Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	authority_n	church_n	infallible_a	2,008	5	9.8493	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97086	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 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.	Walton, Brian, 1600-1661.	1659 (1659)	Wing W657; Thomason E1860_1; ESTC R204072	144,833	308

Church as it is now as appears both by the Hebrew Copies among them and by the Comments and Expositions and Translations of the ancient Writers of the Church The reading and Expositions therefore of Christians are not regulated by the Masorites or depend upon their skill and diligence in punctation for if their punctation had never been the reading had been the same it is Nor doe these rely upon the Masorites but upon the Text it selfe and the true reading of it continued and preserved in the Church of Christ which because the Masorites had well expressed by their points the Christian Church received their punctation not upon their authority but as I said because it expressed the true sense received in the Church of God and withal because they saw it conduced much to the more easie reading of the Text. VII Against this we have a maine objection pag. 292 293. That while the Hebrew language was the vulgar tongue of that Nation and was spoken by every one uniformaly every where it had been possibly upon a supposition that there were no points that men without infallible guidance direction might affix notes and figures which might with some exactness answer the common pronunciation of that language and so consequently exhibit the true proper sence and meaning of the words themselves But when there had beene an interruption of 1000 years in the vulgar use of that language and being preserved onely pure in our books to suppose that the true and exact pronunciation of every letter tittle and syllable was preserved alive by orall Tradition not written any where nor commonly spoken is to build Castles in the ayre After he saith that the reliefe is insufficient to say the Masorites affixed not the present punctation arbitrarily but according to the tradition they had received What weight is to be laid upon such a tradition for neere 1000. yeares above according to Morinus is easie to be imagined Nor let men please themselves with the pretended facility of learning the Hebrew Language without points and accents and not onely the Language but the true and proper reading and distinction of the Bible let the points accents be wholly removed and the restraint and distinction of the words as now pointed and then turne in the drove of the learned Criticks of this age upon the noted Consonants and we shall quickly see what wofull worke yea havock of the sacred Truth will be made among them were they shut up in severall Cells I should hardly expect that harmony and agreement among them which is fabulously reported to have been among the LXX in the like case VIII To this we answer 1. That though the Language ceased to be Vulgar for 1000. yeares yet there was still a succession of Priests and Scribes and other learned men who continued the knowledge of the Language and the true reading and pronunciation of the Text and do to this day with whom the Language was the same as it was when the common people spoke it and their study and profession was to write out copies of the Law and likewise to read and expound it or to teach the reading and true pronnnciation of it to others which they did successively from age to age as we see in the Greek and Latine which have a long time ceased to be vulgar and yet the knowledge of the tongues and the true reading and pronunciation is the same among learned men as it was when they were vulgar This was a great part of the Jewish learning the true reading of the Text and they who were most accurate and exact therein were honoured most among them and had their Schools and their Schollars and Disciples whom they instructed from time to time till at length in regard of their many dispersions and banishments that the true reading might not be lost with the language they began to affix points to the Text as well to facilitate the reading as to preserve it the better from any alteration or change And therefore it was all one to them who still preserved the true reading and sence of the Scripture to point and accent it as it was whilst the common people spake and understood it as well as they and therefore upon this concession that whilst the Language was vulgar the points and accents might have been affixed with certainty it follows undeniably that even in the time of the Tiberian Masorites the Rabbins and learned men among the Jewes might point the Bible as well as their Predecessors might have done whilst the Language was common This is a cleer truth to any common understanding and not to build Castles in the ayre 2. The true reading was not continued by orall or unwritten Tradition after the tongue ceased to be vulgar but by the Written Text which was alwayes preserved entire among them and the reading depended not upon Tradition otherwise then the reading of all Books in other Languages which depends upon the orall instruction of Masters and Teachers without which continued from hand to hand how could any know that