Critical Inquiries INTO THE Various Editions OF THE BIBLE: PRINTED In Divers PLACES and at several TIMES.  
Together with ANIMADVERSIONS UPON A Small Treatise OF Dr. ISAAC VOSSIUS; Concerning the ORACLES of the SIBYL'S. And an ANSWER to the OBJECTIONS of the late CRITICA SACRA.  
Written Originally in Latin, by Father Simon of the Oratory: Translated into English, by N. S.  
LONDON, Printed by Tho. Braddyll. MDCLXXXIV.   

Robert Denison TO THE Most Worthy and Learned J. H.  
THis little Gift, which, being not long since at Paris, I received from a most Eminent Divine of that City, I bequeath, most worthy Sir, to You, as knowing well how successfully for many Years you have bend your Studies to this sort of Learning.  
The ensuing Treatise was taken out of the Large Critical History of the Old Testament, Written Originally in the Latin Tongue; which Original the 
F. Simmon.  Author was lately thinking to have published himself. For the French Edition, which is common in every body's Hand, is only a Compendium of the Latin, that has not yet seen the Light; and was indeed designed for Persons accustomed to that Language, who as they are more Nice and Curious, so they are soon tired with what is long and tedious. Nevertheless I could wish that Work had been communicated entire to us, who are not so scrupulous and delicate; for we do not easily reject those Things that are good; but though it could not be obtained from that most laborious Author of the Critical Animadversions: Yet a Parisian Divine, both Doctor and Canon, who had then some thoughts of setting forth a Bible completely furnished, bestowed it in pure Friendship upon Us, whatever it be, which he assured me he received from the Author of the Critics, to be inserted among the rest of those Additions designed for the Bible, which he was then intending to publish: For, most worthy Sir, the Study of Critical Animadversion is not yet grown so cold among the Parisian Divines, but that in our Age, there are yet some most Learned Persons among them, who contemning the Trifles and Idle Subtleties of the Schools, handle that Art with singular Success, as being eminently skilled both in the Greek and Hebrew Languages. In the number of these is He, who willingly Communicated to me these Critical Inquiries, into the various fortune that has befallen the Bible, through the diversity of Times and Places. Perhaps most learned Sir, that Parisian Divine may seem to you to have fallen somewhat too severely upon our most Excellent Vossius. But if those Monsters of Opinions, which he lays to the Charge of our most Learned Vossius, be but attentively considered, you shall not find him to have exceeded the Laws of Moderation and Equity. But I need say no more to recommend to you, so Knowing and Judicious in this kind of Learning, the Reading of this little Treatise: For I remember how highly you valued, residing in Paris, the Wit, the Learning and Judgement of the Author of the Critica Sacra, though otherwise little known to you at that time, then by his Writings. And indeed such is the Genius, worthy Sir, with which you came into the World, that what is good you approve, what is right and true you applaud, even in Men who differ from us in their Religion and Forms of Worship. Therefore if there be any thing too sharply uttered in that same Author, or which may seem not to comply with the General Doctrine of the Protestants, you know him to be one of those who professes the Faith of the Romish Church. In the mean time accept this little Present, whatever it be, and believe that I am always ready to serve you in greater things.  
Oxford, the middle of April. 1683.   

The TRANSLATOR TO THE READER.  
Candid Reader.  
THE former Critic of Mr. Richard Simon, one of the Fathers of the Oratory, lately published, first in French, and then in English, having suffered the fate of all other Books (of this nature especially,) and undergone the Censures of the various Capacities of Readers; the Author hath since thought fit to take the work a second time in hand, and having revised, and abridged it, he put it into the Latin Tongue, from whence we have made this Version, intending (as I believe) that fewer of the ignorant, and injudicious part of his Countrymen should hereafter busy their heads about it: Adding to it an Appendix, by way of answer to certain objections raised against it, by the incomparably, and famously Learned Dr. Isaac Vossius in his late Tract, Entitled, De Sybillinis Oraculis. As for the few passages that in the former Edition were any way obnoxious to the cavils of some, they are here mostly omitted: so that there is very little to be found that is like to prove offensive to any sort of men or persuasion in Religion, if but moderately Ingenuous. This great and excellent Scholar is, (it must be confessed) one who lives in the Communion of the Roman Church, but it must be withal remembered, that so was the great Erasmus also, who nevertheless is highly valued by all sorts of sober Protestants, and equalled in a manner with the very prime, and best of their Authors, insomuch that his learned Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures were rendered into our own Tongue, and chained up to the Pillars of our Churches in the very heat of the Reformation. As to the Book itself, I shall not be so importune as to forestall either the judgements or satisfaction of its Readers, but only adventure in the general to say thus much; that as it savours neither of the Raveries of the Bigot, nor of the insolence of the Profane, so in it the learned Man and Scholar will find what will content him, and the common man, when he sees how many, and abstruse things must be first known before a man can arrive to a competent judgement of Scripture difficulties, will find great reason for modesty & humility, & not over pragmatically to oppose his own private spirit to the wisdom of his Directors. As for those to whom either the Name, or Profession of our Author may create an insuperable Prejudice, let them but peruse the learned Prolegomena of Bishop Walton, premised to his Poly-glot Bible, and they will find that that Learned, and Reverend Prelate was (I had almost said) exactly, but I may safely say upon the main of the same sentiments with our Author. For my own part I doubt not but that the Candour of his Spirit, the justness of his Judgement, and impartiality of his Censures, will unquestionably support his Reputation, with all the Ingenuous and Wise, and as for the rest, their very commendation would be a Calumny. Adieu.  
M. R.   

A COLLECTION OF THE CHAPTERS Contained in this TREATISE.  

Chap. 1. OF the Bibles in general, as well among the Jews, as Christians. pag. 1.  
Chap. 2. Of the Hebrew Manuscripts of the context of the Bible. pag. 6.  
Chap. 3. Several of the Manuscript Copies of the Bible's are examined: Their various readings are approved by the Testimony of the learned Jews. pag. 12.  
Chap. 4. Of the published Exemplars of the Hebrew Context, which are Masoretic. Of the Art of the Masorites. Of its Original, and what Opinion we are to have of it. pag. 22.  
Chap. 5. The parts of the Masora, in relation to the Manuscript Copies, are weighed, and illustrated. The true Original of the Masora. pag. 28.  
Chap. 6. Other parts of the Manuscripts, in reference to the Manuscript Bible, are examined. Their true Original, and the Masoretic Lection confirmed. pag. 35  
Chap. 7. Some things unprofitably, and superstitiously noted by the Masoreticks, are illustrated out of the Manuscript Copies of the Bibles. pag. 44.  
Chap. 8. Some Examples of different Writings, are produced from the Manuscripts, which vary from the Masoretic Versions. pag. 48.  
Chap. 9 Whether the Jews corrupted their Bibles of set purpose. The Opinion of the Father's concerning this matter examined. pag. 56.  
Chap. 10. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius, concerning the Hebrew Manuscripts, is examined, and refuted. pag. 71.  
Chap. 11. Of the Samaritan Bibles, their Targumim, or Paraphrases. pag. 81.  
Chap. 12. Of the Bibles of the Sadduces, and Karraeans. pag. 92.  
Chap. 13. Of the Targumim of the Jews, or the Translations of Sacred Scripture, and first of the Chaldee Paraphrases. pag. 98.  
Chap. 14. An Appendix of the other Translations of the Bible in use among the Jews. pag. 137.  
Chap. 15. Of the Translations of the Bible of greatest Authority with the Christians, and first of the Septuagint. pag. 140.  
Chap. 16. A more particular examination of the Greek Septuagint Translation. pag. 150.  
Chap. 17. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the seventy Interpreters, is examined. The Vindication of St. Jerom. pag. 157.  
Chap. 18. Of the rest of the Greek Translations of Sacred Scripture, and the Hexaples of Origen. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the disposition of the Hexaples, refuted, pag. 172.  
Chap. 19 Of the Ancient Versions of the Latin Church. pag. 186.  
Chap. 20. Concerning the Authority of the Ancient Versions of the Latin Church, and first of the Vulgar. In what sense it may be said to be Authentic. pag. 193.  
Chap. 21. Of the Translations of Scripture used by the Eastern Church: and first of the Arabic, Coptic, Aethiopic, Armenian, etc. pag. 201.  
Chap. 22. Of the later Versions of the Bible, and first of all, of Latin Versions, done by Catholic Divines. pag. 209.  
Chap. 23. Of the Latin Translation of the Bible, made by Protestants. pag. 215.  
Chap. 24. Of the Translations of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongues, and first of all of those made by Catholics. pag. 221.  
Chap. 25. Of the Bible, done into the Vulgar Tongue, by Heterodox Translators. pag. 226.  
Chap. 26. Of the Translations of the Bible, which were writ in the Vulgar Tongue, and their rise from the Geneva Schools. pag. 233.  
Chap. 27. Of the Polyglot Bibles. pag. 240.  
Animadversions upon a small Treatise of Dr. Isaac Vossius, concerning the Oracles of the Sibyls, and his answer to the objections in a late Treatise, Entitled, Critica Sacra. pag. 249    

CRITICAL INQUIRIES Into the Various EDITIONS of the BIBLES at several Places and Times.  

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

Paul's Epist. to the Romans.  But now to return to the Jews, with whom the Oracles of God were first entrusted, as the Apostle speaks it, the Holy Bible among them is called by several Names. For sometimes they call it Mickra, 
The names of the Scripture among the Jews.  or Reading; in which sense those words of Nehemiah are to be taken, where he says, c. 8. v. 8. And caused them to understand the Reading. For though it be true that Nehemiah in that place discourses particularly of the Levites reading the Law of Moses, yet afterwards that name was not unfitly attributed by the Jews to all the rest of the Books of Holy Scripture.  
Sometimes they denote the Scripture by these words G●esrim ve Arbang, or Twenty four; under which name they comprehend the number of the Books of Sacred Writ. To which St. Jerom seems to have alluded, where he says, Which are not of the Twenty four Ancient, 
Praelections upon Nehem. and Esdr.  have not equal Authority with Divine Writ. Now what is to be understood by the Twenty four Ancient, the same St. Jerom more manifestly declares in Prologue Galeat. Neither is there any thing to be more frequently found than this name of the Sacred Writings, which they generally affix to the beginning of their Manuscript Bibles; intimating thereby the whole Context of the Old Testament: Although Josephus, a notable Witness in this Argument, affirms the Sacred Books allowed by his Nation to be no more than Twenty Two. Which seems to have been so concluded, to the end the number of the Books might be the more readidily and steadfastly retained in the memory, by the numbers of the Letters of the Hebrew Alphabet, which are also twenty two. Nevertheless it is not a thing looked upon by the Jews as much material whether they reckon twenty four, or twenty two Books, only they divide them after another manner. This was well known to St. Jerom, who informs us, that they who numbered twenty four Books of Holy Writ, separated the Book of Ruth from the History of the Judges, and the Lamentations of Jeremy, from the Prophecy itself; which is not contradicted by the Jews in our time, who attribute these two Books to the number of the Sacred Writers, but not of the Prophets.  
But they who seemed to have had the choicest Opinion of the Bible, were the Sect of the Carraitans among the Jews, who gave it the name of a Prophecy. 
2 Epist. c. 1.19.  Under which name St. Peter seems to comprehend it: and indeed it may be thought to have been the Ancient and Genuine name of the Scripture, which was not understood by the more Modern Jews, who have invented many Subtleties concerning the Books which are inscribed Hanbiim, or the Prophets; and I admire to find that some Christians also listen to these acute Doctors. The Ancient Division likewise of the Sacred Writings into the Law, the Prophets and Cetuvim, Writings, or according to the Vulgar expression, Holy Writings, 
The Division of Scripture.  is a thing which is well known to all people. Which Division wonderfully tormented the Brains of the Jews, who have been very laboriously inquisitive about it, and what was easy before have strangely perplexed with their Niceties. Isaac Abravanel a most acute person, complains, that none of his Rabbis have come near the mark, unless one Ephodaeus. But as to what that Rabbi at large discourses concerning that matter, we thought fit to pass over in silence, as having more of wit than solidity. Taking therefore our leaves of these lighter Fancies, we may have some reason to believe that the name of the Prophets was given to the Books of Joshua, Judges, and other Historians, which were written before the Jews were carried out of their Country into Babylon, because at that time the Jews called them Prophets, who undertook to write the Annals of the Age wherein they lived. Thus in the Holy Writings of the Books of Samuel, frequent mention is made of Gad, Nathan, and other Prophets, because they carefully collected the public Transactions of their own Time, and then with no less diligence transcribed them into the public Register. Which is the meaning of Josephus, where he affirms, that it was not for every one among the Jews, to write the Public Annals, but only for the Prophets. This Theodoret more largely explains, 
L. 1. advers. Apo. Theod. in Praefat. in lib Reg. Id. 2 Reg.  where he boldly asserts, That there were several Prophets among the Jews, of which every one wrote the Story of their own Times, and that the greatest part of the Books by them written, are past recovery lost. And therefore he affirms it to be past all doubt, that the Books of the Kings were taken out of several Books of the Prophets. With Theodoret, Diodorus, Procopius, and others not a few, eminent for their Learning, agree. Which seems to be the True Reason, why the Books of Sacred Scripture, which were written after the death of Moses, before the Captivity were called by the name of the Prophets; but that after that time they were only known by the single name of Cetuvim, or Writings. Not that thereby they deprived them of the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost; for the Jews no less than the Christians, willingly admit their Divine Authority, but only content themselves with the single name of Cetuvim, or Writings, as we generally call the whole Scripture by the name of the Bible. To say truth, it is for men that have little to do, more accurately to inquire into these names, and to hunt these Mysteries, of which the Ancient Hebrew Writers never so much as thought.  
For this reason the Christians, who in the Infancy of the Church, borrowed the Books of the Old Testament out of the Synagogues of the Jewish Hellenists, neither separated the Book of Ruth from the Judges, nor the Lamentations from the Prophecy of Jeremiah, as the rest of the Jews do, who refer those little Treatises to the third Classis of Sacred Writings, which are called Cetuvim. Nor is it a little to be wondered at what cruel pains that most subtle Doctor Abravanel takes, where he very angrily inquires, for what reason it was, that the Book of Ruth was not joined to the History of the Judges, to which it seems to belong more especially, acknowledging Samuel to be the Author of both. But the Christians, according to the Example of the Hellenist Jews, have reduced the Books of Sacred Scripture into much better order, which seems to be the first order and disposition of the Holy Writings, which was allowed by the Ancient Jews, and approved by the public use of the Synagogues. Therefore the Jews commit a great folly, who as well in their Manuscripts, as in their Printed Copies, separate the Prophecy of Daniel from the body of the rest; as if the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which was present with Daniel, when he prophesied, were not the same in all, as that wherewith the other Prophets were inspired. The same absurdities they run into concerning David, whom they refuse to number in the List of the Prophets, though they confess him to have uttered many Prophecies. So true it is, that those Rabbis, who so highly value their Paternal Traditions, invented many things unknown to their Forefathers, and which it seems much more rational to take out of the Books of the Christians, than the Works, especially of the more Modern Jews. For the former imitated the Ancient Custom of the Synagogues, which does not seem to have descended entire to the Jews of later Ages. And therefore that Order of the Books of Sacred Scripture is to be retained, which is observed in the Greek and Latin Bibles of the Christians.  
Neither are we to listen to those, who following the Example of the Jewish Rabbis, pervert that Ancient Order in the Greek and Latin Copies of the Bible which they put forth. And yet I do not believe that Order to be so exactly necessary in smaller Editions, in regard that as to those things, neither the Jews agree among themselves, nor the Christians neither Cassiodorus divides his Work of Divine Readins into these three Heads; The Division of Scripture according to St. Jerom; The Division of Scripture according to St. Austin; The Division of Scripture according to the Septuagint. The Jews also, though most passionately devoted to their own Traditions, and wholly governed by the Talmudick Rabbis, observe, in the Disposal of the Books of Holy Writ, another Method than that which is approved by the Talmudists. Also the very Order of their Manuscript Copies varies in that particular.   

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

The Superstition of the Jews in writing their Service-Books.  'Tis a wonderful thing to see how ridiculously devout, and idly superstitious the Jews are in writing out the Copies which are for the use of the Synagogue. For in the first place, not content with the bare and naked Letter according as is to be seen in other Printed and Written Copies, they adorn the several Letters with little Coronets which they call Tagin. Neither are they ashamed to make God the Author of those flourishes, which they say, Moses learned of God in Mount Sinai. R. Moses Scem Tob in his Book, where after the manner of the Cabalists, he seeks for the Reason of the Letters of the Alphabet; tells ye many stories concerning those Coronets, complaining that they were known to few of the Jews. Thou shalt understand and hear, saith he, the Discourse which was drawn by our Ancestors of blessed memory, in the Treatise Hagiga, and shalt make Aleph, wherein are seven Coronets: There are seven also of the same nature in the Law; Beth, wherein are three Coronets, they are four in the Law; Gimel, which has four flourishes, three in the Law; Daleth, which has four flourishes, six in the Law. After the same manner does the same Rabbi run over all the rest of the Letters; he also has been so punctual to give us a Copy of the following Flourishes, with Instruction how to make them, and how often they are to be met with in the Books of Moses. He also observed their differences; some of these Flourishes being fixed close to the Letter; others set a small distance from the Letter, either over the Letter, or underneath it. But these were only the Dreams & Fancies of Jewish Brains, about which nevertheless those Rabbis trifle away their time very seriously. Thus Bal Masius makes Coronets for the Letters Zain and Heth, quite different from those which R. Scem Tob delineates from the Tradition of his Fathers. Farther, these Jewish Rabbis show an extreme Superstition and Diligence in the choice of their Parchment; for Paper they utterly reject as a new Invention. This Parchment must be very clean; nor can it be prepared by an Infidel or Ethnic, but by a Jew, and he neither an Apostate or a Heretic. Therefore the Samaritan Copies are altogether renounced by the Jews, as vile and impure. Moreover, they do not write as we do in folded Sheets, but in large Volumes, after the Custom of the Ancients, which they divide into Columes or Pages, observing as it were a Geometrical Proportion, and making use of a Ruler to draw the Lines straight; for they have the vanity to affirm, that Moses ordered that no Copy of the Law should be written without a Ruler; and they also pretend that Moses taught them what sort of Ink they should use. In writing careful in the first place, not to join their Letters close together; observing this proportion between the Letters and the Words, to leave the space of a Silk Thread between every Letter, and of a small Letter between every Word; that the Lines be distant one from another the measure of one Line, and every Line to hold thirty Letters. To these may be added the Distinctions of the Sections; of which some are larger, and some lesser: And then again some of these Sections are said to be close, others open. Those are called close, which are so enclosed on both sides with Letters, that the space of four Letters be only left, in open Sections the space of nine Letters. Besides these, there are also other larger Sections, which are also to be seen in the public Exemplars of their Bibles. But those Jewish Rabbis are mainly deceived, who believe that Moses was the Inventor of those Divisions or Sections, which are made in the Modern Copies. For those Distinctions were found out by the late sort of Critics, 
The Ancient Form of the Bibles.  especially those who call themselves Mosorethae; for that in the Ancient times there were no mark of Distinctions to be found either in the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin Copies: For that was the business of the Grammarians; and as Elias the Levite rightly observes, the whole Law was anciently Pasuck Echad, without any distinction of Letters or Words; which as the Learned know was also observed by the Grecian Critics, in reference to Homer's works. Neither do the words of Nehemiah contradict what is here said, 
Neh. 8.8.  And they read in the Book, in the Law of God distinctly, as if the distinction of Verses had been brought into the Context of the Law ever since the times of Esdras: Which Opinion the Talmudick Doctors seem to favour very much. 
T●l. Tract. Nedarim.  At least it could not be later than the Talmud, when the Talmudick Writers make mention of it; 
Baal Hatturim in compend. Talm. de lect. lib. legis.  and as R. Jacob, Ben Ascer Baal Hatturim testifies, It was the Custom of the Antient-Talmudick-Doctors, to interpret the Law in another Language, to the end the people might understand it, because the Language of the Law was Aramean. Now the Reader could not read above one Verse to the Interpreter; for he first read one Verse, than followed the Interpretation. Then he read another Verse▪ nor could the Interpreter proceed till the Reader was got to the end of a Verse; nor could the Reader read another Verse, till the Interpreter had made an end of his Interpretation. Whence it may be collected that the Exemplars of the Mosaic Law were distinguished into Verses before the Talmudists were in Being.  
But all these things might well enough be observed as well by the Reader, as by the Expositor, from the times of Esdras, without any note of Distinction between the Context of the Verses, which the Ancient Translations of the Bibles, which were published in Greek before St. Jerom lived, apparently demonstrate; and St. Jerom himself, who frequently distinguishes those Verses after another manner from that which is now made use of, in the Masoretic Editions generally published in these days. But this seems chiefly most worthy observation as to our present business, that there appears nothing at all of the Points of Vowels, which as it were, confine the Modern Reading of the Hebrew Context within certain bounds, nor in like manner, any thing of those Accents which are now in the room of Points, Titles, and other late invented strokes of the Pen. Then again, that there was formerly no division of Sections in the Manuscript Copies, the Samaritan Exemplars sufficiently testify, wherein such kind of Sections are marked after a distinct manner: Which had they been added to the Law by Moses himself, as the Jewish Rabbis falsely imagine, there would follow the greatest consent that could be, as to this matter, between the Jews and the Samaritans. Falsely therefore the Talmudists pronounce, that no Verse ought to be distinguished that was not distinguished by Moses. For if it were so, why do the Talmudists differ in this particular from the Masorethites, who are said to have put a hedge about the Law, Sig Le Torah? Was it impossible that the Jews, such resolute observers of their own Traditions, should not be able to retain the same Tradition received from Moses, and to preserve it entire in their several Copies? 
R. Moses.  Nor is there any other judgement to be made concerning the Divisions of the Sections, whenas the same Masorethites, as R. Moses attests, by reason of the difference of the Copies to which they trusted, could not agree among themselves; and Moses himself acknowledges, that he found a very great Confusion in all the Copies that came to his hands; insomuch that rejecting all the other Exemplars, he stuck only to one which was thought to have been corrected by R. Ascer, and followed it in every thing for the making out a Copy for his own use.  
As for the Time when these Marks of Sections, Commas, and other Distinctions first crept into the Context of the Bible, it will be needless to make any overcurious enquiry. For these things being only the Fancies of Critics, will obtain no greater Authority than what it can win from the consent and public practice of the Rabbis; for that according to the variation of Times, and succession of Ages, they were subject to various Alterations, as being things that depended merely upon the Judgements and Conceits of men. One of the great Critics among the Jews, Elias the Levite, that all these things had their birth in the School Rabbis of Tiberias, vulgarly called the Masorites, after the Decease of St. Jerom and the Talmudists: so that whatever was published afterward concerning the Antiquity of those Distinctions, were but the fancies and conceits of idle people, as if any other Opinion were to be conceived in this particular of the Holy Writings, than of the Greek and Latin Books. For it was not necessary that Books, because they are holy, should not be permitted to come into the World without their Points and Interpunctions: as if, for Example, the pointing of the Modern Latin Version, which the Holy See has approved by her consent, and has thought only fit to be retained in all the Latin Editions of the Bible, were necessarily to be derived from the Times of the Apostles. But we have said enough upon this Subject; now to the Copies in use among private persons.  
These also may be said to be of two sorts; of which some were written out by the Vulgar Jews, and some of the common people; others by men that were skilful in their Language, and for the use of those who were eminent in Authority; such as were those who took upon them the Title of Nassi, or Prince. The first being written in a lesser Character and Bulk, and not so carefully corrected as they ought to have been, are found to be full of Errors. And several such Copies as these are found in several Libraries of the Christians. But the latter being done with great labour and cost, and from Copies the most Ancient and best corrected, are far to be preferred before all others. They are written in large and most elegant Capital Letters, and which is a certain sign of a good Copy, none of those words appear to be omitted in these, which are added down in lesser Characters upon the Margin of the Leaf, as in the Books of the common Jews, which abound with those kind of faults. For they being deceived by the similitude of words and sentences following one another, set down the maimed and curtailed words of the Context, hardly minding what they writ.  
Moreover, it is of great consequence from whence, and from what hands these Manuscript Copies are taken. 
More corrected Bibles.  For the Spanish are much better corrected than the Germane, French, or Italian. For the Spanish Jews have been much more careful to correct their Copies, than any of the other Jews besides, that they are more curious in the neatness of Writing. Which was the reason that Elias the Levite, not a little practised in this sort of Study, after a recital of several Copies of Bibles, adds this concerning the Spanish Exemplars, The Book Aspamia, 
Elias. Leu. Siphre Lu 〈◊〉 Choth.  is a Book that contains all the Spanish Exemplars, for that they are much better corrected than others. R. David Kimchi also makes frequent mention of these Exemplars in his Works, and calls them Sepharim Madrigum, or Books well corrected. By which means the Spanish Jews have not a little polished their Language, in imitation of the Arabians, from whom they borrowed all the Grammar which they have, lend in all their study and industry to the correction of the Bible. The same Kimchi, who was also born in Spain, is much applauded by Aben Melech, for the great pains he took in searching after the choicest and best corrected Spanish Copies, Who, saith he, 
Aben Mel. in Michlol Jophi.  ever took so much care as he did, in searching after the best corrected Copies that were in Spain? Now, how those Copies are to be distinguished and known from others, is easily apprehended. For the Spanish Characters are foursquare, and of an extraordinary cut, like those in the Royal Bibles set forth by Plantin at Antwerp, and those other of Robert Stephens, which were certainly transcribed from some Spanish Copies. The Italian and French Characters are somewhat rounder. The Germane imitate the Gothick rudeness, and may be seen in the Hebrew Books, which were first Printed in Germany, and the Hebrew Bibles that were Printed at Munster. Those Copies are very frequent in Europe, which are written in a larger form, and bigger Letters, with the Masora in the Margin, 
Leusden Praefa●. in Bibl. Hebraic. Amstel. Octavo.  adorned with several Figures, and small Imagery. Some such Exemplar is highly extolled by John Leusden, Hebrew Professor at Vtrecht, from whence the Hebrew Bible in Octavo was lately Printed at Amsterdam. And he commends it chief for this, that it has a large Masora in the Margin, under the several shapes of Bears, Dogs and Bulls, and sundry other creatures: But indeed more fit to be exposed for Children to play with, for the sake of the Pictures. The Spanish Copies, which are of best repute, show the Masora barely and plainly written, neither are there any Lines therein that are drawn into the shapes of living creatures, as in the last mentioned. And therefore the plainer the Copies of the Hebrew Bibles appear so much the chaster from Errors, and more corrected thy are. For under these shapes of Beasts and Plants, the Writer concealed his own Errors and Imperfections, neither are they more accurate in the Text itself, than they are in the Masora.   

CHAP. III. Several of the Manuscript Copies of the Bible's are examined: Their various Readins are approved by the Testimony of the Learned Jews.  

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

The feigned Antiquities of some Copies. Lib. Juchasin, seu Fanul.  Among the Jews also there were some true and real Manuscripts of the Bible, which were not of that Antiquity to which they pretended. Such was that famous and highly reputed Copy of Hillel, concerning which there are these expressions in the Book Juchasin. In the year 584. there was a great Persecution in the Kingdom of Leon; at what time they brought away thence a Copy of the Books of Scripture, which Hillel had wrote out; by that they corrected all other Copies; I saw a part of it which was sold in Africa, many years after it seemed to have been written. R. D. Kimchi makes mention of this Exemplar, as well in his Grammatical Discourse, as in his Commentaries upon the Scripture; and in his time he affirms, that there was a Pentateuch drawn from that Copy, which was kept at Toledo. Also R. David Ganz, and several other Jews, applaud that Copy, as being a piece of great Antiquity and Exactness. And that same celebrated Name of Hillel, imposed upon persons of great knowledge in the Hebrew Language, and Sacred Criticism; 
R. David Ganz in Tjenach David, p. 56. Cun. l. 1. de Rep. Heb.  insomuch that Cunaeus calls Hillel's Copy a Book of Venerable Antiquity, which R. Hillel Chief Priest or Governor rather of the Jews, wrote with his own hand; who came from Babylon into Syria 60 years before the Birth of our Lord Christ. Schickardus also wonderfully extols the Antiquity and Exactness of that Copy, and brings Elias the Levite for his Witness; as if it had been the Opinion of that same Learned Jew, that Hillel returning from the Captivity of Babylon, had written that Copy with his own hand. Yet for all this, Elias the Levite was of a contrary Judgement in this particular, who had slain himself with his own Sword, had he pronounced that Judgement concerning Hillels Copy which Schickard would falsely make him guilty of. For in that Exemplar of Hillel, there are several Vowel Points, Accents, and other things, of which Elias makes the Rabbis of the School of Tiberias to be the Inventors, whom he believes to have lived after the Talmudists and St. Jerom. As vain and idle also are all those things which Buxtorf crowds into his Book concerning the Antiquity of Points, to prove that Hillel was Contemporary with Epiphanius, and before the Masorites of Tiberias. As little to the purpose also does the sharpwitted Capellus tease himself with sundry conjectures concerning Hillels Exemplar. But these men, through the want of Manuscripts, seem incapable to determine any thing concerning Hillel & his Bible; though, had they consulted the Books of only one David Kimchi, who is universally read, they might easily have apprehended, that Hillel was after the Rabbis of Tiberias. For that the chiefest differences of Hillels Copy from the rest lie in the variety of Point Vowels, Mapphick and Dagesh, and other niceties of the same nature, which no person conversant among the Monuments of the Ancients, will affirm to have been invented in the time of Epiphanius. And indeed both Cappellus and Buxtorf might have consulted the Comments of John Mercer, who sometimes also commends the Hillelian Exemplar.  
Nor would it be a difficult thing to produce many readings of the Hillelian Codex different from the Masoretic, collected out of five Manuscript Bibles, and those Spanish besides, and of the best repute: But in regard they are for the most part of little moment, I shall pass them over in silence. Only some few I shall select from the Book of Joshuah, placed in the Margin, of a very fair Spanish Copy, written about five hundred years since, though the Annotations, or rather Variations seem to be of a later date. Joshuah, chap. 6. in the Masoretic Copies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is written at large, 
Classicum, or the warlike noise of the Rams-horns.  in the Hellelian more contracted, the Vau being left out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. C. 10. of the same, the Hillelian Copy reads, v. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without a Schurec. In the same chapter for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with the Vowel Segol under He, it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a Camets' under Herald The rest are more trivial, excepting one place of the Book of Joshuah, C. 21. where in the Masoretic Copies two whole Verses are wanting, which that venerable Exemplar written for the use of Nassi, or the Prince, has supplied again. But in the Margin of the said Copy, these words are to be read, as being added by him who corrected that Exemplar in many places according to the Masoretic. Lo Matzinou Elau Hashenin Pasikim Be Hilleli. We cannot find those two Verses in the Hillelian; by which the Masoretic Lection is confirmed, though it seems to be faulty enough.  
We have some reason to suspect Hillel to be a Spaniard by Nation, and a famous Rector of some Academy, who reform the Masoretic Edition in sundry places according to the Ancient Copies. After his death his Copies, as being more corrected than the Vulgar, became to be high in esteem, especially among his Countrymen; and as Antiquity swells Molehills into Mountains after Death: Thus the Name of Hillel being become famous, was soon made use of to gull the more ignorant; afterwards also his Name seduced the more Learned Jews, less wary than they ought to have been. And why I should thus think, the very nature of the Hillelian Codex, which varies in very few things, and those very slight, from the Masoretic, which at that time was approved by the public Practice and Authority of all Schools; which seems to be confirmed from hence, for that then several of the Rabbis, especially in Spain, even after that tedious Labour which the Masorites undertook, scrupled not to write down in their own Books, the Variations of Scripture taken out of Ancient Copies. And hither ought we to refer the Animadversions of R. R. Judas, Ionas, Kimchi, and others, who have oft recourse to the Sepharim Midvikim, or corrected Copies; and hither also belongs that note frequent in the Margin, most especially of the Spanish Manuscripts, B' Sepher Achar, in the other Copy. But that Hillel was a Spaniard, is not only to be proved from hence, that his Biblick Copy was found in Spain, and first extolled by the Spanish Jews; but because I find several of the Spanish Lections quoted in the Spanish Exemplars, quite otherwise than in the Germane and others.  
In like manner we may affirm, that the Exemplars of the Bibles, which the Jews extol under the names of Ben Ascer, and Ben Narthali, were written out by such persons, who being Precedents of Public Academies, made it their business to reform Erroneous Copies. But in what time they lived, is a thing not well known to the Jews themselves, very little curious of their own Chronology. However common fame reports them to have lived about the year 1034. long after the Tyberian Masorites. 
R. Moses Tephil. c. 8.  And this was the Opinion of R. Gedalia, R. David Gans, and several others among the Christians. It cannot be unknown what R. Moses has written concerning Ben Ascer's Manuscript, which, as he asserts, was very well known in Egypt, by which the Hierosolymitan Jews corrected their own Books. That is the Examplar, saith he, which they all use, because Ben Ascer corrected it; labouring at it for many years, and correcting it many times quite through. For the Governors or Precedents of the Academies, formerly according to the Custom of the Jews, wrote out Copies, which afterwards were made use of by the Provinces, of which they were Chief Rulers and Princes; especially if they were in any esteem for being Learned; whence seems to have risen that variety of Readins which is found among the Manuscript Copies of several Provinces, and distinct Ages. Nor do the Rabbis themselves seem to deny it, who believe that the Western Jews followed R. Ascer; and the Oriental R. Naphtali in the Transcription of their Copies. Now, they call the Western Jews those that dwell in and about Jerusalem, and the Eastern Jews those that live in and about Babylon. The Hierosolymitan Codex, saith Elias the Levite, 
R. Elias Levita.  is that which Rabbi Ionas the Grammarian found, by the Testimony of R. David Kimchi, and perhaps may be that Exemplar which R. Ascer corrected, who lived a long time at Jerusalem.  
But the Lections, about which the Rabbis themselves are at variance, are very slight and trivial, as they are in the Hillelian: Nor will it be worth while to repeat them here, in regard there is a Catalogue of them annexed to the large Venetian, as also the Basil and English Bibles. Let it suffice to observe that the Catalogue of the same Varieties in Manuscript which are fixed at the end of some Manuscript Bibles, and to which they might have recourse, do not exactly agree with those that are Printed at London, Basil or Venice, For some, which in the Vulgar Editions claim Ben Ascer for their Author, belong to those Catalogues, which indeed own their publication to R. Naphtali. Such is that which is reckoned the sixth in number, and those which follow. Those Manuscript Catalogues also add some, and other Variations they omit, besides those already Printed. For where the Modern Lection makes use of the Accent Maccaph, the more recent Manuscripts make use of the Point Dagesh, or of some such thing. Nor could there be any other way to knit together the series of those slight niceties, because they are of little or no use. For should we observe all the Variances of this kind, which might be found in turning over those Manuscripts, with an intention to embody them in one heap; such a Collection would certainly swell into a large Volume. For I must needs say, they had leisure to spare, who looked after the Edition of the English Polyglottons, who have not only published those Lections every one in their order, as they found them in the Basil and Venetian Editions, but have also added the several places of Scripture, of which there was hither never any Index before. So that I wonder that men otherwise Learned, should have no better thought than to employ themselves about such trifles: But as to those differences of Readins, which before the Times of the Tiberian Rabbis commaculated the holy Text, and are of greater moment, should be so sluggishly careless: And, which is worse, having little knowledge of the Books of the Ancient Writers, but only accustomed to the Varieties in those Manuscripts of later date already mentioned; yet they affirm a wonderful agreement of the Hebrew Copies among themselves. Here might be added also those Varieties which are, Ben Magnarabei ou Madnachei, between the Eastern and Western Jews: But in regard they are already public, and very few that are of moment, that I may not seem to be an Amplifier of Scripture-Variances, I shall forbear to repeat them, especially they being published at the end of the Basil Bibles. However, from hence we may collect, that the Hebrew Exemplars do not so easily agree among themselves, that there should be no variance, as most of the Jews, and the Christians their Hebrew followers, would make us believe; whenas some of those Lections, though not so many, 
Various Lections among the Rabbins.  produce a different sense.  
Now let us come to the Testimonies of the Rabbis, which confirm the same Opinion concerning the Discrepancy of Scripture Copies. 
R. Jacob Haim Praef. in Master. Mag. Buxtorf. in Antior.  There are not wanting Examples of various Readins among the Talmudick Doctors, drawn from the published or Masoretic Transcriptions. Of which some are cited by R. Jacob Haim, which Buxtorf, a strenuous Champion for the Masoretic Exemplar, though unwillingly acknowledges; nor will he have to be other than a very few, and those of no great weight, not contradictory to the truth of Sense; and yet they spend the greatest part of their time in writing out the words either fully, or defectively, as they term it. However, among those few which R. Jacob Haim brings by way of Example, it may be plainly demonstrated, that there are some which altar the sense of Scripture. But I may say, that we should in vain go about to find out those various Lections in the Talmudick Work now extant, which formerly might more easily be gathered from it. For that for many Ages together, the Jews have made it their business to reform all their Bibles, both Printed and Manuscript, by the Masoreticks, as in the Reading those Books I have often observed. However, care must be that you do not mistake that form of speech frequently made use of in the Talmud, Read not so, but so, for a various Lection. For it is a kind of Allegorical sport, very familiar with those Rabbis, who reserving to themselves the substance, as I may so say of the word, have childishly invented several ways of Reading one and the same word. If any one has so much leisure to animadvert upon those places of Scripture, which are extant in the Talmudick Work, there is no necessity for him to turn over those immense Volumes, so inaccessible to many men; for we have a Table which is entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherein all the places of Scripture which are extolled in the Talmud, are digested in their order, with the place and the page where they may be found in the Talmud. But what profit or advantage a man shall reap from such a tedious piece of labour, I cannot apprehend, unless we could have recourse to the most Ancient Copies of the Talmud, which have escaped the impure hands of the Jewish Criticasters'.  
Far more Varieties of this nature are found in the Books of the more Modern Jews, although they pretend themselves most stout Asserters of the Masoretic Reading. Thus R. David Kimchi, does not so devoutly adhere to the Masoretic Copies, but that he sometimes forsakes them; and therefore upon those words of Ezekiel the Prophet Le Mickdash Megnat, he makes this observation, 
R. Kimchi Comment. in Ezek. 11.  the word Mickdash is a word marked with a Pathack underneath the Daleth: Neither is Megnat a Noun Adjective, but a Substantive, as I have found in some corrected Copies; in others I have met with Camots, and so it may be an Adjective. Where we read in our Modern Copies the Earth was filled with blood Damim, Kimchi reads it in his Copy Chamas, or Violence; yet he observes the other Lection to be extant in some other Versions. Concerning the word Elgavis, in the 12th chap. of the same Ezekiel, he thus discourses; The stones Elgavis, are stones like hailstones; for in some corrected Editions the word El and Gavis are divided, in others it is all one. But I make too long a stay upon these things, when there is nothing more frequent in that Rabbis Dictionary, and his Comment upon the Scripture, than such kind of Expressions, in the corrected Book; in some corrected Books, and the like. For, more frequent are those which you meet with in the Commentaries of R. Aben Melech, who acknowledges that he compiled his Treatise out of the Works R. R. Judas, Ionas Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and other Grammarians. He in the 24th chapter of the same Prophet Ezekiel upon the word Harkach, which in the Masoretic Editions is read with the Vowel Pathack under the Letter He; Harkach is the Infinitive or Imperative of the Conjugation Hiphil. R. Ionas writes that he found the same word in the Hierosolymitan Copy noted with a Camets' under the Letter He; 
Aben Mlech ad cap. 24. Ezek. v. 10.  and so it will be the Infinitive of the Conjugation Hophal. He also writes, that he met with the same word in the Babylonick Copy, noted with a Pathack, and R. D. Kimchi testifies that he found it so transcribed in the corrected Copies.  
From this variety of Reading may those words of Isaiah be illustrated, Hashmen Leb Hagnam Hazzeh, which the LXX. Interpreters have translated one way, St. Jerom another. For they reading the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Camets' under the Letter He, read and translated the words thus, 
Isa. c. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The heart of this people was hardened. Whom the Writers of the New Testament have imitated. But St. Jerom, as being addicted to the Reading of the Jews in his Time, translates the same words thus, Blind the heart of this people; 
Hier. ad c. 6. Isa.  and with much anxiety demands why St. Paul in the New Testament spoke not according to the Hebrew, which he knew to be true, but according to the Septuagint. Wherein he shows himself a more tenacious observer of the Reading which he had been taught by his Masters. For the various Interpretations of that place might have been easily reconciled, and in the same manner as Kimchi and other Rabbis have referred the various Interpretations of the word Harkach to the difference of Reading. For the LXX Interpreters read the word Hoshman in Hophal, whereas St. Jerom read it Hashmen in the Imperative of the Conjugation Hiphil.  
I might here add several other passages out of the Works of the Eben Esra, surnamed by the Jews, the Wise; who as he was a very skilful Critic, so would he not altogether depend upon the Copies and Readins of the Masorites; but he rather minds the sense, than the Letters of his Copy. For which reason, to omit all others, he believes that the Letters Aleph, Vau, Jod, which are vulgarly called the Mothers of Reading, were added or neglected by the Transcribers at their own pleasures. 
Aben Esr. Praefat. Comment. in teg.  Nevertheless it is a wonder to see how carefully those Letters were observed by the Tiberian Doctors; that is to say, how often they were, how often they were not to be made use of. But that most Learned Rabbi did not deem himself so religiously bound to follow the Decrees of the Masorites and their Exemplars, that he thought it a crime to departed from them. Therefore at the end of his Book Jesed Mora he thus writes; 
Id. in lib. Jesed Mora.  There is no necessity at all to observe, that those Letters Jod, He, Vaughan, Aleph, being changed one into another, are sometimes added, sometimes left out, etc. Wherefore in his Writings he does not so much regard the manner, as the reason of the Transcription. Thus in his Commentary upon Psal. 5. he believes the word Nasah written with a Samech and He, 
Id. in Psa. 5.  to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nasa, written with a Sin and an Aleph. It was not from the purpose, saith he, that He should be the same with Aleph, and Samech the same with Sin. In like manner, expounding the 2d Chapter of Joel, after he has observed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceeds from the Root Peer, he presently tells ye, that R. Japhet derived the same word from another Root. As if the Letter Aleph were in the number of those Letters that are superfluous, as the Masorites term them, and unprofitable, as if the word were to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without an Aleph, and were Lashon Shachoth, or the signification of shining Blackness. In which sense this word is taken by most of the Interpreters; and this Reading is confirmed by Judaeus, who compiled the Masoreth, with this Marginal Note added to the Hebrew Text; This word is of the number of those which are written with an Aleph in the middle that is never expressed.  
Lastly, There seem not to have been wanting among the Jews certain Critics, who have employed all their time in noting the Readins of the various Copies. Of whom the principal are Rabbi Menahem de Lonzano in a Treatise entitled Schethe Jadoth, and the Author of a certain other Treatise entitled Minchath Cohen. He divides his whole work into two parts; and every part or hand contains five fingers, of which the first illustrates all the various Lections which he could find in the several Manuscripts of the Mosaical Law, by the help of ten written Copies; which he thinks to have been written within this five or six hundred years; and he compares them with the second Edition of Bomberg in Folio, which is the most accurate of all; he also strictly examines the Words, the Letters, Points and Accents of this Edition. But all this indefatigable labour and diligence of R. Menahem, tends no farther than to demonstrate, that the various Readins of Scripture, which are found in the several Copies of the Bibles, aught to be tried by the Masora, as the most certain Rule of Reason and Writing. Of the same Opinion is the Author of the Little Treatise called Minchath Cohen, who there most acutely discourses of what words are to be written fully, and which defectively: And studies to reduce several Lections to their natural exactness by the help of the Masora, and the corrected Books. Of necessity therefore those Masoretic Copies are to be examined, whose sincerity is so highly applauded by the Jews; whether they are so pure and correct, that it may be thought a point of Faith to swerve from them.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Published Exemplars of the Hebrew Context which are Masoretic. Of the Art of the Masorites. Of its Original, and what Opinion we are to have of it.  

Of the Modern Copies of the Bible.  IN the latter times the Exemplars of the Biblick Contest are no other, than what are vulgarly called Masoretic. For the Jews for many Ages together have acknowledged no other, and from them they came into the hands of the Christians. Whence arose that general Agreement between so many Copies of several Places and Times; excepting those few and trivial Niceties, which are rather the slips of negligent Transcribers, than various Lections. For how could it otherwise be, whenas the Jews, who look upon the Masora to be as it were descended from Heaven, scruple not to make that their Rule for the Reformation of all Bibles, rasing out of all other Manuscript Copies, Letters, Words, and whole Sentences, to make them conformable to the Masora? And this is easy to be observed by those that run over all the Manuscript Copies that have been written for these four or five hundred years last passed; and hence it is that there is such a wonderful concurrence among the Printed Bibles. To which, while not only the Jews, but also the most Learned among the Jews, do not give a sufficient respect, admiring overmuch the Exactness of the Hebrew Copy, they show themselves the Promoters of the latter, with a more than needful Zeal. Therefore Arias Montanus boldly affirms, that the Hebrew Context has been preserved with so much care by the help of the Masora, that it never could be discerned by the most diligent and piercing Wit or Judgement to have admitted the least variance in several Exemplars. In like manner. Buxtorf, a person that had very much, and long turmoiled in these studies, extols the Masora even to excess in these words, as if it had been sent from Heaven. Herein as far as the East and West extend, the Word of God is to be read in one Language, and after one manner. Here is to be seen a general Consent of all the Books that are in Asia, Africa, or Europe, without any variance. 〈◊〉 never happened that we find such a felicity has befallen any Books either of the Chaldeans, Greeks, Romans, or any other People.  
However, this egregious Applauder of the Masorites speaks rather out of a preconceived Opinion of the Jews, than according to the verity of the Thing. He has seemed to translate into his Commentary upon the Masoreth, all the Fables of those his Masters, to whom he wholly dedicated himself. And by that means he has drawn in most of the Protestant Divines, especially the Northern, to his own, or rather the Jews Opinion of the Exactness of the Hebrew Context, being as it were overwhelmed under the Testimonies of the Rabbins. They who have been conversant among the Monuments of the Ancients, especially in the Commentaries of St. Jerom, and are therefore better experienced in Critic Learning, think far otherwise of that Work: Nor do they presently swallow those things for Truth, with which the Jews, half asleep, are illiterately contented. Rather Elias the Levite is to be listened to in this particular, who alone among the Jews, applied himself to the study of the Masora, then to the Rout of the Jews, who were altogether ignorant of it. That most Learned Rabbi, being requested in a Letter by Munster, 
Elias Levit. in Epist. ad Sebast. Munster.  to tell him what sort of persons the Masorites were, especially those of Tyberias, thus answered in the Jewish Language: R. Ionas writes, that the Jews of Tyberias were well versed in the holy Language. R. Aben Ezra also writes, that from them the Authors of the Masora, pointing, and accenting, took their Original, contrary to the common Sentiments of our Fathers of blessed memory, who affirm that Ezra the Scribe was the first that ordered and appointed those Reformations. Thus what Elias reports concerning the Learning and Skill of the Jews of Tyberias in the Hebrew Language, agrees with what has been written by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerom upon the same Subject. He testifies that he sent for an Hebrew Master from the School at Tyberias, who assisted him in translating the Chronicles out of the Hebrew into Latin. Toward the end of the fifth Action of the 2d Council of Nice, mention is made of a certain Jew of Tyberias, who in the Reign of Leo Isauricus, was the Author of the Decree against the Images of the Christians. Whence it is apparent, that the Jewish School at Tyberias, to whom the Masoretic Work, or the Emendation of the Biblick Exemplar now in use among the Jews and Christians is attributed, was the most famous in the time of our Forefathers, and was in great Authority, especially among the Jews. Whence it came to pass, that their Critical Animadversions upon several Exemplars of the Bible's then publicly dispersed, were the more readily received by the rest of the Jewish Nation.  
They are Trifles therefore, and the Delirium's of the Feverish Jews, which the most of them, and by their seducement many of the Christians vainly chatter concerning the Original and Antiquity of their Masora; as if Moses himself had been partly the Author of it, and partly Esdras, with the Senators of the Sanedrim. For the thing itself demonstrates that the Masora was invented long after the LXX Interpreters, and St. Jerom, who made use of Rabbis of Tyberias, but never makes mention of the Masora. There were indeed among the Jews, as among other all other People, persons addicted to Criticism, who had reformed their Language, and corrected their Works, by the help of Critical Learning, and the assistance of Manuscript Copies. And the Variations of Scripture which those Critics observe, and which they place in the Margin of the Hebrew Context, manifestly prove that several Exemplars of Manuscript Bibles were by them reviewed and corrected. But what Divinity or Inspiration could be asserted from hence? What was not performed with much more success in the Greek and Latin Copies? But the Jews, who were born rather to Superstition than Religion, being altogether ignorant of the Critical Science, which was afterwards brought to a greater perfection by the Greeks and Latins, feigned a thousand monstrous Opinions, which some of the Christians afterwards too greedily embraced. Elias the Levite, who had frequented the company of Learned Men at Rome, Venice, and other parts of the World, neglecting the Traditions of his Fathers, rightly observes that there is no other Judgement to be given of the Jewish Bibles, than of the Greek and Latin; and for Adherers to his Opinion, among the Christians, he had all those who had any knowledge of the Greek, Latin, or Critical Learning. Yet I think the Treatises of Cappellus, and John Morinus, are to be cautiously read, who showing themselves somewhat so eagerly incensed against the Jews and Hebraists in the heat of Disputation, do not rightly apprehend what is profitable, and what of no use in the Masora; as if it were therefore wholly to be rejected, because it was first communicated to us by the Jews. Rather it ought to be received by us for that very reason, as being derived to us from persons skilful in the Language, and versed in the Manuscripts. For from whence could the Tradition of the Hebrew Pronunciation be better communicated to us, than from those who had retained it in their Synagogues and Schools. However, we are not to adhere to the Decrees of that Tradition, as being humane, and subject to Error; though the several Emendations may be admitted, as being the Labour of the Doctors of a most famous Academy.  
The number of the Masorites is hardly to be reckoned up, as Elias the Levite affirms; and to use his own words, Hundreds and Thousands there were succeeding one another for many years; nor is the time certain when they began, nor when they completed their work; that is, the prefixed time. For he constantly affirms, that it was since the Talmud, and he refers the beginning of it to the year of Christ 506. So that I believe it might have its first beginning about the year 600. at what time the Arabians took it into their hands, to whom the Jews are beholding for all that they have of Grammar and Critics. They have a Masora belonging to their Alcoran, not much unlike that of the Jews: The Letters, Words and Verses of that Book being numbered, which they seem to have borrowed from the Greek and Latin Bibles, which they translated into their own Language. At first I am apt to think that the Masora was transcribed apart into particular Books, by the Doctors of Tyberias, for exercise of their Scholars within the walls of the School. For that they durst not presume to introduce their Vowel Points, and other marks of Masoretic Ingenuity into the Hebrew Text, is something probable from hence, because the pointed Vowels, Accents, and the like, were not in our time to be seen in the Manuscripts which were publicly used in the Synagogues. And the most approved Copies of Manuscripts for the use of private persons, wanted those Innovations, as I have observed by their reading; but were added afterwards by the Jewish Criticasters'. But then the Transcribers, understanding the benefit of Points and Accents for the reading and distinction of the Hebrew Context, made no scruple to insert those New Additions. Thus by degrees from those Masoretic Notes, which nevertheless were grown to an immense bulk, the more choice, or at least those which were contained in the distinct Copies of the Masora, were collected for the benefit of those Copies which they had daily occasion to transcribe, as may be seen in most of the Manuscript Copies of the Jewish Bibles; but chief in the Venetian Bibles of the second and third Edition, which being collected from sundry Books, were first published by R. Jacob Ben Hajim, who reduced the scattered parts of the Masora into the Form which now they observe. From whence it was introduced, and added to those Bibles which Buxtorf procured to be Printed at Basil.  
Now from what has been said, who can believe that the Jews could ever be able, by the help of their Masora, to preserve their Bibles from all manner of Errors, when those Critics, who lent their healing hands to the Copies of their Times, were neither Prophets, nor inspired by the Holy Ghost, but only men, who being the Governors of a most famous Academy, reviewed the whole Context of Sacred Scripture, and sought as far as in them lay, to bring it to a compliance with its most Ancient and uncorrupted Exemplars, as the Doctors of Louvain undertook St. Austin's Works. So that we may rightly compare the Masoretic Labour to the Toil of Lucas Brugensis, about the Latin Interpreter. For he, so soon as the Latin Edition by the command of Sixtus Quintus, and Clement the VIII. was compared with the most Ancient & best Esteemed Translations, and thereby refined from its Errors, Bibles should be afterwards Printed with their Errors. Nevertheless, no man of Judgement will say, that that same Latin Version is free from all mistake, when Baronius, Bellarmin, Lucas Brugensis, and others, some of whom assisted at this Correction, make no dispute that many Errors remain very necessary to be amended. Some of the Jewish Rabbis indeed there are, who highly commend the Diligence and Industry of the Masorites, for that with so much Labour and Industry they took an account of the Letters, Words, and Verses of the Hebrew Context, to prevent the future depravation of Holy Writ. But who can thence think it possible to be proved, that the Sacred Books were thereby restored to to their Ancient Form? True it is, that the Doctors of Tyberias might number the Letters, Words and Verses of the Books extant in their Time: However, those Books were only Copies, and not Originals. I will also grant that they were most perfect in the Hebrew Language, and that they made use of the most corrected Exemplars of the Bible, which by diligent search they could find out for the carrying on their Critical Design: But yet their Materials were still deficient, when they could have no recourse either to the Greek Interpreters, nor to the Latin Version, who in their Translations made use of Copies differing from the Masoretic. Then again Tradition combats for the friends of the Masorites, which the signification of the word insinuates, as if by the assistance of Points and other Characters, they had rendered the Reading and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Context received into use for many Ages certain and indubitable. The Sect of the Carraeans also became strenuous Champions for the Masora of the Jews, and the Exemplars set forth, who though they reject the most of the Jewish Traditions as old women's Fables, yet admit of the Biblick Context in the same manner as it was reformed by the Masorites of Tyberias, together with the Titles, Vowels, Accents, and other marks of the Masorites.  
But though these, and many other Arguments of the same nature may be brought in defence of the Masora, and the Modern Context of the Bible, and to prove that the Copies reformed by the Doctors of Tyberias are no way to be despised, because the correction was performed by persons well skilled in the Language, who determined the manner of reading the Hebr. Context not according to their own pleasures, but the received Tradition; nevertheless, no man ought thence to collect, that all other Exemplars of the Bible are to be reformed and corrected after the Emendations of the Masorites, as most of the Jews would obstinately maintain. For the Greek Interpreters, and St. Jerom, had also their Masora, or Tradition, for the Reading and Pronunciation of the Hebrew Context, who nevertheless very frequently vary from the Reading of the Masorites. And which is worthy observation, the most Learned Rabbis of the Jews, R. Juda, Jona, Aben Esra, Kimchi, and others not a few, while they illustrate the Scripture with their Commentaries, are not so devoted to the Masoretic Lection, but that sometimes they correct it, and commend other Manuscripts which they call corrected, though they differ from the Masoreticks. Therefore as I do not think they are altogether to be favoured, who being offended with the Jews, detract from their Copies, so neither are they to be imitated, who dote upon the Masoretic Structure, and look upon it as a piece of Divinity. For those upholders of Jewish Superstition, show themselves unskilful in Criticism. Therefore the Modern Masoretic Lection of the Context of the Bible, is not altogether to be contemned, because it was not done by the Authority of men that were Prophets, and inspired with the Holy Ghost; for by that reason the Bibles of most of the Eastern Nations would be rejected, there being as much to be said against the Chaldee, Syriack, and Arabic Exemplars, as against the Hebrew. There is none of them that make use of Tittled Vowels, which confine the Pronunciation and Reading within certain bounds, which were all invented by the Critics; for that without their help the Reading not being ascertained, was subject to a humour & fancy. By this means the followers of that famous Impostor rendered the Reading of their Alcoran certain, which before was dubious and uncertain. And from these 'tis very probable that the Jewish Rabbis had their Points, and some other things which they introduced into the Hebrew Manuscripts, to the end they might be read with more ease and readiness.   

CHAP. V The Parts of the Masora in relation to the Manuscript Copies, are weighed and illustrated. The True Original of the Masora.  
THE great pains and labour of the Masoreticks consists in numbering up the Verses, Words and Letters of the Hebrew Context; for that by this means the former Variances being observed, the Reading might be preserved more certain and constant for the future, and the Holy Writings be free for the future from all alteration. 
Of the Masoretic Art.  That the Words and Verses were numbered by the Masorites, there is no question to be made. The greatest Dispute arises about the Letters, in regard that R. Jacob Ben Hajim, Elias the Levite, and Buxtorf, who have with all imaginable diligence perused the several parts of the Masora, deny that this part of it was ever made public: By whose Authority Morinus being swayed, affirms that that work was never undertaken by the Masorites; which seems the more probable, in regard the Enumeration of the Letters of the Hebrew Text which is already published, is very far from the Truth. But that there was an account taken of them by the Jews before the Talmud was published, may be proved by those Arguments, which are usually drawn from the Tractates Kidduschin, and the Scribes, where the letter Vau in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Gachon, the belly, Levit. 11.43. is said to be the middlemost letter of the Law. Nor do I believe that part of the Masoreth to have been neglected by the Masorites: For I observed it in turning over several Manuscript Bibles at the end of an Exemplar written about some four hundred years ago, where among many other things collected out of the Masora; there is the same account of the Letters, which I shall set down in the same manner and words, as it is there delivered, that the Critics may judge whether it be exact or no.  
The Sections of the Book of Genesis called Parshoth, are reckoned to be twelve; the other Sections called Sedarim 43. Verses 75 34. Vords 20713. Letters 78100. and these words are in the middle of the Book Gnal Charbekah Tihijeh. By thy Sword thou shalt live. 
Gen. 27.40.  The Parshoth of Exodus are numbered to be 11. the Sedarim 33. Verses 1209. Words 16513. Letters 63467. the middlemost words Elohim lo Tehallel, 
Exod. 22.28.  Thou shalt not revile the Gods. The Parshoth of Leviticus are 10. the Sedarim 25. the Verses 859. the Words 11902. the Letters 44989 the middlemost words Hannogeang Bibsar Hazab, 
Leviz 15.7.  He that touches the flesh of him that has a running Issue. In Numbers Parsheth 10. Sedarim 33. Verses 1388. Words 16707. Letters 62529. the middlemost words We Hajah Haisch Asher Ebchar, And the man whom I shall choose. Deuteronomy has Parshoths 10. Sedarim 30. Verses 9055. Words 16394. 
Numb. 17.5.  Letters 54892. The middlemost words We Gnasitha Gnal Pi Haddabar. And thou shalt do according to the Sentences. 
Deut. 19.10.  As for the rest of the Hebrew Context, there is no number of the words.  
But if we compare this Enumeration of the Letters of the Mosaical Law, with that which is set forth in the Venetian and Basil Bibles, you will find this to be very erroneous. For that allows to Genesis no more than 4395 Letters, whereas the former reckons up 78100. and therefore seems to be farthest from Truth. But why such an indefatigable diligence in numbering the Letters of the Hebrew Letters with the Masorites, should be called the hedge of the Law, by the benefit of which it is preserved entire and uncorrupted from Error or Mistake, I cannot well apprehend: Whenas they who were so anxiously laborious, numbered in other Letters than those of their own Books, which no wise man will look upon to be so free from faults, or to be compared with the Original. Then, as Aben Esra rightly observes, the Letters Aleph, He, Vaughan, and Jod, are frequently added, frequently omitted, according to the fancy of the Transcribers. Certainly no man that understands any thing of Critical Learning, will from thence only, because the Masora observes such a word sometimes filled up, sometimes defective, presently infer, that all other Biblick Exemplars are not of that value, because they vary in their Lections; but embracing both Lections as probable, will determine nothing certain in a thing of so much incertainty, as being taught by the Examples of the LXX Interpreters, Aquilas, Symmachus, Theodotion, and St. Jerom, who many times not only vary from the Masoreth, but from one another. And therefore the Jews, and the Idolisers of the Masorites, are miserably deceived, who believe that the Holy Writ was restored to its Ancient Form by a bare Enumeration of the Words and Letters made by the Doctors of Tyberias, and cry it up in the place of the Authentic Original. Than which there could be nothing more fabulously invented, especially after such a long succession of years, that the Hebrew Language has been as it were buried, and the Traditions of the dead almost entombed, at least most strangely interrupted. And therefore the more prudent Aben Esra rightly compares the Masoreticks that have so carefully enumerated the Letters and Words of the Hebrew Context to those who should number the Leaves and Pages of a Physick-Book, which would nothing contribute to the health of a sick Patient.  
As for the Distinction of the Verses which appears in the Masoretic Editions, I think the same sentence is to be pronounced, as concerning the numbering of Letters and Words; in regard that the Authors of this Enumeration have observed no other than the Rules of Criticism, in distinguishing the Verses after the manner of the Grammarians. But if we listen to the Talmudists, they cry, Every Verse which Moses does not distinguish, we never distinguish. But if that Tradition were received From Moses, wherefore do not the Talmudists agree in all things with the Masorists in this particular? Why also was not that Tradition of which Moses is feigned to be the Author, known likewise to those Jews, that lived in Time of the Greek Interpreters, and St. Jerom? For they also differ in many things from the Masorites. The whole Context of Sacred Writ was formerly in Ancient Times written in a continued series of words, as it had been one entire Verse, as Elias Levita well observes: As also were the Books of the Ancient Greeks and Latins; which may be collected from the Proem of Eustathius to his Commentaries. 
Eustath. in Iliad. Hom.  The Poem of the Iliads was and continued a well compacted body of words; which the Grammarians so continued by the command of Pisistratus King of Athens, and fitted as they pleased themselves. The chief of which was Aristarchus, and after him Zenodotus; But because it was prolix and intricate, and by that means irksome to the Reader, they divided it into several parts, which Sections they would not call the first, second and third Book, etc. as Quintus did in his continuation of Homer: But in regard the Composition was large enough for several Sections, they thought fit to divide them into Sections under the four and twenty Letters. And Illatius commends one Comatas, who distinguished and pointed the Sentences of Homer's Poem, 
Apud Leon. Allati animadvers. in Antiq. Hetrus.  which never had any subdistinctions before; as appears by the following Verses.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
Cernens Comatas hos Homericos Libros  
Jam putrientes nullibi & scriptis notis  
Punctis not atos Ordinans abscidit putredines  
Ex quo Periti non errantibus viis,  
Discant quod par est discere.  
In Ancient times also the Verses of the Poets were not separated one from another by any such notes of distinction, as we find in the Printed Editions: Nor can the Grammarians themselves rightly distinguish the Odes of Pindar. But why do I spend time? There's no reason why the Jewish Books in this particular should have better luck than the Greek Exemplars of the New Testament, which 'tis well known were but lately distinguished into Verses; as is not only to be seen in several of the Manuscript Copies, but also in many Editions that are Printed according to the Ancient Copies. True it is, that ever since the time of Ezra, the Verses of the Law were distinguished in Reading. But for all that the amanuensis never made any distinction in their Transcripts, as was afterwards done by the Critics of Tyberias; to whose Laws the Jews are no more obliged, than we to the Decrees of the Apostolic See, which after the Correction of the Latin Interpretation, decreed that no other Interpretation should be Printed for the future, unless it were examined by the Vatican Standard: Which Edict was for the procurement of Peace and Concord: And to this as much as is possible, they who gave the Roman Church her Name, will adhere in explaining the Latin Interpretation, if they be wise, observing the Points, and all the marks of distinction in that Edition. Nevertheless, that a clearer and more probable sense will rise from another manner of distinction, they do not scruple to prefer it before the Vulgar Distinction in their Commentaries. In which particular the Jews agree very well with the Catholic Divines, who do not depend so much upon the Masoretic Distinctions, as to make it a point of Conscience not to departed from them, when the received Distinctions will not yield a sense so proper and consentaneous to the Context. To which we may add the Infinite Variety of Manuscript Copies, which differ many times as to these matters as well from themselves, as from the Masoreticks.  

