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 Self-wise 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 priviledge belonging to other Prophets Priests and Judges who were endu'd 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 lyes 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 on-set 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 deprav'd 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 believ'd in regard it could not be that a Nation scatter'd far and near should all unanimously Conspire to Corrupt so many Copies and so far assunder dispers'd But Morinus more quick-sighted then St. Austin violently maintains the Fact not only to be beleiv'd among the Jews but also to be by them esteemed another Article of their Faith Now whether that were prov'd by Morinus by sufficient Argument is not our business to enquire It is enough to have shewn that Morinus upon whom Vossius depends in most things could not be induc'd 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 flourish'd 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 teize the modern Hebrew Exemplars and to establish the Authority of the antient 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 easie to sell smoke to the ignorant vulgar and to boast of gawdy 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 liv'd above 200 Years He adds That they from the near affinity between the Chaldee and Syro Chaldaic Languages which the Jews then 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 err'd or never were deceiv'd no Man will pretend to say but such a one as understands nothing of the Hebrew and never compar'd their Translation with the Hebrew Text even in those places wherein they read no otherwise then we do at this day where it is easie 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 Mâ—rinus took care to have expung'd because they did not relish his Palate But we took them out of Capellus's 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 Criticks was not overmuch prejudic'd 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 vers'd in these Matters wherein he gives a Judgment 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 vitious defective and mutilated let not their imperfection be preferred before the Original Truth and Authentick Text nor through a certain perverse wicked wrangling and contentious envy or rather damnable ill custome be advanced before the much better and more acurate Translations Therefore in the Opinion of Capellus there might be a better and more acurate 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. Colv. Asses void of light and understanding clad with a little Professors Gown instead of a Shield carrying the Masoretic Bibles garnish'd 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 Aegypt Asia
70 would have clamour'd against me as one Sacrilegious and not fearing God especially they who when they differ in the Truth of Faith and follow the Errors of the Manichaeans incense the minds of the ignorant as if they could shew any thing changed from the ancient custom rather desired to err then to learn truth from one whom they Emulate And after something more of this Nature he again adds against Ruffinus and others his followers who reviling his Translation reproach him for a Heretick and an Apostate Our Latin yea envious Christians and that I may speak more plainly Hairs of the Grummian Faction bark against me why we discourse according to the Hebrew If they do not believe us let 'em read those other Editions of Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion let 'em examin the Hebrews not in one place but in several Provinces and when they find them all agree with me in my Error or Ignorance then let 'em understand themselves to be overwise and rather desirous to sleep then learn and let 'em inhabit in the 70 Cells of Alexandrian Pharos Lastly he does not spare the very Eyebrows of the Bishops to use his own words who endeavours to oppress whomsoever they see powerful in the Church and to Profess the word of God But I spend time in vain his Apologies against Ruffinus being every where to be had In which he strenuously defends the reason of his Version and shews how much he profited in his Study of the Scriptures under his Jewish Masters and how much by the same Instructors Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and several others advantag'd themselves who while they dispute about the Scripture and endeavour to prove what they say produce the Jews for Witnesses and Patrons of their Opinions And because Ruffinus had objected to St. Jerom that while he made his Translation he was not inspired with a Prophetic but a Judaic Spirit He answers Would it not seem tedious or rather would it not savour too much of vain Glory I could shew thee what an advantage it is to wear out the Thresholds of good Masters and to learn Art from Artificers For St. Jerom wrote an Epistle to Pammachius entitled concerning the best manner of Translating wherein he refuses the Calumnies of one Palladius who at the Insligation of Ruffinus had bespattered his Translation He there shews by many Examples that it is not the duty of a good Translator to translate his Authors verbatim when neither the 70 Interpreters nor the Evangelists follow'd that Method of Translation Aquila saith he a Prosel te and contentious Interpreter who endeavoured to Translate not only the words but the Etymologies of words is deservedly rejected by us Concerning