A complete HISTORY OF THE Canon and Writers, OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD and NEW TESTAMENT, By Way of DISSERTATION: WITH Useful Remarks on that Subject. VOL. I. On the Books of the Old Testament. By L. E. DU PIN, Doctor of the Sorbonne, and Regius Professor of Philosophy in Paris. Done into English from the French Original.  
LONDON, Printed for H. Rhodes, at the Star, the Corner of Bride-lane in Fleetstreet; T. Bennet, at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard; A. Bell at the Cross-Keys and Bible near stock-market, in Cornhill; D. Midwinter, and T. Leigh, at the Rose and Crown, in St. Paul's Church-Yard. MDCXCIX.   

THE PREFACE.  
SUCH a Spirit of Atheism, Scepticism and Infidelity, has of late prevailed, that 'tis high time for every Honest Man and Good Christian to look about him. Some of the Gentlemen of that loose way, cavil at the Fundamentals of Christianity; Others go farther, and dispute against the Certainty and Authority of Divine Revelation in General; and from thence some others proceed to call in Question, even the first Principles of Natural Religion. But what they chiefly aim at, is, To strike at the Genuineness and Authority of the Holy Scriptures; very well knowing, That so long as These are looked upon as the Word of God, and of Divine Inspiration, they will be a standing and lasting Testimony against their bold Assertions. Hence it is, That they have so industriously endeavoured to raise Objections against the Truth and Authority of some One Book or Other of Holy Writ; thereby to open a Way for the Subverting of the Whole. This shows how necessary it is to set these things in a clear Light, and to evince the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures to the Unbelieving Part of Mankind; and this is what M. Du Pin proposes to do in his Learned Treatises on the Authors and Books of the Old and New Testament.  
The Volume( we now give you) contains the History of the Writings of the Old Testament only; in which the Author discovers a great deal of solid Learning, fairly represents the Arguments on all sides, and very Modestly passes his own judgement upon the Whole, as he goes along. It must be confessed, That he has said something on this Subject in his Preliminary Dissertation before his Ecclesiastical History: But that was only a Specimen of what he Treats on more at large in this Work. 'tis easy to see what a good Use he makes of those Authors who have writ before him on this Matter, and how much to his purpose the Places he cites out of 'em are. His Impartiality and Sincerity cannot be too much commended or admired; and his Concession of having the Bible Translated into the Vulgar Language for the Use of all the Faithful, is what we could not have expected from any other Person of that Communion: But after all, it must be said, That he is not so clear as one could wish, in settling the Canon of Sacred Writ, and in distinguishing betwixt the caconical and Apocryphal Books.  
It is true, He owns such Books to be Apocryphal, as are esteemed so by the Protestants; and tells us, how, and when they came to be inserted into the Romish Canon; which, for that Reason, he calls Deutero-Canonical. But then, though they were not in the Jewish Canon, nor received by the Primitive Christians into their Canon of Sacred Books; yet since they were inserted first by the African, next by the Roman Church into theirs, and afterwards confirmed by the Decree of the Tridentine Council: Our Author thinks that there is no Room left, after such a Decision, to call their Authority into Question. Now what a precarious way of Arguing is this? Yet to such Shifts are the Romanists obliged to have Recourse, when pressed with such Objections as strike at the pretended Infallibility of their Church or Councils. 'tis enough, they presume to say, That the Church is of that Mind, and its Determination must put an End to the controversy. But we Appeal even to M. Du Pin's own private judgement, Whether that be a Satisfactory Answer to the Objections, that he himself has taken notice of in treating of this Subject; and 'tis to be believed, That if he were at liberty to speak his own Mind freely, he would Ingenuously confess, That 'tis not.  
As to those Books of the Old Testament, which have always been owned as caconical, both by Jews and Christians, He vindicates their Authority by such Testimonies as cannot with any Colour of Reason be denied. He answers the Objections of M. Simon, Hobbes, Spinosa, Le Clerc, and others, with a great deal of Temper and Conviction. He lays down the several Divisions and Orders wherein the Books of the Old Testament were ranged by the Jewish and Christian Church, and proposes a very Natural Division of his Own, by adding One Branch to St. Chrysostom's Three Parts. He gives us a fair Account of the several Degrees of prophesy, and of the Inspiration of the Holy Pen-Men; And very learnedly Discusses the Three Points concerning the Extent and Nature of Divine Inspiration.  
He has very justly vindicated the Hebrew Text from the Charge of having suffered any considerable Corruption, either by Accident or Design; but falls much short of his ordinary Acuteness and Sagacity in Treating of the Points, the Novelty of which he so zealously Defends, tho' at the same time he owns that the Sense in many Places depends upon them. What Dr. Broughton Charges as a Piece of Inadvertency on some others 
Positions touching the Hebrew Tongue, Pag. 669. , may without Breach of Charity be supposed a Design in Dignitaries of the Romish Church, to bring the Interpretation of the Scriptures to a Dependence on her pretended Infallibility; which we have the more Reason to Suspect, because as M. Du Pin himself makes it Evident, most of the Popish Writers are Fond of this Opinion of the Novelty of the Points; And they have now lately Printed a Dissertation at Liege from Dr. Walton's Prologomena to his Polygott, where that Opinion is asserted. But let that be how it will, it is plain, That M. Du Pin hath not given any sufficient Reply to the Answers which the two Buxtorfs and others have return'd to those very Objections, which he makes use of from Capellus against the Antiquity of the Points.  
We shall only take Notice of some of Capel's Objections, which M. Du Pin thinks of Weight, and show how little Reason he had to conceive such an Opinion of' em. We begin with the Third, which is thus, That the Ancient Cabalists and Talmudists knew nothing of the Points, because they don't mention them, sought for no Mysteries in them, and do not( as the New Jewish Commentators) direct their Readers to red so, and not so. This M. Du Pin thinks to be a very strong Objection, which certainly he would not have done had he duly considered that the Points in the Letters of the Law of Moses are compared to the Breath of Life in a Man's Body, by Rabbi Necheniah, in his Book, entitled, Habhahir, which was wrote Fifty years before Christ. Nor does he sufficiently Answer what the Buxtorfs in Tiberias, and De Punctorum Origine say, to prove the Antiquity of the Points, and the Integrity as well as Antiquity of the Books called Zohar, Bahir, and the Printed Copy of the Hillel against Capellus. In the same Manner he slightly passes over the Instances produced by them from the Jerusalem and Babylonish Talmuds, to prove the Antiquity and Necessity of the Points, and from several Cabalistical Books, where many of the Names of the Points are mentioned.  
As to that part of the Argument, That they did not know them because they sought for no Mysteries in them, and did not direct their Readers to red so, and not so: He would never have advanced it, had he considered, That the Points hinder the Design of seeking for Mysteries, because they confine the Text to one certain Sense and Reading; or if he had considered, as Rabbi S. Arcuvolti Answers well in his Arugath Habbosem, Cap. 26. That the rabbis in their Traditions alter the Letters as well as the Points, as in the Instance of Simabe-Pyhem; they say, red not Sima, but Simanah, so that we may as well say, The Letters were not in their time as the Points; for they say, red not so, but so, of the Letters as well as of the Points.  
In like manner, M. Du Pin urges Capel's Fifth Objection, from the Keri and Ketib, or different Readings, viz. That they are all about the Consonants, and none of 'em about the Vowels; and that doubtless, if the Points had been then in Use, they would have produced a great many more various Readings than about the Consonants: This he thinks an Evident Proof, but takes no Notice, That many of the Jews ascribe the Keri and Ketib to Ezra, as Kimchi in his Preface on Joshua, which is much for the Antiquity of the Points: For if Ezra fixed the Keri and Ketib, so he must likewise have done the Points, which alone distinguish the Keri from the Ketib.  
He likewise urges Capel's Sixth Objection, That the Ancient Greek, Latin, and Chaldee Versions, were all of them made from Unpointed Copies, which, let Buxtorf say what he will, No Man will believe the Interpreters would have done, had there been Pointed Copies then in Use; but at the same time he takes no notice of the great Uncertainty which we are at, as to the Version of the LXX. both as to the Authors, and Time, and what part of the Bible they did translate; all which is owned by M. Du Pin himself. Nor is he certain, That the Greek Bible we have is the True LXX. but allowing it to be True, their Reading many Places otherwise than we do now by the Points, will no more infer the Novelty of the Punctuation, than their Reading Letters otherwise in a multitude of Places, as well as Vowels, will infer, That the Hebrew Copies we now have are not true Copies; nor can M. Du Pin be ignorant of the Thirteen Places, which the Jews own they did designedly corrupt.  
Then as to the Chaldee Paraphrase, it was composed by divers Persons in different Ages. That on the Law agrees best with the Letters and Vowels, but that on the Prophets differs equally from both. So that his Argument from that topic, concludes as much against the Letters as the Points; and besides, being a Paraphrase, the Authors were not tied to the Rules of a Translation.  
His Seventh Objection, that St. Jerom translated, from an Unpointed Copy, and that he never saw, nor any where mentions the Pointed Copies, is easily replied to, viz. That St. Jerom's Translation for the main has the Sound and Force of the Punctuation, that he himself quotes divers Places, wherein its supposed St. Jerom mentions the Points, to which his Solutions will not satisfy every Man; and he likewise knows, That St. Jerom's not mentioning the Points will no more infer, that he knew nothing of 'em, than the Rabbinical Commentaries of Alsheech, Abarbinel, &c. which take no Notice of the Punctuation, will infer, That those Rabbis knew nothing of the Points, though they lived a long time since they were publicly known. This is sufficient to show, That M. Du Pin hath not duly weighed and considered the Objections of his Author Capellus, when he thinks them so strong and conclusive.  
We have Just Reason to think the same of him, as to the Arguments of those who have wrote for the Antiquity and Divine Authority of the Points: He Censures them in the very Threshold, as being mighty Weak, and takes notice only of Five of them, but altogether passes over their main Arguments without so much as once touching them, viz. the Unanimous Consent of all the Jews, Elias Levita Excepted, the Testimony of all Christian States and Churches, Ancient and Modern, whose Translations are from the Hebrew as now Pointed.... That the Vowels are often expressed in the Bible by the Punctuation only... And their Instances of such Places as would be unintelligible without the Points..... That the Points evidence their own Antiquity and Divine Authority in the same manner as the Scriptures do, and many other Arguments that M. Du Pin takes not the least Notice of. So much was thought fit to be said on this Head, not with any Design to derogate from M. Du Pin, of whose Learning and Worth the World hath had so many Proofs; but only to obviate that Objection, of the doubtful and uncertain Meaning of the Scripture, which the Papists and Socinians make use of; The One to make way for the Necessity of an Infallible Judge here on Earth; and the Other to set up human Reason to be the Chief Umpire and Judge both of Doctrine and Manners.  
We shall not enlarge any farther, but leave the Learned to judge of the rest themselves: To whom we submit what we have said on this Subject, as well as our Author's Performance. But before we conclude, 'tis proper to take Notice, That M. Du Pin has promised some more Volumes of this Work: And that tho' his Design be of a vast Extent, and no less Intricate and Difficult, yet he hopes to handle it so Methodically, without omitting any thing that shall be necessary to his Undertaking, as to reduce the whole within the compass of a few Volumes, and to render it intelligible to all the World.   

THE CONTENTS.  

CHAP. I. COncerning the Collection of the Books which Compose the Bible, the Canon of Sacred Writ, and the caconical and Apocryphal Books in general. page. 1.  
SECT. I. Concerning the several Names by which the Holy Scriptures are called. Ibid.  
SECT. II. What is meant by the Canon of the Sacred Writings: Which are called Apocryphal: When the Canon of the Sacred Writings of the Old Testament was drawn up; and whether there were any more than One Canon. page. 2  
SECT. III. What Books were contained in the Canon of the Jews. page. 5  
SECT. IV. Of the Books of the Old Testament, acknowledged as caconical by the Primitive Christians. page. 7  
SECT. V. Of the Deutero-Canonical . Books in particular. page. 9  
SECT. VI. How the Deutero-Canonical Books came to be inserted into the Canon of Sacred Books, and to be owned as such. page. 15  
SECT. VII. Of the Division of the Books of the Old Testament, and the Orders they were ranked in both by Jews and Christians. page. 17  
SECT. VIII. Of those Books of the Old Testament, that are lost, Apocryphal and forged by the Jews and heretics. Of several Passages of the Prophets cited by the Evangelists, which are not to be met with in the Books from whence they are quoted. page. 21   

CHAP. II. Of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures; and herein, concerning the several Kinds of Revelations; with a particular Account of prophesy, Divine Inspiration, and the Infallibility of the Sacred Writings. page. 29  
SECT. I. That the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is founded on this Principle or Maxim, viz. That God cannot deceive us. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of the different Kinds of Revelations which God made to Men in the Old Testament. page. 32  
SECT. III. Of prophesy in particular, and the several sorts of it; the way to distinguish the False Prophets from the True. page. 34  
SECT. IV. Of the Succession of the True Prophets among the Jews. The Hypothesis of M. Simon, concerning the Writers of the Registers, and the public Scribes, who were Divinely Inspired, Refuted. page. 41  
SECT. V. The Belief of the Jews and Christians concerning the Inspiration of the caconical Books of the Old Testament. page. 47  
SECT. VI. Questions that may be raised about the Inspiration of the Sacred Books. The First, Whether the Words and Expressions of them be inspired. page. 52  
SECT. VII. The Second Question, &c. After what manner God has inspired the Sacred Pen-Men with the things they have written. page. 54  
SECT. VIII. The Third Question: Whether all that is contained in the Holy Scripture in general, even Matters of Fact, and such as have no Relation to Religion, but are only Points of Philosophy, are Divinely inspired. page. 55   

CHAP. III. Concerning the Authors of the Books of the Old Testament. page. 61  
SECT. I. Of the Author of the Pentateuch: Arguments to prove Moses the Author of it: The Objections against it answered: The Names of the Five Books of the Pentateuch: At what time they were composed. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of the Book of Joshua. Why so called. Whether he was the Author of it. Arguments for and against it. The Life of Joshua. page. 78  
SECT. III. The different Opinions about the Author of the Book of Judges, false or uncertain. When it was composed. The Authority of the Judges. The Chronology of this Book. page. 82  
SECT. IV. Of the Book of Ruth and its Author. When this History happened. page. 84  
SECT. V. Of the Books of Kings and Chronicles. Of the Authors of them; and the time when they were composed. The Summary of the History which they contain. Ibid.  
SECT. VI. Of the Two Books of Ezrah. Ezrah the Author of the First, and Nehemiah of the Second. The Lives of Both. The Chronology of their Books. page. 87  
SECT. VII. The History of Tobit. When it happened. By whom written. page. 89  
SECT. VIII. The History of Judith. When it happened. Whether it be Genuine. By whom wrote. page. 90  
SECT. IX. The History of Esther. The Conjectures brought to discover who was this King Ahasuerus that Married Esther. This Matter very uncertain. Of the Author of this Book. Of the Additions that are not in the Original Text. page. 93  
SECT. X. Of the Book of Job. What is to be thought of this History, and of the manner wherein 'tis penned. Who was the Author of it, and when composed. That 'tis a Poetical Piece. The Scope and Abstract of it. page. 98  
SECT. XI. Of the Titles of the Psalms. Of their Authors. Of the Antiquity and Use of Psalms among the Hebrews. Of the Collection of the Psalms. Of the Poetry of the Hebrews. The Style and Argument of the Psalms. page. 102  
SECT. XII. Of the Book of Proverbs. Whether it be entirely Solomon's . When composed. The Argument of this Book. The Usefulness of this Method for the Teaching of Morality. page. 108  
SECT. XIII. Of the Book of Ecclesiastes. What that Name signifies. That Solomon is the Author of this Book. A Reply to the Objections of those who believe it to be more Modern. When Solomon composed it. page. 109  
SECT. XIV. Of the Song of Songs. That Solomon is the Author of it. The Argument of the Book cleared up. page. 111  
SECT. XV. Of the Author of the Book of Wisdom. The Manner wherein 'tis composed. Who That Philo is, whom they make to be the Author of it. page. 113  
SECT. XVI. Of the Author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. When it was composed. The Subject-Matter of it. page. 114  
SECT. XVII. Of the Writings of the Prophets in general: And particularly of the prophesy of Isaiah. page. 115  
SECT. XVIII. Of the Prophet Jeremiah, his prophesy, and Lamentations. page. 116  
SECT. XIX. Of the Prophet Baruch and his prophesy. page. 117  
SECT. XX. Of the Prophet Ezekiel and his prophesy. Ibid.  
SECT. XXI. Of the Prophet Daniel, and of the Truth of his prophesy. Of the Chapters which are not in the Hebrew Text. Ibid.  
SECT. XXII. The Lives and Writings of the Twelve Lesser Prophets. page. 119  
SECT. XXIII. Of the Books of the Maccabees. page. 121   

CHAP. IV. Of the Hebrew Text of the Books of the Old Testament. page. 122  
SECT. I. Of the Origin and Division of Languages: What was the first Language in the World. Whence the Name Hebrew is derived. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of the Origin and Invention of Characters; their Diversity. The Ancient Hebrew Characters; their Variation. The Vowel-Points: When they were invented and brought into use. page. 133  
SECT. III. That the Hebrew Text of the Sacred Scriptures was not lost during the Captivity: And that Ezrah did not make it over again entirely, but only restored and Corrected it. page. 144  
SECT. IV. That the Hebrew Text of the Sacred Books was not Corrupted by the Malice of the Jews. page. 145  
SECT. V. That there are Corruptions in the Hebrew Text; How they came, and of what Nature they are: That they do not hinder the Hebrew Text's being Authentic; and that it ought ordinarily to be preferred to the Versions. General Rules to know when we are to follow the Hebrew Text, and when to follow the Versions. page. 154  
SECT. VI. Of the Massora, the Keri. and Ketib, and the Cabala. page. 159   

CHAP. V. Of the Samaritan Pentateuch. page. 164  
SECT. I. The History of the Samaritans. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of whom the Samaritans received their Pentateuch. page. 165  
SECT. III. Whether the Samaritan Pentateuch that we have, be the same with that which the Samaritans had formerly, and was extant in St. Jerom's time. page. 166  
SECT. IV. Concerning the Authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch, wherein it differs from the Common Hebrew Text: And whether it ought to be preferred to it, or compared with it. Ibid.  
SECT. V. Of the Samaritan Tongue, and of the Versions of the Samaritan Pentateuch, into that Language, and into Greek and Arabic. page. 168   

CHAP. VI. Of the Greek Versions of the Old Testament, and chiefly that of the Septuagint. Ibid.  
SECT. I. Whether there was any Greek Version more Ancient than that of the LXX. Ibid.  
SECT. II. The Relation of the Manner, how they pretend the Version of the LXX was made according to Aristaeus and other Historians. page. 169  
SECT. III. Reflections upon the History of the Version of the LXX. That Aristaeus was a Jew. That his Narrative is a Romance; and that he was not a Contemporary Author. His Mistakes in Chronology. His Fable of the Cells refuted: Of the way how the Version of the LXX was made, and why it was so called. page. 171  
SECT. IV. What Books of the Old Testament were Translated by the LXX. page. 176  
SECT. V. Of the Greek Versions of the Old Testament made since Jesus Christ, by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, &c. page. 179  
SECT. VI. Of the Hexapla and Tetrapla of Origen. Of the several Editions of the Bible contained therein, and their Order. Of the Works of Origen in Reference to the Translation of the Septuagint, and of the several, both Ancient and Modern Editions, which have been since that time. page. 181  
SECT. VII. Of the Authority and Faithfulness of the Greek Version of the Septuagint. Whether it was done by Divine Inspiration. Whether the LXX Interpreters did make any Alterations in their Version. Whether the same has been corrupted in many Places, and whether it may pass for an Authentic Translation. page. 190   

CHAP. VII. Of the Latin Versions of the Bible, and especially of the Vulgar Translation. page. 192  
SECT. I. Of the Ancient Latin Versions before St. Jerom's time, and more especially of the Ancient Vulgar, or the Italian Translation. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of the several Works of St. Jerom upon the Bible; Of his New Translation from the Hebrew Text: Whether he did it by Divine Inspiration; Whether his Version be different from our Vulgar Translation, and when the same was received in the Latin Church. page. 193  
SECT. III. Of the Exactness and Authority of the Vulgar Version; in what Sense this Version was declared Authentic in the Council of Trent; Whether it ought to be preferred before the Hebrew Original or other Versions. page. 197  
SECT. IV. Of the New Latin Translations of the Bible. page. 204   

CHAP. VIII. Of the Oriental Versions of the Bible. page. 206  
SECT. I. Of the Chaldea Paraphrasts. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of the Syriac Versions of the Bible. page. 207  
SECT. III. Of the Arabic Versions of the Bible. page. 208  
SECT. IV. Of the other Oriental Versions of the Bible. page. 210   

CHAP. IX. Of the Versions of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues, and of the Reading of the Holy Scripture. page. 215  
SECT. I. The History of the Versions of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Whether the Holy Scripture was made to. be red by all the Faithful, or only by the Priests, or Persons enlightened in Matters of Religion. page. 222  
SECT. III. Of the Benefit that Believers may receive by Reading the Holy Scriptures. The judgement of the Fathers upon that Subject. page. 229  
SECT. IV. Whether it be True, That the Church has prohibited the Translation of the Bible into Vulgar Tongues, and forbidden the Common People to red the Holy Scriptures, and what might be the Ground of such a Prohibition. Whether it be still in force. Rules for the Translation of the Holy Scripture into Vulgar Languages; and Directions how to red it with Profit. page. 249   

CHAP. X.  
Of the Style, Sense, and different Ways of Interpreting the Holy Scripture. page. 265  
SECT. I. Of the Eloquence of the Holy Scripture. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of the Perspicuity and Obscurity of the Holy Scripture; of the Causes of it: Obscurity in some places; and the Means of over-coming it. page. 270  
SECT. III. Of the Sense of the Holy Scriptures. page. 273  
SECT. IV. Of the different Ways of Interpreting the Holy Scripture, and the divers sorts of Commentaries on the Bible. page. 280  
SECT. V. Of the Rules to be observed for a Right Interpretation of the Holy Scripture. page. 285   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the Division of the Bible into Chapters, Verses, and other Parts. page. 290    

ERRATA.  
page. 103. Line 38. After the Words to Jeduthun, insert, [ This Asaph was one of the chief Levites employed by David to sing the Praises of God.]   

A complete History OF THE CANON and WRITERS OF THE OLD and NEW TESTAMENT, &c.  
By Way of DISSERTATION.  
VOL. I.  

CHAP. I. Concerning the Collection of the Books which compose the Bible, the Canon of Sacred Writ, and the caconical and Apocryphal Books in general.  

SECT. I. Concerning the several Names by which the Holy Scriptures are called.  
THE Collection of those Books, which we look upon as the very Foundation of our Holy Religion, goes under different Names. They are styled Sacred or Divine Books, Holy Writ, Holy Scripture; or simply, The Scriptures, The Old and New Testament, The Holy Bibliotheque, and lastly, The Bible, which at present is become the more common Appellation. 'tis needless to explain, why they are called Divine or Sacred Books, Holy Scripture, and Scripture Divinely inspired. The Reason of it is plain, They were penned by Persons Divinely inspired; They treat of Religion; They contain the Commandments of God himself: Nothing can be more Holy, nothing more Sacred. They are likewise styled the Scriptures by Way of Eminence 
styled the Scriptures by way of Eminence.] Under this Phrase does our Saviour often city the Books of the Old Testament, Mat. 21. v. 42. Did ye never red in the Scriptures? 22. v. 29. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures: 26. v. 54. How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled? and John 5. v. 39. Search the Scriptures. In the same manner do the Apostles city them, Acts 8. v. 32. Rom. 4. v. 3. 9. v. 17, &c. , because no other Book is comparable to it. Under this Title Jesus Christ himself and the Apostles have often cited the Books of the Old Testament.  
But 'tis not so easy to define the proper Signification of the Word Testament, as 'tis applied to the Holy Scriptures. The Latins indeed have thus translated the Greek Word {αβγδ}, which answers to the Hebrew Word beareth, which is to be met with frequently in Scripture, and signifies Covenant. St. Jerom has in several places rendered it in this Sense, and observes, that Aquila( who herein was followed by Symmachus and Theodotion) has translated the Hebrew Word by {αβγδ}, which properly signifies Covenant. The LXX's using the Word {αβγδ}, which commonly signifies Testament, has occasioned the Latin Interpreter in several Passages to translate it by Testamentum 
In several Passages to translate it by Testamentum.] This word is sometimes taken even by profane Authors for all manner of Agreements and Covenants, as St. Jerom observes on Malach. 2. Testamentum non voluntatem defunctorum sonat, said Pactum viventium. . But this Phrase, as St. Jerom observes, must not be understood in its Ordinary Sense, as it signifies a Man's Last Will, which he would have executed after his Death: On the contrary, it must be taken in general, for the Agreement, Covenant, and Promise which God makes with, and to Men, and for the Testimony of his Divine Will declared by a Solemn Act. Perhaps the LXX. might use {αβγδ}, instead of {αβγδ}, because the latter signifies the Covenant which is spontaneously contracted between Equals; whereas the former may be taken in a greater Latitude to signify the Disposition, Will, and Institution of a superior towards an inferior. 'tis in this Sense also we ought to take the Word Testament for a solemn Declaration of the Will of God towards Men, which contains his Laws, his Precepts, his Promises, and the Covenant which he contracts with them. The Books which comprehend what God manifested to the Hebrews are called the Old, and those which contain what has been declared by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, are styled The New Testament. The Latins likewise call them Instrumentum, which signifies an Authentic dead, containing Solemn Ordinances, or Treaties and Compacts.  
Some of the Ancients have styled them Bibliotheca Sancta 
Bibliotheca Sancta.] St. Jerom makes use of it often: In his Book concerning Famous Men, he says, That Eusebius of Caesarea and Pamphilus preached the Holy Bibliotheque carefully. Isidorus in his Sixth Book de Originibus, ch. 3. and an Anonymous Author cited by F. Martianay in his Prologomena call the Books of the Bible, a Holy Bibliotheque. This Father observes farther, that in the Ancient Manuscripts, St. Jerom's Translation of the Books of Holy Writ is called Bibliotheca, the Title which he retains in the Edition he has given of it. ; as is to be seen in St. Jerom, in St. Isidorus, and several other Authors: And it seems those sacred Books were so called by way of Eminence. Alcuinus observes that this Title was very common, but prefers before it that of Pandect 

Alcuinus observes that this Title was very Common, but prefers before it that of Pandect.] In the Verses which he has set in the Frontispiece of a Bible which he Revised by the Order of charlemagne, he has these words,  
Nomine Pandectem proprio vocitare memento  
Hoc Corpus Sacrum, Lector, in ore tuo:  
Quod nunc à multis constat Bibliotheca dicta,  
Nomine non proprio, ut Lingua Pelasga docet.  
Bede at the end of his Book of the Six Ages, and Cassiodorus in his Book of Institutions, ch. 5. do likewise call them the Pandect.  , which Cassiodorus and Bede likewise used, and which signifies a Collection of all the Books which are written on one and the same Subject. Lastly, the most usual Name at present is that of Bible, taken from the Greek Word {αβγδ}, which is in Latin Biblia, signifying Books. It does not appear that the Ancients ever made use of this Name, and it is not long ago since it became so common, as to be made a Proper Name, which is almost the only One in use in our Vulgar Languages, and which is set in the Front of the Old and New Testament under this Title, The Bible, or The Holy Bible.   

SECT. II. What is meant by the Canon of the Sacred Writings: Which are called Apocryphal: When the Canon of the Sacred Writings of the Old Testament was drawn up; and whether there were any more than One Canon.  
THE Books of the Bible are called caconical Books, because they are in the Catalogue of those Books which are looked upon as Sacred, to which the Name of Canon is ascribed 
To which the name of Canon is ascribed.] This word signifies not only a Law, a Rule, but also a Table, a Catalogue, a List, and is taken in this sense in profane Authors, and in the Body of the Civil Law. Some have thought that the caconical Books were so called, because they are the Rule of Faith; but though that be true, yet 'tis not upon that Account that they are called caconical, but only because the Catalogue of the Sacred Books was styled the Canon, just as the Catalogue of the Clergy is called the Canon in the Council of Laodicea, ch. 24. as is likewise that of Bishops, and the Deceased Faithful, by Ecclesiastical Writers. Though this word be of Greek Extract, yet 'tis more in use among the Latins than the Greeks, who often make use of these Expressions {αβγδ}. St. Jerom is one of the first who absolutely used the Phrase of Canon to denote the Catalogue of the Sacred Books. In his general Preface is this passage: Sapientia quae vulgò Salomonis inscribitur,& Jesu Filti mirach Liber,& Judith,& tobias,& Pastor non sunt in Canone. L. contr. Jov. Nunc nobis de Canone omne certamen est. Epist. 28. à luke. Canonem Hebraicae veritatis dedi scribendum. Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed, after he had set down the Catalogue of the Sacred Books, adds, Haec sunt quae Patres intra Canonem concluserunt..... Sciendum tamen quod sunt alii libri qui non sunt Canonici. St. Austin in his Second Book against Cresconius, ch. 33. says, 'tis with great Care that the Ecclesiastical Canon was established, which contains the Books of the Prophets and Apostles, on which we dare not pass any judgement, and according to which we judge of all the other Writings both of the Faithful and Infidels. In his Second Book, de Doctrinâ Christianâ The whole Canon of Scripture contains the following Books. The common name made use of to distinguish the Sacred Books from others, is that of caconical Books, caconical Scripture: The Greeks used it in this Sense, and called 'em {αβγδ}. And in the Council of Laodicea, {αβγδ}. They were likewise styled {αβγδ}, internal, i. e. which are within the Canon, to distinguish them from those which are {αβγδ}, without the Canon, which are also called in the same Council {αβγδ}, Uncanonical.[ Whether the Reason which Mr. Du Pin here assigns for the Canon of the Scripture be satisfactory or not, we leave the Judicious to determine.] . They are opposed to such Books as are called Apocryphal 
called Apocryphal.] The Etymology of this Word is very evident, being derived from the Greek Verb {αβγδ}, which signifies to hid or conceal. The Books of the phoenicians are called in Suidas and Eustathius, Apocryphal Books, i. e. Secret and Mysterious. But we cannot well tell why those Books which are out of the Canon, and which some reckon as Sacred, are called Apocryphal. St. Austin in B. 15. de Civit. Dei, says that they are called so, because their Original was not known to the Fathers, by whom the Authority of the Genuine Scriptures has been handed down to us by a very clear and evident Tradition. If St. Austin here means the name of the Authors of them; this is not absolutely true, since the Authors of some of those Books are known: But if he speaks of their Authority it may be true; since the Authority of the Apocryphal Books was not acknowledged by the Ancients; whereas Ancient Tradition establishes that of the caconical Books. 'tis after this manner that St. Austin explains himself afterwards, Though( says he) we find in those Apocryphal Writings some Truths, yet they have no Authority, by reason of those many Falsities therein contained. And again, They are not in the Canon of the Scriptures which was preserved in the Temple by the carefulness of the Priests who succeeded one another, because they were suspected by them, and not known whether they belonged to those whose names they bore. This they conjectured from their not being produced by such persons, of whom an assurance might be had, that they had been preserved by them in a Lineal Descent or Succession. This made them think that they belonged not to those, whose Names are inscribed on them, since heretics produce several Tracts under the Name of the Prophets and Apostles, which are distinguished from those that have caconical Authority, by the Term Apocryphal. Thus, according to St. Austin, a Book is Apocryphal, because its Authority is not established on a clear and credible Testimony. St. Jerom in his 7th Epistle to Lata, says, That the Apocryphal Books do not belong to those whose Names are in the Titles, and that they contain several dangerous Forgeries. In other places he seems to restrain the word Apocryphal to the Books of heretics; and 'tis in this sense Pope Gelasius takes it in his Decretal. Others pretend that the Apocryphal Books are so called, because they were concealed, and not red commonly or publicly. In this sense Origen takes them, when he opposes them to common and public Books, in Tom. 1. upon mat. 13. and in his Letter to Africanus about the History of Susanna. The Author of the Synopsis ascribed to St. Athanasius, says, that they were so termed, because they deserved to be butted in oblivion rather than red. St. Epiphanius seems to have had a peculiar Notion of the Original of this Title, when in his Treatise of Weights and Measures, he says, That the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are not reckoned among the Sacred Writings, because they were deposited in the Ark of the Covenant. This he seems to illustrate in the heresy of the Ebionites; where he takes notice that St. John's Gospel translated into Hebrew was locked up in the Jewish Archives with the Apocryphal Books; which makes us suppose, that by the Ark, in which he says the Apocryphal Books were, he did not mean the Ark of the Covenant, but the Common Archives. The Apocryphal were not in the Ark, though some pretend that the Sacred Records were, and prove it from Deut. 31. v. 26. Notwithstanding Moses in this place does not command the Levites to put that Book into the Ark, but in the side of the Ark without. For it appears from 1 King. 8. v. 9. and 2 Chron. 5. v. 10. That there was nothing in the Ark but the two Tables of ston: And according to the Account of Josephus, there was no Ark at all in the Second Temple. However, the Sacred Writings were locked up in the Temple, in which place we red, that before the Captivity, Hilkiah the High Priest found the Book of the Law. The Apocryphal without doubt were deposited in a distinct Archive from that where the caconical Books lay. Tertullian speaking of the Book of Enoch says, that some did not own it, quia nec in Judaicum armarium admittitur. And St. Austin in the Passage already cited, Lib. 15. de Civit. Dei, says, That the caconical Books of the Old Testament were preserved in the Jewish Temple by the carefulness of the Priests who succeeded one another. So that there is some Probability that the Holy Books were lodged in the Temple in one Archive, and the Apocryphal in another place. Some persons have taken occasion to say, That the latter were so called, {αβγδ}, because they were out of the Ark or Chest wherein the Sacred Writings lay. The Hebrews apply the term Genusim, which has the same signification with the Word Apocryphal, to the more Mysterious Books; from the Reading of which they would have the Younger and Weaker sort to abstain; such as the beginning of Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, &c. , which either are not acknowledged as Divine Books, or are re●ected as Heretical and Spurious 
Which are not acknowledged as Divine Books, or which are rejected as Heretical and Spurious.] Sometimes the Term, Apocryphal, is applied to all those Books that are not in the Canon, of which there are two Classes, That of useful Books, which may be red for the Edification of the Faithful, though doubtful and opposed; And that of the Spurious Pieces, which are Heretical and full of Errors. Sometimes the Term is restrained to the latter of these. Origen calls all the Books, which are out of the Canon Apocryphal: Tertullian gives this Title to the Pastor of Hermes, which is a useful Book. Eusebius in his History B. 3. c. 25, and 31. distinguishes three or four Classes of Books:( 1.) Those which are admitted by all the World, and are unquestionable:( 2.) Those which are contested, and yet received by several.( 3.) The suppositious and doubtful, which may be joined to the foregoing Class: And( 4.) Those which are absolutely false, opposite to the Faith of the Apostles, and composed by heretics under their Name. Eusebius seems to have taken this distinction from Origen, who in his 4th Tome on St. John, speaking, De Praedicatione Petri, says, That we should examine whether it be {αβγδ}, Genuine, or {αβγδ}, Spurious, or {αβγδ}, a Mixture of both. But to return to Eusebius, He, in the above cited places, does not use the Term Apocryphal, but in the 22d. Chap. of the 4th Book, he takes it for those wicked Books composed by heretics, which he distinguishes from those which are cited by Ecclesiastical Writers. St. Gregory Nazianzen in the Poem to Seleucus, St. Athanasius in his Festival Epistle, the Author of the Synopsis, which goes under the same saints Name, St. Epiphanius in the Eighth heresy, Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed, and most of the Modern Greeks follow Origen's Distinction into three Classes, give the Name of Apocryphal to such Books only as are apparently Spurious and Wicked; and usually style those Books Ecclesiastical, which are good and useful, though not received by all the Churches as caconical. On the other side St. Cyril in his 4th Catechetical Lecture, St. Epiphanius in his Book concerning Weights and Measures, St. Jerom in his General Preface, the African Fathers, and most of the Latins, and Antiochus among the Greeks, do all attribute the Term Apocryphal in general to all the Books which are not in the Canon. St. Austin distinguishes two sorts of caconical Books; those which are received by all the Churches, and those which are only received by some. Sixtus of Sienna distinguishes them likewise into two Classes; the Proto-Canonical, which have been always received, and were never questioned; and the Deutero-Canonical, of which they doubted formerly, but have been since admitted into the Canon. All the rest according to this Author are Apocryphal, though this Term sometimes had been applied only to Heretical Books. .  
The first Canon or Catalogue of the Sacred and Divine Books was made by the Jews. 'tis certain they had one, but 'tis not so evident who made it. There is no Question but that the five Books of Moses were collected into one Body within a short time after his Death, since Deuteronomy, which is as 'twere the abridgement and Recapitulation of the other Four, was laid in the Tabernacle near the Ark, according to the Order which he gave to the Levites, Ch. 31. v. 24. So that the first Canon of the Sacred Writings consisted only of the five Books of Moses: There were no more added to them till the Division of the Ten Tribes, seeing the Samaritans acknowledged none else. Notwithstanding, since Moses, there were several Prophets and other Writers Divinely inspired, who composed either the History of their Times, or Prophetical Books and Divine Writings, or Psalms to the Praise of God. But we cannot discover, that any time before the Captivity they were collected into one Body, and comprised under one and the same Canon. This was not done till after their Return from Babylon, about which time the Jews had a set Number of Books digested into a Canon. For it takes in none of those Books written since Nehemiah's time. In the Book of Ecclesiasticus we meet with a manifest Proof, That the Canon of the Sacred Books was already made, when that Tract was composed. For the Author making mention, Chap. 49. of the Famous Men and Sacred Writers, after he had spoken of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, he adds the Twelve Minor Prophets, who follow those three in the Jewish Canon: Which demonstrates, That the Prophecies of all those Twelve were already collected, and digested into one Body. 'tis evident, That in our Saviour's time the Canon of the Holy Writings was already drawn up, since he cites the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which are the three Sorts of Books of which that Canon is composed, and which he often styles, The Scripture, or The Holy Scripture. This shows that they were then distinguished from others, and made a Body a-part. Josephus sets down in particular the Books acknowledged for caconical by the Jews; and to this the Primitive Christians give their Attestation.  
Having discovered the Time in which this Canon was composed, we are next to inquire after its Author. Esdras, in all Probability, has the fairest Pretence to it; who, according to the constant Tradition both of Jews and Christians, re-established, corrected, and ordered the Sacred Books to be written in New Characters. However, Nehemiah must be owned to have added his Book to that of Esdras, making it the last Volume of the Canon. It may likewise be supposed, That Nehemiah had a great hand in Compiling this Canon 
That Nehemiah had a great hand in compiling this Canon.] The Passage of the Letter from the Jews of Jerusalem, according to the Greek Text, is this, These very things were in the Writings and Memoirs of Nehemiah, and as it were making them a Bibliotheque, he had collected the Books of Kings, of the Prophets, and the Letters concerning the Donatives. These words seem to ascribe to Nehemiah the Collection of the Historical and Prophetical Books, and that of the Psalms, of which the Canon is composed. The Letters concerning the Donatives, of which mention is made in this passage, are perhaps the Letters of Artaxerxes for the rebuilding of the Temple, related in the Second of Esdras; which would likewise make that last Piece as part of the Canon; but this Passage does not precisely denote a Collection of several Works under one and the same Title; but only proves that Nehemiah took care to digest the Ancient Records into one and the same Bibliotheque. The same is observed in the next verse, of Judas Maccabaeus, who was careful in Collecting the Books which had been lost during the War of Antiochus. This is no proof that either one or other was the Author of the Canon. ; and the rather, because 'tis observed in the Letter of the Jews of Jerusalem written to the Jews of Egypt, mentioned in the Beginning of the Second Book of Maccabees, That Nehemiah had collected the Books of the Kings, of the Prophets, and of David. Let this be as it will, 'tis said, That this Canon was then approved by the Grand Sanhedrim, the Great Synagogue or Council of Seventy, and published by its Authority. What is most apparent is, That about that Time the Number of the Sacred Books was fixed among the Jews by a Canon, which the whole Jewish Nation received and followed; so that they looked upon them no longer as Books Sacred and Divinely inspired, but as such as were contained in this Canon.  
There are some Authors who pretend that the Jews have since made One or more Canons 
One or more Canons.] Serarius admits of two Canons, the one made in the time of Esdras by the Grand Synagogue; and another more Modern. Genebrard owns three of them, all drawn up by the Authority of the Grand Assemblies of the Sanhedrim: The first in an Assembly held in the time of Esdras, which he says was of the fifth Synod: The second in the Assembly which he supposes was held when they entered into a Debate about sending Interpreters to Ptolemey Philadelphus, which he calls the Sixth Synod, wherein they added to the Books contained in the former Canon, the Books of Tobit and Judith, with Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom: The Third in another Assembly, which he pretends to have been held for condemning the Sadducees, calling it the seventh Synod, wherein he says they added the Book of the Maccabees. ; That they have added to the Former, the Books of Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and the Maccabees: But this is not founded on the Testimony of any creditable Author; and to me it seems plain, That the Jews had no other Canon besides that of Esdras 
To me it seems plain that the Jews had no other Canon besides that of Esdras.] Neither the Jews nor the Christians knew of any other. The Books pretended to have been inserted in the other Canons, were never owned by the Jews. The two Assemblies of the Synagogue, which, as 'tis invented, were held for that purpose, are more chimeras; no Ancient Writer has said any thing of them: On the contrary, Josephus positively asserts, That the Books composed since the Reign of Artaxerxes, are not looked upon as Sacred; that there are but Twenty two owned as such by the Jews. St. Jerom and St. Epiphanius testify the same thing, upon the Authority of other Jewish Writers. The only Objection which can, with any probability, be raised, is, that Josephus, in his Second Book against Appion, mentions, as Scripture, this Sentence; Melior est Iniquitas Viri, quam Mulier benefaciens, taken out of the twenty fourth Chapter of Ecclesiasticus; and that the rabbis in the Talmud mention other Sentences taken out of that Writing. However this is no Proof that they acknowleg'd it as caconical. Josephus, the only Person whose Authority carries any Weight in it, does not in particular city Ecclesiasticus, but only relates in that place several Maxims of Moses, not in the Terms of Scripture, but in his own; and among the rest has this, The Woman is altogether inferior to the Man; which has reference to the Words of Genesis, Thou shalt be Subject to thy Husband, or thy Husband shall be Lord over thee, and to this some one or other, as Mr. Pithou remarks, has added this Sentence of Ecclesiasticus, The Churlishness of a Man is better than a Courteous Woman, which is not in the original Text of Josephus. For besides that his design was only to relate the Laws of Moses, in order to show the Usefulness of them, this Passage is not in the Ancient Version of Ruffinus, which evinces that it was added since that Author's time. , nor acknowledged any other Books for Sacred, but what it contains. For what can be opposed to the Testimonies of Josephus, St. Jerom, and St. Epiphanius, who assert this in positive Terms? Supposing it then as a thing certain, That the Canon of the Books of the Old Testament, which was in Use among the Jews, was drawn up about the Time of Esdras, and that they never had any other; Let us now inquire what Books are contained therein.   

SECT. III. What Books were contained in the Canon of the Jews.  
Josephus is the first Writer who sets down distinctly the Books contained in the Canon of the Jews. What he says on this Point in his first Book against Appion, is as follows. Our Books are written after such a Manner as none can find fault with, and as it were through a kind of Necessity. For to writ, is not allowed to all Mankind, and there is no Contradiction in our Books, because they were composed by Prophets, who wrote exactly what was delivered to them by Divine Inspiration, concerning things which had already happened in Ancient Times, or which were to come to pass hereafter. There is not therefore a great Number of Books among us, which clash one with another, or wherein any Contradictions are to be found. We have only Two and twenty, which comprehend the History of all Ages, and which merit our Belief. Five belong to Moses, which contain what relates to the Original of Man, and the Tradition of the Succession or Generations of Men down to his Death; which takes in the Compass of about 3000 Years. From the Death of Moses to the Reign of Artaxerxes, who was King of Persia after Xerxes, the Prophets who succeeded him, have in Thirteen Books written what happened in their Time. The other four Books contain Hymns to the Praise of God, and Precepts for the Conduct of Human Life. There is likewise written what happened since Artaxerxes, down to our Times, but the Writers of them have not met with the same Credit, because there was no certain Succession of Prophets during that time. Now 'tis easy to perceive, why such a credit and respect is paid to our Books; since in so long a Tract of Time no Man has ever ventured to add any thing to them, or to diminish or alter any thing of them: For the Jews from their Infancy are accustomed to call them Divine Instructions, to believe them, and to lay down their Lives, upon occasion, in Defence of them. Thus, you see, Josephus divides the Sacred or caconical Books of the Jews into three Classes: The First contains the Five Books of Moses; the Second, Thirteen Historical and Prophetical Books, written from the time of his Death, to the Reign of Artaxerxes; and the last, Four Books of Hymns, or of Morality. Since he only names the Five Books of Moses which compose the first Class, there may arise some Difficulty about those of the other Classes, and particularly about the Thirteen which are in the Second. For as to the Four, which are in the Third, there is no need of questioning but that they are the Book of Psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles. Lastly, among those which ought to be ranked in the Second Class, there are but two of them which occasion any Difficulty, viz. those of Job and Esther. For there is no doubt but that therein are contained the Books of Josuah, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Esdras, the Prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah with his Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and of the Twelve Minor Prophets. But whereas these Books alone make up the Number Thirteen, it may be supposed, that Josephus did not own the others, and by this means the Books of Job and Esther are excluded out of the Jewish Canon according to him. But, on the other side also, since 'tis known that the Jews, not to exceed the Number of their Letters, have joined the Book of Ruth to that of Judges, and the Lamentations to the prophesy of Jeremiah, that so they might make Two instead of Four Volumes; the Books of Job and Esther might very well make one of the Thirteen Books which Josephus places in the Second Class of the Sacred Writings. But there are other Reasons to question whether Josephus acknowledged these two Books as Sacred: As first, Because he makes no mention of the History of Job in his Antiquities, which he would have done, if he had esteemed it as a Sacred Book: To this it may be answered, That he omitted it only, because it had nothing to do with the History of the Jews, which was what he principally set himself upon Writing. And secondly, Because he in his Antiquities places the History of Esther under the Reign of Artaxerxes: and there asserts that all the sacred Books were penned between the time of Moses and the Reign of Artaxerxes: But this is to be understood of the Time exclusively, since he says, That the Books written under the Reign of that Prince, and since him, do not stand upon the same Authority.  
Origen in the Exposition of the First Psalm, St. Athanasius in his Festival Epistle, and the Author of the Synopsis which goes under the same Father's Name, St. Hilary in his Preface to the Psalms, St. Gregory Nazianzen in the 33d Piece of Poetry, St. Epiphanius in the Eighth heresy, and St. Jerom in his general Preface to the Scriptures, speaking of the Books which are acknowledged by the Jews as Sacred and caconical, do all say, That they are the same in Number with the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, i. e. Two and Twenty, and reckon particularly those very Books which we have already mentioned; upon which they are all of a mind, except about the Book of Esther. For the Book of Job and the Lamentations, are placed by all of them among the Books contained in the Canon of the Jews: But St. Athanasius and St. Gregory Nazianzen do not reckon the Book of Esther among them, and distinguish Ruth from the Book of Judges; on the contrary Origen, St. Hilary, St. Epiphanius, and St. Jerom make but one Volume of Ruth and Judges, and so bring the Book of Esther into the Number of the two and twenty owned by the Jews as caconical. They who distinguished Ruth from the Book of Judges, and the Lamentations from the prophesy of Jeremiah, reckoned up four and twenty of them as St. Jerom observes.  
Be pleased now to take the Number and Division of the caconical Writings owned by the Jews, according to St. Jerom's Account. He distributes them into three Classes: The first takes in the five Books of Moses, which are called the Law. The second contains the Books of the Prophets, being eight in Number; viz. the Book of Joshua; the Book of Judges, to which( says St. Jerom) they join the Book of Ruth; the Book of Samuel, otherwise called the first and second of Kings; the Book of Kings, which contains the two last Parts of that Volume; Next are the Books of the three Greater Prophets, Isaiah, Jerentiah and Ezekiel, which are three distinct Books; and that of the twelve Lesser Prophets, which make but one single Tome. The third Class comprehends those Books, which they term Agiographa, or holy Scriptures, of which the first is the Book of Job; the second is the Psalms of David; the three next are the Books of Solomon, viz. the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles; the sixth Daniel; the seventh the Chronicles; the eighth Esdras, divided into two parts by the Greeks and Latins, and the last is the Book of Esther. Thus, says St. Jerom, all the Books of the old Testament among the Jews are two and twenty; of which five belong to Moses, eight to the Prophets, and nine to the other holy Penmen. Some reckon four and twenty, by separating Ruth from Judges, and the Lamentations from the prophesy of Jeremiah, and placing them in the Number of holy Writings. This Preface, adds he, may serve as a Head or Preface to all the Books which we have translated from the Hebrew; and we are to take notice, that whatever is not contained in the Number of these Books is Apocryphal. From hence it follows that the Book of Wisdom, commonly ascribed to Solomon; Ecclesiasticus, said to be composed by Jesus the Son of mirach; Judith, Tobit, and the Pastor, do not belong to the Canon, no more than the two Books of the Maccabees, of which one was in Hebrew, and the other( as appears plainly from the Style) was written in Greek. Thus you see how accurately St. Jerom explains the Canon of the Scriptures which were received by the Jews. He agrees with Josephus as to the Number of the Books contained in the Canon, but places no more than Eight in the Second, and Nine in the Third Class. He likewise reckons among the caconical Books that of Esther, which Josephus seems to have excluded out of that Number, as we have already observed.   

SECT. IV. Of the Books of the Old Testament acknowledged as caconical by the Primitive Christians.  
THere is no doubt but the Church acknowledged those Books to be caconical, which were cited as Divine and Sacred by Christ and his Apostles. Now most of those which are in the Jewish Canon are frequently quoted in the New Testament, as Books of the Holy Scripture 
Most of those which are in the Jewish Canon are frequently quoted in the New Testament, as Books of the Holy Scripture.] The Books therein cited are, The five Books of Moses, in many places; The Book of Josuah, in Heb. 13.5. The Second Book of Samuel, Heb. 1.5. The First of Kings, Rom. 11.3. The Book of Job, 1 Cor. 3.19. The Psalms, in an infinite Number of places; The Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, very frequently; a Passage out of Daniel, in Matth. 24. Mar. 13. Luke 21. All the Lesser Prophets severally, except Obadiah. So that there are but six or seven Books of the Jewish Canon, which are not cited in the New Testament, viz. Judges, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, the Chronicles, Esdras and Nehemiah.[ But by Mr. Du Pin's good Leave, upon a nicer Enquiry, he might have discovered, that the Chronicles are often referred to in the New Testament, and several Passages plainly are cited thence particularly by St. Paul. So Rom. 2.11. is parallel to 2 Chron. 19.17. Heb. 1.5. to 1 Chron. 22.10. and Heb. 11.13. to 1 Chron. 29.15.] , and none other is therein cited after the same manner 
None other is therein cited after the same Manner.] There are indeed those who pretend, That there are some Deutero-Canonical Books cited in the New Testament, and particularly the Book of Wisdom, from whence it seems, that St. Paul has taken that Sentence which he relates in the Epistle to the Romans, chap. 11. v. 34. Quis novit sensum Domini, aut quis consiliarius ejus? which place is exactly parallel to that in the Book of Wisdom, chap. 9. v. 31. Quis enim hominum potest scire consilium Dei? It may likewise be supposed that what the same Apostle says Heb. 11. concerning the Translation of Enoch, is taken out of Ecclus. Chap. 44. and the comparison he makes between God and a Potter Rom. 9. is taken out of Wisdom, Chap. 15. without mentioning abundance of moral Maxims in the New Testament, so like to several Passages of the Book of Wisdom, that 'tis to be thought some Allusion was had thereto. Notwithstanding all this we do not perceive in any Part of the New Testament, Wisdom or any other Deutero-Canonical Book cited as Scripture; and it does not follow by any necessary deduction, that the Sentences so like to those in Wisdom, should have been taken thence. Several Authors have often hit upon the same Moral Maxims, without having red one anothers Writings. Lastly some of those Sentences., said to be taken out of Wisdom, are to be met with in Books which are of the Hebrew Canon; as for instance that of St. Paul which has been alleged, Quis novit Sensum Domini &c. which is in the same terms in the Text of Isaiah. Ch. 40. v. 13. from which last Place, Tertullian l. 5. contr. Marc. c. 14. St. Basil in his Book concerning the Holy Ghost, ch. 5, the Author of the Commentaries of St. Paul falsely ascribed to St. Ambrose, Peter Lombard, and others observe, that St. Paul took it. . Jesus Christ himself takes notice of three Sorts of Books contained in the Old Testament. when speaking of himself, Luke 24. v. 44. he says, That all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning him. Here you see the same Division of the caconical Books among the Jews, as is explained by Josephus and St. Jerom, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.  
The Ancient Catalogues of the caconical Books of the Old Testament, which are to be met with in Christian Writers, whether Greeks or Latins, are conformable to the Canon of the Jews, and contain no other Books. It is also observed in some of them, that the other Books which have been since admitted into the Canon, are not comprehended in it; that they are Ecclesiastical Pieces, proper for the Edification of the Faithful, but have not caconical Authority, tho' they be sometimes cited under the Name of holy Scripture, even by the most ancient Authors.  
The first and most ancient Catalogue that we have of the caconical Books drawn up by a Christian Author, is that of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, who flourished under the Empire of Marcus Antoninus. It is taken from a Preface which he had put at the head of several Extracts he had made of the Books of the Law and the Prophets, and mentioned by Eusebius in the fourth Book of his History, Ch. 26. He reckons only two and twenty Books of the Old Testament, among which he does not include Esther, dividing Ruth from that of Judges. Origen in a Passage extracted from his Commentary on the first Psalm, and mentioned by Eusebius, Book 6. Ch. 25. reckons also two and twenty, but he takes in Esther, joining Ruth with Judges, and observes that the Books of the Maccabees are excluded out of the Canon. The Council of Laodicea, which is the first Synod, wherein the Number of caconical Books was determined, assigns only two and twenty Books of the Old Testament, including Esther, and joining Baruch, the Lamentations and the Letters with the prophesy of Jeremiah. This Catalogue is followed by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his fourth Catechetical Lecture; by St. Athanasius in his Festival Epistle, and by the Author of the Synopsis which goes under his Name. The two last do not include Esther in the Number of caconical Books, but join Baruch with the Lamentations, and the Epistle of Jeremiah, with his prophesy; and observe that the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit and the Maccabees are excluded the Canon, tho' they be useful Books and proper for Edification. The Author of the Synopsis does likewise take notice that the Book of Esther is placed by some among the caconical Books. Amphilochus in the Epistle to Seleucus, mentioned by Balsamon, Author of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; Leontius of Byzantium in his Treatise de Sectis; Anastatius, St. John Damascene, and the two Nicephori, do all follow the Catalogue of Melito. But St. Hilary follows that of Origen, and acknowledges the Book of Esther for caconical. Of the same opinion are St. Jerom and Ruffinus, and observe that the forementioned Apocryphal Books are not of the Canon. St. Epiphanius in the Eighth heresy reckons seven and twenty caconical Books of the Old Testament, yet he admits of no more than are in the Catalogue of Origen, and takes notice in his Tract of Weights and Measures, that the Jews reduced it to two and twenty Books, and some of the Latins to four and twenty, which they say were denoted by the four and twenty Elders in the Apocalypse. This is likewise the Opinion of Victorinus, Primasius, Berengandus, of the Author of the Poem against Marcian bearing Tertullian's Name; of Bede, of the Author of the Sermons upon the Apocalypse ascribed to St. Augustine, and of several others who distinguish the Book of Ruth from that of Judges, and the Lamentations from the prophesy of Jeremiah. In the Apostolical Canon the three Books of the Maccabees are added to those which are in Origen's Catalogue, tho' that of Wisdom be excluded the Canon. But 'tis to be questioned whether they are not added by some late Writer, since 'tis not in that Canon mentioned in the Collection of John of Antioch, Tit. 50. nor in any of the Canons of the Greek Authors.  
The first Catalogue wherein the Books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the two Maccabees were admitted as caconical, and as having the same Authority, is that of the third Council of Carthage, held in the Year 397; which confirms the Decree of the Council of Hippo of the Year 393. wherein these Books were received into the Canon; yet upon Condition that the Church beyond Sea should be consulted for its Confirmation, as 'tis implied in an Ancient Note on that Canon, which runs thus, De Confirmando isto Canone Transmarina Ecclesia consulatur. This very Canon is repeated in the Council of Carthage, held in the Year 419. with a Clause much like the former, Ut Fratri& Consacerdoti Bonifacio,& earum partium Episcopis innotescat; i. e. That it might be communicated to Pope Boniface and to the Bishops of Italy. St. Augustine, according to the Authority of the African Church, reckons all these Books as caconical in the eighth Chapter of his second Book, de Doctrinâ Christianâ; but withal he takes notice, that of the caconical Books there are some which are received by all the catholic Churches, and others which are not received every where as caconical.  
The Church of Rome has agreed herein with that of Afric. For Innocent I. in his Letter to Exuperius, places the same Books in the Canon of the Old Testament, as Pope Gelasius, in the Council held in the Year 494. However in the Canon of the latter mention is only made of the Book of Ezrah, and one Book of the Maccabees, and in some Manuscripts, the Book of Job is omitted: In some others the two Books of the Maccabees are included; but all the MSS. reckon but one Book of Ezrah, which is a falsity since none has ever called the second Book of Ezrah into Question.  
The Decree of Pope Eugenius and the Canon of the Council of Trent agree with the Canon of the Council of Carthage, and with the Decree of Pope Innocent, and therein are ranked among the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two Books of the Maccabees.   

SECT. V. Of the Deutero-Canonical Books in particular.  
THE Catalogues which we have already mentioned, do inform us, in general, what Books of the Old Testament, were always received as caconical without any Scruple, and what were called in Question by the Ancients. But of these Latter 'tis requisite we should be more particular. For tho' they were not received in the Primitive Times by all the Churches, nor inserted into the Canon of Sacred Books by all Authors, yet were they often cited by the Ancients, and sometimes as holy Scripture.  
The Books of the Old Testament, which were always looked upon as caconical both by Jews and Christians, are the five Books of Moses, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; the Book of Josuah; the Book of Judges; the Book of Ruth; the two Books of Samuel; the two Books of Kings; Isaiah; Jeremiah with the Lamentations; Ezekiel; Daniel,( excluding the History of Susanna, of Bel, and the Song of the three Children); the Twelve lesser Prophets; the Book of Job; the Book of Psalms; the three Books of Solomon, viz. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles; the two Books of Chronicles, and the two Books of Esdras or Ezrah. The Books which have been questioned are, the Book of Esther, tho' many both Jews and Christians have owned it; Baruch, which is in some of the Canons of the Ancient Christians; and the Books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecelesiasticus, with the two Books of the Maccabees, which were never introduced into any Canon before that of the Council of Carthage, tho' they have been cited by the Primitive Christians.  
According to some, the Book of Esther was included in the Canon of the Jews, but according to others it was not: For 'tis very probable, as was hinted before, that Josephus did not look upon it as caconical. However we find that St. Jerom, and other Ancient Christian Writers, did insert it among those which were of the Jewish Canon. 'tis not in the Canons of Melito, St. Athanasius, of St. Gregory Nazianzen, the Author of the Synopsis, Leontius, and of the two Nicephori: But 'tis to be seen in those of Origen, the Council of Laodicea, St. Cyril, St. Hilary, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerom, and of Ruffinus. The Action of Esther is commended by St. Clement Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians, and by St. Clement Alexandrinus in the third Book of his pedagogue, and in the first and fourth of his Stromata: Which is sufficient Evidence that this Book was known and had in esteem by the Primitive Christians. The six Last Chapters, beginning at the fourth Verse of the tenth Chapter, are not in the Hebrew Text. Origen believes that formerly they were in it, and afterwards were lost. But 'tis plain that they are a Composure of several Pieces collected by the Hellenistical Jews, and which were added by the Author of the Greek Version. St. Jerom throws this Part of Esther out of the Canon of the Sacred Books. Sixtus of Sienna was of the same Mind, even since the Council of Trent, and cites several catholic Writers which had the same Sentiment, viz. Hugh the Cardinal, Nicholas of Lyra, and Dionysius le Chartreux. And he replies to the Decree of the Council of Trent, that the Canon of this Council is to be understood only of the Genuine Parts of the Books of which they are entirely composed, and not of those kinds of Collections clapped at the End of them by some unknown and unauthentick Author. However, since, this Council admits these Books contained in its Catalogue as caconical entirely, i. e. in all their parts, as 'tis Customary to red them in the catholic Church; Libros Integros( as the Canon has it) cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ legi consueverunt; 'tis necessary in obedience to that Decree to include them within the Canon of Sacred Books of the Old Testament, as well as the rest of the Book of Esther, tho' not penned by the same Author, as we shall hereafter demonstrate.  
The Jews did not aclowledge the Book of Baruch, because it is not written in Hebrew, as St. Jerom in his Preface to Jeremiah observes: His Words are, Librum autem Baruch Notarii ejus, qui apud Hebraeos nec legitur, nec habetur, pretermisimus. Origen, Melito, St. Hilary, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Jerom and Ruffinus have it not in their List of the Sacred Writings of the Old Testament: But in the Council of Laodicea, in St. Cyril, in St. Epiphanius, and in St. Athanasius, it is joined to Jeremiah. It is not particularly mentioned in the Lists of St. Austin, of the Councils of Africa, of Innocent, and of Gelasius; but 'tis very likely that those Latin Writers included it under the Name of Jeremiah, because Baruch being his Disciple, his prophesy was joined to Jeremiah's, and even cited under his Name by the Ancients. This St. Austin observes in the 18th. Book, de Civ. Dei, Cap. 33. where having cited under Jeremiah's Name, this Passage of Baruch, Chap. 3. v. 35, 37. This is our God, and there shall none be accounted of in comparison of him.... He did show himself upon Earth and conversed with men, he then adds, that some ascribe not this saying to Jeremiah but to Baruch, his Amanuensis or Scribe; but that it is more known under the Name of Jeremiah. And indeed the prophesy of Baruch is often cited by the Ancients under Jeremiah's Name; as for Instance, by St. Clement Alexandrinus, in his first Book of the pedagogue Ch. 10. and in the second Book Ch. 3. By St. Cyprian in the second Book de Testimonits ad Quirinum; and in his Book concerning the Lord's Prayer; by Eusebius in his Tracts de Demonstratione Evangelii; by St. Basil in his fourth Book against Eunomius; by St. Ambrose in the first Book concerning Repentance, Ch. 8. in the fourth Book on the Creation Ch. 14. and in the first Book concerning Faith, Ch. 2. by the Author of the Queries on the Old and New Testament, which goes under St. Austin's Name, Q. 102. By the Author of a Homily concerning the Trinity, attributed to St. Chrysostom, and in another Homily of the same Author cited in the sixth General Council, Sess. 8. held under the Popes Felix and Pelagius, and lastly by Cassiodorus on the 81st. Psalm.  
As for the other Books, viz. Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the two Books of the Maccabees, they were never in the Jewish Canon, and are not to be met with in the Ancient Canons of Sacred Books, drawn up by the Christian Writers, except in those of the Churches of Rome and Asrick. But 'tis requisite to inquire more particularly, what we can discover about this matter in Ancient times.  
Origen in the Epistle to Africanus observes that the Books of Tobit and Judith were not received by the Jews, and that they were not so much as placed among their Apocryphal Books, tho' the Churches did make use of them. In the twenty seventh Homily on the Book of Numbers, he says that those Books are ranked among such as were red to the Catechumens, because they contain in them a plainer and less elevated Doctrine than the Rest. The same judgement is passed on them in the Festival Epistle of St. Athanasius, and in the Synopsis attributed to him. St. Hilary says that some Christians added these two Books to the other two and twenty acknowledged by the Jews, and so made up their Canon, consisting of twenty four Books. St. Jerom in his General Preface, after mention made of the two and twenty Books that are in the Canon, excludes Judith and Tobit, as well as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus out of the Canon, and places them in the number of Apocryphal Writings. His words are these: Quidquid extra hos est, inter Apocrypha ponendum: Igitur Sapientia quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur,& Jesu Filii mirach Liber,& Judith,& Tobias non sunt in Canone. And in the Preface of his Commentaries upon Jonas, he observes, that tho' the Book of Tobit be not in the Canon, yet it is made use of by Ecclesiastical Writers. 'tis something strange, that after this Declaration, he should say in his Prefaces before those Books, that the Hebrews reckoned them among their Hagiographa, or holy Writings: But the Reading in those two Places ought to be Apocrypha instead of Hagiographa, as Father Martianay has corrected it from an Ancient Manuscript. Ruffinus likewise rejects these two Books as such as were not called caconical, but Ecclesiastical, and which the Ancients permitted to be red in Churches for the Edification of the Faithful, tho' they did not believe them Authentic enough, whereon to ground any Articles of Faith. We might produce an Evidence out of Irenaeus, who in the thirty fourth Chapter of his first Book against heresy, speaking of the Distribution which the gnostics made of the Prophets into several Classes which they attributed to their Aeones, says that they assigned to Elor the Prophets Haggai and Tobit. This shows that in the time of Irenaeus, the Book of Tobit was then in Repute, and that Tobit was ranked among the Prophets. St. Cyprian often cites the Book of Tobit as Scripture in his Tract concerning Works of Mercy and almsgiving. It is likewise cited by St. Hilary on the 129th Psalm, who makes use of it to prove the Intercession of Angels: There are( says he) according to Raphael's speech to Tobit, Angels in the Presence of the resplendent Light of God. St. Ambrose has explained this Book throughout, as a Piece of Scripture, and has cited it in his Commentary on the Creation, Book 6. Chap. 4. St. Jerom, who excludes it from the Canon, and puts it among the Jewish Apocryphal Books, yet took the pains to translate it, and speaks very favourably of it in the Preface of his Version; where he says, That he does not concern himself about the Reproaches of the Jews, who might find fault that this Book was turned into Latin, contrary to the Authority of their Canon; because he thought it better to displease the Pharisees, than disobey the orders of the Bishops. St. Chrysostom in the thirteenth Homily to the People of Antioch, and the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, Book 8. Chap. 45. do city this Book: and 'tis, as we have already hinted in the Canons of the Councils of afric, of Innocent, of Gelasius, of Eugenius IV. and of the Council of Trent.  
The Book of Judith is not only rejected in all the ancient Catalogues of Sacred Writings, but it is likewise not so much as cited by the Ancient Fathers; tho' St. Clement Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Clement Alexandrinus in the fourth Book of his Stromata, Tertullian in his first Book concerning Monogamy, and in the first Book, against Marcian, Chap. 7. do all commend the Heroical Action of Judith. This shows that the Book of Judith was then known and had in Repute by the Church. We have already related what St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Jerom, and Ruffinus have said on this Point: But as for St. Jerom we must farther add, that this Father did not always speak of it as an Apocryphal Book 
As an Apocryphal Book.] St. Jerom did not keep always to the same Language, concerning the Books which are not in the Jewish Canon. When he treats expressly concerning the Number of caconical Books, as in his Prefaces to the Book of Kings, the Books of Solomon, Ezrah, Esther; in his 7th and 103d Epistles to Paulinus, in his Commentary on Ezekiel, Book 17. Chap. 43. he always rejects the Books that are not in the Jewish Canon, as Apocryphal, and as being reckoned as such. But in other places he often cites those very Books as Sacred Writ. . For in the 140th Epistle he stiles it a Sacred Volume, and joins it to the Books of Ruth and Esther: Ruth, Esther& Judith tantae gloriae sunt, ut sacris Voluminibus nomina indiderint. And in the Preface of his Translation of this Book, after he had observed that the Jews place it among the Apocryphal, and that his own Authority is not sufficient to prove the things that are under Debate, he adds that the Council of Nice reckoned it in the Number of Books of Sacred Scripture, and that this was the Reason why he complied with the request made to, or rather Command which was laid upon him to translate it: said quia( says he) hunc Librum Synodus Nicaena in numero Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur Computasse, acquievi postulationi vestrae imo exactioni. What St. Jerom seems to assert in this Passage, about the drawing up a Canon of Scripture by the Nicene Council, wherein the Book of Judith was inserted, has not the Least show of Probability in it. For besides, that nothing like this is to be met with in the Creed, Canons and Letters of the Council,( and 'tis very Probable that this Council had no other Acts) is it credible that if any such Canon of Sacred Books had been made, it should not be taken notice of, by any one of those who assisted at it? Is it possible that St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril, who could not be ignorant of the Determinations of the Nicene Council, would have rejected the Book of Judith as Apocryphal, if it had been placed among the caconical Books by the Authority of a Council, to which they paid so much Deference? In short would St. Hilary have been satisfied in saying that some added this Book to the Canon? Would he not in speaking of the caconical Books rather have asserted confidently, that the Church did aclowledge it? Nay St. Jerom himself, if he had been assured of this matter of Fact, would he have rejected this Book so often, or would he not rather have produced this Catalogue of the Nicene Council, as an Infallible Rule which ought to be followed? Father Martianay, in his Note on this Passage of St. Jerom, acknowledges, That that Council made no Decree concerning the Sacred Writings; but pretends that St. Jerom said this, because he had discovered that the Fathers of the Nicene Council had cited several Sentences out of Judith. St. Jerom however seems to speak of a Decree of the Council which contained the Number of caconical Books: In Numero( says he) Sanctarum Scripturarum legitur computasse: And for as much as this may be looked upon as a Citation, there must needs have been some Monuments of the Council of Nice, which are lost; but this is a thing not easily to be proved. 'tis therefore more probable that he alleged this Fact upon the Credit of another, or from the common Opinion of his times. But tho' the Nicene Council did not reckon the Book of Judith as caconical, yet the Latin Church has since acknowledged it as such, in the Council of Carthage, by Innocent I. in the Council of Rome under Gelasius, and in the Council of Trent, which has followed herein the Decree of Eugenius IV.  
The Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are put down in the Ancient Catalogues among the useful Books which are red in the Church with Edification, but are Uncanonical. Yet these Books are cited as Holy Scripture by a great many Ancient Writers 
Cited as Scripture by a great many Ancient Writers.] Besides a great many Allusions of Scripture, which might be produced, but which do not prove that they were quoted, St. Barnabas cites one Passage out of Wisdom 2.12. and another out of Ecclus. 4.36. St. Clement Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians, mentions a Passage taken from Wisdom 11.22. Tertullian, B. 3. against Marcian, towards the End, and in the Prescriptions, quotes the Book of Wisdom. St. Clement Alexandrinus cites them also several times in his Stromata, as Eusebius takes notice, Eccl. Hist. B. 6. Ch. 7. St. Cyprian cites these two Books very often, and ascribes them even to Solomon himself. Origen cites the Book of Wisdom as Scripture in a great many places; viz. in his third Book against Celsus, and in his eighth Homily on Exodus: Ecclesiasticus he quotes in his twenty fourth Tract upon St. Matthew. St. Hilary cites them on the 140th. Psalm. St. Basil likewise cites them sometimes, and particularly B. 5. against Eunomius. They are likewise quoted in the Letter of the Council of Sardica, mentioned by Theodoret, B. 2. Ch. 8. of his History; by St. Ambrose very often, and by St. Jerom himself in his Commentary on the seventy third Psalm, in the second and sixteenth Books upon Isaiah, in the thirty third Book on Ezekiel: And by St. Augustin in a great many places. They are likewise cited by the Author of the Book entitled, De Divinis Nominibus,& de Hierarchiâ; in the latter of these Tracts, Ch. 2. and in the former, Ch. 4. By Anastasius Sinaita, Lib. 9. in Exam. Orat. 2. De Incircumscripto,& Q. 8,& 10; by John Damascen, B. 4. Ch. 16. De Fide Orthodoxâ, in his third Oration concerning the Nativity, and in the Sermon concerning the Dead, and by others. But, as Gretser remarks, The Citing of any Book does not make it caconical. These Books are thrown out of the Canon by those very Persons, who city them as Scripture; and those who ascribe them to Solomon in their Citations, do expressly deny it in other places. There are some who pretend that the Book of Ecclesiasticus is cited by those, who mention this Sentence ( Do nothing without Advice) as Scripture; such as St. Basil, in his short Rules, Interrog. 104. Eusebius, de Praep. Evang. Book 12. Cassian, Conference 2. Boniface, in his 98th Epistle; the Council of Ephesus, in the Synodal Epistle to Pamphilius. But this very Sentence is in Substance to be met with Prov. 13.16. and is verbatim in Chap. 24. v. 13. of the Version of the Septuagint, from whence those Fathers took it, as well as Isidorus of Damietta, who has often made use of it. The Proverbs were likewise very frequently cited by the Ancients under the Name of Wisdom: By Melito in his Catalogue, Proverbia quae& Sapientia,( for so it ought to be rendered, and not Proverbia& Sapientia); By Origen in his seventeenth Homily on Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. By the Author who writ under the Name of Dionysius of Alexandria against Paulus Samosatenus; By the Author of the Constitutions several times; by St. Basil Const. Monast. c. 3. and. 16. By St. Gregory Nazianzen Orat. 1. and 26. and by St. Gregory Nyssen in his Book of the Life of Moses, and B. 7. against Eunomius; by the Trallian Council. Ch. 64. By the Second Council of Nice, Act. 6. The Proverbs are likewise styled {αβγδ}, by Clement Alexandrinus, Hegesippus, and several others of the Ancients.  by St. Barnabas, St. Clement Romanus, Tertullian Book 3. against Marcian, and in his Book of Prescriptions, by St. Clement Alexandrinus, St. Cyprian and Origen in a great many places of their Works, St. Hilary on the 140th Psalm, by St. Basil,( as some say), by St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, and St. Augustin. But it does not from hence follow, that they all acknowledged them as caconical. On the contrary Origen, St. Jerom, and St. Hilary place them among the Apocryphal, and St. Basil, in the Preface to his Commentary on the Proverbs, says expressly, that there are but three Books which belong to Solomon, and in other places he gives us sufficient hints, that he never looked upon the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as caconical. Philastrius, and Ruffinus reject them, as well as the Priests of Marseilles, and some other Gauls who rejected the Book of Wisdom, as St. Hilary testifies in his Letter to St. Augustin 
As St. Hilary testifies in his Letter to St. Augustine.] This Father having produced this Passage out of Wisd. 4.11. [ He was taken away lest Wickedness should alter his Understanding,] to prove his Opinion concerning Predestination; those who dissented from his Opinion in gall, replied, as Hilary testifies, that no use could be made of this Passage, being taken out of a Book that was not caconical, [ tanquam non Canonicum omittendum.] But St. Augustin in his Treatise concerning the Predestination of the Saints, gives 'em this Answer, That they ought not to reject that Passage of the Book of Wisdom, which had for so long a time been fit to be red in the Church, and to be hearkened to with the Veneration that is due to a Book of Divine Authority, by all Christians, from the highest Bishop to the Lowest laic, Penitent, and Catechumen. He adds that this Book ought at least to be preferred to all other Ecclesiastical Writings, since they themselves have cited it as a Divine Piece. He says farther in his 17th Book de Civit. Dei, That the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus were received in the first Centuries, especially by the Western Church. . Theodoret is of the same mind in his Preface to the Canticles. We cannot absolutely say so of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustin, who acknowleg'd them for caconical, according as it was determined in the Council of Carthage, by Pope Innocent I, in the Council of Rome under Gelasius, by the Decree of Eugenius, and in the Council of Trent.  
Lastly, the two Books of the Maccabees are cast out of the Canon of Sacred Books in the Catalogues of Melito, Origen, the Council of Laodicea, St. Cyril, St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Jerom, and in the rest which we have already mentioned. In the Chronicle of Eusebius they are opposed to the caconical Books, where 'tis said: What we have hitherto related concerning the Annals of the Hebrews, is taken out of the Holy Scripture; what follows is taken out of the Books of the Maccabees, Josephus, and Africanus. Tertullian in his Treatise against the Jews mentions the History of the Maccabees, but does not city their Books as caconical Scripture. St. Cyprian indeed does often city them under that Name; and so does St. Ambrose in the Book concerning Jacob, and a happy Life, Ch. 10, 11. St. Chrystom composed an Homily upon the Maccabees, which is Lost: He likewise mentions the Maccabees in his fourth Homily on the Words of Isaac, and on the 44th Psalm. St. Jerom himself who rejects them in several Places, does likewise city them as Sacred Books in B. 5. of his Commentary on Isaiah. St. Augustin quotes them in his Book concerning the Care that ought to be taken of the Dead, to prove that one may offer up Sacrifice for them: and in his 18th. Book de Civit. Dei, he assures us that tho' these Books were not received as caconical by the Jews, yet they are owned as such by the Church. But in his first Tract against Gaudentius, speaking of the Action of Razis who killed himself, he thus expresses himself concerning those Books: The Jews do not admit of the Books of the Maccabees, as they do of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms: But the Church receives them, and they are not unuseful, provided they be red and understood with some caution and restriction; they are likewise very valuable upon the Account of the History of the seven Brethren, who suffered under Antiochus the Tyrant. However he places them in the Catalogue of caconical Books, which he relates in the Second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ. The Author de Miraculis Scripturae, which Work is to be met with among St. Augustin's Tracts, rejects the Books of the Maccabees. In the Last Canon attributed to the Apostles, we find three Books of the Maccabees reckoned among the caconical Books; but 'tis very probable, that this passage has been Added, since they are not acknowledged as caconical by the Nicephori, St. John Damascenus B. 4. Ch. 18. de fide Orthodoxâ, and several others who have owned the Authority of the Apostolical Canons. They are received by the third Council of Carthage, and by Innocent I. There is but one of them approved by the Council of Rome under Gelasius. 'tis very strange that after such Authorities, St. Gregory the Great should thus speak of them in the Nineteenth Book of his Morals; We don't without reason, says he, produce arguments taken out of these Books that are not caconical, since they have been published for the Edification of the Church. This would make one believe, that they questioned the Authority of these Books in the Roman Church even since the Decrees of Innocent and Gelasius. However it seems more probable that the Churches of afric and of Rome did unanimously own them as caconical; but we can't say so much of the other Churches, since there are a great many Ecclesiastical-Writers both Greek and Latin, who, since the Decisions of the Council of Carthage and Rome, and the Declaration of Innocent I. have not reckoned above two or four and twenty caconical Books of the Old Testament: among the Greeks for Instance there are, Anastasius Sinaita, Leontius, St. John Damascenus, the Nicephori, Antiochus, Philip; and among the Latins, Bede, Isidorus, Berengaudus, &c. who have either reckoned three Classes of the Books of Scripture, according to Junilius, or have declared, that they own no Books for caconical which are not in the Jewish Canon; such among the more Modern Writers are, Lyranus in his Commentaries on Esdras and Tobit, Tostatus on the first Chapter of St. Matthew, Cajetan at the end of the Historical Books of the Old Testament, and several others. Which shows that those Determinations were not regarded by all Authors and all Churches, till the Matter was fully decided by the Council of Trent.  
Having thus treated of the Books which have been wholly and entirely thrown out of the Canon of Holy Scripture, we shall now make a few Remarks on a Part of the Book of Daniel, which the Jews rejected, containing the Prayer of Azarias, and the Song of the three Children in the Fiery Furnace, which begin at the 24th. Verse of the third Chapter, and end at the 91st: The History of Susanna, related in the Thirteenth Chapter, and of Bel and the Dragon, in the Fourteenth and Last. These Subjects are not in the Hebrew or Chaldee Text, nor in the Greek Version of the Septuagint, but are taken out of the Greek Version of Theodotion,( which was then used by the Church) in Daniel's prophesy, as St. Jerom observes in his Preface, and in the Note which he has made on those Places. Africanus, Eusebius, and Apollinarius have rejected these Narrations, not only as being Uncanonical, but also as Fabulous, and St. Jerom seems to be of their Opinion 
St. Jerom seems to be of their Opinion.] In his Preface to the Translation of Daniel, he has these Words: Apud Hebraeos nec Susannae habet Historiam, nec Hymnum trium Puerorum, nec Belis Draconisque fabulas, quas nos, quia in toto orb dispersae sunt veru anteposito, edsque jugulante subjecimus, ne videremur apud imperitos magnam partem voluminis detruncâsse. He afterwards relates the Objections, that are made, to demonstrate the Falsity of this History, without replying to them, and leaves his Reader to be Judge of the Case; supper qua Lectoris arbitrio rem relinquens. Russinus upbraids him for this Conduct in his second Invective, and accuses him of having struck out of the Scriptures an Example of Chastity, which the Church proposed to the Imitation of the Faithful; and of having effaced a Hymn which was sung in the Church on High Days: Nam omnis( says he) illa Historia de Susanna quae castitatis exemplum praestabat Ecclesiis Dei, ab isto abscissa est& abjecta& posthabita: Trium Puerorum Hymnus, qui maximè diebus solemnibus in Ecclesia Dei canitur, ab isto& loco suo penitus erasus est. To this St. Jerom, in the second Book of his Apology, replies, That he had only set down what the Jews; usually objected against the History of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the Stories of Bell and the Dragon. Non enim( says he) quid ipse sentirem, said quid illi contra dicere soleant, explicavi. Quarum opinioni si non respondi in Prologo, brevitati students, ut non Praefationem said Librum viderer scribere. Notwithstanding this, in the Preface of his Commentary upon Daniel he likewise treats these Histories, as Fables that have no Authority. He approves of the Opinion of Eusebius and Apollinarius, who would not engage themselves in defending them against Porphyry, because they had not caconical Authority; and opposes the Testimony of these Authors, to such as blame him for having struck out those Books. This is exactly the Objection of Ruffinus. St. Jerom's Passage upon this Point runs thus; cvi& Eusebius& Apollinarius parisententia responderunt Susannae, Belisque ac Draconis fabulas non contineri in Hebraeo, said partem esse Prophetiae Habacuc filii Jesu de Tribu Levi........ unde& nos ante plurimos annos cum verteremus Danielem, has visiones cum Obelo praenotavimus significantes eas in Hebraeo non haberi. Et miror quosdam {αβγδ}, indignari mihi quasi ego decurtaverim Librum, cum& Origenes,& Eusebius,& Apollinarius, aliique Ecclesiastici viri& doctors Graeci has, ut dixi, visiones non haberi apud Hebraeos, fateantur, nec se deberi respondere Porphyrio pro his, quae nullam Scripturae Sanctae auctoritatem praebeant. 'tis upon this Account that he did not make a Commentary on the two last Chapters, but only collected some Observations taken out of the Tenth Book of Origen's Stromata, to prove the Narration to be true. Yet in the Conclusion he seems to despair of being able to answer the Objection. Quod facllè solvet( concludes he) qui hanc historiam in libro Danielis apud Hebraeos dixerit non haberi. Si quis autem potuerit eam approbare esse de Canone, tunc quaerendum est quid ei respondere debeamus. . Origen has maintained the Truth of this History against Africanus, but withall does not assert it to be caconical, 
Yet Origen does not assert it to be caconical.] St. Jerom, in the Preface to his Commentary upon Daniel, mentions Origen as one of those who thought it not requisite to answer what Porphyry said against those Histories, because they had not the Authority of Sacred Writ. In the Commentary of St. Jerom on the Last Chapters of Daniel, taken out of the Tenth Book of Origen's Stromata, the Truth of these Histories is maintained; but yet so, as they are not thereby concluded to be caconical. In the Contest betwixt Origen and Africanus, Origen only concerned himself about the Truth of this History. Africanus reproved Origen for having produced, in a Conference, the History of Susanna, because that part of the Book of Daniel was false, a Relation and Fable newly invented. Origen, for his part, defends the Narration as a true History, and likewise believes, that it was formerly in the Hebrew Text, from which it was afterwards eras'd by the Jews. But he does not assert that it was received as caconical by all the Churches: He only says that it was commonly used in the Church, [ Quae in Ecclesiis circumfertur.] In this very Letter he says the same thing of the Book of Tobit, viz. That it was not received as caconical by all the Church. Yet 'tis quoted by him as caconical, in the Eighth Homily upon Leviticus. said tempus est( says Origen) nos adversus improbos Presbyteros uti sanctae Susannae vocibus, quas illi repudiantes, historiam Susannae de Catalogo divinorum Voluminum desecârunt, nos autem& suscipimus& contra ipsos opportunè proferimus. But 'tis very probable that 'tis an Addition of Ruffinus, who directly strikes at St. Jerom. Origen in his Commentary on St. Matthew observes, that he makes use of the Example of Daniel, tho' he knew very well that it was not in the Hebrew, but because it was used by the Church. He adds, that this was not a place proper to treat of that Matter. .  
The Author of the Book concerning the Wonderful things of the Scripture, attributed to St. Augustin, does not mention the History of Susanna, and rejects that of Bell and the Dragon, B. 2. Ch. 32. Theodoret in his Exposition of Daniel, does not say a Word of those Histories. Nicephorus places Susanna among the Apocryphal Books. However that which is related in those two Chapters is cited under Daniel's Name, and as part of his prophesy 
However that which is related in those two Chapters is cited under Daniel's Name, and as part of his prophesy.] Irenaeus B. 4. against Heresies ch. 11. says Quem& Daniel Propheta( cum dixisset ei Cyrus Rex Persarum, Quare non adoras Bel?) annunciavit dicens, quoniam non colo Idola. ibid. Ch. 44. Et audient eas, quae sunt à daniel Prophetâ voces, seemen Chanaan,& non Juda species seduxit te, &c. These are Daniel's Words to the two Elders, Ch. 13. v. 52. St. Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata, B. 4. after he had praised Judith and Esther, adds: Taceo enim Susannam& Mosis Sororem: Illa vero per summam honestatem vel ad mortem usque procedens, cum ab intemperantibus condemnatur amatoribus, perstitit constans& firma testis pudicitiae. Tertullian in his Tract concerning Idolatry, Ch. 18. has these Words: Statim apparuisset Danielem idolis non deseruisse, nec Belem, nec Draconem colere. In his Book de Juvenibus, Ch. 7. he says; Aspice Danielis exemplum circa somnium Regis Babylonis,& si Deo miserabilis, Leonibus in lacu fuerat horribilis. Et Ch. 9. Sicut Danieli in lacum Leonum esurienti prandium metentium exhibitum est. L. de Cor. c. 4. Si& Susanna in judicio revelata argumentum velandi praestat.— Origen in his Letter to Africanus, in his Eighth Book against Celsus, and in his Eighth Homily on Leviticus, expresses himself thus: said tempus est nos adversus improbos Presbyteros uti sanctae Susannae vocibus, quas illi repudiantes historiam Susannae, de Catalogo Divinorum voluminum desecârunt, nos autem& suscipimus,& contra ipsos opportunè proferimus. In his Commentary on St. Matthew, he says, Usi sumus hoc Danielis exemplo, non ignorants quod in Hebraeo positum non est, said quoniam in Ecclesiis tenetur, alterius est temporis requirere de hujusmodi. St. Cyprian, in his Fourth Epistle, now the Forty third, expresses himself in these Words: Ne Aetas vos eorum, nec Auctoritas fallat, qui ad duorum Presbyterorum nequitiam respondentes, sicut illi Susannam pudicam corrumpere& violare conati sunt. In the Fifty sixth, now the Fifty eighth Epistle, Sic& Daniel, cum compelleretur adorare Idolum Bel in asserendum Dei sui honorem plenâ fidei libertate, prorupit dicens, Nihil colo ego nisi Dominum Deum meum, quì condidit Coelum& Terram. The same Father, in his Treatise of the Lord's Prayer, says, Sic Danieli in Leonum lacu jussu Regis incluso, prandium Divinitùs procuratur: In his Tract or Exhortation to Martyrdom, Daniel Deo devotus,& Sancto Spiritu plenus, exclamat& dicit, Nihil colo ego nisi Dominum Deum. And in his Book concerning Works of Mercy and almsgiving: Danieli in lacu Leonum ad praedam jussu Regis incluso, prandium divinitùs apparatur. Didymus, in his First Book concerning the Holy Ghost, has these Words, Danieli adhuc puero suscitâsse dicitur Deus Spiritum Sanctum quasi jam habitantem in eo: And B. 3. Hac autem fallacia etiam in Presbyteros, qui adversus Susannam in crudelitatem se verterent, intravit, &c. scriptum est enim: Venerunt autem& dvo Presbyteri pleni iniquâ cogitatione. St. Hilary, on the Twenty second Psalm, says; said& Daniel condemnans Presbyteros ita dicit, non seemen Abraham, &c. St. Basil, in his Commentary on the Third Chapter of Isaiah, thus expresses his Thoughts: Si quis fuerit ad exemplum sapientis illius Danielis, corpore quidem juvenculus, canus vero sensu, utique potius praeferendus venit istis qui in proposito flagitiose ac petulantis vitae consenescentes canitiem ostentant corporis, quemadmodum seniores illi in Babylone inveterate dierum Malorum, &c. The same Father in his Second Homily de Juvenibus, makes mention of Daniel's being cast into the Lion's Den. St. Gregory Nazianzen, in his Twenty seventh Oration, has these Words; Quandoquidem ut Danielis verbis utar, egressa est iniquitas à Senioribus Babylonicis, &c. There is a Homily on the Story of Susanna attributed to St. Chrysostom, but which is none of his. St. Ambrose, B. 3. Ch. 6. concerning the Holy Ghost; St. Austin in his 118th Sermon, and in several other places; St. Fulgentius, in his Tract concerning the Faith of Peter, and in his Replications to Ferrandus; Avitus, in his Letter to his Sister; Bede, and several others, do likewise aclowledge these Histories as part of the Scripture, and of the Book of Daniel.  by St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyprian, Didymus, St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. Augustin; the Author of a Homily upon Susanna attributed to St. Chrysostom, St. Fulgentius, Avitus, and Bede. Sulpitius Severus, and the Author of the Synopsis of St. Athanasius, do likewise mention these Histories as part of the Sacred Text; tho' the Latter, at the end of his Work, owns that the History of Susanna is one of those Books that are doubted of. St. Ambrose quotes the Words of Daniel related in the third Chapter, as being certainly of Divine Inspiration; and Ruffinus upbraids St. Jerom for having cut off from Daniel, the Song of the three Children, the History of Susanna, and that of Bell and the Dragon. St. Jerom himself in answering him is forced to accommodate himself to the common received Opinion, but relaspes into his Old Sentiments in the Preface to his Commentary on Daniel. This is what can be produced for the Authority of these Histories; we shall in the Sequel examine what has been said concerning the Truth of them.   

SECT. VI. How the Deutero-Canonical Books came to be inserted into the Canon of Sacred Books, and to be owned as such.  
'tis a material point to inquire how the Books, which at first were not in the Canon of the Jews and of a great many Churches, and whose Authority was not allowed to be received, have since become caconical, and acquired so great an Authority, that 'tis no longer lawful to doubt of them, but to look upon them as Sacred and Divine Writings. For it seems with reference to the Books of the Old Testament, none ought to be acknowledged as Divinely inspired, but such as were received by the Grand Synagogue, and inserted into its Canon. 'tis to this Synagogue God had entrusted the Divine Writings; 'tis it, that has preserved them; 'tis by its Testimony and Tradition that they were discovered and known; and from it the Christians have received them. If Jesus Christ and his Apostles had taken notice of any others as divinely inspired, we should be obliged to aclowledge them; but they have cited none other Books under the Name of Holy Scripture, but those which are in the Jewish Canon. If the whole Church had inserted any others into the Canon in the Primitive Times, one might then say that it was of Apostolical Tradition; but on the contrary it appears that they were not inserted in the most Ancient Catalogues of the Christian Writers, and that several have cast them out of the Canon, or at least have doubted of them. Now if in the beginning they might be called into question, because they were not received by all the Churches, why may they not be doubted of at present? It was to no purpose that they were received afterwards; this subsequent Agreement could not render them caconical: For the Church having had no new Revelation could not tell whether those Books were Divine or not, but only by Tradition. Now since Ancient Tradition varies, and renders the matter uncertain, whatever approbation the Church might afterwards make, unless it had received new Light, the thing ought still to remain in the same uncertainty.  
To this some reply, That those Books that are called Deutero-Canonical were acknowledged by the Universal Church even in the Primitive Times, as Books divinely inspired; that they were in the Canon of the Christians, tho' not in that of the Jews; and that the Ambiguity of those two Canons has imposed upon a great many Writers. That the African Church having declared them to be caconical, the Tradition of other Churches agreed with it in this Point; and that they have since been generally received, and inserted in all the Canons which were afterwards drawn up. For the Proof of this position they produce the Authority of St. Jerom in his Prefaces to Tobit and Judith; where he observes, that tho' these two Books were not in the Jewish Canon, yet they were received in the Church, and that the Council of Nice had placed the latter among the Books of Holy Scripture. He says the same thing concerning the History of Susanna in his Answer to Ruffinus. They likewise bring a memorable Passage out of St. Augustin, who in his 18th Book de Civit. Dei, speaking of the Books of the Maccabees, says, That tho' they were not owned as caconical by the Jews, yet they were by the Christians: Macchabaeorum Libri, quos non Judaei, said Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet: And of the Book of Wisdom he says, that for a great many years all the Christians red it, and heard it in the Church with that Respect and Reverence that was due to a caconical Book. They add, that it appears to be true that those Books were always acknowledged by the Church as caconical, since there is scarce one of them but what was cited under the name of Sacred Writ by the most ancient Christian Writers, as we have already demonstrated.  
It were to be wished that this Scheme were as Solid as 'tis Commodious, for an answer to the objection before laid down: But 'tis such an easy matter to overthrow it, that whoever would persist in defending it against the heretics, would soon find himself engaged in such a Labyrinth, as would be difficult for him to extricate himself out of. It appears on the contrary, that most of the Ancients did not believe that the Books which were not Comprehended in the Catalogues that they made of caconical Books were really such, or had the same Authority with those that were therein contained. For in the First place, if these Books had been received by all the Church, as Books of an infallible Authority, how is it possible that the Councils and Fathers who drew up the Catalogue of the Books of Holy Scripture should have omitted them? For whom and to what purpose did they make these Catalogues? Doubtless not for the Jews, but for the Christians: They made them not to discover what Books were received by the Great Synagogue, but to inform Christians what Books they ought to look upon as Authentic, and such as they ought to establish their Religion upon 
Such as they ought to establish their Religion upon.] None of 'em have said, that they follow the Canon of the Jews; almost all of them declare, that they speak of those that were received in the Church, which the Christians ought to red, and whose Authority they ought to rely on, and make use of. Neither Melito, nor the Author of the Apostolical Canon, nor the Fathers of the Council of Laodicea, nor St. Cyril of Jerusalem, nor St. Gregory Nazianzen, took any notice of the Canon of the Jews; their Design was to draw up the Catalogue of Books acknowledged to be caconical in the Church. St. Cyril speaks thus to the Christian Novice, red these two and twenty Books, meditate on them only, and regard not the Apocryphal. The Apostolical Canon, recommends them to the perusal both of Clergy and Laity. It was not for the Jews, but for the Christians, that the Council of Laodicea drew up its Canon. St. Hilary speaks of Christians when he says that some reckoned four and twenty Books, adding to the former Tobit and Judith. .  
This being so, would it not have been ridiculous in the Bishops of the Councils and in the Ecclesiastical Writers, if they had inserted into their Catalogue or Canon only such Books as the Jews acknowledged, and had constantly omitted those which the catholic Church had allowed of? It can't be said that this Omission happened either by chance or through neglect. For beside this, that in a Subject of so great importance it cannot be presumed that any Person should be guilty of such an Ignorance or Neglect; yet if it were so, 'tis impossible that all of 'em should have omitted exactly and precisely the same Books. In the second place, they have not only omitted these Books, but most of them have expressly said that they were not owned as caconical by the Christians themselves: For some of them have called them Apocryphal; others have said that they are doubtful; some, that they were such as the Church was not agreed about: And most have said that tho' they be red in the Church, yet they were not received among the caconical Writings: Legit quidem Ecclesia( says St. Jerom) said eos inter Canonicas Scripturas non recipit. Where observe, that 'tis the Church which did not admit of them as caconical. They have added that they were good and useful, that they might be red to the Catechumens; but that they did not stand upon the same Authority with the caconical Writings; that they could not be made use of to establish any Doctrine of Religion; and that they ought to be red with Discretion and Caution. 'tis after this Manner, that the Ancients have spoken of these Books in the places where they have expressly treated on this Subject. All this very clearly proves that those Books were not received as caconical by all the Churches of the Primitive Times; and that we have great reason to call them Deutero-Canonical, not only upon the Account of the Jewish Sanhedrim, but also upon the account of the Church. But 'tis likewise requisite that some Assent be given to the following Truths:( 1.) That those Books were transmitted to us from the Jews.( 2.) That all Christians have acknowledged them as Genuine, free from Heresy or any other Error.( 3.) That they have esteemed and thought them to be very useful for edification and Instruction, that they have caused them to be red to the Catechumens, and publicly in some Churches.( 4.) That a great many Authors, even the most Ancient, have often cited them under the Name of Holy Scripture.( 5.) that the African Church has acknowledged them for Sacred Books even in the Primitive Times, as appears from the Testimony of St. Cyprian who quotes them frequently.( 6.) That that Church did insert them into the Catalogue of Sacred Books, and in the same rank with the rest in the fifth Century, with this Proviso, That the Churches beyond Sea should be consulted with about it.( 7.) That the Church of Rome did likewise approve of the Opinion of the Africans, and that all the Latin Churches have embraced it since. All these Reasons and Considerations joined together, are sufficient to establish the Authority of these Books, of which the Decision of the Council of Trent has left us no reason to doubt. For tho' no new Revelation has been made to the Church, yet it may after so long a tract of time be better assured of the Truth and Genuineness of a Work, than it was before, when after a due Examination of the Matter, it has met with a sufficient Testimony not to doubt any longer of it, and a sufficient Tradition, to judge it to be Authentic. 'tis for this Reason that St. Jerom says that the Epistle of St. judas hath acquired its Authority by Antiquity and Custom, and deserves to be placed among the Sacred Writings of the New Testament. I shall conclude this Head with the following Rule of St. Augustin, taken out of the 8th Chapter of his Second Book de Doctrinâ Christianâ. He who would become skilful in the Holy Scripture, ought in the first place to red it throughout, but withall only such Books as are called caconical: for the others he will afterwards red over with more safety, when he shall have been fully instructed in the Faith....... But to judge of the caconical Scriptures, care should be taken to follow the Authority of most Churches, and particularly of those that are Apostolical; and an impartial Reader will prefer the Scriptures, that are received by all the Churches, to those that are rejected by some: And of those which are not received by all the Churches, he ought to prefer such as are received by the greatest Number, and most considerable of them: Lastly that in Case there be some Books that are received by the Greater Number of Churches, and others received by those Churches that have the most Authority( which St. Augustin believes very rarely, or never happens) then the Books shall be looked upon to be of equal Authority. 'tis upon this Rule and according to this Principle of St. Augustin that I have argued, and all others ought to argue concerning the caconical Books.   

SECT. VII. The Division of the Books of the Old Testament, and the Orders they were ranked in both by Jews and Christians  
THO' the Dividing or Distributing the Books of the Old Testament into several Distinct Classes, be a thing altogether Arbitrary, yet it may not be amiss to take notice of those that have been the most common, and the most in use. The first and most Ancient is that which is intimated by our Saviour, Luke. 24.44. All things must be fulfiled which were written in the LAW, in the PROPHETS, and in the PSALMS concerning me. It seems as if Jesus Christ was minded to refer all the Sacred Writings of the Jews to these three Classes: However this is not altogether clear, and perhaps he speaks here only of the five Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Book of Psalms; because these are the Books which contain the greatest part of the Predictions concerning the messiah. But that which Inclines us to believe that he has comprehended in this Division all the Books of the Law, is because the Ancient Jews divided them after the same manner into three Parts, and gave them the same Names. Thus much we learn from Philo Judaeus B. 6. de Vita contemplativa; from Josephus in his first Book against Appion; from St. Jerom in prologue. Gal.& Prefat. in Daniel; and from St. Epiphanius Homil. 29. n. 7. who assert that the Jews made three Classes of caconical Books: the first of the Law, containing the five Books of Moses, which they called THORA: The Second of the Prophets, called by them NEVIJM, which comprehends the other Historical Books with the Prophecies: And the third of the Hagiographa or Sacred Writings, which they called CETUVIM, containing the Hymns or Psalms to the Praise of God, with the Pieces of Morality. But according to Josephus, the Second Class takes in thirteen Books, and the third no more than four: Whereas according to St. Jerom the Second Class contains but only Eight, and the Third Nine; because he has placed in this Last, the Book of Job, that of Daniel,( whom the Jews thought fit to strike out of the Number of the Prophets) the Chronicles, the Books of Ezrah, and the Book of Esther. In this Division Ruth is joined with Judges, and the Lamentations with the prophesy of Jeremiah. Several other rabbis, and the Septuagint reckon up four and twenty Sacred Books, as St. Jerom observes in his Preface to the Books of Ezrah, that they might be conformable to the Letters of their Alphabet, wherein they repeated the Letter JOD thrice in honor of the Name Jehovah, which the Chaldees wrote by three JODS. 'tis for this Reason that the Jews at this day do commonly make use of the Name of four and twenty, to denote the Holy Scriptures; because it is comprised in four and twenty Books. Lastly, some have reckoned seven and twenty, by separating all the double Books, as St. Epiphanius observes, and that they might have Characters to mark them, they added to the usual two and twenty Letters the five Finals, viz. Caph, Mem, Nun, Pé, and Tsaddi; which are of a different Make and figure at the End, from what they are of in the Middle or beginning of Words.  
In this Distribution of Sacred Books into three Classes, they have assigned a distinct Class for the Books of Moses, because he was their first Law-giver, and the Founder of the Jewish Religion. The Second Class consists of two Parts, containing four Books each. The former they style Ancient Prophets, NEVIJM RASCONIM, viz. Joshuah, Judges, Samuel and the Books of Kings: and the Second the more Modern Prophets, NEVIJM AHHARONIM, which are, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Lesser Prophets. The third Class comprehends not only the Book of Job, and the Psalms, which are Poetical Pieces, and the Books of Morality, viz. the three Tracts of Solomon; but also the Book of Daniel, whom the Jews do not reckon as a Prophet, and the Historical Books of the Chronicles, Ezrah, and Esther. These Books are styled Hagiographa, or as they Phrase it, HONCAHH HACCODISCH, that is, writ by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to distinguish them from the former, which they call Prophetical. For the Jews make a distinction betwixt prophesy and Divine Inspiration, as Rabbi Kimchi observes in his Preface to the Psalms, and Maimonides in More Nevochin Ch. 45. prophesy, say they, is a Revelation made to Men in a Dream, or when they are in an ecstasy, or by some Vision and Representation, or lastly by a Voice: Whereas Divine Inspiration is conveyed to Persons who are endued with a Soundness and Presence of Mind, who speak as other Men; in whom nothing extraordinary appears, but who are inspired by the Holy Ghost, that enlightens their Minds, and suggests Words to them whereby to praise God, and to instruct and reprove Men, and even to foretell things to come. If regard be had to this Distinction, one cannot perceive why they have placed in the Class of Prophecies, the Historical Books of Joshuah, Judges, Samuel, and Kings( which were unquestionably writ by Persons of a sound Mind, and who spoken as other Men did) rather than the Books of Job, Psalms and Daniel, which are a great deal more ecstatical, and full of the Poetical and Prophetical Air or Transport. Nor it is possible to assign any reason why they have excluded Daniel out of the Number of the Prophets, a Man who had a great many Visions and Apparitions in his Sleep. For to pretend as Rabbi Kimchi does, that 'tis because he has not equalled the rest of the Prophets in his Visions, is a Chimerical Supposition. I should rather think that they deprived him of that Character, because he lived at Court more like a Man of the World, than a Prophet, or that they thought it convenient to join him to Ezrah and Nehemiah to continue the thread of the History. Let this be as it will, the Jews not only have inserted Daniel into their Canon, but have likewise owned that it may be asserted that there are Prophecies in his Treatise, as well as in the Psalms, as appears from what Rabbi Kimchi says in his Preface to the Psalms. The Latter Jews who count four and twenty caconical Books, place Ruth and the Lamentations of Jeremiah among the Hagiographa. I shall not stand to relate the Allusions which the rabbis make of these three Classes of Sacred Books with the three parts of the Tabernacle or Temple, according to which, the Law of Moses( as the Principal part of Scripture) is correspondent with the Sanctum Sanctorum, the Holiest of Holies, where the Ark and the Books of the Law were deposited: The Book of the Prophets with the Holy Place, where the Table, the Candlestick, and the Golden Altar were; and the Hagiographa to the Court of the Temple, where was the Altar for the Whole Burnt Sacrifices; and a great many other trifling Notions which have neither Profitableness nor Solidity in them.  
Tho' this Division of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament be the most Ancient, yet it has its faults, as we have already observed:( 1.) Because they place in the Second Class, those Books that belong to the third, and in the third such Books as would have been better in the Second:( 2.) Because they range in one and the same Class, Books of a different Nature, viz. Historical Books with Prophetical; Books of Hymns and Praises with Books of Morality; and Poetical Books with simplo Narrations. 'tis for this Reason that several Authors have divided them after another manner. St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Gregory Nazianzen divided them into Historical, Poetical and Prophetical. Among the first of these they reckon the five Books of Moses with the Books of Joshua, Judges with Ruth, the Kings, the Chronicles, the Books of Ezrah and Esther, which according to the Hebrews are twelve in Number. The Poetical Books are five, viz. Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Canticles. The Prophetical Books are likewise five, viz. the twelve Lesser Prophets, and the four Greater, to wit, Isaiah, Jeremiah with Baruch, the Lamentations, and his Letter; Ezekiel and Daniel. St. Epiphanius makes four or five Classes of them;( 1.) The Law which contains the five Books of Moses.( 2.) Five Books written in Verse, which are Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Canticles.( 3.) The Hagiographa, which are the Books of Joshua, Judges with Ruth, Kings and Chronicles.( 4.) The Prophetical Books which are the twelve Lesser, and the four Greater Prophets.( 5.) The Books of Ezrah and Esther, which are distinct from the rest. St. Augustin divides the Books of the Old Testament into four Classes; the first comprehends all those that give us the History of the World from its Creation in a direct Line of Succession, that is, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges with Ruth, whose History belongs to the first part of Kings, the four Books of Kings, and the Chronicles which are no more than a Recapitulation of the History of the same times. The Second contains the Histories which have no manner of Connexion, viz. the Books of Job, Tobit, Esther, Judith, the Maccabees, and the two Books of Ezrah, which seem rather to belong to the Sacred History. The third comprises the Books that may in some sort be styled Prophetical, viz. the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which( according to this Father) belong to the same Author. The fourth, those that may properly be styled Prophetical, to wit, the twelve Lesser and the four Greater Prophets. St. Chrysostom in the 36th Homily on the first Epistle to the Corinthians, intimates a Division, which, if one Article were added to it, would seem the most exact of any other. For he there observes, upon the occasion of a Passage of Isaiah cited by the Apostle as THE LAW, that all the Old Testament is sometimes styled the Law; that this Word taken in its Latitude comprehends {αβγδ}, i. e. the Law, the Prophets, and the Histories; denoting thereby the three sorts of Books of which the Old Testament is composed, to which if there were added the Books that treat of Morality, you would have an exact Division of the Books of the Old Testament as to its Subject-matter, into four Classes, which is followed by Isidorus of Sevil, and Raban. The first will contain the Law, or the five Books of Moses, which are the Foundation of the Jewish Religion: The Second, the Historical Books, viz. Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four Books of Kings, the Chronicles, the Books of Esther, Tobit, and Judith, the two Books of Ezrah, and the two Books of the Maccabees. The third will comprehend the Prophets, viz. the four Greater with Baruch and the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and the twelve Lesser Prophets. The fourth, the Books that are rather Moral and Instructive, than Historical and Prophetical, to wit, the Book of Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus.  
As for the Particular Order or Placing of these Books in each Class, neither the Jews nor Christians are agreed about it, Yet they all place the five Books of Moses in the Front. The Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth and Kings, were those that were placed next the Second Class of the Ancient Jews: But the Moderns have taken Ruth from thence, and joined it with the Canticles, the Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther. They have made of them a sort of a Second Pentateuch, which they place after Proverbs.  
The Order of the other Prophets in the Ancient Jewish Canon, runs thus: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Lesser Prophets. The Talmudists, Babatra, Ch. 1. place Jeremiah and Ezekiel before Isaiah; whereas the Massorets keep to the usual Method. The former place Ruth before the Psalms; and the Book of Job after them, just before the Proverbs: Daniel, Esther, and Ezrah are the Last of the Hagiographa.  
The Catalogues of the caconical Books of the Ancient Christians are in the same Order as far as the Book of Chronicles, excepting St. Epiphanius, and St. Jerom, the former of whom inserts the Book of Job, Psalms, and the three Books of Solomon between Ruth and the Book of Kings: And the Latter places the Chronicles among the Hagiographa. But after the Chronicles the Ancient Christians seem to be of different Sentiments. For some of 'em do place after them the Books of Ezrah, as Origen, the Canons of the Apostles, and of the Councils of Laodicea and Carthage, St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and Russinus. Others put them at the End after the Prophetical Books, as Melito, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerom, Pope Innocent I. and Pope Gelasius.  
Esther in the Council of Laodicea is placed after the Book of Judges and Ruth. In the Apostolical Canon, in St. Cyril, and Russinus, it follows Ezrah which comes after the Chronicles. Origen St. Hilary, St. Jerom, St. Epiphanius, the Council of Carthage and Gelasius place it the Last of all.  
St. Jerom and Russinus are the Only Christian Authors, who have followed the Ancient Catalogue of the Jews, and placed the Prophets before the Psalms, the Books of Solomon and the other Hagiographa. All others according to the Chronological Order, have placed the Prophets after the Psalms and the Books of Solomon.  
The Book of Job is the first of the Hagiographa among the Jews, as well as with St. Jerom and Ruffinus. 'tis likewise placed before the Psalms in the Catalogues of Melito, of the Apostolical Canon, of St. Cyril, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Epiphanius. In the Catalogues of the Council of Laodicea and St. Athanasius it immediately follows the three Books of Solomon. Origen, St. Hilary, Innocent I. and Gelasius, place it at the End after the Prophets.  
The Psalms of David, and the three Books of Solomon, viz. the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles are next in order in all the Catalogues, except in those of Innocent I. and Leontius, who place the Psalms before the Books of Solomon. They who own Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus to be caconical, do join them to the former.  
The Order wherein the Prophets are placed is very various; Most do rank in the first place the Book of the twelve Lesser Prophets, and none among the Ancients besides Melito, St. Jerom, and Ruffinus place it after the Greater Prophets. Some put Daniel before Ezekiel, as Melito, Origen, and St. Hilary. All others put him the Last of the Greater Prophets. St. Jerom in conformity to the Jews places Daniel among the Hagiographa.  
As to the Deutero-Canonical Books, those who admit of them, rank Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus with the Books of Solomon; And as to Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, they formerly clapped them at the end, as is apparent in the Canons of Africa, and in the Decrees of Innocent, and Gelasius. Yet at present Tobit and Judith are placed before Esther and Job, and just after Ezrah 
[ 'tis easy to perceive that the Doctor of the Sorbonne in this whole Section inclines very much to at. Jerom's Order or Placing of the Books of the Old Testament, according to his Latin Translation of the Bible, tho he likewise fairly relates the Opinions of the other Fathers and particularly speaks in Favour of St. Chrysostom's Division of them, which he says would be the best, if another Article were added to it. In our English Translation the Order of the Books is much different. We first reckon the caconical Books of the Old Testament distinctly; the Apocryphal we place by themselves, and in some( particularly in the Geneva) Bibles the latter are quiter left out. We shall not trouble the World with a List of those Books according as the Church of England has reciev'd them, since they are placed at the Beginning of every Bible.] . These are most of the Differences to be met with among the Ancients, about the Order or Placing of the Sacred Books. But enough has been said on those Minute things.   

SECT. VIII. Of those Books of the Old Testament, that are Lost, Apocryphal and forged by the Jews and heretics. Of several Passages of the Prophets cited by the Evangelists, which are not to be met with in the Books from whence they are quoted.  
BEside those Books which were at last received into the Canons of the Books of the Old Testament, there are likewise several others, which tho' very Ancient were not inserted into the Canon of the Jews, or which having been composed since, have been esteemed and cited by some Christian Authors, but have never been reckoned as caconical; or lastly which have been forged by heretics, and by consequence were always rejected.  
In the first place there are a great many Books cited in the Old Testament, which are entirely lost a long time ago, and which were not in the Jewish Canon. The first of these Books commonly alleged, is, the Book of the Wars of the Lord, which is cited Numb. 21.14. But it does not appear that in this place any Book is mentioned 
It does not appear that any such Book is mentioned.] The Hebrew Text runs thus, Numb. 21.14. It shall be said in the Book or Relation of the Wars of the Lord: which is followed by a Sentence taken out of this Book of Relation. Some say that in this Passage it is not meant a Book, for the Hebrew Text does not speak in the preter perfect, but in the future Tense, Thus it shall be said, and the Word Sepher, which is rendered a Book may signify any manner of Relation and Narration. And thus the Words cited may bear this fence, As it shall be said when the Israelites shall relate the Wars of the Lord. It may likewise be understood of some Hymn sung in Honour of that Victory; and in truth the Words cited in this place contain Poetical Expressions conformable to a Song in Honour of that Victory. It is therefore very probable that 'tis one of those Hymns which the Author speaks of, or rather a Book consisting of Hymns, which was then lost. There are some critics who explain it to be Judges or the Book of the Psalms; but it cannot be applied to them, and what is related in this Passage, as being in the Book of the Wars of the Lord, is in neither of them. In Exodus, Ch. 17. v. 14. God commanded Moses to writ the Defeat of Amalek in a Book which some understand to be meant of the Book of the Wars of the Lord. But since he has not so much as named it, we may as well understand it of the Book of Exodus itself, or rather of a Journal or Memoir wherein Moses wrote the most remarkable Occurrences. For this reason he was ordered in the same place to red this relation to Joshua, who commanded the Army of the Israelites, that he might see whether it were exactly true. St. Augustin, Q. 42. On Numbers, supposes that the Book of the Wars of the Lord, was a profane Book, which contained a Foreign History; wherein he is much in the wrong. . The same must be said of the Book of the Covenant 
The Book of the Covenant.] 'tis said Exod. 24.7. that Moses took the Book of the Covenant, and red it in the Audience of all the People. And in the 4th Verse 'tis said, That Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. Some have understood this of a particular Book, but the Sequel of the Narration shows that it only concerned the Laws which Moses reported from God in the Mount, which contain the principal Laws of Moses as well Judicial as Ceremonial. , of which they say mention is made Exod. 24.7. which is only the Laws that Moses had received from God, related in the foregoing Chapters of this Book. The Book of the Lord mentioned in Isaiah, Ch. 34.16. is not a particular Book 
Is not a particular Book.] Isaiah having in this Chapter related the Afflictions or Judgments which were, or should be inflicted on the Gentiles and Idumea, refers himself to the Book of the Lord. Seek ye( says he) out of the Book of the Lord, and red: no one of those shall fall, None shall want her Mate: For my mouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath gathered them. The Book of the Lord, of which mention is here made, is not a particular Book. 'tis the Sacred Books themselves wherein are writ the Judgments of the Lord, that is the Vengeances which he exercises on the Nations; or rather 'tis this prophesy itself, as if he had said; when you see these Judgments happen, consult this prophesy, and you will find that all that was foretold is happened. . Nor does it appear very plainly that the Book of Jasher, or the Upright, cited 
The Book of Jasher.] Some have thought that Jasher is a proper Name. Others say that 'tis so called, because it contained the Actions of Upright or Famous Men: Others, because it was the Book of the Law: And others, because it was a faithful and exact History. The Passage that is cited in Joshua, is Historical and Poetical concerning the Course of the Sun, that was stopped. In the Book of Samuel, 'tis said in a Parenthesis upon the Occasion of the Death of Saul and Jonathan, that David bad them teach the Children of Judah the use of the Bow, behold it is written in the Book of Jasher. It seems as if one might infer from this place, that the Children of Israel were ordered in this Book of Jasher to learn to draw the Bow; or rather that it was related in this Book, that David commanded the Children of Israel to learn the Use of the Bow. But some understand by the Bow a Song in the Book of Jasher.  in Joshua, Ch. 10. v. 13. and 2 Sam. 1.18. was an Historical Book, on the Contrary it is more probable that it consisted of Hymns or Songs. But it can scarce be questioned, but that the Books of Nathan 
Nathan.] A Prophet of the City of Gabbath, who reproved David for his Adultery. His Book containing the History of David and Solomon is cited 1 Chron. 29.29. 2 Chr. 9.29. , Gad 
Gad.] A Prophet sent to David, who wrote the History of that King, cited 1 Chron. 29.29. , Shemaiah 
Shemaiah.] He is not the same with Shemaiah the Nehelamite the false Prophet, one of those who was carried away Captive to Babylon with Joathan. That Shemaiah wrote a Letter against Jeremiah of whom mention is made. Jer. 29.24, 32. The Shemaiah, of whom we speak, lived in the time of Rehoboam, and foretold to him, in the fifth year of his Reign that the Temple should be rifled. He composed the History of Rehoboam cited 2 Chron. 12.15. , Iddo 
Iddo.] A prophet who lived under the Reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam and Abijah, who wrote two Books, one of Visions against Jeroboam, and the other containing the Remarkable Acts of Abijah King of Judah. The former of these is cited 2 Chron. 9.29...... 12, 15, the Second 2 Chron. 13.22. , Ahijah 
Ahijah.] he wrote an History of the Acts of Solomon about the end of his Reign, cited 2 Chron. 9.29. This Prophet was of Shiloh in the Tribe of Judah. It was he who met Jeroboam, and rent his Mantle into twelve parts, giving him ten of them thereby prophesying of the Division of the Kingdom of Solomon, and that Jeroboam should be King over ten Tribes, as is related 1 Kings 11.29. &c. His usual place of Residence was at Shiloh, where he dyed. , and Jehu 
Jehu.] A Prophet the Son of Hanani, who foretold Baasha King of Israel of his Defeat, and upbraided Jehoshaphat for the Confederacy he had made with Ahab. He wrote an History of the Kings of Israel to the Reign of Jehoram the Son of Jehoshaphat cited 2 Chron 20.34. in these Words, Now the rest of the Acts of Jehoshaphat, first, and last, behold, they are written in the Book of Jehu the Son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the Book of the Kings of Israel; or according to the Septuagint and Vulgar Translation, Quae digessit in Libros Regum Israel. In the Vulgar Translation 'tis said 1 Kings 16.7. That he was killed by Baasha, but there is nothing of it in the Original Text. ; cited in several places of the Chronicles, were Memoirs composed by those Prophets, or rather Prophecies which contained a part of the History 
Or rather Prophecies which contained a part of the History.] 'tis probable that those Books composed by the Prophets were not purely Historical, but they mixed something of prophesy in their History penned in an Historical Style. For which reason the Histories of Jeroboam writ by the Prophet Iddo was intitit'led the Visions against Jeroboam, which agrees only with a prophesy. 2 Chr 9.29. 'tis said, the Rest of the Acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the prophesy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the Seer, which he saw against Jeroboam the Son of Nebat. Thus 'tis plain, that the Books denoted by the names of Visions and Prophecies, were not merely Historical. . The same ought to be said of the Book of the Journals or Chronicles of the Kings of Juda and Israel which are Different from the Paralipomena or Chronicles 
Different from the Paralipomena or Chronicles.] Most of the things about which Reference is made to this Book in the Books of the Kings are not to be met with in the Chronicles; as for instance the Wars of Baasha, 1 Kings 16, 5. The Acts of Zimri, ibid. v. 20. Those of Omri, ibid. v. 27. that which is said of the Ivory House of Ahab, 1 Kings 22.39. The Acts of Jeroboam, mentioned 2 Kings 14.28. And the Acts of the last Kings of Israel, viz. Pekahiah, Pekah, and Hoshea, mentioned in the 15th. Chapter of the Same Book. , wherein is cited an History of the Kings of Juda and Israel, which is different from the Book of Kings 
Which is different from the Book of Kings.] This Book is often cited in the Second of Chronicles. It cannot be in the Second of Kings, since therein no mention is made of what is related in the Chronicles, as for Instance what is said Ch. 24. concerning the Children of Joash, and of the money that was collected in his time; what is related in the 33d Ch. concerning the Prayer of Manasseh. And the Abominable doings of Jehojakin mentioned in the last Chapter. , and which may be the same with the Journals cited in those Books. To these must be added the Book of Samuel the Seer 
The Book of Samuel the Seer.] Some think that 'tis the Book which the Jews at present call Samuel, which contains the two Books of the Kings; but there is great probability that 'tis another Book. , cited in the last Chapter of the first Book of Chronicles: The Discourses of Oseah 
The Discourses of Hoseah.] This Author is cited 2 Chr. 33.18, 19. Now the rest of the Acts of Manasseh, and his Prayer unto his God, and all his Sin and his Trespass, and the Places wherein he built high Places, and set up Groves and graved Images before he was humbled, behold they are written among the sayings of the Seers or Hosea. The Septuagint have rendered this Name of Chozai, by that of Prophets. Some Interpreters likewise pretend that the Hebrew Word will bear this Sense. But 'tis more probable, that in this place mention is made of a particular Prophet who is called Anan in the Syriack and Suphanes in the arabic. Raban who is the Author of the Jewish Traditions concerning the Chronicles attributed to St. Jerom, says that some believe this Oseah to be Isaiah, who is called by the Name of Chozai which signifies My Vision. Others make him to be an Arabian Prophet. But these are groundless conjectures; and 'tis most likely that it was a Prophet named Chozai who wrote the particular History of the Sins and Repentance of Manasseth the King of Judah. And perhaps the Prayer of Manasseth, still extant in the Apocrypha, was taken out of this Work. , of which mention is made 2 Chr. 33.18, 19. The Acts of Uzziah, mentioned 2 Chron. 26.22. 
Of which mention is made 2 Chr. 26, 22.] 'tis there said, that Isaiah did writ the Rest of the Acts of Uzziah, first and last.  The Three thousand of Proverbs which Solomon wrote, as is intimated 1 Kings. 4.32. A Thousand and five Songs, and a great many Tracts on Plants and Animals, composed by the same Author, of which mention is made in the same place. The Prophet Jeremiah speaks himself, Ch. 36. of a Volume of Prophecies which he had dictated to Baruch, concerning the Wrath of God denounced against the Jews and the City of Jerusalem, which Book was cut to Pieces, and cast into the Fire by King Jehoiakim. Jeremiah coming to understand it, ordered those Prophecies to be written over a-new, and added thereto several fresh Denunciations against the King of Judah and his People. Some think this Piece to be the same with the Lamentations. This Prophet in the 51st. Chapter does likewise mention a prophesy that he had composed concerning the Ruin of Babylon, which he ordered Seraiah, who went to Babylon, to fasten to a ston, and cast into the River of Euphrates. Lastly, He wrote Memoirs or Relations of what happened after the taking of Jerusalem, from whence the Author of the First Book of Maccabees saith he took what he has Written on that Subject in the beginning of his Work. The Memoirs of John Hircanus 
John Hircanus.] In the first of the Maccabees Ch. ult. V. 23, 24. 'tis said, That the rest of the Acts of John, and his Wars and worthy Deeds which he did, and the building of the Walls which he made, and his Doings, behold they are written in the Chronicles of his Priesthood. , and the Books of Jason 
The Books of Jason.] A Jew of Cyrene, who in five Books wrote the History which the Author of the second Book of Maccabees abridged, as is hinted Ch. 2. v. 24. , of which mention is made in the Second Book of the Maccabees.  
It may be asked whether these Books cited in the Old Testament were caconical. But methinks this is a very idle Query, since none of these Pieces are at present extant. 'tis plain that they are not caconical, in the Sense wherein we have explained it, that is, they were never inserted into the Canon of the Jews, nor into any one Canon of the Christians. No body can tell whether they should be included, if they were now remaining, and we were very well satisfied of their Antiquity: Nor can any one tell whether they were Written by Divine Inspiration, or were only of human Invention. Those who, with Salmeron, are of the latter Opinion, offer to refute the contrary Notion by these Arguments. First, Since most of those Books were composed before Ezra's time, he would have inserted them into the Jewish Canon, if he had looked upon them as Divine Writings. 2dly, Because otherwise it must needs be said that the Church was deprived of a great part of Sacred Writ. 3dly, Because the Apostles have cited none but those that we have by us, as Books of Holy Scripture. 4thly, Because the Fathers are agreed in thinking these Books to be Apocryphal, and among them do place the Book of Enoch, cited by the Apostle St. judas. This is the Opinion of Origen and all the rest of the Fathers, except Tertullian.  
On the other hand, those who maintain that these Books were written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, do say, That the Authors being certainly Prophets Divinely Inspired, whose Works are cited in the Books that were Written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, as Credible and Authentic Pieces, wherein the truth of Matters of Fact may be discovered; 'tis to be believed, that they are likewise written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. However, to this it may be replied, That 'tis not necessary, that all the Writings and Discourses of a Prophet should be Inspired by the Holy Ghost. For this reason St. Augustin very Judiciously observes, Book 18. Ch. 38. de Civit. Dei, That tho' these Books cited in the Holy Scripture had been written by Prophets whom the Holy Ghost did Inspire, yet it does not from thence follow, that they were always Divinely inspired. For, says he, these Prophets might sometimes writ as private Men with an Historical Accuracy, and at other times as Prophets who followed the Dictates of the Divine Spirit: Alla sicut homines Historicâ diligentiâ, alia sicut Prophetas inspiratione Divinâ scribere potuisse. 'tis no Proof at all, that these Histories were penned by Divine Inspiration, because they are quoted by the Authors of the Sacred Books, since even profane Poets and Writers are likewise cited in them; and 'tis enough that these Histories be Genuine and Credible, to warrant the Sacred Historians referring themselves to them.  
'tis urged further, That the Proverbs of Solomon, which we still have, making part of the Three Thousand attributed by the Scripture to him, it cannot be proved that those, which are now Extant, were Divinely Inspired, unless we suppose all of 'em to be of the same Nature. And they add, that the Book of Iddo was apparently a Divinely inspired Writing, and a prophesy, since it was entitled, The Visions against Jeroboam. They likewise produce several of the Fathers who are of that Opinion, viz. Origen, in the Preface of his Commentary on the Canticles; St. Chrysostom, Homil. 9. on St. Matthew, and Homil. 7. on the first Epistle to the Corinthians; St. Athanasius, or the Author of the abridgement of the Scripture, attributed to him; St. Augustin, Q. 42. on Numbers; Theodoret, Oecumenius, St. Eucherius, and several others. The most Learned rabbis, to wit, Aben-Ezra, Levi-Ben-Gerson, and Abravanel, agree in the Notion, as well as the ablest critics; as for Instance, among the Romanists, Sixtus of Sienna, Serrarius, Pineda, Bellarmine, Bonfrerius, &c. And among the Protestants, Beza, Whitaker, Drusius, &c.  
The Reasons that are brought against this Notion are not absolutely Convincing. The first can no more be applied to the Books that were lost, before Ezrah made his Collection, or of which he had no Knowledge; than it can be to those, of whose Antiquity he had not sufficient Evidence. The second Reason supposes, that all the Sacred and Divinely inspired Writings are absolutely necessary to the Church; and that God would never have permitted any of them to be lost: A Supposition that is unaccountable. For 'tis not at all Necessary, that the Church should have preserved all the Revelations that were made to Men since the Creation of the World. How many Oracles of the Holy Ghost, and how many Sayings were there of Jesus Christ, of which we have not the least Record remaining? How many Instructions of the Apostles lye buried in Oblivion? Is it certain that we have by us all the Epistles which they wrote, or rather, is it not very probable that several of them are lost? The third Argument proves no more than this, That in the times of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, these Ancient Divinely inspired Books were not in Being, and that since they were not in the Jewish Canon, they did not think it proper to city them; or lastly, Because they had no occasion to city them, no more than they had even some of those that were in the Canon. The fourth Argument taken from the Authority of the Fathers, who rejected the Book of Enoch as Apocryphal, tho' it be cited in the Epistle of St. judas, is only levelled against that particular Book, and concludes nothing against the rest which are cited in the Old Testament. Besides, tho' a Book be Divinely inspired, it may be reckoned Apocryphal, or at least Doubtful, because one is not absolutely assured that it belongs to that Author to whom it is ascribed, as St. Augustin observes. For there are three things requisite whereon to establish the Divine Authority of any Book.( 1.) 'tis necessary that it be Writ by a Prophet, or an Author Divinely inspired.( 2.) That the Author be inspired when he wrote it; that he composed it Inspiratione Divinâ, and not barely Historicâ Diligentiâ.( 3.) That one ought to be certain of both these things. There might have been some Books of the Prophets, which were not of Divine Inspiration; and there might have been Books Divinely inspired composed by the Prophets, of whose Author or Inspiration nothing of certainty could be gathered. There might have been some, of which they were at one time assured, and of which they were not afterwards; because they had no longer the same Certainty and Assurance that they belonged to those Persons to whom they were ascribed, or that the Authors of them were Prophets; the Tradition of one or the other not being handed down faithfully to Posterity. Lastly, It might so happen, that some of those Books had been Adulterated and Corrupted, as well as there were several of them lost. When Ezrah drew up the Canon of the Sacred Books, he could not insert into it those that were lost before his time; nor ought he to insert those that were Doubtful, Spurious or Adulterated: He only inserted such as had been manifestly composed by the Prophets, penned by Divine Inspiration, and acknowledged as such by an universal and unanimous Consent. But 'tis not necessary for this reason to say that there were never any other Books Divinely inspired, and that there were not any others even in his time, but those that are inserted in the Canon: Since there might have been some of them lost, and among those that remained and he rejected, there might have been some Divinely inspired Writings; but of whose Genuineness and inspiration he was not very well assured. This Canon has indeed six'd and determined the Number of Books, that ought to be acknowledged as Sacred and Divine; but it has not included in general all those that were penned by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; at least, such a thing cannot be asserted positively. Nor can it be said for certain, That all those which are cited in the Sacred Books, nor that all the Books composed by the Prophets, were of Divine Inspiration. 'tis a Medium and Middle way that ought to be followed, according, to the Opinion of the Fathers, who have acknowledged, That there may be some Books Divinely inspired, and others of human Composition, and Apocryphal among those that are cited in the caconical Books. See how Origen speaks of this Matter in the Preface of his Commentary on the Canticles, where, after he had observed, that this is one of the Thousand and Five Songs, which Solomon composed, of which mention is made 1 Kings 4.32. He adds: It would be an invidious Task indeed, and nothing to our present purpose, to make an Enquiry about those Books, of which mention is made in the Holy Scriptures, which are not at present Extant, and which are not so much as used by the Jews themselves: Whether the Holy Ghost thought fit to erase them, because they contained such things as were above the reach of vulgar Capacities; or whether they were of the Number of Apocryphal Books, and contained in them several Interpolations and Things contrary to the Faith, and for that reason were not admitted into the Canon, nor allowed to be Authentic. 'tis not for us to determine any thing on this Point. However 'tis evident, that the Evangelists and Apostles have related several Instances inserted in the New Testament, which are not to be met with in the caconical Scriptures, but in the Apocryphal, from whence 'tis plain that they took them. Yet we are not upon this account to reckon the Apocryphal Books as Authentic, since 'tis not proper we should break through the Limits which our Forefathers have assigned us. The Apostles and Evangelists, who were filled with the Holy Ghost, knew very well what ought to be taken out of those Writings, and what ought to be rejected; but for us who have not the same fullness of the Divine Spirit, we cannot, without great Danger, pretend to any such thing.  
St. Augustin, speaking of the Book of Enoch, B. 18. Ch. 38. de Civit. Dei, and of other Writings attributed to those Ancient patriarches, says, That their great Antiquity is the Reason why they have no Authority among the Jews or Christians; and that this has rendered them suspected, for fear they should quote Spurious Pieces instead of Genuine. That some Writings are produced which are attributed to them by those Persons who believe what they have a mind to upon slight Grounds, but that the true Canon has not admitted of them; not that it rejects the Authority of Men that were so acceptable to God, but because 'tis not believed that those Writings belonged to them; and that it should not seem strange that these Pieces were suspected which crept into the World under the Names of such Ancient Personages, since in the very History of the Kings of Judah and Israel, which is caconical, several things are hinted at, of which no Narrative is made, and are said to be met with in other Books Writ by the Prophets, which yet are not in the Canon, which the People of God admitted of. St. Augustin confesses, that he does not know the Reason of it: [ Cujus rei, fateor, causa me latet,] but he fancies that it might so happen, That those very Persons to whom the Holy Ghost did reveal such things as were to be made use of as the Fundamentals of Religion, have sometimes Written as Faithful Historians, and sometimes by the Inspiration of God; and that a distinction was made between those two kinds of Writings, by attributing the one to them, as their own Work, and the other to God, who spake by them: That the one may be supposable to give us greater and clearer Notices of Matters of Fact; the other to establish Religion: That as for the Authority of them, regard ought to be had to the Canon, that if under the Name of Ancient Prophets such Books are produced which are not contained therein, they are not Credited, because one is not assured that they belong to those Persons who are said to be the Authors of them; and the rather if there are in them such things as are contrary to the Faith of the caconical Books; which shows that they are none of theirs to whom they are attributed.  
If it be asked, what Reasons can be given how these Books came to be lost, St. Chrystom informs us of the chief of them in the 9th Homily on St. Matthew, where he observes, upon the account of this Passage, [ That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.] That several Monuments of the Prophets are lost, as may be proved from the Chronicles. For( as he then adds) the Jews having been at some times Careless and Negligent, and at other times profane, they suffered some of these Books to be lost thro' their carelessness, and have burnt or destroyed others. Jeremiah makes mention of their Profaneness, and concerning their Negligence we red in the second Book of Kings, that for a long time together the Book of deuteronomy could not be met with, which was hide under Ground some where or other, and almost Worm-eaten. Now if the Sacred Books were lost in a time of profound Peace, who would wonder at such an Accident when the Gentiles made War against them and Invaded their Country? St. Chrysostom in this place sets down three Causes of the loss of these Books.( 1.) The carelessness of the Jews, who did not preserve them.( 2.) Their Profaneness, which induced them to burn, or destroy them. And( 3.) The Wars and Incursions of the Gentiles, the Captivity of the Jews, the Destruction of the Temple and City of Jerusalem, the Dominion which the Strange and Pagan Kings had over them; as, for Instance, Antiochus, who was for Extirpating the Jewish Religion, and who caused their Books to be burnt, as 'tis related, 1 Maccab. 1.56. The Author of the abridgement of Scripture, attributed to St. Athanasius, alleges the two first of these Reasons for the Loss of the Books cited in the Old Testament, viz. Judaeorum incuriam& amentiam. And St. Eucherius produces the last: 'tis evident( says he,) why we have not remaining the Books which the Holy Scripture approves of; because Judea having been ravaged by the Chaldeans, and the Ancient Bibliotheque being burnt, there remained only a small number of Books, which at present makes up the Holy Scriptures, and which were collected and re-established by the Care of Ezrah.  
Let us now come to the Books which are not in the Canon of the Old Testament, but are still extant, of which this is the Catalogue. The Prayer of King Manasseh when Captive at Babylon cited in the Second Book of Chronicles, Ch. 33. where 'tis said that it was taken out of the Sayings of Hosai; which in Greek as well as in our English Version is rendered the Sayings of the Seers or Prophets. 'tis to be met with in the Apocryphal Writings, just after the History of Bell and the Dragon: It is not very Eloquent, but 'tis full of very good thoughts. The Latin Fathers have often cited it, but 'tis neither in the Greek nor Hebrew Text, only in Latin.  
The third and fourth Book of Esdras or Ezrah are likewise in Latin in the Bibles of the Vulgar Translation, just after the Prayer of Manasseh. The third, which we have in Greek, is only a Recapitulation of the two first. It is cited by St. Athanasius, St. Augustin, and St. Ambrose. The fourth Book, which is only in Latin, is full of Visions and Dreams, and several Errors. 'tis doubtless a Converted Jew who penned it, and not the Author of the third Book.  
The third Book of the Maccabees contains the Miraculous Deliverance of the Jews of Egypt, whom Ptolemy Philopator, incensed at his being denied entrance into the Temple, when he came to Jerusalem after the Defeat of Antiochus, had exposed in the Amphitheatre of Alexandria, to the fury of Elephants. Josephus mentions this History in the second Book against Appion. This Book is in all the Greek Editions. 'tis inserted among the caconical Books in the last Canon ascribed to the Apostles; but 'tis probable it was added thereto; since no mention is made in the Chronicle of Eusebius, nor in the Author of the Synopsis attributed to St. Athanasius. This History happened under the High-Priesthood of Simon the Son of Onias, long before the Histories related in the Other two Books. It ought therefore to have been the first, and 'tis very unfitly styled, the Book of the Maccabees, since not one word is therein said of them.  
The Fourth Book, containing the History of Hircanus, is rejected as Apocryphal by the Author of the Synopsis, commonly ascribed to St. Athanasius. 'tis scarce mentioned among the Ancients. It might have been taken out of the Book of the Actions of John Hircanus, of whom mention is made at the latter end of the first Book of the Maccabees. Sixtus of Sienna assures us, that its Narration is much like that of Josephus, but has not so much of the Hebrew Idiom in it.  
There is at the end of the Book of Job in the Greek Edition, a Genealogy of Job, who is there said to be the fifth from Abraham, with an Account of the Names of the Kings of Idumea, and the Kingdoms of Arabia. This Appendix is neither in Latin nor Hebrew. There is likewise in the Greek a speech of Job's Wife, which is not in the Hebrew, and which is repudiated by Africanus and St. Jerom. There is likewise at the end of the Psalms in the Greek Edition, a Psalm, which is none of the Hundred and Fifty, composed under David's Name whilst a Youth after his fight with goliath. The Author of the Synopsis attributed to St. Athanasius, cites it, and places it among the caconical Books. Lastly, After the Book of Wisdom there is a Speech of King Solomon taken out of the Eighth Chapter of the first Book of Kings.  
We have not by us the Book of Enoch so famous of old Times, cited by St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Athenagoras, St. Jerom, and several other Fathers; But we learn by the Passages which the Fathers have cited out of it, and by the Fragments of it, that remain in the Testament of the twelve patriarches, and in the Chronology of Syncellus, that he treats of Stars and their Influence; of the Angels Descending down to the Earth, and their Familiarity with the Daughters of Men; of the Giants Born of them; of the things that should happen to the Jews, of our Saviour, of the Destruction of Jerusalem, of the Dispersion of the Jews, and of the Last judgement. It contains a great many Fictions on these Subjects: Therefore all the Fathers except Tertullian, have looked upon it as an Apocryphal Book, which did not belong to the Patriarch Enoch. What causes the greatest difficulty, is, That it seems as if this Book were cited as Enoch's by the Apostle St. judas in his caconical Epistle, V. 14. Enoch also( says he in that place) the Seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with Ten Thousands of his Saints, &c. Now from hence it may be inferred, that we must either reject the Epistle of St. judas, or believe that the Book was really of that Patriarch's Composing. St. Augustin solves the Difficulty, by saying that the True or Genuine Book of Enoch as cited by St. judas, is different from that which was known to St. Irenaeus, St. Justin and the other Fathers who lived in the first Ages of the Church. But this seems to be scarce probable, For which reason St. Jerom after Origen replies, that St. judas might have cited an Apocryphal Book, and yet his Epistle be no less caconical; and that there are several passages taken out of the Apocryphal Writings to be met with even in the other Books of the New Testament; which ought not to lessen the Authority of the caconical Books, nor make the Apocryphal to be Authentic. Some of the Moderns have pretended to wind themselves out of this Difficulty with more ease, by maintaining that St. judas does not speak of a Book of Enoch, but only of a prophesy of that Patriarch, which he had learnt by Tradition, as St. Paul mentions the Names of Jannes and Jambres, the Magicians of Pharaoh, from the Tradition of the Jews: But this Opinion which is contrary to the Sentiments of all the Ancients, seems to be very improbable, and St. Jerom's Solution of the matter ought rather to be relied on.  
The Book of the Assumption of Moses, from whence 'tis pretended. That St. judas has taken the Testimony of Michael the Arch-Angel, disputing with the Devil about the Body of Moses, is not so remarkable among the Ancients. However 'tis cited by Origen, in the third Book of his Principia. St. Clement in the sixth Book of his Stromata, pag. 679. relates a Vision of Joshua and Caleb, taken out of this Book. Oecumenius in his Commentary on the Epistle of St. judas, repeats the Speech of the Angel to the Devil, [ Increpet te Deus, O Diabole, the Lord rebuk thee, Satan,] as taken out of this Book. St. Jerom assures us, that 'tis a very hard matter to tell from whence St. judas took this passage. He observes that there is something like it in the prophesy of Zachariah, Ch. 3.2.[ In our English Version of the Bible, the Words are the very same.] The Author of the Synopsis, attributed to St. Athanasius, places this Book and another like it, entitled, The Testament of Moses, among the Apocryphal Writings.  
Origen likewise cites a Book, entitled, The Assumption, the Apocalypse, or the Secrets of Elijah. Syncellus after him pretends, that 'tis out of the Apocryphal Book, that St. Paul took this Sentence, which is in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch. 2.9. Eye hath not Seen, nor Ear Heard, Neither have entered into the Heart of Man, the things which God hath prepared for them, that love Him: And that in the Galatians, Ch. 5.6. For in Christ Jesus, neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Uncircumcision, but Faith which worketh by Love. He farther supposes that this Passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. 5.14. [ Awake thou that Sleepest,] is taken out of an Apocryphal Book of Jeremiah. But it may so happen that in the two different Books, there may be the like Sentences and Expressions, and yet it does not from thence necessary follow, that the one Author borrowed them from the other. Origen does likewise city an Apocryphal Book, from whence he pretends that the prophesy mentioned in St. Matthew's Gospel, Ch. 27. v. 9.( The thirty Pieces of Silver the price of him that was valued, &c.) was taken, St. Jerom makes the same Remark, and says that the Nazarenes made use of that Instance.  
Several Jews have forged Books which they have fathered on the patriarches, such, for Instance, as the Book entitled, The Generations and Creations of Adam. It was a common Opinion among them, that Adam composed a Treatise concerning the Philosopher's ston: And there is a Book of magic, which they attributed to Cham, of which Cassian makes mention, Confer. 8. Ch. 21.  
The Author of the Synopsis attributed to St. Athanasius, makes mention of a Book concerning the Assumption of Abraham. 'tis manifestly the same Book that is cited in the 35th Homily upon St. Luke, ascribed to Origen, where 'tis said that in this Book were introduced the Angels and the Devils disputing together about the Salvation or Damnation of Abraham. The Jews have likewise a Book under the Name of Abraham, entitled Setsira, i. e. of the Creation, which some ascribe to Rabbi Akiba.  
The Author of the Homilies on St. Luke, attributed to Origen, in the 15th Homily and several other city the Testament of the twelve patriarches 
The Testament of the twelve patriarches.] This Book was translated from the Hebrew into Latin by Robert Bishop of Lincoln.[ John earnest Grabe in his late Spicilegium Patrum, Printed at Oxford, has it entire in Greek and Latin, before which he has placed a Learned Dissertation of his own in Latin.] It contains several Prophecies and Moral Instructions put into the mouths of the dying patriarches: There are several Passages taken out of the Book of Enoch. It contains Predictions of the Sins and Punishment of the Jews; of the Death of the Saviour of the World; and of the Destruction, Captivity, and Dispersion of the Jewish People. Procopius cites this Tract in his Commentary on the 38th Chapter of Genesis. , and the Dispute or Discourse between Joseph and Jacob, which Origen cites, and commends in his Commentaries on Genesis, and on St. John.  
The Author of the Synopsis, attributed to St. Athanasius, speaks of two Apocryphal Pieces, of which one is the prophesy of Habakkuk, from whence 'tis said, that the History of Bell and the Dragon, which is in Daniel, was taken; and the other, a Collection of Prophecies under the Name of Ezekiel, divided into two parts. Hermas, one of the most ancient Christian Writers, in his Pastor, Ch. 2. cites the prophesy of Eldad and Medad, two Prophets mentioned, Numb. 11.26, 27. The Author of the Synopsis puts this Piece among the Apocryphal Writings.  
Origen and St. Ambrose city a Book of Jannes and Jambres, the Magicians of Pharaoh, which is rejected by Gelasius as an Apocryphal Piece. There is likewise a Book of Og King of Bashan, which is reckoned as Apocryphal by the same Pope.  
The gnostics have forged a Book, entitled, The Apocalypse or Revelation of Adam, of which St. Epiphanius makes mention. The Manichees have likewise feigned a Book entitled, De Genealogia, or of the Sons and Daughters of Adam, of which mention is made in the Books of St. Augustin against Faustus, and which, with another concerning Adam's Repentance, is placed among the Heretical Books by Pope Gelasius.  
The Author of the imperfect Commentary on St. Matthew, Ch. 2. cites a Book, entitled, Seth, which contains a Prediction of the Star that appeared at our Saviour's Birth.  
The Ebionites have forged a Book, entitled, Jacob's Ladder, as St. Epiphanius testifies, who likewise makes mention, Her. 40, and 67. of the Assumption of Moses, of which he cites a Fragment. St. Jerom likewise speaks of it in his Commentary on the 64th Chapter of Isaiah. Lastly, There were anciently a great many Books of this Nature, made, either by the Jews, who were great Lovers of such kind of Fictions, or by the heretics, who made use of them the better to spread their Errors. But it would be an unprofitable as well as an invidious Task, to give you an exact Catalogue of them.  
But I cannot forbear insisting on two Passages cited in the New Testament, as taken from the Prophets, which are not in any of them, and, which some have pretended, were taken out of other Books. The first is in St. Matthew, Ch. 2. v. ult. where 'tis said, That Jesus dwelled in a City called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. These words, He shall be called a Nazarene, are not in any of the Prophets, that we have by us; which made St. Chrysostom suppose that they were taken from some other Prophet's Writing, which is lost. Others pretend, that they were taken from the 11th Chapter of Isaiah, v. 1. where 'tis prophesied, that a Branch shall grow, &c. which Word in Hebrew is Netzer. Huetius supposes that this Passage is taken out of the 13th Chapter of Judges, v. 5. where 'tis said; He shall be a Nazarite from his Mother's Womb. But, after all, the most probable Opinion is that of St. Jerom, who believes that St. Matthew did not city any of the Prophets in particular, but all of 'em in general, who had prophesied, That Jesus Christ should be Holy, and Devoted to God, as the Nazarenes were.  
The other Passage is cited by the same Evangelist, Ch. 27. Ver. 9, 10. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet, saying, And they took the thirty Pieces of Silver, the Price of him that was valued, whom they of the Children of Israel did value, and they gave them for the Potter's Field, as the Lord appointed me. Now this prophesy is not to be met with in Jeremiah; but there is a Notion much like it in the Prophet Zachary, Ch. 11. Ver. 12. Origen in the 35th Tract on St. Matthew, asserts, That it must be said, that this Passage is taken out of an Apocryphal Book entitled, The Secrets of Jeremiah; or else it must be owned, that through the Fault of the Transcribers, the Name Jeremiah is crept into the Gospel instead of Zachariah. Some other Authors aver, that this prophesy was struck out of the Book of Jeremiah. Others have recourse to Tradition, which( as they pretend) had preserved this prophesy of Jeremiah down to the time of St. Matthew. 'tis likely, say others, That this prophesy, being composed of the Words of Jeremiah, and the Thought of Zachariah, it was cited under the former's Name, just as in St. Mark, Ch. 1. v. 2. A prophesy of Malachy joined to another of Isaiah, is attributed to the latter. But 'tis yet more probable, that St. Matthew having only said, as was foretold by the Prophet, without naming any one, the Name of Jeremiah has since been added to the Text of the Gospel: For this Evangelist was never used to Name the Prophets whom he cites. This is St. Jerom's Solution of the Difficulty, and is more probable than any other. It may likewise more reasonably be applied to St. Mark's Citation, Ch. 1. v. 2. because in the Greek Text 'tis only {αβγδ}, as 'tis Written in the Prophets; and not {αβγδ}, as is falsely set down in some Copies; nor is it, according to the Vulgar Latin Translation, where 'tis rendered, Sicut Scriptum est in Propheta, as 'tis Written in the Prophet. Besides, the very Words that are cited show, that they were not taken from one single Prophet, but from several, and the greatest part from Isaiah, tho' the former are out of Malachy. Wherefore, when in the Greek Text 'tis red Isaiah, {αβγδ}, as St. Chrysostom reads it, this Citation may be very well maintained by referring it to the Words of Isaiah which there follow.    

CHAP. II. Of the Authority of the Holy Scriptures: And herein, concerning the several Kinds of Revelations; with a particular Account of prophesy, Divine Inspiration, and the Infallibility of the Sacred Writings.  

SECT. I. That the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is founded on this Principle or Maxim, viz. That God cannot Deceive us.  
SInce the Infallible Authority of the Holy Scriptures is founded on the Faith that ought to be had in the Word of God; the better to Establish and Confirm it, 'tis requisite that we should discuss Two Questions; The one is a Matter of Equity and Right, viz. Whether the Word of God be necessary True; and whether 'tis not possible for him to deceive Men by a lie: The other is Matter of Fact, viz. Whether the caconical Books of the Holy Scriptures be really the Word of God, and how one may be ascertained that they are so.  
As to the former of these Queries, 'tis very easy to decide it by Principles of natural Reason. The Idea which we have even by Nature of God, as a Being of Infinite Perfections, and consequently a Being Infinitely Wise, and Infinitely Good, convinces us very evidently of his Veracity. He may upon good Reason conceal some Truths from us by his Wisdom, but can never command us to believe Falshoods to be Truths; That being repugnant to his Wisdom and his Goodness too. 'tis upon this Principle is founded the Certainty of all, even the Natural Notions which we have. For we can't be sure that we are not deceived in things that appear most Evident to us, and of which we have clear and distinct Conceptions, but only because we know 'tis impossible that God should give us such a Natural Light as would deceive us, and represent to us a Falsity as if it were a Truth: And further, that since he is so Wise and Good, as certainly he is, he could not have made us of such a Nature as is subject to Deception in things of which we have a clear Idea, and believe to be true; and thereby have laid us under a fatal Necessity of being deceived, and of never being able to distinguish Truth from falsehood. This Argument is still of greater force with respect to the Revelation which God himself has made to us of some Truths, whether immediately or mediately by the Ministry of others; for then it must be said, that God himself is a Cheat and Impostor, who took a secret Delight in blinding us with Error. The Holy Scriptures represent all along to us the Veracity of God in his Sayings, and his Faithfulness in his Promises. Thus 'tis said, God is not as man that he should lie, or as the Son of man that he should repent or be subject to change. He is faithful, and without guile; He is faithful in all his words, and holy in all his works. All men are liars, but God is faithful and true. He is faithful and cannot deny himself. Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but his words shall not pass away. In a word, There is nothing certain in this World, if God in his Nature can deceive us; his Goodness, Veracity and Faithfulness are the very Foundations of all our Knowledge and Notions of things. There are therefore none, unless Men devoid of all Sense, who can deny this Principle or Maxim, viz. That whatever God has revealed to Men, whether by himself, or by the Ministry of Angels or Men, is certainly True.  
The only Objection that can possibly be brought against this great Truth, is, That we red in several places of Holy Scripture, that God was minded to deceive Men, and made use of his Prophets to led them into Error. 'tis said in the first Book of Kings, Ch. 22. v. 23. That the Lord designing to deceive Ahab, put a lying Spirit into the Mouth of all that King's Prophets: Dedit Spiritum mendacii in ore Prophetarum. Job observes, Ch. 12. v. 24, 25. That God taketh away the heart of the Chief of the People of the earth, that he causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way; That he blindeth them, and maketh them to stagger( or, according to the Hebrew, to Wander) like a drunken man. Ezekiel in the 14th Chapter declares, in the Name of God, that when Men corrupted and full of Sins shall come to consult the Prophet, God would answer them according to the Multitude of their Iniquities; so that the House of Israel should be deceived because they had followed Idols; and the Prophet who deceived them, should be first deceived by God himself. The Prophet Jeremiah Ch. 4. V. 10. Says that God had greatly deceived the People and City of Jerusalem, in saying: Ye shall have Peace, whereas the Sword reacheth unto the Soul. In the same manner God deceived the Israelites, when he twice answered them and bad them go up and fight the Benjamites, and yet they were both times defeated by the Children of Benjamin, judge. 20. 'tis said farther, that God estrangeth Men from his Way; that he hardens their Hearts, that they might not fear the Lord; that he hardened the Heart of Pharaoh: and in the New Testament Jesus Christ says, mat. 13.13, 14. That he spake to the People in Parables, because they seeing see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand: And that in them is fulfiled the prophesy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive. This( say they) is a Spirit of Deception and Delusion. St. Paul informs us that God had abandoned the Heathen Philosophers to a reprobate mind; and 2 Thess. 2.10, 11. that to those who would not receive the Love of the Truth, that they might be saved, he would sand {αβγδ}, i.e. a strong Delusion, that they should believe a lie. To this may be likewise added the Instances of such lies as God seemed to have approved of and to reward; as for Instance, That of Abraham, who  told his Servants that he would return to them with his Son, tho' he went from them with a design of offering him up as a Sacrifice; that of Jacob to Isaac, who deceived him, and supplanted his Brother Esau of the Blessing of Promogeniture; and that of the Egyptian Midwives, who lied to Pharaoh that they might save the Children of the Israelites alive.  
This is not a proper place to treat of these matters thoroughly, which we intend to explain hereafter. As a present Answer to the Objection 'tis enough to aver that in none of the Instances alleged does God either by himself, or by the Prophets sent by him represent a falsehood for a Truth. He only permits that Men for the punishment of their Sins should be deceived by false Prophets, or misunderstand the Sayings of the true Prophets; but he never orders His Prophets to teach them Error.  
The Prophets whom Ahab had consulted, were false Prophets. Jehosaphat a Religious Prince, asked for one of the Lord's Prophets, and accordingly Michaiah was brought. He, to give the King the Reason why all his false Prophets had imposed upon and deceived him, expresses himself in a figurative Style, and says that he had seen the Lord Seated on his Throne, and all the Host of Heaven standing by him on his Right-Hand and on his Left; that God asked, who will deceive the King of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead? That some answered on this Manner, and others on that: That a Spirit came forth, and stood before the Lord, and said that he would persuade him, and be a Lying Spirit in the Mouth of all his Prophets; and that this was the reason why they were all filled with a Lying Spirit. All this does only prove that God for the Punishment of Ahab permitted that the Evil Spirit should deceive his false Prophets, and persuade them to prophesy to him contrary to Truth, That he should conquer. But the Spirit of God speaking by Micaiah,  told him the Truth; he would not believe it; and the false Prophets carried the point. It was not God then who deceived Ahab; it was not he who revealed a Falsity to him. 'tis Ahab who deceived himself in consulting the false Prophets; and God only permitted those false Prophets to be deceived themselves and to deceive him.  
He likewise permitted the Idolaters, who consulted the Prophet to be deceived by the Prophet who was deceived himself. This is the meaning of that Passage of Ezekiel, Ch. 14. V. 7, 8, 9. Where 'tis said, When any one of the House of Israel, or of the Stranger, or Proselyte, that sojourneth in Israel, which separateth himself from me, and setteth up his Idols in his heart, and putteth the Stumbling Block of his Iniquity before his Face, and cometh to a Prophet to inquire of him concerning me; I the Lord will answer him by myself. And I will set my Face against that Man, and will make him a sign and a Proverb, and I will cut him off from the midst of my People, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. And if the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that Prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my People Israel. In this Place God says that he had deceived that Prophet because he had permitted him to be deceived, because he had not inspired him; and that That Prophet designing to himself some Advantage from those who came to consult him, had answered them in the Name of the Lord. The Prophet whom they consulted is an Impostor; God permits him to be deceived, thereby to punish those Idolaters. They came to consult the Prophet of a God whom they did not Worship: Was it reasonable that this God should inspire his Prophet in favour of them? Did they not rather deserve to be abandoned to their own Inventions? How could they complain that God deceived them, when this Prophet did not tell them the Truth?  
As to Jeremiah, he does not speak of the true Oracles of the Lord, but of the Sayings and Predictions of the false Prophets, who out of a false Complaisance had promised and foretold the People, that they should have the Peace which they desired, and were willing should be foretold to them.  
As to the Answer which God made twice to the Israelites about falling upon the Benjamites; It was their own Rashness and false Confidence in their Strength, that put them under that Misfortune. They did not consult the Lord about their Success, they had made no preparation for any such thing; but only asked him whether the Tribe of Juda should go against Bethel and fight the Benjamites. The Lord returned them no answer about the Event, but only bad them Go: They are indeed defeated, but God never  told them that they should overcome. When they made their Preparations, and consulted with him about it, he then promised them Victory, and the Event proved the Veracity of his Promise.  
Lastly, God does not blind, harden and deceive Men, by positively teaching them a falsehood and a lie, but by withholding from them those Illuminations and Measures of Grace, which he is not obliged to bestow upon them, and by permitting them to deceive themselves, or to be deceived and seduced by false Prophecies and false Miracles, the Error and Falsity of which was very difficult, but yet not Impossible for them to discover. 'tis in this sense that the Passage of St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is to be understood. That Strong Delusion, or that Energy of Delusion( according to the Greek) which God sent to them who rejected the Truth, is the Permission which he allows to Wicked Men, to do whatever is most likely to seduce them, and to make them believe a lie. They hated and despised the Truth which was proposed to them, for which reason God permitted them to be deceived and seduced. The force of the Truth had no effect upon them; the Prevalency of Lying, that is, whatever was capable to seduce, should have its Effect, and led them into Error. The same may be said of the Heathen Philosophers, whom God, because they had not glorified him as God, had given over to a Reprobate Mind, that is, left them to follow their own Wicked Imaginations, and abandoned them to all manner of Lust and 'vice.  
As to the Conduct of our Saviour Jesus Christ who spoken in Parables, that those to whom he spake might not understand him, it cannot be said, That this was a Fallacy or Delusion. He had wise and good Reasons for not discovering his Mysteries clearly to all the World. He was not obliged to it, he might conceal and veil a Truth, which he was willing should be understood by some, without deceiving others.  
I shall not at present enter into the Dispute, whether 'tis not lawful for Men to lie upon some occasions, and whether the patriarches lies will admit of an excuse or no. 'tis enough for my purpose, that it cannot be said that God can deceive Men, by teaching them and obliging them to believe a false Doctrine. This is unconceivable, whatever allowances may be otherwise made for Equivocations or Untruths. For nothing in the World can be brought to justify the Conduct of God, if he takes a pleasure to deceive Men by teaching them a false Doctrine, and obliging them to believe it as if it were true, by showing them a way to conduct them to Truth and Salvation, which at the same time would led them into Error and Damnation: This is a heap of Absurdities; 'tis to form such an Idea of God as is contrary to what we ought to have of him; and 'tis, as I said, to overthrow the first Principle of all our Conceptions.   

SECT. II. Of the different kinds of Revelations which God made to Men in the Old Testament.  
BEfore we inquire whether the Books of the holy Scripture are the Word of God; i. e. Whether there is nothing in these Books but what God has revealed and inspired; 'tis requisite to explain in what manner, when, and by whom God did speak to Mankind, or revealed his Truths to them.  
The Apostle St. Paul comprehends in a few Words all the Revelations which it pleased God to make unto Men: For thus he begins his Epistle to the Hebrews, God has formerly spoken to our Fathers at sundry Times and in divers Manners by the Prophets, and in these last Days has spoken to us by his Son. All the Revelations then may be reduced to two Periods of time; viz.( 1.) Those that were made upon several occasions, or by parts and at several times( for so the Greek Word {αβγδ}, used by him signifies) to the patriarches, to Moses, and to the Prophets( for all this is comprised under the General Name of Prophets) down to the coming of Jesus Christ. And( 2.) Those that were afterwards made by his own Son, Whom he appointed Heir of all things, by whom also he made the World. The former of these Revelations was made at several times, and upon different occasions, {αβγδ}, and in divers manners, {αβγδ}, by several Persons: But the latter was made all at once by his only begotten Son. The first was imperfect; it was deficient in a great many things; therein were contained but a few Truths, in comparison of that great Number reserved to the days of the Messiah: But the last is complete and perfect; nothing is wanting in it: Nothing farther is to be expected or hoped for in this World. This is the Perfection and Conclusion of the Revelations; as nothing like it appeared before, so nothing like it shall be revealed hereafter, but this shall last to the end of the World. These are the Truths which we discover in this Passage of St. Paul. But since he tells us, That God spake at several times, and upon divers Occasions, and after sundry Manners to our Fathers before the coming of Jesus Christ: 'tis requisite we consult the Old Testament, to discover the principal Occasions upon which he spake to them, and the Methods which he used to explain himself to them.  
In the General, we may distinguish the several Revelations made under the Old Testament, into four Periods of Time. The first from the Creation of Adam to Abraham: The second, which contains the Revelations made to Abraham and his descendants down to Moses; The third, the time of the Law given by Moses: The fourth, from the Death of Moses to Jesus Christ. We may likewise distinguish four several Manners which God made use of to Reveal himself to Mankind.( 1.) By Discourses in the Day:( 2.) By Visions of the Night:( 3.) By an Articulate Voice: And( 4.) by internal Inspirations. Lastly, God has sometimes taken upon him external Forms, and spoken to them himself. He has sometimes spoken by Angels, sometimes by the Prophets, and at other times has made use of Enigma's, Dreams, Visions, and Signs to manifest his Will to Men. These are the several Manners wherein God has spoken in the Old Testament, of which the Sacred History will furnish us with sufficient Instances.  
In the State of Innocence, God conversed familiarly with Man, by making him hear his Voice. Cum Audissent vocem Domini Deambulantis in Paradiso; As 'tis said of our first Parents after their Fall; For that was the usual method by which God expressed himself to them. 'tis very probable, that he afterwards continued to speak to Men after the same manner, and that it was this Articulate Voice which pronounced Sentence upon Adam and Eve, which reproached Cain for his Offence, and which instructed Noah how he should build the Ark to save himself from the Deluge. When he came out of the Ark again, and was the Only Person with his Family that then remained, God did doubtless again make use of the same Voice in prescribing him Precepts, and making a fresh Covenant with him. God made a New and larger Covenant with Abraham, to whom he not only spoken in an Articulate Voice, but also appeared to him in the Valley of Moriah, tho' under what Form is not there said: Secondly, in confirming his Covenant with him under the Form of Fire; Thirdly, in a Vision; And lastly, In the Form of a Man attended with two Angels under the same disguise. He appeared in a Dream to Jacob in Bethel, where he saw a Ladder whose Top reached unto the Heavens, Angels ascending and descending upon it, and the Lord himself standing above it. Upon Jacob's return from Padan-Aram, the Lord appeared to him again under the Form of a Man, and wrestled with him. The first time he appeared to Moses, was under the Form of a Burning fiery Bush, from whence a Voice called to him, and sent him to deliver the People of Israel. He afterwards discoursed with him familiarly. All the People of Israel heard his Voice from Mount Sinai through the Cloud, with the thunderings and Lightnings, when he distinctly pronounced the Law of the Ten Commandments to them. Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the Seventy Elders of the People of Israel being met together saw the God of Israel, under whose Feet was, as it were, a paved work of a Sapphire ston, and as it were the Body of Heaven in its clearness. Yet they saw no Similitude, but only heard his Voice out of the midst of the Fire. Moses conversed a long time with God on that Mountain, and there received the Law at his Hands. He there saw part of the Glory of the Lord. When the Tabernacle was built, the Lord descended upon it in the Form of a bright Pillar of Smoke, and Moses coming near it, heard the Voice which came out of the Tabernacle, and which spake to him in the Name of the Lord. After these Manners did he reveal to Moses all the Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral Laws of the Jewish Religion. After Moses there appeared no Prophet in Israel like to him, to whom God spake face to face, as a Man does to his Friend. God spake to the rest in Visions or in a Dream. If there be any Prophet among you, saith the Lord, I will appear to him in a Vision, or I will speak to him in a Dream; but not as I have done to my servant Moses, who has been the most faithful in all my house, with whom I talked face to face, clearly without a veil, and who saw the Glory of the Lord.  
Most of the Revelations which God has made to the Prophets among the Children of Israel since the time of Moses, have been by Inspiration, by Vision, or in a Dream. By Inspiration, when being full of the Holy Ghost, they Prophesied of things to come: By the Vision of the Day, when being awake, their Imagination represented to them certain Objects, which were the Figures and Representations of things to come: In a Dream, when in their Sleep they imagined that they saw either God, or an Angel speaking to them, or the things to come were represented to them under certain Types and Figures. They afterwards declared the Truths, that they knew, and the Event of some of their Prophecies was a Confirmation of the Truth of the rest. God did likewise make his Will to be known by the Ephod, or Breast-Plate of the High-Priest, where was the Urim and Thummim, that is, the Light and the Truth. The Scripture does not inform us in what manner this was done, the most common Opinion is, That it was by an extraordinary lustre and shining of the Precious Stones that were set in the chaces of that Ornament. But I believe 'tis most likely, that the High-Priest, having the Ephod on, consulted the Lord, and received his Answer from the Mercy-seat, as 'tis hinted, Numb. 27. 21. If there be any thing to be undertaken, the High-Priest Eleazar shall consult the Lord, and according to his answer shall the People go and come. The High-Priest in consulting the Lord, and in receiving an answer to it, was to have the Ephod on. For this reason, David willing to know whether Saul would come to seek for him at Keilah, and whether he should be delivered into his hands by the People of that Place, bids the High-Priest Abiathar to put on his Ephod, and to ask Counsel of the Lord, who return'd him for answer, that he should be delivered into the hands of Saul, if the tarried in that place. 'tis for this Cause, that the Urim and the Thummim, the Light and the Truth are said to be in the Ephod, because the High-Priest having this Ornament on him, receives from God the Light and the Truth which he declares to Men.  
These are the Methods which God used in the Old Testament to Reveal some Truths to Men: He has discovered them to 'em by little and little. The Covenant which he made with Noah was for the whole Race of Mankind, and only contains the Promise which he made, never to destroy them by a Universal Deluge again, and Prohibiting them from Eating Blood with the Flesh, and from being guilty of Murder. As for Abraham, God caused him to depart from his own Country that was full of Idolatry, makes himself known to him, Commands him to Worship him in a peculiar manner, Promises to give him the Land of Canaan, and that all the Earth should be Blessed through his Seed; and enjoins him to observe Circumcision, as a token of his Covenant with him.  
The Law which God gave to Moses and the Israelites was of a much larger extent. It contained a great many Moral Precepts suited to the Conduct of Human Life; many Ceremonial Laws proper for the Religion, and Judicial Laws adapted to the Civil Government of that People. In short, it composed. the whole Body of the Religion and Polity of the Jewish People. The Prophets who came afterwards established no New Laws, but only recommended to the Jews the Observation of the Old ones; gave them several Admonitions in the Name of the Lord, and foretold them of several things that should happen to them.  
Whatever then of these Revelations God was minded should be preserved to us, is comprised in the Books of the Old Testament. Moses is the first who wrote by the Order of God himself; not only the Precepts of the Law which he had received, but also the History of the Creation of the World, the principal Revolutions which happened, and the Revelations which God had made to other Men before him. Other Men inspired by God, have from time to time, since Moses, wrote the History of God's Dispensations towards the Jews, and some of the Prophets by God's express Order have left behind them the chief and most excellent of their Prophecies. 'tis in these Works, which the Jews have with the utmost Care preserved, and which they have esteemed as Divine, Sacred, and penned by the Inspiration of God; 'tis in them, I say, may be seen the Revelations which God made to our Fathers, on different Occasions and in divers Manners.  
The Jews pretend, that beside the Written Law left them by Moses, there is another Oral Law given to Moses, which they preserved by Tradition, and which informs them of a great many things which are not in the Written Law. But this is an Hypothesis, that has no Foundation. There is not the least mention made of this Law in any one place of the Written Law, nor is it grounded on any credible Testimony. All their pretended Traditions cannot be traced so far back as the times of Jesus Christ; and the Collection which is made of them in their Talmud, contains abundance of Falsities, Fables, Absurdities and Fooleries. In the days of our Saviour, the Jews had indeed some Traditions, but such as were often contrary to the Law of God, as Jesus Christ objected to them. So that it would be unreasonable and groundless to make any of those Traditions to pass for the Word of God. The Jews might have retained some ancient Ceremonies, and one may make use of their Customs and Usages for the explaining several places of the Books of the Old Testament; but one cannot be certain of any Revelation upon their pretended Tradition, or Oral Law. We will therefore lay down this as a certain Maxim, That of all the Revelations which God made to Men in divers Manners before Jesus Christ, there are no other Authentic, and of which we may be ascertained, but only those that are contained in the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, and that the only way to be instructed therein, is to consult and meditate these Books.   

SECT. III. Of prophesy in particular, and the several sorts of it: The way to distinguish the False Prophets from the True.  
THE Name of Prophet, in Hebrew Nabi, has a more extensive Signification, than is commonly imagined. There was a time when the Prophets were usually styled Seers, in Hebrew Roé, as is observed in the first Book of Samuel, Ch. 9. Ver. 9. where 'tis said, That before time in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, let us go to the Seer,( row) for he that is now called a Prophet( NABI,) was formerly called( row,) a Seer. This is in a Parenthesis, which may have been inserted in that Place, since the Book was composed; but let that be as it will, it shows that there was a time when the Name Roè, which signifies a Seer, was the most common Term among the Hebrews to denote a Prophet. That Title signifies nothing else than an enlightened, and clearsighted Person, which might as well be applied to the Time past or Present, as to that which is to come. But still it was understood of such Persons who knew things which were unknown to other Men, and which God had revealed to them after a peculiar Manner. Whereupon Balaam begins his prophesy in these Terms, Numb. 24.3. Behold, thus saith the man whose eyes are open; he which hath heard the words of God, who saw the Vision of the Almighty, falling in a Trance, but having his eyes open. Thus you see the Use and Signification of the Name Seer very properly denoted in this place.  
The word Nabi, according to some, is derived from Noub, which signifies to produce, to bud forth, and by a Metaphor to speak. In this Sense, a Prophet would be nothing else but an Orator, or a Preacher. Others derive it from the Root Naba, which among the Hebrews signifies to prophesy, but with the Arabians it denotes, to be great, or advanced. By Custom, the Word Nabi, or Prophet, came to be given to those who speak in the Name of the Lord, to whom God reveals his Will that they might declare it to others. 'tis in this Sense, That Moses is styled, The Prophet of the Lord, and Aaron is called, The Prophet of Moses. Exod. 7.1. See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy Brother shall be thy Prophet. Aaron shall speak in thy Name to Pharaoh, as the Prophets speak to other Men in the Name of God. So that prophesy is not only the Knowledge and Prediction of future things known by Revelation; but likewise all that God makes known and reveals to Man after a special and peculiar Manner. Therefore, To prophesy denotes,( 1.) The Fore-telling an uncertain Futurity, not by Conjectures, but by a certain Knowledge and Foresight that they have of it.( 2.) The discovering or declaring things past or present, which are obscure and concealed; as when one goes to a Prophet, to know where one may find that which is lost. After this manner Samuel Prophesied, when he informed Saul, that his Father's Asses were found again: And Elisha, when he tells his Servant Gehazi all that had passed between him and Naaman the Syrian. After the same manner did our Blessed Saviour prophesy, when he discovered such Secrets as none else knew any thing of, as when he  told the Centurion, that his Servant was healed, and his Apostles, that Lazarus was dead.( 3.) To prophesy, is to declare to Men, Vivâvoce, or by Writing, such Truths as God has revealed after an especial manner; either such Truths as are above the reach of a human Mind; or such as might have been, or are already known by other ways; provided, that the Person who declares them, be ascertained of them by Vision or Inspiration. In this Sense, All those to whom God reveals any Truths to be discovered to Men, are Prophets; All those whom he Inspires to proclaim Truths to Men, who either pronounce or writ them by the Movement of that Inspiration, and by a particular direction of the Holy Spirit, who guides their Minds, their Tongues and their Pens, may be called Prophets, and their Discourses or their Works may be styled prophesy. 'tis in this Sense, That Abraham, Moses, and the other patriarches are styled Prophets in the Sacred Scriptures. 'tis in this Sense, That the Singers, who sung and played on Instruments, Hymns to the Praise of God, are styled Prophets, 1 Sam. 10.5. 1 Chron. 15.24, 27. and Ch. 25. Ver. 1, 2, 3. 'tis in this Sense, That 'tis said in the Proverbs, Ch. 29.18. Where there is no prophesy,[ or as it is in our English Version, where there is no Vision,] the People perish; Cum cessaverit Prophetia, dissipabitur Populus. 'tis in this Sense, That Josephus has given the Name of Prophets to the Authors of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, tho' some of those Books be purely Historical. In the same Sense, do the Jews give the Name of Prophets to the Authors of the Books of Joshua, Samuel, &c. and even the Books of those whom we do in an especial manner style Prophets, contain not only Predictions, but also Narrations of things past, and a great many Moral Instructions. 'tis in this Sense, That Jesus Christ forewarns his Disciples to beware of False Prophets, who appeared in Sheep's Clothing, but inwardly are ravening Wolves. 'tis in this Sense, That St. John Baptist is called a Prophet, and even more than a Prophet, because he was the Forerunner or Harbinger of the Son of God, and came to prepare his Ways before him, by his Preachings, and declaring to Men his Coming, which God had acquainted him with, and by Preaching up Repentance. 'tis in this Sense, That St. Luke, Acts 13. says, That there were in the Church of Antioch, Prophets and Teachers, among whom were Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger. 'tis in this Sense, That St. Paul reckons prophesy as one of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 12.10. For the principal effect of this Gift of prophesy, which he prefers to all other Spiritual Gifts in the 14th Chapter of the same Epistle, is, To speak to men for their Edification, Exhortation and Consolation. 'tis a Gift which is not like that of Tongues; it is not a sign to those that believe not, but to those that believe. 'tis a Gift, by means of which, one that believes not, or is unlearned, is convinced of all, and is judged of all. He who has this Gift, reveals to others the Secrets of God. These Prophets ought to speak one after another in the Assembly, and submit what they say to the Judgement of the rest of the Prophets. If any one receives a new Revelation, he that is speaking must hold his peace; and the last must speak in his turn, that all may Learn and all may be Comforted. Thus you see, how St. Paul explains to us the Gift of prophesy: He does not restrain it to a more Prediction of things to come, but extends it to the Knowledge and Preaching of all the Truths which one knows either by Revelation or Inspiration. Lastly, 'tis in this Sense, That St. Peter, 2 Ep. 1.20, 21. says, That no prophesy of Scripture is of any private Interpretation, i. e. is not of more human Invention. For( as he presently adds) the prophesy came not in the old time by the Will of Man, but holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. These are the proper and natural Senses, wherein the Words Prophet, Prophesying, and prophesy are taken. There are indeed other improper Senses of the Word, as when 'tis said of Saul possessed and actuated by an Evil Spirit, 1 Sam. 18.10. That he prophesied in the midst of the House, and that David played upon the Harp as at other times; because he had extraordinary and violent Emotions, like to those with which sometimes the Prophets themselves were moved by the Holy Ghost: Again, When 'tis said, Ecclus. 48.16. That the Body of Elisha prophesied after his Death, because it wrought Miracles; or lastly, when Prophesying is taken for Divining, by guess and at random; as when the Soldiers striking our Saviour, said to him, prophesy, who smote thee? or else for Predicting and foreseing by Prudence, and comparing of the Conjunctures, Dispositions and Appearances of things; as 'tis said in the Proverbs, Ch. 16. V. 10. A Divine Sentence, or Divination, is in the Lips of the King, his Mouth transgresseth not in judgement. All these different Acceptations of the Word prophesy are improper, and this Term according to its proper Sense ought to be understood of the Declaration which Men make in the Name of God, either by Word of Mouth or by Writing, of such Truths as God has revealed to or inspired them with after a peculiar manner; that by their Ministry others may be informed of them.  
All Revelation is not prophesy; For the particular Revelations which God has made to some Persons, the Admonitions which he gives them once to twice in their life, whether in a Dream, or by any other way, cannot be called prophesy, nor can those who have received them be styled Prophets. If this were so, This Name must be bestowed on Abimilech, and on Laban; the former of them was admonished in a Dream to restore to Abraham, his Wife Sarah, Gen. 20.6. and the other, to do no harm to Jacob, Gen. 31.24. So might Pharaoh, Balthazzar, nabuchadnezzar, who had Dreams, by which they were foretold of what should happen to them, be called Prophets. But prophesy is a Grace or Favour which God grants to certain peculiar Persons of Revealing to, or Inspiring them with such Truths as they are to communicate to others for their Consolation and Instruction. Those to whom God vouchsafes this Favour consult him: He Reveals to them his Will in divers Manners; they answer and speak in his Name; and are for that reason styled Prophets. This is properly to be a Prophet, as St. Augustin has very well defined it, when he says, Q. 19. in Exod. Nihil aliud esse Prophetam, nisi annuntiatorem verborum Dei hominibus, qui Deum vel non possunt, vel non merentur audire.  
The Prophecies differ; First, With respect to the manner wherein Truths are revealed to the Prophets: Secondly, With respect to the manner wherein they Declare and Teach them to others: And Thirdly, In the very Nature of the Things which they Teach.  
The Truth which God revealed to the Prophets, were revealed either Mediately or Immediately to them. Mediately, by the Ministry of Angels, as he declared to Abraham, and Lot, the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Immediate Revelation is either External or Internal. External, When God by an Audible Voice informs the Prophet what he ought to say, what he ought to do, or what shall come to pass; or when he represents to him what he would have him know by Signs and Symbols. The Internal is made, either whilst one is a-sleep, or in an ecstasy and Emotion which puts the Man beside himself, or else to Persons who are awake and in their right Senses. During Sleep, this Revelation happens in divers Manners, either by Enigmatical and Symbolical Representations, or by such as are clear and distinct; or when one Dreams, that he hears and sees an Angel, a Man, or God himself, who tells him so or so. In an ecstasy, which happens, when a Man in a Swoon and beside himself, sees or hears such things as he remembers, and afterwards declares: Or when a Man perceives himself to be violently moved and agitated by an extraordinary Commotion, which heats his Imagination so much, that being no longer Master of his Thoughts or Expressions, he can do no more than lend( as it were) his Tongue, or his Pen, to the Holy Ghost, which fills him. This kind of Revelation was very common to the Ancient Prophets, who were subitaneously filled with the Holy Ghost; which the Sacred Scriptures style, Irruit supper eum Spiritus Domini, which seized upon their Senses and Reason, and made them pronounce their Prophecies with violence and transport. This State or Condition of a Prophet, Jeremiah very elegantly compares to that of a Drunken Man. I am( says he, Ch. 23. ver. 9.) like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, because of the Lord, and because of his holiness. He gives us another description of the same thing, Ch. 20. ver. 7, 9. where he says, O Lord thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: Thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed. I said I will not make mention of the Lord, nor speak any more in his Name: But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my Bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and could not stay. Lastly, God discovers Truths to Persons who are awake and in their right Senses, by Inspiration, two several ways, either when he represents to their Imagination and Mind in a clear and distinct manner, the Truths which they had no Knowledge of any other way, and causes them to declare or writ them down; by an internal Inspiration which they cannot resist; as when Amos says, in the third Chapter of his prophesy, Ver. 8. The Lord hath spoken, Who can but prophesy? Or when the Holy Ghost guides and directs the Mind of him who speaks and writes, so that tho' at other times he knows what he writes and speaks naturally, freely and without constraint; yet then the Holy Ghost does not permit him to writ any thing contrary to Piety or Truth. The Jews, as we already observed, make a distinction between Inspiration and prophesy. According to them, prophesy is only a Thing revealed to Man whilst Asleep or in a Swoon, who has a Vision wherein he perceives some body speaking to him; or sees the Representations and Images of something, or only hears a Voice. Whereas the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost is, When a Man being awake and undisturbed, having all his Senses about him, speaks after his usual manner, without feeling any thing extraordinary in him; unless it be, that he is excited by the Spirit of the most High, who enlightens his Understanding, puts Words into his Mouth, and makes him to publish Praises and Thanksgivings to his God, or Instructions and Reproofs to Men, or to Foretell Things to come, his Mind and Reason being fortified by the Divine Assistance. These are the Words of Rabbi Kimchi, in his Preface to the Psalms. Rabbi Moses, the Son of Maimon, in More Nevochim, Ch. 45. styles this Inspiration, the Second Degree of prophesy, and defines it thus: When a Man feels in himself a Power and Motion which stirs him up to speak, so that he says extraordinary things concerning Arts and Sciences, or sings Psalms or Hymns, or delivers Moral Precepts, very useful for the good Conduct of human Life; or speaks of that which relates to the Political State, or of what concerns Religion, being awake and in his right Mind; This( says he) is what we call speaking by the Holy Ghost. These rabbis had great reason to reckon the Hymns and Songs among the effects of the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; for Asaph, Heman, Jeduthim, the Authors of several of those Hymns, are called Prophets; and 'tis said, that they Prophesied when they sang the Psalms, 1 Chron. 25.1, 2, 3. The Songs which we have in the Holy Scripture; as for instance, those in the Old Testament, of Moses and his Sister miriae, of Moses alone, of Deborah and Barak, of Hannah, and of Isaiah; and in the New Testament, those of the Virgin Mary, Elizabeth, Zachariah, Simeon, &c. were all the Productions of the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The Primitive Christians, among whom the Gift of prophesy was very common, as St. Justin and St. Irenaeus testify, did recite and compose Songs Ex tempore. 'tis of those Songs that St. Paul speaks in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch. 14. v. 26. where he says, Every one hath a Psalm among you. And this Custom lasted to Tertullian's time, who in his Apologetic, Ch. 39. observes, That the Christians recited Songs and Prayers of their own Composing. They had likewise ecstasies, wherein God represented to their Imagination things to come; as for instance, St. Paul, who in an ecstasy was caught up into the Third Heaven, 2 Cor. 12. and St. Peter, who in an ecstasy saw a Vision, whereby he was informed, That he ought to admit the Gentiles to the Christian Faith, Acts 10. Agabus, Judas, Silas, the Daughters of Philip the Deacon, Ammias of Philadelphia, and Quadratus, are reckoned among the Christian Prophets by an Ancient Anonymous Writer in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. B. 5. Ch. 17. But the ecstasies and Visions of those last Prophets were regular, and were not such Transports which the same Author calls {αβγδ}, which were attended with Impudence and Confidence; which began in a voluntary Ignorance, and ended in an involuntary shane; of which sort were the Prophecies and ecstasies of the Montanists, which he rejects upon this Principle. For 'tis to be observed, That the true Prophets, tho' in an ecstasy, never said any thing extravagantly, nor acted impertinently. The Spirit of God, who directed and governed them, being Wisdom itself, did never cause them to fall into such real Follies. Miltiades composed a Book on purpose to prove this against the Montanists; And St. Epiphanius observes in treating of their heresy, that whatever the true Prophets said, had Sense and Connexion in it; and that a sure token, whereby to discern that a Man is no true Prophet, is, That he talks extravagantly and at random. St. Chrysostom, in the 29th Homily on the first Epistle to the Corinthians, says, That Conjurers are distinguished from Prophets, in that the Conjurer is used to be out of his Wits, to be moved and agitated, and to tear himself, like a Madman; whereas, the Prophet has a sound, settled, and well tempered Mind, and speaks with Prudence and Discretion. St. Jerom makes the same Remark in the Preface of his Commentary on Nahum. He does not speak,( says he) in an ecstasy, like Montanus, Priscus and Maximillius; but all his prophesy is the effect of a Vision full of Light and Understanding. However, it cannot be denied, but that the true Prophets had sometimes ecstasies and extraordinary Emotions, even such as were violent; but those ecstasies never carried them out to do any thing extravagantly, nor to say or writ any thing that was foolish; and herein their ecstasies and Prophecies differ from those of the false Prophets.  
There might likewise have been some Men who Prophesied without knowing it, because prophesy was a Gift annexed to their Office. 'tis thus, that the High-Priest sometimes uttered Oracles without thinking of it, and even whilst his Mind was intent upon something else. The Gospel affords us an instance of this in Caiaphas, who Prophesied without Dreaming of any such matter, by saying in the Council of the Chief Priests and Pharisees, wherein they resolved upon putting Jesus Christ to Death, That it was expedient that one man should die for the people, Joh. 11.50. And in the 51st Verse, the Evangelist adds, This he spake not of himself, but being High-Priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus Christ should die for that nation. The Jews likewise foretold, without thinking of it, the Misfortunes which they should suffer upon the account of their putting Jesus Christ to Death, when they cried out, His Blood be upon us and our Children.[ But this, with submission to Mr. Du Pin, and better Judgments, we think ought not to be looked upon as a prophesy, but an Imprecation of that sad Event, which our Saviour had foretold before, concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem, Matth. 24.]  
In what manner soever the Prophets were informed by God of certain Truths, they might declare them to Men in different ways.  
The first and most usual, is, When they  told them by Word of Mouth what God had Revealed to them. This they did, sometimes by an express Command from God, who ordered them to go and tell what he had revealed to them, to such a Prince or such a People; sometimes they did it, by being pushed on, or, as it were, forced by the Holy Ghost, who obliged them to speak; and more frequently, they did it voluntarily and freely, to Teach, Instruct, and Admonish others, to Communicate to them the Notices which God had revealed to them, and discharge their Office of a Prophet.  
The second Method is, When they make known to Men what shall come to pass by such Signs and Actions as have some Relation to the Event. We meet with a great many Instances of this Symbolical and Enigmatical way of Prophesying in the Prophets. One tears his Mantle into twelve parts, as a Type of the Division of the twelve Tribes, 1 Kings, Ch. 11. v. 30. Another makes use of Yokes and Bonds, as a Type of a future Captivity, Jerem. 27. Another draws upon a state, the Portrait of the Siege of Jerusalem, Ezek. 4.1. Another walks Bare-foot and Naked, as a Sign or Type of the Desolation of Egypt and Ethiopia, Is. 20.3. Another takes unto him a Whore for his Wife, to denote thereby the People of Israel, who had committed Spiritual Whoredom in departing from the Lord, Hos. 1.2. In the New Testament, Agabus by binding his Hands and his Feet with St. Paul's Girdle, foretold that apostles Imprisonment, Acts 21.11. The Prophets themselves did very often explain those Types and Figures, and made use of them only to strike the more forcibly on the Imagination of those to whom they spake.  
The third Method, which the Prophets made use of to Communicate their Revelations to others, is, by committing them to Writing, either by the express Command of God, who ordered Moses to do it, Exod. 17.14. Deut. 31.19.— and Isaiah, Is. 8.1.— 30.8. and Jeremiah, Jer. 30.2.— 36.2, 28.— and Habakkuk, Ch. 2. v. 2. Or, by a secret Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, or by their own proper Motion, tho' afterward assisted by the Holy Ghost whilst they wrote.  
Lastly, If we consider the Prophecies with respect to things Prophesied, there are as many kinds of them as there are Diversities of Truths, which may be Revealed. If we consider the Time, we may distinguish them into three sorts, viz.( 1.) The Prophecies of things to come, which are those which by way of Eminence, are styled Prophecies.( 2.) Those wherein things past are related: And( 3.) Those that have respect to things present. If one would distinguish them according to the variety of the Subject-Matters Prophesied, they are such as are Historical, Doctrinal, and Moral; and those are either for Instruction, or Comfort, or Exhortation, or threatening. All this is manifest, and we find a great many Instances of it in the Books of the Prophets.  
What at present is necessary for us to inquire into, is, To Examine, how we may distinguish the false from the true Prophecies. Now to know, whether a thing be truly revealed or not, 'tis requisite, First, That he who says it, be assured that God revealed it to him: Secondly, That we be satisfied, that the Person who declares or writes it, be a true Prophet: Thirdly, That we be assured, that that Prophet has declared such or such a thing just as 'tis revealed.  
As to the first of these Points; 'tis no hard matter to comprehend, how the Prophets and Men Divinely inspired, could be assured that God revealed Truths to them, when he did it by external Methods; for they were clear, sensible, and easy to be understood. A Prophet( for instance) hears a distinct Voice; he sees no body that Speaks, and cannot doubt but that God speaks to him: He sees one in the shape of Man, who talks with him, and afterwards vanishes out of his sight; A fiery Bush, out of which proceeds a Voice, &c. He is awake, in his right Senses, and that is enough. The Revelations which are made by internal Methods are more difficult to be discerned, and may be more liable to Illusion. Dreams, Visions and ecstasies may as well be the Effects of Nature, as the particular Operations of God; and Inspiration or the Assistance of the Divine Spirit, is neither felt nor distinguished; they who have it, are most commonly insensible of it. How then can a Prophet be assured of the Truth of those Kinds of Revelations? 'tis true, there are indeed, Dreams, Visions and ecstasies which are the Effects of Nature only; and others, which are the Effects of an extraordinary Operation of God; but there is a great deal of Difference between these two; and tho' Men of ordinary Capacities cannot discern this Difference, yet the Prophets, who were accustomend to them, could never be deceived in the Case. They were convinced and persuaded of it by an internal Sensation; they immediately perceived the Impress of the Divinity and the Hand of God in their Dreams, Visions and ecstasies, just as we feel in ourselves the different movements of our Souls, or as we discern on a sudden those with whom we are well acquainted, by seeing their Faces, or hearing their Voice, tho' those who are acquainted with them may be deceived therein: Just as a Man who is perfectly versed in Coins, at one View distinguishes the Counterfeit from the True, tho' others may be cheated in them; Or as an expert Artist, at one glance, sees the difference between a false Impression and a true One, which others did not discover; Or lastly, as a skilful critic discerns the different Style of two Authors, of which others are not sensible. There are a great many things of this Nature, of which the Men of an ordinary reach have no discernment, and which Persons of Skill and Experience discover immediately, rather by a long Habit, and an Internal Sensation, than by Rules and Principles. The Case is the same, with respect to Inspiration, when 'tis made after a sensible manner. The Prophets knew when their Hearts and Souls were full of the Holy Ghost: They perceived in themselves his Motions; they followed and suffered themselves to be led by them. But when Inspiration is insensible,( as it happened to a great many Sacred Writers, who calmly, and without any extraordinary Emotion, wrote the things which they had either seen or heard) one is assured of this Inspiration, because one knows,( 1.) That the Author who writes is inspired by the Holy Ghost, in what relates to Religion and Piety.( 2.) That the Work which he writes ought to be Divinely inspired, in order to make use of it as a Foundation of Religion.( 3.) That this Work has been received and acknowledged as Divinely inspired, by an infallible Authority; as for instance, by Jesus Christ, by his Apostles, and by the Universal, catholic Church. This last Rule, which is unexceptionable, may be applied to all the Works which Jesus Christ and his Apostles have cited as Divinely inspired; and by consequence to all the Books which the Jews looked upon as Holy Scripture; and to all the Books which the Church of Jesus Christ has received and admitted into the number of caconical Books.  
The Rules whereby to know, whether he who declares a Truth in the Name of the Lord, be a true or a false Prophet, are set down in the Scriptures. For in the first place, 'tis said, Deut. 13.1, 2, 3. If there arise among you a Prophet, or a Dreamer of Dreams, and giveth thee a Sign or a Wonder, and the Sign or the Wonder come to pass which he foretold; yet if he say, Come, let us go after strange Gods and serve them; thou shalt not harken to that Prophet, or to that Dreamer of Dreams: This is the first exclusive Rule. Whatever Man teaches or sets up another God, and another Religion, is not a true Prophet. When it happens by chance, that his Predictions come to pass, when he even works Miracles, he is not to be believed. Whoever, in the time of the Old Law taught or commanded any thing to be done, contrary to the Divine Precepts of the Law of Moses; Whoever under the New Law, teaches any other Doctrine than that of Jesus Christ, or Orders any thing contrary to its Principles, is a false Prophet which ought not to be harkened to 
[ Is a false Prophet which ought not to hearkened to.] We cannot forbear remarking, That this Rule, which the Doctor of the Sorbonne here lays down and explains, speaks much in the favour of the Protestants, and is very disadvantageous to the present Church of Rome. For if in that Church, there be such things Taught, enjoined and Commanded, with respect to Faith, or Religious Worship, which are contrary to the Doctrine of Christ; then certainly, according to this Rule of Du Pin, none of the Romanists, who Teach and Maintain these Doctrines, are true Prophets or Teachers, nor are they to be hearkened to. Now that the Doctrines of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Worshipping of Images, the Invocations of Saints, and the like, are not only contrary to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, but also Derogatory of the Honour and true Worship that is due to the true God, has been abundantly proved upon them by the ablest Writers of our Church. The Conclusion from these Premises is very obvious and easy to be drawn.]  This Rule ought to be understood only of Divine and Moral Precepts, for with respect to the Ceremonial and Judicial Precepts, there are some Instances, wherein the Prophets, by the Order of God himself, enjoined them not to be observed. Thus Circumcision, tho' commanded, was not put into practise in the Wilderness for forty-years. David Eat the showbread, which it was not lawful for any to Eat beside the Priests alone. Elijah raised an Altar upon Mount Carmel, contrary to the express prohibition of the Law, &c.  
The second Rule, is that which we find, Deut. 18.21, 22. where 'tis said, If thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the Word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a Prophet speaketh in the Name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: Thou shalt not be afraid of him. This is the second exclusive Rule. God cannot be deceived in his Predictions. If a Prophet foretells a thing, and it does not come to pass, he is no true Prophet, the Lord has not spoken by his Mouth. On the other hand, the Token that a Man is a true Prophet, is, When whatever he Prophesies does certainly come to pass. For which Reason, Samuel was always looked upon as a true Prophet, because all his Predictions were fulfilled. This Rule admits of one Difficulty, in that the true Prophets may sometimes foretell things that would happen, if there be no Alteration in the Case; and which do not come to pass, if any change has happened. God is not so far tied up to the Predictions of his Prophets, as not to alter the Course of Things, when there has happened any Change on Man's part. This is what the Prophet Jeremiah declares in a truly sublime manner, Ch. 18. v. 6, &c. Behold, as the day is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it: If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant, I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build, and to plant it: If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. Thus the Event of the prophesy of Jonas, Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown, was stopped by the Repentance of the Ninevites; and that of the Prophet Isaiah to King Hezekiah, that he should Die of the Disease under which he lay, was respited by the fervent Prayer of that King. But 'tis to be observed, That these kinds of Predictions are not absolute, but conditional: Tho' this Condition be not expressed, yet 'tis implied, and afterwards we know the Reason which has hindered the Event of the prophesy. 'tis this that justifies the Prophet, and demonstrates the Truth of his prophesy, which would have been accomplished, if the Condition which attends it had not been performed. Nineveh, for instance, would have been destroyed, if the Ninevites had not repented. Their Repentance is public and known; 'tis that which prevented the Ruin of their City; and it cannot be from thence inferred, that Jonas was a false Prophet, as it might have been, if Nineveh had been spared, tho' the Ninevites had persevered in their Irregularities.  
The third Rule, whereby to know a true Prophet, is, The Reputation and the Probity of Manners of the Person who speaks in the Name of God. If he be an Impostor, if he be a Man that loves to be bribed, if he be a debauched Person, or one blinded with Interest, who acts for favour or affection to any Party, he is not to be Credited. 'tis against such Prophets as these, that Ezekiel inveighs: Such Prophets who prophesy out of their own hearts, that sow Pillows to all Armholes, and make Kerchiefs upon the head of every Stature to hunt Souls, who deceive the People for handfuls of Barley, and for pieces of Bread. Such Prophets, who, as Micah says, Eat the Flesh of the People, who flay them, who break their Bones, who cry, Peace to them who give 'em something, and to him that putteth not into their Mouths, they even prepare War against him. 'tis likewise by their Works, that our Blessed Saviour says we may know the false Prophets: A fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos. But this Rule is not so general, but that it may admit of some Exceptions, especially in the Prophets, who swerved not nor departed from the Law and the Doctrine which they ought to Teach. In such a Case, we must, according to the Advice of our Saviour, hearken to them, and believe what they say in public, but not imitate their Actions. Which is chiefly the Case of such as are in Offices of Trust, and have the charge over the practise and Conversations of others. How came it,( says St. Basil) That Balaam and Caiaphas Prophesied? 'tis because both of them had Persons under their Charge; the one, as High-Priest, and the other as Prophet. It was not the Purity of their Hearts, nor the Disposition their Minds were in to receive their Impression from God, which furnished them with these Notices; but the Word of God was put into their Mouths, not for any desert they had, but upon the account of a peculiar Dispensation.  
The fourth Rule, whereby to discover a true Prophet, is, When God confirms his Mission and his Authority by Miracles. As for Instance, When God sent Moses to the People of Israel, he gave him the Power of working Wonders and Miracles, that so they might Credit what he should say. On the contrary, A false Prophet is known, when he is punished for having spoken in the Name of God; as when the false Prophet [ Jeroboam,] who would have laid hands on the true Prophet, who had prophesied against Bethel, was punished upon the Spot, by losing the Use of his Arm, 1 Kings 13.  
The fifth Rule is, When a Man is acknowledged and proved a Prophet; First, By the public Suffrage, founded on the Event of his Predictions; as 'tis said of Samuel, 1 Sam. 3.20. All Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was a faithful Prophet of the Lord. Secondly, By the Testimony of another Prophet, as when Moses declared to the People of Israel, that Joshua was filled with the Spirit of God, and that they ought to obey him, Numb. 27.18, &c. Deut. 34.9. Thirdly, By the Testimony of God himself, as when there was heard a Voice from Heaven, which said of JESUS CHRIST, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, Matth. 17.5. Or by the Testimony of Jesus Christ, as when he says of St. John Baptist, That he is a Prophet, nay more than a Prophet. And when he cited the Authority of the Law of Moses, of the Psalms and the Prophets received by the Jews: Or by the Testimony of the Apostles, who quote the Prophecies and the Sacred Writings. And lastly, By the Testimony of the Church, who owned such or such an Author to be a Prophet, such or such a Book to be Prophetical and of Divine Inspiration.  
To conclude, The Ways whereby to be satisfied, that a Prophet has declared or taught such or such thing in the Name of God, are easy and obvious. If it were vivâ voice that he spake it, those who heard him were Ear-witnesses of it themselves; they who did not hear him, might be satisfied in the point by the relation of other credible Persons, by their Disciples, by those who succeeded them, and by a constant Tradition. If the prophesy were committed to Writing, we are assured, that it belongs to that Prophet whose Name it bears, by the same means whereby we are assured, that all other Books are such or such an Author's; that is, by the Book itself which goes under his Name, by the Testimony of Ancient, Contemporary and Credible Writers, by the public Assent; Lastly, By the Testimony of the Synagogue and the Church, who assure us, that such or such a Work is Genuine. But this we shall explain in another place more at large.   

SECT. IV. The Succession of the True Prophets among the Jews. The Hypothesis of Father Simon, concerning the Writers of the Registers, and the public Scribes, who were Divinely inspired, Refuted.  
THE whole Bible is no more than one continued Train or Series of Prophecies; and all the famous Persons mentioned therein are so many Prophets. There were some of 'em before, some under the Law, and others under the Gospel. Adam in the State of Innocence, was highly favoured with a familiar Converse with his God, and 'tis probable, that after his Fall he was not wholly deprived of Revelations, since he was obliged to instruct his Posterity. Among the Antideluvian patriarches, the Scripture informs us, That Enoch, the seventh from Adam, who walked in the Ways of the Lord, was endowed with the Gift of prophesy: {αβγδ}. Noah, a Just Man, received Instructions from Heaven for the Building of the Ark, and saving himself from the Universal Deluge. God, after the Flood, continued to Instruct him. In Cursing Cham, he foretold what should happen to his Posterity. Abraham had not only particular Revelations, but God honoured him with a solemn and special Covenant, which he made with him and his Posterity. Jacob, upon his Death-Bed, uttered admirable Prophecies concerning the Twelve Tribes which were to descend from his Twelve Sons. Among them Joseph excelled in the Gift of prophesy, making mention of the Departing of the Children of Israel, and giving them Commandment concerning his Bones, Heb. 11.22. But Moses surpassed all the Prophets that either went before or followed him to the time of Jesus Christ. The Excellency of Moses, above the rest of the Prophets, appears, First, From the manner wherein God spake to him, for God had spoken to other Prophets by Visions, or in in a Dream, but to Moses he spake Face to Face without a veil, without a Figure and without a Vision; and for this Reason, 'tis said, Deut. 34.10. That there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses. Secondly, In that Facility wherewith Moses made his Addresses to God, for he consulted him as often as he pleased, and God return'd him an answer. Thirdly, By the great number of Revelations, Laws, Commandments, and Instructions, which he received from God. Fourthly, By his Quality of Legislator, or rather Promulgator of the Law of God, which was peculiar to him, and to none other of the Prophets, who neither made nor prescribed any New Laws, but explained and amplified those of Moses. Fifthly, By the Title of Deliverer and Leader of the People of God. And Sixthly, By the Wonders and Miracles which he wrought, which exceeded both in number and excellency those of the other Prophets. This is expressly taken notice of at the end of Deuteronomy, Ch. 34. v. 10, 11, &c. There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, in all the miracles and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharaoh and all his servants, and before all his land, and in all that mighty hand, and all that great fear which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel. It was in this that the Excellency of the Miracles of Moses did consist.  
Moses had all the Signs which a Man could have of his being a True Prophet. He could not be deceived in his Revelations; since God spake to him clearly, manifestly and familiarly, whilst he was awake. It can't be questioned, but that he declared truly and sincerely what had been  told him by the Lord. His Integrity, the Signs and Wonders which God wrought by his hands for the Confirmation of his Laws and Prophecies, the Event which exactly agreed to what he had foretold, the Punishment of those who disobeyed him, and would not believe what he  told them in the Name of God, or were for usurping the same Authority to themselves, are convincing Proofs of it. Lastly, One can't be ignorant of the things which Moses taught Men in the Name of God, nor of the Laws which he made, nor of the Actions which he did. They were public, all the People of the Jews were Witnesses and Confidents of them: They have admitted and observed them, as received from God by the Ministry of Moses. Lastly, Moses committed them to Writing according to the Order which he had received for so doing from God, and by his Inspiration: His Books were kept carefully by the Jews, and at all times acknowledged to be the Books of Moses, as we shall in the sequel demonstrate. Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the Church, have received them as Books Divinely inspired. Who after this can question, Whether they are Divine and Sacred Books or no?  
Since the time of Moses, God has raised up several Prophets in Israel. Joshua received the Spirit of prophesy. Moses testifies so much of him, and he himself shows sufficiently in his Conduct, and in the Miracles which God wrought in his favour, that he was a Prophet. After Joshua, and in the times of the Judges, the Prophets were very scarce. However, some there were, among whom we may reckon especially the famous Prophetess Deborah, who prophesied and judged the People of Israel under a Palm-Tree, between Ramah and Bethel, on Mount Ephraim, judge. 4.5. To her we may join the Man of God, who spoken to Eli the High-Priest, and foretold him of the Evil that should happen to him and his House, 1 Sam. 2.27. Samuel was not only a great Prophet, acknowledged as such by all the People; but in his time, the Prophets began to be more common in Israel, and a great many of them were to be seen. Under the Reign of Saul there were so many Prophets, that we are  told of whole Companies or Colleges of them. Nathan, Gad, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun flourished under the Reign of David; who was himself an excellent Prophet. Under the Reign of Solomon, who in prophesy came not behind his Father; there is likewise mention made of a great many Prophets; such as, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Iddo, Azariah, ob, Jehu, &c. Under the Kings of Judah and Israel, Solomon's Successors down to the Captivity, we meet with abundance of Prophets, who were consulted with upon all considerable Undertakings, who foretold things to come, who instructed, reproved, exhorted, comforted, and threatened the Princes and People in the Name of God. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and several of the Lesser Prophets, whose Writings we have by us, are of that number. Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied during the Captivity, and after it Haggai, Zachariah, Ezrah, Nehemiah, and Malachy, the last of the Prophets. This is the apparent Succession of the Prophets among the Jews. From that time there was not any remarkable One till the time of our Saviour. We must( no question) reckon among the Prophets,( by taking that Term in the general Sense, for all those to whom God has revealed, or whom he has inspired with Truths) all the Authors of the caconical Books, tho' we do not know the Names of some of them; since 'tis certain, as we shall hereafter prove, that those Books were penned by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  
But 'tis not at all necessary to suppose what Mr. Simon advances, viz. That there were always among the Hebrews, Prophets or public Scribes Divinely inspired, who kept public Registers of the Histories and Affairs which concerned the State, who are the Authors of all the Sacred Writings, and who had a Right of reducing them as they pleased; to add to them, or take out of them what they thought convenient. This new Hypothesis is not founded on any solid Principle. There is no mention made in any place of Scripture of those public Scribes inspired by God; they are no where styled Prophets. Among the Officers of the household of David, there is mention made of Jehosaphat the Son of Ahilud the Recorder, 2 Sam. 8.16. and of Seraiah the Secretary or Scribe. 'tis likewise said, 1 Chron. 27.32. That Jehonathan, David's Uncle was a Scribe; but these Men are not called Prophets; nor is it said, that they were inspired by God to writ Memoirs. We are not assured, that the Journals of the History of the Kings of Judah and Israel, of which mention is made in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, were written by Prophets, and by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. And tho' this were so, it does not by any just Inference from thence follow, that all who wrote public Registers and Memoirs among the Jews, were likewise Prophets, or Men Divinely inspired. The Books of the Prophets, cited in the Books of the Chronicles were not according to all appearance Books purely Historical, as we have already observed: But tho' this were so, none doubts but that the Prophets might writ Historical Books, and even might have penned them by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but from hence to conclude, that all the public Scribes and Compilers of Registers among the Jews were Prophets, that there were always such from the time of Moses, under whom they began, to Jesus Christ, that they are the Authors of all the Sacred Books; that they had a Right of adding to, retrenching from, and altering in them what they pleased and thought most convenient, is a consequence that is unaccountable. Let us see, whether it be founded on any other solid Reasons, and for this let us examine those which Mr. Simon produces in its Defence. He advances this Notion in the Preface of his Criticisms, but gives no proofs of it in that place, nor was it a proper place to do it in. In the first Chapter of his Criticisms, which is a kind of Second Preface, he only contents himself with saying, that he gives the title of Prophets to the Authors of the Bible, and with repeating what he had said in his Preface concerning the Usefulness of those public Scribes, by supposing that there were such, without putting himself to the trouble of proving it. 'tis in the second Chapter that he undertakes to demonstrate it, and his Reasons are these. In the first place, he observes, That the Commonwealth of the Jews never acknowledged any for its Head, but only God. From this Principle he concludes, That God himself gave them Laws by the Ministry of Moses, and the other Prophets who succeeded him. This Conclusion is certain and just, there was no need of proving it by a Principle more obscure than the Conclusion, which is taken from thence. But we are not concerned to know, whether there were any Prophets among the Jews; that is Self-Evident: What we are only concerned to know, is, First, Whether there were always among the Jews public Scribes, who kept the Registers of the Affairs, and the Histories of those Matters which had relation to their Polity and Government: Secondly, Whether those Scribes were Divinely inspired: And Thirdly, Whether they were the Authors of the Books of the Bible. It lies upon Mr. Simon to prove these three Propositions, and not only to observe in general, that there were Prophets among the Jews. The second Remark, which Mr. Simon makes, is, That in well governed States, and especially in the East, there were always certain Persons, who took care to commit to Writing the most important Affairs of the republic: I had thought that Mr. Simon would have concluded from thence, that therefore there were likewise such among the Jews. He disowns the Consequence, so that this Remark must only pass for a Similitude; and he must seek out for other proofs, to show there were among the Jews such public Scribes. 'tis very probable,( adds he) That Moses at the first Rise of the Jewish Polity established this sort of Scribes, which we may style public or Divine, to distinguish them from other private Writers, who usually undertake to writ the History of their Times, only through the Motives of Self-Interest. 'tis not then a thing certain, that Moses established those Scribes; 'tis at best no more than a Conjecture; 'tis very probable. But upon what Grounds does Mr. Simon suppose this? He gives us two Reasons for it in a Parenthesis: First, Because he had been preferred in the Egyptian Court, wherein there were Priests, whom they called Scribes, or Writers of Sacred Things. As if it were necessary, or so much as probable, That Moses had imitated and put into practise among the Jews all that was practised among the Egyptians. He should have produced some Reason, or at least some Conjecture, to prove that he imitated them therein. But this Mr. Simon thinks not fit to do. The second Reason which he alleges to prove, That Moses established this kind of Scribes among the Jews, is, That he was an exact Law-giver. Very well! But does it follow, that a Man cannot be an exact Legislator without establishing such a Custom? Lycurgus was an exact Legislator; and yet by the Confession of Mr. Simon himself, he did not establish in his republic such a sort of public Scribes. But why should Moses establish them among the Jews, since he wrote himself the Laws and the History?  
Let us now see, whether he is more lucky in the Testimonies which he produces. The First is, That of Josephus, who says; That among the Jews, every one was not allowed to writ their Annals, but that that Task was reserved to the Prophets alone, who knew future things at a great distance from them by Divine Inspiration, and who likewise wrote what happened in their own times. As a Reply to this Authority, I had said; That Josephus by those Prophets only understood Moses, and the Persons who after him penned the Books of the Old Testament. To this Mr. Simon replies, That the Reasons of Josephus are too large to be explained with such a Limitation. But this is at Matter of Fact, wherein we have nothing to do with Conjectures; we need only red the entire Passage of Josephus, which we have mentioned, to make it plain, that he speaks of no other Books but only those which in his time were acknowledged by the Jews as caconical, and that nothing is more opposite to the Hypothesis of Mr. Simon than this passage. Mr. Simon supposes, That there were in the time of Moses, public Scribes, who have cited the Memoirs out of which the Pentateuch was composed; and Josephus says expressly, That these Five Books were composed by Moses. Mr. Simon supposes, That the following Books are Ancient Memoirs or Records written from time to time by these public Scribes, and afterwards collected by other public Scribes; and Josephus supposes, That they were penned, just as they are, by the Prophets, who lived in the time when the things which they wrote happened. Mr. Simon would have, That there were always in the Civil State of the Jews, some of those public Writers Divinely inspired: And Josephus positively says, That there was no continued Succession of Prophets after the Reign of Artaxerxes. Can any thing in the World be more contrary? But besides, the Prophets of Josephus are quiter different from the public Scribes of Mr. Simon: They are not Men commissioned over the Registers and established to writ History; but are Prophets, who from time to time, lived among the Jews, who took care to writ the Occurrencies of their times, and the Books which they wrote, are not in the least different from those which the Jews acknowledged as caconical in Josephus's time. From whence it follows, That this Passage is a very strong Proof of our Position, and destroys the Hypothesis of Mr. Simon. For we, with Josephus, maintain against Mr. Simon, That Moses is the Author of the Pentateuch; and that the other Authentic Books of the Old Testament were written by Men inspired by God, or by Prophets who lived about the time, wherein the things happened which they have writ, altho' their Names be to us unknown. 'tis to those Books, and not to the Pentateuch, that we ought to apply the Words of St. Gregory upon Job, which Mr. Simon apparently wrists in his first Chapter. St. Gregory's Words are; Quis haec scripserit, valde supervacue quaeritur; cum tamen author Libri Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur; i. e. 'tis needless to ask who was the Writer, since we may safely believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the Book. Now that Father says this only upon the account of the Book of Job, whose Author is unknown.  
The second Author which Mr. Simon produces in his Criticisms, to prove the Scribes, of whom he spake, to be Divinely inspired, is Eusebius Caesariensis. Eusebius( says he) confirms this Opinion, when he observes, That among the Hebrews it was not for all sorts of People to be Judges, who were inspired by the Holy Ghost for the Writing of the Sacred Books, and who were not. In the Margin, he cites, [ Euseb. de Praeparatione Evangelicâ], that is, a large Book in Folio; where I have looked for this passage, but could not find it. But suppose it were there, I cannot perceive that it has any thing to do with Mr. Simon's Hypothesis. There were among the Jews Writers Divinely inspired, who ever questioned it? It did not belong to all the World to determine which of them were Divinely inspired, and which were not: This was reserved to others Person, who were likewise Divinely inspired. I suppose all this to be true: Does it from thence follow, that the Books of Moses were made by the Register-Keepers? Does it follow, That those who were commissioned to writ the History or public Records, were Divinely inspired? Does it follow, That all the Books of Scripture which we have, were no more than abridgement of those Records? Besides, Mr. Simon could never have cited an Author more contrary to his Hypothesis, than Eusebius is; nay, even in this very Tract, De Praeparatione Evangelicâ: For one of the Main Principles, which in several passages of that Book, he establishes, is, The Authority and Antiquity of the Books of Moses, which he all along supposes to have been composed by that Prophet, just in the same manner wherein we at present have them. This is what he includes in Three Propositions, which he lays down at the beginning of the 14th Book. First, That Moses is more Ancient than any Greek Author. Secondly, That he wrote what he had learnt from his Ancestors. And Thirdly, That the Jews have added nothing to, or retrenched any thing from the Writings which he left them. I leave the Learned to judge, whether these Principles of Eusebius have any resemblance to those of Mr. Simon.  
The third Author, cited by Mr. Simon, is Theodoret. 'tis true, this Father( as well as several other Authors) has acknowledged, That the Books of Kings and Chronicles were composed from more Ancient Records. But this does not come up to the matter in Dispute. 'tis owned, That we are not ascertained who was the Author of these Books. 'tis owned, That they are a Collection drawn from more Ancient Records. But we ask Mr. Simon, Whether it does from hence follow, that the Pentateuch, and the other Books of the Bible are of the same Nature. This is what Theodoret never designed to assert, since he owns, that Moses is the Author of the Pentateuch. 'tis with this Concession, that he begins his Preface to the Book of Kings, out of which Mr. Simon has taken the passages which he relates. After( says Theodoret) having explained the Books of Moses, &c.  
Mr. Simon in his Letter to Mr. the Abbot P— adds to these Three Writers, the Author of the Synopsis attributed to St. Athanasius. This Author follows the Opinion of Josephus, and after having observed, that the first five Books of the Bible do doubtless belong to Moses, he says, That the following Books do not all of 'em belong to those under whose Names they go, but that they were penned by Prophets, who lived one time after another. He lastly observes, in speaking of the Chronicles, that several Historical Books are therein cited. What signifies all this to Mr. Simon's Hypothesis? Have we not said the same thing? Does not all the World agree to it? Had Mr. Simon stuck to this, no body would have troubled themselves about him.  
The last Author, which Mr. Simon cites to prove his Hypothesis, is, the Writer of the Chronicle of Alexandria. This Author, says, in a Passage, set down by Mr. Simon, That there were some Prophets who wrote their own Prophecies; as for instance, David the Book of Psalms, and Daniel his prophesy: And that there were others who did not writ themselves, but that there were Scribes in the Temple, who wrote( as 'twere in a Journal) the words of each Prophet.— That the Books of the Kings were written piecemeal; that under Saul they wrote what happened in his time; and in the same manner what occurred in the time of David, and the rest of the Kings: That the Chronicles are a Collection of the Registers and Records of the Kings: That Moses wrote the Pentateuch: That Joshua is the Author of the Book that goes under his Name: That the Book of Judges was written by the Scribes in the Temple, time after time, as well as the Book of Ruth; and that Solomon composed the Proverbs, the Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. The Hypothesis of this Author is very different from that of Mr. Simon. For( 1.) he supposes, That Moses is the Author of the Pentateuch, and does not ascribe his Works to the public Scribes, or to the Abbreviators.( 2.) He does not say, That those public Scribes were inspired by God, and that themselves wrote the History. He supposes, That the Prophets dictated That as well as their prophesy to them.( 3.) He does not believe, that the Books of Kings and Judges were the very Originals of the Prophets, which were tacked together; whereas Mr. Simon believes that those Books are abbreviated.  
I will not stand to Answer the rabbis, and other Authors, which Mr. Simon cites in his last Letter. 'tis plain, that not one of the Authors cited by him are of his Mind. For in the first place, they all aclowledge, That the Pentateuch ought not to be attributed to the Scribes or Prophets, but only to Moses. Secondly, they say, That the following Books were written by Men Divinely inspired, whom they style Prophets; but do not say, that these Prophets were Register-Keepers, or public Scribes. Thirdly, they own, That there were Ancient Records or Histories, which are cited in the Book of Kings and in the Chronicles. No body questions it, I have often observed as much; and I have likewise drawn a Catalogue of those Books cited in the Old Testament. But it does not follow from this Principle, that all the Books of the Bible are no more than abridgement of those Memoirs, and that they were composed a long time after. Mr. Simon gives those public Scribes the Authority of altering, adding, or diminishing what they thought convenient in the Sacred Books. To this end, he cites Don Isaac Abravenel, a learned Spanish Jew, as if we were obliged to believe all that the rabbis say to be as true as the Gospel. To this Jew, he joins Procopius and Theodoret, who observe, That the Books of Kings and Chronicles, were taken out of several other Pieces of History. But let not Mr. Simon be offended, He always mistakes the point, for this is not the question in Dispute. We freely agree with him, That the Authors of the Books of Kings and Chronicles, in compiling their History, made use of the Records, and the private Historians which they met with; just as Titus Livius, and Mezeray, made use of Ancient Historians in composing their History. But it cannot for that Reason be said, That they have altered or diminished those Ancient Histories, which still are in the same Condition in which they always were, nor that they had any right to do it, and much less that they could have made any considerable Alterations in, or Additions to, the Books of Moses. After this, Mr. Simon advances a very dangerous Maxim, which he covers with a seeming sort of Advantage. It would be very dangerous( says he) to correct one Book of the Holy Scriptures by another, when they do not at all agree with one another. He says Truth, when he asserts, That we ought not to Correct one Book of Scripture by another: But 'tis not true, That any two Books of Scripture do Clash with one another. There is not any real Contradiction between the Books of the Bible; if there be any in appearance, the Authors ought not to be charged with them, but our defective Understanding ought to be blamed. 'tis a very great Presumption, to suppose with Mr. Simon, That there are any real Contradictions in the Books of the Bible; That the Author of the Chronicles has related matters of Fact differently from what they are in the other Books of the Holy Scriptures; That the Genealogies and Chronology of the Scriptures are faulty, &c. I know( says Mr. Simon) that in Deuteronomy we are expressly forbidden to add to or diminish the least tittle of the Word of God. Here is positive Testimony against the Hypothesis of Mr. Simon. It seems, as if he ought, as a Reply to it, to produce some other passage of Scripture, which restrains this Prohibition only to private Persons, or which grants a contrary Allowance to the Prophets and public Scribes. But Mr. Simon thinks it enough to city the Author of the Book Cozri, to be of his Opinion; but to his Misfortune, we find that one who wrote Notes on that Book, has in the bottom of that page.,( which Mr. Simon cites,) these words: That the Author of the Book Cozri does not speak of the Scripture itself, but only of the Exposition of the Commandments, which depended on the Judges of the Sanhedrim, who might enlarge or restrain them according to the difference of times and occasions. What then will become of Mr. Simon's Reply? It was only established on the Authority of the Author of the Book Cozri; and 'tis found, that even this Author does not say, what Mr. Simon has made him say. Lastly, Mr. Simon to prove his Hypothesis, cites, the common Opinion of the Fathers, who suppose, that the Collection of the Old Testament, as we now have it, was composed by Ezrah, which( says he) confirms the Notion I have advanced. For Ezrah could not have re-established those Books, which according to them were adulterated during the Captivity, but as he was a Prophet or a public Scribe; and also he is in Scripture styled THE SCRIBE, by way of Excellency. But I would fain know, What necessity there is that Ezrah should have re-established the Holy Scriptures as a public Scribe, or Register-Keeper. Is it not more probable that he did it, because he was ordered to re-establish the Laws and Religion of the Jews in their pristine Purity, as being their Head and their High-Priest? Tho' he is called a Scribe, yet 'tis not in Mr. Simon's Notion of the Word, but because he was well versed in the Law of the Lord. We need only red the passage in Ezrah, Ch. 7. v. 6. where 'tis said, That Ezrah came up from Babylon, that he was a ready Scribe in the Law of Moses which God had given to the Children of Israel: that is, He had a perfect Knowledge of that Law. The Word Scribe is taken in the same Sense, Jer. 8.8. And it signifies nothing else in the New Testament, where this Title is given to all the Doctors of the Law.   

SECT. V. The Belief of the Jews and Christians concerning the Inspiration of the caconical Books of the Old Testament.  
IT cannot in the least be questioned, but that the Jews were persuaded, That the Books which were in their Canon were written by Prophets Divinely inspired; That they were Sacred and Divine Books composed by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. They looked upon the Law of Moses as the Law of God himself, and on the Pentateuch, as the Foundation of their Religion. They could not but know, That Moses was sent by God; That he received from him the Laws which he committed to Writing in these Books; That he conversed familiarly with God, and That he was assisted and inspired in an extraordinary manner. The many Wonders and Miracles which God wrought by his hands, his continual Presence with and visible Protection of him; what they saw and heard from Mount Sinai; that Divine Wisdom and Gift of prophesy which they perceived in Moses, were sufficient Evidences to them that the Books which he left them were penned by the Inspiration of the Spirit of God, of which he was full. 'tis therefore with a great deal of Reason, that the most Ancient Jews have esteemed the Law of Moses, as a Sacred Law, as a Law wholly Divine, which contained nothing but what was most certain and true, of whose Authority there was no room to doubt, to which nothing could be added, and from which nothing could be retrenched.  
As to the other caconical Books, the Collection whereof was made in the time of Ezrah, it being so evident, as 'tis, that there were among the Jews so many Prophets and so many Prophetical Writings, it cannot be reasonably questioned, but that Ezrah, for the composing his Canon of Sacred Books, made choice of those among the Prophetical and Divinely-inspir'd Books which had always been acknowledged as such by Universal Consent among the Jews. The Synagogue always looked upon all these Books which were in the Canon, as Prophetical and Divinely inspired. It has distinguished them from all others that have not the same Authority, because it was not certain, whether they were written by Prophets, as Josephus informs us. 'tis manifest, That this was the general received Opinion of all the Jews, whose Testimony cannot be rejected in such a Case as this, wherein we treat of the Books of their Ancestors which were preserved among them by Tradition, acknowledged at all times as Divine Writings; such as were Sacred, Prophetical and inspired by God, the Foundation of their Religion, and the Rule of their practise and Manners; and lastly, Such as they had so great a Veneration for, that( as Josephus says) they were accustomend from their Infancy to call them the Doctrine of God, and were ready to lay down their lives in the defence of them.  
But no Christian can doubt of their Authority, after the Testimony of Jesus Christ, and the Apostles, who have acknowledged them as Sacred and Divinely-Inspir'd Writings, and cited them as such under the Name of Holy Scripture, which comprehends the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. 'tis upon the Evidence of these Books, that Jesus Christ proves himself to be the Messiah; 'tis by them that he confutes the Jews. He cites them, not as common Books, of a more human Composure, not only as true Histories, but also as Books penned by the Order of God, and by Prophets. Abraham foresaw the day of his coming; David saw him in the Spirit; Moses gave Testimony of him; The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, are full of Predictions concerning him: If we believe Moses and the Prophets, we shall believe in him, because they have spoken of him; and 'tis in him that their Prophecies are fulfilled. Their Writings then are not the more Productions and Inventions of Men: They must needs have been filled with the Holy Ghost, for to foresee and foretell things to come. When the Jews urged against him the Holy Scripture, he does not Reply that it was Fallible; he owns its Authority, he explains it; he proves that they do not understand it, and that this was the Cause of their Error. Ye do err,( says he) not knowing the Scriptures. He upbraids them for having violated it by their Tradition; and tells them, that all their Prevarication proceeded from the Non-observance of the Law. In a word, He all along mentions them as Divine and Sacred Books. 'tis true, in some Points, he perfected the Law, and made Additions to its Precepts, as when he commands the Loving our Enemies, and the pardoning of Injuries: But this Perfection is not contrary to the Tenor of the Law, which he did not come to destroy, but to fulfil. {αβγδ}( says he, Matth. 5.16.) {αβγδ}.  
After the same manner have the Apostles looked upon and made use of the Books of the Old Testament, to prove, That the Prophecies were fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ, and to Authorize the Gospel which they preached. St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, assures us, That the Jews had this advantage over the Gentiles, {αβγδ}. that is, Because unto them were committed the Oracles of God. Those Oracles with which the Jews were instructed, were certainly the Books of the Old Testament, which the Apostle styles {αβγδ}. They were not the Work of Men, but the very Word of God. The same Apostle Writing to Timothy, 2 Tim. 3.16. informs him, That the Holy Scripture, which he from a Child had learnt, was of Divine Inspiration. For whether these words,[ {αβγδ}] be translated according to the Vulgar Latin, which runs thus, All Scripture which is Divinely inspired, is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Piety and Righteousness; which is likewise the Sense of the Syriack Version, and which may likewise be adapted to the Greek Words: Or whether they be explained Verbatim, by a Subintelligitur of the Verb {αβγδ},( which is likewise a very strong proof of their Inspiration) according to our English Translation, All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable, &c. Yet from either of these Acceptations of the Words it follows, That the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament was written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. For as S. t Chrysostom observes upon this place, this ought to be understood of all the Holy Scripture, which St. Paul mentioned; As if he should have said, I know that from a Child thou hast been instructed in the Holy Scripture; all Scripture therefore is Divinely inspired; make no question of it. The Apostle St. Peter bears the same Testimony to all the Writings of the Prophets. For we have( says he, 2 Ep. 1.19, &c.) a most sure Word of prophesy; whereunto ye do well to take heed, as unto a Light that shineth in a dark place, until the Day down, and the Day-Star arise in our Hearts: Knowing this first, That no prophesy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation. For the prophesy came not in old time by the Will of Man, but Holy Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The Prophecies then of which St. Peter speaks in this place, are not only the Writings of those which are commonly called Prophets; but likewise all those which the Jews received, as being penned by Holy Men of God, by the Motion of the Holy Ghost; that is, All the Books which they acknowledged as caconical and Divinely inspired.  
The Primitive Church, instructed by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, had the same respect for those Books as the Jews themselves had. But it likewise received by an universal Consent, and by constant Tradition, the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles, as being also penned by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 'tis certain, That in those first times of Christianity, the Holy Ghost, in an extraordinary manner, assisted the Apostles and their Disciples in their Preaching. 'tis for this Reason, That Jesus Christ sent them out in a particular manner; He  told them, That they should be brought before Kings, Governors and Judges; they were not to take thought before-hand what they should say, but it should be given them in that hour which they ought to speak: Because it was not they that should speak, but the Spirit of God which should give them utterance. I do not aver, That the Apostles were Infallible and Divinely inspired in all their Actions and Conversations, but I believe, that it cannot be questioned,( unless we would disannul the Promises of Jesus Christ) but that they were assisted in an extraordinary manner for the Preaching of the Gospel; so that it was next to impossible for them to teach any other Religion or Doctrine but what Jesus Christ had taught them. He that heareth you,( says our Saviour) heareth me; he, that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. The Primitive Christians were fully persuaded of this Truth, and so with an entire Submission received the Doctrine which the Apostles taught them, and looked upon it as the Word of God and of Jesus Christ himself. Now if we may very justly and reasonably suppose, that the Apostles were guided, inspired, and directed after an extraordinary manner for the Preaching of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ; with how much greater reason may the same thing be said of what they Wrote for the Instruction of the Faithful? and the rather, because their Writings were to remain as the perpetual Monuments of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and as the RULE OF FAITH to all Christians. If God had not directed and inspired them after an extraordinary manner, if he had permitted them to fall into Errors about Religion, he had( if we may so say) deceived his Church, or at least left it under an almost inevitable danger of falling into error; which would not have been consistent with his Wisdom, or that special Care that he ought to have for that Church which he has purchased with his own most precious Blood.  
We cannot therefore doubt, but that the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles were written by the Direction and Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and that all Christians are obliged to believe them to be the Word of God. 'tis after this manner, that the Church has always looked upon the Books of the Old and New Testament; and thus the Holy Fathers have spoken of them. red( says St. Clemens Romanus in his Epistle to the Corinthians) the Holy Scriptures, which are the Oracles of the Holy Ghost, and know that they contain nothing in them that is unreasonable, fabulous or false. St. Justin, in his second Apology, says, That we ought not attribute what is said by the Prophets inspired by the Holy Ghost to them, but to the WORD of God which Inspires them. And in his Dialogue against Trypho, It cannot be asserted( says he) that there are any Contradictions in the Holy Scripture, and if there be any seeming Ones, we should rather own, that 'tis because we cannot comprehend them. The same Father, whom we at present suppose to be the Author of the first Exhortation to the Gentiles, says, in that Work which goes under his Name, That the Sacred Writers had no need of any Art to compose their Works, and that they did not writ in a Spirit of Animosity and dissension; but all that was required on their part was, That they should have a purified Mind wherein to receive the Operation of the Holy Ghost, who descending from Heaven as a Musical-Bow, all Divine, made use of Upright Men, as of a Musical Instrument to reveal to us the Knowledge of Celestial and Divine Things. The Comparison is very neat: 'tis upon this Account,( adds he) That they all spake and taught unanimously the same things,( as if they had all but one Mouth and one Tongue) concerning the Nature of God, the Creation of the World, the Formation of Man, the Immortality of the Soul, the future judgement, and concerning all the other Truths, with which we ought to be acquainted, although they lived at different places and in different times.  
St. Irenaeus in his Treatise against Heresies, B. 1. Ch. 46. and 47. asserts, That we are obliged to believe the Holy Scripture to be perfect, being dictated by the Word of God, and by his Spirit: That 'tis wholly Spiritual, and that if there be any obscurity in it which we cannot clear up, we ought not to be too inquisitive into it. In another place, B. 3. Ch. 1. he informs us, That the Gospel is conveyed to us by the Apostles who preached it at first, and which afterwards God ordered them to commit to Writing, to serve as the Foundation and Support of our Faith.— That all those who do not believe what is contained in the Scriptures, as the heretics for instance, put themselves under a State of Damnation.  
St. Clement of Alexandria, in his Exhortation to the Gentiles, says, That 'tis the Mouth of the Lord, and the Holy Ghost, which have pronounced what is contained in the Scripture: That God is our only Master, and that the Doctrine of the Scripture is truly Divine, as the Apostle St. Paul has said in his second Epistle to Timothy, where he recommends to him the Reading the Sacred Writings, the Name which they go under, because they consecrate and make Men like to God, and because those Books are called by the same Apostle, a Scripture Divinely inspired, which is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, &c. In the sixth Book of his Stromata, he proves, That the Scripture is necessary to demonstrate Things relating to Religion, and that 'tis the first Axiom or Principle in the business of Religion, which is undemonstrable, and which serves a as Demonstration of all the rest. Tertullian likewise in a great many Passages of his Works, proves, That the Books of the Old and New Testament are Divine, and penned by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Origen proves it expressly in his Fourth Book of his Principia, and observes in the fifth Book against Celsus, that the Jews and Christians are agreed as to this Truth, viz. That the Books of Scripture are penned by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Lastly, An ancient Author, who wrote against Artemon, cited by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. B. 5. Ch. 28. says, That those who do not believe the Books of the Scripture were dictated by the Holy Ghost are Infidels.  
Thus you see several passages of the Fathers of the three first Centuries, concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Books; which are enough to demonstrate what was the Opinion of the Primitive Church as to this matter. The Point is farther cleared up by the Fathers of the following Centuries. I shall only city some Passages, wherein they particularly explain the Nature of this Inspiration.  
Eusebius, in the 14th Chapter of the 13th Book de Preparatione Evangelicâ, says, That the Oracles of the Hebrews contain the Predictions, and the Divine Responses, and have a Divine Energy in them, far above human Composures, which shows, that God was the Author of them.  
St. Athanasius in his Book De Interpretatione Psalmorum, written to Marcellinus, says, That all the Scripture of the Old and New Testament was composed by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  
St. Basil says, That when we meet with any seeming contrariety in the Scripture, we are not to believe that there is any such, and are not presumptuously and rashly to condemn it upon that account.  
St. Ambrose, in his Letter to Justus, which is the Eighth according to the last Edition, says, That several deny that our Divine Authors wrote with any Art, and we are much of the same Opinion. For they wrote not by Art, but by Grace; which is far above all Art, because they wrote what the Holy Ghost inspired them with.  
St. Jerom in the Preface of his Commentary on the Epistle to Philemon, relates, and refutes the Opinion of those who supposed, That this Epistle was not St. Paul's, or if it were, that it ought not to be reckoned as caconical, since it has nothing Doctrinal in it, but is only a Recommendatory Letter. Those( says he) who are not willing to receive the Epistle writ to Philemon, say, That Jesus Christ did not always speak by the Apostle St. Paul; That the Infirmity of Man is such, as not to be able always to bear up under the Presence of the Holy Ghost; that it cannot be consistent with the Necessities of human Life: That there were some intervals, wherein St. Paul could not say, [ I live, but 'tis not I that live, but Jesus Christ who liveth in me;] or as he says elsewhere, Will you tempt Jesus Christ that speaketh in me? Is there any thing of Jesus Christ, when he says, When thou comest, bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus; or in the Epistle to the Galatians, I would to God, that they were cut off who trouble you. And in this very Epistle, Prepare me also a lodging. They likewise say, That this was not only by the Case of the Apostles, but also of the Prohets. They farther observe, That the Sign which St. John Baptist had received, whereby to know Jesus Christ, was not only the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon him, but also his Abiding in him; which shows,( say they) That the Holy Ghost descends upon several; but that it is the sole Prerogative of Jesus Christ, that he should abide in him. These are the Arguments which they make use of to show, that the Epistle to Philemon is not St. Paul's, or if it be, that it contains nothing in it for our Edification, and that several Authors have rejected it, because it was not written for Instruction, but only as a Recommendation. Those on the contrary, who maintain that 'tis Authentic, say, That it would never have been received by all the Churches, if it had not been believed to be St. Paul's: That if the Reasons alleged were of any force, we must likewise reject the 2d. Epistle to Timothy, and that to the Galatians, from whence are cited Instances of an human Infirmity. They likewise say, That several such things may be met with in the Epistle to the Romans, and in others, especially in the first to the Corinthians, where he speaks more freely, and as in ordinary Conversation, and where he makes use of this Expression, I speak this and not the Lord. According to this Notion of theirs we ought upon this account to say, That those Epistles are not St. Paul's, or if they be received, we may as well receive that written to Philemon. But they are mightily mistaken, if they think it a fault, to buy Victuals, to provide a Lodging, to inquire after Cloths, and that the Holy Ghost is driven away, when we are never so little concerned about our Bodily wants. The Holy Ghost is grieved by our Sins, and not by our Deeds of Charity, which may render us the Children of God. This is not a place to Answer all those Objections, nor have we mentioned all that are started by them; but we shall only in general say, That if they do not believe, that smaller matters may have the same Author as things more sublime have, they should likewise, with Valentinian, Marcian, and Appelles, maintain, That he who Created Worms, Pismires, &c. is not the Creator of the Heaven, the Earth, the Sea, and of Angels. Is it not rather the Effect of one and the same Power to stoop to minute things, after having exercised his Mind on more Elevated Subjects.  
St. Epiphanius relates in the heresy of the Anomians, That those heretics, finding themselves pressed by the force of St. Paul's Testimony, gave out, That he wrote those things as a Man; which he looks upon as Blasphemy. The same Father in the heresy of the Semi-Arians, lays it down as a certain and unquestionable Axiom, That there is no Contrariety or Contradiction in the Words of the Scripture; tho' there may seem to be something like it to those who are not sufficiently enlightened in their Understandings.  
St. John Chrysostom, in his thirty seventh Homily on Genesis, says, That whatever is contained in the Scripture is a Doctrine absolutely Divine, and that it is quiter different from human Composures: Divina sunt Dogmata, non Humana: He likewise says in several places, That the Words of the Scripture are the Oracles of the Holy Ghost; That 'tis the Holy Ghost that speaks in the Scripture; That 'tis not lawful to call any one of the things in question, which it contains.  
St. Augustin, in a great many Places, establisheth the Inspiration and the Infallibility of the caconical Books of the Holy Scripture. The only way( says he, in the 11th Book De Civit. Dei, Ch. 2, 3.) to preserve us from Error, is to follow the Light of our Mediator. He spake at first by the Prophets, afterwards by himself, and lastly by his Apostles, whatever he thought to be requisite. And he has likewise composed a Scripture, which we ought to believe, in those things which we could not have known of ourselves. For if by Testimony we are informed of those things which we do not apprehended by our Senses, and if, with respect to Corporeal and Sensible things which we have not seen, we give Credit to those that have seen them; we ought likewise with respect to things which are only conceived by the Mind, and which are above our Understandings, to believe those who have been informed of them by a Spiritual Light, or who have even seen them by that help. Being fully persuaded of this Principle, he very often says, That he pays this respect only to the Holy Scriptures and to the caconical Writings, so as to believe that their Authors were not guilty of any Error: Whereas with regard to all other Writings of an human Composure, he believes, That there may be Errors in them, and that he has the Liberty of judging concerning them. He very frequently repeats this Principle, thereby declaring, that he looked upon all that was contained in the Scripture to be the Work of God, who alone is infallible, and to whom alone we owe an entire Submission and Faith. For this Reason, in his Book concerning the Harmony or Concord of the Evangelists, he lays it down as a thing certain, That there is not any real Contradiction in the Narrations of the Evangelists: because 'tis Jesus Christ who is their Head, and whose Members they are; 'tis he who speaks, and they have written nothing but what he has shown and  told them. For( says this Father) whatever he was willing that we should red concerning his Words and Actions, he commanded them to writ down as by his own hands. Whoever shall rightly comprehend the Harmony of this Union, and the Ministry of several Members under one and the same Head, when he reads in the Gospel what the Disciples of Jesus Christ relate, will have the same Thoughts of it, and look upon it as if penned by the very hand of Jesus Christ himself.  
Theodoret, in his Preface upon the Psalms observes, That the Historical Books of the Bible are no less Prophetical than the rest. We ought( says he) to take notice, That the Property of prophesy is not only to foretell things to come, but likewise to relate things past and present. Thus,( for instance) the Divine Moses has related to us whatever the God of the World had done from the very beginning of it, being instructed therein, not so much by Men, as by the Grace of the Holy Ghost.— Holy David also made mention in his Psalms, of the Wonders which God had wrought for his People, and those which he would do for them in time to come. There are indeed those who assert, That all the Psalms were not penned by that pious Prince, but that several of them were composed by other hands. Upon this Subject, I shall be silent, and it signifies but little to me, whether they were all His, or whether other Persons composed some of them, since 'tis evident, that they were all written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. For we are very well satisfied, That David was a Prophet, and that those of whom mention is made in the Chronicles, were likewise Prophets. Now the Property of Prophets, is, That their Tongue be the Organ of the Holy Ghost, according as 'tis written in the Psalms; My Tongue is as the Pen of a ready Writer.  
In short, That I may not tyre my Reader with the Citation of abundance of other Passages which would be needless, since 'tis a Truth which all the catholic Writers do attest, I shall only bring one Passage more of St. Gregory, taken out of the Preface of his Commentary on the Book of Job, where he thus expresses himself. 'tis needless to inquire who composed the Book of Job, since none of the Faithful question but that the Holy Ghost was the Author of it. 'tis the Holy Ghost who really penned it, since he dictated the Words of it to them who wrote it. 'tis the Spirit of God who wrote it, since he was the Inspirer of this Work, and made use of the Words which we red therein, thereby to transmit to us the Actions which we may Imitate. To which this Pope, adds, That 'tis, as if having received a Letter from some excellent hand, we puzzle our Brains with searching what kind of Pen was made use of in Writing it.  
Every Christian then ought to believe, That all the caconical Books of the Old and the New Testament, were written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who has guided the Thoughts and the Pen of those who wrote them in such a manner, that they have not fallen into any Error concerning Religion, Faith, Good Manners, and the Historical Matters of Fact on which Religion is established. So that every Christian is obliged to believe what is contained in those Books, and no Person has liberty of denying or doubting of any of the Truths of this Nature which are established on such a Foundation.   

