where it differed from the Senfe of the Hebrew: Yet his Tranflation is quite another Thing from the Vulgate, having been too fcrupulous in adhering to the Words of the Text, according to the utmoft Rigour of Grammatical Rules, which makes his Tranflation obfcure. alfo been mifguided in fome Places, having affected too much to follow the Explication of the Jewish Rabbies. He has alfo altered the commonly-received Names of Men and Cities, to fubftitute in their Places others, pronounced according to the Punctuation of the Majorites. It muft, however, be granted to be a very ufeful Work; it is exact and faithful, and very proper to explain the literal Senfe of the Hebrew Text.

Arius Montanus only revifed the Tranflation of Pagninus; in which he altered fome Words, which he did not think gave the exact literal Senfe of the Original. His chief Aim was to tranflate the Hebrew Words by the fame Number of Latin ones; fo that he has accommodated his whole Tranflation to the ftricteft Rules of Grammar, without confidering whether the Verfion be tolerable Latin, or may pafs for intelligible; and its best Use is to inftruct Beginners, who would learn the Hebrew Tongue; and as it is, I think, always printed interlinearily, with the Latin Word placed exactly over the Hebrew, it faves the Learner the Trouble of having often Recourfe to his Lexicon. The Tranflation of Thomas Malvinda, a Spanish Dominican, as it is more barbarous than that of Arius Montanus, fö it is not much in Request.

Although Cardinal Cajetan had but little Knowledge in the Hebrew, yet he undertook a Tranflation of fome Part of the Bible from the Hebrew, Word for Word, by the Affiftance of two Perfons, one a Jew, and the other a Chriftian, both well fkilled in that Language. But he took care to avoid those barbarous Expreffious he must have ufed, if his Tranflation had been ftrictly and grammatically literal.

Ifidore Clarius, a Monk of Mount-Caffin, and afterwards Bishop of Fuligno, only undertook to reform the Vulgate nearer to the prefent He brew Text: But though he tells us, that he corrected above eight thousand Paffages in the Bible; yet he confeffes, that he paffed by fome where there was fmall difference between the Senfe of the Vulgate and the Original, to give as little Offence as might be to Catholicks, which he must have done, had he made too many Alterations in the Vulgate Verfion.

Thefe are all the Tranflations of Note of the whole Old Teftament done by Roman Catholicks from the Hebrew Text, not reckoning the Verfions of particular Books, as of the Pfalms, by the learned Simeon de Muis, who has been very careful in retaining both the Senfe, and the Words of the Vulgate, as far as could be done without Injuftice to the Hebrew Text. His Verfion is good Latin, and intelligible, without Barbarifm, or any Affectation of Elegancy.

If your Curiofity lead you to fee a ftrictly literal Tranflation of Se lpture into English, Mr. Johnson, in his Holy David, before mentioned, has given a Specimen from Mr. Ainsworth, who tranflated the whole Book of Pfalms from the Hebrew. The Pfalm Mr. Johnjon has chofen. (but he could not choofe amifs) for a Sample of a literal Verfion is

he

the LIX. I will only here tranfcribe the Preface, and the two first Verles. To the Mafter of the Mujick. Corrupt not Michtam of David, when Saul fent, and they kept the House for to kill him. Deliver me from mine Enemies, O my God: From them that rise up against me, fet thou me on high. Deliver me from the Workers of painful Iniquity: And fave me from the Men of Bloods. This Ainsworth was a Prefbyterian, and one that found great Fault with the Tranflation ufed in our Church.

Sebaftian Munster, a German Monk, who turned Protestant about the Year 1529, was the first of that Denomination, who tranflated the Holy Scriptures of the Old Teftament out of Hebrew into Latin. Though he was very careful to keep clofe to the Hebrew Text, and even to retain fome of its Idiotifms, yet it is neither unintelligible nor barbarous. Huetius (though a zealous Romanist) gives him the Character of a Man well verted in the Hebrew Language, whofe Style is very exact and conformable to the Hebrew Language. And Du Pin (from whom I take almoft all I fay of thefe modern Latin Tranflations) days, that, "Truly, his Tranflation is the moft literal, but at the fame "Time the moft faithful, of any done by Proteftants." I am forry there fhould be any Proteftants fo weak, as well as wicked, as wilfully to miftranflate any Paffage in the Bible: Yet as Du Pin, who (though a Papist) is acknowledged by Proteflants to have been of great Candour and Impartiality, does affirm, that there is not a ftrict Fidelity observed by all Proteftants in their Tranflation of the Scriptures, I fear there is Ground to think that it may be as he fays. But if it be fo, thofe Prateftants must indeed be equally weak and wicked, who fhall wilfully miftranflate. For they must be fenfible (if they would rightly confider) that fuch Miftranflations give their Enemies (who will foon difcover fuch unfaithful Tranflations) a great Advantage over them. But as he gives no particular Inftances of fuch unfaithful Doings, I hope he is mistaken. There may, and always will be, fome Miftakes made by the best Tranflators of fo large a Book as the Holy Scriptures; but if they are not wilfully made, and with fome apparent Defign to ferve a Caufe, they ought not to be charged with Want of Faithfulness

The Tranflation of Leo Juda, a Zuinglian, printed at Zurich, in the Year 1543, and afterwards reprinted by Robert Stephens, in the Year 1545, in two Columns (one containing the Vulgate, with the Notes of Vatablus) is written in a more elegant Style than Munter's: But this Author recedes fometimes too far from the literal Senfe; and in fome Places changes the Expreffions for better Latin, but which are more remote from the true Senfe, and don't exprefs with the fame Force the true Meaning of the Hebrew Text. He also gives himself fometimes too much Liberty to determine the Senfe of the Hebrew Text, according to his own particular Opinion.

