Works

VERS. I.

UNLESS I am much deceived 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Jerusalem Writers denotes, in the like sense, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Collection for the wise men.

They have this story: R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, and R. Akiba went up to Chelath of Antioch, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Employed in the Collection for the wise Men. One Abba Judah was there, who performed the Law with a good Eye. Being now reduced to poverty, when he saw the Rabbins, he was dejected. He went home with a sad countenance. His wife said to him, Why doth thy countenance languish? He answered, The Rabbins are come, and I know not what to do. She said to him, You have one field left: Go, and sell half of it, and give to them. Which he did. And when they were departed, he went to plow in the half of his field, and found a great treasure, &c. I produce this the more willingly, that it may be observed, that collections were made among the Jews in foreign Nations, for the poor Rabbins dwelling in Judea, in the same manner as they were made among Christians in foreign Nations for the poor Jews converted to Christianity in Judea.

VERS. II.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the first of the Sabbath, would the Talmudists say.

I. That day was everywhere celebrated for the Christian Sabbath: and which is not to be past over without observing, as far as appears from Scripture, there is nowhere any dispute of that matter. There was controversy concerning circumcision, and other points of the Jewish Religion, whether they were to be retained, or not retained; but nowhere, as we read, concerning the changing of the Sabbath. There were indeed some Jews converted to the Gospel; who, as in some other things they retained a smatch of their old Judaism, so they did in the observation of days, Rom. XIV. 5. Gal. IV. 10. but yet not rejecting, or neglecting the Lord's day. They celebrated it, and made no manner of scruple, as appears, concerning it: but they would have their old festival days retained too: and they disputed not at all, whether the Lord's day were to be celebrated, but whether the Jewish Sabbath were not to be celebrated also. So they admitted Baptism, but it went against them not to admit Circumcision also. And so also in some other Articles of Judaism, not rejecting the Gospel, but superinducing something of Judaism. As I have ordained in the Churches of Galatia, saith the Apostle, so do ye also: On every first day of the Week, &c. And yet the same Apostle saith of the same Galatians, Ye observe days, and months; Not that they refused the Christian Sabbath, but that they retained the Jewish Sabbaths.

II. The Lord's day sufficiently commended itself by its own authority: nor could the institution of it at all be doubted by the converted Gentiles, as never knowing, or at least owning, any other Sabbath: nor by the converted Jews, if they acknowledged Jesus for the true Messias; because they had learnt in their Schools, that Messiah should make a new Law, as Moses had made the old. And that also, which they had drunk in from their cradles, that Messiah should not abolish the Institutions of Moses, but raise them higher, and make them more splendid, although it might be more a scruple among them of the abolishing the Jewish Sabbath; yet it could make none of superinducing the Christian Sabbath.

III. In that controversy of the change of the Sabbath, from the Jewish to the Christian, which some prosecute too much without any cause, they reckon the Scriptures silence concerning the Institution of the Lord's day for a denial of the thing; as if it were by no means to be believed, because it is not expressed in plain words.

Among many things said in that case, let us put in these few.

I. The Holy Text indeed is silent of this matter, while the scene of Christian affairs is laying in Judea, mention being only made by the Evangelists of the appearances of Christ, the first day of the week; namely, on that day, wherein he arose from the dead, and the first day of the week following, Joh. XX. 26. But when the scene is transferred to the Gentiles, then there is very open mention of it; namely, in this place, and Act. XX. 7. and Revel. I. 10.

II. For the chief care concerning mentioning the Sabbath was this, that mention might be made of that Sabbath, which was to be among the Gentile Churches, and was to endure forever. And of that, mention is most evidently made in the history of those Churches.

III. Therefore the former silence does by no means argue, that the Apostles and Disciples in Judea converted to the faith, did not celebrate the Lord's Day, or that they observed it not by Divine Institution; but by good right and reason the mention of it is reserved to its most proper place, that is, in the story of the Gentile Churches.

For these, saith Beza, are true riches laid up in Heaven, &c. By occasion of whose words, let us add these few passages of the same subject.

A certain woman came to Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai, and said, Sir, vouchsafe me sustinence. To whom he answered, And who art thou, my daughter? I, saith she, am the daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion. And, replied he, O daughter, what is become of the riches of the family of thy Father? She answered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 O Rabbi, Do not they use this Proverb at Jerusalem, The salt of riches is the want of them. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But those that stood by said to her, But mercy, or alms, is their salt. Where the Gloss is, Whosoever will season his riches, that is, make them not to putrefy, let him bestow them in alms, and the want of riches arising from such a cause, is the seasoning of them.

VERS. V.

THERE is a division about the sense and translation of these words: and here indeed the whole hinge of the controversy turns upon the place whence this Epistle was writ.

There are some that render it to this sense, I am now passing through Macedonia; which without doubt he did, whosoever he were, who first joined those words to the end of the Epistle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The first Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi: and they must do the same, who think it sent from thence.

But the Vulgar and Interlineary Interpreter; For I shall pass through Macedonia, in the future tense, is more true, and best of all. For that this Epistle was sent from Ephesus, these and other things make plain.

I. That the Apostle salutes the Corinthians in the name of the Churches of Asia; which it is probable he would not at all have done, if he now were in Macedonia. But be it granted, that he very lately coming out of Asia, carried the salutations of those Churches along with him, it is as improbable, that he would not also salute them in the name of the Churches of Macedonia.

II. It appears that he wrote this Epistle before he came into Macedonia, from what he saith in the second Epistle, Chap. II. 12, 13. and Chap. VII. 5, 6, 7. For when he met not Titus at Troas; whom together with Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus he had sent to Corinth with this Epistle; nor as yet could know what fruit it had gained among the Corinthians, he hastened a journey into Macedonia. And when he came thither, and found not Titus there, he stayed for some time with an unquiet mind, until Titus, the messenger of good news at last came.

III. He saith, verse. 8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I shall tarry in Ephesus: as if he would say, Here at Ephesus, where now I am, I shall remain until Pentecost.

VERS. VIII.

WHETHER he tarried at Ephesus until the time determined by him, that is, Pentecost, or the uproar of Demetrius drove him away thence sooner, is uncertain. Being driven thence Macedonia received him, as is related, Act. XX. Where although among his travails, there is no mention of his journey to Corinth, yet thither he travailed, while his companions went before to Troas, and expected him there.

VERS. IX.

See Act. XIX. 17, 18, 19, 20.

VERS. X.

THIS place deceived him again, who added the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Underwriting to this Epistle: in whose fancy, Timothy was sent with Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, to bring the Epistle to the Corinthians: by no light mistake: for Timothy indeed was sent, but from Ephesus into Macedonia with Erastus, Act. XIX. 22. to see the Corinthians in his return, but not at all sent thither out of Macedonia by the order of the Apostle, which he dreams of.

VERS. XIX.

SO also it is said of them, when they were come back from Rome, that they had a Church in their house, Rom. XVI. 5. And the same is said of Philemon, Philem. verse. 2. and see Coloss. IV. 15. But in what sense to understand this, is somewhat obscure.

I. Perhaps there were in Aquila 's house some, which travailed with him from Rome; being driven thence by the Edict of Caesar, and boarded with him in the same house, while they were in their banishment. But what then shall we say of them, when they went back to Rome to their own dwelling? And also, what shall we say of the Church in the house of Philemon?

II. Or perhaps Aquila was the Churches Host, as Gains was at Corinth; in whose house were other men and women, appointed to that office with him. And it may be, he performed the same Office at Rome, when he went back. And it may be Philemon did the same at Coloss; and thence that of the Apostle to him, Prepare me a lodging, verse. 22. But all these things are somewhat uncertain: nor can one see, where to fix his foot. Let me therefore add another conjecture also.

III. It is well enough known, what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beth Midrash, The Divinity School, or the Chapel, was among the Jews; and what the difference was between it, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Synagogue. Now Beth Midrash was called also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be Rabbanan. The School of the Rabbins. And it is inquired, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What is the School of the Rabbins? It is the House of the Rabbins. Where the Gloss, Why do they call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Divinity Schools, Be Rabbanan? Namely, Because it is their House for any use. In that place the Gemarists treat of Synagogues set apart for holy use; and how far it was lawful to put them to common uses, either when they now flourished, or were fallen to decay, and antiquated as to sacred uses. And concerning the Beth Midrash, which was very near of kin to the Synagogue, it is concluded, as you see, that it is as the very house of the Rabbin, teaching in it, and to be used by him for any use.

Mention of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be Rabbanan, or Beth Midrash, and the very thing, concerning which we now are speaking, brings to remembrance the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be Abidan; of which the Talmudists write; but in a double and various sense. The mention of it occurs in Bab Avodah Zarah , where it denotes a Heathen Temple. R. Eliezer Ben Parta is examined by a Roman Magistrate, and among other things, this is demanded of him, Why did you not go to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be Abidan, The Temple? He answered, I am an old man, and I was afraid, lest you should tread me underfoot. To whom the other replied, Was ever any old man trod underfoot? A miracle happened; For that very day was an old man trodden upon. Where the Gloss, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Be Abidan is an House, or Temple, where they eat and drink in honor of an Idol, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And void dung (that is, sacrifice) to an Idol, &c.

But elsewhere it occurs in another sense. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Books of the Be Abidan, do they snatch them out of the fire, or do they not snatch them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yes, and No: that is, sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. But what the books of the Be Abidan were, the Gloss teacheth in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Heretics wrote books of Disputations to themselves against the Jews: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And the place where the dispute is, is called Be Abidan. By Heretics, no doubt is to be made, but that Christians are understood: and that Be Abidan in this place is not to be taken for a Heathen Temple, is clear enough from what follows: Rabh, say they, went not into Be Abidan, much less 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Into a Heathen Temple. Samuel went into a Heathen Temple, but went not into Be Abidan. They said to Rabba, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Why went you not to Be Abidan? He answered, There is a certain Palm in the way, and hindereth me. We will stock it up, say they. The place of it, saith he, is difficult to me. The Gloss writes, Rabh and Rabba feared to go into Beth Abidan, lest in the dispute they might rise up against them, and kill them.

And now let us return to our own business. What hinders, but that we may be of opinion, that the House of Aquila at Ephesus, and Rome, and of Philemon at Coloss, might serve for such a purpose; namely, sometimes for holy Lectures, and disputes either with Jews, or among Christians. Not that the public Assembly in the Church should be neglected; but that some number out of the Church; perhaps the whole company of Ministers, and Teachers assembled here, and others, who breathed more after Gospel Mysteries; where the more obscure Articles and Points of Faith were handled, and disputes were held, if the thing required it, either among themselves or against the Jews.

VERS. XXII.

THE word Anathema sounds indeed all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cherem, among the Hebrews; as we may see abundantly (to omit all other examples) in the seventy Interpreters, in the last Chapter of Leviticus compared with the Hebrew.

And the word is taken in a threefold sense especially in the Holy Scripture; which the Author of Aruch notes in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cherem, and that from the Author of Tosaphoth .

I. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Anathems or somewhat devoted to the Priests, that is, something which being consecrated to God, necessarily falls to the Priests. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Anathemae's of the Priests do not admit Redemption; but they are to be given to the Priests for Trumah, or an oblation.

II. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Anathema, or that which is devoted to the most High. Examples of which you have, Levite. XXVII. 27, 28. &c. Where the Seventy thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Every Anathema shall be holy to the Lord. In Bab. Nedarim it is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That which is devoted to Heaven.

III. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 An Anathema which is devoted of men. Of this Levite. XXVII. 29. Where again the Seventy thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Every Anathema, or devoted of men shall not be redeemed, but shall die the death. But what is the Anathema of men? The Author of Tosaphtoth answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He that is condemned to death by the Sanhedrin. R. Solomon saith, When an Israelite devoted his man servant, or his maid servant, that were Canaanites, to death. R. Menahen saith, When the Israelites in war devoted their enemies to destruction, if they overcame them, as was done by them, Numb. XXI. Whence is it, that when any condemned to die by the Sanhedrin is led forth to suffer death, another goes forth interceding and saying, I will pay for his Redemption: Whence is it, I say, that he saith this to no purpose? Namely, Thence, because it is said, Every Anathema of men shall not be redeemed, but shall be punished with death.

If therefore we inquire into the original and proper nature of this Anathema, it was certainly the destining of some Malefactor to most certain death and destruction. Hence is that in the Chaldee paraphrast in Esa. XLIII. ult. Where for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will deliver Jacob to Anathema, he renders it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will deliver him to be slain.

And now in reference to the words Maran-atha, very many Commentators agree, that this Phrase is a certain form of Excommunication, and that it is the highest, and heaviest. Thus, say they, is the extremest kind of Anathema marked; as though he would say, Cursed be he to the coming, and in the coming of the Lord.

They assert this to be the third kind of Excommunication among the Jews, and think that it sounds the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Schammatha, and interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God cometh to the same sense.

But let me, with the leave of so great men, speak freely what I think in this business.

