the ground XI That which we affirm there about this Controversie is First that the modern points were not either from Adam or affixed by Moses or the Prophets that were before the Captivity Nor secondly after the Captivity devised either by Ezra or any other before the compleating of the Talmud Thirdly but after five hundred years after Christ invented by some Learned Jews for the help of those who were ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue whom they would teach by this means to read the Hebrew Text as distinctly and exactly as themselves that so after they had taken out of the peoples hands and laid aside the Greek Translation of the LXX they might have every where in their Synagogues men though unlearned who by this help might be able to read the Text publikely which before the invention of those points could be done onely by a few Learned men Fourthly as for other matters though probably affirmed I do not insist much as who they were how many one or more in what place they lived whether at Tiberias or elsewhere or where they met about this work what the precise and exact time was when the punctation was made whether the sixt seventh or eighth age after Christ in which things because of the great defect of any certain Historicall monuments among the Jews for those times all being involved in great obscurity and darknesse by reason of their dispersions and banishments it is hard to determine any thing with certainty though it be most probable that this Work was taken in hand about five hundred years after Christ by the Tiberian Masorites XII These things being premised about the State of the Controversie and the certainty of the Scriptures without points it will be needfull further to adde something concerning the first occasion of this Controversie which is briefly shewed Prolegom 3. Sect 38. to be this That though the Controversie be in it self Grammaticall or Logicall yet it had its rise from a question Theologicall For when at the beginning of the reformation divers questions arose about the Scripture and the Church The Romanists observing that the punctation of the Hebrew Text was an invention of the Masorites they thereupon inferred that the Text without the points might be taken in divers sences and that none was tyed to the reading of the Rabbins and therefore concluded that the Scripture is ambiguous and doubtfull without the interpretation and testimony of the Church so that all must flie to the authority of the Church and depend upon her for the true sence and meaning of the Scripture On the other side some Protestants fearing that some advantage might be given to the Romanist by this Concession and not considering how the certainty of the Scripture might well be maintained though the Text were pointed in stead of denying the Consequence which they might well have done thought sit rather to deny the Assumption and to maintain that the points were of Divine Original whereby they involved themselves in extreme labyrinths engaging themselves in defence of that which might be easily proved to be false and thereby wronged the cause which they seemed to defend Others therefore of more learning judgment knowing that this Position of the Divine original of the points could not be made good and that the Truth needed not the Patronage of an Vntruth would not engage themselves therein but granted it to be true that the points were invented by the Rabbins yet denyed the Consequence maintaining notwithstanding that the reading and sence of the Text might be certain without punctation and that therefore the Scripture did not at all depend upon the Authority of the Church and of this judgement were the chief Protestant Divines and greatest Linguists that then were or have been since in the Christian world such as I named before Luther Zuinglius Calvin Beza Musculus Brentius Pellicane Oecolampadius Mercer Piscator Pâ—â—hagius Drusius Schindler Martinius Scaliger De Dieu Casaubon Erpenius Sixt. Amama Jac. and Ludov. Capellus Grotius c. and among our selves Archbishop Vsher Bishop Prideaux Mr. Meade Mr. Selden and innumerable others whom I forbear to name who conceived it would nothing disadvantage the cause to yield that Proposition for that they could still make it good that the Scripture was in it self a sufficient and certain rule for saith and life not depending upon any humane authority to support it XIII Amongst those who undertook to assert the Divine Originall of the points the chief was Buxtorf the Father a man without doubt of very great skill in the Hebrew as any in his time and one whose labours conduced much to the knowledge of that Tongue This man in his Hebrew Grammar Edit 1. brought divers arguments to prove his opinion and said more for it then any others had done before him whose authority grounded upon his great skill in the Hebrew drew divers who wanted either leisure or ability to weigh all the reasons on both sides to imbrace his opinion and to take it for granted and the rather because it seemed to make more against the Romanists then the other Afterwards in the ensuing Editions of his Grammar this Tract about the points was left out whereupon it was conceived by divers that he had changed his judgement and it appears that divers men of great Learning did much oppose his opinion as Scaliger Epist 243. and others so that it might well be thought he began to stagger in it and therefore thought fit to forbear the further publishing of it till he had better considered of the whole matter After this Lud. Capellus Hebrew Professor at Saumer a man of great Learning and worth as his Writings speak him published his Arcanum punctationis revelatum which was set out by Erpenius at Leyden an 1624. Wherein he largely handles the whole Controversie answered all Buxtorfs arguments to the full and brought such convincing reasons to the contrary that few who read this Book without prejudice but subscribed to his opinion as Erpenius Ger. Vossius Rivet Sixt. Amama Spanhemius Festus Hommius Colterius c. as appears by some of their Epistles Printed in his Defensio Criticae yea divers that formerly were strongly against his Opinion being convinced by evidence in his reasons joyned with them as Mr. Eyres late Prebend of Ely a man of great skill in this kinde of Learning Arnold Bootius a man of great knowledge in the Hebrew and a violent opposer of Capellus his Critica yea it was conceived by some that Buxtorf himself was wavering in his opinion but that he was loth to retract what he had formerly in Print affirmed After his decease his Son D. Buxtorf who succeded his Father in the place of Hebrew Professor at Basil out of piety to his Father as is by himself in his Vindic. ingenuously confessed undertook to answer Capellus who had formery opposed and confuted his opinion about the ancient Hebrew letters though not without more sharpnesse and animosity then could have been
wrought for confirmation of the Doctrine of the Bible attested by the Catholick Tradition of the Church of Christ His affirming that the Alcoran may vie miracles and traditions with the Scripture rejecting all arguments for the authority of Scripture save its own light VI VII No private or new opinions in the Prolegomena or Appendix VIII The just grounds which the publisher had to speak of the things excepted against IX The groundlesse fears and jealousies of the adversary X. His profession of no great skill in this learning XI That he knows not the Authors of this Edition XII His commending the Work and the authors of it XIII His consequences charged upon the Work and not upon the Workmen as he pretends XIV The true cause of the quarrel is against the Workmen XV. The approbation of the Work by forreign Divines Buxtorss testimony of it I. BEfore we descend to particulars it will be needfull to take notice First of the occasion and motives of publishing these Considerations and of their scope and end concerning which the author tells us Cap. 1. sect 1 2 3. c. That he had written a Treatise of the Divine originall of the Scriptures their authority and self evidencing light and of the providence of God in their preservation which being ready for the Presse the Prolegomena and Appendix of the Bible came to his hands wherein the great bulk of various readings and some opinions maintained in the Prolegomena did in his apprehension much weaken the arguments by him insisted upon in that Treatise and therefore a necessity was incumbent upon him either to desist from publishing it or else of giving an accompt of those things in the Prolegomena and Appendix which tended to the disadvantage of that great truth which he had pleaded for After he tells us of his fears and jealousies of dangerous consequences c. and gives some reasons to free himself from any suspition of malice or envy against the Biblia Polyglotta or any that had a hand in publishing of it and calls the searcher of all hearts to witnesse how clear he was from any sinister ends c. and professes how candidly he will proceed for the sake and in the pursuit of truth with a mind free from prejudice and disquieting affections c. II. Concerning all which I shall observe first that it is ominous to stumble at the threshold as our Author here doth what fair dealing may we expect in his ensuing Discourse when he begins with a palpable untruth he saith the Prolegomena and Appendix came to his hands after he had finished his Treatise of the Scripture and was ready to give it to the Stationer which was the occasion of these additional Considerations when as yet it appears that he had read the Prolegomena and Appendix before he had written the first Chapter of his Treatise for in that Chapter he writes p. 16. that Capellus his pernicious opinion about the uncertainty of Scripture is since approved and taken up by others quoting in the margent Prolegomena ad Biblia Polyglotta and p. 20. he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is reckoned amongst the various Readings gathered out of Grotius in the Appendix of the Biblia Polyglotta by which it is evident that he had seen and read the Prolegomena and Appendix before he wrote that Treatise and therefore that the publishing of the Prolegomena and Appendix after his Treatise was finished could not be the cause of writing these Considerations in vindication of that Treatise here it seems his memory failed him to say no worse and hereby it plainly appears that some other motives set him on work and not the vindication of his Treatise and though he protests the contrary yet protestatio contraria facto is not to be admitted nor regarded for it is known that such Protestations with men who make no scruple of affirming untruths arises often from the consciousnesse of the guilt of that against which they protest Quid verba audiam cum facta videam What are his Considerations but a cleere confutation of his protestation III. If he had no sinister ends Why are they written in English the Opinions which he opposes being written in that Language wherein Learned men debate such things as are not fit for popular judgements There could be no other end in this then to expose the Bib. Polyglot and Publishers of it to popular hatred If his fears and jealousies were so great that these opinions should gain credit and be received why did he not write against them in the same Language which is generally known in Europe whereby an Antidote might have been ready wheresoever they came whereas to write in English cannot hinder the spreading of them abroad nor was there any great cause to fear that his English readers could be infected by them when they understood them not till he informed them This was not the true motive or else he took not the right course to prevent the mischief he seemed to fear But to confute a Latine Treatise in English and in the same Book to adde a Latine Discourse against the Quakers who abhor all Learning and account that Language the Language of the Beast will notwithstanding his weak Apologie be judged a Soloecisme IV. Besides if the truth and love of the truth set him on work why doth he fasten upon his adversary things manifestly untrue charging him with opinions in one place which in another he clears him from His perverting his adversaries tenets propounding his Arguments and Answers by halfs cutting them short as Procrustes in Plut did his prisoners that they might be fit for his bed are proofs of his candid and sincere dealing but chiefly his urging the Consequences of Papists Atheists Antiscripturists c. whose Advocate he makes himself rather then his Adversary shall escape If he had not been led by some sinister respects knowing that Pious and Learned men yea the learnedst Protestant Divines and the best skilled in the Eastern Languages that are this day and greatest assertors of the purity and authority of the originall Texts against the Romish tenets have maintained the same with the Author of the Prolegomena about the Hebrew punctation and the various readings and that himself acknowledges the main thing from which perverse and wicked men draw their conclusions viz. the variety of readings in the Hebrew and Greek Copies he would have laboured to free those Worthies from such imputations and have shewed that no such consectaries could be logically and rationally deduced from such Premisses as indeed they cannot whereas we see in him the clean contrary for he takes part with Papists Atheists Antiscripturists c. and pleads their cause and labours to prove even from such Premisses as himself cannot deny that those wretched consequences do necessarily follow which shews plainly how he was blinded with Prejudice and Passion and how far he was from that candor and freedom from disquieting affections and from the love of