the 70 Interpreters in the same Epistle he has this expression It is new too long to enumerate how much the 70 have added of their own how much they have omitted which in the Exemplars belonging to the Church are distinguish'd by Lines and Asterisks These and many other things of the same Nature he throws together into the same Epistle to vindicate his own method or Translation somewhat more free and loose then some of the rest from the Calumnies of his Adversaries and to the end his Detractors might understand That the sence and not the words were to be considered in Scripture Let 'em not think saith he that the State of the Church is endangered by me if through hast of dictating I have omitted some words Readily therefore St. Jerom acknowledges that in framing a new Translation of the Sacred Text he chiefly consulted the Jews as his Leaders and Instructors neither does he question but that many things might slip him as a man so far was he from the Opinion of those who asserted him in that undertaking to be inspir'd with the Holy Ghost whom Mariana egregiously refutes What avails it saith that learned Jesuite after so many Ages to strain for new Fictions to set up new Prophets Shall we call him a Prophet who in the framing his Translation follows sometimes the Greek Interpreters sometimes the Jews of his Age upon whom he more frequently depends Can he be said to be a Prophet who frequently but chiefly in his Commentaries upon the Prophets doubts of the Genuine Signification of the Hebrew Words 'T is true I knew Pagninus and other Writers especially of the Protestant Belief who deny'd that Version to be St. Jeroms which for many Ages has been read in the Eastern Churches but if you except some few Books of that translation which it is certain were not rendred by St. Jerom as they are extant in the Edition no person truly candid will deny but that this Interpretation which goes about under the Title of the Vulgar was really made by St. Jerom though there be something in it of the ancient Latin Version which before St. Jeroms time was only esteemed in the Church So that in some places which however are very few there does appear the reading of the Ancient Version or else a mixture of both And clear it is that that same Translation was made by some native Latinist from the Hebrew Original Now who in the whole Latin Church beside St. Jerom at that time understood both Languages that is the Hebrew and the Latin But they that desire to know more of these things let them consult Austin Eugubin and John Mariana in their Writings upon this Subject Now that we may more perfectly understand the Nature of that Vulgar Edition we must take notice that St. Jerom tho he confesses himself not to have expressed the Words of his Text verbatim and like a Grammarian nevertheless sometimes he sticks more close to his Words then the 70 or the other Interpreters so that he is not always like himself in his Translation Again we are to observe that the modern Lection of the Hebrew Text is not so often to be corrected from the Translation of St. Jerom as it disagrees from it for thohe make profession to have followed the Hebrew Truth yet sometimes he forsakes it to follow the Greek Interpreters Neither do I think that the Hebrew Exemplar of his Masters which he frequently opposes against the 70 Interpreters is to be preferred in all things seeing that St. Jerom himself had no Original Exemplar of the Hebrew Text neither do I think we are to give Judgment upon the Version of St. Jerom by the later Translations which frequently vary from the other but we must have recourse of necessity to other Grammer Rules then those which have been set down by our late Instructors as hath been at large demonstrated and which it is no difficult thing to confirm by many Examples I shall therefore produce only enough to puzzle the less skilful We find according to the vulgar Edition in the oth of Zachary ver 11. these words Thou also in the Blood of thy Testament hast sent forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit but according to the Hebrew Exemplars it ought to be rendred I have sent
but had it at the best hand of the Ancient Interpreters Arias Montanus at the expences and by the Authority of Philip the 2d King of Spain republished the Complutensian Polyglot with no small augmentation which in process had the spacious Title of Kings Phillips Bible A Book which beside the Hebrew the Septuagint and St. Jerome's Latin Translation of the Complutensian Edition gives you a fair prospect of the Chaldee Paraphrase upon the remainder of those Books in the old Copy which Cardinal Ximenius gave to the Library at Complutensian together with the Syriac Translation of the New Testament done into Latin Neither would Arias Montanus influenced by Ximenius his example suffer his Book to contract acquaintance with any Translation save that of St. Jerome's and yet that a Latin Translation might not be wanting to render the Hebrew Text verbatim he inserted in the end of his Book San. Pagninus his Latin Translation with his own animadversions whereby the Hebrew might be better understood This grand elaborate and princely undertaking tho it was approved of by the Divines of Spain Lovaenium and other learned and pious Men nay even by the Universal Bishop himself Gregory the 13th yet it groaned under the common fate of all Books was carp'd at and pinched by the men of Leeth These were the detracting sort of People who objected that Arias