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 utmost Rigour of Grammatical Rules, which makes his Translation obfcure. He has also been misguided in fome Places, having affected too much to follow the Explications of the Jewish Rabbies. He has also altered the commonly-received Names of Men and Cities, to fubftitute in their Places others, pronounced according to the Punctuation of the Maforites. It muft, however, be granted to be a very useful Work; it is exact and faithful, and very proper to explain the literal Senfe of the Hebrew

Text.

Arias Montanus only revifed the Translation 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 strictest Rules of Grammar, without confidering whether the Verfion be tolerable Latin, or may pass for intelligible; and its beft Ufe 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, fo it is not much in Requeft,

Although Cardinal Cajetan had but little Knowledge in the Hebrew, yet he undertook a Translation of fome Part of the Bible from the He brew, Word for Word, by the Affiftance of two Perfons, one a few, and the other a Chriftian, both well fkilled in that Language. But he took care to avoid thofe barbarous Expreffions he must have used, if his Tranflation had been strictly and grammatically literal.

Ifidore Clarius, a Monk of Mount Caffin, and afterwards Bishop of Fuligno, only undertook to reform the Vulgate nearer to the present Hebrew 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,

These 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 Injustice to the Hebrew Text. His Verfion is good Latin, and intelligible, without Barbarifin, or any Affectation of Elegancy.

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

the

the LIX. I will only here transcribe the Preface, and the two first Verses. To the Mafter of the Mufick. Corrupt not Michtam of David, when Saul fent, and they kept the Houfe 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 Ainfworth was a Prefbyterian, and one that found great Fault with the Translation ufed in our Church.

Sebaftian Munfter, a German Monk, who turned Proteftant about the Year 1529, was the firft of that Denomination, who tranflated the Holy Scriptures of the Old Teftament out of Hebrew into Latin. Though he was very careful to keep close 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 versed in the Hebrew Language, whofe Style is very exact and conformable to the Hebrew Language. And Du Pin (from whom I take almost all I fay of these modern Latin Translations) fays, that, "Truly, his Tranflation is the moft literal, but at the fame "Time the most faithful, of any done by Proteftants." I am forry there should 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 Papift) is acknowledged by Proteftants to have been of great Candour and Impartiality, does affirm, that there is not a strict 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 Protestants 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 discover 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 Translators of fo large a Book as the Holy Scriptures; but if they are not wilfully made, and with fome apparent Defign to ferve a Cause, 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 Munfter'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 alfo 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 Caftalis, 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 Simplicity

and

and natural Grandeur, observed in the Originals, and in other Verfions. 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 Obscurity 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 Sense they would give it. They likewife frequently recede without the leaft Neceflity from the Words of the Vulgate, inftead 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 themselves 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 Version; 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 moft 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 University Schools.

Thefe many new Latin Translations gave Occafion to the Council of Trent to eftablish the Authority of the Vulgate in a particular Man

Therefore in the fourth Seffion of that General Council (as they were pleased to call themselves) in the Year 1546, they made the following Decree. Infuper eadem facro-faneta Synodus confiderans non parum Utilitatis accedere poffe Ecclefiæ Dei, fi ex multis Latinis Editionibus, qua circumferuntur facrorum librorum, quænam pro authentica habenda fit innotefcat: Statuit et declarat, ut hæc ipfa Vetus et Vulgata Editio, que longo tot feculorum ufu in Ecclefia ipfa probata eft, in publicis Lectionibus, Difputationibus, Prædicationibus, aut Expofitionibus, pro authentica habeatur. Et quod cam nemo rejicere, quovis prætextu audeat vel præfumat.

The Protejiants ftrenuously objected against 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 San&tus in fontibus Hebraicis et Gracis fcripfit, ea quæ vitiosè ab interprete reddita, vel à librariis mutata, mutilata vel addita funt, tanquam authentica nobis obtrudantur, et quidem ita ut non licet, infpectis fontibus, ea rejicere.

The Romanifts on the other hand, in Defence of this Decree, deny that it equals, much lefs prefers, this Version to the Original. They fay, as we learn from Du Pin's Compleat 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 Versions, this alone "hould be made ufe of in publick Sermons, Difputes and ConferThis authentick Qualification however does not imply an "exact Conformity in all Respects 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 defervedly claims this Title, as "being morally confonant to the Original, and that both for its Anti"quity and Exactness it ought to be preferred before other Tranfla❝tions. 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 authentick. 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 Contests. To avoid this "Inconveniency, the Council gave the Preference, among all other "Latin Translations, 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 σε "Authority and authentick Qualification of the Original, or of the "Chapter, Ut veterum Distinct. 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 itfelt's having made an Acknowledgement of fome Defects in the Text of the Vulgate, and ordered the fame to be corrected. He likewise observes, 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, just as he has done. The Council referred the Correction of the Vulgate (which by the Multiplicity of Copies, and the Carelesness of Tranfcribers, had contracted a Multitude of Faults) to the Care of the Pope. Et 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 any 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 finished, 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 fhould be "corrected according to this Edition, under the Pain of the great Ex"communication incurred ipfo fa&o, to be referved 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 published 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 firft Keeper of the Badleyan 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, fome of them are but trifling, but many of them (as Du Pin is forced 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 these 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 Cathedrá, is not infallible: For, if Pope Clement's Bull was right, that of Pope Sixtus was wrong; and vice versa. What Anfwer 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 Sophistry. But whatever becomes of the Pope's Infallibility, we ought to have a due Regard for the Latin Vulgate, whofe Antiquity may justly render it Venerable, and on that Account makes it useful to determine the true Reading, when the original Hebrew or Greek may be ambiguous. There appears also a Kind of facred Simplicity or Plainnefs in the Style, which none of the later Translations have been able to reach.

Having, I think, faid enough of the Greek and Latin Translations, I must now give you fome Account of the Samaritan Pentateuch. I need not tell you, that these Samaritans were the Pofterity of those 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 Nebat, revolted from the House of David) after he had carried thofe ten Tribes into Captivity, of which the Scriptures give us an Account 2 Kings xvii. Where we find, that because they feared not the LORD, he fent Lions among them, which flew fome of them: Wherefore the King of Affyria fent back a Frieft, who taught them how they fhould fear the LORD, and fo

they