our Author observes elsewhere p. 250. That Elias tyed all as strictly to the Reading by points as if they had been done by Ezra Elias therefore did not hold the Reading and sence of the Scripture or the matter of the Punctation to depend upon the Rabbins but onely the present forms and figures and how could he imagine to draw Christians to a belief of that which he did not believe himself or to a dependence upon the Rabbins for the whole sence of the Scripture which himself did not hold And nothing more shews the vanity of this fancy then that those Christians that held the same opinion with Elias do utterly deny that they depend upon the Rabbins ancient or modern for the sence of the Scripture Luther was far from this who as our Author cites him within a few lines writes that the Jews had corrupted the Bible by their points and distinctions and Calvin shews how little he esteemed the authority of the Rabbins on Zach. 11. 7. Let him name any place or one word out of Elias or any other writer Jew or Christian that intimates in the least that he had any such aim or name one Christian Writer Romanist or Protestant of this opinion that profest to depend upon the Rabbins for the true sence and Reading of the Scripture As groundlesse is that which follows that this fraud of Elias was not discovered by the first Reformers but that they were unawares drawn to embrace his fancy as though those wise and learned men were such children and Ideots as not to discern the consequence of this opinion or of such weak judgements as to be led by the authority of a Jewish Rabbin XIX It remains therefore that the true Originall of this Question was as I have shewed the controversie arising in the beginning of the Reformation about the authority and certainty of the Scripture in reference to the Church and hence it was that this Question about the points was not ventilated before the Reformation and that so few make any mention of it because the Questions about the Scripture and the Church were not then raised And that which begun the quarrel doth still continue it some out of fear lest they should yield any thing disadvantagious to the cause they maintain holding the points to be of Divine Originall and among those some imbracing that opinion not because they knew it to be true but because they conceive it makes more for our cause against the Papists amongst which I may justly reckon our Adversary who Epistol pag. 18. is offended at Doctor Prideaux because though he took notice of the advantage the Papists make of that opinion of the novelty of points and of the danger of it yet which seems most admirable himself falls in with them and maintains the same opinion as if we must measure the truth of Doctrine not by evidence of reason but by the advantage it brings to our cause or must affirm what we know to be false because it makes against the Papists Others therefore who see how groundlesse those fears are and knowing that the truth must not be denied though some pervert it to a wrong end grant what they see cannot be denied about the Originall of the points yet maintain the same Conclusion about the certainty and authority of Scriptures upon better and more solid grounds and so doth Dr. Prideaux in that Lecture where he maintains the certainty and authority of the Scripture and so yields nothing to the Papists though he grants the points to be the invention of the Masorites CHAP. XI I. The Adversaries candor and ingenuity in reciting the Arguments against the antiquity of Points leaving out some of the chief and perverting the rest II. The first Argument past by which is from the Testimony of the chief Protestant Divines and Linguists of this age Luther Calvin Zuinglius Pellican Oecolampadius Beza Merceâ— P. Phagius Chamier Vossius Drusius De Dieu Schindler Martinius Scaliger Grotius Schichard Casaubon Erpenius Sixt. Amam Mayer Bootius Spanhemius Rivet F. Hommius Archbishop Usher Bishop Prideaux Mede Eyres c. III. The last Argument omitted also in the Considerations from other Eastern Tongues Syriack Chald. Arabick Samaritane Persian c. IV. Postellus his Testimony V. The Argument from the unpointed Copy used in the Synagogues to represent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Moses vindicated VI. This Argument drew the Reverend Usher and Bootius to this opinion VII The Argument from the LXX and other ancient Translations perverted by the Adversary VIII The other Arguments briefly recapitulated Aben Ezra's words vindicated IX The Adversaries new Argument X. XI Answered XII XIII Other new Arguments answered XIV Another Argument XV. Answered out of his own words XVI The Tiberian Masorites denied and yet acknowledged by the Adversary I. THis Question concerning the Points is handled by our Adversary chiefly Chap. 4. and 5. of the Considerations though also by the by in some other places he hath some passages about the same wherein I shall not need to handle all the Arguments pro con having done that already Proleg 3. Sect. 38 39 c. 56 â—o which I must remit the Reader I shall onely reply to what he answers to the Arguments in the Prolegomena and briefly examine what he pretends to be added by himself de novo to prove this Rabbinicall fancy First let us see how he infringes the Arguments in the Prolegomena wherein I must needs say he deals as in the rest of his Discourse peâ—â—ima fide and is far from that candor truth which he professes for he leaves out diverse of the chief Arguments to which he could give no colourable answer and for the rest he either propounds them by halfs leaving out that wherein the force of the Argument chiefly consists or perverts the sence and spoils them in his rehearsing of them so that I may say of them as the Poet did of his verses Quem recitas meus est O Fidentine libellus At male dum recitas incipit esse tuus The Arguments are nine which he pretends to confute but by his relating them he makes them his own for as he delivers them I own them not I shall therefore desire the Reader to suspend his judgement till he have compared them as they are laid down in the Considerations and as they are delivered in the Prolegomena and then to judge as he shall see cause I shall at present mention some Arguments which he hath wholly omitted and then give a taste of his candid dealing in the rest II. The first Argument Sect. 58. is brought from the testimony of the chiefest and most Learned Protestant Divines and Linguists which this age hath known whose words I cite and the places where they are to be found for such men I conceive are fittest to judge of these matters Now of these he takes no notice at all but uses a prudent preterition because he knew their names and authority would
THE CONSIDERATOR CONSIDERED OR A brief view of certain Considerations upon the Biblia Polyglotta the Prolegomena and Appendix thereof Wherein amongst other things the certainty integrity and Divine Authority of the Original Texts is defended against the Consequences of Athiests Papists Antiscripturists c. inferred from the Various Readings and novelty of the HEBREW points by the Author of the said CONSIDERATIONS The Biblia Polyglotta and Translations therein exhibited with the various Readings Prolegomena and Appendix vindicated from his ASPERSIONS and CALUMNIES And the questions about the punctation of the Hebrew Text the Various Readings and the ancient Hebrew Character briefly handled By BR WALTON D. D. 2 Cor. 13. 8. For we can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth LONDON Printed by Tho Roycroft and are to be sold at most Book-sellers shops 1659. A SUMMARY Of the several CHAPTERS CHAP. I. AN Introduction to the whole page 1. Chap. 2. The occasion and motives of these considerations examined 19 Chap. 3. The Charges against the Biblia Polyglotta enumerated and proved to be for the most part Calumnies 37 Chap. 4. The first and main charge That the Originall Texts have gross corruptions particularly answered and proved a Calumny pag. 45 Chap. 5. The 2 3 4. charges That our Copies are not the same with those anciently used That the same fate hath attended the Scripture with other books and that we may correct the Originals upon conjectures answered and proved to be Calumnies 72 Chap. 6. The fifth Charge about various Readings out of Translations answered The sixth That the Keri and Ketif are Criticall notes of the Rabbines shewed to be a Calumny Of the notes out of Grotius 83 Chap. 7. The Various Readings in particular collected and printed in the Biblia Polyglotta vindicated 149 Chap. 8. The consequences against the certainty and Divine authority of Scripture inferred by the Adversary from Various Readings c. on the behalfe of Papists Atheists Antiscripturists c. answered and retorted upon himselfe 149 Chap. 9. His arguments against the severall Translations The Samaritane Chaldee Syriack Arab. Greek Latine Aethiopick Persian answered 169 Chap. 10. The Question about the Hebrew points propounded The Hebrews had vowels before the invention of points 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reading certaine without points The Masorites pointed not the Text at pleasure but according to the true and common Reading The first occasion of this Controversie about the points 196 Chap. 11. The arguments against the Divine Original of the modern points vindicated The testimony of the chiefe Protestant Divines and of the most eminent for Eastern learning and greatest patrons of the Originall Texts against their divine extract produced The contrary Arguments urged in the Considerations answered 231 Chap. 12. The consequence of uncertainty of the Hebrew Text if the points be not of Divine authority urged by Papists c. and infer'd by the Considerator answered The Argument retorted upon him 260 Chap. 13. Of our knowledge of the Hebrew derived from the Sept. Translation That the Samaritane was the ancient Hebrew Character changed by Esdras into the Assyrian proved The arguments to the contrary answered The conclusion 268 THE CONSIDERATOR CONSIDERED CHAP. I. I. The Church of England assaulted by Romanists on the one hand and Novellists on the other so are some of her Sons in this Edition of the Biblia Polyglotta II. The like fate of others who laboured most in exact Editions of the Bible Origen S. Hierome III. Arias Montanus Erasmus the Publisher of the late Parisian Bible the late Translators into English IV. The nature of Envy V. This Edition of the Biblia Polyglotta generally approved more performed in it then in any former Edition The usefulnesse of it No Book free from opposition VI. The Considerations publisht against it what they are VII A new Plot pretended to be discovered amongst Protestants against the Originall Texts approved in the Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta The particulars of this Designe The Principles and Consequences The chiefe Protestant Divines and Linguists of this age named whom the Adversary makes guilty of this Plot Himselfe saith the same things VIII The calumnies about Various Readings IX Other parts of this charge mistaken X. Reasons why this Pamphlet was answered I. IT was the speech of a grave Historian Thucyd. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Those that are in the midst are slain or assaulted on both sides With which agrees to that of Aristotle Ethic. l. 2. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expellunt medium extremi uterque ad alterum This was the case of our Mother the Church of England in former times as was long since observed by a Reverend Author when she was like Christ crucified between two Theives opposed by the superstitious Romanists on the one hand by the fiery Novellists on the other the first accusing her of departing too far from them the other of coming too neer to them which contrary accusations of men running into extreams were a strong evidence that shee walked in the mean which is the best and safest for Medium tenuere beati This which was the condition of the Mother is now become the lot of some of her Sons in the late Edition of the Biblia Polyglotta for whereas the Publisher of the said Bible hath laboured to assert the purity integrity and supream authority of the Originall Texts against those of Rome on the one side rejecting some Jewish opinions unwarily swallowed by some amongst our selves on the other he hath incurred the displeasure of both the one complaining that too much is ascribed to the Originall Texts the other too little which is a good argument that he hath kept close to the Truth from which those that do extrema sectari do usually swerve II. This is no new thing that Endeavours to promote the publique good should be thus rewarded for in former ages we finde that those who laboured most about the Sacred Oracles of God to restore them to their primitive and originall luster and to wipe off that dust which by injuries of time and ignorance or negligence of Transcribers was contracted and so to transmit them pure and incorrupt to posterity for such God raised up in all ages whose endeavours one would thinke might have set the Authors without the reach of calumny and envy have yet been aspersed and slandered their labours calumniated and their aimes perverted by such as S. James speaks of 4. 5. In whom the spirit that lusts after envy reigned Origens pains in compiling his Tetrapla Hexapla and Octapla a work of that admirable use that it was styled Opus Ecclesiae and which by the unexcusable negligence of the Greek Church is now lost was carped and cavil'd at amongst others by Hierome as if he had corrupted the pure Translation of the LXX by the additions which he made out of Theodotion When as Origen to preserve the LXX in its integrity distinguisht all the additions
Apollodorus the Athenian of Chrysippus his writings That if one should take away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that was either none of his own or nothing to the purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they would be empty of all matter for there is scarce any thing true or usefull concerning the subjects here disputed which was not formerly said in those Prolegomena nor any thing concerning the same which is added by the Adversary as his own which is not sufficiently confuted in the same Proleg Not to mention the incoherence of the things here handled the whole being rudis indigestaque moles a confused heap of Independencies VII In these Considerations we are told of a new Plot or Design amongst Protestants after they are come out of Rome a Design which they dare not publikely own Pag. 329. The leprosie of Papists crying down the Originall Texts is broken forth among Protestanâ—s with what design to what end or purpose he knows not God knows and the day will manifest Epist pag. 14. That this design is owned in the Prolegomena to the Bible and in the Appendix That they print the Originall and defame it gathering up translations of all sorts and setting them up in competition with it Epist p. 9. That they take away all certainty in and about all sacred truth Epist p. 25. That there is nothing left unto men but to chuse whether they will turn Papists or Atheists Epist p. 9. That there are grosse corruptions befallen the Originalls which by the help of old Translations and by conjectures may be found out and corrected pag. 205. as pernitious a Principle as ever was fixed upon since the foundation of the Church of Christ Epist p. 21. That it is the foundation of Mahumetanisme the chiefest and principall prop of Popery the onely pretense of phanaticall Antiscripturists and the root of much hidden Atheisme in the World p. 147. That he fears the pretended infallible Judge or the depth of Atheisme lies at the door of these Considerations p. 161. That they are enough to frighten unstable souls into the arms of an infallible Guide p. 196. That these various Translations as upon triall they will be found to be are such as many will be ready to question the foundation of all p. 207. and therefore he had rather all translations should be consumed out of the earth p. 318. then such a figment should be admitted That setting aside two Theses there is no Opinion ventilated among Christians tending to the depression of the worth and impairing the esteem of the Heb. Copies which is not directly or by just consequence owned in these Prolegomena p. 205. Hence are these tragicall exclamations of dreadfull distemper which may well prove mortall to the truth of the Scripture pag. 314. Of horrible and outragious violence offered to the sacred verity p. 315. That men take upon them to correct the Scripture pag. 344. to correct the Word of God p. 180. These are some of the expressions used by the Author of the Considerations who yet writes with all Christian candor and moderation of spirit p. 151. Candidly for the sake and pursuit of truth with a mind freed from all prejudice and disquieting affections p. 155. Now those dangerous Principles about which all this stir is made are chiefly reduced to two though many be pretended 1. That the Hebrew points that is the modern forms now used not the vowels accents themselves which are acknowledged to be coeve with the other Letters that the reading of the Text was never arbitrary but the same before and after the punctation were devised and fixed by the Masorites about five hundred years after Christ 2. That there are various readings in the Old and New Testament both in the Hebrew and Greek by the casuall mistake of transcribers yet in matters of no moment which by comparing ancient Copâ—es may be found out and in some cases out of ancient translations and when they are discovered the true reading may be restored Hence is inferred the uncertainty of all Divine truth that the Scriptures are corrupt c. And hence are those fears and jealousies Epist pag. 19. which how justly deducible from these or any other principles in the Prolegomena or Appendix shal hereafter appear In the mean time our Author practises what Quintilian said of some Romane Orators who did causarum vacua convitis implere and instead of Arguments loads his adversary with reproaches like that Souldier in Darius his Army mentioned by Plutarch who instead of fighting with his hands imployed his tongue in railing upon Alexander whereupon the Generall struck him with his Lance and told him he hired him to fight and not to rail Who those Protestants are that concur with the Prolegomena in those Principles the adversary is ashamed to mention though he knew they were at large cited in the Prolegomena because their very names would have spoiled his whole project and make his charge appear a meere calumny They are no other concerning the novelty of the Hebrew punctation than Luther Zuinglius Brentius Pellican Oecolampadius Calvine Beza Musculus Paulus Fagius Mercer Cameron Chamier Piscator Scaliger Casaubon De Dieu Grotius Capellus Erpenius Sixtinus Amama Salmasius Schickard Martinius also Rivet Spanhemius Fest Hommius as appears by their Epistles to Capel in his Defensio Criticae c. and amongst our selves Archbishop Vsher Bishop Prideaux Mr. Selden Mr. Mead Mr. Eyres and many others not to name those now living the most eminent Divines that have appeared in the Protestant cause and most zealous defenders of the purity and authority of the Original Texts or the chiefest â—inguists that this age hath produced and best skilled in the Hebrew and other Orientall learning And for that other point of various lections not onely the same men but all others generally which will believe their eies two or three excepted grant the same which the author of the Prolegomena doth and that without any prejudice to the certainty or divine authority of Scripture as is shewed at large in the Prolegomena and shall hereafter be made manifest yea our adversary himself frequently confesses the same and saith that ocular inspection makes it manifest that there are various readings both in the old Testament and the new and it s confest there have been failings in the transcribers who have often mistaken and that its impossible it should be otherwise c p. 165 191. 178. 296. whereby he makes himself evidently guilty of the crimes which he unjustly charges upon others and of those consequences which he infers on the behalf of Papists Atheists Antiscripturists c. and so overthrows that which he would seem to contend for viz. the certainty and supreme authority of Scripture and therefore I may say unto him ex ore tuo out of thy own mouth shalt thou be judged and use the words of the Apostle Rom. 2. 1. Wherefore thou art unexcusable O man that condemnest another for hereby thou condemnest
truth which he pretends to V. And though it had been the hard hap of the Prolegomena Appendix to come out when his Treatise was ready to be printed which hath procured all this trouble to himself and the Readers yet was there such a necessity of the publishing his Treatise Divers persons of great Learning and Judgement think his pains might very well have been spared and that instead of proving the Divine Authority of the Scripture he hath much weakned it and what in him lies shaken the very foundation of Religion while he rejects that main Argument to prove the Scriptures to be from God pag. 103 104. viz. the Miracles wrought by Moses and Christ the Prophets and Apostles to confirm their doctrine brought down to us by the undoubted testimony and universall tradition of the Church of Christ the most infallible and greatest of all humane testimonies and next to that which is immediatly Divine and sticks not to affirm that the Alcoran may vie miracles and traditions with the Scipture p. 105. and that there is no more reason to believe those who have received that tradition and plead they have it before and against them who professe they have no such report delivered them from their forefathers p. 108. nor have we more inducement to give credit to their assertions then to a like number of men holding out a Tradition utterly to the contrary that is why we should believe the testimony of the whole Christian Church in this point before the testimony of Jews Pagans and Mahumetanes to the contrary p. 110. And whilest he grounds all upon the inward light of the Scripture it self which though it serve to confirm the faith of believers yet in the Question how we come to know the Scriptures to be from God we know is by great and Learned Protestant Divines not allowed as a convincing argument in this case I submit it to the judgement of all men of common reason and judgment whether here be not a fair pretense for Atheists and sanaticall Antiscripturists to reject the Scripture when they find the argument from the miracles and universall tradition rejected by some and that of the inward light of the Scripture which is here said to be all the Divine evidence that God is willing to grant us or can be granted us or is any way needfull for us p. 34. and that there is no need of any further witnesse or testimony p. 56. not admitted as sufficient by others and whether they may not with more colour deduce their conclusions against the Scriptures from these assertions of his then from any thing in the Prolegomena or Appendix For where they find him affirming that there is no way to know the Scriptures to be from God but it s own light and finde this denied by Learned Divines of all sides they have some colour to conclude that there is no way at all to prove their Divine Originall and so to reject them VI. Again he writes p. 159. and 160. That in all these things it is known to all men there is no new Opinion coyned or maintained by the Prefacer to these Bibles but that all have been maintained by sundry Learned men and that if they had been kept in mens private writings he should not have thought himself or his discourse concerned in them but because they are laid as the foundation of the usefulnesse of the Bibl. Polygl and because of the authority which they may gain thereby and because as p. 152. these private Opinions as he calls them are imposed with too much advantage on the mindes of men by their constant neighbourhood unto Canonicall truth therefore he must needs appear against them Here he