LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Library of Dr. A. A. Hodge 
 
 BX 5199 .W23 T63 1821 v. 2 
 Todd, Henry John, 1763-1845' 
 Memoirs of the life and 
 writings of the Right Rev. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/memoirsoflifewri02todd 
 
MEMOIRS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LIFE AND WRITINGS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ■ 
 
 RIGHT REV. BRIAN WALTON, D.D. 
 
 LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER, 
 EDITOR OF THE LONDON POLYGLOT BIBLE. 
 
 WITH NOTICES OF HIS COADJUTORS IN THAT ILLUSTRIOUS WORK ; 
 OF THE CULTIVATION OF ORIENTAL LEARNING, IN THIS COUNTRY, 
 PRECEDING AND DURING THEIR TIME ; 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 TO A PROJECTED REVISION OF WHICH DR. WALTON AND SOME OF HIS 
 ASSISTANTS IN THE POLYGLOT WERE APPOINTED. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED, 
 
 DR. WALTON'S OWN VINDICATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 LONDON POLYGLOT. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. HENRY JOHN TODD, M.A. F.S.A. 
 
 CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY, AND RECTOR OF SETTRINGTON, 
 COUNTY OF YORK. 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 VOL. II. 
 
 Uottlum : 
 
 PRINTED FOR F. C. & J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH-YARD, 
 AND WATERLOO-PLACE, PALL-MALL J AND 
 LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, & BROWN, PATERNOSTER-ROW. 
 
 1821. 
 
Printed by R. Gilbert, St. John's Square, London. 
 
THE 
 
 CONSIDERATOR CONSIDERED : 
 
 OB, 
 
 A BRIEF VIEW OF CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS UPON THE 
 BIBLIA P0LY6L0TTA, 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 Atheists, 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 Punctuation of the Hebrew Text, the Various 
 Readings, and the ancient Hebrew Character, briefly handled. 
 
 BY 
 
 BRIAN WALTON, D.D. 
 
 u For we can do nothing against the Truth, but for the Truth." 2 Cor.xiii. 8. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY THOMAS BOYCROFT, &C. 
 
 1(559. 
 
A 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SEVERAL CHAPTERS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 An Introduction to the whole . . . 8 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The occasion and motives of these Considerations 
 examined 19 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The Charges against the Biblia Polyglotta enume- 
 rated, and proved to be for the most part Ca- 
 lumnies 39 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The first, and main Charge, That the Original 
 Texts have gross corruptions, particularly an- 
 swered, and proved a Calumny 48 
 
THE CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The second, third, and fourth 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, an- 
 swered and proved to be Calumnies 76 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The fifth Charge about Various Readings out of 
 Translations answered. The sixth, That the 
 Keri and Ketib are critical notes of the Rabbins, 
 shewed to be a Calumny. Of the notes out of 
 Grotius 89 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 The Various Readings in particular, collected and 
 printed in the Biblia Polyglotta, vindicated • . .125 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The consequences against the certainty and Di- 
 vine authority of Scripture, inferred by the Ad- 
 versary from Various Readings, &c. on the be- 
 half of Papists, Atheists, Antiscripturists, &c. 
 answered, and retorted upon himself 157 
 
THE CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 His Arguments against the several Translations. 
 The Samaritan, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Greek, 
 Latin, Ethiopic, Persian, answered 178 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The Question about the Hebrew points propound- 
 ed. The Hebrews had vowels before the in- 
 vention of points. The reading certain with- 
 out points. The Masorites pointed not the Text 
 at pleasure, but according to the true and com- 
 mon Reading. The first occasion of this Con- 
 troversy about the points 206 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 The arguments against the Divine Original of the 
 modern points vindicated. The testimony of the 
 chief Protestant Divines, and of the most emi- 
 nent for Eastern learning, and greatest patrons 
 of the Original Texts, against their Divine ex- 
 tract, produced. The contrary arguments urged 
 in the Considerations answered 242 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 The consequence of uncertainty of the Hebrew 
 Text, if the points be not of Divine authority, 
 urged by Papists, &c. and inferred by the Con- 
 siderator, answered. The Argument retorted 
 upon him 273 
 
THE CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Of our knowledge of the Hebrew, derived from 
 the Sept. Translation. That the Samaritan was 
 the ancient Hebrew Character, changed by 
 Esdras into the Assyrian, proved. The argu- 
 ments to the contrary answered. The Conclusion 282 
 
 Observations upon the preceding Vindication . . . 309 
 
THE 
 
 C ON SI D ERATO R 
 
 CONSIDERED. 
 CHAPTER 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, St.Jerom. 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 ap- 
 proved ; more performed in it than in any former Edi- 
 tion ; the usefulness of it; no book free from opposition. 
 
 VI. The Considerations published against it, what they 
 are. VII. A new plot pretended to be discovered 
 amongst Protestants, against the Original Texts, ap- 
 proved in the Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta: 
 The particulars of this design : The principles and 
 consequences: The chief Protestant Divines and Lin- 
 guists of this age named 9 whom the Adversary makes 
 guilty of this plot: Himself 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 oi \v fAto-u uu.<pQTip<D$iv xrtlvovrai, those that 
 are in the midst are slain (or assaulted) on both 
 
 VOL. IL B 
 
2 The Consider at or considered. 
 
 sides. With which agrees too that of Aristotle, 
 
 Ethic, lib. *2. C. 8. AttuShAxi t<>v u.icoy oi otxpot 
 
 EXKTffo; Trpo? iKocTioov. Expellunt medium extremi 
 uterque ad alterum. This was the case of our Mo- 
 ther the Church of England in former times, as was 
 long* since observed by a reverend [A] author, when 
 she was (like Christ crucified between two thieves) 
 opposed by the superstitious Romanists on the 
 one hand, and by the fiery Novellists on the 
 other; the first accusing- her of departing too 
 far from them, the other of coming too near to 
 them. Which contrary accusations of men, run- 
 ning into extremes, were a strong evidence that 
 she 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 pu- 
 rity, integrity, and supreme authority of the Ori- 
 ginal Texts against those of Rome on the one 
 side, rejecting some Jewish opinions unwarily 
 swallowed by some amongst ourselves on the 
 other, he hath incurred the displeasure of both ; 
 the one complaining that too much is ascribed to 
 the Original 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 9 
 
 do usually swerve. 
 
 TP 9 l.l 
 
The Comiderator considered. 3 
 
 II. This is no new thing, that endeavours to 
 promote the public good should be thus rewarded; 
 for in former ages we find, that those who la- 
 boured most about the sacred oracles of God, to 
 restore them to their primitive and original lustre, 
 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 think, 
 might have set the authors without the reach of 
 calumny and envy, have yet been aspersed and 
 slandered, their labours calumniated, and their 
 aims perverted, by such as St. James speaks of, 
 iv. 5. " In whom the spirit that lusts after envy 
 reigned." Origen's pains in compiling his Te- 
 trapla, Hexapla, and Octapla, a work of that ad- 
 mirable use, that it was styled Opus Ecclesice, 
 and which by the unexcusable negligence of the 
 Greek church is now lost, was carped and cavilled 
 at amongst others by Jerom, as if he had corrupted 
 the pure translation of the LXX. by the additions 
 which he made out of Theodotion ; when as Ori- 
 gen, to preserve the LXX in its integrity, distin- 
 guished all the additions by an asterisk, which 
 being left out, what remained was the mere and 
 true translation of the Septuagint, as Jerom him- 
 self sometimes acknowledged, Epist. 11. ad Au- 
 
4 The Considerator considered. 
 
 gustin. The same Jerom was paid in the like 
 coin by others, who rejected his Latin Translation, 
 (the first in Latin that was made out of the He- 
 brew text,) as appears by Ruffine, St. Augustine, 
 and other learned men of those times ; who inter- 
 preted this attempt of his (though in itself very 
 laudable) as done, in contumeliam Versionis 
 ruu 6, 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 apolo- 
 gize for himself. 
 
 III. To come nearer to our own times : That 
 [B] magnificent work of the King of Spain's Bible 
 (by some styled Orbis Miraculum ) was approved 
 by the Pope himself, to whom it was presented, as 
 by his Breves prefixed appears. 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 
 Louvain, and of sundry particular learned men, ) 
 from the jealousies and calumnies of malignant 
 spirits of his own brethren, against whom he was 
 fain to write Apologies, and hardly escaped the 
 Inquisition. Erasmus's extraordinary pains, in 
 publishing the Greek Testament by comparing an- 
 cient Copies and Translations, was sufficiently railed 
 at by some friars and ignorant zealots, as if he took 
 upon him to correct the Word of God; as appears 
 
The Considerator considered. 5 
 
 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 
 [Gsplendid work of the Parisian Bible, published at 
 the charges of Michael Le Jay in seven languages, 
 which far exceeds the Biblia Regia, by addition 
 of that ancient Syriac Translation of the Old 
 Testament, the Arabic of the Old and New, and 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch, &c. though it be not 
 without its defects, which ingenuous and moderate 
 men would rather have excused than aggravated, 
 yet hath not wanted its detractors ; who, envying 
 that others should have the glory of that which 
 themselves were unable to perform, have defamed 
 it what they could. Witness those bitter and 
 virulent expressions of Simeon de Muis, Regius 
 Professor of the Hebrew at Paris, in his Epistles 
 published against it. And to come yet nearer 
 home : The last [D] 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 cavilled at by diverse among our- 
 selves, especially by [E] one, who being passed by 
 and not employed in the work, as one (though 
 skilled in the Hebrew, yet) of little or no judgment 
 in that or any other kind of learning, was so 
 highly offended, that he would needs undertake 
 to shew how many thousand places they had 
 8 
 
6 The Considerator considered. 
 
 falsely rendered, when as he could hardly make 
 good his undertaking in any one. 
 
 IV. Thus we see, that " for every good work 
 is a man envied of his neighbour," as the Wise 
 Man observed, Eccles. iv. 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 envy, delivered him to be put to 
 death. " Licet invenire regionem ubi venena non 
 sunt, quemadmodum affirmant de Creta; at non 
 licet invenire Rempublicam quae non alat invi- 
 diam/' as Plut. in Moral. Some countries there 
 be, where no venomous creature lives, as they 
 say of Candy ; but none where the poison of 
 envy is not found. Yea, so monstrous is this 
 sin, that the envious man makes another's virtue 
 his vice, and another's happiness his torment : 
 " Invidia Siculi non invenere tyranni majus tor- 
 menUim." Whereas he, that rejoiceth at the good 
 of another, is thereby made partaker of it : For 
 " Tolle invidiam, et tuum est quod habeo: Tolle 
 invidiam, et 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 
 
The Consider ator considered. 7 
 
 performed which was undertaken, but also more 
 than could justly be expected; should, notwith- 
 standing, meet with some disaffected 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 
 account themselves the better by how much they 
 speak the worse of others : for " Glorias comes 
 invidia;" and it never was the hap of any book, 
 yet, to meet with no opposition ; Z pvifoU olurs^oT 
 as Clemens Alex, observed long since. " Deus 
 omnibus placerenon potest; et tu placere credis?" 
 said Jul. Seal. God himself cannot please all 
 men; and how can any of us then hope for it? 
 Erasmus's complaint was just against his cen- 
 surers : " Superbum est de libro sententiam ferre 
 quern non intelligis, superbius et de eo quern ne 
 legeris quidem." Praef. eadem. Yet we find 
 usually, that this envious humour is attended with 
 ignorance: " Vituperant quas ignorant," said 
 Tertul. Ignorance is the greatest enemy to any 
 kind of knowledge ; and Jos. Scaliger met with 
 such, of whom he writes, " Quicquid eorum cap- 
 turn superat erratum vocant, et quod non intelli- 
 gunt pro inscitia sua damnant :" how this may be 
 applied, I leave to the judgment of others. This 
 I find 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 Original 
 
8 The Considerator considered. 
 
 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 Copies and Editions, which bear wit- 
 ness to the authority and integrity of the Originals, 
 and serve as so many glasses to represent the true 
 sense and meaning of them to succeeding ages, 
 and to preserve the sacred truth to posterity, as 
 far as human industry can reach, against the cor- 
 ruptions and false glosses, wherewith Sectaries 
 and Heretics, (who in no age so abounded as in 
 this,) would adulterate and embase 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. Wit- 
 ness a [F] late Pamphlet, pretending to the inte- 
 grity 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 sorry to find so much clean 
 paper fouled with so many palpable untruths, 
 wilful and studied calumnies, such contradictions, 
 tautologies, and impertinencies, as appear in those 
 Considerations; that, if they should be culled out 
 of the book, we might say of it, as Apollodorus 
 the Athenian of Chrysippus's writings, that if one 
 should take away t* «axot^»«, all that was either 
 
The Considerator considered. 9 
 
 none of his own, or nothing to the purpose, 
 xlm auTw o xa'fTjjj, they would be empty of all 
 matter. For there is scarce any thing true or 
 useful concerning the subjects here disputed, 
 which was not formerly said in those Prolego- 
 mena; nor any thing concerning the same which 
 is added by the adversary as his own, which is 
 not sufficiently confuted in the same Prolego- 
 mena. Not to mention the incoherence of the 
 things here handled, the whole being, " rudis in- 
 digestaque moles," a confused heap of Indepen- 
 dencies. 
 
