CHAP. I.

I. IT was the speech of a grave Hi­storian (Thucyd.) That [...], Those that are in the midst are slain (or assaulted) on both sides. With [Page 2] which agrees to that of Aristotle, Ethic. l. 2. c. 8. [...]. expellunt medium extremi uterque ad alterum. This was the case of our Mother the Church of England in former times, as was long since ob­served by a Reverend Author, when she was (like Christ crucified between two Theives) opposed by the superstitious Romanists on the one hand, & by the fiery Novellists on the other, the first accusing her of departing too far from them, the other of coming too neer to them; which contrary accusations of men running in­to extreams, were a strong evidence that shee walked in the mean, which is the best and safest; for, Medium tenuere beati. This which was the condition of the Mother, is now become the lot of some of her Sons in the late Edition of the Biblia Polyglotta: for whereas the Publi­sher of the said Bible hath laboured to assert the purity, integrity, and supream authority of the Originall Texts, against those of Rome on the one side, rejecting some Jewish opinions, un­warily swallowed by some amongst our selves on the other, he hath incurred the displeasure of both; the one complaining that too much is a­scribed to the Originall Texts, the other, too little: which is a good argument that he hath kept close to the Truth, from which those that do extrema sectari do usually swerve.

II. This is no new thing, that Endeavours to [Page 3] promote the publique good, should be thus re­warded, for in former ages we finde, that those who laboured most about the Sacred Oracles of God, to restore them to their primitive and o­riginall luster, and to wipe off that dust which by injuries of time and ignorance or negligence of Transcribers was contracted, and so to trans­mit them pure and incorrupt to posterity (for such God raised up in all ages) whose endea­vours, one would thinke, might have set the Authors without the reach of calumny and en­vy, have yet been aspersed and slandered, their labours calumniated, and their aimes perverted by such as S. James speaks of 4. 5. In whom the spirit that lusts after envy reigned. Origens pains in compiling his Tetrapla, Hexapla, and Octa­pla, a work of that admirable use, that it was styled Opus Ecclesiae, and which by the unexcu­sable negligence of the Greek Church is now lost, was carped and cavil'd at amongst others by Hie­rome, as if he had corrupted the pure Translation of the LXX. by the additions which he made out of Theodotion: When as Origen to preserve the LXX in its integrity, distinguisht all the addi­tions by an Asterisk, which being left out, what remained was the meer and true Translation of the Septuagint, as Hierome himselfe sometimes acknowledged, Epist. 11. ad Augustin. The same Hierome was payd in the like coyne by o­thers, who rejected his Latine Translation (the [Page 4] first in Latine that was made out of the Hebrew Text) as appears by Ruffine, S. Augustine, and other learned men of those times, who inter­preted this attempt of his (though in it selfe very laudable) as done, in contumeliam versio­nis [...] to disgrace that of the Septuagint (as some now interpret all that is said of the use of ancient Translations▪ as tending to the depressing of the Hebrew [...] whereupon he was often put to apologize for himselfe.

III. To come nearer to our owne times, that Magnificent worke of the King of Spaines Bible (by some styled Orbis miraculum) was approved by the Pope himselfe to whom it was presented, as by his Breves prefixed appeares, yet all could not protect the Publisher thereof, Arias Montanus (a learned and moderate Ro­manist) though he did nothing without the ad­vice of the University of Lovaine, and of sun­dry particular learned men, from the jealousies and calumnies of malignant spirits, of his owne Brethren, against whom he was faine to write Apologies, and hardly escaped the Inquisition. Erasmus his extraordinary paines, in publishing the Greek Testament by comparing ancient copies and Translations, was sufficiently railed at by some Friers and ignorant Zelots, as if he took upon him to correct the Word of God, as appears in his Preface to his Annotations of 1535 (whose very words are used, as we shall see hereafter, [Page 5] against the Biblia Polyglotta. And that late splendid worke of the Parisian Bible, published at the charges of Michael de Jay in seven lan­guages, which farr exceeds the Biblia Regia, by addition of that ancient Syriack Translation of the Old Testament, the Arabick of the Old and New, and the Samaritane Pentateuch, &c. though it be not without its defects, which in­genuous and moderate men would rather have excused then aggravated, yet hath not wanted its detractors, who envying that others should have the glory of that which themselves were unable to performe, have defamed it what they could, witnesse those bitter and virulent ex­pressions of Simeon de Muis, Regius Professor of the Hebrew at Paris, in his Epistles publisht against it. And, to come yet nearer home: The last English Translation made by diverse learned men at the command of King James, though it may justly contend with any now extant in any other Language in Europe, was yet carped and cavild at by diverse among our selves, especially by one, who being passed by & not imployed in the Work, as one (though skild in the Hebrew, yet) of little or no judgement in that or any o­ther kinde of Learning, was so highly offended, that he would needs undertake to shew how many thousand places they had falsly rendred, when as he could hardly make good his under­taking in any one.

[Page 6] IV. Thus we see, That for every good work is a man envyed of his Neighbour, as the Wise man observed, Eccles. 4. 4. Our Saviour, for the good works he had done, had like to have been stoned by the people; and the Scribes and Elders out of envie, delivered him to be put to death; Licet invenire regionem ubi venena non sunt, quemadmodum affirmant de Cr [...]ta, at non licet invenire Rempublicam quae non alat invidiam, as Plut. in Moral. Some Countries there be, where no venom [...]us creature lives, as they say of Candy; but none where the poyson of envie is not found▪ yea, so monstrous is this sin, that the envious man makes anothers vertue his vice, and ano­thers happinesse his torment; Invidia Siculi non invenere tyranni, Majus tormentum. Whereas he that rejoyceth at the good of another, is thereby made partaker of it: For, Tolle invidi­am, & tuum est quod hab [...]o, Tolle invidiam, & meum est quod habes, as Chrysost. in Joh.

V. It cannot seem strange then, That this late Work of the Bible, though generally ap­proved by Learned men, both in the first under­taking, when the particulars, whereof it was to consist, with a specimen thereof, were pub­lished to the World, and since it was finished, when not only all was performed which was un­dertaken, but also more then could justly be ex­pected should notwithstanding, meet with some disaffect [...] persons, who seek to defame and [Page 7] blast it. There have ever been some, that would make themselves seem fairer, by throwing dirt in the faces of others, and acount themselves the better, by how much they speak the worse of others: For Gloriae comes invidia, and it never was the hap of any Book yet, to meet with no opposition, [...] as Clemens Alex. ob­served long since, Deus omnibus placere non po­test, & tu placere credis? said Jul. Scal. God him­self cannot please all men; and how can any of us then hope for it? Erasmus his complaint was just against his censurers: Superbum est de libro sen­tentiam ferre quem non intelligis, superbius & de eo quem ne legeris quidem, Praef. eadem. Yet we finde usually, that this envious humor is at­tended with ignorance, Vituperant quae ignorant, said Tertul. Ignorance is the greatest enemy to any kinde of knowledge; and Jos. Scaliger met with such, of whom he writes, Quicquid eorum captum superat erratum vocant, & quod non in­telligunt pro i [...]fcitia sua damnant; how this may be applied, I leave to the Judgement of others: This I finde too true, That though there never was so much done in any Edition of the Bible in any age, (absit invidia verbo) as to exhibit the originall Text of the Scripture at one view, attended with so many ancient Transla­tions, approved by the Church in her purest times, and that according to the best Co [...]ies and Editions, which bear witnesse to the [...]thority [Page 8] and Integrity of the Originalls, and serve as so many gl [...]sses to represent the true sence and meaning of them to succeeding ages, and to pre­serve the sacred truth to posterity, as far as humane industrie can reach▪ against the corrupti­ons and false glosses, wherewith Sectaries and Heretikes (who in no age so abounded as in this) would adulterate and imbase it; yet this could not free the Work from the opposition of malicious tongues and pens of such, whom the envious man hath stirred up to hinder the benefit which the Church of God might reap by it, witnesse a late Pamphlet, pretending to the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text, to which are added, certain Considerati­ons on the Prolegomena and Appendix to the late Biblia Polyglotta.

VI. In which, I was sory to finde so much clean paper fouled with so many palpable un­truths, wilfull and studied calumnies, such con­tradictions, tautologies and impertinencies, as ap­pear in those Con [...]iderations, that if they should be culled out of the Book, we might say of it, as Apollodorus the Athenian of Chrysippus his writings, That if one should take away, [...] All that was either none of his own, or no­thing to the purpose, [...] they would be empty of all matter; for there is scarce any thing true or usefull concerning the subjects here disputed, which was not formerly said in [Page 9] those Prolegomena, nor any thing concerning the same which is added by the Adversary, as his own, w ^ch is not sufficiently confuted in the same Proleg. Not to mention the incoherence of the things here handled, the whole being, rudis in­digesta (que) moles, a confused heap of Independencies.

VII. In these Considerations, we are told of a new Plot or Design amongst Protestants, after they are come out of Rome, a Design which they dare not publikely own, Pag. 329. The leprosie of Papists, crying down the Originall Texts, is bro­ken forth among Protestan [...]s, with what design, to what end or purpose he knows not, God knows, and the day will manifest▪ Epist. pag. 14. That this design is owned in the Prolegomena to the Bi­ble, and in the Appendix▪ That they print the Ori­ginall and defame it, gathering up translations of all sorts, and setting them up in competition with it, Epist. p. 9. That they take away all certainty in and about all sacred truth, Epist. p. 25. That there is nothing left unto men, but to chuse whe­ther they will turn Papists or Atheists, Epist. p. 9. That there are grosse corruptions befallen the Ori­ginalls, which by the help of old Translations, and by conjectures may be found out and corrected, pag. 205. as pernitious a Principle as ever was fixed upon since the foundation of the Church of Christ, Epist. p. 21. That it is the foundation of Mahu­metanisme, the chiefest and principall prop of Popery the onely pretense of phanaticall Antiscri­pturists, [Page 10] 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 [Page 11] to two, (though many be pretended) 1. That the Hebrew points, (that is, the modern forms now used, not the vowels & accents them­selves, which are acknowledged to be coeve with the other Letters, & that the reading of the Text was never arbitrary, but the same before and af­ter the punctation) were devised and fixed by the Masorites about five hundred years after Christ. 2. That there are various readings in the Old and New Testament, both in the Hebrew and Greek (by the casuall mistake of transcribers, yet in matters of no moment) which by com­paring ancient Cop [...]es, may be found out, and in some cases out of ancient translations, and when they are discovered, the true reading may be restored. Hence is inferred, the uncertainty of all Divine truth, that the Scriptures are cor­rupt, &c. And hence are those fears and jea­lousies, Epist. pag. 19. which how justly dedu­cible from▪ these, or any other principles in the Prolegomena or Appendix shal hereafter appear. In the mean time, our Author practises what Quintilian said of some Romane Orators, who did causarum vacua convitis implere, and in­stead of Arguments, loads his adversary with reproaches, like that Souldier in Darius his Army (mentioned by Plutarch) who, instead of fighting with his hands, imployed his tongue in railing upon Alexander, whereupon the Ge­nerall struck him with his Lance, and told him, [Page 12] he hired him to fight, and not to rail. Who those Protestants are that concur with the Prole­gomena in those Principles the adversary is asha­med to mention, though he knew they were at large cited in the Prolegomena, because their very names would have spoiled his whole pro­ject and make his charge appear a meere calum­ny. They are no other (concerning the novelty of the Hebrew punctation) than Luther, Zuin­glius, Brentius, Pellican, Oecolampadius, Cal­vine, Beza, Musculus, Paulus Fagius, Mercer, Cameron, Chamier, Piscator, Scaliger, Casaubon. De Dieu, Grotius, Capellus, Erpenius, Sixtinus, Amama, Salmasius, Schickard, Martinius, also Rivet, Spanhemius, Fest. Hommius, as ap­pears by their Epistles to Capel. in his Defensio Criticae. &c. and amongst our selves Archbi­shop Vsher, Bishop Prideaux, Mr. Selden, Mr. Mead, Mr. Eyres, and many others, not to name those now living, the most emi­nent Divines that have appeared in the Pro­testant cause, and most zealous defenders of the purity and authority of the Original Texts, or the chiefest [...]inguists that this age hath produ­ced and best skilled in the Hebrew and other Ori­entall learning. And for that other point of vari­ous lections, not onely the same men▪ but all others generally which will believe their eies, (two or three excepted) grant the same which the author of the Prolegomena doth, and that [Page 13] 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 its confest there have been failings in the tran­scribers, who have often mistaken, and that its impossible it should be otherwise, &c p. 165 191. 178. 296. whereby he makes himself evidently guilty of the crimes which he unjustly charges upon others, and of those consequences which he infers on the behalf of Papists, Atheists, Antiscripturists, &c. and so overthrows that which he would seem to contend for, viz. the certainty and supreme authority of Scripture; and therefore I may say unto him, ex ore tuo, out of thy own mouth shalt thou be judged, and use the words of the Apostle, Rom. 2. 1. Where­fore thou art unexcusable O man that condemnest another, for hereby thou condemnest thine own self, for thou dost the same things.

VIII. When I first read this Pamphlet I stood amazed at the strange boldnesse of the Author, charging the Prolegomena with such te­nets and assertions, which they are so far from maintaining, that they do assert and prove the plain contrary, and that not obiter, or by the by, but ex professo, in full tracts. As for instance the [Page 14] main Charge, p. 206. That there are corrupti­ons, yea grosse corruptions befallen the Original Texts, which men by their critical conjectures may discover and correct, is so far from truth, That the whole Prolegom. 7. is spent in proving that the Original Texts are not corrupted either by Jews, Christians or others, that they are of Supream authority in all matters, and the rule to try all translations by, That the copies we now have are the true transcripts of the first [...] written by the sacred Pen-men. That the speciall providence of God hath watched over these books, to preserve them pure and uncorrupt against all attempts of Sectaries, Hereticks and others, and will still preserve them to the end of the world, for that end for which they were at first written. That the errors or mistakes which may befall by negli­lence or inadvertency of Transcribers or Printers, are in matters of no concernment (from whence various readings have risen) and may by colla­tion of other copies and other means there menti­oned be rectified and amended. The arguments also brought by some Romanists against the pu­rity, certainty and authority of the Original Texts are clearly answered, wherein I doubt not but the Reader may find more satisfaction, than in all these confused Considerations. And for gathering various readings by meer conjectures, the author of the Prolegom. is so far from appro­ving that way, that he expressely rejects it, and [Page 15] gives reasons against it. Prol. 6. sect. ult. which the author of the Considerations, p. 209. 305, 307. doth also acknowledge with thankfulnesse.

IX. The like may be seen in most of his other charges, wherein he fights with his own shadow, and like a wanton whelp runs round after his own stern, dissembling his adversaries opinion, and instead thereof substituting any lame confe­ctary which came suddenly into his distempered fancy; For whatsoever might seem odious to vulgar apprehensions he ascribes to the Prolego­mena, that so he might have colour to say what he lists. Other things are by him wilfully per­verted and misconstrued, the controversie ne­ver truly stated, not one argument faithfully recited, much less answered, nor the tenth part of what is said in the Prolegomena on the mat­ters in question taken notice of, much less con­futed; so that I was a long time in doubt whe­ther to take notice of these Considerations at all by way of answer, there being nothing in them which is not in the Prolegomena and Appendix already fully answered, as those that shall please to compare both together may easily see, and this was the opinion of some men of great lear­ning and judgement, that I should not trouble my self with any answer. Besides I have to deal with one so possessed with prejudice and passi­on, and thereby so pertinacious in his opini­ons, that I shall but Aethiopem lavare; he [Page 16] may be convinced, but not converted, and will hold his Conclusion in despight of the Premises. Neither is his authority of such weight with judicious and learned men, as that they will esteem the Biblia Polyglotta, either the better for his praises, or the worse for his censure, so that as his praises should not tickle, so neither his dispraises trouble, Declamationes ambitioso­rum are onely otiosorum cibi (as Scal. exerc. 307) nor is it my lot alone to be thus handled by him, he layes about him on all sides, and like Ismael, his hand is against every one, so that we may say with the Epigrammatist, Omnibus in­videas Livide, nemo tibi, yea the volume it self begins already to serve for wast paper in Grocers shops, and to vanish in thuris pipirisve cu­cullos.

X. Yet considering that it may have come in­to the hands of diverse, who never saw, and it may be cannot read or understand the Biblia Polyglotta, or the Prolegomena, and may simply give credit to what he averres (for though he say the opinions may be candidly disputed among learned men without danger, yet he hath thought fit to submit and expose them to the judgement of the unlearned, who cannot judge but may wrest what they understand, not to their own hurt, wherein either his prudence or piety may justly be called in question, in bringing a Latine tract upon an English stage) [Page 17] and withall lest he might complain that he was neglected, or brag amongst his ignorant Pro­selites that he could not be answered, and fur­ther seeing that there is as S. Ambr. de ossic. 1. c. 3. saith, otiosum silentium, as well as otiosum ver­bum, and I would be loth to be guilty of the one, as my adversary is of the other, and withall be­cause he threatens in many places, p. 152, 153. 193. 201, 305. 320. 345. a further search, and to make more discoveries of great matters: I thought it not altogether unfit (though I want not other imployments wherein to spend my hours) both in right to my self, and this work of the Bible, and to all those Reverend and worthy persons, whose approbations have com­mended it to the publick, as also of all those great and learned Divines and others, some of which I have now mentioned, who are invol­ved in the same cause, to take a brief view of these Considerations, & to examine the grounds of those consequences which he would infer, and to shew how unjustly and uncharitably he hath dealt, that so the Prolegomena, Appendix, and several Translations may be vindicated from his false aspersions, the true use of the Work maintained for the publick good of the Church, the truth asserted against his Sophismes and De­clamations, the Reader disabused, their judge­ments rectified, who may be misled by a popu­lar Pamphlet [...]itted for vulgar capacities not for [Page 18] Scholasticall judgements, and all further error and misconstruction prevented, in what shall be hereafter offered by him or others upon this account, so that he or whoever shall proceed in this virulent way of censuring may be without excuse. For as Juo. Ep. 219. quia falsitas praecessit, oportet ut veritas subsequatur, quae latrocinia noctis detegat. Not that I intend to follow him in all his confused mazes, extrava­gancies and cautologies, but onely to insist up­on the chief and most material points, which being rightly stated, and the truth proved or vindicated, I shall submit all to the judicious and indifferent Reader.

CHAP. II.

I. BEfore we descend to particulars, it will be needfull to take notice First of the occasi­on and motives of publishing these Considerati­ons, and of their scope and end, concerning which the author tells us. Cap. 1. sect. 1, 2, 3. &c. That he had written a Treatise of the Divine ori­ginall of the Scriptures, their authority, and self evidencing light, and of the providence of God in their preservation, which being ready for the Presse, the Prolegomena and Appendix of the Bible came to his hands, wherein the great bulk of various readings, and some opinions maintain­ed in the Prolegomena, did in his apprehension much weaken the arguments by him insisted upon in that Treatise, and therefore a necessity was in­cumbent upon him, either to desist from publish­ing it, or else of giving an accompt of those things in the Prolegomena, and Appendix, which tended to the disadvantage of that great truth which he had pleaded for. After he tells us of his fears and jea­lousies of dangerous consequences, &c. and gives [Page 20] some reasons to free himself from any suspition of malice or envy against the Biblia Polyglotta, or any that had a hand in publishing of it, and calls the searcher of all hearts to witnesse, how clear he was from any sinister ends, &c. and professes how candidly he will proceed for the sake, and in the pursuit of truth, with a mind free from pre­judice and disquieting affections, &c.

II. Concerning all which, I shall observe, first, that it is ominous to stumble at the thre­shold, as our Author here doth, what fair dealing may we expect in his ensuing Dis­course, when he begins with a palpable un­truth? he saith the Prolegomena and Appen­dix came to his hands after he had finish­ed his Treatise of the Scripture, and was rea­dy to give it to the Stationer, which was the occasion of these additional Considerations, when as yet it appears that he had read the Prolegomena and Appendix, before he had writ­ten the first Chapter of his Treatise; for in that Chapter he writes, p. 16. that Capellus his per­nicious opinion about the uncertainty of Scripture, is since approved and taken up by others, quoting in the margent Prolegomena ad Biblia Polyglot­ta, and p. 20. he saith that [...], is reckoned amongst the various Readings, gathered out of Grotius, in the Appendix of the Biblia Polyglot­ta, by which it is evident that he had seen and read the Prolegomena and Appendix before he [Page 21] wrote that Treatise, and therefore that the publishing of the Prolegomena and Appendix af­ter his Treatise was finished, could not be the cause of writing these Considerations in vindi­cation of that Treatise; here it seems his me­mory failed him, to say no worse, and hereby it plainly appears, that some other motives set him on work, and not the vindication of his Treatise; and though he protests the contrary, yet protestatio contraria facto is not to be admit­ted nor regarded; for it is known that such Protestations with men who make no scruple of affirming untruths, arises often from the con­sciousnesse of the guilt of that against which they protest. Quid verba audiam, cum facta videam? What are his Considerations, but a cleere confutation of his protestation?

III. If he had no sinister ends, Why are they written in English, the Opinions which he op­poses, being written in that Language wherein Learned men debate such things, as are not fit for popular judgements? There could be no o­ther end in this, then to expose the Bib. Polyglot. and Publishers of it to popular hatred. If his fears and jealousies were so great, that these opi­nions should gain credit, and be received, why did he not write against them in the same Lan­guage, which is generally known in Europe, whereby an Antidote might have been ready wheresoever they came; whereas to write in [Page 22] English, cannot hinder the spreading of them abroad, nor was there any great cause to fear that his English readers could be infected by them, when they understood them not, till he informed them. This was not the true motive, or else he took not the right course to prevent the mischief he seemed to fear. But to confute a Latine Treatise in English, and in the same Book to adde a Latine Discourse against the Quakers, who abhor all Learning, and account that Language, the Language of the Beast, will, notwithstanding his weak Apologie, be judged a Soloecisme.

IV. Besides, if the truth, and love of the truth, set him on work, why doth he fasten upon his adversary, things manifestly untrue, charging him with opinions in one place, which in another he clears him from. His perverting his adversaries tenets, propounding his Argu­ments and Answers by halfs, cutting them short, as Procrustes (in Plut) did his prisoners, that they might be fit for his bed, are proofs of his candid and sincere dealing, but chiefly his urging the Consequences of Papists, Atheists, Anti­scripturists, &c. whose Advocate he makes him­self, rather then his Adversary shall escape; If he had not been led by some sinister respects, knowing that Pious and Learned men, yea, the learnedst Protestant Divines, and the best skilled in the Eastern Languages, that are this day, and [Page 23] greatest assertors of the purity and authority of the originall Texts, against the Romish tenets, have maintained the same, with the Author of the Prolegomena about the Hebrew punctation, and the various readings, and that himself ac­knowledges the main thing from which perverse and wicked men draw their conclusions, (viz. the variety of readings in the Hebrew and Greek Copies) he would have laboured to free those Worthies from such imputations, and have shew­ed, that no such consectaries could be logically and rationally deduced from such Premisses, as indeed they cannot, whereas we see in him the clean contrary; for he takes part with Papists, Atheists, Antiscripturists, &c. and pleads their cause, and labours to prove, even from such Pre­misses as himself cannot deny, that those wretch­ed consequences do necessarily follow; which shews plainly, how he was blinded with Pre­judice and Passion, and how far he was from that candor and freedom from disquieting af­fections, and from the love of truth, which he pre­tends to.

V. And though it had been the hard hap of the Prolegomena & Appendix to come out when his Treatise was ready to be printed, which hath procured all this trouble to himself and the Readers; yet, was there such a necessity of the publishing his Treatise? Divers persons of great Learning and Judgement, think his pains might [Page 24] very well have been spared, and that instead of proving the Divine Authority of the Scripture, he hath much weakned it, and what in him lies, shaken the very foundation of Religion; while he rejects that main Argument to prove the Scriptures to be from God, pag. 103, 104. viz. the Miracles wrought by Moses and Christ, the Prophets and Apostles to confirm their do­ctrine, brought down to us by the undoubted testimony and universall tradition of the Church of Christ, the most infallible and greatest of all humane testimonies, and next to that which is immediatly Divine, and sticks not to affirm, that the Alcoran, may, vie miracles and tradi­tions with the Scipture, p. 105. and that there is no more reason to believe those who have received that tradition, and plead they have it, before and against them who professe they have no such report delivered them from their forefathers, p. 108. nor have we more inducement to give credit to their assertions, then to a like number of men holding out a Tradition utterly to the contrary, that is, why we should believe the testimony of the whole Christian Church in this point, before the testimony of Jews, Pagans, and Mahume­tanes, to the contrary, p. 110. And whilest he grounds all upon the inward light of the Scri­pture it self, which though it serve to confirm the faith of believers, yet in the Question, how we come to know the Scriptures to be from God, [Page 25] we know, is by great and Learned Protestant Divines, not allowed as a convincing argument in this case; I submit it to the judgement of all men of common reason and judgment, whether here be not a fair pretense for Atheists and sa­naticall Antiscripturists to reject the Scripture, when they find the argument from the miracles and universall tradition rejected by some, and that of the inward light of the Scripture (which is here said to be all the Divine evidence that God is willing to grant us, or can be granted us, or is any way needfull for us, p. 34. and that there is no need of any further witnesse or testimony) p. 56. not admitted as sufficient by others; and whether they may not with more colour de­duce their conclusions against the Scriptures from these assertions of his, then from any thing in the Prolegomena or Appendix? For, where they find him affirming, that there is no way to know the Scriptures to be from God, but its own light, and finde this denied by Learned Divines of all sides, they have some colour to conclude, that there is no way at all to prove their Divine Originall, and so to reject them.

VI. Again, he writes, p. 159. and 160. That in all these things (it is known to all men) there is no new Opinion coyned or maintained by the Pre­facer to these Bibles, but that all have been main­tained by sundry Learned men, and that, if they had been kept in mens private writings, he should [Page 26] not have thought himself, or his discourse con­cerned in them; but because they are laid as the foundation of the usefulnesse of the Bibl. Polygl. and because, of the authority which they may gain thereby; and because (as p. 152.) these private Opinions, (as he calls them) are imposed with too much advantage on the mindes of men, by their constant neighbourhood unto Canonicall truth, therefore he must needs appear against them. Here he speaks plainly, what was the true cause of these Considerations. The Biblia Polyglotta are the Butt against which his Arrows are aimed, and these Opinions about the Hebrew punctation, and various Readings, had not been considered nor meddled with, but for that Work to which they were adjoyned, which, because it was always maligned, by himself and some others of his par­ty, therefore he took occasion to quarrell with these matters, that so he might bring the more obloquie upon the whole, and make it the more suspected among the Vulgar.

VII. But whereas he makes them private Opinions, which now being joyned with a publike Work, may pretend to publike Authority, he is much deceived; or else seeks to deceive his cre­dulous Reader: for how can they be private, or new Opinions which have been publikely asserted in Print, before either of us were born, and have been, and are still maintained by the chiefest and Learnedst Divines in Europe, and the best skilled [Page 27] in Orientall Learning that have been, or are at this day in the Christian World? Such as we have already mentioned, Cap. 1. Sect. 7. Can these Opinions be counted private, which have been, and are publikely asserted by men of such emi­nent worth? or can their being mentioned be­fore the Biblia Polyglotta, procure them more credit and esteem, then the venerable Names of such Great and Learned men, with whom the Publisher of this Bible, and those that assisted him, do not think themselves fit to be named. And if they might by these and others be de­fended in Print, and disputed among Learned men, why might they not be mentioned here? and why might not the Publisher deliver his opi­nion in these things, as well as others, especially writing with that moderation he uses, not ma­gisterially imposing a beliefe upon any, but lea­ving every one to his own liberty, onely shew­ing his reasons, why he judges one opinion more probable then another?

VIII. He conceives he had a fit occasion to speak of these things in the Prolegomena to this Work, for seeing the Hebrew Text is the foun­dation of the whole Fabrick, for the Old Testa­ment, what was more proper then to speak of the Hebrew Tongue, the antiquity, use, excellen­cie, and preservation of it; how the Text came to be pointed, what the Keri and Ketib are, which appear in most Hebrew Bibles, and be­cause [Page 28] there are various Readings, both of the Old and New Testament, noted in most Editions, therefore to speak of various Readings, whence they came, out of what Copies, and how to be gathered, and to adde to what others have done, out of some ancient and choyce MSS. or printed Copies, and to shew that the certainty and autho­rity of Scripture, with the integrity of the Ori­ginall Texts, is not impeached or prejudiced thereby, which he asserts upon such foundations as will hold, and not upon sandy grounds, as his Adversary doth, which will not stand, not argu­mentis non cogentibus, by which the truth is more prejudiced than by confessing the invalidity of them; for when men see the weakness of them, they think we have no better to rely upon, and so begin to question and doubt the truth of all.

IX. As for his fears and jealousies, I say, that when they are groundlesse, they are not to be re­garded, and that they are 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 [Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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, [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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 fu [...]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 [Page 33] 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 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, [Page 34] 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 artifi [...]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 Mahu­metan [...], 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, [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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 [Page 37] 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 quo (que) 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. WE come now to the particular Charges and Criminations of the Considerator. We find them severall times mustered up: first in [Page 38] 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 exhibited in the Considerations, and then what it is w ^ch is asserted or maintain­ed in the Prolegomena, and after we shall proceed to the examination of the particulars.

II. But before we enter upon the several heads, we must consider one generall Charge, mention­ed, p. 205 and which includes most of the rest, viz. That excepting that figment of the Jews cor­rupting the Bible, out of hatred to the Christians, and the Thesis prefering this or that translation in generall above the originall, there is no Opinion that he knows of, that was ever ventilated among Chri­stians, tending to the depression of the Worth, or im­pairing the esteem of the Hebrew Copies, which is not directly, or by just consequence, owned in these Prolegomina. This will appear to be most un­true [Page 39] in the severalls, by him mentioned, when we shall come to them, where we shall make it appear, that the Hebrew Copies are not at all im­peached by any thing maintained in the Prole­gomena, unlesse he mean that some Cabalisticall mysteres, (or rather fopperies) from whence strange observations are drawn, to the depra­ving and perverting of the Scripture, and expo­sing the Hebrew Text to scorn and contempt are not owned. Such Rabbinicall fancies taken up by some Christians, it is true, are rejected and condemned, for the Publisher doth not believe, that the esteem and worth of the Hebrew Text is advanced by any untruth, or by the vain and groundlesse conceits of such idle pretenders, but rather impaired and lessened; but as for the due honour and integrity of the Originall Texts, and preserving the true esteem of them to Poste­rity, he doubts not, but that it will be acknow­ledged by all unprejudiced persons, that he hath done more then hath been hitherto done by any.

III. After this generall Calumny, our Author instances in divers particulars to make good his generall Charge, which are reckoned up in di­vers places: In the Epist. pag. 9. and 25. after­wards in the Considerations, p. 151. 158, &c. and again, p 205, 206. and in divers other places. These we shall collect as they are scattered and dispersed in these Considerations, and that the truth or falshood of them may the better ap­peare, [Page 40] we shall withall set down the severall tenets, as they are asserted in the Prolegomena, parallel with them.

CHAP. IV.

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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] 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. This is proved by sundry Reasons, and amongst others by these, That is were against the providence of God to permit the Scriptures to be corrupted, and against the fidelity of the Church, to whose care the sacred Oracles are committed. That the Jews neither did, nor could falsifie the Hebrew Text, but that the fraud would have been presently dis­covered. That it is incredible (as Saint Augu­stine saith, De Civit. l. 13. c. 13. ipsos voluisse co­dicibus suis eripere veritatem, ut nobis eriperent auctoritatem, vel in totum orbem dispersos potu­isse in hoc conspirare nullo contradicente. This is at large proved Proleg. 6. sect. 1. 12. and the Ar­guments to the contrary answered. 2. That neither the Hebrew nor Greek Texts of the Old or New Testament are corrupted by Here­ticks or others, but that they remain pure and in­tire, and that they alwayes were and still are the [Page 49] authentick rule in all matters of faith and Religi­on, and that by them all, translations are to be tri­ed and examined, to which end many arguments are produced, among others, That God at the first delivered to the Church, not Translations, but Originall Texts, and those pure and free from all corruption, and therefore those that say they are corrupt must prove them so to be, and shew when and how they came to be corrupted, and how they came to lose that authority which they once had, otherwise they are to be presumed to be pure and authentick, as being in possession of their autho­rity: Nor can any generall corruption be proved from a few particular instances, but onely the ca­suall errors of the Transcribers, which may well consist with the purity of the fountains. Proleg. 7. Sect. 15, 16. 18. 22, 23. &c. 3. That though by the negligence or inadvertency of Transcribers some casuall mistakes or involuntary errors may creep into the Text, from whence various Rea­dings have risen both in the Old and New Testa­ment▪ yet the Originall Text romains pure and authentick because those varieties are not in mat­ters of any moment, whereby any point of faith or salvation is prejudiced in the least, nor are there means wanting whereby such erros may be amen­ded, and the true Reading established. That it was not possible that any error should have risen in matters of weight, but it would presently have been discovered, there being so many thousands of Co­pies [Page 50] dispersed all the world over, which were dai­ly read, expounded and considered of, and every word weighed and examined, either in publick or private by learned men and others in all ages, who esteemed these books as the Records of their salva­tion, and the grand Charter of their inheritance in heaven; And for other mistakes, there are means to rectifie them when they are discovered, as the Analogy of faith, the Writings and Comments of the Ancients, Collation of ancient Copies, Con­sulting ancient Translations, especially the Scri­pture it self, the Comparing of parallel places, con­sidering Antecedents and consequents, &c That these various Readings seldome change the sence, or if they do, yet both are agreeable to the Analo­gie of faith, and if, notwithstanding these means, both Readings seem equally ballanced, there can be no danger, to follow which we will. These things are handled, Proleg. 6. Sect. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. and Proleg. 7. Sect. 15, 16, &c.

III. By this it appears what the Author of the Prolegomena holds about the purity and au­thority of the Originall Texts. Now seeing he is charged to deliver the contrary, it may well be expected, that evident proof be brought to shew that he contradicts himself, and what proof is here brought? No words as I told you be­fore are alledged, onely p. 158. he quotes in the Marg. Proleg. 7. Sect. 12. and Proleg. 6. Sect. 12. In both which places there is not one word of [Page 51] corruptions in the Originall Text, much lesse of grosse corruptions, or of correcting them by mens own conjectures, unlesse errata & mendae leviores signifie grosse corruptions, & quae aliorum codicum & interpretum collatione, aliisque mediis (de qui­bus supra) tolli & emendari possunt) do signifie correcting by mens own conjectures. Its said in­deed, Prole. 6. Sect. 12 that various readings may in some cases be gathered out of ancient Tran­slations, but that this doth not infer the corrupti­on of the present Copies shall be shewed when we come to that particular In the mean time, the reader may please to take notice that in that other place (nor indeed any where else) there is not one word of corruptions, nor more said then what all men that will believe their eyes have said before, That there have been casuall mistakes by Transcribers in matters of no concern­ment, or that there are various Readings in the Hebrew and Greek Texts. This is proved by the generall consent of all, and by sundry in­stances, and is by our Author frequently con­fessed, as we shall see anon.

IV. For my part I do not know any at this day that is of another opinion. The greatest Patrons of the purity of the Hebrew Text grant it without any scruple. The Reverend and lear­ned Usher, Epist. ad Capel. p. 21. writes thus, Sententia mea haec perpetua fuit, Heb. vet. Test. codicem scribarum erroribus non minus obnoxi­um [Page 52] esse quam novi codicem & omnes alios libros, &c▪ Buxtorf. d [...] punct. antiq. part. [...]. c 16. and frequently in his vindiciae Textus Hebr. he affirms the same. Non dicam quod Sanctus P [...]gninus olim in Praef Gram suae scripsit & dixit, Hebraica volumina, nec in una dictione corrupta reperies, neque enim existimo talia esse, ut in nullo parti­culari punctulo, apiculo, aut litera a primis Mosis & Prophetarum autographis apographum unquam decesserint, aut nullum [...]mnino vitium vel levissimum in ea irrep erit, nam ne ipsi qui­dem Judaei hoc asserunt, qui & antiquitus jam exemplaria corrupta, sed ab Esd [...]a iterum corre­cta, & restituta fuisse & posterioribus tempori­bus cum inter celebres auctores tum inter exem­plaria varia dissensiones & discrepantes quas­àam lectiones not [...]t. Tales sunt praeter notas [...] Keri uketif, dissensiones de quarund [...]m vocum le­ctione inter Judaeos Oriental [...] & Occidentales, & inter Ben Ascher & Ben Naphtali. sic memo­rant aliquando nec dissimula [...]t varietates nonnul­las ex libris quibusdam MSS. celeherimis & magnae auctoritatis, ut E. g. librorum Hierosoly­mitanorum, Babylonicorum, Hispaniensium, Ex­ [...]mplar [...] Hill [...]l [...]ani, Pentateu [...] cujusdam Hie­ricuntini, Sinaitici &c. mentionem etiam faci­unt punctat [...]rum▪ cum in genere, tum nomina­tim quorundam in specie. R. Moses Londina­tes▪ Rabbi Gersom Parisiensis, &c. & dicunt quod unus sen liber seu punctator vocem hanc sio, [Page 53] alius aliter punctet, monuerunt etiam librorum correctorum, & per consequens minus correcto­rum Redarguunt etiam saepe exemplaria quaedam diserte erroris, sed an p [...]opter istas varietates in dubium vocant auctor [...]t [...]em totius codicis Hebra­ici, & omnium Apographorum? aut an propterea aliqua cum sp [...]cie, aut aliquo cum fundamento id fieri po [...]uit? Nequa [...]am.

V. Here we see these two learned Patrons of the purity of the Hebrew Text, affirm as much as is said in the Prolegomena: with them concur all others that handle this Argument, for though there have been two or three, as Pola­nus and Pagnine, and some others that have thought the Jewish Scribes so priviledged, as never to have erred in the least, yet this fancy is generally now exploded by all. Nor shall I need to bring any more witnesses, when the Au [...]hor of these Considerations frequently con­fesses the same. For though sometimes when he was in hast, as p 180. or in passion, he denies any various Readings in the Hebrew Tex [...] but grants them in the New Testament, as Epist. p. 27. Why I pray is this so ridiculous? to grant that there are corruptions and various Readings in the Greek and Latine Copies of the Scripture, but deny it as to the Hebrew) it is founded on no lesse [...]table bottome then this experience, that whereas we evidently find various lections in the Greek Copies which we enjoy, and so grant that which [Page 54] ocular inspection evinces to be true, yet they are none of them able to shew out of any Copies yet ex­tant in the world, or that they can make appear ever to have been extant; that ever there were any such various lections in the Originalls of the old Testament: yet in other places (contradicting himself, which is not unusuall) he frequently grants various Readings both in the Old and New, p. 13. It is no doubt, but that in the Copies we now enjoy of the old Testament there are di­verse Readings. The Keri and Ketib the vari­ous lections of Ben Ascher and Ben Naphtali, of the Eastern and Western Jews, which we have collected at the end of the Bible evince it p. 178. Notwithstanding we grant that there are, and have been various lections in the old Testament and the new. The Keri & Ketib, the various Readings of Ben Ascher, and Ben Naphtali, the Orientall and Occidentall Jews: And if any other can be gathered, or shall hereafter out of any ancient Copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they de­s [...]rve to be considered. p. 190. That there are in some Copies of the New Testament, and those some of them of good antiquity diverse Readings in things or words of lesse importance is acknowledg­ed. Again p. 296. It is known it is granted that failinos have been among them (the Transcribers) and that various Readings are from thence risen, and p▪ 191. That so many Transcriptions—should [Page 55] be made without some variation is [...], &c. Not to adde more Epist p. 13. God by his providence preserving the whole entire suf­fered this lesse variety to fall out in or among the Copies we have, for the quickening and exerci­sing of our diligence in our search of his Word, which is the same which was said before, Proleg. 7. Sect. 14. Potuit quidem Deus omens librorum sacrorum scriptores vel Typographos [...] reddere, si ipsi ita visum fuisset sicut Apostolos & Prophetas Spiritu suo gubernavit ut in eorum Autographis nullum esset erratum. At sicut Ecclesiae Doctores omnes erroribus obnoxios esse voluit▪ licet primos Ecclesiae proceres ab omni er­rore immunes reddidit, ut [...]cilicetomnes excitaret ad diligentem usum mediorum quibus veritas Divina conservari posset; sic dicendum de exem­plaribus Apographis, mendis & erroribus leviori­bus quae fidei & moribus non officerent obnoxia esse voluit, ut diligentiam nostram in codicum sacrorum puritate conservanda exerceret; nam vigilantibus & non dormientibus Deus succurrit, & opera ac ministerio hominum uti decrevit ad oraculorum suornm conservationem, &c.

VI. Thus we see how our Author affirms the same thing himself, which he findes fault with in another, neither do I know wherein there is any reall difference, or more said in this matter by the Prolegomena, then is granted in the Considerations, excepting onely in that of [Page 56] collecting various Readings out of some Transla­tions, from which we shall shew in its proper place, that no corruption of the Originall Texts can be inserred. And herein our Au [...]hor differs not onely from the Au [...]hor of the Proleg but from all, or most Divines and Expositors whatso­ever. Those various Readings which the Proleg. affirm may be sometimes gathered out of Tran­slations, are of the same nature with these which the Considerator grants may be gathered out of Originall Copies, viz. of no weight, containing nothing repugnant to the Analogie of faith, and further are not asserted to be of equall authority or certainty with those that are gathered out of the Hebrew & Greek Texts, & therefore the pre­sent reading of the originall Copies, ought not barely upon the different reading of a Transla­tion, be judged corrupt, as we shall shew when we come to that Charge. But if our Author will needs have all various Readings, though the dif­ference be never so small, to be corruptions of the Text, he may call them so, if he pleaseth, I cannot hinder him; yet he might learn of Bux­torf. whose authority he hath no reason to question, to distinguish between various Read­ings and Corruptions, properly so called, Vindic. textus Hebr. Part. 1. c. 4. p. 112. Porro omni­no, ut supra monui differentiam faciendam censeo inter corruptionem, & variam lectionem; Cor­ruption is properly a wilfull falsifying upon de­signe, [Page 57] as where Hereticks willfully falsified some places of Scripture, which made against their error, such were quickly discovered, and that no such are in our Copies is acknowledged, but a various Reading is an involuntary error from mistake, or inadvertencie, which is always in matters of little moment, and therefore not so easily at first discerned; and having passed through many Copies not observed, nor being contrary to the circumstances of the Text, or repugnant to any other place of Scripture; so that it cannot be cleerly proved, which may be the mistake of the Scribe, it comes to be in the number of various Readings, for the differences of any Copy, when they can be cleerly proved to have been at first errors of the Scribe, are not properly various Readings, as is confessed in the Prolegom. 6. Sect. 6. But if our Adver­sary will needs call various Readings corru­ptions, he will give me leave to call such cor­ruptions various Readings, and the rather, be­cause I do no where in the Prolegomena grant corruptions, but acknowledge onely various Readings; and he must know withall, that hereby he makes himself guilty of that crime which he would fasten upon others, and by the Apostles sentence, Rom. 2. 1. is unexcusable, being condemned by himself, by granting the Origi­nall texts to be corrupt, because he grants va­rious Readings as well as others, and upon this [Page 58] 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 [...]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. sait [...], Vindi [...]. Part. 1. c. 4. p. 67. Facile po­tuit error unius exemplaris corrigi ex alio melio­re & tandem emendatum satis exemplar cudi, licet non ad extremum ut (que) 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 Ʋsserium, Sect. 64. and in his Vindic. [Page 59] 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 [...]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, [Page 60] 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 dili [...]nce that could be used, yet various Readings have been still observed in the best Copie [...], which must needs come at first from the negligence, or involuntary error of the [Page 61] 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 m [...]re [...]requent use then the H [...]b [...]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 Copi [...]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 [Page 62] 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 quibu [...]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 [Page 63] assert the true sence against the corrupt glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees, and to restore it to its Originall integrity, if any wilfull corruptions had been, or errors of any moment, which might have indangered the saving truth, of which kind we say there are none; nay, so far were our Saviour and his Apostles from observing every casuall slip of a Scribe in Hebrew Copies, that they made more frequent use of the Greek LXX. then the Hebrew, and quoted places out of the old Testament according to that Translation, even where there seems to be some difference from the Hebrew, and left that Translation to the Christian Church, who used it generally for many hundred years, as the Greek Church doth to this day, as is largely shewed, Prolegom. 9. de Graecis versionibus, Sect. 38, 39. &c.

XI. But besides these reasons mentioned, Chap. 2. of the Considerations, we finde some others scattered here and there, which we will briefly examine, p. 168, 169. He findes fault with the arguing from the oscitancy and negli­gence of transcribers of Heathen Authors, Homer, Aristotle, &c. to shew that errors might creep into the Originall [...]exts. This he saith, is not tolerable in a Christian, or any one that hath the least sence of the nature and importance of the Word of God. He urges likewise, the care of the Heathen about their Sybils verse, p. 171. that the Romane Pontifices would not do it negligently [Page 64] nor treacherously, &c. Answer, It is not de­nied, but that the Church of Christ had a religi­ous care, that the Copies transcribed, for publike use especially, should be free from all errors, as much as could be, and that far more care was taken about them, then ever was taken by any about the writings of the Heathen, nor do I know any who affirm the contrary. It is true, this argument is used by some, that the various Readings in such Authors, in matters of lesse mo­ment, do not make all their Philosophy, Histo­ries, &c. uncertain, and therefore the like vari­ous Readings in some Copies of the Scripture, doth not make the Scripture uncertain, or prove it to be corrupt; but what is this to the care and fidelity of the Church in preserving the Copies of the Scripture, which all acknowledge to be more then any had, or could have in preserving any humane Writings, the Sybils verses, or any other of the Heathens pretended Oracles. But though their care was great, and therefore no wilfull errors could passe, nor mistakes in any matter of concernment, yet that they did never erre, not in the least, needs no other confutati­on, then the comparing of all Copies MSS. or Printed, which have had errors of this kinde, more or lesse▪ according to the diligence and care of the Sc [...]ibe or Corrector, as ocular inspection demonstrates.

XII. Again, pag. 17, 18, &c. he tells us, [Page 65] the relief provided by Capellus, and approved in the Prolegomena, against various Lections, viz. That the saving doctrine of the Scriptures, as to the substance of it, in all things of moment is pre­served in the Copies of the Originall, and in the Translations that remain, is pernicious, and in­sufficient; because, though it be a great relief against inconvenience of Translations, that the worst of them contains all necessary saving fun­damentall truth yet to depresse the sacred Truth of the Originalls into such a condition, as where­in it should stand in need of such an Apologie, and that without any colour or pretence from dis­ [...]repance in the copies themselves that are exstant, or any tolerable evidence that ever there were any other in the least differing from these extant in the world, will at length be found a work un­becoming a Christian Protestant Divine.—The nature of this doctrine is such, that there is no other principle or means of discovery, no other rule or measure of judging and detrmining any thing about it, but onely the writing from whence it is taken, it being wholly of Divine revelation, which is onely expressed in Scripture; so that upon supposall of any corruption, there is no mean of rectifying it▪ as there is in correcting a mis­take in any Probleme of Euclide, &c. Nor is i [...] enough to satisfie us, that the doctrines above mentioned are preserved entire, every tittle or [...] of the Word of God must come unde our care and [Page 66] 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, [Page 67] 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 Divine Revelation, the least as well as the weightiest) no way can be found to rectifie any mistake without a new Revelation, the Scriptures are in an ill condi­tion; for by this means, no error once got in, can ever be amended or corrected.

XIV. Nor is it any where said in the Pro­legomena, that there is any corruption in any fundamentall truth crept into the Originall Co­pies, or in any saving doctrine, whereby it may need rectifying or restoring, nay, the contrary is both maintained and proved; yea, that in no [Page 68] matter of moment there is any variety in the Copies, and though we grant lesser varieties to appear, (which is confessed by all) yet we deny not, but that every tittle of the Word, though never so small, comes under our care, and ought not to be neglected; but for all the care we can use, such lesser varieties will happen, which be­ing involuntary and of little or no importance to the sence or matter, neither the providence of God is there prejudiced, nor the care of the Church to be called in question.

XV. But what better security gives he against the uncertainty arising from these varieties? To make one Copy a standard for all others, in which no mistake in the least can be found, he cannot, no Copy can plead this priviledge since the first [...] were in being, so it is con­fessed by Buxtorf and Bootius, his best Authors; nor can he tell us where this copy is to be found to which we must have recourse, and in which every tittle is entire and perfect; some Copies there have been more correct then others, which deserve all due regard, but to finde one that is free from all mistakes, even in the least, he will finde a hard task; yea, Buxtorf grants it impossible, as we have seen. What that Vul­gar Copy was, which before Printing was inven­ted, was in possession all the world over for many generations, and must passe for a standard, I would gladly know, and where it is to be found, [Page 69] and should very much esteem it, if it could be shewed; but this, I doubt, will prove an Euto­pian conceit: For, doth our Adversary think there was no difference in the Copies that were in use before Printing; the collation of all MSS. Copies shews this to be false, let him produce any two that are the same in every thing: Or doth he think, that those that first Printed the Hebrew and Greek Text had onely one Copy, and did not collate divers of the best they could finde; or, that there is no difference in the Printed Copies, I mean, not Typographicall er­rors, but such as were in the Copies which they followed. If any such standard were in being, surely we have it printed in some Edition of the Bible: Is it for the Hebrew Text, the Venice Edition, and if so, which of those Editions: or Munsters, or Stephanus, or the Regia, or Plantines, or which of these? And for the Greek, let him declare whether it be Erasmus his Edi­tion, or the Complutense, or Stephens, or Bezaes, or which it is, for that there are varieties & dif­ferences among them all, is evident, and cannot be denied, neither let him say, the differences be of no moment, for this is said in the Prolegome­na, with which he is not satisfied. This there­fore which he tells us of a Copy which must be a standard for all others in every thing, and was in possession all the world over, is a meer Chimae­ra, a groundlesse fancie, and a vain imagina­tion [Page 70] of that which never was since the [...] were in being.

XVI. But if he fly to his other refuge, and say, that in all the copies extant, that is in some one or other, every the least iota and tittle is to be found, then we are left more uncertain, for then we must have all the Copies that are any where throughout the world, and must com­pare them all together before we can find all the entire truth of God, for if we want but one Copy, there may be something in that which differs from the rest, and so we can have no certainty in the rest; Now all men know this to be impossible to get together all Copies whatsoever, and never to be expected, and therefore upon this ground, it is impossible to attain any certainty about all and every title of the word of God, or suppose we had all the Copies extant in the world, and could compare them together, yet where they differ, how shall we by any directions he gives us, know which Copy is right in this particular, and which in that. These ways then which he propounds be­ing invalid and insufficient, I appeal to any whe­ther it be not more satisfactory, to say that we have all saving truth preserved in the Copies, w ^ch are in common and publick use in the Church of Christ, and that they are free from all errors in matters of moment, and that in other matters there are wayes and means to judge of the best [Page 71] reading, and what is most genuine, wherein our industry is to be used, and if there be some places wherein both Readings render the sence so, that we cannot tell which to prefer, (both being agreeable to the Analogy of faith, and neither of them repugnant to any other place of Scripture) that there is no danger to chuse which we will, and whether there be any such danger in this assertion as is pretended? Our Author himself confesses, p. 300. that in some of the Keries and Ketibs there is a difference in the sences, yea that some have quite contrary significations, as [...] & [...] which occur four­teen or fifteen times, and yet he salves all with this, that neither of them is contrary to the analogy of faith. If this be sufficient for some various rea­dings, why may it not be so for the rest? This, and less then this he confesses is enough for Translations, and why this, which we have laid down may not serve for the Originalls I cannot see, seeing the peoples faith is immediately gui­ded by Translations, and not one of a thousand understands the Originalls.

CHAP V.

I. WE proceed now to his other Charges. The next is, That we say, that our pre­sent Copies are not the same with those anciently used. p. 206. That the old Translators had other Copies or differing Copies from them which we now enjoy. p. 311. which did really differ from those we now enjoy and use, and Epist p. 10. which are utterly lost. This though in a manner coinci­dent with the former, is yet distinctly propoun­ded, and so we shall distinctly handle it. It is indeed so grosse a calumny, that the Author of it confesses p. 312. That he doth not remember that the Prolegomena do any where expressely af­firm, that they of old had other Copies then those we now enjoy, and therefore he would gather it by consequence for some other Position main­tained in the Pr [...]legomena. And what is that, viz. th [...] Prolegomena affirm, That various Readings may sometimes be gathered out of some ancient Translations, which the Adversary thus expres­ses very untruly, as we shall shew anon, That [Page 73] by the help and use of Translations conjecturing how they read in their books, either with other words or leters, consonants or points we may col­lect various lections, as out of the Originall, which opinion he sees not how upon the matter it differs from that of Capellus.

II. I answer 1. Not to question how truly he charges Capellus, who no where that I know affirms this, but rather deprecates it as a Ca­lumny, whereas he saith he could not re­member that the Prolegomena do any where expressely say, that they had other Copies of old, he could not but remember where they expresly say yea, and prove the contra­ry. Proleg. 7. Sect. 16. (which p. 146. he saith he hath looked through) There, as we have al­ready noted, it is proved that the Copies we now have are the true true Transcripts of the [...] of the Prophets and Apostles, and the very same, and therefore here we have another proof of our Authors candor and sincerity, imposing upon his Adversary as his proper tenents, his own illogicall consequences, when he knew that his Adversary directly and not by consequence maintains the contrary. But this is familiar with him, to deduce any odious consequences from his Adversaries assertion, which he never goes about to prove, because it cannot be pro­ved, but takes it for granted, and upon that dis­putes against his Adversary, when as indeed he fights with his own shadow.

[Page 74] III. What is held in the Prolegomena about gathering various Readings sometimes out of Translations shall be discussed in its due place, at present I do utterly deny his Consequence, for whereas all the various Readings of any Co­pies are maintained to be onely in matters of no weight or concernment, and such as were at first casuall errors or mistakes of Transcribers, as is already shewed, and that those that may be gathered out of Translations are of the same nature and quality, if this be sufficient to prove that our Copies are not the same, then those that are likewise gathered out of the Originalls, or have been, as the Keri and Ketib, and the like, (which are admitted by our Author) will likewise prove that we have not the same Co­pies of the Originalls.

IV. Nay, if this Argument be sufficient, then it will prove that we have no true Copies of any books in the world, for there were never any yet (except the holy Pen-men) which have been so priviledged, that the Transcriber could not erre, or that various Readings, after frequent Transcriptions, might not be gathered. Then farewell not onely Scripture, but all other Mo­numents, either of Divine or Humane learning: Then we have no true Copies of the Writings of any of the Fathers, Commentators, Councels, nor of any Authors of Philosophy, Law, Phy­sick, Mathematicks, History, &c. but all the [Page 75] old and genuine Copies are lost, and those we have are corrupt, spurious and false, and so the foundation of all Divine and humane learning is at once quite taken away. Buxtorf, as I have shewed, and others the most rigid defenders of the Hebrew Text, maintain that our present Co­pies are the same with the first [...], and yet stick not to confesse that they agree not in eve­ry thing, but that there may be some variati­on in smaller matters, yea, that they should agree in every tittle, Buxtorf. saith it is impossible. I would fain know what it is, that makes a Copy not to be the samewith the Originall? must there not be some substantiall difference, and that in matters of weight & importance that must make such a Change? shall every difference of a word or a letter, it may be once in nine or ten pages work this strange Metamorphosis? Who ever affirmed such Paradoxes? Is not a man the same individuum, when his hair is cut or his nails pa­red, that he was before, nay though his skin be scratched or some blood drawn? Why then is not a Copy the same with the Originall, though there be some small difference in things not con­cerning the summe or substance of the Book? are not our Statute-books and Acts of Parlia­ment, now printed, the same with the Originall Copies, though the Writers or Printers be not infallible, but it may be have in some words or letters of no concernment, by casuall mistake, va­ried [Page 76] from the Originalls: Besides this, doth not our Adversary grant that errors and casuall mistakes have happened in matters of lesse mo­ment, from whence various readings are sprung, which by his own Logick should make the Co­pies not to be the same.

V. Bu. from whence doth he draw this Con­clusion. From this, That by the help and use of Translations conjecturing how they read in their Books either with other words or letters, Conso­nants or points, we may collect various Readings, as out of the Originall. But this is most partially and untruly by him propounded, and no where affirmed in the Prolegomena. For 1. as we have already said, all differences of a Translation from the Originall, are not to be reckoned among various Readings. Prol. 6. Sect. 8. 11. The mi­stakes of the Translator, his Paraphrasticall ex­positions, adding or omitting some words which he judged needful or needless to the sence, the errors of the scribe, &c. must be accurately distinguisht from the various Readings, but when no probable cause can be given why the Translator so rendred some places, save the ambiguity of some words for want of points, or the affinity of some letters in form or sound, or transposition of a letter, or the like, (in which cases a change may easily happen) there we may well gather that the Copies varied, and that the Translator read he words so in his Co­py, as they are by him rendered. Nor 2. Do we say, [Page 77] that they always read with other letters or words, consonants or points; for this might infer that all differences of Translations are from the difference of Copies, because all consist in other letters or words, but when the letters are alike in figure or sound, or there 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 its 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 [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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, say the same. It shall suffice, to note the words of the Reverend and Learned Ʋsher 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 [Page 80] 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 [...]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 maris (que) 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 [Page 81] 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 [Page 82] 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 [Page 83] 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, 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 [Page 85] 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, fea [...]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 eq [...]all the wisdome, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the wisdome, care, and providence of Go. p. 174. of horrible and outragious violence offe [...]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.

[Page 86] 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, Aethiopick, Gothick, &c. besides the Greek and Latine. And concerning the use and benefit of Translations, it is reduced to these heads: First, because all cannot under­stand the Originall Tongues, therefore Transla­tions serve as so many Pipe [...] or Channels to con­vey those living waters of salvation from the Fountains to every particular Nation and People, that so all may read and hear the won­derfull [Page 87] works of God in their own Tongue: Secondly, the wonderfull consent of all Tran­slations in all things of moment, though made at severall times, and in severall Nations so far distant from one another, joyned together, on­ly by the same common faith, proves these Books to be of Divine Originall, and to have no other Author but God, who so wonderfully preserved them among so many changes and re­volutions, against the fury and malice of Satan, and all his instruments, persecuting Tyrants and subtill Heretikes and Sectaries, who labour­ed either to corrupt, or abolish the same: Thirdly, they bear witnesse to the integrity of the Originall Texts, by their consent and har­mony therewith, as is shewed in divers particu­lars, where some would have them to be cor­rupted, as that of Shiloh, Gen. 49. 10. and others: as also to preserve them pure and en­tire to after ages, and to prevent the corrupting of them▪ either by the fraud of Heretikes, or negligence of the Scribes, for no considerable mistakes could passe in all, and so many Tran­slatious, in all parts of the world, but they might easily be found and amended by others. Fourthly, they serve as so many glasses to de­clare the true sence and meaning of the Scri­pture, as it was understood in those times, when they were made, especially as they are exhibited in this Work, where they may at one view, be [Page 88] all compared together, for if the Commentaries of particular learn'd men deserve all due regard, much more those Translations (which also are often paraphrasticall) which represent the sence of so many great and famous ancient Churches: especially those in the Eastern tongues, which because of their nearnesse and affinity with the Originall, are fittest to express the force and energy of divers words and phrases in Scripture, and because of their Antiquity and generall use were of greatest authority among Jews or Christians. This is the sum of what is deli­vered concerning Translations in generall there, or of any in particular elsewhere, with which how that agrees with which our Adversary charges the Prolegomena of correcting the Ori­ginalls, yea of correcting the Word of God by them, may easily appear.

IV. Before we come to his Reasons against various Readings out of Translations, some things I shall premise, by which the Reader may see both the untruths in the Charge, and the invalidity of his Reasons. 1. Though we grant, that various Readings may be sometimes gathered out of Translations, yet we do not in­fer, nor doth it presently follow, that the pre­sent Reading is corrupt or false, or must forth­with be corrected by the Translation. For though there were some difference in the Co­pies, yet it may be, the reading of our present [Page 89] Copies is the better, and therefore is not to be altered. Nay it is acknowledged and asserted in the Prolegomena, that the present Reading being in possession of its authority ought not to be altered, though other Copies have formerly read otherwise, unlesse it can be evidently and clearly proved that some fault is crept into the present Reading, and that we ought not to depart from the usuall Reading upon meere con­jectures, unlesse evident necessity require. Prol. 7. Sect 23. In omnibus ad Textum Originari­um recurrendum est, nisi ubi plane constet erro­rem in Textum irrepsisse, ubi vero hoc probari non potest necessario ad Textum, ut ad normam omnes versiones probandae sunt: nec satis est cum Bellarmino dicere. Ex fontibus si puri s [...]nt cor­rigendae sunt versiones, hoc enim supponi debet fontes esse puros donec contrarium liquido probe­tur, secundum regulam Jurisconsultorum: Qui­libet praesumitur esse bonus, donec constet de con­trario. Nec tamen ex quibusdam instantiis pro­batur generalis fontium corruptio, sed tantum in his locis lapsum esse scribam, quod cum fontis pu­ritate constare potest. So in the 22. Sect. primo lectionem librorum Originalium, in vitio cubare clare probandum est, tum error corrigendus, sic vera lectione restituta Textus Originari­us versionum regula & norma fit. To the same purpose Sect. 25. Etsi versiones antiquae prae­ [...]ertim, multum conferre possunt cum erratum in [Page 90] Textum Originarium casu irrepsit ad veram▪ le­ctionem indagandam, & restituendam, tamen ge­neraliter loquendo versiones omnes secundum Te­xtus Originales corrigi, & examinari debent, Nam cum omnes versiones tanquam rivuli ex co­dicibus originariis ut fontibus fluxerint, necesse est, ut quicquid veritatis in versionibus invenia­tur, illud à fontibus habuerint. Eatenus enim versio vera dici potest quatenus cum Textu origi­nario concordet; sic enim Greg. de Valent. Tran­slatio vera est eujus sensus à suo fonte non deviat, sed sententias reddit easdem & aequales, nec ampli­ores, nec restrictiores, &c. Contradictionem ita­que plane implicat affirmare simpliciter fontem ex versione corrigendum, aeque enim absurdum est, ac si quis solis motum ex horologio corrige­re vellet, vel cum Automaton aberrat dicere so­lem irregulariter circumferri potius quam vitium in Automato concedere.

V. By all this it appears, that the Prolegome­na do not equall the Translations with the Text, or make this one end of Translations, thereby to correct the Text, or as is most invidi­ously exprest, to correct the Scripture, to correct the Word of God. For though it be affirmed, that in some cases various Readings may be ga­thered out of Translations, yet there is more to be considered, before any change may be made of the present reading, for it must first be proved that the present reading contains something false [Page 91] and absurd, and cannot possibly stand, and then which other things are to be considered, besides the bare reading of a Translation, the antece­dents and consequents, the analogy of faith, col­lation of like places, the Commentaries of anci­ent Writers of the Church, comparing of other Copies, wherein also respect is to be had to the antiquity, multitude & goodness of the Copies in the care and exactnesse of the Scribe, as appears by the rules given about various Readings. Pro­leg. 6. Sect. 6. among which, this also is one, which our Adversary takes notice of, and seems to carp at or to pervert, which all sober men cannot but like, viz. That it is not for every private man to alter any thing in the received Reading, though he seem to have never so strong Reasons, but the publick authority of the Church, either expresse or implicit is necessary. A recepta lectione non te­mere recedendum, sed moderate rationes & conje­cturae proponendae sunt, & Ecclesiae judicium, expe­ctandum, &c. which he translates thus, p. 207. that in correcting the Originalls we must take the con­sent of the guides of the Church, how truly let any man judge by what we have said. The reason is given in the same Prolegomena 6. Sect. 6. That if this were permitted to every man, Pro norma fidei regulam Lesbiam haberemus, &c. Si enim in decretis Principum & Regum aliquid immutare laesae Majestatis reum efficit, quantum erit crimen aliquid pro libitu mutare in sacris hisce scriptis [Page 92] in quibus ut olim S. Augustinus de Coelo Rex Regum, & Dominus Dominantium loquitur.

VI. Besides to correct an error crept into the Originall, is not properly to correct the Origi­nall, but to restore the Originall to the true Rea­ding, for no error is part of the Originall Text, and therefore when the error can be demonstra­ted, the true Reading is restored, not the Origi­nall Text corrected, or the Word of God cor­rected at mans pleasure, as is no lesse vainly then fasly objected in the Considerations; when the Bible is Printed, and the Composi­tors have made a Proof, which is corrected by those that attend that Work, can it be proper­ly said, that they correct the Word of God, when they correct onely the mistakes of the Com­positor, and so when the sheet is past the Cor­rectors hand, and is Printed off; if some by a more exact view shall still find some errors, which need further correction, may this be ob­jected to him, that he presumes to correct the Word of God? who would not think this to be ridiculous? yet such is the reason of our Ad­versary. What is known and confest to be the Word of God, it must be madness and impiety in any to go about to correct it, but when an error by negligence of the Transcriber or Prin­ter shall have crept in, and it shall be proved to be an error, must not this be amended or cor­rected, but presently we are guilty of correcting [Page 93] the Scripture or Word of God? To correct the Originall by a Translation, is to alter what is the true Reading of the Originall by a Tran­slation, that so it may agree with the Translati­on, for so our Author would have his Reader understand it, and an ordinary Reader will make no other sence of his words; but is this the same with restoring the true and native Reading, and to say, that not onely other Copies, but even Translations may conduce to this end.

VII. It is one thing to make use of a Transla­tion about the true Reading of a place, when any doubt arises, another thing to make it equal with the Text; it may be made use of, when other Copies or pregnant & apparent reasons concur, but in this case it is not made equall with, but subservient to the Text: To equall it with the Text, or prefer it, is to correct the Text by it in all things wherein they differ, as some Romanists say of the vulgar Latine (I say some, for the learnedst among them deny it, and of those that affirm it, none ever yet attempted it) But this had been senceless and absurd in our case, when there are diverse Translations, and those in some things differing from one another, for it is impossible to conform the Text to them all, aud therefore could never be by us intended. Here is then no Altar set up by Gods Altar, nor any preferring of mans care and wisdome before the care and Wisdome of God, but the [Page 94] preserving of Gods Altar, that it may not be thrust by, or any other set in its place, and the using of our care and diligence, with that reason which God hath given us, in a subserviencie to his care and Providence. Nor is this to defame the Text, when we labour to preserve the purity of it, and to restore it to its Originall integrity, when it can appear the Transcribers have failed, and so to Transmit it to Posterity. By this means we maintain the Honour of the Text, and do what we can to prevent any mistakes for the future, wherein whether more be not done in this Edition then hath been done hitherto by others, I appeal to the judgement of all im­partiall and judicious Readers.

VIII. We never said, That all differences of the Translation from the Originall, are to be rec­koned for various Readings; for it is frequently acknowledged that some variation may be by the mistake of the Translator, or from Para­phrasticall Expositions, where the sence and not the words are precisely expressed, where some­thing it may be is added to cleer the sence, and some words left out, as not so necessary for the sence, and some errors may be from the Tran­scribers of the Translation, Proleg. 6. Sect. 11. and Proleg. 7. 23. Proleg. 9. Sect. 12. 46. &c. But when no other probable cause can be given of the difference, save the variation of the Co­pie, and a plain reason may be given, why the [Page 95] Translator so rendred it, as because of the am­biguity of words unpointed, or the Change of letters alike in figure or sound, or transposition of letters, and the like, in these cases, I see no rea­son, why we may not conclude, that the Tran­slator read in his Copy, as he hath rendred, and thence collect a various Reading from a Translation.

IX. We do not say▪ That these Readings are of equall authority with those that are gathered out of Originall Copies; nay, it is expressed, Proleg. 6. Sect. 8. that they do not, Pari cer­titudinis graàu incedere, and therefore it must needs follow, that the present reading of the Originall ought not to be altered upon the bare reading of a Translation, but that other pregnant reasons and arguments must concurre, as we said before.

X. To these also we adde, That these dif­ferent readings out of Translations, are of the same nature with those gathered out of Original Copies, that is, they are onely in lesser matters, not in things of any moment or concernment, they are such, whereby our faith and salvation are no way indangered, such as the Keri and Ketib, &c. Nor do we any where own that rule of Capellus, That that reading, though by con­jecture onely, ubi sensus melior fluit, where the sence and coherence seems to be better, is always to be chosen, for many times we may conceive a [Page 96] sence, which would better agree with the words, in our apprehension, which yet the words of the Text will not bear, and the sence which the present reading hath may be maintained, and is followed by more, and better, and ancienter Copies, and therefore I admit that rule no otherwise, then Reverend Ʋsher, Epist. ad Ca­pellus, p. 22. Ʋbi caetera reperiuntur paria ex variantibus lectionibus, ea praeferenda quae sen­sum parit commodiorem, atque antecedentibus & consequentibus cohaerentem.

XI. These things premised, I say, that vari­ous Readings, many be gathered out of Transla­tions, which may conduce to the true sence and reading, and may be taken into consideration when question shall arise about the reading of some place in the Original Texts. This is proved at large, Proleg. 6. Sect. 9, 10. both by con­sent of the best Divines, and men of greatest skill in the Hebrew, and greatest Patrons of the integrity of the Hebrew Text, and by apparent reason, of all which, our Adversary takes no notice, but prudently passes over in silence (as in other places) what he could not answer. It is shewed out of Hierom, Beza, Casaubone, Dru­sius, Schindler, De Dieu, Bochartus, Hottinger, Salmasius, besides Bre [...]tius, Osiander, Calvin, Musculus, Mercer, &c. how common it is among Commentators & others, to gather some­times out of Translations, how they read in [Page 97] their Copies differing from the present reading. Nor do I remember any Author of note that generally denied the same, before the late quar­rels of Bootius & Buxtorf against Capellus, who yet, whilest they grant conjectural various Read­ings out of Translations, (see Bootius his Vind. c. 22. p. 225.) do in effect say as much as their Adversary: onely our Author, without any distinction or limitation, absolutely denies all, of what kinde or degree soever they be, which for my part, I know not any before him to have done. Nay, he tells us, p. 333. That it is impossible to know how any Translator read in his Copy▪ when he differs from the common reading. He might have done well to have given answer to those many instances and reasons to the con­trary, mentioned, Prolegom. 6. and to the testi­mony of those great Divines and Linguists, whom he passeth by, as not worthy his notice. Were all these, and many others, no better then Learned Mountabanks, as he is pleased to call all of this Opinion, p. 315. Surely some of them at least might have deserved better lan­guage from him.

XII. The Reverend Ʋsher, though he would exclude the LXX. (how justly we have shewed, Prolegom. 9.) yet grants that out of other In­terpreters, various Readings may be gathered. Epist. ad Capell. p. 22. he saith, Ex quibus­dam veterum Interpretationibus excerpi aliquas [Page 98] Posse variantes Hebraici textus lectiones: and p. 4. Cujusmodi [...] ob Characterum aut sono­rum in vocabulis praecipue Hebraicis similitudi­nem, aut levem aliquam à minus attento inspe­ctore conceptam literarum transpositionem, multo etiam facilius possunt obrepere; after which he adds, Et ut in multis hujus generis locis, He­braicum quo interpres usus est exemplar eandem quam ille reddidit lectionem exhibuerit; de eo­rum tamen pluribus, (he saith not, de omnibus) nullo nobis constare potest modo, utrum ipsi inter­preti an codici quem prae manibus ille habuit He­braico ista accepta referenda fuerit differentia: praesertim si interpres ille ex Judaizantium fuerit numero. In the next page he saith the same of Bootius, (though Bootius labours, Vindic. c. 23. to wrest the Primates words) Ex ea tantum versione quae LXX. nomen praefert colligendas eas esse negat, (Bootius) ex reliquis omnibus inter­pretibus desumi eas posse libenter concedit. We see what the Opinion of this Learned Prelate was, and that he saith as much as the Prolego­mena; and yet it is well known how great a de­fender he was of the purity of the Originall Texts.

XIII. But though he, and all others that say the same with him, must passe with our Author among Learned Mountabanks, and not be thought worthy any answer, yet with his good leave, I will minde him of some of those places [Page 99] instanced in the Prolegomena, and appeal to his Conscience, whether he thinks the Translators did not read in their Copie as they have ex­pressed in their Translation, Gen. 47. ult. these words, [...] are rendred by the LXX. [...], in summitatem virgae suae, and so the words are alledged, Heb. 11. 21. and so rendered by the Syriack, the difference arising onely from the various pointing of [...], which may be rendered ei­ther super lectum, or super virgam, lectum, if we read it [...] mitta, but virgam, if we read it [...] matte. Now, when the LXX. and the Sy­riack render virgam, and not lectum, whether may we not conclude that they read, matte, and not, mitta, the difference being so small, and no colourable reason to be given or de­vised otherwise, why they should render it virgam, and not lectum? Hence there is scarce any Expositor but observes this various Read­ing out of this Translation. So Esa. 9. 1. it is observed by Casaubon, Exerc. 13. n. 21. ad annum 31. n. 32. That the LXX. by the change of a point, read [...] Hekal for Hakel, because they render it, [...], cito fac, whereas, according to the present punctation, it signifies [...]. sublevari. Who will not conclude with this Learned Man, that they read Hekal, rather then Hakel, when their Translation agrees with Hekal, and not with [Page 100] Hakel, and the difference is onely in a point? so Exod. 21. 8. The words, [...] are rendred by the LXX. and Hierom, Quae sibi de­sponsata fuit, which, according to the modern reading, should be, Quae non desponsavit eam. Who will not hence gather, that the LXX. and Hier. read [...] in their Copie, which signifies sibi, and not [...] non, as it is now, seeing [...] and [...] are in sound and pronunciation the same? And that they did, de facto, read so, ap­pears by the Masora, which puts the different reading, [...] in the Margent under [...] and [...] in the Text. The like may be observed in Hier. and the LXX. in Jos. 15. 47. Isa 49. 5. where the Masora also observes both readings: but suppose the Masora had not observed the dif­ferences, had it not been true, that the Copies had differed? and could not this variety have been gathered from Hierom and the LXX. with­out the Masora? Much more is brought to this purpose in the same place, all which the Adversary passeth by: To all which may be further added, Judg. 8. 16. [...] and with them he taught the men of Succoth. It is cleer that the ancient reading was, [...] and with them he tare, or threshed, &c. as he had threatened them, vers. 7. [...] then I will tear, or thresh, LXX. [...], as v. 7. [...]. Al. [...], as v. 7. [...]. Lat. contrivit, as v. 7. conteram; see also the Chaldee, Syriack, [Page 101] Arabick. Jos. 9. 4. [...] and made as if they had been Embassadours, [...] and they took victuals, or provision, for 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 [Page 102] 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 [Page 103] 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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 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 [Page 106] 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, [Page 107] 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 [Page 108] 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, [Page 109] 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 [Page 110] 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 those which they counted obscence, of which number are ten, which could not proceed from the difference of Copies, but from the bold­nesse and superstition of the Rabbins, and ex­cepting [...] and [...] (which have a pe­culiar consideration) that all the rest came from variety of Copies, where they noted the one reading in the Margent, not daring to change the reading of the Text out of reverence to the antiquity of their Copies, but left it as it was, onely they joyned the points of the Mar­ginall word, to that in the Text, to shew that the word of the Margent was to be read, which they judged the better reading.

[Page 111] XIX. This is the common opinion and judg­ment of men learned in these matters, such as Mercer, Drusius, Bertram, Erpenius, Pagett, Piscator, Sixtin Amama, &c. and of Buxtorf himself. And after all, are related the arguments of Capellus, who labours to prove, that the Masorites gathered them not out of di­vers Copies, but by their own Criticall conje­ctures; whose opinion is disliked, and his argu­ments answered. By all this it appears most cleerly, that our Adversary abuses both his Reader and the Author of the Prolegomena, with palpable untruths, ascribing that to the Author of the Prolegomena, which he is so far from holding, that he maintains the clean con­trary. For he proves, that the Keri and Ketib are not Criticall amendments of the Rab­bins, but various Readings of ancient Copies, (except those before excepted) which he is so far from making Criticall amendments of the Texts, that he taxes the Rabbins for their bold­nesse and superstition therein:) yea, the Adver­sary himself, though he thus writes, yet in ex­presse terms elsewhere, (forgetting what he had formerly said) acquits the Author of the Prolegomena from this calumny, p. 305. That they are all or most of them, (Keri and Ketib) cri­ticall amendments of the Rabbins is not allowed, (in the Prolegomena) for which latter part of his determination we thank the Learned Author. [Page 112] And p. 307. In the mean time, I cannot but re­joyce, that Capellus his fancie, then which I know nothing more prejudiciall to the truth of God, is not allowed. Thus we see, we are still accused and acquitted by the same pen, as I have already said.

XX. After these, he tells us, that the argu­ments brought against the divine originall of the notes are capable of an easie solution, which he is not at leasure as yet to shew, although he had told us before that he could not satisfie himself about the Originall of this variety. In the mean time, let him enjoy his own opinion, and let me enjoy mine: and if he can bring bet­ter proofs for the divine originall then I have brought against it, I shall acknowledge my error; if not, I expect he will retract his, and some other things he hath about the Keri and Ketib, which I shall have occasion to answer in another place, and therefore passe them by here.

XXI. Before I conclude this Chapter, some thing must be added concerning the Notes ex­tracted out of Grotius, which the Adversary saith, are brought as an instance of collecting va­rious Readings upon conjectures, or rather of corrections of the Originall, when any grosse cor­ruptions have befallen them, p. 159. 206. 315. Now, though I might well passe over what is here charged, it being no where acknowledged [Page 113] in the Prolegomena, That the Originall Texts are corrupted, but the contrary maintained; nor that upon meer conjectures various Readings are to be gathered, (as we have already shewed) and therefore, that these Notes out of Grotius could not possibly be brought for any such end: yet, because it is the opinion of some Learned men, that these collections out of Grotius are one main cause of all this stir against the Biblia Polyglotta, I shall briefly consider what he ob­jects upon this account. This we finde chiefly, p. 313. and 348. In the first place he saith, That to make this evident by instances, we have a great number of such various lections gathered by Grotius in the Appendix. He wondered at first view, how the Volume should come under that name. The greatest part give no various lections of the Hebrew Text, as is pretended, but various interpretations of others from the Hebrew. But the Prolegomena salves this seeming difficulty. They are not various lections collected out of any Copies extant, or ever known to have been extant, but criticall conjectures of his own, for the amendment of the Text, or at most conjectures upon the readings of the words by Translators, especially the LXX. and Vulgar Latine. In the other place, he saith, he shall not much concern himself therein, they are nothing lesse then va­rious Readings of that learned mans own observa­tion, setting aside, first the various lectious of [Page 114] the LXX. the Vulgar Latine, Symmachus, and Theodotion, wherein we are not concerned. Se­condly, the Keri and Ketib, which we have often­times, over and over in this Volume: Thirdly, the various Readings of the Greek and Occidentall Jews, which we have also elsewhere: Fourthly, conjectures how the LXX. or Vulgar Latine read by altring of letters only: Fifthly, conjectures of his own how the Text may be mended, and a very little room will take up what remains. By the cursory view he hath taken of them, he sees not one word that can pretend to be a various lecti­on, unlesse it belong to the Keri and Ketib, or the difference between the Orientall and Occiden­tall Jews.

XXII. Answer, I am not ignorant with what an envious eye that incomparably learned man, the miracle of our times, is looked upon by all our Novellists; and that his earnest study of the peace of the Church, and endeavour to close up, rather then to make wider the breaches and wounds of Christendom, hath exposed him to the malice and fury of the turbulent and fiery spirits of all sides. I shall not need to Apolo­gize for him; what heighth of Learning, and dephth of judgement dwelt in him, his Works proclaim to all learned and moderate men, and will speak to all Posterity; others have with more able Pens vindicated him from those ob­loquies and aspersions, which unreasonable men [Page 115] have cast upon him. A man he was of that emi­nency in all kindes of learning, divine and hu­mane, of that exact judgment, prudence, piety, and moderation, that I believe he hath left few equals in the Christian world: In his younger years he was by Scaliger himself (whose over-weening conceit of his own great abilities would hardly permit him to speak well of any) stiled [...], in his Epistles: I could not therefore but think that an extract out of his learned Anno­tations might be fit amongst others to be in­serted into this Work, and the rather, because he was one that did not extrema sectari, but with­out inclining to any party or faction, did pro­pose to himself the search of the naked truth for it self, and therefore I might hope that this pains would be thankfully received by learned, wise, and moderate men, wherein I know I have not failed of my ends; as for those violent and heady spirits, Turba gravis paci, &c. I know it is in vain to think of satisfying them, or to hope that any thing will relish with them, save what is [...]itted to their own distempered palate: for as Espenc. in Tit. 1. `Quibus os putet, omnia putida sunt, non alimenti, sed oris vitio.

XXIII. I shall not need therefore to Apo­logize, either for him or for my self, in publish­ing this Extract, but shall observe, that our Author will proceed in his usuall way of calum­nies. For first, He cannot make it appear by any [Page 116] one word in the Prolegomena or Appendix, that this was the end of publishing his Notes, as an instance of gathering various Readings by con­jectures, when the Text is corrupt, but meerly because of his great and generall learning, which might make them acceptable to learned and moderate men; for which cause, I conceived, they might justly deserve a place amongst the collections of other learned men of the like na­ture which are here exhibited. Nor secondly, do these Notes consist only or chiefly upon such conjectures, there are scarce one or two in the whole Pentateuch, nor doth he go meerly upon conjectures, but usually upon some ancient Translations, or Testimony of ancient Writers, and reasons drawn from the circumstances of the Text: and so for other books of the Old Testa­ment, the most of them are criticall notes about the severall Translations of others, and about the literall sence and reading of the Text, scarce one or two of the Keri's are mentioned in three or four books, as we shall shew anon; and therefore not served over and over; yea, our Author him­self, p. 348. contradicting what he said, p. 313. and elsewhere, after his usuall manner, saith, they are nothing lesse then various Readings of that learned mans own observation, and there­fore not such conjecturall various Readings, as he saith, are brought for instances in the Ap­pendix. Thirdly, that those out of the New [Page 117] Testament, which are the far greater part of that Extract, are various Readings out of se­verall Copies, (not bare conjectures) with his judgement upon them, and the reasons for it; and therefore our Author may cease wondering how these few sheets, (which are nothing lesse then a Volume, as he calls them) should come under the name of various Readings, seeing the greatest part? which may give denomination to the whole, consists of various Readings of the New Testament: and though there be other ob­servations amongst them of great use and worth, yet the greater part consisting of divers read­ings, might well give the name to the whole: Besides, it is not said in the Title, that they be all various Readings of the Hebrew, but various Readings in generall; and though there be few of the Hebrew in the Old Testament, yet there are others of the Greek, Sept. Symmachus, Theo­dotion, and Aquila, the Vulgar Latine, and other Translations, besides those of the New Testament; and therefore the Prolegomena needs no such way as is by him surmized, to salve a difficulty which is not. Fourthly, the Publisher did never take upon him to defend whatsoever is said by any in their Notes which are added to the Bible; he is not bound to maintain all that Nobilius, Lucas Brugensis, Mr. Young, or any others have said in any of their observations, but thinks it enough that in generall they are of [Page 118] great use, and acceptable to learned men, who know how to make use of them; & that to satis­fie the desires of such, he had just cause to annex them to this Edition: but if any man shall meet with some things, which he cannot relish, let him not reject the Gold, because of some drosse, or reject the Wheat, though there be some chaff. The Publisher professes, there are some things which he cannot wholly subscribe to, yet he is far from rejecting the whole, or thinking it therefore not fit to be published, he proposes them to all, let every man judge as he thinks fit, and abound in his own sence, whether they approve, or reject, more or fewer, it shall be no offence to him.

CHAP. VII.

I. BEsides these Generalls, there are divers things which he findes fault with, in those particular Readings here exhibited in the last Volume, which we must consider, before we passe from this head of various Readings. He is offended with their multitude and great bulk, questions the antiquity and goodnesse of the Co­pies, and the fidelity of the collectors, is angry that they are barely propounded, and no choice made, nor judgment given on them, of all which in order. First, for the bulk, he saith, he was startled at this bulkie collection, p. 146. p. 188. What a bulk or heap they are now swelled to, we see in the Appendix; so p. 206. and 349. a spu­rious [Page 120] brood that hath spawned it self over the face of so much paper, as p. 192. yea, what ever varying word, syllable or tittle could be brought to hand, wherein any books, though but of yesterday, varieth from the common received Copies, though mani­festly a mistake, superfluous or deficient, incon­ [...]istent with the sence of the place, yea, barbarous, is presently imposed upon us as a various Reading, ibid so p. 194. all differences whatsoever, that could be found in any Copies, printed or otherwise, are equally given out; yea, p. 194. It 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, [Page 121] 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. [Page 122] 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 [Page 123] 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 [Page 124] 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, [Page 125] 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, [Page 126] and Latine, in that excellent book, his Notati­ones in loca variantia S. Scripturae, reckons up above 10 [...] 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 [Page 127] 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 in [...]renches upon any point of [...]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 [Page 128] 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. Pr [...]f. ad lectorem▪ Out of these Copies, Si non ipsi judicium ferre, certe aliis dare, unde aut ferre possint, aut suo quemque monente Lectionis varieta [...]em aestimare—Non quasi Scriptura sa­cra erroribus obnoxi [...] sit, quae à prima veritate perfecta veritatis regul [...] 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 [Page 129] dubis quid amplectatur donec ex fontibus, aut ex antiquis aliarum linguarum editionibus, aut ex Trac [...]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 exem­pl [...]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.

[Page 130] 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 observentur, colligentur, imo etiam ex illis correctiones instituantur. Vindic. part. 1. c. 4. p. 90. and p. 67. Ex collatione exemplarium emendatum exemplar cudi potest, licet non ad extremum usque apicem, (illud enim facile concederem, nec esse nec fuisse, imo nec esse posse.) More we have to the same purpose, Vind. lib. 2. c. 12. p. 834. Quod (plures codices conferendo, discernendo, & dijudicando) ex He­braeis aggredi incepit post R. Ben Chajim edito­rem Bibl. majorum Venetorum R. Menachem Louzano in prima parte libri [...] per Pentateuchum: & optandum esset ut illius opera per caeteros quoque libros Biblicos continuasset, vel alius ei succederet. Again, Vindic. part 1. c, 12. p. 202. Optandum esset ut quae ab eo tempore sunt ab Hebraeis ipsis variae lectiones observatae, ab aliquo colligerentur, ut Christianis etiam in­notescerent, prout illarum multae extant in Bibli­is [Page 131] majoribus Venetis & Basil. Et nuper etiam R. Menachem Louzano in parte prima libri [...] collegit ex multis & probatissimis si­mul & antiquissimis libris [...]ebraicis quascunque observare potuit in lege varias lectiones▪ Imo si alibi in Bibliothecis quoque Regum, Principum, Ʋrbium, exemplaria Hebraica extent, facile pa­tior ut conferantur, et si lectiones varias conti­nerent, meliores eligantur. Here we see this learned Hebrician acknowledges various Rea­dings among the Hebrew Copies, besides those already noted, and this without prejudice to the purity of the Text, also wishes that as many Copies as can be procured were compa­red, the different Readings gathered, out of which the best might be chosen, and so a more correct Edition might be made then any hi­therto.

XI. This which he then wished to be done by others, is since done by himself: he hath collected out of all the Copies printed or MSS. which he could procure, all the various Rea­dings he could find, and hath written a full vo­lume of them; wherein he gives also his judge­ment of them, which are best, which he offer­ed once to be Printed in our Bibles, (and if we could have had it in time, I should willingly have inserted it,) But he is now Printing an He­brew Bible at Basil, to which this his Critica sa­cra is annexed, which if it had not been stopt by [Page 132] some intervening accident in the vacancy of the Empire had been finished ere now, as appears by Letters which I lately received from him. The Title of his Book as it was sent over by himself, for further satisfaction of the Reader I shall set down.

[Page 133] XII. To these we might adde that the Keri and Ketib are not the same in all Editions, the number differing by some Hundreds: our Author saith they are the same in all Editions, onely in some the number varies by mistake and oversight. p. 296. Rather himself was mistaken and over­seen when he wrote this. No man that look [...] upon them can imagine but that they were pur­posely so Printed, and that according to the Copies which the Publishers followed, and not by any mistake either of the Printer or Publish­er. Some Editions have two or three hundred more then others, and can it be supposed that so many words could be added in the Margent, with the Keri under them, and as many words marked in the Text, and to have the points af­fixed to them, which belong to the marginall word, and all this done by casual mistake Credat Judaeus Apella, I can hardly think that our Author himself upon deliberation will avouch it any more. The difference according to some chief Editions I have seen transcribed out of the Prolegomena, that the Reader may judge.

• Summa totalis.
  • K. 1171. K. 793. Jeth. 99. K. 983. Jeth. 58. K. 858.
  • Jeth. 85. Chas 9. Chas 7.
  • Chaser. 3.

XIII. I hope by this our Author will be­lieve there are some differences in the Hebrew Copies, and yet the Copies are not corrupt. When Buxtorfs Bible comes out, whereof part is already Printed, this superstitious conceit of the Hebrew Copies not varying in any thing will clearly vanish. In the mean time he may look on Capellus his Crit. lib. 3. c. 9. where he may find diverse various Readings collected be­sides the Keri and Ketib out of the best Edi­tions, and that not in points onely, but in let­ters and words, and such as are not errors of the Printer, but came from the difference of Copies, [Page 135] diverse Translations, both ancient and Modern, following one Reading, and diverse others, an­other; As Prov. 21. 4. Plant. and Steph. have [...] Lucerna impiorum, so read the LXX. Chald. and vulgar Latine. But Bom­berg. & Munst. in quarto read [...] for [...], and Munst. in fol. hath [...] Novale, and so the Tigurin. and Junius; the last English tran­slates it plowing, and the French labouring. Hos. 13. 6. the Venice, Steph. Munster in quarto read [...] speculabor. But in Plant. it is [...] Assyria, and so the LXX. and the vulgar Latine read it. 1. Chron. 1. 6. Bomb. and Munster in fol. read [...] with daleth, so Mas. par. Kim­chi and Jarchi. But Plant. Steph. and Munst. in quarto read [...] with Resh. So the LXX. and vulgar Latine. In the same chapter ver. 7. Bamb. reads Rodanim [...] and the lesser Masora, Kimchi, and Jarchi, say it ought so to be read. But Plant. Steph. and Munst. in fol. and quarto read [...] with Daleth. 1 Chron. 6. 41. Plant. Bomb. and Steph. read, [...], but Munster fol. and quar. omits the word [...] and so doth the LXX. the Tigurin. and Castellio, and the later French Translations. Jos. 14. 2. Steph. and Munst. fol. and quar. read [...], so doth the Tigur. and Castellio, but Plant. and Bomb. leave out [...] and so doth the LXX. Junius, the French and English. Josh. 22. ult. after [Page 136] [...] Plant. leaves a void space, and note [...] in the Margent, that [...] testis is to be under­stood and supplied, and this is followed by Ca­stell. the late English, and the French But Steph. Bomb. and Arias Montanus omit [...], so doth the LXX. vulgar Latine, and the Tigurin. Those that please may see more in Capellus, in the place above mentioned; and if they consult Buxtorf his Vindic▪ they may see he dislikes not the collecting of such varieties out of Hebrew Copies; nor thinks that they infer the corrupti­on of the Hebrew Copies.

XIV. What he objects about the same va­rious Readings served twice over, the Keri and Ketib over and over, &c. still shews his Candor and love of truth. Could he find no reason why the Keri and Ketib were twice enumerated, but to increase the bulk, and present the more va­riety to a lesse attentive Reader? read them over and blush. They are first reckoned up ac­cording to the order of the Books and Chapters, as they stand in the Bible, as they are in other Editions, that so the Reader might know what is in each Book and Chapter, yet here they are with reference to the severall chief Editions of the Bible, which differ much in the number, which was not done before in any Edition. And is there nothing in the second Catalogue but a bare enumeration of the same argument? any eye not blinded with prejudice might have seen [Page 137] some other benefit arising to the Reader: For whereas they are of divers sorts and natures, they are all reduced to their severall Heads and Classes, and the number of each sort examined, and the places quoted together where they are dispersedly mentioned throughout the Bible, and withall, how many, and which of each sort are acknowledged by each Edition, and withall some judgment given of most of them. Thus for ex­ample: There are some which are not written in the Text, a voyd space being left, or onely the points without the letters, which yet are to be read as in the Marg▪ of which sort are thirteen which are there mentioned, and the places men­tioned where they are to be [...]ound: some again are written in the Text, but not read, which have no points affixed, of which sort are [...]ive, which are there mentioned with the places where they are to be found. Again, some are written conjunctim in the Text, as if they were one word, which as the marginall Keri notes must be read divisim, as two words, of which sort are eleven, or as the little Masora saith, fifteen, which are also all specified together: Some again are written severally, as if they were divers words, which are to be read jointly as one word, as the Keri notes, of which sort are eight. Again, some words there are which to those chast Rabbins seemed obscene, and there­fore they put others lesse offensive in the margent [Page 138] to be read in their stead in the Synagogues, of which sort are ten, which are all enumerated, with some about servile, some about radicall let­ters, some by addition, some by detraction, some by transposition, or change of a letter, some about words, &c. of all which sorts, how many, and in what places they are, is distinctly set down, and what difference there is about them in the chief Editions, or in the Masora, or El. Levita. Now, can our cavilling Adversary finde no use of all this, but onely to increase the number? is there not here much satisfaction to the Reader to know how many there are of each rank, and where to be found. If he finde no benefit, he may forbear to look upon it, and leave it to others that can, let him finde out every differ­ence by the first Catalogue. Nor was this or­dering of them the work of Capellus alone, though he hath laboured more then any other therein. The same was done long before by Elias Lev. and in the Masora, in many, by Schindler, Sixtin. Amama, whose observations about these things were published long before Capellus his Critica. That which is added about Grotius, is as void of truth as the rest. Are they given a third time in Grotius his Notes, where there are scarce one or two mentioned in the whole Pentateuch, though there are above seventy? So in I. and II. of Sam. not above two men­tioned among an hundred, and so for the rest. [Page 139] How great a bulk do these make, how is the Volume swelled by them? Neither had these few been mentioned out of him, but that he gives his judgement of them. The like may be answered to what he saith of those of the New Testament. In the first collection they are barely named, with the Copies they relate to. In Gro­tius and Lucas Brugensis, their severall judge­ments are given of so many as they took notice of. Now is it no benefit to the Reader, to have the judgement of such Learned Men upon them, but all must be to increase the bulk?

XV. As he findes fault with the multitude of the various Readings, so he questions the Copies out of which they are gathered, and the fidelity of the Collectors. The Copies, few or none are of any considerable antiquity, pag 195. any book though but of yesterday, p. 192. he doubts whe­ther these Readings be tolerably attested to for various Readings or no, pag. 191. Beza hath stigmatized his own Copy sent to Cambridge, to be so corrupt in the Gospel of Saint Luke, that he durst not publish the various Readings of it, for fear of scandall, p. 195. Besides, in that MS. Copy of Emanuel Colledge, which is only of the Epistles, many various Readings are quoted, as out of the Gospels and Acts, with Col. Eman prefigu­red. And it may be supposed that this mistake goes not alone; but upon examination of particulars, they will be found not so cleerly attested, &c. He [Page 140] doubts not, but upon search, some of these Co­pies will be found no better then that Hebrew MS. of the Psalms, rejected by Arias Montanus, and therefore he earnestly exhorts some of his Ʋni­versity to examine these various Readings, &c. Here we may observe how little our Considera­tor considered what he wrote, but that he vented Quicquid in buccam venerat; for how could he judge of the Copies and MSS. we used, which he never collated, and may be scarce ever saw any of them? I am sure they are the choicest, and some of them of the best Antiquitie in England, yea, some the ancientest that are this day in the world. And I can further aver, that some Copies I [...]aid aside, which seemed to be of no antiquity, or negligently written, so far were we from taking up all that could be had, though but of yesterday. The greatest part of those of the New Testament were, as said before, with great labour and charge, sought out, and collated by the most Reverend Ʋsher, and out of the best Libraries, publike or private in England; and I believe, he was as able to judge of a Copy as another. What thinks our Author of the Alexandrian MS. of the New Testament in Greek, preserved in the Kings Library, written in Capital Letters, without accents, or distinction either of words or sentences, one of the Noblest MSS. in the world? which kind of writing hath been out of use for above a thousand years, as [Page 141] our best Antiquaries conclude, and therefore this MS. must needs exceed that age. What of the Codex Claromontanus, and of that which Beza sent to Cambridge, written in the same manner? Most of the rest are of great Antiquity. Not to insist upon that Greek MS. of the Chronicles, brought out of Greece by Theo­dorus, who was Archbishop of Cant. above a thousand years ago, which is now in Cambridge Library; nor of that ancient remnant of Sir Robert Cottons Greek MS. of Genesis, esteemed by Learned Ʋsher the oldest MS. in the world, because these concern the Greek LXX which is of no account with our Adversary. But what attestation desires he of the Copies? the most of them are in publike Libraries, and may attest for themselves, he may exhort whom he will to examine the Copies and the various Readings, if he can finde them unfaithfully collected, let him publish it to the world, & not spare us. But how this will be done, unlesse they mean to collate all over again, I know not, and I doubt it will be found a labour, which neither he, nor any of his novices will easily undergo.

