, that he minded not, as not making for his purpose, being satisfied with report­ing what was in every bodies mouth, for the promotion of his labour. But being grown older, after he had studied the He­brew Language, acting the Critick, he no longer spoke from other mens mouths, but confidently asserted his own Opinions. At length when he had brought upon himself the ill-will of many, he again embrac'd the common Opinion concerning the Greek and Hebrew Copies, only for orders sake, and with respect to his own Interest.

Therefore I had rather adhere to St. Jerom in his riper years, and now grown a skilful Critick, than when he was young, and only spake the thoughts of other men. Nor is it of any moment what Morinus Objects, that in these places St. Jerom seems to speak his own Sentiments, and not the Opinion of others. For it is familiar with St. Jerom to assert what he pro­duces only upon probability, and as the Opinion of others, as if he were affirming his own Judgment of the matter. In which sense are to be understood the words of that Epistle to the Galatians, where he testifies,3 Epist. that there are some things in the Hebrew Copies perversely obliterated by the Jews. For there he speaks the Opinion of those Writers whom he had prais'd in his Preface. Thus he answers Ruffinus in another place, loading his Doctrine with reproaches. I in the Com­mentaries upon the Ephesians, have so followed Origen, Dydimus, and Apollinarius, whose Opinions are certainly contrary one to ano­ther, that I might not forego the Truth of my Faith. What labour has been bestowed upon the Commentaries, the progress of what I have said will declare. And soon after, since that he shall be thought guilty of differing Interpretation, and contradictory Sense, who in one and the same Work inserts down the Expositions of many. Upon the same account, in answer to a Letter of St. Austins, after he had enumerated those Doctors, whose words he had made use of in his own Works, he adds, Therefore, that I may ingeniously confess, I have read all these Authors, and heaping to­gether the most of their Sentences in my mind, I call'd an Amanu­ensis, and dictated either my own, or other mens, minding neither order nor words, nor sometimes the sense. In another place wri­ting to St. Austin again, If therefore you have thought any thing [Page 70]worthy reproof in our Explanation, it became your Learning to exa­mine whether those things which we wrote were in the Greek Authors, that if they had not said them, you might condemn my Opinion, espe­cially having frankly confessed in my Preface, that I followed the Commentaries of Origen, and dictated either my own, or other mens. However, lest any one should object against him, that this manner of Writing was peculiar to him, he informs us in another place whom he propos'd to himself to imitate. Read, says he, Demosthenes, read Tully, and lest those Orators should displease, who speak things rather probable than true, read Plato, Theophrastus, Xenophon, Aristotle, &c. Nay, he praises Ori­gen, Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinarius, Minutius, Victorinus Lactantius, Hilarius, who imitated the same manner of writing, and at last after all he adds St. Paul; read, says he, his Epistles chiefly to the Romans, the Galathians, the Ephesians, wherein he seems to be Polemick altogether, and there you shall see by his Testimonies, taken out of the New Testament, how prudently he dissembles his Intenti­on. Which passages I have the more prolixly quoted out of St. Jerom, because I find many things attributed to St. Jerom, which never came into his thoughts. First therefore the Oeco­nomy of St. Jeroms writing is to be observed, before Judg­ment be given of his meaning, or that any thing which goes under his name and authority be opposed. For frequently he writes not his own sentiments, but what he has collected from others. Which if they be rightly understood, St. Jerome will never be found to differ from himself, not so much as in this very subject which we handle at present. Therefore in his Commentaries upon Michah, he durst not openly accuse the Jews, as if they had obliterated the words Ephrata, or Bethlehem in hatred of the Christian Religion, lest he should be thought to be born of the Tribe of Judah. But this he declares to be the Opinion of some of the Doctors of his time, affirming no­thing, only reporting the repugnant Opinions of others. Yet Isaac Vossius greedily lays hold upon this Opinion of Jerom, a person otherwise learned, to shew that St. Jerom durst not de­ny, but that the Jews had purposely obliterated the word Ephrata out of their Copies. But it is no difficult thing to apprehend what St. Jerom thought of this Argument, while he shews himself so strenuous a Champion of the Hebrew Text, which he frequently calls the Hebrew truth.

CHAP. X. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius, concerning the Hebrew Manuscripts is examined and refuted.

THat the Scriptures of the Jews, are the only true and ori­ginal Scriptures, is the Common Opinion of all the Divines whom we call Protestants, who in their disputes with the Catholick Doctors always have recourse to the Hebrew Roots, if the Latin Interpreter will not serve their turn, who, as they believe has mistaken in many things. Hence it comes to pass, that those Divines who call themselves Re­formed, make no reckoning of the Ancient Translations of the Church; some very few excepted who have discerned cer­tain Blemishes in the Hebrew context, as well as in the Inter­preters of it. But Isaac Vossius, taking a farther leap, has de­parted at a greater distance from the received customs of the Protestants, and openly accuses the Jews of Falsification, as if they had expung'd several things out of their Scriptures in hatred of the Christians of set purpose, and that after the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. More than that, he sharply rebukes those that plead the Jews cause, and as for the Doctors of their sect, who defend the modern reading of the Hebrew Scripture, he calls them,Epist. ad Andr. Col­vin. Asses void of sight and understanding, clad with the Professors Gown, and carrying for their shield the Masoretick Bible with all its points. Now who would not think but that Vossius had most impreg­nable reason for such a bold assertion and challenge? But how grossly he has imposed upon the World, shall appear by that which follows. What place is there, saith he, which treats of the Messiah in sacred Scripture, which they have not endea­voured either to corrupt, or to enervate by sinister Interpretation? And a little after; When they perceived that the time of the Messiah's coming was past; Dissertat. de Sept. Praefat. for it was then full six thousand years from the Creation of the World, that they might gain 2000 years, they expung'd the whole fourteen Ages out of their Scriptures: And [Page 72]to obliterate the remaining five or six Ages, they curtail'd the In­tervals of the Judges, omitting Anarchies, and contracting the spa­ces of the Persian Kings. By which means they fin'd the measure of time full two thousand years. Vossius blam'd. But these are the meer Inventions of Vossius, who not only accuses the Jews, but impeaches the Samaritans for the same fact, tho upon another account: Nevertheless the Ancient Fathers of the Church, Africanus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerom, Austin and others, who took notice of this difference of the Jewish Codex from the Hebrew Exemplars in Chronology, never thought of laying this de­pravation to the Jews charge. Nay St. Austin in this very par­ticular asserts that the Hebrew Exemplar is to be preferred before the Greek, and is of that Opinion, that credit should be given to that Language, out of which the Interpretation is made into another. Justin Martyr, who, disputing against Trypho, teazes the Jews in various manners to vindicate the Greek Interpretation of the LXX, which was then of sole repute in the Church, speaks not a word of any Chrono­logy, by them altered to support their cause.

Besides, had the Jews bethought themselves of corrupting the Hebrew Scriptures, lest the time of the Messiah's coming might seem to be elaps'd, with much more advantage they might have obliterated the Prophesie of Daniel, which points out the time exactly, then the Books of Moses or Judges. But that the Prophesie of Daniel, which for the most part refers to the time of the Messiah, remains entire, is confess'd by all; and Vossius cannot deny, but that the Jews are hard put to it by this Prophecy. But to ward off the blow, he affirms that the Ancient Jews did not only separate Daniel from the Chorus of the Prophets, but also denyed him to be a Prophet. But the learned person never understood the reason why, or in what sence the Jews did separate him from the rest of the Pro­phets. However concerning this matter the Christians in vain dispute with the Jews. For both willingly acknowledge that in the Book of Daniel there are many Prophesies of the Mes­siah to come, and that that Book was written by divine inspi­ration, as the other Books of Scripture were. The Jews also feign the same things of David as of Daniel; however they do not deprive him of holy inspiration: Quite the contrary, they publickly assert that there are many things in the Psalms, [Page 73]which foretel the coming of the Messiah; so that if there be any difference in this particular between them and the Christi­ans, the controversie is meerly about the name, as has been already prov'd, in regard they otherwise methodize the Books of Scripture than the Christians. But Vossius stabs himself with his own Sword, while he goes about to prove the Jews guilty of falsifying their Chronologie, in regard the modern Chro­nologie of the Hebrew Text presses harder upon the Jews, then that which is drawn out of the version of the LXX Inter­preters; nor do the Jews deny in their Talmudick Books but that the time is fulfilled and past within which the Messias was expected, but they add, that their own sins retard his coming. These are the words of the Talmudists.Talm. in Tract. San­hed. & in Avoda Za­ra. This is the Tradition of the House of Elia: The World shall consist of six thou­sand years. Two thousand shall be of emptiness, that is, before the Law. Two thousand shall be spent under the Law. And two thousand years the Messiah shall reign. But by reason of our iniquities, those years are already elaps'd. Vossius endeavouring to draw this Tradition of Elias to his purpose, has err'd in many places. For first he seems to applaud it, as being delivered by Elia the Prophet, or taken out of his Book, which formerly as he says, was numbered among the Books of the New Testament. But this Elias was a Talmudick Doctor, like Rabbi Hillell, R. Schammai, R. Johanan and several others whose names are set down in the Talmud. Then it is a fiction to say that the 2000 years that preceded the Law of Moses, ought not to be num­bered from the beginning of the Creation, but from the Flood, or from that time that God told Noah, that he would destroy the World. For the Opinion of the Jews concerning the six thousand years Duration of the World, according to the Tradi­tion of R. Elias, is in this place far different. For the Founda­tion of that Prophesie is deriv'd from the six days of the Crea­tion; for that as God created the World in six days, so the same World should endure six thousand years: So that the computation of the years of the World must be taken from the first Creation of all things. The Commentators upon the Talmud reckon two thousand years from the first man crea­ted to the time that Abraham, abandoning the worship of Idols, embrac'd the true Religion of one God.Dissertat. de Sept. Prae­fat. At what time according to their computation, he was two and Fifty years [Page 74]of Age. But those are frigid Arguments which Vossius pro­duces to prove out of the Epistle of St. Peter, that the beginning of the World is to be reckon'd from the Flood, because the Apostle call'd that the Old World which preceded; and the Earth which we now inhabit the other World. I say these are very sorry Arguments, and quite from the purpose. But enough of Elia's Prophecy concerning the duration of the World: Nor is there any heed to be given to that Book of the Prophecies of Elias, which Isaac Vossius, cajoll'd by the name of Elias the Talmudist, believes to have been receiv'd into the number of Canonical Books. Now let us examine his other proofs brought against the Jews, whether they be of any more moment.

In the next place Vossius brings a load of Arguments to prove that the Jews have mutilated not a few Texts of Scripture, and first he calls Justin Martyr for a Witness, who writes that se­veral Exemplars were corrupted by the Jews. But as to what may be borrowed from Justin, we have already made a ple­nary answer. Justin never consulted the Hebrew Text, nei­ther could he; as being one that understood not the Language, as is manifest out of his own Writings. But, saith Vossius, how bravely had the holy Martyr foil'd Trypho, and the rest of the Jews with whom he liv'd, had not those Crimes been true that were laid to their charge? Vossius re­proved. But this way of arguing does not become a Learned man, who, in perusing Justin's Books, might easily have perceiv'd that he had mistaken in many things. But Vos­sius goes on; The Prophecy of Christ which occurs Psal. 22.16. where instead of they digg'd, as a Lion is put in the room, most of the Christians, except Phanaticks and Semi-Jews, acknowledge to have been deprav'd by the Rabbies. True it is indeed, that the Jews are call'd in question by most Divines, for having pur­posely corrupted this place. But, far be it from me to pro­nounce those people Phanaticks or Semi-Jews, who clear the Jews of this offence; when Rabbi Jacob Ben Hajim, Restorer of the Masora publickly testifies, that in some Manuscripts of the Hebrews he has met with Caru, they digg'd, or pierc'd, which is in favour of the Christians. Nor is it a wonder that the Masorites chose that reading [...], as a Lion, which was most for their purpose. I acknowledge the Translation of the Greeks and St. Jerom to be the truer; yet the Jews are not to [Page 75]be accus'd of falsification for having made choice, out of two Readings, of that which was most for their turn. In the words Cari and Carou, all understanding Criticks know there is but little difference, and how easily and frequently the change of Jod for Vau, and Vau for Jod happens. Besides that, there are several other Examples of the redundancy of the Letter Aleph, which were not unknown to the Mazoreths; so that the Let­ter Aleph may as well fall out to be superfluous in Carou, as ne­cessary in Cari. Wherefore the Greek Interpreters and St. Jerom past it by as ridiculous, or else perhaps it might not be in their Copies; but the Masorites, who acknowledge it, made use of it.

Vain are also those things which Vossius alledges out of Za­chary, c. 12. v. 10. as if the Jews had purposely chang'd the Antient Reading, which the Old Interpreters found in their Copies. But there is no skilful Critick but will discern that this diversity happen'd from the varaince in several Copies, while in some it is read [...], they have pierced, in other [...], they have danced, by reason of the easie transmutation of Resch into Daleth, and Daleth into Resch: Nor do I see any reason why for that, or five hundred more of the same sort, the Jews should be more accus'd of Falsification than the Greek or Latine Scribes, or of whatsoever other Nation, who make frequent mistakes in their Transcriptions. This change of Let­ters so alike in shape, cannot be avoided sometimes in any Language, whence afterwards arises that vast difference in Manuscripts. In which particular let Scioppius's little Trea­tise of the Art of Criticism be consulted, who perfectly il­lustrates all these difficulties. Leo Allatius also a great peruser of Manuscripts, has cited several places to confirm this Assertion.

Whose words it may not be amiss to quote from his Ani­madversions upon the Fragments of Hetruscan Antiquities,P. 55. which were publish'd by Inghiramius. Moreover, says he, the Errours of so many Transcripts, the changes of so many names of so many Letters in the Antient Monuments, proceed from nothing else but from the likeness of the Capital Letters one to another: Let us only make use of a few Examples among others, for fear of being tax'd of too much curiosity by some idle person or other. Joseph Scaliger upon Varro de re Rustica, l. 2. c. 3. Mediam non Meliam, by reason of the change of L into D, familiar to the Antients; as [Page 76]on the other side those Hens were call'd Melicae, which ought to have been call'd Medicae. Godescalcus Stevichius upon the first Book of Apuleius observes the frequent interchange of the Letters D and T, and in the fifth Book he attributes the mutilation of the sentence to the likeness of the Letters B and P, for that both these and the Letter R frequently are mistaken one for another; for which he brings Quintilian and Pliny as Witnesses, together with their ad­monitions concerning the use of Capital and Small Letters. Johannes Isaac Pontanus in his Antient French Glossary calls the frequent change of B and P, the solemn Metastasis. Scioppius of the Cri­tical Art by several Examples proves C in G, D in L, F in E, P in B, and R frequently interchanged by reason of the likeness of the Letters.

In like manner the Greek Capitals have a great resemblance one to another, so that the mistakes of B for P, Γ for T, and Δ for Λ are easily committed, without a singular care, and such a one that it is almost impossible to take. To which we may add, that many times a very great confusion happens by reason of likeness of small Letters. Thus many times among the Greeks [...] is mistaken for [...]; and among the Latines Orbis for Ʋrbis. Chronologers, Historians, and others object to one another the various Readings of their own Ma­nuscripts and Editions, as for one Example among many others; Hitherto it has been commonly receiv'd, that Dagobert, by the Advice of his Council, took to Wife Nanthild, a lovely Virgin, whom he forc'd out of a Monastery. But the most famous Persons of our Age Jacob Sirmond, Adrian Valesius, and others lighted upon certain Manuscripts, wherein it is not written. as Aimonius erroneously cites the Text of Fredegar­dus, and taking Nanthild out of a Monastery to Wife, he advanc'd her to the Throne, but taking Nantechild, one of the Virgins from her attendance; de Ministerio, not de Monasterio. Such mi­stakes as these arising not only from the likeness of the Let­ters, but from innumerable other causes, are to be found in all written Manuscripts, of whatsoever Language or Condi­tion. Whence those Monsters of various Readings have sprung, that have so tormented the Brains of the Criticks, and caus'd most desperate Wars among the Grammarians: So that they who boast themselves the true Imitators of Cicero up­braid themselves with their own Ignorance of Ciceronianism, [Page 77]frequently for no other reason, but because they made use of several Manuscripts,Castigat in Cicer. the nature of which Henry Steph [...]s has wittily observ'd.

But not to stay upon those things which can be only un­known to the Ignorant, I will only give an Example of one Edition of Cicero's Printed by Elz [...]vir 1661. and over-lookt by Schrivelius. In which Edition the various Readings of other Editions and Manuscripts are added in the Margin, to the great benefit of the Reader. Were the same thing done in the Hebrew Exemplars, no man in his wits would think the Jews had ever been guilty of corrupting their Bibles; but out of those various Readings, every one might chuse the best, as St. Jerom did, who in his Commentaries upon the Prophets frequently recedes from the Translation of the LXX Interpre­ters. Thus, most addicted to the Lection of his Masters, he makes this observation in the second chapter of Hoseah, c. 12. Instead of Forrest in the Hebrew [...] Jagnar, the Septuagint had translated it Testimony, mistaking Daleth for Resch; for taking away the Jod, and reading Daleth for Resch, the word is [...], or Testimony. Again, upon the fifth chapter of the same Pro­phet, v. 7. he blames the LXX Interpreters for reading Chasil Rust, instead of Chodesch a Month. Again, upon the ninth chap. v. 12. putting the Question why when the LXX Inter­preters translated the words, My flesh from them, he had ren­der'd it, When I depart from them? He makes this Answer, In the place mention'd, where we have translated it, Woe to you when I depart from you, the Septuagint and Theodotius have translated it, Wo to them, my flesh from them. And examin­ing the reason of such a strange difference that in the Hebrew Lan­guage Besari, signifies my flesh, but [...], Besuri, when I de­parted from them. For the same cause there was no reason why St. Jerom should depart from the receiv'd Version of the Septuagint, [...], where thy cause, which St. Paul con­firm'd by his Authority, but that his Copies presented to him another Reading, instead of [...], ubi, where, [...], I will be. The same transposition it is better to observe in Dakeru, they pierced, and Rakedu, they danced, as a thing accidental, than with Vossius to reproach the Jews, as if they had introduc'd that change into the Text of set purpose.

Vossius indeed says true in saying that the Manuscripts [Page 78]of the Jews are vitiated in several places, an unhappy fate as well to the Greek and Latine as to those. So that George Hornius deserves to be hiss'd at, when he opposes to the most Learned Vossius the Decrees of Kings, Princes and Magistrates, forbidding all other Translations to be read in the Churches, which were not corrected by the Hebrew Copies; as if such Decrees of Princes could preserve or restore the Purity of the Antient Originals. Only Vossius is to be condemned for so stifly asserting, that some of those Errours were introduced of set purpose by the Jews, in hatred of the Christians. Thus up­on the words of Gen. 49.10. The Scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, till be come who is to be sent; he makes this observation. This place the Jews have maim'd not only in the Gr. Version, but also in all the Hebrew Manu­scripts, through the writing of [...], for [...], as is observ'd by several, whose Opinion is confirm'd by the Samaritan Copy. But who does not well know, that before the invention of Points, the latter Jod serv'd sometimes instead of e, sometimes of i, which Letter, as well as those other Vowels call'd Ehevi, were care­lesly written, as the Scribes themselves thought fit. And therefore whether it be read [...], as in the Modern Maso­retick Editions, or [...], as the Seventy Interpreters seem to have read it, the Jews are not therefore to be accus'd of Falsification, because they retain'd Jod in their Exemplars. And it may be probable also that the Greek Interpreters read it in their Exemplar, when the sense is the same whether it be pronounced with a Jod, or without one; for that Jod is as often pronounc'd like an e as an i. But the Masorites, who conjectur'd that it was to be read Schilo, retain'd the Antient Jod, which does not hinder but that with the Greek Interpre­ters we may now read Schelo, as some of the Rabbies do. These things Vossius ought not to have been ignorant of, that so often impeaches the Jews, and farther writes, that they who deny this place to have been corrupted by the Jews, obliterate same both before and after the coming of Christ. Nor is there any reason, if there were any depravations before the coming of Christ, why Vossius should attribute them to the carelesness of the Scribes; and as for those which were in­truded into the Hebrew Exemplars after the coming of Christ, [Page 79]why he should ascribe them to the wickedness and malice of the Jews. Vossius too much detracts from the Masorites of Ty­berias, when he calls them Barbarians and Strangers to their Native Language, from whom nothing could proceed but what was vicious, and void of reason. For with Vossius I readily grant them to have been no Prophets, nor do I doubt but that they were the first Inventors of pointed Vowels and Tittles. But from thence to infer that they were Barbarians,De Scriptur. Interprit. c. 30. and unskill'd in the Hebrew Language, and that the Scriptures were burden'd rather than adorn'd with pointed Vowels and Tittles, was a piece of extravagance. If those things are true which Vossius boasts of himself, that he had seen above two thousand Hebrew Manuscripts, it is not probable that he was altogether ignorant of the Masoretick Art. That was the In­dustry of the Jews of Tyberias, who ascertain'd the Reading of the Hebrew Text, as it was then publickly in practice by the assistance of Points. It was call [...]d the Masora, because it con­tain'd the Tradition or Method of Reading the Hebrew Text approv'd by long use. The same Judgment ought to be given concerning their Criticks, and of the Greek and Latine Books examin'd and corrected by Learned men. The Doctors of Ty­berias were the Masters of the most famous Academy among the Jews, who collecting the Exemplars and Copies of the Bible from all parts, publish'd an Accurate Edition out of all together. Nothing was here done by them that deserv'd to be blam'd or upbraided. And besides, this correction of theirs was no hindrance to others, but that they might examine the same Exemplars again; and I believe the same Exemplars may be re-examin'd in our Age, according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint, and the Latine Translation of St. Jerom; in such places where it shall appear, that their Copies differed from the Masoreticks. However, we will not accuse the Jews of Falsification, as Vossius does, because their Manuscripts were not the same with those, which the Greek Interpreters made use of in their Translation: But we must say this, that various Readings are no less to be found in the Hebrew Exemplars, than in the Copies of the Greeks and Latines, and other Na­tions. Vossius believes there can be nothing of solidity in the Traditions of the Rabbies,Respons. ad nuper. Critic. that are only propagated by the Ear; And such Traditions, saith he, which are only propagated by [Page 80]the Ear, He is refu­ted. seldom out-last above two or three Ages. But what does this concern that Tradition, which is now in dispute? There is no Controversie about the Oral Traditions of the Jews, which he acknowledges to be deservedly exploded by the more pru­dent; but only about the Masora, which the verry Carraites, who condemn the greatest part of the Jewish Traditions as Old Womens Fables, have however cordially embrac'd. If Vossius rejects this, he must of necessity reject the Lection of the Chaldee, Syriack, and Hebraick, which have nothing of Antiquity. For to all these, in like manner as to the Hebrew, are added pointed Vowels, which make their Lection certain. But that Text, saith Vossius, is mute, which no man knows how to read or understand, as being defective in one half part, nor fur­nish'd with other Vowels than the Enemies of Christ have added. Was the same Codex or Text less defective in the days of the LXX Interpreters, when there appear'd no pointed Vowels at all in it? Such is the nature of the Hebrew Tongue, as of all the other Eastern Languages, that it makes a shew of the fewest Vowels. So that the Reading of those Books which are Printed in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriack and Arabick, does not a little depend upon use, which as the Jews do, we here call Tradition, or the Masora. Now from whom could that use of Reading the Hebrew Text be borrowed but from the Jews? But, says Vossius, They are Enemies of the Christian Faith. Have they therefore forgot to read their own Books, because Jews? Certainly, unless they were Jews, they would never read the Hebrew Text in their Synagogues. Neither could the Reading of the Books be derived by any other means to the Christians. Besides, the Seventy Interpreters were Jews, upon whom Vossius altogether depends, and they followed no other Lection of the Hebrew Text, than what was receiv'd among the Jews by the publick practice of those times. So that all the obloquy that Vossius throws upon the Hebrew Text, that it is defective in the half part, may be affirm'd of the He­brew Codex, which the LXX Interpreters made use of: Nor ought the Text so much to be accus'd, as the Idiom of the Hebrew Language; and upon that account all the Eastern Languages may be accus'd for half Languages. Nevertheless Vossius inculcates it over again, even to loathsomness, that the Hebrew Text is mute, and by the acknowledgment of the [Page 81]Rabbins, a half Language, as being destitute of true vowels. But what were the true ancient vowels of the Hebrew Text, he confesses he does not understand, while he so confidently avers the Language to be destitute of them. Yet as he himself makes no question, the Ancient Hebrew Vowels are Aleph, He, Van, and Jod. To which St. Jerom makes an Addition of others. But because the Eastern people rarely made use of them in writing, the Criticks invented pointed vowels, for the more quick and easie reading of the Scriptures. But Vossius speaks very uncoheringly, not so much as to the truth of the business, as out of a preconceived prejudice against the Jews.

CHAP. XI. Of the Samaritan Bibles, their Targumim, or Paraphra­ses.

COncerning the Nation, Customs and Religion of the Sa­maritans, who by the Jews are call'd Cutheans, the sa­cred Text relates many things in the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Esdras, which afterwards Josephus explains more at large, an ample Testimony in this affair. In our Age Johannes Morinus in his exercitations with which he has adorned the Hebrew Pentateuch, Hortinger in his Antimorinian, Exercitations, Walton in his Prolegomena to the Samaritan Text, and other most learned men have illustrated the Samaritan affairs, and therefore passing by those things in silence, I proceed to their Texts, of which some of the Fathers as well Greek as Latin have made mention, together with the Scholiast of the Ro­man and Frankfurt Editions of the Septuagint. That the sect of the Samaritans, makes only use of the Pentateuch of Moses, I suppose is known to all. For at what time they revolt­ed from the Jews, there was one Law among all the Hebrews, the other Books of Scripture, not being yet compos'd,The Sama­ritan Texts. or if they were, not yet made publick. But what to think of that Sa­maritan Copy, is a thing difficult to resolve. Morinus, who was the first that published it, lashing out into the praise of it, af­ter his Custom extols it to the skies. For which reason he is [Page 82]much blam'd by the learned: Especially by Muisius, then Royal professor of Hebrew at Paris; who very severely Stig­matizes Morinus's opinion of the Samaritan Pentateuch. After that Hottinger set forth his exercitations upon the Samaritan Pentateuch in opposition to Morinus. And both reprove a great many things in him, which he does not seem to assert, he having only praised a little more than needed the Samaritan Text, which was then the subject of his discourse, after which manner prefacing upon his Edition of the Greek Bi­ble, he wonderfully upbraids the Hebrew Text. The most moderate of all are Ludovicus Capellus, and Brian Walton, who in many things do not reject the credit of the Samaritan Pen­tateuch. But of all others Ʋsher of Armagh has the worst opi­nion of it, who affirms that the Samaritan Text was of set purpose, and in many places new dressed and corrupted by one Dositheus, a certain Samaritan Heretick.

Therefore the Samaritan Codex is one and the same with the Hebrew, only few little variances excepted, as is observed as well by Eusebius in his Chronicles, and by St. Jerom. The Sa­maritans, saith St. Jerom, In Prol. Ga­leat. De emendat. Temp. write the Pentateuch of Moses, with just so many Letters, only varying in the shape and in the points. Which words of St. Jerom Joseph Scaliger seems not to have understood, when he affirms, that the Samaritans read the Pentateuch with just as many Letters as the Jews, neither more or less. For St. Jerom himself sometimes observes the various reading of both Codex's; as in his Hebrew Questions upon Genesis, and his Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Galatians, wherefore St. Jerom when he affirms the Jewish and Samaritan Exemplars to be alike in all things, intended only by those Words to distinguish the Samaritan Codex from the Greek and Latin Translations; In regard the first is the pure and simple Hebrew context, which cannot be said of the Greek and Latin Bibles. In the same manner speaks Eusebius, upon whom St. Jerom altogether depends. That the Samaritan differs from the Hebrew Pentateuch, in some things, is past all dispute, as may appear by the Parisian, and English Poly­glottons in Print. Which Copy the noble Peter à Valle, ob­tained from the Samaritans: And afterward Achilles Harlay Sancy, the Kings Embassador in Turkey, caus'd to be brought to Paris, and laid up in the Library of the Fathers of the Con­gregation [Page 83]of the Oratory near the Loure. And that there are other Copies of the same Pentateuch in other Libra­ries of Europe, the Epistles of Perescius, Peter, à Valle, Comberus, and Aleander to Morinus, apparently Testifie. Jerom Alean­der thus wrote in the year 1628. I would have you to under­stand, that there is here in the Vatican Library another Samaritan Copy of the Pentateuch, written in the same Sama­ritan Letters, which Scipio, of Pious Memory, Cardinal of Su­sanna, then Library-keeper bought for 300 Crowns. Which Co­py, though it be written in Hebrew Characters, yet is it in the Hebrew Language like to ours. Certain it is that the Samari­tans, though they were much inferiour in number to the Jews, yet after the Destruction of their Temple at Gerizim, retained the Customs and Ceremonies of their Country, and read the Pentateuch of Moses in their Synagogues, as they do at this day. The Samaritan Copy which is come to our hands, being examin'd by the Fragments of the Antient Exemplars, which are extant in Eusebius, St. Jerom, and the rest of the Fathers, seems to be a true and perfect Copy, and the same with those that were read in the Antient Times by the Samaritans. How­ever, I will not deny but that it is degenerated in some things from its Original Purity and Sincerity. But this is the fate of all Books, which are not however to be therefore rejected for illegitimate Birth, because they do not exactly agree with the Originals in all things. For then we could not say that any one of the Antient Authors were come perfect to our hands; nor were Homer's Verses, so common now-a-days, to be re­ceiv'd for his, because the most Critical of men Aristotle quotes somethings out of Homer, which are not to be found in our Modern Copies. Nor were the Jewish Copies of the Bibles now in use to be entertain'd, because they do not exactly agree with those which the Seventy Interpreters made use of in their Translations. We must therefore assert, that the Copies of the Samaritan and Jewish Pentateuch, are real and authen­tick Copies, though there may be some difference between them;Objections against the Purity of the Sama­ritan Con­text. as Aristotles Homer plainly appears to be the same Ho­mer which was examin'd by Aristarchus, although they do agree in all things.

However, there were not wanting some, especially among the Protestants, who thought the Codex of the Samaritans to [Page 84]be rejected, led thereto chiefly by this reason, because the true Worship of God, the Succession of the Priests and Doctors re­main'd only among the Hebrews, not among the Samaritans, and therefore the Copies of the Law were to be taken from them alone, as being the true People of God. But I wonder, that the Protestant Divines, who make so slight of the Autho­rity of the Church, and the Succession of Priests and Doctors, should enforce these Arguments. For in this particular, the Authority of the Church is not greater than of the Synagogue. Who can be ignorant that the Authority of the Church has not been able to make good the Purity of its own Exemplars, or to justifie them from being clear from all manner of faults, when the Version of the Seventy Interpreters, of which the Eastern and Western Church made use, has not been entire from the very time of Origen? However, I readily grant that the Hebrew Exemplar is to be chiefly preferr'd, for the Chri­stians borrow [...]d the Books of Scripture from the Jews, and not the Samaritans. Only the Authority of any Assembly what­ever does not make a Book to be without Errour or Fault, but only declares it to be receiv'd and fit for practice.

There are also other faults with which the defenders of the Hebrew Text load the Samaritan Copies: For first they en­endeavour to prove it mutilated by the Example of some few words, and then they say, that some words are foisted in­to the place of others. They also object the differences of the Hebrew and Samaritan Texts one with another; as also the carelesness of the Scribes, who confound the Letters Aleph and Ain, He and Heth, and other Letters resembling in form. But they kill themselves with their own weapons, when the same things may be objected against the Hebrew Texts them­selves. In this the Patrons of the Jewish Text are deceived,The Sama­ritan text vindicated. because that out of a preconceiv'd Opinion of some of the Jews, they think it to be free from all Errour; which is to be only affirm'd of the Originals. We have already shew'd you that the manner of writing of the Hebrew Context, was very inconstant, and perhaps more free than among the Samaritans, who never hunted after the Trifles of Jewish Allegories. Even in this the Samaritan Codex's excel the Jewish, for that many things which Superstition foisted into the one, are wanting in the other. To this we may add, that the Hand and Character [Page 85]of the Samaritan Text plainly proves Antiquity. On the other side, the Jewish Manuscripts being reform'd by several Ages, at length obtain'd the name of Masoreticks. Lastly, the Jewish Text may in many things be illustrated by the Samaritan. Thus Gen. 2. we read in the Hebrew, that God finish'd his work upon the Seventh Day, but in the other upon the Sixth Day; which seems to be the more proper Lection, Gen. 4. This Sentence which is in the Samaritan, Let us go into the field, v. 8. seems to be wanting in the Hebrew; and many of the Jews mark this gap in the Margin of their Scriptures in these words, pausa in medio versus, a rest in the middle of the Verse. I know that St. Jerom in his Hebraick Questions upon Genesis has observ'd this Pericope for superfluous, both in the Greek and Samaritan Ex­emplars; Superfluous, saith he, is that in the Samaritan and our Vo­lume, Let us go into the field. But it appears that St. Jerom in these Questions, where he professes himself an Assertor of the Jewish Text, did not speak so much his own, as the Opinion of the Jews, Exod. 12. where we read that the sojourning of the Chil­dren of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years, the Samaritan Exemplar comprehends, Their Fathers with the Children, or the sojourning of the Patriarchs in the same Egypt. Which Lection agrees with the Truth, but is not Jewish. But it might have been, that they supply'd all these things in their Books, and that they might have been glosses for the Explanation of the Hebrew Text, which is frequently very obscure.

On the other side, there are several things written with more freedom in the Samaritan Codex, which seem to have been added for Illustrations sake out of other parts of the Penta­teuch, by some of the Samaritan Doctors. Which Supplements, without doubt, argue the Copy to be vitious. In like manner the word Garizim, Deut. 17. which they have put in the place of Ebal, which was the Antient Reading, shews that the Sa­maritans were not over-religiously exact in their Copies; whence it is manifestly evinc'd, that neither the Samaritan, nor Jewish Exemplar, are free from all manner of Errour; so that they are to be lookt upon as Copies of one and the same Book, which may be useful to one another; yet so that the Jewish Copy, though it have its Imperfections, is to be pre­ferr'd before the Samaritan; not only because all Religion and the Scripture descended from the Jews to the Christians, but [Page 86]because the Exemplars seem to be less obnoxious to Errours. However, that ought to be no impediment, but tha [...] the Jewish Copy may be mended by the Samaritan, where a ma­nifest Errour shall appear, and the Samaritan Lection pre­ferr'd before the Jewish, if it be more correspondent to Truth. For indeed the Reading of the Hebrew Text among the Sa­maritans seems to be nothing near so strict, in regard their Copies make no use of pointed Vowels, which confine the manner of Reading the Hebrew Context. And it is certain, that Points were a Modern Invention of the Jews; nor are they added to those Volumes which are made use of in the publick Synagogues. And there I think the Samaritans ra­ther to be commended, than blam'd for retaining their Antient form of Letters.The Excel­len [...]y of the Samaritan. Codex. Besides, they have a Tradition for the Read­ing of the Text, as the Jews had before the Points were in­vented by the Doctors of Tyberias. Lastly, The Samaritans excel the Jews in this, that they have retain'd the Antient or Mosaick Characters of the Hebrew Language; whereas the Jews upon their return from Babylon, devoted themselves wholly to the Babylonian or Chaldaean, to which they had been accustom'd; which was the reason why the Samaritans first ac­cus'd the Jews, especially Esdras, as a corrupter of the Sacred Text of Scripture. But laying these Quarrels aside, let us in a few words examine what may be thought of the first Hebrew Letters.

For the Samaritan Characters, the sounder sort of Criticks, and the Antient Coins of the Samaritan Nation fairly plead, so that Joseph Scaliger gives them the Title of Asses, who will not subscribe to the Opinion of St. Jerom, where he says, That certain it is, Prolog. Ga­leat. that Esdras the Scribe, Doctor of the Law, after the taking of Jerusalem, and restoration of the Temple under Zero­babel, found out other Letters, which we now make use of; whereas till that time the Hebrew and the Samaritan Characters were the same. This Opinion of St. Jerom concerning the Samaritan Characters, was renew'd not long since by Guilielmus Postellus, Blancuccius, Villalpandus, Morinus, Capellus, Mayerus, Perescius, and among the Jews by R. Azarias, and several others. Postellus, who had long convers'd with the Jews attributes the cause of that change to the hatred which the Jews had to the Samaritans, as being Schismaticks. That Party, says he, who intermix'd with [Page 87]the True Religion the Worship of Idols, In Alph 12. Linguar. c. de Samar. is adjudged by a grave and pious person to be Heretical, and unworthy of converse, or the com­munication of the same Letters; and therefore after the Captivity he apply'd himself to the Invention of new Characters. And a little after he adds; When I disclos'd these Conjectures of mine to the Jews, they said they were most true, confirm'd in writing by most of their own Rabbies. However, it seems far more probable, that the Jews being restor'd to their Country, preserv'd the Chaldee Letters, to which they had been accustom'd in their Exilement, having now forgotten the former. Then the same Postellus makes mention of the Silver Coins, which seem to be of great Antiquity; and of which he had seen not a few among the Jews, who valu'd them so highly, that he could not purchase one under two Crowns in Gold, which they said was as antient as So­lomon's Reign, and but of a base Metal. Lastly, he adds these words, which do not a little illustrate the present Argument; They affirm, that among the deepest Ruines, and vastest heaps of Rub­bish, these Coins are frequently digg'd out, and are a most certain proof of Antiquity, as having this Inscription, Holy Jerusalem, into which from Solomon's time the Samaritans never entred, nor vouch­safed the City the name of Holy; as they ador'd without Jeru­salem, and worship'd Idols, half Gentiles, half Jews; so that it is not probable they would have celebrated a City which was in Enmity with them. Concerning the Samaritan Shekles, much more may be read in Villalpandus, Morinus, and others.Villalpand. Appar. in Ezech. Mo­rin. in exer­citat. in Pen­tat. Samar. Altand. in Epist. ad Morin. Buxtorf. Dissert. de Lit. Heb. Light. Hor. Heb. ad c. 5. Matt. S [...]ick. in Jure Reg. Heb. sub. [...]i [...]. Perescius had several Samaritan Coins, and Jerom Aleander saith, that he met with several at Rome.