• I. I have not found, in my reading, in any places, although I have sought diligently, in any Jewish Writers that I have perused, where Maran-atha occurs once for a form of Excommunication. Nor have I found in any Christian Writer, the least sign, whereby might be shewn in what place, or in what Hebrew Author that Phrase is found in such a sense. Yea to speak out plainer, as the thing is, I do not remember, that I have found this Phrase Maran-atha, in any sense at all, in any Rabbinical or Talmudic Writer; at any time, in any place.
• II. But those Commentators mentioned, do silently confess, that Maran-atha indeed, in so many syllables, does not occur in the Hebrew Writers: but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Schammatha, which speaks the same thing, occurs very frequently: and so they interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God cometh.

But passing over this, that this interpretation seems to betray an ignorance of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from thence Schammatha is derived; the Talmudists, to whom that word is sufficiently common, and well known, produce another Etymology of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Schammatha. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 What signifies Shammatha? Rabba answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Sham metha, There is Death. Samuel answered, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Let Death be there, or come thither; as it is written, The curse shall come into the house of the Thief, and shall lay it waste, Zach. V. They have these and the like sayings; but no mention in them of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God cometh.

What the Apostle means by Maran-atha, we shall more easily trace, when we shall have observed this first, That the Apostle chiefly directs the dint and stroke of this Anathema and Curse, against the unbelieving Jews, who were most bitter enemies against the Lord Jesus, and his Gospel: which I cannot but think, being induced thereunto by these four reasons.

• I. Because the Jews above all other of human race, loved not the Lord Jesus, neither yet do love him. The Holy Scripture teaches this abundantly; unhappy experience teaches it. The Pagans indeed love not Christ, because they knew him not: but because they know him not, neither do they hate him. The Turks indeed love not Jesus, in that manner as the Christians do; but they do not hate him in that manner as do the Jews.
• II. Because he speaks here in the Language and Dialect of the Jews, namely, in that Syriac phrase, Maran-atha. He had spoke Greek through the whole Epistle; he speaks Greek in all his Epistles: but when he speaks here in the Jewish Language, the thing itself speaks it without all controversy, that he speaks concerning the Jews.
• III. The Jews only of all mortals, called Jesus accursed, (see Chap. XII. 1.) therefore the Apostle deservedly strikes them above all other Mortals with a curse, rendering like for like.
• IV. Hither I, or rather doth the Apostle, bring those words of Isaiah, Chap. LXV. 15. Ye shall leave your name for a curse to my chosen. Hither also may be brought that of Malachi, Chap. IV. wherewith the Old Testament is concluded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lest I come, and smite the land with (Anathema) a Curse. Lest I come: this is the same with that which the Apostle saith, Maran-atha, The Lord cometh. And, I will smite with Anathema, the same with that in this verse, let him be Anathema. Against whom is the threatening in the Prophet? Against the unbelieving Jews. Against the same is both his threatening and curse of the Apostle; taken (methinks) out of the very words of the Prophet.

And now you may easily fetch out the sense of the word, Maran-atha. The Holy Scripture speaks great and terrible things concerning the coming of Christ to punish the Nation of the Jews for their not loving, yea hating Christ, and treading the Gospel underfoot. It is called his coming in his Kingdom, in the Clouds, in Glory: which we observe elsewhere. So that I should much more readily interpret this expression Maran-atha, that is, our Lord cometh, in this sense, from this common manner of speech, and which is so very usual to the Scripture; than to run to I know not what Jewish form: which yet is not at all to be met with among the Jews.

CHAP. I. Concerning the Hebrews and Hellenists.

WHEN the Hellenists and Hebrews are distinguished, Act. VI. 1. it seems to be less obscure, than when distinction is made between the Hellenists and the Jews, Act. XI. 20. For that the Hellenists were Jews, almost all agree.

The reason of the distinction may be fetched, either from their Dispersion or from their Language. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Dispersion of the Greeks, Joh. VII. 35. may be plainly distinguished 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . From the Dispersion of the Babylonians. The Jews dispered by the Victories and Colonies of the Greeks, from the Jews dispersed by the Babylonian Captivity, and the Persian Dominion.

But the difference is rather fetched from their Language: They being called Hebrews, to whom the Hebrew was the Mother Tongue, that is, The Syriac, or Chaldee, they Hellenists, to whom the Greek Language was so.

Under the name of Hebrews, there is none but would place the Palestines, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Syrians, if they knew what was the common Mother Tongue of all these Countries, especially, if they that knew all these Countries were placed by the Tamudists themselves, in effect under the same rank and alliance of customs and privileges as well as under the same Language. Hence are these and such like expressions to be met with in them.

Whosoever dwells in Babylon is as though he dwelt in the Land of Israel. b All foreign Land is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heathen, except Babylon. Where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Babylon, they understand all those Countries, unto which the Babylonian Captivity was carried, and led away.

And these passages they have of Syria. In three respects, Syria was like to the Land of Israel. It was bound to tithes, and the seventh year. You might go thither in purity: and he that bought a farm in Syria, was as though he bought one in the Suburbs of Jerusalem. And again, Syria as to some judgments is as the Land of Israel. And again, They bring out (the fruits of the seventh year) into Syria, but not without the Land. Note, that Syria was not reputed without the Land; but in divers things to be united with Palestine. And many passages of that nature may be produced both of Syria, and of Babylon.

Now then when our discourse is of the Hellenists, the Jews of these Countries and of this Language are to be distinguished from those: not denying nevertheless, that even among these here and there were also Hellenists: as the Synagogue of Alexandria at Jerusalem: they of Cesarea, who recited their Phylacteries in the Language of the Hellenists: and they of Antioch, of whom mention is made in that place of the Acts alleged.

No body doubts, that the Syriac was the Mother Tongue of all Syria; and yet who will doubt, who hath read the History of the Syro-Grecians, that there were very many in Syria, whose Mother Tongue was Greek? And hence that knot is very easily untied, Acts, XI. The Dispersed Disciples, that preached the Gospel, found in Antioch some Hellenists, that is, whose Mother tongue was Greek, among the Jews, whose Mother tongue was Syriac.

CHAP. II. Of the Hebrews in Babylon, and the adjacent Countries.

THE people that returned from Babylon are numbered, Ezr. II. and the sum total is computed to be Forty two thousand three hundred and threescore, verse. 64. And yet the number of the families there particularly reckoned amounts not to more than thirty thousand. So that those twelve thousand which are comprised within the sum total, and yet are not numbered by their families, were either Plebeians, and persons of no name, or such who could not derive their Genealogy, as verse. 62. or perhaps not a few of them were of the ten Tribes.

But how great a multitude of Jews yet remained in Babylon, when that number went back to their acient Country, you may conjecture by these two things, to omit others.

• I. That of the Four and Twenty Courses of the Priests there returned only four, as the Jerusalem Talmudists observe, and that well, out of Ezr. II. 36. And although you may conceive a less proportion by far in the rest of the people; yet the number of those that tarried behind did far exceed the number of those that returned.
• II. The people had taken root in Babylon: and the seventy years of the captivity had in a manner made them forget their own Country. They had been commanded of God to build themselves houses, to plant gardens, and to compose themselves for a long continuance in that place; Jer. XXIX. 5, 6. And at length necessity passed into pleasure; and having obtained quiet, commodious, and gainful seats, they judged it better to be there, than to return into an unmanured Country, full of danger, and want.

Hence the Masters dispute, whether that whole company, that went up with Ezra, went not up by compulsion, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 One Master thinks, that in separating they separated themselves, and voluntarily went up. Another Master, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they were carried away by compulsion. For as the Gloss speaks, They that remained at Babylon enjoyed their quiet; but those that went up to Jerusalem were pressed with poverty, and with all kind of labor and fear, by reason of those that dwelt about them.

Concerning those that tarried behind, the Jews themselves have these words.

• I. That a purer blood of Jews remained in Babylon, then was of those that went up. Because that Ezra carried away with him the dregs of the people, and left Babylon like pure flower; that is, as the Gloss writes, All that were of impure blood he carried away thence with him. Hence is that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 All Lands are as a mixed (or impure) lump, compared with the Land of Israel: and the Land of Israel is a mixed lump, compared with Babylon, viz. As to purity of blood.
• II. That the blood of the stock of David remained more noble in Babylon, than that which ascended in the family of Hillel: because that was of the male seed, this of the female.
• III. Yea, this prevailed with them in the Talmudic times. It is forbid to go out of Babylon into another Land, even from Pombeditha to Be Cubi: and Rabh Joseph excommunicated one, who went from Pombeditha to Be Cubi

And if we would propound some specimen of the numerousness of the Jews inhabiting that Land, we might take a view of their three Universities under those times, viz. at Naardea, Sora, and Pombeditha: as also divers other places famous for Rabbins, such as,

• Bethdoli, where R. Nehemiah was. Which is also called Bedeli.
• The River Pekod, where R. Jacob was.
• Bagdat, where R. Channah was
• Corconia, where R. Chaijah.

The Town Mahaziah, where were Doctors equal with those of Pombeditha But let us offer some kind of Geographical Table of the Countries in Babylon, where the Jews dwelt, as it is represented by the Talmudists.

Rab • Papa the aged in the name of Rabh, saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Babylon is in health 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Meson is dead. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Media is sick. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Persia is expiring. That is, the Glosser being Interpreter, In Babylon the Jews are of pure blood; in Meson all are illegitimate: in Media many are of pure blood, and many not: in Persia there are very many not of pure blood, and a few that are pure.

They go on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How far is Babylon extended? Rab saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unto the river Azek. Samuel saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unto the river Juani. And how far above, near Diglath? Rabh saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unto Bagdaah and Avana, Samuel saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unto Muscani. But Muscani itself is not within the border. But R. Chaija bar Abba saith, that Samuel saith, that Muscani is as the Captivity (that is, Pombiditha) as to Genealogies. To Muscani therefore is so to be understood, as that Muscani is within the border. Within, near Diglath, how far? To lower Apamia. For there were two Apamia's, one the Upper, and another the Lower. In one were Jews of pure blood, in the other, not. And between them was the space of four thousand paces.

Above towards Euphrates, how far? Rabh saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unto Acra Tulbankana. Samuel saith, Unto the bridge of Euphrates. R. Jochanan saith, unto the passage 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Gizma.

From the River Azek ] Thence perhaps the Town Azochis, of which Pliny, : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The River Juani, or Joani ] is perhaps the same with Oena in Marcellinus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Diglath.] Tigris where it was slower than Diglitus, whence it riseth; from its swiftness began to be called Tigris.

Of Apamla] Ptolemy and Pliny both speak.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tulbankana. ] Among the Cities near a part of Euphrates according to Ptolemy, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thelbenkane, in Degree 78. 30. 35. 30.

To all this that hath been spoken may also be added, that in the Notitia Imperii, under the disposition of the Honorable Person the Duke of Oschoena, were Equites promoti indigenae Syriae Judaeorum: Promoted Horse, Inhabitants of Syria of the Jews: and that in Pliny, there was a Country called Palestine in these regions, concerning which we are now speaking; which whether they do not favor of Jewish Inhabitants, we leave to conjecture.

Let that also of Marcellinus be added. Near the place, where the greater part of Euphrates is divided into many Rivers: in this tract, a City being deserted by the Jews that were inhabitants in it, because of its low Walls, was fired by a band of enraged Soldiers.

CHAP. III. In the same Regions were the seats of the ten Tribes.

TRacing the feat of the Ten Tribes by the light of the Scriptures and the Talmudists, we find they were placed in Assyria, and Babylon, and the bordering Countries: disposed under their Captivity in those very Lands, wherein the Divine Counsel had decreed the two Tribes also should be disposed, when they should undergo the same lot: that those Tribes which had bordered upon each other in their own Land, should border also upon each other in a strange Land: and that they, whom God had united in the promise of their future call, should be also united in the same habitations, that they might be called together.

Those that were carried away from their own Land, the King of Assyria placed in Halach and Chabor, near the River Gozan, and in the Cities of the Medes. 2 King. XVII. 6. and VIII. 11.

The Talmudists do thus comment upon the places named. R. Abba bar Chana saith,

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Halac is Halvaoth.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Habor is Adiabene.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The River Gozan is Ginzak. R. Akiba preacheth in Ginzak in Media.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Cities of the Medes are Chemdam, and its fellows. But there are some who say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nihar and its fellows. What are those fellows? Samuel saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Musechi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hidki, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Domki.

These things are repeated elsewhere, and that with this variation of the names.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalah is Chalzon.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Cities of the Medes are Tamdan, and its fellows. But there are some that say. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nehvanad, and its fellows. What are these fellows? Samuel saith, The Towns 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Muschi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chushki, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Romki.

Of the rendering 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalah, although the Gemarists do not exactly agree among themselves, one while interpreting it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Halvaoth, another while by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalzon: yet they disagree not about the situation of the place, when in both places they join it so Adiabene. And in the place last cited, they so apply those words of Daniel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And three ribs within his mouth. Dan. VII. 5. R. Jochanan interpreting, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalzon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Adiabene, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Nesibis.

I ask whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalzon be not illy written for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalvaon, (by the likeness of the letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vau, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zain; ) which comes nearer to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Halvaoth; and both agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Alvanis, which was a City in Mesopotamia, in Ptolemy, in Degree, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 74. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 35. 20. In the same Author, the River 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chaboras, bears the memory of Chabor, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalcitis, bears that of Chalach, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gauzanitis, that of Gozan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The River Adiab, whence the Country of Adiabene, of most noted fame. See Ammianus Marcellinus.

