Lord the work of the Hands of the Crafts-Man and putteth it in a secret Place In the Liturgy the words to worship it are added to the Text which denounceth a Curse upon such as make an Image for any Religious Ends as suppose to beget in us good reflections to be a help to our Devotions c. but the Addition restraineth the Curse to the Act or Intention of Adoration Now there is a Controversy of greater Consequence than that of ye and we depends upon this Addition viz. whether it be lawful to use Images as suppose a Crucifix c. for Religious Ends provided we don 't worship them The Papists say it 's not only lawful but in some Cases necessary that they are Laymen's Books and great helps to Devotion The Protestants affirm according to the Scripture they ought not to be made at all for the Ends of Religion much less set up either in the Congregation or in a secret Place Deut. 27. 15. Isa 44. 10. Habb 2. 18 19. This Addition in the Liturgy seems to favour the Popish Doctrine that we may use Images in our Devotions provided we don 't worship them I am the more Confirm'd in this by the Images of Christ and his Apostles which I find Printed in several of our Common-Prayers and I doubt not but they are intended as helps to Devotion and I wish they were not designed as an Introduction to Image Worship in the late Reigns when projects of that kind were conniv'd at However this be the making of such Images is against the Scriptures especially the 2d Commandment as is prov'd at large in the Book of Homilies It 's shew'd there 1st That no Image of Christ can be made but a LYING IMAGE because he is God and Man Nor can any true Image of his Body be made because it is unknown now of what Form and Countenance he was and there be in Greece and at Rome and in other Places divers Images of Christ and none of them like to other and yet every of them affirmeth that theirs is the True which cannot possibly be Therefore as soon as an Image of Christ is made by and by is a LYE made of him which by God's Word is forbidden 2ly If an Image of Christ cou'd truly be made yet it is unlawful that it should be made yea or that the Image of any Saint shou'd be made especially to be set up in Temples Ireneus reproves the Hereticks call'd Gnosticks for carrying about the Image of Christ In the same Homily is proved the unlawfullness of such Images from Lev. 26. Exod 20. and Deut. 27. and they quote this last Text aright without the Addition in the Common-Prayer * Serm. against Peril of Idolatry Part 3d. One may justly wonder that such a publick Use of Images shou'd be allow'd in our Churches and no Body that I hear of reprove or condemn it tho' all our Episcopal Ministers have subscribed to the Book of Homilies as containing a Godly and wholsome Doctrine The having of Images in our Books of publick Devotions is as unjustifiable as the setting 'em up in our publick Churches nay the former is in this respect Worse than the latter because in the latter Case one Image serves a whole Congregation but in the former there are as many Images as there are Worshippers with Pictur'd common-paryer-Common-Paryer-Books in their Hands Christians shou'd avoid all Occasions and Appearances of Idolatry but the Rectors Zeal runs another Way I will not tempt him to execute the fiery Sentence he passed on the Bible upon his Common-Prayer but I will recommend to his Reading the learned and pious Homilies against Idolatry which mention with Approbation Epiphanius's renting a painted Cloth wherein was a Picture of Christ or of some Saint affirming it to be against our Religion that any such Image shou'd be had in the Temple or Church If this Act of Epiphanius does not raise an Emulation in him to purge his Church of Images he ought at least to declare against the Corruption of Scripture to which he is accessary by giving his Assent and Consent to all and every Thing contain'd in the Liturgy Thus I have gratified his Request and given him such an Instance as he desires and yet I will not say this is a Corruption of which all the Episcopal Party is Guilty because I believe few of 'em have taken notice of it For a farther Confirmation of his Charge against the Dissenters he saith out of Arch-Bishop Laud's Speech that the Puritans expung'd part of the XX. Articles of the Church of England concerning the Power of the Church to decree Rites and Ceremonies 'T is yet Sub-Judice whether that Clause was added by some of the Bishops Friends or expung'd by some of their Adversaries whether it were the one or t'other it does not concern the Controversy in Hand Tho' it may seem more probable they were added by some Ceremonious Gentleman for the Puritans alledged that