XVI. But he instances in some Copies. Bezaes is stigmatized by himself: but where had he this, but out of Bezaes Epistle to the Ʋniversity, which he had not known if I had not published it? And if I had intended to deceive the Reader, I might have suppressed it, whereas I have plain­ly [Page 142] declared my judgement on that Copy about the Genealogie of Christ, Prolegom. 9. 65. that in that point it is of no credit: yet why it might not be usefull in other matters I know not; and considering the great antiquity of it, why it might not deserve to be collated amongst other Copies. Beza frequently makes use of it in his Notes, and calls it, Exemplar suum venerandae antiquitatis▪ and those that please may finde it to agree with our Old Alexandrian MS. and other ancient Copies, and with the reading of divers ancient Writers of the Church, where our later Copies do read otherwise, so that the concurrence of it with those ancient Copies, may confirm the reading that is found in them, and so it may be of great use. And though Beza saith, he found so great discrepance in it from other Copies in Saint Luke, that to avoid the offence of some (weak persons) he thought fit rather to preserve it then to publish it, (which is all the stigmatizing here boasted of) yet he addes, In hac non sententiarum, sed vocum diversi­tate, nihil profecto comperi, unde suspicare potu [...]rim [...] veteribus illis Haereticis fuisse depravatum. Imo multa mihi videor deprehendisse observatione digna, quaedam etiam sic à recepta scriptura discre­pantia, ut tamen cum veterum quorundam & Graecorum & Latinorum Patrum scriptis con­sentiant, quae omnia pro ingenii mei modulo inter s [...] comparata, & cum Syra & Arabica Editione [Page 143] collata, in majores meas Annotationes à me nuper emendatas, & brevi (Deo favente) prodituras congessi. Here we see what use Beza made of this Copie, and how he stigmatizes it. If he had thought so basely of it as our Author, he would never have thought it worthy to be pre­sented to such an Ʋniversity, nor they to pre­serve it as such a rare Monument of Antiquity.

XVII. As for that MS. of St. Pauls Epistles in Emanuel Colledge, though there was another MS. in the same Colledge, of the Gospels and Acts, whose name was casually omitted in the Catalogue, yet he can never prove any falsifica­tion, or indirect dealing. Here is no obtruding of any various Readings out of a MS. which is not. Only the name of that MS. of the Gospels and Acts was not noted among the rest, and what great matter is this? Is the Reader here­by deceived or abused with any forgerie or un­truth? The occasion of the omission was this, Those Readings of that MS. came to hand af­ter the rest were finished, and after the Cata­logue of the MSS. was drawn up, ready for the Presse, whereby the name of this MS. was forgotten to be inserted among the rest in the Catalogue. Our Author himself confesseth that in a Work of this variety, it were a miracle that many things should not escape the eye of the most diligent observer, yet he cannot forbear to insinuate, that there hath not been fair deal­ing [Page 144] in this collection, nor to raise suspicions, as if other things of the like nature might be found upon further search. This omission is not so great, as his mistake that says, that Morinus (now lately dead) was a Jesuite, a petulant Jesuite, p. 207. an aspiring Jesuite, p. 299. when any that reads the Title Page of any of his books, may see he was of the Oratorian Order, which was founded divers years after that of the Je­suites: or, that the Oracles of God were com­mitted to the Jews under the Old Testament, and all the Writings of the New, as we find, Ep. p. 3. and yet no notice taken of in the Errata; or to write, as p. 80 that the various Readings of the Eastern and Western Jews appeared first in the Edition of the Bible by Bombergus, under the care of Faelix Pratensis, gathered by R. Jacob Ben-Chajim, who corrected that Impression, which is: as if one should say, that the various Readings of the New Testament appeared first in Erasmus his Edition of the New Testament, gathered by Stephanus, who corrected that Im­pression. Here are many mistakes, which shew that he never looked into any Edition of the Venice Bible: for Faelix Pratensis, & Ben-Chajim, never joyned in one Edition of the Bible, one was by Faelix Pratensis, another by Ben-Chajim: nor are those various Readings gathered by Ben-Chajim, but were first published by Faelix Pratensis, as he might have read in Prolegom. 4. [Page 145] Sect. 14. or if he will not believe me, let him read Buxtorf his Bibliotheca Babbinica, pag. 228. &c. or believe his own eyes. I could in­stance in more of this kinde if I thought it need­full, nor should I have mentioned these, if he had not given me this occasion.

XVIII. He objects, that in these various Readings, There is no choice made, no judgement used in discerning true from spurious, but all dif­ferences whatsoever, that could be found in any Copies, printed or written, are equally given out: That the first observation in Lucas Brugensis, printed next to this Collection, rejects one of these varieties as a corruption, &c. I answer, 1. That is altogether untrue: for many differences in these Copies were left out, because they appeared plainly to be errors of the Transcriber; and this I can certainly affirm, and therefore all differ­ences of Copies are not here noted: Secondly, yet I deny not but that there may be divers re­maining w ^ch may come into that number, which I thought fit rather to leave to the Readers judgement, then to leave out every thing which seemed so to me; for that may seem to be a mistake of the Scribe to one, which happily may be thought none in anothers judgment, as ap­pears in that which he saith is noted by Lucas Brugensis for a corruption, which yet he knows Robertus Stephanus reckoned among various Readings; and Beza thought so well of it, that [Page 146] he preferred it before the common reading: nor doth Lucas Brugensis reject it as a corruption; but taxes Beza for preferring this Reading upon the authority of one Copy before the common Reading; but it seems, if one Reading have more reason for it then another, the other must pre­sently be a corruption in our Adversaries Logick, and yet it appears, that there are more Copies then one which attest this Reading; we have four more which concur in it, as appears in our Collection, and I doubt it would trouble him to answer Beza's reasons for that Reading. Third­ly, it is declared more then once in the Prole­gomena, that every difference of a Copy is not properly a various Reading. Vide Prolegom. 6. Sect. 8. Scribarum errores de quibus certo constat, inter varias lectiones nequaquam reforendi; and therefore, (though the major part give the deno­mination to the whole, and all differences in a generall sence may be called various Readings) if any who have leisure and abilities, shall sur­vey them, and shall plainly prove, that some of them are errors of the Transcriber, it shall be no offence at all to me, so it be not done, animo calumniandi, without magisteriall imposing their conceits upon others, and so that they leave to others the like liberty which they as­sume to themselves. Neither were it incumbent on us, (as our Author cannot but confesse, and therefore answers himself) to give our judge­ment [Page 147] upon every Reading, which is the best▪ we had work enough besides: and therefore those that have so much leisure to cavill and quarrell at every thing, may do well to exercise their Criticall faculty herein, only I wish they may have better successe then our Author hath in that Specimen of his criticall abilities, about [...], 2 Pet. 1. 20, 21. pag. 19. 20, &c. and that they would not be too forward in deter­mining such to be corruptions, which it may be, wiser and learneder men judge otherwise of. Fourthly, to give the severall Readings of an­cient Copies of note, without passing any judge­ment of each, is no new thing. In what Edition of the Hebrew Bibles, doth he finde any judge­ment upon the Keri and Ketib in particular, and those other Hebrew varieties? or where doth he find any thing to this purpose, save what is done by Capellus in his Critica, or by Buxtorf, in his Bible now Printing. Ar. Mont. brings divers Readings of the Greek, Chaldee, and Syriack, which are barely recited, so doth Stephanus in those which he gathered out of his sixteen Co­pies. Junius, (who is thought to be the Author of the Frankf. Edition of the Sept.) notes di­vers Readings out of severall Copies, but seldom gives any judgement of them. And if here the Publisher had only selected some choice ones, as seemed good to himself, he had not left all to the Readers judgement, but subjected all to his own.

[Page 148] XIX. But our Author might have observed, that the design of the Edition was not only to exhibit to the Reader all the ancient and chief Translations, together with the Originals, but also the chief Copies, MS. or others, of both, that so in this Edition the Reader might have all, or most other Editions, and the best MSS. which he might consult at pleasure. The par­ticular MSS. belonging to severall Libra­ries, either in the Ʋniversities or Colledges, or of private persons, who were great gatherers of Monuments of Antiquity, have been justly ac­counted great treasures. Who would not set a high esteem upon those Copies and MSS. here collated, if he had them all in his own keep­ing; now care is here taken that every private man may have them, and use them as his own. This pains I see was ill bestowed upon such as make so ill use of it, as to throw the Copies like dirt in our faces, and thereby take occasion to calumniate our Labours. Besides, though some of these differences seem small, yet they may be of more use hereafter then appears at present, upon the rising of new Errors and Heresies; which I confesse was one reason, why the fewer were left out, because we could not know, nor foresee what use might be made of them hereaf­ter, though they seem lesse usefull at present: and therefore it was resolved to give them as they are; which, considering the many cautions [Page 149] and rules about them, Prolegom. 6. De variis lectionibus, to stop the mouth of Calumny, and prevent all just cause of offence, I conceived might be justly done.

CHAP. VIII.

I. HAving gone over these particulars about various Readings, I might forbear to say any thing more of that Subject, of which enough is said to satisfie any rationall Reader; but because our Adversary doth frequently, from what is said by us, and confessed by him­self, labour to infer certain false and pernicious Consequences against the certainty and supreme [Page 150] Authority of Scripture on the behalf of Atheists, Papists, Fanatick Antiscripturists, and M [...]h [...] ­metanes, we shall briefly consider the force of those Consequences, whether they do justly fol­low from any Principle by us acknowledged in the Prolegomena or Appendix. Our Author sometimes seems not to be resolved of the truth of his Consequence. p. 147. he saith, these va­rious Lections do, at the first view, seem to inti­mate that the Originals are corrupt. p. 159. They seem sufficient to beget scruples, &c. p. 156. These Prolegomena seem to impair the truth. &c. p. 147. Men of perverse mindes may pos­sibly wrest these things: Nay, p. 206. he saith, That the Prefacer doth not own those wretched Consequences. Now, if they do but seem suffici­ent, and if they be wrested by men of perverse mindes, then those Consequences do not necessa­rily follow: no genuine Consequence can be said to be wrested, nor will he, I hope, joyn with men of perverse mindes. And if the Author of the Prolegomena do not own them, then they ought not to be objected against him, without sufficient proof of the Consequences, which these Considerations do no where afford. But in other places he speaks more positively: p. 205. They are all directed, or by just consequence owned in the Prolegomena. p. 206. That no sufficient se­curity against the lawfull deriving of them is tendered. p. 161. That they are an engine fitted [Page 151] for the destruction of that important truth by him pleaded for, and as a fit weapon put into the hands of Atheisticall men, to oppose the whole evidence of truth revealed in the Scripture, &c. p. 207. Great and wise men, (of which himself is one without doubt) do suppose them naturally, and necessarily to flow from them. And therefore, p. 147. he absolutely affirms, They are in brief, the foundation of Mahumetanisme, the chiefest and principall prop of Popery, the onely pretence of Fanatick Antiscripturists, and the root of much hidden Atheisme in the world.

II. Now we know the Rule is, A [...]irmanti in­cumbit probatio, and therefore our Adversary ought to prove and make good his Consequen­ces, or else he must be accounted a false accuser; yet here we do not find that he offers any thing in this kinde, to prove that they do follow from any Principles in the Prolegomena; but as he substitutes what he pleases, in stead of his Ad­versaries tenent; so he infers at random any thing that came into his minde, whereby to make them odious to Vulgar Readers. The in­justice of his Charge may sufficiently appear by what is already said, and therefore I shall onely recapitulate the summe of what is formerly proved, re-inforcing some particulars, and then shew, that the Charge may be upon himself, as being deeply guilty, by his own confession, of what he would impute unto another.

[Page 152] III. That no such Inference can be made against the certainty, integrity, and supreme Au­thority of Scripture, from any thing affirmed in the Prolegomena, may appear, because, as is at large shewed, The Prolegomena do not af­firm the Originall Texts to be corrupt, but to be pure and authentick, of supreme authority, the rule of faith and life, and of all Translations. The various Readings of the Originall Texts do not infer the corrupting of the Text, but may well stand with the purity and authority thereof. That our Author affirms the same with the Pro­legomena, about various Readings, which he fre­quently confesseth to be both in the Old Testament and the New. And as for those various Readings out of Translations which he would not allow, they are of the same nature with those which he allows out of the original copies: for the Prolegomena say they are in matters of no moment, contain nothing repugnant to the Analogie of saith, and such are by himself allowed in the Hebrew and Greek. That the most learned Protestant Divines, and best skilled in the Orientall Tongues, and most zealous defenders of the Originall Texts, have said the same with the Prolegomena, and in some things more, such as Luther, Calvin, Beza, Mer­cer, Brentius, Oecolampadius, Pellican, Scaliger, De Dieu, Sixtin. Amama, Archbishop Usher, and in a manner, all others, who would never be so in­considerate, as to affirm and deny the same thing, [Page 153] or to give back to their adversaries with one hand, what they had taken from them with the other, and though I have both in Prol [...]g. 6. Sect. 2. and in this answer cited diverse of their words, yet I shall here adde something more, with their rea­sons against the Consequences here objected, and those of such men whom he cannot in the least suspect of inclining to Rome.

IV. Sixtin. Amama, late Hebrew Professor at Froneker, one who our Author in his Epist. p. 9. joyns with Whitaker, Reynolds, Junius, Chamier, Amesius and others, that have stopt the mouths of Romanists speaking against the Origi­nall Texts, and quenched the fire which they would put to the house of God, as he expresses it, This man in that excellent book call'd Antibar­barismus Biblicus, which is wholy in defence of the Hebrew Text, writes thus lib. 1. Haud nega­re ausim, & injuria temporum, & descriptorum incuria, errata quaedam & sphalmata in Textum Hebraicum irrepsisse. Hoc autem dum admitti­mus, authoritati Textus Hebraici nihil detrahi­mus, manet nihilominus Textus Authenticus, & omnium versionum norma. Afterwards he addes, ex omnibus variantibus lectionibus pro [...]e­ratur una, unde vel Orthodoxae fidei, vel pietati ullum detrimentum inferri possit. Certe his tali­bus nullam intervenisse Judaeorum malitiam non tantum hinc apparet quod nullum ex illis Juda­icae perfidiae patrocinium exsculpi possit, sed & [Page 154] ex eo quod fontes variarum lectionum assignari possunt, inter quos primarii sunt, affinitas soni vel affinitas figurae consonantis, vel indifferentia sensus, &c. Quin & illud consideratione dignum in ist is infirmitatis humanae erratis & [...] non dormitasse vigilem providentiae divinae oculum, dum cavit diligentissime ne vel minima orthodoxae fidei particula, vel pietas ex eorum usu detri­mentum capiat.

V. To him let us adde Bochartus, Minister at Cane in France, a man no lesse eminent for his various learning, then for his zeal and piety, in that admirable Work of his; his Geographia sacra part 1. l. 2. c. 13. part of whose words I have formerly cited, who writes thus; Licet eandem scribis non tribuam [...] quam scriptoribus sacris, non tamen inde sequitur, quod nonnulli subinde oggerunt, actum esse de fi­de & salutisdoctrina, & in ea nihil esse certi: Quis enim ferat in aliis sic arguentem? In Li­rii & Suetonii scriptis quidam errores irrepse­runt: ergo in Historia Romana nihil est certi; & in iis quae de Hannibale, aut Julio, aut Au­gusto leguntur, nutat fides. Aristotelis Graeci codices alicubi sunt mendosi: ergo quid ille scri­pscrit de rebus Philosophicis certo scire ha [...]d possumus. Quamvis exemplum sit valde dispar. Nam multo aliter invigilavit Dei Providentia ut sacrae Scripturae codices praestaret immunes, sal­tem in iis quae ad fidem & salutem sunt absolute [Page 155] necessaria: unde est, quod ut ut Hebraei & Graeci codices variant in minutulis, & Sacri Textus interpretes saepe in diversa abeunt, tamen in fidei capitibus, & [...], eadem ubi­que doctrina occurrat, non jam dicam in [...], sed & in versionibus corruptissimis. What could be more fully said to shew the vanity of our Authors consequence? The same we may read in Lud. de Dieu, a man of great learning, especially in the Orientall tongues, as his works proclaim, Praef. in animadvers. in Evangel. Nec est quod quenquam turbet ea codicum lectio­numque varietas, quasi nihil certi haberet fides Christiana cui inniteretur, nihil enim deprehendo quod fidei substantiam laederet—Tantum abest ut Erasmum, Camerarium, Bezam, viros pietate & eruditione conspicuos, culpare audeam, quod in suis ad sacros libros not is varias lectiones obser­varint, ut contra eos utilem operam navasse cre­dam. Here we see the same Arguments which our Adversary brings about the uncertainty of Scripture propounded, and the same answer gi­ven which we have given already. They shew the inconsequence of his Argument, and ac­knowledge the great usefulnesse of gathering various Readings, and further (which is to be observed) they do not onely allow of various Readings out of the Originall Texts, but also out of Translations, which they often practise themselves, and sometimes prefer before the [Page 156] common Reading, as we have shewed Proleg. 6. Sect. 9.

VI. I will mention one more, Erasmus, whom our Author names as the first and chiefest that laboured in this kind, p. 189. and Epist. p. 21. whose pains likewise he tells us were ca­lumniated by some in his time. He wrote indeed a whole Volume of Apologies for his severall Works, and in this particular he was railed up­on most by ignorant Friers, who used the same words, which are now taken up by this Author against us, for the same thing. He compared divers Copies of the new Testament, to make his Edition the more perfect, and severall Transla­tions and expositions of the Ancients, whereup­on as appears, Epist. ad Henr. Bovillum, they cryed out, quasi protinus actum esset de Religi­one Christiana—vociferantur, [...], O coelum, O terra, corrigit hic Evangelium. So here they bring in utter incertainty about all sa­cred truth, Epist. p. 25. they correct the Scripture, p. 344. correct the word of God, p. 180. And Annot. 1: in Leum, In answer to Lee, object­ing the same thing, he saith, Ostendat nobis suo digito Lens, quae sit illa lectio quam dictavit Sp. S. & hanc u [...]am amplexi, quic­quid ab hac variat rejiciemus. Quod si ille non potest, ex collatione linguarum & exemplari­um, ex lectione, ex Translationibus celebrium au­ctorum nobiscum scrutetur, quae lectio sit maxime probabilis.

[Page 157] VII. If our Adversaries rule had been recei­ved, that no errors can befall the Text, either by malice, or negligence, there had never been any correct Edition made by any: and if it had been thought unlawfull, in any case to question the common Reading, men might have spared their labour, who from time to time, by com­paring Copies and other helps above mentioned, have endevoured to make Exact Editions, both of the Hebrew and Greek, which we see yet was at severall times practised both by Jews and Christians; Ben Ascher, Ben Naphtali, R. Hil­lel, Ben Chajim, Manass. Ben Israel, Buxtorf, Arias Montanus, Erasmus, Steven, Beza, and others, who altered and amended what they found by mistake had crept into the com­mon or vulgar Copies; and whose labours, ei­ther by explicite or tacite consent of the Church, receiving them without gainsaying, have been approved and commended: whereas if nothing must be amended, as nothing must up­on our Adversaries supposall, all errors that shall happen are uncapable of cure, because we must suppose there can be none, and so consi­dering that errors will now and then happen (notwithstanding all possible diligence) as all men, even himself, do grant, a plain way is open­ed to the utter corruption and deprivation of the whole Scripture, & so the case will be the same with the Romane Church, or the Pope, to whom [Page 158] the Jesuites affix infallibility, whereby all the errors are become incurable, though never so palpable, because it must be supposed they are subject to none. I conclude this with that speech of Heinsius, a great defender of the Originall Texts, Proleg. in Nov. Test. serio responso haud digni sunt, qui aut variasse olim in quibusdam libros, aut ex iis minus emendatos cum cura resti­tutos negant. And after. Satis sit ejusmodi varieta­tes eas esse, ut vel quae necessario credenda sunt, non ever tant, vel quae non credenda sunt, non do­ceant.

VIII. But now as I have cleared the Proleg. and Appendix, from these consequences of the Adversary, so his Argument, like a piece of Ordnance overchanged, recoils with full strength upon himself; nor can all the Sophistry in the world free him from the Guilt which he charges upon us. For he not onely grants the same Proposition which we do, concerning various Readings, but also grants, yea urges the Conse­quence which Papists, Atheists, &c. would in­fer thence, and which not we onely, but all so­ber men utterly deny, onely he denies the Con­clusion. For thus the Argument runs, if it be reduced into Syllogisticall Forms. If there be various Readings in the Originall Texts of Scripture, then the Scripture is uncertain, corrupt and doubtfull, and so cannot be of Su­preme authority, whereby way is made for Pope­ry, [Page 159] Atheisme, &c. But there are various Rea­dings in the Originall Texts of Scripture: Er­go the Scripture is uncertain and corrupt, &c. This Conclusion we both deny, as false and im­pious, and therefore one or both the Propositi­ons from which it is inferred, must needs be false. The Minor is granted by the Author of the Prolegomena, as it is also by the Author of the Considerations in the places alledged, and by all men that will believe their eyes. But the Ma­jor or the Consequence is denied by the Prole­gomena, and by all that have not joyned hands with Papists, Atheists, &c. who do utterly deny that any such inference can be made from the various Readings, but that the authority and cer­tainty of the Scripture is still the same, which the Author of the Prolegomena not only affirms, but proves and gives Reasons for it; and upon this he layes the weight of the cause, which neither our Adversary, nor all the Atheists, Papists, or Antiscripturists in the world are able to o­verthrow. On the other side our Author not onely grants the Minor, because it is evident to sence, but grants the Major too, yea he urges the consequence all along in these Considera­tions, with much earnestnesse and vehemency, (which all sober Christians abhor and deny.) Now let all men judge, who is guilty of this wretched Conclusion, he that grants the Pro­position, which is so evident that none can deny [Page 160] it, but denies the Consequence, and gives Rea­sons against it, or he that grants both Major, and Minor, denies onely the Conclusion.

IX. If it shall be said, that the Considerations do sometimes deny, that various Readings infer the uncertainty and corruptions of the Scri­pture. I answer, its true, that sometimes he seems to deny any such inference. But when he is in hot prosecution of his Adversary, he af­firms the clean contrary, as appears by his whole second Chapter of the Considerations, and Chap. 7. Sect. 6. where he denies any difference in Copies, either wilfully or by negligence. And the third Chapter of his Considerations is wholly spent against the various Readings of the New Testament, which are onely out of Greek MSS. and tells us, p. 193. that they create a temptation that there is nothing sound and entire in the word of God p. 206. that the Consequences are lawfully derived. p. 207. that they do naturally and necessarily flow: so p. 147. 161. &c. All a­long throughout his Discourse, he inferres from the various Readings in the Appendix of the Bible, (which are all out of the Originall Texts, not any gathered out of Translations) that thereby is introduced utter uncertainty about all sacred truth, so that nothing is more clear then that he makes the Consequence of the uncer­tainty and corruption of the Scripture, to be the necessary product of various Readings, and [Page 161] therefore that he hath plainly prevaricated, and betrayed the cause which he seemed to contend for; and his friends, as he makes them, Papists, Athiests, and Fanatick persons, have cause to thank him, for disputing so doughtily on their behalf. And so I conclude with that of Seneca Controv. 3. l 4. Malo est in loco, qui habet rei fortunam, accusatoris invidiam. He is in an ill case who accuses another of what himself is guilty; for Guilt, as one observes, though it be the effect of some error, yet usually it be­gets a kind of moderation in men, so a [...] not to be violent, in accusing others of that which may reflect upon themselves, but here we see it is otherwise, and from what root it proceeds, I leave to every mans judgement.

X. Having shewed the no consequence of the uncertainty and corruption of the Scripture, from various Readings, I shall not need to stand long upon the Particulars of Popery, Atheisme, fanaticall Antiscripturisme and Ma­humetanisme▪ mentioned by him, p. 147. For Po­pery he fears the pretended infallible guide &c. wil be found to lie at the doore of the Considerations. p. 161. and p. 202. He doubts not but to hear news from Rome concerning these varieties, there having been no such collections as yet made in the world. Enough they are to fright poore unstable souls, into the arms of an infallible Judge. And p. 207. We went from Rome under conduct of the [Page 162] purity of the Originalls, I wish none have a mind to return thither again, under pretence of their corruption. How these various Readings should be any prop, much lesse the principal Pillar of Popery, I cannot see, nor doth our Author prove. His meaning it may be is, that Papists do hence infer the Scripture to be uncer­tain, and the Originall Texts to be corrupt, so that they can be no sure ground of faith, and therefore that all must flie to an infallible Judge, and rely upon the vulgar Latine. But these grounds we have already taken away, and pro­ved, that notwithstanding such various Rea­dings, the Scriptures are still the certain rule of faith, and the Originall Texts the authentick rule of all Translations: v. Proleg. 7. Besides, let our Author shew that any of the various Readings, by us collected, contain any thing against either faith or good life, or make for the Romanists in any of the Controversies between them and us; let him instance in any if he can. In that place of 1 John 5. 7. are some words left out in many ancient Copies, but there is nothing contrary to the Analogy of faith in­serted. That point of the Trinity hath ground enough besides in Scripture, though these words had not been in any copy; and whether they were razed out of some Copies by the Arrians, as some of the Ancients suppose, or whether left out by casuall error of the Transcriber in some [Page 163] one Copy from which many others were deri­ved, and that error made use of by the Arrians, yet here is nothing against faith affirmed in this place, onely an omission of some words in some Copies. Besides how can it be imagined that these various Readings should make way for Popery, when the first and chief Collectors of them were the chief opposers of Popery? as this Author affirms, p. 189. where he reckons up Stephanus, Beza, Camerarius, Drasius, Heinsius, Grotius, de Dieu, Capellus.

XI. If it be said, that Papists mak [...] use of these various lections to decry the Originalls, and to set up the vulgar Latine, or from their uncertainty to infer the necessity of an infalli­ble Judge. 1. It is true there be some that do so, but there are some, and those of the most lear­ned among them, who are [...]out defenders of the purity of the Originall Texts, and prefer them before the vulgar Latine, as Simeon de Mins, Joh. D' Espieres, and others; and ma­ny among them who maintain that the Councel of Trent, in declaring the vulgar Latine to be authentick, did no way derogate from the He­brew and Greek Text, but onely preferred the vulgar Latine before all other Latine Translati­ons, and meant onely, that it contained no­thing contrary to faith and good manners, as Sal [...]er. Serrar. Mariana, A [...]or, Driedo, Vega, and divers others. 2. Doth our Adversary [Page 164] think that the Papists can justly deduce any such Conclusions from the various Readings? If he think so, then he pleads their cause, and joyns hands with them against the Originall Texts; if no, Why doth he urge their deducti­ons against us? 3. Though some men pervert and abuse the Truth to bad ends, must the Truth therefore be denied, because a bad use is made of it? There never wanted those who per­verted the Scripture to their own destruction; but is the Scripture the worse, or must not the lawfull use of it be permitted? All truth is from God, the Author of Truth, he needs not mens policies to defend it, much lesse can it be up­held by untruths. Those pious frauds, when disco­vered, have proved prejudiciall to the Truth for which they were devised.

XII. He confesseth, p. 206. That the Pre­facer doth not own these wretched Consequences, but he knows full well who think them to be just. It is true, he knows some Romanists and others think so, and it seems our Author thinks so too. But this Author knows also, that the Prefacer hath clearly proved, both against the Papist and himself, that the Consequence is false and invalid, and that neither of them have just cause to think so; and therefore, that this ought not to be by him objected. It had been a more Christian practice for him to shew the Inconsequence of such Conclusions from such Premisses as are con­fessed [Page 165] by himself, then to play fast and loose, or to calumniate them, who granting what cannot be denied, no not by himself, do yet uphold the Authority of the Scripture, and labour to prove that no such things do follow as are by such men surmized.

XIII. His uncharitable intimation, as if the design of the Publisher of the various Readings were to return to Rome again, to an infallible Judge, reflects upon the chief defenders of the Protestant Profession against the Errors of Rome, and the Supposition is as true as the Position, in that flower of his discourse, (twice repeated, p. 161. and 282. (Hoc Ithacus velit) if the rest of the verse, (magno mercentur Atreidae) be added to it. It is well known, that the Au­thor of the Prolegomena, when he kept his Act pro Gradu, at Cambridge, about twenty years ago, maintained this Question; Pontifex Ro­manus non est judex infallibilis in controversiis fidei? And he professeth himself to be still of the same Judgement, and to be rather more con­firmed in that perswasion, then any way doubt­full of it. And what news can we expect from Rome concerning these various Readings, when the same thing is not new with them, as appears by the Notes of Lucas Brugensis, Nobilius, and others, which far exceed in bulk any thing that we have done, and wherein more MSS. were used: which labours of theirs have ever been of [Page 166] high esteem among the Learnedst Protestants, as well as those of their own party. And how can they justly object these various Readings against us, when far more have been observed by themselves in the Vulgar Latine, which yet they will not have to derogate from its su­preme Authority?

XIV. For his Atheists, I wish he had consi­dered better his own doctrine, p. 88. 104. 108. 110. &c. whether the taking away of one chief Argument to demonstrate the Divine Originall of Scripture, against Atheists and Ʋnbelievers, viz. The miracles wrought for confirmation of the doctrine, brought down and witnessed to us by the Ʋniversall tradition of the Church of Christ, and the affirming that we have no more reason to believe there were any such miracles upon the tradition of the Church of Christ, then we have to believe those who deny they have any such tra­dition (that is, Jews, Pagans, and Mahumetanes) and that the Alcoran may upon this ground, vi [...] with the Christian Church. Whether the affirm­ing these things gives not more advantage to Atheists, then to affirm that there are various Readings in Scripture, in matters that do not concern Faith or Salvation, nor in any thing of weight, by the casuall mistakes of Transcri­bers? This I am sure gives no advantage in the least; and if Atheists will pervert and abuse the truth upon such Principles, why will our Au­thor, [Page 167] (who would not be reckoned amongst them) put them in minde of such advantages, and not rather leave the urging of them to Hobbs and his fellows. Let him remember what Sixt. Amama hath written against this, Antibar. lib. 1. which I know he hath read, Prolegom. 6. Sect. 5. Qui ne minimas a Textu originario va­riationes dari posse defendunt, in laqueos & nodos inexplicabiles se involvunt, simulque impiis & prophanis hominibus (quorum haec aetas feracissi­ma) se ridendos praebent, qui facile observent in libris Regum & Chronicorum, & alibi, quaedam [...], ut in 2 Reg. 22. 8. collato cum 2 Chron. 22. 3. de aetate Ahaziae filii Joram, unde colligunt nullam esse in sacris literis certitudinē, nec iisdem fidem adhibendam; Quibus facile as obstruitur, cum haec ex variante codicum lectione, non ex ipso textu [...] oriri dicimus, unde consequentia illa nullum habet robur.

XV. The like may be said for his Fanatick Antiscripturists. The certainty and divine au­thority of Scripture hath been made good not­withstanding such various Readings, and there­fore no just ground can be hence gathered of re­jecting the Scriptures. He tells us of a Treatise written by some body, who upon such Principles rejects the whole Scriptures as uselesse. I can say nothing of the book which I have not seen, nor known, upon what Principles it proceeds; if our Author think his Arguments to be [Page 168] good, let him produce them, and I doubt not but they will be quickly answered. In the mean time he may please to consider, whether he that rejects all other proofs for the Divine Originall of Scripture, and relies onely upon its own light and self-evidence, which is denied in this case to be sufficient by many Learned Protestants, do not give greater occasion to those, who bragg of their new Lights, and daily increase amongst us, to reject all Scripture as uselesse, then he that allows such various Readings in the Scri­pture as we have declared? And whether the le­velling of all discipline and order of Government in the Church, and leaving every man to follow his own fancie, against both Old and New Testa­ment, which tell us, That they should seek the Law at the Priests mouth, and that they who will not hear the Church, are to be accounted as Publicans and Heathens, have not made way to those Antiscripturists, Familists and other Secta­ries, which swarm among us, and like the Locusts that came out of the bottomless pit, have overspread the land, and darkened the Sun.