These things the Jews speak of the first seats of the ten Tribes; and that they also remained there in after ages, they are so assured, that in the Talmudists, provision is made concerning Espousals, that they contract not with any of the ten Tribes. And the Gloss there is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In those places were very many of the Ten Tribes.

And while the Masters strictly provide, that the stocks of pure blood be preserved, and name very many places in Babylon, and the Countries adjacent, where families of pure blood were, and where they were not; they point with the finger as to others, so also to the ten Tribes residing there, as people of impure blood, and with whom they were not to mingle.

But now, if the Seats, Cities, Countries of the ten Tribes, in the times of the Talmudists, were so well known, much more were they so in the times of the Apostles; which were not so far removed from their first Captivity. That people therefore in that time skulked not in I know not what unknown Land, a thing now conceived of them, but that the preaching of the Apostles came also to them, as well as to other Nations. One may say this with the greatest assurance, upon the credit of S. James, who writes his Epistle to the whole twelve Tribes and also upon the credit of the Apocaliptic, in whom the twelve Tribes are sealed, Chap. VII. And the words of our Savior argue the same thing, of the Twelve Apostles, that were to judge the Twelve Tribes, implying, that they all Twelve heard of the sound of the Gospel concerning the reception or rejection of which that judgment was to be.

Under this notion, unless I am much mistaken, is the Apostle to be understood, treating of the calling of Israel, Rom. XI. not of the Jews only, but of the whole Twelve Tribes of Israel. And this is that mistery, concerning which he speaks at verse. 25. namely, that hardness, or blindness happened to Israel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by parts, or separately; first the Ten Tribes were blinded, and some hundreds of years after the two Tribes: and both the one and the other remained under that state, until the fullness of the Gentiles came in, when the Gospel entered, and so all Israel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The whole Twelve Tribes, namely, they, who were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Remnant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the Election of Grace, verse. 5. were saved. For those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 until the fullness of the Gentiles come in, are not so to be understood, as if the gathering of the last handful of the harvest of the Gentiles were to be expected, before that calling of all Israel: but they are opposed to that seldom coming in of Heathens to true Religion before the preaching of the Gospel. For at that time they were added to the Church by drops only, and very rarely. But when the Gospel entered, they flowed in as in a full stream, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And in the whole fullness of the Gentiles. And so (which is a great mistery) first the Gentiles were blinded, and after them the ten Tribes were blinded, and after them the two Tribes were blinded; all laying under that miserable condition, until all at last were enlightened by the Gospel, and closed together into one body. And that the Apostle spake of his own times, when the Gospel was now newly brought to the Gentiles, he himself sufficiently ratifies and makes known by those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 At this present time, verse. 5.

CHAP. IV. Peter preaching the Gospel in Babylon.

THE whole world therefore being thus divided into Israelites, and Gentiles; and the Israelites again into the Ten Tribes, and the Jews; and the Jews again into Hebrews and Hellenists; and the Hebrews into those who dwelt within the Land of Israel, and those that dwelt without it: hence something may be observed which concerns the Evangelical and Apostolic History.

• I. And this first, as to the four Evangelists, namely, that Matthew writ for the Hebrews within the Land of Israel, and Syria: Mark for the Hebrews without the Land in Babylon and Assyria; where also were the ten Tribes: John for the Hellenists: Luke for the Gentiles.
• II. Then, when James, Peter and John are celebrated for the three Apostles of the Circumcision, Gal. II. 9. hence one may fitly distinguish each Apostles Diocese: viz, Palestine, and which borders upon and is reckoned with it, Syria to James: Babylon and Assyria to Peter: and the Hellenists, especially of Asia, and such as were further off, to John.

Babylon, I say, and Assyria to Peter: which he himself confirms, when he dates his First Epistle from Babylon; and in his Second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He useth the Babylonian Idiom. You would believe the word Bosor to be pronounced for Beor, Chap. II. 15. or it was a solecism of Peter, or an error of the Transcribers: but it favors of the Chaldee dialect, and plainly teaches, what that Babylon was, where Peter then was.

It was ordinary with the Chaldeans to change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Schin into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain; and on the contrary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Schin: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shepham into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Apamia, Num. XXXIV. 11, 12. Where see the Targums, Samaritan and Jerusalem and Jonathan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A bill of contracts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Talmudists, and divers others of that nature. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A witness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The letter He only put in, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Until, in the Samaritan Dialect, is changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a letter in like manner put in. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to divide is also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Cheek, is also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And very many of the like variation; which, being observed, do openly testify that Peter was in Babylon of Chaldea, and spoke Chaldee, when he said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bozor for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beor.

Nor was there in all the World any Country, in which that great Apostle of Circumcision could preach, more agreeably, and suitably to his office, than in Babylon, and the adjacent places; where were Hebrews of the purest blood, and where the Ten Tribes were; the Circumcision in its full name.

Hitherto we have traced the Hebrews, or those Jews, whose Mother tongue was Syriac or Chaldee, namely, the Palestines, Syrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Mesopotanians, and an infinite number of Israelites of the twelve Tribes sprinkled among them, using also the same Language. Now let us see briefly what Bibles were used in their Synagogues.

CHAP. V. The Hebrew Bible read in the Synagogues of the Hebrews.

THE Jerusalem Talmudists say, There were five things wanting under the second Temple, which were under the first; the fire from Heaven, the Ark, Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing, and the holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Prophesy: Let the Hebrew Tongue, the Prophetic Language, be added also.

Of the Spirit of Prophesy the Babylonian Talmudists have these words also: From the death of the later Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the holy Spirit ceased from Israel. In the first generation indeed after the return out of Babylon, that the gift of prophesy flourished, those Prophets, and indeed very many others do witness, if we believe the Masters of the Traditions. For thus they speak: Among the eighty Elders, who opposed the statute of Esther and Mordecai, concerning the Feast of Purim, as if it were an innovation in the Law, more than thirty were Prophets. But that generation being extinct, the gift of Prophesy vanished also, and appeared no more before the morning of the Gospel. To this that of St. John hath respect, Chap. VII. 38. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Holy Ghost was not yet: and Act. XIX. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . We have not heard, whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Whether the use of the Mother Hebrew Tongue was continued in that first generation, as the gift of Prophesy was continued, we shall not dispute: this certainly we cannot pass by, that those Books of the sacred Canon, which were writ in that generation, viz. Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, (only a little in the Book of Ezra excepted) all were written in the Hebrew Language.

Whether the Hebrew Language were at that time the vulgar speech, or not, without all doubt in the ages following, the Syriac or Chaldee was the Mother Tongue both in Babylon and Palestine: and yet the Hebrew Bible was read in their Synagogues, not understood by the common people, but rendered into Chaldee their Vulgar Tongue by an Interpreter.

The Gemarists assert, that it was so done in that first generation, while they thus explain those words of Nehemiah, Chap. VIII. 8. They read in the Law of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Hebrew Text 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 explaining it, that is, with the Targum.

In all the following ages these things obtained. •• any write the holy books, in any Language, or in any Character; yet he shall not read in them (publicly in the Synagogue) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unless they be written in Hebrew: R. Samuel bar Rabh Isaac went into the Synagogue, and saw a Minister there interpreting, and not any standing by him for an Interpreter. He saith to him, This is forbid you: for as the Law was given by a Mediator, so it is to be handled with a Mediator. Hence were there so many and so accurate Canons concerning an Interpreter in the Synagogues. He that reads in the Law, let him not read to the Interpreter more at one time, than one verse. The Gloss saith, Left the Interpreter mistake. And, The deed of Reuben is read, but it is not intepreted. The deed of Tamar is read, but it is not interpreted. The first History of the golden Calf is read and interpreted: the second is read, but is not interpreted. Where the Gloss is, That History which Aaron himself relates of the Calf, is called the second History of the Calf. In it are th • se words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And there came out this Calf. Therefore that story is not interpeted, lest the common people err, and say, That there was something that came forth from itself. But they understood not the Hebrew Text itself. Let that be marked. The Gemarists go on: R. Chaninah ben Gamaliel went to Chabul, and hearing there a Minister of the Synagogue reading those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And it came to pass when Israel dwelt, He said to the Interpreter, Be silent and interpret not; and the wife men commanded him.

Very many passages of that nature might be produced, whereby it appears plain, that the Hebrew Text was read in the Synagogue of the Hebrews, that is, of those of Babylon and Palestine, and whose so ever Mother Tongue was Syriac or Chaldee. But whether it were read in the Synagogues of the Hellenists, further enquiry must be made.

CHAP. VI. What the Jews think of the Versions.

THOSE Canons which we have cited concerning reading and interpretation, do they bind the Jews, Palestines, and Babylonians only, or other Jews, and the whole Nation wheresoever dispersed? Those Canons are in both Talmuds, and as all other Traditions comprised in that Book do bind the whole Nation, unless where the reason of times, and the difference of places dispense; so why should not these bind concerning reading the Law, and the Prophets in the Synagogues out of the Hebrew Text?

The whole Jewish Nation were carried out with the highest zeal and veneration towards the Hebrew Text, which to neglect in the Synagogues was accounted among them for a high impiety. It was read in the Synagogues of the Hebrews, and rendered very frequently in the very words of Onk loss and Jonathan. And why were not the Targumists themselves read rather, and the business done by fewer? Because the original Text is by no means to be neglected. And why the Hellenists should be cooler in this business than the Hebrews, who can give a reason?

Therefore, how much the more zeal and honor they had for the Hebrew Text, so much the less greatful to them was the Version of it into another Tongue. For they thought so much of honor, virtue and worth departed from the holy Text, as that Language or those very letters were departed from.

• I. In that Canon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The holy Books pollute the hands; whereby, as they say, the worth of those Books is proved, if there be made any change of the Language or Characters, so much they believe the nobility of them is diminished. For the Targum if it be written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew Bible, if it be written in the Language of the Targum, and the writing changed they defile not the hands; and indeed those Books do not defile the hands, unless they be writ in Hebrew.
• II. It is disputed, Whether it be lawful to snatch the holy Books out of the fire on the Sabbath day, when that cannot be done without some labor. And it is concluded without all scruple, that if they are wrote in Hebrew they ought to be snatched out, but if in another Language, or in other Characters, then it is doubted. Yea R. Jose saith, They are not to be snatched out.
• III. It is disputed further, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if the holy Books so written shall come to your hands, whether you may destroy them with your own hand either by cutting or tearing them, or throwing them into the fire: and it is concluded indeed in the negative: which yet is to the same effect, as though it were determined in the Affirmative. Let them be laid up, say they, in some foul place, where they may be consumed by themselves.

And it is related of Rabban ••• aliel first, that when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Book of Job made into a Targum, was brought to him, he commanded, that it should be buried under a heap of stones. Which example also a certain Rabbin afterward urgeth to his great grand-son Gamaliel, that he also should bury under ground the Book of Job Targumized, which he had in his hand, to be consumed.

The Book of Job Targumized was that Book translated into the Chaldee Language, the Mother Tongue of the Nation, the Tongue into which the Law and the Prophets were rendered in the Synagogues, and yet by no means did they tolerate the Version of that Book (which indeed was not read in the Synagogues) though rendered in that Language, much less would they tolerate the Version of the Law and the Prophets into a more remote and more Heathen Language.

These things well considered, one may with good reason suspect, that the Jews thought not so honourably of any Version, as to cast away the Hebrew Bible, and to espouse that in the room of it. And what they might, or did, think concerning the Greek Version of the LXX, as it is called, let us, as much as we can, briefly search.

CHAP. VII. A Comparison of the History of the LXX as it is in Josephus, and as it is in the Talmudists.

THE story as it is in Josephus, and Aristeas hath no need to be repeated, being so well known to all. From which how vastly different is it from the story as it is related in the Talmudists? Which we transcribe verbatim from Massecheth Sopherim thus,

The Babylonian Talmud f relates the story in the like manner, this only excepted, that there is no mention of the five Elders; as also that this clause is wanting, They wrote out the Law for him by itself.

• I. Josephus speaks glorious things of letters sent from the King to the High Priest sending for Interpreters, of Presents sent to Eleazar, and other things consecrated to the Temple, of many Talents spent by Ptolemy for the redemption of the Jews, of honorable rewards conferred upon the Interpreters: all which according to the account of Josephus and Aristeas amounted to such a sum, that one might with reason believe the whole Alexandrian Library was not worth so much, yea a whole years tax of Egypt would scarcely have been of that value.

  But of all this there is deep silence in the Talmudists; and yet usually they want not either for Will or Elocution, when something is to be declared for the glory of their own nation. They are not silent of the gifts of Monobazus and Helena, Nicanor, Ben Kattin, &c. of the gifts of Princes either given or lent to their Rabbins, but of these vast expenses of Ptolemy, there is not one Syllable.

• II. In Josephus the Interpreters are sent for by letters, and that under that notion, that they should interpret. But in the Talmudists they are convened, being altogether ignorant what they must do.
• III. In Josephus they turn (the Law at least) into Greek: in the Talmudists it is obscure, whether they translated anything at all. Of the five Elders indeed it is said in terms, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they transcribed in Greek, that is, they turned, as the word which followeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to interpret, sufficiently explains. But of the Seventy there is no such thing: but only this, That they transcribed the Law by its self, and changed thirteen places in it.