SECT. VI. Questions that may be raised about the Inspiration of the Sacred Books. The First, Whether the Words and Expressions of them are inspired.  
THIS Axiom or Principle being granted, one may raise several Questions on this Subject, about which the Divines are not agreed.  
In the first place, 'tis demanded, Whether the Holy Ghost did not only Inspire into the Sacred Writers, the Thoughts and Subject-Matter, but also the Words, Expression and Style, so that they had nothing else to do than to follow its Impression, without any Liberty or Freedom of their own. There are some Divines who have carried the Inspiration of the Sacred Books so far as this; but 'tis more probable, that it is not so.  
For( 1.) 'tis a Supposition altogether needless, to establish the Truth and Infallibility of the things contained in the Holy Writings. 'tis enough, that the Thoughts were inspired, there is no necessity that the Words should be so too.  
2. The difference of Style to be observed between the Sacred Writers, is a sufficient Demonstration, That the Holy Ghost is not the Author of the Expressions. For as there is no Diversity nor Contradiction in the things which those different Authors have written, because it was the Holy Ghost who inspired those things into them, it seems as if there ought not to have been any between the Expressions of different Penmen, if the Holy Ghost were the Author of them. But this difference is so plain and evident, that none can question in St. Jerom has even observed it among the Prophets. He says, That Amos was no Orator, but had a very clear insight into, and knowledge of things. Amos Propheta fuit imperitus Sermone; said non Scientiâ. He spake after a mean and clownish way, because he was a Shepherd; whereas Isaiah, who was a Man of Quality, spake in a more noble and lofty manner, as the same St. Jerom observes: And the Reasons, which he assigns, Why the knowledge of both was equal, but not the Style, is this, That the same Spirit spake by the Mouth of all the Prophets: Idem enim qui per omnes Prophetas in eo Spiritus Sanctus loquebatur. He likewise observes on the third Chapter of that Prophet, That he has compared the Anger of God to the Roaring of a Lion; because being a Shepherd, he knew nothing more terrible than a Lion, and therefore made use of the Terms of his own Art: Diximus illum artis suae usum sermonibus, ut quia Pastor gregum nihil terribilius Leone cognoverit, iram Domini Leonibus compararet. This very difference of Style has been taken notice of by several, in the Evangelists, and in the Epistles of the Apostles, where 'tis very visible.  
3. One and the same thing is expressed in different Terms, in different Books, and by different Authors. As for instance, The Commandments of God are not expressed in the same Terms in Exodus and Deuteronomy. The Evangelists themselves, in relating the Sayings of Jesus Christ, do not keep exactly to the same Terms, tho' they do to the same Sense. Some have omitted, what others have substituted; Some follow one Order, others another. All this proves, That the Terms, the Style, and the Order are none of the Holy ghosts, but the Authors. We need only to red upon this Head, the Reflections of St. Augustin, in his second Book concerning the Harmony or Concord of the Evangelists. His Words are as follow. We cannot call it a Contradiction, when one Evangelist relates a thing which another passes over in silence.— This we ought to understand here of all other such like instances; that so we may not be astonished to see that each Evangelist makes his Narration, as if nothing were omitted therein. For having passed by in silence what he had no Mind to say, he joins what he is willing to utter, to what he had already related; so that it seems as if those things had a Connexion with one another. But when one says things which another has omitted, by regarding the Series of the History, we may discover the place where he has omitted them.— It is no Contrariety between the Evangelists, for one to observe one order in his Words, and another to follow a different method, nor for one to omit the Expressions which another relates; for each wrote according to the best of his memory, and as he thought convenient; the one in a more abridged Style, and another in a more copious manner; and yet 'tis plain, that the Thought was the famed. This farther proves, what is likewise to our Subject; that if this happens in the truth of the Gospel, which has acquired the highest degree of Authority; the Word of God which is Eternal and Immutable, having been dispensed by the Creature with external Signs, and by the Speech of Men, we ought not to charge the lie upon different Persons, who relate one and the same thing which they have seen or heard, in more or fewer words; whether by changing the Order of the Expressions, or by substituting others of the same Sense and Meaning; whether one has forgot or omitted any Circumstance, or added some thing for an Illustration. But if any one should say, That the Evangelists ought at least to have received from the Holy Ghost the Gift of not differing from one another, neither in the Terms, nor in the Order, nor in the Number, he does not conceive what use may be made of this difference to shelter those Persons from the Imputation of a lie, who relate a thing after a different manner. For it being unlawful to say, or cry out, that any one of the Evangelists has been a liar, tho' there be some difference in their way of relating things, it ought no more to be said, that that Man is a liar, whose case is much like to theirs, in relating that which he has recollected. This likewise gives us to understand, That the Veracity of any Doctrine does not consist in the Agreement of the same Terms, but in the Knowledge of the Truth of Things; it being plain, that Men who agree in things and thought, do teach the same Truths tho' they speak differently.— It signifies nothing what order each Person observes, nor in what part he has placed a thing; whether he reassumes what he has omitted, or by way of Anticipation, relates what happened afterwards; provided, that the things which they relate be not contradictory, it being not in any Man's power to make one thing, or another, to present itself to his Mind. So that 'tis probable, That each Evangelist thought it his Duty to relate things in the Order which God was pleased to furnish his Memory with, especially such things wherein the Order made no alteration in the Authority, or the Truth of the Gospel. As to the Reason, why the Holy Ghost,( who dispenses his Gifts as he pleases, and who doubtless governs and directs the Minds of the Saints who have composed those Books, which ought to have so much Authority) has yet permitted them to follow a different Order in their Narration: Those who will inquire nicely into it, may by the Divine assistance discover it.— Lastly, St. Augustin says very neatly, that we ought not to heed the Terms, but to mind only the Thought and the Meaning which those Terms ought to express; and that a Man does not lie, when he relates the same thing which another has said, tho' it be expressed in other Terms: That we ought not to lye at the catch for Words, Miseri Aucupes Vocum; nor suppose, that the Truth is fastened to the stroke of Letters; since not only in Words, but even in all other Signs of the Cogitations of the Soul, regard ought only to be had to the thing itself.  
4. Neither the Holy Scripture, nor Tradition inform us of any thing else about the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings, but only that those who penned them, were directed and inspired by the Holy Ghost; that they could not be deceived, and that we are obliged to believe, that the things which they Taught us are true, and revealed by God to them. This is what gives them an Infallible Authority. But as to the Terms, 'tis not necessary that they should be inspired: A thing may be expressed in different Terms, and yet be the very same, and of the same Nature. The Holy Scripture is as much the Word of God in faithful Translations, as 'tis in the Originals. When the Apostles preached, they preached the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, tho' they did not make use of the same Words as Jesus Christ did. The Holy Ghost, with which they were filled, had instructed them in all Truth, but did not at every instant suggest to them all the Expressions which they were to make use of.  
5. I might here produce the Opinions of several Divines, both Modern and Ancient, who are of the same Mind: But, to avoid Prolixity, I shall only produce that of a considerable Writer of the Ninth Century; viz. Agobardus, Archbishop of lions, who in his Answer to Fredegisus, discussing this very Question concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings, says, That 'tis absurd to imagine that the Holy Ghost did Inspire the Apostles and Prophets with the Expressions and Words which they made use of. For the proof of this, he alleges the Example of Moses, who says, That he was slow of Speech, and slow of Tongue. He produces the Testimony of St. Jerom, who declares, That there is a difference of Style between the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles; some of whom have wrote more nobly and eloquently, others with less State and Politeness, and sometimes the same Author has writ differently in different Writings. This difference cannot be attributed to the Holy Ghost, but to Men; and by consequence, 'tis they, not the Holy Ghost, which are the Authors of the Words and Expressions which they make use of; tho' 'tis he who inspires them with the Subject-Matter, and with the Sense that they ought to writ.   

SECT. VII. The Second Question concerning the Inspiration of the Sacred Books. After what manner God has inspired the Sacred Penmen with the things they have written.  
THE Second Question which may be raised, is, about the manner wherein God inspired the Authors( who wrote those Books) with the things that are contained in them. Whether he inspired into them all the Articles immediately and particularly, so that they had no freedom of acting according to their own Understandings; or whether he made use of them by directing and rectifying them, that they might not fall into any Error. There are four sorts of things contained in the Holy Scripture: Matters of Fact, Doctrinal Points, Moral Precepts, and Prophecies.  
Some Authors pretend, That they are only the Law, the Prophecies, and the Mysteries, which were immediately revealed to the Sacred Writers, and that the Histories and Moral Exhortations which the Authors knew of themselves, were not dictated nor inspired by the Holy Ghost. This is the Opinion of Cornelius à Lapide in his Commentary on the 2d Epistle to Timothy. Observe,( says this Jesuit) That the Holy Ghost did not dictate after the same manner all that is contained in the Holy Scripture. For he revealed and dictated verbatim the Law and the Prophecies to Moses and the Prophets; but as for the Histories and Moral Exhortations, which the Holy Penmen had seen or heard of, it was not necessary that they should be inspired into them by the Holy Ghost, since they knew them of themselves. 'tis thus, St. John, C. 19. v. 35. says, That he wrote what he had seen; and St. Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, says, That he wrote what he had heard and received by Tradition from the Apostles. It may be alleged for the Confirmation of this Opinion, That is was needless that Persons who knew a thing by having heard or seen it evidently, should be inspired in order to writ it: That those who copied or abridged the Ancient Records, had no need of the Assistance of the Holy Ghost for doing it. Now there are a great many Books of the Old Testament which are no more than abridgement of other larger Records. The Gospels are only the Relation of the Actions and Discourses of Jesus Christ, related by those who had heard them themselves, as St. Luke testifies in the beginning of his Gospel.  
Other Authors carry the Point farther, and say, That the Prophecies themselves were not inspired into the Prophets at the time when they wrote them; but that they only recollected such things as they had seen or heard whilst asleep or awake. Nay, it often fell out, that what the Prophets said naturally and with Inspiration, was a real prophesy, tho' in a different Sense than that wherein the Prophet took it. There are Instances of this in the Psalms, and the very same thing is observed in the Gospel, of Caiaphas, who being High-Priest, Prophesied contrary to his Intention, by pronouncing concerning Jesus Christ, That it was expdeient that one Man should die for the People; which had a quiter different meaning in his Mouth, from that which the Evangelist gives it, and which the Holy Ghost, who made use of him, intended it.  
'tis easy to solve all these Difficulties by explaining what is meant by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. For if we take this Phrase for a new Revelation of a thing that was not known before to the Understanding, we might truly say, That most of the Histories related in the Books of the Holy Scripture, by those who saw, red or heard of them, are not inspired according to this Sense; no more are the Moral Precepts which were known to the Authors by the Light of Nature or by Instruction, nor even the Prophecies which the Prophets had received before they wrote them, and of which they only give an Historical Relation. In this Sense there are none inspired, but such Truths as were revealed to the Prophets and Sacred Writers in the very moment when they composed them. But 'tis not in this Sense, That the Word INSPIRATION ought to be taken, when we treat concerning all the Sacred Books; It ought only to be understood of a particular direction and assistance of the Holy Ghost, which guides the Mind of him who writes, so that he does not suffer him to be deceived. For this purpose, two things are requisite: First, That the Will be rightly inclined, and that he who writes, wills constantly to speak the Truth, and will not tell a lie, that is, not advance a Falsity which he knows to be so. Secondly, That his Understanding be clear, so that he cannot be mistaken in taking a falsehood for a Truth. The Holy Ghost has wrought these two things in the Sacred Writers. He has inspired into them a firm, steady and infallible Will to speak the Truth, and has filled their Understandings with so much Light, that they cannot be deceived in relating things which they already know. This is a very clear Notion of Inspiration, and which is sufficient to establish the Infallible and sovereign Authority of the Holy Scripture. 'tis not only, as some would have it, pus Animi motus, A more pious Motion of the Soul, like to that of other Writers: But 'tis an especial Assistance of the Holy Ghost, which renders them Infallible, and takes away all doubt or scruple of the Truth of those things which they have written.   

SECT. VIII. The Third Question: Whether all that is contained in the Holy Scripture in general, even Matters of Fact, and such as have no relation to Religion, but are only Points of Philosophy, are Divinely inspired.  
AS to this Third Question, there are some Authors who have ventured to advance, That the Holy Ghost did not Inspire or Assist in an extraordinary manner the Sacred Writers in things which had nothing to do with Religion. This is the Opinion of Henry Holden, Doctor of the Faculty at Paris, whose celebrated Treatise concerning the Analysis of Faith, had the Approbation of Mr. Coquelin, Doctor of the Sorbonne, and the King's Censor of Books, in the last Edition that was made of it. That Doctor's Words are these, Book 1. Ch. 5. Pag. 60. The Fourth thing( says he, speaking of the Scripture) is, That the extraordinary Assistance granted to the Author of each Book, received in the Church as the Word of God, does not extend itself, but only to such things as are purely Doctrinal, or have some near and necessary relation to Doctrine; but in things which are not so designed by the Author, and which are related after another manner, we believe that God only assisted them, as he does other Writers who are endowed with a great deal of Piety. Divers Arguments may be brought to confirm this Opinion, which several have maintained since St. Jerom's time, as may be perceived in the Passage we just now cited.  
They say,( 1.) That the Scripture being designed to instruct us in Religion, and not in human and Philosophical Truths, which were not necessary to be known, 'tis not probable, that God concerned himself with those things.  
2. That, as it may be said, that the Apostles were not Infallible in all that they spake, but only in what they preached concerning the Christian Religion and Morality, the same ought to be said of their Writings.  
3. That it is improper to require an extraordinary Assistance of the Holy Ghost in trivial Matters, such as those are which St. Jerom has taken notice of in his Preface on the Epistle to Philemon, and a great many others.  
4. That there are some Contradictions between the Sacred Writers in certain matters of Fact of little Consequence, as in Chronology between the Books of Kings, and the Chronicles, and even between the Evangelists themselves in some Circumstances of the Actions of Jesus Christ.  
5. That in the Sacred Writings 'tis sometimes observable, that the Authors of them are not certain, as to the exactness of Number and Time; whereupon they express themselves after an indefinite manner of Speaking. As for instance, Luk. 1.56. Mary abode with Elizabeth about three months: John 2.6. There were set six water-pots of ston, containing two or three firkins apiece: Ibid. Ch. 6. V. 10. They were about five thousand: V. 19. When they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs: Ch. 19. V. 14. It was about the sixth hour of the day: Acts 1.15. They were about an hundred and twenty. Now,( say they) If those things were dictated by the Holy Ghost, since the certain and limited number is always present to him, he would not have failed of Inspiring it into the Writers, and would never have left them under an uncertainty.  
6. There are in those Books several very Erroneous Opinions in Philosophy, or such as we may justly call in question; such for instance, as these, That the Moon is a great Luminary or Light, very near as big as the Sun: That the Sun stood still: That the Earth is fixed: That the Heavens are solid, &c. A gross and palpable mistake of this Nature is to be met with in the seventh Chapter of the first Book of Kings, where 'tis said; That the great Vessel placed at the Entrance of the Temple, and called the melted Sea, was ten Cubits in Diameter, and thirty in Circumference. Geometricians can demonstrate, that this Dimension is not exact; for in a round Vessel, whose Diameter is ten Cubits, there are necessary above one and thirty in Circumference.  
7. There are mistakes of the memory in the Citations of Holy Scripture. St. Jerom owns as much himself on the 5th Chapter of the Prophet Micah, where he says, That there are some who pretend, that in almost all the Passages of the Old Testament cited in the New, either the Order of the Words is changed, or the Words are different, and even the Sense too; The Apostles and Evangelists having not taken the Passages out of the Books themselves, but trusting to their Memory which was treacherous. This is what he shows at large in his 101st Letter to Pammachius, concerning the best method of Translations: Where he produces a great many of those Citations, wherein the Apostles and Evangelists did not quote the Words, but the Sense of the Prophecies, or wherein one Prophet is sometimes quoted for another; as in St. Matth. Ch. 2. V. 25. He shall be called a Nazarene, which is not to be met with in any of the Prophecies: Ibid. Ch. 27. Ver. 9. A Passage of Zechariah, cited under Jeremiah's Name; and a Passage out of Micah concerning Bethlehem, quiter different from the Genuine one in the 2d Chapter of the same Gospel. St. Mark likewise cites the Prophet Isaiah instead of Malachy, Ch. 1. Ver. 2. The same Evangelist says, That our Saviour was fastened to the across about the third, and St. John, Ch. 19. about the sixth hour. St. Luke, Ch. 23. Ver. 36. places a Cainan between Arphaxad and Sala, which is a feigned Person. Some Persons do farther observe, That in the Discourse of St. Stephen, related in the Acts, there are several Circumstances contrary to the Truth of History, which can only be attributed to a defect of Memory: As for instance, That Jacob went into Egypt with all his Family, which consisted of seventy five Persons; whereas they were only Seventy as appears from the first Chapter of Exodus: That Jacob and the patriarches were butted at Sychem, in the Sepulchre which Abraham bought of the Sons of Emmor the Son of Sychem: Now it was in Hebron, that Abraham bought a Sepulchre of Ephron the Son of Zohar, Gen. 23. And it was not he, but his Grandson Jacob, who bought that of the Sons of Emmor, who was not the Son, but the Father of Sychem, Gen. 33. Several Learned Interpreters seem to agree in this Notion. For before Grotius, Capel, and Episcopius, Erasmus on the second Chapter of St. Matthew, was of the same Opinion: His Words are these; St. Jerom( says he) can't endure, that it should be said, That there is any Falsity in the Evangelists: But the Case is not the same with respect to the faults of the Memory; for the Authority of the Scripture is not shaken, tho' the Authors vary in the Words or in the Sense; provided, that the Essence of the things of which they treat, and on which our Salvation depends, be made clear. And as that Spirit which governed the Minds of the Apostles, has permitted that they should be ignorant of certain things, that they should be subject to error, and that they should Err; either in their judgement or in their Will, and yet this should not be prejudicial to the Gospel: Even so he might have so ordered the Organ of the Apostles Memory, that tho' something might have escaped it, yet it does not derogate from the Credit of the Holy Scripture; but rather increases it, by being a convincing Argument against those who might have said, That they had all written by laying their Heads together. Which might happen in putting one Name for another, as St. Jerom owns, that it has happened, or if a thing be not related Methodically.  
8. The Apostles owned that they spake sometimes of their own Heads. St. Paul, 1 Corinth. 7.10, 12. makes a distinction betwixt what the Lord had commanded, and his own Advice. Unto the married, I command, yet not I, but the Lord: But to the rest speak I, not the Lord. St. Basil, in the fifth Book against Eunomius, makes use of this Instance, to show that the Holy Ghost is God, because the Words of the Holy Ghost are styled the Words of God: Whereas, the Sayings of Men are distinguished from those of God. Origen in the sixteenth Homily on the Book of Numbers, observes, That the Discourse of Jonas is rather his own than God's, and that Moses himself made the Commandments by his own Authority, which God did not approve of; As for instance, That of Divorce, which was made only for the Hardness of the Children of Israel's Hearts. Which is likewise observed by St. Ambrose, in the eighth Book of his Commentary on St. Luke, Ch. 16. It may be likewise added, That St. Paul repents in his 2d Epistle to the Corinthians, of what he had written in the first; and that he owns, That he speaks as a Man provoked, in making men tion of his Revelations.  
9. The Apostles were subject to Error, even after the Descent of the Holy Ghost. St. Peter was deceived in being willing to constrain the Gentiles to observe the Customs of the Jews. A Synod was forced to be called to decide the Question concerning the Observation of the Law; each of 'em singly was not sufficiently inspired to determine it. The catholic Church itself, and a General Council, by the Concession of all the World, may Err in Facts and Matters which relate not to Religion. Lastly, 'tis only Jesus Christ who is the Truth itself, who is not subject to Error in any Case whatever.  
Notwithstanding all these specious Arguments, yet it is more safe and more conformable to Tradition, to maintain, that all the Holy Scripture is penned by the Direction of the Holy Ghost; and that there is neither Error nor Contradiction in any of the Sacred Books. 'tis after this manner, that all the Ancient Fathers, whose principal Passages we have cited, have spoken of them. St. Jerom himself is of the same Mind, and in express Terms refutes the contrary Opinion: And St. Augustin, in the 11th Book against Faustus, Ch. 5. declares positively against it, where he says, That 'tis not Lawful, when we meet with any thing in the caconical Books which seems to us absurd, to say, that the Author of that Book has swerved from the Truth; but it must rather be said, That the Copy is faulty, or that the Interpreter is mistaken, or that we do not understand it; and that it is by no means lawful for us to doubt of the Truth of all that is contained therein. For otherwise( says he) there would be no Book to direct the Infirmity of human Ignorance, if the sound Authority of the caconical Books be entirely rejected thro' Contempt, or called in question by some scruple or other. He also observes in the second Book concerning the Harmony of the Evangelists, that it cannot possibly be, That the Evangelists should say one thing for another through defect of Memory: That 'tis requisite that the Gospel should be free from all Faults, not only from those wherein one falls, that has an intention of Lying, but also from those that happen through the fault of the Memory. They do not oppose against us the Authority of any one Father to establish their contrary Opinion; so that all we have to do, is to Examine, Whether the Arguments which they propose to support it, be of force enough to carry the day from such an Authority.  
Their first Argument is not Conclusive. 'tis true indeed, That the main End of the Holy Scripture is to instruct us in the Truths of Religion: But it does not from thence follow, that there may be some Falsities mixed with those Truths. On the contrary, 'tis because it does instruct us in the Truths of Religion, that 'tis requisite there should be no Falsities mixed with those Truths: Because, if this were so, what was False would be prejudicial to what is True, and the Error might make us doubt of the Truth. The Infidels, who should see in those Books any palpable Falsities, with respect to Historical Matters, would thence conclude, That there might be likewise some in Religion; and some daring Spirits under this pretence, would give themselves the liberty of doubting of those Historical Matters of Fact which serve as the Foundation of the Truths of Religion. For who shall distinguish, Whether a matter of Fact has any Connexion with Religion or no? Who shall determine, Whether a Truth be a Religious or a Philosophical Truth? Whether it be a Truth of Christian, or only of Political Morality? It would be therefore very dangerous for Religion, if there were any Errors in the Scripture, of what Nature soever they may be.  
The second Argument supposes, That there are Errors in the Writings of the Apostles, as well as in their Discourses. But there is a great deal of difference between them. To be Infallible in all their Conversations, it would have been requisite, that the Holy Ghost should have inspired and directed them in their Thoughts, Words and Actions: If this had been so, they would have been impeccable: But they were not so, as themselves acknowledged, nor was it necessary that they should be so; because their Preachings being sufficiently distinguished from their familiar and ordinary Conversations, they could not be deceived therein; And the Faults which they may have been guilty of, or the Errors which they might have fallen into with respect to the things of this life, had no Connexion with their Doctrine. Nor are there any in their Writings, which were composed for the Instruction of the Church, which were to be the Rule of Faith, and esteemed in the Church as Divine Books. Every one sees of what fatal Consequence it would have been, if there had been any one Error in them.  
St. Jerom has furnished us with a Reply to the Third Objection, which was started, and for a Solution of it, 'tis sufficient to say, That 'tis not unworthy of the Holy Ghost to direct the Minds of Men, so that they may not be deceived in the most minute Matters.  
In Answer to the Fourth, We deny that there any real Contradictions between the Writers and the Sacred Books; they are only seeming ones, which are reconcilable. Tho' one cannot discover the Means of reconciling them, yet it does not necessary follow that one of them is mistaken. We may suppose, that there is a Means of reconciling them, which we know not of, or that there is some mistake crept into the Text of one or other of them, through the Carelessness of the Transcribers.  
The Fifth has no difficulty at all in it. 'tis no Falsity at all in the caconical Writers to say, About such or such a time, or there were about such or such a number. 'tis the usual way of Speaking. The Holy Ghost, 'tis true, knew the number exactly; but did not think it requisite to reveal it to the Writer. He judged it more natural to leave him to speak as he usually speaks, and as he would have spoken of himself.  
The like Answer may be given to the Sixth Objection. The Holy Scripture being not intended to teach us Truths purely Philosophical, has spoken of those things according to the ordinary way of speaking, and, Ad Hominum Captum, as Men conceived of things. This is St. Augustin's Remark in the second Book concerning the Literal Exposition of the Book of Genesis, Ch. 9. where, having debated this Question, he concludes in these Terms: To sum up all in a word, our Authors were well acquainted with what is true concerning the Form or Figure of Heaven; but the Spirit of God, who spake by them, was not minded to teach Men those things, because they were of no Advantage to them for their everlasting Salvation. In the same Book, Ch. 10. he observes the same thing concerning the Motion of Heaven.  
Now tho' it might happen, that the Sacred Writers in speaking of them according to the ordinary and common way of Discourse, do not say exactly the Truth, yet it cannot be said, that their Expression is false, because 'tis conformable to the common received Opinion of Mankind. But to make use thereof to establish this Opinion as Infallible, would be such an extravagance as could not be allowed. For it cannot be said, That the Holy Ghost has revealed to the Writer the exact Truth of these things, since he only leaves him to speak after the ordinary manner of Speech. Do not we see, that even the Copernicans and Cartesians speak as others do concerning the Motion of the Earth, and the Souls of Beasts in their ordinary Discourse, though they think otherwise, and they cannot for that be charged with Error or Lying. The Application of this Rule is easily made to the forecited Instances.  
The Seventh Objection we must divide into two Parts. The First, is, That the Apostles and Evangelists have not always cited the proper Words of the Prophets, that they have changed the Order of them, but have still retained the same Sense of them, either by abridging them, or else because they cited them Memoriter, and without consulting the Books. This is what St. Jerom proves in his Letter to Pammachius, and we agree with him therein: But there is no Error in this, as the same Father takes notice, and as we have proved at large in treating of the foregoing Question. The Second is, That those Sacred Authors were deceived in citing one Prophet for another, or in quoting a Passage that is no where to be found; or lastly, In relating Memoriter, a matter of Fact quiter otherwise than it is. St. Jerom is not of this Mind, we do not assent to it, and the Arguments produced for it are not conclusive.  
We have already answered the Objections which are taken from the Citations of several Prophecies by the Evangelists, which are not to be met with in the Prophets of the Old Testament, which they city: And we have shown, that there are several ways of Solving this difficulty, without charging an Error upon the Evangelists. Interpreters have likewise produced several Solutions of the difference which is between the Evangelists concerning the hour of Christ's Crucifixion. Tho' those should not be satisfactory, yet it would be more requisite to say, That 'tis a fault of the Transcriber in St. Mark, who has put one number for another, as St. Jerom believes, than from thence to suppose any Contradiction between the Evangelists. It is not altogether certain, that Cainan is a feigned Person, since 'tis in the Version of the Seventy 
[ It is not altogether certain that Cainan is a feigned person, since 'tis in the Version of the Seventy.] The learned Dr. Kiddar, the present Bishop of Bath and Wells; in his Demonstration of the messiah, Part II. Ch. 10. cites the Words of the Seventy Interpreters about this Matter at length, Pag. 369. {αβγδ}, &c. But for all this, he grants, That this second Cainan, mentioned, Luk. 3.36. is a Supernumerary Name. For this Concession, he brings in as Evidence, not only the Account of Moses according to the Hebrew Text, but also of Berosus quoted by Eusebius, Praepar. l. 9. c. 16. of Josephus, Antiq. Jud. l. 1. c. 7. of R. David Gantz, and of the Author of Seder Olam Zutah: And to them joins the Testimony of the Ancient Writers of the Church, viz. Theophilus Antiochenus ad Autolych. lib. 3. Eusebius Chron. lib. 1. and St. Jerom in a great many places of his Writings. Most of these Authors he produces a-fresh, to prove, That the second Cainan was not in the Text of the Ancient Septuagint, but inserted afterwards. However that be; the Bishop proceeds farther, and proves from the Testimony of Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 33. and from an Ancient Copy of the Greek, written above 1200 years ago, and a Latin Version also of great Antiquity,( both in the University of Cambridge) that the Evangelist ought not to be charged with having inserted this second Cainan: Since in both of these Copies it is left out.]  Nor is it any more certain, that this Name was in the Genealogy of St. Luke, but rather added afterwards to the Text from the Version of the Old Testament by the Seventy. We may likewise justify the Circumstances of the Narration of St. Stephen, tho' there is no need of it, because there may happen to be Errors in the Speeches of Men, related in the Sacred Books. St. Stephen follows the Version of the Seventy in the number of the Family of Jacob 
[ St. Stephen follows the Version of the Seventy in the Number of the Family of Jacob.] The forementioned Bishop in the same Treatise, Ch. 4. goes another way to justify this Narration of St. Stephen from falsehood. In order to this, he reflects first upon the Account which Moses gives, and then upon the Design and Words of Stephen; from both which, he proves, that St. Stephen was not mistaken. He says, That Moses reckoned Seventy, and St. Stephen Seventy five Souls; and yet no Contradiction in these two Accounts. Moses tells us, That Jacob with his Family, being Seventy Persons, went down into Egypt: St. Stephen says, Joseph sent and called his Father Jacob to him and all his Kindred, Threescore and fifteen Souls. Now, to reconcile this seeming difference, the Bishop says, That out of the Seventy we must take Six Persons, viz. Joseph, his Wife, and two Sons, who were already in Egypt, and Hezron and Hamel, who were not yet born; and then there will remain but Sixty four, to which if we add the Eleven Wives of Joseph's Brethren, the number will be exactly Seventy five, according to St. Stephen's Account. And that the Wives of the 11 patriarches were included in the number of Jacob's household, he proves from the Expression of Stephen, {αβγδ}, which is Parallel to a Passage of Josephus Antiqu. l. 2. c. 3. who reports Joseph's Words to his Brethren thus, {αβγδ}.]  Tho' it were plain, that this Version is faulty, yet it may be made use of without being deceived; and this Maxim may serve as an Answer to all the Objections that may be started about the Passages of Scripture cited in the New Testament from the Version of the Seventy. We can neither conclude, That the Version of the Seventy is Infallible, nor that the Sacred Writers were deceived in citing it. For they were obliged to city them according to a common and authorised Version, they could not alter it without being blamed for so doing. That this was exact or no, they were not to be responsible for; their design was not to Criticise on the Passages they cited, but advantageously to make use of them for a proof of what they advanced, as taken out of the common received and authorized Version. As to the other Difficulty that is started, upon the Narration of St. Stephen, concerning the Sepulchre of the patriarches, we may easily restore the Text, and reconcile it with the Truth, by supposing that the Word Abraham was added thereto, or rather by substituting that of Jacob, and by translating the Text thus: They were butted in the Sepulchre which Jacob the Grandson of Abraham had bought for a sum of Money of the Sons of Emmor the Father of Sychem. Or we may rather illustrate, St. Stephen's thought( which was abridged in this place) after this manner. Jacob died, and our Fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and were laid( Jacob) in the Sepulchre which Abraham bought( of the Sons of heath, or Ephron, Gen. 23.49.) for a sum of Money( and the rest of the patriarches,[ according to Bishop Kiddar's Explication] in that which Jacob bought) of the Sons of Emmor( the Father) of Sychem, Gen. 33. St. Stephen making his Speech Extempore and in hast, has joined these two things into one, which 'tis easy to illustrate and explain, by comparing them with the History of the Old Testamant. Thus his Narration has nothing of Falsity in it; it is only a little confused, as it might well be, considering the Circumstances wherein it was made. In a word, Without entering into the particulars of these kinds of Objections, for which we may meet Solutions enough in the Commentators on the Holy Scripture, it may in general be said, That if there were any such slight Faults as these in the Text, 'tis more credible that they are crept in through the fault of the Transcribers, than through the Inadvertency or Forgetfulness of the Authors. 'tis safer and more reasonable to incline to this Opinion.  
The Eighth Objection is grounded on an Equivocation; Tho' the Holy Ghost inspired the Apostles in all that they wrote, yet there are some things which they enjoined in the Name of God, and others which they settled and advised themselves. The former are Jure Divino, the Commandments of God; the latter, are human Precepts or Admonitions; but both are true. Thus St. Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians makes a distinction between the Commandment of God, who orders Persons who are married not to depart, and the Advice of Virginity which he gives to others: But it does not from hence follow, that he was mistaken in giving this Advice, and that it was not agreeable to the Truth, nor inspired by the Holy Ghost. On the contrary, St. Paul says immediately, Puto autem quod& ego Spiritum Dei haheam; And I believe that I have also the Spirit of God. 'tis in this Sense, That the Fathers who have been cited, have spoken. We ought to make a distinction in Scripture between the Eternal Laws of God, and the Positive Laws, whether Divine or human. The former are perpetual, and are liable to no Exception or Change: The others are only to continue for a time, may be changed and are liable to Exceptions; Such is the Law of Divorce, granted only for a time, for the hardness of the Hearts of the People of Israel: But both of 'em have their Truth, and may have been dictated by the Holy Ghost. The two Passages of the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians have no great difficulty in them. St. Paul, properly speaking, did not repent of having reproved the Corinthians sharply, but was displeased and sorry that he had any occasion for it. 'tis a tender Sense of Compassion towards them, which had nothing of ill in it. And when he says, Quasi in insipientia dico, I speak as a Fool; 'tis not that he says any thing foolishly, but acts in outward appearance, like those foolish Persons who magnify themselves by an Air of Vain-glory. He owns, That this Action was a sort of Folly in other Circumstances, and if he had not been constrained to defend himself. For this Reason he adds, Factus sum Insipiens, vos me coegistis; I am become a Fool in glorying, ye have compelled me: I have done a thing which might have passed for foolishness, had not you forced me to do it.  
To conclude, as a Reply to the last Objection, we do not at all pretend, That the Apostles were absolutely Infallible. St. Peter himself might be deceived; tho' as Tertullian observes, Conversationis fuit vitium, non Praedicationis; It was a fault in his Conversation, rather than an Error in his Preaching. In short, we own, That in the difficulties that did arise, they might be confirmed and enlightened by a mutual Conference. The Holy Ghost, who acted upon them in a natural way, was not minded to reveal to them certain things immediately, without the usual Assistances: On the contrary, He would that they should make use of them, and by this means he guided them into all Truth. One of the most effectual of these Methods, was to confer with one another about the Debates that should happen, and afterwards to determine the Case with an unanimous Consent. This is what they did, and in determining it did declare, That what they did was by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost: Visum est Spiritui Sancto,& nobis, It seemed Good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.  
'tis true, The Church and a General Council may Err in Matters of Fact not revealed; but the Case is not the same with the Holy Scripture. For the Church is only as it were the Trustee of the Doctrine which it received from Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The Church has no longer any new Revelation, that is Authentic and publicly known, and consequently no Infallible Authority concerning all new Matters of Fact, and which are not revealed. But 'tis otherwise with the Holy Scripture, which in its Original was penned by the Inspiration of God, to serve as an Infallible Rule of Faith. There is not any among the Sons of Men, that is Infallible of himself, but Jesus Christ alone; but Men may likewise arrive to it by Grace, by the Inspiration and Guidance of the Holy Ghost: And 'tis thus that the Church has always believed of the Authors of all the caconical Books.    

CHAP. III. Concerning the Authors of the Books of the Old Testament.  

SECT. I. Of the Author of the Pentateuch: Arguments to prove Moses the Author of it: The Objections against it answered: The Names of the Five Books of the Pentateuch: At what Time they were composed.  
OF all the Paradoxes that have been raised in this our Age, there is none in my Mind, more rash and dangerous, than the Opinion of those, who have been so bold as to deny Moses to be the Author of the Pentateuch. For can any thing be more rash, than to deny a Matter of Fact, which is founded on the express Passages of Holy Scripture, on the Authority of Jesus Christ, on the Universal Consent of all Nations, and on the Authentic Testimonies of the most Ancient Authors? And is there any thing more dangerous, than to confront Antiquity, and consequently to subvert the Authority of those Books, which are as it were the Foundation of our Religion? 'tis certain,' That Moses was the Legislator, and the Leader of the Jews: 'tis that which none ever doubted of. No more can it be denied, That he committed to Writing the Law which he gave to them in the Name of God. The Question is to know, Whether the five Books of the Pentateuch were really penned by Moses, or whether they are the Work of some more modern Writer, who composed them from Ancient Records, which he collected together, and digested into that Form wherein they are at Present.  
The first Author that has raised any Scruples on this Subject, is Rabbi AbenEzrah 
Is Rabbi Aben-Ezrah.] Mr. Simon pretends, this Rabbi was never of this Opinion, and that those who have cited him to Authorize their Paradox, never understood him. However, 'tis certain, that instead of Solving this Difficulty which is raised on those Words of Deuteronomy, On the other side, or, Beyond Jordan, to show, that it was not Moses's, he produces others which seem to corroborated this Opinion. Which has occasioned all others who have wrote on this Subject before Mr. Simon, to believe, that Aben-Ezrah was of that Mind. , who lived in the Twelfth Century. For in Explaining these Words of Deuteronomy; This is what Moses spake to the Israelites on the other side of Jordan: He not only makes use of this Passage to show, That this Book does not belong to Moses, but likewise produces the strongest Arguments that can be, to prove, That the Pentateuch was not his. You will( says he) know the Truth, if you comprehend the Mystery of the Number Twelve: Moses wrote the Law: The Canaanites were then in the Land: On the Mount of the Lord it shall be seen: His bedstead was of Iron. These are Words taken out of some Passages of the Pentateuch, which are made use of to show, that it does not belong to Moses. 'tis chiefly on the Authority and Arguments of this Rabbi, That Hobbes, La Pereirere, and Spinosa 
Hobbes, La Pereirere, and Spinosa.] The former of these in his Treatise entitled, The Leviathan, Part 3. Ch. 23. where he maintains, That the Books of Moses were so called, because of the History of Moses, though he owns, that perhaps he might have written what is said in that Book; and that he wrote the Book of the Law, which is comprehended in Deuteronomy, from Ch. 11. to Ch. 27. La Pereirere, who is the Author of the Book concerning the Praeadamites, asserts, That the Books of Moses, wherein he wrote at large the History of the Jews, are lost, and that we have only Scraps and Extracts of them: Spinosa attributes the Pentateuch, and the other Historical Books of the Old Testament, to one and the same Author, whom he supposes to be Ezrah.  go upon, to maintain, That Moses was not the Author of the Pentateuch. The Hypothesis of Mr. Simon does not much differ from that of these Authors 

The Hypothesis of Mr. Simon dees not much differ from that of these Authors.] See how he explains himself in the first Chapter of his Critical History, Pag. 3. according to the Edition of Leers. In supposing these public Scribes, we shall ascribe to them the Historical part of those Books, and to Moses the Laws and the Ordinances; and 'tis this the Holy Scripture styles the Law of Moses: So that in this Sense we may say, that all the Pentateuch is truly Moses's , because those who made the Collection of it, lived in his time, and did it only by his Order. He says the same thing, Ch. 2. p. 17. 'tis therefore very probable, that there were since the time of Moses, such Prophets as these which the State had need of to collect the Acts of what occurred in the republic. This being supposed, we shall distinguish in the Five Books of the Law, that which was penned by Moses, from that which was written by the Prophets or public Scribes. We shall attribute to Moses the Commandments and Ordinances which he gave the People; whereas we shall reckon those public Scribes to be the Authors of the greatest part of the History. In the 7th Chap. pag. 50. he adds, Besides, as to what concerns the Books of Moses, as they are in the Collection that we have at present, the Additions that are made to the Ancient Records hinder us from discerning what is truly his, from that which was added by those who succeeded him, or by the Authors of the last Collection. However, this Collection being no more than an abridgement of the Ancient Records, we cannot be very well assured, that the Genealogies therein contained are of their full extent.  
From these Positions of Mr. Simon, it follows; first, That Moses is not the Author of the greatest part of the Pentateuch; for the contest here is not about some Passages of little or no consequence, but about the Body and the principal part of the Pentateuch. Moses, according to him, having only composed the Laws and the Ordinances, has nothing to do with the rest: And so the History of the Creation and the Deluge, in one word, all Genesis, and and all that is Historical, is not Moses's. Let not Mr. Simon say any more to to us, as he has done already, Pag. 3. That it may be affirmed, that the whole Pentateuch was Moses's ; because they who made the Collection of it lived in his time, and did it by his Order. For would it not be ridiculous in him to attribute to Moses that which was the Work of the public Scribes of his time? If this were so, one might attribute to the Kings and Princes all the public Records which were made in their Time and by their Order. But what is the most surprising, is, That this Mr. Simon, or at least, one of his most zealous Defenders, abandons this very Hypothesis, and owns that there is no proof at all, that there were in Moses's time public Scribes Divinely inspired. This Remark is in a Note, which is Pag. 17. of the Edition of his Criticisms, which we have hitherto cited. We meet( says the Author of this Note) with these public Scribes among the Jews in the times of the Kings,— But we see nothing of them in the Books of Moses. The Author of the Answer to a Letter which Spanhemius wrote against Mr. Simon, owns the same thing. If you ask me now,( says he, p. 627.) What is my Opinion concerning the public Scribes; to this I answer, That it would be a very hard case to reject them absolutely.— Yet I cannot be entirely of his mind, concerning the time wherein he pretends that these Prophets were established in the Jewish State: For the Reasons which he offers, and even most of the Authorities do suppose, that this happened after the time of Moses. If this Letter were Mr. Simon's, as the World supposed it to be, he could never justify himself for having acted unfairly in a business of the highest consequence in Religion, since he would have established all the Truth of the Pentateuch on an Hypothesis, which himself owns to be false, or at best uncertain. But suppose this Letter to be none of his, it proves at least, that those who most favour his Hypothesis, do sincerely own, that there is no proof, that there were any public Scribes Divinely inspired in the time of Moses; and consequently, That Mr. Simon founding the Authority of the Pentateuch on this Hypothesis, has made choice of a very slight Foundation, even by the Concession of those critics who are most wedded to his Interests. Nor does Mr. Simon himself urge this Conjecture any farther than as a thing probable. Secondly, Mr. Simon subverts himself what he has said concerning the Antiquity and Authority of the Pentateuch, by asserting confidently in the third passage already cited, That the Pentateuch, as 'tis at present, is only a Collection or abridgement of the Ancient Records made in the time of Moses; and that 'tis impossible to distinguish which is Ancient, and which not. Does he not here expressly deny Moses to be the Author of the Pentateuch, which is a more Ancient Book than that we have.  ; since he says, That Moses only wrote the Law and the Commandments; That the History was Writ since the time of Moses, by the public Scribes in the Authentic Acts; but that the Pentateuch is a more Modern Piece composed from these Ancient Records.  
Mr. Le Clerc, in refuting the Hypothesis of Mr. Simon 
Mr. Le Clerc refuting the Hypothesis of Mr. Simon.] In the Sentiments of the Dutch Divines, Pag. 128, &c. But he teaches the contrary in the Third Dissertation of his Prolegomena to Genesis. , has asserted, That the Pentateuch was a great deal more Modern than Moses, and that it may be conjectured to have been composed by a Jewish Priest, sent from Babylon to instruct the New Inhabitants of Palestine, about the eighteen year of the Reign of Josiah, and that this Work was afterwards approved of by the Priests who were at Jerusalem, who found nothing in it but what was Pious, and conformable to the Law of God, and to the Truth of History. But he has himself acknowledged upon what a slight Foundation this imaginary Hypothesis is built, and has maintained that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch in his Prologomena before Genesis. We shall hereafter examine the Reasons which those Authors have alleged to destroy the Antiquity of the Pentateuch; and at present shall lay down those which establish it, and which demonstrate it to be the Work of Moses. We will prove this first, of the entire Pentateuch in general, and then of each of the Five Books in particular.  
'tis certain, That the Term[ LAW,] in an especial manner, agrees with the Pentateuch, and that the Jews have so called the Collection of the Five Books of which 'tis composed. If we can therefore prove, that Moses wrote the Law taken in this Sense, there will be no Scruple made but that he was the Author of the Pentateuch. It must likewise pass for a thing Self-evident, That the Book which the Hebrews called MISNE TORA, and the Greeks, Deuteronomy; that is, The Repetition of the Law, or the Second Law, supposes another written Law, which is not different from that which is in the Four foregoing Books. So that if 'tis proved, That Moses wrote Deuteronomy, it will from thence follow, That the Four preceding Books, of which Deuteronomy is an abridgement, wherein the same Laws are repeated in the same Terms, are likewise His. Now nothing is more easy, than to prove from very plain Passages of Scripture, That the Law and Deuteronomy are the Writings of Moses.  
'tis said in the 31st Chapter of Deuteronomy, Ver. 9. That Moses wrote this Law, and delivered it unto the Priests the sons of Levi, who bare the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord. And Ver. 24, 25, 26. That when he had made an end of writing the words of this Law in a book until they were finished, he commanded the Levites to take this Law, and put it in the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord their God. In the 17th Chapter of the same Book, the Kings who should hereafter Reign in Israel, were enjoined, immediately upon their Accession to the Throne, to writ him a Copy of this Law in a Book, out of that which is before the Priests, the Levites. These Passages are a clear proof, That Moses wrote himself a Copy of the Law; That he gave it to the Priests to keep, and to the Levites to lay up in the side of the Ark, that it might serve as an Original and Authentic Record, from whence the Kings were to transcribe Copies, for a Rule of their Conduct. Now in these Passages, we must of necessity understand by the Word Law, the Whole Pentateuch, or at least the Book of Deuteronomy: For mention is made of a Book, which contains all the Precepts and Ordinances of the Lord, as well Moral as Ceremonial, and wherein one may Learn what ought to be put into practise. Since the King is recommended, Ver. 19. To red it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and to keep all the words of this Law, and these Statutes to do them. A Copy of it was put into the side of the Ark, to be a witness against the Children of Israel, if they did any thing contrary to the Commandments of God. But tho' these Passages should not be understood of the whole Pentateuch; yet still 'tis plain, that mention is therein made of Deuteronomy, which was writ down in this Copy, which is fully denoted by these Terms: Deuteronomy, or the Repetition of the Law, this Law, the words of this Law: This cannot be understood of any thing less than the whole Law, or the Entire Book of Deuteronomy. Now whether we suppose it of the whole Law, or of Deuteronomy only, it thence follows, That Moses is the Author of the whole Pentateuch, because the Book of Deuteronomy supposes, that the other Four Books were composed, and were manifestly penned by the same Author.  
This Remark may likewise be confirmed by the History related in the 22th and 23th Chapters of the second Book of Kings, and in the 34th Chapter of the second Book of Chronicles, where 'tis said, That in the time of King Josiah, Hilkiah the High-Priest found in the Temple, the Book of the Law of the Lord, written by the hand of Moses, as is intimated in the Chronicles; which Expression might incline one to believe, that it was the very Copy itself which Moses wrote with his own hand. But tho' this were not so, yet it cannot be questioned, but that this Book of the Law, found in the House of the Lord, was one of those which were preserved in the Temple by the Priests; and that if these words,[ Per manum Moisi] do not denote, that this was the Copy written by Moses's own hand; yet they do intimate at least, that this Book had been composed by Moses. What remains upon us, is to show, That this Copy contained either the whole Law, or at least Deuteronomy. This is what all Expositors are agreed in, and what the History itself sufficiently demonstrate, to us.  
Immediately after the Death of Moses, Joshua had in his Custody the whole Law of that. Legislator, as is observed in the beginning of the Book of Joshua, Ch. 1.7, 8. where God speaks to Joshua after this manner; Be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayst observe to do according to all the Law which Moses my servant commanded thee: Turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayst prosper whithersoever thou goest. This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayst observe to do according to all that is written therein. Thus you see, 'tis a Volume of the Law containing all the Precepts and Ordinances of the Lord; which answers to the Pentateuch, and consequently of It these Words ought to be understood, as well as those of Chap. 23. Ver. 6. Be ye therefore( says Joshua to the Israelites) very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom, to the right hand or to the left. To these Passages we may add King David's Advice to his Son Solomon, 1 Kings 2.3. Keep the Charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his Statutes and his Commandments, and his Judgments and his Testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses: And those Words, 2 Kings 21.8. If they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the Law, that my servant Moses commanded them: Also those in 2 Chron. 23.18. To offer the Burnt-Offerings of the Lord, as it is written in the Law of Moses; Ibid. Ch. 33. V. 8. If they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole Law, and the Statutes and the Ordinances which I gave them by the hand of Moses. In all these Places, mention is made of the Whole Law, and of all the Commandments, as well those that relate to Morality, as the Ceremonial and Judicial Law: In a Word, of all that the Jews, properly speaking, called the LAW, viz. The Pentateuch. Now 'tis said in all those places, that it is Moses's, that he was the Author of it, and that he penned it.  
But should any one pretend against so much probability as this, That in those early times, the Law of Moses was a different Composure from that of the Pentateuch, yet no Man can deny, but that in Ezrah's time, the Law was the same with the Pentateuch which we have by us at present, and that even then this Law was attributed to Moses. In the first Book of Ezrah, Ch. 7. 'tis said, That Ezrah was a ready Scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given them: And in the 2d Book of Ezrah,( which in our English Bibles, goes under the Name of Nehemiah) Ch. 8. where 'tis related, That the Law was red in the Audience of the People, 'tis not only called the Law of Moses, but 'tis likewise said to be the Law which God gave them by the hand of MOSES. The same thing is to be met with in the 14th Chapter of Ecclesiasticus. Lastly, In several places of the Old Testament, the particular Books of the Pentateuch, are cited under Moses's Name.  
If we turn to the New Testament, we shall there find this Truth established still more clearly, by the Testimony of Jesus Christ and the Apostles. For in the first place, our Saviour does frequently style the Whole Pentateuch, The Law of Moses, particularly, Luk. 24.44. where he distinguishes the Books of the Old Testament into three Classes; The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms: And a little before in the same Chapter, V. 27. 'tis said, That Jesus Christ explained the Scriptures to his Disciples as going to Emmaus, beginning at Moses, and all the Prophets: Moses then was the most Ancient Jewish Author, and the Books of the Pentateuch were owned to be His, as the Books of the Prophets were acknowledged to be Theirs. In St. John's Gospel, Ch. 1. Ver. 45. Philip tells Nathanael; We have found him of whom Moses in the Law, and the Prophets did writ. These Passages do clearly prove two things,( 1.) That Jesus Christ meant by the Law the whole Pentateuch; for the Law, as distinguished from the Prophets and the Psalms, did certainly in our Saviour's time, comprehend the Pentateuch, which was the same with that we have at present:( 2.) That Moses was the Author of the Law that goes under his Name, since 'tis called his Law, and said to be written by him. In St. John's Gospel, Ch. 1. V. 17. 'tis said, The Law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. In the 5th Chapter of the same Gospel, V. 39. 'tis said, Search the Scriptures.— And then it follows, Ver. 46, 47. If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me: But if ye believe not his Writings, How shall ye believe my Words? Moses did therefore writ, and he wrote those Books which the Jews red as his, Joh. 7.19. 'tis said, Did not Moses give you the Law? Acts 15.21. The Apostle St. James says, That Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being red in the Synagogues every Sabbath day: And St. Paul asserts the same thing, 2 Cor. 3.15. where he says, that they red Moses to the Jews in reading the Law to them, as was practised till that time, Usque in hodiernum diem,( says he) cum legitur moses. They did not doubt then but that the Pentateuch was Moses's, since they affirm, that they who did red it, did red Moses.  
Having thus produced the Passages which prove in General, that Moses is the Author of the Law, or the whole Pentateuch, we must now show, That each Book in particular is attributed to him, and cited under his Name in the Old and New Testament. This will not only prove, That Moses wrote a Law, but likewise, that that very Law which was penned by Moses, is the very same that we have at present: Since these are the very Books that are cited, and in which we may meet with the Passages that are taken thence.  
We will begin with the Book of Deuteronomy, which is cited oftener than any other; because being an abridgement of all the Law, composed for the common use of the People of Israel, it was more natural to city it than the rest. The beginning of this Book shows, that Moses was the Author of it. It was Customary among the Ancients to put the Names of the Authors at the beginning of their Works; That of Moses is in the first Verse of Deuteronomy, These are the Words which Moses spake unto all Israel, &c. Afterwards Moses is from time to time named as the Author of what is contained in this Book, V. 5. 'tis said, Moses began to declare this Law, saying. Ch. 4. Ver. 8. What Nation is there so great, that hath Statutes and Judgments so righteous, as all this Law which I set before you this day? 'tis Moses that speaks, Ch. 31. Ver. 9. Moses wrote this Law, and delivered it to the Priests the Sons of Levi: And Ver. 32. Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the Children of Israel: And lastly, Ver. 24. When Moses had made an end of writing the words of this Law in a Book, until they were finished. This ought to be understood of the Book itself where this is written; therefore Moses is the Author of it. 'tis likewise cited under his Name in other Books of Holy Writ; as Joshua 8.30, 31. where 'tis said, That Joshua built an Altar to the Lord in Mount Ebal, as Moses the Servant of the Lord commanded the Children of Israel, as it is written in the Book of the Law of Moses; herein he refers to Deut. 27.5. where this was ordered by Moses. In 2 Kings 14.7. and 2 Chron. 25.4. This Passage of Deut. 24.16.[ The fathers shall not die for the Children, neither shall the children die for the fathers] is cited as taken out of the Book of the Law of Moses: Ex Libro Legis Moisi. In the Book of Nehemiah, Ch. 13. it is ordered, That the Moabites and the Ammonites should be separated from the Congregation of God, as they red in the Book of Moses, in the Audience of the People. Now this was ordered, Deut. 23.3. An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord, even to their tenth generation. The Prophet Baruch, in the two first Chapters of his prophesy, describing the Calamities which befell the Israelites, who did not observe the Law of Moses, places among those which were foretold in the Law, this dreadful Accident, That a man should eat the flesh of his own son, and the flesh of his own daughter, Bar. 2.3. A Curse that was predicted, Deut. 28.53. 'tis likewise of these Curses that Daniel speaks in the 9th and 13th Chapters of his prophesy, and which he says were foretold in the Law of Moses. There are likewise in the Books of the New Testament, a great many Laws cited under the Name of Moses, which are taken out of Deuteronomy; And among others, the Law concerning the Bill of Divorce; That which obliges the Brother to mary the Wife of his Brother, dying without Issue; That which condemns an Adulteress to be stoned to Death; The Precept of not Muzzling the Mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the Corn; And the Law of Condemning no Person but by the Testimony of two or three Witnesses. All these Ordinances are cited in the New Testament as being Moses's, and as they are to be met with in Deuteronomy. After this, can any one Question, Whether that Book be really his or no? For if it be Evidence enough, that a Book is such or such an Author's, because 'tis cited once or twice under his Name by a credible Person, What ought we to say of a Work cited so often under the Name of Moses by Infallible Authors, whose Authority we must not call in question? Now having once proved, That Deuteronomy belongs to Moses, it follows, as we before observed, That the other four Books of the Law are likewise His.  
But they are likewise cited in particular, in a great many places of the other Books of Holy Scriptures; 2 Chron. 24.9. 'tis said, That Moses ordered a Collection of Money to be gathered to be laid in the Tabernacle, which is ordered, Exod. 30.12. and Numb. 1, 2. The Ceremonies of the Passover, of which mention is made in the same Chapter of Chronicles, and in Ezrah, Ch. 3. are taken out of Exodus and Leviticus. What is said in the 8th Chapter of Ezrah, concerning the Feast of the Tabernacles, is taken out of the 23th Chapter of Leviticus. The Law of Marriage between Kindred enjoined, Numb. 36.6. is cited, Tobit 7.13. Genesis is quoted seldomer than the other Books; but all the Holy Scripture supposes it, and the principal Points of History which it contains are frequently cited. The 77th, 104th, 105th, and 135th Psalms, contain an Abstract of all the History of the Pentateuch, which is manifestly taken from the Pentateuch itself. In the New Testament, the Ceremony for purifying a Leprous Person, Levit. 14. is ordered by Jesus Christ as a Commandment of Moses, written in the Law, Matth. 8.4. Aear. 1.44. The Commandment of Honouring one's Father and Mother, is recited Mar. 7.10. in the same terms wherein 'tis expressed, Exod. 20. In the 12th Chapter, Ver. 26. of the same Gospel, these words of Exodus, Ch. 3. Ver. 6. I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, are cited as taken from the Book of Moses. The Law of Purification, mentioned Luke 2. is taken word for word out of Exod. 13. And Levit. 12. St. Paul, Rom. 10.5. cites a Passage out of Levit. 18.5. in these words; Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, That the man who doth those things shall live by them: We might still multiply passages of this Nature, but those already cited are more than sufficient to show:( 1.) That Moses wrote the Law of the Jews:( 2.) That by the Law we are to understand the Pentateuch:( 3.) That not only Deuteronomy, but likewise all the other Books of the Pentateuch are cited in the Scripture, as the Books and Law of Moses:( 4.) That this has passed for a certain and an unquestionable Truth: And( 5.) That Moses was not only believed to be the Author of the things contained in those Books, but of the Books themselves, so that when we red them, we may say we red Moses:  
This is what the constant and perpetual Tradition of the Jews( who have always acknowledged, that these Books were the Authentic Works of Moses) does in a most convincing manner establish. The Testimony of that People is entirely decisive of this Point. They were the Trustees and Guardians of these Books. They have with the utmost care, even almost to Superstition, preserved them: These were their public and Authentic Books, which contained their Religion and Laws, by which they were governed. 'tis impossible that they should have taken the Books of another for those of Moses, that they should have lost them which he had left 'em, and that they should have permitted others to have been foisted into their stead. It being therefore evident, That all the Jewish Nation did always aclowledge the Pentateuch to be the Genuine Work of Moses, 'tis Presumption to call them into Question. Lastly, 'tis manifest, That this was not only the constant Belief of the Jews, but the whole World also looked upon Moses as the Author of the Jewish Law and Religion. This is the Universal Consent of all Nations and Men, the general and constant Opinion of all People, and none ever doubted of it before these last times.  
After this, it seems altogether needless to produce the Testimony of profane Authors, who have acknowledged Moses to be the Legislator of the Jews, and the Author of the History and Laws related in the Pentateuch; or who have had some Knowledge of these Books, and have cited something out of them to this purpose. Sanchoniathon of Berytus, is commonly cited, whom they pretend to be a phoenician Author, more ancient than the Trojan War. Eusebius in his Books de Praeparatione Evangelicâ, makes mention of several Fragments of the Greek Version of this Work, made by Philo Byblius. porphyry likewise speaks of this Author, and says, That he made use of the Memoirs of Jerubbaal Priest of Jevo, whom some believe to be Gideon: But I am of Opinion, That no Assurance can be had of the Antiquity of Sanchoniathon, and there is less certainty that he ever saw the Books of Moses. 'tis pretended, That Hesiod and Homer took several things out of the Books of Moses: This may be true for ought we know; but yet 'tis not so certain, as that any convincing Argument can be raised from thence. The same thing is said by guess of several Philosophers, but of none with so much probability as of Plato, as might be proved by the Relation there is between a great many Points of his Philosophy, and the Theology of Moses; which made Numenius say, That this Philosopher was the Athenian Moses. There are likewise several among the Learned, who maintain, That all the Religions of the Pagans have founded their Theology on the Books of Moses, whose Histories they have changed to accommodate them to the Fable. They pretend for instance, That the Adonis of the Phoenicians; That the Osiris, Serapis, Anubis, and the other Deities of the Egyptians; That the Zoroaster of the Persians, and the Gods of the Eastern Parts; That the Apollo, Priapus, Aesculapius, Prometheus, Mercury, and the other Deities of the Greeks; That the Janus, Faunus, Vertumnus, and Evander of the Latins; in a word, That all the Fabulous Deities were Moses, whose History they disguised. But these are such Conjectures as can hardly pass for Probabilities, much less can they be looked upon as Demonstrations of a Truth which is very evident without them. Therefore waving those uncertain and loose kinds of proof, we may more reasonably make use of the Authority of those Writers who city Moses. The first of these is Manetho, an Ancient Historiographer of Egypt, whose Testimony is related by Josephus in his first Book against Appion, where he says, That Moses is the Author of the Jewish Laws and economy. Several other Authors do likewise make Moses to be the Author of the Laws of the Jews 
Make Moses to be the Author of the Laws of the Jews.] The Testimony of Philochorus is related in the Exhortation to the Gentiles attributed to St. Justin. Polemon is cited by the same Author. Eupolemus by Alexander Polyhistor, who is likewise mentioned by Eusebius in the ninth Book of his Evangelical preparation. Apollonius Molo, by Josephus in his second Book against Appion. Castor of Rhodes, is cited by the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles. Diodorus Siculus is quoted by the same Author, and by St. Cyril in his first Book against Julian, tho' in our Copies, he does not speak of Moses, but of Mneües, which is the Egyptian Osiris. Cheremon, the Author of the History of Egypt is cited by Josephus. Trogus Pompeius, abridged by Justin the Historian, makes Moses to be the Author of the Laws of the Jews. Nicholas Damensis is cited by Josephus. Mendesius by the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles; by Tatian, Eusebius, and St. Cyril. Strabo makes Moses the Author of the Religion and Laws of the Jews. Appion, tho' the Jews Enemy, supposes, That Moses is the Author of their Laws. Juvenal speaks of the Volumes of Moses, satire. 14. Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses. Ptolomey of Alexandria, styles him the Legislator of the Jews. Pliny, Tacitus, Justin the Historian, have considered him under the same Character. Numenius has observed, That Plato was the Athenian Moses. Longinus, {αβγδ} commends the beginning of Genesis, and produces it as an instance of the Sublime Style, calling the Author of these Words, the Wise Legislator of the Jews. porphyry and Julian, Writing against the Christian Religion, have acknowledged, That the Books of the Pentateuch were Moses's. To these Authors we must add those who have related Histories manifestly taken out of the Pentateuch, as Hecataeus, Berosus, Abidenus, Manetho, Eupolemus, Alexander Polyhistor, Artapanus, Demetrius the Jew, and others cited by Josephus in his first Book against Appion, by the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles, by St. Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius in his Books de Praepar. Evan. We say nothing of Josephus, Philo, and other Jews, who all attest this Truth. ; as for instance, Philochorus, who lived in the time of Ptolomey Philopator, Polemon, who lived under Ptolomey Epiphanes, Eupolemus, Alexander Polyhistor, Apollonius Molo; without mentioning Diodorus Siculus, Pompeius Trogus, Strabo, Appion, Nicholas Damensis, Tacitus, Pliny, Juvenal, Plutarch, Longinus, Numenius. Porphyry, Pollio, and a great many other more modern Writers who have made mention of Moses and his Writings.  
The Samaritan Pentateuch is still a stronger Evidence of the Antiquity of the Pentateuch. Sacred History informs us, That in the time of Jeroboam, the Ten Tribes separated themselves from those of Judah and Benjamin. From that time, the Children of Israel were divided into two Kingdoms; that of Israel, and that of Judah. The Ten Tribes preserved the Books of the Pentateuch, and owned none else. Shalmaneser subdued them, and carried the Inhabitants of that Country into Captivity, and placed in their stead Idolatrous People, called Cutheans, who inhabited Samaria. The Men of Cuth being infested by wild Beasts, because of the contempt they cast upon the Religion of the true God, sent for an Israelite Priest, who should teach them the Law and the Worship of that God, whose Anger they would appease. This Priest, gave them the Pentateuch, before the Jews were carried away Captive to Babylon. The Samaritans always preserved their Pentateuch writ in the Ancient Hebrew Character, as we shall hereafter show; whereas the Jews changed those Ancient Characters, and took up with those of the Chaldeans, which have been in use among the Jews ever since. Upon this Narration, the following Remarks may be made. First, That the Pentateuch was common to the Jews and the Israelites; whereas the other Sacred Books were peculiar to the Jews; from whence it follows, that it is more Ancient than the Division of the Ten Tribes. Secondly, That the Pentateuch of the Samaritans is written in the Ancient Characters, different from the Chaldee which Ezrah made use of, and consequently it preceded the time of the Captivity. Thirdly, That both the Israelites and Jews looked upon the Pentateuch as the Work of Moses, and as the Foundation of their Religion and Government. Fourthly, That the Samaritans did not receive their Pentateuch from the Jews, but from an Israelite Priest, and consequently, That the Pentateuch was not composed by Ezrah after the Captivity, since the Israelites and Samaritans had written long before in Characters which were not in use among the Hebrews in the time of Ezrah. The Version of the Seventy, which is certainly very Ancient, is likewise a Proof, That the Books of the Pentateuch are Moses's. In a word, All those who have made mention of the Pentateuch, both Jews and Christians, have taken it for a thing granted, that these Books were his. 'tis very presumptuous then, to oppose such weak Conjectures to so great Authorities and to the Universal Consent of all Mankind. 'tis no less than striking at the Foundations of our Religion; for one of the greatest Proofs we have of the Truth of it, is its Antiquity, which is chiefly founded on the Antiquity of the Books of the Law. Now, If they are not Moses's, if his Name is falsely affixed to them, What Proof shall we have of their Antiquity? This is to give the Atheists an occasion of ridiculing them, and of looking upon them as fabulous Books, and full of Fictions, invented by the Modern Jews since the Captivity.  
We cannot therefore but disapprove of their Opinion, who in these last times have ventured to maintain, That the Books of the Pentateuch are not Moses's, and who have been forced to prove it by Conjectures of so little Solidity, that 'tis impossible for any one of Sense to be of their Mind. For tho' all that they allege were true, they would only prove, that the Books of Moses have underwent the same Fate, that has happened to the Books of almost all the Ancient Writers; that is, they have added to, or changed in them, some Words, Names, and Expressions, to render the Narration the more intelligible to those who lived in After-Ages. For instance, They have sometimes changed the Ancient Names of Towns into those they have since been called by, because they were not known by their Ancient Name: There have been likewise inserted in the Ancient Works, some short Notes, to illustrate what is therein said by the Author. Lastly, They have supplied it with some necessary Matters of Fact, thereby to give the finishing stroke to an History. These are usual things; we meet with instances of them in the Books of Homer, Herodotus, and almost all the Ancient Historians, and yet no body has ever thought that their Books ought to be rejected upon that account, as if they were not theirs under whose Names they went. We only say, That these things were either altered or added. Why then should not the same be said of the Books of the Pentateuch, which are more apparently Moses's, than the Illiad and Odysses are Homer's, or the Histories of Herodotus and Thucydides are theirs? If we examine all the Reasons that are urged against the Antiquity of the Pentateuch, tho' we should suppose them to be all unanswerable,( which they are not, as we shall show immediately) yet we shall see that they prove no more than this, viz. That some Names of Cities and Countries are changed, some Words inserted to illustrate difficult Places; And lastly, That the Narration of the Death of Moses has been added, as being necessary to complete the History of the Pentateuch. But whereas this general Reply may not perhaps be satisfactory, let us enter upon the particulars of these Objections; and in the first place propose them in their full force, then afterwards answer them at large. All then that has been, or can be said to make this Opinion[ That Moses is not the Author of the Pentateuch] in the least probable, is as follows.  
'tis agreed, That he was the Leader and Legislator of the Jewish People; 'tis likewise granted, That he committed to Writing the Laws which he gave them in the Name of God, and even some part of their History. But this does not come up to the State of the Question. We are to know, Whether there were an Author of the Five Books of the Pentateuch in the Form wherein we have 'em now, or whether they were composed by a more Modern Author from Ancient Records. That they go under the Name of Moses is not sufficient to prove that he was the Author of them: For besides That, several Books go under the Names of very Ancient Authors, which are none of theirs,( as of Mercurius Trismegistus, Hidaspes, and the Sibyls.) There are several Reasons why the Books of the Pentateuch may lawfully go under the Name of Moses, either because they contain his History, or because they were composed out of his Memoirs. The Title and the Name which is given them ought not then to be any prejudice or bias to us. We must consult the Work itself, and examine, Whether one may not draw several Deductions from thence to demonstrate evidently that it is not Moses's.  
The principal Reasons whereby to show, that any Work is not his, whose Name it bears, are,( 1.) When things are related therein that have happened since the Death of him who is supposed to be the Author of it.( 2.) When the Names of Towns and Countries are made use of, which were not in use till long after the time wherein 'tis supposed that it was written.( 3.) When the Name of him who is said to be the Author of it, is mentioned in the third Person, and when such things are said of him, which an Author ought not to say of himself.( 4.) When the Style shows that the Work was composed by a more Modern Author.( 5.) When it appears by the Diversity of Style, and the want of Method, that 'tis a Composure taken out of several Ancient Records. And( 6.) Lastly, When the Reasons alleged to prove, that 'tis such or such an Author's, are unwarrantable. These are the Maxims on which one may reject any Work. 'tis pretended that they may be applied to the Pentateuch; and this we are now to examine.  
1. In the first place, There are in it several Matters of Fact which did not happen till after Moses. The Death and Burial of Moses are related in the last Chapter of Deuteronomy; Moses could not be the Author of it. For to say, That he wrote those things by a Spirit of prophesy, is a groundless Supposition, of which there is not the least sign in the Text, and which cannot be applied to the last Verses, where 'tis said, That there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like unto Moses: Which Words do certainly suppose, That there was some considerable time between the Death of Moses and the compiling of this Book.  
In the 12th Chapter of Genesis, V. 6. it is observed in a Parenthesis, that at the time when the things related there, happened, The Canaanites were in the Land: Chananaeus autem erat in terrâ illâ. This Remark supposes, That the Author of that Book wrote in a time when the Canaanites were not in Palestine, otherwise this Note had been needless: Now they were not driven out till a long time after the Death of Moses. It cannot be said, that the Author was minded to observe, That ever since that time the Canaanites dwelled in that Land: For to denote in Hebrew, ever since, the Particle meaz or minaz should have been made use of, and not the Particle az, which is in that place.  
In the 36th Chapter of Genesis, V. 31. 'tis written; These are the Kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any King over the Children of Israel: And afterwards follow the Names of Eight of those Kings of Edom who suceeeded one another, and the Names of several Princes of the Race of Esau. From this place they conclude,( 1.) That the Author lived in the time when there were Kings in Israel, since he denotes the time when the Israelites began to have Kings, by the Epocha, at which those of Edom, whose Names he sets down, ended.( 2.) The Number of the Generations of the Kings of Edom is double to that of the Generations from Jacob, Esau's Brother, to Moses: For in this place is a Succession of Eight Kings, without taking in Esau or Beor; whereas from Jacob to Moses there are but Four Generations, and there are but Eight from Jacob to ob, the Grandfather of David. Which shows, That 'tis very probable, that the last Kings of Edom set down in this place, did reign since the time of Moses. And( 3.) The Author having enumerated the Eight Kings of Idumea or Edom, speaks of their Dukes or Princes. Now they had no Dukes or Princes instead of Kings till a great while after, as appears, 1 Chron, 1.51.  
In the 2d Chapter of Deuteronomy, V. 12. 'tis said, That the Horims also dwelled in Seir before-time, but the Children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelled in their Country, as Israel did unto the Land of his Possession which God gave unto them. Now an Author, who relates such a thing as this, ought of necessity to have lived after that the Israelites had destroyed the Inhabitants of the Land of Canaan, and took possession thereof. But this cannot be truly said of Moses.  
'tis said, Exodus 16.35. That the Children of Israel did eat Manna forty years, until they came to a Land inhabited: They did eat Manna, until they came unto the Borders of the Land of Canaan. Now Moses died before the forty years were expired. Nor does the next Verse seem to belong to Moses: Now an Omer, says the Author, is The tenth part of an Ephah. In the time when any measure is in use, one would hardly think it worth while to set down in an History, what it contains. 'tis because it is out of Use, that we inquire how much it contains, and make Remarks of this Nature.  
Deuteronomy begins thus: These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel, on the other side or beyond Jordan: Trans Jordanem. It seems by this word Beyond, that this Book was written in Palestine, in respect of which the Wilderness in which the Israelites were, is beyond Jordan. Now Moses having not passed Jordan, could never have written after this manner. The Hebrew Term Beheber, signifies always beyond, and it was thus translated by the Seventy.  
In the same Book, Ch. 3. V. 10, 11. where mention is made of Og King of Bashan; 'tis said, that he only remained of the Race of Giants, and that his bedstead of Iron was still to be seen, in Rabbath of the Children of Ammon, being Nine Cubits long, and Four broad. From these Words several Inferences are drawn to prove, That Deuteronomy is of later date than Moses. For( 1.) Why should Moses speak of this bedstead, to prove the bigness of Og in a time when all the Israelites might have seen this Giant? It is highly probable, that this was written by an Author who lived when they had no knowledge of this King.( 2.) Why was not this bedstead in Bashan, but in Rabbath of the Children of Ammon?( 3.) This bedstead was not discovered till David's time, who subdued the Ammonites, and took Rabbath, as 'tis related, 2 Sam. 12.29.  
In Deuteronomy, Ch. 3. V. 14. 'tis said, That Jair the son of Manasseh took all the Country of Argob, unto the Coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi, and called them after his own Name, Bashan-Havoth-Jair, that is, the Cities of Jair, unto this day: An Expression which plainly denotes the Author to be more Modern than Moses.  
II. In the second place, We meet in the Pentateuch with a great many Names of Cities and Countries, which were not so called till after the time of Moses. The most observable, are as follow: NINEVEH; Gen. 10.11. to which Ninus gave this Name, who according to the most probable Opinion, did not live till about the time of Deborah.— UR OF THE CHALDEES, mentioned, Gen. 11.28, 31. Now the Name of the Chaldeans was not known in Moses's time, and this Country was then called Padan-Aram.— DAN, Ibid. Ch. 14. V. 14. where 'tis said, That Abraham pursued the Kings who had taken away his Nephew Lot, as far as Dan. Now the Name of Dan was not given to this place, till a long time after, when six hundred Men of the Tribe of Dan took Laish, and called it after the Name of Dan their Father, as 'tis related, judge. 18.29. and it cannot be questioned, but that the Author of Genesis speaks of this City, because it lay in the Road by which Abraham went in pursuit of his Enemies.— THE MOUNT OF MORIAH, Gen. 22. The Name which that Mount seems not to have had till after the Temple was built upon it. However this be, yet it is observed in that passage, that this Mount was so called unto this day, which supposes a time at a great distance off.— HEBRON, Gen. 37.14. The Name of a City which was given to it after the Death of Moses, by Hebron, the Son of Caleb, to whom Joshua gave it: It was called before Kirjath-Arba, as is hinted, Jos. 14.15.— THE LAND OF THE HEBREWS, when Joseph says, Gen. 40.15. That he was stolen away out of the LAND OF THE HEBREWS. Now how could Joseph in his time call the Land of Canaan the Land of the Hebrews, since Jacob his Father was only in Possession of a Sepulchre which Abraham had bought, and where he Sojourned as a Stranger. The Author then of this Book has certainly made Joseph speak, after the manner wherein they spake at the time when he wrote it. Now it could not be Moses, since in his time the Land of Canaan was not called the Land of the Hebrews, who were not then in Possession of it; therefore it must have been a Writer who lived since that time.— THE TOWER OF EDAR, or of the Flock, beyond which it is said, Gen. 35.21. That the Israelites pitched their Tents. This was the Name of a Tower which was on one of the Gates of Jerusalem, which is called the Gate of the Flock, Micah 4.8. and the Sheep-Gate, Nehem. 3.1. The Author then intended to say, That Jacob stretched out his Tents beyond the Place where the Tower of Edar was built, in the time when he wrote this History: And consequently it was written since Jerusalem was built, and belonged to the Israelites.— The Term NABI, to signify a Prophet, a Word not in use till afterwards; the Prophets being formerly called row, Seers, as is observed, 1 Sam. 9.9.  
III. In the third Place, When Moses is spoken of in the Pentateuch, 'tis always in the third Person, and such things are said of him as he could not well have said of himself. Is it probable, That he should call himself, The Man of God, Deuter. 33.1. The meakest man upon earth, Numb. 12.3? Such Praises as these do not sound well in the Mouth of an Author. Who would believe that a Man in his life-time, after he had given us the Genealogy of himself, would add these Words, Exod. 6.26, 27. These are That Aaron and Moses, to whom the Lord said, Bring out the children of Israel from the Land of Egypt, according to their armies: These are they who spake to Pharaoh King of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt; these are That Moses and Aaron? Is it credible that Persons who are alive should speak thus of themselves? Could Moses in his life-time, say, That after his death there arose not a Prophet like to him in Israel? Does not this plainly suppose, That there were other Prophets in Israel at different times after his Death?  
IV. In the fourth Place, Several things are observed in the Pentateuch, from which 'tis thought it may be inferred, That 'tis a Collection taken out of various Records. 'tis pretended that there is a Notorious Variety of Style in it, which shows, That the whole cannot be the same Author's: That sometimes Matters of Consequence are related in a few Words, and very briefly; Sometimes Matters of little moment are very much enlarged upon: That there are frequent Repetitions of one and the same thing related in a different manner: That there is no Method observed: That what follows, ought sometimes to have been before; and things are placed first, which according to the Method of the Narration ought to have been last. They produce a great many instances of these things, and think that from thence they may boldly conclude, That the Pentateuch is not the Original Piece of one and the same Ancient Author, but a Collection made time after time from several Records which were copied or abridged out of which to make a complete Body of History. Mr. Simon pretends, That this Confusion and Repetition proceeded from this, viz. That formerly they wrote Books on small Leaves, which they rolled one upon another round a small stick, without stitching them together; and that forasmuch as they did not take much care to preserve the Order of these ancient Peaves or Rolls, it happened, that the ranging of those matters received some Alteration. He adds, That 'tis very probable, That those who have joined the Ancient Records together, to preserve the body of the caconical Books which are now remaining, never put themselves to the trouble of striking out several Synonimous Terms which were in their Copies, and which might likewise have been added for a farther illustration. In a word, they assert, That 'tis so certain, that Moses is not the Author of the Pentateuch, as we now have it, that therein are cited several Books which were composed by Moses; as for instance, the Book of the Covenant, Exod. 24.7. The Book of the Wars of the Lord, Numb. 21.14. That wherein he wrote the War of Amalek, of which mention is made, Exod. 17.14. The Book of the Encampments of the Children of Israel in the Wilderness, Numb. 33.2. The Book of the Law of God, Deut. 31.9. and a Song, Deut. 32. 'tis therefore probable, That the Books of the Pentateuch are rather a Copy made from the Original Books of Moses, than the Work of Moses himself.  
V. Lastly, There are no Arguments to prove Moses to be the Author of the Pentateuch: Those alleged do only prove, That he was the Legislator of the People of Israel, That he gave them Laws in the Name of the Lord, That he wrote them down, as also several of his memorable Actions: But they do not prove, That he was the Author of the Five Books of the Pentateuch as it is at present. It likewise seems, as if one could show, that the Places where 'tis said, That God commanded Moses to writ the Law, and that Moses wrote it, are not meant of the Pentateuch; but of several particular Ordinances, or of some small part of the Law. For First, As to that mentioned in the 24th and 34th Chapters of Deuteronomy, which is called the Book of the Covenant, which Moses red in the Audience of all the People, this could not be the Pentateuch, which could not have been composed till a long time after; and there is not the least probability, that Moses did red these five whole Books to the People. The Law of which he speaks in the 27th Chapter of Deuteronomy, and which God commanded to be written on Stones, ought to be restrained to the Curses and Blessings which were written on Stones, and pronounced on Mount Ebal, as appears by the 14th Verse of that Chapter, and by Josh. 8.34. In a word, That of which mention is made, Deuter. 28.58, 61. Ibid. Ch. 29. Ver. 20, 27. and Ch. 31. Ver. 9.26. which was laid in the Tabernacle in the side of the Ark, was not composed of the five Books of the Pentateuch, but only of the chief Ordinances contained in Deuteronomy, or at most, only that single Book.  
These are almost all the Objections that have hitherto been raised, against Moses's being the Author of the Pentateuch: Let us now take them all under Examination one after the other, with the Answers that have usually been return'd to them.  
Two Answers are return'd to the first Objection raised from the Narration of the Death of Moses. The former is that of Philo, Josephus, and the other Jews, who are of Opinion, That Moses wrote it by a Spirit of prophesy: The second, which is the more common and sounder Reply, is, That this Narration was added either by Joshua, or by Ezrah, or by the Synagogue of the Jews, to render the History of the Pentateuch the more complete. It must be owned, That the former of these Answers is by no means probable, and that the latter ought to be adhered to. But tho' this last Chapter had been added, it cannot from thence be concluded, that all the rest of the Pentateuch is not Moses's.  
Tho' these Words, Gen. 12.6. Cananaeus autem erat in terrâ illâ, were to be taken in that Sense which the Objection would have them to be of; yet we might reasonably say, that this Parenthesis has been added since the time of Moses. This is usual, and it often happens, that these kinds of Explications which are set at first in the Margin to illustrate the Text, have afterwards been by way of Parenthesis, inserted into it. But there is no occasion here of having recourse to this Solution, and we may very well say, that those Words do not signify that the Canaanites were formerly in that Land, but that they were even then there, that is, that Moses speaking of Abraham's passage through the Land of Sichem, observes, That at that time the Canaanites were in that Country. This Sense is natural and unforced; for the Hebrew Particle az, may signify either one or other, as Aben-Ezrah has observed. This last Sense seems more natural, because 'tis not likely, that an Author, who wrote in a time and Country, when all the World knew that the Israelites had dispossessed the Canaanites, should think it advisable to observe as a thing unknown, that the Canaanites were then in the Land which the Israelites were in possession of: Whereas 'tis very natural, That Moses writing at a time wherein it was proper to advertise the Israelites, that their Fathers once conversed with the Canaanites, should observe, that when Abraham arrived in that Country he found it already inhabited by those People.  
The Passage of the 36th Chapter of Genesis concerning the Kings of Idumea or Edom, is somewhat more difficult. Some say, That Moses spake in this place by a Spirit of prophesy of the Kings that should reign in Israel; God having certainly revealed to him that the Israelites should have a King, as 'tis said expressly, Deut. 17.14. The Eight Kings of the Idumeans, of whom mention is made, might have reigned between Esau and Moses's time, and the rather because they were not the Sons who succeeded their Fathers, but Persons of different Countries, who seized upon the Government one after another. The Dukes or Princes of Edom, mentioned in the same place, did not succeed those Kings, but governed at the same time in different Places. As to Deuteronom. 2.12. where 'tis said, That the Children of Esau dwelled in Seir, after they had destroyed the Horims from before them, as the Children of Israel did to the Land of their Possession, it may be explained of the Land which the Tribes of Reuben and Gad, and part of the Tribe of Manasseh had taken from the Amorites and the Men of Bashan, after they had destroyed them. But tho' we should own, That these Words of the first Passage, Before there was any King in Israel; and those of the second, As the Israelites had done to the Land of their possession, are added, yet no inconvenience would ensue, because they are such Explications as do not make part of the History.  
Moses might very well say, that the Israelites should eat Manna for forty years, since he very well knew, and as it appears from Numb. 14.33. that the Israelites were to wander during that time in the Wilderness. However, Exod. 16.35. 'tis mentioned as a thing past: The Children of Israel did eat Manna for forty years, &c. which seems to suppose that the forty years were expired; and that they had left off eating of Manna; which happened after the Death of Moses, as 'tis related, Josh. 5.12. So that it is most probable, that this also is an Addition.  
As for the next Verse, where 'tis said, That an Omer is the tenth part of an Ephah, there is no need of having recourse to the same Solution, since this Remark might very well be Moses's, and no reason why it should be another's rather than his, nor any proof, that the Ephah was better known than the Omer in the Infancy of the Jewish Commonwealth.  
The Difficulty that arises about the beginning of Deuteronomy, is solved by the double Acceptation of the Particle BEHEBER, which literally signifies only in the Passage of; which may as well be rendered on this side, as well as on that side, as Pagninus Buxtorf, and all the Learned Hebricians do aclowledge. The Hebrews had no other Word whereby to express, on this side, and it must necessary be taken in this Sense, Deut. 3.8. Where Moses says, That the Israelites took the country of the two Kings of the Amorites, which were on this side Jordan. For tho' we should suppose, That some other Author and not Moses wrote this; yet since he brings in Moses speaking in the Land of the Moabites, he must have made him say on this side, and not on that side Jordan. 'tis certain, That the Book of Joshua was written on this side Jordan: Yet 'tis said, Ch. 9. Ver. 1. That the Kings of Palestine were in the passage,[ BEHEBER] of Jordan; which some have rendered beyond, tho' it ought to be understood on this side,( as our English Bibles have it) since they were on the same side of Jordan as the Israelites were. Gen. 50. Ver. 10. 'tis said, That Joseph and his Brethren went up from Egypt, and came to the Threshing Floor of Atad, which is[ BEHEBER], in the passage over Jordan, to celebrate the funeral Solemnities of Jacob. Now in going up from Egypt, the Threshing Floor of Atad is on this side, and not beyond Jordan. HEBER signifies both on this and on that side: Thus, 1 Sam. 14.14. Saul says to his People, Be ye on one side, and I and Jonathan my Son will be on the other side: And 1 Kings 4.24. 'tis said, That Solomon had Dominion over all the Region which was on the side of the River, that is, of Euphrates; which ought to be rendered on this side, since the Euphrates was the Boundary of his Empire. The Hebrew Word[ BEHEBER] being then an Equivocal Term, it may as well signify on this, as on that side. The Seventy, who have rendered it, {αβγδ}, beyond, regarded the time wherein they wrote, when the Place where Moses had given his Laws was looked upon as being beyond Jordan, with respect to the Lahd of Canaan. Thus this Objection, which seemed of such force has really no difficulty at all in it.  
There is nothing in it extraordinary, that Moses in speaking of the Giant Og, King of Bashan, has produced as a proof of the bigness of his stature, his Iron bedstead; whether because it was some time since that King was killed when Moses wrote this, or rather to make Posterity give the more credit to what he said about him. 'tis thus, That the Historians of our times, in speaking of any new thing that has happened extraordinary, tho' well known in their time, do say, we have such or such an Evidence of the Truth of what we assert; they keep such or such a Monster in such or such a place. As to what is added, That this Iron bedstead in Moses's time was in Bashan, and not in Rabbath, 'tis pure conjecture; for why could not the Ammonites have it in the days of Moses?  
It may be, that these words, Deut. 3.14. spoken of the Cities of Jair,( so called unto this day) is a Parenthesis added afterwards: Tho' 'tis not impossible, but Moses might have made use of this Expression, because there was some space between the Division of the Country of Bashan and the time when Moses wrote.  
The other Objections taken from the Names of Towns and Countries, which they pretend were not in use till after the Death of Moses, are still of less force. It is very likely, That the Ancient Names which Moses made use of have been changed, that his Narration might be rendered the more intelligible to such as were no longer acquainted with the Ancient Names of those Towns and Countries; but this is not true of all those that have been alleged. For in the first place, As to NINEVEH, 'tis not at all probable, that Ninus lived not till about the time of Deborah: 'tis a great deal more likely that he lived in Abraham's days, where the Chronologers place him. There is no proof at all, that the Name of CHALDEANS was not in use in the time of Moses. 'tis true, He speaks of Abraham's time, but he might have made use of a Term which was not in use till afterwards, and might say, that Abraham came out of the City Ur, which was in the Country of the Chaldeans, that is, in the Country which since belonged to the Chaldeans. 'tis enough, That this was its Name in the time of Moses. The Name of DAN was not wholly unknown in Moses's days. The River of JORDAN, according to St. Jerom, was so called, because it derived it's Stream from two Heads, of which one was called Jor, and the other Dan or Dannah, of which mention is made, Joshua 15.49. It is therefore possible, That in Moses's time, there was a Place called Dan in that part where Abraham fell upon the Kings, who had carried away Lot. However, 'tis more probable, That the Name of Dan was given to that Town which formerly was called Laish. As to the Name of MORIAH, 'tis said expressly in Genesis, That this Mountain was so called, because of the Answer which Abraham return'd to his Son, God will provide, and Moses writing a long time after, might have observed, that it still went under that Name even in his days, 'tis no where said in Scripture, That the City of HEBRON was so called from one of the Sons of Caleb. It is indeed said, Josh. 14.15. That this City was formerly called Kirjath-Arba, and 1 Chron. 2. That Caleb was the son of Mareshah the Father of Hebron. But Hebron perhaps in this place is the Name of a Country, and Father is put for King, as in the 21st Verse of the same Chapter, Machir is called the Father of Gilead. So that nothing can be inferred from these two places, and it may be, that the City of Hebron, which was formerly called Kirjath-Arba, was named Hebron in the time of Moses; and 'tis probable it was so, since Josh. 10.3, 5. mention is made of the Country of Hebron, and of a King of Hebron, who was one of those that was vanquished by the Israelites in the days of Joshua. But tho' it should be supposed, that it took its Name from one of the Descendants of Caleb, which is not at all likely, yet we might without any inconvenience, say, That the Ancient Name was changed in this Place. Joseph being in Egypt, says, That he was carried away out of THE LAND OF THE HEBREWS, because in reality, that was the Name of that Region of the Land of Canaan, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, his Fathers, who were called Hebrews, had their Abode. St. Jerom observes, That the the Tower of EDAR, of which mention is made, Gen. 35.21. was not in Jerusalem over the Gate of Edar, but near to Bethlehem. Lastly, 'tis not said, 1 Sam. 9. That the Name NABI was not in use among the Hebrews at the first, but only there was a time when they commonly made use of the term row, which signifies a Scer. Now, this was not in Moses's but in Samuel's time, and the Name Nabi was always in use among the Hebrews, tho' it was not so common among the Vulgar.  
It ought not to be wondered at, that Moses always speaks of himself in the Third Person; 'tis customary among most Historians to speak of themselves after this manner, tho' they had a share in the History which they relate. Xenophon, Caesar, Josephus, and several other Historians have done thus. St. John in his Gospel speaks likewise of himself in the Third Person. This is that Disciple,( says he) whom Jesus loved: And in another place, What if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? St. Matthew relating his own Conversion, speaks of himself in the Third Person; and 'tis said, That St. Luke was one of the two Disciples whom Jesus met with in going to Emmaus. The Commendations which Moses bestows on himself are not extravagant: It was requisite, that he should take notice in his Books, of the Favours which God had granted him; and that he should declare, That he was the Man or the Prophet sent forth from God, and that he spake to them in his Name. He might likewise without any breach of Modesty, call himself the meekest of men, to signify, That it was not he who revenged himself on those who rebelled against him, but God who espoused his Cause. What is said at the end of the Genealogy of Moses and Aaron, This is that Moses and Aaron, is there placed, that so Posterity might give the more heed to their Persons and their History. As for the other Words taken out of the last Chapter of Deuteronomy, That there arose not in Israel any Prophet since like unto Moses, they are part of a Discourse which we have already observed to have been added.  
The Objections which are made in the last place, to show, That the Pentateuch is a Collection of several Records, are very weak, and make as much against, as for the Hypothesis, which they are minded to establish upon it. For is it credible, That an Author who makes an abridgement of an History, should often repeat the same things? That he should keep no Order, and not have the same Style throughout? On the contrary, Would not the Abbreviators have studied to relate things in a few Words, without Repetitions, in Order, and after a Uniform Manner? The contrary Defects are a great deal more incident to the first Authors of a Narration, who relate simply the things which they know. These Kinds of Repetitions are common among the Ancients, and particularly among such as have been the first Writers of History or Fable; and they are very rare in Historians who have wrote upon the Memoirs of others; because the former wrote plainly, as they spake, without meditation; whereas on the contrary, the latter having all their matter ready prepared, took care to range it methodically. The Reptitions that are to be met with in the Pentateuch are often necessary, to explain the particulars of a thing, which it was requisite at first to relate in general Terms. 'tis for this Reason, That the Particulars of the Creation of the World, which were related in the first Chapter of Genesis, are resumed in the second. The Repetition of the same Words was according to the Genius of the Hebrews, and even that of the Ancients. 'tis not at all true, That there is so little Order and Method as they would make one believe to be in the Books of the Pentateuch; and tho' there was less Order in them than there really is, it would rather be a Demonstration that they belong to Moses, who wrote without Art, and without Method, as they do who writ the Memoirs of things, wherein they have a share. The Conjecture of the Rolls is a Chimaera 
The Conjecture of the Rolls is a Chimaera.] Mr. Simon pretends, that what I call a Chimaera, is a thing very Ancient, and has been likewise observed by several Learned critics. 'tis his Business then to produce his Proofs, I do not say of the Antiquity of the Rolls;( for 'tis certain, that they wrote formerly on Leaves rolled up) but of the Use that they made of them: He ought to show by convincing Instances, that these Rolls were frequently the Cause of the Transpositions, and he should apply this Conjecture to the Examples of Scripture which he cites. This is what we defy him to do, and which he has not dared to undertake, being only content to say in general, That it may be so. I add, that this Conjecture makes nothing against our Assertion, because how confused soever those Leaves were, the Abbreviators should have ranged and reduced them into Order. Mr. Simon replies to this, That it is needless to speak of the Abbreviators, since those Leaves were put out of order a long time after the Collection of the abridgement. 'tis true indeed, I thought that Mr. Simon had spoken of the Originals or Memoirs, from which he pretends, that the abridgement of the Books of the Bible was made; and to me it seems, that thus it ought to be understood, when he says, Pag. 35. I question at least, whether one can attribute to Moses, and to the public Scribes of his time, that defect of Method, that is to be met with in several places of the Pentateuch: 'tis more probable, that since in these times they wrote Books on small Rolls, or distinct Leaves, which were rolled one upon another, the Order of these Leaves was transposed. It was very probable, That these Words, in that time, had some relation to the time of Moses, and of the public Scribes. But since Mr. Simon understands it of a time that succeeded the abridgement, 'tis for him to show, that the defect of Order, which is( as he pretends) in the Pentateuch, proceeds from the transposition of these Rolls. This is what he cannot prove, and we defy him to apply this Conjecture to the Instances which he produces; since one may reduce to its Order, by Reading it, a Printed Leaf, which was transposed. And consequently, this Second Principle, is not only not well established, but likewise is of no Use. As to the repetition of Synonomous Terms, from whence he pretends to infer, that 'tis a sign, that the Books of the Bible were composed from several Ancient Records, 'tis a false conjecture; for 'tis more probable, these Repetitions proceeded from an Author who writes naturally things by way of Memorandum, than from an Abbreviator, who would have made a Series of History without repeating the same Things or the same Words. Besides, the Repetitions which Mr. Simon alleges are not needless, and serve either to illustrate what has been said, or to add some Circumstance to it, and to give a greater Force and Energy to what was written. 'tis very rare but we meet with the like Repetitions in most Authors, and chiefly in those who writ the Histories of their own times with a great deal of plainness and simplicity. , which makes nothing against our Assertion. For how confused soever those Leaves were, the Abbreviators should have ranged them, and reduced them into Order. Lastly, 'tis not true that there was any considerable difference of Style in the Pentateuch: On the contrary, We discover throughout, the Genius of one and the same Author. If he sometimes insists less on the things which he relates, 'tis because the Subject so requires it, or else because he did not think it proper to enlarge any farther; and this cannot be termed a difference in Style, when all the rest agrees. Thus the particular Objections of Mr. Simon are very frivolous 

Thus the particular Objections of Mr. Simon are very frivolous.] He starts another Objection against me, which I must not leave unanswered, since he makes use of a Principle which I own, and charges me for having laid down in my Preface, and in other Passages of my Book, certain Rules which seem to prove, that one ought to conclude from the Additions that are in the Pentateuch, that this Work is Spurious. For I had said in the first part of my Preface, That it commonly happens that Impostors relate such things as have happened since their Death, and speak of Towns and People which were not known in the time of those Authors. From hence Mr. Simon concludes, that since I have owned, That there are such Additions in the Pentateuch, a Follower of Spinosa may thence infer, that according to my Rule, the Pentateuch is a Spurious Piece. But 'tis easy to show him, That he has not rightly understood the Sense of the Rule which I laid down. For if he had only regarded the General reflection which I made in my Preface upon the Rules of Criticism, which I proposed, he would never have made such a manifest abuse of this: I desire him therefore to mind these Words. It may be said, That all the Rules which I have produced, are convincing or probable, according to different Degrees, and that the Chief Rule is the Determination of Equity and Prudence; according to which, the Reasons of both sides are balanced, by mustering up together all the Conjectures that are Pro and Con. This general Rule is the Foundation of Rational Criticism, and all other Rules are mis-us'd when this is laid aside. Let us apply it to the Question in Dispute. There are in the Pentateuch, several Terms, several Names of Towns, and several Matters of Fact which cannot be Moses's. Must we from thence rashly conclude, That it is not Moses's, because 'tis one of the Marks of a Spurious Piece, to find in it such things as have happened since the Death of the Author to whom it is ascribed, and such Names of Towns and People as were not known in his time? Or on the other side, Does it follow, because the Pentateuch is Moses's, tho' these Additions are to be met with therein, that the Rule which we have laid down is false? These two Consequences are ill drawn, the Rule is good, and the Books of the Pentateuch may be Moses's notwithstanding. The Rule is good, but then a right use ought to be made of it. When we have no certain Proofs of the Antiquity of a Book, and there are other Conjectures besides to incline us to doubt thereof, we ought according to this Rule to say, that it is Spurious. But when 'tis evident, that such or such a Piece is such or such an Author's, when there are a great many manifest Proofs which clearly show it, we ought necessary to conclude, that these Words, Terms and Names have been added. Lastly, When there are Arguments on both sides, we ought to balance and weigh them one against the other, and to be determined on that side, on which is the greatest Probability. These are the true Rules of Criticism, which Mr. Simon has not headed, when he charges me so unjustly with having prescribed Rules so favourable to the Followers of Spinosa. They are not my Rules, which almost all the critics before me have prescribed, but they are his Reasonings and Inferences that have been so favourable to the Followers of Spinosa. They are his Conjectures, Objections, and Hypothesis, which serve to confirm them in their Error. Lastly, There are a great many passages of his Book that strike at the Authority of the Holy Scripture. When he asks me, What Answer I will make to a Follower of Spinosa, who to prove, That the five Books of Moses are not his, shall make use of the same Arguments, that I use, to show, that the Liturgy which the Eastern People red under the Name of St. James, is not really his. I will return him this Answer, That I have not the same Reasons to believe St. James to be the Author of the Liturgy that is attributed to him, which I have to believe, that the Books of Moses are his. That it is not mentioned in the Epistles of the Apostles, that the Ancients have taken no notice of it, that this Liturgy is not agreeable to the Discipline which was in the times of St. James; whereas the Scripture informs me, That Moses is the Author of the Pentateuch, Jesus Christ and his Apostles have assured me of it, the Ancient Authors testify as much, all Persons are agreed in it, &c. 'tis therefore a manifest Injustice and Calumny to accuse me, of having intended to destroy the Books of Moses, under a pretence of defending them against the Followers of Spinosa.  
Much after the same rate does Mr. Simon argue in applying what I had said concerning the Book of Joshua, to the Books of the Pentateuch. One need only to compare the Proofs that I produced to show, That the Books of the Pentateuch are Moses's, with those which I myself alleged to prove, that the Book of Joshua is His; and it will be visible, that there is a great deal of difference between the One and the the Other of them, and that the Reasons which prove Moses to be the Author of the Pentateuch, are infinitely stronger than those which may incline us to believe Joshua to be the Author of the Book that goes under his Name. Beside, none has ever doubted, but that the Pentateuch was Moses's; but 'tis not the same with the Book of Joshua. Mr. Simon supposes, That 'tis affirmed with the same kind of Evidence, that the Book of Joshua was written by him, as 'tis said, that the Law was written by Moses. To prove this, he supposes, That all the express Passages of Scripture, that are produced to show, that Moses is the Author of the Pentateuch, are reducible to that which is observed, that Moses wrote the Law; and he pretends, that with the same kind of Evidence, 'tis said, that Joshua added the Book of his History to the Books of the Law. You need only red the Passages which we have produced, and you will be convinced, that they are very express and very numerous, and which cannot be reduced to one single head, as that can which is produced for the Book of Joshua. And you need only peruse the 24th Chapter of the Book of Joshua, where this last Passage is to be met with, to perceive, that what is said in that place may be very well understood of the Moral Precepts.  , and have no Foundation.  
Tho' there were other Books of Moses cited in the Pentateuch, yet this would be no proof that it was not his, since every day an Author, and particularly an Historian, cites the Books or Records which he has made. But 'tis not certain, as we have already observed in the 8th Section of the first Chapter, that mention is made in those places of particular Books, and such as are different from those that compose the Pentateuch. We have there explained what we may understand by the Book of the Wars of the Lord, and shown, that the Book of the Covenant of the Lord, is only a part of the Laws related in Exodus; and so is the History of the War of Amalek, and of the Encampments of the Children of Israel in the Wilderness, which are not distinct from what is written concerning them in the Books of Exodus and Numbers. So that this is so far from being an Argument, that the Pentateuch is not Moses's, that on the contrary, we may from thence conclude, that 'tis his Work, since the things which he has written, and which God commanded him to writ, are contained therein. 'tis true, The Term Law, is sometimes to be understood only of a Part of the Law; but this very part of the Law that God commanded Moses to writ, is written and related in the Pentateuch. Moses did not writ all at once, and at one and the same time, the whole Five Books of the Pentateuch, but did it at several times, and upon several occasions; and at last he made a kind of Recapitulation or abridgement of them in Deuteronomy, which he drew up a little before his Death near Jordan. Now, 'tis plainly said,( as we have already shown) that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, and consequently one cannot doubt but that the other Books of the Law were his, when we only mind what is said of them in Deuteronomy.  
The Opinion of Mr. Le Clerc, who has attributed the Pentateuch to an Israelitish Priest, sent from Babylon to instruct the Cutheans, is one of the most extravagant Notions that ever could have been invented. This Author, who is a Man of Parts and Learning, has acknowledged, That the Samaritan Pentateuch has entirely destroyed the Hypothesis of those Persons, who advanced, That the Pentateuch was composed by Ezrah since the Captivity. He himself proves this; because it is unconceivable, That the Samaritans, the Sworn Enemies of the Jews, should have borrowed the Law from them; and that if they had transcribed the Copy of Ezrah, they would rather have made use of the Chaldee, than of the Ancient Hebrew Character. But if 'tis not credible, That the Samaritans would not have received the Law from the Jews, Is it at all probable, that the Jews would have received it from an Israelitish Priest sent from Babylon to instruct the Cutheans? Had not the Jews of the Kingdom of Juda the Law of Moses before the Captivity of the Ten Tribes? And can any one Imagine,( supposing that they were minded to have a Collection of what related to the Law of Moses, a Sacred and Divine Book, which should be the Foundation of their Religion) that they would have relied therein on an unknown Priest, who lived among Idolaters, and that they would have had so great an Esteem for his Work? This Conjecture then which Mr. Le Clerc has advanced in his Sentiments upon the Criticisms of Mr. Simon, is as Absurd and Chimerical as ever has been maintained; and is such as none has espoused since him, and which himself has renounced in his Commentary on Genesis.  
The Conjectures upon which he goes to establish his particular Opinion, were, That it seemed to him as if the Author of the Pentateuch was in Chaldea or Mesopotamia; which he pretends to prove from these words of the second Chapter of Genesis, where the Author, describing the Rivers which went out of the Garden of Eden, says, Ver. 11, 12. That the name of the first is Pison, that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is Gold. And the gold of that land is good: There is Bdellium, and the Onyx-Stone. To this he adds, what is observed, Gen. 10. concerning Nimrod King of Babylon, and of the Cities of Mesopotamia and Assyria: From whence he concludes, That 'tis probable, that the Author who made these Remarks, must have lived in that Country, else he could not have been so particular in his Relations of these Circumstances; and that 'tis incredible, That Moses who never went farther than Egypt, should have so much knowledge of a Country so far distant, and at a time when traveling was more rare, and harder to be undertook. This is one of the weakest Conjectures that ever could have been started. For why could not Moses know that the Land of Havilah was encompassed by the River Pison, and that there was Gold, Bdellium and Onyx-Stones, in that Country? Why should he be ignorant of the Kingdom of Nimrod, of the Names of the Towns belonging to his Kingdom, and of the Founding of Nineveh, and the Neighbouring Cities? These were such considerable Occurrences as might be very well known in far distant Countries. Is it necessary that an Historian should have been in all those Countries that he speaks of? On the contrary, Is there any one Historian that has seen all those Countries that he describes? Is it not usual for those, who speak of a far distant Country, where there is something remarkable that is not elsewhere, and which from thence is transported into other Countries, to make it known by the Name of the Place from whence it came? 'tis not requisite that a Man should have been at Peru to observe that there is good Gold in that Country; or at the East-Indies, to know that there are Pearls in that Place.  
There are not then any convincing Proofs, that the Pentateuch is not Moses's, and there are enough to justify the Attributing it to him. Those that we have produced, do not only prove him to be the Legislator of the Jews, but that he ought to be acknowledged as the Author of the Five Books of the Law, of each of these Books in particular, and of Deuteronomy, which is a Recapitulation and Abridgement of them. We own, That perhaps the Term LAW, has sometimes been restrained either to the single Book of Deuteronomy, or to some particular Ordinances, as in the instances produced in the Objection. But we maintain, That the Passages which we have produced in the Arguments themselves, are to be understood either of the Pentateuch, or at least of Deuteronomy; which is sufficient to prove him to be the Author of the Pentateuch, tho' we had no other Proofs to show, that Moses is he Author of each of these Books in particular.  
These Books among the Hebrews have no other Title besides the Word, by which each Book begins 
These Books among the Hebrews have no other Title besides the Word by which each Book begins.] The First is called BERESITH, because it begins thus: In the Beginning, &c. The Second, VEELLESEMOTH, that is, These are the Names, which are the first Words of Exodus. The Third, VAI-CRA, that is, He called, which are the first Words of the Book. The Modern Jews however have called it THORAT HACABIM, i. e. the Law of the Priests. The Fourth is called, VAIEDABBER, i. e. And he spake, because it begins with those Words. The Last is called for the same reason, ELLE-HADDEBARIM, These are the Words, the Jews likewise call it THORA, The Law. ; but the Greeks and Latins have given them such Names as have a Relation to the Subject they treat on. The first is called GENESIS, because it begins with the History of the Creation of the World. Besides this, It contains the Genealogy of the patriarches; the Relation of the Flood; the Catalogue of the descendants of Noah down to Abraham; the Lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph; and the History of Jacob's Posterity to the Death of Joseph. So that this Book contains the History of about 2369 years, according to the Calculation of the years of the patriarches, as 'tis in the Hebrew Text.  
The Second is called EXODUS, because its principal Subject is the Departure of the Children of Israel out of Egypt; and all, that occurred in the Wilderness under the Administration of Moses from the Death of Joseph to the Building of the Tabernacle, for the space of forty years. We therein find an Account of the Plagues of Egypt, the abridgement of the Religion and Laws of the Jews, with the Excellent Precepts of the Decalogue.  
The Third is LEVITICUS, so called because it contains the Laws, Ceremonies, and Sacrifices of the Jewish Religion, which particularly regards the Levites to whom God had entrusted the Care of those things that relate to the External Ceremonies of Religion.  
The Fourth is called NUMBERS, because it begins with the Numbering of the Children of Israel that came out of Egypt; to which are subjoined, the Laws given to the Children of Israel for the space of thirty nine years, whilst they were in the Wilderness.  
DEUTERONOMY, that is, the Second Law, is so called, because 'tis as it were a Repetition of the First Law. For after Moses had related in short, the Chief Actions of the Children of Israel in the Wilderness, he repeats a great many Precepts of the Law.  
We cannot tell for certain when those Books were composed by Moses. Some Commentators, Such as Pererius and Thena, pretend, Thet Moses wrote Genesis before his going out of Egypt: But 'tis more probable, That he composed it afterwards, and since the Promulgation of the Law. This is the Opinion of Eusebius, in his seventh Book de Praeparatione Evangelicâ, of Theodoret, and of several of the Ancients, and the most common received Opinion among the Interpreters. It is likewise probable, That the Author of Genesis was full of the Law, and had regard to it, especially when he speaks, Ch. 2. concerning the Sanctification of the Sabbath, and Ch. 7. and 8. concerning the Clean and Unclean Beasts. Tho' this might be in use before the Law, yet 'tis very probable, That an Author who makes these Remarks, had seen them in the established Law. 'tis probable, That Genesis was the first Work of Moses, and 'tis certain, That Deuteronomy was his last. For besides that, 'tis a Repetition of the Law, 'tis therein expressly said, That Moses spake these things to the People of Israel, when they were ready to go over Jordan: To which it may be added, That therein is related the End of his Life, and to it is annexed the Relation of his Death. It was therefore penned the fortieth year after the coming out of Egypt, and the last of Moses's Life.   

SECT. II. Of the Book of Joshua. Why so called. Whether he was the Author of it. Arguments for and against it. The Life of Joshua.  
WE are not so certain who were the Authors of the other Books of the Bible. There are some which we have no Knowledge of, and others, about whom we must rest satisfied with Conjectures.  
Men are divided in their Opinions about the Author of the Book of JOSHUA 
Men are divided in their Opinions about the Author of the Book of Joshua.] Among the Ancients, the Author of the Synopsis, attributed to St. Athanasius, and Theodoret, do not believe this Book to be Joshua's. Masius, Grotius, and Mr. Simon believe it to be a great deal more Modern than Joshua. Masius makes Ezrah to be the Author of it, and believes it to be an Extract or abridgement of the Ancient Annals of the Jews. The most common Opinion among the Ancients and Moderns, is, That 'tis Joshua's. This is the Sentiment of the Talmudists in the Bababatra, Ch. 1. St. Isidorus, Junilius, Dorothaeus, Tostatus, Driedo, Vatablus, and a great many other Moderns are of the same Mind. , and 'tis not certain that he is the Author of it under whose Name it goes. For as the Author of the Synopsis, attributed to St. Athanasius, observes, This Title is not put at the Head of this Book to denote its Author, but to show the Subject Matter of it; because it contains the History of the Wars and Affairs that happened under the Administration of Joshua: Just as the Books of Judges, Samuel, Kings, Tobit, Judith, are so called; because they are such Pieces as contain the History of the Life and Actions of those, whose Names they go under. So that the Title of this Book is no Proof at all, that Joshua was the Author of it. But it seems as if so much might be inferred from the 26th Verse of the last Chapter of this Book, where 'tis said, That Joshua wrote all those things in the Book of the Law of the Lord: Scripsit quoque( Josuè) omnia verba haec in Volumine Legis Domini: Now these Words seem naturally to infer, as if they were to be understood of the whole History of this Book, and to denote, that he wrote, in imitation of Moses, what occurred during his Government; that he added this Piece to the Book of the Law, and caused it to be Written upon the Copy of the Law, which was kept in the side of the Ark. But this may only be referred to what was said in this Chapter, of the Covenant that the People made with God. For 'tis there related, That Joshua before his Death, assembled the Israelites at Sychem; and that after he had declared to them what the Lord had done for their Fathers and them, ever since Abraham had left Mesopotamia, He asked them, Whether they would continue to serve the Lord their God; That they promised to do so: That he remonstrated to them, That in case they should Swerve from his Law, he would punish them severely: That they again Solemnly engaged themselves to serve none other beside the Lord: That then Joshua called them to Witness according to their Promise, made a new Covenant with them, gave them fresh Laws and Ordinances, and wrote all these Words in the Book of the Law. This seems more naturally to be meant of the Covenant which he then renewed with the Israelites, and of the Precepts he proposed to them to observe, than of the Entire History of the Book of Joshua.  
Some allege what is said concerning Joshua, Eccesiasticus 46. That he was the Successor of Moses in Prophecies, to show, That he as well as his Predecessor, wrote a Sacred Book. But this Expression is no proof of it, and only supposes, That he succeeded Moses in the Spirit of prophesy. Besides, it cannot be questioned, but that in the time when the Author of Ecclesiasticus wrote, the Book of Joshua was already composed, since it appears, that it was written even before the Book of Kings; For 1 Kings 16.34. where mention is made of the rebuilding of Jericho by Hiel the Bethelite, 'tis said, That he laid the Foundation thereof in Abiram his eldest Son, and set up the Gates after it was finished in his youngest Son Segub; according to the Word of the Lord, which he spake by Joshua the Son of Nun. Now this Curse against him who should rebuild the City of Jericho, is found in the same words, Josh. 6.26. And Joshua swore at that time, saying, Cursed be the Man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this City Jericho; he shall lay the foundation thereof in his first-born, and in his youngest Son shall he set up the Gates of it.  
We cannot therefore doubt of the Antiquity of the Book of Joshua; but the main Point is to know, whether it be His or no. The Arguments produced to prove the contrary, are as follow.  
In the first place, The Author uses such Expressions as seem to suppose, that he lived a long time after the things, which he relates, did happen. For to Authorize or Explain the Matters of Fact that he relates, he makes use of such a kind of Expression as this, Unto this day, which denotes a considerable distance between the Event of the Thing, and the Relation made of it.  
Ch. 4. Ver. 9. 'tis said, That Joshua, by the Appointment of the Lord, set up Twelve Stones in the midst of Jordan, to serve as a lasting Monument of the Israelites passing over it; and the Author adds, as a Confirmation of this Narration, That there they are even unto this day; Et sunt ibi usque in presentem diem, Ch. 5. Ver. 9. 'tis said, That the Place where the Israelites were circumcised, was called Gilgal, to denote that God in that place had taken away the shane of Egypt from the Israelites; The Name by which it is called unto this day; Vocatumque est nomen loci illius Galgal, usque in presentem Diem. Ch. 10. Ver. 14. The Author, after he has related the Miracle which God wrought for Joshua and the Israelites, in making the Sun to stand still, adds, That there was no day like that, before it, nor after it; Non fuit antea nec postea tam longa Dies. This way of speaking denotes a more considerable space of time than what was run out from this Event to the Death of Joshua. For it would not have been any wonder, that in ten years or thereabouts, there happened not a day so long as this. This would have been no Proof of a Miracle; whereas 'tis one, when in the foregoing and succeeding Ages, no day was ever observed to have been equal to this. How can Ten years, that succeeded this Event be put in Comparison with the many Ages that preceded? Reason itself seems to suppose, that for the using of this Expression, there should have been several entire Generations elapsed since the happening of this thing. Ch. 9. Ver. ult. 'tis said, That Joshua appointed the Gibeonites that same day to be hewers of Wood and drawers of Water for the Congregation, and for the Altar of the Lord unto this day, in the Place which he should choose. Now here are two distinct times expressly set down, the Time of Joshua, That same day, and the time of the Author, Unto this day. It cannot be said, That this last may be understood of the last years of the Life of Joshua, because these Words, Ver. 23. The House of my God; and those, The place which the Lord has chosen, were not in use till after the building of the Temple of Jerusalem.  
In the Second Place, 'tis said, That the Book of Joshua is no more than an abridgement of another Book, or rather of the Ancient Annals of the Jews, wherein the History of Joshua was written more at large. This they pretend to prove undeniably, from Ch. 10. Ver. 13. where mention is made of the Book of the Upright[ Jasher], in these Terms, Is it not written in the Book of Jasher?  
In the Third Place, There are such Names given in the Book of Joshua to several Places, that they were not called by till after his Death. Ch. 19. Ver. 27. mention is made of the Country of Cabul, which Hiram King of Tyre so called in the time of Solomon, 1 Kings 9.13. Ch. 16. Ver, 2. 'tis said, That the Land which fell by Lot to the Tribe of Joseph, goeth out from Bethel to Luz. Now the City of Luz, as distinct from Bethel, was not built till after the Death of Joshua, as appears from judge. 1.26. Some critics are likewise of the Opinion, That the Name of Tyre which is to be met with, Ch. 19. Ver. 29. That of Galilee, in Ch. 20. Ver. 7. and 21. Ver. 32. and Jocktheel, Ch. 15. Ver. 38. are Names more Modern than Joshua's time.  
Fourthly, There are in the Book of Joshua several matters of Fact related, which did not happen till a long time after his Death. The taking of the Town of Leshem, or Laish, by the Danites, is of that Number. What is said of this, Ch. 19. Ver. 47. is as follows: But the Coasts of the Children of Dan fell out too little for them, therefore the Children of Dan went up to fight against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the Edge of the Sword, and possessed it, and dwelled therein, and called it Dan, after the Name of their Father. This Conquest was not made by the Danites till after the Death of Joshua, as appears from the 18th Chapter of the Book of Judges, where 'tis related. The History of another Conquest of Caleb the Son of Jephunneh, and of Othniel the Son of Kenaz, and all that is said upon it from the thirteenth to the twentieth Verse of the fifteenth Chapter is likewise related in the Book of Judges, as things that happened not till after the Death of Joshua. Lastly, The Death of Joshua himself, related in the last Chapter, is a convincing Argument, That this Book was not written till after his Death.  
How solid soever these Arguments may seem, yet they are not unanswerable, and very probable Replies may be return'd at least to most of them.  
The First is chiefly grounded on the force of this Expression; Usque in praesentem diem, Even unto this day. 'tis supposed that this cannot be used but by an Author, who writes a long time after the thing, of which he speaks, happened. Now this supposition is not always true. A Contemporary Author may make use of it, when he writes some years after the Event happened; and it may be confirmed by a public Record. Thus St. Matthew, tho' he wrote but a short time after the Death of Jesus Christ, makes use of this very Expression: That field( says he, Ch. 27. Ver. 8.) is called Aceldama, that is, the field of Blood unto this day: And in another place, Matth. 28.15. This saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day. Joshua wrote his Book about the end of his Life, none can question it. Nigh twenty years were Elapsed from the time that he passed over Jordan and conquered the promised Land, to the time of his Writing. This was more than space enough to justify the Reasonableness of this Expression; especially when he treated of extraordinary Matters of Fact, which it was requisite to establish on the Authority of a public Memorial, such as the Israelites passing over Jordan, as on dry Ground was. The Stones were put in the midst of Jordan for a Memorial of that remarkable Event. The making mention thereof is so far from being foreign to his Subject, that he could scarce excuse himself from so doing, when he related that Miracle, and he could not speak of it, but he must needs observe, that they were still there at the time when he wrote. The same may be said of the Remark, that the Author makes concerning the Origine of the Name Gilgal: It was natural to his Subject; and nothing could hinder an Author, who wrote a little time after, from making such a Remark. As for that passage concerning the length of the day, wherein the Sun stood still by Joshua's Command; That there was no day like that, before it, or after it. It rather agrees, with a more Modern Historian than one that is Contemporary, for the Reasons alleged in the Objection. However, 'tis not absolutely impossible, but that an Author who wrote some years after might have said so; besides, that perhaps this Clause has been added. The same Reply may be given to the Passage taken out of the last Verse of the ninth Chapter concerning the Gibeonites. The present time, of which mention is there made, might very well belong to Joshua; and the House of God, and the Place which he choose, might not be the Temple of Jerusalem, but the Tabernacle wherein was the Ark of the Lord.  
'tis easier to Answer the Second Objection, than 'tis to tell what the Book of the Upright( Jasher or Jeshurun) is, of which mention is made in this Place of the Book of Joshua. St. Jerom and the Jews believed it to be Genesis, or some other Book of the Pentateuch, wherein God foretold that he would do wonderful things in favour of his People. Huetius supposes it to be a Book of Morality, wherein it was written, That God would subvert the Course of Nature, to succour those who put their Trust in him. Masius pretends, That they were public Annals or Records, which were styled Justice or Upright, because the History of the Israelites was written therein faithfully and successively. Grotius, with greater probability believes, That this Book was nothing else but a Song made to celebrate this Miracle, and this Victory. I look upon this Opinion as the most likely; because the Words which Joshua cites, as taken from that Work, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou Moon in the Valley of Ajalon, are such Poetical Expressions as do not svit with Historical Memoirs. beads, 2 Sam. 1.18. mention is made of a Book under the same Title, upon the Account of a Song made on the Death of Saul and Jonathan. These are the two only Places, wherein the Book of Jasher is spoken of; and in both, mention is made of a Song; which inclines me to believe, that they are not Annals, which are always in Scripture called DIBRE-HAIAMIM, or Gesta Temporum; but a Song that is cited in this Place. Let this be how it will, and whatever Opinion be embraced, yet it cannot be inferred from this Passage, that Joshua is not the Author of the Book, wherein that of Jasher is cited; and that 'tis no more than an abridgement of that Work. For 'tis not said in that place, That all the Wars of Joshua, and all that is written in that Book was related more at large in the Book of Jasher, but only that therein medtion is made of the Miracle by which the Sun stood still. And tho' one should suppose, that this was taken out of public Annals or Registers, yet Joshua might have been the Author of the Book wherein they were cited; since Contemporary Authors do every day city the Authentic and public Deeds of their time, to justify the Matters of Fact that they relate, especially when they are extraordinary and miraculous.  
The Third Objection is likewise founded on Uncertainties: For we are not sure, That Cabul mentioned, Josh. 19.29. is the Country that was so called by Hiram, King of Tyre, in the time of Solomon. Josephus makes a distinction betwixt these two; for he calls the Country which Solomon gave to Hiram, wherein there were twenty Cities, The Land of the Cabullians, and speaks of a Town called Cabol in the Book of his Life. And in Truth, the place mentioned in Joshua, is a Town Bordering on the Tribe of Zabulon; whereas the Country which Solomon would have given to the King of Tyre, consisted of twenty Cities, situate towards the Kingdom of Tyre. 'tis very likely, That in Ch. 16. Ver. 2. Bethel should not be distinguished from Luz, but be rendered, from Bethel-Luz to Archi-Ataroth. As to the Names of Tyre, Galilee and Joktheel, there is no reason to pretend, that they are more Modern than the time of Joshua. So that this Third Objection brings no invincible proof that there is any thing in the Book of Joshua that could not have been in his time.  
But we must needs own, That the Three Passages cited in the Fourth Objection were written after the Death of Joshua, since the first of them contains the Narration of his Death, and mentions what ensued thereon; and in the Two others, there are such matters of Fact related, as did not happen till after Joshua's Death. It must likewise be observed, That 'tis very probable that these two Passages were added afterwards. For the first Author of the Book of Joshua contented himself with relating succinctly the Borders and Towns of each Tribe, without enlarging on the History or any Narration of them. These two are the only Passages, where this Method is not followed: They are foreign to the Subject, and interrupt the Series of the Narration, and may be taken away without spoiling the sense. In short, If we attend never so little to the reading of them, we shall be very much inclined to believe, that it was an Addition made afterwards. It was likewise very natural to add the Death of Joshua to the Book which he composed, as that of Moses was to Deuteronomy.  
From what has been said, we may conclude, that tho' we cannot say, That the Book of Joshua is as certainly His, as the Pentateuch is Moses's; because there is a great deal of difference between the Reasons which prove Moses to be the Author of the Pentateuch, and those which may make us suppose, that Joshua is the Author of the Book that contains his History; yet there is no convincing Proof, that he is not the Author of it, and so one ought not to affirm or deny it, as being a thing we are not positively assured of, either on one side or other.  
The Hebrews have entitled this Book, as well as the Greeks and Latins, JOSHUA, which the Moderns pronounce according to the New Punctuation, JESUS. He was the Son of Nun, or Nave, according to the Greeks, and of the Tribe of Ephraim. The History of Moses informs us, That he was formerly called Oshea; for 'tis observed, Numb. 13.17. That Moses gave the Name of Jehoshua to Oshea the Son of Nun, Tho' this was said upon the Account of his being one of those that were sent from Kadesh-Barnea to take a view of the Land of Canaan; yet 'tis very probable, that Moses changed his Name, when he choose him to be one of his Ministers. These two Names do not differ much in Signification, and are both derived from the same Root, which signifies Saviour; but Oshea signifies only Saviour, whereas Jehoshua or Joshua denotes, The Saviour of the Lord, as St. Jerom remarks; that is, The Person by whom the Lord would save his People. He was apparently appointed by God, even in the life-time of Moses, to be his Successor, and to take upon him the Administration of the Government in his stead. It was he who was ordered to Command the Army of the Israelites in the Battle against the Amalekites, and God ordered Moses to red to him the Memoirs that he had written of that Battle, as to one whom he designed one day to be his Successor. Ever after that time, Joshua was looked upon as the Chief Servant of Moses, till at last, God ordered him, Numb. 27.18. to be recognized as the Successor of Moses, who put part of his Authority into his hands, and a little before his Death, Deut. 31.3, 7, 14. committed the Administration of the Government of the Israelites to him. When Moses died, he placed himself at the Head of the People according to the Order of the Lord; went over Jordan, and conquered the Country of the Canaanites, after he had cut off most of the Inhabitants with the edge of the Sword: He afterwards divided the Conquests among the Ten Tribes, who were to dwell on that side Jordan, enjoyed for some years the Sweets of that Peace and Tranquillity which he had purchased by his good Conduct. Lastly, Finding his Death to be approaching, he assembled the People together, renewed the Covenant of the Lord with them, and died at an Hundred and ten years of Age. These things make up the Subject matter of the History of the Book of Joshua, which may be divided into Three Parts. The First is an History of the Conquest of the Land of Canaan. The Second, which begins at the twelfth Chapter, is a Description of that Country, and of the Division thereof among the Tribes. The Third, comprised in the two last Chapters, contains the Renewal of the Covenant which Joshua caused the Israelites to make, and the Death of that Governor.  
As for the Chronology of this Book, two sorts of time must be distinguished: That which was from the Death of Moses to the Conquest of the Land of Canaan and its Division: The other, From that time to the Death of Joshua. The Period of the former is certain; For when they began to make a Dividend of the Land of Canaan, Caleb says, that he was forty years old when he was sent by Moses to spy out that Country; that he had lived since five and forty years, being then 85 years old. He was sent to spy out the Land of Canaan from Kadesh-Barnea, in the beginning of the second year after their departure from Egypt. The People were forty years, in all, in the Wilderness, and consequently we ought to reckon thirty nine to the time that Joshua carried the People of Israel over Jordan. So that of the forty five years elapsed since Caleb's being sent to descry the Country of Canaan, there only remain six, that were spent in reducing that Country, till the Division that was made thereof among the Tribes. One year at least was requisite to make this Division, so that here are seven years exactly calculated. But as to the time that passed between the completing of the Division and the Death of Joshua, it is not precisely set down in that Book; all the Light it gives us about it is, That Joshua enjoyed the Peace he had procured a long time after. Thus 'tis said, Josh. 23.1. That it came to pass, a long time after, that the Lord had given rest to Israel from all their Enemies round about, that Joshua waxed old and strike in years. Some restrain this time to seven or ten years: but 'tis more likely that it was near twenty, as we shall show in its proper place.   

SECT. III. The different Opinions about the Author of the Book of Judges, false or uncertain. When it was composed. The Authority of the Judges. The Chronology of this Book.  
THE Author of the Book of Judges is wholly unknown. Some, as Isidorus, ascribe it to Samuel, herein following the Doctors of the Talmud; others to Hezekiah; and many to Ezrah. Aben-Ezrah believes, That this Work is the Book of the Wars of the Lord, of which mention is made in the Book of Numbers. The abridgement of the Life and Death of the Prophets, that goes under the Name of Dorothaeus, supposes, that the Book of Judges was written in the Tabernacle. Some think, That each Judge wrote his own Memoirs, which were collected by Samuel or Ezrah. Those are all of 'em Conjectures, of which some are manifestly false, and others very uncertain. For 'tis a falsehood to say, That this Book was that of the Wars of the Lord, mentioned in the Book of Numbers, which was composed a long time before. There is no probability, That 'tis a Collection of the Memoirs of each of the Judges, and we have not sufficient Testimony to ascribe it to Samuel, Hezekiah, or Ezrah. But tho' one cannot discover who was the Author of this Book, yet cannot the time of its being composed be guessed at, at least within a little matter? Some pretend, that 'tis plain it was not composed till after the Captivity of Babylon, and would prove it from these words of Ch. 18. Ver. 30. Until the day of their Captivity. This they understand of the Captivity of Babylon, or at least that of the Ten Tribes under Shalmaneser. But if we seriously mind this Passage, we shall easily perceive, that the Captivity spoken of in this place, is neither the Captivity of the Ten Tribes, nor that of Babylon. For it is said in the 30th Verse, That the Danites set them up a graved Image in the City of Dan; and that Jonathan the Son of Gershom, the Son of Manasseth, and his Sons, were the Priests of the Tribe of Dan until the day of the Captivity of the Land. The Priests which the Danites made, were the Priests of that Idol. They lasted no longer than their Image did, and their Priesthood ended with it. Now the next Verse informs us, That this Idol remained in the City of Dan, only whilst the House of God, or the Ark was in Shiloh: That is, To the time of Samuel, when the Ark, having been taken and restored again by the philistines, was laid up at Kirjath-Jearim. This Passage therefore must be understood of some particular Captivity of the Inhabitants of the City of Dan, which happened about that time; or rather of the taking of the Ark, and of the Captivity of a great many Israelites, who were carried away after the Defeat of their Army, as 'tis related, 1 Sam. 4.10. Mention is made of this in the same Terms, Psalm 78. Ver. 60, 61. God forsook the habitation of Shiloh, even the Tabernacle where he dwelled among men: and delivered his power into Captivity, and his beauty into the Enemies hand.  
There is frequently repeated in this Book, an Expression which might induce us to believe, That it was composed, either whilst or since the Israelites were governed by Kings. For the Author observes in four places,( Ch. 17. Ver. 6. Ch. 18. Ver. 1. and 31. Ch. 21. Ver. 25.) That the things which he relates happened, When there was no King in Israel. It is not natural, That an Author, who writes before there have been any Kings in a Country, should make this Remark: But it occurs very naturally to the Thoughts of a Man, who writes in a time when his Country is under a Regal Power. Since those for whom he writes were accustomed to this Form of Government, in making his Remarks on what he relates, that it is not agreeable to a Monarchical State, he thinks it proper to advertise, that Monarchy was not then established. It must be owned, That this Conjecture has a great deal of probability in it, and may serve to fix the Epocha, when the Book of Judges was composed, to the time when the Israelites had a King. But this ought to be in the first Rise of that kind of Government, and before the Reign of David. For it appears from the first Chapter of the Book of Judges, That the Jebusites were still in Jerusalem in this Author's time: Thus 'tis said, Ch. 1. Ver. 21. The Children of Benjamin did not cast out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; therefore the Jebusites dwell with the Children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day. Now 'tis evident, That the Jebusites of Jerusalem were extirpated under the Reign of David, 2 Sam. 5, 6, &c. Therefore the Author wrote before that time, and consequently 'tis probable, That this Book was composed under the Reign of Saul, or in the beginning of that of David: An Epocha which may very well svit with the Opinion of the Jews who ascribe this Book to Samuel.  
The JUDGES, under whose Name it goes, in Hebrew Sophetim, and in Greek {αβγδ}, were not ordinary Judges, but Men raised up by God, on whom the Israelites bestowed the Government and Supreme Magistracy, either because they had delivered them from the Oppression they groaned under, or because of their Prudence and approved Probity. These Judges governed them according to the Laws of God; commanded their Armies, made Treaties with the Neighbouring Princes, declared War and Peace, and administered Justice. They were different from Kings;( 1.) In that they were not established, either by Succession or by Election, but raised up in an extraordinary Manner, and recognized by a Tacit Consent of the People.( 2.) In that they refused to take upon them the Title and Quality of King.( 3.) In that they levied no Tax on the People.( 4.) In their manner of Living, which was very far from the Fastus and Pomp of the Regal State.( 5.) In that they could make no new Laws, but only governed the People according to those already established.( 6.) In that the Obedience which the People paid them was voluntary and unforced. They were, at most, no more than Consuls and Supreme Magistrates of Free Cities.  
The Book of Judges contains the History of the Israelites from the Death of Joshua to that of samson. Chronologers are not agreed about the set number of years, because of the different Methods they take, in reckoning the years of the People's Servitude set down in this Book; some confounding them with the years of the Judges, and others taking another measure in explaining what is said of them, to reduce the whole History of this Book to Three hundred years or thereabouts; which according to the Literal and Natural Explication of the Text, ought to be above Four hundred years. Other Chronologers increase this Account, by supposing several Anarchies, whose time is not set down in the History.   

SECT. IV. Of the Book of Ruth, and its Author. When this History happened.  
THE History of Ruth happened in the time of the Judges; and 'tis doubtless for this Reason, That the Jews made but only One Book of these two. It was written at a time when the Government of the Judges was ceased, since the Author of it begins with observing, That the History which he was going to relate, happened when the Judges governed: In diebus unius Judicis, quando Judices praeerant. And he ends his Book with a Genealogy, which he carries down to David. 'tis very likely that it was composed in that King's time, and perhaps before he was advanced to the Throne. It may likewise be supposed, That the same Person who wrote the Book of Judges was the Author of This also.  
We cannot precisely tell under what Judge the History of Ruth happened. Boaz, to whom she was married, was the Son of Salmon and Rahab. Rahab was that Woman who had entertained the Spies which Joshua sent to Jericho. Supposing that she was then twenty years old, and that she had Boaz when she was five and forty or fifty years of Age; and that Boaz married Ruth when he was about seventy years old, which in the whole amounts to ninety five or an hundred years; this History must have happened in the time of Ehud or Shamgar. The difficulty is to discover, in the Genealogy of the two next Persons down to David, viz. ob and Jesse, the exact number of years that must have run out from that time to the Birth of David. This is one of those difficulties in Chronology, which we refer the illustrating of to another Place.   

SECT. V. Of the Books of Kings and Chronicles. Of the Authors of them, and the time when they were composed. The Summary of the History which they contain.  
THE two first Books, which in the Greek Version are called Reigns 
In the Greek Version are called Reigns.] St. Jerom observes, That 'tis more proper to call them the Book of the Kings, than of Reigns, or Kingdoms, because it does not contain the History of several Kingdoms, but only of Israel and Judah. , and in the Vulgar Latin, KINGS, are styled by the Hebrews, The Books of Samuel; which has been the Reason that they are commonly ascribed to that Prophet. But forasinuch as the first four and twenty Chapters are all that relate to the History of Samuel, and the latter part of the first Book, and all the second, contain the Relation of Things which happened after the Death of that Prophet; It has been supposed, That he was the Author only of these first four and twenty Chapters, and that the Prophets Gad and Nathan finished this Work. This is the Opinion of the Talmudists, which seems to be founded on these Words; 1 Chron. 29.29. Now the Acts of David the King, first and last, Behold, they are written in the Book of Samuel the Seer, and in the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and in the Book of Gad the Seer. But that this may appear Evident, it ought to be proved; That these Books of Samuel, Gad, and Nathan, were the same Piece with that of the first Book of Kings. Now this is no easy matter to demonstrate, and 'tis very probable that it is different; for the Books cited in the Chronicles, were entitled DIBRE, that is, the Words or Acts of Samuel the Seer, of Nathan the Prophet, and of Gad the Seer. They were three distinct Books, which contained the Life and Actions of these Three Prophets. Now there is scarce any mention made of them in the two first Books of Kings: And if these Books were the same as are cited in the Chronicles, they should be distinguished into three Parts, and each Book should bear the Name of the Prophet who had penned it: At least it should be taken notice of in some place of the End and Beginning of these Works; some distinction or difference should have been there set down. But tho' it be not altogether the same Piece, yet 'tis very probable, that it was taken out of the Memoirs of these Prophets. For as Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodoret, St. Athanasius, and St. Gregory have observed, the Four Books of Kings are only an Historical abridgement of several Books or Memoirs of the Prophets which are cited in several Places of them. Grotius ascribes this abridgement to Jeremiah, some to Isaiah, and most to Ezrah.  
Let us now see what is alleged in particular, to show, that the Books of Samuel, or the two first Books of Kings, are neither Samuel's, Gad's, nor Nathan's. Mention( say they) is made of Samuel in the Third Person. The Author bestows such Praises on him, as none could with any good grace bestow upon himself. In 1 Sam. 7.15, 16, 17. are these Words, which 'tis not likely that Samuel would have written of himself: Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. He went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, and Gilgal, and Mizpeh; and judged Israel in all those Places. And his return was to Ramah, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and there he built an Altar unto the Lord. Ch. 9. Ver. 9. 'tis observed; That before-time in Israel, when a Man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the Seer: For he that is now called a Prophet, Nabi, was formerly called a Seer, row. In this place mention is made of a Fact that happened in the time of Samuel the Prophet, wherein the Name of Seer was only in Use, How then could he make this Remark? It cannot be said, That it was a Parenthesis added by Ezrah, or any other Person; for if that were so, How could the Author have so frequently made use of the Name of Prophet, Nabi, as he does, 1 Sam. 3.20. Ch. 10. Ver. 5.10, 12. Ch. 19. Ver. 24? This Form of speaking, Unto this day, is likewise alleged, which is to be met with in several places, and especially, 1 Sam. 5.5. where 'tis said, That because the Head and Hands of the Idol Dagon were cut off upon the Threshold, therefore neither the Priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's House, tread on the Threshold of Dagon in Ashdod, Unto this day: Another passage is likewise cited, wherein the same Expression is used, and where 'tis said, That the Philistines brought the Golden Mice which they had made, to offer unto the Lord: Even unto the great ston of Abel, whereon they set down the Ark of the Lord, which ston remaineth unto this day in the Field of Joshua the Bethshemite, 1 Sam. 6.18. This Passage should rather prove,' That 'tis a Contemporary Author which speaks, since the Ark did not remain long with the Bethshemites, being quickly removed thence to Kirjath-Jearim, as is said immediately after. But that which is said, That it remained twenty years in Kirjath-Jearim, could not have been observed by Samuel, since it remained there only thirteen years during his Life, and was not fetched thence till seven years after his Death by King David. There is likewise another Passage, in 1 Sam. 27.6. where, Unto this day, is determined to the time when the Kingdom of Judah was established: For 'tis there said, That Achish gave Ziklag to David, wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the Kings of Judah unto this day. Now the Name of the Kings of Judah was not in use till after the Division of the Ten Tribes. It may perhaps be said, That Gad and Nathan might have lived to have seen this Division; but since Solomon reigned forty years, there is scarce any likelihood that these Prophets survived him; besides the Author speaks in the plural Number, of the Kings of Judah, which supposes, that he had already seen several of them.  
As for the two last Books, which are the only ones, that the Hebrews called MALACHIM or KINGS, since they contain the History of the Kings of Israel and Judah, down to the Captivity, which is related in the last Chapter, they could not have been finished till after that time. However, There are several Passages in them which suppose, that the Kingdom of Judah was still in Being: Thus for instance, 1 Kings 9.21. where 'tis said, That Solomon made the Children of the Amorites, and others of the Canaanites, which the Children of Israel could not destroy, Tributaries unto this day. 2 Kings 8.22. Edom revolted from the hand of Judah unto this day. And Ch. 13. Ver. 23. That God would not destroy the Jews, nor cast them out of his presence as yet. These Passages suppose, That the Kingdom of Judah was still remaining. Which shows, either, That this History was composed out of several Memoirs, or rather, that he who digested and wrote it, has inserted those things into it which he found in the more Ancient Records without changing the Forms of Expression. The Talmudists attribute this Work to Jeremiah, others to Isaiah, but the Generality to Ezrah.  
The first Book of Samuel, or of the four Books of Kings comprehends, that which happened under the Government of Eli the High-Priest, under that of Samuel the Prophet, and under the Reign of Saul: The second is the History of David's Government. The two last Books of Kings, contain the History of Solomon the Son of David, and afterwards the Reigns of the several Kings of Israel and Judah, down to the Destruction of Israel, and the Captivity of Judah. These four Books contain the History of almost six hundred years.  
The two Books of Chronicles are called Paralipomena by the Greeks, because they contain some Circumstances that were omitted in the other Historical Books. The Hebrews made but one Book of them, under the title of, DIBRE-HAIAMIM; The Sayings or Actions of days or years, that is, Journals or Annals; either because the Order of Time is therein more exactly observed, or else because they were taken out of the Records, Journals or Annals of History. 'tis for the first Reason, That St. Jerom calls them Chronicles; thereby meaning an abridged History, wherein Matters of Fact are briefly related, and the times carefully set down. Ezrah is generally believed to be the Author of these Books. No question but they were written after the end of the Babylonish Captivity, and the first year of Cyrus's Reign, of whom mention is made in the last Chapter of the second Book. The last Words of that Chapter, concerning Cyrus, are the very same with those at the beginning of the first Book of Ezrah; and the Genealogies, which are in the first Chapters of the first Book of Chronicles, are conformable to those which are in the 2d, 8th, and 10th Chapters of the first Book of Ezrah. This may induce one to believe that they belong to the same Author. St. Jerom supposed, That this was the Book cited in the Books of Kings under the Title of Diaries, or rather Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel. But 'tis evident, that this could not be, because, as we have already observed, The Author of the Books of Kings refers us to these Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel, in several Circumstances that are not related in the Paralipomena. These Annals were likewise much larger, and contained distinctly the History of the two Kingdoms of Juda and Israel. Lastly, There are in the Paralipomena such things as were taken out of the Books of Kings, and the End of that Book shows it to be more Modern. But it was composed before that of Nehemiah, in which last 'tis cited in these Words, Ch. 12. Ver. 23. The Sons of Levi, the chief of the Fathers, were written in the Book of the Chronicles. Here is the Title which the Book of the Paralipomena goes under; and the Genealogy of Levi, cited in this passage, is in the 9th Chapter of the first Book of Chronicles. There is one passage which might induce one to believe them to be a great deal more Modern; 'tis the Genealogy of the Posterity of Zerubbabel, related 1 Chron. 3.21. which seems to be carried down much lower than Ezrah's time. But it may be that some of those descendants were added; besides, 'tis not certain, that the Posterity of Zerubbabel, mentioned in that place, did all of 'em descend in a right Line from Father to Son, and that there were none of 'em Collateral. Moreover, There are in this Book, several Passages, wherein these Terms, Unto this day, cannot be referred to any other time than that which preceded the Destruction of Jerusalem. 1 Chron. 3.43. 'tis said, That the Sons of Simeon, five hundred Men, went to Mount Seir, that they smote the rest of the Amalekites that were escaped, and dwelled there unto this day. 2 Chron. Ch. 5. Ver. 9. 'tis said, That the Ark remained in the Temple unto this day. This supposes, That the Temple was still standing, and that the Jews inhabited Judea. These and other Passages must then have been transcribed, Word for Word, from the Histories and Records made in the time when the Temple stood, and when the Jews were in possession of that Country.  
The Paralipomena or Chronicles, are an abridgement of all the Sacred History, from its beginning to the first return of the Jews, taken out of the Books of the Bible which we have, and out of other Annals which the Author had by him in his time. The Author's design was to represent to the Jews the Series of their History, which might have been worn out of their memory during their Captivity, and so to put them in mind of their Original. For this Reason, the Author begins by drawing up the Genealogy of the patriarches down to Jacob; that of the Posterity of the Twelve Sons of Jacob, and especially that of the Royal lineage of David, thereby to exhibit a kind of general Scheme of all the Jewish People. After this, he succinctly, and in a Chronological Order, relates the History of Saul, David, Solomon, and the Kings of Israel and Judah their Successors, down to the Captivity of Babylon. The judgement which St. Jerom passes on this Work, is this: The Book of the Chronicles, which is as it were an abridgement of the Old Testament, is so considerable, that 'tis a folly to pretend to have any knowledge of the Sacred Scripture without it; for in almost all the places thereof we meet with circumstances omitted in the Books of Kings, and an infinite number of Questions upon the Gospel explained. However, There are manifest Contradictions between the Chronology of these Books, and that of the Book of Kings, which 'tis very difficult, but not altogether impossible to reconcile; but this we refer to the place wherein we shall expressly treat of this Matter.   

SECT. VI. Of the Two Books of Ezrah. Ezrah the Author of the First, and Nehemiah of the Second. The Lives of Both. The Chronology of their Books.  
THE two Books which are under Ezrah's Name in some Bibles, were formerly by the Hebrews reckoned to be only One, as St. Jerom observes. And this is the Reason why they both are inscribed under Ezrah's Name in the Latin Bibles, tho' they belonged to distinct Authors. Hitherto Ezrah was looked upon as the Author of the first of these Books; and indeed he speaks of himself in the first Person, Ch. 7. V. 28. In me inclinavit Deus Misericordiam suam coram Rege,& Ego, &c. The Lord extended his Mercy towards me before the King, and I, &c. Ch. 9. Ver. 5. Curvavi genua mea& expandi manus meas ad Dominum Deum meum; I fell upon my Knees, and spread out my Hands unto the Lord. But a Modern critic has of late pretended, that the six first Chapters were a more ancient Writer's, and the Reason he gives for it is, That the Author of these Chapters was at Jerusalem in the time of Darius the Son of Hystaspes, as appears by these Words of the fifth Chapter, where speaking of the Answer which the Jews, in the Reign of Darius, return'd to the Governors of Syria, who would have hindered the Rebuilding of Jerusalem, he says, in the first Person, Ver. 4. Then said we unto them after this manner, which supposes that he was then at Jerusalem. Now Ezrah did not come thither till under the Reign of Artaxerxes, as appears by the beginning of the seventh Chapter. This is the Foundation of that Conjecture, which is not very solid. For when Ezrah wrote; We said unto them after this manner, he speaks in the Name of the Jews; and 'tis usual for Historians of a Country to speak thus in the first Person in the Name of their own Nation, and to say for instance, We declared War, We made a Peace, We took that City, &c. altho' the Historian had no share at all in those Events. It is more difficult to explain, who it comes to pass, That in the second Chapter of Ezrah we find the Genealogy and Number of those who return'd from Babylon to Jerusalem under Nehemiah, as well as in the time of Zerubbabel and Ezrah, which is related in the same manner, tho' with some Additions and Alterations, in the ninth Chapter of Nehemiah. Some believe, That Nehemiah transcribed this out of the Book of Ezrah, adding thereto the Names of those Persons who came to Jerusalem in the second Return from the Captivity. Others, on the contrary suppose, That Ezrah copied it from Nehemiah, since therein mention is made of Nehemiah. Others pretend, That the Genealogy of Ezrah was afterwards corrected from that of Nehemiah. All these Conjectures are not reconcilable with the differences which are to be met with in these two Genealogies; for if they had been copied or corrected from one another, they would have been exactly alike. If Nehemiah had only added to Ezrah's Account, the number of Persons would have been always greater in Nehemiah than in Ezrah; which it is not, since Ezrah reckons Seven hundred seventy five Persons of the Children of Arah, and Nehemiah reckons only Six hundred fifty two: The first reckons Nine hundred forty five of the Children of Zattu, and the latter only Eight hundred forty five. I am sensible, that these Differences may be charged on the negligence of the Transcribers, and on the variety of Copies; but what need is there to say, that one of these two Authors transcribed from the other, since they might both of them have written these Genealogies; Ezrah having survived the second Transmigration made under Nehemiah, and having not writ his Book till the latter end of his life?  
The Book which is commonly called the second of Ezrah, goes under the Name of Nehemiah, who is declared the Author of it by beginning thus; The Words of Nehemiah the Son of Hachaliah, and by speaking always of himself in the first Person. 'tis objected, That Ch. 12. Ver. 22. mention is made of the Reign of Darius Codomannus, and of the High-Priest Jaddua, who went to meet Alexander the Great; that 'tis Morally impossible, that Nehemiah should have lived to that time. For from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, there were more than an Hundred years to the Reign of Darius Codomannus, and the Priesthood of Jaddua. But 'tis not certain, That Darius, mentioned in this Place, was Darius Codomannus; perhaps it was Darius Nothus, who died forty years or thereabouts after the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and 'tis not there said, that Jaddua or Jaddus was High-Priest already. Now he might have been born towards the end of the Reign of Darius Nothus, or in the beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, and might have still been alive in Alexander's time. But 'tis probable, That what is said in this place, from the beginning to the 27th Verse of the twelfth Chapter, was added afterwards, because it has no Connexion with what goes before or comes after, and interrupts the Series of the History. For Nehemiah, after he had related in what manner he had rebuilt the Walls of the City of Jerusalem, in the 11th Chapter gives us a Catalogue of the Families and Persons who inhabited it. 'twas natural, that he should afterwards give an account of the Dedication of the City-Walls, which begins at the 27th Verse; and all that is said between these two Accounts, concerning the Succession of the Levites and High-Priests seems Foreign to the purpose. This Account is begun by this Period, which denotes another Author besides Nehemiah, Now these are the Priests and the Levites that went up to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel the Son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua; and ends with these Words, These were in the days of Joiakim, the Son of Jeshua, the Son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah the Governor, and of Ezrah the Scribe. Where observe, That in this place Nehemiah is spoken of in the third Person. But some one will add, The thirteenth Chapter is doubtless Nehemiah's, who there speaks in the first Person. Yet in the 28th Verse, mention is made of one of the Sons of Joiada, the Son of Eliashib the High-Priest, who was Son-in-Law to Sanballat the Horonite, Whom( says he) I chased from me. Now according to Josephus, This Son-in-Law of Sanballat was Manasses, the Brother of Jaddus; and tho' it should be supposed, that there were two Sanballats, and that Josephus was mistaken; yet still 'tis plain, that Nehemiah drove out of the Priesthood one of the Sons of Joiada, the Uncle at least of Jaddus, if not his Brother, as Josephus pretends; and consequently the Author of this Book of Nehemiah must still have written under the Reign of Alexander the Great, and of Darius Codomannus. But we deny this Conclusion: For the Son of Joiada the Brother of Jonathan Jaddus's Father, might very well have been married to Sanballat's Daughter in the beginning of the Reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, and might have been turned out then by Nehemiah, who might have been seventy years of Age or thereabouts.  
Ezrah, the Author of the first of the two Books we have been speaking of, was the Son of Seraiah the High-Priest, whom nabuchadnezzar put to Death, as 'tis related, 2 Kings 25.18, 21. and the Brother of Josedech, who was High-Priest during the Captivity. He was the Head of the Jews who return'd from Babylon the seventh year of the Empire of Artaxerxes Longimanus, from whom he received a Commission to led them back, to rebuild the Temple, and to give them Judges, as related in the seventh Chapter of that Book. He is styled, Scriba velox in lege Moysi, Ch. 7. Ver. 6. that is, a Doctor skilful in the Law of Moses: For the Hebrew Word Sophetim, which the Greeks render {αβγδ}, and the Latins Scriba, does not signify a Scribe or Writer, but a Doctor of the Law. The Hebrews call him the Prince of the Doctor's of the Law. We shall hereafter examine, what he did towards the restoring and describing of the Law.  
Nehemiah, the Author of the second of these Books, was the Son of Hilkiah of the Tribe of Levi. He was in Babylon Cup-bearer or page. to the King Artaxerxes, from whom he obtained leave, the twentieth year of his Reign, to return into Judea, to rebuild the City of Jerusalem, and to stay there for twelve years; at the end of which he return'd to Babylon, according as he had promised the King. He stayed there for several years, till he at last obtained leave of the King of Persia, to go and end his days in his own Country; where he died about the end of the Reign of Darius Nothus, or in the beginning of that of Artaxerxes Mnemon,  
The first of these two Books contains the History of the deliverance of the Jews from the Captivity of Babylon, and of their Re-settlement in Judea from the first Year of Cyrus to the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus; and the second begins at the twentieth Year of the same Prince, to the Reign of Darius Nothus. The Chronology of this space of time depends on the Duration of the Reigns of the Kings of Persia, which we shall examine in its proper place.   

SECT. VII. The History of Tobit. When it happened. By whom written.  
TOBIT 
Tobit.] The Greeks call the Father Thobit, or Thobeth, and his Son Tobias. There is a Hebrew Copy wherein the Father is called Tobi, and the Son Tobith. The Greeks have his Genealogy thus: The Son of Tobiel, the Son of Ananeel, the Son of Aduel, the Son of Gabael, of the Seed of Asael, of the Tribe of Nephthali, of the City of This be on the Right side of Nephthali. The Hebrew Copy of Munster; The Son of Tobiel, the Son of Ananeel, the Son of Gabael, the Son of Asael, the Son of Nathaneel, of the Tribe of Nephthali, one of the Inhabitants of the City of Nephthali situate in Galilee on the West. The Copy of Fagius; The Son of Ananeel, the Son of Gabriel, of the Seed of Ashel, of the Tribe of Nephthali. , of the Tribe of Nephthali, was one of those whom Shalmaneser King of Assyria carried away Captive, when he took Samaria, and destroyed the Kingdom of Israel. He was transported to Nineveh with his Wife and Son. This Book represents to us the Duties of Charity, which this Man, that feared God, shew'd to the Captives of his Nation; the Patience with which he sustained the loss of his Sight and Poverty; and contains the History of his Son's Journey in company with an Angel, to fetch from Gabael, who dwelled in the City of Rages, the Ten Talents which his Father had lent him, and how in that Journey he married his Kinswoman, Sarah the Daughter of Raguel.  
The Jews acknowledged this History of Tobit to be Genuine, tho' they did not receive this Book into their Canon. 'tis generally believed, that it was written by both the Tobies. This Opinion is grounded on what the Angel says to them, Ch. 12. Ver. 20. according to the Greek Text: For instead of Reading as 'tis in the Vulgar Latin, Relate all these Wonders, 'tis in the Greek, in the Hebrew of Fagius, in the Syriac Version, and in our English, writ all things which was done in a Book. For this Reason, the Interpreters have made the Tobies to speak in the first Person. Besides 'tis plain, That this Book was written at first in Chaldee, that is, in the Language of the Country wherein Tobit dwelled. St. Jerom translated it into Latin with the Assistance of an Interpreter from the Chaldee Original, which is not at present Extant. This History was likewise rendered into Hebrew, and we have by us two different Hebrew Versions of it; one published by Munster, and the other by Fagius. There was lastly, An Ancient Greek Version of it from whence the Syriac was composed.  
This Book is very instructive, very affectionate, full of Religious and Pious Thoughts, and writ in a plain, natural and easy Style. 'tis easy to settle the Chronology thereof: The Epocha of Tobit's being carried away Captive being clearly fixed, at the time when Shalmaneser carried away the Ten Tribes; which happened the fourth year of the Reign of Hoshea King of Israel, and the sixth of Hezekiah King of Judah. The Tribe of Nephthali was indeed carried away before, by Tiglath-Peleser, King of Assyria, as is related, 2 Kings 15.29. but this was not a general Captivity, there were several still left behind.  
Tobit lived one hundred and two years in all; lost his sight at fifty six years of Age, and recovered it in the sixtieth. Before his Death, he foretold the Destruction of Nineveh, which happened under nabuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus, that is under Astyages and Nabopalasar, as we have observed in speaking of the prophesy of Nahum.  
It is to be observed, That in the Vulgar Latin, there is a fault, Ch. 3. Ver. 7. where 'tis said, That Sarah the Daughter of Raguel dwelled at Rages: It ought to be at Ecbatane, as in the Greek and Hebrew Text. For it appears by the 9th Chapter, That Raguel did not live at Rages, since Tobias being at his House, sent the Angel to Gabael, who dwelled at Rages, to receive of him the Ten Talents which his Father had lent him.   

SECT. VIII. The History of Judith. When It happened. Whether it be Genuine. By whom Wrote.  
THE Book of Judith goes under her Name, who is the principal parsonage of the History that is therein related: Of which take this Summary Account so necessary for the due understanding of what we have to say on this Subject. Nabuchodonosor, King of the Assyrians, who reigned in Nineveh, having defeated and taken Arphaxad, King of the Medes, Prisoner; laid a design of subduing the People of Asia that were Westward of Nineveh; and sent Holofernes with a powerful Army, who striking a terror wherever he came, became Master of Mesopotamia, Syria, Libya, and Cilicia, who voluntarily submitted to his Arms. After these Conquests, He came to Idumea, which he took without any Opposition, and there rendezvous'd his Army. The Israelites, alarmed at his approach, raised all the Forces they could, seized upon the Hill Countries, and fortified as well as they could their Cities. The High-Priest Joacim, or Eliakim, encouraged them to defend themselves stoutly, and ordered them to pray to God for Relief. Holofernes being amazed, that this People should make Preparations of War against so powerful an Army, enquired of their Neighbours, the Moabites, and Ammonites, what Force this People had, and what reason there might be of their not submitting to him. Achior, the Chief of the Ammonites, relates in a few Words the History of that People, and having shown him how they were sometimes protected, and sometimes forsaken by their God; he says, That if they had offended this God, he would deliver them into his hands; but if not, then God would defend them, and all his Army could not Conquer them. Holofernes received this Advice with Indignation, and ordered Achior to be carried to Bethulia, which he immediately besieged, designing to be revenged of Achior, so soon as he had taken that place. Ozias the Governor of that City, made Preparations for its Defence; but the Inhabitants, daunted at the number of the Enemy, would have surrendered; and had much ado to be prevailed upon to stay only for five days. It was then, That Judith, a rich and handsome Widow, resolved upon going into the Camp of Holofernes in order to destroy him. Thereupon she went out of the City, came to the Camp, was taken, and brought before Holofernes. He was pleased with her, made a great Feast for her, and drank himself drunk in his Tent. After this, he was locked up with her alone; she took her opportunity, cut off his Head, made her escape, and carried the Head of that General to Bethulia. A great horror seized the Army of the Assyrians, they fled away in great disorder, the Israelites pursued them, killed several of them, and became Masters of a very large Spoil. Judith sang a Song, and went with all the People to Jerusalem, to return thanks to the Lord. She return'd afterwards to Bethulia, there lived till she was an hundred and five years of Age, and during her Life the Israelites enjoyed Peace. This is the abridgement of the History of this Book.  
The greatest difficulty in this Narration is to six the Time wherein this Event happened. Some place it before, others after the Captivity; and some, finding( as they imagine) insupperable Difficulties to reconcile it with the History of the Jews, Assyrians, and Medes, have ventured to assert, that 'tis only a Parable and Allegory, and not an Historical Truth.  
Eusebius and Georgius Syncellus, suppose, That the History of Judith happened after the return of the Jews; but the first places it under Cambyses, and the other under Xerxes. Among those who believe it to have happened before the Captivity, some say, That it was in the time of Dejoces King of the Medes, and others in the time of Aphraartes; but they both agree, that it was under the Reign of Manasseh, King of Judah. Arguments and Objections are brought on both sides, which we are now to Examine.  
The Arguments alleged by those who maintain, that this History happened since the Captivity, are as follow. They say,( 1.) That this History must needs have happened in a time when there was no King among the Jews; since it appears by this Book, That the High-Priest Eliakim or Joacim had the whole Authority, and no mention is made in any place of the King of Israel. Now how is it possible, That such a considerable War as this, related in the Book of Judith, should be carried on, and the King of the People who were attacked, should have no hand in it?( 2.) That before the Captivity there was no High-Priest named Eliakim; that none of that Name is to be seen, neither in the Catalogue of Josephus, nor in any part of Scripture: That there was one after the Captivity named Joacim, which is the same Name in the Greek Text that in the Vulgar Latin is called Eliakim.( 3.) That Achior, the Prince of the Ammonites being asked by Holofernes, who the People of Israel were, returned him this Answer, Ch. 5. That the Israelites had been destroyed in many Battles, and that many of them had been carried away Captive into a strange Land; but that at present they were return'd to their God, and were come up from the places where they had been dispersed; that they were seated in those Hill-Countries, and were again in possession of Jerusalem, where was their Sanctuary; That in the Greek, 'tis added, {αβγδ}; and the Temple of their God was cast down to the Ground. That these Expressions seem clearly to denote the time of the Captivity, and that what is said concerning the Destruction of the Temple, does necessary svit with it. Lastly, they maintain, That there is no way of reconciling what is said in this Book concerning the Age of Judith, with the time that preceded the Captivity. For 'tis said in the 8th Chapter, That when she went to find out Holofernes, she was young and beautiful: And in the 16th Chapter, That she lived One hundred and five years, and saw no more War in Israel. Now from the end of the Reign of Manasses, to the time of the War that Pharaoh Necho carried on against Josiah, there were no more than five and forty years. So that supposing, That Holofernes came into Judea about the Reign of Manasses, Judith must have been sixty years old; and how could she at that Age be so young and beautiful as to charm Holofernes?  
Those who are of the contrary Opinion, do not want Replies to these Objections. For the solving the first difficulty, they say, That no mention is made of Manasses in the Book of Judith; because, that Prince since his return from the Captivity, never concerned himself with the Affairs of the State afterwards, if Josephus the Historian be to be credited in the Case; and that tho' this were not so, we see that Eliakim only encouraged the People, and exhorted them to have recourse to God by Prayer, which was no more than his Duty to do: Besides, 'tis no such wonder, That Manasses being employed in fortifying the City of Jerusalem, should leave the Defence of Bethulia to the Care of Ozias, who was as it were the Governor thereof. To the second Objection they Reply, That there was an High-Priest named Eliakim in the time of Manasses, and to prove it, produce this Prediction of the Prophet Isaiah, Ch. 22. Ver. 20, 21. It shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the Son of Hilkiah: And I will cloath him with thy rob, and strengthen him with thy Girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand, and he shall be a Father to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. Tho' in this place 'tis not said, That this Eliakim was High-Priest, yet the Qualities and Authority ascribed to him seem, very manifestly, to denote him to be the same Person, mentioned in the Book of Judith. St. Jerom and St. Cyril make no scruple to assert that 'tis the same. Josephus was not very exact in the Catalogue of the High-Priests, since the Scripture mentions some, of whom he takes no notice: And besides it may be, That Eliakim was one of those that he called by another Name; since one and the same Person might have two different Names.  
The third Objection depends upon the Authority and Sense of the Words in the Greek Text, which relate to the Destruction of the Temple. As for what is said in that place, of the Captivity of several of the Jews, this agrees very well with the carrying away of Manasses, related 2 Chron. 33. The Text of the Vulgar Latin, translated by St. Jerom from the Chaldee Original, makes no mention of the Temple, and it may be supposed, That the Greek Interpreter has added it of his own head. But suppose, That the Greek Text should be stuck close to, they pretend, that these Words, {αβγδ}, which literally signify, Their Temple was level with the Ground, are not to be understood, that the Temple was erased to the very Ground, but only that it was trodden under foot or profaned. They add, That without doubt in this place 'tis not spoken of the entire Destruction of Jerusalem, but only of its profanation, since Ch. 4. Ver. 3. 'tis in the same Greek Text said, That the Children of Israel were newly return'd from the Captivity, and were lately gathered together, and the Vessels and the Altar, and the House of God were Sanctified after the Profanation. The Temple therefore and the Altar were not destroyed, since they did only sanctify them. All this relates to what happened in the time of Manasses, when he was carried away Captive by the King of the Assyrians, with part of his People. He repented, was delivered out of Captivity, Sanctified the Temple and the Altar, and made amends for the Evil that he had done. As to what concerns the Age of Judith, 'tis easy to reconcile it with the History. Manasses reigned fifty five years, Amon his Successor two years, Josiah one and thirty, and Jehoiakim eleven. It may be said, That properly speaking, the Peace was not disturbed till Jehoiakim was lead Captive to Babylon; for the War of Josiah was out of the Kingdom, and the Death of that Prince was not succeeded by a War. This being so, If we subtract from the One hundred and five years of Judith's Age, the eleven years of Jehoiakim, one and thirty of Josiah's Reign, the two years of his Father Amon, and sixteen or seventeen years of the Reign of Manasses, there will remain only forty five. Now, 'tis no such wonder, That a Woman who lived an hundred and five years, should between forty and fifty seem so beautiful and young as to Charm an Old General. These are the Answers that are brought to the Arguments of those who place this Event after the Captivity; and now let us see the Arguments which they allege to show that it could not happen in that time.  
First, It is certain, That after the Return of the Jews from Babylon, there was not any King in Media or Assyria, and yet it appears by the Book of Judith, that these were the two greatest Empires of the East, which disputed all Asia between them; whereas, after the Captivity, the Persians were the Masters of it. Secondly, Nineveh, which in the time of Judith, was the Flourishing and Capital City of Assyria, was entirely destroyed in the time of the Kings of Persia. Thirdly, The History of Judith happened a little after the City of Ecbatane was built by Arphaxad: Now that City was built by Dejoces, and might be sinish'd by his Son Phraartes or Aphraartes. Fourthly, The Name of Arphaxad is the same with that of Phraartes, or perhaps Aphraartes. What is said of Arphaxad in the Book of Judith, does perfectly agree with what Herodotus relates of Phraortes. For that Historian observes, That this Prince being advanced towards the Country of the Assyrians to whom Nineveh belonged, was defeated and cut off with his whole Army. Now 'tis said in the History of Judith, That Arphaxad was defeated and killed by Nabuchodonosor King of the Assyrians, who reigned in Nineveh. Those who have said, That Arphaxad was Dejoces, go upon what is said in the Vulgar Latin, That he built the City of Ecbatane, but in the Greek Text 'tis only said, That he fortified this City with new Walls. Fifthly, The King Nabuchodonosor, who defeated Arphaxad, and sent Holofernes against Syria, could not have been a King of Persia. It could not be Cambyses, as Eusebius believes it to be, since in the time of that Prince the Temple of Jerusalem was not rebuilt. Who then is this Nabuchodonosor of whom mention is made in Judith? He could not be nabuchadnezzar the Son of Nabopalasser, who carried King Jehoiakim into Babylon. 'tis certainly Saosduchinus the Son of Assaradon, who, according to Ptolomey, was King of Nineveh and Babylon.  
Tho' these Proofs be not demonstrative, yet it must be owned, That it is very difficult to return any satisfactory Answer to them, especially to the first, which seems to me unanswerable. Most of the Protestant Commentators, as Luther, Chytraeus, Beroaldus, Scaliger, and Grotius, to evade those difficulties, which they looked upon as insuperable, have been pleased to maintain, that this History is a Fiction or an Allegory, which Grotius believes to have been composed in the time when Antiochus Epiphanes came into Judea, and which he explains more handsomely than solidly 
More handsomely than solidly.] Let us see what he says in his Preface. All that is contained in this Book is enigmatical. It was written when Antiochus the Illustrious came into Judea, before the Temple was profaned by the Idols, that were afterwards set up in it. It was written with a design of confirming the Jews in the hope that God would deliver them. Judith is the same thing with Judea: Bethulia Beth-El-Ja, the House of God or the Temple: The Sword that went out thence are the Prayers of the Saints. Nabuchodonosor signifies frequently among the Jews, the Devil: Assyria, is Pride: The Instrument of the Devil is Antiochus, who under a feigned Name is here called Holofernes, that is, Halpernahus, the Lictor, the sergeant, or the Minister of the Devil, who would have made himself Master of Judea, that handsome Widow, so called, because destitute of all Relief: Eliakim, signifies God, who should arise up in its defence. These are the Allegories which Grotius would hardly have suffered in another Man. . But it must be owned, That this History has by no means the Air of a Parable or a Fiction: The Times, Persons, Matters of Fact and their Circumstances are so exactly set down, and in so Historical a manner, that it would be next to impossible to conjecture that 'tis an Allegory. This Author then must have been an Impostor or an Historian. He produces himself an Authentic Testimony of the Truth of this History, viz. The Feast which the Jews celebrated in Honour of that Victory. The Jews have indeed excluded this Book out of their Canon, but have not rejected this History as a more Fable. The most Ancient Fathers, as for instance, St. Clemens Romanus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerom, and all those who have followed them, have acknowledged this History as true. 'tis only in these last times that it has begun to be called in Question, and the principal or rather the only reason which these critics have for it, is the difficulty which they supposed to have been in the Chronology of this History. Tho' it were much greater than it is, yet that would be no lawful reason for rejecting it as false. There are a great many Histories, as well Sacred as profane, which lye under the same difficulties. But 'tis not impossible to solve them, by placing this Event before the Captivity; and it has been shown, that the Matters of Fact related in this Book, are very reconcilable with the History of Herodotus. The other Objections started against the Truth of this History, are not worth while to be insisted on in this place.  
The Author of this Book is wholly unknown. Some suppose that it was the High-Priest Eliakim or Joacim who wrote it himself: Others say, That it was Joshua the Son of Josedec, Zerubbabel's Companion. Grotius pretends, That it was written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Huetius, with greater probability, guesses, That it was composed during the Captivity, because it was written in Chaldee. We have not by us that Original. St. Jerom has translated it into Latin, by rendering the Sense, without tying himself up to the Words; by retrenching the various Lections to be met with in different Copies, and by putting in his Translation only that which might make the Sense perfect, as he himself testifies in these Words: Magis sensum è sensu, quam ex Verbo Verbum transferens. Multorum Codicum varietatem Vitiosissimam amputavi; sola ea quae intelligentia integra in verbis Chaldaeis invenire potui, Latinis expressi. 'tis this Version of St. Jerom which we have in the Vulgar Latin Text. The Greek Version that we have of it, is very different from the Latin, being larger, and apparently more conformable to the Chaldee Original. Some have attributed it to Theodotion, but 'tis a great deal more Ancient, since St. Clemens Romanus, before Theodotion's time, and St. Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Africanus, had this History in Greek. The Syriac Version agrees with the Greek Text, and so does likewise the English Translation.   

SECT. IX. The History of Esther. The Conjectures brought to discover who was this King Ahasuerus that Married Esther. This Matter very uncertain. Of the Author of this Book. Of the Additions which are not in the Original Text.  
THE Book of Esther contains the History of a Jewish young Woman of that Name, the Kinswoman of Mordecai the Jew, of the Tribe of Benjamin, dwelling at Shushan, whom Ahasuerus Married and set upon the Throne, after he had repudiated his former Wife. This Prince had a Favourite named Haman, of the Seed of Agag King of the Amalekites, who being offended, that Mordecai did not pay him those Respects that others did, resolved upon destroying all the Jews who were in the Empire of Ahasuerus: Accordingly he caused a Decree to be issued out, by which they were all to be cut off in the Month Adar, which was the Month wherein the Lot was drawn for the destroying of those unfortunate Persons. Mordecai informs the Queen of the Danger her whole Nation was in; She waited upon the King, and invited him and Haman to a Banquet she had prepared. Haman, puffed up with this Piece of Honour done him, could not bear with Mordecai's Contempt, who had not saluted him. But whilst he thought of being revenged on him, the King, having red the Records, which put him in Mind of Mordecai's having discovered a Conspiracy laid against his Life, was minded to reward him, and orders Haman to conduct Mordecai in Triumph through the City. The Queen having treated the King, discovered to him, that she was a Jew, and demanded Justice against Haman in behalf of her People. The King caused Haman to be hanged, revoked the Decree issued forth against the Jews, and grants another, whereby he permitted them to revenge themselves on their Enemies on the day appointed. The Feast of Purim is instituted as a perpetual Memorial and Thanksgiving among the Jews for such a signal Mercy and Deliverance.  
This is what is related in the Book of Esther: But there is scarce any History whose Chronology is more uncertain. 'tis certain, That it happened in the time of King Ahasuerus. The difficulty is to know, who is the King that is so called in Scripture. 'tis certainly a King of the Medes or Persians, who reigned since the Jews being carried away Captive under Jechonias. But there is scarce one of these Kings, from Astyages down to Artaxerxes Mnemon, but what some Author or other has supposed to have been Ahasuerus, the Husband of Esther. Let us see, whether it be possible to discover to which of these Kings this History may be attributed with the greatest Probability.  
'tis agreed, That it could not be Cyaxeres King of the Medes, the Son of Phraortes, because he was dead before the Captivity under Jechonias. His Son Astyages, is called Ahasuerus in the last Chapter of Tobit, according to the Greek Text. This might induce one to suppose, That he is the Person mentioned in the Book of Esther. But Herodotus informs us, That he Married Anana the Daughter of Haliattes King of the Lydians, and he must have had another Wife before, whose Daughter Mandana, the Mother of Cyrus, was. Neither of these could be Esther, so that Astyages is not Ahasuerus, esthers Husband. Astyages, according to Xenophon, had by his second Wife, a Son named Cyaxeres, which some make to be the Father of Darius the meed, to whom they attribute a third Cyaxeres for a Son, whom they suppose to be Ahasuerus the Husband of Esther. But others, with greater probability maintain, That this third Cyaxeres is Suppositious, and that the second is not different from Darius the meed the Son of Astyages, and consequently the Uncle of Cyrus, who yielded the Kingdom of the Chaldeans to him after he had conquered it, as 'tis proved by the testimony of Daniel, Ch. 5. Ver. 31. and Ch. 9. Ver. 1. where 'tis said, That this Darius was the Son of Ahasuerus, and that he was declared King of the Chaldeans at the Age of sixty two, instead of balthasar, whom Berosus and Ptolomey call Nabonidus-Abydenus-Nabonidochus; and Herodotus, Labynitus. The Poet Aeschylus says, That this meed took and destroyed the City of Susa, which was afterwards rebuilt. It has been likewise believed, That Darius the meed was Ahasuerus, esthers Husband, because he was called Cyaxeres, which is the same with Ahasuerus; and besides, it is said, Dan. 6.1. That Darius set over his Kingdom an hundred and twenty Princes, and the number of the Provinces of Ahasuerus the Husband of Esther, is an hundred and twenty seven, including the Isles; so that these two Accounts agree pretty well together. It is likewise observed, That Darius reigned over the Medes and Persians. But to this Conjecture, 'tis objected; First, That the King mentioned in the Book of Esther was the King of the Persians; which does not svit with Darius the meed, who was only King of the Medes and Chaldeans. For Cyrus, having subdued his Father Astyages, was declared King of the Medes and Persians, and had the whole Authority in his own hands. His Grandfather was living, and esteemed as the King of the Medes. After his Death, Cyrus yielded up part of his Conquests to his Uncle Cyaxeres, or Darius the meed, and made him his colleague in the Empire, but still kept to himself the Supreme Authority, as appears from Xenophon. Darius the meed reigned at first in Shushan, and afterwards in Chaldea; but his Empire was never extended so far as that of Ahasuerus, from India to Ethiopia. After the Death of Darius, Cyrus remained the sole Monarch of all Asia, and by that means translated the Monarchy of the Babylonians and Medes into that of the Persians. He held it for seven years, reckoning from the Death of Darius the meed. The History of Esther does not svit with Cyrus; but some adapt it to his Son Cambyses, who is called Ahasuerus, Ezr. 4.6. He was a furious and rough sort of Man, which is a Character that suits with Ahasuerus esthers Husband; and the Empire of Cambyses had the same extent that is set down in this Book; but he reigned no more than seven or eight years, whereas Ahasuerus, esthers Husband, reigned above twelve years, as appears, Esth. 3.7. A great many think him to be Darius the Son of Hystaspes, one of the seven Conspirators who was declared King, after they had killed the Magician Oropastes, who had seized upon the Throne under a pretence of being the Brother of Cambyses. All that is said in the Book of Esther concerning Ahasuerus, agrees with him. For,( 1.) The Extent which is there given to his Empire from India to Ethiopia, excludes not only all the Kings before Cambyses, but even Cambyses himself too, since it was Darius who first subdued India and Arabia. The Author of the third Book of Ezrah, Ch. 3. describes in the same Terms the Extent of the Kingdom of Darius, and this is agreeable to Herodotus's account thereof.( 2.) Ahasuerus resided in the City of Shushan or Susa, which was the Metropolis of his Kingdom: This agrees with Darius the Son of Hystaspes, who beautified that City, built a magnificent Palace therein according to the testimony of Aelian, and laid up his Treasure there according to Herodotus.( 3.) This last Historian, says, That Darius the Son of Hystaspes was passionately in love with one of his Wives, whom he calls Artyssona, for whom he erected a Golden Statue; 'tis perhaps Esther, whose Name of Hadassah had been corrupted and changed into that of Artyssona.( 4.) 'tis said, Ch. 10. That Ahasuerus laid a Tribute upon the Isles of the Sea. Now, according to Thucydides, Darius the Son of Hystaspes was the first of the Kings of Persia who subdued the Isles of the Phoenicians, as 'tis likewise observed in Plato's Menenus. Xerxes was dispossessed of them before the twelfth year of his Reign, and none of the Kings of Persia have been in Possession of them since. Darius the Son of Hystaspes, is, according to herodotus, the first who laid a Tribute upon Nations, and it seems as if they were established in the time of Ahasuerus the Husband of Esther. Lastly, 'tis said, Ch. 2. Ver. 5. That Mordecai was one of the Jews who were carried away Captive with Jeconiah, by nabuchadnezzar King of Babylon. This Epocha excludes all the Kings of Persia who succeeded Darius; for it must be supposed, That Mordecai would have then been above Sixscore years of Age, and consequently Esther would have been very old. All that can be done, is to suppose, That he was still alive, tho' very ancient, in the beginning of the Reign of Darius, and that his Brother had his Daughter Esther when he was very much advanced in years.  
These Conjectures seem to be pretty plausible, but are destroyed by the testimony of Herodotus, who relates, That Darius had three Wives, who are not only not called Vesti or Hadassah, but of whom neither of them was Esther. For the two first were the Daughters of Cyrus, viz. Arctyssone a Maiden, and Atossa the Widow of Cambyses, and the last, Parmys the Daughter of Smerdis the Son of Cyrus. Besides, Darius the Son of Hystaspes, favoured the Jews the second year of his Reign; and Ahasuerus knew them not till the twelfth year of his. Lastly, What is observed concerning the Age of Mordecai seems not only to exclude the Successors of Darius, but also Darius himself, if it be to be understood literally. For from the Captivity of Jeconiah, to the seventh year of Darius, there are ninety years. Supposing then that Mordecai was but ten years old when he was carried away Captive, he would have been then an hundred. What probability is it that he should at that Age make his Court, and concern himself in discovering a Plot laid against the King's Life. The Father of Esther being dead was doubtless older than Mordecai; and tho' he had been several years younger than him, if he had begotten Esther at thirty or forty years of Age, she would have been then forty or fifty. By Consequence, if one follows the Greek Text of this Book, which says expressly, Ch. 2. Ver. 6. and Ch. 11. Ver. 18. That Mordecai was personally one of those who were carried Captive to Babylon in the time of Jeconiah; not only Ahasuerus cannot be the same with any of the Successors of Darius, but also it would be very hard to believe, that he was Darius, and then we must pitch upon one of the foregoing Kings, among whom I find none to whom the History of Esther suits better than with Cyaxeres or Darius the meed. But we may explain the Hebrew Text of the second Chapter, Ver. 6. so, that not Mordecai, but his Great Grandfather would be the Person who had been carried Captive to Babylon. The Text runs thus: In Shushan the Palace, there was a certain Jew, whose Name was Mordecai, the Son of Jair, the Son of Shimei, the Son of Kish, a Benjamite; who had been carried away from Jerusalem, with the Captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah King of Judah, whom nabuchadnezzar the King of Babylon had carried away. Now by referring these last words to Kish the Great Grandfather of Mordecai, one might very well say, That this happened under the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. However, it must be owned, That this is not the Natural Sense of the Hebrew Text; and the Greek Text, Ch. 11. Ver. 2. imports the contrary. So that if we heed the Greek Text, and the Vulgar Version, it must be granted, That this History cannot agree with any one of the Kings who succeeded Darius the Son of Hystaspes, and that it is very difficult to reconcile it with him. However, This very Greek Text calls Ahasuerus the Husband of Esther by the Name of Artaxerxes; and speaking of Haman, says, That he was a Macedonian, and had a design to translate the Empire from the Persians to the Macedonians; which cannot svit with the time of Darius the Son of Hystaspes, nor with any of his Predecessors, in whose times the Macedonians did not so much as Dream of the Universal Monarchy. How to reconcile this we cannot tell, unless we suppose, that when 'tis said, That Mordecai was one of the Jews that had been carried Captive to Babylon in the time of nabuchadnezzar, this Expression should only mean, That he was of the Seed of those Jews. This being granted, we may with Scaliger believe, That Ahasuerus esthers Husband was Xerxes. The Name of Ahasuerus in Greek, {αβγδ}, is much the same with that of Xerxes, {αβγδ}. The Wife of Xerxes may be same that Herodotus calls Amestris, and the Feast mentioned in that Book, may perhaps be that which Xerxes( according to the same Historian) made before his Expedition against Greece. But Queen Amestris was the Daughter of a Persian named Onophes, and consequently not the same with Esther: And she was Married to Xerxes long before his Expedition against Greece. Lastly, Xerxes was not at Susa, but in Greece, in the seventh year of his Reign. Others therefore refer this Event to the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the Son of Xerxes, an Opinion that seems to be founded on the Greek Text, which calls Ahasuerus by the Name of Artaxerxes, and on the testimony of Josephus who places the History of Esther under that princes Reign. Capellus carries it down still lower to the time of Ochus the Son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who succeeded his two Brothers within two years after the Death of their Father. He perceives, That the Hebrew Word Ashaveros comes very near to that of Ochos or Achos, which was the Name of that Son of Artaxerxes who was likewise called Darius Nothus. A Conjecture may be added, That it is not probable, that the Jews, who were return'd to Jerusalem, should have been so miserable and so despicable in the Eyes of their Neighbours, and that they durst not rebuild the Temple and the Walls of Jerusalem till the time of Artaxerxes Longimanus, if a Queen of Persia had been a Jewess, and the Jews in so great Esteem at the Persian Court. This Conjecture is very weak; and tho' one should suppose, That it was not Mordecai, but his Great Grandfather that had been carried from jerusalem to Babylon in the time of Jeconiah, there would be no more than four Generations from the Captivity down to Mordecai, viz. Kish, Shimei, Jair, and Mordecai. And there are near two hundred years from the Captivity under Jeconiah, to the seventh year of the Reign of Darius Ochus. It must be therefore supposed, That Kish was carried to Babylon at ten years of Age, that he begot Shimei at fifty, that Shimei begot Jair when he was likewise fifty years old, that Mordecai was born in the fiftieth year of his Father, and that he was then much about fifty himself. It must be farther supposed, That the Brother of Mordecai, esthers Father, was at least five and twenty years younger than Mordecai, that so Esther might be then no more than twenty or five and twenty, which is the utmost Age that can be allowed her. All these Suppositions have but very little probability in them. Wherefore, the Opinion of those, who carry this History down still lower to the Reign of Artaxerxes the Son of Ochus, is less tolerable. This is all that can be said concerning the time of Esther and King Ahasuerus. We leave the Reader to Embrace which Opinion he pleases, that shall seem most probable to him, the thing appearing to us, after all, as uncertain, as it did at first.  
The Author of this History is no less uncertain: St. Epiphanius, St. Augustin, and St. Isiodorus attribute this Book to Ezrah: Eusebius believes it to be more Modern: Others ascribe it to Joacim the High-Priest, the Grandson of Josedec: Most make Mordecai to be the Author of it; and some join Esther to him. They pretend to prove this from several places of the ninth Chapter of this Book, where 'tis said, Mordecai and Esther wrote these things to the Jews. But they who have been carried away by this Evidence, have not minded that in this place, mention is not made of this Book in the Condition we have it at present; but only of the Letters which Mordecai wrote to the Jews, to let them know, that for the future they should observe the Feast of Purim or of Lots, in Commemoration of what had happened to them. Mordecai( says the Author of this Book, Ch. 9. Ver. 20, &c.) wrote these Things, and sent Letters unto all the Jews that were in all the Provinces of the King Ahasuerus, both far and near: enjoining them to keep the fourteenth and fifteenth day of the month Adar every year; and the Jews promised to do as they had begun, and as Mordecai had written unto them. These Words do clearly show, That the Author of this Book was not Mordecai, since he relates that which Mordecai then wrote, and what the Jews practised as well in his time as afterwards. So likewise, Ver. 29. 'tis said, That Esther the Queen, the Daughter of Abihail and Mordecai the Jew, wrote a second Letter, to establish this Solemnity for ever among them; and they sent it to all the Jews of the 127 Provinces..... That they might keep the days of Purim, and celebrate that Feast with Joy in its Season. They received this Ordinance as Mordecai and Esther had enjoined 'em, that they and their Children might observe the Fasts, the Prayers, the Feast of Purim, and all that is in the Book which goes under the Name of Esther. Mordecai therefore and Esther had no hand in the Composing of that Book. But doubtless the Great Synagogue, to preserve the memory of this remarkable Event, and to account for the Original of the Feast of Purim, ordered this Book to be composed, which it approved of, and put into the Canon of the Sacred Books. This is the Opinion of the Talmudists, which seems to me the most likely. It was at first composed in Hebrew, such as we have it now in the nine first Chapters, and in the tenth to the 24th Verse, according to St. Jerom's Version. Some Hellenistical Jew did afterwards enlarge it, and made several Additions to it, which are inserted in their proper place in the Greek Version, and are placed by St. Jerom all together at the end of the Book after the 24th Verse of the 10th Chapter. Other Interpreters have likewise amplified it, by adding thereto several things which they thought proper to their subject, and which are in the Ancient Vulgar Latin, but left out by St. Jerom, who speaks thus of the Matter: Librum Esther variis translatoribus constat esse Vitiatum; quem ego de Archivis Hebraeorum relevans, Verbum è verbo pressius transtuli. Quem Librum Editio Vulgata laciniosis hinc ind verborum finibus trahit: Addens ea quae ex tempore dici poterant,& audiri; sicut solitum est scholaribus disciplinis sumpto themate excogitare, quibus verbis uti potuit qui injuriam passus est, vel ille qui injuriam fecit. The Chaldee Paraphrase is full of these Amplifications. Origen in his Letter to Africanus, seems to be of the Opinion that these Additions that are in the Greek Text, were formerly in the Hebrew, and that they were struck out of it. If this were so, they would be of the same Author, and would compose one and the same Body of History with the rest. But it appears on the contrary, That they were Additions made to the History of Esther by another hand; and for the proof thereof we need only to consider of what Nature they are, and where they are placed.  
In the beginning of the 11th Chapter, 'tis observed, That in the fourth year of Ptolemeus and Cleopatra, Dosithaeus, who said he was a Priest and Levite, and Ptolemeus his Son brought this Epistle of Phurim, which they said was the same, and that Lysimachus the Son of Ptolemeus, that was in Jerusalem, had interpnted it. This shows the Age and Nature of this Addition. It was under one of the Ptolemy's Kings of Egypt, viz. under Philometor, when it was made by the Hellenistical Jews of Alexandria.  
The first of those Additional Pieces, that was at the beginning of the Greek Text, is a Relation of Mordecai's Dream, and the discovery of the two Eunuch's, who had a design upon the Life of Artaxerxes. It cannot be said, That this belonged to the Author of the Book of Esther, for the Name and Quality of Mordecai, and the time and place wherein he lived, being put at the head of this Piece, it would be needless to repeat them at the beginning of the History; as well as the Conspiracy of the two Eunuchs, which is related in the second Chapter. The Addition begins thus: In the second year of the Reign of Artaxerxes the Great, in the first day of the month Nisan, Mordecheus the Son of Jair●●, the Son of Semei, the Son of Cisai of the Tribe of Benjamin had a Dream. He was a Jew, and dwelled in the City of Susa, a great Man, being a servitor, or rather Officer in the King's Court: He was also one of the Captives which Nabuchadonosor the King of Babylon carried from Jerusalem, with Jechonias King of Judah. It appears plainly, That this is the beginning of an History; and 'tis not probable, That an Author who begins thus, should afterwards repeat the same things. Yet 'tis certain, That the History of Esther, as related by the Original Author, begins with these Words. Now it came to pass, that in the days of Ahasuerus, who reigned from India to Ethiopia, &c. And that in the second Chapter, Mordecai is mentioned as a Person whose Quality was not as yet mentioned or known. There was( says the Author, Chap. 2. Ver. 5, 6.) in Shushan the Palace a certain Jew whose Name was Mordecai, the Son of Jair, the Son of Shimei, the Son of Kish, a Benjamite, &c. In the third Chapter, the Author of the Book of Esther, speaking of the Letter written in the King's Name for the putting all the Jews to Death, says, That the Substance of that Letter was, that they should all be ready against the day prefixed: Summa autem Epistolarum haec fuit, ut omnes Provinciae scirent& pararent se ad praedictum diem. This Author then has not related the Letter at length which the Greek Author has inserted in this place, and which is in the 14th Chapter of the Vulgar Latin. So likewise, as to the Letter written in favour of the Jews, the Author of the History only says, Ch. 8. Ver. 13. that the Contents thereof was, That the Jews should be ready against that day, to avenge themselves on their Enemies. The Greek Paraphrast relates in that place the whole Letter, which is in the 16th Chapter of the Vulgar Latin. The five first Verses of the 15th, are already in the 4th Chapter; and all that is related in that 15th Chapter is a Description that is foreign to the purpose, and which we see plainly was invented to decorate the History. It is likewise plain, That the Prayers of Mordecai and Esther, which are at the end of the 4th Chapter in the Greek, and in the 13th and 14th Chapters of the Vulgar Latin, are Additions made to the simplo Narration of the Author. Lastly, The Style alone of these Pieces does show, that it was a Greek, who to set off the History of Esther, has made some Pieces of a different Style from that of the Original History, and which make the Narration thereof less simplo and less Natural. It may be likewise added, That there are such Matters of Fact in those Pieces as are not related after the same Manner in the History itself. To Mordecai is ascribed the Quality of a great Lord and Officer of the King in the 2d year of that princes Reign: Now it appears to the contrary by the 2d Chapter of this History, That he was not as yet favoured, or so much as known by that Prince. The Author of those Additions, refers the discovery of the Eunuchs Conspiracy to the second year of Artaxerxes, which according to the Account given of it in the Body of the History, Ch. 2. Ver. 16. ought to be referred to the seventh year of Ahasuerus. 'tis said in the History, Ch. 6. Ver. 3. That Mordecai was not rewarded for that piece of Service till a long time after it was done, when the Destruction of the Jews was already resolved on; and the Author of the Addition supposes that he was rewarded immediately. In the History, 'tis said, That Haman resolved upon the Ruin of Mordecai, because he refused to do him Obeisance: In the Addition, another Reason is assigned for his Anger, viz. The Death of the two Eunuchs. They do not agree about the day appointed for the Massacre of the Jews; One says it was the thirteenth, and the other the fourteenth day of the Month Adar. Haman, who in the History is said to be the Son of Agag, and an Amalekite, is called in the last Letter of the Prince, A Macedonian, Vir Macedo; who had a design of translating the Empire of the Persians to the Macedonians.  
All that we have said does prove undeniably, That Origen had no grounds to believe, that those Additions were formerly in the Original. For if it were so:( 1.) They would have been in some other Version beside the Greek.( 2.) They would in all things have been conformable to the Original History.( 3.) They would not have repeated the same things over again as are related in the Original.( 4.) The Original Historian would never have said, That such or such a Letter contained such or such a thing, and then immediately give it us in its full length.( 5.) If they were the same Author's they would have the same Style. We should find in the Version the same Character, Simplicity and Genuineness. But since this is not so, and since the contrary has been demonstrated by the Remarks that we have made, we may say, That the Opinion of Origen is groundless, and that 'tis very probable, that these Additions were made by the Greek Translator, or some other Jew, who might without any falsity insert in his Narration such Letters and Discourses by the same Privilege that all Historians claim in such a Case.   

SECT. X. Of the Book of Job. What is to be thought of this History, and of the manner wherein it is penned. Who was the Author of it, and when composed. That 'tis a Poetical Piece. The Scope and Abstract of it.  
HAving treated of the Authors of the Historical Books, we proceed to those which the Hebrews call MOSCELIM, that is, Books written in a Figurative and Sententious Style 
MOSCELIM, that is, Books written in a Figurative and Sententious Style.] Numb. 21.27. 'tis said, Wherefore they that speak in Proverbs[ Moscelim] say, Come into Heshbon, let the City of Sihon be built and prepared. The Seventy have rendered it Aenigmatists. The Passage that is cited is plainly a Fragment of a Poetical Piece. For which reason, the Greeks and Latins have sometimes rendered it by the Word Parables, sometimes by that of Proverbs or Sentences. In this Sense 'tis to be met with, 1 Sam. 24.13. As saith the Proverb of the Ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the Wicked, Ezek. 20.49. That Prophet relates, That they said of him, Doth he not speak Parables? The Books of Proverbs, {αβγδ}; Moscelim is so called, because it is composed of Sentences. Lastly, in the New Testament, 'tis said, That Jesus Christ spake to his Disciples in Parables and Proverbs, {αβγδ}. Thus Moscelim does not only signify a Parable, but, in general, all sorts of Figurative Discourses. . Forasmuch as these Works have little Relation to History, it is likewise more difficult to discover the time and the Authors of them.  
Among these Books, the first place is commonly assigned to that which goes under the Name of Job, because it contains the Narrative of the Misfortune which happened to a Man whose Name was JOB; the Encomium of that Patience wherewith he suffered it, and the Conferences that he had with his Friends upon that account. The Talmudists, Rabbi Moses, Maimonides, and several other critics among the Jews and Christians, have pretended that this Relation is altogether a Fiction. Others, on the contrary maintain, That 'tis a simplo Narration of a Matter of Fact, just as it happened. But it seems as if it were more reasonable to keep a Medium between these two Opinions, by acknowledging that Job is not a feigned Name: That there was, in reality, a Wealthy Man of that Name, who, having been reduced to the utmost Misery by the loss of his Estate and Children and by his Distemper, did suffer this Misfortune with wonderful Patience, and was afterwards restored to his Prosperity: And at the same time by owning, that he who wrote this History did it in a Poetical Strain, embellished, amplified, and decorated it with several Circumstances, to render the Narration more pleasant, as well as profitable. The other Books of Scripture inform us, That Job is not a feigned Name, since mention is made of him as of a real Person, Ezek. 14.14. where he is joined to Noah, and Daniel, as being as righteous as they were; and tub. 2.14. and Jam. 5.11. The Name of Job is set down in this History, as the proper Name of a Man, his Quality is likewise denoted, when 'tis said, That he was the Richest of all the Men of the East; with his Name, his Country is set down: There was a man in the Land of Uz, whose Name was Job; and that Man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God. The number of his Children, and the quantity of his Goods are there likewise specified; the Names and Country of his Friends are therein related, and tho' most of these Names might have Mystical Significations 
Mystical Significations.] Job may be interpnted, He who suffers Affliction; Uz, Counsel; Zophar, The Overseer; Eliphaz, the Law of God; Elihu, God himself. , yet they might for all that be true and real Names, since most of the Hebrew Names have a Mystical meaning in them: Besides, there is nothing in this Relation, which can prove, that Job is a feigned Person, and that the Main of his History is a more Fiction. It would be therefore a kind of Presumption to dissent from the general Opinion of the Fathers 
The general Opinion of the Fathers.] St. Cyprian in his Treatise of Patience, St. Jerom, St. Basil, St. Augustin, St. Chrysostom, St. Gregory, and all other Christian Authors have spoken of Job, as of a real Person, and of this History, as of a thing that really happened. The Silence of Josephus in his Antiquities may be objected: But 'tis answered, That this Historian, designing only to speak of the Jews, might omit the History of Job, which had no relation thereto.  and Christians, about the Truth of this History. But it must likewise be ingenuously confessed, That 'tis not a plain Narration of a Matter of Fact. The Manner wherein 'tis related, the Style wherein 'tis written, the Converses between God and the Devil, the Prolix Discourses of Job's Friends, do all clearly prove, That 'tis a Narration which the Author has embellished, adorned, and amplified, to give a more sensible and affecting Example of a finished Patience, and to make the Instructions about the Notions that a Man ought to have, in Prosperity as well as Adversity, the more forcible and extensive.  
The Time is not set down in this Book when Job lived, nor when his History happened; but Essays have been made to discover, or at least to guess at it by the Circumstances mentioned in this Book.  
The length of Job's Life, which ought to have been above Two hundred years, since he lived an hundred and forty years after his Re-establishment, as is observed at the end of this Book; hath inclined some to believe, That he was a great deal more ancient than Moses. The Law is not cited in any part of this Book, either by Job or his Friends, tho' they wanted not an occasion of mentioning it. 'tis related, That Job himself offered Sacrifices: These two Circumstances have made most of the Commentators to suppose, That he lived before the Law was written. Some have thought, That Ch. 15. Ver. 19. mention is made of the Land of Canaan, given to the Israelites; and Ch. 26. Ver. 12. of the Drowning of the Egyptians in the Red-Sea; but neither of these seems to have any Truth. 'tis likewise said, That this Sentence in the last Verse of the 28th Chapter: The Fear of the Lord, that is Wisdom, is taken out of Deuteronomy, Ch. 4. Ver. 6. where 'tis said, That the Keeping of the Commandments of God is True Wisdom. But 'tis not necessary that this Sentence should be taken out of the Book of Deuteronomy, where 'tis not expressed in the same Terms; and 'tis not said in the Book of Job, that it was written in a Divine Book; but only, that God taught it Men by the Wonderful Manner whereby he governed the World. There is not therefore any Proof, That the History of Job is more Modern than Moses: On the contrary, There is greater probability that it happened before the Law was written; and perhaps whilst the Israelites were in the Wilderness.  
If we could know for certain of what Pedigree Job was, we might perhaps discover within a small Matter when he lived; but we are no more sure of that, than we are of his Country. 'tis said, That he lived in the Land of Uz. We find in the Scripture three Men of that Name. The first was the Grandson of Shem, and the Son of Aram, Gen. 10.22, 23. The second the Son of Nahor, Abraham's Brother, Gen. 22.21. The third the Son of Dishan, who was the Son of Seir, the Son of Esau, Gen. 36.28. The Posterity of the first dwelled in Trachonitis in Syria, and he has been thought to have been the Founder of Damascus. Some think that the Posterity of the second, are the Osites or Usites, Inhabitants of Arabia Deserta, of whom Ptolemey makes mention, Geogr. l. 5. And as to the Posterity of the third, 'tis agreed, That they are the Inhabitants of Uz, in Idumea, of whom mention is made, Lament. 4.21. rejoice and be glad, O Daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the Land of Uz. There is scarce any that believe Job to be descended of the Family of the first Uz. Some suppose him to be the Son of the second, and so the Grandson of Nahor, Abraham's Brother. The most general Opinion is, That he is of the Pedigree of Esau, and an Inhabitant of Huz or Uz in Idumea. There is in the Genealogy of the Posterity of Esau, a King, that is called Jobab the Son of Zerah, Gen. 36.33. 'tis thought that he is the same with Job. This Opinion is grounded on a very ancient Addition, that is to be met with in the Greek Version at the end of the Book of Job, and which they say was taken out of the Syriac Book, where 'tis said, That Job lived in the Land of Ausitis,( for so that Name is rendered in Greek) in the Confines of Idumea and Arabia; that he was named Jobab, that he took to Wife an Arabian, of whom he had a Son name Ennon, who was the Father of Zerah, one of the Sons of the Posterity of Esau, and his Mother Boserra; that he was the fifth from Abraham: After which follows the Genealogy of the Kings of Idumea, taken out of the 36th Chapter of Genesis. These are such Circumstances as would be very decisive, if the Authority of this Addition were better established; but 'tis more likely, that 'tis rather the Conjecture of some Jew, than any Ancient Record. However, 'tis true, That the Interpreter Theodotion inserted it in his Version; that the Ancient Fathers, such as Origen, St. Chrysostom, St. Jerom, Polychronius, and Olympiodorus have owned it; and that 'tis in all the Ancient Greek Copies. Yet I will not affirm, as some others have ventured to do, That it belongs to the very Author of the Book of Job, or to the first Translator. 'tis more probable, That 'tis an Addition made by some Transcriber or other, who took it out of Aristaeas, or out of some other Jew, who wrote these things concerning Job, either by Guess or Fictitiously. Let the Case be how it will, it appears very probable, That Job was of the Seed of Esau 
It appears very probable that Job was of the Seed of Esau.] To the Reasons alleged in this place it may be added, That Esau had a Son, whose Name was Eliphaz, who likewise had a Son named Teman. Eliphaz the Temanite, who is one of Job's Friends, was doubtless of that Family. But they who maintain, That Job was of the Seed of Nabor, have an Argument much like the former, to establish their Opinion upon. For one of his Friends was Elibu the Buzite. Now one of the Sons of Nahor was called buzz; and another choosed, from whom perhaps those Chasdim, or Chaldeans descended, who carried away the Camel; and Servants of Job, Ch. 1. Ver. 17. Some have pretended, That Job himself descended in a direct Line from Abraham by his Wife Keturah. They believe, That Bilhad the Shubite, one of Joh's Friends, descended from Shuah one of the Sons of Abraham and Keturah, for which reason Job dwelled near the Sabeans, Ver. 15. descended from Sheba, another Son of Keturah. But these are all very frivolous and idle Conjectures. , since he was of the Land of Uz, that was Inhabited by the Idumeans.  
If the Time and Country of Job be so uncertain, the Author of his History is much more so. Some, as for instance, Origen, B. 5. against Celsus, St. Gregory the Great, B. 1. upon Job, and Suidas, do believe, That 'tis Job himself who penned it, and they ground their Opinion upon Job's Wishing in two Places, Ch. 19. Ver. 23. and Ch. 31. Ver. 35. That his Words were written. But 'tis easy to see, That in those Passages he speaks not of an Ordinary Book, and that 'tis only a figurative Expression, to show how far he was convinced of the Truth of what he had said: Quis mihi tribuat ut scribantur sermons mei? Quis mihi debt ut exarentur in Libro stylo ferreo,& plumbi lamina, vel celte sculpantur in silice? This is no proof, That he had any design of Writing his Book, much less of his having done it. It may perhaps be farther urged, to show, That this Book is Job's, that none besides him, or some one of his Friends who were present at their Conference, could have related it so faithfully. But this supposes, That they really held the same Discourses that are related in that Book, which is by no means probable. It is more likely, That the Author of this History, conformable to the Custom of the most faithful Historians, has put into the Mouth of Job and his Friends, such Speeches as are suitable to their Circumstances. The Manner wherein Job is spoken of in this History, and his Death related at the end of the Book, persuade us, That he could not be the Author of it. Some of those who ascribe it to him, say, That it was penned in Syriac or Arabic, and that Moses rendered it into Hebrew, and added thereto several Passages. The Author of one of the Commentaries upon Job attributed to Origen, is of this Mind. Others believe, That Moses himself is the Author of this Book: This is the Opinion of the Talmudists in the first Chapter of Bababatra, where they observe, That Moses wrote his Book, the Section which relates to Balaam and Job. They are followed herein by Rabbi Kimchi, and by most of the other rabbis. Of the same Mind are the Author of the second Commentary ascribed to Origen, Methodius in Photius, Polychronius, Julian of Halicarnassaeus in his Catena, and Nicetas upon Job. It seems likewise as if St. Jerom were of this Opinion, because in his Epistle to Paulinus, he places the Book of Job immediately after the Pentateuch, as being of the same Time and Author. No other proofs are brought of this Opinion, besides the Resemblance of Style, which they pretend there is between the Book of Job and those of Moses. But 'tis in vain to assert this in a Dogmatical Air, since it would be difficult to persuade those Persons of it, who not submitting blindly to Authority, shall make the Comparison themselves. The Style of the Book of Job is Figurative, Poetical, Obscure, Sententious, and full of a great many Arabic and Syriac Idioms, which is very different from the Style of the Pentateuch. Origen rejects this Opinion in the fifth Tome on St. John, where he expressly affirms, That Moses wrote no other Books beside the Five which compose the Pentateuch. St. Gregory nazianzen, as Polychronius informs us, thought Solomon to be the Author of the Book of Job. But it would be difficult to discover the reason that induced him to believe so; since the Arabic and Syriac Idioms to be met with in this Book, svit neither with the Style nor the time of Solomon. Philip Codurca says, That this Book might have been the Work of some Idumean Prophet, who wrote the History of a Man of his own Nation: However, He attributes it rather to Isaiah, who lived in the time when he supposes this Book to have been composed, because that Prophet writ in a Style much like that of the Book of Job; that is, after a sublime, lofty and figurative Manner, and often made use of the same Expressions. All these Opinions being no more than slight and groundless Conjectures, 'tis better to suspend one's judgement about the Author of this Book, and to own, that he is wholly unknown.  
St. Jerom assures us, That the Book of Job, excepting the two first Chapters, and the end of the last, is written in Verse; and makes no scruple to say, That they are Hexameters, composed of Dactyls and Spondces, mixed sometimes with other Feet of the same quantity, tho' not the same number of Syllables. He authorizes this Opinion by the Testimony of Philo, Josephus, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea. At present, 'tis a very hard Matter to discover the Measure and Cadency of these Verses; but through the whole we may perceive, that Poetical Genius, and those noble, bold and figurative Expressions, which are the very Soul of Poetry.  
The End and Design of this Book is to give us an astonishing Example of an extraordinary Patience, and to teach Men to suffer without Murmuring, though it may seem as if they had not deserved such an Usage. Therein is discussed, that puzzling Question, so hard to be resolved, viz. How it is consistent with the Justice and Mercy of God, to permit just and innocent Persons to be subject to Afflictions and Punishments. The Friends of Job thought him culpable, because they saw him miserable; They maintain, That the Evils which he suffered, were the Punishment of his Sin; and that God had inflicted it upon him either to punish, or correct him. On the other hand, Job looked upon himself as innocent, and resented his Misfortune the more, because he thought he had not merited it. The Extremity of his Misery drew from his Mouth Groans and Complaints. However, He still adores the Providence of God, who at last discovered to him and his Friends, that they had all been in the wrong in endeavouring to dive into the impenetrable Secrets of his Providence.  
This Book is naturally divided into three Parts, tho' very uneven ones. The first is the Historical Narration of the former Prosperity of Job, and of the Miseries with which he was afterwards afflicted: And this is the Subject-Matter of the two first Chapters, which are as it were a Preface to the rest. The second consists of the Speeches of Job and his Friends, and of the Declaration which God made to them about this their Conference; this is the chief part, and the Body of the Treatise, writ in a Poetical Style. The third Part, Which begins at the seventh Verse of the last Chapter, is a brief Narration of what followed after these Conferences between Job and his Friends, with which the whole concludes.   

SECT. XI. Of the Titles of the Psalms. Of their Authors. Of the Antiquity and Use of Psalms among the Hebrews. Of the Collection of the Psalms. Of the Poetry of the Hebrews. Of the Style and Argument of the Psalms.  
THE Book of PSALMS is entitled, SEPHER TEHILLIM, that is, The Book of Hymns or Praises, because, tho' it likewise contains Prayers, Petitions, Complaints and Descriptions, yet the principal part is taken up with the Praises of God. The Greeks called them Psalms, because with the Voice, was joined the Sound of Musical Instruments 
The Greeks called them Psalms, because with the Voice was joined the Sound of Musical Instruments.] The Word Psalm, {αβγδ}, comes from the Verb {αβγδ}, which signifies to touch sweetly, and from thence comes {αβγδ}, which is the Instrument that is played upon. But Use has caused the Name of Psalm to be given to the Hymn itself, which was sung whilst they played upon the Instrument. . Most of the Psalms have a particular Title, which often denotes the Name of the Author, sometimes the Person to whom it is directed to be set to music or be Sung, the Name itself of the Instrument, or the Tune by which it is to be Sung, or the Subject and Occasion of the Psalm.  
St. Jerom believes it to be a thing Self-Evident, That the Psalms were not all composed by David 
St. Jerom believes it to be a thing self-evident, that the Psalms were not all composed by David.] Hier. Ep. ad Cyp. Scimus errare eos, qui Psalmos omnes David esse arbitrantur,& non eorum quorum Nominibus inscripti sunt. Ep. ad Sophronium, Psalmos eorum testamur auctorum, qui ponuntur in titulis, David scilicet, Asaph, Idithum, Filiorum Chorae, Eman, Esraïtae, Moysi,& reliquorum, quos Esdras uno Volumine comprehendit. This is, likewise the Opinion of Origen, St. Hilary, of the Author of the Synopsis attributed to St. Athanasius, and of the Author of the Preface on the first Psalm, attributed to St. Augustin. St. Augustin himself in B. 14. Ch. 17. de Civitas. Dei, believes, that the other Opinion is more likely. Theodotius likewise doubts of it, as he testifies in his Preface to the Psalms. Some other Fathers seem to be of the Opinion that they were all David's, as St. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Cassiodorus, and particularly Philastrius, who in the 126th heresy, reckons those to be heretics who doubted of it. However, 'tis plain, That they are not all David's: For First, There are some that go under the Names of others, as St. Jerom has observed: Secondly, There are others which relate to things that happened since the Death of David, as in the 137th, where mention is made of the Israelites that were Captives in Babylon: And the same may be said of the 66th and 126th. ; and that They were the Authors of them, whose Names are inscribed on the top of them. But tho' it be certain, That they are not all David's, yet we cannot agree, that they are theirs whose Names are at the top of them. For in the first place, Some question the Authority and Antiquity of these Titles; and tho' this should be allowed, it may be that the Names are not those of the Author, but of those to whom they were directed, of those who were to sing them, or of those who have made Hymns of the like Nature.  
As to the Titles themselves we ought to distinguish between two sorts of them; the one are in the Hebrew Text, and the others are only in the Greek Text, from whence the Latin was made. The first are Authentic, have been acknowledged by all Interpreters and Commentators, and contain nothing but what is true. The latter are often convicted of falsehood, either by History, or by the Psalm itself, and have been rejected by Theodoret, who observes that they were not in the Hexapla.  
This being laid down, 'tis easy to show, That the Psalms which go under David's Name, are His; For on one hand, the Titles informing us that the Psalm suits with David, and the Author of the Psalm speaking in the first Person, 'tis plain, That David was the Author of it. For instance, The third Psalm has for its Title, A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his Son: And begins thus, Lord, How are they increased that trouble me? And so continues on in the first Person. David then who was persecuted by his Son, was the Author of this Psalm. The same Remark may be made on the seventh Psalm, concerning the Mischief which one of the Grandees of the Court of Saul did him: On the 34th Psalm, wherein he returns God thanks for having delivered him out of the hands of Achish King of Gath: On the 51th, Wherein he asks Pardon for the Sin he had committed in putting Uriah to Death, that he might the more freely enjoy Bath-Sheba: On the 52d, Wherein he thanks God for having escaped the Snares of Doeg: and on several others. The Title of the 18th Psalm, says expressly that 'tis David's: To the Chief Musician; A Psalm of David the Servant of the Lord, who spake unto the Lord the Words of this Song, in the day that the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his Enemies, and from the hand of Saul. The History of the Books of Kings do likewise testify, That this Psalm is David's, and informs us, That this Prince was an Excellent Psalmist. And in the Chronicles, 'tis said, That he not only had made several Psalms, but likewise took care to have them sung by the Levites on Instruments: A Custom that lasted among the Jews to the time of Hezekiah, who was the Restorer of it, and which continued even after the Return from the Captivity of Babylon. The testimony of Jesus Christ does not allow us to doubt but that the Tenth Psalm was David's. St. Peter likewise ascribes to him the 16th and 109th Psalms; and St. Paul cites under his Name the 68th; which have all the Name of David in the Title.  
There are some likewise without a Title that are to be ascribed to David, such as the 105th, which is related and attributed to David in the first Book of Chronicles: The 106th, Which is about the same time, and upon the same Subject: The 72d, Which is ascribed to him in the last Verse: and the 2d, Which is cited under his Name, in the Acts of the Apostles. However, it cannot be said, That all those that have no Title or Inscription are David's, since for instance, the 137th and the 126th, were composed since the Captivity of Babylon.  
Let us now proceed to the Psalms which bear the Names of others, besides David, and examine, whether they belong to them or no. The most Ancient is Moses, whose Name is put in the Title of the 90th Psalm; A Prayer of Moses the Man of God. This Title does clearly show, That Moses is the Author of that Psalm; and it seems as if the Words were wrested to make them to be understood of the Tribe of Levi. The Ancient Fathers made no manner of scruple, to say, That Moses himself was the Author of it: And we may observe in this Psalm the same sublime Style that is in the two Songs, that he has left us in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Most of the Hebrews did ascribe not only this Psalm to Moses, but also the Ten next, which have no Title: But this could not be, since in the 99th mention is made of Samuel.  
After David, Asaph is one of those to whom most of the Psalms are ascribed. The 50th and the 73d, with the Ten following, are all under his Name. These Inscriptions cannot be suspected of Novelty, since 'tis said in the 2d Book of Chronicles, Ch. 29. Ver. 25. That Hezekiah ordered the Levites to sing the Praises of God, according to the Commandment of David, and Asaph the Seer; where Asaph is placed in Comparison with David, as to what relates to the Songs, as well as in the Book of Nehemiah; which induces us to believe, That Asaph is the Author of these Psalms; besides, the Style seems to be more lofty than that of the Psalms of David. It cannot be said that they are ascribed to Asaph, because he was to sing or cause them to be sung: For some of them not only bear the Name of Asaph, but are likewise directed to the Chief Musician, and to Jeduthun: Yet one can hardly believe, That he was the Author of all the Psalms that are under his Name; for the 74th, the 77th, 79th and 80th relate to the Babylonish Captivity: So that it must be said, either, That Asaph wrote them by a Prophetical Spirit, or that they were composed by the Posterity of that Prophet, who succeeded him in the Office of Singing the Praises of God.  
There are several Psalms under the Name of the Sons of konrah, the Son of Izhar, the Son of Kohath, the Son of Levi. 'tis well known, That this konrah, having caused a Rebellion among the People, through the Envy that he bare to Aaron, was swallowed up by the Earth with Dathan and Abiram. But his Sons did not perish with him; and were of the number of the Levites who sang the Praises of God. 'tis a question, Whether those Psalms go under their Names, either because they were the Authors of them, or because they were to sing them. The 88th, which is directed to them, being ascribed to Heman the Ezrahite, occasions us to suppose that they were no more than the Singers of them. Besides, These Psalms are of different times and of a different Style: Some were composed in David's time, others in Solomon's; Some in the time of Hezekiah, and several relate to the Babylonish Captivity.  
The same judgement may be passed on those that have the Name of Jeduthun in the Title; for the 39th goes under the Name of David, and the 77th under that of Asaph. Jeduthun was one of the Chief Singers among the Levites, to whom these Psalms were directed. The 88th Psalm is attributed to Heman, and the 89th to Ethan; they are both called Ezrahites, which has made some to suppose, That they were the two Sons of Zerah of the Tribe of Judah mentioned, 1 Chron. 2.6. But those Psalms, and particularly the latter of them, do not svit with the time of these Men, and they seem to be rather other Persons of the same Name, one of which was the Son of Joel, and the other the Son of Kishi, who were of the Tribe of Levi, and had Singers under them. We cannot tell for certain, why they were called Ezrahites. The 72d and 127th Psalms are under Solomon's Name; but the former was composed by David, for his Son Solomon, which the beginning and conclusion of that Psalm do evince; but the latter, viz. the 127th. may be ascribed to Solomon.  
These are all the Persons whose Names are in the Titles of the Psalms according to the Hebrew Text. In the Greek and Vulgar Latin, the 65th is ascribed to Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and directed to the People of the Transmigration, when they were just upon their Return from the Captivity. But 'tis manifest, That this is a false Title; for Jeremiah was not carried away into Captivity; and he, as well as Ezekiel, was dead before it was finished. For the same reason, the 137th cannot be attributed to Jeremiah, because it was composed after the Deliverance of the People; and there is no more reason to attribute the 112th and 146th to Haggai and Zechariah, since they have not this Title in the Hebrew Text, and the Greek Titles are new and spurious.  
Not only the Authors and Singers are set down in the Titles of the Psalms; but frequently we therein meet with the Names of the Instruments upon which they were to play, or the first Notes of the Tune on which they were to be sung. We find a great many directed, to him that excelleth; that is, to the Chief Musician, to be played on an Instrument of Strings, or on Wind-Musick, or in the Tune of some common Song. 'tis thus that the Learned have explained several Titles of the Psalms, which without such an Exposition would be Nonsense. Yet there are some which denote in general the quality of the Psalm; as for instance, A Song of Instruction, A Psalm worthy to be repeated, A Song of Praise, &c. And others, which contain the particular Occasion for which it was composed, as that of the third Psalm, A Psalm of David, when he fled from his Son Absalom.  
The Custom of Celebrating the Praises of God, or of returning him Thanks for signal Mercies received, by Hymns or Songs, continued from the first Establishment of the Jewish republic till after the Babylonish Captivity. Moses was the first Author of it, and has left us two excellent Songs of this Nature in the Pentateuch; One which the People sang as a Thanksgiving to God for their Passage over the read Sea; The other, By which he recommended, just before his Death, to the Israelites, the Observation of the Law which he in God's Name had given them. 'tis probable, That he made other Hymns, and that the 90th Psalm is one of those which he composed. This Custom continued among the Jews, and we red in their History, That from time to time Persons inspired by God made Songs in his Praise, upon the Occasion of some signal and extraordinary Mercy received. But David, whom the Scripture styles an excellent Psalmist, not only made a Collection of Old, but likewise composed several New Psalms, and took a special Care to have them sung. His Son Solomon made likewise a great many Psalms, and was as diligent as his Father in getting the Levites to sing them. The Troubles which afterwards ensued, having occasioned a Neglect and some Alteration in this pious practise, Hezekiah was the Restorer of it. The Jews being carried afterwards Captives to Babylon, did no longer mind the Singing those Hymns of Joy, which they were formerly used to sing in Jerusalem, and wholly applied themselves to the describing and lamenting their Misery by mournful Psalms. Lastly, upon their Return, They began to sing their old Psalms of Praise, and made new Songs of Thanksgiving.  
It was then that Ezrah having taken care to Revise the Sacred Books, made the Collection of the hundred and fifty Psalms which at present compose the Book of Psalms, either because he could meet with no more, or because he made a special Choice of these. In this Collection he has followed no Order, either of Authors, Times or Matters, and seems to have collected them in the same Measures that he found them. He made one entire Volume of them without dividing them into certain Classes. The Jews have since divided them into five Parts, the first ending at the 41st Psalm, the second at the 71st, the third at the 90th, the fourth at the 106th, and the last contains the rest of the Psalms. Several of the Fathers have followed and observed this Division; but it is groundless, since in each Part there are Psalms of a different Nature. It seems then as if no other distinction of the Psalms were to be admitted, but that between the Psalms themselves. But this also is not Uniform throughout. For some confounded the first Psalm with the second; for which reason, Acts, Ch. 13. Ver. 33. where 'tis red at present, As it is written in the second Psalm; it was formerly red, As it was written in the first Psalm, and this place is so quoted by St. Justin and Tertullian. The 9th Psalm in the Hebrew Text is divided into two, which makes that difference that there is in the number of the Psalms, between the Hebrew Text, and the Greek and Vulgar Latin, from that Psalm to the 146th, which in the Hebrew being joined with that which in the Vulgar Latin is the 147th, makes the number 150, both in the Hebrew and the Greek.  
None questions, but that the Psalms are a Poetical Piece; the only Dispute is of what Kind and Nature the Poetry of the Hebrews was. Some think, That it was like to that of the Greeks and Latins, and that their Verses consisted of a certain number of feet of long and short Syllables, the variety of which made the diversity of their Verses: So that they pretend, That among the Hebrews, were Hexameters, iambics, Alcaicks, Sapphicks, &c. This is the Opinion of St. Jerom, after Origen and Eusebius, to back which, he cites Josephus and Philo. This latter does not speak of the Songs of the Hebrews, but of the Greek Hymns of the Hellenistical Jews; and the former does not say positively, That the Songs of the Hebrews had the same Measures with those of the Greeks, but only that they imitated them. Others on the contrary, pretend, That the Poetry of the Hebrews was like to Ours, and that it chiefly consisted in rhymes, and perhaps in a set number of Syllables, without any regard had to their quantity. They ground this their Opinion on the Nature of that Language, which can hardly be tied up to the quantity of Feet, because like Ours it does not allow of the Transpositions of Words, Pronouns, and Verbs, and is overcharged with short Syllables: Besides the Poetry of the Ethiopians, Persians, Arabians, and other Eastern People, consists in rhymes, and not in the measure of Syllables and Words. Let the Case be how it will, we do not at present discover either of these two sorts of Poetry in the Psalms: And it seems no less difficult to find rhymes than Feet in them, tho' both have been handled by Men of Parts, who have trifled ingeniously upon this Subject without being able to give any manner of Satisfaction to the Learned World. But in this Book, as well as in the other Hymns, there appears, that Poetical Style and Turn of Thought, which alone may make them worthy of the Name of Poetry. For Poetry does not consist in the ranging a certain number of Syllables, or Feet, or rhymes; but chiefly in a noble and figurative Turn of Thought; without which the most regular Verses would be no more than Prose in rhyme or Metre, and would not deserve to be styled Poetical Pieces. It cannot be questioned, but that the Psalms have this Poetical Turn, and into what Language soever these Divine Hymns be translated, this sublime, figurative and sprigthly Character, which is the very Essence of Poetry, will still appear. And if the Poetry of the Hebrews be unknown, their music is much more so, and one can hardly tell the Names and the Descripion of their Instruments; but all this is not necessary to be known at this time.  
The Psalms are writ in a noble and sublime Style, in a Style that is proper to raise noble Thoughts in the Minds of Men. Sometimes it transports the Mind with the Admiration of Divine Things, sometimes it strikes it with Terror; often it inspires Love; sometimes it excites Indignation, and sometimes 'tis very proper to attract our Devotion. These different Characters are employed in extoling the Majesty of God, in Praising his Justice, in making us in love with his Goodness, in Imploring his Mercy, in affecting the Wicked with an useful terror, in comforting the Righteous, in bringing Sinners to Repentance upon the prospect of obtaining the Remission of their Sins, in humbling the Proud, the Great, the Rich, and Mighty, and in giving Confidence to the Lowly, the Poor, the Afflicted, and the Miserable.  
The noble Manner whereby they propose to us the loftiest Truths of Christianity, strikes us with an aweful Respect, and makes us admire their Elevation. The Description which they give us of the judgement of God, and of the Misery and Punishment of Wicked Men, are so lively and natural, that 'tis impossible but they must shake the most daring Minds. The Reproaches and Threats which God makes to Sinners, are so dreadful, that they cannot hear them without being covered with shane and seized with horror. Therein is so clearly shown, That the seeming Happiness of the Wicked has no Solidity, and that their Loss is near and certain; that far from Envying it, we ought to detest and avoid it. On the other side, The Happiness of the Just is therein set off with so many Charms, that notwithstanding the seeming Inconveniences that attend it, one cannot forbear loving and desiring it. The Excellency of the Law of God is therein so charmingly represented, That one cannot forbear admiring it. Who can without Indignation red the many Descriptions of the Snares which the Wicked laid for the Innocent? and without horror, that of the Persecutions and Miseries which they caused them to suffer, and of the Inveterate Malice of their Hearts? Who can refrain from Tears at the lamentable Description of the Misery of the Innocent, the Sick, the Afflicted, the Persecuted, and of those that were condemned to Death? What Sinner will not be induced to abominate his Sin, and to implore for the Pardon of it, upon reading the Sixth, or the Fifty first Psalm? But if the Psalms are capable of exciting extraordinary Emotions in the Soul, by the Energy of their Expressions, they are no less proper to please it, by their Sweetness, by that pleasant Variety that is in them, by the happy Comparisons that are made use of in them, and by a great many other Ornaments of Speech. I speak not of the things that may be learnt from the Psalms, 'tis enough to say, that frequently one single Verse contains several Precepts, and that the chief Truths of Morality are therein explained at large.  
In them is proved the Existence of the One only God; and in them is shown the Vanity and falsehood of the Idols and Gods which the Gentiles worshipped. In them is discovered the Greatness, Majesty, and Power of the Supreme Being. In them Observations are made on his Wisdom, his Power in his Works, his particular Providence over Men, and the Care he takes of those who serve him. Therein are related the Wonders that he did in favour of his People, and the Blessings that he showered down upon them. All Men are invited, and especially those who are Devoted to his Service, to sing forth his Praise for ever. Therein they are taught to put their sole confidence and Trust in him, to wait for Succour from him in their Afflictions, and to thank him for all the Benefits that happen to them, as being the God who is the Author of them. In them is shown, how he severely punishes the Wicked, and rewards the Righteous. Lastly, in them Men are taught to Worship him alone, to Love him above all the World, and to place their whole Joy, Delight, and Glory, in Honouring him. In them we meet with a great many Moral Maxims, such as these that follow, viz. That only the Just and Innocent are truly happy; That the Wicked are always miserable, tho' they seem in the Eyes of Men to enjoy a kind of Happiness and Prosperity: That therefore the Righteous are not to Envy them this seeming Happiness: That the Designs of the Wicked are commonly unsuccessful, and taken in the same Snares and Pits that they lay for others. The Psalms do likewise teach us Virtue, and dehort us from 'vice. They teach Men to be Meek, Patient, Charitable, and Beneficent. They admonish them of the Inconstancy that is in the things of this World, of the shortness and uncertainty of Human Life. In a word, The Psalms contain all manner of Praises, Prayers, and Instructions.  
It may be likewise said, That tho' there is no passage in them, which expressly speaks of the other Life and Eternal Happiness, yet there are several, wherein so much is implied. The First Psalm, concerning the Misery of the Wicked and the Happiness of the Righteous, implies this Truth. The other Places, where mention is made of the short continuance of the Wicked Man's Happiness confirm it, and that( viz. Psal. 73.) wherein this Question is resolved; Why the Wicked are often prosperous in this World, whilst the Righteous suffer Affliction, supposes it. This Psalm, I say, supposes that there is another Life after this: For the Prophet resolves the Question by the Consideration of the End of both; owning, that he had in vain enquired into the Solution of it, Until he went into the Sanctuary of God, and then he understood their End, Psal. 73.17. It very frequently happens, That the Wicked enjoy the Happiness and good Things of this World to the day of their Deaths, and the Good are all their life long in Adversity: So that the Solution of the Question would have been false, if there were not another Life, wherein the Just should be happy, and the Wicked miserable.  
None doubts but that the Psalms contain several Prophecies of Jesus Christ. The Ancient Jews have acknowledged, That several of them ought to be applied to the messiah; and they contain such clear Predictions of Jesus Christ, that we may make use of them as an invincible Argument against the Jews, to prove, That He was that Mossias expected in the Old Law, and disowned by their Fathers. The principal Psalms that relate to him, are the 2d, 8th, 22th, 45th, 69th, 72d, 89th, and the 110th. The Lord said unto my Lord, which the Jews themselves in the time of Jesus Christ acknowledged ought to be understood of the messiah. There are several other Passages in the Psalms which may be applied to the Son of God; but these speak so clearly of Jesus Christ, that they seem to have been made on purpose for him: And tho' one might understand them of David or Solomon, yet it must be owned, that they have a more sublime Meaning, and that they relate to Jesus Christ. We have Four convincing Proofs of it:( 1.) The very Words of the Psalms, whose natural Sense suits better with Jesus Christ than with any other.( 2.) The Authority of Jesus Christ himself and his Apostles, who city them as such Prophecies.( 3.) The Concession of the Jews both Ancient and Modern, who owned, That they are to be understood of the messiah. And( 4.) The Authority of the Church, and the unanimous Consent of the Fathers, who understand these Psalms, of our Saviour. A Man must have his Forehead made of Brass, that stands out against such great Authorities.  
To Conclude, The Morality of the Psalms is wholly Christian, and such as has none of the Jewish Superstitions it. They inform us, That God, who is present every where, who does not dwell in Temples made with hands, who has need of nothing, who knows and sees all Things: That this God, I say, is not to be worshipped so much by the external Sacrifices of Bulls and Beasts, as by an internal Worship of the Mind; that we ought to Offer up to him, a pure, and innocent Heart; that we ought to Love and Praise him incessantly, to give him Thanks for ever, to Seek after, Honour, and Obey his Commandments, and to Esteem them above the most precious Things. That we ought to put our whole Trust in him, and not in our Strength, Riches, or Power. That all the Enjoyments of this World are imaginary and transient, and not to be regarded. That we ought to suffer Misfortunes and Afflictions with Patience, and wait for the Consolation of the Lord. That we ought to grieve for having offended him by our Sins, to confess them to him, and to implore his Mercy by Tears, by Sighs, and by a Heart truly contrite and humbled. That we ought to be true in all our Words, to use no manner of Guile or Fraud, to render to every Man his Due, to execute Justice without having any Regard to the Quality of the Persons, to protect the Widow and the Fatherless, to perform the Vows that we have made, not to give our Money to Usury, to speak Evil of no Man, and to do no Injury to any Person whatever, no not to our Enemies.  
There is but only one thing wherein the Morality of the Psalms seems to differ from the Temper and Charity of Christianity; and that is, The Imprecations that are therein made against Sinners, and the Enemies of the Righteous. In them 'tis wished, That they were Confounded, that they should Perish, that they should fall into the Nets that they laid for others, that their Habitations should be Desolate, that Death should overtake them, and that they should go down quick into Hell, i. e. the Grave. But we shall see no occasion of finding fault with these Maledictions, if we consider, First, That they concern the Ungodly, the Wicked, the Enemies of Peace, the Persecutors of the Righteous, and such Persons as continually spread Nets for the Good, and for the Lives of others. 'tis for the Interest of the public that such Persons should be punished, and be suddenly cut off, if they be incorrigible, rather than others should Perish. The Second reflection which ought to be made, is, That the Authors of the Psalms did not wish the Destruction of the Wicked out of a Spirit of Revenge to gratify themselves; but that the Justice of God might appear, and that the World might know that he protects the Innocent, and severely punishes the Sinners. They did not rejoice at the Death of the Wicked; but that the Righteous were delivered out of their hands, and that God had made known his Justice and his Power. 'tis the Zeal for the House of God, and the Love of his Law that stirred them up and induced them to make these Imprecations, and not the Passion of a sordid Revenge. They did not Hate them because they were their Enemies, but because they were the Enemies of God, of his Law, and of those whom he favoured. It was this that made David cry out, Psal. 139.21, 22. Do not I hate them O Lord that hate thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count them mine Enemies.[ To these reflections of Mr. Du Pin, we may add a Third, viz. That the Psalmists uttered these Imprecations Prophetically; that is, They did not so much wish, as foretell the Miseries that should befall the Wicked. Of this Opinion are many learned, judicious and modern Divines, and it seems to be favoured by what St. Peter( Acts 1. V. 20.) says, That it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no Man dwell therein; and his bishopric let another take. These Curses which are to be met with, Psal. 69.25. and Psal. 109.8. The Apostle applies to Judas, as being Prophetically spoken of him. So that this Passage not only justifies the reflection we have made, but also the judgement of some critics in the Hebrew Tongue, who tell us, That the Verbs in the Hebrew, in the places above-cited, and elsewhere, are in the future Tense; and if some there be of the Imperative Mood, it alters not the Case because the Hebrew Grammarians agree, that the Imperative is but another future.   

SECT. XII. Of the Book of Proverbs. Whether it be entirely Solomon's . When composed. The Argument of this Book. The Usefulness of this Method for the Teaching of Morality.  
KING Solomon the Son of David, having received from God the Gift of Wisdom, and Understanding, composed 3000 Sentences or Proverbs, and 1005 Songs, as is observed, 1 Kings, Ch. 4. Ver. 32. No doubt but that the Collection which we have of them in the Book of PROVERBS, consists of some of those that Solomon composed: His Name is at the beginning of the whole Work, The Proverbs of Solomon the Son of David. In the 25th Chapter, 'tis observed, That the following Proverbs are likewise Solomon's: But that they were collected by Persons appointed for that purpose by King Hezekiah: These are also Proverbs of Solomon, which the Men of Hezekiah King of Judah copied out. The 13th Chapter begins thus, The Words of Agur the Son of Jakeh, Names which the Author of the Vulgar Translation took for Appellative Names, and accordingly has rendered them thus; Verba congregantis filii Vomentis. The last Chapter is entitled, The Words of King Lemuel. These Titles incline us to believe, That the first four and twenty Chapters may be the Original Piece of Solomon; that the five next are Extracts, or a Collection of several of his Proverbs, made in the time of King Hezekiah and by his Order; and that the two last Chapters were added, and belong to different, tho' unknown, Authors. For there is no mention any where made of this Agur the Son of Jakeh, nor of King Lemuel, whom some pretend to be Hezekiah. Let this be as it will, These two last Chapters are an Addition annexed afterwards, and of a different Style from the rest. The last is likewise composed of two distinct Pieces: The former, like to the rest of the Book, consisting of Sentences; and the latter, which cannot be the same Author's, is a description of a Wise Wife. 'tis likewise probable, That the end of the 24th Chapter, from the 23th Verse, which begins thus; These things also belong to the Wise, is another Author's.  
This Book, by the Hebrews, is called MISLE, or as St. Jerom pronounces it MASALOTH, a Phrase which signifies, as we have already observed, a Proverb or Allegory, but which has been extended to all manner of figurative Sentences. The Greeks have translated it only {αβγδ}, and the Latins, Proverbia, an Expression which has another Signification in our Language, and which may more properly be rendered, Sentences or Maxims.  
The Ancients have styled this Book, The Wisdom of Solomon, and have frequently cited it under that Title, as Eusebius observes in the 4th Book of his History, Ch. 15. This Book contains a great many Instructions and Moral Maxims proper for the Conduct of human Life, such as not only relate to the Worship of God, the Sanctity and Innocency of Manners, but likewise the Rules of human Wisdom and Prudence, with several economical and Political Admonitions. There are some of them enigmatical or Parabolical, and others, whose Sense is plain and manifest; but they are all written in a sublime manner. Each Sentence contains a complete Sense, comprised in a few Words, and expressed after a lively, noble and Poetical manner, and even in Metre, if we will believe St. Jerom in the case. The nine first Chapters contain an Exhortation to the Study and Love of Wisdom. The rest of the Book consists of Moral Sentences upon several Subjects, collected without any Order or Connexion.  
As to the time when this Collection was made, we may judge of that by what we have said concerning the Three distinct Parts of which it is composed. If the first be the Original of Solomon, which they only copied, its time is indisputable. One need only inquire, whether he wrote it when he was young, or when he was old, which is not much material. The Jews say, That he wrote the Canticles in his Youth, the Proverbs in his Manhood, and the Ecclesiastes the latter end of his Life. The Character of these Three Books agrees pretty well with these Three Ages, and 'tis manifestly, the only Foundation the rabbis have to divide them thus. Others, Having a respect to the Subject-Matters, pretend, that the Proverbs are the first Work of Solomon, Ecclesiastes the second, and the Canticles the third: Which St. Jerom seems to approve of, when he observes in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes, That the Proverbs are proper for Children, Ecclesiastes for Persons of Riper years, and the Canticles for old Men. Some other Jews pretend, That Solomon composed and dictated those three Books about the end of his Life. Those things may pass for trifling Searches, from which 'tis impossible to discover the Truth, or to receive any Satisfaction. 'tis more proper to show the Usefulness of this Method of Teaching Morality by Proverbs and Sentences. 'tis doubtless the most ancient of any. For before Morality was reduced into an Art, and made a Methodical Science, the Wise Men, who would instruct others in their Duty, made use, upon occasion, of Parables, Fables, and Riddles, to let them know what they ought to do, or else gave them short Rules, in order to put them into practise. This Mehtod, practised by the Wise Men of Greece, has a great many Advantages: It has nothing in it that is painful or disagreeable. It teaches the Truth without Study and Application, after a plain and natural manner. It inspires into Children in their very Infancy the first Principles of Morality. The Brevity wherewith those Truths are proposed, renders them more palpable, and imprints them the more easily on the Memory. A Truth expressed in a few Words is less forgot, and affects a Man more, than if it were stretched out into a long Discourse, and proved by a Train of Arguments. That noble and sublime manner, wherein it is expressed, strikes the Mind, and persuades it more effectually, than the longest Syllogistical Discourses. The lively light of Truth, which is of itself conspicuous, is better perceived, than when wrapped up and shrouded with vain Ornaments. These Sentences are as so many Spurs to rouse the Soul, and pierce the Heart. They give cruel Stings of Conscience to the Guilty, and quiet the Minds of the Innocent. They remain engraven upon the Memory, and upon all occasions very easily and readily present themselves to the Soul. They serve as the Law and Rule of all our Actious, and form in a Man's Mind an Habit of acting conformable to Prudence and Equity. Their vast variety is diverting, and at the same time includes all the Duties of human Life in all States and Conditions. They do not only stop at the general Principles, but likewise make the Application of them, and enter into the particularities of Actions, Circumstances, and Occasions. These in general are the Advantages that may be drawn from Moral Sentences. But of all the Collections that have ever been made, it must be owned, That there has never been any so large and excellent as that of the Proverbs of Solomon, and that it infinitely surpasses all that the Philosophers have done of this Nature; whether we consider the Justness of Thought, or the Nobleness of Expression, or the wonderful Variety and extent of Matters; or lastly, the Wisdom of the Maxims. We here meet with none of those false Lights which are so frequent in Proverbs, where a dazzling Lustre is sometimes minded more than a solid Truth. We here see no mean Expressions, or frisolous Thoughts, wherein 'tis a hard matter not to descend sometimes to Vulgar Sentences. We therein meet with no such strained Thoughts, or forced Turns, which are the Effect of an heated and disorderly Imagigination. All here is Genuine, Sublime, Wise, Plain, Natural, and Instructive. 'tis suited to the Capacities of all the World, and contains the Duties of all Estates and Conditions of Men; and, in a Word, is very proper to make a complete Wise Man.   

