A compleat history of the canon and writers, of the books of the Old and New Testament, by way of dissertation, with useful remarks on that subject ... by L.E. Du Pin ... ; done into English from the French original.

CHAP. IV. Of the Hebrew Text of the Books of the Old Testament.

SECT. I. Of the Origin and Division of Languages. What was the first Language in the World. Whence the Name Hebrew is deriv'd.

BEing to Treat of the Ancientest Book in the World, it is proper to Enquire into the Origin of Speech; whereof Writing is only the Expression. Speech is the Interpre∣ter of Mens Thoughts, or the Art by which they make others to understand their Mean∣ing by Arbitrary Signs. This Property belongs only to Man, and is an effect and evi∣dent Proof of his Thinking. For no other Creature but Man hath invented Arbitrary Signs to express his Thoughts, which for the most part have no Affinity to his Sensa∣tions or Passions. The Beasts have Natural Signs to express their Grief, Hunger and Thirst; that is to say, certain Dispositions in their Body, by certain Motions, which are the Effect of their Machine. But there is no sort of Beasts that makes use of Arbitrary Signs and Rules to express Things independant on the Machine of their Body. There are no Beasts that converse with other Beasts (either by means of the Voice or other Signs) upon things that don't affect their Senses. They may indeed by force of Blows, by making much of them, or by giving them Victuals, make them contract a habit of cer∣tain Motions, and of forming particular Cries; which look like Arbitrary and free Signs, to those that know not the Cause and Origin of them. But that Beasts do naturally form a Language amongst themselves, or Invent Signs to express things, which have no relation to the Motions within themselves, is what the Experience of all Ages teaches us to be impossible. Whereas Man no sooner comes to the use of Reason, but he searches for and invents means of expressing his Thoughts; and those also upon things which do no ways relate to his Sensations or Passions. If he can't do it by Voice, he does it by other Signs; as appears by those who are born Deaf and Dumb, and express themselves by Signs as others do by the Voice.

It is true nevertheless, That of all the Arbitrary Signs, that can be made use of by Men to communicate their Thoughts to one another, there's none more Commodious than the Voice, which, by its different Articulations, furnishes an infinite number of different Words; to each of which Men fix such an Idea as they please; wherein being once agreed, they may by means thereof communicate all the Thoughts that come into their Mind. Man is by Nature provided with Organs, proper to form an Articulate Voice; a thing peculiar to himself, and which none of the other Creatures enjoy to that degree of Perfection. Having this aptitude to speak, it is easie to conceive, that he might by degrees form divers Words, join a particular Idea to them, accustom him∣self thereunto, make them known to others, and so establish an uniform Language to express his Thoughts. It is moreover easie to conceive, that as the relation there is be∣twixt certain Words, that is to say, a certain Articulation of the Voice, and the things which we would express are purely Arbitrary, they may be chang'd at different Times, in different Places, and by different Persons. Nay, it is very hard to prevent changes in living Languages, by the variety of Mens Wits and Inclinations; the different occasions of expressing our selves; the different turns of Thought; the forgetting of old Words; and the easiness which is found in one Expression beyond what is found in another; by new things, upon which we must explain our selves; by Strangers who intermix with the natural Inhabitants of a Country; and abundance of other Causes. Hence it comes to pass, that we are so far from having any just Cause to wonder, that Languages are not always the same; that on the contrary, 'tis almost impossible they should continue long in the same Condition. This might serve to give us an Account of the Origin of the divesity of Tongues, though the Holy Scriptures had taught us nothing more on that Subject.

But as it is to them we owe the Knowledge of our Original, it is also from thence that we ought to learn the Origin and Division of Languages. Now the Scripture in∣forms us, that God having created the first Man, which it calls Adam, and formed out

of the Earth all the Beasts of the Field, and the Birds of the Air, he made them to pass before Adam, that he might give them Names; that Adam nam'd them, and that the Name which he gave to each was its Name. The same Scriputre relates to us, That God made use of a Voice to forbid our Parents the eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It also represents to us the Devil, tempting the Woman by his Discourse; the Woman, answering him and seducing her Husband; God speaking to Adam and upbrading him, and Adam and Eve endeavouring to excuse themselves. All this supposes that Adam and Eve were created with a Language. For Adam gave Names to the Creatures immediately after his Creation, and before the Woman was made. If he had been Dumb, if he had not then known any Language, how could he imme∣diately give Names to the Creatures, and such Names too as have continued with them? How could Adam and Eve when newly created have understood what God said to them by Articulate Sounds, understand one another mutually and converse together as soon as plac'd in the Terrestrial Paradice? There must be time to agree on Signs, by which we express our Thoughts, time to retain those Sings, & to adapt them to all the things whereof we speak. All this could not be done of a sudden, but gradually, and demands a conside∣rable time. But that which we have reported happened soon after the Creation: And, moreover, what reason is there to think that God, who had created Man perfect, created him without Speech, which is his principal Ornament, and that he would have plac'd Adam and Eve in the Terrestrial Paradice, in a Place of Delight, Pleasure and Satif∣faction, without being able to converse together, but after a great deal of Labour and Trouble? It is then much more likely (tho' St. Gregory Nyssene seems to be of the con∣trary Opinion) that Adam and Eve had the Gift of Speech by Infusion, from the Mo∣ment of their Creation, than to imagine that they were only created with Organs pro∣per to form Words, and that in time they formed a Language to themselves.

This being suppos'd, there's no great Difficulty in explaining how the Posterity of Adam and Eve learn'd and preserv'd that Language. Daily Experience shews us, how Infants learn to speak from their Parents, Nurses and those about them. Nor is it any greater wonder, that all Mankind inhabiting still one Corner of the World, having Commerce together, and living also many Ages, that this Language should be preser∣ved among them without any considerable Change till the Deluge. But granting there had been any other, all Men being destroyed by the Deluge, except Noah and his Fami∣ly, the Language of that Patriarch was the only Language that subsisted, and easily preserv'd it self among his Descendants, so long as they continued together in that same Country. But, when before their dispersion, they undertook the building of a City and Tower, whose Top might reach to Heaven, the Lord being willing to put a stop to that rash Enterprize, sent a Confusion amongst them by changing their Language; so that not understanding one another, they could not continue that great Work, and were oblig'd to separate before they had finish'd it. Behold in what manner Moses gives us an Account of this great Event, Gen. 11. There was then (from the Deluge to the Di∣vision of Nations) but one Language in the Earth. And as they journey'd from the East, they found a Plain in the Land of Shinar, and dwelt there, and said one to another, Go to, let us make Brick, and burn them. And they had Brick for Stone, and Lime for Mortar. And they said, Go to, let us build a City, and a Tower, whose top may reach unto Heaven, and let us make our Name famous, before we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole Earth. And the Lord came down to see the City, and the Tower, which the Children of Men built. And the Lord said, Behold, the People is one, and they have all one Language, and this they begin to do; and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have ima∣gined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their Language, that they may not understand one anothers Speech. So the Lord scottered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the Earth; and they left off to build the City. Therefore is the Name of it called Babel, because the Lord did there confound the Language of all the Earth: And from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the Earth.

It is not without Reason, that I give this Narrative at large; because there are mo∣dern Authors (such as Monsieur Simon and Monsieur Le Clerk) who have dar'd to ad∣vance, That God is not the Author of the Diversity of Tongues, but only of the Con∣fusion and Dissension; which taking place amongst Men, was the cause of their disper∣sion: From whence comes the change and diversity of Languages. But whatever these Authors say, 'tis very difficult to find that to be the Sense of Moses's Words, which give us to understand naturally, that it was not the Dissension and Division of Men that occasion'd the difference of their Language: But, on the contrary, the difference of the Language which God sent among them, was the cause, that not being able to under∣stand

one another, nor to work by Concert together, they abandoned their Design and se∣parated from one another.

The Scripture does not tell us precisely the time of that Division, but says only that it happened in the time of Phaleg, to whom that Name which signifies Division was gi∣ven, because the Earth was divided in his time; as appears by Gen. 10.25. Heber had two Sons, and one of them was called Phaleg, because the Earth was divided in his time. But the Scripture does not inform us, whether that happened at the time of his Birth, towards that of his Death, or in the middle of his Life; which makes a considerable difference. Phaleg having liv'd 239 Years, the Text seems to suppose that the Division happened at the time of his Birth, because it is then that Men have their Names given them, and that his was given on occasion of this Event. If he was call'd by the Name of Phaleg, which signifies Division, as the Scripture says expresly, because the Earth was divided in his time, it was then divided at the time when this Name was given him. If it be so, this Division must be made 100 Years, or thereabouts, after the Deluge, ac∣cording to the Chronologie of the Hebrew Text. But this space of Time seems too short for that Multiplication in Number, to which 'tis supposed Mankind was then ar∣rived; therefore the Jews believe that it was at Phaleg's Death this Division happened, and say, That Heber call'd him so by a Spirit of Prophesie. But on the other hand, they don't allow time enough betwixt that Division and Abraham's Journey to the Land of Canaan, for that prodigious multiplication of Abraham's Descendants in the Land of Ca∣naan and Egypt, there being only fourscore Years betwixt the Death of Phaleg and the Passage of Abraham into the Land of Canaan. The Division of the People might be more commodiously placed in the middle of Phaleg's Life, 200 Years, or thereabouts, after the Deluge. If we follow the Chronologie of the Greek or Samaritan Text, it were easie to remove this Difficulty entirely, because, according to the first, there are 541 Years betwixt the Deluge and the Birth of Phaleg; and according to the latter 411 Years. In fine, if we keep to the Hebrew Text, and say, That the Undertaking of the Tower of Babylon, and the Division of the Nations, happened at the Birth of Phaleg, that is about 100 Years after the Deluge, we may very well suppose, that in the time of a Century the Number of Men might be multiplied enough to undertake this Enter∣prize, and to divide themselves into different Colonies for Peopling the Earth.

We have the same difficulty to find out into how many Languages Men were divi∣ded. The Rabbies count 70, because the Hebrew Text reckons so many of Noah's De∣scendants; that is, 14 from Japhet, 30 from Cham, and 26 from Sem, of whom it is said, These are the Heads of the People, and of the Nations, who divided the Earth after the Flood. According to the Greek Text, we must add two Persons, and by consequence two Languages to the Number. But we cannot infer from the Number of Noah's Posterity, contained in that Genealogie, the Number of different Languages; for divers of those mentioned in that Catalogue might have preserv'd the same Language, as 'tis certain in the Children of Canaan, who make several of the Heads enumerated in that Genealo∣gie, whose Posterity nevertheless, had only one Language, viz. The Canaanitish Tongue, which was common to all the Inhabitants of Palestina, before the Israelites were pos∣sessed of it.

It is not necessary to think, that this diversity of Tongues was as great at first as it was afterward, and that the different People had Languages altogether differing, so that they had nothing wherein they agreed in common; that the ancient Language was entirely abolish'd, and that God inspir'd Men with Languages altogether new. It is much more reasonable to believe, that God divided and diversified the same Tongue in∣to different Dialects; but so, however, that they could not easily understand one ano∣ther. This is what is properly meant by those Terms of Scripture. Let us confound their Language: In this place Ged confounded the Language of all the Earth. These Terms signifie nothing but the change of the same Language into different Dialects. There's therefore a great probability, that there was much less difference amongst the People in the World at the beginning, than there is at present; since process of Time does necessarily occasion a change in all Languages: Besides, we see the most anci∣ent Languages of the Eastern People, which are nearest the Tower of Babel, Hebrews, Chaldeans, Arabs, Syrians and Phenicians, or Canaanites, have still more Conformity to one another than others, and that they are nothing almost but the Dialects of the same Language. A Learned Man of our own Time pretends to prove the same thing of the Greek and Latin; nay, even of the Saxon, Teutonick, Celtique, British, and all others; whose Words he derives from the Hebrew. But without entring upon that Question, or upon the Particulars of those Proofs in regard of the said Languages, in the state

wherein they were for divers Ages after the division of Languages, we may rest assur'd of it as a thing altogether likely, that at the beginning there was not so great a difference in the Language of Noah's Descendants, who divided themselves into different Colo∣nies to People the Earth.

Let us come now to that famous Question: Which was the first Language of the World? We have already observ'd, that the long Lives of the Patriarchs contributed much to preserve Adam's Language in the same state; for the same Man does not ordi∣narily change his Language during his Life, but retains that which he learn'd at first: So that living for divers Ages, he preserves and teaches the same to others: the ne∣cessity they are under of conversing with him, and the easiness they find to learn it of him, occasion that they make no change therein. Adam, for Example, having lived 930 Years, and Noah being 630 Years old when the Deluge happened, in the Year of the World 1656. The latter was born some Years after the death of the former, and con∣vers'd for 600 Years with many of those that had convers'd with Adam and Eve for some hundreds of Years. It is then in a manner necessary that they understood and spoke Adam's Language. Noah's Children, born before the Deluge, did without all doubt speak the Language of their Father, and preserv'd it until the Division of the People and their Languages. The Question is, If that first Tongue subsisted amongst any of them in its Purity, when this Division happened; or, if it was corrupted and de∣generate in Dialect? This is what the Scripture says nothing of. We must own, it is difficult enough to conceive, that Noah and his Children entirely forgot their natural Language, and that none amongst them preserv'd it. Nevertheless, it seems probable enough, That in the Division of Tongues, the Primitive Tongue was chang'd into dif∣ferent Dialects, without being preserv'd in its Purity by any of Noah's Posterity. How∣ever that is, they demand, What was the most ancient Language? The Jews and some Christians have easily persuaded themselves that it was the Hebrew (a): Others give the preference to the Chaldee. The first say, That the Language which Noah receiv'd from Adam was preserv'd without change in the Family of Sem and Heber; from whom they believe it deriv'd its Name; that Abraham receiv'd it from his Father Thara or Terah, the Descendant of Heber, and that it was convey'd from them to the Israelites call'd Hebrews, because they spoke the same Language with Heber. Others say, That the most ancient Language was that spoken in Mesopotamia beyond Euphrates; that is to say, the Chaldee, spoken by Abraham, who was bred in the City of Ur of the Chal∣dees, and spent part of his Days in Mesopotamia; that having afterwards changed his Habitation, and crossed the Euphrates to enter into the Land of Canaan, he was called Hebraeus by those People; a Term deriv'd from the Name Heber, which signifies from beyond, because he came from beyond the Euphrates; that here he learn'd the Canaani∣tish Language, which was that of his Son Isaac, his Grand-Son Jacob and his Posterity; that is to say, the Hebrew Tongue.

The former alledge in Proof of their Sentiments many Etymologies of the Names of the first Patriarchs, which the Author of Genesis derives from the Hebrew. It is said, Chap. 2. Ver. 7. God form'd Adam of the Dust of the Earth, by way of Allusion to the word Adamah, which fignifies Earth in Hebrew. This Allusion is not found in the Chal∣dee. It it said, Chap. 3. ver. 20. That Adam called his Wife Eve, because she was the Mother of all living. The word Chai, whence that of Chavah is deriv'd, is Hebrew. There is no such Allusion in the Chaldee. Chap. 2. ver. 23. It is said the Woman is call'd Isca from the word Eisch, which signifies Man. This Paronomasia is not found in any other Language. Chap. 4. ver. 1. The Name of Cain is deriv'd from a Hebrew word signifying Possession, or Acquisition. In the same Chapter, ver. 25. that of Seth comes from the Hebrew Verb Schath, which fignifies to substitute. Gen. 10. ver. 25. Phaleg comes from the Hebrew Palag, signifying to Divide. That of Babel, from the Hebrew Balal, signifying Confusion. Eden, the Name of the Terrestrial Paradise, signifies in He∣brew, Delight, Pleasure. Those Derivations and Allusions have no place but in the Hebrew Tongue; whence it follows, that we must necessarily suppose that this Lan∣guage

was in use in the time of the Patriarchs, and that they spoke it, because their proper Names are derived from it.

They alledge further, to prove the Antiquity of the Hebrew Tongue, That the most ancient People deriv'd their Names from it, as St. Jerom proves in his Book of He∣brew Names. The Assyrians come from Assur, the Aramians from Aram, the Lydians from Lud, the Medes from Madai, the Ionians from Javan: Nay, even the Names of the false Gods are, for the most part, taken from the Hebrew; as that of Saturn from Satar, which signifies to hide ones self; Jupiter from Jehova, Belus from Baal; and, as some say, Vulcan from Tubal-Cain; that of Japetus, the Father of Prometheus, from Ja∣phet, the Son of Noah; and that of Ceres from Geres, which in Hebrew signifies the Fruits of the Earth. It is moreover alledged, That not only the Oriental Tongues, but likewise all the rest are derived from it. To this may be added, That the Hebrew Tongue is the most pure, the most simple; and, according to some others, the most perfect Language.

The greatest part of those, who on the other hand maintain the Antiquity of the Chaldee Tongue, answer to the first Argument, which is the chief and only one that can be of any weight, That Moses changed the ancient Names into Hebrew Names of the same signification; and bring divers Examples of this Custom from Greek and Latin Au∣thors, and even from the Interpreters of the Scriptures. Thus it is that Aquila, to imi∣tate the Allusion which is in the Name of Man and Woman in the Hebrew, made use of the Terms of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Author of the Vulgar Translation hath also imita∣ted it, by translating the Hebrew Term into Virago, deriv'd from the word Vir. Thus likewise the Evangelists changed the Name of Cephas into that of Petrus, to preserve the signification of the Syriack word Cephas, and the Allusion to Petra. It is said in Genesis, that Pharaoh's Daughter gave Moses that Name, because she drew him out of the Water. This Name must needs have been chang'd, for 'tis in Hebrew, that Moses sig∣nifies drawn out of the Water. And the Name Pharaoh's Daughter gave him, must have been an Egyptian Name of the same signification. The Authors of the Septuagint Translation, have in the same manner translated into Greek the Name of Babel by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Confusion; as Babel does in Hebrew. And Alexander Polyhistor, that of Isaac into Cheerful, according to the signification of the Hebrew word. And other Greeks have translated that of Esau or Edom, which signifies red, by that of Erythrean, which has the same signification in Greek. There's an infinite Number of those sort of changes in all Authors. The Name of Adam, which is not a proper Name, but the appel∣lative Name of Man, which was given to the first Man by way of Excellence, might have been chang'd without any difficulty, and the ancient Name, as well as that of Adam, might have been deriv'd from the Term which signifies the Earth, as the Latin word Homo is deriv'd from the word humus, which signifies the same thing. It is not likely, however, that Moses did intirely change the Names of the Patriarchs, nor is it necessa∣ry to have recourse to that Solution. 1. Because the greatest part of the Names might have the same derivation in the Chaldee; that is to say, the words Eve, Cain, Phaleg and Babel. 2. Because there are some of them which it's difficult enough to derive from the Hebrew Tongue, as that of Noah, in the Sense which the Author of Genesis puts upon it; that is to say, in the deriving it from the Verb, which signifies to Comfort; for that Verb is in Hebrew Jenhhmenou; whence, according to the Analogie of the Tongue, we must form Nohhem, and not Noah. The Name of Cain would also be more naturally deriv'd from Koun, which signifies to lament, than from Kana, which signifies to purchase. Nor do we find in the Hebrew, the Etymologie of the Name of Tubal-Cain, which is found in the Arabick, where the words Tubalon and Kunaon signifie a Plate of Brass and Iron: To which signification the Author of Genesis does plainly allude. Which shews that we cannot lay any great stress upon those sorts of Allusions and Etymo∣logies.

But admitting we should insist upon that Proof, it would only shew that some words of the ancient Language were preserv'd in the Hebrew Tongue. But it would not prove that 'twas precisely the same Language in its Purity, and without any change of Dia∣lect. The other Proofs are still more weak. Most of the Derivations alledg'd being arbitrary or uncertain; and tho' some of them might pass for true, they would only let us see that the Greeks and other Nations, took several things from the Hebrew Books; which is a Truth that every one is agreed in, and signifies nothing to the Matter in hand. The pretended Simplicity of the Hebrew Tongue, is not so well prov'd as is imagin'd; and besides, the Simplicity of a Tongue is not always an Evidence of its Antiquity. It is true, that the Chaldee, Phenician, Arabian Tongues, &c. have a great deal of Confor∣mity

with the Hebrew Tongue, but that does not prove them to be deriv'd from it: It only shews that they may be Dialects of one and the same Tongue: And why may not the Hebrew be so too?

We have no Proof, that this First and Mother Tongue did rather continue without change in the Family of Heber than in other Families that descended from Noah. On the contrary, it is certain, that the Descendants of Heber, the Ancestors of Abraham dwelt in Chaldea, and that they did not preserve the worship of the true God, as appears by Josh. 24. ver. 2. where God speaking to the Israelites says, That their Fathers dwelt on the other side of the Flood, in old Times, even Terah the Father of Abraham, and Nachor the Father of Terah, and they served other Gods. The Family of Heber did not make a se∣parate People, they dwelt in Mesopotamia among the Chaldeans, and as they were of their Religion, without doubt they spoke also their Language. Abraham having lived near 70 Years in Ur of the Chaldees, and in Charran in Mesopotamia, did, questionless, speak the Language of the Country. It is easie to prove that the Chaldee is different from the Hebrew Tongue, which Abraham, without all doubt, learned in Canaan, and which be∣came proper to Jacob and his Posterity. We have a convincing Proof of this difference in Gen. 31.47. where Laban of the Family of Heber, who remain'd in Chaldea, and had preserv'd the Language of his Ancestors, gave the Name of Jagar Sabadutha to the Heap of Stones which they gathered together, whereas Jacob call'd it Galaad, both of 'em signifying the same thing, viz. That the Heap of Stones was a Monument or Te∣stimony of the Covenant which they entered into there. It is then evident, That in those Days the Chaldee Tongue which Nachor and Terah had spoken, and which Laban still spoke, because he resided in Mesopotamia, was different from that which Jacob spoke, which was the Hebrew. It is also certain, That in the Ages following, the Aramick, Chaldee or Assyrian Tongue was different from that which the Hebrews spoke, and that the common People of the Jews did not understand the Chaldee. For Example, when Rabshekah, the Assyrian General, would have excited the People to a Rebellion, he spoke Hebrew to King Hezekiah's Deputies, that the People might understand it: They pray'd him to speak in the Aramick or Syrian Language, for they understood it, and not to speak in the Jewish Tongue, which the People upon the Wall did understand, 2 Kings 18.26. Jeremy Prophesying the ruine of the Jews by the Chaldeans says, Chap. 5. ver. 15. God would bring a Nation upon them from far, a mighty, ancient People, whose Language they knew not, neither did they understand. It is also of the Chaldeans that Isaiah speaks, when he says, Isai. 28.11. That he would speak to this People with another Tongue. So does the Prophet Baruch when he threatens the Israelites, That God will bring against them, a People from far, a wicked People, and of another Language, Baruch 4. ver. 15. When the Israelites were carried away into Babylon, they found the Language of the Country different from their own, so that Nebuchadnezzar was oblig'd to instruct the young Israelites, which he had at his Court, in the Learning and Lan∣guage of the Chaldeans. The Chaldee Characters were different from the ancient He∣brew Characters, as we shall make it evident in the sequel: Therefore none of the Chal∣deans could read or understand those words, Mene Tekel Perez, writ in Hebrew, which Daniel read and explained immediately. We have then already proved two things; First, That the Language of Heber's Family, which was spoken by Terah, Nachor and Abraham before he went out of Chaldee, was the Chaldee Tongue. 2dly, That that Language hath always been different from the Hebrew. A third Thing we have to prove is, That the Hebrew Tongue, which is that that Abraham learn'd when he went out of his Country, which his Posterity have preserv'd, and which is certainly the He∣brew, is the Canaanitish or Phenician Tongue, which those spoke who inhabited the Land of Canaan, betwixt Jordan and the Mediterranean. Tho' we had no other Proof to show it, than the abode which he made in that Country, which he look'd upon then as ascertain'd to him for his Heritage, and the Place of Residence for his Posterity by the Promises of God. If we had no other Proof, I say, this alone might be sufficient to convince all those who judge equitably: For what other Language should Abraham learn, but that of the Country whither he retir'd to inhabit? The necessity of conver∣sing with the Canaanites, did not that oblige him to learn their Language, and to neg∣lect or to forget (if we may so say) his own natural Language? He spent 100 Years in that Country, made Alliances with the Inhabitants, had a great Commerce with them, acquir'd Riches, married Wives, and settled his Children there, and was assur'd by the Word of God himself, that the Country should be given to his Posterity. Is it possible then that he should not have learn'd the Language of the Country? Can any one think that Isaac and Jacob, who continued to dwell there, did not retain that Lan∣guage?