There is a passage indeed, where the Babylonian Talmudists are brought in with their relation, whereby one might think, that they intimated that the Seventy translated into Greek. Our Masters, say they, permitted not that the holy Books should be transcribed, but into Greek. And it is a Tradition R. Judah saith, when they permitted to transcribe in Greek, they permitted it of the Book of the Law only. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And that because of that which happened to King Ptolemy: Or let it be as it is rendered by some, Whence the work was begun with Ptolemy the King.

But if any should say, that they transcribed indeed in Greek, that is, the Hebrew Text in Greek letters, and translated not, you would scarcely refute him out of the Talmudists especially, when elsewhere they distinguish between writing out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in any Language, that is, in the Characters of any Language, and writing out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by a Version into any Language: and when there was a publication and edition of a double Hebrew Text in Origen's Hexapla and Octapla 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In Hebrew and Greek Characters, he seems not to have been without his Copy, in which the Hebrew Text itself was written out in Greek Letters.

What at length does that mean, They writ out the Law by itself? Certainly either this, They transcribed the Law only, and not the other Books; or rather, they transcribed the Hebrew Law itself in Hebrew, and turned it not.

They wrote out, say they, the Law by itself, and changed thirteen places in it, the examination of the latter clause will yield light to the former, and will give its vote to him that says, that it does not appear in the Talmudists, that the LXX translated at all, but that they only transcribed the Hebrew Books in Hebrew.

CHAP. VIII. Of the thirteen places, that were changed.

BOTH Talmuds, as also other Rabbins, who relate the story of the LXX Elders, add always this that they changed thirteen places in the Law: which they also reckon up. But now when those different readings are not found in the Greek Version, that story is exploded by the most, as a mere fiction; when indeed the change was not in the Version, but in the Hebrew Transcription. Let the thing speak itself.

They wrote, say they, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God created in the beginning, Gen. I. 1. not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the beginning God created. Lest the King should say, Bereshith is God, and there were two powers, and the first created the later But now in the Greek Version it was impossible, that such a scruple should arise; it could arise only from the Hebrew Text: and it must necessarily be, that this change, intended for an amendment, should be reckoned to be in the Hebrew words themselves.

They write, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And Sarah laughed among her neighbors, Gen. XVIII. 12. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 within herself.

They wrote, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whatsoever was desirable I took not from them, Numb. XVI. 15. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one Ass. Now who will doubt, but that the change was made in the Hebrew words themselves? In the former from the affinity of the words; in the later from the similitude of the letters.

But instead of more, let this one Example serve. They wrote, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he sent worthy men of the children of Israel, Exod. XXIV. 5. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 young men. Now if it be asked, whether they wrote the very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the sense of it in the Greek Language, the Jerusalem Gemarists witness, that that very same word was writ by them in this story. Three books, say they, were found in the Court of the Temple. In one of them was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Deut. XXXIII. 27. in two was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They received those two, and they rejected the third. In one was written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He sent worthy men of the children of Israel. In two was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He sent young men of the children of Israel. They received those two, and rejected the third. In one was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nine. In two was written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eleven. They received those two, and rejected the third.

Now it may be asked, What, I pray, were those two Copies, in which it was written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They were Hebrew Copies, without all controversy: and so was that without all doubt in which it was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

There is no reason therefore, why that tradition of the thirteen places changed should bear so ill a report, and be accounted for a fiction, because those thirteen alterations are not met with in the Greek Version. For the Talmudists plainly treat of the Seventy two not Translating out of Hebrew, but transcribing the Hebrew Books themselves.

Let us also add the introduction that the Jerusalem Writers make to this history. The Jerusalem Talmudists, say they, wrote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jerusalem, Jerushlema, Tzaphon, Tzephona, Teman, Temna. That is, they changed the writing of these Hebrew words: and immediately they add, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The wise Men altered thirteen places for Ptolomey the King. Which is also to be understood of the Hebrew words themselves, otherwise this does not suite with what goes before.

CHAP. IX. In what value the Version of the Seventy, as it is commonly called, seems to have been among the Jews.

THUS it remains doubtful, whether the Talmudists acknowledge any Version of the Seventy two Elders, or no. Let it be granted therefore, that they attributed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Divine inspiration to them, from hence, that being put asunder, yet they all conspired in one mind and sense; nevertheless it will not at all follow thence, that any honor was given by them to this Version, which is carried about under that name.

One may much more readily perceive in it the breath of Jewish Traditions, than any inspiration of the Holy Ghost: And although their own Traditions were of account certainly to the Nation; and for the patronizing them, many things seem to be put into the Version, which favor them; yet this did by no means so much obtain with them, as that they valued the Version above the Hebrew Original, and that the casting away that, made choice of this to themselves; but they always reserved to the Hebrew Text its due honor.

I. What the Learned among them might judge of the Greek Version, one may somewhat guess from hence, that even a Christian himself seriously reading and viewing it, may observe many things in it, whereby he may discover by what counsils, cautions, and crastiness that Version was published; especially, if together with it he hath in his Eye, the Manners, Traditions, Ordinances, and State of the Jewish Nation; to which allusion is very frequently made, and respect had by those Interpreters. The matter may be illustrated by one or two examples, as to their Traditions.

Gen. XX. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Because the Lord in shutting shut up all the Womb without. Whence comes the putting in of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Without? It agrees with the Tradition, that the Wombs were barred up against copulation .

Exod. XXIV. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They saw the place, where God had stood, instead of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They saw the God of Israel. Compare the Tract Kiddushin with this; where the Gloss is this, R. Hananiel saith, He that renders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They saw the God of Israel, is a liar, &c. See the Notes before at Chap. XIV. verse. 2.

Deut. XXX. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And the Lord shall purify thy heart. And Jos. V. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After which manner Joshua purified the children of Israel: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He circumcised; in a sense too much inclining to the trifling praises of Circumcision among the Masters.

Whence are those words taken? Jos. XXI. 42. and XXIV. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. There they laid with him (Joshua) into the Sepulcher in which they buried him, I say, there they laid the stone, knives, &c. And 2 Sam. XXI. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they died, and Dan the son of Joa of the sons of the Giants took them.

1 Sam. I. 21. This clause is added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And all the tiths of his land: according to the Canons of the Nation concerning offering tiths at the Feast.

2 King. II. 1. When God would take up Elias in a whirlwind, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as into Heaven; so verse. 11. Agreeing with the opinion of the Nation concerning the Ascension of Elias very near to Heaven, but not into Heaven itself

1 Chron. IX. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The pan of the High Priest: from the noted fame 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Of the High Priests pan. See Menacoth , and in other places very frequently.

Psal. II. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Take hold of instruction; instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Son. Bar signifies nothing else but the Law, as it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kiss the Son.

We omit more passages of the same observation and suspicion; and they are not a few.

II. We may observe in the Jerusalem Talmudists, that the Greek Version of Aquila is sometimes quoted, but that of the Seventy never.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aquila renders ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tablets, Esa. III. 20.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Stomachers.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aquila renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Over against the Candlestick, Dan. V. 5. Over against the Lamps.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall be our guide unto death (Psal. XLVIII. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aquila renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Immortality.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fruit of goodly trees (Levite. XXIII. 40.) R. Tanchuma saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aquila renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Etz, Water; if his conjecture fail not in the interpretation. See also Bereshith Rabba .

But I do not remember, that I have found one clause alleged out of the Version of the LXX in the whole Talmud, either one or other.

Let it also be added, that the Book of Ben Syra is a prohibited book, and yet you may find it cited in both Talmuds. In that of Jerusalem, in the Tract Beracoth : where it seems to be the book of Syracides. But otherwise in divers other places . But I do not, I say, remember, that I have found the Version of the Seventy alleged in any place; and I scarce think, that such an allegation could pass me unobserved. Which thing more increaseth my suspicion, that those Jews owned not such a Version, and that they understood the Transcription of the Seventy, not to be the Version, but the copying out the very Hebrew Text itself. And as to the Version itself, whereof we are speaking, how they stood affected towards it, one may in some measure learn from this, that when another Version is alleged by them, they cite not this at all.

III. The Jews knew well enough, that the Greek Version was not published for Jews, but for Heathen: and was done by their labor, who came unwillingly to that work, nor would have suffered any such thing, if it had laid in their power to have hindered it. But now with what faithfulness such a thing was done, the thing itself speaks, and the Jews knew it well enough; who knew also well enough with what small affection the whole Jewish Nation stood towards the Heathen.

By no argument therefore shall any persuade me, that that Version was a pure and accurate Version, exactly according to the Hebrew truth, which the Interpreters had in their hands; and that the differences which we now perceive in our Bibles, were risen thence, that the Jews depraved the Hebrew Text according to their pleasure. For I shall never believe, that any Masters of the Jews would exhibit a pure, uncorrupted and exact Bible to the Heathen in the Greek Version; and obtrude an interpolated, depraved, corrupt one upon themselves. And let us call themselves in for judges in this case.

• I. In Gen. II. 2. The Greek words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And God finished on the sixth day. Was it to that very sense in the Copy, which the Interpreters used? They changed, and wrote, say the Gemarists, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He finished in the sixth day. The Gloss writes, That it might not be said, that God did anything on the Sabbath. In their Hebrew Copy it was, as it is in ours, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And God ended his work on the seventh day; but they changed it in the Hebrew Transcript, whereof we spake, and so did the Interpreters in the Greek Version.
• II. In Exod. XII. 40. The Greek words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in the Land of Egypt, and in Canaan, &c. Did the Interpreters read so in their Hebrew Copy? No. They changed, say the Talmudists, and writ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Land of Egypt, and in the Land of Canaan. In the Copy which was in their hands, those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Land of Canaan, were absent: but they added it of their own. The Gloss saith, Lest it should be said, a lie is written in your Law: for behold Kohath was among those that went down into Egypt. And if you reckon all the years of Kohath, Amram, and Moses, they amount not to four hundred.
• III. In Numb. XVI. 15. The Greek words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have not taken the desire of any of them. Was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Desire, writ in the Copy the Seventy used? No, It is an alteration, say the Masters; for it was writ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Ass, and they transferred it into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 desire. The Gloss writes, That it might not be said, Perhaps he took not an Ass, but he took away some other desirable thing. And you may know the Lion by his paw.

Let these things be spoken to prove, that it is not so Heterodox to suppose that the Greek Version was not read in the Synagogues of the Hellenists, but the Hebrew Text, so as it was in the Synagogues of the Hebrews. And now let us briefly weigh, what things are said on the contrary side.

CHAP. X. What things are objected for the Affirmative.

• I. FIRST, That passage is objected, R. Levi went to Cesarea, and hearing them read the Lesson 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Schma, Deut. VI. in Greek, would hinder them. R. Jose observing it, was angry, saying, He that cannot read in Hebrew, shall he not read at all? Yea, let a man read in any Tongue, which he understands, and knows, and so satisfy his Duty. So the words are rendered by a very learned Man.

  But the Gemara treats not of reading the Law in the Synagogues, but concerning the repeating of the passages of the Phylacteries, among which the first was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hear, O Israel; Deut. VI. Therefore the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not to be rendered reading, but repeating. In which sense the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 occurs very frequently in the Masters. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She recites the book of Ester by her mouth; that is, without book. And, Heretofore everyone that could 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Recite (that passage used in offering the first fruits, Deut. XXVI.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Recited. And he that could not recite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they taught him to recite: or they recited for him.

• II. That example and story is urged concerning reading the Law and the Prophets in the Synagogue of Antioch of Pisidia, Act. XIII. 15. To which there is no need to answer anything else, but that it begs the Question.
• III. That also of Tertullian is added, Sed & Judaei palam lectitant, Vectigalis libertas vulgo auditur (or, aditur) singulis Sabbatis. But the Jews also read openly, the liberty of the Tax is heard (or, gone unto) every Sabbath day.

  I answer, Be it granted, that Tertullian speaks of the Greek Version, which is not so very evident; that which was done under Severus doth not conclude the same thing done in the times of the Apostles: but especially when Severus was, according to the sense of his name, very severe towards the Jews, as Baronius teacheth, and Spartianus long before him. Under whom Sabbaths could not be kept by the Jews, but under a Tax. And be it granted, that the Greek Version was read then by them at Rome (as the Glosser upon Tertullian describes the scene of the affair) that was also under a Tax; not by the choice of the people, but by pure compulsion.

• IV. That of Justin Martyr is produced; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if any say, that these books belong not to us, but the Jews; and therefore they are to this day preserved in their Synagogues. And, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The books remained even among the Egyptians hitherto, and are everywhere among all the Jews, who reading them understand them not.

• V. But that is instead of all, that Philo and Josephus follow the Greek Version; and that (which is still greater) the holy Pen-men do follow it in the New Testament in their allegations taken out of the Old. Therefore without doubt, say they, that Version was frequent and common in the Synagogues, and in the hands of men; and without doubt, of the highest authority among the Jews; yea, as it seemeth, of divine. These are the arguments which are of the greatest weight on that side.

  That I may therefore answer together to all, let us expatiate a little in this enquiry.

CHAP. XI. By what Authors and Councils it might probably be that that Greek Version came forth, which obtains under the Name of the Seventy.