SECT. XIII. Of the Book of Ecclesiastes. What that Name signifies. That Solomon is the Author of this Book. A Reply to the Objections of those who believe it to be more Modern. When Solomon composed it.  
THE Book which the Greeks and Latins call ECCLESIASTES, that is, the Preacher, among the Hebrews has the Title of COHELETH, which literally signifies, a Collector; either because the Author of the Book collected the Opinions of several Wise Men, or because of the Learning of the Author, or because it was newly reunited or gathered to the Synagogue; or rather, lastly, Because this Book is a Discourse or Sermon made to an Assembly. The Greeks and Latins have followed the last Sense, as being the most Natural. 'tis commonly ascribed to Solomon. Tho' his Name be not prefixed to it, yet it appears sufficiently to be his, by the following Characters. Ch. 1. Ver. 1. The Words of the Preacher, the Son of David, King of Jerusalem. Ibid. Ver. 16. I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more Wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: Yea, my Heart had great experience of Wisdom and Knowledge. And at the end of the Book, Ch. 12. Ver. 9. Moreover the Preacher being wise, he still taught the People knowledge, yea, he gave good heed, and sought and set in order many Proverbs. These Circumstances do perfectly svit with Solomon, and seem to agree with none but him; for of him alone it can be said, That he excelled in Wisdom all the other Kings that had been in Jerusalem; as God himself tells him, 1 Kings 3.12. I have given thee a Wise and Understanding heart, so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. 'tis he who is commended in Scripture, as the Author of many Proverbs. Lastly, What is said in the second Chapter of Ecclesiastes, concerning his Magnificence and Grandeur; and in the 7th Chapter, concerning the Bitterness that he found in Women, suits very well with Solomon. However, the Talmudists in the first Chapter of Bababatra, make King Hezekiah to be the Author of this Book: Rabbi-Kimchi attributes it to Isaiah, and Grotius to Zorobabel. All these Conjectures have no manner of Foundation in the Book itself. 'tis true, There are some things which may svit with Hezekiah, as being the Son of David King of Jerusalem; as being Pious, Rich, and Powerful, but they likewise agree with Solomon: whereas it cannot be said of Hezekiah, that he was the Wisest of the Kings of Jerusalem. There is but only one thing which seems to be more applicable to Hezekiah than to Solomon; and that is the Quality of King of Jerusalem, which seems to suppose the Division of the Tribes. For before the Division the Kings were called Kings of Israel, and not Kings of Judah or Jerusalem. However, Solomon might be styled King of the Metropolis of his Kingdom, where he kept his Court. As for Isaiah or Zorobabel, this Quality does not svit with them, and if they had written this Book, they must have composed it under the Name of a King. The Shepherd, of whom mention is made in the last Chapter, Ver. 11. where 'tis said, That the Words of the Wise are as Goads, and as Nails fastened by the Masters of Assemblies, which are given by one Shepherd, agrees as well with Solomon as Zorobabel. All those who collect the Sentences of Wise Men for the Instruction of others, may be styled Shepherds. Grotius therefore has no Foundation to pretend that it ought to be understood of Zorobabel.  
The greatest Difficulty that can be raised to make One doubt, Whether this Book be Solomon's or no, is taken from several Chaldee Expressions to be met with in it, which 'tis pretended were not in use till after the Captivity. Tho' this were so, yet even in Solomon's time there might be some Arabic or Chaldee Terms mixed with the Sacred Language, which Solomon, who held a Conversation with strange Women, might have used. But the matter of Fact is not certain, and we meet with scarce one Word in this Book, but what is really Hebrew, and may be seen in the preceding Books. Another Objection is started from this Passage, Ch. 8. Ver. 2. Ego as Regis observo, I keep the King's Commandment, which seems to imply, that it was not a King who spake this: But according to the Text, this place ought to be rendered thus; Ego( suppling Mon●o) as Regis Observa; I Counsel thee to keep the King's Commandment. This is the Sense that has been followed in the Greek, Syriac, and Arabic Versions, and in the Chaldee Paraphrast. There is nothing then that can make it appear, that this Book of Ecclesiastes is not Solomon's. We have already remarked, That the Jews believed this to be the last of Solomon's Books: They likewise believe it to be the Effect of his Repentance. The Work sufficiently declares, That he who wrote it, had reigned a long time already; that he had built him a stately Palace; that he had enjoyed the Pleasures of Life, and that he was reclaimed from that Passion that he had for Women.  
The Scope and Design of this Book, is to show the Vanity or Insolidity of all Worldly Things. This is what the Author does by enumerating the things which Men have the greatest Esteem for, which take up their Thoughts, and in which they place their Felicity; and then by discovering their instability by several curious reflections on the Pains and Miseries of Human Life, and on Death which puts a period to all: From hence he draws this Conclusion, which is the very end of all his Discourse; Fear God, and keep his Commandments, for this is the whole of Man.( or rather, The whole good and happiness of Man.) St. Jerom observes, That this last Passage prevented the Jews from suppressing the whole Book. The Hebrews( says he in his Commentary on this Passage) give out, that they had Thoughts of suppressing this Book, as well as several other Writings of Solomon, which are lost, and quiter forgot; because this Book asserts, that the Creatures of God are vain; that all things are as nothing; so that it seems to prefer Eating, Drinking, and transient Pleasure before all things; but that this single Verse has made it deserve to be placed among the Divine Books; because therein is included all its Dignity and the Enumeration which was made of the Vanities of this World; and thereby shows, that the End of the Author's Discourse was, That one should Fear God and keep his Commandments. That which was most capable of shocking the Jews, who believed the Immortality of the Soul, and the Resurrection; and consequently does more strongly shock Christians, who are all fully convinced of these things, are certain Expressions of this Author, wherein he seems to doubt of this Truth, such as these, Ch. 3. Ver. 19, 21. That which befalleth the Sons of Men, befalleth Beasts, even one thing befalleth them: As the One death so death the other; yea, they have all one Breath, so that a Man hath no pre-eminence above a Beast: For all is Vanity. Who knoweth the Spirit of Man that goeth upward, and the Spirit of the Beast that goeth downward to the Earth? From whence he draws this Inference, Ver. 22. Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a Man should rejoice in his own Works; for that is his Portion— Ch. 9. Ver. 5. The living know that they shall die: But the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward, for the Memory of them is forgotten. And V. 10. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no Work, nor Device, nor Knowledge, nor Wisdom in the Grave, whither thou goest. These Expressions have made several rabbis to say, That the Book of Ecclesiastes was capable of corrupting the Minds of Men, and have been the occasion that several heretics have rejected it. There are likewise several Atheistical Persons, who abuse these Passages, and wrest them in defence of their Impiety. But the Author confutes them himself, when at the End, speaking his own Thoughts, he says, That at the Death of Man, The Dust shall return to the Earth as it was, and the Spirit shall return to God who gave it, Ch. 12. Ver. 7. The clearness of these Words dissipates all the Obscurity that could be in the other Passages; where he does not speak his own Thoughts, but only relates the various Sentiments that might occur to the Minds of Men about their latter end. So that when he says, That Men and Beasts have the same end, 'tis only in outward Appearance, and with respect to the Body: And when he adds, Who knoweth the Spirit of Man that goeth upward, and the Spirit of the Beast that goeth downward to the Earth; He does not deny, that 'tis so; but only observes that 'tis hard to discover it; and that perhaps some may be ignorant, or doubt of it; which might well be said in a time wherein this Truth was not as yet clearly revealed. In short, If we attend never so little to the Reading and Meditating of this Work, we shall see that his only design was to collect into the Body of his Work, the reflections and Thoughts which Men might have concerning the Goods and Evils of this World, concerning the State and latter End of Man; and that he does not discover his own Sentiment till he comes to the Close of the Book, where he declares, That the whole Duty and Happiness of Man consists in fearing God and keeping his Commandments, because God shall bring every Work into judgement, whether it be Good or whether it be Evil. This is the Conclusion, this the End and Summary of the whole Matter. The Rest is a Dispute, wherein he speaks according to the Opinions of others, and even sometimes according to the Sentiments of the profane. He inquires wherein the Happiness of Man consists, there is nothing in the World about which the Opinions of Men are more divided. He relates several of them, and finds uncertainty in them all: Sometimes he seems to approve them, and immediately condemns them. The more he meditates, the more he reflects, the more is he persuaded, that the Creature is uncapable of making a Man happy. He ceases his Enquiry after Happiness in Worldly things, and thereby is confirmed in his own Opinion, That it consists in Fearing God, and keeping his Commandments.   

SECT. XIV. Of the Song of Songs. That Solomon is the Author of it. The Argument of this Book cleared up.  
THE CANTICLES, or the SONG OF SONGS, is the third Book of Solomon, whose Name is in the Title of the Hebrew Text, and of the Ancient Greek Version. However 'tis ascribed to Hezekiah by the Talmudists in the first Chapter of Bababatra: But the more Modern rabbis have acknowledged that it was Solomon's, who doubtless wrote a great many Songs, as is observed in the first Book of Kings. Since King Solomon is named several times in the Body of the Work, as the chief parsonage of this Piece, 'tis unreasonable to question whether he composed it, or whether it belongs to his time.  
This Book is entitled, SIR HASIRIM, THE SONG OF SONGS, that is, according to the Hebrew Idiom, An Excellent Song, or An Epithalamium in the form of an Idyl, or Bucolick, wherein are introduced as Speakers, a Bridegroom, a Bride, the Friends of the Bridegroom, and the Companions of the Bride: The Bride and the Bridegroom express the Love they have for each other in very affectionate terms. 'tis for this Reason that the Jews never allowed this Book to be red by any, till they were arrived to the Years of Maturity, i. e. not till they were thirty Years old. However they did not think that this Book was only a Love-Song. 'tis not to be supposed( say they) that the Song of Songs is about obscene things, 'tis an Allegory: For if what is said in this Book were not Sublime, it would never have been inserted in the Catalogue of the Holy Scriptures. Notwithstanding this there have been some Authors among the Christians, who have believed that Sobomon's Design in this was only to describe his Amours with Abishag the Shunamite, or with the Daughter of Pharaoh. They ground their opinion upon this; that the Letter of this Work represents to us nothing else but the Tender expressions of a Man and a Woman, who love one another passionately; That there is not any one Principle of Morality or Religion in it, and that the Name of God is not mentioned so much as once in it. Others on the contrary believe that this Work is wholly Allegorical; That Solomon never thought upon any Carnal Love, and that the whole ought to be understood only of the Spiritual Love of God, for the Synagogue according to the Jews, or of Jesus Christ for the Church according to the Christians. Both these Extremes seem to me alike unaccountable: For if on one side it cannot be said, that a Book acknowledged as Divine, has any Relation to a Passion that is purely human tho' chast; on the other side 'tis hard to suppose but that the Author in this Work had in his Head the Celebrating of the Nuptials of Solomon. The whole Work inclines us to believe it, and the Author gives us sufficient Intimation of it, who speaks of a Real and true Marriage when he says: Go ye forth, O ye Daughters of Sion, and behold King Solomon with the Crown, wherewith his Mother crwoned him in the day of his Espousals, and in the Day of the Gladness of his Heart, Chap. 3 V. 11. This sufficiently denotes a real and present Marriage, upon the Account of which This Epithalamium was composed. In this Book therefore there must be acknowledged an Historical Sense, and a Mystical or Allegorical Sense, both of 'em true, both necessary. According to the Historical Sense, 'tis a Song to celebrate the Marriage of Solomon with the Daughter of of the King of Egypt, who is called Sulamita, after the Name of Solomon. Therein are expressed tender and passionate, but withall honourable and Chast, Thoughts of a Bridegroom and his Bride. According to the Mystical Sense, of which the Historical is no more than the Basis This ought to be understood of the Mystical Uninion between Christ and his Church, which in the Gospel is compared to that Union there is between a Man and his Wife. He is that Bridegroom who has such a Love for the Church, his Bride, which he has purchased by his own most precious Blood. This is the Mystery figured out by the Marriage of Solomon, and veiled under the Expressions of his Epithalamium. Moreover nothing of this Nature is more Elegant or Noble than this Work; wherein we see a Fire, a flamme, a Delicacy, a Variety and Nobleness, and such Charms as are inimitable. Some have taken notice of five Scenes in this Piece; which is a very trifling Remark. But the Bishop of Meaux had a great deal more reason and grounds to distinguish it into Seven Days, or rather Seven parts of the Eclogue, which answer to the Seven Days, during which the Ancients were used to celebrate their Nuptials.   

SECT. XV. Of the Author of the Book of Wisdom. The Manner wherein 'tis composed. Who That Philo is, whom they make to be the Author of it.  
THE BOOK OF WISDOM is commonly ascribed to King Solomon 
The Book of Wisdom is commonly ascribed to King Solomon.] This is the Opinion of St. Cyprian in his Treatise of Mortality; of St. Augustin in his second Book De Doctrinâ Christianâ, Ch. 8. The Ancient Versions, the rabbis, Origen, St. Chrysostom, St. Clement of Alexandria, have likewise attributed it to Solomon. The most Ancient Fathers Style the Proverbs, The Wisdom of Solomon. Tertullian only says, That it was attributed to him, Sapientiae Liber Salomoni inscriptus. In the Councils of Africa are reckoned five Books of Solomon; but Pope Gelasius reckons no more than three, and puts the other two by themselves, as not belonging to him. The Greek Fathers did not aclowledge it as Solomon's, tho' some have cited it under his Name. See the Note( b), Pag. 12. , either because the Author imitated that King's manner of Writing, or because he speaks in his Name, Ch. 9. Ver. 7. However, 'tis manifest, That it is not His: For( 1.) This Book was not writ in Hebrew.( 2.) It was not inserted in the Jewish Canon.( 3.) The Style is very different from that of Solomon, and shows, That it was a Greek who composed it, as St. Jerom observes; Stylus ipse Graecam eloquentiam redolet. It is composed with Art and Method, after the manner of the Greek Philosophers, very different from that Noble Simplicity, so full of Life and Energy, of the Hebrew Books. St. Jerom adds, That several of the Ancients have ascribed it to Philo the Jew: Which ought to be understood of one more Ancient than That Philo, whose Works are Extant, who could not be the Author of this Book 
Who could not be the Author of this Book.] The Reasons why I am of this Mind, as well as the most learned that have wrote before me on this Subject, are these.( 1.) Because the Style and Manner wherein this Book is penned, are different from the Style and the Manner of Philo's Writing in the Works we have of his: You need only to red a small part of Philo's Writings to be convinced of it.( 2.) Because neither Eusebius nor St. Jerom in speaking of the Works of this Philo, have attributed the Book of Wisdom to him, nor so much as mentioned any such thing: Which shows, That they believed, That the Philo, who is said to be the Author thereof, was another Person.( 3.) It appears by the Book itself, That it was composed at a time when the Jews had a King and their Kingdom in a flourishing Condition; which does not svit with the time of Philo.( 4.) This Book has always been looked upon as more Ancient than this Author: 'tis cited in the Epistle of St. Barnabas, and in the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, who would not have Cited a Jewish Author Contemporary with themselves. It ought therefore to pass for an Evident Truth, That the Author of the Book of Wisdom could not be the same Philo, whose Works we have by us; and 'tis not at all likely, that St. Jerom, who was so learned a Man, has attributed it to him, and the rather, because in drawing up the Catalogue of this Author's Books he does not so much as mention it. It seems more reasonable to ascribe it to another Philo that is more Ancient. We meet with one of this Name who was well versed in the Knowledge of the History and Doctrine of the Jews. And tho' Josephus reckons him among the Greek Authors, yet it does not from thence follow, that he had no more than a Superficial Knowledge of the Sacred Books. On the contrary it appears by the Ancients, who have cited him, That he had a perfect Knowledge of them. Alexander Polyhistor, mentioned by Eusebius, B. 9. Of his Evangelical preparation, cites a Treatise of this Author concerning the City of Jerusalem, whose Fragments are to be met with in the same Author, being Verses in Praise of the Jewish patriarches. St. Clement of Alexandria cites him likewise in the first Book of his Stromata, and says, that he did not agree with Demetrius in the History that he made of the Kings of the Jews. This is sufficient to prove, That this Philo was so well versed in the Books of the Jews, as to make Extracts of their Sentences, or to compose others like to them. He might very well have made an History of the Jews from the Books of Moses, Why could not he as well have made a Book of Morality, in imitation of their Books of that Nature? Now, tho' Josephus places him among the Greeks, because he wrote in that Language, yet 'tis very probable, that he was a Jew, as well as Eupolemus, Demetrius and Aristobulus, who are cited as Jewish Writers by Alexander Polyhistor, St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Jerom. 'tis no such wonder, That Josephus should be mistaken in this, since he confounds Demetrius the Historian with Demetrius Phalereus. So that nothing hinders, but that the Philo cited by Alexander Polyhistor, may be the Author of the Book of Wisdom. But tho' he was not the Man, yet certainly 'tis not the same with that Philo whose Works we have by us.  However this be, It is the Work of an Hellenistical Jew, who lived since Ezrah, and apparently about the time of the Maccabees.  
This Book may be divided into two Parts: The First, is a Description and Encomium of Wisdom: And the Second, beginning at the 10th Chapter, Is a long Discourse in the Form of Prayers, wherein the Author admires and extols the Wisdom of God, and of those who honour him, and discovers the folly of the Wicked and the Enemies of God's People.   

SECT. XVI. Of the Author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus. When it was composed. The Subject-Matter of it.  
THE Preface which is before the Book of Ecclesiasticus, and the 50th Chapter of this Book, inform us, That the Author of it was a Jew, called Jesus the Son of mirach 
Jesus the Son of mirach.] The Anonymous Prologue supposes, That the Interpreter was likewise called, Jesus the Son of mirach. St. Epiphanius, the Author of the Synopsis attributed to St. Athanasius, and St. John Damascene, are of the same Opinion, But the Preface and the Title of the Book, show, That it was the Grandfather that was called Jesus or Joshua. As to the Grandson's Name 'tis unknown. Some believe that he likewise was named Jesus, and ascribe to him the Prayer which composes the last Chapter. Others pretend, That his Name was Joseph. , which was composed in Hebrew, and rendered into Greek, by his Grandson. St. Jerom says, That in his time he saw a Hebrew Copy 
St. Jerom says that in his time he saw an Hebrew Copy.] Munster and Fagius do likewise make mention of an Hebrew Copy of this Book. Buxtorf says, That Munster saw one of 'em Printed at Constantinople: But 'tis probable, That that Text was made from the Greek. , which was not entitled Ecclesiasticus, but Proverbs. Some of the Ancients have likewise styled it {αβγδ}, as much as to say, The Book of every Virtue. But the most usual Name among the Greeks, is, That of The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of mirach 
But the most usual Name among the Greeks, is That, of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of mirach.] 'tis under this Title, That St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen in his 6th Book against Celsus, Eusebius of caesarea, B. 8. Of the Evangelical Preparation, and St. Epiphanius, Heres. 76. do all city it. And this is the Title that it has in the Greek and other Versions. . It was composed under the High-Priesthood of Onias III. 
Under the High-Priesthood of Onias III.] There is mention made, Ch. 50. of Simon the Son of Onias the High-Priest. There were two Simons that were High-Priests, both of 'em Sons of two Onias's, the one surnamed the Just, the Son of Onias I. who lived under the Reign of Ptolomey Philadelphus; and the other Son of Onias the Covetous, and the Father of Onias III. under the Reigns of Ptolemy Epiphanes, and Antiochus. 'tis rather of this last, That mention is made, Ch. 50. of this Book, than of the first, since it appears, that this Book was written at a time when the Jews were persecuted, and ill used by the Neighbouring Kings: A Circumstance which does not svit with the time of Simon the Just, nor of his Successors, under whom the Jews enjoyed a profound Peace. It was therefore writ under the High-Priesthood of Onias III. at a time when Antiochus vexed the Jews. , and translated in the Reign of Ptolemey evergetes, or Physcon the Brother of Ptolemey Philometor 
Ptolemey evergetes, or Physcon, &c.] There were two Ptolemies of this Name; The one the Son of Ptolemey Philadelphus, who reigned 24 years; and the other the Son of Ptolemy Epiphanes, and Brother to Philometor, who began to reign jointly with his Brother, but afterwards in the 11th year of his Reign turned out his colleague. 'tis in the time of the last, that the Translator lived, and made his Version after the 38th year, which is the last but one of the Reign of that Prince. For it was in that year that the Translator went into Egypt, where among others, he found this Book, which he translated some time after, as is observed in the Prologue or Preface.  Some of the Ancients have ascribed this Work to Solomon 
Some of the Ancients have ascribed this Work to Solomon.] St. Cyprian and St. Ambrose have cited it under his Name. St. Hilary testifies, That in his time some attributed it to that King. But this Opinion is unaccountable, not only because the Author of it is known, but likewise because, Ch. 47. mention is made of several Prophets, who lived since Solomon. Eusebius, St. Jerom, and the Author of the Synopsis attributed to St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustin, Caesareus of Arles, and several others have acknowledged the true Author of it to be Jesus the Son of mirach. St. Jerom says, That he lived in the time of the High-Priest Simon the Son of Onias II. and that he wrote after the Version of the Seventy, or at least lived in their time. He proves, this, First, By the Preface of his Grandson, who says, That he had collected the Books of his Grandfather in the time of Ptolemey evergetes, who was the Immediate Successor of Ptolemey Philadelphus. Secondly, Because he commends Simon the Just, the High-Priest and Son of Onias I. Ch. 50. and afterwards the Translator bestows an Encomium on Jesus the Son of mirach, as having lived in the time of that High-Priest. Thirdly, Because Ch. 2. He seems to speak of the Persecution which the Jews suffered under the Reign of Ptolemy Lagus, and in the first years of Ptolemey Philadelphus. Huetius supposes, That Jesus the Son of mirach is the same Person with a Jew, name Ben-Sira, who wrote several Proverbs in Hebrew; but his Opinion does not seem to me to be very well established. , perhaps because of the Resemblance of the Subject and the Thoughts, which is so great, that the Author had manifestly a design to imitate him. He has borrowed several of his Thoughts, and followed the Method he has observed in the Proverbs, of teaching Morality by Sentences or Maxims: But his Expressions have not the same Force or Vivacity. This Book begins with an Exhortation to the pursuit of Wisdom, after this follow a great many Moral Sentences or Maxims, of which it is composed to the 44th Chapter, where the Author begins to set forth the Praises of the patriarches, Prophets, and Famous Men among the Jews, which he continues to the 51st Chapter, which contains a Prayer to God. The Hebrew Text of this Book has been lost a long time: And the Latin Version is in several Places different from the Greek Text.   

SECT. XVII. Of the Writings of the Prophets in General: And particularly of the prophesy of Isaiah.  
HAving treated of the Writers and Subject-Matter of the Books of the Law, and the Historical and Poetical Preces contained in the Jewish Canon, it remains that we should now speak of the Prophetical Books. But we shall not meet with the same difficulties and uncertainty, with respect to the Authors of those Books, as we have in the others. For they all are under the Names of those who composed them, and scarce one reasonable Objection can be started to the contrary. The Prophets are commonly divided into two Classes: The First is, Of those whose Prophecies are larger, who are styled THE GREATER PROPHETS: And the Second, of those whose Prophecies are more concise, who are for that reason styled, THE MINOR, OR LESSER PROPHETS. The Greeks put the Lesser Prophets in the first place, perhaps because they are more Ancient than the Greater. The Latins on the contrary, place them after the Greater Prophets, whose Pieces are the most considerable. The Hebrews reckoned no more than three of the Greater Prophets, viz. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, because they did not look upon Daniel as a Prophet: Whereas the Greeks and Latins join him with the three others. The Lesser Prophets are twelve in number. The space of time wherein all these Prophets flourished, takes up the Compass of about three hundred years; From the Reign of Azariah or Uzziah, to the Rebuilding of the Temple and of the City of Jerusalem.  
ISAIAH is the first and chiefest of the Prophets. He was the Son of Amoz, not the Prophet of that Name 
The Son of Amoz, not the Prophet of that Name.] The Prophet's Name is Amos, and that of the Father of Isaiah, is Amoz: The former was a Shepherd; the latter of the Blood Royal; The former lived in the time of Uzziah King of Judah, the latter was more Ancient. St. Jerom, on Isai. Chap. 1. St. Augustin, L. 18. Cap. 27. de Civitat. Dei, S. Cyril in the Preface before Amos, and others, have made a distinction between these two. St. Clement of Alexandria, in the first Book of his Stromata, the Author of the Book concerning the Lives and Deaths of the Prophets attributed to St. Epiphanius, and the rabbis have made them to be the same Person. St. Jerom says, That the Father of Isaiah was manassehs Father-in-Law.  He Prophesied from the end of the Reign of Uzziah to the time of Manasseh, by whose order, they say, he was put to a Cruel Death, and sawn in two with a Wooden-Saw 
And Sawn in two with a Wooden-Saw.] 'tis the Common Tradition of the Jews, and confirmed by the Testimonies of Tertullian, St. Jerom, and St. Basil. St. Jerom in his Commentary on the 57th Chapter of this Prophet, says, That the Jews believe that he prophesied concerning the manner of his Death, That he should be Sawn in two with a Wooden-Saw, a Tradition that passed for a thing certain among them: That 'tis for this reason that several Christian Writers understand that saying, Heb. 11.37. THEY WERE SAWN ASUNDER, of Isaiah: Supposing that the Apostle made use of the plural Number for the singular, as the Evangelist has said in the Plural THIEVES, instead of ONE OF THE THIEVES. The Author of the Commentary attributed to Primasius, observes likewise upon this Passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews, That the Plural Number is there put for the Singular: For, says he, We do not red of any other Prophet besides Isaiah, that was sawn asunder; but as for this Prophet, he was so by a Wooden Saw, by the Orders of King Manasseh, who had married his Daughter. What they add, That he was clapped into the Trunk of a three, and that Manasses caused both the Man and the three to be Sawn asunder, looks like Fable; and this very History being only founded on a Jewish Tradition, is somewhat uncertain. . He has himself drawn up a Collection of the Prophecies, which he made under the Reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah 
Under the Reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah.] The 5 first Chapters of Isaiah, contain the Prophecies which he made under the Reign of Uzziah. The Vision of the 6th happened in Jotham's time. The next Chapters to the 15th contain the Prophecies of Isaiah under the Reign of Ahaz. And those that happened under the Reigns of Hezekiah and Manasses, are related in the next Chapters to the End. . He likewise wrote a Book of the Acts of Uzziah, which is mentioned, 2 Chron. 26.22. They likewise Father upon him several Apocryphal Pieces, among the rest, the famous One cited so frequently by Origen; another entitled, The Ascension of Isaiah, which St. Jerom and St. Epiphanius mention; and lastly, One entitled, The Vision or Apocalypse of Isaiah. Some have pretended, That the Book of Isaiah now extant, is only a Collection taken from the Works of this Prophet, but the Conjectures they bring for the proof of it are very frivolous 
The Conjectures they bring for the Proof of it are very frivolous.] They say, That the prophesy of Isaiah does not begin till the 6th Chapter, where after he had said that he saw, he adds, And I heard the Voice of the Lord, who said unto me, whom shall I sand? To this we Answer, That the Prophet does not say, That he had as yet writ nothing, but only that he had been a long time before he wrote, since he had that Vision, and God commanded him to speak. He wrote this in the last year of Uzziah. Secondly, they say, That what is said in the first Chapter concerning the Desolation of Judea, does not agree with the Reign of Uzziah, therefore it is not the Beginning of his prophesy. But to this we Reply, That he might very well predict the future Desolation, at a time when it had not as yet happened. Thirdly, 'tis objected, That in this Book we do not meet with the Life and Acts of Uzziah, which had been written by Isaiah, as 'tis mentioned, 2 Chron. 26.22. But the Answer to this is easy, viz. That the Book of the Acts of Uzziah, mentioned in the Chronicles, was not the same with that of his prophesy. Fourthly, 'tis said, That Isaiah likewise prophesied in the Reign of Manasses, where as there is not one Word in the prophesy that goes under his Name, which has any relation to the Reign of Manasses. To this we Reply, That 'tis no where said, That Isaiah had committed to Writing the things which he had Prophesied under that King's Reign. Fifthly and lastly, 'tis objected, That the Order and Series of Things is frequently interrupted, as well in Isaiah, as in the other Prophets. To this we Reply, That we ought not to expect from the Prophets an Historical and connected Style; on the contrary, the Prophecies are usually writ without Order or Connexion. .  
The Style of Isaiah is great, noble, sublime, and florid. He Paints things to the Life, but with bold, strong, and lively stroke. His Book, as well as those of all the Prophets, contains several Predictions of future Things, with Admonitions, Reproofs, Exhortations, Consolations, and several Historical Matters of Fact. Several of his Prophecies concern the Jews, or the Neighbouring Nations. He expressly foretells the taking of Jerusalem, and the Babylonish Captivity, from the 29th Chapter to the 39th. The 40th, with the rest that follow, do not only concern the Jews Return from Babylon, and the Restoration of their Kingdom, but likewise the Call of the Gentiles, the Casting off of the Jews, the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, with his Life, Preaching, and Death, the Establishment and Perpetuity of the Church. These Mysteries he explains so clearly, that as St. Jerom observes, he seems rather to have written of Things past, than to foretell things to come: So that he may rather pass for an Evangelist, than a Prophet.   

SECT. XVIII. Of the Prophet Jeremiah, his prophesy, and Lamentations.  
JEREMIAH the Son of Hilkiah of Anathoth in the Tribe of Benjamin near Jerusalem, One of the Priests, began to prophesy about the latter End of the Reign of Josiah, being very young; and continued his Prophecies till after the Jews were carried Captive to Babylon. He was not carried away with the other Jews to that City: But staying behind in his own Country to lament the Destruction thereof, was afterwards carried Prisoner into Egypt with his Disciple Baruch, where 'tis believed he was stoned to Death. The Fathers tell us, That he always kept in a State of Coelibacy 
He always kept in a State of Caelibacy.] St. Jerom in his Preface before Jeremiah; Virginitate suâ Evangelicum Virum Christi Ecclesiae dedicans. And it seems as if so much might be inferred from, Ch. 16. Ver. 2. Thou shalt not take thee a Wife, neither shalt thou have Sons or Daughters in this place. . The beginning of the 36th Chapter informs us, That King Jehoiakim having burnt the Book of his Prophecies, That Prophet caused another to be made much larger and more forcible. He afterwards added thereto the Prophecies which he made from that time down to the Babylonish Captivity, and those that he made in Egypt. The 50th, and 51st Chapters are the Book wherein he foretold all that should happen to Babylon, which he sent thither by Seraiah the Son of Neriah. The 52d Chapter does not belong to Jeremiah, whose prophesy concludes at the end of the 51st Chapter with these Words: Thus far are the Words of Jeremiah. It is rather Baruch's or Ezrah's. It contains a Narration of the Taking of Jerusa-Jerusalem, and of what happened during the Captivity of the Jews in Babylon to the Death of Jechonias, taken almost entirely out of the Books of Kings. It serves to illustrate the prophesy of Jeremiah, and particularly the Lamentations which follow it, and which formerly made part of the Book of Jeremiah. In this last piece, He in a Pathetical and Poetical manner( for this Work is writ in Verse, whose first Letters are disposed according to the Order of the Alphabet 
disposed according to the Order of the Alphabet.] There were, as St. Jerom observes, Four Alphabets: The two first are written, as he pretends, in a kind of Sapphic Verses, because the three Verses, which are as it were linked together, begin with the same Letter, and end with a Dactyl and Spondee like an Heroic Verse. The third Alphabet is writ in Trimeters, and three Verses one after another begin with the same Letter. The fourth Alphabet is like the the two first. As to the quantity of the Verses, 'tis somewhat hard to discover them at present; but the Order of the Letters, which begin the Verses, is very Visible. , describes the Desolation and Ruin of Jerusalem 
The Desolation and Ruin of Jerusalem.] The Hebrews, Josephus, the Chaldee Paraphrase, and St. Jerom would have it, that the Lamentations relate to the Troubles which happened to the People of Jerusalem since the Death of Josiah. 'tis certain, That Jeremiah made Lamentations upon the Death of Josiah, which were sung publicly, as 'tis related, 2 Chron. 35.25. But we are not sure that they are the same with the others. Eusebius believes, That the Book of Lamentations ought to be applied to the Captivity of Jechoniah. Origen, Theodoret, and most of the Greeks, pretend, That they were composed upon the Captivity that happened under the Reign of Zedekiah, when the City and Temple were destroyed. 'tis this Captivity that is set down in the Preface, and it must be confessed, That the Descriptions in the Work itself do svit more naturally with this, than with any other time. , and takes notice of the Sorrow that he conceived for it. There is a Preface to it in the Greek, and in the Vulgar Latin, which is not in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee Paraphrase, nor in the Syriac, and which was manifestly an Additional Piece set as an Argument of this Work. Lastly, These Lamentations conclude with a Prayer to God.  
St. Jerom has observed, That Jeremiah's Style was more simplo and easy than that of Isaiah or Hosea, and that he even retains something of the Rusticity of the Village wherein he was born; but that he was very Learned and Majestical, and equal to those two other Prophets in the Sense of his prophesy. It seems as if these Words of St. Jerom ought only to be understood of some Expressions that are perhaps less proper; for tho' Jeremiah be not altogether so sublime as Isaiah, yet it must be owned, that he is very lofty, not only in Sense, but also in Expression, in the Turn and Way of speaking things.  
There was formerly another prophesy of Jeremiah, mentioned by Origen, wherein are found these Words that are cited in the Gospel; Appenderunt mercedem meam, &c. But 'tis likely, that this was an Apocryphal Piece, which the Nazarenes made use of, as St. Jerom testifies upon mat. 27.   

SECT. XIX. Of the Prophet Baruch and his prophesy.  
THE prophesy of BARUCH the Son of Neriah, who was the Disciple and Amanuensis of Jeremiah, was formerly reckoned part of the Book of Jeremiah's prophesy. Josephus tells us, That Baruch was descended of a noble Family, and that he was a perfect Master of the Language of his Country. 'tis said, Ch. 1. Ver. 1. That he wrote this prophesy in Babylon, but at what time is uncertain 
But at what time is uncertain.] Some believe that Baruch went not to Babylon till after the Death of his Master Jeremiah, whom he loved so well as not to leave him till then; and they confirm this Opinion upon the mention that is therein made of the Burning of Jerusalem. Others, on the contrary, say, That he wrote his Book before the Destruction of jerusalem, because mention is therein made of the Altar, Sacrifices, and consecrated Vessels. This has made them to believe, That he was one of those that were sent to Babylon the fourth year of Zedekiah, of whom Seraiah, Baruch's Brother, was Chief, as is mentioned, Jer. 51.59. They therefore say, That he having carried the Book of Jeremiah along with him, the next year made his prophesy to comfort the Captives; and that the 5th year after the taking of Jerusalem, mentioned Ver. 2. ought to be reckoned from the Captivity of Jechoniah. . We have not at present the Hebrew Copy of Baruch; tho' no question can be made, but that it was writ in that Language, as the frequent Hebraisms to be met with therein do sufficiently Evince. There are two Syriac Versions of it, the one agreeable to the Greek Text, and the other very different from it. But 'tis very probable, That the Greek Text is more Ancient and Authentic than these Versions. There is a Letter in Syriac attributed to Baruch; but 'tis plain, that this is a Supposititious piece, made perhaps by some Christian. The Letter to the Captives of Babylon, which is at the end of Baruch, is Jeremiah's. The Author of the second Book of the Maccabees makes mention of it, Ch. 2. Ver. 1, 2. It is of that Prophet's Style, and contains nothing but what suits with the time wherein it was penned.   

SECT. XX. Of the Prophet Ezekiel and his prophesy.  
EZEKIEL the Son of Buzi the Priest, having been carried Captive to Babylon under Jechoniah, began to prophesy the fifth year of the Captivity, the thirtieth of his Age 
The thirtieth year of his Age.] At the beginning of his prophesy, he says, That he began to see Visions in the Thirtieth Year: Some understand this of the Jubilee; others, since the Solemn Renewal of the Covenant under Josiah the King; others of the year of the Reign or Birth of nabuchadnezzar: But 'tis more likely, that hereby is meant the thirtieth year of his Age, wherein according to the Law he began to be capable of performing the Priest's Office. , and continued to prophesy during twenty years. He was killed, as 'tis supposed, by a Prince of his own Nation, whom he had reproved for Worshipping of Idols. His prophesy is very obscure, especially at the beginning and latter end. 'tis perhaps for this Reason, That the Jews would not have any to red it before thirty years of Age: Having laid open his Commission whereby he was called to be a Prophet, he foretells the Captivity and the Destruction of Jerusalem, to confirm the Predictions of Jeremiah, and to refute the vain Promises of the false Prophets, He likewise foretells the Evils that should befall the Neighbouring Nations, and Prophesies of the Re-establishment of the Jews and their Temple, which are no more than Types and Figures of the Kingdom of the Messiah, of the Calling of the Gentiles, and of the Establishment of the Church. Of all the Prophets, He abounds the most in Enigmatical Visions. St. Jerom says, That his Style is neither Eloquent, nor Mean, but between both. He abounds in sine Sentences, rich Comparisons, and shows a great deal of Learning in profane Things. His Prophecies or Visions, which are two and twenty in all, are ranged according to the Order and Series of Time wherein they happened.   

SECT. XXI. Of the Prophet Daniel, and of the Truth of his prophesy. Of the Chapters which are not in the Hebrew Text.  
DANIEL descended from the Royal Family of Judah 
From the Royal Family of Judah.] This is inferred from Ch. 1. Ver. 3. where King nabuchadnezzar ordered Ashpenaz to bring to him certain of the Children of Israel, and of the King's Seed, de Semine Regio. Daniel is the first of those that were chosen. However, This is not altogether Conclusive; for the place may be rendered, De Semine Regni, that is, Children of Quality: Besides, This is not said in particular of Daniel, and may be understood of the rest. Yet Josephus says positively, That Daniel was of the Royal Family. , was carried Captive to Babylon in the time of Jehoiakim 
In the time of Jehoiakim.] This Prince was carried Captive the third year of his Reign, and Daniel with him, Ch. 1. Ver. 1, 2. Daniel is called Duer, which shows, That he was young. However, Puer may be said of a Person about 18 or 20 years of Age. He Prophesied to the Reign of Cyrus, as appears, Ch. 10. Ver. 1. , being then very young. The Jews do not reckon him among the Prophets; but the Christians( following the Authority of Jesus Christ, who gives him this Title, Matth. 24.15.) do Style him a Prophet. And indeed it cannot be questioned, but what he wrote was a prophesy, as the Jews themselves do own: However, They did not bestow upon him the Name of Prophet, because his way of Living was not conformable to that of the other Prophets, but he lived more like the Grandees of Babylon; and they do likewise believe that he was an Eunuch, which it seems may be confirmed by a Passage of his Book. Some produce more Reasons why they did not give him the Title of Prophet, but they are all very frivolous 
They are all very frivolous.] The rabbis say, That there are eleven Degrees of prophesy, and to be a true Prophet, one must have three of them at least; that for the having them it must be said, that the Word of the Lord came to the Prophet, and that the Revelation made to him in a Dream, be no longer called a Vision. Now, say they, Both these Qualifications are wanting in Daniel; for 'tis not said, That the Word of the Lord came to him, and his Revelations are called Visions. These are Chimerical Rules and Maxims, which they are pleased to suppose without any proof. Others, with greater probability argue, from the distinction of two sorts of Prophecies, which we have explained before; the one of which being properly called prophesy, is made by Visions or Dreams to a Man who is not Master of himself or his Thoughts: And the other, Which is only styled Inspiration, is the Direction or Assistance of the Holy Ghost, which a Person receives without any extraordinary thing happening to him. But this distinction cannot be applied to the point in hand. For Daniel had Visions as well as the other Prophets, and the other Prophets have Prophesied as well as him without any extraordinary Emotion. What some allege, That we ought not to Style the Revelations made out of the Holy-Land, Prophecies, is altogether frivolous. , and the Christians have a great deal more reason to aclowledge him as a true Prophet 
To aclowledge him as a true Prophet.] He had all the Qualifications of a Prophet: He was inspired by God: He foretold things to come: He had Visions and Revelations: He is styled a Prophet by Jesus Christ, mat. 24.15. Mar. 13.14. The Historian Josephus calls him likewise a Great Prophet, and even prefers him above all the rest in the 10th Book of his Antiquities, C. ult. and he is reckoned among the Prophets in the Book of the Talmud, named Megilah.  He prophesied in Babylon from the beginning of the Captivity under Jehoiakim, to the Reign of Cyrus, that is, for the space of above fourscore years. We do not red of his Return to his own Country; which induces us to believe, That he died in the City of Babylon, or in Chaldea.  
Tho' DANIEL's Name be not at the Top of his prophesy, yet there are a great many Passages wherein he speaks in the first Person 
A great many Passages, &c.] Ch. 7. Ver. 1, 2. In the first year of Belshazzar King of Babylon, Daniel had a Dream and Visions of his head upon his Bed, &c. Daniel spake and said, I saw in my Vision by night, Ch. 8. Ver. 1. In the third year of the Reign of Belshazzar, a Vision appeared to me, even to Me Daniel. V. 27. And I Daniel fainted. Chap. 12. Ver. 5. Then I Daniel looked. , which is sufficient Evidence that he was the Author of it. The Age of Daniel is manifest from the Testimony of Ezekiel, who commends him in three Places of his prophesy, viz. Ch. 14. Ver. 14. and 20. Ch. 28. Ver. 3. and in this last mentions the Spirit of Wisdom or prophesy, in which he excelled. Jesus Christ likewise cites the prophesy of Daniel, mat. 24.15. Mar. 13.14. The Ancient Synagogue owned it as Genuine and caconical. Celsus and Porphyry, who opposed the Christian Religion, are the first that ever struck at the Authority of this Book. The last of these Authors has bestowed a whole Book out of fifteen that he wrote against the Christian Religion, to confront the Book of Daniel, and maintains that it was not composed by Daniel, but by another Jew, who lived in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; because he found the prophesy of Daniel so clear to that time, that he was persuaded it was not so much a Prediction of future things, as a Narration of things past. This Philosopher would have said the same thing of the Predictions which relate to the time that followed Antiochus Epiphanes, if he had clearly understood them; but the clearness of the prophesy does not prove the falseness of it; on the contrary, Porphyry's acknowledging the Event of Daniel's Predictions to the time of Antiochus, establisheth the Truth of his prophesy. 'tis a false way of arguing, to infer, That the Author of the Book of Daniel lived in the time of Antiochus, because it cannot be disproved but that his Predictions down to that time are conformable to History. But 'tis a true Induction to say, That Daniel is certainly more Ancient than Antiochus Epiphanes. It cannot reasonably be questioned, but that this Book which we have by us, was his: He foretold clearly, Events that happened to the Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and therefore he is a True Prophet; and all his Prophecies ought to be credited. The Event of one prophesy being acknowledged, establishes all the rest. We know nothing of the other Objections of Porphyry against the prophesy of Daniel, nor have we the Answers which Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, made to him, according to St. Jerom's Testimony. The Talmudists in the Chapter Bababatra, and some other rabbis have acknowledged the Authority of this prophesy; but have believed, that this, as well as those of Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets, with the Book of Esther, was digested and put into the Form in which it is at present, by the Great Synagogue. If we ask them for a Proof of it, they have none other to allege, than that they believe it to be so. Spinosa, as much an Infidel as he is, owns, that the 8th Chapter, and the following, down to the 13th, are Daniel's: But he chooses rather to say, That he knows not whence the seven first Chapters are taken, than to own that they are the same Author's. The only reason he gives for it is, That they are written in Chaldee, A very weak Argument! For why could not Daniel, who was in Babylon and in the King's Court, have written in that Language the Histories which happened in that Country? He adds, That the Author of the Book of Daniel is the same that wrote the Books of Ezra, Esther, and Nehemiah, and pretends that he lived a long time after the Rebuilding of the Temple, which was done by Judas Maccabaeus. These are all Conjectures that have no Foundation but in his Brain, and which could never have pleased, but because of their Novelty and Strangeness.  
The Book of Daniel may be divided into two Parts: The First is Historical, and contains the Relation of several things that happened to Daniel at Babylon under several Kings. The Second, Which begins at the 7th Chapter, and ends at the 12th, contains the Visions or Prophecies which he had, wherein he clearly foretells of several Events relating to the Monarchies of the World, and the time of the Coming of the Messiah, his Death and the Destruction of the Kingdom of the Jews. The two last Chapters, viz. the 13th and 14th, contain two particular Histories; The one of Susanna, and the other of Bel and the Dragon; the Truth of which we shall inquire into by and by. The 1st Chapter, and the beginning of the 2d to the 4th Verse, are writ in Hebrew: The next to the 8th in Chaldee, except the Song of the Three Children cast into the fiery Furnace, which is only in Greek: The Original of the following Chapters is Hebrew: And the two last are only in the Greek Copies. The Style of Daniel is not so lofty or figurative as that of the other Prophets; 'tis more Historical, clear and concise. He makes his Narrations and Descriptions simplo and natural: In short, He writes more like an Historian than a Prophet.  
As to those Parts of the Book of Daniel which are in the Greek of Theodotion, and in the Vulgar Latin, viz. The Song of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were cast into the fiery Furnace, inserted Ch. 3. Ver. 24. to Ver. 91. The History of Susanna and the Elders related, Ch. 13. The History of Bel and the Dragon, and of Daniel's being cast into the Lion's Den, related Ch. 14. we have already treated at large of their caconical Authority, and of the Opinions of the Ancients upon that Subject. We are at present to inquire who is the Author of the Additions, and to answer the Objections that are started against the Truth of these Histories.  
The Song of the Three Children has no particular Title, and there is no other Argument to prove that it is not Daniel's, unless because 'tis not in the Chaldee Original. It might likewise so happen, That it was struck out of it at first, that so the History might not be interrupted, which was afterwards inserted to set off the Narration.  
The History of Susanna was formerly at the head of the Book of Daniel, without any particular Title. St. Jerom, after Eusebius and Apollinarius, attributes it to the Prophet Habakkuk. We see no other Reason that might determine them to think so, unless upon the account of the Greek Title which is upon the Top of the History of Bel; The prophesy of Habakkuk the Son of Juda of the Tribe of Levi. But this Title only relates to the History of Bel, which was at the end of the Book of Daniel, whereas the History of Susanna was formerly at the beginning. We know not of what Authority this Inscription is, nor yet who this Prophet Habakkuk is. It seems, as if St. Jerom had thought, That he was the same Person with him whose prophesy is among those of the Lesser Prophets. Let this be as it will, Perhaps Daniel might not be the Author of these Histories, and yet they may be true notwithstanding. There have been some, both Ancients and Moderns, who have started Difficulties against the Truth of these Histories, which however are not unanswerable. You may see the Objections and the Solutions of them in the Notes 
First, 'tis Objected, That these Histories are neither in the Hebrew nor Chaldee Original, and that the Jews did not look upon them as Daniel's. To this 'tis answered, That they might have been there formerly, and that the Original Text is lost. But tho' they were another Author's, who had extracted them out of other creditable Memoirs; yet this does not hinder them from being Genuine. Secondly, 'tis pretended, That the Style of these Histories is different from that of Daniel. Origen discovers no difference in them, and tho' there were, it could only from thence be concluded, That Daniel was not the Author of them, but not that the Histories are false. Thirdly, they pretend, That the History of Susanna could not happen whilst Daniel was young, as is said in this Narration. For Ch. 13. Ver. 65. 'tis observed, That Astyages died, and Cyrus received his Kingdom. The History of Susanna is afterwards related, and consequently must have happened since. Now at that time Daniel was very old. 'tis answered, That this History happened long before, and that 'tis inserted into this Place by mistake. For in the Ancient Versions, 'tis at the head of the Book of Daniel, and was not placed at the end in the Vulgar Editions, but only because it was not in the Hebrew Copy. For which reason, these words, Ch. 13. Ver. 65. King Astyages died, and Cyrus succeeded him, have nothing to do with the History of Susanna, but the History of Bel and the Dragon, which immediately follows, and which even in the Edition of Sixtus V. is annexed to these Words. Fourthly, 'tis objected, That 'tis incredible, that Joacim the Father of Susanna was so rich and powerful in the Captivity, as in this Book he is said to be, or that the Captives had any Authority of Condemning the Guilty, as is here related. Origen replies, That the Jews who were carried to Babylon, were not rifled of all that they had; that some of 'em were rich and powerful, and that 'tis probable, they had still a Power of Trying and Condemning their Criminals, according to the Law, as the Romans granted them the same Authority after they had conquered them. The Fifth Objection, and the most difficult to resolve, is that which is started from the Allusion, that is to be met with in the Narration of this History. When Daniel Interrogated the two Elders separately, and the one of 'em had said, That he saw Susanna commit Adultery under an Holm-Tree, which the Greeks call {αβγδ}, he return'd him this Answer, That the Angel of the Lord should cleave him asunder, alluding thereby to the Verb {αβγδ}: And when the other had answered, That he saw her under a Mastick-Tree {αβγδ}, he replied, That he should be cut asunder, thereby alluding to the Verb {αβγδ}. Now these Allusions take place only in the Greek; it was therefore a Greek who wrote these things, and feigned them, since Daniel speaking in Hebrew or Chaldee could not have said any thing like it. To this Origen replies, That in Truth Daniel did not make use of these Terms, nor of the Names of these Trees, but of some other Hebrew or Chaldee Names, to which the Verbs were answerable, which signify to Cleave, and to cut asunder; and that the Greek Interpreter has rendered the Sense by seeking for the Names of such Trees, which might allude to the Greek Verbs, that signify to cleave and cut asunder. Just as in Genesis, Where in Hebrew 'tis said, That the Woman was called Ischa, the Feminine of the Hebrew Word Isch, which signifies the Man: The Latin Interpreter has rendered it, Haec vocabitur Virago, and Symmachus in the Greek, {αβγδ}, which is more proper than {αβγδ}, which the LXX have made use of. To render this Reply the more forcible, Hebrew or Chaldee Names of Trees should have been found out, to allude to the Verbs which signify to cleave and to cut asunder. But Origen has to no purpose consulted the Jews of his time about it, and we do not red of any that have been found out since. Sixthly, Against the History of Bel 'tis said, That the Ancient Title of the LXX attributed it to Habakkuk, and that Daniel mentioned in this History was a Priest: 'tis therefore another Daniel to whom this History belongs. To this 'tis answered, That the Character of Priest is not given to Daniel in the Version of Theodotion, and that the Version attributed falsely to the LXX is not exact. Seventhly, Against the History of the Dragon, 'tis said, That Habakkuk, who lived in the time of Manasses, was dead when 'tis supposed, that he wrote these things, and was caught up by the Spirit to carry Provision to the Prophet Daniel. To this 'tis replied, That there were two Habakkuks; one, who was the Prophet, and lived in the time of Manasses; and the other of whom mention is made in this Place of Daniel. The latter was of the Tribe of Levi; the former of the Tribe of Simeon. Lastly, Against the same History, 'tis objected, that in this place 'tis said, That Daniel was six days in the Lion's Den, and that Ch. 6. Ver. 22. 'tis said, That he had been in only one Night. To this 'tis answered, That he was twice cast into the Lion's Den, under Darius, because he prayed to his God against the King's Commandment, and under Cyrus upon the Account of the Dragon. .   

SECT. XXII. The Lives and Writings of the Twelve Lesser Prophets.  
THE Prophecies of those which we call THE TWELVE LESSER PROPHETS, made but one Volume among the Hebrews 
Made but one Volume among the Hebrews.] Josephus and St. Jerom testify as much, and it may be proved from Ecclus Ch. 49. Ver. 10. which says, Let the Bones of the Twelve Prophets flourish again out of their Place: For they comforted Jacob, and delivered them by assured Hope. This Citation of the Twelve Prophets, under a Collective Name, proves, That then their Prophecies made but one Volume. For which Reason, The Jews and Greeks have entitled these Prophecies, The Twelve Prophets. . But the Order of them is not the same in the Hebrew Text, and in the Edition of the LXX. which last is followed by Eusebius and the Greeks 
But the Order of them is not the same, &c.] Hosea is the First in both, and the Six last Prophets are in the same Order. But the LXX observe the following Order in the Five others, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah: Whereas the Order of the Hebrew Text, and the Vulgar Latin, is this, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. Neither of them do exactly follow the Chronological Order; according to which we should dispose both the Greater and Lesser Prophets, thus, viz. Jonah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Isaiah, Micah, Zephaniah, nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Daniel, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. .  
HOSEA the Son of Beeri is the first 
Hosea the Son of Beeri is the first.] 'tis supposed, That he was the most Ancient both of the Lesser and Greater Prophets. He certainly began to prophesy under the Reign of Jeroboam and Azariah. Now Azariah began not to Reign till the 27th year of Jeroboam II. who reigned no more than 41 years. So that Hosea must necessary have begun his prophesy in the 14th of Azariah, who reigned 52 years; and consequently must be more Ancient than Isaiah. The forged Epiphanius, and the forged Dorotheus relate, That he was of the Tribe of Issachar, and of the City of Belemoth, but these two Authors can hardly be credited. . He Prophesied in the Kingdom of Israel, and under the Reign of Jeroboam II. and his Successors, Kings of Israel; and whilst Uzziah or Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, were Kings of Judah. His Name is at the Head of the Work, and he speaks frequently of himself in the first Person: So that it cannot be questioned, but that he was the Author of this prophesy. He therein represents the Jewish Synagogue repudiated, foretells its Ruin, and the Calling in of the Gentiles. He upbraids the Children of Israel for their Idolatry, and foretells the Evils that should happen to them as the Punishment of that Crime. However, He comforts them by putting 'em in hopes, that these Miseries should have an end; and that God would shower down his Blessings upon them if they turned unto the Lord. God's Commanding this Prophet to take to him a Wife of Whoredoms, and Children of Whoredoms, seems to be an extraordinary thing; but this ought to be understood, either simply as a Vision, according to what St. Jerom pretends in the Case; or one ought to suppose, that God did not Command him to commit Adultery, but to mary a Woman of Whoredoms, as St. Basil and St. Augustin have explained it. The Style of this Prophet is Pathetical, and full of short and lively Sentences, as St. Jerom has observed.  
The prophesy of JOEL, the Son of Pethuel, comes next to that of Hosea, in the Hebrew Text. The time wherein he Prophesied being not set down in the Beginning of his prophesy, is upon that account not so certain 
Is upon that account not so certain.] St. Jerom believes him to be Contemporary with Hosea; because he follows that Prophet in the Hebrew Text. He grounds his Opinion upon this Principle, viz. That the Prophets are ranged according to the Series of Time, and that the time of a Prophet not being set down, one must join him with the foregoing. This Rule does not always hold good. Some Place him before Jehoram the Son of Ahab, in whose time there was a 7 years Famine, which 'tis pretended, that he foretold. The rabbis in the Seder-Olam, place the Prophet Joel under the Reign of Hezekiah or Manasses; others under the Reign of Josiah, in whose days there was a Famine. Huetius pretends, That Joel prophesied after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes, upon the account of what is said, Chap. 3. Ver. 2. That they had scattered the Children of Israel among the Nations; But he might have spoken of a future thing, as if it had been already past. He says, further, That not a Word is said of the Kingdom of Israel throughout the whole prophesy, but this is not certain. They who say, That he Prophesied before Amos, ground their Opinion upon this Prophets predicting a Famine at the latter end of the first Chapter, of which, Amos, Ch. 4. of his prophesy, speaks as of a thing past: But Huetius pretends, That these are two different Famines; that the Famine mentioned in Amos happened naturally, but that in Joel was to happen by the Incursions of the Enemy. . Some believe him to be more Ancient than Amos; others say, That he did not writ till after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes. There are Conjectures on both sides about it. He was( according to some) of the Tribe of Gad, according to others of the Tribe of Reuben. In the beginning of his prophesy he foretells the Miseries that should befall the Jews, exhorts them to Repent, and Promises that God would come to their Relief and heap upon them Spiritual and Temporal Blessings. Afterwards he describes the Vengeance, which God would take of the Nations; and the Eternal Kingdom of God in Sion. The Style of this Prophet is strong, expressive, and figurative.  
AMOS the Shepherd, of the Town of Tekoa, which is two Leagues Southward off of Bethlehem, was chosen by God to be a Prophet in the time of Uzziah King of Judah, and of Jeroboam the Son of Joash King of Israel, two years before the Earthquake which happened in the 24th or 25th year of Uzziah. His prophesy is chiefly against the Ten Tribes, whose Destruction and Captivity he Predicts. He concludes, by putting them in hopes of a Restoration, which can be nothing else but the Reign of the messiah. This Prophet is not so lofty as the rest, and makes use of Comparisons and Expressions taken from the Calling of which he was, and suitable to his State and Profession.  
The Time of the Prophet OBADIAH is wholly Uncertain. St. Jerom, with the Hebrews, believes, That this Prophet was the same with the Governor of Ahab's House, mentioned 1 Kings 18.3. who hide and fed the hundred Prophets, whom Jezebel would have destroyed. Some say, He was that Obadiah, whom Josiah made Overseer of the Works of the Temple, mentioned 2 Chron. 34.12. But most make him Contemporary with Hosea, Amos, and Joel. Lastly, Some believe him to be Contemporary with Jeremiah after the taking of Jerusalem. 'tis more probable, That he lived in the time of Ahaz, when the Edomites in Conjunction with the Israelites made War against the Tribe of Judah, because his prophesy is wholly against the Edomites or Idumeans.  
JONAH the Son of Amittai the Prophet 
Jonah the Son of Amittai the Prophet.] The Jews say, That he was the Son of the Widow Woman of Sarepta, but this is a groundless Imagination. , who was of Gath-hepher, near Dio-Caesarea, of the Tribe of Zabulon in Galilee, prophesied under the Reign of Jeroboam King of Israel, and in the days of Uzziah or Azariah King of Judah, and seems to be the most Ancient of all the Prophets 
The most Ancient of all the Prophets.] He began to prophesy in the Reign of Joash, the Father of Jeroboam, 2 Kings 14.25. The History related in this prophesy, came to pass in the days of pull the Father of Sardanapalus King of Nineveh, who was invited by Menahem, and came into the Kingdom of Israel with an Army in the life-time of the Prophet Hosea. . God sent him to the City of Nineveh, to preach Repentance to the Inhabitants thereof. Instead of Obeying this Command, he was for flying by Sea to another place. He was cast into the Sea, received into the Belly of a great Fish, which Vomited him out again upon the dry Land. He received a second Order to go to Nineveh: Thither he went, and denounced against that City its impending Destruction, which by the Repentance of the Inhabitants was respited. This is the History that is related in his Book. He had composed another prophesy, mentioned 2 Kings 14.25. wherein he foretold in the Reign of Joash, the Conquests which his Son Jeroboam should make. The Book of Jonah, which we have, seems to have been cited, Tobit 14.8. and is approved by Jesus Christ.  
The Prophet MICAH, born at Morasthi or Moresheth 
Morasthi or Moresheth.] Some believe it to be Mareshah, mentioned Ch. 1. Ver. 15. and Josh. 15.44. But this Name is written differently in those Places, from what it is Ver. 26.18. where Micah is called the Morasthite. St. Jerom has observed, That this Morasthi was no more than a Village situate near Eleutheropolis. , a Town of Palestine in the Tribe of Juda, prophesied in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, after the other Prophets already mentioned, but before Jeremiah, who cites him, Ch. 26. Ver. 18. of his prophesy. He is not the same with that Prophet who lived in the days of Ahab and Jehoshaphat, mentioned Ch. 22. of the first Book of Kings. The prophesy of him we now speak of, is against Samaria and Jerusalem; that is, against the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. He reproves the Irregularities of the Israelites, foretells their Captivity, and comforts them in hopes of a future Deliverance. It is penned in a sublime, tho' natural and intelligible Style.  
The Prophet NAHUM, in the Title of his prophesy, is styled the Elkoshite. Elkosha, according to St. Jerom, is a little Town of Galilee. Others believe, That 'tis the Name of his Family. Nor have we any greater Assurance of the time wherein he lived. His speaking of the Destruction of Nineveh, has made some believe, That he lived in the days of Sardanapalus under Joash and Jehu: If this were so, He would be the most Ancient of the Prophets. Josephus believes, That he lived in the days of Jotham, and that he foretold the Destruction of Nineveh, which happened several years after, in the time of Josiah. St. Jerom, Theodoret, and Theophylact say, That he Prophesied after the Captivity of the Israelites, either under Hezekiah, or Manasses. The most general Opinion is, That he Prophesied since the Destruction of the Ten Tribes by Salmanezer, and before Sennacherib's Expedition against the Tribe of Judah, which is foretold in the first Chapter of his prophesy; and that in the next he foretells the taking of Nineveh in the days of Nabuchodonosor, and Ahasuerus, mentioned in the Greek Text of Tobit, Ch. 14. Ver. 15. That is, by Cyaxeres and Nabopalassar, or according to others, by Astyages and Nabuchodonosor. The Style of Nahum is figurative, and full of Comparisons.  
We know neither the Country, nor the Time wherein HABAKKUK lived: The Jews say, That he Prophesied in the days of Manasses or Jehoiakim, just before the Captivity: St. Epiphanius, and the false Epiphanius, in the days of Zedekiah, and Jeremiah: And others in the time of Josiah. St. Jerom, who makes him to be the same, with the Prophet Habakkuk, to whom the History of Bel and the Dragon is ascribed, believes him to be Contemporary with Daniel. The most probable Opinion is, That he lived under the Reign of Manasses, whose Sins he seems to describe, Ch. 1. Ver. 3, 4. and before the Chaldeans had carried the Jews into Captivity. He foretells this Misfortune to the Jews, Ver. 6. and the following: But afterwards comforts them by assuring them that they should be restored, and the Chaldeans destroyed. He concludes with an Excellent Prayer to God. This prophesy is obscure and hard to be understood.  
We cannot tell of what Country ZEPHANIAH was 
Of what Country Zephaniah was.] If Hizkiah mentioned in this place as his Great Grandfather, be Hezekiah the King, he would be of the Tribe of Judah, and of the Royal Family; but this cannot be. 'tis perhaps upon this, that St. Cyril went, in asserting that this Prophet was of Noble Extraction. , but the time when he Prophesied is denoted by these Words at the beginning of his prophesy: The Word of the Lord which came to Zephaniah the Son of Cushi, the Son of Gedalia, the Son of Amariah, the Son of Hizkiah, in the days of Josiah, the Son of Amon King of Judah. He doubtless began to prophesy, before Josiah had re-established the Worship of God, and the Observation of the Law in its Purity: For he declaims against the Idolatry and Vices of the Jews; foretells their Destruction, and the taking of Jerusalem, and according to the Custom of the Prophets, comforts them at last, by promising them a Re-establishment, and an Happiness which was not perfectly accomplished till the Coming of the messiah. The Style of this Prophet is like Jeremiah's, of whom he seems to be the Abbreviator, as St. Isidorus observes.  
HAGGAI, and the two following Prophets, Prophesied not till after the Return of the Jews from the Captivity of Babylon. It is said in the beginning of Haggai's prophesy, That in the second year of Darius,( that is, the Son of Hystaspes 
That is, the Son of Hystaspes.] This is the Opinion of Josephus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Jerom and Theodoret. Scaliger thinks, That it was Darius Nothus, because, Ezr. 4.6, 7. mention is made of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes his Predecessors, whom he takes to be Xerxes and Artaxerxes Longimanus. But it is easy to answer him, by saying, That these Names are given in Scripture to all the Kings of Persia; and that by them we may understand Cyrus and Cambyses, the Predecessors of Darius the Son of Hystaspes, or Cambyses, and the false Smerdis, or even Cambyses himself only, to whom the Scripture gives two Names. Scaliger's other Argument is stronger; He says, That Zechariah and Haggai prophesied at the same time: That Zechariah, Chap. 1. Ver. 12. and Ch. 7. Ver. 5. testifies, That when he wrote, the People of Israel had been seventy years in Affliction, and that God was Angry with them. Now the 2d year of Darius the Son of Histaspes, is not the 70th year of the Captivity. To this 'tis answered, That the Prophet Zechariah does not say, that it was 70 years since the People of Israel were in Captivity, neither that they were then in Captivity; but only says in general, that they had been in Affliction, and that God had poured down his Indignation upon them for the space of threescore and ten years, which ought to be understood of the 70 years Captivity, tho' it was already past. The Hebrew and Greek Phrase of this Passage denotes no more the present time, than the past. One very convincing Argument, to prove, that Haggai wrote in the days of Darius the Son of Histaspes, is this, That speaking of the Second Temple, Ch. 2. Ver. 3. he says, That there were some Persons present, who had seen the first Temple, Who is left among you that saw this House in her first Glory? Now if this had been Written under Darius Nothus, these Persons ought to have been 176 years old, or thereabouts: And consequently Ezrah should have been 100 years old, Zerubbabel and Joshua 140, for so great a space of time there is from the first year of Cyrus to the time of Darius Nothus. ) in the sixth Month in the first day of the Month, came the Word of the Lord by Haggai the Prophet unto Zerubbabel the Son of Shealtiel Governor of Judah, and to Joshua the Son of Josedech the High-Priest; whereby he reproves the Jews for having delayed the Re-building of the Temple; and tells them, that this their Negligence was the Cause of the Famine they then suffered. Zerubbabel, Joshua, and all the People hearkened to the Advice of Haggai, and the 24th day of the same Month the Work was begun. The 21th day of the Seventh Month, Haggai  told the People from the Lord, That tho' the Building which they made, was not so Magnificent as that of the first Temple, yet it should have a greater Glory, because it should be honoured with the Coming of Him who was the Desire of the Nations, that is, the messiah( a very clear Prediction of Jesus Christ.). The 24th of the Ninth Month he declares to them, That God had changed their Scarcity into Plenty, from the day that they had laid the Foundations of the Temple; and assures Zerubbabel of the Divine Protection. The prophesy of Haggai is clear and Historical.  
ZECHARIAH the Son of Barachiah, Grandson of Iddo 
Grandson of Iddo.] In Ezrah he is called the Son of Iddo; in the Septuagint, and in St. Jerom's Version, the Son of Barachiah, the Son of Iddo. St. Jerom believes, That he was the Natural Son of Barachiah, and the Son of Iddo by Imitation: Others say, That he was the Son of the latter, according to the Law, but 'tis more probable, that he was his Grandson, as is observed in our Vulgar Translation. St. Jerom is mistaken in making this Iddo the same Person with him, who was sent to Jerusalem in the days of Jeroboam, since there were 240 years between Jeroboam and Darius, a time too long to be allowed between Grandfather and Grandson. , began his prophesy the same year of Darius, in the Eighth Month, as himself has observed in the beginning, and continued it to the fourth year of the same Prince, to the 4th day of the Ninth Month. He is a different Person from that Zechariah, mentioned by Isaiah, Ch. 8. 
He is a different Person from that Zechariah, mentioned by Isaiah, &c.] Chronology shows, That this was not the Prophet, no more than he, who is mentioned in the Chronicles, and who died in the time of Joash. He whose prophesy we have, is the Son of Barachiah, but the Person killed in the time of Joash, was the Son of Jehoiada. That which causes the Difficulty, is, Jesus Christ's saying, Matth. 23. That Zechariah the Son of Barachiah was slain between the Temple and the Altar, which agrees with what is related in the Chronicles concerning Zechariah the Son of Jehoiada. This induced St. Jerom to believe, That he was the Person meant by Jesus Christ, and that we ought to red, as 'tis in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Son of Jehoiada, and not of Barachiah. Origen on the contrary, and several others, understand it of the Prophet, who they say was killed after the same manner, and they have the Text of the Gospel on their side, which imports, That he who was killed between the Temple and the Altar, was the Son of Barachiah. It cannot be said that the Evangelist is mistaken; and there is no reason to pretend that there is any fault in the Text of this Place. Secondly, Zechariah the Son of Jehoiada, was not killed between the Temple and the Altar, but in the Court of the Temple. Notwithstanding all this, the instance of Zechariah the Son of Jehoiada, agrees so exactly with what Jesus Christ says, that one can hardly doubt but this is the History he speaks of. This Zechariah, when he died, said, The Lord look upon it, and require it: 'tis to these Words that the saying of our Saviour has a Reference. We do not meet with the History of any other Righteous Person named Zechariah, that was put to Death before Jesus Christ for the sake of Religion, and Jesus Christ doubtless speaks of an History that was known and related in the Books of the Jews, as well as that of the murder of Abel. We no where red that the Prophet Zechariah was slain after this manner: Neither the Scripture, nor any Ancient Writer mentions it: Therefore there is no probability that he was the Person that Jesus Christ intended to speak of. Some are of Opinion, That Jesus Christ spake this Prophetically of Zechariah the Son of Baruch, a righteous Man, who was slain in the Temple a little before the Siege of Jerusalem, as Josephus relates it in his Book concerning the War of the Jews. This Opinion has something of Probability in it; but it appears, That Jesus Christ speaks of the time past, and of a Man who had been killed formerly, {αβγδ}, whom he slay, that is, whom the Jews had slain. It seems therefore, as if the first Opinion were the most probable, and the Reasons urged to the contrary are not unanswerable. The second Objection is not conclusive: For whereas the Name of Temple was given to all that Area which was enclosed with Walls, wherein was contained the first part name Atrium, the Court, where the Altar of Whole-Burnt-Offerings was, one may well say of a Person slain in this place, and perhaps between the Altar and the Inner-Porch of the Temple, that he was killed between the Temple and the Altar. The first Objection only, is that which causes the greatest Difficulty, and it cannot be solved unless by answering with St. Jerom, That Jehoiada ought to be red for Barachiah, or by saying that this Jehoiada had two Names. : and from him who was slain by the Command of King Joash, between the Temple and the Altar, as is related, 2 Chron. 24.20. He exhorts the Jews in his prophesy to rebuild the Temple, and advices them not to imitate the Idolatry, the Sins, and the Disobedience of their Fathers. He assures them of the Favour and Protection of God, foretells the Judgments that should befall the other Nations, and the Blessings that should be showered down upon the People of God when the Messiah should come. All this was revealed to him by Visions, and described by Types and Figures which he relates and explains.  
MALACHI, whose Name sighifies, My Angel 
Malachi, whose Name signifies My Angel.] This has made Origen and Tertullian to believe, That he was an Angel Incarnate. He is called an Angel by most of the Fathers, and in the Version of the Septuagint, but he was an Angel by Office not by Nature, as he himself styles the Priests, Angels. Some, as for instance, Jonathan, the Chaldea Paraphrast, St. Jerom, and several Jews believed, That it was an Appellative Name which Ezrah assumed, and that he was the Author of this Book; but this Opinion is founded upon very weak Conjectures; and besides Ezrah is no where in Scripture called a Prophet. St. Jerom proves his Opinion, First, Because Malachi and Ezrah were Contemporary: Secondly, Because what we find in Malachi is very like to what is in Ezrah: And lastly, Because Ch. 2. V. 7. he seems to aim at Ezrah by these Words, Verba Sacerdotis custodiunt Scientiam, &c. But these Conjectures are light and frivolous. For the first only proves, That Malachi and Ezrah lived at the same time, not that they were one and the same: The second is not true, and if it were, it would prove just nothing. The Words alleged in the third ought to be understood of Levi, and all the Priests of the Law. St. Jerom adds, That in Ecclesiasticus, Ch. 49. where mention is made of all the Prophets, the Name of Malachi is not to be found. To this 'tis answered, That we ought not to be surprised, because he is not name there, since in the same place there is no mention made of Daniel, and several others. , Prophesied since Haggai and Zechariah, after the Rebuilding of the Temple: For the two first exhorted the People to build the Temple; but he exhorts them to observe the Law, and to offer their Sacrisices with Purity; which supposes, that the Temple was already rebuilt. Beside, the Disorders which he reproves are the same for which Nchemiah upbraided the Jews, which shows that they were Contemporary. Malachi is the last of the Prophets, and since there was none to come after him till, Jesus Christ's appearing, he concludes his prophesy with Exhorting the Jews to observe the Law of Moses, and to wait for the great and dreadful day of the Lord; Who should turn the Hearts of the Fathers to the Children, and the Hearts of the Children to the Fathers: which Passage clearly denotes St. John Baptist and Jesus Christ.   

SECT. XXIII. Of the Books of the Maccabees.  
THE Books of the Maccabees are so called from Judas the Son of Mattathias, sur name Maccabeus, either on the Account of his Valour, or because he put on his Standard the first Letters of a Sentence in Exodus, which joined together form the Name of Maccabee 
Which joined together form the Name of Maccabee.] Some derive it from Hebrew Words, signifying [ by me a Wound is given;] or, [ a Murderer.] But the most common Opinion is, that it is derived from the first Letters of Exod. 15. v. 12. Mi Camoca Be Elim Jehova. Who among the Gods is like unto the Lord? Which they say Judas put in his Ensigns. But this is not very certain, for Judas and all the Children of Mattathias, had their Surnames before they undertook any thing, as appears by 1 Mac. Chap. 2. Neither is it certain that this Device was on Judas's Colours. . The Hebrews call them also, the Books of the Assamoneans, from the Name of the Family of Mattathias 
From the Name of the Family of Mattathias.] The Hebrews call him and his Descendants Hasmoneans, or Assamoneans; but why, is not known. Josephus and Eusebius think he was the Son of Hasmoneus; and, it's probable, 'twas the Name of their Family. The word Hasmoneans is found in the Psalms, where it signifies Great Lords. Perhaps it's an Appellative, and was used as the proper Name of that Family. Origen, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Lib. 6. cap. 25. says those Books were entitled in Syriac, Sarbet Saborne— El. Which some translate, The Scourge of the Rebels against the Lord: And others, The sceptre of the Princes of the Children of God.  and his Children, whose History those Books contain.  
The two Books of Maccabees are not writ by the same Author, as the difference in Style, Chronology, and Matter of Fact makes Evident 
As the Difference in Style, &c. makes Evident.] The first is in Hebrew, the latter in Greek; the latter begins his History higher than the former: The one follows the Jewish Aera; the other, that of Alexandria, which begins 6 Months after. The Phrase of the first is Hebrew, that of the second is not so. . The Author of the first is not certainly known; some think it to be one of the Maccabees themselves; some say 'twas John Hircanus, the Son of Simon; and divers think it to be the Work of the great Synagogue. All that can be said of any certainty concerning it is, that the Author of the Book is an Hebrew, who wrote during the Priesthood of John Hircanus. St. Jerom saw an Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic Copy of this Book. We have only the Greek, and from thence our Vulgar Translation. The Syriac in the Polyglots is of a later Date, tho' it differs from the Greek Text in some places.  
The Author of the Second is a graecian, as appears by the Style. It is an abridgement of the History of Jason or Jesus, one of the Jews of Cyrenais, which he had wrote in Five Books; as appears by the Preface of that Book, which begins at Verse 20 Chap. 2. It is preceded by two Letters from the Jews of Jerusalem, to the Jews of Egypt, added by the Author of the abridgement. It's thought also he added the two last Chapters, because Jason only wrote what passed in the Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, and of his Son Eupator, Kings of Syria; as is observed, Chap. 2 Ver. 21. And that those two Chapters contain things which passed in the Reign of Demetrius, who succeeded Eupator. But what is said in this Place, of the Extent of the History of Jason, is not so precise, but it may be extended beyond the Reign of Eupator. However that be, the Author of this abridgement hath not abridged Jason exactly; sometimes he Copies him, sometimes he Abridges him, oftentimes he passes from one Narration to another, and does not relate Matters of Fact in their due Order.  
These two Books contain the History of the Jews, for 45 Years, or thereabouts, from the End of the Reign of Seleucus Philopator, to the End of that of Antiochus Soter, first brought under subjection to the Kings of Syria, and afterwards restored to their Liberty, and governed successively by Judas Maccabeus and his two Brethren, Jonathan and Simon, chosen High-Priests and Princes of the Jews.    

CHAP. IV. Of the Hebrew Text of the Books of the Old Testament.  

SECT. I. Of the Origin and Division of Languages. What was the first Language in the World. Whence the Name Hebrew is derived.  
BEing to Treat of the Ancientest Book in the World, it is proper to inquire into the Origin of Speech; whereof Writing is only the Expression. Speech is the Interpreter of Mens Thoughts, or the Art by which they make others to understand their Meaning by Arbitrary Signs. This Property belongs only to Man, and is an effect and evident Proof of his Thinking. For no other Creature but Man hath invented Arbitrary Signs to express his Thoughts, which for the most part have no Affinity to his Sensations or Passions. The Beasts have Natural Signs to express their Grief, Hunger and Thirst; that is to say, certain Dispositions in their Body, by certain Motions, which are the Effect of their Machine. But there is no sort of Beasts that makes use of Arbitrary Signs and Rules to express Things independent on the Machine of their Body. There are no Beasts that converse with other Beasts( either by means of the Voice or other Signs) upon things that don't affect their Senses. They may indeed by force of Blows, by making much of them, or by giving them Victuals, make them contract a habit of certain Motions, and of forming particular Cries; which look like Arbitrary and free Signs, to those that know not the Cause and Origin of them. But that Beasts do naturally form a Language amongst themselves, or Invent Signs to express things, which have no relation to the Motions within themselves, is what the Experience of all Ages teaches us to be impossible. Whereas Man no sooner comes to the use of Reason, but he searches for and invents means of expressing his Thoughts; and those also upon things which do no ways relate to his Sensations or Passions. If he can't do it by Voice, he does it by other Signs; as appears by those who are born Deaf and Dumb, and express themselves by Signs as others do by the Voice.  
It is true nevertheless, That of all the Arbitrary Signs, that can be made use of by Men to communicate their Thoughts to one another, there's none more Commodious than the Voice, which, by its different Articulations, furnishes an infinite number of different Words; to each of which Men fix such an Idea as they please; wherein being once agreed, they may by means thereof communicate all the Thoughts that come into their Mind. Man is by Nature provided with Organs, proper to form an Articulate Voice; a thing peculiar to himself, and which none of the other Creatures enjoy to that degree of Perfection. Having this aptitude to speak, it is easy to conceive, that he might by degrees form divers Words, join a particular Idea to them, accustom himself thereunto, make them known to others, and so establish an uniform Language to express his Thoughts. It is moreover easy to conceive, that as the relation there is betwixt certain Words, that is to say, a certain Articulation of the Voice, and the things which we would express are purely Arbitrary, they may be changed at different Times, in different Places, and by different Persons. Nay, it is very hard to prevent changes in living Languages, by the variety of Mens Wits and Inclinations; the different occasions of expressing ourselves; the different turns of Thought; the forgetting of old Words; and the easiness which is found in one Expression beyond what is found in another; by new things, upon which we must explain ourselves; by Strangers who intermix with the natural Inhabitants of a Country; and abundance of other Causes. Hence it comes to pass, that we are so far from having any just Cause to wonder, that Languages are not always the same; that on the contrary, 'tis almost impossible they should continue long in the same Condition. This might serve to give us an Account of the Origin of the divesity of Tongues, though the Holy Scriptures had taught us nothing more on that Subject.  
But as it is to them we owe the Knowledge of our Original, it is also from thence that we ought to learn the Origin and Division of Languages. Now the Scripture informs us, that God having created the first Man, which it calls Adam, and formed out of the Earth all the Beasts of the Field, and the Birds of the Air, he made them to pass before Adam, that he might give them Names; that Adam named them, and that the Name which he gave to each was its Name. The same Scriputre relates to us, That God made use of a Voice to forbid our Parents the eating of the three of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It also represents to us the Devil, tempting the Woman by his Discourse; the Woman, answering him and seducing her Husband; God speaking to Adam and upbrading him, and Adam and Eve endeavouring to excuse themselves. All this supposes that Adam and Eve were created with a Language. For Adam gave Names to the Creatures immediately after his Creation, and before the Woman was made. If he had been Dumb, if he had not then known any Language, how could he immediately give Names to the Creatures, and such Names too as have continued with them? How could Adam and Eve when newly created have understood what God said to them by Articulate Sounds, understand one another mutually and converse together as soon as placed in the Terrestrial paradise? There must be time to agree on Signs, by which we express our Thoughts, time to retain those Sings,& to adapt them to all the things whereof we speak. All this could not be done of a sudden, but gradually, and demands a considerable time. But that which we have reported happened soon after the Creation: And, moreover, what reason is there to think that God, who had created Man perfect, created him without Speech, which is his principal Ornament, and that he would have placed Adam and Eve in the Terrestrial paradise, in a Place of Delight, Pleasure and Satiffaction, without being able to converse together, but after a great deal of Labour and Trouble? It is then much more likely( tho' St. Gregory Nyssene seems to be of the contrary Opinion) that Adam and Eve had the Gift of Speech by Infusion, from the Moment of their Creation, than to imagine that they were only created with Organs proper to form Words, and that in time they formed a Language to themselves.  
This being supposed, there's no great Difficulty in explaining how the Posterity of Adam and Eve learned and preserved that Language. Daily Experience shows us, how Infants learn to speak from their Parents, Nurses and those about them. Nor is it any greater wonder, that all Mankind inhabiting still one Corner of the World, having Commerce together, and living also many Ages, that this Language should be preserved among them without any considerable Change till the Deluge. But granting there had been any other, all Men being destroyed by the Deluge, except Noah and his Family, the Language of that Patriarch was the only Language that subsisted, and easily preserved itself among his Descendants, so long as they continued together in that same Country. But, when before their dispersion, they undertook the building of a City and Tower, whose Top might reach to Heaven, the Lord being willing to put a stop to that rash enterprise, sent a Confusion amongst them by changing their Language; so that not understanding one another, they could not continue that great Work, and were obliged to separate before they had finished it. Behold in what manner Moses gives us an Account of this great Event, Gen. 11. There was then( from the Deluge to the Division of Nations) but one Language in the Earth. And as they journey'd from the East, they found a Plain in the Land of Shinar, and dwelled there, and said one to another, Go to, let us make Brick, and burn them. And they had Brick for ston, and Lime for Mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build a City, and a Tower, whose top may reach unto Heaven, and let us make our Name famous, before we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole Earth. And the Lord came down to see the City, and the Tower, which the Children of Men built. And the Lord said, Behold, the People is one, and they have all one Language, and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confounded their Language, that they may not understand one anothers Speech. So the Lord scottered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the Earth; and they left off to build the City. Therefore is the Name of it called Babel, because the Lord did there confounded the Language of all the Earth: And from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the Earth.  
It is not without Reason, that I give this Narrative at large; because there are modern Authors( such as Monsieur Simon and Monsieur Le Clerk) who have dared to advance, That God is not the Author of the Diversity of Tongues, but only of the Confusion and Dissension; which taking place amongst Men, was the cause of their dispersion: From whence comes the change and diversity of Languages. But whatever these Authors say, 'tis very difficult to find that to be the Sense of Moses's Words, which give us to understand naturally, that it was not the Dissension and Division of Men that occasioned the difference of their Language: But, on the contrary, the difference of the Language which God sent among them, was the cause, that not being able to understand one another, nor to work by Concert together, they abandoned their Design and separated from one another.  
The Scripture does not tell us precisely the time of that Division, but says only that it happened in the time of Phaleg, to whom that Name which signifies Division was given, because the Earth was divided in his time; as appears by Gen. 10.25. Heber had two Sons, and one of them was called Phaleg, because the Earth was divided in his time. But the Scripture does not inform us, whether that happened at the time of his Birth, towards that of his Death, or in the middle of his Life; which makes a considerable difference. Phaleg having lived 239 Years, the Text seems to suppose that the Division happened at the time of his Birth, because it is then that Men have their Names given them, and that his was given on occasion of this Event. If he was called by the Name of Phaleg, which signifies Division, as the Scripture says expressly, because the Earth was divided in his time, it was then divided at the time when this Name was given him. If it be so, this Division must be made 100 Years, or thereabouts, after the Deluge, according to the chronology of the Hebrew Text. But this space of Time seems too short for that Multiplication in Number, to which 'tis supposed Mankind was then arrived; therefore the Jews believe that it was at Phaleg's Death this Division happened, and say, That Heber called him so by a Spirit of prophesy. But on the other hand, they don't allow time enough betwixt that Division and Abraham's Journey to the Land of Canaan, for that prodigious multiplication of Abraham's Descendants in the Land of Canaan and Egypt, there being only fourscore Years betwixt the Death of Phaleg and the Passage of Abraham into the Land of Canaan. The Division of the People might be more commodiously placed in the middle of Phaleg's Life, 200 Years, or thereabouts, after the Deluge. If we follow the chronology of the Greek or Samaritan Text, it were easy to remove this Difficulty entirely, because, according to the first, there are 541 Years betwixt the Deluge and the Birth of Phaleg; and according to the latter 411 Years. In fine, if we keep to the Hebrew Text, and say, That the Undertaking of the Tower of Babylon, and the Division of the Nations, happened at the Birth of Phaleg, that is about 100 Years after the Deluge, we may very well suppose, that in the time of a Century the Number of Men might be multiplied enough to undertake this enterprise, and to divide themselves into different Colonies for Peopling the Earth.  
We have the same difficulty to find out into how many Languages Men were divided. The rabbis count 70, because the Hebrew Text reckons so many of Noah's Descendants; that is, 14 from Japhet, 30 from Cham, and 26 from Sem, of whom it is said, These are the Heads of the People, and of the Nations, who divided the Earth after the Flood. According to the Greek Text, we must add two Persons, and by consequence two Languages to the Number. But we cannot infer from the Number of Noah's Posterity, contained in that genealogy, the Number of different Languages; for divers of those mentioned in that Catalogue might have preserved the same Language, as 'tis certain in the Children of Canaan, who make several of the Heads enumerated in that genealogy, whose Posterity nevertheless, had only one Language, viz. The Canaanitish Tongue, which was common to all the Inhabitants of Palestina, before the Israelites were possessed of it.  
It is not necessary to think, that this diversity of Tongues was as great at first as it was afterward, and that the different People had Languages altogether differing, so that they had nothing wherein they agreed in common; that the ancient Language was entirely abolished, and that God inspired Men with Languages altogether new. It is much more reasonable to believe, that God divided and diversified the same Tongue into different Dialects; but so, however, that they could not easily understand one another. This is what is properly meant by those Terms of Scripture. Let us confounded their Language: In this place Ged confounded the Language of all the Earth. These Terms signify nothing but the change of the same Language into different Dialects. There's therefore a great probability, that there was much less difference amongst the People in the World at the beginning, than there is at present; since process of Time does necessary occasion a change in all Languages: Besides, we see the most ancient Languages of the Eastern People, which are nearest the Tower of Babel, Hebrews, Chaldeans, Arabs, Syrians and phoenicians, or Canaanites, have still more Conformity to one another than others, and that they are nothing almost but the Dialects of the same Language. A Learned Man of our own Time pretends to prove the same thing of the Greek and Latin; nay, even of the Saxon, Teutonick, Celtique, British, and all others; whose Words he derives from the Hebrew. But without entering upon that Question, or upon the Particulars of those Proofs in regard of the said Languages, in the state wherein they were for divers Ages after the division of Languages, we may rest assured of it as a thing altogether likely, that at the beginning there was not so great a difference in the Language of Noah's Descendants, who divided themselves into different Colonies to People the Earth.  
Let us come now to that famous Question: Which was the first Language of the World? We have already observed, that the long Lives of the patriarches contributed much to preserve Adam's Language in the same state; for the same Man does not ordinarily change his Language during his Life, but retains that which he learned at first: So that living for divers Ages, he preserves and teaches the same to others: the necessity they are under of conversing with him, and the easiness they find to learn it of him, occasion that they make no change therein. Adam, for Example, having lived 930 Years, and Noah being 630 Years old when the Deluge happened, in the Year of the World 1656. The latter was born some Years after the death of the former, and conversed for 600 Years with many of those that had conversed with Adam and Eve for some hundreds of Years. It is then in a manner necessary that they understood and spoken Adam's Language. Noah's Children, born before the Deluge, did without all doubt speak the Language of their Father, and preserved it until the Division of the People and their Languages. The Question is, If that first Tongue subsisted amongst any of them in its Purity, when this Division happened; or, if it was corrupted and degenerate in Dialect? This is what the Scripture says nothing of. We must own, it is difficult enough to conceive, that Noah and his Children entirely forgot their natural Language, and that none amongst them preserved it. Nevertheless, it seems probable enough, That in the Division of Tongues, the Primitive Tongue was changed into different Dialects, without being preserved in its Purity by any of Noah's Posterity. However that is, they demand, What was the most ancient Language? The Jews and some Christians have easily persuaded themselves that it was the Hebrew 
Persuaded themselves that it was the Hebrew.] It is the Sentiment of Origen, Homil. 11. on Numbers, where he says, That the Augels having formed different Languages, that of Adam, which he supposes to have been the Hebrew, was preserved amongst those who belonged to God. S. Chrysostom, Homil. 3. on Genesis, says, Heber preserved the Language he had before. St. Augustin mentions this as certain, Lib. 16. De Civit. Dei, cap. 11. St. Jerom Comment on Zephan. 3. says, The Hebrew Tongue is the most Ancient, and the Mother of all Languages. But Theodoret says, The Syriack or Chaldee is the most Ancient. St. Gregory of Nyssen, Lib. 12. against Eunomius says, That divers learned Men look upon the Hebrew Tongue to be new, and that it had its Original when the Children of Israel came out of Egypt. Amongst Modern Authors Serarius, Bonfrerius, Buxtorf, Walton, and Father Thomassin are of the former Opinion; and Grotius, Huetius and le clear of the latter. : Others give the pference to the Chaldee. The first say, That the Language which Noah received from Adam was preserved without change in the Family of Sem and Heber; from whom they believe it derived its Name; that Abraham received it from his Father Thara or Terah, the Descendant of Heber, and that it was conveyed from them to the Israelites called Hebrews, because they spoken the same Language with Heber. Others say, That the most ancient Language was that spoken in Mesopotamia beyond Euphrates; that is to say, the Chaldee, spoken by Abraham, who was bread in the City of Ur of the Chaldees, and spent part of his Days in Mesopotamia; that having afterwards changed his Habitation, and crossed the Euphrates to enter into the Land of Canaan, he was called Hebraeus by those People; a Term derived from the Name Heber, which signifies from beyond, because he came from beyond the Euphrates; that here he learned the Canaanitish Language, which was that of his Son Isaac, his Grand-Son Jacob and his Posterity; that is to say, the Hebrew Tongue.  
The former allege in Proof of their Sentiments many Etymologies of the Names of the first patriarches, which the Author of Genesis derives from the Hebrew. It is said, Chap. 2. Ver. 7. God formed Adam of the Dust of the Earth, by way of Allusion to the word Adamah, which signifies Earth in Hebrew. This Allusion is not found in the Chaldee. It it said, Chap. 3. ver. 20. That Adam called his Wife Eve, because she was the Mother of all living. The word Chai, whence that of Chavah is derived, is Hebrew. There is no such Allusion in the Chaldee. Chap. 2. ver. 23. It is said the Woman is called Isca from the word Eisch, which signifies Man. This Paronomasia is not found in any other Language. Chap. 4. ver. 1. The Name of Cain is derived from a Hebrew word signifying Possession, or Acquisition. In the same Chapter, ver. 25. that of Seth comes from the Hebrew Verb Schath, which signifies to substitute. Gen. 10. ver. 25. Phaleg comes from the Hebrew Palag, signifying to Divide. That of Babel, from the Hebrew Balal, signifying Confusion. Eden, the Name of the Terrestrial Paradise, signifies in Hebrew, Delight, Pleasure. Those Derivations and Allusions have no place but in the Hebrew Tongue; whence it follows, that we must necessary suppose that this Language was in use in the time of the patriarches, and that they spoken it, because their proper Names are derived from it.  
They allege further, to prove the Antiquity of the Hebrew Tongue, That the most ancient People derived their Names from it, as St. Jerom proves in his Book of Hebrew Names. The Assyrians come from Assur, the Aramians from Aram, the Lydians from lord, the Medes from Madai, the jonians from Javan: Nay, even the Names of the false Gods are, for the most part, taken from the Hebrew; as that of Saturn from Satar, which signifies to hid ones self; Jupiter from Jehova, Belus from Baal; and, as some say, Vulcan from Tubal-Cain; that of Japetus, the Father of Prometheus, from Japhet, the Son of Noah; and that of Ceres from Geres, which in Hebrew signifies the Fruits of the Earth. It is moreover alleged, That not only the Oriental Tongues, but likewise all the rest are derived from it. To this may be added, That the Hebrew Tongue is the most pure, the most simplo; and, according to some others, the most perfect Language.  
The greatest part of those, who on the other hand maintain the Antiquity of the Chaldee Tongue, answer to the first Argument, which is the chief and only one that can be of any weight, That Moses changed the ancient Names into Hebrew Names of the same signification; and bring divers Examples of this Custom from Greek and Latin Authors, and even from the Interpreters of the Scriptures. Thus it is that Aquila, to imitate the Allusion which is in the Name of Man and Woman in the Hebrew, made use of the Terms of {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}. The Author of the Vulgar Translation hath also imitated it, by translating the Hebrew Term into Virago, derived from the word Vir. Thus likewise the Evangelists changed the Name of Cephas into that of Petrus, to preserve the signification of the Syriack word Cephas, and the Allusion to Petra. It is said in Genesis, that Pharaoh's Daughter gave Moses that Name, because she drew him out of the Water. This Name must needs have been changed, for 'tis in Hebrew, that Moses signifies drawn out of the Water. And the Name Pharaoh's Daughter gave him, must have been an Egyptian Name of the same signification. The Authors of the Septuagint Translation, have in the same manner translated into Greek the Name of Babel by the word {αβγδ}, which signifies Confusion; as Babel does in Hebrew. And Alexander Polyhistor, that of Isaac into Cheerful, according to the signification of the Hebrew word. And other Greeks have translated that of Esau or Edom, which signifies read, by that of Erythrean, which has the same signification in Greek. There's an infinite Number of those sort of changes in all Authors. The Name of Adam, which is not a proper Name, but the appellative Name of Man, which was given to the first Man by way of Excellence, might have been changed without any difficulty, and the ancient Name, as well as that of Adam, might have been derived from the Term which signifies the Earth, as the Latin word Homo is derived from the word humus, which signifies the same thing. It is not likely, however, that Moses did entirely change the Names of the patriarches, nor is it necessary to have recourse to that Solution. 1. Because the greatest part of the Names might have the same derivation in the Chaldee; that is to say, the words Eve, Cain, Phaleg and Babel. 2. Because there are some of them which it's difficult enough to derive from the Hebrew Tongue, as that of Noah, in the Sense which the Author of Genesis puts upon it; that is to say, in the deriving it from the Verb, which signifies to Comfort; for that Verb is in Hebrew Jenhhmenou; whence, according to the analogy of the Tongue, we must form Nohhem, and not Noah. The Name of Cain would also be more naturally derived from Koun, which signifies to lament, than from Kana, which signifies to purchase. Nor do we find in the Hebrew, the etymology of the Name of Tubal-Cain, which is found in the arabic, where the words Tubalon and Kunaon signify a Plate of Brass and Iron: To which signification the Author of Genesis does plainly allude. Which shows that we cannot lay any great stress upon those sorts of Allusions and Etymologies.  
But admitting we should insist upon that Proof, it would only show that some words of the ancient Language were preserved in the Hebrew Tongue. But it would not prove that 'twas precisely the same Language in its Purity, and without any change of Dialect. The other Proofs are still more weak. Most of the Derivations alleged being arbitrary or uncertain; and tho' some of them might pass for true, they would only let us see that the Greeks and other Nations, took several things from the Hebrew Books; which is a Truth that every one is agreed in, and signifies nothing to the Matter in hand. The pretended Simplicity of the Hebrew Tongue, is not so well proved as is imagined; and besides, the Simplicity of a Tongue is not always an Evidence of its Antiquity. It is true, that the Chaldee, Phenician, Arabian Tongues, &c. have a great deal of Conformity with the Hebrew Tongue, but that does not prove them to be derived from it: It only shows that they may be Dialects of one and the same Tongue: And why may not the Hebrew be so too?  
We have no Proof, that this First and Mother Tongue did rather continue without change in the Family of Heber than in other Families that descended from Noah. On the contrary, it is certain, that the Descendants of Heber, the Ancestors of Abraham dwelled in Chaldea, and that they did not preserve the worship of the true God, as appears by Josh. 24. ver. 2. where God speaking to the Israelites says, That their Fathers dwelled on the other side of the Flood, in old Times, even Terah the Father of Abraham, and Nachor the Father of Terah, and they served other Gods. The Family of Heber did not make a separate People, they dwelled in Mesopotamia among the Chaldeans, and as they were of their Religion, without doubt they spoken also their Language. Abraham having lived near 70 Years in Ur of the Chaldees, and in Charran in Mesopotamia, did, questionless, speak the Language of the Country. It is easy to prove that the Chaldee is different from the Hebrew Tongue, which Abraham, without all doubt, learned in Canaan, and which became proper to Jacob and his Posterity. We have a convincing Proof of this difference in Gen. 31.47. where Laban of the Family of Heber, who remained in Chaldea, and had preserved the Language of his Ancestors, gave the Name of Jagar Sabadutha to the Heap of Stones which they gathered together, whereas Jacob called it Galaad, both of 'em signifying the same thing, viz. That the Heap of Stones was a Monument or Testimony of the Covenant which they entered into there. It is then evident, That in those Days the Chaldee Tongue which Nachor and Terah had spoken, and which Laban still spoken, because he resided in Mesopotamia, was different from that which Jacob spoken, which was the Hebrew. It is also certain, That in the Ages following, the Aramick, Chaldee or Assyrian Tongue was different from that which the Hebrews spoken, and that the common People of the Jews did not understand the Chaldee. For Example, when Rabshekah, the Assyrian General, would have excited the People to a Rebellion, he spoken Hebrew to King Hezekiah's Deputies, that the People might understand it: They prayed him to speak in the Aramick or Syrian Language, for they understood it, and not to speak in the Jewish Tongue, which the People upon the Wall did understand, 2 Kings 18.26. Jeremy Prophesying the ruin of the Jews by the Chaldeans says, Chap. 5. ver. 15. God would bring a Nation upon them from far, a mighty, ancient People, whose Language they knew not, neither did they understand. It is also of the Chaldeans that Isaiah speaks, when he says, Isai. 28.11. That he would speak to this People with another Tongue. So does the Prophet Baruch when he threatens the Israelites, That God will bring against them, a People from far, a wicked People, and of another Language, Baruch 4. ver. 15. When the Israelites were carried away into Babylon, they found the Language of the Country different from their own, so that nabuchadnezzar was obliged to instruct the young Israelites, which he had at his Court, in the Learning and Language of the Chaldeans. The Chaldee Characters were different from the ancient Hebrew Characters, as we shall make it evident in the sequel: Therefore none of the Chaldeans could red or understand those words, mean Tekel Perez, writ in Hebrew, which Daniel red and explained immediately. We have then already proved two things; First, That the Language of Heber's Family, which was spoken by Terah, Nachor and Abraham before he went out of Chaldee, was the Chaldee Tongue. 2dly, That that Language hath always been different from the Hebrew. A third Thing we have to prove is, That the Hebrew Tongue, which is that that Abraham learned when he went out of his Country, which his Posterity have preserved, and which is certainly the Hebrew, is the Canaanitish or Phenician Tongue, which those spoken who inhabited the Land of Canaan, betwixt Jordan and the Mediterranean. Tho' we had no other Proof to show it, than the abode which he made in that Country, which he looked upon then as ascertained to him for his Heritage, and the Place of Residence for his Posterity by the Promises of God. If we had no other Proof, I say, this alone might be sufficient to convince all those who judge equitably: For what other Language should Abraham learn, but that of the Country whither he retired to inhabit? The necessity of conversing with the Canaanites, did not that oblige him to learn their Language, and to neglect or to forget( if we may so say) his own natural Language? He spent 100 Years in that Country, made Alliances with the Inhabitants, had a great Commerce with them, acquired Riches, married Wives, and settled his Children there, and was assured by the Word of God himself, that the Country should be given to his Posterity. Is it possible then that he should not have learned the Language of the Country? Can any one think that Isaac and Jacob, who continued to dwell there, did not retain that Language? But it is easy to bring convincing Proofs for this Conjecture. The first is taken from the Testimony of the Prophet Isaiah, who calls the Hebrew Tongue, The Language of Canaan, Chap. 19. ver. 18. The Second is taken from the Names of Places and Men in the Land of Canaan 
Names of Places and Men in the Land of Canaan.] For Example, The Names of the following Towns, Jericho, Salem, Sichem, Bethlehem, Segor, Kirjath-Arba, Kirjath-Sepher, &c. which were certainly the ancient Names of those Towns, at the time when the Canaanites possessed them, are Hebrew Names, and derived from the Hebrew. The Name Beersheba, which both Abraham and Abimelech gave to the Place where they contracted an Alliance together, is an Hebrew word. But it is to be observed, That it is not the same as to the Denomination which Jacob and Laban gave to the Heap of Stones, upon which they contracted an Alliance. Jacob and Laban gave it different Names, but signifying the same thing, because they spoken two different Languages: But here Abraham and Abimelech agree on the same Name, to signify the same thing, therefore they spoken the same Language. It is certain, that Kirjath-Sepher is the ancient Name of that City, as well as that of Kirjath-Arba, seeing that is observed by the Author of the Book of Joshua, Chap. 15. and in Judges, Ch. 1. Now the words Kirjath and Sepher are certainly Hebrew. The proper Names of Melchisedeck, Adonibezek, Abimelech, &c. are Hebrew, not only in their Termination, but in their Root. , whereof mention is made in Genesis and Joshua. All those Names are Hebrew; nor is it observed that they were changed, excepting a very few. The Third may be inferred from hence, That it is no where observed in Scripture, that the Israelites and Canaanites had different Languages, and did not understand one another, as it is observed of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. The Scripture speaks often of the Conferences of the Canaanites with Abraham and his Posterity, and always as if they understood one another; nor is it ever said, that they made use of Interpreters. The Fourth is founded on the History of Joseph and his Brethren. It is said, That Joseph, not willing to make himself known unto them, spoken to them by Interpreters. If the Tongue which they spoken had been peculiar to their Family, where could Joseph have found an Interpreter in Egypt that understood it? It was then the Language of Canaan, where they made their Abode. The Fifth Proof is taken from the Conformity there, is betwixt the punic or Carthaginean Tongue, which is the Phenician, and by Consequence that of the Land of Canaan and the Hebrews. St. Jerom and St. Augustin observe this Conformity 
S. Jerom and S. Augustin observe the Conformity.] St. Jerome, Lib. 5. on Jerem. Chap. 25. They are called Poeni, corruptly, instead of Phoeni, whose Language for the most part is nearly allied to the Hebrew. And, cap. 19. on Isaiah, Chap. 7. St. Austin Quest. on Gen. Lib. 2. Contra Literas Petil. c. 104. Him the Hebrews call messiah; which word agrees with the Punic Tongue, as do many other Hebrew words, nay, almost all of them. Idem, Tract. 15. on John, The anointed, in Greek is {αβγδ}, in Hebrew Messiah: From whence Mes. in the punic Tongue signifies Anoint, because those Languages, the Hebrew, Punic and Syriac, are a Kin and near Neighbours. He observes also in his 15th Sermon, on the Words of our Lord, That the Hebrew word Mammona, which signifies Riches, is also Punic, and has the same signification. He observes likewise in his Comment on the Epistle to the Romans, That the Peasants near Hippo being asked what Country-men they were, answered Canaanites. It is true, he says in his Confessions, Lib. 11. cap. 3. That if any one spoken Hebrew to him, he heard the sound of the Voice, but understood nothing of what he said: Whence it would seem, that we may conclude, that the Hebrew and Punic Tongues were different: But, perhaps, St. Augustin did not very well understand the Punic Tongue, having learned the Latin in his Infancy: And besides the Pronunciation, the different construction and change of some Words might render a Language unintelligible. Origen, lib. 3. against Celsus; Josephus, lib. 1. against Appion; and Eusebius, lib. 9. of Evangelical Preparation, Cap. 9. make the same Observations upon the Punic and Hebrew Tongues. Lucian says something to the same purpose in his Pseudomantis, where he says of Alexander, That he pronounced unknown words, as Hebrew, or Phenician. In fine, the learned Bochart hath proved it so clearly in his Second Book of Canaan, That the Punic or Carthaginian words which are to be found in the ancient Authors are Hebrew; that this may pass for a Demonstration in its kind. , which is so great, that most of the punic words are Hebrew.  
The Origin of the Hebrew Tongue being discovered, it is not difficult to find the true Reason of the Hebrew Names, which Abraham and his Posterity bore. It must be confessed, that divers of the Ancients 
It must be confessed that divers of the Ancients, &c.] Amongst the Ancients are Josephus, Antiquit. Lib. 1. c. 6. Euseb. pmparat. Evangel. Lib. 7. c. 2. St. August. de Civit. Dei, Lib. 16. c. 3.& 18. c. 39. St. Eucherius, Lib. 2. on Genesis, chap. 7. Amongst the Moderns are Pererius, Steuchus, Genebrard, Cornelius à Lapide, Bonfrerius, Buxtorf, &c. Amongst the rabbis, Aben-Ezra, Kimchi, and Abrabanel.  and some Moderns have derived it from Heber, the Son of Salah and Grand-Son to Arphaxad, who was Son to Shem: They look on it to be a Patronimick, and that from Heber is formed Hibri, as from Israel Israeli, and from ishmael Ismaeli; but what agreement soever there be in this Analogy, yet nevertheless there's no appearance that the Name of Hebrew was derived from Heber. To convince us of this, let us only consider that betwixt Heber and Abraham, who is the first that was called Hebrew: There are six Generations and five Persons. Then why should Abraham rather have taken the Name of Heber, six Generations upwards, than that of his own Father Terah, or of his Grand-Father Nachor? If he would have taken the Name of any one of his more remote Ancestors, he should rather have taken that of Shem, who was the first of that Generation. Why should not those betwixt Abraham and Heber have carried the same Name? Why was not this Name given to Abraham till after he passed the Euphrates? It will be said, perhaps, that the Name of Heber continued amongst his Posterity, because the ancient Language and Worship of God continued in his Family: But this is a mere Supposition, of which we have demonstrated the falsehood, or at least the uncertainty. The Family of Heber did not make up a particular People. Those who composed it lived among the Chaldeans, followed their Religion and Customs, and spoken their Language. Nachor, Terah, and Abraham's other Ancestors that descended from Heber, worshipped false Gods, as 'tis said expressly, Joshua 24. Abraham did not leave that Country, but that he might worship the true God with more freedom, and was the first who publicly renounced the worship of the false Gods, by renouncing his Country. In that he obeyed the Call of God, and by his Obedience merited to be the Father of the People of God: As a Reward of which God promised his Posterity the whole Land of Canaan. In hope of this, he made his Abode there, learned the Language of the Country, and left his Children there. He had not then any Reason to take the Name of Heber, therefore we must seek after another Origin of the Name Hebraeus, under which he went.  
This is easy to be discovered, by considering the Circumstances of the Time and Place where this Name was given him. Abraham was not called so till after he had passed the Euphrates, and made his Residence in the Land of Canaan. It is then very probable that this Name was given him by the Canaanites, who perceiving a Stranger, whose Name was not familiar and known to them, they contented themselves, according to Custom, to name him from the Place whence he came; which being from beyond the Euphrates, in respect of them, and that Heber signifies from beyond, therefore they called him Hebraeus. That Name might have been given to all those who passed that River; but it remained as proper to Abraham and his Off-spring, because they were the most Considerable of those that passed the Euphrates to come into Canaan, and established themselves there without following the Customs of the Inhabitants of the Country. According to this etymology, the Name of Hebraeus comes from the word Heber, which signifies from beyond. It was with Respect to this etymology, that the Septuagint translating Genesis 14.13. which is the first Place where Abraham is called Hebraeus, have rendered it by {αβγδ}; i. e, to the Passenger; or rather, to him who passed over from another Country. Aquila the Interpreter hath translated it in the same manner. This etymology is founded upon what is said of Abraham's Ancestors, Josh. 24. ver. 2, &c. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your Fathers dwelled on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah the Father of Abraham, and the Father of Nachor; and they served other Gods. And I took your Father Abraham from the other side of the flood, Beheber Hannahar, and lead him throughout all the Land of Canaan. And ver. 14. Put away the Gods whom your Fathers served on the other side of the flood. This word Heber Hannahar, is commonly used in the Scripture, to signify those that were beyond the Euphrates. It is in this Sense that Balaam says in his prophesy, Numb. 24.24. Ships shall come from the Coasts of Chittim, and shall afflict Ashur and Heber. That is to say, The Macedonians should become Masters of Assyria, and of all that is beyond the Euphrates.  
This Opinion is so probable, that the most ancient and able Interpreters of the Scripture have embraced it 
Jul. Africans, cited by Eusebius, says, They were called Hebrews, as if you should say Passengers, because Abraham passed the Euphrates, and not as some will have it, from Heber. Origen, on Matthew, p. 239. The Hebrews; that is, those who are landed from beyond the River. So Homil. 19. on Numbers, and Homil. 35. on Genesis. St. Jerome on Ezekiel, chap. 7. Abraham is called an Hebrew; that is, {αβγδ}, a Stranger, and Passenger. So on Isaiah 19. All the Greek Fathers are of this Opinion, as Diodor of Tarsis, St. Chrysostom, Homil. 35. on Gen.& on the Name Abraham. Theodoret; Quest. 60. on Genesis. Most of the rabbis and the learnedst of the Modern Interpreters, have also embraced it, as Paul de Burgos, Reuchlin, Isidorus, Clarius, Estius, arras, Montanus, Morin, &c. And amongst Protestants, Munster, Scaliger Selden, Capel; Grotius, Walton, &c. . Nor can there be any Objection raised against the likelihood of it. Those who object, Gen. 10.21.[ Unto Shem the Father of all the Children of Heber were born, as if the word Heber were in this Place the Name of the Patriarch,] beg the thing in Question: For we maintain, that the word Heber, in this Place, signifies from beyond; and that the Father of the Children of Heber, is the Father of those who dwell beyond the Euphrates, and are therefore called Hebrews. If it were not to be understood so, what Necessity was there for Moses to take Notice, that Shem was the Father of the Children of his Grand Son? That which some others Object,[ That if the Name Hebrew derive its Origin as we say, it had been no more proper to the Posterity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, than to those of Lot, Ishmael and Esau,] does not raise any particular Difficulty against this Sentiment; for it may be retorted against those who are of Opinion, that the word Hebrew is derived from the Name of the Patriarch Heber, since Lot, Ishmael and Esau were of Heber's Family as well as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But this Difficulty is easily solved by observing, that tho' this Name might be given, or was given to all those who had passed the Euphrates; it continued nevertheless proper to Abraham and his Posterity by Jacob, because they continued distinct and separate from the People of Canaan in their Religion and Morals; whereas the Posterity of Lot, Ishmael and Esau, abandoned the Religion of their Fathers, and mixed and united with the Canaanites. Thus it came to pass that this Name, which at first was general and appellative, did by Custom become proper to Abraham's Descendants. They were afterwards called Israelites, from the Name which God gave to Jacob; and Jews, from the Tribe of Judah, when the other Tribes were scattered or mixed with the said Tribe.  
But tho' the Name of Hebrew be very ancient, we don't find that the Language of the Jews was formerly called the Hebrew Tongue. It is called Jewish, 2 Chron. 32.18. And it's said, That those who spoken the common Language of the Country, spoken the Jews Language, 2 Kin. 18.26.& 28.2. Esd. 13.24. Isai. 36.11.& 13.) It is only since the Captivity that the Hellenists or Jews, who spoken Greek, to distinguish themselves from those who spoken the ancient Language of the Jews, called their Tongue Hebrew. Thus the translator of the Book of Esther observes, that the Urn in which they cast Lots is called Phur in Hebrew. The Author of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus makes use of the same Term. And this Name was so common in our Saviour's Time, that when the Evangelists give us Names in the Jewish Tongue, they tell us, that in Hebrew it is called so and so; as Gabatha and Golgotha, John 19. And in the same Place 'tis said, That the Inscription on the across was in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. But that which deserves to be remarked is, That the Evangelists give the Name of Hebrew to the Syriack or chaldaic, which was become the common Language of the Jews. It carried then the Name of the Hebrew Tongue, as well as the Ancient Hebrew; as the Arabian and Vulgar Greek carried the Name of Arabian and Greek, tho' differing much from the ancient Greek and arabic. But since that time the Name of the Hebrew Tongue hath been restrained to the old Language of the Jews, in which the Books of Moses, and the greatest Part of the other Books of the Old Testament, were wrote.  
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, spoken this Language in the Land of Canaan. The latter and his Children being obliged to go into Egypt, their Posterity multiplied there prodigiously, and stayed in that Country 200 Years, but neither changed their Religion, Customs, nor Language; because they lived separate from the Egyptians, in the Land of Goshen. The Egyptian Tongue differed very much from the Hebrew; for Joseph spoken to his Brethren by an Interpreter, and the Egyptians understood them not when they spoken together. Therefore the Author of the 80th Psalm, speakling of the time when the Israelites were in Egypt, ver. 6. says, They heard a Language that they did not understand. Some of them, no doubt, learned the Egyptian Tongue, and spoken both Languages; but the Bulk of the People preserved their ancient Language.  
The Israelites then came out of Egypt speaking the Language of their Fathers; that is to say, the same Language which Jacob and his Children brought from the Land of Canaan, and preserved it without any change till the Babylonish Captivity; as the Books written from the time of Moses, till the destruction of the first Temple, give us ground to believe; for they are almost Uniform in the Language, and no considerable Change is to be found in them; which is particularly occasioned by the Jews living separate from other People, not mixing with them, taking no Wives but those of their own Nation, and entertaining no Commerce with Strangers. And therefore we have no Reason to wonder that they preserved their Language so long without mixture or change.  
It was not the same during the Babylonish Captivity. The Jews did not then live in a particular Place, as when they were in Egypt, but being dispersed and mixed amongst the Chaldeans, were obliged to learn their Language, which by degrees became common amongst them. We red in Dan. 1.4. That he and his Companions were obliged to learn the Chaldee. And Chap. 2.4. It is said, That the wise Men whom nabuchadnezzar sent for to explain his Dream, spoken to him in the Aramick Tongue; which the Greek Interpreters as well as St. Jerom have translated Syriack. This Aramick Tongue was the Language of the Assyrians, or Syrians descended from Aram the Son of Shem; as appears by this that Rabshakeh the Assyrian General, was entreated by King Hezekiah's Deputies to speak in the Aramick Tongue, 2 Kings 18.26. Isai. 36.11. which the Greek and Latin Interpreters have again rendered Syriack. Now we cannot doubt but the Aramick, Syrian, or Assyrian Language was the Chaldee, since Daniel himself, when relating in their own terms, the Discourse which the Chaldeans had with nabuchadnezzar, and all that passed afterwards betwixt himself, his Companions and the King, writes all these things in the chaldaic Tongue. It is not then to be doubted, but that the Syriack and Chaldee Tongue were Originally one and the same Language, which is to be found in its Purity in the prophesy of Daniel, from the 4th Verse of the 2d Chapter, to the End of the 7th Chapter; and in some Chapters of the first Book of Esdras, from the 8th Verse of the 4th Chapter, to the 27th Verse of the 7th Chapter, where the Original Letters of the Kings of Assyria are related in chaldaic. It is evident that was the Language spoken at Babylon, where the Hebrew Tongue was not understood; insomuch, that none of the Chaldeans could red or understand the Hebrew words that were wrote upon the Wall, at Belshazzar's Feast; which Daniel, who understood both Languages, red and explained with great Ease, Dan. 5.  
The Chaldee by degrees became common amongst the Jews; but we must not imagine with some of the rabbis, that they entirely forgot their ancient Language during the Captivity, and that the Priests only spoken and understood it before their return. It's much more likely, that this Change did not happen all of a sudden, but gradually, as all Changes in Language do. We must suppose, that at the beginning of the Captivity the Jews spoken Hebrew, and did not understand the Chaldee; as is evident, because Daniel was obliged to learn it. That a little time after, the Commerce which they were under a Necessity to entertain with the Inhabitants of the Country, made that Language more common amongst them, and that they began to understand it, to speak it, and teach it to their Children: But 'tis almost impossible, that in 70 Years, the time of the Captivity, they could entirely forget the use or Knowledge of their ancient Language. There must of necessity have been a time, and that too pretty considerable, wherein the Hebrew and Chaldee were common amongst the Jews, but by degrees the Chaldee got the Ascendant, and became the only Language spoken amongst the Jews after their return from the Captivity; but so, however, as there was a mixture of Hebrew words. This is the Language that was commonly spoken in Judea in our Saviour's time, which is called Hebrew throught the New Testament: In the mean time the Sacred Books continued always writ in the ancient Hebrew Tongue, and in that Language the Jews red them in their Synagogues; but this not being the common Tongue, and beginning to be not understood by all the Jews, the Hebrew Original was explained in the Vulgar Language in their Synagogues; and perhaps that was the Origin of the Chaldee Paraphrases, of which we shall speak afterwards.  
We cannot certainly say when it was that the old Hebrew Tongue ceased to be understood by the Jewish Commonalty, but there are many things to prove that it was not till some Years after their return from the Captivity. For, if the Hebrew had not been understood by the Jews, after their return, why should Daniel, Esdras, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi have wrote in Hebrew, things which they designed should be understood by the common People, especially seeing those Writers were not ignorant of the Chaldee, but made use of it in writing things that relate to the Assyrians? But it is so far from being true, that the Chaldee Tongue was the only Language in use amongst the Jews, immediately after the Captivity, that on the contrary it is observed, Nehemiah 13.24. as an extraordinary thing, That the Children of the Jews who had married strangers, spoken the Language of Ashdod, and not the Language of the Jews. We have already observed, That to speak in the Jewish Language, is to speak in Hebrew, and that the Jewish Tongue is the ancient Hebrew Language. This Tongue then was common among the Jews; but nothing, in my Opinion, proves more invincibly that the Hebrew was still understood by the common People, even after the Captivity, than the 8th of Nehemiah, where 'tis said, That the Law was red in Hebrew before all the People, and that they all heard and understood it. All the People, says he, gathered themselves together as one Man, into the Street that was before the Water-gate, and they spoken unto Ezra the Scribe, to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the Priest brought the Law before the Congregation, both of Men and Women; and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh Month, and he, red therein, in the Street that was before the Water gate, from the morning until mid-day, before the Men and Women, and those that could understand: And the Ears of all the People were attentive unto the Book of the Law. Can we reasonably think, that Ezra red to the People for divers Hours in a Language they did not understand? What likelihood is there that the People would have listened attentively to it so considerable a time? It's in vain to object, That we can never make this pass for likely Matter of Fact. The People demanded that the Book of the Law should be brought: It was certainly that they might be instructed in it: Would they have desired to hear a Book, of which they could understand nothing? It was red to them, they listened to it attentively, Men, Women and Children that were capable to understand the Law of God, gave heed thereunto, they were touched with it, and melted into Tears. Then that which was red to them was not unknown to them. Perhaps it may be said, they did not understand that Book, but that Esdras translated it into the Chaldee, and in that Sense they understand what is said in the 7th and 8th Verses, That the Levites caused the People to understand the Law, and that they red in the Book of the Law distinctly, and gave the Sense, and caused them to understand the reading, But if Ezra had repeated the Law word for word in another Language, and that the People had understood nothing of it in Hebrew, to what purpose was it red? Neither does the cited Passage say any such thing; for either it signifies only, that the Levites caused the People to keep Silence, and give Attention to the Law, which was red with a distinct and intelligible Voice; or, it supposes, that Esdras and those who were with him explained the Law: But that does not say, that they rendered the Text word for word in another Tongue, but that they explained the difficult Places, by a Discourse more at large, and better suited to the Capacity of the People. So it is that the Greek and Latin Fathers explained the Books of the Scripture in their Discourses to the People, not by Translating them into another Language, but by Illustrating or Clearing the Text in that same Language wherein 'twas red. In fine, 'tis said, Chap. 9. ver. 2,& 3. That the Children of Israel being separated from the strangers, confessed their sins, and the sins of their Fathers: And standing up in their places, red in the Book of the Law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed and worshipped the Lord their God. And that afterwards the Levites made a long Discourse to the People, which is contained in that Chapter, to exhort 'em to praise God and to give Thanks for his Favours. The People red the Law in Hebrew, this Discourse was in Hebrew; it must needs be then that the People understood Hebrew. Those Proofs which have been already brought by Learned Men 
Proofs already brought by Learned Men.] Maier Philol. Sacr. P. 2. C. 2. Gourdon's Chronol. T. 1. fol. 115. Pfeisser's Exercit. 2. de Targumin. and M. Arnaud in his Treatise of reading the Holy Scripture, Lib. 1. cap. 8. , to me appear unanswerable. M. Simon boasts that he has irrefragable Arguments to destroy them, which, when he publishes, we shall see whether they will oblige us to change our Mind; but, until such time as he does so, he will not take it ill if we continue in the same Sentiments.  
I shall not insist upon the Question which some Divines that Interpret the Scripture enlarge upon; that is to say, whether the Hebrew Tongue shall be that of the Saints in Glory. This sort of Questions is of the Number of those which St. Paul calls foolish and unlearned, that are good for nothing but to engender Strife, and can neither be decided by Reason nor Authority. Neither shall I enter upon the detail of the Perfection and Advantages of the Hebrew Tongue, which some magnify above all other Languages, as the most Pure, Elegant and Pathetical: And others, on the contrary, who don't judge so favourably of it, look upon it as a poor Language, which hath but very few Words, in comparison of the Greek and Latin Tongue; and which, consequently wants abundance of necessary Terms, and is full of Obscurities and Ambiguities. I shall say nothing of Hebrew Grammar, nor of those who have wrote on that Head among the Hebrews, because those things don't belong to my Subject.   

SECT. II. Of the Origin and Invention of Characters; their Diversity. The Ancient Hebrew Characters; their Variation. The Vowel Points: When they were invented and brought into Use.  
NExt to Speech, Man has no better way to express his Thoughts by Arbitrary Signs, than by Writing, in which we make use of Figures and Characters perceptible to the Eye, whose difference and distinction represents different things to the Mind. There may be some which express their Thoughts at once, and represent them without any relation to Speech; such as were the Characters of the ancient Egyptians, who by hieroglyphics or Symbolical Figures represented a thing at once: Such are still most of the Chinese and Mexican Characters. Their cyphers are of the same Nature, seeing they represent all at once, the Number they would express, without forming the Idea of any particular word; but the more ordinary and common manner of expressing our Thoughts in Writing, is to make use of Characters, to which Custom hath affixed an expression of certain Sounds of the Articulate Voice that are called Words, which make up Speech, and by that means give us an Idea of things. So that Writing, properly speaking, is not the Pourtracture of our Thoughts, or of Things, but only of Speech, which expresses and makes known our Thoughts. It has this advantage above simplo Speech, that this reaches only those who are within hearing, whereas Writing communicates our Thoughts at the greatest distance, and preserves to future Ages the Thoughts and Discourses of those now alive.  
The most common Opinion among the Pagans, as to the Origin of Letters, is that the phoenicians are the Authors of 'em, and that Cadmus brought the Invention from Greece. Eupolemus says, Moses was the inventor of 'em; and his Sentiment is approved by Eusebius in his 9th Book of Gospel Preparations, Chap. 4. And also by Isidore of Sevil. It is however certain, that the Art of Writing is older than Moses, and he himself makes mention of things that were wrote before him. Suidas thinks Abraham was the first inventor of Letters, as well as of the Hebrew Tongue; but he is mistaken, for since the Assyrians or Chaldeans, amongst whom he lived, had the Language which Abraham spoken, they had also their Characters. It is the same as to the Canaanites or phoenicians, to whose Countries he traveled. So that we may be assured, that Writing is older than Abraham; but the precise time when it began, cannot be discovered with any certainty. Divers are of Opinion, that Adam knew how to writ as well as to speak; and that not without great probability. If it be certain that Enoch, the 7th from Adam, wrote that Book quoted by St. judas, it would be an uncontestable Monument to prove that Writing was invented before the Flood; for to believe that the prophesy of that Patriarch was preserved for divers Ages by simplo Oral Tradition, is a thing not be imagined. But there's great likelihood, as we have observed, that this Book of Enoch's was an Apocryphal Book; therefore there's no relying on that Proof, no more than on what Josephus reports in the first Book of his Antiquities, Chap. 3. of Characters wrote on two columns before the Deluge, whereof he assures us there was one remaining in his time. Nor is there any relying upon what the Chinese boast of the Antiquity of their Characters. It is not those Apocryphal Monuments which convince us of the Antiquity of Writing, but the Wit and Industry which we cannot doubt was in Adam and the first Men, which makes us conjecture, as a thing very probable, that the Art of Writing was invented during the Infancy of the World, and in use before the Deluge; that Noah received it from his Ancestors; that his Posterity, who Peopled the Earth, preserved it; and that the Characters of Writing, as well as Languages, had their Variation and Change.  
It is to no purpose to inquire what was the Figure of the Characters in use before and immediately after the Deluge, because we have no Monuments left us of those Times, and that no credible Writer makes any mention of 'em; but 'tis a famous Question amongst the critics, what the Characters were which were used by the ancient Hebrews? Some pretend that they were the same as now; but the more common Opinion, both amongst the Ancients and Moderns, and that which is best received, is that the ancient Hebrew Characters made use of by Moses and others, before the Captivity, are those which the Samaritans preserved; and that those now in Use came in after the Babylonish Captivity.  
The Hebrew Tongue being in its Origin the same with the Canaanitish or Phenician, we must allow, that the Hebrew Characters of that Language were the same. Now the Phenician Characters, from whence the Greek Characters are derived 
From whence the Greek Characters are derived.] Most ancient Authors agree that the Greeks received their Letters from the phoenicians, and that Cadmus a Phenician brought them to Greece. Herodotus in his History says, The jonians received their Letters from the phoenicians, and assures us that he saw in the Temple of Apollo of Thebes in Beotia, ancient Inscriptions upon the Tripods in Cadmean Letters, altogether resembling those of the jonians. Pliny, Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus, the Poet Callimachus, Philostratus, Critias, Pausanias, St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all, except Tzetzes, are agreed in it. Joseph Scaliger, who hath treated largely of this Matter in his Notes on Eusebius's Chronicle, relates a Greek Inscription on an ancient column in the Appian way, writ in jonian Characters, and comparing them with the Samaritan Characters, makes their Conformity evident. , were agreeable to the Samaritan Characters, as appears by the ancient jonian or Greek Letters, which are altogether like them, as may be seen by ancient Monuments. These are then the Characters that Abraham and his Posterity made use of. That we may understand how they were preserved amongst the Samaritans, and how they were lost by the Jews, we must know, That the Kingdom of Israel being divided in the Reign of Rehoboam the Son of Solomon, the Ten Tribes which separated from that of Judah and made a particular Kingdom, preserved the Pentateuch in the same manner as they received it from Moses; but that Kingdom being entirely destroyed by Salmanassar King of Assyria, who took the City of Samaria, and carried away the Israelites, sent other Inhabitants in their Place, who were called Chuteans, and afterwards Samaritans, from the City of Samaria: The latter being molested with wild Beasts, as a judgement for not adoring the true God, sent for some Israelites, who gave them Copies of the Books of the Law, which they always preserved as they had received them. The Tribes of Judah and Benjamin did also retain the same Characters till the Babylonish Captivity; but the Jews being transported to that City, they insensibly accustomend themselves to writ like the Chaldeans; and therefore, after their return, Esdras having collected and received the Books of the Bible, made use of the Chaldee Characters( which were better known to the Jews than the ancient Characters) whereof they have constantly made use since that time. But a convincing Proof, that they were not in use before, is this, That there are many ancient Shekels found of the Jewish Money before the Captivity, whose Inscriptions are wrote in Samaritan Characters; and on the Reverse there are found these words, Jerusalem Kodeska, the Holy Jerusalem 
On the Reverse are found these Words, &c.] The Rabbi Ramban, who died about 1260, says in his Commentary on the Pentateuch, That being at Ancona, he found in the Hands of some ancient Men, a Silver Shekel of about half an Ounce weight; on one side of which was represented an Almond Branch, and on the other an Urn, with Inscriptions in Samaritan Characters; which being shew'd to some Samaritans, they red on one side, The Shekel of Shekels; and on the other, Holy Jerusalem. Postel, Arias Montanus, Vilalpandus, Waserus, Morin, and divers others, had of those Shekels, which on one side had the Representation of an Urn with Manna; and on the other, the Branch of an Almond-Tree flourishing which is Aaron's Rod, with two Inscriptions in Samaritan Characters; that round the Urn being, the Shekel of Israel; and that on the other side, Holy Jerusalem. The oldest of the Jewish Shekels are also in Samaritan Characters, and the new ones in Hebrew. The first Inscription on these Shekels shows them to be ancient, and coined at least before the Captivity: For after the return, the Jews of Babylon were no more called Israelites, but Jews. And the 2d shows, That it was not the Samaritans who coined them, but that it was the current Money of the Kingdom of Judea. : Which proves that 'twas the Jews and not the Samaritans amongst whom that Money was currant; because the latter( nay, nor the Israelites themselves) did not after their Division aclowledge Jerusalem as a Holy City, and would not have called it by that Title in their Money, since they were the declared Enemies of that City and Temple. We cannot then doubt but that the Hebrew Characters were those we call Samaritan. This the ancient Authors, who pried into those Matters, have delivered as a certainty 
Origen on the 9th of Ezekiel says, &c.] Origen on those Words, Ezek. 9.4. ( Signa Tau supper frontes Gementium) Set a Mark upon the Foreheads of the Men that sigh. A certain Hebrew who embraced the Christian Religion said, That in the ancient Alphabets, the Letter Tau was in the form of a across, and was foretold concerning the Sign which Christians make on their Forehead; which all Believers indeed make, whatever they go about, but chiefly at Prayers and Holy Lessons. Syncellus relates the Passage out of Africanus as follows. They differ in their Computation of the Years till the time of the Deluge, as hath been made plain from what is already said. The Hebrew Copies or Counterparts are taken from the oldest Samaritan Code, which is wrote in different Characters, and confessed by the Hebrews themselves to be the genuine& first Book. Eusebius, Chron. Olympiad. 40. says, Esdras is acknowledged to have been an eminent Priest amongst the Jews, in whose time the High-priest was Necliasib the Son of Joachim, the Son of Jesus the Son of Josedec. Esdras was most learned in the Divine Law, and the famous Master of all the Jews, who return'd from the Captivity into Judea; and it is affirmed of him, that he had the Holy Scriptures by Heart, and that they might not be mixed with the Samaritaus, changed the Jewish Characters. Thus that Passage is red in the ancient Editions of Eusebius's Chronicle, but the last Words, after, It is affirmed, are neither found in the Greek nor ' Latin of St. Jerom, according to Scaliger's Edition: And there's great probability that 'tis an Interpolation. But we cannot doubt of St. Jerom's Sentiment, which in Prologo Galeato runs thus. The Samaritans also writ the Pentateuch of Moses in the same Number of Letters, differing only in Character and Accent. And 'tis certain, that Esdras the Scribe and Doctor of the Law, after the taking of Jerusalem, and the re-building of the Temple of Zerobabel, did invent the Letters which we now make use of; since until that time the Samaritan and Hebrew Characters were the same: And even to this day we find the Name of the Lord Tetragrammaton, expressed in the ancient Characters in some Greek Volumes. He makes the same Remark in his Commentary upon the 3d Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, where he proves that we must red the word All in the Passage of Deuteronomy quoted by the Apostle, because 'tis found in the Samaritan Copies, whose Characters are more Ancient. That same Father in his Commentary on Ezek. 9. says, That in the ancient Hebrew Characters which the Samaritans make use of, the Letter Tau hath the Form of the across, which is drawn upon the Foreheads of Christians. This latter Passage hath some difficulty in it, because the Samaritan Tau at present is not in the Form of a across: Origen observed the same thing before St. Jerom upon the Credit of an ancient Jew; but the ancient Shekels form the Samaritan Tau much like that of the Greeks. , Origen on the 9th of Ezekiel says, He understood by a converted Jew, that the ancient Hebrew Characters differed from those that were used in his time: St. Jerom speaks of this Change as a thing not to be doubted of. It is certain, says he, in his General Prologue to the Holy Scripture, That Esdras invented the new Letters we make use of at present, and that till his time, the Samaritan and Hebrew Characters were the same. He assures us, that the Pentateuch wrote by the Samaritans is Letter for Letter the same with that of the Hebrews, and differs only in the Figure and stroke of the Character. And afterwards tells us, He hath seen the Name of Jebovah writ in the Greek Copies in those ancient Characters. Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus confirm this Truth, when they distinguish the Samaritan Hebrew from the Jewish Hebrew. The 
The Talmudists do likewise agree, &c.] In the babylonish Talmud, the Treatise of the Sanhedrim,§. 2. In the beginning the Law was given to Israel in the Hebrew Character, and Holy Tongue; and afterwards in Esdras's time in assyrian Letter, and the Aramick Tongue. In that same place R. Jose, comparing Esdras with Moses, says, That as the Law was wrote by Moses's Hand, it was changed by that of Esdras into the Assyrian Character. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Tract. Magil. Lect. 1. it is observed, that Esdras's Character was Assyrian, but his Language Hebrew.  Talmudists do likewise agree, That Esdras changed the Hebrew into Assyrian Characters, and left the Hebrew Characters to the Chuteans and Samaritans. 
Divers of the rabbis of the same Opinion, &c.] Among others Ramban in his Commentary on the Pentateuch, Josephus Albo, &c. The rabbis who are of the contrary Opinion, are obliged to say, that the Hebrews had two sorts of Characters before the Captivity, one Sacred and another profane: That the Sacred was that which was preserved in the Holy Books; and that the profane was used by the Samaritans. But this is a Suppesition that hath no Foundation. If it were true, why would not the Samaritans have also preserved the Books of the Law in the Sacred Character? The Shekels whereof we have spoken, being the Shekels of the Sanctuary and Sacred, their Inscriptions must also have been in Hebrew Characters.  Divers of the rabbis are of the same Opinion, and the ablest of the 
Amongst the R. catholic Interpreters.] Sixtus de Sienna, Serarius, Bellarmine, Villalpandus, Bonfrerius, Guido, Fabricius, Morin, Despierres, &c. Amongst the Protestants, Postel, Joseph Scaliger, Gerard Vossius, Causabon, Grotius, Sistinus Amama, Capelle, Bochart, Waser, mayor, Walton, &c. There's none but Buxtorf and Schichard, and it may be Lightfoot, mathias Valemuth, and a small Number of Protestants who are wedded to the contrary Opinion, which they had maintained, and it is at present abandoned in a manner by most of the Learned.  R. catholic Interpreters as well as Protestants agree in this Truth; which is opposed by those only who are too much prepossessed in favour of the Hebrew Tongue; but their Arguments for it are very weak 
Are very weak.] Their Arguments are founded, 1. On the Testimony of the rabbis, which is of no great Authority. 2. Upon the ancient Shekels, as they pretend, whose Inscriptions are in Hebrew Characters. But in this they are deceived. They are new Shekels, made in imitation of the old ones. There are some of them also which must needs be Counterfeit, because they represent the Head of a King which was forbid amongst the Jews. 3. They allege some Inscriptions of ancient Monuments, as they pretend, but they are either Impostures or Epitaphs of the late Jews. 4. They say, that St. Jerom in his Epistle to Fabian reports, That the Golden Breast-Plate of the High-Priest contained the Name of God, Jehovah, in Hebrew Characters: That may be true after Esdras's time, but before, that Name was wrote in Samaritan Characters, as St. Jerom acknowledes. 5. They object as a Positive Reason, that which Christ says, Matth. 5.17, 18. That the Heaven and the Earth shall pass away, but not one jot or tittle of the Law, but what shall be fulfilled. Whence they think may be concluded, that the Iota of the Hebrews was only a small stroke, whereas that of the Samaritans consisted of three, made in form of an m. But they don't observe, that Christ spoken at a time when the Jews made use of the Characters which they have at present, and by consequence of the Jod, which is a very small Letter; and that he did not think of the Characters of the Ancients. We have already answered to what concerns the Letter Tau: And the other Objections being founded on the Fictions of the rabbis, deserve no Answer. : Nor have they any solid Answer to give to the Proofs we have brought for the contrary.  
The Hebrew Alphabet is composed of 22 Letters, as well as those of the Samaritans, Chaldeans and Syrians. But besides those Letters, none of which is at present a Vowel, and by Consequence they cannot determine the pronunciation. The Hebrews have invented Points, which being put under the Letters, serve instead of Vowels. Those Vowel Points serve not only to fix the pronunciation, but also the Signification of a Word; because many times the Word being differently pointed and pronounced signifies things wholly different. This is the thing that has made the Question about the Antiquity of the Points seem to be of Consequence, and hath therefore been treated of very prolixly. Some have pretended that those Points are as ancient as the Hebrew Tongue 
As the Hebrew Tongue.] This is the Opinion of R. Azarias, Meor Enajim, cap. 59. of Rodolph and Peter Chevalier, mathias Flaccius Illyricus, in his Key of the Scripture. , and that Abraham made use of them. Others make Moses 
Others make Moses the Author of them.] Some say God shew'd the Punctuation to Moses, and that it was preserved by Oral Tradition among the Jews. Others say, Moses made use of them, and wrote the Law with Points.  the Author of them. But the most 
Common Opinion.] It is the Opinion of the Author of the Book called Zohar, and of most of the Ancient and Modern rabbis.  common Opinion, among the Jews, is that Moses having learned of God the true pronunciation of Hebrew Words, this Science was preserved in the Synagogue by Oral Tradition until the time of Esdras, who invented the Points and Accents to preserve it. 
Elias Levita.] In the third Preface of the Book called Massoreth Ham Massoreth.  Elias Levita, a German Jew of the last Age, and very Learned in the Hebrew Grammar, hath rejected this Sentiment, and maintained that the Invention of the Points was much later. He ascribes it to the Jews of Tiberias, about the 500th Year of Christ; and alleges, that this Art was not perfected till about the Year 1040, by two famous Massorets, Ben-Ascher and Ben-Naphtali. This Opinion hath been embraced in the last and present Age by divers critics 
Divers critics.] Among the R. catholics, Martin Raymond, Galatinus, Genebrard, Mercerus, Bellarmine, Serarius, Salmeron, Villalpandus, Masius. And among the Protestants, Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Joseph Scaliger, Munster, Olivetan, Chamier, Drusius, Pelicanus, Zuinger, Piscator, Fagius, Sistinus Amama, &c. : But it is become more common since Lewis Capelle, a Learned Protestant Professor of Hebrew at Saumur, established that Opinion against Buxtorf, in his Book, entitled, Arcanum Punctuationis Revelatum: The Secret of the Punctuation revealed. Printed in the Year 1624. Since that time, notwithstanding the Efforts of Buxtorf's Son, and of some other Protestants, the Newness of the Points hath been acknowledged, not only by R. catholic Authors, but also by the Learnedst of the Protestants 
Learnedest of the Protestants.] It is the Sentiment of all the R. catholic Authors, who have wrote since Capelle; and among Protestants it hath been approved by Erpenius, Grotius, Causabon, Bochart, Vossius, Ludovicus de Dieu, Selden and Boetius himself, tho' a Defender of Buxtorf; as also by Archbishop Usher, Walton, and Le Clerc. After this, those among them must needs be very heady, who maintain the Antiquity of the Points as an Article of Faith. . Father Morin, one of those who hath writ with the greatest Strength against the Antiquity of the Points, believes the Invention to be later than Elias Levita thinks it, and fixes it about the beginning of the 10th Century.  
Before we produce to the Reasons alleged for showing the Novelty of the Hebrew Points, we must observe, That the Hebrew Tongue had real Vowels at first as other Languages; to wit, the Aleph, which is the A; the Jod, which is the I; and the Vau, which answers to the O and the U; and it may be, the Hajin for the E. Those Letters which at present are Consonants, when they are not pronounced, were Originally true Vowels. But as there are abundance of Hebrew words where several Consonants are found successively without any of those Letters, they were supplied by them for pronouncing those Words, whose true pronunciation were learned by Custom. This being laid down, we come now to Capelle's Reasons for the Novelty of those Points.  
His first Argument is from the Testimony of the modern rabbis: The first he quotes is Aben-Ezra, that lived about the Year 1150, who in his Book called Tzachut or Elegancies, treating of the Punctuation of a Word. He says, to justify his Decision, That such is the Custom of the Sages of Tiberias, which ought to serve as a Foundation and Rule, because 'tis they who are the Massorets, from whom we have received the Punctuation of the Law. He further observes in the same Book, That there are Interpreters who accuse the Author of the Pauses, or of the Distinction of Verses in the Scripture, of Error; and he says, he wonders how he could mistake, especially if 'twas Esdras, seeing it is certain that since his time there's none who hath come near him in Wisdom; and that 'tis evident, he hath made no Distinction in the whole Bible but what is very well placed. Buxtorf Answers, That in the first Passage Aben-Ezra does not speak of the first Introduction of Points, but only of their Re-establishment by the Jews of Tiberias, the Authors of the Massora, who pointed the Text more Exactly and Correctly than Others. As to the 2d Passage, He pretends that it makes for him, and that the rabbi Aben-Ezra, does there aclowledge Esdras to be the Author of the Pauses; that is to say, of the Points, Accents and Distinctions of the Hebrew Text. He adds, that this Rabbi in a Book, entitled, The balance of the Holy Tongue, ascribes to Esdras and the Assembly of the great Synagogue, the Institution of the Accents, Points and Distinctions. It must be confessed, That those Passages of Aben-Ezra, particularly the last, do not prove altogether what Capellus pretends to; but it shows at least, that in the time of Aben-Ezra there were Interpreters among the Jews, who doubted whether Esdras was the Author of the Vowel Points; and that Aben-Ezra himself was not very far from being of that Opinion.  
The second Testimony produced by Capellus, is from the Rabbi Kimchi's Book called Michlol, who speaking of the difference in the Punctuation between the Praeter Tense and the Participle Niphal, says, this difference was made by the Orderers of the Punctuation. If he had believed Esdras to be the Author of those Points, he would never have made use of the term Orderer; which is more applicable to the Massorets than to Esdras. Buxtorf answers, That by this he understands those of the great Synagogue, to whom the Rabbi ascribes the Restitution and Punctuation of the Text, in the Preface to his Commentary on the Prophets, where he says, that the Origin of Keri and Ketib was thus; Those of the Grand Synagogue, who established the Law after the first Captivity, having found differences in the Copies, about which they could receive no Light, wrote one of the Readings without Points, or at least put it so in the Margin. This being supposed. Buxtorf says, the Points were in use at the time of this Re-establishment, according to the Opinion of Rabbi Kimchi; wherein he seems to be in the right.  
His third Testimony is from the Book called Tzach Sephathajim, ascribed to Rabbi Juda, who lived about the Year 1140, where he observes, that the Points were given upon Mount Sinai, but that the Tables of the Law were not pointed; and that God speaking the Holy Language, those who heard his Voice, learned from him how to pronounce the Vowels. But this Passage, as Buxtorf observes, proves only that the Tables of the Law were not pointed; or, at least, that the Points were not marked in Moses's time, according to the Opinion of Rabbi Juda: And it cannot be concluded from thence, that he did not believe the Points to be invented in Esdras's time, to fix the pronunciation which was preserved by Oral Tradition from the time of Moses.  
The last Testimony of the rabbis alleged by Capellus, is taken from the Book Cosri, where 'tis said, the Vowels were preserved in the Memory of the Priests, Kings, and Judges, and of those of the Sanhedrim, and of righteous and holy Men, and even in the Memories of the profane. And that, in fine, they put the Seven Points and the Accents to serve as proper Marks for the guiding of those who copied and red those Books, according to the Cabala and the Tradition received by Moses, and preserved afterwards. But this Author not setting down the time of the Invention, decides nothing. Therefore we don't think much stress ought to be laid upon the Testimony of the rabbis for the Decision of this Question; and so much the less, that most of 'em do plainly ascribe the Invention of the Points to Moses or Esdras.  
Capel's second Argument is taken from the present practise of the Jews, who in their Synagogues do, for the public reading of the Law, make use of Copies without Points; which they revere and lock up with Care, as representing the Copy of Moses that was preserved in the Ark. This Argument proves indeed, That the Jews have always been of Opinion, that Moses did not make use of the Points when he wrote the Law; but it does not prove the same thing as to Esdras; tho' it would seem that they had no reason to be afraid of making use of pointed Copies of the Law; and less still, to look upon them as profane, had they been persuaded that Esdras and the Great Synagogue, whose Authority they revered, had been the Authors of those Points.  
His third Argument is founded on this, That it appears the Points were not known to the ancient Cabalists and Talmudists. There's nothing more usual amongst the new Cabalists, than to seek for Mysteries in the Punctuation. Nor would the old ones have failed to have done the same, if those Points had been in use; and had they believed they came from Moses or Esdras. The Talmudist Doctors do frequently raise Questions upon the manner of reading and pronouncing certain Words: Had the Points been invented in their time, they would not have failed to say with the Modern Jewish Commentators, Don't red by a Camets but by a Cholem, &c. And would either have made use of those Names, or of the Figures of those Vowel Points. Mean while they contented themselves only to writ the same Consonants, putting sometimes over them a Vau or a Jod, to denote what pronunciation they intended. It's true the Massora is mentioned in the Talmud, but the Massora is generally a critic upon the Text of the Bible, and has no particular regard to the Points. This Argument of Mr. Capel's, to me seems very convincing. Buxtorf opposes to him Testimonies taken from the Book Zohar, where the Points and Accents are mentioned: But this Book being new, and writ since the 1000th Year of Christ, makes nothing to the purpose.  
Capel's fourth Argument is taken from the Samaritan Character; which is certainly, as we have already shewed, the ancient Hebrew. The Samaritans have no Points, and use the Letters Aleph, He, Vau and Jod for Vowels. This Argument proves still, that the Points were not in use from the time of Moses till that of Esdras, since the Samaritan Characters, which the Hebrews make use of, admit of none; but it does not prove that Esdras, who changed those Characters, did not make use of Points.  
His fifth Argument is taken from Keri and Ketib; that is to say, the different Readings put in the Margin of the Bibles. All those different Readings are upon the Consonants, and none upon the Vowels. Had the Points been in use of old, there's no doubt but they would have produced many more different Readings than the Consonants. This then is an evident Proof, That they came neither from Moses nor from Esdras.  
Mr. Capel's sixth Argument is founded on the ancient Greek, Latin and Chaldee Versions, which he maintains were from Copies not pointed. Then what likelihood is there, if the Points had been invented in their time, and that there had then been pointed Copies, that the Interpreters should not have made use of 'em, since 'twould have been much more Commodious, and a great Ease to them in determining the Sense of divers Words. Let Buxtorf say what he will, it will never be believed that the Interpreters were so negligent and ill advised, as not to make use of pointed Copies, had there been any such then: And the Consequence is morally certain, that there were none, if it be well proved that they did not make use of any such. Now this is it, that M. Capel demonstrates in particular of the following Versions. 1. Of that of the LXX, even by the Confession of his Adversaries, who don't deny that it was from an unpointed Copy, but give frivolous Reasons for it: And if they denied it, 'twere easy to prove it, because it appears, that in divers Places of the Greek Version, the Interpreter hath red the Words otherwise than they are pointed at present. 2. Capel assures us of the same as to the Chaldee Paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan, where that difference of the Version, because of the different ways of reading does still appear. 3. He makes the same Remarks on the Greek Versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, and of the other Greek Versions, whereof we have some Fragments remaining; by which it appears that those Interpreters have translated certain Words differently, because the pronunciation of it was not fixed; which they would not have done, had they had pointed Copies. It's true, there are such Differences which happen sometime from the change of Consonants, Faults of the Hebrew Copy, or Negligence of Translators; but the greatest part comes manifestly from the different pronunciation of the Words, which was not then fixed by the Vowel Points.  
The Testimonies of Origen, St. Jerom, and other Greek and Latin Fathers, are M. Capel's 7th Argument to prove the Novelty of the Points. It is morally impossible, had there been any pointed Copies in St. Jerom's time, but some of them must have fallen into the Hands of that Father, that he would have made use of them, have spoken of them, and that the Jews, who taught him Hebrew, would have taught him the Points and Accents; or, at least, have given him Notice that there were Hebrew pointed Copies; which would have been a great Ease to him. But it appears, That St. Jerom had no knowledge of those Points, and that he not only did not make use of 'em, but that he never heard them spoken of; tho' he could not have avoided it on so many Occasions: For in speaking of the Differences 'twixt his Version and that of the Septuagint, could he have forgot to observe, that the principal Cause of the Differences betwixt them was occasioned by the different Punctuation that the LXX had red by a Kametz, a Tseré, or a Chiréck, &c. that which he red by a Cholem, or a Segol, &c. How could it be, that in speaking of the Hebrew Letters, he should say nothing of the Points nor Accents? And that in marking the different Pronounciations of the same Word, in different Places, he should not have spoken of the Consonants, and have expressed the different ways of pronouncing those Words, without ever taking notice that this different pronunciation was occasioned by the different Pointing 
Different Pointings.] Hieron. Comment. on Hosea, Chap. 8. ver. 10. When he shall roar, then the Sons of the Sea or Waters shall be afraid.[ In the English Translation it is, The Children shall tremble from the West.] For the word Mim, which is writ by three Letters, if red Majim, signifies Waters; if Mijam, it is meant of the Sea. Idem. chap. 13. ver. 3. We ask why the LXX, instead of a Chimney,( which Theodotion hath translated {αβγδ}) rendered it Locusts? The Hebrews writ Locust and Chimney in the same Letters; so that if it be red Arbe, it signifies a Locust; if Aruba, a Chimney. Idem in Tradition. Hebraicis on Genesis says, Tho' Estimation and Barley be writ in the same Letters, yet Estimation is red Searim, and Barley Seorim. In that same Place, he says, That for Shepherd they red Friend, because both of them are writ in the same Letters; but Friend is red Re, and Shepherd row. On Habak. 3. The Verb Schan is understood for the quality of the Place, and he hath placed[ and there,] but it is rather to be red there in this Place. Ibid. on these words, Death shall go before his Face.[ The English Translation has it, before him went the Pestilence.] For that which we translate Death, in the Hebrew there are three Letters without a Vowel, which if red Dabar, signifies Word; if Deber, Pestilence or Death. And on Jer. 9.22. the Hebrew word which is writ in three Letters( for it has no Vowels in the middle) if according to the Connexion and the judgement of the Reader it be red Dabar, it siguifies Speech; if Deber, Death; if Dabber, speak. On Isaiah 26.14. Thou hast made all their Memory to perish. The LXX translate Male instead of Memory; but all the rest of the Interpreters render it Memory, for the Hebrews writ both of 'em with the same three Letters: But when we translate it Memory, we red Zecer; and when a Male, Zacar. In Isaiah 31. Fire and Light are wrote by the same Letters in Hebrew. If it be red Ur, it is Fire; if Or, 'tis Light. In Zephaniah 3.8. Also where we have translated, In the day of my rising again, in time coming: All others have interpnted it, rising again for a Testimony.[ The English Translation is, until the day that I rise up to the prey.] The Jew who taught me said, That in this Place it ought rather to be understood in time coming, than for a Testimony. For Ad, which is wrote by the Letter Hajin and Vau, may signify either in time coming or for a Testimony. . Supposing always that the Hebrew Words which were without Vowels were capable of divers Pronounciations, and that the Hebrews, in reading, supplied by Memory or Conjecture the necessary Vowels, without any thing in the Text that could determine them to one pronunciation more than another, but only the Sequel of the Discourse. The Hebrew Word, says he, in his Commentary on Jeremy, is writ by 3 Letters, which are Daleth, Beth, and Resch, for the Hebrews have no Vowel in the middle, and they red according to the Sense which the following part requires in the judgement of the Reader. If we red Dabar, that signifies Discourse; if Deber, that signifies Death; if Daber, that signifies to speak. The same Father moreover acknowledges, That the Hebrews have their Vowels which are not Points; but the Jod, which is the I; and the Vau, which is the O 
And the Vau, which is the O.] In Tradit. Hebraic. in Genesis, concerning the Name Ephron, in Genesis 13. In the Hebrew the first Name is writ Ephron, as we have put it; the 2d Ephran. For after he was prevailed with to sell the Burying-place for Silver, the Letter Vau, which the Hebrews red for O, was taken out of its Name, and it was called Ephran instead of Ephron. Idem in Epist. 145. Hosi therefore is interpnted, God save you. Anna is an Interjection of Deprecation. If you would compose a Word of those two, it will be Hosianna, or as we say Hosanna, the middle Vowel being struck out; for Aleph, the first Letter of the following Word, finding Jod the last of the foregoing, excludes it. Idem in Epist. ad Evagrium de Melchisedec. It's no matter whether it be called Salem or Salim, since the Hebrews very seldom make use of a Vowel in the middle of a Word; and according to the Custom of Places and the diversity of Countries, they pronounce the same Words with different Sounds and Accents. : And observes that they don't place those Vowels in the middle of Words. Tho' these Testimonies of St. Jerom seem to show plainly, that the Vowel Points were not invented in his time, and tho' those Passages be clear, yet they object some other Passages, in which he seems to make mention of the Accents and Points; as in the Epistile to Evagrius, where he says, that the word Salem is sometimes pronounced Salem, and sometimes Salim, having a different Tone and Accent according to the difference of the Country. And in his Commentary on Amos 8. he observes that the word Bersabeé[ in the English Bible Beersheba] is translated according to the variety of the Accents; the Fountains of an Oath, the Fountains of Abundance, or the Fountains of the Seventh. He takes notice of the same variety, because of the Accents in his Commentary on Jeremy concerning the word Soced, which signifies both a Nut and the Watch if the Accent be varied. He likewise mentions Accents in his Commentary on Jonas 3. And, in fine, speaking of the Hebrew and Samaritan Text in his General Preface, he says the Samaritans wrote the Pentateuch in the same Letters, and that there's no difference but in the Figures and Points: Figuris& apicibus tantùm discrepantes. It is added, That in divers Places St. Jerom observes that the Hebrew differs from the LXX; where the difference is occasioned by the Punctuation. How, say they, could he observe that difference, if there had been no Points in his Hebrew Copy? He says himself, divers times, that he followed the Hebrew Text, and that we need but ask the Jews as to the Alterations that he hath made in his Version. And they tell us, that he hath followed the Hebrew faithfully. Now his Version is conformable to the pointed Hebrew Text, and he hath almost every where given ambiguous Words the Sense that is fixed upon them by the present Points. He himself expresses by an E the quiescent Scheva that is found in the middle of Hebrew words. These Objections, tho' specious in appearance, have yet no difficulty in them. Let's but red the quoted Passages, and we shall soon see that St. Jerom does no ways speak there of the Accents or Points marked in the Text, but only of the Sound and pronunciation. This is clear in his Epistle to Evagrius before-mentioned. It matters not whether it be pronounced Salem or Salim, since the Hebrews seldom make use of Vowels in the middle of a Word, and pronounce the same Words after different manners, according to the Custom of the Place and the Diversity of the Country. Does not St. Jerom clearly observe in this Passage, that the Hebrews had Vowels which were really Letters and not Points, but that they rarely made use of them in the middle of Words, and that in his time the pronunciation was different and arbitrary? It was not then fixed by Points which served instead of Vowels, as at present. The Accent or Tone was known by Custom, as it's ordinary almost in all living Languages, and particularly in the French and English, where abundance of Words are pronounced otherwise than they are writ. St. Jerom learned this from the Jews, therefore it's not to be wondered at, that he observes that such a Word signifies such a Thing according to the pronunciation, and that he refers us to the Jews to prove that it ought to be red and translated so. The Massorets, who invented the Points, having followed the common Custom among themselves, and only fixed them by the Points and Accents, it is not at all to be thought strange that St. Jerom's Version, which was agreeable to Custom, be found conformable to their Punctuation. As to the Points, or rather the Extremities ( Apicibus) of the Hebrew and Samaritan Letters, whereof he speaks in his General Prologue, it can in no ways be understood of our Points, since 'tis certain that the Samaritans never made use of' em. But it is naturally to be understood of the Corners of the Letters, and St. Jerom explains himself so in divers Places, as in his Commentary on the 12th of Zechariah, where he says, The Letters Daleth and Resh are alike, and differ parvo tantum apice; that is to say, only by the Corner of the upper stroke of those two Letters, as may be seen by their Characters. The Silence of Origen, who certainly understood Hebrew, and who himself copied the Hebrew Text in his Hexapla in Hebrew and Greek Characters; his Silence, I say, as to the Points, is still a Proof that they were not in use in his time. But it is not from his Silence alone that the newness of the Points may be concluded, we have still some Fragments of his Hebrew Copy wrote in Greek Characters, by which it appears, that he knew no other Vowels but the real Letters; for instead of the Aleph he puts α, for Jod ι, for Hajin ε, for Vau ο, or ν, or ♉. We may also allege the Silence of all the ancient Fathers who have spoken of the Hebrew Text, yet none of them hath spoken one word of the Vowel Points. To this we must add Philo and Josephus, who have said nothing of the Invention or Use of the Points, no more than of the pretended Difference of the Copies of the Law; whereof some, that is to say, the pointed ones, were red in the Synagogue; and the rest, that were for common Use, not so. The Silence of those two Authors, who were very well versed in the Customs of their Country, might justly surprise us, if those Customs had been common in their time.  
Mr. Capel's other Arguments, to prove the Novelty of the Points, are taken from the Points themselves, their Number, Use, Name, &c. In general we may observe, That the Points and Accents of a Language are not much in Use whilst the Tongue is living; they were not invented in the Greek and Latin Tongues till after they ceased to be commonly spoken. The Oriental Tongues, as the Chaldee, Samaritan and Syriac, have none; the arabic had none at first. Nor is there any appearance that the Hebrew Tongue is different in that respect from the other Oriental Tongues. The Number of its Vowels, which is 14 or 15, without reckoning the Raphé, the Daggesh and Mappick, and an infinite Number of Accents now in use amongst the Hebrews, make it plain enough how far those things are from the natural Simplicity of a Language commonly spoken. These are the Niceties and Subtleties of the Grammarians upon a dead Language, rather than the Custom of a living Language. The Names given to the Points are Chaldee and Syriac. Most of the Rules given for those things, are either useless or contrary to the Custom of the Ancients: As for Example, the difference betwixt Schin and Sin, which is the same Letter differently pointed, is unknown to St. Jerom, who observes in his Commentary on Titus, that the Hebrews had three S's, the Sameck, the Tsadee, and the Sin, and therefore he counted only 22 Letters in the Alphabet, and made no distinction betwixt Sin and Schin. The Accents are almost of no Use amongst the Hebrews. In fine, there are divers words, whose Pointings occasions a pronunciation monstrous, irregular, and altogether contrary to the manner wherein the LXX and other ancient Jews, such as Philo and Josephus, red and pronounced, a sthe proper Names do manifestly show. The same thing appears by the Greek Names put in Hebrew, as Darius and Cyrus, which being red without Points, in taking the Jod and Vau for the Vowels i, e, o, are much more conformable to the true Greek Names than they are with the Points, which form the Names of Dariares and Cores, which are altogether different from Darius and Cyrus.  
The Reasons alleged on the other side, to prove the Antiquity of the Points, are mighty weak. They say first, That there's no Tongue without Vowels. We answer, That this is true, and that the Hebrew Tongue had its Vowels as well as others, as we have already observed divers times, viz. Aleph, Jod, Hajin and Vau, as in other Languages a, e, i, o, u. Perhaps they will say, That there being divers Words wherein none of those Letters are found, and which we very seldom meet with in the middle of any Word, the Hebrew pronunciation must have been very difficult. But it is easy to answer, That Custom supplied that Defect, as in the Chaldee, Samaritan and arabic, and that it was no way difficult to those that were instructed from their Youth in that pronunciation, who spoken the Language continually, or red the Bible every day without Points. It is certain, even by the Confession of those who are most wedded to the Antiquity of the Points, that the Copies of the Law which were red in the Synagogues had no Points, yet the Jews red 'em commonly and without Error. And don't we see every day, that not only the Jews, who learn the Hebrew in their Infancy, but also those amongst us who are versed in that Tongue red without difficulty or mistake, the Copies that are not pointed, and that they pronounce those Words truly, which by their different pronunciation may have a different Sense? Therefore it is easy to answer those who say, That if the Hebrew Tongue had not had Points, there would have been divers ambiguous Words in it; by telling them, That Custom and the Sequel of the Discourse, does most frequently determine the true Sense, and that it's rare if any Ambiguity remain. In a word, all those Objections cannot be made by those who agree, that Esdras is the first who brought the Points in Use, and that until his time the Jews preserved by mere Oral Tradition, the Punctuation and pronunciation of the Hebrew Words: For if they could be without them from Moses to Esdras, why might they not have been as well without them from Esdras till the time they were invented?  
In the 2d Place, They object the Authority of the Book Zohar, which they allege is very ancient, and composed by Rabbi Simeon, the Son of Jochai, who died about the 120 Year of Christ, and mentions the Points and Vowels, of which he believes Moses to have been the Author. But Buxtorf himself confesses, That the Book Zohar was composed after the 10th Century 
After the 10th Century.] Rabbi Gedalias and Rabbi Zacuth acknowledged, that there was no mention made of this Book before the Year 1290; and indeed no Jewish Authors spoken of it. The Cabalistick Art, in the manner there taught, is new among the Jews, and is not to be found in the Talmud. He distinguishes the great and small Letters, makes use of Latin, Greek and Arabian Terms, and even of new French Words. He follows the Talmud, calls the Chaldee the Language of the Targum, proves that it was not in use amongst the Jews when he wrote. He alleges the Paraphrase of Onkelos as of an ancient Author. His Book is full of new Rabbinical Fables. The Book of Bahir is also new, and not writ by Nechenias the Son of Cana, who lived before the Destruction of the Temple, as some of the Jews have believed. He quotes some Chaldee Paraphrases: He calls the Roman Empire Edom: He treats at large of the Points and their Characters, and searches for Mysteries in them: All which proves the newness of the thing. ; or, at least, that divers things are added unto it. They allege also, the Authority of the Gemara and the Misna, wherein mention is made of the Accents, and Pauses or Verses: But those Accents are to be understood of the Tone of the pronunciation, and as to the Pauses and Distinctions they have nothing common with the Vowel Points. There's mention likewise made in the Talmud of 15 Words in the Bible that are pointed above; but it is a different sort of Points, which did not serve for directing the pronunciation, but only to denote some Mysteries.  
It is further objected, That the Massorets take notice of anomalous or irregular Punctuations; whence they conclude that they were not the Authors of the Points, because they would always have followed the same Rule. This Irregularity could come from nothing else, but that they found this Difference of Punctuation in their Copies. This Objection would be of some Weight, if we suppose that the Art of Pointing was formed all at once, and by one Man; but, as it's more probable that this was done gradually, and by divers Hands, there's no Reason to wonder if there be some Irregularity in the Punctuations.  
They pretend also, to prove the Antiquity of the Points and Accents by the Antiquity of the music, or the singing of the Canticles. They say, The Notes could not be retained in the Memory, that there was a Necessity of marking them, and that the great Number of Hebrew Accents served for that very End. This Argument has so much the less strength, because all are agreed that there's now no Knowledge left of the ancient music of the Hebrews, and that by Consequence we cannot have any certainty that the Accents which are come to our Hands are the Notes of it; forasmuch as they are not only made use of in the Poetical Works and Canticles, but also in other Books which certainly were never sung. If then there were any Musical Notes in the time of David or Moses, they differed from those Accents. But it is very likely, that in those ancient Times, they had the Tunes by Heart, and sung without Notes.  
Some in order to prove, That in the time of our Saviour at least, the Jews made use of Points, allege his Words, Matth. 5.18. That not one jot or tittle of the Law should pass away till all was fulfilled: That is, all that is wrote in the Law shall be fulfilled, even to one single Jot or Point. But it is easy to answer, That the Word Jot or Tittle there, in Greek {αβγδ}, does not signify Vowel Points, but the Corners of the Letters. This is the natural Sense of the Word in Greek( a), and of Apex in Latin, and agrees perfectly well to this place.  
We believe that we have hitherto sufficiently shown, That there's not only nothing which proves the Antiquity of the Points, but also that there are Arguments enough to convince reasonable persons, that they are newer than St. Jerom's time. We must now examine if they were invented about the 500th Year of Christ by the Jews of Tiberias, as most of the critics assure us; or, whether they be much later, as Father Morin will have it. The Arguments that we have brought, proves well that the Points were invented since the time of St. Jerom and the Talmud; but they are of no Use to prove the time when; so that 'tis only by Conjecture, they say, that the Jews of Tiberias invented them. In the mean time, there's Reason to believe that this is not the true Epocha, and that the Points were not invented and brought in Use but since the Year 800. For, first the Misna, which is the oldest part of the Talmud, was not composed till the 6th Age, and the Talmud of Babylon was not completed till towards the End of the 7th; which we shall make evident in the sequel. The Books Midraschim and Megilloth are still later. Now it's easy to prove, That the Authors of those Books knew nothing of the Punctuation, and that it was not used in their time; for, as we have already said, there's not one word of it said in the Talmud: On the contrary, when they speak of any ambiguous Word, whose Sense must be determined by the pronunciation, they take notice of the Difficulty and Ambiguity of the Word, and say only, that it must be understood so or so, without speaking of the Points. If they had had pointed Copies, they would have found no Ambiguity in the Term, or would have determined it by the Punctuation. Here's a remarkable Instance of it from the 2d Chapter of the Book Bababatra, When Joab came before David, David said to him, What's the Reason that you have done so? Joab answered him, Because it is written, you shall make to perish z, c, r, of Amaleck. David replied to him, But we red z, c, r. Joab says to him, They taught me to red z, c, r. He went and asked his Master, how he had taught him to red? He  told him, z, c, r. For the understanding of this place, we must observe that the Word composed of three Hebrew Consonants, Zain, Caph and Resch, which answer our three Letters z, c, r, signifies different things, according to the difference of the pronunciation. If we pronounce it Zacar, as Joab pronounced it, it signifies Male; and so the Commandment was only to cut off all the Males; whereas if we pronounce it Zecer, as David did, it signifies to Remember; and so the Sense was, That they must cut off the Name or Remembrance of Amaleck. If the Points had been invented, they would have taken away the Ambiguity, and the Talmudists would have made mention of them in this place. There's another Instance in the 1st Chapter of the Treatise Kiduschim, where it's said, That two rabbis being in controversy upon Exod. 21.8. where it's said, That he who hath bought a Maid that does not please him, he shall not sell her, because he hath abused her.[ In the English Bible] it is, dealt deceitfully with her. These last Words are ambiguous in the Hebrew; for, if we red Bebigdo Bah, it signifies because of his Garment: But if we red it Bebagdo Bah, it signifies because he has prevaricated with her, and abused her. One of the rabbis understood it one way, and the other another; the one pleaded the ordinary way of reading; the other pleaded the Authority of the Massora; but neither of 'em allege the Points in defence of their Opinion. In the 1st Chapter of the Treaty called Sanhedrim, there's another controversy betwixt the rabbis, upon the Sense of a Word in Levit. 
This is the natural Sense, &c.] Gellinus says, That the Apices of the Letters are the stroke or Points of 'em: Whence came the Saying, De apicibus Juris disputare, to dispute Points of Law. In the ancient Greek Glosses, {αβγδ}, is the Summet or Point of the Letter. The Word is taken in this Sense in Plutarch, Dion, Chrysostom, Philo the Jew, St. Clement of Alexandria, and in the Sybelline Verses. St. Jerom uses it in the same Sense, as we have shown.  12.5. which being pronounced Sibheim, signifies 70; and Schuhaim signifies two Weeks: This Difference might have been decided, had there been then any Points: But we see the rabbis make no mention of them. In the Book. Midraschim, or the ancient Mystical Commentaries of the rabbis upon the Scriptures, there's no mention of the Points in any place, no more than there is in the Book Sophrim, which treats expressly of the manner of writing the Law: There he speaks of the choice of Parchment to be used, of the Space there ought to be betwixt the Letters, how many Letters in each Line, how many Lines in a page., that the Words ought to be separated, that the Letters ought to be great or small, and speaks nothing of the Vowel Points. Could it be possible he should have forgot them? This Book is later than the Talmud, and speaks of it with Applause. The Points then are later than the 7th Age. Since this Book was composed, there was about the beginning of the 9th Age, two Reviews of the Text of the Bible, one by the Western, and another by the Eastern Jews. It appears, that in those Reviews they made no use of the Points, nor observed any difference in the Punctuation. Whereas the rabbis Ben-Ascher and Ben-Naphtali, who made a Review about 100 Years after, that is about 940, spent the greatest part of their critics on the Points.  
Another Proof of the time when the Points were invented, is the Origin of Grammar among the Jews. The first of their Grammarians was Rabbi Judas Chiug, an Arabian, who lived in the 10th Century. Since then they have had divers. Now there are two things we may lay down as Matter of Fact. 1. That it's almost impossible to know the Rules and the Use of the Points without Grammar. 2. That the Hebrew Grammar is chiefly founded upon the Knowledge of the Points. Which makes it evident, That those two Things must be invented near upon the same time. In fine, 'tis very probable, that the Hebrews had their Vowel Points from the Arabs, and that they were the first inventors of them. History informs us, That the Arabs or Saracens becoming Masters of a great part of Asia and afric, and of Sicily and Spain in Europe, in the 7th and 8th Age, their Language, as usual, spread with their Dominions, and became common in all the Countries under their Obedience. Then it was, that to fix the pronunciation of that Language amongst so many different People, they invented the Points and set up Grammarians to compose Rules for their Tongue. The Jews as well as other Eastern Nations did commonly writ in arabic. Their first Grammarians wrote in that Language, and followed the Method and Rules of the Arabian Grammar. The Massorets, whose natural Tongue was the arabic, imitated the Custom, and followed the Example of the Arabs in pointing the Letters of the Hebrew Text, to fix the pronunciation of it. As the Arabians changed their ancient Vowels into Consonants, they did the like, and followed their Distinction into those that are pronounced by the Throat, Lips, Roof of the Mouth, Teeth and Tongue. They called the Primitive Words Roots, as they did; and the Vowel Points they called Movements. In the same manner they admitted useless Letters, which they call Quiescent, and don't pronounce: From them they had the Dagesch lene and Dagesch fort; the former directing to pronounce the Aspirates softly; and the latter teaching to double them. This Conformity in Grammar and Punctuation shows that the Jews had both from the Arabs.  
This is the most probable Opinion concerning the Origin of the Vowel Points, which were not in use among the Jews till the 9th Age. The Invention is commonly ascribed to the Massorets of Tiberias, who are renowned amongst the Grammarians for the Exactness of their Punctuation: And 'tis probable enough that they introduced it first, and by degrees reduced it to an Art. We shall examine afterwards, whether we are to follow their Punctuation, or whether we may vary from it.   

SECT. III. That the Hebrew Text of the Sacred Scriptures was not lost during the Captivity: and that Esdras did not make it over again entirely, but only restored and corrected it.  
THE Story related by the Author of the 4th Book of Esdras, chap. 14. That Esdras having taken with him five Scribes, and gone to a place of Retirement, where in 40 Days he dictated to them divers Volumes by Divine Inspiration, occasioned some of the Ancients to look upon him as the Restorer of the Books of the Bible, and to assert that all the Copies of the Sacred Books were lost during the Captivity, and that Esdras being divinely Inspired, restored them by his Memory. This St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Basil, and some others of the Ancients seem to have believed 
Others of the Ancients seem to have believed.] Irenaeus Lib. 3. Advers. Haeres. cap. 25. Because the Scriptures were interpnted by Divine Inspiration, and it is not to be wondered at, that God wrought this upon them, when during the Captivity of the People by nabuchadnezzar, the Writings being corrupted, and the Jews after 70 Years returning into their own Country; and afterwards, in the time of Artaxerxes King of Persia, he inspired Esdras the Priest, of the Tribe of Levi, to remember all the Discourses of the Prophets, and to restore to the People the Law that was given by Moses. This Passage is related by Euseb. in Greek. Hist. Lib. 5. Cap. 8. where he makes use of the Terms {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, which signify to compose and restore. St. Clement of Alexandria, in the first Book of his Stromata, says, Esdras is the Author of the Review and of the Renewing, {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, of the Divinely Inspired Scriptures. Tertullian, in his first Book concerning the Habits of Women, cap. 3. says, As after Jerusalem was destroyed& taken by the Babylonians, it is certain that all the Monuments of the Jewish Learning were restored. St. Basil in his Epistle to Chilo says, Esdras retiring into a Valley, did by the Command of God, {αβγδ}, audibly repeat all the the Divinely inspired Scriptures. St. Isidore and Rabanus are of this Sentiment. Driedo and some other Moderns have embraced it, as well as some rabbis mentioned by Elias Levita. ; but without any Ground, in my Opinion. For besides, that the 4th Book of Esdras is Apocryphal, and full of Fables, it is not said there that the Books which Esdras composed in this Retirement, were the Books that made up the Jewish Canon. And it is altogether incredible, as we we shall presently see, That all the Copies of the Sacred Books should be lost during the Captivity. It is true, that Esdras took pains to re-establish the Books of the Law. First, By making a Collection and a Canon of the Sacred Books. Secondly, By reviewing them Exactly, and correcting the Faults that might have slipped into them. Thirdly, By putting them in Order. Fourthly, By writing them in new Characters, as we have already said. Fifthly, By adding thereunto some Connexions and Explications. It is in this Sense, that he may justly be called, The Restorer of the Sacred Books; and that we may reasonably say, he renewed and reestablish'd them. It is thus that St. Jerom, St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom and Theodoret explain themselves 
St. Jerom, St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom and Theodoret.] St. Jerom allows Esdras only to have corrected, gathered together, put in order, and wrote in new Characters the Books of the Bible. St. Hilary in his Preface to the Psalms, says, That Esdras collected and made into one Book all the Psalms. St. Chrysostom says expressly, That Esdras formed the Body of the Books of the Scripture, of such Books as remained, {αβγδ}, Hom. 8. on the Hebrews. Theodoret in his Preface to the Psalms does not say, that the Holy Scripture was entirely lost in the Captivity, but only that it was corrupted, and Esdras corrected it. This Opinion is received by almost all the Modern Interpreters, Jews and Christians, particularly by Bellarmin, Salmero, Serarius, Bonfrerius, &c. . And 'tis, perhaps, in this Sense that we are to understand the Passages of the other Fathers, which we have quoted for the contrary Opinion, tho' some of 'em seem to say more. But to say, That God inspired him with all the Sacred Books verbatim, and that he did dictate them on this Inspiration, is to admit a Miracle without necessity, which is attested by no Body, and to suppose a thing that is plainly false. It is to maintain an Opinion injurious to Religion, in making the Authority of the Sacred Books to depend only upon a fabulous, or at least, an uncertain History. How shall we prove to a Libertine, that we have the Books of Moses and the Prophets, if we suppose they were lost during the Captivity? Is it enough to tell him, That Esdras restored them by the Inspiration of God? What Proof can we bring for it? Is it possible that God, who by an Effect of his Providence hath made the Verity of the Sacred Histories as certain as any other,( to consider things only according to the Light of Reason.) Is it possible, I say, that he would have permitted an Event which might have rendered the whole Body of the Sacred History uncertain and doubtful, to those who had not the Eye of Faith, and put the Faithful under an impossibility of proving the Truth of it. But, without insisting on those Consequences, the thing in itself is not to be maintained; there's a great number of Proofs which show it to be manifestly impossible, that all the Copies of the Sacred Books should be consumed by the burning of the Temple, or lost during the Captivity. For, in the first place, there were abundance of Jews, of the ten Tribes, who had kept to the Religion of their Fathers, and had without doubt preserved Copies of the Law. We see that Tobit professed the Jewish Religion during the Captivity, he had not only the Law of Moses, but also the prophesy of Amos: For when they brought him the News, That there was in the open Market-place the Body of an Israelite that had been strangled; he remembered this prophesy of Amos, Your Feasts shall be changed into Mourning, and your Mirth into Lamentation. In the second place, The Samaritan Pentateuch is a convincing Proof, that the Copies of the Law were not lost, and that the Samaritans had preserved it. Their Copies could not be burnt in the Temple, and the Captivity of the Jews contributed nothing to the loss of them. There were then, at least, Copies of the Pentateuch remaining in Esdras's time. In the third place, 11 Years before the Destruction of Jerusalem, Ezekiel and Daniel were transported into Babylon with King Joachim, and divers others of the Israelites that feared God. Is it any way likely then, that none of those Captives carried the Sacred Books with them, and that no Copy of them was preserved during the Captivity? Jeremy stayed in his Country after the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple: And shall we believe that neither he, nor none of those that stayed with him, preserved Copies of the Holy Books? In the fourth place it appears, That Daniel had the Books of Moses during the Captivity of Babylon, because he says in the 9th Chapter( speaking to God) All the People of Israel have transgressed thy Law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy Voice; therefore the Curse is poured upon us, and the Oath that is written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And a little after, As it is written in the Law of Moses, All this Evil is come upon us. There is likewise mention made in the Book of Daniel, of the Prophelies of Isaiah and Jeremiah. They must then have had Copies of them during the Captivity. In the fifth place, 'tis said, in the 6th Chapter of the first Book of Esdras, That the building of the Temple was finished in the sixth year of King Darius, and that the Priests and Levites were established in their Functions, according as it is written in the Law of Moses. But Esdras was not then come from Jerusalem; for it is not till the following Chapter, that he gives an Account of his coming to Judea in the 7th Year of King Artaxerxes. Sixthly, In the 2d Book of Esdras, Chap. 8. The People being willing to be instructed in the Law of Moses, prayed Esdras not to dictate the same afresh, but only to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had given to the People of Israel. And the Scribes spoken to Esdras, that he might bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded Israel. And it is said, That Esdras forthwith brought the Book of the Law and red it before all the People. In the 7th place, It is certain that the Jews, besides the Copies of the Sacred Books which were in the Temple and in the Synagogues, had a great many private Copies which they kept carefully, and had 'em red to their Families. How then can we imagine, that in 70 Years time all those Copies were utterly lost, so that none of 'em should be left remaining? It is a Supposition altogether ridiculous, nay impossible. In short, the Priests and Levites had a particular Obligation to red and preserve the Sacred Books; their Duty required it, and it was their Interest they should not be lost. Can we reasonably suppose that they would suffer 'em to be lost by Negligence, or that they delivered 'em all up by manifest Impiety, and that not so much as one single one did escape? It is the greatest Absurdity in the World.   

SECT. IV. That the Hebrew Text of the Sacred Books was not corrupted by the Malice of the Jews.  
DIvers Authors accuse the Jews, of having maliciously corrupted the Hebrew Text of the Sacred Books, and pretend to found their Charge on the Authority of the ancient Fathers of the Church. They do likewise allege Passages, whose Corruption they maintain to be visible, and that this could never have been done but out of Hatred to Christianity. We must examine, if the Testimonies and Examples which they bring be Conclusive: For, supposing that the Accusation is not proved, it must be agreed that it was a great piece of Presumption to have advanced it. Justice is due to all the World, to Enemies as well as Friends, Jews as well as Christians; and, moreover, 'tis the Interest of Christians to prove, that the Original of the Books upon which their Religion is founded, hath suffered no considerable Change or Corruption. For, if we suppose that the Jews have altered and changed them as they pleased, what stress can we lay upon those Books? Perhaps they will say, That there are Versions which have preserved the Purity of them: But who can persuade us of that, if the Original upon which those Versions were founded have not a Being. It is then not only an unjust but an inconsiderate Zeal, to accuse the Jews of having corrupted the Hebrew Text, if we have no convincing Proofs of it, tho' there were no Proofs to the contrary, as there certainly are. Let us then examine those that they allege, and begin with the Testimonies produced against them.  
The first is St. Justin Martyr, the oldest of the Christian Authors that wrote against the Jews: It's said, This Father accuses them in his Dialogue against Trypho, of having altered the Holy Scriptures in those Places that favoured the Christians. But if we weigh it duly, we shall find no such Accusation in Justin. He does not say any where, that the Jews changed or corrupted the Hebrew Text; but only, that they made unfaithful Translations of it, and such as differed from those of the Septuagint, and that they had cut off from that Version some Places where there were Prophesies of Jeses Christ. Vos autem, &c. i. e. But you have dared to corrupt the Translations of your Elders, which they made by Order of the King of Egypt, alleging that the Scripture has it not as they translated it..... They endeavour to interpret them otherwise: And have likewise taken away several whole Passages out of the Edition of the 70 Elders, which manifestly foretold this Crucified Jesus to be God and Man, and that he died on the across. For Instance, he alleges, Isaiah 7.14. which they translated, Behold a young Woman shall conceive. Whereas the LXX translated it, Behold, a Virgin shall conceive. So that we see St. Justin's Charge is not founded on the Alteration of the Text, but on the Translation of the word Halmah, which they rendered by {αβγδ}, a young Woman, instead of rendering it by {αβγδ}, a Virgin, as the LXX did. Trypho pressing him to give Examples of Places which the Jews had cut off, not from the Text( for that was not the Matter in Debate) but from the Version of the Septuagint; St. Justin brings him a Passage from Esdras, two Passages of Jeremy, and another of Psalm 95. where he pretends they have cut off those words a Ligno, from the Wood. We shall afterwards examine the Truth of those Charges: It's sufficient to observe here, That they don't fall upon the Text, that St. Justin does not accuse the Jews of falsifying that, but only upon the Greek Text, from whence they had cut off those things which were in the Version of the LXX. He charges them only with having translated amiss; and being so bold, that when the Version of the LXX is alleged against them, which he believes to be very faithful, to say that it is not so in the Text.  
The 2d Testimony they quote is from St. Irenaeus, who also accuses the Jews with having changed that Passage of Isaiah, a Virgin shall bring forth a Son, Lib. 3. cap. 24. But he, as well as St. Justin, speaks only of the Versions, and not of the Text. There is not then, says he, any Truth in the Version of those who have dared to translate it, A young Woman shall conceive and bring forth a Son; as Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus have done, being both Jewish Proselytes, whom the Ebionites followed. He opposes to this Translation that of the LXX, which the Jews made a long time before our Saviour's coming. And he adds by way of Conjecture, That had they foreseen that there should be Christians one Day, and that they would make use of those Testimonies, they would have made no scruple to burn the Scriptures, in which 'twas foretold, That all Nations should partake of Life, and that those who boasted themselves to be descended from the Family of Jacob, and the People of Israel should be deprived of the Inheritance of God's Favour. It is not of Matter of Fact that St. Irenaeus speaks in those last Words; for certainly the Jews had not burnt the Holy Scriptures; it was only an Aggravation to express their Hatred of Christians. So that there's nothing of the falsification of the Hebrew Text to be concluded from thence: Nay, he does not so much as accuse the Modern Jews of it, but only of having unfaithfully translated that Passage of Isaiah, A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son, by interpreting the Word Halmah a Woman, instead of a Virgin.  
It is with less Reason still, that they allege what Tertullian says in his Book of the Habits of Women. That we have Ground to think the Jews have rejected the Book of Enoch, as they have done almost all the rest wherein Jesus Christ is mentioned; and that we are not to wonder if those who were to reject him when he spoken himself, would not receive some Writings which spoken of him. For in this Place he does not treat of the altering of falsifying the Text of the Sacred Books which are the Canon of the Jews, but only of some Books that they had thrown out of the Canon, as the Book of Enoch, which some Christians did also reject, because it was not admitted into the Jewish Archives. Tertullian confutes this Argument, because Christians are not to reject what is favourable for them, and that all Scripture that is proper for Edification is inspired by God. This no ways relates to the Question in hand, but only to the Canonicalness of the Book of Enoch.  
Origen seems to accuse the Jews more formally of having falsified the Text: For explaining a Passage in his 12th Homily on that Prophet, he makes this Remark; That because it is hard to find any one that will accuse himself, and confess his Fault, the Jews, who have falsified some Copies, have for this Reason changed something in this Place, by putting those Words, their Sins, instead of those [ the sin of Juda.] Yet we red still in the Text, as in the Days of St. Jerom and Origen, Hattath Jehuda, the Sin of Juda; and not Hattatham, their Sins: So that this pretended Falsification could not be made but in a small Number of Copies. Thus Origen speaks only of some. The Jews( says he) who had falsified some Copies. He seems moreover to speak only of some Greek Copies, and is so far from accusing the Hebrew Text of Falsehood in this place, that it's the Septuagint he speaks of: For after having explained the last Verses of the 16th Chapter of Jeremy, he says, They are followed by this prophesy. The Sin of Judah is wrote with a Graver of Iron on a Diamond, and engraven on their Heart.[ In the English Translation, 'tis the beginning of the 17th of Jeremy, and runs thus. The Sin of Judah is written with a Pen of Iron, and with the Point of a Diamond, and it is graved upon the Table of their Heart.] But he observes, That he does not find this prophesy in the Septuagint,( as indeed it is not to be found there at this Day) but only in other Versions agreeable to the Hebrew Text; and that it's probable, that as Men are unwilling to own themselves to be wicked, the Jews have falsified some Copies, and red their Sin, instead of the Sin of Judah. He likewise accuses the LXX of having cut off all that prophesy of the Text of Jeremiah, lest that Testimony should have for ever continued against them. It is true, that the same Author in his Epistle to Asricanus, concerning the History of Susannah, maintains that the Jews have cut off that History from the Hebrew Text: And to render this Opinion the more probable, he brings some Examples out of the Old and New Testament, where he pretends the Jews have made some Alteration. But for the better understanding Origen's Sense in this Work, we must remember that the Point betwixt him and Asricanus, was about the Truth of the History, and whether it might be red: Asricanus treated it as fabulous, because 'tis not in the Hebrew. Origen does not say precesely, that the Jews had cut it off from the Book of Daniel, but only that they had it formerly: Whence it will not necessary follow, that it was part of the Book of Daniel, or of the Jewish Canon. But it might be as the Histories of Judith and Tobit, in the Number of the Books that were out of the Canon, tho' wrote in Hebrew or Chaldee. And 'tis this only which Origen seems to have maintained, since he did not defend the Canonicalness of it, as we have observed, but the Truth of it. And in other places he speaks of it doubtfully 
He speaks of it doubtfully.] In the end of his Commentary on Daniel, speaking of the Allusion of the Names of the Greek Trees {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, to two Verbs he adds, That if we don't find in the Hebrew the Words to which this Allusion answers, we must say that it is only in the Greek. Quod si non fuerit inventum, &c. Which if it be not found, we must of necessity acquiesce in their Opinion who will have it to be only a Derivative of the Greek Language, which has a Greek and no Hebrew Etymology. And a little lower, having made other Objections against the History of Susannah, he adds, That he will easily solve what he has said; That this History is not to be found in the Book of Daniel amongst the Hebrews: But if any can prove it to be part of the Canon, then we must see what we ought to answer to such an one. St. Jerom in his Preface to Daniel says, Origen is one of those who believe that the History of Susannah is not in Hebrew. .  
St. Chrysostom is no more favourable than other Fathers, to the Pretensions of those who maintain that the Jews have corrupted the Hebrew Text. Two Passages of this Father are quoted on this Subject. The first is in his 5th Homily on Matthew, where he does not compare the Version of the LXX with the Hebrew Text, but only with other Versions made by the Jews since the Birth of our Saviour. Siquidem alii, &c. Forasmuch as other Jews have translated it since the coming of our Lord, who deservedly lye under suspicion, because they have wickedly and craftily corrupted many things, and industriously concealed the Mysteries foretold by the Prophets: But the LXX who were called altogether to interpret the same, above 100 Years before the coming of our Lord, are vindicated faom all such Suspicion. The other Passage is taken out of the Ninth Homily of the same Commentary; where, willing to give a Reason why those Words, He shall be called a Nazarene, cited by St. Matthew, as the Saying of a Prophet, are not now to be found in the Prophets, he says, We are not to wonder at it, because the Jews, who were negligent and impious, have suffered to be lost by neglect, or burnt, or tore divers of the Works of the Prophets. Had he believed that the Jews had falsified the Hebrew Text of the Prophets which we have now, he would sooner have had recourse to this Falsification, than to lost Books. In a word, he does not in this place accuse the Jews of having falsified the Sacred Books that we have now, but that they lost and suppressed those that we have not.  
Some other Authors are also cited, as Julian of Toledo, and Eutymius on St. Matthew. But the first speaks only of the different Chronology of the Text, and of the Version of the LXX. It's true indeed, that he pleads for the Truth of the latter, and in that prefers their Version to the Text: But he does not accuse the Jews of having corrupted their Text by Malice. And in regard of the latter, he speaks only of the Explications which the Jews gave to the prophesy of Micah, in maintaining that it ought to be understood of Zerobabel. This also the Jews deprave( says he, in his Commentary on the 1st of St. Matthew) saying, That the Prophet spake of Zerobabel: To whom we answer on the contrary, That Zerobabel was not born in Bethlehem, but in Babylon.  
Tho' St. Jerom hath declared himself in divers Places for the Authentieness of the Hebrew Text, yet some Passages of his are alleged, in which he seems not only to aclowledge, that there are some Faults in the Hebrew Text, but also to accuse the Jews of having falsified them. Amongst others, they quote a Passage in the 3d Chapter of his Commentary on the Galatians; where explaining those Words quoted by St. Paul, and taken from the 27th of Deuteronomy, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law. He says, 'tis in vain that the Jews have cut off from this Text the Particle Col, which answers to All. In vain, says he, did the Jews take it away, lest they should seem to be under the Curse. He makes the same Remark upon the words in that same Chapter, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a three: Upon which he says, It may be the ancient Hebrew Text had it, Cursed of God, as 'tis expressed by the Septuagint. They quote another Passage of the same Father, from his Commentary on the 5th of Micah, where speaking of Bethlehem Ephrata, he says the LXX make mention of this City, and of ten more in the 15th of Joshua; upon which he observes, that this might have been razed out of the ancient Copies by the Malice of the Jews. They add, That St. Jerom himself, relates in divers Places the different Versions of the Hebrew Text, and likewise that of the Septuagint, which he applauds and approves. To this 'tis answered, That St. Jerom never advanced when speaking his own Sentiment, that the Jews had maliciously corrupted the Hebrew Text; nor does he assure us that it was corrupted, but only relates simply according to his Custom, the different Opinions or Conjectures of Interpreters. When he says in the first Passage, That the Jews cut of the Particle Col in vain, he only speaks it as the Opinion of those who pretended the Jews had cut it off, which he acknowledges to be very uncertain. It is not certain, says he, whether the Septuagint have added here those words every Man, and in every thing; or, if they were in the ancient Hebrew, and the Jews razed them out. The reason why he believed they might have been in the Hebrew, is because there's no likelihood that the Apostle would have quoted those Words so, if they had not been in the Hebrew Copies; and, in effect, the Particle Col is found in the Samaritan Text. It's this that made him say, That it was in vain for the Jews to have cut them off, since the Copies written in more ancient Characters testify that they were there. It is a mere Conjecture, founded on the Conformity of the Samaritan Text with the Septuagint. In the 2d Passage he brings the different Versions of this Sentence, Cursed is every one who is hanged on a three, and the different Senses that may be given to the Hebrew Text. He examines afterward why the Apostle hath cut off from the Septuagint those Words, of God, which are also in the Hebrew Text, and hath added these words, all, and on a three, which are not found in the Hebrew Text, but are in the Septuagint. For, says he, if he had followed the LXX, he ought to add the Name of God; and if he made use of the Hebrew Text, as being an Hebrew, he ought not to have added these words, all, and on a three, which are not in the Hebrew. St. Jerom resolves this Difficulty by an Alternative, saying, That either the Hebrew Copies had it otherwise than at present, or that the Apostle followed the Sense without keeping to the Words: Or, what he believes to be more probable, That after our Saviour's Passion the Name of GOD was added by one or other to the Hebrew Copy and to ours, to reproach us, because we believe in Jesus Christ, who is made a Curse for us. This Father speaks yet with more uncertainty in the third Passage; for there he declares, That he cannot tell whether the Word Bethlebem Ephrata hath been struck out of the Hebrew Text or added to the Version of the LXX. Whether it was razed out of the ancient Books by the Malice of the Jews, lest Christ should seem to be descended of the Tribe of Judah, or added by the LXX, we have no certainty. St. Jerom in these Places speaks doubtfully, in order to Accommodate himself to the Sentiments of divers Authors, as he owns he has frequently done in his Commentaries. It is according to this Method that he frequently quotes the different Interpretations of the Hebrew Text, and the different Versions, and that he commends the LXX. But when he gives his own Thoughts of this Question, he declares himself with Origen for the Hebrew Text, and positively denies that it was falsified by the Jews Dilemma. If any one, says he( in the 3d Book of his Commentary on the 6th of Isaiah) pretends that the Hebrew Copies were corrupted by the Jews, let him hear what Origen says in the 8th Volume of his Explications upon Isaiah, and answer that Question, Why our Lord and his Apostles, who reproved the Doctors of the Law and the Pharisees for their other Crimes, did not tell them of this, which, if true, would have been the greatest' If it be said, That the Hebrew Copies were corrupted since the coming of our Lord; I cannot but smile, that they would have me to believe, that Jesus Christ, his Evangelists and Apostles, have quoted those Passages in the same manner, as the Jews should falsify them afterwards. We cannot doubt then but St. Jerom was persuaded that the Hebrew Copies were not maliciously corrupted by the Jews: For, had he been of that Opinion, why should he have undertaken a new Version from the Hebrew Text? Upon what Ground should he have preferred that to the Version of the LXX? And with what Confidence could he have given it the Name of the Hebrew Verity throughout?  
St. Augustin well perceived, That it was neither Prudent, Reasonable, nor Advantageous to the Church, to maintain that the Jews had corrupted the Sacred Books. God forbid, says he( in his 15th Book of the City of God, chap. 13.) that any prudent Man should imagine that the Jews, how malicious soever they be, could falsify so many Copies, that were dispersed in so many Places. And therefore in his Treatise of Christian Doctrine, he advices People to have recourse to the Originals; and when he prefers the Version of the LXX to all the rest, he always puts in a Salvo for the Honour of the Hebrew Text, as in his 18th Book de Civitate Dei, Cap. 43. Insomuch that when there's any difference betwixt the Text and the Version, he says, We must rather believe the Original than the Versions. Ibid. Lib. 15. Cap. 13.  
Having answered the Authorities that were produced to show, That the Jews had maliciously and out of hatred to the Christians, corrupted the Hebrew Text, and shew'd that none of the Ancients do positively charge them with that Crime, and that the most Learned of them do vindicate them from it. We shall now bring our Reasons to prove, That there's no likelihood of their having done it, or that they could do it. Those that appear to us to be the most convincing are as follow.  
In the first Place, 'tis certain, that the Jews have always had a particular Respect for the Sacred Books contained in their Canon, that they were persuaded it was Criminal to add to them, or diminish from them, and preserved them carefully. Then what likelihood is there, that they would designedly corrupt them? Is it not much more reasonable to believe, that they preserved them in their Purity? Philo, quoted by Eusebius, l. 8. Praep. Evang. assures us, That they preserved the Books of Moses, without having changed so much as one Word of them. Josephus testifies, That the Jews have so great a Respect for the Sacred Books, that for a long Succession of Ages, none amongst them durst add any thing to them, or diminish any thing from them. 'tis on this Account that St. Justin brings in Trypho the Jew, saying( according to the Maxims of those of his Sect) That they were so far from Corrupting the Sacred Scriptures, that all of them believe 'twould have been a more enormous Crime, than to Worship the Golden Calf, consecrate their Children to Idols, make them to pass thro' the Fire, to sacrifice them, or to kill the Prophets. The Jews have always preserved, and do still preserve this Respect for the Books of the Bible; they transcribed them with all the Precautions imaginable, to make their Copies true; they red them with Exactness in their Synagogues: Then is it credible, that after this they would go about to corrupt them deliberately?  
In the second Place, if the Jews had corrupted the Holy Scripture, out of hatred to the Christians, on purpose to deprive them of those Weapons, which they made use of to fight themselves, they would certainly have falsified the Passages, which contain the most clear Predictions of Jesus Christ, and those that the Christians opposed to them; but those Passages have continued in their Purity, and are sometimes more express in the Hebrew Text, than in the Vulgar Translation. There's an infinite Number of clear Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, which the Christians allege every day against the Jews, in which it's agreed the Jews have made no Alteration. There's only a very small Number alleged, where its pretended that the Version of the LXX renders the Sense of the prophesy concerning Jesus Christ more clear( which we shall examine particularly afterwards) there are on the other hand, Places where the Hebrew Text agrees better to Jesus Christ than the Version of the Septuagint, as we shall make it appear. What then, can we conclude from all this, that the Jews, out of hatred to the Christians, have falsified the Hebrew Text? Not at all: For had they done it from that Motive, they would have corrupted all the Passages or at least the Chief Ones, and since we cannot conclude, that the Septuagint had any design to weaken the Proofs of the Messiah, because in some Places they have translated the Text in such a manner as diminishes the force of the prophesy; neither can we lawfully conclude, that the Jews have falsified the Hebrew Text, and changed the Prophecies, which relate to Jesus Christ, because in some Places the Hebrew Text, does not seem to be so express as the Versions. It may be that the Text hath been corrupted in those Places accidentally, by the fault of the Copiers. It may be also that the Interpreters have not kept to the Letter of the Text. Perhaps there may be some fault in the Version. We shall enter upon the Particulars afterwards.  
In the third Place, if we should allow, that the Jews would have falsified the Copies of the Sacred Books, it was morally impossible, that they could do it; for how should they conspire together to carry on that Design? How could they when scattered throughout the Earth, agree in all Places upon the same Falsification? Is it possible; that all of them should have consented to that Crime, and that none of them, should oppose it? How could they falsify all the Copies, without leaving so much as one in its Original Integrity? Admitting they could have accomplished their Design in respect of the Copies, which were in their Possession, how could they have falsified those that were in the Hands of Christians? All those Suppositions are alike Unwarrantable.  
In the fourth Place, it seems to have been the Concern of the Divine Providence, not to suffer that the Copies of the Sacred Books should be corrupted by the Jews in those Prophecies, which related to Jesus Christ. For one of the strongest Proofs of the Truth and Antiquity of those Prophecies is, That they were preserved and respected by an Ancient People who hate and are no ways in Agreement with us: They give Testimony to the Antiquity and Truth of the Books, which confounded themselves, and demonstrate the Truth of our Religion; which makes St. Augustin say, That the Jews are the Preservers of our Archives and Books: On Ps. 40& 56. They carry our Books, they are made our Book-Keepers, but reap no Advantage from them, all the Benefit belongs to us. When the Pagans will not believe that the Predictions concerning Jesus Christ, which we relate, are true; and maintain, that we have forged them, we have nothing else to do but to refer them to the Jews, who are the Enemies of our Faith, and preserve the Books wherein those Prophesies are found. 'tis an effect of the Divine Providence in respect of us( saith St. Austin in his Exhortation to the Gentiles) that the Jews preserve our Books in their Synagogues, and by consequence our Religion; for to prevent all occasion of Slander, by making use of the Copies kept in our Church, we love rather to make use of those of the Jewish Synagogues, the Reading of which demonstrates, that what those Holy Men have wrote is our Doctrine.  
In the fifth Place, we make use of St. Jerom's Dilemma, by adding thereunto a third Article, relating to the time that past from St. Jerom to our own Days( for there are Authors who pretend that the Hebrew Text was not corrupted till after that time) and argue thus, If the Hebrew Text was corrupted by the Malice of the Jews, it was either before Jesus Christ, or betwixt our Saviour's Preaching and St. Jerom's time, or from St. Jerom to our time. Now all those Suppositions are alike unwarrantable, and by consequence easily overthrown: For in the first Place, had the Hebrew Text been corrupted by the Malice of the Jews before Jesus Christ, our Lord and his Apostles would never have failed to reprove them for that Crime; but they are so far from doing so, that they suppose the Jews had the True Scripture amongst them. Search the Scriptures,( saith our Saviour, John 5.39.) for in them ye think ye have eternal Life; and they are they which testify of me. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's Chair, says he, Matth. 23.2, 3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you, observe and do. Would ever our Saviour have spoken thus of the Corrupters and Falsifiers of the Sacred Scripture? The Apostle St. Paul Writing to the Corinthians, does not upbraid the Jews, that they had not the Books of the Old Testament in their Purity and Integrity, but that they did not understand them. For until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the Reading of the Old Testament, which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is red the veil is upon their Heart, 2 Cor. 3.14, 15. The Books that the Jews red were the True Sacred Scripture: It was the Law of Moses which they red every Sabbath-day in their Synagogues( as St. James says, Acts 15. v. 21.) It was not a falsified Law or Scripture. They red it as they received it from their Fathers, but did not understand it. It ought to pass then for certain, That the Hebrew Text was not corrupted by the Malice of the Jews in the time of our Saviour and his Apostles. Let's see if it can be said, that they falsified the same betwixt the time of the Apostles, and that of St. Jerom.  
There are many Arguments to prove, that this could not be. The Jews that were converted to Christianity, did without doubt keep Copies of the Sacred Books. The Nazarenes, who were a Sect of Christians very much addicted to the Ancient Law, did without all Question also keep Copies of them. The Jews were not Masters of those Copies to corrupt them: Tho' after the taking of Jerusalem there were but few Christians who preserved the Hebrew Tongue. It cannot be said however, that they did not keep the Hebrew Copies, and that no Christian learned that Tongue. Hegesippus, who lived a little after the Apostles, and of a Jew became Christian, did certainly understand Hebrew, as Eusebius observes. He had without doubt the Hebrew Copies of the Old Testament. Many other Christians of Palestin originally Jews, understood and red the Bible in Hebrew. It is impossible then, that the Jews could have falsified their Copies, and that no Body should have perceived it. From the 12th Year of the Emperor Adrian, the Hebrew Text was conformable to that which we have, as appears by Aquila's Version. That Falsification then must have been made betwixt the taking of Jerusalem, and the beginning of the second Age, that is to say in about 30 or 40 Years. Is it any way likely, that in that time, when there were still divers converted Jews in Palestin, none of them should have preserved the Copies they had uncorrupted? Shall we believe that the Jews could in so little time suppress all the Copies of the Hebrew Text, and substitute Counterfeit Ones in their Place. The Hebrew Text which Origen inserted some time after in his Hexapla was agreeable to that which we have. In fine, in St. Jerom's time, the Jews and Christians had the same Hebrew Text, that we have at present; and St. Jerom's Version is a certain Evidence, that no considerable Change has been made in it since that time, and by consequence that the Jews have not corrupted it: And besides that the Extraordinary and Scrupulous' Diligence of the Massorites must needs have contributed mightily towards the Preservation of the Text in its Purity. St. Jerom brings another Reason to demonstrate, that the Hebrew Text hath not been corrupted since Christ's time, to wit, that Jesus Christ and his Apostles have quoted the Scripture according to the Hebrew Text, and not according to the Version of the LXX. It is plain, that this Observation, if true, does invincibly demonstrate, That the Places in which the Hebrew differs from the LXX, have not been falsified by the Jews, since the time of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. But this Observation of St. Jerom's is not to be understood in the full extent of the Words. For it must be owned, that the Evangelists and Apostles Writing in Greek, do usually quote the Passages of the Old Testament, according to the Version which was Common and authorized among the Jews 
According to the Version which was common among the Jews.] St. Luke always quotes the Old Testament according to the Version of the Septuagint, even in those Places where it differs from the Hebrew Text; as in a Passage of Amos, which he brings in St. James quoting, Acts 15.17. and in his own Gospel, Chap. 4. he relates a Passage which our Saviour had red in the Synagogue of Nazareth, according to the Version of the LXX. It is not that Jesus Christ had red it in that manner in the Synagogue, but that St. Luke repeated it out of his own Head according to the LXX. By the same Means there are even Passages in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which were formerly wrote in Hebrew, that the Greek Interpreter hath related according to the Version of the Septuagint. , without examining whether it was entirely conformable to the Hebrew Text. But as to the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which was wrote in Hebrew, tho' we have not the Original of it, it's easy to know by the Version itself, that this Evangelist had quoted the Scripture according to the Hebrew, in Places where it differs from the Septuagint 
In Places where it differs from the Septuagint.] In the second of St. Matthew this prophesy of Micah, concerning the City of Bethlehem; Thou art not the least amongst the Principal Towns of Judah.[ In the English Translation it is, Thou art not the least among the Princes of Judah.] It is not quoted according to the Septuagint, who translated it, Amongst the thousands of Judah; but he hath followed the Sense, that might be given to the Hebrew Word, which being differently Pointed signifies Thousand and Princes. ib. v. 15. he quotes this prophesy of Hosea, Out of egypt have I called my Son, according to the Hebrew Text, and not according to the Septuagint, who render it, Out of egypt I have called those Children. In that same Chapter St. Matthew quotes this prophesy, He shall be called a Nazaren. This is no where found in the LXX; but if we suppose that he made use of the Hebrew Copy, we may say with St. Jerom, that he meant it of those Words, Isa. 11.1. A Branch[ Netzer] shall grow out of his Roots. In the fourth Chapter, he relates a prophesy taken from the 9th of Isaiah, so as it agrees better to the Hebrew Text, than to the Version of the LXX. In the 8th Chapter he quotes this prophesy of Isaiah, Ch. 53.4. Surely he hath born our Griefs, and carried our Sorrows, in the same Terms, as in the Hebrew Text, whereas the LXX have rendered it, He bears our sins and suffers for us; Ch. 12.18. There's a prophesy taken out of Isa. 42.1. according to the Sense of the Hebrew Text, Cap. 21.9. there's another taken from the Prophet Zechariah, more agreeable to the Hebrew Text than to the LXX. There's another of the same Prophet, concerning the Thirty Pieces of Silver, quoted as in the Hebrew Text, which in this Place differs very much from the Version of the LXX. There are also Prophecies in St. John's Gospel, quoted according to the Hebrew Text, as Cap. 19. those Words of Zech. 12. They shall look upon him whom they have pierced; which are translated different from the LXX. St. Paul hath also sometimes followed the Hebrew Text, as in Rom. 9. where he reports the Words of Moses to Pharaoh, as they are in the Hebrew, It is for this Cause, that I have raised thee up: Whereas the LXX renders it, It is for this Cause, that I have preserved thee until now. . There are also Passages in St. John's Gospel and in St. Paul's Epistles, wherein the Version of the LXX is not exactly followed; and that alone is sufficient to prove, That neither the Evangelists nor Apostles believed the Hebrew Text to be corrupted.  
The Difficulty also which they have to assign the time wherein 'tis pretended the Jews falsified the Hebrew Text, does further prove the falsehood of this System: Some pretand that this Falsification was not made till after St. Jerom's time. This is the Opinion of Melchior canon, Serarius and some others; but the Version which St. Jerom hath made of the Hebrew Text, being, as we have observed, agreeable almost in every thing to the Hebrew Text that we now have, as well as the Versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, they are so many Monuments against this pretended Falsification; and we defy those who maintain that Opinion to produce Passages of any Consequence, wherein St. Jerom's Version, differs from the Hebrew Text we now have, which is the least they ought to do, if they would give any Appearance of Truth to the Opinion which they maintain. Therefore 'tis that most of those who have advanced, that the Hebrew Text was corrupted by the Malice of the Jews, have thought themselves obliged to say, that the Corruption was of an older Date, and without giving themselves the Trouble to mark the Time precisely when 'twas done, have only said in general, That the Hebrew Text was corrupted by the Jews, betwixt the time of our Saviour, and that of St. Jerom. But when they are pressed, they are obliged to restrain this Epocha; for its hard to believe, that this Falsification was made in a time when there were so many Jewish Converts in Palestin, who understood the Hebrew, and red the Bible in that Language, that is to say, until the taking of Jerusalem. Moreover, the Fathers whom they allege to prove, that the Jews have falsified the Hebrew Text, having lived 50 Years or thereabout, after the taking of Jerusalem, if their Passages prove any thing, we must suppose that the Hebrew Text was corrupted during the 50 Years from the taking of Jerusalem under Vespasian, till the time of Adrian. It is also in that time precisely, which the last Author, who hath wrote to maintain that the Hebrew Text was corrupted, places this Falsification, and not only sets down the exact time, but also the Author, alleging, That 'twas Rabbi Akiba, the Disciple of Gamaliel II. who began to flourish at Tiberias about the Year 95 of Jesus Christ, and died in 135. He says, that this Rabbi having great Credit, amongst those of his Nation, as well as famed and Parts, undertook this Falsification, that his Disciple Aquila followed his Greek Version: And that since that time Origen and St. Jerom, knowing no other Hebrew Text, but that of the Jews of Tiberias, corrupted by Akiba, there remained no other neither amongst the Christians nor the Jews. This is the Ingenious System of that Author, which might have been probable, if his Learning and Acute Wit could have passed for solid Reasons. But though some Colour may be given to slight Conjectures by curious Remarks and an Ingenious Application of them, there's no great difficulty to discover the Weakness of them, when once we come to examine them. Thus it hath happened to this Author, who hath discovered his Learning by his particular inquires, and his Wit by the fine and agreeable Turns, which he hath given to his Conjectures, but hath not thereby convinced any one of the Truth of his System in this Point; for certainly when we come to examine it narrowly, we find that it is only established on false or uncertain Suppositions, for he supposes.  
1. That the Christians had no Hebrew Text, and had almost no Knowledge of it, from the time of the Apostles to the taking of Jerusalem. That could not be, since there were among the Christians a great number of converted Jews, whose Natural Tongue was the Chaldee or the Syriack, which is called Hebrew in the Gospel; and that the Natural Jews perfectly understood the Ancient Hebrew, and red the Scripture in that Tongue.  
2. He supposes that after the taking of Jerusalem, the Hebrew Text remained only in the Hands of the Jews. This is what History teaches us to be false, since we know that many Christian Jews that left Jerusalem before it was taken, settled themselves at Pella, where they formed the Sect of the nazarenes, who kept the Copies of the Hebrew Text.  
3. He must suppose in his System, that there were no other Copies of the Hebrew Text in the World, than those of Tiberias, that is to say, there were no Jews elsewhere, or if they were, that they had no Hebrew Copies of the Law, but that they only made use of the Version of the LXX. But 'tis certain, there were Jews dispersed through all the World, and 'tis no less certain, that the Jews had Copies of the Law. How is it possible, That Rabbi Akiba should have had Credit enough to get all the Copies suppressed or corrupted; so as in 30 or 40 Years after, there should be none left?  
4. All that this Author alleges concerning Rabbi Akiba, upon the Credit of the Jews, has nothing of Certainty in it. It's true, St. Jerom assures us, that Akiba was Disciple to Samai and Hillel, and that the Jews believed him to be Aquila's Master; but this is all we know of it, and that too very Uncertain.  
5. This Author, to prove that Akiba hath falsified the Hebrew Text, relates the Explications of Scripture, ascribed to Rabbi Akiba, in the Book, entitled, Pirke Eliezer: Or, Eliezer's Capitula, which he pretends to be conformable to the Hebrew Text at present, and different from the Version of the LXX. Whence he concludes, that 'tis he who is the Author of that Difference, and that he hath inserted it in the Hebrew Text. But to me nothing seems weaker than that way of Arguing; for, 1. Who can assure us, that the Discourse which Rabbi Eliezer ascribes to Akiba, is really his? 2. Is that a Proof that Rabbi Akiba hath falsified the Hebrew Text, because he hath quoted it as we have it now? 3. Amongst the Passages cited by the Author of this Objection, there are some of them in the LXX, as well as in the Hebrew, in the same manner as Rabbi Akiba has related them, and in the rest, the difference arises only from the pronunciation 
The Difference arises only from the Pronunciation.] The first Passage is Genesis 28.11. where there's almost no difference betwixt the Vulgar Translation and the Hebrew Text. The Hebrew imports that Jacob passed the Night in a place, because the Sun was set; the LXX have the same Expression. The second is from 1 Chron. 17.21. The Hebrew Text imports, That the People of Israel were the only People upon the Earth.[ The English has it, What one Nation in the Earth.] The LXX renders it, There never was any People hitherto upon the Earth like unto that of Israel: Wherefore they are rather of the Mind, that this is a Corruption in the Hebrew Text, than any Liberty that the Translator hath taken to himself in his Version. The third Passage is from Genesis 26.18, 19. It is in the LXX as in the Hebrew, in the same Manner as quoted by Rabbi Akiba; so that we cannot say it was red otherwise before his time. The fourth Passage taken from Numbers 33.4. is also in the LXX, as quoted by Akiba. The difference found in the fifth Passage, taken from Psalm 67.28. betwixt the LXX and the Versions made on the Hebrew Text, does not come from any Corruption of the Text, but from this, that the Hebrew Word Rodhem, may signify in a transport of Mind, or their Master. That which follows in the same Psalm, comes from the different Pronunciation of the Hebrew Word, which may signify a Prince and a ston. Akiba took it in the latter Sense, in which perhaps he is mistaken; but he hath not for that falsified the Text. , so that we cannot conclude from thence, that Rabbi Akiba hath falsified the Scripture in those Places. On the contrary, since it is agreeable to the Version of the LXX, there must of necessity, according to the Principles of our Adversary, have been no Falsification in those Places.  
6. When they say, that Aquila, the Disciple of Akiba, is accused to be the first among the Greeks, who corrupted the Sacred Text, it's to be supposed he did not make this Falsification but in following the corrupted Text; whereas the Falsifications whereof he is accused relate to his Translation. He is not charged with having translated from a corrupt Hebrew Copy, but to have translated the Hebrew sorrily.  
In short, when 'tis alleged, that Akiba is the Author of the Corruption of the Hebrew Text, concerning the Chronology of the patriarches, they supposed it as a certain thing, First, That the Hebrew Text is corrupted in that Place, which is the thing in Question. They suppose, in the second Place, That it is Akiba who corrupted it out of Malice and Hatred to the Christians, which is not at all proved. 'tis true, they add, That the Book Seder Olam, or the Great Chronology, was made according to Akiba's Sentiments, as the Jews allege; but all this is very uncertain, and the Author of the Book Seder Olam, is much later than Akiba; And further, if what the Jews tell us of Akiba be true, That he sided with Barcochebas, who revolted in the 132th Year of Christ, and would have himself thought to be the messiah, he would not have been at the trouble of abridging the Chronology, with a Design to show that there were 2000 Years still to come before the messiah was to be expected. They will say, That the same Akiba, who abridged the Chronology out of hatred to the Christians, was afterwards engaged by a Spirit of Faction in the Party of Barcochebas: But what likelihood is there, that a Man who had just alleged to the Christians that the messiah would not come till 2000 Years, should in so little a time after have the Impudence to produce a messiah himself, and persecute them in order to oblige them to aclowledge him? All this shows how little Credit we are to give to the Histories of the Jews. And how little Solidity there is in the Conjectures of the Author of the Book, called, The Antiquity of the Times defended, to prove that the Hebrew Text was falfified out of hatred to the Christians by this Rabbi Akiba.  
After having shew'd that they not only come short of proving by Authority, that the Jews have corrupted the Hebrew Text, out of malice and hatred to the Christians, but also that it is not likely, nay, even that it's morally impossible they should have done it, we must return to the particular Places, which it's pretended they have corrupted out of hatred to the Christians, to weaken the Sense of the Prophecies that agree to Jesus Christ. But as we shall examine afterwards all the principal Passages, in which the Hebrew Text differs from the LXX, or the Vulgar Translation, of which these are a part, that we may not repeat the same thing again and again, we will satisfy ourselves to observe here, 1. That there's no Proof that any of those Passages have been falsified by the Jews, out of hatred to the Christians: And supposing that there are some Passages corrupted, the Corruption may have proceeded from other Causes, as the negligence of the Copiers, the change of Letters that resemble one another, the different Reading or Punctuation, without any Necessity of accusing the Jews of falsification, and unfair dealing. Nay we shall make it evident in the sequel, when we speak of those Passages in particular, That the Difference there is betwixt the Hebrew Text and LXX is visibly founded upon some of those Causes we have just now alleged. For certainly, if that Difference came from the Malice of the Jews, it would only be found in those Places which relate to Jesus Christ, since they had no Reason or Interest to falsify any other; and they would not have failed to have falsified all, or at least the chief and most express Texts. Now it is certain that the Hebrew and the Version of the LXX differ in abundance of other Places. It is also certain that the principal Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, are as express, and sometimes more express in the Hebrew Text than in the LXX. It is then to no purpose for them to allege some Prophecies concerning our Saviour, in which there's some Difference to be found betwixt the Hebrew Text and the LXX, to prove that the Jews have falsified the Hebrew Text. 2. That it is not true that the Hebrew Text is corrupted in all those Places where it differs from the Version of the LXX. We shall moreover show, that there are several in which it is the Version that is defective or corrupted. 3. That most of those Differences are not considerable, and don't destroy the prophesy: That many times that which is in the Version, is only a more ample Explication of what is in the Text. Those general reflections are sufficient to answer the Passages of the Hebrew Text which are alleged to be falsified by the Jews, until such time as we come to the Passages themselves.   

SECT. V. That there are Corruptions in the Hebrew Text; how they came, and of what Nature they are: That they don't hinder the Hebrew Texts being Authentic; and that it ought ordinarily to be preferred to the Versions. General Rules to know when we are to follow the Hebrew Text, and when to follow the Versions.  
WE must never affirm any thing, but what we have solid Proofs for. Since we have none that the Hebrew Text hath been maliciously falsified by the Jews, it is nothing less than great rashness to ascertain it: And for that same Reason also we must beware of falling into the opposite Extreme, by maintaining that the Hebrew Text is in its Original Purity, and that it is not corrupted in any Place. This is to suppose, that the Jews, who copied it, were never mistaken, that they never put one Let ter for another, that they always pointed the Text right, that there was no difference in their Copiers, that they have preserved the Text without the least Fault since Moses's time, or from Esdras till now; that is to say, that they are infallible in their Reviews, Punctuation and Copying of the Sacred Books, and that they were subject neither to Negligence, nor surprise; which can be ascribed to nothing but a peculiar Assistance from God, and to a sort of continual Inspiration. All those Suppositions being groundless, it's mere Superstition to assert as some Authors do, That the Hebrew Text, which we have at present, is not corrupted in any Place, and that there's no Fault, nor any thing left out, and that we must indispensably follow it at all times. This is not only to speak without all Evidence, and contrary to all Probability, but we have very good Proof to the contrary. For, in the first place, there have been Differences betwixt the oldest of the Hebrew Copies, which the Massorites have observed by that which they called Keri and Ketib, and putting one of the Readings in the Text, and the other in the Margin, we have the different Readings of the Jews of the East and the Jews of the West, of Ben-Ascher and Ben-Naphtali; and the Manuscript Copies of the Bible are not always alike. In the 2d Place, it is certain, That there are Passages where the Sense of the Versions is more natural, and agrees better to the Subject than that of the Text; and that the Difference which is found in those Places betwixt the Text and the Version comes only from the changing of one Letter into another that resembles it, as Resch into Daleth, Beth into Caph, Mem into Samech, of Beth into Phe, or Mem, of the Final Caph into Vau, or the like: So that it visibly appears that the Translator hath red the Text otherwise, and that the Sense is abundantly better. Who can doubt that there was not a very great likelihood then, that the Hebrew Text was corrupted in that respect, and that in succession of time one Letter might have been put for another? Thirdly, It is certain, as we have asserted, that the Vowel Points are a new Invention. Oft-times the Difference which is betwixt the Text and the Version, comes only from the Punctuation and the Sense of the Version is much better than that of the pointed Text, Who can doubt then, these Circumstances being considered, but that the Punctuation is faulty? Fourthly, Those Fathers that were most wedded to the Hebrew Text, as Origen and St. Jerom confess that there are Faults in the Text, that we are not always obliged to follow it, that there's a Difference betwixt the Hebrew Copies, and that they have given a different Sense to one and the same Word, because of the different Pronunciation. Then since we cannot say, that the Massorites and the Authors of the present Punctuation were infallible, we cannot be absolutely assured that the Reading, which is in our Text, is the truest, but must judge of it by the Sense, and by what comes before and follows after.  
But, tho' we cannot say that the Hebrew Text is without any Fault, we must nevertheless aclowledge, that there's no considerable Fault in it, neither as to Doctrine or Manners. That most of the Differences betwixt the Original and the Versions, consist only in different Expressions, which are more or less clear, and which agree better or worse with what goes before and comes after, which make the Sense more or less perfect: That there's none where the Sense of the Hebrew Text contains a dangerous Falsehood or manifest Error: And therefore those sorts of Faults diminish nothing from the Authority of the Hebrew Text, and don't hinder but it may pass for Authentic, and as the Rule of our Faith and Manners. Those different Readings and small Faults which are generally met with in all Books, Sacred and profane, both in the Text and in the Versions, don't prevent our certainly having the Authentic Works of the Authors, nor hinder our knowing their true Sentiments. To conclude then, because the Original Texts of the Old and New Testament have been subject to the common Law of all other Books, and that small Faults have slipped into them by the inadvertency or neglect of the Copiers, to conclude from thence, I say, that we have not now any more the Word of God, or the Holy Scripture, divinely inspired, would be as great a Folly as his who should maintain that we have not now the Works of Plato, Demosthenes, Cicero, Titus Livius, &c. because there are Faults and Defects in all those Works. To lay this down as a Principle, is to overturn the Foundation of all our Historical Knowledge, and to introduce an unwarrantable Scepticism. It is then without Reason, that because of those small Faults which happen in the Hebrew Text, we should doubt of its Truth, or of its being authentic. 2. That in those Places where it differs from the Version of the Septuagint, there's abundance more where the Fault is rather in the Version than in the Text, and where the difference proceeds rather from the Negligence or the Liberty of the Translator than from the Text. 3. That we must have recourse to the Hebrew Text, as to the Fountain, and follow it rather than the Versions, except we have particular Reasons to vary from it and to follow the Version. This is the Sentiment of St. Augustin and St. Jerom; which is agreeable to good Sense, Reason and ordinary Custom. When we would know an Authors Sense, we have always recourse to the Original, let our Version be never so good or so ancient. It's true, there may be Faults in the Original, but there's more reason to suppose that they may be in the Version; for besides the Change that may happen by the Fault of the Coppiers, which is common to the Original and to the Version, the Version is still for the most part more subject to Faults by the Ignorance and Negligence of the Translator, because of the difficulty there is to render the Sense of the Text well into another Language, by the Liberty which Translators allow themselves, to change, add, explain, or determine; and for many other Reasons. All those things ought still to have more place in regard of the Hebrew Text, than in regard of any other Original, both because of the particular Care which the Jews took to preserve it in its Purity, and because of the Difficulty to translate it, and of the Liberty which the LXX have visibly allowed themselves in translating it, and of the Changes which have happened to that Version. I deny not, however, that there are Occasions, wherein for very good Reasons we are not to forsake the Hebrew Text( as at present) to follow the Version of the LXX, and that we must not do it in some Passages; but that is very seldom, as we shall make it appear in the sequel, by a particular Examination of those Passages. In the mean time, I shall give some general Rules which may help us to discern when we are to follow the Hebrew Text, and when we are to vary from it.  
In the first place, in the Passages where the Difference betwixt the Text and the Versions comes from this, that the Interpreters have red the Hebrew Text in a different manner, we must examine if this different Reading comes from the difference of the Consonants of the Hebrew Word, or only from the Punctuation. As we have clearly proved, that the Punctuation was not formed by the Sacred Pen-men, and that it is a new Invention, we need not be so scrupulous to vary from the Sense that the Massorites have fixed on it by their Punctuation; if that which the same Word differently pointed may have, and which the LXX have followed, be the most natural, and most agreeable to that which goes before and follows after; for then it is not supposed, that the Sacred Text is corrupted or changed, but only that it is ill pointed. It is true, that we are not to despise or wholly to neglect the Authority of the Massorites, who have followed the Custom that is most received among the Jews; but since we cannot say, that they have been Infallible in the Determination which they have made of putting one Sense rather than another upon Words, when the Sense contrary to that which they have embraced appears plainly to be best, we are to follow it without any scruple: But if the two Senses be alike good and warrantable, we have the Liberty to follow which of the two we please, but are not to reject the contrary.  
If the difference of the Sense come from this, That in changing a Consonant or one of the ancient Vowels in a Word, it hath the Sense which the ancient Greek Interpreters hath followed, we must be the more cautious in varying from the Hebrew Text; for tho' it be not impossible that there are Letters changed in the Text, and that the resemblance there is betwixt divers Hebrew Letters, makes that change very easy, it is a great piece of Rashness to assert it, without having a very plain Proof of it: And nothing is more Ridiculous, than to forge other whole Words, as some People do, by adding, changing, or transposing Letters. The difference of the ancient Version alone is not a sufficient ground for making this Change, because the Interpreter may have been mistaken, either in the Reading or in the Version of the Text; and we ought always rather to presume that the Truth is on the side of the Original, than on that of the Version, unless we can plainly discover that there's a Fault in the Text. So that when the Text makes good Sense without any alteration, I should always prefer it to the Version, and never stray from it, unless it be demonstrated by other Passages of Scripture, or by what goes before and follows after, that we must rather follow the Sense of the Version than of the Text: And in this Case I should not satisfy myself with a single Conjecture, slight Appearance, or faint Likelihood, but would look for solid Reasons, capable to work on a reasonable Mind, and which according to the Rules of Prudence and Criticism we should think are of weight.  
The difference betwixt the Version and the Text comes sometime from this, That the ancient Hebrew Copies did not agree, but one had it one way, and another another way. Those Differences are known to us by the Keri and Ketib of the Hebrews, which are only different Readings, whereof one was in the Text and the other in the Margin, and by the different Readings of Ben-Ascher and Ben-Napthali, the Eastern and Western Jews, which were also observed by other rabbis. Those different Readings cannot both of them be true, one of 'em must of necessity be false. To determine us which of them to follow, we must choose that which is most authorized, whether it be by the rabbis, or by its Conformity to the ancient Versions, which agrees best to other Passages, and which renders the Sense most Natural and Perfect.  
We must use the same Precaution, when the Sense of the Hebrew Term is uncertain, or when the same Word may have two Significations. The first happens particularly in those Words which we meet with but once in the Old Testament; or, which it may be is repeated only in two or three Places. For, as we are not certain of the signification of the Words of a dead Language, but because that same Word joined in different Places with different Words, does always make up good Sense in one signification, which all the other significations given to it cannot do; because 'tis morally impossible, that a Sense which is not the natural Sense of a Word according to its Institution, can agree in divers Places, the different Conjunction of the same Word with divers others, doth certainly discover its proper signification. But since it is not impossible, that two different significations may both of 'em make good Sense in one and the same place, or even in two or three, we have not the same certainty of the signification of a Word, when it is not found but once in a Book which comprehends all the Words of a Language, such as is the Old Testament in respect of the Hebrew, or when it is not repeated there above once or twice. Nevertheless, Interpreters for the most part agree well enough upon the signification of Terms, either by Tradition, or by Analogy with words of other Oriental Languages. But when they don't agree upon them, and that they are found differently translated in different Versions, we are at liberty to choose that signification we judge most likely: As also, when the same Word is capable of two significations, and that Interpreters have explained it differently, we must prefer that which makes the most perfect and natural Sense.  
The Differences that are found betwixt the Hebrew and Samaritan Text of the Pentateuch, ought to be considered as different Readings of the same Text; for the Samaritan Pentateuch is like an ancient Copy of the same Book; and the differences betwixt this Copy and that used by the Hebrews were observed in St. Jerom's time. We shall afterwards speak more at large of the Authority of this Hebrew Samaritan Copy. Upon this foot we may follow the reading of the Samaritan Text, if it be found more likely to be true than the common Hebrew Text.  
We are not to pass the same judgement on the Differences that are found in the Chaldee Paraphrases or Oriental Versions and Talmud. Those Authors having taken the Liberty to stray from the true Sense of the Text, so that we cannot make use of 'em but when there are differences in the Text itself, or that there is ground otherwise to be persuaded that the Text is corrupted.  
The Greek Versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, whereof we have only some Fragments remaining, being more conformable to the Hebrew Text than the rest, don't abound with so many Differences, but they may serve to discover the different meanings of an Hebrew Word, or the different Readings of one and the same Passage, upon which are founded most of the Differences that are betwixt the Versions.  
But we must confess, That many times the Difference which is found betwixt the Version and the Original, and betwixt the Versions themselves, comes from this, that the Interpreters have not tied themselves to keep close to the literal and strict meaning of the Words, but have taken the Liberty to put that Sense upon them which they thought the truest. Every Version is a sort of Paraphrase and Commentary, and it's almost impossible but the Translator, let him be never so faithful, will sometimes take the Liberty to vary from the Letter of the Original: As for Example, if one Word or Phrase may have two Senses in the Original Tongue, which cannot both be expressed by the Terms of the Version, he is obliged to determine himself to one of the two Senses. If the Original have a particular Turn, peculiar to itself, and which would be no way graceful, or perhaps not Sense in the Version, the Translator must make use of a different Expression, but such as hath the same Energy and Sense in the Language into which he translates as the Original Words have. This is more peculiar to the Hebrew than to any other Language, because it is full of particular Turns and Expressions, which cannot be imitated by other Languages. When there's any thing obscure and intricate in the Original, it's the Translator's part to illustrate, enlarge and explain it, if any thing be omitted, to supply it; or if there be any thing superfluous, to retrench it. In fine, there are a great many Occasions wherein Translators are obliged to vary from the Letter of the Text. From hence comes an infinite number of Variations or seeming Differences betwixt the Text and the Version; but then we cannot charge the Text with Corruption, or pretend to correct it by the Version. We must on the contrary examine, whether the Translator hath taken the Sense of the Original aright: If he has hit it exactly, there's no true and real Difference, and there's no Contradiction to be salved: If he has not hit it well, and that his Version does not render the Text faithfully, we must abandon it and follow the Text.  
The Difference happens sometime from this, That they distinguish the Verses or Phrases differently; which amongst us is called, Difference of Punctuation. Since the distinction of Verses is Arbitrary and the Punctuation New, we must keep by those that render the Sense most perfect.  
Sometimes the Hebrews put one Tense for another, they make use of the Praeter for the Present, and of the Future the like. We must in that Case follow those which agree best to the thing spoken of; and we must follow the same Method when there's any change of Person and Number. The Translators have frequently taken to themselves the Liberty of changing Times and Persons; but very ordinarily they mistake: And we must take good heed to see whether that Change be necessary, in order to follow it.  
In short, we must confess, that there are many differences betwixt the Hebrew Text and the Version of the Septuagint, which arise from the Corruption and Confusion that is in the Greek Version we now have. It is certain that it hath been revised divers times, and that several Authors have taken the Liberty to add thereunto, to retrench and correct divers things, that in the first Centuries there were different Editions, and that Corrections have been inserted from the Versions of Theodotion and others; which made St. Jerom say, with Reason, That in his time the Version of the Septuagint was no where to be found in its Purity. This being considered, we shall have no reason to wonder that this Version is different in many Places from the Hebrew Text, and that one and the same Hebrew Word is there interpnted in different Senses. This could come from nothing but the confounding of two different Versions; or from this, that the various Readings in the Margin or in the Text, betwixt two Crotchets, continued with that which was there before. On those Occasions we must not follow the Faults of the Greek Version, but keep to the Hebrew Text: And if we would dive further into the Matters, and discover more certainly whence the Fault of the Version comes, it is good to compare it with the Quotations of the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers, with the other Greek and Oriental Versions, and to examine the different Copies and the different Editions of the Versions of the LXX, which will furnish us still with abundance of Differences that could come from nothing else but the Negligence of the Copiers.  
Amongst the Latin Versions there are only two whereof any use can be made in the present Question. The first is the ancient Vulgar Latin, translated from the Greek LXX, and made use of by the Latin Fathers. The 2d is that of St. Jerom, from the Hebrew. The ancient Italian Version may serve to discover some Faults in the Version of the LXX, when it varies from the Greek Text we have now, in order to keep close to the Hebrew: But when it is found to differ from the Greek Text or the Hebrew Text, or when it is further from the Hebrew than the Greek Text, it's plain that in this Case the Error is in the Latin Version, either by the Fault of the Translator or by the Fault of him who hath cited or copied that Passage. St. Jerom's Version being made from the Hebrew Text of his time, serves to evince that the Hebrew Text hath not been corrupted since; for the Differences that are found betwixt his Version and our Versions made from the Hebrew Text, don't come from any change in the Text itself, but from the different signification given to the same Hebrew Word, or from the different manner of reading it, because of the difference in the Punctuation. Our Vulgar Translation is not, to say the Truth, the pure Version of St. Jerom, because some changes have slipped into it, and that there are still some Books of the ancient Version remaining; but it differs very little in most of the Books of the Old Testament. There are some Places where it does not render the Hebrew Text with the same Fidelity as St. Jerom does; and in those Places we may easily perceive it is the Hebrew Text, and the Version of St. Jerom, that must be preferred to the Vulgar.  
These are the Rules to direct us when we are to follow the Hebrew Text or the Versions. We shall afterwards make Application of them to the Principal Passages of the Scripture, in which the Hebrew Text differs from the Versions. It's enough here to have shewed, that the Hebrew Text hath not been corrupted by the Malice of the Jews, that it is not corrupted in things Essential, and that if there be any Faults, they are but slight Ones, which happened by the Negligence of the Copiers. In a Word, that the Text of the Books of the Old Testament, is as correct as any other Book we have, which is Reason sufficient to give it the Title of authentic; and to assure us, That 'tis the True Word of God. We may also say, that in general it ought to be preferred to all the Versions, according to the Sentiment of St. Jerom, and St. Augustin, whose Words are as follows: The former Writing to Sunnia and Fretela says, That as we ought always to have recourse to the Fountain of the Greek Text, in respect of the New Testament, when there's any difference in the Latin Versions or Variation in the Copies, we ought in the same manner, with Respect to the Old Testament, to have recourse to the Hebrew Copy, when there are any Differences betwixt the Greek and Latin Versions, because we must always have recourse to the Fountain, without satisfying ourselves with the Streams. Therefore he made a Rule of it in the Epistle to Lucinius, which Gratian hath inserted in his Canon Law, Distinct. 9. Ch. ut Veterum, &c. which imports that we must judge of the Fidelity of the Books of the Old Testament, by the Hebrew Copies, and those of the New Testament by the Greek Copies. St. Augustin says the same in his 15th Book, De Civitate Dei, Chap. 13. Cum diversum aliquod: i.e. When we find any difference betwixt the Copies, and that both of them cannot be True, as to Matter of Fact, we must rather give Credit to the Original than to the Translation.   