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

Another sort of Verses.  A third sort of Verses the Critics seem to acknowledge, which, the Doctors of Tyberias, the Authors of the Masora seem not altogether to be ignorant of. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Greeks borrowed from Military Discipline, does not only signify a Line, but a certain Order or Rank of Lines, and consequently of Verses. In which sense Hesychius composed a Tractate under this Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The distinction of the Twelve Prophets. To which the word Sita answers in the Masora; and from the same Fountain the word Sedarim or Orders seems to have proceeded; where it signifies the same with the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which distinctions and subdistinctions were invented, 
Cassio. de Di●in. L●●t.  that the breath being tired by a long Sentence, might recover itself by the means of allowed Pauses, as Cassiodorus rightly observes. Of the same nature were those distinctions, which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latins Capitula, or small heads differing from those which we now call Chapters. For these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, divided the whole Context of the Books into lesser Sections, and the Heads of these were placed at the front of the Book. This is to be seen in the New Greek Testament Printed at Venice, Anno 1538. and in the Greek Edition of the same, by Robert Stephanus, which was copied from the Manuscripts preserved in the most Christian King's Library. Had the Critics considered more seriously these things, and some other things, which I pass over in silence, while they were making their Animadversions upon the Original of the Masoretic Art, they would not have wasted so much time and labour, in refuting the Jewish Miracles, who talk of nothing but of Moses and Esdras.  
To this I will add something concerning the Notes which the Jews call Taamin, the Latins Accentus, or Accents, which serve in the room of Colons and Commas to distinguish the Hebrew Context; in the same manner as the Greeks make use of points and strokes. However, in this the Rabbis seem to have exceeded the Greeks and Latins, because they not only found out the marks of Accents for the distinction of Sentences, and their Members, but also invented other Accents for marks of continued speech, as if what was not distinguished was not continued. The Original of those Accents they take from Esdras himself: But how vainly, any man may judge by what has been already said concerning those other sorts of Distinctions. For indeed they have no other Authors but the Doctors of Tyberias, who in this particular acted the part of Grammarians. Neither are the Jews so strict in observing them, as to make it an Article of their Belief, that they are not to be departed from, especially where another Distinction produces a better sense. 
In Lib. Tsachuth.  Thus Aben Esra makes mention of a certain Learned Rabbi, by name Moses Coheu, who took little notice of those Masoretic marks in distinguishing the Sentences of the Biblick Context. And yet I have the same Opinion of these, 
De Divi●. Lect.  as Cassiodorus had of the Points that were added to the Edition of the Latin Interpreter by the Critics. These Points, saith he, are as it were certain Paths of the Senses, and Lights of Sentences. But they must of necessity dote as the Jews do, who look upon those Periods of the Hebrew Context, to be the Effects of Divinity, and thereby show themselves absolute strangers to Criticism. Nor do I wonder that the whole Nation of the Jews embraced those marks as well in transcribing their Copies, as in the Explanation of the Context; seeing all that profess the Faith of the Roman Church, so religiously adhere to the Vatican Edition of the Latin Interpretation with points and strokes, and never swerve from it, but when they play the Critics in their Commentaries, which that it was also a thing much practised by the Jewish Rabbis, their Comments upon the Scripture abundantly declare.   

CHAP. VI Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manuscript Bibles, are examined. Their True Original, and the Masoretic Lection confirmed.  
MOst of the Jewish Rabbis not unwillingly acknowledge that the Sacred Manuscripts of the Old Testament do not altogether retain that Form, 
The Ancient disagreement of the Heb. Bibles according to the Rabbis.  which the most Authentic and Original Copies represented; and they believe that this Alteration of their Bibles happened after they were carried into Captivity, at what time they had no Rabbis, to read to them the Mosaic Law, their Form of Worship being utterly abolished; and their Civil Affairs in that deplorable condition, that they had no time to look after their Books. Therefore D. Kimehi frequently asserts in his Works, 
R. D. Kim.  That they perished in the Babylonish Captivity, and they being destroyed, nothing but confusion followed; with many other expressions of the same nature. 
R. Ephod.  R. Ephodaeus is also of the same Opinion, who writes, That in those Seventy years of the Babylonish Captivity, corruption and confusion began to overwhelm the Sacred Writings: For that, as Kimchi says, the Doctors of the Law were dead. From thence therefore, that before the time of Esdras, the Sacred Writings varied in several places, they believe it may be made out, that Esdras, who examined those Books, left several Lections which he met with in the Copies of his Time unmedled withal in the Books which he himself examined; and for this reason, they give great credit to the differing Scriptures, which were marked by the Critics of Tyberias, as if they proceeded from Esdras, who was inspired with the Holy Ghost; than which there is nothing more idle or remote from Truth. 
Aben Mel. in li●. 1. Parali●.  This Aben Melech observes upon the words Diphath and Rodanim. Diphath in the Book of Chronicles is written with a Daleth, and in the Book of Genesis with a Resch. Rodanim is written with a Resch, and in Genesis with a double Daleth, because Resch and Daleth are alike in their form; and they who ever viewed the Books of Genealogies written in the Ancient Times, some write Daleth, others Resch. Therefore in the Book of Genesis the word was written one way, in the Chronicles after another, to show that the word was the same whether written with a Daleth or a Resch. Thus Jod and Vaughan are written promiscuously, because they are alike in their figure. And the same is to be said for the mute Letters, Aleph and He in the end of a word, as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a He in the end, which is the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Aleph in the end. For Aleph and He are agreed to be both Aspirates, and every one makes use of them at his pleasure.  
Thus has Aben Melech written almost word for word, from the Commentaries of R. D. Kimchi.  
The same Aben Melech produces many other Examples of several other varieties of the same nature, which he testifies to have collected out of the Tractates of R. Judas, Ionas, Aben Esra, Kimchi, etc. Thus he observes Alin and Alevan to be read in Scripture promiscuously, with a Jod sometimes, and sometimes with a Vau. Hemeran and Hemdan with Resch or with Daleth. Jaakan and Vaakan with Jod or with Vaughan; with many others, which I omit for brevity's sake. They never minded, saith he, the change of a Letter or two, and he observes it to have been frequently done. He also makes mention of the transposition of words, and upon those words in Chronicles, Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel, he makes this observation, Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel, she is Bathsceva the Daughter of Eliam, (2 Sam. 11.) which some read Barsceba, 
Aben Mel. ad c. 3. Chron.  others Bathsceba, because they are near in pronunciation: In the same manner Amiel and Eliam are the same, but that the Letters are transposed; which transposition of Letters is to be observed in the first place, there being several Examples to confirm it in the Hebrew Copies, of which the LXX Interpreters made use. R. Levi Ben Gersom makes the same observation upon the word Jabes. 
R. L. Ben Gersom.  I believe Jabes with an Ain to have been one of the Judges, and to have been that person, who in the 12th of the Judges is called Abetson with an Aleph: For Aleph and Ain are near in pronunciation, and often changed one into another. Don Joseph also the Spaniard, 
R. Joseph Comment. in Chron.  in his Exposition of the Book of Chronicles, enquiring why there appears so much difference in the Genealogies, between that Book and the Books of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and Kings, unfolds this question in these words; That Esdras seemed to have found those words or hard names in some Compendium, and so wrote them down as he found them. Then observing a vast difference of names and things, he presently adds, Neither aught that to be a wonder, for that in the Series of many Ages, great alterations happen both of names and things. But Esdras wrote down those Families in the same manner as he found them scattered in little Manuals, some out of one place, some out of another, and in words abbreviated. And therefore the Family which he mentions is described in many places without order and method.  
Lastly, The same Rabbi believes that the Jews had forgot their Genealogies, and that Esdras wrote what occurred to his memory, though it were written without order, 
R. Jos. ad l. 1. Chron. c. 9  and at several times.  
And therefore most of the Jewish Rabbis rather choose to accuse the Books which they believe Esdras made use of in digesting the Context of the Bible, than the oscitancy and carelessness of the Scribes that came after. In this indeed the Fathers of the Church agree with those Jews, that both ascribe to Esdras the Title of Restorer of the Sacred Context at that time in great confusion; only the Fathers believe that being inspired with a Prophetical Spirit, he reformed it from many faults. 
In Pr●fat. in Psal.  That most admirable Esdras, saith Theodoret, transcribed those Sacred Writings, which by the carelessness of the Jews, and the Impiety of the Babylonians were entirely corrupted. And these are rather to be believed than the hare-brained Jews, who will have Esdras to publish the Scriptures depraved and corrupted as they were with all their faults; and so they attribute all those various Lections which the Masorites denote under the terms of Keri and Cetib, to the same Esdras; as if those various Readins, which the Critics daily remark upon the Margins of their Books, were to be attributed to men inspired by God. We must therefore conclude that the Masorites of Tyberias, by the help of the Ancient Copies, and assistance of good Judgements, corrected what Errors had crept into the Copies of their Times, through the Ignorance of the Scribes. But bearing a Veneration too superstitious toward the Sacred Writings, they durst not insert into the Context the various Lections, though the truth of their Authority were past controversy, but placed them in the Margin of their Bibles, with this mark Keri, 
The Original of the various Lections in the Margins of the Heb. Bibles.  which is as much as in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, writ; intimating thus the true Lection of the word: For Keri is the same as in Latin, Lectio or Reading. And that this is true, the Manuscript Exemplars of the Bible's prove, especially the Spanish, which are Printed without the greatest part of those Alterations which are marked Keri: So that by the help of those the Masoretic Bibles now extant might easily be reduced to their former form. Nor will it be amiss here to produce some Examples of those various Lections, compared with the Spanish Exemplar, elegantly set forth about some 10 years since; to which purpose let us make use of the Book of Joshuah. The Masorites have marked the word 
* My Sisters.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Josh. 2.10. with a censorious mark, by putting Keri in the Margin to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but erroneously; for that in several other places of the Law, as in the plural Achoth, in the 16th chapter of Ezekiel it is written without any Masoretic mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thy Sisters; and so in Joshuah it is truly written Achothai, my Sisters, and needs no emendation. For that way of writing is not erroneous from the Masora itself. In the 4th verse of the 3d chapter of Joshua, in the Context is written 
* Between it.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a Keri in the Margin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if the Letter Jod had been omitted in the latter end of the word; which is really read in the Spanish Copy; whence we may manifestly perceive the Original of the Masoretic Annotation. In the same chapter, v. 16. as well in the Manuscript as Masoretic Edition, it is written in the Context, 
* The proper name of a City.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a Keri in the Margin, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the City Adam. In which manner the sense teaches us it should be read; so that that fault might easily be corrected without the help of other Copies, by reason of the similitude between the Letters Man and Beth, especially in some Manuscripts, where the Letters are dotted at the top like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the 4th chap. v. 18. the word is in the Context Bagnaloth, the Keri against it is Cagnaloth, as they ascended out, as it is really written in the Spanish Bible, with the Letter Caph, and not with the Letter Beth. But in other Spanish Exemplars, which I have consulted, I find it written Bagnaloth with a Beth, though without the Masoretic note. Wherefore in this place the Masorite Exemplars vary, which is evident by the absence of the Keri upon this place in some of the Bible's extant. Chap. 5. v. 1. in the Context it is Gnal Gnabranou; the Keri reads it Gnabram, till they passed over; as it is without emendation in the Spanish Edition, Chap. 6. v. 8. the Context reads the word Thok'gnau, the opposite Keri reads it Thok'gnei, as if Vaughan had crept in instead of Jod, which Reading the Spanish admits without any more trouble. Chap. 8. v. 16. the Context reads Basilius Gnair, the Keri altars it, Ba Gnai, in Ai, as if the Resch were to be cast away, which the Spanish Edition does to their hands. Chap. 10. v. 8. the Context reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over against which Jathir Jod, cast away Jod; which the Spanish Copy does without intimation, which confirms the exactness of the Masoretic Corrections. Chap. 15. v. 47. the Context reads Hajam Hagabol, the Keri altars it Hagadol, the Great Sea, as it is read in the Spanish Edition. So that the Doctors of Tyberias did not make their Corrections out of their own brains, but took them from the choicest Manuscript Exemplars. The rest I omit, for fear of being tedious. For thus it is manifest what we may think of the Keri and Cetib, or the written and read, being the marks of the Doctors of Tyberias. And that it may be more manifest, we shall add some few more Examples, to show that they made use of the most Ancient and most Authentic Copies they could get; and these out of the Chronicles, with other Spanish Manuscripts.  
Lib. 1. Chron. c. 1. v. 11. the Context read Ludiim with a double Jod; therefore the Masora in the Margin adds Jathir Jod, leave out Jod, and reads it Ludim, as it is in the Spanish Copy. V 36. In some Copies, of which one was accurately Printed at Amsterdam, by Judaeus Manasses, over against the name Tsephi, the Keri reads Tsephu with a Vau, not with a Jod, as it is in the cited Edition, which confirms the Masora. The same Edition also reads Dodanim, with a Daleth, as in the Pentateuch, not Rodanim, with a Resch, as in the Vulgar Editions. For Shephi, v. 40. with a Jod, this Edition read Shephiu with a Vau. V. 46. the Context reads Gnaiuth with a Vau after the Jod, the Keri altars it Gnavith, or Avith, as it is corrected in the Spanish Edition. Lastly, V 51. the Context reads Duo Gnaljah; the Masora corrects it Gnalvah, as it is in the Spanish Copy. So that the Spanish Edition above recited, observes no other than the Masoretic Emendations. In the last verse of the 3d chap. the Context reads Hodijahu, the Keri Hodavaihu, as if the Jod and Vaughan had been transposed, which Emendation of the Keri is observed in the Spanish Edition. Chap. 4. v. 7. The Context reads Jetsochar, the Keri altars it Vetsochar, which the Manuscript Copy follows. V 41. the Context reads Hamgninim, their Habitations, the Keri in the Margin writes Hamgnonim, as if the Jod had crept into the place of the tittled Vau. Which Masoretic correction is observed by the Manuscript Copy. Chap. 6. v. 26. the Context reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a Vau, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a Jod; nor is it otherwise written in the Spanish Edition. In the same chapter the Context reads Tsiph instead of Tsoph, corrected by the Masorak, and confirmed by the Authority of four Manuscripts. In the 7th chap. v. 1. the Context reads Jashib, the Keri Jashub, and in one Manuscript the Masoretic Emendation is followed. But for these particulars let this suffice. For it may seem superfluous to note the rest, seeing there is the same reason for the one as for the other. For if those Lections which are added in the Margin of the Hebrew Context in most Bibles under the Directions of Keri and Cetib, were but compared with five or six of the Spanish Manuscripts, which are to be preferred before the rest, we should find all the Masoretic Corrections to agree with them. Whence it appears that the Critics of Tyberias, in imitation of the other Critics, made no alterations, at least in this particular, without the assistance of the Manuscript Copies. And first it is worthy observation, that the more of Antiquity and Exactness those Manuscript Copies appear to have, the more they agree with the Masoretic Emendations. Therefore as Eye-witnesses, we may perceive the genuine Original of Keri and Cetib. But in vain do some Learned men seem to labour, while they enumerate these varieties of Lections, thence to make out that there are varieties of Readins to be also found in the Hebrew Context. For that, no man of judgement ever denied, even among the Jews; though they bring all variances of Scripture to the Masora as to a certain standard. It would be much better therefore to examine the Masoretic Corrections of Keri and Cetib, by the Manuscript Copies of the Bible, than to extend them out into a long series, and multiply their number by all manner of ways. Whenas it is apparent, that the greatest part of them are the manifest Errors of the Transcribers, which might be easily reformed without the Manuscript Copies. But in this the Doctors of Tyberias seemed to be more devout, who durst not put their Emendations in the Context, though they were certain they were only the manifest Errors of the Scribe; but either they referred to them in the Margin, or put them apart in sheets by themselves. Which Religion, if not rather Superstition of the Masorites, carried headlong the Jews that followed them, into several Fictions concerning those Critical Annotations. While they adventured to spend their judgements, not so much from the truth of the thing, or the Rules of true Criticism, but out of their own brains accustomed to imagine Miracles and Stories.  
Besides those varieties of Lections already by us repeated, there are also others that may be referred to Keri and Cetib; such as are those words, which the Masorites mark under the directions of Keri and Cetil, or read, and not written, in regard that really they are not inserted in the Text itself; only there is a vacant space left, and the Vowels marked with Points, which are erroneous in those words; and written whole in the Margin, with this note Keri velo Cetib, read, but not written. But these things will be made much plainer by Examples, and their Original will be the more easily found, if they be examined by the Copies of the Manuscript Bibles.  
In the 20th chapter of Judges, v. 13. the Text is thus Printed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which the Masora supplies Benei in the Margin with this note Keri velo Cetib, that is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or sons were to be read, though it were not written. Though in a Spanish Manuscript, and that of good Authority, the whole Sentence is writ at length, without any interruption; which a Jewish Criticaster was so impatient to see, that after he had added the Masoretic note in the Margin, he razed out the word Benei out of a most lovely Copy, to make way for the void space and the mark of the Masorites, which you shall often find done by those Idolisers of the Masora, especially in the Spanish Manuscripts, which they strive to reform according to the Masoretic Corrections. Thus in the 3d chapter of Ruth, v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He shall tell, is read in the Text with a gap, and over against it in the Margin Keri velo Cetib, to be read, but not written; because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thee, is omitted, which the Spanish Exemplar supplies. 2 Sam. c. 18. v. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, opposite to which stands Keri velo Cetib, which however is right in our Manuscript. The same passages may be observed 1 Sam. c. 14. 2 Sam. c. 20. and in other places, which nevertheless are written in the Manuscripts, as the Masora directs them to be read. In 2 Kings 29.31. The Zeal of the Lord hath done this; Tsevaoth, of Hosts, is omitted; and therefore the Masora makes this note in the Margin; The word Tsevaoth aught to be read, but let it not be written; yet it is written down in the Manuscript Copy. Now what has been said concerning Keri velo Cetib, to be read, and not written, is likewise to be said of the quite contrary Masoretic note, Cetib velo Keri, to be written, not read. Thus Ruth, c. 3. v. 12. The Text reads Chi ' in Goel Anoki, That I am thy near Kinsman. Where the Masorites note that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, In, is not to be read, though it be written. This is then the difference between Keri and Cetib, and Cetib and Keri, that the one supplies the defect of words in the published Editions, with words of more Authority out of the Manuscripts; the other cuts off such as are deemed superfluous. So that there is nothing at all of Mystery, as the Jews vainly dream in the Animadversions of the Doctors of Tyberias, which in this m●tter has not been before performed by other Critics in the Greek and Latin Bibles, and that with more success, and less Superstition.  
The same is to be said of certain words, which the Masoretic Critics thought fit to expunge out of the Text, as seeming to them to be somewhat obscene. For as R. Moses testifies, the Hebrew is called the Holy Language, which will not admit any words that carry any semblance of obscenity. But the falsehood of this is easily proved. Besides, that alteration is not easily discerned in the Manuscript Copies, and therefore is to be little regarded. And therefore I would be a means, that what words are left out of the Text without any cause, should be again restored to it. Now from what has been said, it may be concluded, that many of the various Lections are unprofitably marked by the Masoreths, which were the palpable Errors of the Scribes. In which thing Cappellus and Morinus show themselves the more inveterate against the Jews, while they multiply the number of the various Readins out of sundry Editions of the Bible compared together; whereas the manifest Errors of the Scribes ought not to be accounted various Readins. On the other side John Viccars lessens their number more than he ought, affirming, that in several Manuscript Bibles, which he found in sundry Libraries of Italy, he met with no such thing as Keri and Cetib. True it is, there are much fewer in the Manuscript Copies, especially the Spanish; but I never met with any Manuscript yet, where diversity of Reading was altogether absent.   

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

The Superstitious writing of the Hebrew Bible in some places.  'TIS a very strange thing how laboriously, if I may not say, superstitiously, the Masorites have preserved in the Hebrew Context, certain Letters differing in their shape from the rest, of which they have most sedulously formed an Alphabet. The Jews vulgarly believe some Mystery lies concealed under these things. And Buxtorf, who solely depends upon the Jewish Writings, thus delivers himself concerning those Letters. There is no question, says he, but the causes of those diversities seemed worthy and just to those wise and prudent persons in former Ages, 
Buxt. Comment. Masor.  but the various Exilements, and grievous Calamities of their Posterity, have buried them in oblivion, or altered them into various Figments and fond Mysteries. Thus Buxtorf rather chooses to make himself a Patron of Masoretic Superstition, than to inquire into the cause of that Superstitious Writing; which Superstition shows itself in this, that the Modern Exemplars of the Bibles, which were examined by the Doctors of Tyberias, are some lesser, some bigger than others; some turned inward, others hanging downward. The cause of which seems to be no other, than that the hands of the Scribes could not so make the Letters of Lines extended in length, as to be every way equal one with another; whence it happened that some varied in shape from the rest. It might so fall out also, that some Letters at the beginning of the Volume, might be made bigger of set purpose; as Aleph and Beth; of which the one is the first Letter in the beginning of the Chronicles, the other of Genesis. But the Jews, who knew how to fetch out a Mystery out of the least tittle of a Letter, began to conceit new Fictions upon this Writing; which afterwards by virtue of the Authority of the Doctors that first invented these Fables, being received by the rest of the Jews, were easily propagated to Posterity.  
But though the use, or rather abuse of those Letters seems to be very ancient, and long accustomed by the Masorites, yet have I found a vast difference in the observance of those Delineations between the Exemplars of the Manuscript Bibles and those: For in those there are fewer Examples of those Letters; or if you meet with any, the form of the Letter is hardly discerned to differ from the other. Thus the bigness of the Letter Aleph, which is the first in the Book of Chronicles, and Beth in the beginning of Genesis, in many Spanish Copies, is scarcely to be discerned; so small is the difference between them and the rest. In one Spanish Copy written about some 10 years since those trifles are altogether neglected. Thus Isaiah, c. 56.10. In the Masoretic Bibles the word Tsophau, or Watchmen, is Printed with a great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tsade; but in the Manuscript Copy, the same word is written without any manner of distinction from the rest; and so it is likewise written in another Manuscript. Thus in the 44th chapter of the same Prophet, where we read in the Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He planted an Ark, with a small Nun at the end of the word is writ as it should be with a proportionable Nun. So vain and superstitious is that Masoretic Annotation upon that place, There happen three small Nuns. In the 6th chapter of Daniel, v. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is written in the Masoretic Bibles with the latter Pe, very large, whereas there is no such thing in the Spanish and other Manuscripts. In other two Spanish Manuscripts there is a great Pe to be seen, but with this difference, that the one enlarges the first Pe, the other the second. In the 3d Chapter of the Prophet Malachi, according to the Hebrew, but the 4th in the English Translation; and v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, remember, is written with a large Zain, but in the two Spanish Copies there is not the least appearance of any such thing; nor in the Bibles of Menasseh Ben Israel Printed at Amsterdam.  
The same account is to be given of Letters turned and raised above the rest, as in the Hebrew Exemplar, as of Letters lesser or larger. Thus in the 18th of Judges, v. 3. the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Manesses is written with a little Nun raised above the rest, which is also advanced in the Manuscript Copies, but not in that manner, for only the top of the Nun is raised a little above the other, not the whole body of the Letter. Therefore the Jewish Grammarians erroneously give these Letters the Title of Raised Letters, is it were separated and set above the other, when it could be nothing but the fault of the Scribe, who was not so steady at that time. There is one Spanish Copy also that will not own the depressed Caph in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to weep for her, Gen. 23. v. 2. nor the great Zain in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Harlot, Gen. 34.31. Nor is the word Shilleshi M so written in the Manuscript with a capital Man, as in the Masoretic Editions. Only one word of this Book, Gen. 2.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when they were created, is written with a small 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He, as the other Copies have it.  
To search the Scriptures any farther for these trifles, will be a vanity, since they are only the dreams of idle Fancies. And I could wish that custom might be utterly rejected for the future. The same fond Superstition also was the occasion of so many Figments about Aleph, Jod, He and Vaughan, which were the Original Vowels of the Hebrew Language, especially omitted in the writing. For Example, in 2 Sam. c. 9 you find the Negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lu, with a Kibbuts, without the Letter Vau, which should otherwise have been writ thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon which I found this Masoretic note in the Margin; 
Jerom● quest in Gen.  Lo is twice defective, because Absolom did not overcome. And that this the Jews observed ever since the time of St. Jerom, his own words sufficiently testify. As we have here put it in the Hebrew his first name is written Ephran; yet after he was overruled to take money for a Burial-place, though he were pressed to it by Abraham the Letter Vau, which is read among them, was taken out of his name; and instead of Ephron he was called Ephran; the Scripture thereby intimating that he was not a person of true and perfect generosity. Here, as frequently in other places, St. Jerom does not speak his own, but the mind of the Jews. However, it is probable that this variety of Character, which at first proceeded only from the careless and negligent humour of the Scribes, as Aben Ezra observes, 
The method of writing the Heb. Text uncertain.  gave the Jews an occasion to ground many Mysteries upon it, as being persons that will spring a Miracle out of a Shoe-latchet. As for the writing of Aleph, it was always uncertain from the very time that the Authentic Originals of the Sacred Text were lost by the Jews: So that it solely depends upon the will of the Jews, as may be easily proved by comparing the most Authentic Manuscripts with the published Editions. For they differ in a thousand places, so that I could number above six thousand of those Letters which are not extant in the public Exemplars.  
Therefore the Critics of Tyberias in vain turmoiled and wearied themselves in counting how many times this or that word was full, and how many times defective. For example, they diligently consider how many times the word Otham is written at large in the Text; they observe that it was written in the Law thirty nine times full, or with the Letter Vau; and thus they run through all the Books of Scripture. But upon comparing the Manuscripts together, they could never once agree among themselves after what manner the said word was to be written. Moreover, this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being fully thus written, does not only signify them or those, which is its true and genuine signification, but sometimes, with them, as if it were written Ittham; and were defective in the writing. So true it is that in these words, the sense and not the Character is to be regarded. But above all there is nothing like the Superstitious niceness of the Jews in writing the word jeruschalaim, while they diligently observe all the places of Scripture, where it is to be writ at length with a Jod, and where without. And yet neither the Hebrew Manuscripts, nor the Masoretic Examplars, agree one among another. How many fictions have they raised about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meoroth or Lights, which in the Beginning of Genesis is written without a Vau, contrary to the rules of Proportion; and because the Jewish Rabbis have raised a thousand fictions from this manner of writing such a Notable word, hence the Scribes have been very careful to observe that manner of spelling,  
True it is that the Insertion or Omission of those letters, which depend upon the pleasure of the Scribes, seldom prejudice the sense, and therefore in such cases, neither the one nor the other, is of any moment. But sometimes it happens, that they altar the sense. As 2 Sam. 20. In the third of Sophonia where we read Nogue, Sad, as the Interpreters vulgarly render it from Jaga, Rabbi Solomon expounds it remote or foreign as if it came from the Root Haga, without any regard to the Masoretic reading. There are not wanting some Rabbis, who derive the word Nechiloth in the Title of the 5. Psalms from Chalal, as if it were to be written without a Jod; not much heeding the Rules of the Masorites, for full and defective words. I omit above six hundred of this nature frequently to be met with in the Commentaries of the Jews, by which the Greek Translations of the LXX. Interpreters, and the Latin of St. Jerome may be Illustrated in many places. Neither is St. Jerome to be commended for this, that he blames the Greek Interpreters, for differing sometimes from him in that sort of reading. For this reason he taxes those, who in the 14. Chapped of Isaiah, for Angels, as it is in the Hebrew Exemplar, translate Kings, because that in their Copies they find the word Malkim, without the Letter Aleph, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Letter Aleph, as St. Jerome had it. But the Greek Interpreters were not to be governed so much by the reading of Copies, as by the sense which was most proper to the place, especially when the Manuscripts and printed Editions, do not agree about the Insertion of the Letter Aleph. As in Jeremy the Seventh v. 18. Where the modern Exemplars read Limleketh, to the Queen, without an Aleph, yet in a single Manuscript, it is written with an Aleph 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And hence arose those Masoretic observations, of Redundant Letters.   

CHAP. VIII. Some Examples of differing Writings; are produced from the Manuscripts, which vary from the Masoretic Lections.  
AFter that the Hebrew Language ceased to be familiarly spoken among the Jews, and that the Chaldee Language became the Speech of the Country, the Writers made many alterations in their Transcriptions, by reason of the Affinity of the Languages. Nor were they so curious of neat Letters as they were before. From whence without question it came to pass, that the Letter Aleph, so much in use among the Chaldaeans, is many times mistaken for the Letter He, and added to words without any reason. And from hence I suppose it happened, that there are so many Chaldaeisms in the Hebrew Text; as Shelechebeth, Flame by the Addition of the Letter Schin, according to the custom of the Chaldeans. Magnath abin and Calabin instead of Magnathabim and Calabim, with several others of the same nature, which I omit, that I may come to those other variations of writing, frequent in the Manuscript Copies of most credit and Authority.  
In the writing of these words El, Elohim, Jehovah, Col and the like, which are frequently redundant with the Greek Interpreters, the Manuscript Copies do not a little vary from the printed Masoreticks. Which, because they are more frequent in speech, are sometimes inserted, sometimes omitted by the Scribes. Thus in the beginning of the 16. Psalms, the word Jehovah, is thus repeated in one Spanish Copy: Thou hast said Jehovah, L' Jehovah, Jehovah, to Jehovah, thou art my Lord; but in the modern exemplar only once. In the same exemplar, Ezech. 30. v. 3. The word Jehovah is thus, twice repeated, The day of the Lord, the day of the Lord approaches. But the Masoretic Copy repeats the Lord but once; nor does St. Jerom seem to have read it otherwise in his exemplars. Neither do the Seventy Interpreters repeat the sentence, saying no more than once, the day of the Lord approaches. On the other side, in the same Spanish Manuscript, Judges 1.1. The word Col is omitted; and the Lection is thus: The Children of Israel went forth, but in the printed Editions, Col Benei, All the Children of Israel went forth. But it is needless to repeat any more examples of these Variances, which nevertheless, St. Jerom writing to Sunias and Fretelas very carefully enumerates, for the thing itself informs us, that those sorts of words, might easily have been added or omitted in the transcribing of the Copies.  
Moreover in the Spanish Manuscript already recited, toward the end of the 2d. Chap. of the 1 Book of Chronicles, the Lection is conformable to the Greek Interpreters, and to what St. Jerom had read in his Copies. Maacha Calebs' Concubine; brought forth Seber and Thirana. The Spanish Copy reads, Jaldah brought forth, in the Feminine Gender, but in the Masoretic Editions, it is written Jahad in the Masculine Gender, he begot, and so cannot be joined with the Feminine Concubina, or Concubine. Wherefore the modern Interpreters of the sacred Text, who follow the Masorites over zealously, for fear of erring against the rules of Grammar, make use of this Periphrasis, Maacha Caleb's Concubine, of whom he begat Sebar and Thirana. In the 3d Chapter v. 19 of the same Book, where we find in the Printed Books, Vben Zerubbabel with a Masoretic marking the margin, denoting the Opinion of the Masorites, that it should be read in the Plural Number Benei, and not in the singular Ben, in the Spanish Copy, it appears to be Benei, in the Plural. In the 6 Chap. of the same Book, instead of Michael, as it is in our Exemplars, the Manuscript Copy, reads Malachi; and in another place, instead of Vzziah, another Manuscript reads Azaria. In the eighth Chap. of Josuah. v. 22. The Manuscript Copy, reads Lo in the singular Number, with this note in the Margin, Lahem in another Copy, which Lection is now observed in the modern context: The Particle Lo, Not, and Eth which is the sign of the accusative case, are not always written in the same manner, in the Manuscripts, as in the Printed Exemplars.  
Of far greater moment is that difference, which is found in 21. Chap of Joshua, wherein there is a want of two verses, which are notwithstanding both in the Greek and Latin Editions, which that they ought not to have been left out, the thing itself declares, when in recounting the Cities allotted to the Levites out of every Tribe; the Tribe of Reuben, could not have been omitted. Besides these verses are supplied by five Spanish Manuscripts of best note, as also by the Royal Parisian the English, the Venetian of Bemberg, and Bragand in Quarto, the Plantinian in Quarto, Robert Stephanus' and that of Amsterdam and other. Against all these the learned Masius opposes the Animadversions of the Masora and R. D. Kimchi. From whence it is manifest, that none of those verses were extant in the Ancient Manuscripts. And Masius farther observes, that none of those Bible's wherein those verses are to be found, make any mention of Jordan, Jericho, or the Cities of Refuge. Only in one Spanish Manuscript, there is mention made of a City of Refuge, which none of the exemplars, hitherto printed, allow: But there was no need of mentioning Jordan or Jericho, because the number of the Cities is made up without them. Johannes Morinus, who has commented more largely upon this place, believes these verses to have been obliterated by the injury of time, & the negligence of th' Jews; which seems most probable: But in the same place, he erroneously observes, that the two Commas which were in the Manuscript by him cited, were afterwards erased by him that transcribed it, this annotation being added in the Margin, we found not these two verses in the Hillelian Exemplar; for in perusing that Manuscript, I perceived that note to be added by some Jewish Criticaster, long after the transcribing of the Copy, who added to it some of the tittled Vowels and some parts of the Masora beside. For that same Criticaster was desirous, that his Exemplar should conform in all things, to the Masoretic, and to gain the more credit to his Emendation, he cited the Hillelian Manuscript. Therefore D. Kimchi, seems more addicted than was needful to the Lection of the Masorites, while he affirms that he never saw those two verses, which are wanting in the Masoretic Edition, in any ancient corrected Exemplar, but only noted in. Neither does Grotius weigh those verses, with a sufficient accuratness, suspecting them to have been added out of Chronicles, to the Book of Josua; after Kimchi's time, and thence crept into the Greek and Latin versions. On the other side Morinus believes them to have been translated out of the Book of Josua, into the Chronicles by Esdras, and afterwards left out through the carelessness of the Scribes. Which mistake of the Scribes, might in this particular more easily happen by reason of the frequent repetition of the word, Vmematteh, and of the Tribe, etc. Whence it came to pass, that afterwards, the several Manuscripts did not constantly retain the same order of sentences. In a manner not much unlike to this, the ancient Jewish Scribes made many more mistakes, especially in the accounts of their families. For the same words, and the same Phrases often occurring to their fancies, as they wrote, great confusion by that means crept into the Books of sacred Scripture, as may be easily apparent to any one that shall compare the Books of Chronicles, with the other Historians. For though it be not permitted, to correct the first from the latter, yet is it most apparent, that there are many things wanting in both, that might be restored from the ancient, especially the Greek Interpretations; the authors of which had Copies differing from the public Exemplars of the Bible: Whose different writings I pass over in silence, as being obvious to all, and aiming only at those which may be taken out of the Manuscript Copies of the Jews. And indeed those Errors have been in the Hebrew Codex of an ancient standing. But when any Jewish Rabbi has got himself a name for learning among his Countrymen, presently taking a preposterous course, they reform their own Manuscripts by such a ones Copy, rejecting the more ancient Books. Such among the Jews, were the Doctors of Tyberias, R. R. Ben Ascer, Ben Naphtali, Hillel, and several others to us unknown. By this means it came to pass, that the Ancient Exemplars of the Bible being laid aside, the differences of writing in things of greatest moment were likewise lost. All which things may be demonstrated from other Books of the Jews. For if we compare the written with the printed, and those which were published in several times and at several places, 'tis a wonderful thing, to see how they differ one from another. Thus the little Book entitled Jetsira, or, of the Creation, which the Jews falsely attribute to Abraham the Patriarch, differs egregiously from itself in several Editions, and still there is more disagreement between the Printed Copies. Moreover the Latin version of this little treatise, in many things disagrees as well from the Manuscripts as printed Editions. So that they who looked after the Mantuan Edition, found the vast difficulty of publishing that small. Tract, to consist as well in quantity as quality. The same publishers also observed, that the Interpreters, who adorned it with their commentaries, do very much differ in the reconciliation of the Text. And indeed in the Mantuan Edition, there is extant another Copy of that Book, not much different from the first. In like manner if you compare the Manuscript Copies of that famous piece entitled Zohar, either with themselves or with the printed Copies, you will find a very great discrepancy among them. Nor need you look any further than the Edition of that Book printed at Cremona, wherein the various Lections, which are almost infinite, are sedulously noted. The same may be observed in the various Copies of the Book entitled Cozri, of which one was written. But I shall insist no longer upon these things. Certainly the extreme diligence and Industry of the Jews is highly to be applauded, who have so studiously observed the readings of various Exemplars. On the other side they were highly to be blamed, who making no mention of the Books from whence they took their Editions, make corrections of them as they think fit themselves.  
Therefore I would have it, that those places of sacred Text which bad Connexion tells us to be false or corrupted, should be restored by the assistance of the most Ancient Interpreters, seeing in things of lesser consequence, the Manuscripts may help. For the mistakes are very ancient, but the Written Copies of a later age, and reform according to the rule of the Masora. So that although as well in the Manuscripts as in the printed Copies, the 13. verse of the 145. Psalms be wanting, it might be easily supplied out of the Ancient Interpreters, which have it in their translations. It is not to be doubted, says Grotius, 
Grot. in Psal. 145.  but that this verse was lost out of the Hebrew Copies through the negligence of the Transcribers, for there wants a verse which should begin with the letter Nun. And soon after he adds, How will they answer this, who would have us stand to all the decrees of the Masorites? In which words he aims at our Masora worshippers, by whom the Hebrew Text is looked upon to be the same with what it was in the times of the Prophets. So obstinate are they in the defence of their Masora. But in these and the like defects, the versions of the Ancient Interpreters as well Greek as Latin, supply the place of the Hebrew Exemplar: Nor is it unusual for the Critics who Translate Greek or Latin into any other Language, to have recourse to more Ancient Translations, to Illustrate the Lections of those books which they translate: Which was successfully observed by some in the Translation of the N. Testament, who called the Latin Interp. to their ash stance.  
Lastly, That the plenty of Jewish Exemplars of the Hebrew context, fell very short toward the assistance of the Jews of Tyberias, is proved, not only by the Testimonies of R. R. Judas, Ionas, Aben Esra, Kimchi and others, who sometimes quote the Manuscript Copies, and those the most corrected; but also by the Annotations of Ben Hajim, who first collected into one Body, the dispersed parts of the Masora, and set them forth in Print. For he has added other Lections besides the Masoretic to the Margin of the Venetian Bible, which he assures us he had gathered from most approved Manuscripts. Thus upon the word Chesoos, as a crane, Isaiah. 38.14. He has made this extraordinary annotation in the margin; In some Copies it is written ch'sis with a Jod, and the notes direct it to be read Ch'soos, but I found not this in the Catalogue of those words which having Jod in the middle, are to be read with the Letter Vau. In like manner the same Rabbi, upon the word ch' Ariosto, makes this observation, which egregiously confirms the Translations of the Greeks, and St. Jerome of the 22. Psal. v. 13. In some corrected Copies I have seen the word spelt with a Vau, with a note in the Margin, that it was to be read with a Jod. I searched the Catalogue of words which are written with a Vau at the end and read with a Jod; but I could not find this word in the Number, nor in the Catalogue of different Writings between the Eastern and the Western Copies. 
Genebrard Comment. in Psal. 22.  Therefore Genebrard mistook in this place, who attributes this Critical Animadversion of R. Jacob Hajim, restorer of the Masora, to the Authors of the great or final Masora.  
There are also many other Examples of such like Discrepancies, which that Rabbi produces out of several approved Copies of the Bible, which were never taken notice of by the Masorites. I will here only add, to make the business more plain, what offered itself to his observation in perusing the Manuscripts, concerning the Pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ille, or Herald Now the Critics of Tyberias were very accurate in their observations, how many times, and in what places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Feminine Gender was made use of instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine. But that laborious toil seemed to be very unprofitable, seeing that the Manuscript Copies so frequently differ from the Printed in that particular, no less than the Ancient Interpreters of Sacred Writ. Thus Judges 14.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That it was of the Lord, is read in the Text without any Marginal Note of the Masorites, yet in one Spanish Copy it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the 21th chap. of the same Book, the Masoretic Editions constantly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without any Marginal Annotation, yet in one Manuscript it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In like manner Dan. 2. one Manuscript Copy reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas in the Printed Exemplars it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now if these things, and many others of the same nature, which at present I pass by, had been rightly known to most of the Protestants, they had not blamed the Latin Interpreter, whom we have read for these many Ages, rendering the words in Gen. 5.15. She shall bruise thy head, for that only reason, because the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Sixtim. Anam. in Antibarb.  Here, saith Sixtinus Amama, it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor is the place corrected by the Masora; as if the Masorites had examined all the Copies in the World. The Masoretic Lection seems so much the more probable indeed, because that in many Copies of the Latin Interpreter and those in good esteem, in other places we find Ipse, He, and not Ipsa, She, as in the modern version: So that that version Ipsa, She, was not presently to be condemned, because it differed from the Masoretic context. For it might be that the Latin Interpreter found it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own Copy, for that in the writing of this Pronoun the Transcribers might easily mistake, is apparent from the Manuscript Exemplars.  
Now from what has been produced concerning the Masoretic Exemplars, there is no man but will easily determine what judgement to pass of the Hebrew Bible, now so generally made use of by the Christians as well as Jews. But here it may not be improper to add a few words more concerning the most select Editions of those Bibles. The Hebrew Bibles, 
The most Select Editions of the Hebrew Bibles.  whose Editions were overlookt by the Jews, are far more corrected than those which were published by the Christians. Wherefore Elias Levita rejected the Bible which was set forth by Bomberg in Folio at Venice, Anno 1518. Felix Pratensis leading the way, as not being well corrected, especially in the Masora, which Pratensis seems not to have well understood. Therefore that Bible was of much more credit, which was published by R. Jacob Hajim, Restorer of the Masora at the cost and charges of the same Bomberg. For in this there is not only Printed the Hebrew Text, but the Targum, or Chaldee Paraphrase, with Commentaries of the most Learned Jews, both upon the Scripture, and both the Masoras, as well the larger as the less. The same Bibles were again Printed at Venice Anno 1618. But this Edition was much inferior to the rest, there being many things reformed and amended, or rather spoiled by the Inquisitors, especially in the Commentaries of the Rabbins. Another Bible was also set forth at Venice by Daniel Bomberg, but less exact. Nevertheless, those are not to be contemned which the Jews caused to be put forth for their own use at Pisaurum, Sabionesa, Mantua, Frankfort, and other places. Buxtorf also published a new Edition of Bomberg's Bible, which was overlooked by R. Jacob Ben Hajim, which he believes to be corrected in many things by himself, especially in reference to the Tittled Vowel of the Chaldee Text. But as for the Edition Printed at Basil 1608. it seems much inferior to that of Bomberg, out of which it was taken, and is contemned by the Jews. Imperfect also are the Bible's Printed by Robert Stephens in Quarto and Decimo Sexto, and by Plantin in Quarto, and in other Volumes, compared with that which R. Menasseh Ben Israel and other Jews caused to be Printed at Amsterdam in Quarto 1635. and in Octavo 1661. Moreover, the Jews, especially they who inhabit the Eastern parts, highly commend an Edition set forth at Venice in Quarto, in a large Paper by Lombrosus, which contains the Literal Notes. The Rabbi also himself explains the most difficult places of the Text in the Spanish Tongue. To these might be added other Editions of the Bible, and those a great many published by the Jews, not only in Italy and Germany, but at Constantinople, Thessalonica, and Hadrianople, but it suffices to have given an account of the most remarkable. We have also said, that the Christian Bibles are not so accurate as those set forth by the Jews, but the Christian Characters are far superior to those of the Jews. The Five Books of Moses also are set forth apart by themselves, with a threefold Targum and the Commentaries of Solomon Isaac. Thus was the Pentateuch printed at Hanovia 1611. with verses distinguished by Number according to the Latin Editions.   

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

Justin Martyrs Opinion explained.  The first that comes into the field is Justin Martyr, who disputing against Tryphon accuses the Jews, of false and crafty exposition of the Scripture: As when he objects to them, their ignorant and malicous applying the words of the Psalm, 
Psal. 110.  The Lord said to my Lord, to Ezechiah, which are only to be understood of Christ: As also their misapplication of the words of Isaiah, Before a child knows to call his Father and his Mother, etc. To the same Ezechiah; which as he demonstrates, aught to be interpreted concerning Christ. Then he affirms many things to have been taken out of Scripture, by the perverseness of the Jews, because they favoured the Christian Religion; and than that some words were changed into others. However in all this there is nothing argued against, but the perverse exposition of the context, or misinterpretation, not against the text itself; in regard Justin could give no Judgement concerning the Integrity or falsehood of that, as being one that was utterly Ignorant of the Hebrew Language, which is palpable from the Etymology, which he gives of the word Israel. This name Israel saith he, signifies a man overcoming Power; For Isra is a man, and El Power. But this above all the rest is most worthy observation, that Justin by the word Scripture understands nothing but the Translation of the seventy Interpreters. So that when he accuses the Jews for depraving the Scripture, he also taxes the version of Aquila, which in many things differs from the Septuagint. Which led several learned men into mistake, not heeding what Justin meant by the name of sacred Scripture. And thus he condemns the Jewish Rabbis for rashly asserting that there was never any such thing wrote by Isaiah, as, Behold a Virgin shall conceive, but Behold a young Woman shall conceive. The whole controversy lies about the Translation of the word Gnalmah, which the Seventy Interpreters Translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, virgo, a virgin: But Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, puella, and after Aquila, the Jews of that Age. Which Interpretation nothing altars the Hebrew Text. But Justin allowing no Scripture but that which was publicly received for the use of the Church, that is, the Septuagint, opposes the Authority of that Translation against the Jews. But you, saith he, in these things presume to alter the expositions of your Forefathers, who lived with Ptolemy King of Egypt, saying, that it is not so in the Scripture, as they translated it, but behold a young Woman shall conceive, etc. Now there, by Scripture is meant nothing but the version of Aquila, to which the Jews always adhered in their disputes with the Christians. In like manner Justin accuses the Jews to have erased out of their. Bibles these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, à ligno, from the wood, Psal. 95. But if we consider the matter more attentively, those words seem rather to have been obtruded upon the place, then omitted. And therefore they must of necessity be deceived, who too unwarily follow Justin Martyrs opinion, too peremptorily giving his Judgement upon things which he did not altogether so well understand. I should for my part rather hearken to Trypho the Jew, whom Justin brings in answering his Dialogue concerning the mutilation of the Scripture, done by the Princes of the Jews. The thing seems incredible; I say it seems to be incredible: it is more horrible than casting the Molten Calf, or Children offered to Devils, or the kill of the Prophets themselves. Certainly the Jews had such a Reverence for their Holy Bibles, which would not permit them to corrupt them on set purpose. Moreover by the answers of Trypho, which Justin supplies, it is apparent that the Jews at that time so zealously devoted to the letter of the Scriptures, and the subtleties of Allegories, adhered the more closely to the Hebrew Text, that they might the more vigorously enforce them upon the Christians. For which reason they made Greek Translations, which might more truly correspond with the Hebrew Text, than the Septuagint. For which reason Justin also many times praises as well the Jewish as Christian Version, to the end that disputing with the Jews, he might convince them out of their own Books. Lastly, there is no reason why the Jews should be called in Question for depraving the Copies of their Bibles, if they have translated one and the same Hebrew word in that signification, which was most proper for their business; as when Justin in the same Dialogue objects against Trypho, that the Jews read the 49th of Genesis amiss, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 donec veniant quae reposita sunt ei, Till those things shall come which are laid up for him. Whereas the words in the Greek version of the Septuagint are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, until he shall come for whom this is laid up. For the Hebrew Word Shilo, may be rightly rendered in either sense, neither is it certain whether the version, which Justin so confidently avers to be that of the LXX Interpreters, was really theirs or no, whereas the Roman Edition owns that for the true one, which Justin attributes to the Jews, where the Scholiast observes that it is the same in Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Cyrill, Cyprian and Austin among the Latin Fathers.  
The next in order is Irenaeus, who accuses the Jewish Rabbis, 
L. 4. c. 25.  for setting up their Law contrary to the Law of Moses; wherein they add some things, take away others, 
The Opinion of Irenaeus.  and other places they interpret as they please. But the blessed Irenaeus there explains himself, and professes himself only to speak of the Constitutions of the Rabbis, who, as he says, make a mixture of Traditions with the Precepts of God; and confirms his meaning out of the words of St. Matthew; Why transgress ye the Precepts of God through your Traditions? In which place Christ never thought in the least of the depravation of the Bible. Nor is there any more weight in any other of the Testimonies of the Fathers, which are commonly brought to destroy the Jewish Exemplars; 
Morinus taxed.  and I wonder that John Morinus, a most Learned person, who in reckoning up the Fathers, that thought the Hebrew Bibles to be corrupted, numbers Irenaeus, and affirms it from these words of his; Which Jews, had they thought there would have been Christians, 
Ire●l. 32.5.  and that they would have made use of Testimonies out of their Scriptures, would never have scrupled to have burnt their Bibles, which make it evident, that all other Nations participate of Salvation; whereas the contrary may be rather asserted from thence. For there by the Scriptures Irenaeus means the Translation of the LXX Interpreters, which was made use of in the Synagogues; which Translation being before the Nativity of Christ, and made by the Jews, he blames from thence the Version of Aquila as naught and deceitful, and infers the propensity of the Jews to destroy the Bible from that Translation which they allowed in hatred of the Christian Faith, forsaking the Version of the Septuagint, which was compiled by their own Countrymen. So far was Irenaeus from asserting the Jews to have maimed the Bible, that he rather confirms their entireness, and denies them to be really depraved, only adding a conjecture of his own, of what might have been probable. Only this depravation of the Holy Scriptures Irenaeus acknowledges with the rest of the Fathers, which got footing in the Hebrew Manuscripts, when the Jews remained in Captivity, and which afterwards was reformed by Esdras, Prince of the Great Sanhedrim, the Hebrew Exemplars being restored to their former Purity by his Industry.  
The third in order is Tertullian, but the Arguments which he brings against the Jewish Manuscripts are so frigid, 
Tertul. lib. de. habit. mul. c. 3.  that they scarce deserve a Refutation. First, these words of his are produced. We read that the Scripture being proper for Edification, was inspired from Heaven; that afterwards it was therefore rejected by the Jews, as all other things that savour of Christianity: Neither is it any wonder, that they rejected any Scriptures speaking concerning him, 
The Judgement of Tertullian.  when they would not receive him speaking to them. However, there is not a word of the Corruptions of the Text in this Testimony of Tertullian. Only Tertullian endeavours to vindicate a Book of Enoch's, which most men deservedly suspected to be an Imposture, and they correspond with the proof which was taken from the Authority of those Jews, who did not reckon that Book among the Canonical; and therefore he says, those Doctors condemned many things as Apocryphal, which afterwards the Church received as inspired. I know, saith he, that this Treatise of Enoch, which attributes this Order to the Angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish Magazine. Nor did Tertullian say, as his words are cited by Morinus, that the Scripture was resected, or mangled, but rejected by the Jews. For there is no mention there made of the Scripture mutilated, but of whole Volumes, which the Jews, suspicious of their credit, rejected. And this is confirmed out of the Editions of Tertullian's Works by Rhenanus, Pamelius, and others. Nor is there any more strength in those other words of Tertullian. This Heresy will not admit of certain Scriptures, 
Tertul. de Praescrip. adv. her. c. 17.  or if she receive any, she perverts them to her own purposes by Additions and Omissions; or if she receive them, she does not receive them whole; or if she do that, nevertheless she perverts them by feigned Expositions; Adulterated Sense being an equal Enemy to Truth, with a corrupted and mutilated Text. But here Tertullian plainly taxes the Heretics, not the Jews. Now from these words you may give a shrewd guess, whether that Learned person had just reason to break forth into these passionate expressions, after he had produced the Testimonies of Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, against the Jewish Bibles. From hence then, says he, 
Morin. Exercit. Bib.  that Principle or Foundation is apparent, that the Jews corrupted both their own, and our Bibles in hatred of Christ and the Christians, and razed some Books out of the Canon, was taken for granted by our most holy Fathers, and upon the confidence of that Foundation, they did sometimes unfold several occurring difficulties, and answered the Objections of the Heretics and Jews. But with the good leave of that most learned Man, I must needs say that he never consulted the Fathers in this matter, but only made use of what he had read in other Authors, and in the works of Leo Castro, a mortal Enemy of the Jews, and inserted their words verbatim into his Exercitations: Nor am I one who believe an obligation of standing to the Opinion of the Fathers in this matter. Their Authority is of great moment in matters of Faith, but in Critic Learning it is then to be esteemed, when it agrees with Truth; and for this we have the Authority of the Prince of the Latin Divines St. Austin, who as he was a man of a most acute Wit, and piercing Judgement, was not afraid to recede from the Opinion of other Fathers upon that Argument, which is now the Subject of the Controversy, because he thought it less probable. So that when he came to consider the difference of the Greek and Hebrew Copies, in the years of Methusalem's Age, he could not favour their Opinion, who preferred the Greek before the Hebrew Copies. Though St. Austin readily acknowledges with the rest of the Fathers, that work to be the work of the Prophets. He relates the Opinion of some persons of his Age in these words. They admit not that here might be a greater mistake of the Interpreters, 
De Civit. Dei, l. 15. c. 11.  rather than that it should be false in that Language, from whence the Scripture was translated into our Language by the Greek; but they say it was not likely that the LXX Interpreters, who at one and the same time agreed in sense, could err, or would impose a falsehood, where no Interest could sway them. But the Jews, while they bear us ill will, because the Law and the Prophets are become common with us by Interpretation, have made some alterations in their Copies to lessen the Authority of ours. This Opinion, or rather Suspicion, let every one accept as he thinks good; but certain it is that Methuselah lived after the Flood. Here St. Austin seems to be guided rather by the weight of reason, than a cloud of Writers, who, as he well knew, did not make a right computation of Methuselah's Years. Wherefore handling the same Argument again, he openly affirms that he cannot agree with them who believed that the Jews had corrupted their Scripture of set purpose. He denies that the Jews, being a People scattered into all parts of the World, could join in such an Universal Conspiracy to a Falsehood that should be never discovered. At length he adds; I could never doubt but that it would be well done, that when there is any thing of variance found in both Copies, when there cannot be Truth in both, let the Truth be judged by that Language out of which the Translation was made by the Interpreter. And that St. Austin should be of this Opinion contrary to the Judgements of almost all the Doctors of his Age, nothing but the Truth overruled him. I wish that other with St. Austin would rather consider the things themselves, than the Authority of others. For this Diversity in Opinion might easily be reconciled. I pass by the Testimony of other Fathers, of whose names Leo Castro gives us a long scroll to little purpose: for it will be sufficient to produce them who understood the Hebrew Language. For it would be an idle thing to produce Witnesses that know nothing of the business.  
Among the Greeks, only Origen, among the Latins, only Jerom applied himself to the understanding of the Hebrew Language. For to omit all the rest, Epiphanius, whom Jerom cries up for his knowledge of five Languages, having a smattering of Hebrew, understood nothing of the Critical Learning. St. Jerome scrupled not to call Origen, next after the Apostles, Master of the Church, by reason of his singular Learning, especially in the Scriptures; but if we seriously consider origen's Hebraick Industry, we shall find him but meanly versed in that Language. But for that he is to be pardoned; that grasping at many things, he sometimes speaks not so exactly, imitating Philo, and such kind of Authors. But he was furnished with Hebrew Learning sufficient to understand the discrepancies of various Editions, 
origen's Opinion concerning the Jewish Manuscr. explained.  though he were inferior to St. Jerome in that particular. Therefore his Judgement concerning the Purity of the Hebrew Text, is not to be despised. These Writers that promote the Jewish Copies, bring many Quotations out of Origen, by which they seem to traduce the Jews for being Corrupters of the Sacred Writings. Thus in reference to the words of Jeremy; The Sin of Juda is written with an iron Pen, he argues the Jews to have plainly falsified, who translate the words their Sin, instead of the Sin of Judah. Again in the Epistle which he wrote to African, concerning the History of Susanna, he asserts that the Jews have cut off many passages from their Bibles, lest they should be read by the Plebeians. We must say, that as to those things which contained the Reproach of Elders, Magistrates, and Judges, they took away as much as they could from the knowledge of the people, which are kept among their Arcana. And as an example of that Corruption, he brings what the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews relates of Isaiah; and affirms that the words there written concerning the Prophets, they were stoned, they were sawed, and put to several deaths, are not in the published Bibles: but that the words concerning Isaiah's being cut in two with a Saw, were taken by Tradition, and preserved in some secret place. Which, saith he, was craftily, & of set purpose done perhaps by the Jews, some undecent words being inserted into Scripture, to abrogate the belief of the whole. Other Examples he adds, but of the same kind, in the same place, and all to prove the same thing; which Christ in the New Testament objects to the Jews, as being taken out of the Old, yet are not there to be found. Such are the words, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who slewest the Prophets, and stonedst them who were sent unto thee, etc. The same story is related of Zecharia, slain between the Temple and the Altar, which because they do not appear in Scripture, he therefore suspects to have been taken out by the Rabbis. Wherefore, saith he, there was nothing more which the Seers, and Princes, and Elders of the People more desired, then to blot out those passages which contained their misdeeds among the People. And therefore it is no wonder, that they who were not much unlike those Elders in their practices, should steal, and remove out of the Scriptures the true Story of Susanna, against whom the lascivious Elders laid their unjust Accusations  
Many other Examples might be heaped together out of origen's Works, to prove the same thing; which many Writers abuse, to subvert the Hebrew Text; not understanding origen's genius, and his proper method of writing. Which Eustathius was not ignorant of, 
Eustath. dissert. de Engastr. adv. Origen. Hieron. Apol. adv. Ruffin.  who reproves Origen, for every where inserting Opinions contrary to his Writings. And this, Jerom long before had observed not only of Origen, but of Eusebius, Methodius, and Appollinarius, who sometimes speak not what they think, but what is necessary. That too much liberty of Origen was the reason, that when he prattled without judgement whatever he had drawn out of other Authors, he was looked upon as a Heretic for delivering the Opinions of others as his own thoughts. These things are therefore diligently to be observed, if you would reconcile Origen to Origen, never to obtrude for origen's what he wrote only upon probability, proper for the Times and the Persons to whom he applied himself. Otherwise Origen, unconstant to himself, will be thought to speak always contrary to himself, as by the example of the present controversy concerning the purity of the Hebrew Text, it is no difficult thing to make out: For the same Origen, who never speaks well of the Jews, as corrupters of the Sacred Scripture, is cited by Jerom for a most eager defender of the Hebrew truth. But if any one shall say, saith Jerom, that the Hebrew Bibles were afterwards falsified by the Jews, 
Comment. in c. 6. Isai.  let him hear what Origen, in his eight volume of Explanations of Isaiah, answers to this Question, that the Lord Christ, and his Apostles, who severely reprove the Scribes and Pharisees for the rest of their sins, never made the least mention of this, which was the greatest. But if they shall say that the Bibles were falsified after the coming of our Lord & Saviour, and the preaching of the Apostles, I cannot but laugh that our Saviour, the Evangelists and the Apostles, should produce Testimonies, how the Jews would afterwards falsify. Here Origen does not play fast and lose, but freely and plainly delivers his opinion what he thinks of the Jews. But why the same Origen sometimes affirms the Contrary, the same St. Jerom, who well understood his humour, teaches us in these words. 
Prooem. Quest. Heb. in Genes.  I pass by Adamantius whose name, if we may compare little with great things, is the more envied for my sake, who in his homilies which he speaks to the people, following the Common Edition in his larger Disputation surrounded with Hebraick verity & troops of his own followers, sometimes seeks the aid of a foreign Language. Thus Origen proceeded one way with the learned, and made use of another method with the common sort, and as they say, wise with a few, what he had gathered from many, made those things public. Agreeable to this are those things which Origen writes against Celsus. For after he had produced some things concerning the Circumcision of Eleazar the Son of Moses, according to the Edition published at that time, he presently adds the Text itself with this note; But these things which seem more nice, 
L. 5. ad●. Cells.  and not fit for vulgar ears, etc. That is, when Origen had observed many things concerning the power of names in various Languages, according to the principle of the Magis & Cabalists, & had noted something superstitiously concerning the circumcision upon the eighth day, the words of Scripture being cited both Greek and Hebrew, as it were correcting himself, he omits many things which he thought too far remote from the knowledge of the vulgar, acting the part of a Doctor, whose business it was to teach the multitude according to the principles of Christian Religion, not of Judaisme.  
Were these and other things, which in prudence I omit, but rightly observed, in reference to origen's Genius and manner of writing, it might be easily discerned, how he came to be induced to tax the Jews of falsifying Scripture. For in his Homilies to the people he was bound to act the part of a vulgar person, and so in his epistle which he wrote to Africanus, he followed the opinion of the Ancient Fathers, concerning the Hebrew and Greek Copies; not daring to departed from it, lest he might seem to join with the Jews, as by the words in the same Epistle he plainly intimates: Take care therefore lest through imprudence and ignorance we abrogate those exemplars, which are received in the Churches, and give an ill example to the Fraternity, to lay aside those sacred books which are frequent among them, and give credit to the Hebrew Copies, as those wherein there is nothing of mistake. Then he calls to mind what a damage it would be to Christianity, to favour the Opinion of the Jews concerning the Translation of the Septuagint. Upon which occasion he farther adds; Consider whether it be not good to remember what is written, Thou shalt not remove the Eternal bounds, which thy Ancestors have appointed. These things I say, not that I fear to search the Jewish Scriptures, and to compare theirs with ours, and to see where they differ; for if it be not arrogancy to say so much, we have done to the utmost of our power, to exercise our studies in all Editions and their differences, at what time we more sedulously examined the Interpretation of the Septuagint, lest we might seem to have introduced any thing of false and Adulterate, into the Churches under Heaven, and should give an occasion to those who seek a pretence to calumniate those which are in the middle between both, and to accuse those which are commonly used. By which it is manifest that Origen did not entirely approve the Opinion then vulgarly received concerning the Jewish Copies, but only for Government and convenience sake; in regard that among the Learned he taught the quite contrary, nor does he seem much to value the Reasons which he produces in his Epistle. For he adds a conjectural expression, as it were doubting. Which perhaps, saith he, was done by craft on set purpose by the Jews. To all which we may add that the probations of these things, which he produces, are very shallow, and full of themselves; neither do I believe him to be the Author of them. But as he was a man of unexhausted reading, he only quoted what he had read in other Authors. For how highly he valued the Jews, Origen openly testifies, when he made use of them as his instructors in the Hebrew Language, and by frequent discourse and conversation with them, far exceeded all the other Doctors of the Church in the knowledge of the Scriptures.  