But notwithstanding all that has been said, John Buxtorf, a most obstinate Asserter of the Jewish Context, defends the per­petuity of the Hebrew Letters, by many Authorities taken out of the Rabbies Books. Lightfoot agrees with Buxtorf, tho he acknowledges the Talmudick Doctors to be his opposers. Shickard produces many things of the same nature, Hebrew Professor in the Academy of Tubinghen, together with some other Hebricians. But Walton deserts this Opinion, which he found to proceed rather from Rabbinical discourse, than from sound Theology. For which reason that famous person is but hardly thought of among some of the Rabbinists, especially Matthias Vasmut of Rastoch, who after many severe expressions against him, Walton, says he, quoting the Pontificial Authors [Page 88]against the Divine Authority of Scripture, ought not to be endur'd in a Reform'd Church. But for the same reason neither ought Dru­sius, Scaliger, Casaubon, Vossius, Amama, Bochart, and several others to be suffer [...]d among those that assume the Title of Reformed, seeing they have all the same Opinion with Cappellus, and Walton concerning the Samaritan Letters. Moreover, Buxtorf seems to have condescended to this Opinion concerning the Diuturnity of the Hebrew Letters, not willingly, but by constraint, that he might refute Cappellus's Book entitled Arcani punctationis Reve­lati; and there he proves the Novelty of the Samaritan from the Antiquity of the Hebrew Characters. Buxtorf drew many into his Opinion. But they are in the number of those whom Vossius calls Asses clad in Professors Gowns, who having little either of Art or Ingenuity, meerly instructed by the Writings of single Buxtorf, make a great noise with those Rabbies, whose Books they never so much as open'd. But there is no reason for the Criticks to dispute so fiercely about the first Hebrew Cha­racters. For if you more heedfully consider and compare toge­ther the Samaritan and Hebrew Characters, there is not such a vast difference between them, but that they may be thought to have had one and the same Original: From whence also the Greek and Latine Capital Letters seem to have deriv'd their first forms. Tho being subservient to Custom, they have under­gone several Alterations according to times and places. And thus the Eastern Jews form their Characters after another man­ner than the Western:Post [...]l. in [...]lphab. 12 Ling. R. Azar. Inre Bin. c. 56. Blanc. in G [...]am Vil­lal [...]. Appar. [...]n Ezech. Kircher. O [...] dip. Egypt. par. 2. Morin. Ex [...]citat. in P [...]ntat. Sam Hortin. Ex­ [...]citat. in Morin. Then the Western, as the Italian, French, Spanish, Germans, &c. differ one among another, and from all these the Moors or Barbary Jews. Nor is there less difference between the Forms of the Samaritan Characters, which have lately been Printed in Europe, as any one may see, who diligent­ly observes the varieties of Letters in the Samaritan Alphabets, which have been put forth by Postellus, R. Azarias, Blancuccius, Vill [...]lpandus, Kircher, Morinus, Hortinger, and others. Those Let­ters which are Printed in the Parisian and English Bibles, were transcrib'd from one Copy. Which things being granted, it is not at all to be wonder'd at, that the Letter Tau, which Jerom notes to have formerly resembl'd the form of a Cross, should now not bear the same figure in the Vulgar Alphabets of the Samaritans, because in process of time the Letter was alter'd. But Rabbi Azarias sets down in his Alphabet two sorts [Page 89]of this Letter Tau, one of which resembles the form of a Cross. Jerom Aleander likewise writing to Morinus concerning the Shekels of that Nation which he had seen in Rome, has these ex­pressions upon one piece of money; You shall see upon both sides of the Coin the Letter Tau, in the form of a Cross, which being former­ly written thus X, degenerated at length into this Form Ae. To the same effect Perescius wrote to Morinus. Therefore when one and the same Character at the same time in divers places, admits of various forms, what wonder is it that this Letter, the most antient of all, after so many Ages, especially among seve­ral and different Nations, should vary from his first figure? Who so ignorant, as not to know that the Roman Letters, after the Goths invading Italy, lost their Original and Antient Form, neither were they the same with those Letters which were the true Antient Letters, and were call'd Lombardick? But of this sufficient has been said: Now let us come to the Samaritan Targumim or Paraphrases.

The Scrip­ture first wrote in the com­mon Lan­guage of the Coun­try.Because, according to the Admonition of St. Paul, All things that are written, are written for our instruction, in Antient time both the Old and New Testament were never written in any other than the Mother Tongue, to the end the Scriptures might be read by the Vulgar People. And yet in our Age there is a certain Parisian Divine, who has ventur'd to affirm, that the Books of Moses Law seem to be compos'd in a Language which was not then familiar with the People;Dr. Mallet. and what is hardly to be credited, that most Learned Doctor has feigned a hundred monstrous Stories of the Hebrew Language, of its Characters and Grammar, of which Moses was the first Author. But the Paraphrases of the Sacred Text, which the Jews and Samari­tans compil'd in their Mother Tongues, so soon as the Hebrew Language ceas'd to be familiar, plainly demonstrate that the Scriptures were written in the Language of the Country. Whence arose that Version wrote in Syro-Chaldaick, not unele­gant neither, which denotes its Antiquity. This is put forth in the Parisian and English Versions, and seems to have been com­pos'd by the Samaritan Doctors, to be read in the Schools, and to the end that all the words of the Mosaick Law might be read, when the use of the Hebrew Language it self was only among the Learned. The Samaritan Paraphrase expresses almost ver­batim the whole Hebrew Context; from which it swerves in [Page 90]but few things, most especially in the names of Rivers, Cities and Countries, which he accommodates for the most part to the time present. Nor does he seem to be free from all prae­conceiv'd Opinion, for which reason he translates the word Elohim Angels. Thus where we read that man was translated in the likeness of God, he renders it, in the likeness of Angels; and a little before, instead of these words, Ye shall be as Gods, as it is in the Hebrew, he renders the words, Ye shall be as Angels. Sometimes he confines the Hebrew words to his own sense; as instead of those words in the Latine Edition, The Spirit of God was carried upon the face of the Waters, he translates it, Blew upon the Waters. But the Latine Interpreters of the Samaritan, seems not so accurate in all things, especially in those places where he differs from the Hebrew Samaritan, which in some places wants correction.

There was also a Greek Version of the Samaritan, for the use of the Samaritans, that us'd the Greek Language. Of which Version the Antient Fathers have so frequently made mention in their works,In Exercitat. in Pent. Sa­mar. that Morinus affirms it to have been done by them. But in so saying, he is extreamly deceiv'd. Isaac Vossius is also in an Errour, who denies that there ever was any Greek Version of the Pentateuch among the Samaritans; but that all those Quotations by the Fathers of the Samaritan Codex, were taken out of Origens Hexapla, illustrated with Scholiasts, where are various Lections of the Samaritan Exemplars. I do not deny but that Origen has cited many things by way of Com­ment in the Margin of his Hexapla. But the Fathers who make mention of the Samaritan Codex, cite the Translation of the Pentateuch, which was read by the Samaritans, to whom the Greek Tongue was more familiar. And indeed there is no pro­bability that it could otherwise be; just as the Samaritan that spake Arabick, had a Version of the Pentateuch into Arabick. Yet Masius suspects there was no other Greek Version for the Greek Samaritans, than the Version of the LXX Interpreters. Tho it is much more likely that the Samaritans after the Ex­ample of the Hellenist Jews, made a new Version for them­selves, that is to be us'd in Schools and private Houses; the Hebrew Samaritan Context being always reserv'd for the use of the Synagogue. To which we may add, that the Ver­sion cited by the Fathers under the name of the Samaritan, dif­fers [Page 91]in some things from the Translation of the Seventy, as ap­pears by the Chronicle of Eusebius. Masius also testifies that Symmachus being an Ebionite, was for no other reason induc'd to make a new Translation of the Sacred Text in the Greek, but out of meer hatred to the Samaritans, whose Opinions he had deserted. This Greek Translation agrees in some things with the former Samaritan Version, where it differs from the Hebrew Samaritan Text, as if the Greek had been taken from thence. But in regard they frequently differ among themselves, there can be nothing certainly affirm'd in reference to this par­ticular. All which is easily illustrated by Examples. Thus Gen. 49.23. where the Latine Interpreter rightly expresses the words, both of the Hebrew, as of the Hebrew Samaritan, Ha­ving Darts, the Author of the Greek Version of the Samari­tans translates the same words [...], which agrees with the Samaritan and the Chaldee Paraphrase. Soon after we read, v. 24. as well in the Jewish as Samaritan Hebrew Context, Beethan, which in the Latine Edition is rendred in Forti; in the Greek Version of the Septuagint, cum Fortitudine; but the Interpreters of both the Samaritan Versions, have rendred the word in profunditate. Which Interpretation does not express the Grammatical sense, as they call it, yet it may so happen, that that sense is commonly receiv'd by the Samaritans, Gen. 5.19. We read in the Samaritan Version, and in both the He­brew Texts, pro Deo, which the Greek Interpreter of the Sa­maritans renders Timeo Deum, as if he had made use of a Copy quite different from all the Modern Exemplars; and yet R. Saadias Gaon has the same Interpretation in his Arabick Para­phrase, who nevertheless had no other Exemplars than what we use at this day, Exod. 9.22. Instead of the word Flies, which is read in the Latine Edition, in the Greek Samaritan Version the word Crow is made use of, the Interpreter mistaking the word Oreb for Erob, which signifies a confus'd multitude of Flies or little Insects. Which Errour may be imputed to the Inter­preter, by reason of the various manner of reading, because of the want of Points in the Hebrew Samaritan Copy.

The Samaritans have also an Arabick Version of the Penta­teuch, which was compil'd for the use of them that spake the Arabick as their Natural Language. For tho the Samaritans, like the Jews, read no other than the Hebrew Text of Moses [Page 92]Law, in their Synagogues, yet have they several Translations for the several Provinces belonging to it. The famous Perescius had a third sort from the Samaritans, but defective, wherein the Arabick Version was written in a Samaritan Character, of which there are some Copies however written in a Samaritan Character. Hottinger has inserted the 4th chap. of Genesis out of a certain fragment of that Arabick Translation, both in Arabick and Latine, in the third Book of his Bibliotheca Orientalis. The most Learned Walton makes mention also of the same, which Ʋsher of Armagh communicated to him. The Samaritans have also other Arabick Books, written out however in a Samaritan Character. Thus J. Scaliger makes mention of a Samaritan Chronicle, the Epitome of which Hottinger has rendred into La­tine with this Title, An Epitome of the Chapters of the Book of Joshua. Because it begins from the Death of Moses, and the Conduct of Joshuah, De Emendat. T [...]mp. and extends, as Scaliger observes to the Reigns of the Antonines. Nor do the Samaritans want the Hi­story or the Book of Joshua it self, which however does not agree in all things with the Hebrew Text; nor do they look upon it as Canonical Scripture, in regard they acknowledge no other for Authentick Divinity, but the Law of Moses. I shall not trouble my self with the Lexicons which are now in use for the Samaritan Language, of which Perescius testifies him­self to have one, in his Epistle to Morinus. Pestellus also makes mention of their Grammar. Which Writings were they Printed, would give great Light into the Samaritan Language, and how the Samaritans pronounce the Hebrew, and what significa­tion they give to some more difficult words.

CHAP. XII. Of the Bibles of the Sadduces and Karraeans.

Of the Bibles of the Sad­duces.CErtain it is that the Sect of the Sadduces in the time of Christ's being upon Earth, was the most noble Sect, and one which had the chief management of the Publick Affairs among the Jews. But after the Destruction of Jerusalem, and that the Jews were scattered into several parts of the World, that famous Sect became so entirely extinct, that there is not the least footstep of it. There only remain'd the Sect of the [Page 93]Pharisees, whose Room the Rabbanists and Talmudists, vulgar­ly so call'd, in after-times usurped. For they are the same with the Pharisees whose Traditions the Jews so greedily swallow'd, and ador'd, as if proceeding from the mouth of God. Therefore the Scriptures of the Old Testament came to the Christians from the Pharisees, and not from the Sadduces.Vossius de Septuagint. Interpret. c. 17. But in this Isaac Vossius, and several others seem to have been deceiv'd, St. Jerom himself being their guide and directer, while they affirm that the Sadduces in imitation of the Samaritans, transla­ted no more than the five Books of Moses. For what reason was there why the Sadduces, who were but a late Sect among the Jews, after the Volumes of the Prophets were confirm'd by the publick practice of Reading, should only believe in Mo­ses. Therefore there is no question to be made but the Sad­duces receiv'd all the Books of Sacred Text, or [...], all that was written, rejecting only the Traditions of the Pharisees, which seem'd to them to be only the Figments of idle persons. More notoriously do they mistake, who believe the Carraeans to have followed the Samaritans in this particular. And which seems almost incredible, Isaac Vossius, otherwise a Learned Person, places the Carraeans among the Ebionites, Na­zareans, and other Sects of the Jews, who retaining the Cere­monies of the Mosaick Law, believ'd the Gospel. Therefore it behoves us to relate in short what the Sect of the Carraeans was, and what was their Opinion concerning the Sacred Scriptures.

The word Karrai, from whence the Carraeans derive their name, signifies a man exercis'd in the Reading of Scripture. But that name, which was formerly reverenc'd, became to be hated, by reason of the Sect of the Carraeans, that first began to spread it self toward the beginning of the 10th Century. They like the Rabbanists allow of twenty four Books of Scripture with the Tittl'd Vowels, and other Masoretick Marks. In expound­ing the Sacred Scriptures they follow the Masoretick Lection every where, esteeming it no less than Aben Ezra, Kimchi, or any other of the Jewish Grammarians; and in imitation of them are great searchers after Grammatick Quirks. Therefore was Buxtorf horribly mistaken where he writes, We have read of the Carraeans, who rejecting all the Traditions, only adhere to the Text, that they not only differ extreamly one with another, De p [...]nctor. Antiquitat. as to the under­standing and Exposition of things, but also in the Reading of Scrip­ture, as refusing points which they look upon as a piece of Oral Law, [Page 94]or Tradition. Buxtorf had had a quite contrary Opinion con­cerning the Carraeans, if he had lighted upon those Books, which he seems not to have been furnish'd withal. For they do not altogether reject the Talmud and Traditions of the Jews, but they presume not to compare them with the Sacred Scriptures, as the Rabbanists. And therefore laying those aside, they en­deavour after the manner of the Criticks, who are free from all prejudice, to draw forth that which seems to them to be the truest sense of Scripture, by comparing one place with ano­ther, taking little notice of the Talmudick Expositions, which many times make large Excursions far from the matter. And therefore if the Jewish Rabbanists speak ill at any time of the Carraeans, as Corrupters of the Biblick Context, it proceeds out of meer Envy and Malice, not from heat of Dispute. All which things may be more perspicuously seen in the Books of the Carraeans themselves.

Aaron the Son of Joseph, of the Sect of the Carraeans, who wrote the Commentaries upon the Law, An. 1294. at the be­ginning of his Book, deplores the lamentable state of the Jews, and their being scattered into all parts of the World, asserting that Vision and Prophecy was taken from them, and that they had almost forgotten the Hebrew Language. But, saith he, se­veral Doctors appear'd among the Israelites, who searched out the Scripture, which contains the 24 Books in use among us. There­fore the Carraeans do not agree with the Samaritans upon this point, but with the Rabbanists allow the whole Scripture to be Canonical and Regular. And they also frequently call it a Pro­phecy, thereby to distinguish it from those other Traditions, which the rest of the Jews are not afraid to obtrude upon us. In the same place he rebukes the Cabbalick Doctors, who ma­ny times propound for Scripture the Figments and Fables of their own Brains, and, to use his own expressions, depend upon the Cabbala, and tattle idle stories, and boast their Cabbala or Tra­dition to be above the Scripture. However, the Carraeans do not reject all manner of Tradition, but they separate the ridiculous and uncertain from that which has some appearance of Truth; as the same Carraean openly testifies in these words; Nor let any one object to us, that we are Enemies to the Writing, Reason and Doctrine deliver'd to us by our Ancestors. For this Tradition which we make use of was not lost, and is comprehended in true [Page 95]Scripture, not seated in variety; concerning which the Israelites in all things agree. This is that Tradition which caus'd them to approve by their Authority the Masoretick Scripture receiv'd by all the rest of the Jews, with the Points and Accents; which will be still more apparent from the above quoted Commentary of the Carraean.

It is a wonderful thing how studious this Carraean was of Modern Lection and Grammar, when they appear useful to the Explication of Scripture. Sometimes he appeals to the most celebrated Masters of the Jewish Rabbanists, to confirm his Opinion by their Testimonies; sometimes he refutes them, especially the Cabbalistick, and Allegorical Doctors. But much oftener he has recourse to the Analogy of Grammar, than to the Testimonies of others. Thus at the beginning of his Ex­position of Genesis, he has these words; Bereschith is of the same form as Scherith, only that Aleph is not pronounc'd. Now it is known that the word Reschith is a word that signifies time, and that it denotes the time that precedes, or that which is first of all; as Exod. c. 23. The first of the Fruits of thy Land; he adds in this place, that Reschith is a name of time; then he reproves a certain Rabby by the name of R. Jesua, who believes that the Angels were from the beginning; and opposes to him the Opi­nion of the Misnick Doctors, that the Angels were not created the first day; and makes it out from the words of Scripture, that there was nothing that day created; and that this was the common Opinion of the Interpreters. Upon the word [...],Note: PLACE="marg"Gen. 1. V [...]haarets, and the Earth; he observes that the Vau prefix'd to this word, ought to be taken like the Phe Raphatum, of the Arabick Lan­guage, and that it is not a servant to the word, but the begin­ning of the word. That the name of Elohim is proper to the Judges, to which he adds, that after the word Eloah was found out, then we understood Elohim to be a Plural, and then calls it [...], Leshon Tifearath, a word of honour or ornament. He explains the properties & genuine signification of Tohu, Bohu, and Coshech, and illustrates those by other places of Scripture, and refutes a nameless person, who believes the word Coshech to signifie the Elementary Fire. He says, that Merachepeth is of the Dagesh Conjugation or Piel. He expounds the force of this Sentence according to the Letter, and resolves many dif­ficulties arising as well from the Context, as from the Exposi­tion [Page 96]of the Interpreters. Upon the word [...], he makes these Observations, the Letter He in the word Laielah, is meer­ly additional, and there is the same account to be given of all words ending in He, whose Accent is Mileel: Where we read in the Latin Interpretation, Let us make man, and in the Hebrew Text [...], Nagnaseh, who reproves some Interpreters, who thought it was to be expounded, I will make, as if it were writ­ten [...], because in some places the Letters Ethan, Aleph, Jod, Tau, and Nun, are chang'd one into another; which Rule the Carraean does not disapprove, but only here denies it to have any effect. Upon the word [...], Mechelbehen, Of their Fat, which is writ with a Tzeri under Beth, he makes this note; this word is mark'd with a Tzeri under Beth, because it is in the Plural, to distinguish it from [...], Chelbam, their Fat, which is written with a Scheva, and it happens to be without a Jod, which is a sign of the Plural number, as in the words [...], Becol Phagnalec, In all thy works; and in many other Examples of the same nature. In the third Chapter of Genesis he observes upon the word [...], Where? that it is read with a Dagesh between the latter Caph, for ornaments sake.

Now by the quoted Examples, I suppose there is no person but may easily collect, that the Carraeans observe the Modern Reading of the Hebrew Text, and depend wholly upon the Masoretick Copies, accurately observing the niceties of point­ed Vowels and Accents. Frequently in this Carraean Author are read these words, Great Pathach, Little Pathach, Hateph Kamets, Cholem, Sheruc; for so he writes it, and no Schurec, and many of the like nature, which are the Inventions of the Jewish Grammarians. Nor does he shew himself less expe­rienced in Philosophy and Theology, than in Grammar. But I pass by these things, as being far from our purpose; only I will say something concerning their Theology, lest any should hereafter confound the Carraeans with the Samaritans; as if both did not acknowledge the Immortality of the Soul. Therefore upon these words,The Theo­logy of the Carraeans. Let us make man in our likeness, the Carraean so often already quoted, observes, That the Soul of man con­sisted of superiour things, but the Body of the form of inferiour things; for which he brings this reason, For that the Soul of man subsists no otherwise than the Angels; and adds at last, the [Page 97]World shall be for the sake of the Soul. Much to this pur­pose was observ'd by that Jew, who over-viewed the Constan­tinopolitan Edition of the Book Juchasin. For in the first page of that Book, Hence, saith he, it appears, thaet the Carraeans are not the Sadduces of our Age; for they acknowledge Reward, Punishment, and Resurrection.

Lastly, This Carraean, doing the part of a Learned Interpre­ter of the Scripture, reproves exceedingly the method of the Cabbalistick Rabbies, who follow the meer trifles of Allego­ries. In the same manner he most sharply rebukes all those things which are feigned concerning the Tree of Life; Every one, says he, has taken up that Argument as a Parable; but then proceeding, know, says he, that all which is there written is literally true. And then as an Example of their Allegories, he produces what those Cabbalistick Doctors dream vulgarly concerning the Serpent: They say, says he, That the Serpent was as big as a Camel, and that Samuel rode upon him. And that God sporting with the Camel, rode upon him also. They farther tell us, We must not read Tunicas [...], the Coats of the Skin, but Tunicas [...], the Coats of Light. Which ridiculous Exposi­tions he utterly exclaims against. They depend upon their An­cestors for most of those Expositions, and others like to them. And then cursing those idle Interpreters that abuse their own lei­sure; Woe be to him that impudently undertakes such a work. He also doth refuse several Readings which those Doctors of their own brains frivolously intrude into Scripture. To that pur­pose he rebukes certain Interpreters, who in the first words of Genesis for [...], with a Resch, read [...], with a Daleth. There are some, saith he, that change Resch into Daleth, but it is a fiction of their little brains. In the same manner he girds them severely that divide the word Bohu into two words, as if it were to be read in the Text Bo Hu. And thus much for the Sect of the Carraeans: Now let us return to the Jewish Rabbanists, from whom we made this digression.

CHAP. XIII. Of the Targumim of the Jews, or the Translations of Sacred Scripture, and first of the Chaldee Paraphrases.

THE Hebrew Language remain'd so long entire and fa­miliar to the Jews, while the Prophets abode in Jerusa­lem, who made their Sermons to the People in the Hebrew Tongue, which was then understood by all. But being carried Captive to Babylon, they forgot their own Language, at least all the vulgar people. Wherefore upon their return to Jeru­salem, they could not understand the Law of Moses, but with the assistance of the Rabbies, who interpreted the same in the Babylonish or Chaldee Idioms. To which purpose we read in Nehemiah, that Esdras made him a Pulpit, whence he spake to the People; and, together with the Levites, read in the Law of God distinctly, and with a loud voice, to be understood: And after that, Then spake Nehemiah and Esdras the Priest, and the Levites and Scribes interpreting to all the people, as it is most probable, in the Chaldee Language. Which Custom is still retain'd by the Jews in our Age dispers'd over the face of the Earth. Thus the Spanish, German, Turkish, Graecian, Persian, and other Jews, make use of Spanish, German, Turkish, Graecian, and Persian Interpretations of the Text. And from the same Fountain I am apt to believe that all the Translations and Paraphrases of the Bible now found among the Jews deduc'd their Original. For it is not probable that it should be the Original of that Translation which goes under the name of the Seventy Interpreters. For the Jews of Alexandria, who spake Greek, made for their own use a Greek Version, which afterwards fell into the hands of the Christians. As for the Chaldee Para­phrases, they were made at Jerusalem, and other places near adjoyning, whence they were transmitted into places farther remote. Those Chaldee Paraphrases are highly esteem'd by the Jews even in these latter times, especially those which are attributed to Onkelos and Jonathan. But as to the Authority and Antiquity of those Jews, the Learned are at variance among themselves; and therefore because no man has handled that point more accurately than Elias the Levite, a person long [Page 99]vers'd in the Chaldee Tongue and Writers, it will not be amiss to translate so much of his words as shall be necessary for our purpose out of his Preface before his Chaldee Lexicon.

When the Jews were carried away captive out of their own Land into Babylon, they forgot their own Language, as the Book of Ne­hemiah testifies. So that all the knowledge of the Rabbies and per­sons skilful in the Law, was chiefly publick in the Babylonish Lan­guages. In that the Babylonish Talmud was compos'd. Further­more, during the time of the second Temple their Language was for the most part Babylonish; which when Jonathan the Son of Uzziel became sensible of, he wrote a Chaldee Paraphrase of the eight Pro­phets for the use of the People. Onkelos also wrote another of the Law. But the Hagiography was not translated till long af­ter, in the Language of the Jerusalem Talmud, as I shall af­terwards relate. In the mean time let us examine some things that concern the Paraphrasts themselves. First, why it is said in Ge­mara, that Jonathan was long before Onkelos. How Jonathan was one of the Disciples of Hillel, who flourished about a hundred years before the Destruction of the Temple; but that Onkelos was the Son of Titus who destroy'd the Temple. And if it were so, why Jona­than first paraphras'd the Prophets, and did not begin with the Law. Our Ancestors of blessed memory have reported indeed, that he in­tended to have explained the Hagiographers, but that a voice spake to him from Heaven, saying, Is it not enough that thou hast laid open the Mysteries of the Prophets? Wouldst thou pro­ceed to open the Mysteries of the Holy Ghost (that is, of the Books of the Hagiographers?) For that reason he did not para­phrase upon the Hagiography. But then another difficulty offers it self, why he did not expound the Law? especially seeing a Cabba­listick Doctor Rabbi Menahem Rekanatensis has wrote in the Se­ction Matzorang, that he also translated the Law, where he has these words, And he sent a live Bird. For these are his words. I found in the Targum of Jonathan the Son of Ʋzziel, of happy memory, and he let go a live Bird; nor does he write other­wise in many other places. If this be true, it is a wonder how it should be lost in so short a time, and not the least remain­der of that Translation be to be seen. We may also enquire why Onkelos did not translate the Hagiographers, and why they continu'd unparaphas'd till the time of a certain Hierosolymite, who explained them paraphrastically. But who he was, or what his [Page 100]name was, or when he liv'd, is not certain. Thus the Hierosolymi­tan Interpreter who translated the Law, is to us unknown, whether he be the same who interpreted the Hagiographers, or whether they were two Interpreters that liv'd at two several times. Some say that Aquila the Proselite was the Author of both Paraphrases; others there are affirm Joseph the Blind to be the Author of both. And in truth I have found in Bereschith Rabba taken out of the Hagio­graphers and Prophets under Aquila's name, as that Verse, Life and Death are in the power of the Tongue, Prov. 12. &c. See in the Root Matztar. Also upon these words of Ezechiel; The Brides of their Adulteries. Aquila's Targum reads, [...], (that is, [...], the Antient Whore.) See the Root [...]. Thus Aquila also interprets some of the Garments of which Isaiah makes mention. But there is no mention of Rabbi Joseph's Paraphrase in Bereschith Rabba, for he was not yet alive. But there is mention of it in Gemara upon certain Verses of the Prophets and Hagiographers, which are not found in the Verses of the Law. Know however, that the Language of Onkelos's Paraphrase differs in no­thing from the Language of Jonathans. For both speak the Babylo­nish Idiom, as do the Books of Daniel and Esdras; yet their Lan­guage is much more pure and elegant than that of the rest of the Targums. As for the Hierosolymitan Targum, it differs very much from the Babylonish, in regard it is compos'd of several Lan­guages, the Greek, the Roman, and the Persian. And because so many Languages are found to be in it, this mixture seems to me to have begun from that time, when those Empires had the Dominion over Jerusalem. Therefore is that Language call'd the Jerusalem Targum; for that in that same mixture Rabbi Jonathan compos'd the Jerusalem Targum about 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. At what time every body knows that Jerusalem was subject to those Nations, as we find in the Book of Josephus Goro­nidas. But at what time the Jerusalem Targum was compos'd up­on the Law and the Hagiography, is unknown to us, whether before or after the Hierosolymitan Targum was finished; I aminduced to believe that the Hierosolymitan Targum was never extant but only up­on Job, the Proverbs, and Psalms, and not upon the five Volumes; for the stile is not the same, although in these there are many words ta­ken from the Hierosolymitan Author.

Thus far Elias the Levite, who at length confirms his Opi­nion concerning the difference of the Targum of Job, the Pro­verbs, [Page 101]and Psalms, which he calls the Hierosolymitan, from the Targum of the Five Volumes, by the example of the double Targum upon the Book of Esther; of which the second bears the name of the Hierosolymitan. And that he again confirms by the Authority of Rabbi Solomon, and after a short discourse con­cludes that the Author of the Targum of the Five Volumes is no more known than the Author of the Targum of Job, the Proverbs, and the Psalms. For first, who Onkelos and Jonathan were, is utterly unknown, or in what Age they liv'd. Con­cerning their Antiquity also the Christians much dispute, while others led by the Testimonies of the Jews, believe their Para­phrases to have been made about the time that Christ liv'd upon Earth: Others think them later than Origen or St. Jerom, because they neither make mention of them. Yet it might be that in those very times they were known to the Babylonish Jews, where they seem to have had their Original; but not being yet reduc'd into one body, they were not made com­monly publick: And thus I have lighted upon some Exem­emplars of the Pentateuch, to which there was added to every word of the Hebrew Text an Exposition in French; yet a French Paraphrase upon the Law of Moses was never yet cited by any of the Jews. And therefore it is very probable that cer­tain Doctors of the Babylonian Schools expounded the Hebrew words in Chaldee for the benefit of the people, out of which in process of time an entire Paraphrase was compil'd. And to make me so believe the purity of the Chaldee Language wherein they are written induces me. Which is to be under­stood of the Paraphrase only that goes under the name of On­kelos upon the Law of Moses; and of that other upon all the former and latter Prophets, which are attributed to Jonathan: For that same Jonathan, or whoever else were the Author of the Paraphrase upon the Prophets, did by no means compose that other, which is publish'd by certain Jews under Jonathan's name; so different is the stile of both; which I wonder was not taken notice of by Huetius, and other Criticks, who con­found this same Pseudo-Jonathan with the True and Antient Jo­nathan, as if one and the same Author had paraphras'd upon the Pentateuch and the Prophets. But as for that story of the Tal­mudick Doctors of the Voice that spoke from Heaven to deter Jonathan from explaining the Hagiographers, there is no wise [Page 102]man but takes them for the dreams of the Jews. But first we are to take notice of what has been observ'd concerning the diver­sity of the Babylonish and Hierosolymitan Dialects by the same Elias, who seems to set little or no value upon the rest of the Paraphrases which are extant upon the Hagiographers, be­cause they were written by men of no name. To which we may add, that their Authors frequently swerve from the words of the Hebrew Text, foisting in the room of those Talmudick Fables and Stories of the same nature.

Onkelos and Jonathan stick much closer to the sense of Scrip­ture, and yet sometimes they are not so very careful to express it verbatim, as Elias the Levite testifies. But, saith he, The Pa­raphrasts do not always observe the Rules of Grammar. For some­times they render the Praeterperfect tence by the Future, and the Fu­ture by the Praeterperfect tence, and sometimes the Participle by the Praeterperfect tence and Future. Sometimes they interpret a Verse as they judge most agreeable to the Targumick Language, not so much minding the Biblick Context. To this Elias adds the Testi­mon of Salomon Isaac, whom we erroneously call Jarchi, who observes Onkelos not to be very curious of the Grammar of Scripture, but to have follow'd his sense and judgment in many things; and sometimes those Paraphrasts have omitted not on­ly whole words, but whole sentences. For indeed it is the com­mon Fate of all Paraphrasters, who translate Books out of one Language into another, to follow the freest method of transla­ting. So that if there occur any difference from the Transla­tion, it is presently to be referr'd to its Cause and Original; and we are diligently to enquire, what might have been the Product of the various Readings of the Codex's, and what might be alter'd according to the Fancy of the Interpreter. However, this is chiefly to be taken notice of, that the Wri­ting of the Chaldee Paraphrases was heretofore very confus'd and disorder'd: For there was no Analogy of Orthography, the Letters Vau and Jod being without any distinction made use of, and inserted into words without any signification. In like man­ner, the Author of the Chaldee pointing observ'd no method in putting the Titles to the Chaldee Context, as Elias the Le­vite plainly testifies, who was the first that polish'd the Chaldee Language. Now how difficult it was to frame a Chaldee Grammar, I rather chuse to shew from the words of Elias himself, than my own.

Many, saith Elias, ask'd me, whether a Grammar could be fram'd for these Targumims; I answer'd according to my own sentiments, that I could not do it, in regard the Exemplars vary'd among them­selves, as well in words as in letters, and altogether in the points, which differ'd almost beyond all possibility of reconciliation. And that pro­ceeds from hence, because the Paraphrasts wrote their Versions with­out points, which were not yet invented, as I have truly demonstrated in my Preface to Masoreth Hammasoreth. To this we may add, that the most Antient Exemplars are all without points, because the Authors of the Masora never pointed them as they pointed the rest of the Scrip­ture. But a long time after they were pointed by one or more persons, tho of no note, as they thought good. Therefore there is no Analogy ob­serv'd, neither can there be any method produc'd for the making of a Grammar. And indeed unless it were so, who could imagine that from the time that the Targums were compos'd, there should be no per­sons among the Jews who had Erudition enough to frame a Grammar, as Rabbi Juda did, who was the In this Elias is mistaken, in affirming R. Juda to be the first Grammari­an among the Jews, when there was before him Rabbi Saad as, whom he afterwards nominates. first Grammarian of note; whereas before him there was no Hebrew Grammar. But because he found the Sacred Books of Scripture noted with points and accents, as also fur­nish'd with a Masora by the Masorites, he began to assist the Israe­lites, and to enlighten the exil'd Jews with his Grammar. Him follow'd R. Jona; and after him came R. Saadas Gaon; and after them an innumerable company of Grammarians. But there was no person who animadverted upon the Targum, to correct what was amiss; all slighted that business, so that it came forth perverted, which is only preserv'd. Therefore I began to think of a way, whereby every one might be able to make a Targum Grammar in such a manner, that he might take his foundation out of such things as were wrote in the Books of Daniel and Esther; and only upon that might build his superstructure, and deduce his Grammar Rules, if not altogether, yet in part.

Soon after he adds these words in the same Preface; In times past before the Art of Printing was invented, there was not found above one Targum in the City, and one in the Country. Therefore there was no man who minded them. But there were many Exemplars of the Targum of Onkelos found, because they were bound to read two Sections of Scripture, and one of the Targum every Sunday. There­fore there were some that made it their business to write something up­on it, but it came to little or nothing. There was also a Masora made upon it, which I never could see; but there was no man who so much as open'd his mouth to explain the Prophets and Hagiographers. Neither was there any that requi'd it, but all cry'd, Let us let that work alone till Elias come.

But when the Chaldee Grammar was once found out, which Elias had deem'd so hard to frame, presently Munster, Mercer, and other Learned men lent their helping hands to reform the Chaldee Con­text: Above all the rest John Buxtorf, who with a daring boldness caus'd to be publish'd a vast heap of Paraphrases conformable to the method of the New Grammar.

We have reduc'd, saith Buxtorf, the Chaldee Text, which is call'd the Targum,In Praesat. Bibl. Basil. and is a most noble Commentary upon the Hebrew Text in Moses and the Prophets, to the Antient, True and Perpetual Analogy of the Old Chaldee Language, fairly shew'd us in the Books of Daniel and Esther, refin'd from all the idle and deformed pointing, which is to be seen in the Venetian Editions.

But as it is excellently well observ'd by Ludovicus de Dieu, there are many things after all Buxtorfs Emendation, that require a better Reformation. In perusing certain written Manuscripts of the Sacred Text, I met with a Pentateuch written in large Letters in a large Parchment Folio, which contain'd the Paraphrase of Onkelos in such a manner, that a part of the Paraphrase followed every Verse of the Text. But in that Exemplar the Chaldee pointing wonderfully dif­fers from all other that I could ever find as well among the publish'd as Manuscript Copies. For it resembled the pointing of the Books of Daniel and Esther far better than the Buxtorfian Edition. However, the first Edition of reforming the Chaldee pointing, is attributed to the Complutenses, which being polish'd by Arias Montanus, was af­terwards perfected in the Basil Bibles. But it seems to be much more perfect in the Manuscript which I have mention'd: Wherefore I am apt to believe, that before Elias the Levite liv'd, there were Jews that were both vers'd in the Chaldee Paraphrases, and skill'd in the Lan­guage. But such Exemplars never fell into Elias's hands; and I wonder the Jews, that over-look'd the Paraphrase of Onkelos, made use of no better Copies. However, I would not advise any one to pin his Faith upon the Modern Pointing so much by Buxtorf reform'd, but where it seems to carry a more proper sense. But rather to have re­course to the Antient form of the Chaldee Context, which had no Points, as being lately invented by the Rabbies, and added without Art to the Paraphrases. The Chaldee Pointing is not so Authentick as the Hebrew; for the latter had the Doctors of Tyberias for its Correctors, whose credit was no less than the repute of the School of Tyberias; the other known to few, and at this day unknown to most of the Jews.