speaks plainly what was the true cause of these Considerations The Biblia Polyglotta are the Butt against which his Arrows are aimed and these Opinions about the Hebrew punctation and various Readings had not been considered nor meddled with but for that Work to which they were adjoyned which because it was always maligned by himself and some others of his party therefore he took occasion to quarrell with these matters that so he might bring the more obloquie upon the whole and make it the more suspected among the Vulgar VII But whereas he makes them private Opinions which now being joyned with a publike Work may pretend to publike Authority he is much deceived or else seeks to deceive his credulous Reader for how can they be private or new Opinions which have been publikely asserted in Print before either of us were born and have been and are still maintained by the chiefest and Learnedst Divines in Europe and the best skilled in Orientall Learning that have been or are at this day in the Christian World Such as we have already mentioned Cap. 1. Sect. 7. Can these Opinions be counted private which have been and are publikely asserted by men of such eminent worth or can their being mentioned before the Biblia Polyglotta procure them more credit and esteem then the venerable Names of such Great and Learned men with whom the Publisher of this Bible and those that assisted him do not think themselves fit to be named And if they might by these and others be defended in Print and disputed among Learned men why might they not be mentioned here and why might not the Publisher deliver his opinion in these things as well as others especially writing with that moderation he uses not magisterially imposing a beliefe upon any but leaving every one to his own liberty onely shewing his reasons why he judges one opinion more probable then another VIII He conceives he had a fit occasion to speak of these things in the Prolegomena to this Work for seeing the Hebrew Text is the foundation of the whole Fabrick for the Old Testament what was more proper then to speak of the Hebrew Tongue the antiquity use excellencie and preservation of it how the Text came to be pointed what the Keri and Ketib are which appear in most Hebrew Bibles and because there are various Readings both of the Old and New Testament noted in most Editions therefore to speak of various Readings whence they came out of what Copies and how to be gathered and to adde to what others have done out of some ancient and choyce MSS. or printed Copies and to shew that the certainty and authority of Scripture with the integrity of the Originall Texts is not impeached or prejudiced thereby which he asserts upon such foundations as will hold and not upon sandy grounds as his Adversary doth which will not stand not argumentis non cogentibus by which the truth is more prejudiced than by confessing the invalidity of them for when men see the weakness of them they think we have no better to rely upon and so begin to question and doubt the truth of all IX As for his fears and jealousies I say that when they are groundlesse they are not to be regarded and that they are
is no choice made no judgement used in discerning true from spurious but all differences whatsoever that could be found in any Copies printed or written are equally given out That the first observation in Lucas Brugensis printed next to this Collection rejects one of these varieties as a corruption c. I answer 1. That is altogether untrue for many differences in these Copies were left out because they appeared plainly to be errors of the Transcriber and this I can certainly affirm and therefore all differences of Copies are not here noted Secondly yet I deny not but that there may be divers remaining which may come into that number which I thought fit rather to leave to the Readers judgement then to leave out every thing which seemed so to me for that may seem to be a mistake of the Scribe to one which happily may be thought none in anothers judgment as appears in that which he saith is noted by Lucas Brugensis for a corruption which yet he knows Robertus Stephanus reckoned among various Readings and Beza thought so well of it that he preferred it before the common reading nor doth Lucas Brugensis reject it as a corruption but taxes Beza for preferring this Reading upon the authority of one Copy before the common Reading but it seems if one Reading have more reason for it then another the other must presently be a corruption in our Adversaries Logick and yet it appears that there are more Copies then one which attest this Reading we have four more which concur in it as appears in our Collection and I doubt it would trouble him to answer Beza's reasons for that Reading Thirdly it is declared more then once in the Prolegomena that every difference of a Copy is not properly a various Reading Vide Prolegom 6. Sect. 8. Scribarum errores de quibus certo constat inter varias lectiones nequaquam reforendi and therefore though the major part give the denomination to the whole and all differences in a generall sence may be called various Readings if any who have leisure and abilities shall survey them and shall plainly prove that some of them are errors of the Transcriber it shall be no offence at all to me so it be not done animo calumniandi without magisteriall imposing their conceits upon others and so that they leave to others the like liberty which they assume to themselves Neither were it incumbent on us as our Author cannot but confesse and therefore answers himself to give our judgement upon every Reading which is the best we had work enough besides and therefore those that have so much leisure to cavill and quarrell at every thing may do well to exercise their Criticall faculty herein only I wish they may have better successe then our Author hath in that Specimen of his criticall abilities about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Pet. 1. 20 21. pag. 19. 20 c. and that they would not be too forward in determining such to be corruptions which it may be wiser and learneder men judge otherwise of Fourthly to give the severall Readings of ancient Copies of note without passing any judgement of each is no new thing In what Edition of the Hebrew Bibles doth he finde any judgement upon the Keri and Ketib in particular and those other Hebrew varieties or where doth he find any thing to this purpose save what is done by Capellus in his Critica or by Buxtorf in his Bible now Printing Ar. Mont. brings divers Readings of the Greek Chaldee and Syriack which are barely recited so doth Stephanus in those which he gathered out of his sixteen Copies Junius who is thought to be the Author of the Frankf Edition of the Sept. notes divers Readings out of severall Copies but seldom gives any judgement of them And if here the Publisher had only selected some choice ones as seemed good to himself he had not left all to the Readers judgement but subjected all to his own XIX But our Author might have observed that the design of the Edition was not only to exhibit to the Reader all the ancient and chief Translations together with the Originals but also the chief Copies MS. or others of both that so in this Edition the Reader might have all or most other Editions and the best MSS. which he might consult at pleasure The particular MSS. belonging to severall Libraries either in the Vniversities or Colledges or of private persons who were great gatherers of Monuments of Antiquity have been justly accounted great treasures Who would not set a high esteem upon those Copies and MSS. here collated if he had them all in his own keeping now care is here taken that every private man may have them and use them as his own This pains I see was ill bestowed upon such as make so ill use of it as to throw the Copies like dirt in our faces and thereby take occasion to calumniate our Labours Besides though some of these differences seem small yet they may be of more use hereafter then appears at present upon the rising of new Errors and Heresies which I confesse was one reason why the fewer were left out because we could not know nor foresee what use might be made of them hereafter though they seem lesse usefull at present and therefore it was resolved to give them as they are which considering the many cautions and rules about them Prolegom 6. De variis lectionibus to stop the mouth of Calumny and prevent all just cause of offence I conceived might be justly done CHAP. VIII I. The Consequences inferred by the Adversary from the various Readings on the behalf of Atheists Papists Fanatick persons Mahumetanes II. He proves none of them III. The inconsequence shewed IV. The words of Sixt. Amama V. Of Bochartus Lud. De Dieu c. VI. Erasmus The same words used by the Friars against him which this Adversary uses against the Biblia Polyglotta VII No error or mistake is capable of cure by his rules The words of themselves VIII The Adversaries argument retorted upon himself He pleads for Papists Atheists c. grants yea urges both the Premisses onely denies the Conclusion IX That he is guilty of what he accuses others X. Various Readings give no advantage to Papists Atheists Antiscripturists or Mahumetanes as is showen in particular I. HAving gone over these particulars about various Readings I might forbear to say any thing more of that Subject of which enough is said to satisfie any rationall Reader but because our Adversary doth frequently from what is said by us and confessed by himself labour to infer certain false and pernicious Consequences against the certainty and supreme Authority of Scripture on the behalf of Atheists Papists Fanatick Antiscripturists and Mâ—hâ—metanes we shall briefly consider the force of those Consequences whether they do justly follow from any Principle by us acknowledged in the Prolegomena or Appendix Our Author sometimes seems not to be resolved of the truth of his
Consequence p. 147. he saith these various Lections do at the first view seem to intimate that the Originals are corrupt p. 159. They seem sufficient to beget scruples c. p. 156. These Prolegomena seem to impair the truth c. p. 147. Men of perverse mindes may possibly wrest these things Nay p. 206. he saith That the Prefacer doth not own those wretched Consequences Now if they do but seem sufficient and if they be wrested by men of perverse mindes then those Consequences do not necessarily follow no genuine Consequence can be said to be wrested nor will he I hope joyn with men of perverse mindes And if the Author of the Prolegomena do not own them then they ought not to be objected against him without sufficient proof of the Consequences which these Considerations do no where afford But in other places he speaks more positively p. 205. They are all directed or by just consequence owned in the Prolegomena p. 206. That no sufficient security against the lawfull deriving of them is tendered p. 161. That they are an engine fitted for the destruction of that important truth by him pleaded for and as a fit weapon put into the hands of Atheisticall men to oppose the whole evidence of truth revealed in the Scripture c. p. 207. Great and wise men of which himself is one without doubt do suppose them naturally and necessarily to flow from them And therefore p. 147. he absolutely affirms They are in brief the foundation of Mahumetanisme the chiefest and principall prop of Popery the onely pretence of Fanatick Antiscripturists and the root of much hidden Atheisme in the world II. Now we know the Rule is Aâ—â—irmanti incumbit probatio and therefore our Adversary ought to prove and make good his Consequences or else he must be accounted a false accuser yet here we do not find that he offers any thing in this kinde to prove that they do follow from any Principles in the Prolegomena but as he substitutes what he pleases in stead of his Adversaries tenent so he infers at random any thing that came into his minde whereby to make them odious to Vulgar Readers The injustice of his Charge may sufficiently appear by what is already said and therefore I shall onely recapitulate the summe of what is formerly proved re-inforcing some particulars and then shew that the Charge may be upon himself as being deeply guilty by his own confession of what he would impute unto another III. That no such Inference can be made against the certainty integrity and supreme Authority of Scripture from any thing affirmed in the Prolegomena may appear because as is at large shewed The Prolegomena do not affirm the Originall Texts to be corrupt but to be pure and authentick of supreme authority the rule of