[Mr. De Morgan, in his _Arithmetical Books_, says that the earliest edition he ever possessed is that of 1685: and what edition was not stated. The fourth edition was of 1682, the twentieth of 1700. The matters cited by our correspondent, which we have omitted, are in all, or nearly all, editions. We have heard of _three_ copies of the _first_ edition: one sold in Mr. Halliwell's sale, one in the library of the Roman Catholic College at Oscott, and one sold by Puttick and Simpson, as above, in April last: but we cannot say that these are three _different_ copies, though we suspect it. Our correspondent's edition is not mentioned by any one. The _fifty-second_ edition, by Geo. Fisher, appeared in 1748, according to the Catalogue of the Philosophical Society of Newcastle.] _Sanskrit Elementary Books._--Will some one of your correspondents kindly inform me what are the elementary works necessary for gaining a knowledge of Sanskrit? DELTA. [Wilson's _Sanskrit Grammar_ (the 2nd edition), and the _Hitopadesa_, edited by Johnson, are the best elementary works.] _Townley MSS., &c._--I request the favour to be informed where are the Townley MSS.? They are quoted by Sir H. Nicolas in Scrope and Grosvenor Rolls. Also where are the MSS. formerly _penes_ Earl of Egmont, often quoted in the _History of the House of Yvery_? And a folio of Pedigrees by Camden Russet? S. S. [The Townley Heraldic Collections are in the British Museum, among the Additional MSS., Nos. 14,829-14,832. 14,834. In the same collection, No. 6,226. p. 100., are Bishop Clayton's _Letters to Sir John Perceval, first Earl of Egmont_.] _"Man is born to trouble," &c._--In an edition of _The Holy Bible, with_ TWENTY THOUSAND EMENDATIONS: London, 1841, I read as follows, at Job v. 7.: "For man is NOT born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards." Query 1. Is there any authority from MSS., &c. for the insertion of the word "not"? 2. Is this insertion occasioned by the oversight of the printer or of the editor? N. [There is no authority for the insertion of the word "not," that we can find, either in MSS. or commentators. As to the oversight of the printer or editor we cannot speak; but are rather inclined to attribute that and other emendations to the second-sight of one of the parties concerned. Our correspondent will find Dr. Conquest's _emandated Bible_ ably criticised by one of the best Hebrew scholars of the day in the _Jewish Intelligencer_, vol. ix. p. 84.] Replies. BELLARMIN'S MONSTROUS PARADOX. (Vol. iv., p. 45.) The defence of Cardinal Bellarmin set up by your correspondent J. W. CT. is not new, and is exceedingly plausible at first sight. Allow me, however, to direct the attention of your readers to the following reply to a similar defence, which I take from the _Sequel to Letters to M. Gondon_, by Dr. Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster, pp. 10. 11.: