this and such as were made out of it excepting the Syriack was used in the Church nor is any other used in the Greek Church to this day That this was that which the Greek and Latine Fathers expounded illustrated out of which they instructed the people confuted Heresies and maintained the Truth That this which we now have is the same for substance with that anciently used though in some things by the injury of times and frequent transcriptions vitiated which with all the severall questions and controversies about this Translation are at large discussed and handled to which I must refer the Reader where he shall finde all the doubts and questions raised by this Author or others resolved and all their aspersions cast upon it wiped off It would be too long to go over the particulars herein Those that amongst our Neotericks have been least favourable to it have yet highly valued it as is shewed out of Scaliger Heinsius and others Heinsius saith of it Rarum incomparabilem thesaurum esse neminem ignorare posse nisi qui ab omni eruditione alienus sit Aristarch cap. 15. p. 951. The quarrells and cavills therefore of our Author against it I shall not meddle with now all of them and a great deal more is related and answered in the same Prolegom 9. onely I cannot but observe how he overlashes still when he affirms that most of the Versions in the Biblia Polyglotta are evidently taken out of it which he cannot with any colour affirm of any but the Arabick of which yet himself formerly told us the Pentateuch was translated out of the Hebrew and some part out of the Syriack as for the rest viz. the Samaritane Version the Syriack Chaldee and the Vulgar Latine they are all out of the Hebrew except the Psalms in the Vulgar Latine which seem to be out of the LXX Though it may be here and there in some words they may agree with the LXX yet this gives not the least colour to affirm that they were taken out of it XVI Besides we may observe upon what weak grounds he goes when he sticks not to insist upon that Argument against the Septuagint that the Originall Copy was burnt in the Library of Alexandria in Caesars time to prove that there are no true Copies now left which childish argument he knew was answered Proleg 9. Sect. 49. so as might have made any man of common discretion forbear to urge it for it is shewed and on all hands confest that there were thousands of Copies every where extant among the Jews and read publickly in their Synagogues all the world over and so had been for some hundred of years before the burning of Ptolomies Library so that the losse of that Originall Copy though it may be justly doubted whether it perished in that conflagration or no as is there shewed can no more prove that succeeding ages have not the true Copy of it then it can be inferred that we have no true Copies of the Hebrew and Greek Texts because the first Originalls have been lost many ages since as among other things is there shewed XVII The Aethiopick and Persian Translations which he falls upon in the last place are the worst and most corrupt in the world He can find no use of the Persian but onely to shew that there is such an uselesse thing in the world The Aethiopick is the Novel endeavour of an illiterate person He knows not whether some of them be in use now in the world he is sure that it were well that they be not had he not seen them he could not have imagined any had been so bad He thinks some Jews had a hand in one for money Thus some men shoot their bolts at randome It is sufficient that learned men and such as are able to judge do acknowledge the use of them and thankfully receive the publishing of them The antiquity and use of both especially of the Aethiopick is declared Proleg 14. and 15. What is there said and proved will I doubt not overbalance what is by him barely affirmed to the contrary That the Aethiopick is now used and hath been since the conversion of that Nation among the Abyssines through those large Territories consisting of many Kingdomes is shewed by good authority and sundry reasons against Scaliger Our Author knows not whether it be any where used but I think there is scarce any besides himself that doubts it that doth not shut his eyes against the clear light Concerning the Persian it is acknowledged in the Prolegomena not to be that ancient Translation mentioned by Theodoret and others of the Ancients of which it may be doubted whether any part of it be extant as also that it was made out of the Syriack not immediately out of the Greek yet that it may be usefull is likewise shewed Proleg 15. in diverse particulars and that this Copy we have Printed was written three hundred years ago but how long before the Translation it self was made we cannot determine How the Jews should have a hand in any of the Translations is a fancie which I think never lodged in any mans breast but his own nor can he shew any ground for it It may as well be said that Turks and Mahumetanes made all these Translations for the use of Christians Because the Transcriber of the Aethiopick as it is rendred in Latine makes Saint John Bishop of Constantinople though it be doubtfull whether it may be so rendred as he might have seen in the Annotations and the Aethiopick word is not Constantinople though the learned Translator of it into Latine conjectured it migh be there meant therefore the Aethiopick Translator must be illiterate and the Translation novel when as in the Syriack our Author could distinguish between the Scribe and the Translator and not impute the error of the one to the other And as for the antiquity it is one thing to say another thing to prove let him answer the reasons in the Prolegomena or bring better of his own and we shall believe him otherwise his bare authority will not be sufficient to command assent against reason XVIII By this which we have said it appears that as our Author hath â—eigned to himself an Adversary when he had none that so he might have some pretence of depressing the severall Translations so that which is said by him we might well have passed by but that our silence would have been by him interpreted as an acknowledgement of the truth of his affirmations And although his invectives be groundlesse and vain yet I have good ground to believe that there is something else in the Translations themselves which he is not willing to mention which hath caused all this bitternesse against them It appears by these ancient Translations that what our Sectaries have cried down in the Church of England as Popish innovations viz. Episcopall Government set forms of Liturgies Observation of Festivalls besides the Lords day were used as