faith and life and of all Translations The various Readings of the Originall Texts do not infer the corrupting of the Text but may well stand with the purity and authority thereof That our Author affirms the same with the Prolegomena about various Readings which he frequently confesseth to be both in the Old Testament and the New And as for those various Readings out of Translations which he would not allow they are of the same nature with those which he allows out of the original copies for the Prolegomena say they are in matters of no moment contain nothing repugnant to the Analogie of saith and such are by himself allowed in the Hebrew and Greek That the most learned Protestant Divines and best skilled in the Orientall Tongues and most zealous defenders of the Originall Texts have said the same with the Prolegomena and in some things more such as Luther Calvin Beza Mercer Brentius Oecolampadius Pellican Scaliger De Dieu Sixtin Amama Archbishop Usher and in a manner all others who would never be so inconsiderate as to affirm and deny the same thing or to give back to their adversaries with one hand what they had taken from them with the other and though I have both in Prolâ—g 6. Sect. 2. and in this answer cited diverse of their words yet I shall here adde something more with their reasons against the Consequences here objected and those of such men whom he cannot in the least suspect of inclining to Rome IV. Sixtin Amama late Hebrew Professor at Froneker one who our Author in his Epist p. 9. joyns with Whitaker Reynolds Junius Chamier Amesius and others that have stopt the mouths of Romanists speaking against the Originall Texts and quenched the fire which they would put to the house of God as he expresses it This man in that excellent book call'd Antibarbarismus Biblicus which is wholy in defence of the Hebrew Text writes thus lib. 1. Haud negare ausim injuria temporum descriptorum incuria errata quaedam sphalmata in Textum Hebraicum irrepsisse Hoc autem dum admittimus authoritati Textus Hebraici nihil detrahimus manet nihilominus Textus Authenticus omnium versionum norma Afterwards he addes ex omnibus variantibus lectionibus proâ—eratur una unde vel Orthodoxae fidei vel pietati ullum detrimentum inferri possit Certe his talibus nullam intervenisse Judaeorum malitiam non tantum hinc apparet quod nullum ex illis Judaicae perfidiae patrocinium exsculpi possit sed ex eo quod fontes variarum lectionum assignari possunt inter quos primarii sunt affinitas soni vel affinitas figurae consonantis vel indifferentia sensus c. Quin illud consideratione dignum in ist is infirmitatis humanae erratis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non dormitasse vigilem providentiae divinae oculum dum cavit diligentissime ne vel minima orthodoxae fidei particula vel pietas ex eorum usu detrimentum capiat V. To him let us adde Bochartus Minister at Cane in France a man no lesse eminent for his various learning then for his zeal and piety in that admirable Work of his his Geographia sacra part 1. l. 2. c. 13. part of whose words I have formerly cited who writes thus Licet eandem scribis non tribuam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quam scriptoribus sacris non tamen inde sequitur quod nonnulli subinde oggerunt actum esse de fide salutisdoctrina in ea nihil esse certi Quis enim ferat in aliis sic arguentem In Lirii Suetonii scriptis quidam errores irrepserunt ergo in Historia Romana nihil est certi in iis quae de Hannibale aut Julio aut Augusto leguntur nutat fides Aristotelis Graeci codices alicubi sunt mendosi ergo quid ille scripscrit de rebus Philosophicis certo scire haâ—d possumus Quamvis exemplum sit valde dispar Nam multo aliter invigilavit Dei Providentia ut sacrae Scripturae codices praestaret immunes saltem in iis quae ad fidem salutem sunt absolute necessaria unde est quod ut ut
Hebraei Graeci codices variant in minutulis Sacri Textus interpretes saepe in diversa abeunt tamen in fidei capitibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 eadem ubique doctrina occurrat non jam dicam in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed in versionibus corruptissimis What could be more fully said to shew the vanity of our Authors consequence The same we may read in Lud. de Dieu a man of great learning especially in the Orientall tongues as his works proclaim Praef. in animadvers in Evangel Nec est quod quenquam turbet ea codicum lectionumque varietas quasi nihil certi haberet fides Christiana cui inniteretur nihil enim deprehendo quod fidei substantiam laederet Tantum abest ut Erasmum Camerarium Bezam viros pietate eruditione conspicuos culpare audeam quod in suis ad sacros libros not is varias lectiones observarint ut contra eos utilem operam navasse credam Here we see the same Arguments which our Adversary brings about the uncertainty of Scripture propounded and the same answer given which we have given already They shew the inconsequence of his Argument and acknowledge the great usefulnesse of gathering various Readings and further which is to be observed they do not onely allow of various Readings out of the Originall Texts but also out of Translations which they often practise themselves and sometimes prefer before the common Reading as we have shewed Proleg 6. Sect. 9. VI. I will mention one more Erasmus whom our Author names as the first and chiefest that laboured in this kind p. 189. and Epist p. 21. whose pains likewise he tells us were calumniated by some in his time He wrote indeed a whole Volume of Apologies for his severall Works and in this particular he was railed upon most by ignorant Friers who used the same words which are now taken up by this Author against us for the same thing He compared divers Copies of the new Testament to make his Edition the more perfect and severall Translations and expositions of the Ancients whereupon as appears Epist ad Henr. Bovillum they cryed out quasi protinus actum esset de Religione Christiana vociferantur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O coelum O terra corrigit hic Evangelium So here they bring in utter incertainty about all sacred truth Epist p. 25. they correct the Scripture p. 344. correct the word of God p. 180. And Annot. 1 in Leum In answer to Lee objecting the same thing he saith Ostendat nobis suo digito Lens quae sit illa lectio quam dictavit Sp. S. hanc uâ—am amplexi quicquid ab hac variat rejiciemus Quod si ille non potest ex collatione linguarum exemplarium ex lectione ex Translationibus celebrium auctorum nobiscum scrutetur quae lectio sit maxime probabilis VII If our Adversaries rule had been received that no errors can befall the Text either by malice or negligence there had never been any correct Edition made by any and if it had been thought unlawfull in any case to question the common Reading men might have spared their labour who from time to time by comparing Copies and other helps above mentioned have endevoured to make Exact Editions both of the Hebrew and Greek which we see yet was at severall times practised both by Jews and Christians Ben Ascher Ben Naphtali R. Hillel Ben Chajim Manass Ben Israel Buxtorf Arias Montanus Erasmus Steven Beza and others who altered and amended what they found by mistake had crept into the common or vulgar Copies and whose labours either by explicite or tacite consent of the Church receiving them without gainsaying have been approved and commended whereas if nothing must be amended as nothing must upon our Adversaries supposall all errors that shall happen are uncapable of cure because we must suppose there can be none and so considering that errors will now and then happen notwithstanding all possible diligence as all men even himself do grant a plain way is opened to the utter corruption and deprivation of the whole Scripture so the case will be the same with the Romane Church or the Pope to whom the Jesuites affix infallibility whereby all the errors are become incurable though never so palpable because it must be supposed they are subject to none I conclude this with that speech of Heinsius a great defender of the Originall Texts Proleg in Nov. Test serio responso haud digni sunt qui aut variasse olim in quibusdam libros aut ex iis minus emendatos cum cura restitutos negant And after Satis sit ejusmodi varietates eas esse ut vel quae necessario credenda sunt non ever tant vel quae non credenda sunt non doceant VIII But now as I have cleared the Proleg and Appendix from these consequences of the Adversary so his Argument like a piece of Ordnance overchanged recoils with full strength upon himself nor can all the Sophistry in the world free him from the Guilt which he charges upon us For he not onely grants the same Proposition which we do concerning various Readings but also grants yea urges the Consequence which Papists Atheists c. would infer thence and which not we onely but all sober men utterly deny onely he denies the Conclusion For thus the Argument runs if it be reduced into Syllogisticall Forms If there be various Readings in the Originall Texts of Scripture then the Scripture is uncertain corrupt and doubtfull and so cannot be of Supreme authority whereby way is made for Popery Atheisme c. But there are various Readings in the Originall Texts of Scripture Ergo the Scripture is uncertain and corrupt c. This Conclusion we both deny as false and impious and therefore one or both the Propositions from which it is inferred must needs be false The Minor is granted by the Author of the Prolegomena as it is also by the Author of the Considerations in the places alledged and by all men that will believe their eyes But the Major or the Consequence is denied by the Prolegomena and by all that have not joyned hands with Papists Atheists c. who do utterly deny that any such inference can be made from the various Readings but that the authority and certainty of the Scripture is still the same which the Author of the Prolegomena not only affirms but proves and gives Reasons for it and upon this he layes the weight of the cause which neither our Adversary nor all the Atheists Papists or Antiscripturists in the world are able to overthrow On the other side our Author not onely grants the Minor because it is evident to sence but grants the Major too yea he urges the consequence all along in these Considerations with much earnestnesse and vehemency which all sober Christians abhor and deny Now let all men judge who is guilty of this wretched Conclusion he that grants the Proposition
a more Christian practice for him to shew the Inconsequence of such Conclusions from such Premisses as are confessed by himself then to play fast and loose or to calumniate them who granting what cannot be denied no not by himself do yet uphold the Authority of the Scripture and labour to prove that no such things do follow as are by such men surmized XIII His uncharitable intimation as if the design of the Publisher of the various Readings were to return to Rome again to an infallible Judge reflects upon the chief defenders of the Protestant Profession against the Errors of Rome and the Supposition is as true as the Position in that flower of his discourse twice repeated p. 161. and 282. Hoc Ithacus velit if the rest of the verse magno mercentur Atreidae be added to it It is well known that the Author of the Prolegomena when he kept his Act pro Gradu at Cambridge about twenty years ago maintained this Question Pontifex Romanus non est judex infallibilis in controversiis fidei And he professeth himself to be still of the same Judgement and to be rather more confirmed in that perswasion then any way doubtfull of it And what news can we expect from Rome concerning these various Readings when the same thing is not new with them as appears by the Notes of Lucas Brugensis Nobilius and others which far exceed in bulk any thing that we have done and wherein more MSS. were used which labours of theirs have ever been of high esteem among the Learnedst Protestants as well as those of their own party And how can they justly object these various Readings against us when far more have been observed by themselves in the Vulgar Latine which yet they will not have to derogate from its supreme Authority XIV For his Atheists I wish he had considered better his own doctrine p. 88. 104. 108. 