The Opinion of Jerom touching the Jewish Bibles.  In like manner Jerom seems to have a different Opinion of the Jewish Bibles, so that the Learned men of his Age scrupled not to tax him of inconstancy as well in this as other Arguments: And in our times Ribera, who was very industrious upon St. Jerom's Works, perceiving the difficulty of reaching his sense, affirms, that Jerom was not to be read by a droanish and illiterate Reader. Yet you shall observe many, who though they hardly ever saw Jerom, will pretend to make him their Patron, who of necessity must be often deceived, who rashly cite not so much his Opinion, or why he thinks so, as what he speaks. Therefore that we may not appear like to them, it will be expedient to explain the Genius of St. Jerom, and what his method of Writing is, that by this means we may understand what he wrote steadfastly as his own Opinion, what upon probability, and from the dictates of others.  
Jerom in his Youth was a great declaimer in the Schools, and one that used to bandy Arguments on both sides, well read in the Books of the Grammarians, Rhetoricians and Philosophers, especially the Peripatetics and Stoics, as being the most skilful in Logic. He had made Aristotle & his Interpreter Alexander the Aphrodisian his Familiars, whose Commentaries he had made free of the Roman Language. 
L. 2. Apoi ad. vers. Russin.  Almost from our Cradle, saith he, we conversed with Grammarians, Rhetoricians and Philosophers. Which made him frequently deride his Antagonists, as ignorant of Logic, and such as had never read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotelis, the Predicaments of Aristotle, nor his Treatise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or concerning Interpretation, nor his Topics. How much he profited in Aristotle's School he abundantly shows, and tells us what leaden Adversaries he had in point of Logical Defences. We have read, most Learned men, saith he, those Aristotelian Principles as well in the Schools, as flowing from the Fountains of Gorgias. We have read that there are several sorts of Elocution, and that it is one thing to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for exercise sake, and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for positive Instruction. The first is only a Vagous' way of Disputation, propounding now one thing, now another, arguing at pleasure, speaking one thing, and thinking another, etc. By this means Hierom wiped off the accusation of childish Inconstancy, as if he maintained Paradoxes for his own pleasure. What he seemed to affirm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or singularly, those things he makes out to be only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or secundum quid, that is, for Governments sake, and accidentally. And thus in one place he calls Origen Master of the Church, in another Heretic; declaring that he only praised him for what he was praise worthy. I call him our Origen for his great Learning, not for the Truth of his Assertions. The same things he speaks of Eusebius, and upon the same account he calls Aquila sometimes a most diligent and accurate Interpreter, sometimes contentious and idle: Yet Jerom cannot be said to differ from himself, who according to the variety of the Argument, has a different Opinion of one and the same Interpreter.  
Having thus displayed St. Jerom's Genius, and his method of Writing, let us come to our purpose. Johannes Morinus, who not unfrequently contradicts himself, seems to reproach the Inconstancy of St. Jerom in reference to the present Argument in these words. 
in Exercitat. Bib.  Jerom in his Youth looked upon the Translation of the LXX Interpreters as approved by Christ and his Apostles— at length he accused the Jews of envious corrupting the Bible in hatred of the Christians. But being grown in years, and using the company of several Rabbis, for the attaining the Hebrew Language, he so changed his Opinion, that he not only asserted the Hebrew Copies to be free from all Mutilation, but showed himself most violent in defending his Assertion. But Jerom himself makes answer to Ruffinus and others, who objected the same things against him, that he was no such fool to forget in his Old Age what he had learned in his Youth; nor do we so invent Novelties as to destroy old things. We are therefore first to consider what has been already observed concerning St. Jerom's method of Writing.  
First, St. Jerom being bred up in the Church, had the Bible in great honour, and translated the Holy Writings corrected by most Ancient Copies into his own Language, which was the Latin. Wherefore having embraced the vulgarly received Opinion of their Authenticness, he cried out their Authors, as others did, for so many Prophets, that thereby he might persuade men to read them the more diligently, and with the greater veneration. But whether they were to be in the Catalogue of Prophets or Interpreters, that he minded not, as not making for his purpose, being satisfied with reporting what was in every body's mouth, for the promotion of his labour. But being grown older, after he had studied the Hebrew Language, acting the Critic, he no longer spoke from other men's mouths, but confidently asserted his own Opinions. At length when he had brought upon himself the ill-will of many, he again embraced the common Opinion concerning the Greek and Hebrew Copies, only for order's sake, and with respect to his own Interest.  
Therefore I had rather adhere to St. Jerom in his riper years, and now grown a skilful Critic, than when he was young, and only spoke the thoughts of other men. Nor is it of any moment what Morinus Objects, that in these places St. Jerom seems to speak his own Sentiments, and not the Opinion of others. For it is familiar with St. Jerom to assert what he produces only upon probability, and as the Opinion of others, as if he were affirming his own Judgement of the matter. In which sense are to be understood the words of that Epistle to the Galatians, where he testifies, 
3 Epist.  that there are some things in the Hebrew Copies perversely obliterated by the Jews. For there he speaks the Opinion of those Writers whom he had praised in his Preface. Thus he answers Ruffinus in another place, loading his Doctrine with reproaches. I in the Commentaries upon the Ephesians, have so followed Origen, Dydimus, and Apollinarius, whose Opinions are certainly contrary one to another, that I might not forego the Truth of my Faith. What labour has been bestowed upon the Commentaries, the progress of what I have said will declare. And soon after, since that he shall be thought guilty of differing Interpretation, and contradictory Sense, who in one and the same Work inserts down the Expositions of many. Upon the same account, in answer to a Letter of St. Augustine's, after he had enumerated those Doctors, whose words he had made use of in his own Works, he adds, Therefore, that I may ingeniously confess, I have read all these Authors, and heaping together the most of their Sentences in my mind, I called an Amanuensis, and dictated either my own, or other men's, minding neither order nor words, nor sometimes the sense. In another place writing to St. Austin again, If therefore you have thought any thing worthy reproof in our Explanation, it became your Learning to examine whether those things which we wrote were in the Greek Authors, that if they had not said them, you might condemn my Opinion, especially having frankly confessed in my Preface, that I followed the Commentaries of Origen, and dictated either my own, or other men's. However, lest any one should object against him, that this manner of Writing was peculiar to him, he informs us in another place whom he proposed to himself to imitate. Read, says he, Demosthenes, read Tully, and lest those Orators should displease, who speak things rather probable than true, read Plato, Theophrastus, Xenophon, Aristotle, etc. Nay, he praises Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinarius, Minutius, Victorinus Lactantius, Hilarius, who imitated the same manner of writing, and at last after all he adds St. Paul; read, says he, his Epistles chief to the Romans, the Galathians, the Ephesians, wherein he seems to be Polemic altogether, and there you shall see by his Testimonies, taken out of the New Testament, how prudently he dissembles his Intention. Which passages I have the more prolixly quoted out of St. Jerom, because I find many things attributed to St. Jerom, which never came into his thoughts. First therefore the Oeconomy of St. Jeroms writing is to be observed, before Judgement be given of his meaning, or that any thing which goes under his name and authority be opposed. For frequently he writes not his own sentiments, but what he has collected from others. Which if they be rightly understood, St. Jerome will never be found to differ from himself, not so much as in this very subject which we handle at present. Therefore in his Commentaries upon Michah, he durst not openly accuse the Jews, as if they had obliterated the words Ephrata, or Bethlehem in hatred of the Christian Religion, lest he should be thought to be born of the Tribe of Judah. But this he declares to be the Opinion of some of the Doctors of his time, affirming nothing, only reporting the repugnant Opinions of others. Yet Isaac Vossius greedily lays hold upon this Opinion of Jerom, a person otherwise learned, to show that St. Jerom durst not deny, but that the Jews had purposely obliterated the word Ephrata out of their Copies. But it is no difficult thing to apprehend what St. Jerom thought of this Argument, while he shows himself so strenuous a Champion of the Hebrew Text, which he frequently calls the Hebrew truth.   

CHAP. X. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius, concerning the Hebrew Manuscripts is examined and refuted.  
THat the Scriptures of the Jews, are the only true and original Scriptures, is the Common Opinion of all the Divines whom we call Protestants, who in their disputes with the Catholic Doctors always have recourse to the Hebrew Roots, if the Latin Interpreter will not serve their turn, who, as they believe has mistaken in many things. Hence it comes to pass, that those Divines who call themselves Reform, make no reckoning of the Ancient Translations of the Church; some very few excepted who have discerned certain Blemishes in the Hebrew context, as well as in the Interpreters of it. But Isaac Vossius, taking a farther leap, has departed at a greater distance from the received customs of the Protestants, and openly accuses the Jews of Falsification, as if they had expunged several things out of their Scriptures in hatred of the Christians of set purpose, and that after the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. More than that, he sharply rebukes those that plead the Jews cause, and as for the Doctors of their sect, who defend the modern reading of the Hebrew Scripture, he calls them, 
Epist. ad Andr. Colvin.  Ass' void of sight and understanding, clad with the Professors Gown, and carrying for their shield the Masoretic Bible with all its points. Now who would not think but that Vossius had most impregnable reason for such a bold assertion and challenge? But how grossly he has imposed upon the World, shall appear by that which follows. What place is there, saith he, which treats of the Messiah in sacred Scripture, which they have not endeavoured either to corrupt, or to enervate by sinister Interpretation? And a little after; When they perceived that the time of the Messiah's coming was past; 
Dissertat. de Sept. Praefat.  for it was then full six thousand years from the Creation of the World, that they might gain 2000 years, they expunged the whole fourteen Ages out of their Scriptures: And to obliterate the remaining five or six Ages, they curtailed the Intervals of the Judges, omitting Anarchies, and contracting the spaces of the Persian Kings. By which means they fined the measure of time full two thousand years. 
Vossius blamed.  But these are the mere Inventions of Vossius, who not only accuses the Jews, but impeaches the Samaritans for the same fact, though upon another account: Nevertheless the Ancient Fathers of the Church, Africanus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerom, Austin and others, who took notice of this difference of the Jewish Codex from the Hebrew Exemplars in Chronology, never thought of laying this depravation to the Jews charge. Nay St. Austin in this very particular asserts that the Hebrew Exemplar is to be preferred before the Greek, and is of that Opinion, that credit should be given to that Language, out of which the Interpretation is made into another. Justin Martyr, who, disputing against Trypho, teazes the Jews in various manners to vindicate the Greek Interpretation of the LXX, which was then of sole repute in the Church, speaks not a word of any Chronology, by them altered to support their cause.  
Besides, had the Jews bethought themselves of corrupting the Hebrew Scriptures, lest the time of the Messiahs coming might seem to be elapsed, with much more advantage they might have obliterated the Prophecy of Daniel, which points out the time exactly, than the Books of Moses or Judges. But that the Prophecy of Daniel, which for the most part refers to the time of the Messiah, remains entire, is confessed by all; and Vossius cannot deny, but that the Jews are hard put to it by this Prophecy. But to ward off the blow, he affirms that the Ancient Jews did not only separate Daniel from the Chorus of the Prophets, but also denied him to be a Prophet. But the learned person never understood the reason why, or in what sense the Jews did separate him from the rest of the Prophets. However concerning this matter the Christians in vain dispute with the Jews. For both willingly acknowledge that in the Book of Daniel there are many Prophecies of the Messiah to come, and that that Book was written by divine inspiration, as the other Books of Scripture were. The Jews also feign the same things of David as of Daniel; however they do not deprive him of holy inspiration: Quite the contrary, they publicly assert that there are many things in the Psalms, which foretell the coming of the Messiah; so that if there be any difference in this particular between them and the Christians, the controversy is merely about the name, as has been already proved, in regard they otherwise methodise the Books of Scripture than the Christians. But Vossius stabs himself with his own Sword, while he goes about to prove the Jews guilty of falsifying their Chronologie, in regard the modern Chronologie of the Hebrew Text presses harder upon the Jews, then that which is drawn out of the version of the LXX Interpreters; nor do the Jews deny in their Talmudick Books but that the time is fulfilled and passed within which the Messiah was expected, but they add, that their own sins retard his coming. These are the words of the Talmudists. 
Talm. in Tract. Sanhed. & in Avoda Zara.  This is the Tradition of the House of Elia: The World shall consist of six thousand years. Two thousand shall be of emptiness, that is, before the Law. Two thousand shall be spent under the Law. And two thousand years the Messiah shall reign. But by reason of our iniquities, those years are already elapsed. Vossius endeavouring to draw this Tradition of Elias to his purpose, has erred in many places. For first he seems to applaud it, as being delivered by Elia the Prophet, or taken out of his Book, which formerly as he says, was numbered among the Books of the New Testament. But this Elias was a Talmudick Doctor, like Rabbi Hillell, R. Schammai, R. Johanan and several others whose names are set down in the Talmud. Then it is a fiction to say that the 2000 years that preceded the Law of Moses, ought not to be numbered from the beginning of the Creation, but from the Flood, or from that time that God told Noah, that he would destroy the World. For the Opinion of the Jews concerning the six thousand years' Duration of the World, according to the Tradition of R. Elias, is in this place far different. For the Foundation of that Prophecy is derived from the six days of the Creation; for that as God created the World in six days, so the same World should endure six thousand years: So that the computation of the years of the World must be taken from the first Creation of all things. The Commentators upon the Talmud reckon two thousand years from the first man created to the time that Abraham, abandoning the worship of Idols, embraced the true Religion of one God. 
Dissertat. de Sept. Praefat.  At what time according to their computation, he was two and Fifty years of Age. But those are frigid Arguments which Vossius produces to prove out of the Epistle of St. Peter, that the beginning of the World is to be reckoned from the Flood, because the Apostle called that the Old World which preceded; and the Earth which we now inhabit the other World. I say these are very sorry Arguments, and quite from the purpose. But enough of Elia's Prophecy concerning the duration of the World: Nor is there any heed to be given to that Book of the Prophecies of Elias, which Isaac Vossius, cajoled by the name of Elias the Talmudist, believes to have been received into the number of Canonical Books. Now let us examine his other proofs brought against the Jews, whether they be of any more moment.  
In the next place Vossius brings a load of Arguments to prove that the Jews have mutilated not a few Texts of Scripture, and first he calls Justin Martyr for a Witness, who writes that several Exemplars were corrupted by the Jews. But as to what may be borrowed from Justin, we have already made a plenary answer. Justin never consulted the Hebrew Text, neither could he; as being one that understood not the Language, as is manifest out of his own Writings. But, saith Vossius, how bravely had the holy Martyr foiled Trypho, and the rest of the Jews with whom he lived, had not those Crimes been true that were laid to their charge? 
Vossius reproved.  But this way of arguing does not become a Learned man, who, in perusing Justin's Books, might easily have perceived that he had mistaken in many things. But Vossius goes on; The Prophecy of Christ which occurs Psal. 22.16. where instead of they digged, as a Lion is put in the room, most of the Christians, except fanatics and Semi-Jews, acknowledge to have been depraved by the Rabbis. True it is indeed, that the Jews are called in question by most Divines, for having purposely corrupted this place. But, far be it from me to pronounce those people fanatics or Semi-Jews, who clear the Jews of this offence; when Rabbi Jacob Ben Hajim, Restorer of the Masora publicly testifies, that in some Manuscripts of the Hebrews he has met with Caru, they digged, or pierced, which is in favour of the Christians. Nor is it a wonder that the Masorites chose that reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as a Lion, which was most for their purpose. I acknowledge the Translation of the Greeks and St. Jerom to be the truer; yet the Jews are not to be accused of falsification for having made choice, out of two Readins, of that which was most for their turn. In the words Cariola and Carou, all understanding Critics know there is but little difference, and how easily and frequently the change of Jod for Vau, and Vau for Jod happens. Besides that, there are several other Examples of the redundancy of the Letter Aleph, which were not unknown to the Mazoreths; so that the Letter Aleph may as well fall out to be superfluous in Carou, as necessary in Cari. Wherefore the Greek Interpreters and St. Jerom past it by as ridiculous, or else perhaps it might not be in their Copies; but the Masorites, who acknowledge it, made use of it.  
Vain are also those things which Vossius alleges out of Zachary, c. 12. v. 10. as if the Jews had purposely changed the Ancient Reading, which the Old Interpreters found in their Copies. But there is no skilful Critic but will discern that this diversity happened from the varaince in several Copies, while in some it is read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they have pierced, in other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they have danced, by reason of the easy transmutation of Resch into Daleth, and Daleth into Resch: Nor do I see any reason why for that, or five hundred more of the same sort, the Jews should be more accused of Falsification than the Greek or Latin Scribes, or of whatsoever other Nation, who make frequent mistakes in their Transcriptions. This change of Letters so alike in shape, cannot be avoided sometimes in any Language, whence afterwards arises that vast difference in Manuscripts. In which particular let Scioppius' little Treatise of the Art of Criticism be consulted, who perfectly illustrates all these difficulties. Leo Allatius also a great peruser of Manuscripts, has cited several places to confirm this Assertion.  
Whose words it may not be amiss to quote from his Animadversions upon the Fragments of Hetruscan Antiquities, 
P. 55.  which were published by Inghiramius. Moreover, says he, the Errors of so many Transcripts, the changes of so many names of so many Letters in the Ancient Monuments, proceed from nothing else but from the likeness of the Capital Letters one to another: Let us only make use of a few Examples among others, for fear of being taxed of too much curiosity by some idle person or other. Joseph Scaliger upon Varro de re Rustica, l. 2. c. 3. Mediam non Meliam, by reason of the change of L into D, familiar to the Ancients; as on the other side those Hens were called Melicae, which ought to have been called Medicae. Godescalcus' Stevichius upon the first Book of Apuleius observes the frequent interchange of the Letters D and T, and in the fifth Book he attributes the mutilation of the sentence to the likeness of the Letters B and P, for that both these and the Letter R frequently are mistaken one for another; for which he brings Quintilian and Pliny as Witnesses, together with their admonitions concerning the use of Capital and Small Letters. Johannes Isaac Pontanus in his Ancient French Glossary calls the frequent change of B and P, the solemn Metastasis. Scioppius of the Critical Art by several Examples proves C in G, D in L, F in E, P in B, and R frequently interchanged by reason of the likeness of the Letters.  
In like manner the Greek Capitals have a great resemblance one to another, so that the mistakes of B for P, Γ for T, and Δ for Λ are easily committed, without a singular care, and such a one that it is almost impossible to take. To which we may add, that many times a very great confusion happens by reason of likeness of small Letters. Thus many times among the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mistaken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and among the Latins Orbis for Vrbis. Chronologers, Historians, and others object to one another the various Readins of their own Manuscripts and Editions, as for one Example among many others; Hitherto it has been commonly received, that Dagobert, by the Advice of his Council, took to Wife Nanthild, a lovely Virgin, whom he forced out of a Monastery. But the most famous Persons of our Age Jacob Sirmond, Adrian Valesius, and others lighted upon certain Manuscripts, wherein it is not written. as Aimonius erroneously citys the Text of Fredegardus, and taking Nanthild out of a Monastery to Wife, he advanced her to the Throne, but taking Nantechild, one of the Virgins from her attendance; de Ministerio, not de Monasterio. Such mistakes as these arising not only from the likeness of the Letters, but from innumerable other causes, are to be found in all written Manuscripts, of whatsoever Language or Condition. Whence those Monsters of various Readins have sprung, that have so tormented the Brains of the Critics, and caused most desperate Wars among the Grammarians: So that they who boast themselves the true Imitators of Cicero upbraid themselves with their own Ignorance of Ciceronianism, frequently for no other reason, but because they made use of several Manuscripts, 
Castigat in Cicer.  the nature of which Henry Steph●●s has wittily observed.  
But not to stay upon those things which can be only unknown to the Ignorant, I will only give an Example of one Edition of Cicero's Printed by Elz●vir 1661. and overlookt by Schrivelius. In which Edition the various Readins of other Editions and Manuscripts are added in the Margin, to the great benefit of the Reader. Were the same thing done in the Hebrew Exemplars, no man in his wits would think the Jews had ever been guilty of corrupting their Bibles; but out of those various Readins, every one might choose the best, as St. Jerom did, who in his Commentaries upon the Prophets frequently recedes from the Translation of the LXX Interpreters. Thus, most addicted to the Lection of his Masters, he makes this observation in the second chapter of Hoseah, c. 12. Instead of Forest in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jagnar, the Septuagint had translated it Testimony, mistaking Daleth for Resch; for taking away the Jod, and reading Daleth for Resch, the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Testimony. Again, upon the fifth chapter of the same Prophet, v. 7. he blames the LXX Interpreters for reading Chasil Rust, instead of Chodesch a Month. Again, upon the ninth chap. v. 12. putting the Question why when the LXX Interpreters translated the words, My flesh from them, he had rendered it, When I depart from them? He makes this Answer, In the place mentioned, where we have translated it, Woe to you when I depart from you, the Septuagint and Theodotius have translated it, Woe to them, my flesh from them. And examining the reason of such a strange difference that in the Hebrew Language Besari, signifies my flesh, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Besuri, when I departed from them. For the same cause there was no reason why St. Jerom should departed from the received Version of the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where thy cause, which St. Paul confirmed by his Authority, but that his Copies presented to him another Reading, instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ubi, where, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will be. The same transposition it is better to observe in Dakeru, they pierced, and Rakedu, they danced, as a thing accidental, than with Vossius to reproach the Jews, as if they had introduced that change into the Text of set purpose.  
Vossius indeed says true in saying that the Manuscripts of the Jews are vitiated in several places, an unhappy fate as well to the Greek and Latin as to those. So that George Hornius deserves to be hissed at, when he opposes to the most Learned Vossius the Decrees of Kings, Princes and Magistrates, forbidding all other Translations to be read in the Churches, which were not corrected by the Hebrew Copies; as if such Decrees of Princes could preserve or restore the Purity of the Ancient Originals. Only Vossius is to be condemned for so stiffly asserting, that some of those Errors were introduced of set purpose by the Jews, in hatred of the Christians. Thus upon the words of Gen. 49.10. The Sceptre shall not departed from Judah, nor a Lawgiver from between his feet, till be come who is to be sent; he makes this observation. This place the Jews have maimed not only in the Gr. Version, but also in all the Hebrew Manuscripts, through the writing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as is observed by several, whose Opinion is confirmed by the Samaritan Copy. But who does not well know, that before the invention of Points, the latter Jod served sometimes instead of e, sometimes of i, which Letter, as well as those other Vowels called Ehevi, were carelessly written, as the Scribes themselves thought fit. And therefore whether it be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in the Modern Masoretic Editions, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Seventy Interpreters seem to have read it, the Jews are not therefore to be accused of Falsification, because they retained Jod in their Exemplars. And it may be probable also that the Greek Interpreters read it in their Exemplar, when the sense is the same whether it be pronounced with a Jod, or without one; for that Jod is as often pronounced like an e as an i. But the Masorites, who conjectured that it was to be read Schilo, retained the Ancient Jod, which does not hinder but that with the Greek Interpreters we may now read Schelo, as some of the Rabbis do. These things Vossius aught not to have been ignorant of, that so often impeaches the Jews, and farther writes, that they who deny this place to have been corrupted by the Jews, obliterate same both before and after the coming of Christ. Nor is there any reason, if there were any depravations before the coming of Christ, why Vossius should attribute them to the carelessness of the Scribes; and as for those which were intruded into the Hebrew Exemplars after the coming of Christ, why he should ascribe them to the wickedness and malice of the Jews. Vossius too much detracts from the Masorites of Tyberias, when he calls them Barbarians and Strangers to their Native Language, from whom nothing could proceed but what was vicious, and void of reason. For with Vossius I readily grant them to have been no Prophets, nor do I doubt but that they were the first Inventors of pointed Vowels and Tittles. But from thence to infer that they were Barbarians, 
De Scripture. Interprit. c. 30.  and unskilled in the Hebrew Language, and that the Scriptures were burdened rather than adorned with pointed Vowels and Tittles, was a piece of extravagance. If those things are true which Vossius boasts of himself, that he had seen above two thousand Hebrew Manuscripts, it is not probable that he was altogether ignorant of the Masoretic Art. That was the Industry of the Jews of Tyberias, who ascertained the Reading of the Hebrew Text, as it was then publicly in practice by the assistance of Points. It was call●d the Masora, because it contained the Tradition or Method of Reading the Hebrew Text approved by long use. The same Judgement ought to be given concerning their Critics, and of the Greek and Latin Books examined and corrected by Learned men. The Doctors of Tyberias were the Masters of the most famous Academy among the Jews, who collecting the Exemplars and Copies of the Bible from all parts, published an Accurate Edition out of all together. Nothing was here done by them that deserved to be blamed or upbraided. And besides, this correction of theirs was no hindrance to others, but that they might examine the same Exemplars again; and I believe the same Exemplars may be re-examined in our Age, according to the Greek Version of the Septuagint, and the Latin Translation of St. Jerom; in such places where it shall appear, that their Copies differed from the Masoreticks. However, we will not accuse the Jews of Falsification, as Vossius does, because their Manuscripts were not the same with those, which the Greek Interpreters made use of in their Translation: But we must say this, that various Readins are no less to be found in the Hebrew Exemplars, than in the Copies of the Greeks and Latins, and other Nations. Vossius believes there can be nothing of solidity in the Traditions of the Rabbis, 
Respons. ad nuper. Critic.  that are only propagated by the Ear; And such Traditions, saith he, which are only propagated by the Ear, 
He is refuted.  seldom outlast above two or three Ages. But what does this concern that Tradition, which is now in dispute? There is no Controversy about the Oral Traditions of the Jews, which he acknowledges to be deservedly exploded by the more prudent; but only about the Masora, which the very Carraites, who condemn the greatest part of the Jewish Traditions as Old women's Fables, have however cordially embraced. If Vossius rejects this, he must of necessity reject the Lection of the Chaldee, Syriack, and Hebraick, which have nothing of Antiquity. For to all these, in like manner as to the Hebrew, are added pointed Vowels, which make their Lection certain. But that Text, saith Vossius, is mute, which no man knows how to read or understand, as being defective in one half part, nor furnished with other Vowels than the Enemies of Christ have added. Was the same Codex or Text less defective in the days of the LXX Interpreters, when there appeared no pointed Vowels at all in it? Such is the nature of the Hebrew Tongue, as of all the other Eastern Languages, that it makes a show of the fewest Vowels. So that the Reading of those Books which are Printed in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriack and Arabic, does not a little depend upon use, which as the Jews do, we here call Tradition, or the Masora. Now from whom could that use of Reading the Hebrew Text be borrowed but from the Jews? But, says Vossius, They are Enemies of the Christian Faith. Have they therefore forgot to read their own Books, because Jews? Certainly, unless they were Jews, they would never read the Hebrew Text in their Synagogues. Neither could the Reading of the Books be derived by any other means to the Christians. Besides, the Seventy Interpreters were Jews, upon whom Vossius altogether depends, and they followed no other Lection of the Hebrew Text, than what was received among the Jews by the public practice of those times. So that all the obloquy that Vossius throws upon the Hebrew Text, that it is defective in the half part, may be affirmed of the Hebrew Codex, which the LXX Interpreters made use of: Nor ought the Text so much to be accused, as the Idiom of the Hebrew Language; and upon that account all the Eastern Languages may be accused for half Languages. Nevertheless Vossius inculcates it over again, even to loathsomeness, that the Hebrew Text is mute, and by the acknowledgement of the Rabbins, a half Language, as being destitute of true vowels. But what were the true ancient vowels of the Hebrew Text, he confesses he does not understand, while he so confidently avers the Language to be destitute of them. Yet as he himself makes no question, the Ancient Hebrew Vowels are Aleph, He, Van, and Jod. To which St. Jerom makes an Addition of others. But because the Eastern people rarely made use of them in writing, the Critics invented pointed vowels, for the more quick and easy reading of the Scriptures. But Vossius speaks very uncoheringly, not so much as to the truth of the business, as out of a preconceived prejudice against the Jews.   

CHAP. XI. Of the Samaritan Bibles, their Targumim, or Paraphrases.  
COncerning the Nation, Customs and Religion of the Samaritans, who by the Jews are called Cutheans, the sacred Text relates many things in the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Esdras, which afterwards Josephus explains more at large, an ample Testimony in this affair. In our Age Johannes Morinus in his exercitations with which he has adorned the Hebrew Pentateuch, Hortinger in his Antimorinian, Exercitations, Walton in his Prolegomena to the Samaritan Text, and other most learned men have illustrated the Samaritan affairs, and therefore passing by those things in silence, I proceed to their Texts, of which some of the Fathers as well Greek as Latin have made mention, together with the Scholiast of the Roman and Frankfurt Editions of the Septuagint. That the sect of the Samaritans, makes only use of the Pentateuch of Moses, I suppose is known to all. For at what time they revolted from the Jews, there was one Law among all the Hebrews, the other Books of Scripture, not being yet composed, 
The Samaritan Texts.  or if they were, not yet made public. But what to think of that Samaritan Copy, is a thing difficult to resolve. Morinus, who was the first that published it, lashing out into the praise of it, after his Custom extols it to the skies. For which reason he is much blamed by the learned: Especially by Muisius, then Royal professor of Hebrew at Paris; who very severely Stigmatizes Morinus' opinion of the Samaritan Pentateuch. After that Hottinger set forth his exercitations upon the Samaritan Pentateuch in opposition to Morinus. And both reprove a great many things in him, which he does not seem to assert, he having only praised a little more than needed the Samaritan Text, which was then the subject of his discourse, after which manner prefacing upon his Edition of the Greek Bible, he wonderfully upbraids the Hebrew Text. The most moderate of all are Ludovicus Capellus, and Brian Walton, who in many things do not reject the credit of the Samaritan Pentateuch. But of all others Usher of Armagh has the worst opinion of it, who affirms that the Samaritan Text was of set purpose, and in many places new dressed and corrupted by one Dositheus, a certain Samaritan Heretic.  
Therefore the Samaritan Codex is one and the same with the Hebrew, only few little variances excepted, as is observed as well by Eusebius in his Chronicles, and by St. Jerom. The Samaritans, saith St. Jerom, 
In Prol. Galeat. De emendat. Temp.  writ the Pentateuch of Moses, with just so many Letters, only varying in the shape and in the points. Which words of St. Jerom Joseph Scaliger seems not to have understood, when he affirms, that the Samaritans read the Pentateuch with just as many Letters as the Jews, neither more or less. For St. Jerom himself sometimes observes the various reading of both Codex's; as in his Hebrew Questions upon Genesis, and his Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Galatians, wherefore St. Jerom when he affirms the Jewish and Samaritan Exemplars to be alike in all things, intended only by those Words to distinguish the Samaritan Codex from the Greek and Latin Translations; In regard the first is the pure and simple Hebrew context, which cannot be said of the Greek and Latin Bibles. In the same manner speaks Eusebius, upon whom St. Jerom altogether depends. That the Samaritan differs from the Hebrew Pentateuch, in some things, is past all dispute, as may appear by the Parisian, and English Polyglottons in Print. Which Copy the noble Peter à Valle, obtained from the Samaritans: And afterward Achilles Harlay Sancy, the King's Ambassador in Turkey, caused to be brought to Paris, and laid up in the Library of the Fathers of the Congregation of the Oratory near the Louvre. And that there are other Copies of the same Pentateuch in other Libraries of Europe, the Epistles of Perescius, Peter, à Valle, Comberus, and Aleander to Morinus, apparently Testify. Jerom Aleander thus wrote in the year 1628. I would have you to understand, that there is here in the Vatican Library another Samaritan Copy of the Pentateuch, written in the same Samaritan Letters, which Scipio, of Pious Memory, Cardinal of Susanna, than Library-keeper bought for 300 Crowns. Which Copy, though it be written in Hebrew Characters, yet is it in the Hebrew Language like to ours. Certain it is that the Samaritans, though they were much inferior in number to the Jews, yet after the Destruction of their Temple at Gerizim, retained the Customs and Ceremonies of their Country, and read the Pentateuch of Moses in their Synagogues, as they do at this day. The Samaritan Copy which is come to our hands, being examined by the Fragments of the Ancient Exemplars, which are extant in Eusebius, St. Jerom, and the rest of the Fathers, seems to be a true and perfect Copy, and the same with those that were read in the Ancient Times by the Samaritans. However, I will not deny but that it is degenerated in some things from its Original Purity and Sincerity. But this is the fate of all Books, which are not however to be therefore rejected for illegitimate Birth, because they do not exactly agree with the Originals in all things. For than we could not say that any one of the Ancient Authors were come perfect to our hands; nor were Homer's Verses, so common nowadays, to be received for his, because the most Critical of men Aristotle quotes somethings out of Homer, which are not to be found in our Modern Copies. Nor were the Jewish Copies of the Bible's now in use to be entertained, because they do not exactly agree with those which the Seventy Interpreters made use of in their Translations. We must therefore assert, that the Copies of the Samaritan and Jewish Pentateuch, are real and authentic Copies, though there may be some difference between them; 
Objections against the Purity of the Samaritan Context.  as Aristotle's Homer plainly appears to be the same Homer which was examined by Aristarchus, although they do agree in all things.  
However, there were not wanting some, especially among the Protestants, who thought the Codex of the Samaritans to be rejected, led thereto chief by this reason, because the true Worship of God, the Succession of the Priests and Doctors remained only among the Hebrews, not among the Samaritans, and therefore the Copies of the Law were to be taken from them alone, as being the true People of God. But I wonder, that the Protestant Divines, who make so slight of the Authority of the Church, and the Succession of Priests and Doctors, should enforce these Arguments. For in this particular, the Authority of the Church is not greater than of the Synagogue. Who can be ignorant that the Authority of the Church has not been able to make good the Purity of its own Exemplars, or to justify them from being clear from all manner of faults, when the Version of the Seventy Interpreters, of which the Eastern and Western Church made use, has not been entire from the very time of Origen? However, I readily grant that the Hebrew Exemplar is to be chief preferred, for the Christians borrowed the Books of Scripture from the Jews, and not the Samaritans. Only the Authority of any Assembly whatever does not make a Book to be without Error or Fault, but only declares it to be received and fit for practice.  
There are also other faults with which the defenders of the Hebrew Text load the Samaritan Copies: For first they enendeavour to prove it mutilated by the Example of some few words, and then they say, that some words are foisted into the place of others. They also object the differences of the Hebrew and Samaritan Texts one with another; as also the carelessness of the Scribes, who confound the Letters Aleph and Ain, He and Heth, and other Letters resembling in form. But they kill themselves with their own weapons, when the same things may be objected against the Hebrew Texts themselves. In this the Patrons of the Jewish Text are deceived, 
The Samaritan text vindicated.  because that out of a preconceived Opinion of some of the Jews, they think it to be free from all Error; which is to be only affirmed of the Originals. We have already showed you that the manner of writing of the Hebrew Context, was very inconstant, and perhaps more free than among the Samaritans, who never hunted after the Trifles of Jewish Allegories. Even in this the Samaritan Codex's excel the Jewish, for that many things which Superstition foisted into the one, are wanting in the other. To this we may add, that the Hand and Character of the Samaritan Text plainly proves Antiquity. On the other side, the Jewish Manuscripts being reformed by several Ages, at length obtained the name of Masoreticks. Lastly, the Jewish Text may in many things be illustrated by the Samaritan. Thus Gen. 2. we read in the Hebrew, that God finished his work upon the Seventh Day, but in the other upon the Sixth Day; which seems to be the more proper Lection, Gen. 4. This Sentence which is in the Samaritan, Let us go into the field, v. 8. seems to be wanting in the Hebrew; and many of the Jews mark this gap in the Margin of their Scriptures in these words, pausa in medio versus, a rest in the middle of the Verse. I know that St. Jerom in his Hebraick Questions upon Genesis has observed this Pericope for superfluous, both in the Greek and Samaritan Exemplars; Superfluous, saith he, is that in the Samaritan and our Volume, Let us go into the field. But it appears that St. Jerom in these Questions, where he professes himself an Assertor of the Jewish Text, did not speak so much his own, as the Opinion of the Jews, Exod. 12. where we read that the sojourning of the Children of Israel, who dwelled in Egypt, was 430 years, the Samaritan Exemplar comprehends, Their Fathers with the Children, or the sojourning of the Patriarches in the same Egypt. Which Lection agrees with the Truth, but is not Jewish. But it might have been, that they supplied all these things in their Books, and that they might have been glosses for the Explanation of the Hebrew Text, which is frequently very obscure.  
On the other side, there are several things written with more freedom in the Samaritan Codex, which seem to have been added for Illustrations sake out of other parts of the Pentateuch, by some of the Samaritan Doctors. Which Supplements, without doubt, argue the Copy to be vicious. In like manner the word Garizim, Deut. 17. which they have put in the place of Ebal, which was the Ancient Reading, shows that the Samaritans were not over-religiously exact in their Copies; whence it is manifestly evinced, that neither the Samaritan, nor Jewish Exemplar, are free from all manner of Error; so that they are to be looked upon as Copies of one and the same Book, which may be useful to one another; yet so that the Jewish Copy, though it have its Imperfections, is to be preferred before the Samaritan; not only because all Religion and the Scripture descended from the Jews to the Christians, but because the Exemplars seem to be less obnoxious to Errors. However, that aught to be no impediment, but tha● the Jewish Copy may be mended by the Samaritan, where a manifest Error shall appear, and the Samaritan Lection preferred before the Jewish, if it be more correspondent to Truth. For indeed the Reading of the Hebrew Text among the Samaritans seems to be nothing near so strict, in regard their Copies make no use of pointed Vowels, which confine the manner of Reading the Hebrew Context. And it is certain, that Points were a Modern Invention of the Jews; nor are they added to those Volumes which are made use of in the public Synagogues. And there I think the Samaritans rather to be commended, than blamed for retaining their Ancient form of Letters. 
The Excellency of the Samaritan. Codex.  Besides, they have a Tradition for the Reading of the Text, as the Jews had before the Points were invented by the Doctors of Tyberias. Lastly, The Samaritans excel the Jews in this, that they have retained the Ancient or Mosaic Characters of the Hebrew Language; whereas the Jews upon their return from Babylon, devoted themselves wholly to the Babylonian or Chaldaean, to which they had been accustomed; which was the reason why the Samaritans first accused the Jews, especially Esdras, as a corrupter of the Sacred Text of Scripture. But laying these Quarrels aside, let us in a few words examine what may be thought of the first Hebrew Letters.  
For the Samaritan Characters, the sounder sort of Critics, and the Ancient Coins of the Samaritan Nation fairly plead, so that Joseph Scaliger gives them the Title of Asses, who will not subscribe to the Opinion of St. Jerom, where he says, That certain it is, 
Prologue. Galeat.  that Esdras the Scribe, Doctor of the Law, after the taking of Jerusalem, and restoration of the Temple under Zerobabel, found out other Letters, which we now make use of; whereas till that time the Hebrew and the Samaritan Characters were the same. This Opinion of St. Jerom concerning the Samaritan Characters, was renewed not long since by Guilielmus Postellus, Blancuccius, Villalpandus, Morinus, Capellus, Mayerus, Perescius, and among the Jews by R. Azarias', and several others. Postellus, who had long conversed with the Jew's attributes the cause of that change to the hatred which the Jews had to the Samaritans, as being Schismatics. That Party, says he, who intermixed with the True Religion the Worship of Idols, 
In Alph 12. Linguar. c. de Samar.  is adjudged by a grave and pious person to be Heretical, and unworthy of converse, or the communication of the same Letters; and therefore after the Captivity he applied himself to the Invention of new Characters. And a little after he adds; When I disclosed these Conjectures of mine to the Jews, they said they were most true, confirmed in writing by most of their own Rabbis. However, it seems far more probable, that the Jews being restored to their Country, preserved the Chaldee Letters, to which they had been accustomed in their Exilement, having now forgotten the former. Then the same Postellus makes mention of the Silver Coins, which seem to be of great Antiquity; and of which he had seen not a few among the Jews, who valued them so highly, that he could not purchase one under two Crowns in Gold, which they said was as ancient as Solomon 's Reign, and but of a base Metal. Lastly, he adds these words, which do not a little illustrate the present Argument; They affirm, that among the deepest Ruins, and vastest heaps of Rubbish, these Coins are frequently digged out, and are a most certain proof of Antiquity, as having this Inscription, Holy Jerusalem, into which from Solomon's time the Samaritans never entered, nor vouchsafed the City the name of Holy; as they adored without Jerusalem, and worshipped Idols, half Gentiles, half Jews; so that it is not probable they would have celebrated a City which was in Enmity with them. Concerning the Samaritan Shekles, much more may be read in Villalpandus, Morinus, and others. 
Villalpand. Appar. in Ezech. Morin. in exercitat. in Pentat. Samar. Altand. in Epist. ad Morin. Buxtorf. Dissert. de Lit. Heb. Light. Hor. Heb. ad c. 5. Matt. S●ick. in Jure Reg. Heb. sub. ●i●.  Perescius had several Samaritan Coins, and Jerom Aleander saith, that he met with several at Rome.  
But notwithstanding all that has been said, John Buxtorf, a most obstinate Asserter of the Jewish Context, defends the perpetuity of the Hebrew Letters, by many Authorities taken out of the Rabbis Books. Lightfoot agrees with Buxtorf, though he acknowledges the Talmudick Doctors to be his opposers. Shickard produces many things of the same nature, Hebrew Professor in the Academy of Tubinghen, together with some other Hebricians. But Walton deserts this Opinion, which he found to proceed rather from Rabbinical discourse, than from sound Theology. For which reason that famous person is but hardly thought of among some of the Rabbinists, especially Mathias Vasmut of Rastoch, who after many severe expressions against him, Walton, says he, quoting the Pontificial Authors against the Divine Authority of Scripture, ought not to be endured in a Reformed Church. But for the same reason neither ought Drusius, Scaliger, Casaubon, Vossius, Amama, Bochart, and several others to be suffered among those that assume the Title of Reformed, seeing they have all the same Opinion with Cappellus, and Walton concerning the Samaritan Letters. Moreover, Buxtorf seems to have condescended to this Opinion concerning the Diuturnity of the Hebrew Letters, not willingly, but by constraint, that he might refute Cappellus' Book entitled Arcani punctationis Revelati; and there he proves the Novelty of the Samaritan from the Antiquity of the Hebrew Characters. Buxtorf drew many into his Opinion. But they are in the number of those whom Vossius calls Asses clad in Professors Gowns, who having little either of Art or Ingenuity, merely instructed by the Writings of single Buxtorf, make a great noise with those Rabbis, whose Books they never so much as opened. But there is no reason for the Critics to dispute so fiercely about the first Hebrew Characters. For if you more heedfully consider and compare together the Samaritan and Hebrew Characters, there is not such a vast difference between them, but that they may be thought to have had one and the same Original: From whence also the Greek and Latin Capital Letters seem to have derived their first forms. Tho being subservient to Custom, they have undergone several Alterations according to times and places. And thus the Eastern Jews form their Characters after another manner than the Western: 
Post●l. in ●lphab. 12 Ling. R. Azar. Inre Bin. c. 56. Blanc. in G●am Villal●. Appar. ●n Ezech. Kircher. O● dip. Egypt. par. 2. Morin. Ex●●citat. in P●ntat. Sam Hortin. Ex●●citat. in Morin.  Then the Western, as the Italian, French, Spanish, Germans, etc. differ one among another, and from all these the Moors or Barbary Jews. Nor is there less difference between the Forms of the Samaritan Characters, which have lately been Printed in Europe, as any one may see, who diligently observes the varieties of Letters in the Samaritan Alphabets, which have been put forth by Postellus, R. Azarias, Blancuccius, Vill●lpandus, Kircher, Morinus, Hortinger, and others. Those Letters which are Printed in the Parisian and English Bibles, were transcribed from one Copy. Which things being granted, it is not at all to be wondered at, that the Letter Tau, which Jerom notes to have formerly resembled the form of a Cross, should now not bear the same figure in the Vulgar Alphabets of the Samaritans, because in process of time the Letter was altered. But Rabbi Azarias sets down in his Alphabet two sorts of this Letter Tau, one of which resembles the form of a Cross. Jerom Aleander likewise writing to Morinus concerning the Shekels of that Nation which he had seen in Rome, has these expressions upon one piece of money; You shall see upon both sides of the Coin the Letter Tau, in the form of a Cross, which being formerly written thus X, degenerated at length into this Form Ae. To the same effect Perescius wrote to Morinus. Therefore when one and the same Character at the same time in divers places, admits of various forms, what wonder is it that this Letter, the most ancient of all, after so many Ages, especially among several and different Nations, should vary from his first figure? Who so ignorant, as not to know that the Roman Letters, after the Goths invading Italy, lost their Original and Ancient Form, neither were they the same with those Letters which were the true Ancient Letters, and were called Lombardick? But of this sufficient has been said: Now let us come to the Samaritan Targumim or Paraphrases.  

The Scripture first wrote in the common Language of the Country.  Because, according to the Admonition of St. Paul, All things that are written, are written for our instruction, in Ancient time both the Old and New Testament were never written in any other than the Mother Tongue, to the end the Scriptures might be read by the Vulgar People. And yet in our Age there is a certain Parisian Divine, who has ventured to affirm, that the Books of Moses Law seem to be composed in a Language which was not then familiar with the People; 
Dr. Mallet.  and what is hardly to be credited, that most Learned Doctor has feigned a hundred monstrous Stories of the Hebrew Language, of its Characters and Grammar, of which Moses was the first Author. But the Paraphrases of the Sacred Text, which the Jews and Samaritans compiled in their Mother Tongues, so soon as the Hebrew Language ceased to be familiar, plainly demonstrate that the Scriptures were written in the Language of the Country. Whence arose that Version wrote in Syro-Chaldaick, not unelegant neither, which denotes its Antiquity. This is put forth in the Parisian and English Versions, and seems to have been composed by the Samaritan Doctors, to be read in the Schools, and to the end that all the words of the Mosaic Law might be read, when the use of the Hebrew Language itself was only among the Learned. The Samaritan Paraphrase expresses almost verbatim the whole Hebrew Context; from which it swerves in but few things, most especially in the names of Rivers, Cities and Countries, which he accommodates for the most part to the time present. Nor does he seem to be free from all praeconceived Opinion, for which reason he translates the word Elohim Angels. Thus where we read that man was translated in the likeness of God, he renders it, in the likeness of Angels; and a little before, instead of these words, Ye shall be as Gods, as it is in the Hebrew, he renders the words, Ye shall be as Angels. Sometimes he confines the Hebrew words to his own sense; as instead of those words in the Latin Edition, The Spirit of God was carried upon the face of the Waters, he translates it, Blew upon the Waters. But the Latin Interpreters of the Samaritan, seems not so accurate in all things, especially in those places where he differs from the Hebrew Samaritan, which in some places wants correction.  
There was also a Greek Version of the Samaritan, for the use of the Samaritans, that used the Greek Language. Of which Version the Ancient Fathers have so frequently made mention in their works, 
In Exercitat. in Pent. Samar.  that Morinus affirms it to have been done by them. But in so saying, he is extremely deceived. Isaac Vossius is also in an Error, who denies that there ever was any Greek Version of the Pentateuch among the Samaritans; but that all those Quotations by the Fathers of the Samaritan Codex, were taken out of origen's Hexapla, illustrated with Scholiasts, where are various Lections of the Samaritan Exemplars. I do not deny but that Origen has cited many things by way of Comment in the Margin of his Hexapla. But the Fathers who make mention of the Samaritan Codex, cite the Translation of the Pentateuch, which was read by the Samaritans, to whom the Greek Tongue was more familiar. And indeed there is no probability that it could otherwise be; just as the Samaritan that spoke Arabic, had a Version of the Pentateuch into Arabic. Yet Masius suspects there was no other Greek Version for the Greek Samaritans, than the Version of the LXX Interpreters. Tho it is much more likely that the Samaritans after the Example of the Hellenist Jews, made a new Version for themselves, that is to be used in Schools and private Houses; the Hebrew Samaritan Context being always reserved for the use of the Synagogue. To which we may add, that the Version cited by the Fathers under the name of the Samaritan, differs in some things from the Translation of the Seventy, as appears by the Chronicle of Eusebius. Masius also testifies that Symmachus being an Ebionite, was for no other reason induced to make a new Translation of the Sacred Text in the Greek, but out of mere hatred to the Samaritans, whose Opinions he had deserted. This Greek Translation agrees in some things with the former Samaritan Version, where it differs from the Hebrew Samaritan Text, as if the Greek had been taken from thence. But in regard they frequently differ among themselves, there can be nothing certainly affirmed in reference to this particular. All which is easily illustrated by Examples. Thus Gen. 49.23. where the Latin Interpreter rightly expresses the words, both of the Hebrew, as of the Hebrew Samaritan, Having Darts, the Author of the Greek Version of the Samaritans translates the same words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which agrees with the Samaritan and the Chaldee Paraphrase. Soon after we read, v. 24. as well in the Jewish as Samaritan Hebrew Context, Beethan, which in the Latin Edition is rendered in Forti; in the Greek Version of the Septuagint, cum Fortitudine; but the Interpreters of both the Samaritan Versions, have rendered the word in profunditate. Which Interpretation does not express the Grammatical sense, as they call it, yet it may so happen, that that sense is commonly received by the Samaritans, Gen. 5.19. We read in the Samaritan Version, and in both the Hebrew Texts, pro Deo, which the Greek Interpreter of the Samaritans renders Timeo Deum, as if he had made use of a Copy quite different from all the Modern Exemplars; and yet R. Saadias' Gaon has the same Interpretation in his Arabic Paraphrase, who nevertheless had no other Exemplars than what we use at this day, Exod. 9.22. Instead of the word Flies, which is read in the Latin Edition, in the Greek Samaritan Version the word Crow is made use of, the Interpreter mistaking the word Oreb for Erob, which signifies a confused multitude of Flies or little Infects. Which Error may be imputed to the Interpreter, by reason of the various manner of reading, because of the want of Points in the Hebrew Samaritan Copy.  
The Samaritans have also an Arabic Version of the Pentateuch, which was compiled for the use of them that spoke the Arabic as their Natural Language. For though the Samaritans, like the Jews, read no other than the Hebrew Text of Moses Law, in their Synagogues, yet have they several Translations for the several Provinces belonging to it. The famous Perescius had a third sort from the Samaritans, but defective, wherein the Arabic Version was written in a Samaritan Character, of which there are some Copies however written in a Samaritan Character. Hottinger has inserted the 4th chap. of Genesis out of a certain fragment of that Arabic Translation, both in Arabic and Latin, in the third Book of his Bibliotheca Orientalis. The most Learned Walton makes mention also of the same, which Usher of Armagh communicated to him. The Samaritans have also other Arabic Books, written out however in a Samaritan Character. Thus J. Scaliger makes mention of a Samaritan Chronicle, the Epitome of which Hottinger has rendered into Latin with this Title, An Epitome of the Chapters of the Book of Joshua. Because it gins from the Death of Moses, and the Conduct of Joshuah, 
De Emendat. T●mp.  and extends, as Scaliger observes to the Reigns of the Antonines. Nor do the Samaritans want the History or the Book of Joshua itself, which however does not agree in all things with the Hebrew Text; nor do they look upon it as Canonical Scripture, in regard they acknowledge no other for Authentic Divinity, but the Law of Moses. I shall not trouble myself with the Lexicons which are now in use for the Samaritan Language, of which Perescius testifies himself to have one, in his Epistle to Morinus. Pestellus also makes mention of their Grammar. Which Writings were they Printed, would give great Light into the Samaritan Language, and how the Samaritans pronounce the Hebrew, and what signification they give to some more difficult words.   

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

Of the Bibles of the Sadduces.  CErtain it is that the Sect of the Sadduces in the time of Christ's being upon Earth, was the most noble Sect, and one which had the chief management of the Public Affairs among the Jews. But after the Destruction of Jerusalem, and that the Jews were scattered into several parts of the World, that famous Sect became so entirely extinct, that there is not the least footstep of it. There only remained the Sect of the Pharisees, whose Room the Rabbanists and Talmudists, vulgarly so called, in aftertimes usurped. For they are the same with the Pharisees whose Traditions the Jews so greedily swallowed, and adored, as if proceeding from the mouth of God. Therefore the Scriptures of the Old Testament came to the Christians from the Pharisees, and not from the Sadduces. 
Vossius de Septuagint. Interpret. c. 17.  But in this Isaac Vossius, and several others seem to have been deceived, St. Jerom himself being their guide and director, while they affirm that the Sadduces in imitation of the Samaritans, translated no more than the five Books of Moses. For what reason was there why the Sadduces, who were but a late Sect among the Jews, after the Volumes of the Prophets were confirmed by the public practice of Reading, should only believe in Moses. Therefore there is no question to be made but the Sadduces received all the Books of Sacred Text, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all that was written, rejecting only the Traditions of the Pharisees, which seemed to them to be only the Figments of idle persons. More notoriously do they mistake, who believe the Carraeans to have followed the Samaritans in this particular. And which seems almost incredible, Isaac Vossius, otherwise a Learned Person, places the Carraeans among the Ebionites, Nazareans, and other Sects of the Jews, who retaining the Ceremonies of the Mosaic Law, believed the Gospel. Therefore it behoves us to relate in short what the Sect of the Carraeans was, and what was their Opinion concerning the Sacred Scriptures.  
The word Karrai, from whence the Carraeans derive their name, signifies a man exercised in the Reading of Scripture. But that name, which was formerly reverenced, became to be hated, by reason of the Sect of the Carraeans, that first began to spread itself toward the beginning of the 10th Century. They like the Rabbanists allow of twenty four Books of Scripture with the Tittled Vowels, and other Masoretic Marks. In expounding the Sacred Scriptures they follow the Masoretic Lection every where, esteeming it no less than Aben Ezra, Kimchi, or any other of the Jewish Grammarians; and in imitation of them are great searchers after Grammatick Quirks. Therefore was Buxtorf horribly mistaken where he writes, We have read of the Carraeans, who rejecting all the Traditions, only adhere to the Text, that they not only differ extremely one with another, 
De p●nctor. Antiquitat.  as to the understanding and Exposition of things, but also in the Reading of Scripture, as refusing points which they look upon as a piece of Oral Law, or Tradition. Buxtorf had had a quite contrary Opinion concerning the Carraeans, if he had lighted upon those Books, which he seems not to have been furnished withal. For they do not altogether reject the Talmud and Traditions of the Jews, but they presume not to compare them with the Sacred Scriptures, as the Rabbanists. And therefore laying those aside, they endeavour after the manner of the Critics, who are free from all prejudice, to draw forth that which seems to them to be the truest sense of Scripture, by comparing one place with another, taking little notice of the Talmudick Expositions, which many times make large Excursions far from the matter. And therefore if the Jewish Rabbanists speak ill at any time of the Carraeans, as Corrupters of the Biblick Context, it proceeds out of mere Envy and Malice, not from heat of Dispute. All which things may be more perspicuously seen in the Books of the Carraeans themselves.  
Aaron the Son of Joseph, of the Sect of the Carraeans, who wrote the Commentaries upon the Law, An. 1294. at the beginning of his Book, deplores the lamentable state of the Jews, and their being scattered into all parts of the World, asserting that Vision and Prophecy was taken from them, and that they had almost forgotten the Hebrew Language. But, saith he, several Doctors appeared among the Israelites, who searched out the Scripture, which contains the 24 Books in use among us. Therefore the Carraeans do not agree with the Samaritans upon this point, but with the Rabbanists allow the whole Scripture to be Canonical and Regular. And they also frequently call it a Prophecy, thereby to distinguish it from those other Traditions, which the rest of the Jews are not afraid to obtrude upon us. In the same place he rebukes the Cabbalick Doctors, who many times propound for Scripture the Figments and Fables of their own Brains, and, to use his own expressions, depend upon the Cabbala, and tattle idle stories, and boast their Cabbala or Tradition to be above the Scripture. However, the Carraeans do not reject all manner of Tradition, but they separate the ridiculous and uncertain from that which has some appearance of Truth; as the same Carraean openly testifies in these words; Nor let any one object to us, that we are Enemies to the Writing, Reason and Doctrine delivered to us by our Ancestors. For this Tradition which we make use of was not lost, and is comprehended in true Scripture, not seated in variety; concerning which the Israelites in all things agree. This is that Tradition which caused them to approve by their Authority the Masoretic Scripture received by all the rest of the Jews, with the Points and Accents; which will be still more apparent from the above quoted Commentary of the Carraean.  
It is a wonderful thing how studious this Carraean was of Modern Lection and Grammar, when they appear useful to the Explication of Scripture. Sometimes he appeals to the most celebrated Masters of the Jewish Rabbanists, to confirm his Opinion by their Testimonies; sometimes he refutes them, especially the Cabbalistick, and Allegorical Doctors. But much oftener he has recourse to the Analogy of Grammar, than to the Testimonies of others. Thus at the beginning of his Exposition of Genesis, he has these words; Bereschith is of the same form as Scherith, only that Aleph is not pronounced. Now it is known that the word Reschith is a word that signifies time, and that it denotes the time that precedes, or that which is first of all; as Exod. c. 23. The first of the Fruits of thy Land; he adds in this place, that Reschith is a name of time; then he reproves a certain Rabbi by the name of R. Jesua, who believes that the Angels were from the beginning; and opposes to him the Opinion of the Misnick Doctors, that the Angels were not created the first day; and makes it out from the words of Scripture, that there was nothing that day created; and that this was the common Opinion of the Interpreters. Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Gen. 1.  V●haarets, and the Earth; he observes that the Vau prefixed to this word, aught to be taken like the Phe Raphatum, of the Arabic Language, and that it is not a servant to the word, but the beginning of the word. That the name of Elohim is proper to the Judges, to which he adds, that after the word Eloah was found out, than we understood Elohim to be a Plural, and then calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Leshon Tifearath, a word of honour or ornament. He explains the properties & genuine signification of Tohu, Bohu, and Coshech, and illustrates those by other places of Scripture, and refutes a nameless person, who believes the word Coshech to signify the Elementary Fire. He says, that Merachepeth is of the Dagesh Conjugation or Piel. He expounds the force of this Sentence according to the Letter, and resolves many difficulties arising as well from the Context, as from the Exposition of the Interpreters. Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he makes these Observations, the Letter He in the word Laielah, is merely additional, and there is the same account to be given of all words ending in He, whose Accent is Mileel: Where we read in the Latin Interpretation, Let us make man, and in the Hebrew Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nagnaseh, who reproves some Interpreters, who thought it was to be expounded, I will make, as if it were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because in some places the Letters Ethan, Aleph, Jod, Tau, and Nun, are changed one into another; which Rule the Carraean does not disapprove, but only here denies it to have any effect. Upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Mechelbehen, Of their Fat, which is writ with a Tzeri under Beth, he makes this note; this word is marked with a Tzeri under Beth, because it is in the Plural, to distinguish it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Chelbam, their Fat, which is written with a Scheva, and it happens to be without a Jod, which is a sign of the Plural number, as in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Becol Phagnalec, In all thy works; and in many other Examples of the same nature. In the third Chapter of Genesis he observes upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Where? that it is read with a Dagesh between the latter Caph, for ornaments sake.  
Now by the quoted Examples, I suppose there is no person but may easily collect, that the Carraeans observe the Modern Reading of the Hebrew Text, and depend wholly upon the Masoretic Copies, accurately observing the niceties of pointed Vowels and Accents. Frequently in this Carraean Author are read these words, Great Pathach, Little Pathach, Hateph Kamets', Cholem, Sheruc; for so he writes it, and no Schurec, and many of the like nature, which are the Inventions of the Jewish Grammarians. Nor does he show himself less experienced in Philosophy and Theology, than in Grammar. But I pass by these things, as being far from our purpose; only I will say something concerning their Theology, lest any should hereafter confound the Carraeans with the Samaritans; as if both did not acknowledge the Immortality of the Soul. Therefore upon these words, 
The Theology of the Carraeans.  Let us make man in our likeness, the Carraean so often already quoted, observes, That the Soul of man consisted of superior things, but the Body of the form of inferior things; for which he brings this reason, For that the Soul of man subsists not otherwise than the Angels; and adds at last, the World shall be for the sake of the Soul. Much to this purpose was observed by that Jew, who over-viewed the Constantinopolitan Edition of the Book Juchasin. For in the first page of that Book, Hence, saith he, it appears, thaet the Carraeans are not the Sadduces of our Age; for they acknowledge Reward, Punishment, and Resurrection.  
Lastly, This Carraean, doing the part of a Learned Interpreter of the Scripture, reproves exceedingly the method of the Cabbalistick Rabbis, who follow the mere trifles of Allegories. In the same manner he most sharply rebukes all those things which are feigned concerning the Tree of Life; Every one, says he, has taken up that Argument as a Parable; but then proceeding, know, says he, that all which is there written is literally true. And then as an Example of their Allegories, he produces what those Cabbalistick Doctors dream vulgarly concerning the Serpent: They say, says he, That the Serpent was as big as a Camel, and that Samuel road upon him. And that God sporting with the Camel, road upon him also. They farther tell us, We must not read Tunicas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Coats of the Skin, but Tunicas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Coats of Light. Which ridiculous Expositions he utterly exclaims against. They depend upon their Ancestors for most of those Expositions, and others like to them. And then cursing those idle Interpreters that abuse their own leisure; Woe be to him that impudently undertakes such a work. He also doth refuse several Readins which those Doctors of their own brains frivolously intrude into Scripture. To that purpose he rebukes certain Interpreters, who in the first words of Genesis for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a Resch, read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with a Daleth. There are some, saith he, that change Resch into Daleth, but it is a fiction of their little brains. In the same manner he girds them severely that divide the word Bohu into two words, as if it were to be read in the Text Bornwell Hu. And thus much for the Sect of the Carraeans: Now let us return to the Jewish Rabbanists, from whom we made this digression.   