they are still in those Eastern Churches planted by the Apostles and their Successors in Asia and Africk from the first times of their conversion so that what these men would exterminate as Romish and Antichristian Novelties have been antiently used by those famous and flourishing Churches which never professed subjection to the See of Rome Hinc illae lachrymae This is that Cordolium of our Novellists the practice of the universall Church of Christ all the world over which condemns their innovations which Argument is of more force with considering men then all the acute arguments drawn onely from strength of reason For to condemn the practice of the Church of Christ in all parts of the world constantly observed in all ages is insolentissima insania as Saint Augustine long since These things with some other ancient rites appear in the Syriack Arabick Aethiopick c. which I doubt were as great motes in our Authors eye which made him so willing to quarrel with the Translations and to cavil without a cause and thus I have briefly run over his invective against the Translations intreating the Reader for more full satisfaction to consult the Prolegomena themselves and by these Specimina which we have given of his candor and love of truth to judge of the rest of his Discourse And thus we have done with the main Charge the principal Subject of his Book the Various Readings and the Corruptions of the Originalls which he would thereupon infer I shall proceed now more briefly to that other principall Charge concerning the Punctation of the Hebrew Text after which we shall adde something about the ancient Hebrew Characters and of the use of the Septuagint Translation towards the Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue and so put an end to the Readers trouble and our own for the present CHAP. X. I. The Controversie of the Hebrew punctation by whom handled II. The Charge against the Prolegomena III. No new thing delivered in the Prolegomena about points nor any thing prejudiciall to the certainty and authority of the Hebrew Text. IV. V. That the Hebrews alwayes had vowels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proved The vowels excluded from the letters by late Grammarians against reason VI. The Masorites did not point the Text as they pleased but according to the true and common reading The true reading depends not upon their authority VII VIII A main Objection answered That they might certainly point the Text after the language ceased to be vulgar IX The certain Reading of the Text by diligent practice and use attainable without points proved by example X. In words unpointed dubious in themselves the ambiguity is taken away as they are part of a sentence and by custome or use proved by the Talmuds and Rabbinicall Writers The new Testament at first had no accents or notes of distinction c. The Chaldee Paraphrase Syriack Arabick had no points at first XI What is affirmed in the Biblia Polyglotta about this Controversie XII The first occasion of this Controversie about points handled XIII XIV Elias Lev. not the first broacher of the novelty of points XV. XVI XVII Diverse both Iews and Christians held the same opinion long before Elias XVIII Elias his pretended aim XIX The seeming advantage given to Papists no ground to maintain an untruth I. COncerning the Points whereby the Hebrew vowels and accents are now signified and distinguished whether they be coaeve with the Language it self or of the same antiquity and Originall with the Text either affixed by Moses as some say or by Ezra and the great Synagogue as others or whether they were invented by some Rabbins after those times to facilitate the reading and prevent the errors which might arise from the ambiguity of some words hath been long disputed by divers by Elias Levita chiefly among the Jews among Protestants also and Romanists and amongst the former by Jos Scaliger Drusius Sixtin Amama D. Prideaux Sect. 12. and others but most largely by Buxtorf both Father and Son and by Lud. Capellus by the Father in his Hebrew Grammar and by Capellus in his Arcanum punctationis revelatum Printed by Erpenius at Leyden anno 1614. and by Buxtorf the Son in his answer to Capellus The chief arguments on both sides are collected and with addition of some others presented Prolegom 3. Sect. 38. to 56. What is charged in the Considerations upon the Prolegomena in this matter we have in part set forth Chap. 3. in some particulars and opposite thereto what is asserted in the Prolegomena We shall now more fully discusse what is charged or objected in the one and what is granted or denyed in the other not that I intend to handle the Controversie at large which would be actum agere and make this short reply swell into a great Volume but as our Author saith he would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 briefly consider the heads of things so I shall briefly take notice of his Considerations II. In his Epist pag. 19. he saith That the solemn Espousall of the opinion of the novelty of the Hebrew punctation in the Biblia Polyglotta was one chiefe occasion of this Consideration The opinion which he opposes is by him in severall places declared pag. 157. That the Hebrew points or vowels and accents are a novell invention of some Judaicall Rabbins about five or six hundred years after the giving out of the Gospel and p. 205. That the points or vowels and accents are a late invention of the Tiberian Masorites long after sundry Translations were extant in the world Their arbitrary invention p. 208. c. 4. in the contents and p. 217 218. p. 293. the arbitrary inventions of some Jews and that it is lawfull for us to change them at pleasure p. 250. 