But at the fame Time he has not taken near fo much Liberty as Sebaftian Chatillon, commonly known by the Name of Catalio, who having taken a Fancy to give the World an elegant Latin Verfion of the Bible, has mixt Expreffions borrowed from profane Authors with the Text of Holy Writ. His whole Style is affected, effeminate, overcharged with falfe Rhetorick, and has nothing of that noble Sim; licity

and

and natural Grandeur, observed in the Originals, and in other Versions. He is too bold in his Expreffions, and, after all, does not always write good Latin.

The Verfion of Tremellius and Junius, has much more of the true natural Simplicity: The chief Hebraifms are preferved, and the whole exactly conformable to the Hebrew Text, without Obfcurity or Barbarity. But then they are not always fo confcientious (this is Du Pin's Charge against them) but that fometimes they put in more than is in the Text, and add fome Words to extort the Senfe they would give it. They likewife frequently recede without the leaft Neceffity from the Words of the Vulgate, instead of which they often put others which are neither fo good nor fo noble.

Andrew and Luke Ofiander, have acted with more Refervednefs in their Edition of the Bible; for they have contented themfelves to add to the. Vulgate fuch Corrections as they believed ought to be made according to the Hebrew Text, without the leaft Diminution of the Text of the ancient Verfion; but have inferted their Amendments, printed in a different Character from the Text of the Vulgate, which may breed fome Confufion. For which Reafon, it would have been more proper to have printed the Differences of the Hebrew Text in the Margin.

The Latin Bible mot common in England (I mean of thefe modern Tranflations) is that of Tremellius and Junius, with the Greek Testament tranflated by Beza. But I think the Vulgate is the only Latin Tranflation made Ufe of in our Univerfity Schools.

Thefe many new Latin Tranflations gave Occafion to the Council of Trent to establish the Authority of the Vulgate in a particular Manner. Therefore in the fourth Seffion of that General Council (as they were pleafed to call themselves) in the Year 1546, they made the following Decree. Infuper eadem facro-fancta Synodus confiderans non parum Utilitatis accedere poffe Ecclefiæ Dei, fi ex multis Latinis Editionibus, quæ circumferuntur facrorum librorum, quænam pro authentica habenda fit innotefcat: Statuit et declarat, ut hæc ipfa Vetus et Vulgata Editio, quæ longo tot feculorum ufu in Ecclefia ipfa probata eft, in publicis Lectionibus, Diputationibus, Prædicationibus, aut Expofitionibus, pro authentica habeatur. Et quod cam nemo rejicere, quovis prætextu audeat vel præfumat.

The Proteftants ftrenuoufly objected againft this Decree, and faid, as we learn from Chemnitius in his Examen of this Council and its Decrees; Hoc non eft tolerandum in Ecclefia, ut pro iis quæ Spiritus Sanctus in fontibus Hebraicis et Græcis fcripfit, ea que vitiosè ab interprete reddita, vel à librariis mutata, mutilata vel addita funt, tanquam authentica nobis obtru-" dantur, et quidem ita ut non licet, infpeclis fontibus, ea rejicere.

募

The Romanifts on the other hand, in Defence of this Decree, deny that it equals, much lefs prefers, this Verfion to the Original. They fay, as we learn from Du Pin's Compicat Hiftory of the Canon of Scripture, where he treats of the Latin Tranflations: "That the Intention "of the Council was, that, amongst all the Latin Verfions, this alone "fhould be made ufe of in publick Sermons, Difputes, and ConferThis authentick Qualification however does not imply an "exact Conforinity in all Refpects to the Original Writings, fuch "as have been dictated by the Holy Ghoft, or an Exemption from all

ences.

"Errors

"Errors whatsoever: But this Verfion deservedly claims this Title, as "being morally confonant to the Original, and that both for its Antiquity and Exactness it ought to be preferred before other Tranflations. For it was not the Intention of the Council, either to prefer "before, or to compare this Verfion to, the Original, but only with "the other Latin Tranflations. This may be feen at the very Begin"ning of this Decree, where it is declared, that the whole Intention "is to make the World understand, which among all the Latin Edi❝tions of the Bible ought to pafs for authentic. Ex omnibus Editionibus "Latinis quæ circumferuntur. There were at the Time of the Sitting "of this Council many Latin Verfions of the Bible published, fome "by Catholicks, fome by (fuch as he calls) Hereticks; fo that while "they made ufe, in their Citations, of feveral different Verfions, this "Confufion proved the Occafion of great Contefts. To avoid this "Inconveniency, the Council gave the Preference, among all other "Larin Tranflations, to this moft ancient, which had been approved " of in the Church for many Ages before, and which could not be "charged with any Error, either in Faith or Morality, and which was morally conformable to the original Text. This Version is "commanded to be used as the only one in all Sermons, Conferences, or other publick Acts; without the leaft Diminution however of the Authority and authentick Qualification of the Original, or of the "Chapter, Ut veterum Diftin&t. 9. which ordains, Ut veterum librorum "Fides de Hebræis voluminibus examinanda eft, ita novorum veritas Graci " fermonis normam defiderat."