such a letter or character stands for such a sound or that such a word hath such a signification The Samaritane Pentateuch Chaldean Paraphrase of the Pentateuch and Prophets and the Syriack Translation of the Bible continued above a thousand years before they were pointed and the Samaritan is not yet pointed as is certainly known confest by all which shews plainly how the Hebr. Text might be continued and the true reading preserved without pointing unless our Author can shew any difference as to this matter between the Languages For they have the same letters the same vowels Aleph Vau Jod with the Hebrew and the reading in every respect subject to as much ambiguity and uncertainty as is pretented to be in the Hebrew unpointed And that the true reading might be preserved above a thousand yeares is not against all reason but very reasonable to suppose since we see the ●ame done in the Samaritane Syriack and Chaldee for a longer time and the same may be said of the Arabick though not for so long a time after the Alcoran was written IX 3. The certain reading of the Text by diligent practice and use may be attained without points though with more difficulty then if it were pointed as hath been heretofore shewed by Martinius Capellus and others One that 's wholly ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue having some Translations as the LXX or vulgar Latine may by labour and industry and comparing the Translation with the Text and observing the Antecedents and Consequents find out the signification of each word by it selfe and the proper sence and meaning in connexion with others and may by degrees find out where the Translator varied from the Text and where he was mistaken Thus among others Clenard learned the Arabick without any Mr. or Instructer when that Language was scarce known in Europe by the Nubiense Psalter where the Arabick is without any pointed vowels

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 h●●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 ●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 th● 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

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 P●●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

order of them from the Hebrew long before the invention of points They had also the accents though not expressed by any poynts as other Languages Syr. Arab. Latine English c. which have accents observed in pronuntiation though not fixed by notes to every syllable Proleg 3. Sect. 49 47. 53. 8. That the Masorites when they ivented the Modern points that is the forms or figures now used did not invent any new sounds or pronunciation nor pointed the Text at their pleasure but according to the received reading then in use to facilitate the reading and take away all ambiguity This is proved Proleg 3. Sect. 51. according to that reading which was derived to them from the sacred Pen-men Sect. 53. 9. Though the punctation by the invention of the Masorites Et humani juris quoad apices figuras yet that which is signified by the points viz. the sound and sence of the words is altogether of Divine authority and acknowledges God only for its Author and ought not to be altred at any mans pleasure Prolegomena 3. Section 51. 10. That our reading depends not upon the Masorites nor is it therefore true because it is from them but because they expresse in their punctation the true sence of the Holy Ghost which was dictated to the holy Penmen and by them committed to writing and preserved both by Jews and Christians ibid. Proleg 3. Sect. 51. By these particulars we see the candor of the Adversary and how much the love of the truth as he saith p. 155. prevailed with him when in relating the Opinions in the Prolegomena almost every thing is perverted or falsified The Prolegomena asserting the clean contrary in most things to what he would impose upon them which is an evident sign of a bad Cause for as the Poet said Eurip. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The truth is sound her words are plain Falshood is sick she needs must feign Besides these there are divers other things objected against the various readings exhibited in the Appendix against collecting various Readings out of Translations though no such be gathered in the Appendix about the old Hebrew Character the Knowledge of the Hebrew drawn from the Translation of the Seventy against the severall Translations Printed in this Edition of the Bible His Consequences on the behalf of Atheists Papists c. in some of which there is something of truth mixed with many untruths and calumnies as shall appear when we come to handle each by it self CHAP. IV. I. The first and main Charge That the Originall Text hath grosse corruptions II Not any words brought out of the Prolegomena to prove this but Consequences of his own The Prolegomena maintain expressely That the Originalls are not corrupt either by Jews or others either before or since Christ That casuall mistakes may happen by negligence in matters of no moment yet there are means to rectifie and amend them when discovered III. The Prolegomena falsified various Readings acknowledged by all proved out of Bishop Usher Buxtorf c. Granted by the Adversary often yet sometimes denied in the Hebrew