258. 217 218. Hence he deduces these Consequences pag. 157. That the agreement of those Translations before the supposed invention of the points with the Originall cannot by just consequence be tried by the present Text as now pointed and accented And that the whole credit of our reading and interpretation of the Sripture as far as regulated by the present punctation depends solely on the faithfulnesse and skill of those Jews whose invention this is asserted to be This is one of those two Principles which being granted there is no other way to be delivered from utter incertainty in and about all sacred truth Epist p. 25. That all things are hereby made doubtfull in Scripture so that no certain truth can be learned from the Scriptures p. 211. yea they not onely make doubtfull the Authority of the Scriptures but wholly pluck it up by the roots pag. 213. And therefore he had rather that this Work of the Biblia Polyglotta and all Works of the like kidne were out of the world then that this one opinion should be received with the Consequences that unavoydably attend it Those Consequences are Epist pag. 9. We must either turn Papists or Atheists pag. 19. He dare not mention the desperate
THE CONSIDERATOR CONSIDERED OR A brief view of certain Considerations upon the Biblia Polyglotta the Prolegomena and Appendix thereof Wherein amongst other things the certainty integrity and Divine Authority of the Original Texts is defended against the Consequences of Athiests Papists Antiscripturists c. inferred from the Various Readings and novelty of the HEBREW points by the Author of the said CONSIDERATIONS The Biblia Polyglotta and Translations therein exhibited with the various Readings Prolegomena and Appendix vindicated from his ASPERSIONS and CALUMNIES And the questions about the punctation of the Hebrew Text the Various Readings and the ancient Hebrew Character briefly handled By BR WALTON D. D. 2 Cor. 13. 8. For we can do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth LONDON Printed by Tho Roycroft and are to be sold at most Book-sellers shops 1659. A SUMMARY Of the several CHAPTERS CHAP. I. AN Introduction to the whole page 1. Chap. 2. The occasion and motives of these considerations examined 19 Chap. 3. The Charges against the Biblia Polyglotta enumerated and proved to be for the most part Calumnies 37 Chap. 4. The first and main charge That the Originall Texts have gross corruptions particularly answered and proved a Calumny pag. 45 Chap. 5. The 2 3 4. charges That our Copies are not the same with those anciently used That the same fate hath attended the Scripture with other books and that we may correct the Originals upon conjectures answered and proved to be Calumnies 72 Chap. 6. The fifth Charge about various Readings out of Translations answered The sixth That the Keri and Ketif are Criticall notes of the Rabbines shewed to be a Calumny Of the notes out of Grotius 83 Chap. 7. The Various Readings in particular collected and printed in the Biblia Polyglotta vindicated 149 Chap. 8. The consequences against the certainty and Divine authority of Scripture inferred by the Adversary from Various Readings c. on the behalfe of Papists Atheists Antiscripturists c. answered and retorted upon himselfe 149 Chap. 9. His arguments against the severall Translations The Samaritane Chaldee Syriack Arab. Greek Latine Aethiopick Persian answered 169 Chap. 10. The Question about the Hebrew points propounded The Hebrews had vowels before the invention of points 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reading certaine without points The Masorites pointed not the Text at pleasure but according to the true and common Reading The first occasion of this Controversie about the points 196 Chap. 11. The arguments against the Divine Original of the modern points vindicated The testimony of the chiefe Protestant Divines and of the most eminent for Eastern learning and greatest patrons of the Originall Texts against their divine extract produced The contrary Arguments urged in the Considerations answered 231 Chap. 12. The consequence of uncertainty of the Hebrew Text if the points be not of Divine authority urged by Papists c. and infer'd by the Considerator answered The Argument retorted upon him 260 Chap. 13. Of our knowledge of the Hebrew derived from the Sept. Translation That the Samaritane was the ancient Hebrew Character changed by Esdras into the Assyrian proved The arguments to the contrary answered The conclusion 268 THE CONSIDERATOR CONSIDERED CHAP. I. I. The Church of England assaulted by Romanists on the one hand and Novellists on the other so are some of her Sons in this Edition of the Biblia Polyglotta II. The like fate of others who laboured most in exact Editions of the Bible Origen S. Hierome III. Arias Montanus Erasmus the Publisher of the late Parisian Bible the late Translators into English IV. The nature of Envy V. This Edition of the Biblia Polyglotta generally approved more performed in it then in any former Edition The usefulnesse of it No Book free from opposition VI. The Considerations publisht against it what they are VII A new Plot pretended to be discovered amongst Protestants against the Originall Texts approved in the Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta The particulars of this Designe The Principles and Consequences The chiefe Protestant Divines and Linguists of this age named whom the Adversary makes guilty of this Plot Himselfe saith the same things VIII The calumnies about Various Readings IX Other parts of this charge mistaken X. Reasons why this Pamphlet was answered 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 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 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 first in Latine that was made out of the Hebrew Text as appears by Ruffine S. Augustine and other learned men of those times who interpreted this attempt of his though in it selfe very laudable as