is only a Metathesis of the same letters or ambiguity of a word without points a mistake might easily happen in the Copies Nor 3. Do we say we may gather the various Readings as out of the Originalls for there is an expresse difference made between those gathered out of the Originalls and those out of Translations and of these it s said Proleg 6. Sect. 8. Non pari certitudinis gradu incedere they are not of the same certainty with the other so that we see herein is nothing true either in the premisses or in the Conclusion I leave therefore this Consideration wishing he would hereafter consider better what he writes VI. In the third place he charges us with saying That the same fate hath attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other Books p. 173. and p. 206. That the Books of Scripture have had the fate of other books by passing through the hands of many transcribers for this he refers to Prol. 7. Se. 12. but never cites the words yet addes p. 173. This imagination asserted upon deliberation seems to me to border upon atheism surely the promise of God for preservation of his Word with his love care of his Church of whose faith and obedience that word is the rule requires other thoughts at our hands In this we finde the like truth and candor as in the rest For first He makes us to speak that of the Scripture in generall which is onely spoken of one particular wilfully leaving out that as he knows who did of old which would have proved all to be a pure calumny The words are Nam in hisce sacra volumina idem fatum cum aliis libris subiisse praesertim antiquis saepius descriptis experientia plane testatur Hoc à nemine hodie aperte negari video c. In hisce in these things that is to be subject to errata mendae leviores by negligence of Transcribers that is to various Readings Is this the same as to say That Gods Providence extends no more to the preservation of these Books then of all others which the Prolegom are so far from affirming as is here suggested that the contrary is both in the same place elsewhere frequently maintained VII The words precedent are Et si textus originarii non sint à Judaeis vel aliis studiose corrupti sed in omnibus quae ad fidem mores spectant puri incorrupti tamen scribarum incuria vel temporum injuria in textus originarios errata quaedam mendas leviores irrepere potuisse irrepsisse negari non potest quae aliorum codicum interpretum collatione aliisque mediis de quibus supra tolli emendari possunt Nam in hisce sacra volumina idem fatum cum aliis subiisse c. What is more said here then was said by all others before that have written of various Readings Buxtorf Sixtin Amama and others whose words are brought in the same Prolegom 6. de variis lectionibus LearnedVsher there also quoted Epist ad Lud. Capel p. 21. Sententia mea haec perpetua fuit Hebraeum V. Testamenti codicem scribarum erroribus non minus obnoxium esse quam Novi codicem omnes alios libros What difference is there between the Prolegomena and the words of this Reverend Primate And doth not the Considerator himself say the same thing when he grants various Readings in the original Texts which he also saith came from the failings and mistakes of the Scribes VIII As for Gods speciall providence in preservation of these Books the deniall whereof he saith borders upon Atheisme he might have read in the same Prolegomena 6. Sect. 15. That though there be such differences in some small matters of no consequence Ita tamen invigilavit providentia divina Ecclesiaeque diligentia ut in iis quae ad salutem necessariae sunt ad fidem mores spectant omnia pura integra sint And sect 3. in the same Prolegomena are cited the words of the Learned Bochartus in that admirable Work of his Geogr. Sacr. Part. 1. lib. 2. c. 13. who after he had said the same with the Prolegomena of various Readings in the Scripture as in other Books and that they do not inferre any uncertainty as some men fear adds Quamvis exemplum sit valde dispar nam multo aliter invigilavit providentia Divina ut sacros Scripturae codices praestaret immunes c. Thus we see in the same place which the Adversary alledges to make good his Charge the contrary directly proved which he could not choose but observe and therefore what honesty or fair dealing can be expected from him in other matters who hath so wilfully erred in this let the Reader judge I doubt not but that he hath read the Preface to the Bible there he might have observed the Publishers words p. 1. Etsi autem in librorum sacrorum conservatione Ecclesiae opera usus sit Deus tamen speciali providentia ita â—is invigilavit ut ab ipso primo inspiratos esse admiranda ipsorum conservatione monstravit dum Divina haec fidei speique nostrae monumenta tantis munivit praesidiis ut per tot seculorum decursus inter tot imperiorum ruinas tot regnorum mutationes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inter tot librariorum transcriptiones exemplaribus inter nationes dispersis tanta terrae marisque intercapedine disjunctas contra Haereticorum fraudes Tyrannorum furores qui ea vel corrumpere vel abolere conati sunt sarta tecta ad nostra tempora conservatae ad ultimum temporis articulum permansura sint I appeal to all men even to the Adversary himself what could be said more fully concerning Gods admirable preservation of these Books and whether he hath not abused the Reader and Publisher in this crimination The Publisher wrote upon deliberation and need not retract any thing I wish his Adversary had as well considered what he hath charged him with for then the labour of both might have been spared IX The ninth thing charged upon the Prolegomena is p. 206. That when grosse faults are crept into the Hebrew Text men may by their own conjectures finde out various Readings and p. 159. It is declared that where any grosse faults or corruptions are befallen the Originalls men may by their faculty of criticall conjecturing amend them and restore the native lections that are lost though in generall without the authority of Copies this be not allowed For this he quotes Prolegom 7. Sect 12. I see our Author is still semper idem a thred of untruth and calumny runs through the whole Book yet in this of gathering various Readings upon meer conjectures he is lesse excusable then in some of the rest not onely because this whole charge is plainly rejected and disproved in Prolegom 6. Sect. ult and reasons are given why it cannot be allowed but also because the Adversary acquits
