overcame the first restorer of the Masora But whether he wasted his Patrimony in maintaining those Centuries that Bombergh hir'd as Vossius eagerly contends I shall neither sollicitously inquire neither is it to the purpose Much more might be added to what I have already produc'd and perhaps proper enough to the business but I am afraid least the learned Gentleman should bring me to the Bar for a Semi Rabby and a Favourer of the Jews Therefore let us come to the Examination of his little Treatise concerning the Oracles of the Sybills 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 Sybills 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 fetch'd 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 quâ—cksighted Gentleman had already observ'd that the Jews in the time of Aquila had for the nonce corrupted the Hebrew Manuscripts and had expung'd above 2000 Years that they might make it out that the Messiah's time was not yet come But in this place more perspicatious then 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 deprav'd 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 belong'd 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 believ'd but of the Hereticks 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 Hereticks out of the sacred Scripture but from certain Tradition or from the Doctrine of Christ propagated by the Apostles and their Successors Apostolick 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's 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 Arabick word Hegyra as if it were to be deduc'd 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 stil'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Stranger revolted to Mahomet by them also call'd 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 Rabbies In the next place I would fain know from what Oracle of the Sybills the Learned Gentleman gather'd 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 Prophesies 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's besides and for that reason they give that Title to some Kings who were well affected towards them And therefore Cyrus is call'd 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 signifie 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 reckon'd as Canonical with the rest of the Prophetick Books that the Modern Canonical Scripture both of the Synagogue and Church is maim'd and lame while the Books of Enoch Elias and some others are left out Prophets 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 Patriarchs 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 Sybils Orpheus Phocilldes and several others In a short time if it so please the Heavens we shall have
condemns his Version and calls it Rabbinical But that most learned Father encountring those Reprovers that know how to find fault but could not mend practised the Critical Art and in his Writings sufficiently satisfy'd those persons that made such a noise against him Nor indeed was it so much to be wondâ—ed at that St. Jerom in some things more seriously considerative and furnish'd with a better stock of Oratory made no scruple to vary from the Ancients For Justice never defends manifest Errors I know indeed that in matters of Faith the Consent of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church carries something of Authority But he is neither generous nor religious who in matters that concern not Faith is afraid to depart from the Opinion of the Fathers and had rather believe other mens Writings then his own Eyes or Experience St. Austin of old thought far otherwise of himself who wishes that other men would judg of his Works I would have no man Aust de don Persev c. 21. saith he so devote himself to all my Writings so as to follow me unless in those things wherein he finds me not to Err. Therefore have we no reason in this particular to agree with Vossius who contrary to the Opinion of St. Jerom would have the 70. Interpreters to be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost and free from all manner of Error Nay as if he had been asham'd to have given those Interpreters the Names of Prophets as if it were correcting himself he affirms the word Prophet among the Antient Writers to signifie no more than Interpreter and those to be Prophets according to the Testimony of the Apostle who rightly interpret the Scriptures But why does Vossius here seek Subterfuges and retire to prophane Learning meerly to shew St. Jeroms Error where he writeth that a Prophet is one thing an Interpreter another as if he had contradicted the Apostle who in several Places uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Interpretari or to interpret But St. Jerom is in no Error in this particular who best knew the Force of that word when he observes a Greek Poet to have been call'd a Prophet by St. Paul Hierom. Commeat in Ezech. But in his answer to the Objections of the late Critica Sacra Vossius shews himself a faint Combatant ever and anon betaking himself to his lurking holes But what reason he had to produce the Opinions not only of the Apostles and Evangelists but of Philo Festus Plato and others Voss in resp ad Objâ—ct Crit. sacr p. 6. to make it out that not only they who foretold things to come were call'd Prophets but they who unfolded either past or present Predictions we cannot find though indeed there was in that matter no cause of difference between him and the Author of the Critica Sacrae While St. Jerom denys the 70. Interpreters to have been Prophets and asserts them to have been only Interpreters in that same place he thought a Prophet to be no other than a Person inspir'd with the Holy Ghost in which Sence all the Fathers had call'd those Greek Interpreters Prophets nor has Vossius made use of that word Prophet upon any other Accompt who has so confidently asserted their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Inspiration De sept interpret c. 25. I am not ignorant says he that I shall not only incur the reproof but the hatred of many for having such transcending thoughts of this Version so that I can hardly forbear to give it the Title of Divinely inspir'd And indeed I desire to know what reason can be imagin'd why I should not believe that which has been believed by all the Christians from