done in contumeliam versionis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disgrace that of the Septuagint as some now interpret all that is said of the use of ancient Translations as tending to the depressing of the Hebrewâ— whereupon he was often put to apologize for himselfe III. To come nearer to our owne times that Magnificent worke of the King of Spaines Bible by some styled Orbis miraculum was approved by the Pope himselfe to whom it was presented as by his Breves prefixed appeares yet all could not protect the Publisher thereof Arias Montanus a learned and moderate Romanist though he did nothing without the advice of the University of Lovaine and of sundry particular learned men from the jealousies and calumnies of malignant spirits of his owne Brethren against whom he was faine to write Apologies and hardly escaped the Inquisition Erasmus his extraordinary paines in publishing the Greek Testament by comparing ancient copies and Translations was sufficiently railed at by some Friers and ignorant Zelots as if he took upon him to correct the Word of God as appears in his Preface to his Annotations of 1535 whose very words are used as we shall see hereafter against the Biblia Polyglotta And that late splendid worke of the Parisian Bible published at the charges of Michael de Jay in seven languages which farr exceeds the Biblia Regia by addition of that ancient Syriack Translation of the Old Testament the Arabick of the Old and New and the Samaritane Pentateuch c. though it be not without its defects which ingenuous and moderate men would rather have excused then aggravated yet hath not wanted its detractors who envying that others should have the glory of that which themselves were unable to performe have defamed it what they could witnesse those bitter and virulent expressions of Simeon de Muis Regius Professor of the Hebrew at Paris in his Epistles publisht against it And to come yet nearer home The last English Translation made by diverse learned men at the command of King James though it may justly contend with any now extant in any other Language in Europe was yet carped and cavild at by diverse among our selves especially by one who being passed by not imployed in the Work as one though skild in the Hebrew yet of little or no judgement in that or any other kinde of Learning was so highly offended that he would needs undertake to shew how many thousand places they had falsly rendred when as he could hardly make good his undertaking in any one IV. Thus we see That for every good work is a man envyed of his Neighbour as the Wise man observed Eccles 4. 4. Our Saviour for the good works he had done had like to have been stoned by the people and the Scribes and Elders out of envie delivered him to be put to death Licet invenire regionem ubi venena non sunt quemadmodum affirmant de Crâ—ta at non licet invenire Rempublicam quae non alat invidiam as Plut. in Moral Some Countries there be where no venomâ—us creature lives as they say of Candy but none where the poyson of envie is not found yea so monstrous is this sin that the envious man makes anothers vertue his vice and anothers happinesse his torment Invidia Siculi non invenere tyranni Majus tormentum Whereas he that rejoyceth at the good of another is thereby made partaker of it For Tolle invidiam tuum est quod habâ—o Tolle invidiam meum est quod habes as Chrysost in Joh. V. It cannot seem strange then That this late Work of the Bible though generally approved by Learned men both in the first undertaking when the particulars whereof it was to consist with a specimen thereof were published to the World and since it was finished when not only all was performed which was undertaken but also more then could justly be expected should notwithstanding meet with some disaffectâ—â— persons who seek to defame and blast it There have ever been some that would make themselves seem fairer by throwing dirt in the faces of others and acount themselves the better by how much they speak the worse of others For Gloriae comes invidia and it never was the hap of any Book yet to meet with no opposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Clemens Alex. observed long since Deus omnibus placere non potest tu placere credis said Jul. Scal. God himself cannot please all men and how can any of us then hope for it Erasmus his complaint was just against his censurers Superbum est de libro sententiam ferre quem non intelligis superbius de eo quem ne legeris quidem Praef. eadem Yet we finde usually that this envious humor is attended with ignorance Vituperant quae ignorant said Tertul. Ignorance is the greatest enemy to any kinde of knowledge and Jos Scaliger met with such of whom he writes Quicquid eorum captum superat erratum vocant quod non intelligunt pro iâ—fcitia sua damnant how this may be applied I leave to the Judgement of others This I finde too true That though there never was so much done in any Edition of the Bible in any age absit invidia verbo as to exhibit the originall Text of the Scripture at one view attended with so many ancient Translations approved by the Church in her purest times and that according to the best Coâ—ies and Editions which bear witnesse to the â—â—thority and Integrity of the Originalls and serve as so many glâ—sses to represent the true sence and meaning of them to succeeding ages and to preserve the sacred truth to posterity as far as humane industrie can reach against the corruptions and false glosses wherewith Sectaries and Heretikes who in no age so abounded as in this would adulterate and imbase it yet this could not free the Work from the opposition of malicious tongues and pens of such whom the envious man hath stirred up to hinder the benefit which the Church of God might reap by it witnesse a late Pamphlet pretending to the integrity and purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text to which are added certain Considerations on the Prolegomena and Appendix to the late Biblia Polyglotta VI. In which I was sory to finde so much clean paper fouled with so many palpable untruths wilfull and studied calumnies such contradictions tautologies and impertinencies as appear in those Conâ—iderations that if they should be culled out of the Book we might say of it as