CHAP. XIII. Of the Targumim of the Jews, or the Translations of Sacred Scripture, and first of the Chaldee Paraphrases.  
THE Hebrew Language remained so long entire and familiar to the Jews, while the Prophet's abode in Jerusalem, who made their Sermons to the People in the Hebrew Tongue, which was then understood by all. But being carried Captive to Babylon, they forgot their own Language, at least all the vulgar people. Wherefore upon their return to Jerusalem, they could not understand the Law of Moses, but with the assistance of the Rabbis, who interpreted the same in the Babylonish or Chaldee Idioms. To which purpose we read in Nehemiah, that Esdras made him a Pulpit, whence he spoke to the People; and, together with the Levites, read in the Law of God distinctly, and with a loud voice, to be understood: And after that, Then spoke Nehemiah and Esdras the Priest, and the Levites and Scribes interpreting to all the people, as it is most probable, in the Chaldee Language. Which Custom is still retained by the Jews in our Age dispersed over the face of the Earth. Thus the Spanish, Germane, Turkish, Grecian, Persian, and other Jews, make use of Spanish, Germane, Turkish, Grecian, and Persian Interpretations of the Text. And from the same Fountain I am apt to believe that all the Translations and Paraphrases of the Bible now found among the Jews deduced their Original. For it is not probable that it should be the Original of that Translation which goes under the name of the Seventy Interpreters. For the Jews of Alexandria, who spoke Greek, made for their own use a Greek Version, which afterwards fell into the hands of the Christians. As for the Chaldee Paraphrases, they were made at Jerusalem, and other places near adjoining, whence they were transmitted into places farther remote. Those Chaldee Paraphrases are highly esteemed by the Jews even in these latter times, especially those which are attributed to Onkelos and Jonathan. But as to the Authority and Antiquity of those Jews, the Learned are at variance among themselves; and therefore because no man has handled that point more accurately than Elias the Levite, a person long versed in the Chaldee Tongue and Writers, it will not be amiss to translate so much of his words as shall be necessary for our purpose out of his Preface before his Chaldee Lexicon.  
When the Jews were carried away captive out of their own Land into Babylon, they forgot their own Language, as the Book of Nehemiah testifies. So that all the knowledge of the Rabbis and persons skilful in the Law, was chief public in the Babylonish Languages. In that the Babylonish Talmud was composed. Furthermore, during the time of the second Temple their Language was for the most part Babylonish; which when Jonathan the Son of Uzziel became sensible of, he wrote a Chaldee Paraphrase of the eight Prophets for the use of the People. Onkelos also wrote another of the Law. But the Hagiography was not translated till long after, in the Language of the Jerusalem Talmud, as I shall afterwards relate. In the mean time let us examine some things that concern the Paraphrasts themselves. First, why it is said in Gemara, that Jonathan was long before Onkelos. How Jonathan was one of the Disciples of Hillel, who flourished about a hundred years before the Destruction of the Temple; but that Onkelos was the Son of Titus who destroyed the Temple. And if it were so, why Jonathan first paraphrased the Prophets, and did not begin with the Law. Our Ancestors of blessed memory have reported indeed, that he intended to have explained the Hagiographers, but that a voice spoke to him from Heaven, saying, Is it not enough that thou hast laid open the Mysteries of the Prophets? Wouldst thou proceed to open the Mysteries of the Holy Ghost (that is, of the Books of the Hagiographers?) For that reason he did not paraphrase upon the Hagiography. But then another difficulty offers itself, why he did not expound the Law? especially seeing a Cabbalistick Doctor Rabbi Menahem Rekanatensis has wrote in the Section Matzorang, that he also translated the Law, where he has these words, And he sent a live Bird. For these are his words. I found in the Targum of Jonathan the Son of Vzziel, of happy memory, and he let go a live Bird; nor does he write otherwise in many other places. If this be true, it is a wonder how it should be lost in so short a time, and not the least remainder of that Translation be to be seen. We may also inquire why Onkelos did not translate the Hagiographers, and why they continued unparaphased till the time of a certain Hierosolymite, who explained them paraphrastically. But who he was, or what his name was, or when he lived, is not certain. Thus the Hierosolymitan Interpreter who translated the Law, is to us unknown, whether he be the same who interpreted the Hagiographers, or whether they were two Interpreters that lived at two several times. Some say that Aquila the Proselyte was the Author of both Paraphrases; others there are affirm Joseph the Blind to be the Author of both. And in truth I have found in Bereschith Rabath taken out of the Hagiographers and Prophets under Aquila's name, as that Verse, Life and Death are in the power of the Tongue, 
Prov. 12.  etc. See in the Root Matztar. Also upon these words of Ezechiel; The Brides of their Adulteries. Aquila's Targum reads, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Ancient Whore.) See the Root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus Aquila also interprets some of the Garments of which Isaiah makes mention. But there is no mention of Rabbi Joseph 's Paraphrase in Bereschith Rabath, for he was not yet alive. But there is mention of it in Gemara upon certain Verses of the Prophets and Hagiographers, which are not found in the Verses of the Law. Know however, that the Language of Onkelos 's Paraphrase differs in nothing from the Language of Jonathans'. For both speak the Babylonish Idiom, as do the Books of Daniel and Esdras; yet their Language is much more pure and elegant than that of the rest of the Targums. As for the Hierosolymitan Targum, it differs very much from the Babylonish, in regard it is composed of several Languages, the Greek, the Roman, and the Persian. And because so many Languages are found to be in it, this mixture seems to me to have begun from that time, when those Empires had the Dominion over Jerusalem. Therefore is that Language called the Jerusalem Targum; for that in that same mixture Rabbi Jonathan composed the Jerusalem Targum about 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. At what time every body knows that Jerusalem was subject to those Nations, as we find in the Book of Josephus Goronidas. But at what time the Jerusalem Targum was composed upon the Law and the Hagiography, is unknown to us, whether before or after the Hierosolymitan Targum was finished; I aminduced to believe that the Hierosolymitan Targum was never extant but only upon Job, the Proverbs, and Psalms, and not upon the five Volumes; for the stile is not the same, although in these there are many words taken from the Hierosolymitan Author.  
Thus far Elias the Levite, who at length confirms his Opinion concerning the difference of the Targum of Job, the Proverbs, and Psalms, which he calls the Hierosolymitan, from the Targum of the Five Volumes, by the example of the double Targum upon the Book of Esther; of which the second bears the name of the Hierosolymitan. And that he again confirms by the Authority of Rabbi Solomon, and after a short discourse concludes that the Author of the Targum of the Five Volumes is no more known than the Author of the Targum of Job, the Proverbs, and the Psalms. For first, who Onkelos and Jonathan were, is utterly unknown, or in what Age they lived. Concerning their Antiquity also the Christians much dispute, while others led by the Testimonies of the Jews, believe their Paraphrases to have been made about the time that Christ lived upon Earth: Others think them later than Origen or St. Jerom, because they neither make mention of them. Yet it might be that in those very times they were known to the Babylonish Jews, where they seem to have had their Original; but not being yet reduced into one body, they were not made commonly public: And thus I have lighted upon some Exememplars of the Pentateuch, to which there was added to every word of the Hebrew Text an Exposition in French; yet a French Paraphrase upon the Law of Moses was never yet cited by any of the Jews. And therefore it is very probable that certain Doctors of the Babylonian Schools expounded the Hebrew words in Chaldee for the benefit of the people, out of which in process of time an entire Paraphrase was compiled. And to make me so believe the purity of the Chaldee Language wherein they are written induces me. Which is to be understood of the Paraphrase only that goes under the name of Onkelos upon the Law of Moses; and of that other upon all the former and latter Prophets, which are attributed to Jonathan: For that same Jonathan, or whoever else were the Author of the Paraphrase upon the Prophets, did by no means compose that other, which is published by certain Jews under Jonathan's name; so different is the stile of both; which I wonder was not taken notice of by Huetius, and other Critics, who confound this same Pseudo-Jonathan with the True and Ancient Jonathan, as if one and the same Author had paraphrased upon the Pentateuch and the Prophets. But as for that story of the Talmudick Doctors of the Voice that spoke from Heaven to deter Jonathan from explaining the Hagiographers, there is no wise man but takes them for the dreams of the Jews. But first we are to take notice of what has been observed concerning the diversity of the Babylonish and Hierosolymitan Dialects by the same Elias, who seems to set little or no value upon the rest of the Paraphrases which are extant upon the Hagiographers, because they were written by men of no name. To which we may add, that their Authors frequently swerve from the words of the Hebrew Text, foisting in the room of those Talmudick Fables and Stories of the same nature.  
Onkelos and Jonathan stick much closer to the sense of Scripture, and yet sometimes they are not so very careful to express it verbatim, as Elias the Levite testifies. But, saith he, The Paraphrasts do not always observe the Rules of Grammar. For sometimes they render the Preterperfect tense by the Future, and the Future by the Preterperfect tense, and sometimes the Participle by the Preterperfect tense and Future. Sometimes they interpret a Verse as they judge most agreeable to the Targumick Language, not so much minding the Biblick Context. To this Elias adds the Testimon of Solomon Isaac, whom we erroneously call Jarchi, who observes Onkelos not to be very curious of the Grammar of Scripture, but to have followed his sense and judgement in many things; and sometimes those Paraphrasts have omitted not only whole words, but whole sentences. For indeed it is the common Fate of all Paraphrasters, who translate Books out of one Language into another, to follow the freest method of translating. So that if there occur any difference from the Translation, it is presently to be referred to its Cause and Original; and we are diligently to inquire, what might have been the Product of the various Readins of the Codex's, and what might be altered according to the Fancy of the Interpreter. However, this is chief to be taken notice of, that the Writing of the Chaldee Paraphrases was heretofore very confused and disordered: For there was no Analogy of Orthography, the Letters Vau and Jod being without any distinction made use of, and inserted into words without any signification. In like manner, the Author of the Chaldee pointing observed no method in putting the Titles to the Chaldee Context, as Elias the Levite plainly testifies, who was the first that polished the Chaldee Language. Now how difficult it was to frame a Chaldee Grammar, I rather choose to show from the words of Elias himself, than my own.  
Many, saith Elias, asked me, whether a Grammar could be framed for these Targumims; I answered according to my own sentiments, that I could not do it, in regard the Exemplars varied among themselves, as well in words as in letters, and altogether in the points, which differed almost beyond all possibility of reconciliation. And that proceeds from hence, because the Paraphrasts wrote their Versions without points, which were not yet invented, as I have truly demonstrated in my Preface to Masoreth Hammasoreth. To this we may add, that the most Ancient Exemplars are all without points, because the Authors of the Masora never pointed them as they pointed the rest of the Scripture. But a long time after they were pointed by one or more persons, though of no note, as they thought good. Therefore there is no Analogy observed, neither can there be any method produced for the making of a Grammar. And indeed unless it were so, who could imagine that from the time that the Targums were composed, there should be no persons among the Jews who had Erudition enough to frame a Grammar, as Rabbi Juda did, who was the 
* In this Elias is mistaken, in affirming R. Juda to be the first Grammarian among the Jews, when there was before him Rabbi Saad as, whom he afterwards nominates.  first Grammarian of note; whereas before him there was no Hebrew Grammar. But because he found the Sacred Books of Scripture noted with points and accents, as also furnished with a Masora by the Masorites, he began to assist the Israelites, and to enlighten the exiled Jews with his Grammar. Him followed R. Jona; and after him came R. Saadas Gaon; and after them an innumerable company of Grammarians. But there was no person who animadverted upon the Targum, to correct what was amiss; all slighted that business, so that it came forth perverted, which is only preserved. Therefore I began to think of a way, whereby every one might be able to make a Targum Grammar in such a manner, that he might take his foundation out of such things as were wrote in the Books of Daniel and Esther; and only upon that might build his superstructure, and deduce his Grammar Rules, if not altogether, yet in part.  
Soon after he adds these words in the same Preface; In times passed before the Art of Printing was invented, there was not found above one Targum in the City, and one in the Country. Therefore there was no man who minded them. But there were many Exemplars of the Targum of Onkelos found, because they were bound to read two Sections of Scripture, and one of the Targum every Sunday. Therefore there were some that made it their business to write something upon it, but it came to little or nothing. There was also a Masora made upon it, which I never could see; but there was no man who so much as opened his mouth to explain the Prophets and Hagiographers. Neither was there any that requied it, but all cried, Let us let that work alone till Elias come.  
But when the Chaldee Grammar was once found out, which Elias had deemed so hard to frame, presently Munster, Mercer, and other Learned men lent their helping hands to reform the Chaldee Context: Above all the rest John Buxtorf, who with a daring boldness caused to be published a vast heap of Paraphrases conformable to the method of the New Grammar.  
We have reduced, saith Buxtorf, the Chaldee Text, which is called the Targum, 
In Praesat. Bibl. Basil.  and is a most noble Commentary upon the Hebrew Text in Moses and the Prophets, to the Ancient, True and Perpetual Analogy of the Old Chaldee Language, fairly showed us in the Books of Daniel and Esther, refined from all the idle and deformed pointing, which is to be seen in the Venetian Editions.  
But as it is excellently well observed by Ludovicus de Dieu, there are many things after all buxtorf's Emendation, that require a better Reformation. In perusing certain written Manuscripts of the Sacred Text, I met with a Pentateuch written in large Letters in a large Parchment Folio, which contained the Paraphrase of Onkelos in such a manner, that a part of the Paraphrase followed every Verse of the Text. But in that Exemplar the Chaldee pointing wonderfully differs from all other that I could ever find as well among the published as Manuscript Copies. For it resembled the pointing of the Books of Daniel and Esther far better than the Buxtorfian Edition. However, the first Edition of reforming the Chaldee pointing, is attributed to the Complutenses, which being polished by Arias Montanus, was afterwards perfected in the Basil Bibles. But it seems to be much more perfect in the Manuscript which I have mentioned: Wherefore I am apt to believe, that before Elias the Levite lived, there were Jews that were both versed in the Chaldee Paraphrases, and skilled in the Language. But such Exemplars never fell into Elias' hands; and I wonder the Jews, that overlooked the Paraphrase of Onkelos, made use of no better Copies. However, I would not advise any one to pin his Faith upon the Modern Pointing so much by Buxtorf reformed, but where it seems to carry a more proper sense. But rather to have recourse to the Ancient form of the Chaldee Context, which had no Points, as being lately invented by the Rabbis, and added without Art to the Paraphrases. The Chaldee Pointing is not so Authentic as the Hebrew; for the latter had the Doctors of Tyberias for its Correctors, whose credit was no less than the repute of the School of Tyberias; the other known to few, and at this day unknown to most of the Jews.   

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

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

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

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

CHAP. XV. Of the Translations of the Bible of greatest Authority with the Christians, and first of the Septuagint.  
Although the Greek Translation of the 70 Elders, is publicly read by the Jews in their Synagogues and Schools; 
Various Opinions of the Greek translation of the Bible.  yet I think it not amiss to rank it among the Translations used by the Christians, for the Christians have long since received it from the Jews, and to this our time is retained by most Churches. But the Disputes about its Authority and Translators, not yet decided, may be a wonder; for there be some who deny its Authority, therefore others who highly maintain its Authority in all, esteeming the Translators as Prophets inspired by the Holy Spirit. Others again of a middle rank between these two extremes, do highly value this Ancient and to be honoured Translation of Holy Writ, yet in some places they think it not Authentic. I willingly pass by the History of the Translators as it is in Philo, Josephus, and in several Greek and Latin Fathers, because known to most. The Fathers borrowed the greatest part of this History from Aristaeus in his Book, 
The judgement of Aristaeus.  of the Translation of the Divine Law, out of the Hebrew into the Greek by the 70 Interpreters: and a part, since invented by the Jews, The learned Critics have thought Aristaeus' Book in part suppositious, suppose the Book that goes under Aristaeus' name were not suppositious, I should think them no wiser that quote him for the Truth of this History, than he that thinks Xenophons' Cyropaedia to be a true History of Cyrus; for as Tully upon the first sight perceived that Xenophon did not act the Historian, but that in Cyrus he gave a Model or Pattern of a just Emperor, so it may easy be seen in the Reading Aristaeus, that he is more Romantic than a true Historian. We may easily guests from the Context, that some Hellenist Jew, writ this Book in favourof his Nation. The Writer of this History, according to the Genius of his Nation, speaks great things and Miracles: For he relates when King Ptolemy wondering that the Writers of other Countries, made no mention of that Excellent works, he bring in Demet●ius answering him thus; Because, says he, it is a Holy Law given by God; and because that some going about the Translation have been diverted by being punished by God: and that Theopompus, when he would have inserted some thing out of that Law not so well translated, was Distracted for above thirty days, and that during some little intermission of his Distraction, having prayed to God to let him know the reason of his Distemper, God revealed to him in a Dream, that what had happened, was because he went about to publish to the World Sacred things, and that at length, when he had desisted from his Enterprise, he was freed from his Disease. And he farther tells us, of one Theodectes a Tragical Poet, who when he had inserted into his Play something of the Laws of Moses, was struck blind, till he had reflected upon what he had done, and had entreated God by his Vows.  
These truly are more a Romance than a History, and sufficiently show the Genius of the Jews, which always delighted to invent Miracles; there is such another Story of a Voice from Heaven which did frighten the Writer of the Chaldaean Paraphrase from the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; moreover the Supposititious Aristaeus seems to contradict here; for where he speaks of Theopompus, he tells us, That the Law of Moses was before this translated into the Greek Tongue; but if it were so why did they so earnestly desire another Translation; wherefore Baronius and other learned Men with good reason, rejecting Clemens Alexandrinus' Authority chief induced by this reason say, that the Scriptures were not translated before into Greek, and that there was no Translation whatsoever before that of the Seventy Elders. Neither can you say, 
Joseph Sealig ina●imady. Chron. E●seb. Ger. Voss. lib. 1. The Greek History.  this first Translation to have been less polite; for suppose it ever so imperfect, it had been kept in the King's Library, not altogether unknown to the King, with thousands of other Books. I pass by other remarks of learned Men, especially Joseph Scaligers of this Suppositious Aristaeus which Gerard Vossius, well versed in this matter, says are very weighty; from whence it may be conjectured Aristaeus to have writ this History perhaps to the Idea of a pious and a good moraled Prince, and this History ought not to be looked upon otherwise; wherefore the Author of these Fables mistrusting his Cause, as being improbable, adds farther, I believe, says he, my Readers will suspect my credit, but truly as it is not lawful to relate any Untruth, which hath been received; so it would be a Crime to be silent in this Affair, but as they have been acted, so I have related them, that I might avoid all Untruths, and for that reason I have endeavoured to receive the Truth from those who were privy to the King's Affairs. Truly he leaves nothing out that may corroborate his Testimony which he feared would be suspected by all.  
But the Authority of the Fathers and other Writers of good Note and Credit, who have inserted in their Works the History of Aristaeus as true, doth make for it; and it will be thought rashness to defend the contrary, but we are not to consider what the Fathers have said, so much as the reasons of their opinion; for in things purely critical Reasons are of more moment than Authorities. It is evident the Fathers were moved by the bare Authority of Aristaus, or Philo and Josephus who writ from him; but they had no reason to examine critieally the History of Aristaeus whether true? Seeing the Septuagint Translation, which at that time the Church used against the Jews, who had recourse to the Hebrew in their Disputations with the Christians, did greatly support their Cause. The Fathers had been ill advised, if they had laid by that Translation which the Jews could not totally reject. St. Jerom, 
Jerom.  a man well versed in all Learning, and had studied this Criticism, for this reason contrary to the common Opinion of the Fathers did confute the Cells of the 70. Interpreters. I know not, says he, who first invented the Story of the 70. Cells, and then laughs at Justin Martyr, who affirmed he saw them, and looks upon him as a simple Man easily induced to believe the Jews Stories. In like manner he differed in opinion from the Fathers, for from the Authority of Aristaeus himself and Josephus he asserts the 70. Interpreters to have conferred and not to have prophesied; For, says he, it is one thing to be a Prophet, another to be an Interpreter; the first foretells things to come, the other from his Knowledge afterwards and Eloquence Translates. Neither doth he esteem them more than Tully, who translated with a Rhetorical, not a Prophetic Spirit Xenophon's Oeconomy, Plato's Protagoras and Demosthenes' Oration for Ctesiphen, neither was St. Jerom ever of any other Opinion, although he may sometimes say they were inspired, and that the Learned Man did judge this to be taken in an Oeconomical Sense, may appear by several Places. For the like reason although St. Jerom did seem to be of the same Opinion with Aristaeus, Josephus and the Jews of his time, that the 70. Interpreters did translate Books of the Law only; yet in his Commentaries upon the other Books of Scripture, he speaks of them no otherwise than as the Translators of these, and this because he would not seem to differ from the common Opinion, although in his Judgement less probable.  
But some one will say, if Aristaeus' History of the 70 should be looked upon as a Fable, what Foundation had it? For certainly the first Author could not invent it without some ground, when even the Fables of the Poets carry something of Truth in them. 
The Original of Aristeus' Book. Heins. Arist. sa. Exod. 24.  Heinsius thinks this Story of the 70. to have its rise from the xxiv. chap. of Exodus; where we find, that Moses, Aaron and the 70. Elders went up unto the Lord, and from the words, which in the Latin Translation are, nec super eos qui procul recesserant de filiis Israel misit manum suam, the Greek & electorum Israel neque unus dissensit; Heinsius thinks that number of the Translators and their miraculous Agreement to have risen hence, but whatever Heinsius thinks, I am of the Opinion that the Interpreters were rather Jews of Alexandria than Jerusalem; for there are to this day some Egyptian Words as Abrec, Remphan and others, and because it was of so great a consequence it is very likely it was approved of by the Sanhedrim, and there called the Septuagint Translation from the 70 Elders, or Senators of the Great Council; for which reason the place of the Talmud otherwise very difficult, where the Greek Translation is ascribed only to five, may easily be reconciled with the common opinion of 72. by the same Authority it is made authentic to all the Jews, especially the Hellenists as the Fathers of the Western Church in the Council of Trent have made their Translation Authentic; for as the Ignorance of the Christians in the Greek caused Translations into the other Tongues; and these Translations became Authentic to the Churches by their use, in like manner the Jews Ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue did move the Jews of Alexandria to translate the Bible into Greek for their use, which Translation was afterwards read in their Synagogues and Schools; and because, as very probable it was approved of by the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, upon whom at that time the whole Nation of the Jews had a dependence, it hath acquired the Name of the Septuagint.  
Yet I think there is no necessity to have recourse to the Senators of the great Synagogue, that the number of the 72. Interpreters (to whom that Translation is commonly ascribed) may be the better made out; but we are only to consider the Form of Speech familiar to the Jews, by which they attribute every thing of moment to those 70. Senators, that the things thereby may acquire the greater Authority: For this reason they ascribe the Vowel Points, Accents, and many other things of the like nature to the Sanhedrim, not so much from the reality of the thing, as from that Form of Speech; so that it is difficult to distinguish when they speak plain and when allegorically: This way of speaking hath led many men, and those Learned, into various Errors, when in reading the Jews Books, they consider more what they writ than the manner and causes of their so writing. We may bring for Example what occur in the Rabbins about the Title of Holy Writ; the Keris and Cetibs, or various Readins entire, defective, redundant, and six hundred of the like nature. All these most of the Jews ascribe either to Moses in Mount Sinai, or to the Synagogue or Senate assembled under Esdras; all which if not taken Allegorically after the manner of the Cabbala, as the Jews themselves writ, are manifestly false, for the same reason if we are not as attentive to the words, as to the manner of writing proper to the Jewish Nation, the History of the 72. Interpreters not improbably will seem to spring from the same Fountain, whether it really was approved of by the immediate Authority of the Sanhedrim or whether through connivance publicly read in their Synagogues it at length by long use became Authentic, which truly seems more agreeable than what the false Aristaus says of the Approbation of the Greek Translation in these words, 
Arist. of the 70. near the end.  The Translation being finished, Demetrius did first read it to all the Jews who were assembled in the place where it was perfected, the Translators were also by, who were complemented and caressed by the Body of the Jews, as Authors of so great a good, and in like manner they gave Demetrius his due Praise, and earnestly requested that he would grant a Copy of that Translation to their Rulers. As soon as that Volumn of the Law was read, the Standers-by, the Priests, the Interpreters, Elders and Governors of the City, and the Rulers of the People said thus, because that Interpretation was throughout so exact, accurate and divine, it is reasonable it should remain so, and that no alteration be made therein.  
But if the Men of Alexandria were as skilful in the Greek as in the Hebrew, that they could judge from a bare Reading of the goodness and exact Agreement of the Greek Translation with the Hebrew Context, why did their King so earnestly desire Strangers when he might have made use of their help? And than who can believe, that the Hellenist Jews, but indifferently versed in the Hebrew, could be competent Judges of the Translation from a superficial reading, when the Learned of our times well skilled in both Tongues, dare not pretend to it. Wherefore what is commonly quoted out of Josephus, Philo, and others, in the behalf of the sincerity of the septuagint Translation is of no Moment, neither can it make against the Hebrew Originals, because there is nothing of the Greek Translation of the 70. in these Writers, but what was first taken out of the false Aristeus.  

Judgement of the Greek transl.  Although I reject the Story of the 70 Interpreters, which goes under Aristeu●'s Name, as an Invention of the Hellenist Jews, yet I would not detract from that Translation, which for a long time hath had a Reputation in the Synagogue and Church; For I know how much the Ancients esteemed this Translation, since it was praised by the Apostles, and the Christian Religion by no other Testimony propagated through the whole World, most Churches do to this day retain it, perhaps the Sea of Rome would use it to this time, if St. Jerome had not made a new Translation from the Original Hebrew, these and other reasons easily to be produced, manifestly declare this Translation to be of great moment, but it doth not hence follow, as is the opinion of Isaac Vossius and some others, that this Translation is the only true and least Corrupted Peice of Scripture, and to be preferred before the Hebrew Copies. It hath been a received opinion among the Ancient Fathers of the Church, that they could have nothing sound in Scripture, but what they had had Translated from the LXX because the Church own its Birth and Growth to their Translation. Origen dared not Dissent from this opinion, although he hath acknowledged a great difference between the Greck and Hebrew Copies, and as he hath testified of himself, and hath exercised his ingenuity upon all the Editions of the Bibles, and their differences. There is no need, says he, that I speak of Exodus, 
Orig. Epist. to African.  where the Appurtenances of the Tabernacle, its Court and Ark, where the Vestments of the High Priest and Priests are very much altered, insomuch that the Sense doth not seem to be the same, let us take heed therefore, that we do not imprudently and ignorantly abrogate the Copies which are in many Churches. In this passage Origon favours the Septuagint Translation more than the Hebrew Original, for this reason, lest he should be thought to bring Novelties and Corruption into the Church; yet at other times among the Learned, he did more highly value the Hebrew Verity; neither truly the Ancient Church, which suspected the Jews sincerity could or ought to have any other opinion of their Copies: But the Judgement of St. Jer●m, and the Learned Fathers of our times ought to be preferred; for the Ancient Fathers only skilled in the Greek or Latin Tongue, could not be positive in things not understood by them, but we in this Age can compare the Hebrew Originals with the Greek, and pass our Judgements upon them. Neither can the Authority of the Apostles, who had recourse only to the Greek and not to the Hebrew, be any Argument to the contrary. What benefit could the Apostles, who sowed the first Seeds of the Gospel through the World, reap from the Hebrew Copy, at that time understood but by a few Jews? But as for the Greek, 
Cicero for Arch the Poet.  it was become as Cicero doth Testify, the Mother Tongue to most Nations. The Apostles there did not use the Greek, because they were more perfect than the Hebrew Copies, but with Judgement, because it was adopted to the genius of those who were to be instructed in the knowledge of the Scriptures, the Authority therefore which the Greek Translation of the 70. acquired, was extrinsic, neither was it the more correct because praised by the Apostles in the new Testament, if it were corrupted before their time. In like manner the Authority of the Hebrew context it not lessed, because less familiar to the Apostles and the first Fathers of the Church, but as the Fathers of the Council of Trent by their Decree, by which the Ancient vulgar Translation was made Authentic, had left the Hebrew and Greek Copies untouched. In like manner the use of the Greek Translation in the Church time out of mind did not diminish the Credit and Integrity of the Hebrew. The Septuagint hath it faults even from the Infancy of the Church, many of which Sir Jerom hath marked; I do not speak of those which Jerom, taking too much Liberty in following his own fancy sometimes doth not so well Correct. The Western Church hath patronised Jeroms Censure in leaving the Greek Translation of the 70 so long and so universally used for Jeroms new Translation from the Hebrew.  
Nor were the reasons mean which induced Jerom to this new Translation from the Hebrew Original, which afterwards was deservedly used by the Church, for as he himself testifieth, the many errors in the Greek were not the sole cause of the undertaking of that work, which many speak of, but that also he had found, from his exact knowledge in both Tongues, the Greek Interpreters had not fully expressed the Hebrew Context, whom for this reason he doth often reprove in his Commentaries. I pass by, to avoid prolixity, those mistakes of the 70, many of which are taken notice of by the Commentators of the Bible, and to make up the Catalogue, the obscure places of the Greek ought to be compared with the Hebrew context, for they having not followed chief in these places, the sense of the Original, have variously and at large digressed, I cannot but praise the industrious and learned Is. Vossius, in that he endeavoured to vindicate in all that Greek Translation in his opinion Divine, 
Masius prof. to Josb.  but the unbiased Masius seems far more able to judge of that Translation, a Man of an acute Wit and sharp Judgement and well known in the Hebrew, Greek and Syriac Copies. Wherefore what we should judge of the 70 may be, I think far better learned from Masius than from Vossius.  
The Learned Man gives this Judgement of them, Whosoever, says he, will but consider the Books of Scripture, will find the Translation of them, the Law of Moses excepted, ascribed to the 72 Interpreters, that it will not seem probable, that the 72 Doctors sent to Ptolemy by the High Priest, were so unapt, so unskilful, so uncapable of Translating and absurd, that they could commit such gross mistakes, for there are not only great verbal errors arising from literal mistakes, when they Interpret one thing for another, but, and that not seldom, even in long Periods. Thus this Learned Doctor defends the opinion of St. Jerom, 
Jeroms pref. upon the Heb. Transl. Messius.  who thinks that the Translation of the Pentateuch, and of the other Books of Scripture were not done by the same Hands, the same Masius a little farther explaining himself more clearly subjoys what is worth observation. Neither truly do I calculate the above mentioned errors by the Hebrew context now in use, that the novelty of points, errors, interpoints, and the addition of Vowels and Accents, which the Authors of the Masoreth are said to have invented; or the unfaithfulness of some Transcribers whom I do not approve, as if they had designedly corrupted the Hebrew Context in many places, may not be any excuse, the very things treated of do often sufficiently manifest the Absurdity and Incongruity of Words and Phrases, which the Translators have used, and presently concludes the whole matter thus. If my opinion should be asked, I must confess that the Translation is Divine, and seems to be penned rather by Prophets than by their Interpreters in some places, in others silly, nor at all agreeable to the Learning of so great Doctors, and because I met with these difficulties not only in the other Books (although in them the errors are more gross and confounding) but also in Moses Pentateuch as we call it, and because the Story of Ptolemy and the Intepreters, related by so many, can't be without some ground, I am apt to believe their opinion to be most likely, who say that not only the Law of Moses, but also the other Historical and Prophetical Books were Translated by those Jews, at the desire of Ptolemy. Thus far Masius, whose words I have been the longer upon, because they very much Illustrate the Argument in Hand: At first this Learned man, well read in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Greek, dares not ascribe the Greek Translation, the Peutateuch excepted, to the LXX; it was so full of gross errors, and because he hath perceived many faults also in the Pentateuch, he hath embraced yet somewhat doubtfully, the common opinion of these 70 Translators: neither doth he spare to call those whom he acknowledges from a prejudice, the chief among the Jews of that age, absurd, silly and illiterate, and he seems to be introduced thereunto by the Authority of St. Jerom, and the truth of the thing itself; afterwards as it were correcting himself, he acknowledges some of the Translation to be Divine and Dictated by Prophets rather than Interpreters, and what is chief to be considered, he declares he did not reprehend the Greek from the modern Copies of the Jews, which it is evident are degenerated from the ancient purity in many places, in fine he censures the generality of Divines, who take upon them Magisteriously to judge of the matter in hand, of which they are ignorant, and do bring in strange fancies into the Church, as that the Hebrew context is designedly corrupted by the Jews, as is asserted by some, that the Greek is to be preferred before the Hebrew, with some others of the same nature which come from those who have more zeal than knowledge, if the Learned Masius was now alive, he would wonder that any Protestant and Isaac Vosius the first, should have the same opinion of the Greek and Hebrew Copies, with those divines he reprehends.  
Masius had been wholly of our Opinion, if he had not given so much credit to the Story of Aristaeus, which he saw was confirmed by a Cloud of Witnesses, he should rather have considered Reason than plurality of Voices, neither truly will he judge otherwise of the Greek Translation, who shall critically Examine it by the Hebrew Originals. And this is the Opinion of all the Critic Expositors of the Scripture. For if at any time they have used the Hebrew and Greek for illustrating the Context, sometimes they scrupie not to Correct the Hebrew by the Greek, but much more often the Hebrew is preferred before the Greek. Augustin of Engubio, to pass by others, in his review of the old Testament to the Hebrew verity, having compared the various Editions, accuses the Greek Interpreters sometimes of ignorance; This Greek Translation, says he, whether the 70. Interpreters were perfect Masters of the Greek, whether they used other Copies, than could be had in St. Jeroms' or our time, or whether they did designedly so Translate, differs very much from the Hebrew verity. Some places do show a manifest unskilfulness of the Greek, and others a great ignorance of the Hebrew Tongue. Augustine himself is not always infallible, as for Example, when he condems them for Traslating in Chap. 19 Genes. place instead of banquet, but he observes not that in the Greek corrupt Venetian it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 banquet, as is truly read in the Roman Edition. The same Augustine makes himself ridiculous, when he condemns their Translation in Chap. 27. Genes. of the Hebrew word naphal, by the Latin word manere; whereas it should have been Translated by the word cadere, fall, whence he takes occasion to defend the vulgar Translation which has it obiit; but the Greek Translation of the 70. is the best, the Hebrew ought not to be otherwise Translated, if we consider the sense, for the death of Ishmael is not there spoke of, but the Land wherein he dwelled, as appears by what goes before. Wherefore we are ●ot to ●●●ken to Augustine always when he condemns the Greek Translators, although he hath truly marked many of their Errors.   

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

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

The Greek Trans. false.  That Greek Translation was so corrupt in Jeroms time, that the learned Father had rather make a new Translation from the Original than correct the old One, the Greek as well as the Latin was so faulty, some are of opinion, that there are no remains of that old Edition; but the Works of the Greek and Latin Fathers do prove that it hath been preserved to our time, although very imperfect, and defective, in whose Works we have a great part inserted, as it is in the Greek Copies, which go under the Name of the LXX. and those who have no more Hebrew than what they have received from the Modern Grammars and Lexicons, can't judge rightly of it: And although I willingly acknowledge with St. Jerom those Translators to have erred in many places, yet I am of the opinion that they are very often unjustly censured by him and later Translators. Pierson in his Preface to the LXX. published at Cambridge 1655 hath learnedly shown, that Jerom hath often overshot in his Animadversions; I will bring other examples, by which it will appear that the modern Translators have not done the LXX. Justice in many places, the 4th Verse of the 109 Psalm is thus rendered by the LXX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Tu●es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec, which Translation Jerom keeps in his Latin Translation of the Psalter from the Greek. But Grotius and many others think this place very ill rendered, 
Grot. upon 109. Psalm.  Our Text (says he) hath it, secundum constitutionem meam o Rex mi Just; Grotius, and the rest are very much to blame, that for so small a cause they dare descent from the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they thought the Greek Interpreters did not read in their Copies Diorothi with a jod, as it is in the Modern, but Dioroth without the jod: but there was no need they should have recourse to the different readings, whereas the Greek Translation might have been maintained by the Figure Paragoge, which they are forced to admit of in other places. The Letter jod at the end of this word doth express the ancient Vowel E, or our modern Scheva, which is necessarily pronounced at the end of every word, as also now at the end of the Imperatives fac, dic, etc. among the Latins the Letter is hard in the pronunciation which Ennius, Plautus, and other ancient Authors express.  
Whereas we read in the present Text, quis mecum? 2d. of K's 9 Chap. the LXX have Translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quis es tu? For the same reason, viz. they regarded not the jod in the end of the Hebrew word, and for itthi they read atth, what we have said of the Letter jod holds good at the Letters Aleph and Vau, which were ancient Vowels, and put in and left out according to the pleasure of the Transcribers, according to thy Method the LXX, read Aleph in the word Lacen, 
Gen. 1.15.  Gen. Chap. 4. as if it were Locen, non sic, the moderns because they read Lacen without the Aleph, have Translated it, 
Gen. 30.11.  Qua propter in Genesis Chap. 30. the LXX read ba Gad as two words with Aleph in the Massoret Copies it is Bagad in one word without Aleph, 
1 Sam. 15.5.  the First of Samuel Chap. 15. We read in the present Hebrew jareu without Aleph, the LXX without doubt read it with Aleph and have Translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insidiatus est, RR David, Kimchi and Aben Mulech confirm this Translation in their Expositions, for these and many other of the like nature, the modern Translators for lack of consideration, have censured the LXX where they agree not with the present reading of the Hebrew, neither is St. Jerom himself excusable in this, who also frequently condemns them for the same cause. These different readings and the want of a complete Grammar and sufficient Rules, are the cause we are not able rightly to judge of the LXX by the Hebrew, but to render this more plain, we will examine the 22d. Psalms of the LXX with the Translators from the present Hebrew.  
The 22 Psalms, of the Greek edition hath this inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Hebrew inscription is Lamnatzeach hall Ajeleth, it is certain St. Jerom read it so from his Translation of it, we may well suspect that the 70, had not Ajeleth but Ezelat in their Copies, and therefore no wonder that they have Translated that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 auxilium, which Jerom Translates Cervum, as they have also Translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in auxilium meum in the 20 Verse, as for the sense the 70 Translators seems to be more intelligible than St. Jeroms and the rest, they are so obscure and so remote from Sense, yet I am not for their alteration, because they express the Hebrew as it is reform by the Massoreth, and every one knows that most of the Titles of the Psalms are so obscure that they are scarce intelligible to the Rabbins. In the beginning of the Psalm for the Hebrew, Eli, Eli, the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is more fully expressed, which reading is very ancient and hath been observed by Eusebius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in the Hebrew; but the two Translations of the same words were thrown into one; but that the pronoun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not repeated in the Greek as is in the Hebrew, is of no moment, it might have been left out by the Greek Transcriber, as an unnecessary repetition. At the end of the Verse the 70 seem to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Metathesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or rather looking upon the Aleph insignificant and adventitious they Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 delictorum me●runs. How could we give true Translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether it ought to be Translated Angelos or Reges, if it were not for the Letter Aleph: the Jews contend upon the Interpretation of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Jer●m. 7.8.  Jerom. 7. Some say, the Aleph is defective and left out and aught therefore to be Translated Opus, as if read with an Aleph, others again, as it is not defective but that it is the right reading and with Jerom Translate it Regina.  
The Hebrew word Dumiah in the 3 Vorse of the same Psalm is better and more intelligibly Translated Silentium by Jerome and the modern interpreters than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insipientia by the 70, which is scarce sense, the Hebrew word Gol is very well rendered in the Greek and according to the genuine sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if you should say he wholly referred himself, the rest which follows do very well agree with the Hebrew; but the Hebrew word Cariola in the 17 Verse is far better, and more intelligibly Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foderunt by the Greek interpreters, than Coari, sicut Leo, in the present Hebrew Copies and as it is in the Translation falsely ascribed to Vatablus, Verse 25 they read in their Hebrew Copy Mimmeani a me for Mimmennu ab eo, Verse 27. they have Translated hanavim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pauperes, as if it were writ with two Jod's, but this changing of the Letters Vau and Jod is very frequent in Scripture; for which reason they have Translated Naphso anima ejus in the 30 Verse, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anima mea, as if they had read it Naphsi, the same various reading is in the Psalm 24.4. and there is a great dispute among the Rabbins, some of them read Naphso, some Naphsi, as if it were really marked in the little Massoreth; but the great Massoreth hath took no notice of this difference, and therefore in the Venetian and Basil Edition of the Collection of the Massoreth, we have these words in Hebrew. ' It is strange that this word Naphsi was not put in the great ‛ Mossoreth among the words which end with a Vau, but are read ' with a jod; as if the Jews of Tiberius had marked all the various readings. RR. Aben Esra, R. Solomon Isaaki, Joseph Hajon, David Kimchi, Obadias' Siphorno, and many others, who preferred the reading in the Margin before the context, read Naphsi but the Greek Interpreters and Jerom Naphso, I did look upon four MSS of good credit, three of them had Naphso, the other Naphsi but without any mark of the little Massoreth, which of these two readings in that variety of Copies and Interpreters must we choose?  
Moreover in the same Verse the Particle lo following Naphsi, is rendered quite different by Interpreters, and this happens from an Aleph or Vau, for lo with Aleph is non, with Vau ei, and Aqu●la Translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ei; but in the Copies which Jerom used and in the present Hebrew it is writ with an Aleph: these various Readins are very ancient and not unknown to Jerom, concerning which he has these words upon this place of Isaiah, & Israel non congregabitur, which by the 70 is Translated, ut Congregarem Jacob ad cum, I very much wonder, says he, how the Vulgar edition (he means the Latin which was Translated from the 70 and at that time called the Vulgar) came to overthrow the strongest Argument of the Jews unbelief, whereas Theodotion and Symmachus do approve of our Translation. I do not at all wonder at Aquila who Translating word for word either dissembled his knowledge in this place or was deceived by the corrupt and malicious exposition of the Pharisees, that he hath Translated, & Israel ei Congregabitur, viz. Deo. Whereas the Hebrew word lo is not writ by Lamed and Vaughan which if it were the signification thereof would be ei or illi, but by Lamed and Aleph whose proper signification is non. What alteration these various readings cause sufficiently appears from the context and St. Jerom. Yet he is a little to severe upon the 70 in urging so strictly the reading of the Copies he made use of: Seeing he himself in the 63 Chapter of his Commentaries upon the same Prophet doth acknowledge the different readings not asserting one more than another of the Hebrew Copies in this place to be exceeding various. In the same Verse the 70 hath Translated the Hebrew word Zera, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, semen meum, which Pronoun the Greek Interpreters or Transcribers might easily add: Yet it is probable it was in the Original Hebrew, but, because two Jod's came together in this manner Zeraj jahabdenna, that the first might be left out. Lastly, the 70 have joined these words Ladduor jabon, which in the present Hebrew Copies are thus distinguished, Laduor hath a Comma after it and Jabon gins the next Verse, thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, generatio ventura: by understanding the Pronoun ascher, quae. The Greek Interpreters could not be tied by the distinctions now cited, because they were not then invented, for at that time the whole context of sacred Scripture was, as it were one Verse.  
We may be these easily conjecture what caused the Septuagint to differ from latter Translations; because the reading of the Hebrew Context is uncertain. Wherefore I can't see what the Interpreters of our Age, who would have us follow the Massoreth altogether, whereas their Copies are often defective and imperfective, can say to these and many more Examples I could produce. Who can deny that all the 13. Verse of Psalm 145 is not wanting, for whereas all the Verses of this Psalms are disposed in an Alphabetical order, there can be no reason given why that Verse, which ought to be marked by the Letter Nun, should be only wanting, which defect is by the 70 restored thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Latin Interpreter, fidelis Dominus in omnibus verbis suis & sanctus in operibus suis. Yet we are to take care, that when the 70 express more than is in the Hebrew Context, we judge it not always defective and gelded, for in some places their Translation is more a Paraphrase than an Interpretation, and what is specially to be taken notice of, we have not that Translation entire but very consused, Thus the 70 have Translated these two Hebrew words Eli, Eli, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Deus meus, Deus meus, respice in more, St. Jerom hath Translated them very well according to the Hebrew Orginal, Deus meus, Deus meus. The Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be Translated Deus meus, if it be read eli, and add me if elai, both these Translations have been approved of by those who could not compare the Greek with the Hebrew, and became one, because the sense by this means did seem more complete and full. I am of the opinion that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respice in me was not in the true Septuagint Copy, or at least with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once expressed. For the same reason in the beginning of the 3 Chapter of the Prophet Habacuc, there are two Translations heaped together in the same Translation, the Hebrew runs thus Bekerch Shanim, chajeha Bekereb Shanim which is thus Translated by Jerom in Latin, In medio annorum vivifica illud, in medio annorum notum facies, which expresses the Hebrew very well, but the 70 have Translated this passage thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is thus rendered in medio duorum animalium cognosceris, cum appropinquaverit anni cognosceris, cum advonerit tempus demonstraberis, be Kerib Shanim, but twice read in the Hebrew Context, are thrice repeated in the Greek, and the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is but once in the same Context is Translated thrice in the Greek Version. I pass over the great disagreement which is between Jerom and the modern Interpreters whose Translation of this, as also of the places where the Hebrew Text is somewhat obscure is to be preferred before that of the 70. Although I very much esteem the Version of the Greek Translations and sometimes so prefer it before St. Jeroms and the modern Translations; yet I can't be of the same opinion with Isaac Vossius, who thinks the 70 have better expressed and rendered the sense of the obscure places of the Scripture, than Jerom and the other Translators of our Age.   

CHAP. XVII. The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the Seventy Interpreters is examined. The Vindication of St. Jerom.  
IN Critica! Learning we are not to observe what has been said by others, but what is to be said after a due consideration of all that has been written upon the point; making it our chief business to inquire, not only what every one speaks, but what is the Opinion of every man, and what the reason of his Opinion: For most people confirm their own thoughts by the Authority of Others. And thus we have already shown how grossly Isaac Vossius erred in this particular, while he Translated into his Treatise concerning the 70 Interpreters, the Testimonies of Justin Martyr and others of the Fathers, much more invective withal then he need to have been both against the Jews and their Manuscripts. To this purpose it was excellently well observed by St. Hillary, all Obstinacy, saith he, 
Hilar. lib. 10. de Trin.  in entertained Opinions is Immoderate, and thence the Desire of contradiction arises, when the will is not subjected to the Reason, nor Study upon Learning, but when we sick for reasons to maintain our Wills, and heap up Reading to maintain what we Study By reasons such as these the learned Vossius seems to have been induced to advance the Hebrew Manuscripts of the Jews, and to assert the Greek examplars of the 70 Interpreters, 
The Opinion of Isaac Vossius concerning the 70 Interpreters.  Vossius therefore affirms these 70 Interpreters to have been inspired with the Holy Ghost, in which Opinion he has all the Fathers of the Primitive Times to back him except only St. Jerom; who varies from him in his Sentiments as well concerning the Depravers of the Hebrew Manuscript, as touching the Inspiration of the 70 Interpreters. And indeed St. Jerom has brought upon him the ill will of most of the Doctors of his Age, for that forsaking the common road and most approved by the practice of the Church, he seems to fight under the Jews Banners, which was the reason that he wanted but little of being thrown out of the Church as an Innovator. And now in our time Vossius condemns his Version and calls it Rabbinical. But that most learned Father encountering those Reprovers, that know how to find fault but could not mend, practised the Critical Art, and in his Writings sufficiently satisfied those persons that made such a noise against him. Nor indeed was it so much to be wondered at, that St. Jerom in some things more seriously considerative, and furnished with a better stock of Oratory made no scruple to vary from the Ancients. For Justice never defends manifest Errors. I know indeed that in matters of Faith the Consent of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church carries something of Authority: But he is neither generous nor religious who in matters that concern not Faith, is afraid to departed from the Opinion of the Fathers, and had rather believe other men's Writings then his own Eyes or Experience. St. Austin of old thought far otherwise of himself; who wishes that other men would judge of his Works. I would have no man, 
Aust. de don. Persev. c. 21.  saith he, so devote himself to all my Writings so as to follow me, unless in those things, wherein he finds me not to Err.  
Therefore have we no reason in this particular to agree with Vossius, who contrary to the Opinion of St. Jerom, would have the 70. Interpreters to be inspired with the Holy Ghost, and free from all manner of Error. Nay as if he had been ashamed to have given those Interpreters the Names of Prophets, as if it were correcting himself, he affirms, the word Prophet among the Ancient Writers to signify no more than Interpreter, and those to be Prophets according to the Testimony of the Apostle, who rightly interpret the Scriptures. But why does Vossius here seek Subterfuges, and retire to profane Learning, merely to show St. Jeroms Error, where he writeth that a Prophet is one thing, an Interpreter another; as if he had contradicted the Apostle who in several Places uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signify Interpretari or to interpret? But St. Jerom is in no Error in this particular, who best knew the Force of that word, when he observes a Greek Poet to have been called a Prophet by St. Paul. 
Hierom. Commeat in Ezech.  But in his answer to the Objections of the late Critica Sacra, Vossius shows himself a faint Combatant, ever and anon betaking himself to his lurking holes: But what reason he had to produce the Opinions not only of the Apostles and Evangelists but of Philo, Festus, Plato and others, 
Voss. in resp. ad Object. Crit. sacr. p. 6.  to make it out that not only they who foretold things to come, were called Prophets, but they who unfolded either past or present Predictions; we cannot find, though indeed there was in that matter no cause of difference between him and the Author of the Critica Sacrae. While St. Jerom denys the 70. Interpreters to have been Prophets, and asserts them to have been only Interpreters, in that same place he thought a Prophet to be no other than a Person inspired with the Holy Ghost, in which Sense all the Fathers had called those Greek Interpreters Prophets, nor has Vossius made use of that word Prophet upon any other Account, who has so confidently asserted their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Divine Inspiration. 
De sept. interpret. c. 25.  I am not ignorant, says he, that I shall not only incur the reproof, but the hatred of many; for having such transcending thoughts of this Version, so that I can hardly forbear to give it the Title of Divinely inspired. And indeed I desire to know what reason can be imagined, why I should not believe that which has been believed by all the Christians from the Aposties' time; excepting only some few too much favouring the Jews of later Ages. Among which no question but he meant St. Jerom. Then he endeavours to prove more at large their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Divine Inspiration, opposing their Arguments, who affirm they could not be inspired with the Holy Ghost or the Gift of Prophecy, the Jews affirming, That during all the time of the Second Temple, the Gift of Prophecy and Inspiration ceased. Which, says he, is altogether Rabinical and Fictitious: But no less idle is that which he produces against St. Jerom in these words. Seeing there the words Prophets and Prophecy were used in so large a Sense, even among the Hebrews, 
Ibid. c. 26.  they are not to be admitted who deny the 70. Interpreters to have been Prophets, as being the Chief Priests of the Jewish People, and not only Interpreters of things past, but of things likewise to come. As if it had been the business in question, whether the Title of Prophets might be applicable to the Interpreters; while the word Prophet signifies no more than an Interpreter; when he had endeavoured to prove in so many words that they were Prophets who were inspired with a Holy and Prophetic Spirit. 
In resp. ad Critic. sacr.  Nay he esteems them injurious to St. Jerom, who abuse his Testimonies to overthrow the Authority of the Seventy Interpreters. When he himself being now of riper Years, was of opinion that their Errors are not to be imputed to the Interpreters themselves, who Translated the Holy Scripture by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but to the Scribes and amanuensis. But we have already made appear what was the Sentiment of St. Jerom concerning this present matter, which Vossius understood not; for now he was arrived at Years of more Maturity, when he explained his Books by Commentaries. And how often he there corrects, not only the Scribes but the Interpreters themselves, there is no man can be ignorant.  
Tho I deem the History carried about under the Title of Aristaean to be an Illegitimate Birth; yet I willingly acknowledge, that the Interpretation which is attributed to the 70. Interpreters, was made by the Jews of Alexandria, in the Reign of Ptolemy Philodelphos, and copied out of the Hebrew Manuscript in Chaldee or Babylonic Characters; in regard the Jews made no use of any other Letters for transcribing the Scripture but only those, after their Return out of Captivity: But as for the other Greek Version, which Vossius believes to have been made by a Person learned neither in the Greek or Latin Tongue, badly and negligently copied from the same Hebrew Exemplar in Samaritan Letters, it is a mere Fiction taken out of the Pseudo-Aristobulus; who nevertheless speaks not one Tittle of the Letter; wherein Vossius maintains the same Copy to have been written; neither did any body besides Vossius ever dream of 'em; so far is it remote from all probability of Truth. They mistake indeed, as Vossius well observes, who believe that Version was derived from any Chaldaic or Syriac Paraphrase, there being no such thing extant at that time, and it being as certain that Philo takes the Hebrew and the Chaldee Language promiscuously for the same. However we may have some reason to conjecture, be had some regard to the Chaldee Language, which was familiar to most of the Jews after their Return from Captivity. There was at that time neither Chaldee or Syriac Paraphrase; yet long before that, the Rabbis, as well in their Synagogues as Schools, read the Scripture Text as often in the Chaldee as the Hebrew Language, whence it might come to pass, that several words in the Greek Translation were more adapted to the Idiom of the Chaldee or Syriac Tongue, than the propriety of the Hebrew Speech.  
The same Vossius invented another Fiction, 
De Sibyl orac.  asserting that until the Time when Aquila flourished, there was no other Scripture read in the Synagogues of the Jews, than the Version of the Septuagint, in regard the Hebrew Language was so forgotten, that the Rabbis themselves did not understand it. But the 70 Interpreters, as Vossius will have it, 
Vossius' Errors  flourished at what time the Hebrew Language was familiarly spoken. But the Hebrew Language was no more a Familiar Speech in the time of the 70 Interpreters, than it was when Aquila lived. For that it was abolished after the Jews were carried Captive into Babylon; and after their return it ceased to be any longer the Language of the Country. How then could it be, that it should only continue among the Rabbis, who taught it publicly in the Synagogues and Schools; or if it be true, that till the Time of Aquila, there was no other Scripture read in all the Synagogues of the Jews, but the Greek Interpretation of the 70 Interpreters. How came it to pass that Flavius Josephus expounded the Law of Moses in the Hebrew Language, as Vossius affirms, and moreover that the same Josephus, the most learned of all the Hebrews of his Age, set forth his History of the Jews in the Hebrew Language, before he wrote it in Greek? Yet if we may believe Vossius, the Hebrew Language was then wholly lost: If it were so, why does he call it the Country Language of Josephus? He'll never agree with any who disagrees with Himself. It is manifest also from the Writings of Josephus, that the Jews of Palestine and the Territories adjacent spoke the Hebrew Language, which they learned by practice, without any Grammatical Rules, which were not invented till after six Hundred, as Vossius would have it, but not till after nine Hundred Years and more. In which sense, as Vossius relates, Josephus reports of himself that he excelled in the learning of his Country all the rest of the Jews; but that he learned the Greek by Grammatical Instructions. Now he calls his Country Learning the knowledge of the Hebrew Language & the Law of Moses, which the Hyerosolymitan Jews read in the Hebrew Language in their Synagogues. Nevertheless if we believe Vossius, who frequently contradicts himself, Christ and his Apostles spoke Greek in Judea. Wherever, saith he, from the time of Alexander the Great, the Grecians dilated their Conquests, there also the Greek Language prevailed, and a little after, as in Egypt, Asia and the rest of Syria, so also in Judea there was no other Language spoken, especially in great Towns and Cities. Yes— there was in Egypt besides the Greek the Coptick, in Syria the Syriac, in Judea the Judeac, or Chaldee Syriac. Vossius might have learned from the Evangelists, that the Language of the Jews who Inhabited Jerusalem, which ought to be numbered among great Towns and Cities, was the Chaldee or Syriac, and that Christ did not speak to the Jews of that City in Greek but in Syriac. Which Language, the Jews who inhabited that Country afterwards retained tho corrupted, as may be proved by the Example of the Talmud, which is vulgarly called the Hierosolymitan, and the Language also wherein that Book is written is called the Hierosolymitan. But among the Babylonian Jews, as at that time, so a great while after, the Chald●e Language was most Familiar, who have also their Talmud written in the same Language. For the most Ancient Books of the Jews, except some very few, were not written in any other Language than the Impure Chalduic. But there is no reason we should spend any longer time in refelling the Assertions of Vossius, which have nothing in 'em of Probability. Such as are those things which he delivers concerning the Jewish Traditions, 
Voss. de Sibyl. Orac.  which he will have to be written in the G●eek. Language before Justinian's Reign, and of the Book Misua, which was translated about that time out of the Greek into the Hebrew, because by an Edict of Justinians the Jews were prohibited to read the Book of Traditions in their Synagogues. Therefore saith Vossius, to elude that command of the Emperor, the Book was Translated into Hebrew, Risum teneatis Amici.  
But if the Learned Gentleman had applied his mind to the Edict of Justinian, 
The Hebrew Text read in the Synagogues of the Hellenists. Justin Novel vel Constitut. 146.  he might have found, that the Hebrew Text was read not only at Jerusalem but in the Synagogues of the Hellenists. Which is apparently evident from the very words of the Justinian Law. We are given to understand, That some having only the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, are desirous to make use of that in the Reading of the Scriptures; that others will also take in the Greek Edition. We therefore having considered these things, believe them to do best, who make use of the Greek Translation also in reading the Scriptures, and every other Language purely which the place makes more convenient and fit for the hearers. This Law of Justinian supposes the Jews to be of two sorts, of which some being wholly addicted to the Hebrew Language, read the Scripture in their Synagogues in the Hebrew Language only: others because they understood the Greek, made use of the Greek Translation, likewise. By the Edict of Justinian they are permitted to read the Scripture not only in Greek, but in any other Language whatsoever; Therefore all the Hellenist Jews in obedience to the Law of Moses, never read the Scriptures in their Synagogue in any other then in the Hebrew Language, to which soon after their Domestic Native Language succeeded. Nor is this any way contradicted by the Testimonies of the Ancient Jews and Fathers; from whom it is apparent that the Jews of Alexandria, and all those other Jews to whom the Greek was familiar, read the Greek Version of the 70. Interpreters in their Synagogues. In like manner it appears that there were certain Synagogues in Jerusalem, in which the Law of Moses, and the Prophets were read in the Greek Language. All these and many other Arguments that might be here collected together, serve only to prove, that the Reading of the Greek Interpretation was only added for exposition's sake to the reading of the Hebrew Text. As now in our days, the Jews according to their ancient. Custom every Sabbath day, read both in Hebrew and Chaldee; because that in the Ancient Synagogues, there were both Readers and Expounders; which Gift or Function of Interpreter or Prophet was Translated out of the Synagogue to the Christian Assemblies, as appears by the Apostles words in his first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 4. Hence perhaps it came to pass that the Greek Interpretation of the Septuagint in some places less accurately expresses the words of the Hebrew Text in regard that they who made it, supplied the office of Paraphrasters rather than of Interpreters; especially in those places that were most obscure. But as I have not leisure, so do I neither care to refute at present all those things which Vossius has at large produced to defend the Translation of the 70 Elders, and to magnify the Exemplars of the Jews against all manner of probability. Therefore it will be much more to the purpose, to compare St. Jeroms Version with the Greek in some places, thence to make manifest how truly Vossius has averred that St. Jerom never deviated upon right grounds from the Ancients, 
Resp. ad Critic  and that he was the first amongst the Christians who compilled a Rabbinic Version, and showed others the way to dare as much. Far different was the Judgement which Austin Eugubinus gave of St. Jeroms Version which is now read in the Eastern Church; 
Austin. Eugub. in prefat. lib. de Vulg. Edit.  his words are these: Thus if you compare the Hebrew Text with the Edition of the Seventy, I might be bold to use this simile, in asserting that you compare Light with Darkness. Which we shall make out in every part of this Treatise. Certainly we shall find this to be so unnecessary to the Church, that unless the Divine Jerom had blessed us with this effect of his Industry, we had necessarily remained to this day in many Errors.  
I shall therefore cull the Examples of this Comparison out of the Prophets, 
The Greek Version compared with the Latin of S. J. ro●.  which St. Jerom Translated out of the Hebrew, and illustrated with his Commentaries, both being extant as well the Old as the New Translation in his Works. However it is not my purpose to vindicate St. Jerom from all his slighter mistakes, as Vossius earnestly undertakes to vindicate the 70 Interpreters: In regard that several things have slipped St. Jerom, tho' otherwise most learned, while he, too much addicted to the Jews of his Time, many times too severely corrects the Greek Interpreters. But that the Learned Father was so many times deceived as he deviated from them, according to Vossius' judgement, 
Isa. 2.22.  I utterly deny. In the Second Chapter of his Comment upon Isaiah, upon these words. Cease from Man, whose breath is in his Nostrils, for wherein is he to be accounted of; He wonders that the 70 Interpreters omitted to Translate into the Greek so perspicuous a Prophecy of Christ, as it seems to him to be, and he condemns the Jews for interpreting the word which in the Hebrew is ambiguous in the worst sense. Now under the name of the Jews in that place he taxes Aquila and other Interpreters who of set purpose compilled a different Translation from the Septuagint, to which the Jews, forsaking the Ancient Interpretation had recourse. Now whether this Omission be to be attributed to the Transcribers or to the 70 themselves, I shall not now inquire, seeing it is certain that those words were not in the Greek Copies before Origen's Time, the words being added with a mark of little Asterisms in the Edition of Aquila. Nor do I dispute of the excellency of St. Jeroms Translation whether it be to be preferred before that of Aquila. But hence, I infer that St. Jeroms Translation was erroneously called Rabbinical by Vossius, as if St. Jerom now being old had given credit to the Jews alone in compiling his Translation of the Hebrew Text. In the 5 Chapter of the same Prophet 17 Verse, where St. Jerom Translates it, according to the propriety of the Hebrew words, And the Lambs shall feed after their manner; he taxes the 70 Interpreters, for that, for what reason he understood not, they had Translated the words, They shall feed rend in pieces like Bulls. Understanding Bulls instead of Lambs, and for Stranger's interpreting Lambs. Nevertheless the Hebrew words are not intricate here, and the sense is open. St. Jerom also reproves the Greek Interpreters for Translating the Text, 
Isa. 6.8.  And who will go for us? Because it is Lanu in the Hebrew, and who shall go to this People, which words are not in the Hebrew. But perhaps instead of Lanu, the read Laam; or else the same words which follow after, Go to this People, are here added for Explanations sake; in regard the Pronoun l signifies nothing there as in many other places.  
But much more worthy Observation are those things which St. Jerom reports upon these words which he had Translated according to the Hebrew Text, Blind the heart of this People, and load the Ears of it, when the Greek interpretation seems much more kindly, wherein it was written, And the heart of this people became obdurate. But they who understand the Hebrew Language know well, that this variance might proceed from the different pointing of the Vowels: and the 70 followed the pronunciation most usual in their own time, which was different from what was practised when St. Jerom lived, and this is demonstrable from the Mascretic Exemplar. Both Readins are confirmed by Tradition. But the Greek is here to be preferred before St. Jeroms, because the Apostle followed it in the Acts of the Apostles. However St. Jerom answers to these objections, that this Reading aught to be attributed rather to St. Luke the Evangelist than the Apostle. 
Comment. in c. 6. Isa.  The ancient Doctors of the Church, saith he, report that St. Luke was a most skilful Physician, and understood the Greek better then the Hebrew. Wherefore his Language as well in the Gospel as in the Acts of the Apostles is more polite, and savours of the Eloquence of the Times, And he makes more use of the Greek then the Hebrew Testimonies.  
Therefore St. Jerom seems to be of that Judgement, that he believed, that St. Paul, disputing with the Hebrews, did not speak according to the Septuagint but according to the Hebrew Text. But that S. Luke the Evangelist, who understood the Greek perfectly and read the Greek Texts made use of Greek Quotations. Like proofs to these St. Jerom produces in his Hebrew Questions upon Genesis. Where weighing the Difference between the Greek and Latin Exemplars in numbering up the Sons of Jacob who journed with him into Egypt, and putting the Question why Stephen in the Acts adhered rather to the Version of the Septuagint, then to the Hebrew Text, he thus speaks St. Luke who is the Author of that History, while he was sending out among the Gentiles a volume of the Acts of the Apostles, ought not to have Wrote any thing contrary to that Scripture, which was now divulged among the Gentiles. And in another place. But this is generally to be observed, that wherever the Apostles or Apostolic men speak to the People, they make use of those Quotations which were divulged among the People. 
Why the Apostles used the Greek Version.  And therefore it is not to be thought that the Apostles made use of the Greek Version in their Writings, because they thought the Author thereof to be inspired with a Divine or Prophetic Spirit; or because no other Scripture was read in the Synagogues but only the Greek Version, as Vossius erroneously affirms, but because it was vulgarly in use, and by the Testimony of St. Jerom, because when the Apostles spoke to the People they made use of those Quotations which were most in use among the Gentiles: Quite otherwise then as they used to speak to the people of their own Nation, who understood the Hebrew. 
Vess. Resp. ad Critic. Sacra.  But, says Vossius, St. Luke must of necessity have told an untruth, had Stephen expressed any other Sense then what he put down in his Sermon. As if there were any necessity for him to tell an Untruth, who repeats the substance of a Speech in the same words, only with some little Alterations of no moment. Nor does the Learned Gentleman seem to reach the sense of the Author of the Critica Sacra, as if he thought that Stephen had not preached his last Sermon in the Greek or vulgar Syriac, but in the Hebrew Language. Were the People, says Vossius, ignorant of the Hebrew Language in the time of the Apostles? did the the Evangelist lie? What will remain entire in the Gospel, if we admit such Fictious as these? But he rather feigns Monsters of his own, for himself to vanquish afterwards. 
Stephen preached in Syriac not in Greek.  Stephen Preached in Syriac which was then familiar to the Hierosolymitan Jews, but the Quotations which he citys he could not cite in any other Language than the Hebrew, because the Hierosolymitan Jews read the Law of Moses in their Synagogues in the Hebrew, not the Greek Language; and if any other Interpretation were added it was done in the Syriac Speech, which was the vulgar Language, as Vossius here freely confesses, not in the Greek, which was only used in the Schools and Synagogues of the Hellenists.  
But in this I confess St. Jerom is to be corrected, 
Comment in c. 6. Isai.  where he says, that Matthew and John took their Citations from the Hebrew of the Old Testament, forgetful of that Rule which he sets down in his Hebrew Traditions upon Genesis, that is, 
St. Jerom taxed.  that the Apostles and Apostolic Persons made use of the Greek Exemplars, for no other reason then because they were common among the Gentiles. But as for the Hebrew Copies, they were kept only in the Synagogues of the Jews, among whom very few were to be found who understood them. On the other side the Greek Language was familiar to most Nations. But it is to be observed, that the Apostles, though they stook to the Greek Copies, yet they did not altogether so totally depend upon them, but that many times they took more notice of the sense then the words. 
Micha. 5.2.  Wherefore S. Jerom expounding this place of Michah, and thou Bethlehem Ephratah makes this observation; Some observe that in all Quotations taken out of the Old Testament there is some mistake or other, that either the Order or the words are changed, and sometimes the very sense itself varies, the Apostles or Evangelists not looking in the Books, but trusting to their Memories, that might sometime fail them. These words indeed seem somewhat too harsh, nor have I quoted them that Vossius should give any Credit to them. And yet he can hardly forbear at the same time to believe John Calvin, who commenting upon the same place of Micha, thus observes. What necessity is there to wrest the words of the Prophet, when it was not the purpose of the Evangelist to repeat the words of the Prophet, but only to note the Text. In like manner S. Jerom, speaking his own and not the Opinion of others, concerning these Quotations which are cited out of the Old Testament into the New, 
Com. in 7. cap. Isai.  in many Quotations Saith he, which the Evangelists or Apostles have taken out of the Old Testament, we are to take notice that they do not follow the order of the words but the sense. But let us now return to our purpose.  
The first words of the ninth Chapter of the same Prophecy, are hardly to be understood in the Greek Version, 
Isai. 9.1.  when the sense lies open in St. Jeroms Version. St. Jerom produceth both in two distinct Columns after this manner. At first the Lard of Zebulon, and the Land Naphtali were lightly afflicted. This was St. Jeroms Translation: The Greek Version runs thus; Drink this first, do it quickly O Region of Zebulon, and Land of Naphtali. I am apt to believe the word Drink was taken from some other place, which changes the sense. A little after in the same Chapter, St. Jerom taxes the 70 Interpreters for that instead of these words, His name shall be called wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Father of the Age to come, the Prince of Peace; they affrighted at the Majesty of the Titles, durst not adventure to say so much of a Child, that he was to be called God, but instead of these six Titles, they have put that which is not in the Hebrew. Again he convinces the Grecian Interpreters of a manifest mistake, that not minding the spelling of the words, they have put Death instead of the Word, God sent Death into Jacob, whereas it should be the Word, as St. Jerom interpreted it: who presently adds the Original of the mistake in these words. In the Hebrew Language the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is written with three Consonants, according to the propriety of the places where it is used, if it be read Dabar it signifies a word or speech, but if Deber, it signifies Pestilence and Death. Not far from the beginning of the 10th Chapter of the same Prophet upon these words, woe to Assur, 
Isai. 10.5.  St. Jerom accuses the Interpreters for not having accurately observed the Hebrew. Again in the 28. verse of the same Chapter upon these words, He is come to Ajath, he shows at large how much they differ from the Hebrew, and taxes them of Falsehood for interpreting it Rama City of Saul for the City of Saul is called Gallna, as it is in the Hebrew.  
Moreover St. Jeroms Opinion concerning the Seventy Interpreters is quite different from that of Vossius, who believes there is nothing but Greek in it, and that it is hardly called a Language that had its Original in the Synagogue. For thus he speaks in his sixth Book of Commentaries. Instead of stranger, that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Seventy have Translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is in Hebrew Gerard— Therefore Georas' is no Greek word, but an Hebrew word declined after the Greek manner: 
Vossius contrary to S. Jerome in his Judgement concerning the Language of the Septuagint.  which is certain, notwithstanding the endeavours of a certain person to deduce the word from a Greek Original, because he has the care of the business of the Land. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Land, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is Solicitude or care. Now how far the Greek Interpreters have deviated from the genuine sense of Scripture, in the c. 24 ver. 23 of the same Prophet, where we read in the Latin Edition, The Moon shall be ashamed, and the Sun shall be confounded, St. Jerom truly observes in these words, Instead of that which we Interpret, The Moon shall be ashamed, and the Sun shall be confounded, The 70. have Translated the words, the Brick shall be melted and the Wall shall fall. And by and by he discovers the reason of the mistake, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  because that instead of the Hebrew word Levana which signifies the Moon, they read Lebena which signifies a Brick, and instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chammah which signifies the Sun, from his heat, they read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chomah which signifies a Wall. But I stay too long upon these things, in regard that St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Isaiah may be read by every body; where he frequently taxes the Greek Interpreters of Mistakes, sometimes deceived by the Ambiguity of words, sometimes upon other accounts. However sometimes he spares them, as in the 30th Chapter, where after he had condemned their inconstancy of Interpretation, by and by as it were correcting himself, he adds, I am apt to believe they did not err from the beginning, but that they were depraved by the negligence of the Transcribers. And E. 40. where he notes some things omitted by the Interpreters, he presently adds, as it were in some doubt, either omitted by the Septuagint I terpreters, or by the fault of the Transcribers. In like manner sometimes he corrects the Greek Exemplars according to the Hebrew Copies, lest the mistake should be put upon the Interpreters, as upon these words, Chap. 45. Thus saith the Lord to my Anointed Cyrus, he truly observes, that most of the Latins as well as the Greeks, did very much mistake in believing the words to be written, Thus saith the Lord to my Lord, For the Text doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies Lord, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Cyrus, who in Hebrew is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Curosch.  
The same things are to be seen in St. Jeromes Commentaries upon Jeremiah, Ezekiel and other Prophets. And indeed there is nothing more frequent in his Commentary upon Jeremiah, than his observations of things omitted by the 70, or at least of passages not to be seen in the Greek Exemplars. For sometimes he accuses the Interpreters, sometimes the Transcribers. In this Commentary also upon Ezekiel, where he observes the Omission of the Creek Copies he presently adds; In divine Scripture it is better to take all in that is said, though thou understandest not wherefore it is said, than to take away what thou dost not know. Nevertheless in the 5th Chapter of the same Prophet, he scarcely dares adventure to accuse the Interpreters, where he says, 'tis much better to Translate what is written, then to seek to defend a thing ill Translated. Nor do we say this was done by those to whom Antiquities has given Authority; but that after many Ages it was depraved through the negligence of the Readers and Writers, though both Aristeas and Josephus and all the Schools of the Jews, assert no more than only the five Books of Moses, to have been translated by the 70 Interpreters. Nor is it only in this place but in many other, that St. Jerome seems to deny that any other part of Scripture was translated by the 70, unless the five Books of Moses, as upon the 5th Chap. of Micah, where he has these expressions. The Interpretation of the 70 (if were done by the 70, for Josephus writes, and the Hebrews assert by Tradit on, that only the five Books of the Law of Moses were Translated by them, and delivered to King Ptolemy) varies so far in the place cited, from the Hebrew Truth, that we can neither set the Chapters right, nor expound their Sentences together.  
But Vossius is of a quite contrary Opinion, who not only seeks every where a Defence for a place ill translated, to use the words of St. Jerome, but openly testifies, that he makes no question but that the Prophetical Books were also translated by the Seventy Interpreters, though formerly he made a doubt of it. And which seems to be above all belief, if we may credit Vossius, the Greek Interpreters show themselves most accurate in the more obscure Books of Job and the Proverbs. But I believe there is no person siklled in both Languages, who will agree with him in this particular, so trivial is the Greek Translation of those Books in many places. 
St. Jerome sometimes taxes the Greek Interpreters without cause.  Yet am I not such a one as to pin my sleeve so passionately upon St. Jerome as every where to approve his Errors which are very many. Thus not to go farther, in the 27th Chapter of his Commentaries upon Ezekiel He taxes the Seventy Interpreters for putting down the Sons of the Rhodians instead of the Sons of Dedan, deceived perhaps by the likeness of the first Letter, whilst they read Radan for Dadan. But that this mistake is rather to be attributed to the Transcribers than the Interpreters those Verses which follow in the same Chapter plainly demostrate, where the Seventy writ Dedan, as in St. Jeromes Translation.  
Again in the 33th Chapter of the same Prophet, where mention is made of Gog, he observes, that the Greek Interpreters in the 24th of Numbers for Agag in the Hebrew have made use of the word Gog; But it is a manifest mistake of the Transcriber. But to omit a thousand thnigs of the same nature, the Observation of St. Jerome is much better in his 40th. Chapter of the same Commentaries, almost all the Hebrew words, and many in the Greek and Latin Translation, were Corrupted by long Antiquity, and depraved through the negligence of the Transcribers, and while they are Transcribed out of bad Copies into Copies more corrected, of Hebrew words they are made Sarmatic nay of no Nation at all, while they cease to be Hebrew and become Foreign. Therefore are those things most carefully to be distinguished, and according to the Rules of Criticism, which St. Jerome taxes as ill translated by the 70. For as he has rightly displayed the most of their Errors, 
Praef. in l. 7. Com. in Ezech.  So he corrects many things, which deserve not to be found fault with. Nor is it to be wondered at when St. Jerome himself testifies that he could hardly complete his Emendations, in regard there was not an hour, scarcely a Moment, wherein he did not meet with whole troops of the Brethren, and for that being then old besides the difficulty of dictating, he was not able to look over the Hebrew Volumes by reason of the smallness of the Print. In like manner he observes, 
Com. in E 42.  that he could not rightly translate something, while he had not time to consider for haste of dictating. Therefore neither St. Jerome, nor the Seventy Interpreters being Prophets they must of necessity slip many things, because they were but Men.   

