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
their journey LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lat. tulerunt sibi cibaria so the Chaldee Syriack Arabick so vers 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Kin. 20. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lat. laetatus est so the Syriack and Arabick so our Bishops Bible and was glad of him so Is 39. 2. both in the Hebrew and all Translations Jerem. 15. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I will make thee to passe r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and I will make thee to serve LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Chaldee Syriack Arabick so Jer. 17. 4. both in the Hebrew and in all Translations Jerem. 31. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I was a husband to them r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I regarded them not LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Syriack and Arabick so the Apostle Heb. 8. 9. Now let me appeal to any unbyassed man yea to our Adversary himself whether in these places they do not think in their consciences that the LXX and the other Translators read in their Copies as we have shewed and if they did whether it be not evident that in some cases various Readings may be gathered out of Translations XIV What he further writes in his way of declaiming I shall not need to trouble my self about seeing nothing is by him brought that infringes our assertion in the least the controversie being rightly stated Onely one thing I cannot passe by wherein I cannot but admire his extreme confidence in urging a thing so palpably untrue and so oft by himself contradicted p. 317. Let them prove saith he that there was ever in the world any other Copy of the Bible differing in any one word from those that we now enjoy Let them produce one testimony one Author of credit or reputation that can or doth or ever did speak one word to this purpose let them direct us to any relick nay monument any kind of remembrance of them and not put us off with weak conjectures upon the signification of one or two words and it shall be of weight with us p. 319. The care of God over his truth and the fidelity of the Jewish Church will not permit us to entertain the least suspition that ever there was in the world any Copy of the Bible differing in the least from those we enjoy The Authors of this insinuation cannot produce the least testimony to make it good This is a strange assertion such as I think never any man maintained before not any Copy that ever was to differ in one word nay not in the least which extends to syllables letters and points That no Testimony no relick no Author of credit no monument of antiquity not the least testimony can be brought c. Do not all the various Readings both of the Old and New Testament proclaim the apparent untruth of this and doth not himself frequently confesse that there are varieties amongst Copies p. 173. That in some Copies and those of good antiquity there are divers Readings p. 190. That the Keri and Ketib are various Readings p. 296. That the Transcribers have had failings and that various Readings have thence risen p. 165. so p. 191. 347. c. What thinks he of those places in the New Testament especially that in 1 Joh. 5. 8. where a verse is left out in many ancient Copies and appears so to have been by the Fathers that wrote against Arrius Is there no Author of credit no monument of antiquity that testifies that some ancient Copies wanted these words which yet all our modern Copies have are not the whole collections of diverse Readings in Erasmus Stephanus Beza Camerarius and others a reall confutation of this He hath looked through the Prolegomena as he saith especially Proleg 7. which he so much opposes he quotes Sect. 12. and could he not there find many instances and testimonies of credit to disprove this generall assertion He could not but read there the testimony of Kimchi Praef. Com. in Proph. Priores Viri Synagogae magnae qui Legem nobis in pristinum statum restituerunt invenerunt differentias in libris secuti sunt multitudinem of Ben Chajim in the Venice and Basil Bibles who notes the difference of some Copies besides the Keri and Keitb which he notes not with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is another Copy But most evidently is this shewed in Jos 21. 36 37. where two verses were left out in the second Venice Edition and in Jonathans Paraphrase in the margent the Masorethicall note is that in no ancient and corrected Copies these verses are to be found nor in that famous Copie of R. Hillel yet in some later Copies they are found whereupon learned Buxtorf in his Vindic. part 1. c. 4. p. 105. 106. c. sticks not to affirm and maintain that they ought not to be put in and that the ancient Copies are genuine yea the number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collected by the Masorites in this chapter agrees if those two be left out and yet they are now generally Printed in our Copies and the Context shews that they ought to be there In the same Section is added that Junius besides the Keri and Ketib notes a difference of diverse words differing in sence also out of an ancient MS. Hebrew Copy at Heidelberg in 2 Chron. 26. 5. and 35. 3. which he prefers before the modern Reading XV. The like is shewed in the next Section out of many places in S. Hierome an Author of good credit in these things Epist ad Suriam Fretel upon these words Psal 35. 10. Omnia ossa mea dicunt domine he saith se deprehendisse in Editione LXX bis Domine and after addes Multa sunt Exemplaria apud Hebraeos quae ne semel quidem Dominum habent But in our modern Copies it is once In the same Epistle upon those words of Psal 130. 