the Clause was not to be found in the Latine or English Articles of King Edward VI. or Queen Elizabeth ratified by Parliament The Arch-Bishop can't say that this Clause was in the Articles of King Edward VI. but comes off with this sly Answer That the Articles made in the time of King Edward VI. were not now in Force and therefore not Material whether that Clause be in or out * Heyl. Life of Laud. p. 339. I thought Articles of Religion were not like Acts of Parliament to be repealed at pleasure However one may conclude from Arch-Bishop Laud's Words that the Clause about Ceremonies was not in the Original Articles of the Reformed Church of England in King Edward VI. time If it had been in he would have taken notice of it as he does of all the Editions that had it in Queen Elizabeth's time If it was to be found in the Records of Convocation Anno 1562. as the Arch-Bishop saith it is a sign the Church of England was grown more Ceremonious than it had been in King Edward VI. time Be this Matter as it will it concerns not us tho' the Rector according to his wonted Justice reproaches us with it Remark on Remarks p. 51. 63. †Mr. Baxter 's Life p. 639. Arch-Bishop Vsher Arch-Bishop Williams Bishop Morton Bishop Holdsworth c. in a Committee at Westminster 1641. mention this Article among the Innovations in Doctrine in the Church of England He has a pleasant Digression on these Words of mine no Dissenters have urg'd this Corrupt reading in favour of a Popular Covernment in any of their Writings against Bishops and Ceremonies Remark p. 14. which he thus reports No Dissenters have urg'd this Corrupt reading against Bishops and Ceremonies And then adds who ever thought that ye had any thing to do with the Ceremonies p. 52. I spoke of the Corrupt reading as applied to a popular Government which is evident by my Words I Note this as an Instance of his Unfairness and pass by his
of God the First was his Text from which he aggravated his Charge and this he has mis-quoted the Second was the Subject of his Charge in Acts 6. 3. and this also he has mis-quoted by putting seek for book and omitting the Words among you And therefore it ill becomes him to aggravate Mr. B's omitting the word these 3ly I find Acts 15. 28. in the Book of Homilies to which the Rector has subscribed quoted without the words these In the Acts of the Apostles we read that they sent word to the brethren Acts 15. 28. that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to charge them with no more than with necessary Things * Homil. against Whoredom I. Part p. 72. edit Lond. 1673. Fol. If the Omission of the word these be a Corrupting of the Word of God let him write an Invective against the Homilies of the Church and retract his Subscription by which he has made himself a Party to this Corruption He charges Mr. B. with Corrupting a Passage in Jerom in his Fifth Dispute which I have not by me and therefore can say nothing to it But if it be mis-quoted I believe it was by Accident and not by Design as he suggests It s evident that he designedly mis-represented me in saying I mistook one Person for another and to cover his Design suppresseth that Part of the Sentence to which I refer'd and therefore have little Reason to believe his Accusations of Mr. B. or any body else and less Reason to believe he has such an Aversion as he pretends to that he unjustly Charges us with viz. a designed mis-representation of Authors This he is notoriously Guilty of and which is a great deal worse he hath Corrupted the Word of God which I admonished him of in my Answer to his Tentamen Novum in which you may find both Corruptions one is in Acts 11. 19. where he reads the rest preached the Word c. instead of they that were scatter'd abroad preached the Word c. so our Bibles have it according to the Original This looks like a designed Corruption meerly to support his Argument as the Reader may see in his Tentam. p. 4. The other Corruption is of 1 Cor. 5. 4. In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit c. so our Bibles The Rector reads it In the Name of our Lord Jesus and of my Spirit as if the Construction were in the Name of my Spirit i. e. by my Authority intimating that the whole Power of Excommunication was in the Apostle and none in the Church contrary to 1 Cor. 5. 