the Aposties time excepting only some few too much favouring the Jews of later Ages Among which no question but he meant St. Jerom. Then he endeavours to prove more at large their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Inspiration opposing their Arguments who affirm they could not be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost or the Gift of Prophesy the Jews affirming That during all the time of the Second Temple the Gift of Prophesy and Inspiration ceas'd Which says he is altogether Rabinical and Fictitious But no less idle is that which he produces against St. Jerom in these words Seing there the words Prophets and Prophesie were used in so large a Sence even among the Hebrews Ibid. c. 26. they are not to be admitted who deny the 70. Interpreters to have been Prophets as being the Chief Priests of the Jewish People and not only Interpreters of things past but of things likewise to come As if it had been the business in question whether the Title of Prophets might be applicable to the Interpreters while the word Prophet signifies no more than an Interpreter when he had endeavoured to prove in so many words that they were Prophets who were inspir'd with a Holy and Prophetick Spirit In resp ad Critic sacr Nay he esteems them injurious to St. Jerom who abuse his Testimonies to overthrow the Authority of the Seventy Interpreters When he himself being now of riper Years was of opinion that their Errors are not to be imputed to the Interpreters themselves who Translated the Holy Scripture by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost but to the Scribes and Amanuenses But we have already made appear what was the Sentiment of St. Jerom concerning this present matter which Vossius understood not for now he was arrived at Years of more Maturity when he explained his Books by Commentaries And how often he there corrects not only the Scribes but the Interpreters themselves there is no man can be ignorant Tho I deem the History carry'd about under the Title of Aristaean to be an Illegitimate Birth yet I willingly acknowledg that the Interpretation which is attributed to the 70. Interpreters was made by the Jews of Alexandria in the Reign of Ptolemy Philodelphos and copyed out of the Hebrew Manuscript in Chaldee or Babylonic Characters in regard the Jews made no use of any other Letters for transcribing the Scripture but only those after their Return out of Captivity But as for the other Greek Version which Vossius believes to have been made by a Person learned neither in the Greek or Latin Tongue badly and negligently copyed from the same Hebrew Exemplar in Samaritan Letters it is a meer Fiction taken out of the Pseudo-Aristobulus who nevertheless speaks not one Tittle of the Letter wherein Vossius maintains the same Copy to have been written neither did any body besides Vossius ever dream of 'em so far is it remote from all probability of Truth They mistake indeed as Vossius well observes who believe that Version was deriv'd from any Chaldaic or Syriac Paraphrase there being no such thing extant at that time and it being as certain that Philo takes the Hebrew and the Chaldee Language promiscuously for the same However we may have some reason to conjecture be had some
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 thâ—se made by Catholicks AFter the rise of new Hereticks in the Western Church who casting aside Traditions would acknowledge no other rule and standard of Religion besides the Scriptures there were several warm disputes betwixt Divines of all perswasions about this very thing The more prudent and moderate Catholicks did not absolutely condemn the Translations of the Scriptures into the mother Tongue of every Nation because it was allowed of by the Fathers But they judged it requisite to stop the increase and progress of Heresie which sprung from some misinterpreted and perverted Texts of Scripture to forbid the promiscuous reading of them in the vulgar languages by reason of several inconveniences which attend it without a due regard to the Persons Times and some other circumstances Faith according to St. Paul comes by hearing and 't is 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 't is very probable that if the Apostles had never write any thing about the Christian Faith yet our Religion by the help of Tradition had been transmitted unto us entire and perfect This is the general opinion of the Catholick Doctors who do not positively forbid these Translations if so be all persons in all times and places be not promiscuously permitted to read them for 't is their Maxim Non prosit potius quic quid abesse potest Now 't is easily prov'd that almost all Christians before the rise of the Protestant Innovators had the liberty to peruse the Scriptures in their native Tongues For what other reason should the Grecians prefer the Septuagint to the Original Hebrew but that the Greek was their Mother Tongue Likewise the People of Italy had the Bible Translated into Latin because they naturally spoke it and for the same reason the Eastern People had their Syriack Coptick Arabick and Armenian Translations which for brevity I shall omit 'T is true that some Translations are now read among these People which they do not understand as the Latin is at this day among the Italians but this is no convincing argument that these Translations were never in the Languages familiarly known and understood by the common People Now I pass to the Translations of the Bible into the modern Tongues Jacobus de Varagine is highly esteemed among the Italians for his Translation of the Scriptures into their Tongue But now there are some other Italian Translations much in vogue which carry the names of Nicholas Malermius Abbot of the Monastry of St. Michael de Lern and Anton. Bucciolus and in some Editions there is a Preface in which the Author discourses at large of the Translations of the Scriptures into the vulgar Languages but there is this difference betwixt Brucciolius and some other Interpreters He turn'd the Bible immediately out of the Original whereas they only translated it from the Latin Interpretation which was usually read in the Western Churches There are several Editions of this immediate Translation from the Hebrew the first of which