the Author of the Prolegomena of it in other places and acknowledges the same with thanks for within two leafs he writes p. 209. Indeed I do not find his Capellus boldness in conjecturing approved in the Prolegom Why do you then charge them with it you might have said you found it rejected and disproved Again p. 305. That they Keri and Ketib are most of them criticall amendments of the Rabbins is not allowed by the Prolegomena for which latter part of his determination we thank the learned Author p. 307. In the mean time I cannot but rejoyce that Capellus his fancy about these things about conjecturing then which I know nothing more pernicious to the truth of God is not allowed Thus you see we are accused and acquitted by the same Pen. X. But yet for proof he refers us to Prolegomena 7. Sect. 12. where I desire the Reader to see if there be one word either of grosse faults or of amending by conjectures unlesse as I said before errata mendae leviores do signifie gross faults quae ex aliis codicibus aliisque mediis de quibus supra emendari possunt do signifie the amendment of them by mens own conjectures Lastly in that p. 159 now cited it may be observed that he confutes his charge in the propounding of it for he saith this way of correcting upon conjectures in generall without the authority of Copies is not allowed of which is a plain confutation of it self for none ever denied but that errors in one Copy might be corrected by other Copies and how then are they to be found out and corrected by mens own conjectures But thus he variously relates the opinion of his Adversary that either he might make his opinion hatefull to his unwary Reader who happily might not read both places or else that he might have a starting hole if he should be challenged for falsifying saying that in another place he related all truly and yet that relation is no lesse contradictory to it self then the other is false for to restore a reading by meer conjectures and to restore it by another Copy is a plain contradiction CHAP. VI. I. The fifth Charge That we may gather various Readings out of Translations aggravated by the Adversary and odiously propounded II. Nothing affirmed inthe Prolegomena but what most Protestants Divines and Commentators say III. Four uses of Translations expressed in the Prolegomena IV. The present reading is in possession of its authority V. Translations not equalled to the Originall but subservient to them of correcting the Word of God VI. To correct an error crept into the Originall is not to correct the Originall VII Translations usefull when any doubt ariseth about the true reading The present reading not to be altered meerly upon a various Reading of a Translation VIII In what case a various Readings may be gathered out of a Translation IX Such various Readings not of equall authority with those gathered out of the Originalls X. Various Readings out of Translations are not in matters of weight XI That various Readings may be gathered out of Translations proved by ancient and modern Divines and those great assertors of the purity of the Originals XII The words of Reverend Usher XIII Proved by divers instances undeniable XIV XV. The Adversaries boldnesse affirming there never was any Copy differing in the least from the present disproved at large contradicted by himself XVI The Keri and Ketib what they are XVII The sixth charge That Keri and Ketib are criticall notes of the Rabbins shewed to be false XVIII What the Prolegemena deliver about the Original That the most are various Readings gathered out of ancient Hebrew Copies XIX The Adversary cleers the Prolegomena from his own Charge XX. He is not at leasure to prove their divine Originall XXI Concerning the notes out of Grotius XXII His great worth and learning XXIII The reason of collecting these notes out of him Not as specimina of various Readings by conjectures of which scarce one or two in the Pentateuch The most are various Readings out of Greek Copies of the Old Testment The Publisher not bound to assert all that is said by him or any other in their notes exhibited in the Appendix I. THe fifth Charge which is that Gorgons head which so much affrighted our Adversary as he saith Epist p. 19. and startled him p. 146. is the gathering of various Readings out of Translations and that as he saith Epist p. 25. when there is no difference in the Copies This he frequently ingeminates p. 158. and 206. 314. 311. This he makes as pernicious a Principle as ever was fixed upon by any Learned man since the foundation of the Church of Christ Epist p. 21. excepting those of Rome And upon this Position and that of the novelty of punctation he must needs cry out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as not seeing any means of being delivered from utter uncertainty in and about all sacred truth p. 25. Hence are those tragicall exclamations feaâ—full out-cries of correcting the Originall by the help of Translations pag. 311. Of Printing the Originalls and defaming them gathering up translations of all sorts and setting them up in competition with them Epist p. 9. of advancing Translations unto an equallity with the Originalls and setting them by it and with it upon even terms yea using them as means of amending and altering the Originals which is to set up an Altar of our of own by the Altar of God and to eqâ—all the wisdome care skill and diligence of men with the wisdome care and providence of Go. p. 174. of horrible and outragious violence offeâ—ed to the sacred Hebrew verity by learned Mountabanks p. 315. This is to correct the Scripture p. 344. To correct the Word of God p. 180. To amend it at the pleasure of men p. 347 Of dreadfull distemper which may prove mortall to the truth of the Scripture p. 314 and therefore he wishes that all Translations were consumed out of the earth rather then this one figment should be admitted p. 221. II. One would think that reads these passages that all Religion lay at the stake that some strange new Doctrine were delivered never heard of before which at once would overthrow the whole foundation of Christianity when as it will appear upon the matter that nothing is said in the Prolegomena more then what the best and learnedst Protestant Divines and in a manner all Commentators have said and practised before and those the greatest assertors of the Hebrew verity and that the gathering of various Readings out of Translations was never absolutely by any denied before III. What the Prolegomena do affirm concerning the use of Translations the Reader may see Prolegom 5. De versionibus Scripturae where it is proved out of Theodoret Hierom Chrysostom and others that in the first and pnrest times of the Church the Bible was translated into most Vulgar Languages The Egyptian Parsian Indian Armenian Scythian Syriack
use The way and manner how it is most like they proceeded is excellently set down by Capell Arcan lib. 1. c. 17 18. Some generall Rules which may be called Grammaticall when they went about this Work they devised and agreed upon which by succeeding Grammarians were perfected and reduced into a body And though it be generally thought that no Hebrew Grammar was made above five or six hundred years ago yet Maimon speaking of divers Grammarians that were before him mentions R. Saadias who died about the year of Christ 940. to be the first Graâ—marian which was not long after the Masorites had compleated their Work as some observe so that the Rules which the Masorites observed or made in their punctation are expressed in the Grammars which were made after their punctation Besides If this Argument were of any force it might prove the Chaldee Paraphrase the Syriack Arabick Persian c. to have been always pointed and the points coeve with the Languages which yet is denied by all that are skilfull in those Languages for all their books consisted at first only of consonants as they are called as well as the Hebrew and the points were added long after and Grammars composed after all and gathered out of pointed Copies The Chaldee Paraphrase was not at first pointed as is proved by Buxtorf in his Chaldee and Syriack Grammar and after it was pointed no Chaldee Grammar was made by any of a long time Elias Levita found it so hard a task that he gave it over after he had begun and Munster was the first that reduced that Tongue into Grammaticall Rules and if it be said that they pointed the Paraphrase according to the punctation of Ezra and Daniel which they suppose to have been always pointed I deny that those few Chapters could give direction for the punctation of the Paraphrases or the whole Chaldee Tongue