I. IT was made and published without doubt not for the sake of the Jews, but of the Heathen. We have Josephus a witness here in his story of the Seventy; granting him to be true in that relation, what moved Ptolomey so greedily to desire the Version, to purchase so small a Volume at such vast expenses? Was it Religion? Or a desire of adorning his Library? By that paint does Josephus color the business: but reason will dictate a third cause, and that far more likely. For both the Jewish and Heathen Writers teach, that Egypt at that time was filled with an infinite multitude of Jews: and what could a prudent King, and that took care of himself and his Kingdom, do else, than look into the manners and institutions of that Nation, whether they consisted with the peace and security of his Kingdom; since that people was contrary to the manners and Laws of all other Nations.

When therefore he could neither examine nor understand their Law, which comprised their whole Religion, Polity, and Occonomy, being writ in Hebrew; it was necessary for him to provide to have it translated into their Vulgar Tongue. Hence arose the Version of the five Elders, as we may well suppose; and lest some fraud or collusion might creep in, the assembling of the Seventy two Elders was occasioned hence also. And does it not favor of some suspicion, that he assembled them being altogether ignorant what they were to do? For let reason tell us, why we should not rather give credit to the Talmudists writing for their own Country-men, than to Josephus writing for the Heathen. And if there be any truth in that relation, that when he had gathered them together, he shut them up by themselves in so many chambers, that still increaseth the same suspicion.

II. Let it be yielded that they turned it into Greek: which as we have seen, is doubtful; yet the speech in the Gemarists is only concerning the Books of Moses, and concerning the Law only in Josephus. Who therefore Translated the rest of the Books of the Holy Volume? It is without an Author perhaps, should we say, the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, but not without reason. For,

III. The Jews, wheresoever dispersed through out the World, and they in very many Regions infinite in their numbers, made it their earnest request, that they might live and be governed by their own Laws, and indeed they would live by none, but their own. But what Prince would grant this, being altogether ignorant what those Laws were? They saw their manners and rites were contrary to all other Nations; it was needful also to see, whether they were not contrary to the peace of their Kingdoms. That very jealousy could not but require the Version of those Laws into the common Language, and to force it also from them, how unwilling soever they might be. The great Sanhedrin therefore could not consult better and more wisely for the safety, and security, and religion of the whole Nation, than by turning their Holy Books into the Greek Language, that all might know what it was that they professed. They could not but see, but those Books would at last, though they were never so unwilling, come forth in the Vulgar Language; nor could they hinder, but they would everywhere happen into the hands of the Heathen: therefore that it would be far better, that a Version should come forth by their care and authority, which might be according to their pleasures; than that some should come forth in one place, and some in another, which perhaps might turn to the disgrace of the Holy Text, or to the danger and reproach of the Nation, or might too much lay open the Holy Mysteries among the Heathen.

By these Authors, and by these reasons, I confess ingenuously, it is my opinion, that that Version was made, which goes about under the name of the Seventy. Nor are there some things wanting in the Version itself, which hint some such counsel in the publishing of it. For,

IV. Even a blear Eye may see clearly enough, that it was hammered out, and dressed with more caution, than conscience; more craft than sincerity: 1. That as much as might be, the Holy Books might remain free from any reproach or cavilling of the Heathen. 2. That they might soften some things, which might be injurious to the Jewish Nation, either as to their peace, or reputation; or which might create offense to the Gentiles. 3. That the mysteries, and the bare truth of the Holy Books might be revealed as little as possibly could be, to the Heathen. All which might be demonstrated by such numberless examples, as to leave no occasion to doubt of that matter, behind it.

By these and the like cautions and subtleties was that Version made; where in the Translators had less care, that the Interpretation should come out sincere and true; but provision was chiefly made, that anything should be thrust upon the Gentiles so it were without danger, and that the Glory and safety of the Jewish Nation might be maintained. And may it be allowed me to speak out what I think. Among the various Copies and Editions of this Version, which go about; I do not esteem that Copy for the most genuine, which comes nearest to the Hebrew Text, but that which comes nearest to the mind of the Translators in such like cautions.

It is said, as we saw before, that when the five Elders had turned the Law, That day was bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the Golden Calf was made. And why? Because the Law could not be turned according to all things convenient to it. Did their grief arise hence, because it was not turned, nor could not be, clearly, exactly and evidently enough, that the Heathen might see the full and open light of it? Who will believe that this ever was the Jews desire or wish? But their trouble proceeded rather from hence, that those five had not Translated it cunningly, warily and craftily enough, as the Gentiles were to be dealt withal.

Of this matter there was care enough taken in this Version: the Authors setting all their strength and wits on work, that, according to their own pleasures, it might come forth such as they would have it; and might serve their purpose both as to themselves, and as to the Gentiles. This they established, and strengthened by their own authority, not as a pure Version, and such as was to be recommended to their Countrymen, but as fit enough to stop the mouths and satisfy the curiosity of the Heathen; and lest any among them might attempt another, in which those cautions and provisions might not be sufficiently observed.

This they laid up in their Sanhedrins and Synagogues, that it might be ready, and shewn to the Heathen, as a Symbol and token of the Jewish Law, Faith, and Religion, if at any time the matter, and necessity called for some such thing.

We grant therefore to Justin Martyr, that that Version was in the Synagogues and hands of the Jews: but one would not conclude from that, that it was read in the Synagogue instead of the Hebrew Text. And we will yield also to Tertullian, that that Version was read at Rome in his age in the Synagogues of the Jews; but being compelled so to do, by that suspicion, whereof we spake; namely, that it might be known to all, what the Law and Religion of the Jews was, whether it consisted with the Roman Government. Our Question is, whether the Hellenists chose to themselves the reading of the Greek Version, and neglected the Hebrew Text: and seeing for the most part they lived by their own Laws and Ordinances, you will hardly anywhere show me, especially in the times of the Apostles, concerning which we speak, or in the times before them, that they were compelled to reject the one, and to read the other.

And as to that which is objected concerning Philo and Josephus; tis no wonder if they writing for the Heathen, followed that Version, which was designedly made for the Heathen.

But that is of the greatest weight of all, which is objected concerning the Evangelists and Apostles, who embraced that Version in their quotations out of the Old Testament? To which the Answer is very easy. Namely, Those Holy Writers had to do with two sorts of men, Jews and Gentiles: the Volume of the New Testament was in the hands of both. A Gentile desires to examine the quotations, which are brought out of the Old Testament. But not understanding the Hebrew, whether should he go, but to the Greek Version, which he understands. So that it was not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of condescension, that those Holy Writers followed the Greek Version, but out of pure necessity: for otherwise it was impossible, that their allegations out of the Law and the Prophets could be examined by the Gentiles. And if a Jew having the New Testament in his hand, should complain and quarrel, that in their quotations they departed from the Hebrew Text, they had an answer ready, viz. This very Version which is cited is that very same, which ye have writ, published, and propounded to the World, as the Symbol and token of your Law and Religion, and as your own very Bible.

If we would designedly attempt a full disquisition concerning that Version, we might, it may be, more at large demonstrate all these things which have been spoken, by various instances, reasons and methods. But let this suffice at present. This discourse was raised by occasion of the mention of the unknown Tongue, Chap. XIV. which we suppose was Hebrew: formerly used in the Hellenistical Synagogue of the Corinthians, and which they would retain, being now converted to the Gospel: too much wresting to Judaism the gift of Tongues, in the same manner, as they did the other privileges, and ordinances of the Gospel: and using an unknown Language so much the rather, because the gift of Tongues was granted from Heaven, using it to an end plainly contrary to the gift itself; unhappily perverting it, and not requiring, not admitting now an Interpreter, which before was done by them, as if they thought God had given unknown Tongues, to be unknown to all, besides those to whom they were given.

In what I have said of the Greek Version, and of the not reading it among the Hellenists, I know, I have very learned Men differing in their opinions from me; and heretofore I myself was of a contrary judgment: Whence, I hope, the Reader will be the more easily persuaded, that I do not speak these things from a desire of contention, but from a serious enquiry, as far as I am able, into the thing, from often repeated thoughts, and a most hearty desire of searching after truth.

CHAP. I. Concerning the Hebrews and Hellenists.

WHEN the Hellenists and Hebrews are distinguished, Act. VI. 1. it seems to be less obscure, than when distinction is made between the Hellenists and the Jews, Act. XI. 20. For that the Hellenists were Jews, almost all agree.

The reason of the distinction may be fetched, either from their Dispersion or from their Language. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Dispersion of the Greeks, Joh. VII. 35. may be plainly distinguished 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . From the Dispersion of the Babylonians. The Jews dispered by the Victories and Colonies of the Greeks, from the Jews dispersed by the Babylonian Captivity, and the Persian Dominion.

But the difference is rather fetched from their Language: They being called Hebrews, to whom the Hebrew was the Mother Tongue, that is, The Syriac, or Chaldee, they Hellenists, to whom the Greek Language was so.

Under the name of Hebrews, there is none but would place the Palestines, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Syrians, if they knew what was the common Mother Tongue of all these Countries, especially, if they that knew all these Countries were placed by the Tamudists themselves, in effect under the same rank and alliance of customs and privileges as well as under the same Language. Hence are these and such like expressions to be met with in them.

Whosoever dwells in Babylon is as though he dwelt in the Land of Israel. b All foreign Land is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heathen, except Babylon. Where by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Babylon, they understand all those Countries, unto which the Babylonian Captivity was carried, and led away.

And these passages they have of Syria. In three respects, Syria was like to the Land of Israel. It was bound to tithes, and the seventh year. You might go thither in purity: and he that bought a farm in Syria, was as though he bought one in the Suburbs of Jerusalem. And again, Syria as to some judgments is as the Land of Israel. And again, They bring out (the fruits of the seventh year) into Syria, but not without the Land. Note, that Syria was not reputed without the Land; but in divers things to be united with Palestine. And many passages of that nature may be produced both of Syria, and of Babylon.

Now then when our discourse is of the Hellenists, the Jews of these Countries and of this Language are to be distinguished from those: not denying nevertheless, that even among these here and there were also Hellenists: as the Synagogue of Alexandria at Jerusalem: they of Cesarea, who recited their Phylacteries in the Language of the Hellenists: and they of Antioch, of whom mention is made in that place of the Acts alleged.

No body doubts, that the Syriac was the Mother Tongue of all Syria; and yet who will doubt, who hath read the History of the Syro-Grecians, that there were very many in Syria, whose Mother Tongue was Greek? And hence that knot is very easily untied, Acts, XI. The Dispersed Disciples, that preached the Gospel, found in Antioch some Hellenists, that is, whose Mother tongue was Greek, among the Jews, whose Mother tongue was Syriac.

CHAP. II. Of the Hebrews in Babylon, and the adjacent Countries.

THE people that returned from Babylon are numbered, Ezr. II. and the sum total is computed to be Forty two thousand three hundred and threescore, verse. 64. And yet the number of the families there particularly reckoned amounts not to more than thirty thousand. So that those twelve thousand which are comprised within the sum total, and yet are not numbered by their families, were either Plebeians, and persons of no name, or such who could not derive their Genealogy, as verse. 62. or perhaps not a few of them were of the ten Tribes.

But how great a multitude of Jews yet remained in Babylon, when that number went back to their acient Country, you may conjecture by these two things, to omit others.

• I. That of the Four and Twenty Courses of the Priests there returned only four, as the Jerusalem Talmudists observe, and that well, out of Ezr. II. 36. And although you may conceive a less proportion by far in the rest of the people; yet the number of those that tarried behind did far exceed the number of those that returned.
• II. The people had taken root in Babylon: and the seventy years of the captivity had in a manner made them forget their own Country. They had been commanded of God to build themselves houses, to plant gardens, and to compose themselves for a long continuance in that place; Jer. XXIX. 5, 6. And at length necessity passed into pleasure; and having obtained quiet, commodious, and gainful seats, they judged it better to be there, than to return into an unmanured Country, full of danger, and want.

Hence the Masters dispute, whether that whole company, that went up with Ezra, went not up by compulsion, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 One Master thinks, that in separating they separated themselves, and voluntarily went up. Another Master, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 That they were carried away by compulsion. For as the Gloss speaks, They that remained at Babylon enjoyed their quiet; but those that went up to Jerusalem were pressed with poverty, and with all kind of labor and fear, by reason of those that dwelt about them.

Concerning those that tarried behind, the Jews themselves have these words.

• I. That a purer blood of Jews remained in Babylon, then was of those that went up. Because that Ezra carried away with him the dregs of the people, and left Babylon like pure flower; that is, as the Gloss writes, All that were of impure blood he carried away thence with him. Hence is that, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 All Lands are as a mixed (or impure) lump, compared with the Land of Israel: and the Land of Israel is a mixed lump, compared with Babylon, viz. As to purity of blood.
• II. That the blood of the stock of David remained more noble in Babylon, than that which ascended in the family of Hillel: because that was of the male seed, this of the female.
• III. Yea, this prevailed with them in the Talmudic times. It is forbid to go out of Babylon into another Land, even from Pombeditha to Be Cubi: and Rabh Joseph excommunicated one, who went from Pombeditha to Be Cubi

And if we would propound some specimen of the numerousness of the Jews inhabiting that Land, we might take a view of their three Universities under those times, viz. at Naardea, Sora, and Pombeditha: as also divers other places famous for Rabbins, such as,

• Bethdoli, where R. Nehemiah was. Which is also called Bedeli.
• The River Pekod, where R. Jacob was.
• Bagdat, where R. Channah was
• Corconia, where R. Chaijah.