Montanus had put in Execution a most bold rash and nefarious attempt in daring to publish that corrupt and monstrous Paraphrase which Ximenius had ordered to be laid up in the Colledge Library at Complutensia And there were some Jews who thinking that the Chaldee Paraphrase was a great Pillar to keep up the superstitions of their Religions wished all health and happiness to King Philip the 2d a Defender as they supposed of their Rites and Ceremonies In the mean time one Franciscus Lucus of Bruges a great Divine and a man of vast Learning took up the Cudgels ägainst these impertinent Detractors and made an Apology for the Chaldee Paraphrase Besides Arias Montanus declares that Cardinal Ximenius himself had thoughts of publishing the same Chaldee Paraphrase and that he had thoughts of adding a Latin Translation to it only putting out the Fables Doubtless that princely Work deserves to be had in estimation with all Divines though it be defective in some particulars as carrying along with it all those deformities which we took notice of before in the Conplutensian Bible For the Greek and Latin Copies are the same that were published by Cardinal Ximenius Arias Montanus did not so much reform San. Pagninus his Latin Version as he did corrupt and spoil it for pressing the Hebrew which too closely he frequently commits toto casu and making a great noise about a little Sense does often miss of the proper import of the words Besides Arias caused a better method and more Copious Index to be published as containing more Lexicons and Grammars than that of the Complutensian Bible though many unnecessary things might be left out which make nothing for his purpose The liberal expences of Cardinal Ximenius and Phillip the Second were far exceeded by an Eminent Person of this Age Michael Le Jay of Paris who undertaking to Publish the Polyglot Bible at his own charge spent his whole Patrimony in Printing of it before he had finish'd so great and wonderful a work First then they took care to have all that was already extant in the King's Bible reprinted in a fairer Character and to these he joyn'd the Samaritan Books viz. the Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch with the Samaritan Translation and the Syriack and Arabick Versions of the Old Testament distinguished by points with their Latin Interpretation a thing scarce credible ever to have been attempted In this business he was assisted by a very Learned man Gabriel of Sion that came from Mount Libanus in the Holy-Land and in some few Volumns by Abraham an Ecchellensian one of the same Nation But that part which contains the observations of several worthy men upon the various Editions of the Bible is wanting in this work and through the negligence of those that were intrusted with it it happen'd that the Copies of the Greek Translation by the Seventy Interpreters and the Latin one by St. Jerom were both composed anew the very same with those in the Kings Bible the Greek Edition after the Vatican Pattern though corrected and amended was omitted and the Copies of the common Edition were laid aside though they had been by Commissions from the Popes strictly examined after the most ancient and best approved Books and that by the Hands of several Excellent Persons and judicious Criticks However I pass by those faults which occasioned by the Transcribers oversight in the Syriack and Arabick Books do yet in great part remain Besides that the Latin Expositors not perfectly understanding the Syriack and Arabick words have often sailed in expressing the sence Lastly to this vast Work are perfixed certain Prefaces which recommend it's usefulness But in this the brave Mr. Le Jay proves his own Enemy for depending totally upon such men as were partly byass'd in their Opinions by prejudice especially John Morin otherwise a man of competent Learning he extolls the Jewish Books and sticks not to prefer them before the ancient Translations of the Church but what seems scarce 0 credible he possitively asserts that it ought to be granted as a certain and undoubted truth that that common Edition which passes about in the vulgar Tongue of the Catholick Church is the true and genuine Original of Holy Scripture But the Fathers themselves at the Council of Trent durst not pass any such decree concerning the Latin Books To no purpose has that Liberal Gentleman drained his Purse in Publishing such voluminous peices of the Polyglot Bible if it appear that the Latin comprehends the proper and Primitive Scripture and that we must have recourse to him as the true Fountain In like manner vindicating the interpretation of the Seventy Elders he draws an Argument solid enough in his Judgment from a Mahometan Author who as to matter of Chronology rejected the Hebrew Books of the Jews and Samaritans and adhered to the Greek Interpreters from whence Mr. Le Jay concludes that the Seventy Interpreters were in the highest esteem not only amongst the Christians but Mahometans too Indeed 't is very probable that Mr. Le Jay to credit the antiquity of the Arabick 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 sence and often both at once out