CHAP. XIV. An Appendix of the other Translations of the Bible in use among the Jews.

I Doubt not but there are other Paraphrases of the Hebrew Context, besides the already mentioned, as yet not publi­shed; for I find some, in reading the Rabbins, highly esteemed by them not yet Printed. But these through the Jews igno­rance of the Chaldee have been long since laid aside. Where­fore the Translation of the Bible into the Mother Tongues was absolutely necessary, few of the Jews, the Doctors excepted, under­standing even the Hebrew; The Arabic translation of R. Saadias. this occasioned the so many Trans­lations now in use among them. R Saadias Gaon, or The Excellent nine hundred years and upwards, Translated the whole Bible in­to Arabic, although the Pentateuch only is come to our hands, which the Jews of Constantinople Printed in Hebrew Characters, and is since Printed in Arabic Letters in that Excellent English Polyglot Bible. This Interpretation of R. Saadias is more a Para­phrase than a Translation, for he keeps not so close to the Con­text, and sometimes changes proper names, and as he was alto­gether unbyassed, so he often gives his own fancy rather than the sence of the Text, it should therefore be no wonder if any fault have escaped in this Translation of R. Saadias, seeing the Jews had not then attained any great knowledg in Grammar, although his Translation has few Hebrewaisms, because Paraphrastical, yet it is not altogether so much Arabic, but that we may easily know him to be a Jew from words retaining the Genius of the Hebrew Tongue, this was the cause that the Latine Interpreter of that Arabic Translation committed many great mistakes in that he had regard only to the Arabic, because he understood not the Hebrew Tongue.

Another A­rabic translati­on of the Jews Erpenius hath published another Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch by an African Jew, which comes much nearer to the Context than that of Saadias, and the Hebrewisms are therefore the more frequent, yet notwithstanding he keeps not close to [Page 138]the Text, but that here and there he follows the opinions of his Country, we may bring into the same class the Persian Translation of the Petateuch made by James of Taus, from the City where he was born, because it is much of the same stile, and for the Hebrecisms therein, this was first published by the Jews of Constantinople in the Hebrew Character together with Saadias Arabian Paraphrase, and since reprinted in the English Polyglot in Persian Characters.

Translation into Vulgar Greek.The Jews have also a Translation of the Bible in Vulgar Greek published at Constantinople of great credit with the Caraitae Jews, especially those whose Mother Tongue it is, the Penta­teuch of this Translation was Printed at Constantinople, by the Rabbinists or Talmudists in Hebrew Characters with the Vowel points, I have seen the Book of Job in the same vulgar Greek, Printed at the same place divided into two Columns; of which the one is in Hebrew, and the other in the vulgar Language, shews the Greek with this Inscription. Ajob Beleshon Hakodish Ʋbeleshon Romaiki, Job in the Holy Language, and in the Roma­nic Speech R. Moses the Son of R. Elias Phobian the Author of this Translation, tells us in his Preface to Job that he translated the Proverbs of Solomon into the same Tongue; and that the Jews ignorance in the Hebrew, was a great motive thereunto, the same Jews of Constantinople have joyned to this Spanish Trans­lation of the Pentateuch,Translation into Spanish. Printed in Hebrew Characters with the Vowel points, the Jews of Constantinople, Adrianople, Thessa­lonica, and in other places of the Levant, whither they fled when expel'd Spain were certainly the Authors of this Transla­tion, the Vulgar Greek and Spanish in these Translations are almost unintelligible the Hebrecisms are so frequent.

Another Spa­nish transla­tion.The Spanish and Italian Jews have a famous Translation of the whole Bible into Spanish, Printed at Ferrara in the Year 1553. the Translator seems to make it a point of Conscience to deviate from the Context, the Translation agrees so exactly word for word with the Hebrew Text, the literal Translation, and the obsolete words used, no where but in the Synagogues render it very obscure; if we may give any Credit to the Pre­face of this Translation, the greatest part of the Translation is Pagninus's, but I think the Jews therein had a better opinion of Kimchii, Aben Esra and other Rabbins, whom Pagninus consulted, than of Pagninus when they openly profess they allowed that they [Page 139]thereby might not incur the danger of the Inquisition. It is very likely that Abraham Ʋsque a Portugal Jew did make use for the perfecting this Translation of some old Spanish Rabbins, who had long before his time read the Hebrew and Spanish Bible in their Synagogues. There is this in that Edition of Ferrara worth observing that the Interpreter was so well convinced of the difficulty of Translating the Bible, that he has put Asteries where he finds the sence dubious, and could not be definitive in a thing of so great difficulty, these words are to be found in the Preface. And it is to be noted that in the place marked with an Asterism, thus * it is a mark to assist ye in the Exposi­tion of the word, and somtimes of various Opinions. But the Jews who Printed the Second Edition with Amendment in the Year 1630. have left out most of the Asteries, whereas there was more need to augment than diminish that Number; but what profit the Christians can reap from a Translation which the Jews scarce understand, is not manifest if the ridiculous affectation of Aquila a contentious Translator, was reprehended by the Fathers, sure none will approve of this affected Transla­tion, which has more regard to Grammar than to the sence of the Context.Cassiod. de Re­na. Isaiah 9.6. Cassiodore de Regna blames his Exposition of these words of the 9. of Esaiah, Vocabitur nomen ejus admira­bilis, consiliarius, Deus fortis, pater futuri seculi, princeps pacis, as they are in the Vulgar Edition, in that he forcing the words contrary to the genuin sence, attributes these words, princeps pacis to the Messia, and all the others to God. But the Transla­tor here and in other places, is byassed by his Countrymen, yet in this he is inexcusable, in that he hath not kept so close to the Rules of Grammar, which he hath profest; for he hath prefixt the Article el marravilloso, consejero, and elsewhere, whereas the Hebrew prefix ha, the same with the Spanish Arti­cle el, is not prefixt, in like manner he errs in other places, whereas he hath Translated the first Verse of the Psalms, Psalm 1. v. 1. bien avanturado el varon, when according to the Rules of Grammar, it should have been Translated, bien avanturancas de el varon, as it is in the Hebrew, but we will pass over these Subtilties.

CHAP. XV. Of the Translations of the Bible of greatest Authority with the Christians, and first of the Septuagint.

ALtho the Greek Translation of the 70 Elders, is publickly read by the Jews in their Synagogues and Schools;Various Opi­nions of the Greek transla­tion of the Bible. yet I think it not amiss to rank it among the Translations used by the Christians, for the Christians have long since received it from the Jews, and to this our time is retained by most Churches. But the Disputes about its Authority and Translators, not yet de­cided, may be a wonder; for there be some who deny its Au­thority, therefore others who highly maintain its Authority in all, esteeming the Translators as Prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit. Others again of a middle rank between these two extreams, do highly value this Antient and to be honoured Translation of Holy Writ, yet in some places they think it not Authentick. I willingly pass by the History of the Translators as it is in Philo, Josephus, and in several Greek and Latin Fathers, because known to most. The Fathers borrowed the greatest part of this History from Aristaeus in his Book,The judgment of Aristaeus. of the Transla­tion of the Divine Law, out of the Hebrew into the Greek by the 70 Interpreters: and a part, since invented by the Jews, The learned Critics have thought Aristaeus's Book in part sup­positious, suppose the Book that goes under Aristaeus's name were not suppositious, I should think them no wiser that quote him for the Truth of this History, then he that thinks Xenophons Cyropaedia to be a true History of Cyrus; for as Tully upon the first sight perceived that Xenophon did not act the Historian, but that in Cyrus he gave a Model or Pattern of a just Emperor, so it may easiy be seen in the Reading Aristaeus, that he is more Romantick than a true Historian. We may easily guess from the Context, that some Hellenist Jew, writ this Book in favourof his Nation. The Writer of this History, according to the Genius of his Nation, speaks great things and Miracles: For he relates when King Ptolomy wondring that the Writers of other Countries, [Page 141]made no mention of that Excellent works, he bring in Demet [...]ius answering him thus; Because, says he, it is a Holy Law given by God; and because that some going about the Translation have been diverted by being punished by God: and that Theopompus, when he would have inserted some thing out of that Law not so well translated, was Distracted for above thirty days, and that during some little intermission of his Distraction, having prayed to God to let him know the reason of his Distemper, God reveal­ed to him in a Dream, that what had hapned, was because he went about to publish to the World Sacred things, and that at length, when he had desisted from his Enterprise, he was freed from his Disease. And he farther tells us, of one Theodectes a Tragical Poet, who when he had inserted into his Play some­thing of the Laws of Moses, was struck blind, till he had re­flected upon what he had done, and had intreated God by his Vows.

These truly are more a Romance than a History, and suffici­ently shew the Genius of the Jews, which always delighted to in­vent Miracles; there is such another Story of a Voice from Heaven which did frighten the Writer of the Chaldaean Para­phrase from the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; moreo­ver the Supposititious Aristaeus seems to contradict here; for where he speaks of Theopompus, he tells us, That the Law of Moses was before this translated into the Greek Tongue; but if it were so why did they so earnestly desire another Translation; wherefore Baronius and other learned Men with good reason, re­jecting Clemens Alexandrinus's Authority chiefly induced by this reason say, that the Scriptures were not translated before into Greek, and that there was no Translation whatsoever before that of the Seventy Elders. Neither can you say,Joseph Sea­lig ina [...]imady. Chron. E [...]seb. Ger. Voss. lib. 1. The Greek History. this first Translati­on to have been less polite; for suppose it ever so imperfect, it had been kept in the Kings Library, not altogether unknown to the King, with thousands of other Books. I pass by other remarks of learned Men, especially Joseph Scaliger's of this Suppositi­ous Aristaeus which Gerard Vossius, well versed in this matter, says are very weighty; from whence it may be conjectured Aristaeus to have writ this History perhaps to the Idaea of a pious and a good moral'd Prince, and this History ought not to be look'd upon otherwise; wherefore the Author of these Fables mistru­sting his Cause, as being improbable, adds farther, I believe, says he, [Page 142] my Readers will suspect my credit, but truly as it is not lawful to re­late any Ʋntruth, which hath been received; so it would be a Crime to be silent in this Affair, but as they have been acted, so I have re­lated them, that I might avoid all Ʋntruths, and for that reason I have endeavoured to receive the Truth from those who were privy to the Kings Affairs. Truly he leaves nothing out that may corro­borate his Testimony which he feared would be suspected by all.

But the Authority of the Fathers and other Writers of good Note and Credit, who have inserted in their Works the Histo­ry of Aristaeus as true, doth make for it; and it will be thought rashness to defend the contrary, but we are not to consider what the Fathers have said, so much as the reasons of their opinion; for in things purely critical Reasons are of more moment than Authorities. It is evident the Fathers were moved by the bare Authority of Aristaus, or Philo and Josephus who writ from him; but they had no reason to examin critieally the History of Ari­staeus whether true? Seing the Septuagint Translation, which at that time the Church used against the Jews, who had recourse to the Hebrew in their Disputations with the Christians, did greatly support their Cause. The Fathers had been ill advised, if they had laid by that Translation which the Jews could not totally re­ject. St. Jerom, Jerom. a man well versed in all Learning, and had study­ed this Criticism, for this reason contrary to the common Opi­nion of the Fathers did confute the Cels of the 70. Interpreters. I know not, says he, who first invented the Story of the 70. Cells, and then laughs at Justin Martyr, who affirmed he saw them, and looks upon him as a simple Man easily induced to believe the Jews Stories. In like manner he differed in opinion from the Fa­thers, for from the Authority of Aristaeus himself and Josephus he asserts the 70. Interpreters to have conferr'd and not to have prophesyed; For, says he, it is one thing to be a Prophet, another to be an Interpreter; the first foretels things to come, the other from his Knowledg afterwards and Eloquence Translates. Nei­ther doth he esteem them more than Tully, who translated with a Rhetorical, not a Prophetick Spirit Xenophon's Oeconomy, Plato's Protagoras and Demosthenes's Oration for Ctesiphen, nei­ther was St. Jerom ever of any other Opinion, although he may sometimes say they were inspired, and that the Learn'd Man did judge this to be taken in an Oeconomical Sense, may appear by [Page 143]several Places. For the like reason although St. Jerom did seem to be of the same Opinion with Aristaeus, Josephus and the Jews of his time, that the 70. Interpreters did translate Books of the Law only; yet in his Commentaries upon the other Books of Scri­pture, he speaks of them no otherwise than as the Translators of these, and this because he would not seem to differ from the common Opinion, although in his Judgment less pro­bable.

But some one will say, if Aristaeus's History of the 70 should be look'd upon as a Fable, what Foundation had it? For cer­tainly the first Author could not invent it without some ground, when even the Fables of the Poets carry something of Truth in them.The Origi­nal of Ariste­us's Book. Heins. Arist. sa. Exod. 24. Heinsius thinks this Story of the 70. to have its rise from the xxiv. chap. of Exodus; where we find, that Moses, Aaron and the 70. Elders went up unto the Lord, and from the words, which in the Latin Translation are, nec super eos qui procul recesse­rant de filiis Israel misit manum suam, the Greek & electorum Isra­el neque unus dissensit; Heinsius thinks that number of the Trans­lators and their miraculous Agreement to have risen hence, but whatever Heinsius thinks, I am of the Opinion that the Inter­pretors were rather Jews of Alexandria than Hierusalem; for there are to this day some Egyptian Words as Abrec, Remphan and o­thers, and because it was of so great a consequence it is very likely it was approved of by the Sanhedrim, and there called the Septuagint Translation from the 70 Elders, or Senators of the Great Council; for which reason the place of the Talmud otherwise very difficult, where the Greek Translation is ascri­bed only to five, may easily be reconciled with the common o­pinion of 72. by the same Authority it is made authentick to all the Jews, especially the Hellenists as the Fathers of the We­stern Church in the Council of Trent have made their Transla­tion Authentick; for as the Ignorance of the Christians in the Greek caus'd Translations into the other Tongues; and these Translations became Authentick to the Churches by their use, in like manner the Jews Ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue did move the Jews of Alexandria to translate the Bible into Greek for their use, which Translation was afterwards read in their Synagogues and Schools; and because, as very probable it was approved of by the Sanhedrim at Hierusalem, upon whom at that time the whole Nation of the Jews had a dependance, it hath acquired the Name of the Septuagint.

Yet I think there is no necessity to have recourse to the Sena­tors of the great Synagogue, that the number of the 72. Inter­preters (to whom that Translation is commonly ascribed) may be the better made out; but we are only to consider the Form of Speech familiar to the Jews, by which they attribute every thing of moment to those 70. Senators, that the things there­by may acquire the greater Authority: For this reason they as­cribe the Vowel Points, Accents, and many other things of the like nature to the Sanhedrim, not so much from the reality of the thing, as from that Form of Speech; so that it is difficult to distinguish when they speak plain and when allegorically: This way of speaking hath led many men, and those Learned, into various Errors, when in reading the Jews Books, they con­sider more what they write than the manner and causes of their so writing. We may bring for Example what occur in the Rab­bins about the Title of Holy Writ; the Keris and Cetibs, or va­rious Readings entire, defective, redundant, and six hundred of the like nature. All these most of the Jews ascribe either to Moses in Mount Sinai, or to the Synagogue or Senate assembled under Esdras; all which if not taken Allegorically after the manner of the Cabbala, as the Jews themselves write, are mani­festly false, for the same reason if we are not as attentive to the words, as to the manner of writing proper to the Jewish Nation, the History of the 72. Interpreters not improbably will seem to spring from the same Fountain, whether it really was approved of by the immediate Authority of the Sanhedrim or whether through connivance publickly read in their Syna­gogues it at length by long use became Authentick, which truly seems more agreeable than what the false Aristaus says of the Approbation of the Greek Translation in these words,Arist. of the 70. near the end. The Translation being finished, Demetrius did first read it to all the Jews who were assembled in the place where it was perfected, the Transla­tors were also by, who were complemented and caressed by the Body of the Jews, as Authors of so great a good, and in like manner they gave Demetrius his due Praise, and earnestly requested that he would grant a Copy of that Translation to their Rulers. As soon as that Volumn of the Law was read, the Standers-by, the Priests, the Interpreters, Elders and Governors of the City, and the Rulers of the People said thus, because that Interpretation was throughout so exact, accurate and divine, it is reasonable it should remain so, and that no alteration be made therein.

But if the Men of Alexandria were as skilful in the Greek as in the Hebrew, that they could judge from a bare Reading of the goodness and exact Agreement of the Greek Translation with the Hebrew Context, why did their King so earnestly desire Strangers when he might have made use of their help? And then who can believe, that the Hellenist Jews, but indifferently versed in the Hebrew, could be competent Judges of the Tran­slation from a superficial reading, when the Learned of our times well skill'd in both Tongues, dare not pretend to it. Wherefore what is commonly quoted out of Josephus, Philo, and others, in the behalf of the sincerity of the septuagint Transla­tion is of no Moment, neither can it make against the Hebrew Originals, because there is nothing of the Greek Translation of the 70. in these Writers, but what was first taken out of the false Aristeus.

Judgment of the Greek transl.Although I reject the Story of the 70 Interpreters, which goes under Aristeu [...]'s Name, as an Invention of the Hellenist Jews, yet I would not detract from that Translation, which for a long time hath had a Reputation in the Synagogue and Church; For I know how much the Antients esteemed this Translation, since it was praised by the Apostles, and the Christian Religion by no other Testimony propagated through the whole World, most Churches do to this day retain it, perhaps the Sea of Rome would use it to this time, if St. Jerome had not made a new Translation from the Original Hebrew, these and other reasons easily to be produced, manifestly declare this Translation to be of great moment, but it doth not hence follow, as is the opi­nion of Isaac Vossius and some others, that this Translation is the only true and least Corrupted Peice of Scripture, and to be preferred before the Hebrew Copies. It hath been a receiv'd opi­nion among the Ancient Fathers of the Church, that they could have nothing sound in Scripture, but what they had had Tran­slated from the LXX because the Church owe its Birth and Growth to their Translation. Origen dared not Dissent from this opinion, although he hath acknowledged a great difference between the Greck and Hebrew Copies, and as he hath testified of himself, and hath exercised his ingenuity upon all the Edi­tions of the Bibles, and their differences. There is no need, says he, that I speak of Exodus,Orig. Epist. to African. where the Appurtenances of the Ta­bernacle, its Court and Ark, where the Vestments of the High Priest [Page 146]and Priests are very much altered, insomuch that the Sence doth not seem to be the same, let us take heed therefore, that we do not impru­dently and ignorantly abrogate the Copies which are in many Churches. In this passage Origon favours the Septuagint Translation more than the Hebrew Original, for this reason, least he should be thought to bring Novelties and Corruption into the Church; yet at other times among the Learned, he did more highly value the Hebrew Verity; neither truly the Ancient Church, which suspected the Jews sincerity could or ought to have any o­ther opinion of their Copies: But the Judgment of St. Jer [...]m, and the Learned Fathers of our times ought to be preferred; for the Antient Fathers only skilled in the Greek or Latin Tongue, could not be positive in things not understood by them, but we in this Age can compare the Hebrew Originals with the Greek, and pass our Judgments upon them. Neither can the Authority of the Apostles, who had recourse only to the Greek and not to the Hebrew, be any Argument to the con­trary. What benefit could the Apostles, who sowed the first Seeds of the Gospel through the World, reap from the Hebrew Copy, at that time understood but by a few Jews? But as for the Greek, Cicero for Arch the Poet. it was become as Cicero doth Testifie, the Mother Tongue to most Nations. The Apostles there did not use the Greek, because they were more perfect than the Hebrew Copies, but with Judgment, because it was adopted to the genius of those who were to be instructed in the knowledge of the Scrip­tures, the Authority therefore which the Greek Translation of the 70. acquired, was extrinsick, neither was it the more correct be­cause praised by the Apostles in the new Testament, if it were cor­rupted before their time. In like manner the Authority of the He­brew context it not les [...]ed, because less familiar to the Apostles and the first Fathers of the Church, but as the Fathers of the Councel of Trent by their Decree, by which the Antient vulgar Translation was made Authentick, had left the Hebrew and Greek Copies un­toucht. In like manner the use of the Greek Translation in the Church time out of mind did not diminish the Credit and In­tegrity of the Hebrew. The Septuagint hath it faults even from the Infancy of the Church, many of which Sir Jerom hath marked; I do not speak of those which Jerom, taking too much Liberty in following his own fancy sometimes doth not so well Correct. The Western Church hath patronized Jeroms [Page 147]Censure in leaving the Greek Translation of the 70 so long and so universally used for Jeroms new Translation from the Hebrew.

Nor were the reasons mean which induced Jerom to this new Translation from the Hebrew Original, which afterwards was deservedly used by the Church, for as he himself testifieth, the many errors in the Greek were not the sole cause of the under­taking of that work, which many speak of, but that also he had found, from his exact knowledg in both Tongues, the Greek Interpreters had not fully expressed the Hebrew Context, whom for this reason he doth often reprove in his Commentaries. I pass by, to avoid prolixity, those mistakes of the 70, many of which are taken notice of by the Commentators of the Bible, and to make up the Catalogue, the obscure places of the Greek ought to be compared with the Hebrew context, for they ha­ving not followed chiefly in these places, the sence of the Ori­ginal, have variously and at large digressed, I cannot but praise the industrious and learned Is. Vossius, in that he endeavoured to vindicate in all that Greek Translation in his opinion Di­vine,Masius prof. to Josb. but the unbyassed Masius seems far more able to judge of that Translation, a Man of an acute Wit and sharp Judgment and well known in the Hebrew, Greek and Syriac Copies. Where­fore what we should judge of the 70 may be, I think far better learnt from Masius than from Vossius.

The Learned Man gives this Judgment of them, ‘Whosoever, says he, will but consider the Books of Scripture, will find the Tran­slation of them, the Law of Moses excepted, ascribed to the 72 In­terpreters, that it will not seem probable, that the 72 Doctors sent to Ptolemy by the High Priest, were so unapt, so unskilful, so uncapable of Translating and absurd, that they could com­mit such gross mistakes, for there are not only great verbal er­rors arising from literal mistakes, when they Interpret one thing for another, but, and that not seldom, even in long Periods.’ Thus this Learned Doctor defends the opinion of St. Jerom, Jeroms pref. upon the Heb. Transl. Messius. who thinks that the Translation of the Pentateuch, and of the other Books of Scripture were not done by the same Hands, the same Masius a little farther explaining himself more clearly sub­joys what is worth observation. ‘Neither truly do I calculate the above mentioned errors by the Hebrew context now in use, that the novelty of points, errors, interpoints, and the addi­tion [Page 148]of Vowels and Accents, which the Authors of the Maso­reth are said to have invented; or the unfaithfulness of some Transcribers whom I do not approve, as if they had designed­ly corrupted the Hebrew Context in many places, may not be any excuse, the very things treated of do often sufficiently ma­nifest the Absurdity and Incongruity of Words and Phrases, which the Translators have used, and presently concludes the whole matter thus. If my opinion should be asked, I must con­fess that the Translation is Divine, and seems to be penned ra­ther by Prophets than by their Interpreters in some places, in others silly, nor at all agreeable to the Learning of so great Doctors, and because I met with these difficulties not only in the other Books (altho in them the errors are more gross and confounding) but also in Moses Pentateuch as we call it, and be­cause the Story of Ptolomy and the Intepreters, related by so many, can't be without some ground, I am apt to believe their opinion to be most likely, who say that not only the Law of Moses, but also the other Historical and Prophetical Books were Translated by those Jews, at the desire of Ptolomy.’ Thus far Masius, whose words I have been the longer upon, because they very much Illustrate the Argument in Hand: At first this Learned man, well read in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Greek, dares not ascribe the Greek Translation, the Peutateuch ex­cepted, to the LXX; it was so full of gross errors, and because he hath perceived many faults also in the Pentateuch, he hath embraced yet somewhat doubtfully, the common opinion of these 70 Translators: neither doth he spare to call those whom he acknowledges from a prejudice, the chief among the Jews of that age, absurd, silly and illiterate, and he seems to be intro­duced thereunto by the Authority of St. Jerom, and the truth of the thing it self; afterwards as it were correcting himself, he acknowledges some of the Translation to be Divine and Di­ctated by Prophets rather than Interpreters, and what is chiefly to be considered, he declares he did not reprehend the Greek from the modern Copies of the Jews, which it is evident are degenerated from the antient purity in many places, in fine he censures the generality of Divines, who take upon them Ma­gisteriously to judge of the matter in hand, of which they are ignorant, and do bring in strange fancies into the Church, as that the Hebrew context is designedly corrupted by the Jews, [Page 149]as is asserted by some, that the Greek is to be preferred before the Hebrew, with some others of the same nature which come from those who have more zeal then knowledge, if the Learn­ed Masius was now alive, he would wonder that any Protestant and Isaac Vosius the first, should have the same opinion of the Greek and Hebrew Copies, with those divines he repre­hends.

Masius had been wholy of our Opinion, if he had not given so much credit to the Story of Aristaeus, which he saw was con­firm'd by a Cloud of Witnesses, he should rather have con­sidered Reason than plurality of Voices, neither truly will he judge otherwise of the Greek Translation, who shall critically Examine it by the Hebrew Originals. And this is the Opinion of all the Critic Expositors of the Scripture. For if at any time they have used the Hebrew and Greek for illustrating the Con­text, sometimes they scrupie not to Correct the Hebrew by the Greek, but much more often the Hebrew is preferred before the Greek. Augustin of Engubio, to pass by others, in his review of the old Testament to the Hebrew verity, having compared the various Editions, accuses the Greek Interpreters some­times of ignorance; ‘This Greek Translation, says he, whether the 70. Interpreters were perfect Masters of the Greek, whe­ther they used other Copies, than could be had in St. Jeroms or our time, or whether they did designedly so Translate, differs very much from the Hebrew verity. Some places do shew a manifest unskilfulness of the Greek, and others a great igno­rance of the Hebrew Tongue.’ Augustine himself is not always infallible, as for Example, when he condems them for Trasla­ting in Chap. 19. Genes. place instead of banquet, but he observes not that in the Greek corrupt Venetian it is [...] place for [...] banquet, as is truly read in the Roman Edition. The same Augustine makes himself ridiculous, when he condemns their Translation in Chap. 27. Genes. of the Hebrew word naphal, by the Latine word manere; whereas it should have been Translated by the word cadere, fall, whence he takes occasion to defend the vulgar Translation which has it obiit; but the Greek Transla­tion of the 70. is the best, the Hebrew ought not to be other­wise Translated, if we consider the sence, for the death of Ishmael is not there spoke of, but the Land wherein he dwelt, as appears by what goes before. Wherefore we are [...]ot to [...] ­ken [Page 150]to Augustine always when he condemns the Greek Transla­tors, altho he hath truly marked many of their Errors.

CHAP. XVI. A more particular Examination of the Greek Septuagint Transla­tion.

Philo 2. Book of the life of Moses.THat the Greek Translation of the 70. was had in great esteem, and received with a great deal of joy by all the ancient Jews may appear from Philo, who reckons them among the Prophets. There is, says he, an annual solemnity in the Isle of Pharos, to which place not the Jews only, but many others do Ferry over, honoring the place where this Translation received its birth, and returning thanks to God for his renewing his wonted mer­cies to them, after Prayers and Thanksgiving, some pitching their Tents upon the Shoar, others sitting in the open Air upon the Sands, feast and make merry with their Relations and Friends; at this time they prefer their Tents and the open Fields far beyond their sumptuous Palaces. It is evident that this Translation was re­ceived by most Jews in their Synagogues and Schools,The rejection of 70. by the Jews. and that many thereby have been Converted to Christianity. But the frequent disputes between the Christians and Jews about the Ex­planation of the Scriptures, caused the Jews to study the He­brew more than before they had done. Upon the destruction of the Jews and the Jewish Nation scattered by the Romans, the Authority of the great Council was almost totally Ecclipsed, but there were a few Masters left, who taught the Hebrew Tongue in the Schools: Then did the Jews first, especially they of Palestine, who had still some influence upon the other Jews, through their hatred to Christianity, cry down the 70, the ample testimony of the Fathers, and of Justin [...] Martyr who complained often of its rejection, do confirm the Truth of it. The Jews endeavoured what they could to asperse that Interpre­tation used by all the Christian Churches, hence it was that they ordered a Fast, and feigned that the Earth was covered with darkness for three days, because the Law had been Translated [Page 151]into Greek. By this Tale they would divert the more simple from reading the Greek Translation of the 70, when they took it ill, that it was read in many Synagogues, especially in the Synagogues of the Hellenist Jews, principally from this time it was neglected and disesteemed by the Jews. And if it had not been well received by the Church, to which it had past from the Synagogue, it had been utterly useless, but because the Greek of that Translation is not so pure; it hath, as I may so say, many Hebraisms and Syriasms, which I take to be the Reason that it could not well be preserved in its integrity, whilst every one would under take to correct what he understood not For the pre­sent I say nothing of the Hellenist commonly thought the Tongue of the 70. Translation,The tongue of the Greek Translat. I very much wonder that the Learned should contend so long, whether there be any other Hellenist Tongue distinct from the Greek, for the Hellenist is no other then the Greek Tongue which hath acquired something of the Hebrew and Syriac from the Jews, and this hath not only hapned to the Greek, but to all the Tongues, which the Jews have made use of in their Translation of the Holy Scripture. The Arabic, Spanish and Persian Translations are scarce under­stood by the Arabians, Spaniards, and Persians unless they also understood the Hebrew Tongue. We may well call this Tongue of the Jews, the Tongue of the Synagogue because it hath its original thence, and is adapted to it. The Greek of the New Testament is the very same, for it is taken from the 70. the words of the Old and New Testament are all of them Greek, a few excepted; but the Jews according to the occasion do some­times enlarge, and sometimes restrain their significations, accor­ding to the propriety of their Tongue, for which Reason the anci­ent Latine Interpreter, who Translated the Greek into Latine for the benefit of the Church, very often mistakes; in some places he hath not at all exprest the sence of the 70. As for ex­ample, whereas in Chap. 49. Genes. in the Greek we read, [...] the Author of the Ancient vulgar hath translated it tentatio tentabit eu [...], but St. Jerom has much better translated it, from the Original, Gad, latranculus latrocinabitur eum, Jerom hath learnedly Corrected may Errors of the like nature, in that ancient Translation, and there are many more yet to be corrected which have escaped him.

The Greek Trans. false.That Greek Translation was so corrupt in Jeroms time, that the learned Father had rather make a new Translation from the Original than correct the old One, the Greek as well as the La­tin was so faulty, some are of opinion, that there are no re­mains of that old Edition; but the Works of the Greek and Latin Fathers do prove that it hath been preserved to our time, although very imperfect, and defective, in whose Works we have a great part inserted, as it is in the Greek Copies, which go under the Name of the LXX. and those who have no more Hebrew than what they have receiv'd from the Modern Grammars and Lexi­cons, can't judge rightly of it: And although I willingly ac­knowledge with St. Jerom those Translators to have erred in ma­ny places, yet I am of the opinion that they are very often un­justly censured by him and later Translators. Pierson in his Pre­face to the LXX. published at Cambridge 1655 hath learnedly shewn, that Jerom hath often overshot in his Animadversions; I will bring other examples, by which it will appear that the modern Translators have not done the LXX. Justice in many pla­ces, the 4th Verse of the 109 Psalm is thus rendred by the LXX. [...], Tu [...]es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec, which Translation Jerom keeps in his Latin Translation of the Psalter from the Greek. But Grotius and many others think this place very ill rendred,Grot. upon 109. Psalm. Our Text (says he) hath it, secundum constitutionem meam o Rex mi Juste; Grotius, and the rest are very much to blame, that for so small a cause they dare dissent from the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they thought the Greek Interpreters did not read in their Copies Diorothi with a jod, as it is in the Mo­dern, but Dioroth without the jod: but there was no need they should have recourse to the different readings, whereas the Greek Translation might have been maintained by the Figure Paragoge, which they are forced to admit of in other places. The Letter jod at the end of this word doth express the antient Vowel E, or our modern Scheva, which is necessarily pronounced at the end of every word, as also now at the end of the Imperatives fac, dic, &c. among the Latins the Letter is hard in the pro­nunciation which Ennius, Plautus, and other ancient Authors express.

Whereas we read in the present Text, quis mecum? 2d. of K's 9 Chap. the LXX have Translated it [...] quis es tu? For the same [Page 153]reason, viz. they regarded not the jod in the end of the He­brew word, and for itthi they read atth, what we have said of the Letter jod holds good at the Letters Aleph and Vau, which were ancient Vowels, and put in and left out according to the pleasure of the Transcribers, according to thie Method the LXX, read Aleph in the word Lacen, Gen. 1.15. Gen. Chap. 4. as if it were Locen, non sic, the moderns because they read Lacen without the Aleph, have Translated it,Gen. 30.11. Qua propter in Genesis Chap. 30. the LXX read ba Gad as two words with Aleph in the Massoret Co­pies it is Bagad in one word withou Aleph, 1 Sam. 15.5. the First of Samuel Chap. 15. We read in the present Hebrew jareu without Aleph, the LXX without doubt read it with Aleph and have Translated it [...] insidiatus est, RR David, Kimchi and Aben Mulech confirm this Translation in their Expositions, for these and ma­ny other of the like nature, the modern Translators for lack of consideration, have censured the LXX where they agree not with the present reading of the Hebrew, neither is St. Jerom himself excusable in this, who also frequently condemns them for the same cause. These different readings and the want of a compleat Grammar and sufficient Rules, are the cause we are not able rightly to judg of the LXX by the Hebrew, but to ren­der this more plain, we will examine the 22d. Psalm of the LXX with the Translators from the present Hebrew.

The 22 Psalm, of the Greek edition hath this inscription [...], &c. The Hebrew inscription is Lam­natzeach hal Ajeleth, it is certain St. Jerom read it so from his Translation of it, we may well suspect that the 70, had not A­jeleth but Ezelat in their Copies, and therefore no wonder that they have Translated that [...] auxilium, which Jerom Tran­slates Cervum, as they have also Translated it [...] in auxilium meum in the 20 Verse, as for the sence the 70 Transla­tors seems to be more intelligible than St. Jeroms and the rest, they are so obscure and so remote from Sence, yet I am not for their alteration, because they express the Hebrew as it is reform­ed by the Massoreth, and every one knows that most of the Ti­tles of the Psalms are so obscure that they are scarce intelligible to the Rabbins. In the beginning of the Psalm for the Hebrew, Eli, Eli, the Greek [...] is more fully exprest, which reading is very ancient and hath been observed by Eusebius that [...] was not in the Hebrew; but the two Translations [Page 154]of the same words were thrown into one; but that the pronoun [...] is not repeated in the Greek as is in the Hebrew, is of no mo­ment, it might have been left out by the Greek Transcriber, as an unnecessary repetition. At the end of the Verse the 70 seem to read [...] by Metathesis [...] or [...] or rather look­ing upon the Aleph insignificant and adventitious they Tran­slated [...] delictorum me [...]runs. How could we give true Translation of [...], whether it ought to be Tran­slated Angelos or Reges, if it were not for the Letter Aleph: the Jews contend upon the Interpretation of the Hebrew word [...],Jer [...]m. 7.8. Jerom. 7. Some say, the Aleph is defective and left out and ought therefore to be Translated Opus, as if read with an Aleph, others again, as it is not defective but that it is the right reading and with Jerom Translate it Regina.

The Hebrew word Dumiah in the 3 Vorse of the same Psalm is better and more intelligibly Translated Silentium by Jerome and the modern interpreters than [...] insipientia by the 70, which is scarce sence, the Hebrew word Gol is very well rendred in the Greek and according to the genuine sence [...] as if you should say he wholly referr'd himself, the rest which follows do very well agree with the Hebrew; but the Hebrew word Cari in the 17 Verse is far better, and more intelligibly Translated [...] foderunt by the Greek interpreters, than Coari, sicut Leo, in the present Hebrew Copies and as it is in the Translation falsly ascri­bed to Vatablus, Verse 25 they read in their Hebrew Copy Mim­meani a me for Mimmennu ab eo, Verse 27. they have Translated hanavim [...] Pauperes, as if it were writ with two Jod's, but this changing of the Letters Vau and Jod is very frequent in Scripture; for which reason they have Translated Naphso anima ejus in the 30 Verse, [...] anima mea, as if they had read it Naphsi, the same various reading is in the Psalm 24.4. and there is a great dispute among the Rabbins, some of them read Naphso, some Naphsi, as if it were really marked in the little Massoreth; but the great Massoreth hath took no notice of this difference, and therefore in the Venetian and Basil Edition of the Collection of the Massoreth, we have these words in He­brew. 'It is strange that this word Naphsi was not put in the great 'Mossoreth among the words which end with a Vau, but are read 'with a jod; as if the Jews of Tiberius had marked all the vari­ous readings. RR. Aben Esra, R. Solomon Isaaki, Joseph Hajon, [Page 155]David Kimchi, Obadias Siphorno, and many others, who preferr'd the reading in the Margin before the context, read Naphsi but the Greek Interpreters and Jerom Naphso, I did look upon four MSS of good credit, three of them had Naphso, the other Naphsi but without any mark of the little Massoreth, which of these two readings in that variety of Copies and Interpreters must we choose?