VI. Wherein the Author of the Considerations and the Author of the Prolegomena differ The Adversarie calls all various Readings corruptions and so makes the Originalls to be corrupt Various Readings not properly corruptions proved out of Buxtorf VII VIII His Arguments against various Readings IX Answered They prove onely no wilfull corruptions X. The Talmud sometimes reads otherwise then in our Copies proved by Buxtorf Of our Saviours silence about these things XI The care of the Church in preserving the Copies of the Bible XII XIII Whether there be no means of rectifying any error crept in but onely by revelation That all Copies in publick use agree in all saving truth revealed and in all matters historicall propheticall c. of any weight that other smaller differences may be rectified XIV All revealed truth comes under our care XV. No one Copy can pretend to be a standard for all others No vulgar Copy was in possession over all the world before Printing or since XVI The uncertainty of the Adversaries rule viz. That every tittle of revealed truth is in one Copy or other Vnpossible to examine all the Copies in the world I. WE shall begin first with the main Charge viz. That the Originall Texts are corrupted yea have grosse corruptions befallen them This he propounds sometimes doubtfully p 147. He saith the various Readings at the first view seem to intimate that corruptions have befallen the Originalls and p. 159. This voluminous bulk of various lections as nakedly exhibited seems sufficient to beget scruples and doubts about the preservation of the Scripture by the care and providence of God Now if they do onely intimate and seem to intimate corruptions and onely seem sufficient to beget scruples then they do not certainly infer any such Charge and if they seem so onely at the first view then upon a further view it may be that they will not seem to intimate corruptions But though he speak thus modestly sometime yet in other places he charges home p. 158. It is declared in the Prolegomena that when grosse faults or corruptions are befallen the Originalls men may by their faculty of criticall conjectures amend them and restore the native lections that were lost p. 206. That where grosse faults are crept into the Hebrew Text men may by their own conjectures find out various Readings c. Epist p. 21. Their Principle is that there are sundry corruptions crept into the Originalls c. and this receives countenance from these Prolegomena So p. 311. 325. and in many other places he disputes against this Position as asserted in the Biblia Polyglotta That the Originall Texts are corrupted II. But how is this Charge proved Here we may observe that neither in this nor any other of his Charges doth he relate any of the words of the Prolegomena which if he had done the falshood had been discovered but supposing that the ordinary Reader would not trouble himself to look into the Prolegomena but take all upon his word he substitutes in the place of his Adversaries opinion some of his own consectaries which to him seemed to follow upon it which he falls upon with great violence which kind of dealing is very unjust to charge an Adversary with consequences as his proper tenets when he denies such consequences especially when as he directly and not by consequence affirms and maintains the contrary to what is charged yet this is our case here What the Author of the Prolegomena delivered concerning the purity and authority of the Originall Texts is to be seen Proleg 7. de Textuum Originalium integritate auctoritate and Proleg 6. de variis lectionibus whither I must refer the Reader for full satisfaction The sum is this as hath been touched in part already 1. That the Hebrew Text is not corrupted by the Jews either before or after Christ

might be brought out of Hierome and others to this purpose These places except onely the last our Adversary had read in the Prolegomena and yet affirms there never was any Copie in the world differed in the least from our present Copies and that no testimony nor Author of credit nor any relick of antiquity could be brought to the contrary Was he in a dream or were his wits a wool gathering when he wrote this or having read these things in the Prolegomena to which no answer could be given did he write the contrary to delude the ignorant Reader I do not know how to excuse him He tells us elsewhere Ep. p. 17. we must grant concerning various Readings in the New Testament what ocular inspection evinces to be true but now it seems we must be hoodwinked and not believe what we see with our eyes and though nothing be more clear then that there were of old and still are differences in the Hebrew and Greek Copies yet we must believe there never was any Copy different from our present Copies not in the least XVI We have done with this which was the main Charge The next is about the Keri and Ketib that is certain marginall notes in the Hebrew Bibles where the Keri is the word that must be read placed in the Margent with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Ketib or word written in the Text marked with a little circle or cipher to which the points belonging to the Marginall word are put to intimate that this word though written in the Text ought not to be read but that in the Margent concerning which I have spoken at large Proleg 8. Sect. 18 19. c. ad 27. where is shewed what they are Sect. 18. To what heads they may be reduced Sect. 9 20. That the number is not the same but much differing by two or three hundred in the chief Editions of the Bible Sect. 21. That the Authors of them were not the Sacred Pen-men nor Esdras and his fellows Sect. 22. 