13 14. see his Tentam. p. 17. One wou'd think a Man that is Guilty of Corrupting the Scriptures shou'd not so severely aggravate a mis-quotation out of the Fathers which may happen by the Fault of the Transcriber or Printer or by the inadvertency of the most vigilant Author without any Design But none are more forward to censure a Mote in a Brothers Eye than those Gentlemen that have a Beam in their own The Rector is one that doth so in his Charge against Mr. B. and my self He bestows the two next Pages upon a mis-quoted Passage out of Chrysostom in my Plea in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mis-printed for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Point I treated of was that Evangelists were unfixed Officers which is Evident in the New Testament and is the General Opinion of learned Men nay the Rector himself can't deny but they were at first unfixed Tentam. p. 118. For the Confirmation of this receiv'd Opinion I quoted Eusebius and Chrysostom as agreeing with him and by a mistake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter which makes the Negative an Affirmative I but saith he if you had cited Chrysostom in the Negative as you ought he wou'd not have agreed with Eusebius p. 57. I have proved in my Tutam Evangel that they do agree if Chrysostom be cited in the Negative as I confess he ought Eusebius saith they passed into other Countries and Nations Chrysostom saith they did not go up and down every where as the Apostles did but preach'd the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila He adds a little after that the Evangelists went about * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It 's evident from Chrysostom that Evangelists went about but not every where So did Aquila and Priscilla go up and down but not every where as St. Paul and other Apostles did Aquila and Priscilla are Evangelists in Chrysostom now it 's certain they went up and down and that as the Apostles helpers in Christ Rom. 16. 3. Aquila was a Native of Pontus Acts 18. 2. he lived with his Wife Priscilla sometime at Rome Afterwards we find them at Corinth Acts 18. 1 2. afterwards at Ephesus Acts 18. 18. 19. 1 Cor. 16. 19. and after that we meet them at Rome Rom. 16. 3. if the Epistle to the Romans was written after the 1 Corinthians as Doctor Lightfoot Affirms †Vol. I. p. 299. and 313. When the second Epistle to Timothy was written we find 'em in Asia 2 Tim. 4. 19. 'T is most undeniable then that Aquila and Priscilla Chrysostom's Evangelists went up and down and that into other Countries and Nations tho' not every where and so Chrysostom agrees with Eusebius But suppose Chrysostom shou'd not agree with Eusebius as it 's Evident he doth this doth not prejudice Eusebius's Testimony nor my Hypothesis of Evangelists that they were unfixed Officers which the Rector himself is forced to acknowledge I shall not quarrel with him about Chrysostom whilst he owns my Notion of Evangelists which if he think fit to retract I will undertake to maintain without being obliged to Chrysostom He thinks I have no way to come off from his Charge of Corrupting Chrysostom for which he is pleased to give me the Character of a Great Rogue but by pleading Ignorance or Dishonesty p. 58. There is no necessity of either Plea which are both equally false But I have a Third which is a just one and will pass with Men of Honesty whose Characteristic is Candor viz. that the mistake of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was by inadvertency or over-sight as we will Charitably hope many of his are tho' a Man must strain his Charity very hard to think so of his Corrupting the Text of Scripture It cannot be imagined his Printer wou'd foist whole Words into a Text without the knowledge of the Author especially where the Corrupt reading is adapted to an Argument which cannot be supported without it Let the World judge who is the Great R. he that happens to mistake a Sentence in the Fathers or he that refines upon the Word of God Ay but saith he the Remarker hath Corrupted Rom. 15. 19. for he affirms Tutam Evangel p. 124 125. that Paul preach'd the
love him It 's evident the Rector neither admires nor loves him for what Reasons he knows best but by what follows one wou'd be apt to think he hates him for he odiously mis-represents in these Words Jerome arguing for the Hebrew against the LXX because forsooth St. Luke Acts 7. 