SECT. VI. Of the Massora, the Keri and Ketib, and the Cabala.  
THE Word Massora in Hebrew signifies Tradition, which may be understood in general of all Doctrines or Practices that are transmitted from hand to hand, and from Father to Son: But the Name of Massora is particularly given to the critics on the Hebrew Text, which the Jews pretend they have received from their Ancestors by Tradition. Buxtorf hath defined it to be a Critical Doctrine upon the Hebrew Text, invented by the Ancient Doctors of the Jews, by means of which they numbered the Verses, Words and Letters of the Text; and they observed all the Diversities of them, to the end they might preserve the true Reading from all manner of Change. Therefore the rabbis called it Pirke Avoth, the Hedge or the enclosure of the Law. The Arabs have taken the same Precaution as to the Alcoran, and perhaps in Imitation of the Jews.  
The Authors of the Massora are called Massorites, or Doctors of the Law, some carry the Origin of the Massora as high as Moses; Others fix their Commencement in the time of Esdras; Elias Levita the Jew, ascribes it to the Jews of Tiberias, as he does also the Invention of the Points. As to the latter, we have proved, That 'tis later than the Talmud; but as to the Massora it began some time before the Talmud, was completed, though it was not perfected and collected into a Body till a long time after. The way how this might be done is thus: The rabbis made divers Critical Remarks upon the Hebrew Text of the Bible 
The rabbis made divers Critical Remarks, &c. At first they wrote those Remarks in single Sheets; and Elias the Levite, says, There was a very great number of them, and that they did very much surpass the Text of the Bible. The modern Authors have collected what the Ancients had said, and added to it; some of the Copiers did, for conveniency, put them in the Margin of the Bible. There are of them to be found in divers Manuscript Hebrew Copies of the Bible, but they are writ there very confusedly, and in extraordinary small Characters; and besides there is only one part of them. The first who made a complete Body of them, was a Rabbi of Tunis, called Jacob Ben Chaiim, who from a great number of Jewish Memoirs, choose them that he judged best to make up the Body of the Massora, which he composed, digested and caused to be Printed in such manner as we see.  at different times. Those that followed them took care to collect the Ancient Remarks, and to add to them; and in this manner the Body of the Massora was formed, as we have it at present, and which was Printed by Bombergue in his Great Hebrew Bible at Venice in 1528. and 1618. and in the Bible of Basle, published by Buxtorf in 1618.  
The Matter of the Massora consists in Critical Remarks upon the Verses, Words, Letters and Vowel Points of the Hebrew Text. The Massorites were the first who distinguished the Books and Sections of Books into Verses, and marked the number of the Verses, and of the Words, and Letters in each Verse; the Verses where they thought there was something forgot, the Words which they believed to be changed, the Letters which they thought Superfluous, the Repetitions of the same Verses, the different Readings, the Words which are redundant or defective, the number of times that the same Word is found in the beginning, middle or end of a Verse, the different Significations of the same Word, the Agreement or Conjunction of one Word with another, the Number of Words that are Pointed above, which Letters are pronounced and which are not, it was they who distinguished the great Letters from the small ones, those that are turned upside down, and such as hang perpendicular, and took the number of each. It was they, in fine, who invented the Vowel Points, the Accents, and made divers Critical Remarks upon the Punctuation, and abundance of other trifling things.  
The Massora is wrote in Chaldee, and ordinarily divided into Great and Small. The Great is partly on the Top and Bottom of the Margins of the Text, and sometimes in the Margin, underneath the Commentaries, and in part at the end of every Bible, which occasions the division of this Grand Massora, into the Massora of the Text, and the final Massora. The little Massora is wrote upon the inner Margin, or sometimes the outer Margin of the Bible, it is an abridgement of the great Massora, wrote in small Characters, with abundance of Contractions, Symbolical Words and Citations of Scripture, by one only Term of the Text.  
It cannot be denied, but the Labour of the Massorites was extrordinary Great, the question is, Whether it was as Useful as Great, and if it affords a Profit answerable to their Pains. The Author of the Book Cozri and the Rabbi Aben-Ezra seem to make no Account of it, and speak of it as an unprofitable Work. The latter compares it to the Labour of a Person that spends his time in turning over the Leaves of a Book of physic, and numbers the Pages, without making use of any of the Medicines prescribed by the said Book. Father Morin and Capel seem perfectly to despise the Massora. On the contrary, most other Interpreters Roman catholic and Protestant, believe it to be of very great Use. To keep a just Medium betwixt those two opposite Sentiments, we must distinguish betwixt the Parts of the Massora, and accordingly make a different judgement of them. There are some of them altogether Useless, some of them Superstitious, and some of them may be of use to preserve the Text in its Purity. The useless are that scrupulous Affectation of observing how many times the same Letter or Word is found in the Bible, of the same Nature must we reckon the Observations they have made upon the Redundant and Defective Words, and abundance of other Trifles. The Distinction of Verses may be of use if well done; but many times the Massorites have not made that Distinction as the Sense required they should. As to the numbering of the Letters and Words, it seems to be Superfluous enough, both because it is a very hard Matter to be certain of it, and that in Writing or Counting, there is no Letter forgot, and that the Letters may be changed without changing the Number, and likewise because by this Means we cannot be assured of the Correction of the Hebrew Text, but by counting affresh all the Words and Letters, which cannot be done without abundance of Time and Labour. But besides, those useful things, there's a great deal of Superstition in the Massora, as the Distinction and Enumeration of Great and Small Letters, the Mystery of those that are suspended, turned upside down or final Characters, the Words pointed above, those that are to be writ, and not red, and abundance of other Observations, which give occasion to the rabbis to forge Mysteries in things which happened accidentally, and where there is no Mystery to be found. All that is any way useful in the Massora is the fixing of the Punctuation, and Reading, the different Readings and some Critical Observations upon the Correction of the Text.  
But of all the Parts of the Massora there's none more Useful than the Keri and Ketib. The Keri signifies that we must red so, and the Ketib, that it is so wrote in the Text. Therefore when we see the Word Keri in the Margin designed by the Letter Koph, it signifies that we are to red it as in the Margin, and not as it is in the Text. Ordinarily they take the Points of the Text to red the Words in the Margin, and the rabbis have thereupon made themselves particular Rules. The Variation observed in the Margin relates to nothing but the Consonants or Entire Words, but besides the Variation that may comefrom the Uncorrectness of the Text, there are other Places of the Keri, which are founded upon another Cause, for in some Passages the rabbis have on purpose left a blank Place in the Text, for some Words which they have put in the Mar gin, with this Note, Kerive Lo Cetib, that is to say, that they ought to be red, tho' they be not wrote, and there are other Passages, where they put on the Margin, Cetibve Lo Keri: That is to say, that they writ, but don't red the Word in Question, to which they put no Points, but this last comes only from the Superstition of some Jews, who believed that they were not to pronounce certain Words that seemed not to be very hand some.  
Authors are no less divided about the Invention of the Keri and Ketib, than about the other Parts of the Massora. Some carry them as high as Moses, and the first Authors of the Sacred Books which is absurd; others ascribe the Invention to Esdras, who in his Review of the caconical Books, did according to them, observe the Differences he found betwixt the Copies he had, by putting one reading in the Margin, and the other in the Text. But if that were so, why should we find the same Differences observed in the Books of Esdras and Nehemiah, and in those of Zechariah and Malachi, could they have been any ways in doubt of the true Reading of their own Writings. Moreover had Esdras been the Author of the Marginal Notes of Keri and Ketib, the Jews would have preserved them with Uniformity. But it is certain, that there's a Difference in this Matter, betwixt the Jews of the East and those of the West; and that they are mixed with divers Observations of the new Massorites. Further, if those Marginal Notes had been in the Copies made use of by the LXX, the Chaldee Paraphrasts, or by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, when they made their Versions, they would have red and translated according to Keri, whereas sometimes they follow the Keri and sometimes the Ketib; which shows that the Reading was not then fixed by any Marginal Note, which was looked upon to be of Authority. In fine, they never spoken of the Keri and Ketib in the Misna or Gemara, there they only observe, that there are in the Sacred Books 8 Words that are red and not Writ, and 5 which are Writ and not red; but there's no foot-step of the other Differences which compose the Keri and Ketib. The Massorites have also changed in the Keri and Ketib, the number of the Words which are red and not Writ, or which are Writ and not red; for they have added two to the Eight, and six to the Five last. Josephus, Philo, Origen and St. Jerom make no mention of those Marginal Notes, they are later than those Authors, and are the Work of the Jews, who in Reading and Comparing their Copies, have set down those Differences in the Margin, partly upon the Authority of the Copies, and partly by their own Conjectures.  
As to the Nature of those Differences. we must observe in the First Place, That they are of small Consequence, and that most times it is of no Importance, which of 'em be followed. Secondly, Tho' the Jews observe, that we must prefer one of the Readings, yet it is not always the Best, nor that which the Interpreters have followed, therefore we are not always obliged to follow Keri; on the contrary, it's proper to follow the Ketib, when it's more authorized by the Ancient Versions, and makes better Sense. Thirdly, All the Manuscript Copies and Editions of the Bible don't agree in all the Remarks of the Keri and Ketib, for some have more than others. Fourthly, There are Places where the Keri, that is to say, the Reading which is in the Text, is manifestly Vitiated. Fifthly, The greatest part of the Remarks of the Keri, are useless and frivolous, and relate only to the Orthography, Grammar, or other small Matters that signify nothing to the Sense. Sixthly, There are Readings of the Keri, which are plainly faulty. In fine, The Massorites have not observed in the Keri all the different Readings or Faults of the Text; for it must be confessed, that many of them have escaped their Diligence: Besides the Differences of the Keri and Ketib, which are the most Ancient, there are others betwixt the Eastern Jews, that is to say those of Babylon, and the Western Jews, that is to say those of Palestine, who have wrote differently in their Copies, and those may perhaps be more Ancient than the Keri and Ketib. There are others that have been observed by Ben Ascher, a Rabbi of Tiberias, and Ben Napthali of Babylon, who lived in the beginning of the 11th Age. The Western Jews did ordinarily follow the Reading of Ben Ascher, and the Eastern Jews that of Ben Napthali, but the Difference betwixt them is almost nothing but about the Punctation and Accents, and are many times of no Consequence.  
We must also reckon among the different Readings the Tikkun Sopherim, or the Corrections of the Scribes, which is found in 18 Places, and the Jtur sopherim, or Retrenchments of the Scribes, which consists in five Words, from which they pretend we must cut of the Vau as useless. We must join likewise thereunto, the Marginal Notes Sebirin, that is to say, the Conjectures of the Massorites, that we must red in such a Manner. The Difference betwixt those last Notes and the Keri is, that in the Keri they affirm positively, we must red so, whereas in the Sebir the Reading is held doubtful, and advanced only by way of Conjecture. But both one and 'tother are merely founded on the judgement and Pleasure of the rabbis, who thought good to determine and conjecture so and so.  
In fine, Notwithstanding the Care and Precautions of the Massorites and Jews, who have Wrote or Printed the Hebrew Bibles, there's still a great many Differences between the Manuscript and Printed Bibles, as Buxtorf hath observed in his Rabinnical Library, and Cappelle after him. There are Differences in the Punctation, about the Consonants, and whole Words and Verses: Which shows, That let them be never so diligent, it is impossible but some Faults will slip in, either in the Copying or Printing of a Work. God would not preserve the Holy Scripture from that Fate, which is common to all Books. He could not have done it but by a continual Miracle, which was no way necessary for the Preservation of Religion: For, as we have already said, and which cannot be repeated too often, all those Variations or Faults don't touch Religion in the least, they do no prejudice to the Authority of the Holy Scripture, they don't hinder but that we find the Truth of Religion in it, or that we ought to look upon it's Authority as Divine.  
The Cabala which we join to the Massora, hath in its etymology a Signification opposite to that of the Massora; for the one signifies Tradition and the other Reception. But Custom hath determined the Word Cabala to signify a Tradition of hidden and mysterious Things. The Jews have a mighty Esteem for this Science, and think they make great Discoveries by Means of it. The Cabala is ordinarily distinguished into three sorts. The first which is supposed to have been in use before our Saviour's Time, is a Mystical, Allegorical or Anagogical Explication of Passages of Scripture that are not Written, but which the Doctors of the Law pretend to have preserved by Tradition, fancying that Moses learned this Mysterious Sense from God himself, that he communicated them to 70 Ancient Men; and that they were preserved by Tradition till the time of Esdras, from whom the other Jews learned them. 'tis of this Cabala that we must understand the Author of the Book of Esdras, Chap. 14.46& 47. when he speaks of certain things, he had wrote which God commanded him to preserve, and not to communicate but to the wisest of the People, who had the Spring of Understanding the Fountains of Wisdom, and the Stream of Knowledge. 'tis certain, that the Jews in our Saviour's time were accustomend to give a Mystical Sense to Passages of Scripture: But we don't find that they supported that Sense by so Ancient a Tradition. Many times their Allegories or Morals were only a flourish of Wit and an Effort of their own Invention as may be seen in Philo. 'tis true, there were Passages that they unanimously understood of the Messiah, according to Ancient Tradition, but those Passages excepted, it will be difficult to prove, That the Mystical Sense which those first Jews gave to some Passages of Scripture, had any Foundation in Ancient Tradition; so that it is without Reason to suppose an Ancient Cabalistick Art amongst the Jews.  
The second sort of Cabala is not an innocent Art, but a sort of magic or Necromancy, in which the Impious or Superstitious Jews employed the Words and Letters of the Scripture, which they distorted and ranked differently for their Use, to make Angels Familiar with them, to work Miracles, cure Diseases, chase away Devils and to work abundance of other Sorceries of the Magical Art; for that end they made use even of the Holy Name of GOD. This Art is so far from being any way useful, that it can be looked upon to be nothing else but a damnable Impiety, or Criminal Superstition.  
The third sort of Cabala among the Jews, and which they properly called Cabala, is an Art by which they found their Mysterious Expositions upon Allusions, Transpositions, Changes, Conjunctions, Abreviations, Figure or Arithmetical Value of the Letters. This Art is very obscure in itself, and the Jews who think themselves Masters of it, render it still more obscure, by their Way of Expressing it, and their Care of keeping it concealed. The Principal Methods they make use of for discovering those pretended Mysteries are. First to take the Letters of a Word, and to substitute in their room as many Words which begin with each of those Letters. Thus it is they pretend to discover the Curse which Shimei pronounced against David, where 'tis said in the Text, 1 Kings 2.8. That he cursed him with a grievous Curse; in Hebr. Nimretseh, by separating the Letters of this Word, and forming of them as many Words which begin with each of those Letters, viz. Noeph, which signifies Adulterer, Moab Moabite, Rosseach a Murderer Tsaruch Leprous, Toheba Abomination; they conjecture, That Shimei cast all those Reproaches upon David, that he upbraided him with his Adultery with Bathsheba, with his Descent from Ruth a Moabitess, and with the Murder of Uriah, by which he deserved to have been treated as a Leprous and Abominable Man. This is witty but not solid. This Example is found in the Hebrew Traditions upon the first Book of the Kings, ascribed to St. Jerom, which are the Work of a Jew of the 9th Age, as Raban hath observed. The Cabalists furnish us with many others. It is by the same Method that they find in Beresith the first Word of Genesis, this Sentence, In the beginning God saw that the Israelites would accept the Law; by supposing Words that begin by the Letter of the Word Beresith. They make use also of the final Letters; and according to this Rule, they explain this Sentence, The beginning of your Words is the Truth; because they find the Word Truth, in the three Words which follow Beresith, by taking the three final Letters of them. 'tis by this Artifice that some Greek Fathers have found in the Word Adam the four Parts of the World; because their Greek Names begun by the four Letters of that Word {αβγδ}, the East, {αβγδ}, the West, {αβγδ}, the North, {αβγδ}, the South. To this Art we must also refer, the Dexterity of forming a whole Sentence out of a single Word, and divers Sentences which begin with the Words of one and the same Phrase.  
The second Method made use of by the Cabalists is to join the Letters otherwise, or to transpose or unite them differently one with another. Thus it is they find abundance of Mysteries in this Word Beresith; for dividing it into Bara, Sith, it signifies, He hath created the Foundation; reading it Bar Aschit, it signifies, I will put the Son. They find abundance of other things in it, by transposing and joining the Letters in different Manners. This Answers to our Anagrams. They take also the Liberty to change Letters, by taking the last of the Alphabet for the first; as they allege that Jeremy, Chap. 25. v. 25. hath put Sesac instead of Babel, by putting instead of the two Beths of Babel, which is the second Letter of the Alphabet; the Sin which is the last but one, and in place of Caph, which is the 11th Letter descending, the lame which is the 11th Letter ascending. St. Jerom took this Observation from the Jews, and inserted it in his Commentary on this Place.  
The third Method, and the most Mysterious, is that they call Gematrie; which consists in explaining a Term by the Arithmetical Value of the Letters. Amongst the Hebrews all the Letters serve to signify Numbers; they count the Number which the Letters of the Word produce, and afterwards substitute another Word, whose Letters make the same Number. For Example, on those Words of Zach. 3.8. I will make my Servant to come,[ in the English Translation, I will bring forth my Servant the Branch,] where the Hebrew Word is Tsemach; Rabbi Kimhi observes, that we must understand the messiah by this Word, and to prove it, says, That the Messia is called Menahem, which signifies Comforter; and that the Hebrew Letters whereof the Word Menahem is composed, make the same Number in the Total, which the Letters do that compose Tsemach. By the same Method he finds in the beginning of Genesis Beresith Bara; In the beginning he created; this other Sentence, He formed in the Law; because the Hebrew Words of the one and the other Sentence form the Number of 913. They pretend also by this Method, to divine when a thing will happen, by counting the Number which the Letters of a Name makes up. The Author of the Revelation, Chap. 13. made use of the like Method by concealing the Name of the Beast or of Antichrist, under the Number whereof the Letters were to form his Name. In like manner the Cabalists do also draw Mysteries from the Numbers they meet with in the Text, and form Names of them.  
The fourth Method made use of by the Cabalists, is carefully to observe the Figure of the Letter, and therein to find some Mystery. They draw Mysteries also from this, That Letters were Writ and not red, or red and not Writ; that they are Great or Little, Suspended or turned upside down, Full or Defective, Pointed above or Accented in an Irregular Manner. In a Word, There's not the least Trifle but the Cabalists found their Dotages upon it, which have no other Foundation or Rule, but their Fancy and disorderly Imaginations.    

CHAP. V. Of the Samaritan Pentateuch.  

SECT. I. The History of the Samaritans.  
BEfore we speak of the Samaritan Pentateuch, we must to make a true judgement of it, draw up a Scheme of the History of the Samaritans, we must know their Origin and Religion, know the Subject of their Schism, and of the hatred which the Jews bore them. The Holy Scripture tells us, That under Rehoboam the Son of Solomon, the ten Tribes separated themselves from the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and choose Jeroboam for their King. From that time the Israelites were divided into two Kingdoms; that of Judah, whereof Jerusalem was the Capital; and that of Israel, or the Ten Tribes, whereof Samaria, built by King Omri, one of Jeroboam's Successors, was afterwards the Metropolis. This Division of the Israelites into two Kingdoms, occasioned also a sort of Schism in their Religion; for Jeroboam foreseing, that if his Subjects were obliged to go to Jerusalem to worship God, and offer Sacrifice in the Temple according to the Law, they might return to the Obedience of their lawful Sovereign, he caused two Golden Calves to be made, and altars to be erected at Dan and Bethel, and choose Priests of the basest of the People to offer Sacrifices there. There were also in this Kingdom Temples consecrated to the Idol Baal, who had his Priests, his Prophets and Worshippers. But the greatest part of the Israelites did not bow the Knee to Baal, but preserved their Religion, thinking they might honour the true God upon the Altars built by Jeroboam, and by observing the Feasts, Ceremonies, and other things prescribed in the Law of Moses. Some of them also preserving the Respect they had for the Temple, came to Jerusalem at the great Festivals to worship God, and to offer Sacrifice to him, which it was not allowed them to do elsewhere. There were always in the Kingdom of Israel, Levites and Prophets, who taught the People the lawful worship of the true God, and instructed them in the Law. Thus the Jewish Religion was preserved in the Kingdom of Israel so long as it subsisted; but at last, in the Reign of Hoshea, the last King of Israel, Salmanassar King of Assyria having taken Samaria after a Siege of three Years, carried Hoshea and his Subjects Captive into remote Countries, and sent in their place Colonies from Babylon, Chutha, Ava, Hamath and Sepharvaim, who inhabited Samaria and the other Cities of the Kingdom of Israel. There remained nevertheless, always among the Jews, Israelites of those ten Tribes; Salmanassar either having not carried them all away, or that they saved themselves by retiring into the Kingdom of Judah: But those were mixed with the Jews, and had no more Commerce with the new Inhabitants of their ancient Country.  
Those Foreigners who came to inhabit the Land of Samaria were called Chutheans, because the greatest part of them came from a City or Country called Chutha, from the Name of a River in Persia, if we may believe Josephus; or, as others Conjecture, from Susa, the Capital City of Susiana: But as those People were Idolaters and worshipped false Gods, the true God, who would be honoured in that Country, sent Lions among them which devoured them; or, according to Josephus, a Pestilence which cut them off. They supposed that this Mischef befell them because they did not worship the God of the Country, and gave notice of it to Salmanassar, who suffered them to take one of the Priests whom he had carried away from Samaria, that he might dwell among 'em, and teach them how they must worship the God of the Land. This Priest taught them the Religion of his Ancestors, the Precepts and Ceremonies of the Law, and made them worship the true God. But they had besides that, their particular Gods, whom they worshipped in the high Places, where they had their Temples and Priests. The common Name of those People was Samaritans, which was the only Name left them at last, having lost by degrees the ancient Names they had in Persia.  
They dwelled in Peace under the Kings of Assyria, without having much Commerce with the Jews; but so, however, that there was no Enmity nor Discord betwixt them, until the return of the Jews from the Babylonish Captivity, that they opposed the re-establishment of the City and Temple of Jerusalem, and wrote about it to King Artaxerxes, from whom they obtained an Order to hinder it. This was the Origin of that mutual Aversion which the Jews and Samaritans had for one another ever after, which was so great that they would have no Commerce together, nor so much as speak to one another, as appears by the Discourse of the Woman of Samaria to our Lord, John 4. How is it that thou being a Jew, askest drink of me, who am a Woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Therefore it is that the Author of Ecclesiasticus, when describing the Distance that the Jews ought to keep from the Samaritans, says, Chap. 50.27, 28. That there are two People whom the Lord hates; and a third, which are no People: The two first are the Inhabitants of Seir; that is to say, the Idumeans and the Philistines: And the third is, that foolish People who inhabit Sichem; that is to say, Samaria, for that was its ancient Name. In the English Translation it is,[ They that sit upon the Mountains of Samaria, and they that dwell among the Philistines, and that foolish People that dwell in Sichem.]  
This Enmity was yet more augmented when Manasses, Brother to the High Priest Jaddus, being deprived of the Priesthood because he would not put away the Daughter of Sanballat, Governor of Samaria, retired to that City, and built, by the permission of Darius and Alexander, a Temple upon Mount Gerizim, in which he offered solemn Sacrifices, as they did in the Temple of Jerusalem: It was then, when Altar was set up against Altar, that the Samaritan Religion was fully formed. Many Jews having followed the Example of Manasses, retired to Samaria, that they might live there with more Liberty; so that the Samaritans became a People composed of the Descendants of those Nations that came from the East, and of abundance of real Jews. But as to the Matters of Religion, they forsook their Idolatry and applied themselves only to the worship of the true God, to whom they offered Sacrifices in the Temple of Gerizim, according to the Law of Moses.  
After that time the Samaritans did always look upon the Temple of Gerizim as the Seat of their Religion, and forgetting that they derived their Origin from the Cutheans, they pretended to be true Israelites, who had preserved the Observation of the Law in its Purity, and had High-Priests descending in a direct Line from Phinebas, the Son of Eleazar, the Son of Aaron. Ptolomee the Son of Lagus, having subdued Judea and Samaria, transported abundance of Jews and Samaritans into Egypt, and some of them retired willingly thither. They persevered in the same hatred there which they had in Palestine, and had frequent Controversies about their Temple. But at last John Hircanus, the Son of Simon the High-Priest of the Jews, having taken Samaria, destroyed that City and razed the Temple of Gerizim 200 Years after it was built. Herod the Great caused a Temple to be re-built at Samaria; but the Samaritans would not make use of it, and continued to offer their Sacrifices upon the Altar which they had on Mount Gerizim. It is in this Place still, where the High-Priest of the Samaritans resides, and is the Chief of that Sect, at present reduced to a small Number of Persons, who dwell at Samaria,( which is now called Naplousa) and in some other Cities of Palestine and Egypt. They believe that it is on Mount Gerizim where God ought to be worshipped, as the Samaritan Woman said to our Saviour. They receive only the Law of Moses, or the Pentateuch, they celebrate their Passover on Mount Gerizim, they religiously observe Circumcision, the Sabbath, and the Festivals prescribed by the Law; they are also more exact and superstitious in the observance of the Law than the Jews themselves, they hate Idolatry as much as the Jews, and expect the Messiah as they do.   

SECT. II. Of whom the Samaritans received their Pentateuch.  
WE have already handled the Question which concerns the Samaritan Characters, and proved that they are the ancient Hebrew Characters which they have preserved; whereas Esdras made use of the Chaldee Characters. The Modern Samaritans are so much persuaded of it, that in the Letter they wrote to Scaliger they say, That tho' their Synagogue, Laws, and Customs be like those of the Jews, yet the Scripture of the Jews is the Writing of Esdras, who is accursed for ever. But we must examine here, 1. From whom the Samaritans received their Pentateuch. 2. If that which we now have be the same which they had formerly, and was extant in St. Jerom's time. 3. What the Authority and Use of it is, wherein it differs from the common Hebrew Text, and if it ought to be preferred to it, or compared with it.  
There are three different Opinions as to the 1st Question. The 1st is, That the Samaritans received their Pentateuch from the Israelitish Priest sent by Salmanassar to instruct them, and that they have always preserved it amongst them since with great Care. The 2d is, That the Samaritans received this Book from the Jews after the time of Esdras, and that they copied it into their own Characters from a Copy wrote in Chaldee Characters. The 3d is, That this Pentateuch was formed by Dositheus, whom Epiphanius makes Head of a Samaritan Sect, and that he composed it from the Hebrew Text of the Jews of Palestine, and babylon, and the Version of the LXX. We must examine which of those Three is the most probable Opinion, and shall begin with the last.  
Origen in his first Book against Celsus, and in his 27th Treatise on St. Matthew says, That Dositheus the Samaritan undertook, some time after our Saviour's death, to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ foretold by Moses. A long while after Origen, about the end of the 6th Century, Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria reports, that the Samaritans were at Difference amongst themselves, how they should understand, Deut. 18.15. The Lord will raise up unto you a Prophet from the midst of you, like unto me. That some of them understood it of Joshua, and others of Desitheus, who arrogated the Divinity to himself, and corrupted the Pentateuch of Moses by abundance of supposititious things, and formed divers other Writings stuffed with Fooleries and things contrary to the Divine Laws. This is the Ground why some have imagined that Dositheus was the Author of the Samaritan Pentateuch; but this is only a frivolous Conjecture; for, in the first place, all the Samaritans were not Disciples to Dositheus, and it appears by the Testimony of Eulogius's History, that the Samaritans of Alexandria would not admit of the Application of those Words in Deuteronomy to Dositheus, as the rest did; that they referred it even to his own Council, where he declared solemnly, that it ought to be understood of the messiah. Secondly, Dositheus had corrupted the Pentateuch, to apply to himself the Prophesies which relate to the Messiah. But the Samaritan Pentateuch hath nothing changed in those Prophecies which relate to the Messiah. Dositheus, according to Eulogius, had spoken ill of the Prophets, and particularly of the Pataiarch Judah. There's nothing like that in the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is not that then which Dositheus corrupted, if we may believe Eulogius concerning it, as quoted by Photius. Thirdly, If the Samaritan Pentateuch had been that which was corrupted by Dositheus, what likelihood is there that the Jews and Christians would not have up-braided them with this Corruption? And why would St. Jerom and other Fathers of the Church have made use of it as an Authentic Copy?  
Perhaps it will be said, That without supposing the Samaritan Pentateuch to have been composed by Dositheus, we may conceive it to have been composed by some Modern Samaritan from the different Copies of the Jews of babylon and the West, and the Version of the LXX, because it agrees sometimes with the Hebrew Copies of Palestine, sometimes with those of babylon, and sometimes with the LXX: Whence it may be conjectured, that he who composed it made use of those different Copies of the Hebrew Text, and of the Version of the LXX. But we may say on the contrary, That this happens because the Hebrew Copy we now have was altered afterwards; and if we would not wholly charge all those Differences upon the Change that hath happened in the Hebrew Text, it may be, that in process of time there happened some change in the Samaritan Text, without any necessity of supposing that the Samaritans had not the Pentateuch till in the latter Times. The contrary being certain by the Testimony of Eusebius, St. Jerom, and other Ancients, who have spoken of the Samaritan Pentateuch( which in the sequel we shall prove to differ nothing from ours) before the Difference betwixt the Copies of the Jews of the East and West were observed; and by Consequence, the last of the three Opinions which we have related cannot be maintained.  
Let us come to the 2d. They suppose that the Cutheans or ancient Samaritans had no Copies of the Law, and that it was not till after they had forsaken their ancient Idolatry, and built a Temple on Mount Gerizim, that they copied out the Pentateuch into Samaritan Characters, from the Copies of the Jews. This is the Opinion of M. Simon, which he endeavours to prove by the Conformity there is betwixt the Samaritan Pentateuch and that of the Jews. He might have added a more probable Conjecture, advanced by an English Author, viz. That there are Differences betwixt the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Hebrew Text, which arise only from their having mistaken one Letter of the Hebrew Alphabet for another: Whence it may be conjectured, that this happened only from the Inadvertency of the Translator, who copying the Pentateuch into Samaritan Characters from the Hebrew Copy, took one Letter of the same Figure for another. But neither of these Reasons are convincing; for, as to the 1st, we are not to wonder that the Hebrew and Samaritan Pentateuchs agree, since they are one and the same Text; and, if their Conformity were as great as is supposed, it would prove the faithfulness of both Texts. But there's difference enough to show that the Samaritan Pentateuch was not copied Word for Word from the Hebrew Text we now have, and that it is an Original. As to the 2d Conjecture, there are few or no Places where the Difference betwixt the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Hebrew Text can be ascribed to the change of the Letters of the Hebrew Text; and it might have happened that in those Places the Difference came from the Writers of the Hebrew Copies, rather than from those of the Samaritans: So that there's nothing to prove that the Samaritan Copy is later than that of Esdras; nay, there are very plausible Reasons to show the contrary. For, in the first place, what likelihood is there that the Priest who instructed the Cutheans in the Jewish Law, had not a Copy of the Law, and that the Samaritans had made profession of the Law of Moses so long without having the Pentateuch? 2dly, If they had received the Jewish Pentateuch when Manasses fled to them, why would they have changed the Hebrew Characters of the Pentateuch into the Samaritan Characters? Nay, why should the Cutheans have taken the Canaanitish Characters, if they had not had the Law written in those Characters? They came from Persia and Assyria, where they rather made use of the Chaldee Characters. The Characters of the Israelites were unknown to them; they would have made use of their ancient Characters, if the necessity they were under of following Moses's Law, had not obliged them to make use of the Israelitish Character. From whom could they learn it, if not from the Israelitish Priest who instructed them in the Religion? And how could they have made use of it in ordinary Cases, had they not taken it from the Law. They spoken Chaldee; the Chaldee Characters had been more familiar to them; if they had written the Law from Copies in Chaldee Characters, they would have taken the same Characters: They did not do it, they wrote in Characters that were naturally unknown to them; they must then have copied 'em from a Copy written in those Characters. 3dly, Had they received the Sacred Books after the time of Esdras, in the time of Manasses, they would not only have had the Pentateuch, but also all the rest comprised in the Canon of the Sacred Books written by Esdras. But the ancient Samaritans neither had, nor acknowledged any other to be Sacred but the Pentateuch. They had it then before Esdras made up his Canon, and also before the Division of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, since from that time the Jews had not only the Law but the Hagiographa and Prophets. In fine, it is impossible that any of the Israelites, of whom some were remaining in their ancient Country, and mixed with the Samaritans, should not have preserved the Pentateuch, and communicated it to the Samaritans, who had a mind to learn and follow that Law. It must then remain as a certainty, according to the Rules of good Criticism, that the Samaritans received their Pentateuch from the Israelites, and not from the ancient or modern Jews.   

SECT. III. Whether the Samaritan Pentateuch that we have, be the same with that which the Samaritans had formerly, and was exstant in St. Jerom's time.  
THE Samaritan Pentateuch, though but lately published, is not a Work unknown to Antiquity: Eusebius, Africanus, Origen, St. Jerom, Diodore of Tarsis, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Procopius of Gaza, have quoted it; and it is by the Passages which they have reported of it, that we may judge, Whether the Copy that we have of the Pentateuch be that which the Samaritans formerly had. Father Morinus hath proved it so clearly, that Simon de Muis, who wrote against him concerning the Authority of the Pentateuch, is agreed with him as to the Point of its Antiquity.  
Here follow the Principal Passages of the Ancients, which prove the Conformity of the Samaritan Pentateuch with ours.  
First, Eusebius of caesarea confesses after Africanus, That the Chronology of the Samaritans from the Deluge to Abraham, is agreeable to that of the LXX, as to the Time when the patriarches begot their Children, and the duration of their Lives. Now this Conformity is found in our Copy, according to which there was from the Deluge to the Birth of Abraham 942 Years, which makes the same Number with the Septuagint, by cutting off Cainan, who is not in the Samaritan Pentateuch. On the contrary, he observes, That the Samaritans agree with the Hebrew Text, and differ from the LXX, till the time of the Deluge, which is true at least as to Jared.  
Secondly, St. Jerom in his Questions on Genesis, and St. Cyril of Alexandria after him, observes, That the Words of Abel to his Brother Cain, Gen. 4.8. Let us go Abroad; or, Let us go into the Fields, which are not found in the Hebrew Text, were in the Samaritan Copy, and continue there to this Day.  
Thirdly, The same Author observes, in his Commentary on the Galatians, That the Jews had cut off those Words every, and in all, from Deut. 27.26. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them. We find those Words in our Samaritan Copy, as they were in that of St. Jerom, tho' they be not found in the Hebrew Text.  
Fourthly, Diodore of Tarsis observes that in Numb. 7.24. the Samaritans red Gog and Agag, which is still found Written the same way in the Samaritan Pentateuch.  
Fifthly, Procopius of Gaza hath recollected some Passages that are in Deuteronomy, as being repeated, which are not in the Books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, according to the Hebrew Text, and which are found in the Books according to the Samaritan Copy. The same Passages are in our Copy; as for Example, these Words of Deut. 1.6. The Lord our God spake unto us in Horeb, saying, &c. are found Numb. 10. v. 10. in the Samaritan Pentateuch. The ninth Verse and those that follow in the same Chapter of Deuteronomy to the nineteenth Verse, are still in the 18th Chapter of Exodus of our Samaritan Pentateuch.  
Sixthly, The Greek Scholiast upon the Version of the LXX quotes abundance of Differences of the Samaritan Pentateuch which are found in ours, as that of Exod. 32.18. I hear the Voice of Sinners; whereas it is in the Hebrew, of Singers. And upon Numb. 32.33. he observes, that the Samaritan Text in that Place makes mention of the half Tribe of Manasses, which is still in our Copies. We might observe in above 30 other Places, the agreement of our Samaritan Pentateuch with that of the Scholiast. It is true, there are some wherein he seems to vary from it, but it is because in those Places the Samaritan Word may have two significations; or, because he does not tie himself to the Words, but to the Sense; or, because he rather followed the Samaritan Version than the Text; or, in fine, because perhaps the Text itself hath been changed in some Places by the default of the Copiers: But that hinders not its being true, what we say, That we have the Samaritan Text the Ancients had, tho' Time may have occasioned some change in it.   

SECT. IV. Concerning the Authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch, wherein it differs from the common Hebrew Text: And if it ought to be preferred to it, or compared with it.  
TO judge of the Authority of the Text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and of the Comparison which is to be made thereof with the Hebrew Text, we must first examine its principal Differences from the Hebrew Text: They consist either in Changes which make a quiter different Sense, or in Additions which clear up and explain the Sense, or in Transpositions and Repetitions, or in the change of Letters.  
There are few Places where the Hebrew Samaritan Text differs considerably from the Hebrew Text as to the Sense. The difference of the Chronology concerning the patriarches from the Deluge till Abraham, and the patriarches before the Deluge from Jared to Noah, is one of the chief, and upon which it is most difficult to make any judgement: This cannot arise any otherwise than from the difference of the Copies of the Book of Genesis, which must be very ancient; Since the Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX and the Hebrew Text differ on that Subject. There's another Difference in Deuteronomy 27.4. betwixt the Samaritan and Hebrew Pentateuchs, where the Samaritans have substituted the Name of the Mountain Gerizim instead of that of Ebal: It is a manifest Corruption, which they have made to favour their Pretensions concerning the Temple that they had built upon Mount Gerizim, and the Worship which they performed there to God.  
The third Difference to be observed in the Sense, is concerning the Age of Terah. The Samaritan Text, Gen. 11.32. imports, that he lived 145 Years; whereas the Hebrew Text, the Version of the LXX, and all others, say 205 Years. We must confess, that the reading of the Hebrew Samaritan Text, solves a great Difficulty concerning Abraham's Age; for it is said that he was but 75 Years of Age when he went into the Land of Haran, after the death of his Father. But if Terah died at the Age of 205, and Abraham was born in the 70th Year of Terah's Age, as the Hebrew and Vulgar Translation have it, Abraham must of necessity have been 135 Years old when his Father died. How can that be reconciled with what is said in the same Text, that he was only 75 Years old when he went into the Land of Haran, his Father being then dead? This occasions a great Difficulty in the Chronology, and to solve it we must be obliged to say, that Abraham was not the eldest of Terab's Sons; which is contrary to the Text: Whereas by following the Samaritan Text, there remains no difficulty, because Terah having lived only 145 Years, and Abraham being born in the 70th Year of his Age, he was precisely 75 Years old when Terah died. But it might so happen, that this Change was not made in the Samaritan Text, any otherwise than by Conjecture, and to solve this Chronological Difficulty in Abraham's Life; which is so much the more likely, that the Version of the LXX and all the rest have it 205 Years.  
The 4th considerable Difference betwixt the Hebrew Text and that of the Samaritan Pentateuch, is in Exod. 12.40. where it's in the Hebrew Text, The time of the sojourning of the Children of Israel, in the Land of Egypt, was 430 Years: Whereas the Samaritan Text hath it, The time of the abode of the Children of Israel and their Fathers, in the Land of Canaan and Egypt, was 430 Years. The LXX did not add their Fathers, but does as well as the Samaritan Text import, both in the Land of Egypt and in the Land of Canaan. And some Greek Copies also had it, they and their Fathers. It is very probable that we must thus understand the Hebrew Text, and therefore this Passage may pass rather for an Explanation than for a Difference. And it may be also, that the Hebrew Text is corrupted in this Place, and that those Words in the Land of Canaan, which are found in the Septuagint, are forgot. There's such another Addition in Genesis 4.8. For in the Hebrew, after those Words, Cain said to his Brother Abel, there's a blank in the Hebrew Text, which is supplied in the Septuagint in the Samaritan Copy, and in the Vulgar Translation, by these words, Let us go out, or let us go into the Field; after which they red, and when they were in the Field, &c. It may be easily perceived, that those words, let us go abroad, or let us go into the Field, are necessary, and that they must have been omitted in the Hebrew Copies; and therefore the Massorites leave a space here, as supposing there are some Words omitted.  
In Gen. 2.2. there's a seeming Contradiction betwixt the Hebrew and Samaritan Texts; for in the Hebrew it is said, That God finished the Work of the Creation on the seventh Day, and that he restend on that Day. Whereas in the Samaritan Text and in the Septuagint, it is, that he finished this Work on the sixth Day, and restend on the seventh. This makes no difference in the Sense, the Hebrew Text being to be understood no otherwise, and can signify nothing else, but that God finished the Work of the Creation at the end of the sixth Day; and by consequence, that his Work was complete and perfected on the seventh, on which he restend. The Sense of the Samaritan Text and of the LXX is more clear and distinct; but it is hard to determine whether it be he who copied the Samaritan Text, or the Author of the Version of the LXX, who explained this Place of the Hebrew Text, or whether it be the Hebrew Text into which this Fault slipped.  
In Gen. 7.2. it's said, according to the Vulgar Translation, That the unclean Creatures which were in the Ark, were by two and two, as the clean were by seven and seven; that is to say, there were two Couples of the one, as there were seven Couples of the other. The Samaritan Text expresses those two Pairs, two, two, as well as the Septuagim; whereas the Hebrew Text at present has it only two: But St. Jerom hath translated it two and two, from the Hebrew Text of his time: So that it's more like to be a Fault that hath slipped into the Hebrew Text.  
There are Additions in the Samaritan Pentateuch of things that are not found in the Hebrew Text. We have already observed, that in Numbers 10.10. and in Exodus 18. after the 24th Verse, the Samaritan Pentateuch had the Words which are in the beginning of Deuteronomy, ver. 6, and 9, to the 19th. Some conclude from thence, that they are cut off from the Hebrew Text; but there's more likelihood, that some Copier of the Samaritan Pentateuch having observed that those Words were related in Deuteronomy, as having been wrote in the foregoing Books; and not finding them there in the same Terms, inserted them in those Places which he thought more convenient and suitable, and so much the more, because those Additions are not found in the LXX. There are yet two more, one in Levit. 17.4. as to which the LXX agree with the Hebrew Text. But this Addition in the first Passage, is only a Repetition of the same thing; for whereas the Hebrew Text joins in one the Prohibition to slay a Sacrifice without the Camp or in the Camp, without offering it at the Entry of the Tabernacle; the Samaritan Text and the LXX, separate those two Members, and repeat the same Prohibition twice. 1. With respect to those who slay a Sacrifice in the Camp. 2. With respect to those who slay one without the Camp. It is a Superfluous Repetition, and changes nothing of the Sense. There's only one particular Determination of the Samaritan Text and the Septuagint, which is not in the Hebrew, viz. That it is not to be understood any otherwise than of those who should slay Oxen or Lambs, To make a Burnt-Offering or a Peace-Offering unto the Lord. This is a very true Explication, and is understood in the Words, which might have been added by him who copied the Samaritan Text. In the second Passage, where mention is made of the Decampment of the Children of Israel, and of the way how all the Vessels of the Tabernacle were to be covered and secured. The Vessel of Brass is left out of the Hebrew Text; whereas in the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Version of the LXX, they spoken in these Terms; They shall take a Purple veil, with which they shall cover the Vessel of Brass and its Basis and put it in a Case of Skins of the Colour of Jacinth, and set it on a Lever. 'tis probable that this hath been left out of the Hebrew Text.  
The Words concerning Jacob's Unwillingness to suffer Benjamin to go, are related in two Places in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Chap. 42.16. When Joseph demanded of his Brethren, that they should bring him, and Chap. 44.21. When he caused Benjamin to be stopped; whereas they are only in this latter Place in the Hebrew Text, and in the LXX. But because 'tis supposed here, That Joseph's Brethren had already  told it to Jacob, he who corrected the Samaritan Text, thought it ought to be placed in the first Discourse of Joseph's Brethren about Benjamin.  
There are many other Differences betwixt the Samaritan and Hebrew Text, but of less Consequence, and don't change the Sense. Therefore it is that whether they be considered as Additions made to the Samaritan Text, or as Omissions out of the Hebrew Text, it nothing diminishes the Authority of either; of which take the following Instances, Gen. 2.24. The Hebrew Text imports only, That the Husband and the Wife shall become one Flesh: The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Version of the LXX adds the Word Two, That they shall make two of one Flesh; or, Of two they shall only make one Flesh; which is the same, but only a little more express. It is the same in Genesis 26.18. The Hebrew Text imports, That Isaac made the Wells which had been made in the time of his Father Abraham, to be dug afresh: The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Version of the LXX have it, That the Servants of his Father Abraham had dag them; which is the same sense, tho' the latter seems to be the plainest. In Chap. 17. v. 17. of the same Book, there's omitted in the Hebrew Text the Epithet full in this Phrase; The smell of my Son is like that of a Full Field, which the Lord hath blessed.  
I pass over in silence some omissions of Pronouns, of the Word All, and some others that are necessary understood, which Change nothing of the Sense, and which might have been equally added in the Samaritan Pentateuch, or omitted in the Hebrew: Neither do I speak any thing of the Differences which come from Repetitions of the same Words, from Letters changed or omitted, and such other small things which are nothing to our purpose. We may observe one in Numb. 16.15. which happens by the Change of a Resch into a Daleth. In the Hebrew Text Moses says, That he hath not received or taken an Ass from them, whereas in the Samaritan Text and the Version of the LXX, it is red, That he hath not taken away their Desire; that is to say, That he had taken nothing from the People of what they had desired to keep; and that he had taken nothing from them per force. This seems to be the better Sense, tho' the other may be also maintained; and perhaps Moses by this would say, That he had not taken the least thing from them. Be that how it will, the same Hebrew Word by changing only the last Letter, signifies an Ass and Desire; for an Ass in Hebrew is Chamer, and Desire Camud, which end with the same Consonants, but that the latter hath a Resh in the first and a Daleth in the second: Therefore it may be that the Fault is in the Hebrew Text.  
It is easily deducible from what we have hitherto observed, That though the Hebrew Samaritan Text be not wholly conformable to the Hebrew common Text, and different only in Characters, as St. Jerom seems to have thought; there is not however any difference so considerable as to make it to be accounted another Text. All that can be said of it, is that they are two Copies of the same Hebrew Text, two Copies of the same Original Text, betwixt which some Difference hath happened either by the direct Intention of the Copiers, who designed to make some Additions or Changes, or by their Negligence, which hinders not but both may be the true Original Text. 'tis not absolutely necessary, That we should always follow the Samaritan Pentateuch; nor are we always obliged to follow the Hebrew Text. We must judge of it according to the Rules, which we have prescribed and applied to the Principal Differences of those two Texts. This is the Medium we must take betwixt the opposite Sentiments concerning the Samaritan Pentateuch, which some extol too high and others despise too much.   

SECT. V. Of the Samaritan Tongue, and of the Versions of the Samaritan Pentateuch, into that Language and into Greek and arabic.  
THE Samaritans being originally a People of Assyria, they spoken Naturally the Assyrian or Chaldean Tongue, when they were transported into Samaria. The necessity they were under to learn the Law Written in Hebrew, and the mixture of Jews amongst them, made them insensibly to mix Hebrew Words amongst the Chaldee; so that almost all the Words of the Samaritan Tongue, are derived from the Hebrew and the Chaldee, of which it was only a Dialect. It hath however its peculiar Words, and sometimes makes use of arabic Words. It comes nearer to the Hebrew than to the Chaldee, both as to the Words, Phrases and Syntax, which was occasioned by the Mixture of the Jews with the Ancient Samaritans.  
The same Reason that obliged the Jews to make Chaldee Paraphrases of the Hebrew Text; that is to say, because the Hebrew ceased to be their Vulgar Language, and commonly understood among them, they were obliged to explain it to the People in the Language that they spoken, that same Reason, I say, did also oblige the Samaritans to translate the Hebrew Pentateuch into Samaritan. We have one of them in the Polyglotts of Paris and England; whereof we neither know the Author nor the exact time, but it is certainly Ancient and Faithful; there are nevertheless abundance of Places, where it differs from the Text itself.  
'tis probable that there was formerly a Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, since St. Cyril of Alexandria, some other Greek Fathers, and an Ancient Greek Scholiast, knew and quoted the Differences of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which 'tis likely they did not take from the Original, but rather from a Greek Version. In the mean while, tho' it be probable, that there was formerly a Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, it's certain that it was not made in the Time of Alexander the Great, as Father Morin alleges.  
There are also Manuscripts of a Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch into arabic, Written in Samaritan Characters, composed certainly since the 900 Year of Christ, but those sort of Versions are of little Use or Authority.    

CHAP. VI. Of the Greek Versions of the Old Testament, and chiefly that of the LXX.  

SECT. I. If there was a Greek Version more Ancient than that of the LXX.  
THE Ancient and Modern Authors are divided about this Question; that is to say, Whether there be a Greek Version of the Old Testament, more Ancient than that which is supposed to have been made by 72 Jews in the Reign of ptolemy Philadelpus. St. Clement of Alexandria, in his first Book of the Stromata, Eusebius in his Ninth Book of Gospel Preparation, Cap. 3. and some other Ancients, have affirmed, That there was a Greek Version of the Law more Ancient than that of the LXX. divers Modern Authors, and amongst others Bellarmine, Serarius and Galesinius are of that Opinion, which is founded, 1. On the Testimony of Aristobulus related by Eusebius, Lib. 9. pmparat Evang. Cap. 6. & Lib. 13. Cap. 11. which imports, That before Alexander conquered the Persians, some Authors had translated that which concerned the departure of the Jews out of Egypt, the most considerable of what had befallen them, the taking of their Country and the Explication of their Law. Words which seem to imply, that the Pentateuch had been translated into Greek before the LXX. 2. Upon this that some Heathen Philosophers, more Ancient than the LXX, seem to have taken divers things out of the Books of Moses, amongst others Plato, whom some call the Athenian Moses, and who, according to Josephus, took part of his Laws from those of Moses. The Pythagorean Hermippus, and St. Justin Martyr, say the same thing of Pythagoras; and Clearchus the peripatetic says the like of Aristotle. St. Augustin, on the contrary, Philo and St. Epiphanius seem to be persuaded that the LXX were the first that translated the Sacred Books into Greek. This is the Opinion of Baronius, Jobn Despierres, Lowis Capelle, and some others. They rely chiefly upon the Testimony of Aristeus, who supposes that there was no Greek Version of the Law before that of the LXX; for had there been any, it's impossible but it must have been known to the Jews of Egypt, and to King Ptolomy's Library-Keeper, who sought for Greek Books every where; and if they had known there were any such, it had been to no purpose for them to have given themselves so much Trouble to make a new one. 2. The Historian Josephus, Lib. 12. Cap. 2. and in his Books against Appion, says, That until that time none of the Historians nor Poets, durst touch upon the Sacred Books; and that Theopompus and Theodectus, who would have taken something out of those Books to mix with their Works, were punished by God. 3. Philo in his Second Book of the Life of Moses, says, That the Law of the Jews was wrote in Chaldee; and that it continued unknown to those that did not understand that Tongue, until such time as 'twas translated by the command of ptolemy. The Jews before the Reign of Alexander had no Commerce with the Greeks, nor do we see what reason the Jews or Greeks could have to make this Version. The Testimony of Aristobulus which is opposed to this, is of little Consequence, because the Work whence this Passage is taken, is a Counterfeit by some Hellenist Jew, moreover, that this Author does not say, That those Sacred Books were translated into Greek, but only that some Authors had wrote in Greek things that concern the History and Laws of the Jews.  
That which is said further of the Knowledge which some Pagan Philosophers had, of Things contained in the Books of Moses is very uncertain; and though we should allow it to be true, it will not thence follow, that there was a Greek Version of the Pentateuch, they might have had that Knowledge from the Egyptians, or even from some Jews they conferred with, as Clearchus says, that a Jew interpnted the Holy Scripture to Aristotle. Origen in his 6th Book against Celsus, says, That Plato had either learned divers things from the Jews; or had himself red divers things in the Books of the Prophets. It is then possible, according to Origen, that Plato had written divers things agreeable to the History and Laws of Moses; and that he had drawn things out of that Fountain, without having red the Sacred Books, and only by Conference with Jews.  
The famous Author of the Evangelical Demonstration endeavours to reconcile the two opposite Sentiments, by saying, That there were only some Fragments of Moses's Books translated into Greek before the Version of the LXX, which was the first complete and entire Translation of' em. He maintains this Opinion, by the Testimonies of Aristobulus, Demetrius Phalereus, and Aristeus, whom I look upon to be three suppositious Authors, and who don't say positively that some part of the Law was translated, but suppose that the Greeks might have Monuments wherein the History and Law of the Jews was mentioned, tho' there was not as yet any literal Tradition, neither of the whole Law nor of any of its Parts. It is certain that divers Egyptian Historians, Chaldeans, phoenicians and Greeks, spoken of Moses and the Jews, of their Religion and Laws: It is from thence that the Greek Philosophers might have drawn some Knowledge of their Doctrine and Laws, to make use of it in their Writings, without any necessity of supposing that they had the Text of Moses itself: Nay, further, all that they say Plato and the other Philosophers have taken from the Doctrine and Laws of Moses, might have been known to them, either by the sole Light of Reason; or, if they please, by the Tradition they had received from the Egyptians, without any necessity of supposing that they received it immediately from the Jews: And by Consequence, that which they advance upon this Foundation of a Greek Version of the Pentateuch, more ancient than that of the LXX, is altogether uncertain; nor have we any Proof, Footstep, or remainder of that ancient Version.   

SECT. II. The Relation of the Manner, how they pretend the Version of the LXX was made according to Aristeus and other Historians.  
THE famous History of the Version of the LXX, was written by Aristeus, supposed to have been one of the Officers of Ptolomee Philadelphus King of Egypt, who ordered this Version to be made. We have the Work of this pretended Aristeus, from whom Josephus and Eusebius have taken what they say of this Matter. Some have doubted whether the Work that at present carries the Name of Aristeus, be that which was in the Hands of Josephus and Eusebius: But to be satisfied in that Point, we need only compare the Narrative of Josephus with that of our Aristeus, whereof Josephus makes an Abridgement, and we shall find it to be the very same with that which we now have under his Name. It is true that Aristeus was not generally followed by all the Christian Authors who have spoken of this History, and that they have added Circumstances thereunto, which they have certainly found in some other Author of the same Nature with Aristeus, but who related the thing in a different manner. We shall begin with a faithful Relation of the History, as 'tis related in Aristeus's Book, and observe afterwards, what others have added or altered in his Narrative.  
The Work of Aristeus is wrote in form of a Letter directed to his Brother Philocrates. He relates therein that Demetrius Phalereus, Library-Keeper to ptolemy Philadelphus, having undertaken to get all the Books of the World into that Princes Library, shew'd him that the Law of the Jews deserved to be of the Number; and that ptolemy having answered him, That it was his Fault if it were not put there; Demetrius replied, That it must be translated first, because they were wrote in a Language and Characters unknown to the Egyptians. Upon which the King resolved to writ to the High-Priest of the Jews, That Aristeus, the Author of that History, made use of this occasion to obtain the Liberty of the Jews who were Captives in Egypt, and had been brought thither by ptolemy the Son of Lagus, Father to Philadelphus. That thereupon he represented to the King, That he could not sand Ambassadors to the Jews, to demand their Laws of them, whilst he kept so many Jews Captives in his Kingdom; that he ought so much the rather to set them at Liberty, because it was the God of their Law who made his Reign happy, because they worshipped the God who knew all things and created all things: That the King having asked of him, how many of those Captives there might be in his Kingdom; one of his Guards, called Andrew, answered him, That there were 100000. And that another, called Sosibius, having joined his Request with that of Aristeus, they obtained this Favour from the King, who added of his own accord, that 20 Drachma's should be paid out of his Treasury for every Jewish Captive, and that they should be immediately set at Liberty: And thereupon he issued an Edict, which Aristeus relates in this Place, by which he ordered that all his Subjects who had any Jewish Slaves, should be obliged to set them at Liberty, and that he would order them 20 Drachma's for each. That when this was put in execution, Demetrius presented a Memorial to the King, in which he informs him, That it was convenient to writ to the High-Priest of the Jews at Jerusalem, to sand him six Men out of every Tribe, noted for their virtue, Learning and Age, to make an exact Version of the Books of the Jews, which should be put into the Royal Library. Aristeus gives us here a Copy of the King's Letter to the High-Priest Eleazar, which was carried to him by Andrew and Aristeus, Eleazar's Answer, and the Names of the 72 Persons who were sent to translate the Law. He afterwards gives an ample Account of the magnificent Presents which the King sent to the High-Priest Eleazar; and gives a very particular Account of the City of Jerusalem, the Temple and its Parts. He speaks of the Plenty of the Country, of the Knowledge of the 72 Interpreters, and of their Grief at parting with Eleazar: He reports a long Discourse of Eleazar's upon the Jewish Law; and, after this long Digression, returns again to his History, and tells us in what manner the 72 Envoys were received by King ptolemy, how they presented and unfolded before him the Books of the Law which that Prince adored. After this he comes with a longer Digression, wherein he gives us an Account of the Questions which ptolemy asked the 72 Interpreters for three Days together, and of the Answers given to him by each. At last Aristeus comes to the Matter of the Translation, and says only, That Demetrius carried those 72 Persons into an iceland, alongst a Peer of seven Furlongs, and put them into an House upon the Bank of the Sea, where they translated the Law: So that after they had conferred together, and were agreed on the Interpretation, Demetrius wrote it down: That they did so for 72 Days together, and on the last of them completed the Version. That afterwards Demetrius caused it to be red in the presence of an Assembly of Jews, who approved it, and declared that it was Exact and Faithful: That he red it also to the King, who was much surprised that none of the Historians or Poets had made mention of it: To which Demetrius answered, That this Law being Holy and Divine, they dared not to mix it with profane things, and that the Historian Theopompus, and the Poet Theodectes, having offered to put something of it into their Works, were punished for it, the one by the loss of his Senses, and the other by the loss of his Sight. And that in fine, ptolemy sent back his 72 Interpreters loaden with Honour and Presents; thus doth Aristeus give us the History of this Version.  
The 2d Author that speaks of the Version of the LXX is Aristobulus the Jew, a peripatetic Philosopher, in his Commentaries upon the Books of Moses, dedicated to King ptolemy, quoted by Eusebius and by St. Clement of Alexandria; in which that Author, having a mind to prove that Pythagoras, Plato, and the other Greek Philosophers knew the Law of Moses, says, That one Part of that Law had been done into Greek in the time of Alexander, but that the whole was translated by the Care of Demetrius Phalereus in the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus, one of the Ancestors of him to whom he dedicated his Work St. Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius say, That ptolemy to whom this Aristobulus dedicated his Book, is ptolemy Philometor, who was the 4th King of Egypt after ptolemy Philadelphus, and began to Reign 66 Years after his death. There's a probability that 'tis only by Conjecture, that those Authors place this Aristobulus in the Reign of ptolemy Philometor; for in other places they say, he flourished in the time of ptolemy Philadelphus, and make him Contemporary to Eleazar 
And make him Contemporary to Eleazar.] St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromat. Lib. 1. Pag. 342. quotes the Passage of Aristobulus thus; Aristobulus in his first Book dedicated to Philomotor, says Word by Word. And in his 5th Book, Pag. 595. he says, Aristobulus, who lived in the time of ptolemy Philadelphus. Eusebius divers times quotes the Work of Aristobulus in his Books of Evangelical Preparations, Lib. 7. Cap. 13. Lib. 8. Cap. 8,& 9. Lib. 13. Cap. 12. only under the Name of a Commentary dedicated to ptolemy, without saying which. But in one of his Quotations, Lib. 8. Cap. 8. he makes him Contemporary with Eleazar. I will content myself, says he, to relate the Explications of Eleazar and Aristobulus, who are both of an ancient Hebrew Lineage, and flourished in the time of Ptolomee. Nevertheless, the same Eusebius in his Chronicle says, Aristobulus dedicated his Commentary to ptolemy Philometor, which was followed by Ado, Bede and Marianus Scotus in their Chronicles, and by the Author of the Chronicle of Alexandria. Anatole of Alexandria, in the Paschal Canon related by Eusebius, Lib. 7. Hist. Eccles. Cap. 32. in quoting Aristobulus says, he was one of the 70 who translated the Sacred Books into Greek for ptolemy Philadelphus, and the King his Father, and that he dedicated his Commentary on the Law of Moses to those Princes. , a notable Bishop of Alexandria, who lived in the beginning of the third Age, reckon him to be one of the LXX, and pretends he not only dedicated his Work to ptolemy Philadelphus, but also to ptolemy the Son of Lagus, Father to that Prince.  
It is, nevertheless, more likely that Aristobulus is not so ancient as those Authors make him; for there's great probability that he is the same who is mentioned in the beginning of the 2d Book of the Maccabees, where 'tis said, That he was Preceptor to King ptolemy. St. Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius agree that he is the same: And in one of the Fragments quoted by Eusebius, Lib. 8. Prepar. Evangel. Cap. 10. it appears that the Author had lived familiarly with the Prince to whom he wrote, and that he had often spoken with him concerning Knowledge. But Aristobulus, mentioned in the Letter at the beginning of the 2d Book of the Maccabees, could not have been Preceptor but to the Son of Philometor; for this Letter was written 20 Years after the death of that Prince; and, by Consequence, Aristobulus could not have writ till 120 Years, or thereabouts, after the death of ptolemy Philadelphus. We will examine afterwards, if the Work quoted under his Name be truly his.  
The third Author, who speaks of the Version of the LXX, is Philo the Jew, who in the 2d Book of the Life of Moses says, That the 72 Jews, being sent to ptolemy Philadelphus, retired into the Isle of Pharos, near unto Alexandria, as a Place where they might work in quiet without being diverted by any Body. That in this Retirement, being full of the Spirit of God, they prophesied all the same thing Verbatim, without one expressing it one way, and another another, as if it had been dictated to each of them invisibly: That tho' Languages, and especially the Greek Tongue, is capable of expressing the same thing in different manners and by divers Terms, this did not happen in the Translation of those Laws; that the Terms of the Chaldee Tongue were translated into the most proper Terms of the Greek Tongue, which answer to them exactly: And that as Geometry and logic don't admit of this variety of Discourse, but always make use of the same Terms, those Interpreters have likewise found the most convenient Terms for explaining the Sense the most clearly: That Experience hath made known this Uniformity. And whether a graecian learn the Chaldee Tongue, or a Chaldean the Greek Tongue, they admire the Conformity of the Version with the Original, and revere this Agreement of Things and Words, not looking upon them as mere Translators, but as Prophets, on whom God bestowed the Favour to inspire them with the true Spirit and Thoughts of Moses. He adds, That every Year they make a Festival in the iceland of Pharos, in Remembrance of this Event.  
The fourth Author, that hath writ the History of the LXX, is Josephus, who, Cap. 2. Lib. 12. Antiquit. relates it upon the Authority of Aristeus. He took all he said of it from that Author, and hath only abridged it, without adding any thing thereunto. Eusebius hath also satisfied himself merely with what they have said of it, without speaking of any other Circumstance.  
The first Christian Author, who spoken of the Version of the LXX, is St. Justin: He says but very little of it in his Apology to the Emperor Antonin, where he fell into a very gross Error, when he said, That it was to King Herod that ptolemy addressed himself for a Version of the Prophetical Books. It is certain that ptolemy Philadelphus lived a long time before King Herod, and therefore either St. Justin must be guilty of a very considerable Mistake in Chronology in this Matter, or there is some Fault in the Text; which is not credible, because Herod's Name is twice repeated there. Be that how it will, St. Justin in this Place observes two Embassies from ptolemy to Herod: The first, to desire the Sacred Books which were sent him by Herod, written in Hebrew. And a second, by which he desired, that because the Tongue in which those Books were written was unknown to the Egyptians, he would sand him Persons to translate them. Aristeus speaks nothing of those two Embassies, but supposes that ptolemy demanded at once, that not only a Copy of the Law should be sent him, but also 72 Persons to translate it, and that the Copy was brought by those who translated it. But this is not the only thing wherein St. Justin differs from Aristeus, as to the Version of the LXX, for in his Exhortation to the Gentiles, wherein he describes at large, after what manner this Version was made, he adds divers Circumstances unknown to Aristeus and Josephus. He relates the Matter thus. If any one say, that the Books of Moses and the other Prophets are written in Greek, he may learn from Foreign Histories, that ptolemy King of Egypt having a mind to erect a real Library at Alexandria, and causing Books to be brought hither from all Parts to fill it, being informed that the Hebrews kept with great Care ancient Histories written in Hebrew, and being willing to know what those Writings contained, sent to Jerusalem for 70 very Learned Men, who understood the Hebrew and the Greek, and ordered them to translate those Books; and to the end they might be more at quiet and free from Noise, he would not have them to stay in the City to make the said Translation, but caused to be built for them, in the iceland of Pharos, 7 Furlongs from Alexandria, as many little Houses as there were Interpreters, that each might Labour apart on that Version: And he enjoined those who served them, to do them all sorts of good Offices, but to prevent their conferring together, that he might know by the Conformity of their Versions whether their Translation was exact. And finding afterwards that those 70 Persons did not only agree in the Sense but in the Terms, that there was not one Word in one of their Versions that was not in another, and that they all wrote Word by Word the same Expressions, being surprised with Admiration, and not doubting but that Version was made by the Spirit of God, he heaped Honours upon the Interpreters, whom he looked upon as Men dear to God, and sent them home loaden with Presents to their own Country. That as to the Books, he justly looked upon them as Divine, and put them into his Library. St. Justin adds to confirm this Story; Don't think, O Greeks, that what we say is a forged Story: We ourselves, when at Alexandria, saw the ruins of those little Houses in Pharos, where they were still remaining; and we learned from the Inhabitants of the Place, who had it by Tradition from their Fathers. You may also be assured of it by the Writings of divers Wise and Illustrious Authors, who have related this History, as Philo, Josephus, and divers others. St. Justin did not invent what he speaks of those little Houses or Cells, in which he says the LXX were shut up to make their Version; nor of the Miracle of the entire Conformity of all their Versions, tho' made apart from one another. Nevertheless, neither Philo, Josephus, or Aristeus, have made any mention of it, but report, quiter contrary, That the Version was made after quiter another manner, in the Conferences which the LXX had together, being assembled in the same Hall. He says, however, That he not only learned what he wrote from the Inhabitants of Pharos, who shew'd him the Remains of those Cells, and had the Story by Tradition, but that the same thing may be found by reading Foreign Histories. This can be of no other but the History of Aristeus, who boasts that he extracted his Narrative from the Journals of the Kings of Egypt, that St. Justin speaks of in this place: Yet this that he quotes is neither in Aristeus, Josephus, nor Philo; therefore we have Reason to believe, that he knew nothing of what he said concerning it, but what he heard from some Jews of Alexandria, who had the History by Tradition.  
Almost all the Fathers, who have writ since St. Justin's time, except Eusebius and St. Jerom, have followed his Narrative, and made mention of the wonderful Conformity of the Versions of the 72 Interpreters, that were shut up in their different Cells 
The wonderful Conformity of the Versions of the 72 Interpreters that were shut up in their different Cells.] St. Ireneus, Lib. 3. contr. Haeres. Cap. 25. St. Clem. Alexand. storm. Lib. 1. p. 341, 342. St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Cateches. 4. St. Hilar. on Ps. 2. St. August. Lib. 18. de Civit. Dei, cap. 43. Lib. 2 de Doctr. Chr. Cap. 15. where he speaks nevertheless of this Miracle, as of a thing uncertain, by making use of those Words, Traditur, ut fertur, multique non indigni fide praedicant. It's said, it's reported, many credible Persons affirm it. Philastre Haeres. 137. Theodoret Praesat. in Psalm. Justinian Autent. Cap. 46. Collat. 10, &c. Tertullian speaks of the Version of the LXX in his Apologetic. cap. 18. where he observes that the Philosopher Menedemus, in his Defence of Providence, admired the Uniformity of Opinion amongst the LXX. Which may be understood of the Conformity of their Sentiments, in the Conferences which they had together, according to the History of Aristeus, which Tertullian quotes in this place. The Jews have also approved the History of the 72 Cells, as may be found in the two Talmuds, Tract. Megill. and is reported by Bengorion, and divers other Jews. Amongst the modern Interpreters, Serarius, Bonfrerius, and Galesinius, have followed the Current of the Ancients. . But St. Epiphanius enlarges most upon this Story, and reports it quiter differently from others in his Book of Measures and Weights. He says, That those 72 Interpreters were shut up two by two, with two Servants and Clerks, in 36 little Houses or Cells, which had none but Sky-Lights, built in the iceland of Pharos, opposite to Alexandria, that they worked there from Morning till Night; that in the Evening they were brought in 36 Sloops to the Palace of King ptolemy, where they supped, and were afterwards shut up in 36 different Chambers: That each of them had a Book of the Sacred Scripture to Translate; and that thus they translated 22 caconical and 22 Apocryphal Books: That when they had finished all, the King made them come before his Throne with 36 Readers, who had each a Copy of the Greek Version, whilst another held the Hebrew Copy, and that they found all the Copies of the Version to agree exactly; that in those Places where any thing was added, it was found in all the Copies: and when there was any thing cut off or left out, it was in none of their Copies. He afterwards relates the whole History of the 72 Interpreters that were chosen out of the 12 Tribes, six out of each, and quotes Aristeus upon this Head. He says, That ptolemy Philadelphus designing to make a Library at Alexandria, and having chosen Demetrius Phalereus to take Care of it, he wrote to all the Kings and Princes of the World for Copies of their Books: And having thus collected a vast Number, he asked Demetrius, one Day, how many there were in his Library? To which he replied, That there were already Fifty four Thousand and Eight Hundred, or thereabouts; but that he was informed there was still a greater Number, amongst the Ethiopians, Indians, Persians, Elamites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Romans, phoenicians, Syrians, Grecians, and particularly at Jerusalem in Judea, where there were the Divine Books of the Prophets, which treated of the Divinity, of the Creation of the World, and divers other things useful for the common Good: So that if his Majesty thought fit to have them, he must writ to the Doctors of Jerusalem, that they might sand them to put in his Library. He afterwards gives an Account of a Letter from King ptolemy to the Jews of Jerusalem, wholly different from that in Aristeus; by which he demands that they would sand him the Books of the Prophets, and preys them to remember, that he had set at Liberty and courteously treated many of the Jews, who were taken and carried Captive into Egypt. He adds, That he sent them a Table of Gold, enriched with Jewels, that had been taken out of the Temple of Jerusalem, with other Presents, which he desires they would put into the Temple. St. Epiphanius says, after this, That the Jews immediately sent that Prince the 22 caconical and the 72 apocryphal Books, wrote in Hebrew and in Letters of Gold; which ptolemy being neither able to red or understand, he was obliged to writ to them a second time, and to demand Interpreters to translate them. Then he gives us an Account of this Princes 2d Letter to the Jews, which is also different from that of Aristeus. It begins with this Sentence of Ecclesiasticus; What Profit can be made of an hidden Treasure, or of a Fountain stopped up? He applies it to the Books they had sent him, which he could not red, and preys them earnestly, to sand him Persons Learned in the Greek and Hebrew Languages to interpret them. It was after the receipt of this 2d Letter, that the Jews choose 72 Interpreters, 6 out of each Tribe, whom they sent to ptolemy, and who composed the Version in such manner as he relates.  
St. Epiphanius agrees with St. Justin, concerning Ptolomy's two Embassies, and differs in that from Aristeus. He agrees also with St. Justin, as to the Cells built in the iceland of Pharos, but he differs as to the Number of Cells and Copies; for St. Justin says, That each Interpreter had his own Cell, and made his particular Version: Whereas' St. Epiphanius says, That there were two of 'em in a Cell, and that there were only 36 Copies of their Version. St. Justin supposes they did not come out of their Cells till they had completed the Version. St. Epiphanius, on the contrary, supposes, that they came every Day to the Palace, and after Supper were shut up there by two and two into 36 different Chambers. St. Epiphanius quotes Aristeus for Evidence; but, if he had that Story from Aristeus, he must have had a Copy of Aristeus much different from that which we have, and which Josephus and Eusebius had, since his Narrative does not agree with that of our Aristeus, or of Josephus and Eusebius; and that the Letters of ptolemy, which he reports are altogether different from that which is in those two Authors.   

SECT. III. Reflections upon the History of the Version of the LXX. That Aristeus is a Jew: That his Narrative is a Romance; and that he is not a Contemporary Author: His Mistakes in Chronology. His Fable of the Gells refuted: Of the way how the Version of the LXX was made, and why it was so called.  
AFter having given an Historical Relation of what the ancient Jews and Christians have wrote, as to the Manner how the Version of the LXX was composed, we must examine the Authority of the Witnesses, and the Truth of the Circumstances of that History. Let us begin with the Book of Aristeus.  
We have already said, That we doubted not but this Book was that which was in the Hands of Josephus and Eusebius: The Proof is easy: Josephus follows, and only abridges the Narrative of Aristeus: He relates all the same Circumstances that are in our History of Aristeus, in the same Order, and many times in the same Terms. He puts the same Discourses into the Mouths of Demetrius, Aristeus, Andrew and others. He relates the Edict of King ptolemy, for setting the Jews at Liberty, in the same Terms; and the like, the Memorial of Demetrius to that Prince, the King's Letter to the High-Priest Eleazar, and his Answer: He says, he passes over in silence the Names of the LXX which are found in our Aristeus: He gives the same Description of the Presents which the King sent to Jerusalem: He gives us the same Circumstances of the arrival and reception of the LXX: He refers to Aristeus's Book, for the Questions the King asked the LXX, and their Answers; which makes up a principal part of the Book of Aristeus that we have. In fine, he says nothing precisely as to the way how that Version was composed, but what is in our Copy of Aristeus. It is then without Ground, that Lewis Vivez, lo de Castro, Alphonsus Salmero, and some other Authors, have thought that the Book of Aristeus, which Josephus made use of, differed from that which we have now. They seem to have been of that mind, only because they would defend the History of the Cells, which our Aristeus contradicts: And 'tis justy to be accounted one of the Arguments to prove, that it is the same Book which Josephus and Eusebius had, since those two Authors don't speak of it neither, and that St. Jerom says expressly, that the Cells are not in Aristeus. We cannot then doubt of the Antiquity of Aristeus's Book: Let's see what judgement we are to make of it, of the Author, and of the Truth of the History which it contains.  
To speak my Mind of it freely; I believe, in the first place, That it is the Work of an Hellenist Jew of Alexandria, and not of Aristeus the Pagan, King Ptolomy's Officer: The Proof of this is clear. This Author speaks always as a Jew; nay, that which is more, makes all the rest speak in the same manner, and relates abundance of things which no Man but he that is instructed in the Jewish Religion could writ and explain. In the first place, He speaks throughout of the Law of Moses, as a Divine Book, he says it himself, he makes Demetrius say it, he supposes ptolemy to have been so far convinced of it, that he adored the Copy of it when sent him. 2. When he relates the Discourse which he had with the King to obtain Liberty for the Jews, he says, The Jews worshipped the God who knew all things, and created all things; whom other Men, and we especially worship also, tho' we call him by another Name, viz. Jupiter. He remonstrates to that Prince, That it was God who gave the Law to the Jews, and that it was he who governed his own Person and Kingdom. It's easy to perceive, that this is a Jew in disguise, but so as he may easily be known. 3. He makes Demetrius say, in the Memorial he presents to the King, That the Laws of the Jews were Wiser and Holier than any other, because Divine; and therefore the Writers, Poets and Historians made no mention of those Books. Who else but a Jew could speak so of those Laws? 4. In his Memorial Demetrius shows the King, that he must desire of the High Priest of the Jews, to sand him 6 Men out of each Tribe. Who had informed him, that there were still 12 Tribes among the Jews? Why does he demand the Number of 6 from each Tribe? This could be for no other reason, but that the Number of the Interpreters should be 72, equal to that of the Jewish Sanbedrim: He must needs have been a Jew, that knew this Mystery. 5. ptolemy in his Letter acknowledges the God of the Jews to be the Great God, who preserved his Kingdom in Peace and Glory. 6. The Description of the Temple of Jerusalem, its Parts, and of the Offices of the Priests and Levites, and particularly the Vestments of the High-Priest, is the Work of a Jew: And tho' the Author feigns himself to have been instructed in those things by Eleazar, it appears nevertheless that he knew them of himself. 7. It is hard to believe that any other but a Jew could represent Eleazar discoursing so subtly upon the Mystical Explications of the Precepts of the Law, as he does in this Book. There needs no more but to red them, to be convinced that this is the Work of a Jew; and that a Man who was not perfectly instructed in the Religion and Theology of the Jews, could neither represent Eleazar discoursing thus, nor retain and put 'em in Writing, tho' he had heard them spoken. 8. The Answer of Demetrius to the King's Question, Why the Historians and Poets had not spoken of the Books of the Laws of the Jews, is altogether Jewish. It is( says he to him) because this Law is Holy and comes from God, and that some having attempted to make use of it in that manner, were diverted by a Divine Chastisement: For, I have heard, that Theopompus having a mind to insert in his History something that had already been translated from the Law, lost his Senses for above 30 Days, and having prayed to God, in one of his Lucid Intervals, to declare to him why that Mischief had befallen him; it was signified to him in a Dream, That it was because he would have made Divine Things public and common. That he had also been informed, That the Poet Theodectes, having a mind to take something out of that Book, to make use of in a Piece that he de3ign'd for the Stage, lost his Sight, and did not receive it till after he had acknowledged his Fault, and begged Pardon of God for his Presumption. This Discourse could never come from any other but a Jew; and those pretended Miracles are very like the Genius and Invention of the Hellenist Jews. In short, Aristeus's whole Book smells strong of the Jewish Temper; and whoever reads it, without prepossession, will easily be persuaded that it is the Work of a Jew.  
The 2d Reflection that may be made on the Book of Aristeus is, That 'tis not a plain and natural History, but a feigned Narrative and sort of Romance; all that we have in it is aggravated and affencted. The Pieces related therein, that is to say, the King's Edict and Letter, the Memorial of Demetrius, and Eleazar's Letter, are wrote in the same Style, and by Consequence, the Composition and Forgery of the Author. The Description of Ptolomy's Presents is wrote in a Romantick Style, the 72 Questions and Answers are manifestly the Author's Invention; what is said therein of the Laws being written in Golden Letters, can be nothing else but a Fiction. In fine, every thing in this Narrative is wonderful and extraordinary, 100000 Jews set at Liberty at the King's Charge, 72 Persons demanded and sent, six out of each Tribe, a Triangular Golden Table with Magnificent Vestments, and Vessels of Gold and Silver of a surprising bigness. The Copy of the Law written in Letters of Gold, the carrying of the Interpreters into an iceland 7 Furlongs from Alexandria, and the Version completed in 72 Days, are all of them incredible and affencted, and smell more of Fiction than History.  
The third Remark that may be made upon this History of Aristeus is, That it's no easy matter to find an Agreement betwixt this Narrative and the History of the Time, and that there are Mistakes of Chronology in it very difficult to be explained. Aristeus and all the Authors who have spoken of the Version of the LXX, suppose it to be Demetrius Phalereus, who was Governor of Athens, that took Care to sand for the Jews to translate the Bible; and that it was he, if we may believe Aristeus, who wrote the Version by their Direction. But it is maintained, that Demetrius Phalereus could not be in Esteem in the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus, nor in being, when they suppose this Version to have been made. For Hermippus, a Cotemporary Historian, whose Testimony is related by Diogenes Laertius in the Life of Demetrius, says, That after the death of Cassander, Demetrius who was afraid of Antigonus( he means Cassander's Son) retired to ptolemy Soter, and stayed a long time with him; that among other things he advised him to leave the Kingdom to Eurydice's Children; but that that Prince, not following his Advice, ordered the Crown to be given to Berenice's Son; who, after his Father's death, caused Demetrius to be imprisoned, until such time as he should consider what to do with him: That Demetrius lead a melancholy Life in Prison, and was accidentally bit by an Asp whilst asleep, as 'tis supposed, which occasioned his death; and he was interred in the Government of Buziris near Diospolis. This Testimony proves two Things, which destroy the History of Aristeus: The 1st, That Demetrius was in no Esteem with ptolemy Philadelphus, nor enjoyed any Liberty during his Reign; and, by Consequence, that he was not his Library-Keeper, nor ordered by him to bring Jews to translate the Bible. The 2d is, That the Version of the LXX not being made till some Years after the Commencement of the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus, as appears by the Circumstances of Aristeus's History, Demetrius could take no Care of it, since he died in the beginning of his Reign.  
They Answer usually, That ptolemy Philadelphus having reigned some time with his Father, as is observed in Eusebius's Chronicle, it was in that time that Demetrius had the Charge of the Library of Alexandria, and caused the Version of the Bible to be made. It is on this account that both the Voets, Father Petau and Riccioli place the Epocha of the Composition of this Version towards the end of the Reign of ptolemy the Son of Lagus, under whom St. Ireneus and St. Clement of Alexandria say they did it: And as at that time ptolemy Philadelphus reigned with his Father, we may also say, with other Authors, That it was done in the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus, and by his Order. But this Epocha cannot be maintained, if the Authority of Aristeus's Book be admitted, which contains abundance of Circumstances, by which we may see, that he supposes the Version of the LXX was not composed till divers Years after the Reign of Philadelphus; For, in the first place, he speaks only of one King, who is ptolemy Philadelphus, in whose Name all the Orders were issued. It's to him alone that Demetrius addresses himself, to have Letters to the Jews: It's he alone who writes to them: It is he only who receives the LXX, speaks to them and sends them back. If his Father had been still on the Throne, is it possible that he should have had no Hand in any of those things? Secondly, The Letter from Eleazar is directed to ptolemy alone, and he salutes him in these Terms, If you, the Queen Arsinoe your Sister, and your Children be in Health, we rejoice at it: Words whence divers Inferences may be drawn, to show, That according to Aristeus, the Version of the LXX could not have been made, during the time that Philadelphus reigned with his Father; for when he was associated to the Crown, he was very young, and had not yet a Wife or Children: He did not mary his Sister Arsinoe till after the Death of ptolemy Ceraunus, King of Macedonia 
He did not mary his Sister, &c.] Atheneus relating after Callixenes the Pomp that was made at the Coronation of Philadelphus during his Father's Life, says, That Philadelphus was crowned with 20 Crowns, his Father with the like number, and his Mother Berenice with 23. He speaks nothing of his Wife and Children, so that he had not any at that time. Philadelphus's first Wife was Daughter to Lysimachus of Thracia and Macedonia. He afterwards married his Sister Arsinoe, atcording to the Testimony of Pausanias, Stephanus of byzantium, Pliny, Plutarch and Atheneus. Justin and Pausanias say, That she was married formerly to Lysimachus and afterwards to Ceraunus who died not till the end of the 124 Olympiad, and consequently six Years after the commencement of Philadelphus's Reign. In the Title of Eleazar's Letter related by Eusebius, there's no mention made that Arsinoe was the Kings's Sister; but in the Body of the Letter, Eleazar writes, That he had offered Sacrifices for the King, for his Sister and for his children. , to whom he had married her after the Death of Lysimachus King of Thracia, Brother to Ceraunus. But ptolemy Ceraunus did not die till the 6th Year of the Reign of Philadelphus; and by consequence the Letter of Eleazar could not be writ according to Aristeus till after the Death of ptolemy the Son of Lagos, since Philadelphus reigned only one or two Years with his Father. 3. ptolemy speaking in his Letter of the Jews that had been carried captive in the time of his Father, says, He does not believe that to have been done by his Order: If he had been still alive would not he have expressed himself otherwise. Fourthly, There are divers Places in which Aristeus supposes, that Philadelphus was powerful, renowned, of great Experience in Government, and had reigned a long time. For Example he brings in the 60th and the ninth of those Interpreters speaking to the Prince thus, You Sir, who are exercised in all sorts of virtues, and act the part of a Philosopher by the good Sense that you have received from God. And the 60th and eighth having answered to the Question of that Prince, that King's ought to apply themselves particularly to the Reading of the Memorials of Ambassadors, he adds, That it is by this means that you have acquired Immortal Glory. The 60th and the 4th, and the 60th and the 12th say also, That he had purchased immortal Glory by his wise Government. Sosibius, that he may persuade him to set the Jews at Liberty, remonstrates to him, That he was raised to a degree of Glory and Honour which surpassed his Ancestors. In short, There's great probability that ptolemy Philadelphus did not apply himself to make a Library till towards the latter end of his Days 
There's great probability that Prolomy, Philadelphus, &c.] Strabo says, ptolemy did not undertake these great Works, till, because of the Weakness of his Body, he sought for Subjects of Diversion and employment. Aelian. Hist. l. 4. c. 15. says, That ptolemy became Learned when he began to grow unhealthy. , when his Health would not allow him to employ himself otherwise. Galienus informs us 
Galienus informs us.] It is in his second Commentary on the third Book of Hippocrates of common Diseases; where he says, That he found in the Library of ptolemy euergetes a Book, marked by Pamphilus the Physician; and he adds, That ptolemy euergetes sought at Athens for the Books of Sophocles, Euripides and Eschilus to put them in his Library. , That ptolemy euergetes, Son to Philadelphus completed what his Father had begun. And Vitruvius assures us 
Vitruvius assures us.] The Passage in the Preface to his 7th Book of Architecture is thus, When the Kings of Pergamus being much taken with the sweetness of Philology, erected at Pergamus an excellent Library for common Use; at the same time ptolemy being inflamed with a mighty Zeal for Study and Learning, endeavoured to erect another at Alexandria, with no less Industry. , That Philadelphus undertook his Library, in Imitation of the Kings of Pergamus, now the first King of Pergamus, who erected a Library, was according to Strabo and Pliny, Eumenes II. who did not begin to Reign till 24 Years after the Death of Lagos, and survived Philadelphus: Therefore Eusebius in the first part of his Greek Chronicle, and George Syncellus, and before them Africanus 
Eusebius in the first part of his Greek Chronicle, &c.] says thus, ptolemy Philadelphus erected a Library in Alexandria. In the 132 Olympiad George Syncellus adds, Towards the close of which he died. Josephus seems to be of the same Opinion, for he says, That ptolemy Philadelphus, having reigned 40 Years, ordered the Law to be translated.  place the erecting of the Alexandrian Library in the 132d Olympiad, which is the 30th Year of King Ptolomy's Reign, if we compute from the Death of his Father, and made the famous grammarian Aristophanes his Library-Keeper. Suidas gives this Charge to Zenodotus Master to Aristophanes; and indeed Aristophanes continued alive 50 Years after the Death of Philadelphus; and before him Eratosthenes and Appollonius of Rhodes had that Charge, after Zenodotus, who was possessed of it in the Reign of ptolemy the Son of Lagos, and enjoyed it till the end of the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus. This Employment suits grammarians and Philologists, much better than Demetrius Phalereus, who was a Man of Quality and employed in State Affairs. What we have just now observed, That Zenodotus was Library-Keeper to ptolemy the Son of Lagos, is not contrary to what we said, that ptolemy Philadelphus did not apply himself to erect the Library of Alexandria, till towards the end of his Life; for there was in the time of ptolemy the Son of Lagos a Royal Library at Alexandria, and it was not ptolemy Philadelphus, who founded it first, but he applied himself towards the end of his Days to embellish and enrich it by seeking for Books every where, to render it Famous and complete.  
There's also another Chronological Mistake in the History of Aristeus, which makes it evident, That the Author did not live in that time. He says, The Philosopher Menedemus was at Alexandria when the LXX made their Translation. This Menedemus lived, as Diogenes Laertius has it from Heraclides, 84 Years: He had been Scholar to Plato, who died in the first Year of the 108 Olympiad. Let's suppose, That Menedemus was 24 or 25 Years old when Plato died, which is the least we can suppose. He died the first Year of the 123 Olympiad, two Years before ptolemy Philadelphus was joined with his Father in the Government. We must however confess, That there are Proofs that Menedemus lived long; for Authors, related by Diogenes Laertius, say, That after Antigonus had defeated the Gauls, who under the Conduct of Brennus, made an Irruption into Greece; Menedemus being suspected of a design to have betrayed Athens to Antigonus, retired to that princes Court, and died a few Days after. The defeat of the Gauls by Antigonus happened in the second Year of the 125th Olympiad, which is the 6th after the Death of ptolemy the Son of Lagos: But supposing we grant this Matter of Fact to be certain, it is nothing less contrary to the History of Aristeus, since we must say, according to him, that the LXX did not make their Version till the end of the Reign of Philadelphus, and that Menedemus died in the ninth Year of that Prince. Besides we red it in Laertius, That Menedemus was sent on an embassy to ptolemy the Son of Lagos, afterwards to Lysimachus; and, in fine, to Demetrius: But we don't red that ever he was Ambassador to ptolemy Philadelphus.  
Here is yet another more considerable Circumstance, by which it appears, That Aristeus hath confounded things. He brings in Philadelphus, saying, That the Day on which the LXX arrived was a Solemn Day, because that very Day he obtained a Naval Victory against Antigonus. This Battle must be that spoken of by Diodorus Siculus in the 20th Book of his History, which happened in the third Year of the 118th Olympiad, under ptolemy the Son of Lagos. But ptolemy Philadelphus speaks here of a Battle, which he himself had gained divers Years before. We don't red, That Philadelphus gained any against Antigonus; but, on the contrary, having sent Asfistance by Sea to the Athenians against Antigonus Gonatas, it was of no use to them, nor did they gain any Advantage upon him. Aristeus then cannot speak of any other but the Battle won by ptolemy the Son of Lagos against Antigonus the Great, or of the famous Battle which ptolemy Ceraunus, King of Macedonia, the eldest Son of ptolemy the Son of Lagos, won against Antigonus Gonatas. Now neither the one nor the other could be ascribed to ptolemy Philadelphus, and by consequence Aristeus is mistaken as to Matter of Fact, which an Author that lived in the time could scarcely be guilty of.  
We might perhaps find some other Circumstances in the Narrative of Aristeus, that don't agree with the History of the time, but those that we have brought already are sufficient to show, that the Author of this History did not writ things whereof he was an Eye-witness, but that he invented and accommodated them as well as he could, to the History of the time in which he fixed that Event. It would be difficult exactly to mark out the time in which this Counterfeit Aristeus composed his History, but it must be within the space of 200 Years that followed the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus; for Alexander Polyhistor, quoted by Eusebius, lib. 9. Evang. prepar. c. 25. who wrote 200 Years or thereabouts after the reign of Philadelphus, mentions a History of the Jews, composed by Aristeus. But the Author of the Relation concerning the LXX, assures us, That he had composed a Work on this Subject: It is then the same; so that this is the Author who is quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, and who by consequence wrote before him. This is what we are to think of the History of Aristeus, upon whose Authority all those have built, who have since made mention of the Version of the LXX.  
It is from him apparently that Aristobulus took what he said of the Greek Version of the Law done in the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus, tho' that Author say nothing in particular of the way how it was done, but only that it was translated by the Care of Demetrius Phalereus. We have already shew'd that Demetrius could not take the Care of the Version of the Law upon him in the time of ptolemy Philadelphus, because he was a Prisoner and in disgrace. So that the only Circumstance taken notice of by Aristobulus, could not be true, and he must have taken it from Aristeus. Moreover, it is not certain that this Writing of Aristobulus is by him who is mentioned in the Letter from the Jews of Jerusalem to those of Alexandria; there is more likelihood that it is from some Hellenist Jew more late than he, who had writ those Commentaries on the Law of Moses, and put them in Aristobulus's Name. Be that how it will, and granting that that Author be unexceptionable, all that can be proved by his Authority, is only that a part of the Law was translated into Greek in the time of Alexander the Great, and that it was afterwards wholly translated in the Reign of ptolemy the Son of Lagos, or of ptolemy Philadelphus. The first is controverted, and no Body denies the second; the only Doubt is concerning the way of its Composure, and the Circumstances related by the counterfeit Aristeus.  
Philo the Jew follows Aristeus as to what concerns the Greek Version by the 70 Interpreters under the Reign of Philadelphus. He adds only, That the LXX by a sort of Inspiration and Prophetical Spirit translated all after one and the same manner, as if some invisible Agent had dictated to them the same thing. Aristeus says more plainly, That they conferred together upon every Passage they translated, and that when they were agreed on it, their Version was writ down.  
Josephus did nothing else but Copy the Relation of Aristeus, and does not seem to have had any other Memorials or Vouchers for this Story; so that his Testimony ought not to be accounted any thing in this matter, being founded upon no other Authority but that of Aristeus.  
St. Justin hath not taken his History of the Version of the LXX from our Copy of Aristeus, since he not only relates things which are not to be found in Aristeus, but also such things as are contrary to his Narrative, and to the Narrative of all others who had wrote any thing of it before him; for Aristeus, Josephus and Philo have not spoken one Word of the 72 Cells, in which they pretend the 72 Interpreters were shut up, that each of them might make their Version apart; nor of the Agreement of all those Versions to the very least Word; which they would not have omitted, had the thing been true, or invented in their time. But it is not only from their Silence that a Negative Argument of the greatest force may be drawn against St. Justin's Narrative of the 72 Cells, and the miraculous Agreement of their Versions, but likewise from their positive Evidence, since they declare that the 72 Interpreters wrote together in one and the same House and Hall, and that they conferred together about the Composition. Nay, further, Aristeus observes that they only brought one Copy of the Law writ in Characters of Gold; if they had been separated, each of 'em must have had one. In short, this is such an extravagant Fancy, to shut up 72 Persons separately to translate a Work, that it is no ways likely it could ever come into Ptolomy's Head. What could be his Design in it? if he would have been satisfied of the faithfulness of their Version, it had been sufficient to have divided them into two or three Offices, why should he shut them up separately? Could he divine that they would all agree when writing separately? Was it not more natural that they should confer together to make a good Version? Is it not plain, That this whole Story is only framed to render the thing so much the more wonderful? But never had any thing less appearance of Truth, and therefore St. Jerom had reason to reject this Story as a Fable. He says, he does not know who is the first Author of it, but he assures us that 'tis a notorious falsehood, which is easy to be proved by the Testimonies of Aristeus and Josephus. I know not, says he, what Author he was that by a lie built 70 Cells at Alexandria, into which the LXX being divided wrote one and the same thing, since Aristeus, that same Ptolomy's Advocate or Champion, and Josephus long after him, said no such thing; but that they conferred altogether in one Hall, and did not prophesy: For to be a Prophet is one thing, and an Interpreter another.  
St. Justin had been deceived by some Jews of Alexandria, amongst whom this Fable perhaps was common, and who had shew'd him in the iceland of Pharos some ruins of ancient Houses, and made him believe that they were the Remains of the Cells of the LXX, as some Persons had persuaded him at Rome, that the Statue of Semon Sancus was that of Simon the Magician. It's well enough known how frivolous and uncertain these pretended popular Traditions are, and especially among the Jews, who have always ways been much addicted to believe and talk of wonderful and surprising things, as may be seen by the Talmud. St. Justin being deceived by the Jews, gave occasion to others of the Fathers to fall into the same Error; they only copied and followed him, and believed it on his Testimony, without inquiring into the Matter. So that their Authority is of no weight in this Point. St. Augustin considering this, spoken doubtfully of it, tho' he did not examine the thing; but St. Jerom having canvased it maturely did quickly discover its falsehood.  
We have none else now to deal with but St. Epiphanius, whose Narrative will be overthrown with so much the more ease, that it does not agree neither with that of Aristeus nor St. Justin. It's a new Romance, wherein the Author endeavoured to have removed some Difficulties that were in the former. He well perceived that it was ridiculous to shut up 72 Persons all alone, each in his Cell; he thought it more proper to put them together by two and two, and very bountifully assigns them two Servants and Clerks apiece; so that by this Story the 72 Houses are reduced to 36. But, to embellish his History, he will allow them no other but Sky-Light, and there he sets his 72 Translators to work from Morning till Night, without giving 'em leave to stir out. He readily foresaw likewise the Objection that might be made from their having but one Copy of the Law, and finds an Expedient to rid himself of that, by supposing that each Couple of the Interpreters had one of the Sacred Books, which they changed as they finished 'em, until such time as each Book had gone the round of the six and thirty Cells. But since there were but 22 Books and 36 Couple of Translators, it must be supposed that there were 14 who had nothing to do, or that the Books were divided into Parts. To avoid this inconveniency, they give them 22 Apocryphal Books to translate. Any one may perceive that this is all a groundless Invention, to vouch at any rate for the Story of the Cells. Nor is there any more likelihood in what they say, of their being brought every Night in 36 Sloops to Ptolomy's Palace, of their supping with him altogether, and being shut up afterwards in 36 different Chambers. To relate those Circumstances, is to discover their falsehood.  
Aristeus's Book which St. Epiphanius had seen, is certainly different from ours, but is less credible and more fabulous. He supposes two journeys of those Envoys from ptolemy to Eleazar, one to get the Books, and the other to have them translated. He makes Demetrius to say, That he knew there were many other Books in the World among the Ethiopians, Indians, &c. and amongst other People he mentions the Romans, and adds, those that are in Greece, which are not yet called Romans, but Latins. An impertinent Remark, and which hath no sense. The two Letters which he makes ptolemy to writ, are of a barbarous Style; and the 2d, as we have already observed, begins by a Sentence which is a pure Hebraism. Of what Profit is an hidden Treasure, and a Fountain stopped up? Which is taken from, or at least in imitation of, Eccl. 20.32.& 41.17. Of what use is hidden Wisdom and an invisible Treasure? But the Author of Ecclesiasticus is later than ptolemy Philadelphus; and by Consequence those Letters are supposititious.  
Hitherto we have not found any unquestionable Monument to establish the certainty of the Version of the Bible by the 72 Jewish Interpreters sent to ptolemy Philadelphus. However, this History, how fabulous soever it be in its Circumstances, has a true Foundation. Aristeus and the other Jews of Alexandria would never have wrote such things, had not the Law been translated into Greek by the Jews in the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus. There must be some Truth that hath given rise to this Fable, and that this Prince did in effect demand and caused to be made a Greek Version of the Books of the Law. This might pass for certain Matter of Fact; but the other Circumstances are all false or uncertain. Nay, there's no certainty that this Version was made by 72 Persons; and that perhaps, as well as the rest, may be an Invention of the Jews. In effect, it is hard to believe that in the time of ptolemy Philadelphus there could be found in each Tribe six Persons able enough to translate the Sacred Books into Greek; for tho' there remained among the Jews some Israelites of the Ten Tribes, transported by Salmanassar, it's hard to suppose that there were so many of them as that each Tribe could immediately furnish 6 Persons proper to translate the Law. Besides, to what purpose is such a Choice? Why must 72 Persons be sent to make this Translation? Were not 12 enough, and more than sufficient to accomplish it? This great Number was fit for nothing but to confounded the Work. Some of the Jews, foreseing those Difficulties, have rejected the Number of 72, and say that this Version was the Work of the five Elders; which would be much more probable, had we any Author of Credit that had spoken of it.  
But some will say, Why hath this Version always been called that of the LXX, if not on the Account of its having been made by the 72 Interpreters, tho' LXX be only mentioned for easiness sake, as is done in the Case of the 70 Disciples of our Lord, tho' they were 72. Some allege the Version was so called because of its being approved by the Sanhedrim, composed of 72 Persons: But this is spoken without Proof, hath no Foundation in History, nor is it supported by the Testimony of any of the Ancients. It is much more likely that this Version was not called by that Name, but since the time that it was composed by 72 Interpreters; for this Name of the Version of the LXX is not found in any Author, who is not much later than the time of the supposed Aristeus. It is not found neither in the Writings of the Evangelists nor of the Apostles, tho' they make use of the Version; and it is no where but in St. Justin and the Fathers that followed him, that the ancient Greek Version of the Sacred Books hath been so called, to distinguish it from other later Versions, because Authors were of Opinion that it was made by 72 Interpreters.   

SECT. IV. What Books of the Old Testament were translated by the LXX.  
THE Authors who are persuaded that there was really a Greek Version of the Sacred Books composed by the 72 Interpreters, don't agree as to the Number of the Books they translated; some allege that they only translated the 5 Books of Moses; others believe that they translated all the Books that were in the Canon of the Jews; and there are some who have advanced, that they translated Apocryphal Books.  
Those who maintain that the LXX have only translated the 5 Books of Moses, prove it thus: 1. Because Aristeus, Aristobulus, Philo and Josephus speak only of the Law, a Name, which, according to the Language of the Jews, agrees properly to the Books of Moses only. It's true, that this Name is sometimes taken more generally for all the Books of the Jews; but, we must confess, that Aristeus determines it often according to the sole Books of the Law given to Moses. And that Josephus in his Preface to his Antiquities says expressly, That the LXX did not translate all the Sacred Scripture, but only the Law. So that we cannot doubt but Josephus understood Aristeus only as to the Law of Moses; that is to say, of the Pentateuch; and that this is also the natural Sense of Aristeus's Book. Therefore St. Jerom had reason to say, in his Commentary on the 5th of Ezekiel, that Aristeus, Josephus, and all the Jewish School-men assure us, that the Septuagint translated only the 5 Books of Moses, A Sentiment which this Father embraces as the most probable, tho' being carried away by the Torrent of Custom, he gives also the Name of the Version of the LXX to the Greek Version of the other Books of the Bible. Upon the 16th of Ezekiel, speaking of a Passage of the Prophet which is not in the Greek Version, This, says he, is not found in the LXX, who perhaps in translating the Holy Scripture from Hebrew into Greek in the City of Alexandria, would not put it in for fear of offending the King. Tho' the Learned are persuaded that they interpnted nothing but the 5 Books of Moses. Upon the 2d Chapter of Micah, quoting the Greek Version of this Prophet, The Version of the LXX, saith he, if it be indeed the Version of the LXX, for Josephus and the Jews say, that they only translated and gave to King ptolemy the 5 Books of the Law of Moses.  
That same Father, in the Preface to the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis proves further, that there were no more but the 5 Books of Moses translated by the LXX, not only by the Authority of Josephus, but also by the Version itself of those Books, which is more conformable to the Hebrew than that of the rest. Add to this, says he, that Josephus, who hath wrote the History of the LXX, says they translated only the 5 Books of Moses, which we aclowledge to be more conformable to the Hebrew Text than the rest. Those Passages make it evident, that St. Jerom was persuaded that the LXX translated no more than the Pentateuch; tho' in some Places he quotes the Greek Version of the other Books of the Old Testament under the Name of the Version of the LXX, because it was the Custom. The Tulmudists say likewise plainly, in the Treatise called Megill, that the LXX translated only the Law of Moses.  
Secondly, It is further said in defence of this Opinion, That it is morally impossible that the 72 Interpreters could either by conferring together, or apart by themselves, have done all the Books which make up the Canon of the Jews in 72 Days. But according to Aristeus and others, they were no longer about this Work. Some say, that they only translated the Pentateuch in this time, and that afterwards they did the other Books; and by this means they think to reconcile Aristeus and Josephus with the Fathers who have said, that all the Sacred Books were translated by the LXX. But in vain, for Aristeus, Josephus, and the rest who have wrote that the LXX had translated the Law of Moses, supposed it as a thing certain, that they did nothing more, that their enterprise was accomplished, and that they return'd after having translated the Law, without having done any thing toward the Version of any other Book.  
The third Reason they allege, to prove that the Version of the other Books was not done by the LXX, is the Difference of the Style betwixt the Version of those Books and that of the 5 Books of Moses. The latter, as St. Jerom hath observed, is more agreeable to the Original Hebrew, more faithful and better done; that of the other Books is many times further from the Sense of the Text, more remote from the Truth, and nothing so well writ. We may also find divers Hebrew Words translated one way in the Version of the Pentateuch, and another way in the other Books; which is a convincing Proof that they were done by different Authors.  
Those who maintain on the other hand, That the LXX translated all the Books that were in the Canon of the Jews, build in the first place upon the Authority of St. Justin, who says, that all the Scripture was translated by the LXX; of St. Clement of Alexandria, who says expressly, that all the Scripture, that is to say, the Books of the Law and the Prophets, were translated by the LXX; of St. Jerom, Tertullian and Origen, of St. Augustin and St. Epiphanius, and of all the other Fathers who have wrote, that all the Books of the Bible were translated by the LXX, or quoted other Books than those that were wrote by Moses under the Name of the Version of the LXX. But the Authority of the Fathers in this Matter is not to be preferred to that of Aristeus and Josephus, who are more ancient Authors, and from whom they have taken this History. Besides, it was natural to give the Name of the Version of the LXX to the ancient Greek Version of all the caconical Books, because they believed that the 5 Books of Moses which are at the Head of them, and compose the first and the principal Part of them, were really translated by the LXX, as the Title of the Psalms of David is given to the Collection of the Psalms, tho' there be divers of them that are not his, because there are more of them his than any others. Therefore it is that even an Author, who was not persuaded that those Books were translated by the LXX, could not however quote them otherwise, because it was the common Practise, as we have already observed, of St. Jerom.  
It is said in the 2d place, That the Evangelists and Apostles quote the Prophetical Books as well as the Law, according to the Greek Version we now have. They were therefore translated at that time; nor do we red that there was any other Greek Translation before our Saviour's time but that of the LXX, therefore we must by consequence ascribe unto them the Version whereof the Evangelists and Apostles made use. This Argument proves indeed, that not only the Law, but also the other Books of the Old Testament, were translated into Greek before our Saviour's time, and that we have that Version; but it does not prove that the LXX translated the latter; for neither Evangelists nor Apostles do any where quote that Version under the Name of the LXX; and it may very well be, that others than the LXX are the Authors of them.  
Thirdly, They build on this Conjecture to prove that the LXX must have translated the Sacred Books; Demetrius, say they, did not only seek for the Laws, but all the Books of all Nations. Is it credible then that he satisfied himself with the Law of Moses, and entirely neglected the Books of the Prophets and the History of the People of the Jews? Is it possible that the Jews who knew his Design, and that of the King his Master, would not have acquainted him that they had more Sacred Books which it would be proper to translate, and might be of great use for History and Moral Philosophy? It is not likely but they would have acquainted him with it, had he not known it; and that having acquainted him with it, he would not have desired to have had those Books. But this Argument is a mere Conjecture, which in Matters of Fact is of no great weight. It may be that the King and Demetrius did not desire to have any more but the Law of Moses, which was Venerable by its Antiquity, and that they did not care for the other Histories of the Jews. But let that be how it will, this Conjecture could not persuade neither Aristeus nor Josephus that they ought to suppose that the LXX transla●ed any other Books than those of Moses's Law.  
They say further, That if the LXX had not translated all the Sacred Scripture, God would not have provided sufficiently for his Church, for whose Advantage it was of importance that not only the Law of the Jews, but rather the Prophetical Books should be translated into Greek. But this Consideration is of no Consequence, for it matters little, as to the Authority of the Sacred Books, by whom they were translated, provided the Version be faithful and agreeable to the Original.  
In fine, the Authority of some Modern Jews, who conjecture that all the Sacred Books were translated by the LXX, and the Testimony of Josephus or Joseph Ben-Gorien, who assures us that the 24 Books were translated by the LXX, are not to be any ways regarded in a Matter so ancient as this.  
As to the Books that are not in the Jewish Canon, they are either those which the Churches of afric and Rome have received since, or Books that are wholly Apocryphal. St. Epiphanius says, The LXX not only translated the former, but also the 22 Apocryphal Books. But for this he gives us no vourcher, and it is altogether incredible. As to the Books that are not in the Jewish Canon, and which we receive, there are some of them that were wrote in Greek by the Authors themselves, as the Book of Wisdom and the Books of the Maccabees. It would be absurd to say, that the LXX have translated them. We know that the Translation of Ecclesiasticus, which was wrote in Hebrew by Jesus the Son of mirach, was done by his Grand-Son Jason, who lived since the time of ptolemy Philadelphus.  
The Greek Additions which are made to the Books of Esther and Daniel were not writ by the LXX; the first were made since the time assigned for the Version of the LXX, the 4th Year of ptolemy Philometer; and the last are taken from the Version of Theodotion. The Greek Versions of the Books of Tobit, of Judith and Baruch, may perhaps be more Ancient, but we cannot say they were done by the LXX, because it's not credible that the Jews would translate those as Sacred Books which they rejected as Apocryphal. What appearance is there, that in the Copy of the Books which were to be translated, and sent by Eleazar to ptolemy, they should have inserted the Apocryphal Works that the Jews rejected. Would not the High-Priest have been esteemed a Prevaricator, if he had joined the Books which he looked upon as Apocryphal to those that were Sacred?  
Archbishop Usher alleges that there were two Greek Versions before the time of our Saviour; that the first, which was the true Version of the LXX, made in the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus, was conformable to the Hebrew Text, and contained only the Books of Moses; and that the 2d, which was falsely called the Septuagint, was made after the 4th Year of ptolemy Physcon, and that having been commonly received, it was put into the new Library of Alexandria collected by Cleopatra; but this System which is supported by no Testimony of the Ancients, is easily overturned. First, Because Philo and Josephus suppose that there was only one Greek Version among the Jews. Secondly, Because the Evangelists and the Apostles quote the Greek Version that we have. Thirdly, Because this 2d Version was unknown to St. Justin, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Jerom, St. Epiphanius, and all the other Ancients. Fourthly, Because those Ancients have all of them supposed that Aquila the Jew was the first who attempted to make a new Version of the Bible after that of the LXX.  
We don't believe then that there were two Greek Versions of the Bible before our Saviour's time, but we are persuaded that the Law of Moses, or the Pentateuch, was the first of the Jewish Books translated into Greek in the Reign of ptolemy Philadelphus, and that the following Books were translated at times afterwards by other Authors: That a Collection of those Versions was made, whereof the Hellenist Jews did commonly make use, even in their Synagogues, and which is become famous under the Name of the Version of the LXX, since the time that to render it more Authentic they invented the History of the LXX Interpreters, and afterwards that of the Cells. It is this Version the Evangelists and Apostles made use of, not only because writing in Greek, it was more easy for them to quote a Version already done, than to translate the Passages of the Hebrew, but also because they were obliged to make use of the Version that was used and authorized by the Hellenist Jews. Thus the Christians received from the Jews the Version of the LXX, and it hath always been owned and made use of in the Greek Churches.   

SECT. V. Of the Greek Versions of the Old Testament, made since the time of Jesus Christ by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, &c.  
BEfore our Saviour's time there was no other Greek Version of the Old Testament but that which went under the Name of the LXX; but since the Establishment of Christianity, some Authors undertook to make new Greek Translations of the Books of the Bible, which they pretended to be more conformable to the Hebrew Text.  
The Jewish proselyte Aquila, of the City Synope in Pontus 
The Jewish proselyte Aquila.] St. Ireneus tells us so, lib. 3. cap. 24. And after him the Author of the abridgement ascribed to St. Athanasius and St. Epiphanius. , Disciple to Rabbi Akiba 
Disciple to Rabbi Akiba.] St. Jerom, Comment. on Isai. cap. 8. says, The Jews believed Aquila to be Akiba's Disciple. St. Epiphanius tells many fabulous things of this Aquila; as that he was Father-in-Law to the Emperor Adrian, who made him Governor of a City: That he re-built Jerusalem, and called it Aelia from his own Name; that he was formerly a Pagan, but converted by the Christians that return'd from Pella to Jerusalem; that he was put out of the Church because of his being addicted to Judicial Astrology, and that turning Jew he learned Hebrew, and undertook a new Version out of hatred to the Christians, to destroy that of the LXX, and to corrupt the Passages of the Prophesies of Jesus Christ. The Author of the abridgement ascribed to St. Athanasius says only, That Aquila was of Synope, and a Greek by Religion; that he was baptized at Jerusalem; that having abandoned Christianity he became a Jew, and undertook a new Translation of the Bible in the Reign of Adrian. Some have confounded him with the Paraphrast Onkelos, but are mistaken; for it's believed that Onkelos died before the taking of Jerusalem, and Aquila did not flourish till after that time. , was the first who formed this Design, and put it in execution in the 12th Year of the Emperor Adrian, the 128th of our Aera, by translating the Hebrew Text verbatim; but with too scrupulous a Niceness 
Too scrupulous a Niceness.] St. Jerom says in divers Places, that he was very Learned, and that his Version is made Word for Word, but with too much Scrupulousness and Affectation. On Isaiah 49. As to Aquila, I don't wonder, that he being a Person learned in the Hebrew Tongue, and translating it Word by Word, that in this Place he either dissembled his Knowledge or was deceived by the perverse Exposition of the Pharisees. On Hosea, Chap. 2. Aquila a diligent and curious Interpreter. On Habakkak, Chap. 3. Aquila interpnted as a Christian. On Isaiah, Chap. 8. He translated the Bible into Greek out of Contention, and not only translated the Words, but endeavoured to mix the Etymologies of the Words; on which account he is justly rejected by us. Yet in his 138th Epistle to Marcellus, he calls him a most diligent Interpreter of the Hebrew Words. And in his 125th Epistle to Damasus, Aquila does not translate more Contentiously, as some think, than he studiously Interprets Word for Word. . He made two different Editions of his Version 
Two different Editions of his Version.] St. Jerom speaks of those two Editions, and says that the 2d is most exact. On Ezekiel 4. Aquila's 2d Edition, which the Hebrews call the most exact Translation. On Ezek. 16. according to the Interpretation of Aquilas's 2d Edition. Ibid. cap. 20. Aquilas first Edition, cap. 40. Aquilas's 2d Edition. ; the second was more exact than the first. This is that which the Jews valued most, and which they make use of since most commonly 
Which the Jews valued most.] St. Jerom assures us, that they believe it to be the most exact. And St. Augustin, lib. 15. of the City of God, chap. 13. says, the Jews prefer Aquila's Version to all others. Justinian in his 146th Novel, allows the Jews to make use of that Version if they think meet. .  
The 2d Greek Version is that of Symmachus, a Samaritan by birth, who first turned Jew, then Christian, and at last Ebionite 
Symmachus a Samaritan.] St. Epiphanius and the Author of the abridgement ascribed to St. Athanasius tells us, that he was a Samaritan. Euseb. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 17. and St. Jerom in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers tells us, that he was of the Sect of the Ebionites, and that he had also made a Commentary upon the Gospel of St. Matthew, to establish his heresy: That his Commentary had been in the Hands of Origen, who had received it from Julian, with some other Commentaries of the same Author. Therefore the Ebionites were called Symmachians by the Author of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, ascribed to St. Ambrose. Perhaps St. Ireneus means Symmachus, when after having spoken of the Versions of Theodotion and Aquila, he adds, that they were followed by the Ebionites; as Theodotion the Ephesian, and Aquila of Pontus interpnted it, both of them Jewish proselytes, whom the Ebionites followed. . St. Epiphanius says he composed it in the Reign of the Emperor Severus; and at the same time he makes him more ancient than Theodotion; of whom, he says, that he did his Version in the time of Commodus, who reigned before Severus. It is this that gave rise to the common Opinion, That Theodotion's Version is older than that of Symmachus 
That Theodotion's Version was more ancient than that of Symmachus.] Neither Eusebius nor St. Jerom set down the time when Symmachus composed his Version. St. Epiphanius says it was in the time of Severus: But as we have observed, he gives it the 2d place, and believes it to be more ancient than that of Theodotion, which, he says, was done in the Reign of Commodus, who was before Severus. It is true, that Commodus, in whose time he supposes Theodotion to have done his Version, is according to him, a 2d Commodus, different from the first, who succeeded Marcus Aurelius; but it is a palpable mistake, for there never was any Commodus that succeeded Severus. Father Petau supposes, that instead of Severus it ought to be Lucius Verus; so that according to him, Symmachus's Version was composed in the Reign of that Emperor, and is by consequence elder than that of Theodotion, which was not composed till the time of Commodus. The Reasons he alleges to prove that Symmachus's Version is the most ancient, are, 1. The Place that it held in the Hexapla after that of Aquila and before Theodotion's. But it may be answered, That Origen did not place those Versions according to the Order of their Antiquity, since the LXX was put after the Version of Aquila and Symmachus; but according to the Use that might be made of them, and that he judgd it proper, after having placed the Version of Aquila, which was more literal, near the Hebrew Text, to put immediately after it that of Symmachus, which was not so literal; to the end, that by comparing those two extremes, a judgement might be made of those of the LXX and Theodotion, who had kept a Medium betwixt the two Excesses. Father Petau says in the 2d place, That St. Jerom and the other Authors usually quote Symmachus's Version before Theodotion's. But it's easy to perceive that they observed that Order because it was so in the Hexapla. The Author of the abridgement ascribed to St. Athanasius, hath followed St. Epiphanius in placing Symmachus under the Reign of the Emperor Severus, but he contradicts himself as well as the Father, when he says that his Version was made 56 Years after that of Aquila; for this being composed the 12th of Adrian and the 128th of Christ, the 56th Year following is 184, which is the 4th or 5th of the Emperor Commodus. The Author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, and the rest, did not place Symmachus before Theodotion, but because they believed upon the Credit of St. Epiphanius, that he lived in the time of Severus. St. Ireneus writing in the time of Commodus, speaks of the Versions of Aquila and Theodotion, lib. 3. cap. 24. and reprehends those Jewish proselytes, for so he calls them, because they had not translated the Passage of Isaiah, A Virgin shall bring forth, by the Greek Word {αβγδ}, which signifies a Virgin, but by that of {αβγδ}, which signifies a young Woman. It seems that Theodotion having translated it in the same manner, he would have spoken also of his Version, had it been done. They quote a Passage of St. Jerom, taken out of his Preface to the Gospels, where he says, that Theodotion is in the middle betwixt the Old and the New; that is to say, betwixt Aquila and Symmachus; but that may be understood of the nature of the Version and not of the Time; so that it's a hard matter to determine which of the Versions is eldest. . Be that how it will, that of Symmachus had a Place in the Hexapla of Origen before that of Theodotion; and the Author's that quote him, give him ordinarily the 2d Place: His Version was more free than the rest 
This Version was more free than the rest.] So St. Jerom says in his Preface on Job. As if amongst the Greeks, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion had not expressed themselves in a temperate and middle kind of Translation, either by doing it Word by Word( that is Aquila,) or Sense for Sense( that is Symmachus,) or a mixture of both( that is Theodotion,) In his Preface to the Gospels. I don't inquire what Aquila or what Symmachus say; nor why Theodotion goes a middle way betwixt the Ancient and Modern Interpreters. , for he applied himself chiefly to give the Sense, without translating it Word for Word, therefore he came nearer the LXX than that of Aquila. St. Jerom tells us in his Commentary on the 32d of Ezekiel, That there were two different Editions of the Version of Symmachus, as there were of Aquilas.  
The third Greek Version after that of the LXX, is that of Theodotion of Ephesus, according to St. Ireneus and the Author of the abridgement of Scripture ascribed to St. Athanasius, and not of Synope a City of Pontus, as St. Epiphanius thought. It is said he was Marcion's Disciple, and that having had some Difference with those of his Sect, he turned Jew. St. Jerom in his Preface to his Commentary on Daniel says, The Church reads this Prophet not according to the Version of the LXX, but according to that of Theodotion, who is an Infidel that lived after the coming of Christ, and whom some call an Ebionite, tho' he be a Jew. Nevertheless, the Version of this Author was the best of the three, because he kept a just Medium betwixt Aquila and Symmachus, not tying himself so servily to the Letter as the former, nor straying so far from it as the second. So that his Version was that which for Style was likest the LXX, as St. Jerom has obferv'd. Therefore Origen made use of it to correct his Version of the LXX.  
There were besides two other Greek Versions, whose Authors not being known, they were called by the Name of the eight and Sixth. Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, tells us, That one of those two Versions was found at Nicoplis, near Actium in Epirus, and the other in another place. And afterwards speaking of those two Versions, and of a 7th on the Psalms, he observes that one of those three Versions was found at Jericho in a Hogshead in the Reign of Antonius Caracalla, the Son of Severus, which Zonaras supposes to be the 7th Version: But St. Epiphanius and the Author of the abridgement ascribed to St. Athanasius assure us, that it is the 5th that was found at Jericho in the 7th Year of the Empire of Caracalla, which is the 217th of Christ; and that the 6th is that which was found at Nicoplis by one of Origen's Friends, in the Reign of Alexander the Son of Mammea, about the Year 228. St. Jerom speaking of the Authors of those Versions in his 2d Book against Ruffinus, gives them the Name of Jews, as well as he does to Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus. Yet the Author of the abridgement ascribed to St. Athanasius says, That the 5th was made by one of the Faithful at Jerusalem: And St. Jerom quoting him in his Commentary on the third of Habakkuk, confesses that he is favourable to the Christians. As to what remains, those two Versions were not of all the Books of the Holy Scripture, as St. Jerom observes in his Commentary on the 3d of Titus, but only of some of them, and chiefly of those that were writ in Verse.  
Besides those Versions, there was a 7th, but it was only upon some Books, and chiefly on the Psalms. Eusebius quotes this Part of it. This 7th Version is not as some have thought the Version of Lucian; which was not a particular Version, but an Edition of that of the LXX after Origen's.  
In fine, St. Jerom assures us in his Commentary on the 2d of Habakkuk, that he had besides found two other Greek Versions of the Prophets, and quotes a Passage of each. I have found, says he, besides the 5 Editions, that is those of Aquila, Symmachus, the LXX, Theodotion's, and the 5th on the 12 Prophets, two other Editions, in one of which it is written, That the ston cried out of the Wall, as a Worm speaking in the Timber; and in the other, for the ston shall cry out of the Wall, and the Worm shall speak those things out of the Timber.   

SECT. VI. Of the Hexapla and Tetrapla of Origen. Of the several Editions of the Bible contained therein, and their Order. Of the Works of Origen in reference to the Translation of the Septuagint, and of the several, both Ancient and Modern Editions, which have been since that time.  
ORIGEN collected the several Greek Translations of the Bible( of which we are now to treat) into one Body, which he placed in different Columns against one another; by the side of the Hebrew Text, writ first in Hebrew Characters, and then in Greek Letters. This is the same Piece which the Ancients called the HEXAPLA, by reason of the six several Translations contained therein; and which according to Epiphanius may be called OCTAPLA, as being composed of Eight Columns: He also composed another of Four Columns, containing the Version of the Septuagint, of Aquila, of Symmachus, and Theodotion, which were called TETRAPLA.  
It is of no great consequence to know, which of these two Pieces were composed first; and whether for more conveniencies sake ORIGEN did cut off Four Columns from the first, or whether, after he had begun with the Tetrapla, he intended to make it more perfect by the Addition of the Hebrew Text in Two Columns, and Two other Versions, which were met with afterwards. The last seems the most probable to me 
The last seems the most probable to me.] Mr. de clois and Huetius declare for the former; they found their Opinion upon a certain Correction of a Passage in Eusebius's Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 7. For, instead of {αβγδ}, according to Suidas, and in the Manuscript in the French King's Library, which implies no more, than that he had disposed the four Translations in his Tetrapla, as they were translated by the Interpreters; Mr. clois following the Copies of three other Manuscripts, has put in the Word {αβγδ}, which he will have here necessary to imply that he composed the Tetrapla after the Hexapla. But this is no necessary consequence, for this Correction may be called in question; besides, that this Word may signify that he composed the Tetrapla, besides the Hexapla. It seems more probable, that after he had composed his Tetrapla, he was furnished by other Hands with other Translations, that were not come to light before. Thus much is certain, That the Sixth Translation was not known before the 228th Year, and his Tetrapla were composed when he writ his Letter to Africanus in the Year 228. , because some of the Translations in the Hexapla were but newly discovered, and even after he had begun with the Tetrapla.  
There is no dispute concerning the Translations, and Number of Columns, contained in the Tetrapla. Eusebius and St. Epiphanius say expressly, That they comprehended Four Versions: The Translation of Aquila in the First Column; that of Symmachus in the Second; the Septuagint in the Third; and that of Theodotion in the last.  
But concerning the number of the Columns of the Hexapla, there is no small dispute among the Interpreters. Eusebius, St. Jerom, Ruffinus, and St. Epiphanius affirm, That besides the Six Versions mentioned before, they contained Two Columns with the Hebrew Text 
That besides the Six Versions, they contained Two Columns with the Hebrew Text.] Thus says Eusebius's Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 16. Has igitur omnes interpretationes, cum in unum Corpus collegisset, ac per certa cola ac membra distinxisset,& sibi invicem è regione opposuisset, una cum ipso Hebraico Textu Hexaplorum nobis exemplaria reliquisset. Ruffinus is more particular in mentioning the Number and Disposition of these Columns, Lib. 6. Hist. Eccl. Origenes illos famosissimos codices primus composuit, in quibus per singulas columnulas è regione, separatim opus Interpretis unius cujusque descripsit, ita ut primo omnium ipsa Hebraea verba Hebraicis literis poneret; secundo in loco per ordinem Graecis literis, è regione Hebraea verba describeret; tertiam Aquilae editionem subjungeret; quartam Symmachi; quintam Septuaginta Interpretum, quae nostra est; sextam Theodotionis collocaret,& propter hujusmodi compositionem, Exemplaria ipsa nominavit Hexapla. St. Jerom says thus, Cap. 3. Epist. ad Tit. Nobis cura fuit, omnes veteris Legis Libros, quae vir doctus Adamantius in Hexapla digesserat de Caesariensi Bibliotheca descriptos, ex ipsis autenticis emendare, in quibus& ipsa Hebraea propriis suis Characteribus verba descripta,& Graecis literis tramite è vicino; Aquila item& Symmachus, Septuaginta& Theodotion suum ordinem tenant. Nonnulli vero libri,& maxim ii, qui apud Hebraeos versu compositi sunt, trees alias editiones additas habent, quas quintam& sextam& septimam Translationem vocant, autoritatem sine nominibus consecutas. Hoc immortal illud ingenium suo nobis labour donavit. St. Epiphanius, in his Heresy of Origen, has these following Words, Primum ei studium fuit, sex in unum interpretationes confer, Aquilae, Symmachi, Septuaginta duorum, Theodotionis una cum editione quinta& sexta; quibus singulas Hebraicas dictiones propriis elements perscriptas, addidit, tum ex adversi altera in pagina contextum alterum fecit, ex Hebraicis dictionibus, Graecis literis exaratis. Hunc in modum volumina, illa quae Hexapla dicuntur, composuit, quae praeter Graecas editiones duas insuper Hebraici sermonis columnas continent, alteram Hebraicis ipsis, alteram Graecis elements conscriptam; adeò ut vetus omne Testamentum, tam Hexaplis ejusmodi, quam duplici Hebraicorum vocabulorum contextum comprehensum fuerit. In this Passage St. Epiphanius supposes, The Column which contained the Hebrew Text written in Greek Characters, to have been the last of all, so that the Six Greek Versions are included betwixt the Two Columns of the Hebrew Text: But it is evident from St. Jerom and Ruffinus, that these were placed in the first Two Columns: And St. Epiphanius himself retracts these Words in his Book of Weights and Measures, where he attributes the two first Columns to the Hebrew Text: Priores esse duas Editiones Hebraicas, ac deinceps Aquilae, tum Symmachi, ind Septuaginta Seniorum, deinde Theodotionis; postremo quintam atque sextam. ; the first written in Hebrew, in the second the Hebrew Words were expressed in Greek Characters:  
These Two Columns were the first, the Four Translations being the same in Order as in the Tetrapla, were disposed in the four following Columns; to wit, first, the Translation of Aquila; that of Symmachus in the second; of the Septuagint in the third; and that of Theodotion in the fourth; two other Columns containing the Fifth and Sixth Editions; and another the Seventh of some Books only of the Holy Scripture. St. Epiphanius mentions in a certain Passage, That the Hebrew Text written in Greek Characters, was comprehended in the last Column, the Six Versions being enclosed betwixt the Two Columns, containing the Hebrew Text. But Epiphanius and Ruffinus, who had seen the Original of Origen, assert positively, That the Two Columns containing the Hebrew Text, were placed first of all next to one another; and St. Epiphanius himself confirms this afterwards: Besides, it seems very reasonable, that since Origen had writ the Hebrew Text in Greek Characters, for no other end than the better to express the Sound and Pronunciation of the Words to the Greeks, the said Two Columns should be by one another.  
Some affirm that the Hebrew Text of the Pentateuch written in Samaritan Characters, was comprehended in the Hexapla. But, as there is not one among the Ancients, who have mentioned the Hexapla, that has said this, this Opinion seems to be too presumptive. When Eusebius says, That Origen has brought to light again the Writings, transmitted to Posterity by the Jews, written in their own Characters, {αβγδ}; he does not speak of the Samaritan, but of the common Hebrew Characters, and the word authentic, {αβγδ}, is not to be applied, as Vossius pretends, to the Character, but the Scripture itself. It is therefore to no purpose to allege the Authority of Eusebius to prove the Samaritan Pentateuch to have been inserted in the Hexapla, the same being excluded from thence by the Testimony of St. Jerom, Ruffinus, and St. Epiphanius.  
Neither does the Opinion of the Archbishop Usher carry any great weight with it, who maintains, that there were two different Editions of the Septuagint in the Hexapla, to wit, one pure and true, the other adulterated; this being contradictory to the Testimonies of the Ancients, who all assign but one Column in the Hexapla to the Version of the Septuagint. And St. Jerom in his Epistle to Sunnia and Fretela, observes, That the Version of the Septuagint in the Hexapla, was different from the Vulgar Translation.  
The Hexapla therefore were composed of Six, of Eight, nay of Nine Columns; to wit; of two of the Hebrew Text, and of Four Columns more for so many Versions of all the Books. There were Six Columns for so many Versions in a great many Books, and Seven in the Psalms, and some other Books disposed in the same order, we have mentioned before. This being granted, there arises a Question, Why this Work being composed of Eight or Nine Columns, is not rather to be called Octapla than Hexapla? Some have acknowledged three different Pieces of Origen; the Tetrapla containing the Versions of Aquila, of Symmachus, the Septuagint and Theodotion, in Four Columns; the Hexapla, in which were added to the former the Two Columns with the Hebrew Text; and the Octapla which was augmented with the Addition of the Fifth and Sixth Translations. But the Ancients are silent as to any other but the Tetrapla and Hexapla, in the last of which they place besides the Four Versions, also the Fifth and Sixth. 'tis true, Ruffinus and St. Epiphanius call them sometimes Hexapla, sometimes Octapla, but they speak all this while of the same Work. Others would derive the Name of Hexapla not from the number of Columns therein contained, but of the Versions; but according to this Opinion, they must rather be called Heptapla, upon the account of a Seventh Version of the Psalms, and of some other Books. Huetius gives us the most probable Reason, why they were called Hexapla, because the Fifth and Sixth Version was not of all, but only of some Books of the Old Testament: And though Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, and some others, mention them to have been entire Translations of the Bible; nevertheless St. Jerom, who had seen the Original of Origen, assures us in his Commentary upon the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus, that they related only to some Books, and especially those written in Verse, as well as the Seventh Translation. Nonnulli vero Libri& maximè ii, qui apud Hebraeos versu compositum sunt, trees alias Editiones additas habent, quam quintam& sextam& septimam translationem vocant. This Work therefore of Origen containing no more than Six Columns in all, and only Eight or Nine in some Books, was called Hexapla, by reason of the Six Columns that composed the entire System,( unless the Lamentations of Jeremiah, which were not in the Translations of Aquila and Theodotion) and not Octapla or Enneapla, because the Eight Columns had only reference to some Books, and the Nine to a much less number. Nevertheless, because a considerable number of Books belong to these Eight Columns, they were by some called Octapla.  
The following TABLE represents the true Disposition of the Hexapla, according to the marginal Notes of an Ancient Manuscript of Cardinal Barbarini, upon the Eleventh Chapter of Hoseah:  

The HEXAPLA.  Col. I. Col. II. Col. III. Col. IV. Col. V. Col. VI. Col. VII. Col. VIII. Col. IX. The Hebrew Text in Hebrew Characters. The Hebrew Text in Greek Characters. The Translation of Aquila. The Translation of Symmachus. The Version of the Septuagint. The Translation of Theodotion. In some Books. The Fifth Version found at Jericho. In some Books. The Sixth Version found at Nicopolis. In very few Books The Seventh Version. 
The TETRAPLA.  Col. I. Col. II. Col. III. Col. IV. The Translation of Aquila. The Translation of Symmachus. The Version of the Septuagint. The Version of Theodotion.  
Origen did not only Collect and put in Order the Greek Versions of the Old Testament, but also Corrected and Augmented that of the Septuagint. For, having observed that it was different from the Hebrew Text, and that the several Copies did not agree with themselves, and that several Passages in the Vulgar Edition of the Septuagint were adulterated, he endeavoured to Correct that, which he put in his Hexapla, and to render it conformable to the Hebrew Text. To make a distinction betwixt what belonged to the Ancient Versions, and what was thought fit to be taken away or added, he put a Bar ( Obelus), or a straight Line to those Words that were not in the Hebrew Text, and an ( Asterisk) to those he had added and taken out of Theodotion and other Translations. These are his Words in the XV. Tom. of his Commentary upon St. Matthew. There is a vast difference betwixt the several Editions of the Scripture, happening either through the carelessness of the Transcribers, or else the forwardness of some who pretend to Correct and Adulterate the Scripture, or perhaps by the Fault of the Correctors, who oftentimes have put in and left out, as they thought it most convenient: We have endeavoured, by the Divine Assistance to reconcile these differences in the Old Testament, by comparing the Editions of the Septuagint and their various Lections with others, by retaining that Lection which appears most conformable to the Original. We have joined a Bar to those Words, which are not extant in the Hebrew Text, thinking it not proper to leave them out. Others we have marked with Asterisks to serve as Marks, that they belong not to the Original Version of the Septuagint; but that they were taken out of other Translations, which were more conformable to the Hebrew Text. And in his Letter to Africanus he says thus: If it did not savour of Vanity, I could speak here of my undertaking, which was to make our Versions of the Scripture conformable to that of the Jews, by comparing ours with theirs, to see where the difference lies. This I have endeavoured as far as possible, by making an enquiry into the various Lections and different Interpretations to render the Version of the Septuagint the more Perfect. And a little before, he said, That he had marked with a Bar what was in the Greek and not in the Hebrew Text, and with an Asterisk what was in the Hebrew and not in the Greek Text. St. Jerom makes frequent mention of the Additions, Corrections and subtractions made in the Version of the Septuagint, by Origen, and of the Bars and Asterisks he made use of for that Purpose. In his Epistle to Sunnia, and Fretela he says: I would have you take notice, that the Edition which is called the Vulgar by Origen, Eusebius of caesarea and other Greeks, and which is commonly now called that of Lucian, is different from the Version contained in the Hexapla. The Vulgar Version, it is True, is the Septuagint, but the difference is, that this has been adulterated by the Transcribers several times, and in several places; whereas that in the Hexapla is such as has been preserved in its genuine Purity without Adulteration in the Works of the Learned. So that as much as any of them differ from this, they differ from the Hebrew Text. In the Preface to his Commentary upon Daniel, he explains how Origen made the Version of the Septuagint conformable to the Hebrew Text: Origen, says he, made an Addition to the Vulgar Edition of several things taken out of the Translation of Theodotion, which were marked with Asterisks; as some Verses were marked with Bars, to intimate that they were superfluous. St. Jerom speaks more plainly to this purpose in his Preface to the Chronicles: Origen, says he, did not only collect and dispose the four several Editions over-against one another, the better to compare and correct one by the other; but he was so bold as to intermix the Translation of Theodotion with that of the Septuagint, overdoing Asterisks to what was added, and Bars to what appeared superfluous. And in his 89th Epistle to St. Austin, he says thus, I cannot but wonder, that you should not red the Books of the Septuagint in their genuine Translation; but as corrected by Origen, by Bars and Asterisks, and that you don't approve of the Version of a Christian, chiefly, because that his Additions are taken from the Edition of a Jew and Blasphemer. If you are so much addicted to the Septuagint, pass by what is marked with the Asterisks, or dash it out in your Edition, to show your Zeal for the Ancient Version; but in so doing, you condemn all the Libraries of the Church, there being not one single Copy to be found in them without these Additions. It seems to have been St. Jerom's Opinion, that the Additions of Origen made to the Septuagint were taken altogether from the Version of Theodotion, it being certain that he made frequent use of the same. But Origen himself assures us, That he likewise took them from other Translations, and Ruffinus confirms it in his Second Invective against St. Jerom, The Apostates and Jews, says he, had made a Translation of the Bible, and the Jews making use of this Version, it often happened, that when they disputed with the Christians, they objected that they had corrected, added, or left out many things in theirs. Origen therefore being resolved to tell the World how the Jews did red the Scripture, inserted their Editions into several Columns; the Bars and Asterisks, which he set at the beginning of the Verses, were to show us where any thing was left out of, or added to these Versions; and they were inserted for no other end, than to let us know what was either wanting or superfluous, according to the Opinion of the Jews, who dispute against us. Thus he made use of these Asterisks and Bars to show what was either added, or left out by the other Interpreters, without inserting any thing of his own.  
From whence it appears that the Version of the Septuagint in the Hexapla in one Sense, was the true Translation of the Septuagint, but not in another. It was so, because you saw here the Text of the Septuagint corrected by several other Editions, and if you passed by the Asterisks, and red only what was marked with Bars, you had the Version much more Correct than the Vulgar. But if you left out what was marked with the Bars, and red the whole with the Asterisks; this was not the pure Version of the Septuagint, but reformed according to the Hebrew Text, and other Translations.  
The Marks which Origen made use of for Distinctions sake, to know what was to be added or left out, were the Asterisks, or little Stars for the Additions; and certain Bars, or straight Lines, which St. Jerom and Ruffinus call Virgulas; and the first calls them likewise Spits. These Marks were put before the Words to be added or left out, and at the end of them a kind of a Dart reversed, or two Points. These Asterisks and Bars are to be seen in the Composures of St. Jerom, especially his Edition of the Psalms, according to the Septuagint, where in his Preface he has these Words: Notet sibi unusquisque, vel jacentem lineam, vel signa radiantia, id est, obelos vel asteriscos: Et ubicunque viderit virgulam praecedentem, ab eâ usque ad dvo puncta; quae impressimus sciat in Septuaginta Translatoribus plus haberi. Ubi autem stellae similitudinem perspexerit, de Hebraeis Voluminibus additum noverit. Aeque usque ad dvo puncta juxta Theodotionis duntaxat Editionem, qui simplicitate sermonis à Septuaginta Interpretibus non discordat. In the same manner he describes the Asterisks and Bars in his Epistle to Sunnia and Fretela: When, says he, Origen observed that there was something less in the Greek than in the Hebrew, he did supply it from the Version of Theodotion; and put an Asterisk or Star to it, to signify that this was to illustrate what was obscure. And, wherever he added any Thing to the Greek Version, which was not in the Hebrew, he put a Virgula before it, which we may call a Spit, to signify, that what is not extant in the Authentic Manuscripts ought to be struck out. These Marks are likewise to be met with in the Greek and Latin Poets. The same St. Jerom in his Preface to Daniel, observes, That he made Use of this Bar or Spit for distinction sake in the History of Susannah; the Song of the three Children in the Fiery-Furnace, the Stories of Bell and Dragon which are not in the Hebrew Text: Veru anteposito easque jugulante subjecimus. Epiphanius treats at large of this Point, but so confusedly, that he has rather perplexed than explained the Matter; he says First, That the Asterisk being subjoined to a Word, shows that it is so in the Hebrew, and that it is likewise expressed by Aquila, Symmachus, and sometimes by Theodotion, and that the Septuagint did not think fit to Translate it, because it was a useless repetition. But he is under a mistake; for first these Additions were generally taken from the Version of Theodotion, more than from the rest. Secondly, it was not only the useless Repetitions that were left out in the Septuagint, but sometimes whole Sentences and useful Words: Epiphanius says likewise, that the Bar, which some call a Lance, others a halberd, was placed before the Words which were in the Translation of the Septuagint, and not in the Versions of Aquila and Symmachus, the same being inserted by the Septuagint by Divine Inspiration. The Bar did not mark absolutely what was left out in the Versions of Aquila and Symmachus, but only those Words, which were not to be met with, neither in the Versions, nor in the Hebrew Text. Thus Epiphanius lies under a mistake in this Point, which however he rectifies afterwards; when he says, That as often as any Words are found in the Septuagint, which are not in the Hebrew, the Bar shows that these are not originally in the Scripture.  
Epiphanius makes also mention of the Lemnisques and Hypolemnisques, not mentioned by others. The Lemnisque is a straight Line betwixt two Points, and the Hypolemnisque likewise a straight Line with a Point under it. He says, that the Lemnisque was made use of to signify that the following Word had no connexion with the rest; and that it was found only in one or two Interpreters. But the Hypolemnisque on the contrary signified, that the Word was to be met with in two Interpreters, and belonged to the following Words. Hesychius in his Greek Commentary upon the XII. Psalm, speaks likewise of these Lemnisques, and says, That before any Verse not extant in our Interpreters, a mark used to be put, called a Lemnisque, being a Line betwixt two Points, the Line signifying the Verse, the two Points the two Interpreters. Some are of Opinion, that Epiphanius speaks here of two pair of the Septuagint; but if it be taken thus, it implies an absurdity; for how could Origen know the particular Opinion of the Seventy Interpreters? I am rather persuaded that Epiphanius speaks of the other Versions, and, that he intends the Lemnisques and Hypolemnisques as Marks to show the Variety betwixt the Versions, and the different Ways of Translating the Hebrew, though this Father is not very plain as to the Use of the Lemnisques and Hypolemnisques; for out of what has been alleged before, it seems to appear, as if the Lemnisques were to distinguish the difference betwixt the Sense and the Words, and the Hypolemnisques only the difference of the Words: And that therefore the Lection where the Hypolemnisques were, ought to be preferred before those with the Lemnisques: Nevertheless out of two Examples given by him, to show the Use of Lemnisques, it is evident, that the same were made use of in some Passages where there is no other difference but in the Words. For he cites this Passage of the 70. Psalm, My tongue shall talk of thy righteousness, in lieu of thy righteousnesses, which does not alter the Sense. The other Example is taken out of the 71. Psalm, his name shall be glorious before him, instead of before his eyes, where the whole difference lies in the Words: And thus it is explained by Epiphanius when he observes that in these Passages there is no difference or defect in the Sense, the same thing being expressed in different Words; and that the Lemnisques were made use of here to show that it was thus Translated by two or four Interpreters. And much to the same purpose he speaks in the 17 Chapter; so, that according to the Opinion of this Author, the Lemnisques were made use of to show the differences in the Versions, as to the Words not in respect of the Sense. As to the Hypolemnisques it is certain that they likewise shew'd the difference betwixt the Versions; but Epiphanius does not expressly mention, whether this had a relation as well to the Sense as to the Words. Some make this distinction betwixt the Lemnisques and Hypolemnisques, that the first shows the difference betwixt four Interpreters, the last only of two. It seems most probable that the Hypolemnisques did denote a difference betwixt the Sense, whereas the Lemnisques only shew'd the difference of the Words. To the same purpose the Lemnisques and Hypolemnisques were made use of in that Ancient Manuscript of Marchall. But, though Epiphanius mentions the Lemnisques and Hypolemnisques in the Hexapla of Origen, it is probable that he made very rarely use of them, because St. Jerom makes mention only of the Asterisks and Bars; and if he was to have marked all the Differences in the Versions, the Column of the Septuagint must have been over-charged: There are but a few Lemnisques in the Syriack Version of Josuah published by Masius, which the Interpreters made from a Manuscript of the Hexapla of Eusebius of caesarea.  
The following TABLE shows the different Figures of the Bars, Asterisks, Lemnisques and Hypolemnisques, as they are found in the Ancient Manuscripts:  

The Bar as represented by Epiphanius,  
As represented in the Syriack Copy of Josuah published by Masius,  
As represented by St. Jerom,  
The Asterisk in Epiphanius,  
In St. Jerom,  
In Masius and the Manuscript of Marchall,*  
The End of an Addition, or any Part to be left out is marked in St. Jerom by two quadrangular Points,  
In Masius by the following Figure,  
The Lemnisque in Epiphanius and Marchall's Manuscript,  
The Hypolemnisque in the same Epiphanius and the Manuscript of Marchall,   
There scarce could be a more useful Undertaking than that of Origens upon that Version of the Septuagint, if it could have been transmitted to Posterity unaltered; and if the Transcribers had carefully preserved the Asterisks and Bars made by Origen. But as this was a thing that required a more than ordinary care and exactness, so there arose no small confusion by the neglect of the Transcribers, as it is well observed by St. Jerom in his Epistle to Sunnia and Fretela: Et hinc apud vos& apud plerosque error exoritur, quòd scriptorum Virgulis& Asteriscis substractas, distinctio universa confunditur... quae signa dum per scriptorum negligentiam à plerisque quasi superflua relinquuntur, magnus in legendo error exoritur. The reputation and ability of Origen and of his Work being so generally established among the Ancients, there were many who earnestly desired to have the Version of the Septuagint, as it was in the Hexapla, for which reason many Copies were transcribed, which, as it is very probable was made use of in the Churches of Palestine, where Origen was in great Esteem. By the carelessness of these Transcribers, and sometimes all of those who set them at Work, the Asterisks being either misunderstood or entirely left out in some Places, the Additions of Theodotion were confounded with the Ancient Version of the Septuagint; which perhaps moved St. Jerom to say, that Origen had corrupted and confounded the Version of the Septuagint.  
Pamphilus and Eusebius being willing to remedy this Evil, caused a great number of Copies to be revised and corrected with all the exactness that could be according to the Original Hexapla and the Tetrapla of Origen, which were preserved in the Library of caesarea. These were called the Palestine Editions( as St. Jerom observes in his Preface to the Chronicles) because they were by Pamphilus and Eusebius first published in Palestina, where this Version was generally received, and used in the Churches.  
Sometime before, Lucian a Priest of Antioch who suffered Martyrdom under the Reign of Maximinus in the Year 311. had undertaken to publish a New Edition of the Version of the Septuagint, corrected in some places according to the Hebrew Text. This was called the Vulgar, or the Lucian Edition from its Author. According to St. Jerom; this Edition was made use of in the Churches from Constantinople to Antioch: Lucian had not made so many Additions and Alterations as Origen in his Version of the Septuagint, neither was it altogether conformable to the Hebrew Text.  
Much about the same time, Hesychius an Alexandrian Monk made a revisal of the Version of the Septuagint, which Edition being published contained lesser Alterations than Lucian's. This was received in Egypt, so that the whole World is divided betwixt these three different Editions, as St. Jerom asserts in a certain Passage, which serves as a confirmation of what we have said upon this Subject: Alexandria& Aegyptus, says he, in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyris Exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has Provinciae Palaestinos legunt Codices; quos ab origen elaboratos Eusebius& Pamphilus vulgaverunt, totusque orbis hac inter se, trifaria varietate compugnat. It seems as if St. Jerom in this Passage speaks not only of particular Persons, but also of whole Churches, that made use of these several Editions; and, that as the Edition of Eusebius and Pamphilus was red publicly in the Churches of Palestina, so that of Hesychius was red at Alexandria, and that of Lucian at Antioch, and in the other Greek Churches, tho at the same time St. Jerom in his Preface to the Four Evangelists, speaking of the Editions of Lucian, and Hesychius says, That they were maintained only by a few obstinate Persons: Praetermitto eos Codices quos à Luciano& Hesychio nuncupatos, paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio. He adds, that they had no authority of altering any thing in the Old Testament after the Septuagint, and that their Corrections in reference to the New Testament, were useless: Quibus utique nec in Veteri Instrumento, post Septuaginta Interpretes emendare quid licuit, nec in Novo profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt. There is likewise another Passage in St. Jerom's Preface to Daniel, from whence it might be conjectured, that these two Editions were not used in the Churches, when he says, That in all both the Greek and Latin Churches, both in those of Syria and Egypt, the Edition of Origen with Asterisks and Bars is made use of; to which purpose he speaks also in his 89th Epistle to St. Austin: That there are scarce one or two Editions, to be found in the Libraries of the Churches, without those Additions, marked by Asterisks; which seems to intimate that no other Edition but that of the Hexapla was used in the Churches. I am not ignorant, that according to Mr. de clois and Huetius's Opinion, the Asterisks mentioned in these two Passages are not to be understood only of those in the Hexapla, but likewise of the Additions made by Hesychius and Lucian in their Editions; but the first of these two Passages has a particular Relation to the Edition of Origen, as is most evident out of his following Words: said& Origenes de Theodotionis opere in Editione Vulgata Asteriscos posuit, docens, defuisse, quae addita sunt;& rursus quosdam Versus Obelis praenotavit, superflua quaeque designans. Quumque omnes Christi Ecclesiae tam Graecorum, quàm Latinorum, Syrorumque& Aegyptiorum hanc sub Asteriscis& Obelis Editionem legant: Besides that we never red of any Asterisks and Bars in the Editions of Lucian and Hesychius. It seems most probable, that the Edition of the Hexapla of Origen was received in most Churches, though at the same time those of Egypt might make use generally of the Edition of Hesychius, as those of Antioch and the other Greek Churches did of that of Lucian. But St. Jerom looking upon those that encouraged these Editions as scarce in their right Wits, speaks always slightly of them, as being contrary to his own Sentiment; which was altogether for the Hexapla, as being conformable to the Hebrew Text, by the Corrections made in the Septuagint according to the Hebrew. To this Purpose St. Jerom speaks in his Epistle to Sunnia and Fretela: It is to be observed, says he, That the Edition called by Origen, Eusebius of caesarea, and all the other Grecians the Vulgar, and which commonly is called the Edition of Lucian, is far different from that of the Septuagint contained in the Hexapla, which we have translated into Latin and is used in the Churches of Jerusalem and other Eastern Churches. Where observe that he does not say that Origen's Version was used in the other Churches, and that consequently those of Hesychius and Lucian were used there. And in this sense ought to be understood his Preface to the Paralipomena addressed to Chromachus, though Father Martianay be of the contrary Opinion. That St. Jerom afterwards adds, is, when there is any difficulty arising in the Latin Translations of the New Testament, recourse must be had to the Greek Original; so, in reference to the Old Testament in case of any difference betwixt the Greeks and Latins, the Hebrew Text must be consulted, as being the spring from whence the others are derived. The Vulgar Version, says he further, is that of the Septuagint, but with this difference, that the Vulgar Edition is adulterated according to the difference of Times and Places, and the pleasure of the Transcribers; whereas the Version in the Hexapla and which we have translated in the Version of the Septuagint is preserved without any adulteration in the Books of the Learned: So, that, whatever differs from this Version, is different from the Hebrew Text. It is surprising to me, how St. Jerom can maintain in this Passage, that the Version in the Hexapla should be the Genuine Translation of the Septuagint, when it is undeniable that according to his own Confession, the same was intermixed with the Version of Theodotion; and, that supposing these Additions to be taken away, the same was not conformable to the Hebrew, and consequently was( according to his supposition) likewise adulterated.  
From what has been said, it may be concluded, that all the time of St. Jerom there was no Genuine Translation of the Septuagint extant, but what was adulterated in many Places. The ancient Vulgar Translation was full of Faults: That of Origen was not the pure Version of the Septuagint, being not without an Intermixture; but a Composition of that of the Septuagint and other Versions: And, though he did distinguish the Additions and Amendments by certain Marks, nevertheless these Precautions were soon after rendered useless, by the carelessness of the Transcribers; and supposing these Distinctions added by Origen to the ancient Vulgar Translation of the Septuagint, could have been preserved entire without Corruption, there would nevertheless have been many Faults left in the Text of this Vulgar Translation. The Editions of Hesychius and Lucian were likewise imperfect, and St. Jerom did not approve of them, because they had not consulted the Ancient Manuscripts of the Version of the Septuagint, so that at the time of St. Jerom there was no Greek Edition, which might be looked upon as the pure Version of the Septuagint.  
Since the time of St. Jerom the Greek Churches did make use of such Editions of the Translation of the Septuagint, as were received among them; they had several new Copies of them, which being corrected from time to time according to the most ancient Manuscripts that could be found, were inserted in the first Impressions that were made of the Version of the Septuagint. There are three which may be considered as the principal Editions, the rest being only Copies taken from thence. The First is that of Alcala, or the Edition of the Bible by Cardinal Ximenez, printed in the Year 1515, and inserted into the Polyglott of Philip II. in the Year 1571. and afterwards in that of the Paris Edition. The Second is the Venice Edition, printed in the Year 1518, by Aldus Manutius; from whence have been taken most Editions in Germany. The Third is the Edition published at Rome by the care of Cardinal Caraffa in Greek, and with Greek Animadversions, in the Year 1587; according to a very ancient Manuscript found in the Library of the Vatican. The following Year Nobilius published likewise at Rome the ancient Vulgar Translation, collected out of the Books of the Latin Fathers; and in the Year 1628. Father Morin published at Paris the Version of the Septuagint according to the Edition of Rome, together with the Ancient Latin Translation, and the Animadversions of Nobilius. The Manuscript according to which the Roman Edition has been printed, is written in pretty large Letters, without any distinction of the Chapters, Verses or Words, and without any Accents; it is supposed to be near twelve hundred Years Old. This is the same Edition which has been followed by Mr. Walton in his Polyglotts published in England, being near the same with another Ancient Manuscript of Alexandria, which being sent into England by cyril lucre, Mr. Walton did revise his Text by this Manuscript.  
Of these Three Editions, that of Alcala is most agreeable to the Hebrew Text, because several of the Additions taken from the Version of Theodotion and others, are retained here, and several Passages are omitted, which are not in the Hebrew Text and some other Versions; from whence it is not altogether improbable, that this Edition is one of those extant in the Hexapla. The Venice Edition is not so frequently intermixed with the Additions of Theodotion, and consequently comes nearer to the Ancient Vulgar Translation of the Septuagint. But the Roman Edition does come nearest of all these three to the Version of the Septuagint, such as it was before the Correction made by Origen, For, First, There are none of these Additions in it, which Origen has made, taken from other Editions, and marked with Asterisks 
There are none of these Additions in it which Origen, &c. In the 14th Chapter of the Second Book of the Kings, there are twenty Verses concerning the Death of Abijah the Son of Jeroboam, which are left out in the Roman Edition, and which were inserted here by Origen in his Hexapla; whereas in the Vulgar Translation of the Septuagint, this History was related in the 12th Chapter of the same Book; as may be seen in Theodoret, Procopius of Gaza, and Lucifer of Cagliari. In the Venice Edition the same is related both in the 12th and 14th Chapter. In the 20th Chapter of Joshua, there are three Verses relating to the Cities of Refuge, which are omitted in the Edition of Rome, but are in that of Venice; they are not extant in the ancient Editions of the Septuagint. The four first Verses of the 17th Chapter of Jeremiah, which, as St. Jerom assures us, were not extant in the Version of the Septuagint, in his Time, and were not extant in the ancient Manuscript of Marchal, are likewise left out in the Roman Edition, but are inserted in that of Venice. The words of Isaiah in the 1st Verse of the 4th Chapter, Abalienati sunt retrorsum, which St. Jerom, St. Basil and Procopius affirm to have been inserted here, are not in the Roman Edition; as likewise the twenty second Verse of the 2d Chapter is left out, the same,( according as St. Basil, St. Jerom, St. Cyril and Procopius have observed) being not to be found in the Septuagint. The last words of the thirteenth Verse of the 6th Chapter, seemen sanctum erit id quod steterit in ea: Which, as St. Jerom and St. Basil observe were not extant in the Version of the Septuagint, are also left out in the Roman Edition: But the most considerable Passage of all those which have been taken notice of by the Ancients, in Isaiah, which is not in the Version of the Septuagint, though it be extant in the Greek Text, is in the 6th Verse of the 9th Chapter: Where we red in our Vulgar Version according to the Hebrew Text, these following Words: Admirabilis, Consiliarius, Deus fortis, Pater futuri saeculi, Princeps pacis. These words are not in the Roman Edition, and according to the Observations of St. Basil, St. Jerom, St. Cyril and Procopius, they were likewise omitted in the Versions of the Septuagint. Neither are they mentioned in that Passage cited by St. Cyprian Lib. 2. to Quirin us, nor by St. Ambrose in his 3d Chapter upon St. Luke. More such like Observations might be collected upon this Subject. . Secondly, All these Additions which were not in the Hebrew Text, but extant in the Version of the Septuagint, and were marked by Origen with the Obelisks 
2dly, All these Passages which were not in the Hebrew Text, but extant in the Version of the Septuagint, &c. In the 32d Chapter of Deuteronomy, Verse 43. there is a whole Verse which is not in the Hebrew Text, cited by St. Justin in his Dialogue against Trypho, and by St. Hilary upon the 67th Psalm; by St. Epiphanius against the Arians. The Passage concerning the eleven Cities of Refuge mentioned in the 60th Verse of the 15th Chapter of Joshua, was not extant in any other Edition, but in the Version of the Septuagint, in St. Jerom's Time, but is inserted in the Roman Edition. In the last Chapter of the same Book, you meet with that Passage mentioned by St. Augustin Quest. 30. upon Joshua, concerning the Knives of ston butted with Joshua, which is not in the Hebrew Text. Towards the end of the 9th Chapter of the Proverbs, there is a certain Addition authorized by St. Cyprian, which is not extant in the Hebrew. There is such another towards the end of the last Chapter of the 2d Book of Samuel; and in the 8th Chapter of the 1st Book of Kings, Verse 53. This last mention is made of by Theodoret and Procopius. These words in the 17th Chapter, Verse 23. of Ezekiel, these branches shall be restored, St. Jerom would have to be marked with an Obelisk, because they are not in the Hebrew. The like is to be met with in the 2d Chapter, Verse 10, and 15th of Haggai. In most of these Passages the other Editions agree with the Roman.  are contained in it. Thirdly, This Edition has all the Transpositions which were in the Vulgar Version of the Septuagint 
This Edition has all the Transpositions which were in the Vulgar Version of the Septuagint, &c. In Exodus from the 36th to the 40th Chapter, are some Transpositions, which by Origen's own Confession in his Letter to Africanus, were in the Septuagint. In the 4th Chapter of the 1st Book of the Kings, there are several things which you red in the 3d and 9th Chapter in the Hebrew Text, which according to Procopius and Theodoret, are put in the above mentioned Chapter. Such another Transposition is to be seen in the 3d Chapter, and in the 25th Chapter of Jeremiah from the 13th Verse to the end of the Book, there is another remarkable Transposition. The ancient Greek Fathers have followed the Orders of the Roman Edition. . Fourthly, All the most considerable Passages cited by most of the Ancient Fathers, as by St. Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, and by St. Justin, agree for the most Part with this Edition; which is likewise most conformable to the Text of the ancient Manuscripts of Marchal, Masius, and that of Alexandria. It is nevertheless not to be denied, but that there remain in it some Additions taken from other Translations, some marginal Notes inserted in the Text, and many Faults occasioned by the negligence or presumption of the Transcribers.   

SECT. VII. Of the Authority and Faithfulness of the Greek Version of the Septuagint. Whether the same was done by divine Inspiration. Whether the LXX Interpreters did make any Alterations in their Version. Whether the same has been Corrupted in many Places, and whether it may pass for an authentic Translation.  
MOST of the Ancients being persuaded that the Lxx Interpreters made their Translations and yet agree in the same Sense, have looked upon this Translation as inspired by the Holy Ghost. And even among those who did not agree with the rest in this Point, the same was considered as the most faithful Translation, and exactly conformable to the Genuine Hebrew Text. Aristaeus declares, that the Greek Version was in all respects agreeable to the Hebrew Copy, and that being examined in an Assembly of the Jews, they had declared the same to be so faithfully and exactly done, that nothing ought to be diminished in, or added to it. Philo pretends to so much Exactness in this Version, that it corresponds Word for Word to the Original, the Lxx Interpreters having expressed the Terms in the Hebrew Text by as many proper Words, so as to render this Version exactly conformable both in the Words and Matter to the Original. But notwithstanding all this, the Version of the Septuagint has always differed from the Hebrew Text in many Places, being often more intent upon expressing the Sense than the Words, as has been very well observed by St. Jerom and St. Augustin; and what has been said by Aristaeus and Philo upon this Subject, must rather be taken in an hyperbolical Sense than as a real Truth.  
Several reasons may be alleged for the difference which is found betwixt the Septuagint and the Hebrew Text.( 1st,) The Hebrew Copy made use of by the Lxx Interpreters in their Translation, might not be faulty.( 2dly,) The Septuagint might sometimes miss-read, or at least miss-understand the Hebrew.( 3dly,) They might also sometimes designedly alter the Sense of some Passages in the Original Text, for some particular reasons.( 4thly,) Because our Hebrew Text then might be very different from the Ancient, and consequently be adulterated.( 5thly,) Perhaps the Version of the Septuagint was not the same in all respects as it was translated by the Septuagint, but many Passages might be either altered or adulterated. The first of these Reasons can scarce take Place, it being not very probable that the Jews would have chosen any other Original for this Translation to be made by, than what was most exact and perfect: Beside, that there is no Hebrew Original extant either at the same time, or more ancient, by which these pretended defects in the Hebrew Text might be discovered. Some there have been who are of Opinion, that the Septuagint made their Translation from the Samaritan Pentateuch. But there is but little appearance, that at a time when the Jews had the Sacred Writ in Hebrew Characters, and made use of no other, they should pitch upon the Samaritan, to be translated by the Septuagint. On the contrary all the Ancients agree in this Opinion, that the Original translated by the Lxx Interpreters was writ either in the Hebrew or Chaldean Characters. The second Reason alleged for the difference betwixt the Hebrew Text, and the Version of the Septuagint, carries much more probability along with it; it being unquestionable that there are many Passages to be met with in the Hebrew Text, which being ambiguous in their Significations, might consequently bear a different Interpretation.( 1st.) In the different punctuations of the Words.( 2dly,) In the putting of one Letter instead of another.( 3dly,) Because some Hebrew words which have not the same sound, yet admit of different Interpretations.( 4thly,) Because the Interpreter might commit an Error, in deviating from the true Sense of the Text, and inserting another not altogether so natural and consonant to the genuine Signification of the Words. Many Passages might be alleged, where the difference betwixt the Original and this Version may justly be attributed to one or other of these Causes. But as to the third Reason, it appears altogether improbable; there being scarce any grounds to suppose that these Interpreters who undertook the Translation of such a Piece should premeditately alter the true Sense of it. This could not be looked upon otherwise than a gross and inexcusable and malicious Design, and I cannot see any reason sufficient to induce us into so ill an Opinion of the Authors of this Translation, as to think them guilty of such a Falsification. The Jews nevertheless, who are always full of their Mysteries, say, expressly in their Talmud, That the Lxx Interpreters did premeditately alter thirteen Passages, for which they allege some arbitrary and no less frivolous Reasons; and if we examine these Passages, it will be found that there is either no difference in the Sense, or that at least it was not done premeditately, and that the Reasons they allege are ill grounded 
If we examine these Passages, it will be found, that there is either no difference in the Sense, or that it was not done premeditately; &c. The following thirteen Passages are alleged by the Talmudists in the Treatise called Megill. They say that the Septuagint at the very beginning of Genesis did Translate, in lieu of, In the beginning God created, thus, God created in the beginning; for fear two different Principles should be supposed, to wit, Beresith and Elohim, that is, the Beginning, and God. A frivolous Reason indeed, besides that they are mistaken in the matter of fact, in all the Editions of the Version of the Septuagint, it being said, In the beginning God created. They are likewise mistaken, when they allege, that in the 26th Verse of the same Chapter, they have instead of Let us make man, translated, I will make man, in all the Editions of the Septuagint it being expressed {αβγδ}. Thus they are in an Error concerning the Passage in the 7th Verse of the 11th Chapter; where they pretend that it is said in the Septuagint, I will descend, whereas it is in the Hebrew Text expressed in the Plural, Let us descend; and so they are likewise in the 12th Verse of the 18th Chapter, where as well in the Greek as in the Hebrew, it is said that Sarah did laugh within her self. Concerning the third Passage in the 2d Verse of the 2d Chapter of Genesis, it is said in the Version of the Septuagint and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, that God completed his Work on the Sixth Day, where the Hebrew Text has it on the Seventh. As we have already observed before, there is no real difference in the Sense of this Passage, the Septuagint having only explained more clearly the Hebrew Text. The difference which is alleged in the sixth Passage being the 49th Chapter the 6th Verse of Genesis, does not proceed from any real intention of altering the Sense of the Text, but from the Ambiguity of the Hebrew words: For the Verb may signifiy as much as to cut the Sinews or Nerves, and the Substantive according to its different Punctuation signifies an Ox if it is red Schor, and a Wall, when it is red Schur. This Ambiguity has made the Author of the Version of the Septuagint Translate it thus: They cut the Sinews of an Ox, whereas the Author of the Vulgar Translation, and the Chaldean Interpreters have translated it: They threw down a Wall; which is more agreeable to the History of Simeon and Levi, related in this Passage, who had destroyed the City of Sichem after they had slain all its Inhabitants. The seventh Passage is in the 4th Chapter, Verse 20. of Exodus; but there is no real difference in the Sense, the same thing being expressed in more general Terms: For, whereas the Hebrew Text says, That Moses did put his Wife and Children upon an Ass, the Greek Version expresses it upon Beasts sit to carry burdens {αβγδ}, supper subjugalia. The eighth Passage is in the 12th Chapter, Verse 40. of Exodus, concerning the time of the Children of Israel's abode in Egypt; which, as we have observed before, is only a farther Explication of the Text. The Talmudists are no less mistaken in the ninth Passage, which is in the 24th Chapter, Verse 11. of Exodus; there being not any real difference there betwixt the Septuagint and the Hebrew Text. The whole difference which is alleged to be in the 15th Verse of the 16th Chapter of Numbers, arises only from the changing of the Daleth into a Resh. The Addition which is made in the 4th Chapter, Verse 9. of Deuteronomy, of these Words, to enlighten you, does not in the least alter the Sense. The Talmudists are no less in an Error, concerning the twelfth Passage in the 17th Chapter, Verse 3. of Deuteronomy, there being not the least difference betwixt the Septuagint and the Hebrew tart. The last of all is the Passage in the 11th Chapter, Verse 6. of Leviticus. That Creature called in the Hebrew Text Arnebet, the Suptuagints have interpnted by the Word {αβγδ}, which bears a double signification, the interpretation of the Hebrew as well as the Greek word being equally uncertain. What is alleged, that the Septuagint did pitch upon this Word, because they would not make use of that of {αβγδ} in respect of King Ptolomey the Son of Lagus, is a mere fantasticalness of the Talmudists; who are in a gross mistake, when they suppose that the Spouse of Ptolomey Philadelphus was called Arnabet or Lagus, and that Dasypus signifies as much as a short Legged Beast. These are the Dreams of the Rabbi's upon this Subject. St. Jerom in his Prefaces to the Pentateuch, to Isaiah, and to his Traditions of the Jews says, that the Septuagint did industriously hid the Mysteries, especially those of the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ; but this Supposition is built upon a very slender foundation. . The fourth Reason, which is the Adulteration of the Hebrew Text, may indeed be applied to some few Passages, but the last, which is the Adulteration of the Version itself in many Places, is without doubt the main Cause of so many differences. This was already taken for granted in the time of St. Jerom, and before him; because not only Origen, but likewise Lucian and Hesychius had taken great Pains in reforming the Version of the Septuagint. We have given you some Rules before, to show when to follow the Hebrew Text, and when the Version of the Septuagint, in case of any difference betwixt them; it is therefore needless to make a repetition of them in this place, no more than of what we have said concerning the pference of the Hebrew Text, before the Version of the Septuagint. The only thing remaining, would be for us to examine these Passages, where this Version differs from the Original, and to give our judgement, according to the Rules prescribed by us: But this Examination we will refer to a separate Article. We will only add thus much to what we have said before, that, though there are some Varieties betwixt the Version of the Septuagint and the Hebrew Text, for reasons before mentioned, this does not hinder, but that the Greek Version may pass for a very good Translation of the Hebrew Original; because these differences are of little consequence, and don't make any alteration either in respect of the true Substance of the History, or the Doctrines of the Holy Scripture, which is always the same Word of God, in whatever Language it be writ; and these differences are not of such consequence, but that both the Version and the Original Text may be made the Rule of the true Religion. We may farther add, without the least contradiction to Truth, that among all the Greek Versions, that of the Septuagint may claim the most Authority: First, Because this Translation is the most Ancient, and was first of all received among the Hellenistical Jews. Secondly, Because the Evangelists and Apostles did make use of the same. Thirdly, Because this Version was received and authorised by the common approbation of the Eastern Christians, and was the Mother of the Latin Version, which was translated from thence, and used in the Western Churches, for the first six Ages. For, which Reason this Version may claim the Title of Authentic with all the Justice in the World, this Name being properly given to any public dead or Instrument, authorised and received in any Tribunal. And the Version of the Septuagint having been received and continuing still as such, it justly deserves the Title of an Authentic Translation.    

CHAP. VII. Of the Latin Versions of the Bible, and especially of the Vulgar Translation.  

SECT. I. Of the Ancient Latin Versions before St. Jerom's time, and more especially of the Ancient Vulgar, or the Italian Translation.  
IT is beyond all question, that the Latin Churches had even in the first Ages, a Translation of the Bible in their Language; for the sacred Writ being the Foundation of the Christian Religion, upon which they built the whole System both of their Morality and Doctrine, the Church could not be long without such a Translation, as might be understood by every Body. But as the Greek Language was generally understood among them, and that the Latin was the Vulgar Language, every body took the Liberty to make what Alterations or Additions he judged most convenient, so that in process of Time the ancient Version became an entire New one. This is the true Reason, which has occasioned these various Lections in the Latin Version in the time of St. Jerom, which might rather be considered as so many different Translations, as this Author has observed in his Preface to Joshua: Maximè cum apud Latinos tot sint Exemplaria, quot Codices,& unusquisque pro arbitrio suo, vel addiderit vel subtraxerit quod ei visum est. And St. Augustin complains likewise in his Second Book of the Christian Doctrine, in the 11. Chapter, of that vast Number of the Latin Translations. Those who have translated the Holy Scripture, says he, into Greek may be numbered; but not those who have made the Latin Versions: For every one, that had any knowledge of both Languages in the first Ages, and met with any of the Greek Versions, undertook a new Translation. Qui enim Scripturas ex Haebraea Lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt; Latini autem Interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit Graecus Codex,& aliquantulum facultati sibi utriusque Linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. All these Translations were made according to the Version of the Septuagint, none of all these Interpreters having attempted to Translate from the Hebrew Original; nay, it is evident that they never as much as consulted the Original Text, there being but very few among the Christians of the Latin Church, who were versed in the Hebrew Language.  
But among all those Latin Translations there was one which was generally received, and therefore called by St. Jerom the Vulgar or common Translation. St. Augustin gives this Version the Name of the Italian, and the pference before all the rest, as being more perspicuous and literal: In ipsis autem Interpretationibus Itala praeferatur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae. This Version was afterwards styled the Ancient, from the time that St. Jerom's Translation was received in the Church, as may be seen in St. Gregory's Preface upon Job; in Cassian and St. Eucherius who give it this Name, this being the same that was red generally in all the Latin Churches before that of St. Jerom was introduced. Both the Author of this Translation and the time when it is made is unknown to the World, and there is none of the true ancient Editions remaining; but Nobilius has taken a great deal of Pains to supply us in its stead with another, in which he has made a collection of all the Scripture passages to be met with in the ancient Latin Fathers, and supplied the rest by a Translation from the Septuagint, in a Style and Terms as conformable as could be to those of the Fragments of this ancient Version. But as the ancient Fathers did not always stick so closely to this ancient Vulgar Version in their Citations; but that sometimes they would Translate themselves some of these Passages they cited, it came frequently to pass that the same Passages were alleged in very different Terms, and that not only by several Fathers, but sometimes by the same Author; besides that Nobilius in those Passages which he was obliged to supply by his own Translation, could probably not always hit upon the same Words, which were made use of by the ancient Translator; so that no positive Assertion can be made, that his Version is equivalent in all respects to the ancient Vulgar Latin Translation. But thus much may be conjectured from what remains of that Version, that its Author was a most religious observer of the Greek Version of the Septuagint, which he had translated word for word without so much as consulting the Hebrew Original. Besides, this Version savours something of Barbarity, and is obscure in many Places, the Author having not made the least account of the Purity of the Language; though at the same time it must be confessed that in this simplo, and if it may be permitted me to say so, clownish Style, there is an agreeable mixture of many bold, lofty, noble and sublime Expressions.   

SECT. II. Of the several Works of St. Jerom upon the Bible; of his new Translation from the Hebrew Text: Whether he did it by divine Inspiration; whether his Version is different from our Vulgar Translation, and when the same was received in the Latin Church.  
SAINT JEROM in imitation of Origen, did undertake to revise the Text of the Latin Version of the Bible. The first thing he did was, to correct such Errors as were slipped into this Translation either by the ignorance or carelessness of the Transcribers, and to reform the whole according to the Version of the Septuagint extant in the Hexapla of Origen, with their Asterisks and Obelisks. 
The first thing he did, was to Correct such Errors, &c. and to reform the whole according to the Version of the Septuagint, as extant in the Hexapla.] This he affirms himself in his 2d Book against Ruffinus, in his Preface to Chromacius, in his Preface to the Book of Job addressed to Paul and Eustochius, and in his Preface to his Second Edition of the Psalms. In his Letter to St. Augustin he makes a distinction betwixt the two different Editions he had made of the holy Writ, one of which, he says, was marked with the Asterisks and Obelisks, the other was a New Version. There arises some doubt, whether he made an exact revisal of the Version of all the Books of the Old Testament, by the Hexapla marked with Asterisks and Obelisks, because he himself mentions no more than Six Books, which were so revised by him; to wit, the Book of Job, the Psalms, the Three Books of Solomon, and the Paralipomena, and it is only in the Prefaces of these Books he makes mention of this Correction. St. Augustin speaking of the Asterisks and Obelisks in the Version of St. Jerom, only mentions the Book of Job and the Psalms. But St. Jerom in his Second and Third Book of his Apology against Ruffinus and in his 28th Epistle to Lucinius, says positively that he has revised and corrected very exactly the whole Version of the Septuagint; and in his Epistle to Sunnia and Fretela, he tells them, that he has Translated the Version of the Septuagint as extant in the Hexapla. Lastly, In his 94th Letter to St. Augustin, who had desired of him his Translation from the Septuagint, he sent him this Answer: That it was not in his Power to gratify him in what he had desired of him; because he wanted Transcribers fit for to undertake this Business; especially to make an exact Copy of his Edition of the Septuagint, which was marked and distinguished by Asterisks and Obelisks. He adds farther, that he had lost some part of it by the Fraud of a certain Person.  He was but young, and then at Rome, when he first laid Hand to this Work, which he completed in a little time. He gave us afterwards a Second Edition of the Psalms, much more correct than the former. But having afterwards attained to a more perfect Knowledge of the Hebrew Language 
Having attained to a more perfect knowledge of the Hebrew Language.] He had applied himself to this Study in his younger Years, during the time of his Solitude, as he himself attests in his 4th Epistle to Rusticus, and in his Epitaph upon Paul; but he brought himself to a greater Perfection in it, by his frequent Conversation with the Jews, and when about twenty Years after he returned from Palestine, he paid a great Price to a certain Jew who instructed him in the Hebrew Language; as he himself observes in his 65th Letter to Pammachius. Thus in his Preface upon Job and upon the Paralipomena, he makes mention of a Jew a Native of Tyberias, and of another of Lydda, who were both his Masters. And in his Preface to Daniel and the Books of Tobit, he speaks of a Jew, who had taught him the Chaldaean Language. And in his 142d Letter to Pope Damasus, he confesses, that he had learned much of the Jews. , in which he was instructed by several Jews, he undertook a New Translation of some of the Books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew Text, and having at the solicitation of his Friends, continued thus to Translate the rest by degrees he at last perfected an entire New Version of all the Books contained in the Hebrew Canon 
He at last perfected an entire New Version of all the Books contained in the Hebrew Canon.] He began with the Books of Samuel and of the Kings, where he prefixed his general Introduction presented to Paul and Eustochius. After these he translated the Book of Job, and those of the XVI. Prophets. There were certain Copies of these his Works at Rome, which were done in the Year 393. at which time he writ his 52d Letter to Pammachius. It was much about the same time he perfected the Version of the Psalms and of the Books of Salomon. The Book of Ezrah was not translated till towards the latter end of the Year 394. And the Translation of the Pentateuch was not completed till after the Death of Paul, about the Year 405. Next to these came the Books of Joshua, of Judges, of Ruth, and Esther; and last of all the Paralipomena presented to Chromacius. All which is sufficient, to contradict what has been asserted by some, that he undertook this his last Translation, by special Order from Pope Damasus, it being certain that this Pope died before ever the same was begun. .  
The main reason which induced St. Jerom to take upon him this New Translation, was the difference which he found to be, betwixt the Version of the Septuagint, and by consequence betwixt the ancient Vulgar Latin Translation and the Hebrew Text. He was fully persuaded, that the Version of the Septuagint was adulterated in many Places, and that the other Greek Versions were in no wise exact; and, that being made by Jews, he looked upon it as un-becoming Christians to make use of them; That the Version extant in the Hexapla, though coming much nearer to the Hebrew Original than the common, yet was far from being exact: Origen having obliged himself, to keep to the Text of the Version of the Septuagint entire, and to add nothing, but what was taken out of the other Greek Translations, and especially out of that of Theodotion; and that it was more safe and to much better purpose to look for the Truth of the Christian Religion at the Spring-head, which is the Original Text, than in the Rivulets or its Branches, that is to say, in the Translations; He did believe he did a signal piece of Service in this to the Church; First, By giving us a Translation of the Holy Scripture in its Purity. Secondly, By enabling the Christians to assert against the Jews, that their Citations out of the Holy Scripture, were altogether conformable to the Hebrew Text. Thirdly, By discovering to them what adulterations and alterations had been introduced by the Jews in their Versions of Holy Writ. Fourthly, By delivering the Latin Church from that prodigious Variety of Latin Translations, which frequently obliged them to have recourse to the Greek Versions to correct their Faults.  
Nevertheless, how useful soever this undertaking of St. Jerom proved to the public, it raised him many Enemies, and hard Censures against his Work, of which he complains in most of his Prefaces. Some envious of his great Reputation, did exclaim against him as one who had adulterated the Scripture. Others laid to his Charge, that he preferred the Interpretations of the Jews of his Time, before the Version of the Septuagint, which being authorized by the Evangelists and Apostles themselves, had met with a general reception among Christians. Some less rigorous, were however of Opinion, that, though his Version might be allowed to be very good, yet ought the same not to have been made so public, or at least ought not to have been red in the Latin Churches, because it must needs turn to the prejudice of the Version of the Septuagint and the ancient Vulgar Latin Translation, which would be the occasion of Contradiction betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches. St. Augustin was of the same Opinion, and having several times found Fault with St. Jerom that he had made a Translation different from that of the Septuagint, he confessed nevertheless afterwards, that the same might be of good Use, but ought not to be red in the Churches, for fear of raising a Scandal among Christians.  
But St. Jerom despised the Reproaches and Calumnies of his Adversaries, who, whilst they exclaimed against, and found fault with his Translation in public, did red and admire his Work in Private. He complains of the Ingratitude of the Age he lived in, who, instead of acknowledging and giving due praises to the service he had done to the Latin Church, did endeavour to represent it as a Crime. He answers those who were so Zealous for the Version of the Septuagint; That he had not undertaken this New Translation with an intention to condemn that of the Septuagint, which he valued and approved of, and which had been revised and corrected by him in his younger Years. If the said Version of the Septuagint had been transmitted to posterity in its genuine Purity, he should never have attempted to make a New Translation from the Hebrew; but the same being adulterated, and intermingled with others in the Hexapla, to wit with the Versions of Aquila and Theodotion, he had judged it more for the benefit of the public, to give the World a New Translation from the original Sacred Text, than to retain either a Version that was defective, or else those done by the Jews. In his Letter to Sunnia and Fretela he protests, that it was not his Design to make the least Alteration in the Office of the Church, but that they ought to continue the singing of the ancient Version in the Churches; but, that his Version would be very useful for private Persons, for the better understanding of the Holy Scripture. St. Augustin did towards the latter Years of his Age follow the Version of St. Jerom, and frequently made use of it upon Private occasions.  
St. Jerom has not been so solicitous in his Version to stick so close to the Letter, and to Translate the Text Word for Word, as the Jew, Aquila had done in his; but though he is not so scrupulous in following the Letter, he is very exact and faithful in giving the true Sense. To avoid all suspicion of Affectation and Novelty, he has, as much as possibly he could, followed the Version of the Septuagint, and has retained the very Expressions of the ancient Vulgar Latin Translation; so that in many Passages his Version may pass rather for a Correction or Reformation of the other. He has however been very careful in avoiding the Barbarisms and Soloecisms, and in retaining the true Elegancy of the Latin Tongue. Hoc sequimur, says he in his 135 Epistle, ut ubi nulla est de sensu mutatio, Latini sermonis elegantiam conservemus. But he has avoided all foreign Ornaments and affencted Nicety, in lieu of which he has made use of a Style savouring much of a natural Simplicity, at which he desires the Reader not to be offended in his 103. Epistle to Paulinus. Nolo offendaris in scriptures sanctis simplicitate& quasi vilitate verborum.  
The Learning of St. Jerom, his great Application and Care in composing and perfecting this Version; the favourable judgement given in behalf of the same by all the most learned Jewish and Christian Interpreters, together with the general Approbation of the Church, leaves us no room to doubt, but that this was a most excellent Translation. Notwithstanding which we are not under any obligation to believe that this Version was exempt from all Faults, and that the same has been brought to Perfection by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, as Melchior Canus, Titelman, Salmeron, Father Morin and some other Authors pretend. St. Jerom was far from having any such thoughts of himself, as may be seen by his Preface upon the Pentateuch. It is, says he, quiter a different thing, to be a Prophet, and to be an Interpreter. The first being inspired by the Holy Ghost, foretells things to come; But the last must have a sufficient share of Learning and plenty of Expressions to Translate what he understands before. And in his Commentary upon the 40th Chapter of Ezekiel he has these following Words: When we Translate the Hebrew Words into Latin we are sometimes guided by conjectures. And in the 19th Chapter upon Isaiah, he acknowledges that he was not Infallible, nay, that he had committed some Errors in his Translation: Melius reor proprium errorem reprehendere, quàm dum erubesco imperitiam confiteri in error persistere in eo quod transtuli, &c. He is himself sometimes doubtful of the true Signification of the Hebrew Words, and expresses them in his Commentaries in a different Sense from what he had done in his Version. St. Augustin and some others of the best Friends of St. Jerom were not of Opinion, That he had made his New Translation by divine Inspiration, but looked upon him as a Person so well skilled in the Hebrew Language, as to be able to undertake and bring it to Perfection by his own Skill. Neither can it be said, without contradiction to Truth, that the Version of St. Jerom is free from all Faults, or that he never deviated from the true Sense of the Hebrew Text. Lastly, To believe the Version of St. Jerom to be made by divine Inspiration, God must have revealed it to us, and the Church must have confirmed it by her Authority. But neither of these two being done, what reason is there to suppose a divine Inspiration, which is neither known nor confirmed to us by any authority? Notwithstanding all the opposition made by the Enemies of St. Jerom, who were envious at his great Reputation, to prevent his Version from being received and approved, and notwithstanding all their Exclamations against it, most of the Learned Men, even those of his Time, did approve of his Work, and exhorted him to bring it to Perfection. Nay, his Latin Version which he corrected after the Hexapla, was received in many Churches. The Church of Rome made use of his Psalter reformed according to the Septuagint. St. Augustin did approve and make use in Africa of his Version of the Book of Job, which was likewise corrected by St. Jerom from the Septuagint. There were also several Bishops, who caused his Versions made according to the Hebrew Text, to be red publicly in the Churches; among which number there was a certain African Bishop, of whom mention is made by St. Augustin in his 71st Letter; that having caused to be red in his Church the Book of Jonah, being the Version of St. Jerom, he extremely surprised the People, because they did not pronounce the Word Gourd, which they were used to hear. Lucinius of Betica did sand several able Copyists to St. Jerom, to transcribe his Version, which then began to be Famous throughout Spain.  
Salvian of Marseilles, and some other Authors of the Fifth Age, have many Citations in their Works out of the Holy Scripture, in which they follow the Version of St. Jerom. In the Sixth Age, this Translation became as general as the ancient Vulgar Version, and was in the same esteem. That the same was used in the Church of Rome, is evident from St. Gregory's Letter to Leander which was writ by way of Preface to his Morals; where he declares: That he explains the New Version( meaning St. Jerom's ), but takes his Citations sometimes out of one, sometimes out of the other; that, as the Holy Apostolical See, of which he is the Head, makes use of both, so his Doctrine might be founded upon both. Novam vero translationem dissero, said ut comprobationis causa exigit, nunc novam, nunc veterem per testimonia assumo, ut quia seeds Apostolica utraque utitur, mei quoque labour studii ex utraque fulciatur. In a certain Passage of his Morals, speaking concerning the difference betwixt the New and ancient Version he says; That the New is more exact and comes nearer to the Hebrew Original: said tamen quia haec nova translatio ex Hebraeo nobis Arabicoque eloquio cuncta verius transfudisse perhibetur. Lib. 20. Mor. Chap. 23. Since the time of St. Gregory the Version of St. Jerom got soon the upper Hand, being the only one made use of both in public and Private. St. Isidore tells us, that in his Time, to wit about the Year 630, the Version of St. Jerom was generally received in the Churches, as being the Plainest and Truest: De Hebraeo autem in Latinum eloquium tantummodo Hieronymus Presbyter Sacras Scripturas convertit, cujus Editione generaliter omnes Ecclesiae usquequaque utuntur pro eo quod veracior sit in sententiis,& clarior in verbis. Lib. 1. Off. Chap. 12. Hugo de St. Victor says positively, That the Latin Church received and authorized only this Version. And St. Anselm, St. Bernard, Rupert, Haimon, Peter Lombard, Richard de St. Victor, and to be short, all the other Latin Authors of the latter Ages, have followed this Version in their Commentaries and other Works, though perhaps they also 
Sometimes mention the Old, &c.] The Councils of Toledo in 653, 656, and 675, allege both the one and the other of these two Versions. Julian of Toledo gives the pference to the Chronologies of the Septuagint. Peter Lombard speaking of the Terrestrial paradise, observes, that in the ancient Version it was red ad Orientem and not à principio. St. Anselm, St. Bernard, Rupert, Richard de St. Victor as likewise some Authors of the latter Ages, as St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas, take their Citations sometimes from the ancient Version, and make frequently mention of the same.  sometimes mention and allege the Old Translation, when they explain certain Passages.  
The Copies of the Version of St. Jerom multiplying by degrees, they underwent the same Fate, which all other Works are of necessity subject to, if often transcribed, that is to say, many Alterations did slip into them by the fault and carelessness of the Transcribers: This is the source of all these various Lections in the Latin Editions of the Version of St. Jerom. Many were employed under the Reign of Charles the Great in reforming the Editions of the Bible, as this Prince himself testifies in his Preface upon the Homilies of Paul the Deacon, where he says, That he had taken care to have all the Books both of the Old and New Testament, which were adulterated before by the unskilfulness of the Transcribers, corrected with all the exactness imaginable. Afterward Stephen the II. Abbot of Citeaux having still observed a great variety in the Manuscripts of the Version of St. Jerom, did consult with the Jews concerning them, the better to enable himself to follow in his Editions those Lections which were most consonant either to the Hebrew or Chaldaean Text. But as from time to time new Errors slipped into these many Copies of the Bible, the Authors of the latter Ages endeavoured to Correct them in their Works, which they entitled, Corrections of the Bible, of which two Manuscripts are extant in the Library of the Sorbonne.  
These several Alterations are the true Cause why our Vulgar Version is not altogether conformable to the Original Translation of St. Jerom; for though it is the same, nevertheless it is almost impossible, but that in process of time, among the many Alterations many Errors must likewise have crept into the several Editions. But in the main, our Vulgar Version is the Translation of St. Jerom in reference to all the Books contained in the Jewish Canon, except the Psalms. It must be confessed that our Vulgar is not consonant Word for Word in the same Purity to the Canon of the Hebrew Truth, or the Divine Library of St. Jerom published not long ago by Father Martianai: But the difference betwixt these two Editions is not very considerable, unless in the Books of the Kings, and in the Proverbs, where there are still remaining some Sentences of the ancient Vulgar Translation.  
But this assertion must not be extended without exception to all the caconical Books of the Old Testament as received among us. For, the Version of the Psalms is not the same which St. Jerom made from the Hebrew, and which is extant in his Works, and in the Canon of the Hebrew Truth of Father Martianai; but it is the Vulgar Translation revised and reformed by St. Jerom after the Hexapla, with the Asterisks and Obelisks, which may yet be seen in the ancient Manuscripts of the Psalms, commonly called the Gallican Psalter. The Books of Tobit and Judith though not in the Jewish Canon, are nevertheless of the Version of St. Jerom, as well as the Additions to the Books of Esther and Daniel. But the Books of Baruch, the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus and that of the Maccabees are of the ancient Vulgar Translation.   

SECT. III. Of the exactness and authority of the Vulgar Version; in what Sense this Version was declared Authentic in the Council of Trent; whether the same ought to be preferred before the Hebrew Original or other Versions.  
THOUGH it must be confessed( as we have observed before), That the Version of St. Jerom from the Hebrew Text, is not altogether without defects, and that he has not always attained to the Sense of the Text in its utmost Perfection; it is nevertheless undeniable that this Version is very exact and conformable to the Original; these passages where the difference lies being but few in Number and of no great Consequence. But there are some Passages in his Version, where he has retained the Sense of the Old Vulgar Translation, notwithstanding he has given another Interpretation to those Hebrew Words, in his Hebrew Questions; either not to deviate too much from the general received Opinion, or rather, because he had changed his own, finding that his Observations made upon these Passages were not altogether exact, and that the Sense he had given them in his Version was preferable to the other. As for instance; in his Hebrew Questions he says, upon the 2d Verse of the 1st Chapter of Genesis, that the Hebrew Word implies rather incubabat than ferebatur, whereas he has retained ferebatur in his Version; perhaps because he judged his former Observation not of sufficient weight. He has also retained some Expressions of the ancient Version which did not alter the Sense, as in these words, Let us go abroad, spoken by Cain to Abel in the 8th Verse of the 4th Chapter. And he has not been always over scrupulous to bind himself to the Hebrew Text, but deviates from it sometimes, which nevertheless is but seldom, and in matters of little moment. Besides this, it ought to be observed, that in many of these Passages the Fault is not on St. Jerom's side, whose Version in its genuine Purity came much nearer to the Hebrew Text; but is to be attributed to the many adulterations crept into the Version of St. Jerom. Thus for instance in the 3d Chapter Verse 15th. ipse pro ipsa. In the 8th Chapter Verse 10th. Et non revertebatur, pro Et revertebatur. In the 26th Chapter Verse 52d. Non invenîmus, pro invenìmus; and in many more Passages, which may be seen by comparing our Vulgar Translation with the Hebrew Verity, published by Father Martiànai. But, as has been observed before, all the differences which are to be found betwixt our most correct Editions of the Vulgar Version, and the Hebrew Text, are of no great consequence, there being very few of them, that imply any Alteration in the Sense, and none that interfere in Point of Doctrine or Morality. To be short, there are few Versions more exact and more conformable to their Originals.  
Taking this for granted, there arises a Question, in what Sense this Version has been declared Authentic by the Council of Trent, this being a Point much in dispute among the Divines: For whilst some have explained the Intention of the Council to have been, to give this Translation the pference to the Original Text, and to consider it as the only Authentic Holy Scripture; others assert, that this Version was put in the same degree with the other Latin Translations, and had in no wise impaired the Authority and authentic Prerogative of the Original Text. Some there have been, who have maintained, that the Council by declaring this Version Authentic, did exempt it from all Errors; as others do indeed confess that there are some defects in the Vulgar Version, but very inconsiderable ones, and such as may be discovered and corrected either by the Hebrew or Greek Text; so that the Council's intention was, to declare it free from all Errors, which concern either our Faith or Morality.  
Let us see the Words used in the Decree of this Council in the 4th Sess. The Holy Council taking into Consideration, the Advantage the Holy Church would reap by Determining, which of all the Latin Editions of the Sacred Writ published to the World, ought to pass for Authentic, ordains and declares, that the same Ancient and Vulgar Version, which has been approved of and used in the Church for many Ages passed, shall be considered as the Authentic Version in all public Lessons, Disputes, Sermons and Expositions, which no body shall presume to reject, under what pretence soever. For the better understanding the true meaning of this Decree, we ought to inquire into the proper signification of the word Authentic. This is properly a Term of Law, implying as much as a certain dead or Instrument justifiable in Law, and invested with a public Authority. A dead may be thus qualified,( 1st,) Because it is acknowledged for an Original written by the Author's own Hand, in which Sense a last Will or Testament is looked upon as Authentic being written by the Testator's own Hand.( 2dly,) If it be a faithful Copy, and authorized as such, of any Text in the Languages it was writ at first: And in this Sense, I suppose it is when Tertullian says, That the Authentic Letters of the Apostles were preserved in the Apostolic Churches. And in the same Sense the Deputies of the Pope did in the sixth general Council require, that they should bring forth the Authentic Books, {αβγδ}, of the Works of these Fathers they were to city, out of the Library of the Patriarch of Constantinople. For these Copies were no Original Manuscripts of these Fathers, but ancient and faithful Copies. To be short, all Deeds, and Acts signed and sealed by public Officers are Authentic, because they are justifiable in Law, though they be not signed by the Judges or Parties concerned.( 3dly,) The word Authentic may be attributed to such Translations, as are known to be conformable to their Originals, and which may serve instead of them. Thus the Versions of certain Pieces written in a Foreign Language, may pass for Authentic, if they are received as true and faithful Translations by People of good Credit. It is unquestionable, that in the first Sense we have no Authentic Sacred Writ, there being no Original extant, Writ by the Hands of the Sacred Writers. In the second Sense, the Hebrew Text of the Old, and the Greek of the New Testament are Authentic, being faithful Copies, as much as can be supposed in this kind, of the Works of the Sacred Writers. In the last Sense, the Version of the Septuagint, the ancient Vulgar formerly, and now our Vulgar Translations may be considered as Authentic, as being Versions authorized and approved of by public Authority. And in this Sense it is, that the Council of Trent has declared our Vulgar Translation Authentic; that is to say: That the Intention of the Council was, that among all the Latin Versions, these alone should be made use of in public Sermons, Disputes and Conferences. This Authentic qualification however does not imply an exact Conformity in all respects, to the Original Writings, such as have been dictated by the Holy Ghost, or an exemption from all Errors whatsoever: But this Version deservedly claims this Title, as being Morally consonant to the Original, and that both for its Antiquity and exactness it ought to be preferred before other Translations.  
This is the utmost extent that can be given to the Decree of the Council of Trent. For, First, It was not the Intention of this Council either to prefer before, or compare to the Original Text this Version, but only with the other Latin Translations. This may be seen at the very beginning of this Decree, where it is declared, that the whole intention is, to make the World understand, which among all the Latin Editions of the Bible ought to pass for Authentic: Ex omnibus Editionibus Latinis, quae circumferuntur. There were at the time of the sitting of this Council many Latin Versions of the Bible published, some by Catholics, some by Heretics, so that whilst they made use, in their Citations, of several different Versions, this confusion proved the occasion of great Contestations, and it might easily happen, that the Catholics misguided by the Versions of the Heretics were drawn into an Error; to avoid this inconveniency, the Council did give the pference among all other Latin Translations, to the most Ancient, which had been approved of in the Church for many Ages before, which could not be charged with any Error, in point of Faith or Morality, and which was morally conformable to the Original Text: This Version is commanded to be made use of as the only One in all Sermons, Conferences or other public Acts; without the least diminution however of the authority and authentic Qualification of the Original Text, or of the Chapter, Ut Veterum, Distinct. 19. which ordains, that the Books of the Old Testament shall be examined according to the Hebrew, and those of the New Testament, according to the Greek Text. Ut veterum Librorum fides de Hebraeis Voluminibus examinanda est, ita novorum veritas Graeci sermonis normam desiderat.  
Secondly, The Council, when it declared the Vulgar Version Authentic, did not thereby declare it as done by Divine Inspiration, neither as a piece conformable in all respects to the Original Text, or free from all Errors; the Council itself having acknowledged some Defects in the Text of the Vulgar Version, did order that the same should be corrected, which was done afterwards; neither is any thing of it to be found in the Canons, and some of the Divines that were present at the said Council assure us of the contrary.  
Thirdly, The Council did not forbid private Persons to have recourse to the Hebrew Text, nay even to other Latin Translations made from the Hebrew, when they were to explain any Passage in the Holy Scripture, nor did it enjoin them to follow always the Sense of the Vulgar Version; there is full Liberty left to any of the Interpreters to recede from it, and to follow in their Commentaries or their Versions, the Sense of the Hebrew or Greek Text, as they find it most suitable. Several Interpreters of the Bible, and many Catholic Divines have made use of this Liberty since the sitting of this Council; for they have not only taken their Citations from the Original Text, and the Oriental and Greek Versions; but have also often deviated from the Sense of the Vulgar Version, and followed that of the Originals, and of some other Versions. Nay, they have without the least scruple made New Latin Translations from the Hebrew and Greek Text, and have made use of them in their Translations of the Bible in their Mother Tongue. The whole Intention of the Council was, that the Vulgar Version should generally be made use of in public Lessons, Disputes, Sermons and Conferences, to avoid the variety and multiplicity of Citations.  
Those Divines who were either present at the Council of Trent, or who have written the History and Apology of it, have given the same Interpretation of this Decree of the Council, and have strenuously affirmed against Calvin, that it was not the Intention of this Council to prefer the Version before the Original Text, or to aclowledge no other Holy Scripture divinely inspired besides the Vulgar Translation, or to declare it free from all Errors. Let us see, how Andreas Vega, one of the most able Divines that were present at the Council of Trent, refutes Calvin and Melancthon in his Treatise of Justification, Lib. 15. Chap. 9. That you may, says he, at last be convinced of your Error, concerning the approbation given by the Council of the Vulgar Translation in the fourth Session, and that you may not in vain trouble your Heads any farther to discover the Errors of this Version, pray let me tell you my Opinion in a few Words, upon this Subject, which may also serve for an Answer to Melancthon. The Council did not in the least approve of these Errors, which might be found by those that are well versed in Languages and in the Holy Scripture; its approbation extended only to the Vulgar Version corrected and freed from those Errors, which were slipped into it by the negligence of the Transcribers or Printers. It was far from the Intention of the Council, to oblige us to pay a kind of adoration to this Version, as if it were descended from Heaven. They were not ignorant, that the Translator, whoever he were, was no Prophet, and that hitherto God had not judged us worthy of such a Person, as could pretend to Translate the Holy Writ from its native Language into a foreign Tongue, with the same Spirit it was written at first. They had no design to interrupt the laudable Endeavours of able Divines well skilled in Languages, who agree in this Point, that several Passages might have been better translated, or, that, the Holy Ghost had expressed more by the Words of the Original, and that there might be a more proper Sense deduced from the Text, than, what is to be found in the Vulgar Latin Version. But, in respect of the Honour due to this Version by reason of its antiquity, and the general approbation of all the Councils of the Latin Church, where the same has been received for many Ages passed; and that the Faithful might be assured that no pernicious Error can be drawn from thence, but may be red without the least danger; and to prevent all farther confusion occasioned by the Variety of Translations, and to stop the farther progress of making New ones, the Council wisely ordained, that this Version should be made use of in all public Lessons, Disputes, Sermons and Commentaries, which were to be writ upon the Scriptures. The reason why this Council did declare the same Authentic, was to let the World understand, that it was not contaminated with any Errors, which might prove pernicious either in point of Doctrine or Morality. And it was for the same Reason that it was ordained, that no body under what pretext soever, should presume to refuse it. The very Expressions used by the Council upon this as well as on such like occasions, are convincing Arguments that this was the real Intention of the Council. But to remove all farther doubt, I can with all the veracity in the World appeal to the Testimony of the most Illustrious and most Reverend Cardinal de Sanctâ Cruce, a Person equally famous for his Piety and Learning, who as he is a great Patron of Learning, so he was President in this and the following Sessions. For he  told me the Night before this Decree passed, and several times since, that the Intention of the Council did not extend any farther in favour of the Vulgar Translation. Thus the approbation of the Council is no Bar to you nor any body else, to have recourse to the Spring-head, in case of any difficulty, and to communicate to the Public, what ever you may find conducing to assist and instruct the Latin Divines, and to furnish them with fresh Matter to render this Vulgar Version more perfect, and to receive what they find most agreeable to the Original and the Sense of the Holy Ghost. The Testimony of this Divine is not only very considerable in itself, but most especially by the Addition of that of the Cardinal de Sanctâ Cruce, who being afterwards created Pope, and assumed the Name of Marcellus II. Andreas Vega durst not have presumed to make use of his Name and Authority in a public Book, unless it had been True.  
Melchior Cane Bishop of the Canaries, who not long after; to wit, under the Pontificat of Julius II. was present at the Council of Trent: Don Diego Payva de Andrade a Portugese Divine, who was there under the Pontificat of pus IV: And Alphonsus Salmeron a Jesuit, who was likewise one of the Divines present at this Council, do agree with Vega, that it was not the Intention of the Council to prefer the Vulgar Translation before the Original Text, but only before the other Latin Versions; and that no Prohibition was intended against the Allegations of the various Lections in the Hebrew and Greek, and to improve them( as Salmeron says expressly) not only for the establishment of good Manners, but also for the proving and edifying our Faith and Doctrine, by Arguments drawn from the Original Text of the Holy Ghost. These Authors had the opportunity of learning from several of those that were concerned in this Decree, the true meaning of the Council.  
The Jesuit Mariana, who died in the Year 1624, is of the same Opinion, and alleges in his own behalf not only Vega, but also Lainez General of the Jesuits, who was also present at this Council. And in the same Sense this Decree has been interpnted by the best Divines, that have writ upon this Subject since the time of this Council; as by Genebrard, Ribera, Serarius, Bonfrerius, Sanders, Adam Contzen, Tanner, Dominique Bannez, and many more.  
Bellarmin objects against Calvin, that it is no less than a Calumny to affirm, that the Council of Trent gave the pference to the Vulgar Version before the Hebrew Text. These are his Words in the 10th Chapter of his 2d Book of the Word of God: Another Untruth, says he, raised by Calvin is, that the Fathers assembled at the Council of Trent did ordain, that no Credit ought to be given to those, who draw the pure Water from the Spring-head, and who discover Falsities and Errors, by the perspicuity of unquestionable Truth. I call it an Untruth, because there is nothing like it in the Decree of the Council. For the Fathers don't make the least mention of the Originals, but only in respect to the many different Latin Translations, which are in every Bodies Hands, they pitched upon one, which they preferred before all others. With a constancy and gravity altogether agreeable to the Church they did prefer the Old before the New ones, one which had been established by a long Tract of Time before those that were of a very late Date, and as one may say, undigested; and to be short, they selected One among a great many, that seemed to contradict one another. In the same manner Bellarmin speaks of the Authority of the Greek Text of the New Testament in the 7th Chapter of the same Book. As to what relates to the Authority of the Edition of the Greek Text of the New Testament, it is unquestionable, but that nothing can come in Competition, with that of the Apostles, if we were not entirely convinced that the same had been adulterated. And in this respect I am of the same Opinion, I have declared before in reference to the Hebrew Originals: To wit, That all the Greek Editions are not generally adulterated, and that on the other Hand they are not to be considered always as the pure Originals, whereby to Correct without contradiction, all that is disagreeable to it, as Calvin and Chemnitius, have falsely imagined. This Cardinal says two Things: The First, that the Greek Text, is not generally adulterated, which is to be understood even of those Passages that are different from the Latin, for, it is evident, that where there is a conformity betwixt the Greek and Latin, it could scarce enter into the Thoughts of those( who, to patronize the Vulgar Version, are no great admirers of the Greek and Hebrew), to affirm, that the Greek Text was adulterated in these Places because that by consequence the Latin must be so too. The Second is, that the Greek Text is not so pure and exact, as to serve in all respects for a Rule to Correct the Latin by the Greek. He does not say, that it may never be done; but only that it is not to be done in all respects. Thus by resuming his Argument, he always limits his Assertion to this, that there are certain Passages, where the Latin deserves the pference before the Greek. Now the Greek Editions, says he, are not always free from defects, but several Errors are crept into them by the carelessness of the Transcribers, and that therefore it is not always the surest way to Correct the Latin by the Greek, is what I am going to prove by Examples.  
Lastly, Cardinal Pallavicin treating on purpose of this Subject in his 6th Book and 17th Chapter of the History of the Council of Trent, does assert,( 1st,) That the Council of Trent, did not compare the Vulgar Edition with the Hebrew or Greek, but only with other Translations.( 2dly,) That it suffices for a Version to be declared Authentic, if the same be not adulterated positively in any Part, nor different from the Original even by inadvertency in the essential Parts.( 3dly,) That the Council did not declare the Vulgar Version perfect and free from all Errors.( 4thly,) That the Council did not take away from the catholic Interpreters the Liberty of Examining the Books of the Old Testament after the Hebrew, and those of the New after the Greek Originals, and to elucidate and rectify the Sense of the Vulgar by the Original Text, according to the Appointment of the Chapter, Ut veterum, &c. These Assertions he maintains by the Testimony of those Divines that were present at the Council of Trent, and were cited by us before, whose Authority removes all farther doubt concerning the Design and Intention of the Council, which indeed is evident enough from the very Words of the Decree.  
Reason itself tells us, that there is not the least Probability that the Council should declare the Hebrew and Greek Texts not Authentic, and the Vulgar Version absolutely conformable to the Original, and altogether free from Errors: For from thence must follow, that both the Eastern and Western Churches had made a Bible, which was not Authentic, the Rule of their Faith, for the First six Ages, they having not made use of the Vulgar Version, but of the Version of the Septaugint for the Old Testament, and, of the Greek Text, or else of a Latin Translation quiter different from ours, for the New Testament; and that the Eastern Churches never had, neither have at this Day an Authentic Bible. It must likewise be affirmed, that the other Eastern Churches, that never made use of the Vulgar Latin Translation, never had the Authentic Scripture. One convincing Proof, that the Council, when it declared the Vulgar Version Authentic, did not necessary imply the same to be conformable to the Original Text, is, that the Version of the Psalms of St. Jerom from the Hebrew were not declared Authentic, but the ancient Vulgar Translation. No question but the Council could not be ignorant, that this Translation was not consonant to the Hebrew Original, whereas the Version of St. Jerom came much nearer to it; what could therefore be the Reason, why the Council did not approve the Version of the Psalms of St. Jerom, when it approved the other Books of his Version? An evident Proof, that the Council did not measure this Authentic qualification by the exactness of the Version, and its congruity with the Hebrew Text, but by the Authority it had received by its long continuance in the Church. For, as the Church had generally retained the ancient Vulgar Version of the Psalms, the Version of St. Jerom being never introduced among them; the Council judged it most convenient to prefer the First, to comform themselves to the present Custom of the Church. Besides, if the Council, by declaring the Vulgar Version Authentic, had intended to declare it free from all Errors, it must of necessity follow, that the same both before and since the time of this Council had been looked upon, as absolutely free from all Errors. But it is unquestionable that before the Time of this Council it was not free from defects; that Nicolas de Lyra, Paul de Burgos, Driedo, Jerom ab Oleastro, Isidore Clarius, Sixtus of Sienne and Cajetan, have both observed and discovered them: That the Vulgar Version was so far from being exempt from Errors, at the time of this Council, that the Popes Sixtus V. and Clement VIII, did cause the same to be reformed in many Places; and that even after the Correction made by Order of Pope Clement VIII. the most strenuous Asserters of the Papal Authority have confessed that there remained still some Errors. For, Lucas of Bruges, who had undertaken this task with a great deal of assiduity, having sent to Cardinal Bellarmin since the Corrections made by Order of Pope Clement VIII. his Observations upon these Passages, which, according to his judgement wanted a farther Correction, the Cardinal answered him in these Words: I give you thanks for the Book you have sent me, but let me tell you, that we did not intend to correct the Vulgar Bible with all the exactness that could be, but, that, designedly we have passed by many things, which seemed to want Correction. These were not only such Errors as were slipped into this Version by the Negligence of the Transcribers or Printers, which the Correctors would without doubt have taken care of, but rather certain Defects committed by the Translator, which they did not judge convenient to be reformed. And that this is the real Truth appears by the Preface itself, which Clement VIII. has caused to be prefixed before his Edition; where it is expressly mentioned that many things were altered on purpose in the Vulgar Version, and that other Matters were left unaltered, though they seemed to want some Alteration: Sicut nonnulla consulto mutata, ita etiam alia quae mutanda videbantur, immutata relicta sunt. They give a threefold Reason for this:( 1st,) For fear of giving offence to the People, by too many Alterations,( 2dly,) Because it was possible that our Ancestors might have some Hebrew and Greek Editions more perfect than now a days, which perhaps are much degenerated from their Genuine Purity by the Negligence of the Transcribers: Qui fortasse tam longo tempore identidem describendo minus puri atque integri evaserunt. They dont allege here that the Greek and Hebrew Text is adulterated in all these Places, where it disagrees with the Vulgar Version; but only that it is possible, some Errors may be crept in by the frequent Transcriptions. The( 3d,) Reason which is alleged, why they would not make any more Alterations in the Vulgar Translation, is, that it was not their Design to compose a New Edition, or to Correct and Reform the Translator of the ancient Vulgar Version, but only to publish this Version free from all the Errors of the Transcribers and Printers. Nevertheless there are remaining many Errata in the Latin Text of the Vulgar Version, many of which were observed and published by Lucas of Bruges in the Year 1618. after the Correction of this Version. He maintains in his Preface, that the Correctors at Rome have let slip many Errata, and appeals to the Testimonies of Cardinal Bellarmin and of Bandinus, Director of the Press in the Vatican, who, says he, commended my endeavours, and acknowledged that the Bible corrected by Order of Pope Clement VIII. was not free from all Errors.  
After the Council of Trent had approved and preferred the Vulgar Version before others, they ordered that a New and very Correct impression should be made of the same. But from the time of the Decree of this Council made in the Year 1546. till the beginning of the Pontificat of Sixtus V. which began in the Year 1585. there was no New Edition of the Bible corrected, and authorized as such. pus the IV. and pus V. were the first that laid Hand to the Work; but it advanced but slowly under them, it being not brought to Perfection till under the Pontificat of Sixtus V. who caused a New Edition of the Vulgar Version, corrected, to be published. Those, who were employed in this Work followed this Method: They revised the Text after the ancient Manuscripts, and in case of any ambiguity or variety in the Manuscripts, they had recourse to the Hebrew and Greek, to determine which Lection ought to be preferred in the Text of the Version. This work being finished, Pope Sixtus V. did spare nothing to have it carefully Printed in the Printing-House of the Vatican, and he assures us, that he had with his own Hands corrected the Faults of the Press: After which he declared by a Bull prefixed to this Edition, which appeared to the World in the Year 1590. at Rome, with the advice of the Cardinals deputed for that Purpose by his own Consent and according to the Plenitude of his Powen, that, this Vulgar Edition of the Old and New Testament which he had caused to be published, being without question the same Vulgar Version declared Authentic by the Council of Trent and printed with all the exactness imaginable, should be red only in all the Churches; forbidding any impression to be made for the future of this New Edition of the Vulgar Version, that should not be conformable to this, or to add any various Lections in the Margin; ordaining at the same time, that all the Books of the Offices of the Church should be corrected after this Vulgar Version, under pain of the grand Excommunication incurred ipso facto, to be reserved to the Pope, and other Penalties mentioned in the same Bull given at St. Maria Majori the first day of March in the Year 1589. After some few Copies of this Edition were dispersed, it was soon after suppressed; and in two Years after Pope Clement VIII. published another very different from this in many Places, which he backed by his Authority as the only Authentic one, forbidding by his Bull dated the 9th of November, in the Year 1592. to Print any others for the future. Mr. James an English Protestant has been very exact in collecting even the least differences of these two Editions, which he makes to amount to above two thousand: 'tis true some of them are about trifles, but many of them are likewise of no small consequence. Clement VIII. has followed more closely the Hebrew Text, and his Edition is much more Correct than that of Sixtus V. though he expresses himself in far more moderate Terms in his Preface prefixed to this Edition. Moreover, though the Vulgar Version be not altogether free from Errors and Defects, it must nevertheless be confessed, that the Council of Trent had sufficient Reason to prefer this before all the other Latin Versions as some of the more moderate among the Protestants have been forced to confess themselves 
As some of the Protestants are forced to confess], &c. Theodore Beza in his Preface upon the New Testament, Paul Fagius, Ludovicus de Dieu, Casaubon, Grotius and Walton. , First, Because this Version was the most Ancient of all those extant at the time of this Council. Secondly, Because the greatest part of it was done by St. Jerom, who was a very exact and faithful Interpreter. Thirdly, Because the same had been used for many Ages passed in the Latin Church. Fourthly, Because this Version is writ in a simplo and natural Style free from affectation, and yet full of noble Expressions. Fifthly, That all taken together this is the best and most perfect Version. It is therefore unjustly done by some of the Protestants who thus exclaim against this Decree of the Council of Trent, and either put a worse interpretation upon the Sense of it, or else endeavour to vilify the Vulgar Latin Translation.   

SECT. IV. Of the New Latin Translations of the Bible.  
IT was not till the last Age, that any New Latin Translations were made of the Bible from the Hebrew Text. 'tis true, Nicolas de Lyra and Paul de Burgos, had before that time corrected many Passages in the Vulgar Version, according to the true Sense of the Hebrew Text; but they never attempted to give us an entire Version of the Bible.  
saints Pagninus, a Dominican Monk, was the First who attempted to make a New Translation from the Modern Hebrew Text. His design was encouraged by Pope lo X. who promised to defray the Charges of the Impression. He was employed in this great Work near thirty Years, which appeared in Print the first time at lions in the Year 1527. being authorized by two Letters of Pope Adrian VI. and Pope Clement VII. which are prefixed to it. He declares that he has receded as little as possibly could be from the Vulgar Translation, and that only in those Places, where it was different from the Sense of the Hebrew; nevertheless his Version is quiter another thing than the Vulgar, having been too scrupulous in adhering to the words of the Text, the utmost rigour of the Grammatical Rules, which makes his Translation obscure, and to favour of Barbarity in many Places; having neglected one of the fundamental Rules of Translation, which is to be careful to express rather the Sense than the Words of an Original. He has also been misguided in some Places, having affencted too much to follow the Explications of the Jewish Rabbi's. He might likewise have saved himself the trouble of altering the ancient and commonly received Names of Men and Cities, to substitute in their Place, others, pronounced according to the New punctuation. It must however be confessed that this undertaking of Pagninus is a very useful Work, that his Translation is both exact and faithful, and very proper to explain the literal Sense of the Hebrew Text.  
Arias Montanus being employed by King Philip II. to compile an Edition of the Biblia Polyglotta, did content himself with making a revisal of the Translation of Pagninus, in which he reformed some Passages which he judged not agreeable to the literal Sense. His chief aim has been to Translate the Hebrew Words by the same number of Latin ones, so that he has accommodated his whole Translation to the most scrupulous Rules of Grammar, without making any reflection whether his Version were tolerable Latin or could pass for intelligible. So that this Version is rather to be looked upon as a Grammatical Commentary, than a True Version, which is more proper to instruct young Beginners in the Hebrew, than to be red separately.  
The Translation of Thomas Malvenda, a Spanish Dominican, as it is more Grammatical and Barbarous than the Version of Arias Montanus, so it is not much in request.  
Notwithstanding that Cardinal Cajetan was not versed in the Hebrew, he undertook nevertheless a Translation of some part of the Bible Word for Word from the Hebrew, by the Assistance of two Persons very well skilled in that Language, the one being a Jew, the other a Christian, who made it their business to Translate literally the Hebrew Words. His intention was by this means to give us a Translation conformable in all respects to the Original; and he has taken effectual care to avoid those obscure and barbarous Expressions which must needs have ensued, if he had been too anxious in translating the Text Grammatically.  
But the design of Isidore Clarius a Monk of Mont-Cassin, and afterwards Bishop of Foligno, appears to be both more reasonable and less difficult. For he did not pretend to make an entire New Latin Translation of the Bible, but only to reform the Vulgar Version after the Hebrew Text: He did this with good Success in many Places, yet confesses himself, that he has passed by some, where there was no great difference betwixt the Sense of the Vulgar, and the Original, to give some allowance to Custom, and to give as little offence as could be to the Catholics, if he had made too many alterations in the Vulgar Version. He declares however, that he has corrected above eight thousand Passages in the Bible.  
These are all the Translations of Note of all the Books of the Old Testament done by Catholic Authors from the Hebrew Text, not reckoning the Versions of some particular Books, as of the Psalms by the Learned Simeon de Muis, who has been very careful in retaining both the Sense and the Words of the Vulgar Version, as far as could be done without injustice to the Sense of the Hebrew Text, and has not tied himself up so strictly to all the Grammatical Niceties. So that his Version is both intelligible and very good Latin, without the least affectation of Elegancy and without Barbarisms.  
The Protestants have also signalized themselves by several New Translations of the Bible, done from the Hebrew Original.  
Sebastian Munster was the First among them, who undertook to give us a New Latin Translation of the Bible from the Hebrew. He has not been so anxious in adhering to the Grammatical signification of the Words, as Pagninus and Arias Montanus, but has explained the Sense in better Latin; so that his Version is more intelligible and less barbarous, though he has been very careful not to deviate from the Sense of the Hebrew Text, and has even retained some of their Idiotisms. He has also consulted the Commentaries of the best rabbis and commonly has followed their Interpretations; but with discretion, having chosen such as he judged most agreeable to Truth. Huetius bestows upon him the Character of a Translator well versed in the Hebrew Language, whose Style is very exact and conformable to the Original. Truly, his Translation is the most literal, but at the same time the most faithful of all those done by the Protestants.  
The Translation of lo Juda a Zuinglist, printed at Zurick in the Year 1543 and afterwards reprinted by Robert Stephens in the Year 1545. in Two Columns,( one containing the Vulgar Version with the Notes of Vatable,) is written in a more elegant Style, than Munster's; but this Author recedes sometimes too far from the literal Sense; and in some places, changes the Expressions for better Latin, but which are more remote from the true Sense, and don't express with the same force the true meaning of the Hebrew Text. He also sometimes gives himself too much Liberty, to determine the Sense of the Hebrew Text, according to his own particular Opinion.  
But at the same time he has not taken near so much Liberty as Sebastian Chatillon, commonly known by the Name of Castalio, who having taken a fancy to give the World an elegant Latin Version of the Bible, has mixed, his profane Expressions with the Text of the Holy Writ. There is not the least Mark in this Version of that noble Simplicity and natural Grandeur, of that unexpressible Force of the Style observed in the Originals and in the other Versions: His whole Style being affencted, effeminate, overcharged with false Rhetoric, and in a word absolutely profane, and not suitable to the weight of the Subject he treats of. He is besides this too bold in his Expressions, not always exact nor faithful, and after all, does not always writ good Latin.  
The Version of Tremellius and Junius, has much more of the true natural Simplicity. The chief Hebraisms are preserved, and the whole is exactly conformable to the Hebrew Text, without the least Obscurity or Barbarity; however this Version is not altogether free from Defects. The Authors have affencted to make use every where of the Pronouns relatives, which are not in the Hebrew, and also superfluous; neither are they always so conscientious, but that sometimes they put in more than is in the Text, and add some Words to extort the Sense they would give it. They likewise very frequently recede without the least necessity from the Words of the Vulgar Version, instead of which they often put others, which are neither so Good, nor so Noble.  
Andrew and Luke Osiander, have acted with more reservedness in their Editions of the Bible; for they have contented themselves to add to the Vulgar Version such Corrections, as they believed ought to be made according to the Hebrew Text, without the least diminution nevertheless of the Text of the ancient Version; but have inserted their amendments printed in a Character different from the Text of the Vulgar Version, which indeed may easily breed some confusion: For which reason it would have been more proper to have printed the Differences of the Hebrew Text in the Margin.  
This Method seems the most Rational, and has been followed by most of the learned Catholic Commentators. They never pretended to touch the ancient Vulgar Version authorized and received in the Church for the public Offices: But as they were convinced that the said Version was not altogether exact, and that they did not think themselves obliged to follow it in every respect; they did without the least difficulty make their Observations in their Commentaries concerning the Differences betwixt this Version and the Hebrew Text, which Passages, being translated according to the literal Sense, they have put in the Margin. According to this Model a New Edition of the Latin Bible might be projected; to wit: To have the Text of the Vulgar Translation well corrected and printed, and to put in the Margin those Passages where it differs from the Hebrew, with the literal Translations. The only difficulty would be in the Psalms, where the differences betwixt the ancient Vulgar Version and the Hebrew being so many, it would be impossible to put them all in the Margin without making a Confusion. For which reason my Lord Bishop of Meaux found himself obliged to cause the Version of the Psalms of St. Jerom from the Hebrew Text, to be printed in a Column on the side of the Vulgar Version of the Psalms; Mr. de Muis( whose Example I have followed,) has done the same, viz. reformd the Text of the ancient Version, put it thus corrected in the next Column to the ordinary Vulgar Version. In so doing there is not the least Opposition to the Bull of Clement VIII. which forbids the Printing of the Vulgar Version, otherwise than it is extant in the Edition of the Vatican; this Bull having only a respect to the Printers and Booksellers, who Print and Sell the Text of the Vulgar Version; therefore, provided there be no Alterations made in the Text to be printed, there is no prohibition against any Marginal Notes, expressing the various Lections, and the Differences betwixt this Version and the Hebrew and Greek Originals; For, otherwise it must follow, that the most learned Interpreters of our Age have acted contrary to, and incurred the Penalty of Excommunication contained in the Bull of Clement VIII.    

CHAP. VIII. Of the Oriental Translations.  

SECT. I. Of the Chaldee Paraphrasts.  
THE Chaldean Language is the same, which being used in Assyria, the Jews after their return from Babylon used for their common Language, and in process of Time became their natural Language. This gave Birth to the Chaldee Paraphrasts of the Original Text of the Bible, called TARGUM. For the Doctors of the Jewish Law seeing themselves under a necessity to make the Jews understand the Text of the Holy Scripture, which was red in Hebrew in their Synagogues, were forced to explain the Law to them in a Language intelligible to all. This is the true Origin of the Chaldee Paraphrasts. But it is very uncertain at what time these Sort of Interpretations began first to appear in writing: It seems, as if they were not much in use, before the Hebrew Language was no more understood by the Vulgar Sort of the Jews; which was not immediately after the Captivity, but a considerable time after, as we have shown before.  
The First of the Chaldee Paraphrases which has been transmitted to us, is that of ONKELOS, which by some is made Contemporary with our Saviour, and whom some confounded with RABBI AKIBA, or with the Interpreter Aquila. But the whole is full of uncertainty, it being not very probable that he should be the same with Akiba or with Aquila; neither have we any assurance that this Interpreter was contemporary with our Saviour.  
The Second Translation is of Jonathan Ben-Uziel a Disciple of Illel, whom they make likewise contemporary with our Saviour, or at least with his Disciples. But as the TARGUM of Onkelos is only upon the Pentateuch, so the true TARGUM of Jonathan is only upon the Books called by the Jews the Prophetical Books; for that which has been foisted into the World upon the Pentateuch under the Name of Jonathan, is suppositions, and of a later date, as may be sufficiently seen by the difference of the Styles, by the new and barbarous Words and the many Fables inserted in this TARGUM upon the Pentateuch; Not to allege here, That mention is made of the Misna, of the City of Constantinople, of the Sea of Tiberias, and of some other Matters which have not the least congruity with the time, in which it is supposed Jonathan to have lived.  
These are the only two Chaldee Paraphrases that can lay claim to any Antiquity; For though it remains uncertain, whether they were coincident with the time of our Saviour, there is nevertheless a great deal of Probability, that they are much more Ancient than the Gemara, as is sufficiently evident from the Purity of the Sense in which they are written. The Translation of Onkelos is pretty exact, and even Word for Word from the Hebrew Text: That of Jonathan is more copious and augmented by some Additions.  
The TARGUM upon the Hagiographa, which is atrributed by some to Joseph surnamed the Blind, and by others to different Authors, is unquestionably of a fresher date, than those of Onkelos and Jonathan, as is likewise the TARGUM of Jerusalem, which is written in a most barbarous Style, intermixed with a great many Foreign Words, taken from the Greek, Latin and Persian Languages. In the last are whole Sentences, which you meet with likewise in the New Testament; but it is possible the Author took them from thence, or else that they were certain Proverbs used among the Jews.  
There are besides these some other Manuscript Chaldee Paraphrases, but which are not very Ancient, full of Fables and written in a barbarous Style. We will, without insisting any farther upon them only make this reflection, that it is most surprising, how it came to pass that neither Origen nor St. Jerom have made the least mention of these Chaldee Paraphrases, which might be a very good Argument against the Antiquity of those of Onkelos and Jonathan. But however it be, the Jews tell us Miracles of those Two Translations, to give them the more Authority, and to make the World believe, that those who were the Authors of them were endowed with a Prophetic Spirit. But these are their ordinary Fictions, which ought not to be regarded. We must nevertheless not fall upon the other Extreme, and imagine that these Paraphrases are altogether useless and ought not to be used by Christians. There are ancient Translations or Interpretations, which may be useful in several respects: For, ( First,) They are circumstantial Evidences which corroborated the Sincerity of the Hebrew Text; unto which they are Consonant, and serve sometimes to determine the Signification of Words, which may have divers Significations. ( Secondly,) In several Passages they illustrate some Matters concerning the Word of God and the Messiah; as especially in that celebrated prophecy of Jacob, where the Word Shilo is interpnted by that of Messiah, in the TARGUMS of Onkelos, Jonathan and of Jerusalem.( Thirdly,) They illustrate several difficult Passages in the Hebrew Text, and intepret the true Sense. ( Fourthly,) They make us acquainted with many ancient Customs and Ceremonies used among the Jews. Thus far they may be useful to us: But care must be taken, not to adhere always to the Sense of these Interpretations, which sometimes deviate from the literal Sense, to take the opportunity of inserting some Morals or History in the Text, many times of their own Invention, and which are not to be found in the Original.   

SECT. II. Of the Syriac Translations of the Bible.  
THE Language most commonly used among the Christians of the East next to the Greek, is the same which is called the Syriac Language, having derived its Name, because it was more particularly made use of in Syria. It is properly a Dialect of the ancient Arabian or Chaldean Language, which may be divided into three different Dialects; to wit, into that of Babylon, which is the Chaldean Language in its Purity; into that of Jerusalem, which is the same used among the Jews after their Return out of the Captivity of Babylon; and lastly into that of Antiochia, which was used by the Christians of Comagena, and of some other Provinces bordering upon Syria, where this was the native Language of the Country.  
There is not the least question, but that in the first Age of the Church, the Christians living in those Parts, had a Translation of the Bible in this Language; for as they were not skilled in the Greek, and their Church Offices were celebrated in the Syriac Language, it was absolutely requisite to have a Version of the Bible, which they might red in the Churches, and insert in their Church Offices. But it seems very probable that their First Translations were made from the Version of the Septuagint. We have observed before, that Masius had a very ancient Edition of a Syriac Version of the Old Testament, done from the Hexapla: But, besides this Version, the Maronites have another Translation of all the Books of the Old Testament, done from the Hebrew Text, which they cry up for its Antiquity, even to that degree, that some among them pretend to Affirm, that some part of it was done in the Time of King Solomon at the Intercession of Hiram King of Tyrus, and that the other Books done since the Time of Solomon, were translated under the Reign of Abgarus King of Edessa. This is the same Version Gabriel Sionita has credited upon too slight a Foundation. For, it remains as yet undecided, whether the Syriac Version cited by St. Basil and by St. Ambrose upon the Work of Creation, by St. Chrysostom and by Theodoret upon the Psalms, by Procopius, and in the Greek Scholia, is the same we have now adays. But howsoever it be, both the Time and the Author of this Translation is as yet uncertain, which is much in use among the Maronites, the Nestorians, and the Oriental Jacobites. The first who published this Version was Gabriel Sionita, who took care of that Impression of it which is extant in the Polyglott of Paris. Mr. Walton has inserted afterwards this Version in the English Polyglott, but more correct and revised by many Manuscripts, and augmented with the Translations of the Books of Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Jeremiah, the History of Susannah, Bell and the Dragon, the Song of the Children in the Fiery Furnace, and two or three of the Books of the Macchabees.  
This Version is done from the Hebrew Text, notwithstanding which, it is not always agreeable to this Original, but in some places is more conformable to the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in some to the Version of the Septuagint. Nevertheless, the Author sticks closer to the literal Sense of the Hebrew Text, than the Lxx Interpreters have done; and as there is a great Affinity betwixt the Hebrew and Syriac Languages, there are certain Passages, in which he has more happily expressed the Sense of the Text, than any of the other Interpreters in their Versions; and yet is this Translation not altogether free from Errors, some of which are to be attributed to the Authors, but many to the negligence and ignorance of the Transcribers, who have confounded many times such of the Syriac Letters as had a resemblance to one another, and have in many places put one Name instead of another. In the Psalms the Syriac Interpreter has taken the Liberty to leave out the ancient Titles or Inscriptions of each Psalm, in lieu of which he has given us others which are an Abstract of the Contents of each Psalm. A certain Argument, that the Author of this Version was no Jew, but a Christian, he having applied several Psalms to Jesus Christ and his Church.   

SECT. III. Of the Arabic Versions of the Bible.  
THE Arabian Language, which was included( till the Sixth Age of the Church,) within the Confines of Arabia, was afterwards by the Victories of the Saracens spread over a great Part both of the East and West, and is to this day much in use among a great Part of the Eastern Nations. This Language is very Ancient, extremely copious and of great Use for the well understanding of the Hebrew Text, they having many Roots in common betwixt them, from whence it comes to pass, that we must often have recourse to the Arabic for the better explaining of such Hebrew Words, the signification of which is doubtful. There are likewise many useful Observations, and some Ceremonies mentioned in the Bible, which may be best explained by the Arabic Books.  
The Arabic Versions of the Scripture are of two Sorts, some are done by Christians, others by Jews. There is a Translation of the whole Old Testament, the Author of which is supposed to be Saadias Gaon a Jew of Babylon, who writ the same about the Year 900, of Christ. Of this whole Book there has been no more published yet than the Pentateuch; which the Jews caused to be printed at Constantinople towards the latter End of the last Age. This Version is done from the Hebrew Text, but is rather an Interpretation, than a literal Translation, the Author following sometimes Onkelos, sometimes the Septuagint.  
Besides this Version of the Pentateuch, the Jews have yet another Arabic Translation, published in Mauritania in Hebrew Characters, which Erpenius has caused to be printed in Arabic Characters at Leyden in the Year 1622. The Author of this Version has exactly followed the Hebrew Text, Word for Word; except that in some Passages he has altered the Phrase, when the Scripture attributes certain things to God, which literally taken belong only to Creatures; in lieu of which he makes use of such Expressions, as he judges more suitable to the divine Majesty: As for instance, whereas he should have translated this Passage in the 29th Chapter, Verse 45, 46. of Exodus; I will dwell among the Children of Israel; he says thus: I will make my glory to dwell among the Children of Israel. And in the 3d Chapter, Verse 14. in lieu of, I am that I am, he has translated: The Eternal will be for ever.  
Mr. Pocock mentions an Arabic Translation of the Books of the Kings, done by a Jew, but quiter different from the Version of Saadias, which he prefers before the other.  
Among the Arabic Translations done by Christians, there is one printed in the Polyglotts of Paris and England; both the Author and the Time when it was writ is uncertain. As much as may be conjectured this Version was made since the Alcoran, and even since that of Saadias, the Author having taken some Words out of the First and followed the Second in many Places. Gabriel Sionita affirms, that the Manuscript from whence he copied this Version, was three hundred Years Old, and is done in part from the Hebrew Text, in part from the Septuagint. The Pentateuch is translated from the Hebrew Text, or rather taken from the Version of Saadias. The Book of Joshua from the Hebrew, that of Job from the Syriac; the rest from the Septuagint. The Books of Esther, of Tobit and the Macchabees are lest out in this Version. Augustin Bishop of Nebio assures, that there are two Arabic Translations of the Old Testament among the Oriental Christians; to wit, One of Syria the other of Egypt, and that in his Edition of the Psalms he has followed the Syriac Edition. Cornelius à Lapide attests, that in the Vatican Library, and in that of Florence, there are two Manuscripts of these two Versions, and that he has seen the Latin Translations of them, done by Risius, a Maronite and Archbishop of Damascus, which he makes use of in his Commentary upon the Scripture. The Edition inserted in the Polyglotts is the Egyptian Edition, which is evident from thence, that the same is quiter different from that of Augustin of Nebio, and agrees with many Passages cited by this Author out of the Egyptian Edition; and Gabriel Sionita, who was the First that inserted this Version in the Polyglotts printed at Paris, had his Manuscript out of Egypt.  
There are besides these many other Arabic Translations of some Books of the Old Testament, both in Manuscript, and Printed; as for instance a Translation of the Pentateuch supposed to be done by Ibn Sina from the Syriac, and another under the same Name, from the Septuagint: Two other Versions of the Pentateuch, the Manuscripts of which are in the Oxford Library, and mention is made in them of the Asterisks and Obelisks of Origen. Several Translations of the Psalms; Two of which are in Print; One published by Augustin Bishop of Nebio and printed at Genoa in the Year 1516. and the other by Gabriel Sionita at Rome in the Year 1619. Mr. Walton makes mention of a Third Translation, of which he says, he has seen several Manuscript Copies, and of a Translation of the Prophets, of which there is a Manuscript Copy in the Oxford Library.  
All these Arabic Versions are made from the Greek Version of the Septuagint, or else from the Syriac Translation, and are neither very Ancient, nor of any considerable Authority, and full of Errors: The best use to be made of them, is that they may serve sometimes to Illustrate some difficult Passages.   