4. Propter legem tuam sustinuite Domine he saith Aquilam legisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vertisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 timorem Theodotionem vero Symmachum legisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vertisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 legem where he not onely grants the Hebrew Copies to have varied but also gathers a various Reading out of the Translation of the LXX yet neither Reading is in our present Copies which read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 timeberis The same on Hos 5. 13. writes Alii male legunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literam quae transferturin sylvas pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jareb which agrees with our Copies so on Hab. 2. 19. Sciendum in quibusdam Hebraicis voluminibus non esse additum omnis sed absolute spiritum legi Here we see the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnis was wanting in some Hebrew Copies in Hieromes time Much more
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
uttered against the most prophane Atheisticall Pamphlets which this age hath produced against Hobs his Leviathan and the like What is this but to cast dirt in ones face and yet to perswade him that he did it not to disgrace him Bern. in Cant. 2. speaks of the slanderer that when he intends the most disgrace against any begins first to commend him which kind of slander is saith he tanto plausibilior quanto creditur ab iis qui audiunt corde invito condolentis affectu proferri when it serves but as a foyl to what follows as a shoeing horn to draw on some disgracefull aspersion the better and make the crime be thought the greater Saint Cyprian Epist 2. compares such to wrastlers qui antagonistas luctantes altius tollunt quo vehementius illidant who lift their antagonist the higher that they may give him the greater fall And therefore S. Hierome ad Pammach Ocean saith that such commendation is honorifica contumelia an honorable reproach It is callidum nocendi artificium as another calls it a crafty kind of artifiâ—e to do mischief In the mean time it is some comfort when ne inimici quidem vituperare possunt nisi simul laudent as Plin. lib. 3. Ep. 12. when our very enemies must make our praises a preface to their slanders If these be his commendations let him keep them to himself XIII But he saith p. 161. that these consequences are not charged upon the Workmen but upon the Work But I say if upon the Work then upon the Workmen The Work and the Workmen are so nearly related that what is said against the one must of necessity reflect upon the other If one should publish in Print that himself in his Treatise by rejecting what is by all Christians acknowledged for a main ground of their believing the Scriptures to be from God viz. miracles and the uninterrupted Tradition of the Church by equalling the Tradition of the Mahumetanâ— for their Alcoran with the tradition of the Church for the Scriptures and laying all upon the light and power of the word it self doth thereby make way for Atheists and phanatick persons c. and should think to salve all with this distinction that he charges not the Author but the Book with these inferences would not he think himself concerned in the Charge and the distinction to be a meer mockery XIV The truth therefore is whatsoever is by him pretended and so it is generally known believed by all that know either him or those that had a hand in publishing this Work That his quarrel is chiefly with the persons and with the Work for their sakes and that he therefore seeks to depresse the worth of the Book because such men have had the honour to bring it forth Whereas had himself and those of his judgement been the Publishers it would have been free from all these imputations and cryed up as the greatest monument of Religion and learning which any age hath produced Nor is it unlike but that there was some mixture of ambition with envy which pricked him forward he thought to raise his own credit upon the ruine of this Work and thereby to gain some reputation amongst his disciples that so from the lustre of this Work he might be better known and admired Nothing is more evident then that he hath studiously laboured to scrape together whatsoever might with any colour be objected against it and when he wanted reall grounds for his calumnies to feign whatsoever he thought might render either it or the Publisher obnoxious to popular hatred so that whatever motives he had it could not be the love of the truth that stirred him up XV. Whatsoever his ends or aims were the Work hath had approbation from all ranks of men both at home and abroad who are best able to judge of it so that it need not fear his censures but will remain impregnable against the assaults and batteries of all malignant spirits If this tree had not born good fruit there had been no stones thrown at it for as Plut. ubi nullum lumen ibi nulla umbra ubi nulla felicitas ibi nulla invidia I could produce the judgement of the best learned in Europe exprest by severall letters out of France Germany the low Countries Flanders Italy and other places concerning this work that one stiles it opus plusquam Regium another opus Divinum another opus Heroicum c. but I will content my self at this time with the testimony of D. Buxtorfe now Hebrew Professor at Basil a man inferior to none for his great skill in Hebrew learning and one with whom for divers years I have had intercourse by letters and fair correspondence notwithstanding our difference in judgement about the Hebrew punctation c. one whose testimony our adversary cannot suspect Thus he writes in one of his Letters Ad opus vestrum Biblicum quod attinet quotquot vident mirantur nihil in hoc genere simile ars Typographica hactenus excudit Nitida sunt omnia quantum deprehendere possum correcta Ita captus sum sanctissimi pariter elegantissimi operis aspectu ut si quid ad illud exornandum consilii auxilii conferre possum id non solum prompte sim facturus sed honori quoque mihi ducturus In another of March 28. 