But it is easie to bring convincing Proofs for this Conjecture. The first is ta∣ken from the Testimony of the Prophet Isaiah, who calls the Hebrew Tongue, The Language of Canaan, Chap. 19. ver. 18. The Second is taken from the Names of Places and Men in the Land of Canaan (b), whereof mention is made in Genesis and Joshua. All those Names are Hebrew; nor is it observ'd that they were chang'd, ex∣cepting a very few. The Third may be inferr'd from hence, That it is no where observ'd in Scripture, that the Israelites and Canaanites had different Languages, and did not un∣derstand one another, as it is observ'd of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. The Scripture speaks often of the Conferences of the Canaanites with Abraham and his Posterity, and always as if they understood one another; nor is it ever said, that they made use of In∣terpreters. The Fourth is founded on the History of Joseph and his Brethren. It is said, That Joseph, not willing to make himself known unto them, spoke to them by Interpreters. If the Tongue which they spoke had been peculiar to their Family, where could Joseph have found an Interpreter in Egypt that understood it? It was then the Language of Canaan, where they made their Abode. The Fifth Proof is taken from the Conformity there, is betwixt the Punick or Carthaginean Tongue, which is the Phe∣nician, and by Consequence that of the Land of Canaan and the Hebrews. St. Jerom and St. Augustin observe this Conformity (c), which is so great, that most of the Punick words are Hebrew.

The Origin of the Hebrew Tongue being discovered, it is not difficult to find the true Reason of the Hebrew Names, which Abraham and his Posterity bore. It must be confessed, that divers of the Ancients (d) and some Moderns have deriv'd it from Heber, the Son of Salah and Grand-Son to Arphaxad, who was Son to Shem: They look on it to be a Patronimick, and that from Heber is form'd Hibri, as from Israel Israe∣li, and from Ismael Ismaeli; but what agreement soever there be in this Analogy, yet ne∣vertheless there's no appearance that the Name of Hebrew was deriv'd from Heber. To convince us of this, let us only consider that betwixt Heber and Abraham, who is the first that was called Hebrew: There are six Generations and five Persons. Then why should Abraham rather have taken the Name of Heber, six Generations upwards, than that of his own Father Terah, or of his Grand-Father Nachor? If he would have taken the Name of any one of his more remote Ancestors, he should rather have taken that of Shem, who was the first of that Generation. Why should not those betwixt Abra∣ham

and Heber have carried the same Name? Why was not this Name given to Abra∣ham till after he pass'd the Euphrates? It will be said, perhaps, that the Name of He∣ber continued amongst his Posterity, because the ancient Language and Worship of God continued in his Family: But this is a meer Supposition, of which we have demon∣strated the falshood, or at least the uncertainty. The Family of Heber did not make up a particular People. Those who composed it liv'd among the Chaldeans, follow'd their Religion and Customs, and spoke their Language. Nachor, Terah, and Abraham's other Ancestors that descended from Heber, worshipp'd false Gods, as 'tis said expresly, Joshua 24. Abraham did not leave that Country, but that he might worship the true God with more freedom, and was the first who publickly renounc'd the worship of the false Gods, by renouncing his Country. In that he obey'd the Call of God, and by his Obedience merited to be the Father of the People of God: As a Reward of which God promised his Posterity the whole Land of Canaan. In hope of this, he made his Abode there, learn'd the Language of the Country, and left his Children there. He had not then any Reason to take the Name of Heber, therefore we must seek after another Ori∣gin of the Name Hebraeus, under which he went.

This is easie to be discovered, by considering the Circumstances of the Time and Place where this Name was given him. Abraham was not call'd so till after he had passed the Euphrates, and made his Residence in the Land of Canaan. It is then very probable that this Name was given him by the Canaanites, who perceiving a Stranger, whose Name was not familiar and known to them, they contented themselves, according to Custom, to name him from the Place whence he came; which being from beyond the Eu∣phrates, in respect of them, and that Heber signifies from beyond, therefore they call'd him Hebraeus. That Name might have been given to all those who passed that River; but it remain'd as proper to Abraham and his Off-spring, because they were the most Considerable of those that passed the Euphrates to come into Canaan, and esta∣blish'd themselves there without following the Customs of the Inhabitants of the Coun∣try. According to this Etymologie, the Name of Hebraeus comes from the word Heber, which signifies from beyond. It was with Respect to this Etymologie, that the Septua∣gint translating Genesis 14.13. which is the first Place where Abraham is called He∣braeus, have rendred it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e, to the Passenger; or rather, to him who passed over from another Country. Aquila the Interpreter hath translated it in the same man∣ner. This Etymologie is founded upon what is said of Abraham's Ancestors, Josh. 24. ver. 2, &c. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your Fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah the Father of Abraham, and the Father of Nachor; and they served other Gods. And I took your Father Abraham from the other side of the flood, Beheber Hannahar, and led him throughout all the Land of Canaan. And ver. 14. Put away the Gods whom your Fathers served on the other side of the flood. This word Heber Hannahar, is commonly us'd in the Scripture, to signifie those that were beyond the Euphrates. It is in this Sense that Balaam says in his Prophesie, Numb. 24.24. Ships shall come from the Coasts of Chittim, and shall afflict Ashur and Heber. That is to say, The Macedonians should become Masters of Assyria, and of all that is beyond the Euphrates.

This Opinion is so probable, that the most ancient and able Interpreters of the Scripture have imbrac'd it (e). Nor can there be any Objection raised against the likelihood of it. Those who object, Gen. 10.21. [Unto Shem the Father of all the Children of Heber were born, as if the word Heber were in this Place the Name of the Patriarch,] beg the thing in Question: For we maintain, that the word Heber, in this Place, signifies from beyond; and that the Father of the Children of Heber, is the Father of those who dwell beyond the Euphrates, and are therefore called Hebrews. If it were not to be understood so, what Necessity was there for Moses to take Notice, that Shem was the Father of the Children of his Grand Son? That which some others Object, [That if the Name Hebrew derive its Origin as we say, it had been no more proper to the Posterity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, than to those of Lot, Ishmael and Esau,] does not raise

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

any particular Difficulty against this Sentiment; for it may be retorted against those who are of Opinion, that the word Hebrew is deriv'd from the Name of the Patriarch Heber, since Lot, Ishmael and Esau were of Heber's Family as well as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But this Difficulty is easily solv'd by observing, that tho' this Name might be given, or was given to all those who had pass'd the Euphrates; it continued never∣theless proper to Abraham and his Posterity by Jacob, because they continued distinct and separate from the People of Canaan in their Religion and Morals; whereas the Po∣sterity of Lot, Ishmael and Esau, abandon'd the Religion of their Fathers, and mix'd and united with the Canaanites. Thus it came to pass that this Name, which at first was general and appellative, did by Custom become proper to Abraham's Descendants. They were afterwards called Israelites, from the Name which God gave to Jacob; and Jews, from the Tribe of Judah, when the other Tribes were scattered or mix'd with the said Tribe.

But tho' the Name of Hebrew be very ancient, we don't find that the Language of the Jews was formerly called the Hebrew Tongue. It is call'd Jewish, 2 Chron. 32.18. And it's said, That those who spoke the common Language of the Country, spoke the Jews Language, 2 Kin. 18.26. & 28.2. Esd. 13.24. Isai. 36.11. & 13.) It is only since the Captivity that the Hellenists or Jews, who spoke Greek, to distinguish themselves from those who spoke the ancient Language of the Jews, call'd their Tongue Hebrew. Thus the Translater of the Book of Esther observes, that the Urn in which they cast Lots is called Phur in Hebrew. The Author of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus makes use of the same Term. And this Name was so common in our Saviour's Time, that when the Evangelists give us Names in the Jewish Tongue, they tell us, that in Hebrew it is called so and so; as Gabatha and Golgotha, John 19. And in the same Place 'tis said, That the Inscription on the Cross was in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. But that which deserves to be remark'd is, That the Evangelists give the Name of Hebrew to the Syriack or Chaldaick, which was become the common Language of the Jews. It carried then the Name of the Hebrew Tongue, as well as the Ancient Hebrew; as the Arabian and Vulgar Greek carried the Name of Arabian and Greek, tho' differing much from the ancient Greek and Arabick. But since that time the Name of the Hebrew Tongue hath been restrained to the old Language of the Jews, in which the Books of Moses, and the greatest Part of the other Books of the Old Testament, were wrote.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, spoke this Language in the Land of Canaan. The latter and his Children being obliged to go into Egypt, their Posterity multiplied there pro∣digiously, and staid in that Country 200 Years, but neither chang'd their Religion, Cu∣stoms, nor Language; because they liv'd separate from the Egyptians, in the Land of Goshen. The Egyptian Tongue differ'd very much from the Hebrew; for Joseph spoke to his Brethren by an Interpreter, and the Egyptians understood them not when they spoke together. Therefore the Author of the 80th Psalm, speakling of the time when the Israelites were in Egypt, ver. 6. says, They heard a Language that they did not un∣derstand. Some of them, no doubt, learn'd the Egyptian Tongue, and spoke both Lan∣guages; but the Bulk of the People preserv'd their ancient Language.

The Israelites then came out of Egypt speaking the Language of their Fathers; that is to say, the same Language which Jacob and his Children brought from the Land of Canaan, and preserv'd it without any change till the Babylonish Captivity; as the Books written from the time of Moses, till the destruction of the first Temple, give us ground to believe; for they are almost Uniform in the Language, and no considerable Change is to be found in them; which is particularly occasion'd by the Jews living separate from other People, not mixing with them, taking no Wives but those of their own Nation, and entertaining no Commerce with Strangers. And therefore we have no Reason to wonder that they preserv'd their Language so long without mixture or change.

It was not the same during the Babylonish Captivity. The Jews did not then live in a particular Place, as when they were in Egypt, but being dispers'd and mix'd amongst the Chaldeans, were oblig'd to learn their Language, which by degrees became common amongst them. We read in Dan. 1.4. That he and his Companions were oblig'd to learn the Chaldee. And Chap. 2.4. It is said, That the wise Men whom Nebuchadnezzar sent for to explain his Dream, spoke to him in the Aramick Tongue; which the Greek Interpreters as well as St. Jerom have translated Syriack. This Aramick Tongue was the Language of the Assyrians, or Syrians descended from Aram the Son of Shem; as ap∣pears by this that Rabshakeh the Assyrian General, was intreated by King Hezekiah's Depu∣ties to speak in the Aramick Tongue, 2 Kings 18.26. Isai. 36.11. which the Greek

and Latin Interpreters have again rendred Syriack. Now we cannot doubt but the Ara∣mick, Syrian, or Assyrian Language was the Chaldee, since Daniel himself, when relating in their own terms, the Discourse which the Chaldeans had with Nebuchadnezzar, and all that passed afterwards betwixt himself, his Companions and the King, writes all these things in the Chaldaick Tongue. It is not then to be doubted, but that the Syriack and Chaldee Tongue were Originally one and the same Language, which is to be found in its Purity in the Prophecy of Daniel, from the 4th Verse of the 2d Chapter, to the End of the 7th Chapter; and in some Chapters of the first Book of Esdras, from the 8th Verse of the 4th Chapter, to the 27th Verse of the 7th Chapter, where the Origi∣nal Letters of the Kings of Assyria are related in Chaldaick. It is evident that was the Language spoken at Babylon, where the Hebrew Tongue was not understood; insomuch, that none of the Chaldeans could read or understand the Hebrew words that were wrote upon the Wall, at Belshazzar's Feast; which Daniel, who understood both Languages, read and explain'd with great Ease, Dan. 5.

The Chaldee by degrees became common amongst the Jews; but we must not ima∣gine with some of the Rabbies, that they intirely forgot their ancient Language during the Captivity, and that the Priests only spoke and understood it before their return. It's much more likely, that this Change did not happen all of a sudden, but gradually, as all Changes in Language do. We must suppose, that at the beginning of the Captivi∣ty the Jews spoke Hebrew, and did not understand the Chaldee; as is evident, because Daniel was oblig'd to learn it. That a little time after, the Commerce which they were under a Necessity to entertain with the Inhabitants of the Country, made that Language more common amongst them, and that they began to understand it, to speak it, and teach it to their Children: But 'tis almost impossible, that in 70 Years, the time of the Captivity, they could intirely forget the use or Knowledge of their an∣cient Language. There must of necessity have been a time, and that too pretty consi∣derable, wherein the Hebrew and Chaldee were common amongst the Jews, but by de∣grees the Chaldee got the Ascendant, and became the only Language spoke amongst the Jews after their return from the Captivity; but so, however, as there was a mixture of Hebrew words. This is the Language that was commonly spoke in Judea in our Savi∣our's time, which is called Hebrew throught the New Testament: In the mean time the Sacred Books continued always writ in the ancient Hebrew Tongue, and in that Language the Jews read them in their Synagogues; but this not being the common Tongue, and beginning to be not understood by all the Jews, the Hebrew Original was explain'd in the Vulgar Language in their Synagogues; and perhaps that was the Ori∣gin of the Chaldee Paraphrases, of which we shall speak afterwards.

We cannot certainly say when it was that the old Hebrew Tongue ceas'd to be un∣derstood by the Jewish Commonalty, but there are many things to prove that it was not till some Years after their return from the Captivity. For, if the Hebrew had not been understood by the Jews, after their return, why should Daniel, Esdras, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi have wrote in Hebrew, things which they design'd should be understood by the common People, especially seeing those Writers were not igno∣rant of the Chaldee, but made use of it in writing things that relate to the Assyrians? But it is so far from being true, that the Chaldee Tongue was the only Language in use amongst the Jews, immediately after the Captivity, that on the contrary it is observ'd, Nehemiah 13.24. as an extraordinary thing, That the Children of the Jews who had married strangers, spoke the Language of Ashdod, and not the Language of the Jews. We have already observ'd, That to speak in the Jewish Language, is to speak in Hebrew, and that the Jewish Tongue is the ancient Hebrew Language. This Tongue then was common among the Jews; but nothing, in my Opinion, proves more invincibly that the Hebrew was still understood by the common People, even after the Captivity, than the 8th of Nehemiah, where 'tis said, That the Law was read in Hebrew before all the People, and that they all heard and understood it. All the People, says he, gathered themselves together as one Man, into the Street that was before the Water-gate, and they spoke unto Ezra the Scribe, to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the Priest brought the Law before the Congregation, both of Men and Women; and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh Month, and he, read therein, in the Street that was before the Water gate, from the morning until mid-day, before the Men and Women, and those that could understand: And the Ears of all the People were attentive unto the Book of the Law. Can we reasonably think, that Ezra read to the People for divers Hours in a Language they did not under∣stand? What likelihood is there that the People would have listen'd attentively to it

so considerable a time? It's in vain to object, That we can never make this pass for likely Matter of Fact. The People demanded that the Book of the Law should be brought: It was certainly that they might be instructed in it: Would they have desir'd to hear a Book, of which they could understand nothing? It was read to them, they listen'd to it attentively, Men, Women and Children that were capable to understand the Law of God, gave heed thereunto, they were touch'd with it, and melted into Tears. Then that which was read to them was not unknown to them. Perhaps it may be said, they did not understand that Book, but that Esdras translated it into the Chaldee, and in that Sense they understand what is said in the 7th and 8th Verses, That the Le∣vites caused the People to understand the Law, and that they read in the Book of the Law distinctly, and gave the Sense, and caus'd them to understand the reading, But if Ezra had repeated the Law word for word in another Language, and that the People had understood nothing of it in Hebrew, to what purpose was it read? Neither does the cited Passage say any such thing; for either it signifies only, that the Levites caused the People to keep Silence, and give Attention to the Law, which was read with a di∣stinct and intelligible Voice; or, it supposes, that Esdras and those who were with him explain'd the Law: But that does not say, that they rendered the Text word for word in another Tongue, but that they explain'd the difficult Places, by a Discourse more at large, and better suited to the Capacity of the People. So it is that the Greek and Latin Fathers explain'd the Books of the Scripture in their Discourses to the Peo∣ple, not by Translating them into another Language, but by Illustrating or Clearing the Text in that same Language wherein 'twas read. In fine, 'tis said, Chap. 9. ver. 2, & 3. That the Children of Israel being separated from the strangers, confessed their sins, and the sins of their Fathers: And standing up in their places, read in the Book of the Law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed and worshipped the Lord their God. And that afterwards the Levites made a long Discourse to the People, which is contain'd in that Chapter, to exhort 'em to praise God and to give Thanks for his Favours. The People read the Law in Hebrew, this Discourse was in Hebrew; it must needs be then that the People understood He∣brew. Those Proofs which have been already brought by Learned Men (f), to me appear unanswerable. M. Simon boasts that he has irrefragable Arguments to destroy them, which, when he publishes, we shall see whether they will oblige us to change our Mind; but, until such time as he does so, he will not take it ill if we continue in the same Sentiments.

I shall not insist upon the Question which some Divines that Interpret the Scripture enlarge upon; that is to say, whether the Hebrew Tongue shall be that of the Saints in Glory. This sort of Questions is of the Number of those which St. Paul calls foo∣lish and unlearned, that are good for nothing but to engender Strife, and can neither be decided by Reason nor Authority. Neither shall I enter upon the detail of the Per∣fection and Advantages of the Hebrew Tongue, which some magnifie above all other Languages, as the most Pure, Elegant and Pathetical: And others, on the contrary, who don't judge so favourably of it, look upon it as a poor Language, which hath but very few Words, in comparison of the Greek and Latin Tongue; and which, conse∣quently wants abundance of necessary Terms, and is full of Obscurities and Ambi∣guities. I shall say nothing of Hebrew Grammar, nor of those who have wrote on that Head among the Hebrews, because those things don't belong to my Subject.

SECT. II. Of the Origin and Invention of Characters; their Diversity. The Ancient He∣brew Characters; their Variation. The Vowel Points: When they were invented and brought into Use.

NExt to Speech, Man has no better way to express his Thoughts by Arbitrary Signs, than by Writing, in which we make use of Figures and Characters perceptible to the Eye, whose difference and distinction represents different things to the Mind. There may be some which express their Thoughts at once, and represent them without any relation to Speech; such as were the Characters of the ancient Egyptians, who by Hieroglyphicks or Symbolical Figures represented a thing at once: Such are still most of the Chinese and Mexican Characters. Their Ciphers are of the same Nature, seeing they represent all at once, the Number they would express, without forming the Idea of any particular word; but the more ordinary and common manner of expressing our Thoughts in Writing, is to make use of Characters, to which Custom hath affix'd an expression of certain Sounds of the Articulate Voice that are call'd Words, which make up Speech, and by that means give us an Idea of things. So that Writing, properly speak∣ing, is not the Pourtracture of our Thoughts, or of Things, but only of Speech, which expresses and makes known our Thoughts. It has this advantage above simple Speech, that this reaches only those who are within hearing, whereas Writing communicates our Thoughts at the greatest distance, and preserves to future Ages the Thoughts and Dis∣courses of those now alive.

The most common Opinion among the Pagans, as to the Origin of Letters, is that the Phenicians are the Authors of 'em, and that Cadmus brought the Invention from Greece. Eupolemus says, Moses was the Inventer of 'em; and his Sentiment is approv'd by Eusebius in his 9th Book of Gospel Preparations, Chap. 4. And also by Isidore of Sevil. It is however certain, that the Art of Writing is older than Moses, and he him∣self makes mention of things that were wrote before him. Suidas thinks Abraham was the first Inventer of Letters, as well as of the Hebrew Tongue; but he is mistaken, for since the Assyrians or Chaldeans, amongst whom he liv'd, had the Language which Abraham spoke, they had also their Characters. It is the same as to the Canaanites or Phenicians, to whose Countries he travelled. So that we may be assured, that Writing is older than Abraham; but the precise time when it began, cannot be discovered with any certainty. Divers are of Opinion, that Adam knew how to write as well as to speak; and that not without great probability. If it be certain that Enoch, the 7th from Adam, wrote that Book quoted by St. Jude, it would be an uncontestable Monu∣ment to prove that Writing was invented before the Flood; for to believe that the Prophecy of that Patriarch was preserv'd for divers Ages by simple Oral Tradition, is a thing not be imagin'd. But there's great likelihood, as we have observ'd, that this Book of Enoch's was an Apocryphal Book; therefore there's no relying on that Proof, no more than on what Josephus reports in the first Book of his Antiquities, Chap. 3. of Characters wrote on two Columes before the Deluge, whereof he assures us there was one remaining in his time. Nor is there any relying upon what the Chinese boast of the Antiquity of their Characters. It is not those Apocryphal Monuments which convince us of the Antiquity of Writing, but the Wit and Industry which we cannot doubt was in Adam and the first Men, which makes us conjecture, as a thing very probable, that the Art of Writing was invented during the Infancy of the World, and in use before the Deluge; that Noah receiv'd it from his Ancestors; that his Posterity, who Peopled the Earth, preserv'd it; and that the Characters of Writing, as well as Languages, had their Variation and Change.

It is to no purpose to enquire what was the Figure of the Characters in use before and immediately after the Deluge, because we have no Monuments left us of those Times, and that no credible Writer makes any mention of 'em; but 'tis a famous Que∣stion amongst the Criticks, what the Characters were which were used by the ancient Hebrews? Some pretend that they were the same as now; but the more common Opi∣nion, both amongst the Ancients and Moderns, and that which is best receiv'd, is that the ancient Hebrew Characters made use of by Moses and others, before the Captivity, are those which the Samaritans preserv'd; and that those now in Use came in after the Babylonish Captivity.

The Hebrew Tongue being in its Origin the same with the Canaanitish or Phenician, we must allow, that the Hebrew Characters of that Language were the same. Now the Phenician Characters, from whence the Greek Characters are deriv'd (a), were agreeable to the Samaritan Characters, as appears by the ancient Ionian or Greek Let∣ters, which are altogether like them, as may be seen by ancient Monuments. These are then the Characters that Abraham and his Posterity made use of. That we may un∣derstand how they were preserv'd amongst the Samaritans, and how they were lost by the Jews, we must know, That the Kingdom of Israel being divided in the Reign of Rehoboam the Son of Solomon, the Ten Tribes which separated from that of Judah and made a particular Kingdom, preserv'd the Pentateuch in the same manner as they re∣ceiv'd it from Moses; but that Kingdom being intirely destroy'd by Salmanassar King of Assyria, who took the City of Samaria, and carried away the Israelites, sent other Inhabitants in their Place, who were called Chuteans, and afterwards Samaritans, from the City of Samaria: The latter being molested with wild Beasts, as a Judgment for not adoring the true God, sent for some Israelites, who gave them Copies of the Books of the Law, which they always preserv'd as they had receiv'd them. The Tribes of Judah and Benjamin did also retain the same Characters till the Babylonish Captivity; but the Jews being transported to that City, they insensibly accustomed themselves to write like the Chaldeans; and therefore, after their return, Esdras having collected and re∣ceiv'd the Books of the Bible, made use of the Chaldee Characters (which were bet∣ter known to the Jews than the ancient Characters) whereof they have constantly made use since that time. But a convincing Proof, that they were not in use before, is this, That there are many ancient Shekels found of the Jewish Money before the Captivity, whose Inscriptions are wrote in Samaritan Characters; and on the Reverse there are found these words, Jerusalem Kodeska, the Holy Jerusalem (b): Which proves that 'twas the Jews and not the Samaritans amongst whom that Money was currant; be∣cause the latter (nay, nor the Israelites themselves) did not after their Division ac∣knowledge Jerusalem as a Holy City, and would not have called it by that Title in their Money, since they were the declar'd Enemies of that City and Temple. We cannot then doubt but that the Hebrew Characters were those we call Samaritan. This the ancient Authors, who pry'd into those Matters, have deliver'd as a certainty (c), Ori∣gen on the 9th of Ezekiel says, He understood by a converted Jew, that the ancient

Hebrew Characters differ'd from those that were us'd in his time: St. Jerom speaks of this Change as a thing not to be doubted of. It is certain, says he, in his General Pro∣logue to the Holy Scripture, That Esdras invented the new Letters we make use of at present, and that till his time, the Samaritan and Hebrew Characters were the same. He assures us, that the Pentateuch wrote by the Samaritans is Letter for Letter the same with that of the Hebrews, and differs only in the Figure and Strokes of the Character. And afterwards tells us, He hath seen the Name of Jebovah writ in the Greek Copies in those ancient Characters. Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus confirm this Truth, when they distinguish the Samaritan Hebrew from the Jewish Hebrew. The (d) Tal∣mudists do likewise agree, That Esdras changed the Hebrew into Assyrian Characters, and left the Hebrew Characters to the Chuteans and Samaritans. (e) Divers of the Rabbies are of the same Opinion, and the ablest of the (f) R. Catholick Interpreters as well as Protestants agree in this Truth; which is opposed by those only who are too much prepossessed in favour of the Hebrew Tongue; but their Arguments for it are very weak (g): Nor have they any solid Answer to give to the Proofs we have brought for the contrary.

The Hebrew Alphabet is composed of 22 Letters, as well as those of the Samaritans, Chaldeans and Syrians. But besides those Letters, none of which is at present a Vowel, and by Consequence they cannot determine the Pronounciation. The Hebrews have invented Points, which being put under the Letters, serve instead of Vowels. Those

Vowel Points serve not only to fix the Pronounciation, but also the Signification of a Word; because many times the Word being differently pointed and pronounced signi∣fies things wholly different. This is the thing that has made the Question about the An∣tiquity of the Points seem to be of Consequence, and hath therefore been treated of ve∣ry prolixly. Some have pretended that those Points are as ancient as the Hebrew Tongue (h), and that Abraham made use of them. Others make Moses (i) the Au∣thor of them. But the most (k) common Opinion, among the Jews, is that Moses ha∣ving learn'd of God the true Pronounciation of Hebrew Words, this Science was pre∣serv'd in the Synagogue by Oral Tradition until the time of Esdras, who invented the Points and Accents to preserve it. (l) Elias Levita, a German Jew of the last Age, and very Learned in the Hebrew Grammar, hath rejected this Sentiment, and maintain'd that the Invention of the Points was much later. He ascribes it to the Jews of Tiberias, about the 500th Year of Christ; and alledges, that this Art was not perfected till about the Year 1040, by two famous Massorets, Ben-Ascher and Ben-Naphtali. This Opini∣on hath been embrac'd in the last and present Age by divers Criticks (m): But it is be∣come more common since Lewis Capelle, a Learned Protestant Professor of Hebrew at Saumur, establish'd that Opinion against Buxtorf, in his Book, Intituled, Arcanum Pun∣ctuationis Revelatum: The Secret of the Punctuation Reveal'd. Printed in the Year 1624. Since that time, notwithstanding the Efforts of Buxtorf's Son, and of some other Pro∣testants, the Newness of the Points hath been acknowledg'd, not only by R. Catholick Au∣thors, but also by the Learnedst of the Protestants (n). Father Morin, one of those who hath writ with the greatest Strength against the Antiquity of the Points, believes the Invention to be later than Elias Levita thinks it, and fixes it about the beginning of the 10th Century.

Before we produce to the Reasons alledg'd for shewing the Novelty of the Hebrew Points, we must observe, That the Hebrew Tongue had real Vowels at first as other Languages; to wit, the Aleph, which is the A; the Jod, which is the I; and the Vau, which answers to the O and the U; and it may be, the Hajin for the E. Those Letters which at present are Consonants, when they are not pronounced, were Originally true Vowels. But as there are abundance of Hebrew words where several Consonants are found successively without any of those Letters, they were supplied by them for pro∣nouncing those Words, whose true Pronounciation were learn'd by Custom. This be∣ing laid down, we come now to Capelle's Reasons for the Novelty of those Points.

His first Argument is from the Testimony of the modern Rabbies: The first he quotes is Aben-Ezra, that liv'd about the Year 1150, who in his Book call'd Tzachut or Ele∣gancies, treating of the Punctuation of a Word. He says, to justifie his Decision, That such is the Custom of the Sages of Tiberias, which ought to serve as a Foundation and Rule, because 'tis they who are the Massorets, from whom we have receiv'd the Punctua∣tion of the Law. He further observes in the same Book, That there are Interpreters who accuse the Author of the Pauses, or of the Distinction of Verses in the Scripture, of Error; and he says, he wonders how he could mistake, especially if 'twas Esdras, seeing it is certain that since his time there's none who hath come near him in Wis∣dom; and that 'tis evident, he hath made no Distinction in the whole Bible but what is very well placed. Buxtorf Answers, That in the first Passage Aben-Ezra does not speak of the first Introduction of Points, but only of their Re-establishment by the Jews of Tiberias, the Authors of the Massora, who pointed the Text more Exactly and Cor∣rectly than Others. As to the 2d Passage, He pretends that it makes for him, and that the Rabbie Aben-Ezra, does there acknowledge Esdras to be the Author of the Pauses; that is to say, of the Points, Accents and Distinctions of the Hebrew Text. He adds,

that this Rabbi in a Book, Intituled, The Ballance of the Holy Tongue, ascribes to Es∣dras and the Assembly of the great Synagogue, the Institution of the Accents, Points and Distinctions. It must be confessed, That those Passages of Aben-Ezra, particularly the last, do not prove altogether what Capellus pretends to; but it shews at least, that in the time of Aben-Ezra there were Interpreters among the Jews, who doubted whe∣ther Esdras was the Author of the Vowel Points; and that Aben-Ezra himself was not very far from being of that Opinion.

The second Testimony produc'd by Capellus, is from the Rabbi Kimchi's Book called Michlol, who speaking of the difference in the Punctuation between the Praeter Tense and the Participle Niphal, says, this difference was made by the Orderers of the Pun∣ctuation. If he had believ'd Esdras to be the Author of those Points, he would never have made use of the term Orderer; which is more applicable to the Massorets than to Esdras. Buxtorf answers, That by this he understands those of the great Synagogue, to whom the Rabbi ascribes the Restitution and Punctuation of the Text, in the Pre∣face to his Commentary on the Prophets, where he says, that the Origin of Keri and Ketib was thus; Those of the Grand Synagogue, who establish'd the Law after the first Captivity, having found differences in the Copies, about which they could receive no Light, wrote one of the Readings without Points, or at least put it so in the Margin. This being supposed. Buxtorf says, the Points were in use at the time of this Re-esta∣blishment, according to the Opinion of Rabbi Kimchi; wherein he seems to be in the right.

His third Testimony is from the Book called Tzach Sephathajim, ascrib'd to Rabbi Juda, who liv'd about the Year 1140, where he observes, that the Points were given upon Mount Sinai, but that the Tables of the Law were not pointed; and that God speaking the Holy Language, those who heard his Voice, learn'd from him how to pro∣nounce the Vowels. But this Passage, as Buxtorf observes, proves only that the Tables of the Law were not pointed; or, at least, that the Points were not mark'd in Moses's time, according to the Opinion of Rabbi Juda: And it cannot be concluded from thence, that he did not believe the Points to be invented in Esdras's time, to fix the Pronounciation which was preserv'd by Oral Tradition from the time of Moses.

The last Testimony of the Rabbies alledg'd by Capellus, is taken from the Book Cosri, where 'tis said, the Vowels were preserved in the Memory of the Priests, Kings, and Judges, and of those of the Sanhedrim, and of righteous and holy Men, and even in the Memories of the Prophane. And that, in fine, they put the Seven Points and the Accents to serve as proper Marks for the guiding of those who copied and read those Books, according to the Cabala and the Tradition receiv'd by Moses, and preserv'd after∣wards. But this Author not setting down the time of the Invention, decides nothing. Therefore we don't think much stress ought to be laid upon the Testimony of the Rabbies for the Decision of this Question; and so much the less, that most of 'em do plainly ascribe the Invention of the Points to Moses or Esdras.

Capel's second Argument is taken from the present Practice of the Jews, who in their Synagogues do, for the publick reading of the Law, make use of Copies without Points; which they revere and lock up with Care, as representing the Copy of Moses that was preserv'd in the Ark. This Argument proves indeed, That the Jews have al∣ways been of Opinion, that Moses did not make use of the Points when he wrote the Law; but it does not prove the same thing as to Esdras; tho' it would seem that they had no reason to be afraid of making use of pointed Copies of the Law; and less still, to look upon them as Prophane, had they been persuaded that Esdras and the Great Synagogue, whose Authority they rever'd, had been the Authors of those Points.

His third Argument is founded on this, That it appears the Points were not known to the ancient Cabalists and Talmudists. There's nothing more usual amongst the new Cabalists, than to seek for Mysteries in the Punctuation. Nor would the old ones have fail'd to have done the same, if those Points had been in use; and had they believ'd they came from Moses or Esdras. The Talmudist Doctors do frequently raise Que∣stions upon the manner of reading and pronouncing certain Words: Had the Points been invented in their time, they would not have fail'd to say with the Modern Jewish Commentators, Don't read by a Camets but by a Cholem, &c. And would either have made use of those Names, or of the Figures of those Vowel Points. Mean while they contented themselves only to write the same Consonants, putting sometimes over them a Vau or a Jod, to denote what Pronounciation they intended. It's true the Massora is mention'd in the Talmud, but the Massora is generally a Critick upon the Text of the Bible, and has no particular regard to the Points. This Argument of Mr. Capel's, to

me seems very convincing. Buxtorf opposes to him Testimonies taken from the Book Zo∣har, where the Points and Accents are mentioned: But this Book being new, and writ since the 1000th Year of Christ, makes nothing to the purpose.

Capel's fourth Argument is taken from the Samaritan Character; which is certainly, as we have already shewed, the ancient Hebrew. The Samaritans have no Points, and use the Letters Aleph, He, Vau and Jod for Vowels. This Argument proves still, that the Points were not in use from the time of Moses till that of Esdras, since the Sama∣ritan Characters, which the Hebrews make use of, admit of none; but it does not prove that Esdras, who chang'd those Characters, did not make use of Points.

His fifth Argument is taken from Keri and Ketib; that is to say, the different Read∣ings put in the Margin of the Bibles. All those different Readings are upon the Con∣sonants, and none upon the Vowels. Had the Points been in use of old, there's no doubt but they would have produced many more different Readings than the Consonants. This then is an evident Proof, That they came neither from Moses nor from Esdras.

Mr. Capel's sixth Argument is founded on the ancient Greek, Latin and Chaldee Ver∣sions, which he maintains were from Copies not pointed. Then what likelihood is there, if the Points had been invented in their time, and that there had then been poin∣ted Copies, that the Interpreters should not have made use of 'em, since 'twould have been much more Commodious, and a great Ease to them in determining the Sense of divers Words. Let Buxtorf say what he will, it will never be believ'd that the In∣terpreters were so negligent and ill advis'd, as not to make use of pointed Copies, had there been any such then: And the Consequence is morally certain, that there were none, if it be well prov'd that they did not make use of any such. Now this is it, that M. Capel demonstrates in particular of the following Versions. 1. Of that of the LXX, even by the Confession of his Adversaries, who don't deny that it was from an unpointed Copy, but give frivolous Reasons for it: And if they denied it, 'twere easie to prove it, because it appears, that in divers Places of the Greek Version, the Interpre∣ter hath read the Words otherwise than they are pointed at present. 2. Capel assures us of the same as to the Chaldee Paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan, where that difference of the Version, because of the different ways of reading does still appear. 3. He makes the same Remarks on the Greek Versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theo∣dotion, and of the other Greek Versions, whereof we have some Fragments remaining; by which it appears that those Interpreters have translated certain Words differently, because the Pronounciation of it was not fixed; which they would not have done, had they had pointed Copies. It's true, there are such Differences which happen sometime from the change of Consonants, Faults of the Hebrew Copy, or Negligence of Transla∣tors; but the greatest part comes manifestly from the different Pronounciation of the Words, which was not then fix'd by the Vowel Points.

The Testimonies of Origen, St. Jerom, and other Greek and Latin Fathers, are M. Capel's 7th Argument to prove the Novelty of the Points. It is morally impossi∣ble, had there been any pointed Copies in St. Jerom's time, but some of them must have fallen into the Hands of that Father, that he would have made use of them, have spoke of them, and that the Jews, who taught him Hebrew, would have taught him the Points and Accents; or, at least, have given him Notice that there were Hebrew poin∣ted Copies; which would have been a great Ease to him. But it appears, That St. Jerom had no knowledge of those Points, and that he not only did not make use of 'em, but that he never heard them spoke of; tho' he could not have avoided it on so many Occasions: For in speaking of the Differences 'twixt his Version and that of the Septuagint, could he have forgot to observe, that the principal Cause of the Differences betwixt them was occasion'd by the different Punctuation that the LXX had read by a Kametz, a Tseré, or a Chiréck, &c. that which he read by a Cholem, or a Segol, &c. How could it be, that in speaking of the Hebrew Letters, he should say nothing of the Points nor Accents? And that in marking the different Pronounciations of the same Word, in different Places, he should not have spoke of the Consonants, and have expressed the different ways of pronouncing those Words, without ever taking notice that this different Pronounciation was occasion'd by the different Pointing (o). Supposing al∣ways

that the Hebrew Words which were without Vowels were capable of divers Pro∣nounciations, and that the Hebrews, in reading, supplied by Memory or Conjecture the necessary Vowels, without any thing in the Text that could determine them to one Pronounciation more than another, but only the Sequel of the Discourse. The Hebrew Word, says he, in his Commentary on Jeremy, is writ by 3 Letters, which are Daleth, Beth, and Resch, for the Hebrews have no Vowel in the middle, and they read accord∣ing to the Sense which the following part requires in the Judgment of the Reader. If we read Dabar, that signifies Discourse; if Deber, that signifies Death; if Daber, that signifies to speak. The same Father moreover acknowledges, That the Hebrews have their Vowels which are not Points; but the Jod, which is the I; and the Vau, which is the O (p): And observes that they don't place those Vowels in the middle of Words. Tho' these Testimonies of St. Jerom seem to shew plainly, that the Vowel Points were not invented in his time, and tho' those Passages be clear, yet they object some other Passages, in which he seems to make mention of the Accents and Points; as in the Epi∣stile to Evagrius, where he says, that the word Salem is sometimes pronounced Salem, and sometimes Salim, having a different Tone and Accent according to the difference of the Country. And in his Commentary on Amos 8. he observes that the word Bersabeé [in the English Bible Beersheba] is translated according to the variety of the Accents; the Fountains of an Oath, the Fountains of Abundance, or the Fountains of the Seventh. He takes notice of the same variety, because of the Accents in his Commentary on Je∣remy concerning the word Soced, which signifies both a Nut and the Watch if the Ac∣cent be varied. He likewise mentions Accents in his Commentary on Jonas 3. And, in fine, speaking of the Hebrew and Samaritan Text in his General Preface, he says the Sa∣maritans wrote the Pentateuch in the same Letters, and that there's no difference but in the Figures and Points: Figuris & apicibus tantùm discrepantes. It is added, That in divers Places St. Jerom observes that the Hebrew differs from the LXX; where the difference is occasioned by the Punctuation. How, say they, could he observe that dif∣ference, if there had been no Points in his Hebrew Copy? He says himself, divers times, that he followed the Hebrew Text, and that we need but ask the Jews as to the Alte∣rations that he hath made in his Version. And they tell us, that he hath follow'd the Hebrew faithfully. Now his Version is conformable to the pointed Hebrew Text, and he hath almost every where given ambiguous Words the Sense that is fix'd upon them by the present Points. He himself expresses by an E the quiescent Scheva that is found in the middle of Hebrew words. These Objections, tho' specious in appearance, have yet no difficulty in them. Let's but read the quoted Passages, and we shall soon see that St. Jerom does no ways speak there of the Accents or Points mark'd in the Text,

but only of the Sound and Pronounciation. This is clear in his Epistle to Evagrius before-mentioned. It matters not whether it be pronounced Salem or Salim, since the Hebrews seldom make use of Vowels in the middle of a Word, and pronounce the same Words after different manners, according to the Custom of the Place and the Diversity of the Country. Does not St. Jerom clearly observe in this Passage, that the Hebrews had Vowels which were really Letters and not Points, but that they rarely made use of them in the middle of Words, and that in his time the Pronounciation was different and ar∣bitrary? It was not then fix'd by Points which served instead of Vowels, as at present. The Accent or Tone was known by Custom, as it's ordinary almost in all living Languages, and particularly in the French and English, where abundance of Words are pronounced otherwise than they are writ. St. Jerom learn'd this from the Jews, therefore it's not to be wondred at, that he observes that such a Word signifies such a Thing according to the Pronounciation, and that he refers us to the Jews to prove that it ought to be read and translated so. The Massorets, who invented the Points, having followed the common Custom among themselves, and only fix'd them by the Points and Accents, it is not at all to be thought strange that St. Jerom's Version, which was agreeable to Cu∣stom, be found conformable to their Punctuation. As to the Points, or rather the Extre∣mities (Apicibus) of the Hebrew and Samaritan Letters, whereof he speaks in his Ge∣neral Prologue, it can in no ways be understood of our Points, since 'tis certain that the Samaritans never made use of 'em. But it is naturally to be understood of the Corners of the Letters, and St. Jerom explains himself so in divers Places, as in his Commentary on the 12th of Zechariah, where he says, The Letters Daleth and Resh are alike, and differ parvo tantum apice; that is to say, only by the Corner of the upper stroke of those two Letters, as may be seen by their Characters. The Silence of Origen, who certainly understood Hebrew, and who himself copied the Hebrew Text in his Hexapla in He∣brew and Greek Characters; his Silence, I say, as to the Points, is still a Proof that they were not in use in his time. But it is not from his Silence alone that the newness of the Points may be concluded, we have still some Fragments of his Hebrew Copy wrote in Greek Characters, by which it appears, that he knew no other Vowels but the real Letters; for instead of the Aleph he puts α, for Jod ι, for Hajin ε, for Vau ο, or ν, or ♉. We may also alledge the Silence of all the ancient Fathers who have spoke of the Hebrew Text, yet none of them hath spoke one word of the Vowel Points. To this we must add Philo and Josephus, who have said nothing of the Invention or Use of the Points, no more than of the pretended Difference of the Copies of the Law; whereof some, that is to say, the pointed ones, were read in the Synagogue; and the rest, that were for common Use, not so. The Silence of those two Authors, who were very well versed in the Customs of their Country, might justly surprize us, if those Customs had been common in their time.

Mr. Capel's other Arguments, to prove the Novelty of the Points, are taken from the Points themselves, their Number, Use, Name, &c. In general we may observe, That the Points and Accents of a Language are not much in Use whilst the Tongue is living; they were not invented in the Greek and Latin Tongues till after they ceased to be commonly spoken. The Oriental Tongues, as the Chaldee, Samaritan and Syriac, have none; the Arabick had none at first. Nor is there any appearance that the Hebrew Tongue is different in that respect from the other Oriental Tongues. The Number of its Vowels, which is 14 or 15, without reckoning the Raphé, the Daggesh and Mappick, and an infinite Number of Accents now in use amongst the Hebrews, make it plain enough how far those things are from the natural Simplicity of a Language commonly spoke. These are the Niceties and Subtleties of the Grammarians upon a dead Lan∣guage, rather than the Custom of a living Language. The Names given to the Points are Chaldee and Syriac. Most of the Rules given for those things, are either useless or contrary to the Custom of the Ancients: As for Example, the difference betwixt Schin and Sin, which is the same Letter differently pointed, is unknown to St. Jerom, who observes in his Commentary on Titus, that the Hebrews had three S's, the Sameck, the Tsadee, and the Sin, and therefore he counted only 22 Letters in the Alphabet, and made no distinction betwixt Sin and Schin. The Accents are almost of no Use amongst the Hebrews. In fine, there are divers words, whose Pointings occasions a Pronounciation monstrous, irregular, and altogether contrary to the manner wherein the LXX and other ancient Jews, such as Philo and Josephus, read and pronounced, a sthe proper Names do manifestly shew. The same thing appears by the Greek Names put in He∣brew, as Darius and Cyrus, which being read without Points, in taking the Jod and Vau for the Vowels i, e, o, are much more conformable to the true Greek Names than

they are with the Points, which form the Names of Dariares and Cores, which are al∣together different from Darius and Cyrus.