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 scrupl'd not to tax him of inconstancy as well in this as other Arguments And in our times Ribera who was very industrious upon St. Jerom's Works perceiving the difficulty of reaching his sense affirms that Jerom was not to be read by a droanish and illiterate Reader Yet you shall observe many who though they hardly ever saw Jerom will pretend to make him their Patron who of necessity must be often deceiv'd who rashly cite not so much his Opinion or why he thinks so as what he speaks Therefore that we may not appear like to them it will be expedient to explain the Genius of St. Jerom and what his method of Writing is that by this means we may understand what he wrote stedfastly as his own Opinion what upon probability and from the dictates of others Jerom in his Youth was a great declaimer in the Schools and one that us'd to bandy Arguments on both sides well read in the Books of the Grammarians Rhetoricians and Philosophers especially the Peripateticks and Stoicks as being the most skilful in Logick He had made Aristotle his Interpreter Alexander the Aphrodisian his Familiars whose Commentaries he had made free of the Roman Language L. 2. Apoi ad vers Russin Almost from our Cradle saith he we convers'd with Grammarians Rhetoricians and Philosophers Which made him frequently deride his Antagonists as ignorant of Logick and such as had never read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristotelis the Predicaments of Aristotle nor his Treatise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or concerning Interpretation nor his Topicks How much he profited in Aristotles School he abundantly shews and tells us what leaden Adversaries he had in point of Logical Defences We have read most Learned men saith he those Aristotelian Principles as well in the Schools as flowing from the Fountains of Gorgias We have read that there are several sorts of Elocution and that it is one thing to write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for exercise sake and another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for positive Instruction The first is only a Vagous way of Disputation propounding now one thing now another arguing at pleasure speaking one thing and thinking another c. By this means Hierom wip'd off the accusation of childish Inconstancy as if he maintain'd Paradoxes for his own pleasure What he seem'd to affirm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or singularly those things he makes out to be only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or secundum quid that is for Governments sake and accidentally And thus in one place he calls Origen Master of the Church in another Heretick declaring that he only prais'd him for what he was praise worthy I call him our Origen for his great Learning not for the Truth of his Assertions The same things he speaks of Eusebius and upon the same account he calls Aquila sometimes a most diligent and acurate Interpreter sometimes contentious and idle Yet Jerom cannot be said to differ from himself who according to the variety of the Argument has a different Opinion of one and the same Interpreter Having thus display'd St. Jerom's Genius and his method of Writing let us come to our purpose Johannes Morinus who not unfrequently contradicts himself seems to reproach the Inconstancy of St. Jerom in reference to the present Argument in these words in Exercitat Bib. Jerom in his Youth lookt upon the Translation of the LXX Interpreters as approv'd by Christ and his Apostles at length he accus'd the Jews of envious corrupting the Bible in hatred of the Christians But being grown in years and using the company of several Rabbies for the attaining the Hebrew Language he so chang'd his Opinion that he not only asserted the Hebrew Copies to be free from all Mutilation but shew'd himself most violent in defending his Assertion But Jerom himself makes answer to Ruffinus and others who objected the same things against him that he was no such fool to forget in his Old Age what he had learnt in his Youth nor do we so invent Novelties as to destroy old things We are therefore first to consider what has been already observ'd concerning St. Jerom's method of Writing First St. Jerom being bred up in the Church had the Bible in great honour and translated the Holy Writings corrected by most Antient Copies into his own Language which was the Latine Wherefore having embraced the vulgarly receiv'd Opinion of their Authentickness he cry'd out their Authors as others did for so many Prophets that thereby he might persuade men to read them the more diligently and with the greater veneration But whether they were to be in the Catalogue of Prophets or Interpreters that he minded not as not making for his purpose being satisfied with reporting what was in every bodies mouth for the promotion of his labour But being grown older after he had studied the Hebrew Language acting the Critick he no longer spoke from other mens mouths but confidently asserted his own Opinions At length when he had brought upon himself the ill-will of many he again embrac'd the common Opinion concerning the Greek and Hebrew Copies only for orders sake and with respect to his own Interest Therefore I had rather adhere to St. Jerom in his riper years and now grown a skilful Critick than when he was young and only spake the thoughts of other men Nor is it of any moment what Morinus Objects that in these places St. Jerom seems to speak his own Sentiments and not the Opinion of others For it is familiar with St. Jerom to assert what he produces only upon probability and as the Opinion of others as if he were affirming his own Judgment of the matter In which sense are to be understood the words of that Epistle to the Galatians where he testifies 3 Epist that there are some things in the Hebrew Copies perversely obliterated by the Jews For there he speaks the Opinion of those Writers whom he had prais'd in his Preface Thus he answers Ruffinus in another place loading his Doctrine with reproaches I in the Commentaries upon the Ephesians have so followed Origen Dydimus and Apollinarius whose Opinions are certainly contrary one to another that I might not forego the Truth of my Faith What labour has been bestowed upon the Commentaries the progress of what I