1658. St. N. Quanta cum voluptate ego sanctissimos incredibiles vestros labores inspexerim quanto cum gaudio eos exceperim illi testabuntur quibus ego opus vestrum ostendi commendavi c. This and more to his purpose writes this great Hebrician whose judgement is enough in the opinion of all knowing men to preponderate all the light and frivolous cavils of many Considerators CHAP. III. I. The particulars of the Charge many the principall are about various Readings and the Hebrew points II. The generall Charge of depressing the esteem of the Hebrew Copies proved false III. Ten particular Charges in the Considerations proved to be false the words of the Prolegomena set opposite to them The Prolegomena affirm the direct contrary to what is charged The Adversaries candor and love of the truth c. I. WE come now to the particular Charges and Criminations of the Considerator We find them severall times mustered up first in the Epistle p. 9. then in the Consideration pag. 157 158. and again p. 205 206. in all which places though many particulars are enumerated to make the greater shew yet in his Discourse he chiefly insists upon two things viz. The various readings of the Original Texts and the novelty of the Hebrew punctation and in the same Epist p. 25. he reduces all to those two heads from which he deduces the uncertainty of the Scriptures The corruption of the Originalls and those other consequences which he would fasten upon the Biblia Polyglotta For our more orderly proceeding we shall first lay down the several particulars charged upon the Prolegomena as they are
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
various Readings as well as others and upon this account all Copies that are or ever have been the Autographa of the sacred Pen-men onely excepted must be said to be corrupt because no Scribes or Printers ever had a priviledge of not â—rring and so all other failings though never so small must make the Text corrupt And as the Originalls so all versions by this reason must be corrupt and so there will be no Scripture in the world but what is corrupt and uncertain and by consequence unfit for a ground of faith or obedience for as Buxtorf saitâ— Vindiâ— Part. 1. c. 4. p. 67. Facile potuit error unius exemplaris corrigi ex alio meliore tandem emendatum satis exemplar cudi licet non ad extremum utque apicem istud enim facile concedo nec esse nec fuisse imo nec esse posse And Vindic. Part. 2. c. 12. p. 800. he saith The Scripture is so preserved ut nulla vel paucissima alicujus momenti 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in iis demonstrare possint He that saith there are paucissima alicujus momenti grants that there are some that are of moment which is more then the Prolegomnea do any where affirm and in the same place he addes Libros sacros à Mosis Prophetarum Esdrae temporibus ad nos usque sine ulla lectionis varietate pervenisse quia nullibi asserimus nulla etiam ratione probatio à nobis exigi potest with these learned men concur Arnol. Bootius a fierce defender of the Hebrew Text against Capellus Epist ad Vsserium Sect. 64. and in his Vindic. Hebr cap. 23. p. 221. where he affirms our present Copies to agree with the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but excepts two cases Praeterquam in duobus casibus modo memoratis ubi vel de vitio vel de varia lectione apertissime constat VII Our Adversary notwithstanding proceeds upon this supposed Charge of which himself is most guilty to prove that which is not denied nay which was before proved to his hand Prolegom 7. where also the Arguments to the contrary are answered where the Reader if he please may finde the chief Arguments used in the Considerations with some others by him omitted to prove that the â—riginall texts are not corrupted so that I might spare both my own and the Readers further trouble and say nothing more upon the point But because they are urged in the Considerations to prove that there could be no variations in any Copies not in the least and by consequence that there can be no various Readings we will take a brief view of them VIII Chap 2. p. 168 169 c. 181. He objects The special providence of God The care and fidelity of the Church not the Romish Synagogue The care of the first Writers giving out authentick Copies which made it impossible for them to be corrupted either wilfully or by negligence The publike Copies preserved in the Synagogues and after in the Churches The daily reading studying and weighing every word The weight of every letter in this Book which the Translators knew to be the Word of the great God c The care of Ezra and his companions The care of the Masorites and Jewish Rabbins giving an account of every word and syllable The prodigious things related of their diligence The consent of all Copies of the World that not a word in the Mishna Gemara or either Talmud is read otherwise then in our Copies Our Saviours silence not reproving the Jews on this account when he spared them not for their false glosses which secures us that there were no mistakes voluntarily or negligently brought into the text before his coming The watchfulnesse of the Jews and Christians over one another c. All which as they prove the Text not to be wilfully corrupted and that not any errors of consequence could creep in by negligence to which end the most of these reasons are brought in the Prolegomena so they do not in the least prove but that by the negligence or inadvertency of transcribers some small mistakes of no moment might escape undiscerned and so are nothing at all to our Authors purpose of which we can have no cleerer argument then the experience of all ages that notwithstanding all the care and diliâ—â—nce that could be used yet various Readings have been still observed in the best Copieâ— which must needs come at first