The Reasons alledg'd on the other side, to prove the Antiquity of the Points, are mighty weak. They say first, That there's no Tongue without Vowels. We answer, That this is true, and that the Hebrew Tongue had its Vowels as well as others, as we have already observ'd divers times, viz. Aleph, Jod, Hajin and Vau, as in other Languages a, e, i, o, u. Perhaps they will say, That there being divers Words wherein none of those Letters are found, and which we very seldom meet with in the middle of any Word, the Hebrew Pronounciation must have been very difficult. But it is easie to an∣swer, That Custom supplied that Defect, as in the Chaldee, Samaritan and Arabick, and that it was no way difficult to those that were instructed from their Youth in that Pro∣nounciation, who spoke the Language continually, or read the Bible every day without Points. It is certain, even by the Confession of those who are most wedded to the An∣tiquity of the Points, that the Copies of the Law which were read in the Synagogues had no Points, yet the Jews read 'em commonly and without Error. And don't we see every day, that not only the Jews, who learn the Hebrew in their Infancy, but also those amongst us who are versed in that Tongue read without difficulty or mistake, the Co∣pies that are not pointed, and that they pronounce those Words truly, which by their different Pronounciation may have a different Sense? Therefore it is easie to answer those who say, That if the Hebrew Tongue had not had Points, there would have been divers ambiguous Words in it; by telling them, That Custom and the Sequel of the Discourse, does most frequently determine the true Sense, and that it's rare if any Am∣biguity remain. In a word, all those Objections cannot be made by those who agree, that Esdras is the first who brought the Points in Use, and that until his time the Jews preserv'd by meer Oral Tradition, the Punctuation and Pronounciation of the Hebrew Words: For if they could be without them from Moses to Esdras, why might they not have been as well without them from Esdras till the time they were in∣vented?

In the 2d Place, They object the Authority of the Book Zohar, which they alledge is very ancient, and composed by Rabbi Simeon, the Son of Jochai, who died about the 120 Year of Christ, and mentions the Points and Vowels, of which he believes Moses to have been the Author. But Buxtorf himself confesses, That the Book Zohar was composed after the 10th Century (q); or, at least, that divers things are added unto it. They alledge also, the Authority of the Gemara and the Misna, wherein mention is made of the Accents, and Pauses or Verses: But those Accents are to be understood of the Tone of the Pronounciation, and as to the Pauses and Distinctions they have nothing common with the Vowel Points. There's mention likewise made in the Talmud of 15 Words in the Bible that are pointed above; but it is a different sort of Points, which did not serve for directing the Pronounciation, but only to denote some Mysteries.

It is further objected, That the Massorets take notice of anomalous or irregular Pun∣ctuations; whence they conclude that they were not the Authors of the Points, because they would always have followed the same Rule. This Irregularity could come from nothing else, but that they found this Difference of Punctuation in their Copies. This Objection would be of some Weight, if we suppose that the Art of Pointing was for∣med all at once, and by one Man; but, as it's more probable that this was done gra∣dually, and by divers Hands, there's no Reason to wonder if there be some Irregularity in the Punctuations.

They pretend also, to prove the Antiquity of the Points and Accents by the Anti∣quity of the Musick, or the singing of the Canticles. They say, The Notes could not be retain'd in the Memory, that there was a Necessity of marking them, and that the great Number of Hebrew Accents serv'd for that very End. This Argument has so much the less strength, because all are agreed that there's now no Knowledge left of

the ancient Musick of the Hebrews, and that by Consequence we cannot have any cer∣tainty that the Accents which are come to our Hands are the Notes of it; forasmuch as they are not only made use of in the Poetical Works and Canticles, but also in other Books which certainly were never sung. If then there were any Musical Notes in the time of David or Moses, they differ'd from those Accents. But it is very likely, that in those ancient Times, they had the Tunes by Heart, and sung without Notes.

Some in order to prove, That in the time of our Saviour at least, the Jews made use of Points, alledge his Words, Matth. 5.18. That not one jot or tittle of the Law should pass away till all was fulfill'd: That is, all that is wrote in the Law shall be fulfill'd, even to one single Jot or Point. But it is easie to answer, That the Word Jot or Tittle there, in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, does not signifie Vowel Points, but the Corners of the Letters. This is the natural Sense of the Word in Greek (a), and of Apex in Latin, and agrees perfectly well to this place.

We believe that we have hitherto sufficiently shew'n, That there's not only nothing which proves the Antiquity of the Points, but also that there are Arguments enough to convince reasonable persons, that they are newer than St. Jerom's time. We must now ex∣amine if they were invented about the 500th Year of Christ by the Jews of Tiberias, as most of the Criticks assure us; or, whether they be much later, as Father Morin will have it. The Arguments that we have brought, proves well that the Points were in∣vented since the time of St. Jerom and the Talmud; but they are of no Use to prove the time when; so that 'tis only by Conjecture, they say, that the Jews of Tiberias invented them. In the mean time, there's Reason to believe that this is not the true Epocha, and that the Points were not invented and brought in Use but since the Year 800. For, first the Misna, which is the oldest part of the Talmud, was not com∣pos'd till the 6th Age, and the Talmud of Babylon was not completed till towards the End of the 7th; which we shall make evident in the sequel. The Books Midraschim and Megilloth are still later. Now it's easie to prove, That the Authors of those Books knew nothing of the Punctuation, and that it was not used in their time; for, as we have already said, there's not one word of it said in the Talmud: On the contrary, when they speak of any ambiguous Word, whose Sense must be determin'd by the Pro∣nounciation, they take notice of the Difficulty and Ambiguity of the Word, and say on∣ly, that it must be understood so or so, without speaking of the Points. If they had had pointed Copies, they would have found no Ambiguity in the Term, or would have determin'd it by the Punctuation. Here's a remarkable Instance of it from the 2d Chap∣ter of the Book Bababatra, When Joab came before David, David said to him, What's the Reason that you have done so? Joab answer'd him, Because it is written, you shall make to perish z, c, r, of Amaleck. David replied to him, But we read z, c, r. Joab says to him, They taught me to read z, c, r. He went and ask'd his Master, how he had taught him to read? He told him, z, c, r. For the understanding of this place, we must observe that the Word composed of three Hebrew Consonants, Zain, Caph and Resch, which answer our three Letters z, c, r, signifies different things, according to the dif∣ference of the Pronounciation. If we pronounce it Zacar, as Joab pronounced it, it signifies Male; and so the Commandment was only to cut off all the Males; whereas if we pronounce it Zecer, as David did, it signifies to Remember; and so the Sense was, That they must cut off the Name or Remembrance of Amaleck. If the Points had been invented, they would have taken away the Ambiguity, and the Talmudists would have made mention of them in this place. There's another Instance in the 1st Chap∣ter of the Treatise Kiduschim, where it's said, That two Rabbies being in Controversie upon Exod. 21.8. where it's said, That he who hath bought a Maid that does not please him, he shall not sell her, because he hath abus'd her. [In the English Bible] it is, dealt deceitfully with her. These last Words are ambiguous in the Hebrew; for, if we read Bebigdo Bah, it signifies because of his Garment: But if we read it Bebagdo Bah, it signifies because he has prevaricated with her, and abus'd her. One of the Rabbies un∣derstood it one way, and the other another; the one pleaded the ordinary way of read∣ing; the other pleaded the Authority of the Massora; but neither of 'em alledge the Points in defence of their Opinion. In the 1st Chapter of the Treaty call'd Sanhedrim, there's another Controversie betwixt the Rabbies, upon the Sense of a Word in Levit. (r)

12.5. which being pronounced Sibheim, signifies 70; and Schuhaim signifies two Weeks: This Difference might have been decided, had there been then any Points: But we see the Rabbies make no mention of them. In the Book. Midraschim, or the ancient Mysti∣cal Commentaries of the Rabbies upon the Scriptures, there's no mention of the Points in any place, no more than there is in the Book Sophrim, which treats expresly of the man∣ner of writing the Law: There he speaks of the choice of Parchment to be used, of the Space there ought to be betwixt the Letters, how many Letters in each Line, how many Lines in a Page, that the Words ought to be separated, that the Letters ought to be great or small, and speaks nothing of the Vowel Points. Could it be possible he should have forgot them? This Book is later than the Talmud, and speaks of it with Applause. The Points then are later than the 7th Age. Since this Book was compos'd, there was about the beginning of the 9th Age, two Reviews of the Text of the Bible, one by the Western, and another by the Eastern Jews. It appears, that in those Reviews they made no use of the Points, nor observed any difference in the Punctuation. Whereas the Rabbies Ben-Ascher and Ben-Naphtali, who made a Review about 100 Years after, that is about 940, spent the greatest part of their Criticks on the Points.

Another Proof of the time when the Points were invented, is the Origin of Grammar among the Jews. The first of their Grammarians was Rabbi Judas Chiug, an Arabian, who lived in the 10th Century. Since then they have had divers. Now there are two things we may lay down as Matter of Fact. 1. That it's almost impossible to know the Rules and the Use of the Points without Grammar. 2. That the Hebrew Grammar is chiefly founded upon the Knowledge of the Points. Which makes it evi∣dent, That those two Things must be invented near upon the same time. In fine, 'tis very probable, that the Hebrews had their Vowel Points from the Arabs, and that they were the first Inventers of them. History informs us, That the Arabs or Saracens be∣coming Masters of a great part of Asia and Africk, and of Sicily and Spain in Europe, in the 7th and 8th Age, their Language, as usual, spread with their Dominions, and be∣came common in all the Countries under their Obedience. Then it was, that to fix the Pronounciation of that Language amongst so many different People, they invented the Points and set up Grammarians to compose Rules for their Tongue. The Jews as well as other Eastern Nations did commonly write in Arabick. Their first Gram∣marians wrote in that Language, and followed the Method and Rules of the Arabian Grammar. The Massorets, whose natural Tongue was the Arabick, imitated the Cu∣stom, and followed the Example of the Arabs in pointing the Letters of the Hebrew Text, to fix the Pronounciation of it. As the Arabians changed their ancient Vowels into Consonants, they did the like, and followed their Distinction into those that are pronounc'd by the Throat, Lips, Roof of the Mouth, Teeth and Tongue. They called the Primitive Words Roots, as they did; and the Vowel Points they called Move∣ments. In the same manner they admitted useless Letters, which they call Quiescent, and don't pronounce: From them they had the Dagesch lene and Dagesch forte; the former directing to pronounce the Aspirates softly; and the latter teaching to dou∣ble them. This Conformity in Grammar and Punctuation shews that the Jews had both from the Arabs.

This is the most probable Opinion concerning the Origin of the Vowel Points, which were not in use among the Jews till the 9th Age. The Invention is commonly ascrib'd to the Massorets of Tiberias, who are renown'd amongst the Grammarians for the Ex∣actness of their Punctuation: And 'tis probable enough that they introduc'd it first, and by degrees reduc'd it to an Art. We shall examine afterwards, whether we are to fol∣low their Punctuation, or whether we may vary from it.

SECT. III. That the Hebrew Text of the Sacred Scriptures was not lost during the Captivity: Aud that Esdras did not make it over again intirely, but only restor'd and cor∣rected it.

THE Story related by the Author of the 4th Book of Esdras, chap. 14. That Es∣dras having taken with him five Scribes, and gone to a place of Retirement, where in 40 Days he dictated to them divers Volumes by Divine Inspiration, occasion'd some of the Ancients to look upon him as the Restorer of the Books of the Bible, and to as∣sert that all the Copies of the Sacred Books were lost during the Captivity, and that Esdras being divinely Inspired, restored them by his Memory. This St. Irenaeus, St. Cle∣ment of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Basil, and some others of the Ancients seem to have believed (a); but without any Ground, in my Opinion. For besides, that the 4th Book of Esdras is Apocryphal, and full of Fables, it is not said there that the Books which Esdras composed in this Retirement, were the Books that made up the Jewish Canon. And it is altogether incredible, as we we shall presently see, That all the Copies of the Sacred Books should be lost during the Captivity. It is true, that Esdras took pains to re-establish the Books of the Law. First, By making a Collection and a Canon of the Sacred Books. Secondly, By reviewing them Exactly, and correcting the Faults that might have slipp'd into them. Thirdly, By putting them in Order. Fourthly, By wri∣ting them in new Characters, as we have already said. Fifthly, By adding thereunto some Connexions and Explications. It is in this Sense, that he may justly be called, The Restorer of the Sacred Books; and that we may reasonably say, he renew'd and re∣establish'd them. It is thus that St. Jerom, St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom and Theodoret ex∣plain themselves (b). And 'tis, perhaps, in this Sense that we are to understand the Passages of the other Fathers, which we have quoted for the contrary Opinion, tho' some of 'em seem to say more. But to say, That God inspired him with all the Sacred Books verbatim, and that he did dictate them on this Inspiration, is to admit a Miracle without necessity, which is attested by no Body, and to suppose a thing that is plain∣ly false. It is to maintain an Opinion injurious to Religion, in making the Authority of the Sacred Books to depend only upon a fabulous, or at least, an uncertain History. How shall we prove to a Libertine, that we have the Books of Moses and the Prophets, if we suppose they were lost during the Captivity? Is it enough to tell him, That Es∣dras restor'd them by the Inspiration of God? What Proof can we bring for it? Is it possible that God, who by an Effect of his Providence hath made the Verity of the Sa∣cred Histories as certain as any other, (to consider things only according to the Light of Reason.) Is it possible, I say, that he would have permitted an Event which might have rendred the whole Body of the Sacred History uncertain and doubtful, to those who had not the Eye of Faith, and put the Faithful under an impossibility of proving

the Truth of it. But, without insisting on those Consequences, the thing in it self is not to be maintain'd; there's a great number of Proofs which shew it to be manifestly im∣possible, that all the Copies of the Sacred Books should be consumed by the burning of the Temple, or lost during the Captivity. For, in the first place, there were abundance of Jews, of the ten Tribes, who had kept to the Religion of their Fathers, and had without doubt preserv'd Copies of the Law. We see that Tobit professed the Jewish Religion during the Captivity, he had not only the Law of Moses, but also the Prophe∣cy of Amos: For when they brought him the News, That there was in the open Mar∣ket-place the Body of an Israelite that had been strangled; he remembred this Prophecy of Amos, Your Feasts shall be changed into Mourning, and your Mirth into Lamentation. In the second place, The Samaritan Pentateuch is a convincing Proof, that the Copies of the Law were not lost, and that the Samaritans had preserv'd it. Their Copies could not be burnt in the Temple, and the Captivity of the Jews contributed nothing to the loss of them. There were then, at least, Copies of the Pentateuch remaining in Esdras's time. In the third place, 11 Years before the Destruction of Jerusalem, Ezekiel and Daniel were transported into Babylon with King Joachim, and divers others of the Is∣raelites that feared God. Is it any way likely then, that none of those Captives car∣ried the Sacred Books with them, and that no Copy of them was preserv'd during the Captivity? Jeremy staid in his Country after the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple: And shall we believe that neither he, nor none of those that staid with him, preserv'd Copies of the Holy Books? In the fourth place it appears, That Daniel had the Books of Moses during the Captivity of Babylon, because he says in the 9th Chapter (speaking to God) All the People of Israel have transgressed thy Law, even by depart∣ing, that they might not obey thy Voice; therefore the Curse is poured upon us, and the Oath that is written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And a little after, As it is written in the Law of Moses, All this Evil is come up∣on us. There is likewise mention made in the Book of Daniel, of the Prophelies of Isaiah and Jeremiah. They must then have had Copies of them during the Captivity. In the fifth place, 'tis said, in the 6th Chapter of the first Book of Esdras, That the build∣ing of the Temple was finished in the sixth year of King Darius, and that the Priests and Levites were establish'd in their Functions, according as it is written in the Law of Moses. But Esdras was not then come from Jerusalem; for it is not till the following Chap∣ter, that he gives an Account of his coming to Judea in the 7th Year of King Artaxer∣xes. Sixthly, In the 2d Book of Esdras, Chap. 8. The People being willing to be in∣structed in the Law of Moses, pray'd Esdras not to dictate the same afresh, but only to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had given to the People of Israel. And the Scribes spoke to Esdras, that he might bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded Israel. And it is said, That Esdras forthwith brought the Book of the Law and read it before all the People. In the 7th place, It is cer∣tain that the Jews, besides the Copies of the Sacred Books which were in the Temple and in the Synagogues, had a great many private Copies which they kept carefully, and had 'em read to their Families. How then can we imagine, that in 70 Years time all those Copies were utterly lost, so that none of 'em should be left remaining? It is a Sup∣position altogether ridiculous, nay impossible. In short, the Priests and Levites had a par∣ticular Obligation to read and preserve the Sacred Books; their Duty requir'd it, and it was their Interest they should not be lost. Can we reasonably suppose that they would suffer 'em to be lost by Negligence, or that they deliver'd 'em all up by manifest Im∣piety, and that not so much as one single one did escape? It is the greatest Absurdity in the World.

SECT. IV. That the Hebrew Text of the Sacred Books was not corrupted by the Malice of the Jews.

DIvers Authors accuse the Jews, of having maliciously corrupted the Hebrew Text of the Sacred Books, and pretend to found their Charge on the Authority of the ancient Fathers of the Church. They do likewise alledge Passages, whose Corruption they maintain to be visible, and that this could never have been done but out of Hatred to Christianity. We must examine, if the Testimonies and Examples which they bring be

Conclusive: For, supposing that the Accusation is not prov'd, it must be agreed that it was a great piece of Presumption to have advanc'd it. Justice is due to all the World, to Enemies as well as Friends, Jews as well as Christians; and, moreover, 'tis the Interest of Christians to prove, that the Original of the Books upon which their Religion is founded, hath suffered no considerable Change or Corruption. For, if we suppose that the Jews have alter'd and chang'd them as they pleas'd, what stress can we lay upon those Books? Perhaps they will say, That there are Versions which have preserv'd the Purity of them: But who can persuade us of that, if the Original upon which those Versions were founded have not a Being. It is then not only an unjust but an inconsi∣derate Zeal, to accuse the Jews of having corrupted the Hebrew Text, if we have no convincing Proofs of it, tho' there were no Proofs to the contrary, as there certainly are. Let us then examine those that they alledge, and begin with the Testimonies pro∣duc'd against them.

The first is St. Justin Martyr, the oldest of the Christian Authors that wrote against the Jews: It's said, This Father accuses them in his Dialogue against Trypho, of ha∣ving altered the Holy Scriptures in those Places that favour'd the Christians. But if we weigh it duly, we shall find no such Accusation in Justin. He does not say any where, that the Jews changed or corrupted the Hebrew Text; but only, that they made unfaithful Translations of it, and such as differ'd from those of the Septuagint, and that they had cut off from that Version some Places where there were Prophesies of Jeses Christ. Vos autem, &c. i. e. But you have dared to corrupt the Translations of your Elders, which they made by Order of the King of Egypt, alledging that the Scripture has it not as they translated it ..... They endeavour to interpret them otherwise: And have likewise taken away several whole Passages out of the Edition of the 70 Elders, which manifestly foretold this Crucified Jesus to be God and Man, and that he died on the Cross. For Instance, he alledges, Isaiah 7.14. which they translated, Behold a young Woman shall conceive. Whereas the LXX translated it, Behold, a Virgin shall conceive. So that we see St. Justin's Charge is not founded on the Alteration of the Text, but on the Translation of the word Halmah, which they rendred by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a young Woman, instead of rendring it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Virgin, as the LXX did. Trypho pressing him to give Examples of Places which the Jews had cut off, not from the Text (for that was not the Matter in Debate) but from the Version of the Septuagint; St. Justin brings him a Passage from Esdras, two Passages of Jeremy, and another of Psalm 95. where he pre∣tends they have cut off those words a Ligno, from the Wood. We shall afterwards ex∣amine the Truth of those Charges: It's sufficient to observe here, That they don't fall upon the Text, that St. Justin does not accuse the Jews of falsifying that, but only upon the Greek Text, from whence they had cut off those things which were in the Version of the LXX. He charges them only with having translated amiss; and being so bold, that when the Version of the LXX is alledg'd against them, which he believes to be very faithful, to say that it is not so in the Text.

The 2d Testimony they quote is from St. Irenaeus, who also accuses the Jews with having chang'd that Passage of Isaiah, a Virgin shall bring forth a Son, Lib. 3. cap. 24. But he, as well as St. Justin, speaks only of the Versions, and not of the Text. There is not then, says he, any Truth in the Version of those who have dar'd to translate it, A young Woman shall conceive and bring forth a Son; as Theodotion of Ephesus and A∣quila of Pontus have done, being both Jewish Proselytes, whom the Ebionites followed. He opposes to this Translation that of the LXX, which the Jews made a long time before our Saviour's coming. And he adds by way of Conjecture, That had they foreseen that there should be Christians one Day, and that they would make use of those Testimonies, they would have made no scruple to burn the Scriptures, in which 'twas foretold, That all Nations should partake of Life, and that those who boasted themselves to be descend∣ed from the Family of Jacob, and the People of Israel should be depriv'd of the Inhe∣ritance of God's Favour. It is not of Matter of Fact that St. Irenaeus speaks in those last Words; for certainly the Jews had not burnt the Holy Scriptures; it was only an Aggravation to express their Hatred of Christians. So that there's nothing of the falsi∣fication of the Hebrew Text to be concluded from thence: Nay, he does not so much as accuse the Modern Jews of it, but only of having unfaithfully translated that Passage of Isaiah, A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son, by interpreting the Word Hal∣mah a Woman, instead of a Virgin.

It is with less Reason still, that they alledge what Tertullian says in his Book of the Habits of Women.

That we have Ground to think the Jews have rejected the Book of Enoch, as they have done almost all the rest wherein Jesus Christ is mentioned; and that

we are not to wonder if those who were to reject him when he spoke himself, would not receive some Writings which spoke of him.

For in this Place he does not treat of the altering of falsifying the Text of the Sacred Books which are the Canon of the Jews, but only of some Books that they had thrown out of the Canon, as the Book of Enoch, which some Christians did also reject, because it was not admitted into the Jewish Archives. Tertullian confutes this Argument, because Christians are not to reject what is favourable for them, and that all Scripture that is proper for Edification is inspired by God. This no ways relates to the Question in hand, but only to the Canonicalness of the Book of Enoch.

Origen seems to accuse the Jews more formally of having falsified the Text: For ex∣plaining a Passage in his 12th Homily on that Prophet, he makes this Remark;

That be∣cause it is hard to find any one that will accuse himself, and confess his Fault, the Jews, who have falsified some Copies, have for this Reason chang'd something in this Place, by putting those Words, their Sins, instead of those [the sin of Juda.]

Yet we read still in the Text, as in the Days of St. Jerom and Origen, Hattath Jehuda, the Sin of Juda; and not Hattatham, their Sins: So that this pretended Falsification could not be made but in a small Number of Copies. Thus Origen speaks only of some. The Jews (says he) who had falsified some Copies. He seems moreover to speak only of some Greek Copies, and is so far from accusing the Hebrew Text of Falsehood in this place, that it's the Septuagint he speaks of: For after having explained the last Verses of the 16th Chapter of Jeremy, he says, They are followed by this Prophecy. The Sin of Judah is wrote with a Graver of Iron on a Diamond, and engraven on their Heart. [In the English Translation, 'tis the beginning of the 17th of Jeremy, and runs thus. The Sin of Judah is written with a Pen of Iron, and with the Point of a Diamond, and it is graven upon the Table of their Heart.]

But he observes, That he does not find this Prophecy in the Septuagint, (as indeed it is not to be found there at this Day) but on∣ly in other Versions agreeable to the Hebrew Text; and that it's probable, that as Men are unwilling to own themselves to be wicked, the Jews have falsified some Copies, and read their Sin, instead of the Sin of Judah.