 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 publicly own/' p. 329. " The leprosy 
 of Papists, crying down the Original Texts, is 
 broken forth among Protestants, with what de- 
 sign, to what end or purpose, he knows not ; God 
 knows, and the day will manifest." Epist. p. 14. 
 " That this design is owned in the Prolegomena 
 to the Bible, and in the Appendix; that they 
 print the Original 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 choose whether they will turn 
 Papists or Atheists." Epist. p. 9. " That there 
 
10 The Considerator considered, 
 
 are gross corruptions befallen the Originals, which 
 by the help of old Translations, and by conjec- 
 tures, may be found out and corrected/' p. 205. 
 " As pernicious a principle as ever was fixed upon 
 since the foundation of the Church of Christ/' 
 Epist. p. 21. " That it is the foundation of Ma- 
 hometanism, the chiefest and principal prop of 
 Popery, the only pretence of fanatical Antiscrip- 
 turists, and the root of so much hidden atheism 
 in the world/' p. 147. " That he fears the pre- 
 tended infallible judge, or the depth of atheism, 
 lies at the 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 trial 
 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. 
 " than such a figment should be admitted ; that 
 ( setting aside two Theses ) there is no opinion 
 ventilated among Christians tending to the de- 
 pression of the worth, and impairing the esteem, 
 of the Hebrew Copies, which is not directly, or 
 by just consequence, owned in these Prolego- 
 mena" p. 205. Hence are these tragical excla- 
 mations of " dreadful distemper, which may well 
 prove mortal to the truth of the Scripture," p. 314. 
 (i of horrible and outrageous violence offered to 
 
The Consideratoi* considered. 1 1 
 
 the sacred verity," p. 315. " that men take upon 
 them to correct the Scripture/' p. 344. " to cor- 
 rect the Word of God/' p. 180. These are some 
 of the expressions used by the author of the Con- 
 siderations, who yet writes " with all Christian 
 candour and moderation of spirit/' p. 151. " can- 
 didly for the sake and pursuit of truth, with a 
 mind freed from all prejudice and disquieting af- 
 fections/' p. 155. Now, those dangerous prin- 
 ciples, about which all this stir is made, are chiefly 
 reduced to two; (though many be pretended;) 
 
 1. That the Hebrew points (that is, the modern 
 forms now used, not the vowels and accents them- 
 selves, which are acknowledged to be coeve with 
 the other letters, and that the reading of the text 
 was never arbitrary, but the same before and after 
 the punctuation,) were devised and fixed by the 
 Masorkes 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 casual mistake of transcribers, yet in 
 matters of no moment,) which, by comparing 
 ancient Copies, 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, cc the uncertainty of all Divine 
 truth, that the Scriptures are corrupt, &c." And 
 hence are those fears and jealousies, Epist. p. 19. 
 which how justly deducible from these, or any 
 
12 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 other principles in the Prolegomena or Appendix, 
 shall hereafter appear. In the mean time, our 
 author practises what Quintilian said of some Ro- 
 man orators, who did causarum vacua convitiis 
 implere ; and, instead of arguments, loads his 
 adversary with reproaches, like that soldier in 
 Darius's army, (mentioned by Plutarch,) who, in- 
 stead of fighting with his hands, employed his 
 tongue in railing upon Alexander ; whereupon the 
 general struck him with his lance, and told him, 
 he hired him to fight, and not to rail. Who those 
 Protestants are that concur with the Prolegomena 
 in those Principles, the adversary is ashamed to 
 mention ; though he knew they were at large 
 cited in the Prolegomena; because their very 
 names would have spoiled his whole project, and 
 made his charge appear a mere calumny. They 
 are no other (concerning the novelty of the He- 
 brew punctuation) than Luther, Zuinglius, Bren- 
 tius, Pellican, (Ecolampadius, Calvin, Beza, 
 Musculus, Paulus Fagius, Mercer, Cameron, 
 Chamier, Piscator, Scaliger, Casaubon, De Dieu, 
 Grotius, Cappellus, Erpenius, Sixtinus Amama, 
 Salmasius, Schickard, Martinius ; also Rivet, 
 Spanhemius, Fest. Hommius, as appears by their 
 Epistles to Cappellus in his Defensio Critical, &c. ; 
 and amongst ourselves Archbishop Usher, Bishop 
 [G] Prideaux, Mr. Selden, Mr. Mede, Mr. Eyres, 
 and many others ; not to name those now living, 
 
The Considerator considered. 13 
 
 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 Linguists that this age hath pro- 
 duced, and best skilled in the Hebrew and other 
 Oriental learning. And for that other point of 
 Various Lections, not only the same men, but all 
 others generally which will believe their eyes, 
 (two or three excepted,) grant the same which 
 the author of the Prolegomena doth, and that 
 without any prejudice to the certainty or divine 
 authority of Scripture, as is shewed at large in 
 the Prolegomena ; and shall hereafter be made 
 manifest. Yea, our adversary himself frequently 
 confesses the same ; and saith, that " ocular in- 
 spection makes it manifest, that there are Various 
 Readings both in the Old Testament and the New; 
 and it is confessed there have been failings in the 
 transcribers, who have often mistaken ; and that 
 it is impossible it should be otherwise, &c."pp. 165, 
 191, 178,296; whereby he makes himself evi- 
 dently 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 there- 
 fore I may say unto him, " ex ore tuo," out of 
 thy own mouth shalt thou be judged, and use the 
 
14 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 words of the Apostle, Rom. ii. I. " Wherefore 
 thou art unexcusable, O man, that condemnest 
 another, for hereby thou condemnest thine own 
 self; for thou doest the same things." 
 
 VIII. When I first read this Pamphlet I stood 
 amazed at the strange boldness of the author, 
 charging the Prolegomena with such tenets and 
 assertions, which they are so far from maintain- 
 ing, that they do assert and prove the plain con- 
 trary, and that not obiter, or by the by, but ex 
 professo, in full tracts. As for instance the main 
 charge, p. 206. " that there are corruptions, yea 
 gross corruptions befallen the Original Texts, 
 which men by their critical conjectures may dis- 
 cover 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 
 supreme authority in all matters, and the rule to 
 try all Translations by ; that the copies toe now 
 have are the true transcripts of the first a.^ioy^<pa. 
 written by the sacred Penmen; that the special 
 Providence of God hath watched over these 
 books, to preserve them pure and uncorrupt 
 against all attempts of Sectaries, Heretics, 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 befal by negligence or inadvertency of 
 
The Considerator considered. 15 
 
 transcribers or printers, are in matters of no 
 concernment , (from whence Various Readings 
 have arisen,) and may by collation of other 
 copies and other means there mentioned be rec- 
 tified 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 con- 
 fused Considerations. And for gathering Va- 
 rious Readings by mere conjectures, the author 
 of the Prolegomena is so far from approving that 
 way, that he expressly rejects it, and gives reasons 
 against it. Prol. 6. sect. ult. which the author of 
 the Considerations, p. 209, 305, 307, doth also 
 acknowledge with thankfulness. 
 
 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 adversary's opinion, and 
 instead thereof substituting any lame consectary 
 which came suddenly into his distempered fancy. 
 For whatsoever might seem odious to vulgar ap- 
 prehensions, 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 controversy never truly stated, 
 not one argument faithfully recited, much less 
 answered, nor the tenth part of what is said in 
 
16 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 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 Prole- 
 gomena 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 judgment, that I should 
 not trouble myself with any answer. Besides I 
 have to deal with one so possessed with prejudice 
 and passion, and thereby so pertinacious in his 
 opinions, that 1 shall but JEthiopem lavare : he 
 may be convinced, but not converted, and will 
 hold his conclusion in despite of the premisses. 
 Neither is his authority of such weight with judi- 
 cious 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 dis- 
 praises trouble. " Declamationes ambitiosorum" 
 are only " otiosorum cibi," as Seal. Exerc. 307. 
 Nor is it my lot alone to be thus handled by him. 
 He lays 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 itself begins 
 already to serve for waste paper in grocers* shops, 
 and to vanish in thuris piperisve cucullos. 
 
The Consider ator considered. 17 
 
 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 Poly- 
 glotta, or the Prolegomena, and may simply 
 give credit to what he avers ; (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 judgment 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 Latin tract 
 upon an English stage ;) and withal lest he might 
 complain that he was neglected, or brag amongst 
 his ignorant proselytes that he could not be an- 
 swered ; and further seeing that there is as S. 
 Ambr. de Offic. i. c. 3. saith, otiosum silentium, 
 as well as otiosum verbum, and 1 would be loth 
 to be guilty of the one, as my adversary is of the 
 other ; and withal 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 employments wherein to 
 spend my hours,) both in right to myself, and 
 this Work of the Bible, and to all those reverend 
 and worthy persons, whose approbations have 
 commended it to the public, as also of all those 
 great and learned Divines and others, some of 
 
 vol. n. C 
 
18 The Considerator considered. 
 
 which I have now mentioned, who are involved 
 in the same cause, to take a brief view of these 
 Considerations ; and 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 public good of the Church ; 
 the truth asserted against his sophisms and de- 
 clamations ; the reader disabused ; their judg- 
 ments rectified, who may be misled by a popular 
 Pamphlet fitted for vulgar capacities not for 
 scholastical judgments ;' and all further error 
 and misconstruction prevented in what shall be 
 hereafter offered by him or others upon this ac- 
 count, so that he or whoever shall proceed in 
 this virulent way of censuring may be without 
 excuse. For as Ivo, 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, extrava- 
 gancies, and tautologies ; but only 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. 
 
Ike Considerate r considered. 19 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 I. The Occasion and Motives of publishing the Consider- 
 ations. II. The Adversary begins with an untruth. 
 III. His sinister Ends, writing in English against a 
 Latin Treatise, and yet in the same book writing in 
 Latin against the Quakers. IV. His love of the truth, 
 candid and sincere dealing. V. His dangerous As- 
 sertions against the Miracles wrought for Confirmation 
 of the Doctrine of the Bible, attested by the Catholic 
 Tradition of the Church of Christ. His affirming that 
 the Alcoran may vie Miracles and Traditions with the 
 Scripture, rejecting all Arguments for the Authority of 
 Scripture, save its own Light. VI. VII. No private 
 or new Opinions in the Prolegomena or Appendix. 
 VIII. The just grounds which the Publisher had to 
 speak of the Things excepted against. IX. The ground- 
 less fears and jealousies of the Adversary. X. His 
 Profession of no great Skill in this Learning, XI. 
 That he knows not the Authors of this Edition. XII. 
 His commending the Work, and the Authors of it, 
 XIII. His Consequences charged upon the Work, and 
 not upon the Workmen, as he pretends. XIV. The 
 true Cause of the Quarrel is against the Workmen. 
 XV. The Approbation of the Work by foreign Divines; 
 Buxtorfs Testimony of it. 
 