from the negligence or involuntary error of the Scribe as is confessed frequently by this Author himself and by all others that write of these things so that to prove this were to hold up a candle to the Sun We have more Copies of the Bible now then ever were in any age and more that pretend to the knowledge or it for as S. Hierom. Epist ad Paulinum Scripturae ars est quam omnes sibi vendicant And Printing is a surer way to prevent errors then transcribing by far and yet have many errors daily escaped in Printing the Bibles and those undiscerned many passing for currant many years not observed and some of them altering the sence IX The multitude of Copies publike and private and of all such that studie and read them might rather prove the 〈◊〉 IXX which was in mâ—re â—requent use then the Hâ—bâ—ew both among Jews and Christians to have been free from all error then the Originall Texts and so the Vulgar Latine the Syriack and other Translations of which were many thousands more Copiâ—s and those studied and read by thousands more then the Hebrew yet I know our Author will not grant that they were Translations free from all error for he inveighs against them all as most corrupt Cap. ult Our Printers also know as well as the Transcribers did of old the weight and worth of what they Print and yet we know they are not free from error The care taken amongst the Jews from time to time to get corrected Copies by which others were examined shews that there were still Copies that needed correction what needed Ben Ascher or Ben-Naphtali or R. Hillel or others have taken such pains and spent so many years in the accurate writing of one Copie if errors had not still crept into other Copies X That of the Mishna and Gemara which are the integrall parts of both the Talmuds the one being as the Text and the other as the Comment and yet distinguished here from the Talmuds that they never read one word otherwise then they are in our Copies is utterly void of truth though repeated p. 271. witness Buxtorf himself one that I believe is more versed in the Talmud then either of us Vindic l. 2. c 12. p. 808. Publice dico scribo inveniri quidem in Talmud quod Gemara in quibuâ—dam locis dissentiat à Masora hoc est à lectione in nostris codicibus recepta c. This cannot stand with our adversaries rash assertion nor would have been granted by Buxtorf to Capellus if it
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 â—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 Scâ—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 disâ—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 iâ— 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
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
might be brought out of Hierome and others to this purpose These places except onely the last our Adversary had read in the Prolegomena and yet affirms there never was any Copie in the world differed in the least from our present Copies and that no testimony nor Author of credit nor any relick of antiquity could be brought to the contrary Was he in a dream or were his wits a wool gathering when he wrote this or having read these things in the Prolegomena to which no answer could be given did he write the contrary to delude the ignorant Reader I do not know how to excuse him He tells us elsewhere Ep. p. 17. we must grant concerning various Readings in the New Testament what ocular inspection evinces to be true but now it seems we must be hoodwinked and not believe what we see with our eyes and though nothing be more clear then that there were of old and still are differences in the Hebrew and Greek Copies yet we must believe there never was any Copy different from our present Copies not in the least XVI We have done with this which was the main Charge The next is about the Keri and Ketib that is certain marginall notes in the Hebrew Bibles where the Keri is the word that must be read placed in the Margent with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Ketib or word written in the Text marked with a little circle or cipher to which the points belonging to the Marginall word are put to intimate that this word though written in the Text ought not to be read but that in the Margent concerning which I have spoken at large Proleg 8. Sect. 18 19. c. ad 27. where is shewed what they are Sect. 18. To what heads they may be reduced Sect. 9 20. That the number is not the same but much differing by two or three hundred in the chief Editions of the Bible Sect. 21. That the Authors of them were not the Sacred Pen-men nor Esdras and his fellows Sect. 22. 23. That the most of them were collected by the post Talmudicall Rabbins out of severall ancient Copies and that they left the common reading in the Text and put the other which they judged the better in the Margent and that some of them were gathered before the Talmud Sect. 24. That they were not Criticall Conjectures of the Rabbins but various Readings and some few of another nature Sect. 25. After which are added some Observations about them Sect. 26. I shall not go over the same things again but refer the Reader to the Prolegomena Nor do I know to what purpose our Author goes over them here I shall onely touch upon what is untruly by him charged on the Prolegomena XVII Page 206. He reckons this among the Paradoxes in the Prolegomena That the Keri and Ketib are criticall notes consisting partly of the various Readings of the Masorites and late Rabbins and p. 157. he sets it down thus That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which sort are above 800 in the Hebrew Bibles are various lections partly gathered by some Judaicall Rabbins out of ancient Copies partly their Criticall amendments for which he cites in the Margent Proleg 8. Sect. 23 c. Ans In both there is nothing truly related but untruth and nonsence jumbled together for first he saith They are Critical notes