He likewise accuses the LXX of ha∣ving cut off all that Prophecy of the Text of Jeremiah, lest that Testimony should have for ever continued against them. It is true, that the same Author in his Epistle to Asricanus, concerning the History of Susannah, maintains that the Jews have cut off that History from the Hebrew Text: And to render this Opinion the more probable, he brings some Examples out of the Old and New Testament, where he pretends the Jews have made some Alteration. But for the better understanding Origen's Sense in this Work, we must remember that the Point betwixt him and Asricanus, was about the Truth of the History, and whether it might be read: Asricanus treated it as fabulous, because 'tis not in the Hebrew. Origen does not say precesely, that the Jews had cut it off from the Book of Daniel, but only that they had it formerly: Whence it will not ne∣cessarily follow, that it was part of the Book of Daniel, or of the Jewish Canon. But it might be as the Histories of Judith and Tobit, in the Number of the Books that were out of the Canon, tho' wrote in Hebrew or Chaldee. And 'tis this only which Origen seems to have maintain'd, since he did not defend the Canonicalness of it, as we have observ'd, but the Truth of it. And in other places he speaks of it doubtfully (a).

St. Chrysostom is no more favourable than other Fathers, to the Pretensions of those who maintain that the Jews have corrupted the Hebrew Text. Two Passages of this Father are quoted on this Subject. The first is in his 5th Homily on Matthew, where he does not compare the Version of the LXX with the Hebrew Text, but only with other Versions made by the Jews since the Birth of our Saviour. Siquidem alii, &c. Forasmuch as other Jews have translated it since the coming of our Lord, who deservedly lie under suspicion, because they have wickedly and craftily corrupted many things, and industriously concealed the Mysteries foretold by the Prophets: But the LXX who were called altogether to interpret the same, above 100 Years before the coming of our Lord, are vindicated faom all such Suspicion. The other Passage is taken out of the Ninth

Homily of the same Commentary; where, willing to give a Reason why those Words, He shall be called a Nazarene, cited by St. Matthew, as the Saying of a Prophet, are not now to be found in the Prophets, he says, We are not to wonder at it, because the Jews, who were negligent and impious, have suffer'd to be lost by neglect, or burnt, or tore divers of the Works of the Prophets. Had he believ'd that the Jews had falsified the He∣brew Text of the Prophets which we have now, he would sooner have had recourse to this Falsification, than to lost Books. In a word, he does not in this place accuse the Jews of having falsified the Sacred Books that we have now, but that they lost and sup∣pressed those that we have not.

Some other Authors are also cited, as Julian of Toledo, and Eutymius on St. Matthew. But the first speaks only of the different Chronology of the Text, and of the Version of the LXX. It's true indeed, that he pleads for the Truth of the latter, and in that pre∣fers their Version to the Text: But he does not accuse the Jews of having corrupted their Text by Malice. And in regard of the latter, he speaks only of the Explications which the Jews gave to the Prophecy of Micah, in maintaining that it ought to be un∣derstood of Zerobabel. This also the Jews deprave (says he, in his Commentary on the 1st of St. Matthew) saying, That the Prophet spake of Zerobabel: To whom we answer on the contrary, That Zerobabel was not born in Bethlehem, but in Babylon.

Tho' St. Jerom hath declar'd himself in divers Places for the Authentieness of the Hebrew Text, yet some Passages of his are alledg'd, in which he seems not only to ac∣knowledge, that there are some Faults in the Hebrew Text, but also to accuse the Jews of having falsified them. Amongst others, they quote a Passage in the 3d Chapter of his Commentary on the Galatians; where explaining those Words quoted by St. Paul, and taken from the 27th of Deuteronomy, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are writen in the Book of the Law. He says, 'Tis in vain that the Jews have cut off from this Text the Particle Col, which answers to All. In vain, says he, did the Jews take it away, lest they should seem to be under the Curse. He makes the same Remark upon the words in that same Chapter, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a Tree: Upon which he says, It may be the ancient Hebrew Text had it, Cursed of God, as 'tis expressed by the Septuagint. They quote another Passage of the same Fa∣ther, from his Commentary on the 5th of Micah, where speaking of Bethlehem Ephra∣ta, he says the LXX make mention of this City, and of ten more in the 15th of Jo∣shua; upon which he observes, that this might have been raz'd out of the ancient Copies by the Malice of the Jews. They add, That St. Jerom himself, relates in divers Places the different Versions of the Hebrew Text, and likewise that of the Septuagint, which he applauds and approves. To this 'tis answer'd, That St. Jerom never advanc'd when speaking his own Sentiment, that the Jews had maliciously corrupted the Hebrew Text; nor does he assure us that it was corrupted, but only relates simply according to his Custom, the different Opinions or Conjectures of Interpreters. When he says in the first Passage, That the Jews cut of the Particle Col in vain, he only speaks it as the Opinion of those who pretended the Jews had cut it off, which he acknowledges to be very uncertain.

It is not certain, says he, whether the Septuagint have added here those words every Man, and in every thing; or, if they were in the ancient Hebrew, and the Jews raz'd them out.

The reason why he believ'd they might have been in the Hebrew, is because there's no likelihood that the Apostle would have quoted those Words so, if they had not been in the Hebrew Copies; and, in effect, the Particle Col is found in the Samaritan Text. It's this that made him say, That it was in vain for the Jews to have cut them off, since the Copies written in more ancient Characters testi∣fie that they were there. It is a meer Conjecture, founded on the Conformity of the Samaritan Text with the Septuagint. In the 2d Passage he brings the different Versions of this Sentence, Cursed is every one who is hanged on a Tree, and the different Senses that may be given to the Hebrew Text. He examines afterward why the Apostle hath cut off from the Septuagint those Words, of God, which are also in the Hebrew Text, and hath added these words, all, and on a Tree, which are not found in the Hebrew Text, but are in the Septuagint.

For, says he, if he had followed the LXX, he ought to add the Name of God; and if he made use of the Hebrew Text, as being an He∣brew, he ought not to have added these words, all, and on a Tree, which are not in the Hebrew. St. Jerom resolves this Difficulty by an Alternative, saying, That either the Hebrew Copies had it otherwise than at present, or that the Apostle follow'd the Sense without keeping to the Words: Or, what he believes to be more probable, That after our Saviour's Passion the Name of GOD was added by one or other to the He∣brew Copy and to ours, to reproach us, because we believe in Jesus Christ, who is

made a Curse for us.

This Father speaks yet with more uncertainty in the third Pas∣sage; for there he declares, That he cannot tell whether the Word Bethlebem Ephrata hath been struck out of the Hebrew Text or added to the Version of the LXX. Whether it was raz'd out of the ancient Books by the Malice of the Jews, lest Christ should seem to be descended of the Tribe of Judah, or added by the LXX, we have no cer∣tainty. St. Jerom in these Places speaks doubtfully, in order to Accommodate himself to the Sentiments of divers Authors, as he owns he has frequently done in his Com∣mentaries. It is according to this Method that he frequently quotes the different In∣terpretations of the Hebrew Text, and the different Versions, and that he commends the LXX. But when he gives his own Thoughts of this Question, he declares himself with Origen for the Hebrew Text, and positively denies that it was falsified by the Jews Dilemma.

If any one, says he (in the 3d Book of his Commentary on the 6th of Isaiah) pretends that the Hebrew Copies were corrupted by the Jews, let him hear what Origen says in the 8th Volume of his Explications upon Isaiah, and an∣swer that Question, Why our Lord and his Apostles, who reprov'd the Doctors of the Law and the Pharisees for their other Crimes, did not tell them of this, which, if true, would have been the greatest' If it be said, That the Hebrew Copies were corrupted since the coming of our Lord; I cannot but smile, that they would have me to be∣lieve, that Jesus Christ, his Evangelists and Apostles, have quoted those Passages in the same manner, as the Jews should falsifie them afterwards.

We cannot doubt then but St. Jerom was persuaded that the Hebrew Copies were not maliciously corrupted by the Jews: For, had he been of that Opinion, why should he have undertaken a new Ver∣sion from the Hebrew Text? Upon what Ground should he have preferr'd that to the Version of the LXX? And with what Confidence could he have given it the Name of the Hebrew Verity throughout?

St. Augustin well perceiv'd, That it was neither Prudent, Reasonable, nor Advantage∣ous to the Church, to maintain that the Jews had corrupted the Sacred Books. God for∣bid, says he (in his 15th Book of the City of God, chap. 13.) that any prudent Man should imagine that the Jews, how malicious soever they be, could falsifie so many Copies, that were dispersed in so many Places. And therefore in his Treatise of Christian Do∣ctrine, he advises People to have recourse to the Originals; and when he prefers the Version of the LXX to all the rest, he always puts in a Salvo for the Honour of the Hebrew Text, as in his 18th Book de Civitate Dei, Cap. 43. Insomuch that when there's any difference betwixt the Text and the Version, he says, We must rather believe the Ori∣ginal than the Versions. Ibid. Lib. 15. Cap. 13.

Having answered the Authorities that were produced to shew, That the Jews had maliciously and out of hatred to the Christians, corrupted the Hebrew Text, and shew'd that none of the Ancients do positively charge them with that Crime, and that the most Learned of them do vindicate them from it. We shall now bring our Reasons to prove, That there's no likelihood of their having done it, or that they could do it. Those that appear to us to be the most convincing are as follow.

In the first Place, 'tis certain, that the Jews have always had a particular Respect for the Sacred Books contained in their Canon, that they were perswaded it was Criminal to add to them, or diminish from them, and preserved them carefully. Then what like∣lihood is there, that they would designedly corrupt them? Is it not much more reason∣able to believe, that they preserved them in their Purity? Philo, quoted by Eusebius, l. 8. Praep. Evang. assures us, That they preserv'd the Books of Moses, without having chan∣ged so much as one Word of them. Josephus testifies, That the Jews have so great a Respect for the Sacred Books, that for a long Succession of Ages, none amongst them durst add any thing to them, or diminish any thing from them. 'Tis on this Account that St. Justin brings in Trypho the Jew, saying (according to the Maxims of those of his Sect) That they were so far from Corrupting the Sacred Scriptures, that all of them believe 'twould have been a more enormous Crime, than to Worship the Golden Calf, consecrate their Children to Idols, make them to pass thro' the Fire, to sacrifice them, or to kill the Prophets. The Jews have always preserv'd, and do still preserve this Res∣pect for the Books of the Bible; they transcribed them with all the Precautions imaginable, to make their Copies true; they read them with Exactness in their Synagogues: Then is it credible, that after this they would go about to corrupt them deliberately?

In the second Place, if the Jews had corrupted the Holy Scripture, out of hatred to the Christians, on purpose to deprive them of those Weapons, which they made use of to fight themselves, they would certainly have falsified the Passages, which contain the most clear Predictions of Jesus Christ, and those that the Christians opposed to them;

but those Passages have continued in their Purity, and are sometimes more express in the Hebrew Text, than in the Vulgar Translation. There's an infinite Number of clear Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, which the Christians alledge every day against the Jews, in which it's agreed the Jews have made no Alteration. There's only a very small Number alledg'd, where its pretended that the Version of the LXX renders the Sense of the Prophecy concerning Jesus Christ more clear (which we shall examine particu∣larly afterwards) there are on the other hand, Places where the Hebrew Text agrees better to Jesus Christ than the Version of the Septuagint, as we shall make it appear. What then, can we conclude from all this, that the Jews, out of hatred to the Chri∣stians, have falsified the Hebrew Text? Not at all: For had they done it from that Motive, they would have corrupted all the Passages or at least the Chief Ones, and since we cannot conclude, that the Septuagint had any design to weaken the Proofs of the Messiah, because in some Places they have translated the Text in such a manner as dimi∣nishes the force of the Prophecy; neither can we lawfully conclude, that the Jews have falsified the Hebrew Text, and changed the Prophecies, which relate to Jesus Christ, because in some Places the Hebrew Text, does not seem to be so express as the Versions. It may be that the Text hath been corrupted in those Places accidentally, by the fault of the Copiers. It may be also that the Interpreters have not kept to the Letter of the Text. Perhaps there may be some fault in the Version. We shall enter upon the Par∣ticulars afterwards.

In the third Place, if we should allow, that the Jews would have falsified the Co∣pies of the Sacred Books, it was morally impossible, that they could do it; for how should they conspire together to carry on that Design? How could they when scattered throughout the Earth, agree in all Places upon the same Falsification? Is it possible; that all of them should have consented to that Crime, and that none of them, should oppose it? How could they falsifie all the Copies, without leaving so much as one in its Ori∣ginal Integrity? Admitting they could have accomplished their Design in respect of the Copies, which were in their Possession, how could they have falsified those that were in the Hands of Christians? All those Suppositions are alike Unwarrantable.

In the fourth Place, it seems to have been the Concern of the Divine Providence, not to suffer that the Copies of the Sacred Books should be corrupted by the Jews in those Pro∣phecies, which related to Jesus Christ. For one of the strongest Proofs of the Truth and Antiquity of those Prophecies is, That they were preserved and respected by an An∣cient People who hate and are no ways in Agreement with us: They give Testimony to the Antiquity and Truth of the Books, which confound themselves, and demonstrate the Truth of our Religion; which makes St. Augustin say,

That the Jews are the Pre∣servers of our Archives and Books: On Ps. 40 & 56. They carry our Books, they are made our Book-Keepers, but reap no Advantage from them, all the Benefit belongs to us. When the Pagans will not believe that the Predictions concerning Jesus Christ, which we relate, are true; and maintain, that we have forged them, we have nothing else to do but to refer them to the Jews, who are the Enemies of our Faith, and preserve the Books wherein those Prophesies are found.

'Tis an effect of the Divine Provi∣dence in respect of us (saith St. Austin in his Exhortation to the Gentiles) that the Jews preserve our Books in their Synagogues, and by consequence our Religion; for to prevent all occasion of Slander, by making use of the Copies kept in our Church, we love rather to make use of those of the Jewish Synagogues, the Reading of which de∣monstrates, that what those Holy Men have wrote is our Doctrine.

In the fifth Place, we make use of St. Jerom's Dilemma, by adding thereunto a third Article, relating to the time that past from St. Jerom to our own Days (for there are Authors who pretend that the Hebrew Text was not corrupted till after that time) and argue thus, If the Hebrew Text was corrupted by the Malice of the Jews, it was either before Jesus Christ, or betwixt our Saviour's Preaching and St. Jerom's time, or from St. Jerom to our time. Now all those Suppositions are alike unwarrantable, and by consequence easily overthrown: For in the first Place, had the Hebrew Text been cor∣rupted by the Malice of the Jews before Jesus Christ, our Lord and his Apostles would never have failed to reprove them for that Crime; but they are so far from doing so, that they suppose the Jews had the True Scripture amongst them. Search the Scriptures, (saith our Saviour, John 5.39.) for in them ye think ye have eternal Life; and they are they which testifie of me. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses's Chair, says he, Matth. 23.2, 3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you, observe and do. Would ever our Saviour have spoke thus of the Corrupters and Falsifiers of the Sacred Scripture? The Apostle St. Paul Writing to the Corinthians, does not upbraid the Jews, that they

had not the Books of the Old Testament in their Purity and Integrity, but that they did not understand them. For until this day remaineth the same Vail untaken away in the Reading of the Old Testament, which Vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read the Vail is upon their Heart, 2 Cor. 3.14, 15. The Books that the Jews read were the True Sacred Scripture: It was the Law of Moses which they read every Sabbath-day in their Synagogues (as St. James says, Acts 15. v. 21.) It was not a falsified Law or Scripture. They read it as they received it from their Fa∣thers, but did not understand it. It ought to pass then for certain, That the Hebrew Text was not corrupted by the Malice of the Jews in the time of our Saviour and his Apostles. Let's see if it can be said, that they falsified the same betwixt the time of the Apostles, and that of St. Jerom.

There are many Arguments to prove, that this could not be. The Jews that were converted to Christianity, did without doubt keep Copies of the Sacred Books. The Nazarenes, who were a Sect of Christians very much addicted to the Ancient Law, did without all Question also keep Copies of them. The Jews were not Masters of those Copies to corrupt them: Tho' after the taking of Jerusalem there were but few Chri∣stians who preserved the Hebrew Tongue. It cannot be said however, that they did not keep the Hebrew Copies, and that no Christian learned that Tongue. Hegesippus, who lived a little after the Apostles, and of a Jew became Christian, did certainly under∣stand Hebrew, as Eusebius observes. He had without doubt the Hebrew Copies of the Old Testament. Many other Christians of Palestin originally Jews, understood and read the Bible in Hebrew. It is impossible then, that the Jews could have falsified their Copies, and that no Body should have perceived it. From the 12th Year of the Em∣peror Adrian, the Hebrew Text was conformable to that which we have, as appears by Aquila's Version. That Falsification then must have been made betwixt the taking of Je∣rusalem, and the beginning of the second Age, that is to say in about 30 or 40 Years. Is it any way likely, that in that time, when there were still divers converted Jews in Pale∣stin, none of them should have preserved the Copies they had uncorrupted? Shall we believe that the Jews could in so little time suppress all the Copies of the Hebrew Text, and substitute Counterfeit Ones in their Place. The Hebrew Text which Origen inserted some time after in his Hexapla was agreeable to that which we have. In fine, in St. Jerom's time, the Jews and Christians had the same Hebrew Text, that we have at present; and St. Jerom's Version is a certain Evidence, that no considerable Change has been made in it since that time, and by consequence that the Jews have not corrup∣ted it: And besides that the Extraordinary and Scrupulous' Diligence of the Massorites must needs have contributed mightily towards the Preservation of the Text in its Purity. St. Jerom brings another Reason to demonstrate, that the Hebrew Text hath not been corrupted since Christ's time, to wit, that Jesus Christ and his Apostles have quoted the Scripture according to the Hebrew Text, and not according to the Version of the LXX. It is plain, that this Observation, if true, does invincibly demonstrate, That the Places in which the Hebrew differs from the LXX, have not been falsified by the Jews, since the time of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. But this Observation of St. Jerom's is not to be understood in the full extent of the Words. For it must be own'd, that the Evange∣lists and Apostles Writing in Greek, do usually quote the Passages of the Old Testa∣ment, according to the Version which was Common and Authoriz'd among the Jews (b), without examining whether it was entirely conformable to the Hebrew Text. But as to the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which was wrote in Hebrew, tho' we have not the Original of it, it's easie to know by the Version it self, that this Evangelist had quoted the Scripture according to the Hebrew, in Places where it differs from the Septu∣agint (c). There are also Passages in St. John's Gospel and in St. Paul's Epistles, wherein the Version of the LXX is not exactly followed; and that alone is sufficient to prove, That neither the Evangelists nor Apostles believed the Hebrew Text to be cor∣rupted.

The Difficulty also which they have to assign the time wherein 'tis pretended the Jews falsified the Hebrew Text, does further prove the falshood of this System: Some pretand that this Falsification was not made till after St. Jerom's time. This is the Opinion of Melchior Cano, Serarius and some others; but the Version which St. Jerom hath made of the Hebrew Text, being, as we have observed, agreeable almost in every thing to the Hebrew Text that we now have, as well as the Versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, they are so many Monuments against this pretended Falsi∣fication; and we desie those who maintain that Opinion to produce Passages of any Consequence, wherein St. Jerom's Version, differs from the Hebrew Text we now have, which is the least they ought to do, if they would give any Appearance of Truth to the Opinion which they maintain. Therefore 'tis that most of those who have advan∣ced, that the Hebrew Text was corrupted by the Malice of the Jews, have thought themselves obliged to say, that the Corruption was of an older Date, and without giving themselves the Trouble to mark the Time precisely when 'twas done, have only said in general, That the Hebrew Text was corrupted by the Jews, betwixt the time of our Saviour, and that of St. Jerom. But when they are pressed, they are obliged to re∣strain this Epocha; for its hard to believe, that this Falsification was made in a time when there were so many Jewish Converts in Palestin, who understood the Hebrew, and read the Bible in that Language, that is to say, until the taking of Jerusalem. Moreover, the Fathers whom they alledge to prove, that the Jews have falsified the Hebrew Text, having liv'd 50 Years or thereabout, after the taking of Jerusalem, if their Passages prove any thing, we must suppose that the Hebrew Text was corrupted during the 50 Years from the taking of Jerusalem under Vespasian, till the time of Adrian. It is also in that time precisely, which the last Author, who hath wrote to maintain that the He∣brew Text was corrupted, places this Falsification, and not only sets down the exact time, but also the Author, alledging, That 'twas Rabbi Akiba, the Disciple of Gamaliel II. who began to flourish at Tiberias about the Year 95 of Jesus Christ, and died in 135. He says, that this Rabbi having great Credit, amongst those of his Nation, as well as Fame and Parts, undertook this Falsification, that his Disciple Aquila follow'd his Greek Version: And that since that time Origen and St. Jerom, knowing no other Hebrew Text, but that of the Jews of Tiberias, corrupted by Akiba, there remained no other neither amongst the Christians nor the Jews. This is the Ingenious System of that Author, which might have been probable, if his Learning and Acute Wit could have passed for solid Reasons. But though some Colour may be given to slight Con∣jectures by curious Remarks and an Ingenious Application of them, there's no great difficulty to discover the Weakness of them, when once we come to examine them. Thus it hath happened to this Author, who hath discovered his Learning by his par∣ticular Enquires, and his Wit by the fine and agreeable Turns, which he hath given to his Conjectures, but hath not thereby convinced any one of the Truth of his System in this Point; for certainly when we come to examine it narrowly, we find that it is only established on false or uncertain Suppositions, for he supposes.

1. That the Christians had no Hebrew Text, and had almost no Knowledge of it, from the time of the Apostles to the taking of Jerusalem. That could not be, since there were among the Christians a great number of converted Jews, whose Natural

Tongue was the Chaldee or the Syriack, which is called Hebrew in the Gospel; and that the Natural Jews perfectly understood the Ancient Hebrew, and read the Scripture in that Tongue.

2. He supposes that after the taking of Jerusalem, the Hebrew Text remained only in the Hands of the Jews. This is what History teaches us to be false, since we know that many Christian Jews that left Jerusalem before it was taken, settled themselves at Pella, where they formed the Sect of the Nazarens, who kept the Copies of the Hebrew Text.

3. He must suppose in his System, that there were no other Copies of the Hebrew Text in the World, than those of Tiberias, that is to say, there were no Jews elsewhere, or if they were, that they had no Hebrew Copies of the Law, but that they only made use of the Version of the LXX. But 'tis certain, there were Jews dispersed through all the World, and 'tis no less certain, that the Jews had Copies of the Law. How is it possible, That Rabbi Akiba should have had Credit enough to get all the Copies suppress'd or corrupted; so as in 30 or 40 Years after, there should be none left?

4. All that this Author alledges concerning Rabbi Akiba, upon the Credit of the Jews, has nothing of Certainty in it. It's true, St. Jerom assures us, that Akiba was Disci∣ple to Samai and Hillel, and that the Jews believed him to be Aquila's Master; but this is all we know of it, and that too very Uncertain.