14. agreed not with the Hebrew Text but with the LXX he gives that holy Evangelist this scurvy Character Lucae qui ignotus vilis non magnae fidei in nationibus ducebatur I 'll not English the words because I will pay some deference to the Presbyterian Father And a little after he saith He is unworthy to be believed in any thing be affirms upon this point in Controversie or indeed in any else The transcribing of the whole Passage will set this matter in a true light and convince the Reader how basely the Rector abuses Jerome His Words are these St. Luke who is a Writer of that History and publishes the Book of the Acts of the Apostles for the use of the Gentiles ought not to write any thing that is inconsistent with that Scripture which was already made publick to the Nations For indeed the authority of the LXX Interpreters was for that time only in more repute than that of Luke who was unknown and of no account and in no great estimation or credit among the Nations †Non enim debuit Sanctus Lucus qui ipsius Historiae scriptor est in gentes actuum Apostolorum volumen emittens contrarium aliquid scribere adversus eam Scripturam quae jam fuerat gentibus divulgata Et ubique majoris Opinionis ille duntaxat tempore LXX Interpretum habebatur auctoritas quam Lucae qui ignotis vilis non magnae fidei in nationibus ducebatur Quaest seu Trad. Hebr. in Gen. Is there any thing in these Words that reflects a scurvy Character upon the Holy Evangelist All will own that the Lxx Version was known to the World before St. Luke was and the Gentiles had no way to examine the truth of his Allegations out of the Old Testament but by comparing 'em with their Greek Bibles He was neither known nor esteemed by the generality of the Gentiles until his Writings made him so which were the more esteemed for their agreement with that Version of the Old Testament which they had among them Dr. Lightfoot speaks to the same purpose with Jerome Whereas the New Testament was to be wrote in Greek and come into the hands chiefly of the Gentiles it was most agreeable I may say most necessary for them to follow the Greek Copies as being what the Gentiles were only capable of consulting Jerome doth not say that St. Luke was vilus non magnae fidei but ducebatur he was so accounted in the Nations who at that time were strangers to him and had a greater Veneration for the Lxx than for his Writings And if the Gentiles esteemed him ignotus vilis it was no more than as the Athenians esteem'd St. Paul Acts 17. 18. The Rector may as well condemn St. Luke for saying that St. Paul was accounted a Babbler at Athens as Jerome for affirming that St. Luke was accounted ignotus vilis in nationibus Jerome cou'd not impose upon his Reader when he affirm'd the additional Verses in Psalm 14. were not in the Lxx for he appeals to the Greek Commentators who all set a Mark upon them and pass them by * Denique omnes Graeciae Tractatores qui nobis Eruditionis sui in Psalmos Commentarios reliquerunt hos versiculos veru annotant atque praetereunt liquido confirentes in Hebraeo non haberi nec esse in Lxx Inter. Proaem Hieron in lib. 16. in Isa Nor has the Rector beâ—n able to produce one that hath Commented upon ' em Brugensis saith They are not to be found in most of our Greek Copies both M S. and Printed Vatican and others § Non leguntur in plerisque Graecis exemplaribus tam impressis tam manuscriptis Vaticanis aliis Brug in Pol. Synop. ad Ps 14. Since the Rector excepts against Jerome as a Man unworthy to be believed in any thing I will confirm his Testimony by another of Origen's who saith the Apostle took these Verses ex variis Scripturae locis * Orig. Com. in epist ad Rom. from several places of Scripture by which words its evident that they were not in the Lxx nor in the Hebrew Text in the Fourteenth Psalm in Origen's time who lived above an Age before Jerome was known in the World And this Testimony is the more considerable because Origen had a genuine Copy of the Lxx which he exhibited in his Hexapla and understood the Hebrew which very few of the Fathers did besides him and Jerome Grotius follows Jerome and Origen and affirms that St. Paul took these Verses partly out of the Psalms partly out of Isaiah †Vtitur hic Paulus diversis sententiis tum ex Psalmis rum ex Esaia Grotius in Rom 3. 10. in Pol. Syn. and this is the received Opinion of the Learned But saith the Rector Jerome confesseth the Verses are in vulgata Editione quae Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur in toto orbe diversa est and adds I do not well understand him but it seems the Copies then in ordinary use had the said Verses though Jerome's had 'em not if he is to be credited Remark on Remark p. 18. I will charitably relieve the Rector's ignorance and help him to understand what Jerome means by his versio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vulgar Version It was a most corrupt Version of the Lxx but the true Copy saith St. Jerome is to be found in Origen's Hexapla and is faithfully translated by me into the Latine Tongue and is used at Jerusalem and in the Eastern Churches and remains pure and incorrupt in the Books of the Learned § 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ipsa est quae Lxx sed hoc interest inter utramque quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro locis temporibus