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

●. Aquila's Greek Translation.  First therefore we will take notice of Aquila, whose Greek Version we shall refer to the Reign of Adrian the Emperor. He having forsaken the Christian Religion, which he professed before, revolted to the Jews, and at the same time undertook a new Version of the Biblic Context, in opposition to the Greek, which at that time was universally received in the Church. And because he found the 70 Elders to be rather Paraphrasters than Interpreters, he began a new Translation, which should render the Hebrew words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or following the signification of every word at the Heels; from whence he got the Name of the Contentious Interpreter, and his depraved affectation, which they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was condemned: Although St Jerom, according to his custom, seems to have a better opinion of him, for sometimes he praises him as a Learned and Diligent Interpreter. Thus writing to Damasus, Aquila, saith he, 
Epist. 125.  who is not Contentious, as he is reported to be, but interprets diligently word for word. Nevertheless in another place he calls him a contentious and silly Interpreter, that is to say, having relation to things and places, he gives a different Judgement of one and the same Interpreter, and taxes him as a half Christian, calling him withal, Jew and Blasphemer. In like manner Epiphanius, who detracts from Aquila, as a person that frequently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or speaks Barbarisms, yet calls to his assistance against the Arrians his Version, forsaking that of the 70 Interpreters. How highly he was esteemed by the Jews, Origen tells us in these words, So, saith he, 
Epist. ad Afric.  did Aquila subservient to the Hebrew Phrase make his Translation, who among the Jews is thought to have rendered the Scripture with greater applause, whom they chief make use of who are ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, as believing him to have attained to the perfection of it.  
However the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or depraved Affectation of that Interpreter can hardly be excused, who while he keeps over close to the words of his Text, clouds the sense and meaning of it. Wherefore he himself not contented with his own Translation, undertook another, wherein following the same method of Interpretation, he was the cause himself that those Versions had no other approvers than the Jews. Nor do Justin and some others of the Fathers seem to have recourse to them, but only to enforce their Arguments more home upon the Jews.  

The Greek Translation of Symmachus.  Who was the next that after Aquila translated the Scripture out of Hebrew into the Greek is not certainly known. For some attribute that Version to Symmachus, others to Theodosion. Symachus the first of the Samaritan Sect, afterwards turned Nazarite Christian, or Ebonite. He is vulgarly reported to have compiled his Version in hatred of his own Nation, the Samaritans whose Religion he had forsaken, and that in the Reign of Severus the Emperor. He finding Aquila's Interpretation to be contemned by most, especially the Christians, because he interpreted word for word, applied himself, as St. Jerom testifies, rather to render the sense then the words. Symmachus, saith he, uses to follow not only the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of words, but the order of Sense. After that, by the report of the same St. Jerome, he undertook another Translation: as if the former had not been sufficiently accurate to his mind.  
The third place, among the Greek Interpreters of Sacred Context is yielded to Theodotion, who nevertheless is thought by most to have lived before Symmachus, under the Emperor Commodus. He embracing at first the opinion of the Marcionites, afterwards turned Ebionites, and in compiling his Version, altogether laying Aquila's aside, comes nearest of all to the 70 Interpreters. Wherefore Origen took out of that, what seems to be wanting in this. And St. Jerom testifies, that in his time, the Prophecy of Daniel was read in the Church, according to Theodotio's Translation; nor is it a difficult thing to prove that he regarded much more the sense then the words of the Text. Thus in the 4th. Chap. of Genesis. v. 4. where we read in the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Vulgar respexit, the Lord had respect, which interpretation exactly agrees with the Hebrew Text, Theodosio renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inflammavit, the Lord set it on fire; wherein he agrees with the Rabbins, who believe that Cain thence perceived that his Sacrifice was not acceptable to God, because he found his offering was not consumed by fire.  

Other Translations of the Scripture.  Concerning the fourth and fifth Versions of the Bible, which Origen has added to his Hexaples, nothing of certainty can be affirmed, the Authors of them being utterly unknown. Yet is it not probable they were compiled by any Christian Writers, in regard that the Church for a long time after St. Jerom acknowledged no other Translation of the Holy Scripture, then that which was read over all the Catholic World under the Title of the Septuagint; 
Initio Caten. in Job.  and for that as Olympiodorus testifies, the depraved Interpretations of the fabulous Hebrews were reckoned superfluous, after the Version of the Septuagint, all other Interpreters being quoted only for perspicuities sake; and before these Versions, Irenaus speaking of the Interpretation of the 70, 
L. 3. adv. Heret. c. 25.  adds these words, They are truly Impudent and Audacious, that will make Interpretations otherwise. St. Jerom also calls those Interpreters Judaic Translators, in like manner as he entitles Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotio. But we are to note that these two Versions which we call the fourth and fifth, in origen's Hexaples, are extant under the names of the fifth and sixth; the Greek Interpretation of 70 being reckoned into the Number. But here we only mention those which were taken from the Hebrew Original, after the Greek Version of the Septuagint.  
Concerning all these Translations and the Genius of the several Translators, much more might be added, but what remains may be easily drawn from their fragments which are extant, and which the learned Drusius has caused to be made public in Print. In like manner the Scholiast may be consulted, whose Annotations are printed both at Rome and at Paris, together with the Greek Exemplar of the Septuagint, according to the Vatian Manuscript. But in the first place St. Jerow's Commentaries upon the sacred Scripture are to be scanned, where nothing more frequently occurs than the Names of Aquilas, Symmachus and other Greek Interpreters, whom he sometimes Corrects and sometimes Commends.  
To these some there are who make an addition of other Versions, and attribute them to Lucian, Hesychius, Origen and Apollinarius; but all these excepting Apollinarius did no more than examine the Greek Exemplars of the Septuagint with the Ancient Manuscripts, not being the Authors of any new Translations. In which sense are to be explained the words of St. Jerome, a most remarkable Testimony in this case. Alexandria and Egypt in their S●ptu●gints applaud Hesychius the Author; 
L. 1. Apol. adv. Ruffin.  Constantinople even as far as Alexandria approve the Copies of Justin Martyr; the Provinces in the midst of these read the Palestine Manuscripts which Eusebius and Pamphilus published, being Elaborately viewed by Origen; and the whole World contends about this threefold Truth. But Apollinarius out of all composed one Edition, though unsuccessfully being rejected as well by the Jews as Christians; wherefore St. Jerom gives this Judgement of him. I pass by Apollinarius, who with great zeal and diligence, but not according to knowledge, has endeavoured out of all the Translations, to make several pieces of Cloth into one Garment, and to wove the Consequence of Scripture, not according to the rule of Truth, but according to his own Judgement. But these things shall be made more manifest, 
Id. ibid.  when we come to explain the Disposition of origen's Hexaple, which was known to very few, as we shall prove by what follows.  
St. Jerom makes a distinction of two Versions of the Septuagint, especially in his Epistle to Sunias and Fretela, whom he admonishes, that there is another Edition of the Septuagint, whi●h all the Grecian Commentators call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Common, and another which was to be found in the Hexaples of Origen, and which he testifies to have been faithfully translated into Latin by himself. St. Jerom adds that there is this difference between the one and the other, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Vulgar was corrupted by the variety of Places and Times, and the negligence of the Transcribers; but that which was to be found in the Hexaples, that was the Translation of the 70. which was preserved incorrupt and immaculate in the Books of the Learned. Which words however are not to be understood, as if that Greek Edition, which the Exemplars of Origen present to our view, were the pure Original of the 70 Interpreters free from mistake, seeing that Origen himself tells us that he had corrected the Vulgar Exemplars with all the exactness he could, which were most of them corrupt and depraved in his time. Now who will be so hardy as to affirm that he reform every particular Error that was in those Copies? Rather it might happen that under pretence of Correction, he might obtrude some Errors that were not there before upon the ancient Exemplars, like that same Critic, who examined the Greek Edition, which is extant in the Bibles, Printed at Complutum, or Alcana de Henares in Spain, by the Greek Copies which were ancient and of good repute, but sometimes also by the Hebrew Originals. Therefore as the Edition of Complutum is not therefore the more pure because it comes nearest the Hebrew Original; but for that very reason rather discommended and rejected as corrupt; so neither is that Edition of Origen, which St Jerom magnifies, because it is more agreeable to the Hebrew Truth than the Vulgar Greek Edition to be therefore thought the more pure and without Fault, because it is more agreeable with the Hebrew Exemplars than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Common One. I confess indeed that Origen has made no alteration of set purpose in the Version of the Septuagint which he inserted into his Hexaples, because he avows it of himself, writing to Africanus, where he says that he had no intention to frame any thing which might d●ff●r from the Scripture received in the Catholic Church: But the reason of his Method, which he has followed in correcting the ancient Greek Exemplars, plainly demonstrates that in them he has made some Innovations. For thus he speaks in his Treatise upon Matthew. What Incongruities there were in the Exemplars of the Old Testament, we were able to reconcile by the assistance of God, making use of the other Editions: For those things which in the Septuagint seemed to be dubious, by reason of the Discrepancy of Exemplars, weighing and considering the other Editions, we made to agree with the Rest.  
Therefore Origen, while he lent his healing hand to the Vulgar Exemplars of the Greek Edition of the Septuagint, consulted Aquila, Symmachus and other Authors; nay and it is very probable the Hebrew Text itself too. Now who can presume to affirm him to be so happy in his Emendations, as never to swerve from the true Reading; nay though he had so exactly examined altogether all the Editions, as he says himself, and all varieties; that by comparing the Difference of Translations, he might understand the Septuagint.  

Concerning the Editions of Lucian and Hesychius.  Concerning the Emendations of Lucian and Hesychius, who in like manner examined the Exemplars of the Vulgar Greek Edition with the ancient Exemplars, the same Judgement may be given of them: For it is very probable they consulted the Versions of Aquila and others: From whence arose that Diversity of the Greek Codices, which now appears, in several Editions of the Greek Translation of the Septuagint. All which we may reduce principally to three, from whence all the rest were derived: And these are the Editions of Complutum, which is extant in the Royal Bibles, or those Printed at Antwerp; 
Anno 1515. La●e Greek Editions. 1518  in the Parisian Polyglots, and the Bible's that are Printed under the Name of Vatablus. The Alclin or Venetian Edition, which was afterwards Printed at Strasburgh, Basil Frankford, the Order of the Books being somewhat changed; And lastly the Roman, Printed from the Vatican Codex, 
1587.  which was afterwards Printed a Second Time at Paris by the care of John Morinus, 
1628.  with an ancient Latin Version; and is the same with the English transferred into their Polyglotton, as being the most accurate of all.  
The Edition of Complutum was the most full of Faults of any of the rest, as being examined and mended not only by the Greek, but by the Hebrew Codices also; some also attribute to Eusebius and Pamphilus a new Recognition or Emendation of the Greek Version of the Septuagint; 
Eusebius'● Edition.  but if there were any Edition of Eusebius it was little different from that of Origen: For as St. Jerom reports, Eusebius and Pamphilus divulged the Codex's, 
Ap●l. adv. Ruffin.  that were elaborately mended by Origen; Eusebius also recites an Epistle of Constantine the Emperor to himself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning the Preparation of Books written by divine Inspiration. As indeed at the end of certain Greek Exemplars the names of Pamphilus and Eusebius are to be found recorded in this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pamphilus & Eusebius corrected; that is to say, the Exemplars of Origen, which were inserted into the Hexaples, were afterwards transcribed by Pamphilus and Eusebius for the Churches of Palestine, whence as St. Jerom relates, they took the Name of the Palestine Manuscripts; as those which were corrected by Hesychius were called Constantinopolitan; 
The Palestins, Constantinopolitan and Alexandrian Editions.  and they that were revised by Lucian carried the Name of Alexandrian. And this Diversity of Editions appears in several Exemplars in our Age; while some relate to those of Origen, or the Palestinian, others to the Alexandrian. Now let us inquire what was the Order and Disposition of the Books in Origen's Hexaples, which is variously controverted among the Learned.  
Isaac Vossius promises that he will at one time or other demonstrate that Origen in putting his Haxaples together took another way than is vulgarly believed. 
de Sept. Interpret. l. 29.  Wherefore in his answer to the late Critics, he maintains that the Tetraples and Hexaples of Origen were not so called from the four or six Columns, but that they were called Tetraples, because they contained a fourfold Version; Hexaples because they comprehended six Versions. That the Author of the Critics errs as to the Octaples, while he follows Epiphanius in his mistakes, because Origen never wrote any Octables; that the Hebrew Codex was never reckoned into the Number of Versions, 
origen's vast undertaking considered.  by reason that Origen calls the first Columns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Foundation of all Translations. Vossius adds, that in the Tetraples there were six Columns, in the Pentateuch also seven, as to which the Samaritan Exemplar might be added, Printed in the Original Hebrew Letters, as they are called by Eusebius and Africanus; But because that was only done in the Pentateuch, therefore the Tetraples were said to contain only six Columns by the same reason as in the Hexaples, tho' in the Psal. a seventh Version is also added; and yet the Title of Hexaples remains, because that seventy Version is wanting in other Books.  
Thus far Vossius, who nevertheless citys no other Authors but himself, to show what that new way was which he promised to demonstrate; yet that we may give the greater credit to his words he adds, Since there are no exemplar remaining, or at least, none hitherto to be found of Hexaples or Tetraples, to contend about these things too profusely would but show the Vanity of a person too lavishly squandring away his leisure. After this manner Vossius acquits himself of his pr●mises to display a new and unheard of Disposal of origen's Hexaples. But since he never saw any Exemplars of them, it will not be amiss to consult those ancient Fathers of the Church, and first of all Epiphanius, who describe them as Eye witnesses.  
Dionysius Petavius a most learned Jesuit, and no less versed in the Greek and Hebrew Codex's then Vossius, asserts, that no person ever more accurately delivered what were the Tetraples, Hexaples and Octaples of Origen, than Epiphanius. And the same Petavius admires, that they most who took what they had out of Epiphanius, should be deceived in a place so plain and open to the understanding; and first he taxes Marianus Victorinus in his Scholiast upon the Second Book of the Apology against Ruffinus; where he reproves Erasmus, as he says, upon the Authority of Epiphanius, but very erroneously. The Order therefore of the several Editions is here set down in this same Scheme out of Epiphanius himself.  

TETRAPLES. 

Aquila.  
Symmackus.  
Septuagint.  
Theodotion.    
HEXAPLE'S 

Hebrew in Hebrew Letters.  
Greek in Greek Letters.  
Aquila  
Symmachus.  
Septuagint.  
Theodotion.    
OCTAPLE'S. 

Hebrew in Hebrew Letters.  
Hebrew in Greek Letters.  
Aquila.  
Symmachus.  
Septuagint.  
Theodotion.  
Fifth Edition.  
Sixth Edition.     
But, saith Vossius, the Tetraples and Hexaples were not so called from the four or six Columns, but from the four fold Version, because they comprehended six Translations: wherein the learned Gentleman is grossly mistaken. For the name of Tetraples, Hexaples and Octaples was derived from the number of the Editions. And every Edition took up one Column or Page according to the ancient Custom of Writing out their Volumes, as the words of Ruffinus plainly evince. It was the Intention of Origen to show us what was the manner of reading the Scriptures among the Jews, 
Ruffin. invect.  and therefore he placed every one of the Editions in their proper Columns or Pages. The same therefore was the method of Pages and Editions in origen's Hexaples. Nor are those Arguments of any moment which Vossius deduces from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Title Origen gives to his first Columns, that is to say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being the foundation of all Versions. I would fain know what else can be thence inferred but that Origen had a mind to distinguish by that name the Hebrew Context from the Versions that were made from it, as being the ground of all the Translations. In which sense St. Jerom calls the same Context the Hebrew Truth. Does it less from thence appear that the Context written in the Hexaples in Hebrew and Greek Characters took up two Columns, from which equally as from the Versions, each of which was written in its distinct Pages, the name of Hexaple was derived? Moreover it is a Fiction of the same Vossius, which he feigns concerning the Samaritan Codex written in the Original Hebrew Letters, which was added to the Pentateuch. For that was unknown to the ancient Fathers of the Church Epiphanius, Jerom, Ruffinus, as also to Eusebius and Africanus whom he endeavours to draw to his party. Neither will ever Vossius be able to demonstrate by certain Reasons what he so confidently asserts touching the Samaritan Codex which was in Origen's hands, and vainly he produces for Witnesses Eusebius, Africanus, Syncellus, nay even Origen himself, who never so much as dreamt in their sleep of this Samaritan Exemplar, written as he says in the Original Hebrew Letters. The Samaritans indeed had a Greek Version of the Pentateuch which was well known to the Fathers, and out of that Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus took several Readins of the Samaritan Exemplar translated from the Hebrew which they inserted into their Writings. As for Origen, he studyeth the Hebrew Language under the Instruction of Huillus, Patriarch of the Jews, and not of the Samaritans; and therefore he did not make use of the Hebrew Copies of the Samaritans, but of the Jews. In which Sense those words of Eusebius are to be understood. 
Euseb. l. 6. Hist.  So great was the care and diligence which Origen used in his accurate Examination of the Sacred Writings, that he learned the Hebrew Language, and bought up the Originals which were among the Jews, written in the Hebrew Characters. 
In Resp. ad Object. Crit.  But Vossius apparently wrists the words of Eusebius to another Sense; and to accommodate them the more easily to his own Opinion scrupled not to alter the vulgar Reading without the help of any Manuscript Copy. For thus he reads the Sentence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas it is vulgarly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And thus he renders it, That he learned the Hebrew Language, and purchased to himself those Scriptures which were written in the Original Hebrew Letters. Now saith Vossius, in Eusebius' Sense, the Original Characters are no other than the Samaritan, and Eusebius had manifestly contradicted himself, if he had meant the Vulgar Letters of the Jews, when he had wrote the contrary in his Chronicle. I cannot, but wonder at the Ingenuity of Vossius to impose upon his Readers in a thing so plain and obvious to all that have but kissed the threshold of the Greek Tongue. The Books of Eusebius are in every Body's hands, whose intention in the place already cited was no more than to show the indefatigable pains and unwearied labour of Origen in perusing the Books of Sacred Scripture and searching out their Sense; which that he might the more easily attain to, he learned the Hebrew Language from Jewish Masters, read over their Books in the Hebrew Characters, and compared them with the Versions of the Seventy, Aquila, Symmachus, and others. Whether it be to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will not at present dispute, by reason that though Vossius' Lection, should hold water, it is certain that by Prototype or Original Letters the Hebrew Characters are only to be understood. That is to say, the Hebrew Context in Origen's Hexaples is written in Hebrew and Greek Letters, as has been already observed. Wherefore Eusebius then bearing in his mind the Hebrew Exemplars, which were at that time read by those who did not understand Hebrew, because the Characters were Greek, asserts that Origen purchased an Hebrew Examplar written in Hebrew Characters. For how could it otherwise be when the Jews were his Masters and not the Samaritans? I will acknowledge that the Examplars of the Samaritan Pentateuch written in Characters different from the Jewish, were not unknown to Eusebius, Origen, and others of the Fathers; but because most of them did not understand the Hebrew Tongue, where they speak of the Samaritan Codex, most assuredly they mean the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which was then vulgarly exposed. Nor do Eusebius' words in his Chronicle favour Vossius in the least, where Eusebius makes mention of three Exemplars of Sacred Scripture from whence he drew his own: That is say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the 70 Interpreters, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Hebrew Exemplar of the Jews; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Hebrew Exemplar of the Samaritans. For there, by the Hebrew Exemplar of the Samaritans, of necessity the Greek Version of that Exemplar must be meant, no otherwise then as by the Hebrew Exemplar of the Jews, most of the Fathers who were ignorant of the Hebrew Language understood Aquila's Version, which was Translated Verbatim from the Hebrew. Therefore Eusebius knew that the Samaritans preserved an Hebrew Copy of the Pentateuch as well as the Jews; but because he understood not the Hebrew Language, he consulted the Greek Version which was compilled by the Samaritans, and which was at that time usually read by them. As formerly Justin Martyr, disputing against Trypho the Jew gives the Greek Interpretation of Aquila the Title of the Hebrew Context; because it was most in use among the Jews at that time. But Vossius never considered these things nor many others of the same Nature. Now then let us return to the business from whence we made this Digression.  
In the Hexaples of Origen, as may be seem by the Scheme already set down, the Hebrew Text in the Hebrew Letters obtains the first place, the second the same Text in Greek Characters, in regard that from thence all the first Versions of Scripture were derived. Then followed the Interpretation of Aquila, which followed the Hebrew Verbatim, and much closer than any of the rest of the Translators. The Septuagint was placed in the middle, and not in the first place, as many thought, as the Test by which all the others were to be examined. This the Translations of Symmachus and Theodotion accompany on each side, as not being much unlike it, and because the same method of Translating was observed in all the three.  
Now because that vast Volume, containing so many Translations, as it were under one line, was of a great price, and to be purchased but by few, insomuch that St. Jerom complained that the Alexandrian Papers had emptied his purse, Origen, of a most acute wit and unexhausted knowledge, bethought himself of a way how he might bring all these Editions as it were into one. And because at that time there was no other Scripture received in all the Churches, than the Translation of the 70 Interpreters, he set forth that apart with certain Notes, by the advantage of which all the rest were put to view; so that what seemed to be wanting in the Hebrew Context, he supplied out of Theodotion's Version, with the addition of a mark which the Gramarians call an Asterisk, 
The Hexaple's epitomised.  as illustrating those words of the Context, which were too much curtailed, and as it were abbreviated. But if any thing seemed to abound and to be superfluous in the Hebrew Context, in those luxuriant places he added another Mark by the Critic's called a Spit or Obelus, as of what was luxuriant in the Greek Edition of the Septuagint were to be cut and murdered as extravagant: And the chief Design of Origen, as Epiphanius testifies, in the Disposition of that work was, that the Jews might the more easily be convinced by the Christians in their Disputes. Because they frequently objected that it was otherwise in the Hebrew Exemplar, than in the Greek Edition. The same is also testified by St. Jerom and Ruffinus; though St Jerom sometimes gives a reason of those Notes somewhat different. Origen had added also other marks to this Work in the fashion of a small Label, concerning the use of which the Critics of our Age do not agree, and which has been hitherto revealed but by a few; we are to understand, that Greek Edition of the Septuagint, with all those illustrating and killing Notes in the Hexaples of Origen, was found together with the Translations of Aquila, Symmachus and the other Interpreters, as the words of Ruf●inus seem to prove. O●igen's Intention was to show us what manner of Reading the Scriptures was observed among the Jews, and wrote the several Editions of them every one in his proper Columes, and whatever was added or taken away in any of them he noted with certain marks at the beginning of the Verses, and in that which was another man's and not his own work, be affixed his own marks only that we might understand what was wanting or superfluous not in respect of ourselves, but of the Jews that disputed against us.  
Moreover the same Origen illustrated that vast work of his Hexaples with Scholiasts of several sorts, which he placed in the Margin of the Book, that he might give some Light to that Edition of the Septuagint, which appeared in the midst between all the rest. For first you might easily apprehend what was the distinction between the Ancient or Vulgar Edition of the 70, and his own new Edition, by the benefit of this Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which stands for 70 in Greek, that Mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoting the common Lection. Then in the same Scholiasts, the Interpretations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodosion were every one demonstrated by their proper Letter. OF denoted Aquila, Σ ' Symmachus, and Θ Theodotion. The fifth Edition was marked with E ', and the sixth with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He also set Notes in the Margin of his Book for the verbatim exposition of the words of sacred Scripture, which are Printed in his works, under the Title of Scholiasts. And more than this, if we will believe Vossius, it is not improbable but that Origen marked in his Hexaples the various reading of the Samaritan Codex. If any one will rather choose to believe that Origen did not insert the Samaritan Exemplar into his Hexaples and Tetraples, but only marked the various Readins, I will not much dispute the Business. Thus Vossius fickle in his Judgement, sometimes avers, sometimes denies; and whereas before he had so confidently asserted that the Exemplar of the Samaritan Pentateuch was extant in the Hexaples written in the Samaritan Characters, now in a doubt he dares not be positive in a thing wherein he has so little of certainty to make out. But as it is no way probable that the Samaritan Exemplar, which was the same with the Judaick was extant in the Hexaples, so it is very likely that Origen might transfer into his Scholiast the different reading of the Samaritan from the Judaic, which he did not take out of the Samaritan Exemplar, written in those Original Hebrew Letters, but from the Greek Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch corrected by the Samaritans themselves.  
This is the Oeconomie and Disposition of the Hexaples of Origen, which Persons the most learned could not comprehend, while they do not mind that the Greek Interpretations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodosion were twice set down in one and the same work, that is, entire in the work itself, and part in the Scholiasts in the Margin, but Origen who was desirous to be beneficial to all Persons, reduced into a Compendium that vast Pile of the Hexaples, by the help of Notes and Scholiasts, to the end that they who could not buy the Hexaples entire, might Transcribe at least the substance of the Text out of the Hexaples themselves, and by the same art he published the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or common Edition of the Septuagint, together with the new Edition, which because he thought more corrected, he inserted whole into his Hexaples, adding in the Margin of the common and the various Sections under the mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; wherefore some are grossly mistaken, who not understanding this disposition of the Hexaples, undertake to maintain that there is in them a double Edition of the 70 Interpreters, as well the vulgar as that corrected and pure one, of which Origen and St. Jerom so often make mention, placed in two distinct Pages, and for that reason that the Hexaples did not derive their name from the distinct Columns, but the several Versions, but these things are apparently untrue, and proceed only from the Ignorance of the order of the Hexaples, to the Margin of which the ancient reading of the 70 was transferred, and thus both Editions of the Septuagint appeared in the Hexaples, now because few could purchase those vast volumes that had emptied St. Jerom's Pocket, most persons transcribed that interlined Edition, marked by Origen with Asterisks and Daggers and other notes of Distinction, from whence arose the greatest confusion in the World in the Greek Exemplars, and from that time the ancient Interpretation of the 70 was no longer read in the Churches, but the interlined one of Origen, which or another like to it, was afterwards transmitted to the Eastern Church by the Care of St. Jerome.   

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

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

St. Jerom imitated the industry of Origen.  The same St. Jerom; to the end he might show himself no less profitable to those of his own Language than Origen had been to the Greeks, in imitation of him, published that ancient Version corrected, together with additions from the Hebrew Text, under the mark of an Asterisk with a Dagger to show what was superfluous. Of which undertaking St. Jerom himself thus speaks writing to St. Austin. That Interpretation was the Interpretation of the Seventy Elders, and wherever there are any marks like Daggers, they denote that the Seventy have said more than there is in the Hebrew. Where there are any Asterisks or little Stars, they signify an Addition by Origen out of Theodotion; and there we have Translated the Greek, here we expressed from the Hebrew what we understood, observing rather the Truth of Sense, than the Order of the words. This new Translation of St. Jerom from the Greek Exemplars was joyfully received by most Churches, as being of singular use in the Explanation of Scripture; and showed the difference between the Exemplars of the Church and the Synagogue. For which how Ruffinus has fumed and stormed against that most learned person and so well deserving of the Church can hardly be expressed. Who, saith Ruffinus, would have dared to unhallow the Instruments left by the Apostles, but a judaic Spirit? For Ruffinus does not speak of the Version which St. Jerom afterwards made from the Hebrew, but of that which he drew from the Greek Translation of the Septuagint, with some additions under the mark of the Asterisk, and the little Dagger; to show what was superfluous. The same Ruffinus adds many other things for which he condemns St. Jerom, of which more hereafter: And while St. Jerome, by the example of Origen whom he pretends to have imitated in his undertaking, defends himself, Ruffinus replies upon him, that never any Catholic hitherto had presumed to Translate out of the Hebrew into Latin any thing of Sacred Scripture. Withal he shows that origen's undertaking is far different of that of St. Jerom; in regard that Origen has introduced not Alterations into the Ancient and generally received Version by the Church. But St. Jerom answers most incomparably both to Ruffinus and all other his Detractors.  
But as to that other Version, which that most learned Father Translated in his Elder years according to the Hebrew Truth, far greater difficulties arise upon it. For by reason of that, even among his Friends he is taxed as an Innovator. In so much that St. Austin himself could not brook, that the Greek Translation, which it is manifest the Apostles had used, should be defamed: as if the Authors of it had mistaken.  
It will be very hard, saith St. Austin writing to St. Jerom, if when thy Interpretation shall begin to be frequently read in many Churches, that the Greek and Latin Churches should seem to disagree. Soon after, he confirms the thing by example in these words. A certain Brother of ours, a Bishop, when he had determined that they Translation should be read in the Church where he presides, another person started an Objection, that the Text was by these otherwise Translated in the Prophet Jonah, then had been inculcated into the Sense and Memory of all people for so many Ages, upon which there arose such a Tumult among the people, the Greeks chiefly blaming and clamouring against the Calumny of the supposed falsehood, that the Bishop was forced to have recourse to the Testimony of the Jews, For this Version St. Jerom brought upon himself the Curses of all people, of which he frequently complains even to Irksomeness; nor is it a Treatise so much as an Apology which he every where writes. What shall I do with my Calumniators, who if I had diminished any thing from the Translation of the 70 would have clamoured against me, as one Sacrilegious and not fearing God; especially they, who when they differ in the Truth of Faith and follow the Errors of the Manichaeans incense the minds of the ignorant; as if they could show any thing changed from the ancient custom, rather desired to err, then to learn truth from one whom they Emulate. And after something more of this Nature, he again adds against Ruffinus and others his followers, who reviling his Translation, reproach him for a Heretic and an Apostate. Our Latin, yea envious Christians, and that I may speak more plainly, Hairs of the Grummian Faction bark against me, why we discourse according to the Hebrew If they do not believe us, let 'em read those other Editions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion: let 'em examine the Hebrews not in one place but in several Provinces, and when they find them all agree with me in my Error or Ignorance, then let 'em understand themselves to be overwise, and rather desirous to sleep then learn, and let 'em inhabit in the 70 Cells of Alexandrian Pharos. Lastly, he does not spare the very Kickshaws of the Bishops, to use his own words, who endeavours to oppress whomsoever they see powerful in the Church and to Profess the word of God. But I spend time in vain; his Apologies against Ruffinus being every where to be had. In which he strenuously defends the reason of his Version, and shows how much he profited in his Study of the Scriptures under his Jewish Masters, and how much by the same Instructors, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius and several others advantaged themselves; who while they dispute about the Scripture, and endeavour to prove what they say, produce the Jews for Witnesses and Patrons of their Opinions. And because Ruffinus had objected to St. Jerom, that while he made his Translation he was not inspired with a Prophetic but a Judaic Spirit, He answers, Would it not seem tedious, or rather would it not savour too much of vain Glory, I could show thee what an advantage it is to wear out the Thresholds of good Masters, and to learn Art from Artificers. For St. Jerom wrote an Epistle to Pammachius, entitled, concerning the best manner of Translating, wherein he refuses the Calumnies of one Palladius, who at the Insligation of Ruffinus had bespattered his Translation. He there shows by many Examples, that it is not the duty of a good Translator, to translate his Authors verbatim, when neither the 70 Interpreters nor the Evangelists followed that Method of Translation. Aquila, saith he, a Prosel te and contentious Interpreter, who endeavoured to Translate not only the words but the Etymologies of words is deservedly rejected by us. Concerning the 70 Interpreters in the same Epistle he has this expression. It is new too long to enumerate how much the 70 have added of their own, how much they have omitted, which in the Exemplars belonging to the Church, are distinguished by Lines and Asterisks. These and many other things of the same Nature he throws together into the same Epistle, to vindicate his own method or Translation, somewhat more free and lose then some of the rest, from the Calumnies of his Adversaries, and to the end his Detractors might understand, That the sense and not the words were to be considered in Scripture. Let 'em not think, saith he, that the State of the Church is endangered by me, if through haste of dictating, I have omitted some words.  
Readily therefore St. Jerom acknowledges that in framing a new Translation of the Sacred Text, he chief consulted the Jews as his Leaders and Instructors; neither does he question but that many things might slip him as a man; so far was he from the Opinion of those, who asserted him in that undertaking to be inspired with the Holy Ghost, whom Mariana egregiously refutes. What avails it, saith that learned Jesuit, after so many Ages, to strain for new Fictions to set up new Prophets? Shall we call him a Prophet, who in the framing his Translation follows sometimes the Greek Interpreters, sometimes the Jews of his Age, upon whom he more frequently depends? Can he be said to be a Prophet, who frequently but chief in his Commentaries upon the Prophets, doubts of the Genuine Signification of the Hebrew Words? 'Tis true I knew Pagninus and other Writers, especially of the Protestant Belief, who denied that Version to be St. Jeroms, which for many Ages has been read in the Eastern Churches; but if you except some few Books of that translation, which it is certain were not rendered by St. Jerom, as they are extant in the Edition, no person truly candid will deny but that this Interpretation which goes about under the Title of the Vulgar, was really made by St. Jerom, though there be something in it of the ancient Latin Version, which before St. Jeroms time was only esteemed in the Church. So that in some places, which however are very few, there does appear the reading of the Ancient Version, or else a mixture of both. And clear it is that that same Translation was made by some native Latinist from the Hebrew Original. Now who in the whole Latin Church beside St. Jerom at that time understood both Languages, that is, the Hebrew and the Latin? But they that desire to know more of these things, let them consult Austin Eugubin, and John Mariana in their Writings upon this Subject.  
Now that we may more perfectly understand the Nature of that Vulgar Edition, we must take notice that St. Jerom, though he confesses himself not to have expressed the Words of his Text verbatim, and like a Grammarian, nevertheless sometimes he sticks more close to his Words then the 70, or the other Interpreters, so that he is not always like himself in his Translation. Again we are to observe, that the modern Lection of the Hebrew Text is not so often to be corrected from the Translation of St. Jerom, as it disagrees from it; for thohe make profession to have followed the Hebrew Truth, yet sometimes he forsakes it to follow the Greek Interpreters. Neither do I think that the Hebrew Exemplar of his Masters, which he frequently opposes against the 70 Interpreters is to be preferred in all things, seeing that St. Jerom himself had no Original Exemplar of the Hebrew Text, neither do I think we are to give Judgement upon the Version of St. Jerom, by the later Translations which frequently vary from the other, but we must have recourse of necessity to other Grammar Rules, than those which have been set down by our late Instructors, as hath been at large demonstrated, and which it is no difficult thing to confirm by many Examples. I shall therefore produce only enough to puzzle the less skilful.  
We find according to the vulgar Edition, in the oath of Zachary ver. 11. these words, Thou also in the Blood of thy Testament hast sent forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit: but according to the Hebrew Exemplars it ought to be rendered, I have sent forth thy Prisoners, and the Pronouns Thou, thy, thine, are in the Feminine Gender, and so make the Sense far different from that of St. Jerom, which agrees with that of the Seventy Interpreters. Many to defend the vulgar Edition in this place, reject the I wish Exemplars, as corrupted by them on set purpose: But it is much more proper to say, that the same Pronoun in the Feminine Gender is taken sometimes for the same in the Masculine; which the Masorites of Tyberias allow, who added the pointed Vowels to the modern Context. And thus they demonstrate the same thing to have happened in three places of Scripture, which they cite. Wherefore if the same occur in any other places which the Masorites have omitted, the ancient Translators are not therefore presently to be accused, because they do not agree with the later. In the same manner St. Jerom may be vindicated for translating the word, Thou hast sent, when according to the Hebrew he ought to have translated it, I have sent. For this difference of Translation arose from the Letter Jod, which is noted by the Mazorites to be often superfluous. The Mazorites themselves reckon up 43 Places marked jather jod, that is, throw away Jod, as redundant. Thus Jer. 32 v. 33. where we read, Thou hast taught, in the second Person. The Hebrew word is written with Jod at the end, as if it should have been rendered in the first Person. And indeed in the lesser Mazorah it is marked to be read without a Jod, and in the second Person, as Jerom renders it. But I pass by these things, and many others, by which it might be made out, that the Latin Interpreter is often undeservedly reprehended by those that do not understand him, and measure all things by the Rules of their own Skill.   

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

The authority of the Ancient Version of the Church  AS it is a thing that seems to be rooted in men by nature to be opiniated in their own Disputations, and to be so presumptuous as to take sometimes those things which are false and unjust for Truths; so it chief happens in this present Argument; where the Writers seem to fight for their Lives and Liberties. Thus the Jewish Rabbis seem to be incited by no other reason to avouch their Manuscripts to be free even from the slightest Faults and Errors, but only as they are Jews, and read no other Scripture in their Synagogues than the Hebrew Text. In like manner the Greek and Latin Fathers in the primitive Times of the Church, embracing the Greek Version of the 70. Interpreters as Divine, preferred it before the Hebrew Copies, for that the one were skilled in the Greek Learning; others preferred the Latin or Vulgar Edition of the Bible, altogether used by the Latin Church, and Translated from the Septuagint, not understanding the Greek. Therefore is the wisdom of the Fathers of the Council of Trent highly to be applauded for this, that they by their Suffrages declared Authentic that Version, which being publicly received, and made use of in the Church was in every body's hands, that is, which was solely esteemed Authentic among the Latins. Nor does that ancient Lati Edition, which was read for many Ages in the Eastern Church before Jerom's Translation, less deserve the Name of Authentic than the modern Vulgar; only there is this difference between the one and the other, that the other was not declared Authentic by the public Decree of the General Council. 
Prologue 10 the vulg.  There Walton is in an Error, who denies this ancient Vulgar Edition to have been Authentic; as well, saith he, for that it was translated from the Greek, which we have demonstrated not to have been Authentic; nor can the Rivulet have more Authority than was in the Fountain; nor can any Version be said to be Authentic, unless the Interpreter wrote it with the same Spirit as the first Author, which never any man affirmed as to this Version, nor had the Church of Rome rejected it, and entertained a new one, had she judged it to have been Authentic. But Walton understood not what was meant in the Decree of the Council of Trent by the word Authentic, while he confounds Authentic with Divine and Prophetical; all the while he treats upon the Argument now in hand. Therefore it is necessary to consider what the Fathers of the Council of Trent intended should be understood by the word in Controversy.  
Vulgarly among the Lawyers the word Authentic signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the French interpret Originale, or Original. And in this Sense the Exemplification of a Will is distinguished from the Authentic or Original, and Authentic Tables are said to be those which are first drawn; from whence, as from the Original, Copies are made. In this Sense the Hebrew Context cannot be said to be Authentic, because the Originals of the Hebrew Codex are lost, and there remain no other than Copies. Therefore the word Authentic is taken by the same Lawyers in another Sense; and so Version in their Books carries the Name of Authentic. Thus the Latin Translation of Justins' Novels is called Authentic, because it was rendered out of the Greek verbatim; and so it is distinguished from another Version, the Author of which is said to be Julian Patricius, which is only a Latin Epitome of those Constitutions. The first Exemplar was called Authentic, as much as to say, True and no way maimed, as Antonius Contius has observed. Now in this Acceptation of the word Authentic there is nothing which can offend the Protestants. But if we must not derive the signification of this word from the Lawyers, where it had its rise, the same word is several times repeated in the Acts of the Fifth General Synod. Where when the Exemplars which Macarius the Patriarch of Antiochia, and other Monothelite Bishops offered to the Fathers of the Council were read over again, presently the Legates of the Apostolic See replied, That the Testimonies of the Fathers were maimed by Macarius and his Companions. Thereupon they require the Authentic Copies to be sent for from the venerable Patriarchal Treasury of the Royal City of Constantinople, and to be compared with the Exemplars produced by Macarius and the other Monothelite Bishops. There Authentic is no more than that which is not adulterated, or of suspected Credit. Nor did the Tridentine Bishops pronounce the Latin Version, which was only read in all the Eastern Churches, Authentic, in any other Sense. Nor can the Words of their Constitution be wrested to any other Exposition, if they be but a little more attentively considered. For they were in Consultation about selecting one out of many Versions of the Scripture, which were then public in the world; and because the Authors of most were Persons of suspected credit, it was in prudence thought fit by those Bishops, that that should only be retained, which was most Ancient, and long before any Schisms were sprung up in the Church. The Holy Council considering that no small benefit will accrue to the C●u●ch of God, if among all the Editions of the Sacred Scriptures, which are public in the World, it should be declared which should be accounted most Authentic, has decreed and does pronounce, That this Ancient and Vulgar Edition, which has been approved by the Use, which has been made of it for so many Ages in public Readins, Disputations, Sermons and Expositions, shall be accounted Sacred, and that no Person shall dare to reject it upon any pretence whatsoever. As to the comparing the Hebrew Context with the Ancient Latin Interpreter, the Tridentine Fathers never so much as dreamt of it; only out of several Latin Versions then abroad in the World they decreed the Ancient Version to be preferred before the rest. In which respect the Decree of the Church appears firm and constant: For as she formerly perceived the Translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion to he false and partial, so now she has embraced one ancient Version, rejecting the rest which seemed to be made out of a Design of Innovation.  
Nor have several Divines, otherwise expounded the word Authentic, which the Fathers of Trent made use of in this particular, of whom there were some present in the Council. But having no Design to do what others have done before, I pass by their Testimonies in silence. To these therefore I will only add the words of single Genebrard, a most eager Defender of the Vulgar Edition, out of an Epistle which he wrote to Arias Montanus. Only it compares, saith Genebrard, speaking of the Council of Trent, The Vulgar with the rest, by reason of the rashness of the late Heretics and other Innovators, who covet new Versions, loathe the Old ones, and cut off their innate Desire of Novelty, reject the Ancient to embrace the Newest. Those also among the Heterodox, who have any thing of Learning and Modesty revere the ancient Latin Interpreter, and sometimes believe it a matter of Conscience to departed from his Sense. From whence Fagius, a person learned both in the Hebrew and Chaldee Languages, calls them Persons of little knowledge who foolishly and impudently believe the vulgar Edition to be rashly contrived. The most learned Drusius also applauds the prudent design of the Council of Trent, and admires its Wisdom. I pass by others of the Protestant Belief, among whom it would be no difficult thing to give a Catalogue of many that had a good opinion of the Decree of the Council of Trent; Wherefore they only think amiss of the Tridentine constitution, whereby the old Edition is declared Authentic, who too much addicted to the Writings of the Rabbins, believe the Jewish Bibles and their own Art to be utterly at a loss, unless they detract from that same ancient Interpretation.  
Buxtorf the Prince of the Hebrew adorers, whose wrath was kindled by the Critica sacra of Ludovicus Cappellus, reprehends him in these words, as if he had too severely undertaken the Patronage of the Latin Translator. 
In Anticrit. part. 2.  Let the Reader observe this, That there was never a greater Patron of the vulgar Version, and who affords a stronger Argument to support its authority, then that same Critic not well in his Wits. And yet this is that Cappellus, to whom the Learned Hugo Grotius, and the soundest of the Protestant Critics always advere. For this the English Protestants are to be commended, especially the most famous W●lion, who in his Protegonema to the Polyglot Bible, forsaking buxtorf's opinion, follows Ludovicus Capellus almost in every thing. Nor have they a slight esteem of the Latin Interpreter, though they seem not rightly to have understood the force of the word Authentic; however they are far from the wild Opinions of some of the Protestants, who vent their Spleen without any consideration against the Tridentine Bishops. 
In M●ssellam.  Thus Fuller, through the most haughty Tyranny of the Roman Pontifex it is come to pass, that all other Translations excluded and exterminated, even the Prototype of the Hebrew Truth, the vulgar Latin Version has acquired a kind of Divine Primacy. Nor has Isaac Casaubon, 
Adaun●l Baron.  a person otherwise very learned, spared the Tridentine Prelates, who affirms that the Hebrew Truth has lost its Privilege and Authority, since the Greek and Latin Versions were made Authentic at Trent. But the Protestants undeservedly complain of the Decree of Trent, because they will not put a kind Interpretation upon the word Authentic, and deviate from Divines who are of highest Authority in the Church of Rome. The Tridentine Fathers, when they made that decree, consulted the Tranquillity of the Churches, and designed only to obviate those, who out of an Itch of Innovation believed their Doctrines would gain no small credit, if they detracted from the true Ecclesiastical Version then in the hands of every Person.  

The Imprudent zeal of some Spanish Diviner.  No less was the error committed in this particular by sundry Orthodox Divines, who maintain the Vulgar Edition to be free from all mistakes; which opinion was patronised by most of the Spanish Divines in Mariana's time; so that the learned durst not be of a contrary opinion. For thus he gins his Treatise in defence of the Vulgar Edition. 
Maria● pro Defence. Vulg.  We undertake a Troublesome work and very much perplexed, a dangerous Contest, than which I know not whither any in these Later Ages, especially among the Spanish Divines has been maintained with greater Heat and Animosity, and more Implacable hatred between the parties; so that from Reproaches and Contumelies, with which they have defamed one another, they have at length cited one another to Tribunals of Justice, and that party which was most confident of his own strength, has pursued his adversaries being accused of Heresy, as Impious, Proud, etc. To which he adds, that Men of great repute for learning, have been forced to plead their causes in Chains, to the no small hazard of their Health and Reputation. But Mariana shows at large, That there are many faults in the Hebrew and Greek Exemplars, many falsehoods in minute things, and that not a small number of those Errors are extant in our Vulgar Edition. In like manner Pedro Lopaz, a Spanish Divine, 
L. 2. Conc. Ed. Madrid.  in the Treatise which he wrote concerning the Harmony between the sacred Editions of the Hebrew and Greek, asserts the Greek Edition of the Septuagint with the ancient Vulgar, to be no less Authentic than the Modern Vulgar; wherein he questions not but that there are many blemishes and failings. 
Animad. in A●tiq. Hetruse.  The same Dispute Leo Allasius tells us was started concerning the Decree of the Council of Trent, which declares the Vulgar Authentic by the Fathers of a Society, to whose care a certain Academy was committed, and at the same time declares what the sacred General Consistory thought of this, in whose opinion it is a crime not to acquiesce, 
Several Judgements at Rome concerning the Latin Interpreter.  in these words taken out of the Library of Cardinal Priscia. The 17th. of January 576. the general Assembly S. F. L. A. S. Montald. Sixt. Caraf was of opinion that nothing could be urged that could oppose the vulgar Latin Edition, that there was not so much as on Period, one Sentence, one Word, one Syllable, one jota amiss, and sharply reprehends Vega, because in his Tenth Book of Justification c. 9 he utters himself so boldly. But that decree of the College of Cardinals, because it never was promulgated, never obtained the force of a Law even in Italy, as all those things manifestly prove, which Cardinal Palavicini urges against Padre Paolo, who hath spoken concerning the Tridentine Prelates, as if they, by approving the Latin Interpreter by their Decree, had detracted from all the other Editions. But Palavicini shows at large that the meaning of the Council was far otherwise, and in the Explanation of the word Authentic he perfectly agrees with us, declaring that the Prelates of Trent did not purify the Vulgar Edition from all its faults by their decree; when as it might be still corrected and another Edition much more accurate be made, neither had Gulielmus Londanus any other Sentiments of the Vulgar Edition long before that, who has observed many Errors therein, which he does not lay upon the Transcribers but upon the Interpreter himself. But above all the rest, Francis Lucas Brugensis is a material Testimony in this particular, wherein he had expended the studies of his whole Life. He therefore in his Epistle Dedicatory, before his notes upon the Bible, where he has diligently observed several differences in sundry Copies, thus expresses himself. What others object to us, that because the Latin Edition has been approved and declared Authentic by the Council of Trent, it needs no farther Correction, is ridiculous. For neither did the Councils believe the Exemplars of this Edition to be void of Errors; neither did they recommend any certain Exemplar of any Edition, to be followed in General; only preferred that Edition before any of the Latin which are extant, and adjudged it authentic. With which agree the Corrections of the vulgar Edition which were made at several times by the Command of Sextus the V and Clement the VIII. For Sextus fearing lest we should fall into the former Chaos of Editions of which St. Jerom speaks, 
Bulla S. V Bulla Clem. 8.  declares that he had made choice of Persons skilful in the Scripture, Theologie and many Languages, and for their long experience piercing judgement and diligence highly eminent, to correct the ancient Latin Edition, according to the ancient Latin Copies and Expositions of the Fathers; but in such things wherein they were not sufficiently strengthened by the consent of the Copies nor of the Fathers, to have recourse to the Hebrew and Greek Exemplars according to the Counsel of St. Jerom. However Sextus admonishes 'em to do it cautiously and sparingly, for fear of causing a fluctuation in things which long use and practice had authorised. And lastly he makes a decree of his own, that that Edition should be received by all, as being that which the Tridentine Synod had declared Authentic, and recommends the same as True, Lawful and Unquestionable, and to be received in all public Disputes, Readins, Sermons and Explanations. Furthermore he forbids any Bibles of the Vulgar Edition to be published for the future, which not being conformable to his, would but disturb the peace of the Church; and further decreed, that they should be of no Credit or Authority which did not agree with his Edition. Thus far Sixtus V. who also testifies, that to the end the understanding might be more correctly accomplished, where any thing seemed confused or that might be confounded, he amended those things with his own Hand. 'Twas the Labour of others, saith he, to consult and advise, but ours to make choice of what was best. So that this Edition of the Bible not undeservedly bears the Name of Sixtus V.  
How ever this was no impediment to Clement VIII. to prevent him from undertaking an Edition of the Bible different from this, affirming in the beginning of his Bull. 
Bull. Clem. VIII.  That the Text of the vulgar Edition of the Sacred Scriptures had with much toil and watching been corrected by him and purged from many Errors. 
Prefat. ad Edit. Clem. 8.  But the Author of the Preface to the same Bibles confesses that it is not so cleansed from all faults, but that there are some omissions still remaining. In this same vulgar Edition, saith he, as some things were altered of set purpose, so other things which se●●●d proper to be changed were purposely left unaltered. It would be tedious to reckon up all the places which were mended by these Popes, Sextus V and Clement VIII. But if any be curious to know what they are, let him consult the little Book which Thomas Jamesius, Printed in England, in the envy of his Soul, under the Title, in great Letters, Of the Papal War or the Discording Concord of Sixtus V and Clement VIII. concerning the Edition of Jerome. Where he sometimes compares the Readins of both Editions with that of Lavain. But for this, those chief Pontiffs are rather to be highly magnified, then to be scandallzed, who contributed all their care and industry, that we might have the ancient Interpreter as accurately revised and corrected according to the ancient Copies, as it was possible to be. Before whom they who overviewed the Bibles of Complutum lent their assistance to the same Correction. We have also the Castigations of Robert Stephens upon the same vulgar: and the Divines of Louvain have made no scruple after the Decree of Trent, to add their own Critical Animadversions upon divers Readins in the Margin of the vulgar Codex, which they took care to have Printed. But now the Emendation of Clement VIII. is preferred before all the rest which the most famous Walton has inserted into his English Polyglotton.   

CHAP. XXI. Of the Translations of Scripture used by the Eastern Church: and first of the Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, etc.  