consisting partly of various lections which is a kind of contradiction for if they be Critical notes they cannot be either in part or in whole various lections Criticall notes are such wherein men give their own judgement upon some Reading whether it be true or false or which Reading they like best various Readings are the differences of Copies collected and offered to the Readers judgement In the other place he makes them all to be various Readings but partly collected by some Rabbins out of ancient Copies and partly their Criticall amendments that is some of them are gathered out of Copies others are gathered without authority of Copies grounded only upon their Critical faculty in conjecturing This may be his meaning or else I cannot make any good sence of his words Howsoever he explain himself the charge is no less void of truth then of sence as the place by him cited will plainly shew to any that shall look into it for still he never quotes the words where it will appear that there is not one word of Criticall Conjectures or that any part of the Keri and Ketib are such conjectures nor is there any mention at all of conjectures save that the Author shews his dislike of them XVIII That which is affirmed of them in these Sections is 1. That Esdras and his fellows were not the Authors of these notes but that they were gathered long after his time partly before and partly after the Talmund That they could not come from Esdras or the Prophets of his times because these various Readings for so they are generally acknowledged as by most Divines so by our Adversary himself are found in the Writings of Esdras and the latter Prophets as well as in the rest and it were very absurd to think that they gathered various Readings out of severall Copies of the books they had written and to place one Reading in the Margent and the other in the Text as if they knew not which were the true Reading of their own Books and that any of the rest should be gathered either by them or any other of the holy Pen-men is no lesse absurd both for the same reason as also because they would have restored the true Reading if they had found any difference in Copies which they being infallibly guided might have done and not have left it doubtfull which Reading was to be followed or what was the true sence of the Holy Ghost by noting both the Readings and so leaving all in suspence This is altogether unbefitting the holy Pen-men of Scripture and our Adversary though he be loth to yield to the truth yet confesses he is not able to satisfie himself in the Originall and spring of this variety 2. It is proved Sect. 24. That some of these were observed by the Talmudical Rabbins being mentioned in the Talmud as those de vocibus scriptis non lectis de lectis non scriptis and those which they call obsence for which these chast Rabbins who would be wiser then God and more pure then the Holy Ghost pur others which they judged more modest in the Margent to be read in the Synagogues according to that in the Talmud Megil c. 3. Omnes voces quae in Lege sunt obscoenae eas legant honeste That all the rest of which there is not a word in the Talmud were collected by the Masorites after the Talmud 3. That question is handled whether supposing the Masorites to be the Authors they gathered them out of various Copies or made them out of their own judgements and Criticall conjectures where it is concluded that excepting
is manifest that the designe of this Appendix was to gather every thing of this sort that might by any means be afforded and however Satan seems to have exerted the utmost of his malice men of former ages the utmost of their negligence of these later ages of their diligence the result of all is in this collection of the Appendix c. Nay to increase the bulk divers of the same readings are twice and oftener mustered over The Keri and Ketib are twice served over to increase the bulk and present a face of new variety to the lesse attentive Reader p. 158. and 304 305. yea a third time in Grotius p. 348 349. over and over and so those of the New Testament are given over again by Grotius and Luc. Brugens The collection of them makes a book bigger then the New Testament it self p. 189 c. II. For Answer First our Adversary by these many reiterated expressions would intimate as if all the last Volume or Appendix consisted of nothing but various Readings of the Originall Texts when as the whole Volume consists of above two hundred sheets of which there are not above two sheets of the Hebrew various Readings viz. only the Keri and Ketib with those of Ben-Ascher and Ben Naphtali the Oriental and Occidental Jews which are in divers other Editions of the Hebrew Bibles reckoning in also the Annotations about the Keri and Ketib yea the bare Readings themselves might be reduced into almost one sheet and as for those of the New Testament gathered out of above fourty old Greek MSS. they are all contained in nine sheets of which the very names of so many MSS. so often repeated upon necessity upon every difference with the present reading of the Text and the noting down the Chapter and Verse at every various Reading takes up the most of those sheets so that I durst undertake that all these differences noted out of those MSS. if they were printed by themselves without any thing else added might be reduced into one or two sheets so that here this great voluminous bulk is shrunk from two hundred sheets to two or three The greatest part of that Volume is spent about the Greek Sept. wherein are those large notes of Nobilius that rich Magazine and Nursery of Learning so accounted by all Learned men Master Patrick Youngs Notes upon Teclaes Sept. The collation of the Venice and Complutense Edition of the Sept. with the Roman whereby the Reader hath in a manner all the severall Editions of the Sept. here presented in one Volume and may consult them all at pleasure