110. c. whether the taking away of one chief Argument to demonstrate the Divine Originall of Scripture against Atheists andVnbelievers viz. The miracles wrought for confirmation of the doctrine brought down and witnessed to us by the Vniversall tradition of the Church of Christ and the affirming that we have no more reason to believe there were any such miracles upon the tradition of the Church of Christ then we have to believe those who deny they have any such tradition that is Jews Pagans and Mahumetanes and that the Alcoran may upon this ground vi◠with the Christian Church Whether the affirming these things gives not more advantage to Atheists then to affirm that there are various Readings in Scripture in matters that do not concern Faith or Salvation nor in any thing of weight by the casuall mistakes of Transcribers This I am sure gives no advantage in the least and if Atheists will pervert and abuse the truth upon such Principles why will our Author who would not be reckoned amongst them put them in minde of such advantages and not rather leave the urging of them to Hobbs and his fellows Let him remember what Sixt. Amama hath written against this Antibar lib. 1. which I know he hath read Prolegom 6. Sect. 5. Qui ne minimas a Textu originario variationes dari posse defendunt in laqueos nodos inexplicabiles se involvunt simulque impiis prophanis hominibus quorum haec aetas feracissima se ridendos praebent qui facile observent in libris Regum Chronicorum alibi quaedam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut in 2 Reg. 22. 8. collato cum 2 Chron. 22. 3. de aetate Ahaziae filii Joram unde colligunt nullam esse in sacris literis certitudinē nec iisdem fidem adhibendam Quibus facile as obstruitur cum haec ex variante codicum lectione non ex ipso textu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oriri dicimus unde consequentia illa nullum habet robur XV. The like may be said for his Fanatick Antiscripturists The certainty and divine authority of Scripture hath been made good notwithstanding such various Readings and therefore no just ground can be hence gathered of rejecting the Scriptures He tells us of a Treatise written by some body who upon such Principles rejects the whole Scriptures as uselesse I can say nothing of the book which I have not seen nor known upon what Principles it proceeds if our Author think his Arguments to be good let him produce them and I doubt not but they will be quickly answered In the mean time he may please to consider whether he that rejects all other proofs for the Divine Originall of Scripture and relies onely upon its own light and self-evidence which is denied in this case to be sufficient by many Learned Protestants do not give greater occasion to those who bragg of their new Lights and daily increase amongst us to reject all Scripture as uselesse then he that allows such various Readings in the Scripture as we have declared And whether the levelling of all discipline and order of Government in the Church and leaving every man to follow his own fancie against both Old and New Testament which tell us That they should seek the Law at the Priests mouth and that they who will not hear the Church are to be accounted as Publicans and Heathens have not made way to those Antiscripturists Familists and other Sectaries which swarm among us and like the Locusts that came out of the bottomless pit have overspread the land and darkened the Sun XVI Lastly for Mahumetanisme It is true Mahomet accuseth the Jews of corrupting the Old Testament and the Christians for corrupting the New and saith that he was sent of God to reform all Surat 4. 5. 11. and some of his followers pretend that there was something altered in Joh. 14. about the Comforter which Christ promised to send as if there had been something in that place foretold of Mahomet which the Christians have razed out and corrupted But doth our Author believe that any various Readings gathered out of any MSS. or Printed Copies or ancient Translations do intimate any such thing of Mahomet or favour any part of his impious doctrine I am sory to see any man so transported as to urge such things which must reflect upon the most eminent Divines and chief Lights of the Church in this or former ages yea upon himself in a high measure who affirms the same about various Readings which those do against whom he makes this inference CHAP. IX I. The Occasion pretended of this invective against the Translators of the Biblia Polyglotta II. His mistakes about the Arabick The Publisher of the Arabick the same with the Publisher of the Biblia Polyglotta III. IV. The Adversary misreports Mr. Pococks Preface His contradictions V. VI The Syriack vindicated from his aspersions The antiquity of it proved VII His carping at the Cambridge Copie VIII The Samaritane Pentateuch vindicated IX X. XI His Parodoxes about the Samaritane Pentateuch XII Set forms of
they are still in those Eastern Churches planted by the Apostles and their Successors in Asia and Africk from the first times of their conversion so that what these men would exterminate as Romish and Antichristian Novelties have been antiently used by those famous and flourishing Churches which never professed subjection to the See of Rome Hinc illae lachrymae This is that Cordolium of our Novellists the practice of the universall Church of Christ all the world over which condemns their innovations which Argument is of more force with considering men then all the acute arguments drawn onely from strength of reason For to condemn the practice of the Church of Christ in all parts of the world constantly observed in all ages is insolentissima insania as Saint Augustine long since These things with some other ancient rites appear in the Syriack Arabick Aethiopick c. which I doubt were as great motes in our Authors eye which made him so willing to quarrel with the Translations and to cavil without a cause and thus I have briefly run over his invective against the Translations intreating the Reader for more full satisfaction to consult the Prolegomena themselves and by these Specimina which we have given of his candor and love of truth to judge of the rest of his Discourse And thus we have done with the main Charge the principal Subject of his Book the Various Readings and the Corruptions of the Originalls which he would thereupon infer I shall proceed now more briefly to that other principall Charge concerning the Punctation of the Hebrew Text after which we shall adde something about the ancient Hebrew Characters and of the use of the Septuagint Translation towards the Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue and so put an end to the Readers trouble and our own for the present CHAP. X. I. The Controversie of the Hebrew punctation by whom handled II. The Charge against the Prolegomena III. No new thing delivered in the Prolegomena about points nor any thing prejudiciall to the certainty and authority of the Hebrew Text. IV. V. That the Hebrews alwayes had vowels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proved The vowels excluded from the letters by late Grammarians against reason VI. The Masorites did not point the Text as they pleased but according to the true and common reading The true reading depends not upon their authority VII VIII A main Objection answered That they might certainly point the Text after the language ceased to be vulgar IX The certain Reading of the Text by diligent practice and use attainable without points proved by example X. In words unpointed dubious in themselves the ambiguity is taken away as they are part of a sentence and by custome or use proved by the Talmuds and Rabbinicall Writers The new Testament at first had no accents or notes of distinction c. The Chaldee Paraphrase Syriack Arabick had no points at first XI What is affirmed in the Biblia Polyglotta about this Controversie XII The first occasion of this Controversie about points handled XIII XIV Elias Lev. not the first broacher of the novelty of points XV. XVI XVII Diverse both Iews and Christians held the same opinion long before Elias XVIII Elias his pretended aim XIX The seeming advantage given to Papists no ground to maintain an untruth I. COncerning the Points whereby the Hebrew vowels and accents are now signified and distinguished whether they be coaeve with the Language it self or of the same antiquity and Originall with the Text either affixed by Moses as some say or by Ezra and the great Synagogue as others or whether they were invented by some Rabbins after those times to facilitate the reading and prevent the errors which might arise from the ambiguity of some words hath been long disputed by divers by Elias Levita chiefly among the Jews among Protestants also and Romanists and amongst the former by Jos Scaliger Drusius Sixtin Amama D. Prideaux Sect. 12. and others but most largely by Buxtorf both Father and Son and by Lud. Capellus by the Father in his Hebrew Grammar and by Capellus in his Arcanum punctationis revelatum Printed by Erpenius at Leyden anno 1614. and by Buxtorf the Son in his answer to Capellus The chief arguments on both sides are collected and with addition of some others presented Prolegom 3. Sect. 38. to 56. What is charged in the Considerations upon the Prolegomena in this matter we have in part set forth Chap. 3. in some particulars and opposite thereto what is asserted in the Prolegomena We shall now more fully discusse what is charged or objected in the one and what is granted or denyed in the other not that I intend to handle the Controversie at large which would be actum agere and make this short reply swell into a great Volume but as our Author saith he would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 briefly consider the heads of things so I shall briefly take notice of his Considerations II. In his Epist pag. 19. he saith That the solemn Espousall of the opinion of the novelty of the Hebrew punctation in the Biblia Polyglotta was one chiefe occasion of this Consideration The opinion which he opposes is by him in severall places declared pag. 157. That the Hebrew points or vowels and accents are a novell invention of some Judaicall Rabbins about five or six hundred years after the giving out of the Gospel and p. 205. That the points or vowels and accents are a late invention of the Tiberian Masorites long after sundry Translations were extant in the world Their arbitrary invention p. 208. c. 4. in the contents and p. 217 218. p. 293. the arbitrary inventions of some Jews and that it is lawfull for us to change them at pleasure p. 250. 258. 217 218. Hence he deduces these Consequences pag. 157. That the agreement of those Translations before the supposed invention of the points with the Originall cannot by just consequence be tried by the present Text as now pointed and accented And that the whole credit of our reading and interpretation of the Sripture as far as regulated by the present punctation depends solely on the faithfulnesse and skill of those Jews whose invention this is asserted to be This is one of those two Principles which being granted there is no other way to be delivered from utter incertainty in and about all sacred truth Epist p. 25. That all things are hereby made doubtfull in Scripture so that no certain truth can be learned from the Scriptures p. 211. yea they not onely make doubtfull the Authority of the Scriptures but wholly pluck it up by the roots pag. 213. And therefore he had rather that this Work of the Biblia Polyglotta and all Works of the like kidne were out of the world then that this one opinion should be received with the Consequences that unavoydably attend it Those Consequences are Epist pag. 9. We must either turn Papists or Atheists pag. 19. He dare not mention the desperate