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
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 follow'd Nay sometimes he does not scruple to prefer it before the Masoretic because he did not set himself to write with a mind pre-engag'd 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 Croud 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 fetch'd from them as if any Art could be better learnt from any other then they who profess it But then Vossius urges again and Confesses that the reading of the Scripture ought to be fetch'd 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 denyes that a perfect knowledg of the Hebrew Tongue can be attain'd by the vulgar Rules of the Grammarians as being confin'd 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 Rabbys of his own Age but sometimes the Seventy Interpreters sometimes Aquila sometimes Theodotion or any other whose Interpretation seem'd 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 fail'd 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 retain'd those significations us'd 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 dilligently adhering to their significations studyed to give them the most proper Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aquila labouring to Interpret by words that carryed most Authority But if Aquila apply'd the same Notions of the Hebrew Language variously in several and different places those places are to be weigh'd and Judgment is to be given whether he have swery'd truly or falsly from the Interpreters Certain it is that St. Jerome sometimes preferr'd Aquila before the Seventy Interpreters because they seem'd to favour the Jews In like manner Origen thought that Aquila had in several places more properly express'd the words of the Hebrew Context then the 70. There it is a fiction of Vossius's that there was no man among all the ancient Christians upon whom a clearer light of Hebrew truth shone then upon all the Christian Rabbies and Semi-Rabbies of our Age. For as it was most excellently observ'd 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 excells 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 then a pre-engag'd 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 then the Sence of the Sentence For which reason Jerom accuses him of deprav'd affectation but never of Ignorance which affectation Origen ascribes to his too much dilligence Now Vossius passes to other matters He denies that the Sence of Scripture can be plough'd forth of a Mute Codex which heither any man knows how to read or understand as being half maim'd and furnish'd with no other Vowels then what the Enemies of the Christian Faith have fix'd 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 confirm'd by Use and Custom amongst the Hebrews and the rest of the Orientals especially the Rabbies as now it appears For after the Invention of points most of the Oriental Bocks were set
abundantly declare CHAP. VI. Other parts of the Manuscripts in reference to the Manuscript Bibles are examined Their True Original and the Masoretick Lection confirm'd MOst of the Jewish Rabbies not unwillingly acknowledge that the Sacred Manuscripts of the Old Testament do not altogether retain that Form The Antient disagreement of the Heb. Bibles according to the Rabbies which the most Authentick and Original Copies represented and they believe that this Alteration of their Bibles happen'd after they were carry'd into Captivity at what time they had no Rabbies to read to them the Mosaick Law their Form of Worship being utterly abolish'd and their Civil Affairs in that deplorable condition that they had no time to look after their Books Therefore D. Kimehi frequently asserts in his Works R. D. Kim That they perish'd in the Babylonish Captivity and they being destroy'd nothing but confusion follow'd with many other expressions of the same nature R. Ephod R. Ephodaeus is also of the same Opinion who writes That in those Seventy years of the Babylonish Captivity corruption and confusion began to overwhelm the Sacred Writings For that as Kimchi says the Doctors of the Law were dead From thence therefore that before the time of Esdras the Sacred Writings vary'd in several places they believe it may be made out that Esdras who examin'd those Books left several Lections which he met with in the Copies of his Time unmedl'd withal in the Books which he himself examin'd and for this reason they give great credit to the differing Scriptures which were mark'd by the Criticks of Tyberias as if they proceeded from Esdras who was inspir'd with the Holy Ghost than which there is nothing more idle or remote from Truth Aben Mel. in liâ— 1. Paraliâ— This Aben Melech observes upon the words Diphath and Rodanim Diphath in the Book of Chronicles is written with a Daleth and in the Book of Genesis with a Resch Rodanim is written with a Resch and in Genesis with a double Daleth because Resch and Daleth are alike in their form and