5. This Author, to prove that Akiba hath falsified the Hebrew Text, relates the Ex∣plications of Scripture, ascribed to Rabbi Akiba, in the Book, Entituled, Pirke Eliezer: Or, Eliezer's Capitula, which he pretends to be conformable to the Hebrew Text at present, and different from the Version of the LXX. Whence he concludes, that 'tis he who is the Author of that Difference, and that he hath inserted it in the Hebrew Text. But to me nothing seems weaker than that way of Arguing; for, 1. Who can assure us, that the Discourse which Rabbi Eliezer ascribes to Akiba, is really his? 2. Is that a Proof that Rabbi Akiba hath falsified the Hebrew Text, because he hath quoted it as we have it now? 3. Amongst the Passages cited by the Author of this Objection, there are some of them in the LXX, as well as in the Hebrew, in the same manner as Rabbi Akiba has related them, and in the rest, the difference arises only from the Pronounci∣ation (d), so that we cannot conclude from thence, that Rabbi Akiba hath falsified the Scripture in those Places. On the contrary, since it is agreeable to the Version of the LXX, there must of necessity, according to the Principles of our Adversary, have been no Falsification in those Places.

6. When they say, that Aquila, the Disciple of Akiba, is accused to be the first among the Greeks, who corrupted the Sacred Text, it's to be supposed he did not make this Falsification but in following the corrupted Text; whereas the Falsifications whereof he is accused relate to his Translation. He is not charg'd with having translated from a corrupt Hebrew Copy, but to have translated the Hebrew sorrily.

In short, when 'tis alledged, that Akiba is the Author of the Corruption of the He∣brew Text, concerning the Chronology of the Patriarchs, they supposed it as a certain thing, First, That the Hebrew Text is corrupted in that Place, which is the thing in Question. They suppose, in the second Place, That it is Akiba who corrupted it out of Malice and Hatred to the Christians, which is not at all proved. 'Tis true, they add, That the Book Seder Olam, or the Great Chronology, was made according to Akiba's Sentiments, as the Jews alledge; but all this is very uncertain, and the Author of the Book Seder Olam, is much later than Akiba; And further, if what the Jews tell us of

Akiba be true, That he sided with Barcochebas, who revolted in the 132th Year of Christ, and would have himself thought to be the Messias, he would not have been at the trouble of abridging the Chronology, with a Design to shew that there were 2000 Years still to come before the Messias was to be expected. They will say, That the same Akiba, who abridg'd the Chronology out of hatred to the Christians, was af∣terwards engaged by a Spirit of Faction in the Party of Barcochebas: But what likeli∣hood is there, that a Man who had just alledg'd to the Christians that the Messias would not come till 2000 Years, should in so little a time after have the Impudence to produce a Messias himself, and persecute them in order to oblige them to acknowledge him? All this shews how little Credit we are to give to the Histories of the Jews. And how little Solidity there is in the Conjectures of the Author of the Book, called, The Anti∣quity of the Times defended, to prove that the Hebrew Text was falfified out of hatred to the Christians by this Rabbi Akiba.

After having shew'd that they not only come short of proving by Authority, that the Jews have corrupted the Hebrew Text, out of malice and hatred to the Christians, but also that it is not likely, nay, even that it's morally impossible they should have done it, we must return to the particular Places, which it's pretended they have corrupted out of hatred to the Christians, to weaken the Sense of the Prophecies that agree to Jesus Christ. But as we shall examine afterwards all the principal Passages, in which the Hebrew Text differs from the LXX, or the Vulgar Translation, of which these are a part, that we may not repeat the same thing again and again, we will satisfie our selves to observe here, 1. That there's no Proof that any of those Passages have been falsified by the Jews, out of hatred to the Christians: And supposing that there are some Passages corrupted, the Corruption may have proceeded from other Causes, as the negligence of the Copiers, the change of Letters that resemble one another, the dif∣ferent Reading or Punctuation, without any Necessity of accusing the Jews of falsifica∣tion, and unfair dealing. Nay we shall make it evident in the sequel, when we speak of those Passages in particular, That the Difference there is betwixt the Hebrew Text and LXX is visibly founded upon some of those Causes we have just now alledg'd. For certainly, if that Difference came from the Malice of the Jews, it would only be found in those Places which relate to Jesus Christ, since they had no Reason or Interest to falsifie any other; and they would not have fail'd to have falsified all, or at least the chief and most express Texts. Now it is certain that the Hebrew and the Version of the LXX differ in abundance of other Places. It is also certain that the principal Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, are as express, and sometimes more express in the Hebrew Text than in the LXX. It is then to no purpose for them to alledge some Prophecies concerning our Saviour, in which there's some Difference to be found be∣twixt the Hebrew Text and the LXX, to prove that the Jews have falsified the Hebrew Text. 2. That it is not true that the Hebrew Text is corrupted in all those Places where it differs from the Version of the LXX. We shall moreover shew, that there are several in which it is the Version that is defective or corrupted. 3. That most of those Differences are not considerable, and don't destroy the Prophecy: That many times that which is in the Version, is only a more ample Explication of what is in the Text. Those general Reflexions are sufficient to answer the Passages of the Hebrew Text which are alledg'd to be falsified by the Jews, until such time as we come to the Passages themselves.

SECT. V. That there are Corruptions in the Hebrew Text; how they came, and of what Na∣ture they are: That they don't hinder the Hebrew Texts being Authentic; and that it ought ordinarily to be prefer'd to the Versions. General Rules to know when we are to follow the Hebrew Text, and when to follow the Versions.

WE must never affirm any thing, but what we have solid Proofs for. Since we have none that the Hebrew Text hath been maliciously falsified by the Jews, it is nothing less than great rashness to ascertain it: And for that same Reason also we must beware of falling into the opposite Extreme, by maintaining that the Hebrew Text is in its Original Purity, and that it is not corrupted in any Place. This is to sup∣pose,

that the Jews, who copied it, were never mistaken, that they never put one Let ter for another, that they always pointed the Text right, that there was no difference in their Copiers, that they have preserv'd the Text without the least Fault since Moses's time, or from Esdras till now; that is to say, that they are infallible in their Reviews, Punctuation and Copying of the Sacred Books, and that they were subject neither to Negligence, nor Surprize; which can be ascrib'd to nothing but a peculiar Assistance from God, and to a sort of continual Inspiration. All those Suppositions being ground∣less, it's meer Superstition to assert as some Authors do, That the Hebrew Text, which we have at present, is not corrupted in any Place, and that there's no Fault, nor any thing left out, and that we must indispensibly follow it at all times. This is not on∣ly to speak without all Evidence, and contrary to all Probability, but we have very good Proof to the contrary. For, in the first place, there have been Differences betwixt the oldest of the Hebrew Copies, which the Massorites have observ'd by that which they call'd Keri and Ketib, and putting one of the Readings in the Text, and the other in the Margin, we have the different Readings of the Jews of the East and the Jews of the West, of Ben-Ascher and Ben-Naphtali; and the Manuscript Copies of the Bible are not always alike. In the 2d Place, it is certain, That there are Passages where the Sense of the Versions is more natural, and agrees better to the Subject than that of the Text; and that the Difference which is found in those Places betwixt the Text and the Ver∣sion comes only from the changing of one Letter into another that resembles it, as Resch into Daleth, Beth into Caph, Mem into Samech, of Beth into Phe, or Mem, of the Final Caph into Vau, or the like: So that it visibly appears that the Translator hath read the Text otherwise, and that the Sense is abundantly better. Who can doubt that there was not a very great likelihood then, that the Hebrew Text was corrupted in that re∣spect, and that in succession of time one Letter might have been put for another? Thirdly, It is certain, as we have asserted, that the Vowel Points are a new Invention. Oft-times the Difference which is betwixt the Text and the Version, comes only from the Punctuation and the Sense of the Version is much better than that of the pointed Text, Who can doubt then, these Circumstances being considered, but that the Punctua∣tion is faulty? Fourthly, Those Fathers that were most wedded to the Hebrew Text, as Origen and St. Jerom confess that there are Faults in the Text, that we are not always oblig'd to follow it, that there's a Difference betwixt the Hebrew Copies, and that they have given a different Sense to one and the same Word, because of the different Pro∣nunciation. Then since we cannot say, that the Massorites and the Authors of the pre∣sent Punctuation were infallible, we cannot be absolutely assured that the Reading, which is in our Text, is the truest, but must judge of it by the Sense, and by what comes before and follows after.

But, tho' we cannot say that the Hebrew Text is without any Fault, we must never∣theless acknowledge, that there's no considerable Fault in it, neither as to Doctrine or Manners. That most of the Differences betwixt the Original and the Versions, consist only in different Expressions, which are more or less clear, and which agree better or worse with what goes before and comes after, which make the Sense more or less per∣fect: That there's none where the Sense of the Hebrew Text contains a dangerous False∣hood or manifest Error: And therefore those sorts of Faults diminish nothing from the Authority of the Hebrew Text, and don't hinder but it may pass for Authentic, and as the Rule of our Faith and Manners. Those different Readings and small Faults which are generally met with in all Books, Sacred and Prophane, both in the Text and in the Versions, don't prevent our certainly having the Authentic Works of the Authors, nor hinder our knowing their true Sentiments. To conclude then, because the Original Texts of the Old and New Testament have been subject to the common Law of all other Books, and that small Faults have slipp'd into them by the inadvertency or neg∣lect of the Copiers, to conclude from thence, I say, that we have not now any more the Word of God, or the Holy Scripture, divinely inspired, would be as great a Folly as his who should maintain that we have not now the Works of Plato, Demosthenes, Cicero, Titus Livius, &c. because there are Faults and Defects in all those Works. To lay this down as a Principle, is to overturn the Foundation of all our Historical Know∣ledge, and to introduce an unwarrantable Scepticism. It is then without Reason, that because of those small Faults which happen in the Hebrew Text, we should doubt of its Truth, or of its being Authentick. 2. That in those Places where it differs from the Version of the Septuagint, there's abundance more where the Fault is rather in the Version than in the Text, and where the difference proceeds rather from the Negligence or the Liberty of the Translator than from the Text.

3. That we must have recourse to the Hebrew Text, as to the Fountain, and follow it rather than the Versions, except we have particular Reasons to vary from it and to follow the Version. This is the Sentiment of St. Augustin and St. Jerom; which is agreeable to good Sense, Reason and ordinary Custom. When we would know an Au∣thors Sense, we have always recourse to the Original, let our Version be never so good or so ancient. It's true, there may be Faults in the Original, but there's more reason to suppose that they may be in the Version; for besides the Change that may happen by the Fault of the Coppiers, which is common to the Original and to the Version, the Version is still for the most part more subject to Faults by the Ignorance and Negli∣gence of the Translator, because of the difficulty there is to render the Sense of the Text well into another Language, by the Liberty which Translators allow themselves, to change, add, explain, or determine; and for many other Reasons. All those things ought still to have more place in regard of the Hebrew Text, than in regard of any other Original, both because of the particular Care which the Jews took to preserve it in its Purity, and because of the Difficulty to translate it, and of the Liberty which the LXX have visibly allow'd themselves in translating it, and of the Changes which have happened to that Version. I deny not, however, that there are Occasions, where∣in for very good Reasons we are not to forsake the Hebrew Text (as at present) to follow the Version of the LXX, and that we must not do it in some Passages; but that is ve∣ry seldom, as we shall make it appear in the sequel, by a particular Examination of those Passages. In the mean time, I shall give some general Rules which may help us to discern when we are to follow the Hebrew Text, and when we are to vary from it.

In the first place, in the Passages where the Difference betwixt the Text and the Ver∣sions comes from this, that the Interpreters have read the Hebrew Text in a different manner, we must examine if this different Reading comes from the difference of the Consonants of the Hebrew Word, or only from the Punctuation. As we have clearly prov'd, that the Punctuation was not form'd by the Sacred Pen-men, and that it is a new Invention, we need not be so scrupulous to vary from the Sense that the Massorites have fix'd on it by their Punctuation; if that which the same Word differently pointed may have, and which the LXX have followed, be the most natural, and most agreeable to that which goes before and follows after; for then it is not suppos'd, that the Sacred Text is corrupted or chang'd, but only that it is ill pointed. It is true, that we are not to despise or wholly to neglect the Authority of the Massorites, who have follow'd the Custom that is most receiv'd among the Jews; but since we cannot say, that they have been Infallible in the Determination which they have made of putting one Sense rather than another upon Words, when the Sense contrary to that which they have embrac'd appears plainly to be best, we are to follow it without any scruple: But if the two Senses be alike good and warrantable, we have the Liberty to follow which of the two we please, but are not to reject the contrary.

If the difference of the Sense come from this, That in changing a Consonant or one of the ancient Vowels in a Word, it hath the Sense which the ancient Greek Interpreters hath followed, we must be the more cautious in varying from the Hebrew Text; for tho' it be not impossible that there are Letters chang'd in the Text, and that the resem∣blance there is betwixt divers Hebrew Letters, makes that change very easie, it is a great piece of Rashness to assert it, without having a very plain Proof of it: And nothing is more Ridiculous, than to forge other whole Words, as some People do, by adding, changing, or transposing Letters. The difference of the ancient Version alone is not a sufficient ground for making this Change, because the Interpreter may have been mista∣ken, either in the Reading or in the Version of the Text; and we ought always rather to presume that the Truth is on the side of the Original, than on that of the Version, unless we can plainly discover that there's a Fault in the Text. So that when the Text makes good Sense without any alteration, I should always prefer it to the Version, and never stray from it, unless it be demonstrated by other Passages of Scripture, or by what goes before and follows after, that we must rather follow the Sense of the Ver∣sion than of the Text: And in this Case I should not satisfie my self with a single Conjecture, slight Appearance, or faint Likelihood, but would look for solid Reasons, capable to work on a reasonable Mind, and which according to the Rules of Prudence and Criticism we should think are of weight.

The difference betwixt the Version and the Text comes sometime from this, That the ancient Hebrew Copies did not agree, but one had it one way, and another another way. Those Differences are known to us by the Keri and Ketib of the Hebrews, which

are only different Readings, whereof one was in the Text and the other in the Margin, and by the different Readings of Ben-Ascher and Ben-Napthali, the Eastern and Western Jews, which were also observed by other Rabbies. Those different Readings cannot both of them be true, one of 'em must of necessity be false. To determine us which of them to follow, we must chuse that which is most Authoriz'd, whether it be by the Rab∣bies, or by its Conformity to the ancient Versions, which agrees best to other Passages, and which renders the Sense most Natural and Perfect.

We must use the same Precaution, when the Sense of the Hebrew Term is uncertain, or when the same Word may have two Significations. The first happens particularly in those Words which we meet with but once in the Old Testament; or, which it may be is repeated only in two or three Places. For, as we are not certain of the signification of the Words of a dead Language, but because that same Word join'd in different Places with different Words, does always make up good Sense in one signification, which all the other significations given to it cannot do; because 'tis morally impossible, that a Sense which is not the natural Sense of a Word according to its Institution, can agree in divers Places, the different Conjunction of the same Word with divers others, doth cer∣tainly discover its proper signification. But since it is not impossible, that two different significations may both of 'em make good Sense in one and the same place, or even in two or three, we have not the same certainty of the signification of a Word, when it is not found but once in a Book which comprehends all the Words of a Language, such as is the Old Testament in respect of the Hebrew, or when it is not repeated there above once or twice. Nevertheless, Interpreters for the most part agree well enough upon the signification of Terms, either by Tradition, or by Analogy with words of other Oriental Languages. But when they don't agree upon them, and that they are found differently translated in different Versions, we are at liberty to chuse that signification we judge most likely: As also, when the same Word is capable of two significations, and that Interpreters have explain'd it differently, we must prefer that which makes the most perfect and natural Sense.

The Differences that are found betwixt the Hebrew and Samaritan Text of the Pen∣tateuch, ought to be considered as different Readings of the same Text; for the Samari∣tan Pentateuch is like an ancient Copy of the same Book; and the differences betwixt this Copy and that used by the Hebrews were observ'd in St. Jerom's time. We shall af∣terwards speak more at large of the Authority of this Hebrew Samaritan Copy. Upon this foot we may follow the reading of the Samaritan Text, if it be found more likely to be true than the common Hebrew Text.

We are not to pass the same Judgment on the Differences that are found in the Chaldee Paraphrases or Oriental Versions and Talmud. Those Authors having taken the Liberty to stray from the true Sense of the Text, so that we cannot make use of 'em but when there are differences in the Text it self, or that there is ground otherwise to be persuaded that the Text is corrupted.

The Greek Versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, whereof we have only some Fragments remaining, being more conformable to the Hebrew Text than the rest, don't abound with so many Differences, but they may serve to discover the different meanings of an Hebrew Word, or the different Readings of one and the same Passage, up∣on which are founded most of the Differences that are betwixt the Versions.

But we must confess, That many times the Difference which is found betwixt the Version and the Original, and betwixt the Versions themselves, comes from this, that the Interpreters have not tied themselves to keep close to the literal and strict meaning of the Words, but have taken the Liberty to put that Sense upon them which they thought the truest. Every Version is a sort of Paraphrase and Commentary, and it's al∣most impossible but the Translator, let him be never so faithful, will sometimes take the Liberty to vary from the Letter of the Original: As for Example, if one Word or Phrase may have two Senses in the Original Tongue, which cannot both be expressed by the Terms of the Version, he is obliged to determine himself to one of the two Senses. If the Original have a particular Turn, peculiar to it self, and which would be no way graceful, or perhaps not Sense in the Version, the Translator must make use of a differ∣ent Expression, but such as hath the same Energy and Sense in the Language into which he translates as the Original Words have. This is more peculiar to the Hebrew than to any other Language, because it is full of particular Turns and Expressions, which cannot be imitated by other Languages. When there's any thing obscure and intricate in the Original, it's the Translator's part to illustrate, enlarge and explain it, if any thing be omitted, to supply it; or if there be any thing superfluous, to retrench it. In fine,

there are a great many Occasions wherein Translators are obliged to vary from the Letter of the Text. From hence comes an infinite number of Variations or seeming Diffe∣rences betwixt the Text and the Version; but then we cannot charge the Text with Corruption, or pretend to correct it by the Version. We must on the contrary examine, whether the Translator hath taken the Sense of the Original aright: If he has hit it exactly, there's no true and real Difference, and there's no Contradiction to be salv'd: If he has not hit it well, and that his Version does not render the Text faithfully, we must abandon it and follow the Text.

The Difference happens sometime from this, That they distinguish the Verses or Phrases differently; which amongst us is call'd, Difference of Punctuation. Since the distinction of Verses is Arbitrary and the Punctuation New, we must keep by those that render the Sense most perfect.

Sometimes the Hebrews put one Tense for another, they make use of the Praeter for the Present, and of the Future the like. We must in that Case follow those which agree best to the thing spoken of; and we must follow the same Method when there's any change of Person and Number. The Translators have frequently taken to them∣selves the Liberty of changing Times and Persons; but very ordinarily they mistake: And we must take good heed to see whether that Change be necessary, in order to fol∣low it.

In short, we must confess, that there are many differences betwixt the Hebrew Text and the Version of the Septuagint, which arise from the Corruption and Confusion that is in the Greek Version we now have. It is certain that it hath been revis'd divers times, and that several Authors have taken the Liberty to add thereunto, to retrench and cor∣rect divers things, that in the first Centuries there were different Editions, and that Corrections have been inserted from the Versions of Theodotion and others; which made St. Jerom say, with Reason, That in his time the Version of the Septuagint was no where to be found in its Purity. This being considered, we shall have no reason to wonder that this Version is different in many Places from the Hebrew Text, and that one and the same Hebrew Word is there interpreted in different Senses. This could come from nothing but the confounding of two different Versions; or from this, that the various Readings in the Margin or in the Text, betwixt two Crotchets, continued with that which was there before. On those Occasions we must not follow the Faults of the Greek Version, but keep to the Hebrew Text: And if we would dive further into the Matters, and discover more certainly whence the Fault of the Version comes, it is good to compare it with the Quotations of the ancient Greek and Latin Fathers, with the other Greek and Oriental Versions, and to examine the different Copies and the dif∣ferent Editions of the Versions of the LXX, which will furnish us still with abundance of Differences that could come from nothing else but the Negligence of the Co∣piers.

Amongst the Latin Versions there are only two whereof any use can be made in the present Question. The first is the ancient Vulgar Latin, translated from the Greek LXX, and made use of by the Latin Fathers. The 2d is that of St. Jerom, from the Hebrew. The ancient Italian Version may serve to discover some Faults in the Version of the LXX, when it varies from the Greek Text we have now, in order to keep close to the Hebrew: But when it is found to differ from the Greek Text or the Hebrew Text, or when it is further from the Hebrew than the Greek Text, it's plain that in this Case the Error is in the Latin Version, either by the Fault of the Translator or by the Fault of him who hath cited or copied that Passage. St. Jerom's Version being made from the Hebrew Text of his time, serves to evince that the Hebrew Text hath not been corrupted since; for the Differences that are found betwixt his Version and our Ver∣sions made from the Hebrew Text, don't come from any change in the Text it self, but from the different signification given to the same Hebrew Word, or from the dif∣ferent manner of reading it, because of the difference in the Punctuation. Our Vulgar Translation is not, to say the Truth, the pure Version of St. Jerom, because some changes have slipp'd into it, and that there are still some Books of the ancient Ver∣sion remaining; but it differs very little in most of the Books of the Old Testament. There are some Places where it does not render the Hebrew Text with the same Fi∣delity as St. Jerom does; and in those Places we may easily perceive it is the Hebrew Text, and the Version of St. Jerom, that must be preferr'd to the Vulgar.

These are the Rules to direct us when we are to follow the Hebrew Text or the Versions. We shall afterwards make Application of them to the Principal Passages of the Scripture, in which the Hebrew Text differs from the Versions. It's enough here to

have shewed, that the Hebrew Text hath not been corrupted by the Malice of the Jews, that it is not corrupted in things Essential, and that if there be any Faults, they are but slight Ones, which happened by the Negligence of the Copiers. In a Word, that the Text of the Books of the Old Testament, is as correct as any other Book we have, which is Reason sufficient to give it the Title of Authentick; and to assure us, That 'tis the True Word of God. We may also say, that in general it ought to be preferr'd to all the Versions, according to the Sentiment of St. Jerom, and St. Augustin, whose Words are as follows: The former Writing to Sunnia and Fretela says, That as we ought always to have recourse to the Fountain of the Greek Text, in respect of the New Testa∣ment, when there's any difference in the Latin Versions or Variation in the Copies, we ought in the same manner, with Respect to the Old Testament, to have recourse to the He∣brew Copy, when there are any Differences betwixt the Greek and Latin Versions, because we must always have recourse to the Fountain, without satisfying our selves with the Streams. Therefore he made a Rule of it in the Epistle to Lucinius, which Gratian hath inserted in his Canon Law, Distinct. 9. Ch. ut Veterum, &c. which imports that we must judge of the Fidelity of the Books of the Old Testament, by the Hebrew Copies, and those of the New Testament by the Greek Copies. St. Augustin says the same in his 15th Book, De Civitate Dei, Chap. 13. Cum diversum aliquod: i.e. When we find any dif∣ference betwixt the Copies, and that both of them cannot be True, as to Matter of Fact, we must rather give Credit to the Original than to the Translation.

SECT. VI. Of the Massora, the Keri and Ketib, and the Cabala.