Consequences that attend this imagination pag. 161. Either the pretended infallible Judge or the depth of Atheisme will be found to lye at the door of these Considerations c. III. One would think by these passages that the Prolegomena had delivered some strange and dangerous opinion never heard of before which overthrows all certainty and by Consequence all Authority of Scripture whereas it is there proved and shall now be made appear that the same doctrine of the Originall of points was delivered by the greatest Reformers the most Eminent Protestant Divines both at the begining of the Reformation and since and the best skilled in Eastern Learning which then were or at this day are in the Christian world and the greatest Patrons of the integrity of the Hebrew Text. And that as the same is by the Prolegomena maintained there is no prejudice at all arising to the certainty of the Hebrew Text. For we neither affirm that the vowels and accents were invented by the Masorites but that the Hebrew Tongue did always consist of vowels and consonants Aleph Vau and Jod were the vowels before the points were invented as they were also in the Syriack Arabick and other Eastern Tongues nor that these points which are now used for vowels and accents were the arbitrary invention of the Masorites but that they pointed the Text according to the true and received Reading and not as they pleased nor that it is lawfull for any to reject their Reading at pleasure but that all are tyed to it unlesse some error or better reading can be clearly proved nor that the Authority of the reading depends upon the Masorites but that they pointed it according to the received Reading which expressed the true sence of the Holy Ghost so that the Controversie is onely about the present points in regard of their forms not of their force and signification which D. Prideaux well expresses Sect. 12. Sect. 4. Controversia non est de vocalium sono seâ— signis an ista fuerint ab initio qualia nunc habemus and Sect. 3. De sonis sive rebus substractis lis non est sed de figuris characteribus c. In which it is true the Author of the Prolegomena denyes the Antiquity or Divine Originall of the present points wherein as I said he hath the concurrent judgement of the Learnedst Protestant Divines and ablest Linguists and maintains that they were long after the time of Esdras yea about five hundred years after Christ yet herein he writes with that moderation that he leaves every man liberty to judge as he pleaseth onely propounds what seemed to him most probable IV. First then for the true stating of the Controversie which our Author wholly neglects we must distinguish between the vowels and accents in regard of their sound and signification and the points and figures whereby they are now signified or expressed for it is frequently acknowledged in the Prolegomena that the Hebrew as all other Languages consists of consonants and vowels and that it hath its accents or tones though not alwayes noted by points in every word as they are now Thus Drusius de recta lectione Linguae sanctae cap. 4. distinguishes Vocalium soni literis coaevi sunt figurae vero posteriores post Hieronymi aetatem So doth Chamier Panstrat lib. 12. cap. 4. n. 5. where he writes Vocales quoad sonos semper fuisse de picturis vero se nolle cum ullo contendere num posse concedi codices antiquitus non fuisse punctatos so also D. Prideaux in the place now alledged Sect. 12. as most term it vowels do as it were animate all words and are as the soul to the body whereupon they are called vocales à voce because by the help of vowels articulate words are pronounced This is largely proved Prolegom 3. Sect. 49. c. where it is also shewed that the ancient Hebrew vowels were the same before the invention of points which are in all other Eastern Tongues as the Chaldee Syriack Arabick c. viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are yet commonly called matres lectionis because they direct the reading in Books not pointed to which some adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and St. Hierom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Grammarians indeed make them all consonants and exclude the vowels out of the number of letters that they may make way for the points but against all reason and common sence For the Hebrews have as many letters as other Nations for as is shewed Prolegom 2. Other Nations as the Assyrians Greeks c. received their letters originally from them as by their names and order of the Alphabet appears and therefore I see no reason why the Hebrews could not express all their words by these twenty two letters as well as other Nations Certainly the Hebrew Alphabet must be very defective if it have no vowels which are the chief letters without which no letters can be pronounced This would make an Alphabet of such letters as could not at all be pronounced which were most absurd for as Morinus saith quod est sua natura vocalissimum per quod caetera redduntur vocalia esset mutum By the help of these letters Origen exprest all the Hebrew Text in Greek letters in his Hexapla The like hath St. Hierome and diverse others of the Ancients done when they express some Hebrew words or verses in Greeke or Latine letters and why could not Moses and the Prophets doe the like as the Jewes doe at this day when they expresse the words of other Nations Latine Italian Spanish c. in Hebr. letters without points V. Out of Origen we have some reliques left in that ancient Greek MS. of Cardinall Barberines of the Minor Prophets which collated with the Roman LXX I have printed in the Appendix and have produced some verses viz. Hos 3. 2. 11. 1. In Proleg 3. sect 49. as a specimen how Orig. expressed the Heb. Text in Greek letters by which it appears that Jod served for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aleph for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vau for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ain for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Josephus l. 6. de bello Jud. cals the letters of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foure vowels for by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he understands vowels in opposition to consonants called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So St. Hier. frequently as is observed by Gerhard Vossius de Arte Gram. l. 1. c. 27. and others Verum est quidem hodie vocales in iis quiescere at olim pro vocalibus fuisse testatur Hieron qui â—as vocales appellat Epist 145. Docet pro Hosianna dici Hosanna media vocali illisa quia ab Aleph excluditur Jod Here it is evident he reckons Aleph and Jod among vowels And Epist
ad Evagr. Referre negat utrum dicamus salim which is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Jod an salem which is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Jod hanc causam reddit quod vocalibus in medio literis raro utuntur Judaei Here it 's plaine he calls Jod a vowell Idem tradit Heb. Gen. 13. dicit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scribi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ablata 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 litera quae apud Hebraeos pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legitur More to this purpose is alledged in the same place to which I know not what can be answered it being as clear as if it were written by a beame of the Sun that Hierome reckoned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for vowels So Zuinglius misprinted Zuinger in the Proleg praef in Esaiam Vocalibus nunquam caruit illa lingua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 enim a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o u nunquam eis defuerunt c. Beza de recta ling. Graec. pronunc non dubito quin ante puncta vocalia ab Hebraeis Grammaticis divinissimo certe invento excogitata quod post Hieron aetatem contigit Aleph idem prorsus illis atque caeteris gentibus sonuerit This and a great deale more those that please may read in those Proleg all which our Author well knew but was pleased to passe over in silence as knowing it would overthrow one part of the foundation whereupon that fabulous opinion of the antiquity of Points is built and therefore for information of the Reader I have here transcribed In the same place the reason is given why the Hebrews more frequently omit the vowels in the midst of words then in the beginning or end Vnde haec consuetudo Hebraeis vocales in mediis vocibus omittendi plerumque cum initio fine sapius not semper as it is misprinted adhibeantur which the Reader may finde Proleg 3. sect 50. Notwithstanding all this which our Author had read in the Prolegomena he sticks not to bring the same words which we have mentioned out of Hierome to prove that pointed vowels were known to Hierom. Epist 126. Nec refert utrum salem an salim nominetur cum vocalibus in medio literis perraro utantur Hebraei whence he observes p. 285. that the Hebrews had the use of vowels or else he cannot understand his words for if they did it perraro they did it sometimes He did not or rather he would not understand his words for he could not but know that by vowels Hierome meant not the moderne points but the ancient vowels then in use I would gladly know of him how salim and salem are written in Hebrew whether salim be not with Jod and salem without it and then whether in that place Hierome could meane any thing but Jod by vocalis media For the vowels which the Hebrewes used in St. Hieroms time they used perraro very seldome in the middle of words and most frequently in the beginning and end And so its true they used those vocales literae which were the matres lectionis but the puncta vocalia the vowels now used in our Bibles are used more frequently in the middle seldome in the end and never in the beginning of a word no nor of a syllable for consona semper syllabam inchoat Therefore not the puncta vocalia but the literae vocales were the onely vowels in St. Hieroms time And consequently our Considerator by his owne confession cannot understand St. Hieroms words Besides if our present points had been then in use there had been then no place left for different pronunciation either pro voluntate lectorum or pro varietate regionum as Hierome affirmes of those vowels he meant in the same place VI. It is also to be noted which is often in the Proleg asserted that when we say the Masorites were the authors of the points that they affixed them not pro arbitrio as they pleased or made what reading they thought fit but that they pointed them generally according to the true and accustomed reading which they had received as the true sence and meaning of the holy Ghost from their Ancestors continued from Moses and the Prophets I say generally for as appears in the precedent Section in the words cited out of Origens Hexapla which also may appeare out of the LXX Hierome and others that were before the Masorites they pronounced some letters and vowels otherwise then the Masorites have now pointed them See Hier. ad Euagr. transcribing Gen. 14. 18 19 20. into Latine letters where we may find some of them differing from the present pronunciation The letters Begadchephat were not pronounced according to our present rules as is clearly proved out of Hierome and the LXX in the Proleg Yet though the sound and pronunciation did sometimes differ the signification of the words and the sence and meaning of the holy Ghost ought to be the same as in those places out of Origen and Hierome Or if the sence be differing yet there want not rules to try which is the best reading mentioned Proleg 6. However the pointing was not arbitrary nor doth the true reading depend upon the Masorites For as it is said Proleg 3. Sect. 51. Notandum Masorethas dum puncta invenerunt non novos vocalium sonos vel pronunciationem novam induxisse sed juxta consuetudinem sibi traditam libros sacros punctasse ideoque lectionem non ab iis pendere licet ipsi apices excogitarint nec ideo lectionem esse veram quia est a Masorethis sed quia verum Sp. S. sensum exprimit quemque Scriptoribus sacris dictavit per eos literis consignavit Non enim punctarunt codices pro arbitrio sed secundum veram receptam lectionem quam diligenter poterant puncta apposuere c. And this our Author himselfe grants pa. 250. where he saith that Elias Levita who makes the Tyberian Masorites the authors of the points tyes all as strictly to the reading by points as if they had been by Ezra and left it not to be altered at every mans pleasure All which is said in the Proleg which deny that the Masorites at pleasure pointed the Text and which necessarily follows that it 's lawfull for any whatsoever to alter the reading at pleasure which as it proves the charge of our Author to be groundlesse so it takes away his maine arguments against the novelty of the points viz. That the reading would depend upon the authority of the Rabbins and that it would be altogether uncertaine and so the authority of the Scriptures would be taken away For both these are altogether vaine and groundlesse supposing that the Masorites did not point the words pro arbitrio but were tyed to the common received reading which they expressed by their punctation for the Text was generally so read by the Christian