had not been certainly true The Argument from our Saviours silence was brought Proleg 7. to prove that the Originall Texts were not corrupted before his coming the end of whose coming was not to correct every letter or word that was mistaken in any Copy of the Bible but to assert the true sence against the corrupt glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees and to restore it to its Originall integrity if any wilfull corruptions had been or errors of any moment which might have indangered the saving truth of which kind we say there are none nay so far were our Saviour and his Apostles from observing every casuall slip of a Scribe in Hebrew Copies that they made more frequent use of the Greek LXX then the Hebrew and quoted places out of the old Testament according to that Translation even where there seems to be some difference from the Hebrew and left that Translation to the Christian Church who used it generally for many hundred years as the Greek Church doth to this day as is largely shewed Prolegom 9. de Graecis versionibus Sect. 38 39. c. XI But besides these reasons mentioned Chap. 2. of the Considerations we finde some others scattered here and there which we will briefly examine p. 168 169. He findes fault with the arguing from the oscitancy and negligence of transcribers of Heathen Authors Homer Aristotle c. to shew that errors might creep into the Originall â—exts This he saith is not tolerable in a Christian or any one that hath the least sence of the nature and importance of the Word of God He urges likewise the care of the Heathen about their Sybils verse p. 171. that the Romane Pontifices would not do it negligently nor treacherously c. Answer It is not denied but that the Church of Christ had a religious care that the Copies transcribed for publike use especially should be free from all errors as much as could be and that far more care was taken about them then ever was taken by any about the writings of the Heathen nor do I know any who affirm the contrary It is true this argument is used by some that the various Readings in such Authors in matters of lesse moment do not make all their Philosophy Histories c. uncertain and therefore the like various Readings in some Copies of the Scripture doth not make the Scripture uncertain or prove it to be corrupt but what is this to the care and fidelity of the Church in preserving the Copies of the Scripture which all acknowledge to be more then any had or could have in preserving any humane Writings the Sybils verses or any other of the Heathens pretended Oracles But though their care was great and therefore no wilfull errors could passe nor mistakes in any matter of concernment yet that they did never erre not in the least needs no other confutation then the comparing of all Copies MSS. or Printed which have had errors of this kinde more or lesse according to the diligence and care of the Scâ—ibe or Corrector as ocular inspection demonstrates XII Again pag. 17 18 c. he tells us the relief provided by Capellus and approved in the Prolegomena against various Lections viz. That the saving doctrine of the Scriptures as to the substance of it in all things of moment is preserved in the Copies of the Originall and in the Translations that remain is pernicious and insufficient because though it be a great relief against inconvenience of Translations that the worst of them contains all necessary saving fundamentall truth yet to depresse the sacred Truth of the Originalls into such a condition as wherein it should stand in need of such an Apologie and that without any colour or pretence from disâ—repance in the copies themselves that are exstant or any tolerable evidence that ever there were any other in the least differing from these extant in the world will at length be found a work unbecoming a Christian Protestant Divine The nature of this doctrine is such that there is no other principle or means of discovery no other rule or measure of judging and detrmining any thing about it but onely the writing from whence it is taken it being wholly of Divine revelation which is onely expressed in Scripture so that upon supposall of any corruption there is no mean of rectifying it as there is in correcting a mistake in any Probleme of Euclide c. Nor is iâ— enough to satisfie us that the doctrines above mentioned are preserved entire every tittle or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Word of God must come unde our care and Consideration He provides us therefore better security p. 198. He tells us of a Copie which was a standard to try all others by The Vulgar Copy we use was the publike possession of many generations and upon the invention of Printing it was in actuall possession throughout the world This must passe for a standard which confessedly is its right and due But p. 173. we are referred to all the Copies that are remaining In them all we say is every letter and title of the Word of God These Copies are the rule standard and touchstone of all Translations c. XIII For answer First for what Capellus affirms I am not bound to answer he was able enough to answer for himself while he was living and now he is dead every one will trample upon a dead Lyon who durst not look him in the face while he was alive But as for the Prolegomena I do not onely say that all saving fundamentall truth is contained in the Originall Copies but that all revealed truth is still remaining entire or if any error or mistake have crept in it is in matters of no concernment so that not onely no matter of faith but no considerable point in Historicall truth Prophesies or other things is thereby prejudiced and that there are means left for rectifying any such mistakes where they are discovered as hath been often said Secondly To say that upon any corruption in the saving doctrine supposed there is no means of rectifying or restoring is a very strange assertion may not the consideration of Antecedents and Consequents of places parallel of the analogie of faith the testimonies Expositions Translations of the Ancients c. help to rectifie a corruption crept in and may we not judge by one part of revealed truth of what agrees with it or disagrees from it as by any Theoreme of Euclide what is agreeable with it or disagreeable though the one be by reason the other by revelation Is there no use of reason in matters of faith or in judging of Divine truths Vedelius might have spared his labour of a Rationale if this be so It is confessed by all that various Readings are found in the Originall Texts which severall readings cannot both be from the sacred Pen-men but the one must needs be false and erroneous and if in such smallest things all being of