 I. Before we descend to particulars, it will be 
 needful to take notice, first, of the occasion and 
 motives of publishing these Consider ations y and 
 of their scope and end; concerning which the 
 author tells us, cap. i, sect. 1, 3, 3, &c. " that he 
 
 c2 
 
20 The Considerator considered. 
 
 had written a Treatise of the Divine Original of 
 the Scriptures, their authority, and self-eviden- 
 cing light ; and of the Providence of God in their 
 preservation ; which being ready for the press, 
 the Prolegomena and Appendix of the Bible 
 came to his hands, wherein the great bulk of Va- 
 rious 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 incum- 
 bent upon him, either to desist from publishing it, 
 or else of giving an account of those things in the 
 Prolegomena and Appendix, which tended to the 
 disadvantage of that great truth which he had 
 pleaded for." After, he tells us of " his fears and 
 jealousies of dangerous consequences, &c." and 
 gives some reasons to free himself from " any sus- 
 picion of malice or envy against the Biblia Poly- 
 glotta, or any that had a hand in publishing of it ; 
 and calls the searcher of all hearts to witness, 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 begin* 
 
The Consider ator considered. 21 
 
 with a palpable untruth ? He saith, the Prole- 
 gomena 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 Prolego- 
 mena and Appendix, before he had written the 
 first Chapter of his Treatise ; for in that Chapter 
 he writes, p. 16. that " Cappellus's pernicious 
 opinion about the uncertainty of Scripture is since 
 approved, and taken up by others/' quoting in 
 the margin Prolegomena ad Biblia Polyglotta ; 
 and p. 20. he saith, that " Iwnkvvsm is reckoned 
 amongst the Various Readings, gathered out of 
 Grotius, in the Appendix of the Biblia Poly- 
 glotta ;" by which it is evident that he had seen 
 and read the Prolegomena and Appendix before 
 he wrote that Treatise, and therefore that the 
 publishing of the Prolegomena and Appendix 
 after his Treatise was finished, could not be the 
 cause of writing these Considerations in vindica- 
 tion 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 
 contr aria facto is not to be admitted nor regarded; 
 for it is known that such protestations with men, 
 who make no scruple of affirming untruths, arise 
 
22 The Considerator considered. 
 
 often from the consciousness of the guilt of that 
 against which they protest. Quid verba audiam, 
 cum facta videam ? What are his Considera- 
 tions but a clear confutation of his protestation ? 
 
 III. If he had no sinister ends, why are they 
 written in English ; the opinions which he op- 
 poses, being written in that language wherein 
 learned men debate such things as are not fit for 
 popular judgments ? There could be no other end 
 in this, than to expose the Biblia Polyglotta and 
 Publishers of it to popular hatred. If his fears 
 and jealousies were so great, that these opinions 
 should gain credit, and be received, why did he 
 not write against them in the same language 
 which is generally known in Europe, whereby an 
 antidote might have been ready wheresoever they 
 came ? Whereas to write in English, cannot 
 hinder the spreading of them abroad ; nor was 
 there any great cause to fear that his English 
 readers could be infected by them, when they 
 understood them not, till he informed them. This 
 was not the true motive, or else he took not the 
 right course to prevent the mischief he seemed to 
 fear. But to confute a Latin Treatise in English, 
 and in the same book to add a Latin discourse 
 against the Quakers, who abhor all learning, and 
 account that language the language of the beast, 
 will, notwithstanding his weak apology, be judged 
 a solecism. 
 
The Considerator considered. 23 
 
 IV. Besides, if the truth, and love of the truth, 
 set him on work, why doth he fasten upon his ad- 
 versary things manifestly untrue, charging him 
 with opinions in one place, which in another he 
 clears him from ? his perverting his adversary's 
 tenets, propounding his arguments and answers 
 by halves, 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 deal- 
 ing, but chiefly his urging the consequences of Pa- 
 pists, Atheists, Antiscripturists,&c. whose advocate 
 he makes himself, rather than his adversary shall 
 escape. If he had not been led by some sinister re- 
 spects, knowing that pious and learned men, yea, 
 the learnedest Protestant Divines, and the best 
 skilled in the Eastern languages, that are this day, 
 and greatest assertors of the purity and authority 
 of the Original Texts against the Romish tenets, 
 have maintained the same, with the author of the 
 Prolegomena about the Hebrew punctuation, and 
 the Various Readings, and that himself acknow- 
 ledges 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 premises ; as indeed 
 they cannot : Whereas we see in him the clean 
 
24 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 contrary ; for he takes part with Papists, Atheists, 
 Antiscripturists, &c. and pleads their cause, and 
 labours to prove, even from such premises as 
 himself cannot deny, that those wretched conse- 
 quences do necessarily follow : Which shews 
 plainly, how he was blinded with prejudice and 
 passion, and how far he was from that candour 
 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 and 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 judgment think his pains might very 
 well have been spared ; and that, instead of prov- 
 ing the Divine Authority of the Scripture, he hath 
 much weakened 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, p. 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 universal tradition of 
 the Church of Christ, the most infallible and 
 greatest of all human testimonies, and next to that 
 which is immediately Divine ; and sticks not to 
 affirm, that the u Alcoran may vie miracles and 
 
The Consider ator considered. 2i 
 
 traditions with the Scripture/' 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 profess they have no 
 such report delivered them from their forefathers/' 
 p. 10S. " nor have we more inducement to give 
 credit to their assertions, than to a like number of 
 men holding out a tradition utterly to the con- 
 trary ?' that is, why we should believe the testi- 
 mony of the whole Christian Church in this point, 
 before the testimony of Jews, Pagans, and Ma- 
 hometans, to the contrary, p. 110. And whilst 
 he grounds all upon the inward light of the Scrip- 
 ture itself, 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, we 
 know, is by great and learned Protestant Divines 
 not allowed as a convincing argument in this case; 
 I submit it to the judgment of all men of common 
 reason and judgment, whether here be not a fair 
 pretence for Atheists and fanatical Antiscripturists 
 to reject the Scripture, when they find the argu- 
 ment from the miracles and universal tradition re- 
 jected 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 needful for 
 us, p. 34. and that there is no need of any further 
 witness or testimony/' p. 56.) not admitted as suf- 
 
 7 
 
26 The Considerator considered. 
 
 ficient by others ; and whether they may not with 
 more colour deduce their conclusions against the 
 Scriptures from these assertions of his, than 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 liffht" and find this denied bv learned 
 Divines of all sides, they have some colour to con- 
 clude, that there is no way at all to prove their 
 Divine Original, 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 coined 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 men's private writings, he 
 should not have thought himself, or his discourse, 
 concerned in them but because H they are laid 
 as the foundation of the usefulness of the Biblia 
 Polyglotta, 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 minds 
 of men by their constant neighbourhood unto ca- 
 nonical 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 
 
The Considerator considered. 27 
 
 Hebrew punctuation and Various Readings had 
 not been considered, nor meddled with, but for 
 that work to which they were adjoined ; which 
 because it was always maligned by himself and 
 some others of his party, therefore he took occa- 
 sion to quarrel with these matters, that so he 
 might bring the more obloquy upon the whole, 
 and make it the more suspected among the 
 vulgar. 
 
 VII. But whereas he makes them private opi- 
 nions, which now, being joined with a public 
 work, may pretend to public authority, he is 
 much deceived ; or else seeks to deceive his cre- 
 dulous reader : for how can they be private or 
 new opinions which have been publicly asserted 
 in print, before either of us were born ; and have 
 been, and are, still maintained by the chiefest and 
 learnedest Divines in Europe, and the best skilled 
 in Oriental Learning that have been, or are at this 
 day, in the Christian world ? Such as we have 
 already mentioned, chap. i. sect. 7. Can these opi- 
 nions be counted private, which have been, and 
 are, publicly asserted by men of such eminent 
 worth ? Or can their being mentioned before the 
 Biblia Polyglotia procure them more credit and 
 esteem, than 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 
 
28 The Considerator considered. 
 
 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 mode- 
 ration he uses, not magisterially imposing a belief 
 upon any, but leaving every one to his own liberty, 
 only shewing his reasons, why he judges one opi- 
 nion more probable than 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 fabric for the Old Testa- 
 ment, what was more proper than to speak of 
 the Hebrew Tongue ; the antiquity, use, excel- 
 lency, and preservation of it ; how the Text came 
 to be pointed; what the Keri and Ketib are, 
 which appear in most Hebrew Bibles ; and be- 
 cause 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 add to what others have done, 
 out of some ancient and choice MSS. or printed 
 Copies ; and to shew that the certainty and autho- 
 rity of Scripture, with the integrity of the Ori- 
 ginal Texts, is [H] not impeached or prejudiced 
 thereby, which he asserts upon such foundations 
 as will hold, and not upon sandy grounds, as his 
 
The Consider ator considered. 29 
 
 adversary doth, which will not stand, not argu- 
 mentis 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 groundless, they are not to be re- 
 garded; and that they are so, shall hereafter ap- 
 pear. We have had sad experience of the fruits 
 of causeless 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 than 
 the falling of the skies ; and to cry out, Templum 
 Domini, when they scarce believe Dominum 
 Templi; nor did the care of the Temple ever 
 enter into their hearts ; only by this artifice they 
 drive on their own designs, and expose their ad- 
 versaries to popular hatred. Those, that read 
 the Prolegomena (as he saith he hath done) with- 
 out prejudice, may find satisfaction enough to 
 prevent all fears and jealousies. As for those, 
 that with the spider suck poison out of the sweet- 
 est flowers from which the bee gets honey, I shall 
 
SO The Considerator considered. 
 
 not trouble myself to give them any more satis- 
 faction ; they shall bear their own guilt. I know 
 the difference between Scandalum datum, et ac- 
 ceptum; and shall say of such, as Christ did of 
 the Pharisees that were offended at his doctrine, 
 <e Let them alone, they are blind leaders of the 
 blind." 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 envy or malice ?" for, first, he 
 " neither professes any deep skill in the learning 
 used in this work, nor is ever like to be engaged 
 in any thing that should be set up in competition 
 with it nor, secondly, " doth he know the au- 
 thors 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 
 usefulness of the work, with the learning, pains, 
 and diligence, of those worthy persons that brought 
 it forth." To all which I answer, first, for his 
 skill in this kind of learning, I shall say nothing; 
 but leave others to judge, to whom he is better 
 known than to myself. He is one whom I never 
 saw, nor, till of late years, ever heard of ; and, till 
 now, he was mihi nec benejicio nec maleficio 
 notus. Bui the less his skill is in this kind of 
 
 6 
 
The Consider ator considered. 31 
 
 learning, I think the less will his censure be re- 
 garded among; wise men, and I shall have the less 
 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 persuade 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 expe- 
 rience makes it good, that those who have at- 
 tained a little smattering knowledge in any sci- 
 ence, especially in the Hebrew, are usually more 
 puffed up with that little umbratile knowledge, 
 though weak men otherwise, and of little judg- 
 ment in any real or rational learning, than those 
 who have attained a far greater measure; and 
 that they are more apt to censure and condemn 
 others. I have known some citizens, yea women 
 in London, who, having learned to read Hebrew, 
 were so conceited of themselves, that they have 
 despised the ablest divines about the city, and have 
 almost doubted of the salvation of all persons that 
 could not read Hebrew; and I remember that 
 Schickard, a very learned Hebrician, tells us, that 
 it is the guise of many, as soon as they understand 
 three words of Hebrew, presently they are so con- 
 
32 The Considerator considered. 
 
 ceited of their own abilities, that they betake them- 
 selves to the writing of grammars ; and condemns 
 himself for his folly in that kind when he was but 
 a novice, attempting that of which he was after- 
 ward 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 judgment, "he could not believe that any 
 learned man could in good earnest maintain that 
 opinion, but that some did it merely to shew their 
 wit." This is therefore no argument of our ad- 
 versary's freedom 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 pre- 
 sent, have said the same with the author of the 
 Prolegomena; and that the chief est of our own 
 nation in that learning have had some hand in, 
 or have at least approved, this Edition, and those 
 things which he so much mislikes. It might have 
 been fit for him, and no way unbecoming his 
 greatness, to have forborne awhile, and waited to 
 see what those who are known to be of great 
 judgment in these matters, of which this nation 
 hath more than ever heretofore, would have said, 
 and what their judgment had been, than for him, 
 (who I think will not think himself fit to be paral- 
 leled with many,) presently to engage with such 
 
The Consider ator considered. 33 
 
 violence and to condemn opinions, which, as ap- 
 pears by his discourse, he either did not thoroughly 
 weigh, or doth not fully understand. But he, that 
 looks through a green glass, judges every thing 
 green which he sees, when only 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 heresy or schism. 
 