The Eastern Versions thence taken.  AS the first beginning of the Christian Religion passed from the Greeks to other Nations of the Eastern World. So the Greek Version of the Septuagint was Translated into the Languages of all those Nations, nor does it appear that those Nations knew any other than the Scripture of the Septuagint, the Syrians excepted, concerning whom the Arabian Writer Abulpharajius has these Expressions. 
Din. 6.  This Version of the Septuagint is that which is received by our Doctors, and is the same which is made use of by the Greeks and other Sects of the Christians, except Syrians, especially the wore Easterly. For their exemplar, which is called the pure Exemplar, agrees with that of the Jews. But the Western Syrians have two Versions, the pure Version, Translated from the Hebrew into Syriac after the coming of Christ our Lord, in the time of Addaeas' the Apostle; or as others will have it, before him, in the Time of Solomon the Son of David and Hiram Prince of Tyre: and then the Septuagint Translated out of Greek a long time time after the coming of Christ. Now though what Abulpharajius speaks concerning the double Version among the Syrians be true, yet no man will deny, but that what he relates concerning the time of the Translation out of Hebrew into Syriac is merely fictitious. Moreover because it was very insipid to attribute some of the Books to the time of King Solomon, which were not made till long after his Reign, therefore Jehudad Bishop of Adria, restrained that assertion to the Books of Moses, Joshua, Ruth, Judges, Samuel, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles and Job: but that the rest of the Books both of the Old and New Testament were Translated into Syriac by the care of Thaddaeus, and others of the Apostles in the Reign of Abgar King of Edissa. Though as the same Jesudad testifies, some were of Opinion, that the Old Testament was Translated, into the Samaritan Dialect by a certain Samaritan Priest. But ●hese things are rather Fabulous then Historical: for that they translated only one Book, the Pentateuch into their Language which little differs from the Samaritan. Then the Syriac Language which the Apostles made use of especially in Judea, is far differerent from the Syriac wherein the Old and New Testament was written. 
In Ca●al. Script. Chald.  Ebed-Jesu, Metropolitan of Soba, reckons among the Syrian Writers a certain Person, by name Mar-Aba, or Lord Aba, Surnamed the Great, who Translated the whole Testament out of Greek into Syriac: But as Alraham Ecchellensis rightly observes, before this Mar-Aba there was extant another Translation of the Old Testament from the Greek Septuagint, 
Not in Ehed. Jesus.  as may be proved from the Commentaries of Jacob Nisivensis, and B. Ephrem. It is manifest also that the Syrians translated into their Language a Greek Edition of the Septuagint, with Daggers and Asterisks, out of the Hexaples of Origen; or else accommodated a Syrian Interpretation to Origen's Exemplar which before these times was read in the Churches of Syria. The Learned Massius had several of those Books, which he never made public, 
In Jos●uah.  except the History of Joshua, set forth by him in Greek with Asterisks and Streaks and other Grammatical Marks, which Origen had made use of in his Edition. The Greek and Latin Fathers also make mention of a Syrian Version of Scripture of which the Christians of Syria made use, wherein they take notice of several Readins different from the vulgar Exemplars.  
That Exemplar of the Syriac Version which was Printed in the Parisian and English Polyglotts, was taken out of the Hebrew Context, and in some places corrected according to the Greek Text of the Septuagint; so that is not absolutely the same ancient Version which the Syrians call the Simple or Pure Version. This Translation seems to have been made verbatim from the Jewish Exemplar, so exactly it follows it in most places. But the Syrian Transcribers, who being ignorant of the Hebrew, could not consult the Hebrew Text from whence that was derived, committed many mistakes, which nevertheless may be easily corrected without the help of Manuscripts. However I do not believe the Syrian Transcribers to be as often under mistakes as they disagree from the Jewish Copy, seeing that the Jewish Exemplars vary themselves. But I speak of those Errors at present, which are without Controversy the mere failings of the Amanuensis. I admire the English in their Bibles took no notice of many which they let stand.  
For to omit several others, who could have slipped this Error in the Syriac Version in the 14th Chapter of Genesis, where the Hebrew reads Gojim Nations, the Syriac Geloje, which the Latin Interpreters of the Syriac renders the People called Gelites. So in the 22 Chapter, where the Hebrew Examplar has it Moria, the Syriac reads Omouroje, which the Interpreter renders the Amorrhaeans, as if there were any thing there mentioned of the Amorrhaeans. But these Errors I attribute partly to the Scribes, partly to those who pointed the Syriac Version, in regard that points supply the place of Vowels, as well in the Syriac as Hebrew. In like manner Gen. c. 32. v. 32. the Syerans who understood not the Hebrew word Nasche or shrunk, have made of the Word Genesio, which the Latin Interpreter translates the female Sinew, and instead of the Sinew that shrunk, upon which the word Genesio appears in Ferrarius' Syriac Lexicon, which nevertheless seems to be some corrupted Hebrew word and not to be numbered among the Syriac. But I say no more of these nor of six hundred more. This is only worthy of observation, that the Syrian Scribes have erred in Writing out the Syrian Exemplars far more frequently, than the Jews who understood the Hebrew. Thus Jos. 19 in instead of King Basan, the Syriac reads King Mathnin. Which diversity proceeds from this, that the Syrian Scribe did not distinguish between B, and M. In like manner for Kiriath Jearim, the Syriac reads Kiriath Naarin, and the Latin renders it the City of Naarin. So in the 7th Chapter of Judges the Syriac reads Nedubaal for Jerubaal, and Chapter 9 Neptha, for Jeptha: all which might easily have been mended, with many more of the same nature. Wherefore as to the Syrian Exemplars that have been set forth in Print, we may truly affirm, what St. Jerom asserted concerning the Greek Copies: That some of the words are not only not Hebrew, but Barbarous and Sarmatic.  
I could also enumerate those places where the Syriac Translators, forsaking the Hebrew, follows the Greek Version of the 70 Elders. Which variety nevertheless of Interpretation is rather to be laid upon the Scribes who strove to make the Syriack Translation conformable to those other Exemplars either Syriac or Arakick which were Translated from the Greek Edition. Thus Gen. 2. both in the Syriac and Greek we find it, upon the sixth day; whereas in the Hebrew it is the seventh day, and the Animadversions of Jerom upon this place prove this Lection of the Hebrew Text to be the most Ancient. In like manner, Gen. 4. This Clause, let us go into the field, was Translated out of the Greek Version into the Syriac, while St. Jerom testifies that in his time the same was not to be sound in the Hebrew Exemplars. Lastly, Gen. 8. Where mention is made of the Crow which Noah sent out of the Ark, both in the Syriack and Greek we do not find that ever the Crow returned; but the negative particle is not to be found in the Hebrew Context, nor was it there in St. Jeroms time, as may be easily proved from his Writings. From whence we infer that the Version which the Syrians call Pure; from it's ancient perfection, is much degenerated, and now to be called rather mixed then Pure. Those variations which arise from the different marking of the Numbers I pass by; as for example, Judges 16. Where the Hebrew and the Vulgar read 1100. the Syriac Version numbers 1300. 1 Sam. c. 6. for 50070. in the Hebrew Greek and Latin, the Syriac reckons 5070. But no man can be ignorant that there are frequent variations of numbers in all Books of the same nature. There are other Examples of different Readins of more moment in the Syriac Translation, which altogether alter the Sense, such are, some in the Book of Joshua, especially in the division of their Allotments to the several Tribes. Another Alteration there is in the Syriac Exemplar where all the Inscriptions of the Psalms are left out, on purpose to put others in their places. The reason of which seems to be, for that anciently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Argument of the Psalm was prefixed at the beginning of every Psalm. Whence it came to pass that the Hebrew Inscriptions of the Psalms which did not explain the Psalms to the liking of the Syrians were omitted, and others added by the Syriac Rabbis.  
As to the Syriac Language and its various Dialects, I shall say nothing at present, in regard that many have already learnedly handled that Subject. We are only to discourse of those things which concern the Syriac Version. Therefore what before we have observed touching the Jewish Exemplars, to which the Rabbis of Tiberias added the Points that supply the place of Vowels, that is now to be noted as to the Syriac Exemplars, to which the Syrian Doctors have added the Pointed Vowels which now appear in their Copies. Therefore Walton is in an Error, who believes that Gabriel Sionita, the Maronite of Mount Lebanon, was the first that inserted pointed Vowels into the Syriac Exemplar: He was the first, saith he, speaking of this Gabriel, who pointed it, and added the Latin Interpretation of the same. For before, all the Manuscripts were either destitute of points, or if any word or vowel happened to be pointed, in another it was omitted, one Syllable pointed and another naked, as we see at this day in the Manuscript Copies. That this is partly true I will not deny, for that the Syriac written Copies some have more, some have less points at the pleasure of the Transcribers, who nevertheless seldom omit the Principal. Yet I have met with Manuscripts that have been exactly pointed. Abraham Ech●llensis, 
In Ebed. Jesus.  a Maronite of Mount Lebanon testifies also, that he had by him some Books written in the Syriac Language above 300 or 400 years before, completely furnished with all the Points. Then again in most Copies they never omit any Points, but only such as are of no use in reading, which may be easily supplied by the Reader. As we find in the Syriac Edition of the New Testament which was first published by Vuidmanstadius, wherein some Points are omitted, which are of little use. And therefore the Industry of Gabriel Sionite, a most learned person, is not so much to be applauded for his adding points to the Copies; but he is rather to be commended for this, for that with great labour and toil he corrected the most of the Errors which are extant in those Manuscripts; though that Edition does not seem to be so absolute and perfect neither.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bibles of Cardinal Ximenius.  THOUGH Francis Ximenius of Seneros, Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo, has given us no other Latin Version of the Hebrew Text, in his Complutensian Bible, than the vulgar, or that of St. Jerom, yet he may be deservedly ranked amongst the Catholic Interpreters of the Holy Scriptures: For first of all he published in that excellent work the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the five Books of Moses, with a verbal Version into Latin, as also the Seventies' Greek Version of all the Books of the Old Testament, with an interlineary Latin Translation. 
In the year 1515.  And because every one has not the perusal of the Complutensian Bibles, it may not be improper in this place to give some account of the design of that learned Cardinal in this new Edition of the Bible. He affirms in his proaemium to Leo the tenth, that every Language has its peculiar Idioms and Properties of expression, which the most accurate Translation is not able to render, and especially the Hebrew, and a little after subjoins these words; 
† In his Prologue to Leo the tenth.  Moreover wheresoever the Latin Translators differ, or a reading is suspected to be corrupt, we must have recourse to the Original in which the Scriptures were writ, as St. Jerom, and Austin, and other Ecclesiastical Writers direct, so that the sincerity of the Versions of the Old Testament must be examined by the Hebrew, and the New by the Greek Copies. But who would believe that this Cardinal who speaks so great things of the Hebrew, should, by and by, in another Epistle to his Readers, so basely detract from it? so that we have reason to suspect these passages were foisted in by others. We have placed, says the Cardinal, 
The same Cardinal in his Prologue to the Reader.  the Latin Version of St. Jerom betwixt them (i. e. the Hebrew and the Translation of the 70) as it were betwixt the Synagogue and the Eastern Church, like two, there's one on each hand, but in the middle is Jesus, i. e. the Roman Church. For this alone being built upon a strong and lasting Rock stood always firm in the Truth, when all others deviated from the right understanding of the Scriptures; a comparison highly unworthy a Cardinal of the Roman Church, which yet Nicholas Ramus, a Spanish Divine too, and Bishop of Cuba, has transferred into his Tract of the Vulgar Translation  
San. Pignin a Dominican, first published a Version of the holy Scriptures according to the Hebrew Original in the year MDLXXVII. with two Epistles of the two Popes, Adrian the Sixth. 
The Version of Pagnine.  and Clement the Seventh, in the front of the Book, who both strengthen his Edition of the Bible with their Authority, and before this time Leo the Tenth had approved Pignine's design of making a New Translation of the Bible according to the Hebrew Original, 'tis evident as well from the Epistle which Franciscus Picus wrote to Pagnin, as from Pagnin himself that he spent at least thirty years in that Work; insomuch that it had the approbation of all the Jews of that Age for an accurate piece. Yet some great men amongst the Catholics have judged otherwise of it: For Genebrard describes it thus; 'tis not diligently done, 'tis too ambitious, too curious, too Grammatical, too much affecting, abbinical niceties, and such as often mars the Truth and Substance of things with the subtlety of Novel Precepts: Whereupon sometimes it corresponds not enough with the Doctrine of the ancient Hebrews. And Joannes Mariana confirms this with instances of his lapses, who endeavours to make it out, that Pagnin has sometimes overthrown the mysteries of our Religion, by receding too much from the Version of St. Jerome as in the ninth Chapter of Job, where Jerom renders it, rursum circundabor pelle meâ, I shall be again clothed with my Skin, and thence proves the resurrection of the Body, Pagnin Translates it, postquàm pellem meam contriverunt, after they have consumed and worn my Skin: and in the first Edition of his Version had interpreted it more obscurely, & post pellem meam contritam vermes contriverunt banc carne●, and after my consumed Skin the Worms have consumed my Flesh, adding words, which are not extant in the Hebrew, and yet Monsieur Huel gives quite another Character of Pagnines Version than Genebrard, Mariana, and other very learned men, whom I forbear to mention. He has given us, says he, an example of almost a perfect and complete interpretation of the holy Scriptures.  
But it's evident that Pagnine erred in many particulars. For first, he declared that he would keep close to the Latin Interpretation, except in such places where 'twas absolutely necessary to do otherwise: Notwithstanding which he often deserted it without any colour or shadow of reason, only that he might follow Kimchi and other latter Ribbons of the Jews. For how came it about, that for these words in the beginning of Genesis, which in the Vulgar Translation are, Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas, the Spirit of God moved upon the Waters, he should render, Spiritus Dei superflabat in superficie aquarum, the Spirit of God breathed upon the Face of the Waters, unless because the Chaldee Paraphrase, and some Doctors of the Jews had so explained it. Again who could brook the Version of the same Pagnine in the sixth Chapter of Genesis, who for these words, which in the Latin Edition, are nòn permanebit spiritus meus,; my Spirit shall not always abide, he put nòn erit ut in vaginâ speritus meus, my Spirit shall not be as if 'twere in a Scabbard. He was not content to explain the Sense of the Hebrew word only, but likewise the Etymology of it just as Kimchi had done it: Wherefore he showed himself a foolish and quarrelsome Interpreter. (As Aquila of old had done) in speaking so barbarously. Thus where the Latin Interpretation has it, in the 1 of Gen. and the 20 verse. producant aquae reptile, let the Waters bring forth every creeping thing. He Translates, repere faciant aquae reptile, let the Waters make every creeping thing to creep, and in another Edition. reptificent, let them creep, etc. Neither does he always follow the Sense of the Hebrew Text; thus in the 8 Chap, of Nehemiah, the Latin Interpreter excellently well renders these words from the Hebrew, legerunt in libro in lege Dei distinctè; they read in the Book in the Law of God distinctly; But Pagnine contrary to all Sense and Reason Translates it so, legerunt in libro in lege Dei expositi: They read in the Book of the Law of God Expounded in which place he contradicts himself, for in his Dictionary those very words are otherwise explained. Other remarks which might be made upon Pagnine's Version I shall, for brevity's sake omit.  
Arias Montanus was not the Author of the new Version of the Bible, he was content to correct Pagnines Translation in some places. But having a more than ordinary regard to the bare Grammar Rules never minding the Sense, he outwent Pagnine in his barbarousness. He spent his whole time in expressing the Hebrew exactly without any respect to the Sense; thus in the 9 of Exodus, where Pagnine has pretty well rendered novi quià nondùm timeatis, I know because ye will not yet fear, the Corrector Arias Montanus turned, novi quià antequàm timeatis. I know, because ye fear before that. The Hebrew word Terem has doubtless a different signification, in one place it signifies priusquàm, before that in another nondùm not yet: which Arias never minding turned it to that Sense which comes next to hand. An infinite number almost of such absurdities may be found in this Translation, which I advisedly forbear to mention. Who, for God's sake, can understand Arias' Interpretation of that Verse of the 110 Psalms, where for these words, which we read in the Vulgar Edition, tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundùm ordinem Melchisedec, thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. In Pagnines Version, secundùm morem Melchisedec; thou art a Priest after the manner of Melchisedec. Arias turns this way, tu es Sacerdos in seculum super verbum meum Melchisedec, thou art a Priest for ever upon the word of Melchisedec. Monsieur Hewet did indeed attempt defending him in this, and openly styled him a most faithful Translator, who keeping close to the Hebrew Text, despised the censures and calumnies of the unskilful: yet certainly he does not seem to deserve the name of an Interpreter who does not in some measure express the Sense of the Author which he Translates. But notwithstanding all this Arias Montanus is very famous among all Learned men, for that vast and truly Royal Work of the Polyglot Printed at Antwerp, which Version by the command of Philip the Second, was had in esteem beyond all others; and was likewise approved of by an unanimous consent of many Parisian Divines, in the praise of which they spoke as follows, we saw the holy Bible of Philip the Second set forth in Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and Latin after the manner of the Complutensian Bibles formerly Printed in Spain. We approved of the same, and in a word, thought it fit to be read by all Catholics in opposition to all false and heretical Translations, with which men endeavour to impose upon those that have not arrived to the knowledge of the Tongues. This Work was likewise approved of by two Popes, as Franciscus Luca, Burgensis relates, and Gregory the 13th. in his Epistle to Philip the Second of Spain calls it, opus verè aureum, a work truly great. This is farther corroborated by the Authority of 42 Spanish Divines notwithstanding all which, Arias Montanus has but an ill repute among many of the Clergy in Spain, particularly for that he set forth a Chaldee Paraphrase, not only on the Pentateuch, as Cardinal Ximenius had done, but on all the rest of the Bible except some few Books. Of this Andrews de Leon Zamorensis, a Minor of the Regular Clerks, complains in an Epistle which he wrote to those that Printed a new Polyglot at Paris, where concerning the Chaldee Paraphrase published in the Royal Bibles, he speaks thus: What shall I say of the Chaldee Paraphrase which the Rabbins call the Targum? 'tis vitiated and extremely corrupted, 'tis degenerated from its ancient purity and candour, full of Talmudical Fables, and Sacrilegious Impostures. In this all men agree, even Cardinal Ximenius himself in his Preface to the Complutensis asserts it. Nay Cajetan himself gives a free account of his method of Translating Hebrew in these words; I assure you that whilst I was about this work Interpreters would tell me, the Hebrew word sounds thus, 
In his Preface to the Psalms.  but the Sense thereof is not evident unless it be changed into this, having heard all the significations, I answered, do not trouble yourselves if the Sense be not clear, because it is not your Province to explain, but interpret as the words lay before you, and commit the care of understanding the Sense to Expositors. The Cardinal confesses ingenuously that though he was ignorant of the Hebrew yet he Translated the Old Testament into Latin out of the Hebrew, 
Cajetan's method in translating the Bible.  and in order thereunto made use of two very learned men in that Tongue, the one a Jew, and the other a Christian: and gives this as the principal reason why he did so, because unless the Text be just as in its Original, the Text is not expounded but by guess, but the Text is expounded as 'tis understood by such or such an Interpreter: And at last wishes the Fathers had had such an Interpretation, though it be lame and imperfect; because then, says he, we should have the genuine Text of the Scripture explained, and not a Text of Interpreters making: But Cajetan who says almost all the Hebrew words are aequivocal could never arrive at a perfect and complete Interpretation; and yet I dare affirm that that most learned Cardinal, though an utter Stranger to the Hebrew Tongue, has been very happy in expressing the words of the Text, and that there is less barbarism in his Version than that of Arias Montanus. Gabriel Prateolus, who is very free in bestowing the name of Heretic, ranks the judgement he has passed of the ancient Interpreters, as being a little too bold, amongst the Heresies. Nor was Cardinal Palvacino a little dissatisfied therewith, who animadverts thus upon it; quel grand' intelletto alfre opere fuam●●mirato, 
History of the Counsel of Trent, l. 6. c. 17.  in quest● per la sciaersi egli trasportar dalla guida di ehi meglio intendeva la●grammatica Hebrea, chi misteri divini resto in glorios●.  

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

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

CHAP. XXIII. Of the Latin Translations of the Bible made by Protestants.  
THere are yet greater differences betwixt the Protestants in their Translations of the Bible, than the Catholics. Sebastian Munster, who turned the Old Testament out of Hebrew into Latin, shows the reasons and method of his Translation, at the very beginning of it; where he plainly tells us, how that he followed the Rabbins therein and not the old Interpreters. So that if there happened to be any faults in it, they were to be imputed to the Jewish Doctors, who were the first Authors of them. Sextus Senensis gives us his opinion of this Translation in these words. Munsterus ubique horridus, senticosus & asper usque adeo Hebraici sermonis horrorem secutus est, ut cum multa Latinis auribus molliter accommodare potuisset, omnes tamen Hebraici sermonis proprietates & phrases adeo servare studuit, ut nec ipsos Hebraicorum nominum stridores pretermittere voluerit, ingerens Latinis auribus ubique pro Ozia Uzzijah, pro Ezechiele Jechezohel, etc. But I wonder that Sixtus should be so nice and critical, seeing he so highly commends Cajetan, Pagnin, Oleaster and some others, who affected a far more barbarous and unpolite Style. Likewise Gerebrard treats him with as little candour and moderation, passing a sharp and severe censure upon him: Munsterus, saith he, neglecta vocum propria notatione sepe Lutheranisabat, & a sue Franscisci institute discedebat. Certainly none of the Modern (especially Protestant Translators, have more fully and emphatically expressed the genuine sense of the Hebrew Text) than Munster; who cannot deservedly be blamed for any thing, but for slighting the ancient Interpreters of the Holy Scripture, and adhering too closely to the late Jewish Doctors: neither is he so rough and harsh in his stile, abating some proper names, as Sixtus and some others fancy him to be. Hu●tius, who seems the most impartial and unbiass'd in his Judgement, gives him this Character, Sebastianus Munsterus Bibliorum Interpres sane doctus in Hebraica semper stilum collineans ad eaque nunquam non se componens. Yet without doubt he had gained greater applause, if according to the advice of Conradus Pellicanus his Tutor in the Hebrew Tongue, he had chief followed the Rabbins in Grammatical niceties, consulting in other things, as well the Ancient Interpreters of the sacred Text, as the modern Jews; and then he had not disagree'd with the Latin Translators in so many particulars as he did: For what necessity was there, that for Crescite & multiplicamine, & implete aquas Maris, which we find in the vulgar Translations; he should put Fructicate & augescite & implete aquas in fretis, which words carry a far harsher sound with them than the former.  
Likewise Leo Juda, a Zuinglian, Translated the Old Testament, or at least the greatest part of it, out of the Original Hebrew into Latin, and because he died before 'twas quite finished, Bibliander and P. Cholinus completed it: Bibliander turned the eight last Chapters of Ezechiel, and also Daniel, Job, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles and 48 Psalms out of Hebrew; and Cholinus translated the books, which the Protestant Divines call the Apocryphas, out of Greek. This Translation was first published at Zurich in the Year 1543. and afterward in the Year 1545, there came forth a second Edition of it by R. Stephanus, but without the name of the Author, and with the vulgar Translation on one side, as we have intimated before. But the Parisian Divines railed and inveighed bitterly both against the Edition and the Publisher of it; so that after many hot and wrangling disputes about several things belonging to the Bible, Stephanus was at length forced by the prevailing party, to leave his Country, and to fly to Geneva for Sanctuary; there he writ his Apology against the Parisian Divines, and published it both in Latin and French, wherein he made grievous complaints of them; but in most things he showed himself to be an Innovator and a rigid follower of Calvin: Yet he was defended in some things even against the Parisian Divines by P. Castellanus Bishop of Mascon and grand Almoner of France, who often carried the matters in controversy to the hearing of the King's Council; for he had observed how the Parisians, through their Ignorance of the Tongues, had laid many things falsely to his charge. Neither did this Translation of Leo Juda escape the Censures of Genebrard; who thereby got the Favour and Patronage of the Parisian Divines, he himself being one of the same faculty. But Stephanus was entertained with far more courtesy and civility by the Spanish Divines; who without any scrupulous enquiry after the Author's name; or without any regard to the censures of the Parisians, reprinted this Edition at Salamanca, with some small variation of the notes; and moreover judged it worthy to be read of all those who were inquisitive after the true meaning of the Scripture. 'Tis true that Leo Judae rendered some Hebrew words less properly than Munster, but be took more care to accommodate them to the Latin Phrase: So that he cannot justly be accused for any thing, but his translating by way of Paraphrase, purposely to avoid obscurity.  

Sobast. Castal. Interp.  The most famous and generally received Translation of the Bible, is that of Castalio, of which there are several Impressions: But that is accounted the best, which was made at Basil in the Year, 1573. Sixtus Senensis giving us his Judgement of Munster and Castalio, avers that they fall into both Extremes; one of them being harsh, barbarous and unpolished in his Style, and often inclining to the Jewish Idiom; the other being as profane as a Heathen, foolishly affecting the Proprieties of the Languages of the Gentiles, fancying his Latin could not be pure and elegant, unless it were soft and effeminate. Sixtus gives several examples of his profane expressions. Castalio, saith he, calls God the Father Jupiter, Divus Armipotens, Gradivus & Caelicola; likewise he calls Angels, Jovis Genti, Prophets, Vates & fatidici, and holy Men, Heroes. Genebrard gives an excellent description of him and his Translation in these words, Versio Castalionis est affectata, 
Geneb. praef. in op. Orig.  plus habens pompae & phalerarum quam rei & firmitatis, plus ostentationis quam substanty, plus fuci quam succi, plus hominis quam spiritus plus fumi quam flam●ae, plus humanarum cogitationum quam divinorum sensuum. But he is handled more severely by the Geneva Doctors, and especially Theodore Beza, who upbraids him with ignorance and rashness for his profane imitation of Catulus in his Translations; for in the Canticles he does not use the plain word Columba, but mea Columba. Mea Columba, says he, ostend mihi tun●● vulticulum, fac ut audiam tuam voculam venustulam: & lepidum vulticulum habes: capite nobis vulpeculas parvas vinearum vastatriculas; In this Book he plays the Poet rather than the Interpreter; but every where he assumes the liberty of connecting the Periods and Verses; that his Translation might appear more graceful and elegant, as is evident in the first Chapter of Genesis, which gins thus; 
Gen. 1.1.  In principio creavit Deus Coelum & Terram: cum autem esset terrarudis q●que iners, tenebrisque offusum, profundum, & divinus spiritus s●se super aquas libraret, jussit Deus ut existeret Lux, etc. Beza and some other Geneva Doctors will only allow him to be a smatterer in the Hebrew Tongue; but with their leave I dare boldly say, that Geneva never bred a man more profoundly skilled in Hebrew, Greek and Latin than he. I no not deny, but that sometimes he did not accurately express the full import of the Hebrew words because he affected a smooth and delicate stile; but he did not this through ignorance, but through a desire of imitating Cicero and Catellus. 
Is. Levit. medit. in Lib. Ru●●  Likewise Isaac Levita, a man well versed in Hebrew, who finds fault with Castalio for not following exactly the Literal and Grammatical meaning of the Text, takes notice of some other things of small moment and importance: But 'tis certain that Castalio proposed to himself this way of translating, that he might give his Translation the advantage of perspicuity and elegancy. Genebrard objects that Castalio, as though he favoured the Heresy of the Servetans, rendered the Hebrew word Amar in the beginning of Genesis by Jussit; for which in the vulgar Translations we have dixit. But 'tis no hard matter to believe that he never thought of this; and moreover the word Amar as well in Hebrew as Arabic, may very well be construed by jussit; which acception of the word seems not to be altogether improper in this place.  
Now it only remains, that we make some short reflections upon Junius and Tremellius, 
Junii & Trem. versio.  who were the undoubted Authors of that Translation, which is so highly valued by the Protestants, especially in England and Geneva, where 'tis altogether used in their disputations. About the time when it was published, Drusius a man of the Protestant persuasion, and Professor of the Hebrew Tongue in an University in West Friezeland, spared no sharpness and severity in his animad versions upon it, but made it appear that they had grossly erred in some things; and a long time after Constantine L'Emperew Professor of the Hebrew Tongue (which he was a great master of) in the University of Leyden, passed the like censure upon Junius and Tremellius' Translation in these words, In vertendis H●braicis a Junio & Tremellio non raro abire debui; Hoc enim in●sta Bibliorum versione saepe observavi; conceptam Analysin veluti norman statui ad quam in vertendo respicerctur, cum hoc modo saepe a vero sensu recedatur. Yet Buxtorf the greatest modern Hebrician had these Interpreters in so great esteem, that he usually gave them the Title of incomparable men, 
Buxt. praef. Lex. Hebr.  and in composing his Hebrew Lexicon strictly followed their Translations; and all the Learning our Critics pretend to, who slight and undervalue all the old Translators, is gleaned out of this Lexicon. Tremellius, who was a Jew before he professed Calvinism, seems to have taken abundance of things from the Modern Jews, and besides his Latin stile is unnatural and affected, which without doubt he learned at Geneva: for 'tis very usual with the Geneva Doctors to interland their Sentences with pronoun Relatives, when there does not appear the least shadow of a Relation; as we read in the Tremellian Version of the first Chapter of Genesis, 
Gen. 1.4.  viditque Deus lucem hanc esse bonam, & distinctionem fecit Deus inter Lucem hanc, etc. again a little after, 
v. 7.  Fecit ergo Deus hoc expansum quod distinguit inter has aquas quae sunt ab inferiori istius expansi & aquas illas. Theodore Beza has some things not much unlike these in his Translation of the New Testament: neither did Tremellius scruple to insert several words to Illustrate the fence, which quite alter it; as in the 2d. Chapter of Genesis, where in the vulgar Translation we read, sed Fons ascendebat è terra, and in some other Translations & vapour, etc. He Translates it aut Vapor non ascendebat; following the Arabic Paraphrase of Rabbi Saadias', Surnamed Gaon, or the excellent. Moreover in the 8th. Chapter of Nehemiah, besides these words which are turned verbatim out of Hebrew, viz. Legerunt in Libro Dei Legis distinct & aperte ad intelligendum, & intellexcrunt cum legeretur, he adds these of his own, per scripturam ipsam, which are not in the Hebrew Text, and renders them thus, exponendo sensum dabant Intelligentiam per Scripturam ipsam; in which thing he did not so much regard the words of the Hebrew Context, as the Principles of the Calvinistical Divinity; and he differs very much from Sebastian Munster, Leo Judas, Castalio and all other Protestant Interpreters, except those of Geneva, who were wonderfully taken with Tremellius' Translation  
We can likewise allow Luc. Osiander a place among the Protestant Interpreters of the Bible; 
Bib. Luc. Osi.  for though he did not design to give us an entire Translation of it, lest he should in any wise seem to departed from the Ancient received Latin Translators, yet those places which he thought were not well rendered, he Translated out of the Hebrew, retaining nevertheless the old Translation in those very places, that so by comparing them, men might better judge of his and the Ancient Translation; as for instance, in the first Chapter of Genesis, where we read in the vulgar, ferebatur; he puts down in another Character, incubabat, as if the Hebrew word was more fully expressed by the Latin word incubabat than ferebatur. Indeed Osiander mistakes in a great many things, when upon any Trivial account he leaves the Latin Translator, whom he did not follow as close as he should have done, yet he is deservedly commended by the Divines of Tubinge for this piece of prudence, that in his Edition of the Bible, he gives us likewise that which was ancient and received for a great many years, by all the Western Churches. Nor will it be unseasonable here to mention the Judgement of the Divines of the University of Tubinge, concerning the modern Interpreters, which we have in these words: Dum illi novas versiones afferunt, videntur studiosis Theologiae veteram illam & usitatam velle manibus excutere. Nonnulli in vertendo obscuram diligentiam Hebr●orum & sordidam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quam illorum Grammatici habent sequentes, non modo gratiam, sed fructum studuii sui propemodum amettunt. Sunt etiam non pauci qui destituti solidiore cognitione Haebr●ae linguae & ignari proprietatis & elegantiae, interpretationes in modium afferunt, aut prodig●osas, aut certenon satis instituto convenientes. In like manner Andrew Osiander the Son of Luke, following the same way of Translating that his Father did, published the ancient Latin Translation, together with the corrections of it, retaining still the old Edition. And no man of sense will ever question, but that this is the best method of Translating; provided the emendations be not inserted into the Text of the Latin Translation, but only put down in the Margin as probable conjectures. Not many years since Cocceius receded from this way of Translating; who was a man that had great skill in the Hebrew Tongue, and one that had exercised himself very much in this kind of Study, as it appears from the Latin Translation of the Old Testament, which he adds to his Comment, and likewise from his Hebrew Lexicon, which he adapted to the ancient Translations, which notwithstanding he departed from in his Translation, relying too much upon his own parts, and catching rather at words and shadows than the substances of things.   

CHAP. XXIV. Of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues, and first of all of th●se made by Catholics.  
AFter the rise of new Heretics in the Western Church, who casting aside Traditions, would acknowledge no other rule and standard of Religion besides the Scriptures; there were several warm disputes betwixt Divines of all persuasions about this very thing. The more prudent and moderate Catholics, did not absolutely condemn the Translations of the Scriptures into the mother Tongue of every Nation, because it was allowed of by the Fathers: But they judged it requisite to stop the increase and progress of Heresy, which sprung from some misinterpreted and perverted Texts of Scripture, to forbid the promiscuous reading of them in the vulgar languages, by reason of several inconveniences which attend it, without a due regard to the Persons, Times, and some other circumstances. Faith according to St. Paul comes by hearing, and 'tis certain, far more have been converted to Christianity by hearing of the Gospel than by reading it. At the first promulgation of the Christian Religion, there were no Books of the Gospel, from which Men might have learned the Principles of their Religion, & 'tis very probable, that if the Apostles had never write any thing about the Christian Faith, yet our Religion by the help of Tradition, had been transmitted unto us entire and perfect. This is the general opinion of the Catholic Doctors, who do not positively forbid these Translations, if so be all persons in all times and places be not promiscuously permitted to read them, for 'tis their Maxim.  Non prosit potius quic quid abesse potest. 
Now 'tis easily proved, that almost all Christians before the rise of the Protestant Innovators, had the liberty to peruse the Scriptures in their native Tongues. For what other reason should the Grecians prefer the Septuagint to the Original Hebrew, but that the Greek was their Mother Tongue. Likewise the People of Italy had the Bible Translated into Latin, because they naturally spoke it, and for the same reason the Eastern People had their Syriack, Coptick, Arabic and Armenian Translations, which for brevity I shall omit. 'Tis true that some Translations are now read among these People, which they do not understand, as the Latin is at this day among the Italians; but this is no convincing argument, that these Translations were never in the Languages familiarly known and understood by the common People. Now I pass to the Translations of the Bible into the modern Tongues. Jacobus de Varagine is highly esteemed among the Italians for his Translation of the Scriptures into their Tongue: But now there are some other Italian Translations much in vogue, which carry the names of Nicholas Malermius Abbot of the Monastery of St. Michael de Lern and Anton. Bucciolus; and in some Editions there is a Preface, in which the Author discourses at large of the Translations of the Scriptures into the vulgar Languages, but there is this difference betwixt Brucciolius and some other Interpreters: He turned the Bible immediately out of the Original, whereas they only translated it from the Latin Interpretation, which was usually read in the Western Churches. There are several Editions of this immediate Translation from the Hebrew, the first of which the Author dedicates to Francis the First King of France in the Year 1530. afterwards there came forth three other Editions in the Years 1539, 40 and 41, but the Edition in the Year 1540 is accounted the best, because there are several very useful Marginal Notes in it, together with an Epistle of Antonius Brucciolius to Renata the Wife of Francis Duke of Ferrara in the defence and commendation of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues, yet this Italian Interpreter seems to be too weak for the management of so noble and weighty a design; seeing he sticks not closely enough to the Hebrew Text, but follows other Translations, especially that of Pagnin, whose very errors he has copied out, adding some more of his own in some places, which he did not understand. For in the 8 Chap. of Nehemiah, where Pagnin perverts the Original by rending it; In lege Dei expositi, he translates it, Nulla lege d'Iddio dichiarata, differing as much from Pagnin, as the Hebrew Text: For because he searched not into the Hebrew Copies, he did not take notice that the word which signifies Lex is of the Feminine Gender, and that the Participle passive, which he rendered by Dichiarata was of the Masculine Gender; and so while he pretends, without consulting the words of the Context, to correct Pagnin, whom he did not well understand, he falls into a downright error. I shall forbear to say any thing of the Translation of Jacobus de Voraign; because I never saw it. Passevinus who had a Copy of it, gives no very great Character of it; but others highly commend it. But, I think I may confidently affirm, that very few of those Translations, which are taken out of Latin Editions, can be accurate and correct; seeing it happens very often, that the Latin Interpreter cannot be understood without some knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue: hence it is that Jacobus de Voraigne, Mattermus, and others, who turn the holy Scriptures out of Latin into another Tongue, are often guilty of gross mistakes.  
There were several Translations of the Bible into French long before Calvin was heard of: 
Gall. Verse.  For before the Catholic Religion was reformed, or rather deformed by him, a French Translation of the Scriptures was read in Geneva and the neighbouring Mountains, which was composed in the year MCCXCIV by one Guiars des Moulins, a Canon of Aria in Artois, formerly under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Terovenne, a Copy of that Translation is still kept in the public Library at Geneva, and another at Paris in the study of the Famous Henry Justelle, and I am of opinion that this is the Translation which is mentioned by Robert Olivetanus, 
Rob. Olivet. Praes. in Bibl.  who sent the first Bible in French to Genevah. Likewise there is another French Translation in some Libraries in France, which is believed to have been done by Orosmes Canon of Roven, in the time of Charles the fifth; and Car. Molinaus gives out that he had some lose Manuscript Pieces of it. Moreover, 'tis evident that the Divines of Louvain were not the first, as is commonly believed, who Printed the French Translation of the holy Scriptures. We have a Translation published at Antwerp in the year 1530, by Martin L' Empereur, with the Privilege of the Emperor Charles the Fifth, but we can have no certainty of that Edition; because the year of the Impression disagrees with somethings contained in the Privilege, viz. that the year 1530, was the first year of the Reign of Charles the Fifth, who was made Emperor in the year 1529. Besides, in the same Privilege, the Inquisitors and some other Divines are mentioned; who had the inspexion of that work; but at that time and in these places there was no Inquisition. To these things may be added another observation drawn from the third Chapter of Genesis, where we find these words, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, which occur in the Latin Edition, to be rendered the same way in this Translation, as the Protestants render them, viz. cette semence brisera ta teste. Moreover in the Preface to this Translation, we have the same division of the Scriptures, which we find in the Protestant Bibles: for there these Books are only reckoned to be Canonical, which were writ in the Hebrew Tongue, and received into the Jewish Canon. But we may give a probable answer to all these Objections. First, some error may be couched in the Privilege, as we may gather from some other Editions of this Translation. Secondly, 'tis very probable that the true Inquisitors are not mentioned in the Privilege. Thirdly, 'tis no wonder that he find cette semence, etc. in the French Translation, because the Translation tells us, that he followed the old Interpretation. Lastly, the Author of this Translation, who also Translated the Edition of St. Jerom, as may be seen in the Title Page, might have imitated St. Jerom in the division of the Scriptures, at that time there being no Decrees of the Council of Trent against it: Neither did Cardinal Cajetan, who writ a long time after, give any other division of them.  
I shall not say any thing at present of the Divines of Louvain, whose Translation is generally read among the Catholics, and which hath been several hundred times Printed and reprinted, and also accurately corrected: Which work they did not attempt, upon any other account, but that they might draw the Common-people, and the unlearned from the reading of the Geneva Bibles, which were then had in great esteem. Likewise those Divines who Translated the Bible into the English, Germane, Polish, Hungarian, and some other vulgar Languages, profess they did it on purpose to divert the Catholics from reading Protestant Translations. 'Tis said that a Manuscript Copy of the Bible was found in Province in the Language of the Country; 
Translat. Waldens.  which I fancy was made by the Waldenses in their Mother Tongue not the pure French. 
John Leger Hist. des Vall.  John Leger a Calvinist, who composed the History of that Sect, makes mention of it, and tell us, that he has likewise a Copy of it.  

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

CHAP XXV. Of the Bible, done into the Vulgar Tongue, by Heterodox Translators.  
IN the days of Pope Innocent the third a French Translation of the Bible, done by some Heterodox Divines was published at Metensium, whereof that great Prelate did not a little complain being informed by the Bishop of the abovenamed place that no small number of the Laity, Men, and Women made it their business to read a certain French translation of the Bible, that they frequented secret Conventicles, slighted the public worship, and defying the Catholic Clergy to the face began to floot at their simplicity. Which aforesaid translation might probably be borrowed of the Albigenses, people of that time. Neither did the Wicklevists in England want their Vulgar translation, whereof, I hear, that something is as yet remaining. Now we may observe that these, and such like translations were done only out of the Latin; by reason their Authors were unskilled in the Greek and Hebrew tongues. Martin Luther, a man of a bold, and refractory Spirit, was the first, who took upon him to do an old Copy out of the Hebrew and a new one out of the Greek into the Mother tongue; who was a smatterer only in the Hebrew, when this his impolished, and erroneous translation (a translation afterward rejected by men after his own heart) came to cope with the Vulgar Latin which for many years before, and that in the judgement of all Divines was generally received, and approved both in Churches and Schools. And yet the Gentleman sticks not to be his own Trumpeter, and applauding himself for a Linguist, boldly asserts, that as for all the stratagems of Popery, all the tophitical Tyranny of the Schoolmen; yea, and the whole Kingdom of Antichrist, he had invaded, subdued, and totally overthrown them. Nay if we may believe him, he telleth us, that he and his Languages were a terror even to Lucifer himself. The Devil, (saith he) is not so much afraid of my Faith, and internal Courage, as of my Tongue, Pen, and knowledge in the Holy Scriptures.  
But this Patriarch of the Germane Protestants, as not resting very well satisfied, I suppose, with the first Edition of his Translation, wherein he presumes to have repulsed the Armies of the Devil, and to have shaken off the Pope's tyrannical Voke, set his Brains a work for a more accurate Version; though his second attempt was so far from being embraced by the more wise of his followers, that Sebastian Munster was not afraid to give his Master the Title of a very Fable Translator, 
Munst. praef. on the Bible, and Notes on the 2d. Chap. of Jonah.  and no great Conjurer in the Hebrew. This made Bucer maintain that Luther's Translation was faulty, and Melchior Zanchius write a whole Book of the Authors Errata. Hence it was that the Zinglians confided in themselves, and turned the Hebrew Bible into the Germane, that sighting Luther's poor endeavours, they cast themselves upon one Leo Judas; though these proceed were not well taken by the above mentioned Translator. Hence it was that the Low-Country Protestants, mighty Adorers of this High-German Translation, together with those of Suecia, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, and the rest of the Northern People, who had formerly stuck close to Luther's Errors, openly declare their readinss for a new Translation of the Bible; being that, That of Luther's was done all in a hurry; and that, as John Leusden Hebrew Professor in the University of utretcht, testifies, Luther's Works lay under a great many gross mistakes, whereof some indeed might inveigle themselves in; but that others without dispute arose the sluggishness of the Author, slumbering over the Low-Dutch Translation. And yet, as Mr. Luesden tells us the Anabaptisis stood up Tooth and Nail for this Lutheran Translation, resenting it very highly that Johannis Vrtenovis should take upon him to Correct Martin Luther upon the New Testament. Though the Protestants of Low-Germany, in the Synod of Dort, as they call it, rejected Luther's Translation, which with all kindness they had formerly caressed; looking upon it as spurious and degenerate, an off spring nothing related to the Mother- Hebrew: wherefore they were delivered of a Translation of their own, and Christened themselves the Revisors and Interpreters of Dort.  
Now 'tis our Province to inquire what order and method, Martin Luther observed in his farewell Translation of the Scriptures. Since he publicly asserts, that the Hebrew is void and ineffectual, that the Jews are not men to be believed; and that St. Jerom himself in Translating the Scriptures was not inspired with Christian wisdom; jumping into Ruffinus his opinion, who gave out that the above named Holy Father was a Jew in heart. For he wonders that any Christian will concern himself with the ridiculous Commentaries of the Jews; The Jewish trifles (saith the same Luther) argue their Authors to know little or nothing of Holy-Writ; and yet forsooth these are the Idols of our Modern and Famous Divines; Divines most dexterous in the Hebrew Tongue, and yet the most apt to hunt after such like whimsies. He hath likewise a touch upon those Rabbis, whose Talon is most commonly employed, and laid out in Grammatical affairs, decrying them thus, That they may know perhaps the Nominal and bare signification, but as for the real, and intrinsic that they are ignorant of it; and that therefore nothing of soundness and solidity may be expected from them. Hence it is that he rejects the Hebrew Translators, and their adherents, as a pack of Fools & Idiots, who would pretend to shelter the Jewish Translations, within the roof of the Scriptures. And he thought it much better that the more obscure places of Scripture should be expounded by the Analogy, or Rule of Christian Faith, than by any Rabinical Books, by reason the once lost Hebrew is impossible to be retrieved, and that the true signification of a great many words in that Language is yet unknown, even by the Jews themselves, as well as by the Christians: The use and knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue (saith Martin Luther) is so much lost and estranged, that it can never be recovered; neither do the words only (but also the very Phrases and Construction) lie under a most doubtful, and various obscurity: Hence it comes to pass that we know not the force, Figures and Emphasis of a great many words and sentences; which if any Christian may ever sift out, so as to know their meaning, he must necessarily be one of those men, who with the help of the New Testament hath acquired to himself the full knowledge of the Scriptures.  
That several particulars in this Method of Luther's may be hooted at, is past dispute, more especially those objections which he offered against the Translators of his Time, in that they depended too much upon Rabbinical Books. And yet the true reason why he pretended to calumniate these men was, because they had spoke against the impropriety of his Translation. Luther, I surmise, was in the fault when he stood dissatisfied not only with the Books of the modern Jews, but also with St Jerom, and the ancient Interpreters, whom when he had strangely disrespected, he betook himself (as though all the world were Fools but his worship), to a certain imaginary rule of Faith, upon the faith of his own Brain. Moreover being no great Critic in Grammar he was found guilty, and condemned of several misinterpretations; so that truckling under Prejudice, and Opinion; he giveth us for these words (in the 4th Chapter of Genesis) Possedi hominem per dominum, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Possedi hominem Dominum, I have gotten the man Lord. Certainly Luther was no stranger to the Cabalistical Doctor's Opinion, who out of this place would gladly raise up a Messia. Besides, Luther in the first Edition of his Translation had rendered these very same words thus; acquisivi hominem Domini; I have got the man of the Lord; which Interpretation was much more disconsonant to the Hebrew Text than the other. For truly it was not possible that such a Novice in the Hebrew should not sometimes lie under most palpable mistakes. Wherefore his own Disciples were not afraid to revise, and correct their Master's Translation, a Translation (I confess) which they allowed some elbow room within the Bible, and descended so far as to write their own corrections in a different Character, or to imprison them within two strokes, which you may see in the Vinariensian Bible, where Luther's Translation, and the abovesaid Animadversions are exposed to the view of the World, yet how much men of his own principles esteemed it, we may easily conjecture, since the Corrections added to it procured it the general applause of the Lutherians, as the most accurate Edition. Paulus Eberus who calleth himself Pastor of the Church at Wittenberg used the Protestants in the same manner, as Isidorus Clarius did the Catholics. This man corrected the vulgar Latin, and added thereunto Luther's German Translation, declaring that in as much as was possible for him, he followed the ancient Latin Translator, whom notwithstanding you may afterwards find very much ashamed of his Animadversions, having so low thoughts of his endeavours, that he desired his Bible might not be republished, because that, being distracted by other business, when he composed it, he had run into some mistakes.  
Now there is extant a Germane Translation done by the Doctors of Tigurino and chief of Leo Judas, who was most particularly concerned therein, which Translation openly opposes that of Luther. And yet the same Doctors of Tigurino forged a new one as though the former Version had not been found and good. The Authors of this late Translation are (are as I hear) Hottinger, Heideker Mulerus and others who have translated the Hebrew words almost verbatim. Piscator a man of great account among the Calvinists, is reported to have done a Bible into the Germane tongue, who though he relied upon Junius and Tremelius their Latin Version, yet he did not hang back, but kept a full pace with the above named Translators. The low Germane Translation, which was taken into consultation at the Synod of Dort, in the year of our Redemption 1618., came forth in the year 1637; and by orders of the higher Powers was done into Low-Dutch immediately out of the Hebrew, and not from Martin Luther's High Dutch Translation, was found errouneous. Neither doth the Low-Dutch Translation want its faults, arising from a more than ordinary dependence upon the Expositions of the Modern Jews, who were rashly supposed by them to understand the Hebrew better then all the World beside. And thereupon this Translation met with brisk opposition from some of the the Protestant Faction; and Low-Germany, the Country wherein it was hatched, was quickly marked out with the brand of novelty and affectation. Mr. Leusden Hebrew Professor in Vtrecht, a man before commended, taking upon him to argue for the Low-Dutch Translation among the rest of his proofs, produces as arguments the Corrections of the vulgar Latin by Sixtus Quintus, and Clement Octavus, Popes of Rome. But the true reason why these two Prelates should Correct the vulgar Latin, was far different from that of the Low-Country Protestants. The former Animadversions, without vain affectation, desired only to make the vulgar Latin answerable to its ancient Copies: whilst the latter sort of men, magnifying the Hebrew varities, which they pretend always to stand by, set out every day, and jumped up new Translations of the Bible; which as soon as they come a little in vogue, the Authors of them presently perkt up, show their faces, and ridicule the Old Translator, making it their end, and aim to build up their Yesterday Opinions, upon these new and unheard of Translations: being the sole way they make use of to thrust their monstrous Doctrines into the Church, and which they do openly acknowledge saying, That the Sun of the Eastern Languages arising, they betook themselves to the Hebrew Fountains, the better to find out, and confute the errors of Popery, the better to establish their Religion.  
That the English Protestants was cloyed and overcharged with the numerous Translations of the Bible, the bare words of the Bishop of London in his conference at Hampton-Court may be of sufficient evidence. If each man (gins the Bishop) had his peculiar fancy we could never expect an end of Translation; wherefore the good will and pleasure of his most Excellent Majesty 'tis, that some uniform Version be thought upon; adding moreover, that then he had never met with an English Bible well Translated, and was very well satisfied, that among the bad ones, that of Geneva was the worst: where he then thought expedient that the most Learned in both the Universities should confer notes together and make up a Translation, which being first revised, by the most Learned Bishops, and Privy Council, should at last be established by the King's Authority. The which being done, the Church of England will be confined to one Translation and no more. We may easily from hence conclude with what noise, bustle, and dispension the diversities of Bibles came accompanied into England, under the different Names of T●ndal and Coverdale, Th●. Matthews, Tonstal and Hethe, Parker Archbishop of Canturbury and other Bishops, the last named persons, being the Author of a Bible Entitled the Bishop's Translation. Now the Geneva Translation, which King James will have to be the worst, is the same with the French Bible, Printed at Geneva, the which was made English, and Read in Great Britain by some of the Geneva Profession. As for the History of these and such like Bibles you may have it in Durel and Fuller's State of England. Most wisely therefore did King James, the first of the Name of the Kings of England, Establish That, rejecting and making void all other Translations, which were then used in the Nation, some new, impartial, and unaffected Translation should be composed. Likewise he made a Law for Interpretation, and ordered those who had the overseeing of it, to go from the Bishop's Translation, as little as possible, willing that some particular words which were in a manner Consecrated to the use of the Church should be retained, as the word Church itself, which signifies a public meeting; and by the Decree, he reprimanded the Geneva Reformadoes, who had foisted in other Names, commanding, for these men's sakes that all Marginal Notes, and Annotations, at the beginning and end of the Bible should be struck out, as things of bad consequence, and the snares of the common People. These, and a great many more particulars of the like Nature were ordered by the King's Royal Authority; and accordingly effected; so that to this intent there is no Translation made use of in the Church of England, than the English one only set forth by his Majesty's especial command. To which Translation truly their Book of Common Prayer may bear some resemblance, which Book except the Version of the Psalms, hath been so far from the least alteration, that it hath been used in their Public Worship ever since their Reformation, in the Reign of Edward the Sixth. Though it be a general Opinion that the English had a Translation of the Bible in English, done by Wiclift; and that before the above named King began his Reign; which Translation together with that which was abroad in England in the Reign of King Henry, the Eighth, was done into English out of the vulgar Latin. Also Cochlaus will tell you that Luther's Translation of the New Testament was made English. Besides all this, there is a common report that a Bible was published at London in Welch; that James Usher the Bishop of Armaugh, turned a new Copy into Irish, and Mr. William Bed an old one; and that both of them are supposed to have been burned.   

CHAP. XXVI. Of the Translations of the Bible, which were writ in the vulgar Tongue, and their Rise from the Geneva Schools.  
WE find not any French Translations of the Holy Scriptures, and done out of the Hebrew and Greek, which went not to School at Geneva, neither do I omit that Translation which may seem to be composed by Renatus Benedictus, one of the Parisian Divines; since the Geneva Translation, and the aforenamed piece are most nearly related, as I shall hereafter make evident. Robertus Olivetanus, born in Picardy, and a nigh kinsman of Jo. calvin's, was the first that attempted that great work, and at last finished it in the year of our Redemption 1535, which was the first year of the Reign of that monstruous Religion, set up at Geneva, by Jo Calvin, since that before that time (as the above named testifies) some old Copies only of an old French Manuscript were read in these and such like places, and those without an Author. Now what method Olivetanus followed in his Translation, we may know by his Preface, which method truly was not ridiculous had he been fit for the undertaking such a task. Though in the interim several circumstances sufficiently demonstrate unto us the Translator's ignorance in the Hebrew and Greek Tongues. As for the French I dare not say he understood it, being that Jo. Calvin, who looked over this Translation, leaves this for an Animadversion, That the Author writ false French. Neither truly in his famous Preface doth he show any competent knowledge he had in the Hebrew, when he tells us a Tale of a Tub, and stories only fit for three-days-standing- Hebrecians; where he learnedly observes R. Aben Ezra himself. This Olivetanus therefore did not take the trouble upon him to do the Hebrew Copy into French, but with much more ease followed some forerunning Interpreters. Since he telleth us of two Italian and three Germane Translations of the Bible, at that time extant. And yet in the very beginning of his work, he protests that he scorned the equipage of a Learned man's Footman, that he was free from prejudice, and leaving other Translations, betook himself to the Hebrew; That he had marked the more obscure places of Scripture with an Asterisk, and put down other men's Comments in the Margin.  
The same Olivetanus sets a great value upon the different Readins of the Bible, more especially upon those, which he had observed out of the Greek Interpeters and St. Jerom, through the great light which they give to the Scriptures. Wherefore he openly declares that he values not the help of the Modern Jews, or the assistance of their Books; neither is he afraid to maintain that the Hebrew Vowels were first foisted in upon the Bible by the Doctors of Tiberius; and therefore for his part prized the Septuagint and St. Jerom much above the common Hebrew Bible. Neither in writing Hebrew will he imitate the Modern Jewish Doctors; but prefers himself before them, looking upon the new Jewish Pronunciations as Monstrous, though in the last place he acknowledgeth that St. Jerom knew the Hebrew Tongue better than himself.  
The gifts of Heterodox Men must certainly shine forth in a miraculous manner, before they win the applause of the Catholic, though Robertus Oliveranus, I am fully persuaded, knew, and ●pp●ov●d fretter things, when he followed the worse, who in one ba●e year, punctilio of time in comparison, completed a work which requi●ed fi●ty years study. The Gentleman, I must needs confess, very seldom takes any notice of the different readings, and scarce at all looks back upon the Ancient Translatours: Sometimes truly he sticks to a less obvious sense, as in 1 Chap. of Gen. where for these words which are in the vulgar, and in a manner all Translations The spirit of God, etc. he will give you these, the Wind of God, etc. And to the end he would not be called in question concerning any affected novelty, he produces in open Court as Witnesses of his true Translation, certain of the Greek Fathers, who were of the same opinion, though at the end of his Book he inserts a different Interpretation. Thus Olivetanus slid into a great many gross mistakes, not only through his Ignorance in the Hebrew and Greek, but likewise in the Latin. Hence it is that having a greater respect for the Latin Translator, than the Hebrew Copy, an Ocean of Errors overwhelm him; an Example whereof we have in the 1 Chap. of Gen. where for cete grandia in the Latin Translation, he gives us in the French Grandes Baleines. But how he can make cote agree to Balana; I see no reason; being the word generally taken denotes Creatures of an oblong, vast and prodigious Bulk. And which is much more unsufferable Olivetanus in the 25 Chap. of Gen. where the Latin Translator readeth Lampas, he commits a grand mistake, by adhering too much to a similitude, and setteth down Lamp.  

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

The Geneva Doctors Bible.  Cornelius Bertramus Hebrew Professor at Geneva, Beza, Fayus, Rotanus, Jaquemotus, Goulartius and some others took this abovesaid Translation in hand, and in the Year of our Incarnation 1588., writ Animadversions upon it. These Men especially Bartramus, having a Competent skill in the Hebrew, put the old Geneva Translation to School again to the Hebrew Doctors, yet more particularly they relied upon Munsterus and Tremellius their aid and assistance. Both Robertus Olivetanus and Jo. Calvin were most sharply censured by these Revisers, who taking upon themselves a more than ordinary Liberty of Animadversion were sometimes very busy, when they had little or nothing to do. Hereupon, whilst they follow Tremellius in the 8 Chap. of Nehem. rendering that Text according to the above said Translator; and they gave the sense of it by the Scripture itself; they seem rather to express some of their Geneva sentiments than the words of the Scripture. A like passage we meet with in the 4 Chap. of Genesis, which Text truly Olivetanus and Calvin had very well according to the Interpreters translated; then they began to call upon the Name of the Lord, when these Reformado Gentlemen turned it, and that both very barbarously and obscurely; then they began to read the Name of the Eternal, imitating herein the depraved Affectation of Aquila. Neither are these same Gentlemen any Sophisters in the French; since in my own opinion they go very aukwardly about to translate something concerning Noah's Ark, in the 46. Chapter of Genesis doing it thus, thou shalt chalk it with Pitch within and without, which certainly Olivetanus and Jo. Calvin had more plausibly rendered, Thou shalt pitch it with Pitch both within and without, as the Latin Translator hath it, bitumine lines intrinsecus & extrinsecus. Besides who can endure to hear that expression in the 30 Chap. of Gen. He peeled the white Rind.  
But they have ten thousand more expressions of the like nature, which I omit at present, leaving them to themselves and their ignorance in the French Particles, whereupon th● true sense and meaning of any Text wholly depends.  
Since this time there was never published any other Correction of the Geneva Translation, done by any of those Doctors; only some obsolete words were cashiered, that the Translation might look more neat and handsome, though indeed you may stumble upon their Notes upon any dark place of Scripture, which indeed multiply according to the good will and pleasure of the Geneva, who have a most admirable faculty in vamping of their frantic notions of Scripture itself. 'Tis not long ago since Samuel Desmarets' a Calvinistical Minister at Groningen, jumbled all his notae variorum, Collections out of the Geneva Doctors, and the several Editions of the Bible into a full Body, whereunto he adjoined the Geneva Translation, A Book published by Himself: Himself, I mean a man certainly of no great Judgement, to swell up his Book into a Folio with a pack of apeless and impertinent Contents. The French Bible also, which was Translated by Renatus Benedictus, a Parisian Divine may be thrown in among the Number of the Geneva Merchandise; for when he was reproved by his Brother Divines for so rash and inconsiderate an attempt: He protested before God and Man, that his Translation was the same with that of Geneva, which he altered a little, without ever a Glance upon the Hebrew, which he never understood, and that he added and substracted only as his Genius and Fancy led him. The reason why this Divine turned a Translator, was because that a mere Ignoramus in the Greek tongue, had took upon him to Translate Aristotle's Logic, and had got great applause by the endeavour, which he looked upon as a Precedent whereby he might be kept harmless in going to do the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, out of their Originals, though he had lived always a Stranger to both those Languages. Lastly, let us place among the Geneva Bibles the Translation of Johannes Adeodates a Calvinistical Minister, which was first published in Italian and then in French, and is in as much Vogue with the Calvinists as the Geneva Translation itself. So reverendly is a Translator esteemed among his Fellows in opinion. Neither were the Reason's slender why his Translations should be so much cried up and applauded, since every passage in it is so plain and easy, since the Author plays the Parapharist, and tickles the fa●●●●f his Brother Sectaries, as may be made evident by his Notes upon the 6. Chap. of Gen. where he follows the Emendation of Bertramus, yet avoiding his barbarity, Translates the place more clearly and elegantly: Then they began to call one part of Mankind by the name of the Eternal, though he doth not cast his eye aside, and look upon Robertus Olivetanus and Jo. Calvin their true Translations, but only putteth down a Note in the Margin as a Limit of the Scriptural Sense. To alter or subtract a word breaks no squares with this Gentleman, who acting according to his good will, not much minds the proper sense of the words, so the vulgar may by any means understand him. Neither is he so much a Critic as an Orator and Divine, making it his only business to please the Vulgar, and work upon their passions. His Notes generally are pretty plausible, serviceable to the Interpretation of several Texts of Scripture, save only when he bustles for his Religion, enters into Disputations, Preaches, Cants and ridicules himself. For I question whether Heraclitus could have forborn laughing, suppose he had read this man's Annotations upon the 2d. Chap. of Gen. 
Gen. 1 v.  Eve was not form of the Head, for that Woman ought to be subject to her Husband; nor of the Feet, for that she ought not to be trampled upon or debased like a Servant; nor of the First, because it does not become her to thwart him; nor of the Hinder part, for that she ought not to be despised nor rejected, nor abandoned in necessity, but of the rib and the middle of the Body, to show the moderation which the Husband ought to observe in his superiority and the faithful Society they own to one another.  
I wish those who have a fancy to read Jo. Adeodates his Translation, that they make use of the Italian Edition, which is much more Elegan than the French; and I only advise them to read the Contents of the Chapters, whereby they may attain unto a full Compendium of the Bible.  