XVI. Lastly, for Mahumetanisme; It is true, Mahomet accuseth the Jews of corrupting the Old Testament, and the Christians for corrupt­ing the New, and saith, that he was sent of God to reform all, Surat. 4. 5. 11. and some of his followers pretend that there was something al­tered in Joh. 14. about the Comforter which [Page 169] Christ promised to send, as if there had been something in that place foretold of Mahomet, which the Christians have razed out and cor­rupted. But doth our Author believe that any various Readings gathered out of any MSS. or Printed Copies, or ancient Translations do inti­mate any such thing of Mahomet, or favour any part of his impious doctrine? I am sory to see any man so transported, as to urge such things, which must reflect upon the most eminent Di­vines, and chief Lights of the Church, in this or former ages, yea, upon himself in a high mea­sure, who affirms the same about various Read­ings which those do, against whom he makes this inference.

CHAP. IX.

I. BEfore we leave this Charge about various Readings, I must say something of the Translations exhibited in the Bibia Polyglotta; against which our Author spends his last Chap­ter, upon pretence, that we assign them another use then he allows, viz. That they are the rules by which the Originall is to be corrected; for up­on this he takes occasion to inveigh against them all, to shew how unfit they are for this end, and further, how unusefull for any other end. Now, though I might well passe over all that is said upon this supposition, as not concerned there­in, having already declared for what use these Translations are here Printed, and that though we allow various Readings to be gathered out of them in some cases, and with some limitations, as is above declared, yet we neither make them equall with, much lesse prefer them above the Originalls, but make them subservient to them, yet, because under colour of this, he defames and asperseth all the Translations, as of no use, nor deserving any esteem, I shall take a brief view of the most materiall passages in this invective, re­ferring the Reader for full satisfaction to the Prolegomena, where the use, antiquity, and au­thority of every Translation, and all the questi­ons about any of them, are at large handled.

II. He prefaces his Invective with an ac­knowledgement [Page 171] of the usefulnesse of them in some cases, and p. 206 calls the Work, a Noble collection of Translations; but this is, as I said be­fore, onely as a Shooing-horn to draw on the better this aspersion which he casts upon them afterwards, and therefore I account his commen­dation to be only, as I observed before out of St. Hierom, Honorifica contumelia, an Honorable reproach. First, he begins with the Ara­bick, for the Honour he bears to the Reve­rendly Learned Publisher of it, as he affirms (meaning Master Pocock) or rather indeed, because he thought he might have more colour­able pretence to vilifie this Translation then some of the other, otherwise he should rather have passed it over, or said least of it, if he had so honoured the Publisher. But here he shews h [...]w apt he is to mistake or to derogate what he can from the Publisher, when he makes that Learned man the Publisher of the Arabick. I shall not detract from his deserved praise, whom I do esteem as my much honoured friend, but I am sure he will not thank him for making use of any thing by him said or written, against this or any other of the translations, nor assume to him­self what our Author gives him, to be the Pub­lisher of the Arabick translation, or any other in this Edition; for upon the request of the Pub­lisher, he collated the Pentate [...]ch, not the whole Translation, with two Copies of Saadias his [Page 172] Translation (which he takes to be the same with that in the Parisian, and in this [...]dition) the one a MS. the other Printed in the Constantinopo­litane Bibles, and noted the differences of them, which he sent to the Publisher, who after they were reviewed, and collated over again for a great part, with the Printed Copy of Saadias, which I had out of Mr. Seldens Library, (for many things were mistaken by some whom he imployed in part of the collation, which himself, being otherwise imployed, had not leisure to re­view, and therefore desired me that they might be re-examined) I caused to be Printed and pub­lished with the rest. And upon the like request of the Publisher, that he would make some brief Preface to those Arabick various Readings or differences of these copies, he sent him that which is now prefixed to them, in which, though the Publisher did not concur with him that this Pentateuch is the same with that of Saadias, wherein divers others of great Learning and Judgement did concur with the Publisher, nor did his reasons seem cogent, considering them on the one side, and what was brought by D. H [...]t­tinger, now Hebrew Professor at Heydelberg on the other side, in his Analecta, which are fur­ther urged in his Smegma Orientale, with other reasons which offered themselves; and although the Publisher had formerly inclined to Mr. Po­cock [...] opinion, swayed by his Authority, which he [Page 173] always did, and doth still very much esteem, and did foresee, and so declared what use might be made of his words by some persons disaffected to the Work, to the defaming of the whole, as I now finde by experience; yet seeing it was only his particular judgement, and every man had liberty to judge of his reasons as he saw cause, (some things also being mollified and al­tered upon the Publishers Letters, from the first draught) he chose rather to publish it as it is, then to take upon him to determine any thing in it, having also said something of this point, Prolegom. 14. which the Reader may consult, if he please.

III. I shall not therefore go about to dis­cusse or determine that Question, whether it be the same which Saadias the Jew translated out of Hebrew into Arabick, yet in Hebrew Cha­racters, (though it seems scarcely credible, that those Christian Churches in the East should use a Translation made by a Jew in their publike as­semblies) yet I cannot but observe how our Adversary doth misreport & wrong the Learn­ed Author of that Preface, in reciting his words and opinions, whom yet he seems to magnifie, and therefore it is the lesse to be wondered that he deals so with others, whom he labours what he can to vilifie: for he makes him to write things neither true, nor agreeing to common sence, but untrue, and contradictory to them­selves: [Page 174] For p. 322. he saith, That he, (viz. Mr Pocock) tells us, This Translation is a Cento made up of many ill suited pieces, there being no Translation in that Language extant of the Old Testament, which is a plain contradiction; for if there be no Translation in the Arabick extant, how came this to be extant, and why doth he call it an Arabick Translation, if there be none in that Language? and why doth he speak, pag. 324. of other Arabick Translations, if there be none at all? Mr. Pocock indeed saith, That it is not all made by one Author, nor all immedi­ately out of the Hebrew; but some out of the Hebrew, some out of the Syriack, and part out of the LXX. but he was not so devoid of com­mon sence, as to say there was none at all. I looked among the Errata, but could not finde any Error noted there: nor can he say, that there is no other Translation in the Arabick but this, and that this was his meaning, for himself tells us of divers others Translations: and he could not but see in the Prolegom. 14. mention made of divers Translations made by Christians since they were in subjection to the Mahumetanes, who propagated the Arabick Tongue where they came, as that by the Bishop of Sevil in Spain anno 700. and two other famous ones, the Alexandrian or Aegyptian, which Gab. Si [...] ­nita published in the Paris Bible, and the Antiochian, used in that Patriar [...]h [...], as was [Page 175] shewed out of the Psalter. Nebiense, and others, of both which MSS. Copies are remain­ing in the Vatican, as Cornelius à Lapide in­forms us, who made use of both. All that Mr. Pocock saith out of Abulfeda is onely, that there was no Arabick version out of the Hebrew before his time in Arabick letters, not denying but that there were Arabick Translations out of the LXX. and the Syriack long before, and that there might be also some out of the Hebrew into Arabick but not in Arabick Characters. Again he makes Mr. P [...]cock say, that the anci­entest part of that Translation was made about the year 950. which he doth no where affirm, but onely saith that the Pentateuch, which he ascribes to Saadias, was about that time, which is not denied, if it be his; but when any of the other parts were translated, he saith no­thing.

IV. Further, he makes him say, That this Translation of Saadias was interpreted, and changed in sundry things, &c. which he no where saith. He saith, that it was transcribed out of Hebrew Characters, as we see in the Constanti­nopol. Pentateuch (which the Jews used in their Translations) into Arabick, by one who might change some words. But what is this to a Tran­slation or Interpretation? Was the Pentateuch translated into Arabick, when the Hebrew let­ter was changed into Arabick? Besides he no [Page 176] where makes the Interpreter to have been a Mahumetane, or Samaritane, as this Author misreports him, but to be R. Saadias a Jew, but that he who transcribed, or put it into Ara­bick Characters, might change some words, to comply the better with Mahumetanes, under whom those Christians lived. And lastly Mr. Pocock tells us, that these things he cannot affirm upon certain and undoubted grounds, but onely upon probable reasons. Thus modestly he writes. whereas this Author speaks confidently of things which he never understood. Now if any desire to know what use may be of this Arabick version, what Copies we used? what Translations there are? he may peruse if he please Proleg. 14. where he shall not find any such use, either of this, or any other Translation as our Adversary feigns, viz. to Correct the Originalls, or as he elsewhere expresses it, to correct the Word of God.

V. In the next place he falls upon the Syriack, that noble, ancient, Oriental treasure, made im­mediately out of the Hebrew, of which he tells us, he believes some part of it was made out of the Hebrew, as if the major part were out of the LXX. or some other Translation, which all that know of it any thing, know to be utterly un­true. Sometimes it varies in some words (of no importance) from our modern Hebrew Co­pies, which shews (as learned Hottinger ob­serves) [Page 177] some various or different Reading be­tween that Copy and ours, but none ever doubted that it was out of the Hebrew. Then he questions the Antiquity of it, He knows not when, where, nor by whom it was made, if he will be ignorant of these things, who can help it? otherwise he might have learned of those that have spent more time in the search of these things then himself. That the constant opinion and tradition of the Eastern Churches is, that it was either made in the age the Apostles lived in, or not long after, I mean that which they call the simple Edition (which is by us followed) which alone were enough to prove the antiqui­ty of it, as Bootius (as great an assertor of the Hebrew Text, as our Adversary can be) Vindic. c. 19. p. 183. proves, when he saith, it were intole­rable boldnesse, and no lesse foolish, not to give credit to them in this business, then if any Syrian or Per­sian, who never had been in Europe, and were altogether ignorant of the Latine (as he pur­poses them to be of the Syriack tongue who question the antiquity of the Translation) and had never seen or read any Latine book, should question whether the vulgar Latine Translation of the New Testament, of which he had never heard but by report, were of that antiquity, which they of the Latine Church ascribe unto it, and by constant Tradition have alwayes done, and should affirm it was made many ages after. And [Page 178] their rashnesse, as he there addes, is so much the more detestable, because we have most strong Ar­guments to prove the great antiquity of it, as that it must needs be in the third Century at least, be­cause Diodorus Tarsensis, Theodorus Mopsueste­nus, Polychronius, Procopius, Gazaeus, and others, who lived some of them in the fourth Century, do often mention and commend a Greek Translation then in use, which was made out of the Syriack. He saith further, That there can be no place for doubting in this matter, because the Syrians have many Fathers of their own Nation, some since, others long before Diodorus, who wrote in their own Syriack language, and quote many places out of the Syriack Translation of the Old Testament, made out of the Hebrew, which agree verbatim with that which we have, of which he is most cer­tain, by those many instances which he could give out of that great Syriack MS. called Catena Syriaca in Evangelia, which he had among many other Syriack books, out of the Library of that famous and Reverend Ʋsher.

VI. The great antiquity of this Version is also proved Proleg. 13. out of the ancient Writers which mention it, Saint Basil, Saint Chrysostome, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Eusebius, and others, mentioned in the ancient Greek Scho­liast, besides Jacobus Syrus, (who was present at the Nicene Councel) and Ephraim Magnus, who do both mention this Syriack Translation, and [Page 179] commented upon it in Syriack. Besides it must needs be of great antiquity, when that other and later Syriack Translation was made out of the LXX. above a thousand years ago, as ap­pears by Masius in Jos. who had some Syriack books of that Translation written before that time, and some Syriack Copies of the New Te­stament are now remaining in the Duke of Florences Library (as I had from one residing there, who perused the same MSS.) which appear to have been written above a thousand years a­go, of which with other Arguments, those that please may read Prolegomena 13. The Ad­versary further tells us, That in many places it evidently followed another corrupt Translati­on, and that it passed through the hands of men ignorant and suspicious, against whose frauds and folly by reason of the paucity of Copies we have no relief: but for proof of all we have not a word, nor any testimony, nor any instance of any Translation it followed at all, much lesse of any corruption, but all this you must take upon his word, against the judgement of all learned men, who have some of them spent more years in this Translation, then he ever spent dayes, and therefore what credit his bare ipse dixit may have, let any wise man judge.

VII. Lastly, having nothing to say against this Translation in particular, he falls upon the Scribe of that Cambridge MS. which we com­pared [Page 180] with the rest, for desiring the prayers of the Saints for him, and that God would hear them on his behalf, as if the credit of an anci­ent Translation depended upon any addition made by a Transcriber, who lived, it may be, a thousand years after: by which reason he might reject the Greek Text of the New Testament, because in some old MSS. some such prayers and ejaculations may be found added by the Scribes of those Copies.

VIII. Thirdly, He falls foul upon the Samari­tane Pentateuch and Version, p. 327. and 260. He labours first to prove what no body denies, That their Pentateuch cannot vie with the Hebrew Text, p. 329. when as he could not but read Proleg. 11. that it is there expresly affirmed, that their Pentateuch is not authentick, and that there are some wilfull corruptions in it, as that about mount Gerazim, and that it cannot stand in com­petition with the Hebrew. Then he proceeds and tells us, that all is uncertain about them and their Pentateuch, that it were no hard task to manifest the uncertainty of what is fixed upon the Originall of this Pentateuch in the Prolegom. or to inforce those conjectures which he opposeth, but it is not in his present work, nor that he knows of ever will be. In the mean time I hope what is said in the Prolegomena may stand firm, till it be impugned or confuted, which I do not fear to be done by our Author in hast. Yet though [Page 181] I do not love to spend time about frivolous ex­ceptions; some things there be which I cannot well passe by without notice.

IX. Pag. 261. He saith, The Samaritanes had not the Book of the Law from the Priest that was sent unto them by the King of Babylon, be­cause they continued in their Idolatry, and there­fore probably they had it when they were con­quered by Hircanus, after their Temple was de­stroyed, which had stood two hundred years, and p. 262. 327. 329. That there are any of them at this day, or have been these thousand years last, is unknown. That they continued in their Idolatry till Hircanus his time, who subdued them: That their Pentateuch was not used by any ancient Christians, &c. all which Paradoxes are visible untruths, affirmed without any the least proof, yea, against all History, ancient and modern, and against the judgement of all Learned men who have written of this subject. That the Priest taught them to fear the Lord, is expressed, 2 King. 17. 28. How this could be done with­out the Book of the Jews, is not imaginable, when as it is said, that before that time, they fear­ed not the Lord, and then it is said, that they feared the Lord, though withall they worshipped their Idols. That Manasseh the High Priests bro­ther fled thither in Esdras his time, and built a Temple on Mount Gerazim, whither divers Priests and other Jews also came, and there [Page 182] worshipped God, and offered sacrifices (though in a Schismaticall way) is out of doubt: and how this could be done without the Book of the Law is not to be conceived. That they continued in their Iodolary till their Temple was destroyed by Hircanus, is against all ancient Records, which affirm the contrary, Joseph. lib. 9. cap. ult. saith, Postquam Legem, & Dei colendi rationem ab iis, (Sacerdotibus a Salmanasare (for so it should be Printed) missis) edocti diligenter Deum colere coe­perunt, moxque cessavit pestilentia, permanent (que) in ea religione. Epiph Haeres. 3. saith, Illos ac­cepta lege hoc unum studuisse ut Idolorum repu­diata superstitione summum Deum agnoscerent. The same is affirmed by some Rabbins, produced Prolegom. 11. though out of their innate ha­tred they forge many calumnies and untruths against them. But that after their Temple was destroyed by Hircanus, that they should then, and not before, receive the Pentateuch, is such a groundlesse fancie, that I could hardly think our Author hoped that any would believe it. Can any man imagine, that for two hundred years they should offer sacrifices, and observe the Law, without any Copy of the Law, and after their Temple was destroyed, when they had no place to worship in, that they should then receive it, and that in a strange Character, and onely the Pentateuch, when as if Hircanus had forced the Pentateuch upon them, he would, [Page 183] without doubt, have forced all the rest of the Jewish Canon upon them, and that in the Jews Character. Pardon me, good Reader, if thy patience be exercised in confuting such wilde fictions, whose very naming is enough to con­fute them among sober and discreet men.

X. Of the same stamp is that which follows: That it is unknown that any of them are remain­ing at this day, or have been these thousand years. That their Pentateuch was never used by any ancient Christians, &c. They were not so few in the times of Zeno & Justinian, but that they durst rebell against those potent Emperors; Benjamin in his Itinerary, written about five hundred years ago, found divers Synagogues of them at Damas­cus, Ascaelon, Caesarea, Palestina, Sychem, &c. Peter du Valle, and others, who lately travelled in the [...]ast, have found divers Synagogues of them still remaining at Sychem, Hierusalem, Gaza, Cayro and Damascus, and affirm, that there are some Reliques of them still remaining at Cayro, of those Colonies which Ptolemie car­ried into Aegypt. That their chief Priest re­sides still at Sychem, on Mount Gerazim, where he sends circular letters to the rest about their solemn Feasts. Scaliger had (from Eleazar their High Priest at Sychem, and the Samaritanes at Cayro, to whom he wrote) a Type of the Calen­dar and Compute for the year 1589▪ which he published both in Samaritane and Hebrew Cha­racters, [Page 184] lib. 7. De emend. See Gassendus in vita Peirescii, p. 157. and Hotting. Bibliothec. Orient. c. 4. p. 305. I have seen a Samaritane Pentateuch which belonged to one of their Priests at Dama­scus, about four hundred years agoe, as appears by what he hath written in that Copy. And not­withstanding all this, we must believe there are none of them remaining, nor known for these thousand years.

XI. That no ancient Christians made use of their Pentateuch, is like the rest. The Author had read the contrary proved, Prolegom 11. where Sect. 7. 14. &c. he could not but finde, Origen, Eusebius, Africanus, Cyril of Alexand. Diodorus Tars. Hierom, Eulogius, Procopius, Epiphanius, the Greek Scholiast, and other ancient Writers quoted, and their testimonies produced to prove the Samaritane Copy they used to have been the same with this now ex­tant, by the places they alledged about Chrono­logie, and other controverted Texts, yet all these men must not be reckoned among ancient Christians, for no ancient Christians made use of it. It is strange, if any thing can be strange, in such an Adversary, that he should so boldly affirm such things, which are so easily detected, and so plainly confuted. He also saith, that there is no more in Scaliger or Morinus disco­vered about the Samaritanes, then we had for­merly from the Scriptures and Josephus, which [Page 185] no man that hath read Scaliger or Morinus will believe. Those that have read them, or the Prolegomena, will finde many things concerning the Samaritanes and their Pentateuch, which could not be found, either in the Scripture or Josephus, being matters of fact, done long after Josephus his time, and after the Canon of the Scripture was finished.

XII. But he is much offended, p. 331. That from the occasionall mention of the Samaritane Liturgie, and the pretended antiquity of it, the Author of the Prolegomena falls, and not with­out some bitternesse, on those that have laid aside the English Liturgie, or Service Book, and saith, it had not been imprudently done▪ to reserve a triumph over the Sectaries to some more consider­able victory then any is to be hoped from the ex­ample of the Samaritanes, a wicked people, for­saken of God, &c. and therefore he could have wished he had refrained that close of his Discourse. And the Author of the Prolegomena could have wished that his Adversary could at length learn to relate things truly, and to forbear calumnies. Let the place be looked on Proleg. 11. Sect. 23. and let any man see, whether it be not the example of the Jews, who used set forms of publike prayer, from the time of Esdras, and who were certainly the people of God, to whom the promises were made, from whom the Ar­gument is drawn against our modern Sectaries, [Page 186] and that the Samaritanes are mentioned in this, onely ut Judaeorum aemuli; so that the example of the Samaritanes, proves chiefly the practice of the Jews, whose Apes they were in this and other things, and so may well be brought a [...] an Argument against our Novellists. The words are these: Quam (Liturgiam Samaritanorum) valde antiquam esse & prope Esdrae tempora in usu fuisse, vel ex ipsis Judaeorum formulis, quas paulo post reditum à Babylone, ab Esdra, & sociis ejus compositas fuisse affirmant uno ore omnes Judaei, quasque in hunc usque diem usurpant, colligi potest. Videantur Capellus in Spicileg. & Seldeni Notae in Eut. Ʋnde Sectariorum nostrorum pervicacia, & impietas merito redarguitur, qui spretis omnibus publicis Orationum et Liturgia­rum formulis, per omnes Christi Ecclesias ab ipsis Ecclesiae Christianae primordiis, & Apostolorum temporibus usitatis, Liturgiā Ecclesiae Anglicanae, omnium per orbem Christianum purissimam, & sanctissimam, damnarunt, & omnibus, &c. Quo­rum praxis ab ipsis Judaeis eorumque aemulis Sa­maritanis erroris & novitatis arguitur: where we see the Argument is drawn chiefly from the Jews; and from the Samaritanes, only as imita­ting the Jews. And let the Samaritanes be what they will, yet their example in imitation of the Jews, who were then the onely visible Church of Christ, is a strong argument for the use of publike set forms of Liturgie, and will more [Page 187] prevail with sober and pious men, then all the pretences of factious Novellists.

XIII. In the fourth place, The Chaldee Pa­raphrase comes under censure, which is likewise a Cento made up of divers pieces; some part sup­posed, (I say, proved in the Prolegomena) to be written before Christ, and some part (acknow­ledged likewise in the Prolegomena) to be written five hundred years after Christ. The great use of this Paraphrase, among other things, is largely shewed, Prolegom. 12. Sect. 17, 18, 19. in con­firming the integrity of the Hebrew text, proving sundry main Articles of the Christian Faith against the Jews, explaining many obscure places, and dark Paraphrases, &c. and our Adversary cannot but acknowledge it: other things like­wise concerning these Paraphrases, their Authors, Antiquity, &c. are largely handled in the same Prolegomena, to which I must refer the Reader. He tells us of the bulkie collections of various Readings in this Paraphrase; but he might have observed by the Title, that there are not onely various Readings, but also Observations, which take up the greatest part of that collection. And as for Buxtorfs Babylonia, which he talks of by hear-say, it is true, his Son sent it me to be Printed among other things in this Bible, with a short Preface of his own, but it came too late, after our own Notes on that subject were begun, and would have risen to a greater bulk [Page 188] then the last Volume of the Bible would well bear. Whereupon I forbore to Print it, but shall willingly communicate it to any that shal under­take to make it publike, & shall further their en­deavours therein, it being a Book very usefull, as I conceive, to restore that ancient Translation to its purity, (though I conceive there is much done already in our last Volume to that purpose) And I think that Learned Author would never have taken such pains therein, if he had so sleightly esteemed it, as our Adversary doth.

XIV. The Vulgar Latine scapes the lash pret­ty well, which I thought should have felt his displeasure most, because so magnified by the Church of Rome. He esteems it the best in the whole collection, except the Interlineary, not­withstanding its corruption and Barbarismes. What esteem it deserves, is declared, Prolegom. 10. Sect. 12. but what he writes in preferring it before the rest, is I doubt, not so much out of his esteem of the Vulgar Latine, but thereby to depresse the worth of the rest, which the Vulgar Reader must needs think to be very bad, when this, which Vulgar Divines so cry out against, is preferred before them all. He may enjoy his Opinion, but he must leave others to judge of them as they see cause, who look upon them without prejudice. What the Authority, and Ʋse of this Translation is with the severall questions concerning the same, the Reader may [Page 189] finde declared and debated at large, Proleg. 10.

XV. Now comes the Septuagint, which he saith, must bear the weight of all; the most of the rest being taken out of it. Of this Transla­tion we have written at large, Prolegom. 9. which for its antiquity and hoary hairs, is most opposed by all Novellists, though it be proved, in the same Prolegomena, That it was publikely read in the Synagogues for neer three hundred years be­fore Christ; That our Saviour and the Apostles used it, and cited it more frequently then the Hebrew Text, and thereby consecrated it to po­sterity: That by this Translation chiefly, (which was by the Apostles left to the Church of Christ) the Church, especially among the Gentiles, was first gathered, and by it nourished and built up, and the world subdued to Christ: That for many Centuries no other Translation but this, and such as were made out of it, (excepting the Sy­riack) was used in the Church, nor is any other used in the Greek Church to this day. That this was that which the Greek and Latine Fathers expounded, illustrated, out of which they in­structed the people, confuted Heresies, and main­tained the Truth: That this which we now have, is the same for substance with that ancient­ly used, (though in some things, by the injury of times, and frequent transcriptions vitiated) which, with all the severall questions and con­troversies about this Translation are at large [Page 190] discussed and handled, to which I must refer the Reader, where he shall finde all the doubts and questions raised by this Author, or others, resol­ved, and all their aspersions cast upon it wiped off. It would be too long to go over the par­ticulars herein. Those that amongst our Neo­tericks have been least favourable to it, have yet highly valued it, as is shewed out of Scaliger, Heinsius, and others. Heinsius saith of it: Ra­rum & incomparabilem thesaurum esse neminem ignorare posse, nisi qui ab omni eruditione alienus sit, Aristarch. cap. 15. p. 951. The quarrells and cavills therefore of our Author against it, I shall not meddle with now; all of them, and a great deal more, is related and answered in the same Prolegom. 9. onely I cannot but observe how he overlashes still, when he affirms that most of the Versions in the Biblia Polyglotta are evidently taken out of it, which he cannot with any colour affirm of any but the Arabick, of which yet himself formerly told us, the Penta­teuch was translated out of the Hebrew, and some part out of the Syriack, as for the rest, viz. the Samaritane Version, the Syriack, Chaldee, and the Vulgar Latine, they are all out of the He­brew, except the Psalms in the Vulgar Latine, which seem to be out of the LXX. Though it may be here and there in some words they may agree with the LXX. yet this gives not the least colour to affirm that they were taken out of it.

[Page 191] XVI. Besides we may observe upon what weak grounds he goes, when he sticks not to insist upon that Argument against the Septuagint, that the Originall Copy was burnt in the Library of Alexandria in Caesars time, to prove that there are no true Copies now left, which childish ar­gument he knew was answered Proleg. 9. Sect. 49. so as might have made any man of com­mon discretion forbear to urge it: for it is shew­ed, and on all hands confest, that there were thousands of Copies every where extant among the Jews, and read publickly in their Syna­gogues all the world over, and so had been for some hundred of years before the burning of Pto­lomies Library, so that the losse of that Origi­nall Copy (though it may be justly doubted whether it perished in that conflagration or no, as is there shewed) can no more prove that suc­ceeding ages have not the true Copy of it, then it can be inferred that we have no true Co­pies of the Hebrew and Greek Texts because the first Originalls have been lost many ages since, as among other things is there shewed.

XVII. The Aethiopick and Persian Transla­tions, which he falls upon in the last place, are the worst and most corrupt in the world. He can find no use of the Persian, but onely to shew that there is such an uselesse thing in the world. The Aethiopick is the Novel endeavour of an illiterate person. He knows not whether some of them be [Page 192] in use now in the world, he is sure that it were well that they be not; had he not seen them, he could not have imagined any had been so bad. He thinks some Jews had a hand in one for money. Thus some men shoot their bolts at randome. It is sufficient that learned men, and such as are able to judge, do acknowledge the use of them, and thankfully receive the publishing of them. The antiquity and use of both, especially of the Aethiopick, is declared Proleg. 14. and 15. What is there said and proved, will I doubt not overba­lance what is by him barely affirmed to the con­trary. That the Aethiopick is now used, and hath been since the conversion of that Nation, among the Abyssines, through those large Ter­ritories, consisting of many Kingdomes, is shew­ed by good authority, and sundry reasons, a­gainst Scaliger. Our Author knows not whe­ther it be any where used, but I think there is scarce any besides himself that doubts it, that doth not shut his eyes against the clear light. Concerning the Persian, it is acknowledged in the Prolegomena not to be that ancient Transla­tion mentioned by Theodoret and others of the Ancients, of which it may be doubted whether any part of it be extant: as also that it was made out of the Syriack, not immediately out of the Greek, yet that it may be usefull, is like­wise shewed, Proleg. 15. in diverse particulars, and that this Copy we have Printed, was written [Page 193] three hundred years ago, but how long before the Translation it self was made, we cannot determine. How the Jews should have a hand in any of the Translations is a fancie which I think never lodged in any mans breast but his own, nor can he shew any ground for it. It may as well be said, that Turks and Mahu­metanes made all these Translations for the use of Christians. Because the Transcriber of the Aethiopick, (as it is rendred in Latine) makes Saint John Bishop of Constantinople (though it be doubtfull whether it may be so rendred, as he might have seen in the Annotations, and the Aethiopick word is not Constantinople, though the learned Translator of it into Latine conjectured it migh be there meant) therefore the Aethiopick Translator must be illiterate, and the Translation novel, when as in the Syriack, our Author could distinguish between the Scribe and the Translator, and not impute the error of the one to the other. And as for the antiquity, it is one thing to say, another thing to prove: let him answer the reasons in the Prolegomena, or bring better of his own, and we shall believe him, otherwise his bare autho­rity will not be sufficient to command assent a­gainst reason.

XVIII. By this which we have said it appears, that as our Author hath [...]eigned to himself an Adversary when he had none, that so he might [Page 194] have some pretence of depressing the severall Translations, so that which is said by him, we might well have passed by, but that our silence would have been by him interpreted as an ac­knowledgement of the truth of his affirmations. And although his invectives be groundlesse and vain, yet I have good ground to believe, that there is something else in the Translations them­selves (which he is not willing to mention) which hath caused all this bitternesse against them. It appears by these ancient Translations that what our Sectaries have cried down in the Church of England, as Popish innovations, viz. Episcopall Government, set forms of Liturgies, Observation of Festivalls, besides the Lords day, were used (as they are still) in those Eastern Churches planted by the Apostles and their Suc­cessors in Asia and Africk, from the first times of their conversion, so that what these men would exterminate as Romish and Antichristian Novelties have been antiently used by those fa­mous and flourishing Churches, which never pro­fessed subjection to the See of Rome. Hinc illae lachrymae: This is that Cordolium of our No­vellists, the practice of the universall Church of Christ all the world over, which condemns their innovations; which Argument is of more force with considering men, then all the acute argu­ments drawn onely from strength of reason. For to condemn the practice of the Church of [Page 195] Christ in all parts of the world, constantly ob­served in all ages, is insolentissima insania, as Saint Augustine long since. These things with some other ancient rites appear in the Syriack, Arabick, Aethiopick, &c. which I doubt were as great motes in our Authors eye, which made him so willing to quarrel with the Translations, and to cavil without a cause: and thus I have briefly run over his invective against the Tran­slations, intreating the Reader for more full satisfaction to consult the Prolegomena them­selves, and by these Specimina which we have given of his candor and love of truth, to judge of the rest of his Discourse. And thus we have done with the main Charge, the principal Subject of his Book, the Various Readings, and the Corruptions of the Originalls, which he would thereupon infer. I shall proceed now more briefly to that other principall Charge, concerning the Punctation of the He­brew Text; after which we shall adde some­thing about the ancient Hebrew Characters, and of the use of the Septuagint Translation, towards the Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, and so put an end to the Readers trouble and our own for the present.

CHAP. X.

I. COncerning the Points whereby the He­brew vowels and accents are now signi­fied and distinguished, whether they be coaeve [Page 197] with the Language it self, or of the same anti­quity and Originall with the Text, either affixed by Moses, as some say, or by Ezra and the great Synagogue, as others; or whether they were invented by some Rabbins after those times to facilitate the reading, and prevent the errors which might arise from the ambiguity of some words, hath been long disputed by divers; by Elias Levita chiefly, among the Jews, among Protestants also, and Romanists; and amongst the former by Jos. Scaliger, Drusius, Sixtin. Ama­ma, D. Prideaux, Sect. 12. and others, but most largely by Buxtorf, both Father and Son; and by Lud. Capellus; by the Father, in his Hebrew Grammar, and by Capellus in his Arcanum punctationis revelatum, Printed by Erpenius at Leyden, anno 1614. and by Buxtorf the Son, in his answer to Capellus. The chief arguments on both sides are collected, and with addition of some others, presented, Prolegom. 3. Sect. 38. to 56. What is charged in the Considerations upon the Prolegomena in this matter, we have in part set forth, Chap. 3. in some particulars, and opposite thereto, what is asserted in the Prole­gomena. We shall now more fully discusse, what is charged or objected in the one, and what is granted or denyed in the other; not that I intend to handle the Controversie at large, which would be actum agere, and make this short reply swell into a great Volume, but as our Author [Page 198] saith, he would, [...], briefly consider the heads of things, so I shall briefly take notice of his Considerations.