 XII. For his commending the work, and the 
 authors of it, which he promises upon all occa- 
 sions ; his whole discourse shews what his com- 
 mendations are, when he charges the work with 
 " setting up Atheism, Popery, fanatical Antiscrip- 
 turism, Mahometanism," 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 t When he 
 inveighs against all the ancient Translations, " as 
 set up in competition with the Text/' Epist. p. 9. 
 " to correct the Word of God," p. 180. " to correct 
 the Scripture," p. 344. that they "will be found 
 upon trial to be such as many will be ready to 
 question the foundation of all;" p. 206. when 
 he tells us " of such dreadful distempers as will 
 prove mortal to the sacred truth of the Scriptures," 
 
 VOL. II. D 
 
34 The Considerator considered. 
 
 p. 314. " of horrible and outrageous violence of- 
 fered to the sacred Hebrew verity," p. 315. and 
 " rather" wishes that fC 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 usefulness of it, and the 
 pains of the contrivers ? What more bitter re- 
 viling speeches could be uttered against the most 
 profane atheistical pamphlets which this age hath 
 produced? Against [I] Hobbes's Leviathan, and 
 the like? What is this but to cast dirt in one's 
 face, and yet to persuade 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, 
 et condolentis affectu proferri," when it serves but 
 as a foil to what follows, and as a shoeing-horn 
 to draw on some disgraceful aspersion the better, 
 and make the crime be thought the greater. Saint 
 Cyprian, Epist. 2. compares such to wrestlers, 
 u qui antagonistas luctantes altius tollunt, quo 
 vehementius illidant/' who lift their antagonist 
 the higher, that they may give him the greater 
 falL And therefore S. Jerom ad Pammach. et 
 Ocean, saith, that such commendation is t( hono- 
 rifica contumelia," an honourable reproach. It 
 is 4f callidum nocendi artificium," as another calls 
 
The Considerator considered. 3b 
 
 it, a crafty kind of artifice to do mischief. In 
 the mean time it is some comfort when " ne ini- 
 mici quidem vituperare possunt, nisi simul lau- 
 dent," as Plin. lib. iii. Ep. 12. ivhen 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 con- 
 sequences 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 Maho- 
 metans for their Alcoran with the tradition of 
 the Church for the Scriptures, and laying all 
 upon the light and power of the word itself, doth 
 thereby make way for atheists, and fanatic per- 
 sons, &c." and should think to salve all with this 
 distinction, that he charges not the author, but 
 the book, with these inferences ; would not he 
 think himself concerned in the charge, and the 
 distinction to be a mere mockery ? 
 
 XIV. The truth therefore is, whatsoever is by 
 
 d 2 
 
36 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 him pretended, and so it is generally known and 
 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 depress the worth of the book, because such 
 men have had the honour to bring it forth. 
 Whereas had himself and those of his judgment 
 been the publishers, it would have been free from 
 all these imputations, and cried 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 ruin of this work, and 
 thereby to gain some reputation amongst his dis- 
 ciples ; that so, from the lustre of this work, he 
 might be better known and admired. Nothing is 
 more evident than that he hath studiously laboured 
 to scrape together whatsoever might, with any 
 colour, be objected against it; and, when he 
 wanted real grounds for his calumnies, to feign 
 whatsoever he thought might render either it, or 
 the publisher, obnoxious to popular hatred; so 
 that whatever motives he had, it could not be the 
 love of the truth that stirred him up. 
 
 XV. Whatsoever his ends or aims were, the 
 work hath had approbation from all ranks of men 
 both at home and abroad, who are best able to 
 
The Consider ator considered. 37 
 
 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 borne good fruit, there had been no stones 
 thrown at it. For as Plut. te ubi nullum lumen, 
 ibi nulla umbra ; ubi nulla felicitas, ibi nulla invi- 
 diam I could produce the judgment of the best 
 learned in Europe, expressed by several letters 
 out of France, Germany, the Low Countries, 
 Flanders, Italy, and other places, concerning this 
 work ; that one styles it opus plusquam regium, 
 another opus divinum, another opus heroicum,&c. 
 But I will content myself at this time with the 
 testimony of D. Buxtorf, 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 
 judgment about the Hebrew punctuation, &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 Typo- 
 graphica hactenus excudit. — Nitida sunt omnia, 
 et, quantum deprehendere possum, correcta. Ita 
 raptus sum sanctissimi pariter et elegantissimi 
 operis aspectu, ut si quid ad illud exornandum 
 consilii et auxilii conferre possum, id non solum 
 prompte sim facturus, sed honori quoque mini 
 
38 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 ducturus." In another, of March 28, 1658, st.n. 
 " Quanta cum voluptate ego sanctissimos et in- 
 credibiles vestros labores inspexerim. quanto cum 
 gaudio eos exceperim, ill i testabuntur, quibus ego 
 opus vestrum ostendi et commendavi,, &c." This, 
 and more to his purpose, writes this great He- 
 brician, whose judgment is enough in the opinion 
 of all knowing men to preponderate all the light 
 and frivolous cavils of many Considerators. 
 
The Consitlerator considered. $9 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 I. The particulars of the Charge many; the principal art 
 about Various Readings, and the Hebrew Points. 
 II. The general Charge of depressing the esteem of the 
 Hebrew Copies proved false. III. Ten particular Charges 
 in the Considerations, proved to be false; the words of 
 the Prolegomena set opposite to them. The Prolego- 
 mena affirm the direct contrary to what is charged. 
 The Adversary's candour and love of the truth, &c. 
 
 1. We come now to the particular charges and 
 criminations of the Consider ator. We find them 
 several times mustered up : first, in the Epistle, 
 p. 9. then, in the Considerations, p. 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 [K] Various Headings of 
 the Original Texts, and the [L] Novelty of the He- 
 brew Punctuation ; 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 Originals, and those other con- 
 sequences which he would fasten upon the Bihlia 
 Polyglotta. For our more orderly proceeding, 
 we shall first lay down the several particulars 
 charged upon the Prolegomena, as they are exhi- 
 bited in the Considerations ; and then what it is 
 
40 The Considerator considered. 
 
 which is asserted or maintained in the Prolego- 
 mena ; and, after, we shall proceed to the exami- 
 nation of the particulars. 
 
 II. But before we enter upon the several heads, 
 we must consider one general charge mentioned, 
 p. 205. and which includes most of the rest, viz. 
 " that excepting that figment of the Jews corrupt- 
 ing the Bible, out of hatred to the Christians, and 
 the thesis preferring this or that Translation in 
 general above the Original, 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 Prolegomena." This will appear 
 to be most untrue in the severals, by him men- 
 tioned, 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, unless he mean that some caba- 
 listical mysteries, (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 con- 
 tempt, are not owned. Such rabbinical fancies 
 taken up by some Christians, it is true, are re- 
 jected 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 
 
The Consider ator considered. 41 
 
 and groundless conceits of such idle pretenders, 
 but rather impaired and lessened. But as for the 
 due honour and integrity of the Original Texts, 
 and preserving the true esteem of them to poste- 
 rity he doubts not, but that it will be acknow- 
 ledged by all unprejudiced persons, that he hath 
 done more than hath been hitherto done by any. 
 
 III. After this general calumny, our Author 
 instances in divers particulars to make good his 
 general charge, which are reckoned up in divers 
 places : In the Epist. p. 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 dis- 
 persed in these Considerations. And that the 
 truth or falsehood of them may the better appear, 
 we shall withal set down the several tenets, as 
 they are asserted in the Prolegomena, parallel 
 with them. 
 
 Considerations. 
 1. That the Original Co- 
 pies of the Scripture are 
 corrupt, yea, have gross 
 corruptions in them, so 
 that they are no ground for 
 faith to rest upon, p. 147, 
 158, 159, 206, 314, 345, 
 and Epist. p. 9, 10, 21. 
 
 Prolegomena. 
 1. That the Original 
 Texts are not corrupted 
 either by Jews or others, 
 either before Christ, or 
 since, but are pure, entire, 
 authentic, and of supreme 
 authority in all matters of 
 faith, and the rule whereby 
 to try all Translations, 
 Proleg. vii sect.l. proved 
 at large. 
 
42 The Comiden 
 
 Considerations, 
 
 2. That there were other 
 Copies of the Original He- 
 brew and Greek, differing 
 from those we now en- 
 joy, which are quite lost, 
 p. 206, 311, 312. Epist. 
 p. 10. 
 
 3. That the same fate 
 hath attended the Scrip- 
 ture in its transcriptiou, as 
 hath done other books, 
 God's providence watch- 
 ing no more over this than 
 other books, p. 173, 206. 
 
 or considered. 
 
 Prolegomena. 
 
 2. That the Copies we 
 now have, are the true 
 transcripts of the co/to- 
 7§a(pa of the Prophets and 
 Apostles, and the very 
 same, proved, Prolegom. 
 vii. sect. 16. 
 
 3. That the Scripture 
 hath been subject to casual 
 mistakes of transcribers 
 and printers in small mat- 
 ters, of no moment, which 
 by comparing of other Co- 
 pies, and by other means, 
 may be rectified and 
 amended ; and that in this 
 it hath had the same fate 
 with other books often 
 transcribed ; yet the spe- 
 cial care and providence 
 of God hath so watched 
 over it, that in all things 
 which concern faith and 
 good life, and in all mat- 
 ters of weight and mo- 
 ment, no error hath befal- 
 len it ; and that his special 
 providence will preserve it 
 entire against all endea- 
 vour of heretics or others 
 to the end of the world, 
 Prolegom. vi. sect. 1, 3. 
 
The Consider atov considered. 43 
 
 Considerations. 
 
 4. That it is lawful to 
 collect Various Readings, 
 and to correct the Text, 
 upon mere conjectures, p. 
 151, 206. 
 
 5. That the Keri and 
 Ketib are Various Read- 
 ings, and gathered by some 
 Judaical rabbins out of an- 
 cient Copies, partly their 
 critical amendments, or 
 conjectures, p. 157, 206. 
 
 6. That the end of print- 
 ing ancient Translations in 
 this Bible, is by them, to 
 correct the Original Text, 
 though there be no diver- 
 sity in the Copies, p. 158, 
 206, 311,314. Epist.p.21, 
 25. to set them in compe- 
 tion with the Text, p. 174, 
 311, 315. Epist p. 9. to 
 correct the Word of God. 
 p. 180. to correct the 
 Scripture, p. 344. 
 
 Prolegomena. 
 Prolegom. vii. sect. 12, 15. 
 Prcef. p. 1. 
 
 4. That to collect Va- 
 rious Readings by mere 
 conjectures, (when there is 
 no difference in the Copies 
 or Translations,) is not 
 safe : It would open a win- 
 dow for busy wits to de- 
 prave the Scripture, and 
 to turn it into any sense, 
 &c. Proleg. vi. sect. 12. 
 
 5. That the Keri and Ke- 
 tib, are not critical amend- 
 ments, or conjectures of 
 the rabbins, but Various 
 Readings, gathered out of 
 ancient Copies, Proleg. 
 viii. sect. 25. 
 
 6. The end of these an- 
 cient Translations is, first, 
 they served as pipes to con- 
 vey those living waters 
 from the fountains to par- 
 ticular nations ; secondly, 
 to confirm our faith by 
 their consent and harmony 
 among themselves, and 
 with the Original Texts in 
 all matters of moment ; 
 thirdly, to bear witness to 
 the purity and integrity of 
 
44 The Considerator considered. 
 
 Considerations. Prolegomena. 
 
 the Original Texts, by their 
 consent and agreement 
 therewith and to prevent 
 all future corruption by 
 sectaries, heretics, or ne- 
 gligence of scribes ; fourth- 
 ly, to explain the true sense 
 and meaning of the Text, 
 as it was understood in the 
 first and purest times, &c. 
 Proleg. v. sect. 1, 2, 3. 
 7. That the Hebrew 7. That the Hebrew 
 points or vowels and ac- tongue consists of vowels 
 cents, are a novel inven- and consonants, and al- 
 tion of some Judaical rab- ways had vowels, as all 
 bins, about five or six other languages have, viz. 
 hundred years after the * *) N to which some add 
 giving out of the Gospel, H and y all which anciently 
 p. 157. Epist. p. 9. by Josephus, St. Jerom, 
 
 Origen, &c. were called 
 vowels, as in other Eastern 
 Tongues; the Syr. Chald. 
 Arab. &c. By their twenty- 
 two letters, of which these 
 are part, the Hebrews 
 might and did express ail 
 their words, as well as all 
 other nations, who had 
 their letters and alphabets, 
 with the names and order 
 of them, from the Hebrew 
 long before the invention 
 
The Consider ator considered. 45 
 
 Considerations. Prolegomena. 
 
 of points. They had also 
 the accents, though not ex- 
 pressed by any points, as 
 other Languages, Syriac, 
 Arabic, Latin, English, &c. 
 which have accents ob- 
 served in punctuation, 
 though not fixed by notes 
 to every syllable, Proleg. 
 iii. sect. 49, 47, 53. 
 