The Town Mahaziah, where were Doctors equal with those of Pombeditha But let us offer some kind of Geographical Table of the Countries in Babylon, where the Jews dwelt, as it is represented by the Talmudists.

Rab • Papa the aged in the name of Rabh, saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Babylon is in health 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Meson is dead. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Media is sick. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Persia is expiring. That is, the Glosser being Interpreter, In Babylon the Jews are of pure blood; in Meson all are illegitimate: in Media many are of pure blood, and many not: in Persia there are very many not of pure blood, and a few that are pure.

They go on 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How far is Babylon extended? Rab saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unto the river Azek. Samuel saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unto the river Juani. And how far above, near Diglath? Rabh saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unto Bagdaah and Avana, Samuel saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unto Muscani. But Muscani itself is not within the border. But R. Chaija bar Abba saith, that Samuel saith, that Muscani is as the Captivity (that is, Pombiditha) as to Genealogies. To Muscani therefore is so to be understood, as that Muscani is within the border. Within, near Diglath, how far? To lower Apamia. For there were two Apamia's, one the Upper, and another the Lower. In one were Jews of pure blood, in the other, not. And between them was the space of four thousand paces.

Above towards Euphrates, how far? Rabh saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Unto Acra Tulbankana. Samuel saith, Unto the bridge of Euphrates. R. Jochanan saith, unto the passage 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Gizma.

From the River Azek ] Thence perhaps the Town Azochis, of which Pliny, : 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The River Juani, or Joani ] is perhaps the same with Oena in Marcellinus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Diglath.] Tigris where it was slower than Diglitus, whence it riseth; from its swiftness began to be called Tigris.

Of Apamla] Ptolemy and Pliny both speak.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tulbankana. ] Among the Cities near a part of Euphrates according to Ptolemy, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Thelbenkane, in Degree 78. 30. 35. 30.

To all this that hath been spoken may also be added, that in the Notitia Imperii, under the disposition of the Honorable Person the Duke of Oschoena, were Equites promoti indigenae Syriae Judaeorum: Promoted Horse, Inhabitants of Syria of the Jews: and that in Pliny, there was a Country called Palestine in these regions, concerning which we are now speaking; which whether they do not favor of Jewish Inhabitants, we leave to conjecture.

Let that also of Marcellinus be added. Near the place, where the greater part of Euphrates is divided into many Rivers: in this tract, a City being deserted by the Jews that were inhabitants in it, because of its low Walls, was fired by a band of enraged Soldiers.

CHAP. III. In the same Regions were the seats of the ten Tribes.

TRacing the feat of the Ten Tribes by the light of the Scriptures and the Talmudists, we find they were placed in Assyria, and Babylon, and the bordering Countries: disposed under their Captivity in those very Lands, wherein the Divine Counsel had decreed the two Tribes also should be disposed, when they should undergo the same lot: that those Tribes which had bordered upon each other in their own Land, should border also upon each other in a strange Land: and that they, whom God had united in the promise of their future call, should be also united in the same habitations, that they might be called together.

Those that were carried away from their own Land, the King of Assyria placed in Halach and Chabor, near the River Gozan, and in the Cities of the Medes. 2 King. XVII. 6. and VIII. 11.

The Talmudists do thus comment upon the places named. R. Abba bar Chana saith,

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Halac is Halvaoth.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Habor is Adiabene.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The River Gozan is Ginzak. R. Akiba preacheth in Ginzak in Media.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Cities of the Medes are Chemdam, and its fellows. But there are some who say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nihar and its fellows. What are those fellows? Samuel saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Musechi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hidki, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Domki.

These things are repeated elsewhere, and that with this variation of the names.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalah is Chalzon.

: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Cities of the Medes are Tamdan, and its fellows. But there are some that say. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nehvanad, and its fellows. What are these fellows? Samuel saith, The Towns 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Muschi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chushki, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Romki.

Of the rendering 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalah, although the Gemarists do not exactly agree among themselves, one while interpreting it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Halvaoth, another while by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalzon: yet they disagree not about the situation of the place, when in both places they join it so Adiabene. And in the place last cited, they so apply those words of Daniel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And three ribs within his mouth. Dan. VII. 5. R. Jochanan interpreting, are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalzon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Adiabene, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Nesibis.

I ask whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalzon be not illy written for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalvaon, (by the likeness of the letters 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vau, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zain; ) which comes nearer to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Halvaoth; and both agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Alvanis, which was a City in Mesopotamia, in Ptolemy, in Degree, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 74. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 35. 20. In the same Author, the River 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chaboras, bears the memory of Chabor, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Chalcitis, bears that of Chalach, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Gauzanitis, that of Gozan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The River Adiab, whence the Country of Adiabene, of most noted fame. See Ammianus Marcellinus.

These things the Jews speak of the first seats of the ten Tribes; and that they also remained there in after ages, they are so assured, that in the Talmudists, provision is made concerning Espousals, that they contract not with any of the ten Tribes. And the Gloss there is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In those places were very many of the Ten Tribes.

And while the Masters strictly provide, that the stocks of pure blood be preserved, and name very many places in Babylon, and the Countries adjacent, where families of pure blood were, and where they were not; they point with the finger as to others, so also to the ten Tribes residing there, as people of impure blood, and with whom they were not to mingle.

But now, if the Seats, Cities, Countries of the ten Tribes, in the times of the Talmudists, were so well known, much more were they so in the times of the Apostles; which were not so far removed from their first Captivity. That people therefore in that time skulked not in I know not what unknown Land, a thing now conceived of them, but that the preaching of the Apostles came also to them, as well as to other Nations. One may say this with the greatest assurance, upon the credit of S. James, who writes his Epistle to the whole twelve Tribes and also upon the credit of the Apocaliptic, in whom the twelve Tribes are sealed, Chap. VII. And the words of our Savior argue the same thing, of the Twelve Apostles, that were to judge the Twelve Tribes, implying, that they all Twelve heard of the sound of the Gospel concerning the reception or rejection of which that judgment was to be.

Under this notion, unless I am much mistaken, is the Apostle to be understood, treating of the calling of Israel, Rom. XI. not of the Jews only, but of the whole Twelve Tribes of Israel. And this is that mistery, concerning which he speaks at verse. 25. namely, that hardness, or blindness happened to Israel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by parts, or separately; first the Ten Tribes were blinded, and some hundreds of years after the two Tribes: and both the one and the other remained under that state, until the fullness of the Gentiles came in, when the Gospel entered, and so all Israel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The whole Twelve Tribes, namely, they, who were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Remnant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to the Election of Grace, verse. 5. were saved. For those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 until the fullness of the Gentiles come in, are not so to be understood, as if the gathering of the last handful of the harvest of the Gentiles were to be expected, before that calling of all Israel: but they are opposed to that seldom coming in of Heathens to true Religion before the preaching of the Gospel. For at that time they were added to the Church by drops only, and very rarely. But when the Gospel entered, they flowed in as in a full stream, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And in the whole fullness of the Gentiles. And so (which is a great mistery) first the Gentiles were blinded, and after them the ten Tribes were blinded, and after them the two Tribes were blinded; all laying under that miserable condition, until all at last were enlightened by the Gospel, and closed together into one body. And that the Apostle spake of his own times, when the Gospel was now newly brought to the Gentiles, he himself sufficiently ratifies and makes known by those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 At this present time, verse. 5.

CHAP. IV. Peter preaching the Gospel in Babylon.

THE whole world therefore being thus divided into Israelites, and Gentiles; and the Israelites again into the Ten Tribes, and the Jews; and the Jews again into Hebrews and Hellenists; and the Hebrews into those who dwelt within the Land of Israel, and those that dwelt without it: hence something may be observed which concerns the Evangelical and Apostolic History.

• I. And this first, as to the four Evangelists, namely, that Matthew writ for the Hebrews within the Land of Israel, and Syria: Mark for the Hebrews without the Land in Babylon and Assyria; where also were the ten Tribes: John for the Hellenists: Luke for the Gentiles.
• II. Then, when James, Peter and John are celebrated for the three Apostles of the Circumcision, Gal. II. 9. hence one may fitly distinguish each Apostles Diocese: viz, Palestine, and which borders upon and is reckoned with it, Syria to James: Babylon and Assyria to Peter: and the Hellenists, especially of Asia, and such as were further off, to John.

Babylon, I say, and Assyria to Peter: which he himself confirms, when he dates his First Epistle from Babylon; and in his Second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He useth the Babylonian Idiom. You would believe the word Bosor to be pronounced for Beor, Chap. II. 15. or it was a solecism of Peter, or an error of the Transcribers: but it favors of the Chaldee dialect, and plainly teaches, what that Babylon was, where Peter then was.

It was ordinary with the Chaldeans to change 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Schin into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain; and on the contrary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ain into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Schin: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Shepham into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Apamia, Num. XXXIV. 11, 12. Where see the Targums, Samaritan and Jerusalem and Jonathan. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A bill of contracts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Talmudists, and divers others of that nature. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A witness 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The letter He only put in, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Until, in the Samaritan Dialect, is changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with a letter in like manner put in. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to divide is also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Cheek, is also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And very many of the like variation; which, being observed, do openly testify that Peter was in Babylon of Chaldea, and spoke Chaldee, when he said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bozor for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beor.

Nor was there in all the World any Country, in which that great Apostle of Circumcision could preach, more agreeably, and suitably to his office, than in Babylon, and the adjacent places; where were Hebrews of the purest blood, and where the Ten Tribes were; the Circumcision in its full name.

Hitherto we have traced the Hebrews, or those Jews, whose Mother tongue was Syriac or Chaldee, namely, the Palestines, Syrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Mesopotanians, and an infinite number of Israelites of the twelve Tribes sprinkled among them, using also the same Language. Now let us see briefly what Bibles were used in their Synagogues.

CHAP. V. The Hebrew Bible read in the Synagogues of the Hebrews.

THE Jerusalem Talmudists say, There were five things wanting under the second Temple, which were under the first; the fire from Heaven, the Ark, Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing, and the holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Prophesy: Let the Hebrew Tongue, the Prophetic Language, be added also.

Of the Spirit of Prophesy the Babylonian Talmudists have these words also: From the death of the later Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the holy Spirit ceased from Israel. In the first generation indeed after the return out of Babylon, that the gift of prophesy flourished, those Prophets, and indeed very many others do witness, if we believe the Masters of the Traditions. For thus they speak: Among the eighty Elders, who opposed the statute of Esther and Mordecai, concerning the Feast of Purim, as if it were an innovation in the Law, more than thirty were Prophets. But that generation being extinct, the gift of Prophesy vanished also, and appeared no more before the morning of the Gospel. To this that of St. John hath respect, Chap. VII. 38. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Holy Ghost was not yet: and Act. XIX. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . We have not heard, whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Whether the use of the Mother Hebrew Tongue was continued in that first generation, as the gift of Prophesy was continued, we shall not dispute: this certainly we cannot pass by, that those Books of the sacred Canon, which were writ in that generation, viz. Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, (only a little in the Book of Ezra excepted) all were written in the Hebrew Language.

Whether the Hebrew Language were at that time the vulgar speech, or not, without all doubt in the ages following, the Syriac or Chaldee was the Mother Tongue both in Babylon and Palestine: and yet the Hebrew Bible was read in their Synagogues, not understood by the common people, but rendered into Chaldee their Vulgar Tongue by an Interpreter.

The Gemarists assert, that it was so done in that first generation, while they thus explain those words of Nehemiah, Chap. VIII. 8. They read in the Law of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Hebrew Text 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 explaining it, that is, with the Targum.

In all the following ages these things obtained. •• any write the holy books, in any Language, or in any Character; yet he shall not read in them (publicly in the Synagogue) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unless they be written in Hebrew: R. Samuel bar Rabh Isaac went into the Synagogue, and saw a Minister there interpreting, and not any standing by him for an Interpreter. He saith to him, This is forbid you: for as the Law was given by a Mediator, so it is to be handled with a Mediator. Hence were there so many and so accurate Canons concerning an Interpreter in the Synagogues. He that reads in the Law, let him not read to the Interpreter more at one time, than one verse. The Gloss saith, Left the Interpreter mistake. And, The deed of Reuben is read, but it is not intepreted. The deed of Tamar is read, but it is not interpreted. The first History of the golden Calf is read and interpreted: the second is read, but is not interpreted. Where the Gloss is, That History which Aaron himself relates of the Calf, is called the second History of the Calf. In it are th • se words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And there came out this Calf. Therefore that story is not interpeted, lest the common people err, and say, That there was something that came forth from itself. But they understood not the Hebrew Text itself. Let that be marked. The Gemarists go on: R. Chaninah ben Gamaliel went to Chabul, and hearing there a Minister of the Synagogue reading those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And it came to pass when Israel dwelt, He said to the Interpreter, Be silent and interpret not; and the wife men commanded him.