Moreover in the same Verse the Particle lo following Naphsi, is rendred quite different by Interpreters, and this happens from an Aleph or Vau, for lo with Aleph is non, with Vau ei, and Aqu [...]la Translated it [...] ei; but in the Copies which Jerom used and in the present Hebrew it is writ with an Aleph: these various Readings are very antient and not unknown to Jerom, concern­ing which he has these words upon this place of Isaiah, & Israel non congregabitur, which by the 70 is Translated, ut Congregarem Jacob ad cum, I very much wonder, says he, how the Vulgar edition (he means the Latin which was Translated from the 70 and at that time called the Vulgar) came to overthrow the strongest Argu­ment of the Jews unbelief, whereas Theodotion and Symmachus do approve of our Translation. I do not at all wonder at Aquila who Translating word for word either dissembled his knowledge in this place or was deceived by the corrupt and malitious exposition of the Pharisees, that he hath Translated, & Israel ei Congregabitur, viz. Deo. Whereas the Hebrew word lo is not writ by Lamed and Vau which if it were the signification thereof would be ei or illi, but by Lamed and Aleph whose proper signification is non. What alteration these various readings cause sufficiently appears from the context and St. Jerom. Yet he is a little to severe upon the 70 in urging so strictly the reading of the Copies he made use of: Seeing he himself in the 63 Chapter of his Commentaries upon the same Prophet doth acknowledg the different readings not asserting one more than another of the Hebrew Copies in this place to be exceeding various. In the same Verse the 70 hath Translated the Hebrew word Zera, [...], semen meum, which Pronoun the Greek Interpreters or Transcribers might easily add: Yet it is probable it was in the Original Hebrew, but, be­cause two Jod's came together in this manner Zeraj jahabdenna, that the first might be left out. Lastly, the 70 have joyned these words Ladduor jabon, which in the present Hebrew Copies are thus distinguished, Laduor hath a Comma after it and Jabon be­gins [Page 156]the next Verse, thus [...], generatio ventura: by understanding the Pronoun ascher, quae. The Greek Interpreters could not be tied by the distinctions now cited, because they were not then invented, for at that time the whole context of sacred Scripture was, as it were one Verse.

We may be these easily conjecture what caused the Septua­gint to differ from latter Translations; because the reading of the Hebrew Context is uncertain. Wherefore I can't see what the Interpreters of our Age, who would have us follow the Massoreth altogether, whereas their Copies are often defective and imperfective, can say to these and many more Examples I could produce. Who can deny that all the 13. Verse of Psalm 145 is not wanting, for whereas all the Verses of this Psalm are disposed in an Alphabetical order, there can be no reason gi­ven why that Verse, which ought to be marked by the Letter Nun, should be only wanting, which defect is by the 70 restored thus, [...], by the Latin Interpreter, fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis & sanctus in operibus suis. Yet we are to take care, that when the 70 express more than is in the Hebrew Context, we judge it not always defective and gelded, for in some places their Translati­on is more a Paraphrase than an Interpretation, and what is spe­cially to be taken notice of, we have not that Translation entire but very consused, Thus the 70 have Translated these two Hebrew words Eli, Eli, [...], Deus meus, Deus me­us, respice in mo, St. Jerom hath Translated them very well accod­ing to the Hebrew Orginal, Deus meus, Deus meus. The Hebrew word [...] may be Translated Deus meus, if it be read eli, and ad me if elai, both these Translations have been approved of by those who could not compare the Greek with the Hebrew, and became one, because the sence by this means did seem more compleat and full. I am of the opinion that [...] respice in me was not in the true Septuagint Copy, or at least with [...] but once exprest. For the same reason in the beginning of the 3 Chapter of the Prophet Habacuc, there are two Translations heaped together in the same Translation, the Hebrew runs thus Bekerch Shanim, chajeha Bekereb Shanim which is thus Translated by Jerom in Latin, In medio annorum vivifica illud, in medio annorum notum facies, which expresses the Hebrew very well, but the 70 have Transla­ted this passage thus [...], [Page 157]which is thus rendred in medio duorum animalium cognosceris, cum appropinqua­verit anni cognosceris, cum advonerit tempus demonstraberis, be Ke­rib Shanim, but twice read in the Hebrew Context, are thrice repeated in the Greek, and the Hebrew [...] which is but once in the same Context is Translated thrice in the Greek Ver­sion. I pass over the great disagreement which is between Je­rom and the modern Interpreters whose Translation of this, as also of the places where the Hebrew Text is somewhat obscure is to be preferr'd before that of the 70. Altho I very much esteem the Version of the Greek Translations and sometimes so prefer it before St. Jeroms and the modern Translations; yet I can't be of the same opinion with Isaac Vossius, who thinks the 70 have better exprest and rendred the sence of the obscure places of the Scripture, than Jerom and the other Translators of our Age.

CHAP. XVII. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the Seventy Interpreters is examin'd. The Vindication of St. Jerom.

IN Critica! Learning we are not to observe what has been said by others, but what is to be said after a due considera­tion of all that has been written upon the point; making it our cheif business to enquire, not only what every one speaks, but what is the Opinion of every man, and what the reason of his Opinion: For most people confirm their own thoughts by the Authority of Others. And thus we have already shewn how grosly Isaac Vossius err'd in this particular, while he Translated into his Treatise concerning the 70 Interpreters, the Testimo­nies of Justin Martyr and others of the Fathers, much more in­vective withal then he need to have been both against the Jews and their Manuscripts. To this purpose it was excellently well observ'd by St. Hillary, all Obstinacy, saith he,Hilar. lib. 10. de Trin. in entertain'd Opi­nions is Imm [...]derate, and thence the Desire of contradiction arises, when the will is not subjected to the Reason, nor Study upon Learning, but when we sick for reasons to maintain our Wills, and heap up [Page 158]Reading to maintain what we Study By reasons such as these the learned Vossius seems to have been induc'd to advance the He­brew Manuscripts of the Jews, and to assert the Greek exam­plars of the 70 Interpreters,The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the 70 Inter­preters. Vossius therefore affirms these 70 Interpreters to have been inspir'd with the Holy Ghost, in which Opinion he has all the Fathers of the Primitive Times to back him except only St. Jerom; who varies from him in his Senti­ments as well concerning the Depravers of the Hebrew Manu­script, as touching the Inspiration of the 70 Interpretors. And indeed St. Jerom has brought upon him the ill will of most of the Doctors of his Age, for that forsaking the common road and most approv'd by the practise of the Church, he seems to fight under the Jews Banners, which was the reason that he wanted but little of being thrown out of the Church as an Innovator. And now in our time Vossius condemns his Version and calls it Rabbinical. But that most learned Father encountring those Reprovers, that know how to find fault but could not mend, practised the Critical Art, and in his Writings sufficiently satis­fy'd those persons that made such a noise against him. Nor in­deed was it so much to be wond [...]ed at, that St. Jerom in some things more seriously considerative, and furnish'd with a better stock of Oratory made no scruple to vary from the Ancients. For Justice never defends manifest Errors. I know indeed that in matters of Faith the Consent of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church carries something of Authority: But he is neither generous nor religious who in matters that concern not Faith, is afraid to depart from the Opinion of the Fathers, and had ra­ther believe other mens Writings then his own Eyes or Experi­ence. St. Austin of old thought far otherwise of himself; who wishes that other men would judg of his Works. I would have no man, Aust. de don. Persev. c. 21. saith he, so devote himself to all my Writings so as to fol­low me, unless in those things, wherein he finds me not to Err.

Therefore have we no reason in this particular to agree with Vossius, who contrary to the Opinion of St. Jerom, would have the 70. Interpreters to be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost, and free from all manner of Error. Nay as if he had been asham'd to have given those Interpreters the Names of Prophets, as if it were correcting himself, he affirms, the word Prophet among the Antient Writers to signifie no more than Interpreter, and those to be Prophets according to the Testimony of the Apo­stle, [Page 159]who rightly interpret the Scriptures. But why does Vossius here seek Subterfuges, and retire to prophane Learning, meer­ly to shew St. Jeroms Error, where he writeth that a Prophet is one thing, an Interpreter another; as if he had contradicted the Apostle who in several Places uses the word [...] to signifie Interpretari or to interpret? But St. Jerom is in no Error in this particular, who best knew the Force of that word, when he observes a Greek Poet to have been call'd a Prophet by St. Paul. Hierom. Com­meat in Ezech. But in his answer to the Objections of the late Critica Sa­cra, Vossius shews himself a faint Combatant, ever and anon be­taking himself to his lurking holes: But what reason he had to produce the Opinions not only of the Apostles and Evangelists but of Philo, Festus, Plato and others,Voss. in resp. ad Obj [...]ct. Crit. sacr. p. 6. to make it out that not on­ly they who foretold things to come, were call'd Prophets, but they who unfolded either past or present Predictions; we can­not find, though indeed there was in that matter no cause of difference between him and the Author of the Critica Sacrae. While St. Jerom denys the 70. Interpreters to have been Pro­phets, and asserts them to have been only Interpreters, in that same place he thought a Prophet to be no other than a Person inspir'd with the Holy Ghost, in which Sence all the Fathers had call'd those Greek Interpreters Prophets, nor has Vossius made use of that word Prophet upon any other Accompt, who has so confidently asserted their [...], or Divine Inspira­tion.De sept. in­terpret. c. 25. I am not ignorant, says he, that I shall not only incur the reproof, but the hatred of many; for having such transcending thoughts of this Version, so that I can hardly forbear to give it the Title of Divinely inspir'd. And indeed I desire to know what reason can be imagin'd, why I should not believe that which has been belie­ved by all the Christians from the Aposties time; excepting only some few too much favouring the Jews of later Ages. Among which no question but he meant St. Jerom. Then he endeavours to prove more at large their [...], or Divine Inspiration, opposing their Arguments, who affirm they could not be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost or the Gift of Prophesy, the Jews affirming, That during all the time of the Second Temple, the Gift of Prophesy and Inspiration ceas'd. Which, says he, is altogether Ra­binical and Fictitious: But no less idle is that which he produces against St. Jerom in these words. Seing there the words Prophets and Prophesie were used in so large a Sence, even among the Hebrews, Ibid. c. 26. they are not to be admitted who deny the 70. Interpreters to have been [Page 160]Prophets, as being the Chief Priests of the Jewish People, and not only Interpreters of things past, but of things likewise to come. As if it had been the business in question, whether the Title of Prophets might be applicable to the Interpreters; while the word Prophet signifies no more than an Interpreter; when he had endeavoured to prove in so many words that they were Prophets who were inspir'd with a Holy and Prophetick Spirit.In resp. ad Critic. sacr. Nay he e­steems them injurious to St. Jerom, who abuse his Testimonies to overthrow the Authority of the Seventy Interpreters. When he himself being now of riper Years, was of opinion that their Errors are not to be imputed to the Interpreters themselves, who Translated the Holy Scripture by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but to the Scribes and Amanuenses. But we have already made appear what was the Sentiment of St. Jerom con­cerning this present matter, which Vossius understood not; for now he was arrived at Years of more Maturity, when he ex­plained his Books by Commentaries. And how often he there corrects, not only the Scribes but the Interpreters themselves, there is no man can be ignorant.

Tho I deem the History carry'd about under the Title of A­ristaean to be an Illegitimate Birth; yet I willingly acknowledg, that the Interpretation which is attributed to the 70. Interpre­ters, was made by the Jews of Alexandria, in the Reign of Ptolemy Philodelphos, and copyed out of the Hebrew Manuscript in Chaldee or Babylonic Characters; in regard the Jews made no use of any other Letters for transcribing the Scripture but only those, after their Return out of Captivity: But as for the o­ther Greek Version, which Vossius believes to have been made by a Person learned neither in the Greek or Latin Tongue, badly and negligently copyed from the same Hebrew Exemplar in Sa­maritan Letters, it is a meer Fiction taken out of the Pseudo-Aristobulus; who nevertheless speaks not one Tittle of the Let­ter; wherein Vossius maintains the same Copy to have been writ­ten; neither did any body besides Vossius ever dream of 'em; so far is it remote from all probability of Truth. They mistake indeed, as Vossius well observes, who believe that Version was deriv'd from any Chaldaic or Syriac Paraphrase, there being no such thing extant at that time, and it being as certain that Phi­lo takes the Hebrew and the Chaldee Language promiscuously for [Page 161]the same. However we may have some reason to conjecture, be had some regard to the Chaldee Language, which was familiar to most of the Jews after their Return from Captivity. There was at that time neither Chaldee or Syriac Paraphrase; yet long before that, the Rabbies, as well in their Synagogues as Schools, read the Scripture Text as often in the Chaldee as the Hebrew Language, whence it might come to pass, that several words in the Greek Translation were more adapted to the Idiom of the Chaldee or Syriac Tongue, then the propriety of the Hebrew Speech.

The same Vossius invented another Fiction,De Sybil orac. asserting that un­til the Time when Aquila flourished, there was no other Scrip­ture read in the Synagogues of the Jews, then the Version of the Septuagint, in regard the Hebrew Language was so forgot­ten, that the Rabbies themselves did not understand it. But the 70 Interpreters, as Vossius will have it,Vossius's Errors flourished at what time the Hebrew Language was familiarly spoken. But the Hebrew Language was no more a Familiar Speech in the time of the 70 In­terpreters, then it was when Aquila lived. For that it was abo­lished after the Jews were carried Captive into Babilon; and after their return it ceased to be any longer the Language of the Country. How then could it be, that it should only continue among the Rabbies, who taught it publickly in the Synagogues and Schools; or if it be true, that till the Time of Aquila, there was no other Scripture read in all the Synagogues of the Jews, but the Greek Interpretation of the 70 Interpreters. How came it to pass that Flavius Josephus expounded the Law of Moses in the Hebrew Language, as Vossius affirms, and more­over that the same Josephus, the most learned of all the Hebrews of his Age, set forth his History of the Jews in the Hebrew Language, before he wrote it in Greek? Yet if we may believe Vossius, the Hebrew Language was then wholly lost: If it were so, why does he call it the Country Language of Josephus? He'l never agree with any who disagrees with Himself. It is manifest also from the Writings of Josephus, that the Jews of Palestine and the Territories adjacent spake the Hebrew Language, which they learnt by practise, without any Grammatical Rules, which were not invented till after six Hundred, as Vossius would have it, but not till after nine Hundred Years and more. In which sence, as Vossius relates, Josephus reports of himself that [Page 162]he excell'd in the learning of his Country all the rest of the Jews; but that he learnt the Greek by Grammatical Instructions. Now he calls his Country Learning the knowledge of the Hebrew Language & the Law of Moses, which the Hyerosolymitan Jews read in the He­brew Language in their Synagogues. Nevertheless if we believe Vos­sius, who frequently contradicts himself, Christ and his Apostles spake Greek in Judea. Wherever, saith he, from the time of Alexan­der the Great, the Grecians dilated their Conquests, there also the Greek Language prevailed, and a little after, as in Egypt, Asia and the rest of Syria, so also in Judea there was no other Language spoken, especially in great Towns and Cities. Yes — there was in Egypt besides the Greek the Coptick, in Syria the Syriac, in Judea the Judeac, or Chaldee Syriac. Vossius might have learnt from the Evangelists, that the Language of the Jews who Inha­bited Jerusalem, which ought to be numbered among great Towns and Cities, was the Chaldee or Syriac, and that Christ did not speak to the Jews of that City in Greek but in Syriac. Which Language, the Jews who inhabited that Country afterwards re­tained tho corrupted, as may be prov'd by the Example of the Talmud, which is vulgarly called the Hierosolymitan, and the Lan­guage also wherein that Book is written is called the Hierosoly­mitan. But among the Babylonian Jews, as at that time, so a great while after, the Chald [...]e Language was most Familiar, who have also their Talmud written in the same Language. For the most Ancient Books of the Jews, except some very few, were not written in any other Language then the Impure Chal­duic. But there is no reason we should spend any longer time in refelling the Assertions of Vossius, which have nothing in 'em of Probability. Such as are those things which he delivers concerning the Jewish Traditions,Voss. de Sybill. Orac. which he will have to be writ­ten in the G [...]eek. Language before Justinian's Raign, and of the Book Misua, which was translated about that time out of the Greek into the Hebrew, because by an Edict of Justinians the Jews were prohibited to read the Book of Traditions in their Synagogues. Therefore saith Vossius, to elude that command of the Emperor, the Book was Translated into Hebrew, Risum teneatis Amici.

But if the Learned Gentleman had apply'd his mind to the Edict of Justinian, The Hebrew Text read in the Synago­gues of the Hellenists. Justin Novel vel Constitut. 146. he might have found, that the Hebrew Text was read not only at Jerusalem but in the Synagogues of the Hellenists. Which is apparently evident from the very words of the Justinian Law. We are given to understand, That some having only the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, are desirous to make use of that in the Reading of the Scriptures; that others will also take in the Greek Edition. We therefore having considered these things, believe them to do best, who make use of the Greek Translation also in reading the Scriptures, and every other Lan­guage purely which the place makes more convenient and fitter for the hearers. This Law of Justinian supposes the Jews to be of two sorts, of which some being wholly addicted to the Hebrew Language, read the Scripture in their Synagogues in the Hebrew Language only: others because they understood the Greek, made use of the Greek Translation, likewise. By the Edict of Justinian they are permitted to read the Scripture not only in Greek, but in any other Language whatsoever; Therefore all the Hellenist Jews in obedience to the Law of Moses, never read the Scriptures in their Synagogue in any other then in the Hebrew Language, to which soon after their Domestic Native Language succeeded. Nor is this any way contradicted by the Testimonies of the Antient Jews and Fathers; from whom it is apparent that the Jews of Alexandria, and all those other Jews to whom the Greek was familiar, read the Greek Version of the 70. Interpreters in their Synagogues. In like manner it appears that there were certain Synagogues in Jerusalem, in which the Law of Moses, and the Prophets were read in the Greek Language. All these and many other Arguments that might be here collected together, serve only to prove, that the Reading of the Greek Interpretation was only added for exposition's sake to the reading of the Hebrew Text. As now in our days, the Jews according to their ancient. Custome every Sabbath day, read both in Hebrew and Chaldee; because that in the Ancient Synagogues, there were both Readers and Expounders; which Gift or Function of Interpreter or Pro­phet was Translated out of the Synagogue to the Christian Assemblies, as appears by the Apostles words in his first Epi­stle to the Corinthians Chap. 4. Hence perhaps it came to pass that the Greek Interpretation of the Septuagint in some places [Page 164]less accurately expresses the words of the Hebrew Text in re­gard that they who made it, supply'd the office of Paraphra­sters rather then of Interpreters; especially in those places that were most obscure. But as I have not leisure, so do I neither care to refute at present all those things which Vossius has at large produc'd to defend the Translation of the 70 Elders, and to magnifie the Exemplars of the Jews against all manner of pro­bability. Therefore it will be much more to the purpose, to compare St. Jeroms Version with the Greek in some places, thence to make manifest how truly Vossius has averr'd that St. Jerom ne­ver deviated upon right grounds from the Ancients,Resp. ad Critic and that he was the first amongst the Christians who compill'd a Rabbinic Version, and shew'd others the way to dare as much. Far dif­ferent was the Judgment which Austin Eugubinus gave of St. Je­roms Version which is now read in the Eastern Church;Austin. Eugub. in prefat. lib. de Vulg. Edit. his words are these: Thus if you compare the Hebrew Text with the Edition of the Seventy, I might be bold to use this simile, in asserting that you compare Light with Darkness. Which we shall make out in every part of this Treatise. Certainly we shall find this to be so unnecessary to the Church, that unless the Divine Jerom had bless'd us with this effect of his Industry, we had necessarily remain'd to this day in many Errors.

I shall therefore cull the Examples of this Comparison out of the Prophets,The Greek Version com­par'd with the Latin of S. J. ro [...]. which St. Jerom Translated out of the Hebrew, and illustrated with his Commentaries, both being extant as well the Old as the New Translation in his Works. However it is not my purpose to vindicate St. Jerom from all his slighter mistakes, as Vossius earnestly undertakes to vindicate the 70 In­terpreters: In regard that several things have slipt St. Jerom, tho' otherwise most learned, while he, too much addicted to the Jews of his Time, many times too severely corrects the Greek Interpreters. But that the Learned Father was so many times deceiv'd as he deviated from them, according to Vossius's judg­ment,Isa. 2.22. I utterly deny. In the Second Chapter of his Comment upon Isaiah, upon these words. Cease from Man, whose breath is in his Nostrils, for wherein is he to be accompted of; He wonders that the 70 Interpreters omitted to Translate into the Greek so perspicuous a Prophesie of Christ, as it seems to him to be, and he condemns the Jews for interpreting the word which in the Hebrew is ambiguous in the worst sence. Now under the name [Page 165]of the Jews in that place he taxes Aquila and other Interpreters who of set purpose compill'd a different Translation from the Septuagint, to which the Jews, forsaking the Ancient Interpre­tation had recourse. Now whether this Omission be to be attri­buted to the Transcribers or to the 70 themselves, I shall not now enquire, seeing it is certain that those words were not in the Greek Copies before Origen's Time, the words being added with a mark of little Asterisms in the Edition of Aquila. Nor do I dispute of the excellency of St. Jeroms Translation whether it be to be preferr'd before that of Aquila. But hence, I infer that St. Jeroms Translation was erroneously call'd Rabbinical by Vossius, as if St. Jerom now being old had given credit to the Jews alone in compiling his Translation of the Hebrew Text. In the 5 Chapter of the same Prophet 17 Verse, where St. Jerom Translates it, according to the propriety of the He­brew words, And the Lambs shall feed after their manner; he taxes the 70 Interpreters, for that, for what reason he under­stood not, they had Translated the words, They shall feed rent in pieces like Bulls. Understanding Bulls instead of Lambs, and for Strangers interpreting Lambs. Nevertheless the Hebrew words are not intricate here, and the sence is open. St. Jerom also re­proves the Greek Interpreters for Translating the Text,Isa. 6.8. And who will go for us? Because it is Lanu in the Hebrew, and who shall go to this People, which words are not in the Hebrew. But perhaps instead of Lanu, the read Laam; or else the same words which follow after, Go to this People, are here added for Explanations sake; in regard the Pronoun lls signifies nothing there as in many other places.

But much more worthy Observation are those things which St. Jerom reports upon these words which he had Translated ac­cording to the Hebrew Text, Blind the heart of this People, and load the Ears of it, when the Greek interpretation seems much more kindly, wherein it was written, And the heart of this people became obdurate. But they who understand the Hebrew Language know well, that this variance might proceed from the different pointing of the Vowels: and the 70 follow'd the pronunciation most usual in their own time, which was different from what was practic'd when St. Jerom liv'd, and this is demonstrable from the Mascretic Exemplar. Both Readings are confirm'd by Tradition. But the Greek is here to be preferr'd before St. Jeroms, because the Apostle [Page 166]follow'd it in the Acts of the Apostles. However St. Jerom answers to these objections, that this Reading ought to be attri­buted rather to St. Luke the Evangelist then the Apostle.Comment. in c. 6. Isa. The ancient Doctors of the Church, saith he, report that St. Luke was a most skilful Physitian, and understood the Greek better then the He­brew. Wherefore his Language as well in the Gospel as in the Acts of the Apostles is more polite, and savours of the Eloquence of the Times, And he makes more use of the Greek then the Hebrew Testimonies.

Therefore St. Jerom seems to be of that Judgment, that he beleiv'd, that St. Paul, disputing with the Hebrews, did not speak according to the Septuagint but according to the Hebrew Text. But that S. Luke the Evangelist, who understood the Greek perfectly and read the Greek Texts made use of Greek Quotations. Like proofs to these St. Jerom produces in his Hebrew Questions upon Genesis. Where weighing the Difference between the Greek and Latin Exemplars in numbring up the Sons of Jacob who journed with him into Egypt, and putting the Question why Stephen in the Acts adhered rather to the Version of the Septuagint, then to the Hebrew Text, he thus speaks St. Luke who is the Author of that History, while he was sending out among the Gentiles a volume of the Acts of the Apostles, ought not to have Wrote any thing contrary to that Scripture, which was now di­vulg'd among the Gentiles. And in another place. But this is generally to be observ'd, that wherever the Apostles or Apostolic men speak to the People, they make use of those Quotations which were divulg'd among the People. Why the A­postles us'd the Greek Version. And therefore it is not to be thought that the Apostles made use of the Greek Version in their Wri­tings, because they thought the Author thereof to be inspir'd with a Divine or Prophetic Spirit; or because no other Scrip­ture was read in the Synagogues but only the Greek Version, as Vossius erroneously affirms, but because it was vulgarly in use, and by the Testimony of St. Jerom, because when the Apostles spake to the People they made use of those Quotations which were most in use among the Gentiles: Quite otherwise then as they us'd to speak to the people of their own Nation, who understood the Hebrew. Vess. Resp. ad Critic. Sacra. But, says Vossius, St. Luke must of necessity have told an untruth, had Stephen express'd any other Sence then what he put down in his Sermon. As if there were any necessity for him to tell an Untruth, who repeats the substance of a Speech in the [Page 167]same words, only with some little Alterations of no moment. Nor does the Learned Gentleman seem to reach the sence of the Author of the Critica Sacra, as if he thought that Stephen had not preached his last Sermon in the Greek or vulgar Syriac, but in the Hebrew Language. Were the People, says Vossius, igno­rant of the Hebrew Language in the time of the Apostles? did the the Evangelist lye? What will remain entire in the Gospel, if we ad­mit such Fictious as these? But he rather feigns Monsters of his own, for himself to vanquish afterwards.Stephen prea­ch'd in Syriac not in Greek. Stephen Preached in Syriac which was then familiar to the Hierosolymitan Jews, but the Quotations which he cites he could not cite in any other Language then the Hebrew, because the Hierosolymitan Jews read the Law of Moses in their Synagogues in the Hebrew, not the Greek Language; and if any other Interpretation were added it was done in the Syriac Speech, which was the vulgar Language, as Vossius here freely confesses, not in the Greek, which was only used in the Schools and Synagogues of the Hellenists.

But in this I confess St. Jerom is to be corrected,Comment in c. 6. Isai. where he says, that Matthew and John took their Citations from the He­brew of the Old Testament, forgetful of that Rule which he sets down in his Hebrew Traditions upon Genesis, that is,St. Jerom tax­ed. that the Apostles and Apostolick Persons made use of the Greek Ex­emplars, for no other reason then because they were common among the Gentiles. But as for the Hebrew Copies, they were kept only in the Synagogues of the Jews, among whom very few were to be found who understood them. On the other side the Greek Language was familiar to most Nations. But it is to be observed, that the Apostles, though they stook to the Greek Copies, yet they did not altogether so totally depend upon them, but that many times they took more notice of the sence then the words.Micha. 5.2. Wherefore S. Jerom expounding this place of Michah, and thou Bethlehem Ephratah makes this observati­on; Some observe that in all Quotations taken out of the Old Testa­ment there is some mistake or other, that either the Order or the words are chang'd, and sometimes the very sence it self varies, the Apostles or Evangelists not looking in the Books, but trusting to their Memories, that might sometime fail them. These words indeed seem some­what too harsh, nor have I quoted them that Vossius should give any Credit to them. And yet he can hardly forbear at the same time to beleive John Calvin, who commenting upon the same [Page 168]place of Micha, thus observes. What necessity is there to wrest the words of the Prophet, when it was not the purpose of the Evangelist to repeat the words of the Prophet, but only to note the Text. In like manner S. Jerom, speaking his own and not the Opinion of others, concerning these Quotations which are cited out of the Old Te­stament into the New,Com. in 7. cap. Isai. in many Quotations Saith he, which the Evan­gelists or Apostles have taken out of the Old Testament, we are to take notice that they do not follow the order of the words but the sence. But let us now return to our purpose.

The first words of the ninth Chapter of the same Prophesie, are hardly to be understood in the Greek Version,Isai. 9.1. when the sence lyes open in St. Jeroms Version. St. Jerom produceth both in two distinct Colums after this manner. At first the Lard of Zebulon, and the Land Naphtali were lightly afflicted. This was St. Jeroms Translation: The Greek Version runs thus; Drink this first, do it quickly O Region of Zebulon, and Land of Naphtali. I am apt to believe the word Drink was taken from some other place, which changes the sence. A little after in the same Chapter, St. Jerom taxes the 70 Interpreters for that instead of these words, His name shall be called wonderful, Coun­seller, the Mighty God, the Father of the Age to come, the Prince of Peace; they affrighted at the Majesty of the Titles, durst not adventure to say so much of a Child, that he was to be call'd God, but instead of these six Titles, they have put that which is not in the Hebrew. Again he convinces the Grecian Interpre­ters of a manifest mistake, that not minding the spelling of the words, they have put Death instead of the Word, God sent Death into Jacob, whereas it should be the Word, as St. Jerom interpreted it: who presently adds the Original of the mistake in these words. In the Hebrew Language the word [...] which is written with three Consonants, according to the propriety of the places where it is used, if it be read Dabar it signifies a word or speech, but if Deber, it signifies Pestilence and Death. Not far from the begin­ning of the 10th Chapter of the same Prophet upon these words, wo to Assur, Isai. 10.5. St. Jerom accuses the Interpreters for not having accurately observed the Hebrew. Again in the 28. verse of the same Chapter upon these words, He is come to Ajath, he shews at large how much they differ from the Hebrew, and taxes them of Falshood for interpreting it Rama City of Saul for the City of Saul is called Gallna, as it is in the Hebrew.

Moreover St. Jeroms Opinion concerning the Seventy In­terpreters is quite different from that of Vossius, who believes there is nothing but Greek in it, and that it is hardly call'd a Language that had its Original in the Synagogue. For thus he speaks in his sixth Book of Commentaries. Instead of stranger, that is [...], the Seventy have Translated [...], which is in Hebrew Ger—Therefore Georas is no Greek word, but an Hebrew word declin'd after the Greek manner: Vossius contra­ry to S. Jerome in his Judg­ment concern­ing the Lan­guage of the Septuagint. which is cer­tain, notwithstanding the endeavours of a certain person to de­duce the word from a Greek Original, because he has the care of the business of the Land. For [...] signifies Land, and [...], that is Solicitude or care. Now how far the Greek Interpreters have deviated from the genuine sence of Scripture, in the c. 24 ver. 23 of the same Prophet, where we read in the Latine Edition, The Moon shall be ashamed, and the Sun shall be confounded, St. Jerom truly observes in these words, Instead of that which we Interpret, The Moon shall be ashamed, and the Sun shall be confounded, The 70. have Translated the words, the Brick shall be melted and the Wall shall fall. And by and by he discovers the reason of the mistake, [...] because that instead of the Hebrew word Levana which signifies the Moon, they read Lebena which signifies a Brick, and instead of [...] Chammah which signifies the Sun, from his heat, they read [...] Chomah which signifies a Wall. But I stay too long upon these things, in regard that St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Isaiah may be read by every body; where he frequently taxes the Greek Interpre­ters of Mistakes, sometimes deceived by the Ambiguity of words, sometimes upon other accompts. However some­times he spares them, as in the 30th Chapter, where after he had condemned their inconstancy of Interpretation, by and by as it were correcting himself, he adds, I am apt to believe they did not err from the beginning, but that they were deprav'd by the negligence of the Transcribers. And E. 40. where he notes some things omitted by the Interpreters, he presently adds, as it were in some doubt, either omitted by the Septuagint I terpreters, or by the fault of the Transcribers. In like manner sometimes he corrects the Greek Exemplars according to the Hebrew Copies, least the mistake should be put upon the Interpreters, as upon these words, Chap. 45. Thus saith the Lord to my Annointed Cyrus, he truly observes, that most of the Latines as well as [Page 170]the Greeks, did very much mistake in believing the words to be written, Thus saith the Lord to my Lord, For the Text doth not say [...], which signifies Lord, but [...], to Cyrus, who in He­brew is call'd [...] Curosch.

The same things are to be seen in St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Jeremiah, Ezekiel and other Prophets. And indeed there is nothing more frequent in his Commentary upon Jeremiah, then his observations of things omitted by the 70, or at least of passages not to be seen in the Greek Exemplars. For sometimes he accuses the Interpreters, sometimes the Tran­scribers. In this Commentary also upon Ezekiel, where he ob­serves the Omission of the Creek Copies he presently adds; In divine Scripture it is better to take all in that is said, though thou understandest not wherefore it is said, than to take away what thou dost not know. Nevertheless in the 5th Chapter of the same Prophet, he scarcely dares adventure to accuse the Interpreters, where he says, ‘'tis much better to Translate what is written, then to seek to defend a thing ill Translated. Nor do we say this was done by those to whom Antiquities has given Authori­ty; but that after many Ages it was deprav'd through the negligence of the Readers and Writers, though both Aristeas and Josephus and all the Schools of the Jews, assert no more than only the five Books of Moses, to have been translated by the 70 Interpreters.’ Nor is it only in this place but in many other, that St. Jerome seems to deny that any other part of Scripture was translated by the 70, unless the five Books of Moses, as upon the 5th Chap. of Micah, where he has these ex­pressions. The Interpretation of the 70 (if were done by the 70, for Josephus writes, and the Hebrews assert by Tradit on, that on­ly the five Books of the Law of Moses were Translated by them, and d [...]livered to King Ptolomy) vary's so far in the place cited, from the Hebrew Truth, that we can neither set the Chapters right, nor expound their Sentences together.

But Vossius is of a quite contrary Opinion, who not only seeks every where a Defence for a place ill translated, to use the words of St. Jerome, but openly testifies, that he makes no question but that the Prophetical Books were also transla­ted by the Seventy Interpreters, though formerly he made a doubt of it. And which seems to be above all belief, if we may credit Vossius, the Greek Interpreters shew themselves [Page 171]most accurate in the more obscure Books of Job and the Pro­verbs. But I believe there is no person sikll'd in both Languages, who will agree with him in this particular, so trivial is the Greek Translation of those Books in many places.St. Jerome sometimes tax­es the Greek Interpreters without cause. Yet am I not such a one as to pin my sleeve so passionately upon St. Jerome as every where to appove his Errors which are very many. Thus not to go farther, in the 27th Chapter of his Commen­taries upon Ezekiel He taxes the Seventy Interpreters for put­ting down the Sons of the Rhodians instead of the Sons of Dedan, deceived perhaps by the likeness of the first Letter, whilst they read Radan for Dadan. But that this mistake is rather to be attributed to the Transcribers then the Interpreters those Verses which follow in the same Chapter plainly demostrate, where the Seventy write Dedan, as in St. Jeromes Transla­tion.

Again in the 33th Chapter of the same Prophet, where men­tion is made of Gog, he observes, that the Greek Interpreters in the 24th of Numbers for Agag in the Hebrew have made use of the word Gog; But it is a manifest mistake of the Transcriber. But to omit a thousand thnigs of the same nature, the Observati­on of St. Jerome is much better in his 40th. Chapter of the same Commentaries, almost all the Hebrew words, and many in the Greek and Latine Translation, were Corrupted by long Antiquity, and de­prav'd through the negligence of the Transcribers, and while they are Transcribed out of bad Copies into Copies more corrected, of Hebrew words they are made Sarmatic nay of no Nation at all, while they cease to be Hebrew and become Forraigne. Therefore are those things most carefully to be distinguished, and according to the Rules of Criticism, which St. Jerome taxes as ill translated by the 70. For as he has rightly display'd the most of their Errors,Praef. in l. 7. Com. in Ezech. So he corrects many things, which deserve not to be found fault with. Nor is it to be wondred at when St. Jerome himself testifies that he could hardly compleat his Emendations, in regard there was not an hour, scarcely a Moment, wherein he did not meet with whole troops of the Brethren, and for that be­ing then old besides the difficulty of dictating, he was not able to look over the Hebrew Volums by reason of the smalness of the Print. In like manner he observes,Com. in E 42. that he could not rightly translate something, while he had not time to con­sider for hast of dictating. Therefore neither St. Jerome, [Page 172]nor the Seventy Interpreters being Prophets they must of ne­cessity slip many things, because they were but Men.

CHAP. XVIII. Of the rest of the Greek Translations of Sacred Scripture, and the Hexaples of Origen. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the Disposition of the Hexaples refuted.

THere was no Person before St. Jeromes time, who durst adventure to frame a New Translation of the Sacred Scripture from the Hebrew Original, in regard the Greek Trans­lation of the Septuagint was looked upon over all the Christian World as Divine, and proceeding from men inspir'd with a Prophetic Spirit. And therefore it was thought more proper to recount the rest of the Greek Versions rather among the Jewish then among the Christians, as being such as were fini­shed by the Jews or half Jews in hatred of the Christian Religion. But when Origen inserted them all in his Hexaples, together with the Version of the Seventy Elders, And that the ancient Fathers of the Church consulted them in Expounding the Scriptures, and that nothing more frequently occurs then the names of those Authors in the Writings of St. Jerome, we thought it con­venient to bring them in next after the Interpretation of the Seventy Elders.

[...]. Aquila's Greek Tran­slation.First therefore we will take notice of Aquila, whose Greek Version we shall refer to the Reign of Adrian the Emperour. He having forsaken the Christian Religion, which he professed before, revolted to the Jews, and at the same time undertook a new Version of the Biblic Context, in opposition to the Greek, which at that time was universally received in the Church. And because he found the 70 Elders to be rather Paraphrasters than Interpreters, he began a new Translation, which should render the Hebrew words [...], or following the signification of every word at the Heels; from whence he got the Name of the Contentious Interpreter, and his depraved affectation, which they called [...], was condemned: Although St Jerom, according to his custom, seems to have a better opinion of him, [Page 173]for sometimes he praises him as a Learned and Diligent In­terpreter. Thus writing to Damasus, Aquila, saith he,Epist. 125. who is not Contentious, as he is reported to be, but interprets diligently word for word. Nevertheless in another place he calls him a contentious and silly Interpreter, that is to say, having relation to things and places, he gives a different Judgment of one and the same Interpreter, and taxes him as a half Christian, calling him withal, Jew and Blasphemer. In like manner Epiphanius, who detracts from Aquila, as a person that frequently [...] or speaks Barbarisms, yet calls to his assistance against the Arri­ans his Version, forsaking that of the 70 Interpreters. How highly he was esteemed by the Jews, Origen tells us in these words, So, saith he,Epist. ad A­fric. did Aquila subservient to the Hebrew Phrase make his Translation, who among the Jews is thought to have ren­dred the Scripture with greater applause, whom they chiefly make use of who are ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, as beleiving him to have attained to the perfection of it.