 8. That the Masorites, 
 when they invented the 
 modern points, (that is, the 
 forms or figures now used,) 
 did not invent any new 
 sounds or pronunciation, 
 nor pointed the Text at 
 their pleasure, but accord- 
 ing to the received reading 
 then in use, to facilitate 
 the reading, and take away 
 all ambiguity. This is 
 proved, Proleg. iii. sect. 
 51. according to that read- 
 ing which was derived to 
 them from the sacred pen- 
 men, sect. 53. 
 
 9. Though the punctua- 
 tion be the invention of the 
 Masorites, et humani ju- 
 ris y quoad apices et figu- 
 ras, yet that which is sig- 
 
 8. That the vowels and 
 accents are the arbitrary 
 invention of the Masorites, 
 who fixed them to the text 
 as they pleased, p. 208. c. 
 4, in the Contents, and p. 
 217,218. 
 
 9. That it is lawful for 
 us to change the vowels 
 and accents at our plea- 
 sure, p. 250. and 217,218, 
 258. 
 
46 
 
 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 Considerations. 
 
 Prolegomena. 
 nified by the points, viz. 
 the sound and sense of the 
 words, is altogether of Di- 
 vine authority, and ac- 
 knowledges God only for 
 its Author, and ought not 
 to be altered at any man's 
 pleasure, Proleg. iii. sect. 
 51. 
 
 10. That our reading de- 
 pends not upon the Maso- 
 rites, nor is it therefore 
 true, because it is from 
 them, but because they ex- 
 press in their punctuation 
 the true sense of the Holy 
 Ghost, which was dictated 
 to the holy penmen, and 
 by them committed to writ- 
 ing, and preserved both by 
 Jews and Christians, ibid. 
 Proleg. iii. sect. 51. 
 
 By these particulars we see the candour of the 
 adversary, and how much the love of the truth, 
 (as he saith, p. 155.) prevailed with him, when, 
 in relating the opinions in the Prolegomena, al- 
 most every thing is perverted or falsified ; the 
 Prolegomena asserting the clean contrary in 
 most things to what he would impose upon them ; 
 
 8 . . 
 
 10. That the whole cre- 
 dit of our reading and in- 
 terpretation of Scripture, 
 as far as regulated by the 
 present punctuation, de- 
 pends only on the faithful- 
 ness and skill of those 
 Jews, whose invention this 
 work is asserted to be, p. 
 157. 
 
The Consider ator considered. 4t7 
 
 which is an evident sign of a bad cause. For as 
 the poet said, Eurip. Phoeniss. 
 
 - — 6 S* aSixoi Xoyos 
 
 Noff£v h dvru, tyagfMixuv 3s7t«< aotyuv. 
 
 The truth is sound, her words are plain, 
 Falsehood is sick, she needs must feign. 
 
 Besides these, there are divers other things ob- 
 jected against the Various Readings exhibited in 
 the Appendix, against collecting Various Read- 
 ings out of Translations (though no such be ga- 
 thered in the Appendix,) about the old Hebrew 
 Character, the knowledge of the Hebrew drawn 
 from the Translation of the Seventy, against the 
 several Translations printed in this edition of the 
 Bible, his consequences on the behalf of Atheists, 
 Papists, &c. in some of which there is something 
 of truth mixed with many untruths and calumnies, 
 as shall appear when we come to handle each by 
 itself. 
 
The Considerator considered. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The first and main Charge, that the Original Text hath 
 gross corruptions. II. Not any words brought out of 
 the Prolegomena to prove this, but consequences of his 
 own. The Prolegomena maintain expressly, that the 
 Originals are not corrupt, either by Jews or others, 
 either before or since Christ ; that casual mistakes may 
 happen by negligence in matters of no moment, yet 
 there are means to rectify and amend them when disco- 
 vered. III. The Prolegomena falsified. Various Read- 
 ings acknowledged by all. Proved out of Bishop Usher, 
 Buxtorf, fyc. Granted by the Adversary often, yet 
 sometimes denied in the Hebrew. VI. Wherein the Au- 
 thor of the Considerations and the Author of the Prole- 
 gomena differ. The Adversary calls all Various Read- 
 ings corruptions, and so makes the Originals to be 
 corrupt. Various Readings not properly corruptions, 
 proved out of Buxtorf. VII, VIII. His arguments 
 against Various Readings. IX. Answered. They 
 prove only no wilful corruptions. X. The Tal- 
 mud sometimes reads otherwise than in our Copies, 
 proved by Buxtorf. Of our Saviours silence about 
 these things. XI. The care of the Church in pre- 
 serving the Copies of the Bible. XII. XIII. Whether 
 there be no means of rectifying any error crept in, but 
 only by revelation. That all Copies in public use agree 
 in all saving truth revealed, and in all matters histo- 
 rical, prophetical, fyc. of any weight; that other 
 smaller differences may be rectified. XIV. All revealed 
 truth comes under our care. XV. No one Copy can 
 pretend to be a standard for all others. No vulgar 
 Copy was in possession over all the world before print- 
 ing or since. XVI. The uncertainty of the Adversary's 
 
The Consider ator considered. 49 
 
 rule, viz. That every tittle of revealed truth is in one 
 Copy or other. Impossible to examine all the Copies in 
 the world. 
 
 I. We shall begin first with the m^in charge, 
 viz. That the " Original Texts are corrupted, yea 
 have gross 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 Ori- 
 ginals/' and p. 159. ec This voluminous bulk of 
 Various Lections, as nakedly exhibited, seems suf- 
 ficient to beget scruples and doubts about the 
 preservation of the Scripture by the care and pro- 
 vidence of God." Now if they do only intimate, 
 and seem to intimate corruptions, and only seem 
 siifficient to beget scruples, then they do not cer- 
 tainly infer any such charge; and if they seem 
 so only at the first view, then, upon a further 
 view, it may be that they will not seem to intimate 
 corruptions. But though he speak thus modestly 
 sometimes, yet in other places he charges home, 
 p. 1 58. ' ' It is declared (in the Prolegomena ) 
 that when gross faults or corruptions are befallen 
 the Originals, men may by their faculty of critical 
 conjectures amend them, and restore the native 
 lections that were lost," p. 206. " that where 
 gross faults are crept into the Hebrew Text, men 
 may by their own conjectures find out Various 
 Readings, &c." Epist. p. 21. " Their principle 
 vol, n. E 
 
50 The Considerator considered. 
 
 is, that there are sundry corruptions crept into 
 the Originals, &c. and this receives countenance 
 from these Prolegomena." So p. 311, 325, and 
 in many other places he disputes against this po- 
 sition, as asserted in the Biblia Poiyglotta, ¥ that 
 the Original Texts are corrupted." 
 
 II. But how is this charge proved ? Here we 
 may observe, that neither in this nor any other of 
 his other charges doth he relate any of the words 
 of the Prolegomena ; which if he had done, the 
 falsehood had been discovered. But supposing 
 that the ordinary reader would not trouble him- 
 self to look into the Prolegomena, but take all 
 upon his word, he substitutes in the place of his 
 adversary's opinion, some of his own consectaries, 
 which to him seemed to follow upon it; which he 
 falls upon with great violence. Which kind of 
 dealing is very unjust, to charge an adversary 
 with consequences, as his proper tenets, when he 
 denies such consequences ; especially, when as he 
 directly and not by consequence affirms, and 
 maintains, the contrary to what is charged. Yet 
 this is our case here. What the author of the 
 Prolegomena delivered concerning the [M] purity 
 and authority of the Original Texts, is to be seen 
 Proleg. vii. de Textuum Originalium integritate 
 et auctoritate, and Proleg. vi. de Variis Lectioni- 
 bus; whither I must refer the reader for full satis- 
 faction. The sum is this, as hath been touched 
 
The Consider ator considered, 51 
 
 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 it 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 
 falsify the Hebrew Text, but that the fraud 
 would have been presently discovered. That it 
 is incredible : (as Saint Augustine saith, DeCivit. 
 1. 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. vii. p. 52. and the arguments to the con- 
 trary answered. 2. That neither the Hebrew 
 nor Greek Texts of the Old or J\ew Testament 
 are corrupted by heretics or others, but that 
 they remain pure and entire; and that they al- 
 ways were, and still are, the authentic 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 Original Texts, 
 and those pure and free from all corruption ; 
 and therefore those that say they are corrupt 
 must prove them so to be y and shew when and 
 
 e2 
 
52 The Consider atov considered. 
 
 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 
 authentic, as being in possession of their autho- 
 rity. Nor can any general corruption be proved 
 from a few particular instances, but only the 
 casual 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 casual mistakes or involuntary 
 errors may creep into the Text, from whence va- 
 rious Readings have risen both in the Old and 
 New Testament ; yet the Original Text remains 
 pure and authentic, 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 errors 
 may be amended, and the true reading esta- 
 blished. 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 dispersed all the 
 world over, which were daily read, expounded, 
 and considered of, and every word weighed and 
 examined, either in public 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 ; 
 
The Considerator considered. 53 
 and for other mistakes, there are means to rec- 
 tify them when they are discovered, as the ana- 
 logy of faith, the writings and comments of the 
 Ancients, collation of ancient Copies, consulting 
 ancient Translations, especially the Scripture 
 itself, the comparing of parallel places, consi- 
 dering antecedents and consequents, #c. That 
 these Various Readings seldom change the sense, 
 or if they do, yet both are agreeable to the ana- 
 °f faith; and if, notwithstanding these 
 means, both readings seem equally balanced, 
 there can be no danger, to follow which we will. 
 These things are handled, Proleg. vi. sect. 1,2, 3, 
 4, 5,6, &c. and Proleg. vii. sect. 15, 16, &c. 
 
 III. By this it appears what the author of the 
 Prolegomena holds about the purity and autho- 
 rity of the Original 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 alleged, only p. 158. he quotes in the marg. 
 Proleg. vii. sect. 12. and Proleg. vi. sect. 12. In 
 both which places there is not one word of cor- 
 ruptions in the Original Text, much less of gross 
 corruptions, or of connecting them by men's own 
 conjectures, unless " errata et mendse leviores" 
 s '© n 'fy gross corruptions, and " quae aliorum co- 
 dicum et interpretum collation e, aliisque niediijj 
 
54 The Considerator considered. 
 
 (de quibus supra) tolli et emendari possunt," do 
 signify correcting by men's oxen conjectures. 
 It is said indeed, Proleg. vi. 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 the other place (nor indeed any where else) 
 there is not one word of corruptions, nor more 
 said than what all men that will believe their 
 eyes have said before, That there have been ca- 
 sual mistakes by transcribers in matters of no 
 concernment, or that there are Various Read- 
 ings in the Hebrew and Greek Texts. This is 
 proved by the general consent of all, and by sun- 
 dry 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 Cappel. p. 21, [N] writes thus, 
 " Sententia mea haec perpetua fuit, Heb. Vet. 
 Test. Codicem scribarum erroribus non minus 
 obnoxium esse quam Novi Codicem, et omnes 
 alios libros, &c." Buxtorf, de Pnnct. Antiq. part. 1 . 
 c. 16. and frequently in his Vindiciae Textus Hebr. 
 affirms the same. " Non dicam quod Sanctcs 
 
The Considerate) considered. bh 
 
 Pagninus olim in Praef. Gram, suae scripsit et 
 dixit, Hebraica voluraina nec in una dictione cor- 
 rupta roperies, neque enim existimo talia esse, lit 
 in nullo particulari punctilio, apiculo, aut litera, 
 a primis Mosis et Prophetarum autographis apo- 
 grapha unquam decesserint, aut nullum omnind 
 vitium vel levissimum in ea irrepserit. Nam ne 
 ipsi quidem Judaei hoc asserunt, qui et antiquitus 
 jam exemplaria corrupta, sed ab Esdra iterum 
 correcta, et restituta fuisse, et posterioribus tem- 
 poribus cum inter celebres auctores turn inter ex- 
 emplaria varia dissensiones et discrepantes quas- 
 dam lectiones notant. Tales sunt, piaster notas 
 t« Keri uketif, dissensiones de quarundam vocum 
 lectione inter Judaeos Orientales et Occidentals, 
 et inter Ben Ascher et Ben Naphtali : sic memo- 
 rant aliquando nec dissimulant varietates nonnul- 
 las ex libris quibusdam MSS. celeberrimis et 
 magnae auctoritatis, ut e. g\ librorum Hierosoly- 
 mitanorum, Babylon icorum, Hispaniensium, Ex- 
 emplaris Ililleliani, Pentateuchi cujusdam Hieri- 
 chuntini, Sinaitici, &c. Mentionem etiam faciunt 
 punctatorum, cum in genere, turn nominatim 
 quorundam in specie, R. Moses Londinates, Rabbi 
 Gersom Parisiensis, <&c. et dicunt quod unus seu 
 liber seu punctator vocem hanc sic, alius aliter, 
 punctet. Monuerunt etiam librorum correctorum, 
 et per consequens minus correctorum. Redar- 
 guunt etiam saepe exemplaria quaedam diserte 
 
56 The Considerator considered. 
 
 erroris ; sed an propter istas varietates in dubium 
 vocant auctoritatem totius codicis Hebraici, et 
 omnium apographorum ? ant an propterea aliqua 
 cum specie,, aut aliquo cum fundamento id fieri 
 potuit? Nequaquam." 
 