Rabbins I shall not need to go further for answer then the Objectors own words after a few pages when his heat was something allayed p. 251. That yet they were men still who were full able to declare what defect they found to be so and what they sound to be otherwise and that it cannot be thought reasonable that so many men living in so many severall ages at such vast distance one from another who some of them it may be never heard of some of the names of others some of them should conspire to couzen themselves and all the world besides in a matter of fact nothing at all to their advantage I apply it thus That notwithstanding all that is said against them yet they were able to declare de facto the Reading of the Text received and continued amongst them and that it cannot be imagined they should devise any other or new Reading which should be received by all that lived in so many severall ages and at such vast distances and should conspire together to couzen themselves and all the world in a matter of fact tending nothing at all to their advantage Thus we see the same hand pulling down in one page what it had set up in another For if they might be meet witnesses for the Divine Originall of points as he affirms notwithstanding what is said against them why might they not also be meet witnesses in testifying and declaring the common and received Reading then in use and in expressing it by their punctation XVI I may adde that notwithstanding all that is said of them they were most zealous in their greatest Apostasie and Infidelity about the letter of the Law and the true reading of it even to superstition and so continue they did never hâ—â—rere in cortice more then since their rejection by God And though generally they be men of no great Learning in other matters yet about the reading of the Law and right pronouncing of it and the knowledge of every tittle they were diligent even to admiration and accounted it a great part of their Learning that they could so exactly read the Law and teach others to read it Lastly for the Tiberian Masorites though it be not much materiall by whom or when the points were fixed or at what place they lived so it be granted they were not of Divine Originall nor known till after the Talmud yet notwithstanding our Authors Declamation it is most probable that the Tiberian Masorites were the first Inventers and more probable then any thing by him said to the contrary nay though he denyes that ever there were any such men in rerum natura â—s we have seen already p. 243. yet forgetting what he hath said and contradicting himself as is usuall he tells us p. 223. that there was formerly a School of the Jews and Learned men famous at Tiberias is granted and p. 240 The Tiberian Masorites the supposed Inventers of thâ— points were men living after the finishing of the last Talmud And p. 271. he cites and approves that saying of Azarias who ascribes the restauration of the points to their use after they had been disused to the Tiberian Masorites and pag. 270. That by receiving the punctation from the Tiberians the continuation of it in that School not the invention of it is intended by Abenezra so that it seems That these Tiberian Masorites who never were in rerum natura and lieved no man knows where nor when are found out at last to have had a School at Tiberias and to have continued and restored the punctation there though they invented it not CHAP. XII I The Consequences inferred from the novelty of punctation not proved at all but taken as granted by the Adversary II. His false suppositions III In stead of Reasons his earnest wishes of taking the points out of the Bible The accents c. out of the New Testament IV. The Consequences of the uncertainty c. cannot be proved by the Adversary nor by any Papists Atheists c. V. A challenge to them all to prove their Consequences from the novelty of the punctation as stated in the Prolegomena VI. The Adversary proved guilty of the said Consequences I. I Should now come to the Consequences which our Author would infer from our opinion about the points viz. That if they they were invented and fixed to the Text by the Masorites then the reading and sence of the Scripture becomes uncertain and arbitrary and the supreme authority thereof in all matters of faith and life is quite overthrown and we must depend either upon the fidelity and diligence of the Rabbins for the true reading and sence of the Scripture or flie to an infallible Judge and turn Papists or else turn plain Atheists or Fanatick Antiscripturists by rejecting the Scripture altogether These are his inferences pag. 147. 161. and Epist p. 9. and 25. But the invalidity of this Argument is already shewed at large in what we have premised in the foregoing Chapter as also Prolegom 3. Sect. 5. 31. for it is proved that the reading and sence is the same before and after the punctation and not any way depending upon the authority of the Rabbins or of the Church or of an infallible Judge For supposing what we have already proved 1. That the Hebrew Tongue never wanted its vowels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were used as vowels before the invention of points as in other Eastern Languages and that where they were wanting the connexion of the words with the antecedents and consequents together with the continued custom and use did determine the sence and make the Text as it is now and free from ambiguity 2. That the Rabbins did not point the Text pro arbitrio as they pleased but according as the true and usuall reading continued alwayes among them and derived from the sacred Penmen and that it is not lawfull now for any to alter or reject the present reading at pleasure unlesse a better reading can be clearly proved or that some Error hath crept in contrary to the ancient reading all these Consequences vanish to nothing II. Now for proof of these consequences our Author brings nothing though affirmanti incumbit probatio but takes these things for granted which the Prolegomena do utterly deny as altogether false and untrue viz. 1. That there are no vowels among the Hebrew twenty two Letters and so that the Hebrew had no vowels before the invention of points 2. That the Masorites did point the Text as they pleased and so that the reading according to the present punctation depends meerly upon the skill and fidelity of those Rabbins 3. That it is lawfull for any to alter the reading at pleasure and to accept or reject the points as no part of the Text. 4. That it was not possible to continue the true reading and sence of the Text after the Language ceased to be vulgar without the points all which are so many mistakes and not only rejected by the
spoile his whole designe and wipe off all his imputations of making the Scripture uncertain or introducing of Popery Atheisme c. They are Calvin in Zach. 11. 7. Luther ad finem libri Schem Ham. Zuinglius praef in Esaiam Pellican praef in Pentat P. Phagius whom our Adversary reckons and that justly among the restorers of the Heb. tongue and calls one of the Patriarchs and Fathers of that Learning Epist p. 15. ad Targum Gen. 47. 24. Mercer the oracle of his times for Hebrew learning and one of exact judgement too in other learning which two as some observe seldome meet in one subject in Genes 16. 13. 18. 3. and Job 26. 6. and Amos 2. 12. Annot. in Targ. Mal. 2. Beza lib. de recta pronunciat ling. Graec. Edit an 1587. Piscator Schol. ad Gen. 15. 8. Chamier Panstrat lib. 4. c. 12. n. 15. Voslius de Arte Gram. lib. 1. c. 31. Et. lib. 2. c 8. Drusius ad loca difficil Pent. c. 25. Et de recta lect linguae sanctae c. 4. Martinius Technol Lud. de Dicu Gram. lib. 1. c. 7. Schindler frequently in his Lex Pentaglot I will adde the words of some Jos Scaliger a man admired by most Epist 243. which is to Buxtorf the Father writes thus De Apicibus vocalibus Hebraeorum tam mihi constat rem novam esse quam eos falli qui natos una cum lingua putant quo nihil stultius dici potuit aut cogitari Quis enim negat Arabismi puncta recens esse inventum id est multis annis post obitum impostoris Mahometis Hodie tamen pueri Turcarum Arabum Persarum omnium denique Mahumedanorum sine punctis legere discâ—nt Eodem modo Samaritani Judaei sine ullis punctis in synagogis suis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legunt c. The noble Grotius was no whit inferiour to Scaliger in any kind of learning who writes thus in Matth. 5. 18. Libros veteris etiam post Esâ—ram sine punctis vocalibus scribi solitos quod ita perspicuis argumentisâ— Ã viris harum rerum doctissimis demonstratum est ut id amplius inficiari non nisi pertinacium sit Schickard a man much versed in all Jewish and Rabbinicall learning one who was at first a stout defender of the points strenuiu licet primo punctorum patronus for so the words should be Prolegom 3. Sect. 50. Yet afterwards when he was of a riper judgement speaking of the points and accents lib. 2. de jure Regio Hebraeorum p. 41. saith Quod nil tale uspiam appareat in antiquis libris Judaeorum valde miratur superesse qui vocalium antiquitatem serio credunt For he thinks non serio sed ad ostendendam eruditionem Rabbinicam vel aciem ingenii vel contradicendi studio ita scripsisse c. We see these Learned men do not speak doubtfully in this point but peremptorily as if the matter were now so cleared that there is no further place for contradiction To these I may adde Is Casaubon Erpenius Sixtin Amama Mayer Arnold Bootius a bitter enemy of Capellus his Critica Spanhemius Rivet Festus Hommius Colterius c. as appeareth by their Epistles to Capellus Amongst our selves I could name those of chief account for Eastern Learning now living publike Professors and others whose names I forbear lest the Adversary in his next Invective should fall upon them as rudely as he hath done upon the Author of the Prolegomena yet some I shall not conceal who are out of his reach the Reverend and Learned Vsher and Mr. Selden both whom I have often heard declare themselves for this Opinion D. Prideaux Lect. 12. in Vesper Comit. 1627. who mentions also three more sometimes of that Vniversity Sect. 4. qui in istis studiis versatissimi Rob. Wakefieldus Jacobus Capellus Sixtin ab Amama qui tres ultimi saith he superiores duas sententias de punctorum antiquitate summa cum â—ruditione acumine conati sunt refellere I might adde others as M. Mead M Eyres late Prebend of Ely c. This Argument though inartificiall yet of great weight our Author touches not because he would have it believed that the Opinion is singular and maintained by a few and that the generality of Learned men in these matters are not infected as he saith with this leaven III. As he leaves out the first so he wholly omits the last and yet he would have you believe that he propounds and answers all the Arguments in the Prolegomena p. 260. Of what weight it is and whether it admits any answer let the Reader judge It is laid down Sect. 48. And it is taken from the other Oriental Tongues which have greatest affinity with the Hebrew as the Arabick Chaldee Syriack Samaritane c. none of which at first had points nor hath the Samaritane any yet The Alcoran was at first written without points as is proved by Golius and others the chief Professors of that Language The like is confessed of the Syriack Chaldee Paraphrase and is so clear for the Samaritane that scarce any but our Author will affirm the contrary The Persians have scarce got the use of points as yet though some of late have begun to make rules of punctation for that Language In all these Languages they have the same letters which of old stood for vowels in the Hebrew nor have they in the Arabick that copious Language since the invention of points any more then three which serve for all vowels Phatha Damma and Kesra by which with a few generall rules and use they read distinctly and pronounce all the five vowels By those three letters which answer to Aleph Jod and Vau before any points were used in any of the Languages they could distinctly read and understand their Translations of the Bible and their other books and attain the sence without ambiguity and uncertainty and none ever doubted but that the Chaldee Paraphrase of Onkelus and Jonathan written about our Saviours time the ancient Translation of the Syriack written in the first or second Century after Christ as also the Alcoran among the Mahumetanes were read at first as they are now though not with so much facility and yet it is certain that the points were added to them all after the invention of the Hebrew points yea though points be now added to them all except the Samaritane yet neither that nor the Arabick or Syriack have yet any notes at all of accents and yet those that are skilled in those Languages know where the accent ought to be in every word and syllable though no note be affixed as we see in the Latine and in all other Vulgar Languages English Dutch French c. And in the Greek it is further shewed Sect. 45. out of ancient MSS. as also out of Aristotle St. Hierome and old inscriptions that the Greek anciently had no accents Angel Politian Miscel c. 58. and 80. mentions some verses of the Sibyls