Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	divine_a	faith_n	reveal_v	2,785	5	8.8750	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97086	The considerator considered: or, A brief view of certain considerations upon the Biblia polyglotta, the prolegomena and appendix thereof. Wherein, amongst other things, the certainty, integrity, and divine authority of the original texts, is defended, against the consequences of athiests, papists, antiscripturists, &c. inferred from the various readings, and novelty of the Hebrew points, by the author of the said Considerations. The Biblia polyglotta, and translations therein exhibited, with various readings, prolegomena and appendix, vindicated from his aspersions and calumnies. And the questions about the punctation of the Hebrew text, the various readings, and the ancient Hebrew character briefly handled. / By Br. Walton. D.D.	Walton, Brian, 1600-1661.	1659 (1659)	Wing W657; Thomason E1860_1; ESTC R204072	144,833	308

had not been certainly true The Argument from our Saviours silence was brought Proleg 7. to prove that the Originall Texts were not corrupted before his coming the end of whose coming was not to correct every letter or word that was mistaken in any Copy of the Bible but to assert the true sence against the corrupt glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees and to restore it to its Originall integrity if any wilfull corruptions had been or errors of any moment which might have indangered the saving truth of which kind we say there are none nay so far were our Saviour and his Apostles from observing every casuall slip of a Scribe in Hebrew Copies that they made more frequent use of the Greek LXX then the Hebrew and quoted places out of the old Testament according to that Translation even where there seems to be some difference from the Hebrew and left that Translation to the Christian Church who used it generally for many hundred years as the Greek Church doth to this day as is largely shewed Prolegom 9. de Graecis versionibus Sect. 38 39. c. XI But besides these reasons mentioned Chap. 2. of the Considerations we finde some others scattered here and there which we will briefly examine p. 168 169. He findes fault with the arguing from the oscitancy and negligence of transcribers of Heathen Authors Homer Aristotle c. to shew that errors might creep into the Originall ●exts This he saith is not tolerable in a Christian or any one that hath the least sence of the nature and importance of the Word of God He urges likewise the care of the Heathen about their Sybils verse p. 171. that the Romane Pontifices would not do it negligently nor treacherously c. Answer It is not denied but that the Church of Christ had a religious care that the Copies transcribed for publike use especially should be free from all errors as much as could be and that far more care was taken about them then ever was taken by any about the writings of the Heathen nor do I know any who affirm the contrary It is true this argument is used by some that the various Readings in such Authors in matters of lesse moment do not make all their Philosophy Histories c. uncertain and therefore the like various Readings in some Copies of the Scripture doth not make the Scripture uncertain or prove it to be corrupt but what is this to the care and fidelity of the Church in preserving the Copies of the Scripture which all acknowledge to be more then any had or could have in preserving any humane Writings the Sybils verses or any other of the Heathens pretended Oracles But though their care was great and therefore no wilfull errors could passe nor mistakes in any matter of concernment yet that they did never erre not in the least needs no other confutation then the comparing of all Copies MSS. or Printed which have had errors of this kinde more or lesse according to the diligence and care of the Sc●ibe or Corrector as ocular inspection demonstrates XII Again pag. 17 18 c. he tells us the relief provided by Capellus and approved in the Prolegomena against various Lections viz. That the saving doctrine of the Scriptures as to the substance of it in all things of moment is preserved in the Copies of the Originall and in the Translations that remain is pernicious and insufficient because though it be a great relief against inconvenience of Translations that the worst of them contains all necessary saving fundamentall truth yet to depresse the sacred Truth of the Originalls into such a condition as wherein it should stand in need of such an Apologie and that without any colour or pretence from dis●repance in the copies themselves that are exstant or any tolerable evidence that ever there were any other in the least differing from these extant in the world will at length be found a work unbecoming a Christian Protestant Divine The nature of this doctrine is such that there is no other principle or means of discovery no other rule or measure of judging and detrmining any thing about it but onely the writing from whence it is taken it being wholly of Divine revelation which is onely expressed in Scripture so that upon supposall of any corruption there is no mean of rectifying it as there is in correcting a mistake in any Probleme of Euclide c. Nor is i● enough to satisfie us that the doctrines above mentioned are preserved entire every tittle or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Word of God must come unde our care and Consideration He provides us therefore better security p. 198. He tells us of a Copie which was a standard to try all others by The Vulgar Copy we use was the publike possession of many generations and upon the invention of Printing it was in actuall possession throughout the world This must passe for a standard which confessedly is its right and due But p. 173. we are referred to all the Copies that are remaining In them all we say is every letter and title of the Word of God These Copies are the rule standard and touchstone of all Translations c. XIII For answer First for what Capellus affirms I am not bound to answer he was able enough to answer for himself while he was living and now he is dead every one will trample upon a dead Lyon who durst not look him in the face while he was alive But as for the Prolegomena I do not onely say that all saving fundamentall truth is contained in the Originall Copies but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire or if any error or mistake have crept in it is in matters of no concernment so that not onely no matter of faith but no considerable point in Historicall truth Prophesies or other things is thereby prejudiced and that there are means left for rectifying any such mistakes where they are discovered as hath been often said Secondly To say that upon any corruption in the saving doctrine supposed there is no means of rectifying or restoring is a very strange assertion may not the consideration of Antecedents and Consequents of places parallel of the analogie of faith the testimonies Expositions Translations of the Ancients c. help to rectifie a corruption crept in and may we not judge by one part of revealed truth of what agrees with it or disagrees from it as by any Theoreme of Euclide what is agreeable with it or disagreeable though the one be by reason the other by revelation Is there no use of reason in matters of faith or in judging of Divine truths Vedelius might have spared his labour of a Rationale if this be so It is confessed by all that various Readings are found in the Originall Texts which severall readings cannot both be from the sacred Pen-men but the one must needs be false and erroneous and if in such smallest things all being of

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 Protestan●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 Cop●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 ●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

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 A●●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 Prol●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 pro●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 ha●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

the ground XI That which we affirm there about this Controversie is First that the modern points were not either from Adam or affixed by Moses or the Prophets that were before the Captivity Nor secondly after the Captivity devised either by Ezra or any other before the compleating of the Talmud Thirdly but after five hundred years after Christ invented by some Learned Jews for the help of those who were ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue whom they would teach by this means to read the Hebrew Text as distinctly and exactly as themselves that so after they had taken out of the peoples hands and laid aside the Greek Translation of the LXX they might have every where in their Synagogues men though unlearned who by this help might be able to read the Text publikely which before the invention of those points could be done onely by a few Learned men Fourthly as for other matters though probably affirmed I do not insist much as who they were how many one or more in what place they lived whether at Tiberias or elsewhere or where they met about this work what the precise and exact time was when the punctation was made whether the sixt seventh or eighth age after Christ in which things because of the great defect of any certain Historicall monuments among the Jews for those times all being involved in great obscurity and darknesse by reason of their dispersions and banishments it is hard to determine any thing with certainty though it be most probable that this Work was taken in hand about five hundred years after Christ by the Tiberian Masorites XII These things being premised about the State of the Controversie and the certainty of the Scriptures without points it will be needfull further to adde something concerning the first occasion of this Controversie which is briefly shewed Prolegom 3. Sect 38. to be this That though the Controversie be in it self Grammaticall or Logicall yet it had its rise from a question Theologicall For when at the beginning of the reformation divers questions arose about the Scripture and the Church The Romanists observing that the punctation of the Hebrew Text was an invention of the Masorites they thereupon inferred that the Text without the points might be taken in divers sences and that none was tyed to the reading of the Rabbins and therefore concluded that the Scripture is ambiguous and doubtfull without the interpretation and testimony of the Church so that all must flie to the authority of the Church and depend upon her for the true sence and meaning of the Scripture On the other side some Protestants fearing that some advantage might be given to the Romanist by this Concession and not considering how the certainty of the Scripture might well be maintained though the Text were pointed in stead of denying the Consequence which they might well have done thought sit rather to deny the Assumption and to maintain that the points were of Divine Original whereby they involved themselves in extreme labyrinths engaging themselves in defence of that which might be easily proved to be false and thereby wronged the cause which they seemed to defend Others therefore of more learning judgment knowing that this Position of the Divine original of the points could not be made good and that the Truth needed not the Patronage of an Vntruth would not engage themselves therein but granted it to be true that the points were invented by the Rabbins yet denyed the Consequence maintaining notwithstanding that the reading and sence of the Text might be certain without punctation and that therefore the Scripture did not at all depend upon the Authority of the Church and of this judgement were the chief Protestant Divines and greatest Linguists that then were or have been since in the Christian world such as I named before Luther Zuinglius Calvin Beza Musculus Brentius Pellicane Oecolampadius Mercer Piscator P●●hagius Drusius Schindler Martinius Scaliger De Dieu Casaubon Erpenius Sixt. Amama Jac. and Ludov. Capellus Grotius c. and among our selves Archbishop Vsher Bishop Prideaux Mr. Meade Mr. Selden and innumerable others whom I forbear to name who conceived it would nothing disadvantage the cause to yield that Proposition for that they could still make it good that the Scripture was in it self a sufficient and certain rule for saith and life not depending upon any humane authority to support it XIII Amongst those who undertook to assert the Divine Originall of the points the chief was Buxtorf the Father a man without doubt of very great skill in the Hebrew as any in his time and one whose labours conduced much to the knowledge of that Tongue This man in his Hebrew Grammar Edit 1. brought divers arguments to prove his opinion and said more for it then any others had done before him whose authority grounded upon his great skill in the Hebrew drew divers who wanted either leisure or ability to weigh all the reasons on both sides to imbrace his opinion and to take it for granted and the rather because it seemed to make more against the Romanists then the other Afterwards in the ensuing Editions of his Grammar this Tract about the points was left out whereupon it was conceived by divers that he had changed his judgement and it appears that divers men of great Learning did much oppose his opinion as Scaliger Epist 243. and others so that it might well be thought he began to stagger in it and therefore thought fit to forbear the further publishing of it till he had better considered of the whole matter After this Lud. Capellus Hebrew Professor at Saumer a man of great Learning and worth as his Writings speak him published his Arcanum punctationis revelatum which was set out by Erpenius at Leyden an 1624. Wherein he largely handles the whole Controversie answered all Buxtorfs arguments to the full and brought such convincing reasons to the contrary that few who read this Book without prejudice but subscribed to his opinion as Erpenius Ger. Vossius Rivet Sixt. Amama Spanhemius Festus Hommius Colterius c. as appears by some of their Epistles Printed in his Defensio Criticae yea divers that formerly were strongly against his Opinion being convinced by evidence in his reasons joyned with them as Mr. Eyres late Prebend of Ely a man of great skill in this kinde of Learning Arnold Bootius a man of great knowledge in the Hebrew and a violent opposer of Capellus his Critica yea it was conceived by some that Buxtorf himself was wavering in his opinion but that he was loth to retract what he had formerly in Print affirmed After his decease his Son D. Buxtorf who succeded his Father in the place of Hebrew Professor at Basil out of piety to his Father as is by himself in his Vindic. ingenuously confessed undertook to answer Capellus who had formery opposed and confuted his opinion about the ancient Hebrew letters though not without more sharpnesse and animosity then could have been

Author of the Prolegomena but by evident Arguments proved already to be assertions void of truth so that these props being taken away all his building falls to the ground III. Now in stead of reasons which are none our Adversary tells us of his own earnest wishes and endeavours p. 221. That he had rather this Work of the Bible and all works of the like kind were out of the world then that this our opinion should be received with the Consequences which unavoidably attend it and pag. 244. that he would labour to the utmost to have the punctation taken out of the Bible if it were the invention of the Masorites nor should he in its present station make use of it any more Thus do violent men run from one extreme into another either he must have the punctation to be of Divine authority or else he must labour to the utmost to have it out of the Bible But these wishes and violent expressions are no proofs with such as will not swallow his opinions by a blind implicit faith as Oracles Our opinion of the points hath been and is already received amongst most of those that excell in this kind of learning and among the most eminent judicious Protestant Divines who are best able to judge of things of this