THE Word Massora in Hebrew signifies Tradition, which may be understood in general of all Doctrines or Practices that are transmitted from hand to hand, and from Father to Son: But the Name of Massora is particularly given to the Criticks on the Hebrew Text, which the Jews pretend they have received from their Ancestors by Tradition. Buxtorf hath defined it to be a Critical Doctrine upon the Hebrew Text, invented by the Ancient Doctors of the Jews, by means of which they numbred the Verses, Words and Letters of the Text; and they observed all the Diversities of them, to the end they might preserve the true Reading from all manner of Change. There∣fore the Rabbies call'd it Pirke Avoth, the Hedge or the Inclosure of the Law. The Arabs have taken the same Precaution as to the Alcoran, and perhaps in Imitation of the Jews.

The Authors of the Massora are call'd Massorites, or Doctors of the Law, some carry the Origin of the Massora as high as Moses; Others fix their Commencement in the time of Esdras; Elias Levita the Jew, ascribes it to the Jews of Tiberias, as he does also the Invention of the Points. As to the latter, we have proved, That 'tis later than the Talmud; but as to the Massora it began some time before the Talmud, was complea∣ted, though it was not perfected and collected into a Body till a long time after. The way how this might be done is thus: The Rabbies made divers Critical Remarks upon the Hebrew Text of the Bible (a) at different times. Those that followed them took care to collect the Ancient Remarks, and to add to them; and in this manner the Body of the Massora was formed, as we have it at present, and which was Printed by Bom∣bergue in his Great Hebrew Bible at Venice in 1528. and 1618. and in the Bible of Basle, published by Buxtorf in 1618.

The Matter of the Massora consists in Critical Remarks upon the Verses, Words, Let∣ters and Vowel Points of the Hebrew Text. The Massorites were the first who distingui∣shed the Books and Sections of Books into Verses, and mark'd the number of the Verses, and of the Words, and Letters in each Verse; the Verses where they thought there was something forgot, the Words which they believed to be changed, the Letters which they thought Superfluous, the Repetitions of the same Verses, the different Rea∣dings, the Words which are redundant or defective, the number of times that the same Word is found in the beginning, middle or end of a Verse, the different Significa∣tions of the same Word, the Agreement or Conjunction of one Word with another, the Number of Words that are Pointed above, which Letters are pronounced and which are not, it was they who distinguished the great Letters from the small ones, those that are turn'd upside down, and such as hang perpendicular, and took the number of each. It was they, in fine, who invented the Vowel Points, the Accents, and made divers Critical Remarks upon the Punctuation, and abundance of other trifling things.

The Massora is wrote in Chaldee, and ordinarily divided into Great and Small. The Great is partly on the Top and Bottom of the Margins of the Text, and sometimes in the Margin, underneath the Commentaries, and in part at the end of every Bible, which occasions the division of this Grand Massora, into the Massora of the Text, and the final Massora. The little Massora is wrote upon the inner Margin, or sometimes the outer Margin of the Bible, it is an Abridgment of the great Massora, wrote in small Characters, with abundance of Contractions, Symbolical Words and Citations of Scripture, by one only Term of the Text.

It cannot be denied, but the Labour of the Massorites was extrordinary Great, the question is, Whether it was as Useful as Great, and if it affords a Profit answerable to their Pains. The Author of the Book Cozri and the Rabbi Aben-Ezra seem to make no Account of it, and speak of it as an unprofitable Work. The latter compares it to the Labour of a Person that spends his time in turning over the Leaves of a Book of Phy∣sick, and numbers the Pages, without making use of any of the Medicines prescrib'd by the said Book. Father Morin and Capel seem perfectly to despise the Massora. On the contrary, most other Interpreters Roman Catholick and Protestant, believe it to be of very great Use. To keep a just Medium betwixt those two opposite Sentiments, we must distinguish betwixt the Parts of the Massora, and accordingly make a different Judgment of them. There are some of them altogether Useless, some of them Super∣stitious, and some of them may be of use to preserve the Text in its Purity. The useless are that scrupulous Affectation of observing how many times the same Letter or Word is found in the Bible, of the same Nature must we reckon the Observations they have made upon the Redundant and Defective Words, and abundance of other Trifles. The Distinction of Verses may be of use if well done; but many times the Massorites have not made that Distinction as the Sense required they should. As to the number∣ing of the Letters and Words, it seems to be Superfluous enough, both because it is a very hard Matter to be certain of it, and that in Writing or Counting, there is no Let∣ter forgot, and that the Letters may be changed without changing the Number, and likewise because by this Means we cannot be assured of the Correction of the Hebrew Text, but by counting affresh all the Words and Letters, which cannot be done with∣out abundance of Time and Labour. But besides, those useful things, there's a great deal of Superstition in the Massora, as the Distinction and Enumeration of Great and Small Letters, the Mystery of those that are suspended, turn'd upside down or final Characters, the Words pointed above, those that are to be writ, and not read, and abundance of other Observations, which give occasion to the Rabbies to forge Myste∣ries in things which happened accidentally, and where there is no Mystery to be found. All that is any way useful in the Massora is the fixing of the Punctuation, and Reading, the different Readings and some Critical Observations upon the Correction of the Text.

But of all the Parts of the Massora there's none more Useful than the Keri and Ke∣tib. The Keri signifies that we must read so, and the Ketib, that it is so wrote in the Text. Therefore when we see the Word Keri in the Margin design'd by the Letter Koph, it signifies that we are to read it as in the Margin, and not as it is in the Text. Ordinarily they take the Points of the Text to read the Words in the Margin, and the Rabbies have thereupon made themselves particular Rules. The Variation observed in the Margin relates to nothing but the Consonants or Entire Words, but besides the Variation that may comefrom the Uncorrectness of the Text, there are other Places of the Keri, which are founded upon another Cause, for in some Passages the Rabbies have on pur∣pose

left a blank Place in the Text, for some Words which they have put in the Mar gin, with this Note, Kerive Lo Cetib, that is to say, that they ought to be read, tho' they be not wrote, and there are other Passages, where they put on the Margin, Cetibve Lo Keri: That is to say, that they Write, but don't Read the Word in Question, to which they put no Points, but this last comes only from the Superstition of some Jews, who be∣lieved that they were not to pronounce certain Words that seemed not to be very hand some.

Authors are no less divided about the Invention of the Keri and Ketib, than about the other Parts of the Massora. Some carry them as high as Moses, and the first Au∣thors of the Sacred Books which is absurd; others ascribe the Invention to Esdras, who in his Review of the Canonical Books, did according to them, observe the Differences he found betwixt the Copies he had, by putting one reading in the Margin, and the other in the Text. But if that were so, why should we find the same Differences ob∣serv'd in the Books of Esdras and Nehemiah, and in those of Zechariah and Malachi, could they have been any ways in doubt of the true Reading of their own Writings. Moreover had Esdras been the Author of the Marginal Notes of Keri and Ketib, the Jews would have preserv'd them with Uniformity. But it is certain, that there's a Dif∣ference in this Matter, betwixt the Jews of the East and those of the West; and that they are mix'd with diverse Observations of the new Massorites. Further, if those Marginal Notes had been in the Copies made use of by the LXX, the Chaldee Para∣phrasts, or by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, when they made their Versions, they would have read and translated according to Keri, whereas sometimes they follow the Keri and sometimes the Ketib; which shews that the Reading was not then fixed by any Marginal Note, which was looked upon to be of Authority. In fine, they never spoke of the Keri and Ketib in the Misna or Gemara, there they only observe, that there are in the Sacred Books 8 Words that are read and not Writ, and 5 which are Writ and not Read; but there's no foot-step of the other Differences which compose the Keri and Ketib. The Massorites have also changed in the Keri and Ketib, the number of the Words which are Read and not Writ, or which are Writ and not Read; for they have added two to the Eight, and six to the Five last. Josephus, Philo, Origen and St. Jerom make no mention of those Marginal Notes, they are later than those Au∣thors, and are the Work of the Jews, who in Reading and Comparing their Copies, have set down those Differences in the Margin, partly upon the Authority of the Copies, and partly by their own Conjectures.

As to the Nature of those Differences. we must observe in the First Place, That they are of small Consequence, and that most times it is of no Importance, which of 'em be followed. Secondly, Tho' the Jews observe, that we must prefer one of the Rea∣dings, yet it is not always the Best, nor that which the Interpreters have followed, therefore we are not always obliged to follow Keri; on the contrary, it's proper to follow the Ketib, when it's more Authoriz'd by the Ancient Versions, and makes bet∣ter Sense. Thirdly, All the Manuscript Copies and Editions of the Bible don't agree in all the Remarks of the Keri and Ketib, for some have more than others. Fourthly, There are Places where the Keri, that is to say, the Reading which is in the Text, is manifestly Vitiated. Fifthly, The greatest part of the Remarks of the Keri, are use∣less and frivolous, and relate only to the Orthography, Grammar, or other small Mat∣ters that signifie nothing to the Sense. Sixthly, There are Readings of the Keri, which are plainly faulty. In fine, The Massorites have not observ'd in the Keri all the dif∣ferent Readings or Faults of the Text; for it must be confess'd, that many of them have escaped their Diligence: Besides the Differences of the Keri and Ketib, which are the most Ancient, there are others betwixt the Eastern Jews, that is to say those of Babylon, and the Western Jews, that is to say those of Palestine, who have wrote differently in their Copies, and those may perhaps be more Ancient than the Keri and Ketib. There are others that have been observ'd by Ben Ascher, a Rabbi of Tiberias, and Ben Napthali of Babylon, who liv'd in the beginning of the 11th Age. The West∣ern Jews did ordinarly follow the Reading of Ben Ascher, and the Eastern Jews that of Ben Napthali, but the Difference betwixt them is almost nothing but about the Punctation and Accents, and are many times of no Consequence.

We must also reckon among the different Readings the Tikkun Sopherim, or the Cor∣rections of the Scribes, which is found in 18 Places, and the Jtur sopherim, or Re∣trenchments of the Scribes, which consists in five Words, from which they pretend we must cut of the Vau as useless. We must join likewise thereunto, the Marginal Notes Sebirin, that is to say, the Conjectures of the Massorites, that we must read in

such a Manner. The Difference betwixt those last Notes and the Keri is, that in the Keri they affirm positively, we must read so, whereas in the Sebir the Reading is held doubtful, and advanced only by way of Conjecture. But both one and 'tother are meerly founded on the Judgment and Pleasure of the Rabbies, who thought good to determine and conjecture so and so.

In fine, Notwithstanding the Care and Precautions of the Massorites and Jews, who have Wrote or Printed the Hebrew Bibles, there's still a great many Differences be∣tween the Manuscript and Printed Bibles, as Buxtorf hath observed in his Rabinnical Library, and Cappelle after him. There are Differences in the Punctation, about the Consonants, and whole Words and Verses: Which shews, That let them be never so diligent, it is impossible but some Faults will slip in, either in the Copying or Printing of a Work. God would not preserve the Holy Scripture from that Fate, which is common to all Books. He could not have done it but by a continual Miracle, which was no way necessary for the Preservation of Religion: For, as we have already said, and which cannot be repeated too often, all those Variations or Faults don't touch Re∣ligion in the least, they do no prejudice to the Authority of the Holy Scripture, they don't hinder but that we find the Truth of Religion in it, or that we ought to look upon it's Authority as Divine.

The Cabala which we join to the Massora, hath in its Etimology a Signification op∣posite to that of the Massora; for the one signifies Tradition and the other Reception. But Custom hath determined the Word Cabala to signifie a Tradition of hidden and my∣sterious Things. The Jews have a mighty Esteem for this Science, and think they make great Discoveries by Means of it. The Cabala is ordinarily distinguished into three sorts. The first which is supposed to have been in use before our Saviour's Time, is a Mysti∣cal, Allegorical or Anagogical Explication of Passages of Scripture that are not Writ∣ten, but which the Doctors of the Law pretend to have preserv'd by Tradition, fan∣cying that Moses learned this Mysterious Sense from God himself, that he communi∣cated them to 70 Ancient Men; and that they were preserved by Tradition till the time of Esdras, from whom the other Jews learned them. 'Tis of this Cabala that we must understand the Author of the Book of Esdras, Chap. 14.46 & 47. when he speaks of certain things, he had wrote which God commanded him to preserve, and not to communicate but to the wisest of the People, who had the Spring of Understanding the Fountains of Wisdom, and the Stream of Knowledge. 'Tis certain, that the Jews in our Saviour's time were accustomed to give a Mystical Sense to Passages of Scrip∣ture: But we don't find that they supported that Sense by so Ancient a Tradition. Many times their Allegories or Morals were only a flourish of Wit and an Effort of their own Invention as may be seen in Philo. 'Tis true, there were Passages that they unani∣mously understood of the Messiah, according to Ancient Tradition, but those Passages excepted, it will be difficult to prove, That the Mystical Sense which those first Jews gave to some Passages of Scripture, had any Foundation in Ancient Tradition; so that it is without Reason to suppose an Ancient Cabalistick Art amongst the Jews.

The second sort of Cabala is not an innocent Art, but a sort of Magick or Necro∣mancy, in which the Impious or Superstitious Jews imployed the Words and Letters of the Scripture, which they distorted and ranked differently for their Use, to make An∣gels Familiar with them, to work Miracles, cure Diseases, chase away Devils and to work abundance of other Sorceries of the Magical Art; for that end they made use even of the Holy Name of GOD. This Art is so far from being any way useful, that it can be looked upon to be nothing else but a damnable Impiety, or Criminal Super∣stition.

The third sort of Cabala among the Jews, and which they properly call'd Cabala, is an Art by which they found their Mysterious Expositions upon Allusions, Transpositions, Changes, Conjunctions, Abreviations, Figure or Arithmetical Value of the Letters. This Art is very obscure in it self, and the Jews who think themselves Masters of it, render it still more obscure, by their Way of Expressing it, and their Care of keeping it con∣cealed. The Principal Methods they make use of for discovering those pretended My∣steries are. First to take the Letters of a Word, and to substitute in their room as many Words which begin with each of those Letters. Thus it is they pretend to discover the Curse which Shimei pronounced against David, where 'tis said in the Text, 1 Kings 2.8. That he cursed him with a grievous Curse; in Hebr. Nimretseh, by separating the Let∣ters of this Word, and forming of them as many Words which begin with each of those Letters, viz. Noeph, which signifies Adulterer, Moab Moabite, Rosseach a Murderer Tsa∣ruch Leprous, Toheba Abomination; they conjecture, That Shimei cast all those Re∣proaches

upon David, that he upbraided him with his Adultery with Bathsheba, with his Descent from Ruth a Moabitess, and with the Murder of Uriah, by which he de∣served to have been treated as a Leprous and Abominable Man. This is witty but not solid. This Example is found in the Hebrew Traditions upon the first Book of the Kings, ascrib'd to St. Jerom, which are the Work of a Jew of the 9th Age, as Raban hath observed. The Cabalists furnish us with many others. It is by the same Method that they find in Beresith the first Word of Genesis, this Sentence, In the beginning God saw that the Israelites would accept the Law; by supposing Words that begin by the Letter of the Word Beresith. They make use also of the final Letters; and according to this Rule, they explain this Sentence, The beginning of your Words is the Truth; because they find the Word Truth, in the three Words which follow Beresith, by ta∣king the three final Letters of them. 'Tis by this Artifice that some Greek Fathers have found in the Word Adam the four Parts of the World; because their Greek Names begun by the four Letters of that Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the East, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the West, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the North, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the South. To this Art we must also refer, the Dexterity of for∣ming a whole Sentence out of a single Word, and divers Sentences which begin with the Words of one and the same Phrase.

The second Method made use of by the Cabalists is to join the Letters otherwise, or to transpose or unite them differently one with another. Thus it is they find abun∣dance of Mysteries in this Word Beresith; for dividing it into Bara, Sith, it signifies, He hath created the Foundation; reading it Bar Aschit, it signifies, I will put the Son. They find abundance of other things in it, by transposing and joining the Let∣ters in different Manners. This Answers to our Anagrams. They take also the Liberty to change Letters, by taking the last of the Alphabet for the first; as they allege that Jeremy, Chap. 25. v. 25. hath put Sesac instead of Babel, by putting instead of the two Beths of Babel, which is the second Letter of the Alphabet; the Sin which is the last but one, and in place of Caph, which is the 11th Letter descending, the Lamed which is the 11th Letter ascending. St. Jerom took this Observation from the Jews, and inserted it in his Commentary on this Place.

The third Method, and the most Mysterious, is that they call Gematrie; which con∣sists in explaining a Term by the Arithmetical Value of the Letters. Amongst the He∣brews all the Letters serve to signifie Numbers; they count the Number which the Letters of the Word produce, and afterwards substitute another Word, whose Letters make the same Number. For Example, on those Words of Zach. 3.8. I will make my Servant to come, [in the English Translation, I will bring forth my Servant the Branch,] where the Hebrew Word is Tsemach; Rabbi Kimhi observes, that we must understand the Messias by this Word, and to prove it, says, That the Messia is called Menahem, which signifies Comforter; and that the Hebrew Letters whereof the Word Menahem is composed, make the same Number in the Total, which the Letters do that compose Tsemach. By the same Method he finds in the beginning of Genesis Beresith Bara; In the beginning he created; this other Sentence, He formed in the Law; because the Hebrew Words of the one and the other Sentence form the Number of 913. They pre∣tend also by this Method, to divine when a thing will happen, by counting the Num∣ber which the Letters of a Name makes up. The Author of the Revelation, Chap. 13. made use of the like Method by concealing the Name of the Beast or of Antichrist, under the Number whereof the Letters were to form his Name. In like manner the Cabalists do also draw Mysteries from the Numbers they meet with in the Text, and form Names of them.

The fourth Method made use of by the Cabalists, is carefully to observe the Figure of the Letter, and therein to find some Mystery. They draw Mysteries also from this, That Letters were Writ and not Read, or Read and not Writ; that they are Great or Little, Suspended or turn'd upside down, Full or Defective, Pointed above or Accented in an Irregular Manner. In a Word, There's not the least Trifle but the Cabalists found their Dotages upon it, which have no other Foundation or Rule, but their Fancy and disorderly Imaginations.

Notes

• (a)

  Persuaded themselves that it was the He∣brew.] It is the Sentiment of Origen, Homil. 11. on Numbers, where he says, That the Augels having formed different Languages, that of Adam, which he supposes to have been the Hebrew, was preserved amongst those who belonged to God. S. Chrysostom, Homil. 3. on Genesis, says, Heber preserved the Lan∣guage he had before. St. Augustin mentions this as certain, Lib. 16. De Civit. Dei, cap. 11. St. Jerom Comment on Zephan. 3. says, The Hebrew Tongue is the most Ancient, and the Mother of all Languages. But Theodoret says, The Syriack or Chaldee is the most An∣cient. St. Gregory of Nyssen, Lib. 12. against Eunomi∣us says, That divers learned Men look upon the He∣brew Tongue to be new, and that it had its Original when the Children of Israel came out of Egypt. A∣mongst Modern Authors Serarius, Bonfrerius, Buxtorf, Walton, and Father Thomassin are of the former Opi∣nion; and Grotius, Huetius and le Clere of the latter.
• (b)

  Names of Places and Men in the Land of Ca∣naan.] For Example, The Names of the following Towns, Jericho, Salem, Sichem, Bethlehem, Segor, Kir∣jath-Arba, Kirjath-Sepher, &c. which were certainly the ancient Names of those Towns, at the time when the Canaanites possessed them, are Hebrew Names, and deriv'd from the Hebrew. The Name Beersheba, which both Abraham and Abimelech gave to the Place where they contracted an Alliance together, is an Hebrew word. But it is to be observ'd, That it is not the same as to the Denomination which Jacob and Laban gave to the Heap of Stones, upon which they contracted an Alliance. Jacob and Laban gave it different Names, but signifying the same thing, be∣cause they spoke two different Languages: But here Abraham and Abimelech agree on the same Name, to signifie the same thing, therefore they spoke the same Language. It is certain, that Kirjath-Sepher is the ancient Name of that City, as well as that of Kirjath-Arba, seeing that is observ'd by the Author of the Book of Joshua, Chap. 15. and in Judges, Ch. 1. Now the words Kirjath and Sepher are certainly He∣brew. The proper Names of Melchisedeck, Adonibe∣zek, Abimelech, &c. are Hebrew, not only in their Termination, but in their Root.
• (c)

  S. Jerom and S. Augustin observe the Confor∣mity.] St. Jerome, Lib. 5. on Jerem. Chap. 25. They are called Poeni, corruptly, instead of Phoeni, whose Language for the most part is nearly allied to the He∣brew. And, cap. 19. on Isaiah, Chap. 7. St. Austin Quest. on Gen. Lib. 2. Contra Literas Petil. c. 104. Him the Hebrews call Messias; which word agrees with the Punic Tongue, as do many other Hebrew words, nay, almost all of them. Idem, Tract. 15. on John, The anointed, in Greek is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Hebrew Messiah: From whence Mes. in the Punick Tongue signifies A∣noint, because those Languages, the Hebrew, Punic and Syriac, are a Kin and near Neighbours. He observes also in his 15th Sermon, on the Words of our Lord, That the Hebrew word Mammona, which signifies Riches, is also Punic, and has the same signification. He observes likewise in his Comment on the Epistle to the Romans, That the Peasants near Hippo being ask'd what Country-men they were, answered Ca∣naanites. It is true, he says in his Confessions, Lib. 11. cap. 3. That if any one spoke Hebrew to him, he heard the sound of the Voice, but understood no∣thing of what he said: Whence it would seem, that we may conclude, that the Hebrew and Punic Tongues were different: But, perhaps, St. Augustin did not ve∣ry well understand the Punic Tongue, having learned the Latin in his Infancy: And besides the Pronun∣ciation, the different construction and change of some Words might render a Language unintelligible. Origen, lib. 3. against Celsus; Josephus, lib. 1. against Appion; and Eusebius, lib. 9. of Evangelical Prepara∣tion, Cap. 9. make the same Observations upon the Punic and Hebrew Tongues. Lucian says something to the same purpose in his Pseudomantis, where he says of Alexander, That he pronounced unknown words, as Hebrew, or Phenician. In fine, the learn∣ed Bochart hath prov'd it so clearly in his Second Book of Canaan, That the Punic or Carthaginian words which are to be found in the ancient Authors are Hebrew; that this may pass for a Demonstration in its kind.
• (d)

  It must be confest that divers of the Ancients, &c.] Amongst the Ancients are Josephus, Antiquit. Lib. 1. c. 6. Euseb. Preparat. Evangel. Lib. 7. c. 2. St. August. de Civit. Dei, Lib. 16. c. 3. & 18. c. 39. St. Eucherius, Lib. 2. on Genesis, chap. 7. Amongst the Moderns are Pererius, Steuchus, Genebrard, Cor∣nelius à Lapide, Bonfrerius, Buxtorf, &c. Amongst the Rabbins, Aben-Ezra, Kimchi, and Abrabanel.
• (e)

  Jul. Africans, cited by Eusebius, says, They were called Hebrews, as if you should say Passengers, be∣cause Abraham passed the Euphrates, and not as some will have it, from Heber. Origen, on Matthew, p. 239. The Hebrews; that is, those who are landed from beyond the River. So Homil. 19. on Numbers, and Homil. 35. on Genesis. St. Jerome on Ezekiel, chap. 7. Abraham is called an Hebrew; that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Stranger, and Passenger. So on Isaiah 19. All the Greek Fathers are of this Opinion, as Diodor of Tarsis, St. Chrysostom, Homil. 35. on Gen. & on the Name Abraham. Theodoret; Quest. 60. on Genesis. Most of the Rabbins and the learnedst of the Modern Interpreters, have also im∣brac'd it, as Paul de Burgos, Reuchlin, Isidorus, Cla∣rius, Estius, Aras, Montanus, Morin, &c. And amongst Protestants, Munster, Scaliger Selden, Capel; Grotius, Walton, &c.
• (f)