they who ever viewed the Books of Genealogies written in the Antient Times some write Daleth others Resch Therefore in the Book of Genesis the word was written one way in the Chronicles after another to shew that the word was the same whether written with a Daleth or a Resch Thus Jod and Vau are written promiscuously because they are alike in their figure And the same is to be said for the mute Letters Aleph and He in the end of a word as in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a He in the end which is the same as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Aleph in the end For Aleph and He are agreed to be both Aspirates and every one makes use of them at his pleasure Thus has Aben Melech written almost word for word from the Commentaries of R. D. Kimchi The same Aben Melech produces many other Examples of several other varieties of the same nature which he testifies to have collected out of the Tractates of R. Judas Jonas Aben Esra Kimchi c. Thus he observes Alin and Alevan to be read in Scripture promiscuously with a Jod sometimes and sometimes with a Vau. Hemeran and Hemdan with Resch or with Daleth Jaakan and Vaakan with Jod or with Vau with many others which I omit for brevities sake They never minded saith he the change of a Letter or two and he observes it to have been frequently done He also makes mention of the transposition of words and upon those words in Chronicles Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel he makes this observation Bathsceva the Daughter of Amiel she is Bathsceva the Daughter of Eliam 2 Sam. 11. which some read Barsceba Aben Mel. ad c. 3. Chron. others Bathsceba because they are near in pronunciation In the same manner Amiel and Eliam are the same but that the Letters are transposed which transposition of Letters is to be observ'd in the first place there being several Examples to confirm it in the Hebrew Copies of which the LXX Interpreters made use R. Levi Ben Gersom makes the same observation upon the word Jabes R. L. Ben Gersom I believe Jabes with an Ain to have been one of the Judges and to have been that person who in the 12th of the Judges is call'd Abetson with an Aleph For Aleph and Ain are near in pronunciation and often changed one into another Don Joseph also the Spaniard R. Joseph Comment in Chron. in his Exposition of the Book of Chronicles inquiring why there appears so much difference in the Genealogies between that Book and the Books of Moses Joshua Samuel and Kings unfolds this question in these words That Esdras seem'd to have found those words or hard names in some Compendium and so wrote them down as he found them Then observing a vast difference of names and things he presently adds Neither ought that to be a wonder for that in the Series of many Ages great alterations happen both of names and things But Esdras wrote down those Families in the same manner as he found them scatter'd in little Manuals some out of one place some out of another and in words abbreviated And therefore the Family which he mentions is described in many places without order and method Lastly The same Rabbi believes that the Jews had forgot their Genealogies and that Esdras wrote what occurr'd to his memory though it were written without order R. Jos ad l. 1. Chron. c. 9. and at several times And therefore most of the Jewish Rabbies rather chuse to accuse the Books which they believe Esdras made use of in digesting the Context of the Bible than the oscitancy and carelesness of the Scribes that came after In this indeed the Fathers of the Church agree with those Jews that both ascribe to Esdras the Title of Restorer of the Sacred Context at that time in great confusion only the Fathers believe that being inspir'd with a Prophetical Spirit he reform'd it from many faults In Prâ—fat in Psal That most admirable Esdras saith Theodoret transcrib'd those Sacred Writings which by the carelesness of the Jews and the Impiety of the Babylonians were entirely corrupted And these are rather to be believ'd than the hair-brain'd Jews who will have Esdras to publish the Scriptures deprav'd and corrupted as they were with all their faults and so they attribute all those various Lections which the Masorites denote under the terms of Keri and Cetib to the same Esdras as if those various Readings which the Criticks daily remark upon the Margins of their Books were to be attributed to men inspir'd by God We must therefore conclude that the Masorites of Tyberias by the help of the Antient Copies and assistance of good Judgments corrected what Errours had crept into the Copies of their Times through the Ignorance of the Scribes But bearing a Veneration too superstitious toward the Sacred
