Archbishop of Toledo; who having founded an Univerfity at Complutum, or Alcala, employed the Divines there to print an Edition of the Bible, containing firft the Hebrew Text with the Chaldee Paraphrafe of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, then the Septuagint Greek Verfion of the Old Teftament and the original Greek of the New, and the Latin Verfion of both. The Publishers tell us, that they procured a great Number of MSS. which they collated, which were not common, but the moft ancient and correct that they could get, and from thence took the Septuagint they have given us. This Book was printed in 1515; but by Reafon of the Death of Cardinal Ximenes, fome Difputes arifing concerning his Debts and Legacies, and fome Things in his Will, the Book was not publifhed until four Years after. From this Edition have been printed both the Polyglots of Antwerp and Paris: The former of which was publifhed Anno Dom. 1572, and the other 1645; likewife the Septuagint of Commelin, printed at Heidelberg with Vatablus's Commentary, Anno 1599.

While the Complutenfian Bible, though printed, lay unpublished, an Edition of the LXX was published at Venice, Anno Dom. 1518, from the Prefs of Aldus Manutius. The learned Editor Andreas Afculanus, Father-in-law to the Printer, tells us, as the Complutenfian Divines did, that he collated a great many MSS. in order to frame a correct Edition; but, like them, he gives no particular Account what they were, or where to be found. This Edition Bifhop Walton judges to be more pure than the Edition of Complutum: For it wants moft of thofe Additions which Origen has put under Afterisks; and has thofe marked with Obelisks: And thofe Tranfpofitions of Verfes and Chapters which the Ancients tell us the LXX had. From this Copy of Aldus all the German Editions, excepting that of Heidelberg before mentioned, have been printed Only as to the Order of fome Books, Chapters, and Verfes, which all the Ancients teftify were placed differently from what they are in the Hebrew Copies, they have tranfpofed and placed in the fame Order as they ftand in the prefent Hebrew Bibles. Alfo the Books called Apocrypha are not mingled with the canonical, according to the Order of the Hiftory, as all the ancient Books have them; but they are put feparately after all the reft, as they are in our modern Tranf lations.

But the Roman Edition, made chiefly from a very ancient MS. in the Vatican Library, has obtained the Preference of the other two in the Opinion of moft learned Men. The Printing of this Edition was first fet on Foot by Cardinal Montalto, who afterwards becoming Pope under the Name of Sixtus Quintus, at the Tine when it was published, Anno Domini 1587, it therefore came out under his Name. He first commended the Work to Pope Gregory the 13th, and by his Advice the Work was committed to the Care of Anthony Caraffa, a learned Man of a noble Family in Italy, afterwards made a Cardinal and Library-Keeper to the Pope. He, by the Affiftance of feveral other learned Men employed under him, in eight Years finifhed this Edition. It was for the moft Part according to an old MS. in the Vatican, which was written all in Capitals, without the Marks of Accents or Points, and without any Diftinction of Chapters or Verfes, and is fuppofed to

VOL. III.

C

be

be as ancient as the Time of St. Jerom; only where this was wanting (for fome Leaves of it were loft) they fupplied the Defect out of other MSS. the principal of which were, one they had from Venice, out of the Library of Ca dinal Beffarion, and another that was brought them out of Calabria: Which laft fo agreed with the Vatican MS. that they fuppofed them to have been written either the one from the other, or elfe both from the fame Copy. The next Year was published at Rome a Latin Verfion of this Edition, with the Notes of Flaminius Nobilius. Morinus printed both together at Paris, Anno Dom. 1628. And from this Vatican Edition have been publifhed all thofe Septuagints that have been printed in England; that is, that of London in 8°, Anno 1653; that in Walton's Polyglot, published 1657; and that of Cambridge 1665; which laft has the learned Preface of Bifhop Pierjon prefixed to it, and does much more exactly give us the Roman Edition, than that of 1653.

But I must here obferve, that this Cambridge Edition, which Dean Prideaux (from whom I have chiefly taken what I have here faid of the three eminent Editions) fays was twice printed, firft by John Field in the Year 1665, and then by John Hayes in the Year 1684. But Hayes (who fucceeded Field as Printer to the Univerfity) put Field's Name to his own Impreffion, and dated it 1665 as Field's was, and printed it Page for Page like Field's, and to put a Cheat upon the World, to make it pafs for Field's Edition, though the Print was not fo clean and neat, and I queftion alfo whether to correct as Field's. As I was admitted at Cambridge within a Year after Hayes reprinted Field's Septuagint, and was well acquainted with Hayes, I remember I afked him how he came to fet Field's Name, and the Date of 1665 to a Book himself had juft printed? He only fimiled, and made me fome flight Anfwer, intimating that I fhewed myfelf a Stranger to the World, by afking fuch a Question.