nature nor will it find the less acceptance among learned judicious men because of his hot passionate declaming against it for heat and passion are but weak proofs of the truth of any opinion they are like water that bears up the lightest things and lets the heavyest sink to the bottome and are indeed no better aguments then that of him in Scaliger who would prove that by laying a wager which he could not make good by sound reason If he be so earnest to have the Hebrew points taken away supposing they be not of Divine Originall why doth he not labour the same for the Accents notes of aspiration and distinction of Sentences in the Greek Text of the New Testament it being certain that they were not in use when the New Testament was written as we have proved proleg 3. Sect. 45. and in the precedent Chapter and that the Greek Text is subject to ambiguity in diverse places by the absence of the accents and notes of distinction whether doth he like it better to have the New Testament Printed with accents and distinctions as it is now or to have it without any as it is in the Complutense Bible which is so Printed as I have shewed that it might the better represent the Originall Copies which were written first without accents IV. As for the advantage which Papists Atheists c. make of this with his intimation as if all were looking towards Rome that hold this opinion I shall not need to say more then hath been said already when from the various Readings he would have inferred the same Consequence on the behalf of Papists c. It is enough to shew the vanity of this surmise that the greatest and learnedest defenders of the Protestant cause and of the authority of the Originall Texts have been and are of this judgement What some Romanists inferre upon this Principle is nothing unlesse it could be proved justly to follow which neither they nor this Author are ever able to do He might have taken notice that his objection is answered Prolegom 3. Sect. 51. where this inference which some of that Church make of the ambiguity of Scripture unpointed and that instance of Morinus in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which without points may be read eight severall wayes and hath so many significations is taken away Nor do all those of Rome urge this Consequence there are not wanting among them who maintain that the Text unpointed is certain and not ambiguous as Simeon de Muis Joh. de Espieres and others And although many of them argue against the Scripture in generall as our Author doth that the Text unpointed is uncertain and therefore no fit rule of faith and life yet I do not remember that in any particular Controversie between them and us they urge any one place of Scripture for their cause upon the uncertainty of the Reading without points which plainly shews that there is no such uncertainty in the Text unpointed as is pretended by them and this Author for they alledge all places according to the common Reading of the Hebrew or the vulgar Latine Let our Adversary therefore name any place in particular where the ambiguity of the Text without points makes for them or against us or where they have advantage upon this ground in any particular case controverted or else this Consequence will appear a meer cavil V. I do therefore appeal to all rational men and do challenge our Adversary with all the rabble of those he mentions as joyning with him in this Inference all the Papists Atheists fanatick persons c. in the world to make good their Consequence of the uncertainty of Scripture from that opinion of the punctation as it is declared and limited in the Prolegomena viz. That if the points were fixed by the Masorites to the Hebrew Text that is as the case is stated understanding onely the forms and figures of the points not the force and vertue of the vowels and accents themselves which is acknowledged to have alwayes been and that they did neither point the Text at pleasure but according to the true Reading commonly received to which they were tyed nor that any now may at pleasure reject this Reading by the points That upon this Proposition thus stated it doth necessarily follow That the Scripture is dubious and uncertain and cannot be a sure rule for faith and life This Consequence if they can prove I will retract my opinion and acknowledge my error But if our Adversary cannot prove it I expect he should do the like VI. But now as it was observed before about the various Readings so here the same may be observed about this question of the points that the Adversary unawares pleads the cause of them whom he would seem to oppose and whilest he would make others guilty of promoting Popery Atheisme c. himself is most deeply guilty by his own Arguments for he grants the consequence which they urge to be necessary and true as will appear if it be brought into a Syllogisme which runs thus If the points and accents be not of Divine Originall but affixed by the Masorites to the Text then the Scripture is uncertain capable of divers sences and therefore no fit rule for faith and life c. But they were affixed by the Masorites to the Text and are not of Divine Originall Ergo. The Conclusion of the Syllogisme we all agree is false and impious and therefore one or both Propositions must of necessity be false I should deny both if it could stand with evidence of truth but granting that which cannot be denied and which the ablest and learnedest men that the Protestant