 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 privileged, 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 author of these Consi- 
 derations frequently confesses the same. For 
 though sometimes when he was in haste, as p. 180, 
 or in passion, he denies any Various Readings in 
 the Hebrew Text, 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 Latin 
 Copies of the Scripture, but deny it as to the He- 
 brew ? it is founded on no less stable bottom than 
 this experience, that whereas we evidently find 
 Various Lections in the Greek Copies which we 
 enjoy, and so grant that which ocular inspection 
 evinces to be true ; yet they are none of them 
 able to shew out of any Copies yet extant in the 
 
7 he Consider ator considered. 5? 
 
 world, or that they can make appear ever to have 
 been extant, that ever there were any such Va- 
 rious Lections in the Originals of the Old Testa- 
 ment." — Yet in other places (contradicting him- 
 self, which is not unusual,) he frequently grants 
 Various Readings both in the Old and New, p. 13. 
 <e 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 Testa- 
 ment and the New, the Keri and Ketib, the Va- 
 rious Readings of Ben Ascher, and Ben Naph- 
 tali, the Oriental and Occidental 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 
 deserve 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 less importance is 
 acknowledged." Again, p. 2li6. " It is known it 
 is granted, that failings have been among them, 
 (the transcribers,) and that Various Readings are 
 from thence risen. " And p. 191, " That so many 
 transcriptions should be made without some va- 
 
58 The Consideralor considered. 
 
 nation is U tup aJW'T«w, &c." Not to add more, 
 Epist. p. 13. " God, by his providence preserving; 
 the whole entire, suffered this less 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. vii. sect. 14. Potuit quidem 
 Deus omnes librorum sacrorum scriptores vel 
 typographos dya.^a.^rmq redder e, si ipsi ita visum 
 fuisset, sieut Apostolos et Prophetas Spiritu suo 
 gubernavit, ut in eorum autographis nullum 
 esset erratum. At sicut Ecclesice doctores omnes 
 erroribus obnoxios esse voluit, licet primos Ec- 
 clesice proceres ab omni errore immunes reddi- 
 dit, ut scilicet omnes excitaret ad diligentem 
 usum mediorum, quibus Veritas Divina conser- 
 vari posset ; sic dicendum de exemplaribus, apo- 
 graphis, mendis, et erroribus levioribus, qu<e 
 Jidei et moribus non officerent } obnoxia esse 
 voluit, ut diligentiam nostram in codicum sa- 
 crorum puritate conservanda exerceret ; nam 
 vigilanlibus et non dor micntibus Deus succurrit, 
 et opera ac ministerio hominum uti decrevit ad 
 oraculorum suorum conservationem, #c. 
 
 VI. Thus we see how our Author affirms the 
 same thing himself, which he finds fault with in 
 another; neither do I know wherein there is any 
 real difference, or more said in this matter by the 
 Prolegomena than is granted in the Consider a- 
 
The Considerator considered. 59 
 
 tions, excepting only in that of collecting Various 
 Readings out of some Translations; from which 
 wc shall shew in its proper place, that no cor- 
 ruption of the Original Texts can be inferred. 
 And herein our author differs not only from the 
 author of the Proleg. but from all or most divines 
 and expositors whatsoever. Those Various Read- 
 ings, which the Proleg. affirm may he sometimes 
 gathered out of Translations, are of the same 
 nature with these which the Considerator grants 
 may be gathered out of Original Copies, viz. of 
 no weight, containing nothing repugnant to the 
 analogy of faith ; and further are not asserted to 
 be of equal authority or certainty with those that 
 are gathered out of the Hebrew 7 and Greek Texts : 
 and therefore the present reading of the Original 
 Copies ought not, barely upon the different read- 
 ing of a Translation, to 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. 1 12. "Porrd 
 omnind, ut supra monui, differentiam faciendam 
 censeo inter Corruptionem et Variam Lectionem." 
 
60 The Considerator considered. 
 
 Corruption is properly a wilful falsifying- upon 
 design ; as where heretics wilfully 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 inadvertency, 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 clearly 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 clearly proved to 
 have been at first errors of the scribe, are not 
 properly Various Readings ; as is confessed in the 
 Prolegomena vi. sect. 6. But if our Adversary 
 will needs call Various Readings corruptions, he 
 shall give me leave to call such corruptions Va- 
 rious Readings ; and the rather, because I do 
 no where in the Prolegomena grant Corrup- 
 tions, but acknowledge only Various Readings. 
 And he must know withal, that hereby he makes 
 himself guilty of that crime which he would 
 fasten upon others, and by the Apostle's sentence, 
 Rom. ii. 1. is unexcusable ; being condemned by 
 himself, by granting the Original Texts to be 
 
The Consider ator considered. 61 
 
 corrupt, because he grants Various Readings as 
 well as others. And upon this account, all Copies 
 that are, or ever have been, (the autographa of 
 the sacred Penmen only excepted,) must be said 
 to be corrupt ; because no scribes or printers ever 
 had a privilege of not erring, and so all their fail- 
 ings, though never so small, must make the Text 
 corrupt. And as the Originals, 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 
 saith, Vindic. Part. I. c. iv. p. 67. " Facile po- 
 tuit error unius exemplaris corrigi ex alio meliore, 
 et tandem emendatum satis exemplar cudi, licet 
 non ad extremum usque apicem, (istud enim facile 
 concedo, necesse, nec fuisse, imo nec esse posse.") 
 And Vindic. Part. II. c. xii. p. 800. he saith, The 
 Scripture is so preserved, " ut nulla, vel paucis- 
 sima alicujus momenti (r<px\(xxToc, in iis demon- 
 strare possint." He that saith, there are paucis- 
 sima alicujus momenti, grants that there are some 
 that are of moment; which is more than the 
 Prolegomena do any where affirm. And in the 
 same place he adds, " Libros sacros a Mosis, 
 Prophetarum, et Esdrae, temporibus ad nos usque, 
 sine ulla lectionis varietate pervenisse, quia nul- 
 libi asserimus, nulla etiam ratione probatio a no- 
 bis exigi potest." With these learned men con- 
 
62 The Considerator considered. 
 
 cur, [O] Arnol. Bootius, a fierce defender of the 
 Hebrew Text against Cappellus, Epist. ad Usse- 
 rium, sect. 64. and in his Vindic. Hebr. cap. xxiii. 
 p. 221. where he affirms our present Copies to 
 agree with the first auro^apa, but excepts two 
 cases, <e Praeterquam in duobus casibus modo me- 
 moratis, ubi, vel de vitio, vel de varia lectione, 
 apertissime constat." 
 
 VII. Our Adversary, notwithstanding, pro- 
 ceeds upon this supposed charge, (of which him- 
 self is most guilty,) to prove that which is not 
 denied ; nay, which was before proved to his 
 hand, Prolegomena vii. where also the arguments 
 to the contrary are answered : where the reader, 
 if he please, may find the chief arguments used 
 in the Considerations, with some others by him 
 omitted, to prove that the Original Texts are not 
 corrupted ; so that I might spare both my own 
 and the reader's 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 Va- 
 rious Readings ; we will take a brief view of 
 them. 
 
 VIII. Chap. ii. 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 
 
The Considerator considered. 63 
 
 out authentic copies, which made it impossible for 
 them to be corrupted, either wilfully or by negli- 
 gence ; the public Copies preserved in the Syna- 
 gogues, and after in the Churches ; the daily read- 
 ing, studying, and weighing every word ; the 
 weight! of every letter in this book, which the 
 transcribers knew to be the Word of the <rreat 
 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 than in our Copies ; our Sa- 
 viours silence not reproving the Jews on this ac- 
 count, 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 watchfulness of 
 the Jews and Christians over one another, &c." — 
 All which, as they prove the Text not to be wil- 
 fully corrupted, and that not any errors of conse- 
 quence 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 Author's purpose.) Of which we can 
 
 6 
 
64 The Comiderator considered. 
 
 have no clearer argument, than the experience of 
 all ages ; that notwithstanding all the care and 
 diligence that could be used, yet Various Read- 
 ings have been still observed in the best Copies, 
 which must needs come at first from the negli- 
 gence, or involuntary error, of the scribe ; as is 
 confessed frequently by this author himself, and 
 by all others that write of these things : so that to 
 prove this, were to hold up a candle to the sun. 
 We have more Copies of the Bible now, than 
 ever were in any age; and more that pretend to 
 the knowledge of it. For, as S. Jerom, Epist. 
 ad Paulinum, " Scripturae ars est quam omnes 
 sibi vendicant." And printing is a surer way to 
 prevent errors than transcribing by far ; and yet 
 have many errors daily escaped in printing the 
 Bibles, and those undiscerned ; many passing for 
 current, many years not observed ; and some of 
 them altering the sense. 
 
 IX. The multitude of Copies, public and pri- 
 vate, and of all such that studied and read them, 
 might rather prove the Greek LXX. which was 
 in more frequent use than the Hebrew, both 
 among Jews and Christians, to have been free 
 from all error, than the Original Texts ; and so 
 the Vulgar Latin, the Syriac, and other Trans- 
 lations, of which were many thousand more 
 Copies, and those studied, and read by thousands 
 more than the Hebrew ; yet I know our author 
 
The Consider ator considered. 65 
 
 will not grant that they were Translations free | 
 from all error, for he inveighs against them all as 
 most corrupt, Cap. ult. Our printers also know, 
 as well as the transcribers did of old, the weight 
 and worth of what they print; and yet we know 
 they are not free from error. The care taken 
 amongst the Jews, from time to time, to get cor- 
 rected 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, to have taken 
 such pains, and spent so many years, in the ac- 
 curate writing of one Copy, if errors had not still 
 crept into other Copies ? 
 
 X. That of the Mishna and Gemara, (which 
 are the integral parts of both the Talmuds, the 
 one being as the Text, and the other as the Com- 
 ment, and yet distinguished here from the Tal- 
 muds,) that they never read one word otherwise 
 than they are in our Copies, is utterly void of 
 truth, though repeated, p. 271. Witness Bux- 
 torf himself, (one that I believe, is more versed in 
 the Talmud than either of us,) Vindic. 1. 2. c. xii. 
 p. 808. " Public^ dico et scribo, inveniri qui- 
 dem in Talmud, quod Gemara in quibusdam locis 
 dissentiat a Masora, hoc est, a lectione in npstris 
 codicibus recepta, &c." This cannot stand with 
 our Adversary's rash assertion, nor would it have 
 been granted by Buxtorf to Cappellus, if it had not 
 
 VOL. II, F 
 
66 The Considerator considered. 
 
 been certainly true. The argument from our Sa- 
 viour's silence was brought, Prolegomena vii. to 
 prove that the Original Texts were not corrupted 
 before his coming ; the end of whose coming was 
 not to correct every letter or word that was mis- 
 taken in any Copy of the Bible, but to assert the 
 true sense against the corrupt glosses of the Scribes 
 and Pharisees, and to restore it to its original in- 
 tegrity, if any wilful corruptions had been, or 
 errors of any moment, which might have endan- 
 gered the saving truth ; of which kind we say 
 there are none ; nay, so far were our Saviour 
 and his Apostles from observing every casual slip 
 of a scribe in Hebrew Copies, that they [P] made 
 more frequent use of the Greek LXX. than the 
 Hebrew, and quoted places out of the Old Testa- 
 ment according to that Translation, even where 
 there seems to be some difference from the He- 
 brew, 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, Prolegomena ix. de Graecis 
 Version ibus, sect. 38, 39, &c. 
 