of which a small part is exprest in those Chapters Neither can this be said of the other Tongues the Arabick Syriack c. of which Grammars were made long after the punctation and yet it is granted that their points were not coeve with the Languages Let our Adversary therefore shew how the Grammars of those Tongues were made after the punctation and so he may answer his own objection about the Hebrew XII He objects further p. 255 256. That if the punctation had been by the Masorites they would have falsified and corrupted the Prophesies of Christ which they might easily have done by placing the points and accents so as to pervert the sence and coherence of the words as in Es 53. where according to the present punctation they make incomparably more for the Christian Faith then any ancient Translations This is answered before where it is shewed that the Masorites did not point the Text pro arbitrio as they pleased as our Author would make us say but according to the true and accustomed reading to which they were tyed This Argument is brought in the Prolegom 7. to prove that these Jews did not de industria corrupt the Hebrew Text because then they would have corrupted those places concerning Christ or where the chief mysteries of Christian Religion are mentioned which we see they have not meddled with but it proves not but that the Masorites might fix the points to the Text the true reading whereof they could not alter but would have been presently discovered by the Christians nor would they attempt it the whole Nation being so zealous for the letter of the Text that as Joseph saith they would rather die a thousand deaths then wilfully falsifie the least tittle XIII Again pag. 292. he saith That though the points might be affixed while the Tongue was common and vulgar yet after it had ceased to be vulgar for a thousand years to think that points could be then fixed to the Text and the reading continued so long by tradition is to buid castles in the ayre c. But to this we have already answered at large and shewed that the knowledge of the Tongue and the true reading continued among the Priests and Scribes after it ceased to be vulgar who might with as much case point the Text it being the same to them as when it was vulgar as they might have done whilest it was commonly spoken by the people and that it was not continued by orall tradition for they had the written Text for their ground as is already declared XIV But there is one Argument more which he propounds and follows at large pag. 225. 226 c. for we must finde out his reasons as they are here and there scattered without any method This he is sory that others out of their respect to the Rabbins have passed by It is taken from the consideration of the persons supposed to be the Authors of the punctation who were men so unfit for so Divine and admirable a Work that of all the fables in the Talmud he knows none more incredible then this story viz. That men 1. who were no part of the Church or people of God possessors onely of the letter c. 2. Who were remote from the right understanding of the Word of God desperately engaged against the Truth enemies to the Gospel 3. Vnder the speciall curse and vengeance of God 4. Feeding themselves with vain fables and mischievous devices against the Gospell labouring to set up a new Religion under the name of the old 5. Profoundly ignorant in all manner of Learning and Knowledge 6. Addicted to monstrous figments yea for the most part Idolaters and Magicians c. should be the authors of so great and excellent a Work of such unspeakeable usefulnesse c. This Argument he spends neer twenty pages upon by a fierce invective against the Jews and Rabbins which he after contracts to these heads p. 240 241. c. And to strengthen this Argument he saith p. 2. 3. That the Masorites the supposed inventors of the points cannot by any story or other record be made appear that they ever were in rerum natura c. and p. 304. they came no man knew whence and no man knows when and where XV. To which Argument I answer First That concerning the usefulnesse of the present points which is acknowledged though I am none of them that are affected with novelties or delight in changes yet I am of the opinion of those Learned men who do not conceive the present punctation to be so excellent and compleat a Work but that it might be much bettered â—nd made more usefull and that there are some things especially accents which might be omitted of some of which none can give a full account and the rest might be reduced to a smaller number and be made more facile and useful some other things also might be added which are usefull in other languages wanting in this as hath been already shewed by divers Learned men Secondly That notwithstanding all this which is said against the Jews and
by an Asterisk which being left out what remained was the meer and true Translation of the Septuagint as Hierome himselfe sometimes acknowledged Epist 11. ad Augustin The same Hierome was payd in the like coyne by others who rejected his Latine Translation the first in Latine that was made out of the Hebrew Text as appears by Ruffine S. Augustine and other learned men of those times who interpreted this attempt of his though in it selfe very laudable as done in contumeliam versionis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disgrace that of the Septuagint as some now interpret all that is said of the use of ancient Translations as tending to the depressing of the Hebrewâ— whereupon he was often put to apologize for himselfe III. To come nearer to our owne times that Magnificent worke of the King of Spaines Bible by some styled Orbis miraculum was approved by the Pope himselfe to whom it was presented as by his Breves prefixed appeares yet all could not protect the Publisher thereof Arias Montanus a learned and moderate Romanist though he did nothing without the advice of the University of Lovaine and of sundry particular learned men from the jealousies and calumnies of malignant spirits of his owne Brethren against whom he was faine to write Apologies and hardly escaped the Inquisition Erasmus his extraordinary paines in publishing the Greek Testament by comparing ancient copies and Translations was sufficiently railed at by some Friers and ignorant Zelots as if he took upon him to correct the Word of God as appears in his Preface to his Annotations of 1535 whose very words are used as we shall see hereafter against the Biblia Polyglotta And that late splendid worke of the Parisian Bible published at the charges of Michael de Jay in seven languages which farr exceeds the Biblia Regia by addition of that ancient Syriack Translation of the Old Testament the Arabick of the Old and New and the Samaritane Pentateuch c. though it be not without its defects which ingenuous and moderate men would rather have excused then aggravated yet hath not wanted its detractors who envying that others should have the glory of that which themselves were unable to performe have defamed it what they could witnesse those bitter and virulent expressions of Simeon de Muis Regius Professor of the Hebrew at Paris in his Epistles publisht against it And to come yet nearer home The last English Translation made by diverse learned men at the command of King James though it may justly contend with any now extant in any other Language in Europe was yet carped and cavild at by diverse among our selves especially by one who being passed by not imployed in the Work as one though skild in the Hebrew yet of little or no judgement in that or any other kinde of Learning was so highly offended that he would needs undertake to shew how many thousand places they had falsly rendred when as he could hardly make good his undertaking in any one IV. Thus we see That for every good work is a man envyed of his Neighbour as the Wise man observed Eccles 4. 