He confirms this Interpretation, which he has given of the Canon made at Trent, from the Council itfelf's having made an Acknowledgement of fome Defects in the Text of the Vulgate, and ordered the fame to be corrected. He likewife obferves that those who were prefent at this Council, and made a Part of it, and all that have made Apologies for it, have explained this Decree, juft as he has done. The Council referred the Correction of the Vulgate, (which by the Multiplicity of Copies, and the Carelefuefs of Tranfcribers, had contracted a Multitude of Faults) to the Care of the Pope. But it was near forty Years before any Care was taken in this Matter For this Order for correcting the Vulgate was made in the Year 1546; but the Correction was not entered upon until the Pontificate of Sixtus V, which began in the Year 1585. Those who were employed by that Pope in this Work, were directed to revife the Text after the ancient MSS; and where there was an Ambiguity or Variety in the MSS. there they fhould have Recourse to the Hebrew and Greek, to determine which Reading ought to be preferred. This Work being finifhed, the Pope took great Care to have it fairly and correctly printed in the Vatican, and affures us, that he had with his own Hands corrected the Errors of the Prefs. And, by his Bull, prefixed to this Edition, (which was published 1590 at Rome) "He declared, with the Advice of the Cardinals "deputed for that Purpose, according to the Plenitude of his Power, "that this Edition of the Old and New Teftament, being without "Question the fame Verfion declared by the Council of Trent to be authentick, and printed with all the Exactness imaginable, fhould be

"read

read only in all the Churches; forbidding any Impreffion to be made "for the future of this Verfion, that should not be conformable to this, ❝or to add any various Lections in the Margin: Ordaining at the fame "Time, that all the Books of the Offices of the Church should be "corrected according to this Edition, under the Pain of the great Ex"communication incurred ipfo facto, to be reserved to the Pope; and "other Penalties mentioned in the fame Bull at Santa Maria Majori, "Mar. 1, 1589." But Pope Sixtus V. dying foon after he had publifhed this Edition, and prefixed his Bull to it, three other Popes alfo dying within two Years after him, this Edition was foon fuppreffed. And

Pope Clement VIII, who fucceeded to the Papacy in the Beginning of the Year 1592, did that Year publish another Edition very different from this in many Places, which he fortified by his Authority as the only authentick one; forbidding by his Bull, dated Nov. 9, 1592, to print any other for the future. Dr. Thomas James, the first Keeper of the Bodleyan Library at Oxford, a Man of great Learning and Industry, compared these two Editions, and collected the Differences between them with great Exactnefs; which amounted to above 2000. It is true some of them are but trifling, but many of them (as Du Pin isforced to acknowledge) are of no fmall Confequence. Clement VIII. has more clofely followed the Hebrew Text, and his Edition is much more correct than that of Sixtus V; though he expreffes himself in far more moderate Terms, in his Preface prefixed to his Edition.

The Proteftants have very juftly obferved, that thefe two Bulls of Pope Sixtus V, and Clement VIII, which are fo contrary the one to the other, are a demonftrative Proof that the Pope, even in Cathedrâ, is. not infallible: For, if Pope Clement's Bull was right, that of Pope: Sixtus was wrong; and vice verfâ. What Answer the Partifans of the Court of Rome, who maintain the Infallibility of the Pope, give to this, I know not. They may cavil at the Argument, but I think they cannot answer it. Matter of Fact is a ftubborn Thing, and will not yield to Sophiftry. But whatever becomes of the Pope's Infallibility, we ought to have a duc Regard for the Latin Vulgate, whofe Antiquity. may juftly render it venerable, and on that Account make it useful to determine the true Reading, when the original Hebrew or Greek may, be ambiguous. There appears alfo a Kind of facred Simplicity or Plainnefs in the Style, which none of the later Tranflations have been able to reach.

Having, I think, faid enough of the Greek and Latin Tranflations, I muft now give you fome Account of the Samaritan Pentateuch. I need not tell you, that thefe Samaritans were the Pofterity of thofe Nations which the King of Affyria brought from Cuth, and other Parts of his Empire, to repeople the Country which belonged to the ten Tribes (which under Jeroboam, the Son of Nebut, revolted from the House of David) after he had carried those ten Tribes into Captivity, of which the Scriptures give us an Account 2 Kings xvii. Where we find, that becaufe they feared not the LORD, he feat Lions among them, which flew fome of them: Wherefore the King of Affyria fent back a Prieft, who taught them how they fhould fear the LORD, and fo

they