pro voluntate scriptorum corruptae editio est Hieron ad Sun Tretell Tom. III. This is the Version to which Jerome appeal'd and of which he affirms that it had not the interpolated Verses in Ps 14. This genuine Version was publickly used in the Eastern Churches and at Jerusalem which was but 35 Furlongs or about 4 Miles 1 2 distant from Bethlehem where Jerome lived Just Mart. Apol. 2. and therefore any body might easily disprove him had he mis-represented matter of Fact Now let any Man judge what an indecent thing it is in our Rector to blacken Jerome's Memory with the Imputation of the most impudent and most foolish Lie which Thousands of that Age could have detected and he wanted not Adversaries that would have sufficiently exposed him upon such an occasion His Friend Rufinus would have aggravated a Crime of this Nature and made the World sensible of it long ago But
which no man is able to read or understand because one half of it is maimed neither has it any Vowels but what were given it by the enemies of Christianity * Codex ille mutus est quem nec legere ne dum intelligere quisquam sciat Is Vos Resp ad Nup. Crit. In another place he passes this arrogant Censure on the Learned Translators of the Hebrew Bible I could produce whole Chapters especially out of the more obscure Books of the Holy Scripture as Ecclesiastes Job Hoshea and others in which you will not find so much as one Verse rightly understood and rendred by the Interpreters of our Age | In quibus ne unicus quidem occurrat versiculus qui à nostri saeculi Interpretibus rectè acceptus redditus fuerit De Sibyll Orac. cap. 13. p. 270. If no Man be able to read or understand the Hebrew Bible how comes Vossius to understand it And if he does not understand it how knows he that the Interpreters of our Age have not Translated aright If he does understand it why had he not given us a right Translation of those whole Chapters that are misrendred He repeats his bold Assertion The Hebrew Book is mute as being destitute of true Vowels and tho' we had Vowels even this would not enable us to Translate it since we have utterly lost the signification of the words and the sense which arises from them even the Jews themselves do not deny this difficulty of interpreting Resp ad Obj. p. 325. If our Hebrew Bibles be such useless Things as Is Vossius makes them it 's hard to determine what they are good for It 's well if his admirer Mr. G. does not condemn them to the Flames as he has done some of our * Serm. p. 27. English Bibles for the Corruption he finds in them and their being unintelligible at the best if we may believe his Friend Vossius for whose profound Judgment he has so great a Veneration The same Vossius thus reflects on Dr. Lightfoot's Horae Hebraicae Talmudicae on 1 Cor. which the learned World justly admires He seems to me saith he to be less faulty who wou'd expound the Gospels out of the Alcoran than out of the Talmud And a little after he Charges him as justly as the Rector does the Dissenters with Corrupting the Word of God with preferring the Authority of the Talmud to that of the Gospel in the Explication of Scripture †Voss Resp ad Obj. p. 331. 332. He commends Charles the Great for laying aside the Gothick Saxon and French Languages and for propagating with his Empire the Latin Tongue and assigning it the chief Place | Ibid. p. 340. non in Sacris modo not only in Religious but in Civil Actions also He calls those that defend the Hebrew Bibles Asellos cassos Iumine intellectu Asses void of Judgment and Understanding girt with a Professors Gown and carrying for their Shield the Masoretick Bible with all it's Points § Epist. ad Andr. Colv. Thus much I thought fit to Advertise the Reader concerning Isaac Vossius whose great Judgment the Rector applauds and subscribes to in his Opposition to the Hebrew Bible He that makes our Hebrew Bibles to consist in dumb Letters which no Man can read much less understand that Censures the Interpreters of his Age as not rendering so much as one Verse aright in whole Chapters that speaks favourably of the Use of the Latin Tongue in Religious Worship is not the most excellent Pattern for a Protestant Minister to follow but the Rector is of Age to chuse his own Masters CHAP. IV. Being a Vindication of my Arguments for the Purity of the Hebrew Text. I Briefly hinted at two or three Arguments for the Purity of the Hebrew Copies which I will now improve and vindicate from the Rector's Exceptions I. I affirm'd the Hebrew Copies to have been incorrupt in our Saviour's Time because he never Charg'd the Jews with Corrupting the Scriptures The Rector takes no Notice of this Argument but he saith afterwards p. 22. many Corruptions might steal into the Hebrew Text and designedly be thrust into it before Christs Time He dare not say there were any thrust into it but he slily insinuates there might be He deals here with the sacred Text as he has done with Dissenters he brings it under Suspicion when he wants direct Proof If the Jews before the Birth of Christ had designedly Corrupted the Holy Bible doubtless we shou'd have heard of it in the History of the New Testament We are told there that the Oracles of God were Committed to them Rom. 3. 