But Bishop Walton finds Fault with the London Edition of 1653; yet the Cambridge Editors, though they printed fome Years after that Bifhop had taken Notice of this Fault, did the very fame. For (fays he) though they profefs to give us the Roman Edition, yet they took the Liberty to alter and interpolate it in feveral Places, to bring it nearer to the Hebrew Text, and the modern Verfions. For they did not only change the Order in which the Books, Chapters, and Verfes were placed in all the MSS. (which Tranfpofitions are noted in all that have written of the LXX.) and reduced them to the Order of the present Hebrew, as the German Editors for the most Part have done, and have divided the Pfalms according to the Hebrew, but have alfo added fome Pallages from the Complutenfian, and other Editions, which are not in the Roman. But this, as he fays, is not giving us a pure Edition, Secundum Exemplum Vaticanum, as they pretend to do, but a mixed Edition of their own.

Having mentioned the Divifion of the Pfalms, I think it proper here to obferve to you, where lies the Difference between the Hebrew and the LXX with regard to it. The Pfalms proceed in the fame Order in both: But the two Pfalms, which are called the ninth and tenth in the Hebrew, are joined together, and make but one Pfalm in the LXX.

2

Hereby

Hereby it comes to pafs, that what is called the eleventh Pfalm in the Hebrew and our English Bibles, is but the tenth in the LXX. And fo they proceed, the LXX ftill numbering every Pfalm one lefs than the Hebrew, until you come to the 113 according to the LXX, and 114 according to the Hebrew; and there the LXX again join that and the next Pfalm alfo into one: Whereby the 116, according to the Hebrew, is but the 114, according to the LXX. But then the LXX ends that 114 or 116 Palm with the ninth Verfe; and the tenth Verfe, according to the Hebrew, begins 115 Pfalm, according to the LXX. So that from thenceforth the Hebrew Numbers are but one more than those of the LXX, as they were before, and in that Manner they continue to proceed to Pfalm 146, according to the LXX, 147, according to the Hebrew. There the LXX conclude the Pfalm with the twelfth Verfe, and begin their 147 Pfalm with what is the thirteenth Verfe in the Hebrew, and fo the three laft Pfalms, as well as the eight firft, are numbered alike in both. The Divifion of the Pfalms alfo in the Latin Vulgate is the fame as in the LXX. So that all Chriftian Authors, from the Beginning to the Reformation, when they have quoted any Pfalm by its Number, have quoted it according to the Divifion of the LXX. Therefore the English Editors of the LXX did not rightly confider the Matter, when, in their Edition of the LXX, they divided the Pfalms according to the Hebrew. For by this I doubt not but they have puzzled fome young Divines, (I can fpeak experimentally for myself) who finding a Text, as quoted by fome ancient Author from a particular Pfalm, has looked in vain for it there as numbered in either the London or Cambridge Editions.

But even the Roman Edition itself, as published by the firft Editors, is not fo pure and agreeable to the Vatican Copy, as it might have been : For they did not rightly diftinguish between what was therein written. by the firft Copier, and what was after altered or added by a later Hand: fo that we are uncertain whether what we read was originally in the Vatican Copy or not, This the learned have very much complained of. And Dr. Grabe in the Letter to Dr. Milles mentions feveral Pallages, wherein the Roman Edition differs from the Vatican MS. it pretends to have faithfully copied. Alfo as the Vatican MS. as well as all other MSS. of that Age, written in large Letters, have neither Words nor Sentences divided, but the Letters all follow close one to another, without any kind of Separation of one Word, or one Sentence from another; fo that great Care and Judgment is required rightly to diftinguish the Words and. Sentences, and by, this Means the beft Criticks fometimes make great Miftakes in tranfcribing thofe old MSS. One Inftance of which Dr. Grabe has given us in the Roman Edition, and in all that are taken from it, even that in Bishop Walton's Polyglot. It is in 2 Kings (Hebrew and English, 2 Samuel) xiv. 17. The Words of the Woman to the King are in the Roman Edition ñân ô nóyos tẽ xugía Bacinius sis Jucías, Si jam fermo Domini Regis in Sacrificia. Here is an hypothetical Propofition, without any Confequence, which is abfurd; which, if they had made but a proper Divifion of the firft four Letters, had been cafily avoided, sïn dù è aóyos x. v. λ. Sit quæfo fermo &c. which gives

C 2

gives a perfect Senfe, exactly agreeable to the Hebrew Words T, and to the Aldin and Complutenfian Editions, and the Alexandrian MS. There being therefore fo many confiderable Faults in all thefe Editions of the LXX, the very learned and induftrious Dr. Grabe, about the Beginning of the prefent Century, refolved to publifh a new Edition of it. And as there were two MSS. near of equal Antiquity, the Vatican, of which I have already fpoken, and the Alexandrian in the Royal Library here at St. James's, which was a prefent to King Charles the Firft from Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, from whence it hath taken its Name; he was for fome Time in Doubt which of thefe Copies he fhould follow. He thought as the Roman Edition was beft known, and moft in Ufe, it might not be fo proper to lay it afide; but only to correct the Miftakes of former Editors. But then confidering that there were three old Editions of the LXX by Origen, Hefychius, and Lucian, of which Origen's was allowed to be the beft, he refolved to examine hich of thele Editions the Vatican, and which the Alexandrian appeared to be a Tranfcript of. Whereupon he collected the Quotations from Scripture, which he found in the ancient Greek Fathers, and found they generally agreed with the royal Alexandrian MS. and from the Fragments of Origen's Hexapla ftill remaining, he found them allo agreeable to this MS. but not with the Vatican MS. where it differed from this. From whence he concluded, that what we now cal the Alexandrian MS. was a Copy taken from Origen's Edition: And that the Vatican MS: was taken from the Edition of Heftchius or Lucian. And as Hefycbius's Edition was read in Egypt (as before obferved) he confulted St. Athanafius and St. Cyril's Works (both of them being Patriarchs of Alexandria at the Time St. Jerom fays Hefychins's Edition of the LXX was there used) and found their Quotations of Scripture agreeable to the Vatican MS. from whence he inferred that MS. was a Copy of the Helychien Edition. For which Reafon he refolved to publifh the royal Alexandrian MS. which, until that Time, (though often wifhed for) nobody was willing to take the Pains to do.