II. In his Epist. pag. 19. he saith, That the solemn Espousall of the opinion of the novelty of the Hebrew punctation in the Biblia Polyglotta, was one chiefe occasion of this Consideration. The opinion which he opposes, is by him in severall places declared, pag. 157. That the Hebrew points or vowels, and accents, are a novell inven­tion of some Judaicall Rabbins, about five or six hundred years after the giving out of the Gospel: and p. 205. That the points or vowels and accents are a late invention of the Tiberian Masorites, long after sundry Translations were extant in the world. Their arbitrary invention, p. 208. c. 4. in the contents, and p. 217, 218. p. 293. the arbitrary inventions of some Jews, and that it is lawfull for us to change them at pleasure, p. 250. 258. 217, 218. Hence he deduces these Conse­quences, pag. 157. That the agreement of those Translations before the supposed invention of the points, with the Originall, cannot by just con­sequence be tried by the present Text, as now pointed and accented. And, that the whole credit of our reading and interpretation of the Sripture, as far as regulated by the present punctation, de­pends solely on the faithfulnesse and skill of those Jews, whose invention this is asserted to be. This is one of those two Principles, which being granted, [Page 199] there is no other way to be delivered from utter incertainty in and about all sacred truth. Epist. p. 25. That all things are hereby made doubtfull in Scripture, so that no certain truth can be learned from the Scriptures: p. 211. yea, they not onely make doubtfull the Authority of the Scriptures, but wholly pluck it up by the roots: pag. 213. And therefore he had rather that this Work of the Biblia Polyglotta, and all Works of the like kidne, were out of the world, then that this one opinion should be received with the Con­sequences that unavoydably attend it. Those Consequences are, Epist. pag. 9. We must either turn Papists or Atheists. pag. 19. He dare not mention the desperate Consequences that attend this imagination: pag. 161. Either the pre­tended infallible Judge, or the depth of Atheisme will be found to lye at the door of these Con­siderations, &c.

III. One would think by these passages, that the Prolegomena had delivered some strange and dangerous opinion, never heard of before, which overthrows all certainty, and by Consequence all Authority of Scripture, whereas it is there proved, and shall now be made appear, that the same doctrine of the Originall of points was delivered by the greatest Reformers, the most Eminent Protestant Divines, both at the begin­ing of the Reformation, and since, and the best skilled in Eastern Learning, which then were, or [Page 200] at this day are in the Christian world, and the greatest Patrons of the integrity of the Hebrew Text. And that as the same is by the Prolego­mena maintained, there is no prejudice at all arising to the certainty of the Hebrew Text. For we neither affirm that the vowels and accents were invented by the Masorites, but that the Hebrew Tongue did always consist of vowels and consonants. Aleph, Vau, and Jod, were the vowels before the points were invented, as they were also in the Syriack, Arabick, and other Eastern Tongues: nor that these points which are now used for vowels and accents, were the arbitrary invention of the Masorites, but that they pointed the Text according to the true and received Reading, and not as they pleased; nor that it is lawfull for any to reject their Reading at plea­sure, but that all are tyed to it, unlesse some error, or better reading can be clearly proved; nor that the Authority of the reading depends upon the Masorites, but that they pointed it ac­cording to the received Reading, which expres­sed the true sence of the Holy Ghost; so that the Controversie is onely about the present points, in regard of their forms, not of their force and signification, which D. Prideaux well expresses. Sect. 12. Sect. 4. Controversia non est de vocalium sono, se [...] signis, an ista fuerint ab initio qualia nunc habemus; and Sect. 3. De sonis, sive re­bus substractis, lis non est, sed de figuris & [Page 201] characteribus, &c. In which it is true, the Au­thor of the Prolegomena denyes the Antiquity or Divine Originall of the present points; where­in, as I said, he hath the concurrent judgement of the Learnedst Protestant Divines, and ablest Linguists; and maintains that they were long after the time of Esdras, yea, about five hundred years after Christ; yet herein he writes with that moderation, that he leaves every man li­berty to judge as he pleaseth, onely propounds what seemed to him most probable.

IV. First then, for the true stating of the Controversie, which our Author wholly neglects, we must distinguish between the vowels and ac­cents, in regard of their sound and signification, and the points and figures whereby they are now signified or expressed: for it is frequently ac­knowledged in the Prolegomena, that the Hebrew, as all other Languages consists of consonants and vowels, and that it hath its accents or tones, though not alwayes noted by points in every word as they are now. Thus Drusius, de recta lectione Linguae sanctae, cap. 4. distinguishes; Vo­calium soni literis coaevi sunt, figurae vero posteri­ores, & post Hieronymi aetatem. So doth Chamier. Panstrat. lib. 12. cap. 4. n. 5. where he writes, Vocales quoad sonos semper fuisse, de picturis vero se nolle cum ullo contendere, num posse concedi codices antiquitus non fuisse punctatos: so also D. Prideaux in the place now alledged, Sect. 12. [Page 202] as most term it, vowels do, as it were, animate all words, and are as the soul to the body, where­upon they are called vocales, à voce, because by the help of vowels articulate words are pro­nounced. This is largely proved, Prolegom. 3. Sect. 49. &c. where it is also shewed that the ancient Hebrew vowels were the same before the invention of points, which are in all other Eastern Tongues, as the Chaldee, Syriack, Ara­bick &c. viz. [...] which are yet commonly called matres lectionis, because they direct the reading in Books not pointed, to which some adde [...], and St. Hierom [...] ▪ The Grammarians indeed make them all consonants, and exclude the vowels out of the number of letters, that they may make way for the points, but against all reason and common sence: For the Hebrews have as many letters as other Nations, (for as is shewed, Prolegom. 2. Other Nations, as the Assyrians, Greeks, &c. received their letters originally from them, as by their names and order of the Alphabet appears) and therefore I see no rea­son why the Hebrews could not express all their words by these twenty two letters, as well as other Nations. Certainly, the Hebrew Alpha­bet must be very defective, if it have no vowels, which are the chief letters, without which, no letters can be pronounced; This would make an Alphabet of such letters as could not at all be pronounced, which were most absurd; for as [Page 203] Morinus saith, quod est sua natura vocalissi­mum, & per quod caetera redduntur vocalia esset mutum. By the help of these letters Origen ex­prest all the Hebrew Text in Greek letters in his Hexapla: The like hath St. Hierome and diverse others of the Ancients done, when they express some Hebrew words or verses in Greeke or La­tine letters; and why could not Moses and the Prophets doe the like, as the Jewes doe at this day, when they expresse the words of other Nations, Latine, Italian, Spanish, &c. in Hebr. letters without points.

V. Out of Origen we have some reliques left in that ancient Greek MS. of Cardinall Barberines of the Minor Prophets; which, col­lated with the Roman LXX. I have printed in the Appendix, and have produced some verses, viz. Hos. 3. 2. & 11. 1. In Proleg. 3. sect. 49. as a specimen how Orig. expressed the Heb. Text in Greek letters, by which it appears; that Jod served for ( [...]) sometimes for ( [...]) Aleph for ( [...]) Vau for ( [...]) and ( [...]) and sometimes for ( [...]) Ain for ( [...]) and sometimes for ( [...]). Josephus l. 6. de bello Jud. cals the letters of the name [...], foure vowels: for by [...] he understands vowels in opposition to consonants called [...]. So St. Hier. frequently, as is ob­served by Gerhard. Vossius de Arte Gram. l. 1. c. 27. and others. Verum est quidem hodie vocales in iis quiescere, at olim pro vocalibus fuisse te­statur [Page 204] Hieron. qui [...]as vocales appellat. Epist. 145. Docet pro Hosianna dici Hosanna, media vocali illi­sa, quia ab Aleph excluditur Jod. Here it is evi­dent he reckons Aleph and Jod among vowels. And Epist. ad Evagr. Referre negat utrum dica­mus salim (which is written [...] with Jod) an salem, (which is written [...] without Jod) & hanc causam reddit, quod vocalibus in medio literis raro utuntur Judaei. Here it's plaine he calls Jod a vowell. Idem tradit Heb. Gen. 13. dicit [...] cum [...] scribi, & [...] ab­lata [...] litera, quae apud Hebraeos pro ( [...]) legitur. More to this purpose is alledged in the same place, to which I know not what can be an­swered; it being as clear as if it were written by a beame of the Sun, that Hierome reckoned [...] for vowels. So Zuinglius (misprinted Zuinger in the Proleg.) praef. in Esaiam, Vocalibus nun­quam caruit illa lingua. [...] enim a [...] e [...] i [...] o & u, nunquam eis defuerunt, &c. Beza de recta ling. Graec. pronunc. non dubito quin ante puncta vo­calia ab Hebraeis Grammaticis divinissimo certe invento excogitata (quod post Hieron. aetatem contigit) Aleph idem prorsus illis atque caeteris gentibus sonuerit. This and a great deale more, those that please may read in those Proleg. all which our Author well knew, but was pleased to passe over in silence, as knowing it would overthrow one part of the foundation, where­upon that fabulous opinion of the antiquity of [Page 205] Points is built, and therefore for informati­on of the Reader I have here transcribed. In the same place the reason is given, why the He­brews more frequently omit the vowels in the midst of words, then in the beginning or end, Ʋnde haec consuetudo Hebraeis vocales in mediis vocibus omittendi, plerumque, cum initio & fine sapius (not semper, as it is misprinted) adhibean­tur, which the Reader may finde Proleg. 3. sect. 50. Notwithstanding all this (which our Au­thor had read in the Prolegomena) he sticks not to bring the same words (which we have men­tioned out of Hierome) to prove that pointed vowels were known to Hierom. Epist. 126. Nec refert utrum salem an salim nominetur, cum voca­libus in medio literis perraro utantur Hebraei; whence he observes, p. 285. that the Hebrews had the use of vowels, or else he cannot under­stand his words; for if they did it perraro, they did it sometimes. He did not, or rather he would not understand his words; for he could not but know, that by vowels, Hierome meant not the moderne points, but the ancient vowels then in use. I would gladly know of him how salim and salem are written in Hebrew, whether salim be not with Jod, and salem without it: and then whether in that place Hierome could meane any thing but Jod by vocalis media. For the vowels which the Hebrewes used in St. Hie­roms time, they used perraro very seldome in [Page 206] the middle of words, and most frequently in the beginning and end. And so its true, they used those vocales literae, which were the matres le­ctionis; but the puncta vocalia, the vowels now used in our Bibles, are used more frequently in the middle, seldome in the end, and never in the beginning of a word, no nor of a syllable; for, consona semper syllabam inchoat. Therefore not the puncta vocalia, but the literae vocales, were the onely vowels in St. Hieroms time. And consequently our Considerator by his owne con­fession cannot understand St. Hieroms words. Besides if our present points had been then in use, there had been then no place left for diffe­rent pronunciation, either pro voluntate lecto­rum, or pro varietate regionum, as Hierome af­firmes of those vowels he meant in the same place.

VI. It is also to be noted, which is often in the Proleg. asserted, that when we say the Ma­sorites were the authors of the points, that they affixed them not pro arbitrio, as they pleased, or made what reading they thought fit, but that they pointed them generally according to the true and accustomed reading, which they had received as the true sence and meaning of the holy Ghost, from their Ancestors continued from Moses and the Prophets. I say generally; for as appears in the precedent Section, in the words cited out of Origens Hexapla, which also may [Page 207] appeare out of the LXX. Hierome, and others that were before the Masorites, they pronoun­ced some letters and vowels otherwise then the Masorites have now pointed them: See Hier. ad Euagr. transcribing Gen. 14. 18, 19, 20. into Latine letters, where we may find some of them differing from the present pronunciation. The letters Begadchephat were not pronounced ac­cording to our present rules▪ as is clearly proved out of Hierome and the LXX. in the Proleg. Yet though the sound and pronunciation did some­times differ, the signification of the words, and the sence and meaning of the holy Ghost ought to be the same, as in those places out of Origen and Hierome. Or if the sence be differing, yet there want not rules to try which is the best reading, mentioned Proleg. 6. However, the pointing was not arbitrary, nor doth the true reading depend upon the Masorites. For as it is said, Proleg. 3. Sect. 51. Notandum Masore­thas dum puncta invenerunt non novos vocalium sonos, vel pronunciationem novam induxisse, sed juxta consuetudinem sibi traditam libros sacros punctasse, ideoque lectionem non ab iis pendere licet ipsi apices excogitarint, nec ideo lectionem esse veram quia est a Masorethis sed quia verum Sp. S. sensum exprimit, quemque Scriptoribus sa­cris dictavit & per eos literis consignavit. Non enim punctarunt codices pro arbitrio, sed secun­dum veram & receptam lectionem, quam dili­genter [Page 208] poterant, puncta apposuere, &c. And this our Author himselfe grants, pa. 250. where he saith that Elias Levita, who makes the Tybe­rian Masorites the authors of the points, tyes all as strictly to the reading by points, as if they had been by Ezra, and left it not to be altered at every mans pleasure. All which is said in the Proleg. which deny that the Masorites at pleasure pointed the Text, and which necessarily follows, that it's lawfull for any whatsoever to alter the reading at pleasure; which as it proves the charge of our Author to be groundlesse, so it takes away his maine arguments against the novelty of the points, viz. That the reading would depend upon the authority of the Rab­bins, and that it would be altogether uncertaine, and so the authority of the Scriptures would be taken away. For both these are altogether vaine and groundlesse, supposing that the Ma­sorites did not point the words pro arbitrio, but were tyed to the common received reading which they expressed by their punctation, for the Text was generally so read by the Christian 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 [Page 209] 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 [Page 210] 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 [Page 211] 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 [Page 212] 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) w ^ch 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 [Page 213] [...]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, by com­paring it with other Translations in that Psalter. And so Erpenius, the great Writer of the Ara­bick in these parts, professes of himselfe, that proprio marte, he first got the knowledge of the Arabick tongue without any Teacher, out of Arab. books not pointed, such as the Arabick Gospells printed at Rome, the Nubiense Psalter, [Page 214] Avicen, and other Authors; and if they were done in the Arab. I know no reason why it may not be done in the Hebrew; In the Chaldee and Syriack (which seem to be dialects of the Heb.) the same was done before points for them were devised. Elias Lev. Galatinus, Scaliger, and others testifie of their knowledge, that children are taught to read H [...]brew, Chaldee, Arabick, Turkish and Persian books without points, and that they have seen them read very readily. It's true, it is more difficulty to read without points▪ but yet attainable; for our Author is much mi­staken when he sayes that men may please them­selves with a pretended facility of reading the Hebrew without points, I know none that thinks it so very easie: Nay, it is freely acknowledged that it was with more difficulty attained before the points were devised, and thereupon the fa­culty of true and distinct reading was accounted no ordinary matter among the Rabbines, who counted it a great part of their learning: Yet the analogy of Grammar being agreed upon, and known, it is not difficult for one that is but reasonably skilled in the Language (especially with the helpe of a Translation or the like) to read without points. Now the Analogy of Grammar was always the same, or else not only the figures of the points, but the sounds also are of a late invention. And therefore I doubt not but that if points and accents were taken away; [Page 215] yet by the helpe of some Translations, and by diligent care and study one might as well attaine to the true reading of the Hebrew, as Clenard and Erpenius did of the Arabick: And that if diverse did follow the same study upon the same Text, their harmony and agreement would de­monstrate the possibility, and would be better in both the reading and sence of the Scriptures, then is to be found among some congregations at this day, whose Harmony in expounding the Scripture, is little better then that of the build­ers of Babel, when their Tongues were di­vided.

X. Thirdly, it is to be observed, that al­though the reading of divers words unpointed, considered by themselves, might be dubious and subject to diverse readings, yet this ambiguity is taken away by the antecedents & consequents, so that in the Context, as they are parts of a sentence, the reading which is in it selfe ambi­guous, is determined to one sence and meaning; This is shewed at large in Proleg. 13. Sect. 50, 51. where an instance is given Sect. 51. out of Exod. 18. 15. where the words unpointed are ambiguous, and capable of diverse sences taken severally: but in the Context all ambiguity is ta­ken away; and this is proved against Morinus and other Romanists, with whom our Author seems to joyne hands, who from the ambiguity [Page 216] of some words unpointed would prove the Text to be ambiguous; He instances in [...], which unpointed is capable of 8. significations, which is fully answered, Proleg. 87. Sect. 24. But if not­withstanding the antecedents and consequents, some words doe still remain doubtfull, as it is in the Greek, and in all languages, yet the use and custome received in the Church takes away all further ambiguity. The most of those that stand for the antiquity of the points, ascribe the first beginning of them to Esdras, as Buxtorf and others. Now if the Text might be read certainly, and without ambiguity, though without points, from the time of Moses to Es­dras, why might it not likewise be continued and preserved as well after Esdras his time as it was before? Experience, as I have said, shewes it in other Tongues, as the Chaldee, Syriack, Arabick, &c. which had no points at first, yet were read without ambiguity. The Talmuds, and other Rabbinicall Writings are daily read both by Jewes and Christians without points. Punctation facilitates the reading. He that understands not the Hebrew, may read it with points; he that is excercised in the Tongue may read it without them. There is no colour why the Chaldee Paraphrase, the Syriack Bible, the Alcoran, might be read, and the true sence certainly knowne before they were pointed, and why the Hebrew Text [Page 217] cannot, but must be subject to such uncertainty. The New Testament was not at first written with accents, notes of aspiration, distinction, by Comma & Colon, &c. as is shewed, Proleg. 3. Sect. 45. and appears by ancient MSS. Our Alexan­drian & others and is granted generally; where­upon in the Complutense Edition, it is Printed without accents, that it might better represent the [...] of the Apostles and Evangelists, as the Authors of that Edition in one of their Prefaces affirm: and it is known that some Greek words unaccented, are doubtfull, and ca­pable of diverse sences, and that the distinctions do sometimes alter the sence, and yet none of the Ancients accuse the Greek Text of ambigui­ty, but the reading was certain, and so continued, till accents and distinctions were invented. If the want of these did not hinder the certainty of the New Testament, why should the want of the points hinder the certainty of the Old? Therefore D. Prideaux, Lect. 12. Sect. 17. saith, Lectionis certitudo comparari potest absque punctis ex attenta praxi, & librata orationis serie. To the same purpose Martinius, Technolog. In­certa inquis erunt omnia in libris sacris, si desunt puncta. Deum immortalem! quid audio? Tota Hebraeorum sapientia in scriptis Talmudicis, & Rabbinicis, quae multa sunt, sine punctis tradita est, sine punctis legitur, & publice in Scholis ex­ponitur, neque quisquam est qui incerta illic omnia [Page 218] conqueratur, & tu mihi reclamas Hebraea scripta sine punctis incerta esse, neque te protinus ab ipsa rerum experientia convinci refellique sentias. To these I will onely adde what Buxtorf sen. saith of the uncertainty of the Chaldee unpointed, which may be as truly said and applied to the Hebrew unpointed; Thesaur. Gram. Anno 1609. p. 614. Incerta in voce per se extra sententiam posita non in continuata & perfecta sententia, &c. Arbitrarium est, sed ei qui ignorantiae tenebris obductus nigrum arbitratur esse album, & pro arbitrio de coloribus judicat. Non cujuscunque arbitrium, sed conveniens sententiae ratio, sed certa constansque analogia Grammatica veram le­ctionem moderatur. These things considered, most of our Adversaries reasons, especially that which is the Principall, about the uncertainty of the Text are answered, all which are at large handled in the Prolegom. 3. but these he pru­dently passeth over, because, if they had been mentioned by him, the whole fabrick of his building had fallen to the ground.

XI. That which we affirm there about this Controversie, is, First, that the modern points were not, either from Adam, or affixed by Moses or the Prophets that were before the Captivity. Nor, secondly, after the Captivity devised, either by Ezra, or any other before the compleating of the Talmud; Thirdly, but af­ter five hundred years after Christ invented by [Page 219] some Learned Jews, for the help of those who were ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue, whom they would teach by this means, to read the He­brew Text, as distinctly and exactly as them­selves, that so, after they had taken out of the peoples hands, and laid aside the Greek Transla­tion of the LXX. they might have every where in their Synagogues men, though unlearned who by this help might be able to read the Text publikely, which before the invention of those points, could be done onely by a few Learned men: Fourthly, as for other matters, though probably affirmed, I do not insist much, as who they were, how many, one or more, in what place they lived (whether at Tiberias, or else­where) or where they met about this work, what the precise and exact time was, when the punctation was made whether the sixt, seventh, or eighth age after Christ, in which things, be­cause of the great defect of any certain Histo­ricall monuments among the Jews, for those times, all being involved in great obscurity and darknesse, by reason of their dispersions and ba­nishments, it is hard to determine any thing with certainty, though it be most probable, that this Work was taken in hand about five hundred years after Christ, by the Tiberian Masorites.

XII. These things being premised about the State of the Controversie, and the certainty of the Scriptures without points, it will be needfull [Page 220] further to adde something concerning the first occasion of this Controversie, which is briefly shewed, Prolegom. 3. Sect 38. to be this, That though the Controversie be in it self Grammati­call or Logicall, yet it had its rise from a questi­on Theologicall: For when at the beginning of the reformation, divers questions arose about the Scripture and the Church; The Romanists observing that the punctation of the Hebrew Text was an invention of the Masorites, they thereupon inferred, that the Text without the points might be taken in divers sences, and that none was tyed to the reading of the Rabbins, and therefore concluded, that the Scripture is ambiguous and doubtfull without the interpre­tation and testimony of the Church, so that all must flie to the authority of the Church, and de­pend upon her for the true sence and meaning of the Scripture. On the other side, some Pro­testants, fearing that some advantage might be given to the Romanist by this Concession, and not considering how the certainty of the Scripture might well be maintained, though the Text were pointed, in stead of denying the Consequence, which they might well have done, thought sit rather to deny the Assumption, and to maintain, that the points were of Divine Original, whereby they involved themselves in extreme labyrinths, engaging themselves in defence of that which might be easily proved to be false, and thereby [Page 221] wronged the cause which they seemed to defend. Others therefore of more learning & judgment, knowing that this Position of the Divine original of the points could not be made good; and that the Truth needed not the Patronage of an Ʋn­truth, would not engage themselves therein, but granted it to be true, that the points were invented by the Rabbins, yet denyed the Conse­quence, maintaining, notwithstanding, that the reading and sence of the Text might be certain without punctation, and that therefore the Scri­pture did not at all depend upon the Authority of the Church: and of this judgement were the chief Protestant Divines, and greatest Linguists that then were, or have been since in the Christi­an world, such as I named before; Luther, Zuing­lius, Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Brentius, Pelli­cane, Oecolampadius, Mercer, Piscator, P [...]hagius, Drusius, Schindler, Martinius, Scaliger, De Dieu, Casaubon, Erpenius, Sixt. Amama, Jac. and Ludov. Capellus, Grotius, &c. and among our selves, Archbishop Ʋsher, Bishop Prideaux, Mr. Meade, Mr. Selden, and innumerable others, whom I forbear to name, who conceived it would nothing disadvantage the cause, to yield that Proposition, for that they could still make it good, that the Scripture was in it self a suffi­cient and certain rule for saith and life, not de­pending upon any humane authority to sup­port it.

[Page 222] XIII. Amongst those who undertook to as­sert the Divine Originall of the points, the chief was Buxtorf. the Father, a man without doubt of very great skill in the Hebrew, as any in his time and one whose labours conduced much to the knowledge of that Tongue. This man in his Hebrew Grammar, Edit. 1. brought divers ar­guments to prove his opinion, and said more for it then any others had done before him, whose authority, grounded upon his great skill in the Hebrew, drew divers, who wanted either leisure or ability, to weigh all the reasons on both sides, to imbrace his opinion, and to take it for granted, and the rather, because it seemed to make more against the Romanists then the other. Afterwards, in the ensuing Editions of his Gram­mar, this Tract about the points was left out, whereupon it was conceived by divers, that he had changed his judgement: and it appears, that divers men of great Learning did much oppose his opinion, as Scaliger, Epist. 243. and others, so that it might well be thought he began to stagger in it, and therefore thought fit to forbear the further publishing of it, till he had better considered of the whole matter. After this, Lud. Capellus, Hebrew Professor at Saumer, a man of great Learning and worth, as his Wri­tings speak him, published his Arcanum puncta­tionis revelatum, which was set out by Erpenius at Leyden, an. 1624. Wherein he largely handles [Page 223] the whole Controversie, answered all Buxtorfs arguments to the full, and brought such con­vincing reasons to the contrary, that few who read this Book without prejudice, but subscribed to his opinion; as Erpenius, Ger. Vossius, Rivet. Sixt. Amama, Spanhemius, Festus Hommius, Col­terius, &c. as appears by some of their Epistles, Printed in his Defensio Criticae; yea, divers that formerly were strongly against his Opinion, be­ing convinced by evidence in his reasons, joyned with them, as Mr. Eyres, late Prebend of Ely, a man of great skill in this kinde of Learning, Arnold. Bootius, a man of great knowledge in the Hebrew, and a violent opposer of Capellus his Critica, yea, it was conceived by some, that Buxtorf himself was wavering in his opinion, but that he was loth to retract what he had for­merly in Print affirmed. After his decease, his Son, D. Buxtorf, who succeded his Father in the place of Hebrew Professor at Basil, out of piety to his Father, as is by himself in his Vindic. in­genuously confessed, undertook to answer Ca­pellus, (who had formery opposed and confuted his opinion about the ancient Hebrew letters) though not without more sharpnesse and animo­sity then could have been wished to have been between Divines, and those both Protestants, which he hath done in a full Volume, wherein what he hath performed, I leave to every mans judgement; for my own part, (though he be [Page 224] my worthy and much honoured friend, with whom I have for divers years had friendly in­tercourse by Letters, (notwithstanding our dif­ference of judgement in this and other matters) yet I cannot assent to his opinion; nor do I finde upon perusall of his Book, that he hath clearly answered Capellus his Arguments, but that they stand firm and unshaken, nor brought any argument for his opinion, which is not an­swered by Capellus, though I believe he hath said as much out of his Hebrew Learning, (wherein I think he hath not many fellows this day living) as possibly can be alledged. I know that there are some Learned men of good note, who partly drawn by Buxtorfs authority, and partly out of fear, lest the Romanists should take advantage by this concession, and partly by their too much adhering to Rabbinicall Tenets, and parly, because they never seriously studied the Controversie, nor weighed the Argu­ments of both sides in the even ballance of an unbyassed judgement, but taking things upon trust, without examining the grounds, as the generality of men do in all kinde of Learning, have followed Buxtorfs opinion; yet upon in­quiry, it will be found that the most of those of greatest judgement, both in Divinity and Eastern Learning which this age hath produced, are of contrary opinion: And I must professe, that having occasion by reason of this Work [Page 225] of the Bible, to be acquainted, or to keep cor­respondence with those that are most eminent in this Learning, both at home and abroad, I scarce know of any (a few excepted) who are versed more then ordinary in these matters that are not of the same judgement, which I have asserted in the Prolegomena.

XIV. This is the true history of the rise & Origi­nal of this controversy, which though it be men­tioned in the Prolegomena, yet our Author takes no notice of, but tells us another story of it, which we shall briefly consider. He tells us p. 248. and Epist. p. 15. 16. That Elias Levita, the most learned of the Jews of that age, was acquainted with many of the first Reformers, and lived par­ticularly with P. Phagius. That in his Masora Hammat. he broched an opinion not much heard of before, at least not at all received among the Jews, nor for ought that yet appears once mentio­ned by Christians before, namely that the points or vowels, and accents, were invented by some critical Jews or Masorites living at Tiberias about five or six hundred years after Christ, and that no doubt the mans aim was to reduce the world of Christians to a dependance upon the ancient Rabbins for the whole sense of Scripture. Hinc prima mali labes, Here lies the first breach in this matter. This fraud being not discovered, and this opinion being broched and confirmed by the great and al­most onely Master of that Language, of that Age, [Page 226] some even of the first Reformers embraced this fan­cy, Perhaps Zuinglius had spoken to it before. Af­ter a while the poyson of this error beginning to ope­rate, the Papists waiting at the mouth of the Refor­mers, like the servants of Benhadad on Ahab to catch at every word that might fall from them to their advantage, began to make use of it, &c.

XV. In this Discourse, as there are some things true, viz. That Elias was one of the most learned Jews of his age, That he was ac­quainted with Phagius, That he maintained the Tiberian Masorites to have been the Authors of the points, and proved the same by diverse arguments, That divers of the first Reformers were of the same opinion with him, so for all the rest, as it wants all probability of truth, so it may be as easily rejected, as it is affirmed.

XVI. For that Elias Lev. was the first that held that opinion, and that it was not mentioned be­fore by any Christians for any thing that yet appears is far from truth, when as there were sundry Christian Writers (some of which he might have read named Proleg. 3. Lect. 38.) who lived long before Elias, some 50. some 100. some 300 years before his name was heard of, who held the same opinion of the points, as Elias did, as Angelus Politianus, Joh. Picus Mirandula, that miracle of his time, Lyra, Paulus Burgen­sis, besides, Raimundus, the Author of Pugio fidei, who lived about 1200 years after Christ. Politian [Page 227] thus writes of Pic. Mirand. Miscell. cap. 14. No­vitiae sunt istae notae, quibus nunc pro vocalibus utuntur Hebraei, ut idem & comperit, & ostendit, Joh. Picus Mirandulanus, unus omnium pror­sus ab omni parte beatissimus, in opere singulari & admirando, quo Psalmos à LXX versos, isto notarum praecipue argumento, docet Hebraicae ve­ritati respondere. Besides there lived divers in the same time with Elias, who knew nothing of him, or scarce had heard of him, as Galati­nus, Veltwicus, Zuinglius, Pellican, Luther, and after him many learned men, who held the same opinion, not moved by Elias his arguments or authority, but convinced by the evidence of the things, as Calvin, Mercer, Masius, Boderianus, Jos. Scaliger, Casaubon, Ar. Montanus, Drusius, &c. so that this is a vain brag, that no Christi­an held the same opinion with Elias before his time. Let our Adversary name so many learned men before Elias, or before the Reformation, that held the points to be of Divine Originall. I doubt it would be hard for him to name any Christian Writer that did absolutely affirm the same before that time.

XVII. Nor was Elias the only man among the Jews that held this opinion; for besides the ta­cite acknowledgement of the whole Nation, shew­ed by their practice in their Synagogues, using a Copy of the Law, without points, to represent the [...] of Moses, which was as them­selves [Page 228] confesse unpointed, and the Testimony drawn from the ancient Cabbalists, and Talmu­dists, who draw none of their Mysticall Ex­positions from any of the points or accents, which without doubt they would have done, if they had then been in use, as well as they do from the letters, besides these, some of the chief Rab­bins before Elias have held the same, as is else­where shewed out of Kimchi, Cozri, Ab. Ezra, Jehuda, Chiug. and others, who expresly affirm that the whole punctation was the work of the Tiberian Masorites and upon any doubt in punctation fly to them, and give this reason of their Readings, that the Tiberian Masorites did so point and read it.

XVIII. So that Elias broched this opini­on, aiming hereby to reduce the world of Chri­stians to a dependence on the ancient Rabbins, is a meer winter story without any ground or rea­son. For Elias held the points to be part of the orall Law, delivered on Mount Sinai, and continued by Tradition, till the points were written and affixed to the Text by the Maso­rites: and therefore our Author observes else­where p. 250. That Elias tyed all as strictly to the Reading by points, as if they had been done by Ezra. Elias therefore did not hold the Reading and sence of the Scripture, or the matter of the Punctation to depend upon the Rabbins, but onely the present forms and figures, and [Page 229] how could he imagine to draw Christians to a belief of that which he did not believe himself, or to a dependence upon the Rabbins for the whole sence of the Scripture which himself did not hold? And nothing more shews the vanity of this fancy, then that those Christians that held the same opinion with Elias, do utterly deny that they depend upon the Rabbins ancient or mo­dern for the sence of the Scripture. Luther was far from this, who as our Author cites him within a few lines writes, that the Jews had cor­rupted the Bible by their points and distinctions, and Calvin shews how little he esteemed the au­thority of the Rabbins on Zach. 11. 7. Let him name any place, or one word out of Elias, or any other writer, Jew or Christian, that inti­mates in the least that he had any such aim, or name one Christian Writer, Romanist or Prote­stant of this opinion, that profest to depend up­on the Rabbins for the true sence and Reading of the Scripture. As groundlesse is that which follows, that this fraud of Elias was not disco­vered by the first Reformers, but that they were unawares drawn to embrace his fancy: as though those wise and learned men were such children and Ideots, as not to discern the consequence of this opinion, or of such weak judgements, as to be led by the authority of a Jewish Rabbin.