 XI. But besides these reasons mentioned, chap, 
 ii. of the Considerations, we find some others 
 scattered here and there, which we will briefly 
 examine, p. 168, 169. " He finds fault with the 
 arguing from the oscitancy and negligence of 
 transcribers of heathen authors, Homer, Aristotle, 
 
The Consider ator considered. 67 
 
 &c. to shew that errors might creep into the Ori- 
 ginal Texts." This, he saith, " is not tolerable 
 in a Christian, or any one that hath the least 
 sense of the nature and importance of the Word 
 of God." He urges likewise, u the care of the 
 heathen about their Sybils' verses/' p. 171. "that 
 the Roman Pontifices would not do it negli- 
 gently nor treacherously, &c." Answer: It is 
 not denied, but that the Church of Christ had a 
 religious care, that the Copies transcribed for 
 public use especially, should be free from all er- 
 rors, as much as could be ; and that far more care 
 was taken about them, than 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 less mo- 
 ment, do not make all their Philosophy, Histories,, 
 &c. uncertain ; and therefore the like Various 
 Readings in some Copies of the Scripture, do 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 
 than any had, or could have, in preserving any 
 human writings, the Sybils' verses, or any other 
 of the heathen's pretended oracles ? But though 
 their care was great, and therefore no wilful errors 
 could pass, nor mistakes in any matter of con- 
 
 f2 
 
6& The Considerator considered. 
 
 cernment ; yet that they did never err, not in the 
 least, needs no other confutation, than the com- 
 paring- of all Copies, MSS. or printed, which 
 have had errors of this kind, more or less, accord- 
 ing to the diligence and care of the scribe or cor- 
 rector, as ocular inspection demonstrates. 
 
 XII. Again, p. 17, 18, &c, he tells us, "the 
 relief provided by Cappellus, 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 Original, 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 fun- 
 damental truth, yet to depress the sacred truth of 
 the Original into such a condition, as wherein it 
 should stand in need of such an apology, and that 
 without any colour or pretence from discrepance 
 in the Copies themselves that are extant, 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 unbecom- 
 ing 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 determining any thing 
 about it, but only the writing from whence it is 
 
The Considerator considered. 69 
 taken, it being* wholly of Divine revelation, which 
 is only expressed in Scripture ; so that, upon sup- 
 posal of any corruption there is no means of rec- 
 tifying it, as there is in correcting' a mistake in 
 any problem of Euclid, &c. Nor is it enough to 
 satisfy us, that the doctrines above mentioned are 
 preserved entire ; every tittle or ma of the Word 
 of God must come under our care and consider- 
 ation/' — He provides us therefore better security, 
 p. 198. He tells us of " a Copy which was a 
 standard to try all others by. The Vulgar Copy 
 we use was the public possession of many gene- 
 rations ; and, upon the invention of printing, it 
 was in actual possession throughout the world. 
 This must pass 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 tittle of the Word of 
 God: these Copies are the rule, standard, and 
 touchstone, of all Translations, &c." 
 
 XIII. For answer: First, for what Cappellus 
 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 lion, who durst not look him in the face 
 while he was alive. But as for the Prolegomena, 
 I do not only say, that all saving- fundamental 
 truth is contained in the Original Copies, but 
 that all revealed truth is still remaining entire; or 
 
70 The Considerator considered. 
 
 if any error or mistake have crept in, it is in 
 matters of no concernment,, so that not only no 
 matter of faith, but no considerable point in his- 
 torical truth, prophecies, 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 rectify- 
 ing or restoring, is a very strange assertion. May 
 not the consideration of antecedents and conse- 
 quents, of places parallel, of the analogy of 
 faith, the testimonies, expositions, and transla- 
 tions of the ancients, &c. help to rectify a corrup- 
 tion 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 theorem of Euclid, 
 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 Original Texts, which several read- 
 ings cannot both be from the sacred penmen, 
 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 rectify any 
 
 6 
 
The Consider ator considered. 71 
 
 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 cor- 
 rected. 
 
 XIV. Nor is it any where said in the Prolego- 
 mena, that there is any corruption in any funda- 
 mental truth crept into the Original Copies, or in 
 any saving doctrine, whereby it may need recti- 
 fying 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 ne- 
 glected. But for all the care we can use, such 
 lesser varieties will happen, which being involun- 
 tary, and of little or no importance to the sense 
 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 privilege since the first 
 ccvToygoKpoi 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 
 
72 The Considerator considered. 
 
 which we must have recourse, and in which every 
 tittle is entire and perfect. Some Copies there 
 have been more correct than others, which de- 
 serve all due regard. But to find one that is free 
 from all mistakes, even in the least, he will find 
 a hard task ; yea, Buxtorf grants it impossible, as 
 we have seen. What that Vulgar Copy was, 
 which, before printing was invented, was in pos- 
 session all the world over for many generations, 
 and must pass 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 Utopian 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 
 only one Copy, and did not collate divers of the 
 best they could find, or that there is no difference 
 in the printed Copies, I mean, not typographical 
 errors, but such as were in the Copies which they 
 followed ? Tf any such standard were in being, 
 surely we have it printet} in some Edition of the 
 Bible. Is it, for the Hebrew Text, the Venice 
 Edition ? and if so, which of those Editions ? or 
 Munster's, or Stephanus's, or the Regia, or 
 Plantine's, or which of these ? And for the Greek, 
 
The Considerator considered. 73 
 
 let him declare whether it be Erasmus's Edition, 
 or the Complutense, or Stephens's, or Beza's, or 
 which it is. For that there are varieties and dif- 
 ferences 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 Prole- 
 gomena, 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 chimera, a groundless fancy, and a vain 
 imagination of that which never was since the 
 dvToygot<pK 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 en- 
 tire 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 tittle of the Word of God. Or suppose 
 
74 The Considerator considered. 
 
 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 ap- 
 peal 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 public 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 ways 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 
 sense 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 choose 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 
 sense, yea that some have quite contrary signifi- 
 cations, as ft and a 1 ? which occur fourteen or fif- 
 teen times f? 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 
 
The Considerator considered. 75 
 Readings, why may it not be so for the rest ? 
 This, and less than this, he confesses is enough 
 for Translations. And why this, which we have 
 laid down, may not serve for the Originals, I 
 cannot see; seeing the people's faith is imme- 
 diately guided by Translations, and not one of a 
 thousand understands the Originals. 
 
76 
 
 The Considerator considered. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 I. The second Charge; that we say, that our present Copies 
 are not the same with those anciently used. IT. The 
 Prolegomena affirm and prove that our Copies are the 
 same. III. Various Readings gathered out of Transla- 
 tions do not prove the contrary. IV. That all Books 
 whatsoever, except the first Auroypapa, are subject to 
 Various Readings, yet the same Books. V. All dif- 
 ferences of a Translation from the Original 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, Bux- 
 torf, and others, say the same with the Prolegomena, 
 VIII. The Prolegomena often acknowledge God's spe- 
 cial providence over these Books. IX. A fourth 
 Charge, that we may correct the Original upon con- 
 jectures, proved a calumny out of the Adversary's 
 words. X. The Prolegomena expressly maintain the 
 contrary. 
 
 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 en- 
 joy," 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 co- 
 incident with the former, is yet distinctly pro- 
 pounded ; and so we shall distinctly handle it. It 
 
The Considerator considered. 7? 
 
 is indeed so gross a calumny, that the Author of 
 it confesses, p. 312. " that he doth not remember 
 that the Prolegomena do any where expressly af- 
 firm, that they of old had other Copies than those 
 we now enjoy," and therefore he would gather it 
 by consequence from some other position main- 
 tained in the Prolegomena. And what is that ? 
 viz. the Prolegomena affirm, that Various Read- 
 ings may sometimes be gathered out of some 
 ancient Translations ; which the Adversary thus 
 expresses very untruly, as we shall shew anon ; 
 e< that by the help and use of Translations conjec- 
 turing how they read in their books, either with 
 other words or letters, consonants or points, we 
 may collect Various Lections, as out of the Ori- 
 ginal ; which opinion he sees not how upon the 
 matter it differs from that of Cappellus." 
 
 II. I answer, first : Not to question how truly 
 he charges Cappellus, 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 expressly say, that 
 they had other Copies of old, he could not but 
 remember where they expressly say yea, &c. Pro- 
 legomena vii. sect 16. (which, p. 146. he saith 
 he hath looked through.) There, as we have al- 
 ready noted, it is proved that the Copies we now 
 have are the true transcripts of the avroypxtpoi 
 of the Prophets and Apostles, and the very same; 
 
78 The Considerator considered. 
 
 and therefore here we have another proof of our 
 Author's candour and sincerity, imposing upon his 
 adversary as his proper tenets his own illogical 
 consequence, when he knew that his adversary 
 directly and not by consequence maintains the 
 contrary. But this is familiar with him, to de- 
 duce any odious consequence from his adversary's 
 assertion, which he never goes about to prove, 
 because it cannot be proved ; but takes it for 
 granted, and upon that disputes against his ad- 
 versary, when as indeed he fights with his own 
 shadow. 
 
 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 only in matters of no weight 
 or concernment, and such as were at first casual 
 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 like- 
 wise gathered out of the Originals, 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 Originals. 
 
 IV. Nay, if this argument be sufficient, then it 
 
The Consider ator considered. 79 
 
 will prove that we have no true Copies of any 
 books in the world ; for there were never any yet, 
 (except the holy penmen,) which have been so 
 privileged, that the transcriber could not err, or 
 that Various Readings, after frequent transcrip- 
 tions, might not be gathered. Then farewell 
 not only Scripture, but all other monuments 
 either of divine or human learning: Then we 
 have no true Copies of the writings of any of the 
 Fathers, Commentators, Councils, nor of any 
 authors of Philosophy, Law, Physic, Mathema- 
 tics, History, &c. but all the old and genuine 
 Copies are lost, and those we have are corrupt, 
 spurious, and false ; and so the foundation of all 
 divine and human 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 d\jtoy^x<px, and yet stick not to con- 
 fess 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, Bux- 
 torf saith it is impossible. I would fain know 
 what it is, that makes a Copy not to be the same 
 with the Original ? Must there not be some sub- 
 stantial difference, and that in matters of weight 
 and 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 
 
80 The Considerator considered. 
 
 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 Original, though there be some 
 small difference in things not concerning the sum 
 or substance of the book ? Are not our Statute- 
 books and Acts of Parliament, now printed, the 
 same with the Original Copies, though the writers 
 or printers be not infallible, but it may be hare 
 in some words or letters of no concernment, by 
 casual mistake, varied from the Originals ? Be- 
 sides this, doth not our Adversary grant, that 
 errors and casual mistakes have happened in mat- 
 ters of less moment, from whence Various Read- 
 ings are sprung, which by his own logic should 
 make the Copies not to be the same ? 
 
 V. But from whence doth he draw this conclu- 
 sion ? From this : " that by the help and use of 
 Translations conjecturing how they read in their 
 books, either with other words or letters, conso- 
 nants or points, we may collect Various Readings, 
 as out of the Original." But this is most par- 
 tially 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 Original are not to be reckoned among 
 Various Readings. Proleg. vi, sect, 8. 11. The 
 
The Consider ator considered. 81 
 
 mistakes of the translator, his paraphrastical 
 expositions, adding or omitting some words 
 which he judged needful or needless to the sense, 
 the errors of the scribe, §c. must be accurately 
 distinguished from the Various Readings ; but 
 when no probable cause can be given why the 
 translator so rendered some places, save the am- 
 biguity 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 the words so in his 
 Copy, as they are by him rendered. Nor 2. do 
 we say, that they always read with other letters 
 or toords, consonants or points ; for this might 
 infer that all differences of Translations are 
 from the difference of Copies, because all con- 
 sist in other letters or words ; but when the let- 
 ters are alike in figure or sound, or there is 
 only a metathesis of the same letters, or ambi- 
 guity 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 Originals ; for there is an express differ- 
 ence made between those gathered out of the 
 Originals, and those out of Translations ; and 
 of these it is said, Proleg. vi. sect. 8. Non pari 
 certitudinis gradu incedere ; they are not of the 
 
 VOL. II. G 
 
82 The Considerator considered. 
 
 same certainty with the other : so that' we see 
 herein is nothing true either in the premises or in 
 the conclusion. I leave therefore this considera- 
 tion ; wishing he would hereafter consider better 
 what he writes. 
 