He therefore being encouraged by a Royal Stipend of 100l. per Ann. in the firft place fairly tranfcribed the whole MS. which like the Vati can was written without Diftinction of Words or Sentences, and thereby made it fo far ready for the Prefs, that if he fhould die before he could finifh his Defign (as it pleafed God he did) thofe who should continue the Work might have the lefs Trouble in doing it. And having Reason to believe, that the Afterisks and Obelisks of Origen were not fo irrecoverably loft, but that they might be found for the most Part in fcattered Fragments, here and there to be met with in old Libraries, he refolved to place them in his Edition. And accordingly having procured them for feveral Books of the Holy Scripture, he publifhed his firft Tome of the Septuagint, according to the Alexandrian Copy, in the Year 1707, containing the Books of Genefis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. This was printed in a very fair, large, and neat Character, in a large Folio, in two Columns So that the fame Types being moved and divided in the Middle of the Page of the Folio, made four Pages in Octavo. So that there was at

the

the fame Time an Edition published both in Folio and Octavo, fo exactly agreeable to each other, as not to differ the one from the other. in a Point. But not having been able to procure the Origenian Asterisks and Obelisks, for thofe Books, which in the Alexandrian MS. immediately followed the former, he in the year 1709 publifhed what he called the laft Tome of that Work, containing the metrical Books, that is, Pfalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclefiaftes, Canticles, Wisdom, and Ecclefiafticus, with Afterifks and Obelisks, as he had done the former.

About a Year after this, and before he could procure Asterisks and Obelisks for another Tome, he died: And it was nine Years before any more of this great Work appeared. Then in the Year 1719 came out the fecond Tome, containing the Four Books of Kings, Two of Chronicles, Ether, Tobit, Judith, Two Books of Ezra, Nehemia, and Four Books of Maccabees. There were published alfo (with as many Asterisks and Obelisks as could be procured from Dr. Grabe's MS. by Dr. Francis Lee, a very learned Phyfician, and well read in Divinity, through no profeffed Divine. But this very worthy and learned man died foon after he finished this good Work, viz. Aug. 12, 1719. However, in the Year 1720, the third Tome was published from Dr. Grabe's Transcript in the fame Manner as the former, which compleated the whole Work, both in Folio and Octavo. But who was the Editor of this laft published Tome I know not. This contained, Ofea, Amos, Micha, Joel, Obedia, Jona, Naum, Habakkuk, Zephania, Hagge, Zecharia, Malachi, Ifaia, Jeremia, Baruch, Lamentations, The Epistle of Jeremia, Ezekiel, and Daniel. There are Prolegomena to all thefe Tomes very useful: and which alfo give good Teftimony of the very great Care and Pains this moft ufeful Work coft Dr. Grabe more especially, and the other Editors who fucceeded to finish what he had fo well prepared. Dr. Grabe did intend to have added large Notes to this Work, but his Death has deprived us of them, and of many other Things he defigned for the Benefit of the learned World, if it had pleafed God to have granted him a longer Life. And this is all I need to fay, at leaft for the prefent, concerning the Tranflation of the LXX.

The Latin or Western Church had a great many Tranflations, all made from the LXX. But amongst all thefe various Tranflations, there was one more generally received and read in the Churches, and is therefore called Vulgata by St. Jerom; and St. Auguftin gives it the Name of the Italian, and prefers it to all the reft, as being more perfpicuous and literal: And this in all probability was used in the Roman Church, from the Apoftles Days downwards for fome Ages. St. Jerom corrected this Tranflation from Origen's Hexapla, and published it with Asterisks and Obelisks, which he tells us, in his fecond Prologue prefixed to the Books of Chronicles, he placed to denote what was, or what was not in the Hebrew. And in an Epistle to St. Auguftin, he fays, Quod in alijs quæris Epiftolis, cur prior mea in libris Canonicis interpretatio Afterifcos habeat et Virgulas prænotatas, et poftea aliam Tranflationem abfque iis ediderim, &c. He anfwers, Se non tam vetera conatum fuiffe abolere, quam linguæ fuæ hominibus emendata de Græco in Latinum tranftuliffe.

But St. Jerom, when he was a young Man, and followed a monaftick Life in the Defert, there learned the furt Rudiments of the He