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

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

CHAP. XXVII. Of the Polyglot Bibles.  
BIBLE'S have the appellation of Polyglot from the several Tongues wherein they are penned. Now the Jews of Constantinople are said to have published two Copies of Moses his Law, in serveral Languages, the first whereof gives you the Hebrew Text, the Chaldee paraphrasely Onkelosius, the Targum, or Arabic Paraphrase by R. Saadius Surnamed Gaon, or the excellent, and the Persian Version by Tausus: The other presents you with not only the Hebrew Texts and Chaldee Paraphrase, but a Translation in the vulgar Greek and another in Spanish, and both of them writ in Hebrew Characters with the Rabbinical points, which supply the places of so many Vowels. And some points may be found both in R. Saadias' and Tausus his Persic Translation; though it may be worth our while to observe that the Jews, who pointed R. Saadias' his Translation, did therein have a greater regard to the vulgar Arabic Translation than the true and Grammatical, which may be seen by the Alcoran, and made apparent from these first words in Genesis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Compare these with R. Saadias' his Copy, which in the Bible printed in England, is Grammatically pointed, though you may perchance find it in a new and different Equipage in the Bible, published at Paris, and you may easily see the difference of the Judaical method of pointing from the true and Grammatical. And I will give you a small Specimen of the Vulgar Greek and Spanish Translations, because you cannot meet their true Copies in any European Libraries, drawing my example from the 6 Version of the 1 Chap. of Deuteron. placing the Hebrew as an unprejudiced impartial Arbitrator between the Spanish on the on side, and the vulgar Greek on the other.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
The first Polyglot was published by Fran. Ximeniu● of Sineros, Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo, and was vulgarly called the Complutensian Bible. Here you may take a prospect of the Hebrew Text, the septuagint and a Latin Translation supposed to be St. Jeroms, together with a Chaldee Paraphrase upon the Pentateuch. Now the reason of this Illustrious Cardinal's attempt is laid down in his Preface to Pope Leo the 10th. since that every Language hath its proverbial proprieties, whose full energy may not be expressed by the most complete Interpretation, which more especially happens in the Hebrew Tongue, it must likewise come to pass that where there is so great variety of Latin Books, and so many false readings, there must then an appeal be made to the Original Language, as St. Jerom, St. Austin and other Ecclesiastical Writers are pleased to tell us: so that the right reading of the Books of the Old Testament, is to be tried by the Touchstone of the Hebrew-truth, and those of the New-Testament by the Greek Copies, and yet in another of his Prefaces to the Reader, he seems to deny the Hebrew verity to recriminate the Jewish Books, an useful method, whereby he might with lesser difficulty bring in vogue, the Old Translations of the Church; for he declares that when he had placed St. Jeroms. Latin Translation between the Greek and Hebrew Tongues, he fancied he beheld our Saviour, or the Catholic Church between two Thiefs. Certainly a most unworthy similitude, and not fit to come out of the Lips of so eminent a Cardinal; touching the Chaldee Paraphrase, He saith he only published that part which related to the Books of Moses, and as for the remainder upon the rest of the Old Testament, he looked upon it as corrupt, and unworthy to be bound up with the Holy Scripture.  
This is the method observed in the Complutensian Bible, and the Author Cardinal Ximenius is to be commended, that he did not compose a New Translation different from St. Jeroms, and yet would certainly have been more applauded if he had taken notice of the places, where the Translator follows St. Jerom a little too hard, and deviates from the Hebrew Text. For truly Critics go about to remark that St. Jerom's Translation, as we have it now, is not all of a make, but hath some little mixture of the Ancient or Italian. Herein I quote the most Learned Cardinal, that he rectified the faulty Latin Edition, which yet he had the happiness to perform in general, namely where he endeavoured to correct the Latin Translator, without the help of Latin Books: neither came he well off in reforming the Greek Copies with the Hebrew, though he solemnly declares he had nothing to do with the Vulgar surreptitious Copies, but the most ancient, and least faulty. He published a Book of the words in the New Testament, and professes that his sole aim herein was to present the Reader with the bare Letters, only without spirit, or tone. He saith 'twas an easy case to manage, That the ancient Greeks never troubled their heads with such like punctill●'s. Now, why he did venture upon the Septuagint, after the same method, he giveth this reason, namely, that it was bare Translation, and not Text, as is the Greek Edition of the New Testament. In fine Cardinal Ximenius superadded to these his abovementioned works an Hebrew, and Chaldee Dictionary, which he did not take up upon trust at the Shops of the Rabbies, but had it at the best hand of the Ancient Interpreters.  
Arias Montanus at the expenses, and by the Authority of Philip the 2d. King of Spain republished the Complutensian Polyglot with no small augmentation, which in process had the spacious Title of Kings Phillip's Bible. A Book, which beside the Hebrew the Septuagint and St. Jerome's Latin Translation of the Complutensian Edition gives you a fair prospect of the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the remainder of those Books in the old Copy, which Cardinal Ximenius gave to the Library at Complutensian, together with the Syriac Translation of the New Testament done into Latin. Neither would Arias Montanus influenced by Ximenius his example suffer his Book to contract acquaintance with any Translation, save that of St. Jerome's, and yet that a Latin Translation might not be wanting to render the Hebrew Text verbatim, he inserted in the end of his Book San. Pagninus his Latin Translation, with his own animadversions, whereby the Hebrew might be better understood. This grand elaborate, and princely undertaking though it was approved of by the Divines of Spain, Lovaenium, and other learned and pious Men; nay even by the Universal Bishop himself Gregory the 13th. yet it groaned under the common fate of all Books, was carped at, and pinched by the men of Leeth. These were the detracting sort of People, who objected that Arias Montanus had put in Execution a most bold, rash, and nefarious attempt in daring to publish that corrupt, and monstrous Paraphrase, which Ximenius had ordered to be laid up in the College Library at Complutensia. And there were some Jews who thinking that the Chaldee Paraphrase was a great Pillar to keep up the superstitions of their Religions wished all health and happiness to King Philip the 2d. a Defender (as they supposed) of their Rites and Ceremonies. In the mean time, one Franciscus Lucus of Bruges, a great Divine, and a man of vast Learning took up the Cudgels ägainst these impertinent Detractors, and made an Apology for the Chaldee Paraphrase. Besides Arias Montanus declares that Cardinal Ximenius himself had thoughts of publishing the same Chaldee Paraphrase, and that he had thoughts of adding a Latin Translation to it, only putting out the Fables. Doubtless that princely Work deserves to be had in estimation with all Divines; though it be defective in some particulars, as carrying along with it all those deformities, which we took notice of before in the Conplutensian Bible. For the Greek and Latin Copies are the same that were published by Cardinal Ximenius. Arias Montanus did not so much reform San. Pagninus his Latin Version, as he did corrupt and spoil it, for pressing the Hebrew which too closely he frequently commits toto casu, and making a great noise about a little Sense, does often miss of the proper import of the words. Besides Arias caused a better method and more Copious Index to be published (as containing more Lexicons and Grammars, than that of the Complutensian Bible, though many unnecessary things might be left out, which make nothing for his purpose.  
The liberal expenses of Cardinal Ximenius and Philip the Second were far exceeded by an Eminent Person of this Age, Michael Le Jay of Paris; who undertaking to Publish the Polyglot Bible at his own charge, spent his whole Patrimony in Printing of it, before he had finished so great and wonderful a work.  
First then they took care to have all that was already extant in the King's Bible, reprinted in a fairer Character; and to these he joined the Samaritan Books (viz. the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch with the Samaritan Translation) and the Syriack and Arabic Versions of the Old Testament distinguished by points, with their Latin Interpretation: a thing scarce credible ever to have been attempted. In this business he was assisted by a very Learned man, Gabriel of Zion, that came from Mount Libanus in the Holy-Land; and in some few Volumes, by Abraham an Ecchellensian, one of the same Nation. But that part, which contains the observations of several worthy men upon the various Editions of the Bible, is wanting in this work: and through the negligence of those that were entrusted with it, it happened that the Copies of the Greek Translation by the Seventy Interpreters, and the Latin one by St. Jerom, were both composed anew the very same with those in the King's Bible; the Greek Edition after the Vatican Pattern, though corrected and amended, was omitted, and the Copies of the common Edition were laid aside, though they had been (by Commissions from the Popes) strictly examined after the most ancient and best approved Books, and that by the Hands of several Excellent Persons and judicious Critics. However I pass by those faults, which occasioned by the Transcribers oversight in the Syriack and Arabic Books, do yet in great part remain: Besides that the Latin Expositors not perfectly understanding the Syriack and Arabic words, have often sailed in expressing the sense.  
Lastly, to this vast Work are perfixed certain Prefaces which recommend its usefulness. But in this the brave Mr. Le Jay proves his own Enemy: for depending totally upon such men as were partly biased in their Opinions by prejudice (especially John Morin, otherwise a man of competent Learning) he extols the Jewish Books, and sticks not to prefer them before the ancient Translations of the Church: but what seems scarce 0 credible, he positively asserts, that it ought to be granted as a certain and undoubted truth, that, that common Edition which passes about in the vulgar Tongue of the Catholic Church, is the true and genuine Original of Holy Scripture. But the Fathers themselves at the Council of Trent durst not pass any such decree concerning the Latin Books. To no purpose has that Liberal Gentleman drained his Purse in Publishing such voluminous pieces of the Polyglot Bible, if it appear that the Latin comprehends the proper and Primitive Scripture, and that we must have recourse to him as the true Fountain. In like manner vindicating the interpretation of the Seventy Elders, he draws an Argument (solid enough in his Judgement) from a Mahometan Author, who, as to matter of Chronology rejected the Hebrew Books of the Jews and Samaritans, and adhered to the Greek Interpreters: from whence Mr. Le Jay concludes, that the Seventy Interpreters were in the highest esteem, not only amongst the Christians but Mahometans too. Indeed 'tis very probable that Mr. Le Jay, to credit the antiquity of the Arabic Versions which he himself first published, would not stick to say that by the help thereof St. Jerom had restored the seven or eight hundred Verses of Job, which were lacking in the old Translation: and this his assertion he confirms by St. Jerom's own Testimony; who before his Translation of the Book of Job had premised, that in it were missing about seven or eight hundred Verses, and that in compiling it he had not followed any of the ancient Translators, but had collected sometimes the words, sometimes the sense, and often both at once, out of the Hebrew, Arabic and sometimes Syriack Languages. But that St. Jerom hereby mentioning the Arabic Tongue did not mean the Arabic Version, is a thing so well known, that it needs no proof, these words of the Learned Father signify no more, than that the Book of Job, was difficult to be understood, since the Author thereof had notonly used Hebrew words, but also Syriack and Arabic. For the better understanding of which he avers, that with a great sum he ransomed a certain Master called Lydaeus, who was thought to be of great repute amongst the Hebrecians. Scarce had the Parisian Bibles got abroad, when in England the famous Walton and other divers persons begun to think of committing these same Bibles to the Press again, to be of less bulk, and not so large a Letter; that this New Edition of the Polyglots might be readier and more convenient for the use of such as studied the holy Scriptures. This matter succeeded as happily as was expected; so that these Polyglot Bibles appeared in public in the year 1657, and are vulgarly called the English Bibles, containing six Volumes. They are indeed much inferior to the Parisian Heptaglots in the largeness and goodness of the Paper, as also the neatness of the Character; But they have this advantage chief, that every context and version may be discerned by the Reader in one single glance as it were, and with little trouble compared one with another, which cannot be done in reading the Parisian Polyglot, without turning over two vast huge Volumes together. Again they are to be preferred before that of Paris, in that they contain truer Copies of the Greek Versions of the Septuagint, and the Latin one by St. Jerom; the Greek being first borrowed from a Vatican Book at Rome, was afterwards Printed at Paris, the Latin purged from innumerable Errors by the Study and Authority of Pope Sixtus the Fifth and Clement the Eight. Besides all this you have the Arabic, and Syriack Translations of Ester, Judith, Tobias, and some other few Books which are not extant in the Parisian Bible either in Arabic or Syriack. The English Edition has likewise a threefold Paraphrase, one called the Hierosolymitan, another that of Pscado Jonathan (both which are writ in mixed Chaldee,) and a third Tausus his Persian Paraphrase. It has also the four Gospels in the Persian and a Egyptian Psalter, all which the Parisian Polyglots want.  
In the mean time Monsieur Le Jay having consumed his Estate in publishing the Paris Bibles complains much of his sad Fortune, and inveighs against the English men, as Plagiaries, who had taken his Work out of his hands, and had published nothing (except some few things of very little importance) but what he had set forth before. Truly the Gentleman ought to be pitied who had lavishly wasted all his substance in hopes of future gain. But the English men in publishing such Polyglots, as are more convenient, and better suited to all necessities do really deserve Commendation; and had deserved it much more if they had set out the Versions of the Oriental Nations (especially the Arabic) which lay dorment in their Libraries; and are of better note than those which were published in the Parisian Bibles. For it had been much better to have set forth the Copies of the Arabic Pentateuch, with the Obelisks, Asterisks, and others of Origen his Notes which are reserved in the Library at Oxon, than to have composed anew that Old patched Paraphrase of R. Saadias', which was extant before in the Parisian Polyglots. But what seems more strange, is that the infinite number of faults which the Parisian Edition is stuffed with, especially in the Syriac and Arabic Versions, as also in their Latin Interpretations, should yet be found in the English one, nor taken notice in the critical Animadversions made upon the last To●e. Much more might be objected against the English Edition which I omit, since nothing can be absolutely complete, and perfect. But the most notable thing in it is the Animadversions prefixed to the forefront of the Book, though this Preamble hath its failings too, for it seems to be composed by several Authors, who differing in Opinion about the same matter, become contrary Parties: this is the cause why Walton in whose name this Book first appeared in public, sometimes talks a little incoherently.    

ANIMADVERSIONS Upon a small TREATISE OF Dr. Isaac Vossius', Concerning the ORACLES OF THE SIBYLS, AND His Answer to the Objections in a late Treatise Entitled CRITICA SACRA.  
LONDON, Printed in the Year MDCLXXXIV.   