with divers other old MSS. Divers notes upon the Chaldee Syriack Arabick Samaritane Persian Aethiopick and Vulgar Latine of all which with the Tables of the Proper names expounded an Index of all the Scripture is that Volume in a manner made up which things before they were printed the heads of them being published and sent abroad were much applauded by all never disliked that I could hear of till now by any III. That all differences whatsoever are here collected out of all books printed or written every varying word tittle or syllable that could be brought to hand is far from truth as appears by the Readings themselves and the Copies out of which they were gathered which our Author could not be so blinde as not to read though he was in such hast that he could not consider how the calumny did confute it self and might be found out by every one that looks upon the names of the Copies For first There is not one Hebrew Copy either MS. or Printed here collated or any differences collected save those of the Keri and Ketib Ben-Ascher and Ben-Naphtali the Eastern and Western Jews which our Author himself tells us are in most Editions of the Hebrew Bibles onely here they are more perfectly enumerated then in any former Edition being gathered out of divers chief Editions of the Bible compared together amongst which there is a difference of two or three hundred in some Editions which confutes the Opinion of Ar. Mont. and some others of whom our Author seems to be one that would have the Keri and Ketib to be the same in all Copies whatsoever which labour might deserve as it hath found amongst Learned and Ingenious men thanks and acceptation rather then reproach and contumelies Other varieties in the Hebrew Copies are not collected though divers might have been as we shall see anon nor did we want Hebrew MSS. of good antiquity one belonging sometimes to Leo Modena written above three hundred years ago another more ancient belonging to Cajus Colledge in Cambridge part of which was collated of which because it seemed to be negligently written and for other reasons I did not think fit to mention the differences So here we see how far from truth this Charge is concerning the Hebrew IV. And as far is it from truth concerning the Greek Text of the New Testament for as any may see here was not one Printed Copy collated though there be many differences between the Editions of Erasmus Beza the Complutense c. and others as all know who have collated any and divers MS. Copies we had which were not collated at all but chose out those that are exhibited leaving out the rest Those various Readings observed out of the Complutense are indeed most of them noted among the rest but not by comparing any printed Copie but as they are in Stephens various Readings gathered out of his sixteen Copies so that we see how far our Author hath exceeded for the number V. But suppose that more Copies MS. and Printed had been collated and exhibited was it ever accounted a crime before now If to consult and compare ancient Copies hath been heretofore always accounted good service for preserving the Originall Text or confirming and restoring the true reading is their diligence to be condemned that have done more then others before them in that kinde If it were commendable in some it cannot justly be blamed in others Those that have heretofore laboured about any speciall Editions of the Old or New Testaments used to consult with all the ancient Copies they could get or others of good note Thus did Origen in his Hexapla thus did S. Hier. as appears frequently in his Works so did the Complutense Divines Montanus Erasmus Beza Nobilius Heintenius Lucas Brugensis the Lovain Divines and others thus among the Jews did Ben-Ascher Ben-Naphtali R. Hillel R. Ben-Chajim R. Menachem Ben-Louzano R. Manasseh Ben-Israel c. they compared divers Copies noted the differences and sometimes gave their judgement pitching upon that Reading which they judged to be best where is our crime who do the same now nay not so much seeing we do not presume to alter any thing in the received or common reading but only propound what we finde and leave it to others to judge as they shall see cause VI. Our Author commends Erasmus Beza Camerarius Stephanus and others for the
same thing for which we are reproved It seems if this had been done by others all had been well Rob. Stephanus in his Edition of the Vulgar Latine anno 1540. names many old Copies he had collated whose different Readings he put in the Margent and in his accurate Edition of the New Testament he reckons sixteen Greek Copies which he collated and out of them noted 2384. various Readings which he thought fit to put in the Margent of his Edition nor was he ever blamed by any but highly approved by all for his pains and diligence Lucas Brugensis a man of great learning and judgement and a great defender of the Originall Copies and one who spent most of his time in collating old Copies of the Hebrew Greek Chaldee Syriack and Latine in that excellent book his Notationes in loca variantia S. Scripturae reckons up above 10â— Copies which he compared and used Heintenius and the Lovain Divines as appears by their Notes used all the Copies Printed and MSS. which they could get that they might help forward a correct and perfect Edition of the Vulgar Latine Erasmus in his Preface to his excellent Annotations on the New Testament tells us what Copies he compared and what pains he took about the severall Readings that no error might passe but the genuine Reading might be established But now it seems the case is altered the more Copies we use the more labour is spent to no purpose We are told that in gathering these various Readings we have the utmost of Satans malice the negligence of former times and the diligence of later times needlesly yea to eminent scandall heaped up together for the result of them all is in this Appendix