However the [...] or depraved Affectation of that In­terpreter can hardly be excused, who while he keeps over close to the words of his Text, clouds the sence and meaning of it. Wherefore he himself not contented with his own Translation, undertook another, wherein following the same method of In­terpretation, he was the cause himself that those Versions had no other approvers then the Jews. Nor do Justin and some o­thers of the Fathers seem to have recourse to them, but only to inforce their Arguments more home upon the Jews.

The Greek Translation of Symmachus.Who was the next that after Aquila translated the Scripture out of Hebrew into the Greek is not certainly known. For some attribute that Version to Symmachus, others to Theodosion. Syma­chus the first of the Samaritan Sect, afterwards turned Nazarite Christian, or Ebonite. He is vulgarly reported to have compiled his Version in hatred of his own Nation, the Samaritans whose Religion he had forsaken, and that in the Raign of Severus the Emperor. He finding Aquila's Interpretation to be contemn'd by most, especially the Christians, because he interpreted word for word, applied himself, as St. Jerom testifies, rather to ren­der the sence then the words. Symmachus, saith he, uses to fol­low not only the [...] of words, but the order of Sence. Af­ter that, by the report of the same St. Jerome, he undertook another Translation: as if the former had not been sufficient­ly accurate to his mind.

The third place, among the Greek Interpreters of Sacred Context is yeilded to Theodotion, who nevertheless is thought by most to have lived before Symmachus, under the Emperor Commodus. He embracing at first the opinion of the Marcio­nites, afterwards turned Ebionites, and in compiling his Versi­on, altogether laying Aquila's aside, comes nearest of all to the 70 Interpreters. Wherefore Origen took out of that, what seems to be wanting in this. And St. Jerom testifies, that in his time, the Prophesie of Daniel was read in the Church, ac­cording to Theodotio's Translation; nor is it a difficult thing to prove that he regarded much more the sence then the words of the Text. Thus in the 4th. Chap. of Genesis. v. 4. where we read in the Septuagint [...], and in the Vulgar respexit, the Lord had respect, which interpretation exactly agrees with the Hebrew Text, Theodosio renders it [...], inflamma­vit, the Lord set it on fire; wherein he agrees with the Rabbins, who beleive that Cain thence perceived that his Sacrifice was not acceptable to God, because he found his offering was not consumed by fire.

Other Tran­slations of the Scripture.Concerning the fourth and fifth Versions of the Bible, which Origen has added to his Hexaples, nothing of certainty can be affirmed, the Authors of them being utterly unknown. Yet is it not probable they were compiled by any Christian Writers, in regard that the Church for a long time after St. Jerom ac­knowledged no other Translation of the Holy Scripture, then that which was read over all the Catholick World under the Title of the Septuagint;Initio Caten. in Job. and for that as Olympiodorus testi­fies, the depraved Interpretations of the fabulous Hebrews were reckoned superfluous, after the Version of the Septuagint, all other Interpreters being quoted only for perspicuities sake; and before these Versions, Irenaus speaking of the Interpreta­tion of the 70,L. 3. adv. He­ret. c. 25. adds these words, They are truly Impudent and Audatious, that will make Interpretations otherwise. St. Jerom al­so calls those Interpreters Judaic Translators, in like manner as he entitles Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotio. But we are to note that these two Versions which we call the fourth and fifth, in Origens Hexaples, are extant under the names of the fifth and sixth; the Greek Interpretation of 70 being reckoned into the Number. But here we only mention those which were taken from the Hebrew Original, after the Greek Version of the Septua­gint.

Concerning all these Translations and the Genius of the se­veral Translators, much more might be added, but what re­mains may be easily drawn from their fragments which are ex­tant, and which the learned Drusius has caused to be made pub­lick in Print. In like manner the Scholiast may be consulted, whose Annotations are printed both at Rome and at Paris, to­gether with the Greek Exemplar of the Septuagint, according to the Vatian Manuscript. But in the first place St. Jerow's Com­mentaries upon the sacred Scripture are to be scann'd, where nothing more frequently occurs than the Names of Aquilas, Symmachus and other Greek Interpreters, whom he sometimes Corrects and sometimes Commends.

To these some there are who make an addition of other Ver­sions, and attribute them to Lucian, Hesychius, Origen and A­pollinarius; but all these excepting Apollinarius did no more then examin the Greek Exemplars of the Septuagint with the An­cient Manuscripts, not being the Authors of any new Transla­tions. In which sence are to be explained the words of St. Je­rome, a most remarkable Testimony in this case. Alexandria and Egypt in their S [...]ptu [...]gints applaud Hesychius the Author; L. 1. Apol. adv. Ruffin. Constantinople even as far as Alexandria approve the Copies of Justin Martyr; the Provinces in the midst of these read the Pale­stine Manuscripts which Eusebius and Pamphilus published, being Elaborately viewed by Origen; and the whole World contends about this threefold Truth. But Apollinarius out of all composed one Edition, though unsuccessfully being rejected as well by the Jews as Christians; wherefore St. Jerom gives this Judgment of him. I pass by Apollinarius, who with great zeal and diligence, but not according to knowledge, has endeavoured out of all the Tran­slations, to make several peices of Cloath into one Garment, and to weave the Consequence of Scripture, not according to the rule of Truth, but according to his own Judgment. But these things shall be made more manifest,Id. ibid. when we come to explain the Dispo­sition of Origens Hexaple, which was known to very few, as we shall prove by what follows.

St. Jerom makes a distinction of two Versions of the Septua­gint, especially in his Epistle to Sunias and Fretela, whom he ad­monishes, that there is another Edition of the Septuagint, whi [...]h all the Grecian Commentators call [...] or Common, and ano­ther which was to be found in the Hexaples of Origen, and which [Page 176]he testifies to have been faithfully translated into Latin by him­self. St. Jerom adds that there is this difference between the one and the other, that the [...] or Vulgar was corrupted by the va­riety of Places and Times, and the negligence of the Tran­scribers; but that which was to be found in the Hexaples, that was the Translation of the 70. which was preserved incorrupt and immaculate in the Books of the Learned. Which words however are not to be understood, as if that Greek Edition, which the Exemplars of Origen present to our view, were the pure Original of the 70 Interpreters free from mistake, seeing that Origen himself tells us that he had corrected the Vulgar Exem­plars with all the exactness he could, which were most of them corrupt and depraved in his time. Now who will be so hardy as to affirm that he reformed every particular Error that was in those Copies? Rather it might happen that under pretence of Correction, he might obtrude some Errors that were not there before upon the antient Exemplars, like that same Critic, who examined the Greek Edition, which is extant in the Bibles, Printed at Complutum, or Alcana de Henares in Spain, by the Greek Copies which were antient and of good repute, but some­times also by the Hebrew Originals. Therefore as the Edition of Complutum is not therefore the more pure because it comes nea­rest the Hebrew Original; but for that very reason rather dis­commended and rejected as corrupt; so neither is that Edition of Origen, which St Jerom magnifies, because it is more agre­able to the Hebrew Truth than the Vulgar Greek Edition to be therefore thought the more pure and without Fault, because it is more agreeable with the Hebrew Exemplars than the [...], or Common One. I confess indeed that Origen has made no al­teration of set purpose in the Version of the Septuagint which he inserted into his Hexaples, because he avows it of himself, wri­ting to Africanus, where he says that he had no intention to frame any thing which might d [...]ff [...]r from the Scripture received in the Catholick Church: But the reason of his Method, which he has followed in correcting the antient Greek Exemplars, plain­ly demonstrates that in them he has made some Innovations. For thus he speaks in his Treatise upon Matthew. What Incongrui­ties there were in the Exemplars of the Old Testament, we were a­ble to reconcile by the assistance of God, making use of the other Edi­tions: For those things which in the Septuagint seemed to be dubious, [Page 177]by reason of the Discrepancy of Exemplars, weighing and consider­ing the other Editions, we made to agree with the Rest.

Therefore Origen, while he lent his healing hand to the Vul­gar Exemplars of the Greek Edition of the Septuagint, consul­ted Aquila, Symmachus and other Authors; nay and it is very probable the Hebrew Text it self too. Now who can presume to affirm him to be so happy in his Emendations, as never to swerve from the true Reading; nay though he had so exactly examin'd altogether all the Editions, as he says himself, and all varieties; that by comparing the Difference of Translations, he might understand the Septuagint.

Concerning the Editions of Lucian and He­sychius.Concerning the Emendations of Lucian and Hesychius, who in like manner examined the Exemplars of the Vulgar Greek Edition with the antient Exemplars, the same Judgment may be given of them: For it is very probable they consulted the Versions of Aquila and others: From whence arose that Diver­sity of the Greek Codixes, which now appears, in several Editi­ons of the Greek Translation of the Septuagint. All which we may reduce principally to three, from whence all the rest were derived: And these are the Editions of Complutum, which is ex­tant in the Royal Bibles, or those Printed at Antwerp; Anno 1515. La [...]e Greek Editions. 1518 in the Pa­risian Polyglots, and the Bibles that are Printed under the Name of Vatablus. The Alclin or Venetian Edition, which was after­wards Printed at Strasburgh, Basil Frankford, the Order of the Books being somewhat changed; And lastly the Roman, Printed from the Vatican Codex, 1587. which was afterwards Printed a Second Time at Paris by the care of John Morinus, 1628. with an antient Latin Version; and is the same with the English transferr'd in­to their Polyglotton, as being the most acurate of all.

The Edition of Complutum was the most full of Faults of a­ny of the rest, as being examined and mended not only by the Greek, but by the Hebrew Codexes also; some also attribute to Eusebius and Pamphilus a new Recognition or Emendation of the Greek Version of the Septuagint; Eusebius' [...] E­dition. but if there were any Edition of Eusebius it was little different from that of Origen: For as St. Jerom reports, Eusebius and Pamphilus divulged the Codex's,Ap [...]l. adv. Ruffin. that were elaborately mended by Origen; Eusebius also recites an Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to himself, [...], concerning the Preparation of Books written by divine Inspiration. As indeed at the end of certain [Page 178]Greek Exemplars the names of Pamphilus and Eusebius are to be found recorded in this manner, [...], Pamphilus & Eusebius corrected; that is to say, the Exemplars of Origen, which were inserted into the Hexaples, were after­wards transcribed by Pamphilus and Eusebius for the Churches of Palestine, whence as St. Jerom relates, they took the Name of the Palestine Manuscripts; as those which were corrected by He­sychius were called Constantinopolitan; The Palestins, Constantinopo­litan and Alex­andrian Editi­o [...]. and they that were revis'd by Lucian carryed the Name of Alexandrian. And this Diver­sity of Editions appears in several Exemplars in our Age; while some relate to those of Origen, or the Palestinian, others to the Alexandrian. Now let us inquire what was the Order and Dis­position of the Books in Origen's Hexaples, which is variously controverted among the Learned.

Isaac Vossius promises that he will at one time or other de­monstrate that Origen in putting his Haxaples together took a­nother way then is vulgarly believ'd.de Sept. In­terpret. l. 29. Wherefore in his answer to the late Critics, he maintains that the Tetraples and Hexa­ples of Origen were not so call'd from the four or six Columns, but that they were call'd Tetraples, because they contain'd a fourfold Version; Hexaples because they comprehended six Versions. That the Author of the Critics errs as to the Octaples, while he follows Epiphanius in his mistakes, because Origen never wrote any Octables; that the Hebrew Codex was never reckon'd into the Number of Versions,Origens vast undertaking consider'd. by reason that Origen calls the first Co­lumns [...], the Foundation of all Translations. Vossius adds, that in the Tetraples there were six Columns, in the Pentateuch also seven, as to which the Samaritan Exemplar might be added, Printed in the Original Hebrew Letters, as they are call'd by Eusebius and Africanus; But because that was only done in the Pentateuch, therefore the Tetraples were said to contain only six Columns by the same reason as in the Hexaples, tho' in the Psal. a seventh Version is also added; and yet the Title of Hexaples remains, because that seventy Version is wanting in other Books.

Thus far Vossius, who nevertheless cites no other Authors but himself, to shew what that new way was which he promis'd to demonstrate; yet that we may give the greater credit to his words he adds, Since there are no exemplar remaining, or at least, none hitherto to be found of Hexaples or Tetraples, to contend a­bout these things too profusely would but shew the Vanity of a person [Page 179]too lavishly squandring away his leisure. After this manner Vos­sius acquits himself of his pr [...]mises to display a new and un­heard of Disposal of Origens Hexaples. But since he never saw any Exemplars of them, it will not be amiss to consult those an­cient Fathers of the Church, and first of all Epiphanius, who describe them as Eye witnesses.

Dionysius Petavius a most learned Jesuit, and no less vers'd in the Greek and Hebrew Codex's then Vossius, asserts, that no person ever more accurately deliver'd what were the Tetraples, Hexaples and Octaples of Origen, than Epiphanius. And the same Petavius admires, that they most who took what they had out of Epiphanius, should be deceiv'd in a place so plain and o­pen to the understanding; and first he taxes Marianus Victorinus in his Scholiast upon the Second Book of the Apology against Ruffinus; where he reproves Erasmus, as he says, upon the Au­thority of Epiphanius, but very erroneously. The Order there­fore of the several Editions is here set down in this same Scheme out of Epiphanius himself.

• TETRAPLES.
  • Aquila.
  • Symmackus.
  • Sep [...]u [...]gint.
  • Theodotion.
• HEXAPLE'S
  • Hebrew in Hebrew Letters.
  • Greek in Greek Letters.
  • Aquila
  • Symmachus.
  • Septuagint.
  • Theodotion.
• OCTAPLE'S.
  • Hebrew in Hebrew Letters.
  • Hebrew in Greek Letters.
  • Aquila.
  • Symmachus.
  • Septuagint.
  • Theodotion.
  • Fifth Edition.
  • Sixth Edition.

But, saith Vossius, the Tetraples and Hexaples were not so call'd from the four or six Columns, but from the four fold Version, because they comprehended six Translations: wherein the learned Gentleman is grosly mistaken. For the name of Tetraples, Hexaples and Octaples was deriv'd from the number of the Editions. And every Edition took up one Column or Page according to the ancient Custom of Writing out their Volumes, as the words of Ruffinus plainly evince. It was the Intention of Origen to shew us what was the manner of reading the Scriptures a­mong the Jews,Ruffin. invect. and therefore he plac'd every one of the Editions in their proper Columns or Pages. The same therefore was the me­thod of Pages and Editions in Origens Hexaples. Nor are those Arguments of any moment which Vossius deduces from the word [...], which Title Origen gives to his first Columns, that is to say, [...] as being the foundation of all Ver­sions. I would fain know what else can be thence inferr'd but that Origen had a mind to distinguish by that name the Hebrew Context from the Versions that were made from it, as being the ground of all the Translations. In which sence St. Jerom calls the same Context the Hebrew Truth. Does it less from thence appear that the Context written in the Hexaples in Hebrew and Greek Characters took up two Columns, from which equally as from the Versions, each of which was written in it's distinct Pages, the name of Hexaple was deriv'd? Moreover it is a Fi­ction of the same Vossius, which he fains concerning the Samari­tan Codex written in the Original Hebrew Letters, which was ad­ded to the Pentateuch. For that was unknown to the ancient Fathers of the Church Epiphanius, Jerom, Ruffinus, as also to Eusebius and Africanus whom he endeavours to draw to his par­ty. Neither will ever Vossius be able to demonstrate by certain Reasons what he so confidently asserts touching the Samaritan Codex which was in Origen's hands, and vainly he produces for Witnesses Eusebius, Africanus, Syncellus, nay even Origen him­self, who never so much as dream't in their sleep of this Sama­ritan Exemplar, written as he says in the Original Hebrew Let­ters. The Samaritans indeed had a Greek Version of the Penta­teuch which was well known to the Fathers, and out of that A­fricanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus took several Readings of the Sa­maritan Exemplar translated from the Hebrew which they insert­ed into their Writings. As for Origen, he studyeth the Hebrew [Page 181]Language under the Instruction of Huillus, Patriarch of the Jews, and not of the Samaritans; and therefore he did not make use of the Hebrew Copies of the Samaritans, but of the Jews. In which Sence those words of Eusebius are to be understood.Euseb. l. 6. Hist. So great was the care and diligence which Origen us'd in his accu­rate Examination of the Sacred Writings, that he learnt the Hebrew Language, and bought up the Originals which were among the Jews, written in the Hebrew Characters. In Resp. ad Object. Crit. But Vossius apparently wrests the words of Eusebius to another Sence; and to accommodate them the more easily to his own Opinion scrupl'd not to alter the vulgar Reading without the help of any Manuscript Copy. For thus he reads the Sentence, [...], whereas it is vulgarly read [...], not [...]. And thus he renders it, That he learnt the Hebrew Language, and pur­chas'd to himself those Scriptures which were written in the Original Hebrew Letters. Now saith Vossius, in Eusebius's Sence, the Ori­ginal Characters are no other then the Samaritan, and Eusebius had manifestly contradicted himself, if he had meant the Vul­gar Letters of the Jews, when he had wrote the contrary in his Chronicle. I cannot, but wonder at the Ingenuity of Vos­sius to impose upon his Readers in a thing so plain and obvious to all that have but kiss'd the threshold of the Greek Tongue. The Books of Eusebius are in every Bodies hands, whose intenti­on in the place already cited was no more then to shew the in­defatigable pains and unwearied labour of Origen in perusing the Books of Sacred Scripture and searching out their Sence; which that he might the more easily attain to, he learnt the Hebrew Language from Jewish Masters, read over their Books in the Hebrew Characters, and compar'd them with the Versions of the Seventy, Aquila, Symmachus, and others. Whether it be to be read [...] or [...] I will not at present dispute, by reason that though Vossius's Lection, should hold water, it is certain that by Prototype or Original Letters the Hebrew Cha­racters are only to be understood. That is to say, the Hebrew Context in Origen's Hexaples is written in Hebrew and Greek Let­ters, as has been already observ'd. Wherefore Eusebius then bearing in his mind the Hebrew Exemplars, which were at that time read by those who did not understand Hebrew, because [Page 182]the Characters were Greek, asserts that Origen purchas'd an He­brew Examplar written in Hebrew Characters. For how could it otherwise be when the Jews were his Masters and not the Sama­ritans? I will acknowledg that the Examplars of the Samaritan Pen­tateuch written in Characters different from the Jewish, were not unknown to Eusebius, Origen, and others of the Fathers; but be­cause most of them did not understand the Hebrew Tongue, where they speak of the Samaritan Codex, most assuredly they mean the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which was then vulgarly expos'd. Nor do Eusebius's words in his Chronicle favour Vossius in the least, where Eusebius makes mention of three Exemplars of Sacred Scripture from whence he drew his own: That is say, [...], from the 70 Interpreters, [...], from the Hebrew Exemplar of the Jews; [...] from the Hebrew Exemplar of the Samaritans. For there, by the Hebrew Exemplar of the Samaritans, of necessity the Greek Version of that Exemplar must be meant, no otherwise then as by the Hebrew Exemplar of the Jews, most of the Fathers who were ignorant of the Hebrew Language understood Aquila's Version, which was Translated Verbatim from the Hebrew. Therefore Eusebius knew that the Samaritans preserv'd an Hebrew Copy of the Pentateuch as well as the Jews; but because he understood not the Hebrew Language, he consulted the Greek Version which was compill'd by the Sama­ritans, and which was at that time usually read by them. As formerly Justin Martyr, disputing against Trypho the Jew gives the Greek Interpretation of Aquila the Title of the Hebrew Con­text; because it was most in use among the Jews at that time. But Vossius never confider'd these things nor many others of the same Nature. Now then let us return to the business from whence we made this Digression.

In the Hexaples of Origen, as may be seem by the Scheme al­ready set down, the Hebrew Text in the Hebrew Letters obtains the first place, the second the same Text in Greek Characters, in regard that from thence all the first Versions of Scripture were derived. Then followed the Interpretation of Aquila, which followed the Hebrew Verbatim, and much closer than any of the rest of the Translators. The Septuagint was placed in the mid­dle, and not in the first place, as many thought, as the Test by which all the others were to be examined. This the Transla­tions [Page 183]of Symmachus and Theodotion accompany on each side, as not being much unlike it, and because the same method of Translating was observed in all the three.

Now because that vast Volume, containing so many Transla­tions, as it were under one line, was of a great price, and to be purchased but by few, insomuch that St. Jerom complained that the Alexandrian Papers had emptied his purse, Origen, of a most acute wit and unexhausted knowledge, bethought him­self of a way how he might bring all these Editions as it were into one. And because at that time there was no other Scrip­ture received in all the Churches, then the Translation of the 70 Interpreters, he set forth that apart with certain Notes, by the advantage of which all the rest were put to view; so that what seemed to be wanting in the Hebrew Context, he supplied out of Theodotion's Version, with the addition of a mark which the Gramarians call an Asterisk, The Hexaple's epitomized. as illustrating those words of the Context, which were too much curtail'd, and as it were abbreviated. But if any thing seemed to abound and to be su­perfluous in the Hebrew Context, in those luxuriant places he added another Mark by the Critic's called a Spit or Obelus, as of what was luxuriant in the Greek Edition of the Septuagint were to be cut and murdered as extravagant: And the chief Design of Origen, as Epiphanius testifies, in the Disposition of that work was, that the Jews might the more easily be convinced by the Christians in their Disputes. Because they frequently ob­jected that it was otherwise in the Hebrew Exemplar, than in the Greek Edition. The same is also testifyed by St. Jerom and Ruffinus; though St Jerom sometimes gives a reason of those Notes somewhat different. Origen had added also other marks to this Work in the fashion of a small Label, concerning the use of which the Criticks of our Age do not agree, and which has been hitherto revealed but by a few; we are to understand, that Greek Edition of the Septuagint, with all those illustrating and killing Notes in the Hexaples of Origen, was found toge­ther with the Translations of Aquila, Symmachus and the other Interpreters, as the words of Ruf [...]inus seem to prove. O [...]igen's Intention was to shew us what manner of Reading the Scriptures was observed among the Jews, and wrote the several Editions of them eve­ry one in his proper Columes, and whatever was added or taken away in any of them he noted with certain marks at the beginning of the [Page 184]Verses, and in that which was another mans and not his own work, be affixed his own marks only that we might understand what was wan­ting or superfluous not in respect of our selves, but of the Jews that disputed against us.

Moreover the same Origen illustrated that vast work of his Hexaples with Scholiasts of several sorts, which he placed in the Margent of the Book, that he might give some Light to that E­dition of the Septuagint, which appeared in the midst between all the rest. For first you might easily apprehend what was the distinction between the Antient or Vulgar Edition of the 70, and his own new Edition, by the benefit of this Mark [...] which stands for 70 in Greek, that Mark [...] denoting the common Le­ction. Then in the same Scholiasts, the Interpretations of A­quila, Symmachus and Theodosion were every one demonstrated by their proper Letter. A' denoted Aquila, Σ' Symmachus, and Θ Theodotion. The fifth Edition was marked with E', and the sixth with [...], He also set Notes in the Margent of his Book for the verbatim exposition of the words of sacred Scripture, which are Printed in his works, under the Title of Scholiasts. And more then this, if we will believe Vossius, it is not improbable but that Origen marked in his Hexaples the various reading of the Samaritan Codex. If any one will rather choose to believe that Origen did not insert the Samaritan Exemplar into his Hexaples and Tetraples, but only marked the various Readings, I will not much dispute the Business. Thus Vossius fickle in his Judgment, sometimes avers, sometimes denies; and whereas before he had so confidently asserted that the Exemplar of the Sa­maritan Pentateuch was extant in the Hexaples written in the Sa­maritan Characters, now in a doubt he dares not be posi­tive in a thing wherein he has so little of certainty to make out. But as it is no way probable that the Samaritan Exemplar, which was the same with the Judaick was extant in the Hexaples, so it is very likely that Origen might transfer into his Scholiast the different reading of the Samaritan from the Judaic, which he did not take out of the Samaritan Exemplar, written in those Original Hebrew Letters, but from the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch corrected by the Samaritans themselves.

This is the Oeconomie and Disposition of the Hexaples of Ori­gen, which Persons the most learned could not comprehend, while they do not mind that the Greek Interpretations of Aqui­la, [Page 185]Symmachus and Theodosion were twice set down in one and the same work, that is, entire in the work it self, and part in the Scholiasts in the Margent, but Origen who was desirous to be be­neficial to all Persons, reduced into a Compendium that vast Pile of the Hexaples, by the help of Notes and Scholiasts, to the end that they who could not buy the Hexaples entire, might Transcribe at least the substance of the Text out of the Hexaples themselves, and by the same art he published the [...] or com­mon Edition of the Septuagint, together with the new Edition, which because he thought more corrected, he inserted whole in­to his Hexaples, adding in the Margent of the common and the various Sections under the mark [...]; wherefore some are grosly mistaken, who not understanding this disposition of the Hexa­ples, undertake to maintain that there is in them a double Editi­on of the 70 Interpreters, as well the vulgar as that corrected and pure one, of which Origen and St. Jerom so often make men­tion, placed in two distinct Pages, and for that reason that the Hexaples did not derive their name from the distinct Columns, but the several Versions, but these things are apparently untrue, and proceed only from the Ignorance of the order of the Hex­aples, to the Margent of which the ancient reading of the 70 was transferred, and thus both Editions of the Septuagint ap­peared in the Hexaples, now because few could purchase those vast volums that had emptied St. Jerom's Pocket, most persons transcribed that interlin'd Edition, mark'd by Origen with Aste­risks and Daggers and other notes of Distinction, from whence arose the greatest confusion in the World in the Greek Exem­plars, and from that time the ancient Interpretation of the 70 was no longer read in the Churches, but the interlin'd one of Origen, which or another like to it, was afterwards transmit­ted to the Eastern Church by the Care of St. Jerome.

CHAP. XIX. Of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church.

THe most contentions in disputes concerning the Bible, which have disturbed the Church for these many years, have been hammered in the Shops of certain Criticks and Gramari­ans, who being bred in the Schools, there is nothing which they do not call to the bar of Controversie, presuming to prefer their own wit before the Authority of the Church; and as if their Critick Art could by no means brook the Ecclesiastical decrees, they presently oppose them with all their might and main; but questionless without a cause, for that the Church does by no means disallow of such Critical Observations as are every day made upon the Scripture, by Persons conspicuous for their Poetry and Learning: nor if any one more strictly enquire into the reason of the Biblick Context then another, does she reject their Labours so they do not detract from the Ancient Editions. And therefore it is lawful for the Protestant Divines in imitation of the Fathers to have recourse to the Hebrew O­riginals, and to make new Translations from them, so that they learn from the same Fathers, That the Sacred Scripture is the pro­per possession of the Catholick Church, and that they have the same sentiments concerning the Church and her Books, which one of their own belief wrote in these words, against those who neg­lect the ancient Versions and long allowed by the practise of the Church. Let the Authority of our Mother the Church be preserv'd entire to it self, let the Fathers enjoy the honour due to them, to whose venerable gray Hairs, if any one refuse to rise and contradict their decrees, let them not be accounted in the number of their Sons nor of Brethren to us. Autor prefat. in lib. J. Boys. p [...]o defens. vulg. That Protestant Writer is afraid, lest his Brethren Innovators should suffer for the Title which they bear of Reformed, who taking the worst method of reforming in the World, destroy instead of building up. I could wish therefore that the Protestants would reconcile themselves to us; seeing that if the present Matter concerning the Ancient [Page 187]Interpreters were more diligently considered, they would ra­ther differ in name then in reality from the Divines of the Church of Rome; and now most of them carry themselves more mildly then at the beginning of the Schism, since the Cri­tica sacra of the learned Cappellus has recall'd them to a right judgement of the uncertainty of the Hebrew Context, which is now commonly in the hands of every pretender to Scholar­ship; for they found themselves to be deceived by the Inconsi­derate Assertion of certain Grammarians, who judged of those Ancient Interpreters by the modern Rules of the Hebrew Gram­mer.

The ancient Translation of the Eastern Church.Over all the Latin Church almost from the times of the A­postles even to the Age wherein St. Jerom liv'd that Interpretati­on of Scripture was highest in repute, which by some was call'd the Italian, perhaps because it was first compil'd in Italy, and thence dispersed to other Nations to which the Latin Tongue was familiar, by others call'd the Old Translation by reason of it's Antiquity. Among the most part it was call'd by the name of Vulgar and Common, to distinguish it from those other Ver­sions, which could hardly be number'd. Who was the Author of that ancient Translation is unknown. However certain it is that it was taken from the Greek Translation of the Seventy Elders, in regard that no person till St. Jeroms time would un­dertake to make a new Version from the Hebrew. This Editi­on Flaminius Nobilius, having corrected it with a Diligence be­yond his Ability, caus'd to be Printed at Rome; 1588. 1628. which was afterwards reprinted at Paris by John Marinus together with the Vatican Greek Exemlpar; but that this was the pure Version of the Latin Church, made use of over all the East before St. Jeroms time no skilful Critick will presume to affirm; For it could not be, that Nobilius could transcribe it entire and absolutely perfect from the writers of the Fathers, who did not follow it exactly themselves, and if any one of them were learned in the Greek Language, they did not think it lawful to make a new Interpretation from the Greek Septuagint. To which we may add, that St. Jerom repaired that ancient Versi­on, which he sound in some places not altogether so accurate, but very much varying from it self, according to the diversity of Countries and Exemplars, in the reforming of which he made use of the Greek Exemplar which Origen had inserted in­to [Page 188]his Hexaples, and which deviates least from the Hebrew Co­pies. But by the venerable Fragments which are still remain­ing at this day, we may easily perceive that St. Jerom left some faults, as not being able in so laborious an undertaking, to be intent upon every thing.

St. Jerom imitated the industry of Origen.The same St. Jerom; to the end he might shew himself no less profitable to those of his own Language then Origen had been to the Greeks, in imitation of him, publish'd that ancient Version corrected, together with additions from the Hebrew Text, un­der the mark of an Asterisk with a Dagger to shew what was superfluous. Of which undertaking St. Jerom himself thus speaks writing to St. Austin. That Interpretation was the Interpre­tation of the Seventy Elders, and wherever there are any marks like Daggers, they denote that the Seventy have said more then there is in the Hebrew. Where there are any Asterisks or little Stars, they signifie an Addition by Origen out of Theodotion; and there we have Translated the Greek, here we express'd from the Hebrew what we understood, observing rather the Truth of Sence, then the Order of the words. This new Translation of St. Jerom from the Greek Exemplars was joyfully receiv'd by most Churches, as being of singular use in the Explanation of Scripture; and shew'd the difference between the Exemplars of the Church and the Synagogue. For which how Ruffinus has fum'd and storm'd against that most learned person and so well deserving of the Church can hardly be express'd. Who, saith Ruffinus, would have dar'd to unhallow the Instruments left by the Apostles, but a ju­daic Spirit? For Ruffinus does not speak of the Version which St. Jerom afterwards made from the Hebrew, but of that which he drew from the Greek Translation of the Septuagint, with some additions under the mark of the Asterisk, and the little Dagger; to shew what was superfluous. The same Ruffinus adds many other things for which he condemns St. Jerom, of which more hereafter: And while St. Jerome, by the example of Origen whom he pretends to have imitated in his undertaking, defends him­self, Ruffinus replies upon him, that never any Catholick hitherto had presum'd to Translate out of the Hebrew into Latin any thing of Sacred Scripture. Withal he shews that Origens undertaking is far different of that of St. Jerom; in regard that Origen has in­troduc'd no Alterations into the Ancient and generally receiv'd Version by the Church. But St. Jerom answers most incompa­rably both to Ruffinus and all other his Detractors.

But as to that other Version, which that most learned Father Translated in his Elder years according to the Hebrew Truth, far greater difficulties arise upon it. For by reason of that, even among his Friends he is tax'd as an Innovator. In so much that St. Austin himself could not brook, that the Greek Translation, which it is manifest the Apostles had us'd, should be defam'd: as if the Authors of it had mistak'n.

It will be very hard, saith St. Austin writing to St. Jerom, if when thy Interpretation shall begin to be frequently read in many Churches, that the Greek and Latin Churches should seem to disagree. Soon after, he confirms the thing by example in these words. A certain Brother of ours, a Bishop, when he had determin'd that they Translation should be read in the Church where he presides, another person started an Objection, that the Text was by these otherwise Tran­slated in the Prophet Jonah, then had been inculcated into the Sence and Memory of all people for so many Ages, upon which there arose such a Tumult among the people, the Greeks cheifly blaming and cla­mouring against the Calumny of the suppos'd falshood, that the Bishop was forc'd to have recourse to the Testimony of the Jews, For this Version St. Jerom brought upon himself the Curses of all peo­ple, of which he frequently complains even to Irksomness; nor is it a Treatise so much as an Apology which he every where writes. What shall I do with my Calumniators, who if I had dimi­nish'd any thing from the Translation of the 70 would have clamour'd against me, as one Sacrilegious and not fearing God; especially they, who when they differ in the Truth of Faith and follow the Errors of the Manichaeans incense the minds of the ignorant; as if they could shew any thing changed from the ancient custom, rather desired to err, then to learn truth from one whom they Emulate. And after some­thing more of this Nature, he again adds against Ruffinus and o­thers his followers, who reviling his Translation, reproach him for a Heretick and an Apostate. Our Latin, yea envious Christians, and that I may speak more plainly, Hairs of the Grum­mian Faction bark against me, why we discourse according to the Hebrew If they do not believe us, let 'em read those other Editi­ons of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion: let 'em examin the Hebrews not in one place but in several Provinces, and when they find them all agree with me in my Error or Ignorance, then let 'em un­derstand themselves to be overwise, and rather desirous to sleep then learn, and let 'em inhabit in the 70 Cells of Alexandrian Pharos. [Page 190] Lastly, he does not spare the very Eyebrows of the Bishops, to use his own words, who endeavours to oppress whomsoever they see powerful in the Church and to Profess the word of God. But I spend time in vain; his Apologies against Ruffinus being eve­ry where to be had. In which he strenuously defends the rea­son of his Version, and shews how much he profited in his Stu­dy of the Scriptures under his Jewish Masters, and how much by the same Instructors, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius and se­veral others advantag'd themselves; who while they dispute about the Scripture, and endeavour to prove what they say, produce the Jews for Witnesses and Patrons of their Opinions. And because Ruffinus had objected to St. Jerom, that while he made his Translation he was not inspired with a Prophetic but a Judaic Spirit, He answers, Would it not seem tedious, or rather would it not savour too much of vain Glory, I could shew thee what an advantage it is to wear out the Thresholds of good Masters, and to learn Art from Artificers. For St. Jerom wrote an Epi­stle to Pammachius, entitled, concerning the best manner of Tran­slating, wherein he refuses the Calumnies of one Palladius, who at the Insligation of Ruffinus had bespattered his Translation. He there shews by many Examples, that it is not the duty of a good Translator, to translate his Authors verbatim, when nei­ther the 70 Interpreters nor the Evangelists follow'd that Me­thod of Translation. Aquila, saith he, a Prosel te and conten­tious Interpreter, who endeavoured to Translate not only the words but the Etymologies of words is deservedly rejected by us. Concern­ing the 70 Interpreters in the same Epistle he has this expression. It is new too long to enumerate how much the 70 have added of their own, how much they have omitted, which in the Exemplars belong­ing to the Church, are distinguish'd by Lines and Asterisks. These and many other things of the same Nature he throws together into the same Epistle, to vindicate his own method or Transla­tion, somewhat more free and loose then some of the rest, from the Calumnies of his Adversaries, and to the end his Detra­ctors might understand, That the sence and not the words were to be considered in Scripture. Let 'em not think, saith he, that the State of the Church is endangered by me, if through hast of di­ctating, I have omitted some words.

Readily therefore St. Jerom acknowledges that in framing a new Translation of the Sacred Text, he chiefly consulted the [Page 191]Jews as his Leaders and Instructors; neither does he question but that many things might slip him as a man; so far was he from the Opinion of those, who asserted him in that underta­king to be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost, whom Mariana egre­giously refutes. What avails it, saith that learned Jesuite, after so many Ages, to strain for new Fictions to set up new Prophets? Shall we call him a Prophet, who in the framing his Transla­tion follows sometimes the Greek Interpreters, sometimes the Jews of his Age, upon whom he more frequently depends? Can he be said to be a Prophet, who frequently but chiefly in his Commentaries upon the Prophets, doubts of the Genuine Signification of the Hebrew Words? 'Tis true I knew Pagninus and other Writers, especially of the Protestant Belief, who de­ny'd that Version to be St. Jeroms, which for many Ages has been read in the Eastern Churches; but if you except some few Books of that translation, which it is certain were not rendred by St. Jerom, as they are extant in the Edition, no person tru­ly candid will deny but that this Interpretation which goes about under the Title of the Vulgar, was really made by St. Jerom, though there be something in it of the ancient Latin Version, which before St. Jeroms time was only esteemed in the Church. So that in some places, which however are very few, there does appear the reading of the Ancient Version, or else a mixture of both. And clear it is that that same Translation was made by some native Latinist from the Hebrew Original. Now who in the whole Latin Church beside St. Jerom at that time understood both Languages, that is, the Hebrew and the Latin? But they that desire to know more of these things, let them consult Au­stin Eugubin, and John Mariana in their Writings upon this Subject.