Writings they durst not insert into the Context the various Lections though the truth of their Authority were past controversie but plac'd them in the Margin of their Bibles with this mark Keri The Original of the various Lections in the Margins of the Heb. Bibles which is as much as in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 write intimating thus the true Lection of the word For Keri is the same as in Latine Lectio or Reading And that this is true the Manuscript Exemplars of the Bibles prove especially the Spanish which are Printed without the greatest part of those Alterations which are mark'd Keri So that by the help of those the Masoretick Bibles now extant might easily be reduc'd to their former form Nor will it be amiss here to produce some Examples of those various Lections compar'd with the Spanish Exemplar elegantly set forth about some 10 years since to which purpose let us make use of the Book of Joshuah The Masorites have mark'd the 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 Masoretick mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thy Sisters and so in Joshuah it is truly written Achothai my Sisters and needs no emendation For that way of writing is not erroneous from the Masora it self In the 4th verse of the 3d chapter of Joshua in the Context is 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 Masoretick Annotation In the same chapter v. 16. as well in the Manuscript as Masoretick Edition it is written in the Context * The proper name of a City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Keri in the Margin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the City Adam In which manner the sense teaches us it should be read so that that fault might easily be corrected without the help of other Copies by reason of the similitude between the Letters Mem and Beth especially in some Manuscripts where the Letters are dotted at the top like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the 4th chap. v. 18. the word is in the Context Bagnaloth the Keri against it is Cagnaloth as they ascended out as it is really written in the Spanish Bible with the Letter Caph and not with the Letter Beth. But in other Spanish Exemplars which I have consulted I find it written Bagnaloth with a Beth though without the Masoretick note Wherefore in this place the Masorite Exemplars vary which is evident by the absence of the Keri upon this place in some of the Bibles extant Chap. 5. v. 1. in the Context it is Gnal Gnabranou the Keri reads it Gnabram till they passed over as it is without emendation in the Spanish Edition Chap. 6. v. 8. the Context reads the word Thok'gnau the opposite Keri reads it Thok'gnei as if Vau had crept in instead of Jod which Reading the Spanish admits without any more trouble Chap. 8. v. 16. the Context reads Ba Gnair the Keri alters it Ba Gnai in Ai as if the Resch were to be cast away which the Spanish Edition does to their hands Chap. 10. v. 8. the Context reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over against which Jathir Jod cast away Jod which the Spanish Copy does without intimation which confirms the exactness of the Masoretick Corrections Chap. 15. v. 47. the Context reads Hajam Hagabol the Keri alters it Hagadol the Great Sea as it is read in the Spanish Edition So that the Doctors of Tyberias did not make their Corrections out of their own brains but took them from the choicest Manuscript Exemplars The rest I omit for fear of being tedious For thus it is manifest what we may think of the Keri and Cetib or the written and read being the marks of the Doctors of Tyberias And that it may be more manifest we shall add some few more Examples to shew that they made use of the most Antient and most Authentick Copies they could get and these out of the Chronicles with other Spanish Manuscripts Lib. 1. Chron. c. 1. v. 11. the Context read Ludiim with a double Jod therefore the Masora in the Margin adds Jathir Jod leave out Jod and reads it Ludim as it is in the Spanish Copy V. 36. In some Copies of which one was accurately Printed at Amsterdam by Judaeus Manasses over against the name Tsephi the Keri reads Tsephu with a Vau not with a Jod as it is in the cited Edition which confirms the Masora The same Edition also reads Dodanim with a Daleth as in the Pentateuch not Rodanim with a Resch as in the Vulgar Editions For Shephi v. 40. with a Jod this Edition read Shephiu with a Vau. V. 46. the Context reads Gnaiuth with a Vau after the Jod the Keri alters it Gnavith or Avith as it is corrected in the Spanish Edition Lastly V. 51. the Context reads Duo Gnaljah the Masora corrects it Gnalvah as it is in the Spanish Copy So that the Spanish Edition above recited observes no other than the Masoretick Emendations In the last verse of the 3d chap. the Context reads Hodijahu the Keri Hodavaihu as if the Jod and Vau had been transpos'd which Emendation of the Keri is observ'd in the Spanish Edition Chap. 4. v. 7. The Context reads Jetsochar the Keri alters it Vetsochar which the Manuscript Copy follows V. 41. the Context reads Hamgninim their Habitations the Keri in the Margin writes Hamgnonim as if the Jod had crept into the place of the tittled Vau. Which Masoretick correction is observ'd by the Manuscript Copy Chap. 6. v. 26. the Context reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Vau instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a Jod nor is it otherwise written in the Spanish Edition In the same chapter the Context reads Tsiph instead of Tsoph corrected by the Masorak and confirmed by the Authority of four Manuscripts In the 7th chap. v. 1. the Context reads Jashib the Keri Jashub and in one Manuscript the Masoretick Emendation is followed But for these particulars let this suffice For it may seem superfluous to note the rest seeing there is the same reason for the one as for the other For if those Lections which are added in the Margin of the Hebrew Context in most Bibles under the Directions of Keri and Cetib were but compar'd with five or six of the Spanish Manuscripts which are to be preferr'd before the rest we should find all the Masoretick Corrections to agree with them Whence it appears that the Criticks of Tyberias in imitation of the other Criticks made