4. Our Saviour for the good works he had done had like to have been stoned by the people and the Scribes and Elders out of envie delivered him to be put to death Licet invenire regionem ubi venena non sunt quemadmodum affirmant de Crâ—ta at non licet invenire Rempublicam quae non alat invidiam as Plut. in Moral Some Countries there be where no venomâ—us creature lives as they say of Candy but none where the poyson of envie is not found yea so monstrous is this sin that the envious man makes anothers vertue his vice and anothers happinesse his torment Invidia Siculi non invenere tyranni Majus tormentum Whereas he that rejoyceth at the good of another is thereby made partaker of it For Tolle invidiam tuum est quod habâ—o Tolle invidiam meum est quod habes as Chrysost in Joh. V. It cannot seem strange then That this late Work of the Bible though generally approved by Learned men both in the first undertaking when the particulars whereof it was to consist with a specimen thereof were published to the World and since it was finished when not only all was performed which was undertaken but also more then could justly be expected should notwithstanding meet with some disaffectâ—â— persons who seek to defame and blast it There have ever been some that would make themselves seem fairer by throwing dirt in the faces of others and acount themselves the better by how much they speak the worse of others For Gloriae comes invidia and it never was the hap of any Book yet to meet with no opposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Clemens Alex. observed long since Deus omnibus placere non potest tu placere credis said Jul. Scal. God himself cannot please all men and how can any of us then hope for it Erasmus his complaint was just against his censurers Superbum est de libro sententiam ferre quem non intelligis superbius de eo quem ne legeris quidem Praef. eadem Yet we finde usually that this envious humor is attended with ignorance Vituperant quae ignorant said Tertul. Ignorance is the greatest enemy to any kinde of knowledge and Jos Scaliger met with such of whom he writes Quicquid eorum captum superat erratum vocant quod non intelligunt pro iâ—fcitia sua damnant how this may be applied I leave to the Judgement of others This I finde too true That though there never was so much done in any Edition of the Bible in any age absit invidia verbo as to exhibit the originall Text of the Scripture at one view attended with so many ancient Translations approved by the Church in her purest times and that according to the best Coâ—ies and Editions which bear witnesse to the â—â—thority and Integrity of the Originalls and serve as so many glâ—sses to represent the true sence and meaning of them to succeeding ages and to preserve the sacred truth to posterity as far as humane industrie can reach against the corruptions and false glosses wherewith Sectaries and Heretikes who in no age so abounded as in this would adulterate and imbase it yet this could not free the Work from the opposition of malicious tongues and pens of such whom the envious man hath stirred up to hinder the benefit which the Church of God might reap by it witnesse a late Pamphlet pretending to the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text to which are added certain Considerations on the Prolegomena and Appendix to the late Biblia Polyglotta VI. In which I was sory to finde so much clean paper fouled with so many palpable untruths wilfull and studied calumnies such contradictions tautologies and impertinencies as appear in those Conâ—iderations that if they should be culled out of the Book we might say of it as
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
thine own self for thou dost the same things VIII When I first read this Pamphlet I stood amazed at the strange boldnesse of the Author charging the Prolegomena with such tenets and assertions which they are so far from maintaining that they do assert and prove the plain contrary and that not obiter or by the by but ex professo in full tracts As for instance the main Charge p. 206. That there are corruptions yea grosse corruptions befallen the Original Texts which men by their critical conjectures may discover and correct is so far from truth That the whole Prolegom 7. is spent in proving that the Original Texts are not corrupted either by Jews Christians or others that they are of Supream authority in all matters and the rule to try all translations by That the copies we now have are the true transcripts of the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 written by the sacred Pen-men That the speciall providence of God hath watched over these books to preserve them pure and uncorrupt against all attempts of Sectaries Hereticks and others and will still preserve them to the end of the world for that end for which they were at first written That the errors or mistakes which may befall by neglilence or inadvertency of Transcribers or Printers are in matters of no concernment from whence various readings have risen and may by collation of other copies and other means there mentioned be rectified and amended The arguments also brought by some Romanists against the purity certainty and authority of the Original Texts are clearly answered wherein I doubt not but the Reader may find more satisfaction than in all these confused Considerations And for gathering various readings by meer conjectures the author of the Prolegom is so far from approving that way that he expressely rejects it and gives reasons against it Prol. 6. sect ult which the author of the Considerations p. 209. 305 307. doth also acknowledge with thankfulnesse IX The like may be seen in most of his other charges wherein he fights with his own shadow and like a wanton whelp runs round after his own stern dissembling his adversaries opinion and instead thereof substituting any lame confectary which came suddenly into his distempered fancy For whatsoever might seem odious to vulgar apprehensions he ascribes to the Prolegomena that so he might have colour to say what he lists Other things are by him wilfully perverted and misconstrued the controversie never truly stated not one argument faithfully recited much less answered nor the tenth part of what is said in the Prolegomena on the matters in question taken notice of much less confuted so that I was a long time in doubt whether to take notice of these Considerations at all by way of answer there being nothing in them which is not in the Prolegomena and Appendix already fully answered as those that shall please to compare both together may easily see and this was the opinion of some men of great learning and judgement that I should not trouble my self with any answer Besides I have to deal with one so possessed with prejudice and passion and thereby so pertinacious in his opinions that I shall but Aethiopem lavare he may be convinced but not converted and will hold his Conclusion in despight of the Premises Neither is his authority of such weight with judicious and learned men as that they will esteem the Biblia Polyglotta either the better for his praises or the worse for his censure so that as his praises should not tickle so neither his dispraises