Very many passages of that nature might be produced, whereby it appears plain, that the Hebrew Text was read in the Synagogue of the Hebrews, that is, of those of Babylon and Palestine, and whose so ever Mother Tongue was Syriac or Chaldee. But whether it were read in the Synagogues of the Hellenists, further enquiry must be made.

CHAP. VI. What the Jews think of the Versions.

THOSE Canons which we have cited concerning reading and interpretation, do they bind the Jews, Palestines, and Babylonians only, or other Jews, and the whole Nation wheresoever dispersed? Those Canons are in both Talmuds, and as all other Traditions comprised in that Book do bind the whole Nation, unless where the reason of times, and the difference of places dispense; so why should not these bind concerning reading the Law, and the Prophets in the Synagogues out of the Hebrew Text?

The whole Jewish Nation were carried out with the highest zeal and veneration towards the Hebrew Text, which to neglect in the Synagogues was accounted among them for a high impiety. It was read in the Synagogues of the Hebrews, and rendered very frequently in the very words of Onk loss and Jonathan. And why were not the Targumists themselves read rather, and the business done by fewer? Because the original Text is by no means to be neglected. And why the Hellenists should be cooler in this business than the Hebrews, who can give a reason?

Therefore, how much the more zeal and honor they had for the Hebrew Text, so much the less greatful to them was the Version of it into another Tongue. For they thought so much of honor, virtue and worth departed from the holy Text, as that Language or those very letters were departed from.

• I. In that Canon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The holy Books pollute the hands; whereby, as they say, the worth of those Books is proved, if there be made any change of the Language or Characters, so much they believe the nobility of them is diminished. For the Targum if it be written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew Bible, if it be written in the Language of the Targum, and the writing changed they defile not the hands; and indeed those Books do not defile the hands, unless they be writ in Hebrew.
• II. It is disputed, Whether it be lawful to snatch the holy Books out of the fire on the Sabbath day, when that cannot be done without some labor. And it is concluded without all scruple, that if they are wrote in Hebrew they ought to be snatched out, but if in another Language, or in other Characters, then it is doubted. Yea R. Jose saith, They are not to be snatched out.
• III. It is disputed further, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if the holy Books so written shall come to your hands, whether you may destroy them with your own hand either by cutting or tearing them, or throwing them into the fire: and it is concluded indeed in the negative: which yet is to the same effect, as though it were determined in the Affirmative. Let them be laid up, say they, in some foul place, where they may be consumed by themselves.

And it is related of Rabban ••• aliel first, that when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The Book of Job made into a Targum, was brought to him, he commanded, that it should be buried under a heap of stones. Which example also a certain Rabbin afterward urgeth to his great grand-son Gamaliel, that he also should bury under ground the Book of Job Targumized, which he had in his hand, to be consumed.

The Book of Job Targumized was that Book translated into the Chaldee Language, the Mother Tongue of the Nation, the Tongue into which the Law and the Prophets were rendered in the Synagogues, and yet by no means did they tolerate the Version of that Book (which indeed was not read in the Synagogues) though rendered in that Language, much less would they tolerate the Version of the Law and the Prophets into a more remote and more Heathen Language.

These things well considered, one may with good reason suspect, that the Jews thought not so honourably of any Version, as to cast away the Hebrew Bible, and to espouse that in the room of it. And what they might, or did, think concerning the Greek Version of the LXX, as it is called, let us, as much as we can, briefly search.

CHAP. VII. A Comparison of the History of the LXX as it is in Josephus, and as it is in the Talmudists.

THE story as it is in Josephus, and Aristeas hath no need to be repeated, being so well known to all. From which how vastly different is it from the story as it is related in the Talmudists? Which we transcribe verbatim from Massecheth Sopherim thus,

The Babylonian Talmud f relates the story in the like manner, this only excepted, that there is no mention of the five Elders; as also that this clause is wanting, They wrote out the Law for him by itself.

• I. Josephus speaks glorious things of letters sent from the King to the High Priest sending for Interpreters, of Presents sent to Eleazar, and other things consecrated to the Temple, of many Talents spent by Ptolemy for the redemption of the Jews, of honorable rewards conferred upon the Interpreters: all which according to the account of Josephus and Aristeas amounted to such a sum, that one might with reason believe the whole Alexandrian Library was not worth so much, yea a whole years tax of Egypt would scarcely have been of that value.

  But of all this there is deep silence in the Talmudists; and yet usually they want not either for Will or Elocution, when something is to be declared for the glory of their own nation. They are not silent of the gifts of Monobazus and Helena, Nicanor, Ben Kattin, &c. of the gifts of Princes either given or lent to their Rabbins, but of these vast expenses of Ptolemy, there is not one Syllable.

• II. In Josephus the Interpreters are sent for by letters, and that under that notion, that they should interpret. But in the Talmudists they are convened, being altogether ignorant what they must do.
• III. In Josephus they turn (the Law at least) into Greek: in the Talmudists it is obscure, whether they translated anything at all. Of the five Elders indeed it is said in terms, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they transcribed in Greek, that is, they turned, as the word which followeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to interpret, sufficiently explains. But of the Seventy there is no such thing: but only this, That they transcribed the Law by its self, and changed thirteen places in it.

There is a passage indeed, where the Babylonian Talmudists are brought in with their relation, whereby one might think, that they intimated that the Seventy translated into Greek. Our Masters, say they, permitted not that the holy Books should be transcribed, but into Greek. And it is a Tradition R. Judah saith, when they permitted to transcribe in Greek, they permitted it of the Book of the Law only. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And that because of that which happened to King Ptolemy: Or let it be as it is rendered by some, Whence the work was begun with Ptolemy the King.

But if any should say, that they transcribed indeed in Greek, that is, the Hebrew Text in Greek letters, and translated not, you would scarcely refute him out of the Talmudists especially, when elsewhere they distinguish between writing out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in any Language, that is, in the Characters of any Language, and writing out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by a Version into any Language: and when there was a publication and edition of a double Hebrew Text in Origen's Hexapla and Octapla 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , In Hebrew and Greek Characters, he seems not to have been without his Copy, in which the Hebrew Text itself was written out in Greek Letters.

What at length does that mean, They writ out the Law by itself? Certainly either this, They transcribed the Law only, and not the other Books; or rather, they transcribed the Hebrew Law itself in Hebrew, and turned it not.

They wrote out, say they, the Law by itself, and changed thirteen places in it, the examination of the latter clause will yield light to the former, and will give its vote to him that says, that it does not appear in the Talmudists, that the LXX translated at all, but that they only transcribed the Hebrew Books in Hebrew.

CHAP. VIII. Of the thirteen places, that were changed.

BOTH Talmuds, as also other Rabbins, who relate the story of the LXX Elders, add always this that they changed thirteen places in the Law: which they also reckon up. But now when those different readings are not found in the Greek Version, that story is exploded by the most, as a mere fiction; when indeed the change was not in the Version, but in the Hebrew Transcription. Let the thing speak itself.

They wrote, say they, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 God created in the beginning, Gen. I. 1. not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the beginning God created. Lest the King should say, Bereshith is God, and there were two powers, and the first created the later But now in the Greek Version it was impossible, that such a scruple should arise; it could arise only from the Hebrew Text: and it must necessarily be, that this change, intended for an amendment, should be reckoned to be in the Hebrew words themselves.

They write, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And Sarah laughed among her neighbors, Gen. XVIII. 12. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 within herself.

They wrote, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Whatsoever was desirable I took not from them, Numb. XVI. 15. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one Ass. Now who will doubt, but that the change was made in the Hebrew words themselves? In the former from the affinity of the words; in the later from the similitude of the letters.

But instead of more, let this one Example serve. They wrote, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And he sent worthy men of the children of Israel, Exod. XXIV. 5. for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 young men. Now if it be asked, whether they wrote the very word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the sense of it in the Greek Language, the Jerusalem Gemarists witness, that that very same word was writ by them in this story. Three books, say they, were found in the Court of the Temple. In one of them was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Deut. XXXIII. 27. in two was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They received those two, and they rejected the third. In one was written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He sent worthy men of the children of Israel. In two was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He sent young men of the children of Israel. They received those two, and rejected the third. In one was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nine. In two was written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 eleven. They received those two, and rejected the third.

Now it may be asked, What, I pray, were those two Copies, in which it was written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They were Hebrew Copies, without all controversy: and so was that without all doubt in which it was written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

There is no reason therefore, why that tradition of the thirteen places changed should bear so ill a report, and be accounted for a fiction, because those thirteen alterations are not met with in the Greek Version. For the Talmudists plainly treat of the Seventy two not Translating out of Hebrew, but transcribing the Hebrew Books themselves.

Let us also add the introduction that the Jerusalem Writers make to this history. The Jerusalem Talmudists, say they, wrote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Jerusalem, Jerushlema, Tzaphon, Tzephona, Teman, Temna. That is, they changed the writing of these Hebrew words: and immediately they add, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The wise Men altered thirteen places for Ptolomey the King. Which is also to be understood of the Hebrew words themselves, otherwise this does not suite with what goes before.

CHAP. IX. In what value the Version of the Seventy, as it is commonly called, seems to have been among the Jews.

THUS it remains doubtful, whether the Talmudists acknowledge any Version of the Seventy two Elders, or no. Let it be granted therefore, that they attributed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Divine inspiration to them, from hence, that being put asunder, yet they all conspired in one mind and sense; nevertheless it will not at all follow thence, that any honor was given by them to this Version, which is carried about under that name.

One may much more readily perceive in it the breath of Jewish Traditions, than any inspiration of the Holy Ghost: And although their own Traditions were of account certainly to the Nation; and for the patronizing them, many things seem to be put into the Version, which favor them; yet this did by no means so much obtain with them, as that they valued the Version above the Hebrew Original, and that the casting away that, made choice of this to themselves; but they always reserved to the Hebrew Text its due honor.

I. What the Learned among them might judge of the Greek Version, one may somewhat guess from hence, that even a Christian himself seriously reading and viewing it, may observe many things in it, whereby he may discover by what counsils, cautions, and crastiness that Version was published; especially, if together with it he hath in his Eye, the Manners, Traditions, Ordinances, and State of the Jewish Nation; to which allusion is very frequently made, and respect had by those Interpreters. The matter may be illustrated by one or two examples, as to their Traditions.

Gen. XX. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Because the Lord in shutting shut up all the Womb without. Whence comes the putting in of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Without? It agrees with the Tradition, that the Wombs were barred up against copulation .

Exod. XXIV. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They saw the place, where God had stood, instead of, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They saw the God of Israel. Compare the Tract Kiddushin with this; where the Gloss is this, R. Hananiel saith, He that renders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They saw the God of Israel, is a liar, &c. See the Notes before at Chap. XIV. verse. 2.

Deut. XXX. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And the Lord shall purify thy heart. And Jos. V. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 After which manner Joshua purified the children of Israel: for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He circumcised; in a sense too much inclining to the trifling praises of Circumcision among the Masters.

Whence are those words taken? Jos. XXI. 42. and XXIV. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. There they laid with him (Joshua) into the Sepulcher in which they buried him, I say, there they laid the stone, knives, &c. And 2 Sam. XXI. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And they died, and Dan the son of Joa of the sons of the Giants took them.

1 Sam. I. 21. This clause is added, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And all the tiths of his land: according to the Canons of the Nation concerning offering tiths at the Feast.

2 King. II. 1. When God would take up Elias in a whirlwind, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as into Heaven; so verse. 11. Agreeing with the opinion of the Nation concerning the Ascension of Elias very near to Heaven, but not into Heaven itself

1 Chron. IX. 31. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The pan of the High Priest: from the noted fame 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Of the High Priests pan. See Menacoth , and in other places very frequently.

Psal. II. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Take hold of instruction; instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Son. Bar signifies nothing else but the Law, as it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kiss the Son.

We omit more passages of the same observation and suspicion; and they are not a few.

II. We may observe in the Jerusalem Talmudists, that the Greek Version of Aquila is sometimes quoted, but that of the Seventy never.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aquila renders ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tablets, Esa. III. 20.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Stomachers.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aquila renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Over against the Candlestick, Dan. V. 5. Over against the Lamps.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He shall be our guide unto death (Psal. XLVIII. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aquila renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Immortality.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Fruit of goodly trees (Levite. XXIII. 40.) R. Tanchuma saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aquila renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Etz, Water; if his conjecture fail not in the interpretation. See also Bereshith Rabba .

But I do not remember, that I have found one clause alleged out of the Version of the LXX in the whole Talmud, either one or other.

Let it also be added, that the Book of Ben Syra is a prohibited book, and yet you may find it cited in both Talmuds. In that of Jerusalem, in the Tract Beracoth : where it seems to be the book of Syracides. But otherwise in divers other places . But I do not, I say, remember, that I have found the Version of the Seventy alleged in any place; and I scarce think, that such an allegation could pass me unobserved. Which thing more increaseth my suspicion, that those Jews owned not such a Version, and that they understood the Transcription of the Seventy, not to be the Version, but the copying out the very Hebrew Text itself. And as to the Version itself, whereof we are speaking, how they stood affected towards it, one may in some measure learn from this, that when another Version is alleged by them, they cite not this at all.