SECT. IV. Of some other Oriental Translations of the Bible.  
THE Gospel being preached to all Nations, and the Holy Scripture being the Foundation of the Christian Religion, which the christians were obliged to red both in Public and Private, there is no doubt, but that from the first Establishment of Christianity among different Nations, the Scripture was translated into their several Languages. St. Augustin in his Second Book of the Christian Doctrine, observes, That the Holy Scripture was spread all over the World, by the Translations that were made of it in many different Languages: And upon the 105th Psalm, he says; That it is God's most signal Mercy, that he has been pleased to let the Scripture be translated into many Languages. St. Jerom, in his Preface upon the Gospel directed to Damasus, testifies; That in his Time, the Holy Scripture was translated into many Languages. St. Chrysostom in his First Homily upon the Gospel of St. John says; That the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Indians, the Persians, the Aethiopians and several other Nations had caused the Gospel to be translated into their Languages. Theodoret in his Fifth Book of the Remedy against the Passions of the Greeks affirms; That the whole World is filled with the Doctrine of the Apostles and of the Prophets, and that the Hebrew Books are not only translated into one Language; but also into those of the Romans, of the Egyptians, of the Persians, of the Indians, of the Armenians, of the Scythians and Sarmatians, in a Word, into all the Languages used by all Nations. Socrates and Sozomen tell us; That Ulphilas Bishop of the Goths, who lived about the middle of the Fourth Century, had translated the Holy Scripture into the Gothic Language. Pope John VIII. gave his Approbation by his Letters to the Version made of the Holy Scripture into the Sclavonian. In short it is a Thing unquestionable, that, in all the Nations where there were any Christians, that spoken another Language besides the Latin and Greek, they had Translations of the Bible in their Native Languages. For though the Greek was current in the Eastern Empire, as the Latin was in the Western, there were nevertheless many both without and within the Empire, which had retained their ancient Native Languages; as the Syrians in some Provinces, under the Patriarch of Antioch, the Egyptians, or Coptes in Egypt, the Carthaginian, or punic Tongue in Africa, &c. In these Places, though most People of any Note understood and spoken either Greek, or Latin, nevertheless the Country People and others of the Vulgar retained their ancient Language, and scarce understood any thing of Greek, or Latin: For which reason it was, that they found themselves obliged to red the Holy Scripture, to Preach and Perform the Church Office in their Native Languages. We have  told you before, that the Syrians, that is to say, those of Isauria, of Osroëna and Mesopotamia had the Syriac Version of the Holy Scripture, St. James of Nisibe in Mesopotamia and St. Ephren of Edessa in Osroëna, explained the Holy Scripture in the Syriac Language, and writ several Books in the same Tongue, for the Instruction of the Faithful. It is sufficiently Manifest out of the Acts of the Council held at Berytus about the Cause of Ibas Bishop of Edessa, that the Bishops of Osroëna did not understand any other Language but the Syriac: For, Uranius Bishop of Himera in Osroëna being one of the Commissioners appointed for the Management of this Cause, they were obliged to make use of an Interpreter to explain to him in the Syriac Tongue, what the other spoken in Greek. And the Two other Bishops, to wit; Photius of Tyre and Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, could not understand Uranius without an Interpreter: So we may observe in the Council of Constantinople under Mennas, held under the Reign of Justinian, that several of the Bishops of the Provinces on the other side of the Euphrates had signed in the Syriac. From whence it is Manifest, not only that the Syriac was the current Language in Mesopotamia and Osroëna, but also that the Greek was not as much as understood by the Bishops, so that it would have been impossible for them to Instruct the People, and to Celebrate the Church Offices, unless they had had the Holy Scripture translated into their Native Tongue, and performed the Church Office in the same. The Religious History of Theodoret serves for a Confirmation of this Truth; for he observes, that in a certain Monastery composed of the Disciples of Eusebius betwixt Antioch and Berea, some of the Monks sung the Church Office in Greek, and some in their Native Language. In the 5th Chapter he relates; That St. Publius of the City of Zeugma situate upon the Banks of Euphrates, having founded a Monastery about thirty Furlongs from that City, was obliged to cause the Church Office to be sung in Greek by those that understood that Language, and in the Syriac by those which were ignorant of it, which was afterwards continued in this Monastery. St. Jerom in the Life of St. Paula tells us, that at the Funeral of this Holy Widow, it was ordered that the Psalms should be Sung in Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Syriac, not only for three Days together till such time that the Corps should be interred near the Manger of our Saviour, but also for a whole Week. Which shows that the Office was so regulated as to be performed in Syriac, Greek and Latin. It is related in the Life of St. Sabas( who lived towards the latter End of the Fifth Century) writ by one of his Disciples, that some Armenians being come to visit this Saint, he assigned them a particular Oratory, where they might sing to the Praise of God in their own Tongue each Saturday and Sunday; and that, their number increasing afterwards, he caused a New Church to be built for the other Christians, and gave the Old one to the Armenians, where they red the Gospel and used their Liturgy in their own Language; that afterwards they received the Communion in the Greek Church, and that St. Sabas was contented to make them sing the Trisagion in Greek; the better to be assured that they should not add these Words: Who have suffered for us; pursuant to the Orders of Peter de Foulon, who usurped the Chair of Antioch, and was a favourer of the Eutychian Heresy. These Armenians who came to visit St. Sabas, would not have performed divine Service in their own Tongue in Palestine, unless they had been accustomend to it before; and consequently they could not red the Holy Scripture in the Armenian Tongue unless they had had a Translation of their own. St. Theodosius who was contemporary with St. Sabas, and Abbot of a Monastery near Jerusalem, had under his Tuition( as it is related by the Author of his Life) Three Monasteries, One composed of Greeks, the Second of Armenians and a Third of those called Besses, each of whom performed their Church Office in their Native Tongue, at the seven caconical Hours: But when they were to receive the Communion, they heard a Sermon each in their own Church and Language, and afterwards met altogether in the great Greek Church, where they received the Sacrament. The Besses are a People of Thrace, which according to this Author, did red the Scripture and officiated in their Churches in a peculiar Language, which, is not unlikely was the Sclavonian.  
The Greek Language was neither understood nor spoken in Egypt, at least not by the common People, in the Thebais, and other Places remote from Alexandria. St. Anthony did not understand Greek, for, when the Greek Philosophers came to consult with him, he could neither understand nor talk with them but by an Interpreter, as it has been observed by St. Athanasius in his Life. So when St. Paphnutius came to visit St. Anthony, he was forced to make use of an Interpreter, because he did not understand the Greek, as it is related by Palladius in his History of the Life of St. Paphnutius. But though St. Anthony did not understand Greek, he knew the whole Bible by Heart; His Disciples bestowed most of their time in Singing of Psalms, in Fasting and Praying, and in the Study of the Holy Scripture: From whence it is evident that the Bible was translated into another Language, such as they were well versed in, and that they sung their Church Office in the same. This is confirmed by what we red in St. Athanasius of the Conversion of St. Anthony; who happening to come into the Church at the same time, that they were reading the Gospel, where our Saviour advised the Young Rich Man, to sell all that he had, and to give it to the Poor and follow him; being touched by these Words, took a resolution to abandon all. He did not understand Greek, it was therefore not in Greek, but in the Egyptian Language, that the Gospel was red at that time when he entred the Church. This is also confirmed by the Testimonies of Palladius and Ruffinus. Palladius says, That St. John of Egypt could not talk with him but by an Interpreter; and Ruffinus, that St. Apollonius gave him three Monks to conduct him and his Companions to those Monasteries in Egypt that understood both the Greek and Egyptian Languages; these were questionless intended to be their Interpreters. It is beyond all doubt, that many of those Christians who lead a retired Life in Thebaïs, did neither understand nor speak Greek, when at the same time the principal business of their Life was, to red and meditate upon the Holy Scripture, and to learn a great Part of it by Heart. From whence it is evident that even since the first Ages of the Church, there was an Egyptian Translation of the Bible. This is the same Language which is now a days called the Coptick, which some believe to have derived its Name from a certain City of Thebaïs called Copte; but it seems more probable, that the Word Copte is the same with that of Egypt, and that by corruption they did pronounce Gopte or Copte instead of Gypte. The Coptic at present contains abundance of Greek and Arabic Words. There are several Manuscripts of some Books of the Old Testament in the Coptic Language, and among others there is One of the Psalms, and a Volume containing the Twelve lesser Prophets, and Daniel, in the French King's Library. There is likewise another Manuscript there of the Four Evangelists, writ in Coptic by a Bishop of Damiata about five hundred Years ago; and another Manuscript of the caconical Epistles, of the Acts of the Apostles, and a Coptic Liturgy. Father Kirker who has seen several Manuscripts of the Bible in the Coptic Language, is of Opinion, that the Coptes did the first time Translate the Scripture into their own Tongue, about the time of the Council of Nice. However it be, their Versions are much more Ancient than the Arabic Translations, which were not introduced till after the Coptic was suppressed, and the Arabic succeeded instead of it, to be the Vulgar Language of the Country: Notwithstanding which, the Coptic Translations were abolished in the Church Service, and this Language was retained among the Men of Learning there, as the Syriac in other Countries, and the Latin among us. It is not improbable, but that the Coptic Versions of the Old Testament were done from the Greek of the Septuagint, which was much esteemed in Egypt. The Coptes are Monophysites or Jacobites, their Patriarch resides at Cairo, and takes also upon him the Title of Patriarch of Alexandria.  
The Ethiopians and Abyssines depend on this Patriarch, who have taken most of their Books and Church Ceremonies from the Coptic Churches, and agree with them in Point of Religion. It is uncertain when they first received the Gospel; some make the Eunuch of the Queen Candace, who was baptized by St. Philip, their Apostle. Scaliger is of Opinion, that they were not converted till under the Reign of Justinian. When one Adad, a King of the Auxumites having made a Vow to turn Christian, if he vanquished the King of the Omerites, introduced the Christian Religion in Ethiopia after he had been Victorious over his Enemy. The antiquity of the Christian Religion among the Ethiopians, seems to be confirmed by several Customs, more Ancient than the Time of Justinian, as for instance that they keep both the Sabbath and Sunday, that they abstain from Blood, and of Things strangled. But it is possible, that they may have received these ancient Rites from some other Eastern Churches, where they were practised, according to the Prescription of some of the ancient Canons what we red in the Apology of St. Athanasius, that he ordained Frumentius Bishop of Auxume, is a convincing Proof, that already at that time there were some beginnings of the Christian Religion among this People. Since that time the Ethiopian Church has been always dependant on the Patriarch of Alexandria, and united with the Egyptian Church. The Ethiopian Language is derived from the ancient Assyrian or Chaldean, which is the Reason they call themselves Chaldeans. Their Language is very different from the ancient Chaldean, though there be a mixture in it of Chaldean, Hebrew and Arabic. The Language used by the Ethiopians now adays, is far different from the ancient Ethiopian in their Books; and they have also two different Characters; One, the Syriac or Holy Character; the Second, the Common. It is without question, that the whole Bible was translated into the Ethiopian Language, and it is reported, that Mr. Gaulmin had an ancient Manuscript of the whole Ethiopian Old Testament. But of all the Books of the Old Testament, there never was any printed but the Psalms and the Song of Solomon in the Ethiopian Language at Rome in the Year 1513. at Cologne in the Year 1518. and since that time in the Polyglotts. This Translation was made from the Greek of the Septuagint, or from some Coptic Version, done from the Septuagint. Ludolphus affirms, That the Ethiopian Bible contains likewise the Apocrypha, that is to say, those called Deutero-Canonical among us, together with the Proto-Canonical.  
The whole Persian Empire never embraced the Christian Faith, nevertheless we are informed by the Ecclesiastical History, that there were many Christian Churches there. So we red in Eusebius, that a Persian Bishop was present at the Council of Nice. And so great was the increase of the Christians, Churches and Bishops, in a little time, that sapour King of Persia raised a general Persecution against them, and killed a great Number of Bishops, Priests and other Christians; it is related by Sozomen in the Second Book of his History, 8th Chapter, &c. Yet was the Christian Religion not so entirely extinguished here, but that some sparks remained, and Theodosius the Younger took upon him the Defence of the Christian Churches in Persia, which were in great Danger of being quiter exterminated by their King. In the time of Cosroës, who was contemporary with Heraclius, there were yet a great Number of Christian Churches throughout Persia. We cannot reasonably doubt, but that the Christians in Persia always had a Translation of the Bible in their Tongue; but there is nothing left of it now adays: And the modern Persian Language is nothing else but a mixture of several other Languages, being entirely degenerated from what it was in ancient Times. The Persian Translations of some Books of Scripture, which we now have, are of a very modern Date. The Pentateuch inserted in the English Polyglotts is translated by a certain Jew, called Tavose or Tavuse, from the Hebrew, for the Use of the Jews, and printed in Hebrew Characters, with the Hebrew Text, and with the Versions of Onkelos and Saadias at Constantinople in the Year 1551. Mr. Walton had Two Persian Manuscripts of the Psalms; one translated by a portugese White friar, and the other by some Jesuits, which he did not judge worthy to be inserted in his Polyglotts.  
It is beyond all question, that many Ages past, the Christian Religion was established in armoniac, and that there were great and flourishing Churches in those Parts. A certain Armenian hermit, called Mesrop, whom they make contemporary with St. Chrysostom, is reputed the first Author of the Armenian Churches, and of the Armenian Translation of the Bible from the Greek and Syriac; but without any creditable Authority. Theodoret affirms, That in his Time the Bible was already translated into the Armenian Tongue, which is confirmed in the Lives of St. Sabas and Theodosius, cited by us before; but if we had not such ample Testimonies on our side, it is without question, that so soon as the Christian Religion was established in armoniac, they had a Translation of the Bible in that Tongue; in our Age, Uscan an Armenian Bishop, being sent abroad by the Patriarch of armoniac, caused an entire Armenian Translation of the Bible to be printed at Amsterdam in the Year 1664, which is the same used among the Christians in those Parts; but its Antiquity is very uncertain. This Bishop passing from thence through France, made a beginning with an impression of several of their Books relating to their Church Office, at Marseilles, where he died before it could be brought to perfection.  
The Muscovites, Iberians or Georgians, and the Inhabitants of Colchis and Mingrelia have likewise Translations of the Holy Scripture in their respective Languages from the Greek, but they are not very Ancient.  
Some are of Opinion, that St. Jerom translated the Holy Scripture into the Dalmatian Tongue, founded upon a certain Passage in his Letter to Sophronius: Quorum( Septuaginta) translationem diligentissimè emendatam olim meae Linguae hominibus dederim. Which has induced them to believe, that St. Jerom being a Native of Dalmatia, speaks in this Place of his Mother Tongue; but there is no doubt, but that he speaks here of the Latin, the common Language of the West, as may be seen in his Preface to Joshua, where speaking of his Latin Translation from the Hebrew, he says, that he offers it to those that understand his Language: Sciat me non in reprehensionem veterum nova cudere, sicut amici mei criminantur; said pro virili parte offer Linguae meae hominibus.  
There are those also, who pretend, that St. Augustin makes mention of a Version of Psalms in the Punic Tongue in his Commentary upon the 118th Psalm; though he speaks not of the Holy Psalms in that Place, but only of the Alphabetical Songs, which were made in his Time, sometimes in the Punic, sometimes in the Latin Tongue; his whole meaning being no more than that they were not so exact to commence each Verse of these Songs by the same Letter, as it was observable in the 118th Psalm. Omnes Octonos Versus in Hebraicis Codicibus ab ea quae illis proponitur littera incipere, ab eis qui illas noverunt litteras nobis indicatum est, quod multò diligentius factum est, quàm nostri vel Latinè vel Punicè, quos Abecedarios vocant Psalmos facere consueverunt. It is very uncertrin whether the Bible was ever translated into the Punic Tongue, the Latin being the common Language used in all the Cities of Africa, whereas the Punic was only retained among the Country Fellows and Slaves, as is evident from many Passages in St. Augustin. For it is manifest out of his Sermons, that they preached generally in Latin in the Cities of Africa; in his four and twenty Sermons upon the Words of the Apostle, alleging a Punic Proverb, he tells them that he will give it them in Latin and not in the Punic Tongue, because that all of them did not understand the last: Latinè vobis dicam, quia Punicè non omnes nostis, which shows plainly that all his Auditors did not understand the Punic Tongue, but the Latin. The Alphabetical Psalm had been composed by St. Augustin for the benefit of the Vulgar and Ignorant Sort of People, which was nevertheless done in Latin. It is also Evident out of St. Augustin, That the Bishops were not versed in the Punic Tongue, and that there were but few Priests, who understood it; for, he observes, that Valerius, his Predecessor, did not understand two African Country Fellows, who spake to him in the Punic Tongue; and out of his 173d Letter, that St. Augustin himself, and Crispin the Bishop of Calamus being to speak before the Country People, were forced to make use of an Interpreter: And out of his 209th Letter: That he had chosen a certain Priest who understood the Punic Tongue, on purpose to sand him to the Castle of Fussala, which demonstrates, that all the Priests were not versed in that Tongue. There is one single Passage in his 84th Letter, which seems to intimate, that there were but few in Africa who understood Latin: But this Place is adulterated, and in lieu of these Words: said cum Latina Lingua cujus inopia in nostris Regionibus Evangelica dispensatio multum laborat; which are absolutely nonsense, it ought to be thus red: said cum Punicae Linguae inopia in nostris regionibus Evangelica dispensatio multum laboret. For it is beyond all dispute, that at Hippo, and in the other African Cities, Latin was the general Language they sucked in with their Mothers Milk; because St. Augustin says of himself, that he had got the Latin Tongue by the kind Expressions of his Nurses of Tagasta, where he was born.  
Generally speaking the Latin Tongue was spread and spoken all over the Western Empire; For, as St. Augustin observes, speaking of Rome, in his 19th Book, of the City of God, in the 5th Chapter: This proud City did not only put the yoke upon the vanquished Nations, but likewise forced them to use the Latin Tongue. Pliny looks upon it as a particular Benefit done to Mankind by the Romans, when they made their Language the common tie of Commerce betwixt so many different and barbarous Nations: Justus Lipsius speaking of the stupendious Progress of the Latin Tongue in the West, has these following Words: This Tongue, says he, After 600 Years confinement, did spread all over the World, as well by the many Roman Colonies, as by the Freedom of the Roman City bestowed upon those of other Nations, which was the occasion the Latin Tongue spread itself over far distant Countries, so, that Plutarch says, that already in his Time the Latin Tongue was spoken in all Parts. But this is chiefly to be understood of the Western and Northern Parts. For the Greeks and Eastern Nations were not so forward in encouraging a Language, which they thought not near so refined as their own. But as for those of Africa, gall, Spain, Pannonia, and England they embraced it with a great deal of Joy, to that degree that this New Tongue by degrees thrust their ancient Languages out of Doors. Et inducto novo paulatim abolitum iverunt veterem sermonem. This is confirmed by Apuléus in reference to Africa, and by St. Cyprian, St. Augustin and some other Fathers of that Nation, in their Sermons. Strabo says of the Gauls under the Reign of Augustus, that they ought not to be called Barbarians, having with the Roman Language also taken up their Customs. He speaks to the same purpose of the Spaniards; as Velleius does of the Pannonians. Tacitus tells us, That Agricola had such an ascendant over the English, that they, who before that time disdained the Latin Tongue, became desirous of attaining to its Perfection.  
The Latin Tongue was therefore generally understood and spoken in all the Provinces of the Western Empire; and those Countries which were without the Limits of the Empire, having not received the Christian Faith till for a considerable time after, what wonder is it if there are no ancient Translations of the Bible in these Languages extant, they having been used to red the Scripture and perform divine Service in the Latin Tongue, which was generally understood all over the World? But when these Barbarous Nations, that had no knowledge of the Latin Tongue, as the Goths, Sclavonians; Sarmatians and others began to embrace the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, they had likewise Translations of the Scripture in their respective Languages: But as they were useful only to them, so they were lost with them. Since that time the Face of Affairs in Europe being changed, and the Roman Western Empire being cantoned out to many Nations, who have created so many different Monarchies, and received the Doctrine of the Gospel, the Latin Tongue, which these Nations by degrees became to be acquainted with, was still retained in the public Office of the Church. But in these latter Ages, the Latin Tongue being not so generally spoken, though the Latin has not been quiter abolished in the public Office of the Church, yet they found themselves under an obligation of instructing the People, and preaching the Word of God, as likewise of Translating the Bible into the Vulgar Languages, used among these different Nations; of which we shall treat in the following Chapter.    

CHAP. IX. Of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongue, and of the reading of the Holy Scripture.  

SECT. I. The History of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongue.  
THE Sacred Historians, have doubtless writ in the Vulgar Tongue generally used and understood at that time in those Countries where they writ. Moses and the other Authors of the Books of the Old Testament before Ezra, writ in the Language of their own People, that the Jews might not want Opportunity to instruct themselves, by the reading of these Books, which contained both the Law of God, and the History of their Ancestors. The Hebrew Language being commonly understood as yet at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, They writ in the same Language; but because the Jews were better used to the Chaldean than their own ancient Characters, Ezra in lieu of the Samaritan Characters, which they made use of before, introduced the Chaldean Characters. The Hebrew being afterwards left off to be spoken among the Jews, they began to Translate the Holy Writ into the Chaldean Tongue, for the Benefit of the Jews living in Judea; whilst the Hellenists, that is to say, those who dwelled in other Countries, and understood and spoken the Greek Tongue, did make use of the Version of the Septuagint, and afterwards of that of Aquila. The Evangelists and Apostles writ at a time when the Greek was commonly used in the Roman Empire, for which reason they made use of this as the most general Language to publish the Gospel all over the World; and for the same Reason it is, the Books of the New Testament were all writ originally in Greek, except the Gospel of St. Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, if we may believe the Ancients, are writ in the Hebrew or Chaldean, being designed for the Jews, who spoken this Language, but were soon after translated into Greek for the general Benefit of all the Christians. Though the Greek was very common even in the West, nevertheless, there being many Persons who did not understand it, they were soon after translated into the Latin Tongue. So likewise those People which understood neither Greek nor Latin, as the Syrians, the Ethiopians, the Egyptians, Armenians and Persians, had their own Translations of the Holy Scripture in their several Languages, after they were converted to the Christian Faith. Afterwards the Arabic being become the Vulgar Language in the Levant, the People had both the Old and New Testament translated into that Language, and of late Years the Greeks themselves have caused them to be translated into the Vulgar Greek. In the West, as long as the Latin Tongue was generally spoken and understood, scarce any Translations were made into the Vulgar Languages. But, after the Latin Tongue began to be suppressed among those Nations, who had built the Foundation of their Monarchies upon the ruin of the Roman Empire, which happened very gradually, each of these Nations had their own Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongue. These are the same Translations we intend to treat of in this Chapter; but as these Versions would be almost useless, if the Lay-men were forbidden, and especially those who don't understand Latin, to red the Holy Scripture, this does oblige us, to examine at the same time, that famous Question, concerning the reading of the Holy Scripture. We will therefore begin this Chapter, with an Historical Account of the Tanslations of the Bible in the Vulgar Languages, to wit: The French, Italian, Spanish, German, English, &c. After which we will examine, First of all, Whether the reading of the Bible be absolutely forbid to the ignorant Lay-men, and whether the Holy Writ was only intended to be perused by the Priests, and other Learned Persons. Secondly, Whether the reading of the Holy Scripture may be useful to all the Faithful, with the Opinion of the Holy Fathers upon this Subject. Thirdly, Whether it be true that in the last Age the Church has forbid the reading of it to the People, as likewise the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongue, and the reason of this Prohibition. Fourthly, Whether this pretended Prohibition holds still good, now the occasion of it is ceased. What is to be said upon this Subject, is intended in reference both to the Old and New Testament.  
It is above eight hundred Years ago, since Othofred, a Benedictin Monk of the abbey of Weissenburg and a Disciple of Raban, translated the History of the Gospel into the Teutonic Language, that the People of that Country, who scarce understood Latin, might the better red the Word of God, as he himself says in his Preface to Luitbert Archbishop of Mentz. I have, says he, writ some Part of the Gospels in French, with Moral and spiritual Reflections, that such, as are not well acquainted with any other Language but their own, may red and understand the Word of God in their Native Tongue, without deviating from it. Scripsi namque eorum precum suffultus juvamine, Evangeliorum partem Franzciscè compositam, interdum spiritualia, moraliaque verba permiscens, ut qui in illis alienae Linguae difficultatem horrescit, hîc propriâ Linguâ cognoscat sanctissima verba, Dominique Legem suâ linguâ intelligens, indè se vel parum quid deviare mente pertimescat. This Work is not so much a Translation of the Gospel of the Four Evangelists, as an History or Concordance taken from the Four Evangelists and divided into Five Books. Matthew Flaccius Illyricus has caused it to be printed at Basil in the Year 1571. and adds in his Preface, that he had seen at Strasburg an ancient Book of the Psalms in the same Language. He also assures us, that Strabo, Raban and Haimo did likewise Translate the Bible into the Vulgar Tongue under the Reign of Charles the Great. But he does not prove his Assertion, neither do I find it confirmed by any other Author.  
In the French King's Library there is a Manuscript of the Psalms in French without either Preface or the Name of any Author, numbered 8177. which is supposed to have been writ in the Eleventh Century; and another numbered 7837. supposed to be done towards the End of the Twelfth Century: The Author of this last calls himself Mr. Peter of Paris, and has dedicated his Work to Simon Rat, Knight Hospitaler of St. John of Jerusalem.  
The most ancient Translation of the Bible into French is that of Guiars de Moulins a Canon of St. Peter d' air in the diocese of Terouane, who was employed in translating the Historical Books of the Old and New Testament from the Year 1291, till 1294, as they are extant in the History of Peter The Eater. There are several Editions of this Translation in the French King's Library, to wit: One numbered 6819. which has an Advertisement prefixed to it, showing the Name and Quality of Guiars de Moulins, and the Time when it was translated. Several others there are numbered 6818, 6820, 6821, 6822, 6823, 6825, 6826, and 6828. writ in a different Style, but translated by the same Hand. The Manuscript numbered 6819. contains only the Translation of the History of Peter The Eater, but the others have likewise besides this, the Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, and the other Books of the Old Testament, as well as the Epistles of the Apostles; yet some of them have only the Translation of the History or Concordance of Peter The Eater, that is to say, the Four Evangelists mixed together, whereas in the others the Four Evangelists are translated separately and in due order.  
Some Historians affirm, that Charles V. King of France caused the Bible to be translated into French under his Reign by Nicholas Oresme superior of the House of Navarre, Doctor of Paris. There are no Manuscripts left now, which expressly bear in the Front the Name of Nicholas Oresme; and according to Tillet, he was not the only Person employed in this Work: But it is very probable, that many of the ancient anonymous Manuscripts of the Bible in the French King's and other Libraries, are of the Translation of Nicholas Oresme, who followed exactly the footsteps of Guiars de Moulins, and for that reason would not set his Name to it. Among others there is One in the French King's Library, numbered 6701. which is supposed to be of Nicholas Oresme, though the same is near the same with that of Guiars de Moulins, because the Author has put the Word Chaplain instead of that of Priest in the 14th Chapter of the Acts, and in the 1st Epistle to Titus. This affectation gives us some reason to believe, that he who made this Alteration was One of the Kings Chaplains, which indeed suits with Nicholas Oresme, who was the Treasurer of the Holy chapel of Paris.  
There is another Manuscript writ much about the same time by Rudolph de Prelles, and dedicated to King Charles V. being a kind of Commentary upon the Scripture, which ends with the Psalms. There are also several other ancient Translations of some part of the Bible in Verse, in the French King's Library, which are done much about the same time.  
Since that time several have applied themselves to revise and correct the French Translations of the Bible, and in the Fifteenth Century James le Grand, a Doctor of Paris, did make a Translation of, or rather a Commentary upon the Old and New Testament, part of which is to be seen in a Manuscript in the Library of Navarre in Two Volumes. At the end of it is set down, that it was done in the Year 1462.  
The First French Bible was printed by the Order of Charles VIII. and dedicated to that Prince, and by consequence before the Year 1498, being the Translation of Guiars de Moulins. There was likewise an Interpretation of the Psalms in French under the Reign of this King. Mr. Baluze has a Second Volume of a French Bible, beginning with the Proverbs of Solomon, printed in the Year 1520. In the Year 1523. Mr. Colins, Printer of Paris, did likewise Print the New Testament in French.  
But the First Edition of the whole Bible translated from the Vulgar Text into French, was printed in the Year 1530 at Antwerp, by Martin Lempereur, with privilege from Charles V. Mr. Simon believes the same to be supposititious, because the date of the Year of Charles V. is the First of his Reign, which is coincident with the Year 1519, and, because it is mentioned in the privilege, that this Translation was communicated to the Inquisitors of the Faith and some other Divines, when it is certain that there was no Inquisition in Flanders; besides that the Translator has translated these Words in Genesis: Ipsa conteret caput tuum, thus; This Seed shall bruise thy Head. And, Lastly, Because that in the Preface, the Books of the Scripture are divided there as the Protestants do, to wit, into caconical, which are contained in the Jewish Canon, and Un-canonical. But these reasons are not very convincing, as Mr. Simon himself has observed: For it must be that there was a mistake in the Date of the Year of the Reign of Charles V. because in the privilege of the Second Edition of the 21st of Nov. in the Year 1533. the Date of the Reign of this Prince is said to be the XIV. and mention is made of a Petition made for that purpose in the Year 1530. Neither is it said in the privilege, that there was an Inquisition in Flanders, but only that this Bible was communicated to the Inquisitors. The Translation of the Words ipsa conteret, is not so very strange, because it ought to be in Latin ipse conteret, as we red it in the best Editions of the Vulgar Translation. As to the division of the Sacred Books, the same is taken from the Preface of St. Jerom. The First Edition of this French Bible in the Year 1530. is to be seen in the French King's Library: The Second of the Year 1534. is larger, and extant in the Libraries of St. Germain des Prez, and of St. Genevieve. These Two Editions are before that of Robert Olivetan, the First published by the Protestants in the Year 1535. and done after this. The Translation we speak of was printed the Third time in the same Place in the Year 1540. which Edition is to be seen in the Jesuits Library of the College of Lewis le Grand. In the next Year, and 1544, and 1548; there was printed at Paris the Old Translation of Guiars de Moulins. The Translation printed at Antwerp, was done with a great deal of exactness, being revised by the Divines of Louvain. The Author himself was a Person of an extraordinary Capacity, who has added his Notes, to show the difference betwixt the Hebrew and Greek, and sometimes explains the most difficult Passages. He had made this Translation from the Vulgar Latin, though at the same he has followed Erasmus in some Places.  
This Antwerp Bible has been as it were the Foundation of all the French Bibles, since published either by the Catholics or Protestants. The First is that of Robert Olivetan a Kinsman of Calvin, who pretends to have been the First who translated the Bible from the Hebrew into French; and he does not make the least mention of any French Translation before his; he has copied the Antwerp Translation, and corrected only such Passages as were different from the Hebrew Text. Besides that it is sufficiently apparent, that Olivetan did not consult the Originals, but only the Latin Versions made from the Greek and Hebrew; and he has with too much Affectation changed the Words of Apostle, Bishop, Priest, Deacon, Calice, received by the Church, for these of ambassador, Overseer, Elders, Minister. Calvin being convinced of the Defects of this Version of Olivetan, did give us a New Edition, which comes much nearer to the Vulgar Latin, and he has again made use of the Names of Apostle, Bishop, Priest, &c. Many Editions were published of this betwixt the Years 1550 and 1561. with Notes, and in every Edition there were some Additions and Alterations made either in the Text or Notes. In the Year 1560. there was printed a New Edition of this Bible revised by Theodore Beza, who again made use of the former Names of Elders, &c. In the following Years, there was published another French Translation of the Bible from the Italian Version of Diodati, which for some time was in Request among the Calvinists. In the Year 1588. the Geneva Translation of the Bible was again corrected by Cornelius Bertrand, Theodore Beza, la Faye, Rotan, Jacquemot and Goulart. They corrected many Errors of the Versions of Olivetan and of Calvin, and rendered this Translation much more conformable to the Hebrew and Greek Text. This is the same that has been ever since made use of among the Calvinists, and which has been little altered since. This is also the same which has been revised by the Sieurs Desmarets, Ministers of Groningen, and printed with Notes at Amsterdam in the Year 1669.  
In the Year 1555. Sebastian Castallio published another French Translation of the Bible at Basil, done from the Latin, with the same Affectation as the Latin, full of extravagant Expressions and in an obscure Style. These are the French Bibles of the Heretics, let us now come to those of the Catholics.  
Renatus Benedict Doctor in Divinity of the Faculty of Paris, Curate of St. Peter des Arcis, and afterwards of St. Eustace, Professor of Divinity in the College of Navarre, did undertake a New Translation of the Scripture, or rather a Reformation of the French Geneva Bible, which was published in the Year 1566. But as he had made this revisal with too much precipitancy, he left many Expressions, which being displeasing to his Brotherhood, this Work was censured by them. Renatus Benedict submitted his Book to the judgement of the Faculty, and of the Bishop of Paris, unto whom it belonged, either to approve or reject this Version of the Bible. The Faculty censured this Work, and the Bishop of Paris refusing to condemn it, they addressed themselves to Pope Gregory XIII. who by his Brief dated the 3d of Nov. 1575. condemned it, as containing many Errors, Heresies, intolerable Blasphemies, as well in the Text, as in the Notes, Additions and Prefaces. Renatus Benedict writ to the Pope, acknowledging his Errors in this Version, which he attributed to his too much precipitancy in publishing it at a time when he thought it most necessary, and submitting himself to the judgement of the Pope and the Faculty. Being afterwards in the Year 1598. made Dean of the Faculty, he renewed his former Protestation, declaring that he himself condemned the Bible published under his Name, the same having incurred the Censure of the Apostolic See, and of the Theological Faculty of Paris.  
Some time after, the Doctors of Louvain did undertake a New Edition of the Translation of the Bible, altogether conformable to the Vulgar Latin, and freed from the Errors and affencted Expressions of the Calvinist Bibles; they followed the Old Antwerp Translation, and that of Olivetan, which they corrected, as Renatus Benedict had done, but with much more exactness. This Translation was printed with privilege from the King of Spain, and with the Approbation of Molanus, Licenser of the Press at Antwerp in the Year 1578. at lions in the Year 1585. and in several other Places.  
Since that time, the French Translations which were published by the Catholics, were for some time nothing else but Copies of the Louvain Edition, corrected in some Places; such was the French Bible of Peter Besse, dedicated to the King and printed at Paris in the Year 1608. and the Bible of Peter Frison, Penitentiary and Canon of the Church of Rheims, printed at Paris in the Year 1620. The Bible of James Corbin, Advocate in Parliament of Paris, printed in the Year 1641. approved by the Doctors of poitiers, does recede more from the Bible of Louvain than the rest, and adheres closer to the literal Sense of the Text of the Vulgar Latin.  
Not long after Francis Veron, whom some call Father Veron, because he had been a Royal Jesuit, though he left that Society to be made Deacon of Divinity, Lecturer upon the Controversies, deputed by the Clergy to writ upon that Subject, and Curate( for these are the Titles he gives to himself), did Publish a New Translation of the New Testament, or rather a New Edition of the Version of the Doctors of Lowvain, revised and corrected after the Text of the ancient Vulgar, published by Clement VIII. and conferred with the Greek. This Edition appeared in the World in the Year 1647. dedicated to the Clergy of France.  
The Translation of Mr. de Marolles Abbot of Villeloin, is not done from the Vulgar Latin, but from the Greek Text, or rather from the Version of Erasmus. Of these there have been Three Editions; the First in the Year 1649. The Second 1653. The Third 1655.  
But we must also take a short view of the Translations of our late Times, which are both better French and more refined than the preceding Editions: The First, is the Edition of the New Testament, which is called the Edition of Mons, because the First Edition of this Work, printed in the Year 1667. was published under the Name of Jasper Migeot Printer at Mons. The Second, is the Translation of the New Testament, done by Father Amelot, Priest of the Oratory, the first Part of which was printed at Paris in the Years 1666. and of which there have been several Editions since. The Third, is the Translation with Explications of the New Testament, done by Mr. Godeau Bishop of Venca, printed at Paris in the Year 1668. The Fourth, is the Translation of the whole Bible, by the Sieur Isaac de Maitre, commonly called of Sacy, done from the Vulgar in several Volumes with literal and spiritual Notes; some part of which was published in his Life time, and since continued by Peter Thomas Lord of Fosse, and is ready to be published. The Fifth, is a Translation of the New Testament, by Father Du Quesnel, Priest of the Oratory, with Moral Reflections; and differs but little from the Edition of the New Testament of Mons, only that the Author has rendered this more conformable to the Vulgar Latin, by altering it in these Places where the other had deviated from the Latin to follow the Greek. The Sixth, is that of the New Testament of Father Bonhours a Jesuit, the first Part of which is now publishing. We may also add the Version of the Psalms, by Mr. Godeau; the Version of the Psalms from the Hebrew, and the Vulgar by Mr. Sacy, and some other Translations of the Psalms. All these Translations are so well known, that we need not give our judgement upon them; recourse may be had in this Case to the Criticisms made upon them, and the Apology writ in their defence. It is time for us to proceed to the Translations of the Bible made in other Vulgar Languages.  
It is near four hundred Years ago, that James de Voragine, Archbishop of Geneva, translated the whole Bible into Italian from our Vulgar. But this ancient Version is quiter lost; the First Italian Translation of the Bible, which we have, was done by Nicholas Malhermi, a Venetian and Benedictin Monk, Abbot of St. Michael de Lemo, translated from the Text of the Vulgar Latin towards the end of the XV. Century. The First Edition was published in the Year 1471. There are two more Editions of it, published in the Year 1477. one of which was revised by Friar Martin a Dominican, and of which there have been many Editions since in Italy. In the Year 1530. Anthony Bruccioli translated the Bible into Italian from the Hebrew, or rather from the Version of Pagninus, which he dedicated to Francis I. King of France. Of this there are three successive Editions within the Years 1539, 1540, and 1541. About the beginning of our Age, John Diodati Minister in Geneva, gave us a New Italian Translation of the whole Bible, very conformable to the French Edition of Geneva. The First Edition was published in 1607. the Second in the Year 1641. are all the Italian Translations of the whole Bible. The New Testament was translated by Father Zachary, a Dominican friar of Florence, and printed apart at Venice in the Year 1542. There is also another Italian Edition of the Epistles and the Gospels printed in 1583.  
There are but few Spanish Bibles. There is an ancient Manuscript of it in the Catalonian or Provence Tongue in Three Volumes in the French King's Library, numbered with 6831, 6832 and 6833. Frederic furious, in his Works entitled Bononia, printed at Basil in the Year 1556. affirms, that there was an ancient Version of the Bible in the Language of Valenza, that it was done about a hundred and thirty Years before that time, and printed forty Years ago; That there was also an ancient Version of the Evangelists in the same Tongue, and a Translation of the Epistles of St. Paul in the Castilian Language, which were suppressed by the Inquisition. Cyprian Valerius makes likewise mention of a Translation of the Bible in the Language of Valenza, published with the Permission of the Inquisitors, and especially of St. Vincent Ferrier; but whether the Inquisitors have since thought fit to suppress these Translations, by reason of the great Number of Jews in Spain, or whether by some other Accident, these Translations are either quiter lost, or lie absconded in some Libraries of Spain, there are none of them in France. The First Spanish Translation of the Bible which is left, is that of Cassiodore Reyna, printed in Germany in the Year 1569. which Cyprian Valerius a Calvinist has since that time caused to be reprinted with some Alterations at Amsterdam in the Year 1602. and at Fancfort in 1622. This Translation was made from the Hebrew, or rather from the Version of Pagninus, and the New Testament from the Greek. The Jews of Ferrara, have also published a Spanish Bible done from the Hebrew, of which there are several Editions. The two First printed at Ferrara in 1553 and 1559. and the last at Amsterdam in 1661. There is a Translation of the New Testament in Spanish, done by Francis Enzinas, and dedicated to Charles V. of which there are also several Editions; and another Spanish Translation of the New Testament different from the before mentioned, printed in 1596. The Translation of Cassiodore Reyna, has been likewise printed apart in the Year 1625.  
Though we have not now adays any German Translations of the Bible before that of Luther, yet both the Protestants and Catholics agree in this Point, that there were some before that time. Mathesius a Lutheran says, that he himself had in his younger Days, seen a German Bible, and that his Father had the Gospel appointed for each Sunday throughout the Year in the same Language, as likewise some Books of the Old Testament with the Postilles. Walter, another Lutheran, confesses, that there were three several German Editions of the Bible before Luther, and the Jesuit Nicholas Schaten a German by birth, writing in the Year 1674. against a Lutheran, who had objected to him, that the reading of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue was not permitted in the diocese of Paderborn; answers thus: If it be so, why were there any German Translations before Luther? Why was afterwards published the Translation of Dietenbergh? Why is that of Ulenbergh in every bodies Hands? Why has the Archbishop of Mentz himself ordered Impressions to be made of the New German Translations of the Bible? After which he alleges in his behalf the Words of lay-man and Serarius, who affirm, that it is generally permitted in Germany to red the Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue; and as to the diocese of Paderborn he answers us, That the Catholics red the Bible with the same freedom as the Protestants. There is not then the least doubt to be made, but that there were German Translations commonly used before Luther, but it is very probable, that according to custom they were done from the Vulgar Latin.  
Luther, soon after he had left the Church, undertook a New German Translation of the Bible, the Old Testament from the Hebrew, the New from the Greek Text; the Style is very neat, but the Translation not very literal nor exact. There have been a vast Number of Editions of it. This was no sooner published but Jerom Emser a Catholic published a German Translation of the New Testament with Notes, in which he criticises upon Luther; and not long after John of Dietenbergh published a German Translation of the whole Bible from the Vulgar Latin, in opposition to that of Luther. The zwinglians and Calvinists did likewise reform Luther's Edition, and published their New Editions at Newstad in 1588. and at Herborn in 1595. which was not pleasing to the Lutherans. Paul Eber, a Lutheran, made also a German Translation printed at Wittenberg in the Year 1564. and afterwards Leon Juda and John Piscator both Calvinists, did likewise make New German Translations of the Bible. But, without insisting any farther upon the Versions and Editions made in the German Tongue by the Lutherans and Calvinists, we will only add here, that Jasper Ulenberg a Catholic, gave us a New Translation printed at Cologne in the Year 1630. which is now commonly used in Germany.  
The Catholics in the Netherlands had several Flemish Translations of the Bible printed in the last Age. There is one printed in 1548. translated by Nicholas van Winghe, who says in his Preface, That he followed a certain Flemish Translation printed in Holland seventy Years before; and consequently before the Reformation. This Bible was revised by the Doctors of Louvain, and printed afterwards at Antwerp in the Year 1599. and several times since. The Protestants of the Low Countries had for a considerable Time no other Translations in their own Tongue, but one made after the German Bible of Luther, till pursuant to a Project and Order made at the Synod of Dort in the Year 1618. they had a New Translation printed in the Year 1637. which is exactly conformable to the Hebrew Text of the Old, and the Greek of the New Testament. The Arminians, who were not satisfied with this New Translation, made another Dutch Translation of the New Testament from the Greek, printed at Amsterdam in 1680.  
The English Historians mention some Part of the Bible to have been translated in the beginning of the VIII. Century, into their Vulgar Tongue, which was the Saxon. John de Trevisi assures us, That Bede Translated the whole Bible into English. There are some who affirm, That Adelm Bishop of Sherbon, who lived in 705, translated the Psalms into the Saxon Tongue, which Translation is attributed by others to King Alfred, who lived near two hundred Years after. There is now extant, a Translation of the Evangelists in the English Saxon Tongue, done from the ancient Vulgar before it was revised by St. Jerom, for which we are beholding to Parker, it is printed at London in the Year 1571. and afterwards at Dort in 1665. and a Translation of the Psalms in the same Tongue by Spelman in 1640. Wiclif translated the Bible into English, which Translation is to be seen in some English Libraries. Under the Reign of King Henry the VIII. several Editions of the Old and New Testament were published in English; to wit: Those of William Tindal and of Coverdal in 1526 and 1530. which being revised by Matthews was reprinted in 1537. There was an Impression of the English Bible made in France in the Year 1538, which was suppressed by King Henry VIII. who in the Year 1540. forbade the Sale of any English Bibles translated hitherto, and at the same time ordered cuthbert Tunstal Bishop of Durham, and Nicholas Heath Bishop of Rochester to make a New Translation, which was published in the Year 1541. But King Henry being not satisfied with this Translation, forbade all the English Vulgar Translations, so that no Body was permitted to red the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue in England without permission, till the Reign of Edward the VI. Then it was, that the Editions of Tindal and Tunstal were revived, and the Translation of the Psalms in the English Liturgy is made after the last of these two. Under the Reign of Queen Mary some English Calvinists who had fled for shelter to Geneva, made a New English Translation of the Bible, after the Geneva Translation, which was printed in 1560. and afterwards by Permission from Queen Elizabeth at London in the Year 1598. The Episcopal Party did what in them lay to have this Translation suppressed, but could not bring it about. Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, undertook a New Translation of the Bible in opposition to this, in which many Persons were employed, and went under the Name of the Episcopal Bible: This Version was made after the Hebrew in the Old, and after the Greek in the New Testament; but did recede in some Places from the Hebrew Original to come the nearer to the Septuagint. But this was the true Reason why King James the I. would not give his absolute Approbation to this Translation, and therefore ordered another to be made, which should be more conformable to the Hebrew Text, which being printed in the Year 1612. was generally received in the Church of England. Besides these Translations, Booth mentions another Translation of the Bible in the ancient Language of the Country printed at London in 1588. and an Irish Translation of the New Testament done by Usher, and an Irish Version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, done by the Order of William beadle, Bishop of Kilmore in Ireland, which is going to be printed in England. The English Catholics have besides these a Translation of their own for their proper Use. The New Testament was printed in Irish in the Year 1602.  
The Northern Nations who embraced the doctrine of Luther, have no other Translations of the Bible, but these done in the Vulgar Tongue after the German Bible of Luther. The Swedish Translation was made by Laurence Petri, Archbishop of Upsal, a Disciple of Luther, and printed at Stockholm in the Year 1646. The Danes have also one in their Language, published first in 1524. and since revised and reprinted in the Year 1633. There is also a Translation of the Bible in the iceland Tongue, which some pretend to be the ancient Language of the Norwegians or goths; and another Finland Translation printed in 1648. The Laplanders have also the Psalms and some other Books of the Bible translated into their Language.  
I don't know of any ancient Catholic Bible in the Polish Language. The Edition printed in the Year 1563. was published by the Socinians, who likewise have printed a Polish Bible in Lithuania in the Year 1652. done from the Greek and Hebrew by Simon Budni. Sands makes likewise mention of a Translation of the New Testament done by Martin Czechovius a Socinian, and printed with Notes, in 1577. the Jesuit Vieki was by order from Pope Gregory the XIII. employed to make a New Translation of the Bible in the Polish Language, which was printed at Cracow in the Year 1599. with the Approbation of Clement VIII.  
The Bohemians have a Bible in their Language with Notes, printed in Germany from the Year 1579, till 1601.  
The Hungarians have a Translation of their own, done by George Caldi a Jesuit, and printed at Vienna in Austria in the Year 1626: They have also another more Ancient printed at Francfort in 1608. and at Oppenheim in 1612.  
We may rest assured, That there is not any Nation or People that are enlightened by the Gospel, who have not the Bible among them, or at least the New Testament, with some Books of the Old, translated into the Vulgar Tongue.  
Thus we have given you an Abridgement of the History of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Languages. We will desist from saying any more upon this Subject. Those who are curious to be better instructed in this Point, may consult the Second Tome of the Critical History of the Versions of the New Testament, by Mr. Simon, to whom we stand in some measure indebted, for what we have said upon this Subject.   

SECT. II. Whether the Holy Scripture was intended to be red by all the Faithful in general, or by the Priest's only, or Persons enlightened in Matters of Religion.  
IT is very hard to imagine, that so extravagant a Paradox as this could enter into the Thoughts of Men; that the Sacred Scripture of the Old and New Testament, was only intended to be red by the Priests, and other Persons enlightened in Matters of Religion; and that, according to the true Intention of God and Sacred Authors, the reading of the Bible was not permitted either to the Jews or Christians in general; but to be kept from them as an hidden Mystery; It is, I say, very hard to imagine that a Thought so little Consonant to right Reason as this, could enter into the Thoughts of any rational Man, if some modern Authors had not attempted to Patronzie this Paradox, as unreasonable as it is: But it is no difficult Task to evince the contrary from the Holy Scripture itself, and the constant practise both of the Jews and Christians.  
For, First of all, it was not for the Priests alone that Moses writ the Law; but for the general Benefit of all the Israelites: 'tis to them in General he gives his Commands and addresses his Prohibitions, Admonitions and Threats; he speaks to the whole People, when he publishes the Ordinances he had from God. In the 13th Chapter of Exodus, he promulges to them the Ceremonies of the Passover; Dixit Moses ad Populum, meminisse oportet diei hujus, &c. And afterwards he recommends to all the Israelites, that they shall instruct their Children and make known to them the Reason of this Institution: Cûmque interrogaverit te filius tuus eras, dicens, quid est hoc? respondebis ei: In manu forti eduxit nos Dominus de Terrâ Aegypti, de domo servitutis. And a little after he tells them, that it shall be for a Token upon their Hands, and Frontlets between their Eyes: Erit igitur quasi signum in manu tua,& quasi appensum quid ob recordationem ante oculos tuos. It is to all the People of Israel God gave his Commands, in the 20th Chapter of Exodus; and when afterwards he gave his Instructions to Moses concerning many other Laws, he orders him, to tell them to all the Children of Israel: Haec dices filias israel, &c. Haec sunt judicia quae propones eis. And Moses pursuant to God's Commands, speaks to the whole People and makes his Laws known to them; the People answer him with one Voice, and he writes the Laws for all the People in general. Venit ergo Moses& narravit Plebi omnia verba Domini atque judicia: Responditque omnis Populus unâ voice: Omnia verba Domini, quae locutus es, faciemus. Et scripsit Moses universos sermons Domini. It was not to the Priest or Elders he communicated the Law he had received from God, but to all the People; which he assembled on purpose when he was to tell them what concerned the Observation of the Sabbath, and the Construction of the Tabernacle: Igitur congregatâ omni turbâ filiorum israel dixit ad eos, &c. Et ait Moses ad omnem coetum filiorum israel; Hoc est verbum quod praecepit Dominus, dicens, &c. Though Leviticus contains many Laws which have a more strict Relation to the Priests and Levites, than to the People in General; nevertheless unless it be in some Matters which have a peculiar Reference to Aaron's Person, Moses always speaks by God's order, to the whole People of Israel: Vocavit autem Moses,& locutus est ei Dominus de Tabernaculo Testimonii, dicens: Loquere filiis israel,& dices ad eos, &c. Levit. 1. Locutusque est Dominus ad Moses& Aaron, dicens: Dicite filiis israel. Levit. 11. Et locutus est Dominus ad Moses, dicens: Loquere Aaron& filiis ejus, cunctis filiis israel: Iste est sermo quem mandavit Dominus, dicens, &c. Levit. 17. Locutus est Dominus ad Moses, dicens: Loquere ad omnem caetum filiorum israel. Levit. 19. &c. In the same Manner God speaks in the Book of Numbers: Locutus est Dominus ad Moses, dicens: Praecipe filiis israel, Num. 5. Locutúsque est Dominus ad Moses dicens: Loquere ad filios israel,& dices ad eos, &c. Num. 6. and in several other Places. But the Book of Deuteronomy puts it beyond all question that it was the Intention both of God and Moses, that the whole Law should be red by the People. This is a short Repetition of the whole Law, made by Moses before his Death, which he first red before all the People, and afterwards writes it down: Haec sunt verba quae locutus est Moses ad omnem israel trans Jordanem in solitudine campestri, Deut. 1. Vocavitque Moses omnem Israëlem,& dixit ad cum: Audi israel ceremonias atque judicia, quae ego loquor in auribus vestris hody, discite ea& opere complete. Deut. 5. He repeats to them God's Commandements; he would have them not to be Ignorant of them, and not to Neglect them; he recommends to them, to keep them in perpetual Remembrance, and to transmit them to their Children; he tells them that these Commandments are not very difficult to be performed, that they should have them always in their Mouths and Hearts, and last of all writes the Law to be red by them; as may be seen in the 30th and 31st Chapter; of the same Book: Mandatum hoc quod praecipio tibi hody, non supra te est, neque procul positum, nec in Caelo situm, ut possis dicere, quis nostrûm valet ad Coelum ascendere ut deferat iilud ad nos, &c. said juxta te est sermo valdè in ore tuo& in cord tuo ut facias illum, &c. Scripsit itaque Moses Legem, hanc& tradidit eam Sacerdotibus filiis Levi, &c. Praecepitque eis, dicens; post septem annos, anno remissionis in solemnitate Tabernaculorum convenientibus cunctis ex israel, ut appareant in conspectu Domini Dei tui in loco quem elegerit Dominus, leges verba Legis hujus coram omni israel, audientibus eis,& in unum omni populo congregato, tam viris quàm mulieribus, parvulis& advenis qui sunt intra portas tuas. Here we see all the Men, Women and Children admitted to the reading of the Scripture; and Moses gives for a Reason, that they may understand and know the Law, that they may fear the Lord their God, and keep all the Ordinances of his Laws: Ut audientes diseant,& timeant Dominum Deum vestrum,& custodiant, impleantque omnes sermons Legis hujus. And this was not alone intended for the Israelites then living, but also for their Posterity, who were to live on the other side of Jordan: Filii quoque eorum qui nunc ignorant, ut audire possint& timeant Dominum Deum suum, cunctis diebus quibus versantur in Terra ad quam vos Jordane transmisso pergitis obtinendam. Last of all, Moses does not only order them to have always in their Mouths and Hearts, what he lays before them by God's Command; but also to instruct their Children, that they may observe God's Commandments; for, says he, it is not in vain to you, it being your Life and the Word by which you shall prolong your Days: Ponite corda vestra in omnia verba quae ego testificor vobis hody, ut mandetis ea filiis vestris custodire& facere,& implere universa quae scripta sunt Legis hujus: Quia non incassum praecepta sunt vobis, said ut singuli in eis viverent, quae facientes longo perseveretis tempore in Terrâ, ad quam Jordane transmisso ingredimini possidendam. Was it possible for Moses to explain himself more clearly, that his Intention was, that the Law of God should be red and understood by all the Israelites in General, Priests, Levites, Laics, Men, Women and Children, &c.  
Secondly, In respect of the Historical Books of the Bible. To what purpose were the Books of Joshua, of the Kings, of the Judges, &c. writ? Unless it were to let the Jews understand, that God had fullfill'd his Promises made to their Ancestors, to instruct them in what had any relation to the Affairs of their Nation, and to give them to understand, that as often they had left God, they had also been abandoned by him; and when ever they had had recourse to his Mercy, and had repented, he had at all times secured and protected them. This it was, which not only the Priests and Levites, but also the whole People of Israel, were to be made sensible of, and therefore it was requisite that these Books should be in the Hands of all the Jews.  
Thirdly, It is more evident still that the Hymns or Psalms which were composed either to pray, to, or else to praise and thank God for his Mercies, and which were Sung publicly by all the People, were not intended only for the Priests and Levites. How often are all the Saints, all the Just, and in short, all those that adore the True God, all Mankind and the whole Earth invited to praise the Lord! Praise the Lord, says the 67th Psalm, in the Assemblies, all you that are of the race of Israel. Let the whole Earth sing the praise of the Lord. You Children of God praise the Lord; The People shall praise his Name. You Servants of God bless the Lord. All that stand at the Entrance of the Tabernacle praise the Lord. Let his praise be published in the Congregations of the Just. Children and Old Men, Men and Women praise the Lord. These are the ordinary Expressions made use of by the Psalmist.  
Fourthly, The Moral Books were writ to Instruct all People without exception in their Duty, for they contain such Precepts as are absolutely necessary as well for Women as Men, for the Ignorant as well as the Learned, for Young and Old, Rich and Poor. It is said in the very beginning of the Proverbs of Solomon, that they were writ to know Wisdom and Instruction, and perceive the Words of Understanding: To receive the Instruction of Wisdom, Justice and judgement and Equity: To give subtlety to the simplo, to the Young Man Knowledge and Discretion: To increase the Wise Mans Learning, and for Men of Understanding to attain unto wise Councils. Was it possible for Solomon to express himself more plainly, that his Design was to writ for the Instruction of the simplo and Ignorant People, though at the same time the Wiser Sort might reap an Advantage by reading his Works? It is said in the Book of Ecclesiastes, That the preacher sought to find out acceptable words, words upright, and words of truth: That the words of the wise are as goads and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies to guide the people.  
Fifthly. Most of the Prophecies are either Admonitions, Instructions, Reproaches, or Threats, which the Prophets made to the Jewish People by God's Command; and they did not address themselves to the Priests only, but to all the People.  
Sixthly. It was the constant Opinion of the Jews that the Sacred Writ ought to be red by all those of their Religion. Moses in his sixth Chapter of Deuteronomy recommends it to them: These words, says he, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart. Thou shalt teach them unto thy children, and shalt talk of them in thine house, when thou walkest abroad, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. Thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. Thou shalt writ them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. The same thing he recommends in the same words in the Eleventh Chapter: It cannot be supposed that he speaks in this place of one part of the Mosaic Law only, or of some peculiar Precepts, because he mentions expressly all the Commandments of God. But grant, that he meant only the principal and most essential parts of the Law, if they were to meditate upon them, the Jews must of necessity peruse these Books which were writ by God's express Command for their instruction. Pursuant to this Law given to the Jews, they always used to red the Scripture both in public and private, which they could not forego without acting contrary to the express Command given them by Moses by God's order. It was for this reason that when Josiah found the Book of Deuteronomy in the Temple, which had lain neglected during the late Troubles, as well as some other Ceremonies prescribed in the Mosaic Law, he was extremely troubled, because they had neglected the reading of this Book, and calls together the Inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, not only the Priests and Levites, but the whole People, both small and great, and caused it to be red all over in their presence; That they might all hear it: Ascendit in Domum Domini, unáque omnes viri Juda& habitatores Jerusalem, Sacerdotes& Levitae,& cunctus populus à minimo ad maximum, quibus audientibus in Domo Domini legit Rex omnia verba Voluminis. The Jews during their Captivity, tho in a foreign Country, yet were not forgetful of reading the Law. Daniel, as we have observed before, did both red and meditate upon it; and why should it be supposed that the other Jews who were Pious and Religious, should not have done the same thing. After their Return from the Babylonian Captivity, to render the Law more general and useful, Ezrah caused the same to be writ in Chaldean Characters, at that time better known to the Jews, than the ancient Hebrew; and to demonstrate that he intended it to be red and understood by every body, he ordered it to be red in the presence of all the People, both Men and Women, that were capable of understanding it. Attulit ergo Esdras Sacerdos legem coram multitudine virorum& mulierum, cunctisque qui poterant intelligere.—& legerunt in Libro Legis Dei distinctè& apertè ad intelligendum,& intellexerunt cum legerunt. 2 Esdr. 8. Take these words in what sense you please, it is evident that Ezrah was absolutely of opinion, that the Scripture ought to be red and understood by the People. In our Saviour's time the Jews used to red the Old Testament in their Synagogues, in such a manner as to be understood by all, for it is said in the fourth Chapter of St. Luke, that when Jesus came into the Synagogue at Nazareth, the Book of the Prophet Isaiah was delivered unto him, and when he had opened it, and red several Lines, he closed the Book again; and the Eyes of all being fastened upon him, he  told them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears; and all, adds St. Luke, bare him witness: Which evinces, that they had understood the Contents of that part of the prophesy which Jesus red: If it was in Hebrew, it is a sign they had retained so much as yet of the Hebrew Tongue, as to understand what was red to them; tho perhaps they did not speak it: If it was a Translation, this was questionless done with an intention to make the Bible to be understood by the People. The Acts of the Apostles inform us that the Law and the Prophets used to be red in all the Synagogues of the Jews, it being said in the 15th. verse of the 13th. Chapter, that St. Paul and his Company being come to Antioch in Pisidia, and going into the Synagogue on a Sabbath-day, after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, they desired them to make an Exhortation to the People. And in the 15th. Chapter, St. James says, That Moses of old time had in every Synagogue of every City they that preach him, being red every Sabbath-day. Ubi per omne Sabbathum legitur. It is not improbable but that the Hebrew Jews used to red them in Hebrew; they knowing enough of the Hebrew to understand them, being educated and accustomend from their Infancy to the reading of the Sacred Writ, there being at this day few among them who don't bring up their Children to be capable of understanding the Scripture in Hebrew. They have a certain Ordinance, very famous in their Gemara, by virtue of which each Jew is obliged to Transcribe one Copy of the Law with his own hands. But for the better conveniency of such as did not readily understand Hebrew, the Hebrew Jews made use of the Chaldean Interpretations which were red from time to time, after the Hebrew Text. The Jewish Hellenists, who did neither understand Hebrew nor Chaldee, they used to red the Version of the Septuagint in their Synagogues; and afterwards, as was observed before, the Interpretation of Aquila. Neither was it in their public Assemblies only, that the Jews red the Law in the time of our Saviour, but also in private, as is evident from several passages in the New Testament. Jesus Christ speaking to the Jews in the fifth Chapter of the Gospel of St. John, tells them, that they should search the Scriptures; Scrutamini Scripturas; that they testify of him. They red therefore the Scripture. In the 16th. Chapter of St. Luke, Abraham tells the rich Man, who prayed him to sand Lazarus to his Brethren: They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them; which is as much as to say, let them red the Law of Moses, and the Prophets; for nothing can be more ridiculous than to understand this passage, as a certain Modern Author does, of the Person of Moses and the Prophets. In the 11th. verse of the 17th. Chapter of the Acts, it is said, That the Jews of Berea received the Word with all affection and readiness, and that they preached the Scripture to see whether what was red to them, were true. St. Peter in his second Epistle to the Jews scattered through the Provinces of Asia, tells them, That they have a more sure Word of prophesy, whereunto they do well that they take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place. St. Paul writing to Timothy, represents it to him as a peculiar Grace of God, that he had been Educated in the understanding of the Holy Scripture from his Infancy; Et quia ab infantia sacras literas nosti. For this he stood indebted to his Mother Eunice,( his Father being a Pagan) or else to Lois his Grand-mother, who in this Point followed the Custom of the Jews. It is related in the 8th. Chapter of the Acts, that the Eunuch of the Queen Candace being come to Jerusalem to Worship, did in his Return sitting in a Chariot red the Prophet Isaiah, and it is very apparent, that he understood the words, tho he did not understand the true sense of them. To be short, it is beyond all question, that the Jews always did, and do to this day, red frequently the caconical Books; that they have always made the reading of the Scripture, and do to this day make it their chief business: That those who understand Hebrew red it in the Original Tongue, the rest in the Syriac, Greek, Arabic, or any other Tongue, according to what is enjoined in the Jerusalem Talmud; that those who cannot red it in Hebrew, ought therefore not to neglect the reading of it, but ought, according to their duty, to red the Holy Books in such a Tongue as they understand. This is the reason that both the Ancient and Modern Jews, have made many Translations of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue, as we have mentioned before. There were only some few parts of the Bible which the Jews did forbid to be red by the younger sort; to wit, The beginning of Genesis: The beginning and latter part of Ezekiel, and the Song of Solomon; the rest being generally red by all, even by the Children. It is a custom among the Hebrews, says Origen, Hom. 1. in Cant. that their Doctors and Elders, let their Children red all the Books of the Holy Scripture, not excepting their Traditions; they only reserve for those of a Riper age, the beginning of Genesis, the beginning and end of Ezekiel, and the Song of Solomon. St. Jerom determines this Age to Thirty; but St. Gregory of Nazianzen to Twenty five. This exception is a convincing argument for our assertion, that it was Customary among the Jews to red the Scripture from their Infancy, unless those few places, which however they were also permitted to red, when they came to a greater maturity.  
Seventhly. The Apostles, the Disciples of Christ, and the Primitive Christians, following in this the footsteps of the Jews, did as well as they red the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the rest of the Books of the Old Testament. The Apostle St. Paul recommends this in the following words, Rom. 15. That whatsoever thing were written for our instruction, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Quaecunque scripta sunt ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt; ut per patientiam& consolationem Scripturarum spem habeamus. Add to this passage that before mentioned of St. Peter, in his address to the Converted Jews.  
Eighthly, In what relates to the New Testament, it is unquestionable, that Jesus Christ is come to publish the Christian Religion to all the World. He did preach to all without the least difference of age, sex or condition of persons; if he selected any, they were such as were judged most ignorant in the eyes of the world; which shows his intention to have been, that his Doctrine should be manifested, as well to the simplo and ignorant, as to the rest. The Evangelists writ for the general Benefit of all the Faithful: These are written, says St. John, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through his Name. The Gospels were from the first Infancy of the Church, in the hands of all the Christians, and red publicly in all the Churches of the Faithful. How can it then be said that it was against our Saviour's and his Apostles intention? St. Paul addresses himself in his Letters, not only to the Priests and Ministers, but in general to all the Faithful of those Churches, unto whom he writ; and whenever he writes to the Pastors alone, as to Timothy and Titus, they are directed to them alone; but when he writes to the Churches, he says to all the Faithful: Thus in his Epistle to the Romans, To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be Saints. In his first to the Corinthians: Unto the Church of God whi h is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be Saints, with all that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, both theirs and ours. In his second to the Corinthians: Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Achaia. In his Epistle to the Ephesians: To the Saints which are at Ephesus. In that to the Philippians: To all the Saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. In that to the Colossians: To the Saints and Faithful Brethren in Christ, which are at coloss. In his Epistle to the Galatians and Thessalonians he addresses himself only to the Churches; but under the word Church he comprehends all the Faithful that belong to it. His Admonitions and Reproofs are not directed to their Pastors only, but to all the Faithful, whom he also enjoins to admonish their Pastors of their Duty; as for instance, in his Epistle to the Colossians: Say to Archippus, Take heed to the Ministry, which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it. He wills and commands them to red his Letters in the Assemblies of the Faithful: When this Epistle, says he to the Colossians, is red among you, cause that it be red also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise red the Epistle from Laodicea. Towards the latter end of his Epistle to the Thessalonians, I charge you, says he, by the Lord, that this Epistle be red unto all the Holy Brethren. Adjuro vos per Dominum ut legatur haec Epistola omnibus sanctis Fratribus. He makes use, says Theodoret, of an Oath to convince them of the benefit which would redound to them from the reading of the Sacred Writ, being afraid that those who first received his Letters might not communicate them to all the rest. Nothing therefore can be more absurd, than to affirm, the intention of St. Paul to have been, that his Letters should not be understood by the Vulgar, but only the Priests and Doctors of the Church, because he declares positively, nay conjures them, to have them red before all the Faithful.  
Ninthly, We have shew'd before, that it was the constant practise of the Church from its first Infancy, to red the Sacred Writ publicly in those Languages best understood by the People, who likewise made use of it in private: That those who did understand neither Greek nor Latin, had immediately after they embraced Christianity, Translations of the Holy Scripture, in their respective Native Tongues, which they red both in public and private: That when the Greek and Latin was no more generally spoken among the People, the Christians of all Nations took care to have Translations of the Bible into their Vulgar Languages; and that tho for some reasons they did think fit to retain the Ancient Language in their Church-Office, they were nevertheless very careful, that even the most ignorant of the Faithful might not be destitute of that comfort of being able to red and understand the Holy Scripture. All which sufficiently evinces that it was never intended by the Church, that the Holy Scripture was for the use only of the Clergy, and other persons, above the common capacity, and that the more ignorant sort should be excluded; and as it may be said, deprived from receiving the nourishment of the Word of God.  
What Objections are made against this Assertion, are either founded upon false Suppositions, refuted by us already, or upon such mean Reasons, as scarce deserve any farther Answer, sufficiently discoursed in that learned Book of Mr. Arnaud, of the reading of the Holy Scripture, unto which we are beholding for the greatest Part we have, and are to say upon this Subject. The false Suppositions before refuted are: That the Books of the Old Testament were not writ Originally in the Language vulgarly used among the Jews, neither in such Characters as were known to all, these having been lost, during the time of their Captivity: That the reading of them was forbidden to the Jews: That the Books of the New Testament, were likewise not writ in the Vulgar Tongue, and that for several Ages, there were no Translations used in the Church: That Greek and Latin, was not generally spoken or understood in most of the Provinces of the Empire; and that the common People, who had no Knowledge of these Tongues, had no Translations of the Holy Scripture in their own Languages; but that, they red the Scripture, and performed the Church Offices in Greek and Latin. All these Suppositions, I say, having been refuted before, the Conclusion made from thence, that the Scripture was not intended to be red by all the Faithful; but only by the Priests, does destroy itself. The Reasons alleged against the reading of the Scripture are so feeble, that to show their absurdity, it is sufficient to mention them. They say, the Pagan Philosophers were always very careful, to hid their Maxims and Books from the Vulgar, and that consequently it would be a profanation to put the Holy Scripture into the Hands of the common People. An excellent Consequence indeed, supposing their first Proposition to be true; which however they will scarce be able to prove, it being certain, that the Treatises of the ancient Philosophers were red by every Body, and that, whenever their Intention was to hid any of their Maxims or Points of Doctrine, it was not done by keeping them from the sight of the World, but by involving them in obscure Words. They likewise allege in their behalf the Custom of the Pagans, who were very careful not to divulge the Mysteries of their Religion; from whence they would conclude, that the Mysteries of the true Religion ought to be kept hidden from the Jews and Christians; just, as if there was the same reason for the Christians to hid their Holy and Sacred Mysteries, as the Pagans had not to disclose the Infamies, Impieties and Superstitions of their profane Mysteries, which indeed must turn to their own shane and Confusion; whereas the Christian Religion, the more it is known, the more respect it will inspire into all. Truth, as a certain ancient Author observes, fearing nothing more than to be hide. 'tis true, there was a certain time in the Church, when the Christians would not speak too plainly before the Pagans and the Catechumens of the Sacraments; but they never hide any of these Mysteries from those that were baptized, and the Secrecy enjoined in respect of the Catechumens, was not the forbidding of the reading of the Scripture, which was allowed them, but only in reference to the Doctrine of the Eucharist. The instance they give of God's Conduct with the Jews, unto whom he gave a Figurative Law, does not imply that God did not intend they should red this Law; but rather to give them to understand, that even those, unto whom he thought not fit as yet to discover his Mysteries, might red the Scriptures without being able to apprehended them. Moses did not speak to the People without a veil over his Face. This does not imply that he spoken to them in obscure Words; the veil being made use of for no other end, but, because the Children of Israel were not able to see his Face, by reason of the glorious Light that issued from thence; and if any mystical Sense is to be taken from the veil, it implies no more, than that the Jews had a certain veil which covered their Hearts, and rendered them incapable of comprehending the Mosaic Figurative Law: But this veil, according to St. Paul, is removed from the Christians. Another Objection they make, taken from the Ark of Testimony, where the Sacred Law was to be deposited, and to be red publicly by the Priests; from whence they would draw this Consequence, that the Books containing the Mosaic Law, were known only to the Priests and Levites, that it was only they that kept Copies of them, which they communicated to the People only by their reading in public; but these are very slender Arguments: For, because the Mosaic Law-Books were preserved in the Tabernacle, no consequence can be drawn, that the People had no Copies of them; that in the Tabernacle was the Authentic Original, which with all the reason in the world was preserved there: And from thence that God ordered the Priests to red the Law in public every seventh Year, it follows indeed that his intention was, that the People should not be Ignorant of it, but not in the least that they should be debarred from reading it, upon any other Occasion; on the contrary the Apostles tell us, that the Books of Moses, used to be red every Sabbath-day in the Synagogues of the Jews.  
They allege in reference to the New Testament, that Jesus Christ did not divulge his Doctrine in plain Expressions, but in Parables and Figures: But they might have observed also, that this was done only in respect of some of the incredulous Jews, whereas he explained his Mysteries to his Apostles and Disciples. Unto you, says he, it is given to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to others in Parables, that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand. It is to those who are converted, that it is given to understand the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and those, who neither are, nor never will be converted, it is not revealed by Parables. God hides his Mysteries from the Wise of the World, and reveals them to the simplo and Ignorant. According to this Maxim, which has a particular Relation to the reading of the Holy Scripture, the simplo and Ignorant, and of an humble Condition, are more adapted for the understanding of the Scripture, than the Wise and high-flown Doctors. But without insisting any farther upon the Refutation of such frivolous Arguments, we will consult the Authority of the Scripture itself, and of the Fathers, concerning the Benefit, which may accrue to all the Faithful by the reading of the Bible.   

SECT. III. Of the Benefit that Believers may receive by reading the Holy Scriptures. The judgement of the Fathers upon that Subject.  
IT looks too much like profaneness to doubt of the usefulness of reading the Holy Scriptures; for that is to doubt whether the Word of God be of use to us, and consequently to call in question his Wisdom and Goodness. It's possible the Holy Scriptures, tho useful in themselves, may become not only useless, but prejudicial, thrô the ill disposition of those that red them; but to suppose them to be of no use in themselves, and that Believers who red them with a submissive and humble temper, cannot profit by them, is directly to affront the Oracles of the Holy Ghost, and the practise of the Church: it is to despise the Counsel so often given by Moses from God, to red and meditate continually on his Law; to have it always before our eyes, and in our memories: It is to give no credit to the Oracle of the Psalmist, which assures us, Psal. 19. That the Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the Soul; that his Testimony is sure, making wise the simplo; that the Statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; that his Commandments are pure, enlightening the eyes. It is to have no regard to the fervent Prayer, so often repeated in the 119th Psalm, wherein David entreats of God the Grace to meditate continually on his Law, and to understand it; and where he declares with so much zeal the great Excellencies and Advantages of it: O how I love thy Law! it is my meditation all the day. I am become wiser than all my Teachers, by making thy Testimonies my Meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy Commandments. I have refrained my feet from every evil way, &c. Through thy Precepts I get understanding, therefore I hate every false way. Thy Word is a Lamp to my feet, and a Light to my path. I should be forced to transcribe the whole Psalm, to allege every thing in it that respects the benefit that may be gained by reading and meditating on the Law of God. The New Testament is as express: The words of JESUS CHRIST are words of Life; they were written that we might believe in him, and that believing we might have Eternal Life. Whatsoever things were written, were written for our learning, that we thrô patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. All Scripture divinely inspired, is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness; that the Man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good Works. Thus JESUS CHRIST, the Evangelists and Apostles speak of the use which may be made of the Holy Scriptures. And who after this can doubt but that the reading them may be profitable to all Believers, if accompanied with a teachable and humble mind?  
If we consult the Tradition of the Greek and Latin Church upon this Subject, we shall find that the Fathers have unanimously exhorted all Believers, with great earnestness, to red the Holy Scriptures, and shown the usefulness of them in very significant Expressions, and by convincing Arguments.  
S. CLEMENT, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, the most ancient and authorized Monument we have, next to the Holy Scriptures, speaks in this manner to the Christians of the Church of Corinth, to whom he writes about reading and meditating on the Holy Writings: You have red, says he, my dear Brethren, the Holy Scriptures, and you are thoroughly instructed in them: you have carefully applied yourselves to meditate on the Word of God; retain it therefore in your memories, and think upon it often. This Advice supposes that in his time all Christians red the Holy Scriptures.  
S. IRENAEUS, in the 46th Chapter of his second Book against Heresies, declares expressly, that all the Scriptures, both Prophetical and Evangelical, may be understood by all Persons: Cum itaque universae scripturae,& Propheticae& Evangelicae, in aperto,& sine ambiguitate,& similiter ab omnibus audiri possint. He adds in the next Chapter, that the Scriptures are perfect, as being dictated by the Spirit of God, and by his Word: Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt, quip à Verbo Dei& Spiritu ejus dictae. And then he lays down a Rule to be observed in reading them, which is to make a good use of what we understand, and to leave to God those things which are incomprehensible to us. In the 20th Chapter of the 5th Book he says, That it is the property of a Christian to feed upon the Scriptures, in the Bosom of the Church: In ejus sinu educari,& scriptures Dominicis enutriri: And that this was signified by God's commanding Adam to eat of all the Trees of Paradise, the Spirit thereby giving us to understand, that all the Divine Writings ought to be our Food: Ab omni ergo ligno Paradisi escas manducabis, id est, ab omni Scriptura Dominica manducate.  
S. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, after he had said, in the first Book of his Pedagogue, Chap. 11. That the Word of God is the health of our Souls: That in former times it served us instead of a Pedagogue, by Moses, and then by the Prophets; but that last of all the Father had sent us his well-beloved Son, whom we ought to hear; tells us in the third Book of the same Treatise, Chap. 8. That this Divine Pedagogue proposes to us all manner of Instructions, Examples and Parables, to take us off from 'vice, and excite us to Virtue. And in Chap. 11. he frames to himself this Objection: But we are not all capable, you will say, of this Divine Philosophy. To which he answers thus: Are not we all capable of attaining to the true Life? What will you then answer me? How did you believe? How do you love God and your Neighbour, if you are incapable of the Philosophy I speak of? How do you love your own selves, if you have no affection for the true Life? But, will you say again, I have not learned to red? If you cannot red, you have no excuse to make against hearing what shall be red to you. The same he teaches in the 7th Book of his Stromata, where he says: That the Sacrifices of a Christian are Prayer, praising God, and reading his Word. And that we must expect to stumble, when we do not follow God as our Leader, who guides us by the inspired Writings.  
It is known that ORIGEN studied the Holy Scriptures from his Childhood, and that this was one of the things which Antiquity most extolled and admired in that great Man. For it was not then thought dangerous for Laymen and Children to red the Sacred Writings. And as he had been brought up in that reading, so he recommends it to others, and insists much upon the usefulness of it. In his 19th Homily on St. Matthew, he says, That the Vineyard whereof JESUS CHRIST speaks in his Parable, is the Holy Scripture, which the householder let out to Husbandmen, that is, had committed to the Jews; not only to the Priests, but to the common People. He adds, that it is given also to us, That the Scripture is our Vineyard, and that the Fruit God expects we should render to him out of this Vineyard, is to govern ourselves so by its Divine Instructions, that our Lives may be blameless, and all our Actions edifying. And in his 8th Book on the Epistle to the Romans, Chap. 11. he says; That the whole Scripture is that Table of which it is said in the Psalms, Let their Table be made a Snare, which the Apostle applies to the Jews: That this was the Table of the People of Israel, because the Oracles of God were committed to them, and all that is called the Old Testament. That every one of them might sit at this Table, and there feed upon the Word of God, set before them in the Books of the Law and the Prophets.  
One of his best Pieces, is undoubtedly the Refutation of Celsus his Book against the Christian Religion. That Pagan Philosopher had expressed a contempt of the Sacred Writings, as being written in a plain style, which had nothing in it comparable to the Beauty of that of the Philosophers. But it is upon this account that Origen extols the Holy Scriptures above the most eloquent Writings of the Greeks. He affirms in his 4th Book, That the Reason why the Holy Scriptures are so valuable, is, because they accommodate themselves to the capacity of the meanest: which, saith he, those Fable-mongers, so much esteemed among the Greeks, could never do. And insisting more at large upon this Subject in his 7th Book, he refutes this Objection in the following terms: If a graecian, says he, had a mind to teach the Egyptians or Syrians a Doctrine that could heal the Distempers of their Souls, he would be careful to learn their Language, choosing rather to speak Barbarian, which the Greeks count a disgrace, than speaking in his own Tongue, to be useless to those People. So the Divine Wisdom intending to edify, not only the learned Grecians, as they are thought, but all forts of People, condescended to the capacity of the meanest of that infinite multitude of Persons whom he designed to instruct: He resolved to attract by that means the most ignorant, and gain their attention, by speaking to them in their common Dialect. And he had the more reason to make use of this method, because after this first introduction into the Holy Scriptures, of which all Persons are capable, we are at liberty to search into their more sublime meaning. For all Persons that red them, acknowledge that when they carefully examine them, they find Truths concealed, much more lofty than appear to be at first sight; and the more they search, the more they find. It is certain therefore that JESUS CHRIST has done more good to mankind, by the Language which Celsus calls Rustical, than Plato by all his eloquent Discourses. So that it is ingratitude to God, according to this Father, and an ill requital of his kindness in condescending so far as to lisp with us, that he might teach all Men the Truths of Salvation in a way suitable to the capacity of the meanest, to pretend that none but the Wise and Learned, in the esteem of the World, may take the liberty to red the Holy Scriptures; and that Women and ignorant people are profane Persons, who should not be permitted to enter into this Sanctuary. This is what never came into the minds of any of the Fathers; and Origen plainly shows us how far he was from it, when addressing himself to all Believers without distinction, he exhorts them in these words, in his 9th Homily on Leviticus, to red continually the Sacred Writings. I beseech you not to content yourselves with hearing the Word of God when it is red in the Church, but apply yourselves to it also at home, and meditate there night and day on the Law of the Lord. For JESUS CHRIST is present in your Houses as well as in the Church, and they that seek him, find him in all places. And therefore we are commanded in the Law, to meditate on the Word of God, both when we walk, and when we sit in our houses, and when we lye down, and when we rise up. There comes an evil thought into your mind, you are tempted to comply with an unlawful desire. Know that this comes from your Enemy; banish it therefore immediately out of your hearts. But how is that to be done? you have need of some Power to assist you. Take the Holy Scriptures into your hands, and red them; set the Commandments of God before your eyes: thereby you will be disposed to reject all that your Enemy suggests to you. To which he adds: Would you know what it is that nourishes our Souls? It is reading the Holy Books, continual Prayer, and pious Instructions.  
S. HILARY magnifies in several places the Advantages that may be gained by the Word of God, and particularly in his Commentary on Psal. 119. Let us remember, says he, when we applied ourselves to red the Holy Scriptures, to find there what God requires us to do in order to please him, what a fullness of Divine knowledge we found our narrow minds capable of receiving, and how notwithstanding our unworthiness, we were filled with ardent desires of enjoying God. He says further, That the Soul which has a due taste of the Scripture, receives from it that nourishment which is a Seed of Eternal Life. That the Holy Scripture is a Fountain of Life, and that we must red and meditate on it, that we may live thereby. David, says he, had reason to hope, because his chief employment was to meditate on the Law of God. Let us therefore apply ourselves also to red the Divine Books, and practise in our lives what the Law commands us. For it was the contemplation of the Divine Law, which made the Prophet hope, that being kept by the Mercy of God, he should partake of the true Life.  
S. BASIL speaks of the Benefit that may be got by reading the Psalms, and in general all the Holy Scriptures, in these terms: All the Scriptures, divinely inspired, were given us by the Holy Ghost, that being, as it were, a Magazine full of all sorts of Remedies for the cure of our Souls, EVERY ONE might find in them such as are proper for their particular Distempers. The Prophets instruct us in some things; the Historical Books teach us others; and we have a third sort of Instructions in the Law. The Book of Proverbs gives also the Church other Directions for regulating our practise: But that of the Psalms seems to comprehend every thing that is useful in the other, to edify all sorts of Persons. In his first Letter to S. Gregory Nazianzen, where he describes in an admirable manner, what ought to be the employments of a Person who would give himself up wholly to God, he fails not to mention the reading and meditation of the Holy Scriptures as one of the principal; One of the greatest means, says he, of knowing how to discharge our Duty, is the contemplation and study of the Inspired Writings. For they are all full of Grace; and the lives of many holy Persons which are written in them, are like lively Images proposed to us for our imitation, and do excite us to walk in the steps of those great Men who have signalized themselves in the Divine Commonwealth. Whoever therefore finds himself weak in any respect, if he makes this reading familiar to him, he will find in it Remedies fitted to all his Distempers and Infirmities. In his Summary of Rules, Quest. 95. he says, That it is profitable and necessary for every one to learn out of the Holy Scriptures, what is proper for his condition, and to confirm him in piety, that he may not be carried away by the Maxims of the World. He adds on the 235th Quest. That those who have the oversight of others( by whom he means not the Priests, but those that bore some Office among the Monks, who at that time were generally none but Laymen) are obliged to be more than ordinarily versed in the Scriptures, because they ought to know what concerns Men in all states and conditions, that they may be able to teach all under their care the Will of God, and instruct every one severally in their Duty. But that private Persons ought in reading the Scripture, to learn carefully that which regards themselves, and to practise it. But can we red without some dread, what he says on the 37th Psalm? He would have us represent to ourselves the Scripture delivered to JESUS CHRIST when he is set on his Tribunal to judge us, and says, that it is by these Divine Laws that we are to be tried. Ought we not therefore, continues he, to study with great diligence the Doctrine of the Scripture? In his Book of Virginity, he says, That the Spouse of Wisdom ought not to be ignorant, but to perfect her self in knowledge by a continual meditation on his Law: and to take her whole delight in reading the Old and New Testament, which will led her, as it were, by the hand to her Spouse. In his 284th Letter written to a Lady, who desired his Advice about the manner of her behaviour; after he had  told her, that by the warning he had received from God in a Dream, he seemed to exhort her to settle the state of her Soul, he adds: If you seek your comfort in the Holy Scriptures, you will need neither me nor any other to advice you about the manner of your behaviour: For the Holy Spirit will give you all those Instructions that are necessary, he will make your way plain before you, and led you in it by the hand. And in the next Letter to another Lady name Eleuthera: I salute, says he, your noble Daughter, and desire you would exhort her to persevere in the meditation of the Word of God, that she may not lose the Advantages of so good an Education; and at the same time that her Body receives its natural growth, her Soul may improve in virtue by that divine study.  
S. GREGORY OF NYSSA speaks in the same manner as S. Basil, about reading the Holy Scripture. He says of the Psalms, what the other Fathers say of all the Books of Scripture, that they are composed so admirably, that all sorts of Persons may receive benefit by them. For not only, says he, Men that are perfect, and have the eyes of their minds purified, are capable of the Instructions which the Holy Ghost there gives; but Women also may receive as much advantage by them, as if they were written for them alone. They yield as much pleasure to those that are yet Babes in Christianity, as Toys do to little Children. They serve instead of a Staff and a Couch to those who are broken with old Age: And they that are in their spiritual Prime, look upon them as the special Gift of Heaven. Let him therefore that is melancholy, or oppressed with any great affliction, consider them as a Letter of Consolation sent to him from God. Let those who travail by Land or by Sea; who are settled in any Employment at home; and in a word all Believers, Men as well as Women, in whatever state or condition they be, sick or in health, be persuaded that they deprive themselves of a great Privilege, by neglecting the use of these Divine Songs. Nay they ought, among true Christians, to make the best part of their rejoicing at Feasts and Marriages.  
S. AMBROSE declares in many places the Excellency of the H. Scripture, the need we have to red it, and the benefit that Christians may reap by it. To show us that it is in reading the Divine Writings we obtain our Victory and our Joy, he says, That this is what was typified by those Sacerdotal Trumpets, which did not only animate the Jews to conquer their Enemies, but were the Instruments of their Joy upon festival days: Non soli hostes harum tubarum sonitu vincuntur, said& delectationes& dies Festi sine his esse non possunt. He says, that the Oracles of the Prophets ought always to excite and press us to diligence in our pursuit after Heaven: Semper te Prophetarum oracula excitent atque commoveant ut ad superiora festines. That it is wisdom to take delight in this heavenly Food: Sapientia delectatio alimenti coelestis. That the Word of God makes Men Princes, by setting them above the Temptations of the World: Sermo ejus principes facit, qui non subjiciantur illecebris saecularibus. That the Holy Scripture fortifies the Soul, and gives it a spiritual Beauty: That it confirms the Purposes of Reason, and destroys the Power of Lust and Passion: Sermo plurimus scripturarum animam confirmat,& quodam spiritualis gratiae colorat vapore. Rationabilia quoque inventa corroborat, dissolvitque omnem vim irrationabilium potestatum. That it is a Remedy against all Troubles, and our only Refuge from Temptations: Remedium taediorum omnium Scriptura divina,& in tentationibus unicum refugium. And elsewhere; Verbum Dei repulsorium est taediorum, quo sopor ainae, somnus mentis excluditur. That it is the Duty of a Christian to meditate continually on the Divine Oracles, and to be perfectly instructed in the Will of God, and practise according to it: Divina intra se volvat oracula, atque ad ea quae complaceant Deo suum informet affectum. Sit meditatus in lege,& nulla eum Dei mandata praetereant. That as the Earth is full of Medicines against the Distempers of the Body, so the Scripture is full of Remedies against the Diseases of the Soul: Ita etiam praeceptis salutaribus replevit seriem Scripturarum, quibus infirmitas ainae sanaretur. That the Word of God is every thing to us: Our physic, our Light, that which washes away our filthiness, and the Spring of all our Comforts: Loquere, Domine Jesu. Verbum tuum Medicina est. Verbum tuum Lumen est. Verbum tuum Fons est. Tu loqueris& culpa lavatur. Omnia nobis factum est Dei Verbum. That the Scripture is of use to all Persons: That the Sound may thence derive Wisdom; that the Captives may there find a Deliverer; that those who are at liberty may be there assured of a recompense; and every one meet with something in it proper to heal his Wounds, or to confirm his Virtue: Sanus sapientiam acquirit, captivus redemtorem, liber remuneratorem. Omnes aedificat Scriptura divina. In ea invenit unusquisque, quo aut vulnera sua curet aut merita confirmet. That the contemplation of the Law of God is our great support in a time of distress, and enables us to bear up under the heaviest misfortunes: Legis meditatio facit ut tempora tribulationis, tempora quibus humiliamur aliquibus adversis sustinere& tolerare possimus, ut neque humiliato nimis neque dejecto frangamur affectu. That in reading the Holy Scriptures we may find anointing, strength, and nourishment. Which he explains by a comparison of the Athletae, that anointed themselves with Oil, exercised themselves continually in wrestling, and fed upon strong meats, to make themselves the more vigorous. He pleads that the reading of the Holy Scriptures ought to do all this in us: Ungamus oleo lectionis mentis nostrae lacertos. Sit nobis tota die& nocte exercitii usus, in quadam coelestium scripturarum palaestra, artusque animorum nostrorum salubris ferculorum nostrorum esca confirmet. That we ought always to guide ourselves by the Light of the Scripture, to which all our Virtues owe their original and progress: Arguit Christus eos qui utuntur lucerna, si non semper utantur. Numquid negligamus verbum Dei, ex quo nobis omnium origo virtutum est, universorumque operum quidam processus? Haec lucerna accensa sit in omni verbo, in omni opere. That the Books of the Scripture are as so much Spoil, which enriches those that find it, and should fill them with joy: Merito exulto. Sine labour meo inveni spolia. Inveni Pentateuchum, inveni Regnorum libros, inveni Prophetarum scripta, inveni Christum, inveni Paulum. That the Word of God should be a continual Feast to us: That it is furnished with a variety of Meats, some of which are stronger, as the Law and the Gospel; and others more delicious, as the Psalms and Canticles: been eructat qui plurima& suavia Dei praecepta gustaverit. Habet verbum Dei epulas suas, alias fortiores, ut est Lex& Evangelium; alias suaviores, ut sunt Psalmi& Cantica can●●orum. That the way to prevent hunger, is to feed every day upon the Holy Scriptures: Ede Scripturarum coelestium cibos: ede quotidie ut non esurias. That we ought not to red them cursorily, and without due consideration of what we red. But even when we have not the Book before us, we should, like those clean Animals that chew the Cud, fetch out of our Memories this spiritual Food, and ruminate upon it: Non perfunctorie transeamus quae legimus, said etiam cum abest codex, tanquam animantia munda& ruminantia, de interioribus nostris ruminandum nobis pabulum spiritual promamus. He says that the Gospel of S. Luke was written to be red by all those that love God, which should be the property of all true Christians, whether learned or unlearned, of all Ages, and of all Sexes. This Gospel, says he, is addressed to Theophilus, that is, to HIM THAT LOVES GOD. If you love God, it is for you it was written. Receive the Present of an Evangelist, and what he gives you as your Friend, in token of his Affection, lay up carefully in the treasure of your Hearts. Keep this precious Trust; view it often, and red it continually and with great care. Those therefore who pretend that some Christians ought not to red the Gospel, must dispense with their loving God. For it is certainly very strange, and would have undoubtedly been very hard to persuade S. Ambrose, or any other of the Fathers, that being not a whit the less capable of loving God, for understanding only my own Mother-tongue, I should therefore be deprived of a Present made me by an Evangelist, and a Token he has given me of his Affection, according to the apprehension of this Father, by not being suffered to red what he wrote to be red by all that should love God. Would he have excepted Women and Children, as profane Persons, against whom this Sanctuary ought to be shut? That would be a foolish Imagination. He says further, That the words of the Holy Doctrine, that is, the Scripture, make up the Marriage of Virgins with their Divine Spouse: Sacrae Doctrinae verbis Sponso innubit aeterno. That such are to be silent while the Word of God is red to them, that they may the better harken to it and remember it: Nulla divinarum sententia fugiet lectionum, si aurem admoveas, vocem premas. And he exhorts them to seek JESUS CHRIST in the Scriptures, because that is the best place to find him: Quaerite illum in scriptures, ibi melius invenitur. Other Passages out of S. Ambrose might be alleged; but these are sufficient to show what he thought of reading the Holy Scripture.  
None of the Latin Fathers have more earnestly recommended the reading of the Holy Scriptures, even to Women and Maids, than S. JEROM, who in his Letter to Laeta, telling her how she ought to educate her Daughter, expresses himself in this manner: When she begins to grow up, let her apply her self to red the Holy Scriptures, and learn out of the Prophets and Apostles the nature of that spiritual Marriage that must unite her Soul to God. Make her, says he, give you an account every day of what she reads, and bring you, as it were, a Nosegay of it, gathered by her own hands. Let her get the Psalms by heart, and take off her mind from the thoughts of the World, by employing it upon these divine Songs: Let her learn to regulate her Life by the Proverbs of Solomon: Let her accustom her self by meditating on the Book of Ecclesiastes, to tread underfoot the Vanities of the World: Make her observe the Examples of Courage and Patience related in the Book of Job. From thence let her pass to the Gospels, and red them with constancy. Afterwards let her red the Prophets, and the other Books of the Old Testament. And last of all let her learn the Song of Songs, that she may do it without danger, lest if at her first entrance she red that holy Book, the purity of her heart be corrupted, and wounded by misunderstanding that Epithalamium of the Spiritual Marriage, because it is written in words that seem to describe a human Passion.  
The same Saint writing to one of his Friends name Gaudentius, among the Counsels he gives him about the Christian Education of a young Maid committed to his care, forgets not to advice him to make her red the Holy Scriptures, Epist. 12. When she is seven Years old, says he, and sensible of shane, and begins to know what she ought to conceal, and to doubt about what she should speak, make her learn by heart the Psalms; and at twelve years of Age, let her red the Books of Solomon, the Gospels, the Epistles of the Apostles, and the Writings of the Prophets, being taught to value them as her greatest Treasure. In the same manner he speaks to the holy Virgin Demetria, who was more advanced in Age and virtue: Besides the time, says he, that you ought to spend in reciting the Psalms, and Prayer, according to the order prescribed you for the hours of Tierce, sixth and None, for the Evening, Midnight, and Morning, which you ought never to omit; fix how many hours more you ought to employ in studying the Holy Scripture, and how much time in reading it; looking upon this Exercise not as a painful labour, but as the delight of your Soul, and its choicest Food. One of the greatest Commendations he gives to those Saints whose Lives he has written, is upon the account of their eagerness in reading the Scripture. After he had described the wonderful repentance of S. Fabiola, he says, that she went as far as Jerusalem, and stayed some time in the Monastery of S. Paula, whither this Saint conducted her. Upon which he speaks in this manner, about the conversation he had with her: When I remember, says he, the conversation we had together, methinks I see her still; Good God, how great was her zeal and regard for the Holy Scriptures! She ran over the Prophets, the Gospels, and Psalms, as if she had been to feed her self in extreme hunger. She proposed to me Difficulties, and kept in her heart the Answers I made to them. She was never weary of learning, and her penitential Sorrow increased as fast as her knowledge: For just as if Oil had been cast into a Fire, she felt the Flames of her Zeal still more and more vehement. He says the same almost of S. Paula: She had, says he, the Holy Scripture by heart; and tho she extremely loved the History, because, as she said, that was the Foundation of the Truth, yet she was much more intent upon the allegorical and spiritual sense, as that which was most edifying. She earnestly entreated me to let her and her Daughter red in my presence the Old and New Testament, that I might explain to them the most difficult places of it: And not being able to resist her constant Importunities, I promised to teach her what I had learned of them; not from myself, that is from the presumption of my own mind, which is the most dangerous of all Masters, but from the greatest Persons in the Church. I will say also one thing, which perhaps may seem incredible to those whom her admirable Qualities have given occasion to suspect her. She desired to learn the Hebrew Tongue, of which I had acquired some knowledge; and she compassed her design, so that she sung the Psalms in Hebrew, and spake that Language without mixing any thing of Latin with it; as we see also done now by her holy Daughter Eustochia. He says likewise in the same Life, that to moderate the Zeal of this holy Woman, who lamented the smallest Faults as great Crimes with abundance of Tears; he admonished her to spare her Eyes, and preserve them for reading the Gospel: Ut parceret oculis& eos servaret Evangelicae lectioni. And at last he tells us, this was not peculiar to her, but all the young Women she had gathered together into three Monasteries, red the holy Books as well as she: For they were all, says he, obliged to get by heart the whole Psalter, and to learn every day something out of the holy Scripture. He affirms yet more of S. Marcella: Her love, says he, for the Holy Scripture was incredible, and she sung every day, I have hide thy Word in my heart, that I might not sin against thee; and that other Verse where David, speaking of the perfect Man, says, His delight is in the Law of the Lord, and on his Law doth he meditate day and night. Understanding by meditating on the Law, not repeating often the words of Scripture, as the Pharisees did, but practising them, according to the Instructions of the Apostle, where he says, Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the Glory of God. In this manner she red the Scripture before she knew S. Jerom. But hear what he says of her after she came acquainted with him. Having heard as it were but by the by all the knowledge I had been able to get of the Scripture by very long study, she learned and possessed it so entirely, that when after my departure there arose a Contest about any passages of Scripture, she was made the judge of it. But as she was extraordinary prudent, and perfectly understood the Rules of what the Philosophers call Decency, she answered with so much modesty the Questions proposs'd to her, that she delivered what came purely from her self, just as if she had learned it of me, or some other, that she might be taken for a Scholar, even in those things wherein she was a very great Mistress.  
THE AUTHOR of the Letter to Celancia, among the Counsels he gives that Lady, one of those he insists upon most, is to red carefully the Holy Scripture. Your chief care, says he, should be to be well acquainted with the Law of God, that you may see by his direction and light the Examples of the Saints, as if they were present before you, and learn by the Instructions you will there find, what you ought to do, and what to avoid: For it is a great help to progress in Virtue, for a person to replenish his mind with the Word of God, and meditate continually on what he intends to practise. Therefore the Lord heretofore commanded by Moses a dull and obstinate People, to fasten to the Borders of their Garments, little pieces of Parchment of a scarlet colour, upon which were written his Commandments, that they might remember them as often as they cast their eyes upon those Tokens. And with respect to these Borders it is that OUR LORD reproves the Pharisees, because they perverted the right use of them, and wore them not as a means to put them in mind of the Commandments of God, but out of pride, and to gain the reputation of an extraordinary Sanctity among the People, by being thought very strict and nice observers of the Law of God. But you who have not the Commands of the Letter, but of the Spirit, should endeavour to remember them in a purely spiritual manner, and ought not to be so careful about repeating them by heart, as about thinking and meditating on them. Let the Holy Scripture therefore be always in your hands; but in order to reflect upon it continually. And think it not sufficient to remember the divine Precepts, if you forget them in your practise. You ought to know and retain them for no other end, than to do them: For the bare hearers of the Law are not just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified. The Divine Law is of a vast extent, and like a large Field, containing in it a variety of heavenly Flowers and excellent Fruits, which recreate and nourish the Soul of him that applies himself to red it, and yields him a wonderful pleasure. And it is a great help to perseverance in virtue, to be well acquainted with this Law, and to meditate constantly upon it.  
S. AUSTIN has spoken so many things, and in so many places in praise of this divine study, that it would be tedious to relate all that is said of it in his Works. He has taken particular care to remark in several places, that as the Doctrine of the Scripture is designed for all Persons, so the manner in which it's taught, is adapted to all Capacities, even to Children and Country-men, to man-servants and Maidservants.  
Therefore he says, in the 6th Book of his Confessions, Chap. 5. The Authority of the Holy Scripture seemed to me so much the more credible, more sacred, and aweful, because on the one hand the Style of it is plain, and suited to the capacity of the most ignorant; and on the other it contains under the Letter of it, the most sublime and deep Mysteries: Exposing itself to be red by all mankind thrô the clearness and commonness of its Expressions, and yet at the same time exercising the utmost skill and sagacity of the most discerning and judicious Persons. So by its popular Language, as by a common and high Road, it receives all Men into its Bosom; and by its secret and obscure Truths, as by Ways difficult to find, and straight Paths, it brings to your Society some particular Persons. And tho the number of those be but small, yet it would not be so great as it is, if the Scripture were not advanced to that high pitch of Authority it has gained over all People, and did not draw unto it all Nations by the easiness of its Language.  
On the same ground he says, in the 5th Book of his Commentary on Genesis, Chap. 3. speaking to all Believers, and considering them under the greatest weakness possible; I exhort you to go forward, and to make use of the assistance offered you in the Scripture, which never abandons the weak, but is like a tender Mother that walks softly to accommodate her self to her Child, and to make it go along with her. It speaks in such a manner according to the different conditions of Men, as to shane the proud through its loftiness, to which they cannot attain; as to dishearten by its mysteriousness those that attempt to penetrate into it; as to feed by the Truths it contains the most comprehensive minds; and to give Children that nourishment which is fit for them, by the familiarity of its Expressions.  
This made him also say what I have already alleged in the 6th Chapter of the Second Book, writing to Volusian, and exhorting him to red the Holy Scripture, tho he was not yet baptized: That its manner of speaking is so admirable, that even whilst it lies open to all Mankind, there are hardly any that can dive into it. That where it is clear, it is like a familiar Friend that speaks without colour or artifice to the hearts of the Ignorant and Learned: and when it conceals its Truths under mysterious Expressions, it is not in high-flown Language, apt to discourage shallow minds, and deter them from approaching it, as poor Men are afraid to come near the Rich; but it invites all the World, by the plainness of its style, to come and seek for those manifest Truths they may feed upon, and try to discover those which are concealed; while there is the same perfection of Light and Wisdom in both. By it disorderly Minds are reduced, humble Souls are nourished, and the greatest Spirits are entertained with unspeakable Delights.  
This made this holy Man say, in his Book of the true Religion, Chap. 17. Its way of teaching, partly by Reasons very easy to understand, partly by Similitudes and Figures made use of in its Discourses, Relations and Mysteries, is so accommodated to the capacity of all Men whom God intends to instruct and exercise, that it contains in itself a perfect Rule of true and reasonable Doctrine: For the Mysteries included in it, refer in the purpose of God to such things as are delivered with the greatest evidence. And if there were nothing in it but what was very easy, Men would not inquire into the Truth with that care and pains it deserves, nor have the satisfaction of discovering it. And in the 51st Chapter of the same Book, made presently after he was baptized, so far is he from thinking that it belonged not to the People to red the Holy Scripture, that he exhorts all Believers in these terms to red it: Forgetting, says he, and rejecting the Follies of Play-houses and Poets, let us feed our Souls with the meditation and study of the Divine Writings. And finding how they are tired and tormented with the hunger and thirst of a vain Curiosity, and how vainly they seek to satisfy and content themselves with deceitful Appearances, that are but like painted Food; let us alloy their hunger and thirst by that heavenly Meat and Drink which the Holy Scripture sets before us. Let us learn in this School, so noble and becoming the Children of God.  
This made him say, in his 5th Book of the City of God, Ch. 25. That God intended the Scripture should be adapted to the understandings of all Men. For having observed, that the Anger of God is not a Passion in him which disturbs him, but a Judicial Purpose by which he punishes Sin, he adds: But if the Scripture did not use such familiar Expressions, it would not be accommodated to the capacity of all Men, whose benefit and happiness it is designed to promote, by confounding the Proud with its Majesty, by awakening the Slothful with the Importance of its Doctrine, by exercising the Industrious with its Difficulties, and conducting the Wise by its Light. It would not, I say, be apt to do all this, if it did not stoop and condescend, if I may so speak, to those who lye groveling upon the Earth.  
It is also to reading the Holy Scripture that St. Austin attributes the beginning of his Conversion; and so far is he from accusing himself of being too bold for reading the Holy Scripture before he was baptized, that he complains in the 7th Book of his Confessions, Chap. 20. That the Books of Philosophers having made him more learned, had also made him more vain; and on the contrary, the Holy Scriptures having humbled and softened his heart, he had observed what a difference there is between a vain confidence in a Man's own strength, and an humble acknowledgement of his weakness; between those who know whither they ought to go, but are uncertain which way to take, and those who are acquainted with the right way to our happy Country, which does not only conduct us to it, and give us a view of it, but also lets us into the actual possession and enjoyment of it. He describes in the next Chapter, the effect this reading had upon his Mind: I began therefore, says he, to red the Holy Scripture with an extraordinary Zeal, and to reverence those aweful Words which the Holy Ghost himself dictated. But nothing affencted me so much as the Epistles of S. Paul, while I saw all those Difficulties, which made me think he contradicted himself in some places, and that his Words did not agree with those of the ancient Law and Prophets, vanish away in a moment. I perceived that these Writings which are so pure and simplo, were animated by one and the same Spirit, and contained the same sense; and I learned to consider them with a mixture of joy, fear and respect.  
In a word, this great Saint does not only advice all Believers indifferently to red the Holy Scripture, but tells them also, that it is not enough for them to red it now and then, but that they ought to apply themselves every day to this divine study. This is in his 56th Sermon of Time, where 'tis evident he speaks to all his Hearers, without distinction either of Age or Sex: Take it, says he, for certain, my dear Brethren, that just as our Flesh is, when it receives Nourishment but once in many days, so are our Souls when they do not feed often upon the Word of God: For as hunger and want of nourishment makes our Bodies lean and infirm; so the Soul that neglects to strengthen itself by the Bread of the Word of God, becomes thereby weak and languishing, and unfit for any good Work. Consider then, whether it be fit that our Bodies, which are formed only of Earth, should sometimes make two Meals a day, and our Souls, which are the Image of God, should hardly partake of the Word of Life, after they have been deprived of it for several days, tho at the same time it had been reasonable to treat the Image of God in us better than our Flesh: For those that think only upon the Necessities and Conveniences of the Body, are like Beasts, and deface the Image of God which is in them. The Flesh therefore ought to be kept under as the Slave, and the Necessities of the Soul principally taken care of, as the lawful Mistress. For if we act otherwise, if we do not acknowledge we were made after the Image of God, and are more concerned for our Flesh than for our Souls, I fear lest the Holy Spirit should cast this reproach upon us by his Prophet: Man being in Honour, understood it not, but imitated the Beasts which are voided of Reason, and is become like unto them. Continue to hear, as you are wont, in the Church, the reading of the Holy Scripture, AND red IT ALSO IN YOUR HOUSES. If any Man have so much Business that he cannot find time to red the Holy Scriptures before Meals, let him not neglect to red something of it at them; that so whilst his Body is nourished by material Food, his Soul may be nourished by the Word of God, and the whole Man, that is, the inward and outward, may rise from the Table, after having received a pure and wholesome Nourishment. For if we only feed the Body, and the Soul be not nourished by the Word of God, we pamper the Slave, and suffer the Mistress to pine away with hunger; and you cannot but be sensible how unjust that is.  
And in the next Sermon; Hear, says he, the Divine Lessons in the Church, and red them also at home.  
And in the 38th concerning the Saints: Endeavour as much as in you lies, by the help of God, to red the Divine Lessons frequently in your Houses, and hear them re'd in the Church, with affection and submission.  
We see also that S. Austin supposes his People to have done what he recommended to them, that is, to have red the Holy Scripture; for thus he speaks to them in his 10th Discourse on S. John, and his words are inserted in the Breviary for Monday in the fourth Week of Lent: What did those Sellers that JESUS CHRIST driven out of the Temple sell in it? Such things as the Jews wanted for the Sacrifices of those times. For you know that those People being carnal, God required of them such Oblations as were suitable to the hardness of their hearts, to keep them from the worship of Idols; so that at that time they offered unto God, Oxen, Sheep, and Pigeons. You know it, I say, because you have red it: NOSTIS QUIA LEGISTIS.  
And in his first Sermon on the 36th Psalm, having said, that God warns us, that Repentance, which may be performed to good purpose in this World, will avail us nothing if we put it off till death; he adds, That we should have some reason to complain we were not warned of it, if the Scripture was not red in all the Earth, or if there were not every where Copies of it to be bought. He supposes therefore that all Christians had the liberty to buy them, and that it was their own fault if they had them not, or if they did not red them. And he supposes it so, that in the 28th Chapter of his Book about the Christian Combat, which he says he wrote in a plain style for the sake of the Ignorant, he accuses them of great negligence about their Salvation, if for want of reading the Holy Scripture, they suffered themselves to be deceived by heretics in things that were clear in the Scriptures. Let us not harken, says he, to those who say that the Promise our Saviour made of sending the Holy Spirit, was fulfilled only in S. Paul, or Montanus, or Manes. They that think so, are either so blind as not to understand plain Scripture, or so careless of their Salvation as not at all to red it: Tam caeci sunt illi, ut Scripturas manifestas non intelligant, aut TAM NEGLIGENTES SALUTIS SUAE UT OMNINO NON LEGANT. And after he had refuted this Error out of the 2d Chapter of the Acts, he says, That the Manichees and Montanists deceived none in this matter, but those who being in the Church, neglected to learn their Creed, which is plainly contained in the Scripture. And what is very deplorable, says he, being extremely careless about understanding the catholic Faith( by reading the Holy Scripture, as he had before observed) they are very attentive to what heretics say to them: Ipsam fidem Catholicam quae in scriptures manifesta est, nolunt discere,& quod est gravius& multum dolendum, cum in Catholica Fide negligenter versentur, haereticis diligenter aures accommodant.  
But among all the Fathers, none has spoken more frequently, emphatically, or eloquently of the usefulness of reading the Holy Scripture to all Persons, than S. CHRYSOSTOM. The principal Passages are these. In his second Homily on S. Matthew he says: Who among all you that now hear me, could repeat me a Psalm, or some other portion of Scripture by heart, if I desired it of him? Not one single person. And what is yet more deplorable, whilst you are thus indifferent about holy things, you have an extreme affection for things detestable, and becoming none but Devils: For if any one desired you on the contrary, to repeat him any of those infamous Songs, or devilish Verses that are sung upon the Stage, there would be found a great many who had learned them by heart, and could recite them with pleasure. But what excuse do Men make for these Enormities? I am no Monk or Solitary Person they tell me: I have a Wife and Children, and a Family to take care of. This is that which ruins all now a days, your imagining that none but Monks OUGHT TO red THE HOLY SCRIPTURE; whereas you are under a much greater necessity of it than they. For those who are every day exposed to so many Conflicts, and receive so many Wounds, have the greater need of Remedies. And therefore it is a worse fault for Men not to believe they stand in need of the Scripture, and to look upon it as superfluous, than not to red it at all. It is only the Devil that can inspire us with such thoughts. Does not S. Paul tell you, that whatsoever things were written, were written for our instruction? And yet you would not so much as touch the Word of God, much less are you willing to be at the pains of reading it so as thoroughly to understand it. This is the cause why all things are at present out of order. But if you would know how beneficial the reading of the holy Scripture would be to you, consider what a disposition you are in when you hear Psalms, or when you hear devilish Songs; when you are at Church, or when you are at a Play-house: and you will wonder to see how your Souls, when they are the same, are nevertheless so different from themselves upon these occasions. The Apostle admonishes us, that evil communication corrupts good manners. We have therefore continually need, that we may preserve ourselves from this Infection, to be charmed, if I may so speak, with the powerful enchantments of the Spirit of God, which are the holy Scriptures. This is the Nourishment of our Souls, this their Ornament, this their Security. And on the contrary, not to hear the Word of God, is their Famine and Death. I will sand, saith the Lord, a Famine upon the Earth: Not a famine of Bread, or a thirst of Water, but a famine and thirst of the Word of God. Are not you therefore miserable Wretches, to draw wilfully upon yourselves that very Evil which God denounces as a heavy Punishment upon those who provoke him; and to make your Souls endure a cruel and deadly Famine, which reduces them to the most deplorable state imaginable? For Words have a special efficacy to incline our Souls to Good or Evil. A Word inflames them with anger, and a Word appeases them. A filthy Word excites in them a brutal Passion, and a modest and serious Word disposes them to Chastity. And if common and ordinary Words have this power, why do you make so little account of the Words of Scripture? Are not you sensible that if an Admonition given us by a Man, can do much towards our Reformation, it must be quiter another thing with those which God gives us by the Grace of his Holy Spirit? For the Word of God contained in the Scriptures, is like a Fire that inflames the heart of him that hears it, and prepares him for all manner of good Works. But what benefit, you will say, is a Man like to get by the Word of God, that hears it and does not practise it? Why, I say, he will nevertheless receive benefit by it: for his application to the Divine Word, will cause him often to check himself, fill him with inward remorse for his wickedness, and make him groan under it; and he may at last come to resolve on performing what he has learned out of it. But what hope is there that a Man will ever acknowledge or forsake his Sins, and endeavour to led a new Life, when he is so ignorant of the Word of God, that he does not so much as know that he is a Sinner? Let us not neglect therefore to hear the holy Scriptures re'd; for 'tis the Devil that diverts Christians from so doing, because he can't endure they should have any esteem for a Treasure that may enrich them. 'tis this Enemy of our Salvation that persuades them they need not acquaint themselves with the Divine Laws written in the holy Books, for fear lest if they knew them, they should practise them. Being therefore ware of this malicious Artifice of the Devil, let us, on the contrary, take care that the Scriptures may be to us instead of a Bulwark against his Assaults; and being clothed with this spiritual armor, we may be secured from his blows, and crush him under our feet.  
He begins this again more particularly in his 10th Homily on S. John, and obviates all the Excuses that Laymen, and even tradesman can bring to be exempted from reading the Holy Scripture: Before, says he, I explain to you the words of the Gospel, I desire of you one thing, and pray don't refuse me; it is no difficult task, and besides is more for your own advantage than for mine. What is it then I desire of you? That on some day of the Week, and at least on Saturday, you would be careful to red what I am to explain to you of the Gospel; that you would repeat it often in your houses, that you would inquire into the meaning of it; that you would mark what you find to be clear, what appears to be obscure, and what seems to be inconsistent. This will be a great advantage both to you and me: For as I shall be at less pains to make you apprehended the meaning of the Gospel, when you at your own houses have rendered it familiar to yourselves, at least as to the words: so on your part, you will not only find it more easy to understand the Evangelical Doctrine, but will also become capable of instructing others. For want of this there are some that endeavour to retain the words of Scripture, and the explication I give of them, without getting any great benefit by it, tho they were to hear me for whole Years together. And why? Because they are careless, and it is not a sufficient application of ourselves to this saving knowledge, to allow it only the time we are at Church. I know very well a great many pretend they can do no more, by reason of the public and private Affairs that take them up. But this is the very thing which condemns them, to be so intent upon the Concernments of this World, that they cannot find time for those that are more necessary for them. And besides this excuse is vain, seeing they can spare a great deal of time from their other Occupations, to divert themselves with their Friends, to go to a Play, or to see Horse-races, where they often spend whole days together. What! when you have a mind to pass away the time in these Follies, you do not excuse yourselves by the great burden of your Affairs; and are you not ashamed to allege this as an Excuse, when you are urged to apply yourselves to things of the greatest Importance? Persons of this temper, do they deserve to live, or to see the Light? There are others of this slothful number, who pretend that for want of Books they cannot red the Scripture. I need not say how ridiculous it would be for rich Men to allege this Reason: But because I find a great many poor People make use of it, I would fain ask them, whether their Poverty hinders them from getting all the Instruments belonging to their Trade? How comes it then that they are so careful, notwithstanding their Poverty, to furnish themselves with every thing necessary to their Art, and never allege their being poor, but when the question is about buying Books, which would be so useful to them in the business of their Salvation? But after all, if there be any so poor that they cannot by any means procure Books of the Scripture, they may learn it by attending diligently to it when it is red in the Church, and minding the Explications which are there given of it.  
There is also another Homily on the same Gospel of S. John, which is the 31st, where he treats of the same matter with the like zeal: Who is it among us, I pray you, that when he is returned to his house, employs himself there like a Christian? Who is it that takes the pains to red the Books he possesses, and sets himself to discover the meaning of the holy Scripture? I am confident none would dare to say he does. We shall rather find Draught-boards and Dice in most houses: We shall no where meet with any good Books, or at least with very few People; and those that have any, have them as if they had none, keeping them always shut up: Their whole care is to have those that are written upon fine Parchment, and in a curious Letter, and not to red them: so that it is not to get any benefit by them that they procure them, but to make a show of their Riches; so extravagant is vain Glory! I don't know any one whatsoever of these vain worldly Persons, that understands the Books he has. The Holy Scripture was not given us to keep it only in Books, but to engrave it deeply on our Hearts. This fondness for an useless possession of Books, would agree better with the vain Fancy of the Jews, who contented themselves with having the Holy Scripture upon Tables of ston, as it was delivered to them, than with us Christians who ought to have it written upon the fleshy Tables of our Hearts, as the Disciples of OUR LORD received it from the Holy Ghost in the Infancy of the Church. I speak not this to discourage you from having Books, but on the contrary I exhort you rather, and entreat you earnestly to procure them: But with this design, that you would reflect often upon the Words and Truths you meet with in the Holy Scripture, that so your Souls may be purified, as being full of those Dispositions with which the Divine Word is apt to inspire us. For if the Gospel be but in any house, the Devil will not dare to come into it: And how much rather will the Devil and Sin keep at a distance from a Soul that has rendered the Scripture familiar to it? Sanctify therefore your Souls; sanctify your Bodies. This will be your happiness, if you have the Gospel always in your Hearts and Mouths: For if immodest words are capable of defiling the Soul, and inviting the Devil to it, 'tis evident that a holy and spiritual study must sanctify the Soul, and infuse into it the Grace of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Scripture is as a Voice that should come to us out of Heaven: Let us therefore prepare our Souls to receive from it those Remedies they stand in need of for the cure of their Passions. If we attentively consider what kind of things we there red, we shall apply ourselves to it with great affection. I ALWAYS SPEAK TO YOU UPON THIS SUBJECT, AND WILL NEVER FORBEAR SPEAKING TO YOU UPON IT.  
In his first Sermon on the Epistle to the Romans, which the Church has chosen for the Lessons of its Office for the second Sunday after Epiphany; I cannot, says he, but tell you, my Brethren, that I am overjoyed to hear the Epistles of S. Paul almost continually red in this place. But my grief in the midst of this joy, is to see that so many Persons are not acquainted with the Writings of that holy Man so well as they ought. They are so very ignorant in this matter, that they do not so much as know the number of his Epistles: And the reason is not because they want Understanding or Light, but because they will not always have in their hands the writings of that blessed Apostle. For as for me that speak to you, if I understand any thing of these Divine Lessons, it is not because I am more capable than another, but because I apply myself to them more, and have perhaps a greater affection for that holy Apostle. And therefore I am persuaded, my dear Brethren, that if you applied yourselves also to this study, you would never need any one to discover to you the depth of it. For the saying of JESUS CHRIST is true; Seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. But because most of those who are here present, have a Wife, and Children, and Family to take care of, which makes it impossible for them to devote themselves wholly to this Divine Employment, make use at least of the labour of others, and show as much readiness to receive what they have extracted out of the Writings of this Apostle, as you show in heaping up Riches. Tho it looks a little too mean to desire but this of you, I should however be content with it. Grant it me then, and have the same affection for the Writings of S. Paul, as you have for Wealth. For I must tell you that Mens ignorance of the Scriptures, has been the unhappy Spring of innumerable Evils. From hence came that swarm of Heresies, that depravation of Manners, that multitude of unprofitable Labours, and fruitless Employments in which Christians engage themselves. A blind Man who sees no Light, cannot but wander out of his way; and so those who have not their eyes fixed upon the Light of the Scripture, but walk as it were in Darkness, must needs fall into a great many Errors.  
He delivers his mind yet more fully concerning the Obligation that lies upon Laymen to red at least the New Testament, in his 9th Homily on the Epistle to the Colossians, in explaining these words of the 3d Chapter, Let the Word of God dwell in you richly. harken, you who are of the World, and have a Wife and Children, how the Apostle gins you to red the Holy Scripture, not slightly or carelessly; but with a mighty care and affection. For as he that has great Possessions may easily endure Losses and Injuries; so he that is rich in the doctrines of the Divine Philosophy, may bear not only Poverty, but all other Calamities, and that with more ease than those that are rich in this World can endure the Misfortunes that befall them. Consider the words of this great Apostle. He does not say only, Let the Word of God be in you; but, let it dwell in you richly; teaching and exhorting one another in all Wisdom. He calls Virtue by the name of Wisdom; and with great reason: for Humility, and Charity whereby we give Alms, and such like Virtues are true Wisdom; as the contrary Vices are perfect Folly. Look for no other Master than the Word of God, which you have in your hands. No Man is able to teach you so well as this Divine Word. For he to whom we address ourselves for Instruction, often conceals many things, out of Vain-glory or Envy. I conjure those who are engaged in worldly Business, to harken to this Divine Word, and seek in the Books whereof it is composed, for Remedies against the Diseases of their Souls. But yet if you will not red them all, have at least the New Testament, and take for your constant Teachers the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles. If any Affliction befalls you, have recourse to these Divine Books, which contain the most powerful Remedies desirable against the manifold Evils of this Life. Go take there the Consolation you need, under any accident that may befall you, whether it be a hurt, or the death of any Person, or the loss of one of your Family. And you need not trouble yourselves to distinguish the Remedies contained in these Divine Books; your only business is to take all they present to you, and lay them up carefully in your minds. THE IGNORANCE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE, IS THE CAUSE OF ALL OUR MISERIES. We go to War without Arms; how should we escape from perishing there? It is a great help to a safe retreat out of the battle to be well armed: But if we are not, we shall not be able to defend ourselves. Do not put upon us the whole care of your Preservation, without resolving to do any thing on your part. It's true, we are your Pastors; and you our Sheep: But you are not like those Animals that are voided of Reason, and have no power to defend themselves; for you are rational Sheep, and ought to exercise your Reason in your own defence.  
But this Saint has no where treated of this important Point of Christian Morality, more carefully and largely than in the third of his four Sermons concerning the poor Man Lazarus who lay at the Gate of wicked Dives: I tell you, says he, some days before-hand the Subject I intend to treat of, that you may turn to it in your Books; and knowing in general what the Scripture says of it, may be the more capable of understanding what I am to say concerning it. For I exhort you always, and will never cease exhorting you, not to content yourselves with hearing the Instructions given in this place, but to red also the Holy Scripture constantly at home. I have always endeavoured to beget this resolution in those whom I have conversed with particularly. And let none put me off with these Excuses, so ridiculous, shameful, and blame-worthy: I am engaged in Law-suits; I am taken up with public Affairs; I am a mechanic; and must work to get my living; I have a Wife, and a charge of Children, and must employ myself in providing for my Family; I am a lay-man, and therefore it is none of my business to red the Holy Scripture, but theirs who have renounced the World, who are retired into Deserts, and to the tops of Mountains, and live a Life suitable to their Condition. Poor Man, what say you? Is it your being distracted and divided between a multitude of cares, that makes it to be none of your business to red the holy Scripture? On the contrary, it is your being under so many Engagements which makes it the more proper for you to red it, and even more necessary than it is for those who are retired from the World, to give up themselves wholly to God. For such Persons do not so much need the assistance of the Holy Scripture, as those who are encumbered and disquieted with a multitude of Affairs. They who live retired, being free from the Cares and Employments of a civil Life, having taken up their abode in a Desert, having no Commerce at all with other People, but applying themselves wholly to the study of the Christian Philosophy, and with all calmness and composure of mind; being as it were out of danger upon the cost, enjoy great Security: But we that live in the midst of the Storms and Troubles of this Life, and are under a kind of necessity of committing innumerable Faults, have the greatestest need in the World to be continually assisted and supported by the Exhortations and Comforts given us in the Holy Scriptures. Those who have withdrawn themselves from the World, have no Enemies to encounter, and consequently are secured from receiving divers Wounds. But you who are always in the heat of the battle; have not you much more need than they of Remedies, considering you are frequently wounded? For your Wives vex and disquiet you, and your Children make you sorrowful; your Servants provoke you, and your Enemies lay wait for you; your Friends suspect you, and your Neighbours affront you; your Equals undermine you, and frequently the Magistrate threatens you; Poverty afflicts you, and the loss of your Relations grieves you; Prosperity puffs you up, and Adversity casts you down. In a word, we are encompassed on all sides with a multitude of Cares, Necessities, Provocations, Troubles, Afflictions, Incitements to Vainglory and foolish Presumption, and are like Men surrounded on all sides with Darts ready to fall upon them and pierce them. This ought to convince us of the necessity we are always under of taking out of the Scripture the whole armor with which it furnishes us for our Defence. Consider, as the wise Man says, that you walk in a way full of Snares, and tread upon the tops of Houses. For fleshly Lusts rise up with the greatest violence against those that live in the World, because the beauty, dress and fineness of Women, which Men there meet with, and which fixes their Eyes, and the infecting Discourses Men there hear, disturb their Reason. Nay, frequently soft and effeminate Songs put the Soul out of order, when it is most calm and composed. But what do I say? Men are so weak as to the Objects that gratify the Sense, that a danger in appearance much less than those I just now mentioned, may in case of a surprise make them Captives. This is sometimes the effect of the exquisite Perfumes of worldly and dissolute Women. Thus our Souls are beset with manifold Dangers, in which we stand in need of supernatural and divine Remedies, to heal us of the Wounds we have already received, and secure us from those we have reason to fear. Let us therefore repel far from us the fiery Darts of Satan, extinguishing them, and breaking their Force by a continual reading of the Word of God. For it is not possible, I say, it is not possible that any Man whatsoever should attain Salvation but by reading constantly the holy Books.( Which words must be understood according to common use, of a moral Impossibility, that is, of the great difficulty of being saved without reading the holy Scripture.) But surely it is a favour we can never sufficiently value, to be able one day to obtain Salvation by the continual use of a Remedy so sacred and desirable as the Word of God. If we are wounded every day, and make use of no Remedy, what hopes can we have of Salvation? Afterwards he tells his Hearers, that if Artificers rather suffer themselves to be reduced to extreme Poverty, than sell the Tools by which they get their living; Christians ought to be the same with respect to the Books of Scripture: that they ought to get them at any rate, and never part with them, because the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles are to a Christian, what an Anvil and Hammer are to a Smith, viz. that whereby we reform and renew our Souls. He adds; That the bare sight of these holy Books preserves those that look upon them with respect from sinning: that as soon as any Man touches the Gospel, he regulates his thoughts and desires: and if to that be joined a careful reading it, the Soul being as in a Divine Sanctuary, becomes more pure and perfect, by the Communion it has with God in reading his holy Word. But how, Men will say, can we receive that benefit by the holy Scripture we are encouraged to hope from it, if we do not understand it? This is the Objection, and hear what Answer this Saint makes to it: I reply, says he, that Men may nevertheless receive benefit by it, tho they do not understand its hidden sense, and that the bare reading of it may contribute much to our Sanctification. Besides, it is impossible that Men should be equally ignorant of every thing they red in it. For the Holy Spirit who caused it to be written, provided that it should be done in such a manner, that Publicans, Sinners, Tent-makers, Shepherds, and other illiterate People might attain Salvation by these Books. That therefore the most simplo might not make the difficulty of understanding them an excuse for not reading them, the things therein delivered are accommodated to the Capacity of all Persons; so that a mechanic, a Servant, a poor Woman, and the most ignorant Men in the World may receive benefit by reading them. For those whom God vouchsafed to inspire, by the Grace of his holy Spirit, to writ these Books, did not make them, like the Heathen, to acquire Glory by them, but for the Salvation of those that should red them, or hear them re'd. And therefore, whereas the Philosophers, Orators and other Writers, that knew not JESUS CHRIST, considering less what might be useful to others, than what might make themselves famous, have left under obscurity as to the Ignorant, what good things they were able to say; the Apostles took a quiter contrary method: God having constituted them the Teachers of all Nations, they endeavoured to represent clearly to all Men what they had to teach them, that every one might understand their doctrine upon a bare reading of it.  
It appears by what follows, that S. Chrysostom had chiefly a respect, in speaking after this manner, to what concerns the manners of Men, and does not pretend that the Holy Scripture is so clear in every thing that ordinary Believers do not often need some or other to explain it to them: For who, says he, when he reads in the Gospel: Blessed are the meek: Blessed are the merciful: Blessed are the pure in heart, and such other things, thinks he has need of a Master to make him understand them? Any one likewise easily may understand the Prodigies, Miracles and Histories of it. It is therefore a vain pretence Men make to justify their negligence and slothfulness, in not reading the Scripture, that it is intricate and obscure. You complain you do not understand these holy Books. And how should you understand them, when you will not so much as be at the pains to cast your eyes upon them? Take therefore the Bible, red all its Histories, and being careful to remember what you understand of it, go over often what you find in it obscure. And if after you have red it carefully, you cannot discover the meaning of it, have recourse to one more skilful than yourselves; look for a Master who may instruct you: confer with him about that which you desire to understand, and let him know how very fond you are of his Instructions. And if God sees you thus zealous to understand his Word, he will not overlook your diligence and care. Nay if it happened that you could not find any one to explain to you the meaning of what you inquire into, he will reveal it to you himself. Call to mind the Eunuch of the Queen of Aethiopia: He was a Barbarian, and a Man overwhelmed with Cares and Business, and did not understand what he re'd. Nevertheless he did not forbear to red in his Chariot. judge by that how constant he might be in reading the Holy Scripture at home, being so diligent at it upon a Journey. And if he did not give over reading, tho he understood not what he re'd, much less undoubtedly did he leave it off, after the Instructions he received. But that he understood not what he re'd, appears from Philip the Deacon's Question to him; Understandest thou what thou readest? and the Eunuch's own Answer, who was not ashamed to confess his Ignorance, in saying, How should I, except some Man guide me? He was willing to red, tho he had no body with him to instruct him; but his Zeal moved God to sand him a Teacher: And tho you cannot promise yourselves to have a Guide sent you miraculously as he had, are you not assured of the presence and assistance of the same Spirit that excited this holy Deacon to go to him? I beseech you then, my dear Brethren, not to neglect the means of your Salvation. Whatsoever was written, was written for our Instruction, who live in this last Age. Reading the holy Scripture is a mighty Fence against Sin. And it is to stand upon a steep Precipice over a bottonles Gulf, to be ignorant of the Scriptures. 'tis to renounce Salvation, to refuse to know any thing of the Divine Laws. This is that which has brought in Heresies; that has occasioned a corruption of Manners; that has confounded and disordered all things. For it is impossible, I assure you it is impossible for a Man that reads the Scripture CONSTANTLY and DILIGENTLY not to receive great benefit by it.  
THEODORET, the Disciple of S. Chrysostom, followed in this as in other things the judgement of his Master. In his Commentary on Isaiah, explaining these words: Let us draw Waters with Joy out of the Fountains of our Saviour; he says, they are the Divine Writings which the Prophet calls the Fountains of our Saviour, because from thence those who sincerely believe do joyfully draw. And in his 14th Letter, written to comfort a Lady upon the loss of her Husband, he assures her that she would find her Consolation in reading the holy Scripture. For therefore, says he, it is from our Infancy as a Divine Breast to us, upon which we ought to fasten, by reading and meditating on it, that if our Souls happen to be under any Distemper, they may be cured by the wholesome Instructions we shall draw from thence.  
CASSIAN treating, in his 14th Conference, of Spiritual knowledge, makes it to consist wholly in the knowledge of the Scriptures. He speaks of it in this manner in Chap. 10. If you desire to get a true knowledge of the Scripture, you must endeavour in the first place to bring yourself to a stated humility of Heart, which may led you gradually by a perfect Charity, not to that knowledge which puffs up, but which affects and enlightens. For it is impossible an unclean Spirit should be the Subject of the Gift of Spiritual knowledge. And therefore, my dear Son, be very cautious lest your study and reading should not be to attain that enlightening knowledge, and future Glory, which the Scripture promises to the wise and knowing; but the occasion of your eternal ruin, through vanity and presumption. He shows in the same Chapter, that Men ought to red the Scripture, and learn also a great many things out of it by heart, even while as yet they have but little insight into them; because in time as they advance in Piety, they will discover those Truths which they did not presently understand. And therefore, says he, we should always red and get the holy Scripture by heart, and never be tired with repeating or reading it. This continual Meditation on it, will be a double advantage to us. First, While we apply ourselves in this manner to red and remember the Scripture, our Souls will not in the mean time be troubled with any evil thoughts. And, secondly, after we have taken a great deal of pains to remember it, and could not understand any thing of what we re'd, as long as our minds were taken up with that labour; when, being free from external Business and the sight of sensible Objects, we reflect upon it in the Night, in our silent Meditations and Prayers, we shall discover much of the meaning of it we could not before discern; and God will reveal to us in this calmness, and as it were sleep of our Minds, those Mysteries which were before perfectly hidden and unknown to us. This he proves in the 11th Chapter, and brings an Instance of it, which shows that the dullest Persons, who are only capable of the plainest sense of Scripture, do nevertheless profit by it; but that those who are more ingenious and quick-sighted, do find in it a more sublime and spiritual meaning. When, says he, our hearts begin to be renewed by this divine Study, the whole face of the Scripture will in a manner become also new to them. It will appear more beautiful to them, as they become more and more pure, and will grow in them just as they increase themselves. For the holy Scripture is apprehended by every Man according to his capacity and disposition. It appears earthly to the Carnal, and heavenly to the Spiritual. So that those who before thought it to be totally wrapped up in darkness and clouds, see it, when they are become more pure, so full of light, that they cannot bear the lustre of it. But to clear up this by an Example, I need only mention one Commandment in the Law, to show there is no Precept in the Scripture which does not extend itself to all sorts of Persons, and is not taken differently according to the diversity of Mens Tempers and Understandings. It is said in the Law: Thou shalt not commit Adultery. A carnal Man who is addicted to shameful Lusts, may obey this precept to good purpose, by practising it according to the Letter, and the plain meaning of the words. But then, says he, others who are more spiritual, will interpret them of abstaining from Idolatry or Jewish Superstitions, or avoiding Heresies: And in a word, a perfect Man looks upon every thing that hinders him from the sight and presence of God, as filthy Fornication, tho it be secret and spiritual.  
Pope GREGORY, in his Letter to Leander Archbishop of Sevil, shows that the Scripture is fit to be re'd by the most ignorant and illiterate, as well as by the most learned and judicious Persons: because as it includes Mysteries capable of exercising the most discerning Minds, so it contains plain Truths, fit to nourish the most simplo and ignorant: That it carries in its Superficies wherewithal to suckle its Children, and keeps in its secret Recesses, that which may wrap up in admiration the most exalted minds: being like a River whose Water is so shallow in some places, that a Lamb may wade in it, and in others so deep that an Elephant may swim in it. He observes the same thing, as has been seen in that place, in the Preface of the 20th Book of his Morals. And that Treatise is full in many other places of earnest Exhortations to red the H. Scripture. But nothing should more affect truly pious Souls, than what he says of it in his 5th Homily on Ezekiel, because they placing all their happiness in loving God, have reason to fear nothing more than the abatement of their Love. And that is one of the Effects this holy Pope attributes to reading the holy Scripture, to keep the Love of a Christian from growing could. Be very careful, I beseech you my dear Brethren, to meditate on the Word of God. Do not neglect the Divine Writings, which are as Letters sent to us from our creator. We receive a very great advantage by them: for by reading these Writings our hearts are warmed, and our Love is kept from being quenched or growing could through Iniquity. This holy Pope could not declare his mind more fully upon this Head, than he has done in his 40th Letter of the 4th Book, writing to a lay-man of great Worth name Theodorus. For thus he speaks to him upon this Subject of reading the holy Scripture: The greater any Man's Friendship is, the more free and bold he is in declaring his thoughts to his Friend. I have a Complaint to make to the sweet and amiable Heart of my excellent Son Theodorus, that having received of God the Talent of Ingenuity, the Talent of Prudence, the Talent of Mercy and Charity towards the poor, yet he is so taken up with the Affairs of this World, and satisfying those that come continually to him, that he neglects to red every day some of the words of his Redeemer. For what is the holy Scripture but a Letter which Almighty God has vouchsafed to sand to his Creatures? And surely whatever place you were in, if you received a Letter from an Emperor, at any time whatsoever, you would not defer the reading of it, you would give yourself no rest, or sleep, before you knew what was his Imperial Majesty's pleasure. And yet the King of Heaven, the Lord of Men and Angels has sent you Letters concerning your own happiness, and you neglect, my dear and excellent Son, to red these divine Letters, when you ought rather to be impatient to know what they contain. I beseech you therefore to apply yourself to them hereafter with a particular affection, and meditate every day on the words of your Creator. LEARN OUT OF THE WORD OF GOD, THE GREATNESS OF HIS LOVE TOWARDS YOU, that you may be excited to long more earnestly for eternal Happiness, and your heart inflamed with more ardent desires after Heaven.  
In fine, so far was this Pope from thinking it an abuse or profanation of the Scripture for ignorant People to red it, that he allows even those who cannot red, which seems to be the highest degree of Ignorance, to borrow the eyes of others and get it re'd to them. For he tells us this story of S. Servulus, in his 15th Homily on the Gospels: Under the Porch by which people pass to the Church of S. Clement, there was a poor Man name Servulus, whom many of you knew as well as I; who in his Poverty was rich in good Works, and whom a long Distemper had made impotent; for he continued sick of the Palsy from his youth to his dying day, and was so far from being able to stand, that he could not so much as sit up in his Bed. He had not power to put his hand to his mouth, or turn himself from one side to another. He had only his Mother and Brother to assist him, and all the charitable Gifts he received, he distributed by their hands to the Poor. He could not red: but having bought the holy Scripture, he caused it to be re'd to him continually by pious Persons to whom he exercised Hospitality. So that he had perfectly learned as much of it as he was capable, tho, as I said before, he could not red.  
I think it requisite to join to the other Fathers, S. BERNARD, who is called the last of the Fathers. Nothing can be more edifying than what he says of the Benefit men may get by reading the Word of God, whatever condition they are in, in his 24th Sermon de Diversis: Let a Sinner, says he, harken to this Word, and his heart will be troubled, that is, it will put his carnal Mind into a saving fear. Tho you were dead in Sin, yet if you hear the Voice of the Son of God, you will live: For his Word is Spirit and Life. If your hearts are hard, remember that which is said in the Scripture: He has sent his Word, and the Ice shall melt away. If you are luke-warm, and afraid of being spewed out of God's Mouth, apply yourselves to the Word of the Lord, and that will inflame you: For his Word is all Fire. If you complain you are in the darkness of Ignorance, hear what the Lord says to you, and his Word will be a Lamp enlightening your Path, and a Light shining on the way wherein you walk. You will say, it may be, it will but increase your sorrow, to be more enlightened, because you will then discern more clearly your least Faults. But the Father will sanctify you by his Truth, which is his Word, and that shall be said to you which was said to the Apostles; Ye are clean through the Word which I have imparted unto you. After you have washed your hands, he will prepare you a noble Feast, where you shall not be fed by Bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds out of the Mouth of God; and by virtue of this Nourishment you shall be enabled to run in the Ways of his Commandments. Tho you should be besieged by an Army of Enemies, encamping round about you and fiercely engaging you, yet take the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, and it will make you triumph over your Enemies. And if, as it sometimes happens, you are wounded in the battle, he will sand his Word, and it shall heal you and deliver you from your Weakness. And if you find yourselves staggering, call upon him, and cry unto him: My feet did slip so, that they were almost turned out of the way; and he will confirm you by his Word. Go on therefore to feed upon the Word of God, exercising yourselves continually in it, till the Spirit calls you to cease from your Labours, that is, till you die.  
Thus we see the judgement of the Greek and Latin Fathers about the usefulness of reading the holy Scripture, out of whom I have alleged those Passages that are collected in the Book of Reading the Holy Scripture, as likewise most of the Reflections of the Author of that Treatise. I might add several other places, but these are sufficient to show it has been a constant Tradition of both Churches, that reading the holy Scripture is very profitable, and that all Believers have not only always been allowed to red it, but advised and earnestly exhorted to do so. Let us see what Objections can be made against so universal a doctrine.  
It is not fit, say some, that ignorant People, Women, and Children should red the holy Scripture, because it contains in it Mysteries and Heights that are above them. Such are Persons of shallow understandings who may pervert the Sense of Scripture, and so run into Error. They that make this Objection, seem to me to be great strangers to the Spirit of God, who teaches us by the Royal Prophet and his Son Solomon, that the Law of God was made to give Wisdom to the simplo and ignorant: They are great strangers to the Spirit of our Blessed Saviour, who says, that the holy Spirit anointed him to preach the Gospel to the Poor; and thanks his Father that he had hide the Truths he preached from the Wise and Prudent, and revealed them to Babes. They are great strangers to the Maxims of the Apostles, who assure us that JESUS CHRIST had not called into his Primitive Church, many wise Men according to the Flesh, but chosen the most foolish in the esteem of the World to confounded the Wise. In a word, they directly oppose the judgement of the Saints, who have always advised the most ignorant, the most simplo, mechanics, Women, and Children, to red the holy Scripture; and the practise of the Church which has caused it to be re'd to them for so many Ages. But if we consider the Objection only in itself, nothing can be more weak or unreasonable. The holy Scripture, as the Fathers observe, contains in it a great many plain things; and the clearest things in it are those which concern Morality and the most essential Duties of Religion. It is written in a plain style, accommodated to the capacity of all mankind. Its evident Truths are proper to nourish and instruct the simplo and ignorant, as its Depths are capable of exercising the most Learned and Judicious. If there be any obscure and difficult places in it, it is not the simplo ordinarily that abuse them, but the proud and conceited. For it's plain it is not the common sort of People who have been the Authors of Heresies by perverting the Word of God, but they have been generally Bishops, Priests, and Men of great knowledge and Abilities. So that Experience is so far from showing us that reading the Scripture is dangerous to the simplo and ignorant, that on the contrary it convinces us they are for the most part learned Men whom it has lead into Error, and that the Ignorant have commonly been instructed and edified by it.  
Another Objection is, That it's a profanation of the holy Scripture to put it into the hands of Persons unworthy of it, that is, of impure Sinners. Were this true, we must say that JESUS CHRIST likewise profaned his Word, by addressing it to Sinners and lewd Women; but he himself has answered this Objection, in saying, That they were not the whole, but the sick that had need of a Physician. The Word of God, contained in the holy Scripture, is a sovereign Remedy for the cure of Sinners. And why should they be denied the use of this Remedy?  
But some, it is pretended, will unquestionably abuse it, as S. Peter assures us, saying, that the unlearned and unstable in the Faith wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. Well! But were there not some too that abused the preaching of JESUS CHRIST? Was not that to many an occasion of becoming more wicked, as it was foretold of him, that he should be for the fall and rising again of many in Israel? This is also the fate of the Gospel, written and preached, re'd and heard. It is, as the Apostle says, to some the savour of death unto death, and to others the savour of life unto life. The Word of the across is foolishness to them that are lost, a stumbling-block to the Jews, and folly to the Gentiles. But did this hinder S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles from preaching the Gospel indifferently to all, Jews and Gentiles, Believers and Unbelievers, Righteous and Sinners? No more ought the ill use that some may make of reading the holy Scripture through their own perverseness, to hinder us from advising all Men to red it, except such us we foresee will despise it, and are resolved not to understand it. And those are properly the Persons of whom JESUS CHRIST speaks, when he says, Give not that which is holy unto Dogs, nor cast Pearls before Swine.  
There are objected likewise some Passages of the Fathers, but few in number and misapplied. It is said that Theodoret relates that S. Basil reproved a Cook of the Emperor Valens, for taking upon him to discourse of Religion. What relation has this Story to reading the holy Scripture? S. Basil speaking of the Mysteries of the Faith before the Emperor Valens, was interrupted and contradicted in his Discourse by this Cook, whose Name was Demosthenes. To whom S. Basil smiling said, See here's a second Demosthenes, but not so learned as the first. With which Jest the Cook being incensed, threatened the Father; who thereupon bid him mind his Sauces, and not think that one of his uncircumcised Ears, was fit to hear spiritual doctrines. S. Basil therefore did not reprove him for reading the holy Scripture, but only for presuming to dogmatize.  
It is said also that the same S. Basil in his Epistle to Chilon, forbids the reading of the Old Testament; and that Origen, S. Gregory of Nazianzen and S. Jerom, forbid the reading of some Books of the holy Scripture to young People. To this it's easy to answer that S. Basil does not in his Letter to Chilon condemn reading the holy Scripture, but on the contrary recommends it, and especially that of the New Testament; and that he does not forbid the reading of the Old, but only admonishes his Scholar, that it often proved hurtful; not because there was any thing bad in it, but because the Minds of those that were prejudiced by it were weak. His words are these: Neque lectiones negligas, maximè Novi Testamenti; proptereà quod ex Veteri Testamento saepe detrimentum accidat, non quod scripta sint nociva, said quia eorum qui laeduntur mens infirma est: Which cannot be understood of all the Books of the Old Testament, because he recommends in that very place the recital of the Psalms; but only of some Books, as that of the Canticles. Now no body says that young People and weak Minds may not sometimes be dissuaded from reading some places of the Old Testament, which they cannot truly understand, and consequently would be useless or dangerous to them. And therefore the Jews, as I have observed, would not have Men red the Canticles, the beginning of Genesis, the beginning and end of the Prophet Ezekiel, before they came to twenty five or thirty years of Age. As for the beginning of Genesis, I see no reason; but for the Canticles, it is not without cause that the reading of it is deferred. And therefore S. Jerom after he had advised Laeta to make her Daughter red all the Books of the holy Scripture, and  told her the order in which she ought to red them, adds: And last of all let her learn the Song of Songs, that she may do it without danger, lest if at first she red that holy Book, the purity of her heart be corrupted and wounded by misunderstanding that Epithalamium of the spiritual Marriage; because it is written in words which seem to describe a human Passion. This is good advice; but does it thence follow that Believers ought to be forbidden to red the Bible, or all the Old Testament? The quiter contrary.  
Some city also the Author of the imperfect Work on S. Matthew attributed to S. Chrysostom, but rather Pelagius's; who blaming the Doctors of the Law for discovering to Herod the place where the messiah was to be born, says that we may learn from their Imprudence, that the Mysteries of the Scripture ought not to be manifested to the ungodly, but only to Believers. This Passage also has no relation to reading the holy Scripture. The whole design of it is to show that the Christian Mysteries ought not to be discovered to Infidels, who in all appearance will make an ill use of them.  
I need not insist on a Passage of Bede, alleged also by some, who says that OUR LORD after he had entred into the Jewish Synagogue, opened the Book of the Law and re'd in it; but afterwards shut it, and delivered it to the Officer, to teach us that we ought not to tell every thing to all the World, and to show that he left it to the prudence of him that teaches, to dispense the Word according to the capacities of his Hearers. But neither is this said of reading the holy Scripture, but of preaching the Gospel, and by way of advice to Ministers, to accommodate themselves to the understanding of their Auditors.  
Lastly, Some allege a Passage of S. Jerom, in his Epistle to S. Paulinus, where he complains that all sorts of People meddled with the holy Scripture, that silly Women, old Men, and Sophisters, presuming they understood it very well, mangled it, and took upon them to teach it before they had learned it: Sola Scripturarum ars est, quam sibi omnes vindicant; hanc garrula anus, hanc delirus senex, hanc sophista verbosus, hanc universi praesumunt, lacerant, docent antequam descant. But it is a manifest abuse of these words of S. Jerom, to understand them barely of reading the holy Scripture. S. Jerom does not complain in this place of the Ignorant that re'd the Scripture for Information; but that all People would take upon them to explain and teach it, and boast of their skill in this knowledge before they had studied it. This he calls the Art of the holy Scripture, and applys the following Verse to this sort of People, who pretend to writ or teach what they do not understand.  Scribimus indocti, doctique Poemata passim. 
To conclude, These words, Hanc universi praesumunt, lacerant, docent antequam descant, plainly show that his design is only to speak of those that take upon them to make Commentaries and Expositions on the holy Scripture, without having learned the Arts necessary to a right understanding of it.   

SECT. IV. Whether it be true, that the Church has prohibited the Translation of the Bible into Vulgar Tongues, and forbidden the common People to red the Holy Scripture, and what might be the ground of such a Prohibition. Whether it be still in force. Rules for the Translation of the Holy Scripture into Vulgar Languages, and Directions how to red it with profit.  
I HAVE shown hitherto from a general Tradition of the Greek and Latin Churches, that reading the holy Scripture has been always thought very useful to all Christians, and that the Church has not only permitted all Believers, without distinction of Age or Sex, to red it; but always exhorted them to do so( till these last Ages) by the Mouths of its Pastors, without excluding any. It has exhorted Children to it, that according to the Example of Timothy they might be nourished and brought up in the knowledge of the holy Scripture. It has exhorted Catechumens to it, and admitted them to hear the Word of God, tho it excluded them from its Mysteries, that they might conceive a veneration and respect for the Religion which they embraced. It has exhorted Women, Maids, and young Widows to it, that they might learn from it their several Duties, and by a continual meditation on it, arrive to a greater perfection of spiritual Life. It has exhorted to it the Ignorant, and Men of low degree, being persuaded that JESUS CHRIST had chosen such even before the Great and Wise; and that the holy Scripture, tho it contains Mysteries and very sublime things in it, is nevertheless suited to the capacity of all Persons, and accommodated to the understanding of the meanest Readers; so that a mechanic, a Servant, a poor Woman, and the most ignorant of Men, may profit by reading it. It has exhorted to it, not only Monks, Anchorets, Nuns, and such as profess to led a spiritual Life; but those who live in the World, who have a Family and Employment, that they might find there a support for their weakness in the midst of the Dangers to which the Occupations of this World expose them, and assistance against the Temptations to which they are continually liable. It has exhorted to it Sinners, and persons engaged in a vicious course, that they might there seek a Remedy for their spiritual Distempers; and hearkening to the Voice of God, and being enlightened by his Word, might be sensible of their Errors, and embrace the means of breaking the Chains of their wicked Customs. So that neither Age, nor Sex, nor Ingenuity, nor want of Capacity, nor a Man's Profession, nor the Condition he is in, have been ever looked upon as sufficient Reasons to forbid Christians to red the holy Scripture. In a word, the Church has not only exhorted all Believers to red it; but  told them by the Mouths of the Holy Fathers, that 'tis the Devil who diverts Christians from so doing: it has reproved and blamed those who neglected it, and declared that the Ignorance of the holy Scripture, is one of the chief causes of all our Miseries, that from thence, as from an unhappy Spring, had proceeded innumerable Disorders; that thence came such a swarm of Heresies, such depravation of Manners, such a multitude of useless Labours and vain Employments, in which Christians engaged themselves: I do but repeat the words of S. Chrysostom.  
It will be said perhaps, that all these Maxims were good and true in the Times of the Fathers, when all Persons might red the Scripture without danger, because Believers had a Spirit of Faith, Piety, Teachableness, and Submission to the Pastors of the Church; whereas in these last Ages there has crept in among Men a Spirit of Novelty, Rashness and Pride, which has made the greatest part of the Ignorant that have re'd it, run into Errors and dangerous Novelties, and refuse any longer to harken to the Voice of their Pastors; and that this has obliged the Church to forbid Laymen to red the holy Scripture, and prohibit the translation of it into a known Tongue. This is that which I am at present to examine.  
First, Whereas it is supposed that the Fathers permitted ordinary Believers to red the holy Scripture only, because they were at that time of a teachable and submissive disposition; and if it might have been hurtful to any of them to whom they preached, they would have forbidden them to red it: This Supposition, I say, is not true; for the Church has always been made up of good and bad Men; there have always been Christians that have profited by reading the holy Scripture, and others who have abused it: Yet the Fathers did not therefore forbear to exhort all Believers to red it. They knew that the Word of God was a savour of Life to some, and a savour of Death to others, to use the words of the Apostle: but they knew also that this did not hinder JESUS CHRIST or the Apostles from preaching it to both: And therefore they did not think fit to forbid the reading of it generally to all Christians, because some might abuse it: They ought first to have been morally certain that all those to whom they preached, would make an ill use of it; which is almost impossible. When they knew by experience that reading any particular Book of the holy Scripture, would be useless or prejudicial to some private Men, or a certain sort of Persons, they might very well exhort and command them not to red those Books; but to forbid therefore Believers generally to red the holy Scripture, this is what the Fathers never did, nor thought they ought to do.  
Secondly, It is likewise a false and groundless Supposition, that the simplo and ignorant are more apt than the knowing and learned to make an ill use of the H. Scripture: On the contrary, it is generally these latter, who, being puffed up with knowledge, have run into Errors, by explaining the holy Scripture in their own way; whereas the simplo and ignorant, being humble and teachable, without inquiring any further, are contented to understand what is clearly proposed in it, for their instruction and edification.  
The third Supposition; That in these last Ages there has crept in among Men a Spirit of Novelty, Rashness, and Pride, which has made most of the Ignorant that have re'd the holy Scripture fall into Errors, and refuse any longer to harken to the Voice of their Pastors, seems to have more ground. The truth is this; When the Vaudois, or poor People of lions, appeared in the end of the twelfth Century, Peter Valdo, a Merchant of lions, who was their Leader, having set up for a Preacher, took upon him to explain the holy Scripture in the Vulgar Tongue, and to preach the Word of God. Those of his Sect, who were all Laymen, followed his Example; and being reproved by the Clergy for preaching without Orders, stood up against their Pastors, and made a Division in the Church. The Pope commanded them to be silent, and forbade them to preach the Word of God publicly; but we don't red he prohibited them to red the holy Scripture in private, or to have Translations of it. Innocent III. forbids also Laymen in his Decretal, Cum ex injuncto, to hold private Meetings and preach there the Word of God; but commends the desire they had to understand the holy Scripture. I shall not trouble myself about the Prohibition made in a pretended Council of Toulouse, in the Year 1229. C. 14. of having any Books of the Old and New Testament, except the Psalms, and the Breviaries or Offices of the Virgin, and that upon condition that those Books should not be translated into the Vulgar Language: For it is notorious that this Prohibition is contrary to the practise of the Church in all Ages, and injurious. Besides, this Order which is not of a Council, but only of the Cardinal of S. Ange, was made purely for the diocese of Toulouse, and the neighbouring Countries, where the continual Abuse which the Albigenses and Vaudois made of the holy Scripture, moved this Cardinal to proceed so rigorously. But to allege this as a general Decree or Prohibition, is a manifest Fallacy. In short, whoever would maintain that Christians have been forbidden to have any Books of the Old and New Testament in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and that they may not have any Translations of the Breviary and Virgin's Primer, it must be from the Decree of this Cardinal, and consequently it cannot be maintained.  
Wickliff, John Huss and his Disciples, were guilty of the same abuse of the Ministry; and one of the chief Points of their doctrine examined in the Councils of Constance and Basle, was the liberty of preaching the Word of God publicly, which they would have allowed to Laymen. These Councils opposed it, but did not forbid them to red the holy Scripture in private: For we don't find any Prohibition in these Councils against reading or translating the holy Scripture into a known Tongue, nor any Opinion, permitting such Reading or Translations, censured. But these Sectaries grounding their doctrine upon some passages of Scripture misunderstood, made unfaithful Translations of it into the Vulgar Language, and without Allowance or Authority; and using them to support their Errors, this gave occasion to some catholic Writers, not to condemn absolutely all Translations of the holy Scripture, or forbid entirely the reading of it; but to think of a Method to stop the course of Heretical Versions, and hinder Believers from making an ill use of reading the holy Scripture, by understanding it in the sense which the heretics put upon it. This made Gerson disapprove those Versions of the whole Bible into the Vulgar Tongue, which were ill done, and misunderstood. For it is such only he condemns, acknowledging that those which are good and faithful may be useful, being well understood. Quemadmodum, says he, de Biblia benè& verè in Gallicum translata bonum aliquod, si sobriè intelligatur, potest emanare; sic per oppositum innumeri errores evenire possunt, si malè fuerit traducta, aut praesumptuosè intellecta, refutando sensus& Sanctorum Doctorum expositiones. Satius esset hujusmodi rem ignorare; quemadmodum in Medicinis& in aliis Scientiis, quas melius esset prorsus ignorare, quam parum aut male scire, seize Magistrum reputando in iis. These are the words of that Author in his 50th Consideration to Flatterers of Princes. So that tho he speaks more harshly in other places against Versions of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue, yet he does not condemn them all absolutely, but on the contrary owns they may be useful, if true and faithful: He does not forbid all Laymen to red them, but only presumptuous Persons, who will interpret them in their own way, contrary to the sense which the holy Fathers have given them, and imagine they may explain them according to their own fancy. In another place where he says more generally, that the Translation of the Scripture into Vulgar Tongues ought to be prohibited, he excepts the Moral and Historical parts of it; which include almost all the New Testament, and the greatest part of the Old: Rursum, says he, sequetur ex praemissis, prohibendam esse Vulgarem Translationem Librorum Sacrorum nostrae Bibliae, praesertim extra moralitates& historias.  
But whatever the Opinion of Gerson was in this matter, it's certain the Inconveniences he alleged, did not induce the Church in his time to make such a Prohibition as he desired. And Translations of the holy Scripture into known Tongues were so far from being proscribed and forbidden among catholics, that they never made so many, as I have shown, into all manner of Languages, to be re'd by all Believers, as from the time of Gerson, till that when the Heresy of Luther and Calvin arose.  
These heretics following the same Method with the Vaudois, the Wickliffites and Hussites, and attempting to establish their Errors upon passages of Scripture misunderstood and ill interpnted, and having published several Versions of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongue, wherein they insinuated their own Explications; there were some catholic Divines who seeing that a great many Believers were lead into Error, whether by reading those Versions and Heretical Interpretations, or the ill Sense their Ministers put upon the words of Scripture and suggested to their Followers; thought fit to forbid Laymen to red the holy Scripture, without special permission: and some went so high, as to blame universally all Versions of it into a known Tongue. But there were always a great many catholic Divines of another mind, and who maintained that the holy Scripture might be put into the hands of all Christians, and translated into known Languages. Even those who thought it not fit for all Persons to red it indifferently, have given several Exceptions and Modifications to that Rule. Esprit Rothier a Dominican friar of Toulouse, and the first that ever published a Treatise in defence of this Opinion, owns in his Letter to King Henry II. at the beginning of that Treatise, that he had a great many Adversaries, and expected to be charged with Insolence, for being the only Person that dared to disapprove what no body else condemned, and most commended: Me insolentem videri, qui solus id reprobem quod nemo damnavit, laudavere plerique. Peter Soto of the same Order, whose Treatise against the Prolegomena of Brentius, where he maintains the same Opinion, came out in 1552. acknowledges that among catholic and pious Persons, there were some who thought it fit that the H. Scripture should be translated into all Languages, that all Persons might red it, and that this was a thing worthy to be debated and regulated by a General Council: Caeterùm quod ad Translationes Scripturae in diversas& omnes Linguas, ut scilicet ab omnibus legi posset, attinet, DIVERSAE SUNT CATHOLICORUM ET PIORUM SENTENTIAE; & nos dignam credimus hanc rem quae Generalis Concilii auctoritate tractetur. In fine, he could not but own that it was unjust to deprive the People entirely of reading the holy Scripture. It's true, he would not have it all put into their hands, as being persuaded it was too strong Meat for them; but he grants there were many things in it proper to nourish Piety, convey knowledge, and increase the Faith of Believers, which might be given to all Persons, and translated into all Languages, especially what related to Manners and the principal Mysteries of Faith, as the Life of JESUS CHRIST, the Epistles and Gospels, &c. Quod siquis, says he, causetur non esse aequum omni lectione Scripturae privare populum, hinc etiam respondemus, non hoc nos agere ut nihil legant, nihil habeant simplices Scripturae Sacrae. Integram quidem illam cibum dicimus solidiorem quàm captui populi conveniat, said sunt in ea quam plurima quae sufficiant ad pietatem& scientiam Christianam& servandam& augendam in Fidelium animis. Haec Doctorum diligentia excerpta saluberrimè credimus omnibus tradi posse,& in omnium Linguas transferri, praecipuè quae ad mores portinent,& quae ad prima mysteria Fidei: lectiones illae quae per annum in Ecclesia leguntur, Miracula Christi, &c. Alphonsus à Castro, who comes near the same Opinion, in his Treatise of the Punishment of heretics, published in 1555. owns that there are many Christians and catholics who think it proper the holy Scripture should be translated into a known Tongue: Non desunt tamen, says he, ETIAM CHRISTIANI ET CATHOLICI VIRI, qui hoc bonum esse contendant; and tho he is not of their Opinion, he favours it in what follows, and makes these Restrictions as to his own judgement. He thinks it fit the Gospels for Sundays, and the Feasts of the Year, should be translated into the Vulgar Tongue, and put into the hands of the People, provided they are translated by skilful Men and catholics, and their Translations are carefully examined and free from suspicion of Error. He desires only that some Explications be added to the difficult places. He seems also to allow afterwards the Translation and reading of all the New Testament, except the difficult Passages of the Epistles of S. Paul, and the Revelation, and to forbid only the Old Testament. Ambrosius Catharinus who was not far from being of the same Mind, yet concludes his Dispute with saying, that he would not have the Versions, already published, prohibited, if they were not faulty, deceitful and scandalous, because of the Notes added to them by heretics: He is only for having Explications annexed to those places which the heretics abused, to declare the catholic Sense, or the Reader admonished in a Preface, to have a care of being deceived, and taught that it is safest to submit to the Traditions and Customs of the Fathers. And as to the New Versions, he does not absolutely reject them; but would have none suffered that did not bear the Names of their Authors, and had not the approbation of learned and true catholics: Siquis enim, says he, me consuleret, quae jam sunt editae non prohiberem, nisi fort mendosae invenirentur ac dolosae translationes, aut per adjecta Haereticorum Scholia scandalosae. Idque eo consilio facerem, ne daretur causa malignis garriendi in nos, quasi velimus supprimere Evangelicas veritates. said illud diligenter curari vellem, ut in eis Scripturae locis quibus adversum nos abutuntur Haeretici, declararetur sensus Catholicus, aut in Praefatione admoneretur Lector de offendiculis,& instrueretur in cunctis tutissimum esse ritus& observantias Patrum ac traditions obedienter sectari. Novas autem Versiones nollem permitti, nisi& nomen Auctoris,& diligentèr probatae à doctis& verè Catholicis testimonium secum ferrent. It's true, he adds, that he gives this permission out of Indulgence, and because of the hardness of Mens hearts; but what he calls hardness of heart, was always looked upon by the Church as a pious and religious Disposition, very much becoming a Christian. For what Son does not desire to red the Will of his Father? What Christian should not ardently desire to red those Books which contain the Life and doctrine of his Master? What religious Man and observer of the Law, does not take delight in reading and meditating on it? Cardinal Bellarmine charges Chemnitius with telling an impudent lye, when he says that the catholic Church absolutely forbids the Translation of the Bible into a known Tongue; as appears, says he, by the 4th Canon of the Index of prohibited Books, where the Pope permits the reading of the holy Scripture translated into the Vulgar Tongue, to those who are capable of reading it with profit, that is, who should be allowed to do so by their Ordinary. He adds, that it only forbids permitting all Men indifferently to red it, and to make use of a known Tongue in the public Service. At Catholica, says he, Christi Ecclesia non quidèm prohibet omninò vulgares translationes, ut Chemnitius impudentèr mentitur; nam in Indice Librorum prohibitorum à Pio IV. edicto, Regulâ quartâ videmus concedi lectionem ejusmodi Librorum iis qui utilitèr& cum fructu eâ uti possunt; id est, iis qui facultatem ab Ordinario obtinuerint. Prohibet tamen ne passim omnibus sine discrimine concedatur bujusmodi lectio,& ne in publico& communi usu Ecclesiae Scripturae canantur vel legantur Vulgaribus Linguis. In fine, Cardinal Perron in his Reply maintains, That it was not the design of the Church to take away from the People the knowledge of what was said in the public Service, and that the Church of Rome could not be accused of having purposely introduced an unknown Tongue into the Christian Worship; but for good Reasons had judged it proper to retain the Language in which it was at first instituted, tho in process of time it ceased to be Vulgar.  
These Passages of the Authors I have now cited, sufficiently show that if on the one hand they were no great Friends to the Translation of the Scripture into known Tongues, for particular Reasons which I shall afterwards examine; on the other they acknowledged that all such Versions could not absolutely be condemned, nor Believers entirely forbidden to red the holy Scripture; that they allowed some parts of it to be put into the hands of all Christians, which they might red without permission; and that those who should obtain leave for it, might red the whole, translated by catholics: And lastly, that many catholics were not of their mind, but thought it fit that the holy Scripture should be translated into all Languages, to be re'd by all Christians who had the liberty to do it. This these Authors acknowledge, and their Concession alone is enough to show that the Church had not as yet prohibited the Translation, or reading of the holy Scripture in a known Tongue: For had there been any Prohibition concerning it, these Authors would certainly have made the best of it, and given those who were not of their mind the Name of heretics and Rebels against the Orders of the Church, instead of calling them, as they do, Pious and catholic Men. Peter Soto was so firmly persuaded there was no Prohibition about this matter, that, he says, it was a thing to be examined and regulated by the Council; he means that of Trent, at which he was present. There had not therefore been till the Council of Trent any Prohibition against translating and reading the holy Scripture in a known Tongue. We shall see by what follows that this Council made none also, but left things in the same state they were before, and catholics to the same liberty of reading and translating the holy Scripture.  
The Faculty of Divinity at Paris made in the last Age the same Exceptions and Limitations as the Authors I have already cited, to the Decree they passed; That considering the wickedness of the Times, and the ill use which was made of Versions of the holy Scripture, they were dangerous and unfit to be put into the hands of all Persons. This is in their Censure of Erasmus, who had said it was to be wished that the holy Scripture were translated into all Languages, that all sorts of People indifferently might red it, and that no Man ought to be kept from reading any of the Sacred Books, no not that of the Canticles. The Doctors of the Theological Faculty of Paris, who drew up the Censure of Erasmus's Propositions, took care to show that they did not absolutely condemn all Versions of the Scripture into a known Tongue, or their being re'd by pious Laymen. For first, lest their Censure should be misinterpreted as a Declaration that Versions of the holy Scripture were pernicious in themselves, they begin with observing that the Scripture is in its own nature good and holy, whatsoever Language it is turned into: Quamvis in quamcunque Linguam vertantur Sacrae Litterae, suâpte naturâ sanctae sint& bonae. Secondly, They allege the Example of the Vaudois, Albigenses, and Turlupines, to show it may be dangerous to suffer them to be re'd, without an explication, by the ignorant and simplo, who make an ill use of them, and do not red them with Devotion and Humility: Absque ulla explicatione, idiotis& simplicibus eis abutentibus, nec eas piè& humiliter legentibus. Thirdly, They do not say the Translation of the whole Bible was mischievous in itself, and at all times; but only when they wrote this Censure, ( hac tempestate) and considering the wickedness of Men, and shameless boldness of many: Perspecta hominum malitia,& rectè perpensa multorum hujus temporis impudenti temeritate. Fourthly, They do not speak of a Translation of those Books which concern Morality, as the Gospels, and Epistles of the Apostles; but only of a Translation of all the Bible in general: Loquendo de omnibus Scripturae Libris indifferenter. Fifthly, They acknowledge it may be useful to some, but say it ought not therefore to be put rashly into the hands of all Men. Sixthly, They declare expressly, they do not forbid the most ignorant to red some of the Sacred Books, which with a suitable Explication may tend to confirm them in Virtue, if they red them soberly and devoutly, without pride and arrogance, and do not take occasion from thence to despise Sermons, or neglect to hear the Word of God preached: Neque eis obiter interdicit usum quorundam Sacrorum Librorum, qui cum explicatione convenienti aedificationi morum sint accommodi; si sic tamen tales Libri ab ipsis legantur piè ac sobriè, citra supercilium& arrogantiam, ut non ind contemnant Praedicationes, nec à crebra Verbi Dei auditione retrahantur. And therefore the Censure of the following Proposition falls only upon this, that Erasmus permitted all Persons to red Ezekiel, and the Canticles, which the Jews themselves had forbidden to Persons under 30 years of Age.  
All these Precautions taken by those who drew up the Censure of Erasmus, show that they did not think, there was in their time any general prohibition of the Church, against reading or translating the holy Scripture into a known Tongue; but only that they judged it better, considering the impiety and rashness of Men in their Time, not to allow all Persons indifferently to red the whole Bible. And therefore when any Versions of it into a known Tongue were brought before the Faculty of Paris in the same Age, they did not reject them because they thought them bad in themselves, but because they judged them unfaithful or faulty. For this reason they rejected in 1553. a Translation of the Bible into French, in which some caconical Books were placed among the Apocryphal, and which contained some scandalous, suspicious, and heretical Assertions. And upon the same ground in 1567. they condemned the Version of Benedictus Rhenanus, because he had followed that of Geneva, and left a great many Errors, both in his Translation, and the Arguments and Prefaces of the Books, and the Marginal Notes: Quod sint Biblia Genuensem paucis immutatis, tum in Textu, tum in arguments& Praefationibus Librorum, tum in Annotationibus Marginum, tum in Additionibus ad Textum. They likewise blamed the Conduct of Benedictus Rhenanus, because he was not contented to propose the Bible indifferently to all Persons, but maintained that it was necessary to Salvation for every one to red it: Non tantum enimo mnibus indifferenter ausus fuit Biblia Gallica proponere proprio judicio, said etiam defendere utiliter& quasi ex necessitate ad salutem ab omnibus esse legenda. In a word, the Doctors of Paris find a great many Faults with this Translation, and do not condemn it merely because it was a Version of the Bible into a known Tongue. Gregory XIII. condemned it also upon the bare Presentment of the Faculty, as containing in it dangerous and erroneous Explications, Heresies and Blasphemies, both in the Text and in the Notes.  
The Faculty of Paris seems to have gone further in the beginning of this Age, and absolutely rejected all Versions of the Bible into a known Tongue. For in 1607. some Booksellers having asked their leave to print the Bible in French; they answered, as is pretended, by their Deputies, that they had never approved, nor did approve of such Translations: But there is no express Register of this Answer; it was not the Answer of the Faculty as a Body, but only of some particular Doctors, who perhaps had Reason to act in that manner, because the Author of those Versions was not name, and none but Booksellers were concerned in them; which might give occasion for suspicion. It's true, the same Faculty in 1640. were offended that some of its Members had approved of the Version of Frizonius, and declared its dislike of all Translations of the Bible; and in 1641. it opposed the Version of Corvinus, and wrote against it to Cardinal Richlieu; but perhaps they had then particular Reasons for such a proceeding, because they did not look upon those Versions as sufficiently perfect. But however that be, it is some time ago since that Faculty has altered its Measures, since it has received and receives continually the Petitions of Doctors, to approve of Translations of the Bible into a known Tongue, both of the whole and of part, and freely permits them to be made. This is notorious, and evidently shows that they do not think Translations of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue to be unlawful, or pernicious and dangerous to Believers. The Faculty of Divinity at louvain has always been more favourable to Versions of the Bible into a known Tongue, because they have not only ever approved of them; but were the first, as we have seen, in translating the Bible into French and Dutch, and publishing those Translations.  
To return now to the main Point, which I left to examine the Opinion of the Theological Faculties of Paris and louvain, about the Translation of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue, and reading them: I have shown by the confession of Soto himself, that there was not till the Council of Trent any prohibition of the Church against translating or reading the holy Scripture in a known Tongue. Let us see what passed in that Council about this Matter. If the Version of the Bible into a known Tongue had been an unsufferable Grievance, if it had been convenient to forbid the simplo and ignorant to red it, if it had been impossible by any other means to stop the progress of Heresy and prevent Mens falling into Error, it's certain the Council of Trent, whose design was to suppress every thing that might give scope or credit to Heresy, should have made a Decree, expressly prohibiting upon very severe Penalties the Translation of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue, and the Common People to make use of such Translations, or to red the Bible. But it did nothing at all of this. It will be said perhaps that the Council did not consider of it; but on the contrary, the History of the Council shows us that the Question was proposed and debated in it, and that the Council did not think it proper to do any thing in that matter. For Cardinal Palavacino, in the first part of his History, Chap. 12. relates, That as the Council was deliberating on the 17th of March 1546. about Abuses relating to the Sacred Writings, Peter Paceco Bishop of Gienne, and since nominated Cardinal, represented as a pernicious Abuse, the custom of translating the Scriptures into a known Tongue, and so exposing them to be re'd by ignorant People: to which Cardinal Madrucci civilly answered, but with abundance of Life and Zeal, That Germany would be very much displeased, if it apprehended the Fathers of the Council had a design to deprive the People of the Divine Oracles, which the Apostle tells us ought to be always in the mouths of Believers. Paceco objected that they had been forbidden in Spain, with the approbation of Paul II. Madrucci answered him, that Paul II. or any other Pope might be deceived in judging of the usefulness or mischievousness of a Law; but that S. Paul who ordained the contrary to what was attributed to Paul II. could not be deceived. The thing stopped here, and the Assembly broken up without determining any thing about this matter. The Council ordered in its 18th Session, that an Index should be made of bad and pernicious Books: It was drawn up during the Council, and considered in the 25th Session, which was the last day of the Council's sitting; but the Fathers not having time to judge of it, ordained that the whole should be referred to the judgement of the Pope, to be published by his Authority. This Index contained as yet no Rules. Those Rules were added and published sometime after with the Index by pus IV. in 1564. Sixtus V. made afterwards some other Additions, which were published again with the Index and Rules by Clement VIII.  
The 4th of these Rules about translating and reading the holy Scripture is this: It being therefore evident from Experience, that if the Bible translated into the Vulgar Tongue was allowed to all Persons indifferently, the rashness of Men would cause it to do more harm than good: We decree upon this consideration, that the Matter be referred to the judgement of a Bishop or Inquisitor, who with the advice of a Curate or Confessor, may give those leave to red the Bible in a known Tongue, translated by catholic Authors, to whom they judge such reading will not be prejudicial, but rather promote their Faith and Piety; and such are to have this Permission in Writing. The 6th Rule of the same Index forbids that Books of Controversy between the catholics and heretics of those times, written in a known Tongue, should be re'd indifferently by all persons, and ordains that what was said concerning the Bible translated into the Vulgar Tongue should be observed as to them also. Sixtus V. remarks in his Addition, that by the 4th Rule there is no Power given to Bishops, Inquisitors, or superior Monks to grant leave to buy, red, or keep Bibles translated into a known Tongue. I have several Reflections to make upon these Rules.  
First, That they ought not to be looked upon as the Council of Trent's, or made by their Authority, because they were formed since the Council; and tho the Council had ordered an Index to be made of pernicious Books, yet they had not said any thing about these Rules, or a Prohibition against reading the holy Scripture in a known Tongue. Their design was only to have an Index drawn up of suspected and pernicious Books which contained an unsound doctrine; which cannot without impiety be understood of catholic Versions of the Bible. Secondly, That these Rules came from the Tribunal of the Inquisition, which is not owned in France. Thirdly, That they were never received or published, either in France, Germany, or the Low Countries. Fourthly, That they were never put in execution, neither in France nor other catholic Kingdoms; seeing as to Controversial Books written by catholics, people have always had the liberty in all places to red them; and as for the Scripture, tho the Prohibition against reading it be general, yet it was never thought necessary to have a Licence to red some parts of the New Testament, as the Epistles and Gospels, the Passion of OUR LORD, &c. And herein also that Decree has been manifestly derogated from, that whereas it obliges Men to have this permission to red the Bible in Writing, the same was never observed in any Country. Fifthly, That the Remark of Sixtus V. confirmed by Clement VIII. viz. That BIshops have no Power to give leave to red the holy Scripture in a known Tongue, is injurious to Bishops, and an entrenchment of the Court of the Inquisition upon their privileges. Sixthly, That this Rule does not forbid Translations of the Bible into Vulgar Tongues, but only the reading them: Nay, instead of forbidding them, it supposes that there must be some such Versions; because it declares that those may be permitted to red them, who, it's thought, will receive benefit thereby. Seventhly, That this Rule supposes an Event about which the Pope might be mistaken, namely, that reading the holy Scripture in a known Tongue would do more harm than good. Cardinal Madrucci has observed as to this, that any Pope might be deceived in judging of the usefulness or mischievousness of a Law: Quemcunque Pontificem in judicanda Lege conducibili vel non conducibili, potuisse falli. Eighthly, That the Prohibition against reading the Scripture being grounded upon this Supposition, That the rashness of Men would cause it to do more harm than good, whenever that Supposition becomes groundless, the Prohibition ought to cease. But it is universally known, that among a thousand catholics who red the holy Scripture in a known Tongue at present, there is hardly one to whom it does more harm than good. And so according to the Rule itself, the prohibition of reading the Bible in a known Tongue without a special Licence, ought not any longer to take place. The Law ceases when the Design and End of the Law cease: Cessat Lex cessant fine.  
There never was in the Church any other Statute about translating and reading the Sacred Books, than this Rule of the Index, which was never received, or published, and much less executed, in most catholic Kingdoms. It was, I confess, inserted in the third Council of Milan, and in a Council of Avignon, thirty years after. But those Councils could at the most but make Laws for their own Province. We do not find that the Provincial Councils of any other Countries received or approved of this Rule. On the contrary, the Council of Bourges in the Year 1584. Tit. 4. Chap. 2. and the Council of Narbon in 1609. restrained the Prohibition of reading and keeping Bibles turned into French to those which were not approved by the Ordinary.  
I have shown hitherto, first, that catholics were not in the last Age forbidden to translate the holy Scripture into a known Tongue, and that faithful catholic Versions, approved by the Church, have been always permitted. Secondly, That the reading of them was not absolutely forbidden, as a thing mischievous and dangerous to all Believers; but only by reason of the ill use that many made of it, some thought it not fit to advice all Persons indifferently to red them; but to examine first of all the dispositions of those into whose hands they should put them. Thirdly, That even those who were of this judgement, made several Exceptions and Limitations to their Opinion, either by declaring that they allowed all Persons to red some parts of the Bible, as the New Testament, the Epistles, and Gospels, &c. with Annotations; or restraining the Prohibition against reading Translations of the Bible to such as were not approved by the Ordinary; or signifying expressly that those ought to be permitted and advised to red the holy Scripture, who, it was supposed, would make no ill use of it; or, lastly, acknowledging that this Prohibition could not take place in Countries where the contrary practise had prevailed, and where there were heretics, who would be offended that Men were forbidden to red it, as Serarius observes particularly of Germany. Fourthly, That tho some catholic Divines were of Opinion that all Persons indifferently ought not to be allowed to red Versions of the whole Bible, yet there were a great many others of a contrary mind, and even those that maintained the former Opinion, acknowledged that a great many pious Men were not of their judgement. Fifthly, That there never was any Prohibition as to this matter, made by the Authority of the Church, or a General Council, nor established by a prevailing Custom; but only a Rule of the Index, approved in some Provincial Synods, which has no where been executed in its whole Latitude, nor received in France, Germany, Poland, and other places.  
It is remarkable as to Poland, that the Popes have been so far from attempting to execute the Rule of the Index in that Country, that on the contrary Gregory XIII. to hinder the spreading of Bibles translated into the Polish Language by the Unitarians, ordered James Vieki a Jesuit to translate the Bible into Polish; whose Version was approved by Clement VIII. and after the Translator's Death, printed by the Command and at the expense of the Archbishop of Gnesna Primate of Poland. Possevinus observes, that this new Polish Bible came very seasonably to suppress the Errors of the new Arians, which began to spread in the Kingdom: Et ea quidem Versio fuit perutilis& necessaria restinguendis eorum erroribus qui ex falsa novorum Arianorum& aliorum Haereticorum Versione passim serpebant.  
George Kaldi an Hungarian Jesuit, caused a Translation he had made of the Bible into Hungarian, to be printed at Vienna in 1626. And three Years after he procured likewise the Gospels and Masses for all the Year to be printed in the same Language, without setting his Name to them. Some catholics made, as I have observed, new Versions of the Bible into German, Low-Dutch and English, which are common in those Countries, and that, since they have been filled with heretics, to oppose to their Translations, and detect the Cheat they put upon the People, by endeavouring to persuade them that the holy Scripture is on their side: which shows that the ill use which heretics make of reading the holy Scripture, is so far from being a Reason to forbid catholics to red it, that on the contrary it is one for allowing, and not only so, but exhorting them to red it, that they may not be deceived by the Pretences of those Men; and that the heretics themselves may not, as they do, reproach the catholics, that they forbid Christians to red the holy Scripture, and keep them from the knowledge of it, only because it is manifestly contrary to their doctrines.  
There is no Kingdom, in which there have been made, in this Age, more Versions of the holy Scripture into the Vulgar Tongue, and where they have been more common and more universally spread than in France. They have been put there into the hands of all Persons; re'd with profit by Christians of all conditions; approved, and the reading of them recommended by Bishops and Doctors, without the custom of giving or asking leave in Writing to red them being ever put in practise; and it may be said, that if there be a place where the Law of the Index has been justly counteracted, it is certainly in that Kingdom. In the beginning of this Age the Version of the Doctors of louvain was dispersed in France, and generally re'd by catholics; but because it was not thought so exact as it might be, and the Language grew old every day, some persons undertook to review and correct it.  
Peter Bessus, Doctor of Divinity, of the Faculty of Paris, and Chaplain to the King, was the first that set about it, and published his Version, dedicated to King Henry IV. in the Year 1608. He says in his Preface, That his Translation had the Allowance of Princes, the Verification of Parliaments, the Testimony of Doctors, and the Approbation of Universities. Sometime after Peter Frison Penitentiary and Canon of the Church of Rheims, made another French Edition of the Bible, which came out in 1620. with the Approbation of a great many Doctors. He observes in his Preface, that Versions of the Bible into a known Tongue were not prohibited, and asserts, That the reason why Benedictus Rhenanus was troubled, was not for having translated the Bible, but for causing to be printed the Geneva Translation, in which, supposing he had sufficiently corrected it, he had left a world of Faults, which were discovered and condemned by the Bishop of Paris and the Sorbonne. He adds at the end a Treatise about the way of distinguishing catholic French Bibles from those of the Hugonots. But notwithstanding all the Cautions he could use, the Theological Faculty of Paris would not approve of his Translation; tho it took in the Kingdom, and was used by catholics. The same Faculty refused also in 1641. to approve the Version of Corvinus, councillor in the Parliament of Paris, and opposed the publication of it, by ordering their Syndic to writ to Cardinal Richlieu, to hinder its coming out. But their Attempts proved vain; that Version was published with the Approbation of two Doctors of Poitiers; and Cardinal Richlieu being persuaded that the principal Reason why the Faculty of Paris opposed the publication of Corvinus's Translation, was the Quality of its Author, whose business it was not to meddle with things Sacred, resolved to have one made by Persons of that Profession, and to that end pitched upon four Doctors of the Theological Faculty of Paris, who understood Hebrew, Greek and Latin, for whom he procured a Pension from the King, to set themselves about it: but his Design was not executed.  
Father Veron's Translation of the New Testament did not meet with the same opposition as the former. He dedicated it to the General Assembly of the French Clergy, to whom he declares in his Preface, That he could not but be hearty grieved to see, that when the People had the Lives of Saints so well written in the French Tongue, faithfully and purely, which were but as {αβγδ} of the great {αβγδ}, they had not that of the Saint of Saints, the New Testament of our Father, the Holy Bible, the Book of Life, but with a great many considerable Faults, that had continued in it since the first Version of Olivetanus. He has also made a whole Preface to show that None were forbidden to red the Bible in French. Some of his words are these: My design in all I have hitherto said is, that every one may with more freedom apply himself to red the Book of Life. But here I must briefly resolve this Question: Whether there be need of a Licence, Permission, or special Dispensation, at least to mechanics, Women, or other ordinary Believers to red the Bible? Or whether the common People, not excepting Women, may red it without having a Licence from the Bishop, or so much as his Curat or Confessor? And he resolves it thus.  
The Protestant Ministers have drawn, and still keep in their Party, in France, many thousands of the common People, by no pretence more specious, than telling them over and over, in their Sermons and Books, with great Aggravations, that the Bible is a Book prohibited among catholics, that the Council of Trent and a certain Index expurgatory forbid Men to red it: that is, say they, they conceal from Children the Will of their Father; that it is to take away the Light which directs us in our Actions, to deprive us of the Book of Life; in short, that this is an evident sign the Bible is contrary to the Papists, and that the Church of Rome and its Doctors are very sensible of it, because they will not suffer Men to red it. I hear these Reproaches continually in the Sermons of the Protestants at Charenton; and if our Doctors were but there, or re'd the Books of our Adversaries, they would endeavour to take away this stumbling-block from the poor People: at least they would not confirm and magnify it in their Books, and sometimes in their Sermons, that they might not be an occasion of the loss of so many Souls, and do so much prejudice to the Church, whilst they think they serve it by their scrupulous Opinions, that are contrary to sound Divinity. But I admire at these Men; and being moved with a just Zeal for the catholic Religion, and the conversion of so many thousand poor deceived People, I say( 1.) That 'tis certain the Council of Trent never prohibited the Bible, or required any such Licence to red it, nor gave any Commission for making such a Prohibition, or treating concerning it, I say( 2.) That no Doctor, without opposing all the Principles of Divinity, can maintain there is any Prohibition in France against reading the Scripture, or any necessity of having Permission to red it, by any Law, Statute or Rule obligatory. I prove it beyond all denial: It is a certain Maxim in our Schools of Divinity, of Driedo, Medina, and in short of all our Divines, both Scholastical and Moral, that a Law, tho it were that of a Pope or a Council, and much more a Rule made by Delegates, which was never promulgated or received in the Provinces, but has been rejected by a contrary practise and custom, and that for a great many Years, is not obligatory. This is a certain Maxim, and no Divine dares say the contrary: otherwise a thousand Inconveniences would follow, and they themselves would be Transgressors of a thousand Laws. But the 4th Law or Rule of the Index was never promulgated or received in France, and has always been, and is still rejected by a contrary practise and custom, and this for a great many Years past. Therefore, &c. The 6th Rule of the Index is, That the same thing which is ordained concerning Bibles in a known Tongue, shall be observed as to Controversial Books in a known Tongue. But it is certain there is no Permission requisite in France to red the Controversies of du Perron, Cotton and others, in French, nor any Prohibition against reading them. Therefore it is certain also that there is no Permission requisite to red the Bible in French, nor any Prohibition against it. The 4th Rule is, That those Booksellers who shall sell such Books to Persons who have not the foresaid Licence to red them, shall lose the price of their Books, and be punished. Is this observed or received in France?( 3.) The observation made upon this Rule is: By this 4th Rule there is no Power given to Bishops or Superior Monks, to grant a Licence to buy, red, or keep Bibles printed in a known Tongue. Is this received, or practised in France, even by the most scrupulous Doctors? This Rule, as well as many others of Direction, is like a Medal with two Faces, good and useful in some places. But the Offence our Separatists take at it, and the Separation it partly occasions of so many thousand of the common People, seduced by Protestant Ministers, ought to be more regarded; and, as Vasquez very well says, Custom may even abrogate a Law. It is easy to prevent the Danger which may arise from reading the Scripture, by some short Notes upon the obscure Passages of it, or warning the ignorant Reader, not to stop at any thing but what is easy, and as to what is obscure, to refer himself to Doctors, or ask their judgement about difficult Texts. But the End of the Law generally ceasing, the Law becomes of no force. I conclude therefore again from what has been said: That any Frenchman in his own Country may red a catholic Version of the Bible in French, without being obliged to ask any Permission for it, by any Ecclesiastical Law or Rule. I say, by any Ecclesiastical Law; For the saying of S. Peter stands firm; In the Epistles of my Brother Paul there are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. These unlearned and unstable in the Faith, ought indeed to take heed to themselves, and follow the direction of their Superiors— But excepting this case of danger, ignorance or weakness in the Faith, which is not general, and in which the Scriptures and natural Reason teach us, we ought to govern ourselves by the forementioned direction, there is no obligation to ask a Licence, Permission or Direction to red a catholic Version of the Holy Bible, such as, for Example, that of the Doctors of louvain, Besse, Frison, or the present; to red which all Christians are exhorted, even from their very Childhood. Thus this Author speaks in a Book dedicated to the Assembly of the French Clergy in 1646. one who by his Profession knew how necessary it was to the Conversion of heretics, and the Instruction and Edification of catholics, to suffer all persons to red the holy Scripture.  
The Sieur de Marolles, Abbot of Villeloin, dedicated also a third Edition of a Version of the New Testament to the French Clergy, and opposed, in his Epistle Dedicatory, a Treatise written to prove that the common People ought to be forbidden to red the Sacred Books, entitled: The Sanctuary shut against the Profane. Blessed be God, says the Abbot Marolles, that the Lamp is not hide under a Bushel, and that, the veil being rent, it has pleased the Father of Lights, that what was before mysterious should be revealed to us. I am overjoyed that at length the Bread of Life being left in the possession of Strangers, is no longer snatched out of the hands of the natural Children. They that give them the name of PROFANE, do not know them. They cannot be Children and Profane at the same time. The Profane are, properly, the Irreligious and Heathens, who deride our Mysteries, and are offended with the across of JESUS CHRIST, as foolishness. To give your People so reviving a Consolation as this, is not to give holy things to Dogs; if it were, you ought by the same reason to deny them the use of the Sacraments, because they may abuse them. He insists more at large upon this matter in his Preface, and proposes expressly this Question; Whether it be necessary or convenient that all sorts of Persons should have the liberty to hear and red the Scriptures in their Mother Tongue; And he undertakes to prove, by the Authority and Example of the Holy Fathers, and from all sorts of Writers, ancient and Modern, that they ought not to be denied this liberty.  
The Assembly of the Clergy in 1655, or at least some prelates of that Assembly, and among others Mr. de Marca, judging it convenient to translate the New Testament into better French, pitched upon Father Amelot, Priest of the Oratory, for that purpose, and made him go about it: He performed it, and the first part of his Work came out in 1666. dedicated to Mr. de Perefixe Archbishop of Paris, and approved by several prelates, who recommended the reading of it, without mentioning the necessity of a Licence. That Father shows in his Preface, That the Church which behaved itself differently, according to diversity of Time and Place, in its distribution of this heavenly Food to her Children, had sometimes put a distinction between Laymen and Priests, when the Contagion of any Heresies raged; but now that the Glory of JESUS CHRIST on our Altars has dispelled the darkness, and dazzles the eyes of the Sacramentaries, the Church gave him liberty to translate the Bible, for the comfort of pious Persons, who do not understand the Languages consecrated by the sign of the across, and to be of use also sometimes to the Learned, by the Light which all Languages give to one another.  
What was done in the Assembly of the Clergy in 1660. and the Theological Faculty of Paris about the Mass-Book of the Sieur Voisin, does not concern particularly the Translation of the holy Scripture, but of the Service of the Mass: And besides, that Mass-Book was condemned by the Clergy and Faculty, only because they found several Passages in it ill translated, which the Faculty censured as Errors, and because they supposed the design of the Translator was to introduce the Custom of saying Mass in a known Tongue. This the Assembly themselves intimate, in their Circular Letter of Jan. 11. 1661. wherein they declare, That it was the Sense of the Church, that Believers should be instructed in the Truth and Majesty of the Divine Mysteries by curates and Preachers, judging that their knowledge and Piety would be more promoted and confirmed by such Instruction, than if the Divine Sacrifice were celebrated in a known Tongue, which heretics would persuade Men to be necessary for the People's Instruction. To which also what is in a Decree of that Assembly on January 24. 1661. must necessary relate, where it is said, That the Order of the Assembly on December 7. for suppressing the Mass-book of Mr. Voisin, was made to preserve the general practise of the Church, confirmed by the Council of Trent, which some had attempted to alter, to the great scandal of the public, by translating the Mass-book into a known Tongue. The Council of Trent had no thoughts of prohibiting the Translation of the Mass-book into a known Tongue, to be re'd in private: but only maintained the ancient Custom of celebrating the Mass, in the Western Church, in Latin. And therefore seeing the Assembly supposes, that some designed to introduce a Novelty, contrary to the Order of the Council of Trent, they must have been persuaded that it was intended by this Translation of the Mass-book, to bring in that Custom, and this must have been the reason of their Prohibition. And indeed before that time the late Archbishop of roven, Francis de Harlay, had caused to be printed, with the Approbation of the Assembly of the Clergy in 1650. a Translation and Explication of the Canon of the Mass in French. Father Veron, the Sieur d' Hilaire, the Sieurs de la Milletiere and Catalan, had also caused to be printed the Mass and Canon in French, with the Approbation of some Doctors. And to go further back, in the time of King Charles V. the Mass-book had been translated by the Order of that Prince. In fine, since the Assembly in 1660. the Office and Canon of the Mass has been printed several times, with the Approbation of Bishops and Doctors, and has also been put, at the King's Order and Charges, into the hands of the New Converts. But to stay no longer upon this Question, which does not directly concern what I am speaking to, I shall only observe that the Act of the Assembly of the Clergy in 1660 and 1661. does not at all relate to Translations of the holy Scripture.  
When the Version of the New Testament of Mons came out, it was not opposed by its Adversaries, because it was a Version of the New Testament into a known Tongue; but other Reasons were alleged for condemning it, as appears by the Order of Mr. de Perefixe Archbishop of Paris on April 20. 1668. and by those of some other Bishops, and the Remarks of Father Annat upon the printing and publication of that Work. Nor did any oppose the Version of Mr. Godeau Bishop of Vence, or the following Exhortation he gives in his Preface to all Christians to red the Scripture. This is, says he, the Will of the Son of God your Father and judge which I offer you. I cannot doubt but you will take delight in reading it. You will see he there leaves you a most glorious Inheritance, I mean his Truth, and that he divides it after an admirable manner. For tho it be one, yet he accommodates it to the Condition and Duty of all, that every one by practising these Precepts, may live at peace, and arrive to the possession of his future Inheritance, which is Eternal Life. The Son of God has taken care therein to teach us clearly and distinctly our whole Duty to him, as well as our Neighbour and ourselves. This is the scope of the Gospels. The Apostolical Epistles are a larger and more particular Commentary and Explication of them, which leaves nothing in the Christian Life we are to live in this World, difficult or undetermined. This is therefore the Book you ought TO STUDY NIGHT AND DAY; this is the Book you ought, not to writ on your hands, or have continually before your eyes, but to imprint on your hearts— Receive therefore with that new heart this New Testament I present to you. red IT WITH SUCH A HEART. You will soon see that other Books, in comparison of this, entertain you with nothing but Fables. It will convey a true Light into your minds, which will not dazzle you by a false lustre, but enlighten you in a real and infallible manner. It will not flatter you, but show you plainly what you are, and what you ought to be.  
What passed in 1688. as to the Mass-book translated by the Sieur de Tourneux, whereof the publication was prohibited by a Decree of the Official of Paris, has also no relation to Versions of the holy Scripture. The Proctor alleged some particular Reasons for prohibiting it; to wit, that it was not approved by the Ordinary, that it had not the Author's Name, and that the Translation was unfaithful in some places. Speaking about Versions of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue, as well as of those of the Works of the Fathers, and the Divine Offices, which were rejected, he says plainly, they were only those which were not approved by Bishops. Its true, having afterwards alleged Reasons that seemed to militate against all Versions in general, the late Archbishop of Paris, to take away their impression out of the minds of the People, made a new Decree, in which the Proctor declared, that the Church condemned no Versions of the Holy Scripture, or the Fathers of the Church, but such as had not the Names of their Authors, and were not authorized by the permission of Archbishops, when complaints of them were brought to them, and they had discovered on an examination of them, that they contained a pernicious doctrine. He adds afterwards, that his Request had never been so general, but it was limited to Translations not authorised in the diocese.  
To conclude, it is past all dispute in the Church of France, that it is lawful for Doctors, Clergymen, Friars, and other pious persons, duly qualified, to translate the holy Scripture, Works of the Fathers, or any Controversial Treatises into a known Tongue; and as certain, that all Christians may red those Versions when they are approved by Bishops and Doctors, without any special Licence. France every where abounds with such Translations, and they are in the hands of all Persons, and all Christians of whatsoever Condition or Profession they be, red them with profit and edification. The Theological Faculty of Paris are continually giving leave to Doctors to approve them in their Name, the most holy prelates authorize them by their Mandates, and exhort the People to red them, without distinction of Age, Sex, or Condition. An infinite number of Copies of them have been distributed by the King's Order to the new Converts, and instead of it's being thought that their reading them would be apt to confirm them in their Errors, it has on the contrary been judged the most effectual means perfectly to reclaim them: This is a thing publicly known. And can it be doubted after this but that the Law, if ever there was any that prohibited Men to red such Translations is now quiter abrogated, and that all Christians enjoy that liberty they formerly had of reading the holy Scripture, and other godly Books, for their instruction and edification?  
And indeed the Reasons which might have induced some to think that Translations of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue ought to be suppressed, and ordinary Believers forbidden to red them, and for which the Rule of the Index was made, are no longer in force, and consequently the Law ought to cease. Those Reasons may be reduced to two principal: First, The great number of Heretical Translations of the Bible, which were unfaithful, corrupted in many places, and almost always accompanied with Arguments and Notes containing Errors, with which heretics had filled the World; and the difficulty of distinguishing them from catholic Versions of the Scripture; so that Believers were in danger of taking the false Opinions of Men for the Word of God, and an erroneous Gospel for the true. In this case some Bishops thought fit to prohibit all Translations of the Bible in general, and forbid ordinary Christians to red them, only permitting the publication and reading of such as they approved. But this Reason cannot now be alleged; because Heretical Bibles are no longer in use among catholics, who have several Translations of the holy Scripture, and especially of the New Testament, approved and owned by true catholics. The second Reason, expressed in the 4th Rule of the Index, and alleged by the Theological Faculty of Paris, is the experience Men had that reading the Bible was more hurtful than beneficial to the common People; not in itself, but through the rashness of those that re'd it, who would make themselves Judges of the doctrine, interpret the holy Scripture in their own Sense, despise Tradition, believe nothing but what they thought to be contained in the holy Scripture, and take it for the only Rule of their Faith. This Spirit of unteachableness and presumption, accompanied with great ignorance, which is supposed to have been predominant at that time, might occasion abundance of disorder, make the reading of the holy Scripture more hurtful than profitable, and led the common People into Error. It's true, Men should have endeavoured to root out of the Hearts of Christians that evil Disposition, and teach them to red the Scripture with a better temper; but it being supposed that this 'vice was general, and not presently to be reformed, it was esteemed necessary to forbid the common People to red the holy Scripture for a time, till they gave assurance of their teachableness and submission. But, blessed be God, the state of things is now very much altered; those unhappy times are over, and catholics are of another disposition: Being well instructed in the Truths of Religion, they seek for nothing in the Scripture but to confirm themselves in the doctrine of the Church, red it only to know their Duty, and are edified by it; it is an occasion of offence and stumbling to very few, and a Fountain of life and happiness to multitudes. This, present Experience, contrary to what is alleged in the Rule of the Index, sufficiently shows; and consequently the Law of the Index, whatever force it might formerly have, ceases now to be a Law, seeing the reason upon which it was founded, and which is plainly expressed in the Law, is of no longer continuance, and the contrary takes place. For if there was some ground for prohibiting Men to red the holy Scripture in a known Tongue, from a persuasion that it did more harm than good; how much more ought the reading of it to be permitted, when 'tis evident it does no harm to any, and is useful to vast numbers of Christians? In a word, whereas it was thought, a hundred and twenty Years ago, that catholics were in danger of being seduced, if the Scripture was put into the hands of all Persons; it is certain, long since, that on the one hand that danger is past, and on the other, it would be a great hindrance to the Conversion of heretics, and edification of the New catholics, to forbid the reading of it: For, as Father Veron has observed, the most specious pretence the Protestant Ministers have always, and do still make use of, to keep a great many of the common People in their Party, is to tell them that the Bible is a prohibited Book among the catholics; that they conceal from Children the Will of their Father; that this is to take away the Light which directs us in our Actions, and deprive us of the Book of Life; in a word, that this is an evident proof the Bible is contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and that their Doctors are very sensible of it, because they will not suffer Men to red it. The New Converts having been accustomend to red the Bible, and always received profitable Instructions from it, and perhaps that Light also which has made them sensible of their Error, upon their return to the Church, have still continued to red it; they have been assured, that they should not be deprived of the privilege of reading the Word of God; they have had catholic Versions of the Bible, and particularly of the New Testament and Psalms, put into their hands, whilst their huguenot Bibles have been taken away from them: What an Offence now would it be to them; what an occasion of stumbling, if they should be  told that reading the Sacred Books in a known Tongue is forbidden in the Church, and that they may not red them any more without a Licence?  
The last reason for advising People to red the holy Scripture, is that great number of Books of pretended Spiritualists, which contain nothing but imaginary Notions, often dangerous, and absolutely useless, and unfit to nourish the Soul or affect the heart. What injustice would it be to deprive Christians of the solid nourishment of the Word of God, to feed them with nothing but chimaeras? What more speedy and effectual Remedy can be used to cure them of the Delusion they are under, than to put the holy Scripture into their hands, and counsel them to red it? Thence they will learn to fear God, to trust in his Promises, to watch continually over themselves, to work out their Salvation with fear and trembling, to desire earnestly to be with JESUS CHRIST, and to attain Eternal Life; Principles which these Mystical Men destroy or at least weaken by their peculiar Fancies: There they will find Instructions, Precepts, and Examples of solid Virtue and Piety, delivered in a plain and natural Style, instead of Metaphysical Contemplations, Airy Notions, and Dark Conceptions, expressed in mysterious Terms, which make the Subject of the Books of those pretended Spiritualists. All these Reasons show, that the Motives which may have formerly induced some Persons not to approve of Translations of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue, and forbid ordinary Christians to red them, are not only ceased; but that very urgent Motives have succeeded in their room, which oblige them to approve, as they do, of such Versions, and advice all Believers to red them.  
To complete what I have to say about Translations of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue, all that remains is to remark in a few words, what Qualifications such Versions ought to have, to be good and useful; and in what Dispositions those that red them ought to be, that they may profit by them.  
The first and most essential Qualification of a Version of the Bible, is that it be faithful, that is, do exactly express the sense of the Original. This is a general Rule for all Versions, but ought to be so much the more carefully observed in Translations of the holy Scripture, as it is more dangerous and criminal to deviate from it; because that would be to propose our own Conceptions for the Word of God, and so to deceive Men in a matter of the highest importance. For which reason we ought not to take so great a liberty in translating the holy Scripture, as in translating any other Book, but must keep more close to the Letter, and make use as much as possible of the same Expressions. But yet it is not necessary to confine ourselves so servilely to the Letter, or to retain particular words, as to make the Translation unintelligible and barbarous. For the design of Translations is only to make the Original plain to those that do not understand the Language in which it is written: so that if they are obscure or intricate, and do not clearly express the Sense, they will be useless: And therefore we must, as much as possible, make use of Terms and Phrases commonly used in the Langue we translate into, answering the words of the Original, and clearly expressing its sense: And when we cannot find a proper word equivalent to that in the Original, we may make use of several Terms signifying the same thing. In this case we cannot be thought to add any thing to the Text, because we do but express the whole force of the words of the Original. The case is otherwise, when the Text being obscure, we endeavour to clear it, by inserting words of our own; or the sense being ambiguous, we determine it in the Translation; or being capable of different Explications, we adhere to one rather than another. When the sense of the Original in its utmost latitude, can be handsomely preserved, it is proper to do it, and put the Explications and Differences in the Margin. But because that cannot always be done, and to make sense, we must necessary either add to the Text, or resolve to follow one sense rather than another, it is usual in such cases to put the inserted words in a different Letter, to insert in the Text the sense which seems to be the most natural, and place in the Margin the other Interpretations of which the passage is capable.  
As for the Style of Translations of the Scripture, we must endeavour to preserve, as much as possible, that noble Simplicity of the Sacred Authors, and that true Eloquence, suited to Persons and Things. We ought therefore to avoid carefully such Terms and Phrases as savour of human Eloquence, and especially the affectation of studied and modish Terms, unbecoming the gravity and simplicity of the Word of God. We must always make use of plain and natural Expressions; but such as have nothing mean or trivial in them: for that would be another extreme, and make the Word of God contemptible, if we did not preserve in the Translation of it, the majesty and loftiness of the Original. We must also for the same reason make use of none but proper and common words, and retain as much as may be the purity and politeness of the Language, that it may be re'd with pleasure. But we must at the same time take care, as S. Austin says, that, while we endeavour to set off the Scripture by adding to the proportion and number of its Sentences, we do not diminish the weight of them: said cavendum, ne divinis gravibusque sententiis dum additur numerus, pondus detrabatur. These are some of the Qualifications requisite in Translations of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue to make them useful and complete.  
There arises here a Question; to wit, Whether we ought in such Translations to follow entirely the Vulgar Latin, or have recourse to the Original Greek and Hebrew? Those who are for keeping to the Vulgar, allege, that it having been declared authentical by the Council of Trent, it seems unlawful to depart from it, or, at least, best to comform to it entirely. Those on the contrary who maintain that the Original Texts ought to be followed, allege, that it is always more proper, when we make a Translation, to betake ourselves to the Fountain, than keep to a Version; because in translating from the Original a Man is less subject to depart from the true sense, than when he translates from another Version, which may already have its Faults. The decision of this Question depends upon what I have said of the Authority of the Vulgar, and the purity of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, as well as on what I shall say hereafter of the Greek of the New. As the Council of Trent in declaring the Vulgar authentical, did not prefer it to the Original Texts, or pretend that it was faultless, so it did not forbid Mens having recourse, in Versions into a known Tongue, to the Original Texts; and as the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, and Greek of the New, are not always corrupt in those places where they differ from the Vulgar; and yet have some Faults occasioned by the negligence of Transcribers; and the differences between them are sometimes founded only upon different Pointings, Readings, or significations of a word; it is not true that we are obliged either to follow always the Original Texts or the Vulgar Translation, and it is on the contrary reasonable to make use on these occasions, of the Rules I shall hereafter give, to discern whether we ought to follow the Greek Text of the New Testament, or the Vulgar. So that it is no defect in a Translation of the Bible into a known Tongue, to be conformable in some places to the Original Texts, and in others to the Vulgar; as it is none in Interpreters to follow sometimes the sense of the Original Texts, and sometimes that of the Vulgar in their Commentaries. This way most of our Modern Translators have gone, even those that have translated from the Vulgar Text, who have made no difficulty of departing from it in many places, to follow the sense of the Originals; and there is none of them but has sometimes preferred the Greek before the Vulgar: Nay, it seems to be more convenient to translate into a known Tongue from the Original Texts, only reserving a liberty to depart from them, where there is reason to think them corrupted. But what method soever we take, it is certain a good Translator of the holy Scripture ought not to stick entirely to the Vulgar, but consult also the Originals, and that otherwise he will be liable to commit a great many Mistakes in his Version.  
I have but one word more to add, concerning the Dispositions wherein ignorant Persons ought to be, in order to red the holy Scripture with profit. The first and principal is, that they red it with a perfect simplicity of heart, designing to be informed in the Truths of Religion, and the Precepts of Morality, that they may believe and practise them. He that seeks only his Salvation in the Scripture, will find it there, and that knowledge too which he did not seek in it. And he that seeks in it only to satisfy a vain desire of knowing, is in danger of becoming more ignorant and blind, by growing more presumptuous.  
The second Disposition requisite in one that desires to red the holy Scripture with profit, is to make the best use of those things which are clear; and as to the Difficulties he meets with in it, not to be surprised at them, or strive to penetrate them, but only admire their depth. For as the Fathers observe, out of whom I cited some passages in the last Section; the holy Scripture has a simplicity which condescends to the meanest Capacities, and a height that exercises and raises the loftiest Wits. There are a great many clear and evident Truths in it, and there are also some things in it obscure. But that which ought to comfort the simplo in the midst of this obscurity, is that, according to S. Austin 
Epist. 137. ad Volus. de Doct. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. n. 14. , those things which are most necessary to Salvation are proposed in it so clearly, that all Persons may find them without any difficulty; and there is also this advantage, that what is delivered obscurely in some places, is explained clearly in others.  
The third Disposition, is Teachableness and Humility, whereby a Person that reads the Holy Scripture, distrusting his own understanding, and being persuaded of the Truths taught him by the Church, instead of turning Dogmatist, and abusing the holy Scripture to authorize Novelties, inviolably adheres to the Faith of his Fathers and Pastors, and reads the Scripture only to be confirmed in the ancient Doctrine of the catholic Church.  
The fourth Disposition, is to have an upright Mind and pure Heart, that we may not through malice corrupt the purity of the Holy Spirit, or abuse, by a manifest Depravation, what is most holy, to patronise irregular Courses. There are some Persons to whom the most wholesome nourishment becomes Poison through an ill habit of Body; and there are also Minds that give an ill turn to the most holy and excellent things.  
The fifth Disposition, is to have a great Respect and profound Veneration for the holy Scripture, by considering it not as a common Book, but the Word of God himself. This Disposition is so much the more necessary, as the ill use which is made of the holy Scripture, proceeds ordinarily from the little respect Men have for it. And indeed what benefit should a Person get by the holy Scripture, that has no veneration for it, and reads it as a profane Book? As on the contrary, How can a Christian that reuerences and admires it, be offended by it, or make use of it to scandalise others?  
When Christians are in the Dispositions I have here mentioned, there is no danger that reading the holy Scripture will be prejudicial to them; it is on the contrary impossible it should not be very useful, or that they should not receive great advantage by it for their Salvation. Yea they may in these Dispositions safely red all the Books of the Bible. Nevertheless some, as I have already observed, are less useful, and others are more so, and almost necessary, to the simplo: The New Testament, excepting the Revelations, and especially the Gospels are of this last number. It is a sin for a Christian to be ignorant of them. The Psalms are also of the same nature in the Old Testament: I may add the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus, and some of the Historical Books, without which the economy of Religion cannot well be understood. The Books of the Prophets are more obscure, but they contain a great many Truths, Instructions, Exhortations, Admonitions, and Reproofs, that may be very useful. There is only the Canticles in the Old Testament, and the Revelation in the New, the reading of which may not be so profitable, and may also be forbidden to weak Minds, liable to be offended by them.    

CHAP. X. Of the Style, Sense, and different ways of interpreting the Holy Scripture.  

SECT. I. Of the Eloquence of the Holy Scripture.  
THEY are not only the Heathens, who, not finding in the sacred Writings that Politeness and Elegancy which is in Greek and Latin Authors, have accounted them barbarous and contemptible Books; there have been also Christians, and there are perhaps some still, who attending only to the terms and phrases of the Latin Version, and not finding them so elegant as those of profane Authors, or the Style so full of Figures, have been or are induced to think, that there is no Eloquence in the holy Scripture, and that the style of it is low and mean. But all that know how to judge rightly of things, and understand wherein true Eloquence lies, will easily be persuaded that no Book has more of it, than the Books of the Old and New Testament. In order to be convinced of this, and to take away all possible Doubts about this matter, we must examine wherein Eloquence consists. Now, that is the art of speaking in such a manner, as to instruct, delight, and move; docere, delectare, movere. To discourse to any purpose, it is necessary to speak intelligibly, agreeably, and affectingly. The first is performed by a plain and natural representation of things; the second by Rhetorical Ornaments, and by giving a pleasant turn to what we say; the third by significant Figures, and vehement Expressions, which excite suitable Passions in the Reader or Hearer's Mind. Common things also are to be delivered in a plain style, those of a middle sort in a higher, and great things in a lofty and sublime strain. In this consists true Eloquence, not in elegant Terms, variety of Expression, cadency of Words, and artificial Flourishes: For those things change with time, and are very different in different Languages; whereas true Eloquence is always and every where the same. It is therefore no Argument of want of Eloquence in the Books of the holy Scripture, that their Translation is full of barbarous Terms, and its Language neglected and unpolished: For, first, we ought not to attribute to the sacred Authors, the Defects of a Translation of their Books which they wrote in another Tongue, wherein they have made use of very proper terms, as Origen observes in his 7th Book against Celsus: Thô, says he, the Greeks speak more gracefully, it must not presently be thought that they speak better than our Writers, who express themselves with a modest plainness; because the Prophets have left us Books written in Hebrew, with all the Ornaments proper to their Language. You ought not, says S. Jerom in his Letter to Paulinus, to be offended with the simplicity, and, if I may so speak, meanness of the terms you meet with in the holy Scripture, which are owing to its Interpreters. Secondly, This seeming meanness has sometimes been reckoned necessary to make the holy Scripture more intelligible and familiar to the common People, as S. Jerom also observes in the same place, and Chap. 40. on Ezekiel, where he says, That he was obliged to set Cubitus in the Masculine Gender, and not Cubitum in the Neuter, that it might be the more easily understood, and according to the custom of the People; because he was not so careful to avoid defects in Language, as to explain what might be obscure in the holy Scripture. S. Austin makes the same observation in his third Book of the Christian doctrine, where he says, that the common way of speaking is often more significant than a more accurate form of expression: Plerumque loquendi consuetudo vulgaris utilior est significandis rebus, quam integritas literata. He carries this so far, that he thinks it better to leave in the Text the barbarous word Ossum, than change it for as, in that passage; Non est absconditum as meum, Psal. 138. But S. Jerom was not in this altogether of his mind, and thought that as long as there was no change made in the sense, Men ought to use proper terms, and retain the purity and elegancy of the Language into which they translated: Et nos hoc sequimur, ut ubi nulla est de sensu mutatio, Latini sermonis elegantiam conservemus— Eadem igitur interpretandi sequenda est regula, quam saepe diximus, ut ubi non sit damnum in sensu, Linguae in quam transferimus, {αβγδ} proprietas conservetur. Epist. 135. Thirdly, This Father proceeding upon that Principle, has made his Version more pure and elegant than the former Latin Translations, and cut off the grossest soloecisms and barbarisms in them; but he has retained the Hebraisms, as also some common and old words; upon which account those that should attend only to the turn and purity of the Latin, might think it less elegant. But it must be confessed,( and that is a fourth Reflection) that in many places such a way of translating is much more noble, than a sordid affectation of elegant Latin; and that S. Jerom has more fortunately and emphatically expressed the sense, than if he had taken another turn. To be satisfied of this, we need only compare his Translation with other Versions, where the purity of the Latin is most studiously observed. Compare, for example, the translation of this passage at the beginning of Isaiah: Audite Coeli,& auribus percipe Terra, quoniam Dominus locutus est: Filios enutrivi& exaltavi; ipsi autem spreverunt me. Cognovit bos possessorem suum,& asinus praesepe Domini sui; Israel autem me non cognovit,& populus meus non intellexit. Vae genti peccatrici, populo gravi iniquitate, semini nequam, filiis sceleratis; dereliquerunt Dominum, blasphemaverunt sanctum Israel, abalienati sunt retrorsum. Compare, I say, this Translation with that of Lion Juda: Audite Coeli, ausculta Tellus, quoniam Dominus loquitur: Filios educavi& evexi; ipsi autem perfidè desciverunt a me. Agnoscit bos Dominum suum,& asinus praesepe Hori sui; at Israel non agnoscit, populus meus seize non intelligit. Heu gentem scelestam, populum iniquitate onustum, seemen malitiosum, filios perditissimos! Deseruerunt ipsum Dominum, ipsum sanctum Israelis irritaverunt,& a tergo defecerunt. This latter Version is, I confess, the purest Latin, but not near so emphatical or elegant as the former. The same comparison we may make as to many other places of the Prophets and Psalms; and we shall see almost every where, that the Vulgar Translation has something greater and more noble in it than any other Version, tho, it may be, it is not so exact as to Grammar. Fifthly, The Greek of the New Testament is indeed mixed with a great many Hebraisms; but that does not eclipse the beauty of its plain and natural representation of things, so becoming the Subject whereof it treats.  
Without insisting any longer upon what relates to the words of the holy Scripture, let us examine whether it has all the parts of true Eloquence, which I distinguished after Cicero. The first is to instruct by a plain and clear representation of things. Now who can doubt but that the Sacred Writers are excellent in this kind? Is there any Relation written more simply and naturally, and at the same time more nobly and loftily than that of the Creation of the World? Where shall we find a History composed with more exactness and simplicity, than that of Genesis and Exodus? And tho the other Historical Books are not so lofty, nevertheless the same simplicity, without meanness, is observed in them. What Historians are comparable for representing the Life of any Person, to the four Evangelists? The second part of Eloquence, which is to please, may be either good or bad; for a Discourse may please, either by its real Beauty or by false Charms. A Discourse pleases by its true Beauty, when every thing in it is suitable to persons and things, when there is nothing in it superfluous; when the Expression is high and noble, and the Design just and great. It pleases by false Charms, when accompanied with vain Flourishes, a borrowed Lustre, affencted Metaphors, and false Notions improved. The holy Scripture has not, I confess, these painted Ornaments; nor is it any defect of Eloquence not to have what may please in that kind: but it has enough to recommend itself from its own native Beauty. Its History pleases by its exactness; its Instructions are delightful through the lively and excellent manner in which they are proposed; it has nothing in it poor, mean, or superfluous; and every thing in it is suitable to Persons, and the Subject: Things are there explained by Descriptions and Comparisons, which I confess are bold, according to the manner of the Eastern Nations, but exact and noble. In a word, the Style is adorned with necessary, easy, and natural Metaphors: on all which accounts the Scripture is capable of gaining upon those that understand the nature of true Eloquence. Thirdly, Nothing can be more fitted to move and affect, than the Expressions of the holy Scripture; it raises admiration by the sublime manner wherein it speaks of divine things; it strikes terror by the vehemence and force of its Expressions; it excites to a love of Virtue, and hatred of 'vice, by the lively description it gives of both; it astonishes by the severity of its threatenings; it animates and encourages by the sweetness of its Promises; it inspires with Zeal through a divine Fire, of which it is full. In a word, it may be said there is no Book more proper to work upon the mind, or affect the heart, than the greatest part of the Books of the holy Scripture. But that which is most admirable in the Eloquence of the holy Scripture, is, that it is always accommodated to Persons and Things: Common matters are delivered in a plain Style; those of a middle nature in one more lofty, and great things in a sublime strain; and every thing in it is expressed in a grave, serious, majestic manner, suitable to the dignity of the Persons and Subject spoken of.  
Nothing can be more judicious, than what S. Austin says of the Sacred Writers, in his fourth Book of the Christian doctrine, Chap. 6. Some will ask perhaps, says he, whether our Authors, whose inspired Writings make up the Canon of Scripture, ought not only to be esteemed wise, but eloquent. This Question seems to be easily answered; for when I understand them, I meet with nothing that appears to me not only more wise, but also more eloquent; and I dare say, that all who thoroughly understand what these Writers say, do also think they ought not to have spoken otherwise than they have done. For as there is a sort of Eloquence peculiar to young People, and another proper to aged Persons, and we ought not to call that Eloquence which does not become the speaker; so there is an Eloquence that suits with Men inspired and challenging respect: And this sort of Eloquence the sacred Writers have used. Any other kind of Eloquence would not have become them, and such Eloquence would not become others: Nec ipsos decet alia, nec alios ipsa: It suits with them; and the meaner it appears to others, the more it excels all other Eloquence, not in vain Pomp, but in real grandeur. I could, continues he, if I had leisure, show that all the Charms and Ornaments of Eloquence, which those who prefer the Language of their own Writers to that of ours so much boast of, are to be found also in the holy Scripture. But that which pleases me in the Eloquence of the Sacred Authors, is not what is common to them with Heathen Poets and Orators; I admire a great deal more that they should make use of human Eloquence, with another sort of Eloquence proper to themselves; so that as that is not wanting in them, it is not their greatest Excellency; because it was neither fit they should condemn it, nor make a show of it. The former might have been supposed, if they had declined it; and the latter might have been imagined, if that sort of Eloquence had been too visible in their Writings. Even in those places where the Learned take notice of it, things are delivered in such a manner, that the words used to express them do not seem to be chosen by the Speaker, but to arise naturally from things themselves. This is a sort of Wisdom which proceeds out of the Heart of a wise Man, as being of his household; and Eloquence, his constant Attendant, follows him without a call. He alleges afterwards several Examples of the Eloquence of S. Paul, and I shall mention some of the Eloquence of most of the Sacred Writers.  
In the beginning of Genesis there is a touch of sublime Eloquence, which the Learned critic Longinus admired, and cites for an Example of that way of writing: And God said, Let there be Light, and there was Light. This Expression, as the same critic observes, is the most sublime and eloquent that can be imagined, to signify the Almighty Power and absolute Authority of God in the creation of Light, and the rest of the Creatures. That Expression also, And God said, Let us make Man in our own Image, is another stroke of Eloquence to show the excellency of the Work that God was about to make. What can be more affecting, more natural, and at the same time more noble, than the Relation of Abraham's sacrificing his Son Isaac? It is not set off with idle Reflections, and rhetorical Flourishes; but it represents the natural Passions of the Mind in an admirable manner, capable of affecting the hardest Hearts: God says to Abraham, Take thy Son, thy only Son Isaac, whom thou lovest: Tolle filium tuum unigenitum Isaac quem diligis. Every word in this Command expresses how deeply Abraham must needs have been affencted with it. But can there be a greater Instance of Wisdom, and at the same time more moving, than the answer which this Father made to his Son when he said to him, Behold the Fire and the Wood, but where is the Lamb for a Burnt-offering? My Son, says he, God will provide himself a Lamb for a Burnt-offering. Here it may be said, that Wisdom and an extraordinary Eloquence are joined together. Let the plain Relation of Moses in this place be compared with that of the Historian Josephus, and we shall see what a difference there is between true and painted Eloquence. I shall add but one touch more of Eloquence in Genesis, tho it be every where full of it; and it is that where Joseph makes himself known to his Brethren: Joseph, says the Sacred Historian, could no longer refrain himself— and lifting up his voice with Tears— said, I am Joseph; Doth my Father yet live? And his Brethren could not answer him, for they were troubled at his presence. And Joseph said to his Brethren, Come near me, I pray you; and they came near: and he said, I am Joseph your Brother whom ye sold into Egypt. Can there be a more natural, lively, or affecting description of the tender respect of Joseph for his Father, and love to his Brethren? He makes them thoroughly sensible of the wrong and injury they had done him, and shows them at the same time that he stisted the Resentments he might have of it. No Orator in the World could have expressed these Passions more naturally and in fewer words.  
The Relation of the Book of Exodus is plain in things purely Historical, but even and always the same. The Song of Moses, after having passed through the Sea, is wonderfully lofty. The Commandments and Laws of God are delivered in grave and grave and serious Terms; and if they be compared with any other Laws, it will soon appear, they as much excel them in loftiness of Expression, as in Wisdom and Contrivance. The same may be said of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; which last has this advantage in point of Eloquence, that it contains a Song in the divine Praises, to which there is nothing comparable in the most excellent Orators or Poets, either for loftiness or variety of Figures. I shall set down the beginning of it, by which we may judge of the rest: Give ear, O ye Heavens, while I speak; and hear, O Earth, the words of my Mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the Rain: my Speech shall distill as the due, as the small Rain upon the tender Herb, and as the Showers upon the Grass, &c. All the rest is of the same strain, full of rich Comparisons, and noble Descriptions, and has a Majesty answerable to the grandeur of the Subject, and which commands respect and admiration.  
I say nothing of the other Historical Books, but only that there is no History more free from vain Flourishes, or written in a plainer Style, and yet none more pleasant to red: Yea, there are now and then such stroke of sublime Eloquence in them, as surprise and affect the Reader. A Man must have no taste of Eloquence, not to acknowledge there is a world of it in the Books of Job and the Psalms, and that a sublime strain of writing runs through all the parts of it. I allege no Instance, because it is hard to determine which are the most eloquent Passages, the whole being equally lofty. It is sufficient to say that there is no such grandeur, or Variety of Figures, Descriptions, and Comparisons, in any profane Author, as in those Books.  
The Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are, in the Rank of Maxims and Sentences, the most pure and eloquent; nothing comes near them in the Books of Philosophers. If we look for tenderness or softness, we shall find more of it in the Canticles, than in the Books of profane Writers.  
If the principal business of an Orator is to affect and move, as the ancients have observed, it may be affirmed, that no People or Nation has had more excellent Orators than the Jews: for there are no Pieces so affecting as those of the Hebrew Prophets. The Lamentations of Jeremiah alone are an evident proof of it. Where shall we find a Writer that has described in so pathetical a manner the desolation of his City? I shall take notice but of one touch, in which the whole art of Eloquence seems to be comprised: O vos omnes qui transitis per viam, attendite& videte si est dolor sicut dolor meus: O all ye that pass by, behold and see if there be any sorrow like to my sorrow. Here is excessive grief expressed in the most emphatical manner imaginable: He that complains is so miserable, that he has no body to address himself to; he is forced to implore the pity of Passengers; and his distress is so great, that he has no need of declaring it to them to excite their compassion; he only desires them to look upon him, and see whether there was any affliction parallel to his.  
In the New Testament, the Gospels abound with noble Expressions, and the History is written in an even and uniform Style. The Songs of the Virgin Mary, and Prophet Zechariah, recorded by St. Luke, are very eloquent and suitable to the Subject. Nothing can be more lofty than the beginning of S. John's Gospel. The Acts of the Apostles are full, not only of persuasive but artificial Discourses. What can be more artificial than that of S. Paul in the Areopagus, where the Apostle, taking an occasion from the Inscription of an Altar erected to the unknown God, tells them, to gain their benevolence, that he declared to them that God whom they ignorantly worshipped? He shows them at first what Reason could discover of him to Mankind, and what their Poets, whose Authority he alleges, had said of him. Thence he passes to things more unknown; and continuing to speak with the same Authority, is heard with Attention. What is there, I say again, more eloquent than this Discourse of S. Paul in the Areopagus? Where shall we find more art, more cunning, more dexterity used to compass his Design and Work upon the Athenians? No less appears in his Discourse before King Agrippa and the governor Festus, and in his Reply to Agrippa. The Epistles of the same Apostle are full of Metaphors, and fine stroke of Eloquence, as S. Austin shows in Chap. 7. of his fourth Book of the Christian doctrine: And the caconical Epistles of the other Apostles, tho not so lofty, are written in an easy, pleasant, and familiar Style, very proper to instruct and move.  
Some may object against this doctrine that passage of S. Paul in the second Chapter of the First to the Corinthians, where he says, that When he came to them to preach the Gospel of JESUS CHRIST, he came not with excellency of Speech, or of Wisdom, Non in sublimitate sermonis aut sapientiae; and that his Speech and Preaching was not in the persuasive words of Man's Wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit, and of Power: Non in persuasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis, said in ostensione Spiritus& Virtutis. And in Chap. 11. of the second to the Corinthians he declares, That he was rude in Speech, tho not in knowledge: Etsi imperitus Sermone, non tamen Scientiâ. But it was not St. Paul's design in that place to condemn all sort of Eloquence, or signify that he made no use of it, but only to teach the Corinthians, that there was something more powerful and effectual, necessary to make Men believe the Truth of the Christian Mysteries, than human Eloquence or Wisdom; and that his words would have had no effect, if they had not been accompanied and consirm'd by manifest signs of the Divine Power: Domino cooperante& sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis, Mark 16. vers. 20. This is the scope and design of the Apostle in that first passage: S. Paul, says S. Jerom, in the first Book of his Defence against Ruffinus, being skilful in the Jewish Learning, and having been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel,( who after he became an Apostle, was called his Master) despised the Eloquence of the Greeks, or rather concealed it, out of humility; that the success of his Preaching might not be imputed to the persuasive Force of his Speech, but the Power of Miracles. He despised borrowed Ornaments, as having Excellencies enough of his own. But if he had been so very ignorant, Festus, when he stood and pleaded for himself before his Tribunal, would never have said to him: Paul, thou art beside thyself; much Learning maketh thee mad. When S. Paul therefore says, that he was rude in speech; it must be understood only as to elegance of words; or rather he says it by a Figure very common in Orators, who dissemble, or lessen the Opinion that others might have of their Eloquence, to insinuate what they say the more effectually; and indeed nothing can be more eloquent, than the very place where S. Paul says that he is not eloquent. Being forced, says S. Austin, to extol himself in that place, while he declares the folly of so doing, with what Wisdom and Eloquence does he perform it? His Discourse is not only lofty in itself, but has all the Ornaments that a variety of Figures and vehemence of Expression can give it; as all that red that 11th Chapter of the second to the Corithians will easily see.  
If some Fathers seem to have written, that the Sacred Authors were not eloquent, and that the Style of the holy Scripture was mean, they did not speak of true Eloquence; they meant only that the Sacred Writers had not affencted that profane Eloquence which consists in Rhetorical Flourishes; but they never affirmed that there was no true Eloquence in the Sacred Books, and that their simplicity was mean and contemptible. On the contrary, they acknowledged them to have an inimitable Majesty and grandeur, very consistent with such a natural simplicity.  
I shall only add to what I have hitherto said of the Eloquence of the holy Scripture, these excellent words of Picus Mirandulanus, in a Letter to Hermolaus Barbarus: The holy Scripture, says he, is not only capable of persuading and moving; but it constrains, it drives, it forces: The words of the Law seem to be rude and barbarous; but they are powerful, full of Life and Fire, piercing and penetrating the most secret Recesses of the Soul, and transform the whole Man by a marvelous change. It is impossible to form a righter judgement of the Style of the holy Scripture; and this Opinion is much more becoming, not only a Christian, but also a wise Man, than that of some Grammarians, who have had so little sense as to despise the Style of the holy Scripture, and dissuade Christians from reading it, for fear of corrupting their Style, whereas nothing can be more proper to form and elevate the Mind, and give it a true taste of Eloquence, than the Sacred Writings.   

SECT. II. Of the Perspicuity and Obscurity of the Holy Scripture; Of the Causes of its Obscurity in some places, and the Means of overcoming it.  
THE Question concerning the Perspicuity or Obscurity of the holy Scripture may be treated either as a Controversy in Divinity, or with regard to critics. The state of the Question with respect to controversy is, Whether all Points of Faith are so clearly contained in the holy Scripture, that to understand them, there is no need of the Tradition or Authority of the Church? With regard to critics, the Question is, Whether the Books of the holy Scripture are perspicuously written; Whether that perspicuity be alike in them all; Whether there be not a great many obscure and difficult Passages, and what may be the causes of that Obscurity. Without meddling with the Question of Controversy, I shall confine myself to that of critics, and determine it in the following Reflections.  
First; That the Sacred Authors having written, by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, things which God was pleased to reveal and make known to Men, it cannot have been their design to writ them in an obscure and unintelligible manner; on the contrary it is to be supposed, that they spake as plainly as they could. It's true, there may have been times when God, being unwilling that certain Truths should be known to all Mankind, did not reveal them so clearly; but in a figurative and mystical manner. Thus the Prophets often spake, and JESUS CHRIST also spake to the common People of the Jews: He expressed his mind in Parables, that hearing they might not understand; but he explained himself clearly to his Disciples, to whom it was given to understand the Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. And yet tho the Sense of the ancient Prophecies could not easily be discovered before their accomplishment; nor the Parables of OUR LORD easily understood by all that heard them; both the Prophets and OUR LORD expressed themselves in familiar terms; and if there was any obscurity, it was not in their words, but the sense of their Prophecies or Parables; they were willing to have their Speech understood, but they would not have the Truths concealed under their words to be discerned by all Persons.  
The second Reflection is, That JESUS CHRIST being come to teach Men all those Truths which God was pleased to reveal to them, and having permitted his Life and doctrine to be written by his Evangelists and Apostles, in Books which were to be the Foundation and Rule of Christianity, it was agreeable to his Wisdom to provide that those Books should be written in a distinct and perspicuous manner; that Christians might easily discern the Truths they were obliged to believe, and the Rules which they were to practise. Nothing seems to be more contrary to the Goodness and Wisdom of God, than to suppose that the Books he has given Men, to teach them the Truths necessary for them to know in order to Salvation, are written so obscurely by the appointment of God himself, that very few Persons can understand them.  
The third Reflection is, That the Truths most necessary to Salvation, whether as to Faith or Manners, are clearly enough expressed in the holy Scripture, to be easily understood by Persons of teachable Minds, and impartial inquirers into Truth. This S. Austin observes in his second Book of the Christian doctrine, Chap. 9. The Precepts, says he, relating to a good Life, and the Truths necessary to be believed, are clearly contained in the holy Scripture. And in his Letter to Volusian, The things, says he, necessary to Salvation, and the Faith without which we cannot live virtuously, are not hard to find in the Scripture. S. Chrysostom says the same in several places: And this Assertion is not contrary to the doctrine of the Church concerning Tradition; For tho the chief Articles of Faith, and most important Points of Morality are plainly enough contained in the Scripture; it does not thence follow that it comprehends every thing, or that Tradition is not necessary to confirm and explain the holy Scripture, or refute the false Interpretations that heretics put upon the plainest and most evident Passages of it.  
The fourth Reflection is, That all things are not equally clear in the holy Scripture. Some of the Sacred Books are easier to understand than others; and the same Book, tho clear in some places, is obscure in others. The Historical Books have hardly any thing in them obscure, the Histories contained in them being related so familiarly and naturally that any one may understand them. If they have any difficulty, it is in Matters of Chronology, or in Circumstances, that make no change in the substance of the History. The Prophetical Books are more obscure in that which relates to the accomplishment of their Predictions; but they are also full of Precepts, Admonitions, Counsels, and matters of Fact, that have no manner of difficulty. The Sapiential Books, excepting the Canticles, contain hardly any thing but Moral Truths, easy to be understood by all Persons. The Book of Job is more obscure; but its obScurity proceeds from the abstruseness of the Subject in many places, and the figurative and poetical manner in which it is written. The Psalms are difficult in some places; but there are so many others easy to be understood, that the former are but few in comparison of them, especially if without adhering to the Vulgar we consult Translations of them made from the Hebrew. If we come to the New Testament, Is there any History in the World written with more plainness and simplicity, than that of the Evangelists? If it has any thing obscure, it is not in the relation of the Evangelists; but in the sublimeness of the doctrine of JESUS CHRIST. There are in the Epistles of S. Paul some Passages hard to be understood; but how many Instructions, Precepts, Counsels, and other Truths are there, as clear as the Sun? The other caconical Epistles are yet more plain. Lastly, The Revelation, how obscure soever it is in its Predictions, is clear, at the beginning, in its Counsels to the Angels of the Churches to whom they are directed.  
The fifth Reflection is, That there are really some difficult and obscure Passages in the holy Scripture: which may proceed either from the Style, or things themselves. From the Style,( 1.) When the signification of words is ambiguous and uncertain in the Original.( 2.) When there occur any particular Idioms of the Hebrew or Greek Language, not common to other Languages.( 3.) When the construction is intricate, and the words make different senses, according as they are differently joined together.( 4.) When any Errors have happened in the Text, that have altered its sense.( 5.) When the different pronunciation or pointing of a Hebrew word changes its signification, and makes a different sense.( 6.) When the Style is in itself obscure, because of Figures, Metaphors, Allegories, &c. The Poetical Books wherein such Figures are most used, are for that reason more difficult to understand than others.( 7.) When the Writer passes from one Time, Subject, or Person to another, and interrupts his sense to begin a new one. Such Transitions are common in the Psalms, and Books of the Prophets, and often perplex those that are not accustomend to such a way of writing.  
Things themselves occasion obscurity;( 1.) When they are supernatural and above human comprehension, such as the Mysteries of the Christian Religion.( 2.) When the understanding of them depends upon things unknown, or which few are acquainted with. For Example, Some Passages cannot be understood without knowing some Custom or Ceremony formerly in use among the Jews or Syrians. And of those a great many are totally unknown, others known only by conjecture, and some cannot be discovered without much study. The Sacred History is made obscure, and full of difficulties and seeming contradictions, by Circumstances not being expressed, which are not known, or not easily discovered; by our ignorance of the true situation of Places, the names of Provinces and Cities, and other Difficulties occurring in ancient Geography. It has also its difficulties in Chronology, either as to making its Periods of Time agree with profane History, or reconciling seeming Contradictions in its account. And our ignorance of many other things necessary to be known in order to a perfect understanding of the Sacred Writers in some places, as the Names and Properties of Plants and Animals; of ancient Weights and Measures; of the value and price of Coins; of common Arts and Sciences; of the customs of Countries, manners of their Inhabitants, their Laws, and Magistrates; of Proverbs and common Maxims among the People; of the Sects and different Opinions which then prevailed, &c. Our ignorance, I say, of all these things, or the study that is necessary to become acquainted with them, render many places of the holy Scripture hard to be understood and explained, and makes it necessary to have a Commentary on them.  
To master these Difficulties, and dive into the obscurity of the Sacred Writings; we must,( 1.) When a Hebrew word is ambiguous, follow that signification which agrees best with the Context, and the ancient Versions.( 2.) We must learn Greek and Hebrew, and make the Jewish Idioms familiar to us.( 3.) We must follow that construction that makes the best sense.( 4.) When we find various Readings in the Text, we must adhere to that which is most authorized; and if it be corrupted, we must correct it by the ancient Versions, as I before observed.( 5.) I have also given Rules for overcoming the Difficulties proceeding from the different pointing of a word.( 6.) We shall master those arising from Metaphors, Allegories, and other Figures, in the Poetical Books, by gradually accustoming ourselves to them.( 7.) Being admonished that the Prophetical Books and Psalms are full of Transitions from one Time, Subject, and Person to another; we may easily take notice of 'em, and perceive by things themselves, when the Writer has made such a Transition.  
It is harder to overcome the Obscurity which arises from things themselves, especially that which depends upon the height and sublimity of the Christian Mysteries: Into which we must not attempt to penetrate, but submit ourselves to the Divine Authority, and believe what we do not understand, as being satisfied that the things of God are above human Comprehension. But for Difficulties which depend upon human knowledge; History, Chronology, Geography, the Customs and Manners of People, and on Arts and Sciences; we must apply ourselves to the study of these things, and search into them as far as is necessary to understand the holy Scripture. But we must have a care of being too curious in those matters, or studying them too intently. If it be necessary, in order to explain the holy Scripture, to have recourse to human Learning, or to treat of plain Questions relating to it, for the understanding of the Sacred Text; we must do it moderately, and when we cannot avoid it, and not make an accessary of the Principal, by insisting at large upon Questions of Geometry, Geography, Chronology, critics, or Philology, on occasion of a passage of Scripture, as some Interpreters have rashly done. Yet it is absolutely necessary, in order to a through understanding of the Sacred History, and to overcome the Difficulties of it, to study diligently sacred and profane Chronology, sacred Geography, and what relates to the Ceremonies, Customs, Manners, and Laws of the Jews.  
But after all, it must be confessed, that let our care and study be never so great, there will remain insuperable Difficulties in the holy Scripture, capable of exercising the most acute and discerning Persons. This is admirably represented by S. Austin in his 137th Letter to Volusian: The depth, says he, of the holy Scripture, is so great, that I might make new discoveries in it continually, after I had taken all the pains in the world to understand it perfectly, beginning from my Childhood and continuing to an extreme old Age, and applying myself entirely to the study of it, without any diversion. Not, says he, because it is difficult to discern those things in it which are necessary to Salvation; but because when every one has learned out of it that Faith, without which it is impossible to live virtuously and religiously, there remains still a multitude of things concealed under mysterious Vails, to be discovered by those who would attain to higher degrees of spiritual knowledge. For there is such a vast height of Wisdom, not only in the words of Holy Writ, but also in its sense, that the most aged, subtle and inquisitive Persons, find that applicable to them which is somewhere said in the Scripture; When Man thinks he has made an end, he is but beginning. And some Pages after: The Scripture way of speaking is so admirable, that whilst it lies open to all Mankind, there are hardly any that can dive into it. Where it is clear, it is like a familiar Friend that speaks without colour or artifice to the hearts of the ignorant and wise. And where it conceals its Truths under mysterious Expressions, it does it not in swelling Language, apt to discourage shallow minds, and deter them from approaching it, as poor Men are afraid to draw nigh the Rich; but it invites all Persons by the plainness of its Style, to come and feed upon its manifest Truths, and exercise themselves in discovering those which are concealed, while yet there is the same perfection of Light and Wisdom in both. But lest Men should be disgusted, if every thing in it were easy, it contains some things hard to be understood, that this may excite a desire of discovering them; and upon their discovery, Men may have a lively remembrance of them, and think of them with the greater pleasure. Thereby disorderly Minds are reduced, humble Souls are nourished, and the greatest Spirits are entertained with unspeakable delights.  
The same Saint speaks of it in the same manner, in his Commentary on the 8th Psalm: We may, says he, understand the holy Scriptures by the Heavens, which the Prophet says, are the Work of God's hands. For the Holy Spirit is the Finger of God, and by this Spirit the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were dictated. Now God has brought down the Scriptures to the capacity of Babes and Sucklings, according to that which is said in another Psalm: God bowed the Heavens and came down: And this he has done because of his Enemies, who being Enemies to the across; their proud Eloquence being unable to endure its Humility; even when they speak truth, speak it in such a manner, that it can be of no use to Babes and Sucklings.  
Nothing can be siner than what S. Gregory says about this matter in his Letter to Leander Archbishop of Sevil, wherein he sends him his Reflections on the Book of Job: As the Word of God, says he, contains Mysteries capable of exercising the most discerning Minds, so it includes plain Truths, fit to nourish the most simplo and ignorant. It carries in its Surface wherewithal to suckle its Children, and keeps in its secret Recesses that which may wrap up in admiration the most exalted Minds: being like a River whose Water is so shallow in some places, that a Lamb may wade in it; and in others so deep, that an Elephant may swim in it. He represents the same excellency in the holy Scripture, in the Preface of the 20th Book of his Morals, in these words: The Scripture, says he, is incomparably beyond any other doctrine, not only because it contains nothing but Truth, calls us to a heavenly Country, and changes the Hearts of those that red it, by taking them off from the love of sensible things, and inducing them to place their Affections upon Heaven; but because at the same time that by its obscurity it exercises the wise and perfect, it cherishes and comforts by its sweetness the imperfect and weak: it is neither so obscure as to discourage Men from reading it, nor so easy to be understood as to be contemptible: the more familiar we make it to ourselves, the less we nauseate it; and the more we meditate on it, the more we love it: it eases our minds by the plainness of its words; and by the sublimeness of its sense, it seems to increase and grow, as they that red it grow and increase in knowledge; so that the most ignorant and simplo understand something of it, and the learned and ingenious find it always new.   