XIX. It remains therefore, that the true Originall of this Question was, as I have shewed, [Page 230] the controversie arising in the beginning of the Reformation about the authority and certainty of the Scripture, in reference to the Church: and hence it was that this Question about the points was not ventilated before the Reformation, and that so few make any mention of it, because the Questions about the Scripture and the Church were not then raised: And that which begun the quarrel doth still continue it: some out of fear, lest they should yield any thing dis­advantagious to the cause they maintain, hold­ing the points to be of Divine Originall, and among those some imbracing that opi­nion, not because they knew it to be true, but because they conceive it makes more for our cause against the Papists, amongst which I may justly reckon our Adversary, who Epistol. pag. 18. is offended at Doctor Prideaux, because though he took notice of the advantage the Papists make of that opinion of the novelty of points, and of the danger of it, yet which seems most admirable, himself falls in with them, and maintains the same opinion: as if we must measure the truth of Doctrine, not by evidence of reason, but by the advantage it brings to our cause; or must affirm what we know to be false, because it makes against the Papists. Others therefore who see how ground­lesse those fears are, and knowing that the truth must not be denied, though some pervert it [Page 231] to a wrong end, grant what they see cannot be denied about the Originall of the points, yet maintain the same Conclusion about the certainty and authority of Scriptures, upon better and more solid grounds, and so doth Dr. Prideaux in that Lecture, where he maintains the certain­ty and authority of the Scripture, and so yields nothing to the Papists, though he grants the points to be the invention of the Masorites.

CHAP. XI.

I. THis Question concerning the Points is handled by our Adversary chiefly, Chap. 4. and 5. of the Considerations, though also by the by, in some other places he hath some passa­ges about the same, wherein I shall not need to handle all the Arguments pro & con, having done that already, Proleg. 3. Sect. 38, 39, &c.—56. [...]o which I must remit the Reader, I shall onely reply to what he answers to the Arguments in the Prolegomena, and briefly examine what he pretends to be added by himself de novo, to prove this Rabbinicall fancy. First, let us see how he infringes the Arguments in the Prolegomena, wherein I must needs say, he deals as in the rest of his Discourse pe [...]ima fide, and is far from that candor & truth which he professes: for he leaves out diverse of the chief Arguments, to which he could give no colourable answer, and for the rest, he either propounds them by halfs, lea­ving out that wherein the force of the Argu­ment chiefly consists, or perverts the sence, and spoils them in his rehearsing of them, so that I may say of them, as the Poet did of his verses▪

The Arguments are nine which he pretends to confute; but by his relating them, he makes them his own; for as he delivers them, I own them not. I shall therefore desire the Reader to su­spend his judgement till he have compared them as they are laid down in the Considerations, and as they are delivered in the Prolegomena, and then to judge as he shall see cause: I shall at present mention some Arguments which he hath wholly omitted, and then give a taste of his can­did dealing in the rest.

II. The first Argument Sect. 58. is brought from the testimony of the chiefest and most Learned Protestant Divines, and Linguists: which this age hath known, whose words I cite, and the places where they are to be found: for such men I conceive are fittest to judge of these matters. Now of these he takes no notice at all, but uses a prudent preterition, because he knew their names and authority would spoile his whole designe, and wipe off all his imputati­ons of making the Scripture uncertain, or intro­ducing of Popery, Atheisme, &c. They are Calvin in Zach. 11. 7. Luther ad finem libri Schem Ham. Zuinglius praef. in Esaiam, Pelli­can praef. in Pentat. P. Phagius (whom our Adversary reckons (and that justly) among the restorers of the Heb. tongue, and calls one of [Page 234] the Patriarchs and Fathers of that Learning. Epist. p. 15.) ad Targum, Gen. 47. 24. Mercer, the oracle of his times for Hebrew learning, and one of exact judgement too in other learning (which two as some observe seldome meet in one subject) in Genes. 16. 13. & 18. 3. and Job 26. 6. and Amos 2. 12. Annot. in Targ. Mal. 2. Beza lib. de recta pronunciat. ling. Graec. Edit. an. 1587. Piscator Schol. ad Gen. 15. 8. Cha­mier Panstrat. lib. 4. c. 12. n. 15. Voslius de Arte Gram. lib. 1. c. 31. Et. lib. 2. c 8. Drusius ad loca difficil. Pent. c. 25. Et de recta lect. linguae sanctae c. 4. Martinius Technol. Lud. de Dicu. Gram. lib. 1. c. 7. Schindler frequently in his Lex. Pentaglot. I will adde the words of some. Jos. Scaliger, a man admired by most, Epist. 243. which is to Buxtorf the Father, writes thus; De Apicibus vocalibus Hebraeorum, tam mihi con­stat rem novam esse, quam eos falli qui natos una cum lingua putant, quo nihil stultius dici potuit aut cogitari. Quis enim negat Arabismi pun­cta recens esse inventum, id est, multis annis post obitum impostoris Mahometis? Hodie tamen pu­eri Turcarum, Arabum, Persarum, & omni­um denique Mahumedanorum sine punctis legere disc [...]nt. Eodem modo, Samaritani & Judaei sine ullis punctis, in synagogis suis, [...] legunt, &c. The noble Grotius was no whit in­feriour to Scaliger in any kind of learning, who writes thus in Matth. 5. 18. Libros veteris eti­am [Page 235] post Es [...]ram sine punctis vocalibus scribi soli­tos, quod ita perspicuis argumentis [...] à viris harum rerum doctissimis demonstratum est, ut id ampli­us inficiari non nisi pertinacium sit. Schickard, a man much versed in all Jewish and Rabbinicall learning, one who was at first a stout defender of the points, (strenuiu licet primo punctorum patronus, for so the words should be, Prolegom. 3. Sect. 50.) Yet afterwards, when he was of a riper judgement, speaking of the points and ac­cents, lib. 2. de jure Regio Hebraeorum, p. 41. saith, Quod nil tale uspiam appareat in antiquis libris Judaeorum, & valde miratur superesse qui vocalium antiquitatem serio credunt. For he thinks, non serio, sed ad ostendendam eruditionem Rabbinicam, vel aciem ingenii, vel contradicen­di studio ita scripsisse, &c. We see these Learned men do not speak doubtfully in this point, but peremptorily, as if the matter were now so cleared, that there is no further place for con­tradiction. To these I may adde, Is. Casaubon, Erpenius, Sixtin. Amama, Mayer, Arnold. Bootius, a bitter enemy of Capellus his Critica, Spanhemius, Rivet. Festus Hommius, Colteri­us, &c. as appeareth by their Epistles to Capel­lus. Amongst our selves, I could name those of chief account for Eastern Learning, now living, publike Professors, and others, whose names I forbear, lest the Adversary in his next Invective should fall upon them as rudely as [Page 236] he hath done upon the Author of the Prolego­mena, yet some I shall not conceal, (who are out of his reach) the Reverend and Learned Ʋsher, and Mr. Selden, both whom I have often heard declare themselves for this Opinion. D. Prideaux, Lect. 12. in Vesper. Comit. 1627. who mentions also three more sometimes of that Ʋniversity, Sect. 4. qui in istis studiis versatis­simi, Rob. Wakefieldus, Jacobus Capellus, & Sixtin. ab Amama, qui tres ultimi (saith he) superiores duas sententias (de punctorum antiquitate) sum­ma cum [...]ruditione & acumine conati sunt refelle­re. I might adde others, as M. Mead, M▪ Eyres, late Prebend of Ely, &c. This Argument, though inartificiall, yet of great weight, our Author touches not, because he would have it believed that the Opinion is singular, and main­tained by a few, and that the generality of Learn­ed men in these matters, are not infected (as he saith) with this leaven.

III. As he leaves out the first, so he wholly omits the last, and yet he would have you be­lieve, that he propounds and answers all the Ar­guments in the Prolegomena, p. 260. Of what weight it is, and whether it admits any answer, let the Reader judge. It is laid down, Sect. 48. And it is taken from the other Oriental Tongues, which have greatest affinity with the Hebrew, as the Arabick, Chaldee, Syriack, Samaritane, &c. none of which at first had points, nor hath the [Page 237] Samaritane any yet. The Alcoran was at first written without points, as is proved by Golius, and others the chief Professors of that Lan­guage. The like is confessed of the Syriack, Chaldee Paraphrase, and is so clear for the Sama­ritane, that scarce any but our Author will affirm the contrary. The Persians have scarce got the use of points as yet, though some of late have be­gun to make rules of punctation for that Lan­guage. In all these Languages they have the same letters which of old stood for vowels in the He­brew; nor have they in the Arabick, that copi­ous Language, since the invention of points, any more then three, which serve for all vowels. Pha­tha, Damma, and Kesra, by which, with a few generall rules, and use, they read distinctly, and pronounce all the five vowels. By those three letters which answer to Aleph▪ Jod, and Vau, be­fore any points were used in any of the Langua­ges, they could distinctly read and understand their Translations of the Bible, and their other books, and attain the sence without ambiguity and uncertainty; and none ever doubted but that the Chaldee Paraphrase of Onkelus and Jonathan, written about our Saviours time, the ancient Translation of the Syriack, written in the first or second Century after Christ; as also the Alcoran among the Mahumetanes, were read at first, as they are now, (though not with so much facility) and yet it is certain that the [Page 238] points were added to them all after the invention of the Hebrew points, yea, though points be now added to them all, except the Samaritane, yet neither that nor the Arabick or Syriack, have yet any notes at all of accents; and yet those that are skilled in those Languages, know where the accent ought to be in every word and syllable, though no note be affixed, as we see in the Latine, and in all other Vulgar Langua­ges, English, Dutch, French, &c. And in the Greek it is further shewed, Sect. 45. out of ancient MSS. as also out of Aristotle, St. Hie­rome, and old inscriptions, that the Greek an­ciently had no accents Angel. Politian. Miscel. c. 58. and 80. mentions some verses of the Sibyls, and the Hymns of Callimachus, writ­ten without accents. Our Alex. MS. of the LXX. That New Testament of Beza in Cambridge Library, that of the Vatican, and other old MSS. are without accents, and the Authors of the Complutense Edition give this reason why they pointed the New Testament without ac­cents, because the [...] was so written: yet we know how usefull accents are to distin­guish words of Ambiguous sence, which differ onely in the accents; From all which we infer, that if the right reading and pronunciati­on might be attained and preserved in those Tongues without any pointed vowels, and is now, though a [...] yet they have no accents, some of [Page 239] them, then the same might be done in the Hebrew, by the help of the same Letters, Aleph, Jod, and Vau, those matres lectionis. I could not yet finde in any of the Patrons of points any sa­tisfactory answer to this Argument; and if our Author could have given any, I suppose he would not have past it over without answer more then the rest.

IV. He tells us out of Postellus, that in Hie­roms time the Samaritanes had points, because he saith▪ That the Samaritane and Hebrew let­ters differ only figuris & apicibus, Prolegom, in lib. Reg. But he might have also read in Postel­lus, that the Hebrews had no points, though in his dotage, when he was infatuated with Rabbinicall and Cabalisticall fancie, and sell into divers Fa­naticall and Hereticall errors, among other things, he began to make the points to be part of the Oral Law delivered on Mount Sinai, and continued by Oral Tradition: and his proof out of Hierom for the Samritane points, is as much to the purpose as our Authors proof out of the same Hierom for the Hebrew points, because he speaks of vowels, and saith, vocalibus in medio per­raro utuntur: when as it is as clear as the Sun (as is already shewed) to any that reads Hieroms words, and is so proved, Prolegom. 3. Sect. 49. that by the Apices he means, Literarum ductus & summitates, as when he saith, that [...] and [...] apice tantum differunt, and in the same place [Page 240] by vowels he means Aleph, Vau, and [...]od, which he expresly calls vowels, and saith they are not so frequently used in the middle of words, as in the beginning and end.

V. We see what Arguments he wholly omits, let us now see how he deals with the rest, & how faithfully he propounds them. I will instance but in one or two: Consider. Chap. 5. Sect. 5. pag. 267. he there propounds the Argument urged, Prolegom. 3. Sect. 41. The constant pra­ctice of the Jews in preserving in their Synagogue one Book, which they almost adore, without points, is also alledged to the same purpose; for what do they else hereby, but tacitly acknowledge the points to have an humane originall; Thus our Author: Now let us see how it is propunded in the Pro­legomena. Secundo, ex praxi hodierna Judaeorum in Synagogis ab ultima antiquitate observata idem evincitur, ubi volumina sacra, quae populo pub­lice praeleguntur, sine punctis, accentibus, vel versuum distinctionibus exarata sunt, ut se­cundum morem antiquis temporibus usitatum Mosis ipsum [...] quod in arca servatum erat, adumbrarent: and after, Hoc volumen non punctatum volunt ipsum Mosis volumen in arca Dei jussu servatum referre quod (fatentibus plerisque eorum doctoribus) erat punctis desti­tutum; imo ponunt qui [...]am [...]orum Mosis [...]vo, ex­tra controversiam figuras vocalium & accentu­ [...] nondum fuisse, & hac de causa librum illum [Page 241] in Synagogis hodie sine notis in Mosaici exemplaris memoriam scribi: In hanc rem Rabbinorum testi­monia profert D. Buxt. &c. Imo probat D. Buxt. ex Ephodaeo & aliis librum legis punctatū apud eos prophanum esse, etiamsi punctationem evaserint, & quod liber in quo versus per duo puncta distin­guuntur prophanus est, &c. To this purpose a great deal more may be read in the same place, where also all the evasions and shifts used to avoid the force of that Argument are taken away. Now by this we may see, that the main force of the Argu­ment lies in this, not that the Jews use a book in the Synagogue unpointed (which is all our Adversary propounds) but that they use one speciall book of the Law unpointed; for this end and purpose, that it may represent the Original Copy written by Mo­ses, and laid up in the Ark, which they acknow­ledge was written without points; and that this book, if it be pointed, is thereby prophaned, and not fit for that use. Let any man of common reason judge, whether the Argument be truly related by him, & whether there be not a vast difference between that in the Prolegomena, and this which he propounds, and whether it be not a convin­cing strong Argument to prove by the tacit con­sent of the Jews, and their ancient practice in their Synagogues, that the Text at first was not pointed? our Author knew it to be so, and therefore the answer he gives, doth not at all touch that wherein the force of the Argument [Page 242] lies. Buxtorf is more ingenuous, for he con­fesses that this Argument proves that the [...] of Moses was without points, but not that the [...] of Esra was unpointed, which yet in that Paragraph is further shewed, and that answer taken away, with all the other eva­sions which our Author brings out of Buxtorf.

VI. This Argument I have heard the Re­verend and Learned Ʋsher affirm, was a great motive to draw him to this Opinion, and Arnold. Bootius, (of whom I have spoken before, that he was a great opposer of Capellus his Critica, and sometimes a stiff defender of the Antiquity of points) yet confesseth, that it doth sufficient­ly prove the novelty of points, Epist. contra Ca­pell. de Text. Hebr. Auctorit. Sect. 46. I should tyre my self and the Reader, if I should go over the rest of the Arguments, I shall onely desire the Reader, who would be further satisfied, to compare them as they are in the Prolegomena, with our Authors answer, and if he find any one of them either truly related, or fully answered, I will publikely recant what I have said. He shifts off many things with this, That they are fully answered by Buxtorf, but those that shall take the pains to look over both, will finde that there is not one answer made by Buxtorf which is not taken away in the Prolegomena. To go over all now, would be actum agere, and would make this short reply, as it was intended, to swell into a great Volume.

[Page 243] VII. Yet for a further proof of his candor and love of truth, I shall exercise [...]he Readers patience with one Specimen more. An Argu­ment Sect. 46. is drawn from the ancient Tran­slations, the Greek, Chaldee, Syriack▪ &c. Ex quibus perspicuum est ob defectum punctorum voces quasdam ambiguitate laborasse, unde aliter interpretati sunt versionum istarum authores, quam hodie in punctat is codicibus legimus, qui si olim punctati fuissent, ambiguitas nulla fuisset, nec aliter legissent illi quam in hodiernis exempla­ribus legimus. Hoc passim observarunt viri docti in Commentariis suis, alii [...]que scripti [...], & multa exempla ex LXX. aliisque interpretibus colli­gunt, ubi eaedem literae (sublatis punctis) tam ipsorum versioni quam lectioni hodiernae inservire possent. Of this diverse instances are brought. Here we see the Argument [...]is, That diverse words without points were ambiguous, and capa­ble of diverse sences, and that the same may be read, as the Interpreters render them, if the Co­pies were not pointed, whereas they are now read in another sence, as the Copies are now pointed, there being no change at all in the letters, but one­ly in the points. Now how doth our Adversary propound this Argument? p. 281. It is fur­ther pleaded, that the ancient Translations, the Greek, Chaldee, Syri [...]ck, do manifest that at the time of their composing, the points were not in­vented. And that because it is evident in sundry [Page 244] places that they read otherwise, or the words with other points (I mean as to the force and sound, not figure of them) then those now affixed. Thus he propounds it, and then answers with a scoffe, That the differences would as well prove they had other consonants, that is, that in their Copies they used, they had other letters and words then ours, as other vowels. Who sees not here a plain and wilfull falsifying of the Argument? for the Argument is not drawn from all places where the Translators read otherwise then is now read in the Hebrew Copies, but onely from such places where the same word with the same letters (being unpointed) might be read and ren­dred both as they translated it, and as it signifies according to the present punctation, or that the word consisting of the same letters being without points was ambiguous, or capable of two significations, of which the one was fol­lowed by the Translator the other by the Pun­ctators. Now our Author never mentions that wherin the Argument consists, that the word being unpointed is ambiguous and capable both of the signification given in the Translation, and of that which agrees to the modern puncta­tion, when as if it had been pointed, the ambi­guity had been taken away, and they must have read it as they are now read in the pointed Bi­bles: but tells us of words read with other points differing from those we have now, and there­upon [Page 245] makes his pleasant inference: That we might as well prove by this, that they had other letters and consonants, as vowels and points; It is true indeed, if the Argument had been such as he makes it, taken from all words wherein they dif­er from the present pointed Copies, but not when onely the words unpointed agree with their rendring it, by reason of the ambiguity without points. Buxtorf confesses, this argument seemed to be invincible, Achilleum, but as our Adversary propounds it, it is stramineum, and meerely ridiculous; for it is well known and granted often, that these Translations, especial­ly that of the LXX. differ in many places, where the reason cannot be given from the am­biguity of the word destitute of points, but that it is from other causes, of which we have spoken before.

VIII. I will not insist upon the other Argu­ments, as that from the Samaritanes who never had any pointed Copies, nor have to this day, but by the help of these three letters [...] have kept the true Reading of their books, by which means they are now also read of others, which is not only said, but proved, though the Adver­sary answers it with a scoff, Pergula pictoris. That of the silence of all the Ancients, Hier. Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Josephus, all skilled in Hebrew antiquities, who never mention the name of any point or accent, though they had [Page 246] often occasion to mention them, as is proved by instances in Hierom, to which no answer is given, but a bare deniall of what is proved, viz. that they had no occasion. The silence of both the Talmuds in all those vast volumes, where there is not one word or tittle of any pointed vowell or accent, (as is acknowledged by Buxtorf himself) though there was occasion, yea a neces­sity to have mentioned them in some places which are there instanced in, if there had been any then known, to which no answer is gi­ven, but a bold generall deniall that they had no occasion. That before the age of the Tiberian Masorites, there is no mention of any points, by any Writer, Jew or Christian, as is largely shewed, and that the antiquity of those books where they are mentioned, as the book Zohar, &c. is acknowledged by Buxtorf to be forged, and antedated a thousand years, and so proved by Scaliger and others. That the ancient Ca­balists draw all their Allegories and Mysteries from the letters (as they are called) not one from the points, which if they had been known in their times, would have yielded them matter enough, yea more then the letters, for their mysticall Expositions, as we see in the later Cab­balists which have been since the invention of points (which argument also is quite omitted by the Adversary) that the Keri and Ketib which are confest by all to be for the most part vari­ous [Page 247] Readings gathered out of ancient Hebrew Co­pies, are all about the letters only, not any about the points, which yet if the points had then been in use▪ had been more subject to mistakes of the Scribes then the letters, and so more various Readings might have been gathered out of them, then from the difference of the letters, that in the same Keries and Ketibs, the vowels or points belonging to the Marginall word or the Keri, are put under the word in the Text, or the Ketib, to admonish the Reader, that the word in the Margent must be read, and not the word in the Text, and diverse other the like things, which were most absurd to ascribe to the sacred Pen-men, who if they had been the Authors of the points, would have put the true Reading, (which they could not be ignorant of) into the Text, with its own proper points, and not to have placed it in the Margent without points, or have put the points under another word to which they did not belong, with which it cannot be read. Such things (of which di­vers are observed in the punctation) are altoge­ther unworthy to be ascribed to the spirit of God. That the names of the points and accents are all of a late Originall, all Chaldee, not any Hebrew, to which nothing is answered, but that the names were invented by the late Grammarians. As if before that time they were without names, or could be continued in pub­lick [Page 248] use, for above a thousand years without names to distinguish them. That the number and use of them all is uncertain, and not yet a­greed upon among the Grammarians, diverse of them apparently superfluous, and yet in this plenty, diverse notes are deficient which are used in other languages. These things are largely deduced and handled in the same Prolegomena, which I do only here name for brevities sake, yet I cannot but take notice once more of our Au­thors sincere dealing in relating our Arguments. Aben Ezra's words, to prove the punctation by the Tiberian Masorites are brought, Proleg 3. Sect. 4. In his Comment on Exod. 25. 31. He saith, that some of the first Pointed Copies, pointed by the Tiberian Masorites were extant in his time. Vidi ego libros quos examinaverint sa­pientes Tiberiades, & de quibus juraverunt quindecim ex senioribus [...]orum quod diligenter considerarent omnem dictionem, omnem punctatio­nem, & unamquamque vocem, plenam & de­fectivam; Et ecce scriptum erat Jod in dictione [...] sed non sic inveni in libris Hispaniae & Galliae, nec in ultra marinis. These words he re­cites thus. p. 270. Nothing can be spoken more di­rectly contrary to what is intended, then that which is urged out of Aben Ezra in Ex. 25, 31. Where he affirms that he saw some books examined in all the letters and the whole punctation by the wise men of Tiberias, namely to try whether it [Page 249] were done exactly according to the pattern they had. Here we see he addes that which makes the words seem to contradict that they were brought for, (namely whether it were done ac­cording to the pattern they had) of which words not one is in Aben Ezra, nor in the Prolegome­na, for the meaning of Aben Ezra is plain, that they examined every word▪ letter, and point, whether all were rightly pointed according to the true and common pronunciation or Reading, which our Adversary makes to be, according to some former pointed Copy, which is utterly con­trary to Aben Ezra's meaning and words, and yet they might re-examine their own Copie, after it was finished, as we know it is usuall for those that are carefull and exact in writing, to review what they have written, that they may amend such errors and faults as have escaped them be­fore they make it publick. If he may be allow­ed thus to adde and detract and change what he pleases, he may easily make any Argument worth nothing, and to prove the contrary to what it is brought. Thus he falsifies the words of Aben Ezra, and the Argument drawn from them in the Prolegomena.

IX. Leaving his answers to our Argument against the Points, let us see what Arguments he brings for their Divine Originall. Here he referres us to Buxtorf, and I do likewise refer [...]he Reader to Scaliger, Sixtin. Amama, Dr. [Page 250] Prideaux, Vossius and others, especially to Ca­pellus his Punctationis Arcanum, and also to the Prolegomena, where, whether Buxtorfs Argu­ments be all answered, let the Reader judge. Something more our Author pretends to adde, which hath been omitted by others, p. 252. &c. The Argument though somewhat intricate and obscure, as he propounds it, seems to be this. That all Grammars must be made after the lan­guage, and gathered by observations out of the lan­guage, which are reduced to rules of art, and what is anomalous or irregular is excepted from the rest, and that if the points and accents were invented, and added to the Text, being no part of the language, then there must be some generall rules of art constituted and made before they could be added to the Text, according to which they were fixed and added, and so there must be some Gram­mar or art according to which they were contrived and made. Now that this could not be, he proves by two reasons. 1. Because there are so many words anomalous, irregularly pointed, contrary to the Analogy of Grammar, which they might have made all regular to their own great ease, and advantage of the language, facilitating the lear­ning of it. 2. Because the Masorites, who cu­riously have reckoned up every word in the Scri­pture, and the irregularity of every letter and tittle, never mention any of those Catholick rules, by which they or their Masters proceeded in the fixing of these points, nor do any footsteps of that [Page 251] art appear in the Masora, or any learned Jew, which was their rule or Canon in affixing the points▪ but all the Grammarians, collect their obser­vations and rules as they could by particular in­stances out of the punctation already made.

X. This objection, at least in part, was made long since by Buxtorf the elder, and the answer given long ago by Capellus in his Arcanum, l. 2. c. 10, 11 19, &c. and lately in the Prolegom. 3. Sect. 54. For the first, about words anomalous, he may find among other things, this answer given, That they were so pointed by the Masorites, non consilio, sed c [...]su, by casuall mistake, which if they had observed, they would have pointed all regularly, and that in such a long Work, this might easily happen, that some words might escape their diligence, which the succeding Ma­sorites, supposing out of reverence to their Pre­decessors, whose diligence and learning they so admired, that no Error could befall them, ga­thered and noted, conceiving that some great mysteries lay hid in these anomalous punctations, like as about some letters, as Mem clausum in medio, Es. 9. 7. and Nun medium in fine, [...]ob. 38. 1. of which, Prolegom. 3. and 8. 7. which were at first, casuall mistakes of the Scribes, as is thought by the Learnedst Protestant Divines, observations were made by those that came af­ter; as if they had been purposely so written by [...]he sacred Penmen, to signifie some great myste­ries. [Page 252] Besides, it may be answered, that the for­mer Masorites pointed these words irregularly▪ according to that Reading and Pronunciation which they were taught by their Masters (whose words they accounted as Oracles) though against the Analogie of [...]rammar, and that the follow­ing Masorites, finding such Anomalous puncta­tion, left all as they found them, onely made observations thereupon: For the Masora, as is proved in the Prolegomena, and is confes­sed by all, was not written all at one time, nor the work of one man, or perfected in one age, but done by severall persons, at severall times, some distinguishing the Verses by two points, which seems to have been the first work, others adding points to signifie vowels, others accents, others gathering observations out of what was done by those before them.

XI. To the second, There are generall Gram­mar Rules in every Tongue, and a particular Grammar Analogie in each particular Tongue, before it be reduced into Rules. These, no doubt, were considered by the Masorites in their pun­ctation, and accordingly they pointed the Text, according to such Rules for the reading and pronunciation, as they were taught by their Masters, and invented the names and figures of the vowels and accents, which they have left to Posterity▪ though the later Grammarians here­in differ from the ancienter about the names, na­ture, [Page 253] number, and 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 Gra [...]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 [Page 254] 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 [Page 255] 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 [Page 256] 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. Ʋnder 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, [Page 257] &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 [...]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 Rabbins, I shall not need to go further for answer then the [Page 258] Objectors own words, after a few pages, when his heat was something allayed, p. 251. That yet they were men still, who were full able to de­clare what defect they found to be so, and what they sound to be otherwise, and that it cannot be thought reasonable that so many men, living in so many severall ages, at such vast distance one from another▪ who some of them, it may be, never heard of some of the names of others some of them, should conspire to couzen themselves, and all the world be­sides, in a matter of fact, nothing at all to their advantage: I apply it thus, That notwithstand­ing all that is said against them, yet they were able to declare de facto, the Reading of the Text, received and continued amongst them, and that it cannot be imagined they should devise any other or new Reading, which should be received by all that lived in so many severall ages, and at such vast distances, and should conspire together to couzen themselves, and all the world in a matter of fact, tending nothing at all to their advantage. Thus we see the same hand pulling down in one page what it had set up in another. For if they might be meet witnesses for the Di­vine Originall of points, as he affirms, notwith­standing what is said against them, why might they not also be meet witnesses in testifying and declaring the common and received Reading then in use, and in expressing it by their punctation.

XVI. I may adde, that notwithstanding all [Page 259] that is said of them, they were most zealous, (in their greatest Apostasie and Infidelity) about the letter of the Law, and the true reading of it, even to superstition, and so continue: they did never h [...]rere in cortice more then since their rejection by God. And though generally they be men of no great Learning in other matters, yet about the reading of the Law, and right pro­nouncing of it, and the knowledge of every tittle, they were diligent, even to admiration, and accounted it a great part of their Learning, that they could so exactly read the Law, and teach others to read it. Lastly, for the Tiberian Masorites, though it be not much materiall by whom, or when the points were fixed, or at what place they lived, so it be granted, they were not of Divine Originall, nor known till after the Talmud; yet notwithstanding our Authors Declamation, it is most probable that the Tiberian Masorites were the first Inventers, and more probable then any thing by him said to the contrary; nay, though he denyes that ever there were any such men in rerum natura▪ [...]s we have seen already, p. 243. yet, forgetting what he hath said, and contradicting himself, as is usuall, he tells us, p. 223. that there was for­merly a School of the Jews, and Learned men, famous at Tiberias, is granted, and, p. 240 The Tiberian Masorites, (the supposed Inventers of th [...] points) were men living after the finishing of the [Page 260] last Talmud. And p. 271. he cites, and approves that saying of Azarias, who ascribes the restau­ration of the points to their use, after they had been disused, to the Tiberian Masorites: and pag. 270. That by receiving the punctation from the Tiberians, the continuation of it in that School, not the invention of it is intended by Abenezra; so that it seems, That these Tiberian Maso­rites, who never were in rerum natura, and lieved no man knows where, nor when, are found out at last to have had a School at Tiberias, and to have continued and restored the punctation there, though they invented it not.

CHAP. XII.

I. I Should now come to the Consequences which our Author would infer from our opinion about the points, viz. That if they they [Page 261] were invented and fixed to the Text, by the Masorites, then the reading and sence of the Scri­pture becomes uncertain and arbitrary, and the supreme authority thereof in all matters of faith and life is quite overthrown, and we must depend either upon the fidelity and diligence of the Rab­bins for the true reading and sence of the Scri­pture, or flie to an infallible Judge, and turn Pa­pists, or else turn plain Atheists, or Fanatick An­tiscripturists, by rejecting the Scripture altoge­ther. These are his inferences, pag. 147. 161. and Epist. p. 9. and 25. But the invalidity of this Argument is already shewed at large in what we have premised in the foregoing Chapter, as also Prolegom 3. Sect. 5. 31. for it is proved that the reading and sence is the same be­fore and after the punctation, and not any way de­pending upon the authority of the Rabbins, or of the Church, or of an infallible Judge. For sup­posing what we have already proved: 1. That the Hebrew Tongue never wanted its vowels, [...], which were used as vowels before the in­vention of points, as in other Eastern Languages, and that where they were wanting, the connexion of the words, with the antecedents and consequents, together with the continued custom and use, did determine the sence, and make the Text as it is now, and free from ambiguity. 2. That the Rabbins did not point the Text, pro arbitrio, as they pleased, but according as the true and usuall [Page 262] reading continued alwayes among them, and de­rived from the sacred Penmen, and that it is not lawfull now for any to alter or reject the present reading at pleasure, unlesse a better read­ing can be clearly proved, or that some Error hath crept in, contrary to the ancient reading, all these Consequences vanish to nothing.

II. Now for proof of these consequences our Author brings nothing, though affirmanti in­cumbit probatio, but takes these things for granted, which the Prolegomena do utterly de­ny, as altogether false and untrue, viz. 1. That there are no vowels among the Hebrew twenty two Letters, and so that the Hebrew had no vowels before the invention of points. 2. That the Ma­sorites did point the Text, as they pleased, and so that the reading according to the present pun­ctation depends meerly upon the skill and fidelity of those Rabbins. 3. That it is lawfull for any to alter the reading at pleasure, and to accept or reject the points, as no part of the Text. 4. That it was not possible to continue the true reading and sence of the Text after the Language ceased to be vulgar, without the points; all which are so many mistakes, and not only rejected by the Author of the Prolegomena, but by evident Arguments proved already to be assertions void of truth; so that these props being taken away, all his building falls to the ground.

III. Now in stead of reasons which are [Page 263] none, our Adversary tells us of his own earnest wishes and endeavours, p. 221. That he had rather this Work of the Bible, and all works of the like kind were out of the world, then that this our opi­nion should be received with the Consequences which unavoidably attend it, and pag. 244. that he would labour to the utmost to have the puncta­tion taken out of the Bible, if it were the inven­tion of the Masorites, nor should he (in its present station) make use of it any more. Thus do vio­lent men run from one extreme into another: ei­ther he must have the punctation to be of Di­vine authority, or else he must labour to the utmost to have it out of the Bible. But these wishes and violent expressions are no proofs with such as will not swallow his opi­nions by a blind implicit faith, as Oracles. Our opinion of the points hath been and is al­ready received amongst most of those that excell in this kind of learning, and among the most e­minent & judicious Protestant Divines, who are best able to judge of things of this nature; nor will it find the less acceptance among learned & judicious men, because of his hot passionate de­claming against it; for heat and passion are but weak proofs of the truth of any opinion, they are like water that bears up the lightest things, and lets the heavyest sink to the bottome, and are indeed no better aguments then that of him in Scaliger, who would prove that by [Page 264] laying a wager which he could not make good by sound reason. If he be so earnest to have the Hebrew points taken away (supposing they be not of Divine Originall) why doth he not labour the same for the Accents, notes of aspiration, and distinction of Sentences in the Greek Text of the New Testament, it being certain that they were not in use when the New Testament was writ­ten, as we have proved proleg. 3. Sect. 45. and in the precedent Chapter, and that the Greek Text is subject to ambiguity in diverse places by the absence of the accents and notes of distinction: whether doth he like it better to have the New Testament Printed with accents and distinctions, as it is now, or to have it with­out any, as it is in the Complutense Bible, which is so Printed, as I have shewed, that it might the better represent the Originall Copies which were written first without accents?