trouble Declamationes ambitiosorum are onely otiosorum cibi as Scal. exerc 307 nor is it my lot alone to be thus handled by him he layes about him on all sides and like Ismael his hand is against every one so that we may say with the Epigrammatist Omnibus invideas Livide nemo tibi yea the volume it self begins already to serve for wast paper in Grocers shops and to vanish in thuris pipirisve cucullos X. Yet considering that it may have come into the hands of diverse who never saw and it may be cannot read or understand the Biblia Polyglotta or the Prolegomena and may simply give credit to what he averres for though he say the opinions may be candidly disputed among learned men without danger yet he hath thought fit to submit and expose them to the judgement of the unlearned who cannot judge but may wrest what they understand not to their own hurt wherein either his prudence or piety may justly be called in question in bringing a Latine tract upon an English stage and withall lest he might complain that he was neglected or brag amongst his ignorant Proselites that he could not be answered and further seeing that there is as S. Ambr. de ossic 1. c. 3. saith otiosum silentium as well as otiosum verbum and I would be loth to be guilty of the one as my adversary is of the other and withall because he threatens in many places p. 152 153. 193. 201 305. 320. 345. a further search and to make more discoveries of great matters I thought it not altogether unfit though I want not other imployments wherein to spend my hours both in right to my self and this work of the Bible and to all those Reverend and worthy persons whose approbations have commended it to the publick as also of all those great and learned Divines and others some of which I have now mentioned who are involved in the same cause to take a brief view of these Considerations to examine the grounds of those consequences which he would infer and to shew how unjustly and uncharitably he hath dealt that so the Prolegomena Appendix and several Translations may be vindicated from his false aspersions the true use of the Work maintained for the publick good of the Church the truth asserted against his Sophismes and Declamations the Reader disabused their judgements rectified who may be misled by a popular Pamphlet â—itted for vulgar capacities not for Scholasticall judgements and all further error and misconstruction prevented in what shall be hereafter offered by him or others upon this account so that he or whoever shall proceed in this virulent way of censuring may be without excuse For as Juo Ep. 219. quia falsitas praecessit oportet ut veritas subsequatur quae latrocinia noctis detegat Not that I intend to follow him in all his confused mazes extravagancies and cautologies but onely to insist upon the chief and most material points which being rightly stated and the truth proved or vindicated I shall submit all to the judicious and indifferent Reader CHAP. II. I The occasion and motives of publishing the Considerations II. The adversary begins with an untruth III. His sinister ends writing in English against a Latine Treatise and yet in the same book writing in Latine against the Quakers IV. His love of the truth candid and sincere dealing V. His dangerous assertions against the miracles
so shall hereafter appear we have sad experience of the fruits of causelesse fears and jealousies which the more unjust they are the more violent usually they are and less capable of satisfaction It hath been and is usual with some who that they may create fears in the credulous ignorant multitude and raise clamours against others pretend great fears of that which they themselves no more fear then the falling of the skies and to cry out Templum Domini when they scarce believe Dominum Templi nor did the care of the Temple ever enter into their hearts onely by this artifice they drive on their own Designes and expose their adversaries to popular hatred Those that read the Prolegomena as he saith he hath done without prejudice may find satisfaction enough to prevent all fears and jealousies As for those that with the Spider suck poyson out of the sweetest flowers from which the Bee gets honey I shall not trouble my self to give them any more satisfaction they shal bear their own guilt I know the difference between Scandalum datum acceptum and shall say of such as Christ did of the Pharisees that were offended at his Doctrine Let them alone they are blinde leaders of the blinde Truth must not be concealed though weak men be offended at it or wicked men wrest it to their own hurt X. But he saith further p. 150. What is there that could possibly infect him with this leaven viz. of envie or malice for first he neither professes any deep skill in the learning used in this Work nor is ever like to be ingaged in any thing that should be set up in competition with it nor secondly doth he know the Authors and Contrivers of the Work nor did he ever know that there was such a person as the chief Author of this Edition but by it nor thirdly shall he fail upon all occasions to commend the usefulnesse of the Work With the learning pains and diligence of those worthy persons that brought it forth To all which I answer First for his skill in this kinde of Learning I shall say nothing but leave others to judge to whom he is better known then to my self he is one whom I never saw nor till of late years ever heard of and till now he was mihi nec beneficio nec male ficio notus but the lesse his skill is in this kind of learning I think the lesse will his censure be regarded among wisemen and I shall have the lesse cause to fear it The Apostle taxes some who would be teachers of the law not knowing what they said or whereof they affirmed I will not apply this to our Author but himself tells us p. 324. that it is the way of Sciolists when they have obtained a little skill in any language or science to perswade the world that all worth lies therein Whether this may agree to himself or no I will not determine but leave every man to judge as he sees cause but sure I am and experience makes it good that those who have attained a little smattering knowledge in any Science especially in the Hebrew are usually more puft up with that little umbratill knowledge though weak men otherwise and of little judgement in any reall or rationall learning then those who have attained a far greater measure and that they are more apt to censure and condemne others I have known some Citizens yea women in London who having learned to read Hebrew were so conceited of themselves that they have despised the ablest Divines about the City and have almost doubted of the salvation of all persons that could not read Hebrew and I remember that Schickard a very learned Hebrician tells us that it is the guise of many as soon as they understand three words of Hebrew presently they are so conceited of their own abilities that they betake themselves to the writing of Grammars and condemns himself for his folly in that kind when he was but a novice attemptting that of which he was afterward ashamed He was then also as earnest a Patron of the Antiquity of Hebrew points as our Author can be yet afterwards when he came to riper judgement he could not believe that any learned man could in good earnest maintain that opinion but that some did it meerely to shew their wit This is therefore no argument of our Adversaries freedome from sinister ends and motives that his skill is not great in the languages but rather proves the contrary especially when he knows