VII But could this Aristarchus see nothing usefull in the variety of Copies Saint Augustine was of another mind when he wrote thus of the variety of Translations in his time Tantum abest ut ea varietate offendi turbari incertus reddi debeat pius Christianus lector ut ex earum collatione examine certior reddatur quid potissimum sequendum sit quam si unica duntaxat versio esset and why may we not say the same of the various Readings of the Originall Methinks it shews a speciall Providence over these books that notwithstanding some variety in smaller matters all do constantly agree in all matters of weight whether of faith or life yea Historicall and Propheticall for it will be hard for him or any other to find in all this bulky collection any one place which inâ—renches upon any point of â—aith or Religion or any other matter of moment which must needs shew Gods wonderfull care in preserving this rule of our faith and life entire without any danger and even in those lesser things he hath not left us without means to judge of the best reading when any casuall error shall appear Besides seeing no one Copy now extant can pretend to be a standard in every thing for all others and our Adversary flies to this as we shewed already that all the revealed truth is preserved entire in some Copy or other and seeing it is impossible to consult all Copies in the world therefore to have as many as we can and those of greatest antiquity and of the best note to consult with is the best means that can be used to judge of the true reading and to preserve it to posterity Now in these various Readings we have all the best and choicest Copies that could be got which are tendered to every mans view and therefore this collection must needs be of great use Those therefore that have used their utmost diligence in this kind for preserving the truth are but ill requited for their pains when their diligence in preserving it is compared to Sathans malice in corrupting it VIII Let me adde that the observing of the varieties is a good means to preserve the true Reading against future mistakes when we have so many Copies at hand to consult with upon all occasions and among them so many conspiring in the same Reading in all matters of any moment so that I may say with Lucas Brugens Prâ—f ad lectorem Out of these Copies Si non ipsi judicium ferre certe aliis dare unde aut ferre possint aut suo quemque monente Lectionis varietaâ—em aestimare Non quasi Scriptura sacra erroribus obnoxiâ— sit quae à prima veritate perfecta veritatis regulâ— est sed quod in codices sive apographa ipsa Graeca maxime Latina per frequentem exemplarium in exemplaria transfusionem nunc librariorum nunc lectorum oscitantia incuria inscitia temeritate labeculae errata depravationesque irrepserint quae aliorum codicum sive apographorum collatione mutari corrigi auferri debent And what he saith of the Vulgar Latine I know not but may be said of the Originall Text. Emendate imprimi haud posse videtur nisi collatis variis exemplaribus menda deprehensa eliminetur sincera lectio administretur For as follows haeret animi dubis quid amplectatur donec ex fontibus aut ex antiquis aliarum linguarum editionibus aut ex Tracâ—atorum Commentariis aut ex locorum circumstantiis aut ex ipsa exemplarium spectata integritate aut denique ex his simul omnibus quod inter exemplaria ipsa discernat adfer atur Thus far this judicious Author who in a few words answers our authors whole volume of Considerations about various Readings IX The Jews themselves as I have said take this course in their Editions of the Hebrew Text They compare diverse Copies and note the Differences Manasses Ben Israel in his late Edition much approved by diverse tells us of four Copies that were omnium correctissima which he compared together and when any difference offered it self his refuge was to the Grammar rules and the Masora and addes Correctionem adhibui quam diligentissime errata tum in punctis tum in literis atque adeo etiam in ipsis locorum aliquorum regulis quae in exemplâ—ribus hactenus editis non pauca reperi postquam ea diligenter annotavi fideliter omnia emendavi Here we see this great Rabbi found not a few errors crept in and differences in the Hebrew Copies which he corrected and amended He might have learned of our Author that his labour was needlesse there can be no errors in the Text that this was presumption to correct the Word of God X. To conclude this let him consult Buxtorf his Vindic. who will inform him that there are diverse various Readings in the Hebrew Text in our present Copies besides the Keri and the Ketib and the rest above mentioned some of which have been collected by others and that he is so far from blaming those that collect them that he wishes that more Copies were compared and the various Readings gathered that a correct Copy might be made out of them all Non impedio quo minus codicum Hebraicorum variae lectiones
Church as it is now as appears both by the Hebrew Copies among them and by the Comments and Expositions and Translations of the ancient Writers of the Church The reading and Expositions therefore of Christians are not regulated by the Masorites or depend upon their skill and diligence in punctation for if their punctation had never been the reading had been the same it is Nor doe these rely upon the Masorites but upon the Text it selfe and the true reading of it continued and preserved in the Church of Christ which because the Masorites had well expressed by their points the Christian Church received their punctation not upon their authority but as I said because it expressed the true sense received in the Church of God and withal because they saw it conduced much to the more easie reading of the Text. VII Against this we have a maine objection pag. 292 293. That while the Hebrew language was the vulgar tongue of that Nation and was spoken by every one