2. They were made the Conservators of the Divine Writings which were concredited to them Had they betray'd so great a Trust and perfidiously falsified the Holy Scriptures can we imagine that Christ and his Apostles wou'd have overlook'd so horrid a wickedness attended with a train of the most fatal Consequences Jesus Christ was faithful to him that appointed him as also Moses was in all his House Moses as a Servant but Christ as a Son over his own House Moses his Fidelity consisted in his Care to transmit the Divine Laws pure and incorrupt to the People as he received them in the Mount Had these Laws been Corrupted by the wickedness of after Ages doubtless the Lord Jesus wou'd have restored 'em to their Original Purity It cannot be conceiv'd that the Son shou'd be less concern'd for the Laws of his House than the Servant had been One great end of his Appearance was to Reform the Corruptions of the Jewish Church and wou'd he leave their very Laws Vnteform'd He came into the World to bear Witness unto the Truth and can we think he wou'd have overlook'd the Falshoods of that Book which is the Standard of Truth had any been thrust into it as the Rector supposes He who reproves the Jews for lesser Sins wou'd never have Connived at so great an Abomination as the Corrupting of the Hebrew Copies He censures their Corrupt Glosses upon the Law and Vindicates it from them Mat. 5. much more wou'd he have noted the Corruptions of the Original Text. He bids his Disciples search the Scriptures hear the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in the Seat of Moses who was read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day It 's not likely that he wou'd have recommended the Study of corrupted and depraved Scriptures unto his Followers without a necessary Caution against the Errors of them From the whole it's Evident that the Scripture of the Old Testament was not Corrupted before the Birth of Christ nor were they Corrupted after as appears by the Testimonies which Christ and his Apostles cite out of 'em which are all for Substance to be found in Moses and the Prophets as they are cited by them Thus Origen and Jerom anciently argued for the Purity of the Hebrew Text If the Jews Corrupted the Scriptures say they they did it either before
Devotion I will conclude with Fuller 's Censure An verò os aliquod impurum dicere ausit c. But dare any foul mouth affirm that either those Versions Gr. Lat. or the Catholick Church which hath approved them for so many Ages have conspired in so horrid a wickedness with the perfidious enemies of Jesus Christ Full. Miscell Theol. lib. 3. cap. 13. III. The Rector believes upon Vossius 's Judicious Authority that the Hebrew Chronology is corrupted his Argument is this The Jews believ'd their Messiah wou'd come about the 6000 Year from the Creation that the World was 6000 Years old when Christ came that the Ancient Hebrew Copies reckoned 6000 Years from Adam to Jesus else the Jews cou'd not have expected the Messiah when Jesus was born if their Chronology had been the same as it is this day from the whole it must be confessed that the Modern Hebrew Copies are corrupted the World according to them being at the Birth of Jesus but about 4000 Years old p. 25 26. The Rector barely proposes this Argument but neither explains nor attempts to prove the parts of it I 'll briefly examine each of them 1. It cannot be prov'd that the Ancient Jews expected their Messiah about the 6000 Year of the World Vossius endeavours to prove it from a Talmudical Tradition which the Jews ascribe to Elias and Vossius believes to be Elias the Prophet The Tradition of the house of Elias is this The World shall last Six Thousand Years two Thousand Years before the Law two Thousand Years of the Law and two Thousand Years of the time of the Messiah but for our iniquities which are many those Years are pass'd and lapsed Mundus constrabit c. In Tract Sanhedr Is Vossius begins these 6000 Years from the Floud and so reckons forward to the Birth of Christ but he ought to begin from the Creation for the Tradition speaks of the Age of the World that it shou'd last six thousand Years alluding to the six days of the Creation accounting 1000 to answer each day His reason for reckoning from the Floud is taken from 2 Pet. 3. 