SECT. III. Of the Sense of the Holy Scriptures.  
THE Sense of an Author or Book is, properly, that which their words plainly and naturally signify. But the same words may have two significations, the one immediate, and the other remote. All Metaphors have two significations or senses; the first is that of the Terms according to common use; the second, that of the thing signified by the metaphorical Terms: For Example, in this Metaphor: Vicit lo de Tribu Juda: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has overcome: The first Sense is that which answers to the Idea of the word Lion; and the second, is that which answers the Idea for which the name Lion is used in this place, that is, JESUS CHRIST, who is that Lion in the remote sense of the words, and the design of the Writer. The same may be said of Parables and Similitudes: they have an historical Sense, which agrees to things that have happened, or may happen; and at the same time they have another which agrees to the thing designed to be signified by the Parable or Similitude. The form of a Parable or Similitude is so accommodated to the thing intended to be represented, that 'tis easy to perceive the design of the Speaker is not to rest in that Description, but to signify something more. The History of the wicked Rich Man and Lazarus, has two Senses; an historical Sense, which relates to something that happened; and a moral Sense, to wit, an instruction to the Rich to be charitable to the Poor, that they may escape the Punishments of Hell, and be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven. These two Senses are both proper and natural; the first is the Foundation of the second; and the History is so worded, that it is easy to perceive that we ought not to take up with the first Sense, but that JESUS CHRIST intended to signify something sublimer than the Fact he relates. The same may be said of the Parables of the Samaritan, and the Prodigal Son, and others: they contain a description of a probable Event, and at the same time have another more sublime meaning, which the words themselves sufficiently intimate: they may fitly be applied to the thing related; but in considering them, we may discover that they have a reference to something else. The same may also be said of Figures, and things figured: All Figures being to have a respect to things figured, if we consider them as Figures, we speak at the same time of that which they represent: So that what is said has necessary two proper and natural Senses; one that agrees to the Figure, and another to the thing figured. Sometimes the Figure is more evidently spoken of than the thing figured; but sometimes also such words are purposely chosen, as agree better to the thing figured than the Figure, to show that what is said is but a Figure, and ought not to be restend in. The Old Testament is a Figure of the New: all those things which befell the Jews were Figures of whatever should happen to JESUS CHRIST and his Disciples: Omnia in figura contingebant illis, says the Apostle. But tho the chief Persons and principal Events of the Old Testament are Figures; yet some are more evidently such, and others more obscurely: some are written only as Histories, and left to be interpnted; and others are written so that we may plainly see they are but Figures, and their relation naturally and necessary carries the Mind to something more lofty; such are many of the Prophecies of the Old Testament concerning JESUS CHRIST and his Church; they are capable of two Senses, that of the Figure, and of the thing figured: this latter is not an arbitrary, but a proper and necessary Sense, because the words themselves show that the design of the Writer was to represent by a Figure something more sublime; as, for Example, when the Kingdom of David, or the Marriage of Solomon is spoken of in such lofty and magnificent terms, that 'tis visible the Writer intended to speak of something more sublime, that is, of the Kingdom of JESUS CHRIST, and his Union with the Church; to which what he says of the Kingdom of David, and the Marriage of Solomon, much more naturally agrees.  
The first of these two Senses may be called the Literal Sense, if by the Letter be understood the immediate signification of the words; and the second, the Spiritual, if by Spirit be meant a more remote, but a natural and necessary signification of them. The Letter is that Sense which the Carnal Jews put upon the Law; the Spirit is the Sense which Christians apprehended under its terms. S. Paul seems to use the words Letter and Spirit in this Notion, when he says that the Letter killeth, and the Spirit quickeneth; for the Letter which kills, is not the Letter rightly understood in all the Senses of which it is capable; but the Letter misunderstood, in the sense of the Jews, when Men take up with the Figure, without attending to the thing figured. The Spirit is not an Allegorical Sense, or that which is not grounded upon the Letter; but the excellent and sublime Sense comprehended under the Letter. Thus JESUS CHRIST, speaking to his Disciples, tells them: Quae dixi vobis spiritus& vita sunt; The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life. The terms he used, naturally signified what he meant, but the Men of Capernaum misunderstanding those terms, did not apprehended the Spirit of them. But if by the spiritual Sense be understood an arbitrary one, which has no necessary connexion or dependence upon the words, and the signification of a Literal Sense be extended to any natural and proper Sense, it may be said that a Prophetical Sense is also literal. The rabbis call the former a Sense according to the Sound, and the latter a Sense according to the Allegory. Origen says, that the first is according to the Letter, {αβγδ}; and the other according to the Scope, {αβγδ}. We may also call the first {αβγδ}, a Sense according to the phrase; and the second {αβγδ}, a figurative Sense. Some also give to the spiritual Sense the names of Mystical and Allegorical; but those may be distinguished into several sorts; some that are evident, necessary, and naturally signified by the words, which require to have such a Sense put upon them; some that are more obscure and uncertain, because the Letter does not oblige us to understand them in that manner; some that are only Accommodations or Applications; and lastly, somethat are purely arbitrary, and depend on the Imagination. This is clear, and may be easily explained by Examples. These words of the second Psalm: Filius meus es tu, ego hody genui te: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, must necessary be understood of JESUS CHRIST in the sense of the thing figured. The terms themselves here used, as well as the other expressions of that Psalm, show that on occasion of David's Enemies, Victory and Kingdom, the Enemies of JESUS CHRIST, his Victory over them, and the establishment of his Church are spoken of; that the former are but a Figure, and the latter the thing figured. All Interpreters agree that this sense is proper, natural, and necessary: But many call it literal; others will not give it that name, because they only call the sense of the Figure or Parable literal, and give to the sublimer sense the name of Mystical, tho it be clearly signified and expressed in the words. This is a mystical sense of the first kind, a proper, intelligible, natural sense. There is a difference as to other mystical Senses which are not so clearly expressed: For tho it cannot be doubted but they are true, yet it cannot be said they are necessary, that is, that in reading the words they must of necessity be apprehended. Such is the sense which S. Paul puts upon these words of the Book of Kings, in his Epistle to the Hebrews: Ego ero illi in patrem,& erit ille mihi in filium: I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son. Nothing in the Book of Kings obliges us to understand this of JESUS CHRIST; on the contrary, it seems to be said only of Solomon. Yet we cannot question the truth of the mystical Sense, according to which it has a respect to JESUS CHRIST, because the Apostle gives it that sense. There are some Senses which may be thought to agree to the Text only by accommodation, and are called by Interpreters Accommodatitii; such as the Application that S. Paul, in his first Ep. to the Corinthians, makes to the Pastors of the Church, of this passage in Deuteronomy: Non alligabis as bovi trituranti: Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the Corn: Which is meant literally of Oxen that stamp out the Corn with their feet. It is not necessary to say it has any other sense: and it is sufficient that it may be applied to the matter whereof St. Paul speaks. Lastly, There are some allegorical Explications purely arbitrary, which have no foundation in the Letter or History; of which kind the Works of Philo, Origen, and some other Fathers are full; as, for Example, when, according to some, Lot is a Figure of the Person of JESUS CHRIST, and his Daughters of the two Testaments; or, according to Origen, Lot is the Law, his Wife the People of Israel, his Daughters Jerusalem and Samaria, and a great many such like, which are but Witticisms, capable of diverting and exciting the Hearer or Reader, and not true Explications of the Text.  
The spiritual or mystical Sense is commonly divided into three kinds; the Allegorical, Tropological or Moral, and Anagogical. The Allegorical is, when a History of the Old Testament is interpnted concerning JESUS CHRIST, the Church, or some other Truth of the New; the Tropological, or Moral, when a History of the Old or New Testament is used to give Instructions concerning the behaviour; the Anagogical is that which has a respect to the happiness of another World. Cassian gives, for an Example of these three Senses, the name of Jerusalem; for, says he, Jerusalem may be understood four ways; according to the History, it is a City of the Jews; according to the Allegory, it is the Church of JESUS CHRIST; according to Anagogy, it is the Heavenly City; and according to Tropology, it is the Soul of Man. S. Austin is the first Father that distinguished these four Senses, in the first Book of his Commentary on Genesis. Origen distinguishes but three; the Literal, Spiritual, and Moral. S. Jerom, in his Letter to Hedibia, admits also three; the Historical, Tropological, and Spiritual. In the Historical, the Order of things is observed; in the Tropology, that which was visibly transacted among the ancient People, is interpnted with a respect to Morality, that our Souls may receive benefit by it; in the Spiritual Theory, earthly things are omitted, to speak only of the future Happiness, and Heavenly things. S. Cyril and S. Gregory follow also this Division; but that of S. Austin is the most exact and common.  
It must be also observed, that the Allegory, Moral, and Anagogy, may be differently managed; for those Senses may either be given to the History of the holy Scripture itself, or only made use of by way of Comparison, or Example, in discoursing of Doctrinal or Moral Truths. In this latter way, it is not designed to give the Sense of the holy Scripture, but only to make useful reflections on the History related in it. Some, for Example, apply the History of Rahab, and the two Messengers of Joshua, that sheltered themselves in her house, to the New Testament; by comparing those two Messengers to the Apostles, sent by JESUS CHRIST into the World, which was figured by Jericho: and, they say, as the Messengers of Joshua saved that Woman upon the account of her Faith, and gave her for a Signal and Assurance of her safety, a scarlet thread; so the Apostles delivered the Church, which was before prostituted to all manner of Wickedness and Pagan Superstition, by giving it, as a pledge of its safety, the Blood of Jesus Christ, represented by that scarlet thread. It is not to be thought that Theodoret, and other Fathers who made use of this Allegory, were persuaded it was the natural sense and signification of that History; it is only a turn they took to deliver the Truths of the Gospel, in a manner capable of engaging the attention of the Hearer or Reader; who are the more agreeably surprised with such an Allegory, by how much the less they expect it. When a History is recited to serve for an Example of Virtue, or 'vice; when the Circumstances of it are observed; when moral Reflections are made on it, and occasion thence taken to give pious Instructions; as is done by S. Chrysostom and S. Gregory in many places; that is not a spiritual or mystical sense given to the History, but rather a Moral Commentary on it. When, lastly, any Event in this World is compared to what will befall us in the Life to come; as the introducing of the People of Israel into the Land of Promise, with the entrance of the Just into Paradise; it is not because it is pretended there is a natural and necessary relation between the one and the other; but it is only a Comparison made use of, to raise the mind of the Hearer or Reader to Truths more sublime, and of greater importance to their Salvation.  
These things being supposed, it is easy to resolve all the Questions commonly put concerning the Sense of the holy Scripture. The First is, Whether the holy Scripture has more Senses than one; whether it has any other than the Literal; and whether a spiritual Sense, be a true Sense of the Scripture. I have shown that there are Metaphorical, Parabolical, Allegorical, and Prophetical Passages in the Scripture, which have two real, proper, and necessary Senses; the Sense of the Terms, and of the Metaphor; the Historical Sense of the Parable, and its Moral Sense; the Sense of the Figure, and the thing figured; the Sense of the History, and the prophesy: It must therefore be confessed that there are some places of Scripture which have really two Senses, a Literal and Spiritual. But if by a Spiritual and Allegorical Sense be meant an Arbitrary Sense, which is neither mediately nor immediately intended in the words; as an Allegory imagined in an Event which has naturally no relation to it; a plain and simplo History turned into a Figure, when it does not appear to have been written under that Notion; an Action used to deduce a point of Morality; a Promise of Blessings merely temporal, interpnted of eternal Happiness; and many other such Applications or Accommodations, made of divers Passages in holy Scripture; it may truly be said, that such a Spiritual and Arbitrary Sense, tho it may serve for edification, is not the true Sense of Scripture.  
The Second Query is, Whether a Proof can be drawn, or an Argument formed from the Mystical Sense. This Question is resolved as the foregoing. If by the Mystical and Spiritual Sense, be understood a natural, proper, and necessary Sense of the thing figured, then it may be used to confirm a doctrine, and Proofs or Arguments may be drawn from it. But if by a Mystical Sense be meant one that is Arbitrary, it cannot, as S. Austin observes, be used to establish any Principle; nor can any Proof be drawn from it, if such a Mystical Sense be not clearly expressed in other places of Scripture.  
The Third Question depends also upon the same distinction. It is asked, If all places of Scripture have a Mystical Sense. If an Arbitrary one be intended, there is no passage but what is capable of it; but if a natural and proper Sense be meant, there are but few, and especially those of the Old Testament, which have both a Literal and a Mystical Sense.  
A Fourth Enquiry is, Whether the same passage of Scripture may have several Literal Senses. The Resolution of this Question depends upon the Idea which is formed of a Literal Sense. If by a Literal Sense be meant the immediate signification of the words, it must be confessed that a single passage has but one Literal Sense: But if the name of Literal Sense be given to all proper, natural, and necessary significations of a Discourse; the same passage being capable of two, that of the words, and the thing; of the Figure, and the thing figured; it is true, that the same place of Scripture may have several Literal Senses.  
The Fifth Question is, Which of the two Senses, the Literal or Mystical, is the first and principal, or was most in the intention of the Prophet and the Holy Ghost. Supposing the Sense of the thing figured be spoken of, and it be evident by the words, that what is written is a Figure, it is manifest that the Mystical Sense is the principal, because the Sense of the Figure is only for the sake of the thing figured in the intention of the Holy Ghost and the Prophet: as the principal design of one that uses a Similitude or Parable, is not to propose that Similitude or Parable, but the thing he would represent by those Figures. This being so, it must be acknowledged that the Prophetical Sense is that which ought to be principally regarded in Prophecies. But because for the right understanding of a thing figured, the Figure, which is used only to represent it, must be explained; as in order to a right understanding of things represented by Similitudes or Parables, the terms of the Similitude or Parable must first be understood; it is necessary to explain in the first place, the Historical Sense, upon which the Prophetical Sense is grounded. And whoever should think this strange, would be as ridiculous as he who should think it amiss to explain the History of the Rich Man and Lazarus, or the Parables of the Samaritan and Prodigal Son, to interpret all the Terms used in them, and apply them to the Persons mentioned in those Histories or Parables, tho it is evident they were written to signify something more sublime and lofty. Nor is it to be imagined, that when a Passage of the Old Testament is cited in the New, by the Evangelists or Apostles, as a prophesy of JESUS CHRIST, we may not look for an Historical Sense in it, upon which the Prophetical is grounded. It would be impious to question the truth of the Sense put upon it by the Holy Ghost, by the Mouth of the Evangelists and Apostles; but it would be a groundless Pretence, that some of those Prophecies have no other sense in the place whence they are taken. Nay it may be said, that those who should stiffly defend such a Pretence, and maintain that the Evangelists and Apostles would have argued ill, if any of the Prophecies they alleged, to prove that JESUS CHRIST was the messiah, could agree to any but him: It may, I say, be affirmed, that those who should insist upon this, would do great wrong to the Christian Religion, and put Weapons into the hands of our Enemies. For it being evident, that the Apostles and Evangelists city, as Prophecies concerning JESUS CHRIST, Passages that are or may be understood in a literal Sense, of other Persons than JESUS CHRIST; if all Prophecies must have but one Sense, to serve as Proofs, and be true Prophecies, the Jews will be sure to infer, that the Evangelists and Apostles designed to impose upon Men, by citing Passages which had quiter another Sense. If any one should tell them, they have no other, he would make himself ridiculous, and confirm them in their Error, by defending the Cause of Religion so weakly. But if it be answered, that those Passages have two Senses, the Historical and Prophetical, the Sense of the Figure and of the thing figured; if that be proved by those Passages themselves, by the Consent of the ancient Jews, and the late rabbis; if they be shown that 'tis easy to discover the Spiritual Sense; that it is clearly signified in many places; nay that often the Words and Letter properly and naturally agree to JESUS CHRIST, and cannot be spoken of others but improperly and metaphorically: Thereby the Proofs alleged by the Evangelists and Apostles will be solidly vindicated; and the Enemies of the Church have Reasons given them which they will think probable, tho their obstinacy or prejudice should hinder them to be perfectly convinced thereby.  
It is certain there are a great many Passages cited in the New Testament as Prophecies of JESUS CHRIST, which have another sense in the places whence they are taken: This is a Truth about which all are agreed, and if Examples of it were desired, it were easy to produce several. I shall mention some that have already been alleged by Authors who have treated of these matters. S. Matthew, in the first Chapter of his Gospel, produces as a prophesy of the Massacre of the Children by Herod, these words of the Prophet Jeremiah: In Rama there was a Voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning; Rachel weeping for her Children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. These words, according to the judicious Remark of the Bishop of Avranches, signify primarily the Calamities that befell the Bethlehemites in the time of that Prophet, and the Cruelty which the Babylonians at that time exercised towards them; and secondarily, the Massacre of the Children of Bethlehem by the Order of Herod. There is just such another Citation, some Verses before, out of the second Chapter of the prophesy of Hosea: I have called my Son out of Egypt: For those words, as Bonfrerius and all Interpreters observe, are to be understood literally in Hosea of the People of Israel; and spiritually of JESUS CHRIST. In the 13th Chapter of the same Gospel, Vers. 35. it is said, that JESUS CHRIST spake in Parables, to fulfil that saying of the Prophet: I will open my mouth in Parables; I will utter things that have been kept secret from the Foundation of the World. The Prophet cited in that place, says Bonfrerius, is Asaph, who wrote the 77th Psalm: He said this of himself in a Literal Sense, and in an Allegorical Sense of JESUS CHRIST, of whom he was a Figure. The Evangelist uses also as a prophesy of the Passion of JESUS CHRIST, that Law in Exodus, His Bones shall not be broken; which is to be understood in Exodus of the Paschal Lamb. The Gospels are full of such Citations of Passages out of the Old Testament, which in the places whence they are taken, have an Historical Sense, whereon the Prophetical, followed by the Evangelists, is grounded. It cannot be said that it is only an Application or Accommodation which they make of them; because they declare them to be Prophecies, and that the Event they spake of, happened that those Prophecies might be fulfilled, and make use of them as Arguments to prove that JESUS CHRIST was the messiah. Will it be said, that they were mistaken in supposing them to be Prophecies, or that they made use of deceiful Proofs? That would be intolerable profaneness. Will it be said, that the Passages they allege have no other sense than that which they attribute to them? That is evidently false. It must therefore be owned that they have two Senses, one Historical and the other Prophetical, both true, real, and agreeable to the design of the Holy Ghost.  
The Apostles S. Peter and Paul also very often use passages of the Old Testament in another sense than what they have in the places whence they are cited, and yet we cannot accuse them of false reasoning, or alleging insufficient Proofs of what they affirm. This S. Jerom observes in his Apology to Pammachius, wherein to justify himself for having, in his Books against Jovinian, alleged some Arguments against that heretic, which did not seem to be direct and cogent; he produces the Example of the Greek Fathers, Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who had used such Proofs against the Enemies of Religion, as were not conclusive: Considerate, says he, quibus arguments,& quam lubricis problematibus Diaboli spiritu contexta subvertant. He adds that he would not allege the Example of the Latin Fathers, as Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Minutius, Victor, Lactantius, and S. Hilary, for fear it should be thought he had a design to accuse others, rather than defend himself. But to show that he had reason to do as he did, he produces the Example of the Apostle S. Paul. Whenever, says he, I red him, methinks they are not words, but claps of Thunder that I hear. red his Epistles, and especially those he has written to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, in which he disputes against his Adversaries; and you will see with what skill and art he manages the Testimonies that he cites out of the Old Testament; Videbitis eum in testimoniis quae sumit de Veteri Testamento, quam artifex, quam prudens, quam dissimulator sit ejus quod agit. His words seem to be unstudied, and look as if they came from an ignorant and rustical Person, who knows not how to lay an Ambush, or to escape one; but consider them on all sides, and they are like so many Thunderbolts. He keeps close to his Point; he takes all Advantages; he retreats sometimes, the better to assault his Enmemy; he makes as tho he fled, to gain the Victory over him. Shall we therefore calumniate him and say, that the Testimonies he brings against the Jews, or other Sects, have one sense in the places out of which they are taken, and another in his Epistles? Calumniemur ergo illum, atque dicamus ei, Testimonia quibus contra Judaeos vel caeteras Haereses usus es, aliter in suis locis, aliter in Epistolis tuis sonant. This reasoning of S. Jerom proves, that tho the Apostle Paul makes use of several passages of the Old Testament to confute the Jews, which have not the same sense in the places from whence he cites them, with that he puts upon them; it must not therefore be thought that the Arguments he draws from them are of no weight; because, as the same Father says in other places, one single passage of Scripture has several Senses; In verbis singulis multiplices latent intelligentiae; and the sense of the thing figured supposes that of the Figure.  
I will not stand to produce any Passages taken out of the Discourses of S. Peter or S. Paul, which are contained in the Acts, or the Epistles of this latter Apostle, to show that they allege, as Prophecies, some Passages, which have, or may have another sense in the places out of which they are taken; because that is certain, and a thing of which no body doubts. All Interpreters commonly city for Example, this passage in the Book of Kings, alleged in the first Chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews: I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son: Ego ero illi in Patrem,& ille erit mihi in Filium: which is spoken Historically of Solomon, in the Book of Kings, and applied by S. Paul to JESUS CHRIST, in a Prophetical Sense.  
The Sixth Question is, Of what benefit a Mystical Sense may be; what use should be made of it; and how it may be abused. We must here also distinguish between true Allegorical Senses and Imaginary. As to those we know to be true, either by the Words themselves, or the Authority of the Sacred Authors, we cannot err in following them; but for those that depend upon the Imagination of Interpreters, they may be abused several ways.  
1. By neglecting or destroying the Literal Sense, to obtrude only Allegories. This fault the ancients charged upon Origen: They accused him of having destroyed, by his Allegories, the Truth of the History, and rendered the Literal Sense contemptible: And indeed that Father in some places does not scruple to say, that the Literal Sense is not edifying; that it should not be restend in; and that the Scripture ought to be understood in an Allegorical manner. He is accused particularly of having allegorized what is said in the Scripture of the Earthly Paradise, so as to make the Truth of the History utterly voided, by substituting Angels in the room of Trees; Heavenly Virtues in the place of Rivers, and, in a word, of making all that is said of the Earthly Paradise to be nothing but an Allegory.  
2. Men may abuse an Allegorical sense, by pretending that an Arbitrary sense is the true sense of Scripture, and that which the Sacred Writer, or at least the Holy Spirit intended. This is to obtrude ones own private Conceptions for the Divine Oracles; which S. Jerom charges likewise upon Origen, who exspatiates, says that Father in the Preface to the fifth Book of his Commentary on Isaiah, in Allegories, and explaining words according to his own fancy, makes Sacraments of the Church of his own Inventions: Ingenium facit Ecclesiae Sacramenta. And in his Commentary on the 29th Chapter of Jeremiah, having recited an Allegorical Explication of Origen, whom he calls Delirus Interpres, he reproves his Disciples for thinking, that while they red such things, they were reading Divine Mysteries. S. Austin judiciously observes as to this matter, in his first Book of the Christian doctrine, Chap. 36. That those who fasten upon the words of Scripture a sense tending to promote the Love of God and our Neighbour, tho they do not say what the Sacred Writer designed in that place, are not, it's true, in a pernicious Error; but are nevertheless mistaken; and tho whilst they are mistaken they promote Charity, they ought however to be rectified and made sensible how much better it would be to keep in the streight Path, lest by forsaking it they should fall into Precipices.  
3. Men may abuse an Allegorical Sense, by inventing forced and farfetch'd Allegories, which have no Foundation in the Scripture, or in the Analogy of the Figures of the Old and New Testament.  
4. By insisting too much upon Mystical and Allegorical Senses, and imagining that to be the best way of interpreting holy Scripture. It is a very great error to neglect the Literal sense, which is certainly that of the Sacred Writers, and the Holy Ghost, to apply ourselves wholly to merely Arbitrary senses, which have no certain Rule. This is to leave solid Food, to feed upon Fancies. Such Commentaries give Interpreters a great deal of trouble, because they are forced to torture their Imaginations, to find out continually something new; and are of little use to the Hearer or Reader: for such continued Allegories require great Attention, instruct little, and persuade less.  
However, it is not amiss to use Allegories sometimes, in order to excite the Reader or Hearer, and keep up his Attention, provided it be done sparing: and on such occasions it is more proper to keep to those that are known, and received in the Church, and authorized in the Writings of the Holy Fathers, than to propose new ones of our own invention.   

SECT. IV. Of the different Ways of interpreting the Holy Scripture, and divers sorts of Commentaries on the Bible.  
THE Ways of interpreting holy Scripture may be different, either as to their Form and Method, or their Subject and Matter. I shall begin with distinguishing the different Ways of interpreting the Scripture with respect to Method: And then I shall speak of the different Matters that may be treated of in Commentaries on the Scripture.  
The first Method of explaining the holy Scripture, is that which is called a Paraphrase, when the Text is rendered more largely in other words, with an Insertion of what may serve to clear it. This was an ancient Method among the Jews, who interpnted the Hebrew Text by paraphrasing it in Chaldee, as I have before observed. But it was not so common among the Primitive Christians; and 'tis chiefly in these last Ages that some Interpreters have used it to explain certain Books of the holy Scripture. This Method may nevertheless be useful, especially in the most difficult Books and Passages of holy Scripture, which a good Paraphrase may render intelligible: but there is this inconveniency in it, that it determines the sense of the Text, without alleging a reason for it; so that the judgement of the Paraphrast must, if I may so speak, be blindly followed, because we cannot be certain that he has given the true sense. For which reason it is proper to join a Commentary to the Paraphrase, to render a reason of the Interpretation given in the Paraphrase.  
The second Method which may be taken, is to writ Scholia, or short Notes, that are commonly put in the Margin, to illustrate the most difficult places, either by remarking the various Readings of the Text or Translations, or explaining the proper signification of words, or briefly clearing the difficulty of the Text or noting the different Senses that may be put upon it. Origen made such Scholia as these upon all the Bible, in which he briefly and concisely illustrated those Passages he thought obscure and difficult. It was the first of three sorts of Works written by that Father upon the holy Scripture, according to the Testimony of S. Jerom in his Preface to the Version of Origen's Homilies on Ezekiel: Primum ejus excerpta, quae Graecè {αβγδ} nuncupantur, in quibus ea quae sibi videbantur obscura, atque habere aliquid difficultatis, summatim breviterque perstrinxit. This the same Father in his Commentary on S. Matthew calls, Commaticum Interpretationis genus; because such Scholia were to be written in a close and concise Style. After Origen's time this way of interpreting the holy Scripture was much neglected by other Fathers, who for the most part made very prolix Commentaries on the Sacred Text. And yet it may be affirmed to be very useful for explaining the Letter, and that several ingenious Interpreters of late times have with reason followed this Method, and written very learned Marginal Notes on the holy Scripture.  
The third Method, is that of Glosses or interlined and Marginal Explications, introduced by Walafridus Strabo a Monk of Fulde, and Scholar to Rabanus, who lived in the ninth Century, and whose Gloss was a great while commonly used in the Church, under the name of the Ordinary Gloss. But he having done little else than abridged the Commentary of his Master Rabanus; his Gloss is not a literal Explication of the Text, but a Collection of several Sentences of the Fathers, which Rabanus had inserted into his Commentaries. The interlined Gloss which should have been a plain Explication of the obscure words of the Text, contains also a great many mystical Interpretations and useless Remarks. And therefore those Glosses, tho they were very much esteemed in darker times, were afterwards neglected and despised, and this Method, which was inconvenient for the Reader, laid aside.  
A fourth Method may be that of the Postilles, which is a barbarous Term derived from the words Post illa; because Post illa verba was put at the beginning of a Note, to signify the place to which the Explication referred. This name was commonly given in the twelfth and thirteenth Centuries to all sorts of Commentaries on the Bible; and tho it seems applicable only to short and literal Notes, yet it was often attributed to large, and allegorical or moral Commentaries. So that the Postilles cannot properly be taken for any particular sort of Commentary.  
The fifth Method of explaining the holy Scripture, the most common in ancient times, and which the Fathers most frequently used, was by Homilies or Discourses to the People, which the Latins formerly called Tractatus, and are now styled Predications, Prones, or Sermons; for the usual business of the Fathers in their preaching, was to explain the holy Scripture. It was red in the Church, and they expounded it gradually as it was red. This had been a common practise among the Jews; the Apostles had retained it, and the Church generally used it in the Primitive Times. In those Homilies, the Fathers commonly interpnted first the Letter of the Text, when there was any difficulty in it, to make it intelligible to the People, and afterwards passed to the Allegory or Moral. Yet sometimes they neglected the Literal Sense, and often dwelled but very little on it: Nor did they trouble themselves much to examine whether they followed the true Sense, provided that which they gave was proper to instruct Believers in some truth, and edify them in Virtue: So that we must not expect to find all the exactness of a literal Commentary in those Homilles.  
The sixth Method of interpreting the holy Scripture, is called a Commentary: for tho that Term be general, and agree to any Explication whatever, yet it is peculiarly taken for an Interpretation of a just length, made with care and pains. Since Origen's time, several Greek and Latin Fathers have made such Commentaries on the Bible; it was their principal study, and the business to which they most commonly applied themselves. But such Commentaries are very different one from another: for some of the Fathers insisted very little upon the Letter, that they might enlarge upon Allegories and Moral Considerations, as Origen, S. Ambrose, and S. Austin; but others made it their principal business to explain the Letter, as S. Jerom, S. Chrysostom, and Theodoret; and others lastly entirely confined themselves to it, as most of our late Commentators.  
The seventh Method of explaining the holy Scripture, is that which the Writers of the eighth, ninth, and following Centuries have taken, by compiling the Commentaries of different Authors. Such Collections were called Chains; because they were composed of a great many Passages of divers Authors joined, and, as it were, chained together. S. Jerom had already done something of the same nature, in inserting in his Commentaries, the Interpretations of several Writers: But Cassiodorus, Bede, Rabanus, &c. among the Latins; and among the Greeks, Procopius of Gaza, Nicetas or Olympiodorus, and many others made it their chief business, which required very little but Eyes to red, and Hands to transcribe. However, their labour ought not to be despised: For besides that by this means a great many Fragments of ancient Commentaries have been preserved, it is a great advantage to see the different sentiments of several Writers about the sense of any passage together, and in the same Book. But to make these Collections the more useful, they should be made with choice, and none but good Commentaries be inserted in them; which few of those makers of Chains had skill enough to distinguish. The latest Compilations which have been made, either of many entire Commentaries together, in the large Bible, and the great critics of England; or of Commentaries abridged, as it is in the Synopsis Criticorum, are of very great use. But the former have this inconveniency, that the same things are often repeated in several Commentaries; and the latter this, that there is a great deal of confusion and obscurity in it. Yet they are very good Books, and such as a Man cannot be without that would arrive to a through understanding of the holy Scripture.  
The eighth Method of explaining the holy Scripture, is by Questions and Answers. S. Austin, Theodoret, and some other Ecclesiastical Authors, made such Questions upon several Books of the Bible; in which they treat of the most important Queries that may be proposed about those Books, and explain the greatest difficulties. This Method is very useful and convenient, provided the Interpreter confines himself to the discussion of such Questions as may conduce to the understanding of the Text, and does not meddle with curious and impertinent Inquiries, that have little or no relation to what he is upon.  
The ninth Method is, to make long Discourses or Treatises upon the main scope of any of the Sacred Books, and give a large account of the Subject of them. Thus several of the Fathers commented upon the six days Work, that is, the Creation of the World, related in the beginning of Genesis, wherein they largely insist upon divers Questions that might be put upon that Subject. Others have treated of particular Heads in their Commentaries on certain Books, as S. Ambrose of Fasting, on occasion of the History of the Prophet Elias; of Usury on the Book of Tobit, &c. In like manner when scholastic Theology began, certain Divines, as Richard of S. Victor, instead of explaining the Sacred Text, treated of Questions of Divinity and Philosophy in their Commentaries; if yet Treatises not made to explain a Book, but about other matters, may be properly called such.  
The tenth Method of explaining the holy Scripture, is by Summaries or abridgement. Thus Peter Comestor endeavoured to make the Bible familiar by his Scholastical History, which contained an Abstract of all the Sacred History, with some Explications of the Fathers. And that Book was formerly of great use in times of darkness and ignorance: but at present such abridgement are only fit for beginners, to give them a taste of the holy Scripture.  
The last Method of explaining the holy Scripture, is by treating distinctly of things requisite to be known in order to understand it; as of the Authority of the Sacred Writings, the Authors of the Text, of Translations, Sacred Geography and Chronology, of Weights and Measures, the Laws and Customs of the Jews, and many other things necessary relating to the Sacred Text, which cannot be well explained when they are unknown, and by the help of which it is easy to solve most of the Difficulties that occur in it. These Treatises are generally called Prolegomena, Apparatus, or Preliminary Dissertations on the Bible, which are very ancient and of excellent use, as I have shown in my Preface to this Book.  
Commentaries on the holy Scripture, with respect to the Matter of them, may be divided into Allegorical or Mystical, Dogmatical, Moral, and Literal. The Allegorical are those which instead of explaining the Letter, consist of Allegorical and Mystical Interpretations, of an arbitrary kind. This way of interpreting the holy Scripture, was transmitted by the Jews to the Christians: It was in use among the Primitive Jews a great while before OUR SAVIOUR's Time. Aristobulus the Jew had made use of it in his Commentaries on the Pentateuch. S. Paul, who was skilful in the Jewish Learning, often uses Allegories in his Epistles; and especially in that to the Galatians, Chap. 4. vers. 24. where speaking of the two Sons of Abraham, one by the Bondwoman, and the other by the free-woman, he says they were an Allegory, {αβγδ}, and that those two Women were the two Testaments, that is, as S. Chrysostom explains it, a Figure of the two Testaments, as S. Paul also says in that place. The Jews of Alexandria improved this way of interpreting the holy Scripture, above the rest. Philo observes, that the Therapeutae had ancient Commentaries made by the Founders of their Sect, full of Allegories; and that they interpnted the holy Scripture in a figurative manner by Allegories, conceiving the whole Law to be like a living Creature, whose Body was the Letter, and the Soul the hidden and mystical Sense. That Author himself followed this way of writing, and applied himself wholly to it. By him, as Photius observes in Cod. 105. an allegorical way of interpreting the holy Scripture was introduced into the Church with so much excess. The Masters of the School of Alexandria, Pantaenus, S. Clement, and especially the famous Origen, brought it up in the Greek and Latin Church. For by this last most of the Greek and Latin Fathers, till Diodorus of Tarsus, took pattern in commenting on the holy Scripture, and often did no more than transcribe or translate his Commentaries, and other Treatises. In following Ages the Fathers did not altogether leave of allegorizing; and tho they were more careful to explain the Letter, yet they commonly joined Allegorical Explications to the Literal Sense, some more, and others less; and sometimes made Commentaries purely Allegorical. S. Jerom acknowledges, that when he was young, being charmed with mystical Interpretations, he had made a Commentary on the Prophet Obadiah, merely allegorical; which was red and approved by some. But he saw afterwards that that Commentary did not merit the Reputation it had gained, and says himself that he wondered upon that occasion, how it was possible, tho a Man wrote never so ill, he should find a Reader who had as little judgement as himself; that his Book had met with one who commended it before his Face, whilst he blushed at it; and who extolled his mystical Interpretations to the Skies, whilst he hung down his head to conceal his shane: Fateor, miratus sum quod quantumvis aliquis malè scripserit, invenit Lectorem similem sui: ille praedicabat, ego erubescebam: ille quasi mysticos intellectus ferebat ad Coelum; ego demisso capite confiteri pudorem meum prohibebar. S. Austin had undertaken in his Youth a Work of the same nature, upon Genesis: But he acknowledges in his Confessions, that his skill failed him upon trial, and that he was obliged to desist from his Work before he had finished the first Book. This shows how difficult it is to succeed in Allegorical Commentaries, where the Mind must have a constant supply of new Thoughts, and the whole System be even and uniform. However, this difficulty did not deter some Fathers from applying themselves wholly in their Commentaries to an Allegorical way of interpreting; and those, as S. Bernard, who with an extraordinary Piety had a lively Invention and a solid judgement, succeeded in it; but those in whom any of these were wanting, easily miscarried in the execution of so difficult an enterprise. The most ancient Commentaries of the Jews on the holy Scripture, which are called Midraschim and Rabboth, are not only full of Allegories and witty Inventions, but also of Jewish Fables and Superstitions obtruded under the specious name of Tradition. This Method the Talmudists or Rabanists followed, who also made use of the Cabalistical Method, which I before explained, to discover hidden and mystical Senses in the holy Scripture. But these, as I have shown, are vain subtleties; and it may be affirmed that those ancient Commentaries of the Jews are utterly useless. And accordingly the Modern Jews have taken another Method in their Commentaries on the Bible. I shall add nothing here to what I have said in the former Section, of the good or ill use that may be made of Allegories: What I have said in that place, may suffice to show what we are to think of Allegorical Commentaries; they may serve to instruct and divert the Hearer or Reader, but contribute nothing to the understanding of the Text.  
Dogmatical Commentaries generally divert the Reader yet more from a right understanding of the Text. Those are particular Treatises about certain doctrines, or Articles of Faith, and not Explications of the Scripture. It belongs to a Commentator to explain those Passages of Scripture which relate to Faith and Manners, according to the Sense of the Church; but to make a long digression, and treat expressly of a particular doctrine on occasion of a Passage, is to exceed the bounds of a Commentary, and to undertake another Work. Nevertheless some Fathers, and among others S. Cyril of Alexandria, have used this liberty in their Commentaries; and many late Expositors have also swelled theirs with Questions about Controversies in Religion, and other matters, and thereby rendered them burdensome and tedious. Nay some, not being contented to treat of Questions in Divinity, have mixed with them Questions of Philosophy, History, critics, Philology, Grammar, &c. Several of our Modern Commentators have been guilty of this fault; and a great many Jews, who on occasion of a word often make a long digression, and put into their Commentaries all they understand of Philosophy, mathematics, or any other Science.  
Moral Commentaries are more useful, and keep more strictly to the Letter and Subject: for either the Moral Truth proposed, is comprehended in the natural sense of the Letter of the Scripture, and then it is a literal Explication; or a History or Example of the Scripture is made use of to inculcate a Virtue, and dissuade from 'vice, and then it is an application which is made of the literal or historical Sense; which cannot but be very useful, especially in expounding the holy Scripture to the People. This Method S. Chrysostom made excellent use of in his Homilies to the People; in which after having exactly explained the literal and historical Sense, he concludes with a moral Exhortation, grounded upon the History related in the Text, or on some particular passage. There is a third sort of moral Commentaries which agree with the mystical kind, viz. when the Moral is not grounded on the historical or literal Sense of the words, but an Allegorical interpretation of them. Such are the moral Commentaries of S. Gregory, and some other Fathers, which tend very much to the edification of Believers, but are not Expositions of the Scripture.  
Lastly, Literal Commentaries are those in which the Interpreter applys himself to explain the true sense of the words of the Scripture: Yet not confining the true Sense to the immediate signification of the terms and phrases; but taking in all the proper, natural and necessary Senses of the Sacred Text: So that the allegorical Sense of the first kind has a place in such Commentaries, as well as the signification of the Terms. Tho the ancient Fathers seem to have applied themselves more to the allegorical Sense than the Literal, in their Discourses and Commentaries directed to the Christians, yet they did not neglect or despise the literal Sense of the holy Scripture, as appears by their controversial Treatises against the Jews, or heretics, in which they knew they ought not to use such arbitrary Senses, which proved nothing; but the natural and necessary Sense of those Prophecies or Passages which they alleged to consirm any doctrine. Thus Justin Martyr in his Dialogue against Trypho, explains the natural Sense of Prophecies, and examines their proper signification; and S. Ireneus in his Books against Heresies, opposes to the Allegorical Explications, which the Valentinians and gnostics gave of the words of holy Scripture, to prove the falsity of their Doctrine, the genuine and true sense of the same passages which they abused. Other Fathers took the same Method, when they had to do with heretics, as being persuaded, that it was not proper, as S. Austin says Lib. 1. contr. Adv. Leg. C. 13. to make use of allegorical Interpretations against contentious Insidels; Non esse hunc sensum contentiosis& infidelibus sensibus ingerendum; and that, as S. Jerom affirms, a Parable or Riddle, the sense of which is dubious, can never be used to authorize Points of Faith: pus quidem sensus, said nunquam parabola& dubia aenigmatum intelligentia potest ad auctoritatem dogmatum proficere; on mat. c. 13. And therefore they adhered, in their controversial Books, to the literal sense of the Scripture; but in their Commentaries, which were either Discourses to the People, or Treatises written for the Instruction and Edification of Believers, they took the liberty to propose allegorical and arbitrary Senses, without insisting much upon the Letter. One of the first that kept to it was Diodorus of Tarsus, out of whose School proceeded several famous Commentators, who industriously applied themselves to explain the literal Sense of the Text; among whom S. Chrysostom was undoubtedly the most excellent in that kind, who has shown also the beauty and usefulness of it. Since his time the Greek Church has been fruitful in learned Men, who have applied themselves to the same study, and drawn literal Explications of the holy Scripture out of his Commentaries, as Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Procopius of Gaza, and several others; not omitting the learned Isidorus of Damiette, who in his Letters sufficiently shows, that he had taken a great deal of pains to become skilful in the literal sense of the Scripture. But some, as Theodorus of Mopsueste, carried the Principle of Diodorus Tarsensis too far. Among the Jews, some time after the Talmud, there appeared a Sect of learned Men called Caraites, from the name Carai, which signifies a Man skilful in the holy Scripture. It is supposed that the Founder of that new Sect, was a Jew called Anan, who lived about the middle of the eighth Century. Those of this Sect rejected the pretended Traditions of other Jews, and kept entirely to the Sacred Text, which they explained literally according to the Rules of Grammar, and by Reason, rejecting the Allegorical and Cabalistical Interpretations put upon it by others. The Caraites were at first very odious to the rest of the Jews, who charged them with being Sadduces and Samaritans, tho indeed they were far from being either, and differed from other Jews only in rejecting forged Traditions, and Allegories, and adhering to the literal sense of the Scripture. But what aversion soever the Jews might have to the Caraites, the most learned rabbis of later times, as Rabbi Kimhi, and Aben Ezra, followed much the same Method with them, applying themselves in their Commentaries to explain exactly the literal sense, and observing the signification of every word, and the proper meaning of every passage. The most learned modern Interpreters have likewise set themselves in their Commentaries to interpret the literal sense of the holy Scripture, by explaining the words of the Text according to their signification in the Hebrew and Greek; by examining, when there is any difference between the Text and Translations, which is the sense that ought to be followed, and agrees best with that which precedes and follows; by comparing one passage with other parallel passages of Scripture; by inquiring into the true meaning of the Text, from the order and connexion of the Discourse, and design of the Writer; by clearing all doubts arising from the construction of the words; by explaining the Hebraisms and particular Idioms of the Sacred Writers; by removing the Difficulties that occur in the doctrine; or in History, Chronology, and Geography; or in the names of Arts, Sciences, Plants, Animals, &c. and finally, by noting every thing that may contribute to the understanding of the proper and natural Sense of the Sacred Text.  
I do not intend here to speak of Commentators on the holy Scripture in particular, or give my judgement concerning their Commentaries; that is too copious a Subject, and has been already handled in my Bibliotheque of Ecclesiastical Authors, where I have spoken at large of those that have commented on the holy Scripture in all Ages. It may suffice here to have given an Idea of the different sorts of Commentaries, whether as to Method or Matter, which have been and are still in use among Jews and Christians. All that remains, is to lay down the Rules that ought to be observed in order to a right interpretation of the holy Scripture, which I intend to do in the following Section.   

SECT. V. Of the Rules to be observed for a right interpretation of the Holy Scripture.  
THE most necessary Rule to be observed in interpreting the holy Scripture, for preventing mistakes in matters relating to Faith and practise, is to follow in such Matters the Sense of the Church, and the unanimous Interpretation of the Fathers.  
This Rule is given by the Council of Trent, in which it is said in the Fourth Session: That to restrain bold Men, the Synod ordains, That no Person, relying upon his own understanding, should wrest the holy Scripture, in things relating to Faith and Manners and the furtherance of the Christian doctrine, to his own sense, contrary to that which our holy Mother the Church, whose right it is to judge of the Sense and Interpretation of the holy Scripture, does hold, and has always held, or the unanimous Consent of the Fathers: Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia, decernit Synodus, ut nemo suae prudentiae innixus in rebus Fidei& morum ad aedificationum Doctrinae pertinentium, sacram Scripturam ad suos sensus contorquens,& contra sensum quem tenuit& tenet sancta matter Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu& interpretatione Scripturarum sanctarum, aut etiam contra unanimem consensum Patrum, ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari audeat.  
But how necessary soever this Rule may be to hinder bold Men from advancing new doctrines, under pretence of explaining the holy Scripture, it was not the Council's design to forbid Interpreters of the Sacred Writings to illustrate such obscure Passages in the holy Scripture, as were not well understood by the Fathers, and discover, by the help of Languages and Sciences, the true sense of those places which the Fathers did not all fully apprehended. The Council explains itself to this purpose, by limiting its prohibition against interpreting the holy Scripture, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, to Things relating to Faith and Manners, upon which the propagation of the Christian doctrine depended: In rebus Fidei& morum, ad aedificationem Doctrinae pertinentium; and by declaring that it made this Prohibition only to kerb insolent Men: Ad coercenda petulantia ingenia: that is, Innovators in Matters of doctrine; which cannot be said of catholic Divines, who by the help of Languages and Sciences, and by reasoning, explain the Sense of a difficult Passage, when that Sense is not repugnant to the doctrine of the Church, tho it was not known or current among the ancients. For why may not a Person explain a Passage of Scripture now which was not so before, or remove Difficulties which were never yet well resolved, and find out the true Sense of a place which was before mistaken, either for want of understanding the Languages, or for want of Consideration and judgement, or, lastly, through too great a reverence for the Explications of the ancients? Many of the Fathers applied themselves more to the Allegorical Sense than the Literal; few of them understood the Original Languages, consulted the Hebrew Text, or studied critics; and most of them differed from one another in their Opinions about the Sense of difficult Passages: Why then should not those that are come after them, and understand the Languages better than they, and have studied more the Manners and Customs of the Jews, and other Sciences conducing to the Interpretation of the holy Scripture; why should not they, I say, usefully employ their skill in giving further Light to the Sacred Text? S. Jerom was far from thinking it a Crime to propose new Explications of the Scripture, unknown to the ancient Fathers, nay contrary to those which were before given by all Christian Writers, because he often departed from the Interpretations received and authorized by the Christians, and followed the Remarks of the Jews. I have taken, says he, in his 138th Letter to Marcellus, what I have here written out of the Hebrew Fountains, not tracing the Rivulets of common Opinions, nor discouraged by that multitude of Errors, of which the World is full; but being desirous to understand and to teach the Truth: Haec nos de intimo Hebraeorum font libavimus, non opinionum rivulos persequentes, neque errorum, quibus totus mundus repletus est, varietate perterriti, said cupientes& scire& docere quae vera sunt. And when he was reproached for having forsaken the Interpretations of the Christians, to follow those of the Jews, he defended himself in it by the Example of his Predecessors, Origen, S. Clement, and Eusebius, who had alleged and followed the Interpretations of the Jews. S. Austin was as far from thinking it unlawful to give any new Explication to the Books of Scripture; because on the contrary he asserts that new things may be continually discovered in it, by Consideration and Application. And therefore he does not disapprove of the New Version which S. Jerom made from the Hebrew Text, and says, that tho Interpreters have but one Faith, yet they were forced to explain many passages of Scripture differently, by reason of their obscurity; which also made the same Interpreter explain it variously in different places. In short, there is no Father or Commentator on the holy Scripture, who has scrupled to give any Explication of it, not authorised by the joint consent of the Fathers: On the contrary, there are hardly any who have written of their own heads, and not barely transcribed others, but have advanced some new Interpretations, many times more lucky and true than those which had been before invented. There are several such in most catholic Commentators that have written even since the Decree of the Council of Trent.  
It is not therefore sufficient, to make a good Interpreter of the holy Scripture, to have a great veneration and esteem for the doctrine of the Church, and the judgement of the Fathers; but it is necessary also to understand the Languages in which the Sacred Books were originally written, that is, Hebrew and Greek. This is the first Rule that S. Austin gives for arriving to the understanding of the holy Scriptures. He says, that to become skilful in the Sacred Writings, it is requisite to understand, not only Latin, but also Greek and Hebrew, that recourse may be had to the Original Copies, when the disagreement of Interpreters renders the Sense doubtful: Et Latinae quidem Linguae homines quos nunc instituendos suscepimus, duabus aliis ad Scripturarum divinarum cognitionem opus habent, Hebraeâ scilicet& Graecâ, ut ad exemplaria praecedentia recurratur, siquam dubitationem attulerit Latinorum Interpretum infinita varietas. Lib. 2. of the Christian doctrine, C. 11. n. 16. He adds, that it is so much the more necessary to understand Hebrew, because there are words of the Hebrew Text remaining in Translations, and that it is hard to translate all the words of one Language into another. S. Jerom in his 28th Letter to Lucinius Beticus, lays down this Rule, which was inserted in the Decree of Gratian: That the true sense of the Books of the Old Testament, ought to be examined by the Hebrew Text; and that of the Books of the New by the Original Greek: Ut Veterum Librorum fides de Hebraeis Voluminibus examinanda est, ita& Novorum Graeci sermonis normam desiderat. This Method that Father took in his Commentaries, and Versions; where he has kept to the Sense of the Hebrew Text. Other Fathers, as Origen, S. Chrysostom, and among the Latins, S. Hilary, S. Austin, and S. Gregory, have also frequently recurred to the Original Texts, in explaining divers Passages of the Holy Scripture. In a a word, the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek Languages has been always thought necessary to a right understanding and interpreting the holy Scripture. Pope Clement V. was so clearly convinced of this, that in his Clementine, De Magistris, he thought he could ordain nothing more advantageous to the Church, than that there should be Professors of the Hebrew, arabic, and Chaldee Tongues, settled in all the Universities, that they might train up Persons capable of understanding thoroughly the holy Scripture. The Theological Faculty of Paris was likewise heretofore so fully persuaded of the necessity of studying the Languages, that they made a Decree in 1530. wherein they ordained that for the future none should be admitted into the Faculty, that were not competently skilful in those Languages, agreeably to the I. Clementine Rule, De Magistris, and the Chapter, Ut Veterum. And Expeperience itself shows what a difference there is between Commentators that understand the Languages, and those who study only Translations; and how much more exactness, truth, solidity, and new Discoveries there are in the Commentaries of the former, than of the latter.  
A Commentator ought not only to red the Originals, but must consult also Translations, and the various Readings of the Text, which may sometimes be corrupt, and corrected by Translations or other Copies. This S. Austin also observes, in his second Book of the Christian doctrine, Chap. 14. The great variety, says he, of Interpreters, discussed and examined by comparing Copies, may be of great use, if there be no fault in the Copies; for the chief care of one that desires to understand the holy Scripture, should be to correct the Copies of it: Plurimum hic quoque juvat Interpretum numerositas, collatis Codicibus inspecta atque discussa, tantum absit falsitas; nam Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare solertia eorum qui divinas Scripturas nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati cedant, ex uno duntaxat interpretationis genere venientes. I have already laid down the Rules that are to be observed in following the Text, or Translations, which I shall not here repeat.  
For the right understanding of the holy Scripture, it is also necessary, according to S. Austin, to have regard to the distinction of the words; which being severally divided by Points and Commas, make different Senses, and occasion ambiguity: But that is ordinarily cleared, either by the Original Text, or the Construction, which determines to one way of pointing rather than another. So that this difficulty is small in comparison of that which arises from the Tropes, Parables and Figures occurring in the holy Scripture. And it is not sufficient, as I before said, to understand the Terms, but we must also discover the remote Sense of the Trope, Parable, or Figure: This is what an Interpreter should principally apply himself to.  
The knowledge of Sciences and other things relating to the holy Scripture, as of History, Chronology and Geography; of the Manners and Customs of the Jews; of the names of Plants, Animals, and precious Stones; and, in a word, of all the terms of Art therein used, is also necessary to a right interpretation of the holy Scripture; and a good Interpreter is indispensably obliged to study those things. But he must, as I before observed, treat of such Matters but briefly, and not employ himself wholly about them.  
The Commentaries of those that have already written on the Bible, are a great help to such as desire to understand or explain the Sacred Writings to others. There are a world of Difficulties explained, Obscurities cleared, and Questions resolved in the Commentaries of the ancients and Moderns, which no one Man could so much as touch upon, tho he employed himself in studying the holy Scripture from his Childhood to an extreme old Age. Among these, catholic Interpreters are to have the pference; but Jews and others who have written out of the Bosom of the Church, may be also advantageously used. It is evident how much the rabbis, and particularly Aben-Ezra and Kimhi, may contribute to the understanding of the Letter of the Scripture. Every one knows, that Nicholas of Lyra, Isidore Clarius, Eugubinus, de Muis, Lorin, Tirin, Menochius, and several other Commentators have made great use of their Discoveries, and drawn out of their Commentaries considerable Arguments in favour of the Christian Religion. And it is as undeniable, that the Commentaries of heretics may be also of great use for the understanding of the holy Scripture, and that catholic Interpreters have often consulted and followed them. Nay it may be said, that this practise has been authorized by the most ancient Interpreters of the holy Scripture. For from the beginning of the Church, the holy Fathers made no difficulty of using the assistance of the Jews and heretics for the understanding of the Books of the Old Testament. S. Clement of Alexandria often cites them, and produces their words. Origen also very frequently sets down the Explication of the Jews and heretics in his Commentaries, and makes no scruple to propose them as true. Let us hear what S. Jerom says as to that matter: Origen, says he, S. Clement, Eusebius, and many other of the ancients, when they had occasion to make use of any passages of Scripture to prove what they affirmed, were wont to say, A Jew  told me this, I had it from a Jew, the Jews are of this Opinion. Origen cites also the Patriarch Huillus a Jew who lived in his time; and concludes his thirtieth Tome on Isaiah with an Explication of that Jew, confessing that tho he had been before of another mind, yet he changed it, after he had learned from him the Truth. He alleges also the Testimony of Huillus, to show that the 89th and eleven following Psalms were written by Moses. In a word, whenever he interprets the Hebrew Text, he is careful to propose the Opinion and Interpretation of the Jews. S. Jerom, who was the most exact Expositor of Scripture among all the Fathers, sat himself particularly to study, not only the Hebrew Text, but also the Opinions of the Jews. He took a Jew for his Master, and learned the Traditions of the Hebrews about the Scripture, of which he has made a Collection on Genesis. Ruffinus in vain upbraided him with this Jewish Learning; he did not value his Reproaches, and was very well pleased with the pains he had taken to acquire it. He frequently also makes use of the Commentaries of heretics, and transcribes them word for word, without naming them. But let us hear what he himself says as to this matter in his own justification. In the Commentaries I have made on the Epistle to the Ephesians; I have, says he, followed Origen, Dydimus and Apollinarius, who have often contrary Opinions, yet without forsaking the true Faith: That is the business of Commentators; they explain the Writings of others, and illustrate in easier words all those places that are obscure. They produce the Sentiments of several Writers, and say, some explain this passage so, others interpret it in this manner; these ground their Interpretation upon such Authorities, or Reasons; that the intelligent Reader, after he has red the Explications of others, may judge himself which are true, and reject those that are false, as a Banker does counterfeit Money: Ought he that alleges the different Explications of several Writers in the same Commentary, be accused of having contradictory Opinions?  
This shows that it is proper for an Interpreter to set down in his Commentary different explications of the same passage, when they have all some probability. He may declare which he thinks to be best, but he ought not to conceal any of them, or impose his own judgement upon the Reader. This S. Jerom proves in the following words, wherein he is very sharp upon his Censurer Ruffinus: I wonder, says he, that a Person who pretends to be the Aristarchus of our Age, should be ignorant of things which Children know: Illud miror, quod Aristarchus nostri temporis puerilia ista nescieris: And he goes on to justify the Method he had taken. In what am I to blame, says he, for explaining an ambiguous word several ways?— What Prejudice is done to the Faith of the Church, by telling the Reader how many ways such or such a Verse is interpnted by the Hebrews? Ought not I to have the liberty to remark what I have learned from the Jews? He says afterwards the same thing of heretics, or of those whom he looked upon as such, that is, of Origen and Apollinarius: Dydimus, says he, and Apollinarius have made some Treatises which I have either translated or imitated. I have signified this in the Preface. I said also that Origen had written three Volumes on this Epistle to the Ephesians, and that I had followed him in part, and taken out of the Commentaries of those Authors, what I thought sit; that I had passed by a great many things, and added others; that the diligent Reader might see by the Preface, that this Work was partly other Mens, and partly my own. If I cannot show in the Greek Originals which I have translated, the Errors which are in my Explications, I will confess my Fault, and take upon myself what is not to be charged upon others. S. Jerom was not the only Person that made use of the Jews and heretics in explaining the holy Scripture. Did not all the Greek Fathers consult and city the Translations of Aquila the Jew, Theodotion and Symmachus? Did not they follow them sometimes? Did not S. Chysostom and Theodoret embrace some of the Interpretations of Theodorus of Mopsueste? In a word, were catholics ever censured for borrowing the Observations of Jews and heretics, to illustrate the Truth, to explain difficult passages of holy Scripture, and consirm the Christian doctrine? Or were not those that did so rather commended, as having taken a Treasure out of the hands of its unjust possessors, to restore it to the Church to which it of right belonged?  
Besides these helps depending upon acquired knowledge, it is necessary also to use our Reason in discovering the true Sense of holy Scripture. But we must be very cautious that we do not abuse this Rule, by maintaining, with the Socinians, that nothing ought to be admitted as true, but what Reason or Sense discovers to us; so that there is no other true Sense of Scripture, but that which teaches us things agreeable to the Dictates of Reason, and the Evidence of Sense; and that all that seems to be contrary to these two Principles, ought to be rejected as a false and impossible Sense of Scripture: We must, I say, be very cautious of entertaining so dangerous a Notion, or using our Reason to judge of the Truth or falsehood of things contained in the holy Scripture. It is certain that there may be Truths in the Sacred Writings which the Mind of Man cannot conceive or comprehend; because its capacity being finite and limited; it is very possible and even necessary there should be a great many things beyond its reach. It is also certain that God may reveal to us Truths which we do not understand, and that his revealing them is enough to convince us that they are Truths. So that it is no sufficient Reason to reject a Truth clearly expressed in the words of Scripture, and to assert that they must have another Sense, because we sinned it difficult to reconcile the proper and natural Sense of those words with the Principles of Reason, and the Evidence of Sense: for it being certain that God cannot reveal a falsehood for a Truth, when it is evident that he has revealed such or such a thing, all ground for doubting ceases; and the Objections which Reason may make, ought not to be regarded. Faith in God casts down, as S. Paul says, human reasonings; and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and brings into captivity every thought to the obedience of CHRIST.  
But Reason serves another way to discover the Sense of the holy Scripture, when it is employed in enquiring into the signification of words, in order to know what is the meaning of such or such a Passage: to which Reason may contribute very much; for, 1. The Sense of a Passage is judged of by the Design of the Writer, and the scope he proposes to himself. Reason shows us how that which he says serves to prove, confirm, or explain what he had asserted. 2. It belongs to Reason to judge, whether a Passage explained in such a sense, has any or no connexion with the preceding and following Discourse. 3. By Reason also we compare one Passage of Scripture with another, and judge by that Comparison what Sense it must have. Lastly, By Reason we know whether a Passage explained in such a Sense is agreeable to the Analogy of Faith, that is, whether it be not contrary, either in itself or the Consequences that may be drawn from it, to some Article of Faith established in other places of Scripture. These are the chief Rules to be observed for a right interpretation of the holy Scripture.  
As to the Method proper to be taken in a Commentary on the holy Scripture, it must be determined by the different Designs we may propose to ourselves. If it be only to interpret the Text, it may suffice to writ Scholia, or short Marginal Notes, to explain those places that may perplex the Reader; but if we would fully expound the holy Scripture, we must writ a larger Commentary, wherein Matters are more copiously handled. If we explain the holy Scripture with a respect to practise, it may be done two ways; either by giving it an Allegorical or Mystical Sense, or explaining the Letter of it, and collecting from the Literal Sense all the moral Truths that may be drawn from it by reflection, and then treating more at large of those Points of Morality which have the nearest relation to the History. There is most ingenuity discovered in Commentaries of the first kind; but the last are more solid: the first may be delightful; but the last are more profitable. Both the one and the other must be eloquent and well written, but it is not necessary they should be very learned: whereas the first sort of Commentaries which are only designed for the Explication of the Literal Sense, need not be eloquently written, provided they are not defective in Jewish, Ecclesiastical, and Profane Learning, necessary to the understanding of the Text.    

CHAP. XI. Of the Division of the Bible into Chapters, Verses, and other Parts.  
I DO not undertake here to speak of the Division of the Bible into whole Books, whereof I have already treated; but of the particular Division of Books into Chapters, Verses, and other Parts.  
In the most ancient Times, besides that these Divisions were unknown; there was not so much as any Distinction of Phrases and Words; as appears by the old Inscriptions and the most ancient Manuscripts. But these Distinctions being a great Ease to the Reader, they were afterwards used to very good purpose, especially in those Books that were of most use.  
Origen seems to have been the first who in his Hexapla divided the Sacred Books into different Verses, as Eusebius affirms in the sixth Book of his History, Chap. 16. Origen, says he, having collected all the Interpretations of the Sacred Writings into one Body, distinguished them into Members, {αβγδ}, and ranked them in Columns with the Greek Text. Hesychius attributes also to Origen the Invention of the distinction of the Sacred Books into Members or Verses, which the Greeks call {αβγδ} or {αβγδ}. Yet there is ground to believe, that there had been already some distinctions made in the Bible before Origen, and it cannot be doubted but that those Books which are composed of Sentences, or in Verse, {αβγδ}, to wit, Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles, were written at first in verses, the Matter requiring them to be so.  
S. Jerom in imitation of Origen, was the first among the Latins that divided the Books of the holy Scripture into Members of Verses, Versuum Cola; as he himself testifies in his second Apology against Ruffinus. I have distinguished, says he, the Paralipomena, by Members of Verses, Versuum Cola, to avoid confusion and perplexity. In his Preface on Joshua, he admonishes the Reader to keep to this Distinction by Members, which he had observed to avoid confusion, if he would not have his labour lost. In his Preface before Isaiah he says, that when the Reader should see the Books of the Prophets distinguished into Verses, he was not to imagine that they were written in Verse, and like the Books of the Psalms and Solomon; but as it was usual to distinguish the Works of Demosthenes and Cicero, into Members and Parts of Sentences, per Cola& Commata, tho they wrote in Prose and not in Verse; so for the benefit of Readers, he had distinguished his New Translation, by a new way of writing. And in his Preface to Ezekiel: red, says he, the Book of this Prophet according to my Version, in which it is divided into Members, per Cola, and parts of Sentences, & Commata; which makes the Sense more intelligble to the Reader. Cassiodorus in his Preface to the Divine Lessons, assures us also that S. Jerom was the first that followed this Distinction into Verses in the Latin Copies. S. Austin used a Copy distinguished into Verses, in his Book entitled A Mirror. Some say that there had been distinctions of Verses in the Sacred Text before S. Jerom; and that this Father made a new Division of it into Sentences and parts of Sentences, which he calls Cola& Commata; and they prove it by S. Jerom himself, who in the Preface to his Commentaries on Isaiah, speaks of eight Verses that were in the Vulgar Translation of Psalm 13. and are not in the Hebrew. Those eight Verses are very short, and do not answer S. Jerom's Distinction. He speaks also in his Letter to Sunnia and Fretela of a Verse that contained only these words, grando& carbones ignis. And lastly, on Chap. 21. of Ezekiel, and the 63d of Isaiah, he makes mention of a great number of Verses.  
We may therefore distinguish four principal Divisions of the Bible into Verses; the ancient Division which was used before S. Jerom; that of S. Jerom; that of Origen followed by Hesychius and Nicephorus; and that at present taken from the Masorets. The first is the most numerous of all, the third somewhat less, the second yet less, and the last contains much fewer Verses than any of the other. The last is also the latest, tho some Jews attribute it to Esdras. But Elias Levita acknowledges that heretofore the Law was written all together, and without any distinction of Verses; and that the Invention of distinguishing it into Verses came from the Masorets, who, to separate them, made use of Points which they called Sillue, Pause, or Soph Pasuch, the end of a Verse. Robert Stephens was the first that exactly followed the Distinction of the Masorets in the Latin Bibles.  
Besides this Distinction of the holy Scripture into Verses, the Jews have another Division of the Books of the Bible into different Sections, which they call Parsioth, and are of two forts, great and small. The great, which are of some use, are Divisions of a Book into a certain number of Parts of a considerable bigness. Genesis, for Example, is divided into twelve such parts, and all the Pentateuch into fifty three. In the time of S. Hilary and S. Jerom, the Book of psalms was distributed into five. And according to that Division the rabbis city the Law, by alleging the first words of every part. The small Sections which they call Schimoth, are sometimes longer, and sometimes shorter, but are of no use. Lastly, The Masorets divide also the Sacred Books into Sections which they call Sidra.  
The Greeks and Latins had formerly no Distinction of Chapters in the Bible, as appears by their Commentaries, in which they take no notice of any such Distribution; and to refer to the place which they explain, they never allege the Chapter, but the Passage or History. It is very probable that till the fifth Century there was no distinction of Sections or Chapters in the Sacred Books, excepting the four Gospels, either among the Greeks or the Latins: but by degrees Conveniency introduced them, because to facilitate the understanding of the Text, there were Titles or Summaries put at the beginning of every Book, of what they contained. And as those Titles answered to different Parts, it was necessary also to distinguish those Parts. Cassiodorus, who is the first that has spoken clearly of those Titles, says in the first Chapter of his Divine Institutions, that the Titles of the Octateuch had been made by his Ancestors; and that having found none made upon the Books of Kings and Chronicles, he had composed some. He had also drawn up Titles for the Books of Solomon, and those of Tobit, Judith, Esther, and the Maccabees: But the Books of the Prophets had not as yet any; they were made or discovered since. These small Sections were in use till the eleventh Century: they were much shorter than our Chapters, and contained but one single Subject, expressed in the Title or Summary.  
To conclude, Cardinal Hugo, a Dominican Friar, who lived in the thirteenth Century, was the first that caused a Concordance to be made of the Bible, and divided the Sacred Books into Chapters, as they are at present. His Division being very convenient, was soon received and followed in the Manuscript and printed Bibles. I shall speak elsewhere of the Division of the New Testament.   
FINIS.   

A TABLE OF THE Principal Matters contained in this First Volume.  

A.  
ABEN-EZRA. The Opinion of that Rabbin about the Pentateuch. Pag. 61.  
Abraham. A Book of the Assumption of Abraham. 27.  
Adam. A Book of the Generations and Creation of Adam forged by the Jews. 27. The Apocalypse or Revelation of Adam. 28.  
egyptian. See Egyptian.  
Aethiopian. See Ethiopian.  
Agur. The Son of Jakeh. 108.  
Ahasuerus. Who he that is mentioned in Esther was. 93, 94, 95, 96. And who he that is spoken of in Tobit. 120.  
Ahijah. Of a Book of that Prophet which is lost. 22.  
Akiba. That this Rabbin did not corrupt the Hebrew Text, 152, 153, 154.  
Allegories. What. 274. Of several kinds, Ibid. Divers ways of using Allegories, 275. Questions about Allegories, 276, &c. The Usefulness or Abuse that may be made of 'em, 278, 279.  
Dennis Amelot, Priest of the Oratory. His Translation of the New Testament into French, 219. approved by the Assembly of the Clergy in 1655. pag. 259.  
Amos. Two several Persons of that Name, 115. When he that has left us his prophesy, lived, 119. The Subject of his prophesy, Ibid.  
Diego Payva d' Andrada. See Payva.  
Apocryphal The Etymology and Signification of that word, 3. In what sense it is attributed to those Books that are out of the Canon, Ibid.& 4. How many sorts there are of Apocryphal Books, 4. The Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament that are extant, 26. Those which we have not, 27.  
Aquila. His Life. When he made his Version, 179. A judgement concerning his Version, Ibid.  
Arabian. Of the Arabian Language, 208. Of arabic Translations of the Bible, Ibid.& 209.  
Aramic Language, which, 130, 131.  
Aristeus. His History of the Version of the LXX, 169. That the Book of Aristeus which we have, is the same that was used by Josephus, 171. That it was forged by an Hellenist Jew, Ibid.& 172. That his Narrative is a Romance, 172. Mistakes in Chronology observable in that History, Ibid.& 173.  
Aristobulus. When he lived, 169, 170. His Account of the Translation of the LXX, 169. The judgement that is to be passed upon his Work, 174.  
Armenian. A Translation of the Bible into Armenian, and the Office of the Church celebrated in that Language, 211, 213.  
Asaph. Psalms attributed to Asaph, 103. Who this Asaph was, Ibid.  
Assamoneans. That Name given to the Maccabees, 121.  
Asterisks. Their Figure, 186. Their use, 183, &c.   

B.  
BARS, or Spits. Their Figure, 186. Their Use, 183, &c.  
Baruch. His Life and prophesy, 117. His Letter, Ibid. He may be the Author of the end of Jeremiah's prophesy, 116. The Book of Baruch, by whom rejected, and admitted into the Canon, 10. Cited under the name of Jeremiah, Ibid.  
Beheber. The signification of that Hebrew Particle, 69, 72.  
Bel. The History of the Idol Bel, whether it be caconical, 13, 14. The Truth of that History, 118.  
Bellarmin. His judgement about the Decree of the Council of Trent concerning the Vulgar Translation, 201.  
Renatus Benedictus. His Translation of the Bible into French. 218. censured by the Faculty of Divinity at Paris, and condemned by the Pope, Ibid. Why, Ibid.& 257.  
Peter Bessus. His Version of the Bible into French, 218, 257.  
Bethel-Luz. Whether one City or two, 81.  
Bible. The Original of that Name, 2. Translations of the Bible. See Translations.  
Bibliotheque. See Library.  
Books. Whether the Books cited in the Old Testament& lost, were caconical or not, 23, 24. The causes of the loss of those Books, 25.  
Father Bouhours, the Jesuit. His Version of the New Testament into French, 219.  
Antony Bruccioli. His Translation of the Bible into Italian, 219.   

C.  
CABALA. Several sorts of Cabala, pag. 162. A Description of the Cabala most in use among the Jews, Ibid. Examples of divers Mysterys of the Cabala, Ibid.& 163. The Obscurity and Vanity of that Art, Ibid.  
Cabul. What Country that was, and whether there were two of that name, 79, 81.  
Thomas de ʋio, Cardinal Cajetan. His Translation of the Bible, 204.  
Canaanite. In what sense we are to understand that passage in the 12th Chap. of Genesis, And the Canaanite was in the Land, 68, 71.  
Canon. Divers significations of that word, and in what sense it is used to signify the Catalogue of the Sacred Books, 2, 3. The Canon of the Books of the Old Testament, when composed, 3, 4. By whom, 4, 5. Whether there were more Canons of Sacred Books than one among the Jews, 5. What Books were contained in the Canon of the Jews, Ibid.& 6, 7. The Division of the Sacred Books in the Canon of the Jews, 6, 7. Canons of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament among the ancient Christians, 7, 8, 9. A Rule whereby to distinguish those Books that are caconical from others, 17. See Books.  
Canticles. See Song of Songs.  
Melchior Canus. The judgement of that Writer about the Decree of the Council of Trent concerning the Vulgar Translation, 200.  
Ludovicus Cappellus. His Book against the antiquity of the Hebrew Vowel-Points, 136. His Arguments, Ibid.& 137, 138, 139, 140.  
Caraites. Of the Sect of the Caraites among the Jews, 284.  
Sebastian Castellio. His Translation of the Bible into Latin, 205. and into French, 218.  
Chains. A sort of Commentaries on the Bible, whence so called, and of what use, 281.  
Chaldean. When that Name was in use, 69, 72, 73. The Chaldee Tongue the most ancient in the world, 125, 126. called in latter Ages, Hebrew, 130. Of old, Aramick, Ib.& 131. When it became common among the Jews, 131. Of the Chaldee Paraphrases of the Bible, 206, 207. Of their Original, 206. Of different Chaldee Paraphrases, 206, 207. A judgement concerning those Paraphrases, and their usefulness, 207.  
Chapters. The Division of the Old Testament into Chapters began but in the 5th Century, 291. different from the present, Ibid. Cardinal Hugo, the Author of the present Division, Ibid.  
Chronicles. See Paralipomena.  
Chutheans. The History of that People, 164.  
Isidore Clarius. His Translation of the Bible, 204.  
Clement. Of the Reformation of the Vulgar Translation by Pope Clement VIII. 202, 203.  
Mr. le Clerc. His peculiar Opinion about the Author of the Pentateuch, 62. refuted, 76. revoked by himself, Ibid.  
Commentaries. Of different sorts of Commentaries on the Holy Scripture, 280, &c. That name peculiarly attributed to one sort, 281. Divers kinds of Commentaries on the Bible with respect to method, 280, &c. with respect to matter, 282, &c. The necessity of Commentaries on the Holy Scripture, 287.  
New Converts. That they ought to be suffered to red the holy Scripture, 261, 262.  
Coptes. The Coptic Language, which, 212. whence so called, Ibid. The Religion of the Coptes, Ibid. Of Translations of the Scripture into Coptic, Ibid.  
Corah. What befell Corah, 103. Psalms attributed to the Sons of Corah, Ibid.  
James Corvin. His Translation of the Bible into French, 218, 257.  
Covenant. Whether there was any Book of the Covenant, 21.  
Curses. See Imprecations.   

D.  
DAN. When that name was in use, and to what places it was given, 69, 73.  
Daniel. Of what Family he was, 117. Whether he ought to be ranked among the Prophets, 18, 117, 118. When he prophesied, 117. Of his prophesy, Ibid. The Truth and Authority of his Prophecies, 118. The Subject of his Book, Ibid. Of the Additions made to it, 13, 14, 118. Whether it be true that he was in the Lions Den, 118. in the Notes.  
David. The Author of some of the Psalms, 102. and of what Psalms, Ibid.& 103.  
Day. The meaning of that Expression, Unto this Day, 79, 80, 85.  
Deutero-Canonical. Of the Deutero-Canonical Books, 9, &c. When and how they became caconical, 15, &c.  
John Dietenbergh. His Translation of the Bible into High-Dutch, 220.  
John Diodati. His Translation of the Bible into Italian, 219.   

E.  
ECCLESIASTES. What that name signifies, 109. The Book that carries it, by whom written, Ibid.& 110. The Subject and Design of that Book, 110, 111.  
Ecclesiasticus. Who was the Author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, 114. In what Language, and when it was written, Ibid. Of the Titles, style, and Subject of that Book, Ibid. By whom cited under the name of Holy Scripture; by whom rejected, and by whom received as caconical, 12.  
Edar. Places so called, 70, 73.  
Edomites. Of the Kings and Princes of the Edomites, mentioned in the Book of Genesis, 68, 69, 71.  
Egyptian. The Translation of the Bible into Egyptian or Coptic, 211, 212.  
Elias. The Book of the Assumption or Revelation of Elias, 27.  
Eloquence. Wherein true Eloquence consists, 265. Of the Eloquence of the Holy Scripture, Ibid. &c. If it lie in the words, 265. Whether all the parts of true Eloquence are to be found in the Holy Scripture, 266. That its Eloquence agrees to Persons and Things, 267. Examples of the Eloquence of Holy Scripture, Ibid. &c. The objection against it taken from a passage of St. Paul answered, 269.  
Martin l'Empereur. The first Edition of the whole Bible in French, printed by him at Antwerp, 217.  
Jerom Emser. His Translation of the Bible into German, 220.  
Enoch. Of the Book of Enoch, 26, 27.  
Francis Enzinas. His Translation of the New Testament into Spanish, 219.  
Erpenius. The Translation of the Bible into arabic that he published, 209.  
Esther. The History of Esther, 93. When composed, Ibid. &c. Who was the Author of it, 96. The Additions made to that Book, 97, 98. By whom it was rejected, and by whom admitted into the Canon, 9. The Additions to the Book of Esther excluded out of the Canon by a great many Writers, Ibid.  
Ethiopian. Of the Language of the Ethiopians, 212. Of them and their Religion, Ibid. Of Translations of the Bible into Ethiopian, Ibid.  
Exstacy. Revelation in an Exstacy, 36, 37.  
Ezechiel. His Life and Death, 117. Of his prophesy, Ibid.  
Ezrah. The Life and Actions of Ezrah, 88. Of his Character of Scribe, Ibid. Whether he was the Author of the Chronicles, 86. of the two Books that carry his Name, 87, 88. Whether he was the Author of the first, Ibid. Of the Contents of that Book, 88. The third and fourth Book of Ezrah, 26. Whether he was the Author of the Canon of the sacred Books among the Jews, 4. That he made the Collection of the hundred and fifty Psalms, 104. That he changed the old Hebrew Characters, 135. Whether he was the Author of the Vowel-Points, 136. In what sense he was the restorer of the Hebrew Text of the Bible, 144. That he did not make it all over again, Ibid. &c.   

F.  
FACULTIES of Divinity at Paris and louvain. The judgement of the Faculty of Paris about reading the Holy Scripture in a known Tongue, and Yranslations of it, 253, 254. The judgement of that of louvain upon the same subject, 254.  
Peter Frison. His Translation of the Bible into French, 218.   

G.  
GAD. Of a pretended Book of that Prophet, 22. See Nathan.  
Glosses. Of Glosses on the Bible, 280.  
God. That God cannot deceive men, and that his Word is necessary true, 29. Objections against that Assertion answered, 30.  
Antony de Godeau, Bishop of Venice. His Translation of the New Testament, and the Psalms into French, 219. His Exhortation to red the Holy Scripture, 260.  
James le Grand. His Paraphrase on the Bible in French, 217.  
Gregory xiii. The permission he gave to translate the Holy Scripture into a known Tongue, 256.  
Hugo Grotius. His Opinion of the Book of Judith, that it is an Allegory, 92.   

H.  
HABAKKUK. Two Prophets of that Name, 118, 120. when he that has left us his prophesy lived, 120. The subject of his prophesy, Ibid.  
Haggai. Under what King of Persia he prophesied, 120. of his prophesy, Ibid.  
Hagiographa. What Books were so called among the Jews, 7, 18.  
Haman. Who he was, and of what Nation, 93. His Death, Ibid.  
Happiness of another Life, whether it be spoken of in the Psalms, 106.  
Nicolas Heath, Bishop of Rochester, and cuthbert Tunstal, Bishop of Durham. Their Translation of the Bible into English, 221.  
Hebrew. The Land of the Hebrews, the Habitation of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 69, 73. whether the Hebrew Tongue be the most ancient in the World, 125, &c. whether it was that used by Noah, Ibid. whether the Language of Noah continued in the Family of Heber, 127. whether it were the Canaanitish Language, Ibid. The original of the name Hebrew, whether it be derived from the Patriarch Heber, or the Particle Heber, which signifies Beyond, 128, 129. When the Language of the Jews began to be called Hebrew, 130. Divers significations of that name, Ibid. How long that Language continued, Ibid. &c. When it ceased to be common among the Jews, 131, 132. Of the old Hebrew Characters, 133, 134. The changing of those Characters, 135. Of the Points added to the Hebrew Tongue, Ibid. &c. That the Hebrew Text of the Bible was not lost during the Captivity, 144. That it was not corrupted by the Malice of the Jews, 145, &c. The passages taken out of the Fathers to prove it answered, 146, &c. Reasons to show that it was not, nor could be corrupted by the Jews, 149, &c. The Differences between the Hebrew Text and the Version of the Septuagint, of what sort, 154. That there are corruptions in the Hebrew Text, and how they came, Ibid. &c. That those Corruptions are not considerable, 155. That it is ordinarily to be preferred before Translations, 159. Rules to know when it ought to be followed, and when not, 156, &c. Various readings of the Hebrew Text, 160, &c. The Hebrew Text in the Hexapla of Origen, in what Characters written, 181, &c. Whether the Hebrew or the Vulgar Latin ought to be followed in ordinary Translations, 263. The necessity of understanding Hebrew to find out the sense of the Scripture, 286.  
Hebron. The name of a City, when it carried it, 69, 73.  
heretics. The use that catholics may make of their Commentaries on the Scripture, 287, 288.  
Hesychius. His Edition of the Translation of the Septuagint, 187.  
Hexapla. By whom composed, and what, 181. Of how many Columns, Ibid. &c. The disposition of the Translations and Text in the Hexapla, 183.  
John Hircanus, Son of Simon. Memoirs of John Hircanus lost, 23. Some make him the Author of the first Book of Maccabees, 121.  
Thomas Hobbes. His Opinion about the Pentateuch, 61.  
Homilies. The Custom of explaining the Bible in Homilies, 281.  
Hosai. Discourses of Hosai lost, 22.  
Hosea. When he lived, his style, and the Subject of his prophesy, 119.  
Cardinal Hugo. The Author of the Division of the Chapters of the Bible, as it is at present, and of Concordances, 292.  
Hypolemnisques. See Lemnisques.   

I.  
JAIR. Of the Cities of Jair spoken of in the Book of Deuteronomy, pag. 69, 72.  
Jasher. The Book of Jasher, which, 21, 79, 80.  
Jason. The Author of an History out of which was taken the 2d Book of Maccabees, 23, 121.  
Iddo. Of a Book of that Prophet that is lost, 22.  
Jeduthun. Who Jeduthun was, and why his Name is prefixed to some Psalms, 103.  
Jehu. A Book of that Prophet which is lost, 22.  
Jeremiah. The Life and prophesy of Jeremiah, 116. His style, 117. An Apocryphal prophesy of Jeremiah, Ibid. The Lamentations of Jeremiah, when written, Ibid. Books of Jeremiah lost, 22, 23. From whence the prophesy of the 30 pieces of Silver, and the Potters Field, cited in the Gospel under the name of Jeremiah, was taken, 28, 29.  
S. Jerom. His Works upon the Sacred Text, 193, 194. The Reasons that induced him to undertake a new Translation of the Old Testament, 194. The Censures that were passed upon it, Ibid. A judgement concerning his Translation, 195. How it was received in his time, 196. When it came to be commonly used in the Latin Church, and at last universally received, Ibid. The difference between our Vulgar Latin, and S. Jerom's Translation, 197. Whether he translated the Bible into the Dalmatian Tongue, 213.  
Jesus, the Son of sirach. Who that Jesus was, and when he lived, 114.  
Jews. The usefulness of their Commentaries, for the right understanding of the Scripture, 287, 288.  
Imprecations, against the wicked, when just and lawful, 107.  
Index. The Rules of the Index, of what Authority, 255, 256.  
Inspiration. Proofs of the Inspiration of the Books of the Old Testament out of the holy Scripture, 47, 48. The judgement of the Fathers about the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings, 49, &c. Whether the words and phrases were inspired, 52, &c. Of what nature is the Inspiration of the Sacred Books, and how it was made, 54. Whether all that is contained in the holy Scripture be inspired, 55, &c.  
Job. Of what Race he was, 99, 100. When he lived, 99. His History, 98. Whether it be a Fiction, Ibid.& 99. Who was the Author of the Book of Job, 100, 101. Whether it be written in Verse, 101. The Subject, Design, and Division of that Book, Ibid. Of the Genealogy of Job, which is at the end of his Book in the Greek Copys, 26.  
Joel. When he prophesied, and the Subject of his prophesy, 119.  
Jonah. The History of that Prophet, and when be prophesied, 119. Of his prophesy which we have, and another that is lost, Ibid.  
Jonathan, Ben-Uziel. Of his Chaldee Paraphrase, 206.  
Josephus. A Passage of Josephus about the number of the Sacred Books explained, 5, 6.  
Joseph, called the Blind. Of his Chaldee Paraphrase, 207.  
Joshua. His Life, 81. Of the Book of Joshua, and its Author, 78, &c. Why so entitled, 78. Whether Joshua was Author of it; Reasons for and against it, 79, &c. The Argument of that Book, 81. Its Chronology, 82. The Death of Joshua added to his Book, 79, 81. Additions made to the Book of Joshua, Ibid.  
Isaiah. Whose Son, and when he prophesied, 115. His Death, Ibid. The Collection of his Prophecies, Ibid. Of the other Works attributed to him, Ibid. Of Isaiah's style, 116. Of his Prophecies, lb. Whether he was the Author of the Book of Job, 101.  
Israel. The Journals and History of the Actions of the Kings of Israel, 22.  
Juda. The Journals and History of the Acts of the Kings of Juda, 22.  
Lion Juda. His Version of the Bible into Latin, 205. His Translation of a Passage in Isaiah, compared with that of S. Jerom, 266.  
Judges. The signification of that Name, 83. Wherein they differed from Kings, Ibid. Divers Opinions about the Author of the Book of Judges, 82. When it was written, 83. The Argument and Chronology of that Book, Ibid.  
Judith. The History of Judith, 90. Whether it happened before or after the Captivity: Reasons for and against both, with Answers to them, Ibid. &c. Whether it be true, 92, 93. Who was the Author of that Book, 93. In what Language it was written, Ibid. Of the Translations of it, Ibid. That Book rejected by the Jews out of the Canon, 10, 11. Seldom cited by the ancients, 11. The Opinion of S. Jerom about it, Ibid. Whether it was acknowledged caconical by the Council of Nice, Ibid. When inserted into the Canon, Ibid.  
Junius and Tremellius. Their Translation of the Bible, 205.   

K.  
KERI and Ketib, what, 160, &c. Kings. Of the Author of the Books of Kings, 84, &c. The Time when they were composed, 85. What they contain, Ibid.& 86.  
konrah. See Corah.   

L.  
LANGUAGE. The Original of the first Language, 122, 123. The Division of Languages, 123, 124. When it happened, 124. Into how many, Ibid. The difference between those Languages, Ibid. Of the first Language in the World, 125. Of the Samaritan Language, 168. Of the Syriac, 207. Of the Arabic, 208. Of the Coptic, 212. Of the Armenian, 211. Of the Ethiopian, 212. Of the different sorts of Languages in the World, 210, &c. Of the Latin Tongue, and in what Countries it was received and understood, 213, 214. Of the Greek Language, 215. The necessity of understanding the Languages, to understand well the Holy Scripture, 286.  
Law. The Law given to Moses, 33. That this Names agrees particularly to the Pentateuch, 6, 17, 62. The Oral Law an Invention of the Jews, without foundation, 34.  
Lemnisques and Hypolemnisques. Their Use and Figure, 185, 186.  
Lemuel. Who was King Lemuel, 108.  
Letter. Of the sense of the Letter of Scripture, 273, &c. Of the usefulness of the Literal sense, 283, 284.  
Library. The use of that Word, to signify the Collection of the sacred Books, 2.  
Lord. The Book of the Lord; whether there was any particular Book so called, 21.  
louvain. The Translation of the Bible into French by the Doctors of louvain, 218. The judgement of the Faculty of Divinity of louvain, concerning Translations of the Scripture into a known Tongue, 254.  
Lucian. His Edition of the Septuagint, 187. Martin Luther. His Translation of the Bible into German, 220.   

M.  
MACCABEES. Whence so called, 121. Why called also Assamoneans, Ibid. The Author of the two Books of Maccabees, Ibid. The Argument of both those Books, Ibid. The third and fourth Books of Maccabees, 26. The Books of Maccabees, by whom cast out of the Canon, 12. By whom cited, and acknowledged caconical, 13.  
Isaac le Maitre. His Translation of the Bible into French, 219.  
Malachi. The signification of that Name, 120. When he prophesied, and the subject of his prophesy, Ibid.  
Nicolas Malhermi. His Translation of the Bible into Italian, 219.  
Thomas Malvenda. His Translation of the Bible into Latin, 204.  
Manasseh. The Prayer of King Manasseh, 26.  
Manna. What is to be thought of that passage in Exodus, where it is said that the Children of Israel did eat Manna forty Years in the Wilderness, 69, 72.  
John Mariana, Jesuit. His opinion about the Decree of the Council of Trent concerning the Vulgar Latin, 200.  
Mass-Book. The Translation of the Mass-Book by the Sieur Voisin and others, 259. by the Sieur le Tourneux, 260.  
Massora. The signification of that word, and definition of the Massora, 159. Its Original, Ibid. Its Form and Matter, 160. Several sorts of Massora, Ibid. Its usefulness, Ibid.  
Micah. His Country, 119. Different from another Prophet of the same Name, Ibid. When he prophesied, and the subject of his prophesy, Ibid.  
Michael de Marolles, Abbot of Villeloin. His Translation of the New Testament into French, 218, 259.  
Mons. The Version of the New Testament of Mons, 218, 260.  
Arias Montanus. His Translation of the Bible into Latin, 204.  
Moral. Of Moral Commentaries on the Scripture, 283.  
Moses. Revelations made to Moses, 32, 33. The Law given to Moses, 33. The Excellency of Moses above other Prophets, 41, 42. Proofs of the Truth of the Revelations of Moses, 42, 47. Proofs that he was the Author of the Pentateuch, 61, &c. from the Old Testament, 63. from the New, 64. by particular citations of Passages alleged in the Old and New Testament, Ibid. &c. from the Tradition of the Jews, the Consent of Nations, and profane Records, 66. from the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Translation of the Septuagint, 67. Objections against it answered, Ibid. &c. Moses speaks of himself in the third Person, and why, 70, 73. The Death of Moses added in the Pentateuch, 68, 71. The Book of the Assumption of Moses, 27. He was the first Author of Songs in the praise of God, 104. Whether he was the Author of the Book of Job, 100. Of what Psalms he was the Author, 103. Whether he was the Author of the Massora, 159. and the Cabala, 162.  
Mount of Moriah. When so called, 69, 73.  
Guiars de Moulin. His Translation of the Bible into French, 216, 217.  
Simeon de Muis. His Latin Version of the Psalms, 205.  
Sebastian Munster. His Latin Translation of the Bible, 205.  
Mystical. A preservative against mystical Delusions, 262.   

N.  
NAHUM. Of his Country; when he prophesied, and of his prophesy, 119.  
Nathan. Of a Book of that Prophet which is lost, 22. Whether the Prophets Nathan and Gad finished the 2 Books of Kings, 64.  
Nazarene. Whence that Passage, He shall be called a Nazarene, is taken, 28.  
Nehemiah. The Life and employment of Nehemiah, 88. Whether he was the Author of the 2d Book of Ezra, 87, 88. Of the History contained in that Book, 88. Whether he had any hand in composing the Canon of the Jews, 4.  
Ninive, when founded, 69, 72. The threatenings denounced against it, and Conversion of its Inhabitants, 119. The Destruction of it, Ib.   

O.  
OBADIAH. His Profession, 119. When he prophesied, Ibid. The Subject of his prophesy, Ibid.  
Office Dibine. Celebrated formerly every where in a known Tongue, 210, &c. Translations of the Office into a known Tongue approved, 259, 260.  
Og. Of the Iron-Bedstead of that King, spoken of in Deuteronomy, 69, 72.  
Robert Olivetan. His Translation of the Bible, and the several Editions of it, 217.  
Onkelos. His Chaldee Paraphrase of the Bible, 206.  
Nicholas Oresme. His Translation of the Bible into French, 216.  
Origen. His Works upon the Bible. See Hexapla, Tetrapla, and Septuagint.  
Andrew and Luke Osiander. Their Latin Translations of the Bible.  
Othofred. His Translation of the Gospel into the Teutonick Language, 216.   

P.  
saints PAGNINUS. His Translation of the Bible, 204.  
Cardinal Pallavicino. His Opinion of the Decree of the Council of Trent about the Vulgar Translation, 201.  
Famphilus. His Edition of the Version of the Septuagint, drawn from the Hexapla, 186.  
Pandects. A name given to the Collection of Sacred Books, 2.  
Paralipomena. The name of those Books among the Hebrews and Greeks, 86. When, and by whom composed, Ibid. What they contain, Ibid.  
Paraphrases. Of what use are Paraphrases of the Bible, 280. Of the Chaldee Paraphrases, 206.  
Peter of Paris. His French Translation of the Psalms, 216.  
Theological Faculty of Paris. See Faculty.  
Matthew Parker, ABp of Canterbury. His Translation of the Bible into English, 221.  
patriarches. The Testament of the 12 patriarches, cited by Origen, 27, 28.  
Diego Payva d' Andrada. His Opinion of the Decree of the Council of Trent, concerning the Vulgar Translation, 200.  
Pentateuch. Proof that it was written by Moses, 61, &c. to 76. The Names and Arguments of the Books of the Pentateuch, 77. When they were composed, Ibid.  
Samaritan Pentateuch. To whom it is to be attributed, 165. Its Antiquity, 166. Of its Authority, Ibid. The Difference between the Text of that, and the Text of the Hebrew, Ibid.& 167. When it should be followed, 168. Translations of the Samaritan Pentateuch, Ibid.  
Persians. When the Christian Religion was established among the Persians, 212, 213. Translations of the Bible into Persian, 213.  
Father Pezron Bernardin. His Character, 152. A Refutation of his System about the Corruption of the Hebrew Text, Ibid. &c.  
Philo. Who that Philo is, who is made to be the Author of the Book of Wisdom, 113.  
Poetry. Of the Hebrew Poetry, 105.  
Vowel-Points. Of their use, 135, 136. The different Opinions about their Antiquity and Author, 136. Proofs of their Novelty, Ibid. The Reasons alleged to prove their Antiquity, answered, 141, 142. The exact time when they were invented, 142, 143.  
Postilles. The Original of that word, and of a sort of Commentary on the Bible so called, 280, 281.  
Radolph de Prelles. His Commentary on the holy Scripture in French, 216.  
Prophets. Of the Hebrew Names, Nabi and row, which signify a Seer and a Prophet, 34, 70, 73, 85. The Etymology and Signification of those Names, 34. The Definition of a Prophet, and how many sorts there are of Prophets, Ibid. &c. Means to distinguish false Prophets from true, 38, &c. The Succession of the true Prophets among the Jews, 41, &c. The Qualifications requisite to entitle a Man a Prophet, 117. The Revelations made to the Prophets, 33. That the Prophets gave no new Laws, Ib. The Prophetical Books according to the Jews, 6, 18. The distinction of ancient and second Prophets, 18. Greater and Lesser Prophets, 115. That the twelve lesser Prophets made but one Book, 119. Of the Order of the twelve lesser Prophets, Ibid.  
prophesy. What prophesy is, and how many sorts there are of it, 34, &c. Proper and natural senses of the word prophesy, and improper, 35, 36. The difference between Revelation and prophesy, 36. The difference of prophecies, as to the manner in which Truths are revealed, Ibid.& 37, 38. Several ways of delivering them, 38. The Difference of Prophecies, with respect to things revealed, Ibid. Means and Rules to distinguish false Prophecies from true, Ib. &c. The Difference between prophesy and Inspiration, 18, 117. Sect. 21. in the Notes. Prophecies of Jesus Christ contained in the Psalms, 106.  
Proverbs. The signification of that word, 108. The method of teaching Morality by Proverbs or Sentences, its usefulness, 109. Who was the Author of the Book of Proverbs, 108. The Excellency of Solomon's Proverbs, 109. The Book of Proverbs, called the Wisdom of Solomon, 108.  
Psalms. Of the general Title of the Psalms, 102. Of their particular Titles, Ibid.& 104. Whether David was the Author of them all, 102. Of what Psalms he was the Author, Ibid.& 103. Other Authors of the Psalms, 103, 104. The use of Psalms among the Jews, 104. Whether they are written in Verse, 105. The Subjects of the Psalms, Ibid. &c. Of the Psalms added in the Greek Edition, 26.   

Q.  
Pasquier QUESNEI, Priest of the Oratory. His Translation of the New Testament into French, 219.  
Questions upon the holy Scripture, 281. The usefulness of that way of explaining it, Ibid.   

R.  
REASON. The Use of Reason in interpreting the Holy Scripture, 288, 289.  
Revelation. Of the different sorts of Revelations that God has made to men, 32. &c. The difference between the Revelations of the Old and New Testament, 32. Divers kinds of Revelations under the Old Testament, Ibid. &c. That all the Revelations, left to us of those that were made from the Creation of the World till Jesus Christ, are contained in the Books of the Old Testament, 34.  
Cassiodore Reyna. His Translation of the Bible into Spanish, 219.  
Ruth. When the History of Ruth happened, 84. Of the Book of Ruth, and its Author, Ibid.   

S.  
Alphonsus SALMERO. His opinion of the Decree of the Council of Trent, concerning the Vulgar Translation, 200.  
Samaritans. The History of the Samaritans, 164, 165. Of whom they received their Pentateuch, 165, &c. Of the Samaritan Tongue, and Paraphrases of the Samaritan Pentateuch, 168. Of the Samaritan Characters, 133, &c.  
Samuel. Whether he was the Author of the two first Books of Kings, or a part of them, 84, 85. A Book of Samuel that is lost, 22.  
Sanhedrim. Whether the Canon of the Jews was approved and published by the Authority of the Sanhedrim, 5.  
Scholia. Of Scholia on the Bible, 280.  
Sciences. The necessity of Sciences in order to understand the Scripture, 287.  
Scribes. In what sense that word is taken in the Old and New Testament, 46. A Refutation of Mr. Simon's pretence, that there were always public Scribes or Writers of Memoirs among the Jews divinely inspired, 43, &c.  
Scripture. That name given by way of excellence to the sacred Writings, 1. Several names given to the Collection of the Books of Scripture, Ibid.& 2. Whether it was all written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, 55. The Principle upon which the Authority of the Holy Scripture is founded, 29. &c. Of the reading of the Holy Scripture; and whether it was written to be red by all Christians, or only by Priests, 222, &c. The benefit that all Believers may receive from it, proved by Tradition, 229. &c. Objections answered, 246. &c. That the reading of it was never absolutely forbidden to all Christians, 249. &c. nor by the Council of Trent, 254, 255. Of the rule of the Index that seems to prohibit it, 255. That the reading of it is authorized and approved, at present, every where, 256. &c. The reasons for which some might think that it ought to be forbidden to Christians, ceased, 261, 262. And new ones for advising them to red it come into their place, Ibid. How persons ought to be disposed to red the Holy Scripture with Profit, 263, 264. Of the Eloquence of the Scripture, 265. &c. Of the Perspicuity and Obscurity of it, 270. &c. The reasons of the obscurity of the Holy Scripture in some places, 271. Of the means to overcome it, Ibid.& 272. Of the sense of the Holy Scripture, 273. &c. Of the different ways of interpreting it, 280. &c. Of the Rules to be observed in interpreting it, 285. &c. Of the Division of the Holy Scripture into Chapters, Verses, and other parts, 290. &c.  
Sections. The Division of the Bible into great and small Sections by the Jews, 291.  
Sense. A definition of that Term, 273. An Historical and Metaphorical Sense, Ibid.& 274. A literal and Mystical or spiritual Sense, 274, 275. An Allegorical, Tropological, Moral, Anagogical, and other Senses, 275. Several kinds of Allegorical Senses, 274, 275. Whether the Scripture has more Senses than one, 276. Whether a Mystical Sense be demonstrative, Ibid. Whether all passages of Scripture have two Senses, Ibid. Whether one and the same Passage has two literal Senses. Ibid. Which of the two, the Literal or Mystical Sense, is the principal, Ibid. &c. The Use and Abuse of Mystical Senses of Scripture, 278, 279.  
Septuagint. The History of the Septuagint, and what divers Authors have said of them, 169. &c. The falsehood of that History, 171, &c. That there was a Version of the Septuagint, 175. Why so called, Ibid.& 176. Of what Books, 176. &c. Of the Authority of the Version of the Septuagint, 190. When it ought to be followed or forsaken, 156. &c. Whether there were two Versions of the Septuagint, 178. Whether they were in the Hexapla of Origen, 182. The Version of the Septuagint corrected by Origen in his Hexapla, and made conformable to the Hebrew Text by the means of Spits, Asterisks and other Marks, 183. &c. Several old Editions of the Version of the Septuagint, 186, 187. & new, 188. Whether it may pass for authentic, Ibid.  
Shemaiah. Of a Book of that Prophet which is lost, 22.  
Mr. Simon. A Refutation of his Hypothesis, concerning the Writers of public Registers among the Jews, pretended to be divinely inspired, 43. &c. A Refutation of his Opinion about the Author of the Pentateuch, 61, 62. and the Reasons peculiar to him, 70, 73. Of his Hypothesis of the Rolls, 74. A Refutation of his Opinion about the Time when the Hebrew Tongue ceased to be understood, 132.  
Gabriel Sionita. Of his Edition of the Syriac Translation of the Bible, 208.  
Sixtus V. An Edition of the Bible set out by that Pope, and what became of it, 203.  
Solomon. Of the Book of the Proverbs of Solomon, 108. Of his Ecclesiastes, 109. &c. Of his Book of Canticles, 111, 112. Of the Time when he composed those three Books, 108, 109. That he was not the Author of the Book of Wisdom, 113. Whether he was the Author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, 114. and of the Book of Job, 101. Books of Solomon that are lost, 22.  
Songs. Moses the first Author of Songs in the praise of God, 104.  
Song of Songs. What is meant by that Title, 112. Who was the Author of that Book, Ibid. The subject of it explained, Ibid.  
The Song of the three Children in the fiery Furnace. Added to the prophesy of Daniel, 118. Whether it be caconical, 13, &c.  
Speech. The Original of it, 122. Whether Adam and Eve had it by Infusion, 123.  
Benedictus Spinosa. His Opinion about the Author of the Pentateuch, 61.  
Stephen de Citeaux. The Revisal he made of the Latin Translation of the Bible by St. Jerom, 197.  
Susanna. The History of Susanna, whether it be caconical, 13, 14, 15. The Truth of that History, 118.  
Symmachus. Who he was, 179. When he made his Version, and what sort of Version that is, Ibid.& 180. Of two Editions of it, 180.  
Syriac. Of the Syriac Tongue, 207. Of Translations of the Bible into Syriac, 208, 210. The Divine Office celebrated in that Language, 210, 211.   

T.  
TEMPLE. The prophesy of Haggai about the Second Temple, 120.  
Testament. In what sense that word is used to signify the old and new Covenant, 1, 2. The Division of the Books of the Old Testament, 17, &c. The Order of those Books, 19, &c.  
Tetrapla. By whom composed, and what, 181, of how many Columns, Ibid. &c. The Disposition of the Translations in the Tetrapla, 183.  
Theodotion. Of what Country and Sect, 180. When he made his Version, 179. A judgement concerning it, 180.  
William Tindal. His Translation of the Bible into English, 220, 221.  
Tobit. Who he was, and when he lived, 89. Of the Truth of his History, and when it happened, Ib. By whom, and bow written, and of what use, Ibid. The Book of Tobit out of the Canon of the Jews, 10. By whom cast out of the Canon, and by whom cited, Ibid.  
Toulouse. Of the Decree of the Council of Toulouse in the year 1229. about reading the holy Scripture, 250.  
Tradition. That it ought to be a Rule in interpreting the holy Scripture, 285. That we are not obliged to follow it but in what concerns Faith and Manners, Ibid.& 286.  
Translations of the holy Scripture. Whether there was a Greek Translation before that of the Septuagint, 168, &c. Of the Translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and other Greek Versions, 178, &c. Of the old Latin Translations of the Bible, 192, 193. Of S. Jerom's Translation, 193, &c. Of the Vulgar, and its Faithfulness and Authority, 197, &c. Of the new Latin Translations of the Bible, 204, &c. Of the Chaldee Translations or Paraphrases, 206, 207. of the Syriac Versions, Ibid.& 208. Of the Arabic Translations, 208, 209. Of the other Oriental Translations, 210, &c. Translations of the Bible into all sorts of Languages, 210, 215, 2●6. Whether there was a Translation of the Scripture into the Dalmatian Tongue, 213. Whether there was one into the Punic, Ibid. The Necessity of consulting Translations in order to a right understanding of the Scripture, 287. The History and Enumeration of Translations of the Bible into Vulgar Tongues, 215, &c. Into Tentonick, 216. Into French, Ibid. &c. Into Italian, 219. Into Spanish, Ibid. Into German, and Low-Dutch, 220. Into English, Ibid.& 221. Into Swedish, Danish, Polish, Bohemian, and Hungarian, 221. Whether the Church has prohibited Translations of the Scripture into known Tongues, 249, &c. The Opinion of Gerson as to that matter, 250, 251. The judgement of several other Writers upon the same Subject, 251, &c. Of the Theological Faculty of Paris, 253, 254. Of that of louvain, 254. Of the Council of Trent, Ibid.& 255. Of the Rules of the Index concerning it, 255, 256. Of authorized catholic Translations, 256, &c. Of what was done with respect to this Matter by the Assembly of the French Clergy in 1655. pag. 259. and in 1660. Ibid. As to the New Testament of Mons, 260. Translations of the holy Scripture into a known Tongue, generally received and approved at present, Ibid.& 261. The Reasons that might have occasioned their Prohibition, ceased, 261. Reasons for making such Translations, Ibid.& 262. The Qualifications requisite in them, 262, 263.  
Tremellius and Junius. Their Translation of the Bible, 205.  
Council of Trent. An Explication of the Decree, whereby it declared the Vulgar Translation Authentical, 198, &c. That it did not prohibit the reading and translating the holy Scripture in a known Tongue, 254, 255.  
cuthbert Tunstal. His Translation of the Bible into English, 221.   

V.  
Cyprian VALERIUS. His Translation of the Bible into Spanish, 219.  
Andreas Vega. His Opinion of the Decree of the Council of Trent, concerning the Vulgar Translation, 199, 200.  
Francis Veron. His Translation of the New Testament into French, 218.  
Verses. The ancient and new Divisions of the Bible into Verses, 290. Of how many sorts, and their Difference, Ibid. 291.  
Versions. See Translations.  
Joseph de Voisin. What was done concerning his Translation of the Mass-Book into French, by the Assembly of the Clergy, and the Theological Faculty of Paris, 259.  
James de Voragine. His Translation of the Bible into Italian, 219.  
Vulgar. The ancient Vulgar Translation of the Bible, 193. The new Vulgar Translation by S. Jerom, Ibid. &c. when received in the Latin Church, 196. Of our Vulgar Translation, 197. In what sense declared Authentical by the Council of Trent, 198, &c. Whether it ought to be preferred before the Original Texts, 199, &c. Whether it be without faults, 199. The Opinions of Divines and Historians of the Council of Trent about the Authenticalness of the Vulgar Translation, Ibid. &c. Editions of the Vulgar Translation, 203. The Approbation of it, Ibid. Whether it be necessary to follow always the Vulgar in Editions of the Bible, 206. and Translations of it into a known Tongue, 263.  
Uzziah. A Book of the Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah, lost, 22.   

W.  
WARS. Whether there was any such Book as that, Of the Wars of the Lord, 21.  
John Wickliff. His Translation of the Bible into English, 220. His abuse of the Holy Scripture, 250.  
Wisdom. Of the Book that carries that Name, its Author, and Subject, 113. By whom cited under the name of Holy Scripture; by whom rejected; and by whom received as caconical, 12.  
Writing. The original of Writing, 133. Which were the most ancient Characters, Ibid. Of the Characters used before the Flood, Ibid. Of the old phoenician and Hebrew Characters, Ibid.& 134.   

Z.  
ZECHARIAH. Who was that Zechariah that has left us his prophesy, 120. That there were several of that Name, Ibid. Who is that Zechariah of whom it is said in the Gospel, that he was slain between the Temple and the Altar, Ibid. The subject of Zechariah's prophesy, Ibid.  
Zephaniah. When he prophesied, and the subject of his prophesy, 120.   
ERRATA.] page. 22. line 10. After the word Uzziah insert, written by Isaiah. P. 23. l. 10. after the words, his work, insert, The prophesy of Jonah which is lost. P. 151. Note( c) at the end add, He began to prophecy but at the End of the Reign of Uzziah. P. 128. l. 21. red, name of Hebrews.   

A complete HISTORY OF THE Canon and Writers, OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD and NEW TESTAMENT, By Way of DISSERTATION: WITH Useful Remarks on that Subject. VOL. II. On the Books of the New Testament. completing the whole WORK. By L. E. DU PIN, Doctor of the Sorbonne, and Regius Professor of Philosophy in Paris. Done into English from the French Original.  
LONDON, Printed for H. Rhodes, at the Star, the Corner of Bride-lane in Fleetstreet; T. Bennet, at the Half-Moon in St. Paul's Church-Yard; A. Bell, at the Cross-Keys and Bible in Cornhill, near stock-market; T. Leigh, and D. Midwinter, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, MDCC.   

THE PREFACE.  
OUR Author, in this and the former Volume of his Dissertations on the Bible, has entered upon a very useful and noble Subject. Not that he pretends to have made many new Discoveries in the Matter, but only to have collected together what others have said, and to have set that in as clear a Light as possible. He freely confesses, that this sort of study appeared very early in the Church; that, besides the Ancient Fathers, and others, who have written very largely upon the Bible, there have been a great many Treatises of the same Nature composed by Modern Writers, both Romanists and Protestants. A Catalogue of the most Eminent of these Authors, and of their Tracts, either upon the whole Bible in General, or upon separate and distinct Subjects relating thereto in Particular, M. Du Pin gives us in his Preface to the first Volume; wherein he likewise clears himself from the Imputation of being a Plagiary. To do our Author Justice, we think it very proper to insert what he has said as to that Point, since we omitted it in our former Preface. His Words, as they lye in the Original, are as follow: Mais afin qu'on ne m'accuse point d'être plagiaire des Ouvrages des autres, j'avouë& ye reconnois queen la pluspart des chooses qui sont dans cellui-ci, on't etê dites avaunt moi par ceux qui on't traitê de ces matieres. ye ne me vante point d'avoir fait beaucoup de Nouvelles découvertes,& ye serai parfaitement content si le public est satisfait du choix des matter queen j'ai recueillies, de la method avec laquelle ye less ai traitées,& des sentiments queen j'ai embrassés. i. e. But that none may charge me with being a Plagiary, I here freely own and declare, That most of the Things in this my Treatise have been said already, by those that have treated before me on the same Subject. I do not boast of having made very many new Discoveries, and shall be very well satisfied if the World be but pleased with the Choice of my Matter, with the Method I have pursued, and with the Opinions I have embraced. After so fair a Confession and acknowledgement as this, none can reasonably charge our Author with Plagiarism, especially considering that in his Citations he mentions by Name Most of the Writers, whose Opinions he has cited.  
But enough we presume has been said to vindicate the Doctor of the Sorbonne, and to give some Light into his Design in general. It may be expected, that we should now give some Account of what he has done in this his Second Volume upon the New Testament.  
And here it will be granted by every Man who impartially peruses it, That he discovers a great deal of Reading and much judgement through the whole, and that where ever he advances any thing which seems to thwart the Opinion of the Reformed Churches, it is chargeable upon his Education and Circumstances: So that we are rather to wonder that a Sorbonne Doctor has said so much for us, than to be offended at his saying any thing against us. And even in that which may be judged to have a tendency against the common Doctrine of Protestants, he hath acquitted himself with so much Calmness and Moderation, that we could scarcely wish for a fairer Adversary.  
Tho' there be nothing advanced in this Volume that can reasonably be thought capable of staggering any Protestant of Learning; yet the Persons concerned in the Publication, think they owe so much to the established Religion, that they would not by any means be Instrumental in laying a stumbling Block before the weakest Professor of it; and therefore find themselves obliged to give some Cautions as to the most material Points wherein M. Du Pin seems to be too much swayed by the Interest of the Church of Rome.  
The first thing thought fit to be taken notice of is, his Proposition, Cap. 1. Sect. 8. That it is by the Testimony of the Church and Tradition that we know the divinely Inspired Books of the New Testament.  
It's obvious at first view that this Proposition would seem to imply that there are some of the Books of the New Testament not divinely Inspired, which is only our Author's Inadvertency in forming his Proposition, but not his Opinion; and therefore he is not chargeable with Heterodoxy as to that Point. But it is evident, that the design of the whole Section is to bring us to a dependency upon the Church of Rome's Authority for the Rule of our Faith and Manners; for he lays it down at first, That the Tradition of the Church is the only certain and infallible Rule to know whether a Book be wrote by a Person divinely Inspired. 2. Whether he did writ it by divine Inspiration. And, 3. To make us certain of both one and t'other.  
We don't deny that the Consent of the Universal Church in such Matters is the best Secondary Rule, and most to be relied on of any human Authority, but need go no further than what M. Du Pin hath advanced in the preceding Section to overthrow his Proposition, and to prove that the divinely inspired Books may be known by their own intrinsic Light and Infallible Evidence, without being beholden to the Tradition of the Universal Church, much less to that of the particular Church of Rome.  
This he must needs have been convinced of himself, had he considered, that he said in the 7th Section, That the Predictions of future Events, which were accomplished long after the death of the Authors, as the ruin of Jerusalem, the Unbelief of the Jews, the Persecution of the Christians, the Establishment of the Gospel throughout the Earth, and that Heresies should arise, are authentic Proofs that those Books are divinely inspired. If so, it's a plain Concession that there's no need of the Churches Tradition to know the divinely inspired Books of the New Testament; especially if we consider what he immediately subjoins, viz. That those Books have a Character wholly Divine; that there's nothing human in what they relate or teach; that for Wisdom they surpass the Books of the wisest Pagans, tho' wrote by unlearned Men; that they infinitely excel those wrote by Christians; are free of human Weaknesses; that every thing in them is True, Sublime, Great and Divine; That the Doctrines there taught are above the reach of human Wit; and that the Precepts therein given us are more perfect than those prescribed by Reason. If the Case be so, as undoubtedly it is, there's no more need of the Tradition of the Church to assure us that those Books are Divine, than to assure Men that have the use of their Senses, that the Sun gives Heat and Light.  
It were easy to multiply other Arguments, but we shall content ourselves with a few of those insisted upon by Protestants to maintain this Proposition; As that the Holy Ghost in the Scripture refers us to the Scripture itself for the Truth of Revelation, and settling our belief of its Divinity: To the Law and to the Testimony, Isai. 8.20. The Scripture is the Foundation of the Church, and therefore hath not its Authority, even in respect of us, from the Church: But, on the contrary, the Church hath her Authority from it. Our Saviour sent the Jews to the Scripture, but never to the Church, to prove that his Doctrine was of divine Inspiration. The same Doctrines we have in the Scripture were known to be divinely Inspired before they were written, without any dependence upon the Authority of the Church. The Scriptures were authentic in themselves before the Declaration of the Church: And by the same Evidence that the Church was convinced of their being divinely Inspired, we may be convinced too. And on the same Grounds that the Church rejected other Books as not caconical, we may reject them too. It is dishonourable to God, that the Credit of his Word should depend upon the Testimony of Men: It exalts Men above God: So that as Tertullian said of old of human Presumption, Nisi homini Deus placuerit Deus non erit. It may be said of the Church of Rome in this Case, That what does not please her shall not be admitted as divinely Inspired; and by Consequence all our Faith must be built on human Authority: And perhaps upon the more Capriches of some one prevailing Party of Men.  
The next thing we take notice of is, That in the close of his Dissertation upon the Revelations, Cap. 2. Sect. 13. he hints that the Things spoken of by St. John in that Book were speedily to come, and are by Consequence apparently fulfilled. We are not to wonder at this in a Dignitary of the Church of Rome, whose apostasy and turning Anti-Christian is so graphically set forth in the Revelation, and whose Destruction is likewise plainly foretold there; but had M. Du. Pin duly weighed the whole Book, he would have found Reason to interpret those Words of St. John in the first Verse, concerning things which must speedily come to pass, as the generality of Protestants do, viz. That they were speedily to begin to be fulfilled; but not that they were long ago fulfilled in the Pagan-Roman Empire: Since it is evident that Face does not answer to Face more exactly in a Glass, than the Church of Rome at this Day answers to the Description of the Anti Christian Empire in the Revelations: And that Rome-Papal better deserves the Characters given of the Great Whore, than Rome-Pagan ever did. It is also evident from the 19th Verse, That the Apostle had a Commission to writ the things that shall be hereafter; which being limited to no certain Period of Time, is with Reason interpnted by Protestants, to take in the Condition of the Church to the End of the World; especially since, as we have already hinted, the Characters given here of Anti Christ are so visible in the Church of Rome at this very Day.  
It is true that M. Du Pin and the Doctors of the Romish Church are not alone in this Matter. Hugo Grotius, Dr. Hammond, and some other Men of Great Names, who were not of that Communion, fell in with them as to that Opinion; but with how little Reason is well enough known to those who have perused what has been said on both sides: To which we shall add, That how Great soever those Men may have been, we have no Reason to have their Persons so much in Admiration, as to prefer their judgement in this Point to that of the first Reformers in all Churches; and particularly to that of those Great Lights of our own Church, the Archbishops Cranmer and Usher, the famous Bishops jewel, Grindal, Abbot, and others, much less to the unanimous Opinion of all the Reformed Churches Abroad, the judgement of the Church of England in her Homilies and Offices, and that of the Parliaments of England in the Reigns of Henry VIII. James I. &c.  
Thus much we thought requisite to say by way of Caution. What he has offered most considerable in the remaining Part of this Second Volume, is his Treating concerning the manner, how the Greek Text of the New Testament came to be corrupted, and of the various Lections to be met with in several Manuscripts. In speaking to the Manuscripts he particularly enlarges on the three most famous Ones, viz. the Vatican, the Oxford, and the Cambridge MSS. concerning which last he sets down the various Opinions of several Authors, and gives us his own Sentiments upon it. We pass over what he says concerning the Apostles Creed, the Books attributed to the sibyls, the famous Passage cited out of Josephus in favour of the Christian Religion, with other remarkable Things, and leave them to the further Perusal and Censure of the Learned Readers in the Treatise itself.   

THE CONTENTS.  

CHAP. I. OF the Authority and Canon of the Books of the New Testament. page. 1  
SECT. I. Of the Revelation made by Jesus Christ, and of the Manner of its publication throughout the World. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of the Manner how the Books of the New Testament were composed. page. 4  
SECT. III. That the Books of the New Testament are certainly the Works of those Authors whose Names they bear. page. 5  
SECT. IV. That the Books of the New Testament have not been corrupted. page. 7  
SECT. V. That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament, had no design to writ Fables. page. 8  
SECT. VI. That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament were neither deceived nor Deceivers. page. 9  
SECT. VII. That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament were divinely inspired, and that Their Writings are Divine. page. 12  
SECT. VIII. That 'tis by the Testimony of the Church and Tradition that we know the divinely inspired Books of the New Testament. page. 13  
SECT. IX. Of the Canon of the Sacred Books of the New Testament; and in particular, of those whereof there hath been some Doubt, whether they were caconical. page. 16   

CHAP. II. Concerning the Authors of the New Testament, and the Books themselves. page. 20  
SECT. I. Of the Names of the New Testament and Gospel, and of the Titles of the Gospels. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of the ancient Gospels: That the Church never received any more than four as caconical, and why. Symbols ascribed to the four Evangelists. Of the Harmony and Difference found betwixt the four Gospels. The Order in which they were composed. page. 22  
SECT. III. Of St. Matthew and his Gospel: In what Language he wrote it. If it differ from the Gospel of the nazarenes. Of the Authenticalness of the Greek Text. Of some Additions made to the Text. page. 26  
SECT. IV. The Life of St. Mark: Concerning his Gospel: Of the Truth of the last whole Chapter of it, page. 40  
SECT. V. The Life of St. Luke: Of his Gospel: How it was corrupted by the Marcionites. Of the Truth of Christ's sweeting Drops of Blood. Of the Alterations and Additions in the Cambridge Manuscript. page. 44  
SECT. VI. The Life of St. John. Concerning his Gospel. The History of the Woman taken in Adultery. page. 48  
SECT. VII. Of the Books of the Acts of the Apostles. page. 53  
SECT. VIII. The Life of St. Paul: Of the Time, Occasion and Subject of his Letters. That the Epistle directed to the Hebrews is St. Paul's : In what Language it was wrote. Ibid.  
SECT. IX. Of the catholic Epistles in general, and of that of St. James in particular. Whose it is. How many St. James's there are. The Life of St. James the Brother of our Lord, the Author of this Epistle. The Argument of this Epistle. page. 69  
SECT. X. Of the two Epistles of St. Peter: That the second is really his. page. 74  
SECT. XI. Of three Epistles of St. John. Of the Passage concerning the Trinity, which is in the first Epistle. page. 76  
SECT. XII. Of St. judas and his Epistle. page. 80  
SECT. XIII. Of the Revelation. page. 82   

CHAP. III. Concerning the Greek Text of the New Testament. page. 97  
SECT. I. How the Greek Text of the New Testament was preserved in the Church without any Falsification: Of the Variations which might have crept into it: Of the Editions of this Text; and of the Differences that are in the Manuscripts. page. 97  
SECT. II. Of the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, and particularly of the Vatican, Oxford and Cambridge Manuscripts. page. 103  
SECT. III. The rise and occasion of the Faults that might have crept into the Greek Text of the New Testament. page. 107  
SECT. IV. The Original of the Faults that might have crept into the Text of the Vulgar Latin. page. 109  
SECT. V. Of what Nature those Differences are, which are in the Greek Text, and betwixt that and the Vulgar Latin. page. 110  
SECT. VI. Principles and Rules whereby to judge which of the different Lections ought to be followed, and when the Greek Text ought to be preferred before the Vulgar Latin, or the Vulgar before the Greek. page. 111  
SECT. VII. Of the Hellenistical Language. page. 114   

CHAP. IV. Of the Versions of the New Testament. page. 115  
SECT. I. Of the Latin Versions of the New Testament: Of the Ancient Vulgar, the New Vulgar, and the Modern Versions. page. 115  
SECT. II. Of the Oriental Versions of the New Testament. page. 117   

CHAP. V. Of the Division of the New Testament into Titles and Chapters. page. 119  
.   

CHAP. VI. Of the Apocryphal Books of the New Testament. page. 120  
SECT. I. Of the Letter of Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, and of that King's Letter to Jesus Christ. page. 121  
SECT. II. Of several Letters attributed to the Virgin Mary. page. 123  
SECT. III. Of the ancient Gospels which are not Heretical, tho' they be not caconical: Namely, the Gospels according to the Hebrews, and according to the Egyptians. Ibid.  
SECT. IV. Of the Proto-Evangelium of Saint James, and the Gospel of Nicodemus. page. 124  
SECT. V. Of the false Gospels forged by the heretics. page. 125  
SECT. VI. Of the spurious Acts of Apostles and Revelations. page. 128  
SECT. VII. Of the Epistle of Saint Barnabas. page. 130  
SECT. VIII. Of the Liturgies which are falsely attributed to the Apostles. page. 133  
SECT. IX. Of the apostles Creed. page. 135  
SECT. X. Of the Canons and Constitutions attributed to the Apostles. page. 144  
SECT. XI. Of the Books attributed to Prochorus, Saint Linus, Abdias; and of the Acts of the Passion of Saint Andrew. page. 149   

CHAP. VII. Of the Ancient profane Records produced in Favour of the Christian Religion. page. 150  
SECT. I. Of the Sibyls and the Oracles commonly attributed to them. Ibid.  
SECT. II. Of the Books attributed to Hystaspes and Mercurius Trismegistus. page. 161  
SECT. III. Of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate concerning Jesus Christ. page. 162  
SECT. IV. Of the Epistles of Seneca to Saint Paul, and of those of Saint Paul to Seneca. page. 163  
SECT. V. Of the Passages of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ, Saint John Baptist, and Saint James. page. 164  
SECT. VI. Of several Authors whose Works relate to the Sacred History, such as Philo, T. Flavius Josephus, Justus, Aristaeas, Aristobulus, Josephus Bengorion, Berosus, the false Dorothaeus, Zoroaster, &c. page. 168    

ERRATA.  
page. 8. line 13. for every one, r. every day. l. 27. for Interposiation, r. Interpolation. l. 38. for Invention, r. Intention, p. 10. l. 16. for Impostor, r. Imposture. l. 42. for one other, r. one or other. p. 12. l. 8. deal that. p. 18. Notes, Col. 1. l. 2. for Heathens, r. heretics. p. 28. Notes Col. 2. antepenult. for conscripsit, r. conscriptum. p. 29. l. 40. for would, r. could speak. p. 32. l. 6. r. and was preserved. p. 43. l. 19. r. {αβγδ}. p. 46. Notes, Col. 2. l. 7. for directed, r. dictated. p. 54. Notes, Col. 2. l. 5. r. 30. p. 64. l. 42. for Hypotheses, r. Hypotiposes.  
☞ Note, There's a Mistake in Paging, for after 84 comes 97, but the Contents are referred to the right Pages notwithstanding.   

A complete History OF THE CANON and WRITERS OF THE OLD and NEW TESTAMENT, &c.  
By Way of DISSERTATION.  
VOL. II.  

CAP. I. Of the Authority and Canon of the Books of the N. Testament.  

SECT. I. Of the Revelation made by Jesus Christ, and of the Manner of its publication throughout the World.  
THE Revelation which God made to Men by Jesus Christ his Son, does as much surpass those that he made by the Prophets, as the Dignity of the Person of Jesus Christ excelled that of the patriarches and Prophets. In the first Revelations God made use of Angels or Men to make known those Truths to Mankind, that he would have them taught. In this he made use of his own Son, whom according to the words of St. Paul he hath appointed Heir of all things, and by whom he made the World. But it is not only the Dignity of the Person whom God hath made use of in this second Revelation, which renders it much more considerable than the first; it hath divers other advantages besides. For, 1. Those ancient Revelations were obscure and veiled over with Figures and Parables that concealed the Mysteries and Truths. This is evident, and discovers clearly the most sublime Truths and profound Mysteries. 2. The first were imperfect and defective in abundance of things; they contained only a small number of Truths, a great many being reserved to the time of the Messia. This is complete and perfect, there is nothing more to be hoped for in this World; it is the perfection and end of all Revelations. As there was never any like it before, neither will there be any like it in time to come. It will continue till the end of the World. 4. The first was only for the Jews, they were known to none but that Nation; they were always confined to Judea, and the rest of the World knew nothing of them till the Coming of Jesus Christ. This was made for all Nations. It was spread through all the Earth, and this Light did shine, and shines still for the Use of all Men.  
The Son of God being come then into the World to declare unto Men the Truths which his Father was willing to reveal to 'em: He spent the last Years of his Life in Preaching them in Judea, from whence the Light of the Gospel was to be carried into all Nations. Whilst he continued upon Earth, there was no difficulty to learn what his Doctrine was; there was no more to do but to address ourselves to him, to harken to him, and to understand the meaning of his words. He equally Instructed all Men, he allowed them to ask him Questions, and answered with Meekness such as came with a design to inform themselves, but on the other hand confounded those who came to ask him Questions merely to take advantage of what he said. But since he was to stay only a little while upon the Earth, he took care to Instruct his Apostles and Disciples more particularly in the Truths he had a mind they should Teach the World after his Death. He hide nothing from them of what his Father would have revealed to Man. He says to them, John 15.15. I will not henceforth call you Servants, for the Servant knoweth not what his Master does, but I have called you Friends, because I have revealed to you all that I have heard of my Father; And cap. 17.18. speaking to his Father, he says, I have given unto them the words that thou gavest to me. The Apostles and Disciples being thus Instructed by the Mouth of Jesus Christ, might also give Testimony to his Doctrine. But that they should know it fully, and be infallible after he ascended to Heaven, he confirmed them, and gave them New Light, by sending them his Holy Spirit, who completely instructed them in all the Truths of the Religion which they were to know. This Dispensation is represented in the last words of our Saviour Jesus Christ to his Apostles. He ordered them to go through all the World to Preach the Gospel, to Teach the People, and to Baptize them in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Matth. 28.18. All power,( says he) is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth. Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you. He assures them that to the end they might be enabled to Preach the Gospel, he would sand them the Holy Ghost, his Father had promised them, and ordered them to stay in the City of Jerusalem. and wait for it, Luke 24.49. And behold I sand the promise of my Father upon you, but tarry ye in the City of Jerusalem until ye be endowed with power from on high. And eating with them, says St. Luke, Acts 1.4. He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me, for John truly baptized with Water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence, v. 8. Ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the Earth. This is the Holy Ghost which he had promised them before his suffering, in the discourse he had with them at the last Supper in those Terms. John 15.16. I will pray my Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, &c. v. 26. The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will sand in my Name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your Remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you, John 16.12, 13. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you into all Truth, for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall be speak, and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. In fine, he promises his Apostles never to forsake them, Matth. 28. v. ult. Lo I am with you even unto the end of the World.  
It results from those Promises of Jesus Christ; 1. That he choose and appointed his Apostles to Preach his Doctrine throughout the Earth, and to instruct those that would believe in him. 2. That he instructed them therein himself by his Word from the time he began to Preach, till the time of his Death. 3. That being raised again, he appeared to them several times during the forty days, to instruct them in, and to convince them of his Doctrine. 4. That he promised them his Holy Spirit, to make them remember the Doctrine he had taught them, to enlighten and confirm them in those Truths, and to enable them to maintain and Preach them. 5. That the descending of the Holy Ghost upon them, was so necessary to make them capable of acquitting themselves worthily of that Ministry, that he forbade them to depart from Jerusalem, or to Preach till such time as they had received it. 6. That after the Descent of the Holy Ghost, they were perfectly instructed in all the Truths of the Christian Religion, which they were to teach to those that would embrace it, and that Jesus Christ left behind him no other way for the World to be instructed in it than the Preaching of it by the Apostles throughout the Earth. This is the only way he left for Men to Learn those Truths that were necessary to Salvation, Mark 16 15. Go ye into all the World and Preach the Gospel unto every Creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned. It is sufficient for Salvation to believe what the Apostles taught, and if that be not believed, we shall be condemned. There's no having recourse to other Preachers, Jesus Christ hath appointed no other. It is in vain to seek for other means of Salvation, Jesus Christ hath left none. He hath promised no New Revelation after this that he hath made to Men. By his own Preaching, and the Mission of the Holy Ghost, he taught his Apostles all the Truths which he thought it needful Men should be instructed in. The Holy Ghost made them to remember all that he had taught them, and instructed them in all that they ought to know and teach unto Men.  
When our Lord Jesus Christ was ascended into Heaven, the Apostles after having received the Holy Ghost in a visible manner, Preached the Gospel every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the Word with signs following, Mark 16.20. They taught Men what they had seen and learned. In a word, they executed the Order and Commission which they had received from Jesus Christ; and as he commanded them to Preach all the Truths that he had taught them, and instructed them in all those that were necessary for the safety of Men; It is not to be thought that in acquitting themselves faithfully, as they have done in their Ministry, they would conceal any of those Truths, which he had revealed to them to be taught unto Men; for if they had it, must either have been out of Ignorance, Malice, Policy, Fear or Neglect, because they were not instructed in all the Truths of Religion which they must teach unto Men, because they envied the knowledge of them to some of their acquaintance, or else because they were negligent in acquitting themselves of their Ministry. But we cannot suppose the Apostles to be guilty of any of those faults. We cannot say they were ignorant of any of the Truths which Jesus Christ would have taught unto Men, for they could not be ignorant of them, but either because Jesus Christ had not revealed them to them, nor explained them clearly enough, which cannot be maintained without derogating from the Wisdom of Jesus Christ, or because they did not retain or understand the Truths that he taught them, of which there is not the least appearance, since they applied themselves wholly to understand him who taught them those things, whom they considered as their Master, who had in his mouth, as St. Peter said, the words of Eternal Life, and whom the Heavenly Father had commanded them to hear by a Miraculous Voice. And tho' it should be said, that they did not retain nor perfectly understand all the Truths which Jesus Christ had taught them before the descent of the Holy Ghost, it cannot be said so of the time that followed that descent, since the Gospel assures us in so many places that the Holy Ghost was sent on purpose to instruct them perfectly in all the Truths which Jesus Christ had taught them. Neither can we say that they maliciously concealed any of the Truths that Jesus Christ had taught them, they being uncapable of such a prevarication, nor could they do it from any politic Reason, since Jesus Christ had commanded them to teach publicly all that he had taught them in private, Matth. 10.27. What I tell you in Darkness, that speak ye in Light; and what ye hear in the Ear, that Preach ye upon the House tops. And that when he commanded them to Preach the Gospel in all the Earth, he excepted no part nor person: Preach the Gospel to every Creature. He says not, make use of this Policy and Precaution, do not Preach your Doctrine to all the World, keep something secret, which you are not to trust but to a small number of People, but Preach the Gospel to every Creature, Mark 16.15. To the great as well as to the small, to the poor as well as to the rich, to the ignorant as well as to the learned, to the simplo as well as to those of the quickest apprehension. It is still less probable that they concealed any of those Truths out of fear, which they were immediately to teach after that Jesus Christ had ordered them to Preach upon the House tops that which they had heard in secret, and that he had forewarned them not to be diverted from it by the fear of Death: Do not fear those which kill the Body, but are not able to kill the Soul, Matth. 10.28. And the Event hath sufficiently verisied, that they well observed that Maxim, since there were no perils to which they did not expose themselves, no penalties they did not undergo, nor punishments which they did not suffer for Preaching the Gospel, which most of them sealed by their Death. They feared neither the perfidiousness of the Jews, nor the violence of the Gentiles; they Preached without fear, and in the public places, they Preached Jesus Christ Crucified, a Doctrine which was a Stumbling-block to the Jews, and Foolishness to the Gentiles. After this there was no need of being upon the Reserve as to other Truths; all the rest of the Articles were less odious than this, and would have made them less liable to Persecution. Who then in short can suspect as guilty of Negligence, persons of such Zeal and Fervency, and who applied themselves so much to accomplish their Ministry as the Apostles, who accounted that Office their chief happiness, who acted all things, suffered all things, and died every day that they might acquit themselves worthily. It must then remain uncontroverted, that the Apostles taught, discovered, Preached, and at last committed to writing the Truths of that Religion which Jesus Christ had taught them.   

SECT II. Of the Manner how the Books of the New Testament were Composed.  
OUR Saviour taught his Doctrine viva voice, without putting any thing in Writing. He left that to his Apostles and Disciples, and by a special Providence ordered it so, that some of 'em after having taught by word of mouth the Doctrine they received from him, after having confirmed it by Miracles, and spread it through the World, they did also faithfully writ the History of his Life, to serve for a Pattern to Christians, and to be a perpetual Monument of the Doctrine which they taught in his Name, and wrote Epistles as occasion offered to instruct the Churches. St. Matthew and St. John Apostles and eye-witnesses of the Actions of Jesus Christ, wrote what they saw and heard, and St. Mark and St. Luke wrote what they learned from the Apostles themselves. The latter wrote also the History of the first Christians, and some circumstances of the Sermons and Lives of the Apostles, particularly of St. Peter and St. Paul, of part of which he had been witness. St. Paul being instructed not by Men, but by Jesus Christ himself, having all the Churches of the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was, committed to his Charge, wrote several Epistles full of the Holy Spirit of the Lord which was in him. St. Peter, St. John, St. James, St. judas, wrote likewise Epistles on different occasions. These are the Works which Compose what we call the New Testament, and contain the principal Points of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ.  
Tho' our Saviour hath wrote nothing, it is no Argument why we should not believe what his Apostles and Disciples have wrote, both as to his Person and Doctrine. This St. Austin proves against the Gentiles, who called in question what was wrote of Jesus Christ, because he did not writ it himself. I ask them( says he) why they believe without any scruple what the Disciples of their most famous Philosophers writ concerning them, tho' they wrote nothing themselves? Pythagoras for example, the best Philosopher that ever Greece produced as to the speculative part, hath wrote nothing of himself, nor upon any Subject. Socrates, who is preferred before all the rest of the Philosophers on the account of his Moral Doctrine, and whom the Oracle of Apollo declared to be the Wisest of Men, hath wrote nothing but Aesop's Fables, nor had he done that, if we may believe his Disciple Plato, had he not been forced to it by the Order of his Genius. This Book contains the Sentences of another Man, and not his Doctrine. What reason then have the Pagans to believe what the Disciples of those Philosophers have wrote concerning them, and not to believe what the Disciples of Jesus Christ have wrote concerning him, Lib. 1. de Doct. Chr. c. 7.  
To prove beyond Contradiction the Authority of the Books of the New Testament, and the Truth of the Matters of fact there related: We must prove in the first place that those Books are really the Writings of those whose Names they bear, that is, of the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ, who were Eye-witnesses of what they wrote.  
Secondly, That those Books have not been corrupted.  
Thirdly, That the Writers of them are persons worthy of Credit, that they have not stuffed them with Fictions and Fables, but designed to writ such things as they would have believed to be true.  
Fourthly, That they could neither be deceived themselves, nor yet deceive others. That is to say, they could neither be ignorant of the Truth of the Matters of fact which they related, nor of their Masters Doctrine, and that they could not impose upon People in relating Facts that were not true, or advance in their Writings a Doctrine contrary to that of their Master, as having received the same from him. Those four things being certain, there's no room to dispute the Authority of the New Testament. For there is nothing more easy than to make it evident.   

SECT. III. That the Boohs of the New Testament are certainly the Works of those Authors whose Names they bear.  
IT is certain at first view, that there is no Reason to doubt but the Gospels, Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, are wrote by those whose Names they bear, and that there's no cause to doubt of the Authors of all the rest, for there is nothing, the truth of which can be established by more Ancient, and more authentic Monuments; to wit,  
1. By the Testimony of Authors, who wrote a little time after, and who have quoted them, as being without doubt the Works of those whose Names they bear.  
2. By the Testimony of the Christian Churches spread through the Earth, who did at all times unanimously own those Writings as authentic and True.  
3. By Inspecting into the Books themselves, which have no mark of being supposititious or Counterfeit, but on the contrary have all the Marks of Truth and Antiquity that any authentic Monuments can have. Here is nothing contrary to History. It is manifest that the Authors wrote whilst Jerusalem was in being, and whilst the Jews carried the face of a republic: This evidently proves that those Books are of that time wherein it's agreed the Apostles lived. It appears that the Authors of those Books are plain-hearted upright Men, who had neither the Parts, nor the Malice to forge or impose those Works upon the World. Not one thing has escaped them contrary to History, or to the Circumstances and Customs of the Time, which would have been hard for them to have avoided, had they been Impostors. They agree with one another as to the Matters of fact they relate, but so nevertheless as 'tis evident, that it is not one Author who wrote those different Works, and that those who wrote them did not agree together to say all one thing. Their style is different, which makes it plain they are different Authors, and there are betwixt them seeming Contradictions and Diversities, which demonstrate plainly that the Writers did not concert those Works together. In fine, there is in those Works a certain Character of Genuinesse and Truth, which make it evident that it is not the production of an Impostor, but an authentic and True Work.  
Where is there any profane Work of the Ancient Greeks and Latin Authors of whose Truth so many authentic proofs can be brought? For the most part they satisfy themselves with the Testimony of an Author that lived some Years after the Work is thought to have been composed: Many times they gave their judgement upon the Conformity of the style alone, or by the Title found in some Manuscripts, which are for the most part not very Ancient. Nevertheless they tell us with Confidence and Moral Certainty, that those Works were wrote by those whose Names they bear. With how much more reason may we say so of the Gospels, the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles, which are supported by much stronger Evidence, and a far greater Certainty? Let it be considered that those Gospels and Epistles were published in the time of the Apostles, not only in the Churches for which the said Gospels were composed, or to whom those Epistles were directed, but also in the Neighbouring Churches, and that those Writings were published every where in a little time. It was easy then to know the Authors of 'em, nor could they be deceived, the thing being public and certain: That the Persons who wrote those Works, those for whom, and to whom they were wrote, and the Churches who had received and owned them, who red them, and made use of them for their Instruction, gave 'em such an authentic Testimony, that no body doubted but they were the Writings of the Apostles. That there were Copies of 'em in all the Churches; that all the most Ancient Orthodox Authors have quoted and owned them to be true; that when the heretics did afterwards Counterfeit the Works of the Apostles, or falsify those that were true, they were immediately convicted of it, by authentic Testimonies: That their Writings were disowned and rejected by the Disciples of the Apostles, and by the Apostolical Churches; and that in fine, all the Churches have at all times unanimously received, the Body of the Books of the New Testament, which they considered as their Law and Infallible Rule; and that they Repealed the others, as false, or as not having the same Authority. If I say we give but a little heed to those things, we cannot but be convinced in common sense, that the Books of the New Testament are really the Works of those whose Names they bear. This is the first Truth we had to demonstrate.   

SECT. IV. That the Books of the New Tectament have not been Corrupted.  
THE second Truth that those Books were not corrupted, is established upon the same Evidence. It is certain in the first place, that the Originals of the Gospels, and of the Epistles of the Apostles and of the Evangelists, wrote by their own Hands, or by those to whom they had dictated them, did remain for some time in the Churches for which those Gospels were wrote, or to whom those Letters were directed. Tertullian seems also to assure us, that in his time there were Churches which had this precious Pledge in their keeping; when he says, speaking of those Apostolical Churches, that there they repeat their authentic Letters, Apud quas Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur; Terms which seem to design the Originals themselves. But tho' those words should be otherwise understood, the Respect which they had in the Churches for the Gospels and the Epistles of the Apostles, leaves us no Room to doubt, but they preserved the Originals a long time, and that Copies of them were immediately wrote, which were spread in a little time through all the Churches, where they red them publicly. Had those Copies been False, it had been impossible but the Fraud must have been discovered immediately by comparing them with the Originals. The Apostolical Churches who still had them, would soon have convicted of Forgery those falsified and interpolated Copies, and not have suffered them to have been made use of. All the Christians who had seen and red the Originals, would have been so many Witnesses to depose against them: Otherwise how could all the Copiers agree together to make the same Falsifications? How could those False Copies have been spread through the World in a little time, without any of the Churches having preserved the True Ones? It cannot then be said, That the Writings of the Apostles were falsified, either during their Lives, or speedily after their Death; nor is it to be doubted, that St. Clement the Roman, Hermas, St. Polycarp, St. Justin, St. Ireneus, and the most Ancient Authors, had the Genuine Writings of the Apostles. The Apostolical Churches preserved them as they received them from the Apostles: They were the same in all Churches of the Earth. How was it possible they could be corrupted and falsified throughout in an uniform Manner? Is it credible, that all the Churches, and that all Christians should agree to falsify Them, and that they could have concealed this Imposture? Would not the Jews and Pagans have upbraided them with this Change? The heretics that came after, would they have spared the Christians in such a Case? When Valentine and martion falsified the Gospels, they were convicted of the Crime, by proving, That the Gospels kept by the Churches were more Ancient than theirs, and that their Falsification was of a later Date. In short, Can it be imagined that all the Copies of the New Testament, could have been changed and corrupted? How could that Falsification have been effected? Who was the Author of it? In what time can they say it was done? It cannot be said to have been since the time that we had the Writings of Christian Authors; for all the Passages of the New Testament which they quote, are agreeable to the Books we have, and they quote so great a Number of them, that 'tis, morally speaking, impossible that they changed them in their Works. Nor can it be said, That this Corruption was effected before any Christian began to writ, that is to say fifteen or twenty Years after the Death of the Apostles, in a time when there were many Witnesses still remaining that had received them from the Apostles themselves. Could there be then any Person so impudent as to change those Books? And supposing there were; is it possible that all Christians would have believed them, contrary to the Universal Testimony of the Disciples. How was it possible to impose upon so many entire Societies, who had received those Books of the Apostles, who red them continually in their Assemblies, upon so many Christians who red them in private, had the Contents of them by Heart, and respected them as Sacred Books? Would not they have universally risen up against this Change? Those whom they suppose to have corrupted or altered them, they did so either in the Essential Part, that is to say in the Doctrine, or in things of small Consequence, and without touching upon the Essentials of the Doctrine. The latter is not likely; for if they left the same Doctrine remaining, to what purpose was it to corrupt the Text? And the first was impossible, because the Christians, who knew the Doctrine of the Apostles, and died every one in Defence of it, would rather have lost their Lives, than suffered their Ancient Doctrine to be overturned. In a Word, How was this Change effected? Was it all at once? Was it insensibly? The Former is extravagant; for how can we suppose, that all the Christians of the Earth should agree to falsify the Sacred Books all at once, and in one and the same Manner, and that they could effect that Design every where without Opposition? The Latter is no less difficult to believe; for to bring that to pass there must of necessity have been many Men, living in different Times and Places, that had the same Design and End to corrupt the Books of the Apostles; and they must always have found the Spirits of Christians disposed to receive their Fictions. Whereas, on the contrary, it is certain, by the Testimony of Christian Authors, That from the time of St. Clement and St. Polycarp till now, there was no considerable Change made in the Books of the New Testament. The Text is Equal, Uniform, of the same style, and contains the same Doctrine; nor does there appear therein any Interposiation, Contradiction or Difference; so that there is more Ground to believe, that they are entirely Suppositious than falsified or corrupted. 'tis not denied, but some Mistakes may have slipped into them, as into all other Books, by the Neglect of the Copiers; but this cannot be called a Corruption or Falsification that changes neither the Historyn or the Doctrine of those Books.   

SECT. V. That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament, had no design to writ Fables.  
IT is no less certain, That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament had no design to writ Fictions and Fables, like those of Poems and Romances; but their Invention was to writ Things that they would have believed to be true, and that they fell out in the same Manner as they reported them. We need only cast our Eye upon their Works to be convinced of this. They assure us throughout, That the Matters of Fact they relate are true. They writ them with the same Simplicity, and in the same Natural Manner as they fell out. Their Scope is not to divert the Reader with Fictions, but to instruct them in Matters of Fact which it was important for them to know. In short, their Works contain nothing which can occasion the least Suspicion, that they had a Mind to forge any Thing or make a fabulous Narrative.  
They set down the Time, the Place, the Persons, the Matters of Fact are circumstantiated, and related in a Natural Manner, without the least Air of Forgery. It's plain, that those Authors speak every where serious and positively. It is impossible to red the four Evangelists without being convinced, that the Authors had no design to forge; and that their only design was to writ a History which they would have looked upon to be true. The Acts of the Apostles have no less an Air of Sincerity and Truth. They are exact Memoirs, which contain nothing that looks like Fable. How is it possible for any Man to think, that the Epistles of the Apostles are nothing else but pleasant Fictions; that they had no design to instruct those they wrote to, nor to teach them a Doctrine that they would have them believe to be True; and that they wrote only to divert themselves and others? To maintain those things, or to think there's any shadow of Truth in them, were the most absurd thing in the World. There's no Man then of good Sense, who can doubt, that the Books of the New Testament were wrote by those to whom they are ascribed, that those Books are such as they wrote them; and that those who were the Authors of them did intend at least to make People believe, that the History they wrote was True. This being granted, there remains no more to convince us effectually, That it is so, but to prove, That they were neither imposed upon themselves, nor designed to impose upon others, that is to say, that they were neither ignorant of the Truth nor disguised it.   

SECT. VI. That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament were neither deceived nor Deceivers.  
TO demonstrate, That the Apostles and Evangelists could not be imposed upon in the Things they related, 'tis sufficient to observe, That they themselves heard and saw what they wrote concerning Jesus Christ, or had it from those that conversed Familiarly with him. St. Matthew, St. John, St. Peter, St. James and St. judas saw and heard what they wrote concerning the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. They lived a long time familiarly with him. He had instructed them carefully in his Doctrine, with a design that they should teach it to others, and publish it throughout the Earth. They received his Instructions with a teacheable Temper, applied themselves to understand them, and desired him to explain such Things as they did not. They retained them carefully, because they looked upon them, as Things necessary for the Salvation of themselves and others. The Respect they had for their Master, and the extraordinary Things they saw him perform, made them give special Attention to every Thing he said to them. He explained himself to them in clear Terms, and discovered to them all the Secrets of his Doctrine. They could not then be deceived on this Subject, nor be ignorant of the True Doctrine of their Master. Much less could they be mistaken in the Miracles and Matters of Fact, which they saw him perform. It had been impossible to make them believe that Jesus Christ had cured those that were paralytic and Lame, that he raised the dead, and that after death he rose again himself, if those Matters of Fact had been false. We are to make the same Reflections upon the Evangelists; St. Luke and St. Mark wrote only what they had from Eye-witnesses, and Persons worthy of Credit, in a time when the Memory of those things was fresh and recent. Had they been false, it is impossible but they must have known the falsehood of them. St. Paul, who was a Persecutor of the Christians, could he have been ignorant of it? and after having been convinced of the Imposture, whilst he was yet their Enemy, could he have afterwards persuaded himself of the Truth of that which he formerly knew to be a Fiction? It cannot then be said, that the Authors of the Books of the New Testament were deceived either as to the Doctrine or Actions of Jesus Christ.  
It only remains then for us to demonstrate, That they were not Impostors neither; That 'twas impossible for them to conceive or effect a Design of imposing upon all the World, to make them believe Matters of Fact to be True the falsehood of which was known to them, by publishing their own Fancies, as the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and writing Books on purpose to give Credit to that Imposture. It is fit we should enlarge a little more upon this Subject.  
In the first Place, to accuse several Authors of an Imposture, we must have some Evidence of their Dishonesty, and be able to prove their Character of their being Cheats and Impostors. But nothing can be more opposite to this Character, than that which appears in their Writings, which plainly show, That they were poor, simplo Men, without Learning, full of Ingenuity and Sincerity, who were not capable of feigning, or of disguising Truth.  
Secondly, No Man ordinarily turns Impostor for nothing. 'tis either some Motive of Interest or Ambition that inclines Men to impose upon others. But it does not appear, That the Apostles and their Disciples could hope for any Advantage from such a gross Impostor, as that of making the History of Jesus Christ, which they themselves feigned, pass for a Truth. They could gain nothing by such an enterprise, but Labour, Persecution and Punishment. The Doctrine they taught neither flattered their Covetousness nor Ambition: They had no human Success to expect from their enterprise, which was contrary to all the Rules of human Prudence. They drew upon themselves the hatred of their own Nation, and became the Reproach of all the Earth. Jesus Christ crucified whom they taught, was a Subject of Scandal to the Jews, and was looked upon as Foolishness amongst the Gentiles.  
Thirdly, The Matters of Fact they relate are not of such a kind as to be forged, without a possibility of discovering the Imposture: They were publicly acted, made a great Noise, were known to all the World. A Prophet who preached publicly in Judea, for a considerable time, whom many Jews saw and heard. Whose Reputation was established all over the Country, who worked great Miracles in the Presence of all the People; who boldly reproved the Priests and Doctors of the Law; who was accused, taken and delivered to the governor of Judea, by the Envy of his own Countrymen; who was crucified, raised again, seen by many after his Resurrection; and, in fine, ascended unto Heaven. All those Facts could never be forged, in a Place and Time, wherein they are said to have been done, but they must immediately have been convicted of Forgery and Imposture. With what Forehead dared the Apostles to have preached and taught those Things as Truths, had they known them to be False, and that they could be contradicted by the Testimony of the Public? How could they possibly conceive a Design of making them pass for Truths amongst Persons who must have been convinced of their falsehood. By what means could they imagine if they had conceived such a Fantastical Design, to put it in Execution, without having the lye given them by one other.  
Fourthly, Supposing we could imagine any particular Person capable of so much Extravagancy, can we believe, that such a Thing could enter into the Minds of so many; and that a great Number of Persons could invent by Concert, so many evident Falshoods, agree to teach them every where, and to deceive all the Earth in that manner, without being forced to aclowledge their Imposture, by Fatigue, Poverty, misery, Torments, and death itself? What probability is there, that all of them should resolve to lay down their Lives for the maintenance of a lye, and that neither Remorse of Conscience, Interest, Hopes nor the Rigor of Punishment should ever be able to extort this Truth from their Mouths.  
Fifthly, If the Authors of the Books of the New Testament, had been Impostors, they would have wrote by Concert the same things; there would not have been any difference or seeming contradiction in their Narratives, they would have wrote nothing but great and singular things, and such as would have commanded Admiration; They would have concealed all that part of our Saviour's History that seemed Mean and Weak in the Eyes of Men: But this they have not done, they have wrote what they knew of Jesus Christ, and without affectation, or omitting the Circumstances that might have rendered him despicable in the Eyes of carnal Men. They have wrote his History in a different Manner, and related it with different Circumstances. They have explained their Sentiments with Liberty, without Copying one from another, or making use of the same Terms.  
Sixthly, Nothing can be more opposite to a Spirit of Imposture, than the Doctrine of the Religion that they Teach in those Books, tho' our Enemies will have them to be full of it. Is it credible, that People who were persuaded that it is a Crime to lie, who make it their profession to say nothing but the Truth, and to die for it, should be so wicked as to teach and writ nothing but Impostures? Their Books are full of a most pure and holy Morality. Their practise was agreeable to their Maxims, that is to say, Regular, Holy, Innocent, full of Zeal for God, Truth and Religion; how then can all those things be reconciled with a continual Imposture, whereof they are supposed to be Culpable?  
Seventhly, If the whole History of the New Testament were nothing but a Continuation of Impostures, how was it possible that it should be owned as true both in Judea and throughout the whole Earth, that the Books which contain the same, should not only have been regarded as true, but lookd upon as Divine, and that the Doctrine which they teach should be established throughout the World, notwithstanding all the Opposition that hath been made thereunto?  
Eighthly, The History of the Evangelists agrees perfectly with all that the Jewish and Pagan Historians inform us of those Times. 'tis not from them alone that we know there was in Judea a Person called Jesus Christ, the Author of a new Religion, whom the Jews put to death. Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Lucian, Pagan Authors have also made mention of it, and even those who wrote against the Christians don't contradict it. The Governours and Princes of Judea, spoken of in the New Testament, are also made known to us by the History of Josephus, who speaks of Quirinius, Pontius Pilate, Festus, Felix, Caiaphas, Herod, Herodias and Agrippa. What he says of them, agrees with what the Evangelists have wrote, so that those are not Supposititious Names or a pure Fiction. In short, all the Circumstances of the Narrative of the Evangelists agree with what other Historians have left us of the History of that Time. There are neither Contradictions nor Anachronisms, into which Impostors must of necessity have fallen. In a Word, there are no Authors that can less be suspected of Imposture, than those of the New Testament, nor any History that we can with more reason believe to be true, than that of the Evangelists and Apostles. If we question the Credit of those Witnesses, and of the Truth of the Facts, which they relate. We must call in question the Truth of all the Histories of the World, and by Consequence overthrow the Foundation of the greatest part of our Knowledge. We may doubt, whether there ever was such a Person as Julius Caesar, if he conquered the Gauls, defeated Pompey or was killed by Brutus, none of those Things being established upon Testimonies and Writings, so authentic as the Birth, Death and Life of Jesus Christ. This is what may be said as to the Moral Certainty of the Truth of the Books of the New Testament, and of the Matters of Fact therein related. We shall now proceed further, and show that those Books are Divine, and were composed by Men divinely inspired.   

SECT. VII. That the Authors of the Books of the New Testament were divinely inspired, and that Their Writings are Divine.  
IF the Apostles were not Impostors, but true and honest Men, as we have just now proved, It cannot be denied, but they received the Holy Ghost to confirm them in the Truths that they had learnt from Jesus Christ, that they might preach them, through the Earth, for that is one of the Signal and public Matters of Fact, as to that which the Apostles could not be deceived nor yet deceive others. Jesus Christ promised to sand them the Spirit of Truth which should led them into all Truth, and teach them what they should say, when they came before Kings, Governors and Judges, to give an Account of their Religion. This Promise was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, but in such a visible manner, and with so sensible Effects, that no Body could doubt the Truth of that Inspiration. The Holy Ghost descended upon them in form of Tongues of Fire, and they received the Gift of speaking all sorts of Languages. These were such Marks and Effects as Men could not be deceived in. The standards by who were numerous, saw those Tongues of Fire, all the People heard the Apostles and Disciples speak different Languages. This was speedily followed by Miracles performed by the Apostles, to confirm the Doctrine they preached. The Apostles being endowed with those Gifts, and animated by the Holy Ghost, preached with boldness and zeal the Truths which the Holy Ghost put into their Mouths; so that it was not so much they as the Holy Ghost which spoken in them, declaring, That the Doctrine which they taught was not their Doctrine, but that of Jesus Christ which the Holy Ghost inspired them with, and that what they Preached unto Men was the pure Word of God. St. Paul himself says, that he was not instructed by Men, but by the Revelation of Jesus Christ, Gal. 1.12. All those things attested by the Apostles themselves, whom we cannot suspect of Trick or Imposture, leave no room to doubt that the Holy Ghost inspired the Apostles in their Sermons. And if it was necessary they should be conducted, inspired and directed in a particular manner to Preach the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, there was much more Reason they should be inspired with it to Compose those Writings which ought to subsist as Eternal Monuments of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and the Rule of Faith to all Christians; if they had not been so, they might have fallen into errors as to the Matters of Religion; and if God had permitted it, he should have exposed his Church to almost an unavoidable danger of following those Errors, which would not have been consistent with his Wisdom, and the Promise he made, that it should subsist until the End of Time.  
The Testimony of the Ancient Church is a strong Argument to prove that the Books of the New Testament are divinely inspired, for all the Churches have at all times received them as Divine and Sacred Books, and made a great difference betwixt those Books and all others: They were received and quoted by all, as containing nothing but what is true, as the Rule of their Doctrine and Faith, as Books whose Authority could not be rejected, nor the least of those things that they teach or relate doubted of, whereas they had not the same respect nor veneration for other Books, whoever their Authors were, or however good they might be. Whence could this Difference come, but that the Ancient Christians were persuaded there were some Writings Inspired by God, and that the others were merely of human Authority.  
The Predictions of future Events, every where in the Books of the New Testament, all of which were accomplished a long time after the Death of the Authors of those Books, as the ruin of Jerusalem, the unbelief of the Jews, the Persecutions of the Christians, the Establishment of the Gospel throughout the Earth, that Heresies should arise, are authentic Proofs that those Books are divinely inspired; for those Events not having fallen out till after the time they were wrote, those that wrote them must of necessity have been Prophets divinely inspired.  
In a word, those Books have a Character wholly Divine; whether we consider the Things they relate, or the Doctrine they teach, there's nothing human in it. In Wisdom they surpass the Books of the wisest Pagans: Yet they were composed by simplo unlearned Men. There we find the most sublime Maxims of Moral Philosophy, and Precepts far above any thing that Nature can teach us. Those Books are likewise infinitely more excellent, than all those that have since been wrote by Christians. They are free of that human Weakness, and of those Passions and Partialities, which Authors who have no other Conduct but that of their own Reason can scarcely avoid. In short, every Thing there is True, Great, Sublime and Divine. This is better perceived in reading them, than can be expressed by Words or Examples. The Doctrines taught in those Books are above the reach of human Wit. They are not then the Invention of Men. The Precepts they give are more perfect than those that mere Reason prescribes us: They are not therfore the Product of ordinary Meditation and reflection. And, by consequence, it is God who hath revealed those Truths, and given those Commandments; whence it follows, that the Books which contain them are Divine.   

SECT. VIII. That 'tis by the Testimony of the Church and Tradition that we know the divinely inspired Books of the New Testament.  
THree Things are necessary to establish the Divine Authority of a Book. 1. It must be wrote by a Person inspired by the Holy Ghost. 2. The Author must have been inspired when he wrote, and composed it by a Divine Inspiration, Inspiratione Divina, and not merely with the Exactness of an Historian, Historica Diligentia. 3. That we be sure both of the one and the other. The Inspiration not having been continual in the Apostles, neither in their Discourses nor Actions. Nor can we be assured that all their Writings were divinely inspired. There may have also been Authors divinely inspired, that are not known to be such. In short, we may be at an uncertainty, that an Apostle whom we knew to have been divinely inspired, is the Author of the Work ascribed to him. We must then find a certain and infallible Rule to assure us of those things.  
But there is no other of that Nature, except the Tradition of the Church. For, 1. It is by her Testimony we know the Apostles to be the Authors of the Books which bear their Name. This we are sure of, as we have shew'd, because the most ancient Christian Authors ascribed them to them, and that all the Churches with an unanimous Consent, have owned them as theirs. 2. We cannot be certain that those Works in particular are wrote by divine Inspiration, but because the Churches received them as such from those who composed them, and have always owned and regarded them as Sacred and Divine. We can have no other undoubted Proof of their Inspiration, as that certainly is, because 'tis not possible that the Apostles and the first Guides of the Churches would have proposed to them for a Rule of Faith and Manners, Books as divinely inspired that really were not so: And 'tis no way credible that the Churches would have owned those Books as Divine and Sacred, had they not been assured of it by credible Witnesses. It is then certain, That the Books of the New Testament, which the Churches received in the Primitive Times, as Genuine and Sacred, were delivered to them as such by the Apostles or their Disciples, who are unexceptionable Witnesses of those two Matters of Fact; and, by consequence, there's no Reason to doubt but they are true and divinely inspired.  
It, is also by this infallible Rule of Tradition, and the Testimony of the ancient Churches, that the holy Fathers judged of the Truth and Canon of the Books of the New Testament.  
St. Ireneus in his third Book against Heresies, Cap. 1, 2, 11. demonstrates against heretics, that the four Gospels are the only true ones, because the Church that was spread over all the Earth owned them, and the heretics themselves bear Witness to them, because some of them received one Gospel and others another.  
Tertullion alleges the Testimony of the Apostolical Churches, to prove the Authority of the Gospel of St. Luke, and the rejecting that of martion. I maintain, says he, that our Gospel of St. Luke is received in all the Apostolical Churches, and even in all the Churches ever since it was published, and that that of martion was scarcely known to most part of them. This Authority of the Apostolical Churches will also serve to authorize the other Gospels. In another place, he says, That the Book of Pastor is not caconical, because 'tis rejected by all the Churches. Ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum vestrarum inter Apocrypha Numerari. Lib. de Pud.  
Serapio in a fragment related by Eusebius, Hist. lib. 6. cap. 12. proves the falsehood of the Gospel ascribed to St. Peter, by the difference betwixt the Doctrine of that Gospel, and that which the Church received by the Apostles, and because it was not authorized by Tradition. We receive, says he, that which St. Peter and the other Apostles have said, as that which Jesus Christ himself hath said; but we reject the Writings which are falsely called by their Name, without suffering ourselves to be imposed upon by them, because we know we did not receive them from the Ancients.  
It is by the Testimony of the Ancients that Melito maintains his Catalogue of Sacred Books. It is also upon Tradition that St. Clement builds, when he rejects the Authority of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, because there are no more than four Gospels, that were given us by Tradition, Clemens Alex. Lib. 3. Stromat.  
It is the Rule which Eusebius makes use of in imitation of Origen, to distinguish the caconical from the Apocryphal Books, and those that are certainly suppositious from those that are doubtful. He examines which have been received at all Times and by all Churches, without having ever been called in question by any Man, which are those that have been doubted of by some few, and have fince been received by all the Churches; those which are not yet received but by part, and those, in fine, that are rejected by unanimous Consent. It is by those Differences that he distinguishes the different Classes of caconical and Apocryphal Books. Hist. lib. 3. c. 13. l. 4. c. 24, 5. l. 6. c. 25.  
St. Epiphanius says, That as those Persons are convicted who falsify a Princes Letters by producing the Originals that are preserved in the Archives; the Falsehood of the Gospels composed by heretics is also discovered by producing the Gospel which is preserved in the Church, as the Archives of Law are in the Palaces of Princes. Epih. Haeres. 42.  
St. Jerome reckons amongst the caconical Books of the New Testament, all those that the Church Universal receives as such, and even those whereof some Churches doubted at first, as the Epistle to the Hebrews; of which the Church of Rome did sometimes doubt: The 2d Epistle of St. Peter, the Epistle of St. James, and the Epistle of St. judas, of which he says, it acquired Authority by its Antiquity, and the use that was made of it: Auctoritatem jam vetustate & usu meruit. In prologo Galeato. Praefat. in Judith& Tobiam. Lib. de Script-Eccl. in voice Juda.  
But, of all the Fathers, there's none who more valves the Authority and Testimony of the Synagogue and of the Church, for distinguishing the caconical from the Apocryphal Books, than St. Augustin; insomuch, as he said, That he would not have believed the Gospel, had he not been determined to give Credit to it by the Authority of the Church: Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret Auctoritas. Contr. Epist. Manich. cap. 5. Not that the Gospel in itself derives its Authority from the Church. It hath it from God himself, who hath revealed and inspired it: But we are not sure of that Revelation but by the Authority of the Church, which teaches us that 'tis the same Gospel which was wrote by the Apostles. Thus it is S. Augustin explains himself in his 11th Book against Faustus, Man. c. 2. It is one thing, says he, to say that we will not receive Books, and that we don't think ourselves obliged to believe them, as the Pagans say of all our Books, the Jews of the New Testament, and the catholics of the Heretical and Apocryphal Books, and another not to aclowledge the Authority, neither of those Books, nor of the Authors that composed them; it is one thing to say, that Man was a Saint, what he wrote is true; and that Letter is his, but another to say in that Letter, this is his, and that not. In this latter Case, when a Man is required to prove what he advances, he must have recourse to Copies, either to the Truest, the most Ancient, the greatest Number, or the Original Text; for 'twould be ridiculous in him to say, I prove that that is his, because it makes for me; and that that is not his, because 'tis against me..... If another maintain the quiter contrary, what will you do? you will produce to him another Book: But he will tell you, that 'tis utterly false. What will you do then? Where will you be? What Original can you show for the Book you have produced? What Antiquity will you allege? What Tradition will you bring in Testimony?..... You see of what value the Authority of the catholic Church is in this Case, which hath been kept up since the time that the Sees were established by the Apostles, by an uninterrupted succession of Bishops, and by the Consent of so many People. If the controversy then were only about the faithfulness of the Copies, as in some variety of Sentences, which are very few in Number, and well known to those that are versed in the Sacred Scripture; we might decide that Doubt by the Copies of other Countries from whence that came; and if those Copies were also different, we would prefer the Ancient to the Modern, or the greatest Number to the least, and if still there remained an uncertainty, we should have recourse to the Original. Ibid. c. 5. He says, We distinguish the Excellence of the caconical Authority of the Books of the Old and New Testament, which being established from the Time of the Apostles, was preserved by the Succession of the Bishops and the Establishment of the Churches, and set as it were upon a Throne, to the End that all the Faithful should obey it. If we meet with any thing there that seems absurd, it is not lawful for us to say, That the Author of that Book strayed from the Truth; but we must say, that the Copy is faulty, the Translator is mistaken; or that we don't understand it. Ibid. Lib. 33. c. 6. He says further, of what Book can we be certain, that 'tis such an Authors; if it be uncertain, whether the Epistles which the Church says and believes are those of the Apostles, be theirs; and how can we believe it to be certain, that the Apostles have wrote those, which the heretics produce against the Church, and which bear the Name of their Heads and Leaders, who lived so long after the Apostles? As if even in profane Books we had not the undoubted Works of certain Authors, under whose Names others have been since produced that have been rejected, either because they did not agree with those that were certainly theirs, or because they did not appear in the time of their Lives, or were not published and transmitted to Posterity by them, or by their Friends. He proves this by the Instance of Books falsely ascribed to Hippocrates, which were rejected because they had not the Energy of his true Works, and were not during his Life-time known to be his; whereas one could not call in Question his true Works, without exposing themselves to be mocked by all Men, and accounted to be Persons voided of Sense, because they were owned to be his by constant Tradition from that, down to the present Time. It is the same as to those of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, &c. And, in fine, as to the Books of divers Ecclesiastical Authors, of which we cannot know the Author, but that he owned it himself at the time of its Publication; and the knowledge of this was afterwards conveyed to Posterity, and so fixed, that when we ask whose such a Book is, they tell it us without any hesitation.  
In a word, St. Augustin was so much persuaded, that the only way to distinguish betwixt such Books as are caconical and such as are not, was the Testimony of the Churches, that he proposes it as a Rule in his Book of Christian Doctrine, where he says, That upon this Subject we are to follow the Authority of the greatest Number of the catholic Churches, and particularly that of the Apostolical Churches; and that an equitable Person should prefer the Scriptures which are received by all the Churches, to those which some of them reject; and that amongst those which are not received by all the Churches, we must prefer those that are received by the greatest Number, and most considerable of the Churches: And that, in fine, if there be some that are received by the greatest Number of the Churches, and others that are received by those that have most Authority, tho' they be not the greatest Number( which, however, he thinks can scarce come to pass) that then the Books should be of equal Authority.   

SECT. IX. Of the Canon of the Sacred Books of the New Testament; and in particular, of those whereof there hath been some Doubt, whether they were caconical.  
THE Principle which we have laid down being granted, it will not be difficult to distinguish the caconical Books of the New Testament, from the Apocryphal or Doubtful Books, and to explain in what manner the Canon of the Sacred Books of the New Testament was made. We cannot say, that it was drawn up by any Assembly of Christians, or by any particular Person; but we must say, that it was formed by the unanimous Consent of all the Churches, who received it by Tradition, and always acknowledged certain Books to be wrote by Authors divinely inspired, and by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is this Consent of all the Churches, which served as a Rule in the first Ages, to distinguish the caconical from the Doubtful and Supposititious Books. It was by following this Rule that Eusebius, who is the first that made an exact Enquiry into those things, distinguishes three sorts of Books, appertaining in some Measure to the New Testament.  
The first Class comprehends those that were always received by the unanimous Consent of all the Churches, which are the four Evangelists,& the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, excepting that to the Hebrews, which some Authors did not put in the same Class with the others, because they did not believe it to be St. Paul's, and the first Epistles of St. Peter and St. John.  
The second Class comprehends those which not having been received by all the Churches of the World, have always been considered by some as caconical Books, and quoted as Books of the Scripture by Ecclesiastical Authors; but this Class is still divided into two; for some of those Books have been received since by all the Churches, and acknowledged as Genuine, such as the Epistle of St. James, the Epistle of St. judas, and the 2d Epistle of St. Peter, the 2d and 3d Epistle of St. John. Others on the contrary have been rejected, either as counterfelt, or as unworthy to be put amongst the caconical Books; tho' they might otherwise have been useful; such as the Book of Pastor, the Letter of St. Barnabas, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, another according to the Hebrews, the Acts of St. Paul, the Revelation of St. Peter.  
The last Class contains the Books forged by heretics, which were always rejected by the Church; such as are the Gospels according to St. Thomas, and St. Peter, &c.  
In regard of the Apocalypse, of which we have said nothing, Eusebius observes, that some placed it in the first Rank; that is to say, amongst Books that are undoubtedly caconical; and others put it amongst those of the second Class, 
Euseb. Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 25. It is proper here, says he, to make the Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament, of which we have spoken. We must in the first place put there the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul, the first Epistle of St. John, and the first of St. Peter. In fine, we must add, if it be thought fit, the Revelation of St. John, reserving to ourselves a Liberty to say in its Place, what the Ancients have thought of it. Those Books are received by common Consent: {αβγδ}. And those are they that were called in doubt by some Persons, and owned by many, {αβγδ}. The Letter ascribed to St. James, that of St. judas, the 2d of St. Peter, the 2d and 3d of St. John. In fine, we must reckon amongst the Books that are altogether counterfeit or spurious, {αβγδ}, the Acts of St. Paul, the Book of Pastor, the Revelation of St. Peter, the Letter of St Barnabas, and the Institutions of the Apostles. Add thereto, if you please, the Revelation of St. John, which some reject, out of the Number of the Books of Scripture, and which others place amongst those that are not to be questioned, {αβγδ}. This Passage makes it plain, that there are two opposite Sentiments concerning the Revelations, that some owned it for caconical, and the rest put it amongst the Number of Apocryphal Books. .  
This Observation of Eusebius, which is confirmed by the Testimonies of the Ancients, and which he repeats in divers Places of the History, shows us, that the Canon of the Books of the New Testament hath almost constantly been the same; for tho' there were some of the Epistles wrote by the Apostles, that were not unanimously received at first by all the Churches, they were always considered as having great Authority; and in a little time obtained the same Authority with the rest. This is confirmed by the ancient Catalogue of the sacred Books of the New Testament, wherein are comprehended the Books that we receive at present. There all of 'em are to be found, excepting the Apocalypse, in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, which St. Cyril of Jerusalem followed. They are all of 'em received by St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, St. Gregory Nazianzen, by Amphilochius, in the Council of Carthage, in the Roman Council, by Pope Innocent, and by all the other Greek and Latin Authors since Eusebius. They are all quoted as Sacred Books by the Authors, who were nearest the Times of the Apostles, 
They are all quoted as Sacred Books, by the Authors that were nearest the Times of the Apostles.] The Gospel of St. Matthew is quoted in the Epistle of St. Clement the Roman to the Corinthians, in the Epistle of St. Barnabas, by St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, Papias, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, &c. Papias makes mention of that of St. Mark; St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria quote it. St. Clement the Roman, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, quotes Places taken from St. Luke: There are also in the Epistle of St. Barnabas, some Passages taken out of that Gospel. St. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians makes mention of it, and applies to him that Passage of the 2d Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians; We have also sent with him Luke, whose Praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches. The Gospel of St. Luke is also quoted by St. Justin and St. Irenaeus; St. John wrote his Gospel the last; and 'tis also quoted by those two last mentioned. In fine, in the Times of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and St. Clement of Alexandria, those four Gospels were received by all the Churches as the only true ones. Nay, the ancient Heathens themselves owned them; Cerinthus, who was Cotemporary with the Apostles, received that of St. Matthew; Cerdon and martion received that of St. Luke, except the two first Chapters; Amelius the platonic Philosopher, quoted by Eusebius, quotes the Words of the beginning of St. John's Gospel, under the Name of a Barbarous Author. The Acts of the Apostles, compared with St. Luke, show that they are the Work of one and the same Author. They are quoted by St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and St. Clement of Alexandria. Mention is made of the Epistles of St. Paul in the 2d Epistle of St. Peter. St. Clement the Roman makes use of several Passages of it in his Epistle to the Corinthians; St. Polycarp quotes the Epistle to the Galatians, and to the Philippipians; St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Athenagoras, St. Clement of Alexandria often quote divers Passages of the Epistles of St. Paul. Papias hath taken Passages out of the first Epistle of St. John; it is quoted by St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, &c. The first Epistle of St. Peter is quoted by all the Ancients, according to the Testimony of Eusebius, as a caconical Work; and, amongst others, by St. Polycarp, Papias and Irenaeus. In fine, the Testimony of Eusebius alone, who assures us, that all those Books were received by one common Consent, as caconical; whereas he observes sincerely of others, that there were some who doubted of them, is sufficient to establish that Truth. . In short, it is without doubt, as we have formerly made it appear, that they are theirs whose Names they bear. The Epistles themselves that were called in Question, contain nothing but what is agreeable to the Law and the Doctrine contained in the other Books that were received by all the Churches from the beginning.  
The Epistle to the Hebrews was received as caconical, with Consent almost of all the Churches. There were none but some Latins, such as Caius and hippolytus, who questioned its Authority, because they did not believe it to be wrote by St. Paul. But admitting it were not his, which is not at all probable, as we shall make it evident, it must always pass for caconical, it being certain that 'twas wrote by some of his Disciples, if not by himself, and that it was received as caconical almost by all the Churches of the World as soon as ever it appeared. It is quoted by St. Clement the Roman in his Epistle to the Corinthians, by St. Clement of Alexandria, and by Tertullian, who assures us that it was more received in the Churches than the Books of Pastor; by Origen, by St. Cyprian 
In the English Edition of St. Cyprian's Works, there are three Places observed, wherein 'tis pretended that St. Cyprian quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews; but that is not altogether certain. , and by all those that have lived since, as a Writing undoubtedly caconical. St. Jerome acknowledges, that all the Churches of the East, and part of those of the West, did always receive it as caconical; and he himself is of that Opinion, tho' some Latins have doubted of it. Philaster accounts them heretics who call it in Question.  
We find no particular Author that doubted of the Epistle to St. James; it was quoted by St. Clement of Alexandria, by all the Ancients, and put in the Number of the caconical Books in all the Catalogues that we have.  
The same may be said of the 2d Epistle of St. Peter, which is certainly that Apostles, as we shall make it appear. It is quoted by St. Justin, by St. Clement of Alexandria, by Origen, and divers others of the Ancients.  
The Epistle of St. judas was rejected by some, not that they had any lawful ground to doubt that St. judas was not the Author of it, but only because of the Quotation of the Book of Enoch. This Reason did not prevent its being put in the ancient Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament, or being quoted by Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and divers others: St. Jerome says, That tho' several had rejected it because of the Quotation of the Book of Enoch, yet it was received in his time because 'twas ancient and approved by the Custom of the Church. Auctoritatem, vetustate jam,& usu meruit.  
The two last Epistles of St. John were very short, and containing nothing but what was like to the Contents of the first, could not occasion any difficulty. They are of the same Author with the first, as the resemblance of the Style makes it evident. The second is quoted by St. Ireneus in his first Book; cap. 12. and in his third Book, cap. 18. by Tertullian, by Origen, by St. Denys of Alexandria, and divers others. In short, they were both of them put in the Number of the caconical Books, in all the ancient Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament.  
There remains nothing more to be spoken of, but the Revelation which some of the Ancients, according to the Testimony of Eusebius, have put amongst those that were not doubted of; and others have placed them amongst the Number of those that were doubtful or suppositious. It was rejected by Caius, an ancient Priest of Rome, who ascribed it to the heretic Cerinthus, as Eusebius testifies in the third Book of his History, cap. 28. On the contrary, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian quote it in divers places, and ascribe it to St. John the Evangelist. St. Denys of Alexandria observes, that divers before him had rejected and refuted the Apocalypse, as a Book full of Fictions and Falshoods, but that divers others approved it; as for himself, he dared not to reject it, that he believed it had a mysterious Sense, but that he was persuaded it was not wrote by St. John, as he endeavours to prove by several Reasons. St. Jerome says in his 129th Epistle, That in his time most of the Churches of Greece did not receive that Book, no more than the Latins did the Epistle to the Hebrews, but that he received both, as making no account of the Custom of his Time, but of the Authority of the Ancients. Amphilochius also observes, that in his time some received it, but that there were many more who rejected it. In effect it is not, as we have observed, in the Catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, nor in that of St. Cyril. But it hath since been received by the Greek and Latin Churches, and quoted by St. Epiphany, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. hilary, St. Jerome, St. Austin, and by all those that have wrote since. In fine, it was put amongst the caconical Books by the Council of Carthage, by the Council of Rome under Gelasius, and by Pope Innocent. The 4th Council of Toledo, held in 633, decided in their 17th Canon, that it was wrote by St. John, and ought to be placed amongst the Sacred Books. And the Council of Trent hath decreed, that it should be accounted caconical.  
These Observations make it evident, That it's only a small Number of the Books of the New Testament that ever was called in question, that there were but few Churches who doubted of them, and that their Doubt was not of any long duration.  
This being once granted, it is no ways difficult to explain, how without a new Revelation, the Church might become more assured of the Genuiness of a Work than she was at first: The manner as follows. When St. Paul, for example, wrote his Letter to the Romans, it was at first known only to those to whom 'twas wrote, to those who saw him writ it, or had heard from himself that he had wrote it: There were none but those that could be assured of it: By degrees it was published, many Copies of it were wrote, it became more common and known, and more People were assured of it. In a word, it became so public that St. Paul had wrote it, that no Body could be ignorant of it. But there was some time required to bring it to this. Let's suppose that St. Paul did not set his Name to it, as he did not to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that he would not have been known to any but those he wrote to; it is certain People would have been longer in doubt of it; and that, nevertheless, in the close they might have been certain of it, by the Testimony of those to whom it was wrote, and of those to whom he had entrusted the Secret. Let's suppose that the knowledge of this had not for some time reached a particular Church, but had at last come to them, should the Temporary Ignorance of that Church hinder the Things becoming certain at last. Let us further suppose, That a Letter be wrote to particular Persons, as the two last Epistles of St. John, they could neither be so famous, nor so speedily known, as those that were wrote to great Churches: There must be time to multiply the Copies; but when once they are public, there's no further Doubt concerning them. In fine, let us suppose, That some Authors reject a Piece, because they find extra-ordinary ordinary Things in it that they do not understand, as in the Revelations; or, because they meet with something that offends them, as in the Epistle of St. judas. If afterwards those Difficulties be removed, and the Antiquity of those Monuments demonstrated, ought not that to remove the Doubt? This may be explained by the Example of other Works which are not caconical. Tho' some Cotemporary Authors have called in Question the Works of Writers of their Time, or raised Objections against 'em, yet afterwards they have received them, and been persuaded that they were wrote by those Authors, either by the Agreement of Style, by new Testimonies they had of it, by Manuscripts they discovered, or because the Objections which occasioned their Doubt were removed. It was very possible then, as we have demonstrated, that some of the Apostles Writings, whereof some People doubted, and which some Churches did not at first receive, were afterwards received and acknowledged by all the Churches, and that subsequent Testimonies gave them a caconical Authority, which they would not have had, if the Doubt had continued.    

CHAP. II. Concerning the Authors of the New Testament, and the Books themselves.  

SECT. I. Of the Names of the New Testament and Gospel, and of the Titles of the Gospels.  
WE have already explained in what Sense the Name {αβγδ}, which the Latins have translated into that of Testament, is taken when made use of to signify the Sacred Books; and we have shew'd that that Term is to be understood of a Promise and a solemn Alliance, by which God made known his Will unto Men. But we must add here, That this Name agrees in a more proper and particular sense to the New than to the Old Testament: For, if we take it to signify an Alliance, that which God made with Men by Jesus Christ his Son, hath all the Conditions required in a perfect Alliance: It is not only a solemn Covenant which he contracts with Men, but is moreover confirmed by the Blood of Jesus Christ the Mediator of this New Alliance or Covenant. It may also be called a Testament in a more special manner than the old Alliance or Covenant; because in this the Death of him that ordered it interveen'd: And 'tis for that Reason as the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews observes, chap. 9. ver. 15, 16, 17. that it is, properly speaking, a Testament, because it is the last Will of Jesus Christ, confirmed by his Death.  
The Epithet of the New Covenant or New Testament, is given it in the Gospel, and in the Epistles of the Apostles, in opposition to the Covenant which God madewith Man by Moses a long time before this. That was the First Covenant, the Ancient Covenant, the Old Testament; and this, the New Covenant, and New Testament. It is new both in respect of the Time and Things, because the Laws of this Covenant, the Ordinances of this Testament, as well as the Rewards promised to those who shall observe them, are new, much greater, and more perfect. The Differences betwixt them are distinctly observed in the Epistle to the Hebrews.  
The Name of Gospel, which is given in general to all the new Law, and particularly to the History of the Life and Sermons of our Saviour, signifies literally, Good Tidings, 
Good Tidings.] It is a Greek Word derived from the Particle {αβγδ}, which signifies well, and from the Verb {αβγδ}, which signifies to tell, whence the word {αβγδ} is formed. This word in Homer and other ancient Greek Authors, is taken for the Reward given to one that brings good News. It is also taken in that sense by the LXX, 2 Kings 4.10. and Cicero makes use of it in the 3d Letter of his 2d Book to Atticus, where he writes, O Suaves tuas Epistolas quibus Evangelia deberi sateor. O those sweet Letters of yours, which I confess deserve a Reward. Xenophon uses it in a certain place to signify the Sacrifice offered up for good News. The Greek Translators of the Sacred Books of the Old Testament used it to explain the Hebrew word Besora, which ordinarily signifies good News, Isa. 52. v. 7. speaking Prophetically of the Reign of Jesus Christ, he makes use of this Term; How beautiful upon the Mountains are the Feet of him that bringeth good Tidings of Good, that publisheth Salvation, that saith unto Zion thy God reigneth! Words quoted by St. Paul, Rom. 10.15. as a prophesy of our Saviours Preaching. Nothing is more common in the New Testament, than the word Evangel or Gospel, to signify the Preaching of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, whether by the Mouth of St. John, of our Saviour, of the Apostles or of the Disciples. St. Clement in his Epistles to the Corinthians takes the word Evangel in that same Sense, for the Preaching of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. In the Acts St. Philip the Deacon is called an Evangelist, Acts 18.18. and St. Paul in the Epistle to Timothy, chap. 4. v. 5. preys him to do the Work of an Evangelist. Opus fac Evangelistae; that is to say, to preach the Word of God. But Custom hath since appropriated that Name to the four Evangelists, who have wrote the History of Jesus Christ. . The Apostles and the Disciples of Jesus Christ made use of this Term to signify the Peaching of Jesus Christ, which was good Tidings to all the World. They called it the Gospel, or Evangel of Peace, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Expressions made use of among the Hebrews to signify Prosperity and Happiness. St. Mark begins his Narrative with these words, The beginning of the Evangel, or Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God; that is to say, the History of the blessed Preaching of Jesus Christ; because that is the principal Subject of his Narrative: Therefore it was the Primitive Christians took the word Evangel, to signify particularly the History of the Life of Jesus Christ, where his Sermons are related, and the Name of Evangelist, which was formerly given to all those that preached the Word of God, was only given to the four Historians of the Life of Jesus Christ; whose Histories were owned as authentic by the Primitive Christians, and called in the first Centuries the four Evangels. This St. Justin observes in his Apology to the Emperor Antoninus, the Apostles, says he, have taught us so( that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ) in their Writings that are called the Evangels.  
Those Books bear in their Titles the Names of their Authors; but 'tis not certain that those Titles were wrote by the Authors themselves; it is more likely that they were not. For when the Authors put their Names at the Head of their Works, they inserted them in the Text itself, as the Prophets and St. Paul have done in their Writings: It is not the same as to the Names of the Evangelists, which have no connexion with the rest of the Discourse. It appears also by the beginning of the Gospel of St. Mark, that he did not call his Gospel by his Name, but by that of Jesus Christ. The same Title is found in some ancient Inscriptions of the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Chrysostom observes in his first Homily on the Epistle to the Romans, That Moses did not put his Name to the Five Books that he wrote, no more than those did that wrote the History after him: That St. Matthew, St. John, St. Mark, and St. Luke, had not put their Names to the beginning of their Gospels, but that St. Paul had put his at the Head of all his Epistles, except that which was wrote to the Hebrews, where he designedly left out his Name, because he was odious to them: And the Reason that Father gives for this Difference is, that he first wrote to Persons that were present; whereas St. Paul sent Letters to those that were absent. But tho' those Titles that bear the Name of the Evangelists were not wrote by the Evangelists themselves, they were almost as ancient as the Evangelists; and tho' it were not so, the Testimony of the Ancients assures us in a convincing manner, of their Authors, as we have made it appear.  
Tho' we may call the Gospels simply by the Name of their Authors, and entitle them the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John; it is however thought proper to express it otherwise, and to entitle them, The Gospel according to St. Matthew; according to St. Mark, &c. that we may not differ from the Apostles manner of speaking, and especially of St. Mark, who calls his Gospel, The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore this Greek Preposition {αβγδ} is religiously translated Sccundum, according to the Latin Version: And some ancient Fathers, as Tertullian, have preserved the Greek Word. It is true, that according to the Sense of the Greek Phrase, the Gospel according to St. Matthew, signifies the Gospel of St. Matthew. But we may also give it this Sense, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, according to what hath been wrote by St. Matthew, St. Mark, &c.   

SECT. II. Of the ancient Gospels: That the Church never received any more than four as caconical, and why? Symbols ascribed to the four Evangelists. Of the Harmony and Difference found betwixt the four Gospels. The Order in which they were composed.  
IT was so necessary to all Christians, to know the History of the Life and Preaching of Jesus Christ, that we are not to wonder that in the first Ages of the Church many Persons undertook the writing of it. This is what St. Luke tells us in the beginning of his Gospel. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in Order, a Declaration of those Things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were Eye Witnesses and Ministers of the Word. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect Understanding of all Things from the very first, to writ unto thee in Order. Divers Interpreters understand what St. Luke says in this Place, of the Gospels 
Gospels forged.] Origen in his first Homily on St. Luke says, That as there were divers false Prophets in the Old Testament, there were also false Evangelists in the New; that the Church hath none but these four Gospels; and that the heretics have several others, as the Gospel according to the Egyptians, that of the twelve Apostles, that composed by Basilides, that of St. Thomas, that of St. mathias, and several others; in which we approve of nothing but what is in the four Gospels which the Church receives. He observes afterwards, That St. Luke made use of that Term[ many have taken in hand,] to show that others had only attempted the Work which he had brought to perfection. St. Jerome follows Origen in his Preface to his Commentary on St. Matthew. St. Luke says he, is Witness, in the beginning of his Gospel, that there were several Gospels; some of his Writings which are still remaining prove it. Those Gospels having been composed by divers Authors, gave rise to several Heresies; such are the Gospels according to the Egyptians, St. Thomas, St. mathias, St. Bartholomew, those of the twelve Apostles Basilides and Appelles. It's sufficient to say at present, That there were some who without having the Spirit and Grace of God, did rather attempt to make a Narrative, than to writ the Truth of History; to whom these Words of the Prophet may be well applied; Wo to those who prophesy out of their own Hearts. But the Church owned only the four Gospels. St. Epiphanius, Heres. 5. says, That St. Luke in the beginning of his Gospel points at some Persons, who had attempted to writ the Gospel; to wit, Cerinthus and Merinthus. St. Ambrose hath copied almost Verbatim Origen's Preface. Titus of Bostra observes, That the Evangelist St. Luke speaks of those who had wrote the History of the Gospel, without having the Spirit of God; and says, 'twas for that reason he made use of the Word taken in Hand, or attempted: Which cannot be said of the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, which were wrote by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He adds, That the Gospel according to the Egyptians, and that of the twelve Apostles is of that Number, that there are likewise divers others, but that the Church received only Four. St. Augustin in his fourth Book of the Agreement of the Evangelists, c. 8. says, that St. Luke by making use of that Term, They have taken in Hand, shows that he means some Persons who had not been able to complete the Work they had begun, and that it is to be understood of those who have no Authority in the Church. Moldonat, on the contrary, thinks that St. Luke speaks of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, which were already composed. Against this Opinion it is objected, that St. Luke speaks of imperfect Works, since he makes use of the Verb {αβγδ}, which signifies to attempt, essay, or begin, but this Objection is not of any great Force, because this is a General Term, and may be faid of a perfect as well as of an imperfect one, which any Man undertakes, and according to the Greek Phrase, To begin or undertake to do any thing, is to do it: So in the first Chapter of the Acts, 'tis said, The Things which Jesus Christ began to do and to teach, that is to say, which he did and taught. 'tis further objected, That St. Luke seems to speak with disdain of those who had wrote those Histories of Jesus Christ, but that is not very clear; on the contrary, he seems to put himself in the same Rank, when he adds, It seemed good to me. 'tis said, in the third place, That he could not speak of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which was then only in Hebrew, nor of that of St. Mark, which is only an abridgement of the History: That's still weak. What can be said of most Weight is, that St. Luke speaks indeterminately of divers Persons, who had undertaken to writ, that which they had learned of the Life and Sermons of Jesus Christ, from those who had seen him. But he would not have spoken in that Manner of St. Matthew, who had seen the Lord himself, and if he had spoken only of the Gospel of St. Mark, he would have name him, and not have made use of the Term Many, which does not so much as agree even to two Evangelists. 'tis certain then, that he had a Design to speak of Many. We cannot say neither, That St. Luke speaks only of the Gospels of the Heretics that were full of falsehood and Errors: For, 1. He would have taxed them in harder Terms, and given Notice, that their Narratives were False and full of Errors, and deserved no Credit. He blames them not, but supposes them to be wrote by honest Men. 2. Almost all the Gospels of the heretics are of a later date than that of St. Luke. 3. The Gospel according to the Egyptians and the Hebrews, and some other Ancient ones were not Heretical; the Ancient Fathers made use of them; for though they were not of an infallible Authority, they might contain Truths. In fine, 'tis very probable, that besides those Gospels mentioned by the Ancients, many among the primitive Christians had wrote Memoirs of what they had learned of the Life and Sermons of Jesus Christ, which were lost in progress of time, but in being in St. Luke's Days.  forged by heretics, others apply them only to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark that were composed when St. Luke wrote his: But it would seem to me, that a Medium might be found betwixt those two Opinions, which is that St. Luke speaks in General of all those who before him had undertaken the History of the Life and Sermons of Jesus Christ; for it seems probable enough, that many Christians wrote during the Lives of the Apostles themselves, and also after their Death, what they had learned of the Life and Doctrine of Jesus Christ from the Apostles and Disciples that had seen and heard him. We may then suppose that at the beginning of the Church there were many Evangels or Gospels, but tho the Ancients knew& quoted those Gospels, the Church never owned any other as caconical and diviniely inspired, but the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John. 'tis a Matter of Fact attested by the most Ancient Christian Authors: There cannot, says St. Irenaeus, l. 3. c. 11. be either more or fewer Gospels than Four, which are as the four Columns of the Church, whose Authority is so certain that the Heresticks themselves make use of them to confirm their Doctrine. St. Clement of Alexandria in the third Book of his Stromata, answering the Heretic Cassienus, who opposed to him a Passage taken from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, declares immediately that he is not obliged to give any Credit to what it alleged, Because it is not found in the four Gospels which we have received by Tradition.  
Origen in his first Homily upon St. Luke observes, That as amongst the Jews there were many Persons that called themselves Prophets, some of them were True and others False, as Ananias the Son of Agot; and that the People had the Gift of discerning the Spirits, by virtue of which they put the one amongst the Number of the Prophets, and rejected the others as the Bankers reject false Money; so in the New Testament many undertook to writ Gospels, but that all those Gospels were not received. You may( says he) learn from the beginning of the Gospel according to St. Luke, conceived in those Terms, Many have taken in hand to give a History of those Things, that there were many Gospels, amongst which they choose and left to the Churches, by Tradition; the four that we have, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, Titus of Bostra and St. Augustin, make the same Reflection upon the Passage of St. Luke, and observe, that the Ancient Church received no more than four Gospels, because 'tis they alone that she thought deserved Credit, and that she believed to be wrote by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and that she rejected the rest as being wrote by Authors that had no infallible Authority, or whose Writings were full of Falshoods and Errors. Many, says St. Ambrose, undertook to writ the History of Jesus Christ, but they were destitute of the Grace of God, and filled their Gospels with poisonous Doctrine. There were divers Persons, says St. Jerome, who without having the Spirit and Grace of God rather undertook a Narrative than to writ the Truth of History, to whom may be applied those Words of the Prophet, Wo to those who prophesy out of their own Heart, who follow their own Fancy, and say, Thus saith the Lord, though the Lord hath not sent them. The Difference that Titus of Bostra puts betwixt those Writers and our Evangelists is, that the former were not assisted by the Spirit of God to writ their History, whereas the latter were. St. Augustin extends this Thought yet further, All the rest, says he, who have undertaken or dared to writ any thing of the Actions of Jesus Christ or of the Apostles, were not Men of such Reputation in their time, as the Church could give Credit to their Writings, or receive them into the Number of the Books that have a caconical Authority, either because they were such Men, as we were not necessary obliged to believe what they related, or because they mixed Errors with their Writings, which the Rule of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, and sound Doctrine rejected.  
So that the positive Reason for which none but the four Gospels were received into the Churches, was because there were only those four that were constantly believed to be divinely inspired, and which all the Churches received as Divine and caconical.  
The Fathers fought for divers Mysteries in this Number of Four. St. Irenaeus says, That as there are four Parts of the World, and four principal Winds. It was also convenient, there should be four Gospels in the Church, as the four columns that maintain it, and four Breathings of Life to render it Immortal. St. Austin makes use of the same Allegory of the 4 Parts of the World: Perhaps, says he, the Reason for which there are four Gospels, is because there are four Corners of the World, into which the Church is spread. St. Jerom compares them with more likelihood to the four Rivers which issued out of the Terrestrial paradise, and to the four Angles or four Rings of the Ark. But those sort of Allegories have no other Foundation but mere Fancy. The true Reason for which the Church hath only four Gospels, is because there are only those four that have at all times been owned as divinely inspired. But why are there no more than four of that Nature? God would have it so. 'tis in vain to seek any other Reason for it, than his own Will. All that can be said is to observe with St. Chrysostome, That it was fit there should be several Evangelists, that the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ should have the more Authority. Was it not enough, says that Father, that there should be but one Evangelist? Could not one alone relate all that is in the four? That might be: But four different Persons having wrote the same thing at different times and in different Places, without speaking to one another, and yet agreeing perfectly, are without doubt a much greater Proof of the Truth.  
The Ancients thought they found the Figure of the four Evangelists in the beginning of the prophesy of Ezekiel, and in the 9th Chapter of the Revelation, where mention is made of four Living Creatures, the first having the Face of a Man, the second the Face of a Lion, the third that of an Ox, and the fourth that of an Eagle. These are the Symbols that are usually given of the four Evangelists: But the Fathers are not at one amongst themselves, to which of them each Symbol agrees, nor in the Reason why those Symbols agree to them 
Symbols agree to them.] St. Irenaeus, Lib. 3. ch. 11. assigns the Man to St. Matthew, because he describes the Generation of Jesus Christ, according to the Flesh, and speaks of him throughout as a Man. He assigns the Eagle to St. Mark, because he begins his Gospel with a Prophetical Spirit, which comes from on high. He assigns the Ox to St. Luke, because he describes the Priestly Race of Jesus Christ, and the Lion to St. John, because he considers Jesus Christ as God and King, and in the beginning of his Gospel observes the Grandeur of Jesus Christ. St. Jerome, in his Preface to his Commentary on Matthew, assigns the Man to St. Matthew, because he began his Gospel by the Genealogy of Jesus Christ as Man, the Lion to St. Mark, because he begins with the prophesy of St. John, who roared as a Lion in the Wilderness; the Ox to St. Luke, because he begins his Gospel with the History of Zacharias, and the Eagle to St. John, because he advances the Godhead of Jesus Christ. St. Austin, Lib. 1. de Cons. Ev. C. 6. says, That those who assign the Lion to St. Matthew, the Man to St. Mark, the Ox to St. Luke and the Eagle to St. John, have hit it better, than those who assign the Man to St. Matthew, and the Lion to St. John, because we must not Judge by the beginning of their Gospels, but by what they contain, and that St. Matthew insists more upon what relates to the Royalty of Jesus Christ, St. Luke to his Pristhood, St. Mark to his Humanity, and St. John soars high like an Eagle to his Divinity. Bede is of the same Opinion with St. Austin.  so that we can build nothing on their Conjectures, which are purely Arbitrary, nor necessary determine to the four Evangelists, the Sense of the Visions of Ezekiel and St. John, which are very obscure. The Providence of God ordered it, that of the four Evangelists two should be Apostles, St. Matthew and St. John, Eye-witnesses of the Life and Actions of Jesus Christ, and two Disciples of the Apostles St. Mark and St. Luke, who wrote their Gospel upon the Relations of others, to the end it might be known, that there was no Difference betwixt that which the Apostles had wrote, and that which they preached Viva voice.  
The Differences, nay, even the Contrarieties found betwixt them, is so far from diminishing their Authority, that it serves to establish it, and shows that they wrote the Truth from an honest intent. For, as St. Chrysostom observes, if they agreed in every thing with too nice Exactness, even to the least Circumstances and Terms, our Adversaries would have believed, that they had met together and agreed to impose upon us. 'twould never have been believed that so great a Conformity could be found amongst People that had acted with singleness of Heart; whereas the seeming Contradiction that is found betwixt them in small things removes that Suspicion, and is a Proof of their honesty. If there be any Difference betwixt them as to Time and Place, that does no prejudice to the Truth. Observe, that there is not one as to the principal Points of our Faith, as those that God made himself Man, that he was crucified and butted, that he rose again and ascended into Heaven, that he will come to judge Men, that he hath given forth saving Commandments, that he did not bring a Law contrary to the former, that he is the only Son of God, of the same Substance, and upon other Points of that Nature. We find them all perfectly agreed as to those Articles. But if in that which relates to Miracles, they have not all related all of them, but some one and some another; We are not to wonder at it; for if one alone had related all, the rest would have been useless, and if all of them had wrote different and new Things, we should have had no proof of their Agreemeent. Therefore all of them have wrote Things which are common to them, and each of them relates things peculiar to themselves.  
We will not here undertake to show, that there is no real Contradiction in the Narratives of the Evangelists, to reconcile the Differences that are found there, or to make a complete History of the four Gospels, divers Ancient and Modern Authors have performed that with success. We shall only observe, 1. That the Omission or Addition of a Matter of Fact, being neither a lie nor a Contrariety, the Narrative of the Evangelists can neither be accused of falsehood nor Contradiction, because some relate the Matters of Fact, that were omitted by others. 2. That the Difference of the Order in which they relate the Facts, being no way prejudicial to their Truth, it is not at all strange, that the Evangelists have not always observed the same Order. It is not a Proof that the Facts which they relate are not true: But it is one that they wrote naturally and in simplicity, without Cunning or Contrivance. 3. Though a Thing may be related in different Terms, it is not a Contradiction, though one relate a Saying of Jesus Christ, in one sort of Terms, and another express it in other Terms, tho' one enlarge his Thought upon it, and the other relate it in a more compendious Manner. 'tis almost impossible for two Men to relate one and the same thing in the same Terms. Nay, it would be a hard thing for one Man to make the same Narrative twice, without changing any thing. In a word, I maintain it is morally impossible to find four different Persons, who writ a History so full of wonderful things, accompanied with so many Circumstances and Events, filled with so many Precepts, Maxims, Sentences, and Points of Doctrine, as is that of Jesus Christ, betwixt whom there is not to be found as much apparent difference as betwixt the four Evangelists.  
The Order according to which the four Gospels were composed, is 
St. Irenaeus, Lib. 3. Haeret. Fab. c. 3. Euseb. Lib. 3. Hist. c. 24. Hieron. Praef. Comment. in Mat.& Lib. de vir. illust. Epiph. Hares. 51. Aug. de Cons. Evang. Lib. 1. Cap. 2.  according to the Testimony of all the Ancients, that in which they are still placed: We will endeavour to observe more precisely the Order and the Occasion of 'em, by treating of each Gospel apart.   

SECT. III. Of St. Matthew and his Gospel. In what Language he wrote it. If it differ from the Gospel of the nazarenes. Of the Authenticalness of the Greek Text. Of some Additions made to the Text.  
ST. Matthew hath informed us himself in his Gospel, chap. 9. ver. 9. That he was a Publican, and that being sat 
Near the City,] 'tis certain, according to the three Evangelists, that Jesus Christ was at Capernaum, where he cured the Paralitic. St. Mark says it expressly, naming the Place, ch. 2. v. 1. and St. Matthew describes it by the Name of the City of Jesus Christ, that is to say, the City where he ordinarily made his abode. The Call of St. Matthew follows immediately in the three Evangelists, the curing of the Man sick of the palsy; but St. Luke says, that after this Cure Jesus Christ went out of the City, and that he saw a Publican called Levi, sitting at the Receipt of Custom. St. Mark says, that after the Cure of the Paralitic, he went out again towards the Sea, and that all the People followed him; that he taught them, and as he passed by, he saw Levi, the Son of Alpheus, sitting at the Receipt of Custom. St. Matthew, after having related the Cure of the Paralitic, says, That Jesus Christ passing by saw a Man sitting at the Receipt of Custom, called Matthew. It appears by those Passages, That Jesus Christ was gone out, or a going out of the City of Capernaum, when he called St. Matthew, who was sat at the Receipt of Custom, and that he went towards the Sea of Galilee. 'tis probable, that the Receipt of Custom, and the Receivers Houses were without the City on the Bank of the Sea, where Jesus Christ was, when Jairus came to seek him a little after to cure his Daughter, Mark 5.  near the City of Capernaum at one of the Receipts of Custom, Jesus Christ said to him, Follow me: That he arose immediately and followed him into his House, where our Lord and his Disciples sat down at Table with Publicans and Sinners, which gave occasion to the Pharisees to murmur against him. St. Mark, ch. 2. ver. 34. and St. Luke, ch. 5. ver. 29. relate the same History with the same Circumstances, and agree on the same Time and Place, but they name the Publican called by Jesus Christ Levi, which makes divers Interpreters believe, that the Publican mentioned in those two Evangelists was not the Apostle St. Matthew 
Was not the Apostle St. Matthew.] Grotius is of that Opinion; to give it some likelihood of Truth, he says, 1. That St. Matthew never gives himself the Name of Levi; that the two other Evangelists who relate this Story, don't give the Name of Matthew to this Levi; and that in the Catalogues of the Apostles, he is only called Matthew, though the Names of the other Apostles who had two, be there marked. 2. That Heracleon, an ancient Author quoted by St. Clement of Alexandria, distinguishes St. Matthew from Levi; and that Origen, in his Books against Celsus, assures us, That Levi was not of the Number of the Apostles: 'tis upon this Reason and upon those Authorities, that he founds the Conjecture, That perhaps Levi was the Man that farmed the Customs, and that St. Matthew was under him. But the Reason he alleges is very weak: For 'tis very natural that Matthew calling himself Levi, when he was converted, that the two Evangelists should give him no other Name when they speak of his Conversion, and perhaps out of some deference to him, they forbore observing that he was a Publican, and he out of Humility, was willing to reveal it. Be that how it will, having had those two Names, the keeping one of them concealed, is not enough to make us conclude, That those two Names are the Names of two Men. The Authority of Heracleon, followed by St. Clement of Alexandria; and that of Origen would be more considerable, did it appear that they had examined the thing, or that they had any Proof that Levi, was another Person than Matthew. But it appears, That 'twas only the Difference of the Names, that occasioned their doubting, if he was the same Man. Origen himself in his Preface to the Epistle to the Romans, observes, that the Publican called Levi by St. Mark and St. Luke, is St. Matthew himself, all the other Fathers have also assured us, That Matthew and Levi were two Names of one and the same Man.  but the Circumstances of the Time and Place of the History being the same, there's great likelihood that 'tis the same Man 
There's great Appearance that he's the same Man.] The three Evangelists relate this History as happening immediately after the Cure of the Paralitic, as our Saviour was going out of Capernaum. They say, That he who was called by our Lord, was a Publican, that he was sat at the Receipt of Custom, that Jesus Christ said to him, Follow me; that he left all and followed him, that he received Jesus Christ and his Disciples into his House, that he entertained them at his Table with Publicans and Sinners, &c. There's nothing differs but the Name. 'tis true, that St. Matthew says not positively, that 'twas in his House, as the others say plainly, that 'twas in the House of Levi, but that is understood, and 'tis certain by his Narrative, that it was in the House of that Publican, that he called, and into which he followed him: But 'tis a mere Conjecture to say, that he called two, and that two followed him.  who was called Levi before he was Christ's Disciple, and was afterwards called Matthew. St. Mark gives him the Name of Levi, the Son of Alpheus. He was in a little time after made one of the Apostles by our Lord, and after having been a witness of his Sermons and Actions and Ascension, he lived at Jerusalem, and received with the other Apostles the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is all that the Scripture tells us of the Life of St. Matthew, and all that we can be sure of concerning it.  
Rufinus, Socrates and most Authors say, that he preached the Gospel in Ethiopia. St. Ambrose makes him the Apostle of Persia. St. Paulinus says, he died in Parthia, of which the Greek Menologists make him the Apostle. The false Abdias makes him to have suffered Martyrdom in the City of Naddaver in Ethiopia, where Fortunatus of Poitiers says he is butted. The Martyrology ascribed to St. Jerom, and the other Martyrologies import, that he suffered in Persia or Parthia. Metaphrastes says, That he preached in Syria. Isidore of sevill, in his Book of the Life and Death of some Saints, assigns to St. Matthew, Judea and Macedonia, as the Place of his Apostleship. St. Clement of Alexandria, Lib. 2. de pedagogue. c. 1. writes, that that Apostle practised a continual Abstinence during Life, and lived only on Roots, lettuce and other Herbs, without ever eating any Meat?  
As to the Manner of his Death Heracleon the Disciple of Valentine, quoted by the same St. Clement, Lib. 4. Stromat, says, he was one of those Apostles who did not suffer Martyrdom. The Greek Menologists seem to be of the same Mind. On the contrary, Nicephorus, Abdias and the Latin Martyrologies, rank him amongst the Martyrs, and likewise describes the Kind and Circumstances of his Martyrdom. But what credit can we give to those Monuments.  
We must therefore keep wholly to what the most ancient Christian Authors have related to us as certain. That St. Matthew having preached the Gospel for some Years in Judea, did there writ his Gospel in Hebrew; that is to say, in the Language which the Jews, who dwelled at Jerusalem and in the Land of Judea, did then speak, which was the Syriack. This the Design of the Work demands that we should treat of more at large.  
The greatest Question to be asked on this Subject, is concerning the Language in which that Gospel was composed by St. Matthew. All the Ancients assure us with one Consent, that he wrote in Hebrew; Papias, St. Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, St. Cyrillus of Jerusalem, St. Jerome, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustin, the Author of the Latin Commentary on St. Matthew, which is ascribed to St. Chrysostom, and the Author of the Synopsis of the Scripture, which carries the Name of Athanasius, are a Cloud of Witnesses, who depose that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, 
St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew.] Their Passages in Latin are thus. Papias apud Eusebium, Hist. l. 3. c. 39. Matthaeus quidem Hebraico Sermone divina scripist oracula; Interpretatus est autem unusquisque ilia prout potuit. Irenaeus, Lib. 3. adv. Haeres. cap. 1. Ita Matthaeus in Hebraeis ipsorum Lingua Scripturam edidit Evangelii, cum Petrus& Paulus, Romae Evangelizarent& fundarent Ecclesiam. Idem, ibid. cap. 11. Ebionaei etenim eo Evangelio quod est secundum Matthaeum, solo utentes. Origines apud Eusebium, Lib. 6. cap. 25. Primum scilacet Evangelium scriptum esse a Matthaeo prius quidem publicano, postea vero Apostolo J. C. qui illud Hebraico Sermone conscriptum Judaeis ad fidem Conversis publicavit. Euseb. Lib. 3. Hist. cap. 24. Nam Matthaeus cum Haebreis primus fidem praedicasset, ind ad alias quoque Gentes profecturus Evangelium suum patrio Sermone conscribens id quoque praesentiae suae adhuc superesse videbatur, Scripto illis quos relinquebat supplevit. Cyrillus Hierosolym, Catechis. 14. Matthaeus scribens Evangelium, Lingua Hebraica illud scripsit. Hieronymus Praef. in quatuor Evangel. excepto Apostolo Matthaeo qui primus in Judaea Evangelium Christi Hebraicis Literis edidit. Idem Praef. Commentariorum in Matth. primus omnium Matthaeus est publicanus cognomento Levi, qui Evangelium in Judaea Hebraeo Sermone edidit, ob eorum vel maxim Causam qui in Jesum crediderant ex Judaeis,& ne quidquam legis umbram succedente Evangelii veritate servabant. Idem in Libro de viris illustribus Matthaeus qui& Levi ex publicano Apostolus primus in Judaea propter eos qui ex Circumcisione crediderant, Evangelium Christi Hebraicis Literis verbisque composuit quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est. Epiphanius, Haeres. 29. de Nazaraeis. Est vero penes illos Evangelium secundum Matthaeum Hebraicae Scriptum,& quidem absolutissimum. Idem Haeres. 51. Matthaeus igitur primus Evangelii scribendi proaemium nactus est...... Hic igitur Matthaeus Lingua Hebraica Scripsit ac praedicavit Evangelium. S. Chrysostomus, Homil. 1. in mat. Matthaeus accedentibus his qui ex Judaeis Christo crediderant& rogantibus, Haebreo dicitur Evangelium scripsisse Sermone. Augustinus de Consensu Evangelistarum, Lib. 1. cap. 2. Primum Matthaeus horum merely quasuor solus Hebraeo scripsisse perhibetur eloquio. author Comment. in Matthaeum apud Chrysostomum in Prologo. Sicut referunt Matthaeum conscribere Evangelium causa compulit talis; cum facta fuisset in Palestina persecutio Gravis, ut periclitarentur dispergi omnes ut carentes fort Doctoribus fidei non Carerent Doctrina, petierunt Matthaeum ut omnium verborum& operum Christi conscriberet cis Historiam. Idem, Homil. 1. Initio Matthaeus autem Evangelium Judaeis Hebraico Sermone conscripsit, ut Judaei legentes aedificarentur in fide. author Synopseos apud Athanasium. Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, ab ipso Matthaeo Hebraico dialecto conscripsit est,& editum Hierosolymis,& Interpretante Jacobo Fratre Domim secundum carnem expositum. . Yet some Modern Authors call it in Question, and have dared to maintain, that it was never wrote but in Greek.  
Before we examine their Conjectures we must clear another Question, viz. Whether the Hebrew Tongue, in which the Ancients say the Gospel was wrote by St. Matthew, is the ancient Hebrew Tongue of the Books of the Old Testament; or, the Syriack, which was spoken at Jerusalem, and is commonly called the Hebrew in the New Testament. It appears evident to us on this Head, That 'tis of the latter the Ancients speak when they assure us that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. For, 1. Almost all the Ancients say, That St. Matthew wrote for the Hebrews, or converted Jews, who dwelled in Judea. Now those Jews did not commonly at that time speak the Hebrew but the Syriack Tongue. 2. St. Irenaeus and Eusebius say positively, that he wrote in the Language of the Country, in the proper Language of the Jews who dwelled in Judea. {αβγδ}. It is certainly the Syriack Tongue. 3. The Reasons for which they say St. Matthew composed it, shows still that it was in the common Language of the Jews of Palestine. They all agree that it was made for the use of the Hebrews; to the End, that in St. Matthew's absence they might red the Gospels that he had preached to them. He must then have wrote it in a Language that was common amongst them, and in that same Tongue wherein he had preached to them. 4. St. Jerome makes no doubt that St. Matthew's Gospel was wrote in Syriack; for in his Commentary upon the 12th Chapter of that Gospel, he says, That some believe that the Gospel of the nazarenes was the Original Hebrew of St. Matthew; and does not at all reject that Opinion as improbable. It is St. Epiphanius who says, That the nazarenes have the Gospel of St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and entire. Now St. Jerome in his 3d Dialogue against the Pelagians, says, That the Gospel of the nazarenes was wrote in Chaldee or Syriack, with Hebrew Characters. In Evangelio juxta Haebreos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque Sermo, said Hebraicis literis Scriptum est, quo utuntur usque hody Nazarei, Secundum Apostolos, sieve ut plerique autumant, juxta Matthaeum. It is then certain, that St. Jerome was persuaded that the Original of St. Matthew was wrote originally not in ancient Hebrew, but in common Hebrew; that is to say, in the Tongue that the Hebrews spoken then in Palestine. So it is we must understand the other Fathers when they say, that Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew.  
I lay it down as a Thing certain, That the common Language of the Jews, who inhabited Jerusalem and Judea, was the Syriack; that is to say, a Dialect of the Chaldee, as it was spoken in Syria, mixed with some Hebrew Terms, because this is clearly proved by many Places of the New Testament. For the Evangelists relate Chaldee Words very often, which they call Hebrew, as being the Terms commonly made use of in the Country. St. Luke, Acts 1.10. says, That the Field bought by the Jews, with the Money that Judas brought, was in their proper Tongue, {αβγδ}, Haceldama; that is to say, the Field of Blood: This word is Syriack; those of Bethsaida, Golgotha, and Gabbatha, which St. John observes as Hebrew Names used in the Country, are also Syriack Words. The Inscription on the across in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, shows that those three Languages were in use in Jerusalem for the Natives of the Country, and the other two Languages for strangers. It is very likely that our Saviour when giving up the Ghost on the across, pronounced his last Words in the Language that he usually spoken. Now the Terms reported by the Evangelists, Eli, Eli, according to St. Mark, Eloi, Eloi lamasabactani, are Syriack. It is said in the Acts of the Apostles, That St. Paul made a Discourse in Hebrew to the Jews; who listened to him with more Attention when they heard him speak in the Hebrew Tongue: That was the most common Language, and best understood by the People of Jerusalem. This is so true, that St. Paul having prayed the Tribune or chief Captain to give him leave to speak, the chief Captain asked him if he would speak Greek? A Question which he would not have asked him, if Greek had been the ordinary Language of the Jews: But since they spoken Syriack, and that some of them did not understand Greek, he would know if St. Paul understood it, to the end he might speak in that Language. It is agreed, that there was at that time abundance of Jews at Jerusalem who could speak Greek and Latin; yet we cannot doubt but the Syriack was the common Language of the Nation. Therefore it is that Josephus assures us, That at first he wrote his History in the Language of his Country, which he calls the Chaldee, for those of his own Nation, to whom the Greek Tongue was unknown. The Romans when they made themselves Masters of Judea and Jerusalem, brought thither, as into other Countries, the knowledge of the Latin Tongue; and the Commerce the Jews had with the Greeks and other Hellenist Jews, obliged several of them to learn and speak that Language. But it is not possible, that the Language of the Country should be entirely forgot by its ancient Inhabitants. It's not to be doubted that, on the contrary, it remained common among the People, who spoken it for a long time, and that even after the Destruction of Jerusalem.  
This matter of Fact being certain, if it be true as all Antiquity assures us, That St. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea, and in their Language; it is most certain that he wrote it in Syriack or Syro-Chaldaick, which was the common Hebrew. This is the most common Opinion amongst the Interpreters of the Holy Scripture. Yet Erasmus, Cajetan, and many Protestant Commentators vary from it, and think they have Reason to reject the Opinion of the Ancients on this Head, and to lay down, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was wrote in Greek. We must examine if what they say be of Weight enough to balance the Testimony of so many positive Authors, who assure us of the contrary.  
They say in the first place, That many Hebrew or Syriack words, as Emmanuel, Golgotha, Haceldama, Eli, Eli, Lamasabactani, are explained in the Gospel of St. Matthew, and that their signification is there set down in Greek. Which Explication cannot be the Authors if he wrote in Syriack; and there's no appearance that it is the Interpreters, who would have contented themselves to render the Syriack Terms in Greek. But it is easy to answer, That Interpreters usually preserve in their Version remarkable Words, and particularly proper or appellative Names, by joining an Interpretation thereunto. Many Examples of this are to be found in the Septuagint and Vulgar Translation, where the proper and appellative Names are related in Hebrew, and explained by the Interpreter, as in Genesis 31.49. Galaad, that is to say, the heap witness, chap. 35.18. Benoni, that is to say, the son of my grief, Exod. 12. Phase, that is to say, the passage of the Lord, and chap. 16. Manhu, which signifies what is that. 1 Kings 7.12. The Septuagint have related the word Abenezer, and explained it by those of a ston of help. In those Places and many others, the Interpreter could not dispense with omitting the proper Hebrew Name, otherwise the true Names of those he spoken of would not have been known; and to know the signification of them an Explication must have been added. It is the same as to the Examples adduc'd, which are taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew. The three first, Emanuel, Golgotha, Haceldama, are proper Names, and it was necessary to relate the Words of Jesus Christ on the across in their proper Terms, for making what followed to be understood: That those who heard him thought he called upon Eli. If the Syriack word Eloi, or the Hebrew Eli, had not been set down, that Allusion could not have been understood. We may add to the Objection just now proposed, That there is in the Gospel of St. Matthew Latin words, which would rather seem to have been used by an Author that wrote in Greek, than by one that wrote in Hebrew, because the Greeks had more Commerce with the Latins than the Hebrews had, and that there's a greater Affinity betwixt their Languages. They also allege what is said to St. Peter in the Gospel, Tu es Petrus,& supra hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam. This Allusion of the Word to the name Peter, which signifies a Rock, is only found in the Greek and Latin. The first Instance hath no Difficulty, these Latin Names, or Greek ones Latiniz'd, are the Interpreters; and the Example brought in the second place, can occasion no Difficulty to any but such as suppose that the Name which our Lord gave to Simon the Son of Jonas, was the Greek Name {αβγδ}, whereas there's reason to believe it was the Syriack Name Cephas, which the Greeks have translated into that of {αβγδ}, because the Name Cephas signifies a Rock in Syriack.  
It is objected in the second plnce, That it does not appear that the Fathers ever saw the Original Hebrew of the Gospel of St. Matthew; and that they only said it was wrote in Hebrew, because there was a Gospel of the Nazareens wrote in Hebrew or Syriack different from that of St. Matthew. That that is the Gospel which the Fathers, and even St. Jerome himself, took for the Original of St. Matthew, tho' it was corrupt, and differed very much from the Greek Copy we have, of whose Purity no Man can doubt. It is answered, That this cannot be said of the ancientest of the Fathers, as Papias and St. Irenaeus: And tho' the Gospel of the Nazareens differed from that of St. Matthew in some places, there was great likelihood that it was taken from the Original which had been altered and corrupted in many places.  
A third Objection they make is, That the Passages of the Old Testament are quoted in the Gospel of St. Matthew according to the Version of the LXX. Whereas had that Gospel been wrote in Hebrew, what probability is there that they would rather have taken the Passages out of the LXX than from the Hebrew Text? What is alleged here is not altogether true, for there are in St. Matthew Passages quoted according to the Hebrew Text, as we have made it appear. And further, tho' they should all have been quoted according to the Septuagint, there would be no reason to wonder that the Greek Translator should have taken the Version of the Passages of the Old Testament, quoted according to the LXX's Translation, which was in use amongst the Jews, rather than make a different one.  
It is said in the fourth place, That the Gospel of St. Mark is like that of St. Matthew, that St. Mark only follows and abridges St. Matthew, makes use of the same Terms that are in his Greek, and that therefore there's great probability that he wrote from a Gospel in Greek. It is not true, That the style of St. Mark is altogether like that of St. Matthew. St. Mark softens many Hebrew or Syriack Expressions that are rougher in St. Matthew. But further, The resemblance of the style betwixt those two Evangelists, is not a Proof that St. Mark wrote from St. Matthew's Greek Copy. It may be that the Translator of the Gospel of St. Matthew, imitated and followed St. Mark. It may be they agreed in some things. In short, it may be, that St. Matthew's Greek Version was made when St Mark wrote his Gospel. This is what I believe to be the most probable.  
In fine, many Conjectures are proposed to make the System of the Ancients improbable. Is it possible, say they, that they would have suffered St. Matthew's Original Gospel to have been lost in the Church? What probability is there that this Evangelist wrote in that Language, he who was a Greek or Roman, since he had the Office of a Publican, which is so odious among the Jews? Why should that Gospel rather have been wrote in Hebrew than the rest? The Jews did commonly understand Greek; Jerusalem was to be speedily destroyed, and the Jews dispersed. What necessity was there of giving them a Gospel in a Language that was speedily to be of no use? The Gospel was to be for all Nations, then why should it be wrote in a Tongue that was only known to one Nation, which was speedily to perish? These are nothing but Conjectures, that are not to be opposed to matter of Fact attested by credible Witnesses.  
We may answer by other Conjectures. The Original Hebrew of the Gospel according to St. Matthew was lost, because the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea for whom it was made, being converted to Christianity, they ceased in a little time to speak Chaldee; and being Christians had much more Commerce with the converted Gentiles that spoken Greek, than with the Jews that continued in their hardness of Heart; and that after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Greek Tongue was abundantly more common in Judea. Therefore this Original becoming useless, there was no Care taken to preserve it. It continued nevertheless in the Hands of the nazarenes, and came afterwards to the Ebionites, who corrupted and changed it, whilst the ancient Greek Version was preserved in the catholic Churches without Alteration. And why St. Matthew composed his Gospel in Hebrew, the Ancients have given us a very probable Reason. He did it for the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea, tho' many among them understood Greek, the Syriack was however common among the People, as we have proved: St. Matthew had preached the Gospel to them in that Tongue; it was just then that writing his Gospel at their Desire, and for their Use, he should do it in that same Tongue. He might well foresee it would be speedily translated into Greek, and that that Translation would be as useful to all Nations as if he had wrote the same in Greek. This is sufficient to show the Weakness of those Conjectures which are alleged against the Testimonies of ancient and credible Authors.  
Eusebius relates in his History, Lib. 5. cap. 10. That Pantaenus having traveled to the Indies, found there the Gospel of St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew Characters, which St. Bartholomew had left among the Indians, and preserved until that time. St. Jerome adds, That Pantaenus brought that Copy into the City of Alexandria. Eusebius doth not observe this Circumstance, nor does he assert the History as a thing certain: He contents himself to say, it was a common Report. We have observed elsewhere already, that there's no appearance that St. Bartholomew had left to the Indians a Gospel wrote in Hebrew or Syriack, and that this Gospel was preserved till the time of Pantaenus. St. Jerome says further, That there was in the Library of Caesarea a Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, which Pamphilus the Martyr had wrote with abundance of Care. But what he adds, That this Copy agreed with that which he had of the nazarenes, shows us that it was not the true Gospel of St. Matthew in its Purity, but the Gospel according to the nazarenes, who had made several Additions thereunto.  
Theodorus Lector says, That under the Empire of Zeno there were found in the Isle of Cyprus the relics of St. Barnabas, with a Gospel of St. Matthew upon his Breast, wrote with St. Barnabas's own Hand, and that the Emperor Zeno put it in the Chaple of his Palace. He says not, whether this Gospel was in Hebrew or Greek: But there's a great probability that it w as in Greek, since the Author of the History of finding that apostles Body related by Surius, says they made use of it to red the Gospel out of on Holy Thursday in the Emperor's Chapel. Now 'tis not to be doubted but it was in Greek the Gospel was red; for, had it been in Hebrew, the Author of the Relation would not have failed to have observed it, as an extraordinary thing. The Gospel supposed to have been found in St. Barnabas's Tomb, must then have been that of St. Matthew in Greek: But I would not warrant the Truth of the History, which perhaps was an Invention of the Bishops of Cyprus, to maintain themselves in their Independency on the Patriarch of Antioch: For Theodorus says, That by this means they obtained that their Metropolis was its own Head, and no more subject to the Church of Antioch. Be that how it will, this History does not prove that the Original Hebrew of the Gospel of St. Matthew was still in being during the Reign of the Emperor Zeno; that is to say, towards the End of the 5th Century.  
But we may discover the Fate of that Gospel by more certain Monuments. As St. Matthew wrote it for the Jews of Jerusalem, who were converted to Christianity, they preserved it till the ruin of that City, and carried it with them to Pella, whither they retired before Jerusalem was besieged. Most of the converted Jews having retained a part of their judaisme, they formed a Sect called nazarenes, which afterwards degenerated into that of the Ebionites: But the former added thereunto several Histories which they had learned by Tradition, and believed to be true; and the latter cut and altered it in several Places.  
This lets us see in what Sense the Gospel of the nazarenes was, and was not the Original of St. Matthew: It was his Original, because all his Gospel was therein contained without much alteration. This made St. Epiphanius say, That they had St. Matthew's Gospel whole and entire; and St. Jerome to say, That the Gospel of the nazarenes, which he had translated, was the Gospel of St. Matthew. But since there were many things added thereunto, they might also truly say, That it was not the Gospel of St. Matthew in its Purity. As to that of the Ebionites, it was a corrupt and altered Gospel, in which they had cut off abundance of things.  
The ancient Fathers of the Church have preserved us many of those Additions made to the Gospel of the nazarenes or Hebrews, which Origen calls also the Gospel of the Twelve. The first who is quoted on this subject is Papias, who is supposed to have taken out of that Gospel the History of the Woman accused of Adultery before our Lord. But Eusebius does not say, That Papias took it out of the Gospel according to the Hebrews; he only observes that Papias related this History, and that 'tis found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It may be that Papias related it, as knowing it by Tradition; and that afterwards the nazarenes, who had added divers Histories of that Nature to the Gospel of St. Matthew, did likewise add this. It is not known, whether it be that of the adulterous Woman which is at present in the Gospel of St. John, and was not formerly found in many Copies; which made several critics think, that it was transscrib'd from the Gospel of the nazarenes into that of St. John. Be that how it will, there's no Evidence that it was originally in the Gospel of St. Matthew in Papias's time; but we know, that in time of Eusebius and St. Jerome it was in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.  
It is the same as to that Passage taken from St. Ignatius's Epistle to the Smyrneans. I saw him( Jesus Christ) in the Flesh after the Resurrection, &c. and of those other Words which they make our Saviour say after the Resurrecton, Touch me, and see that I am not a daemon without a Body; related by the same St, Ignatius. Those Passages were indeed, according to the Testimony of St. Jerome, in the Gospel of the nazarenes; but St. Ignatius does not say they were taken out of it. Eusebius says, Hist. lib. 4. cap. 22. That Hegesippus sometimes quoted the Gospel according to the Hebrews: But, perhaps, he thereby understands the Original of St. Matthew.  
St. Clement of Alexandria is the first who positively quotes the Gospel according to the Hebrews; whence he takes this Sentence, He who shall have admiration, shall Reign; ad he who shall Reign, shall be at rest. Which he relates in the 2d Book of his Stromata; where, he says, it is wrote in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.  
It is alleged also, That Tatian made use of this Gospel in his Harmony of the Evangelists, and that 'tis upon this Account that some call it the Gospel of the Five: But it is a mere Conjecture, of which there's no manner of Assurance.  
St. Jerome says, That Origen frequently made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. We find a Fragment of it in his eighth Treatise upon St. Matthew in those Terms. It is wrote in a certain Gospel, entitled, According to the Hebrews; if People would receive it; not to give it Authority, but to illustrate the Question proposed. One of the rich men said to Jesus Christ, Master what shall I do, that I may live well? Jesus Christ says to him, Do that which the Law and the Prophets command. He answered, I have done it. He replied to him, Go sell all that you have, distribute it amongst the poor, and follow me: Then the rich man began to scratch his head, and that did not please him. The Lord said to him, How say you, that you have fulfilled that which the Law and the Prophets command, since it is wrote in the Law, you shall love your neighbour as yourself? And behold, there are many of the Children of Abraham covered with mire, and who starve for hunger, whilst your house is full of wealth, and you give nothing to them. And being returned, he said to Simon his Disciple, who was very near him, It is more easy for a Camel to pass through the eye of a Needle, than for a rich Man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. In the 2d Tome of his Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. John, he cites another Passage taken out of that Gospel, where the Holy Ghost is called the Mother of Jesus Christ. Some, says he, may produce the Gospel of the Hebrews, where our Saviour says, My Mother, the Holy Ghost, took me by one of my Hairs and carried me up to the great mountain Thabor. He also relates that Sentence of Jesus Christ several times from that Gospel; Be ye good Bankers.  
But, of all the Fathers, there's none gives us more Light, as to the Quality and Additions to the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the nazarenes than St. Jerome, who not only saw and red, but also translated it into Greek and Latin; which the nazarenes of Berea, a City of Syria, furnished him, as he assures us in his Book of Ecclesiastical Writers. He supposes, that originally this Gospel was the Original of St. Matthew. He observes, that it was wrote in Chaldee, Syriack and Hebrew Characters, and that the Passages of the Old Testament quoted in that Gospel, were related according to the Hebrew Text, and not according to the Version of the LXX. He instances in this Passage, I have called my Son out of Egypt; and in that, he shall be called a Nazaren. He hath inserted besides, in his Commentary upon St. Matthew, and in his other Writings, many considerable Additions which are found in that Gospel.  
He relates one upon the Baptism of Jesus Christ, in his 3d Book against the Pelagians, and in his Commentary upon the 11th of Isaiah. The Contents are as follow. The Mother of Jesus and his Brethren said to him, John the Baptist baptized for the remission of sins, let us go and receive his Baptism. Jesus said to them, Wherein have I sinned, to go and be baptized by John? If it be not that what I just now said is Ignorance. And after, Jesus being come out of the Water, the source of the Holy Ghost descended upon him, restend on him, and says to him, My Son. I expected you in all the Prophets, to the End that being come, I should rest upon you; for you are my Rest and my first-born Son, who reigns for ever.  
He reports another matter of Fact, as to the History of the Cure of the Man who had the withered Hand, related in the 12th of St, Matthew. There they make this Man to say, I was a poor Mason, who gained my livelihood by the labour of my hands: I pray you, Jesus, restore my health, that I may not be obliged shamefully to beg my living.  
There was likewise an Addition in the 8th Chapter, to what Jesus Christ says as to forgiving our Enemies. St. Jerome gives us an Account of it in his 3d Book against the Pelagians. It is as follows: If your Brother sin against you in Word, and satisfy you, receive him seven times a day. Simon his Disciple said unto him, Seven times a day? Yes, answered our Lord; and added, I say to you, Seventy and seven times.  
In the 27th Chapter, where 'tis said, That the Veil of the Temple was rent when our Lord died. St. Jerome observes, That in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, it was said, That the middle of the Gate of the Temple, which was of a prodigious bigness, was bruised and broken in two.  
He relates, in fine, in his Book of Illustrious Men, a considerable Passage concerning St. James, taken out of that Gospel. What he quotes of it is as follows: The Lord having given a Shift to the High Priests servant, went to find James, and appeared to him; for James had sworn that he would eat no Bread from the time be had drank of the Lord's Cup, until he saw him raised again from the dead. And, a little after, the Lord says, Bring a Table and Bread. Bread was brought, and he blessed and broke it, and gave it to James the just, and says to him, My Brother, eat your Bread, because the Son of Man is raised again from the dead. We may easily perceive that this History is a Tradition of the Christians of Jerusalem, who had St. James for their Bishop. And it may be said in general, That most of the Additions the nazarenes made to that Gospel were of the same Nature. They thought simply, that they might insert into St. Matthew's Work, the Stories which they had heard from their Fathers, and that they believed to be true, because they were commonly spread about through Judea. Tho' they have not the same certainty as those wrote by the Evangelists, yet we cannot say, that they were absolutely false, because it may be, that in Judea they knew by Tradition many Circumstances of the Life of Jesus Christ, which were not wrote by the Evangelists. But we cannot approve the Liberty that the Nazaren's took to themselves, of adding to the Original Text of St. Matthew. In the mean time that does not hinder, but they may be consulted on other Places, and profitably made use of for understanding the Greek. Thus it is that St. Jerome hath recourse to this Gospel for explaining the Term {αβγδ}, which is in the Lord's Prayer in the 6th of St. Matthew, where he observes, that the Word which is found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, signifies to morrow, and that therefore the Sense of the Passage is, Give us this Day Bread for to morrow; that is to say, The Bread of every Day, as it was in the ancient Vulgar, and as St. Jerome hath preserved it in St. Luke, chap. 5. St. Jerome also made profitable use of this Gospel to solve a considerable Difficulty concerning Zachary; of whom Jesus Christ says, Matth. 23. That he was killed betwixt the Temple and the Altar. He is called in the Greek Text, the Son of Barachias. In the mean time, this no ways agrees to this Zachary, but to Zachary the Son of Jojada; the manner of whose Death agrees with what Jesus Christ says of it. This Difficulty is removed by the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which has, as St. Jerome observes, Zachary the Son of Jojada, and not Zachary the Son of Barachias.  
St. Epiphanius says, That the nazarenes had the Gospel of St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew and entire, and that they had certainly preserved it until his Time: He adds, That it was wrote in Hebrew Characters, and that he knows not whether they had not cut off the Genealogy of Jesus Christ from the time of Abraham: He assures us on the contrary, That the Gospel of St. Matthew which the Ebionites made use of, which they called, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, was not entire, but corrupt and altered; that the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, and what preceded the Baptism of St. John, were cut off from it: Which he began with these Words; There was a Man called Jesus, of about 30 Years old, who hath chosen us, who coming to Capernaum, and entering into the House of Simon Peter, said, As I went along the Lake of Tiberias, I made choice of John and James the Sons of Zebedee, of Simon, Andrew and Thaddeus, of Simon zealots and Judas Iscariot, and you Matthew I called you, when you sat at the receipt of Customs, and you followed me; I will then that you be twelve Apostles to give Testimony to Israel. After this Title begins the Gospel itself in these Terms; It happened in the time of Herod the King of Judea, under the Prince of the Priests Caiphas, that a certain Man called John, baptized the Baptism of Repentance in Jordan: They said he was of the Race of Aaron, Son of Zachary and Elizabeth, and all went out to receive his Baptism, &c. St. Epiphanius observes that afterwards it is said, That St. John's Food was wild Honey, which tasted like Manna, and like a Cake baked with Oil. Changing the Greek Word {αβγδ}, which signifies Locusts, into that of {αβγδ}, which signifies Cakes. The Baptism of Jesus Christ was related in that Gospel in manner following: The People being baptized, Jesus came also and was baptized by John; and being come up out of the Water, the Heavens opened themselves, and he saw the Spirit of God descending and entering into him, in the form of a Dove: And a Voice was heard from Heaven, which said, You are my well-beloved Son, in whom I have set my delight. John thereupon casting himself at his Feet, I pray you Lord, says he, baptize me. This Relation of the Baptism of Jesus Christ differs much from that which St. Jerome relates, as taken out of the Gospel of the nazarenes. Which makes it evident, that the Ebionites had changed the Gospel of the nazarenes. This Testimony of St. Epiphanius, makes us still to know, that they had cut off abundance of things from it, and that they had changed and corrupted the same in many Places to favour their Error. Therefore 'tis, when St. Jerome says, that the nazarenes and Ebionites make use of the same Gospel of St. Matthew, that it is to be understood in a certain general Sense, and not precisely, nor rigorously of the same Gospel in every respect.  
From what we have related hitherto, may be inferred, That the Gospe lof St. Matthew wrote in Chaldee, did not continue long in its Purity, that the nazarenes made several Additions thereunto, and that afterwards the Ebionites altered and changed it. That the Copies of which St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen and St. Jerome made use, were those of the nazarenes, that St. Epiphanius saw a Copy of the Ebionites, and that the Original of St. Matthew itself was not existent in its Purity in their time. We have not now in being that Gospel augmented by the nazarenes, or altered by the Ebionites, and the Versions that St. Jerome made of it in Greek and Latin, have not descended so low as our Times. We have two Versions of the Gospel of St. Matthew in Hebrew, the one by Tilius, and the other by Munster; but it is certain, that 'tis neither the Original of St. Matthew, nor that of the Gospel of the nazarenes. The Syriack published by Widmanstadius, is neither the Original of St. Matthew, which was lost long ago, nor the Gospel of the nazarenes or Ebionites, since none of those Additions or Alterations, observed by the Fathers, are found therein; and besides, it appears that the Text was translated from the Greek.  
The Greek Version of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which to us supplies the Place of the Original, is very ancient, and coaevous with the Apostles, as St. Jerome and St. Augustin observe. It is not known who is the Author of it. Papias seems to say, That it was composed by several of the first Christians, for he observes that every one translated it as he could. St. Jerome says, 'tis not known who is the Author of that Translation. quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est. If those Fathers had not had any knowledge of the Author of the Greek Translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew, how could Writers that are much later know whose it was? Yet there are some who have made no scruple to name the Author. It is said in the abridgement of the Scripture ascribed to St. Athanasius, that it was made by St. James Bishop of Jerusalem; Theophilus ascribes it to St. John; and Anastasius the Sinaite to St. Luke and St. Paul. But all this is spoken without ground. It is certain that the Version we have is as ancient as the time of the Apostles, that it was published from the beginning of the Church in all Christian Nations, that it was looked upon as good as an Original by the Greeks and Latins, that it was preserved without any Alteration, and always looked upon to be authentic and caconical. Whereas the Original Hebrew continued not long the same that it was left by St. Matthew: That several Additions were immediately added thereunto, and afterwards Alterations; and that in the fourth Age there was no part of it in its Original Purity. Therefore 'tis when St. Jerome had corrected the Latin Translation of that Gospel, he did it from the Greek, and not from the Syriack Copy of the Gospel of the nazarenes that he had in Hand, which he looked upon as another Gospel, because of the Additions it contained.  
All the Ancients agree as we have already observed that the Gospel of St. Matthew is the first of the four in order of Time, but it's hard to say positively in what Year 'twas composed. The Ancients have indeed observed, that the Author wrote it whilst he was in Judea, but they don't mark the Year. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew, which falsely bears the Name of St. Chrysostom, says it was composed before the Apostles left Jerusalem. The time of their leaving it is not certain, and it is no way likely that 'twas all at once, or by a premeditated Design. St. Irenaeus assigns the Gospel of St. Matthew the first Place; and yet he says, That he did not compose it, till the time that St. Peter and St. Paul preached at Rome, and settled the Gospel there. If those Words be taken in their rigour, the Gospel of St. Matthew could not have been composed till towards the Year 63 or 64. It is observed in some Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, that the Gospel of St. Matthew was published at Jerusalem eight Years after Christ's Ascension; but as we are not certain of the Antiquity of those sorts of Remarks, we are not to insist upon it, no more than upon the Testimony of Nicephorus, and of the Chronicle of Alexandria, who say, that this Gospel was composed 15 Years after our Lord's Passion. So that nothing positive can be said, as to the Year when this Gospel was wrote and published.  
We have already observed, that there was in the Hebrew Gospel of the nazarenes a considerable Addition to the History of the Baptism of Jesus Christ, related in the third Chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew; but we must further observe here, that the Greek and Latin Copies have also had some variation in this Place; for formerly instead of those Words, This is my wellbeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, some Copies had the Words of the 2d Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. This Variation is very ancient, since St. Austin red it so, as it appears by this Place of his Dialogue against Tryphon. The Holy Ghost, says he, descending upon Jesus Christ in the form of a Dove, a Voice was heard from Heaven; which was also that of the Prophet David, saying, as in his Person, what ought to be said one day by the heavenly Father, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Which makes it plain, that in the time of this ancient Father, those Words were referred to the Baptism of Jesus Christ. Methodius thus reads also the History of the Baptism of Jesus Christ in the Gospels which he had. Nothing, says he, agrees better with that which we have said, nor more clearly shows the Truth of it, than the ancient Oracle directed from the Father to Jesus Christ, when he was baptized in Jordan; Thou art my Son, it is this day that I have begotten thee. St. Hilary reports them also in his Text in this Place of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and explains them of the Baptism of Jesus Christ, both in his Commentary on that Passage, and in the 11th Book of the Trinity, where, he says, 'tis visible that Jesus Christ received the Unction of the Spirit, and of the Power of God, when upon his coming up out of Jordan this Voice of his Father was heard; Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.  
St. Augustin observes in his 2d Book of the Concord of the Evangelists, chap. 14. that those Words, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, are found in divers Copies of the Gospel of St. Luke; and tho' it be said, that they were not in the oldest Greek Copies; he adds nevertheless, That if they can prove by Copies worthy of Credit, that those are the Evangelists Words; we must say, that both those Sentences were heard from Heaven. What St. Augustin observes of the Gospel of St. Luke, is as true of the Gospel of St. Matthew, since St. Hilary relates those Words in his Text, and that Juvencus in his Paraphrase on that Evangelist, gives us these Words, and not those which our Copies bear.  
Tunc vox missa Dei longum per inane cucurrit,  
Ablutumque undis Christum flatuque perunctum  
Alloquitur: te Nate hody per gaudia testor,  
Ex me progenitum, placet haec mihi Gloria prolis.  
That same Author Paraphrases an ancient Addition, which is found in that same Place of the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Latin Editions, and which is still to be found in a Manuscript of the ancient Vulgar, in the Library of the Abbey of St. German de Prez, Et cum batizaretur Jesus, lumen magnum fulgebat de aqua, ita ut timerent omnes qui congregati erant. Whilst they were baptizing Jesus, there issued a great Light out of the Water, so that all that were there were astonished at it. This Jusencus Paraphrases likewise upon thus:  
Haec memorans vitreas penetrabat fluminis undas,  
Surgenti manifesta Dei praesentia claret.  
There is another far more considerable Addition in the 20th of St. Matthew, which Juvencus hath also put in his Paraphrase, and is to be found in the Greek Copy of Cambridge, in some ancient Copies of the Vulgar Latin, and in the Anglo-Saxon Version; for after those Words of the 28th Verse, The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his Life a Ransom for many. This Sentence is found added.[ But you seek from less to grow more, and of great to become little] Which is not in any Place of the Gospels. Afterwards the following Words are added, whose sense is in the 14th of St. Luke;[ But when you enter, being invited to a Feast, don't take the chief Places; left some one who is higher than you come, and he who invited you to the Feast come to you, and say, Sit lower, and you be thereby put to shane. Whereas if you take a lower Place, and there be found a Person inferior to you, he who invited you will say, Sit up higher; which will be more to your Honour.] It seems that St. Hilary had that Addition in his Copy, for in his Titles of the 20th Canon upon St. Matthew, after the Title of the Sons of Zebedee, de Filiis Zebedei, comes this other of the chief Place, de primo accubitu, which only agrees to this Addition: And he explains himself in his Text, in these Terms: For the Glory of Humility, our Lord instructed them by the Example of a Feast, and advices them, That he who is thereunto invited, ought not to set himself down in the chief Place, for fear that one of a higher Dignity should come; and in that case, the Master of the Feast should oblige him to leave the Place he had taken to himself: Whereas if he put himself in an inferior Place, and that a Person below him happen to come, he shall be honoured by being moved to an higher Place. The same thing is implied in the Addition, and almost in the Terms in which it is conceived in the ancient Vulgar. Juvencus found it also in his Copy, and put it in Verse as follows:  
At vos ex minimis opibus, transcendere vultis,  
Et sic e summis lapsi, comprenditis imos.  
Si vos quisque vocat caenae convivia ponens,  
Cornibus in summis devitet ponere Membra,  
Quisque rapit veniet forsan si Nobilis alter  
Turpiter eximio cogetur cedere cornu,  
Quem tumour inflati cordis per summa locarat  
Sin contentus erit mediocria prendere loca  
Inferiorque debinc si mox conviva subibit  
Ad potiora pudens transibit strata tororum.  
St. lo, in his 79th Epistle to the Empress Pulcheria, after having quoted these Words, Let him amongst you who would be the chief, be your servant; for the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister: He adds, These thins were proposed to Persons who of little had a mind to become great, but not to go up from a low Place to an high one. Haec illis insinuabantur qui de pusillo volebant crescere& de infimis ad summa transire. Which agrees to the first words of the Addition thus expressed in a Manuscript of the Abbey of St. German des Prez: Vos autem quaeritis de pusillo crescere& de minore majores fieri. Whereas the 2d Part of that Sentence is expressed in another manner, both in the Greek and in the Latin of the Cambridge Manuscript: Vos autem quaeritis de minimo crescere,& de magno minui. In that of Corbie in these Terms: Vos autem quaeritis de pusillo crescere,& de majore minores fieri. And in that of the monastery of St. Andrew in the manner following: Vos autem quaeritis de pusillo crescere& de magnis majores esse. It is observable, That there's nothing but that Sentence added in the Manuscript of St. Germain des Prez, and that all the rest of the Addition is wanting there.  
The Testimonies of St. Hilary, St. lo, and Juvencus, leave us no room to doubt that that Addition was anciently in some Latin Copies, but we have no Greek Fathers that mention it. Therefore 'tis we don't believe that they can say, it was formerly in the Greek Copies of the Gospel of St. Matthew: We believe on the contrary, that 'tis an Addition made by the Latins, that the Writer of the Cambridge Copy, or some other, hath translated it into Greek, and inserted it in his Text. We don't believe neither, that this Addition was in all the Copies of the ancient Vulgar Latin, since many of the Latin Fathers don't receive it; that St. Jerome makes no mention of it; that it was never known in the Church of afric; that 'tis expressed differently in several Copies; and that there are some where the greatest part of this Addition is not to be found. In a word, we are persuaded that this Edition ought to be held of no Authority. In the first place, because the ancient Greek Fathers, as Origen, St. Chrysostom, &c. never take Notice of it; and that, by consequence, it was not in the most ancient Greek Copies of the New Testament. Secondly, Because the greatest Part of the Latin Church, did not approve it. Thirdly, Because the new Sentence they put in our Saviour's Mouth, hath almost no Sense, as 'tis expressed in the Cambridge Manuscript. Fourthly, Because 'tis visible enough, That the greatest Part of this Addition is taken out of the Gospel of St. Luke; whose Text they have altered in a very gross manner. Fifthly, Because the Occasion on which Jesus Christ pronounced those Words, is quiter different from that to which they ascribe this Addition: For St. Luke says, That Jesus Christ had this Discourse at Jerusalem, in the House of one of the chief Pharisees, where he was about to refresh himself, after having cured a Man that was sick of the dropsy; on which Occasion those that were invited made choice of the uppermost Places: Whereas in the Addition, they make our Saviour say the same Thing on occasion of the Request of the Mother of Zebedee's Children, a little before his Passion without Jerusalem, being on his Way thither. The Time, Place, Occasion, and Circumstances are wholly different; and there's no Man but must needs see, that the Comparison is in its proper Place in the Gospel of St. Luke: Whereas it is wrong placed, and nothing to the purpose in that of St. Matthew.  
In the 24th of St. Matthew, ver. 36. where 'tis said, That no man knows any thing of the day of judgement, no not the Angels in Heaven. There's those words added in the Cambridge Manuscript which are found in the Gospel of St. Mark, chap. 13. v. 32. Nor the Son. Origen follows this reading in his Commentary upon this Place of St. Matthew; St. Chrysostom and Theophilact, explain also those Words in their Commentaries upon that Evangelist; St. Jerome observes that they are found in some Latin Copies of St. Matthew, but that they were not in most part of the Greek Copies, and particularly in those of Origen and Pierius. St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustin red also those Words in St. Matthew, as in St. Mark. In fine, the Manuscripts of the ancient Vulgar Latin of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, do also bear these Words. Nay, 'tis more probable that they were razed out of the Gospel of St. Matthew, than added to that of St. Mark, or transferred from the latter to the former.  
In that same Chapter, ver. 41. after those Words, of two Women grinding in a Mill, one shall be taken and the other left; there is also in the Cambridge Manuscript, and some others, an Addition taken out of St. Luke, ch. 17. v. 34. of two Persons who shall be in one Bed, one shall be taken and the other left, Lucas Brugensis hath found it in divers Latin Manuscripts. It is in the English Saxon Version. Origen, St. Hilary and St. Chrysostom explain it in this Place: But Theophilact takes no Notice of it. In the Manuscripts of the ancient Vulgar, it is found in the Place of the Words which we have related of two Women who shall be grinding at a Mill. And there be also Greek Manuscripts wherein these Words are not found.   

SECT. IV. The Life of St. Mark: Concerning his Gospel: Of the Truth of the last whole Chapter of it.  
THe Ancients inform us, That the Evangelist St. Mark was St. Peter's Disciple and Interpreter: Therefore it can't be doubted, but 'tis he whom he calls his Son, in his first Letter wrote from Babylon, 
Whom he calls his Son in his first Letter, 1 Pet. 5.3.] The Church of Babylon salutes you and my Son Mark. . But there's great probability that he is a different Person from John, Surnamed Mark, the Son of Mary, the Companion of St. Paul and of St. Barnabas, who is frequently spoken of in the Acts 
John, surnamed Mark, the Son of Mary, who is often spoken of in the Acts,] chap. 12. v. 12. It is said, That Peter being come out of Prison, went to the House of Mary the Mother of John, surnamed Mark, v. 25. That Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, having taken with them John, surnamed Mark, chap. 15. v. 37. That St. Paul and Barnahas having agreed at Antioch to return and Visit their Brethren in the City, where they had preached the Word of our Lord, Barnahas would take with him John, surnamed Mark; but that Paul prayed him to consider, that it was not fit to take him with them who had left them in Pamphilia, and not accompanied them in their Ministry: That a controversy happened thereupon betwixt them, which occasioned their separating, and that Barnabas took Mark with him, and took Ship to go for Cyprus. The strict Union of this Mark with Barnabas, makes it believed that he is the same who is called his Kinsman in the Epistle to the Colossians, c. 4. v. 10. where St. Paul says, and Marcus Sisters Son to Barnabas, touching whom ye received Commandments, if he come unto you, receive him. And in his 2d to Timothy, chap. 4. v. 12. Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the Ministry. He makes mention of him again in his Epistle to Philemon, as being one of those who assisted him. If he of whom St. Paul speaks in those three Places, be the same who is mentioned in the Acts, he must needs have been agreed again with St. Paul, after his having gone off from him with St. Barnabas. Some have confounded this John, surnamed Mark, the Son of Mary, with St. John the Evangelist. St. Chrysostom in his 26th Homily on the Acts, does not give him the Surname of Mark, but calls him simply John. He demands who that John is, and says that perhaps 'tis he who was always with the other Apostles; and that 'tis on that Account he added his Surname. So that tho' this Surname be not at present in the Greek Text of St. Chrysostom, it appears, however, by those last Words, that tis an omission. Oecumenius adds a Negative, and says, 'twas not he that was always with St. Peter and the other Apostles; that is to say, that' was not the Evangelist: And the Reason St. Chrysostom gives for it, makes it plain, that we must so red his Text. The Evangelist cannot be the Mark mentioned in the Epistles of St. Paul, because he was then in Egypt; and even the 2d to Timothy is supposed to have beeu wrote after his Death. Some have believed, nevertheless, that he who is mentioned in the Epistles of St Paul was the Evangelist; and, amongst others, the Author of the Dialogue of Adamantius against the Marcionites. ; who is, it may be, also this Mark the Cousin of Barnabas, who is mentioned in the Epistles of St. Paul. The Evangelist is no where called by the Name of John, which was the proper Name of this Person. He was St. Peter's Disciple, and kept close to him, at the time when the other was with St. Paul and St. Barnabas. Some Authors have been of Opinion, that the Evangelist was one of the 72 Disciples of our Lord, 
Some have been of Opinion, that the Evangelist was one of our Lords 72 Disciples.] St. Epiphanius says so, Heres. 51. where he relates, That having left our Lord, after the Discourse that he had on the Eucharist, St. Peter made him return. The Author of the Dialogue of Adamantius against the Marcionites, reckons him amongst the 72 Disciples. Procopius and some other Modern Writers are of the same Opinion. But Papias says plainly, That St. Mark the Evangelist neither saw nor followed our Lord; and that he wrote what he learned from St. Peter, Euseb. Hist. l. 3. cap. ult. St. Irenaeus says not that he had seen Jesus Christ Tertullian puts him in the Rank of Apostolical Men. St. Jerome contents himself to allow him the Quality of a Disciple and St. Peter's Interpreter. St. Chrysostom, Hom. 19. on the Acts, St. Augustin de Consensu Evangelico, l. 1. c. 17. against Faustus. Theodoret in his Preface upon the History of Solitaries, and Bede upon St. Mark say, That he was not an Eye Witness of the Things that he wrote, but that he learned them from those that had lived and conversed with our Lord. . There's more likelihood that he did not receive the Gospel from Jesus Christ himself, but from the Apostles, and particularly from St. Peter, who calls him his Son; perhaps, because he had begotten him in Jesus Christ. The style of his Gospel shows us that he was Jew, and rather a natural Hebrew than an Hellenist. The Name of Mark is not indeed an Hebrew Name, but it was apparently a Name that answered to the Hebrew Name he bore, or a Roman Surname he had assumed to himself, according to the common Custom of that Time. It is an ancient and certain Tradition, That the Evangelist St. Mark was the Founder of the Church of Alexandria: The other Circumstances of his Life and Death, related in his Acts, and by new Authors, are uncertain or fabulous, 
The other Circumstances of his Life and Death related in his Acts, and by new Authors, are uncertain or fabulous.] Rollandus hath given us the Acts of St. Mark in Greek and Latin. It is the Work of some Egyptian Christian of the 7th or 8th Age, which was followed by the Author of the Oriental Chronicle, by Bede and by the Martyrologists. Those Acts are visibly full of Fables, and all those Modern Authors are but of small Authority. Palladius in his History, Lausiac and Eutychius make him a Martyr; but neither Euschius nor St. Jarome say any thing of it. .  
The Ancients neither agree as to the Time nor Place where St. Mark composed his Gospel; St. Irenaeus says, 'twas after the Death of St. Peter and St. Paul, 
After the Death of St. Peter and St. Paul.] The Greek of St. Irenaeus in Eusebius is {αβγδ}. The Latin of the ancient Interpreter, post vero horum discessum; that is to say, after their leaving the World. Those that say we must red {αβγδ}, change the Text without Reason. . If it be so, we must place the Death of St. Mark in 67, with the Author of the Oriental Chronicle; or in 68, according to his Acts. In which Case he must have survived those two Apostles for two or three Years, and composed his Gospel in that Interval: But, if with Eusebius we place his Death in 62, before the Death of St. Peter, we cannot defend this System.  
St. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposis, supposes that St. Mark wrote his Gospel whilst St. Peter was alive: For he says, That that Apostle having preached the Word of God, and published the Gospel in the City of Rome, many of the People prayed St. Mark, who had been a long time his Disciple, and remembered his Words, to writ what he had learned from his Master: That he then wrote his Gospel, and gave it to those that desired it of him: That St. Peter having understood that he was about it, he would neither hinder nor exhort him to go on with it. Papias says also, That St. Mark wrote what he had learned from St. Peter. Eusebius and St. Jerome add to those Authorities, That St. Peter approved that Gospel when 'twas finished, to the End it might be received in the Churches. Tertullian is Witness that it was looked upon as a certain Thing, that the Gospel published by St. Mark was from St. Peter. Licet& Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur, l. 4. contra Marc. c. 5.  
St. Gregory Nazianzen in his Poems, 33, 34. wrote, that St. Mark composed his Gospel for Italy upon St. Peter's Relation. The Author of the Synopsis ascribed to St. Athanasius says, That that Apostle dictated his Gospel to him: But that does not agree with St, Clement and Papias. All those Authors suppose that it was at Rome, and on the desire of the Christians of that City that St. Mark composed his Gospel. On the contrary, St. Chrysostom in his first Homily on St. Matthew, believes that 'twas in Egypt, and for the Christians of that Country that he composed it. It would seem that this Contradiction may be solved by saying, That St. Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome a little before St. Peter's Death, that that Apostle approved it, and that St. Mark after his Death being gone from Rome, carried and published it in Egypt. By this means all the Authors are reconciled in supposing that St. Mark did not come to Alexandria till after St. Peter's Death; that is to say, in 66, and that he did not die till 67 or 68. What St. Irenaeus says, That he didnot publish his Gospel till after the Death of St. Peter, will also be found true; for though he mght have done it some little time before the Death of that Apostle, it was not however made public till some time after it. It is observed in Euthymius and some Manuscript Notes of the New Testament, that the Gospel of St. Mark was composed 10 Years after the Passion of our Lord; that is to say, in the 43d Year of the Christian Era. But that cannot be, if it was done at Rome whilst St. Peter was there, since St. Peter did not come to Rome till a long time after, as we have shew'd in another Place. Besides, those sorts of Remarks are not worth our insisting upon.  
It would seem there's no room left to doubt but St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek, and that the Greek which we now have is the Original. All the Ancients who have observed it as a particular thing, That the Gospel of St. Matthew was wrote in Hebrew or Syriack, never said any such thing of St. Mark. They must needs have supposed then that it was wrote in Greek, as the other Books of the New Testament. St. Jerome, Ep. 123. and St. Augustin, Lib. 1. Consens. Evang. c. 2. have also assured us, That all the Books of the New Testament, excepting the Gospel of St. Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews, were originally wrote in Greek. Besides those Authorities, there is in the Gospel of St. Mark abundance of Grecisms, which make it plain that it was wrote in Greek and not in Latin, as Cardinal Baronius would maintain, but upon Reasons of so little weight, that they deserve not be insisted upon, 
Upon Reasons of so little Weight, that they deserve not to be insisted upon.] He says, 'tis not to be believed that Mark, writing to the Romans, would compose his Gospel in any other Language than that which was in use at Rome. It is true, that Latin was the natural Language of the Romans; but the Greek was also common amongst them; so that tho' we should suppose St. Mark to have wrote precisely for the Romans, he might have wrote in Greek, as St. Paul did the Letter that he directed to them. But it is not certain that St. Mark wrote to Rome, and for the Romans; and tho' it should be true, it is not so, that his Gospel was for the Romans alone. There were at Rome converted Jews, to whom St. Peter had preached, and for whom St. Mark also wrote: Those Jews, as Grotius observed, understood little Latin, but they understood and spoken Greek. All the Authorities quoted by Baronius, to show that Greek was not common at Rome, prove nothing: It is certain that the Romans studied Greek, that People of Fashion understood and spoken it; nay, their Women spoken and understood Greek. The Authors he brings to maintain his Opinion, are the Author of the Pontifical of Damasus, Eutychius, and some Syrians. These are Witnesses of small Credit in a Matter so ancient; and besides, they don't speak clearly. St. Gregory Nazianzen, whom he cites again, does not say, that the Gospel of St. Mark was wrote in Latin; he only says, that 'twas wrote for the People of Italy. He pretends that there are Latinisms in St. Mark's Greek: That may be without his having wrote in Latin: It's sufficient that he had dwelled among the Latins and spoken Latin, to mix Latin Words Graecis'd with his Greek. There are Interpreters who say, That St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin and Greek; but this is spoken without Proof. It is certain, that the Latin Gospel we have is not St. Mark's, and that it hath been translated from the Greek. It is said, That the Emperor Charles IV. found at Aquileum a Gospel wrote with St. Mark's own Hand in 7 Bundles or Quires. The Venetians pretend to have at Venice that Original brought from Aquileum, which they keep in the Church of St. Mark, with another Gospel that they believe to have been wrote by St. Chrysostom: But they take a great deal of Care to keep those two Books shut, and suffer no Body to open them, lest the Truth should be discovered. Cornelius a Lapide says, he understood at Venice, that the Letters of the Gospel of St. Mark were much effaced, and that it was wrote in Greek, and not in Latin. .  
St. Mark hath followed the Gospel of St. Matthew, and many times hath only abridged it, either by contracting his Narrative, or by leaving out some things, especially what relates to Doctrine. This occasioned St. Augustin's calling him the Abbreviator of St. Matthew. There are nevertheless Histories that he relates more at large, and of which he observes some Circumstances that are omitted by that Apostle. He relates few things which are not only in the Gospel of St. John, and yet fewer which are not only in that of St. Luke; the whole is almost taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew, whose Order he follows for the most part, and very often makes use of the same Terms; which makes me believe that St. Mark rather wrote from the Greek Version of the Gospel of St. Matthew, than from the Original Syriack. St. Jerome observes in his Letter to Hedibia, that the last Chapter of the Gospel of St. Mark( beginning at the 9th Verse of our last Chapter) was only in few Copies, and that almost all the Greek Copies wanted it. Aut enim non recipimus Marci Testimonium quod in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Graecis Libris hoc Capitulum in fine non habentibus.  
St. Gregory Nyssen in his 2d Oration upon the Resurrection says, That in the most correct Copies, the Gospel of St. Mark ended with those Words; for they were afraid: That nevertheless what follows is found added in some Copies. Euthymius makes the same Observation, which is also found in some Greek Copies of the New Testament. There are none at present in which the Chapter of St. Mark is not found entire. But in a Manuscript of the King's Bibliotheck we red after those words {αβγδ}, this Remark, which is also found in Wekel's printed Greek Bible: They  told in a few words to Peter what had been commanded 'em; and afterwards Jesus published by their Ministry from the East unto the West, that holy and incorruptihle preaching of eternal Salvation. This we may easily find to be an Addition made by the Hand of some Stranger, who supposed that this was the End of the Gospel. Nevertheless, there follows afterwards in this Manuscript, and wrote by the same Hand, On trouve aussi apres ces mots: There is found also after these words, {αβγδ}, ce qui svit, that which follows {αβγδ}, and the rest unto the end of the Gospel: But there is not in the Margin the Letters of the Alphabet to mark the Section. In the Cambridge Manuscript, the 9th Verse and the following to the 16th, are wrote by the same Hand; but the 16th and the following are wrote by a later Hand. Nevertheless, there are many Reasons to prove that we ought to own that Chapter to be Genuine in all its Parts.  
In the first place, the eight first Verses were never called in Question. For when St. Jerome says, That the last Chapter of St. Mark is not in many Greek Copies: By Chapter he understands only the 11 last Verses; the Sections or Chapters being then less than our Chapters are at present. Besides, it cannot be said, that St. Mark did not speak of the Resurrection of our Lord. 2. Tho' these 11 last Verses were not in many Greek Copies in St. Jerom's and St. Gregory Nyssen's time, they were nevertheless in some Greek, and in all the Latin, Syriack and Arabian Copies. 3. The most ancient Fathers owned them as true. St. Irenaeus in his 3d Book against Heresies quotes the last Verse but one: St. Mark, says he, relates at the close of his Gospel, that our Lord, after having spoken, entred into Heaven, and that he is sat down at the right hand of God. The Apparition to Magdalen is quoted by Tertullian in his Book de Anima. St. Ambrose, St. Augustin, the Author of the Synopsis, the Author of the Concord ascribed to Ammonius, Cassian, &c. quote also the last Verses of that Chapter. St. Jerome himself and St. Gregory Nyssen explain them, and reconcile them with the other Evangelists. 4. Its easy enough to be seen, that the Reason for which they have been cut off in some Copies, is the seeming Contradiction that is found in that place betwixt St. Matthew and St. Mark. But we see no Reason why they should have been added, nor from whence they could have been taken. In a word, the last Verses are of the same Style, wrote with the same Simplicity, and relate to what the other Evangelists have wrote, but so nevertheless that it may be plainly seen, that they were taken from them. There's no Ground then to doubt of their Antiquity or Truth.  
It is not the same of an Addition St. Jerome speaks of in his 2d Dialogue against the Pelagians, which came after those Words of the 14th Verse. Jesus Christ appeared to the Eleven whilst they were at Table, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of Heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen. The Addition is this, They answered him saying, This Age is the substance of Iniquity and Unbelief, which hinders by means of unclean Spirits, that they don't embrace true virtue; therefore discover your Justice. St. Jerome says, That those Words were found in some Copies, and particularly in the Greek, but he makes no great Account of that Addition; which, in all appearance, was taken from some Gospel that was forged or falsified by the heretics.   

SECT. V. The Life of St. Luke: Of his Gospel: How it was corrupted by the Marcionites. Of the Truth of Jesus Christs sweeting Drops of Blood. Of the Alterations and Additions in the Cambridge Manuscript.  
ST. Luke was a Native of Antioch, the Metropolis of Syria 
St. Luke was a Native of Antioch, the Metropolis of Syriac.] Eusebius says so, Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 4. Lucas vero domo Antiochenus; and St. Jerome in his Treatise of Illustrious Men, says, Lucas Medicus Antiochensis. , and a Physician by Profession, 
A Physician by Profession. St. Paul says so Col. 4.14. Luke the Physician salutes you. None of the Ancients doubted but this was the Evangelist. Nicephorus and the modern Greeks make him a Painter; and there are in many Places Images of the Virgin, which are given out to be the Workmanship of St. Luke: But these are Fictions that have nothing of Truth nor Likelihood. . He was not our Lord's Disciple, and one of the 72, as some of the Ancients believed 
He was not our Lord's Disciple, nor one of the 72, as some of the Ancients believed.] This appears plainly from the beginning of his Gospel, where he does not say, that he wrote that which he had seen, but that which he had learned from others. St. Irenaeus contents himself to bring his Testimony, as that of a Man who had learned from the Apostles what he wrote, without producing him as an Eye-Witness to the Truth of those Things. Tertullian assures us of it as a certain thing, That he was not Christ's Disciple, but that he learned from the Apostles, and particularly from St. Paul, what he had wrote. Porro Lucas non Apostolus, said Apostolicus: Non Magister, said Discipulus; utique Magistro minor, certe tanto posterior, quanto posterioris Apostoli sectator, Lib. 4. contra martion. cap. 2. Euseb. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 4. says, he wrote his Gospel upon the Relation of others, and the Acts upon what he had seen himself. St. Jerome assures us of the same thing in his Treatise of Illustrious Men, and in his Preface on St. Matthew. St. Ambrose in the beginning of his Commentary on St. Luke, St. Augustin in his Book de Cons. Evang. l. 1. c. 1. Theodoret in his Preface to the Lives of the Fathers. These Testimonies ought to be preferred to those of the Author of the Dialogue against martion ascribed to Origen; to that of St. Epiphanius, who had taken it from that Author; and to those of some Modern Authors, who wrote that St. Luke was one of the 72 Disciples of our Lord. : Nay, there's no likelihood that he was a Jew 
There's no appearance that he was a Jew.] St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, after having name Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus called Justus, says that they were of the Circumcision: Qui ex Circumcisione sunt; that they were the only Persons who were then with him: Then immediately after he speaks of Epaphras of Demas, and of Luke. He seems by that to distinguish them from those that were circumcised. St. Chrysostom followed this Opinion. St. Jerome in his Questions on Genesis, calls St. Luke a Proselyte: He was not then a Jew by Birth. . He was rather a gentle, and uncircumcised. He was St. Paul's Disciple, he accompanied him almost in all his Travels, and 
He was the Disciple of St. Paul, and attended him continually in his Travels.] St. Irenaeus in his 3d Book against Heresies, c. 14. says, That he was St. Paul's inseparable Companion, and Fellow-Labourer in the Gospel. St. Paul puts him also amongst his Fellow-Labourers in his Epistle to Philemon, v. 24. Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas and Lucas, my Fellow-Labourers; and he calls him the Beloved, in his Epistle to the Colossians, chap. 4.14. Luke, the beloved Physician, salutes you, 2 Tim. 4.11. He says, he was the only Person stayed with him: Lucas est mecum solus. The History of the Acts informs us, that he followed St. Paul when that Apostle went from Troas to Macedonia. For this is the first time that he spoken as being with St. Paul. We endeavoured, says he, immediately to go into Macedonia, Acts 16.11. So St. Irenaeus enumerating the journeys that St. Luke made with St. Paul, makes this the first, according to the Cambridge Manuscript. St. Luke was with St. Paul at Antioch in the Year 43, but 'tis not certain enough to be relied on. Having passed from Troas in Macedonia, he stayed there some days with St. Paul. There's no more spoken of St. Luke in the Acts till the 20th Chapter, where 'tis said, That St. Luke was with St Paul when they went into Asia through Macedonia, he partend with him at Philippi and went to Troas. He accompanied St. Paul to Jerusalem, he followed him afterwards from caesarea to Rome, when he was carried thither; he stayed there with him, as appears by the Epistles to Philemon and the Colossians. He was still with St. Paul when he wrote his 2d Letter to Timothy.  assisted him continually in the Ministry of the Word, as we learn from the History of the Acts, and the advantageous Testimonies which St. Paul gives of him in his Letters. It is also believed, that 'tis of him the Apostle speaks, without naming him, when he signifies to the Corinthians 
It's thought that 'tis of him the Apostle speaks without naming him, when he signifies to the Corinthians, &c.] Authors are divided about this anonimous Person to whom St. Paul gave this Elogium; The Brother whose Praise is in the Gospel throughout the Churches.] Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, ascribe this to St. Luke. St. Chrysostom says, That some think it to be St. Luke, and others take it for Barnabas. He leaves the Matter at an uncertainty, and is sometime for the one, sometime for the other. Some understand this of St. Silas, because of those following Words, Who was also chosen of the Churches to travail with us. Which agrees to Silas. It seems the Reason of his ascribing it to St. Luke, is the word Gospel, in that Place, which they take for a written Gospel. But 'tis a weak Conjecture, for the Gospel of St. Luke was not then composed, and those words are rather to be understood of the Gospel preached; that is to say, That Brother who has acquired a Reputation in all the Churches by the preaching of the Gospel. , 2 Cor. 8.18. That he hath sent them a Brother, whose Praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches: Cujus laus est in Evangelio per omnes Ecclesias. There's no Reason to confounded him with Lucius 
There's no Reason to confounded him with Lucius.] Origen thought him to be the same, and hath wrote so in his Notes upon the Epistle to the Romans. He could have no other Reason but the likeness of the Name: But that proves the contrary, for had the Name of Lucas been either Graeciz'd or Latiniz'd they would rather have augmented than abridged it, as of Demas they have made Demetrius; of Appellas, Apollodorus; of Epaphras, Epaphroditus; of Cleopas, Cleopatra; of Artemas, Artemidorus; of Antipas, Antipater; of Harpocras, Harpocrates; of Rufus, Rusinus. This Lucius is placed by St. Paul amongst the Number of his Kinsmen. Timothy my fellow-labourer salutes you, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my Kinsmen. It seems that by the word Kinsmen he understands in general, those of the Jewish Nation, as he says Romans 9.3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my Brethren my Kinsmen according to the Flesh. So this Lucius is joined with the Jews. St. Luke was not a Jew. , whom St. Paul also mentions in his Epistle to the Romans. We find in St. Jerome's Book of Illustrious Men, that he lived in Celibacy, that he died in Achaia, aged 84 Years, and that his relics were translated thence to Constantinople: But this Passage is very doubtful, 
The Passage is very doubtful.] That which concerns Celibacy and the Age of St. Luke, is neither found in the Greek nor in the best Latin Manuscripts. The Greeks and Latins agree that St. Luke died very ancient: But Isidore, Bede, and some others, don't assign him above 74 Years. What concerns his relics, is taken from Philostorgus, and does not at all look like St. Jerome. . St. Epiphanius says, he preached the Gospel in Dalmatia, in gall, in Italy and Macedonia, 
He preached the Gospel in Dalmatia, in gall, in Italy, and in Macedonia.] What St. Epiphanius says of his Preaching in gall is spoken without Ground. It may be understood of Galatia or Gallia-Cisalpina. Metaphrastes and Fortunatus seem to think that he preached in Egypt. Nicephorus says, he return'd from Rome into Greece, and that he preached the Gospel there: That is more probable. . Other Authors say, he preached in other Countries: There is nothing certain in this Matter, nor yet of the Manner and Place of his Death, 
There's nothing certain in this Matter, neither as to the Manner nor Place of his Death.] Philostorgus and the Addition to the Books of Illustrious Men wrote by St. Jerome say, That the relics of St. Luke were brought from Achaia, where he had been interred, St. Gaudentius says he died at Petras, a City of Achaia. Nicephorus says at Thebes in Greece; Isidore, Bede, Usuard, Ado, and the Roman Martyrology say Bithynia. St. Gregory Nazianzen reckons St. Luke amongst the Martyrs in his 3d Oration: But Elias of Crete commenting on that Place, maintains that Gregory gives the Name of Victims in general to all those who suffered and laboured for Jesus Christ, and that St. Luke died in Peace as well as the Apostle St. John. It's said, That St. Paulinus gives him the Title of Martyr, Ep. 3. & not. 9. But that Term may be taken in a more general Sense: Nor is it clear that it is to St. Luke that he assigns this first Passage. .  
St. Luke himself in the beginning of his Gospel, gives an Account of the Mtive that made him undertake it, and of the Design he had therein; for he says, That many having undertaken before him to writ the History of Jesus Christ and of his Preaching, he believed that after having been exactly informed of all those Things from the beginning, by those who had been Witnesses of it, and Ministers of the Word themselves, he ought also to put it in Writing, to the End that Theopbilus, to whom he directed 
Theophilus to whom he directs it.] Origen, St. Ambrose, Salvian, St. Epiphanius, believe that it is a general Name; but St. Chrysostom, St. Augustin, and most of the new Commentators believe, with more Reason, that 'tis a proper Name; as the epithet of {αβγδ}, which is joined thereunto, shows. The Author of the Recognitions speaks of one Theophilus, who was a rich and potent Man at Antioch. The Greeks give him the Title of Governor; and St. Jerome says, that St. Luke composed his Gospel for the Greeks particularly, or for the converted Gentiles.  that Work, might know the Truth of what he had preached. As he was a Disciple, and almost an inseparable Companion to St. Paul, it is not to be doubted but he made use of his Knowledge and Instructions in composing his Gospel, and that he wrote what he had learned from him. Thus all the Ancients have observed 
It is what all the Ancients have observed.]( That he had wrote what he learned from St. Paul.) St. Irenaeus says, that he wrote the Gospel which St. Paul preached, lib. 3. cap. 1. Tertullian observes, that some made St. Paul the Author of this Gospel, because it is reasonable to ascribe to the Master the Works published by the Disciple, lib. 4. cont. martion. cap. 5. St. Gregory Nazianzen says, that he wrote it upon the Confidence he had in his Master St. Paul. The Author of the Synopsis believes that St. Paul directed the same to him. , and some of 'em have pretended that it is of the Gospel of St. Luke this Apostle speaks when he makes use of those Terms according to my Gospel 
Some have pretended that it is of the Gospel of St. Luke the Apostle speaks, when he says, according to my Gospel.] Those words of St. Paul are Rom. 2.16, Eusebius explains this of the Gospel of St. Luke, and St. Jerome follows him, but we need no more than to red what comes before and follows after, to understand that the Apostle speaks not in this Place of a written Gospel, but of the Gospel or the Doctrine that he preached. . St. Jerome says, he composed it in Achaia or Baeotia: In Achaiae Baeotiaeque partibus. St. Gregory Nazianzen says also, that it was for the Christians of Achaia that he composed it. If it were in the time that St. Paul was at Corinth, towards the Year 53, it is certain that the Gospel preceded the Book of the Acts, and that this was wrote two Years after St. Paul's arrival at Rome; that is to say, in 63, since the History of that Book concludes precisely at that time: Perhaps he published both the one and the other in Achaia, whither he returned at the end of the two Years that St. Paul was detained at Rome, after having composed them in that City. Euthymius and some Notes of Greek Manuscripts say, that it was composed 15 Years after our Saviours Resurrection; and some Inscriptions of that Gospel in Syriack and Persian add, that it was at Alexandria. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions supposes that St. Luke had made a Journey into Egypt; which Metaphrastes and other modern Greeks have followed. But none of those Monuments deserving any Credit, we must keep to what St. Jerome hath said of it, as being the most reasonable.  
The Gospel of St. Luke is better wrote in Greek than the rest, as St. Jerome observes, because that Evangelist was an able Physician and wrote for the Greeks: Lucas igitur qui inter omnes Evangelistas Graeci Sermonis eruditissimus fuit; quip ut Medicus& qui Evangelium Graecis scripserit. Epist. 145. ad Damasum. Nay, he understood Greek better than Hebrew, according to the Testimony of that same Father on Isaiah, chap. 6. There are however some Hebraisms or Syriacisms in his Discourse, yet 'tis not doubted but he wrote in Greek.  
The Gospel of St. Luke is the only one that martion and his Disciples received; but they had retrenched divers things in it, and corrupted it in several Places, as St. Irenaeus, Tertullian and St. Epiphanius have observed. But the falsehood of the Gospel of martion was evident, because that of the catholic Church was the more ancient. martion alleged to no purpose, that his was the true one, it being convicted of Forgery and Corruption by the Antiquity of that of the Church. I maintain that my Gospel is true, saith Tertullian; martion says his is so; Who shall judge betwixt us? It shall be the Order of Time that shall give Authority to the eldest, and make it evident that the latest is corrupted: For falsehood being a depravation of Truth, Truth must of necessity go before falsehood. But it is so true, that ours is the most ancient, that martion himself believed it before he separated from the Church. In correcting our Gospel he confirms it, and shows that 'twas the more ancient; and we have no Reason to doubt, but that which was received as Sacred by the Apostolical Churches, is that which the Apostles gave by Tradition.  
martion had cut off from his Gospel, all the beginning of the Gospel of St. Luke, as far as these words; The fifteenth Year of the Reign of Tiberius Caesar; that is to say, our first two Chapters. He also cut off and altered many things in the Body of the Gospel; all which St. Epiphanius hath collected in his 42d heresy, which is that of martion. We shall not stay to report them, and shall be far from justifying them, as a late Author hath done.  
St. Epiphanius observes in Ancorat. n. 21. that there were Copies of St. Luke where they had cut off what was said of Jesus Christ's weeping, chap. 19.42. But he adds, That this was found in the most correct Copies, and makes use of St. Irenaeus's Authority, who relates this Passage in his first Book against Heresies, cap. 21. to show that 'tis true. He believes that it was some of the Orthodox who had left out those Words through scrupulousness, as fearing that it might appear to be Weakness in Jesus Christ.  
It is, perhaps, for the same Reason, that in some Greek and Latin Copies of the Gospel of St. Luke, the History related, cap. 22. v. 43, and 44. of the Angel which appeared to our Lord in the Garden of Olives, of his Agony, and sweeting Blood, is left out. St. Hilary says, that that Passage was not found in many Greek and Latin Copies. Nec merely ignorandum nobis est in Graecis& Latinis codicibus complurimis, vel de adveniente Angelo, vel de sudore sanguineo nihil scriptum reperiri. St. Jerome also quoting this Place in his 2d Book against the Pelagians, says only, that 'tis found in some Greek and Latin Copies: Which supposes that it was not in divers others. But we are to have more regard to the Testimonies of St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and other ancient Fathers who quote it, than to some Manuscripts from whence some Christians might perhaps have retrenched it, because they were afraid of ascribing to Jesus Christ Marks of human Weakness.  
The Cambridge Manuscript differs much more from our Copies in this Gospel than the rest; but it is visible, that they are either Paraphrases, Explanations, Transpositions, or Additions taken from other Gospels. Amongst those Differences there be two which are most considerable. The first is in cap. 3. where the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, until David, is reformed according to that of St. Matthew; to which they have added the Kings Achazias, Joash, and Amasias, that are not in St. Matthew, but in the Book of the Kings. It cannot be said, that this is the ancient reading of the Text of St. Luke, and that that which we have is corrupted, since the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke were from all Antiquity different in the Genealogies of Jesus Christ, as we are informed by Africanus and St. Irenaeus. The Pagans, the Marcionites, and Manichees, have upbraided the Christians with this seeming contrariety, who never answered them, that the Copies of St. Luke were false in this place. Since this Answer had been the most ready and easy, they would not have omitted it had there been any Foundation for it: Or, at least, they would have observed that there were Copies wherein those Genealogies agreed. Yet never any of the Ecclesiastical Authors, nor Commentators knew any thing of this Observation; which makes it evident, that not only this Conformity of the Gospel of St. Luke with that of St. Matthew in the Genealogies is not ancient, but also that 'twas not common, and that it hath been peculiar to this Cambridge Copy.  
The second considerable Difference of that Copy in the Gospel of St. Luke is an Addition which is found, ch. 6. v. 5. in those Terms, That same Day Jesus having seen a Man who worked on the Sabbath-Day, he said to him, My Friend, if thou knowest what thou dost, thou art happy; but if thou dost not know, thou art unhappy, and a Transgressor of the Law. This Addition is not found in any other Copy: None of the Ecclesiastical Authors have made mention of it: Nor can we understand the Sense of it: For if our Lord would say to that Man, That he should not sin by Working on the Sabbath-Day, if he knew that he was not forbid to work on that Day, 'tis a manifest Error, because 'tis certain, that the Jews were obliged to observe the Sabbath, since God had commanded it them by Moses, and that they were not yet discharged from the Obligation to observe the Law. This may give us Ground to believe that it was an Addition of the Marcionites or Manichees, Enemies to the Law, which had crept into the Cambridge Copy: Nevertheless St. Epiphanius does not place it amongst the Passages added or altered in the Gospel of St. Luke by the Marcionites. We don't red, that those heretics made use of it, nor that the Fathers explained it, or observed that they found it in any Copies. 'twas not then in many Greek and Latin Copies of the first Ages of the Church.   

SECT. VI. The Life of St. John. Concerning his Gospel. The History of the Woman taken in Adultery.  
ST. John the Evangelist, a Native of Bethsaida in Galilee, Son of Zebedee, a Fisherman, and of Salome 
And of Salome.] The Name of the Mother of Zebedees Children, is known by comparing Matthew 27.55. with Mark 15.40. for 'tis said in the first Place, That the Mother of Zebedees Children was near the across; and in the second Place, 'tis said, That Salome was one of those that stood by. This Salome must be the Mother of Zebedees Children, of whom St. Mark makes no mention. , was called by our Lord 
He was called by our Lord.] There are some who pretend, that John came to seek our Saviour before, and that he is the Disciple of St. John Baptist, who came with St. Andrew, John 1.40. St. Chrysostome, Hom. 17. on John, St. Epiphanius, Heres. 51. Cap. 14. are of that Opinion; but this is not proved. , with his Brother James, at the time when they were mending their Nets on the Bank of the Sea of Galilee. They forthwith left their Father, and their way of Living, to follow Jesus Christ, who having ranked them amongst his Apostles, gave them the Name of Boanerges, that is to say, Sons of Thunder, perhaps because of their fiery and vehement Zeal, of which they gave a certain Evidence, when they demanded Fire from Heaven upon the Samaritans, who would not receive them. St. John was then very young 
Was then very young.] The Time of his Death is a convincing Proof of it. . He was his Master's beloved Disciple, and describes himself by that Name 
He describes himself by that Name.] We cannot doubt of it, because in the last Chapter, v. 20. 'tis said, That Peter turning about, saw the Disciple whom Jesus loved, who learned upon his Breast at Supper, and said, Lord, who is he that shall betray thee? And by the Consequence, it appears, that it was of John, the Author of the Gospel, that this is said, Ver. 24. This is the Disciple which testifieth of these Things, and wrote these things.  in his Gospel, Chap. 13. v. 23. c. 19. v. 26. c. 20. v. 2.& c. 21. v. 20. He was willing to give his Master a Proof of his Zeal, by preventing a Person who was none of his Disciples, from casting out Devils in the Name of Jesus Christ. He assisted with his Brother at the Transfiguration, Luke 9.51, 56. He was sent to St. Peter to prepare the last Passover for our Lord. During Supper, he learned upon his Breast, and took the Liberty to ask him, Who it was that should betray him: Which St. Peter dared not to do. He accompanied our Lord to the Garden of Olives, with St. Peter and St. James. He followed him alone to his very across 
He followed Jesus Christ to his across.] 'tis said in the Gospel, That all the Apostles fled when Jesus was apprehended. Yet St. Chrysostome pretends, Hom. 85. that St. John did not flee. He was of Opinion, as well as St. Jerome, that 'twas he who followed Jesus Christ to Cajapha's House, and got St. Peter let in; but that is not certain. St. Ambrose says on Ps. 36. that St. John was that young Man who fled away naked for fear of being taken with Jesus. St. Gregory follows this Opinion in his Morals, Lib. 14. so Bede, and many others. Nevertheless this hath no manner of Probability. It was probably some Person in the Neighbouring House, who being awaked by the Noise, fled out of his Bed naked. , where our Lord recommended his Mother to him, by saying to her, Woman, behold thy Son; and to that beloved Disciple, Behold your Mother: After which time St. John took her Home to his House 
St. John took her Home to his own House.] The Greek has it, {αβγδ}, the Latin in sua, some Copies have it in suam, but it is a Fault, {αβγδ}, in the Greek of Esther 5.10. and 6.12. is put instead of the Hebrew Word, which signifies into his House, In Acts 21.6. to signify that the Believers who accompanied St. Paul to the shore, returned to their own Houses; the Greek has it {αβγδ}. St. Epiphanius understands this Place so, and makes use of it to prove that the Virgin was not married, For if she had, says he, she would have gone Home to her own House, and not with a Stranger. St. Ambrose says in his Book of the Education of Virgins, Cap. 7. That there was no Body with whom she could better live, than with him whom she knew to be her Son's Heir, and a Faithful observer of Chastity. In the Council of Ephesus it is said, in speaking of the City of Ephesus, {αβγδ}, where St. John the Divine and the Virgin, the Mother of God, the Holy Mary. Some supply the Verb, dwelled, others reposed; but however it be understood it follows that the Virgin went with St. John to Ephesus, and dwelled with him. Nonnius says also in his Paraphrase, that St. John received the Virgin into his House. The ablest of the Modern Interpreters, are of the same Opinion. 'tis not however necessary to suppose that St. John had a House to himself. , and took Care of her till the time of her Death. Being  told by Mary Magdalen, that they had carried away his Master's Body, he ran to the Sepulchre with Peter, and came to it first. He was the first who knew our Lord, when he appeared to his Apostles upon the Bank of the Sea of Galilee. Some Days after St. Peter having asked Jesus Christ, what should become of that beloved Disciple, he received this Answer, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Then went this Saying abroad among the Brethren, that that Disciple should not die: Yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall not die; but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? When our Saviour was ascended into the Heavens, he dwelled at Jerusalem with the other Apostles. After the Descent of the Holy Ghost, he preached Jesus Christ with St. Peter, and was thrice put into Prison. He was sent with St. Peter to Samaria to give the Holy Ghost to those that Philip the Deacon had converted. He preached in that Country. Afterwards he assisted at the Assembly of the Apostles in Jerusalem, about the Observation of the Law. This is what the History of the Gospels, and of the Acts, informs us of the Life and Actions of St. John.  
That which follows is not supported by the like Authority, but is reported however by the Ancients. He went into Asia Minor,( it is not known when, perhaps about the Year 70) 
He went into Asia Minor: 'tis not well known when; perhaps 'twas towards the Year 70.] 'tis certain, that Asia fell to his share; he took particular Care of it, as St. Polycarp, Polycrates, St. Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian assure us. The latter in his Books against martion, calls those Churches, Joannis alumnas Ecclesias, Eusebius and St. Jerome followed those Ancients, but none of them have observed the precise Time of his going to Asia. 'tis certain, that 'twas before the Persecution of Domitian; and 'tis probable 'twas after the Death of St. Peter and St. Paul, as the Acts of St. Timothy bear. He was not there when St. Paul left Timothy to govern, which makes some believe, that that did not fall out till 64, which we place in 57 or 58. Timothy did not die till after St. Paul. His Acts says that 'twas in 97. If that were certain, it must be that St. John came thither whilst Timothy was alive, and that Timothy should have been Bishop of Ephesus until the Return of St. John. 'tis certain, that in his Absence there was a Bishop at Ephesus, if the Revelation was wrote from the Isle of Patmos: But it is not certain, that it was Timothy, and that he was still alive. I am apt to believe that Timothy was dead, when St. John came to Ephesus.— Be that how it will, St. John governed that Church, and other Churches of Asia, until the Time of Trajan, as all the Ancients are agreed.  there he found divers Churches, and governed them a long time in Peace, until that under the Empire of Domitian, he was brought to Rome, during the Persecution in the 95th Year of our Lord. He was( if we may believe Tertullian) thrown into a Vessel of boiling oil, without receiving any hurt, but came 
Thrown into a Vessel of boiling Oil, without receiving any Hurt by it.] This is attested by Tertullian in his Prescriptions, Chap. 36. by St. Jerome, Lib. 1. in Jovin and in his Commentary upon the 20th of St. Matthew. Eusebius indeed says, Hist. Lib. 3. cap. 18. that he was banished into the Isle of Patmos; but he speaks nothing of his Journey to Rome, nor of his Punishment. All the Greek Authors are also Ignorant of that Fact, St. Jerome only relates it upon Tertullian's Credit.  out more healthful and vigorous than when he went in. He was afterwards banished to the Isle of Patmos, to work in the Mines there 
To dig in the Mines there.] Victorin Bishop of Petavia, and Primasius in their Commentaries on the Revelations say, that he was Condemned to the Mines. , if we may believe some of the Ancients. He returned to Ephesus after the Death of Domitian in 97. continued to take Care of the Churches of Asia, and lived till the time of Trajan, when he died the last 
In the Reign of Trajan, under which he died.] Polycrates, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian Eusebius, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostome, the Council of Ephesus, and all the Ancients assure us; that he died and was butted at Ephesus. This death is placed by Eusebius in the third Year of the Empire of Trajan, the 101 of Jesus Christ 68 Years, or thereabouts after his Resurrection; he could not be less then 94 or 95 Years of Age, supposing that our Saviour called him at the Age of 24 or 25 Years. This is the Age, St. Epiphanius assigns him. Others as Bede, say he was 98 or 99. The Chronicle of Alexandria says, he died in the 104th or 107th Year of his Age, others assign him 106, and some raise them to 110, some thought that he was put into the Sepulchre, but not dead, as St. Augustin Observes in his Treatise 124 upon St. John, but he rejects that opinion, as taken from Apocryphal Books. Others advanced that he was dead and raised again, this is the Sentiment of the counterfiet hippolytus of the most part of the Modern Greeks, and also of some Latins, his Opinion hath no other Foundation but the passage at the end of his Gospel, which he answers himself, saying that our Lord did not say this Disciple shall not die, but if I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee, for we must red according to the Greek {αβγδ} si and not sic, as it is in some Latin Copies.  of the Apostles, in the 101 Year of the Common Era, aged certainly above 90 Years, and according to some near 100. The ancients assure us, that he never married 
He continued unmarried during his Life.] This is not in the Scripture St. Irenaeus and Eusebius say nothing of it, but they quote Tertullian as a witness of this, and St. Jerome maintains it in his treaty against Jovinian. St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Paulinus and Cassian assure us of it. St. Augustin looks upon it as a Problem. , Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus says, that he carried a Plate of Gold on his Forehead, as Priest of Jesus Christ. He assures us also, that he celebrated the Passover with the Jews. St. Clement of Alexandria tells us a considerable Story of a Robber that he converted. Appolonius assures us, that he raised a certain Man from the dead at Ephesus. Tertullian observes, that he reproved a Priest who had forged the Acts of St. Paul and of St. Thecle. St. Irenaeus an unexceptionable Witness, assures us, That they had it by Tradition from St. Polycarp, that St. John having entred a Bath to bathe himself, and understanding that Cerinthus was in it, he retired speedily without bathing himself, saying Let us escape, lest the Bath fall upon us, because Cerinthus, an Enemy to the Truth is in it. St. Jerom says in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, that that Apostle in his old Age, was reduced to such Weakness that his Disciples were forced to carry him to Church; and that not being able to make long Discourses, he said nothing else in those Assemblies but this Sentence, My little Children, love one another; that those that heard him, being weary with his constant Repetition of the same thing, said unto him, Master, why do you always say that? and that he made them this Answer worthy of St. John, 'tis because it's a Precept of the Lord, which alone is sufficient if it be executed. This is all that we have from any Authors of Credit, concerning the Life and Actions of St. John.  
St. John wrote his Gospel the last at Ephesus, apparently after his Return from the Isle of Patmos 
After his return from the Isle of Pathmos.] St. Irenaeus Lib. 3. chap. 1. says indeed that he published his Gospel at Ephesus, but does not say whether 'twas before or after his Exile. But St. Epiphanius says it plainly heresy 51. The Author of the Synopsis ascribed to St. Athanasius, and the Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew ascribed to St. Chrysostom believe that he composed it in his Exile and published it after his return. , at the Desire of the Christians and Bishops of Asia 
At the desire of the Christians and Bishops of Asia.] St. Jerome in his preface to his Commentarys on St. Matthew, says, that St. John was obliged to writ his Gospel by the Prayers of all the Bishops of Asia, and by deputations from many Churches. Eusebius! Hist. Lib. 3. chap. 24. says only that he was prayed to do it by his Friends. St. Jerome adds that he would not undertake it, but on condition that they should appoint a public fast, to implore the assistance of God, and that the Fast being ended, St. John being filled with the Holy-Ghost, broken out into those Words. In the beginning was the Word, &c. . The Ancients give two Reasons for his undertaking it: The first alleged by Eusebius, in his History, Lib. 3. Cap. 24. and by St. Jerome in his Book of illustrious Men, is that having red the three other Gospels, he found there was nothing, but what was exact Truth in them, and approved them, but that there was wanting the History of the beginning of Jesus Christ's Preaching, until the Imprisonment of St. John the Baptist; and therefore to supply that Omission, he wrote his Gospel, in which he hath applied himself particularly to relate that History. The second is because he would confounded the Errors of Cerinthus and the Ebionites, of the Nicoliatans and gnostics then beginning to spread, by asserting the Godhead of Jesus Christ, and declaring in the beginning of his Gospel, That Jesus Christ was the Word that was God. This Reason is proved by St. Irenaeus, Lib. 3. Cap. 11. by St. Clement of Alexandria, in Euseb. Hist. Lib. 6. Cap. 14. by Victorin upon the apocalypse, by St. Jerome in his Preface on St. Matthew and his Treatise of Illustrious Men, by St. Epiphanius, heresy 51. and many others. This made St. Clement of Alexandria call his Gospel the Spiritual Gospel; and it is on this Account that St. Jerome said of the Evangelist, that he wrote of our Saviour's Divinity, in a very sublime Manner; and that he raised himself, so to speak by a Temerity, more happy than bold unto the Word of God itself. There be Pagan Philosophers who have admired the Height of this Gospel 
There are Pagan Philosophers who have admired his Gospel.] The Platonist Amelius related by Eusebius Prep. Evang, Lib. 11. chap. 19. having red the beginning of it, found it conformable to the Doctrine of Plato, and cried out, O Jupiter this Barbarian believes with Plato that the Word is the beginning, St. Augustin Lib. 10. de Civitate Dei relates that a Platonist said that what is in this Gospel concerning the Word of God, deserved to be wrote in letters of Gold. The Emperor Julian accuses St. John of having brought in Novelties into the Christian Religion in making Jesus Christ pass for a God which neither St. Paul nor any of the other Evangelists dared to do. Cyril. Lib. 10. against Julian. : St. Irenaeus observes, That the Valentinians made use of the Gospel of St. John to justify the Combinations and Generations of their Aeons; but that Gospel is so far from establishing them, that it convinces them of falsehood. St. Epiphanius tells us of a Sect of heretic he calls Alogians, that rejected all the Writings of St. John and particularly his Gospel, and ascribes them to Cerinthus, in which they are foully mistaken, since there's no Gospel more opposite to that heresy, which taught that Jesus Christ was a mere Man, than that of St. John, who teaches throughout, That Christ is the Word which was made Flesh.  
Tho' St. John was a Jew and of a low Condition, yet he wrote in very good Greek, according to St. Dennis of Alexandria. This Author says, That he was also very elegant in his Terms, his way of Arguing, and Construction: That there was nothing barbarous in his Discourse, and that there were neither Solecisms nor Idiotisms to be found in it, because God had given him both Knowledge and Eloquence: But at the same time we must confess, that he wrote with a great deal of Simplicity: If we seek for Elegancy in his Words, we don't always find it: There are divers Syriac Phrases in his Discourse: His style is not coherent enough, and he oftimes repeats the same Names, without making use of the Articles that were not customary to the Hebrews.  
The History of the Woman taken in Adultery, related in the 8th Chapter, that is to say, in the 11 first Verses of that Chapter, and the last of the preceding, were not explained by Origen, St. Chrysostome, St. Cyrillus of Alexandria, Nonnius nor Theophilact in their Commentaries upon the Gospel of St. John, which shows, that it was not in the Copies they made use of. Eusebius, as we have already said, observed, that Papias related that History, which was found at his time in the Gospel according to the nazarenes. St. Jerome alleging this History in his third Book against the Pelagians, contents himself to say, that 'tis found in abundance of Greek and Latin Copies of the Gospel of St. John. St. Augustin in his third Book of Adulterous Marriages, believes that it may be, that some Persons of little Faith, or rather Enemies of the true Faith, had razed it out of their Copies, fearing that it might harden Women in their Crimes in hopes of Impunity. Nonnulli modicae fidei, vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo metuentes peccandi impanitatem dari mulieribus suis; illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis. This Father owns it to be true, and explains it in his Commentary on St. John. St. Ambrose hath wrote a Letter on purpose upon this History: 'tis also found in the Evangelical Harmonies ascribed to Ammonius and Tatian. The Author of the Synopsis ascribed to St. Athanasius, owns this History. St. Chrysostom quotes it for an Example in his 60th Homily on St. John: But since he doth not explain it in its proper Place, 'tis supposed that this Example is added in this Homily. Euthymius is the only Person of the Greek Commentators who hath explained it; but he observes at the same time, that it is not found in the exact Copies, or that it was marked in them with an Obelisk, which shows, says he, that it was wrote afterwards. And it is a Proof of this, that St. Chrysostome hath made no mention of it. Neither is it in the Syriac Version. In short, there are a abundance of Greek Manuscripts, and those of the most Ancient, where those two Verses are not found, or in which they are marked with an Obelisk, or added afterwards. There are nevertheless many other Copies, where they are found inserted at first, and others in which they were added afterwards. It is observed, that they were in Ancient Copies. Sixtus of Sienna and Grotius believed, that that History was taken from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and inserted afterwards in that of St. John. Others pretend, that 'twas the Novatians who had razed it out of St. John's Gospel. St. Augustin, as we have just now seen, thinks they were good Orthodox People, that struck it out for fear their Wives should make use of it, to prevent that Chastisement, which their disloyalty might deserve. 'tis more natural to say, that from the first Centuries of the Church, there were Copies of St. John's Gospel, wherein that History was not, and others in which it was.  
Some critics have thought, that the Gospel wrote by St. John, ended at the 20th Chapter, in those Words, Jesus did many other signs in the Presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this Book; but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have Life thro' his Name. They pretend that those Words are the Conclusion of the whole Book, and that the following Chapter was added after the Death of St. John, by the Church of Ephesus. This hath no Foundation as to a great Part of this Chapter, but only for the 24th Verse, which saith This is the Disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his Testimony is true. This way of speaking seems to intimate a third Person, who speaks of the Author of the Gospel that precedes. Mean time, it may be said, that those Words, We know that his Testimony is true, are said by St. John himself, in his own Name and the Name of others. We know {αβγδ}, may also be put instead of {αβγδ}, I know, St. John made use of that same Phrase before, though in the singular Number, chap. 19. v. 35. He that saw it, bare Record, and his Record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true. This sort of Declarations are Proofs of the candour of the Simplicity and of the belief the Christians had in St. John's Fidelity. 'tis not then necessary to say, that there is any thing added to the Gospel of St. John.   

SECT. VII. Of the Books of the Acts of the Apostles.  
ST. Luke declares himself to be the Author of the Acts of the Apostles in the beginning of this Work, which he dedicates or directs to the same Theo philus, to whom he dedicated his Gospel. I spoken, says he, in my first Book, of all that Jesus did and taught. The Gospel is his first Book, the Acts are the second; the one contains the Miracles of Jesus Christ, and the other those of the Holy Ghost. In the first he wrote such Things as he had from the Relation of others; and in the second, those of which he had been in part an Eye-Witness. It is entitled Acts, {αβγδ}, of the Apostles, because it contains the History of what the Apostles did at Jerusalem, and at Judea, after the Ascension of Jesus Christ. He continues this History until the time that they dispersed themselves to preach in different Provinces, and afterwards gives an Account of the Sermons, Travels and Actions of St. Paul, until the time he was carried to Rome in the Empire of Nero. There we see the beginning of the Church in Judea, and in what manner the Light of the Gospel was afterwards communicated to the Gentiles, and carried by St. Peter and St. Paul into the remotest Countries. He says nothing of the Travels and Sermons of the other Apostles, because he had not been Witness of them, and could not learn them from his Master St. Paul. The time in which he finished his History shows us, that he wrote it at Rome, and published it at the end of the two Years that St. Paul dwelled there in his hired House; that is to say, in the 63d Year of the Christian Era. So that this Book contains an History of thirty Years, or thereabouts. It is wrote with Eloquence and Art. The Narrative of it is Noble, and the Discourses inserted therein Eloquent and Sublime. St. Chrysostom complains, That in his time Christians neglected that Book; and St. Jerome says, That all the Words of that Work, composed by one who was a Physician by Profession, are as many Cures for a sick Soul. Acta Apostolorum nudam quidem videntur sonare Historiam,& nascentis Ecclesiae infantiam texere: said si noverimus Scriptorem eorum esse Lucam Medicum cujus Laus in Evangelio fuit; animadverteremus pariter omnia verba illius ainae languentis esse Medicinam. Hieronym. in Lib. de Vir. Illust.   

SECT. VIII. The Life of St. Paul: Of the Time, Occasion and Subject of his Letters. That the Epistle directed to the Hebrews is St. Paul's: In what Language it was wrote.  
ST. Paul was called Saul, or rather Saül, from his first Name. He was an Hebrew, born of Hebrew Parents of the Tribe of Benjamin 
Of the Tribe of Benjamin in the City of Tarsus.] He says himself, that he was of the Tribe of Benjamin, an Israelite and an Hebrew of the Hebrews, Rom. 11.1. Philip. 3.5. Acts 21.& 29. He says to the chief Captain that took him, that he was a Jew of Tarsus, a Citizen of that City of Cilicia. He repeats the same thing to the People, chap. 22.3. where he says positively that he was born at Tarsus. Therefore he declares to the Tribune, that he was a Roman Citizen by Birth, Ibid. v. 25, 27,& 29. Some did formerly advance, That St. Paul and his Family were of Giscala, a little Town of Galilee, as St. Jerome observes upon the Epistle to Philemon, and follows that Sentiment himself in his Books of Ecclesiastical Writers, and that he was transported to Tarsus when that Country was ravaged by the Romans. But St. Paul says positively that he was born at Tarsus, and in that Quality a Roman Citizen by Birth: This City being honoured with that Privilege by Augustus, in acknowledgement of its Loyalty to Julius caesar and his Party against Cassius. Giscala could not be taken and ravaged but under Pompey and Titus. The first conquered that Country a long time before the Birth of St. Paul, and the second after his Death. The Year of St. Paul's Birth is not known: It is said in the Acts, That he was a young Man when St. Steven suffered Martyrdom, in the 34th Year of our Era. He might be then about 03; so that he was born much about the same time with our Saviour. We may judge from thence, what Age he might be of when he died in 65. The Author of an Oration upon St. Peter and St. Paul, which is in the 6th Volume of St. Chrysostom, assigns him 68 Years. , of the City of Tarsus in Cilicia, and in that Quality a Roman Citizen. His Father, who was a Pharisee, sent him to Jerusalem, where he was bread and instructed by Gamaliel the famous Pharisee, in the most exact manner of observing the Law. It is not known if it was at that time, or after, that he learned to make Tents. He was zealous for the Law of the Jews. He was one of those who rose up against Steven, and consented to his Death. It was he at whose Feet, the Witnesses who stoned this Proto-Martyr laid their clothes. This happened the first Year of our Lord's Passion, the 34th Year of the Vulgar 
The 34th Year of the Vulgar Era.] I put St. Steven's Death after the Passion of our Lord, and the Conversion of St. Paul in the beginning of the following Year, because it seems to me that all that is related in the Acts, cannot in any probability have been transacted all in one Year.  Era: St. Paul was then very young.  
After St. Steven's Death there arose a great Persecution against the Christians of Jerusalem, in which St. Paul discovered his Zeal against them. He went into the Houses, drew Men and Women out of 'em by force, made them be put into Prisons, and loaded them with Chains. He went into the Synagogues to get them punished, he forced them to Blaspheme, and made them be condemned to Death.  
This Persecution having scattered the Faithful into divers Places of Judea, they preached the Word of God where ever they went. Saul full of Threats, and breathing forth nothing but the slaughter of the Lord's Disciples, he persecuted them even in Foreign Cities. It was for this Design he sought Letters from the High-Priest to the Synagogues of Damascus, to the End that if there were found any of that Sect, he should carry them Prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished there. Being gone to put this Order in execution, when he drew near Damascus in the beginning of the 35th Year of the Vulgar Era, he was converted in that miraculous manner related Acts 9.22, and 26. He was baptized by Ananias at Damascus, and afterwards without having any regard to Flesh and Blood, which would have called him back to Jerusalem, he went into Arabia, as he says himself in his Epistle to the Galatians, chap. 1. v. 15. and having stayed there some time, he return'd to Damascus, and there preached Jesus Christ in the Synagogues. As he confounded the Jews, they had a design to kill him; and having for that End applied themselves to him who was Governor of Damascus, under King Aretas, at that time Master of that City, they engaged him to set Guards at the Gates of the City to apprehended Paul. But the Disciples let him down by Night in a Basket through a Window in the Wall, as he says himself, 2 Cor. 11.32. and as it is related Acts 9.25. He came from thence to Jerusalem( three Years after he left it) to see St. Peter, who was returned into that City, after having laid Hands upon, and given the Holy Ghost to the Christians of Samaria. He would have joined himself to the Disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a Disciple, because until that time he had stayed in Arabia or Damascus. But Barnabas having made him known, and brought him to the Apostles, he stayed 15 days with Peter, and preached boldly to the Grecians, who sought an occasion to kill him. The Brethren having Notice of it, brought him to caesarea, and sent him to Tarsus. He preached the Gospel in Cilicia, and afterwards in Syria for three Years; after that he returned to Tarsus, where St. Barnabas sought him to bring him to Antioch. They instructed there so great a Number of Persons, that it was then the Name of Christians was first given to the Disciples. At the same time the Prophet Agabus being come from Jerusalem to Antioch, foretold the Famine that was speedily to happen, in the fourth Year of the Emperor Claudius, before the death of King Agrippa. Barnabas and Saul were sent to Jerusalem to carry thither the Alms of the Christians of Antioch, and arrived there in the Year 
They came to Jerusalem in the Year 44.] It is certain that St. Paul and St. Barnabas came to Jerusalem after the Prediction that Agabus made of an approaching Eamine, which was to happen under Claudius, and that they carried the Alms of the Christians of Antioch for the Relief of the Disciples at Jerusalem. There were two Famines in the Reign of Claudius, one in the 2d Year of his Empire, and another in the 5th, the 45th of the Vulgar Era, at the time of Agrippa's Death. The Famine afflicted Judea in particular, as Josephus relates it, lib. 20. cap. 3. 'tis rather this than the first of which Agabus prophesied. Agrippa reigned three Years, and died about Easter in the 4th Year of Claudius; that is in 44, when he began to persecute. St. Paul and Barnabas came to Jerusalem in the time of the Persecution, and at Agrippa's Death, and by Consequence in 44.  44, at the time when that Prince persecuted the Disciples; therefore it was they saw none of the Apostles, and return'd to Antioch, having taken with them John surnamed Mark. When they were return'd to Antioch they were separated and sent by the Order of the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel. They converted in the Isle of Cyprus the Pro-Consul Sergius Paulus, and 'tis believed that 'twas from him that Saul took the Name of Paul 
In the Isle of Cyprus they converted the Pro-Consul Sergius Paulus, and it's believed that 'twas from him Saul took the Name of Paul.] Until this time St. Luke calls him always Saul; and it's only in this place that he gives him two Names, Acts 33.9. Then Saul, who is also called Paul. After that he only calls him Paul, and the Apostle makes use of no other Name in the beginning of all his Letters. It was the Custom of the Romans to give their Names thus to Strangers. Josephus for Example received the Name of Flavius as an Honour from the Emperor Vespasian. St. Jerome upon the Epistle to Philemon is also of Opinion, that St. Paul took this Name from the Pro-Consul, as a Mark of the Victory he had gained over him; as Scipio was surnamed Africanus, after the taking of Carthage. But this is only a Conjecture, and it may be that he did not take the Name of Paul instead of that of Saul, but because the Name of Paul was better known and more used among the Greeks and Latins than that of Saul; and since there was but one Letter to change, Saul having become the Apostle of the Gentiles, made that change in his Name that he might be the more acceptable to them. St. Chrysostom thinks it was God who changed his Name when he was ordered to Antioch, as he changed that of St. Peter when he called him: But we must have Scripture Authority to believe it. Nothing is more absurd, than what is said on this Subject by the Author of the 31st Sermon ascribed to St. Ambrose, viz. that St. Paul changed his Name at his Baptism; for at that time no new Names were given to those that were baptized: And he is called Saul by St. Luke after his Baptism. This is also against those who say he changed his Name, because he had changed his Profession of Religion, as St. Asterus believes. St. Augustin says, that he took the Name of Paul, which signifies little, out of Humility: But this is a playing with Words. Origen, or rather Rufinus, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, believes that St. Paul had both those Names from the beginning: There's no appearanee of this, because they are so like that we may easily see the one is taken from the other. I should believe then that there was no other Mystery in this Change, than a Design to render his Name common amongst the Gentiles by a small inflection, as from {αβγδ}, the Hebrew Name given him by St. Luke, when he relates the Voice of God, who calls that Apostle, Acts 9.4. that of {αβγδ} was formed, which hath a Greek Termination: After that, of {αβγδ} was formed {αβγδ}, a Name Customary amongst the Latins, when he began to converse with them at the time he converted the Pro-Consul Sergius Paulus. , because that's the first time St. Luke calls him so. After having preached the Gospel in many Places, they returned to Antioch in 48, where the Question about observing the Precepts of the Law being started, they were sent to Jerusalem to consult the Apostles and Elders on that Subject. This was the third time that St. Paul came to Jerusalem, 14 Years after the first time that he came thither after his Conversion 
Fourteen Years after the first time he came thither since his Conversion.] This is what appears more conformable to the Text of the Epistle to the Galatians: For, after having said in the 1st Chap. of this Epistle, v. 17.18. that after his Conversion he went into Arabia, and afterwards return'd to Damascus, and that three Years after he return'd to Jerusalem to visit Peter, he describes what had passed in that Journey; and so begins the following Chapter: Fourteen Years after I went again to Jerusalem. This after relates more naturally to his first Journey, of which he had been just speaking, than to his Conversion. , as he says in his Epistle to the Galatians; and, by Consequence, towards the end of the Year 51. The Council being finished, St. Paul and St. Barnabas returned to Antioch with Judas and Silas. 'twas at this time that St. Paul did freely reprehend St. Peter there, because he separated from the Gentiles, for the sake of those Jews which St. James had sent from Jerusalem to Antioch. A little time after fell out the Difference which he had with Barnabas, on the Occasion of Mark, that caused their separation. St. Paul having taken Silas with him, traveled into Asia and Greece, preaching Jesus Christ every where, till he returned to Jerusalem the 4th time, Anno 58. He was seized there by the chief Captain Lysias, and carried to Felix the Governor of Judea, who kept him Prisoner for two Years at caesarea, and when he went off, left him Prisoner to please the Jews. His Successor Festus being come to Jerusalem, three days after his arrival the Jews accused Paul before him. Festus being returned to caesarea gave him Audience. But as he was designing to bring him to Jerusalem to try him, Paul appealed from him to caesar. He was heard again some days after before King Agrippa, and afterwards went to Rome. Having suffered shipwreck, he spent three Months of the Winter in the Isle of Maltha, and arrived at Rome in the beginning of the Year 61 
Arrived at Rome in the beginning of the Year 61.] Felix, Governor of Judea, was recalled, and succeeded by Portius Festus in 60. Festus immediately after his arrival, heard Paul, who appealed to caesar and went to Rome that same Year. He arrived at the Isle of Crete when Navigation began to grow dangerous, the time of the Fast being over. That Fast was the great Fast of the Jews on the Days of Expiation, the 7th of their Month, which answers to the Months of September and October. He was shipwrecked 14 days after, and cast upon the iceland of Maltha, whence he did not go till three Months after, the Winter being over in the Month of February. He arrived then at Rome in the Month of March, An. 61.  He left it about two Years after. Many were of Opinion, that he traveled into Spain at that time; but we have shew'd elsewhere that this is very uncertain. It is more likely that he returned into Asia and Greece. Be that how it will, it is certain that having return'd to Rome with St. Peter, he was beheaded there during the time of Nero's Persecution, and probably in the 65th Year of Jesus Christ, as we have shewed elsewhere.  
We have 14 of St. Paul's Epistles, which all of 'em, that to the Hebrews excepted, carry the Name of that Apostle. They are not placed in the New Testament according to the Order of Time in which they were wrote. Those are placed first that were wrote to whole Churches, and afterwards those which are directed to particular Persons. Amongst the former, that which is wrote to the Romans has the first Place, either because of the Dignity of that Church, or because of the Subject. The Epistle to the Hebrews is the last, because it does not bear the Name of St. Paul, and that 'twas doubted of old whether it was his. Nevertheless, the Author of the Synopsis ascribed to St. Athanasius puts it in the 10th Place; that is to say, the last of those which are wrote to whole Churches, and before the four directed to particular Persons. He also puts the caconical Epistles before those of St. Paul; but the Order in which those Epistles are placed at present, is the most common in Antiquity, as may be proved by St. Jerome, by the ancient Commentators, and by all the Greek and Latin Manuscripts. We will follow this Order, but observing, nevertheless, the Time when these Letters were wrote, to the End the Subject and Occasion of 'em may be the better known.  
The Epistle to the Romans is wrote from Corinth, as Origen proves by many Reasons: For, in the first place, it was sent by Phebe, a Servant of the Church of Cenchrea, the Port of Corinth. Secondly, St. Paul names his Host, Caius cap. 16. v. 24. who dwelled at Corinth, as appears by the first Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, v. 14. Thirdly, Because amongst those whose Salutations he sends, chap. 16. he names Timothy and Sosipater, who were in his Company when he came from Achaia to Jerusalem, Acts 20.4. Caius and Erastus who were at Corinth. Fourthly, Because he says in that Epistle, chap. 15. v. 25. That he is going to Jerusalem to carry the Saints the Alms he had collected. Now it is certain, that at his leaving Ephesus, he went by Macedonia and Achaia to go to Jerusalem, Acts 19.20. and that after having been sometime in Macedonia he came into Greece, and apparently to Corinth, where he stayed three Months, Acts 2. v. 2, 3. and afterwards he went up to Jerusalem. It was probably during this stay of three Months that he wrote his Letter to the Romans, towards the End of the Year 57, or in the beginning of the 58th of our Era, after the two Epistles to the Corinthians, since he exhorts them in the 2d to get ready that Alms or Contribution that was designed for the Christians of Jerusalem. In that Letter he gives Notice to the Corinthians, that he was about to come and see them the third time, c. 13. v. 1. He came then to Corinth, and spent part of the three Months there which St. Luke said he stayed in Greece, Acts 20.2.  
This Epistle is wrote to the Church of Rome, composed of Jews and gentle Converts, on occasion of the Difference that might be betwixt them upon the Account of pference. The Jews boasting that God had given them the Law and the Prophets, that they had adored the true God, that 'twas to them the Messiah was promised, and that he was descended of their Nation. The Gentiles on the contrary maintaining, That tho' they were not so much enlightened by God as the Jews, yet their Philosophers knew him; that if the Messiah had been promised and given to them, they had rejected him; and that the greatest part of them continued Unbelievers. St. Paul makes it plain, that neither the one nor the other have any Cause of Glory; the Gentiles, because the wisest among them having known the true God by the Light of Nature, had not honoured him, but gave themselves up to Idolatry: And the Jews, because they had not kept the Law, nor made use of the Advantages which they had thereby; and he confounds both of them, by showing that they are only justified by Faith in Jesus Christ; to which God in his Mercy had called both Jews and Gentiles, without any Merit in either of them. After having treated this Question in the 11 first Chapters, in the five last he gives Instructions to the Christians, to whom he writes.  
The first Epistle to the Corinthians is wrote from Ephesus, as appears by chap. 16.18.( and not from Philippi, as 'tis observed in some Greek Inscriptions) in the time when he went to go for Macedonia. Ibid. v. 5. and some time before Pentecost, in the Year 57. He speaks there of the Fight he had maintained against Beasts at Ephesus; which made some modern Greeks believe he had been exposed to wild Beasts. But this Expression of St. Paul is Figurative, and he means thereby, that at Ephesus he had Men to fight with that were as cruel as Beasts. As when he says in the Epistle to Timothy, that he was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion, to signify the Cruelty of Nero: In that same Sense that St. Ignatius says also in his Epistle to the Romans, that he fought continually with Beasts from Syria to Rome; that is to say, that the Guards sent with him, were as cruel to him as wild Beasts. It is so likewise that Tertullian, St. Chrysostom, Theophilact, Oecumenius, the Author of the Commentary ascribed to St. Ambrose, Sedulius, and many others, understand that Passage. St. Jerome in the third Book of his Commentary on the Ephesians, explains these Words of St. Paul, of the Devil, and of his Guards; but that is not natural. St. Chrysostom understands this positively of the Tumult raised against St. Paul at Ephesus, by the Goldsmith Demetrius. If that be true, this Letter should have been wrote a little time before his departure, for he did not stay there long after that Tumult: But 'tis more likely that 'twas wrote some time before, since he speaks in the 2d Epistle to the Corinthians, of the Evils he had suffered; and that he changed the Design he had of going strait into Achaia, before he went over into Macedonia. So that his Fight with Beasts must he understood of some other Persecution.  
The Occasion of St. Paul's writing this Letter, was his understanding by Stephanus, Fortunatus and Achaicus, who came from Corinth to see him at Ephesus, and by the News he had received from the Family of Chloe, that there were Disputes amongst the Corinthians on the Account of Apollo, the converted Jew, who had been to preach at Corinth after St. Paul left it. There they had formed to themselves several other Heads of Parties besides St. Paul: Which occasioned some of them to say, I am of Paul; and others, I am of Apollo; and a third, I am of Cephas.  
St. Paul reproves them for this Affectation, and teaches them that they must not say, I am of this or that Man, but I am of Jesus Christ. That Ministers ought not to boast, or to ascribe to their own Eloquence or Knowledge, the Conversion of the People. He shows that God did not convert the World by this human Wisdom, but by the Preaching of the Foolishness of the across. He reprehends them for entertaining amongst them an incestuous Person, and for going to Law one with another. He answers the Questions they had proposed to him, concerning Marriage, Celibacy, and Meats offered to Idols. He speaks afterwards of his own Impartiality in the Ministry, of Christians being united in one Body, of the last Supper of our Lord, and of the Disposition we must be in for eating of that Supper, of the Veils which the Women were to wear, of the different Gifts of the Holy Ghost, of the Excellency of Charity, of the Gift of Tongues, and of Prayer in a known Tongue, of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Resurrection. In fine, he recommends to them the preparing of Alms, and promises to see them in a little time.  
Some Authors have concluded from a Passage of this Epistle, chap. 5. v. 10, 11. that St. Paul had wrote a Letter to the Corinthians before this, because in the place just now quoted he says to them, I have wrote to you in my Letter, not to keep Company with Fornicators, &c. But, as St. Chrysostom observes, the Letter he speaks of in that place, is the same he was then writing, and the Sense is, When I just now bid you in this Letter, not to keep Company with Fornicators; I don't understand it of the Fornicators that are amongst the Gentiles, but of those that are accounted Brethren; that is to say, Christians. For the prohibition of entertaining any Commerce with Fornicators, mentioned in this place, is in the beginning of this very Chapter.  
St. Paul before he wrote his first Letter to the Corinthians, had sent Timothy into Macedonia, Acts 19.22. and recommends him to the Corinthians, in case he come to them, 1 Cor. 16.11. He had returned again to St. Paul when that Apostle wrote his 2d Letter to the Corinthians: It's in the Name of both. He was then in Macedonia, for he excuses himself in the beginning of that Letter, that he went to Macedonia before he came to Corinth; and he says, that being come to Troas to preach the Gospel there, he was troubled that he did not find Titus there, whom he had sent to Corinth, and who had passed that way into Macedonia; where he adds, That he was comforted by the arrival of Titus, who had brought him News from Corinth, and signified the desire they had to see him again. He had understood by him, that some of the Christians of Corinth complained of his not coming to see them as he had promised, that they had put away the incestuous Person, and were resolved to contribute to the Saints at Jerusalem. St. Paul being informed of those things, thought he ought to writ a 2d Letter to them, by which he excuses his not coming directly to Corinth, for fear of occasioning their Sorrow. He commended the Zeal they had shew'd against the incestuous Person, and allowed them to be reconciled to him. He justifies his Conduct in the Ministry of the Gospel, and speaks of the Dignity, Obligations, virtues and Persecutions of the Ministers of the same. He exhorts them by the Example of those of Macedonia to contribute liberally and cheerfully. He declaims against the false Apostles, who seduced the Corinthians and estranged them from him. He is obliged in his own Defence to Glory of his Revelations of his Sufferings, and of his not seeking his own things. In a word, he speaks to them with Authority, and testifies that he was as firm and bold as ever. He sent this Letter by Titus, whom he prayed to return to Corinth, accompanied by two of his Brethren. It is directed to the Church of God which is at Corinth, and to all the Saints which are in Achaia; and wrote from Macedonia, perhaps a City of Philippi, as the Inscription has it, towards the middle of the Year 57.  
The Epistle to the Galatians was wrote some time afore, nay, even before the first to the Corinthians, where, chap. 16.1. he recommends to them, as to the Contribution which was gathering for the Saints at Jerusalem, that they should use the same Method he had appointed to the other Churches of Galatia; which seems to refer to what he had wrote to the Galatians, chap. 15.25,& 26. to do good when they had opportunity, but especially to the Houseshold of Faith. This points clearly enough at the Christians of Jerusalem, and by Consequence this Letter was wrote at the time when they collected that Charity towards the end of the Year 56 or 57. Tertullian thinks 'twas wrote a long time before; but there's no probability of it. Theodoret on the contrary, and some Greek Inscriptions, suppose that it was much later, and wrote from Rome: But that cannot be, since St. Paul speaks nothing of his Bonds; which he does ordinarily in the Letters he wrote at that time; and that he supposes the Galatians had not been long converted, since he reprehends them for suffering themselves to be so speedily seduced. It's then more probable, that it was wrote from Ephesus, as some Latin Inscriptions have it.  
Galatia is a Province of Asia Minor, where St. Paul had preached the Gospel, after having left Barnabas, An. 51, Acts 16.6. and in the Year 54, Acts 18.23. Those whom he had converted were troubled a little time after by false Teachers, who would persuade them that the Gospel would be of no use to them, unless they were circumcised and observed the Law. Those false Teachers endeavoured to render suspected the Authority of St. Paul, who had taught them the contrary, by saying that he was no Apostle, that he had not seen Jesus Christ, and that the other Apostles were not of his Opinion: This is that which makes St. Paul vigorously assert at first the Truth of his Apostleship, and the Sincerity of his Doctrine, known and authorised by the Testimony of the other Apostles. He declares, that he was obliged publicly to reprove St. Peter, for his too great Condescension to the Jews. He brings afterwards divers Proofs, to show that Christians are no more Slaves to the Law, but that they ought to enjoy the Liberty of the Children of God. He concludes with many Moral Instructions. St. Paul had wrote that Letter with his own Hand, as he observed, chap. 6. v. 11.  
The Epistle to the Ephesians is wrote whilst St. Paul was a Prisoner at Rome. We cannot doubt of it, when we red what he says of his Prison and Chains, chap. 4. v. 1.& c. 6.20. But we are not certain whether it is in the time of his first or 2d Journey; that is to say, in 62 or 65. That which makes us believe it to be wrote during his first Journey, is that he sends it by Tychicus, who also carried that to the colossians wrote in that time. But we understand by the 2d Epistle to Timothy, wrote certainly during St. Paul's last Imprisonment, that he had then also sent Tychicus to Ephesus, chap. 4. v. 12. There's also one Reason which may induce us to believe that 'twas not wrote at the same time with the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, sent in 62; that is, that it doth not, as those two, bear the Name of Timothy joined to that of St. Paul, but that 'tis wrote in the Name of St. Paul alone. This Letter is directed to the Christians of Ephesus, the Metropolis of all the diocese of Asia: And there are still Greek Copies in which the Name of Ephesus is forgotten in the Greek, and where we red, {αβγδ}. To those who are Saints and Believers in Jesus Christ; instead of, {αβγδ}. To the Saints that are at Ephesus, and to the Faithful in Jesus Christ. This Omission is visibly a Blank, as St. Jerome hath observed. But the Title shows that the Letter is not only directed to those of Ephesus, but also to other Believers: And there's room to believe that 'twas a Circular Letter directed to the Church of Ephesus, for all the Churches of Asia: Perhaps it is because of this that martion had entitled it, The Epistle to the Laodiceans, as we understand from Tertullian and St. Epiphanius.  
St. Paul, who had laboured more than any other in the Conversion of the Ephesians, and dwelled three Years for that End in that City, as he went from Macedonia, prayed Timothy to stay at Ephesus, and to signify to some that took upon them to Preach in that Church, not to teach a Doctrine different from his, and not to amuse themselves with Fables and endless Genealogies. He was informed afterwards, that the Believers of that Church continued in the Faith and in Charity; but fearing that they should suffer themselves to be surprised at last, either by the Fables of the false gnostics, or by the Discourses of the converted Jews, who would oblige the Christians to observe the Law, he wrote this Letter to them to encourage them to continue firm in the Doctrine which he had taught them. To induce them to love and respect it, he sets before their Eyes the extraordinary Graces which they had received by the Redemption of Jesus Christ, and by the Faith which they had in him; and he afterwards gave them Precepts to live like Christians in all Conditions.  
The Epistle to the Philippians is wrote in the Name of St. Paul, To all the Saints in Jesus Christ which are at Philippi, with the Bishops and Deacons. Philippi was one of the chief Cities of Macedonia, where St. Paul had preached the Gospel, when 'twas signified to him by a Vision in the Night, that he must go into Macedonia, Acts 16. He returned thither afterwards, many times, and received from the Christians of Philippi, on several occasions, Marks of their Affection; chiefly, when being Prisoner at Rome, the first time, they sent him abundantly to supply his Necessity, as they had done twice before when he was at Thessalonica, chap. 4.10. and the following. St. Paul in acknowledgement of their Charity, wrote to them by Epaphroditus, who had brought him their Presents, a very affectionate Letter, in which he speaks of the Fruit of his Bonds, of the Love, of the Sufferings and of the Humility of Jesus Christ; which they ought to propose as a Model of theirs. He exhorts them to appear as the true Children of God, and as Stars among the Pagans that encompassed them. He strengtheners them against the Doctors of judaisme, and exhorts them to continue always subject to Jesus Christ, to be Enemies to Disputes, Friends to Prayer, humble and charitable among themselves, firm in their Afflictions, and full of Peace and Joy. It is wrote in the first Journey of St. Paul to Rome, at the end of the 61st or 62d Year, since he put them in hopes, chap. 2.26. that he shall see them again.  
The Epistle to the Colossians was wrote some time after in 62. The City of coloss, to the Inhabitants of which 'tis directed, was in Phrygia near Laodicea, 
The City of coloss was in Phrygia, near to Laodicea.] St. Chrysostom and St. Jerome are of that Opinion. It appears by that Letter, that the City where those inhabited to whom he writes, was near to Hieraples and Laodicea. Herodotus, Pliny, Xenophon and Strabo place one City of coloss in Phrygia. Theophilactus says, that in his Time 'twas called Cones. Those who say that this Letter is wrote to the Rhodians, called Colossians, because of the Colossus of the Sun which was in their iceland, advance a ridiculous Proposition. . St. Paul had not preached in that City 
St. Paul had not preached in that City.] This is what may be inferred from those Words of the first Verse, chap. 2. I would that ye knew what great Conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my Face in the Flesh. St. Chrysostom and almost all the Greek Commentators infer from thence, that those of coloss and Laodicea had not seen St. Paul. But Theodoret understands this Place otherwise, in this Sense. I have a great Care not only of you, but also of those who have not seen me. That is not however the natural Sense of the Text. It is true, that St. Paul preached in Phrygia; but, perhaps, he had not entred into the Cities of Laodicea and coloss. , but they had been instructed in the Faith by Epaphras, who came to see St. Paul, and being also made Prisoner there himself, had informed him concerning that Church. This holy Apostle writes to them to testify the Joy which he had at their Conversion. He advices them at the same time to continue firm in the Faith in Jesus Christ, and to take heed that they did not suffer themselves to be seduced with the Reasonings of human Philosophy, by superstitious practices in making differences of Meats and Days, and by the worshipping of Angels. He gives them afterwards an abridgement of the principal Maxims of the Christian Life. This Letter was sent by Tychicus and Onesimus, in the 62d Year of the Vulgar Era.  
In the end of this Letter, chap. 4.15, 16. St. Paul recommends to the Colossians, to salute in his Name the Brethren at Laodicea; and adds, that when his Letter shall be red amongst them, they should also red that of the Laodiceans. The Greek has it {αβγδ}, that which was wrote from Laodicea. The ambiguity of the Latin, which is rendered that of the Laodiceans, made some People believe that St. Paul had wrote a particular Letter to the Laodiceans. But according to the Greek Text, it is not a Letter wrote unto the Laodiceans, but from Laodicea. In effect, if St. Paul had wrote at the same time to the Laodiceans, he would not have charged the Colossians to salute them in his Name. Some have understood it of a Letter of St. Paul's wrote from Laodicea, and there are those who think it is one of the Epistles to Timothy. Others think it to be an Answer which the Laodiceans made to the Colossians upon St. Paul's Letter. It is more natural to understand it of a Letter which the Laodiceans had wrote to St. Paul, which this Apostle judged might be useful to the Colossians; so it is, that St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Photius and Oecumenius have explained this Passage: It is in this Sense that it is called in the Vulgar, The Letter of the Laodiceans. Yet Philaster, St. Gregory, and some Latins, believed that St. Paul had wrote to the Laodiceans. Formerly there was a Letter forged from St. Paul to the Laodiceans, which St. Jerome looks upon to be a Piece certainly forged, and rejected by all People: Quae ab omnibus exploditur. Tho' Philaster thinks it Genuine, he confesses that it was not red in the Churches, because the heretics had added some things to it. There's one at present to be found in St. Anselm, and in the others, that Sixtus of Sienna relates, and which is in some of the German Bibles. This differs from that spoken of by the Fathers, for it contains nothing Erroneous, whereas the ancient one was full of Errors, according to Philaster. That which St. Epiphanius quotes was composed of many Sentences out of the Epistle to the Ephesians. That which we have is not of St. Paul's Style: It is very short, yea shorter than the Epistle to Philemon, and hath no certain Argument. It is a Piece visibly forged. The first Epistle to the Thessalonians is also the first of all the Epistles of St. Paul. This Apostle having preached in Anno 52 the Gospel in Thessalonica, the principal City of Macedonia, was forced thence by a Tumult that the Jews raised against him, and went to Berea, and from Berea to Athens, Acts 17. Silas and Timothy dwelled at Berea, and returned to Macedonia, during his Journey to Athens. At his departure from Athens St. Paul came to Corinth, where Timothy and Silas being returned from Macedonia, came to see him, Acts 18. v. 5. It was from thence then that he wrote his first Letter to the Thessalonians in his Name and in the Name of Silas,( who is called Silvanus in the beginning of the Letter) and of Timothy, to congratulate the fervency of their Faith and Charity, of which he had heard by Timothy, and to put them in remembrance of his pure and disinteressed Method of preaching the Gospel amongst them, and of the Commands he had given them. He exhorts them to Constancy in their Persecutions, teaches them to mourn for their Dead in a Christian manner, and gave them excellent Instructions for leading a Christian Life.  
The second Epistle to the Thessalonians was wrote a little after the first, tho' Grotius thought that it precedes it, because St. Paul makes mention in this of a Letter that he had already wrote to the Thessalonians: Keep, says he, the Traditions which you have learned from us, whether it be by Word or by our Letter. It carries also the Name of Timothy and Silvanus, which shows that it was wrote not long after the first. He had promised to the Thessalonians in his first Letter, that he was coming to see them; and not being able to do it, he makes it up by this second Letter: And because some took occasion from what he had said of the Day of judgement in his first Letter, chap. 4.15. or rather, from a Letter forged in his Name, to make People believe that the Day of the Lord was at hand, 2 Thess. 2. v. 2. he gives them warning not to suffer themselves to be so seduced by those false Doctors; and assures them, that tho' the Mystery of Iniquity was working then, the Day of judgement however should not come, until the Man of Sin was come and destroyed. He likewise severely reproves those among 'em that were idle, disorderly and busy Bodies; and orders them not to keep Company with them, but to rebuk them. In short, upon suspicion that a Letter was counterfeited in his Name, that they might not be deceived, he observes to them, that he had signed this with his own Hand; which was the Token in every Epistle.  
The Letters directed to private Persons follow those that are wrote to whole Churches. The two to Timothy are put in the first Place, as being the most considerable. Timothy, whom St. Paul calls his dear and true Son in the Faith, was a Native of Derbe or Lystra, a City of Lycaonia, where St. Paul met with him in the 50th Year; his Father was a gentle, and his Mother called Eunice was a Jewess: He had a Grand-Mother called Lois. Those two Women had embraced the Faith before Timothy, and had instructed him in the Scripture during his Youth. The Brethren of Lystra and Iconium having given an advantageous Testimony to St. Paul, he desired he might come with him, and circumcised him because of the Jews. He was afterwards that Apostles Assistant in Preaching, and his Companion in his Travels. After having accompanied him in his Travels, and been sent on his Account into different Places, he was at last left at Ephesus, in the last Journey that St. Paul made thither as he traveled into Macedonia, to the end he might take Care of the Churches of Asia. These Matters of Fact are founded upon the Authority of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the Epistles of St. Paul, but the rest of his Life and of his Martyrdom being founded only upon modern and uncertain Acts or Writings, there's no relying upon them.  
St. Paul did not writ his first Epistle to him till after he had left Ephesus, in his way to Macedonia, as he says himself in the third Verse of the 1st Chapter. We red in the Acts of three journeys of St. Paul into Macedonia, in the first, Acts 16. and in the second, Acts 17. Timothy was with him, and he stayed at Berea whilst St. Paul went to Athens. In the third Journey, Acts 20. he had sent Timothy before him, Acts 19.20, 22. Timothy accompanied him into Asia, Acts 20.4. It is not then of any of those journeys that St. Paul speaks in this Letter, it must be a 4th, after his first Imprisonment at Rome. It may be said, however, and I am almost of that Opinion, That St. Paul left him at Ephesus, when staying at Miletum, he sent to call the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, Acts 20.17. for we red that as St. Paul went to go into Asia by way of Macedonia, Timothy was one of those that accompanied him to Asia, chap. 20.4. and we find Timothy no more in his Company, neither at Jerusalem, nor during his Imprisonment at caesarea. If it be so, Timothy was settled by St. Paul to govern the Churches of Asia in 58. and his first to Timothy should have been wrote, either during St. Paul's Journey to Jerusalem, or when he arrived at Jerusalem before his Imprisonment; for besides, that he speaks nothing of it, he puts Timothy in hopes that he will come to see him speedily; and that nevertheless, lest he should be hindered from doing it so soon, he writes him this Letter, to the End he might know how to behave himself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, chap. 3.15. This is the Occasion and Subject of this Letter, which contains excellent Instructions for those who are entrusted with the Charge of People, both as to the Duties of their Office and their particular Behaviour.  
The 2d Epistle to Timothy was wrote whilst St, Paul was Prisoner at Rome, and rather during his 2d Imprisonment than his first; for it appears plain enough by the Terms he makes use of, that he looks upon himself to be near his End, and as a Victim ready to be sacrificed, that his departure was at hand, and that he was in a little time to receive the Fruit of his Labours, chap. 4.6, 7, 8. He speaks also of his first Defence, in which he was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion. At my first answer, says he, no Man stood with me, but all Men forsook me; notwithstanding, the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, that by me the preaching of the Gospel might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear, and I was delivered out of the Mouth of the Lion. Eusebius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, in some Places, and Theodoret, understood this first Defence of his first Journey. St. Chrysostom seems to be of another Mind in other Places, and understands it of St. Paul's first appearance before Nero in his 2d Journey: But the other Opinion is better founded, and seems to be authorised by the more natural Sense of the Text. For St. Paul says, that in this first Defence he was delivered from the Mouth of the Lion; that's to say, he escaped the Cruelty of Nero; which he could not have said, if after this Defence he had still continued in Prison, and been in danger of being speedily condemned to die. He adds, That the Lord assisted him, that by him the preaching of the Gospel might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear; which supposes that after this Defence he had been to preach the Gospel elsewhere than at Rome. This Letter then was certainly wrote in his last Prison, a little before his Death in 64. There he gives further Instructions to Timothy, he exhorts him to preserve the Purity of the Faith, and to avoid Janglings and vain Questions, he fortifies him against Persecutions, foretells him that false Prophets will come, and describes the Mischiefs they will do the Church.  
Titus, to whom St. Paul's following Letter was directed, was a gentle converted apparently by St. Paul, and his Disciple. This Apostle brought him to the Council of Jerusalem, where some false Brethren would oblige him to circumcise him. He sent him from Ephesus to Corinth in 56. He came to see Paul again in Macedonia, from whence that Apostle sent him back to Corinth. This is all that is said of him in the Acts. The Letter which St. Paul writes to him informs us, that this Apostle left him, that he might set in Order the things that were wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, chap. 1.5. We know not when that was done. We don't red in the Acts that St. Paul had been in the Isle of Crete, but when he was carried Prisoner from Jerusalem to Rome. There's no likelihood that that was the time when he left Titus there. It is more likely, that it was in the last Journey that he made to Greece after he left Rome, and that as he return'd thither he wrote that Letter to him at the end of the 63d Year, to instruct him as he had done Timothy, in the Qualities and Duties of a Bishop. He informs him in that Letter, that he came to see him at Nicopolis, a City of Macedonia, where he was to pass the Winter; which makes it evident that he was in that City, or rather in his way to go thither. Titus came there and went with him to Rome, from whence he was sent back into Dalmatia, as is observed in the 2d Epistle to Timothy, 4.10. It's believed that he return'd into Crete and died there.  
The Letter to Philemon is the shortest of all St. Paul's Letters, and wrote upon a particular Subject. Philemon, who was a considerable Inhabitant of coloss a City of Phrygia, had been robbed by his Servant Onesimus, who fled to Rome. Onesimus met St. Paul in that City who instructed and converted him, and after having kep'd him sometime with him, wrote, when he sent him back to his Master, a Letter full of Tenderness and Art to reconcile him to his Servant. He directs his Letter to Philemon, to his Wife Appia, to Archippus and to all the Church which was in the House of Philemon. This Archippus was one of the Ministers of the Gospel at coloss, as appears by Colos. 4.17. He preys Philemon to receive Onesimus, whom he had begot in his Bonds not as a wicked Servant, but as a beloved Brother. He offers to satisfy for him, and presses him in very affectionate Terms to grant him that Favour. He tells him, that he would have kep'd him with himself, that he might have served him in his Bonds; but that he would do nothing without his Consent. Onesimus by this Letter easily obtained his pardon with Philemon. He was sent back to St. Paul, and carried a Letter to the Colossians. 'tis said in the Constitutions of the Apostles that he was afterwards made a Bishop. He is probably another Person than Onesimus Bishop of Ephesus, of whom St. Ignatius makes mention. This Letter was wrote from Rome in 61.  
The Epistle to the Hebrews does not bear St. Paul's Name in the beginning as the rest of the Epistles do. This is no Proof however that 'twas not wrote by that Apostle, since he might have Reasons for concealing his Name, particularly because his Name was odious to the Jews, to whom that Letter is directed. This however is probably the Reason, why some of the Ancients, doubted if St. Paul was the Author of it, and also whether it was caconical. It was always owned by the Churches of the East, and quoted by the most Ancient Fathers of the Greek Church. Some however, have doubted whether it was St. Paul's: Origen in a Passage of his Homilies on this Epistle related by Eusebius, Hist. l. 3. c. 25. says, That the style of that Letter seems to be more polite than that of St. Paul, who owned himself to be rude and plain in Speech. That this Letter appears also more elegant for the style of the Greek as they who know any thing of that Nature, will easily perceive. That it contains however admirable Thoughts, which are not unworthy the Writings, of that Apostle, as all those who have red them will easily judge. That for his own part he is of Opinion that the Thoughts are that Apostles, but that the style and Composition was that of some other Person, who was willing to collect the apostles Sayings, and to compose a Work of what he heard his Master say. Therefore 'tis, adds he, that if any Church think it to be the Writing of St. Paul, we have reason to approve of their Opinion, because it is not without ground, that our ancestors have taught us by Tradition, that it was St. Paul's; though none but God knows who wrote it. This is what History informs us of it. Some say, that Clement the Bishop of Rome, wrote this Letter, and others say it was St. Luke. St. Clement of Alexandria assures us also, in his Hypotheses, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was St. Paul's, but he said, that that Apostle wrote it in Hebrew, and that St. Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, and therefore 'tis that the style of that Letter resembles that of the Acts of the Apostles. He added, that St. Paul had reason not to put his Name to the Inscription, because writing to the Hebrews, who had a long time born a prejudice against him, and judging that he should become suspected to them, he acted prudently in not putting his Name to the beginning of his Letter. This Passage is likewise related by Eusebius, Hist. l. 6. c. 14. St. Jerome assures us in his Letter to Evagrius, that all the Greeks received the Epistle to the Hebrews; and in his Letter to Dardanus, that not only all the Churches of the East, but also all the Ancient Greeks Writers acknowledged it to be St. Paul's, tho' most of them believed it to be wrote by St. Barnabas or St. Clement. Non solum ab Ecclesiis Orientis said ab omnibus retro Graeci scrimonis Scriptoribus quasi Pauli Apostoli Sùscipitur, licet plerique eam vel Barnaboe, vel Clementis Arbitrentur. If St. Jerome understand by this plerique the Greek Authors of whom he was just speaking; it looks to be a sort of a Contradiction to what he advanced just before; for he says at first, that all the Greeks believe it to be wrote by St. Barnabas or St. Clement. But it is easy to reconcile this seeming Contradiction, by saying, that there were Greek Authors who believed them to be St. Paul's as to the Matter or even to the Original Hebrew, and St. Luke's, St. Barnabas's or St. Clement's, as to the Terms or the Greek Version. All the Greek Fathers who have wrote since, have quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews as being St. Paul's and caconical, and it was placed amongst the caconical Writings of that Apostle in the Canon of the Council of Ladoicea, and in all the other Catalogues of the caconical Books of the Greek Church. In process of time, the Arians perceiving that that Epistle was made use of against them, they rejected it; but the catholics defended it as may be seen in St. Epiphanius and in Theodoret, and the first Arians themselves quoted it against the Orthodox, as appears by St. Hilary and St. Athanasius. As to the Latin Church St. Jerome observes in his Epistles to Dardanus and in his Commentary upon the 6th of Isaiah, that it was not commonly received by many, Quam Latina Consuetudo, non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas. He says nevertheless in another Place in his Epistle to Evagrius, that all the Greeks received it and some of the Latins. 'tis certain that St. Clement, who is the most ancient Author of all that have wrote in the West, received and acknowledged it, since he quotes Passages taken from this Epistle, and Gobarus, as quoted by Photius, owns it. St. Irenaeus who wrote also amongst the Latins made mention of it, and quoted Passages in a Book which contained many Disputes, as Eusebius observes, l. 5. c. 26. Tertullian quotes it, but as the Work of St. Barnabas: I will( says he, in his Book of Chastity) bring ex superabundanti, a Testimony of a Companion of the Apostles, proper to confirm the Discipline of his Masters. We have the Epistle of St. Barnabas to the Hebrews. He relates afterward some Verses taken from the 6th Chapter of the Hebrews. Eusebius writes in his History, l. 6. c. 10. that Caius a Presbyter of Rome in his Book against the Cataphrygians, reckoned only 13 of St. Paul's Epistles, not putting that directed to the Hebrews amongst the rest. He adds that there are some Romans who don't believe that 'tis St. Paul's. Eusebius observes also in another Place, that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, because they say that the Church of Rome did not receive it, nor really believe it to be St. Paul's. Gobarus related by Photius, Cod. 132. says, that St. Hyppolite and St. Irenaeus maintained, that that Letter was not Paul's. As to St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, more credible than Gobarus, assures us, that he had quoted and revised it; perhaps he believed with St. Clement of Alexandria, that though the Original was St. Paul's, the Greek Translation was another Man's. For hippolytus we know not what his Opinion of it was St. Cyprian did not quote it expressly for the two Passages, which are marked as taken from that Epistle in the Engl. Edit. are in other Places of the Scripture. Nay, there is a Passage in the Treatise of Martyrdom, where that Father seems to exclude it from the Number of St. Paul's Epistles: For speaking of the Number of 7, he says, the Apostle St. Paul who mentioned that Number as Legitimate, and certain wrote only to 7 Churches. Apostolus Paulus qui hujus legitimi numeri& certi meminit, ad septem Ecclesias scribit. Those 7 Churches are the Romans, the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philipians, the Colossians and the Thessalonicans: If they had reckoned the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst the Number of the Apostles Letters, he should have wrote to 8 Churches. In the mean time it would seem that this Passage itself proves, that St. Cyprian owned the Epistle to the Hebrews as St. Paul's. For there he assures us, that that Apostle made mention of the certain and legitimate Number of 7. Now there's no other Place in his Epistles, where mention is made of it, but in the 11th Chapter of the Hebrews, verse 30. Victorinus in his Commentary on the apocalypse, reckons also no more than 7 Churches to whom St. Paul directed his Epistles. Philaster says, some maintain that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not St. Paul's, and that some ascribe it to St. Barnabas and some to St. Clement Bishop of Rome, and others to St. Luke, but he accounts this Opinion a heresy. St. Hilarius, St. Ambrose, Lucifer de Cagliari and Ruffinus quote the Epistle to the Hebrews under the Name of St. Paul. St. Jerome forsakes the Opinion of the Latins, who throw the Epistle to the Hebrews out of the Canon, and differs not much from the Opinion of the Greeks, who assure us, that 'tis St. Paul's. He adds nevertheless, that 'tis no Matter whose it is, since it is by one of the Churches Authors, and that it is red in the Churches: Nihil interest cujus sit cum Ecclesiastici viri sit,& quotidie Ecclesiarum Lectione celebratur, Epist. ad Dard. St. Augustin observes; as well as St. Jerome, that some People doubted of this Epistle's being caconical, but that the Eastern Churches receive it, and that their Authority weighs with him; and, in fine, that the greatest Number of Authors believe it to be St. Paul's 
St. Augustin observes as well as St. Jerome, &c.] lib. 16. de Civit Dei, Cap. 22. de quo in Epistola quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos quam plures Apostli Pauli esse dicunt. Idem. lib. 1. de peccat Merit& Remiss. c. 27. No 50. Ad Hebraeos quoque Epistola quam nonullis incerta sit, magis me movet Auctoritas Orientalium Ecclesiarium quae hanc etiam in Canonicis habent. Idem in Epistolam ad Rom. Cap. 2. Quod propterea maxim credo quoniam excepta Epistola quam ad Hebraeos scripsit, ubi principium salutatorium de industria dicitur omisisse, ne Judaei qui adversus eum pugnaciter oblatrabant, nomine ejus offensi, vel inimico Animo legerent vel omnino legere non curarent, quod ad eorum salutem scripserat, unde nonnulli eam in Canonem Scripturarum recipere timuerunt. said quoquo modo se habeat ista Questio, excepta hac Epistola, ceterae omnes quae nulla dubitante Ecclesia, Pauli Apostoli esse firmantur, talem continent salutationem. Idem. l. 2. de Doctr. Christ. Cap. 8. recenset Epistolam ad Hebraeos inter eas quae sunt Pauli Apostoli. . Therefore it is he places it in the Canon, as one of that Apostles in the 2d Book of Christian Doctrine, Cap. 9. 'twas also put in the same Rank in the Canons of the Council of Carthage, of Innocent I. and of the Council of Rome under Gelasius, and received unanimously by all the Churches of the West. This is all that we can find in Ancient Authors concerning the Authority and Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; from whence it results. In the first Place, that St. Paul's Name was not at the Head of that Epistle, because being hateful to the Jews to whom he wrote, he thought it prudence to suppress his Name. 2. That this Letter is as Ancient as the time of the Apostles, since St. Clement and the most Ancient Author's quote it. 3. That all the Greek Churches and most of the Latin Churches, did always own it as caconical. 4. That though some have doubted of it in the Roman Church, and perhaps also in the Church of Africa; There were in the same Churches Authors, who have owned it as caconical. That no doubt was made concerning it till the third Age, and that those Doubts concerning it ceased in the 5th. 5. That the Greeks made no doubt of its being St. Paul's, at least as to the Matter, or as to the Original, but some have been persuaded, that it was composed by St. Luke, by St. Clement the Roman, or by St. Barnabas, and others that it was translated from the Hebrew into Greek, by some one of those three. 6. That many Latins doubted, whether it was St. Paul's, and some have ascribed it to St. Barnabas, others to St. Clement, and others to St. Luke. 7. That taking all together, the greatest Number of Churches and Authors have ascribed it to St. Paul.  
If without insisting on the Testimony of the Ancients, we consult the Letter itself to discover it's Author, we shall find Circumstances that can scarce agree to any other than to St. Paul; for it appears it was wrote in Italy, since he salutes the Hebrews by the Name of Brethren in Italy, Heb. 13.24. by a Person who was in Bonds, but expected his Liberty, Heb. 10.34.& 13. v. 19. who had Timothy for his Fellow-Labourer, three Circumstances which agree to none but St. Paul. There are also places where the Character of St. Paul is observed in that Epistle. He defends himself therein by taking his Conscience to witness, Heb. 13.18. he desires their Prayers, promises to come and see them, and salutes them. They make use likewise of St. Peter's Testimony to show, that this Epistle to the Hebrews is St. Paul's; 'tis said 2 Pet. 3.15, 16. that St. Paul had wrote to those to whom St. Peter directs that Epistle. Now that of St. Peter is directed to the Jews, then St. Paul had also wrote them a Letter, for there's only this Epistle of St. Paul's that is directed to the Jews; so that either the Letter he had wrote to them must have been lost( which is no ways probable) or it is this of which St. Peter speaks. This Argument is not altogether without a Reply, but it may pass at least for a very probable Conjecture.  
'tis certain, that this Epistle agrees neither to St. Luke, to St. Barnabas nor to St. Clement; for as to the first he had not Authority enough to writ so to the Jews. Besides the style of this Epistle differs much from that of St. Luke. The Hebraisms therein are much more frequent, and it appears that the Author was a Man of consummate Knowledge in the Ceremonies and Mysteries of the Jews, which cannot be said of St. Luke, who was originally a gentle. There is no reason to ascribe this Letter to St. Barnabas. Tertullian is the only Man of the Ancients that quotes it under his Name. It differs in style from the true Letter of St. Barnabas, which is much rougher and far less elevated than this. We don't red that St. Barnabas stayed in Italy nor that he was Prisoner there. St. Clement is the Man of the three to whom it could seem to agree best, because of the Resemblance there is betwixt the style and Character of this Epistle, and that which is wrote to the Corinthians. 'tis true that there he hath copied and imitated the Phrases of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but yet 'tis not the same style. The Matters treated of in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the manner of treating them is very different. St. Clement would not have spoken with so much Authority to the Jews. He could not have pried so far into their Ceremonies and Mysteries. He would not have testified, so much Zeal to return and see them to whom he wrote, Heb. 13.19. 'tis objected against this, 1. That the style of this Epistle differs much from St. Paul's. All his other Letters are of the same Character. This is more lofty, wrote in Terms better chosen, in a more equal style. There are not so many Hebraisms in it. Here we meet with Terms, that are not to be found in St. Paul's other Epistles. 'tis answered, that an Author's style is not always the same, that St. Paul took more pains upon this Letter, than upon the others, that the Subject of this Epistle being more lofty, and those to whom he wrote more subtle and better instructed. He was obliged to be so much the more lofty. Besides here we may constantly discover St. Paul, here we find his ordinary Method, his Phrases and his Words, that are peculiar to him. 'tis objected in the 2d Place, that the Author of this Epistle quotes the Old Testament according to the Version of the LXX. 'tis answered, that if St. Paul wrote it in Greek: 'tis not to be wondered at, if he made use of the common Version of the Bible, and that if he wrote in Hebrew. 'tis the interpreter who made use of the Version of the LXX. The third Objection is founded on this, that the Author of this Letter seems to put himself amongst those who had only heard the Apostles, whereas St. Paul was instructed by Jesus Christ himself. The Passage they allege is Heb. 2.3.— If we neglect so great Salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him. But these Words to us relate to those to whom he writes, besides he does not say absolutely, that it was not taught by Jesus Christ to those of whom he speaks; but only that after having been promulgated by the Lord, it was confirmed by his Ministers. There's no reason then to exclude the Epistle to the Hebrews from being of the Number of St Paul's.  
The only Conjecture to be drawn from the Objection just now alleged, is that St. Paul had wrote that Epistle in Hebrew, and that it was translated by some other into Greek, perhaps by St. Luke or rather by St. Clement the Roman. This is what St. Clement of Alexandria said, and after him Eusebius, St. Jerome, and most of the Ancients. St. Clement's Reason is that St. Paul being a Hebrew, and writing to Hebrews; it is very likely that he wrote to them in their common Language the Syriac. Had not St. Clement known otherwise that this Letter was originally wrote in Hebrew, this Argument would be none of the most convincing, since St. James and St. John, tho' Hebrews and writing to Jews wrote in Greek, and that Greek was understood in Palestine. Those who allege that it was at first wrote in Greek, say that the Scripture is quoted therein according to the Septuagint, that here we find Greek Idiotisms as the Terms of {αβγδ} and {αβγδ}, to signify a Testament and to testify and the Interpretation of the Word Melchisedec in Greek, Cap. 7.2. but it may be answered that all those things are chargeable upon the Interpreter, and that it is not necessary upon that Account to vary from the Opinion of the Ancients.  
This Epistle is without dobut directed to the Hebrews. This Name agrees particularly to the Jews of Palestine. The other Jews scattered up and down in the Provinces of Greece to whom St. Peter directed his Letters, were called Hellenists. It may also be proved that the Epistle of St. Paul is wrote to the Jews of one and the same Province, because the Author promises to come and see them with Timothy. This could not properly be said of Jews dispersed into divers Countries and agrees much better to the Jews of Jerusalem or Palestine.  
The time of this Letter is likewise particularly enough taken Notice of, that it was wrote from Rome at the time when Timothy had been set at Liberty, and whilst St. Paul was in Bonds, or a very little after he had been set at Liberty. For he commends those to whom he writes, because they had Compassion on him in his Bonds, Heb. 10.34. according to the Greek Text, which bears expressly, You had Compassion on me in my Bonds, which signifies, that he was just then set at Liberty as well as Timothy. 'tis then at the end of the Time when he was first at Rome, and a little before he went from thence in the beginning of 63.  
The Design of St. Paul in this Letter is to persuade the Hebrews, of the Excellency of the new Law above the old one. To this end he represents to them how much the Son is above the Angels and Moses, and how much his Priesthood and Sacrifice surpass the Priesthood and Sacrifices of the Law given by Moses. He shows that the Ceremonies, the Sacrifices and the Observations of the Law were the Figures of Jesus Christ, and that they were accomplished in his Person and by his ministry. He proves, that 'tis only by Faith we are justified. He intermixes Holy Advices throughout his whole Letter and recommended to the Hebrews to have Patience in Persecutions to have Faith, Holiness and Charity. 'tis full of excellent Allegories, and of elevated thoughts expressed in a sublime Manner. In a Word, it is the longest of St. Paul's Epistles, the most Methodical, the most equal in all its Parts, and where he Treats of the same Matter in a most profound Manner, and with the largest extent. Nevertheless all the Epistles of St. Paul are learned, instructive, persuasive, noble and affecting. If his Terms be not always the most elegant, the Turn of the Expression is Great, Lofty, Grave, Sententious, Methodical, full of Art and Figures: He knows how to temper his Rebukes and Reproofs with Mildness and Charity: He speaks with Authority and yet with Humility. The Vehemence and Force of his Discourse have a Mixture of Pleasure and Prudence. In short he preserves thro' the whole, the Character which he gives to himself of becoming all things to all Men, that he might gain some: 'tis said in 2 Pet. 3.16. That there are in St. Paul's Epistles some place's hard to be understood. Which may rise either from the Obscurity of the things whereof he Treats, which hath given Occasion as St. Peter says further, to those that are unstable to wrest his Words, as they do also other Scriptures to their own Destruction. Or else it rises from St. Paul's style, which is not equally clear through out because of the long and frequent Hyperbatons, he makes use of, the Terms which are peculiar to him, his Expressions that have either more in them than is expressed, or that are Superfluous, his Transitions from one Matter to another, and some other Irregularities in his Discourse.   

SECT. IX. Of the catholic Epistles in general, and of that of St. James in particular. Whose it is. How many St. James's there are. The Life of St. James the Brother of our Lord, the Author of this Epistle. The Argument of this Epistle.  
THE Epistles which follow those of St. Paul were called catholic; that is to say Universal; because, except the two last of St. John, they were not wrote to the Believers of one City, as those of St. Paul, but to Christians dispersed into several Countries. Some of the Latins have called them caconical, either confounding that Word with that of catholic, or to signify that they also made up part of the Canon of the Books of the New Testament.  
These Letters are 7 in Number; that is to say, the Epistle of St. James, the two Epistles to St. Peter, the three of St. John, and that of St. judas. This is the ancient Order of those Letters followed in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea by Eusebius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius in his Festival Epistle, and by the Author of the abridgement of the Scripture, which is ascribed to him by St. Gregory Nazianzen, by St. Jerome in his Letter to Paulinus, by St. John of Damascus, by Nicephorus, and in all the Greek Manuscripts. The Author of a Prologue upon the seven caconical Epistles, vulgarly ascribed to St. Jerome, mistakes then when he says, that amongst the Greeks the Order of the seven caconical Epistles is different from that which is found in the Latin Copies. This Prologue is indeed very ancient, and is found in the most ancient Latin Manuscripts; but it is not St. Jerome's, as Father Martianay hath shew'd. 1. Because that Author gives to those seven Epistles the Name of caconical; which St. Jerome does not, but always calls them catholic. 2. Because what he says of the difference of the Order of the Greek Copies, and of the Latin ones upon this Subject is false. 3. Because the Style of this Preface is barbarous, and much different from that of St. Jerome. In this I subscribe to the Opinion of Father Martianay, but I don't believe with him that St. Jerome followed another Order in the caconical Epistles; for tho' Cassiodorus when he relates the Division of the Books of the Scripture, according to St. Jerome, puts the two Epistles of St. Peter first, the 14 Epistles of St. Paul in the 2d Place, and afterwards St. John's three, that of St. James, that of St. judas, and in fine, the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalyps in the last: It is visible that it is an overturning of the ancient Order of the Books of the New Testament, which Cassiodorus was the Author of, to follow the Rank of the Apostles. It is more sure to keep to the Order which St. Jerome observes himself in his Epistle to Paulinus. St. Augustin in his Book of the Christian Doctrine, enumerates also the Books of the New Testament in a particular manner, for after the four Evangelists he places St. Paul's 14 Epistles, St. Peter's two, St. John's three, St. Jude's, St. James's, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalyps. This is still an arbitrary Order, and different from that which was received in the Church. There are however Latin Manuscripts wherein St. Peter's two are placed the first of the seven catholic, tho' the rest be there in the same Rank. It is also the Order in which those Epistles were named in the Apostolical Canon, and in the Canons of the Councils of Florence and Trent. The vulgar Order is observed in the Oriental Versions.  
The Subject of the seven catholic Epistles relates more to Morals than Doctrine. St. Augustin rationally observes, that the principal Design of those Letters is to establish this Truth, That Faith cannot save us, if it be not accompanied with good Works. St. Jerome in his 103d Letter to Paulinus says of those Epistles, That they are as mystical as succinct, and may be accounted long and short both together; short in regard of the Terms, but long with relation to the Sentences; so that there are few Persons that understand them perfectly. It must however be confessed, that they are much clearer than those of St. Paul. Tho' some of the Ancients have doubted of the Canonicalness of some of those Epistles; that is to say, of that of St. James, the 2d of St. Peter, the 2d and 3d of St. John, and of that of St. judas, as Eusebius and St. Jerome have observed, they were nevertheless put in the Rank of the caconical Books, in all the ancient Canons or Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament of the Greek and Latin Church; such as are those of the Council of Laodicea, of Origen, of St. Clement of Alexandria, of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochus, St. Athanasius, St. Jerome, Rufinus, St. Augustin, the Council of Carthage, Innocent I, &c. They were commonly quoted by the Fathers as Books of the Sacred Scripture.  
The first of the catholic Epistles carries the Name of St. James. But for the better discovery of the Author, it is good to clear some Difficulties which may be raised as to the Apostles who were called James, and as to their History. The Gospel informs us, that St. John the Son of Zebedee and of Salome, had a Brother called James, who was called by Jesus Christ to the Apostleship with his Brother. It is also certain by the History of the Acts of the Apostles, that the latter was beheaded by the Order of Herod Agrippa. This was some time before the Feast of unleavened Bread, in which St. Peter was seized in the 44th Year of our Saviour. St. Clement of Alexandria, quoted by Eusebius, relates that his Accuser being touched in Conscience, was converted and suffered Martyrdom with him. St. James the Brother of our Lord is certainly different from him we have been now speaking of, for his Mother was called Mary, and his Brethren Joses, Judas and Simon: He is called by St. Mark {αβγδ}, i. e. minor or less, to distinguish him from St. James the Brother of St. John: And St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians distinguishes him by the Quality of Brother of our Lord. He was surnamed Justus, and was the first Bishop of Jerusalem after the Death of our Saviour. There he suffered Martyrdom in the 60th Year of our Era, as we have observed in another place. It is certain then that he is another than James the Son of Zebedee. But it is not so easy to determine whether he be different from James the Son of Alpheus, one of the Twelve Apostles, or if he be the same who is the Son of Alpheus and Brother to our Lord. To determine this Question we must inquire who were Father and Mother to James our Lord's Brother, and in what Sense he is so called.  
Most of the Ancients believed that he was Joseph's Son, but by another Wife, whom St. Epiphanius calls Esca. This is the Opinion of Origen, Eusebius, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Epiphanius, Amphilochius, of St. Chrysostom in some places, of the counterfeit hippolytus, quoted by Nicephorus, and amongst the Latins of St. Hilary, of the Author of the Commentary upon the Epistles of St. Paul, which carry the Name of St. Ambrose, of Pelagius, and some others. St. Ambrose and St. Augustin leave the Matter undetermined: But St. Jerome strongly opposes this Opinion, and maintains that St. James is called the Brother of our Lord, because he was Son to a Woman whom St. John calls Mary the Wife of Cleophas, and Sister to the blessed Virgin. Others say after Hegisippus, that Cleophas was Brother to St. Joseph and Father to St. James; or, according to others, Father to Mary the Mother of St. James. Be that in what manner it will, St. James will be found near of Kin to our Lord; which is sufficient, according to some, to give him the Name of Brother. We must confess, however, that the manner in which the Jews speak in the Gospel of St. Mark, seems to denote something more, for they say, Is not this the Carpenter the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, of Joses, of Juda and Simon, and are not his Sisters here with us? Mark 6.3. We see that his Brethren ordinarily accompanied Mary the Mother of our Lord, Matth. 11. and also our Lord, John 2. Which gives ground to think that they were of the same Family, and that Joseph and Mary were accounted their Father and Mother. Whence it may be inferred, that James and his Brethren were Sons of Joseph, who was believed to be our Lord's Father, but by another Wife, and that Mary the Mother of our Lord was their Mother-in-law: But there arises against this Opinion an Objection, that appears unanswerable; that is, that James and his Brethren had their Mother still alive at our Saviour's Passion, since 'tis said in the Gospel of St. Matthew, chap. 27. v. 55, and 56. that there were many Women ministering unto him; amongst which was Mary Magdalen, Mary the Mother of James and Joses, and the Mother of Zebedees Children. The 2d was, perhaps, she who is called by St. John, Mary the Wife of Cleophas, Sister to the Mother of Jesus. These are St. John's Words, chap. 19.25. There stood by the across of Jesus, his Mother, and his Mothers Sister, Mary the Wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen. It is also said in St. Matthew, chap. 28.1. and in St. Mark, chap. 16.1. that Mary the Mother of James came with Mary Magdalen to our Lord's Sepulchre. There's no likelihood that Joseph would have married the Virgin Mary, having another Wife alive; and, by Consequence, since the Mother of James was alive at the death of our Lord, it cannot be said, that he was the Son of Joseph by another Woman. St. Gregory Nyssen and the other Authors who maintain this Opinion, are obliged to say, That Mary the Mother of James is the Virgin, the Mother of our Lord, commonly called the Mother of James, because she was Wife to Joseph his Father, and by Consequence his Mother-in-law. Since mention is made, says St. Gregory Nyssen in his 2d Sermon on the Resurrection, of several Mary's in the Gospel, we must distinguish three in the whole, of whom St. John spoken when he said, There stood by the across of Jesus, his Mother, the Sister of his Mother Mary the Wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen; for we are persuaded that Mary, called in the other Evangelists, the Mother of James and Joseph, is the Mother of God. Anastasius of Nice, copied this Passage of St. Gregory Nyssen. St. Chrysostom is of the same Opinion in his 89th Homily on St. Matthew: Who were, says he, those Women? It was his Mother, whom he calls the Mother of St. James. Theophilus says also the same thing in his Commentary: And amongst the Latins, Sedulius must also be of the same Sentiment, since he says, that Mary the Mother of our Lord was one of those that came to his sepulchre to Embalm his Body. St. Jerome on the contrary combats this Opinion by many Arguments; in my Opinion the best of them is as follows. If, says he, this Mary had been the Mother of our Lord, the Evangelists would rather have given her this Name, as they do in other Places, than that of the Mother of James and Joseph. And certainly there's no likelihood that the Evangelists would have called her in this Place only Mary the Mother of James, rather than the Mother of Jesus. It is then with Reason that St. Jerome rejects this Opinion, but he supposes that Mary the Mother of James is the same with Mary the Wife of Cleophas, whom St. John calls the Sister of our Lord's Mother. Theodoret is of the same Opinion; and in that follows St. Chrysostom, who says in one place, that James the Brother of our Lord was the Son of Cleophas. That is not found, however, in any place of the Gospels. On the contrary, if the Brother of our Lord be one of the twelve Apostles, as he is thought to be, he is called the Son of Alpheus, and not of Cleophas. St. Jerome thinks the same Man was called Alpheus and Cleophas. This is a supposition founded on no Proof. Others think that Mary the Mother of James was called Mary of Cleophas from the Name of her own Father, and that so Cleophas was James's Grand-Father, and Alpheus his Father. St. Jerome also gives this solution, which is the only one that Theophilact approves. But Hegesippus, an ancienter Author than any of those now spoken of, assures us that Simeon, one of the Brethren of St. James, was the Son of Cleophas and Mary his Wife, and that Cleophas was Uncle by the Father's side to our Lord; that is to say, the Brother of Joseph, and that so James, judas, Simeon and Joses were Cousin Germans to our Lord and his Brethren on Joseph's side, who was reputed his Father, and his Brethren in this sense. So, according to Hegisippus, Mary the Wife of Cleophas was not natural Sister to Mary the Mother of our Lord, but only the Wife of Cleophas, and by consequence her Sister-in-law. And, indeed, there's little probability that two Sisters of the same Parents should be called Mary.  
Supposing all this that we have said of the Family of James, the Brother of our Lord: It is hard enough to determine if James the Brother of our Lord, be the same with James the Son of Alpheus, who is one of the twelve Apostles. The only reason to make it believed is, that the Brother of our Lord was one of the Apostles, as St. Paul testifies in his Epistles to the Galatians, chap. 1.& 17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were Apostles before me. And v. 19. But others of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's Brother. And chap. 2.1,& 9. Then fourteen Years after I went up again to Jerusalem, &c. and when James, Cephas and John, which seemed to be Pillars. Some Authors understand this last Passage of St. James the Son of Zebedee; but that cannot be, since this Journey of St. Paul's to Jerusalem happened after his death, a little before the Council of Jerusalem, where St. James the Brother of our Lord assisted as one of the Apostles. If he be an Apostle, he is of the Number of the Twelve. Now, there's none but two of the Name of James, the Son of Zebedee and the Son of Alpheus. The Brother of our Lord is not certainly the Son of Zebedee, he is then the Son of Alpheus: We might say, that the Name of Apostle was more general, and was given to all those who preach the Gospel with Authority: But the manner of St. Paul's speaking of the Apostleship of James the Brother of our Lord, makes us believe that he took it in another sense, for he declares that he was one of the ancient Apostles; in the same manner as St. Peter was, and that he was one of the Pillars of the Church with Cephas and John; all which cannot properly agree to any but to one of the twelve Apostles.  
Nevertheless, those who maintain the contrary Opinion might say, that St. James was an Apostle in an excellent and particular manner, tho' he was not of the Number of the Twelve, because he received as St. Paul did, his Mission from Jesus Christ himself: This St. Clement of Alexandria seems to insinuate, when he says in a Passage related by Eusebius, Hist. lib. 2. cap. 1. That the Lord after his Resurrection, had communicated to him the Gift of Knowledge, as to St. Peter and St. John. And St. Paul himself, speaking 1 Cor. 15. of those to whom Jesus Christ had appeared after his Resurrection, says, That he was seen of Cephas and then of the Twelve, after that he was seen of above 500 Brethren at once, after that he was seen of James, then of all the Apostles. St. Paul seems in this Place to distinguish James from the twelve Apostles: And thus it is that St. Cyril took this Passage in the 4 and 14th Catechesis. Many Authors seem also to have thought that St. James the Brother of our Lord and Bishop of Jerusalem, was not of the Number of the twelve Apostles. Hegesippus, related by Eusebius, lib. 2. cap. 23. says, That James the Brother of the Lord, took care of the Church with the Apostles. Or, as others translate it, after the Apostles: He did not then think him to be one of the Apostles. Likewise he does not only say, that there were two Persons called James. He says there were several. St. Clement of Alexandria, related by the same Eusebius, lib. 2. cap. 1. says, that St. Peter, St. James( the Son of Zebedee) and St. John, that our Lord had preferred before others, did not strive for the pre-eminence, but choose James, surnamed the Just, for Bishop of Jerusalem. Eusebius says himself, lib. 1. cap. 12. that James was one of the 72 Disciples, and one of the Brethren of our Lord. St. Gregory Nyssen distinguishes him more expressly than any other from James the Son of Alpheus; and he pretends also that the Reason for which our Lord's Brother is called the less, is because he was not of the Number of the Apostles. St. Chrysostom in divers Places ranks him amongst those that were not converted till after the Resurrection of our Lord. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, the counterfeit Dorotheus, Glycas, and the Modern Greeks, distinguish the Brother of our Lord from James the Son of Alpheus. Not one of the Fathers explained themselves clearly on that Head, except St. Jerome, who differs with himself about it, for in his Treatise against Helvidius he maintains strongly, That St. James the Brother of the Lord is the Son of Alpheus; but he seems to doubt of it in his Commentary upon the first of the Galatians, and follows the contrary Sentiment in his Exposition upon the 17th Chapter of Isaiah. The ancient Martyrology, which carries St. Jerome's Name, distinguishes also the Son of Alpheus from the Brother of our Lord. In short, all the Ancients may be quoted against the Opinion of those who believe that James the Brother of our Lord, is the Apostle; for the Brother of our Lord is, according to most of 'em, the Son of Joseph; and, according to these, he cannot be the Son of Alpheus: According to others, he is the Son of Cleophas, and not of Alpheus. It may perhaps be imagined that he was surnamed Alpheus, from the Name of his Brother, and not from the Name of his Father; as judas is surnamed from James, his Brother: But Alpheus is not found amongst the Brethren of St. James, of whom mention is made in the Gospel: According to Hegosippus, Simon the Brother of James was Cleophas's own Son, and Cleophas was the Brother of Joseph. He is not then the Son of Alpheus. If Alpheus, the Father of St. James the Apostle, was also the Father of Levi the Publican, or of St. Matthew, who had a Father of that name, as is observed in the Gospel of St. Mark, the Apostle the Son of Alpheus, the Brother of St. Matthew, cannot be St. James the Brother of our Lord, as St. James hath observed: But it is not necessary that Alpheus, the Father of St. Matthew, should be the same Alpheus who is the Father of St. James. It may also be said, that the Names of Cleophas and Alpheus are not different, because the Syriack Word, composed of the same Letters, may be pronounced Alphai or Cleophi. If this Conjecture find place, it will solve all the Difficulties that we have hitherto proposed: For St. James will be the Son of Mary the Wife of Cleophas, or of Alpheus the Brother of Joseph, and by Consequence Cousin German to our Lord. Simon, Judas and Joses will also be his Brethren; St. James the Brother of our Lord will be the Apostle called the Son of Alpheus; Simon the Canaanite, or zealots, who is also one of the Apostles, will be his Brother as well as St. judas, called by St. Luke, judas the Brother of James; and by the two other Evangelists Thaddeus: And so of our four Brethren, or Cousins of our Lord, there shall be three Apostles. This is all that we can think of as most probable on this Subject.  
Which Hypothesis soever we follow, it is certain that the Author of the caconical Epistle is James the Just, our Lord's Brother, Bishop of Jerusalem; and that it cannot be ascribed to James the Son of Zebedee, since it is directed to the converted Jews dispersed out of Judea, and that the Son of Zebedee was dead before the Gospel was preached out of Palestine. Eusebius, Hist. l. 2. c. 23. says, that the Epistle of St. James is ascribed to him, which is the first of the seven Epistles called catholic, tho' some think it to be false and counterfeit, and that there is but a very small Number of ancient Authors who have mentioned it. St. Jerome says also in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, That St. James, the Brother of our Lord, is the Author of this Epistle, tho' it be said that another Man published it in his Name; and he adds, that in time it acquired Authority. But tho' Eusebius and St. Jerome have observed that some Persons questioned the Authority of this Epistle; it is nevertheless true, that in their time it was in the Canon of the New Testament, and the first of the seven caconical Epistles, as they themselves own. It is also found in all the ancient Canons of the Greek and Latin Churches, and is quoted by the Ancients 
It is also found in all the ancient Canons of the Greek and Latin Churches, and is quoted by the Ancients.] It is in the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, of the Council of Carthage, of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, of St. Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, St. Athanasius, Rufinus, St. Augustin, Innocent I, &c. It was received by St. Clement of Alexandria, and quoted under the Name of the Apostle St. James, the Brother of our Lord, by Origen in his 3d Homily on Exodus, and in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. By St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphany, St. Jerome, St. Augustin, &c. We are not to wonder since it is but short, and contains almost nothing but Moral Instructions, that it was not quoted by the most ancient of the Fathers. .  
It is directed to the twelve Tribes scattered abroad out of Judea; that is to say, to the converted Jews, dispersed amongst the Gentiles in the several Parts of the World. St. James, as Apostle of the Jews and Bishop of Jerusalem, had a particular Inspection over the converted Jews: Therefore it is that in that Quality he wrote this Letter to them, which is all concerning Morals, in which he gives them excellent Instructions, concerning Patience, Charity, good Works, the bridling of the Tongue, the Peace that ought to be kept amongst Brethren, Humility, and other Christian virtues. Here he speaks also of Anointing the Sick, and of the Confession which Christians ought to make to one another of their Faults. It is wrote with abundance of Simplicity and Substance, full of solid and natural Thoughts. Tho' we don't positively know the Time, it's probable that it was wrote a little before his Death.   

SECT. X. Of the two Epistles of St. Peter: That the Second is really his.  
SImon the Son of Jonas, the Brother of Andrew, was a Native of Bethsaida a Village of Galilee. His ordinary Residence was at Capernaum. He was brought to Jesus Christ by his Brother, and our Lord changed his Name into Cephas; i. e. Peter. Sometime after Jesus Christ ordered him to follow him, and choose him for the first of his Apostles. It is not necessary to repeat here what the Evangelists have said of St. Peter's Actions during our Saviour's Life, nor what is wrote in the Acts concerning his Preaching and Travels: These are Things well enough known. We have also treated elsewhere of his Journey to Rome, and of the Martyrdom that he suffered in the 65th Year of the Vulgar Era, so that there remains nothing for us now to speak of but his two Epistles.  
The first hath been always received in all Churches as caconical, and being really St. Peter's, whose Name it bears. We have shew'd elsewhere that it was rather wrote from Babylon than from Rome, that it's probable he composed it some time after he was set at Liberty, towards the 45th Year of our Lord, and that it was certainly wrote since the time that the Disciples were called Christians; that is to say, at least nine Years after the Death of Jesus Christ. It is directed to the elect Strangers, scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia; that is to say, to the converted Jews dispersed in those Provinces. It was sent to them by Silvanus or Silas. Some have thought that it was wrote in Hebrew, but without Ground. It is all Moral, and contains abundance of Exhortations and Instructions for People of all Conditions. The general Design, as he says himself at the close of it, is to show that the true Grace of God is the Faith and Life of Christians. It is wrote with a Fervour and Zeal worthy of the chief of the Apostles.  
The Authority of the second Epistle of St. Peter was for some time doubted of, as Origen, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and Amphilochius have observed. That which made the Ancients call it in question, is the difference of its Style from the first. St. Jerome thinks the Style and Character of those two Epistles, as well as the Construction of the Words, differ very much; but he charges that upon the different amanuensis or Interpreters made use of. Et duae Epistolae quae feruntur Petri, stylo inter se& Charactere discrepant, structuraque verborum. Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diversis eum usum interpretibus. Didymus was of Opinion, that this Epistle was counterfeited; but it is because he did not understand the Sense of the third Chapter: That same Chapter made Grotius think that it was wrote after the taking of Jerusalem, because he speaks there of the ruin of the World, which was not to happen till after the Destruction of that City: Upon which he founds this Conjecture, That Simeon the Bishop of Jerusalem is the Author of this Letter, and that the Inscription which carries St. Peter's Name is corrupted: But this is without any Ground. It is not necessary that Jerusalem should be destroyed to persuade Believers that the End of the World and the Day of judgement were at hand. On the contrary, there is Reason to think that they were of Opinion that both were to happen at the same time, because Jesus Christ had foretold them together. The Author of this Epistle discovers himself in it clearly, not only by the Inscription, but by chap. 1.16, 17, 18. where he says, that he was present at our Lord's Transfiguration: And chap. 3.1. that this is the second Letter he had wrote to those now directed to. Those Characters show plainly enough that St. Peter was the Author of it. If it were not so, it must be said that the Author was an Impostor; which neither agrees with the Matter nor Manner of his Writing. It is also ascribed to St. Peter in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea, and in all the other Catalogues of the sacred Books of the New Testament which are in the Councils and Fathers. It is also quoted very frequently in the Greek and Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Age, as being really St. Peter's and caconical. St. Peter wrote it a little before his death, of which he speaks as being at hand, chap. 1.14. It is not directed to any Church in particular, but generally, to all that had obtained precious Faith through the Righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, since he tells those to whom he directs his Letter, That it is the second which he wrote to them; it must, as well as the first, be directed to the converted Jews, dispersed through the Provinces of Asia: Which may be further confirmed by this Passage, where he speaks to them as to those with whom the Prophesies had been deposited. We have, says he, c. 1.19. a more sure Word of prophesy. He exhorts those to whom he writes, to continue steadfast in the Faith, and not to suffer themselves to be seduced by false Prophets. He entertains them also with the Day of judgement, which was believed to be near, and recommends to them to prepare themselves for it. St. Jerome finds a considerable Difference betwixt the Style of this Epistle and the first, and charges it upon him who put it into Order. But this Difference is not so very sensible as he seems to imagine. On the contrary, here we find the same Energy and Brevity, and the same turn of Phrase and Periods.   

SECT. XI. Of the three Epistles of St. John. Of the Passage concerning the Trinity, which is in his first Epistle.  
THe first Epistle of St. John hath always been received by the Church as caconical, and being truly the Apostles of that Name. Tho' there be neither Inscription nor Direction, it appears by the beginning of Chap. 2. that it is directed to many Christians; and there's no Proof that it is rather to Jews than Gentiles. The Author of the Questions upon the New Testament, which carries the Name of St. Austin, says, That it was directed to the Parthians; which is also found in the false Decretal ascribed to Pope Hyginus: But those Testimonies are of no weight. It is not known when he wrote it, but it is probable enough that it was towards the End of his Life, because he mentions the Opinion that was then spread, as if Anti-Christ were ready to come, and that the Day of judgement were at hand, and that there he Combats the Heresies which were risen among Christians. He insists upon the Advantages of Faith in Jesus Christ; he exhorts those to whom he writes, not to suffer themselves to be seduced by false Teachers, and shows that they must to Faith add good Works, and the Love of God and our Neighbour, and renounce Sin and the World, to keep themselves Pure, as became the Children of God. This Letter for Matter and Style, is altogether like the Gospel wrote by that Apostle.  
The two other Epistles which carry his Name, have not been always so constantly received as that Apostles. On the contrary, some of the Ancients have been of Opinion, that they either were or might be wrote by another John called signior, a Disciple of the Apostles, mentioned by Papias. St. Denis of Alexandria assures us only of the firsts being the Apostle St. John's, but owns that the two other are ascribed to him, and says nothing against that Opinion. His Passage is related in Eusebius Hist. lib. 7. cap. 25. Eusebius leaves the Matter also in doubt; and St. Jerome seems more favourable to the Opinion of those who believed that those two Epistles were not that Apostles, but another John's, tho' he quotes them in other Places under the Name of the Apostle. Amphilochius says also, that some received them, and others rejected them. But St. Irenaeus in his first Book against Heresies, quotes the second under the Name of John the Disciple of our Lord. Which does not agree to St. John mentioned by Papias, who was only a Disciple to the Apostles. St. Clement of Alexandria relating in the second Book of the Stromata, a Passage taken out of the first Epistle of St. John, quotes it under the Name of his largest Epistle, {αβγδ}, which supposes that he believed the two lesser ones to be that same Authors. Tertul. lib. 2. de Prescript. quotes the second Epistle as being really the Apostle St. John's. A Bishop of the Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, for the wrong of heretics, quotes also the second Epistle under the Name of that Apostle. Those two last Epistles are also joined to the former, as being by the same Author, in all the ancient Canons of the Books of the New Testament, and quoted as the Apostles by all the Fathers of the 4th and 5th Age. In short, the Spirit, the Sentiments, the Style, and the Terms of those two Letters, are not only alike, but often times the same as in the first Epistle. There he recommends in divers manners, Charity and the Love of our Neighbour, the peculiar Character of the Apostle St. John, as the Ancients have observed.  
They both of them bear for their Inscription the Quality of {αβγδ}, which may denote the Age or the Dignity, and signify the Elder or the Presbyter, in the same Sense that St. Peter is called {αβγδ}. They are both directed to particular Persons: The first to a Lady, who is called the elect Lady, {αβγδ}, which some have without Ground understood of a chosen Church. She was a Christian Lady, whose Name was elect, or whom St. John calls so because she was a Christian. He writes to her to congratulate her, because her Children lead a Christian Life. He exhorts her at the same time to maintain Love, by observing the Commands of God, and cautions her to beware of Impostors, who denied that Jesus Christ was come in real Flesh.  
The third Epistle is directed to Gaius or Caius. There's no likelihood that 'tis he who is mentioned in the Epistles of St. Paul, Rom. 16.23. and 1 Cor. 1.14. nor he that is mentioned in the Acts, chap. 19.29.& chap. 20.4. for the first was of Corinth, and was converted by St. Paul; the second was of Derbe, and was also St. Paul's Disciple; whereas he to whom St. John writes was his Son in Jesus Christ, and his Disciple: Besides that, there's no likelihood that either of these two were alive when this Epistle was wrote. St. John testifies to him the Joy which he conceived, when he heard of his Piety and Charity. He says in that Letter, according to the Greek Text, that he wrote to the Church of Caius; or, according to the Vulgar, whose Sense seems to be better in this Place, That he would have wrote to that Church, but that Diotrephes, who was ambitious of the chief place, would not receive it, and spread bad Reports of him. St. John threatens him, that if he come into that City, as he hoped to do speedily, be would make known to all Men his bad Conduct. This makes it believed that Caius was an Inhabitant of some City of Asia not far from Ephesus; from whence it is probable that St. John wrote those two Letters, after his return from the Isle of Pathmos.  
There is a considerable Difficulty as to the Truth of the 7th Verse of the 5th Chapter of the 1st Epistle of St. John. It is the famous Passage about the three Persons of the Trinity. For there are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and those Three are one Thing.[ The English Translation is, these Three are One;] which is followed by another Verse that begins with the same Words; and there are Three that bear witness in Earth, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood; and those Three are only one thing, or for one thing.[ The English Translation is, And these Three agree in One.] The first of those two Verses is not found almost in any of the Greek Copies, nor in some Latin ones. Yet it cannot be asserted that it never was in any Greek Copy, since Erasmus, who believes it to be added, owns that it was found in a Greek Copy in England, and that Robert Stevens found it in some of his Greek Manuscripts. It is not in the Oriental Versions, nor was it by consequence in the Manuscripts from which they were translated, but it is in a great Number of Latin Manuscripts, and those ancient ones too: Tho' in some Copies the 8th Verse, or that which is said of the Witnesses upon the Earth, goes before the 7th Verse, or that which is, said of three Witnesses that are in Heaven. There are Greek Copies, where on the Margin of the 8th Verse there is a Scholium, which interprets what is said of the three Witnesses which are upon the Earth, the Spirit, the Water and the Blood of the three Persons of the Trinity; and there are some Greek and Latin Manuscripts where that Verse is added on the Margin as being omitted. Tho' the Antiquity and Number of the Greek Manuscripts be of some Weight, yet as there are none ancienter than 8 or 900 Years, we must not upon their sole Authority reject a Passage which is found in Latin Manuscripts as ancient. We must then have recourse to the Testimony of the Ancients; but it is nothing more favourable to this Passage, for we don't find it quoted by any of the Greek Fathers of the three first Centuries, nor by those of the 4th and 5th, who would not have failed to have made use of it against the Arians, had it been in their Copies. In fine, Didymus of Alexandria, and Oecumenius, who wrote Commentaries on the first Epistle of St. John, did not in the least mention this Verse; which is a Proof that either they did not know it, or did not believe it to be Genuine.  
Of all the Latin Fathers of the first Centuries, there's none but St. Cyprian that can be alleged as an Evidence for this Passage. We shall examine afterwards whether he effectually repeated it: But St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustin, St. lo, and several other Fathers, who had occasion to quote it, never mentioned it. Bede, who wrote a Commentary on the first Epistle of St. John, hath not explained it. It appears that St. Augustin knew nothing of this Passage, for in his 2d Book against Maximinus, for an Answer to what that Arian might object against him, that 'twas said in the Epistle of St. John, That the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, which are three different Substances, were the same thing, he maintains that those three Things were only Figures of the three Persons of the Trinity; and that by the Spirit, we are to understand the Father; by the Blood, the Son; and by the Water, the Holy Ghost; and that so these three Things are really but One. If in St. Austin's time the Passage of the three Witnesses in Heaven had been in the Epistle of St. John, that Father would not have failed to have quoted that Place. Facundus cites this Passage also, and gives it the same Sense, without observing that the Text spoken of the three Divine Persons. St. Cyprian seems nevertheless to have quoted this Passage in his Book of the Unity of the Church: His Words are as follow; The Lord said my Father and I are but One; and it is also said of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, these Three are but One. But it may be that St. Cyprian understanding, as St. Augustin and Facundus have done since, by the Spirit, the Water and the Blood( of which it's said in St. John's Epistle that they are but One) the three Persons of the Trinity, substituted the Names of the Things signified in the Place of the Signs, tho' they were not in the Text. It seems, nevertheless, that if it were so, he ought to have explained himself more, because it is hard to think that his Readers could comprehend his Thought, and find the three Persons of the Trinity in a Passage which speaks only of Spirit, Water and Blood. It may be, however, that was a common and known Explanation; and besides, that St. Cyprian quoting this Passage only to prove the Unity of the Church, it was not necessary to enlarge upon what related to the three Things that were but One. We might further add, to show that St. Cyprian quoted the 7th Verse, that if he designed only to have explained the 8th, he would at least have kept the Order of the three Words, Spirit, Water and Blood, which he would have taken for the three Persons of the Trinity, and as it should have been Water, which signified the Holy Ghost, he should have name the Holy Ghost betwixt the Father and the Son. It's true, that this is the Order he ought to have observed, if he had kept to the Words of the Text; but since People are accustomend to name the three Persons of the Trinity in their natural Order, it is not to be looked upon as extraordinary that St. Cyprian name them so. St. Augustin and Facundus also explaining that Passage followed the same Order, tho' they had nothing in their Copies of the three Persons of the Trinity. It is not then absolutely certain that St. Cyprian hath quoted the 7th Verse of St. John's Epistle. But we cannot doubt of its being in the Copies of the Epistle of St. John towards the End of the 5th Age; for Eusebius Bishop of Carthage, St. Fulgentius, and Vigilius of Tapsa, allege it against the Arians. That which is particular in this Matter is, that St. Fulgentius when he quotes it makes use of the Authority of St. Cyprian, to establish the Truth of it, supposing that he quoted it in the Passage of the Unity of the Church, which we have just now repeated. The Apostle St. John, says he, in his Answer to the 10th Objection of the Arians assures us, That there are Three which bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and that those Three are One. Which the blessed Cyprian testifies in his Book of the Unity of the Church, when he says, He who breaks the Peace and Concord of the Church, acts against Jesus Christ: He who reaps without the Church scatters: And to show that there's but One onely Church of the One God, he repeats also those Testimonies of the Scripture. The Lord says my Father and I are but One: And afterwards it is wrote of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that those Three are but One. Eugenius Archbishop of Carthage, presenting in 484 a Confession of Faith to Huneric King of the Vandals, made no scruple to quote this Passage as decisive: And to show, says he, more clear than the Day, that the Holy Ghost is the same God with the Father, it is proved by the Testimony of St. John the Evangelist, who speaks in those Words, There are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are one Thing. Vigilius of Tapsa quoted also this Passage: All this proves plain enough that the Church of Africa did then aclowledge this Passage to be Genuine.  
The Author of the ancient Prologue of the caconical Epistles, ascribed to St. John, says, That if those Letters had been faithfully translated into Latin by the Interpreters, we should find no Ambiguity that could put a stop in the Readers way; and that there would be no Variation, chiefly in the Place where they speak of the Trinity, in the first Epistle of St. John, into which a considerable Error is crept, by the unfaithfulness of the Translators, who only put into their Edition those three Words, the Water, the Blood, and the Spirit; and have omitted the Testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit: Words which strongly prove the catholic Faith, and the Unity of the Divine Substance in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Tho' this Prologue be not St. Jerome's, as we have observed, it is nevertheless very ancient, and is found in Manuscripts of 8 or 900 Years standing. If we may believe this Author, in his Time all the Greek Manuscripts had this Passage of the Trinity; and it was only omitted out of the Latin by the unfaithfulness of the Translators. But the Author of this Prologue does not seem to have consulted the Greek Copies well, as we have shew'd; and there's great likelihood that this Passage was not at that time in several Greek Copies, from which they had translated the Latin Copies, which had it not, as there were also Latin Copies that had it.  
The Question remains still, whether it was added, or cut off from the Apostles Original Text. Those who pretend that it is added, ground their Opinion chiefly on this, That the ancient Fathers did not make use of it, that it is almost in none of the Greek Manuscripts, nor in the Oriental Versions, that there are also many Latin Copies that have it not; and that, in fine, in some Greek Manuscripts the Testimony of the Trinity, of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is on the Margin of the Verse, which speaks of the three Witnesses that are upon Earth as of an Explication, rather than of a different Reading: Whence they conjecture that it might afterwards pass from the Margin into the Text, and that so it is an Addition. The others on the contrary allege, that those two Verses beginning by the same Words, it was easy for the Copiers to omit one by Negligence, nothing being more usual than when the same Word is in two Periods that follow one another, for the Copier to pass from the word of the first Period to that which follows in the second. It is thus that the LXX have sometimes omitted Periods out of the Hebrew Text. As for Instance, in Jeremy 30.14,& 15. we red there according to the Hebrew Text, All thy Lovers have forgotten thee, they seek thee not, for I have wounded thee with the Wound of an Enemy, with the Chastisement of a cruel one; for the multitude of thine Iniquity, because thy Sins were increased. Why criest thou for thine affliction? thy Sorrow is incurable, for the multitude of thine Iniquity; because thy Sins were increased, have I done these things unto thee. The repetition of these Words, for the multitude of thine Iniquity, was the Cause that the LXX passed those Words, Why criest thou for thine Affliction? thy Grief is incurable. In Joshua 21. v. 36. the repetition of these Words, four Cities with their Suburbs, in three Verses, was the Cause why the 36th Verse is not found in many Copies. It might easily fall out to be same that the Copier of the Epistle of St. John, after having copied these Words of the 7th Verse, There are Three that bear Record, &c. might begin to copy the Words which follow the same Words repeated in the 8th Verse, and that that Fault having slipped into some Manuscripts, was followed in several others: That the most ancient Latin Copies were conformable to the Text at present, and that afterwards the Latin Copies were reformed according to the Copies of the Greek Text which had not that Verse.   

SECT. XII. Of St. judas and his Epistle.  
THE Apostle St. judas, otherwise called Lebbeus and Thaddeus, was Brother to St. James, and by Consequence our Saviour's Kinsman. We shall not here repeat what we have said of their Father and Mother, and in what Degree of Kindred they stood to our Lord. None of the Ancients have said any thing exact of the Life and Actions of this Apostle. Eusebius upon the Faith of the Acts of the Church of Edessa, says, That Thaddeus was sent by St. Thomas to Agbarus the King of the Essenians soon after our Saviour's Passion: But Thaddeus of whom he speaks in that Place was not the Apostle, as St. Jerome thought, he was one of the 72 Disciples, according to Eusebius; and besides, this History deserves no Credit. It is nevertheless upon this Foundation that the Greeks have made him the Apostle of Mesopotamia, and that some say he died in Peace at Berytum. Others have wrote, that he was shot to death by Arrows. St. Paulinus assigns him Lybia for his Province. Fortunatus thinks he was interred in Persia. But all this is without Proof or Authority. Hegesippus says, that in the Time of Domitian there lived two of this Apostles Grand-Sons. This is also a Story that is none of the most certain. We don't know the positive time of his death: But his Epistle being wrote after the death of the Apostles, as we shall show anon, he must of necessity have lived very long.  
It carries in the beginning the Name of judas, who describes himself to be a Servant of Jesus Christ, and Brother to James. Grotius alleges, that his being Brother to James is added; but assigns no Reason why. It is certain that this Inscription was found in this Letter in the time of Origen, who quotes it in his 11th Tome on St. Matthew. He owns nevertheless, that there were some who in his time doubted whether this Epistle be caconical; for quoting it in the 17th Tome of his Commentary on St. Matthew, If( says he) they allow the Epistle of judas. Eusebius observes also, That it was one of the Books of the New Testament that was not universally received, and that few of the Ancients quoted it, tho' it was commonly made use of in the Churches, Hist. lib. 2. cap. 23. St. Jerome says, that divers Persons rejected it, because the Apocryphal Book of Enoch is therein quoted; that nevertheless, it had acquired Authority by its Antiquity, and by the Use that the Churches had made of it, and that it was reckoned amongst the Sacred Writings. Et quia de Libro Enoch qui Apocryphus est, in ea assumit Testimonium a plerisque rejicitur, tamen authoritatem vetustate jam& usu meruit,& inter Sanctas Scripturas computatur. de vir illa. in Juda. Amphilechius hath also observed, that some People doubted of the Truth of this Epistle; but that Doubt of some particular Persons did not hinder the Church from owning it to be St. Jude's, and to be caconical. St. Clement of Alexandria reckons it amongst the Books of the Sacred Scripture, hath explained it in his Book of Hypotiposes, and quoted it in his Stromata and Pedagogue. Tertullian quotes it as the Apostles, and makes use of it to authorize the Book of Enoch. Origen quotes it with Applause, as being the Apostles, in his ninth Tome on St. Matthew, and in his 7th Homily on Joshua. It is in all the ancient Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament, and is commonly quoted by the Fathers of the 4th and 5th Age, as a Book undoubtedly caconical. This Letter is directed to all those that are sanctified by God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called; that is to say generally, to all Christians. It must have been wrote after the death of most of the Apostles, since he exhorts those to whom he writes, to remember what the Apostles had foretold concerning false Prophets that should come, ver. 17. He seems also to quote particularly in this Place, ver. 19. the 2d Epistle of St. Peter; which makes it plain that it is one of the last written Books of the New Testament, and perhaps after the taking of Jerusalem. It is wrote against the heretics who corrupted the Faith and good Morals of the Christians, by their impious Doctrine and disorderly Life: St. judas draws them in lively Colours, as Men given up to their Passions, full of Pride and Vanity, who give to those that are Rich a mean and sordid Complaisance, followed only their own Dreams and Visions, and conducted themselves in every thing by Carnal Prudence, and not by the Spirit of God: Therefore it is that he exhorts Christians to hold inviolably by the Doctrine they had received, and to flee from the Doctrine and Morals of those false Teachers. It was not without a great deal of Reason that Origen says of that Epistle, That it contains only a few Words, but very efficacious. Judas Epistolam scripsit paucorum quidem Versuum, plenam vero efficacibus verbis Gratiae Caelestis. We have already observed, that St. judas made no scruple to quote in this Epistle the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, and also brings the History of the Arch-Angel St. Michael, who disputes with the Devil concerning the Body of Moses, taken out of another Apocryphal Book, entitled, The Ascension of Moses. That does not diminish the Authority of his Epistle, nor does it give any to those Apocryphal Books. They might contain Truths which St. judas, inspired by God, knew well how to distinguish. It is true, he might have said them himself, without quoting the Apocryphal Books; but as they were celebrated and esteemed in the World, he thought he might quote them to make the greater Impression upon the Spirits of those he wrote to, and to inspire them with more Horror against those he writes of.   

SECT. XIII. Of the Revelation.  
THE Book entitled the Apocalyps or Revelation, is the last of the Books of the New Testament: The Inscription of this Book is conceived in the following Terms. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his Servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it to his Angel by his Servant John. This John is afterwards described in a more particular manner in these words; Who bore Record of the Word of God, and of the Testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all the Things that he saw. This agrees to none but to the Apostle. This Book is also directed to the seven Churches of Asia, of which the Apostle St. John had the Government. In a word, it was wrote from the Isle of Pathmos; to which St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, and all the Ancients agree St. John was banished. It is also ascribed to the Apostle St. John by the eldest Ecclesiastical Authors, as by St. Justin in his Dialogue against Tryphon, by St. Irenaeus in his 4th Book against Heresies, cap. 37. by Tertullian in many Places, by Origin, by Victorin, and by the Fathers of the following Ages. Theophilus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian and Methodius quote him also under the Name of St, John, without observing that it was not the Apostle.  
Caius, a Latin Author, who lived in the time of Pope Zephirinus, says in a Passage related by Eusebius, Hist. lib. 3. cap. 28. That Cerinthus making use of the Revelations, as wrote by a great Apostle, publishes Prodigies which he feigned, as being discovered unto him by Angels; and that he assures us, that after the Resurrection there shall be a Reign of Jesus Christ upon the Earth, and that Men shall enjoy Pleasures and Carnal Sensualities in Jerusalem: And that Men shall spend a thousand Years in Nuptial Feasts. Caius seems in this Place to describe the Revelation of St. John, which he thinks to be Cerinthus's, who had published his Dreams under the Name of that great Apostle. It is also in this Sense that Eusebius took the Passage of Caius, since he immediately quotes the Passage of Denys of Alexandria, who relates that some Persons had asserted that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalyps, and put St. John's Name to it to give Weight to his Delusions. There's nothing however said in the Revelation of St. John, of Mens enjoying sensual Pleasures, and passing their time in Nuptial Feasts during 1000 Years in Jerusalem. It is true, that some of the Ancients grounded their Opinion upon the Revelations for introducing this Sentiment; but there is nothing expressly said there of it: Perhaps Cerinthus had falsified the Revelation of St. John, and that gave occasion to ascribe it to him.  
Denys of Alexandria enlarges much upon the Author and Authority of this Book, in a Treatise, entitled, Of the Promises, which he wrote to refute Nepos. He says, 1. That some of those who preceded him had entirely rejected, and also refuted all the Chapters of the Apocalyps, as a Work voided of Sense and Reason. 2. That they had accused the Inscription of that Book as being false, and that St. John was not the Author of it, nor any of the Apostles or Apostolical Men. 3. That they alleged Cerinthus counterfeited the same under John's Name, to give Credit to his Dreams. 4. And to establish his Design of 1000 Years. 5. They maintained, that being covered with a Veil of Obscurity and thick Darkness, it could not be a true Revelation. 6. That for his own part, he dared not entirely to reject the Book, especially, because many of his Brethren esteemed it very much. 7. That he was persuaded there was an excellent Sense hidden under the Words of it. 8. That it is not to be literally understood. 9. That he believed it to be wrote by a Man called John, who was a Saint inspired by God, but that he could not easily believe that he was the Son of Zebedee the Brother of James: And the Reasons he gives are, That the Evangelist does not put his Name to his Work, and speaks always of himself in the third Person: Whereas the Author of the Apocalyps hath put his Name to it, always speaks of himself in the first Person, and repeats his Name two or three times. He observes that there were divers Persons of that Name, as John surnamed Mark, mentioned in the Acts. He does not, however, believe it to be him, but another who lived in Asia as well as the Apostle; for it's said, there's at Ephesus two sepulchers of two St. John's. This is his first Conjecture. The 2d, That the Gospel and the Epistles begin in the same manner; that we find the same Thoughts repeated there, and almost in the same Terms; in fine, that it is the same Style and the same Genius: Whereas the Apocalyps is wholly different, and hath not one Syllable in common with them. The 3d Conjecture is, That he says nothing of the Apocalyps in his Epistles. The 4th, That the Epistles are wrote in good and elegant Greek; whereas the Apocalyps is not good Greek, but full of Barbarisms and Solecisms. These are the critics of St. Denys of Alexandria upon the Apocalyps, related by Eusebius, Hist. l. 7. c. 4. We shall now try whether they be just.  
1. We have no Memorial of those Authors left us, who, he says, confuted it Chapter by Chapter. It's strange that Eusebius, St. Jerome, and other Ancients make no mention of it; they have spoken of very ancient Commentators on the Apocalyps, as of Melito Bishop of Sandis, hippolytus, Victorinus of Petau, St. Justin and St. Irenaeus. They have indeed said that some have rejected it; but never, that any refuted it; that's hard to believe. St. Denys names no particular Person that did it. So that if any Man undertook it, it's seems no Body made any Account of his Work, since no Body mentions it, nor hath revived it. 2. Caius indeed hath said, that Cerinthus had published Revelations, under the Name of a great Apostle; but it is not certain that the Apocalyps of Cerinthus was that which we have under St. John's Name, or that he had not falsified the same. 3. How could St. Denys admit this as a Sacred Book, if he did not believe the Author to be St. John the Apostle? If it be not he, it is an Impostor who hath made use of his Name to publish his own Dreams. But, could the Work of an Impostor pass for a Sacred Book? 4. Why does he think that Book has a hidden Sense, which is very Excellent, if there be nothing of it to be understood, and if there be no place where the Sense is clear? 5. The Conjectures he brings to show that the Book is not the Apostle St. John's, are very weak: This Apostle might have omitted his Name in other Works and yet put it to this, where he ought to express it in imitation of the Prophets, who put their Names at the Head and in the Body of their Prophecies. 6. Ther's not so much Difference as he imagines betwixt the Apocalyps, the Gospel and the Epistles: There we find, on the contrary, the same Expressions and the same Thoughts that St. Denys observes in the Gospel and in the Epistles. For, as St. John hath said in his Gospel, we have seen his Glory, chap. 1.14. and in another Place, This is the Disciple who bears witness of these things; and we know that his Testimony is true, last c. v. 24. And in his Epistles, We bear witness of what we have seen with our Eyes and Heard. He says the same in the beginning of the Revelation, chap. 7. v. 2. That he hath born witness of all that he saw of Jesus Christ. In the Revelation he likewise gives to Jesus Christ the Name of Word, and of the Lamb, who hath saved us, and washed us from our Sins by his Blood. Terms peculiar to St. John, which are found in his Epistles and Gospel. Nor is the Style very much different. The Apocalyps is indeed less polished, because 'tis wrote in a Prophetical Style. 7. We see no Occasion he had to speak of the Apocalyps in his Letters. That Silence is no Proof that the Work is not his. St. Paul speaks nothing in his Epistle to Timothy, of his Epistle to the Romans, nor in those which he wrote afterwards: Does it follow thence that the Epistle to the Romans is not St. Paul's? In fine, the John that is the Author of the Apocalyps, is he who was banished to the Isle of Pathmos, he is the Apostle and the Evangelist. It is he who governed Asia. We cannot then say, That the Apocalyps is indeed the Work of a holy Man called John, but that it is not the Apostles.  
St. Jerome says in his Epistle to Dardanus, That as the Latin Church does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews as part of the caconical Scripture, so the Greek Churches don't receive the Apocalyps. He adds, That he receives both the one and the other, without being swayed by the Custom of his own Time, but by following the Authority of the Ancients, who often make use of the Testimony of one another, not as they use to do of Apocryphal Books, but of caconical Books. He ascribes also the Apocalyps to the Apostle St. John in his Book of Illustrious Men, and reckons it amongst the Books of the Sacred Scripture in his Letters to Paulinus. It is true, nevertheless, that some Greeks don't place it in the Canon of the Sacred Books, as Eusebius observes: St. Epiphanius owns it himself in the heresy of the Alogians, where he confesses, n. 3. that if the Alogians rejected only that Work of St. John, it might be thought they had some Reason to do it. St. Amphilochius observes also that some rejected it, and that it was not found, as we have observed, in the Canons of the Council of Laodicea, of St. Gregory Nazianzen, of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and of some other Greeks.  
The heretics that St. Epiphanius calls Alogians rejected the Apocalyps. The only plausible Reason they alleged for it was, That there was not then any Church at Thyatira: Which St. Epiphanius grants them, but he supposes that St. John spoken of that Church by a Prophetical Spirit; and of what was to befall her in process of time. In the mean time the Churches to which St. John directs his Advice, were certainly Churches that were in being in his time: And since we have no Proof that there was not then a Church of Thyatira, we need not trouble ourselves with this Objection.  
It must then be held as a certain Truth, according to the Testimony of the Ancients, That the Apocalyps is the Work of the Apostle St. John. He composed it in the Isle of Pathmos, whither he was banished for the Faith of Jesus Christ: Being in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, he heard a Voice and had Revelations, which he wrote in this Book, and sent by God's Order to the seven Churches of Asia. All this is observed, chap. 1.9, 10, 11. He was banished in 95 to the Isle of Pathmos, and return'd from it in 97. This Book then was wrote in that time. It is composed in form of a Letter, directed to the seven Churches of Asia. He gives Advice immediately to the Bishops of the seven Churches, whom he calls Angels, concerning the State of their Flock; and he relates the Visions and Revelations that he had afterwards, which are the Tokens and Prophesies of the Things to come. This is not a proper Place to undertake the unfolding of those Mysteries, and to make Application of' em. All that we can say is, That he speaks of Things that were speedily to come to pass, as he says himself, v. 1. and which are by Consequence apparently fulfilled. Besides those obscure Things, there is in that Book abundance of very clear Truths, by which humble and plain Christians may profit without troubling themselves about the Explanation of the Prophesies which are above their Capacity.    

CHAP. III. Concerning the Greek Text of the New Testament.  

SECT. I. How the Greek Text of the New Testament was preserved in the Church without any Falsification: Of the Variations which might have crept into it: Of the Editions of this Text; and of the Differences that are in the Manuscripts.  
WE have already proved that the Books of the New Testament could not have been corrupted or falsified in any Essential Points; for this Falsification must have been made either in the Life time of the Apostles and those who penned them, or a little after their Death, or in the following Centuries. But neither of these Hypotheses can be granted. For( 1.) It cannot be said, that during their Life time, any other Gospels or Works were fathered upon them than those which they wrote; or that they were falsified or altered. If any should have dared to have done it, he would have been immediately convicted of his falsehood by the Evidence of the Authors themselves, and by collating those falsified Copies with the Originals. The Churches would have been very cautious how they Credited or authorized such Pieces as were spurious or falsified. The Primitive Christians would have rejected them, and never have suffered them by an unanimous Consent to have passed as Genuine and Sacred.( 2.) Upon the same Reasons 'tis apparent, that those Writings were not altered a little after the Death of the Apostles and Evangelists. There were several Copies of them spread over the face of the whole Earth; which were preserved and red in all the Churches of Christendom. It was impossible that all Christians should enter into a Combination to make or admit of such Falsifications.( 3.) Lastly, it cannot be said that they were falsified in the succeeding Centuries; since it plainly appears by the Citations of Authors from one Century to another, that those Books were always the same. The Disciples of the Apostles had certainly the Genuine Writings of the Apostles and Evangelists in their Purity: and the Fathers of the three first Centuries had the same Books by them. 'tis manifest, that in the following Ages they had no other, and that they are the same which we still have. There can then no question be made of their Genuineness and Sincerity. Celsus having upbraided the Christians with giving themselves the Liberty of altering the Gospel, and of reading it different ways, in order to deny the Passages that were objected to them; Origen returns this Answer, That none but the Disciples of martion and Valentinus had made those Alterations. Now the Changes which the heretics made, were never approved of by the Church; on the contrary their Falsifications were discovered by the Ancient Copies that were dispersed over the whole Earth, and by the Testimony of all the Churches, who preserved and red the true Copies publicly. It was to no purpose that the Ebionites corrupted the Gospel of Saint Matthew, and the Marcionites, that of Saint Luke with the Epistles of Saint Paul, the Alterations which they made in those sacred Writings, were not admitted into the Copies of the Church. The Manichees took the Liberty to retrench out of the Books of the New Testament what contradicted their Errors, and boldly gave out, that those Books were corrupted by the Judaizing Christians, who had added thereto all that favoured the Ancient Law. St. Augustine demonstrated to them, that there was as much certainty that those Books were Theirs, under whose Names they went, and had not been corrupted, as there was for the Books of Plato, Aristotle, and other profane Authors; and this Truth he forces them to aclowledge with respect to those passages of the Gospel which they themselves approve of. For he asks them what Reply they would make to the Person that should accuse the Authors of their Sect of having added a passage which they cited. What could you do( says he to them) but only assert that it was impossible to falfifie those Books which were in the Hands of all Christians? Because as soon as ever any such attempt should have been made, the falsity of it would have been discovered by the Evidence of the most ancient Copies. Now the very same Reason which proves that you have not corrupted those Books, is a manifest Demonstration that no body else could have corrupted them, because whoever had ventured to do it, would have been immediately refuted by the great number of ancient Copies; and especially since these very Books were already written in several different Languages. And the correcting of several erratas in them, by collating them, either with the most ancient Copies, or with the Original out of which they were translated, is what is practised every day. 'tis thus, that this Father proves that the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament being dispersed so much as they were in the first Ages of the Church, could not have been corrupted by any Forgerers, without being perceived.  
This being granted, for a more particular view of the Method, how the Text of the Books of the New Testament came to be preserved, it is most certain, that the Evangelists wrote their Gospels with an intention of publishing them, and that every Christian might red them: That Saint Luke had the same design in composing the Acts of the Apostles; that the Apostles did not direct their Epistles to one or more Churches, but only that they might be red by all the Faithful, or at least to all the Faithful of those and the Neighbouring Churches. 'tis likewise farther manifest, that these Writings were received with respect, and red by the Primitive Christians both in public and private: That they were soon dispersed in all the Churches by means of the Copies that were made of them, some from the Originals, and others from other Genuine Copies. These Copies were increased and renewed as often as there was occasion for them. But tho' it could never happen that all these Copies were falsified and altered by any premeditated Malice and Design in those Points that are Essential, yet it cannot be said that no Fault has crept into any of these Copies by the negligence or inadvertency of the Transcribers, or even by the boldness of those who have ventured to strike out, add, or change some Words which they thought necessary to be omitted, added or changed. This is the common Fate of all Books, from which God has not thought fit to exempt even those sacred Writings. From hence have proceeded those various and different Lections between the Greek Copies of the Books of the New Testament, which began to appear in the first Ages of the Church, and are still continued. All these varieties have altered nothing as to the Essential parts of the History and Doctrine of Jesus Christ and his Apostles; and some Persons of clearer Heads than others have from time to time appeared in the World, who have corrected the Errata of their Copies, and re-established as far as possible the Purity of the Greek Text.  
Origen, in the Fifteenth Tome of his Commentary on St. Matthew, observes, That there were even in his Time a great many Various Lections in the Copies of the H. Scriptures, which he attributes partly to the Carelessness of the Copiers, and partly to the Boldness of those who would correct the Text; and took the Liberty by this Correction, to add or strike out what they thought fit. He adds, That he had accommodated the Difference of the Greek Copies of the Septuagint, according to the Method above-mentioned; but says nothing in this Place of any thing he had done upon the New Testament: However, 'tis certain that he had revised and corrected the Copies of that too: for Saint Jerome sometimes cites the Copies of Origen and Pierius, as being more exact than any other Copies of the New Testament. For Instance, In examining a Passage in the 24th Chapter of Saint Matthew, where at the 36th Verse some Latin Copies have, Neque Filius; he observes, That This Clause was not in the Greck Copies, and especially in those of Origen and Pierius. He likewise cites the Copies of Origen, in the Third Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, and says, That he does not explain these Words, Quis vos fascinavit credere veritati? because they are not in the Copies of Origen. This shows that these two Authors had taken Copies of the New Testament, and that they were looked upon as the most correct of any others. The same Father, in his Preface to Damasus, makes mention likewise of Copies of the New Testament corrected by Lucian and Hesychius, but does by no means approve of their Work; because they had made such Additions as were convicted of Falsity by the Ancient Versions. Tatian and Ammonius in compiling the Harmonies or Concordances of the Four Evangelists, did doubtless follow that Greek Text, which they thought to be the most correct. The Canons and Heads of Eusebius have been likewise of great use, to prevent any Confusion in the Evangelists: 'tis likewise very probable, that Eusebius took care not only to distinguish, but also to correct the Text of the Gospels. Saint Jerome applied himself not so much to correct the Faults, which might have crept into the Greek Copies, as to reform the Latin Version by the Greek Text, according to the best and most ancient Copies of his Time, which he looked upon as Faithful and Correct, and which he therefore styles, The Greek Truth, the Greek Fidelity; The most clear Water of the Fountain itself: whereas the Latin Versions were very Defective in a great many places. See how he explains himself in his Preface before the Four Gospels, directed to Pope Damasus. You enjoin me( says he) to make a New Work out of an Old One, and to be as it were Judge between the Copies of the Holy Scriptures dispersed through all the Earth; and since they differ from one another, to determine which of 'em agree with the Greek Verity. 'tis a Religious Task, but withall a dangerous Undertaking to change the Language of the World, which is in its Old Age, and to recall it, when it begins to turn grey, to those very Principles and Rudiments that we teach Children. For who is there, whether Learned or Unlearned, who upon taking the Bible into his Hands, and seeing that what he reads is different from what he has been always used to, would not immediately cry out that I was a Forgerer and a Sacrilegious Person, who had the Boldness to make such Additions, Alterations and Corrections in those Ancient Books? Two things are my Comfort under such a Reproach: First, That 'tis You, the Supreme pontiff, that have put me upon the Task: and Secondly, That by the Confession even of the most Envious, there must needs be some Falsity where there is so much Variety. If they say, That the Latin Copies are to be credited; let them tell me Which? For there are almost as many different Copies, as there are Manuscripts; and if the Truth must be searched for among so many, why should not we rather have recourse to the Greek Original, in Order to correct the Faults that have proceeded, either from the Bad Translation of the Interpreters, or from the unreasonable Corrections that have been made by unskilful critics, or from the Additions and Alterations that have happened through the carelessness of the Copiers? At present, I say nothing of the Old Testament, but am only speaking of the New, which is doubtless all Greek, except Saint Matthew's Gospel, which at first was published in Judaea in Hebrew. The New Testament, I say, being full of Varieties in the Latin Versions, which are as so many small Streams, 'tis necessary to have recourse to the Fountain-head, which is but only One. I pass over in Silence the Copies that go under the Name of Lucian and Hesychius, which some Persons condemn, because they were not allowed to correct the Old Testament after the Septuagint; and because they have not been successful in the Corrections which they have made of the New. The Versions which were made of it into several Languages before they corrected it, prove that what they added is Spurious. In this Preface therefore I promise to give you the Four Gospels, corrected by the ancient Greek Copies, with which they have been collated: But that the Latin of the New Testament may not differ too much from the Vulgar Translation, we have kept a Medium, which is, to correct only such things as make an Alteration in the Sense, and to leave the rest in the same state wherein it was before... It must be owned, that there is a great deal of Confusion in our Copies of the Gospels, because our Intepreters have often added what one Evangelist had said over and above to another Gospel, where they thought it was wanting, and have often corrected the Expressions of One by those of another Evangelist. Hence has arisen that Confusion, and is the reason why in Saint Mark we meet with a great many Passages taken out of Saint Luke and Saint Matthew, and in Saint Matthew, a great many Passages taken out of Saint Mark and Saint John, and so of the rest. From this Preface of St. Jerome we may draw these following Conclusions:( 1.) That in his time the Latin Copies of the New Testament were most of 'em defective.( 2.) That in order to correct them recourse was to be had to the Greek Text as to the Fountain-Head.( 3.) That there were several Greek Copies, which were likewise faulty, particularly those of Hesychius and Lucian.( 4.) That there were others more ancient and more correct.( 5.) That Saint Jerome has corrected the Latin Version from those ancient and correct Greek Copies.( 6.) That he has only corrected such places as made a considerable difference in the Text, and has left the rest just as it was.  
This Reform made by Saint Jerome met with its Adversaries, as he had foreseen. There were those ill-designing Persons who accused him of having altered the Gospels contrary to the Authority of the Ancients and the Opinion of all Men. He returns them this Answer, That he was not so stupid or ignorant, as to believe that one could correct any thing in the words of our Saviour, or that all the Gospel was not divinely inspired; but that all he aimed at was, according to the Greek Original( from which it was agreed on all Hands, that the Versions were made) to correct the faults of the Latin Version, which are sufficiently apparent by that Variety which is to be met with in the Latin Copies. Let those Men, says he, who are not for the pure Water of the Fountain-Head, drink as much as they please of the Water of those disturbed Streams. Thus you see how far Saint Jerome prefers the Greek Text of his Time before the Latin Versions, and the judgement that he passes on the fidelity of the Greek Text.  
St. Augustine was of the same Mind with respect to the Authority of the Greek Text of the Books of the New Testament. He requires that when there are any differences between the Text and the Versions, The Text should be credited more than the Versions; and that the Greek Text should always be made use of to correct the Latin: Latinis( says he) quibuslibet emendandis Graeci adhibeantur. He declares in particular with respect to the Books of the New Testament, Lib. 2. Cap. 15. de Doct. Christ. Libros autem Novi Testamenti, si quid in Latinis varietatibus titubat, Graecis cedere oportere non dubium est,& maximè qui apud Ecclesias doctiores& diligentiores reperiuntur: i. e. That if there be any differences between the Greek and the Latin Versions, the Latin ought doubtless to submit to the Greek, and especially to those Copies that the Church owns to be the most learned and exact. Lastly, he observes that even in his time there were such correct Copies. For he adds, adjuvant etiam codicum veritate, quam solers emendationis diligentia procuravit.  
Since the days of Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine, the Greek Churches have been very careful in preserving their Original Text of the New Testament. It is not to be supposed, but that the Greek Fathers, who applied themselves in an eminent manner to the study of the Holy Scriptures; It is not, I say, to be supposed but that they were very exact in consulting the most Faithful and most correct Copies they could possibly light on, and that they took care that the new Copies which were drawn were as correct, and made from the best Exemplars. The Copies corrected by Origen, Pierius and Eusebius were preserved for a long time together in the Caesarean and Alexandrian Libraries. There were some such in the Greek Churches which were red publicly. Was it possible that so many Learned Commentators should make choice, among so many Copies, of those that were the most faulty, since they might have had those that were correct? This is what cannot be supposed with any colour of Reason; on the contrary, 'tis morally certain that they made use of the purest Greek Text they could get, and consequently that the New Testament, which is annexed to the Commentaries of the Greek Fathers upon almost all the Books of the New Testament, such as those of Saint Chrysostome, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, &c. is an Authentic Testimony whereby to discover the Sincerity of the Greek Text from one Age to another. In short, it cannot be said, that since Saint Jerome's time the Greek Text has suffered any considerable Falsification, or that the whole Greek Church has made use of a corrupted Text of the New Testament.  
However it may be objected, That Saint Jerome having reformed the Latin Version by the best Greek Manuscripts of his Time, it necessary follows that it should be entirely conformable to the Greek Text; and that if the Greek Text is found to differ from that reformed Version, it is not conformable to the most ancient and most correct Manuscripts, which he made use of, and consequently has since been adulterated and altered. Now 'tis plain, that there are a great many differences between the Greek Text and our vulgar Latin: but 'tis as certain that in a great many of those places where these differences occur, the Greek Text at present is conformable to that of the Ancient Greek Fathers, which it is hard to think has been altered. It must therefore be said that Saint Jerome has not corrected all the places of the Latin Version that differ from the Greek Text, but only the most considerable, and such as made an Alteration in the Sense, as he owns himself in his Preface. Besides, since the Version reformed by Saint Jerome might have suffered some change by the carelessness of the Transcribers, or by the mixture of other Versions, or by the boldness of some critics; it is no proof that the Greek Text which Saint Jerome made use of was different from the present Vulgar Greek Text, because the Latin Version which we have at present differs from the Greek Text. Bede was so far convinced of the Truth of this, that having found some difference betwixt. S. Jerome's Version and the Greek Copy, he declares that he durst not suppose the Greek to have been corrupted, but that it could not be said whether the Various Lection ought to be ascribed to the fault of the Interpreter or of the Copier. Quaedam( says he) quae in Graeco sieve aliter, sieve plus aut minus posita vidimus, breviter commemorare curavimus: quae utrum negligentiâ Interpretis omissa, vel aliter dicta, an incuriâ Librariorum sieve depravata, sieve relicta, nondum scire potuimus: namque Graecum Exemplar falsatum fuisse suspicari non audeo.  
However it must be acknowledged, that even from the very first there were a great many differences between the Greek Copies of the New Testament, as Origen, Saint Jerome, the Author of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, and several other Fathers have owned, and as may be made appear by the different ways whereby several Greek Fathers have red one and the Self same passage: That these Varieties have been very much increased since, by that great number of Copies that have been made of the Greek Testament, both in the East and West, as those many Differences to be met with in the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament which we have at present do abundantly testify: Lastly, That since there are so many differences between the Manuscripts, it necessary follows that there must be some faults and defects both in the Greek and Latin, so that it cannot be absolutely said that the Greek is free from Faults, unless we could be assured, which of the various Lections is the true One,  
For this Reason they who have taken care of printing the Greek Text of the New Testament, took likewise care to have it revised from several MSS, to put in the Text that Lection which they thought the most Genuine, and to set down either at the End, or in the margin the various Lections of other Manuscripts. Valla was the first who preached into and collated the Greek Copies of the New Testament. He cites several of them in his Notes printed at Basil. After his Example Erasmus likewise consulted a great many Manuscripts, which he made use of to good purpose in the Editions of his New Testament, and sets down in his Notes the Various Lections taken out of these Copies. Cardinal Ximenes had even before Erasmus, caused the Text of the New Testament to be revised from several Greek Manuscripts, and printed in his Polyglot in the Year 1515. the Text entire, according to that Reading which he thought the most exact and correct, yet without taking notice of the Differences of the Manuscripts. The same Text has been followed in the Polyglotts of Philip III. and of le Jay. Robert Stephens's Edition of the New Testament in Greek was done with a great deal of Accuracy; his Text agrees with that of the Bible of Cardinal Ximenes, and he has set in the margin the Various Readings of his Manuscript Copies. This Edition was published first at Paris in the Year 1550. There have been several Impressions of it made since, and 'tis this Text which Mr. Walton has put in his Polyglotts. Theodore Beza having likewise collated a greater Number of Copies, has set down a great many more various Lections in his Notes. Walton in the sixth Edition of his Polyglott has made a Collection of the various Lections taken notice of by others, and some new Ones taken from the Manuscripts in England. All these various Lections are set down at the bottom of the page. of the Greek Testament, printed at Oxford in the Year 1675.  
Besides these Editions, we have likewise several particular Collations of the Greek Copies of the New Testament, wherein the Differences of the several Manuscripts are taken notice of. Under the Popedom of Urban VIII. Matthew Caryophila and several other Learned persons of Rome, collated the Greek Text of the New Testament of Cardinal Ximenes's Edition, with two and twenty Manuscripts of the Libraries of Rome; viz. Ten on the Gospels, Eight on the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles, and Four on the Apocalypse. They marked down in the Collation what they thought necessary to be added to, or retrenched from the Text, by setting down the Number of the Manuscripts that were conformable thereto. In the Preface they have explained the Rules which they follow in this Determination. First, That if most of the Greek Manuscripts agree with the Vulgar Latin; The Text shall be reformed according to the Reading in the Vulgar Version. Secondly, That if all the Greek Manuscripts differ from the Vulgar Latin and from the Greek Text, the Text shall be reformed by those Manuscripts, setting down the ancient Lection at the end of the Chapters. Thirdly, That if most the Manuscripts differ from the Text, and this difference does not affect the Vulgar Latin, then the Text shall be corrected by the plurality of the MSS. Setting down at the end of the Chapters the place that has been corrected. Fourthly, That if the Reading of the Vulgar Latin be authorized only by one single Manuscript, it shall not fail to be taken notice of. Fifthly and Lastly, that such Words shall be omitted as do manifestly appear to have been taken out of one Gospel to be inserted into another.  
Some time before this, Peter Faxard a Spaniard, Marquis de Los-Velez, had collated the Text of our Vulgar Latin with Sixteen Greek Manuscripts of the King of Spain's Library, and in the margin of a New Testament in Greek had set down the various Lections of those Manuscripts, upon which the Reading of the Vulgar Latin was established. But forasmuch as he has not taken notice in how many MSS. each of these Differences is to be found, his Work is not of any great use, because each Difference may only be in one Manuscript, which in that case ought not to be preferred before the rest. Mariana the Jesuit having copied out those various Lections remarked by the Marquis de Los-Velez, communicated them to Lewis de la Cerda of the same Society, who published them in his Book, entitled, Adversaria Sacra, printed in the Year 1626. There is scarce a passage wherein the Vulgar Latin differs from the Greek Text, but the Variety is authorized by some Manuscript of the marquis de Los-Velez. But, as was said just now, 'tis not known by how many, or what quality the Manuscript is, upon which it is founded, nor whether it has not been reformed from the Vulgar, as Mariana has groundlessly supposed. Father Morin of the Oratory has likewise collected in his Exercitations upon the Bible, the differences of several Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, and particularly of the Cambridge Manuscript of the Gospels, and of another Manuscript of the same Antiquity belonging to the Messieurs du Puy. To conclude, Father Amelotte, of the same Congregation has in his French Version of the New Testament collected the various Lections which agree with the ancient Version, reckoning likewise among those differences and the Manuscripts which authorize them, the Differences of the Ancient Latin Version, of Saint Jerome's Version, and of the Oriental Versions; wherein he is not exact. For tho' it were well to take notice of these Differences, yet they ought not to have passed for Differences in the Greek Copies: because they might as well have proceeded from the Translator, as from the Copy that he made use of, and the Version might likewise have underwent some Alteration since it was made.   

SECT. II. Of the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, and particularly of the Vatican, Oxford and Cambridge Manuscripts.  
AMong the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, we know of none more ancient and more famous, than those of the Vatican, of Saint Thecla, and of Cambridge.  
The first of these Manuscripts is certainly above a thousand Years old. It has neither Titles nor Chapters, answerable to the Canons of Eusebius, but only Heads in read Letters in the margin, to divide the Text in the Gospels. This Manuscript in several passages agrees with the Vulgar Latin, but in a great many more with the Greek of Robert Stephens's Edition.  
The second goes under the Name of an Egyptian Virgin named Thecla. It was sent from Alexandria by Cyril of lucre Patriarch of Constantinople to Charles I. King of England, and is deposited in the King's Library at London. 'tis thought to be about fourteen hundred Years old, but 'tis certainly above a thousand. In this Manuscript the Title and Chapters of the Gospels, which answer to the Division made by Eusebius, are set down. It wants the first four and twenty Chapters of Saint Matthew, and the five first Verses of the twenty fifth Chapter. This Manuscript has a great many differences from the common Greek, but they are only slight Ones. It agrees very often with the Vulgar Latin, and seems to be very exact and correct. These Differences are to be seen at the bottom of the page. of the Greek New Testament in the Polyglotte published in England.  
The critics are pretty well agreed about these two Manuscripts; but are not so with respect to that of Cambridge. See however certain matters of Fact, from which it will be easy to determine what one ought to believe in the case. Theodore Beza found a Greek and Latin Manuscript of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in the Monastery of St. Irenaeus of Lions. He had likewise by the Assistance of the Messieurs du Puy, such another Manuscript of the Epistles of St. Paul, which he calls the Copy of Clermont, and may pass for the second part of the Copy of Lions. The first of these is at present in the Cambridge Library; and the second in the Library of the French King. There is another Manuscript much like to the latter in the Abbey of Saint Germain de Prez. The Manuscript of the Gospels is divided into Chapters according to the Division of Eusebius: the Greek writ in large Characters without Points, Accents or distinction between the Words. The second part is written after the same manner as the former in both Copies, but with Accents, which are of the same Hand in the Manuscript of Saint Germain des Prez, tho' of a different Figure; and added by another more modern Hand in the MS. of the French King's Library. The Latin Version is writ by the same Hand as the Greek Text, but differs very much from the Vulgar, and is entirely agreeable to the Greek Text of these MSS. The critics are agreed that these MSS. are of about a thousand Years standing. There are a great many Additions and Alterations particularly in the Gospels, especially in that of Saint Luke. We have already observed, that the Genealogy of our Saviour is regulated in St. Luke's Gospel, according to that of Saint Matthew, and that three Kings which are left out in Saint Matthew are there added. We have likewise mentioned two considerable Additions, One of a Sentence upon Humility, in Saint Matthew, Chap. 20. and the other of a Discourse which our Saviour had with a Man that worked on the Sabbath-day, in Saint Luke, Chap. 6. Beside these particular passages and some other of the same Nature, whereby the Alterations are greater and more visible; there are a great many other places, in which the Words of the Evangelists and Apostles are paraphrased, abridged, and transposed, as well in the Gospels as in the Acts, and even in the Epistles of Saint Paul. In several places it agrees with the Vulgar Latin, and differs from it in others, but is very different from other Greek Manuscripts. At the end of the two Manuscripts of the second part, between the Epistle to Philemon, and that to the Hebrews, there is a Catalogue of the Books of the Bible, in which the twelve Minor Prophets are set down before the Greater, and the Gospel of Saint John before that of Saint Mark, and Saint Luke; and wherein after the Epistle of Saint judas, is inserted the Epistle of Saint Barnabas, and after the Apocalypse of Saint John are placed, the Acts of the Apostles, the Book of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Saint Peter. It is likewise to be observed, that there are a great many Faults in the Greek Text, and that there are several Corrections made by the same Hand, and at the same time.  
Beza, the first that has made mention of the Cambridge Manuscript, believed that it was brought from Greece; That tho' it had not been falsified by heretics, yet it had been by a Greek, who had inserted barbarous Notes into the margin. He owns that it was very ancient, and his Words are as follow: Exemplar venerandae vetustatis ex Graeciâ, ut apparet ex barbaris Graecis quibusdam Notis ad Marginem ascriptis, olim exportatum,& in Sancti Irenaei Monasterio Lugduni, ita ut cernitur mutilatum, postquam ibi in pulvere diu jacuisset, repertum orient ibi Civili bello, Anno Domini 1562. As to the Manuscript of Saint Paul's Epistles, which Beza styles that of Clermont, he believes that 'tis the other part of the MS. of Lions, not only because of its Antiquity, Character, and Form, but because there are much the same Varieties in one as in the other.  
Father Morin has not passed any judgement on the Cambridge MS. because he had never seen it; but he speaks of the MS. of the Epistles of St. Paul, and says that it is almost as ancient; that the passages cited therein out of the Old Testament are written in read Characters; that the Latin Version differs from the Vulgar, even in those places, where it was requisite that the Greek Text from whence they were taken, should have been the same; that however it appears that both of them came from the same Original. This makes him suppose that the Version from this ancient MS. is that which the Ancient Church commonly made use of before Saint Jerome's time, and that That Father revised and reformed it upon the credit of the Greek Copies. He likewise asserts that this MS. is more ancient than Saint Jerome. He as well as Beza, is of the Opinion, that this MS. is the second part of the Cambridge MS.  
Monsieur Simon believes that these three MSS. are of the same standing: He approves of Father Morin's Notion concerning the Version; but does not allow that these MSS. were written before Saint Jerome's time, tho' he owns that they contain a more ancient Version; which makes him suppose that these Copies were transcribed from others more ancient. He maintains against Beza, that these MSS. were never made for the Greeks, nor brought from Greece, because of the gross Faults that are in them. He believes that the Notes which are in the margin, were not made by a Greek, but by a Latin.  
Monsieur Arnaud's Supposition is very different from all others. He acknowledges that those MSS. may be about a thousand Years old: but he believes That 'tis a particular Edition of the New Testament of a Latin of the Sixth Century, who might have designed to remove some Scruples, that seemed to be insuperable, such as the difference there is in the Genealogy of Christ, between Saint Matthew and Saint Luke; and to make some other Alterations, of which no cause can be assigned: That he thought it requisite for his purpose, to make a Greek and Latin Text that should agree together; because if he had only made a Latin Text, it would have been rejected, if upon comparing it according to Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine's Rule with the Greek Copies, there had not been found the Alterations that he was minded to make; whereas composing them in both Languages, it would give the greater Authority to his new Edition. But he thought farther, that the Edition he made ought to carry along with it the face of Antiquity, and that this was the reason why he would not intermix with his Latin the corrected Version of Saint Jerome. After a great many Argumentations he concludes, That this Manuscript is the Work of some Forgerer in the Sixth Century: That therefore the Varieties of this Copy ought not to be reckoned among the Various Lections of the Greek of the New Testament, that it can be of no Weight to authorize what is not found in the other Greek Manuscripts, and 'tis not at all probable that the Ancient Vulgar Latin was made from this Manuscript.  
Father Martinay keeps a Medium between the Hypotheses of Monsieur Simon, and Monsieur Arnaud. He observes, That Monsieur Simon is in the right, when he says that the Addition made to the twentieth Chapter of Saint Matthew, was in the Ancient Latin Version, which was made use of in the Western Churches; and that his famous Adversary( for so he very justly styles Monsieur Arnaud) was likewise in the right, in maintaining that this very Addition was not in the Copies corrected by Saint Jerome. He justifies this by saying, that of the two Manuscripts of the Ancient Vulgar which he produces, there was one wherein this Addition was, and another wherein it was not. At the same time he shows the Conformity of these Manuscripts of the Ancient Vulgar Latin of Saint Matthew's Gospel, with the Manuscript of Cambridge, and the English-Saxon Version published by Marshal, and made from the Ancient Vulgar.  
These are the various Sentiments of the Learned concerning the Cambridge, the French-King's, and the abbey of Saint Germain des Prez's Manuscripts. We beg leave to subjoin our Remarks to adjust( if possible) these differences.  
1. We believe these Manuscripts to be near a thousand Years old or thereabouts, that is, about the Sixth Century, and so later than Saint Jerome.  
2. We suppose them to be made by a Latin in the West, and not by a Greek: of which the Latin being written by the same Hand on the side of the Greek, and the gross Faults that are in the Greek are an uncontestable Proof.  
3. There is no probability that he who made the Alterations or Additions in this Manuscript was an heretic, because it does not appear that they were made to support any particular Heresy.  
4. These Additions and Alterations do not seem to be invented by the Author of that Manuscript, since the most considerable of them are to be met with in other Ancient Records.  
5. There is not any instance of those considerable Changes or Additions in the Manuscripts of the New Testament, which were in the Hands of the Greek Fathers, nor in the other Manuscripts used in the Greek Church.  
6. There were such Additions, Alterations, Transpositions, and Confusions in the Copies of the Ancient Vulgar Latin, according to the Testimony of Saint Jerome in his Epistle to Damasus: and we farther meet with several Additions made to the Gospel of Saint Matthew in the Cambridge Manuscript, in the Manuscripts of the Ancient Vulgar Latin, in Saint Hilary and several other Latin Fathers.  
7. The Latin Version of the Copies we are now examining, is not that which was reformed by Saint Jerome, but one of the Ancient Vulgar Latin Versions. For there were several of them, or rather the Copies of them were so different, that they seemed to be so many distinct Versions.  
8. All these Remarks afford us great probability of conjecturing that the Greek Text of the Copies we now speak of, was regulated by him who wrote from the Copy of the Vulgar Latin which he copied; or that he transcribed it from some other Copy that was thus reformed. This Conjecture is a consequence of several Matters of Fact wherein all are agreed, and of the Reflections already made.  
9. This being laid down, we ought not to look upon these Varieties as so many various Lections of a Greek Manuscript, but only as a Regulation, or rather a Corruption of the Greek Text from a Version that is less Conformable to the Original.  
10. Though all the Copies of the Ancient Vulgar Latin had not those Additions and Alterations that are in the Latin and Greek of this Copy, yet there are some, wherein very considerable Additions and Alterations are to be found.  
But enough has been said with respect to this Manuscript. We shall not insist on the other Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, that are to be met with in a great many Libraries. There are some about 800 Years old, others 600, and others more modern. They are almost all of 'em made by Greeks, and according to the Greek's custom. Therein a great many differences may be found, but scarce any that affect the true Sense. Let us now inquire into the Origine of these Varieties, and the Means whereby to discover the true Reading.   

SECT. III. The Rise and occasion of the Faults that might have crept into the Greek Text of the New Testament.  
THE Faults which have crept into the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament, as well as into all other Books, are owing generally to these two causes; viz. to the Negligence of the Copiers, and to the boldness of those who have ventured to reform the ancient Copies. But these two general Causes produce different Effects for which particular Reasons may be assigned.  
The carelessness of the Copiers may occasion Omissions, Errors, and sometimes Additions. These Omissions may happen through Inadvertency or Distraction, which might have caused the Transcriber to have omitted several Words or entire Sentences. This frequently happens with respect to Particles or Stops. When two periods which come one after another, begin or end with the same Words, the Transcriber might easily omit one of the Sentences. The Inadvertency of the Copiers may likewise produce the Repetition of the same Words or Phrases, but then 'tis such an Error as is easy to be discovered.  
The Alterations happen by the carelessness of the Copiers, when they take or put one Letter for another, or one Word for another, by reason of the Resemblance there is between the Letters or Words, in their Figure or Sound. Lastly, this carelessness is the cause of very considerable Additions, when they insert into the Text, the Scholias or Notes which were in the margin of the Manuscripts which they copied, without heeding that these were such Explications as ought not to have been added to the Text. These are the principal Reasons that can be alleged for the Alterations which might happen through the Inadvertency of the Copiers.  
These Alterations which happened by the Liberty that some took expressly and deliberately of reforming the Text, might proceed from as many Causes, as there were Motives to incline them to this Reform. The chief Causes of these Alterations with respect to the Copies of the New Testament are such as follow.  
1. It might so happen, that the heretics have struck out or altered such passages as were contrary to their Errors, or have added others that have favoured them. Thus the Ebionites falsified the Gospel of Saint Matthew, and the Marcionites that of Saint Luke. But these gross Falsifications were soon discovered, they never deceived any catholic, and were never admitted into the Copies they made use of. It might likewise happen that some other heretics had only retrenched, altered, or added some very short passages, or that this Alteration might have been made, without being easily perceived. There were several of the Fathers who thought that they had found out instances of this in several places of the New Testament; as when Saint Ambrose accuseth the Arians for having struck out in the third Chapter of Saint John's Gospel, vers. 6. these Words, Quia Deus Spiritus est. When Socrates upbraids the Nestorians for having struck out of the fourth Chapter of the first Epistle of Saint John vers. 3. these Words: Every Spirit, that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh, is not of God. And others have accused the Followers of Mardonius, of having added in the seventh Chapter of Saint John's Gospel, vers. 39. The Epithet Holy, and of having red it as it is at present in the Greek; As yet the Holy Ghost was not come upon them, instead of, The Spirit was not as yet given them. But these sorts of passages are not very many, and when they are duly enquired into, it appears to be a mistake, or at least doubtful, to say that they have been corrupted maliciously, and with a design of favouring any Error.  
2. It might have so happened that even the Orthodox themselves meeting with difficult passages which they thought to be contrary to the Analogy of Faith, or to the other Gospels, might through an indiscreet Zeal have reformed these passages. 'tis upon this Account, that Saint Epiphanius observes, That some of the Orthodox have struck out that passage in Saint Luke, Chap. 19. Vers. 41. where 'tis said that Jesus wept over Jerusalem, because this seemed to them to be unbecoming our Saviour: others upon the same Motive have added to the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Kings which Saint Matthew had omitted, in order to render it conformable to the Old Testament. Lastly, 'tis very usual to find One Evangelist reformed from another Evangelist, and that added to, or retrenched from one Gospel, which is either added or left out in another. By the same motive( if Saint Jerome may be credited in the Case) were those wise Men moved who have left out of the 35th. Verse of the thirteenth Chapter of Saint Matthew's Gospel, the name of Prophet cited in that place; because the name of Isaiah is there inserted instead of that of Asaph, and because that prophesy was not Isaiah's, they were afraid lest the Evangelist should have been supposed to have cited a falsehood, perhaps 'tis upon the same account that in the beginning of Saint Mark's Gospel, Chap. 1. Vers. 2. The Name of Isaiah has been struck out, because the prophesy there cited, begins with the Words of Malachy.  
3. There have been some Copies wherein have been inserted several Additions taken out of Apocryphal Books, and particularly some there were in Saint Matthew's Gospel taken out of the Gospel of the Hebrews. Origen produces an Instance of this in Saint Matthew, Chap. 12. Vers. 12. Where these Words were inserted, Jesus therefore said, I was weak because of the Weak, I was hungry because of the Hungry, and I was thirsty for the sake of those who were Thirsty. We have already mentioned several other Instances of those Additions taken out of the Apocryphal Gospels.  
4. The critics have sometimes reformed the Text, because they have looked upon it as faulty. They have met with a Sense that shocked them in the Text, and which might be reformed by taking away one single Word. They have determined that the Text ought to be red so, or so, and have boldly corrected the Text upon a more Conjecture. For instance, in the first Epistle of Saint Peter, Chap. 2. Vers. 23. It is in the Greek, Jesus Christ committed himself to him that judgeth righteously; Judicanti se justè, {αβγδ}. Now because it seemed somewhat odd to say that Jesus Christ was judged by a righteous Judge, therefore some have taken out the word {αβγδ} righteously, and clapped in the Word {αβγδ} unrighteously.  
5. Another sort of Additions or Alterations are those Supplements or Illustrations, which do not alter the Sense, but render it more clear, or determine it. The Copiers or the Regulators of the Copies having taken a great deal of Liberty upon this Respect, being persuaded that it was enough for them to keep strictly to the Sense, and that they should do some Service in explaining it more clearly. But sometimes they have been mistaken, and have determined the Text by such Words as give it quiter another Sense, and have not explained it in its full Extent and Force.  
6. Lastly, the Text has sometimes been reformed, either from the Ancient Vulgar Latin, as we have observed of the Cambridge Manuscripts, or from Saint Jerome's Version, as some critics have remarked concerning several Greek Manuscripts of a more modern date.  
These are very near all the Causes of the Alterations, Additions, or Omissions which could have been made in the Greek Copies of the New Testament. The Causes of the Evil being discovered, it will be the easier to apply a Remedy thereto according to the Rules of Criticism.   

SECT. IV. The Original of the Faults that might have crept into the Text of the Vulgar Latin.  
WE have already sufficiently proved in the first Volume of this Work, that when the Council of Trent declared the Vulgar Latin Authentic, it did not prefer it before the Originals( that is, before the Hebrew Text of the Old, and the Greek Text of the New Testament) nor did it declare it to be free from Faults. We likewise there proved, that when there were any Differences between the Original and the Versions, good reason requires that we should follow the Original rather than the Version, unless there be some particular cause of supposing that the Original is corrupted, and the Version Genuine. This being laid down, we now come to discover in particular the Sources of the Faults that may be met with in the Text of the Vulgar Latin of the New Testament.  
In the first place all the same causes, Reasons and motives that have been alleged of the Changes and Alterations of the Greek Original, may take place with respect to the Copies of the Versions; so that if they could be assigned to show that the Original Text might be subject to Faults, they may more reasonably be applied, to prove the same thing upon the Version. The carelessness of the Copiers, the boldness of the critics, and all the particular Reasons that have induced the one or the other of them to make such an Alteration, may as well affect the Copies of the Vulgar Latin Version, as those of the Original Greek Text.  
But beside these Reasons which are common both to the Original and the Version, there are several others that may be produced to prove the Version might be subject to a great many Faults. For( 1.) Since the Latin Interpreter was not infallible, he might be mistaken, and mis-interpret the Text.( 2.) He might have had a faulty Copy.( 3.) He might have misread his Copy.( 4.) Whereas one Greek Word bears several Senses, he might have taken the most improper Sense, or falsely determined the Sense of a Phrase.( 5.) He might have added some things to clear up the Sense, or to render the Text of one Evangelist agreeable to that of another.( 6.) He might have inserted several Additions that were taken out of Apocryphal Books.  
But to pass from probabilities to matter of Fact; it is certain that the Vulgar Latin Version now extant differs not from that which was reformed by Saint Jerome, only several Faults are crept into it since that Father's time. Now the Ancient Version reformed by Saint Jerome, had by that Father's own Concession in his Letter to Damasus, all the Defects which we have taken notice of.  
These Defects are likewise acknowledged in the Fragments which we have by us of that ancient Version. It will be objected that Saint Jerome has reformed it from the Greek Text; which is true as to the principal passages, but he has not wholly reformed it, having only corrected the chief differences. He has left some designedly, that he might not alter the Text entirely. Several others might have escaped even his Diligence. 'tis certain that he has left several passages which are not conformable to the Greek that he red, and approved of. For it may be proved even from Saint Jerome himself that there were a great many places wherein the Greek Copies which this Father made use of, differed from the Vulgar Latin. Lastly, since St. Jerome's time a great many Variations have crept into the Latin Text even of his reformed Version. It cannot therefore be said, that the vulgar Latin is exempt from Faults, and that it ought always to be followed and preferred before the Greek Text.   

SECT. V. Of what Nature those Differences are, which are in the Greek Text, and between that and the Vulgar Latin.  
NOthing can be falser than the Notion which some may perhaps form to themselves, viz. that the great number of differences which are to be observed between the several Greek Copies, and between the Greek Text and the Vulgar Latin of the New Testament, do overthrow the Authority of the sacred Writings, and are capable of disfiguring or corrupting the sacred Text so far, that one cannot tell whether we have by us the Genuine Writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, or not.  
We own that there are a great many varieties in the Greek Copies; the bare perusal of the Oxford Edition of the New Testament in Greek is a sufficient proof of it. There are likewise a great many differences between the Greek Text and the vulgar Latin, perhaps near six hundred: but all these varieties and differences are inconsiderable. For the most part they are either the visible Faults of the Copiers or some Minute mistakes; such as putting some Words for others; or omitting, adding or repeating of Words; some particle added or struck out, a singular Number put for the plural, or a Pronoun for a Noun. There are some few indeed which alter the Sense, but none that contain any Error; and take 'em all together they alter nothing of the Doctrine and History of Jesus Christ and his Apostles.  
If we were as nice in collecting together the various Lections of profane Authors, and had as many different Copies of their Works; we should perhaps meet with as great a variety, and there is scarce any ancient Version of the Writings of the Greeks more conformable to their Text, than the Vulgar Latin of the New Testament is to the Greek Original. Does it therefore from thence follow, that we have not by us the Genuine pieces of those Ancient Writers; that we cannot be certain of their Doctrine, and the Histories which they relate; and that their Versions are not to be credited? This is what no Man of Sense would venture to assert. Why then would the Infidels make use of such an Argument to weaken the Authority of the sacred Books? Why should this be a stumbling block to the Ignorant?  
But now let us enter into the particulars of the Varieties that might have crept into the Text or into the Version, according to those Sources and Causes that we have already observed.  
1. In the first place it may be asserted, that there are not at present either in the Greek Text or in the Version any Alterations or Additions that were taken from Heretical and Apocryphal Gospels. These have been struck out of our Texts and Version, and are not to be met with in any Greek Copies, unless in the Cambridge Manuscript.  
2. There are but some few passages either in the Greek Text or in the Vulgar Latin, that can be said to have been changed or added, in order to render the Text more conformable to the Analogy of Faith: and there are but very few, where, that is left in one Evangelist, which had been added to it from the Gospel of another.  
3. Saint Jerome has reformed in the Vulgar Version that Confusion which was in the Latin Copies.  
4. If there be any other Instances of this Nature in the Greek Copies, they are very rare, and such as may be easily discovered.  
5. The Alterations made either to supply or to illustrate the Text, do not commonly alter the Sense, no more than the Corrections made of the Old Testament.  
6. There are therefore only such Alterations as have been made in the Greek Text, by some bold critics, that are of any Consideration. It must be owned, that there are some such as those in the Text; but there are Rules to discover them.  
7. As to the Varieties that have happened through the fault of the Copiers( with respect to the Original Text) there are but some few Additions of the Scholia inserted into the Text, besides that Addition at the end of the Lord's-Prayer, which is in the Greek Text of Saint Matthew, Chap. 6. Vers. 13. and runs thus; {αβγδ}. For thine is the Kingdom, and the Power and the Glory, for ever and ever, Amen.  
8. Besides these, there were other more frequent Faults, but which rarely altered the Sense, and are easily discoverable; such as the Repetitions, Alterations or Omissions of Words.  
These are the Heads to which all the Varieties and Faults of the Greek Text may reduced.  
As to the particular differences between the vulgar Version and the Original Text, they are either such as affect the Words or the Matters.  
By the Varieties in Words I mean, when the Interpreter has illustrated, paraphrased or explained the Text too largely; but these ought not to be looked upon as real differences.  
The Differences that affect the subject matter are either Additions and Omissions, or Contradictions. The Additions or Omissions do not affect the Sense. 'tis true, there must upon these occasions needs be something added or omitted in the Version or in the Text: but this Addition or Omission makes no Alteration as to the Truth of the Doctrine or the History.  
As to the Contradictions, they are either seeming or real: The seeming are such as may be easily adjusted: but the real are such as necessary imply a fault in the Text or in the Version. There are but few of these last sorts of Differences between the Text and the Version; and when there are any such, tho' we ought always to prefer the Text before the Version, yet because the Text may have been corrupted, and the Greek Copies do often vary from one another, the Difference ought to be examined by the Rules of Criticism, and to prefer that which( all things considered) seems to have the greatest Tokens and Characters of Truth.   

SECT. VI. Principles and Rules whereby to judge which of the different Lections ought to be followed, and When the Greek Text ought to be preferred before the Vulgar Latin, or the Vulgar before the Greek.  
THE Principles by which one may discover which of the different Lections of the Greek Text ought to have the pference, and whether one had best follow the Greek Original, or the Vulgar Version, when there is any Contrariety between them, may be reduced to these four Heads.( 1.) Reason:( 2.) The Testimonies of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers both Greeks and Latins:( 3.) The Greek and Latin Manuscripts. And( 4.) the Versions, viz. the Old and New Vulgar, and the Oriental Versions. Every Body will allow of these Principles, 'tis requisite to lay down some Rules for the Application of them.  
I. Reason or Criticism is certainly of very great Use to discover, among several Lections, which is the truest.  
For( 1.) There are some Faults which are very visible, such as the leaving out of a Word which takes away from the Sense; Repetitions of the same Word, some Letters put one for another, one Person for another, and one Number for another. A very little insight into the Greek is sufficient for the discovery of these Faults; nor are they to be reckoned among the various Readings. However there are a great many of that Nature in the Greek Manuscripts which we have mentioned.  
2. Reason discovers to us( when there are any differences, either in the Greek Copies, or between the Greek and the vulgar Latin) which of the two Readings agrees best with that which goes before and comes after; and then no question that is to be preferred, which makes the best Sense. But here one ought to be very cautious that one is not deceived, and rightly to discern whether the Sense one thinks to be the most proper and natural, be really so or no, and whether there are not other Reasons to turn the Scale on the other side. Additions are discovered, when that which is redundant interrupts; and Omissions, when that which is left out renders the Sense imperfect. When of two different Words, the one is good, and the other bad Sense, the former is to be adhered to: and when they are both good Sense, then recourse ought to be had to the following Rules, to the Fathers and Manuscripts.  
3. We ought to consider which of the two faults might most easily have crept in, and in which of the two Languages it might have done so. Whether it be not a mistake that might have happened through the carelessness or inadvertency of the Interpreter: and whether the Copier might not have more easily been mistaken in the Latin, than in the Greek.  
4. If it be such a Difference as was done designedly, we ought to inquire what might have been the Occasion why these rash critics have made such improper Corrections: what Reason or Motive they might have had to induce them to make that Alteration: Whether it be an Addition or Omission made to render it more conformable to another Evangelist: And whether it be any thing which seemed absurd or obscure, and which they were willing to alter to render the Sense more clear and softer.  
II. The Testimony of the ancient Ecclesiastical Writers, both Greeks and Latins, is of great weight to find out the true Reading. There is no question, but that as they lived nearer to the Times wherein those Books were penned, they had the purest Copies of them: The passages which they city out of the Scriptures, do show how in their times the Copies were red. 'tis true it might so happen that the Copiers, or those who have printed their Works, may have altered some places reforming them according to the Copies of their own time, but that is not very usual. In the Latin Fathers the very expressions of the Passages which they city are still preserved. Now whether they themselves translated them from the Greek, or whether they took them from the common received Version of their Times, yet still 'tis a manifest proof of the manner wherein they were red. There are likewise in the Greek Commentators several varieties to be met with in the Citations, which inform us that they have not altered them. This principle therefore is the best and surest of any with respect to the matter in Hand: The Application of it is as follows,  
1. When the Ancient Writers, both Greeks and Latins, are agreed as to such or such a Reading, That ought to be followed; at least if there be no stronger Reasons to be assigned for the contrary Reading: No matter whether the Reading authorized by the Ancients doth agree with most of the Greek Copies or not, or whether it be in the Greek Original, or in the Latin Version: For the Authority of the Ancient Fathers, is to be preferred to all the succeeding Manuscripts.  
2. When the Greek Fathers are for one Reading, and the Latins declare unanimously for another; that of the Greek ought to be preferred, especially if it be in the most correct Greek Copies. For the Ancient Version of the Latin Fathers having been full of Faults, we must lay no great stress upon it; and the Vulgar Version being posterior to the first Greek Fathers, and to the Copies which they who lived in Saint Jerome's time made use of, it ought not to be preferred to the Greek Text of that Time.  
3. If some of the Greek Fathers red after this manner, and others after that, recourse must be had to other Rules, and to other helps for the discovering of the Truth; always giving the pference as far as possible to the most Ancient, above the Modern.  
III. The Greek and Latin Manuscripts are of much less Authority than the Fathers, for none of 'em is so ancient as the first Fathers; the most ancient, which are only a few, being not above a thousand Years old or thereabouts. However they are worthy of some Consideration, and are of great use to correct the Text, especially when there is any disagreement between the Fathers, or when we cannot meet with any Citations in their Works, to give us any Light whereby to determine ourselves. I make no scruple, but that if all the Greek Copies, or the greatest part of them, and those the best, were for such or such a Reading, it ought to be preferred,( unless there was some other reason to the contrary,) before that Lection which is authorized by the Latin Fathers and the Vulgar Version. When there is any difference between the Manuscripts, in such a case the most ancient and the most correct ought to be followed: When there are but a few Greek Manuscripts which favour the Lection of the Vulgar Version, then that Reading ought to be preferred which is authorized by the most and best Manuscripts. There are a great many Differences in the Vulgar, authorized by some Greek Manuscripts, but some there be that are not founded upon any one Greek Manuscript; and others, that have only One, or Two, or Three, or Four Manuscripts to support them. There are likewise some few which are authorized by a great number of Greek Manuscripts, so that if we have no other stronger Reason to incline us to follow the Vulgar Version, we ought not to do it.  
IV. The Versions are the most uncertain Principle that can be, to discover the true Reading of the New Testament. For the old Vulgar Latin Version was full of Faults; as Saint Jerome has observed, and that Father was obliged to correct it from the Greek Text. And yet this very reformed Version is not free from Faults. Among the Oriental Versions, none but the Syriac is considerable, all the rest being made from that. It may indeed be of some use, but no great stress ought to be laid upon it. The English-Saxon is made from the ancient Vulgar Latin. In short, the ordinary Rule is not to reform the Original by the Versions, but the Versions by the Original. yet some uses may be made of the Versions, such as follow: If the old Vulgar Version and the Oriental Versions are conformable to the Greek Text, or to such or such a Lection of the Greek Text, this adds some weight to that Reading: If 'tis found that Saint Jerome has red, as it was in the Greek Copies, and not as it was in the Vulgar Latin; 'tis a proof that the Greek Text was not corrupted, but that the Fault was rather in the Version: If the Vulgar on the contrary be found to be conformable to the other Versions, and to the Citations of the ancient Greek Fathers, tho' it differs from most of the Greek Copies which we have at present, yet no scruple ought to be made of preferring it before the Vulgar Greek Text. These are the Rules, of which 'tis no hard matter to make the Application, whereby to discover, which of the various Lections of the Greek Copies ought to be followed, and when one ought to prefer the Greek before the Vulgar, or the Vulgar before the Greek.   

SECT. VII. Of the Hellenistical Language.  
THough the Question concerning the Hellenistical Language is grown famous by the Name and Reputation of those great Men that have handled it; yet we may venture to say, that nothing is easier than to resolve what Opinion ought to be had about it, and to put an end to all the disputes that have with so much Heat been carried on upon this Subject. There is mention made in the beginning of the Sixth Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, of a murmuring which arose between the Grecians( Hellenists according to the Original) and the Hebrews, because the Widows of the former were neglected in the daily ministration of Alms: Now both these were certainly Converted Jews, since the Gospel had not as yet been preached to any of the Gentiles. Mention is likewise made of the Hellenistical Jews( Grecians) against whom Saint Paul disputed, Acts 9. Verse 29. and so Saint Chrysostome, Theodoret, and Oecumenius observe, that the Hellenists and the Hebrews, were two sorts of Jews. The former are called Hellenists, because they spoken Greek and the others Hebrews, because they spoken the Hebrew or Chaldeé Language. The former were dispersed in the Cities of Greece, Syria, Asia and Egypt, and others dwelled at Jerusalem, or in Palestine and at Babylon, where the Chaldee was still spoken.  
From hence arose the name of the Hellenistical Language. Yet properly speaking it cannot be said that the Language of the Hellenistical Jews was spoken. For some there were who spoken good Greek, and yet were very little versed in the Hebrew or Syriac Language. But those among them who more sedulously applied themselves to the study of the Hebrew Bible, used themselves to the Turn of the Hebrew Idiom, and followed it; especially in the Versions or Explications of the Sacred Books written in Hebrew; and the Hebrew Jews who were skilled in Greek retained still the ways of speaking in their natural Language: Therefore both the One and the other fell into Hebraisms, whenever they spoken or writ in Greek. 'tis to this Greek mixed with Hebrew Idioms, that some have given the name of the Hellenistical Language. The Seventy were the first who inserted those Hebraisms into their Version, being minded to speak as Hebrews. The Evangelists and Apostles who were all of them Hebrews, except Saint Luke who was an Hellenist, have likewise made use of a great many of those Hebrew Phrases, which were either Natural or Customary to them. There are such sorts of Hebraisms in the Jewish Books written in all kinds of Languages.  
So that in short, here lies the whole mystery of the Hellenistical Language, which in truth is not a distinct Language, nor so much as the particular Dialect of one, but only Greek mixed with Hebraisms, Chaldaisms, Syriacisms. Now there is no question to be made but that there are several of them in the New Testament, therefore it may be said that it was penned in the Hellenistical Language. All the occasional questions that have been raised on this Subject, signify nothing towards the deciding of the principal Question, which properly speaking is a trifling Question about a Term only, tho' it may be of some use for the better understanding the Text of the New Testament, to take notice of the Hebraisms that occur therein.    

CHAP. IV. Of the Versions of the New Testament.  

SECT. I. Of the Latin Versions of the New Testament: Of the Ancient Vulgar, the New Vulgar, and the Modern Versions.  
THE reading of the New as well as of the Old Testament, being necessary for all Christians, both in general and particular, it cannot be questioned, but that, at the very beginning of the Establishment of the Western Churches, it was translated and red commonly in Latin in all the Latin Churches. But whereas the Greek was very common, several took upon them to translate it, or to add to or alter the Versions already made. This multiplicity and variety of Latin Versions of the Holy Scriptures, was, according to Saint Jerome's, and Saint Augustine's attestation, much greater in the New than in the Old Testament; as is apparent from that Variety to be seen in the ancient Latin Fathers, and in the ancient Latin Copies. It cannot therefore be doubted but that there was one Version more commonly used than the rest, called the Italian, or the Vulgar: But the Copies of this very Version were, and still are so different, that they may pass for almost so many distinct Versions.  
Father Martinay has furnished us with an Instance of this, in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, which he has given us lately from two Manuscripts of eight hundred Years standing: for there is almost as much difference between these two Manuscripts as there is between two distinct Versions; and if one compares them with the Version of the Cambridge Manuscript, and with the Citations of the Ancient Fathers, one shall meet with a great many Varieties throughout. If likewise one should compare the Latin Version of the Epistles of Saint Paul, which is in Manuscript in the French King's Library, and in the Library of the Abbey of Saint Germain des Prez, with the Text that is in the Commentaries of Ambrosiastres and Pelagius, we shall find a great deal of difference between them.  
Saint Jerome did not undertake to made a New Version of the New Testament, but only to reform the Old one by the Greek Text: Novum Testamentum Graecae fidei reddidi,( says he in the Catalogue of his Works:) which in general comprehends not only the Gospels, but also the other Books of the New Testament. He likewise cites in his Epistle to Marcellus, the Epistles of Saint Paul, when he speaks of his new Edition of the New Testament. In his Letter to Pope Damasus, which we have already related, he explains more at large after what manner he has made his Correction. He only corrected the Places which made any difference in the Sense, that he might not absolutely change the Text of the Vulgar Latin; tho' in his Commentaries on the New Testament, he has taken notice of several Faults which were in the Ancient Vulgar.  
'tis certain that the Vulgar Latin Version, at present, is very different from the Ancient Italian, and that therein are to be found most of the Things which Saint Jerome had reformed in the Vulgar Version of his Time. However, it must be owned, That in Saint Jerome's Commentaries there are several Passages, which that Father would have to be red otherwise than they are in the Vulgar Latin. Which has induced some to believe, that the Vulgar was not the same Version which was reformed by Saint Jerome, but the Work of another Author.  
This Opinion might have had some show of Probability, had there been any other Author since Saint Jerome, who had undertaken such a Task, but this would be somewhat hard to prove. How comes it then that the Vulgar Latin, in present Use, is not entirely conformable to the Version which Saint Jerome thought sit to correct? For this, Two plain Reasons may be assigned.  
1. First, That Saint Jerome did not correct all the Places which he thought deserved to be corrected; and this either through Inadvertence; or else he left them uncorrected on purpose, that he might not introduce too great an Alteration into the Text.  
2. Secondly, This might be occasioned through the carelessness of the Copiers of Saint Jerome's Version, and thro' that Liberty which the Correctors took to reform it. 'tis from hence that so many Varieties have proceeded in the Copies and Editions of the Vulgar Latin.  
Saint Jerome's Correction of the Text of the New Testament met with several Opposers, but not with so many as his New Version of the Old Testament. Saint Augustin, who at first did not approve of this latter, yet highly commended the other Undertaking. For in his Letter written to Saint Jerome, wherein he blames his New Version of the Hebrew Text, which is the Seventieth Letter in the last Edition, he uses these Expressions: We return God our hearty Thanks for your Translation of the Gospel, written in Greek: because there is nothing in it which offends us when we have compared it with the Greek: and should any in Opposition hereto stand up for the Ancient Falsity, he would easily be better informed or refuted, when the Manuscripts should be shown him. If there is any thing to hinder this so useful a Work from being commended according to its just desert, it must be a Man, who is so very stiff as not to pardon the Errors that are therein. Saint Augustin himself has to some good purpose made use of the Version as 'tis reformed by Saint Jerome.  
However, the Ancient Vulgar continued still for some time to be generally used in the Churches. But by degrees it was regulated according to Saint Jerome's Version; and at last that Father's Version is become not only the most common, but also the only One in use, as well with respect to the New, as to the Old Testament. This has not prevented some particular Persons in these last Times, from undertaking either to make new Latin Versions of the New Testament, or to reform the Vulgar by the Greek Text.  
Laurentius Valla was the first who conceived such a Design, and had put it in execution, had not the Pope put a stop thereto. He only made some Critical Remarks on the Ancient Interpreter; wherein he noted the places, where he thought that the Interpreter had not rendered the Propriety of the Words, nor followed the Sense, or had made use of Barbarous Terms.  
James Le Févre d'Estaples, composed a New Version of the Epistles of Saint Paul, which he caused to be Printed on the Side of the Vulgar, with his Commentaries, at Paris, 1531. He was set upon for this Version by Lopez Stunica.  
But Erasmus was the first, who undertook a new Latin Version of the whole New Testament, and has done it with Success. He dedicated it to Pope lo X. and caused it to be printed at Basil, in the Year 1516. He revised it afterwards, and printed it again in the Year 1518. with a Bull of lo X. in commendation of his Version.  
How severe soever the Inquisition is, especially upon the Account of the Books of Authors who are otherwise suspected, yet It found no fault with the Version of Erasmus, as is observed in the Preface of the New Testament, printed at Antwerp, in the Year 1616. with the Licence of the Superiors, whose Title runs thus; Novum Jesu Christi Testamentum complectens praeter Vulgatam Guidonis è Syriaco,& Benedicti Ariae Montani Translationes, insuper Desiderii Erasmi Auctoris damnati Versionem permissam.  
The Censor Librorum, in the Preface before the Version of Erasmus, called in the Title above-mentioned, Auctoris damnati Versionem permissam, The allowed Version of a condemned Author; hath these Words: Nothing hinders us from seriously recommending the Version of Erasmus of Rotterdam; Would to God we could say as much of his other Books.— As for this Version, it has been esteemed so excellent by all the Learned, that the General Inquisition of Spain has found nothing therein that ought to be corrected, or struck out: and tho' it interdicts all the Books of the Authors of the First Class, yet it allows that this Version of Erasmus of the New Testament, should be in every bodies Hands, calling it, The allowed Version of a condemned Author. This Censor adds, That four Famous Doctors of Divinity, whom he there names, have passed the same judgement upon it.  
But notwithstanding the Pope's Approbation, yet Erasmus had very violent Adversaries to engage with. Stunica and suitor wrote very sharply against him, and he was obliged to reply to them. Tho' it cannot be said that his Version is exempt from Faults; yet it must be owned that 'tis a very neat Work.  
Pagninus has annexed to his Version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, a Version of the New Testament from the Greek. It were well if his Version equalled that of Erasmus. 'tis to be found in the Bible of Pagninus, printed in the Year 1528.  
Arias Montanus made an Interlineary and Literal Version, which can hardly be of any use, but to those who would understand the Greek.  
The Version of lo Judas is more Elegant and freer, but yet is not very exact.  
As for Sebastian Castallio's Version, we shall add nothing to what we have already said of the Character of that Author's Translation, which does not at all svit with a Version of the Holy Scriptures.  
The Translation of Theodore Beza, is that which the Protestants esteem most. It must be owned that there is a great deal of Learning in Beza's Work; tho' he has affencted sometimes to make use of certain unusual Terms, and to abstain from others, which Custom has, as it were, consecrated. His withdrawing from the Church of Rome, and the Heresy wherein he was engaged, may make the Romanists to suspect him: but for all this, his Version may( says Du Pin) be made use of by them to good purpose, as Origen, Saint Jerome, and several other Ecclesiastical Writers, formerly made use of the Versions of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, who were Judaizing heretics; tho' they were suspected( as Saint Jerome observes in his Preface to Job) to have rendered the Mysteries of JESUS CHRIST obscure.  
John Piscator has copied Beza's Version, tho' he has altered it in several Places.  
The Modern Roman catholics do not trouble their Heads in making New Versions of the New Testament, but only stick to the use of the Vulgar, which is declared Authentic by the Council of Trent. But for all that, they have set down in their Notes and Commentaries, the Various Lections of the Greek, and the Faults which they supposed to have found out in the Vulgar Latin.   