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 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 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 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 which 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 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. The second Charge that we say That our present Copies are not the same with those anciently used II. The Prolegomena affirm and prove that our Copies are the same III. Various Readings gathered out of Translations do not prove the contrary IV. That all books whatsoever except the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are subject to various Readings yet the same books V. All differences of a Translation from the Originall are not various Readings VI. A third Charge That the same fate hath attended the Scripture with other books This a pure Calumny VII Archbishop Usher Buxtorf and others say the same with the Prolegomena VIII The Prolegomena often acknowledged Gods speciall providence over these books IX A fourth Charge that we may correct the Originall upon Conjectures proved a calumny out of the Adversaries words X. The Prolegomena expressely maintain the
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 Pipeâ— 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 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 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 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 sâ—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 praeâ—ertim multum conferre possunt cum erratum in 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 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
this day in the world And I can further aver that some Copies I â—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 Vsher 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 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 Vsher 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 Vniversity 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 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 potuâ—rim â— 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 sâ— comparata cum Syra Arabica Editione 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 Vniversity 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 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. 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
a more Christian practice for him to shew the Inconsequence of such Conclusions from such Premisses as are confessed 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 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 andVnbelievers viz. The miracles wrought for confirmation of the doctrine brought down and witnessed to us by the Vniversall 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 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 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 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. The Occasion pretended of this invective against the Translators of the Biblia Polyglotta II. His mistakes about the Arabick The Publisher of the Arabick the same with the Publisher of the Biblia Polyglotta III. IV. The Adversary misreports Mr. Pococks Preface His contradictions V. VI The Syriack vindicated from his aspersions The antiquity of it proved VII His carping at the Cambridge Copie VIII The Samaritane Pentateuch vindicated IX X. XI His Parodoxes about the Samaritane Pentateuch XII Set forms of
Liturgie proved from the Jews after Esdras his time and from the Samaritanes in imitation of them XIII The Chaldee Paraphrase defended of Buxtorf Babylonia XIV Of the Vulgar Latine XV. The Septuagint the other Translations not taken from it save part of the Arabick XVI Of the Originall Copy of the Septuagint XVII Of the Aethiopick and Persian XVIII The true reason why the Adversary is so offended with these ancient Translations they testifie for Liturgie observation of Festivalls c. 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 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 hâ—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 Pentateâ—ch not the whole Translation with two Copies of Saadias his Translation which he takes to be the same with that in the Parisian and in this â—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. Hâ—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. Pocockâ— opinion swayed by his Authority which he 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 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