6. who calls the Old World the World that then was This is nothing to the point in hand for the Question is not whether the Antediluvian World may be so call'd but whether Elias intended to exclude that State of the World or the time before the Floud from being concern'd in this Tradition This neither is nor can be prov'd Now if we reckon the 6000 Years from the beginning of the Creation it 's co-incident with the Chronology of our Hebrew Bibles which make the World about 4000 Years old when Christ was born and so doth this Tradition for it assigns 2000 years before the Law and 2000 years under the Law at the end of which it makes the Messiah to come The Truth is This is a Rabbinical Figment and no Prophecy of Elias as Vossius affirms without proof Perhaps the Author might be some Talmudic Doctor of that Name It gives a false account of the time before the Law which was about 2450 Years and of the time under the Law which was about 1500 Years and not 2000 as he affirms Some have calculated the Duration of the World by this pretended Prophecy and have been so vain as to affirm that the Last Judgment will be at the end of 6000 Years from the Creation grounding their Opinion upon this Rabbinical Tradition Besides the Jews acknowledge that the time of the Coming of the Messiah is already past tho' he be hid from them for their sins This is inconsistent with their defalking 2000 Years from the Chronology of the Hebrew Bible that they may perswade the World the time of his appearance is not yet come They are sensible enough that the time of the Messia's coming is lapsed whatever some of them may say to the contrary and therefore they pronounce a solemn Curse upon the Computers of Times Malè pereunt say the Talmudists qui temporum articulos suppetunt quibus venturus est Messiah Let their Bones rot says R. Jonathan who compute the times of the end 2. It can't be prov'd that the World was 2000 years old when Christ came According to the Hebrew Copies which I have prov'd incorrupt the World was about 4000 years old when the Son of God was manifested in the Flesh There is no reason why we shou'd esteem the Greek Chronology before the Hebrew Bibles It 's absurd to prefer a Translation to the Original the Streams to the Fountain Even those that follow the Lxx Chronology do not make the World 6000 Years old when Christ came Theophilus Antiochen and the Oriental Church reckon about 5507 from the Creation to the Birth of Christ Ad Antolyc lib. 3. Nicephorus reckons 5505. Eccl. Hist I. 10. We are sure the Greek Chronology has been either corrupted very early or falsified by the Lxx Translators for it makes Methuselah to live 14 Years after the Floud hence came that famous Question where to lodge him all the time of the Floud Some held as St. Austin observes that he was with his Father Enoch who was translated This they held adds he as being loth to derogate from the Authority of those Books which the Church hath entertained into more renowned Authority and thinking that the Books of the Jews rather than these do mistake and err For they say it s not credible that the Lxx Interpreters which translated at one time and in one sense could err or would lye or err where it concern'd them not but that the Jews for envy they bear us have chang'd some things in their Books that the Authority of our might be lessen'd This is their Opinion his own he gives a little after Let that Tongue be rather believ'd out of which a Translation is made into another by Interpreters And in the next Chap. chap. 14. The Truth of things must be fetch'd out of that Tongue out of which that that we have is interpreted Aug. de Civit. Dei xv 11. 13 14. It is true the Fathers generally follow'd the Greek Chronology and how cou'd they do otherwise since few of 'em were able to read the Bible in Hebrew 3. The ancient Hebrew Copies did not reckon 6000 Years from Adam to Jesus as the Rector affirms They reckon'd as we do now as appears by the Copy which Jerom used of which he gives this account That where the Greek Translation saith the Patriarches before the Floud were so many years above two hundred years old when they begat such a Son the Hebrew Copy sâ—ith they were so many years above one hundred years old So that the 100 years which are added to the lives of the Antediluvian Patriarchs in the Lxx Version which make about 600 Years in all were not in the Ancient Hebrew Copies Sciendum quod utque ad c. Hieron in quoest seu Tradit Hebr. proem But saith the Rector out of Vossius The Jews cou'd