III. The Jews knew well enough, that the Greek Version was not published for Jews, but for Heathen: and was done by their labor, who came unwillingly to that work, nor would have suffered any such thing, if it had laid in their power to have hindered it. But now with what faithfulness such a thing was done, the thing itself speaks, and the Jews knew it well enough; who knew also well enough with what small affection the whole Jewish Nation stood towards the Heathen.

By no argument therefore shall any persuade me, that that Version was a pure and accurate Version, exactly according to the Hebrew truth, which the Interpreters had in their hands; and that the differences which we now perceive in our Bibles, were risen thence, that the Jews depraved the Hebrew Text according to their pleasure. For I shall never believe, that any Masters of the Jews would exhibit a pure, uncorrupted and exact Bible to the Heathen in the Greek Version; and obtrude an interpolated, depraved, corrupt one upon themselves. And let us call themselves in for judges in this case.

• I. In Gen. II. 2. The Greek words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And God finished on the sixth day. Was it to that very sense in the Copy, which the Interpreters used? They changed, and wrote, say the Gemarists, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He finished in the sixth day. The Gloss writes, That it might not be said, that God did anything on the Sabbath. In their Hebrew Copy it was, as it is in ours, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 And God ended his work on the seventh day; but they changed it in the Hebrew Transcript, whereof we spake, and so did the Interpreters in the Greek Version.
• II. In Exod. XII. 40. The Greek words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they sojourned in the Land of Egypt, and in Canaan, &c. Did the Interpreters read so in their Hebrew Copy? No. They changed, say the Talmudists, and writ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Land of Egypt, and in the Land of Canaan. In the Copy which was in their hands, those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the Land of Canaan, were absent: but they added it of their own. The Gloss saith, Lest it should be said, a lie is written in your Law: for behold Kohath was among those that went down into Egypt. And if you reckon all the years of Kohath, Amram, and Moses, they amount not to four hundred.
• III. In Numb. XVI. 15. The Greek words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have not taken the desire of any of them. Was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Desire, writ in the Copy the Seventy used? No, It is an alteration, say the Masters; for it was writ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an Ass, and they transferred it into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 desire. The Gloss writes, That it might not be said, Perhaps he took not an Ass, but he took away some other desirable thing. And you may know the Lion by his paw.

Let these things be spoken to prove, that it is not so Heterodox to suppose that the Greek Version was not read in the Synagogues of the Hellenists, but the Hebrew Text, so as it was in the Synagogues of the Hebrews. And now let us briefly weigh, what things are said on the contrary side.

CHAP. X. What things are objected for the Affirmative.

• I. FIRST, That passage is objected, R. Levi went to Cesarea, and hearing them read the Lesson 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Schma, Deut. VI. in Greek, would hinder them. R. Jose observing it, was angry, saying, He that cannot read in Hebrew, shall he not read at all? Yea, let a man read in any Tongue, which he understands, and knows, and so satisfy his Duty. So the words are rendered by a very learned Man.

  But the Gemara treats not of reading the Law in the Synagogues, but concerning the repeating of the passages of the Phylacteries, among which the first was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hear, O Israel; Deut. VI. Therefore the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not to be rendered reading, but repeating. In which sense the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 occurs very frequently in the Masters. As 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 She recites the book of Ester by her mouth; that is, without book. And, Heretofore everyone that could 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Recite (that passage used in offering the first fruits, Deut. XXVI.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Recited. And he that could not recite 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they taught him to recite: or they recited for him.

• II. That example and story is urged concerning reading the Law and the Prophets in the Synagogue of Antioch of Pisidia, Act. XIII. 15. To which there is no need to answer anything else, but that it begs the Question.
• III. That also of Tertullian is added, Sed & Judaei palam lectitant, Vectigalis libertas vulgo auditur (or, aditur) singulis Sabbatis. But the Jews also read openly, the liberty of the Tax is heard (or, gone unto) every Sabbath day.

  I answer, Be it granted, that Tertullian speaks of the Greek Version, which is not so very evident; that which was done under Severus doth not conclude the same thing done in the times of the Apostles: but especially when Severus was, according to the sense of his name, very severe towards the Jews, as Baronius teacheth, and Spartianus long before him. Under whom Sabbaths could not be kept by the Jews, but under a Tax. And be it granted, that the Greek Version was read then by them at Rome (as the Glosser upon Tertullian describes the scene of the affair) that was also under a Tax; not by the choice of the people, but by pure compulsion.

• IV. That of Justin Martyr is produced; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But if any say, that these books belong not to us, but the Jews; and therefore they are to this day preserved in their Synagogues. And, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The books remained even among the Egyptians hitherto, and are everywhere among all the Jews, who reading them understand them not.

• V. But that is instead of all, that Philo and Josephus follow the Greek Version; and that (which is still greater) the holy Pen-men do follow it in the New Testament in their allegations taken out of the Old. Therefore without doubt, say they, that Version was frequent and common in the Synagogues, and in the hands of men; and without doubt, of the highest authority among the Jews; yea, as it seemeth, of divine. These are the arguments which are of the greatest weight on that side.

  That I may therefore answer together to all, let us expatiate a little in this enquiry.

CHAP. XI. By what Authors and Councils it might probably be that that Greek Version came forth, which obtains under the Name of the Seventy.

I. IT was made and published without doubt not for the sake of the Jews, but of the Heathen. We have Josephus a witness here in his story of the Seventy; granting him to be true in that relation, what moved Ptolomey so greedily to desire the Version, to purchase so small a Volume at such vast expenses? Was it Religion? Or a desire of adorning his Library? By that paint does Josephus color the business: but reason will dictate a third cause, and that far more likely. For both the Jewish and Heathen Writers teach, that Egypt at that time was filled with an infinite multitude of Jews: and what could a prudent King, and that took care of himself and his Kingdom, do else, than look into the manners and institutions of that Nation, whether they consisted with the peace and security of his Kingdom; since that people was contrary to the manners and Laws of all other Nations.

When therefore he could neither examine nor understand their Law, which comprised their whole Religion, Polity, and Occonomy, being writ in Hebrew; it was necessary for him to provide to have it translated into their Vulgar Tongue. Hence arose the Version of the five Elders, as we may well suppose; and lest some fraud or collusion might creep in, the assembling of the Seventy two Elders was occasioned hence also. And does it not favor of some suspicion, that he assembled them being altogether ignorant what they were to do? For let reason tell us, why we should not rather give credit to the Talmudists writing for their own Country-men, than to Josephus writing for the Heathen. And if there be any truth in that relation, that when he had gathered them together, he shut them up by themselves in so many chambers, that still increaseth the same suspicion.

II. Let it be yielded that they turned it into Greek: which as we have seen, is doubtful; yet the speech in the Gemarists is only concerning the Books of Moses, and concerning the Law only in Josephus. Who therefore Translated the rest of the Books of the Holy Volume? It is without an Author perhaps, should we say, the Jerusalem Sanhedrin, but not without reason. For,

III. The Jews, wheresoever dispersed through out the World, and they in very many Regions infinite in their numbers, made it their earnest request, that they might live and be governed by their own Laws, and indeed they would live by none, but their own. But what Prince would grant this, being altogether ignorant what those Laws were? They saw their manners and rites were contrary to all other Nations; it was needful also to see, whether they were not contrary to the peace of their Kingdoms. That very jealousy could not but require the Version of those Laws into the common Language, and to force it also from them, how unwilling soever they might be. The great Sanhedrin therefore could not consult better and more wisely for the safety, and security, and religion of the whole Nation, than by turning their Holy Books into the Greek Language, that all might know what it was that they professed. They could not but see, but those Books would at last, though they were never so unwilling, come forth in the Vulgar Language; nor could they hinder, but they would everywhere happen into the hands of the Heathen: therefore that it would be far better, that a Version should come forth by their care and authority, which might be according to their pleasures; than that some should come forth in one place, and some in another, which perhaps might turn to the disgrace of the Holy Text, or to the danger and reproach of the Nation, or might too much lay open the Holy Mysteries among the Heathen.

By these Authors, and by these reasons, I confess ingenuously, it is my opinion, that that Version was made, which goes about under the name of the Seventy. Nor are there some things wanting in the Version itself, which hint some such counsel in the publishing of it. For,

IV. Even a blear Eye may see clearly enough, that it was hammered out, and dressed with more caution, than conscience; more craft than sincerity: 1. That as much as might be, the Holy Books might remain free from any reproach or cavilling of the Heathen. 2. That they might soften some things, which might be injurious to the Jewish Nation, either as to their peace, or reputation; or which might create offense to the Gentiles. 3. That the mysteries, and the bare truth of the Holy Books might be revealed as little as possibly could be, to the Heathen. All which might be demonstrated by such numberless examples, as to leave no occasion to doubt of that matter, behind it.

By these and the like cautions and subtleties was that Version made; where in the Translators had less care, that the Interpretation should come out sincere and true; but provision was chiefly made, that anything should be thrust upon the Gentiles so it were without danger, and that the Glory and safety of the Jewish Nation might be maintained. And may it be allowed me to speak out what I think. Among the various Copies and Editions of this Version, which go about; I do not esteem that Copy for the most genuine, which comes nearest to the Hebrew Text, but that which comes nearest to the mind of the Translators in such like cautions.

It is said, as we saw before, that when the five Elders had turned the Law, That day was bitter to Israel, as the day wherein the Golden Calf was made. And why? Because the Law could not be turned according to all things convenient to it. Did their grief arise hence, because it was not turned, nor could not be, clearly, exactly and evidently enough, that the Heathen might see the full and open light of it? Who will believe that this ever was the Jews desire or wish? But their trouble proceeded rather from hence, that those five had not Translated it cunningly, warily and craftily enough, as the Gentiles were to be dealt withal.

Of this matter there was care enough taken in this Version: the Authors setting all their strength and wits on work, that, according to their own pleasures, it might come forth such as they would have it; and might serve their purpose both as to themselves, and as to the Gentiles. This they established, and strengthened by their own authority, not as a pure Version, and such as was to be recommended to their Countrymen, but as fit enough to stop the mouths and satisfy the curiosity of the Heathen; and lest any among them might attempt another, in which those cautions and provisions might not be sufficiently observed.

This they laid up in their Sanhedrins and Synagogues, that it might be ready, and shewn to the Heathen, as a Symbol and token of the Jewish Law, Faith, and Religion, if at any time the matter, and necessity called for some such thing.

We grant therefore to Justin Martyr, that that Version was in the Synagogues and hands of the Jews: but one would not conclude from that, that it was read in the Synagogue instead of the Hebrew Text. And we will yield also to Tertullian, that that Version was read at Rome in his age in the Synagogues of the Jews; but being compelled so to do, by that suspicion, whereof we spake; namely, that it might be known to all, what the Law and Religion of the Jews was, whether it consisted with the Roman Government. Our Question is, whether the Hellenists chose to themselves the reading of the Greek Version, and neglected the Hebrew Text: and seeing for the most part they lived by their own Laws and Ordinances, you will hardly anywhere show me, especially in the times of the Apostles, concerning which we speak, or in the times before them, that they were compelled to reject the one, and to read the other.

And as to that which is objected concerning Philo and Josephus; tis no wonder if they writing for the Heathen, followed that Version, which was designedly made for the Heathen.

But that is of the greatest weight of all, which is objected concerning the Evangelists and Apostles, who embraced that Version in their quotations out of the Old Testament? To which the Answer is very easy. Namely, Those Holy Writers had to do with two sorts of men, Jews and Gentiles: the Volume of the New Testament was in the hands of both. A Gentile desires to examine the quotations, which are brought out of the Old Testament. But not understanding the Hebrew, whether should he go, but to the Greek Version, which he understands. So that it was not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of condescension, that those Holy Writers followed the Greek Version, but out of pure necessity: for otherwise it was impossible, that their allegations out of the Law and the Prophets could be examined by the Gentiles. And if a Jew having the New Testament in his hand, should complain and quarrel, that in their quotations they departed from the Hebrew Text, they had an answer ready, viz. This very Version which is cited is that very same, which ye have writ, published, and propounded to the World, as the Symbol and token of your Law and Religion, and as your own very Bible.

If we would designedly attempt a full disquisition concerning that Version, we might, it may be, more at large demonstrate all these things which have been spoken, by various instances, reasons and methods. But let this suffice at present. This discourse was raised by occasion of the mention of the unknown Tongue, Chap. XIV. which we suppose was Hebrew: formerly used in the Hellenistical Synagogue of the Corinthians, and which they would retain, being now converted to the Gospel: too much wresting to Judaism the gift of Tongues, in the same manner, as they did the other privileges, and ordinances of the Gospel: and using an unknown Language so much the rather, because the gift of Tongues was granted from Heaven, using it to an end plainly contrary to the gift itself; unhappily perverting it, and not requiring, not admitting now an Interpreter, which before was done by them, as if they thought God had given unknown Tongues, to be unknown to all, besides those to whom they were given.

In what I have said of the Greek Version, and of the not reading it among the Hellenists, I know, I have very learned Men differing in their opinions from me; and heretofore I myself was of a contrary judgment: Whence, I hope, the Reader will be the more easily persuaded, that I do not speak these things from a desire of contention, but from a serious enquiry, as far as I am able, into the thing, from often repeated thoughts, and a most hearty desire of searching after truth.