that men of the greatest eminency in this learning that the world ever had or hath at present have said the same with the Author of the Prolegomena and that the chiefest of our own Nation in that learning have had some hand in or have at least approved this Edition and those things which he so much mislikes It might have been fit for him and no way unbecoming his greatnesse to have forborn a while and waited to see what those who are known to be of great judgement in these matters of which this Nation hath more then ever heretofore would have said and what their judgement had been then for him I who I think will not think himself fit to be parallel'd with many presently to engage with such violence and to condemn opinions which as appears by his Discourse he either did not throughly weigh or doth not fuâ—ly understand But he that looks through a green glasse judges every thing green which he sees when onely that is green through which he looks XI As for his not knowing the authors and contrivers of the work Though they were not known to him yet they were known to be Sons of the Church of England and such as have not Apostatized from their former profession either by Heresie or Schisme XII For his commending the Work and the Authors of it which he promises upon all occasions his whole Discourse shews what his commendations are when he charges the Work with setting up Atheisme Popery phanatical Antiscripturisme Mahumetanisme p. 147. with bringing in utter uncertainty in and about all sacred truth Epist p. 25. so that nothing remains but that we must either turn Papists or Atheists When he inveighs against all the ancient translations as set up in competitions with the Text Epist p. 9. to correct the word of God 180. to correct the Scripture p. 344. That they will be found upon triall to be such as many will be ready to question the foundation of all p. 206. when he tells us of such dreadfull distempers as will prove mortal to the sacred truth of the Scriptures p. 314. of horrible and outragious violence offered to the sacred Hebrew verity p. 315. and rather wishes that this and all other works of this nature were out of the world than one of these should be admitted p. 221. Is this to commend the worth and usefulnesse of it and the pains of the contrivers what more bitter reviling speeches could be
exhibited in the Considerations and then what it is which is asserted or maintained in the Prolegomena and after we shall proceed to the examination of the particulars II. But before we enter upon the several heads we must consider one generall Charge mentioned p. 205 and which includes most of the rest viz. That excepting that figment of the Jews corrupting the Bible out of hatred to the Christians and the Thesis prefering this or that translation in generall above the originall there is no Opinion that he knows of that was ever ventilated among Christians tending to the depression of the Worth or impairing the esteem of the Hebrew Copies which is not directly or by just consequence owned in these Prolegomina This will appear to be most untrue in the severalls by him mentioned when we shall come to them where we shall make it appear that the Hebrew Copies are not at all impeached by any thing maintained in the Prolegomena unlesse he mean that some Cabalisticall mysteres or rather fopperies from whence strange observations are drawn to the depraving and perverting of the Scripture and exposing the Hebrew Text to scorn and contempt are not owned Such Rabbinicall fancies taken up by some Christians it is true are rejected and condemned for the Publisher doth not believe that the esteem and worth of the Hebrew Text is advanced by any untruth or by the vain and groundlesse conceits of such idle pretenders but rather impaired and lessened but as for the due honour and integrity of the Originall Texts and preserving the true esteem of them to Posterity he doubts not but that it will be acknowledged by all unprejudiced persons that he hath done more then hath been hitherto done by any III. After this generall Calumny our Author instances in divers particulars to make good his generall Charge which are reckoned up in divers places In the Epist pag. 9. and 25. afterwards in the Considerations p. 151. 158 c. and again p 205 206. and in divers other places These we shall collect as they are scattered and dispersed in these Considerations and that the truth or falshood of them may the better appeare we shall withall set down the severall tenets as they are asserted in the Prolegomena parallel with them Considerations 1. That the Original Copies of the Scripture are corrupt yea have grosse corruptions in them so that they are no ground for faith to rest upon p. 147 158 159 206 314 345 and Epist p. 9. 10 21. 2. That there were other Copies of the Originall Hebrew and Greek differing from those we now enjoy which are quite lost p. 206. 311 312. Epist p. 10. 3. That the same sate hath attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other Books Gods providence watching no more over this then other Books p. 173. 206. 4. That it is lawfull to collect various readings to correct the text upon meer conjectures p. 151. and 206. 5 That the Keri and Keti◠are various readings gathered by some Judaicall Rabbins out of ancient Copies partly their creticall amendments or conjectures p. 157. 206. 6. That the end of printing ancient translations in this Bible is by them to correct the Originall Text though there be no diversity in the Copies p. 158. 206. 311. 314. Epist p. 21. 25. to set them in competition with the text p. 174. 311. 315. Ep. p. 9. to correct the word of God p. 180. to correct the Scripture p. 344. 7. That the Hebrew points or vowells and accents are a novel invention of some Judaicall Rabbins about 500. or 600. years after the giving out of the Gospel p. 157. Epist p. 9. 8. That the vowels and accents are the arbitrary invention of the Masorites who fixed them to the text as they pleased p. 208. c. 4 in the Contents and p. 117 218 9. That it is lawfull for us to change the vowells and accents at our pleasure p. 250. and p. 217. 218. 258. 10. That the whole credit of our reading and interpretation of Sripture as far as regulated by the present punctation depends onely on the faithfulness and skill of those Jews whose invention this work is asserted to be p. 157. Prolegomena 1. That the Originall texts are not corrupted either by Jews or others either be-before Christ or since but are pure entire authentick and of supreme Authority in all matters of faith and the rule whereby to try all Translations Proleg 1. 2 3 4 5 c. proved at large 2. That the Copies we now have are the true transcripts of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Prophets and Apostles and the very same proved Prolegom 7. Sect. 16. 3. That the Scripture hath been subject to casuall mistakes of Transcribers and Printers in small matters of no moment which by comparing of other Copies and by other means may be rectified and amended and that in this it hath had the same fate with other books often transcribed yet the speciall care and providence of God hath so watched over it that in all things which concern faith and good life and in all matters of weight and moment no error hath befallen it and that his speciall providence will preserve it entire against all endeavour of Heretikes or others to the end of the world Prolegom 6. Sect. 1. 3 Proleg 7. Sect 12. 15. Praef. p. 1. 