  Proofs already brought by Learned Men.] Maier Philol. Sacr. P. 2. C. 2. Gourdon's Chronol. T. 1. fol. 115. Pfeisser's Exercit. 2. de Targumin. and M. Ar∣naud in his Treatise of reading the Holy Scripture, Lib. 1. cap. 8.
• (a)

  From whence the Greek Characters are deriv'd.] Most ancient Authors agree that the Greeks receiv'd their Letters from the Phenicians, and that Cadmus a Phenician brought them to Greece. Herodotus in his History says, The Ionians receiv'd their Letters from the Phenicians, and assures us that he saw in the Tem∣ple of Apollo of Thebes in Beotia, ancient Inscripti∣ons upon the Tripods in Cadmean Letters, altoge∣ther resembling those of the Ionians. Pliny, Plu∣tarch, Sextus Empiricus, the Poet Callimachus, Philo∣stratus, Critias, Pausanias, St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and all, except Tzetzes, are a∣greed in it. Joseph Scaliger, who hath treated large∣ly of this Matter in his Notes on Eusebius's Chroni∣cle, relates a Greek Inscription on an ancient Co∣lume in the Appian way, writ in Ionian Characters, and comparing them with the Samaritan Characters, makes their Conformity evident.
• (b)

  On the Reverse are found these Words, &c.] The Rabbi Ramban, who died about 1260, says in his Commentary on the Pentateuch, That being at An∣cona, he found in the Hands of some ancient Men, a Silver Shekel of about half an Ounce weight; on one side of which was represented an Almond Branch, and on the other an Urn, with Inscriptions in Sa∣maritan Characters; which being shew'd to some Samaritans, they read on one side, The Shekel of She∣kels; and on the other, Holy Jerusalem. Postel, Ari∣as Montanus, Vilalpandus, Waserus, Morin, and divers others, had of those Shekels, which on one side had the Representation of an Urn with Manna; and on the other, the Branch of an Almond-Tree flourish∣ing which is Aaron's Rod, with two Inscriptions in Samaritan Characters; that round the Urn being, the Shekel of Israel; and that on the other side, Holy Jerusalem. The oldest of the Jewish Shekels are also in Samaritan Characters, and the new ones in Hebrew. The first Inscription on these Shekels shews them to be ancient, and coin'd at least before the Captivity: For after the return, the Jews of Babylon were no more call'd Israelites, but Jews. And the 2d shews, That it was not the Samaritans who coin'd them, but that it was the current Money of the Kingdom of Judea.
• (c)

  Origen on the 9th of Ezekiel says, &c.] Origen on those Words, Ezek. 9.4. (Signa Tau super frontes Gementium) Set a Mark upon the Foreheads of the Men that sigh. A certain Hebrew who embrac'd the Chri∣stian Religion said, That in the ancient Alphabets, the Letter Tau was in the form of a Cross, and was foretold concerning the Sign which Christians make on their Fore∣head; which all Believers indeed make, whate∣ver they go about, but chiefly at Prayers and Holy Les∣sons. Syncellus relates the Passage out of Africanus as follows. They differ in their Computation of the Years till the time of the Deluge, as hath been made plain from what is already said. The Hebrew Copies or Counterparts are taken from the oldest Samaritan Code, which is wrote in different Characters, and con∣fessed by the Hebrews themselves to be the genuine & first Book. Eusebius, Chron. Olympiad. 40. says, Esdras is acknowledged to have been an eminent Priest amongst the Jews, in whose time the High-priest was Necliasib the Son of Joachim, the Son of Jesus the Son of Josedec. Esdras was most learned in the Divine Law, and the famous Master of all the Jews, who return'd from the Captivity into Judea; and it is affirmed of him, that he had the Holy Scriptures by Heart, and that they might not be mix'd with the Samaritaus, chang'd the Jewish Characters. Thus that Passage is read in the ancient Editions of Eusebius's Chronicle, but the last Words, after, It is affirmed, are neither found in the Greek nor 'Latin of St. Jerom, according to Scali∣ger's Edition: And there's great probability that 'tis an Interpolation. But we cannot doubt of St. Jerom's Sentiment, which in Prologo Galeato runs thus. The Samaritans also write the Pentateuch of Moses in the same Number of Letters, differing only in Character and Accent. And 'tis certain, that Esdras the Scribe and Doctor of the Law, after the taking of Jerusalem, and the re-building of the Temple of Zerobabel, did invent the Letters which we now make use of; since until that time the Samaritan and Hebrew Characters were the same: And even to this day we find the Name of the Lord Tetragrammaton, expressed in the ancient Cha∣racters in some Greek Volumes. He makes the same Remark in his Commentary upon the 3d Chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, where he proves that we must read the word All in the Passage of Deutero∣nomy quoted by the Apostle, because 'tis found in the Samaritan Copies, whose Characters are more Ancient. That same Father in his Commentary on Ezek. 9. says, That in the ancient Hebrew Characters which the Samaritans make use of, the Letter Tau hath the Form of the Cross, which is drawn upon the Foreheads of Chri∣stians. This latter Passage hath some difficulty in it, because the Samaritan Tau at present is not in the Form of a Cross: Origen observ'd the same thing before St. Jerom upon the Credit of an ancient Jew; but the ancient Shekels form the Samaritan Tau much like that of the Greeks.
• (d)

  The Talmudists do likewise agree, &c.] In the Babilonish Talmud, the Treatise of the Sanhedrim, §. 2. In the beginning the Law was given to Israel in the Hebrew Character, and Holy Tongue; and afterwards in Esdras's time in assyrian Letter, and the Aramick Tongue. In that same place R. Jose, comparing Es∣dras with Moses, says, That as the Law was wrote by Moses's Hand, it was chang'd by that of Esdras into the Assyrian Character. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Tract. Magil. Lect. 1. it is observ'd, that Esdras's Character was Assyrian, but his Language Hebrew.
• (e)

  Divers of the Rabbies of the same Opinion, &c.] Among others Ramban in his Commentary on the Pentateuch, Josephus Albo, &c. The Rabbies who are of the contrary Opinion, are oblig'd to say, that the Hebrews had two sorts of Characters before the Captivity, one Sacred and another Prophane: That the Sacred was that which was preserv'd in the Holy Books; and that the prophane was us'd by the Sama∣ritans. But this is a Suppesition that hath no Foun∣dation. If it were true, why would not the Sama∣ritans have also preserv'd the Books of the Law in the Sacred Character? The Shekels whereof we have spoke, being the Shekels of the Sanctuary and Sa∣cred, their Inscriptions must also have been in Hebrew Characters.
• (f)

  Amongst the R. Catholick Interpreters.] Sixtus de Sienna, Serarius, Bellarmine, Villalpandus, Bonfre∣rius, Guido, Fabricius, Morin, Despierres, &c. Amongst the Protestants, Postel, Joseph Scaliger, Gerard Vos∣sius, Causabon, Grotius, Sistinus Amama, Capelle, Bo∣chart, Waser, Mayer, Walton, &c. There's none but Buxtorf and Schichard, and it may be Lightfoot, Mat∣thias Valemuth, and a small Number of Protestants who are wedded to the contrary Opinion, which they had maintain'd, and it is at present abandon'd in a manner by most of the Learned.
• (g)

  Are very weak.] Their Arguments are foun∣ded, 1. On the Testimony of the Rabbies, which is of no great Authority. 2. Upon the ancient She∣kels, as they pretend, whose Inscriptions are in He∣brew Characters. But in this they are deceiv'd. They are new Shekels, made in imitation of the old ones. There are some of them also which must needs be Counterfeit, because they represent the Head of a King which was forbid amongst the Jews. 3. They alledge some Inscriptions of ancient Monu∣ments, as they pretend, but they are either Impo∣stures or Epitaphs of the late Jews. 4. They say, that St. Jerom in his Epistle to Fabian reports, That the Golden Breast-Plate of the High-Priest con∣tain'd the Name of God, Jehovah, in Hebrew Cha∣racters: That may be true after Esdras's time, but before, that Name was wrote in Samaritan Characters, as St. Jerom acknowledes. 5. They object as a Po∣sitive Reason, that which Christ says, Matth. 5.17, 18. That the Heaven and the Earth shall pass away, but not one jot or tittle of the Law, but what shall be fulfilled. Whence they think may be concluded, that the Iota of the Hebrews was only a small stroke, whereas that of the Samaritans consisted of three, made in form of an m. But they don't observe, that Christ spoke at a time when the Jews made use of the Characters which they have at present, and by consequence of the Jod, which is a very small Letter; and that he did not think of the Characters of the Ancients. We have already answer'd to what con∣cerns the Letter Tau: And the other Objections be∣ing founded on the Fictions of the Rabbies, de∣serve no Answer.
• (h)

  As the Hebrew Tongue.] This is the Opinion of R. Azarias, Meor Enajim, cap. 59. of Rodolph and Peter Chevalier, Matthias Flaccius Illyricus, in his Key of the Scripture.
• (i)

  Others make Moses the Author of them.] Some say God shew'd the Punctuation to Moses, and that it was preserv'd by Oral Tradition among the Jews. Others say, Moses made use of them, and wrote the Law with Points.
• (k)

  Common Opinion.] It is the Opinion of the Author of the Book called Zohar, and of most of the Ancient and Modern Rabbies.
• (l)

  Elias Levita.] In the third Preface of the Book called Massoreth Ham Massoreth.
• (m)

  Divers Criticks.] Among the R. Catholicks, Martin Raymond, Galatinus, Genebrard, Mercerus, Bel∣larmine, Serarius, Salmeron, Villalpandus, Masius. And among the Protestants, Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Joseph Scaliger, Munster, Olivetan, Chamier, Drusius, Pelicanus, Zuinger, Piscator, Fagius, Sistinus Amama, &c.
• (n)

  Learnedest of the Protestants.] It is the Senti∣ment of all the R. Catholick Authors, who have wrote since Capelle; and among Protestants it hath been approv'd by Erpenius, Grotius, Causabon, Bochart, Vos∣sius, Ludovicus de Dieu, Selden and Boetius himself, tho' a Defender of Buxtorf; as also by Archbishop Ʋsher, Walton, and Le Clerc. After this, those among them must needs be very heady, who maintain the Antiquity of the Points as an Article of Faith.
• (o)

  Different Pointings.] Hieron. Comment. on Hosea, Chap. 8. ver. 10. When he shall roar, then the Sons of the Sea or Waters shall be afraid. [In the En∣glish Translation it is, The Children shall tremble from the West.] For the word Mim, which is writ by three Letters, if read Majim, signifies Waters; if Mi∣jam, it is meant of the Sea. Idem. chap. 13. ver. 3. We ask why the LXX, instead of a Chimney, (which Theodotion hath translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) rendered it Locusts? The Hebrews write Locust and Chimney in the same Letters; so that if it be read Arbe, it signi∣fies a Locust; if Aruba, a Chimney. Idem in Tradi∣tion. Hebraicis on Genesis says, Tho' Estimation and Barley be writ in the same Letters, yet Estimation is read Searim, and Barley Seorim. In that same Place, he says, That for Shepherd they read Friend, because both of them are writ in the same Letters; but Friend is read Re, and Shepherd Roe. On Habak. 3. The Verb Schan is understood for the quality of the Place, and he hath plac'd [and there,] but it is rather to be read there in this Place. Ibid. on these words, Death shall go before his Face. [The English Tran∣slation has it, before him went the Pestilence.] For that which we translate Death, in the Hebrew there are three Letters without a Vowel, which if read Da∣bar, signifies Word; if Deber, Pestilence or Death. And on Jer. 9.22. the Hebrew word which is writ in three Letters (for it has no Vowels in the middle) if ac∣cording to the Connexion and the Judgment of the Reader it be read Dabar, it siguifies Speech; if De∣ber, Death; if Dabber, speak. On Isaiah 26.14. Thou hast made all their Memory to perish. The LXX translate Male instead of Memory; but all the rest of the Interpreters render it Memory, for the He∣brews write both of 'em with the same three Letters: But when we translate it Memory, we read Zecer; and when a Male, Zacar. In Isaiah 31. Fire and Light are wrote by the same Letters in Hebrew. If it be read Ʋr, it is Fire; if Or, 'tis Light. In Ze∣phaniah 3.8. Also where we have translated, In the day of my rising again, in time coming: All others have interpreted it, rising again for a Testimony. [The En∣glish Translation is, until the day that I rise up to the prey.] The Jew who taught me said, That in this Place it ought rather to be understood in time coming, than for a Testimony. For Ad, which is wrote by the Letter Hajin and Vau, may signifie either in time coming or for a Testimony.
• (p)

  And the Vau, which is the O.] In Tradit. He∣braic. in Genesis, concerning the Name Ephron, in Ge∣nesis 13. In the Hebrew the first Name is writ E∣phron, as we have put it; the 2d Ephran. For after he was prevailed with to sell the Burying-place for Silver, the Letter Vau, which the Hebrews read for O, was taken out of its Name, and it was called Ephran instead of Ephron. Idem in Epist. 145. Hosi there∣fore is interpreted, God save you. Anna is an Inter∣jection of Deprecation. If you would compose a Word of those two, it will be Hosianna, or as we say Hosanna, the middle Vowel being struck out; for Aleph, the first Letter of the following Word, finding Jod the last of the foregoing, excludes it. Idem in Epist. ad Evagrium de Melchisedec. It's no matter whether it be called Salem or Salim, since the He∣brews very seldom make use of a Vowel in the mid∣dle of a Word; and according to the Custom of Places and the diversity of Countries, they pro∣nounce the same Words with different Sounds and Accents.
• (q)

  After the 10th Century.] Rabbi Gedalias and Rab∣bi Zacuth acknowledg'd, that there was no mention made of this Book before the Year 1290; and in∣deed no Jewish Authors spoke of it. The Cabali∣stick Art, in the manner there taught, is new among the Jews, and is not to be found in the Talmud. He distinguishes the great and small Letters, makes use of Latin, Greek and Arabian Terms, and even of new French Words. He follows the Talmud, calls the Chaldee the Language of the Targum, proves that it was not in use amongst the Jews when he wrote. He alledges the Paraphrase of Onkelos as of an ancient Author. His Book is full of new Rabbinical Fables. The Book of Bahir is also new, and not writ by Nechenias the Son of Cana, who liv'd before the De∣struction of the Temple, as some of the Jews have believ'd. He quotes some Chaldee Paraphrases: He calls the Roman Empire Edom: He treats at large of the Points and their Characters, and searches for Mysteries in them: All which proves the newness of the thing.
• (r)

  This is the natural Sense, &c.] Gellinus says, That the Apices of the Letters are the Strokes or Points of 'em: Whence came the Saying, De apici∣bus Juris disputare, to dispute Points of Law. In the ancient Greek Glosses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is the Summet or Point of the Letter. The Word is taken in this Sense in Plutarch, Dion, Chrysostom, Philo the Jew, St. Clement of Alexandria, and in the Sy∣belline Verses. St. Jerom uses it in the same Sense, as we have shewn.
• (a)

  Others of the Ancients seem to have believed.] Irenaeus Lib. 3. Advers. Haeres. cap. 25. Because the Scriptures were interpreted by Divine Inspiration, and it is not to be wondred at, that God wrought this upon them, when during the Captivity of the People by Nebuchadnezzar, the Writings being cor∣rupted, and the Jews after 70 Years returning into their own Country; and afterwards, in the time of Artaxerxes King of Persia, he inspired Esdras the Priest, of the Tribe of Levi, to remember all the Discourses of the Prophets, and to restore to the Peo∣ple the Law that was given by Moses. This Passage is related by Euseb. in Greek. Hist. Lib. 5. Cap. 8. where he makes use of the Terms 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifie to compose and restore. St. Clement of Alexandria, in the first Book of his Stro∣mata, says, Esdras is the Author of the Review and of the Renewing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the Divinely Inspired Scriptures. Tertullian, in his first Book concerning the Habits of Women, cap. 3. says, As after Jerusalem was destroy'd & taken by the Babylonians, it is certain that all the Monuments of the Jewish Learning were restored. St. Basil in his Epistle to Chilo says, Esdras retiring into a Valley, did by the Command of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, audibly repeat all the the Divinely inspired Scriptures. St. Isi∣dore and Rabanus are of this Sentiment. Driedo and some other Moderns have embrac'd it, as well as some Rabbies mentioned by Elias Levita.
• (b)

  St. Jerom, St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom and Theo∣doret.] St. Jerom allows Esdras only to have corrected, gathered together, put in order, and wrote in new Characters the Books of the Bible. St. Hilary in his Preface to the Psalms, says, That Es∣dras collected and made into one Book all the Psalms. St. Chrysostom says expresly, That Esdras form'd the Body of the Books of the Scripture, of such Books as remain'd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Hom. 8. on the Hebrews. Theodoret in his Preface to the Psalms does not say, that the Holy Scripture was intirely lost in the Cap∣tivity, but only that it was corrupted, and Esdras corrected it. This Opinion is receiv'd by almost all the Modern Interpreters, Jews and Christians, par∣ticularly by Bellarmin, Salmero, Serarius, Bonfreri∣us, &c.
• (a)

  He speaks of it doubtfully.] In the end of his Commentary on Daniel, speaking of the Allusion of the Names of the Greek Trees 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to two Verbs he adds, That if we don't find in the He∣brew the Words to which this Allusion answers, we must say that it is only in the Greek. Quod si non fue∣rit inventum, &c. Which if it be not found, we must of necessity acquiesce in their Opinion who will have it to be only a Derivative of the Greek Language, which has a Greek and no Hebrew Etymology. And a little lower, having made other Objections against the History of Susannah, he adds, That he will easily solve what he has said; That this History is not to be found in the Book of Daniel amongst the Hebrews: But if any can prove it to be part of the Canon, then we must see what we ought to answer to such an one. St. Jerom in his Pre∣face to Daniel says, Origen is one of those who be∣lieve that the History of Susannah is not in Hebrew.
• (b)

  According to the Version which was common among the Jews.] St. Luke always quotes the Old Testa∣ment according to the Version of the Septuagint, even in those Places where it differs from the He∣brew Text; as in a Passage of Amos, which he brings in St. James quoting, Acts 15.17. and in his own Gospel, Chap. 4. he relates a Passage which our Saviour had read in the Synagogue of Nazareth, ac∣cording to the Version of the LXX. It is not that Jesus Christ had read it in that manner in the Syna∣gogue, but that St. Luke repeated it out of his own Head according to the LXX. By the same Means there are even Passages in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which were formerly wrote in Hebrew, that the Greek In∣terpreter hath related according to the Version of the Septuagint.
• (c)

  In Places where it differs from the Septuagint.] In the second of St. Matthew this Prophesie of Mi∣cah, concerning the City of Bethlehem; Thou art not the least amongst the Principal Towns of Judah. [In the English Translation it is, Thou art not the least among the Princes of Judah.] It is not quoted accor∣ding to the Septuagint, who translated it, Amongst the thousands of Judah; but he hath followed the Sense, that might be given to the Hebrew Word, which be∣ing differently Pointed signifies Thousand and Princes. ib. v. 15. he quotes this Prophesie of Hosea, Out of Aegypt have I called my Son, according to the Hebrew Text, and not according to the Septuagint, who ren∣der it, Out of Aegypt I have called those Children. In that same Chapter St. Matthew quotes this Prophesie, He shall be called a Nazaren. This is no where found in the LXX; but if we suppose that he made use of the Hebrew Copy, we may say with St. Jerom, that he meant it of those Words, Isa. 11.1. A Branch [Netzer] shall grow out of his Roots. In the fourth Chapter, he relates a Prophecy taken from the 9th of Isaiah, so as it agrees better to the Hebrew Text, than to the Version of the LXX. In the 8th Chap∣ter he quotes this Prophecy of Isaiah, Ch. 53.4. Surely he hath born our Griefs, and carried our Sorrows, in the same Terms, as in the Hebrew Text, whereas the LXX have rendred it, He bears our sins and suffers for us; Ch. 12.18. There's a Prophecy taken out of Isa. 42.1. according to the Sense of the Hebrew Text, Cap. 21.9. there's another taken from the Prophet Zechariah, more agreeable to the Hebrew Text than to the LXX. There's another of the same Prophet, concerning the Thirty Pieces of Silver, quoted as in the Hebrew Text, which in this Place differs very much from the Version of the LXX. There are also Prophecies in St. John's Gospel, quoted according to the Hebrew Text, as Cap. 19. those Words of Zech. 12. They shall look upon him whom they have pierced; which are translated different from the LXX. St. Paul hath also sometimes followed the Hebrew Text, as in Rom. 9. where he reports the VVords of Moses to Pharaoh, as they are in the Hebrew, It is for this Cause, that I have raised thee up: Whereas the LXX renders it, It is for this Cause, that I have preserved thee until now.
• (d)

  The Difference arises only from the Pronunciation.] The first Passage is Genesis 28.11. where there's al∣most no difference betwixt the Vulgar Translation and the Hebrew Text. The Hebrew imports that Jacob pass'd the Night in a place, because the Sun was set; the LXX have the same Expression. The second is from 1 Chron. 17.21. The Hebrew Text imports, That the People of Israel were the only People upon the Earth. [The English has it, What one Nation in the Earth.] The LXX renders it, There never was any People hitherto upon the Earth like unto that of Israel: Wherefore they are rather of the Mind, that this is a Corruption in the Hebrew Text, than any Liberty that the Translator hath taken to himself in his Version. The third Passage is from Genesis 26.18, 19. It is in the LXX as in the Hebrew, in the same Manner as quoted by Rabbi Akiba; so that we cannot say it was read otherwise before his time. The fourth Passage taken from Numbers 33.4. is also in the LXX, as quoted by Akiba. The difference found in the fifth Passage, taken from Psalm 67.28. betwixt the LXX and the Versions made on the Hebrew Text, does not come from any Corruption of the Text, but from this, that the Hebrew Word Rodhem, may signifie in a transport of Mind, or their Master. That which follows in the same Psalm, comes from the different Pronunciation of the Hebrew Word, which may signifie a Prince and a Stone. A∣kiba took it in the latter Sense, in which perhaps he is mistaken; but he hath not for that falsified the Text.
• (a)

  The Rabbies made divers Critical Remarks, &c. At first they wrote those Remarks in single Sheets; and Elias the Levite, says, There was a very great number of them, and that they did very much sur∣pass the Text of the Bible. The modern Authors have collected what the Ancients had said, and added to it; some of the Copiers did, for conveniency, put them in the Margin of the Bible. There are of them to be found in divers Manuscript Hebrew Co∣pies of the Bible, but they are writ there very con∣fusedly, and in extraordinary small Characters; and besides there is only one part of them. The first who made a compleat Body of them, was a Rabbi of Tu∣nis, called Jacob Ben Chaiim, who from a great num∣ber of Jewish Memoirs, chose them that he judged best to make up the Body of the Massora, which he composed, digested and caused to be Printed in such manner as we see.