SECT. II. Of the Oriental Versions of the New Testament.  
OF all the Oriental Versions of the New Testament, the Syriac, doubtless, is the most ancient. However, 'tis not so old as some have imagined. I suppose no body will aver that it is Saint Mark's, as the Syrians do assert. We have reason likewise to doubt whether it be more ancient, than the Fifth or Sixth Century. For there we meet with the Addition to the Lord's Prayer, which is in the Liturgy of the Greeks; and where there is mention made of Breaking of Bread, the Word Eucharist is put there, instead of Bread, which does not savour much of Antiquity. This Version was certainly made from the Greek, tho' there are in some Places such Readings, as differ from the Text of the Vulgar Greek. There is not any mention made in most of the Syriac Manuscripts, of the Story concerning the Woman taken in Adultery; but the English have supplied it from a Manuscript of Archbishop Usher. That Passage about the Trinity, in the First Epistle of Saint John, is left out; and Tremellius was the first who inserted it, by translating it from the Greek into Syriac. Most of the Manuscripts have likewise only the Three General Epistles. Doctor Pocock was the first that caused to be printed at Leyden, in the Year 1630. the other Four in Syriac, from a Manuscript in England. The Apocalypse was published by Ludovicus de Dieu, in the Year 1627. The First Edition of the New Testament in Syriac is that of Albertus Widmanstadius, from a Manuscript brought by a Priest from Merdin and sent by Ignatius the Patriarch of the Jacobines. It first appeared public at Vienna, in the Year 1562. Tremellius put out a Second Edition of it, but in Hebrew Characters, and published it with a Latin Version at Geneva, in the Year 1569. It was Inserted in the Polyglott Bible of Philip II. printed at Antwerp, in the Year 1571. in Hebrew and Syriac Characters, by the care of M. Le Févre de la Boderie, who caused another Edition of it to be made in Hebrew Characters at Paris, in the Year 1584. Martin Trostius, in the Year 1621, printed a New Edition of the Syriac New Testament in Syriac Characters, with a Latin Interpretation at the Bottom of the Pages. Lastly, Giles Gurbin published it in smaller Characters at Hamburgh, in the Year 1663.  
The ARabic Versions of the New Testament, are not so Ancient and Correct. Erpenius has furnished us with one of the whole New Testament, from a Manuscript written by a Coptic, in the Year 1171. which was printed at Leyden, in the Year 1616. There is likewise another Arabic Version of the Gospels, printed at Rome with a Latin Version, in the Year 1591. which Gabriel Sionita has inserted into the Polyglotts of Paris. All these Versions were made from the Coptic or Syriac, and not from the Greek.  
The Aethiopic Version of the New Testament, was likewise made from the Syriac. The Four Gospels, the Apocalypse, the Seven caconical Epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, were printed at Rome, in the Year 1548. Afterwards were printed the other Thirteen Epistles of Saint Paul. The Author of these Editions is called Tesphasion, a Monk of Mount Lebanus, who was assisted therein by Gualterus Aretinus, and Marianus Victorius. Their Aethiopic Copy being imperfect, they supplied several things from the Latin, especially in the Acts of the Apostles. 'tis this Version which is in Mr. Walton's English Polyglott.  
We have not any Edition of the New Testament in the Coptic; tho' there are some Manuscripts thereof in the French King's Library. There are two Versions of the New Testament, printed in the Persian: One of a Modern date, published by Abraham Weloke, and printed at London; and the Other more ancient was published in the English Polyglott, from a Manuscript in the 1341. This Version was made from the Syriac, and is full of Paraphrases and Expositions.  
Uscanius printed a New Testament in the Armenian Language at Amsterdam, An. Dom. 1644.  
The Anglo-Saxon, or Ancient Gothic Version published by M. Marechal, and printed at Dort, in the Year 1665. is made, as we have already observed, from the Ancient Vulgar Version, and therein one may see the Additions, which are in the Cambridge Manuscript.  
The Muscovites have a New Testament in their Language, printed at Ostrovia, in the 1581.  
The Version of the New Testament into the Vulgar Greek, by Maximus, and printed at Geneva, in the Year 1638. is of no Authority[ among the Roman catholics] being made by a Man gained over to the Calvinist Party, and at their Instigation. As to the Versions of the New Testament in the Vulgar Language, we have nothing to add to what we have already said concerning them, in the First Part of this Work.    

CHAP. V. Of the Division of the New Testament into Titles and Chapters.  
THE Division of the Four Gospels into Parts, or Sections, is more ancient than that of the other Books of the Bible. Eusebius in his Letter to Carpianus, and in his Ten Canons of the Gospels, made use of small Sections, wherein he set down by how many Evangelists, and in what Places, one and the same thing was related. This doubtless was the Origine of the Division of the Gospels into Sections, or small Chapters, which were noted in the margin, that so the Canon might be of some Use. Saint Epiphanius and Caesareus, Brother to Saint Gregory nazianzen, make mention of these Sections of the Gospels, according to Eusebius's Division, into Eleven hundred and seventy two.  
But besides this Division of the Gospels, there was another made into larger Parts, called Titles; because at the Head of each Book were set down the Arguments of each of its Parts, whose Distinction was noted in the margin, by the same Head, which answered to what was in the Table. These Titles are of longer standing among the Latins, than among the Greeks.  
Saint Jerome, speaking of the Commentaries on the Gospels, which were composed by Fortunatianus of Africa, Bishop of Aquileia, who flourished under Constantine, says, that they had Titles: His Words are, Fortunatianus natione Afer, Aquileiensis Episcopus, Imperante Constantino in Evangelia Titulis ordinatis, brevi& rustico sermone scripsit Commentarios.  
Those Titles are likewise to be seen, in the Commentaries of Saint Hilary on Saint Matthew, divided into Canons, or Chapters. Juvencus has likewise observed the same Division of the Gospel: But these Divisions of the Latins are not uniform.  
Saint Jerome did not make use of these Titles or Chapters; and in his reformed Version, has followed Eusebius's Division into Sections. But tho' these Titles were not Saint Jerome's; and tho' he did not keep to them, yet since they were common in the Copies of the Ancient Vulgar, they have been retained in the Copies of Saint Jerome's Version.  
The Greeks have likewise since allowed of these Divisions into Titles, are Suidas has observed. Their Titles differed from the Chapters, in that the former contained more in them than the latter. Saint Matthew was divided into 68 Titles, and 355 small Chapters. Saint Mark into 49 Titles, and 236 small Chapters. Saint Luke into 83 Titles, and 342 small Chapters. Saint John into 18 Titles, and 232 small Chapters.  
In the Manuscript of Alexandria, or Thecla's Manuscript, the Gospels are divided into Titles or Chapters, {αβγδ}, and subdivided into Sections {αβγδ}, agreeable to the Canons of Eusebius.  
The Vatican Manuscript is not divided after the same manner, but has only in the margin read Titles, which make several Sections, tho' not separated; and are different from those of Eusebius's Canons: for the Gospel of Saint Matthew has 150 of them. That of Saint Mark 62. That of Saint Luke 152. That of Saint John 80. The Epistle of Saint James 9. the First Epistle of Saint Peter 8. The First of Saint John 11. The Fourteen Epistles of Saint Paul, which are all under the same running Title, 93 in all. This Division is only peculiar to this Manuscript, and the other is more common in the rest of the Greek Manuscripts.  
At first, the Gospels only were divided into Sections, which was requisite in order to make a Concordance of the Four Evangelists. But afterwards the same thing was done with respect to the other Books of the New Testament. Let us see what an Author lately published by Alexander Zacagnius, the Vatican Library-Keeper, says on this Subject. The Author is one Euthalius, a Bishop in Egypt, who lived in the Fifth Century, and made an Edition of the Epistles of Saint Paul, and the other caconical Epistles. This Euthalius, in the Preface of that Work, says, That the Division of St. Paul's Epistles into Chapters, had been made under the Fourth Consulship of Arcadius, and the Third of Honorius,( that is, in the Year 396.) by a Syrian, whose Name is unknown. Euthalius made use of that Division in his Edition of Saint Paul's Epistles, and divided himself the Acts of the Apostles. He was but young when he finished that Work. But afterwards, about the latter end of his Life, he undertook likewise to divide the caconical Epistles, at the Instance of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, who succeeded Peter Mongus in the See of that Church, An. Dom. 490. These two Pieces were published by Zacagnius, in the Year 1698. with several other Remains of Antiquity, taken out of the Vatican Library. This Division was afterwards received by the Greeks; and 'tis that which Oecumenicus made use of.  
At last, the Text of the New, as well as that of the Old Testament, was divided into Verses. Hesychius is the Author of that Division among the Greeks. The Manuscripts of the Ancient Vulgar, are likewise divided into Verses, as well as the Manuscripts of Saint Jerome's Version, and the Greek Manuscripts which are of a more Modern Date. Father Martinay has published a Table, giving us an Account how many Verses each Book contains, according to the different Divisions; which are not so wide from one another, as those of the Books of the Old Testament.  
The present Division of the New Testament into Chapters, is owing to Cardinal Hugh; and the Distinguishing each Chapter into Verses, was done by Robert Stephens, who has followed that of the Greek Manuscripts, when he found them divided into Verses.   

CHAP. VI. Of the Apocryphal Books of the New Testament.  
THE Apocryphal Books of the New Testament, are of two sorts: Some of them are the Works of Orthodox Writers, and have nothing of harm in them: others are Writings forged by heretics, to Authorize their Errors.  
The First sort, are either such Pieces as are fathered upon Authors, who never wrote them: As for Instance, the Letter of Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, or Abgarus: Or Anonymous Tracts, such as the Gospels according to the Hebrews and the Egyptians,: Or lastly, such Writings which do indeed belong to those Authors, whose Names they bear, but have not been owned as caconical by the Church, tho' some have believed them to be such: As for Instance, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, and the First Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, which some of the Ancients have cited as Books of the Holy Scripture.  

SECT. I. Of the Letter of Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, and of that King's Letter to Jesus Christ.  
AMong all the Remains of Antiquity which ought to be inserted into the Number of the caconical Books, if they were that Author's to whom they are inscribed, none certainly could more fairly pretend to it than the Letter of Jesus Christ to King Agbarus, if we were sure that he wrote it. For as no Person can question the Certainty and Truth of what He has said or written,( the Doctrine and Writings of the Apostles being only infallible, because of the Instructions they received from their great Master) in what Veneration ought a Letter written by himself to be held among Christians, were we certain that it was really His? But we are so far from being assured of this, that on the contrary 'tis highly probable that 'tis a Spurious piece, and such as deserves no manner of Credit. The Account we shall give of it is as follows.  
Euscbius in the 13th. Ch. of the 1st. B. of his Ecclesiastical History relates, That a King of Edessa 
Edessa.] A famous City, situated beyond Euphrates, between Syria and Mesopotamia.  named Agbarus, 
named Agbarus.] Others red it Abgarus, and so that Name is in some ancient Medals. In the most correct Manuscripts 'tis Agbarus, and this suits best with the Arabic.  having heard of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, wrote a Letter to him desiring him to cure him of a Distemper with which he was afflicted: That Jesus Christ at the present did not comply with his Desire, but only wrote him a Letter, wherein he promised to sand him one of his Disciples to cure him; and lastly, that the Apostle Saint Thomas immediately after our Saviour's Resurrection, sent to him Thaddeus one of the seventy two Disciples, who fulfilled the promise which our Saviour had made of healing him, and converted both him and his Family.  
This story Eusebius founds on the Letters of Jesus Christ and Agbarus, taken out of the Archives of the Church of Edessa, which he says were translated from the Syriac into Greek. However 'tis probable, that Eusebius was too hasty in crediting the Memoirs which had been given him; That those Letters are spurious, and that this whole story is more invention.  
For in the first place who can imagine that the King of Edessa upon the bare recital that was made of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, should have spoken to him as a Man that was persuaded of his Divinity, and instructed in his Religion? Having heard( says he) of the Miracles which thou hast wrought, I am fully persuaded that thou art God. Who does not perceive that these Words could never have been written by any, unless one convinced of, and instructed in Christianity, who makes Agbarus to speak almost in the same style as he would speak himself? What is afterwards put into that King's Mouth, when he says ( That having understood that the Jews calunniated him, and designed to do him some mischief, he invited him into his City, which tho' small, yet was big enough for both of them) This, I say is a farther proof of the Falsity of this Letter. For who will believe that a King should at the first touch offer half of his Kingdom to a Man that was a stranger to him?  
'tis as easy to discover the spuriousness of the Letter attributed to Jesus Christ; which begins thus. Thou art happy, Agbarus, in having believed in me whom thou hast never seen: for it is written of me, that those who shall see me, shall not believe in me, that those who believe in me, without seeing me should receive everlasting Life. Where are these words written? Is it not plain, that he who compiled this Letter alludes to what our Saviour said to St. Thomas, Happy are those who have not seen me, and yet have believed? Words that were not spoken by Jesus Christ till after his Resurrection, and which were not penned till a great while after, which manifestly detects the forgery of this Letter.  
The story which is  told upon these two Letters, and taken out of the same Archives, is no less fabulous. 'tis said that the Apostle judas 
[ Apostle judas.] Thomas the Apostle was not surnamed judas, but Didymus; and judas was never called Thomas: which is another proof of the Falsity of this History.  who also was called Thomas, sent the Apostle Thaddeus, one of the seventy Disciples to Agbarus: That this King having heard that there was a Man in his City who wrought a great many Miracles, and supposing that it was the Disciple whom Jesus Christ had promised to sand him, he sent for him by one Tobias; and that he no sooner saw him, but his face appearing to be divine, he fell down at his Feet and worshipped him, and asked him whether he was not that Disciple whom Jesus Christ had promised to sand to cure him. Thaddeus having answered that he was the Man, and that if he believed in Jesus Christ, he should be saved; to this Agbarus replied: My Belief in him is so strong, that I would denounce War against the Jews who have crucified him, and extirpate their whole Nation, did not the Fear I have of the Roman Empire divert me from that undertaking. Certainly he who has made this perty Prince of Edessa to say such Words, had but very little judgement, in attributing to him such an extravagant Design as this was. For what can be more ridiculous than to imagine that the Prince of one single City should engage in a War against a Nation so powerful as that of the Jews, and should hope to destroy them to revenge the Death of a Man, whom he knew only by Hear-say? What probability is there that he had nothing but the fear of the Romans to divert him from so rash an undertaking? I shall not stand to make Remarks upon the other Circumstances of this Narration, which seem to be as fabulous as those which we have already hinted at. I shall only add, that the Time wherein it is said that these things happened, discovers the Imposture of the whole story.  
It was noted at the end of these Memoirs, that this happened in the 430th. Year of the Edessenes; now that was the 15th. Year of the Reign of Tiberius, in which the Ancients believed that Jesus Christ dyed and rose again. And according to this Epocha, and what is related in these Records, this happened immediately after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; and Agbarus and several other Gentiles of Edessa, embraced the Gospel before Cornelius, which is downright contrary to the Acts of the Apostles: and consequently we are as good as sure that this History is false, and those Letters spurious.  
The Authority of Eusebius is not of any Consideration in this point; for 'tis plain that he was imposed upon by the Memoirs taken out of the Archives of the Church of Edessa, and sent to him, which he was too easy in crediting. And who is there but knows that there are abundance of these sorts of Records which are subject to such slips in Histories of that Nature?  
But forasmuch as a story( as they say) loses nothing by going, they have since feigned, that Jesus Christ in writing to Agbarus, sent him his Picture painted on a Handkerchief. Evagrius is the first that makes mention of this Picture in the fourth Book of his History, Chap. 27. and he goes upon the Authority of Procopius, who yet says nothing of this History. However since the time of Evagrius, the Defenders of Images and Image-Worship have frequently made mention of it: and the Modern Greeks have believed it so strongly, that they have instituted a Festival for it on the Sixteenth of August.   

SECT. II. Of several Letters attributed to the Virgin-Mary.  
SOme have likewise attributed several Letters to the Virgin-Mary, the which not being so Ancient as those of Jesus Christ to Agbarus, may more easily be convicted of falsehood. The Letter of the Virgin to St. Ignatius is spurious, as we shall show when we come to speak of the Letters of that Saint. That to the Florentines published by Canisius, and That which the Inhabitants of Messina brag that they have, have greater signs of falsity, and are rejected by all the World, so that there is no need to prove them spurious.   

SECT. III. Of the Ancient Gospels which are not Heretical, tho' they be not caconical: Namely, the Gospels according to the Hebrews, and according to the Egyptians.  
THE Ancients make mention of two Gospels which were not of the same Authority as the four caconical Gospels, but which one cannot reject as Records invented by the heretics, to authorize their Errors.  
The first and most ancient is the Gospel of the Nazarenes, concerning which we have nothing farther to add, to what we have already observed about it in speaking of Saint Matthew's Gospel.  
The Second is the Gospel according to the Egyptians, cited by Saint Clement of Alexandria in the third Book of his Stromata, where two passages taken out of that Gospel are recited. The first containing the Speech of our Saviour to Salome: I am come to destroy the Works of the Woman; that is, according to Saint Clement's Explication; Child-bearing and Death, which are the Effects of Concupiscenee.  
The other passage was cited by the heretic Cassian of the Sect of Valentinus, who has quoted it in these Terms: Salome demanding when one should know the things about which she had interrogated our Lord, he  told her: When you have divested yourselves of all shane, and when two shall be made one, the Man with the Woman, and when there shall be no more either Male or Female.. This is plainly a corrupt Paraphrase or Imitation of what our Saviour says in Saint Matthew, Chap. 22. Verse 30. That after the Resurrection there should be no more Marrying, nor giving in Marriage, but that they should be as the Angels in Heaven.  
The passage of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, if taken in this Sense, may be tolerable; but Cassian made use of it to condemn Marriage. For this reason Saint Clement after he had return'd him this Answer: That this Sentence is not to be met with in the four Gospels, which Tradition has handed down to us, but only in the Gospel according to the Egyptians; gives us afterwards an obscure and forced Explication of it, which would not be satisfactory, were that Gospel of any Authority.  
Saint Epiphanius says, that the Sabellians made use of this Gospel for the supporting of their Error, because it proposes several things spoken by our Saviour, after a hidden and mysterious manner, by which he seems to declare to his Disciples, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are one and the same Person. Origen and Saint Jerome make mention likewise of this Gospel; but we have lost it, as well as that of the Nazarenes.   

SECT. IV. Of the Proto-Evangelium of Saint James, and the Gospel of Nicodemus.  
BEsides the two celebrated Gospels among the Ancients, already mentioned, we have by us at present, a Book entitled, The Proto-Evangelium, concerning the Generation of Jesus Christ, and of his Mother Mary always Virgin, written by Saint James the Less, Kinsman and Brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, first Apostle, and first Bishop of the Christians of Jerusalem. This Book was brought from the Levant, by William Postel, who translated it into Latin. His Version was printed at Basil by Bibliander, in the Year 1562. and the Greek in the Year 1569. in the Orthodoxographies. 'tis a Treatise full of idle Stories and Fables 
Full of Idle Stories and Fables.] Some Instances of this Nature be pleased to take a Specimen of. Joachim was chosen out of the twelve Tribes; Reuben  told him that it was not lawful for him to make any offering because he had no Children. Upon this he sorrowfully retires to the Wilderness, where he fasted forty days. Anna wept, and her Servant Judith  told her, that she should take some of the Laurel-Tree. Accordingly she went down into the Garden, and complained that she was not like a bide that might have its Nest in the Laurel-Tree. The Angel appeared to her, and  told her that she should have a Child. The same Angel went and  told Joachim the same thing. Joachim consulted the Breast-plate, or Ephod of the High-Priest, and did not find therein that he had sinned. The Virgin Mary walked alone at six Months end. She was bread up by Angels in the Temple, and was married to Joseph because there came a Dove upon the Rod which he had given to the High-Priest. Saint Joseph when he found her big with Child, made her drink of the Waters of jealousy, according to the Law, &c. , concerning the Nativity, Life, and Lying in of the Virgin.  
Eustathius in his Commentary on the Six Days Work of Creation, produces a passage taken out of this Book: but withal owns, that it does not really belong to the Apostle of that Name, and cites it only under the Name of one James.  
Saint Gregory Nyssene has likewise transcribed several Stories out of this Book in his Discourse concerning the Nativity of the Virgin-Mary.  
Epiphanius the Monk in his Treatise of the Life of the Virgin, says that this James was a Jew contemporary with the Virgin. 'tis more probable that a Greek was the compiler of this History.  
The Gospel of Nicodemus, which follows that of Saint James in the Orthodoxographies, is as full of Fables 
Is as full of Fables.] Another Specimes of these Fables in the Gospel of Nicodemus, be pleased to take as follows. Pilate sent a Messenger to him; this Messenger and all the Souldiers that were with him fell down and worshipped him, and the Colours bowed down before him twice. The Narration of the Evangelists is here intermixed with several Fables. Herein Jesus Christ is made to answer to Pilate's Question, What is Truth? Herein Nicodemus, and those whom Jesus Christ cured, are brought in speaking with him. Herein the Woman cured of the Issue of Blood, is called Veronica. The Author of this Gospel describes the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by adding a great many things to it of his own Head. He makes the Dead who were raised at our Saviour's Death to enter into ridiculous Discourses with one another; and says that they made the Sign of the across. He introduces the Devil, making several ridiculous Argumentations upon Jesus Christ's Descent into Hell. He feigns that after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, Pilate having ordered the Jewish Books to be brought him, they proved that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. And several other stories he has of the like Nature.  concerning the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the former is concerning the Life of the Virgin-Mary. The Title imports that it was found under the Reign of Theodosius; but it is probable, that it is more modern. It is not placed by Galasius among the Apocryphal Books, nor does it contain any gross Errors.   

SECT. V. Of the False Gospels forged by the heretics.  
NOthing more evinceth the truth of this Maxim of H. Scripture, ( That the Father of Lies does often transform himself into an Angel of Light:) than the many Books that have been forged by heretics, and made to pass for the Writings of the Apostles, and caconical. The Holy Ghost having caused Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and a Revelation, to be written by those whom he had inspired: The Devil to counterfeit the Truth, has caused several Gospels, Acts, Revelations and Epistles, to be made by his Ministers, and which they have fathered on the Apostles or Apostolical Men. Their Number was very great in the first Ages of Christianity. But that which shows how weak an Imposture is in Comparison with the Truth, is, that the falsity of these Memoirs was immediately detected: The catholics were not deceived by them, and their Authors have been found out and discovered. They were never cited with any Credit by the Ecclesiastical Writers. Their style, quiter different from the Apostolical Simplicity, and the Doctrine contrary to that of the Apostles, is a sufficient Evidence of their Spuriousness. They were not long in request, and at last perished with the Sects that authorized them, so that we have now nothing left of 'em but their Titles. Here follows the Catalogue of them, and what we know of them.  
I. The Gospel of Saint Peter, of which Eusebius and Saint Jerome make mention, is one of the most ancient. Serapion an ancient Ecclesiastical Writer has composed a Treatise on this Gospel, in favour of some Christians of Rhossus, who had swerved from the Faith having been deceived by this Gospel. We here present you with a passage taken out of that Tract, as 'tis related by Eusebius, which we think fit to transcribe in this place, it being so very pertinent to our present Subject. My Brethren, we receive Saint Peter, and the other Apostles as Jesus Christ himself; but we reject, as Learned Men ought to do, such Books as are fathered upon them, knowing that we have not received them by Tradition. When I was in your Parts, forasmuch as you all embraced sound Doctrine, without having red the Gospel that goes under the name of Saint Peter, which some presented to me, I then said, that if that was all which troubled you, you might red it. But having understood since that there was a secret heresy lurking in their Minds, I will return to give you another Visit, and you may expect me very shortly. I have likewise learnt what heresy martion espoused, who contradicted himself. I have therefore borrowed this Gospel of those who have studied it, viz. the Successors of Marcion's Predecessors, whom we call {αβγδ}( for most of the opinions of martion and his Followers come from that School) and having red it, I have found several things which svit with the true Doctrine of our Saviour: but withall I have met with others which were very different from it, and which I have collected together, in order to give you a Caution about them. The nazarenes, according to Theodoret's testimony, did likewise make use of this Gospel of Saint Peter. Pope Gelasius places it among the Apocryphal Books.  
II. The Valentinians have composed a Gospel, which they styled, The Gospel of Truth, as Saint Irenaeus observes in his Third Book against heresy, Chap. 11. The Valentinians( says he) Men of a bold and impudent Spirit, boast that they have more than four Gospels, and produce their own Writings under that Title; for they have the Boldness to entitle a Gospel, which they have lately written, and which does not agree with the Gospels of the Apostles, The Gospel of Truth.  
III. The Gnostics have likewise forged a Gospel entitled, The Gospel of Perfection, of which Saint Epiphanius makes mention in his 26th. heresy N. 2. They likewise made use, according to the same Father's Testimony, Ibid. N. 13. Of a Gospel which they attributed to Saint Philip the Disciple of Jesus Christ, which was the same that was made use of by the Ebionites, Basilides and Appelles, and is rejected by Pope Gelasius. Saint Epiphanius relates a passage of it, which may serve to give us a Character of these Writings. I will here give you the Transcript of it in order to convince the greatest Infidels of the vast difference there is between the Spurious and Genuine Gospels. The passage runs thus, The Lord has discovered to me what Words the Soul ought to use when it ascends to Heaven, and how it ought to answer to each of the Celestial virtues; viz. I have recovered and recollected myself: I have begotten no Children for the Prince of this World, but have plucked up the very Roots: I have gathered together its dispersed Members, I know who you are, for I am from above. These and such like were the Fooleries and Dreams of those Gospels of Darkness. The Gnostics had likewise another Gospel more infamous than the former, which they called the Gospel of Eve, giving out that from her they held the Name of {αβγδ} which she had learnt from the Serpent. Saint Epiphanius recites a Fragment of that Gospel, which is so ridiculous, that it would be time lost to give you the Transcript of it.  
IV. Origen, Eusebius and Saint Jerome make mention of a Gospel according to Saint mathias, which is placed among the Apocryphal Books by Pope Gelasius, as are all the Works in general attributed to Saint mathias, by Pope Innocent I.  
V. The Manichees had a Gospel under the Name of Saint Thomas, which belonged to Thomas one of the Disciples of Manes, as Saint Cyril observes in his fourth Catechetical Lecture. Origen, Eusebius and Saint Jerome do likewise mention this Gospel. Pope Gelasius has placed it among the Apocryphal Writings. Saint Augustine in his twenty second Book against Faustus Chap. 79. says that the Manichees red the Apocryphal Scriptures written by the Inventors of Fables, under the name of the Apostles. He adds, that in these Books we red this History or rather Fable, viz. That the Apostle Saint Thomas having made an Imprecation against a Man who had given him a Box on the Ear, that Man was immediately torn to pieces by a lion. This was certainly related in that Gospel of Saint Thomas. Manicheus had himself composed a Letter under his Name, wherein he took upon him the Character of an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and speaks as a Man divinely inspired. Saint Augustine relates, and refutes the Words of this Letter in a Book written on purpose.  
VI. There is mention made of a Gospel of Saint Bartholomew, in the Preface of Origen's Homilies on Saint Luke, and in the Preface of Saint Jerome's Commentary on Saint Matthew: Pope Gelasius places it among the Apocryphal Books.  
VII. The Gajnites had forged a Gospel under the Name of Judas Iscariot, whom they honoured, if we may credit Saint Epiphanius and Theodoret in the Case.  
VIII. Lastly, Pope Gelasius reckons among the Apocryphal Gospels, besides the forementioned, those that follow: viz. the Gospel of Thaddeus, the Gospel of Barnabas, and the Gospel of Andrew.  
The Greeks in their Polygrammata aver that Timothy wrote a Gospel: but we cannot tell whether there was really one under his Name, or whether they did not say this merely by Conjecture.  
To the Apocryphal Gospels we ought to join the Spurious Histories of the Birth or Infancy of our Saviour. The Mareosians who had forged several Apocryphal Writings, did therein relate several stories about the Infancy of our Lord: as for instance, That Jesus Christ being a Child and learning to red, when his Master bad him pronounce Alpha, he said after him, Alpha; and that afterwards ordering him to say Beta, our Saviour said, pray Sir explain to me first what you mean by Alpha, and then I will tell you what Beta is. These and such like are the Fooleries which those profane Persons would have to pass for great Mysteries.  
Pope Gelasius reckons among the Apocryphal Writings a Book concerning the Infancy of our Saviour, which is manifestly the same Tract out of which the forementioned History was taken. He likewise reckons, as such, a Treatise concerning the Nativity of our Saviour, the Virgin-Mary, and her Midwife. The Gnostics had likewise forged a Tract, concerning the Virgin Mary's Lying in, and the Questions she asked, which they distinguish into Greater and Lesser.  
The heretic Seleucus had forged a Treatise of the Nativity of the Virgin-Mary, which he said was composed in Hebrew by Saint Matthew, and which had been kept in secret. This Apocryphal piece was translated by a Latin, who pretends that the History thereof is true, and that Seleucus has only added thereto his Errors, which he has struck out in his Version. We meet with this Version in the last Translation that was made of the Works of Saint Jerome. Therein are mentioned Saint Anna, Saint Joachim, the Marriage of Joseph, and what preceded our Saviour's Birth. This whole History is extravagant 
This whole History is extravagant.] Therein 'tis said that the Virgin-Mary was born at Nazareth, that her Father's Name was Joachim, and her Mother's Anna. That they divided their Estate into three parts, the first for the Use of the Temple and the Levites; the second for the Use of the Poor and Strangers; and the third for their own Necessaries. That they made a Vow to dedicate their Child, if a Son, to God. That at the Feast of Tabernacles Issachar the High-Priest rejected the Offering of Joachim because he had no Children. That Joachim in confusion retired among the Shepherds; that the Angel of the Lord appeared to him, and  told him from God that Anna should have a Daughter, who should be the Mother of the Saviour of the World. That the same Angel appeared likewise to Anna, and foretold her that she should have a Daughter, who should reside in the Temple, after she had been bread up three Years in her Father's House. That Joachim and Anna being return'd to Jerusalem, according to the angels Order, met together, and that Anna conceived and brought forth a Daughter, whom she presented in the Temple at the end of three Years. That this young Girl had every Day Visions and Conversations with the Angels. That when she was fourteen Years old, the time when Virgins were removed from the Temple, she was still for staying there, declaring that she had made a Vow of perpetual Virginity. That the High-Priest being at a Non-plus about it, called a Council to advice what was best to be done: That therein it was resolved to consult God, and that they received an Oracle from the Holiest of Holies, viz. this prophesy of Isaiah; There shall come forth a Rod out of the stem of Jessé, and a Branch shall grow out of his Roots: and that upon this it was ordered, that all those of the lineage of David should bring their Rods to the Altar, and that he whose Rod budded, and on whom the Spirit of God should descend in the form of a Dove, should be the Person that should mary the Virgin. That all others having brought their Rods, Joseph who was in Years did not bring his. That none of those which had been brought budded. That the High-Priest consulted the Lord thereupon, and received for answer, that he to whom he ought to give the Virgin, was the only Person who had not brought his Rod. Joseph hereupon was found out, and having brought his Rod, a Dove immediately descended from Heaven and sat on the top of it. He was espoused to Mary, who return'd with her Parents into Galilee. There the Angel appeared to her, who was not disturbed at his Sight, because she was used to see Angels; but only at his Discourse. The Angel is made to explain clearly and more largely than in the Gospel, after what manner she should have a Son. Afterwards 'tis said that Joseph seeing her with the familiarity of a Spouse, found that she was big with Child. This is the Abstract of the History of Seleucus. , and deserves no manner of Credit. Saint Gregory Nyssene in his Treatise concerning the Birth of Jesus Christ, cites an Apocryphal Book, wherein were stories much of the same Nature; however it is not the same 
It is not the same.] What Saint Gregory Nyssene reports of it is as follows. The Virgin's Father was a rich Man, who for a long time together had no Children: Anna being Barren went to the Holiest of Holies, and demanded a Child. Having obtained her Request, she presented the Virgin to the Temple, where she was brought up by the Priests. They having consulted among themselves what they should do with her when she should be grown up, thought it proper to mary her to some old Man, who might still let her enjoy her Virginity. That Saint Joseph was the Person made choice of, who was of the same lineage, and that she was only betrothed to him. This History is more simplo than the former. , its Narration being plainer and less charged with Incidents. The Apocryphal Book, wherein 'tis related that Saint Joachim was of the Tribe of Levi, cited by Faustus against Saint Augustine, was different from those two, since in them 'tis supposed that Joachim was of the lineage of David, and consequently of the Tribe of Judah.  
Lastly, there were in Saint Augustine's time some Writings, which some of no Sense published under the Name of Jesus to Peter, to instruct the Apostles how they should work Miracles. This very design alone shows that it was an impious Work. Those are all the Apocryphal Books which have any reference to the History of the Gospel.   

SECT. VI. Of the Spurious Acts of Apostles and Revelations.  
THE Acts of Saint Luke contain but a very small part of the Actions of several of the Apostles, because he does not treat of all of them, nor does he describe at large all the Acts of those whom he speaks of. So that they who were minded to invent false Acts, had a large field of Matter left them wherein to exercise their deceitful Pens.  
The first who thought of this Artifice was a certain Priest the Disciple of Saint Paul, who excited by a false Zeal for his Master, forged under Saint Luke's Name, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and was convicted of this Imposture by Saint John, as Tertullian, and after him, Saint Jerome have assured us 
As Tertullian, and after him, Saint Jerome have assured us.] Tertullian's passage taken out of his Book of Baptism runs thus. If they red( says he) some Writings attributed falsely to Saint Paul, and make use of the Example of Thecla to give Women the Authority of Reading and Teaching, let 'em know that it was a Priest of Asia, who composed that Book under the name of Saint Luke, and that he having been convicted of having done it in Saint Paul's Favour, was degraded. Saint Jerome quoting Tertullian, saith: The Travels of Paul and Thecla, and the whole Fable of the Baptized Lion, ought to be reckoned among the Apocryphal Writings. For how could he who always attended Saint Paul be ignorant of these matters? Tertullian who lived near that time relates, that a certain Priest of Asia zealously affencted towards Saint Paul, having been convicted by Saint John of being the Author of that Treatise, and having confessed that he did it for the sake of Saint Paul, was degraded for it. Now it must be noted, That Tertullian does not mention Saint John, but Saint Jerome supposes he was the Person, because that Apostle presided over the Asiatic Churches. Gelasius places these Acts among the Apocryphal Writings. The Acts of the passion of Thecla, which are extant, do not contain the History of the baptized Lion, nor of the Women who were baptized, but they are very modern, and taken perhaps from the Ancients. The Fathers of the Church have related that Saint Paul having converted at Iconium a Virgin of Quality named Thecla, persuaded her to renounce a Man to whom she was betrothed, tho' Rich and Powerful, and to profess a Vow of perpetual Virginity. That this dansel had been charged upon this Account by her Husband, that should have been; That she was sentenced to be exposed to Wild Beasts, and afterwards she was delivered by a Miracle. Some say that she dyed of another Punishment, and others, that she was always delivered, first from Fire, and afterwards from Wild Bulls, to which she had been tied. You may red the whole account of this in Saint Epiphanius's heresy, 78. in Saint Ambrose's second Book concerning Virgins; Faustus the Manichee in Saint Augustine, Lib. 30. Cap. 4. in Saint Gregory Nazianzen's Exhortation to Virginity, and in the Poem of the Precepts given to Virgins, the Sermons of Maximus of Turin, and of Zeno Veronensis. Eusebius makes mention of this Thecla in the third Book of Martyrs, and distinguishes her from one of the same Name, who was exposed to Wild Beasts with Agapius in the persecution raised by Dioclesian. Saint Jerome in his 224th. Epistle; Saint Gregory Nyssene in the Life of Saint Macrina, Severus Sulpitius in the Life of Saint Martin, Saint Chrysostome in his 25th. Homily on the Acts, and his 22d. to the People of Antioch, Isidorus of Damietta, B. 1. Ep. 87, and 160. do likewise make mention of this illustrious Proto-Martyress, as Isidorus terms her. .  
The simplicity of this ancient Priest, who had no ill intention in his Head, was in some sort excusable. However he was degraded for that thing alone, so great a hatred had the Church for falsehood and imposture, tho' it were covered with never so good an Intention. But one cannot but abominate the heretics, who have of their own Heads composed Acts of several Apostles, wherein they have inserted their own Errors. They have not only attributed a false Gospel to Saint Peter, but likewise four other Books entitled, the Acts, the Preaching, the Apocalypse and the judgement of Saint Peter.  
Saint Jerome makes mention of these four Tracts. The Preaching is cited by Saint Clement of Alexandria, and by Origen, who have recited some Fragments of it. Origen took them from the heretic Heracleon, the Disciple of Valentinus. Saint Isidorus of Damietta quotes the Acts of Saint Peter, Book 2. Epist. 99. We cannot tell what sort of piece the judgement of Saint Peter is. The Doctrine of Peter or of the Apostles, is confounded by some with the Constitutions, and by others with the Preaching of Saint Peter. The Travels or Itinerary of Saint Peter, is the same with the Recognitions or Clementines, a Tract very erroneous. These Works are of an ancient Date, but forged by heretics about the middle of the second Century.  
The Acts of Saint Paul were forged by the Manichees. Eusebius and Philastrius make mention thereof. Therein the Apostles were made to say that the Souls of Men and Beasts were of the same Nature, and they are introduced working of Miracles in order to make Dogs and Sheep to speak.  
There are several other Acts besides, forged by several heretics, viz. the Acts of Saint Andrew, which the Encratites, apostolics, and Origenists made use of.  
The Acts of Saint John, forged by the Encratites, according to the Testimony of Saint Epiphanius, Heres. 47. of Philastrius, Heres. 48. and of Saint Augustine, Lib. de side contra Maroich.  
The Acts of Saint Philip and Saint Thomas, which the Encratites and apostolics made use of, as the same Saint Epiphanius has observed in the Heresies 47, and 61.  
The Acts of the Apostles in general, made by the Ebionites, cited by Saint Epiphanius in the Description of that heresy.  
The Rapture of Saint Paul 
The Rapture of Saint Paul.] In Greek it is {αβγδ}. This may signify several things, but Saint Epiphanius determines the Sense to be, the Lifting up of Saint Paul. It contains several Mysterious Things, and it seems to be the same piece with the Secrets or the Apocalypse of Saint Paul. Saint Augustine cites this Treatise in Joannem Tract. 98. , a Work composed by the Gajanites, which the gnostics made use of according to the Testimony of Saint Epiphanius Heres. 8.  
The Memoirs of the Apostles composed by the Priscillianists.  
The Itinerary of the Apostles rejected in the second Council of Nice, Act. 5.  
To these we may add the spurious Relations, such as that of the Lots of the Apostles, rejected by Pope Gelasius.  
The Writings of the Apostles, made by Dictinius, and rejected in the Synod of Braga, Chap. 17.  
The Tract concerning the High Priest-hood of Jesus Christ, cited by Suidas, whose Author pretends to prove that Jesus Christ was descended from the Levites, and that by the Jews he was reckoned among their Priests.  
The Apostolical Tract, which was an Enthusiastical piece composed by martion, of which mention is made by Saint Epiphanius.  
A Treatise concerning the Death and Assumption of the Virgin-Mary, attributed to Saint John, which Pope Gelasius has placed among the Apocryphal Books, and which perhaps is the same with that which goes under the Name of Melito in the Bibliotheca Patrum.  
Lastly, there were a great many forged Apocalypses or Revelations: The Apocalypse of Saint Peter, cited by Saint Clement in his 〈◇〉, which Eusebius in the third Book of his Ecclesiastical History, Chap. 25. reckons among those spurious Books which are not Heretical, and which Sozomen saith they red every Year about Easter in the Churches of Palestine, Book 7. of his History, Chap. 19.  
The Apocalypse or secrets of Saint Paul, which the Monks had formerly in great Esteem, according to the Testimony of Sozomen: The Egyptians boast of having it by them to this very day, and it was placed among the Apocryphal Books by Pope Gelasius, together with the Revelations of Saint Thomas, and Saint Stephen. To these we may add the Revelation of the Great Apostle, composed by Cerinthus: The Apocalypse of Abraham, forged by the Hethian heretics, mentioned by Saint Epiphanius Heres. 39. N. 4. and the Revelations of Seth and Noriah, the Wife of Noah, by the gnostics. All these pieces are lost, nor need we be much concerned at it.   

SECT. VII. Of the Epistle of Saint Barnabas.  
JOseph, surnamed by the Apostles Barnabas, i. e. the Son of Consolation 
That is the Son of Consolation.] In Greek it is {αβγδ}, the Son of Consolation or Exhortation. Oecumenius upon the Acts, Chap. 36. and Notkerus in the Martyrology followed the first Sense. Saint Jerome seems to be for the latter. , who was a Levite, and originally of the Isle of Cyprus 
Originally of the Isle of Cyprus.] This iceland was full of Jews, and a vast number of them were Massacred therein under the Empire of Trajan, according to the Testimony of Dion, Eusebius and Orosius.  laboured as much as the Apostles themselves in establishing the Christian Religion. Some of the Ancients have pretended 
Some of the Ancients, &c.] These Ancients are, Saint Clement, B. 2. of his Stromata; Eusebius, B. 1. of his History, Chap. 12. and B. 2. Chap. 1. Saint Epiphanius, Tom. I. against the Heresies, and Dorothaeus. Venerable Bede rejects their Opinion, because Saint Luke in the fourth Chapter of the Acts writes, that Barnabas was one of those who sold their Lands, and brought the price of them, and laid it at the Apostles Feet. For tho' this is no absolute Conclusion, that he had not been the Disciple of Jesus Christ, yet it seems as if Saint Luke was minded hereby to date his first entrance into the Christian Religion.  that he was one of the seventy two Disciples of Jesus Christ; but Saint Luke speaks of him in such a manner as would induce one rather to believe, that he was not joined to the Apostles till after our Saviour's Death. Let this be how it will, 'tis certain that from that time, he became one of the chief Preachers of the Gospel, and deserved to be placed among the Apostles. We know nothing for certain of his Life, but what Saint Luke has related of it in the Acts.  
He has written( says Saint Jerome) a Letter full of Edification for the Church, tho' it is not caconical. This Letter is cited several times by Saint Clement of Alexandria 
Saint Clement of Alexandria.] B. 2. of his Stromata, pag. 373, 375, 389, 396, 410. B. 5 p. 571, 572, 577, and 578. , and by Origen 
Origen.] Origen. B. 1. against Celsus, and B. 3. {αβγδ} and Eusebius, B. 3. Eccl. Hist. Chap. 25. B. 6. Chap. 13, and 14. Tertullian says in his Book of Chastity, that the Epistle of Barnabas is more commonly received in the Churches, than the Pastor of Hermas. But he takes the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews, for the Epistle of Saint Barnabas. , who make no question but that it is His, under whose Name it goes. 'tis true, Eusebius and Saint Jerome reckon it among the Apocryphal Writings 
Among the Apocryphal Writings.] Eusebius distinguishes three sorts of Apocryphal Writings; the first contains those which come the nearest to the caconical, that is, those which have been rejected by some, and received by others as caconical. {αβγδ}. The second contains the Books which were not received by any Man as caconical, and yet were not forged by heretics, as those of the third Class were. The Epistle of Saint Barnabas may be placed among the first, or at least among the second sort of Books; which, tho' Apocryphal, yet may be theirs whose names they bear, such as the Pastor of Hermas, and others. And tho' Saint Jerome in his Epistle to Laeta says, that the Apocryphal Books are such, as do not belong to the Authors whose Names they bear; yet he often makes use of that Term in another Sense. Eusebius and Saint Jerome were both of the Opinion, that the Epistle of Saint Barnabas was really His; this appears from their attributing it to him. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, B. 6. Chap. 13. hath these Words, Item ex Barnabae, Clementis,& Judae Epistolis. Now 'tis plain, that he always thought the Epistles of Saint Clement and Saint judas to be theirs, under whose Names they were inscribed[ and by parity of Reason, 'tis plain that he thought the Epistle of Saint Barnabas to be really His, since he makes mention of it just after the same manner, as he does of the Epistles of Saint Clement and Saint judas.] again, In another place the same Author says, Judae Epistolam intelligo, item Barnabae Epistolam,& Revelationem quae dicitur Petri. Here 'tis to be observed, that in speaking of the last Treatise, he takes notice that it was attributed to Peter[ Revelationem quae dicitur Petri]; but he says no such thing of the Epistle of Barnabas; on the contrary, he plainly says, that it was His, as much as the Epistle of judas was Jude's. As for Saint Jerome, he expressly says, Barnabas unam aedificationem Ecclesiae continentem Epistolam composuit, quae inter Apocryphas numeratur. This passage is a sufficient Evidence, that Saint Jerome did not look upon it as Apocryphal, because it was falsely attributed to Saint Barnabas, since he himself attributes it to him, even when he says that it was Apocryphal. ; but for all that, they do not deny but that 'tis Saint Barnabas's; for they only say that it ought not to be of the same Authority as the caconical Books; because, tho' it be Saint Barnabas's, yet it was not universally received by all the Churches.  
This is the reason why this Letter is not reckoned among the caconical Books; because in order thereto, 'tis not only requisite that it be the Work of an Apostle, or of a Disciple of the Apostles; but also that it be received as caconical by all the Churches. Otherwise the Pastor of Hermas, and the Epistle of Saint Clement ought to be reckoned as caconical Books. So that 'tis a very weak way of arguing to say, that the Epistle of Barnabas does not belong to that Apostle, because if it were really His, it would have been inserted among the caconical Writings: since in order that any Book should be declared caconical, it is requisite( let the Author be who he will) that the whole Church should aclowledge it as such. Besides, there are some Books, of which the Apostles or their Disciples are the Authors 
Of which the Apostles or their Disciples are the Authors.] This Argument ought to be understood thus. It does not appear, that all the Writings of the Apostles were made by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. There might have been some Writings of the Apostles which the Church never received as caconical. There are indeed none at present of the Apostles themselves but what are in the Canon, except this Letter of Saint Barnabas, who may pass for an Apostle: but there are several Writings of the Disciples of the Apostles, such as of Saint Clement and Hermas, which are not caconical. It seems as if there is no great difference between Saint Clement and Saint Barnabas as to the point of Authority, and if the Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, tho' certainly His, yet is not owned as caconical; why should Men argue that the Epistle of Saint Barnabas cannot be His, because it was not admitted into the Canon?  which were not formerly, and are not yet in the Number of caconical Books: and on the contrary, there are some, whose Authors are not altogether certainly known, which have been, and still are among the caconical Books: As for instance, in the New Testament, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse; and in the Old, most of the Books, of whose true Authors we are not certainly assured. But tho' it were true to say, that a Book is caconical, if it is manifest, that it was written by an Author, who had the Authority to make it pass for caconical, yet who has assured us that Saint Barnabas ought to be esteemed as such an Author, any more than Saint Clement and Hermas? 'tis for the Church to determine this Point, and since she has been silent, this is a sufficient Warrant to make the Letter pass for Apocryphal, tho' it does really belong to Saint Barnabas.  
They add that this Letter is unworthy of Saint Barnabas; that 'tis incredible, that such a great Apostle as he was, being full of the Holy Ghost, and Saint Paul's Companion in travail, should be the Author of most of the things which are contained in this Letter: such as are the forced Allegories, the extravagant Explications of the Scripture, and such as are foreign to good Sense, together with the stories concerning Beasts, and several other such like Fancies, which make up the first part of this Epistle.  
To this I answer, that notwithstanding these defects, yet Saint Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius and Saint Jerome have ascribed it to him. And 'tis in my opinion a very great piece of Imprudence for any Man to imagine himself to be clearer sighted in this matter, than those great critics of Antiquity. They were nearer than we are to the time of the Apostles, They had by them a great many Books composed by their Disciples, which are lost to Us; and consequently they are better Judges than we are of the style and the manner of Writing used by the Apostles, their Companions and Disciples. If then they have allowed that the Allegories, mystical Explications, and stories to be met with in the Epistle of Saint Barnabas are really his, with what Face can we at present pretend to say that they are none of His? Certainly that Man must have but very little knowledge of the Genius of the Jews, and the first Christians, who had been bread up and educated in the Synagogue, if he supposes that such sorts of Thoughts cannot proceed from them: On the contrary, 'tis their very Essential Character, they had learned from the Jews to turn the whole Scripture into Allegory, and to make their Observations on the Properties of those Beasts which the Law had forbidden to be eaten.  
It is no wonder then that Saint Barnabas a Jew by Birth writing to Jews, should explain after an Allegorical manner several passages of the Old Testament, in applying them to the New; and should invent several Moral Thoughts upon the properties of the Beasts, of which the Jews were forbidden to eat.  
The Epistle of Saint Clement the Roman to the Corinthians, so much esteemed by the Primitive Christians, and the Stromata of Saint Clement of Alexandria are full of these sorts of Allegories and Figures. The story of the phoenix related in the Epistle of Saint Clement the Roman looks more like a Fable, than that which Saint Barnabas saith in his Epistle concerning the Properties of some Beasts: and the Allegory of the Blood of Jesus Christ typified by the Scarlet Ribban hung out by the Harlot Rahab, which is likewise in the same Epistle, is as farfetch'd, as most of the Allegories of Saint Barnabas are. But why should we insist upon a matter that is so plain, since all the World knows how full of Fables and Allegories the Books of the Primitive Christians were?  
Lastly, They accuse the Author of this Epistle of having called the Apostles before their Conversion, the greatest Sinners upon the face of the Earth. But they take his Words in too strict a Sense; for his meaning is not that they were the greatest of Sinners, but only that they were great Sinners 
That they were great Sinners.] 'tis thus that we are to understand these Words, supper omne peccatum peccatores. The most sanctified Persons do usually say of themselves every day: I am the greatest Sinner upon the face of the Earth, and other such like Expressions, which are not to be taken in a literal Sense. .  
We cannot tell for certain to whom the Epistle of Saint Barnabas is addressed, because we have not the Superscription of it by us: Yet by the Body of it, it seems as if it were written to the converted Jews, who had been too zealously addicted to the observance of the Law of Moses; and it is divided into two Parts.  
In the first, he shows the unprofitableness of the Old Law, and the necessity of the Incarnation and Death of Jesus Christ. He therein recites several passages concerning the Ceremonies and Precepts of the Old Law, which he explains Allegorically, by applying them to Jesus Christ, and to the New Law.  
The second part is a Moral Instruction, which contains several Precepts concerning what ought to be done, and what ought not to be done.  
This Letter was published first in Greek, from a Copy of Father Hugh Menard a Benedictine Monk, who prepared this Edition a little before his Death. He had the Greek of this Letter from Father Sirmondus, and the Ancient Version of it was found in a Manuscript of the Abbey of Corbey, near a thousand Years old. Death having prevented him from publishing this Tract, Father Dom Luke d'Achery put his Design into Execution, and took care to have it printed after his Death at Paris in the Year 1645. They say Arch-Bishop Usher had caused it to be printed before at London, in the Year 1642. and that the whole Impression was burnt, except one Copy which is inserted in the Catalogue of the Bodleian Library.  
After this, the famous Isaac Vossius took care to print it with the Epistles of Saint Ignatius, and revised from three Manuscripts, in the Year 1656.  
At last M. Cotelerius has published it, with a New Version e Regione; the whole Ancient Version, and Critical Remarks at the End. It is at the head of the Collection which was made of the Works of the Ancient Fathers, which were printed at Paris by Petit, in the Year 1672: and which have been lately reprinted in Holland.  
The Greek of the four or five first Chapters is wanting in all these Editions: but they are in Latin in the Ancient Version, which, tho' Barbarous and Faulty, yet has served to correct the Greek in several Places.   

SECT. VIII. Of the Liturgies which are falsely attributed to the Apostles.  
WE need only to reflect a little on what we red concerning the Celebration of the Eucharist in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, and on what Saint Justin, and the Primitive Fathers have said about it, in order to be convinced that the Apostles and those who succeeded them, did celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass with great Simplicity. This is what has been taken notice of by all those who have wrote upon the Liturgies 
By all those who have written upon the Liturgies.] Saint Gregory the Pope, in his 7th. B. Ep. 63. ad Joan. Syracus. has these Words: Mos Apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solummodo Orationem Dominicam oblation is Hostiam consecrarent. Valafridius Strabo de Rit. Eccl. cap. 22. says, Quod nunc agimus multiplici orationum, cantilenarum,& consecrationum officio, totum hoc Apostoli,& post ipsos, ut creditur, proximi orationibus, commemoratione passionnis Dominicae, sicut ipse praecepit, agebant simpliciter: Proficiente dehinc Religione amplius acta sunt à Christi cultoribus officia Missarum. Remy d'Auxerre, de celeb. Miss. Lib. 1. says, Nam Missam B. Petrus Apostolus primus omnium Antiochiae dicitur celebrasse, in quâ trees tantummodo orationes in initio sidei proferebantur, incipientes ab eo loco ubi dicitur, Hanc igitur Oblationem. See farther, Stephen d'Autun, de Sacramento Altaris cap. 20. Benno d'Auge, de office. Miss. C. 1. Rupert. Tuit. lib. 2. de Divin. office. cap. 1. Hugh of Saint Victor de Divin. lib. 2. cap. 11. Honorius d'Autun in Gemm. An. lib. 1. Durandus de mend, Rat. Off. l. 4. c. 1. Radulphus de Tongres, de Canon. Observat. Saint Anthony in sum. maj. Tit. 13. cap. 5. Cassander's Liturgia, Cap. 18. Polydore Virgil, and the others who have treated concerning the Rites and Ceremonies of the Mass. , who all agree in this, That the Mass was celebrated without many Ceremonies in the first Ages of Christianity; and that they said therein but very few Prayers: but by little and little, several other Prayers were added, together with some external Ceremonies, in order to render the Sacrifice more aweful to the People. Lastly, the Churches have regulated and committed to Writing the manner of Celebrating it, and this is that which they call the Liturgies: the which having been made conformable to the Customs of different places, are likewise so many different Liturgies. And whereas Men are naturally inclined to change something or other in their outward way of Worship; they have from time to time added several things to these Liturgies.  
This single Reflection is enough to show that the Liturgies, which go under the name of the Apostles and Evangelists, are not really theirs: but to prove it beyond dispute, we need only examine them one after another.  
The Liturgy or Mass in Greek and Latin attributed to Saint Peter, which was published by Lindanus, in the Year 1589. from a Manuscript of Cardinal Sirlet, of no very long standing, and which has been printed since at Paris, by Morel in the Year 1595. This Liturgy, I say cannot be Saint Peter's for the following Reasons. Therein mention is made of Saint Sixtus, Cornelius, and Saint Cyprian. The Canon of the Latin Mass, which Saint Gregory asserts to have been composed by a scholastic, that is, by a Learned Man of the Fifth Century, is inserted therein at large. It contains several Prayers taken out of the Sacramentary of Saint Gregory, and out of the Liturgies of Saint Basil and Saint Chrysostome. Therein they pray for the Patriarch( a Term unknown before the latter end of the fourth Century) and for the most Religious Emperors, which supposes that there were at that time Christian Emperors. Lastly, had this Liturgy been Saint Peter's, the Church of Rome would have made use of it, nor would it have lain dormant for so many Ages. These Reasons made the Learned Cardinal Bona to say, that this Liturgy was a forged piece, and that it was manifestly composed by some Greek-Latiniz'd Priest, because it was taken partly out of the Liturgy of the Greeks, and partly out of that of the Latins; and that it was attributed to Saint Peter, either to give it the greater Authority, or else because it contained a great part of the Liturgy of the Roman Church.  
The Mass of the Ethiopians, which goes under the name of Saint Matthew, is likewise apparently spurious. For therein Popes, Kings, patriarches and Arch-Bishops are prayed for. Therein the twelve Apostles are invocated, the four Evangelists commemorated, and mention made of the Synods of Nice, Constantinople and Ephesus. Therein the Nicene Creed is sung with the Clause Filioque: And mention made of Saint Athanasius, Saint Gregory, and Saint Basil, of the Epact, the Golden Number, and the Trisagion: All which sufficiently prove this Liturgy to be very Modern.  
The same judgement may be passed on the Liturgy of Saint Mark, published by Cardinal Sirlet, and printed at Paris by Morel: For therein we meet with the Word Consubstantial, and the Trisagion; therein they pray for the King, and for Saint Mark himself, and mention is made of Chalices, Subdeacons, Chanters, Monks, Nuns, &c. things which are sufficient Evidences of its Novelty.  
There only remains to be considered by us the Liturgy attributed to Saint James, which the Learned have given themselves the trouble to defend, tho' to no purpose. For tho' it be more ancient than those which we have already examined, since 'tis cited in the Council held in the Emperor's Palace, after the fifth General Council, yet it cannot be said that Saint James is the Author of it, or that it was composed in his time; and that for these Reasons:  
1. The Son and Holy Ghost are therein styled Consubstantial with the Father, a Phrase that was not in use in Saint James's time: But supposing it should be said that it was, is it credible that this Authority should not then have been alleged in the Councils of Nice and Constantinople?  
2. Therein are the Trisagion and the Doxology, that is, the Holy, Holy, Holy, and the Gloria Patri, which were not generally used in the Church till the fifth Century. For tho' it could be proved that they were used before, yet it must be owned, that this was not the common usage of the Church.  
3. Therein Prayers are used for those who are shut up in Monasteries: and who can say that this was in Saint James's time?  
4. Therein mention is made of Confessors, a word not used in the Divine Office, till a long time after Saint James's days, as is owned by Bellarmine himself.  
5. This Liturgy speaks of Temples, Incense, Altars &c. now would one believe that these things were in Use in the time of Saint James?  
6. Lastly, this whole Liturgy is full of Citations out of the Epistles of Saint Paul, most of which were written after the Death of Saint James. Nor can it be said with the Cardinals Bona and Bellarmine, that these things have been added: because 'tis not likely that there should have been so many Additions in so many different places, and besides neither the Connexion nor the Ceremonies of this whole Liturgy are suitable with the times of the Apostles.  
I say nothing of some other Liturgies, cited by some Authors, such for instance as those of the twelve Apostles, mentioned by Abraham Echellensis, and and that of Saint Barnabas, mentioned by a certain Monk, because I never saw them; nor shall I say any thing of that which is in the Constitutions of Saint Clement, nor of the Liturgy which is in the Books attributed to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite; because these Books being spurious, as I shall show in another place, there is no question to be made but that the Liturgies which they contain are likewise as spurious.   

SECT. IX. Of the apostles Creed.  
HAving treated of the Works of each Apostle in particular, we are now to speak of those which 'tis supposed they composed by common Concert. The most Authentic is that of the Apostles Creed, which is commonly believed to have been composed by all the Apostles. But Authors are not agreed among themselves, neither about the Time when they wrote it, nor about the manner how it was composed, no more than they are about the Design which the Apostles had in doing of it.  
As to the Time; some have been of Ruffinus's Opinion, in his Exposition of the Creed followed by Saint Isidorus, viz. that the Apostles composed it the very Year wherein Jesus Christ died, a little after the Descent of the Holy-Ghost: whereas Baronius and some others guess that they did not compose it till the second Year of the Reign of Claudius, a little before their Dispersion.  
As to the manner how they composed it; some Authors fancy that each Apostle pronounced his Article 
Each Apostle pronounced his Article.] This is the Opinion of the Author of the 115th. Sermon, de tempore apud Aug. of Saint lo, Ep. 13, now the 27th. of Venantius Fortunat. in exegesi Symb. Apost. , and that this is the Reason why it was called the Symbol; as having been made of several Sentences. Others believe that they made it by a General conference with one another. There are some likewise who pretend that all the Disciples had a Hand in it.  
Lastly, as to the design which they had in composing it, some believe that it was in order that they might be all conformable to one and the same Doctrine 
That they might be conformable to one and the same Doctrine, &c.] Russinus is of the former, and the Moderns of the Latter Opinion. , and others suppose it was for the People, that so they might propose to them an abridgement of the Faith of Jesus Christ, which was easy to be comprehended and retained.  
The Etymology of the Word Symbol is still more uncertain 
The Etymology of the Word Symbol is still more uncertain.] The Greek Word {αβγδ}, signifies properly, nota, signum, indicium. For this Reason the Notes and Remarks of Pythagoras are called {αβγδ}. Herodian makes use of this Word to denote the military Signal. Other Authors, such as Dion Cassius and Suetonius, take it for the Tickets or Billets which were given to be admitted to see Sights, or to receive Bounty-Money. Some say that the Word Symbolum in Latin, signifies a Supper where every one pays his club, or even the Club itself. However it is not Symbolum in the Neuter Gender which has this Signification, but Symbola in the Feminine Gender, and in Greek, called {αβγδ}, as may be seen in the Interpreter of Aristophanes, in Athenaeus, and in Plutarch: For which Reason in Terence's Andria, we ought to red Symbolam dedit, and not Symbolum. Aulus Gellius B. 6. Chap. 1. makes use of the Word Symbola, to denote the club, and says this Term was likewise applied to the Questions which the Philosopher Taurus explained before several Persons. Saint Cyprian is the first who made use of the word Symbol, to signify the abridgement of the Christian Faith, Ep. 45. Optatus calls the heretics, Veri Symboli Desertores, alluding to the military Use of that Word; for which Reason Saint Chrysologus, Sermon 62. says, that the Symbol is the Compact which we make with God in Baptism. . Some say that it is so called, because 'tis the Mark and Character which distinguishes Christians from other Men 
Character, which distinguishes Christians, &c.] This is the Etymology which Maximus of Turin, and Venantius Fortunatus give of this word. The same was observed by Ruffinus, by Isidore of Sevil, B. 2. de Off. c. 22. by Durandus of Menda, B. 4. Rationalis, c. 25. But the second and third Etymology are the most common. The last is the Opinion of Ruffinus, of Saint Augustine, Serm. 181. de Tempore; of S. Isidore, L. 2. div. off. c. 22. of Rabanus Maurus, L. 2. initclerical. cap. 56. Of Durandus in his Rationale; of Eucherius, Homil. de Symb. and of Innocent III. Lib. 2. de Sacris Missae mysteriis, Chap. 49. However the first Etymology is the most probable. : Others, because it was composed of the Opinions of several Persons: and Lastly others, because it was drawn up in a General Conference.  
Now tho' this be an established Opinion, that the Creed came from the Apostles, and it cannot be denied but that they all preached after the same manner the Articles which it contains, as the principal points of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, of which it was necessary that all Christians should be informed: Tho' they taught those whom they baptized, what they obliged themselves to make profession of, the which they handed down by Tradition to all the Churches of the World, who kept them inviolably and taught the Catechumens the same: and that therefore upon that account one ought to look upon the Apostles Creed as a Formulary of Faith belonging to them as to the substantial parts of it: Yet we may without any imputation of Rashness, question whether they drew it Word for Word, as 'tis now recited in the Churches; and there are likewise very strong Reasons to prove that this Opinion, tho' very common, yet has but little probability in it.  
I. For in the first place, neither Saint Luke in the Acts, nor any other Ecclesiastical Writer before the Fifth Century has made the least mention of this Assembly of the Apostles; and not the least word is said by them, that the Apostles had composed the Creed as now used by the Church of Rome, either by conferring together, or by pronouncing each of them one of these Articles. Had the Creed been drawn up by the Apostles in the manner wherein it is supposed to have been drawn up, it would have been too considerable a Matter of Fact to have been omitted by Saint Luke: And tho' Saint Luke had never related it, yet it would have been handed down by Tradition, and some of the Ancient Fathers would have mentioned it, as they have done other Matters of the Apostolical Tradition. For they had not only an occasion of speaking of it, but were likewise obliged to it in order to convince the heretics; since they could not have produced any stronger Arguments against them, than this was.  
II. Secondly, the Fathers of the three first Centuries in disputing against the heretics, endeavoured from several Arguments to prove that the Doctrine contained in the Creed, was the same which the Apostles taught: But they never said that the Apostles composed the Creed. And yet nothing could have been a more convincing and stronger Argument against the heretics, than to have  told them; You oppose the Doctrine of the Creed; 'tis plain that the Apòstles were the Authors of it, therefore you oppose the Doctrine of the Apostles. However they never made use of this Argument, on the contrary they proved by Tradition, and the universal consent of the Apostolical Churches, that the Doctrine contained in the Creeds was the same which the Apostles taught. This Reason, may some one say, would not have been conclusive, since the heretics might have demanded Proofs to convince them that the Apostles had composed the Creed, as well as they did demand Arguments to convince them that the Doctrine of the Creed came from the Apostles. But this Reply supposes that the Primitive Fathers had not common sense in them, and that they could not tell how to distinguish the most evident and concise Proofs from the most obscure and intricate Ones. For to know whether the Apostles had composed the Creed or not, was but a single matter of Fact, such as might have been easily proved, being fresh in every Bodies Memory; and which being proved, would have put the whole matter out of Dispute. There would not then have been left any occasion of Debate, and they would at once have proved their whole Doctrine: whereas they have run themselves into a very large Field of controversy, and into such an one as required a great deal of discussing, by examining upon each Article of the Creed the Tradition of each Church.  
Saint Irenaeus produces several matters of Fact of less Consequence, and of less Authority than this would have been. As for instance, he makes use of the Testimony of Saint Polycarp, who had been instructed by Saint John in the Doctrine of the Apostles. The heretics might sooner have denied this matter of Fact, than that of the Composition of the Creed; and this latter being more public had easier been proved; Why then did they not allege it.  
To render the Case more plain, let us produce an instance. Suppose that an Abbot made two hundred Years ago, a Rule for his Monks, which contains in a few words the principal Things to be observed in his Convent; and that 'tis a constant Tradition among the Monks, that this Rule which they have preserved, was His, who composed it. If it should so happen, that those Monks were in dispute about all the Articles of this Rule, some saying that each Article was made by their first Abbot, and others as stiffly denying it; would it not 〈◇〉 very strange for the former, if instead of producing the Rule of the first Abbot, which they might prove in case it was contested, they should undertake to ●●ove by the Testimony of several Monks, and of other Monasteries founded by 〈◇〉 Monks of that Convent, That each Article of this Rule was appointed and ●ractis'd by their first Abbot? The Application of this Comparison is very easy.  
III. Thirdly, if the Apostles had made the Creed, it would have been the same in all the Churches and in all the Ages of it; all Christians would have learned it Word for Word; all Churches would have recited it after the same manner: Lastly, all Authors would have cited it in the same Terms. Now this is what is found to be quiter otherwise; because 'tis certain, that not only in the second and third Century of the Church, but also in the fourth, there were several Creeds, and that all the Creeds, tho' the same in Doctrine, yet differed in the Terms. In the second and third Ages of the Church, there were as many Creeds as Authors 
As many Creeds as Authors.] Saint Irenaeus makes mention of one Creed, B. 1. Chap. 2. and another B. 2. Chap. 1. Tertullian made use of three different Creeds in three different places, In prescript. Lib. contra Praxeam,& de Virginibus velandis. Origen B. 1. periarch.& in Dialog. contra Marc. Optat. Lib. 1. All these Creeds differ from the Vulgar. , and one and the same Author sets down the Creed after a different manner in several places of his Works; which is a sufficient Evidence that there was not at that time any Creed, which was reputed to be the Apostles, nor indeed any regulated and established Form of Faith. In the Fourth Century Ruffinus compares together the three ancient Creeds of the Churches of Aquileia, Rome, and the East; and in these three Creeds( neither of which agrees with the Vulgar One) we meet with several Differences very considerable in the Terms, as may be observed in the Table subjoined to this Section. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures followed a particular Creed, which was used by the Church of Jerusalem, when this Father wrote. The Authors who have written Commentaries on the Creed, as Saint Augustine in his 119th. Sermon, Saint Maximus, Saint Peter Chrysologus, Saint Fortunatus have left out several Expressions which are in our apostles Creed, among others, This at the end of the Creed, the Life Everlasting; and Saint Jerome in his Epistle to Pammachius observes, that the Creed ended with these Words, The Resurrection of the Flesh.  
So that it is plain the Difference between these Creeds, does not only consist in the Words and Expressions, but in Articles which were omitted, such as those, of the descent into Hell, of the Communion of Saints, and of the Life Everlasting, which are to be found in some, and not in others.  
Had the Apostles dictated the Terms, all the Churches would have said the Creed after the same manner. For 'tis not the same case with the Creed as with any other Work which may be altered by the fault of the Transcribers, or by the conjectural Faults of the critics, or by the Maliciousness of Adulterators, or by the negligence of some Men. The Creed is a very short piece, which all Christians might have said Word for Word; and could have recited, had it been the Apostles, without changing the least Syllable of it. As soon as any such Alteration should have been made, they would soon have perceived it, cried out against it, opposed and prevented it.  
Perhaps it may be objected that the Fathers of the three first Centuries paraphrased upon the Creed, and so it is not to be wondered at, if they did not recite it after the same Manner. But how is it possible that if there had been an established Creed, drawn up in the same Terms in all the Churches, and made by the Apostles; how is it possible, I say, that not one of the Fathers of the three first Centuries should relate it in its Purity?  
If it should be pretended that the Creeds were conformable in all the Churches: This Uniformity is found to be entirely destroyed by the Table of the four principal Creeds, which is annexed to the end of this Section. Therein may be observed, that there is scarce an Article but what has some difference: That, the Communion of Saints, and the Life Everlasting, are only in one Creed, and that the Descent into Hell is not in two of them. Will any one say that this Variety proceeded from the difference of the Versions, as is said of other Writings; supposing that the Creed had been composed in Syriac by the Apostles? This is an intolerable Supposition; for if they had been the Authors of it, having drawn it up for the Instruction of the Gentiles and dispersed Jews, it is very probable that they would rather have composed it in Greek than in Syriac. But, say they, those different Creeds contain the same Points of Doctrine. Yet those Articles are to be excepted which we have already mentioned; and no wonder if they do contain all the principal Articles of our Faith, since they were the same which the Apostles had taught the Church, and which the Church taught the Catechumens.  
Is it possible( will they add) that the Churches should have been for three hundred Years together without an abridgement of Faith for the instruction of the Ignorant? To this we Answer; That the Articles in which the People were to be instructed were sufficiently known; each Pastor propounded them to the People in plain and familiar Terms. At last, Forms of them were drawn up in each Church.  
From these Reflections it appears; that tho' the Creed be the Apostles as to the Doctrine contained therein, yet it is not theirs as to all the Terms. Having learned the same Faith from Jesus Christ, they likewise taught it to all those who were converted to the Christian Religion, and instructed them all in the same Mysteries. They who were instructed in the Faith, had it so fixed in their Minds, as Saint Justin and Saint Irenaeus observe, that they were always ready to give an account thereof, and as often as they were obliged to do it, without heeding any particular Form; and from hence arose that variety of Creeds which were reported by the Fathers. Lastly, as a help to the Memory, certain Forms of these Articles of Faith were drawn up, which were found to be different in different Churches. For I make no manner of question, but that beside the Creeds already cited, there were several others, of which we have no knowledge at present; from whence it must be inferred, that Jesus Christ is the Author of the Doctrine contained in the Creed, that the Apostles are they, who preached and published it throughout the whole World; but that it cannot be determined, who were the Authors of these Forms, wherein this Doctrine is comprised.  
But here it may be objected, that Saint Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lucifer Calaritanus, and Saint Jerome assert, that the Creed is the Rule of Faith, which the Church received from the Apostles: That Saint Augustine, Ruffinus, Saint lo, Maximus Taurinensis, Fortunatus, Saint Peter Chrysologus, and a great many other Authors 
And a great many other Authors.] Saint Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 2. Tertullian, De prescript. Ch. 37. and 13. and de Vel. Virg. C. 1. Lucifer, lib. 2. contra Const. Hier. Ep. ad Pammach. Saint Ambrose, Ep. 7. Lib. 1. Ruffinus, in Expos. Symboli, Aug. Serm. 115. Maximus, S. lo, Fortunatus, &c.  have asserted it, as a thing Self-Evident, that the Creed was drawn up in an Assembly of the Apostles: That this Opinion is authorized by the Church, and that it seems to be a piece of presumption to doubt of it: Lastly, that all the catholics are agreed in the Point, and that none but heretics, or persons suspected of heresy, have dared to call it in Question.  
To these Objections we answer, that the Testimonies of Saint Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lucifer Calaritanus do rather overthrow than establish the Vulgar Opinion. For these Fathers do not say, that we have received from the Apostles the Form of Faith, but only the Faith and Doctrine, which they had received from Jesus Christ. Therefore if there were any force in this Objection, it should rather be inferred that Jesus Christ was the Author of the Creed. 'tis likewise farther to be noted, that by the Phrase, Rule of Faith, made use of by Tertullian, we ought not to understand the Form of Faith, but the Faith itself, which he says was established by Jesus Christ. Lucifer Calaritanus does not speak of the Creed, but only of the Faith of the Church concerning the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Lastly, Saint Jerome, when he says that the Faith of the Creed was not writ on Paper or with Ink, but engraven on the Fleshly Tables of the Heart; he gives us to understand that he meant nothing else but that the Faith and Doctrine contained in the Creed, proceeds from the Apostles, who taught it to all the Faithful. In like manner, when Saint Ambrose says, that the Creed was preserved in its purity by the Church of Rome, he does not speak of the Form of the Creed, but of the Doctrine which it contains. As to the other Authorities produced against us, they are of little moment. Ruffinus is the first and only Author of the Fifth Century who has written, That the Apostles composed the Creed, and this he proposes only as a Popular Tradition. Saint Augustine never approved of this Opinion, for he says not a Word of it in the 119th. Sermon, and the 115th, which might be cited to this purpose, is certainly none of his. Lastly, the other Authors who lived since Ruffinus, have taken this History from him, and are too modern to give any certain Testimony of a matter of Fact so ancient as this is. All I shall add is, That this History has been related by none but the Latins, that the Greeks have been silent in it, and that those who have related it, are not agreed at all about the Circumstances of it, as has been already shown.  
'tis further urged, that the Fathers have not only spoken of the Faith and Doctrine of the Apostles, but have likewise taken notice of a certain Form which was known and received in the Church, because otherwise they would only have set down that Faith which was controverted between them and the heretics; whereas they always recited a great part of the Articles of the Creed and never proposed any others but such as were comprised therein.  
To this we Answer, That they understood by the Rule of Faith, the most necessary Articles of the Doctrine of the Apostles, and the fundamental Points of our Religion. That they comprised them in Creeds, which differed as to the Terms, but were conformable as to the Doctrine.  
Tertullian, say they, understood something else by the Rule of Faith, besides the Doctrine of the Apostles; for after he had recited the Creed, Word for Word, he says: Superest igitur ut demonstremus an haec nostra Doctrina, cujus regulam supra edidimus, de Apostolorum Traditione censeatur. Now( say they) the Regula in this place is the abridgement of the Faith.  
To this we answer; That this passage proves the quiter contrary. For had Tertullian believed that the Creed was a Rule of Faith communicated by the Apostles, he would have said: See here the Rule of Faith drawn up by the Apostles, which is conformable to the Doctrine of their other Writings: and would never have said, This is the Rule of our Faith, we will show that it is conformable to the Tradition of the Apostles.  
They who dissent from my Opinion do farther object, That the same Author [ Tertullian] writing against Praxeas, saith, that the Ignorant being very well acquainted with the Rule of Faith, which declares that there is but One God, do imagine that this Rule of Faith is contradicted, when 'tis taught that there are Three Persons in the Godhead, because they cannot conceive how this can be. From these Words of Tertullian the Objectors infer: That Tertullian distinguishes between the Rule of Faith and the Doctrine of Faith, otherwise it would have been ridiculous in him to have asserted that the Faithful were surprised when the Trinity in Unity was proposed to them, since the Article of the Trinity was part of the Doctrine of Faith.  
In answer to this, I say: And, Is not the Doctrine of the Trinity likewise part of the Creed? Would not therefore the Difficulty be still the same, whether by the Rule of Faith we understand the Doctrine of Faith, or understand the Creed? But there is no difficulty in the case, for Tertullian's meaning is this: When the Distinction of the Three Persons was explained, the ignorant thought it contrary to the first Principles of Faith, which they had been taught, because they had been informed that there was only One God: This Truth they could not tell how to reconcile with the Mystery of the Trinity, whose economy they could not comprehend: That is, they found it difficult to conceive One God and Three Persons, and to reconcile those two Truths which seemed to shock their Reason.  
Moreover, to evince beyond all dispute, that Tertullian by the Rule of Faith did not mean that Formulary or Creed drawn up by the Apostles, we need only take notice, That in his Book of Prescriptions, having set down the Articles contained in the Creed, he says that he will prove this Rule of Faith to be drawn up by Jesus Christ himself: Haec Regula à Christo, ut probabitur, instituta. He does not therefore by the Rule of Faith understand the Form; for if he did, it must be said that the Creed was not made by the Apostles, but by Jesus Christ. Wherefore of necessity this Reply must be made, That the Rule of Faith is indeed Jesus Christ's; because he was the Author of that Doctrine, and because it was he who taught it. The same may be said of those Passages, wherein the Apostles are said to be the Authors of the Rule of Faith.  
The Objectors city a large passage out of Lucifer Calaritanus, but I cannot perceive to what purpose, or what it proves. That Author says, That the Apostles believed in God the Father Almighty, who is a true Father, and has a real Son; and in his only Son, who is the true Son of God; and in the Holy Ghost the Comforter, who is the true Spirit of God. Now what does all this prove? Why, it proves, That it was an established Opinion in the time of Lucifer, that the Faith of the Creed was the same which the Apostles believed; that it was not a point controverted between the Arians and the catholics: but it does not prove that the Apostles made the Creed which comprehends this Doctrine. And in Truth, Lucifer does not set down the Apostles Creed in that place, but only a Summary of the Faith contained in that Creed.  
The passage of Saint Jerome which they likewise allege, proves no more than what I have already granted. This Father says, That the Creed of our Faith and our Hope, given by the Apostles, was not written on Paper with Ink, but engraven on the fleshly Tables of the Heart. What will they pretend to prove from this passage? Why, that the Apostles have handed down to us the Creed by Tradition, Quod ab apostles traditum. We agree with them that it was so with respect to the substance of the Doctrine, but not with respect to the Terms; and this is not what Saint Jerome speaks of; for the Creed he means, is engraven upon the Heart. Now what is it that is thus engraven on the Heart? Are we to understand by these Terms the Creed itself? No, 'tis only the Faith here meant. Saint Jerome( reply they) says this, because the Creed was not as yet written on Paper. But how do they know that? What Proof have they for it? It would be ridiculous to say that the Faith of the Trinity or of the Incarnation was not then written on Paper; and it would be no less ridiculous to say so in that Sense of the Creed, which was committed to Writing in so many places. But now that Expression would not be absurd, did we take it in this Sense, viz. That the Faith of the Creed is most certain and unalterable, because it is not only written on Paper with Ink, but likewise engraven upon the very Hearts of the Faithful.  
I said that the Passage of Saint Ambrose[ Credatur Symbolo Apostolorum, quod Ecclesia Romana intemeratum custodit& servat] ought to be understood of the Doctrine, and not of the Form of Faith. To this they object, that he there treats of the Virginity of Mary after her Parturition, which is not so much as mentioned in the Writings of the Apostles. And is there any mention made of it in the Creed any more than in the New Testament? This therefore ought only to be understood of the Doctrine which the Church of Rome has received by Tradition from the Apostles. But tho' we should allow that this passage refers to the Creed, and not to the Doctrine; yet it does not from thence necessary follow, that the Creed was made by the Apostles, because 'tis styled the apostles Creed: 'tis enough that it goes under that Title, and that we grant it to contain the Doctrine of the Apostles.  
They produce another passage of Saint Ambrose, taken out of the Sermon upon Elias and concerning Fasting. But they might have been informed by one of the Fathers of the Congregation of Saint Maur, that this Homily was not Saint Ambrose's, but belongs to Caesareus of Arles.  
They likewise quote Celestin I. who in his Epistle to Nestorius, says, That he is very much concerned that Nestorius had struck any thing out of the Creed which was given by the Apostles. But there is not any Citation of so little Force as this. For( 1.) in this place the question is not about the Creed. Nestorius had taken nothing out of that, nor had he erased the least Syllable of it: He had corrupted the Faith, and opposed the Articles of it.( 2.) The Word Apostles is not in the Greek, but only that of the Creed.( 3.) There is a great deal of Difference between calling the Creed the Apostles Creed, and saying that it was composed by them. Besides, tho' Celestin had been of the Opinion, that the Apostles were the Authors of the Creed, yet this would not determine the Case. Ruffinus had set down this Opinion before him, he was the first that ever mentioned it; but he intimates to us as if this Opinion was not very Conclusive.  
In short, 'tis no rashness to dissent herein from the common received Opinion, since 'tis a more question in Criticism, which offers no Violence to the Christian Faith, because we grant that Jesus Christ is the Author of the Doctrine contained in the Creed, and that the Apostles taught the same to all Christians. Besides, those who maintain the common Opinion, are forced when they are pressed home, to be of our Mind, and to own( when 'tis objected to them, that the Ancient Creed of Rome differs from the Vulgar) that our Creed is not the Apostles with respect to the Expressions, but only with respect to the Sense; which is just the same thing that we argue for. Besides it is no new thing in Criticism, to deviate from the common Opinion, and to follow the Sentiments of several Learned Men, even tho' suspected of heresy. Upon this Account, every Body at present grants, that the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons do not belong to the Apostles, as we shall show in the next Section; and yet not a man before Erasmus doubted of it.  

A TABLE, wherein the four Ancient Creeds are compared.  The VULGAR. That of Aquileia. The ORIENTAL. The ROMAN. I. I Believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth. 
I. I Believe in one God the Father Almighty.  
In the Ancient Editions of Morellus and Cauchius, we red, In Deo Patre Omnipotente. Which is a fault of the Printer or Copier.  I. I Believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassable. I. I Believe in God the Father Almighty. II. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord. II. And in Christ Jesus his only Son our Lord. II. The same as in the Vulgar. II. The same as in the Vulgar. III. Who was conceived of the H. Ghost, Born of the Virgin-Mary. III. Who was Born of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin-Mary. III. The same as in the Aquileian Creed. III. The same as in the Aqueleian Creed. IV. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was Crucified, Dead and buried, he descended into Hell. IV. Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried; he descended into Hell. IV. Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was butted. IV. The same with the Oriental. V. The third day he rose again from the dead. V. The same. V. The same. V. The same. VI. He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty. VI. He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the Right hand of God the Father. VI. The same as in that of Aquileia, only some add Almighty, as in the Vulgar. VI. The same with that of Aquileia. VII. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. VII. The same. VII. The same. VII. The same. VIII. I Believe in the Holy Ghost. VIII. And in the Holy Ghost. VIII. The same with that of Aquileia. VIII. The same with that of Aquileia. IX. The Holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints. 
IX. I believe in the Holy Church.  
Pamelius adds catholic, but falsely, for Ruffinus does not expound it, no more than he does the Cummunion of Saints.  IX. The same with that of Aquileia. IX. The same with that of Aquileia. X. The forgiveness of Sins. X. The same. X. The same. X. The same. XI. The Resurrection of the Body. XI. The Resurrection of this Body. XI. The same with the Vulgar. XI. The same with the Vulgar. XII. And the Life Everlasting. XII. Wanting. XII. Wanting. XII. Wanting.   

SECT. X. Of the Canons and Constitutions attributed to the Apostles.  
VArious are the Opinions of the Learned about the Canons, which are commonly called the Canons of the Apostles. Turrianus and some others have thought that they really belonged to the Apostles. Baronius and Bellarmine have excepted the last thirty five, which they rejected as Apocryphal; but made no scruple of admitting the first fifty. Gabriel Albaspinaeus Bishop of Orleans and some others have believed, that altho' these Canons were not written by the Apostles, yet they were very ancient, as being properly a Collection of the Canons of several Councils held before that of Nice. This Opinion is maintained by the Learned Dr. Beverege, in a Book which he has lately published, and entitled, Vindiciae Canonum, &c. By which Canons he means the Collection of the Eighty five Canons attributed to the Apostles. Lastly, M. Daillé pretends not only that these Canons are not the Apostles, but likewise that they are of a more modern date, being not collected till about the latter end of the fifth Century. We shall make an Enquiry into these Opinions, and endeavour to establish that of Albaspinaeus, which we look upon to be the most probable.  
'tis no very hard matter to prove that these Canons were not made by the Apostles themselves. We need only to peruse them, and we shall be convinced that they contain a great many things which could never have been established by the Apostles 
A great many things, which could never have been established by the Apostles.] The first Canon orders that a Bishop should not be ordained but by two or three Bishops: whereas 'tis certain that in the apostles Days, one single Bishop was sufficient to Ordain another. In the third it is decreed, that the first Fruits should be so offered to the Bishop and Priest, as to be brought directly to them and not offered up at the Altar. In the fourth 'tis ordered, that only oil and Incense should be offered up at the Altar. Now 'tis not probable that any such Offerings were made in the times of the Apostles. In the fifth Canon 'tis ordered, that Easter should not be celebrated after the Jewish Custom. Now, had this been determined by the Apostles, the Dispute between Victor and the Asiaticks would have soon been decided by that Canon; but it was not, and Victor only alleged the Tradition of his Ancestors. In like manner the 21st. Canon against those who made themselves Eunuchs, would have been cited by Demetrius against Origen, and Origen's Action in that case would not have been justified by Alexander and Theoctistus, if there had been at that time a Canon of the Apostles, so expressly forbidding it. In the 34th. and 35th. Canons mention is made of the Jurisdiction of Metropolitans and the Distinction of bishoprics; which were not established in the Apostles days. In the 50th. Canon 'tis ordered, that he who did not baptize or dip a Child thrice in the Water should be deposed. Now tho' this practise was very ancient, yet it does not seem to be in use in the apostles time. The fifty second is against the Error of the Montanists and Novatians. The Sixtieth against Books forged by heretics since the Apostles. The Sixty sixth is against the Sabbatical Fast. The Sixty ninth regulates the Fast of Lent. In the following Canons mention is made of Oil, Vessels of Gold and Silver, Veils consecrated in Churches, things that were never used in the Apostles time. The last Canon contains a Catalogue of the sacred Writings which could never have been written by the Apostles. The 55th. 46th. and 47th. Canons reject the Baptismof heretics as null and voided. This was a Question never decided by the Apostles. The style of these Canons is not like that of the Apostles, and the matter of them is very different from that which was usually treated of by them. The names of Clerk, Bishop, Altars, Sacrifice, &c. were not so common in the Apostolical times. , some of which relate to such Questions as were not debated till several Years after their Death 
Questions that were not debated till several Years after their Death.] Viz. The Questions concerning Easter and the Baptism of heretics, concerning those who had made themselves Eunuchs, those that would not admit Sinners to Pennance; and those that fasted on Sundays, &c. Vide Supra. . But it is to be noted, that they are commonly styled by the Ancient Writers, the Ancient Canons, the Canons of the Fathers, and the Ecclesiastical Canons: Titles which are likewise prefixed to them in several Manuscripts, as Cotelerius has observed. And suppose they were sometimes called or entitled Apostolical Canons, yet it does not from thence follow that they were compiled by the Apostles; but 'tis sufficient that some of them were made by Bishops, who lived a little after the Apostles; because those who lived about that time were commonly called Apostolical Men.  
The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions is the first that has attributed these Canons to the Apostles, and he has said some things on that Head, which might incline us to believe that the Apostles were the Authors of them 
Which might incline us to believe that the Apostles were the Authors of them.] As for instance, in the 29th. Canon, where it is ordered, that the Bishops who should obtain the Episcopal Dignity by Bribery, should be deposed, as Simon had been by Saint Peter; He hath added, by me Peter. For these Words are not to be met with in the Epistle of Tarasius to Pope Adrian, nor in the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus. So likewise in the 5th. Canon we at present red, The Lord hath declared to us, and yet in the Greek Manuscripts, and in the Edition of Saint Zonaras and Balsamon, 'tis only said, The Lord hath declared. Lastly, in the 82d. Canon there is, as our Brother Onesimus, and in the last, Our Acts, whereas it ought to be red simply according as 'tis in the arabic Paraphrase, as Onesimus, and the Acts of the Apostles. . Therefore these Canons are not the work of an Impostor, who has forged them under the Name of the Apostles; but only a Work that was falsely attributed to them, thereby to render it the more Authentic. Now I know not of any Person more capable of carrying on such an Artifice, than the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions 
Now I know not of any Person more capable of carrying on such an Artifice, &c.] It is the very Temper and Genius of this Author, who would all along pass for a Disciple of the Apostles. He relates several Constitutions under the name of the Apostles: he ascribes to each Apostle several Constitutions and Liturgies, after which he inserts those Canons with the Additions we have taken notice of, and adds in the name of the Apostles: This is what we Order you, O ye Bishops! continue to observe those things. , who has attributed to the Apostles several other Works, and who has set down these Canons entire in his third Book.  
As to the Antiquity of these Canons, they appear to us to be very Ancient, and that at least a great part( if not all) of them belong to the Councils which were held before the Nicene Council.  
1. For in the first place, they contain nothing in my Opinion, But what agrees with the Discipline observed in some Churches about the latter end of the Second, throughout the third, and in the beginning of the fourth Century.  
2. In the second place, they contain such Rules, as we are well assured were made within that time: for Instance, there is a Canon which prohibits the celebrating of Easter after the Jewish Custom, which we know was determined in several Synods convened in the time of Victor. There are three Canons wherein the Baptism of heretics is rejected as null and voided, which Firmilian and Dionysius Alexandrinus affirm to have been determined in the Synods of Synnada and Iconium, which were held some time before them. Who will imagine that these Canons were made or counterfeited in a time, when every Body admitted Persons baptized by heretics without rebaptizing them? And it cannot be supposed that these Canons were forged by Saint Cyprian or Firmilian, to authorize their Discipline: 'tis more reasonable to believe that those are the very Canons of the Synods of Iconium and Synnada, which were falsely ascribed to the Apostles, not by those Holy Fathers, but by more modern Writers.  
3. In the third place, 'tis undeniably apparent that most of those Canons are more ancient than the Council of Nice, because that Council and those which were held a little after, as well as the Authors of the Fourth Century, have cited them frequently 

Have cited them frequently, &c.] In the first Canon of the Nicene Council is cited the second of the Apostles, concerning those who make themselves Eunuchs. In the fifth Canon is cited the twelfth and thirty second, concernning Excommunication. In the 23d. Canon the Seventy sixth, that one ought not to elect his Successor. In the twenty first is cited the Fourteenth, which prohibits Bishops from leaving their dioceses. In the Synod of Constantinople held in the Year 394. the fourteenth Apostolical Canon is cited upon the same Subject with relation to Bishops. In the Council of Ephesus Act. 7. pag. 788. the Thirty fifth Apostolical Canon is cited concerning Ordinations; and in Act. 1. is cited the seventy fourth, concerning the three Admonitions which ought to precede Ecclesiastical Censure. Besides, Alexander in Theodoret, B. 1. Chap. 4. cites the twelfth Apostolical Canon, and so does Saint Athanasius in his Epistle ad omnes Orthodoxos, where he likewise alludes to the 29th, 30th and 70th. Canons. Arsenius quotes the 34th, and Pope Julius in his Epistle cites the 30th, 35th and 81st. S. Basil in the 43d. Canon, does manifestly quote the 24th. Apostolical Canon, styling it an Ancient Canon; in the 12th. Canon, the 77th. concerning Bigamy; and in the first, the forty seventh concerning the Baptism of heretics. Theodosius in Cod. Lib. 3. de summâ Trinitate, cites the 17th. under the Title of an Apostolical Canon.  
To this M. Daillé replies, that all these Citations have no reference to the Apostolical Canons, but only to the Discipline, Custom and Traditions derived from the Apostles. This Reply has not the least colour of Reason in it, for the Word Canon, signifies written Laws, and the Council of Nice makes a distinction between the Canons and Customs, which last It styles {αβγδ}. M. Daillé adds, that oftentimes such Canons and Ancient Laws are cited which are not in the Apostolical Canons, of which he produces two Instances: the first taken out of the Thirteenth Canon of the Council of Nice, and the second out of the twenty first of the Council of Ancyra. But in the first place, in these two Canons the Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Canons are not expressly cited, but only in the first, a Law, or an Ancient, and caconical Custom, {αβγδ}, and in the second, {αβγδ}, an ancient Definition. But secondly, this does not hinder, but that these Terms may be understood of some Ancient Decisions of Synods. For instance, the Law which orders the receiving of the lapsed into the Communion of the Church at the hour of Death, cited by the first Canon, was made in the Church of the East and afric, before the Council of Nice, according to the Testimony of Dionysius Alexandrinus, in his Epistle ad Stephanum, related by Eusebius B. 7. Ch. 4. and 55.   under the name of Ancient Laws, Canons of the Fathers, Ecclesiastical Canons, and even Apostolical, and is different from what they call Customs, Manners or Discipline, concerning which there is no written Law. It is therefore manifest, that these Canons are ancient, that 'tis by a mistake that they are ascribed to the Apostles, and that 'tis a Collection of Ordinances or Canons of several Ancient Synods held before the Nicene Council. We cannot tell for certain when it was compiled, nor who is the Author of it, nor whether it at first consisted of the Eighty five Canons which we have by us, or of a lesser Number. However 'tis very probable that this Collection was made at different times, and that from time to time several Canons were added to the former, because there is no Connection or Order observed, but the Canons upon one and the same Subject are frequently found to be very distant from one another, and some Contradictions are to be met with in them.  
The Objections which M. Daillé raises against the Apostolical Canons, are a good proof against Turrianus, That they were not composed by the Apostles, but they have no force at all against our Opinion. For instance, he objects that in those Canons there are certain Terms which were not in use in the time of the Apostles, such as Clerk, Lecturer, laic, Metropolitan, &c. But he cannot deny but that these Terms were used in the third Century of the Church. That which is ordered therein concerning Lent, and against the Fast on Sunday and the Sabbath, may very well belong to the third Century, since we meet with the same things in Tertullian. The Canons against those who castrated or made themselves Eunuchs might have been made by Demetrius against Origen. The Canons concerning Easter, are plainly those of the Councils held under Victor; and the Canons relating to the Baptism of heretics, are very probably the same with those of the Councils of Synnada and Iconium. Should we run through all the Objections of M. Daillé, we should find that tho' they are very weighty against the Opinion of Turrianus, yet they are of no force against ours 
They are of no force against Ours.] However some of M. Daille's most considerable reasons may be objected to us. For instance, He says, that Saint Athanasius in the Affair of Leontius the Eunuch, cites the Canon of the Council of Nice, but not the Apostolical Canon, which shows, says he, that it was not then known. That in like manner Saint Epiphanius does not city it against the Valesian heretics. That Saint Basil reckons among the unwritten Traditions, the Immersion in Baptism three times, and consequently that the Canon of the Apostles which enjoins it, was not made in that Father's time. That this very Canon is made against the heretics, who baptized with one single Immersion, and that the Eunomians were the first who introduced that practise. These are all the Reasons of M. Daillé which may be objected to us; but it is very easy to give an answer to them. Saint Athanasius rather cites the Apostolical Canon than that of the Council of Nice. Saint Epiphanius opposes no Canon against the Valesians, but only the Holy Scriptures. Saint Basil and the other Fathers, by unwritten Tradition, understand all those Usages which are not in the Scriptures. Lastly the Canon relating to the Triple Immersion was not made against the heretics, but against the negligence of the Priests. One may with greater Probability object the 84th. Canon, where among the caconical Books we meet with the Books of the Maccabees, the Epistles of Saint Clement, and his Constitutions. But to this Objection it must be answered, that this Canon is adulterated, that the Books of the Maccabees are not in the Greek Code of Joannes Antiochenus, and that 'tis easy to perceive, that the Epistles of Saint Clement and his Constitutions have been added by the Author of the Constitutions, who would pass for Saint Clement, and thereby advance the Credit of his Book. We can prove that this Canon is Ancient, since it leaves out the Books of the Old Testament, which were not in the Hebrew Canon, and the Apocalypse of the New Testament. Lastly, 'tis objected against us, that those Canons were unknown to the Authors of the fifth Century, that they are not cited by Eusebius, and are not inserted in the Code of the Canons of the catholic Church. But all these Objections are very frivolous. The Authors of the fourth Century have cited those Canons several times: Eusebius has not mentioned them indeed, no more has he the Canons of the Council of Nice: and lastly, it is not to be wondered at, that they are not in the Code of the catholic Church, which did not contain all the Ancient Canons, no more than the Code of the African Church did contain the Canons which were made by Saint Cyprian or by Agrippinus. .  
It must then rest as a thing certain, that not only the first fifty Canons, but likewise the thirty five last of this Collection, are very ancient, though they do not belong to the Apostles. Upon which account the Greeks have always owned them, as being of great Authority. John of Antioch, who lived in Justinian's time, has inserted them in his Collection of the Conans, and they are commended by Justinian himself in his sixth Novel. They are approved in the Synod held in the Emperor's Palace, after the fifth general Council; cited in the seventh general Council, and received by Joannes Damascenus and Photius, only with this Difference, that the former being no great critic, has attributed them to the Apostles, and the Latter having a clearer insight into these Matters, has questioned whether they belong to them or not. Among the Latins they have not always met with the same Lot. Cardinal Humbert has rejected them. Pope Gelasius has placed them among the Apocryphal Writings, as well because they were falsely attributed to the Apostles, as because therein are some Canons, which favour Saint Cyprian's Opinion, concerning the Baptism of heretics. Hincmarus has explained the Canon of Gelasius very favourably, by saying, that that Pope has not placed them among such Apocryphal Books as were full of Errors, but only among those, about which the Rule of Saint Paul ought to be regarded, viz. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. Dionysius Exiguus has translated the first fifty, and placed them in the Front of his Collection, but withall takes notice that some would not approve of them. 'tis perhaps upon that account that Martin of Braga would not insert them in his Collection of the Canons. But Isidorus makes no scruple to insert them into His, and ever since they have been made part of the Canon-Law. It is likewise to be observed, that as soon as they appeared in France, they were in Esteem; and where first of all produced in the Cause of Praetextatus in the time of King Chilperic; and their Authority was submitted to, as Gregory of Tours testifies in the fifth Book of his History, Chap. 19. where he observes, that there was a new Chapter among the Collection of the Canons, which contained several Canons, as being Apostolical, quasi Apostolicos, and he cites one of 'em which is the twenty fifth of the Apostolical Canons, but in a different manner from what it is in the Collection of Dionysius Exiguus. Lastly, Hincmarus Arch-Bishop of Rheims takes notice, that those Canons were prefixed before a Collection of Canons drawn up for the Use of the Gallican Church distinct from all other Churches; as for their Authority and Antiquity, he is absolutely of our Opinion, and explains himself in the 24th. Chapter of his Tract concerning the fifty Canons in these Terms: The Canons( says he) which are called the Apostles, collected by several Christians, were made at a time when the Bishops could not meet together, nor hold Councils freely. They contain a great many things which may be very well allowed of; but they likewise enjoin others, which ought not to be observed.  
I cannot say so much of the Apostolical Constitutions, as I have said of the Canons, viz. that they were not spurious, but that in process of time it so happened that a false Title was given them: for the Author of the Constitutions was an Impostor, who all along was willing to pass for Clement the Disciple of the Apostles, and who attributed to all of 'em in general, and to each in particular several Constitutions, which do by no means svit with the Apostles; such are those, which relate to Churches built in the form of Temples, to Catechumens, Energumens, Fasts, the Liturgy, Extreme Unction, the Prayers for the Catechumens and Energumens; such likewise as concern the Ordinations of Deacons and Deaconesses; The Virgins, Confessors and Sub-Deacons; the Benedictions of oil and Water; The first Fruits, the Celebration of Easter, and several other things which were not in use in the time of the Apostles: not to say any thing of the many Absurdities, Anachronisms, and other things therein contained 
The many Absurdities, Anachronisms and other Errors therein contained.] Such as B. 1. That the Women ought to be shaved and not the Men. B. 2. Chap. 1. That Bishops ought to be fifty years old, and Chap. 57. it is ordered, that the Gospel of Saint John should be red, which was not written till the Year of our Lord 97. after the Death of the rest of the Apostles. Chap. 11. 'tis said, that the Bishop presides over Kings and Magistrates. B. 3. Chap. 2. 'tis said that the third Marriage is Incontinence, and the fourth, downright Debauchery. B. 6. Chap. 6. Mention is made of the Ebionites, whose Error sprung up since the Death of the Apostles; and Chap. 14. He makes James the Son of Zebedee to be at Jerusalem, after the time of his Death. B. 8. C. 4. He says that the Constitutions were made in the presence of S. Paul and the Seven Deacons. Now 'tis plain, that S. Stephen, one of the seven Deacons was dead before S. Paul's Conversion. Lastly, B. 8. C. 32. He permits the Women slaves to suffer themselves to be debauched by their Masters. He is likewise charged with Arianism. : Which are sufficient Demonstrations that these Constitutions were not made by the Apostles, nor so much as by Saint Clement.  
I shall say nothing of the Nine other Canons which are likewise attributed to the Apostles, and which they say were made in a certain Council of Antioch wholly known to the Ancients: since it is not to be questioned but that these Canons are supposititious, and no body at present offers to defend them 
No body at present offers to defend them.] This Synod was unknown to S. Luke and to all the Ancients, for when 'tis said, that it is cited by Innocent I. Epist. 18. 'tis a mistake; 'tis the Council of Jerusalem, which he means, and in stead of, Antiochenam Ecclesiam quae meruit apud se celeberrimum Apostolorum conventum, we ought to red, propter se, for 'tis plain, that Innocent speaks of the Synod of Jerusalem, which was Celeberrimus Apostolorum Conventus, mentioned by S. Luke in his Acts, Ch. 15. Not one of the Ancients have made mention of these Canons, and they are full of Absurdities. In the first 'tis said, that the Christians were called Galileans, a Name that was not given them till after the Death of the Apostles.[ However 'tis to be observed that the Angel in the Acts, seems to give the Apostles that Title, when after the Ascent of Christ into Heaven, he says, Chap. 1. Vers. 11. Ye Men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing, &c.] In the third Canon 'tis ordered, that the Christians should live Anagogically, a Term that has no Sense in it. In the Ninth Canon, The Synagogue is called Beastly. In the Eighth 'tis ordered that there should be Images in the Churches, a custom not in use in the apostles time. This Canon is cited by Gregory of Pessinunta in the second Council of Nice; but 'tis well known that there were a great many Apocryphal Records cited in that Council.    

SECT. XI. Of the Books attributed to Prochorus, Saint Linus, Abdias; and of the Acts of the Passion of Saint Andrew.  
THere was in the time of the Apostles a Man named Prochorus, one of the seven first Deacons, and there is at present under his Name the Life of Saint John, printed in the Orthodoxographa and in the Bibliotheca Patrum. But Baronius, Bellarmine, Lorinus, the Master of the Sacred Palace, and in a word all that have treated concerning the Ecclesiastical Writers, as well catholics as heretics, do agree that it is a spurious piece and unworthy of the Author whose name it bears. And in truth, 'tis a Narration full of idle Fables and Stories. Therein 'tis said that Saint John threw himself at the apostles Feet, to desire them to excuse his going into Asia: That after he was taken out of the cauldron of scalding oil, they built a Church in honour to him; that he composed his Gospel in the Isle of Patmos, &c. The style of these Acts is that of a Latin or Greek, and not of an Hebrew. Lastly, therein we meet with the Terms Trinity and Hypostasis.  
The two Books which go under the name of Saint Linus, concerning the Passion of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, are likewise unanimously rejected, as spurious Books and full of Fables. The Author relates that Agrippa was governor of Rome in the time of Saint Peter; that Saint Peter was martyred without Nero's having any Knowledge of it, and that this Emperour found fault with his being put to Death: That part of the Roman Magistrates were Christians; That the Wife of Albanius quitted her Husband against his Consent, according to the Advice she had received from Saint Peter. In short, these two Books are full of Errors, Falsities, Fictions and Untruths. In the latter, mention is made of the Letters of Saint Paul to Seneca, and of the Epistles of Seneca to Saint Paul.  
The same judgement may be passed on the Book of Abdias, which contains a very fabulous relation of the Lives of the Apostles, printed separately in the Year 1587, 1560 and 1571. at Basil in the Year 1532, and at Paris in the Year 1583. and afterwards inserted into the Bibliotheca Patrum. At first, this Treatise was looked upon as composed in Hebrew by a Disciple of Jesus Christ, named Abdias, who was of Babylon, and rendered into Greek by Eutropius, and into Latin by Julius Africanus. But at present every Body is undeceived, and 'tis agreed on all hands that 'tis the Tract of an Impostor, who gave out falsely that he was the Disciple of Jesus Christ, and yet cited Hegesigpus and Julius Africanus, whom he could never have seen, had he lived in the time when Jesus Christ was upon Earth; and lastly, that he is One, who relates several fabulous Histories concerning the Life of Jesus Christ, and the Lives of his Apostles, which it would be to no purpose here to repeat.  
The Learned are divided in their Sentiments concerning the Acts of the Passion of Saint Andrew, written by the Priests of Achaia, which are in Surius's History of the Saints. Baronius, Bellarmin, and several other critics of the Romish Communion approve them, whilst a great many others reject them. The Ancients knew no other Acts of Saint Andrew, than those which had been corrupted by the Manichees, of which Saint Augustine, Philastrius and Pope Innocent make mention 
Of which Saint Augustine, Philastrius, and Pope Innocent make mention.] Saint Augustine in his Tract de fide Contra Manichaeos; Philastrius in his Treatise de Haeres. n. 4. Pope Innocent I. Epist. ad Exuper. Gelasius in Concilio Romano. , and which Pope Gelasius has placed among the Apocrypha Writings. But 'tis very evident that these last are different from those we are speaking of, and 'tis likewise certain that those last Acts of the Passion of Saint Andrew, were not cited by any Authors till after the Seventh Century, as by Remy of Auxerre, Peter Damien, Lanfranc, Saint Bernard, and Ivo of charters, which shows that we have no sufficient Evidence of their Antiquity. Thirdly, the Mystery of the Trinity is not only explained in these Acts after such a Manner, as might give us an occasion to suspect, that he who wrote them lived since the Nicene Council; but he likewise teaches the Error of the Greeks concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, asserting that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and abides in the Son. I am sensible that 'tis said there are some Manuscripts in which these Terms are not to be met with; but who knows but that they might be as well struck out of some, as added to others? For which Reason this Passion ought at least to be looked upon as a doubtful piece, which cannot be made use of to prove any Doctrine of Faith, or to establish any certain matter of Fact.  
The Life and Death of Saint mathias was forged by an Author, who pretended to have received it from a Jew, that had translated it from the Hebrew. We ought likewise to place among the Apocryphal Books the Life of Saint Mark, the History of Saint Clement, and of Apollinarius, set down in the Collection of Ancient Histories made by Laurentius de la bar. We need only red over these Pieces to be convinced of the Falsity of them.    

CHAP. VII. Of the Ancient profane Records produced in Favour of the Christian Religion.  

SECT. I. Of the Sibyls and the Oracles commonly attributed to them.  
WE here join in one and the same Chapter all the profane Records, which were formerly made use of in favour of the Christian Religion, in order to examine them: and tho' we should reject almost all of them as spurious Pieces, yet we suppose we should do Religion no harm, which is established upon more solid and convincing Proofs, than to stand in need of such as are false and dubious.  
We begin with the Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which the Ancients have often cited, to convince the Gentiles of the Truth of the Christian Religion. But before we enter upon the Examination of them, it will be proper to premise something concerning the Sibyls and their Books.  
It is something difficult to give you the true and exact Etymology of the Word Sibyl. Lactantius, and after him, Saint Jerome say, that the Sibyls were so called, because they were the Interpreters of the Counsels of the Gods, and that their Name was derived from two Greek Words 
Was derived from two Greek Words.] These Words are {αβγδ} which in the Aeolic is pronounced {αβγδ}. Lactantius B. 1. Chap. 6. Saint Jerome, B. 1. in Jovin. Contrary to this Etymology 'tis said, that the Adjective {αβγδ} whose last three Syllables make a Dactyl, doth evince that the Word Sibyl is not derived from {αβγδ}. , which signify the Counsel of God, and which, being written according to the Aeolic Dialect, make up the word Sibyl. Some have derived it from a Hebrew Word, and others from an obsolete Latin Adjective 
From an Obsolete Latin Adjective.] This Adjective is Sibus, which in Festus signifies, acutus, callidus. , which signifies Sharp and Crafty: but this last Conjecture is erroneous, since the Greeks made use of the Word Sibyl before the Latins. The most probable Opinion is that the Name of Sibyl, which was the proper Name of a famous Prophetess of Delphi, became afterwards the common Name of other Prophetesses, just as the Name Caesar, which was the proper Name of Julius, was afterwards applied to all the Emperors.  
Nothing is more uncertain than the Number and the Names of the Sibyls 
Nothing is more uncertain than the Number and the Names of the Sibyls.] Plato in his Phaedrus speaks only of one Sibyl, but does not tell us of what place she was. The Author of the Treatise, de mirabilibus auscultationibus, in Aristotle, speaks of the Cumaean Sibyl. Diodorus Siculus, B. 4. speaks of the Cumaean Sibyl, and says that her Name was Daphne, the Daughter of Tiresias. Virgil, Pausanias, and Suidas call her Manto, and Saint Clement, Artemis. Dionysius Halicarnassaeus, Pliny, Juvenal, &c. make mention only of one Sibyl, but it cannot from thence be inferred that they knew of no more. Strabo B. 13. and 17. says that there were two of Erythraea, and that the second called Athenais lived in the time of Alexander the Great. Stephanus de Urbibus, and Capella, B. 2. de Nuptiis Physiologiae, reckon likewise two, one named Erophile a Trojan by Birth, and another called Symmachia of Erythraea. Solinus Polyhist. c. 8. reckons three, the Delphian more ancient than Homer, Eryphile and the Cumaean Sibyl. Aelian de Var. Hist. B. 2. C. 35. reckons ten of them: The Erythraean, the Samian, the Egyptian, the Sardian, the Cumaean, the Jewish and four others. Saint Clement in his Stromata, B. 1. Manto( says he) and a great many Sibyls, the Samian, the Colophonian, the Thessalian, &c. Lactantius, B. 6. reckons ten of them according to Varro's Account. The first of Persia, of whom Nicanor, who wrote the History of Alexander, makes mention. The second of Lybia, of whom Euripides speaks. The third of Delphi, mentioned by Chrysippus in his Treatise of Divination. The Fourth of Cumae in Italy, of which Naevius and Piso make mention; the former in the punic War, and the latter in his Annals. The fifth of Erythraea, whom Apollodorus the Erythraean asserted to be a Citizen of that City. The sixth a Samian, of whom Bratosthenes has written. The seventh a Cumaean, called Amalthaea, and by others Demophila or Herophila. The eighth of Hellespont, born in the Trojan Country, in the Town of Marpessae. The ninth a Phrygian, who prophesied at Ancyra. The Tenth a Tiburtine, named Albunea, who prophesied at Tivoli, near the River Teverrone, in the bottom of which they say, her Statue was found, holding a Book in her Hand. Isidorus has followed this Catalogue given by Lactantius. Suidas has reckoned twelve of them. Some Authors, have with Pausanias, confounded the Erythraean with the Delphian, the Phrygian, the Samian, and the Colophonian. Others, such as Capella, and the Author, de mirabilibus auscultationibus, join the Cumaean, and Erythraean together. Saint Justin confounded the Babylonian and the Cumaean. According to some, the Persian is the most ancient; according to others, the Cumaean, and according to Saint Clement the Delphian.  several of the Ancients make mention only of one Sibyl. Some speak of the Sibyl of Cumae, and others of the Sibyl of Delphi. Strabo and some others distinguish between two of Erythraea. Solinus names three of them, the Delphian, the Erythraean, and the Cumaean. Pausanias reckons four of them, viz. the Libyan, the Delphian or Erythraean, and the Cumaean, and the Babylonian. AElian, Varro Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria and most Authors reckon about ten of them, and some have added to that Number: but they are not agreed about their Names, nor about the place of their Abode, and do often confounded the One with the Other.  
Let this be how it will, yet it is certain, that the Name of Sibyl was given to certain Women, who being transported by Enthusiasm 
Transported by Enthusiasm.] One need only red what all the Ancients say concerning the manner wherein the Sibyls uttered their Oracles. See Virgil's Aeneid, Lucan, Claudian in Panegyric. Honorii, Plutarch, de Orac. Pythiae. It was so common a Notion among the Heathens that they were possessed, that {αβγδ} among them signified as much. Now that Frenzy which deprives a Man of his Senses, cannot be the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but the Effect of a heated Brain, or of Possession. For 'tis in my Mind a groundless Supposition which Saint Jerome has formed, to say, that they received from God the Gift of prophesy as a Reward of their Chastity. , and a fury that came next to Madness, which was raised either by an overheated Brain, or by the possession of Daemons, uttered such dark and obscure Sentences, as passed among the Pagans for Oracles and Prophecies. 'tis said that the Sibyl of Cumae wrote them upon Leaves 
Wrote them upon Leaves.] Thus Virgil in his 6th. Aeneid, Foliis tantum ne carmina manda.& Juvenal, Credite me folium recitare Sibyllae. , and that a Collection was made of them, which a Woman presented to Tarquin 
Which a Woman presented to Tarquin.] This History is related by several ancient Authors, according to some, Tarquin Superbus, according to others, tarqvinius Priscus is the Man. They say that the Woman who brought them had nine Books in all, and that offering them at a very dear Price, which Tarquin would not give her, she went away and burnt three of them: That afterwards proffering to sell the six that remained, at as dear a price as she would have sold the Nine, and Tarquin again refusing to give her what she asked, she went and burnt three more of them: and that at last Tarquin startled at the Woman's proceedings, bought the three that remained at the same price which she had asked for the whole Nine. Vid. Dion. Halicarnass. Antiquit. l. 4. Aulus Gellius and Lactantius. Pliny counts but three of these Books instead of Nine, and says that two of 'em were burnt. , who bought part of them, and very carefully enclosed them in an Urn, which he placed in the Capitol, having created the Duumviri on purpose to look to them, and to consult them upon all urgent occasions. The number of those who had this Charge of them increased by little and little; afterwards they rose to ten, and at last to fifteen. Very severe punishments were to be inflicted on those Officers, if ever they suffered these Books to be seen by any body else. Dionysius Halicaranassaeus and Valerius Maximus relate that one of the Duumviri was punished as a parricide, that is, he was sown up alive in a Sack and thrown into the Sea, for having suffered some of the Sibylline Verses to be copied out. These Books were thus preserved till the Year 671. Urb. conduit. that is 83 Years before Christ, at which time the Capitol being burnt down, they perished with the other Ornaments of that Temple, as Dionysius Halicaranassaeus, Pliny, and other Authors inform us. After the Capitol was rebuilt, the Consuls proposed to the Senate the sending Ambassadors into Greece, to Erythraea and into Asia, to gather up what they could get of the Sibylline Oracles, and bring them to Rome. Upon this Octacilius Crassus, and L. Valerius Flaccus were deputed to go to Attalus King of Pergamos, who brought back out of Asia about a thousand Verses attributed to the Sibyls, which they had collected in all places where they came from the Copies of several private Men. But forasmuch as there were many things in them which seemed to be false or superfluous, fifteen Persons were deputed to revise and correct them, and after that, they were deposited in the Capitol in the room of the others. In the time of Augustus, these Books were again revised; near two thousand Verses attributed to the Sibyls were burnt by that Emperor's Order; and those that were looked upon as Genuine were put into two Golden Cabinets, and deposited in the Temple of Apollo. Some pretend that these Books were burnt in the Fire of Rome which happened under Nero; but produce no Arguments to convince us thereof. Let that Case be how it will, yet this is certain that so long as Rome had Pagan Emperors 
So long as Rome had Pagan Emperors.] Dion, in Tiberius, and Nero: Aelius Spartianus, in the life of Adrian: Julius Capitolinus, in the life of Gordianus: Trebellius Pollion, in the life of Galienus: Flavins Vopisus in the life of Aurelian: Aurelius Victor, Ammianus Marcelinus, B. 24. Zosimus B. 2. and Procepius B. 1. do all agree in this. , the Oracles attributed to the Sibyls were always carefully kept, and consulted upon all urgent occasions; and Julian the Apostate being minded to reintroduce all the ancient Pagan Superstitions, caused those Sibylline Books to be searched and consulted.  
There are at present a great many Greek Verses which are attributed to the Sibyls, and are divided into eight Books: But almost every body is agreed that this Work is supposititious, of which the Time wherein it was written 
The time wherein it was written.] It is certain that the Sibyls were later than Moses; he who has forged this Book, says, that Sibyl was in Noah's-Ark, and yet B. 3. 'tis said, that these Oracles were written 1500 Years after the Establishment of the grecian Empire. Now in what way soever we understand this, it follows, that all the Predictions concerning the Jews and Moses are Supposititious, since the 1500 Years mentioned, reach down to the Destruction of Jerusalem. In the 5th. Book, the Author says that he had seen the ruin of the Second House which plainly means the second Temple of Jerusalem. In the 8th. Book 'tis said, that after Trajan, denoted by the Letter T, another should reign, who should take his Name from the adriatic Sea, viz. Adrian: and that after him should three reign, that is, Antoninus, Marcus and Lucius, and that the Latter should have the sole power of all things in his Hands. This shows that this was written the beginning of the Empire of Marcus Aurelius, or at the latter end of Antonine's; for whereas Lucius was the youngest, it was but natural to foretell that he should outlive the other two. , the style of it 
The style of it.] It is plain that he who counterfeited those Books was not really Enthusiastical, but only pretended to be so. The Verses of the Sibyls were obscure and incohaerent; but these are not so. The Histories of the Emperors are therein related after an Historical, and not a prophetical Manner. The style has nothing of the Fury and Transport peculiar to the Sibyls, nor is it like to Homer's style, who, according to Diodorus, had taken several Verses out of the Sibyls. He who composed the Books of the Sibyls was no Scholar, for he derives Adam's Name from {αβγδ}. B. 2. he says, that the four Letters of that Word signify the four parts of the World, and yet there are no more than three Letters in the Hebrew and Chaldee Word. He supposes that the name of God makes the number of 1697, which is a mistake, unless it be written in Greek after a barbarous manner. He takes out of the Name Jesus( which he makes to consist of four Vowels and two Consonants) 888 Years, and out of the Name of Rome 948. He makes the Fables of the Titans to pass for true History. He says that Mount Ararat is in Phrygia, that the River Eurotas is in Epirus, and that Gog and Magog are the Ethiopians, which shows that this Impostor understood neither Hebrew, Geography nor History, which cannot be said of the true Sibyl. , and the things 
The Things.] In these Books there are such Opinions as could not be taught by any others besides the ancient Christians. The Author is of the same Opinion with the Millenarians: he believes Nero to be the Antichrist, that the Souls shall be in Hell till the Resurrection, that the Fire of the last judgement shall serve for Purgatory: That the Terrestrial Paradise shall be preserved, and that the Wicked shall at last be delivered out of hellfire, with several other Notions which were held by some of the ancient Christians. In short, there can no question be made, but that what is said in those Books concerning the Birth, Life and Actions of Jesus Christ, was taken out of the Evangelists. The Prophets never said any thing, that comes near the Evidence of what is contained in these Books. I omit a great many other Reasons that might be assigned.  it contains are irrefragable proofs.  
Since it is evident, that the Eight Books which we have under the name of the Sibyls are spurious, 'tis no less true to assert, that those which the Fathers had by them, and which they cited, were likewise spurious; as also that they did not differ very much from those which we have still extant.  
In the first place I say, that the Books of the Sibyls which the Fathers cited, were not really the same with those that were so carefully kept by the Romans. For to say nothing of these latter's being kept so secret, as not a Copy of 'em could be had, so far were they from being so common as those which the Fathers have cited, and which were in every Bodie's Hands: I say, not to mention any thing of this, 'tis certain that they contained such things as differ very much from those we meet with in the Writings of the Fathers. In the former there were only profane Matters which related to the Superstitions of the Pagans, whereas these last were full of Predictions and Instructions relating to Christianity.  
The Romans never consulted the Books of the Sibyls, but they learnt from them such Superstitions as were wholly Pagan 
Such Superstitions as were wholly Pagan.] See, Titus Livius in several places: Varro de Ling. Lat. B. 5. Cicero Verrin. Ult. Tacitus, B. 15. Suetonius in Jul. nam. 79. Pliny, B. 5. Ch. 17. Solinus Polyhist. Chap. 10. Val. Maximus, B. 1. N. 1, and 10. Plutarch, in the Lives of Publicola, Fabius, and Marius. Pausanias in Phocaicis. Capitolinus, in Gordiano. Trebellius Pollio in Galienis. Vopiscus in Aureliano& Valeriano. sixth. Aur. Victor in Claudio. Amm. Marcellinus B. 22, 23. Macrob. Saturn. B. 1. C. 17. . Therein they were informed, either that they ought to Sacrifice to the Gods, or that a Nail ought to be driven into the Capitol, or that Sports ought to be kept in Honour of Jupiter. Formerly they were admonished by them, to sand for the statue of Aesculapius to Rome, to build a Temple to Venus, to offer Sacrifices to the Infernal Gods, and to appease the Heathen Gods by extravagant Ceremonies: Lastly, the Romans never learnt any thing else out of these Books, but such Superstitions as were altogether profane.  
On the Contrary, the Fathers never cited any thing out of the Books of the Sibyls, but what related to the Religion of Jesus Christ, and to the Worship of the true God. Now is there any likelihood that these Prophetesses should have uttered such different things, and that they should teach in one and the same Book, the Worship of the true God, and the greatest Superstitions of Heathenism? Who can imagine, that the Books which the Romans preserved to authorize all their Superstitions, which they looked upon as the Ultimate End of their Religion, should contain such Prophesies concerning Jesus Christ, as are clearer than all that the Jewish Prophets have said about him? For not only in the Sibylline Books now extant, mention is made of Jesus Christ in such Terms, as show they are not so much a prophesy, as an History, but also the same thing must be said of the Books cited by the Fathers, which contain the same Predictions, and in plainer Terms. In short, can there be any clearer Prediction concerning Jesus Christ, than the Verses cited by Eusebius out of the Prayer attributed to Constantine?  
There is but One God, who likewise is the Saviour:  
Who suffered for Us:  
Who is denoted in these Verses.  
The acrostic set down in the same place is altogether as plain. Can any thing be said in clearer Terms concerning the Creation of the World, the last judgement, and Eternal Life, than what is to be met with in Theophilus Antiochenus, as taken out of the Sibyls? All the other Sibylline Verses cited by the Fathers, are very near the same upon each Subject, which made the Author of the Exhortation to the Greeks, attributed to Saint Justin, to say, that Sibyl had foretold the coming of Jesus Christ in clear and evident Terms, {αβγδ}. Now what an absurd thing is it to suppose, that the Heathens from whom God had concealed the coming of his Son, and whom he had permitted to walk in Darkness) should have among them such Prophesies as were clearer than all the Prophesies of the Jews, to whom he had committed the sacred Books, and given the Notice of a Messiah?  
We might carry this Argument still farther, and demand from whence the Sibyls could have the Knowledge of the Messiah. Some say, that they were inspired by God: others that they have taken out of the Scripture all that they have said concerning Religion; but neither of these Opinions has any probability in it. For what likelihood is there that God should have inspired the Prophetesses and Priestesses of the false Gods, who deceived Men and made them worship those Daemons, with which they themselves were possessed? Who can imagine that God would make use of such Ministers to declare so plainly his Mysteries to Mankind? And on the other Hand, how could they draw out of the Old Testament such Truths, as are therein very obscurely revealed, and which the Jews themselves had much ado to understand.  
For a farther Proof of the Falsity of the Sibylline Oracles which the Fathers made use of, I need only show, that they differed but very little from those, that go under that Name at present. To demonstrate this, 'tis enough to observe, that except three or four passages, all the rest cited by the Ancients, which are a great many, are to be met with in equivalent Terms in the Sibylline Books which are at present extant. Now the strongest Argument to prove that any Work is Ancient, is, that therein are to be met with those very passages, which the Ancients have cited. Do not we prove the Antiquity of a great many Books by this single Argument alone, viz. That there is some passage or other related or cited by some Ancient Author, which is likewise to be found in those Books? Why then should not it follow from the same Reason, that the Sibylline Books, tho' forged, are the same with those which were extant in the times of the Ancients? Nay, this Argument holds still stronger with respect to them since it is urged not of one single Passage, but of a great many, cited by several Authors; and also the Sibylline Books are still in the same Language wherein they were cited.  
Besides, it ought not to be wondered at, if there are some passages which are not therein, and if there are others which are not expressed Word for Word, because there are some parts of these Books which are lost, and the Ancients were not always exact in their Citations, and followed rather the Sense than the Letter.  
It may likewise be added to this Proof, that whatever the Ancient Fathers have said concerning the Books of the Sibyls, is likewise applicable to These. Thus for instance, the Author of the Exhortation to the Gentiles says, that the Books of the Sibyls were not very polite, These last are much the same. At that time those Writings were charged with Anachronisms, and the Defect is still in the present Books. They treated of Jesus Christ, the last judgement, Hell, &c. the same things we meet with in these that we have by us. Lastly, These are very ancient, and of the same standing with the most ancient Fathers; for therein are such Opinions, as were not maintained but in the first Ages of the Church, such as the Error of the Millenarians; that Nero is Antichrist, that the end of the World was at Hand, that it should happen in the time of Antoninus; that Rome should soon be destroyed, 948 Years after its Foundation, and several other things which could never have been said by later Christians, who would have been far from approving of those Notions, as being convinced of the falsity of these Predictions.  
Upon the whole it ought to be looked upon as a thing certain, that the Writings of the Sibyls were forged in the second Century. But to determine the precise time, and who is the Author of them, that we cannot with any assurance do. All that can be asserted as most probable, is, that they began to appear in the World about the latter End of the Reign of Antoninus pus.  
The Proof of this is taken out of the Books themselves, in which the Impostor plainly discovers the time wherein he lived. For tho' in the first Book he would make us believe that he lived in the time of Noah; and in the Third, that he wrote fifteen hundred years after the Foundation of the grecian Empire, yet he could not forbear declaring in the following Books the Emperors Names under whom he flourished. In the fifth Book, he says, that after the Emperor of whom he speaks, meaning Trajan, should another Man reign with a Silver Head, who should derive his Name from the Sea,( that is, Adrian, who was Grey-headed, and who took his Name from the adriatic Sea;) that after him should succeed a Learned Man who should know all things,( that is, Antoninus pus;) that the whole Empire should be subject to him, and to his colleagues( meaning, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus;) That these three should have the Command over the whole World, and that at last one of 'em should be Sovereign over all. In the eighth Book he makes a clearer discovery of himself, for addressing himself to the City of Rome, he thus bespeaks it; That after it had had fifteen puissant Kings, who should subdue the East and West, it should have a King, whose Head should be covered with a white Helmet, and who should have the Name of a Neighbouring Sea( the adriatic Ocean); that after him should reign three Kings at Once. This passage expressly denotes Adrian and his three Successors, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Serus. It is therefore plain from these passages, that this Author lived at least in the time of those Princes. He could not have been of a more modern date, because speaking in the Eighth Book of the Duration of the City of Rome, he says, that it should not last above 948 Years, and that after that Period it should be utterly destroyed. Now this Epocha was completed in the Year of Christ 195. from whence it evidently follows, that the Author of these Books did not writ after that time; since he would not have foretold an Event, the falsity of which Experience would have proved; and consequently it must be said that these Books were forged between the Year of our Lord 138, and the Year 195, about the Year 150. Some supposing that in the fifth Book he makes mention of the second burning of Vesta's Temple, have thought that he wrote after the Year 190, but it is more probable, that he there speaks of the Burning of the Temple of Jerusalem, which is called the desirable House, and the Temple of God.  
These Proofs which I have alleged for the time wherein the Author of the Books attributed to the Sibyls did writ them, are very express and positive. There are only some Conjectures to make us believe them to be more Ancient: let us now examine whether they are of any weight.  
I. 'tis said in the first place, that the Fathers would have been either very ignorant, or very imprudent in citing the Books of the Sibyls, if they had been newly forged.  
To this we answer, That such sort of Conjectures are of no force, when the Matter of Fact is otherwise Self-Evident. 'tis certain that the Fathers did city them; and 'tis as certain that they were then but newly forged: These two Matters of Fact are evident and cannot be destroyed by more conjecture, nor by such Argumentations as suppose, that those who did city them, had well examined them, or did know of their Falsity. However, neither of these is proved. If it were allowable to argue thus, what would not be said to maintain the manifest oversights of the Ancients? Might it not be said for the same reason, that Saint Justin was very imprudent, or very ignorant for saying in a public Apology, that they had erected in Rome a Statue in honour of Simon Magus, if this was not true? However, 'tis agreed that this Matter of Fact is false, that Saint Justin was egregiously mistaken, in taking a Statue erected in honour of the God Semon Sancus, for a Statue erected to Simon the Samaritan. The Examination of the Writings of the Sibyls did certainly require more time and accuracy, than the Examination of the Inscription of that Statue did: It was easier to discover the Error of that Fact, since it was more evident than the Forgery of the Sibylline Oracles; which were published under the name of the Sibyls, and contained several things that were favourable to the Christians. This was enough to give the first Apogolists of the Christian Religion, who were no great critics, an occasion of citing them without inquiring into the Truth of them.  
II. In the second place 'tis represented that the Sibylline Oracles are cited by Hermas, who lived before the time wherein we suppose that they were forged.  
To this I answer, that it cannot be proved that Hermas cited any one of the Sibylline Books, or so much as made any mention of them. 'tis true indeed, that in the beginning of the first Book of his Pastor, he says, that when the Angel asked him, who was that Old Woman from whom he had received a Book? He answered: 'tis perhaps a Sibyl; and that the Angel informed him that it was the Church of God. But what Inference can be drawn from hence in favour of the Sibylline Books? Hermas( say they) would never have said that this Woman was perhaps a Sibyl, if there had not been at that time some Christians, who were persuaded that Sibyl spoken of our Religion. Now this is a very ridiculous Inference; for Hermas does not mention any Responses of that pretended Sibyl; he only intimates that the Form and Behaviour of that Woman, had made him suppose that it was one of the Sibyls. Now in order to this, it was sufficient that the Sibyls were represented to him, as Venerable Damsels, which inspired into him both Veneration and Respect.  
III. The third Objection is taken from the Testimony of the Author of the Questions, which go under the name of Saint Justin, who says in Reply to the 74th. Question, that Saint Clement has said in his Epistle to the Corinthians, that not only in the Writings of the Prophets and Apostles, but also in the Writings of the Sibyls, mention is made of the end of the World and the last judgement: from whence he infers, that Saint Clement having cited the Writings of the Sibyls, they must needs be more ancient than I have assigned them to be.  
To this I answer, that the Author of those Questions, being only one of the fifth Century, is no sufficient Evidence for Matters of Fact that are so ancient as these are. Nothing like it is to be met with in the first Epistle of Saint Clement to the Corinthians, nor in the second which we have by us almost complete. 'tis true, that the end of that is lost, but there is not the least proof that therein he cited the Sibyls: on the contrary, it appears from Saint Clement of Alexandria and Saint Jerome, that he therein only treated of Virginity: For the former of these Authors cites a passage which is the Continuation of that Epistle, where he speaks against Lust; and the latter assures us that he employed part of that Epistle in Commendation of Virginity. For which reason, since the latter end of the Fragment of the Epistle which is now extant, and the Continuation of it, which is related by Saint Clement of Alexandria, are the beginning of a Discourse concerning Virginity; it is very probable that this was the subject matter of the remaining part of that Epistle, and that there was not the least mention made of the Conflagration at the last judgement, upon which account 'tis said that he cited Saint Clemens Romanus.  
To this 'tis said, that 'tis probable Saint Clement did city the Sibylline Books since Saint Irenaeus tells us, that he does make mention of hellfire in that Epistle. But it does not at all appear that Saint Irenaeus quotes the Epistle of Saint Clement for the proving of Hell-sire: He only says in the general, that it established the Doctrine of the Apostles which was received by Tradition. And besides, Saint Irenaeus does not speak of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, but of the First, which we have entire, and wherein there is not the least mention made of the Sibyls.  
IV. The fourth Objection is founded on a passage of Saint Clement of Alexandria, who seems to say in the sixth Book of his Stromata, that the Apostle Saint Paul has cited the Works of Sibyl.  
I shall not stand to inquire, whether Saint Clement saith that Saint Paul has cited the Sibyls, or whether Saint Clement himself doth not rather city their Works upon that Subject, as Cotelerius affirms; because 'tis plain that Saint Paul never cited the Sibylline Books, and therefore if Saint Clement asserts any such thing, he is egregiously mistaken.  
V. In the fifth place they object against us the Testimony of Josephus, who in the fifth Chapter of the first Book of his Antiquities says, that Sibyl has made mention of the Tower of Babel.  
In answer to this, it may be supposed that this was added to the Text of Josephus; but grant that this passage was really His, yet it only proves that in his time several Oracles were published under the name of the Sibyls, wherein mention was made of the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, and the Confusion of Languages. And it cannot from thence be inferred that they were the same with those that at present go under the name of the Sibyls. For if we compare what Josephus saith of them, with the Verses related by Theophilus, Book 2. ad Antyloch, which are likewise in the Sibylline Writings, we shall see a great deal of difference between them.  
VI. Lastly, 'tis objected that Celsus the Philosopher charged the Christians with having forged and falsified the Sibylline Books. But this Objection has no manner of force in it, because Celsus lived in the time of the Emperor Commodus, and consequently after the time I have set down of the Forgery of these Writings.  
'tis true indeed Origen defends them; but withall owns that there were several among the Christians who did not approve of them, tho' they made use of them. He challenges Celsus to produce the Ancient Copies of the Works of the Sibyls, wherein that which the Christians cited was not to be found. Celsus never took care to produce any, for that was more than he could do: but it would have been an easy matter for him to discover the Novelty of those which went under their Name.  
They add, that the Heathens were so far convinced that these Oracles belonged to the Sibyls, that they prohibited the Christians from reading them. Now whereas this Assertion is only founded on the Words of the Emperor Aurelian, set down by Vopiscus( who writes, that the Emperor  told the Senate, that he wondered they were so backward in consulting the Books of the Sibyls; as if( says he) you were in an Assembly of Christians, and not in the principal place of the Roman Religion:) I have elsewhere observed that these Words do not signify, that the Heathens had prohibited the Christians from reading the Writings of the Sibyls; but only that the Christians looked upon them as profane Records. This is in Truth the first notion which these Words present us with, and the most natural Sense that can be given them. For an Emperor, upbraiding a Senate for having neglected to consult the Writings of the Sibyls, which were usually consulted in cases of Necessity, as Books that contained the Ceremonies of the Pagan Religion, nothing could be more proper for him to inform the Senators of their Duty, than to tell them that they seemed to set as slight an Esteem upon those Books, as the Christians did.  
Vossius in his last Book forms an Hypothesis about the Writings of the Sibyls, which differs a little from that which we have been maintaining. He owns that the Ancient Sibylline Verses, preserved till the Capitol was burnt, were wholly profane, and different from those that were cited by the Fathers. But he maintains that among those which were brought from Greece by Octacilius Crassus, several Prophecies were inserted, which some of the Jews had given him, and pretended they were the Sibyls, wherein the Coming of the Messiah is foretold; and that these are the Books which the Fathers have cited under the name of the Sibylline Oracles, which Name did properly belong to them.  
Tho' this Hypothesis is very well invented, yet it is liable to a great many Objections. For first, the Collection of the Verses attributed to the Sibyls, made after the burning of the Capitol, hath as many Pagan Superstitious in them, as the Ancient Verses had, which were attributed to the Sibyl of Cumae. Secondly, the Prophesies concerning Jesus Christ, which are in the passages of the Sibylline Oracles cited by the Fathers, being more clear than those which are in the Jewish Prophets, there is no likelihood that they came from a Jew. Lastly, the Doctrine of the Sibylline Books is rather that of a Christian than of a Jew. Therein Jesus Christ is clearly foretold, the Resurrection, the last judgement, and the Fire of Hell are set down in express Terms. Therein mention is made of the Kingdom of a Thousand Years, of the coming of Antichrist, and a great many other things of the same Nature, which could never have been said by any but a Christian. It is therefore more likely, that the Books attributed to the Sibyls were forged by a Christian, than by a Jew.  
Nor ought any body to think it strange, that we reject as spurious such Books, as were cited by the Ancients as Genuine; nor ought it to be supposed that we do thereby in the least depreciate the Authority of the Fathers, or offer any prejudice to the Truth. On the contrary, they offer it an injury, who would support it upon false proofs, especially when they are convinced of their Falsity. The Fathers are excusable in having cited the Sibylline Verses as Genuine, because they had not examined them; and finding them to be published under the name of the Sibyls, they believed them to be really theirs: but they who are convinced of the contrary are inexcusable, if they would still make use of them, and not ingenuously confess what the Truth obliges them to own. And it ought not to be thought strange, that the Fathers did not examine these Books critically: 'tis very well known that they wholly applied themselves to matters of greater Consequence for that time, and that they often happened to be mistaken in profane Histories, and to city spurious Writings, such as the Books of Hystaspes, and Mercurius Trismegistus, which for the most part they joined with the Sibylline Oracles; as also the Acts of Pilate, the Apocryphal Gospels, several Acts of the Apostles, and a great many other Records which were apparently Suposititious.  
But tho' most of the Ancients have cited the Oracles of the Sibyls, yet there were even then many Christians who rejected them as spurious, and who could never approve of those who made use of them, calling them by way of Derision, Sibyllists. Of this Origen in his fifth Book against Celsus is an Evidence; Celsus, says he, objects against us, that there are Sibyllists among us, perhaps, because he has heard, that there are some among us who blame those that say that Sibyl was a Prophetess, and who call them Sibyllists. Saint Augustine has likewise owned the Forgery of these pretended Oracles; and every time he makes mention of them, he declares that he is not satisfied of their Genuineness. See after what manner he speaks of them in Lib. 18. de Civit. Dei, Cap. 45. Were it not( says he) that they assert, that the Prophecies which go under the Name of the Sibyls and others, concerning Jesus Christ, were forged by Christians. And again, cap. 47. It may be supposed that all the Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, which are not in the Scriptures, were feigned by the Christians: Wherefore there is no Argument more solid to refute the Pagans, than to allege such Prophecies as we take out of the Books of our Enemies.  
But the Heathens( 'tis said) never questioned the Truth of the Sibylline Oracles quoted by the Fathers, they only interpnted them in a different Sense. They likewise have acknowledged that the Verses of the Sibyls foretold the Birth of a New King, and a considerable Revolution. Cicero in several places of his Works speaks of this. When Pompey took the City of Jerusalem, there was a current Report, that Sibyl foretold, that Nature designed a King for the Romans: upon which the Senate was so much concerned, that they would sand neither General nor Army into Egypt, and all upon the Account of this Prediction. Lentulus, according to the Testimony of Cicero and sallust, flattered himself with the Notion that he was the Man who the Sibyls foretold should be King. Others have interpnted that prophesy of Julius Caesar, or Augustus; as Cicero and Suetonius have observed. Virgil in his fourth Eclogue makes mention of the Verses of the Cumaean Sibyl, which promise the Birth of a New King that should descend from Heaven. Lastly, 'tis certain that the Heathens acknowledged these Books of the Sibyls to be favourable to the Christians, for which Reason they prohibited them from reading them, as appears by the Words of Aurelian to the Senate, which are related by Vopiscus: I admire Gentlemen, says he, that you should be so tedious in consulting the Sibylline Oracles, as if you were debating the Case in an Assembly of Christians, and not in the principal place of the Roman Religion.  
These Arguments at first View appear to be very plausible, but if we go to the bottom of them, we shall find nothing of Solidity in them.  
As for the Heathen, they are not always agreed about the Authority of the Sibylline Books cited by the Fathers: on the contrary, 'tis plain that Colsus believed them to be forged by the Christians, and Saint Augustine says positively that this was the Opinion of all the Heathens.  
The Sibylline Verses mentioned by Cicero were acrostics; that is, the first Verse of each Sentence contained in Order all the Letters which began the following Verses. Now among the Sibylline Verses, there are none but those, cited by Constantine, which are written in acrostics.  
As to that Report which was current in the time of Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Augustus, that the Sibylline Verses foretold there should be a New King Born, 'tis easy to reply with Cicero, that the Verses attributed by the Heathens to the Sibyls were so composed, that they might be taken in any Sense whatever; that perhaps they do make mention of a certain future King, as is ordinary in these sorts of Prophesies. Wherefore when the Grandeur of Pompey began to be formidable to the Roman Empire, they might make use of this pretence, to hinder his marching into Egypt at the Head of an Army. And Lentulus, who was entrusted with that Charge, being Governor of Syria, flattered himself very vainly with this Prediction, which might perhaps be further confirmed by the Prophesies of the Jews, who expected the Coming of the Messiah, and believed that he was to be their King.  
Afterwards, when Julius Caesar and Augustus, after Pompey, came to be Emperors, and made themselves Masters of the Roman State, the Predictions of the Sibyls were explained in their Favour: nor was it necessary upon that Account, that they should denote the Coming of Jesus Christ so clearly, as is set down in the Sibylline Books cited by the Fathers, but it was enough that they spake of a Future King, which is usual with all those that have pretended to foretell things to come. This gave Virgil an occasion, who was minded in his fourth Eclogue to writ in praise of his Patron Pollio, and at the same time to extol Augustus, and describe the felicity of his Reign; this I say, gave him an occasion, in order to do it with a greater Majesty, of making Use of the Name of Sibyl, and of singing forth the following Lines:  
Ultima Cumaei venit jam carminis aetas;  
Magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo:  
Jam nova progenies Coelo demittitur alto,  
Jam redit& Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna.  
Now by these Verses nothing else is meant but that at the Birth of Saloninus the Son of Pollio, under the Consulate of his Father, and under the Empire of the Greatest Prince in the World, the Golden Age should return, as it was foretold by Sibyl; that Plenty and Peace should flourish throughout the whole World; that the Virgin Astraea, the Goddess of Justice, who had forsaken the Earth at the beginning of the Iron Age, should now descend again. What is there in all this that comes near to the Prophesies which relate to Jesus Christ? Or rather is not the whole writ in a profane Style, and feigned by a Heathen Poet, who only makes use of the Name Sibyl, that he might have wherewithal to flatter Augustus, and to add the greater weight to what he said in his Praise?  
Lastly, the Words of Aurelian( as has been already hinted) do not mean that the Heathens had hindered the Christians from reading the Sibylline Books, but only that the Christians looked upon them as profane Books, which did not in any manner concern their Religion, and to which they gave no Credit.   

SECT. II. Of the Books attributed to Hystaspes and Mercurius Trismegistus.  
THE Books attributed to Hystaspes and Mercurius Trismegistus, cited likewise by the Ancient Fathers, are as spurious as the Verses of the Sibyls. We have no Remains of Hystaspes, and that Author was wholly unknown to the Ancient Heathens. But this cannot be said of Mercurius, surnamed Trismegistus 
surnamed Trismegistus.] In Greek {αβγδ}, the Egyptians call him Thaaut. Some say the Greeks styled him Trismegistus, because he was a great King, a great Priest, and a great Philosopher. Others, as Lactantius, pretend that he was so called, because of his extraordinary Learning. , of whom the most Ancient Heathen Writers have made mention 
Of whom the most ancient Heathen Writers have made mention.] Plato in his Phaedrus says, that it was he who found out the Characters of Letters, and the Arts and Sciences. Cicero, in his third Book, de Naturâ Deorum, says that he governed the Egyptians, that he gave them Laws, and invented the Characters of their Writing. Diodorus Siculus says, that he taught the Greeks the Art of discovering the Secrets of the Spirit. Jamblicus, upon the credit of Manetho and Seleücus, says, that he wrote above thirty five Thousand Volumes. Saint Clement of Alexandria in the sixth Book of his Stromata, makes mention of forty two Books of that Author, and sets down the Titles of several of them. These Books are cited as favourable to the Christian Religion, by the Author of the Exhortation attributed to Saint Justin, by Lactantius in the fourth Book of his Institutions, by Saint Clement of Alexandria in the first Book of his Stromata, by Saint Augustine in his Tract, de 5. Haeres. and l. 8. de Civit. Dei, C. 23. by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in his first Book against Julian, and by several others. , as One that was an incomparable person, and the inventor of all Arts and Sciences. He was of Egypt, and the most ancient of all the profane Writers, that we have extant: they did not think him to be less ancient than Moses. He wrote, or at least 'tis said that he wrote five and twenty or thirty thousand Volumes. We have at present remaining only two Dialogues under his Name, the One has for its Title Pimander, and the Other Asclepius, who are the two principal Personages in them. The first treats of the Will, and the second of the Power of God. These are the Treatises which the Ancient Fathers have cited to prove the Truths of our Holy Religion by the Authority of an Author so famous as the Person under whose Name they go. But 'tis certain that they could not be His 
But 'tis certain that they could not be His.] The Eternity and Divinity of the Word is clearly explained in Pimander. The Author of that piece gives to the Son the Quality of consubstantial with the Father. He says that he is the Son of God, nay, our God who proceeds from the Intellect of the Father, and makes use of the very words of the Septuagint in describing the Creation of the World. He likewise speaks of the fall of the first Man. Lastly, he copies out several places out of the Old and New Testament, and follows the Principles of the Modern platonic Philosophy. The Tract, entitled, Asclepius, has not altogether so much of the Christian in it. The Author speaks in favour of Idolatry, explains the Greek word {αβγδ}, copies out several things out of the Scriptures and the grecian Writers; and foretells the destruction of the Egyptian Religion. , for the Author of these Tracts is a modern Platonizing Christian, who argues from the Principles of the platonic Philosophy, and hath taken out of the Scripture, what he has said concerning the Divine Logos, or Word of God, and concerning the Creation of the World.   

SECT. III. Of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate concerning Jesus Christ.  
THere is no need of showing the falsity of a Letter attributed to Lentulus, written to the Senate and People of Rome concerning the Actions of Jesus Christ; since the Forgery of it is Self-Evident. They make Lentulus to writ it in the Quality of Governor of Jerusalem, tho' he never had that Employ. 'tis directed to the Senate and People of Rome; whereas after the Common-wealth was changed into a Monarchy, the Governors usually wrote to the Emperors. That which is contained in that Letter is ridiculous: Therein is a mean and contemptible Description of the Person of Jesus Christ; therein it is said that our Saviour had light coloured Hair, long and loose after the Mode of the Nazarenes. The style wherein it is written does not svit with the purity and politeness of Augustus's time: In a word, not one of the Ancients hath made mention of that Letter.  
The Letter of Pilate to Tiberius upon the subject of the Miracles of Jesus Christ, seems to be more authentic. For Tertullian in his apologetic relates, that Tiberius having understood what Miracles Jesus Christ had wrought in Palestine, which were as so many Evidences of his Divinity, made the report thereof to the Senate, and proposed the ranking him among the Gods: but that the Senate rejected this Proposal, and yet Tiberius continued in the same mind, and prohibited the persecuting of the Christians. A little after the same Author adds, that Pilate, a Christian in his Heart, sent Tiberius word of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eusebius in the second Book of his Ecclesiastical History, Chap. 2. cites this passage of Tertullian, and explaining more at large how Tiberius came to hear of Jesus Christ, says that Pilate( according to the Custom of the Governors of Provinces, who were obliged to sand the Emperors an Account of what happened most remarkable in their Province) sent Tiberius an Account of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, assuring him that he had heard of a great many Miracles which he had wrought, and that there were a great many People who looked upon him as a God, since his being raised from the Dead.  
We have in the Orthodoxographa next to the Epistle of Lentulus, a Letter attributed to Pilate as written to Tiberius, which contains the same things: but 'tis difficult to determine whether this Letter was extant in Eusebius's time, or whether it was not forged since from his Narration. Let this be how it will, there are several Learned Men who question the Genuineness of this History; which has but very little probability at the bottom of it. For how is it likely that Pilate should writ such things to Tiberius of a Man; whom he himself had condemned to Death? And tho' he might have done this, yet is it probable that Tiberius should have proposed to the Senate the placing such a Man in the number of the Gods upon the bare relation of a Governor? And if he had proposed any such thing, who can imagine but that the Senate would have submitted to it? Wherefore, tho' we cannot absolutely charge this Narration with falsehood, yet it may at least pass for a doubtful piece.   

SECT. IV. Of the Epistles of Seneca to Saint Paul, and of those of Saint Paul to Seneca.  
WE ought to reject the thirteen Epistles of Seneca to Saint Paul, and of Saint Paul to Seneca, as being apparently spurious, although Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine seem to have acknowledged them as genuine. For( 1.) These Epistles are not written in Saint Paul's or Seneca's style 
Are not written in Saint Paul's or Seneca's Style.] The style of those which are attributed to Seneca is barbarous, and full of Idioms, that do not belong to the Latin Tongue. The Epistles attributed to Saint Paul, have not the least tincture of the Gravity of that Apostle, but are rather Compliments than Instructions. .( 2.) Therein 'tis said, that in the fire of the City of Rome under Nero, there was only an hundred thirty two Houses burnt down, which is a manifest mistake, since 'tis certain that a great part of the City was consumed, according to the Testimony of Tacitus 
According to the Testimony of Tacitus.] He says that of fourteen parts of the City of Rome, there remained only four that were not touched: that the Houses of three parts in fourteen were entirely consumed, that in the other seven parts, there was but little remained, and that the Houses which were left standing were half burnt down. . 3. The date of these Letters is false 
The date of these Letters is false.] The one is dated under the Consulate of Aprianus and Capito, that is, Vipsanius and Capito, five Years before the Burning of Rome: The other, under the Consulate of Phrygius and Bassus: that is, Lecanius Bassus, and Licinius Crassus, under whose Consulate the Fire happened: But this Letter is dated in March, and the Fire, according to Tacitus, did not break out till May following. . 4. They contain nothing in them that is worthy either of Seneca or of Saint Paul 
They contain nothing that is Worthy either of Seneca or Saint Paul.] There is scarce one thought of Morality in the Letters of Seneca; nor any thing of Christianity in those of Saint Paul. .( 5.) Lastly, 'tis easy to perceive that they are only the Exercises and Fancies of a sprightly Genius, which was willing to show its parts in feigning these Letters.  
An Author of our times having on one side acknowledged the spuriousness of the Letters which we have extant under the Name of Seneca to Saint Paul, and of Saint Paul to Seneca; and yet on the other side, not daring to say that Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine, who thought these Epistles to be genuine, were mistaken; hath supposed that the Genuine Letters of Saint Paul to Seneca, and of that Philosopher to Saint Paul have been lost since their Time, and that those which are now extant have been forged instead of them. But beside, that the Esteem we have for those two Fathers ought not to hinder us from believing, but that they might be mistaken in a matter of so little Consequence 
Of so little Consequence.] It is certain that the Fathers often cited spurious Books, as we have already proved. Father Alexander the Author of the Hypothesis which we oppose, owns as much himself, and rejects the Epistle of Jesus Christ to Agbarus, and that of Agbarus to Jesus Christ, which are more authorized by the Ancients than the Epistles of Seneca. , it is to be observed that they do not declare positively that these Epistles were Genuine, but only that they were commonly so reputed 
But only that they were commonly so reputed.] Saint Jerome in catalogue. I reckon Seneca among the Ecclesiastical Writers, because of the Letters which several red under the Name of Seneca to Saint Paul, and of Saint Paul to Seneca. Saint Augustine, Epist. 14. at present the 153d. Seneca, whose Letters written to Saint Paul are commonly red. But in Lib. de Civit. Dei, cap. 11. he says; that Seneca has neither praised nor disprais'd the Christians, having not so much as spoken of them; and therefore he thinks that these Letters are none of His. , and that they were red under their Name. Moreover, it is an easy matter to demonstrate that the Letters which are now extant. and those which were in Saint Jerome's time are the same. For that Father says, that Seneca wished in one of his Letters to be among his followers, what Saint Paul was among the Christians; which has a great deal of Resemblance with what is to be met with in the Eleventh Letter of Seneca to Saint Paul 
Which has a great deal of Resemblance with what is to be met with in the Eleventh Letter of Seneca to Saint Paul.] In Saint Jerome we find these Words: Optare se dicit servus ejus esse loci apud suos, cujus sit Paulus apud Christianos: in the Eleventh Letter are the following Words; Cum sis vertex,& altissimorum montium cacumen haud te indignum in primâ fancy Epistolarum nominandum censeas— nam qui meus tuus apud te locus, qui tuus velim ut meus. Now if the Words, apud tuos, were put instead of, apud te, they would express Saint Jerome's Sense, and it seems as if they could admit of no other. Howver, 'tis plain that Saint Jerome alludes to this very place. .  
'tis not known when those Letters were forged, nor who it was that did them; and 'tis hard to determine whether 'tis upon the Account of those Letters, that it is said in the spurious Acts of the Passion of Saint Linus, that Seneca and Saint Paul wrote several Letters to one another; or whether the Narrative of that Author has given an occasion of the inventing of these Letters, as Cardinal Baronius conjectures.   

SECT. V. Of the Passages of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ, Saint John Baptist, and Saint James.  
LAstly, of all the profane Records that might be produced in favour of Jesus Christ, none seems to be more genuine, than the passage of Josephus, taken out of the fourth Chapter of his eighteen Book of the Jewish Antiquities, wherein he says, That at time there was a Wise Man named Jesus, ( if it be lawful to call him only a Man, for he wrought a great many Miracles, and taught those who received the Truth with Joy) who had many Disciples, as well Jews as Gentiles; That he was the CHRIST 
That he was the Christ.] 'tis thus in the Text of Josephus, {αβγδ}, i. e. He was the Christ; and thus this Passage is cited by Eusebius in two places, and translated by Ruffinus, and by the ancient Translator of Josephus. Saint Jerome renders it, Hic credebatur esse Christ●●; but this is a Latitude which he has assumed to himself. , and that being accused by the Chief of his own Nation, he was crucified by the Command of Pilate. That notwithstanding this, he was not abandoned by those who loved him, because he appeared to them alive the third day, as the Prophets had foretold; and that he was the Author of the Sect called Christians, which remained to this day.  
This Testimony of Josephus is cited by Eusebius, Saint Jerome, Isidorus of Damietta, Zosomen, Cedrenus, Nicephorus Calistus, and Suidas, as a Record very favourable to the Christian Religion: But in our times, wherein things have been enquired into with more exactness than formerly, there have been, and still are several Learned Men, who maintain that this Passage doth not really belong to Josephus 
There have been, and still are several Learned Men, who maintain that this Passage doth not really belong to Josephus.] Blondel was the first who denied it in his Treatise concerning the Sibyls. Le Févre de Saumur wrote afterwards a Tract on purpose to prove the spuriousness of this Passage. He was refuted by Francis de Roye, by Is. Vossius, and Dr. Spencer. Huetius has likewise confuted this Opinion in his Treatise, de Demonstratione Evangelicâ. : And it must be confessed that their Conjectures are not wholly to be despised, for they say:  
1. That the style of this Passage is intricate, not fluent, and not like to the style of Josephus, who wrote clearly, politely and elegantly.  
2. That 'tis plain this Passage was afterwards inserted into the Text of Josephus, because it breaks the Connection of what went before and follows after: for immediately after this Passage, we red, That about that time the Jews were again oppressed with another Calamity; Words that have no manner of Relation to what was said of Jesus Christ; but which plainly refer to the Massacre of the Jews, whom Pilate had put to Death in Jerusalem, which Fact precedes this Passage concerning Jesus Christ: and this( say they) is a clear proof that it does not belong to Josephus, but was added afterwards.  
3. They say, that if this Passage were considered apart and by itself, it would be easy to perceive that it was a Christian, and not Josephus, who spake these Words. Therein Jesus Christ is called God, therein his Miracles and his Resurrection are acknowledged, and therein 'tis said that those things were foretold by the Prophets.  
4. What likelihood is there that Josephus who so hearty espoused the Interests of his own Nation, should speak so favourably of Jesus Christ? For could any Christian have said more? In this Passage 'tis said, first, that it was not lawful to call him only a Man, because he had wrought many Miracles. Secondly, that he was the CHRIST, that is the MESSIAH. Thirdly, that he rose again the Third Day. Is it possible that a Jew so bigoted to the Notions of his Country-men as Josephus was, who did not believe( as Origen observes) that Jesus was the Christ, that is the Messiah, much less that he was God, and that he was risen from the Dead, should advance such things of Jesus, without taking notice that they were false, or that he questioned the truth of them? He is made to confirm the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by the Predictions of the Prophets; and to say, that Jesus taught the Truth, and wrought a great many Miracles which proved his Divinity. Now where was there any Jew that ever said or thought thus? Is it not evident that it was a Christian, one who believed Jesus Christ to be God, who wrote this?  
5. Josephus in the same Work, B. 20. Ch. 8. describing the Martyrdom of Saint James, says, that he was the Brother of Jesus Christ. Now if he had said any thing before of Jesus, he would not have failed to have taken notice of it, or at least to have said something in this place to his Advantage.  
6. This Testimony( say they) is not only unknown by the Ancients who preceded Eusebius, but also Origen expressly denies that Josephus ever said any thing of Jesus Christ. 'tis very strange( says he, in the second Tome on Saint Matthew) that Josephus, who never acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ, should give us such an authentic Evidence of the Innocence of Saint James. Again, the first Book against Celsus: Josephus( says he) did not believe in Jesus Christ. Would that Father have said thus, if in his time there had been in the Works of Josephus such a favourable Testimony concerning Jesus Christ, as this which is at present in his Works? He cites the Passage of Josephus concerning Saint John Baptist and Saint James; would he, think ye, have omitted that which relates to Jesus Christ? Theodoret has likewise observed that Josephus never knew or acknowledged Jesus Christ. But nothing is of greater weight in the Case than the silence of Photius, who drawing up an Accurate abridgement of the Books of Josephus, in the 238th. Code of his Bibliotheca, says nothing of this Passage concerning Jesus Christ, which he would never have omitted, had it in his time been in all the Copies of the Works of Josephus, and had he thought it to be really His. In a word, that, which deserves a particular Reflection, is, that Photius in another place observes that there was in his time a Treatise concerning the Word attributed to Josephus, which he looked upon as Spurious, since therein he speak in too favourable Terms of Jesus Christ; and he afterwards adds, that he has been informed since, that this Book belonged to one Caius a Priest of Rome. 'tis probable that this passage which is at present in the Book of Antiquities, was taken out of the Treatise of Caius, who was also called Josephus, and afterwards inserted into Josephus's Antiquities.  
To these Testimonies of Origen, Theodoret and Photius, the Bishop of Orange replies, that these Authors met with such Manuscripts of Josephus, wherein this passage had been struck out by the Jews. But this Reply seems still to weaken and enervate the Authority of this Passage. For if there were any ancient Manuscripts wherein it was not, we have still more occasion to call it into Question; and the Arguments already alleged, do prove, that it is more probable that it was added to some Manuscripts by Christians, than struck out of others by the Jews. However, I shall determine nothing as to this point, but leave the Reader to judge for himself, whether the Authority of Eusebius, Saint Jerome, and of all the Manuscripts of Josephus now extant ought to outweigh the Opinions of the Learned already produced, the general Testimonies of Origen, Theodoret and Photius, and perhaps several Ancient Manuscripts of Josephus that are at present lost.  
There is in the seventh Chapter of the same Book of Josephus, another Passage concerning Saint John the Baptist, which may likewise be subject to some difficulty. Therein 'tis said, That the Jews imputed the defeat of Herod Antipas, by Aretas the King of the Arabians, to his having put to Death John named the Baptist, who was a good Man, and who enjoined the Jews to practise virtue, to do Justice to one another, to Worship and Reverence God, to be baptized, to forsake their Sins, and to preserve themselves pure both in Body and Mind: That this John having great multitudes of People which followed him, and seemed most of 'em resolved to do whatsoever he enjoined them; Herod thought it advisable to put him to Death, before he raised any Insurrection; for fear if any Trouble should afterwards arise, he should repent of having delayed it so long: That therefore he sent him bound to Machaerus, where he ordered him to be Beheaded; which made the Jews believe that God offended with Herod for that cruel Action, had permitted his Army to perish.  
Now some have found it difficult to reconcile this passage with the Evangelists or so much as with Josephus himself: For that Historian says that the Wife of Herod, having discovered the disloyalty of her Husband, and the Amours he carried on with Herodias, retired to Machaerus, a place situated upon the Frontiers of the Territories of Herod and Aretas, and which was at that time subject to Aretas, the Father of that Princess, {αβγδ}: That there she was received by the Governor who held that place for Aretas, and by the Arabians who afterwards conducted her to her Father.  
On the contrary, in the forecited passage 'tis supposed that Machaerus was dependant on Herod, since 'tis said that he sent thither John Baptist bound, and gave Orders that he should there be put to Death. It cannot be asserted that he had taken Machaerus from Aretas, because Josephus observes that Herod had not the least Advantage over Aretas during that War.  
Nor is this Narration any more reconcilable with the Account which the Evangelists have given us of this matter: For therein it is supposed that Herod put Saint John to Death, because he was afraid least he should have raised some Sedition, and that he had sent him to Machaerus there to be executed. Now by the Evangelists it appears, that Herod put John into Prison without any design at first to kill him: That it was at the Instance of Herodias that he ordered him to be Beheaded, and that Saint John Baptist was in the very place where Herod kept his Court, when he was put to Death.  
It is farther remarkable that this passage interrupts the Series of Josephus's History. For he was relating just before, that Herod having made his Complaints to Tiberius of the Insults of Aretas, the Emperor sent Orders to Vitellius to enter into a War against that Prince, and to sand him to him alive or dead: And just after this passage, 'tis related after what manner Vitellius prepared himself to put this Order into Execution: and the passage betwixt has no manner of reference to what went before or follows after; but in order to have it inserted, it was supposed that the Jews attributed the Overthrow of Herod's Army to the Death of Saint John Baptist, which is a supposition that has no probability in it.  
Lastly, 'tis urged against this passage, that it is not likely that Josephus, who was a Jew of the Sect of the Pharisees, a Sect which had always very much opposed the Baptism of Saint John, should have spoken so favourably of him, as he has done in this place. These Reasons may render that passage somewhat suspicious; However it is cited by Origen, in his first Book against Celsus, where he says, that Josephus in the eighteen Book of his Antiquities has made mention of the Baptism of Saint John.  
Moreover, Eusebius was not always exact in his Citations of Josephus; of which we shall here present you with two uncontestable Instances.  
In his Chronicle he asserts, that Josephus says, that in the time of the Passion of Jesus Christ, on the day of Pentecost, the Priests of the Jews heard a Noise in the Temple, and after that a Voice, which cried out, Let us depart hence, and that the same Year Pilate in the Night time caused the Images of Caesar to be hung up in the Temple. Eusebius repeats the same thing, Lib. 8. de Demonstratione Evangelicâ, and places this Event at the time of our Saviour's Passion, {αβγδ}( says he) {αβγδ}. Notwithstanding this, it is evident that Josephus in the sixth Book of the War of the Jews, fixes that occurrence a little before Jerusalem was besieged, that is, above thirty Years after our Saviour's Passion: And Eusebius himself fixes it to the same time in the Eighth Chapter of the third Book of his Ecclesiastical History.  
Saint Jerome has committed the same mistake in his Answers to the Queries of Hebidias, and in his Commentary on the twenty seventh Chapter of Saint Matthew, and so have his Disciples Paul and Eustochius in their Epistle to Marcellus. And yet the same Saint Jerome in the eighteen Book of his Commentary on Isaiah, observes that this Voice was heard when Jerusalem was besieged.  
Eusebius is likewise mistaken, when he says, in the ninth Chapter of the first Book of his History, that Josephus relates, that Archelaus having been declared King by the last Will and Testament of his Father, and by the Approbation of Augustus Caesar, and being ten years after turned out of his Kingdom, his Brothers Philip, Herod the Younger, and Lysanias were made tetrarches in his Room. Here are several Blunders which Josephus was not guilty of. 'tis a mistake to say that the Brothers of Archelaus enjoyed their tetrarches till after the Death of that King; and 'tis likewise a mistake to assert that Lysanias was the Brother of Archelaus. Josephus says the quiter contrary, and yet Eusebius cites Josephus as his Evidence, which shows that no credit ought to be given to that Historian in this Case.  
We have an Instance, tho' more modern of an Interpolation inserted into the Text of Josephus by a Christian: 'tis an Anonymous Writer cited by Suidas on the Word JESUS. That Writer relates at first a Story invented by a Jew, named Theodosius, who maintained, that in the Synagogue of Tiberias was preserved a Book, wherein it was said that Jesus Christ had been elected Chief Priest by the Jews, and that he offered Sacrifice together with the Priests in the Temple: and he further adds, {αβγδ}. He who had related the Story of Theodosius the Jew was named Philip, Contemporary with Justinian; the Anonymous Writer cited by Suidas, says that he was informed of this by those who had heard Philip relate it. This Fable is founded on the Authority of Josephus: But there is not the least shadow of it in the Works of that Historian: some Body should have inserted some such thing into some of his Copies, or have forged a passage of that Author wherein this was related, to have made it seem at least probable.   

SECT. VI. Of several Authors whose Works relate to the Sacred History, such as Philo, T. Flavius Josephus, Justus, Aristaeas, Aristobulus, Josephus Bengorion, Berosus, the false Dorothaeus, Zoroaster, &c.  
THEre are several Authors, whose Works whether Genuine or Spurious, relate to the sacred History, of whom we could not forbear saying something in this our Dissertation.  
PHILO, a Jew of Alexandria, of the Sacerdotal Race, Brother of Alexander Alabarcus, or Prince in Alexandria, was born under the Reign of Tiberius, and flourished chiefly under that of Caius Caligula. He was the Head of an Embassy which the Jews of Alexandria sent to Caligula, in order to defend them against the Greeks, the Inhabitants of that City; who likewise sent on their part three ambassadors to Rome, the Chief of which was Appion. Caligula having admitted Appion to Audience, would not harken to Philo, but speak tartly to him, and forced him out of his presence. It was at that time that Philo addressed himself so handsomely to the Jews that attended him in the following Words; Now we ought to have more assurance than ever: For since Caius the Emperor is incensed against us, Our God to be sure will defend us against him. Some time after this he composed a Treatise against the Emperor which he ironically entitled De Virtutibus. Eusebius tells us that this Work was publicly red in the Senate under the Empire of Claudius: But this is scarce probable, no more than what Saint Jerome says, that Philo being come a second time to Rome under the Reign of Claudius, had several Conferences with Peter the Apostle.  
We know nothing more of the Life of Philo, but the many and excellent pieces which he has left behind him have rendered his Memory immortal. Eusebius has given us an exact Catalogue of them in the second Book of his Ecclesiastical History, Chap. 18. Saint Jerome has likewise set down the Heads of his Books in his Treatise de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. Photius speaks in particular of several of them in the 103, 104, and 105 Volumes of his Bibliotheca; and Suidas hath exhibited the Catalogue of all his Works.  
There is extant a great part of Philo's Works, printed in Greek and Latin at Paris in the Year 1640. The first in that Edition is his Treatise concerning the Creation of the World, of which there is not any particular mention made in Eusebius, Saint Jerome, nor in Suidas. After this come two Allegorical Treatises concerning the Law, or Allegorical Commentaries on the Book of Genesis, of which Eusebius makes mention: To this we may join a third Treatise on the same Subject, which is pag. 1087. The Tract concerning the Cherubims, the Flaming Sword which guarded the Terrestrial Paradise, and concerning Cain, is one of those pieces which Eusebius says that Philo composed upon the particular Questions of Genesis, as well as the Tract concerning the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, and the next which is likewise upon Cain and Abel, and which has for its Title, That the Wicked are wont to lay Snares for those who are better than themselves. Eusebius particularly makes mention of two Books of Agriculture, of which the second is entitled, Concerning the Vine planted by Noah; of two Treatises upon Drunkenness, the second of which in our Edition has for its Title, A Treatise on these Words, Noah recovered of his Drunkenness, and of a Tract concerning the Confusion of Languages.  
To these Treatises are joined, One concerning the Giants, another entitled, that God is immutable, which Eusebius places in another Class. That Author likewise makes mention of a Tract, which has for its Title, De Rebus a Mente Sagaci desiderandis& detestandis, of which Saint Jerom and Suidas also speak, but which is lost to us. He speaks also of a Treatise concerning Fancy and Invention, or according to Saint Jerome, concerning Nature and Invention, which is likewise lost. We have two Tracts concerning Abraham, the one entitled, the Life of a Wise Man made perfect by Learning, or, concerning the Unwritten Laws; and the other concerning the Departure of Abraham out of his own Country; of which Eusebius and Saint Jerome make mention; tho' after the Treatise entitled, concerning useful Conversation in order to render one's self Learned, upon the Subject of the Conversation between Sarah and Hagar, which Eusebius and Saint Jerome place before the two former; but they say nothing of the Treatise de Exulibus, writ upon the account of Hagar's flying from her Mistress. They mention a Tract entitled, Quis Rerum divinarum Haeres est? or according to Eusebius, De partitione Rerum in partes aequales& inaequales; and another Tract entitled, The Civil Life, or Joseph. Eusebius and Saint Jerome speak of five Treatises concerning Dreams; but they must needs be mistaken, since there are only three Tracts on that Subject composed by Philo. The first is lost; the second, where mention is made of the first, is entitled, That Dreams procced from God; and is pag. 565. of the Paris Edition; the third at the pag. 108. The three Books concerning the Life of Moses are yet very considerable, and yet Eusebius and Saint Jerome do not make any express mention of them. The Treatise concerning the three Virtues described by Moses, is comprised in the Tracts concerning Charity, Justice and Fortitude, which in the Paris Edition reaches from pag. 697, to pag. 744; between which there is another piece concerning the manner of establishing a Prince, which seems to be an Addition to the second Tract. The Treatise concerning the Reasons of the Alterations of several Hebrew Names in Holy Scripture, of which mention is likewise made in Eusebius and Saint Jerome, ought to be joined to the precedent Books of the Pentateuch, tho' in the Paris Edition they are not inserted, but in pag. 1044. Eusebius says that in this Book he treats concerning the two Covenants, which gave Saint Jerome an occasion of composing a particular Treatise concerning the Covenants, divided into two Books. Eusebius and Saint Jerome make mention of five Books of Questions and Answers upon Exodus, which are lost to us; tho' We have the Treatise upon the Decalogue, and one of the Books concerning the peculiar Laws, of which likewise they make mention. The Tract concerning Circumcision, the two Books concerning Monarchy, and that concerning the Rewards of the Priests are not in their Catalogues, but they have the Title of the following Treatise, Concerning the Animals that were proper to be offered up in Sacrifice, and concerning the different sorts of Sacrifices. The Tracts concerning the Tabernacle, Providence, and the Jews are lost. We have two Fragments of the second in Eusebius: The first in his eighth Book de Evangelicâ Praeparatione, Chap. Ult. and the other B. 7. Chap. 21. And the last is cited as an Apology for the Jews, in B. 8. Ch. 10. of his Evangelical Preparation. The Treatise concerning Rewards and Punishments, and that concerning Imprecations, mentioned by Eusebius and Saint Jerome, are pag. 910, and 930 of the Paris Edition. There is likewise a particular Tract concerning the Prohibition of receiving the Oblation of an Harlot, of which neither Eusebius nor Saint Jerome make mention. The Treatise, That every Sinner is a Slave, is lost: but that, That every virtuous Man is free, and the Tract concerning the Contemplative Life, that is, the History of the Essenes and the Therapeutae, are in the Paris Edition. We have not his Alexander, or the Tract concerning the Reason of Beasts; nor the Exposition of the Law and the Prophets mentioned in Eusebius: But there are extant the following pieces, viz. a Treatise against Flaccus; a Narration of his embassy to the Emperor Caligula; A Tract concerning Nobility; and another concerning the Incorruptibility of the World, which are not mentioned by these Authors. The Tracts concerning the World and Feasts are not Philo's.  
This is all that can be remarked concerning this Author, who( as Eusebius says) is rich in his Thoughts, Eloquent and Copious in his Style, and ingenious in his Allegories. He was a Platonist, and imitated the Style of his Master so well, that he was called by some the Jewish, Plato. His Works are full of Moral Thoughts, and continued Allegories upon all the Histories of the Bible; and in his Morality he comes very near the Sentiments of the Christians. It was published in Greek by Turnebus, and printed at Paris in the Year 1552, and at Francfort in the Year 1587. It was translated into Latin by Gelenius, and printed at Basil in the Years 1554, and 1561, at Lions in the Year 1555, in Greek at Geneva, in the Year 1603, and in Greek and Latin at Paris in the Year 1640.  
JOSEPHUS was of the Sacerdotal Race of the Assmonaeans, as he tells us in his Life which he wrote himself, wherein he exactly describes all his Employments and Actions. He was born Ann. Christi 37. and dyed in the Year 93. in the 56th. of his Age. He was surnamed Titus Flavius, upon the Account of Vespasian. He composed the History of the Jews, which he took out of the Books of the Bible, and has continued down to the War of the Jews, under the Title of the Jewish Antiquities. He also composed the History of the War against the Romans, and of the taking of the City of Jerusalem. He likewise wrote besides his own Life, two excellent Treatises against Appion, as A Reply to what that Heathen had advanced against the Antiquity of the Jewish Nation, against the purity of their Law, and against the Conduct of Moses: and a Treatise concerning the Martyrdom of the Maccabees, which Erasmus justly styles a Master-Piece of Eloquence.  
This Author wrote very politely, and that Turn which he gave to things is very agreeable. His History is enriched with admirable Descriptions, most eloquent Speeches, and most sublime Thoughts. His Narration is clear and just, and he not only diverts his Readers, but also inclines them on which side he pleases, raising and laying such Motions in them as he thinks sit. In short, it may be said of him, that he was a finished and complete Historian, and might very well be styled the Titus Livius of the Greeks. The Treatise of the Maccabees shows the fineness of his Genius, and the extent of his Eloquence: and his Books against Appion, show the Depth of his Learning, and the strength of his judgement. The Works of this Author have been printed several times in Latin, as translated partly by Ruffinus, partly by Gelenius, and partly by Erasmus: and at Geneva in Greek and Latin, in the Year 1611. It were to be wished, that a more correct Edition of it were published in a fairer Character, and upon better Paper.  
JUSTUS of Tiberias made likewise an History of the Jews, and some Commentaries on the Bible; but Josephus charges him with Untruths. We should not have ranked him among the Ecclesiastical Writers, had not Saint Jerome done it before us.  
The Books of ARISTAEAS and ARISTOBULUS concerning the Version of the Septuagint were forged by some Hellenistical Jew, as we have shew'd in our former Volume in treating of that Version. We have extant the History of Aristaeas still entire: but that of Aristobulas is lost.  
The History of the Wars of the Jews under the Name of JOSEPHUS BENGORION, belongs to an Author who lived since Saint Jerome's time. He speaks of the Goths as being then in Spain, and of the Franks in gall. Now these People were not in Spain or France, till about the fifth Century of the Church; and consequently the Author is an Impostor, who took several things out of the true Josephus, which he has mixed with Falsities and Fables.  
The Testament of the twelve patriarches which is in the first Volume of the Bibliotheca Patrum, is a Treatise full of Fooleries and Impertinences, which deserves nothing but Contempt. Nor ought we to have any greater Esteem for the abridgement of the Lives of the Prophets, Apostles, and other Disciples, attributed to Dorothaeus of Tyre, who suffered Martyrdom under Dioclesian: 'tis a Treatise never mentioned by the Ancients, and full of gross mistakes in History, and of Fables feigned at pleasure.  
There are some Tracts under the Name of Berosus the Chaldaean, Manetho the Egyptian, and Metasthenes; but they are not worthy of these great Men under whose Names they are inscribed, and the Forgery is Self-Evident. All the passages of the Genuine Berosus, cited by Josephus in his Book against Appion, are not to be met with in this piece which is attributed to him, but rather such things as are quiter the contrary. In the last, mention is made of the City of Lions, which had not that Name till after Caesar's time. Lastly, the History of Berosus goes no farther than the time of Nabuchadonosor and Nabopalassar, whereas this reaches much lower.  
The Treatise of ZOROASTER 
Zoroaster.] They talk of several Persons of that Name. They maintain that the first and most famous lived in the time of Nimrod, that he was the King of Bactria, and was defeated by Ninus. They tell us strange things of his Prudence, Learning, and the Miracles that he wrought. They make him to be Author of the Persian Philosophy, by them called magic. Plato speaks of Zoroaster, as the Author of that Science among the Persians, and observes that he was the Son of Oromazes. Eubulus cited by Porphyry, attributes to him the Institutions of the Mysterious Rites of the Goddess Mythra. Eudoxus and Hermippus cited by Pliny, say that Zoroaster lived six thousand Years before Plato. But Cesitas, who had cited the History of Zoroaster, testifies that he lived in the time of Cyrus. This made Arnobius think there were two of that Name. Eusebius likewise makes Zoroaster to be as ancient as Ninus, and Saint Epiphanius says that he lived in the time of Nimrod. He was called by the Persians Zarades, and by the Greeks Zoroaster. Several Explications are given of that Name, some say that it signifies a living Star; Others, the Son of a Star; and lastly, others say that it signifles the Contemplator of the Stars. All that is said of the Ancient Zoroaster is fabulous. Diodorus Siculus informs us that the King of Bactria who fought against Ninus, was called Oxiartes, and not Zoroaster. However there is great probability that there was formerly among the Persians a Man of this Name, who taught them magic. Hermippus says, that he composed a vast number of Verses. The Fragment cited by Eusebius in the 7th. Chapter of the first Book of his Evangelical Preparation, taken out of the History of the Persians attributed to Zoroaster, is so clear an Exposition of all the Attributes of God, that 'tis plain this Work was composed by an Author who had an insight into the Christian Religion. Synesius cites the Oracles of Zoroaster, upon the Dreams, which are taken out of the Works of the Modern Platonists. These Oracles were published by Opsopaeus, and printed at Paris in the Year 1599. with the Notes of Psellus and Plethe. 'tis easy to see that these Writings were forged by the Platonists, who lived since our Saviour's time. , of the sacred History of the Persians, a Fragment of which Eusebius cites in the first Book of the Evangelical Preparation, is a spurious piece, as are likewise the other Writings attributed to that fabulous Author.  
Lastly, the History of the Phaenicians, which 'tis supposed was written by one named Sanchoniathon 
Sanchoniathon.] This Author was unknown to all the Ancients. Porphyry is the first who cited this History, which is full of Fables and trifling Fictions. The Author has taken out of the Book of Genesis, what he has said concerning the Origine of the World, and the first Men. 'tis from thence that he hath taken this Word Bohu, and the World Colpia, which he fancies to be a Wind. What is said concerning the Aeons, and the First-Born has a great Affinity to the Wild Fancies of the Valentinians. Lastly, several things are taken out of the Fables of the Greeks, which evidently shows that the Author of this Book could not be one that lived in the time of Semiramis. , and translated into Greek by Philo Biblius 
Philo Biblius.] This Man was a Grammarian, of whom mention is made in Suidas, who lived after Nero's Reign: For he observes that he was seventy eight years of Age, under the Consulate of Severus and Herennius, which was Anno Dom. 171. an hundred Years after Nero's Death. He wrote according to the Testimony of the same Suidas, twelve Books, {αβγδ}, and thirty Books, {αβγδ}, Et de Claris Viris, and a Treatise concerning the Empire of Adrian, under which he lived. Suidas says never a Word of the Translation of this History of Phaenicia. Eusebius and Theodoret city it after Porphyry. This Philo is certainly the Person of whom Saint Clement of. Alexandria speaks in his first Book of his Stromata, and whom he calls Philo the Pythagorean. , who lived in the time of Adrian, is a perfect Romance; wherein are inserted several passages taken out of the History of the Bible, and several Circumstances of the Fables of the Grecians.    
FINIS.   

A Chronological TABLE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE Old Testament, And of their WORKS.  
Note, That the Pages referred to in this TABLE belong to the First Volume.  

MOSES,  
OF the Tribe of Levi, Governor and Legislator of the Children of Israel: Born in Egypt, about the Year of the World 2468. Ante Christ. 1571. brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt, in the Year 2508. lead them in the Wilderness for 40 Years; dyed in the Year of the World, 2548. being 80 Years of Age. page. 61  


His Works still extant.  
Genesis.  
Exodus.  
Leviticus.  
Numbers.  
Deuteronomy.   These 5 Books are called the Pentateuch. 

The Nintieth Psalm.     

JOSHUA or OSHEA,  
The Son of Nun, of the Tribe of Ephraim, the Successor of Moses;  
entered the Land of Canaan about the beginning of the Year of the World, 2549. conquered it in six Years time, and divided it among the Children of Israel. He afterwards enjoyed about twenty years Peace, and dyed. p. 78.  

A Work which is probably His:  
The Book of Joshua, or the History of the Conquest and Division of the Land of Canaan.    

JOB,  
Of the Country of Uz in Idumaea, Contemporary with Moses or rather more ancient. p. 98  

His Treatise:  
The Book of Job which contains his History.    

The Author of the Book of JUDGES,  
Who writ under the Reign of Saul, or in the beginning of David's Reign. p. 82  

A Genuine Work still extant.  
The Book of Judges, which contains the History of the Israelites, from the Death of Joshua down to samson.    

The Author of the Book of RUTH.  
Wrote under the Reign of David. p. 84.  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The Book of Ruth.    

SAMUEL the Prophet.  
The last of the Judges of the People of Israel after the Death of Eli. p. 84  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The History of the Acts of King David: which some suppose to be the first twenty four Chapters of the first Book of Kings.    

GAD and NATHAN, Two Prophets.  
Prophesied under the Reigns of David and Solomon. p. 22, 84, 85.  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The History of the latter Acts of David, supposed to be the end of the first, and the whole second Book of Kings.    

DAVID,  
The Son of Jesse, of the Tribe of Judah, the second King of Israel.  
He succeeded Saul in the Year of the World, 3045. the 537th. Year after the departure out of Egypt, and died after he had reigned 40 Years. p. 102  

Genuine Works still extant.  
The Psalms that go under his Name, and several others which have no Title.    

ASAPH,  
Of the Tribe of Levi, flourished under the Reign of David. p. 103  

Genuine Works, &c.  
Some Psalms inscribed under his Name.    

SOLOMON.  
The Son of David King of Israel: succeeded his Father, and reigned forty Years. He dyed An. Mund. 3125. the 617th. Year after the Departure of the Children of Israel out of Egypt. p. 108  

Genuine Works, &c.  
The Proverbs.  
Ecclesiastes.  
The Canticles.    

JONAH.  
The Son of Amittai of Tribe of the Zabulon, began to prophesy under the Reign of Joash, and continued it under the Reign of Jeroboam. p. 119  

Works.  
His Book which is an History.  
His prophesy is lost.    

HOSEA,  
The Son of Beeri, a Prophet in the Kingdom of Judah, began to prophesy under the Reign of Jeroboam II. King of Israel, and Uzziah or Azariah King of Judah. p. 119  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The prophesy of Hosea.    

JOEL,  
The Son of Pethuel, a Prophet: Contemporary with Hosea, according to some; according to others, later than Amos: and according to others, he prophesied under the Reign of Manasses and Josiah, after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes. p. 119  

A Genuine Work still extant.  
The prophesy of Joel.    

ISAIAH,  
The Son of Jmoz, of the Blood-Royal: He prophesied from the latter end of the Reign of Uzziah to the Reign of Manasseh, in whose time he was put to Death. p. 115  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The prophesy of Isaiah.    

AMOS,  
A Shepherd of the Town of Tekoah, two Leagues from Bethlehem, a Prophet;  
called to prophesy two Years before the Earthquake which happened in the 24th. or 25th. Year of the Reign of Uzziah. p. 119  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The prophesy of Amos.    

OBADIAH,  
A Prophet:  
Prophesied under the Reign of Ahab, p. 119.  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The prophesy of Obadiah.    

MICAH,  
The Morasthite of the Tribe of Judah, a Prophet; who prophesied under the Reigns of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. p. 119  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
His prophesy.    

NAHUM,  
The Elkoshite, a Prophet, who prophesied after the Captivity of the Ten Tribes. p. 119  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
His prophesy.    

TOBIT,  
Of the Tribe of Nephthali, one of those, who were carried Captive into Assyria by Shalmanezer; he lived till he was 102 Years old. p. 89  

A Genuine Work still extant.  
The Book of Tobit, which contains his History, is attributed to him.    

HABAKKUK,  
A Prophet,  
He prophesied very probably under the Reign of Manasseh. p. 120  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
His prophesy.    

ZEPHANIAH.  
A Prophet, who prophesied under the Reign of Josiah King of Judah. p. 120  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
His prophesy.    

JEREMIAH.  
The Son of Hilkiah of the Sacerdotal Race, of the Town of Anathoth in the Tribe of Benjamin, a Prophet, who began to prophesy under the Reign of Josiah, and continued it for forty five Years together. p. 116  

Genuine Works, &c.  
His prophesy.  
His Lamentations.    

BARUCH,  
The Son of Neriah, the Disciple and Amanuensis of Jeremiah, a Prophet.  
He wrote his prophesy at Babylon, just before or after the General Captivity. p. 117  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
His prophesy.    

DANIEL,  
Of the Race of the Kings of Judah, a Prophet. He was carried Captive to Babylon in the time of King Jehoiakim, where he prophesied for above Fourscore Years, to the Reign of Cyrus. p. 117  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
His prophesy containing several Historical Relations and Predictions.    

EZEKIEL,  
The Son of Buzi the Priest, a Prophet: He was carried to Babylon, under the Reign of Jechoniah, at thirty Years of age, where he prophesied during twenty Years. p. 117  

A Genuine Work still extant.  
His prophesy.    

The Author of the Book of JUDITH.  
His time uncertain. p. 90  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The Book of Judith.    

The Author of the Book of ESTHER.  
His time is uncertain. p. 93  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The History of Esther.    

HAGGAI,  
A Prophet;  
He prophesied the second Year of the Reign of Darius the Son of Hystaspes, King of the Persians, after the return from the Captivity. p. 120  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
His prophesy.    

ZACHARIAH,  
The Son of Barachiah, a Prophet, who prophesied under the Reign of the same Darius. p. 120  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
His prophesy.    

MALACHI.  
A Prophet who prophesied after the Rebuilding of the Temple. p. 120  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
His prophesy.    

The Author of the Book of KINGS.  
'tis a Collection of ancient Memoirs, made about the time of the Captivity. p. 84  

Genuine Works, &c.  
The two first Books of Kings, called by the Hebrews, the Books of Samuel.  
The two last Books, called by the Hebrews, the Book of Kings.    

The Author of the Books of CHRONICLES.  
He lived under the Reign of Cyrus, and compiled them out of ancient Records. p. 86  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The two Books of Chronicles, which among the Jews make but only one Book, entitled, Journals or Annals.    

EZRAH or ESDRAS,  
The Son of Seraiah the High-priest, a Doctor of Law: the Head of the Jews who return'd from Babylon, the seventh Year of the Empire of Artaxerxes Longimanus. p. 87  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The First Book of Esdras.  
They ascribe to him the Collection, Revisal, and Correction of all the Books that are in the Jewish-Canon.    

NEHEMIAH,  
The Son of Hilkiah of the Tribe of Levi, He came to Jerusalem the twentieth Year of the Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus, tarried there twelve Years; Return'd to Persia, and at last came back to Judaea, where he ended his days. p. 87  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The second Book of Esdras.    

PHILO,  
An Ancient Hellenistical Jew, who lived in the time of the Maccabees. p. 113  

A Genuine Work still extant.  
The Book of Wisdom.    

JESUS, The Son of mirach;  
flourished under the High-Priesthood of Onias III. during the Reigns of Ptolomey Epiphanes, and Antiochus. p. 114  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The Book of Ecclesiasticus, translated into Greek by his Grandson, under the Reign of Ptolomey Physcon.    

AUTHOR, Of the first Book of Maccabees,  
who wrote under the High-Priesthood of John Hircanus, p. 121  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The first Book of Maccabees.    

AUTHOR, Of the second Book of Maccabees,  
an Hellenistical Jew: who flourished under the Reign of Demetrius King of Syria. p. 121  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
The Second Book of Maccabees.    

PHILO;  
A Jew of Alexandria, of the Sacerdotal Race, a platonic Philosopher: Born under the Empire of Tiberius Caesar: flourished chiefly under Caius Caligula, to whom he was sent Ambassador in behalf of the Jews of Alexandria, to pled for them against the Greek Inhabitants of that City.  

Genuine Works, &c.  
A Treatise concerning the Creation of the World.  
Three Books of Allegorical Commentaries on Genesis.  
A Treatise concerning the Reasons of altering the Names of some Hebrews in the Scripture.  
A Discourse concerning the Cherubims, the Flaming Sword which guarded the Garden of Eden, and concerning Cain.  
A Book of the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel.  
Another Tract upon Cain and Abel: entitled: That the Wicked are wont to lay Snares for those who are better than themselves.  
Two Books of Husbandry, the second of which is entitled; Of the Vine planted by Noah.  
Two Books on Drunkenness, the second of which is entitled: A Treatise on these Words, Noah recovered from his Drunkenness.  
A Treatise concerning the Confusion of Languages.  
A Treatise of the giants.  
A Treatise entitled, That God is immutable.  
Two Books upon Araham, the one entitled, The Life of a Wise Man perfected by Learning, or of the unwritten Laws: and the other, of the Departure of Abraham out of his own Country.  
A Treatise concerning the Usefulness of Conversation, in order to render a Man Learned, composed upon the account of the Conversation between Sarah and Hagar.  
A Treatise concerning Exiles, writ upon the occasion of Hagar's flight.  
A Tract entitled: Who is the Heir of Divine Things, or of the division of good Things into equal and unequal parts.  
The Civil Life, or of Joseph the Patriarch.  
A second and third Book concerning Dreams: the second entitled, That Dreams proceed from God.  
Three Books of the Life of Moses.  
A Book of the three virtues described by Moses, or three Discourses concerning Charity, Justice and Fortitude.  
A Treatise of the manner of establishing a Prince.  
A Book upon the Decalogue.  
One of his Tracts, de Legibus Specialibus.  
A Treatise concerning Circumcision.  
Two Books of Monarchy.  
A Treatise concerning the Rewards of the Priests.  
A Treatise concerning Animals proper for Sacrifices, and of the several sorts of Victims.  
Two Fragments of a Treatise concerning Providence, cited by Eusebius.  
A Treatise concerning Rewards and Punishments.  
A Treatise concerning Imprecations.  
A Treatise concerning the prohibition of receiving the Offering of an Harlot.  
A Tract entitled: That every virtuous Man is Free.  
A Treatise of the Contemplative Life, or the History of the Essenes and Therapeutae.  
A Tract against Flaccus.  
The History of his embassy to Caligula.  
A Discourse concerning Nobility.  
A Treatise concerning the Incorruptibility of the World.  
Spurious Works.  
A Treatise concerning the World.  
A Treatise concerning the Feasts.  
Works lost.  
Expositions of the Law and the Prophets mentioned by Eusebius.  
Five Books of Questions and Answers upon Exodus, mentioned by Eusebius and Saint Jerome.  
A Treatise concerning the Tabernacle.  
A Treatise concerning Providence.  
A Treatise concerning the Jews mentioned by Eusebius.  
The first Book of Dreams.  
Several Tracts, de Legibus Specialibus.  
A Treatise entitled, Of things that ought to be desired or detested by a Wise Man, mentioned by Eusebius, Saint Jerome and Suidas.  
A Discourse concerning Flight and Invention; or, of Nature and Invention, mentioned by Eusebius and S. Jerome.  
A Treatise entitled, Every Sinner is a Slave.  
A Treatise entitled Alexander, or concerning the Reason of Brutes mentioned by Eusebius.    

JOSEPHUS, surnamed T. FLAVIUS,  
Of the Sacerdotal Race descended from the Asmonaeans.  
He was born An. Chr. 37. flourished under the Emperors Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, dyed An. Chr. 93.  

Genuine Works still extant.  
The Jewish Antiquities, or the History of the Jews.  
The History of the War against the Romans and of the taking of Jerusasalem.  
Two Books against Appion.  
A Tract concerning the Martyrdom of the Maccabees.  
His Life writ by his own Hand.    

JUSTUS,  
Of Tiberias, flourished at the same time with Josephus.  

Works lost.  
The History of the Jews.  
Commentaries on the Bible.     

A Chronological TABLE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE New Testament, And of their WORKS.  
Note, That the Pages referred to in this TABLE belong to the Second Volume.  

Saint MATTHEW or LEVI  
An Apostle and Evangelist: He was a Publican, converted by our Saviour, and made an Apostle. He wrote his Gospel in Hebrew or Chaldee, some Years after the Ascension of our Saviour. p. 26  

Genuine Works still extant.  
His Gospel, translated from the Chaldee into Greek.    

Saint MARK,  
The Disciple and Interpreter of Saint Peter, an Evangelist: He composed his Gospel at Rome, A. C. 65. went thence to Alexandria, where he dyed, A. C. 68. p. 40  

A Genuine Work still extant.  
His Gospel.    

Saint LUKE,  
A Physician of Antioch, a Converted gentle, the Disciple of Saint Paul, and an Evangelist: He wrote his Gospel about the Year of Christ, 50. and the Acts, at Rome, after the Year 63. p. 44  

Genuine Works, &c.  
His Gospel.  
The Acts of the Apostles.    

Saint JOHN,  
The Son of Zebedee, of the City of Bethsaida in Galilee, the beloved Disciple of our Lord; an Apostle and Evangelist.  
He went into Asia Minor, about the Year of Christ, 70. Was brought to Rome in the persecution under Nero, An. Chr. 95. banished to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote his Apocalypse; Returns to Ephesus, and there writes his Gospel, A. C. 97. and dyed in the Year 101. aged above 90 Years. p. 48  

Genuine Works still extant.  
His Gospel.  
His three Epistles.  
His Apocalypse.    

Saint PAUL, called before SAUL,  
Of the Tribe of Benjamin, an Apostle: He was born at Tarsus in Cilicia; Educated under Gamaliel; Converted A. C. 35. After he had preached the Gospel in Asia and Syria he was sent to Rome, A. C. 61. where he tarried two Years; and returning thither again was beheaded, A. C. 65. p. 53  

Genuine Works, &c.  
Fourteen Epistles, viz.  
The Epistle to the Romans, written in the Year 57 or 58.  
The first to the Corinthians, written the beginning of the Year 57.  
The second to the Corinthians written about the latter end of the same Year.  
The Epistle to the Galatians, written before the former, either at the latter end of the 56th, or the beginning of the 57th. Year of Christ.  
The Epistle to the Ephesians, written A. C. 62  
The Epistle to the Philippians, written A. C. 61. or 62.  
The Epistle to the Colossians, written after the former in the Year of Chr. 62.  
The first and second to the Thessalonians, written in the Year 52.  
The first to Timothy, written A. C. 60.  
The second to Timothy, written A. C. 64.  
The Epistle to Titus, written in the Year 63.  
The Epistle to Philemon, written A. C. 61.  
The Epistle to the Hebrews, written in Hebrew, A. C. 63.    

Saint JAMES the JUST,  
The Brother of our Lord, Bishop of Jerusalem; he was made the first Bishop of Jerusalem after the death of Jesus Christ, and suffered Martyrdom A. C. 60. p.  

A Genuine Work still extant.  
An Epistle written a little before his his Death.    

SIMON surnamed PETER,  
The Son of Jonas, Brother of Andrew, and chief of the Apostles: Converted by Jesus Christ, and martyred at Rome about the Year 65. p.  

Genuine Works, &c.  
Two Epistles, the former written about the Year of Christ 45, and the latter a little before his Death.    

Saint judas, called likewise LEBBEUS or THADDEUS.  
The Brother of James the Just, and an Apostle, who lived a long time. p.  

A Genuine Works, &c.  
An Epistle, written after the Death of the other Apostles.    

Saint BARNABAS, called before JOSEPH.  
A Levite of the Isle of Cyprus; who was joined to the Apostles after the Death of Jesus Christ. p. 130  

A Genuine Work, &c.  
An Epistle, which is certainly His, tho' it be not caconical.     

A TABLE OF THE caconical and Apocryphal BOOKS Which belong to the Old Testament.  
Note, That the Pages referred to in this and the three following Tables belong to Vol I.  

caconical Books, unanimously received by Jews and Christians.  
The Five Books of Moses. p. 61  
The Book of Joshua. p. 78  
The Book of Judges. p. 82  
The Book of Samuel, that is, the first and second Books of Kings. p. 84  
The third and fourth Books of Kings. Ib.  
Isaiah. p. 115  
Jeremiah. p. 116  
Ezekiel. p. 117  
The twelve Minor Prophets. p. 119  
The Book of Job. p. 98  
The Hundred and Fifty Psalms. p. 102  
The Proverbs. of Solomon. p. 108 109, 111.  
The Ecclesiastes. of Solomon. p. 108 109, 111.  
The Canticles. of Solomon. p. 108 109, 111.  
Daniel. p. 117  
The Chronicles. p. 84  
Esdras divided into two Books. p. 87   
These Books thus divided make two and twenty in all. See farther the whole third Chapter of the first Volume.  

Books received as caconical by some Jews, and rejected by others.  
Esther. p. 93  
Ruth. p. 84   

Books excluded the Jewish Canon, and reckoned as Apocryphal by some of the Ancient Christians, but allowed as caconical of late by the Church of Rome.  
Baruch. p. 117  
Tobit. p. 89  
Judith. p. 90  
The Book of Wisdom. p. 113  
Ecclesiasticus. p. 114  
The two Books of the Maccabees. p. 121  
The Song of the three Children in the fiery Furnace. in Daniel. p. 118  
The Hist. of Susanna. in Daniel. p. 118  
The History of Bel and the Dragon. in Daniel. p. 118   
See likewise, Chap. 1. Sect. 4. and following, p. 71. &c.  

Books lost, cited in the Old Testament.  
The Book of the Wars of the Lord, Numb. 21. v. 4.  
The Book of the Covenant, cited Exod. 24. v. 7.  
The Book of Jasher, or the Upright, cited Josh. 10. v. 13. 2 Sam. 1. v. 18.  
The Books of Nathan, Gad, Shemaiah, Iddo, Ahijah and Jehu, cited in the Chronicles.  
The Chronicles of the Acts of the Kings of Judah and Israel, cited in the Books of Kings.  
The History of the Kings of Judah and Israel, cited in the Chronicles.  
A Book of Samuel, cited, Chron. 29. v. 29.  
The Acts of Uzziah, mentioned 2 Chron. 26. v. 22.  
Three thousand Proverbs of Solomon, mentioned 1 Kings 4. v. 32.  
A thousand and five Songs, mentioned ibid.  
Several other Volumes of the same Author, mentioned, ibid.  
The prophesy of Jeremiah, torn in pieces by Jehoiakim, Jerem. 36.  
Another prophesy of his upon the City of Babylon, mentioned, Jer. 51.  
Memoirs or Descriptions of the same Author, mentioned, 1 Maccabees, Chap. 2.  
The prophesy of Jonah, mentioned in the Book of Jonah.  
The Memoirs of Hircanus, mentioned, 1 Macc. Chap. Ult.  
The Books of Jason, mentioned, 2 Macc. Ch. 2.   
See farther, Chap. 1. Sect. VIII. Vol. I. p. 21.  

Books that are excluded the Canon, tho' not apparently bad.  
The Prayer of Manasseh, inserted in the Apocrypha.  
The third and fourth Book of Esdras, ibid.  
The third and fourth Book of Maccabees, in the Septuagint Bibles.  
The Genealogy of Job, and his Wife's Speech, at the end of the Greek Text of the Book of Job.  
The 151st. Psalm, at the end of the Greek Psalms.  
A Discourse of King Solomon, at the end of the Book of Wisdom.  
A Preface before the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in the Vulgar Latin, and Greek Text.   

Other Apocryphal Books of the same Nature which are lost.  
The Book of Enoch. p. 26  
The Book of the Assumption of Moses.  
The Assumption, Apocalypse or Secrets of Elias.  
The Secrets of Jeremiah. See farther. p. 27   

Books forged by the Jews or by heretics, full of Fables and Errors which are lost.  
The Generations, or the Creation of Adam. p. 27  
The Revelation of Adam. p. 28  
Of the Genealogy, or of the Sons and Daughters of Adam. p. 28  
Cham's Book of magic. p. 27  
A Treatise entitled Seth. p. 28  
The Assumption of Abraham. p. 27  
Jetsira, or concerning the Creation, ascribed to Abraham. ibid.  
The Books of the twelve patriarches. ibid.  
The Discourses of Jacob and Joseph. p. 28  
A prophesy of Habakkuk. p. 28  
A Collection of the Prophesies of Ezekiel. p. 28  
The prophesy of Eldad and Medad. p. 28  
The Treatise of Jannes and Jambres. p. 28  
The Book of King Og. p. 28  
Jacob's-Ladder, and several other Tracts. p. 28    

A TABLE of the Versions of the Books of the Old Testament.  

Greek Versions.  
AN ancient Version of the Bible, or part of it, by an unknown Hand.  
The Version of the Seventy; made under the Reign of Ptolomey Philadelphus, p. 169 &c.  
The Version of Aquila, made in the Year of Christ, 128. p. 179.  
The Version of Symmachus, made under the Empire of Severus. p. 179  
The fifth and sixth Versions. ibid.  
The seventh Version of the Psalms and some other Books. ibid.  
Two other Versions of the Prophets. ibid.   

Ancient Latin Versions.  
The Ancient Vulgar or italic. p. 192  
The Versions of Saint Jerome. ibid.  
The Vulgar Version used by the Romish Church. ibid.   

The Samaritan Versions.  
The Samaritan Pentateuch. p. 164, &c.  
The Version of the Pentateuch into Samaritan. p. 168   

The Chaldee Versions.  
The Chaldee Paraphrase of the Pentateuch by Onkelos, made in our Saviour's time. p. 206  
The Paraphrase of Jonathan on the Prophetical Books, made likewise in our Saviour's time. p. 206  
The Targum on the Hagiographa, attributed to Joseph the Blind. p. 207  
The Targum of Jerusalem. ibid.   

Syriac Versions.  
A Syriac Version from the Greek Text. p. 208  
Another Syriac Version from the Hexapla. ibid.   

arabic Versions.  
An arabic Version of Saadias Gaon, made about the Year 600, the Pentateuch of which Version is published. p. 209  
An arabic Version, published by Erpenius. ibid.  
An arabic Version made by a Christian. ibid  
Other arabic Versions, of several Books of the Old Testament, in Print, or Manuscript. ibid   

Other Versions into several Oriental Languages.  
A Version of several Books of the Old Testament, into the Coptic or Egyptian Language, a Manuscript. p. 210  
A Version of the Psalms and Canticles into ethiopic. p. 212  
A persic Version. p. 213  
An Armenian Version, done by Uscanius. p. 213  
The Versions of the Muscovites, Iberians, Gregorians, &c. p. 213   

New Latin Versions of the Bible done by Roman catholics.  
The Version of saints Pagninus, a Dominican, printed in the Year 1527. p. 205  
The Version of Arias Montanus, or rather the Version of Pagninus revised by Arias Montanus, in the Polyglottes of Philip II. p. 205  
The Version of Tho. Malvenda, a Dominican. ibid.  
The Version of Cardinal Cajetan. ibid.  
The Version of Isidorus Clarius.  
The Version of the Psalms, by Simeon de Muis. ibid.   

Latin Versions done by the Protestants.  
The Version of Sebastian Munster. p. 205  
The Version of lo Juda. ibid.  
The Version of Sebastian Castallio. p. 205  
The Version of Tremellius and Junius. ib.  
The Editions of the Bible by Andrew and Luke Osiander. ibid.    

A TABLE of the Versions of the BIBLE into several of the Vulgar Languages.  

French Versions.  
A Version of the Psalms, done in the Eleventh Century, A Manuscript. p. 216  
Another Version of the Psalms, done in the twelfth Century, by M. Peter of Paris, a Manuscript. ibid.  
The Version of Guiars des Moulins, in the thirteenth Century. ibid.  
The Version of James le Grand, Dr. of Paris, in the fourteenth Century. p. 217  
The Version of the Doctors of Louvain, printed by Martin l'Empereur, in the Year 1530, and 1534. p. 218  
The Version of Olivetan a Calvinist, in the Year 1535. ibid.  
The Version of Sebastian Castalio a Calvinist, in the Year 1555. ibid.  
The Version of Theodore Beza a Calvinist, in the Year 1560. p. 217  
The Version of Reginaldus Benedictus, in the Year 1566. p. 218  
The Version of Louvain, in the Year 1578. ibid.  
The Version of Geneva in the Year 1588. p. 219  
The Version of Peter Besse, in the Year 1608. p. 218  
The Version of Peter Frison, in the Year 1620. ibid.  
The Version of Corbin, in the Year 1641. ibid.   

Italian Versions.  
The Version of Nicholas Malhermi, printed in the Year 1641. p. 219  
The Version of Antonio Bruccioli, in the Year 1530. ibid.  
The Version of Joannes Deodatus a Calvinist, in the Year 1607. p. 219   

Spanish Versions.  
A Version into the Catalonian or Provence Tongue, a Manuscript. p. 219  
A Version into the Language of Valentia lost. ibid.  
The Version of Cassidore Reyna, in the Year 1569, Reprinted with several Alterations, Operâ& study Cypriani Valerii, in the Year 1602. ibid.   

German Versions.  
The Ancient German Versions before Luther. p. 220  
The Version of Luther. ibid.  
The Version of Jerome Emser a catholic. ibid.  
The Version of lo Juda a Calvinist. ib.  
The Version of Paul Eber a Calvinist, in the Year 1560. ibid.  
The Version of John of Dietemberg, a catholic in the Year 1603. ibid.  
The Version of Joannes Piscator, a Calvinist, in the Year 1604. ibid.  
The Version of Jasper Ulemberg a catholic, in the Years 1626, and 1630. ibid.   

Dutch Versions.  
An Ancient Version printed seventy Years before the following. p. 220  
The Version of Nicholas Van Winghe in the Year 1548. p. 220  
The Version of the Doctors of Louvain at Antwerp, in the Year 1599. ibid.  
The Version of the Calvinists into Dutch, made by the Order of the Synod of Dort, in the Year 1637. 220  
The Versions of the Arminians, in the Year 1680. ibid   

English Versions.  
The Version of Bede into Saxon, lost.  
Fragments of other English Versions.  
An ancient Translation of the Psalter into English-Saxon, printed in the Year 1640. ibid  
Wickliff's English Version, in Manuscript. ibid  
The Translation of Tindal and Coverdal, in the Years 1526, and 1530. 221  
Another English Version of the Bible, printed in France in the Year 1538.  
The Version of Gusbert Tunstal, in the Year 1541. ibid  
The Version of the Calvinists in England, done from the Geneva Bible, in the Year 1560. ibid  
The Episcopal Bible, done by Parker about the latter end of the Fifteenth Century. ibid  
The Bible of King James I. in the Year 1612. ibid  
The Version of the Bible into English, catholic. ibid   

A Version into Irish,  
printed at London in the Year, 1685. ibid   

A Swedish Version.  
The Version of Laurentius Petrus, an heretic, at Stockholm, in the Year 1646.   

A Danish Version.  
Printed in the Years 1524 and 1633. 221   

Iselandish and Finlandish Versions.  
Printed in the Year 1648. ibid   

Polish Versions.  
A Socinian Version, in the Year 1563.  
The Version of Simon Budin, which the Socinians caused to be printed in the Year 1572. 221  
The Version of the Bible by Vicki the jesuit, printed in the Year 1599. ibid   

A Bohemian Version.  
Printed in Germany between the Year 1579, and the Year 1601. ibid   

Hungarian Versions.  
A Version printed in the Year 1608.  
The Version of George Caldi a jesuit, in the Year 1626. ibid  
See farther, the whole first Section of the Ninth Chapter, p. 215, &c.    

A TABLE of Authors whose Works relate to the History of the Old Testament.  
Note, That the Pages referred to here, belong to the Second Volume.  

Genuine Authors.  
PHilo. p. 168  
Josephus. p. 170  
Justus of Tiberias. p. 170   

Spurious or Doubtful Authors.  
Aristaeas. ibid.  
Aristobulus. ibid.  
Josephus Bengorion. ibid.  
The false Berosus. p. 171  
Manetho. p. 171  
Metasthenes. ibid.  
The Testament of the twelve patriarches. ibid.  
The false Dorothaeus. ibid.  
Zoroaster. ibid.  
Sanchoniathon. ibid.  
Philo Biblius. ibid.    

A TABLE of the BOOKS which belong to the New Testament.  

Books owned as caconical at all times, and by all Christians.  
THE four Gospels. p. 20, &c.  
The Acts of the Apostles. p. 53  
Thirteen Epistles of Saint Paul. p. 53  
The First Epistle of Saint Peter. p. 74  
The first of Saint John. p. 76   
See farther, p. 20 &c.  

Books questioned by some, but admitted soon after by the whole Church as caconical.  
The Epistle to the Hebrews. p. 64  
The Epistle of Saint James. p. 69  
The second of Saint Peter. p. 75  
The second and third of Saint John. p. 76  
The Epistle of Saint judas, received as caconical a little later than the rest. p. 80  
The Apocalypse or Revelations of St. John, which was a long time before it was received by all the Church. p. 82  
The end of the last Chapter of Saint Mark's Gospel. p. 42  
The History of the Angel and the Agony of our Saviour Related. Luke 22. p. 47  
The History of the Woman taken in Adultery, related in the Eighth Chapter of Saint John's Gospel. p. 51  
The end of the same Gospel. p. 52  
The passage concerning the Trinity, taken out of the fifth Chapter of the first Epistle of Saint John. p. 77   

Apocryphal Writings which are not full of Errors.  
The Letter of Jesus Christ to Agbarus. p. 121  
The Letters of the Blessed Virgin. p. 123  
The Gospel according to the Egyptians. ibid  
The Gospel according to the Hebrews.  
Additions to the Gospels of Saint Matthew and Luke, in the Cambridge Manuscript. p. 105  
The Proto-Evangelium of St. James. p. 124  
The Gospel of Nicodemus, ibid  
The Ancient Acts of Paul and Thecla. p. 128  
The Epistle to the Laodiceans. p. 61  
The Epistles of Saint Paul to Seneca. p. 163  
The Epistle of Saint Barnabas. p. 130  
The Liturgies of 

St. Peter. p. 134  
Saint Mark. p. 134  
Saint James p. 134  
St. Matthew p. 134    
The Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles. p. 144  
The Treatise of Prochorus. p. 149  
The Books of Saint Linus. ibid  
The Treatise of Abdias. ibid  
The Acts of the Passion of Saint Andrew. ibid   

Books full of Errors, and forged by heretics, almost all of them lost.  
The Gospels of 

Saint Peter. p. 125  
Saint Thomas. p. 126  
Saint mathias. ibid  
Saint Bartholomew. ibid  
Saint Philip. ibid  
Judas Iscariot. ibid  
Thaddaeus. p. 127  
Barnabas. ibid    
The Gospel of Truth by the Valentinians.  
The Gospel of perfection by the gnostics. p. 126  
The Gosp. of Eve by the gnostics. p. 126  
A Book concerning the Infancy of Jesus Christ. p. 127  
A Treatise concerning the Birth of our Saviour, the Virgin-Mary, and her Midwife. ibid  
A Treatise concerning the Virgin's Lying-in, and the Questions she asked.  
A Treatise of the Nativity of the Virgin-Mary, by the heretic Seleucus, cited by Saint Jerome. ibid  
The Apocryphal Treatise of the Life of the Virgin, cited by Saint Gregory Nyssene. p. 128  
Another Apocryphal Book on the Virgin, cited by Faustus. ibid  
The Writings of Jesus Christ about Miracles. ibid  
The Acts of 

Saint Peter. p. 129  
Saint Paul. p. 129  
Saint Andrew. p. 129  
Saint John. p. 129  
The Apostles. p. 129  
Saint Philip. p. 129  
Saint Thomas. p. 129    
The Doctrine, Preachings, and Itinerary of Saint Peter. p. 129  
The Rapture of Saint Paul. ibid  
The Memoirs of the Apostles. ibid  
The Lots of the Apostles. ibid  
The Itinerary of the Apostles. ibid  
The Treatise concerning the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. p. 130  
The Apostolical Tract. ibid  
The Treatise of the Death and Assumption of the Virgin. ibid  
The Apocalypses or Revelations of 

Saint Peter. p. 130  
Saint Paul. p. 130  
Saint Thomas. p. 130  
Saint Stephen. p. 130  
The Great Apostle. p. 130  
Abraham. p. 130  
Seth and p. 130  
Noriah. p. 130      

A TABLE of the Versions of the New Testament.  

Latin Versions.  
SEveral ancient Latin Versions. 115  
The ancient italic or Vulgar. ibid  
The Version reformed by Saint Jerome.  
The Version of Saint Paul's Epistles, by Le Fevrè d'Estaples, in the Year 1531. 116  
The Version of the whole New Testament done by Erasmus, in the Year 1516. ibid  
The Version of Pagninus, in the Year 1528. 117  
The Version of lo Juda, in the Year 1543. ibid  
The Version of Sebastian Castalio. ibid  
The Version of Theodore Beza. ibid   

Oriental Versions.  
The Syriac Version. 117  
The arabic Versions. 118  
The Ethiopic Version. ibid  
The Persian Version. ibid  
The Armenian Version. ibid  
The Coptic Version. ibid   

Particular Versions of the New Testament into the Vulgar Tongues.  
The History of the Gospel in the German Language, by Orfroy the Disciple of Rabanus, printed in the Year 1571.  
The ancient English-Saxon Version of the Gospels.  
A French Version by Father Veron, in the Year 1647.  
Another French Version by M. de Marolles, in the Year 1649.  
The Version of Mons, in the Year 1667.  
The Version of Father Amelotte, in the Year 1668.  
The Version of M. de Sacy.  
The Version of the New Testament into Italian, by Father Zachary, in the Year 1542.  
A Spanish Version by Francis Enzinas, Dedicated to Charles V.  
Another Spanish Version of the N. Testament, done in the Year 1596.  
The Version of Cassidorus Reyna, in the Year 1615.  
The Islandish and Finlandish Versions, printed in the Year 1602.  
A Muscovite Version printed in the Year 1581.  
A Version into the Vulgar Greek at Geneva.    

Other forged Records favourable to the Christian Religion.  

THE Letter of Agbarus to Jesus Christ. p. 121  
The Letters of Lentulus and Pilate concerning Jesus Christ. p. 162  
The Books of the Sibyls. p. 150  
The Books of Mercurius Trismegist. p. 161  
The Book of Hystaspes. p. 161  
The Letters of Seneca to Saint Paul. p. 163  
The passage of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ, which it is not certain whether it be Spurious or not. p. 164    

An Alphabetical TABLE OF The Authors of the OLD and NEW TESTAMENT mentioned in the two Volumes.  
Note, That O. T. signifies the Old Testament, and N. T. the New.  

A.  
ABDIAS, a suppositious Author. page. 149 N. T.  
Priests of ACHAIA, the Authors of the Acts of the Passion of Saint Andrew. 149 N. T.  
AGBARUS. 121 N. T.  
AMOS. 119 O. T.  
APOSTLES, false Acts ascribed to them. 128 N. T.  
APOSTLES, a Spurious Apocalypse ascribed to them. 128 N. T.  
APOSTLES, Canons and Constitutions attributed to them. 144 N. T.  
APOSTLES, a Spurious Gospel attributed to them. 125 N. T.  
APOSTLES, Spurious Liturgies foisted upon them. 133 N. T.  
APOSTLES, their Creed. 135 N. T.  
ARISTAEAS. 170 N. T.  
ARISTOBULUS. 170 O. T.  
ASAPH. 103. O. T.   

B.  
BARNABAS. 130 N. T.  
BARUCH. 117 O. T.  
BEROSUS. 171 N.T.   

C.  
CHRONIELES. 86 O. T.  
CREED, ascribed to the Apostles. 135 N. T.   

D.  
DANIEL. 117 O. T.  
DAVID. 102 O. T.  
DOROTHAEUS. 171 N. T.   

E.  
ESTHER, the Author of that Book. 93 O. T.  
EZEKIEL. 117 O. T.  
EZRAH. 87 O.T.   

G.  
GAD. 22, 84, 85. O. T.  
GOSPELS, according to the Hebrews, and according to the Egyptians. 133 N.T.   

H.  
HABAKKUK. 120 O. T.  
HAGGAI. 120 O. T.  
HYSTASPES. 161 N. T.   

I.  
JAMES. 69. N. T.  
JEREMIAH. 116 O. T.  
JESUS-CHRIST. 121 N. T.  
JESUS, the Son of mirach. 114 O. T.  
JOB. 98 O. T.  
JOEL. 119. O. T.  
JONAH. 119 O. T.  
Saint JOHN. 48 N. T.  
JOSEPHUS. 170 N. T.  
JOSEPHUS BENGORION. 170 80 N. T.  
JOSHUA. 78 O. T.  
ISAIAH. 115 O. T.  
Saint judas. 80 N. T.  
JUDITH, the Author of that Book. 90 O. T.  
JUDGES, the Author of that Book. 82 O. T.  
JUSTUS, of Tiberias. 170. N. T.   

K.  
KINGS, the Author of that Book. 84. O. T.   

L.  
LENTULUS. 162 N. T.  
Saint LINUS. 149 N. T.  
Saint LUKE. 44 N. T.   

M.  
MACCABEES, the Authors of the two First Books. 121 O. T.  
MALACHI. 120 O. T.  
MANETHO. 171 N. T.  
Virgin MARY. 123 N. T.  
Saint MARK. 40 N. T.  
Saint MATTHEW. 26 N. T.  
MERCURIUS TRISMEGISTUS. 161 N. T.  
METASTHENES. 171 N. T.  
MICAH. 119 O. T.  
MOSES. 61 O. T.   

N.  
NAHUM. 119 O. T.  
NATHAN. 22, 84, 85. O. T.  
NEHEMIAH. 87 O. T.  
NICODEMUS. 124 N. T.   

O.  
OBADIAH. p. 119 O. T.  
OSEAH or HOSEAH. p. 119. O. T.   

P.  
Saint PAUL. 53 N. T.  
Saint PETER. 74 N. T.  
PHILO, the Ancient. 113. O. T.  
PHILO of Alexandria. 168 N. T.  
PHILO of Biblos. 171 N. T.  
PILATE. 162 N. T.  
Priests of ACHAIAH. 149 N. T.  
PROCHORUS. 149 N. T.   

R.  
RUTH, the Author of that Book. 84 O. T.   

S.  
SAMUEL. 84 O. T.  
SANCHONIATHON. 171 N. T.  
SENECA. 163 N. T.  
SIBYLS. 150, &c. N. T.  
SOLOMON. 108 O. T.   

T.  
TOBIT. 89 O. T.   

Z.  
ZACHARIAH. 120 O. T.  
ZEPHANIAH. 120 O. T.  
ZOROASTER. 171 N. T.    

A Table of the Principal Matters contained in this second Volume.  

A.  
ABdias, a suppositious Author of the Lives of the Apostles, 149  
Abraham, an Apocalypse fathered upon him, 130  
Acts of the Apostles. Of the caconical Books of the Acts of the Apostles, 53. Of the false Acts of the Apostles, 128. Of the false Acts of the Passion of St. Andrew, 149  
Adultery; The History of the Woman taken in Adultery, related in Saint John's Gospel. Of the Antiquity and Genuineness of that History, 51  
Agbarus King of Edessa; converted to Christianity, 121. Whether this History be Genuine or not ibid. The Letters of Agbarus to Jesus Christ, and of Jesus Christ to Agbarus, spurious. ibid. The Picture of Jesus Christ sent to Agbarus, a feigned story, 122  
Allegory, In use among the Jews and primitive Christians, 132  
Amelot, Dionysius, a Priest of the Oratory: Of the Collection which he made of the various Readings of the New Testament in Greek, conformable to the Vulgar, 103  
Saint Andrew, false Acts of his Passion, 149  
Anglo-Saxon, A Version of the New Testament into that Language, 118  
Apocalypse, Vid. Revelation.  
Apollinarius, the Spurious History attributed to him, 150  
Apostles; Why chosen by Jesus Christ. 2. How instructed in the Truths of Religion. 3. After what manner they published them. ibid. That no question but that they were acquainted with and declared all the Truths which Jesus Christ had revealed to them. ibid. That they were neither deceived nor Deceivers. 9. That they were divinely inspired. 12. Of the apostles Creed. 135. Of their Canons. 144, &c. Of the Constitutions attributed to them. ibid. Of the Acts of the Apostles. 53. Of the false Acts of the Apostles. 128. False Liturgies attributed to the Apostles; 133  
arabic, Versions of the New Testament into that Language. 118  
Arias Montanus. Of his Latin Version of the New Testament. 117  
Armenian, A Version of the New Testament into the Armenian Tongue. 118   

B.  
BAptism of Jesus Christ. The Addition to the Account of it made in St. Matthew's Gospel, 34, 37  
Saint Barnabas, Of the Name of that Apostle, 130. Author of the Epistle which goes under his Name, 131. Whether it be caconical or not, 133. The subject of that Epistle. ibid. The several Editions of that Epistle, ibid.  
Saint Bartholomew, The Gospel attributed to him, 126  
Berosus, Of the true and false Berosus, 171  
Beza, Theodore, His Edition of the New Testament with some Alterations. 102. of his Version of the New Testament, 117  
Books of the New Testament; The Authority of them. 4. Proofs of their Authority. 5. That these Books are theirs under whose names they are inscribed. ibid. That they have not been corrupted, 7. That they are not Fictitious or Fabulous. 8. Of the Canon of the Books of the New Testament. 16. Of the Division of those Books into Titles, Chapters, Sections and Verses, 119   

C.  
CAius, to whom the third Epistle of Saint John is directed, 77  
Canon, Of the Canon of the Books of the New Testament, how drawn up, 16. Of the different Classes or Orders of the caconical and Apocryphal Books of the New Testament. 17. What Books were comprised in the Ancient Canons of the Books of the New Testament. ibid. How the Church came to admit those Books into the Canon which were doubted of at first. 18. What Qualifications are requisite in order to render a Book caconical. 131  
Canons of the Apostles. The Opinions of Authors about them, 144. That they are not the Apostles, 144 tho' Ancient, 145. Nine other Canons attributed to the Apostles, which are spurious, 148  
Caryophila, Matthew, His Collection of the various Lections of the Greek Text of the New Testament, 102  
Castalio, Sebastian: His Version of the New Testament, 117  
catholic Epistles, why so called, 69. why likewise styled caconical. ibid. The number of them. ibid. Of the Preface to these Epistles. ibid. Of the Order of these Epistles. ibid. The subject matter of them. 70  
Chapters, the Division of the New Testament into Chapters, 119  
Saint Clemens Romanus; the spurious Author of the History of Saint Clement, 150  
Colossians; the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians when written, 61. The subject matter of that Epistle. ibid.  
Constitutions of the Apostles; That they were not composed by the Apostles, but are supposititious, 148  
Coptic: Versions of the New Testament into that Language, 118  
Corinthians, of the two Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 57. The first from whence and when written, 57. The occasion of that Epistle. 58. The subject matter of it. ibid. Whether there was any other Epistle written before by Saint Paul to the Corinthians, ibid. Of the second Epistle to the Corinthians when written, 58. The subject matter of that Epistle, ibid.  
Creed of the Apostles. The several Opinions about it. 135. Why so called. 136. In what Sense it may be said to be the Apostles Creed, 142. The differences of four Ancient Creeds represented in a Table, 143   

D.  
DIonysius of Alexandria: His Opinion concerning the Apocalypse or Revelation, 82  
Division of the New Testament into Titles, Chapters and Verses, when and by whom made, 119, &c.  
Dorothaeus, the false Dorothaeus, 171   

E.  
elect. A Christian Lady to whom St. John directs his second Epistle, 77  
Egyptians, what the Ancients have said concerning the Gospel according to the Egyptians, 123  
Enoch, the Book of Enoch cited in Saint Jude's Epistle, 80, 81  
Ephesians, St. Paul's Epistle to them, when and whence written, and upon what occasion. 59, 60. entitled by some the Epistle to the Laodiceans. 60. The subject matter of that Epistle, ibid.  
Erasmus, What he did in collating the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament. 102. His Latin Version of the New Testament, 116  
ethiopic, Versions of the New Testament into that Language, 118  
Eve, of the Gospel of Eve forged by the gnostics, 126  
Eusebius, The first Author of the Sections of the Gospels, 119. Not altogether exact in his Citations of Josephus, 167   

F.  
LE Fevre de la Boderie, of his Editions of the Bible in the Oriental Languages, 118  
Le Fevre d'Estaples, James, of his Version of the Epistles of St. Paul, 116   

G.  
GAlatians, St. Paul's Epistle to them, when and from whence written, and upon what occasion. 59. The subject matter of that Epistle, ibid.  
Genealogy of Jesus Christ: regulated in the Gospel of St. Luke, according to the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Cambridge Manuscript, 47  
Gospel. The meaning of it, 21. Why 'tis said the Gospel according to, and not the Gospel of such or such an one, 22. That the Church never admitted above four caconical Gospels, 24. Who the Persons are that undertook to writ it, of whom mention is made by St. Luke. 22, 23. Of the Ancient Gospels, 22. Mysteries and Allegories about the Number of the four Evangelists, 24. That the number of the Evangelists serves to demonstrate the Truth of the Gospel. ibid. The Symbols of the four Evangelists. 25. Why of the four Evangelists two of them were Apostles and Eye-Witnesses of the matters of Fact, and two others the Disciples of the Apostles, 25. Of the seeming Contrarieties between the Accounts of the Evangelists. ibid. Of the Order of the Gospels. 26. Of St. Matthew's Gospel, 26. And of the Gospel of the Nazarenes, 31, &c. Of St. Mark's Gospel, 40, &c. of Saint Luke's Gospel. 44. &c. Of St. John's Gospel. 48. &c. Of the Gospel according to the Egyptians, of St. James and Nieodemus. 123, 124. Of the false Gospels forged by heretics, 125, &c.  
Greek Manuscripts, and Greek Text, see Manuscripts and Text.  
Vulgar Greek. The Version of the New Testament into Vulgar Greek, 118   

H.  
HEbrews. The Epistle to the Hebrews; whether it be St. Paul's. 64. Proofs that it is His, 66. Why St. Paul did not set his Name before it. 64. The Opinions of the Ancients concerning this Epistle. 64, &c. To whom directed, 68. From whence and when written. ibid. The Design and subject matter of it. ibid. The Excellency of this Epistle, ibid.  
Hellenists, who they are, 114. Of the Hellenistical Language. ibid.  
Hystaspes. Of the Treatise that goes under his Name, 161   

J.  
JAmes the Brother of our Lord, not the same with St. James the Son of Zebedee. 70. surnamed the Lesser and the Just. ibid. Whose Son he was, and whether he be not the same with the Apostle Son of Alpheus, ibid. The Author of the catholic Epistle, ibid. To whom this Epistle was directed, 47. What it contains, ibid. Of his Style, ibid. By whom of the Ancients 'tis cited, ibid. Of the Proto-Evangelium of St. James, 126. A spurious Liturgy attributed to him, 134  
Jesus Christ. Of the Addition to the History of his Baptism in St. Matthew's Gospel. 34, 37. Of the History of our Saviour's Agony and the Angel that appeared to him in the Garden, related by St. Luke, Chap. 22, 47. Of the supposititious Letter of Jesus Christ to Agbarus King of Edessa. 121. Of the Letters of Lentulus and Pilate concerning Jesus Christ 162. Of the passage of Josephus concerning Jesus Christ. 164. Of the false Histories of the Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ forged by the Mareosians. 127. Of the Spurious Writings of Jesus Christ to Saint Peter concerning Miracles. 128. A Spurious Treatise concerning the High-Priesthood of Jesus Christ, 130  
Inspiration, of the Inspiration of the Apostles. 12. of the Inspiration of their Writings. ibid. How to know this Inspiration, 13  
Saint John the Evangelist. His Country and Kindred. 48. His Call. ibid. His Acts as recorded in the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. 48, 49. The Establishment of the Churches of Asia, by St. John. 50. His Martyrdom at Rome and Banishment to the Isle of Patmos. ibid. His Death. ibid. Some of his Actions related by the Ancients, ibid. Upon what occasion and motive, and at what time he wrote his Gospel, 50, 51. Of the style of his Gospel, 51. Of the conclusion of his Gospel, 52. Of his three caconical Epistles, 76. The first to whom directed, ibid. Its subject Matter, ibid. The two last called in Question, ibid. By whom found, ibid. That they are St. John's, ibid. The subject Matter of them, 77. By whom of the Ancients they are cited, 18. Of his Apocalypse, 82, &c. Of the Acts fathered upon him, 129  
Josephus, His Life, 169; his Works, ib. His Passage concerning Jesus Christ, 164. By whom cited, ibid. Arguments of the doubtfulness of that Passage, 164, 165. A Reply to those Arguments, 166. That Caius the Priest might have been the Author of it, ibid. The Passage of Josephus concerning St. John Baptist, ibid. The Difficulties which arise about that Passage, ibid. Cited by the Ancients, 167. An Interpolation made in the Greek Text of Josephus, ibid.  
Josephus Bengorion, A spurious Author, 170  
Juda, lo; of his Version of the New Testament, 117  
Judas Iscariot; the Gospel fathered upon him by the Gajanites, 126  
St. judas, surnamed Lebbeus or Thaddeus 80. Whether he were sent to Edessa or not, ibid. Of the time of his Death and the manner of his Martyrdom, ibid. Of his caconical Epistle, ibid. Who they were that doubted of it, and who owned it, 81: When written, ibid. Its subjuect Matter, ibid.  
Justus of Tiberias; the Works of this Author lost. 170.   

L.  
LAodiceans An Epistle to the Laodiceans attributed to St. Paul, 61. Whether any mention is made of it in the Epistle to the Colossians, ibid. Of the Spurious Epistle under that Title, ibid. Whether that which we have be the same with that cited by the Fathers, ibid.  
Lentulus. A Letter concerning Jesus Christ attributed to him, 162  
St. Linus. The Passion of St. Peter and St. Paul attributed falsely to him, 149  
St. Luke. His Country and Profession, 44. The Companion of St. Paul, ibid. Whether it be not of him and his Gospel that St. Paul makes mention, when he tells them that he sent to them a Brother, whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches, 45. Of his Preaching and Death, ibid. The design of St. Luke in the composing of his Gospel, 45. Where and when he composed it, 46. Of the Style of St. Luke, ibid. Of the subtractions and Additions made to his Gospel, 47. The Differences of the Cambridge Manuscript in the Gospel of St. Luke, ibid. When he composed the Acts of the Apostles, 53. Of the History of that Book, ibid. and of its Excellency. ibid.   

M.  
MAnuscripts, Greek of the new Testament. Of the three most Ancient Manuscripts of the New Testament, 103. The Vatican MS, ibid. The Manuscript of Thecla, ib. The Cambridge Manuscript, 104. The several Opinions of Authors about this last, 104, &c. Reflections and the particular judgement of the Author concerning that Manuscript, 106. Of other Manuscripts of the New Testament, ibid. The Origine of the Faults that have crept into the Greek Manuscripts. 107  
St. Mark: The Disciple and Interpreter of St. Peter, 40. Not the same with Mark surnamed John, the Companion and Kinsman of Barnabas, ibid. Of what Station he was, ibid. Whether he was one of the seventy two Disciples, ibid. Of his Life and Actions, 41. When he composed his Gospel, ibid. In what Language he Wrote it, 42. That he abridged St. Matthew's Gospel, ibid. Of the last Verses of his Gospel, 43. An Addition to his Gospel, ibid. A Liturgy falsely ascribed to him, 134. The Supposititious Author of St. Mark's Life, 150  
Virgin Mary, A Spurious Letter attributed to her, 123. Spurious Authors of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, 127. The Death and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, 130  
St. Matthew: His Life, 26. Whose Son he was, 27. Of the Place of his Preaching and Martyrdom, ibid. Of his Gospel. 28. when composed, ib. In what Language, ibid. Of the Face which the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew underwent, 20, &c. Of the Greek Version of that Gospel, 30. Additions to the Gospel of St. Matthew, 34. of the Copy of St. Matthew's Gospel carried by St. Bartholomew to the Indians, 32. Of another Copy that was in the Caesarean Library, ibid. Of the Copy that was found under the Empire of Zeno, ib. Of the Hebrew Versions of St. Matthew's Gospel, 36. The mass of the Ethiopians falsely attributed to him, 134  
St. mathias. Of the Spurious Gospel of St. mathias, 126. The Spurious Author of his Life, 150  
Mercurius Trismegistus: His History, 161. Of the Works which at present go under his Name. ibid.   

N.  
NIcodemus: A Spurious Gospel full of Fables attributed to him, 124  
Noriah: Of the Spurious Revelations of Seth and Noriah, 130   

O.  
ONesimus, the Slave of Philemon, converted by St. Paul, 64. Readmitted into the favour of his Master by the Mediation of St. Paul, ibid. Not the same with the Bishop of Ephesus of that Name, ibid.   

P.  
PAgninus, saints, of his Latin Version of the New Testament, 117  
St. Paul, Of his Name Saul, 53. When and upon what occasion he took upon him the Name of Paul, 55. His Country, 53. His Education, 54. His Conversion, ibid. His Travels, ibid, &c. His Death, 56. Of the time, occasion and subject Matter of his fourteen Epistles, 56, &c. Of the Style of St. Paul, 68. A judgement passed on the Treatise entitled the Rapture or Elevation of St. Paul, 129. Of the suposititious Revelation attributed to him, ibid.  
Perfection, Of the Gospel of Perfection forged by the gnostics, 126  
Persian, The Versions of the N. T. into the Persian Language, 118  
St. Peter, Of his caconical Epistles, 74. That the first was writ from Babylon and in what Year, ibid. To whom it was directed, ibid. The subject Matter of it, 74. Why the second was doubted of 75. That it is St. Peter's, ibid. To whom Directed, ibid. Of his Style, ibid. By whom of the Ancients cited, ibid. Of the Gospel of St. Peter, 125. Of the Preaching, Apocalypse and judgement of St. Peter, ibid. Of the Liturgy falsely attributed to him, 134  
Philemon, Who he was, 64. Of the Epistle Directed to him by St. Paul, ibid.  
St. Philip: Of the Gospel attributed to him by the gnostics, 126. Of his Supposititious Acts, 129  
Philipians; St. Pauls Epistle to them, 60. The subject Matter of that Epistle, ibid. When written, ibid.  
Philo the Jew; His Country, 168. His embassy to Rome, ibid. His Works, ibid, &c.  
Philo Biblius; His Translation of the History of the Phaenicians attributed to Sanchoniathon, 171  
Pilate; Of the Letter attributed to him, 162  
Prochorus; The Life of St. John falsely attributed to Prochorus, 149   

R.  
REvelation; Of the Revelation made by Jesus Christ, 1. Of its Excellencies, ibid. After what manner it was made, 2. How published by the Apostles, ibid, &c.  
Book of Revelations, That it is St. John's the Apostle, 82. The Opinions of the Ancients concerning the Apocalypse especially of Caius and Dionysius Alexandrinus, ibid. The Arguments of Dionysius Alexandrinus to prove that the Apocalypse is not St. John's refuted, 83, &c. Whether it was rejected by the Greek Churches, 84. When it was written, ibid. The subject Matter of the Book, ibid. Of the false Apocalypse or Revelations forged by heretics, 128, &c.  
Romans, the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, from whence and when written, 56. The subject Matter of that Epistle, 57   

S.  
SAnchoniathon; The History of the Phaenicians under his Name, 171  
Seneca, spurious Letters of Seneca to St. Paul, 163. Whether the Letters cited by the Ancient Fathers be different from those which we have, ibid  
Sibyls. From whence that Name is derived, 150. Several Opinions concerning the Number of the Sibyls, 151. The eight Books of Verses attributed to the Sibyls, spurious, 152. That however these were the Books which the Fathers cited, 153. When they were forged, 155. An Answer to those who maintain the genuineness of them, 156, &c. The Hypothesis of Vossius concerning the Sibyls refuted, 158. Their Oracles rejected by several of the Ancients, 159. How far they were owned by the Heathen, ibid  
St. Stephen; Spurious Revelations fathered upon him, 130  
Stephens, Robert; His Edition of the N. T. with various Readings, 102  
Syriac, Versions of the N. T. 118   

T.  
Testament; In what sense the Word Testament agrees in a peculiar manner with the New Covenant, 20. The Spurious Testament of the twelve patriarches, 171  
Text, Greek of the N. T. Of the Truth and Sincerity of the Greek Text, 97. The faults which may have crept into it, 107. The Corrections of that Text made by Origen, 98. The purity of the Greek Text according to St. Jerome, 99. How it has been since preserved in its purity, ibid. The Ancient Varieties of this Text, ibid. The several Collections that have been made of these Varieties Of the Manuscripts of the Gr. Text, 102. The Origine of the Varieties of this Text, 107. The Differences between the Greek Text and the Vulgar Latin, 109. Rules to discern which of the Readings of the Text ought to be followed, 111, &c.  
Thessalonians, St. Paul's Epistles to them, when written, upon what occasion, and the subject matter of them, 62, &c.  
St. Thomas, Of the Gospel attributed to him by the gnostics, 126 Of the spurious Acts fathered upon him, 129. Of the false Revelations attributed to him, 130  
Timothy. His Country and Kindred, 62 His Life, ibid. The Epistles written by St. Paul to him, 62, 63  
Titus, Who he was, and by whom converted, 63. Of St. Paul's Epistle to him, ibid  
Tradition, the necessity of Tradition to know the caconical Books of the N. Testament, 131, &c.  
Trinity, Of the passage concerning the Trinity in the first Epistle of St. John Chap. 5. Vers. 7. 77  
Truth, Of the Gospel of Truth forged by the Valentinians, 126   

V.  
Valla, Laurentius; The first who preached into and collated the Greek Manuscripts of the N. T. 116. The design which he had of making a new Latin Version of the N. T. ibid  
Peter Faxar marquis of Los-Velez. The Collection which he made of the Various Lections of several Greek Manuscripts, conformable to the Vulgar Latin, 103  
Versions of the N. T. The Ancient Latin Versions of the N. T. differing and faulty, 109. The Ancient Vulgar full of Errors, ibid. reformed by St. Jerome, 115. Whether St. Jerome reformed all the places of the Vulgar Version by the Greek Text, ibid. The Reformation made by St. Jerome disapproved of by some, but at last received, 100. Of the Varieties between the Greek Text and the Vulgar Latin, 110. New Latin Versions of the New Testament, 115. Oriental Versions of the New Testament, 117. Of the Versions into the Vulgar Languages, 118   

X.  
XImenes Cardinal; The Revisal of the N. T. in Greek from several Manuscripts made by his Orders, 102   

Z.  
ZAcariah, mentioned in the Gospel the Son of Jehoiada according to the Gospel of the nazarenes, 35  
Zoroaster, His History, 171. A Spurious Work attributed to him 171   
The End.