35.

feph, after fhe had Born our Saviour, He grounded his Opinion on these Words of St. Matthew; And knew her not, till he had brought forth her first Born. St. Jerom, who stood up too paffionately for Celibacy, opos'd Helvidius with all his might, and let him fee that the Word till did not at all imply that Joseph had known the Blessed Virgin afterward, but on the contrary, that it fignified that he did not know her at all. To prove this, he adduces thofe 1 Sam. 15. places of Scripture where 'tis faid, That Samuel came no more to fee Saul, till the day of his Death, and that Michal the 3 Sam. 6. Daughter of Saul, had no mare Children till the day of her Death, which don't fignifie that Samuel faw Saul after his Death, nor that Michal had Children after her Death, but on the contrary that Samuel afterwards never faw Saul, And that from that time Michal had had no more Children. But it feems more agre able to the Evangelift's defign,to fuppofe a Tranfpofition in this place, and to Tranflate it thus; And took unto him his Wife, till she had brought forth her first Born Son, Exercit. but knew her not; which plainly removes SA. P. 4-5 the Ambiguity, as Heinfius has obferv'd. III. The

23.

III. The fame Heinfius has obferved that there is a Tranfpofition of Terms in that place of St. Matthew, where Chrift forbids his Difciples to give that which is holy unto Dogs, and to caft Pearls before Matth.7.6. Swine, least they should trample them under their Feet, and turn again and rent them; and that it fhould be Tranflated thus, Give not that which is holy unto Dogs, leaft they turn again, and rent you, and caft not Pearls before Swine least they trample them under their Feet. Which is plain and natural and agrees very well with the different natures of these dif ferent Creatures.

IV. What our Saviour fays of John Mark, g. the Baptift, But I say unto you that Elias 13. is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they lifted, as it is written of him, do's not feem to be exprest in the natural order of the Words: For we don't find that the Prophets have any where made mention of the bad ufage that John the Baptift was to meet With from Herod, and the Jews. Euthymius inded refers us to the Prophet Ifaiah, but the Chapter he cites on the Margin does not make the least mention of him. Some think that the Book that spoke of him is loft, or that we must apply to John the

Bap

Sacr, P.

King. 21. Baptift, and Herodias, what is said in the Book of the Kings of Elijah and Jezabel. But 'tis much more natural to acknowledge that there is a Tranfpofition in the Words, and that they are to be orderExercit. ed thus, But I say unto you that Elias is come already as it is written of him; and they have done unto him whatsoever they lifted, as Heinfius has obferved after R. Stephanus, and adds farther that these Words, and have done whatsoever they lifted, were in feveral manuscripts, fhut up in a Parenthefis.

105.

Gram. Sac.

V. Glaffius, after Gerhard, has difcoP. 746. vered a like Tranfpofition of Words in the Epistle to Philemon. verse 5. Hearing of thy love and faith which thou hast towards the Lord Jefus, and toward all Saints. But unless we would leave a pretext to Roman Catholicks for the Invocation of Saints, we muft Tranflate with the Gentlemen of the Port-Royal, who can't be fufpected of favouring the Proteftants; Hearing of the Faith which thou haft towards the Lord Jefus Chrift, and of thy Charity to all Saints.

Acts 2.23.

VI. How much foever a Man may be convinced of the Goodness, Wisdom and Justice of God, he can't read what the Translations make St. Peter say to

the

the Jews, without murmuring, and with out conceiving fome odd notion of the Apoftle, who reproaches that Nation, with the highest impiety, and most execrable villany imaginable, for that which was but but an Execution of the express Orders of the Will of God, of his irrevocable purpose, and abfolute decree. They make the Apoftle fpeak thus. Him being deliver'd by the determinate Councel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have Crucified and Slain. But, if we confult the Original, we shall find that this inconfiftency is not to be attributed to the Apoftle, but to the prejudices or negligence of the Tranflators, who make the ApoAle fpeak the quite contrary of what he defigns. We must observe that he does Paradi not make use of the Verb, which ex-docnai. preffes the Action of Judas, or the crime of the Jews, in betraying of our Saviour and delivering him to Pontius Pilate, Ekdotos. but of a participle, which denotes the gift and prefent which God had made of his Son to the Jews, to reclaim them from their error and vice: So that the Words fhould be thus rendered, That having taken him which had been given them by the determinate Councel and fore knowledge of

God

God, they had Crucified and Slain him with wicked Hands. And they contain the fame reproach which we find in the following Chapter, of having deliver'd up Acts 3:13. Jefus, and denyed him in the prefence of 14. 15. Pontius Pilate when he was determined to him let go,&c..

Acts 4.27.

48.

VII. Nor are we lefs puzzl'd in reading the Discourfe of St. Peter and St. John, as they are rendred by the Tranflations: For of a truth, against thy holy Child Jefus whom thou haft anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilat, with the Gentiles, and the People of Ifrael were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy Counsel determined before to be done. But this is likewife occafioned by the prejudices of the fame Translators, which made them attribute to God, a defign which he every where declares he hates and abhors, and which the Apoftles do only atcribe to the Devil, and to thofe who ferv'd him as Inftruments to opprefs and Crucify Jefus Christ. For the Terms of the Original do plainly bear, That Herod and Pontius Pilat gathered themselves together, with the Gentiles, ¿ and People of Ifrael, against his holy 'Child Jefus, whom he had anointed to & do whatfoever his Power and Wisdom

had