Now that we may more perfectly understand the Nature of that Vulgar Edition, we must take notice that St. Jerom, tho he confesses himself not to have expressed the Words of his Text verbatim, and like a Grammarian, nevertheless some­times he sticks more close to his Words then the 70, or the o­ther Interpreters, so that he is not always like himself in his Translation. Again we are to observe, that the modern Le­ction of the Hebrew Text is not so often to be corrected from the Translation of St. Jerom, as it disagrees from it; for tho­he make profession to have followed the Hebrew Truth, yet [Page 192]sometimes he forsakes it to follow the Greek Interpreters. Nei­ther do I think that the Hebrew Exemplar of his Masters, which he frequently opposes against the 70 Interpreters is to be preferred in all things, seeing that St. Jerom himself had no O­riginal Exemplar of the Hebrew Text, neither do I think we are to give Judgment upon the Version of St. Jerom, by the la­ter Translations which frequently vary from the other, but we must have recourse of necessity to other Grammer Rules, then those which have been set down by our late Instructors, as hath been at large demonstrated, and which it is no difficult thing to confirm by many Examples. I shall therefore produce only e­nough to puzzle the less skilful.

We find according to the vulgar Edition, in the oth of Za­chary ver. 11. these words, Thou also in the Blood of thy Testa­ment hast sent forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit: but according to the Hebrew Exemplars it ought to be rendred, I have sent forth thy Prisoners, and the Pronouns Thou, thy, thine, are in the Feminine Gender, and so make the Sence far different from that of St. Jerom, which agrees with that of the Seventy Inter­preters. Many to defend the vulgar Edition in this place, reject the J wish Exemplars, as corrupted by them on set purpose: But it is much more proper to say, that the same Pronoun in the Feminine Gender is taken sometimes for the same in the Masculine; which the Masorites of Tyberias allow, who added the pointed Vowels to the modern Context. And thus they de­monstrate the same thing to have happened in three places of Scripture, which they cite. Wherefore if the same occur in any other places which the Masorites have omitted, the anti­ent Translators are not therefore presently to be accus'd, because they do not agree with the later. In the same manner St. Je­rom may be vindicated for translating the word, Thou hast sent, when according to the Hebrew he ought to have translated it, I have sent. For this difference of Translation arose from the Letter Jod, which is noted by the Mazorites to be often super­fluous. The Mazorites themselves reckon up 43 Places mark'd jather jod, that is, throw away Jod, as redundant. Thus Jer. 32 v. 33. where we read, Thou hast taught, in the second Person. The Hebrew word is written with Jod at the end, as if it should have been rendred in the first Person. And indeed in the lesser Mazorah it is marked to be read without a Jod, and in the se­cond [Page 193]Person, as Jerom renders it. But I pass by these things, and many others, by which it might be made out, that the La­tin Interpreter is often undeservedly reprehended by those that do not understand him, and measure all things by the Rules of their own Skill.

CHAP. XX. Concerning the Authority of the Antient Versions of the Latin Church, and first of the Vulgar. In what Sence it may be said to be Au­thentic.

The autho­rity of the An­cient Version of the ChurchAS it is a thing that seems to be rooted in men by nature to be opiniated in their own Disputations, and to be so pre­sumptuous as to take sometimes those things which are false and unjust for Truths; so it chiefly happens in this present Argu­ment; where the Writers seem to fight for their Lives and Li­berties. Thus the Jewish Rabbys seem to be incited by no other reason to avouch their Manuscripts to be free even from the slightest Faults and Errors, but only as they are Jews, and read no other Scripture in their Synagogues than the Hebrew Text. In like manner the Greek and Latin Fathers in the primitive Times of the Church, embracing the Greek Version of the 70. Interpreters as Divine, preferr'd it before the Hebrew Copies, for that the one were skilled in the Greek Learning; others pre­ferr'd the Latin or Vulgar Edition of the Bible, altogether u­sed by the Latin Church, and Translated from the Septuagint, not understanding the Greek. Therefore is the wisdom of the Fathers of the Council of Trent highly to be applauded for this, that they by their Suffrages declared Authentick that Version, which being publickly received, and made use of in the Church was in every bodyes hands, that is, which was solely esteemed Authentick among the Latins. Nor does that antient Lati E­dition, which was read for many Ages in the Eastern Church before Jerom's Translation, less deserve the Name of Authen­tic than the modern Vulgar; only there is this difference between the one and the other, that the other was not declared Authen­tic [Page 194]by the publick Decree of the General Council. Prologue 10 de vulg. There Wal­ton is in an Error, who denyes this antient Vulgar Edition to have been Authentick; as well, saith he, for that it was transla­ted from the Greek, which we have demonstrated not to have been Authentick; nor can the Rivulet have more Authority than was in the Fountain; nor can any Version be said to be Authentick, unless the Interpreter wrote it with the same Spirit as the first Author, which never any man affirmed as to this Version, nor had the Church of Rome rejected it, and entertain'd a new one, had she judged it to have been Authentick. But Walton understood not what was meant in the Decree of the Council of Trent by the word Au­thentick, while he confounds Authentick with Divine and Prophe­tical; all the while he treats upon the Argument now in hand. Therefore it is necessary to consider what the Fathers of the Council of Trent intended should be understood by the word in Controversie.

Vulgarly among the Lawyers the word Authentick signifies the same with [...], which the French interpret Originale, or Original. And in this Sence the Exemplification of a Will is distinguished from the Authentick or Original, and Authen­tick Tables are said to be those which are first drawn; from whence, as from the Original, Copies are made. In this Sence the Hebrew Context cannot be said to be Authentick, because the Originals of the Hebrew Codex are lost, and there remain no other than Copies. Therefore the word Authentick is taken by the same Lawyers in another Sense; and so Version in their Books carrys the Name of Authentick. Thus the Latin Tran­slation of Justins Novels is call'd Authentick, because it was rendered out of the Greek verbatim; and so it is distinguished from another Version, the Author of which is said to be Juli­an Patricius, which is only a Latin Epitome of those Constitu­tions. The first Exemplar was called Authentick, as much as to say, True and no way maim'd, as Antonius Contius has obser­ved. Now in this Acceptation of the word Authentick there is nothing which can offend the Protestants. But if we must not derive the signification of this word from the Lawyers, where it had its rise, the same word is several times repeated in the Acts of the Fifth General Synod. Where when the Exemplars which Macarius the Patriarch of Antiochia, and other Monothelite Bi­shops offered to the Fathers of the Council were read over a­gain, [Page 195]presently the Legates of the Apostolick See replyed, That the Testimonies of the Fathers were maimed by Macarius and his Companions. Thereupon they require the Authentic Copies to be sent for from the venerable Patriarchal Treasury of the Roy­al City of Constantinople, and to be compared with the Exem­plars produced by Macarius and the other Monothelite Bishops. There Authentic is no more than that which is not adulterated, or of suspected Credit. Nor did the Tridentine Bishops pro­nounce the Latin Version, which was only read in all the Ea­stern Churches, Authentic, in any other Sense. Nor can the Words of their Constitution be wrested to any other Expositi­on, if they be but a little more attentively considered. For they were in Consultation about selecting one out of many Versions of the Scripture, which were then publick in the world; and because the Authors of most were Persons of suspected cre­dit, it was in prudence thought fit by those Bishops, that that should only be retained, which was most Antient, and long before any Schisms were sprung up in the Church. The Holy Council considering that no small benefit will accrue to the C [...]u [...]ch of God, if among all the Editions of the Sacred Scriptures, which are publick in the World, it should be declared which should be accomp­ted most Authentic, has decreed and does pronounce, That this An­cient and Vulgar Edition, which has been approv'd by the Ʋse, which has been made of it for so many Ages in publick Readings, Dispu­tations, Sermons and Expositions, shall be accompted Sacred, and that no Person shall dare to reject it upon any pretence whatsoever. As to the comparing the Hebrew Context with the Antient La­tin Interpreter, the Tridentine Fathers never so much as dreamt of it; only out of several Latin Versions then abroad in the World they decreed the Antient Version to be preferr'd before the rest. In which respect the Decree of the Church appears firm and constant: For as she formerly perceived the Transla­tions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion to he false and parti­al, so now she has embrac'd one ancient Version, rejecting the rest which seemed to be made out of a Design of Innova­tion.

Nor have several Divines, otherwise expounded the word Authentic, which the Fathers of Trent made use of in this par­ticular, of whom there were some present in the Council. But having no Design to do what others have done before, I pass by [Page 196]their Testimonies in silence. To these therefore I will only add the words of single Genebrard, a most eager Defender of the Vulgar Edition, out of an Epistle which he wrote to Arias Montanus. Only it compares, saith Genebrard, speaking of the Council of Trent, The Vulgar with the rest, by reason of the rashness of the late Hereticks and other Innovators, who covet new Versions, loath the Old ones, and cut off their innate Desire of Novelty, reject the Antient to embrace the Newest. Those also a­mong the Heterodox, who have any thing of Learning and Modesty revere the antient Latin Interpreter, and sometimes believe it a matter of Conscience to depart from his Sence. From whence Fagius, a person learned both in the Hebrew and Chaldee Languages, calls them Persons of little knowledg who foolishly and impudently believe the vulgar Edition to be rashly contri­ved. The most learned Drusius also applauds the prudent design of the Councel of Trent, and admires its Wisdom. I pass by o­thers of the Protestant Belief, among whom it would be no dif­ficult thing to give a Catalogue of many that had a good opini­on of the Decree of the Council of Trent; Wherefore they only think amiss of the Tridentine constitution, whereby the old Edition is declared Authentic, who too much addicted to the Writings of the Rabbins, believe the Jewish Bibles and their own Art to be utterly at a loss, unless they detract from that same ancient Interpretation.

Buxtorf the Prince of the Hebrew adorers, whose wrath was kindled by the Critica sacra of Ludovicus Cappellus, reprehends him in these words, as if he had too severely undertaken the Patronage of the Latin Translator.In Anticrit. part. 2. Let the Reader observe this, That there was never a greater Patron of the vulgar Version, and who affords a stronger Argument to support its authority, then that same Critick not well in his Wits. And yet this is that Cappellus, to whom the Learned Hugo Grotius, and the soundest of the Pro­testant Criticks always aduere. For this the English Protestants are to be commended, especially the most famous W [...]lion, who in his Protegonema to the Polyglot Bible, forsaking Buxtorfs opi­nion, follows Ludovicus Capellus almost in every thing. Nor have they a slight esteem of the Latin Interpreter, though they seem not rightly to have understood the force of the word Au­thentick; however they are far from the wild Opinions of some of the Protestants, who vent their Spleen without any consi­deration [Page 197]against the Tridentine Bishops.In M [...]ssellam. Thus Fuller, through the most haughty Tyranny of the Roman Pontifex it is come to pass, that all other Translations excluded and exterminated, even the Pro­totype of the Hebrew Truth, the vulgar Latin Version has acquired a kind of Divine Primacy. Nor has Isaac Casaubon, Adaun [...]l Ba­ron. a person otherwise very learned, spar'd the Tridentine Prelates, who affirms that the Hebrew Truth has lost its Priviledge and Au­thority, since the Greek and Latin Versions were made Authen­tick at Trent. But the Protestants undeservedly complain of the Decree of Trent, because they will not put a kind Interpre­tation upon the word Authentic, and deviate from Divines who are of highest Authority in the Church of Rome. The Triden­tine Fathers, when they made that decree, consulted the Tran­quillity of the Churches, and designed only to obviate those, who out of an Itch of Innovation beleived their Doctrines would gain no small credit, if they detracted from the true Ec­clesiastical Version then in the hands of every Person.

The Impru­dent zeal of some Spanish Diviner.No less was the errour committed in this particular by sun­dry Orthodox Divines, who maintain the Vulgar Edition to be free from all mistakes; which opinion was patroniz'd by most of the Spanish Divines in Mariana's time; so that the learned durst not be of a contrary opinion. For thus he begins his Trea­tise in defence of the Vulgar Edition.Maria [...] pro Defens. Vulg. We undertake a Trouble­som work and very much perplexed, a dangerous Contest, then which I know not whither any in these Later Ages, especially among the Spanish Divines has been maintained with greater Heat and Animo­sity, and more Implacable hatred between the parties; so that from Reproaches and Contumelies, with which they have defamed one ano­ther, they have at length cited one another to Tribunals of Justice, and that party which was most confident of his own strength, has pur­sued his adversaries being accused of Heresie, as Impious, Proud, &c. To which he adds, that Men of great repute for learning, have been forc'd to plead their causes in Chains, to the no small hazard of their Health and Reputation. But Mariana shews at large, That there are many faults in the Hebrew and Greek Ex­emplars, many falshoods in minute things, and that not a small num­ber of those Errours are extant in our Vulgar Edition. In like man­ner Pedro Lopaz, a Spanish Divine,L. 2. Conc. Ed. Madrid. in the Treatise which he wrote concerning the Harmony between the sacred Editions of the Hebrew and Greek, asserts the Greek Edition of the Sep­tuagint [Page 198]with the ancient Vulgar, to be no less Authentick than the Modern Vulgar; wherein he questions not but that there are many blemishes and failings.Animad. in A [...] ­tiq. Hetruse. The same Dispute Leo Allasius tells us was started concerning the Decree of the Council of Trent, which declares the Vulgar Authentick by the Fathers of a Society, to whose care a certain Academy was committed, and at the same time declares what the sacred Ge­neral Consistory thought of this, in whose opinion it is a crime not to acquiesce,Several Judg­ments at Rome concerning the L [...]tin In­terpreter. in these words taken out of the Library of Cardinal Priscia. The 17th. of January 576. the general As­sembly S. F. L. A. S. Montald. Sixt. Caraf was of opinion that no­thing could be urged that could oppose the vulgar Latin Edition, that there was not so much as on Period, one Sentence, one Word, one Syl­lable, one Iota amiss, and sharply reprehends Vega, because in his Tenth Book of Justification c. 9. he utters himself so boldly. But that decree of the Colledge of Cardinals, because it never was pro­mulgated, never obtained the force of a Law even in Italy, as all those things manifestly prove, which Cardinal Palavicini ur­ges against Padre Paolo, who hath spoken concerning the Tri­dentine Prelates, as if they, by approving the Latin Interpre­ter by their Decree, had detracted from all the other Editions. But Palavicini shews at large that the meaning of the Council was far otherwise, and in the Explanation of the word Authen­tick he perfectly agrees with us, declaring that the Prelates of Trent did not purifie the Vulgar Edition from all its faults by their decree; when as it might be still corrected and another Edition much more accurate be made, neither had Gulielmus Londanus any other Sentiments of the Vulgar Edition long be­fore that, who has observed many Errours therein, which he does not lay upon the Transcribers but upon the Interpreter himself. But above all the rest, Francis Lucas Brugensis is a ma­terial Testimony in this particular, wherein he had expended the studies of his whole Life. He therefore in his Epistle De­dicatory, before his notes upon the Bible, where he has dili­gently observed several differences in sundry Copies, thus ex­presses himself. What others object to us, that because the Latin Edition has been approved and declared Authentick by the Council of Trent, it needs no farther Correction, is ridiculous. For neither did the Counc [...]l believe the Exemplars of this Edition to be void of Errours; neither did they recommend any certain Exemplar of any [Page 199]Edition, to be followed in General; only preferred that Edition be­fore any of the Latin which are extant, and adjudged it authe [...]ick. With which agree the Corrections of the vulgar Edition which were made at several times by the Command of Sextus the V. and Clement the VIII. For Sextus fearing least we should fall into the former Chaos of Editions of which St. Jerom speaks,Bulla S. V. Bulla Clem. 8. declares that he had made choice of Persons skilful in the Scripture, Theologie and many Languages, and for their long experience piercing judgment and diligence highly eminent, to correct the antient Latin Edition, according to the ancient Latin Copies and Expositions of the Fathers; but in such things wherein they were not sufficiently strengthened by the consent of the Copies nor of the Fathers, to have recourse to the Hebrew and Greek Exemplars according to the Counsel of St. Jerom. How­ever Sextus admonishes 'em to do it cautiously and sparingly, for fear of causing a fluctuation in things which long use and pra­ctise had authoriz'd. And lastly he makes a decree of his own, that that Edition should be received by all, as being that which the Trid [...]ntine Synod had declared Authentick, and recom­mends the same as True, Lawful and Unquestionable, and to be received in all publick Disputes, Readings, Sermons and Explanations. Furthermore he forbids any Bibles of the Vul­gar Edition to be published for the future, which not being con­formable to his, would but disturb the peace of the Church; and further decreed, that they should be of no Credit or Au­thority which did not agree with his Edition. Thus far Sixtus V. who also testifies, that to the end the understanding might be more correctly accomplished, where any thing seemed con­fus'd or that might be confounded, he amended those things with his own Hand. 'Twas the Labour of others, saith he, to consult and advise, but ours to make choice of what was best. So that this Editi­on of the Bible not undeservedly bears the Name of Sixtus V.

How ever this was no impediment to Clement VIII. to pre­vent him from undertaking an Edition of the Bible different from this, affirming in the beginning of his Bull.Bull. Clem. VIII. That the Text of the vulgar Edition of the Sacred Scriptures had with much toyl and watching been corrected by him and purged from many Errors.Prefat. ad Edit. Clem. 8. But the Author of the Preface to the same Bibles confesses that it is not so cleans'd from all faults, but that there are some omissions still remaining. In this same vulgar Edition, saith [Page 200]he, as some things were altered of set purpose, so other things which se [...]d proper to be changd were purposely left unaltered. It would be tedious to reckon up all the places which were mended by these Popes, Sextus V. and Clement VIII. But if any be curious to know what they are, let him consult the little Book which Thomas Jamesius, Printed in England, in the envy of his Soul, under the Title, in great Letters, Of the Papal War or the Discording Concord of Sixtus V. and Clement VIII. concern­ing the Edition of Jerome. Where he sometimes compares the Readings of both Editions with that of Lavain. But for this, those cheif Pontiffs are rather to be highly magnified, then to be scandallz'd, who contributed all their care and industry, that we might have the ancient Interpreter as accurately revis'd and corrected according to the ancient Copies, as it was possible to be. Before whom they who overview'd the Bibles of Com­plutum lent their assistance to the same Correction. We have also the Castigations of Robert Stephens upon the same vulgar: and the Divines of Lovaine have made no scruple after the Decree of Trent, to add their own Critical Animadversions upon divers Readings in the Margent of the vulgar Codex, which they took care to have Printed. But now the Emendation of Clement VIII. is preferred before all the rest which the most famous Walton has inserted into his English Polyglotton.

CHAP. XXI. Of the Translations of Scripture us'd by the Eastern Church: and first of the Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, &c.

The Eastern Versions thence taken.AS the first beginning of the Christian Religion passed from the Greeks to other Nations of the Eastern World. So the Greek Version of the Septuagint was Translated into the Languages of all those Nations, nor does it appear that those Nations knew any other then the Scripture of the Septuagint, the Syrians excepted, concerning whom the Arabian Writer Abul-Pharajius has these Expressions.Dyn. 6. This Version of the Septuagint is that which is received by our Doctors, and is the same which is made use of by the Greeks and other Sects of the Christians, except Syrians, especially the wore Easterly. For their exemplar, which is call'd the pure Exemplar, agrees with that of the Jews. But the Western Syrians have two Versions, the pure Version, Translated from the Hebrew into Syriac after the coming of Christ our Lord, in the time of Addaeas the Apostle; or as others will have it, before him, in the Time of Solomon the Son of David and Hiram Prince of Tyre: and then the Septuagint Translated out of Greek a long time time after the coming of Christ. Now though what Abul-Pharajius speaks concerning the double Version among the Sy­rians be true, yet no man will deny, but that what he relates concerning the time of the Translation out of Hebrew into Syriac is meerly fictitious. Moreover because it was very insipid to attribute some of the Books to the time of King Solomon, which were not made till long after his Raign, therefore Jehu­dad Bishop of Adria, restrain'd that assertion to the Books of Moses, Joshua, Ruth, Judges, Samuel, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle­siastes, Canticles and Job: but that the rest of the Books both of the Old and New Testament were Translated into Syriac by the care of Thaddaeus, and others of the Apostles in the Raign of Abgar King of Edissa. Though as the same Jesudad testi­fies, some were of Opinion, that the Old Testament was Tran­slated, [Page 202]into the Samaritan Dialect by a certain Samaritan Preist. But [...]hese things are rather Fabulous then Historical: for that they translated only one Book, the Pentateuch into their Lan­guage which little differs from the Samaritan. Then the Syriac Language which the Apostles made use of especially in Judea, is far differerent from the Syriac wherein the Old and New Testa­ment was written.In Ca [...]al. Script. Chald. Ebed-Jesu, Metropolitan of Soba, reckons a­mong the Syrian Writers a certain Person, by name Mar-Aba, or Lord Aba, Sirnamed the Great, who Translated the whole Testament out of Greek into Syriac: But as Alraham Ecchellensis rightly observes, before this Mar-Aba there was extant another Translation of the Old Testament from the Greek Septuagint, Not in Ehed. Jesu. as may be prov'd from the Commentaries of Jacob Nisivensis, and B. Ephrem. It is manifest also that the Syrians translated into their Language a Greek Edition of the Septuagint, with Daggers and Asterisks, out of the Hexaples of Origen; or else accom­modated a Syrian Interpretation to Origen's Exemplar which before these times was read in the Churches of Syria. The Learned Massius had several of those Books, which he never made publick,In Jos [...]uah. except the History of Joshua, set forth by him in Greek with Asterisks and Streaks and other Grammatical Marks, which Origen had made use of in his Edition. The Greek and Latin Fathers also make mention of a Syrian Version of Scripture of which the Christians of Syria made use, where­in they take notice of several Readings different from the vul­gar Exemplars.

That Exemplar of the Syriac Version which was Printed in the Parisian and English Polyglotts, was taken out of the Hebrew Con­text, and in some places corrected according to the Greek Text of the Septuagint; so that is not absolutely the same ancient Version which the Syrians call the Simple or Pure Version. This Translation seems to have been made verbatim from the Jewish Exemplar, so exactly it follows it in most places. But the Syrian Transcribers, who being ignorant of the Hebrew, could not consult the Hebrew Text from whence that was derived, committed many mistakes, which nevertheless may be easily corrected without the help of Manuscripts. However I do not believe the Syrian Transcribers to be as often under mistakes as they disagree from the Jewish Copy, seeing that the Jewish Exemplars vary themselves. But [Page 203]I speak of those Errors at present, which are without Contro­versie the meer failings of the Amanuensis. I admire the Eng­lish in their Bibles took no notice of many which they let stand.

For to omit several others, who could have slipp'd this Error in the Syriac Version in the 14th Chapter of Genesis, where the Hebrew reads Gojim Nations, the Syriac Geloje, which the Latin Interpreters of the Syriac renders the People call'd Gelites. So in the 22 Chapter, where the Hebrew Examplar has it Moria, the Syriac reads Omouroje, which the Interpreter renders the Amorrhaeans, as if there were any thing there mentioned of the Amorrhaeans. But these Errors I attribute partly to the Scribes, partly to those who pointed the Syriac Version, in regard that points supply the place of Vowels, as well in the Syriac as He­brew. In like manner Gen. c. 32. v. 32. the Syerans who under­stood not the Hebrew word Nasche or shrunk, have made of the Word Genesio, which the Latin Interpreter translates the female Sinew, and instead of the Sinew that shrunk, upon which the word Genesio appears in Ferrarius's Syriac Lexicon, which nevertheless seems to be some corrupted Hebrew word and not to be numbered among the Syriac. But I say no more of these nor of six hundred more. This is only worthy of observation, that the Syrian Scribes have erred in Writing out the Syrian Exemplars far more frequently, then the Jews who understood the Hebrew. Thus Jos. 19. in instead of King Basan, the Syriac reads King Mathnin. Which diversity proceeds from this, that the Syrian Scribe did not distinguish between B, and M. In like manner for Kiriath Jearim, the Syriac reads Kiri­ath Naarin, and the Latin renders it the City of Naarin. So in the 7th Chapter of Judges the Syriac reads Nedubaal for Jeru­baal, and Chapter 9. Neptha, for Jeptha: all which might easi­ly have been mended, with many more of the same nature. Wherefore as to the Syrian Exemplars that have been set forth in Print, we may truly affirm, what St. Jerom asserted concern­ing the Greek Copies: That some of the words are not only not He­brew, but Barbarous and Sarmatic.

I could also enumerate those places where the Syriac Tran­slators, forsaking the Hebrew, follows the Greek Version of the 70 Elders. Which variety nevertheless of Interpretation is rather to be laid upon the Scribes who strove to make the Syriack Tran­slation conformable to those other Exemplars either Syriac or [Page 204] Arakick which were Translated from the Greek Edition. Thus Gen. 2. both in the Syriac and Greek we find it, upon the sixth day; whereas in the Hebrew it is the seventh day, and the Animadversi­ons of Jerom upon this place prove this Lection of the Hebrew Text to be the most Ancient. In like manner, Gen. 4. This Clause, let us go into the field, was Translated out of the Greek Version into the Syriac, while St. Jerom testifies that in his time the same was not to be sound in the Hebrew Exemplars. Lastly, Gen. 8. Where mention is made of the Crow which Noah sent out of the Ark, both in the Syriack and Greek we do not find that ever the Crow return'd; but the negative particle is not to be found in the Hebrew Context, nor was it there in St. Jeroms time, as may be easily prov'd from his Writings. From whence we in­fer that the Version which the Syrians call Pure; from it's anci­ent perfection, is much degenerated, and now to be call'd rather mix'd then Pure. Those variations which arise from the diffe­rent marking of the Numbers I pass by; as for example, Judges 16. Where the Hebrew and the Vulgar read 1100. the Syriac Version numbers 1300. 1 Sam. c. 6. for 50070. in the Hebrew Greek and Latin, the Syriac reckons 5070. But no man can be ignorant that there are frequent variations of numbers in all Books of the same nature. There are other Examples of dif­ferent Readings of more moment in the Syriac Translation, which altogether alter the Sence, such are, some in the Book of Joshua, especially in the division of their Allotments to the several Tribes. Another Alteration there is in the Syriac Ex­emplar where all the Inscriptions of the Psalms are left out, on purpose to put others in their places. The reason of which seems to be, for that anciently the [...] or Argument of the Psalm was prefix'd at the beginning of every Psalm. Whence it came to pass that the Hebrew Inscriptions of the Psalms which did not explain the Psalms to the liking of the Syrians were omit­ted, and others added by the Syriac Rabbies.

As to the Syriac Language and it's various Dialects, I shall say nothing at present, in regard that many have already learned­ly handl'd that Subject. We are only to discourse of those things which concern the Syriac Version. Therefore what before we have observ'd touching the Jewish Exemplars, to which the Rab­bies of Tiberias added the Points that supply the place of Vowels, that is now to be noted as to the Syriac Exemplars, to [Page 205]which the Syrian Doctors have added the Pointed Vowels which now appear in their Coppies. Therefore Walton is in an Error, who believes that Gabriel Sionita, the Maronite of Mount Leba­non, was the first that inserted pointed Vowels into the Syriac Exemplar: He was the first, saith he, speaking of this Gabriel, who pointed it, and added the Latin Interpretation of the same. For before, all the Manuscripts were either destitute of points, or if any word or vowel happen'd to be pointed, in another it was omitted, one Syllable pointed and another naked, as we see at this day in the Ma­nuscript Copies. That this is partly true I will not deny, for that the Syriac written Copies some have more, some have less points at the pleasure of the Transcribers, who nevertheless seldom o­mit the Principal. Yet I have met with Manuscripts that have been exactly pointed. Abraham Ech [...]llensis, In Ebed. Jesu. a Maronite of Mount Lebanon testifies also, that he had by him some Books written in the Syriac Language above 300 or 400 years before, com­pleatly furnish'd with all the Points. Then again in most Copies they never omit any Points, but only such as are of no use in reading, which may be easily supply'd by the Reader. As we find in the Syriac Edition of the New Testament which was first publish'd by Vuidmanstadius, wherein some Points are omitted, which are of little use. And therefore the Industry of Gabriel Sionite, a most learned person, is not so much to be applauded for his adding points to the Copies; but he is rather to be com­mended for this, for that with great labour and toyl he correct­ed the most of the Errors which are extant in those Manuscripts; though that Edition does not seem to be so absolute and perfect neither.

Of the Ara­bic Translati­ons.The Arabick Translations seem to be of much less Authority, which are read at this day by the Easiern Christians. Nor do they seem to be so ancient as the Syriac. For the most of them were made publick among the Syrians as well Jacobites and Ma­ronites, as Nestorians, when the Syriac Language ceas'd to be fa­miliar, when they were subdu'd by the Saracens, who introduc'd the Arabic among them. The Coptic also, or the Christian's that inhabit Egypt had their Bibles written in the ancient Coptic Language which they still retain, but because that Coptic Lan­guage was known to very few, there was a necessity to make new Arabick Versions which might be understood by all. So that the most of their Books which are made use of in their Churches are written both in Coptic and Arabic. Therefore it is very probable, [Page 206]that the Syrians Translated the holy Scripture out of the Syriac into [...]abic, such as were those Arabick Exemplars, at the end whereof we find the Arabic Version to have been Translated from the Hebrew; that is from that Syrian Translation, which the Syrian's call unmixt. By the same reason we might affirm that the Exemplars of the Arabick Versions which follow the Greek Copies of the 70, were not so much Translated from the Greek of the 70 Interpreters, as according to the Syriac which was Translated from the Greek: though it be probable that the Sect of the Melchites took their Version from the Greek Copies, as they did most of those other Books of which they make use. But whether there were any Version of the Scriptures before that time I shall not now enquire, it being certain that most of those Versions now us'd by the people that inhabit the Eastern Regions are not now the same which in former times were made use of in the same Country. And indeed should that Arabick Version, publish'd in the Parisian and English Poly­glots, be throughly examin'd it would be found very imperfect, full of faults and Errors. Thus the Arabic Book of Joshuah, though toward the end it may be said to be Translated out of the Hebrew, yet it appears to be a mixture of Greek and Hebrew or ra­ther Syriac: Besides the Author of that Translation many times shews himself a Paraphraser not an Interpreter, and he makes no scruple of altering the Sence of his Text. In the Book of Chronicles we find the names of Greece, Turkie, Chorasan, Scla­vonia, France, Cyprus and the like. Yet all the Errors of that Version are not to be imputed to the Arabian Transla­tor, the most without doubt being committed by the Scribes. Thus Jos. 11. We read in the Arabic Version Nabin King of Caesarea, whereas in the Hebrew Text and ancient Translations it is Jabin King of Hasor. In the same Arabic Version Joshua is said to have assail'd the City of Caesarea, which was the Metro­polis of several other Cities: and Judges 3. instead of the He­brew word Pesilim, which signifies Idols, the Arabic reads Pale­stine. Lastly, some Errors have crept into the Arabic Exemplars through the incertainty of the pointed Vowels. For the points are no less defective in the Arabic then in the Hebrew and Syriac.

The Coptic Versions.The Coptic Versions of the Bible, which were anciently made by those Christians that inhabited Egypt seem to be of more Cre­dit then the Arabic: For they carry a semblance of more Anti­quity. And if we may believe Kircher, who had by him some [Page 209]Exemplars of those Versions, we may look upon 'em to be as an­cient as the Council of Nice. But not to content about their Antiquity, certain it is, that they were read in the Churches of Egypt long before the Arabian, which were taken from them. The word Coptus or Cophtus seems to derive it's Original from a City of the same Name which was heretofore the Metropolis of Thebais of which both Strabo and Plutarch make mention. And very probable it is, that that same Coptic Language was the an­cient Language of the Egyptians, not pure, but having some mix­ture of the Greek, especially from the time that they were under the Dominion of the Macedonians; so that they chang'd the an­cient Characters of their Language, into the Greek, which they partly retain to this day. But in regard that Language surceas'd by degrees to become familiar and only remain'd among those who had something of Learning and Education, the Egyptian Rabbies added to those Books which were then read in their Churches in the Coptic Language, the Arabic Explanation, after they became subject to the Saracens. They have also Lexicons and Grammars for that Coptic Language which Kircher publish'd in Print, by which we find that the Ancient Coptic Tongue, be­sides the Greek words which it had learnt under the Graecian Princes, retain'd also something of the Arabic. But no man ought to doubt but that the Coptic Version was taken from the Greek Translation of the 70 Interpreters, in regard that the Jews of old, some of the Syrian Churches excepted, always read the Hebrew Text, or Versions taken from thence.

The Ethiopic Versions.As to the Ethiopic Version of the Bible written in the Ethio­pic Language, we shall make some few observations. This Version, as all other Books which are read in the Ethiopic Churches, was Translated out of the Coptic into the Ethiopic Tongue: Therefore the Ethiopic Bibles are the same with the Coptic, render'd only into Ethiopic. Neither do the Ethiopians acknowledge any other Patriarch but only him, who assumes the Title of Patriarch of Alexandria, being an Egyptian, and the Ceremonies of their Church are borrow'd from the Egyptians or Coptics. But the ancient Ethiopic Language wherein their Bible is written, has something of mixture both of Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldee: Especially of the Chaldee; so that the Ethiopians call their Language Chaldaic or Babylonian; as if it were the same with the pure an ancient Babylonic, from which however it differs ve­ry [Page 208]much. But the modern Ethiopic, now familiar among the Ethiopians, differs little from it. Nevertheless they do not use any Points, like Hebrews, Chaldeans, Syrians and Arabians, but e­very Letter makes a Consonant and a Vowel; which is peculiar to that Nation.

The Persian Ve [...]sions.There seems to be nothing at all at present remaining of that same ancient Persian Version which beyond all Controversie was taken from the Greek Translation of the Seventy. The ancient Persian Language also has admitted much of mixture, by reason of it's being jumbl'd with the Arabic, from whence it has bor­row'd all it's terms of Arts and Sciences, together with the A­rabic Characters, the ancient Persian Letters being lost, and no where to be seen but in some Antique Copies. But as for that same Version of some part of the Sacred Scripture, publish'd in our Age, it does not seem worthy of any great esteem, as be­ing but of late years.The Arme­ni [...]n Translati­on. If we will believe the Armenian Doctors, the Version of the Bible which they now read in their Churches in the Armenian Language, was not made by John Chrysostome, as some believe, out of the Greek into the Armenian; but by some Doctors of their own Nation, who studied the Greek Lan­guage, more especially by one Moses, Sirnam'd the Grammari­an, and one David vulgarly call'd the Philosopher; and this hap­pen'd to be much about John Chrysostomes time. The Armeni­ans also deny that John Chrysostome was the Inventor of the Ar­menian Characters, which they attribute to a certain Hermite whose name was Mescop; who invented them in the City of Balu, not far from Euphrates: who also liv'd much about the time that Chrysostome flourish'd. But because there were hardly any Ex­emplars of those Bibles to be found entire, and those very dear to boot, in our Age Jacob Caractri Patriarch of the Armenians sent into Europe Ʋschan Yuschuavanchi, a Bishop, that by his care and industry the Ancient Bible might be printed. Whereupon the Old and New Testament was Printed in the Armenian Lan­guage and Character at Amsterdam anno 1664. But certain it is, that this Armenian Translation, and I had it from the mouth of the Bishop himself, was taken from the Greek Version of the 70 Interpreters.

The Versi­ons of the Muscovites, Georgians and other people.Lastly, the Muscovites, Iberians, or Georgians, a people inha­biting the Regions of C [...]olchis, have also their Translations of the Holy Scripture, and it is not long since that the Bible was print­ed [Page 209]in the Muscovitic Language and Character. But there is no question to be made but that they were all taken from the Greek, in regard those Nations deriv'd their Christian Faith, and their Ecclesiastic Ceremonies from the Greeks. And thus much con­cerning the Bibles made use of by the Eastern Nations.

CHAP. XXII. Of the later Versions of the Bible, and first of all, of Latin Versions, done by Catholick Divines.