4. That to collect various readings by mere conjectures when there is no difference in the Copies or Translations is not safe It would open a window for busie wits to deprave the Scripture and to turn it into any sence c. Proleg 6. Sect. 12. 5. That the Keri and Ketib are not criticall amendments or conjectures of the Rabbins but various Readings gathered out of Ancient Copies Proleg 8 Sect. 25. 6. The end of these ancient Translations is First they served as Pipes to convey those living Waters from the fountains to particular Nations Secondly To confirm our faith by their consent and harmony among themselves and with the Originall Texts in all matters of moment Thirdly to bear witnesse to the purity and integrity of the Originall Texts by their consent and agreement therewith and to prevent all future corruption by Sectaries Hereticks or negligence of Scribes Fourthly To explain the true sence and meaning of the Text as it was understood in the first purest times c. Proleg 5. Sect. 1. 2 3. 7. That the Hebrew Tongue consists of vowels and consonants and always had vowels as all other Languages have viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which some adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which anciently by Joseph St. Hierom. Orig. c. were called vowels and served for vowels as in other Eastern Tongues The Syr. Chald. Arab. c. By their 22. Letters of which these are part the Hebrews might and did expresse all their words as well as all other nations who had their letters alphabets with the names and
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
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
which is so evident that none can deny it but denies the Consequence and gives Reasons against it or he that grants both Major and Minor denies onely the Conclusion IX If it shall be said that the Considerations do sometimes deny that various Readings infer the uncertainty and corruptions of the Scripture I answer its true that sometimes he seems to deny any such inference But when he is in hot prosecution of his Adversary he affirms the clean contrary as appears by his whole second Chapter of the Considerations and Chap. 7. Sect. 6. where he denies any difference in Copies either wilfully or by negligence And the third Chapter of his Considerations is wholly spent against the various Readings of the New Testament which are onely out of Greek MSS. and tells us p. 193. that they create a temptation that there is nothing sound and entire in the word of God p. 206. that the Consequences are lawfully derived p. 207. that they do naturally and necessarily flow so p. 147. 161. c. All along throughout his Discourse he inferres from the various Readings in the Appendix of the Bible which are all out of the Originall Texts not any gathered out of Translations that thereby is introduced utter uncertainty about all sacred truth so that nothing is more clear then that he makes the Consequence of the uncertainty and corruption of the Scripture to be the necessary product of various Readings and therefore that he hath plainly prevaricated and betrayed the cause which he seemed to contend for and his friends as he makes them Papists Athiests and Fanatick persons have cause to thank him for disputing so doughtily on their behalf And so I conclude with that of Seneca Controv. 3. l 4. Malo est in loco qui habet rei fortunam accusatoris invidiam He is in an ill case who accuses another of what himself is guilty for Guilt as one observes though it be the effect of some error yet usually it begets a kind of moderation in men so aâ— not to be violent in accusing others of that which may reflect upon themselves but here we see it is otherwise and from what root it proceeds I leave to every mans judgement X. Having shewed the no consequence of the uncertainty and corruption of the Scripture from various Readings I shall not need to stand long upon the Particulars of Popery Atheisme fanaticall Antiscripturisme and Mahumetanisme mentioned by him p. 147. For Popery he fears the pretended infallible guide c. wil be found to lie at the doore of the Considerations p. 161. and p. 202. He doubts not but to hear news from Rome concerning these varieties there having been no such collections as yet made in the world Enough they are to fright poore unstable souls into the arms of an infallible Judge And p. 207. We went from Rome under conduct of the purity of the Originalls I wish none have a mind to return thither again under pretence of their corruption How these various Readings should be any prop much lesse the principal Pillar of Popery I cannot see nor doth our Author prove His meaning it may be is that Papists do hence infer the Scripture to be uncertain and the Originall Texts to be corrupt so that they can be no sure ground of faith and therefore that all must flie to an infallible Judge and rely upon the vulgar Latine But these grounds we have already taken away and proved that notwithstanding such various Readings the Scriptures are still the certain rule of faith and the Originall Texts the authentick rule of all Translations v. Proleg 7. Besides let our Author shew that any of the various Readings by us collected contain any thing against either faith or good life or make for the Romanists in any of the Controversies between them and us let him instance in any if he can In that place of 1 John 5. 7. are some words left out in many ancient Copies but there is nothing contrary to the Analogy of faith inserted That point of the Trinity hath ground enough besides in Scripture though these words had not been in any copy and whether they were razed out of some Copies by the Arrians as some of the Ancients suppose or whether left out by casuall error of the Transcriber in some one Copy from which many others were derived and that error made use of by the Arrians yet here is nothing against faith affirmed in this place onely an omission of some words in some Copies Besides how can it be imagined that these various Readings should make way for Popery when the first and chief Collectors of them were the chief opposers of Popery as this Author affirms p. 189. where he reckons up Stephanus Beza Camerarius Drasius Heinsius Grotius de Dieu Capellus XI If it be said that Papists makâ— use of these various lections to decry the Originalls and to set up the vulgar Latine or from their uncertainty to infer the necessity of an infallible Judge 1. It is true there be some that do so but there are some and those of the most learned among them who are â—â—out defenders of the purity of the Originall Texts and prefer them before the vulgar Latine as Simeon de Mins Joh. D' Espieres and others and many among them who maintain that the Councel of Trent in declaring the vulgar Latine to be authentick did no way derogate from the Hebrew and Greek Text but onely preferred the vulgar Latine before all other Latine Translations and meant onely that it contained nothing contrary to faith and good manners as Salâ—er Serrar Mariana Aâ—or Driedo Vega and divers others 2. Doth our Adversary think that the Papists can justly deduce any such Conclusions from the various Readings If he think so then he pleads their cause and joyns hands with them against the Originall Texts if no Why doth he urge their deductions against us 3. Though some men pervert and abuse the Truth to bad ends must the Truth therefore be denied because a bad use is made of it There never wanted those who perverted the Scripture to their own destruction but is the Scripture the worse or must not the lawfull use of it be permitted All truth is from God the Author of Truth he needs not mens policies to defend it much lesse can it be upheld by untruths Those pious frauds when discovered have proved prejudiciall to the Truth for which they were devised XII He confesseth p. 206. That the Prefacer doth not own these wretched Consequences but he knows full well who think them to be just It is true he knows some Romanists and others think so and it seems our Author thinks so too But this Author knows also that the Prefacer hath clearly proved both against the Papist and himself that the Consequence is false and invalid and that neither of them have just cause to think so and therefore that this ought not to be by him objected It had been