Church as it is now as appears both by the Hebrew Copies among them and by the Comments and Expositions and Translations of the ancient Writers of the Church The reading and Expositions therefore of Christians are not regulated by the Masorites or depend upon their skill and diligence in punctation for if their punctation had never been the reading had been the same it is Nor doe these rely upon the Masorites but upon the Text it selfe and the true reading of it continued and preserved in the Church of Christ which because the Masorites had well expressed by their points the Christian Church received their punctation not upon their authority but as I said because it expressed the true sense received in the Church of God and withal because they saw it conduced much to the more easie reading of the Text. VII Against this we have a maine objection pag. 292 293. That while the Hebrew language was the vulgar tongue of that Nation and was spoken by every one uniformaly every where it had been possibly upon a supposition that there were no points that men without infallible guidance direction might affix notes and figures which might with some exactness answer the common pronunciation of that language and so consequently exhibit the true proper sence and meaning of the words themselves But when there had beene an interruption of 1000 years in the vulgar use of that language and being preserved onely pure in our books to suppose that the true and exact pronunciation of every letter tittle and syllable was preserved alive by orall Tradition not written any where nor commonly spoken is to build Castles in the ayre After he saith that the reliefe is insufficient to say the Masorites affixed not the present punctation arbitrarily but according to the tradition they had received What weight is to be laid upon such a tradition for neere 1000. yeares above according to Morinus is easie to be imagined Nor let men please themselves with the pretended facility of learning the Hebrew Language without points and accents and not onely the Language but the true and proper reading and distinction of the Bible let the points accents be wholly removed and the restraint and distinction of the words as now pointed and then turne in the drove of the learned Criticks of this age upon the noted Consonants and we shall quickly see what wofull worke yea havock of the sacred Truth will be made among them were they shut up in severall Cells I should hardly expect that harmony and agreement among them which is fabulously reported to have been among the LXX in the like case VIII To this we answer 1. That though the Language ceased to be Vulgar for 1000. yeares yet there was still a succession of Priests and Scribes and other learned men who continued the knowledge of the Language and the true reading and pronunciation of the Text and do to this day with whom the Language was the same as it was when the common people spoke it and their study and profession was to write out copies of the Law and likewise to read and expound it or to teach the reading and true pronnnciation of it to others which they did successively from age to age as we see in the Greek and Latine which have a long time ceased to be vulgar and yet the knowledge of the tongues and the true reading and pronunciation is the same among learned men as it was when they were vulgar This was a great part of the Jewish learning the true reading of the Text and they who were most accurate and exact therein were honoured most among them and had their Schools and their Schollars and Disciples whom they instructed from time to time till at length in regard of their many dispersions and banishments that the true reading might not be lost with the language they began to affix points to the Text as well to facilitate the reading as to preserve it the better from any alteration or change And therefore it was all one to them who still preserved the true reading and sence of the Scripture to point and accent it as it was whilst the common people spake and understood it as well as they and therefore upon this concession that whilst the Language was vulgar the points and accents might have been affixed with certainty it follows undeniably that even in the time of the Tiberian Masorites the Rabbins and learned men among the Jewes might point the Bible as well as their Predecessors might have done whilst the Language was common This is a cleer truth to any common understanding and not to build Castles in the ayre 2. The true reading was not continued by orall or unwritten Tradition after the tongue ceased to be vulgar but by the Written Text which was alwayes preserved entire among them and the reading depended not upon Tradition otherwise then the reading of all Books in other Languages which depends upon the orall instruction of Masters and Teachers without which continued from hand to hand how could any know that such a letter or character stands for such a sound or that such a word hath such a signification The Samaritane Pentateuch Chaldean Paraphrase of the Pentateuch and Prophets and the Syriack Translation of the Bible continued above a thousand years before they were pointed and the Samaritan is not yet pointed as is certainly known confest by all which shews plainly how the Hebr. Text might be continued and the true reading preserved without pointing unless our Author can shew any difference as to this matter between the Languages For they have the same letters the same vowels Aleph Vau Jod with the Hebrew and the reading in every respect subject to as much ambiguity and uncertainty as is pretented to be in the Hebrew unpointed And that the true reading might be preserved above a thousand yeares is not against all reason but very reasonable to suppose since we see the â—ame done in the Samaritane Syriack and Chaldee for a longer time and the same may be said of the Arabick though not for so long a time after the Alcoran was written IX 3. The certain reading of the Text by diligent practice and use may be attained without points though with more difficulty then if it were pointed as hath been heretofore shewed by Martinius Capellus and others One that 's wholly ignorant of the Hebrew Tongue having some Translations as the LXX or vulgar Latine may by labour and industry and comparing the Translation with the Text and observing the Antecedents and Consequents find out the signification of each word by it selfe and the proper sence and meaning in connexion with others and may by degrees find out where the Translator varied from the Text and where he was mistaken Thus among others Clenard learned the Arabick without any Mr. or Instructer when that Language was scarce known in Europe by the Nubiense Psalter where the Arabick is without any pointed vowels