The Bibles of Cardinal Ximenius.THOUGH Francis Ximenius of Seneros, Cardinal and Arch-Bishop of Toledo, has given us no other Latin Ver­sion of the Hebrew Text, in his Complutensian Bible, than the vulgar, or that of St. Jerom, yet he may be deservedly rank'd amongst the Catholic Interpreters of the Holy Scriptures: For first of all he publish'd in that excellent work the Chaldee Para­phrase upon the five Books of Moses, with a verbal Version into Latin, as also the Seventies Greek Version of all the Books of the Old Testament, with an interlineary Latin Translation.In the year 1515. And because every one has not the perusal of the Complutensian Bi­bles, it may not be improper in this place to give some account of the design of that learned Cardinal in this new Edition of the Bible. He affirms in his proaemium to Leo the tenth, that e­very Language has it's peculiar Idioms and Properties of ex­pression, which the most accurate Translation is not able to ren­der, and especially the Hebrew, and a little after subjoins these words;In his Pro­logue to Leo the tenth. Moreover wheresoever the Latin Translators differ, or a reading is suspected to be corrupt, we must have recourse to the Origi­nal in which the Scriptures were writ, as St. Jerom, and Austin, and other Ecclesiastical Writers direct, so that the sincerity of the Versions of the Old Testament must be examin'd by the Hebrew, and the New by the Greek Copies. But who would believe that this Cardinal who speaks so great things of the Hebrew, should, by and by, in another Epistle to his Readers, so basely detract from it? so that we have reason to suspect these passages were foisted in by others. We have plac'd, says the Cardinal,The same Cardinal in his Prologue to the Reader. the La­tin Version of St. Jerom betwixt them (i. e. the Hebrew and the Translation of the 70) as it were betwixt the Synagogue and the Eastern Church, like two, there's one on each hand, but in the mid­dle [Page 210]is Jesus, i. e. the Roman Church. For this alone being built upon a strong and lasting Rock stood always firm in the Truth, when all others deviated from the right understanding of the Scriptures; a comparison highly unworthy a Cardinal of the Roman Church, which yet Nicholas Ramus, a Spanish Divine too, and Bishop of Cuba, has transfer'd into his Tract of the Vulgar Transla­tion

San. Pignin a Dominican, first publish'd a Version of the holy Scriptures according to the Hebrew Original in the year MDLXXVII. with two Epistles of the two Popes, Adrian the Sixth.The Versi­on of Pagnine. and Clement the Seventh, in the front of the Book, who both strengthen his Edition of the Bible with their Authority, and before this time Leo the Tenth had approv'd Pignine's de­sign of making a New Translation of the Bible according to the Hebrew Original, 'tis evident as well from the Epistle which Franciscus Picus wrote to Pagnin, as from Pagnin himself that he spent at least thirty years in that Work; insomuch that it had the approbation of all the Jews of that Age for an accurate piece. Yet some great men amongst the Catholicks have judg'd otherwise of it: For Genebrard describes it thus; 'tis not d [...]ligent­ly done, 'tis too ambitious, too curious, too Grammatical, too much affecting, abbinical niceties, and such as often mars the Truth and Substance of things with the subtilty of Novel Precepts: Whereupon sometimes it corresponds not enough with the Doctrine of the ancient Hebrews. And Joannes Mariana confirms this with instances of his lapses, who endeavours to make it out, that Pagnin has some­times overthrown the mysteries of our Religion, by receding too much from the Version of St. Jerome as in the ninth Chapter of Job, where Jerom renders it, rursum circundabor pelle meâ, I shall be again clothed with my Skin, and thence proves the resur­rection of the Body, Pagnin Translates it, postquàm pellem meam contriverunt, after they have consumed and worn my Skin: and in the first Edition of his Version had interpreted it more ob­scurely, & post pellem meam contritam vermes contriverunt banc car­ne [...], and after my consumed Skin the Worms have consumed my Flesh, adding words, which are not extant in the Hebrew, and yet Monsieur Huel gives quite another Character of Pag­nines Version than Genebrard, Mariana, and other very learned men, whom I forbear to mention. He has given us, says he, an example of almost a perfect and compleat interpretation of the holy Scriptures.

But it's evident that Pagnine err'd in many particulars. For first, he declar'd that he would keep close to the Latin Inter­pretation, except in such places where 'twas absolutely necessa­ry to do otherwise: Notwithstanding which he often deserted it without any colour or shadow of reason, only that he might follow Kimchi and other latter Ribbins of the Jews. For how came it about, that for these words in the beginning of Genesis, which in the Vulgar Translation are, Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas, the Spirit of God mov'd upon the Waters, he should render, Spiritus Dei superflabat in superficie aquarum, the Spirit of God breath'd upon the Face of the Waters, unless because the Chaldee Paraphrase, and some Doctors of the Jews had so explain'd it. Again who could brook the Version of the same Pagnine in the sixth Chapter of Genesis, who for these words, which in the Latin Edition, are nòn permanebit spiritus meus,; my Spirit shall not al­ways abide, he put nòn erit ut in vaginâ speritus meus, my Spirit shall not be as if 'twere in a Scabbard. He was not content to ex­plain the Sense of the Hebrew word only, but likewise the Ety­mology of it just as Kimchi had done it: Wherefore he shew'd himself a foolish and quarrelsome Interpreter. (As Aquila of old had done) in speaking so barbarously. Thus where the La­tin Interpretation has it, in the 1 of Gen. and the 20 vers. produ­cant aquae reptile, let the Waters bring forth every creeping thing. He Translates, repere faciant aquae reptile, let the Waters make e­very creeping thing to creep, and in another Edition. reptificent, let them creep, &c. Neither does he always follow the Sense of the Hebrew Text; thus in the 8 Chap, of Nehemiah, the Latin Inter­preter excellently well renders these words from the Hebrew, legerunt in libro in lege Dei distinctè; they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly; But Pagnine contrary to all Sense and Rea­son Translates it so, legerunt in libro in lege Dei expositi: They read in the Book of the Law of God Expounded in which place he contradicts himself, for in his Dictionary those very words are otherwise explain'd. Other remarks which might be made up­on Pagnine's Version I shall, for brevities sake omit.

Arias Montanus was not the Author of the new Version of the Bible, he was content to correct Pagnines Translation in some places. But having a more then ordinary regard to the bare Grammar Rules never minding the Sence, he outwent Pagnine in his barbarousness. He spent his whole time in expressing the [Page 212] Hebrew exactly without any respect to the Sense; thus in the 9 of Exodus, where Pagnine has pretty well render'd novi quià nondùm timeatis, I know because ye will not yet fear, the Corrector Arias Montanus turn'd, novi quià antequàm timeatis. I know, because ye fear before that. The Hebrew word Terem has doubtless a diffe­rent signification, in one place it signifies priusquàm, before that in another nondùm not yet: which Arias never minding turn'd it to that Sense which comes next to hand. An infinite number almost of such absurdities may be found in this Translation, which I advisedly forbear to mention. Who, for Gods sake, can understand Arias's Interpretation of that Verse of the 110 Psalm, where for these words, which we read in the Vulgar Edition, tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedec, thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. In Pagnines Ver­sion, secundùm morem Melchisedec; thou art a Priest after the man­ner of Melchisedec. Arias turns this way, tu es Sacerdos in secu­lum super verbum meum Melchisedec, thou art a Priest for ever upon the word of Melchisedec. Monsieur Hewet did indeed attempt defending him in this, and openly styl'd him a most faithful Translator, who keeping close to the Hebrew Text, despis'd the censures and calumnies of the unskilful: yet certainly he does not seem to deserve the name of an Interpreter who does not in some measure express the Sense of the Author which he Tran­slates. But notwithstanding all this Arias Montanus is very fa­mous among all Learned men, for that vast and truly Royal Work of the Polyglot Printed at Antwerp, which Version by the command of Philip the Second, was had in esteem beyond all o­thers; and was likewise approv'd of by an unanimous consent of many Parisian Divines, in the praise of which they spake as fol­lows, we saw the holy Bible of Philip the Second set forth in He­brew, Syriac, Greek, and Latin after the manner of the Com­plutensian Bibles formerly Printed in Spain. We approv'd of the same, and in a word, thought it fit to be read by all Catholicks in oppo­sition to all false and heretical Translations, with which men endea­vour to impose upon those that have not arriv'd to the knowledg of the Tongues. This Work was likewise approv'd of by two Popes, as Franciscus Luca, Burgensis relates, and Gregory the 13th. in his Epistle to Philip the Second of Spain calls it, opus verè aureum, a work truly great. This is farther corroberated by the Authority of 42 Spanish Divines notwithstanding all which, Arias Montanus [Page 213]has but an ill repute among many of the Clergy in Spain, particu­larly for that he set forth a Chaldee Paraphrase, not only on the Pentateuch, as Cardinal Ximenius had done, but on all the rest of the Bible except some few Books. Of this Andrews de Leon Zamo­rensis, a Minor of the Regular Clerks, complains in an Epistle which he wrote to those that Printed a new Polyglot at Paris, where concerning the Chaldee Paraphrase publish'd in the Royal Bibles, he speaks thus: What shall I say of the Chaldee Paraphrase which the Rabbins call the Targum? Tis vitiated and extreamly corrupted, 'tis degenerated from it's ancient purity and candour, full of Talmudical Fables, and Sacrilegious Impostures. In this all men a­gree, even Cardinal Ximenius himself in his Preface to the Complu­tensis asserts it. Nay Cajetan himself gives a free account of his me­thod of Translating Hebrew in these words; I assure you that whilst I was about this work Interpreters would tell me, the Hebrew word sounds thus, In his Pre­face to the Psalms. but the Sense thereof is not evident unless it be chang'd into this, having heard all the significations, I answer'd, do not trouble your selves if the Sense be not clear, because it is not your Province to explain, but interpret as the words lay before you, and com­mit the care of understanding the Sense to Expositors. The Cardi­nal confesses ingenuously that though he was ignorant of the Hebrew yet he Translated the Old Testament into Latin out of the Hebrew, Cajetan's method in translating the Bible. and in order thereunto made use of two very learn­ed men in that Tongue, the one a Jew, and the other a Christi­an: and gives this as the principal reason why he did so, because unless the Text be just as in it's Original, the Text is not expounded but by guess, but the Text is expounded as 'tis understood by such or such an Interpreter: And at last wishes the Fathers had had such an Interpretation, though it be lame and imperfect; because then, says he, we should have the genuine Text of the Scripture explain'd, and not a Text of Interpreters making: But Cajetan who says al­most all the Hebrew words are aequivocal could never arrive at a perfect and compleat Interpretation; and yet I dare affirm that that most learned Cardinal, though an utter Stranger to the Hebrew Tongue, has been very happy in expressing the words of the Text, and that there is less barbarism in his Version than that of Arias Montanus. Gabriel Prateolus, who is very free in bestowing the name of Heretic, ranks the judgment he has pass'd of the ancient Interpreters, as being a little too bold, amongst the Heresies. Nor was Cardinal Palvacino a little dissatisfied therewith, who animadverts thus upon it; quel grand' intelletto [Page 214]alfre opere fuam [...]mirato, History of the Counsel of Trent, l. 6. c. 17. in quest [...] per la sciaersi egli trasportar dalla guida di ehi meglio intendeva la [...]grammatica Hebrea, chi misteri divini resto in glorios [...].

Malvenda's method.I omit the Dominican Thomas Malvenda's Version of some Books of the old Testament; who so rigidly affects the Gramma­tical Sense, that it looks like one entire piece of barbarism, and had been utterly unintelligible, had he not a little illustrated it by his Notes. Melchior Canus openly declares against Isidorus Clarius, Melchior Canus of wheol. places. l. 2. c. 13. whose emendation is nothing but a reprehension of the old Interpreter: For in the Front of his Works he promises, says the same Melchior, the old Edition correct, and after he has thus excus'd himself from the odium of Novelty, he inserts a great many things, adds some, and changes others, the humour and Interpretation of Isidorus Clarius, The Bible of Isidorus Clavius. Monk of Cassinum, who in ma­ny places which he corrects in the Latin Interpreter shews him­self ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, could not be more oppo­sitely described. But this Edition of the Bible is prohibited at Rome, and is extant in the Index of prohibited Books under this Title; the Vulgar Edition of the Old and New Testament, the one whereof is most dilligently corrected according to the Hebrew, the o­ther according to the Greek Original, so that a new Edition need not be desired, and yet the old One may here be found in the year MDXLII.

The Versi­on extant un­der Vatablus his name.Lastly, there are several Latin Copies of the Bible extant un­der Vatablus his name, which yet all the World acknowledg are not his. Robert Stephens has put upon the unwary Reader under the name of that learned and most understanding Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in the University of Paris: For the Edition which Stephens gave us in the year MDXLV, as if it had been exactly taken from the Lectures and Notes of Vatablus, affords us only the Version and Annotations of Leo, Judah, a Zuinglian, which for the most part were borrow'd from the Jews, particu­larly Rabbi David Kimchi, from John Calvin and other Pro­testants; this Interpretation of Leo, Juda, Robert Stephens has preferr'd before all others, and especially before that of Santes Pagninus, because 'twas more clear, and done into purer Latin. Yet the same Stephens in an Edition which he Publish'd in the year MDXLVII chose Pagnine's Translation before all the rest, but such as, if we may believe him, was revis'd and corrected by Pagnine himself, therefore neither was Vatablus nor Stephens Au­thors of any Version of the Bible: Yet both of 'em great Masters of Hebrew Learning.

CHAP. XXIII. Of the Latin Translations of the Bible made by Protestants.

THere are yet greater differences betwixt the Protestants in their Translations of the Bible, than the Catholicks. Se­bastian Munster, who turned the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Latin, shews the reasons and method of his Translation, at the very beginning of it; where he plainly tells us, how that he followed the Rabbins therein and not the old Interpreters. So that if there happened to be any faults in it, they were to be imputed to the Jewish Doctors, who were the first Authors of them. Sextus Senensis gives us his opinion of this Translation in these words. Munsterus ubique horridus, senticosus & asper usque adeo Hebraici sermonis horrorem sequutus est, ut cum multa Latinis auribus molliter accommodare potuisset, omnes tamen Hebrai­ci sermonis proprietates & phrases adeo servare studuit, ut nec ipsos Hebraicorum nominum stridores pretermittere voluerit, ingerens La­tinis auribus ubique pro Ozia Uzzijah, pro Ezechiele Jechezohel, &c. But I wonder that Sixtus should be so nice and critical, see­ing he so highly commends Cajetan, Pagnin, Oleaster and some others, who affected a far more barbarous and unpolite Style. Likewise Gerebrard treats him with as little candor and mode­ration, passing a sharp and severe censure upon him: Munste­rus, saith he, neglecta vocum propria notatione sepe Lutheranisa­bat, & a sue Franscisci institute discedebat. Certainly none of the Modern (especially Protestant Translators, have more ful­ly and emphatically express'd the genuine sense of the Hebrew Text) than Munster; who cannot deservedly be blam'd for a­ny thing, but for slighting the antient Interpreters of the Ho­ly Scripture, and adhering too closely to the late Jewish Do­ctors: neither is he so rough and harsh in his stile, abating some proper names, as Sixtus and some others fancy him to be. Hu­ [...]tius, who seems the most impartial and unbiass'd in his Judg­ment, gives him this Character, Sebastianus Munsterus Bibliorum Interpres sane doctus in Hebraica semper stilum collineans ad eaque nunquam non se componens. Yet without doubt he had gained greater applause, if according to the advice of Conradus Pelli­canus [Page 216]his Tutor in the Hebrew Tongue, he had chiefly followed the Rabbins in Grammatical niceties, consulting in other things, as well the Antient Interpreters of the sacred Text, as the mo­dern Jews; and then he had not disagree'd with the Latin Tran­slators in so many particulars as he did: For what necessity was there, that for Crescite & multiplicamine, & implete aquas Maris, which we find in the vulgar Translations; he should put Fructi­cate & augescite & implete aquas in fretis, which words carry a far harsher sound with them than the former.

Likewise Leo Juda, a Zuinglian, Translated the Old Testa­ment, or at least the greatest part of it, out of the Original Hebrew into Latin, and because he died before 'twas quite fi­nish'd, Bibliander and P. Cholinus completed it: Bibliander turned the eight last Chapters of Ezechiel, and also Daniel, Job, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles and 48 Psalms out of Hebrew; and Cholinus translated the books, which the Protestant Divines call the Apocripha, out of Greek. This Translation was first published at Zurich in the Year 1543. and afterward in the Year 1545, there came forth a second Edition of it by R. Stephanus, but without the name of the Author, and with the vulgar Translation on one side, as we have intimated before. But the Parisian Divines rail'd and inveigh'd bitterly both against the Edition and the Publisher of it; so that after many hot and wrangling disputes about several things belonging to the Bible, Stephanus was at lenght forc'd by the prevailing party, to leave his Country, and to fly to Ge­neva for Sanctuary; there he writ his Apology against the Pari­sian Divines, and published it both in Latin and French, where­in he made grievous complaints of them; but in most things he showed himself to be an Innovator and a rigid follower of Calvin: Yet he was defended in some things even against the Parisian Divines by P. Castellanus Bishop of Mascon and grand Almoner of France, who often carried the matters in contro­versie to the hearing of the Kings Council; for he had observ'd how the Parisians, through their Ignorance of the Tongues, had laid many things falsly to his charge. Neither did this Translation of Leo Juda escape the Censures of Genebrard; who thereby got the Favour and Patronage of the Parisian Di­vines, he himself being one of the same faculty. But Stepha­nus was entertained with far more courtesie and civility by the [Page 217]Spanish Divines; who without any scrupulous enquiry after the Authors name; or without any regard to the censures of the Parisians, reprinted this Edition at Salamanca, with some small variation of the notes; and moreover judged it worthy to be read of all those who were inquisitive after the true meaning of the Scripture. 'Tis true that Leo Judae render'd some Hebrew words less properly than Munster, but be took more care to ac­commodate them to the Latin Phrase: So that he cannot justly be accused for any thing, but his translating by way of Para­phrase, purposely to avoid obscurity.

Sobast. Castal. Interp.The most famous and generally receiv'd Translation of the Bible, is that of Castalio, of which there are several Impressi­ons: But that is accounted the best, which was made at Basil in the Year, 1573. Sixtus Senensis giving us his Judgment of Mun­ster and Castalio, avers that they fall into both Extremes; one of them being harsh, barbarous and unpolish'd in his Stile, and often inclining to the Jewish Idiom; the other being as prophane as a Heathen, foolishly affecting the Proprieties of the Lan­guages of the Gentiles, fancying his Latin could not be pure and elegant, unless it were soft and effeminate. Sixtus gives several examples of his prophane expressions. Castalio, saith he, calls God the Father Jupiter, Divus Armipotens, Gradivus & Caelicola; likewise he calls Angels, Jovis Genti, Prophets, Vates & fatidici, and holy Men, Heroes. Genebrard gives an excellent description of him and his Translation in these words, Versio Castalionis est affectata, Geneb. praef. in op. Orig. plus habens pompae & phalerarum quam rei & firmitatis, plus ostentationis quam substantie, plus fuci quam succi, plus hominis quam spiritus plus fumi quam flam [...]ae, plus humanarum cogitationum quam divinorum sensuum. But he is han­dled more severely by the Geneva Doctors, and especially Theo­dore Beza, who upbraids him with ignorance and rashness for his profane imitation of Catulus in his Translations; for in the Canticles he does not use the plain word Columba, but mea Co­lumba. Mea Columba, saies he, ostende mihi tun [...] vulticulum, fac ut audiam tuam voculam venustulam: & lepidum vulticulum habes: capite nobis vulpeculas parvas vinearum vastatriculas; In this Book he plays the Poet rather than the Interpreter; but every where he assumes the liberty of connecting the Periods and Verses; that his Translation might appear more graceful and elegant, as is evident in the first Chapter of Genesis, which begins thus;Gen. 1.1. In [Page 218]principio creavit Deus Coelum & Terram: cum autem esset terraru­dis q [...] (que) iners, tenebrisque offusum, profundum, & divinus spiritus s [...] ­se super aquas libraret, jussit Deus ut existeret Lux, &c. Beza and some other Geneva Doctors will only allow him to be a smatte­rer in the Hebrew Tongue; but with their leave I dare boldly say, that Geneva never bred a man more profoundly skilled in Hebrew, Greek and Latin than he. I no not deny, but that sometimes he did not accurately express the full import of the Hebrew words because he affected a smooth and delicate stile; but he did not this through ignorance, but through a desire of imitating Cicero and Catellus. Is. Levit. me­dit. in Lib. Ru [...] Likewise Isaac Levita, a man well versed in Hebrew, who finds fault with Castalio for not follow­ing exactly the Literal and Grammatical meaning of the Text, takes notice of some other things of small moment and impor­tance: But 'tis certain that Castalio proposed to himself this way of translating, that he might give his Translation the ad­vantage of perspicuity and elegancy. Genebrard objects that Castalio, as though he favoured the Heresie of the Servetans, render'd the Hebrew word Amar in the beginning of Genesis by Jussit; for which in the vulgar Translations we have dixit. But 'tis no hard matter to beleive that he never thought of this; and moreover the word Amar as well in Hebrew as Arabick, may very well be construed by jussit; which acception of the word seems not to be altogether improper in this place.

Now it only remains, that we make some short reflections up­on Junius and Tremellius, Junii & Trem. versio. who were the undoubted Authors of that Translation, which is so highly valued by the Protestants, especially in England and Geneva, where 'tis altogether used in their disputations. About the time when it was published, Drusius a man of the Protestant perswasion, and Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in an University in West Friezeland, spared no sharpness and severity in his animad versions upon it, but made it appear that they had grosly erred in some things; and a long time after Constantine L'Emperew Professor of the He­brew Tongue (which he was a great master of) in the Univer­sity of Leyden, passed the like censure upon Junius and Tremel­lius's Translation in these words, In vertendis H [...]braicis a Junio & Tremellio non raro abire debui; Hoc enim in [...]sta Bibliorum ver­sione saepe observavi; conceptam Analysin veluti norman statui ad quam in vertendo respicerctur, cum hoc modo saepe a vero sensu rece­datur. [Page 219]Yet Buxtorf the greatest modern Hebrician had these Interpreters in so great esteem, that he usually gave them the Ti­tle of incomparable men,Buxt. praef. Lex. Hebr. and in composing his Hebrew Lexi­con strictly followed their Translations; and all the Learning our Criticks pretend to, who slight and undervalue all the old Translators, is glean'd out of this Lexicon. Tremellius, who was a Jew before he professed Calvinism, seems to have taken a­bundance of things from the Modern Jews, and besides his La­tin stile is unnatural and affected, which without doubt he learn'd at Geneva: for 'tis very usual with the Geneva Doctors to interland their Sentences with pronoun Relatives, when there does not appear the least shadow of a Relation; as we read in the Tremellian Version of the first Chapter of Genesis, Gen. 1.4. viditque Deus lucem hanc esse bonam, & distinctionem fecit Deus inter Lucem hanc, &c. again a little after,v. 7. Fecit ergo Deus hoc expansum quod distinguit inter has aquas quae sunt ab inferiori istius expansi & aquas illas. Theodore Beza has some things not much unlike these in his Translation of the New Testament: neither did Tremellius scruple to insert several words to Illustrate the fence, which quite alter it; as in the 2d. Chapter of Genesis, where in the vulgar Translation we read, sed Fons ascendebat è terra, and in some other Translations & vapor, &c. He Tran­slates it aut Vapor non ascendebat; following the Arabick Para­phrase of Rabbi Saadias, Sirnamed Gaon, or the excellent. Moreover in the 8th. Chapter of Nehemiah, besides these words which are turned verbatim out of Hebrew, viz. Legerunt in Libro Dei Legis distincte & aperte ad intelligendum, & intellex­crunt cum legeretur, he adds these of his own, per scripturam ip­sam, which are not in the Hebrew Text, and renders them thus, exponendo sensum dabant Intelligentiam per Scripturam ipsam; in which thing he did not so much regard the words of the Hebrew Context, as the Principles of the Calvinistical Divinity; and he differs very much from Sebastian Munster, Leo Jude, Castalio and all other Protestant Interpreters, except those of Geneva, who were wonderfully taken with Tremellius's Translation

We can likewise allow Luc. Osiander a place among the Prote­stant Interpreters of the Bible;Bib. Luc. Osi. for tho he did not design to give us an entire Translation of it, lest he should in any wise seem to depart from the Ancient received Latin Translators, yet those places which he thought were not well rendred, he Tran­slated [Page 220]out of the Hebrew, retaining nevertheless the old Tran­slation in those very places, that so by comparing them, men might better judge of his and the Ancient Translation; as for instance, in the first Chapter of Genesis, where we read in the vulgar, ferebatur; he puts down in another Character, incu­babat, as if the Hebrew word was more fully expressed by the Latin word incubabat than ferebatur. Indeed Osiander mistakes in a great many things, when upon any Trivial account he leaves the Latin Translator, whom he did not follow as close as he should have done, yet he is deservedly commended by the Divines of Tubinge for this piece of prudence, that in his Edi­tion of the Bible, he gives us likewise that which was ancient and received for a great many years, by all the Western Chur­ches. Nor will it be unseasonable here to mention the Judg­ment of the Divines of the University of Tubinge, concerning the modern Interpreters, which we have in these words: Dum illi novas versiones afferunt, videntur studiosis Theologiae veteram illam & usitatam velle manibus excutere. Nonnulli in vertendo obscuram diligentiam Hebr [...]orum & sordidam [...], quam illorum Gram­matici habent sequentes, non modo gratiam, sed fructum studuii sui propemodum amettunt. Sunt etiam non pauci qui destituti solidiore cognitione Haebr [...]ae linguae & ignari proprietatis & elegantiae, inter­pretationes in modium afferunt, aut prodig [...]osas, aut certenon satis instituto convenientes. In like manner Andrew Osiander the Son of Luke, following the same way of Translating that his Fa­ther did, published the ancient Latin Translation, together with the corrections of it, retaining still the old Edition. And no man of sense will ever question, but that this is the best me­thod of Translating; provided the emendations be not inser­ted into the Text of the Latin Translation, but only put down in the Margin as probable conjectures. Not many years since Cocceius receded from this way of Translating; who was a man that had great skill in the Hebrew Tongue, and one that had exercised himself very much in this kind of Study, as it ap­pears from the Latin Translation of the Old Testament, which he adds to his Comment, and likewise from his Hebrew Lexi­con, which he adapted to the ancient Translations, which not­withstanding he departed from in his Translation, relying too much upon his own parts, and catching rather at words and sha­dows than the substances of things.

CHAP. XXIV. Of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues, and first of all of th [...]se made by Catholicks.

AFter the rise of new Hereticks in the Western Church, who casting aside Traditions, would acknowledge no other rule and standard of Religion besides the Scriptures; there were several warm disputes betwixt Divines of all perswasions about this very thing. The more prudent and moderate Ca­tholicks, did not absolutely condemn the Translations of the Scriptures into the mother Tongue of every Nation, because it was allowed of by the Fathers: But they judged it requisite to stop the increase and progress of Heresie, which sprung from some misinterpreted and perverted Texts of Scripture, to for­bid the promiscuous reading of them in the vulgar languages, by reason of several inconveniences which attend it, without a due regard to the Persons, Times, and some other circumstances. Faith according to St. Paul comes by hearing, and 'tis certain, far more have been converted to Christianity by hearing of the Gospel than by reading it. At the first promulgation of the Christian Religion, there were no Books of the Gospel, from which Men might have learned the Principles of their Religion, & 'tis very probable, that if the Apostles had never write any thing about the Christian Faith, yet our Religion by the help of Tra­dition, had been transmitted unto us entire and perfect. This is the general opinion of the Catholick Doctors, who do not positively forbid these Translations, if so be all persons in all times and places be not promiscuously permitted to read them, for 'tis their Maxim.

Now 'tis easily prov'd, that almost all Christians before the rise of the Protestant Innovators, had the liberty to peruse the Scriptures in their native Tongues. For what other reason [Page 222]should the Grecians prefer the Septuagint to the Original He­brew, but that the Greek was their Mother Tongue. Likewise the People of Italy had the Bible Translated into Latin, because they naturally spoke it, and for the same reason the Eastern Peo­ple had their Syriack, Coptick, Arabick and Armenian Transla­tions, which for brevity I shall omit. 'Tis true that some Translations are now read among these People, which they do not understand, as the Latin is at this day among the Italians; but this is no convincing argument, that these Translations were never in the Languages familiarly known and understood by the common People. Now I pass to the Translations of the Bible into the modern Tongues. Jacobus de Varagine is highly esteemed among the Italians for his Translation of the Scrip­tures into their Tongue: But now there are some other Italian Translations much in vogue, which carry the names of Nicho­las Malermius Abbot of the Monastry of St. Michael de Lern and Anton. Bucciolus; and in some Editions there is a Preface, in which the Author discourses at large of the Translations of the Scriptures into the vulgar Languages, but there is this dif­ference betwixt Brucciolius and some other Interpreters: He turn'd the Bible immediately out of the Original, whereas they only translated it from the Latin Interpretation, which was usu­ally read in the Western Churches. There are several Editions of this immediate Translation from the Hebrew, the first of which the Author dedicates to Francis the First King of France in the Year 1530. afterwards there came forth three other Edi­tions in the Years 1539, 40 and 41, but the Edition in the Year 1540 is accounted the best, because there are several very use­ful Marginal Notes in it, together with an Epistle of Antonius Brucciolius to Renata the Wife of Francis Duke of Ferrara in the defence and commendation of the Translations of the Bi­ble into the Vulgar Tongues, yet this Italian Interpreter seems to be too weak for the management of so noble and weighty a design; seeing he sticks not closely enough to the Hebrew Text, but follows other Translations, especially that of Pagnin, whose very errors he has copied out, adding some more of his own in some places, which he did not understand. For in the 8 Chap. of Nehemiah, where Pagnin perverts the Original by rending it; In lege Dei expositi, he translates it, Nulla lege d'Iddio dichi­arata, differing as much from Pagnin, as the Hebrew Text: [Page 223]For because he searched not into the Hebrew Copies, he did not take notice that the word which fignifies Lex is of the Feminine Gender, and that the Participle passive, which he render'd by Dichiarata was of the Masculine Gender; and so while he pre­tends, without consulting the words of the Context, to cor­rect Pagnin, whom he did not well understand, he falls into a downright error. I shall forbear to say any thing of the Tran­slation of Jacobus de Voraign; because I never saw it. Passe­vinus who had a Copy of it, gives no very great Character of it; but others highly commend it. But, I think I may confi­dently affirm, that very few of those Translations, which are ta­ken out of Latin Editions, can be accurate and correct; see­ing it happens very often, that the Latin Interpreter cannot be understood without some knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue: hence it is that Jacobus de Voraigne, Mattermus, and others, who turn the holy Scriptures out of Latin into another Tongue, are often guilty of gross mistakes.

There were several Translations of the Bible into French long before Calvin was heard of:Gall. Vers. For before the Catholick Religion was reform'd, or rather deform'd by him, a French Translati­on of the Scriptures was read in Geneva and the neighbouring Mountains, which was compos'd in the year MCCXCIV by one Guiars des Moulins, a Canon of Aria in Artois, formerly under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Terovenne, a Copy of that Translation is still kept in the publick Library at Geneva, and another at Paris in the study of the Famous Henry Justelle, and I am of opinion that this is the Translation which is men­tion'd by Robert Olivetanus, Rob. Olivet. Praes. in Bibl. who sent the first Bible in French to Genevah. Likewise there is another French Translation in some Libraries in France, which is believ'd to have been done by O­rosmes Canon of Rouen, in the time of Charles the fifth; and Car. Molinaus gives out that he had some loose Manuscript Peices of it. Moreover, 'tis evident that the Divines of Lovaine were not the first, as is commonly believ'd, who Printed the French Translation of the holy Scriptures. We have a Translation publish'd at Antwerp in the year 1530, by Martin L' Empereur, with the Priviledge of the Emperour Charles the Fifth, but we can have no certainty of that Edition; because the year of the Impression disagrees with somethings contain'd in the Priviledg, viz. that the year 1530, was the first year of the Reign of Charles [Page 224]the Fifth, who was made Emperour in the year 1529. Besides, in the same Priviledge, the Inquisitors and some other Divines are mention'd; who had the inspexion of that work; but at that time and in these places there was no Inquisition. To these things may be added another observation drawn from the third Chapter of Genesis, where we find these words, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, which occur in the Latin Edition, to be render'd the same way in this Translation, as the Protestants render them, viz. cette semence brisera ta teste. Moreover in the Preface to this Tran­slation, we have the same division of the Scriptures, which we find in the Protestant Bibles: for there these Books are only rec­kon'd to be Canonical, which were writ in the Hebrew Tongue, and receiv'd into the Jewish Canon. But we may give a proba­ble answer to all these Objections. First, some error may be couch'd in the Priviledge, as we may gather from some other Editions of this Translation. Secondly, 'tis very probable that the true Inquisitors are not mention'd in the Priviledge. Third­ly, 'tis no wonder that he find cette semence, &c. in the French Translation, because the Translation tells us, that he follow'd the old Interpretation. Lastly, the Author of this Translation, who also Translated the Edition of St. Jerom, as may be seen in the Title Page, might have imitated St. Jerom in the division of the Scriptures, at that time there being no Decrees of the Coun­cil of Trent against it: Neither did Cardinal Cajetan, who writ a long time after, give any other division of them.

I shall not say any thing at present of the Divines of Lovain, whose Translation is generally read among the Catholicks, and which hath been several hundred times Printed and Re-printed, and also accurately corrected: Which work they did not at­tempt, upon any other account, but that they might draw the Common-people, and the unlearned from the reading of the Geneva Bibles, which were then had in great esteem. Likewise those Divines who Translated the Bible into the English, German, Polish, Hungarian, and some other vulgar Languages, profess they did it on purpose to divert the Catholicks from reading Protestant Translations. 'Tis said that a Manuscript Copy of the Bible was found in Province in the Language of the Country;Translat. Waldens. which I fancy was made by the Waldenses in their Mother Tongue not the pure French. John Leger Hist. des Vall. John Leger a Calvinist, who composed the History of that Sect, makes mention of it, and tell us, that he has likewise a Copy of it.

German Versi­ons.There were Bibles likewise in Germany in the Dutch Tongue read by Catholicks before the innovations of Luther, as some Writers affirm, who prefer the Norimbergh and Augustan Editi­ons before the Lutheran's; after this Joannes Eckius, Dictenber­gerus, and others oppos'd the German Translations to those of the Protestants; James Wowiezkus, a Jesuit Presbyter,Polenian. turn'd the Bible into the Poish Tongue, at the command of Gregory the 13th. and his Version was afterwards approv'd of by Clement the 8th. We have read likewise that there were Versions of the Bible in the English Tongue from the time of Bede; but at this time the English Catholicks use an English Version made by some English Divines, who fled to Rheims in France, and there publish'd a Version which they mightily oppos'd to those of the Protestants; a late Writer attests in these following words, that there were Spanish translations of the Bible from the time of St. Vincentius, sirnam'd Ferrarius; la Biblia en lengua Valenciana con licencia de los Inquisidores à cuya translacion assisto, S. Vincente Ferrer: And affirms that 'tis publish'd in Folio in Royal Paper, in folio de pa­pel Real. Socrates and Sozomen praise a much more ancient and Gothic Version, done by Vulphile a Gothic King. The Version into Arabic, done by a Bishop of Sevil, when the Spaniards were under the Dominion of the Moors, is commended by some. I omit Jeroms Version into the Dalmation Tongue, because 'tis fictitious, and foisted in by those who understood not that Learned Fathers words, where he says, he has given the men of his Tongue a translation of the Scriptures. For, by Men of his Tongue he means those who understood Latin, than which ex­pression there is nothing more frequent in his Writings, when he designs the Latin, in opposition to the Greeks who read Ori­gen's Hexaple's.

CHAP XXV. Of the Bible, done into the Vulgar Tongue, by Hete­rodox Translators.

IN the days of Pope Innocent the third a French Translation of the Bible, done by some Heterodox Divines was publish'd at Metensium, whereof that great Prelate did not a little complain being informed by the Bishop of the above-named place that no small number of the Laity, Men, and Women made it their business to read a certain French translation of the Bible, that they frequented secret Conventicles, slighted the public wor­ship, and defying the Catholic Clergy to the face began to floot at their simplicity. Which aforesaid translation might proba­bly be borrowed of the Albigenses, people of that time. Nei­ther did the Wicklevists in England want their Vulgar translation, whereof, I hear, that something is as yet remaining. Now we may observe that these, and such like translations were done only out of the Latin; by reason their Authors were unskill'd in the Greek and Hebrew tongues. Martin Luther, a man of a bold, and refractory Spirit, was the first, who took upon him to do an old Copy out of the Hebrew and a new one out of the Greek into the Mother tongue; who was a smatterer only in the Hebrew, when this his impolish'd, and erroneous translation (a translation afterward rejected by men after his own heart) came to cope with the Vulgar Latin which for many years before, and that in the judgment of all Divines was generally received, and approved both in Churches and Schools. And yet the Gentle­man sticks not to be his own Trumpeter, and applauding himself for a Linguist, boldly asserts, that as for all the stratagems of Po­pery, all the tophitical Tyranny of the School-men; yea, and the whole Kingdom of Antichrist, he had invaded, subdued, and totally overthrown them. Nay if we may believe him, he telleth us, that he and his Languages were a terrour even to Lucifer himself. The Devil, (saith he) is not so much afraid of my Faith, and inter­nal [Page 227]Courage, as of my Tongue, Pen, and knowledge in the Holy Scriptures.

But this Patriarch of the German Protestants, as not resting very well satisfied, I suppose, with the first Edition of his Tran­slation, wherein he presumes to have repulsed the Armies of the Devil, and to have shaken off the Popes tyrannical Voke, set his Brains a work for a more accurate Version; though his se­cond attempt was so far from being embraced by the more wise of his followers, that Sebastian Munster was not affraid to give his Master the Title of a very Fable Translatour,Munst. praef. on the Bible, and Notes on the 2d. Chap. of Jonah. and no great Conjurer in the Hebrew. This made Bucer maintain that Luthers Translation was faulty, and Melchior Zanchius write a whole Book of the Authors Errata. Hence it was that the Zinglians confided in themselves, and turned the Hebrew Bible into the Ger­man, that sighting Luthers poor endeavours, they cast themselves upon one Leo Judas; though these proceedings were not well taken by the above mentioned Translator. Hence it was that the Low-Country Protestants, mighty Adorers of this High-Ger­man Translation, together with those of Suecia, Finland, Den­mark, Ireland, and the rest of the Northern People, who had formerly stuck close to Luthers Errors, openly declare their readinss for a new Translation of the Bible; being that, That of Luthers was done all in a hurry; and that, as John Leusden Hebrew Professor in the University of Ʋtretcht, testifies, Lu­thers Works lay under a great many gross mistakes, whereof some indeed might inveagle themselves in; but that others without dispute arose the sluggishness of the Author, slum­bring over the Low-Dutch Translation. And yet, as Mr. Lues­den tells us the Anabaptisis stood up Tooth and Nail for this Lu­theran Translation, resenting it very highly that Johannis Ʋrte­novis should take upon him to Correct Martin Luther upon the New Testament. Though the Protestants of Low-Germany, in the Synod of Dort, as they call it, rejected Luthers Transla­tion, which with all kindness they had formerly caressed; look­ing upon it as spurious and degenerate, an off spring nothing related to the Mother-Hebrew: wherefore they were delivered of a Translation of their own, and Christned themselves the Revisors and Interpreters of Dort.