23. That the most of them were collected by the post Talmudicall Rabbins out of severall ancient Copies and that they left the common reading in the Text and put the other which they judged the better in the Margent and that some of them were gathered before the Talmud Sect. 24. That they were not Criticall Conjectures of the Rabbins but various Readings and some few of another nature Sect. 25. After which are added some Observations about them Sect. 26. I shall not go over the same things again but refer the Reader to the Prolegomena Nor do I know to what purpose our Author goes over them here I shall onely touch upon what is untruly by him charged on the Prolegomena XVII Page 206. He reckons this among the Paradoxes in the Prolegomena That the Keri and Ketib are criticall notes consisting partly of the various Readings of the Masorites and late Rabbins and p. 157. he sets it down thus That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which sort are above 800 in the Hebrew Bibles are various lections partly gathered by some Judaicall Rabbins out of ancient Copies partly their Criticall amendments for which he cites in the Margent Proleg 8. Sect. 23 c. Ans In both there is nothing truly related but untruth and nonsence jumbled together for first he saith They are Critical notes consisting partly of various lections which is a kind of contradiction for if they be Critical notes they cannot be either in part or in whole various lections Criticall notes are such wherein men give their own judgement upon some Reading whether it be true or false or which Reading they like best various Readings are the differences of Copies collected and offered to the Readers judgement In the other place he makes them all to be various Readings but partly collected by some Rabbins out of ancient Copies and partly their Criticall amendments that is some of them are gathered out of Copies others are gathered without authority of Copies grounded only upon their Critical faculty in conjecturing This may be his meaning or else I cannot make any good sence of his words Howsoever he explain himself the charge is no less void of truth then of sence as the place by him cited will plainly shew to any that shall look into it for still he never quotes the words where it will appear that there is not one word of Criticall Conjectures or that any part of the Keri and Ketib are such conjectures nor is there any mention at all of conjectures save that the Author shews his dislike of them XVIII That which is affirmed of them in these Sections is 1. That Esdras and his fellows were not the Authors of these notes but that they were gathered long after his time partly before and partly after the Talmund That they could not come from Esdras or the Prophets of his times because these various Readings for so they are generally acknowledged as by most Divines so by our Adversary himself are found in the Writings of Esdras and the latter Prophets as well as in the rest and it were very absurd to think that they gathered various Readings out of severall Copies of the books they had written and to place one Reading in the Margent and the other in the Text as if they knew not which were the true Reading of their own Books and that any of the rest should be gathered either by them or any other of the holy Pen-men is no lesse absurd both for the same reason as also because they would have restored the true Reading if they had found any difference in Copies which they being infallibly guided might have done and not have left it doubtfull which Reading was to be followed or what was the true sence of the Holy Ghost by noting both the Readings and so leaving all in suspence This is altogether unbefitting the holy Pen-men of Scripture and our Adversary though he be loth to yield to the truth yet confesses he is not able to satisfie himself in the Originall and spring of this variety 2. It is proved Sect. 24. That some of these were observed by the Talmudical Rabbins being mentioned in the Talmud as those de vocibus scriptis non lectis de lectis non scriptis and those which they call obsence for which these chast Rabbins who would be wiser then God and more pure then the Holy Ghost pur others which they judged more modest in the Margent to be read in the Synagogues according to that in the Talmud Megil c. 3. Omnes voces quae in Lege sunt obscoenae eas legant honeste That all the rest of which there is not a word in the Talmud were collected by the Masorites after the Talmud 3. That question is handled whether supposing the Masorites to be the Authors they gathered them out of various Copies or made them out of their own judgements and Criticall conjectures where it is concluded that excepting

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 se● 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 ●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