Rabbins I shall not need to go further for answer then the Objectors own words after a few pages when his heat was something allayed p. 251. That yet they were men still who were full able to declare what defect they found to be so and what they sound to be otherwise and that it cannot be thought reasonable that so many men living in so many severall ages at such vast distance one from another who some of them it may be never heard of some of the names of others some of them should conspire to couzen themselves and all the world besides in a matter of fact nothing at all to their advantage I apply it thus That notwithstanding all that is said against them yet they were able to declare de facto the Reading of the Text received and continued amongst them and that it cannot be imagined they should devise any other or new Reading which should be received by all that lived in so many severall ages and at such vast distances and should conspire together to couzen themselves and all the world in a matter of fact tending nothing at all to their advantage Thus we see the same hand pulling down in one page what it had set up in another For if they might be meet witnesses for the Divine Originall of points as he affirms notwithstanding what is said against them why might they not also be meet witnesses in testifying and declaring the common and received Reading then in use and in expressing it by their punctation XVI I may adde that notwithstanding all that is said of them they were most zealous in their greatest Apostasie and Infidelity about the letter of the Law and the true reading of it even to superstition and so continue they did never hâ—â—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 â—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 thâ— points were men living after the finishing of the last Talmud And p. 271. he cites and approves that saying of Azarias who ascribes the restauration of the points to their use after they had been disused to the Tiberian Masorites and pag. 270. That by receiving the punctation from the Tiberians the continuation of it in that School not the invention of it is intended by Abenezra so that it seems That these Tiberian Masorites who never were in rerum natura and lieved no man knows where nor when are found out at last to have had a School at Tiberias and to have continued and restored the punctation there though they invented it not CHAP. XII I The Consequences inferred from the novelty of punctation not proved at all but taken as granted by the Adversary II. His false suppositions III In stead of Reasons his earnest wishes of taking the points out of the Bible The accents c. out of the New Testament IV. The Consequences of the uncertainty c. cannot be proved by the Adversary nor by any Papists Atheists c. V. A challenge to them all to prove their Consequences from the novelty of the punctation as stated in the Prolegomena VI. The Adversary proved guilty of the said Consequences I. I Should now come to the Consequences which our Author would infer from our opinion about the points viz. That if they they were invented and fixed to the Text by the Masorites then the reading and sence of the Scripture becomes uncertain and arbitrary and the supreme authority thereof in all matters of faith and life is quite overthrown and we must depend either upon the fidelity and diligence of the Rabbins for the true reading and sence of the Scripture or flie to an infallible Judge and turn Papists or else turn plain Atheists or Fanatick Antiscripturists by rejecting the Scripture altogether These are his inferences pag. 147. 161. and Epist p. 9. and 25. But the invalidity of this Argument is already shewed at large in what we have premised in the foregoing Chapter as also Prolegom 3. Sect. 5. 31. for it is proved that the reading and sence is the same before and after the punctation and not any way depending upon the authority of the Rabbins or of the Church or of an infallible Judge For supposing what we have already proved 1. That the Hebrew Tongue never wanted its vowels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were used as vowels before the invention of points as in other Eastern Languages and that where they were wanting the connexion of the words with the antecedents and consequents together with the continued custom and use did determine the sence and make the Text as it is now and free from ambiguity 2. That the Rabbins did not point the Text pro arbitrio as they pleased but according as the true and usuall reading continued alwayes among them and derived from the sacred Penmen and that it is not lawfull now for any to alter or reject the present reading at pleasure unlesse a better reading can be clearly proved or that some Error hath crept in contrary to the ancient reading all these Consequences vanish to nothing II. Now for proof of these consequences our Author brings nothing though affirmanti incumbit probatio but takes these things for granted which the Prolegomena do utterly deny as altogether false and untrue viz. 1. That there are no vowels among the Hebrew twenty two Letters and so that the Hebrew had no vowels before the invention of points 2. That the Masorites did point the Text as they pleased and so that the reading according to the present punctation depends meerly upon the skill and fidelity of those Rabbins 3. That it is lawfull for any to alter the reading at pleasure and to accept or reject the points as no part of the Text. 4. That it was not possible to continue the true reading and sence of the Text after the Language ceased to be vulgar without the points all which are so many mistakes and not only rejected by the
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 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 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. Vnde 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 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 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 Vse of this Translation is with the severall questions concerning the same the Reader may 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