this and such as were made out of it excepting the Syriack was used in the Church nor is any other used in the Greek Church to this day That this was that which the Greek and Latine Fathers expounded illustrated out of which they instructed the people confuted Heresies and maintained the Truth That this which we now have is the same for substance with that anciently used though in some things by the injury of times and frequent transcriptions vitiated which with all the severall questions and controversies about this Translation are at large discussed and handled to which I must refer the Reader where he shall finde all the doubts and questions raised by this Author or others resolved and all their aspersions cast upon it wiped off It would be too long to go over the particulars herein Those that amongst our Neotericks have been least favourable to it have yet highly valued it as is shewed out of Scaliger Heinsius and others Heinsius saith of it Rarum incomparabilem thesaurum esse neminem ignorare posse nisi qui ab omni eruditione alienus sit Aristarch cap. 15. p. 951. The quarrells and cavills therefore of our Author against it I shall not meddle with now all of them and a great deal more is related and answered in the same Prolegom 9. onely I cannot but observe how he overlashes still when he affirms that most of the Versions in the Biblia Polyglotta are evidently taken out of it which he cannot with any colour affirm of any but the Arabick of which yet himself formerly told us the Pentateuch was translated out of the Hebrew and some part out of the Syriack as for the rest viz. the Samaritane Version the Syriack Chaldee and the Vulgar Latine they are all out of the Hebrew except the Psalms in the Vulgar Latine which seem to be out of the LXX Though it may be here and there in some words they may agree with the LXX yet this gives not the least colour to affirm that they were taken out of it XVI Besides we may observe upon what weak grounds he goes when he sticks not to insist upon that Argument against the Septuagint that the Originall Copy was burnt in the Library of Alexandria in Caesars time to prove that there are no true Copies now left which childish argument he knew was answered Proleg 9. Sect. 49. so as might have made any man of common discretion forbear to urge it for it is shewed and on all hands confest that there were thousands of Copies every where extant among the Jews and read publickly in their Synagogues all the world over and so had been for some hundred of years before the burning of Ptolomies Library so that the losse of that Originall Copy though it may be justly doubted whether it perished in that conflagration or no as is there shewed can no more prove that succeeding ages have not the true Copy of it then it can be inferred that we have no true Copies of the Hebrew and Greek Texts because the first Originalls have been lost many ages since as among other things is there shewed XVII The Aethiopick and Persian Translations which he falls upon in the last place are the worst and most corrupt in the world He can find no use of the Persian but onely to shew that there is such an uselesse thing in the world The Aethiopick is the Novel endeavour of an illiterate person He knows not whether some of them be in use now in the world he is sure that it were well that they be not had he not seen them he could not have imagined any had been so bad He thinks some Jews had a hand in one for money Thus some men shoot their bolts at randome It is sufficient that learned men and such as are able to judge do acknowledge the use of them and thankfully receive the publishing of them The antiquity and use of both especially of the Aethiopick is declared Proleg 14. and 15. What is there said and proved will I doubt not overbalance what is by him barely affirmed to the contrary That the Aethiopick is now used and hath been since the conversion of that Nation among the Abyssines through those large Territories consisting of many Kingdomes is shewed by good authority and sundry reasons against Scaliger Our Author knows not whether it be any where used but I think there is scarce any besides himself that doubts it that doth not shut his eyes against the clear light Concerning the Persian it is acknowledged in the Prolegomena not to be that ancient Translation mentioned by Theodoret and others of the Ancients of which it may be doubted whether any part of it be extant as also that it was made out of the Syriack not immediately out of the Greek yet that it may be usefull is likewise shewed Proleg 15. in diverse particulars and that this Copy we have Printed was written three hundred years ago but how long before the Translation it self was made we cannot determine How the Jews should have a hand in any of the Translations is a fancie which I think never lodged in any mans breast but his own nor can he shew any ground for it It may as well be said that Turks and Mahumetanes made all these Translations for the use of Christians Because the Transcriber of the Aethiopick as it is rendred in Latine makes Saint John Bishop of Constantinople though it be doubtfull whether it may be so rendred as he might have seen in the Annotations and the Aethiopick word is not Constantinople though the learned Translator of it into Latine conjectured it migh be there meant therefore the Aethiopick Translator must be illiterate and the Translation novel when as in the Syriack our Author could distinguish between the Scribe and the Translator and not impute the error of the one to the other And as for the antiquity it is one thing to say another thing to prove let him answer the reasons in the Prolegomena or bring better of his own and we shall believe him otherwise his bare authority will not be sufficient to command assent against reason XVIII By this which we have said it appears that as our Author hath â—eigned to himself an Adversary when he had none that so he might have some pretence of depressing the severall Translations so that which is said by him we might well have passed by but that our silence would have been by him interpreted as an acknowledgement of the truth of his affirmations And although his invectives be groundlesse and vain yet I have good ground to believe that there is something else in the Translations themselves which he is not willing to mention which hath caused all this bitternesse against them It appears by these ancient Translations that what our Sectaries have cried down in the Church of England as Popish innovations viz. Episcopall Government set forms of Liturgies Observation of Festivalls besides the Lords day were used as
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
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
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
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