IV. As for the advantage which Papists, Atheists, &c. make of this, with his intimation, as if all were looking towards Rome that hold this opinion, I shall not need to say more then hath been said already, when from the various Rea­dings he would have inferred the same Conse­quence on the behalf of Papists, &c. It is enough to shew the vanity of this surmise, that the greatest and learnedest defenders of the Pro­testant cause, and of the authority of the Ori­ginall Texts, have been, and are of this judge­ment. [Page 265] What some Romanists inferre upon this Principle is nothing, unlesse it could be pro­ved justly to follow, which neither they nor this Author are ever able to do. He might have taken notice that his objection is answered Prolegom. 3. Sect. 51. where this inference which some of that Church make of the ambi­guity of Scripture unpointed, and that instance of Morinus in the word [...], which without points may be read eight severall wayes, and hath so many significations, is taken away. Nor do all those of Rome urge this Consequence; there are not wanting among them who maintain, that the Text unpointed is certain, and not am­biguous, as Simeon de Muis, Joh. de Espieres, and others. And although many of them ar­gue against the Scripture in generall, as our Author doth, that the Text unpointed is uncer­tain, and therefore no fit rule of faith and life, yet I do not remember that in any particu­lar Controversie between them and us, they urge any one place of Scripture for their cause, upon the uncertainty of the Reading without points, which plainly shews that there is no such uncertainty in the Text unpointed, as is pre­tended by them and this Author, for they al­ledge all places according to the common Reading of the Hebrew, or the vulgar Latine. Let our Adversary therefore name any place in particu­lar where the ambiguity of the Text without [Page 266] points makes for them or against us, or where they have advantage upon this ground in any particular case controverted, or else this Con­sequence will appear a meer cavil.

V. I do therefore appeal to all rational men, and do challenge our Adversary with all the rab­ble of those he mentions, as joyning with him in this Inference, all the Papists, Atheists, fana­tick persons, &c. in the world to make good their Consequence of the uncertainty of Scri­pture, from that opinion of the punctation, as it is declared and limited in the Prolegomena, viz. That if the points were fixed by the Masorites to the Hebrew Text (that is, as the case is stated) understanding onely the forms and figures of the points, not the force and vertue of the vowels and accents themselves, which is acknowledged to have alwayes been, and that they did neither point the Text at pleasure, but according to the true Reading commonly received to which they were tyed; nor that any now may at pleasure reject this Reading by the points. That upon this Propo­sition thus stated, it doth necessarily follow, That the Scripture is dubious and uncertain, and cannot be a sure rule for faith and life. This Consequence if they can prove I will retract my opinion and acknowledge my error: But if our Adversary cannot prove it, I expect he should do the like.

VI. But now as it was observed before about the various Readings, so here the same may be [Page 267] observed about this question of the points, that the Adversary unawares pleads the cause of them whom he would seem to oppose, and whi­lest he would make others guilty of promoting Popery, Atheisme, &c. himself is most deeply guilty by his own Arguments: for he grants the consequence which they urge, to be necessary and true, as will appear, if it be brought into a Syllogisme, which runs thus. If the points and accents be not of Divine Originall, but af­fixed by the Masorites to the Text, then the Scripture is uncertain, capable of divers sences, and therefore no fit rule for faith and life, &c. But they were affixed by the Masorites to the Text, and are not of Divine Originall. Ergo.

The Conclusion of the Syllogisme we all agree is false and impious, and therefore one or both Propositions must of necessity be false. I should deny both, if it could stand with evidence of truth, but granting that which cannot be deni­ed, and which the ablest and learnedest men that the Protestant cause ever had grant to be true, I do with the same persons denie the Major or the Consequence, and lay the weight of the cause upon it, which all the Papists, A­theists, and Considerators in the world are never able to prove. The Adversary on the other hand, 1. Denies the Minor, which his op­posites may with more probability make good, then he can the contrary, they having not one­ly [Page 268] the learned of their own Church, but also the best learned Protestants (as I have said) affirming the same with many strong reasons, which to any man unbiassed will seem more concluding then those brought for the other o­pinion. And 2. He grants the Consequence, yea proves it as well as he can (which all sober Christians, and all that have not joyned hands with Papists, Atheists, &c. deny) from which that Conclusion inevitably follows. That the Scripture is uncertain, and therefore of no autho­rity in matters of faith, &. Let all men there­fore judge who it is that pleades the cause of Papists, &c. He who denies the Consequence, or he that grants it, and labours to make it good. Thus he is caught in his own net, and unexcusable before God and man, by betraying the cause which he pretends to defend, and by doing that himself of which he unjustly accu­ses another.

CHAP. XIII.

I. WE have gone through the chief Heads of our Adversaries Charge; The va­rious Readings and the pointing of the Hebrew Text. We shall with more speed passe over the rest, by which he pretends the worth and esteem of the Hebrew Text is depressed, as the deri­ving our knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue from the Translation of the LXX. and making the Samaritane Characters to be the old Hebrew let­ters, of which now we shall speak briefly.

II. For the first, Pag. 206. He saith, That the Au­thor of the Proleg. grants that all our knowledge of the Hebrew is taken from the Translation of the LXX as he is quoted to that purpose by Morinus, [Page 270] Praef. ad Opusc. Samarit. The same is twice mentioned in his Epistle, p. 10. and 26. which he disproves by the example of Hierom, who had his knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue by the help of Hebrews, and by the Tiberian Masorites, who pointed the Text acccording to the tradition of them that spake the Language in its purity, and could not have the knowledge of it from the Sept.

III. For answer, First, why doth not our Adversary name the place in the Biblia Poly­glotta, where these words are to be found; or if they be not there any where to be found, (as indeed they are not) why doth he put these among the haynous crimes with which he charges the Prolegomena, affirming elsewhere, p. l. 52. 160. That had not these Tenets been pub­lished with the Biblia Polyglotta, thereby to gain auctority by that Work, he would not have meddle [...] with them. Now, this I am sure is no where in the Prolegomena, or in the Biblia Poly­glotta. And if this be not, why will he upon the words of Morinus, (a petulant Jesuite, as he will make him) Why, I say, will he accuse any upon such a mans Testimony as his, whom he calls in his railing Rhetorick, an infamous person, a bark­ing Dogg, &c. Epist. when as he could finde no such thing in the Biblia Polyglotta? But the truth is, Morinus doth not say, that this opi­nion of Capellus is approved in the Bibia Poly­glotta, (which our Adversary very well knew) [Page 271] but that in dissertation, or preface to an Intro­duction to the reading of the Orientall Tongues, he approves that opinion of Capellus. Now what is this to the Biblia Polyglotta? and yet the Au­thor of the dissertation doth neither in that dis­sertation, nor any where else, wholly subscribe to Capellus his opinion, whatsoever Morinus saith, which this Author could not be ignorant of: his words are only these, speaking of the use of the Greek Sept. Exigua esset absque hac (versione [...]) linguae Hebraeae congnitio. There is some difference between nulla, and exigua, the former he never said, for he knows, and fre­quently affirms, that though the Hebrew ceased to be vulgarly spoken after the return from Ba­bylon, yet there remained alwayes among the Priests and Learned of that Nation, the know­ledge of the Tongue, which they continued and taught to their children and posterity: yet for the knowledge of it among Christians, the greatest part of their knowledge of the Hebrew came by the Greek Translation of the LXX. that being the onely Translation of any Hebrew book known among either Christians or Jews, and this was made shortly after it had ceased to be vul­gar, and therefore without this exigua foret, amongst Christians, the knowledge of the Hebrew had been little; for there is no book extant, written in pure Hebrew, save only the Bible, nor any Translation of it before Christ, [Page 272] save that of the LXX. and therefore, as Clenard and Erpenius attained the Arabick by the Translations out of that Tongue in the Nebiense Psalter, and other Arabick books, so I doubt not, but that out of this Translation, the He­brew Tongue might be learned. And therefore for those that wanted the teaching and instruction of Jewish Masters, their knowledg of the Hebrew would be little, without this Translation. And no question but Origen in his Hexapla, and Hierom in his Translation, made great use of that Tran­slation to this end, though I know very well, that Hierom made use also of divers Jewish Rabbins, and amongst others, of some Tiberian Doctors of note, as himself affirms, who were not long be­fore those Tiberians that pointed the Hebr. Text.

IV. But now what is this, (supposing all were true what he affirms) to the depressing of the He­brew Text, or to prove the uncertainty of the Scripture, or that the Text is corrupt? I see not any colour of such a Consequence, nor doth our adversary bring any reason to prove it. It is true, Arnol. Bootius in his furious invective against Ca­pellus, takes hold of his words, and would prove this to be false, but infers no such thing as this Author doth, as if hereby the Heb. Text were en­dangered, which if he could with any color have made good, I am sure he would not have omitted.

V. We come now to the last of these things which tend to the depression of the esteem of [Page 273] the Hebrew Text; which, among others, is reckoned by our Adversary in the first place. Pag. 205. viz. That the present▪ Hebrew Cha­racter is not that used by God himself, and in the Old Church before the Captivity of Babylon, but it is the Chaldean, the other being left to the Samaritanes. The same is also mentioned, Epist. p. 7. This question is handled at large, Proleg. 3. Sect. 29.—38. I might forbear to speak any thing more thereof, because it makes nothing at all against the Hebrew Text, though we make the present Character to have been the Assyrian, and that the old Hebrew Character was left to the Samaritanes; for seeing that we make Esdras and his associates the Authors of this change, when they restored and settled the Canon of the Old Testament, and it is confessed by all, that what they did, was by Divine Au­thority: hence it is evident, that the Authority of the Hebrew Text suffers nothing by this change of the Character, but that it is in this re­spect the same it was before: no more, nor so much as the change of the Greek Character, and of the manner of writing in capitall letters, with­out accents, spirits, or distinctions of words or sentences, as the first Copies of the New Testa­ment were written, (as we have elswhere shew­ed, Prolegom. 3. Sect. 45. and Chap. 11. of this Treatise) into that form which is now in use, de­rogates from the Greek Text of the New Testa­ment, [Page 274] because this change was not made by any Prophets or men inspired as the other was; and therefore our Author had no colour of reckon­ing this amongst those things which derogate from the Hebrew Text, but that he was willing to catch at any thing which might seem to im­pair the Esteem of the Biblia Polyglotta amongst his English Readers, for whose mis-information these Considerations were contrived, unlesse he thinks with some superstitious Jews, that there is some peculiar sanctity in the form or fashion of the Character. Neverthelesse, because he hath thought fit to say something of this Argu­ment, though he touch not the tenth part of what is said in the Prolegomena, because he would fain seduce the ignorant Reader into an opinion, as if great wrong were hereby offered to the Hebrew Text, I shall therefore briefly adde something by way of answer.

VI. This Question hath been so clearly and fully handled by Scaliger, Drusius, Vossius, Capel­lus and others, that I believe there are few that have read and weighed the arguments of both sides, who think the present Character to be the old Hebrew letter. It is true, Buxtorf jun. wrot a Tract upon this Subject, wherein he doth not absolutely defend as a certain truth, that the pre­sent Character is that which was used at first, though he brings all the Arguments he could to this purpose, but only to shew, as he saith, Sect. 4. [Page 275] that this opinion is not so absurd, or apparantly false, as Scaliger, Drusius, and other great Hebri­cians would have it, but that it may be probably defended. To this Dissertation of his, Capellus wrote an answer, 1645. (which I conceive began the quarrell between these two learned men, w ^ch hath been since continued with two much eager­nesse about other matters) wherein all his Ar­guments are answered, and the contrary reasons urged and defended, with that evidence and cleernesse, that Buxtorf hath not made any re­ply since that time, that I have seen, though he hath since written against Capellus upon other subjects, being, it may be, convinced of the Error of that opinion, which he thought formerly not improbable, which if it be so, as his ingenuity is to be commended, so the confidence of our Adversary is to be condemned, who is perempto­ry in a question, which as it plainly appears, he never seriously considered, not sticking (after his usuall manner) to call this opinion a Fiction, and a meer Fable, though it be in a manner de­monstrated, and hath as clear and evident Argu­ments for it, as any thing of this nature is ca­pable of, viz. Testimonies, both of ancient Jews and Christians, both the Talmuds, and the ocu­lar demonstration of old Jewish coins daily digged up out of the ruines of Hierusalem, and other places, stamped by the Kings of Israel before the Captivity; besides reasons and the Authority [Page 276] of most, if not of all the best skilled in Jewish Antiquities and Hebrew Learning, of later times, as is shewed at large in the same Prolegomena, and appears by the Figures of the Coyns them­selves, which are engraven, and printed in the Apparatus to the Biblia Polyglotta, in a Tract of the ancient Hebrew coyns.

VII. Buxtorf confesseth, Sect. 2. That though both Opinions have their Patrons, yet the businesse is brought to that passe, that the Opinion of the novelty of the present Character, hath got­ten far more to assert it, and those of chiefest note for their Learning in this kinde, who are some of them so peremptory in the cause, that they think those that dissent; Nec ferendos, nec audiendos esse, and that the great fame and esteem of their exquisite Hebrew Learning, hath drawn the most unto that Opinion. He adds withall, Sect. 4. Equi­dem cum nemine super hac re acrius contendere, aut disceptare mihi est propositum: And Sect. 5. confesseth ingenuously, that he dares not hope, se hoc assequuturum, ut omnibus satisfaciat, ulti­mamque literarum Hebraicarum antiquitatem, [...] probet ac persuadeat, &c. onely he hoped to shew that the other Opinion was not so absurd, as that the defenders of it ought to be accounted half Divines, or half Men, or Scepticks, that doubt of all things, or plain Asses, as Scaliger and Drusius had stiled them; yet here we have one who is so confident and [Page 277] peremptory, that he dares stile that Opinion which is generally held by most Learned Anti­quaries, a meer Fable, and a Fiction, hereby verifying that saying, Qui pauca videt, cito ju­dicat; and that men who are rash and heady in their decisions, are seldom free from great Errors.

VIII. The Arguments of both sides are pro­pounded, Prolegom. 3. which I shall not need to repeat, but shall refer the Reader thither for fuller satisfaction, and the rather, because the Adversary brings nothing to the contrary, but his own conjectures, or bare affirmations without proofs, (what he saith of the Samaritanes is already answered in its proper place) I shall only recapitulate what is largely handled in the Prolegomena concerning these Characters.

IX. All the Arguments that can be brought to prove a matter of fact, especially of such An­tiquity, can be no other then Testimonies, especi­ally of ancient and credible Writers, who might best know the truth, the remaining Reliques, and Monuments of such Characters, with the judgement of such of later times; who have been most versed in things of this nature, and therefore are best able to judge; all which we have here. Among ancient Writers, we have the Testimonie both of Christians and Jews: Of Christians, Euseb. Hier. & Bede, men best skilled of any in their times, in Jewish & other Antiqui­ties, who affirm it as a thing certainly known, [Page 278] and not to be doubted of, that Esdras changed the old Character into that we now use, leaving the other to the Samaritanes, whose testimo­nies, especially Hieromes is so expresse, and the thing so frequently affirmed in his Works, that they admit no evasion, as appears in the same Prolegomena, where all the subterfuges brought to evade the force of the words are plainly con­suted and taken away. And when we name these, we name all that among the Ancients have said any thing on this subject; nor is there any one ancient Writer produced, that hath said any thing to the contrary.

X. To the Testimonies of ancient Christi­ans, we have added the Testimonies of both the Talmuds, which with the Jews are of sacred and unquestionable Authority. The Babylonish Tract. Sanhedr. Sect. 2. The Hierusalem Tract. Megil. Sect 1. affirming, that the Law was first given, [...] Scriptura Hebraea, and afterwards, in the dayes of Esdras, it was written, [...] Scriptura Assyriaca; as also the testimonies both of ancient and modern Rabbins, who (though some of them, especially of the later, that they may maintain the antiquity of the present Character against the Samaritanes feign among other things, that Moses his [...] was written in the modern Character, which they call Sacred, and that the rest of the Copies for common use, were written [Page 279] in the common Character, which is retained by the Samaritanes, and that the use of the sacred Character, was onely restored by Esdras, after it had been long disused,) yet all agree in this, that the present Samaritane Characters were anciently used among the Jews, and that some Copies were written in them, which testimonie of the Jews, against themselves, in a matter which they think, tends to the disparagement of their Character, is an undeniable proof, that onely the evidence of truth forced this confession from them.

XI. But above all, that of the Shekels, or ancient Coyns, heretofore, and lately digged up about Hierusalem, and other adjacent places, stampt on the one side with Aarons Rod, and the other with the Pot of Manna, and the inscripti­on of [...] Hierusalem sancta on the one side, and [...] Siclus Israelis on the other, if there were no other argument, were enough to demonstrate to all that do not wilfully shut their eyes, the truth of our asser­tion, as is there proved at large: Ar. Montanus, and Postellus, having got some of these Coyns, esteemed them as great treasures and undoubted proofs of the ancient Jewish Coyns, and also of their weights. That they were coyned by the Samaritanes, cannot be imagined, because they were never possessed of Hierusalem, nor would have given the title of Sancta, to that City, [Page 280] which they did abominate, and that they were before the Captivity, Ar. Mont. Postellus, and others collect from the name of Israel, which was the common name of all the Tribes before the defection and carrying away of the Ten Tribes, when they were stiled Jews and not before, from Juda the chief of the remaining Tribes. To this we shall adde one thing more, either the present Hebrew Character is borrow­ed from the Chaldee, or else we must hold that of the Eastern Languages, the Syriack and Ara­bick have each his distinct proper Character, and the Hebrew, but the Chaldee none at all, which how probable it is, let any man judge.

XII. Against this what saith our Adversa­ry, he saith p. 262. That all is a groundlesse tra­dition, and a meer fable. That Eusebius spake onely upon report, and as for Hierome supposing this to be false, sufficient instances may be given of the like mistakes in him. The Testimony of the Talmuds is with him of no weight, unlesse second­ed by very good evidence. To that of the shekels, that we are in the high rode of forgeries and fa­bles, in nothing hath the world been more cheated. And if it be granted that the pretended coins be truly ancient, must it needs follow, that because these letters were then known and in use▪ that they onely were so, or that the Bible was written with them, and those now in use unknown? Then to salve the credit of the coins, he will answer one [Page 281] conjecture with another. The Samaritane letters are (if he may so say) plainly praeternatural, a studied invention in their frame and figure, fit to adorn when extended, or greatned by way of en­graving and embossing any thing that shall be put upon them, or cut in; that we may think they were invented for that purpose, namely to engrave on vessels, and stamp on Coins, and so came to be of some use in writing also, and that their stamp and form promises some such thing. All which is the more probable, because Clemens tells us of three sorts of Characters among the Aegy­ptians, one for things of common use, another, Hierographick, used by the Priests in their sacred Writings, and the other Hieroglyphick, which was also of two sorts, simple, and symbolicall, and see­ing it was not unusuall to have sundry sorts of let­ters for sundry purposes, it is not improbable, that it was so also among the Jews.

XIII. To all this I might refer the Reader to the same Prolegomena, where all this, and a great deal more is fully answered. At pre­sent I say, 1. To call that a groundlesse Tradition and a meer fable, which is supported with the testimonies of such grave and learned Authors, both ancient and modern, confirmed by both Talmuds, and chief Rabbins, and by reall mo­numents, and ocular demonstrations, which like Memnons statue speak aloud for the truth of this assertion, and upon such sleight conje­ctures, [Page 282] as are by the Adversary produced, shew a high degree of rashnesse. Eusebius not one­ly affirms this change of the Character, but al­so gives one chief reason why, That the Jews might have nothing common with the Samari­tanes, whom they hated cane pejus & angue, Hierome, he saith, supposing this to be false, might be mistaken: nay, I say, he was certainly mista­ken, supposing this to be false, and so if this ri­diculous kind of arguing may be allowed, our Author supposing all he writes to be false, was mistaken in every thing. But it is not enough to suppose he was mistaken, but to prove it; and to inferre that because he was mistaken in some other things, that therefore he was mi­staken in this, is the way to decry all humane testimony at once, all Histories and Records are by this means made uselesse, for if they mistake in some things, they must be believed in nothing, and so our Author, because in his Treatife he mistakes in many things (as I believe he will not, I am sure he cannot justly deny) there­fore he must not be believed in any thing. I confesse he that willingly affirms untruth in some things, deserves not to believed in any thing: but that he who mistakes in some things through inadvertency, or involuntary error must be believed in nothing, is to take away the credit of all histories in matters past, and the ground of all civil society and commerce among [Page 283] men for present and future times. The Tal­muds are of highest authority with those against whom we chiefly argue, viz. the modern Jews, and therefore cannot be denied either by them, or by any that imbrace their opinion, nor was their authority ever denied in this point by any that I have read, either Jews or Chri­stians till now, but some kinde of answer, though absurd and foolish hath been found out, rather then they would wholly deny their authority: and though the Talmuds be full of fables, yet by his own rule, if that which they affirm be attested by other good evidence, as here it is, in this case their testi­mony ought to be of weight. But the same answer serves for all, Eusebius, Hierome, the Tal­muds, the Rabbins are all deceived, their reports fabulous, and the Shekels are forged and feigned. Here is a ready way to answer all arguments of this kind, to deny all authority, and to say, that all is false and fabulous. But this is a sign of a desperate cause to deny all without shew of reason to the contrary, which is to cut the knot when it cannot be loosed. There are many counterfeit coins I grant, I have seen some Jewish coins which might easily be discovered to be forged, of which I have spoken in the place above mentioned, but to infer thence that all are forged, and that there is no way to di­stinguish between those that are true, and those [Page 284] that are counterfeit, is as if one should say, that all the old Romane coins, which are daily found and digged up among us are counterfeit, because some such have been counterfeited, see Proleg. 3. Sect. 35.

XIV. But that he may not seem to deny all without some shew of reason, he brings in a con­jecture to answer, as he calls it, a conjecture; But 1. the proof from the coins is not a bare conje­cture, but as clear a demonstration, as in things of this nature can be had. 2. His Conjecture is a groundlesse fancy, which none could ever have hit on besides himself, he tells us the letters of the Sicles are preternaturall, which what it means, I believe himself can hardly explain. I never heard before of this distinction of letters, into naturall and preternaturall: Are there some letters naturall? I thought that all Chara­cters had been the arbitrary invention of men, not any from the dictate of nature, else there had not been such variety of them in the world: It seems then there is an universall Character by nature, and so they might have spared their pains that have studied so much for the inver­ting of an universall Character for the use of all Nations. Preternaturall Characters then must be such as proceed from some error in na­ture, as monsters are said to be praeter intentio­onem naturae, productions wherein nature fails, and comes short of her end. The Samaritane [Page 285] Character then, it seems, is some monstrous Cha­racter, framed besides natures intention: and if so, why may there not be also some Characters supernatural, used by angels and spirits, not­withstanding what Duretus writes against them, De linguis totius universi, and Bangus de litera­rum Angelicarum vanitate, such it may, as Li­ber Enochi, in Dr. Dee, written by direction of his spirits. Here is new Doctrine of letters not heard of before. These Samaritane letters then upon coins are monstrous letters, but if they be such, how come they to be a studied inventi­on, and found out to adorn and embosse vessels and coins, I had thought that preternaturall issues had been most deformed and ugly, but here it seems, they adorn pots and coins. But what great ornament is there in these letters upon coins (for I never saw any upon vessels, nor himself I think) more then in other letters; or what studied invention is there in them? they seem to me the plainest and rudest letters of any (an argument of their antiquity) far from any curiosity or studied artifice, many other Cha­racters are far more curious, intricate, and dif­ficult, as those may see that shall look over the severall Alphabets, Printed Pr [...]leg. 2. and that make as fair a shew. I have seen Coyns both with these letters before the Captivity, and o­thers stampt with the modern letter since the Captivity, and in my poore judgement there is [Page 286] no more adorning in the one, then in the other. This preternatural Character I doubt will prove nothing else but the preternaturall issue of a misguided fancy, or of one willing to frame, and coin any thing, rather then to submit to clear truth.

XV. But yet there might be some other Character besides this, with which the Bible might be written: Here he brings in that figment of R. Azarias, of a twofold Character, one sacred with which the Bible was written, and one com­mon for other uses, and in which the Samaritanes writ their Pentateuch, which he would confirm by the practise of the Aegyptians, that had di­verse sorts of Characters. Of the Aegypti­an Characters I have spoken at large Proleg. 2. and that devise of Azarias taken up by some others, the better to uphold their opinion of the modern letters, is proved to be a ground­lesse conceit. Proleg. 3. That among the Heathens they used some secret Character, which was counted sacred, thereby to hide their propha [...]e mysteries from vulgar knowledge is shewed in the same place, lest if the people should know all, they should contemn and deride them, but that there were any such among the Jews, or people of God, is a thing meerly devised to a­void the force of this Argument, without any ground either in Scripture, or any ancient Writer, nay against both, and against clear [Page 287] reason, as is there shewed, to which place I re­fer the Reader, where the vanity of this two­fold Character is sufficienly proved.

XVI. But here comes in another Argument, against this change of Esdras, That the ground upon which this supposed change was made, shews the thing to be a meer fancie, viz. that the Jews had forgot their old Character, during the seventy years captivity, and had learned the Chaldean, when as the same men were alive at the burning of the first, and the building of the second Temple, and that the men of the same Generation should forget the use of their own Letters, is incredible. Besides, they had their Bibles, and that in their own Character onely, whether they had any other Book or no, we know not, and whence this forget­ting of the one, and learning of another Cha­racter should arise, doth not appear. Again, the weight of this improbable fiction is laid upon the testimony whereof the most ancient is six hundred years after the pretended matter of fact. All this is to as little purpose as the rest. For, first, that the Jews had forgot their native Language, and learned the Chaldean in that seventy years, is the unanimous opinion of men versed in these matters, both the Buxtorfs and all others that I have read of, (Mayerus only excepted, whose reasons are examined, Proleg. 3.) And this they could not choose but do, (though they kept the Language for two hundred years in Egypt) [Page 288] because they lived dispersed over Assyria, under their severall Lords and Masters, whose servants and vassalls they were, and therefore might easily forget their own Language, and must of necessity learn the Assyrian, where they were born and brought up, whereas in Egypt they lived all together in one place, not mingled with the Egyptians. Now, if they forgot their Language, and changed it, why not the Cha­racter too? Or if some of them kept both, yet the Chaldee must needs be better known to them then the other, as being in daily use among them; yet it is not denied, but that as the knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, so of the Character too, did continue among the Priests and Scribes, and among some few of the old men, who might remember the standing of the old Temple; but what were these to the mul­titude of the common people, who under­stood only the Tongue where they were born and bred, and so could have little knowledge of any other Character then that in common use where they lived, and hence it was, that when the Law was read; the Levites were fain to expound it in the Chaldee Tongue, that the people might understand it, and hence came that custom of reading the verse first in He­brew, and then in the Chaldee, as I have seen an old MS. brought from Ormus, so written; First the verse in Hebrew, and then the same in [Page 289] the Chaldee. Nor was the Canon of the Old Testament perfected before Esdras, as it is now, and all the Books in one Volume, or the Copies thereof as common among the people, as the Bible with us, (as our Author imagines) some Copies of the Law might remain among the Levites and Priests, by which they instructed the people, but the whole Canon, and all the Books of it, reduced into one Volume as now, I doubt he will not finde before that time; be­sides the Copies they had were much depraved, and had suffered much, (as this Author acknow­ledgeth) and so were not fit for use, till they were rectified, else Esdras and the great Syna­gogue needed not to have spent so much labour about restoring the Law and other Books as they did.

XVII. As for the Testimonies produced, I deny that the Eldest is six hundred years af­ter the matter of fact, the chief evidence and most reall testimony, is from the Coyns which were near five hundred years before this change was made, and for the written Testimonies, they are of the ancientest that are extant among the Jews, who have scarce any of unquestionable and undoubted certainty before the Talmuds, except the Chaldee Paraphrases, or some of the Apocryphall books, where no occasion was given to mention such things. These among other things, were preserved among them by Traditi­on, [Page 290] and had not their dispersions and banishments over the world, forced the compiling of the Mishna and the Talmuds; this among their other Traditions had been lost. After all, our Author concludes, p. 266. seeing the vanity of all that he had said before, that it is probable that the old Letters being excommunicate by Esdras, with the Samaritanes, laying aside the old Letters, because of their difficulty, he, together with the new, introduced also the points to facilitate their reading. The later part of which speech, as we deny upon grounds formerly shewed, so the other we receive, that Esdras laid aside the old Letters, (not because of their difficulty, for they appeare rather to be easier then the other) but because the Jews had been more used to the Chaldee, and that they might not seem to have communion with the Samaritanes (as is else­where proved) and that he brought in the As­syrian, which hath since continued, and there­fore we need no more proof in this matter, when we have the confession of our Adversary.

XVIII. Thus I have shortly run over these Considerations, and examined the most ma­teriall passages which contained any thing worth the observing, intreating the Reader, who desires more full satisfaction, to have recourse to the Prolegomena and Appendix themselves. By what hath been now observed, sufficient warning is given to the Reader, not to be too [Page 291] credulous, or to take any thing upon trust with­out examination or triall, and by these, Specimi­na, of his candor and love of truth, I desire him to judge of the rest of his Discourse. If he shall think fit to reply, though I cannot expect he should retract any thing he hath written; for I have known by long experience, that some men, as if they had an infallible spirit annexed to their Chair, are past acknowledging any er­ror in whatsoever comes from them, yet if he think fit to draw this Saw of contention further, or as he threatens in diverse places to make fur­ther discoveries, I shall advise, 1. That he would be carefull to state the controversie tru­ly, and relate the arguments faithfully and en­tirely, and not lamely, much lesse to pervert them, and to that end as Saint Hierome wished, Advers. errores Joh. Hierosol. ut verbis meis sen­sum meum loquatur, that he would deliver my opinion in my own words, (as I have done his) and not substitute what he pleases, or make his own consectaries, his adversaries opinions. 2. That he would proceed Scholastically, and keep close to the point in hand, forbearing ex­travagant popular declamations. 3. That he would lay aside all passion and prejudice, for as Aristotel. in Elench. [...], or if he cannot but write in hast and in heat, yet that he would review and weigh his own conceptions, avoiding rash and-precipitate [Page 292] cemures; And that he would re­member, that as an account must be given for every idle word spoken, so much more for what is Written or Printed, as being done with more deliberation. 4. That he would not joyn pro­miscuously what is said by other Authors, either Romanists or Protestants, with what is said in the Proleg. as if all that they affirm were to be charged upon the Proleg. for by not distinguish­ing what is said by each, but by jumbling all together, it is cunningly insinuated to the un­wary Reader, as if all held the same; for I am not to answer for any thing, but what's said in the Prolegomena.

XIX. These Rules, if he shall observe, I shall promise to deal in like manner with him, if any rejoynder shall be found needfull. But if he shall persist in the way he hath begun, I shall think silence the best answer, having better im­ployments, wherein to spend my hours; and shall rest in the testimony of my own conscience, that I have in all my endeavours about this great Work, proposed no other end, then the Glory of God, in the preserving of his sacred Truth, both in the Originalls, and ancient Translations, both for the true reading, and right sence or meaning, pure and entire to posterity, against both the casuall mistakes that may happen in some, and the wilfull corruptions and falsifica­ons of Sectaries and Hereticks, which never [Page 293] more boldly nor in greater numbers then now, endevoured to deprave or corrupt it, either in the letter or sence or both. And though these weak endevours be attended (as it hath been the fate of all publick works of this nature) with obloquy in some emulous and contradicting spi­rits, yet I shall think it sufficient that I have had the general approbation of men truly lear­ned, judicious and pious; And for those that are otherwise, I doubt not but the Work will live in after ages, when their invectives shall be burned in oblivion: For,