Now 'tis our Province to enquire what order and method, Mar­tin Luther observ'd in his farewel Translation of the Scriptures. [Page 228]Since he publickly asserts, that the Hebrew is void and ineffectual, that the Jews are not men to be believed; and that St. Jerom him­self in Translating the Scriptures was not inspired with Christian wisdom; jumping into Ruffinus his opinion, who gave out that the above named Holy Father was a Jew in heart. For he wonders that any Christian will concern himself with the ridiculous Co­mentaries of the Jews; The Jewish trifles (saith the same Luther) argue their Authors to know little or nothing of Holy-Writ; and yet forsooth these are the Idols of our Modern and Famous Divines; Divines most dexterous in the Hebrew Tongue, and yet the most apt to hunt after such like whimsies. He hath likewise a touch upon those Rabbys, whose Talent is most commonly employed, and laid out in Grammatical affaires, decrying them thus, That they may know perhaps the Nominal and bare signification, but as for the re­al, and intrinsic that they are ignorant of it; and that therefore nothing of soundness and solidity may be expected from them. Hence it is that he rejects the Hebrew Translators, and their adherents, as a pack of Fools & Ideots, who would pretend to shelter the Jewish Tran­slations, within the roof of the Scriptures. And he thought it much better that the more obscure places of Scripture should be expounded by the Analogy, or Rule of Christian Faith, than by any Rabinical Books, by reason the once lost Hebrew is im­possible to be retrieved, and that the true signification of a great many words in that Language is yet unknown, even by the Jews themselves, as well as by the Christians: The use and knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue (saith Martin Luther) is so much lost and estranged, that it can never be recovered; neither do the words only (but also the very Phrases and Construction) lye under a most doubtful, and various obscurity: Hence it comes to pass that we know not the force, Figures and Emphasis of a great many words and sentences; which if any Christian may ever sift out, so as to know their meaning, he must necessarily be one of those men, who with the help of the New Testament hath acquired to himself the full know­ledge of the Scriptures.

That several particulars in this Method of Luthers may be hooted at, is past dispute, more especially those objections which he offer'd against the Translators of his Time, in that they depended too much upon Rabbinical Books. And yet the true reason why he pretended to calumniate these men was, because they had spoke against the impropriety of his [Page 229]Translation. Luther, I surmize, was in the fault when he stood dissatisfied not only with the Books of the modern Jews, but also with St Jerom, and the ancient Interpreters, whom when he had strangely disrespected, he betook himself (as though all the world were Fools but his worship), to a certain imaginary rule of Faith, upon the faith of his own Brain. Moreover being no great Critic in Grammer he was found guilty, and condem­ned of several misinterpretations; so that truckling under Pre­judice, and Opinion; he giveth us for these words (in the 4th Chapter of Genesis) Possedi hominem per dominum, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Possedi hominem Dominum, I have gotten the man Lord. Certainly Luther was no stranger to the Cabalistical Doctor's Opinion, who out of this place would gladly raise up a Messia. Besides, Luther in the first Edition of his Translation had rendred these very same words thus; acquisivi hominem Domini; I have got the man of the Lord; which Interpretation was much more disconsonant to the Hebrew Text than the other. For truly it was not possible that such a Novice in the Hebrew should not sometimes lye under most palpable mistakes. Wherefore his own Disciples were not affraid to revise, and correct their Masters Translation, a Translation (I confess) which they allowed some elbow room within the Bible, and descended so far as to write their own corrections in a different Character, or to im­prison them within two stroaks, which you may see in the Vi­nariensian Bible, where Luther's Translation, and the abovesaid Animadversions are exposed to the view of the World, yet how much men of his own principles esteemed it, we may easily conjecture, since the Corrections added to it procured it the general applause of the Lutherians, as the most accurate Editi­on. Paulus Eberus who calleth himself Pastor of the Church at Wittenberg used the Protestants in the same manner, as Isi­dorus Clarius did the Catholicks. This man corrected the vulgar Latin, and added thereunto Luthers German Transla­tion, declaring that in as much as was possible for him, he fol­lowed the ancient Latin Translator, whom notwithstanding you may afterwards find very much ashamed of his Animadver­sions, having so low thoughts of his endeavours, that he desi­red his Bible might not be republished, because that, being distracted by other business, when he compos'd it, he had run into some mistakes.

Now there is extant a German Translation done by the Doctors of Tigurino and chiefly of Leo Judas, who was most particularly concerned therein, which Translation openly opposes that of Luther. And yet the same Doctors of Tigurino forged a new one as though the former Version had not been found and good. The Authors of this late Translation are (are as I hear) Hottin­ger, Heideker Mulerus and others who have translated the He­brew words almost verbatim. Piscator a man of great account among the Calvinists, is reported to have done a Bible into the German tongue, who though he relyed upon Junius and Treme­lius their Latin Version, yet he did not hang back, but kept a full pace with the above named Translators. The low German Translation, which was taken into consultation at the Synod of Dort, in the year of our Redemption 1618, came forth in the year 1637; and by orders of the higher Powers was done into Low-Dutch immediately out of the Hebrew, and not from Martin Luthers High Dutch Translation, was found errouneous. Neither doth the Low-Dutch Translation want its faults, arising from a more than ordinary dependance upon the Expositions of the Modern Jews, who were rashly supposed by them to under­stand the Hebrew better then all the World beside. And there­upon this Translation met with brisk opposition from some of the the Protestant Faction; and Low-Germany, the Country wherein it was hatcht, was quickly markt out with the brand of novelty and affectation. Mr. Leusden Hebrew Professour in Ʋtrecht, a man before commended, taking upon him to argue for the Low-Dutch Translation among the rest of his proofs, produces as arguments the Corrections of the vulgar Latin by Sixtus Quintus, and Clement Octavus, Popes of Rome. But the true reason why these two Prelates should Correct the vulgar Latin, was far different from that of the Low-Country Protestants. The former Animadversions, without vain affectation, desired only to make the vulgar Latin answerable to its ancient Co­pies: whilst the latter sort of men, magnifying the Hebrew varities, which they pretend always to stand by, set out every day, and jump't up new Translations of the Bible; which as soon as they come a little in vogue, the Authors of them pre­sently perkt up, show their faces, and ridicule the Old Tran­slatour, making it their end, and aim to build up their Yesterday Opinions, upon these new and unheard of Translations: being [Page 231]the sole way they make use of to thrust their monstrous Do­ctrines into the Church, and which they do openly acknow­ledge saying, That the Sun of the Eastern Languages arising, they betook themselves to the Hebrew Fountains, the better to find out, and confute the errours of Popery, the better to establish their Religion.

That the English Protestants was cloy'd and overcharged with the numerous Translations of the Bible, the bare words of the Bishop of London in his conference at Hampton-Court may be of sufficient evidence. If each man (begins the Bishop) had his peculiar fancy we could never expect an end of Translation; wherefore the good will and pleasure of his most Excellent Majesty 'tis, that some uniform Version be thought upon; adding moreover, that then he had never met with an English Bible well Translated, and was very well satisfied, that among the bad ones, that of Geneva was the worst: where he then thought expedient that the most Learn­ed in both the Ʋniversities should confer notes together and make up a Translation, which being first revised, by the most Learned Bishops, and Privy Council, should at last be established by the Kings Autho­rity. The which being done, the Church of England will be confin'd to one Translation and no more. We may easily from hence con­clude with what noyse, bustle, and dispension the diversities of Bibles came accompanied into England, under the different Names of T [...]ndal and Coverdale, Th [...]. Matthews, Tonstal and Hethe, Parker Archbishop of Canturbury and other Bishops, the last named persons, being the Author of a Bible Entituled the Bishops Translation. Now the Geneva Translation, which King James will have to be the worst, is the same with the French Bible, Printed at Geneva, the which was made English, and Read in Great Britain by some of the Geneva Profession. As for the History of these and such like Bibles you may have it in Durel and Fuller's State of England. Most wisely therefore did King James, the first of the Name of the Kings of England, Establish That, rejecting and making void all other Translations, which were then us'd in the Nation, some new, impartial, and unaffected Translation should be composed. Likewise he made a Law for Interpretation, and ordered those who had the over­seeing of it, to go from the Bishops Translation, as little as pos­sible, willing that some particular words which were in a man­ner Consecrated to the use of the Church should be retained, [Page 232]as the word Church it self, which signifies a public meeting; and by the Decree, he reprimanded the Geneva Reformadoes, who had foisted in other Names, commanding, for these mens sakes that all Marginal Notes, and Annotations, at the beginning and end of the Bible should be struck out, as things of bad conse­quence, and the snares of the common People. These, and a great many more particulars of the like Nature were order'd by the Kings Royal Authority; and accordingly effected; so that to this intent there is no Translation made use of in the Church of England, than the English one only set forth by his Majesties especial command. To which Translation truly their Book of Common Prayer may bear some resemblance, which Book except the Version of the Psalms, hath been so far from the least alteration, that it hath been used in their Publick Worship ever since their Reformation, in the Reign of Edward the Sixth. Though it be a general Opinion that the English had a Translation of the Bible in English, done by Wiclift; and that before the above named King began his Reign; which Translation together with that which was a­broad in England in the Reign of King Henry, the Eighth, was done into English out of the vulgar Latin. Also Cochlaus will tell you that Luther's Translation of the New Testament was made English. Besides all this, there is a common report that a Bible was published at London in Welch; that James Ʋsher the Bishop of Armaugh, turn'd a new Copy into Irish, and Mr. William Bedd an old one; and that both of them are supposed to have been burned.

CHAP. XXVI. Of the Translations of the Bible, which were writ in the vulgar Tongue, and their Rise from the Geneva Schools.

WE find not any French Translations of the Holy Scrip­tures, and done out of the Hebrew and Greek, which went not to School at Geneva, neither do I omit that Translation which may seem to be composed by Renatus Benedictus, one of the Parisian Divines; since the Geneva Translation, and the afore­named piece are most nearly related, as I shall hereafter make evident. Robertus Olivetanus, born in Picardie, and a nigh kins­man of Jo. Calvins, was the first that attempted that great work, and at last finished it in the year of our Redemp­tion 1535, which was the first year of the Reign of that monstruous Religion, set up at Geneva, by Jo Calvin, since that before that time (as the above named testifies) some old Copies only of an old French Manuscript were read in these and such like places, and those without an Author. Now what method Olivetanus followed in his Translation, we may know by his Preface, which method truly was not ridiculous had he been fit for the undertaking such a task. Though in the in­terim several circumstances sufficiently demonstrate unto us the Translator's ignorance in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues. As for the French I dare not say he understood it, being that Jo. Calvin, who looked over this Translation, leaves this for an Animadversion, That the Author writ false French. Neither truly in his famous Preface doth he shew any competent know­ledge he had in the Hebrew, when he tells us a Tale of a Tub, and stories only fit for three-days-standing-Hebrecians; where he learnedly observes R. Aben Ezra himself. This Olivetanus therefore did not take the trouble upon him to do the Hebrew Copy into French, but with much more ease followed some forerunning Interpreters. Since he telleth us of two Italian and three German Translations of the Bible, at that time extant. And yet in the very beginning of his work, he protests that he [Page 234]scorned the equipage of a Learned mans Footman, that he was free from prejudice, and leaving other Translations, betook himself to the Hebrew; That he had marked the more obscure places of Scripture with an Asterisk, and put down other mens Comments in the Margent.

The same Olivetanus sets a great value upon the different Readings of the Bible, more especially upon those, which he had observed out of the Greek Interpeters and St. Jerom, through the great light which they give to the Scriptures. Wherefore he openly declares that he values not the help of the Modern Jews, or the assistance of their Books; neither is he affraid to maintain that the Hebrew Vowels were first foisted in upon the Bible by the Doctors of Tiberius; and therefore for his part prized the Septuagint and St. Jerom much above the common Hebrew Bible. Neither in writing Hebrew will he imitate the Modern Jewish Doctors; but prefers himself before them, look­ing upon the new Jewish Pronunciations as Monstrous, though in the last place he acknowledgeth that St. Jerom knew the He­brew Tongue better than himself.

The gifts of Heterodox Men must certainly shine forth in a miraculous manner, before they win the applause of the Ca­tholick, though Robertus Oliveranus, I am fully perswaded, knew, and [...]pp [...]ov [...]d f [...]etter things, when he followed the worse, who in one ba [...]e year, punctilio of time in comparison, compleated a work which requi [...]ed fi [...]ty years study. The Gentleman, I must needs confess, very seldom takes any notice of the diffe­rent readings, and scarce at all looks back upon the Ancient Translatours: Sometimes truly he sticks to a less obvious sense, as in 1 Chap. of Gen. where for these words which are in the vulgar, and in a manner all Tra [...]slations The spirit of God, &c. he will give you these, the Wind of God, &c. And to the end he would not be called in question concerning any affected novelty, he produces in open Court as Witnesses of his true Translation, certain of the Greek Fathers, who were of the same opinion, though at the end of his Book he inserts a d [...]fferent Interpreta­tion. Thus Olivetanus slid into a great many gross mistakes, not only through his Ignorance in the Hebrew and Greek, but likewise in the Latin. Hence it is that having a greater respect for the Latin Translator, then the Hebrew Copy, an Ocean of Errors overwhelm him; an Example whereof we have in the [Page 235]1 Chap. of Gen. where for cete grandia in the Latin Translation, he gives us in the French Grandes Baleines. But how he can make cote agree to Balana; I see no reason; being the word general­ly taken denotes Creatures of an oblong, vast and prodigious Bulk. And which is much more unsufferable Olivetanus in the 25 Chap. of Gen. where the Latin Translator readeth Lampas, he commits a grand mistake, by adhering too much to a simi­litude, and setteth down Lampe.

Jo. Calvins Bible. Jo. Calvin, though he was no greater Critick in the Hebrew than Robertus Olivetanus, yet he openly declares the Translation not only to be Mungril French, but that it stood Guilty of a whole Catalogue of Errours. And yet he had applauded this very same Translation before, and fostered it under his Authority, wishing that all learned Men would make it their business to stu­dy that immense and laborious work; and then to publish a Translation of their own, which he would have presented to the more wise, knowing and sober Divines. Hen Stephens pub­lished these Animadversions of Jo. Calvin, in the year of our Redemption 1535, who being an Acute, Ingenious and very Judicious Man, and no Novice in the Holy Scriptures, dexte­rously corrects a great many things in Olivetanus his Edition, and through his great ability in the French tongue, clear'd it from all the obsolete words. And yet he minded the matter more than the words, and for perspicuities sake write a Paraphrase in Place of a Translation. Now and then no great occasion, cal­ing him away, he recedes from Olivetanus his Translation, tho he keeps to the Gentlemans method, and puts down several Notes and Expositions in the Margent, tho not so often as Oli­vetanus himself. He is much out in presenting us with a sense less proper in the Context, and a more plausible one at the end of the Book, which mistake arose from his small acquaintance with the Hebrew Propriety. Olivetanus had wisely inserted in his Copies some Marginal Notes borrowed from the Ancient Translatours, which Jo Calvin impudently takes away, as in the 6th. Chap. of Gen. where you may read both in the Septuagint, and the Vulgar Latin, non permanebit spiritus meus, he following Olivetanus translates it ne debatra, spes meus non desceptabit, my Spirit shall not strive, &c. having no regard to the Old Tran­slatours, which Olivetanus had ranked in his Margent. There were several Editions put forth of those Animadversions of Jo. [Page 236]Calvins, which were diligently perused, even by Orthodox Di­vines, more especially that Edition in Folio, published 1357, which came out in pretty handsom Character, and had only a few particulars in it altered, and the method of it reduced to that of the Vulgar Latin. Neither is he here unprovided of St. Jerom's Preambles, excellent Mediums to Cajole the vulgar People.

The Geneva Doctors Bible. Cornelius Bertramus Hebrew Professor at Geneva, Beza, Fayus, Rotanus, Jaquemotus, Goulartius and some others took this above­said Tran [...]ation in hand, and in the Year of our Incarnation 1588, writ Animadversions upon it. These Men especially Bartramus, having a Competent skill in the Hebrew, put the old Geneva Translation to School again to the Hebrew Doctors, yet more particularly they relied upon Munsterus and Tremelli­us their aid and assistance. Both Robertus Olivetanus and Jo. Cal­vin were most sharply censured by these Revisers, who taking upon themselves a more than ordinary Liberty of Animadver­sion were sometimes very busie, when they had little or nothing to do. Hereupon, whilst they follow Tremellius in the 8 Chap. of Nehem. rendring that Text according to the above said Transla­tour; and they gave the sence of it by the Scripture it self; they seem rather to express some of their Geneva sentiments than the words of the Scripture. A like passage we meet with in the 4 Chap. of Genesis, which Text truly Olivetanus and Cal­vin had very well according to the Interpreters translated; then they began to call upon the Name of the Lord, when these Reformado Gentlemen turned it, and that both very barba­rously and obscurely; then they began to read the Name of the Eternal, imitating herein the depraved Affectation of Aqui­la. Neither are these same Gentlemen any Sophisters in the French; since in my own opinion they go very aukwardly a­bout to translate something concerning Noah's Ark, in the 46. Chapter of Genesis doing it thus, thou shalt chalk it with Pitch within and without, which certainly Olivetanus and Jo. Calvin had more plausibly render'd, Thou shalt pitch it with Pitch both with­in and without, as the Latin Translator hath it, bitumine lines in­trinsecus & extrinsecus. Besides who can endure to hear that ex­pression in the 30 Chap. of Gen. He pill'd the white Rind.

But they have ten thousand more expressions of the like na­ture, which I omit at present, leaving them to themselves and [Page 237]their ignorance in the French Particles, whereupon th [...] true sence and meaning of any Text wholy depends.

Since this time there was never published any other Corre­ction of the Geneva Translation, done by any of those Do­ctors; only some obsolete words were cashier'd, that the Tran­slation might look more neat and handsome, though indeed you may stumble upon their Notes upon any dark place of Scrip­ture, which indeed multiply according to the good will and pleasure of the Geneva, who have a most admirable faculty in vamping of their frantick notions of Scripture it self. 'Tis not long ago since Samuel Desmarets a Calvinistical Mini­ster at Groningen, jumbled all his notae variorum, Collections out of the Geneva Doctors, and the several Editions of the Bible into a full Body, whereunto he adjoyned the Ge­neva Translation, A Book published by Himself: Himself, I mean a man certainly of no great Judgment, to swell up his Book into a Folio with a pack of apeless and impertinent Con­tents. The French Bible also, which was Translated by Rena­tus Benedictus, a Parisian Divine may be thrown in among the Number of the Geneva Merchandize; for when he was repro­ved by his Brother Divines for so rash and inconsiderate an attempt: He protested before God and Man, that his Translation was the same with that of Geneva, which he altered a little, without ever a Glance upon the Hebrew, which he never un­derstood, and that he added and substracted only as his Genius and Fancy led him. The reason why this Divine turn'd a Tran­slator, was because that a meer Ignoramus in the Greek tongue, had took upon him to Translate Aristotles Logick, and had got great applause by the endeavour, which he looked upon as a Pre­sident whereby he might be kept harmless in going to do the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, out of their Originals, though he had liv'd always a Stranger to both those Languages. Lastly, let us place among the Geneva Bibles the Translation of Johannes Adeodates a Calvinistical Minister, which was first published in Italian and then in French, and is in as much Vogue with the Calvinists as the Geneva Translation it self. So reverendly is a Translator esteemed among his Fellows in opinion. Nei­ther were the Reasons slender why his Translations should be so much cryed up and applauded, since every passage in it is so plain and easie, since the Author plays the Parapharist, and tickles [Page 238]the fa [...] [...]f his Brother Sectaries, as may be made evident by his Notes upon the 6. Chap. of Gen. where he follows the Emen­dation of Bertramus, yet avoiding his barbarity, Translates the place more clearly and elegantly: Then they began to call one part of Mankind by the name of the Eternal, though he doth not cast his eye aside, and look upon Robertus Olivetanus and Jo. Calvin their true Translations, but only putteth down a Note in the Margent as a Limit of the Scriptural Sense. To alter or substract a word breaks no squares with this Gentleman, who acting according to his good will, not much minds the proper sense of the words, so the vulgar may by any means understand him. Neither is he so much a Critick as an Orator and Divine, making it his only business to please the Vulgar, and work upon their passions. His Notes generally are pretty plausible, serviceable to the In­terpretation of several Texts of Scripture, save only when he bustles for his Religion, enters into Disputations, Preaches, Cants and ridicules himself. For I question whether Heracli­tus could have forborn laughing, suppose he had read this mans Annotations upon the 2d. Chap. of Gen. Gen. 1 v. Eve was not formed of the Head, for that Woman ought to be subject to her Husband; nor of the Feet, for that she ought not to be trampled upon or debased like a Servant; nor of the First, because it does not become her to thwart him; nor of the Hinder part, for that she ought not to be despised nor rejected, nor abandoned in necessity, but of the rib and the mid­dle of the Body, to shew the moderation which the Husband ought to observe in his superiority and the faithful Society they owe to one ano­ther.

I wish those who have a fancy to read Jo. Adeodates his Tran­slation, that they make use of the Italian Edition, which is much more Elegan than the French; and I only advise them to read the Contents of the Chapters, whereby they may attain unto a full Compendium of the Bible.

Castalio's French Tran­slation.No [...]e [...] suppose may blame us, in giving room to Sebastian Castalio's Translation of the Bible in Geneva; tho perhaps the poor Author had the bad fortune to meet with nothing at that place, save taunts and reviling. This Translation was pub­lished at Basil in the Year of our Incarnation 1554, and was dedicated afterward to Henry the 2d. King of France; which Translation, to make no farther enquiry about it, was done word by word out of the Latin, a way of writing proper to [Page 239] Sebastian, who for example in the 49th. Chap. of Genesis turned the word Schilo in the Latin Translation, Sospitator, into the French probatim, porte bonheur; so that he strictly followeth the Latin way of speaking thus; First God created the Heaven and the Earth, and in regard the Earth was nothing, formless and dark­ness covered the abyss, and that the Spirit of God hover'd over the wa­ters, God said let there be Light; doing it word by word out of the Latin Translation; wherefore Theodore Beza mightily com­plained of it, as likewise of the Latin, and inveighs bitterly a­gainst the Divines of Basil, that they should suffer Castalio's French and Latin Bible to be published at that place, condemn­ing both those Versions as prophane, and the Author himself, as no great Proficient in the Hebrew, which Beza tells you he Learned from the most Expert Hebricians, tho he himself had no skill in the Language. And yet Castalio was not so meer a Child in the Hebrew, as not to outstrip the Geneva Translators, which he did in several places, hundreds whereof I omit; tho I cannot pass by the Hebrew word Tannanim in the beginning of Gen. render'd by the Latin cete grandia, and by those of Gene­va Grandes baleines, which this Gentleman translated very well, and most significantly, grands poissonnars.

The Spanish Translation.Here I had almost forgot the Bible Translated into Spanish by Cassiodorus de Reyna, and Cyprianus Valerius, Reformadoes. The one of these men telleth you in his Preface, that he followed Pagninus and the Jews: The other Gentleman sheweth Him­self not so much a Translator, as an Animadverter upon Cassi­odorus his Endeavours. To speak plainly, neither of these pre­tending Translators understood the Hebrew. That there was a Translation of the Bible done in Italian by the Protestants may be probable;The Italian Translation. since Robertus Olivetanus speaketh of two Bibles in Italian, whereof he was an Eye-witness: That the Author of the one was Antonius Brucciolus, we have before observed, tho the Author of the other Translation is not yet known.

CHAP. XXVII. Of the Polyglott Bibles.

BIBLES have the appellation of Polyglott from the several Tongues wherein they are penned. Now the Jews of Con­stantinople are said to have published two Copies of Moses his Law, in serveral Languages, the first whereof gives you the He­brew Text, the Chaldee paraphrasely Onkelosius, the Targum, or Arabic Paraphrase by R. Saadius Sirnamed Gaon, or the excel­lent, and the Persian Version by Tausus: The other presents you with not only the Hebrew Texts and Chaldee Paraphrase, but a Translation in the vulgar Greek and another in Spanish, and both of them writ in Hebrew Characters with the Rabbinical points, which supply the places of so many Vowels. And some points may be found both in R. Saadias and Tausus his Persic Translation; though it may be worth our while to observe that the Jews, who pointed R. Saadias his Translation, did therein have a greater regard to the vulgar Arabic Translation than the true and Grammatical, which may be seen by the Alcoran, and made apparent from these first words in Genesis. [...] Compare these with R. Saadias his Copy, which in the Bible printed in England, is Grammatically pointed, though you may perchance find it in a new and different Equipage in the Bible, published at Paris, and you may easily see the difference of the Judaical method of pointing from the true and Grammatical. And I will give you a small Specimen of the Vulgar Greek and Spanish Translations, because you cannot meet their true Co­pies in any Europaean Libraries, drawing my example from the 6 Version of the 1 Chap. of Deuteron. placing the Hebrew as an unprejudiced impartial Arbitrator between the Spanish on the on side, and the vulgar Greek on the other.

[...]

The first Polyglott was published by Fran. Ximeniu [...] of Sineros, Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo, and was vulgarly called the Complutensian Bible. Here you may take a prospect of the He­brew Text, the septuagint and a Latin Translation supposed to be St. Jeroms, together with a Chaldee Paraphrase upon the Pen­tateuch. Now the reason of this Illustrious Cardinals attempt is laid down in his Preface to Pope Leo the 10th. since that eve­ry Language hath its proverbial proprieties, whose full energie may not be expressed by the most compleat Interpretation, which more especially happens in the Hebrew Tongue, it must likewise come to pass that where there is so great variety of Latin Books, and so many false readings, there must then an appeal be made to the Original Language, as St. Jerom, St. Austin and other Ecclesiastical Writers are pleased to tell us: so that the right read­ing of the Books of the Old Testament, is to be tryed by the Touch­stone of the Hebrew-truth, and those of the New-Testament by the Greek Copies, and yet in another of his Prefaces to the Reader, he seems to deny the Hebrew verity to recriminate the Jewish Books, an useful method, whereby he might with lesser difficulty bring in vogue, the Old Translations of the Church; for he declares that when he had placed St. Jeroms. Latin Translation between the Greek and Hebrew Tongues, he fancied he beheld our Sa­viour, or the Catholick Church between two Thieves. Cer­tainly a most unworthy similitude, and not fit to come out of the Lips of so eminent a Cardinal; touching the Chaldee Para­phrase, He saith he only published that part which related to the Books of Moses, and as for the remainder upon the rest of the Old Testament, he looked upon it as corrupt, and unwor­thy to be bound up with the Holy Scripture.

This is the method observed in the Complutensian Bible, and the Author Cardinal Ximenius is to be commended, that he did not compose a New Translation different from St. Jeroms, and yet would certainly have been more applauded if he had taken notice of the places, where the Translatour follows St. Jerom a little too hard, and deviates from the Hebrew Text. For truly Criticks go about to remark that St. Jerom's Transla­tion, as we have it now, is not all of a make, but hath some little mixture of the Ancient or Italian. Herein I quote the most Learned Cardinal, that he rectified the faulty Latin Edi­tion, which yet he had the happiness to perform in general, namely where he endeavoured to correct the Latin Translator, [Page 238]without the help of Latin Books: neither came he well off in reforming the Greek Copies with the Hebrew, though he so­lemly declares he had nothing to do with the Vulgar surrepti­tious Copies, but the most ancient, and least faulty. He pub­lished a Book of the words in the New Testament, and professes that his sole aim herein was to present the Reader with the bare Letters, only without spirit, or tone. He saith 'twas an easie case to mannage, That the ancient Greeks never troubled their heads with such like punctill [...]'s. Now, why he did venture upon the Septua­gint, after the same method, he giveth this reason, namely, that it was bare Translation, and not Text, as is the Greek Edition of the New Testament. In fine Cardinal Ximenius superadded to these his abovementioned works an Hebrew, and Chaldee Dictio­nary, which he did not take up upon trust at the Shops of the Rab­by's, but had it at the best hand of the Ancient Interpreters.

Arias Montanus at the expences, and by the Authority of Phi­lip the 2d. King of Spain republished the Complutensian Polyglot with no small augmentation, which in process had the spacious Title of Kings Phillips Bible. A Book, which beside the Hebrew the Septuagint and St. Jerome's Latin Translation of the Complu­tensian Edition gives you a fair prospect of the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the remainder of those Books in the old Copy, which Car­dinal Ximenius gave to the Library at Complutensian, together with the Syriac Translation of the New Testament done into La­tin. Neither would Arias Montanus influenced by Ximenius his example suffer his Book to contract acquaintance with any Translation, save that of St. Jerome's, and yet that a Latin Translation might not be wanting to render the Hebrew Text verbatim, he inserted in the end of his Book San. Pagninus his Latin Translation, with his own animadversions, where­by the Hebrew might be better understood. This grand elaborate, and princely undertaking tho it was approved of by the Divines of Spain, Lovaenium, and other learned and pious Men; nay even by the Universal Bishop himself Gregory the 13th. yet it groaned under the common fate of all Books, was carp'd at, and pinched by the men of Leeth. These were the detracting sort of People, who objected that Arias Montanus had put in Execution a most bold, rash, and nefarious attempt in daring to publish that corrupt, and monstrous Paraphrase, which Ximenius had ordered to be laid up in the Colledge Libra­ry at Complutensia. And there were some Jews who thinking [Page 239]that the Chaldee Paraphrase was a great Pillar to keep up the su­perstitions of their Religions wished all health and happiness to King Philip the 2d. a Defender (as they supposed) of their Rites and Ceremonies. In the mean time, one Franciscus Lucus of Bruges, a great Divine, and a man of vast Learning took up the Cudgels ägainst these impertinent Detractors, and made an A­pology for the Chaldee Paraphrase. Besides Arias Montanus de­clares that Cardinal Ximenius himself had thoughts of publish­ing the same Chaldee Paraphrase, and that he had thoughts of adding a Latin Translation to it, only putting out the Fables. Doubtless that princely Work deserves to be had in estimation with all Divines; though it be defective in some particulars, as carrying along with it all those deformities, which we took no­tice of before in the Conplutensian Bible. For the Greek and Latin Copies are the same that were published by Cardinal Ximenius. Arias Montanus did not so much reform San. Pagninus his Latin Version, as he did corrupt and spoil it, for pressing the Hebrew which too closely he frequently commits toto casu, and making a great noise about a little Sense, does often miss of the proper import of the words. Besides Arias caused a better method and more Copious Index to be published (as containing more Lexicons and Grammars, than that of the Complutensian Bible, though many unnecessary things might be left out, which make nothing for his purpose.

The liberal expences of Cardinal Ximenius and Phillip the Se­cond were far exceeded by an Eminent Person of this Age, Michael Le Jay of Paris; who undertaking to Publish the Poly­glot Bible at his own charge, spent his whole Patrimony in Print­ing of it, before he had finish'd so great and wonderful a work.

First then they took care to have all that was already extant in the King's Bible, reprinted in a fairer Character; and to these he joyn'd the Samaritan Books (viz. the Hebrew Samaritan Pen­tateuch with the Samaritan Translation) and the Syriack and Arabick Versions of the Old Testament distinguished by points, with their Latin Interpretation: a thing scarce credible ever to have been attempted. In this business he was assisted by a very Learned man, Gabriel of Sion, that came from Mount Libanus in the Holy-Land; and in some few Volumns, by Abraham an Ecchellensian, one of the same Nation. But that part, which contains the observations of several worthy men upon the vari­ous [Page 244]Editions of the Bible, is wanting in this work: and through the negligence of those that were intrusted with it, it happen'd that the Copies of the Greek Translation by the Seventy Interpreters, and the Latin one by St. Jerom, were both composed anew the very same with those in the Kings Bible; the Greek Edition after the Vatican Pattern, though corrected and amended, was omitted, and the Copies of the common Edition were laid aside, though they had been (by Commissions from the Popes) strictly exami­ned after the most ancient and best approved Books, and that by the Hands of several Excellent Persons and judicious Cri­ticks. However I pass by those faults, which occasioned by the Transcribers oversight in the Syriack and Arabick Books, do yet in great part remain: Besides that the Latin Expositors not perfectly understanding the Syriack and Arabick words, have often sailed in expressing the sence.

Lastly, to this vast Work are perfixed certain Prefaces which recommend it's usefulness. But in this the brave Mr. Le Jay proves his own Enemy: for depending totally upon such men as were partly byass'd in their Opinions by prejudice (especi­ally John Morin, otherwise a man of competent Learning) he extolls the Jewish Books, and sticks not to prefer them before the ancient Translations of the Church: but what seems scarce 0 credible, he possitively asserts, that it ought to be granted as a certain and undoubted truth, that, that common Edition which passes about in the vulgar Tongue of the Catholick Church, is the true and genuine Original of Holy Scripture. But the Fathers themselves at the Council of Trent durst not pass any such de­cree concerning the Latin Books. To no purpose has that Li­beral Gentleman drained his Purse in Publishing such volumi­nous peices of the Polyglot Bible, if it appear that the Latin com­prehends the proper and Primitive Scripture, and that we must have recourse to him as the true Fountain. In like manner vin­dicating the interpretation of the Seventy Elders, he draws an Argument (solid enough in his Judgment) from a Mahometan Author, who, as to matter of Chronology rejected the Hebrew Books of the Jews and Samaritans, and adhered to the Greek Interpreters: from whence Mr. Le Jay concludes, that the Se­venty Interpreters were in the highest esteem, not only amongst the Christians but Mahometans too. Indeed 'tis very probable that Mr. Le Jay, to credit the antiquity of the Arabick Ver­sions [Page 245]which he himself first published, would not stick to say that by the help thereof St. Jerom had restored the seven or eight hundred Verses of Job, which were lacking in the old Translation: and this his assertion he confirms by St. Jerom's own Testimony; who before his Translation of the Book of Job had premised, that in it were missing about seven or eight hundred Verses, and that in compiling it he had not followed any of the ancient Translators, but had collected sometimes the words, sometimes the sence, and often both at once, out of the Hebrew, Arabick and sometimes Syriack Languages. But that St. Jerom hereby mentioning the Arabick Tongue did not mean the Arabick Version, is a thing so well known, that it needs no proof, these words of the Learned Father signify no more, than that the Book of Job, was difficult to be understood, since the Author thereof had notonly used Hebrew words, but also Syriack and Ara­bick. For the better understanding of which he avers, that with a great sum he ransom'd a certain Master called Lydaeus, who was thought to be of great repute amongst the Hebrecians. Scarce had the Parisian Bibles got abroad, when in England the famous Walton and other divers persons begun to think of committing these same Bibles to the Press again, to be of less bulk, and not so large a Letter; that this New Edition of the Polyglots might be readier and more convenient for the use of such as studied the holy Scriptures. This matter succeeded as happily as was ex­pected; so that these Polyglot Bibles appeared in publick in the year 1657, and are vulgarly called the English Bibles, contain­ing six Volums. They are indeed much inferiour to the Pari­sian Heptaglots in the largeness and goodness of the Paper, as also the neatness of the Character; But they have this advan­tage chiefly, that every context and version may be discerned by the Reader in one single glance as it were, and with little trou­ble compared one with another, which cannot be done in rea­ding the Parisian Polyglot, without turning over two vast huge Volumns together. Again they are to be preferred before that of Paris, in that they contain truer Copies of the Greek Versi­ons of the Septuagint, and the Latin one by St. Jerom; the Greek being first borrowed from a Vatican Book at Rome, was afterwards Printed at Paris, the Latin purged from innumera­ble Errours by the Study and Authority of Pope Sixtus the Fifth and Clement the Eight. Besides all this you have the Arabick, [Page 246]and Syriack Translations of Ester, Judith, Tobias, and some other few Books which are not extant in the Parisian Bible ei­ther in Arabick or Syriack. The English Edition has likewise a threefold Paraphrase, one called the Hierosolymitan, another that of Pscado Jonathan (both which are writ in mixt Chaldee,) and a third Tausus his Persian Paraphrase. It has also the four Gospels in the Persian and a Egyptian Psalter, all which the Parisian Polyglots want.

In the mean time Monsieur Le Jay having consumed his E­state in publishing the Paris Bibles complains much of his sad Fortune, and inveighs against the English men, as Plagiaries, who had taken his Work out of his hands, and had published nothing (except some few things of very little importance) but what he had set forth before. Truly the Gentleman ought to be pitied who had lavishly wasted all his substance in hopes of future gain. But the English men in publishing such Polyglots, as are more convenient, and better suited to all necessities do really deserve Commendation; and had deserved it much more if they had set out the Versions of the Oriental Nations (especi­ally the Arabic) which lay dorment in their Libraries; and are of better note than those which were published in the Parisian Bibles. For it had been much better to have set forth the Co­pies of the Arabic Pentateuch, with the Obelisks, Asterisks, and others of Origen his Notes which are reserved in the Library at Oxon, than to have composed anew that Old patched Para­phrase of R. Saadias, which was extant before in the Parisian Po­lyglots. But what seems more strange, is that the infinite num­ber of faults which the Parisian Edition is stuff'd with, especially in the Syriac and Arabic Versions, as also in their Latin Inter­pretations, should yet be found in the English one, nor taken notice in the critical Animadversions made upon the last To [...]e. Much more might be objected against the English Edition which I omit, since nothing can be absolutely compleat, and perfect. But the most notable thing in it is the Animadversions prefix'd to the fore-front of the Book, though this Preamble hath it's fail­ings too, for it seems to be composed by several Authors, who differing in Opinion about the same matter, become contrary Parties: this is the cause why Walton in whose name this Book first appeared in publick, sometimes talks a little incohe­rently.