the Author dedicates to Francis the First King of France in the Year 1530. afterwards there came forth three other Editions in the Years 1539 40 and 41 but the Edition in the Year 1540 is accounted the best because there are several very useful Marginal Notes in it together with an Epistle of Antonius Brucciolius to Renata the Wife of Francis Duke of Ferrara in the defence and commendation of the Translations of the Bible into the Vulgar Tongues yet this Italian Interpreter seems to be too weak for the management of so noble and weighty a design seeing he sticks not closely enough to the Hebrew Text but follows other Translations especially that of Pagnin whose very errors he has copied out adding some more of his own in some places which he did not understand For in the 8 Chap. of Nehemiah where Pagnin perverts the Original by rending it In lege Dei expositi he translates it Nulla lege d'Iddio dichiarata differing as much from Pagnin as the Hebrew Text For because he searched not into the Hebrew Copies he did not take notice that the word which fignifies Lex is of the Feminine Gender and that the Participle passive which he render'd by Dichiarata was of the Masculine Gender and so while he pretends without consulting the words of the Context to correct Pagnin whom he did not well understand he falls into a downright error I shall forbear to say any thing of the Translation of Jacobus de Voraign because I never saw it Passevinus who had a Copy of it gives no very great Character of it but others highly commend it But I think I may confidently affirm that very few of those Translations which are taken out of Latin Editions can be accurate and correct seeing it happens very often that the Latin Interpreter cannot be understood without some knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue hence it is that Jacobus de Voraigne Mattermus and others who turn the holy Scriptures out of Latin into another Tongue are often guilty of gross mistakes There were several Translations of the Bible into French long before Calvin was heard of Gall. Vers For before the Catholick Religion was reform'd or rather deform'd by him a French Translation of the Scriptures was read in Geneva and the neighbouring Mountains which was compos'd in the year MCCXCIV by one Guiars des Moulins a Canon of Aria in Artois formerly under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Terovenne a Copy of that Translation is still kept in the publick Library at Geneva and another at Paris in the study of the Famous Henry Justelle and I am of opinion that this is the Translation which is mention'd by Robert Olivetanus Rob. Olivet Praes in Bibl. who sent the first Bible in French to Genevah Likewise there is another French Translation in some Libraries in France which is believ'd to have been done by Orosmes Canon of Rouen in the time of Charles the fifth and Car. Molinaus gives out that he had some loose Manuscript Peices of it Moreover 't is evident that the Divines of Lovaine were not the first as is commonly believ'd who Printed the French Translation of the holy Scriptures We have a Translation publish'd at Antwerp in the year 1530 by Martin L' Empereur with the Priviledge
at that time from the Jews for while the State of the Jews continu'd there were publick Scribes who committed to writing the Affairs of the Nation and they were called Prophets because they were inspir'd with the Holy Ghost though they did not Prophesie of things to come However it is not necessary to believe that they who wrote the publick Affairs of the Nation at that time should be Prophets for that the Senators of the Grand Council who as we know were inspired overlook'd their works but seeing that the publick Authority of the Jewish Senate never Register'd those Books among the Canonical 't is 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'r 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 then the sacred Books and therefore the Fathers call'd them rather Ecclesiastical than Divine They would have them read in the Churches saies the Author of the Exposition of the Creed attributed to Rufinus but not to be Cited as Authentick Confirmations of Faith and only upon those Grounds it is that the Church of England reads those Books in their Congregations yet I doe not beleive that ever any one here except Vossius ever dreamt of introducing the Books of the Sybills 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 endeavour'd 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 seem'd 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 own'd but by a few and which are produc'd rather to support their own opinions than to maintain the Truth are not to be look't upon as the general judgment 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 adjudg'd 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 learn't 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 acurate 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 Syncerity 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 referr'd to the Oracles of the Sybills and the Prophesies 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 Apostolick 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 Errour then which there is nothing more absurdly Fictitious For they know well who have any knowledge of Ecclesiastial 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 Inchanter yet manifestly foretold many future Mysteries concerning Christ as if those things which are register'd in Scripture concerning Balaam could be wrested to the present Argument or that it were lawful by this Example to defend and justifie those Books which we find not only to be stuft 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 produc'd 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 Prophesie of Zorobabel which speaks very plainly concerning the Messiah and was published by the Jews in a Prophetic Stile and in none of the meanest sort of Language But leaving these things let us prosecute our intended Subject Besides what has been hitherto alledg'd 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 restor'd several Books which the Jews expung'd Thus St. Austin asserts that the Book of Maccabees were not received by the Jews but by the Church for Canonical