uniformaly every where it had been possibly upon a supposition that there were no points that men without infallible guidance direction might affix notes and figures which might with some exactness answer the common pronunciation of that language and so consequently exhibit the true proper sence and meaning of the words themselves But when there had beene an interruption of 1000 years in the vulgar use of that language and being preserved onely pure in our books to suppose that the true and exact pronunciation of every letter tittle and syllable was preserved alive by orall Tradition not written any where nor commonly spoken is to build Castles in the ayre After he saith that the reliefe is insufficient to say the Masorites affixed not the present punctation arbitrarily but according to the tradition they had received What weight is to be laid upon such a tradition for neere 1000. yeares above according to Morinus is easie to be imagined Nor let men please themselves with the pretended facility of learning the Hebrew Language without points and accents and not onely the Language but the true and proper reading and distinction of the Bible let the points accents be wholly removed and the restraint and distinction of the words as now pointed and then turne in the drove of the learned Criticks of this age upon the noted Consonants and we shall quickly see what wofull worke yea havock of the sacred Truth will be made among them were they shut up in severall Cells I should hardly expect that harmony and agreement among them which is fabulously reported to have been among the LXX in the like case VIII To this we answer 1. That though the Language ceased to be Vulgar for 1000. yeares yet there was still a succession of Priests and Scribes and other learned men who continued the knowledge of the Language and the true reading and pronunciation of the Text and do to this day with whom the Language was the same as it was when the common people spoke it and their study and profession was to write out copies of the Law and likewise to read and expound it or to teach the reading and true pronnnciation of it to others which they did successively from age to age as we see in the Greek and Latine which have a long time ceased to be vulgar and yet the knowledge of the tongues and the true reading and pronunciation is the same among learned men as it was when they were vulgar This was a great part of the Jewish learning the true reading of the Text and they who were most accurate and exact therein were honoured most among them and had their Schools and their Schollars and Disciples whom they instructed from time to time till at length in regard of their many dispersions and banishments that the true reading might not be lost with the language they began to affix points to the Text as well to facilitate the reading as to preserve it the better from any alteration or change And therefore it was all one to them who still preserved the true reading and sence of the Scripture to point and accent it as it was whilst the common people spake and understood it as well as they and therefore upon this concession that whilst the Language was vulgar the points and accents might have been affixed with certainty it follows undeniably that even in the time of the Tiberian Masorites the Rabbins and learned men among the Jewes might point the Bible as well as their Predecessors might have done whilst the Language was common This is a cleer truth to any common understanding and not to build Castles in the ayre 2. The true reading was not continued by orall or unwritten Tradition after the tongue ceased to be vulgar but by the Written Text which was alwayes preserved entire among them and the reading depended not upon Tradition otherwise then the reading of all Books in other Languages which depends upon the orall instruction of Masters and Teachers without which continued from hand to hand how could any know that such a letter or character stands for such a sound or that such a word hath such a signification The Samaritane Pentateuch Chaldean Paraphrase of the Pentateuch and Prophets and the Syriack Translation of the Bible continued above a thousand years before they were pointed and the Samaritan is not yet pointed as is certainly known confest by all which shews plainly how the Hebr. Text might be continued and the true reading preserved without pointing unless our Author can shew any difference as to this matter between the Languages For they have the same letters the same vowels Aleph Vau Jod with the Hebrew and the reading in every respect subject to as much ambiguity and uncertainty as is pretented to be in the Hebrew unpointed And that the true reading might be preserved above a thousand yeares is not against all reason but very reasonable to suppose since we see the â—ame done in the Samaritane Syriack and Chaldee for a longer time and the same may be said of the Arabick though not for so long a time after the Alcoran was written IX 3. The certain reading of the Text by diligent practice and use may be attained without points though with more difficulty then if it were pointed as hath been heretofore shewed by Martinius Capellus and others One that 's wholly ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue having some Translations as the LXX or vulgar Latine may by labour and industry and comparing the Translation with the Text and observing the Antecedents and Consequents find out the signification of each word by it selfe and the proper sence and meaning in connexion with others and may by degrees find out where the Translator varied from the Text and where he was mistaken Thus among others Clenard learned the Arabick without any Mr. or Instructer when that Language was scarce known in Europe by the Nubiense Psalter where the Arabick is without any pointed vowels
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