ANIMADVERIONS' UPON A Small Treatise Concerning the ORACLES of the SIBYLS, By ISAAC VOSSIUS, D.D. And an Answer to the Objections against the late CRITICA SACRA.  
THE Author of the Critica Sacra upon the Old Testament had bespoken Moderation in Isaac Vossius, whom he looked upon as a Person carried away with too great an affectation of the Greek Version. But the Learned Gentleman who well understood that Christ in the apocalypse had spewed the Lukewarm out of his mouth, and that God loves nothing that halts between two Mediums, 
In Resp. ad obj. nup. Critic.  fell more obstinately to work when he set himself to write his small Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sibyls, wherein he seems to have argued to that one thing alone, the advancement of the Greek Interpreters by applauding, according to his common Custom, the Exemplars of the Jews. For he returns his answer to Simon in such a manner, as if he had addressed himself in his work with a Mind prepossessed by the Rabbins, after the Example of St. Jerom, who was the first of the Christians who framed a Rabbinic Version, and ●ncouraged others to dare the same. Vossius makes large Protestations that he does not follow the Rabbins, and that he acquiesces in that Version which Christ himself approved; and admonishes Simon to forbear from any new Translation of the Sacred Scripture, in regard a purer and more genuine Version cannot be made, then that which was recommended to us by Christ and his Apostles. And so far indeed Vossius does well in attributing very much to the Greek Translators; though he would have done much better, had he not affirmed them to be altogether free from all manner of Error, and that they were not to be swerved from in matters of smallest moment, as they who were to be looked upon as Prophets rather than Interpreters. I also extol the diligence of that worthy Person, in vindicating the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters from the calumnies of most slanderous persons, and for correcting their Manuscripts. But when he comes to discourse of the Jews and their Books, the Learned Gentleman discovers a world of ignorance in those things, and frequently endeavours to impose falsehood for truth. All which shall be made apparent by Examples. To which purpose I shall select some things out of that famous Persons Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sibyls, and his answer to the Objections of the Critica Sacra: from whence it will appear that he has given positive sentence in matters which he little understood, I will therefore begin from the Epistle which he has affixed to that little discourse.  
At the first dash, in this Epistle Vossius takes several occasions to traduce the person himself, as learned as he was in the Hebrew Language, for a Fool, a half Rabbie, and an Egregious Knave, as one that produced the words of St. Jerom most wickedly dressed and trimmed for his own turn. 
Gen. 19.33.  The place in dispute is extant in these words in St. Jeroms Hebrew Questions, upon Genesis. The Hebrews, as to what follows. And he perceived not when she lay down nor when she risen up, mark the words at the top, as a thing incredible, and as a thing not to be comprehended in nature how a Man should lie with a Woman and not understand any thing of it. Vossius attests, that he has consulted many Manuscript Copies, and that he finds it written in all Apponunt, not Appungunt; they set over or upon, instead of, they mark with points at the top. He would have said truer that he never found Apponunt in any Manuscripts that were of credit or reputation, for what sense could be made of these words had Apponunt been set in the place of Appungunt. Nor does he tell us where he found these Manuscripts. But that we may come to the business, there was no reason for Vossius to pervert the words of the Hebrew Text, fearing perhaps, least from that word Appungunt, the Antiquity of points might be made out from St. Jeroms time. For the sounder sort of Critics confess that those points were much later than the age wherein St. Jerom lived; who nevertheless acknowledge, that that sort of points, of which St. Jerom here makes mention, and which are put upon some words of the Hebrew Context, were done upon the same ground that the Samaritans and the Syrians fix certain cross strokes over some words which were invented by the Grammarians or Critics. And the Jews both Ancient and Modern agree with St. Jerom in this particular. Mention is also made of these points, in the Talmud in Medraschim, or the Allegorical Comments of the Jews upon Scripture. And they are likewise to be seen in the Modern Exemplars of the Bibles; and in most, upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Becumah, when she arose, Which is the word at present in dispute, there is added this note upon the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nakod gnal Vau, a Point upon Vau. 
An. 1615.  In the small Venetian Bibles set forth by R●ter Bragadinus in the 37th Chap. of Genesis where the same point is put upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is this note in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one of the fifteen Points which are in the Law. Now as for the reasons which are given for these Points by the Jews, who are troubled with an Itch of vanity, I pass them by in silence, as being very frivolous. It is enough to have observed that the Jews retain those Points in their Exemplars by Tradition from their Ancestors.  
When Vossius in his Epistle deplores the miserable Estate of the Academies in Germany at this day, where Rabbinisme domineers without control, and no Theology but Rabbinical is admired. The Learned Gentleman does not believe that human Learning can be taught or studied where Rabbinism reigns, and the Rabbinical Screitch-Owls bear an ominous sway. Nor do I descent from Vossius in this particular. And I would be glad those peddling Priests might be expunged out of the number of Divines, who contemning the Latin and Greek Learning, will admit of nothing but the Fictions of the Rabbins. But that Persons eminently Learned, who after the Example of Origen, Jerom, Chrysostom, Theodoret and others of the Father's frequent the Thresholds of the Jews. should be listed in their Number I can hardly endure. For though generally the greatest part of the Books of the Jews are full of frivolous Trifles, yet there are not a few of the Rabbis, who have wonderfully illustrated Sacred Scripture. And this the Commentaries of St. Jerom alone upon the Peophets aparently make out, who was not ashamed to consult the most Learned Jews of his Age. But to the nice and squeamish Mr. Vossius St. Jerom seems contemptible and Prince of the Semi-Rabbinical Divines. And that Semi-Rabbie as he calls him, though he have his failings, has far surpassed all the rest of the Fathers of the Church in expounding the Books of Sacred Scripture. And I could wish also that Vossius had first conversed with those half Rabbins, before he began to meddle with their concerns For those half Rabbis can hardly forbear Laughter when they read in his Epistle before his Treatise of the Oracles of the Sibyls, that it is not above six Centuries since those Vowel points came to be used with which the Modern Exemplars of the Jews are loaded; That three or four Ages most fiercely contended together, while these were of Opinion that the Vowels were thus, others another way to be introduced: And that the Controversy would never have been at an end, unless Daniel Bomberg had ended the quarrel, having had some Centuries of the Jews, and so those Vowels crept into the World out of Bombergs Shop in Venice. That person, 'tis true, had a Library well furnished with Rabbinical Books, from whence he gathered most of his Fictions more Rabbinical. But they who have conversed with Books of the Jews, well know, that before Bombergs Edition of the Hebrew Bibles, and in other parts of Italy, especially at Pesaro, the Hebrew Bibles were then Printed with pointed Vowels. We also meet with Copies of the Bibles in Manuscript written above four hundred years since, which have the same Points; and Bibles are quoted by the more ancient Rabbis wherein the same Points are made use of. And it is plain, that these Points were in use not only for six, but for nine hundred years ago. For the Rabbie Saadas Gaon wrote a Grammar about the Year DCCC. wherein he disputes at large about the pointed Vowels, which were in use among the Jews long before his time. Besides those things are all feigned that Vossius affirms concerning the soar contention among the Jews, how the Vowels are to be placed upon the Hebrew Context. And of the same stamp is that which the Learned Gentleman urges concerning the Editions of Bomberg, which according to the Opinions of the Jews are full of Faults. And indeed the Jews contemn the first Edition of Bomborgh, which was overlooked by Felix Patrensis, in regard the Masoretis Notes are very unskilfully added to the Margin of that Exemplar; but they applaud and reverence the second and third of Bombergh's Editions.  
In the adding the Mazoretic notes to Bomberghs Editions great difficulties arose; for that there are few among the Jewish Rabbis that truly understand the Masoretic Art, which however R. Jacob Ben Hajim with incessant toil and labour overcame, the first restorer of the Masora. But whether he wasted his Patrimony in maintaining those Centuries that Bombergh hired, as Vossius eagerly contends, I shall neither solicitously inquire, neither is it to the purpose. Much more might be added to what I have already produced, and perhaps proper enough to the business; but I am afraid lest the learned Gentleman should bring me to the Bar, for a Semi Rabbi and a Favourer of the Jews. Therefore let us come to the Examination of his little Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sibyls, where he disputes more learnedly of the Jews and their Books.  
At the beginning of his discourse, this Person of an unexhausted Erudition, produces some things in reference to the Oracles of the Sibyls, which the Jews more especially in Spain made use of against the Christians. And as for those things which seem to be more remote from Truth then Fiction, he refers them to p. 19 or 26. where he handles that Argument; but seeing that it has already been demonstrared, that the Chronology fetched from the Books of the Jews, less favours the Jews than that which is taken out from the Greek Translators, there is no reason we should spend any more time in rifling the Inventions of the most learned Vossius. The qu●cksighted Gentleman had already observed, that the Jews in the time of Aquila, had for the nonce corrupted the Hebrew Manuscripts, and had expunged above 2000 Years, that they might make it out, that the Messiah's time was not yet come. But in this place, more perspicatious than before, he believes that the space of that Depravation may be Comprehended within the limits of two and twenty Years at most, and this he gathers from the words of Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians. That most Holy Martyr, according to the report of Vossius; relates that he heard some say, that if those things which are contained in the Gospels were not to be found in the Ancient Monuments, he would not believe them. Now, saith Vossius, since he answered and they denied, it is manifest that the Jews had depraved the Exemplars, or swerved from the Sense of the 70 Interpreters. But how this Learned Gentleman can wrest the answer of Ignatius, who afferts that Christ shall be to him instead of the Ancient Monuments, to his opinion of the Jewish Manuscripts being corrupted about that time, I confess I do not understand. Neither also are those words to be found in the Genuine Exemplars of Ignatius, which Vossius himself set forth, Christo velut summo sacerdoti credendum potius, quam aliis sacerdotibus: Which however the learned Person produces, as if they belonged to the answer of Ignatius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have heard some say, that unless I find the Gospel in the Ancient Monuments, I will not believe. To these I answer, that Jesus Christ is to me instead of the Ancient Monuments. But there the discourse is not of the Old Testament compared with the New, as Vossius believed, but of the Heretics which springing up in the Infancy of the Church, denied the Faith which the Exemplar of the Gospel set forth. Whence it came to pass that the Ancient Fathers of the Church. Tertullian, Ireneus and others of the same rank, did not undertake to refute the Heretics out of the sacred Scripture, but from certain Tradition, or from the Doctrine of Christ, propagated by the Apostles and their Successors, Apostolic Persons, in the Churches of several Nations. In which sense Ignatius asserts that Christ or his Doctrine was to him in the place of the Ancient Monuments. This, unless I am very much deceived, is the meaning of Ignatius' words, who commends Unity of Doctrine in Christ, whose Spirit ought to be preferred before any Ancient Monuments whatever.  
Many other things also Vossius produces in this place, concerning the Etymology of the word Aera, and concurs with them who believe Era and the Heriga of the Arabians to be the same word; nor is it improbable, but that which he presently adds of the Arabic, word Hegyra, as if it were to be deduced from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hagger, a Proselyte or Stranger seems not so very likely. The Learned Gentleman believes that several Jews of the Sect of the Herodians, forsaking Herod their Messiah, who was also by them styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Stranger, revolted to Mahomet, by them also called Haggar. When the Jews, saith Vossius, believed that their Messiah should be a Stranger. But these things are little remote from the Fictions of the Rabbis. In the next place, I would fain know from what Oracle of the Sibyls the Learned Gentleman gathered; that the Messiah of the Jews should be a Proselyte and a Stranger, according to the true opinion of the Jews; for that this Assertion is contrary to the Prophecies of the Prophets and all Evangelical History, as all Men well know. Certainly the Jews expect one Messiah above all the rest, of whom Vossius discourses at present; but he according to the common consent of all the Jews is expected to be of the Nation, and one of the Tribes of the Jews. But they expect other Messias' besides, and for that reason they give that Title to some Kings who were well affected towards them. And therefore Cyrus is called the Messia of the Jews, so also Herod and Mahomet might have the Title of Messiah from the Jews. And in our age they are ready to salute that Prince or King, whoever he be, with the Title of Messiah, that will but take into his protection their Affairs and the Ceremonies of their Country. But these things belong nothing at all to the word Heriga, which most certainly is an Arabic and not an Hebrew word. Much nearer does that come to the Truth, which after some things thrown between, the Learned Gentleman adds concerning the Genuine signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that the Apocryphal Books signify the same with Mysterious Books, and inaccessible to the understanding. But who can then gather with Vossius, that the Books of the Apocrypha, that according to his Sentiments, were formerly added by the Ancient Jews to the Books of the Old Testament, were worthy to be reckoned as Canonical with the rest of the Prophetic Books, that the Modern Canonical Scripture, both of the Synagogue and Church, is maimed and lame, while the Books of Enoch, Elias and some others are left out? Prophet's are become very Cheap with Vossius, who not only numbers the 70 Interpreters among the Prophets, but also the most famous Impostors, who taking upon them the names of the Patriarches and Prophets and other Persons of high same and repute among the Gentiles, have Printed the Books of Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Esaiah, Jeremiah, Hystaspes, Mercurius, Trimegistus, Zoroaster, the Sibyls, Orpheus, Phocilldes and several others. In a short time, if it so please the Heavens, we shall have Vossius himself in the midst of his Prophetic Chiurme, forging new Prophecies, like that same famous Imposter William Postellus, who writes that the Chaldaeans had the true Doctrine revealed to them under the first Monarchy, and that it was continually renewed like the sacred Doctrine by the ten Sibyls, that the world might be inexcusable before the Spirit of God; and that Christ, the King both of the Sacred and the Sibelline Doctrines might be known to be the Deity, that was to be adored by the whole World. Such Stories as these Vossius produces concerning the Oracles of the Sibyls. But Postellus, yet more quicksighted, asserts this Prophetical Doctrine to have had its Original from a Woman who was Princess of all the East, and next of kin to Noah. Who would believe that Isaac Vossius, who spares for no virulent expressions against the Jews and their Talmud, should introduce a Talmudic Doctor among the Prophets; if it be so, I wonder he should be in such a fury against a Person, Learned in the Hebrew, who expounded the Gospel out of the Talmud. 
Lightfoot.  He seems to me, says Vossius, to commit a less Sin, who explains the Gospel out of the Alcoran, then by the Talmud. But of these things enough and too much: Let us now return to the Apocryphal Books.  
I call the Apocryphal Books, when we discourse of Byblick concerns, those which neither the Church nor the Synagogue has received as Canonical. Hence it came to pass, that of old, St. Jerom personating a Jew, and lately Cajetane sentenced many Books among the Apocryphal, before they were received for Divine and Prophetic by the decree of the Church. In this sense St. Jerom affirms, 
Hieron. p●aef in Dan.  that Daniel among the Hebrews had not the story of Susanna, nor the Song of the three Children, nor the fable of the Bell and the Dragon. Which we, saith he, because they are dispersed all over the World preferring the truth, and withal depressing their Authority, have added however, lest we might seem to have cut of a great part of the Volume. In like manner, after he had produced the Books of Scripture, which were held Canonical among the Jews, he adds, Whatever we meet with besides these is to be accounted Apocryphal. 
Hieron. p●aef. in lio. Reg.  That is to say the Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of Jesus the Son of sirach, Judith, Tobit and the Preacher induced by this reason. 
Africanus.  Africanus also believes the Story of Susanna to have been feigned by a Greek Writer; others feigned two daniel's, one the Author of the Prophecy that goes under his name, and the other the Writer of the Story of Susanna, which in the ancient Editions of the Greek Exemplar was placed before the Prophecy of Daniel. St. Jerom indeed was the first that transposed it at the end of the same Prophecy, because it was not in the Jewish Exemplar, which he translated. And St. Jerom confirms his opinion concerning the History of Susanna, by the Testimony of other Fathers. I wonder, saith he, That certain peevish, waspish persons are in wrath with me, as if I had cut of part of the Book; whereas Origen, Eusebius, Apollinarius and other eclesiastical Persons and Doctors of Greece confess those Visions not to be found among the Hebrews; not that they ought to be answerable to Porphyrius for those things which afford no Authority of sacred Scripture. Gregory Nazianzen, Melito of Sardis, and the Author of the Synopsis, which goes about under the Name of Athanasius went farther, and put the Book of Esther among the Apocryphal Books, merely because not understanding the Hebrew Tongue, they found some pieces added to the Ancient History of Esther by a Greek Author, for which reason they condemned the whole Work. It happened, saith Sextus Senensis, that by reason of those fragments of Appendex's inserted here and there, through the rashness of some Writers, that Book, though written in the Hebrew, did not find reception among the Christians. Nicholas de Lyra, also Cajetan and some others denied these Additions likewise to be Canonical, induced as it is most probable by the same reasons.  
These things have been discoursed more at large, that it might appear to all what Books were reckoned to be Apocryphal in the Judgement of the more Ancient Fathers. But Vossius abusing the word Apocryphal, introduces suppositious and Adulterate Books, instead of the Old Apocryphal, and so imposes upon the simple and unwary. For whereas he endeavours to make it out, that the Books of the Sibyls, and others which he calls Fatidical, were joined with the Books of the Old Testament, read in the Primitive Church, and recommended by the Apostles, it is the Fiction of one that has nothing to do but to sit and Romance in Divinity. For there were no other Books read in the Primitive Church, or added to the rest of the Books of the Old Testament, in the Greek Exemplars of the Bible, than those which are mentioned by the Fathers. Though perhaps some of the Gentiles, that they might press the Jews and the Gentiles more home, have sometimes quoted the Books of the Sibylls and others of the same stamp, which nevertheless no ingenious person will reckon among the Apocryphal Books, of which we are now in discourse. Vossius is very much grieved that the Books of the Sibylls and other Soothsayer's Books, after they were prohibited by public Edict, were made Apocryphal and forbidden to be read by any Person, when formerly they were openly and religiously made use of by the Jews, like the rest of the Books of the Old Testament; whence it came to pass that the Canonical Books were reduced to a more certain Number, and the word Apocryphal was taken in an evil sense, for spurious and of doubtful and suspected Credit.  
In the mean time he never citys the Author from whence he drew these witty conceits, which are so like the Fables of the Jews; so that I may presume to ask this Learned Person what the Factious Cardinal Hyppolito d'este demanded of Areosto Dove hatrovato tante cogloonare. Where did he find out so many juggling Tricks? But I agree with him in what he writes concerning the Apocryphal Books, if by them he mean no other than those which passed from the Jews to the Christians, with the rest of the Books of the Old Testament; for that the greatest part of them are read in the Romish Church, especially since the decree of the Council of Trent, as Canonical, for indeed it might be that those Books which were formerly rejected as Apocryphal, because they were not approved by the Cannon of the Jews might have had Prophets for their Authors. Nor is the Authority of Josephus contrary to this opinion, who affirms, that from the times of Artaxerxes there was no certain Succession of the Prophets, and therefore that these Books which were reckoned after that, were not to be accounted Cononical. Nor is it probable that the Function of the Prophets was altogether taken away at that time from the Jews; for while the State of the Jews continued, there were public Scribes who committed to writing the Affairs of the Nation, and they were called Prophets, because they were inspired with the Holy Ghost, though they did not Prophesy of things to come. However it is not necessary to believe, that they who wrote the public Affairs of the Nation at that time, should be Prophets; for that the Senators of the Grand Council, who as we know were inspired, overlooked their works, but seeing that the public Authority of the Jewish Senate, never Registered those Books among the Canonical, 'tis no wonder that most of the Fathers would not receive them as Divine, but only as Apocryphal and of suspected credit, especially in respect of those other Books which were allowed to be of undoubted Reputation. For that Book which was of suspected Credit, was not the same with them, as that which was spurious, adulterate, as Vossius seems to think, only under this Title they distinguish certain from uncertain; otherwise those Books had ne'er been read in the ancient Ages of our Forefathers, had they apprehended any thing spurious and adulterate in them. Only they were of less moment than the sacred Books, and therefore the Fathers called them rather Ecclesiastical than Divine.  
They would have them read in the Churches, says the Author of the Exposition of the Creed attributed to Rufinus, but not to be Cited as Authentic Confirmations of Faith, and only upon those Grounds it is that the Church of England reads those Books in their Congregations, yet I do not believe, that ever any one here except Vossius ever dreamt of introducing the Books of the Sibyls to be read in the Church.  
I know indeed, that some of the Fathers have in great Veneration the Book which is called the Preacher, and that Tertullian endeavoured to obtrude the Book of Enoch as of Divine Authority, and that the Jews also earnestly laboured to remove several Books from the sacred Context, which illustrated the Christian Religion. To which opinion also Origen seemed to adhere, who in the Epistle which he wrote to Africanus, concerning the History of Susanna, asserts, that the Jews had withdrawn several passages out of their Bibles, to prevent their being read by the common People. But these things and others of the same Nature, which are owned but by a few, and which are produced rather to support their own opinions than to maintain the Truth, are not to be looked upon as the general judgement of the Fathers; For Tertullian himself seems to confirm that common sentence of the Church, by his own words in this place, The Book of Enoch is not admitted by some, because it is not admitted into the Collection of the Jews. Therefore in those days it was adjudged Apocryphal, because it was not admitted among the Canonical Number of the Jews; Origen also thought otherwise in other places than what he wrote to Affricanus. But in this place he could not defend the History of Susanna and the other Additions in the Greek Edition of the 70 Interpreters, by any other means than by having recourse to the Apocryphal Books, and supposing that the Jews in Transcribing their Copies, concealed many things from the knowledge of the vulgar sort, which were set down in those Apocryphal Books. Origen perhaps had learned from the Jews, with whom he was frequently Conversant, that Esdars and his Companions did not suffer all the Books which were extant to go abroad, and hence he presumed it might be inferred, that the Greek Interpreters had taken those things which are not to be found in the Hebrew Copies. But this opinion does not agree with the General consent of the Ancient Jews, who have acknowledged a perfect and accurate Concord of the Hebrew Text in all things. Neither does it seem to have been invented by Origen and some others for any other reason, but that the Hebrew Truth might be reconciled to the Greek Exemplars, of whose Sincerity there was sufficient reason to doubt. To this we may add, that Origen in this Epistle to Africanus, did not speak so much his own Sentiments, but only that he might defend the Books which were then read in the Church.  
Moreover the learned Vossius objects, that a person of unexhausted Erudition, Clemens Alexandrinus writes, that the Apostle Paul referred to the Oracles of the Sibyls, and the Prophecies of Hystaspes, and recommended them to be read. But if it should be enquired of Vossius, where St. Paul said this, he presently answers, that it ought to be sufficient for us that Clemens Alexandrinus, a Holy Person, and Conversant with many Apostolic Persons, affirmed it for Truth, but if any regard be had to that Answer, of necessity it follows that all the Ancient Fathers, were free from all Error, than which there is nothing more absurdly Fictitious. For they know well, who have any knowledge of Ecclesiastical Affairs, how craftily those Ancient Fathers and Clement of Alexandria in the first place, disputed with the Jews and Gentiles. Vossius also earnestly maintains, that the Book of Enoch and other such Books, are not to be rejected for that reason only, because that many Superstitious and Magical Fragments are contained in some Fragments that are extant, seeing that Balaam was a Magician and Enchanter, yet manifestly foretold many future Mysteries concerning Christ; as if those things which are registered in Scripture concerning Balaam, could be wrested to the present Argument; or that it were lawful by this Example to defend and justify those Books which we find not only to be stuffed with Lies and Superstitious Fables, but to be written by Impostors, assuming to themselves the Names of famous Men. By the same Art the Dreams of the Feavourish Jews are maintained in Midras, Zohar and Rabboth to be inspired by the same Spirit from whence the Gospel proceeded, as William Postellus declares, 
De Orig. cap 17.  who did not scruple to affirm that the Gospel was produced from the Doctrine of Zohar, as that which had its rise from the Holy Ghost and Spiritual Authors. The Chalans also saith the same, Postellus the Syrian, Indian, Caldaean Magicians, the Egyptian Gymnosophists and Prophets are from the same Original, from whom the worthy Vossius seems not much to swerve; whom I would advise to place among the number of Soothsayers, 
Lib. Zorob.  the Prophecy of Zorobabel, which speaks very plainly concerning the Messiah, and was published by the Jews in a Prophetic Style, and in none of the meanest sort of Language. But leaving these things, let us prosecute our intended Subject.  
Besides, what has been hitherto alleged concerning the Apocryphal Books, we are to observe that the Jews did not only frame to themselves a Canon of Scripture, but that the Church has also her Canon, who by her own Authority has restored several Books which the Jews expunged. Thus St. Austin asserts, that the Book of Maccabees were not received by the Jews but by the Church for Canonical, 
Lib. 18. the civet. Dei. c, 36.  which is to be understood only concerning the two first Books of Maccabees; for the third is rejected as well by the Church as by the Synagogue. To which opinion St. Jerom seems to adhere; though frequently in his works he shows himself a most stout defender of the Judaic Canon. For when Ruffinus objects, 
Lib. 2. Apoll. adversus Rufus.  that Jerom in his own Edition of the Bible, would allow no Authority of Scripture to the Story of Susanna, the Song of the three Children, and the Story of Bell and the Dragon, which he had called Fables; the learned Father answers, that he did not speak his own Sentiments, but only explained what the Jews were wont to urge against the Christians, but Jerom had said, that Origen, Eusebius, Apollinarius and other Doctors of Greece, would make no answer to Porphyrius for those Visions which had no Authority of Scripture; and the same Jerom thus writes concerning the Book of Judith. This Book the Synod of Nice is said to have numbered among the Holy Writings, upon which Erasmus thus observes, He does not say it was approved in the Synod of Nice, but the Synod is said to have numbered it; and really St. Jerom in his Preface to the Book of Kings, had denied both Judith and Tobias to be Canonical. Now the question is whether St. Jerom do not seem to contradict himself, when he affirms the same Books of Judith and Tobias to be read by the Hebrews among the Hagiographers, who nevertheless, both here and in another place had written, that these Books are not extant in the Canon of the Jews, and therefore to be accounted Apocryphal. But what those Hagiographers of the Jews that were mentioned by St. Jerom in these places, Joseph Scaliger confesses he does not understand; because the Hagiographies were received by the Jews into the Canon of Holy Scripture, long before St. Jerom lived. But Huetius believes St. Jerom to be deceived in this particular in that he thought the Jews had no Hagiographies without the pale of the Canon; and he brings against Scaliger the famous Bath Kol, or the Daughter of the voice, by whose assistance the Jews set forth their Hagiographies and their inspired Scripture. But they are the mere dreams of idle triflers, which the Circumcised Doctors have invented concerning Bath Kol. Then it is certain that they never received among their Canonical Authors, the Books of Judith and Tobias. Therefore they are all fictions, which Huetius and others allege concerning the twofold sort of Hagiographers among the Jews; and they may be refuted not only by the Testimonies of Josephus and Jerom, who positively witness that Tobias, Judith and other Books set forth in Greek now comprehended within the Canon of the Roman Church were never reckoned by the Jews among the Prophets or Hagiographers, but also by the Authority of the more Modern Jews, who when they number up the Sacred Books, make no mention of them at all; but only cite them as sententious Writings, wherein however they did not believe there was any thing of Divine Inspiration. If therefore in this our Age, nay in the ancient Ages of the Church, they were numbered among the Canonical Books, that is to be attributed to the Judgement of the Church, and not of the Synagogue. Therefore there is a double Canon to be allowed, that of the Church, and that of the Synagogue. And by the first Rule, they may not erroneously be called Ecclesiastic Books, which the Church, taking no notice of the Jewish Canon, have thought fit to admit into their Canon, and to be read in their Congregations. For it is certain that even from the very first Infancy of the Church, these Books were accustomed to be read and sung in the Congregations of the Faithful, which Erasmus admires to hear so frequently sung and read in Churches at this day. But that it was so, 
Eras Scholar in Prefat. Jerom in Dan.  Erasmus might have learned out of the Invictives of Ruffinus against St. Jerom.  
All these things Sixtus Senensis egregiously illustrates at the beginning of his Bibliotheca where he divides the Books of Holy Scripture into two Classe's. 
Sixtus Senens. l. 1. Bibl. S.  In the first he reckons those which he calls Protocanonical, or Canonical of the first Order. And these are they which are received beyond all Controversy by the unanimous consent as well of the Jews as Christians. In the other Classis he places those which he calls Deutero Canonical, or Canonical of the second Order, which formerly, saith he, were called Ecclesiastic. That is to say, those of which there was for some time a dubious Opinion among the Catholics, and which came late to the knowledge of the whole Church. Among the Books of the first sort he only numbers those which the Synagogue admitted into their Cannon. Into the next Classis he admits those which in the ancient Ages of the Church, were reckoned by most among the Apocryphal Writers, to which he adds the Book of Esther, in regard that some of the Fathers were doubtful of its Authority; the only difficulty arises from the Authority of St. Jerom, who in contradiction to the belief of all the Jews, and his own Testimony has written that the Books of Tobias and Judith are extant with the Hebrews among the Hagiographies. I admire that Scaliger and others so well skilled in Critic Animadversion, did not observe that in the Prefaces of Jerom upon Tobias and Judith, we were not to read it, Hagiographa, as it is now read, but Apocryphas. For though I want written Manuscripts to maintain that Lection, yet the words of St. Jerom himself manifestly make it out. The Book o● Tobias, saith the Learned Father, which the Hebrews pruning off from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture, have condemned among those which they call Hagiographa. Who does not presently apprehend from hence that the word ought to be read Apocryphas, not Hagiographa, since it is apparently manifest that the Jews never cut of the Hagiography from the Catalogue of Divine Scripture. The same observation is to be made in the Preface of St. Jerom upon Judith, where instead of Hagiographa it ought to be read Apocrypha. For thus the words run at this day. Among the Hebrews the Books of Judith is reckoned among the Hagiographa, whose authority is not so sufficient to strengthen the convincement of those things which give occasion of dispute. If the authority of that Book be not sufficient to confirm our Faith, certainly it can be none of the Hagiographa, which without Controversy are accounted Canonical and inspired among the Jews; but of the number of the Apocrypha, which are of dubious and uncertain Credit, as St. Jerom thought the Books of Judith and Tobias to be. Thus much concerning the Apocryphal Books, upon which we have insisted longer than the purpose of our Subject required. But we did not think it a deviation from our Argument to unfold a Dispute highly intreagued by the Contentions of the Disputants.  
But now it was not enough for the most Learned Vossius to have feigned new Prophets much more quick sighted then the ancient ones, but he must now produce a new Order of the Books of Sacred Scripture hither to unheard of. The Books of Moses, according to his own Opinion, make five Volumes and not one, as the Jews believe: and to prevent any man from calling this in question, he produces most convincing reason's for this new Distrubution. For it is manifest; saith He, even out of the Sacred Writings themselves, that as other Nations, so also the ancient Jews wrote their Books not upon folded Paper, which is a modern Invention, but in rolls and continued Skins: What reason there was for Vossius to have recourse to the Ancient Hebrews I do not understand, when even in our times, the Jews make use of Rolls of the same nature, as to the Books which they make use of in their Synagogues; yet for all that they do not divide the Law into five Volumes: but comprehend it in one Volume, according to that ancient Custom, which was observed even in Christ's time. By and by proceeding a little farther, the Learned Gentleman affirms that in the time of Aquila, whom he calls a most impertinent Interpreter, the Jews or else Aquila himself invented a most wicked and idle division of the Sacred Books, in hatred to Daniel's weeks, and that they perverted the sense and order of Scripture by introducing a New Distribution, that is to say, of the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographers.  
Now whether a new distribution of the Books, so the Books be entire, let the perspicacious judge. But lest I may seem to carp at small things, I say it is much more probable that Aquila in his Translation of the sacred Writings observed that order which according to the method of that Age, the Hebrew Copies set before him, when there appeared no reason for the Charge.  
But he did that, says Vossius, in hatred of Daniel's weeks, whom he cast into the last place, almost among the Hagiographers; as if the Jews did not give the same Credit to the Prophecies of Daniel concerning the Messiah, as the Christians. Vossius admires at their simplicity who believe the Rabbins asserting the Ketuvim, or Books of the Hagiographers to have been written by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost. If you consult the Rabbins, saith he, they will l●ugh at ye, as such as cannot choose but know what they mean by the Holy Ghost. Why has not Vossius, now become a Rabbinist, cited those Rabbins, that we might understand by them what they mean by the word Ketuvim? I know indeed the Jews do not agree concerning the genuine signification of that word: though all believe that the Ketuvim, or the Hagiographers are no less Divine and Canonical than the rest of the Books of the Old Testament. The most subtle Abraven●l unfolds this Riddle. They were called Ketuvim, because they were written by the Holy Ghost, but if it be so, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ramb. in More Nev.  the word Ketuvim was not designed that those Speeches were written in a book, not received by word of Mouth; but to denote that they were written in the Holy Spirit; and in that degree, neither was the Divine Spirit with them, but at the vory time of their Writing in this Language and Wisdom R. David Kimchi affirms, that Prophecy is divided into several Degrees, of which one exceeds another. Which Degrees R. Moses Ben Maimon more subtly explains. 
Praef. in Psal.  But leaving these subtleties which were taken from the Philosophy of Aristotle and Averrhoes, it is certain that the Jews agree with Josephus in this particular, that all the Books which are extant in their Canon are truly Divine and Prophetical because they were written by the Prophets. For which reason R. Don Joseph Ben Jechaia, 
Praef. in Psal.  who has illustrated the Psalms with his Commentaries, and reduced them with his Fathers to the Classes of the Kotuvim or Hagiographers, compares them with the Law of Moses, and thence infers the chiefest Dignity of the Psalms. Therefore, saith that Rabbi, the greater is the Dignity of that Book because it follows the Divine Law, and imitates the form and perfection of it. Which is confirmed by the Authority of the Fathers, who seem to have preferred the Psalms before the Prophets themselves; while they join them to the Pentateuch of Moses. Therefore by the Confession of the Rabbis themselves, neither is the Authority either of David or Daniel lessened, because they are not numbered in the Classis of the Prophets. For the last quoted Joseph adds these words in the same place. Nor is it a wonder that the Book of Psalms contains several Prophecies of the time of the Messiah, seeing that there are several Prophecies extant in the Holy Spirit, concerning future things. By this means the Jews will easily be reconciled with the Jews. And which seems to be worthy observation, the Talmudic Doctors will have the Book of Job to be written by Moses, which nevertheless they place in the Classis of the Ketubim, or Hagiographers.  
Who would think that Vossius, of a Rabynist, should become a Talmudic Doctor? He earnestly maintains, That the Jews, by the Confession of the Ancient Rabbis, expunged many places in the Holy Writings, and altered the Sense and Words, Interest so persuading. No Man shall find any thing feigned by me, says the Talmudic Gentleman, whoever he be that Consults the Talmudic Books, wherein he shall read these words in several places; It is good that a Letter be pulled up out of the Law, that the Name of God may be sanctified. But it is not for all Men to have recourse to the Talmudic Books, like the most learned Vossius. I had thought that decree of the Talmudists might have been rightly explained by the Words of R. Moses, Ben Maimon, who with most of the Jewish Rabbis, so far defends the Immutability of the Mosaic Law, that he believes that some of its Constitutions may be for a time suspended by the Authority of the Grand Sanhedrim. 
Ramb. More Nev part 3. c. 41.  That Talmudic Rabbi asserts, That God indeed, Deut. 4. forbade that any one should add to his Word, or detract from it, but that he gave permission to the Wise Men of all Ages and Times, or to the Supreme Judicatory, to set bounds to the Judgements, to be Established by the Law in some things which they desire to innovate, to preserve the Authority of the Law: Farther, That God gave them Liberty to take away some Precepts of the Law, and to permit some things Prohibited upon some certain Occasion and Accident, but not to Perpetuity. These were taken out of the Latin Edition of the Book More Nevochim, Published by Buxtorf. After the same manner speaks the Author of the Book, Entitled, Cozri, set forth also in Hebrew and Latin by Buxtorf. For upon Cozri's demanding the Question, How that Power of Innovating any thing in the Divine Law of God could stand with those Words of Deutronomy, Thou shalt neither add to it, nor detract from it? The Jew makes Answer, That those Words were only spoken in reference to the multitude, that they should not Innovate any thing of their own Heads, or take upon 'em to be Selfwise, but not in Relation to the Senators of the Great Sanhedrim: for that it was not for one Moses only to engross the making of Laws, which was a privilege belonging to other Prophets, Priests and Judges, who were endued with the same Spirit of God. This, unless I mistake, is the Genuine Sense of the Talmudic Doctrine, which cannot be wrested to the Extirpation of the Words of the Sacred Context, when the Dispute lies about taking away a Word, or a Letter: Nay, sometimes a Sentence in the Explication of the Context, but not of changing or erasing Letters or Words out of the Sacred Original. Morinus, from whom Vossius has borrowed whatever he has in his Works that savours of Rabbinism, after he had omitted no sort of Fiction to prove, That the Sacred Exemplars were onset purpose Corrupted by the Jews, at length embraces the Opinion of St. Austin, in these Words: We willingly embrace the Opinion of St. Austin, concerning the Books of the Jews, by themselves depraved and mutilated of set purpose. 
Lib. 1. Exercit. 1. c. 6.  From whom however he professes to disagree in this, for that St. Austin thought it to be an Act not to be believed, in regard it could not be, that a Nation scattered far and near, should all unanimously Conspire to Corrupt so many Copies, and so far asunder dispersed. But Morinus, more quicksighted then St. Austin, violently maintains the Fact not only to be believed among the Jews, but also to be by them esteemed another Article of their Faith.  
Now, whether that were proved by Morinus by sufficient Argument is not our business to inquire. It is enough to have shown, that Morinus, upon whom Vossius depends in most things, could not be induced to believe, that the Jews corrupted the Text of Scripture on set-purpose, tho' he were not ignorant of the Opinion of Talmudists, in taking away a Letter out of the Law upon Occasion.  
Now Vossius, having left the Talmudists, comes to the Greek Interpreters, and makes it his chief business to assert, that all the Hebrew which we have remaining, we are beholding to the Seventy Interpreters for it; that without them not so much as one word could be rightly expounded; that no Versions made by the Jews, or to the liking of the Jews are good, which were not taken from the Seventy Interpreters: that wherever you desert them, you depart from the Truth: Lastly, That the Interpretation of the Scripture is to be fetched from those Jews, who Translated the Scripture when the Hebrew Language flourished, and was familiarly spoken, and not by those Jews who are Enemies to the Christian Faith, and who confesses themselves ignorant of their own Tongue. Now John Morinus produces Arguments almost like to these, to tease the modern Hebrew Exemplars, and to establish the Authority of the ancient Interpreters: which in regard they are most solidly refuted by Ludovicus Capellus, a Copious Testimony in reference to this subject, and not undeservedly applauded by Vossius himself; I had rather answer Vossius in the words of that most learned Author, than my own. First, therefore says Capellus concerning Morinus, and we concerning Vossius, It is easy to sell smoke to the ignorant vulgar, and to boast of gaudy Trappings to the people. Then coming to the Seventy Interpreters, 
Capel. in Apol. advers. Boot.  he says contrary to the sentiments of Vossius, That the Hebrew Language was natural to them, which was lost in the Captivity of Babylon, after which they lived above 200 Years. He adds, That they from the near affinity between the Chaldee, and Syro Chaldaic Languages, which the Jews than made use of, might by study, labour, and frequent reading of the Scripture, attain to no mean knowledge of the Tongue, and many things also necessary to the understanding of that Language, and the Sacred Writings they might gather from the Traditions of their Ancestors. But (says Capellus) that they saw all things, understood all things, never erred, or never were deceived, no Man will pretend to say, but such a one as understands nothing of the Hebrew, and never compared their Translation with the Hebrew Text, even in those places wherein they read no otherwise then we do at this day, where it is easy to see their frequent, childish, and shameful failings; errors frequently from the Genuine signification of the words and phrases, and the Intent and Scope of the Sacred Writings. These and many other passages had Capellus inserted into his Sacred Criticism, which M●rinus took care to have expunged, because they did not relish his Palate. But we took them out of Capellus' Apology against Bootius. Now, what Vossius can Answer to these things I do not apprehend, whenas he himself knows, that Capellus, when he undertook his Critics, was not overmuch prejudiced against the Rabbins. Nay, those Semi-Rabbins, whom Vossius so often traduces, have heavily complained of Vossius and his Book. Let us once more hear the words of that most learned person, and most acurately versed in these Matters, wherein he gives a Judgement of the Versions which were made out of the Hebrew after the Seventy Interpreters, plainly contrary to the Opinion of Vossius. 
Id. cap. ibid.  Let there be attributed (says Capellus) to every one of those ancient Versions their particular Praise and Honour, by reason of their Antiquity, and perpetual use in the Church; nevertheless, where they are manifestly vicious, defective, and mutilated, let not their imperfection be preferred before the Original Truth, and Authentic Text: nor through a certain perverse, wicked, wrangling and contentious envy, or rather damnable ill custom, be advanced before the much better and more accurate Translations. Therefore in the Opinion of Capellus, there might be a better and more accurate Translation of the Sacred Text, then that of the Seventy. To these many other things of the same Nature might be added, which I omit, for fear of being troublesome. Then again, seeing that Capellus was not of that Sect of people, whom the most Facetius Vossius calls, 
In Epist. ad Andr. Colu.  Asses void of light and understanding, clad with a little Professors Gown, instead of a Shield carrying the Masoretic Bibles garnished with all their Points. I would willingly believe that he will be brought to condescend without any great trouble to the Opinion of so excellent a person, concerning the Version of the Seventy Interpreters.  
Again, Vossius stands very furiously upon it, That all the Jews who preceded the time wherein Christ was upon the Earth, acknowledged this Version only as lawful: That till the time of Aquila, no other was read in all the Synagogues of the Jews, besides the Version of the Seventy Interpreters, not only in Egypt, Asia, and the rest of Syria, but also in Judea, where from the time of Alexander the Great, no other Language was heard to be spoken but the Greek, especially in Cities and great Towns; nay that in Jerusalem itself no other than the Greek Language was spoken; and that if the Hebrew Scripture were read first, the Greek Explanation followed. But so many words as Vossius has published, so many fictions hath he spread abroad. For first it is manifest, that before the Version of the Seventy Interpreters from the time of Esdras, there was no other Scripture read in the Jewish Synagogues then the Hebrew Context. For the Jews had not so far forgot their Language in the Jewish Captivities, but that it remained among the Prophets, Priests and Persons of Principal Note; as Josephus Albo, a most eminent Jewish Divine informs us; and that not unwillingly Vossius acknowledges, who believes that the Seventy interpreted the Bible, at what time the Hebrew Language was in a flourishing Condition, and familiarly spoken. Then again that the Hebrew Text was read at least in some Synagogues after the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters, neither can the Learned Person deny, who writes that Flavius Josephus Interpreted the Law of Moses in the Hebrew Language, and set forth his History of the Jewish Wars in Hebrew, before he wrote it in Greek. With which Argument Vossius had refuted those who objected against him that he knew not his own Language, nor ever saw an Hebrew Exemplar, against whom he opposes the words of Josephus, who writes of himself that he excelled the rest of the Hebrews in the Learning of his Country; but that he had only learned the Greek Tongue Grammatically, and wanted an accurate Pronunciation. Therefore according to the Testimony of Vossius himself, who speaks contradictions, not only the common People who lived in the Country and in Villages, made use of the Syriac Dialect; but the Principal persons, among whom was Josephus, who calls the Hebrew or Syriac his Native Language, the pronunciation of which being a little harsh and rugged, was the reason that he could hardly pronounce the Greek, which was much more smooth and Polite. Now than if the Greek Language were so naturally spoken in Cities and Greek Towns, why did Josephus, who was not bred up in the Country Villages, learn the Greek Grammatically. I forbear to prove that Christ and his Apostles spoke Syriac in Jerusalem, as is manifest out of the Books of the New Testament. Therefore it is a mere Fiction which Vossius asserts concerning the Hierosolymitan Synagogues, that there was no other Language used therein then the, Greek. For, saith the Learned Gentleman, if the Hebrew Text were read first, the Greek Interpretation followed, because the ancient Hebrew was only understood by the Learned. Certainly Vossius is a most wonderful Argumentator, who from thence, that the Learned only understood the Hebrew Language concludes that the Greek Interpretation followed. He had spoken much more truly, had he said in those places where the Syriac Language was natural to the Inhabitants, that the Syriac Interpretation followed the Hebrew Text; but where the Greek was more familiar, Greek Interpretation came after. Thus also at Jerusalem, in the Synagogue of the Alexandrinians who spoke Greek, I make no question but the Sacred Text was read first in Hebrew, according to the ancient Custom of the Synagogue, then in Greek by some Interpreter, according to the ancient use of the Jews, who since their return from the Babylonish Captivity, after the Hebrew Language ceased to be familiar, had Interpreters appointed to turn the Hebrew words into the Vulgar Language, that they might be understood by all the common People. In which sense I should think the words of Justinian are to be expounded, by which the Learned prove that in the ancient times, the Greek Version of the Seventy was publicly read in the Synagogues of the Jews, who are vulgarly called Hellenists. For if the words of Justinian are but attentively considered, it will be apparent, that in those Synagogues the Greek Translation was only made use of to assist the Hebrew Context by way of Interpretation, as at Jerusalem and other more neighbouring places, the Chaldee-Syriac was joined with the Hebrew Lectures for the same purpose. Nevertheless I willingly acknowledge with Vossius that the Greek Tongue had in some measure got a great footing in Judea, especially among the Persons of chief Quality and Magistrates; yet so that the Chaldee-Syriac which their Ancestors brought from Babylon prevailed. And to believe this, I am not only induced by the Authority of Josephus, but by many testimonies of the New Testament, from whence it is plain that Christ and his Apostles spoke Syriac. But we shall have occasion to speak of these things hereafter again. There are some other Objections which Vossius has heaped together in his little Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sibylls; but because the Learned Gentleman repeats them again in his answer to the late Critica Sacra, it will be sufficient to examine them being collected altogether. Let us see therefore whether he be more successful in that part.  
In the first Front Vossius praises the Author of the Critica Sacra, which he attributes to Simon, 
Vess. in Resp. ad Object. Nuper Crit.  because the ancient Interpreters, that is, the Seventy, and the Observations of Capellus please him. He also extols and admires Simon's diligence or rather patience, in turning over so many Writings of the Rabbins. But because he believes there may be something of solidity in their Expositions and Traditions, propagated only by the Ear, and so much that sometimes he scruples not to prefer them before the Greek Version of the 70, therein Vossius openly professes that he cannot agree with him: Nor does he believe that any ingenious person will consent to Simon in that particular. Certainly Capellus, whom Vossius so much admires may be listed for an ingenious Gentleman, and that deservedly too. And in this dispute, Simon has not swerved from Capellus, the least Tittle, who sharply girds Morinus and his Ape Vossius as immoderate Persons, who out of a perverse and damnable ill custom, prefer the ancient Translations to others far more accurate. In this moreover Simon displeases Vossius, for writing that sometimes St. Jerom receded judiciously from the ancient Interpreters, as if those ancient ones had been free from all Mistake and Error. Nor does Capellus forsake Simon in this particular. For where Capellus in the place above cited has observed several Childish Mistakes frequently taken notice of in the Greek Version of the Seventy Interpreters, he compares this and that of St. Jerom t'other, and prefers that of St. Jerom, as that which produces better sense: 
In Apol. adv. Boot.  and lastly he adds these words. Six hundred, yea innumerable, are the places that might be produced, in which from the same Copy with that in use at this day, St. Jerom has expressed the sense of Sacred Scripture much otherwise, and much more happily than the Seventy Interpreters, as being assisted by their Labours and Translation, as also with the Versions of others, as Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotian, by which means he was able to discern the failings and Errors of those men. Nor indeed do any who have any thing of Greek and Hebrew Learning think otherwise of Jerom, unless it be single Dr. Vossius, who in imitation of Ruffinus believes that St. Jerom undertook a new Version of the Hebrew. Text, with a resolution altogether Jewish and preengaged by the Rabbis. For that same Prophetic Spirit attributed to the Greek Interpreters, which our Ancestors so much adored, is long since vanished by the Authority of St. Jerow himself. But let us return to the business in hand.  
Vossius furiously maintains that there is nothing of solidity in the Expositions of the late Rabbis and their Traditions, propagated only by the Ear, chief induced by this Argument; for that Traditions which are propagated by the Ear, rarely last above two or three Ages. If it be so, how came it to pass, that the Seventy Interpreters after the Hebrew Language being lost for two Ages, could make such a Version of the Hebrew Codex, in all things so absolute, as Vossius feigns it? Questionless, some will say he avers nothing wonderful as to this particular, while he believes them to be Prophets. But whom shall we believe, Vossius affirming the Greek Interpreters to have been Prophets, or Jerome denying it? But you will object, that St. Jerome was half a Rabbi, who durst presume to make a new Translation contrary to the general consent of the Church: and that Vossius is a Sybillist, who has raised up new Prophets and soothsayers, till now unknown, nor ever heard of. That same Jewish and Rabbinical Version of Jerome has had many Applauders, Conspicuous for their Piety and Learning. But there is not one in our Age who embraces Vossius' Judgement for receiving the only Version of the Seventy, excepting some Disciples of Socinus, who greedily swallowed his Opinion. It will not be amiss to inspect the Matter a little more narrowly, and to manifest the Nature of Tradition upon which the reading of the Hebrew Context depends.  
I grant that matters of Religion, chief which belong to Doctrine more remote from the Senses, cannot be preserved for many Ages by the help of Tradition, without the assistance of writing. But as to matter of Discipline and Ceremonies, there is a quite contrary Judgement to be made, for that those things happen to be in use every day; And for this sort of Tradition, and Ancient Fathers of the Church give their suffrages. Now, I say there is the same Qualification of Languages, which though they become obsolete and cease to be Natural, yet among the Doctors in the School, preserve their ancient Vigour and Efficacy: and to this sort of Tradition we refer the Tradition of the Hebrew Language among the Jews. Hence without doubt it came to pass, that in these modern times the Samaritans have the same Books of the Law of Moses which the Jews have, some small matter excepted. And from that Tradition it comes to pass, that not only the Eastern and Western Jews consent among themselves about the reading of the Hebrew Context, but also they who bear the Name of Carraim among them: because that rejecting the Talmud and other uncertain Traditions, they adhere to the Scripture, and agree with the Jews in all things, as to the Truth of reading the Sacred Context. And therefore that Tradition is not rashly to be exploded with the Carraeans, who reject most of the Jewish Traditions, entirely embraced. Here I could heap together many other things taken out of the Jewish Books, by which they prove, that their Ancestors ever since the times of Esdras and Zorobabel, had Schools as well among the Babylonians, as among the Hierosolymitans. But I forbear to insist upon these things, and many other of the same Nature, because they do not please the Palate of the most learned Vossius, who does not by any means relish Rabbinism. I am not ignorant that many Jews, especially they who are of the Grammarians Form, who believe that not only the Sacred Books were variously dispersed, and miserably mutilated, as Kimchi and Effodaeus were of Opinion, but that the Language was almost lost: and with these those Jews who are of the Sect of the Carraeans agree. 
Aaron Ben Joseph, praef. come. in penned.  For thus writes Aaron Ben Joseph upon this Argument. The Israelites were exiles out of their own in a foreign Land, and Vision and Prophecy were sealed up, and there wanted but little, but that the Hebrew Language had been quite lost. Then certain wise Israclites risen up, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to whom God gave his Spirit, and they handed this Scripture to Us, which contains twenty four Books. From whence it is manifest, that the Hebrew Tongue was not anciently utterly lost, though after the return of the Jews from Babylon, it was no longer Natural at Jerus●lem, but only preserved by the Doctors of the Law. Thus Esdras performing the Office of a most skilful Scribe, is said to have read the Law from a Pulpit, before a multitude of Men and Women. And ch●●st● from that time the Jews deduce their Paraphrasers, 
Nehem. c. 8.  who were to explain the words of the Law in the Language familiarly spoken, that they might be understood by all the Auditory. Nor do I believe that the Greek Version of the Seventy, of which afterwards the Jews feigned such miraculous Stories, had any other Original; whose Idle Dreams Vossius so greedily followed, as if those Jews were only to be believed by the Christians. Then again in the Synagogue and Schools belonging to such places, where the Greek Tongue was natural, there the Greek Translation of the Alexandrinian Jews was read, which whithin a short space of time reached the rest of the Jews who spoke the Greek Language, as being the Language of those that were in power. However, the reading of the Hebrew Text was not left off, in whose assistance the Greek Translation was only made use of. Neither will Vossius deny that, who asserts, that both Josephus and Philo, who was an Alexandrinian, were learned in the Hebrew. When then was the Hebrew Language lost? was it in the time of Aquila, whom Vossius calls a most impertinent Interpreter? However, he acknowledges that in the time of Origen, there were famous Hebrew Schools at Alexandria, and in the time of St. Jerom, at Tyberias. Now, that the Schools of Tyberias were kept up after St. Jeroms Death, there's no Man but well knows, to which at length the Family of the Critics called Mazeries was well known: And they were called Mazorites, because they bounded and regulated the Mazora, or Tradition of reading the Hebrew Context then received by all the Jews by the help of certain Marks or Tittles, which served instead of Vowels. This is the Jewish Tradition to which Simon attributes most credit; but upon which he does not wholly depend, while he does not put a small value upon the Tradition, or reading of the Hebrew Context which the Greek Interpreters followed. Nay, sometimes he does not scruple to prefer it before the Masoretic, because he did not set himself to write with a mind preengaged by the Greek Interpreters as Vossius; nor by the Latin, as most of the Divines of the Romish Church, nor by the Jews, as the Crowd of Protestants.  
But, says the most learned Vossius, the Jews are Enemies to the Christians, and therefore the reading of the Sacred Scripture ought not to be fetched from them: as if any Art could be better learned from any other than they who profess it. But then Vossius urges again, and Confesses that the reading of the Scripture ought to be fetched from the Jews indeed, but from those ancient Jews, who preceded the time of Christ, not from the latter Rabbins, who understood it not at all. And in this also Simon agrees with Vossius, that the Tradition of the Hebrew reading is to be taken from those ancient Jews; only in this he differs from him, in saving not only from those, but from Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Jerome, and all other Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture; for that no Art can be brought to perfection by one or another, but by many together. Simon professes himself under the Laws of no Master: he denies that a perfect knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue can be attained by the vulgar Rules of the Grammarians, as being confined within too narrow limits. Furthermore, he believes it necessary to have recourse to the ancient Interpreters in imitation of St. Jerome, who not only Consulted the Rabbis of his own Age, but sometimes the Seventy Interpreters, sometimes Aquila, sometimes Theodotion, or any other, whose Interpretation seemed most to the Purpose. And we have no reason in our Age, of making another Translation of the Bible, which may excel all the rest: For it is not true, as Vossius often inculcates, that only one St. Jerome durst presume to vary from the Septuagint. For you shall find the rest of the Fathers have frequent recourse to the Versions of Aquila, Symmachus, or Theodotion, because their sense sometimes appears to be better. To say Truth, they differ more from Vossius, who believes, that the Seventy Interpreters being taken away, all the remaining knowledge of the Hebrew Language is utterly lost, and that without them no one word can rightly be expounded. That Aquila and other Interpreters, failed wherever they departed from the Ancient Version; that he was an Idle Interpreter, who being learned in the Hebrew, did not give the Hebrew words new significations from the Greek Translation of the Septuagint, but only retained those significations used by the Greek Interpreters, though in a different Order, and accommodating other Notions to other places. And yet Origen frequently commends that same Aquila, whose Version Vossius affirms to be so full of trivial words: speaking of Aquila, as of a person, who searching out the Proprieties of words, and diligently adhering to their significations, studied to give them the most proper Interpretation; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aquila labouring to Interpret by words that carried most Authority. But if Aquila applied the same Notions of the Hebrew Language variously in several and different places, those places are to be weighed, and Judgement is to be given, whether he have sweryed truly or falsely from the Interpreters. Certain it is, that St. Jerome sometimes preferred Aquila before the Seventy Interpreters, because they seemed to favour the Jews. In like manner Origen thought that Aquila had in several places more properly expressed the words of the Hebrew Context then the 70.  
There it is a fiction of Vossius', that there was no man among all the ancient Christians, upon whom a clearer light of Hebrew truth shone, then upon all the Christian Rabbis and Semi-Rabbies of our Age. For as it was most excellently observed by Ludovicus Capellus, there is nothing that was ever begun and perfected both at one time. The Translation of the 70 Interpreters was corrected by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Jerom, and as St. Jerow's, so is that mended every day by persons learned in the Greek and Hebrew Languages. In this alone the Septuagint excels all the other Versions of Sacred Scripture, for that it was the first of all the Translations, from which all the succeeding Interpreters drew many things proper for their purpose. Nor do I question but that in the time of Philo, there were extant Lexicons of Hebrew words taken out of the Version of the 70, both at Alexandria and other places. Nor will I deny but that Aquila might make use of them as great helps in compiling his Translation. But for me to believe that he who in the Opinions of Origen, Jerom and other Fathers, did not consult the Jews of his time, is a thing almost impossible; and why Vossius should think so there seems to be no other inducement than a preengaged Opinion that the 70 Interpreters are the only persons, with whom the knowledge of the Hebrew Language was buried. And indeed whatever Vossius throws upon Aquila, may be said of St. Jerom, though it be most certain that he consulted the Jewish Doctors of his time, when he was compiling his Translation; and very often rather chose to depend upon them, then upon the Greek Interpretation. For he often declares in his works that he was instructed by the most learned Doctors of his Age. The same is Aquila's case, whom he calls sometimes contentious Interpreter, because he sticks sometimes too close to the signification of the words, more eager upon the force of the word than the Sense of the Sentence. For which reason Jerom accuses him of depraved affectation, but never of Ignorance; which affectation Origen ascribes to his too much diligence.  
Now Vossius passes to other matters. He denies that the Sense of Scripture can be ploughed forth of a Mute Codex, which hither any man knows how to read or understand, as being half maimed, and furnished with no other Vowels then what the Enemies of the Christian Faith have fixed to it. And thus he thought it not enough to traduce the Interpreters of Holy Writ, unless he accuse the Books themselves. Every Foot and even to loathing he objects in his little Treatise, that the Hebrew Codex is mute; as if it had been less mute in the Age of the 70 Interpreters then in our time. This is the manner of Writing among the Orientals, to follow Compendium's: Nor is the Hebrew Language more subject to this vice, than the Arabic, Chaldee and Syriac, whose manner of writing is Compendious likewise. The Condition of the Exemplars which the 70 Interpreters made use of was no better. But there was a certain manner of writing confirmed by Use and Custom amongst the Hebrews and the rest of the Orientals, especially the Rabbis as now it appears. For after the Invention of points most of the Oriental Bocks were set forth without 'em; nevertheless they who understand their Languages read with no less accurateness, then if the points were added. The Samaritans never burdened their Exemplars with points, nor are they to be seen in the Exemplars of the Jews or Volumes that are publicly used in the Synagogues. Are therefore those Exemplars mute? The Jews have also their Vowels that no way depend upon those points, as Vossius himself confesses; but the Trrnscribers sometime add, sometimes omit them at their own pleasure. Wherefore the prudent Aben Ezra most excellently observes, that as to that particular the Mazorites laboured to little purpose, who over-carefully marked how many times a word is written full, how many times defective, that is when it is represented with its Vowels. The Transcriber, 
Praef. inpent.  says Eben Ezra sometimes in writing expresses the word full sometimes defective, and that for Brevity's sake. If any one would take the pains to compare as well the ancient as later Interpreters together, he shall discern that from that same presence or absence of the Vowels, something of difference has happened in Translating the Context. Nor do the Jewish Rabbis agree among themselves in this particular, as F. Simon makes apparent in several Examples, who therefore does no way detract from the Jewish Exemplars; but lays that fault, if such a one it be, upon the Nature of the Oriental Languages. By this means, the Mahometan Doctors, adding Points of the same Nature, have settled the reading of the Alcoran, to prevent its being torn into several Parts at Liberty of every one. And certainly the Industry of the Jews is to be commended in this particular, who by the benefit of Points have consulted the Exactness of reading the Sacred Writings for the good of Posterity. Certain it is, that in every Age there was some Masora or other, at least among the Doctors of the Hebrew Language worthy to be seen; because it was always a certain guide for the reading of the Hebrew Context. Though it varied sometimes, according to the Diversity of Ages, as may be discerned by the comparing Variety of Translations. Wherefore Vossius does not seem to have understood this whole Matter, who writes that for the defect of Vowels, the miserable Jews were reduced to that pitch of Ignorance, that they knew not how to read, unless to the Hebrew words were added the same words expressed in Greek Letters, which supplied the defect of the Vowels. This manner of writing, saith he, received by the Jews, Origen followed, opposing against the Hebrew and Samaritan, the same Hebrew and Samaritan Words, expressed in Greek Letters, the Vowels being only added that they might be conveniently read. Truly both in this Place, as in many others, the most Learned Vossius has devised wonders. For not to insist that it is a mere Fiction which he urges concerning the Hebrew Context inserted in Samaritan Letters in Origen's Hexaples, no man in his wit will believe that Origen borrowed from the Jews the manner of writing the Hebrew Text in Greek Letters; but rather that he, for the benefit of his own Countrymen, wrote the Hebrew words first in the Hebrew Letters, and then in Greek Characters; to the end that they who understood nothing of the Hebrew, might read the Hebrew. For to say Truth, the Jews at that time, as they do at this day, easily read their own Context without Points; and besides this, without any other assistance but of the Hebrew Letters, they not only read the Books of the Rabbis, but any other Books upon various Discourses. Thus they have the Greek and Spanish Versions of the Bible's written not in Greek and Spanish, but in Hebrew Characters; of which I will here set down some few Examples, that the more skilful may judge, whether the Jews were so miserable that they could not write the words of their own Language, but in Foreign Characters; while they writ, and that properly enough the Languages of other Nations in Jewish Letters. Thus in the Greek Interpretation of the Pentateuch set forth at Constantinople, we read in Hebrew Letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bound or Limit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, she. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and. Together with innumerable others of the same nature to which the Jews add pointed Vowels which seem unprofitable, in regard the word can hardly be read otherwise without 'em. The same is the nature of the Spanish Tongue, from whence the Vowels may be absent without any detriment to the Genuine Reading; after which manner we read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, en elmonte, in the Mountain; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Estar, to stand, or be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Veedi a delante de vos ala Fierra, see before ye the Land. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 El grande Rio, the Great River. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a vuestros Padres, to your Fathers. From hence 'tis manifest, that the Hebrew Language does not want its Vowels; and I could here produce other Specimens of several Languages expressed in Hebrew Characters without any Point-Vowels, yet are easily and quickly read by the help of the Letters; Especially N, Aleph, Vau and Jod; which the Jews call the Mothers of reading; But it happens, as has been already observed, that the Transcribers frequently omit those Vowels; from whence arose at length no small disagreement between the Manuscript Exemplars, which is still to be seen in those of best repute, and which was much more before the Critical Annotations of the Mascreth, according to which they are now most of them corrected.  
The Thing itself may be also illustrated by the Example of other Languages in affinity with the Hebrew, as the Arabic, Chaldee and Syriac. Of late the Persians and Turks use no other Letters than the Arabic, which those Nations have accommodated to their own Use. 
Hist. ●ers. c. 22.  Of the Persians thus Texeira. Quando los Arabes entraron en Persia, y la sennorearon, introduxeron en ella sa charactere y modo dy escrivir, all qual las Perses se applicaron y accommodaron, de sorte que Olvidaron, y se perdiò total ment el proprio suya. When the Arabians entered into Persia and made themselves Lords of the Country, they introduced into it their Character and manner of Writing; to which the Persians applied and accustomed themselves in such a manner, that they forgot and totally lost their own. But we spend time in vain upon these things, for no man is ignorant that the Persians and Turks make use of no other than the Arabian Characters, which as to the Subject of the present dispute altogether resemble the Hebrew. Nor is that Example any more to the purpose, which Vossius annexes from the written Works of Homer and Virgil, had they come to our Hands without Vowels, in regard there is a vast difference between the Greek, Latin and the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic Languages. The Learned Gentleman adds another Fiction, that this manner of Writing that is in Greek Letters, was in use among the Jews, for almost a Thousand Years, that is to say to the time of the Masorites, who almost six Hundred Years before, neglecting this double manner of Writing, imitating the Arabians and Syrians, introduced Points and Tittles, which they made use of instead of Vowels. But as to that, 'tis now eight Hundred Years ago, that R. Saadias' wrote certain little Treatises of Grammar, whence it appears, that before those times Point-Vowels were added to the Exemplars of the Bible. To what end does he mention the Mazorites, whom I do not deny to have been the Inventors of points, when they themselves lived long before R Saadias'? But, says Vossius, that points are a late Invention is manifest from hence, for that there appears no Book, no Monument of them that is more ancient than five Hundred Years. By the same reason I might say, that before six Hundred Years ago, there were no Hebrew Exemplars of the Bible, which are not to be found in our age, which pretend to a higher Antiquity. But I blush to spend more time in refuting these things which are so openly false. F. Simon. has produced Monuments much more Ancient, wherein the Points are to be seen. After this Vossius violently Assails the Jews, and infers that they have adapted wrong and depraved Vowels to most words from the proper Names which we frequently meet with in the Gospels and other Writings of the Ancient Jews. That of necessity, saith the Learned Gentleman, the modern points were added sillily and injudiciously, or that Christ and all the Apostles and Ancient Jews were ignorant of the Names of the Prophets and their Forefathers. But the most excellent Vossius does not observe that those very Names are pronounced and written at this very day by the Jews of various Nations, after a different manu●●. The Italians writ 'em one way, the Germans another, the Spaniards another way. The Spaniards come nearest the Ancient manner of Writing and Pronouncing, because their pronunciation is more pure. But the Germane Jews are farther off then all the rest, from the true manner of Writing and Pronouncing, which is manifest from the Books which they have severally written in the Itaiian, Spanish and Germane Languages, wherein the Hebrew words are written after a quite different manner, and in other Letters. But it is certain that they did not derive that variety of Writing from the various Lections of the Hebrew Exemplars. But the fault of Pronunciation which arises from the vulgar Speech, draws along with it the errors of Spelling and Writing. Whence it comes to pass, that most of the Hebrecians who learn Hebrew from Buxtorf's Hebrew Grammar, pronounce the Hebrew words very ill, and after the Germane manner. All which has been observed in few words by Leo Modena, who in favour of his own Nation prefers the Pronunciation of the Italians before all the rest. 
Leo Mod. Hist. de Rit. Heb. p. c. 1.  Nella Provincia di essa lingua Hebraea, saith that great Master, sono talmonte poi troth di loro differenti, che a pena sono intesi Tedeschi da gli Italianie Levantini. Nevi e chi piu chiaro e conform alle regole della vera Grammatica fav●ll●che Italiani. In the Province of the Hebrew Language, they are so absolutely different from one another, that the Dutch are hardly understood by the Italians and Easterly People. Nor are there any who speak more clearly and conformably to the Rules of true Grammar than the Italians. That this was the chance of all Languages we may learn from the Ancient Grammarians. And this Argument has Erasmus most excellently handled in his Dialogue concerning the true Pronunciation of the Greek and Latin Tongues; where he observes that Maximilian Caesar being congratulated by the Ambassadors of several Nations, all that heard them believed that not one Oration was pronounced according to the Latin Pronunciation, but every one according to the vulgar Pronunciation of the Country. The same Erasmus relates, that the Oration of a Frenchman, no bad Latin neither, was pronounced so much after the French Mode, that the standers by believed him rather to speak French then Latin. To which Oration of the French, a Court Doctor answered so much after the Germane manner, that no German could have pronounced his own Mother Tongue more German like: For he began thus, Caesarea M●ghest as pene caudet fidere fo●, & horationem festram lipenter audifit; instead of Caesarea Majestas bene gaydet videre vos, & Orationem vestram libenter audivit. His Caesarean Majesty rejoices much to see you, and has gladly heard your Oration. Not much unlike to this do the Germane Jews pronounce and write the Hebrew Language after the Germane manner; and thence has arisen that strange difference in proper Names, which is to be observed in the Versions of Paginius, Munster and other Interpreters, if they be compared with the Gospels and other Ancient Writings of the Jews.  
But now the Learned Gentleman contends that the Exposition of the Hebrew words becomes uncertain, by reason of the defect of the Vowels, and believes F. Simon to be of the same opinion, who also believed, that thence it happened that the Rabbins affirmed that the Hebrew Codex's had 7● Faces. True it is indeed that Simon does attribute in part, the diversity of Interpreters of the Hebrew Context, to the inconstancy of the Vowels sometimes added, sometimes omitted. But he explains after a different manner, the 72 Faces, which according to the opinion of the Jews the Hebrew Codex's seem to wear. Nor is there any reason that Vossius should so frequently object that Proverb of the Jews, which he seems not to have understood. For one pure Sense of Scripture is no less approved by the Jews, then by the most Learned Vossius. But under the Name of 72 Faces are comprehended those Allegorical Senses, which are as many as there are idle oscitant Rabbis to invent'em. it is a common saying, not only among the Jews of the Caraean Sect, but among the Rabbinists who have any Learning or Judgement, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Scripture does not go beyond the Literal Sense; which the Learned Aben Ezra professes to be that which he always embraces, scorning the Seventy Two Faces or Allegorical and Cabbalick Senses, which most of the Jews superstitiously observe that inhabit the Eastern Counties. Therefore to me they seem more silly than the Jews themselves, who have collected sundry Monsters of Fables out of the Books of the Rabbins, to bring an Odium upon those circumcised Doctors: The Talmudic Books and the ancient Medr●schim, or Allegorical Commentaries, are full of those portentous Stories. In this Sense the Rabbis say, that Moses did not die. That while R. Simeon Ben Jochai lived, and all the Reign of Ezekiah there was no Rainbow, because they were just men. That when Jonathan began his Chaldee Paraphrase, the Birds that flew over his Head were burnt in a moment. I pass by six hundred more of the same Stamp, which the wiser Jews believe to have been spoken in an Allegorical Sense; hither are all those Fables to be referred, all those Fables which the Rabbins have invented concerning the LXXII. Faces of Scripture. Let Vossius therefore forbear to object against them, that there can be no Truth, where the Sense is so manifold.  
After much wrangling in the same place, the Learned Gentleman offer many things concerning the name of Prophet, which are altogether from the purpose and of no use: For, as if he were ashamed to have numbered the Greek Interpreters among the Prophets, he affirms them to be truly Prophets, who rightly interpret the Scripture, seeing that Prophet is the same with Interpreter, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to interpret: As if the present Dispute were concerning this Sort of Prophecy. Vossius was derided by Simon for endeavouring to set a foot again his stolen and rank Opinion of the Prophetship of the LXX. Interpreters, induced thereto by no other Arguments, than out of a hatred to those whom they call Semi-Rabbies: But whether those things tend, which the most acute Gentleman more prolixly faigns, to show that not only among the Greeks but also among the Egyptians, the Interpreters and Foretellers of Dreams and future things were called Prophets, I am not so Argus Eyed as to perceive. He also vehemently maintains that God conferred the gift of Prophecy upon the Worshippers of Idols. But what is all this to the present purpose? He calls the Greek Version divinely inspired, and labours very hard to prove that the Authors thereof were inspired with the Holy Ghost, and to make their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Inspiration out. Simon therefore not impertinently objects against Vossius, that sort of Prophecy was taken from the 70 Interpreters long ago, even in the time of St. Jerom. Rather he imposes upon Simon, when he calls him to an account, as if he believed that Stephen or vulgar Syriac, but in the Hebrew Language. What will remain entire in the Church, says the Man Religious even to Superstition, if we admit such Fictions as these? But Vossius is so accustomed to the framing of Fictions, that he scrupled not to forge new in this place, to refute them afterwards with his own Fictitious Reason. Simon thought the opinion of St. Jerom very probable, who wrote that it was not likely, that Stephen in his Sermon to the Hierosolymitan Jews, quoted his Old Testament Testamonies out of any other than the Hebrew Exemplars. Simon does not speak of words of the Sermon which it is plain were spoken in the Syriac, but of the places of Scripture which are cited by Stephen in that Sermon. Vossius' device is, as if Simon thought that the common People in the time of the Apostles understood the Ancient Hebrew Language, whereas he rather every where affirms, that the vulgar of Jerusalem spoke Syriac. In the Hierasolymitan Synagogues, where the Syriac was altogether natural, the Law was not read in Greek but Hebrew, to which the Syriac and not the Greek Interpretation was joined, as Vossius has feigned.  
Again he maliciously objects against Simon, that the Writing of Aristaeus was by him treasured up among the Fictitious Writings for that reason, because it was a solemn custom of the Jews to feign and write things Incredible; when as those things which are contained in Moses and the Prophets, are more incredible; as if Simon had only proved from the solemn Custom of the Jews to feign and write Incredibilities, that the History of Aristaeus was Fictitious. Whereas he produces most solid Reasons taken from the work of Aristaeus himself, and shows upon the Testimony of Phylo Herennius, which Origen Reports, that the Jews of that time feigned many things very improbable. But I do not wonder that Vossius compares such sort of Impostors with Moses and the Prophets, who had already seated them among the Prophets. Nevertheless in the same Treatise, whereas for the most part always he speaks those things that hardly hold Water, the learned Gentleman Writes, that Truth is a Stranger to the Writings of the Jews, that there is so much Ignorance, so much Barbarity, such a World of Fictions, that there is nothing more true than that Satirical Sarcasm.  
— Are minuto  
Qualicunque volunt Judei somnia vendunt.  
Maliciously also, and quite contrary to the meaning of Simon, Vossius adds some other things, to which it is needless to answer, seeing that Simon's Book itself is now every where public both in Latin and French, though the new French Edition, and the Latin which is taken out of it, is very full of faults of the Press. But now Vossius to press Simon the more home, demands from whence Demetrius Falarius had his story of the Kings of the Jews, if in his time there were no Greek Version. This also Vossius feigns to fancy himself an Adversary, For Simon will readily acknowledge, that the History of Demetrius was taken out of the Greek Version, which is vulgarly attributed to the 70 Elders: Nor does he ever dispute of the Age wherein the Authors of that Version lived, but of the Authors themselves, and believes that what is reported by Aristeus concerning them, to be a Fable. As to the time wherein that Version was begun and finished, Vossius will not find F. Simon differing from the Alexandrian Jews. But he can hardly be induced to believe so many Fables as are vulgarly reported concerning them. In the mean time let the most delicate Vossius enjoy his own judgement, who so greedily catches at dreams more than Rabbinically, and because the Learned Gentleman, now grown more perspicacious, has entered the Lists, he now no longer doubts, that not only the Pentateuch but all the Historical and Prophetic Books were Translated by the 70 Interpreters, though he confesses he doubted it before. Nevertheless, the reasons of his doubting are very ponderous, which are to be fetched from the Testimonies of Josephus, Jerom and the Ancient Jews, F. Simon had denied that the words of Aristeus were understood by Vossius; now the Learned Gentleman appeals to all that understand Greek, to whose determination I think we ought to stand; and I could wish that the same Judges were to consider what Vossius has transferred out of Eusebius and other Writers, into his is that incomparable Gentleman in all things, who again devices new Hexaples of Origen, which were never yet seen. More probable are those things which he by and by adds concerning Origen, who inserted the whole Version of the 70 Interpreters faithfully transcribed into his Hexaples; not altered in some places as Simon suspects. Yet we may suspect with Simon, that Origen did not so entirely correct the Greek Interpretation, which he himself acknowledges to have been overrun with Errors and Faults, but that he altered some places under pretence of Amendment, when as he did not only examine it by the most approved Copies of that Version, but by the Hebrew Exemplars and the Translations of Aquilla, Sym●●chus, Theodotion and others. Which he could hardly attain to, but that had vitiated that Version in many places before, especially when Origen set a higher value upon the Hebrew Truth, then Vossius is ware of, if we believe St. Jerom, who well knew the disposition of the Person. But as for Adamantius, I s●y nothing, who when he follows the common Edition in his Homilies, which he speaks to the People, in his Times, that is his larger d●spute, guarded with Hebrew Truth and surrounded with squadrons of his own, he sometimes seeks the aid of Foreign Language. Origin therefore carried himself one way with Learned Men, another with the Ignorant Multitude, and as the Proverb is, Wise with a few, spoke those things which were in common. With this agrees what he writes against Celsus, for after he has produced some things out of the Book of Exodus, according to the vulgar Exemplars of the Greek Version, he presently adds the Section of the Hebrew Text with this Animadversion, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But these things which seem to be more nice, and not so fit for vulgar Ears. Therefore the Learned Gentleman is in an Error, who believed that Origen approved not other Exemplars but those of the Septuagint. He is ignorant of the Laws of that management which most of the Fathers, especially Origen, observed, to the end they might accommodate themselves to the already received opinions of the People; which prudence of Origen in our Age, the most Eminent Divines of the Roman Church do imitate, who granting to the People the use of the Latin Edition, reserve to themselves the knowledge of the Hebrew Truth. Now because Simon gives no credit to the Prodigious discourses of Aristaeus, concerning the 70 Interpreters, while he endeavours to give a reason why it was fixed upon the 70, he confesses that he adheres to the opinion of those, who believe it to have born that name from the 72 Senators of the Hierosolymitan Sanhedrim, who approved it by their Suffrage and Authority. Yet he affirms nothing, but only makes a conjecture upon a thing so obscure and so far remote from our times. But notwithstanding all his Modesty Vossius falls fiercely upon him, and demands if that Greek Version were approved by the whole Sanhedrim, how it came to be so full of faults, as if of necessity the Authority of the Grave Sanhedrim, which Simon suspects to have allowed that Version to be publicly read in the Synagogues and Schools, had been sufficient to exempt it from all Error? Certainly it could derive no greater Authority from the Decree of the Hierosolymitan Senators, than was ascribed to the Latin Edition, after the Fathers of the Council of Trent had authorised it by their Constitution. Was the Latin Interpreter therefore purged from all the faults with which it formerly abounded? No. In this also appears the greatest equality between both decrees, that as it came to pass in the Western Church, through Ignorance of the Greek and Hebrew Languages, that the Bibles were Translated and read in the Latin Tongue, so also the Ignorance of the Hebrew among the Hellenist Jews, was the reason that the Alexandrian Jews Translated for their own use the Sacred Writing into Greek, which Greek Translation afterwards grew to be currant among all the Jews that understood Greek, and was perhaps approved by the Hierosolymitan Senators. I say perhaps, because there is no need to have recourse to their Authority, for the Exposition of the reason why this Version was attributed to the 70 Elders.  
But only we are to observe the form of Speech so familiar among the Jews, whereby the used to refer all things which seemed to be of any moment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the Men of the great Synagogue. Which kind of Phrase has lead many Learned Men into several Errors while they turn over the Books of the Jews with a Circumspection too remiss; whereas we are to heed not so much what those Doctors say, as how and for what reason they speak it. So the Rabbis eagerly maintain, that the Points of the Holy Scripture and such other things derive their Original from the Men of the Great Synagogue, speaking according to the Phrase of the Country, not according to the Truth of the Thing. And thus it is more proper to conjecture that the Greek Version was attributed to the Seventy Interpreters, than with Vossius to give credit to the Fictions of Aristaeus.  
Then again the Learned Gentleman is displeased that Simon endeavoured to restore the Hellenistick Language exploded by the Learned men, and to obtrude it under the name of the Language most currant in the Synagogue; as if among them there had been any more peculiar Language, which was neither Greek nor Hebrew, that by that means he might make it out that the Seventy Interpreters understood neither Greek nor Hebrew. Certainly Simon knew what had been already written by the Defenders of the Hellenistick Language, but with the good favour of that Learned Gentleman. I may say, that while he disputed about the shadow of an Ass, he did but raise Contentions about a Name, Simon does not lay ignorance to the charge of the Greek Interpreters of the Hebrew and Greek, but only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a depraved affectation natural to the Jews especially in Translating the Scriptures, who while they labour to express the Hebrew words too curiously and literally, turn a little aside from the common and more received Idiom and to some words give particular and distinct Notions from the Vulgar. This is to be observed almost in all the Versions of Sacred Scripture compiled by the Jews, as Simon truly demonstrates: by whom it was also most excellently observed, that the Greek Interpretation of the Seventy Seniors was hardly understood by most of the Greek Fathers, because it retained something of the Idiom of the Syriac or Hebrew Language. And thus the Spanish Translation set forth at Ferrara, which was done by the Jews, can hardly be read by those who understand not Hebrew, though well versed in the Spanish. And this was the reason why the ancient Interpreter of the Greek Version has but ill rendered not a few Greek words, not having attained the force and propriety of their signification. Some also, Jerom himself seems not to have understood, though both Hebrecian and Grecian; while he seems to adhere more to the Greek then Hebrew whence the Greek were taken. Vossius also objects against Simon that he understood not what the Hellenists were. I confess that Simon understood not before what Vossius had feigned contrary to the Opinion of the most Learned men, who to show his Greek Erudition, expounds the word— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to side with the Greeks, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fignifie to imitate the Manners and Customs, and side with the Romans, M●des, Persians and Antigonus. Now considering the present Argument, where the Dispute with Vossius is about Critical Learning, this is as much as if I should say, That Vossius is not only a skilful Critic, but a Canon of Windsor, who quavers forth the English Liturgy most sweetly in the Chapel. It is certain that the Jews were of two sorts, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Scattering of the Greeks, was distinct from those Jews who at that time, both in Judea, Samaria, Babylon, and other Neighbouring Regions spoke the Syriac Language, and made use of the Hebrew Exemplars. They because they were dispersed among Nations where the Greek tongue was familiar, spoke Greek; and read the Scripture in Greek, are called in the Acts of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hellenists. And in reference to them are these words of the Jews to be expounded in the Gospel of St. John, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will he come to the scattering of the Hellenists? Now Simon, mending his own subject, asserts that the Greek Interpretation of the Seventy, was chiefly approved by the Hellenist Jews, who understood Greek: not so by the rest of the Jews, to whom the Greek was not so familiar, as the Inhabitants of Babylon, Palestine, Syriac and Judea, who all spoke either Chaldee or Syriac. Nevertheless Simon does not deny but that there were some Hellenists among them; and so there was a Synagogue of Alexandrians at Jerusalem, and several Hellenist Jews l●v'd at Antiochia, as appears from the Acts of the Apostles. So that the dispute being only concerning the Hebrew Context and the Greek Interpretation of it, therewas no necessity for Vossius to run out of his way, in imitation of Vossius, to call the Hellenist Jews, who being of a peaceful disposition readily paid their Tribute, and admonished others that the Yoke imposed by God was to be born with patience, and therefore submitted to the Greeks. As if at Jerusalem and in other places where the Jews did not go by the Name of Hellenists, there were none that carried themselves peaceably, and readily paid their Taxes. Why therefore were not they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hellenists, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lovers of the Greeks. But let Vossius hug himself in his conjecture, and give sentence that Hellenism is not to be referred to Speech alone, so it may be any way referred to his Version, 'tis enough. Christ was also a Hellenist, if you will believe Vossius, because he understood the Greek Language, and because he commanded to give to Caesar that which is Caesar's. As to what the Learned Gentleman adds concerning the designed corruption of the Hebrew Chronologies, we shall not need to examine the matter again, it having been sufficiently demonstrated in the foregoing Treatise that Vossius was most heavily deceived in this particular; nor to repeat what has been said before touching the Prophecy of Daniel, already known to the Jews. We are now to brush off those things which Simon blames, as not so aptly rendered by the Seventy; and which Vossius as stiffly defends.  
Weighing the words of the first Chapter of Genesis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as we render it) to rule the day, Simon says that the Exposition to him seems doubtful, because the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both Dominion, and Beginning. Vossius admires that Simon did not also find fault with the Hebrew word which has also a double signification. But it is the part of a diligent Interpreter to avoid amphibology. This place, as being better expressed by Aquila then by the Seventy was taken notice of by the Learned Origen before Simon's Castigation. Then Simon had observed upon these words of the third Chapter of Genesis, 
Gen. 3.14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cursed art thou above all cattle, that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not agree with the place or seem to make any Sense: but Vossius much more perspicacious maintains, that the place could not be better nor more exactly rendered and that there is no Greek writer that does not so express himself. True it is, that Simon does not deny but that the words are Greek, and that the Hebrew Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Min, is rightly rendered by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but the Question is whether in this place, where there is a Comparative in the Case as the Gramarians call it, that Preposition Min be truly rendered by the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Greek Writer had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where frequently the Seventy and Aquila 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thirdly in the same Chapter Simon conjectures, that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall keep, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall bruise, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou shalt bruise. But the nice Vossius objects, that the latter is not Greek, because the word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future. But the less squeamish Grotius does not disprove the future 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is also in the Edition of Complutum: besides some of the Grammarians have noted that from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future. The rest I omit as being of little moment, that I may not seem to carp at trifles. Only I cannot pass by one thing, which the sikful Ship-Carpenter Vossius observes upon these words of Genesis Chapter 6. ver. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Make to thyself an Arch of four square Wood He denys in opposition to Simon, that any Ship can be built of Planks or flat Board's, but of square Trees or Timber, which are most fit for the building a Ship, as being that which not only affords the Materials of Building, but also Pitch to Pitch the Vessel. I will not deny but that Cedar, Fir and Pines which are Vossius' four square Trees may be very proper to Build a Ship, but why he should deny that Plank or flat Board's are not to be sastned to the Ribs of any Vessel I do not apprehend. But let us proceed to somewhat of more moment. Lastly, that draws towards an end, Vossius out of his malicious spirit against Simon, endeavours to bring an Odium upon him, while he equals him to Spinosa the Jew, in those things which he asserts concerning the uncertainty of the Old Testament. However, by and by, as it were correcting himself, he confesses ingeniously that Spinosa was deservedly condenmed by Simon as unlearned, and with frivolous Arguments denying the received Authors to be the real Authors of those Books. But they show themselves more unlearned than Spinosa, who presently think the Books of Scripture new written by the Persons whose Names they bear. The vile and erroneous part of Spinosa is to be condemned; but therefore all that he speaks concerning the Sacred Scripture is not presently to be condemned; because he agrees in some things with men of conspicuous Piety and Learning. But whereas in this part Simon has not only distasted the most Learned Vossius, but also some other persons of no less Note, who have not forbore to Vomit forth their most virulent Poison against his Critiea Sacra, it will not be amiss to clear the truth of that Argument a little more plainly.  
In the first place, there is nothing that Simon has written concerning the public Notaries of the Hebrew Nation, but what these Diminutive Saint and nice Stomached Scholiasticks are extremely offended at. For those public Registers, they together with Eusebius, and some of the Fathers call Prophets, who not only committed to Writing the Transactions of their own Times, but also took care of those Books which were written by the former Prophets and were kept in the public Registries, almost in the same manner as Esdras is said to have reveiwed the Sacred Writings after the return of the Jews from Babylon, and to have put them into that method which is still observed both by the Jews and Christians. There is nothing in this Assertion of Simon, which has not been approved by most of the Fathers and them the most Learned amongst the Rest. Read but the Preface of single Theodoret, one of the most Eminent Divines of the Eastern Church, to the Book of Kings, where he explains the whole matter, and freely and without any scruple asserts, that there were several Prophets among the Hebrews, of which every one was wont to Write the Transactions of his own Age, and that the greatest part of those Books are now wanting, as is easy to be found in the History of the Chronicles. He adds that those Books which we call the Books of Kings were a long time after taken out of those Books with Theodoretus, 
Diod. in lib. 1. Sam. Mas. praef. Com. in J●s. Sanct. praef. in lib. Reg. Perer. praef. in Gen.  Diodorus, Procopius, and others, not a few, consent. To whom I may add the most Learned Masius whom Pierius, Sanctius, Cornclius a Lapide, and other Jesuits, long and much conversant in the Sacred Writings have followed, whose words it is needless here to cite, since their Works are every where to be had. But to make this matter yet more plain, it may be perhaps from the purpose to run over the several Books of Sacred Scripture, and to take a short hint from every one.  
The First that appears is Moses, whom the constant Tradition both of Jews and Christians make to be the Author of the five Books of the Law. But as to him the Jewish Rabbis seem to be the more religious, who maintain that there is not so much as one word, nay not so much as one syllable which did not proceed from God, and was dictated to Moses. Quite otherwise the most part of the Christians, who affirm that some of the Books of Moses, were added a long time after; either by Esdras, or some others who had the overveiwing of them. Neither does St. Jerom presume to attribute to Moses some words of the Pentateuch, as it is now extant, following in this particular the common Opinion of the Doctors of the Church, who constantly affirm that the whole Law was reviewed and corrected by Esdras a most learned Scribe, Whether you will, saith St. Jerom, that Moses was the Author of the Pentateuch, or Esdras the restorer, I will not gain say. But whether Moses committed to Writing the whole History which we have under his Name, or in part commanded it to be transcribed by the Notaries that Registered the public Transactions of his time, is the Question. However, be it how it will, Moses shall still be thought the Author and Writer of the whole Law, as has been most excellently observed by Simon, because those Scribes, if there were any in his time, were wholly at his Devotion. And indeed we find nothing in the whole Law that does fix the Authority of those sort of Scribes. And yet had they not been constituted by Moses from that very time, the Hebrew Commonwealth had been deficient in what neither the Egyptians nor any other Eastern Nation wanted. Now that there were Writers of Annals ever since the time of Moses the most Learned Jesuit Sanctius endeavours to prove in these words. 
Proleg. 4. in Paralip.  I believe there were in the former Ages the words of Days, Commentaries, Ephemerideses; and that there was diligent and sedulous care, lest oblivion of Time should obscure the Nativities and Posterity of Men considerable, which seems to me to have been certain from the very time of Moses; I spare the names of others who have the same Sentiments. And I wonder that a late Writer, of the Order of the Seraphris, inflamed with a Seraphic Zeal should condemn, in his Biblic Inquisitions, this Opinion as Impious, and curse the Authors of it. But as I am informed, that Seraphic Doctor, though he understands neither Latin nor Greek, is a person of most insolent ignorance and of the Sect of those who blaspheme what they understand not. 
Judas 8.  Some are offended, and perhaps the more delicate Vossius, for that Simon in his Critics affirms, that some of the Books of Moses were added afterwards. But Simon is no Innovator in this particular, as one that has to back him the most skilful Interpreters of the Sacred Scripture Masius, and Pererius, who has transferred all Masius' words into his Preface to Genesis, Bonfrerius, Cornelius a Lapide and many others. Their Opinion also pleases me, says Pererius, who believe that the Pentateuch a long time after Moses, was as it were filled up and rendered more plain by the Interlineation of many words and sentences, and better methodised for the continuation of the History. In like manner Bonfrerius considering some words of Genesis which he suspects could not be written by Moses, 
Com. in Cap. 36. Gen. v. 31.  has these Expressions. I had rather say that some other Hagiographer added somethings afterwards, then ascribe all things to Moses performing the part of a Prophet: Not much unlike to this speaks Cornelius a Lapide upon the same place. 
Com. in c. 36. Gen.  These words seem to be added after Moses 's time, by some who digested the Diaries of Moses. Nay Huetius himself in answer to Spinosa objecting that some things were added to the Books of Moses, 
Dem. Evangel. prop. 4. c. 14.  so replies that he seems not to gainsay. We confess, says he, that Esdras the Restorer of Scripture, if any places more obscure or difficult than others occurred, stuffed here and there, into the Sacred Writings, for explanations sake, some things of his own. Moreover seeing the Sacred Writings are propagated by so many Disputations, that never so many Exemplars were ever known of any one Book, no wonder if what has happened upon other occasions to other Books should happen to this, that some Notes added by Pious and Learned Men in the Margin, should at length creep into the Text. Lastly, those relations at the end of Deutronomy concerning the Death and Burial of Moses by Joshua, or rather by the Senators of the Grand Sanhedrim, of which Joshua was the Chief, are vulgarly thought to be added to the rest of the Text. For it was the Custom that the public Transactions should be registered in the public Acts by those who were appointed for that Employment; in which Sense Moses is said to have written some things in the Volume of the Law of the Lord, that is, the Covenant which he had made with the People. To say truth there are many things extant in the Pentateuch, which plainly declare that the Books of the Law were written by Moses. Thus we read in Exodus, Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And in Deuteronomy; After Moses had writ the words of the Law. 
Exod. 24. Deut. 31.  But these and many other passages of the same kind are only to be meant of some parts of the Law of which mention is made in those places, as Simon has demonstrated. Whence Jerom Oleaster, 
Prol. in Pent.  a great Hebrician and perfectly read in Scripture Learning denies that it can be effectually proved by Scripture, that Moses himself was the Author of the Law which we have under his Name.  
Next to the Pentateuch, is the Book called Joshua, and which the following words seem to prove to have been written by Joshua. And Joshua wrote all these words in the Volume of the Law of the Lord. That is, Joshua after Moses' Decease, 
Jos. 24.26.  or his Scribes by his Order set down in the public Registers, the Transactions of that Time; in which Sense they are said to be as it were added to the Volume of the Law. Nevertheless, 'tis strange to see how they wrangle among themselves who handle this Argument; so that even St. Austin himself durst not positively affirm Joshua to be the Author of the Book which goes vulgarly under his Name. Whether that Book, says he, which is called, Jesus Nave, were written by him, meaning Joshua, or by some other person? Theodoret affirms, That it was not written by Joshua, but taken out of some later Book; and among the modern Authors, the learned Massius asserts, That it cannot be said, that all those things which are now extant in the History of Joshua, 
Com. in c. 10. Jos.  proceeded from himself. He also confirms what has been already mentioned concerning the public Scribes and their Employments, and extends his Arguments to other Books of the Scripture. The Opinion of the Talmudists is, That Joshua wrote his own Book, and eight Verses of the Law. But the judicious Rabbi Isaac Abravanel, scrupled not to differ from them, and asserts himself induced so to believe not only by those words which are added at the end of the Book of Joshua, And after these things, Joshua the Son of Nun Died: but by reason of many other passages that frequently occur in the Context itself, of which he denies that Joshua could be the Author. Of which sort, the first is, that concerning the twelve stones which he set up in the midst of Jordan, 
Jos. 4.9.  of which it is said, and they remain there to this Day. To which the Author of the Book of Joshua presently adds these words: 
Jos. 6.8.  The Name of that place is called, Galgala to this present Day. I pass by many other expressions of the Nature frequent in the History of Joshua, and which Abravanel maintains could not be written by Joshua. Had Joshua, saith he, wrote all these things, would he have said, To this present day? To these things he adds what we read in the History of Joshua, concerning the Danites taking Lachish by assault, which nevertheless did not happen till toward the end of the Judges, and consequently long after Joshua's Death. But these and other passages of the same Nature, do not serve so much to prove that Joshua, or rather the Scribes that were under him, Registered the public Transactions of the time, as to show that other Scribes afterwards reviewed those public Acts, and added several clauses and intervening passages to unite the Sense and Series of History, and for Explanations sake.  
Nor does the Book Entitled, Shoftim or Judges, seem to be written but in the same manner, as being full of the same Expressions. Wherefore D. Huetius follows the judgement of Dorotheus in this particular, who affirms, That the Scribes of that Time Recorded in Commentaries, the Transactions which happened under the Judges, out of which Saemuel afterwards composed the Book of Judges. Who that Dorotheus was, I do not at present Dispute: it is enough from thence to infer, that Simon's Opinion was not of Yesterday, by which he constitutes public Scribes in the Hebrew Nation, who Recorded the public Transactions of their Times, whose Collections other Scribes or Prophets embodied into those Histories which go now under the Names of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings; this opinion is confirmed by the Syrians. For we read at the end of the Syriac Exemplar, these words added: But for the Book of Judges, 
Exced. Usser. Tom. 6. Pol, Angl.  though the Name of the Author be not set down, it is known that it was wrote by some of the Priests of the Sons of Aaron, who in the times of those Judges officiated in the Priesthood. The last cited Dorotheus, refers the Book of Ruth also to the same Scribes, which seem much more probable than the Opinions of those wherein there is nothing of sure Foundation. Concerning both, thus Sixtus Senensis. It is said that Samuel Collected the Book of Judges, and added the Story of Ruth the Moabitess; 
Bib. 8. lib. 3.  Some think that Ezekiel, others that Esdras was the Author of both Books.  
As for the Books of Kings, Theodoret has made these Remarks upon them; That there were many Prophets among the Hebrews, of which every one wrote the Transactions of his Age, and hence it came to pass, that the first Book of Kings is called, both by the Hebrews and Syrians, The Prophecy of Samuel: soon after he adds, They therefore who wrote the Book of Kings, wrote them out of those writings long after as their leisure served them. And some while after he thus expresses himself, concerning the Books of the Chronicles. There were some other Historiographers, who digested those things that were omitted by others, which Book so written they called, Parah Pomona, the remainders. As to the first and second Book of Kings, which go under the Name of Samuel, Sixtus Senensis adds these words: The Book of Samuel is said to be written by the Prophet Samuel, partly by the Prophets Nathan and Gad. Samuel Collected the Acts of Eli, Saul, David, and his own, which are related in the first Book of Kings to his Death. Nathan and Gad wrote the Books of Kings from the Death of Samuel, to the end of the second Book. What Sixtus Senensis, writes in this place, though in general, I may not think them remote from Truth, yet if they be specially weighed, they cannot be sure in every part: for that as to all those things which are related by Samuel to his Deaeth, many passages declare, that they could not be written by him. For it is hardly to be believed, that he writing of the Transactions of his own time, and of which he was an eye-Witness, should write these words. Therefore neither the Priest of Dagon, 
1 Sam. 5.5.  nor any that come into the House of Dagon, tread upon the Threshold of Dagon to this day. In like manner neither could those things be related by Samuel, concerning the Ark in the next Chapter, where it is said, and the Stone remains in the Field of Joshua the Beshemite to this Day. To this we add, That Samuel could not be the Author of that Clause which we find in his History. Heretofore to every one spoke that went to take Counsel of God; for he that is at this day called a Prophet, was then called a Seer. However, notwithstanding all these Objections, it is probable, that the History which goes under Samuel's Name was written by himself till the Relation of his Death. And as for those things which are alleged to the contrary, that there was a review of some Scribe, or Prophet, perhaps Jeremiah, as some think, who added some things for Explanations sake; tho' others choose rather to add these Additions to Esdras and his Collegiates. The Syrians also affirm, That the first and second Book of Kings, were called the third and fourth in the Latin Versions, were written by a certain Priest, whose Name was Johanan.  
As for the Book of Chronicles, 
Sal. Comment. in Paralip. Kimchi praef. in paralip.  or Parilapomena, by whom they were Collected, there is some reason to question. Most of the Jews will have Esdras to be the Author of them: which R. Solomon, and R. David Kimchi, asserts to be the Tradition of their forefather's, making also Aggai, Zachary, and Malachi, assistants to Esdras. Yet not so, that they should be said to write the History anew, but only to have reform the Ancient History of the Kings of Israel and Judah, rejecting those things which did not seem so proper for their purpose, and adding some things which were omitted in other Books of Sacred Scripture: from whence they derived the Name of Paralipomena among the Greeks, which word afterwards crept into the Latin. Wherefore St. Jerom not improperly calls the Book of Chronicles an Epitome of the Old Testament. 
In Epist. ad Paul.  Nevertheless he reports the Opinion of the Jows concerning this thing, with whom Grotius also agrees, who believes these Books to have been written by Esdras, and by the Jews, to have been called, Dibre Hajamin, the words of the Days, or taken out of the King's Diaries. As for the Book of Esdras, the greatest part of it was written by himself, as the Transactions therein contained do manifestly declare. But Nehemiah confesses himself in the Front of the Book, to be the Author of the second Book of Esdras.  
The Book of Psalms is by the Jews, called Sepher Techillim, or the Book of Praises, which sometimes St. Austin seems to believe to have been all of David's composing; nor does he scruple to ascribe those to David, which it is manifest were written long after his time, because he was both a Musician and a Prophet. Nor could the Names of Asaph, Jeduthun, and other Musicians, said to be the Authors of some of the Psalms, beat off St. Austin from that Opinion, because that David might supply the Matter, which afterwards they polished and set to several Tunes. But St. Jerome is more in the right, who asserts the Psalms to be theirs, whose Names they bear in the Titles, that is david's, Asaph's, Jeduthuns, the Sons of Core's, Eman's the Ezrahite, Moses', Solomon's, and theirs whom Esdras comprehends in the first Volume: with St. Jerom also most of the Jews agree. And the Prudent Aben Ezra affirms, That the Psalms were made by them whose Names are prefixed, 
Praef. in Psalm.  though there are some who have no Name at all. But in this that Rabbi corrects St. Jerome, because he does not absolutely pronounce the Psalms to be made by them whose Names are prefixed, but that those which carry the Names of David and Solomon were either theirs, or composed from them by the Musicians. Yet Christ seems to attribute the whole Book of Psalms to David, where he says, And David himself says in the Book of Psalms. But Christ only spoke according to the common Opinion of the Jews; for they called them generally David's Psalms, not that they thought them to have been all compiled by him, for the Matter itself speaks the contrary; but because he was the chiefest of all the Authors, and for that he is called the most excellent Singer of Israel. Yet the abovecited Aben Ezra writes, that there are some of the Rabbis who attribute the whole Psalter to David, and acknowledge him to be a Prophet.  
The Book which is called the Book of Proverbs, is generally said to be solomon's, whose Name it carries at the beginning; though the whole Method of that Work seems to demonstrate, that it was nothing but a Collection of Sentences, which being first gathered together by Solomon and others, were afterwards embodied in one Volume; That Solomon composed many Parables those words prove, which he speaks of himself. 
Eccles. 12 9  And because the Preacher was wise he still taught the people knowledge, he sought out and set in order many Proverbs, which are numbered up to be above three thousand in the third Book of Kings, of which at this day no more are extant then what we find in the Holy Writings. 
C. 4.32.  To the first nine Chapters of that Work the Name of Solomon is prefixed, and other fifteen Chapters which also bear his Name. And this Aben Ezra believed to be the second part of his Parables or Sentences.  
The third part of the Proverbs gins from these Words of the 25th. Chapter, v. 2. It is the Glory of God to conceal a thing. Which distinction was made by them, who reduced the Books of Scripture into that Order which is now observed: for it is not to be believed, that Solomon fixed his Name to his Proverbs, but only the Scribes who divided that Work into parts: And so, that Verse which we read at the beginning of the 25th. Chapter. These are the Proverbs of Solomon, which the Men of Ezekiah King of Judah Copied out. Aben Ezra believes to have been written by Sobna, who was King Ezekia's Scribe. And indeed, I am ready to believe, that Sobna, and others of King Ezekia's Scribes, did extract out of the whole Volume those Sentences, of which the first is, the Glory of God, etc. and this the Word, which the Men of Ezekiah Copied, clearly demonstrate.  
The fourth part of the Proverbs of Solomon, begin at the beginning of the 30th. Chapter; where we read in the Latin Edition, the Words of the Assembler, but in the Hebrew Text, the Words of Agur. But who that Agur and Assembler was, the Interpreters of Scripture do not agree among themselves. The ancient Jews, as R. Solomon testifies, will have Solomon so called, as if we should say a Collector or Assembler of Sentences, for that Agar in Hebrew signifies to Collect: the Sense of which the Latin Interpreter has rendered in Translating it, the Words of the Collector or Assembler. The same Opinion R. Levy Ben Gerson illustrates, where he says, Solomon seems to have given himself the Name of Agur, in respect of the Sentences which he has Collected in this Book. But perhaps Aben Ezra, and Grotius following him, with more reason suspects this Agur, to have been the Theognes' or Phocylledes of those Times, out of whose writings Solomon might Collect some Sentences, which he digested into one Volume with other Proverbs. Lastly, there is a fifth part of the Proverbs of Solomon, contained within the 31st. Chapter which is the last, and that under the Name of King Lemuel; who that Lemuel was is not known. Most of the Jews believe, that Solomon is meant thereby, as Christ is intended by the word Immanuel, as Aben Ezra asserts: and the reason of that Appellation he takes from hence, for that Lemuel signifies God with them because that in the Reign of Solomon, as Aben Ezra testifies, one God was worshipped among the Hebrews. But there is no reason we should be solicitous about the Word Lemuel, especially when the Seventy say nothing of it, and as they read, so they have Translated the words of the Context quite after another manner.  
As for the Book which in the Hebrew is called, Cobaleth, and by Us Ecclesiastes, in Latin it is called Concionator, or the Preacher, though most of the latter Jews will have Cobeleth to signify a person, that Collects, because that Book contains several Proverbs upon sundry Occasions. Of this Opinion are R. Solomon and Aben Ezra: and as he says, Solomon in another place is called Agur, for the same Reason, as David de Pomis speaks. 
In Lexi. Heb  Titolo del libro nomato Ecclesiastes composito da Salomone, significa Congregatore, per Congregare●e raccore in quel trattato diverse opinioni de gl' huomini la Maggior parte de quali sono false. The Title of the Book called Ecclesiastes, composed by Solomon, signifies a Gatherer together, from Collecting and gathering together in this Volume the opinions of Men, the greatest part of which are false. But some of the Jews, according to the Testimony of R Solomon, agree with the 70 in the Interpretation of the word Cobeleth, believing it to signify a Person that Preaches in some Congregation. But as to the Author of that Book the Rabbis do not agree among themselves. For the Talmudic Doctors ascribe it to Ezechia, the later Rabbins to Solomon; and these are backed by the words of the Text; in which there are some Passages that cannot well be meant of any other than Solomon; therefore it is most probable, that the Talmudics only meant that that same Writing was taken out of Solomon's Works by King Ezekiah, or by Men appointed by him. The Christian Interpreters also acknowledge no other Author of Ecclesiastes, excepting some few, among whom is Hugo Grotius, who affirms that Book to be of a later date, composed under the Name of Solomon; for proof whereof he alleges, that he has many words collected thence, which are not extant, but only in Daniel, Esdras and the Chaldee Interpreters. St. Jerom writes, that the ancient Jews had some thoughts of obliterating this, among the rest of Salomon's Works thrown by, because he asserts the Creation of God to be vanity; wherein St. Jerom agrees with the Talmudists and later Jews; 
Jerom. Com. in 12. Eccles.  but every one knows that it is the Custom of those Doctors to feign many things of their own Heads.  
By who the History was written, that is entitled Esther, is uncertain; but as to the time when it was written, almost all the Jews and Christians agree: For whether the Authors of it were the Senators of the Grand Synagogue, as the Talmudic Doctors believe; or Esdras, which is the Opinion of the Fathers; or Mordecai, as Aben Ezra more probably believes, and the Book itself seems to testify, there is no dispute about the time when it was written. Therefore Hugo Grotius does not conjecture amiss, when he says that Esdras added to his own, and the Book which Nehemiah wrote, The History of Esther, which happened in the middle of those Times, of which the Transactions are related in those Books, and which Grotius also acknowledges to have been written by Mordecai.  
That the Song of Songs had no other Author than Solomon, the very Title itself declares; and it is certain from the third Book of Kings, that the same Solomon composed both Proverbs and Songs: But this, because it was the best of Salomon's Songs was therefore called The Song of Songs, that is to say, the most Excellent Song. Yet some do question, whether it were written by Solomon, as it is now extant, or whether it were culled out of the whole Volume of his Songs. However for that Song, wherein Solomon is introduced, discoursing with the Sunamite, as a Bridegroom with a Bride is very difficult to explain, not only by reason of the Expressions somewhat over confident, and frequent Similitudes, which our Customs will by no means endure; but also because the Names of the Interlocutors are not set done, for besides Solomon and his Spouse, there are two Chorus' of young Men and Virgins.  
But 'tis a strange thing, how the Rabbis differ among themselves about the Book of Job. The Talmudics believe it to be no relation of real matter of Fact; but that it is a Fiction or Parable to set forth a most exact and high Example of Piety and Patience, and with these some of the Christians agree. Nay there were some who did not only believe the Argument of the work to be feigned, but will have the Name of Job to be taken out of those Letters of the first Verse of the third Chapter of the Book, where we read Jobad Jom, he cursed the day. For all that went before they looked upon only as a Prologue. But the Testimony of Ezekiel, who makes mention of Noah, Daniel and Job, demonstrates that the Name of Job is not fictitious; and the prudent Aben Azra most sharply rebukes those who are of that Opinion: He also believes him to have been of the Posterity of Esau, which he gathers from the Name of the Place, 
Com. in 1 cap. Job.  where he was born. Besides the Names of Job and his Friends, and other Circumstances plainly evidence, that the story was really true, according as it is related, though it contains many things which are much more like Parable than Truth of History. But as to the Author of it, there is no certainty, some apply it to Moses, some to Isaiah, others to Job, himself, and his Friends. Nor do they agree among themselves, who make Moses to be the Author of it; some believing that it was only a Translation of his into Hebrew, out of some Foreign Language. But letting these things pass, if we may conjecture in a matter so obscure, I believe they are nearest the Truth, who fix the Composition of this Piece in the Time of the Babylonish Captivity. For the Language is hardly Hebrew, and abounding in Chaldee Phrases, bespeaks a Person, who by Foreign Converse, had corrupted his Hebrew Speech. In which Sense the words of St. Jerom are to be explained, when he tells us, That he Translated Job out of the Hebrew, Arabic and Syriac Language. To which we may add, that the Jews, whose Affairs were then in a desperate Condition, took great Delight in reading that Book as the Comfort of their Afflictions. Therefore the Author relates an Action that lately happened; and because he takes upon him to perform the part of a Poet, though the Argument be not fictitious, yet he makes use of Figures and florid Language, mixing sometimes Probabilities with Truth, observing only a Decorum between the Interlocutors.  
The Prophets by St. Austin are called Pronouncers or Publishers of the word of God to Men. For they, 
Quest in ex.  as the Interpreters of the Divine Law, preached to the People, whom they taught the Law of Moses, confirming his Authority. Then what Threats and Promises Moses had only in general promulgated, they applied to the several occasions of their Times, and that after the manner of Orators: which is the reason that they abound in Comparisons, Metaphors and Hyperboles; and not content with a plain and bare Relation, they amplify it in many words. For, saith St. Jerom, the History and Order of things is not related barely by the Prophets, 
Praef. in Lib. 18 Com. in Isai.  but all places are full of Riddles and Mysteries, one thing is contained in the words, another in the meaning, that what you would think to run over with a plain an uninterrupted Sense, you find presently involved in the obscurities of that which follows. Nor did the Prophets so altogether foretell future things, but that they frequently repeated things already done; as is evident from the Prophecy of Zachariah, which is a Relation for the most part of what was past, or was at that same time transacted. Thus that most diligent Interpreter of the Scripture in expounding some words of the Prophet Amos, blames the Exposition of the Jews maintaining in the same place a Prophecy of the future, where there is nothing said but of what is past; and s●on after he adds these words worthy observation. 
In c. 3. Amos.  We are under a scarcity of Sacred Authors, for we read of many things in the Prophets which are not to be found in Sacred History. In like manner St. Jerom attests, that the Prophets in their Relations do not mind the Order of things as they were Transacted. Among the Prophets, saith he, there is no order of History observed, while we find under the same King those things that were last transacted, 
Com. in. c. 25. Jerom.  first related, and those things that were first in action, last recorded. This preposterous Order Pseudo Dorotheus attributes to the Scribes, 
De vit. & mort. Proph.  who committed to Writing the Predictions of the Prophets as they received them from their own Lips: as if the Prophets had not wont to write down the Sermons which they made to the People. The same observation Cornelius a Lapide makes upon the Prophecy of Jeremy, who believe that Baruch, who was the Scribe belonging to that Prophet collected all his Prophecies which he had preached at sundry times and embodied them into one Volume, not regarding the Order of time wherein they were preached. And John Calvin himself confesses that the Prophecies of the Prophets never came to our hands digested into that order as they ought to have been: nevertheless he does not believe it any derogation to their Inspiration, They, 
Calv. praef. in Isai.  saith he, who have diligently and judiciously conversed with the Prophets, will grant me, that their Sermons were never digested into that method, as they ought to have been; but as Opportunity offered so the Volume was perfected. He believes that the Books of the Prophets were preserved by the diligence of the Priest, whose Duty it was to recommend the Prophecies to Posterity, though the Priests were professed Enemies to the Prophets. The same Calvin writes also, that after the Prophets had Preached to the People, they wrote out the Heads of it, which was affixed to the Doors of the Temple that all people might read them, which being afterwards taken away by the Officers of the Temple, was laid up in the Treasury for a perpetual Monument and Record of that Sermon, from whence he conjectures that the Books of the Prophets now extant were Copied. True it is, that from the words of Isaiah and Habaccuc, whom Calvin produces for his Witnesses, this one thing seems easy to be proved, that the Prophets wrote their Sermons plainly and legibly upon Tables, that they might be read by all the people: But of the Doors of the Temple, to which he believes they were affixed, they make no mention at all. Then again he Conjectures amiss, that Summaries of the Sermons were only Copied out, and not the Sermons at length. Though there is no skilful Critic who will presume to aver, that the Prophecies which we have now are entire. The same Calvin and the Divines of Geneva farther conjecture, that the Inscriptions which declare the Names of the Prophets, and the Years when the Prophecies were pronounced, were added by the Priests, whose Duty it was to keep them safe, for the satisfaction of Posterity. These are their Words: Il semble che ces Tiltres ayent estez adjoustez aux Revelations des Prophetes par les sacrificateurs et Levites, qui avoit charge de garder les Prophetes au Tresor du Temple apres qu' elles avoient este proposees au Peuple, suivant le contume des Prophets. It seems probable, that the Titles were added to the Revelations of the Prophets by the Priests and Levites, who had the charge of those Prophecies in the Treasury of the Temple, after they had been exposed to the people according to the custom of the Prophets: To which Opinion Hugo Grotius also gives his Vote. There is only this difference between him and them, that he does not attribute these Inscriptions to the Priests and Levites, but to the Men of the great Synagogue, who collected the writings of the Prophets, and set down the time of their being written. This seems more probable, because it is taken for granted among all, that the Senate where Esdras presided, did add something to the Sacred Text by way of Connexion and Explication. Thus also Thomas believes that the Inscriptions fixed to some Psalms were inserted by Esdras, 
Com. in Psal. 6.  and were done, partly as things were then acted, partly according to what happened. Lastly it is is very probable that those Histories which are inserted in some of the Sermons of the Prophets were added by the same Senators, when they reviewed the Sacred Books, and formed the Canonical Scripture as now we have it, which is the reason some believe those words were inserted in the 51. Jeremy. Thus far the words of Jeremy. Which conclude the Prediction of the Prophet, in regard the following Chapter is no Prophecy, but a History taken out of the end of the 4th Book of Kings. And in this the Rabbis agree with most of the Christian Doctors. For R.D. Kimchi testifies that those words which run on to the end of the Prophecy of Jeremiah, do not belong to the Prophecy, only that he who Copied the Book inserted here the story of the Israelites being carried away Captive, 
Com. in c. 51. Jer.  as it is in the end of the Book of Kings. On the otherside, Abravanel conjectures that Esdras or the Senators of the Grand Assembly, were the Authors of that Supplement, as the History of Ezechia was tranferred out of the 2 Book of Kings, cap. 18. into the Prophecy of Isaiah. From all that has been said, it may be easily discerned who were accounted Prophets among the Hebrew People, what was their Office and Function, and what their method of writing. Moreover this also seems worthy Observation, that the Prophets did not only preach to the People, and foretell future events, but also digested the Histories of their times, and wrote them into the public Records. And thus Isaiah who wrote the Acts of Hosea, bears the Title no less of a Historian then a Prophet, or rather the name of Prophet among the Hebrews comprehends all those significations. So that whoever was a revealer of the Divine will, or foretold future Accidents, or wrote the Translations of his Time, was called a Prophet. From whence questionless it came to pass that the ancient Jews adorned the Histories of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, with the Titles of Neviion Prophets, because they were written by Persons who being full of the Holy Spirit, were called Prophets. In which sense Josephus affirms, that in his Nation, Books were not written by every one, but by Prophets only. Jonathan also has rightly understood the force of that word, who instead of the Hebrew word Navi Prophet, sometimes mixes another word in his Paraphrase which signifies only Scribe; as if Prophets were the same with Scribes. And thus much concerning the Sacred Writers. I pass by the Apocryphal Books which the Jews do not admit into their Canonical Number, because their Authors, as the word Apocryphal signifies, are uncertain, and hidden in obscurity. Let the Learned Vossius therefore forbear to bark at the most worthy Simon, a Person so well deserving of the Sacred Scriptures, who has published nothing concerning the Writers of the Old Testament, but what has been already approved by Persons most Grave and solid, and highly Eminent both for their Piety and Learning, Into a wicked Heart Wisdom shall not enter.  
FINIS.