 VI. In the third place, he charges us with say- 
 ing, ' 1 That the same fate hath attended the Scrip- 
 ture 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. vii. sect. 12. but never 
 cites the words; and yet adds, p. 173. u 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 
 and care of his Church, of whose faith and obe- 
 dience that Word is the rule, requires other 
 thoughts at our hands \" In this we find the like 
 truth and candour as in the rest : For, first, he 
 makes us to speak that of the Scripture in general, 
 which is only 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 prtesertim 
 antiquis, et sapius descriptis, experientia plane 
 testatur. Hoc a nemine hodie aperte negari 
 video, &c. In hisce, in these things, that is, to 
 
The Consider ator considered, S3 
 
 be subject to errata el mendce leviores, by negli- 
 gence of transcribers, that is, to Various Read- 
 ings. Is this the same, as to say, that God's pro- 
 vidence extends no more to the preservation of 
 these books than of all others, which the Prole- 
 gomena are so far from affirming, as is here sug- 
 gested, that the contrary is both in the same place, 
 and elsewhere, frequently maintained ? 
 
 VII. The words precedent are, Etsi textus 
 originarii non sint a Judceis, vel aliis, studiose 
 corrupt^ sed in omnibus quce ad fidem et mores 
 spectant puri et incorrupti ; tamen scribarum 
 vncuria, vel temporum injuria, in textus origi- 
 narios errata qucedam et mendas leviores irre- 
 pere potuisse, et irrepsisse negari non potest, 
 quce aliorum codicum et interpretum collatione, 
 aliisque jnediis ( de quibns supra ) tolli et emen- 
 dari possunt. Nam in hisce sacra volumina 
 idem fatum cum aliis subiisse, &c. What is 
 more said here than was said by all others before, 
 that have written of Various Readings ? Buxtorf, 
 Sixtin A mama, and others, whose words are 
 brought in the same Prolegomena vi. de Variis 
 Lectionibus, say the same. It shall suffice, to 
 note the words of the reverend and learned Usher, 
 there also quoted, Epist. ad Lud. Cappel. p. 21. 
 " Sententia mea haec perpetua fuit, Hebraeum V. 
 Testamenti Codicem scribarum erroribus non mi- 
 nus obnoxium esse qnam Novi Codicem, et omnes, 
 
 g2 
 
84 The Considerator considered. 
 
 alios libros," What difference is there between 
 the Prolegomena and the words of this reverend 
 primate ? And doth not the Consider ator him- 
 self 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 God's special providence in pre- 
 servation of these books, the denial whereof, he 
 saith, borders upon atheism, he might have read 
 in the same Prole gom. vi. sect. 15. that though 
 there be such differences in some small matters 
 of no consequence, it a tamen invigilavit provi- 
 dentia Divina, Ecclesiceque diligentia f ut in Us 
 quce ad salutem necessaria sunt, et ad Jidem et 
 mores spectant, omnia pura et 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 L lib. ii. c. 13. 
 who, after he had said the same, with the Prole- 
 gomena, of Various Readings in the Scripture, as 
 in other books, and that they do not infer any 
 uncertainty, as some men fear, adds, Quamvis 
 exemplum sit valde dispar y nam multo aliter 
 invigilavit providentia Divina, ut sacros Scrip- 
 turce Codices prcestaret immunes, &c. Thus we 
 see in the same place which the Adversary alleges 
 to make good his charge, the contrary directly 
 proved ; which he could not choose but observe ; 
 
The Considerator considered. 85 
 
 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 
 publisher's words, p. 1. Etsi autem in Librorum 
 sacrorum conservatione Ecclesice opera usus sit 
 Deus } tamen speciali providentia ita eis invigi- 
 lavit, ut ab ipso primo inspiratos esse admiranda 
 ipsorum conservatione monstravit, dum Divina 
 hcec jidei speique nostra monnmenta tantis mu- 
 nivit prcesidiis, ut per tot seculorum decursus, 
 inter tot imperiorum ruinas, tot regnorum mu- 
 tationes et xocrxxXva-^, inter tot librariorum 
 transcriptiones exemplaribus inter nationes dis- 
 persis, tanta terrce marisq; intercapedine dis- 
 junctas, contra hcereticorum fraudes et tyran- 
 norum furores, qui ea vel corrumpere vel abolere 
 conati sunt, sarta tecta ad nostra tempora con- 
 servata, et ad ultimum ternporis articulum per- 
 mansura sint. I appeal to all men, even to the 
 adversary himself, what could be said more fully 
 concerning God's 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 consi- 
 dered what he hath charged him with, for then the 
 labour of both might have been spared. 
 
86 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 IX. The ninth thing charged upon the Pro- 
 legomena, is p. 206. " That when gross faults 
 crept into the Hebrew Text, men may by their 
 own conjectures find out Various Readings and 
 p. 159. " it is declared, that where any gross 
 faults or corruptions are befallen the Originals, 
 men may by their faculty of critical conjecturing 
 amend them, and restore the native lections that 
 are lost, though in general without the authority 
 of Copies this be not allowed." For this he 
 quotes, Prolegom. vii. sect. 12. I see our Author 
 is still semper idem ; a thread of untruth and ca- 
 lumny runs through the whole book ; yet in this, 
 of gathering Various Readings upon mere con- 
 jectures, he is less excusable than in some of the 
 rest ; not only because this whole charge is 
 plainly rejected and disproved in Prolegom. vi. 
 sect. ult. and reasons are given why it cannot be 
 allowed ; but also because the adversary acquits 
 the author of the Prolegomena of it in other 
 places, and acknowledges the same with thanks. 
 For within two leaves he writes, p. 209. " In- 
 deed, I do not find his (Cappellus's) boldness in 
 conjecturing approved in the Prolegomena.' " 
 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 critical amendments of the rabbins, 
 is not allowed" (by the Prolegomena) " for 
 
The Considerator considered. 8? 
 
 which latter part of his determination we thank 
 the learned Author," p. 307. " In the mean 
 time, I cannot but rejoice that Cappellus's fancy 
 about these things/' ( about conjecturing) " than 
 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 Prolego- 
 mena vii. sect. 12. where I desire the reader to 
 see if there be one word, either of gross faults, 
 or of amending by conjectures ; unless, as I said 
 before, errata et mendce leviores do signify gross 
 faults, et quce ex aliis codicibus aliisque mediis 
 de quibus supra emendari possunt, do signify 
 the amendment of them by men's own conjectures. 
 Lastly, in that, p. 159. now cited, it may be ob- 
 served, that he confutes his charge in the pro- 
 pounding of it ; for he saith, this way of correct- 
 ing upon conjectures in general, without the 
 authority of Copies, is not allowed of; which is 
 a plain confutation of itself ; for none ever de- 
 nied, but that errors in one Copy might be cor- 
 rected by other Copies ; and how then are they 
 to be found out and corrected by men's own con- 
 jectures ? But thus he variously relates the opi- 
 nion of his adversary, that either he might make 
 his opinion hateful to his unwary reader, who 
 haply might not read both places, or else that he 
 
88 The Considerator considered. 
 
 might have a starting hole, if he should be chal- 
 lenged for falsifying, saying, that in another 
 place he related all truly ; and yet that relation is 
 no less contradictory to itself, than the other is 
 false : for to restore a reading by mere conjec- 
 tures, and to restore it by another Copy, is a plain 
 contradiction. 
 
The Considerator considered. 89 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The fifth Charge, that we may gather Various Readings 
 out of Translations, aggravated by the Adversary and 
 odiously propounded. II. Nothing affirmed in the Pro- 
 legomena, but what most Protestants, Divines, and 
 Commentators say. III. Four Uses of Translations ex- 
 pressed in the Prolegomena. IV. The present Reading 
 is in possession of its authority. V. Translations not 
 equalled to the Original, but subservient to them : Of 
 correcting the Word of God. VI. To correct an error 
 crept into the Original, is not to correct the Original. 
 
 VII. Translations useful when any doubt ariseth about 
 the true Reading. The present Reading not to be al- 
 tered merely upon a Various Reading of a Translation. 
 
 VIII. In what Case Various Readings may be gathered 
 out of a Translation. IX. Such Various Readings not 
 of equal authority with those gat hered out of the Ori- 
 ginals. X. Various Readings out of Translations are 
 not in matters of weight. XI. That Various Read- 
 ings may be gathered out of Translations, proved by 
 ancient and modern Divines, and those great assertors 
 of the purity of the Originals. XII. The words of 
 Reverend Usher. XIII. Proved by divers instances 
 undeniable, XIV. and XV. The Adversary's bold- 
 ness, affirming there never was any Copy differing in 
 the least from the present, disproved at large, contra- 
 dicted by himself. XVI. The Keri and Ketib, what 
 they are. XVII. The sixth Charge, that Keri and 
 Ketib are critical Notes of the Rabbins, shewed to be 
 false. XVIII. What the Prolegomena deliver about the 
 
 Oi iginal ; that the most are Various Readings gathered 
 
90 The Considerator considered. 
 
 out of ancient Hebrew Copies. XIX. The Adversary 
 clears the Prolegomena from his own Charge. XX. He 
 is not at leisure to prove their divine Original. XXI. 
 Conceiving the Notes out of Grotius. XXII. His great 
 Worth and Learning. XXIII. The Reason of collect- 
 ing these Notes out of him ; not as specimina of Various 
 Readings by Conjectures, of which scarce one or two in 
 the Pentateuch ; the most are Various Readings out of 
 Greek Copies of the Old Testament. The Publisher not 
 bound to assert all that is said by him, or any other, in 
 their Notes exhibited in the Appendix. 
 
 I. The fifth charge, which is that Gorgon's 
 head, which so much affrighted our Adversary, 
 as he saith, Epist. p. 19. and startled him, p. 146. 
 is, " the gathering of Various Readings out of 
 Translations ;" and that, as he saith, Epist. p. 25. 
 " when there is no difference in the Copies." 
 This he frequently ingeminates, p. 158, and 206, 
 314, 311. This he makes " as pernicious a prin- 
 ciple 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 
 punctuation, he must needs cry out, <Fo? <r7w, 
 " as not seeing any means of being delivered from 
 utter uncertainty in and about all sacred truth/' 
 p. 25. Hence are those tragical exclamations, 
 fearful outcries " of correcting the Original by the 
 help of Translations," p. 311. " of printing the 
 Originals, and defaming them, gathering up Trans- 
 
The Consider ator considered. 91 
 lations of all sorts, and setting them up in com- 
 petition with them/' Epist. p. 9. <c of advancing 
 Translations unto an equality with the Originals, 
 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 own by the altar of God, and to equal the 
 wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the 
 wisdom, care, and providence of God/ 1 p. 174. 
 if of horrible and outragious violence offered to the 
 sacred Hebrew verity by learned mountebanks," 
 p. 315. " This is to correct the Scripture," p. 
 344. " To correct the Word of God," p. 180. 
 <e To amend it at the pleasure of men," p. 347. 
 * Of dreadful distemper, which may prove mor- 
 tal to the truth of the Scripture," p. 314. And 
 therefore he wishes, <e that all Translations were 
 consumed out of the earth, rather than this one 
 figment should be admitted," p. 221. 
 
 II. One would think that reads these passages, 
 that all religion lay at the stake ; that some 
 strange new doctrine were delivered never heard 
 of before, which at once would overthrow the 
 whole foundation of Christianity : when as it will 
 appear upon the matter, that nothing is said in 
 the Prolegomena more than what the best and 
 learnedest Protestant Divines, and, in a manner, 
 all Commentators have said and practised before, 
 and those the greatest assertors of the Hebrew 
 
92 The Considerator considered. 
 
 verity ; and that the gathering of Various Read- 
 ings out of Translations was never absolutely by 
 any denied before. 
 
 III. What the Prolegomena do affirm con- 
 cerning the use of Translations the reader may 
 see. Prolegom. v. De Versionibus Scripturae. 
 Where it is proved out of Theodoret, Jerom, 
 Chrysostom, and others, that, in the first and 
 purest times of the Church, the Bible was tran- 
 slated into most Vulgar Languages ; the Egyp- 
 tian, Persian, Indian, Armenian, Scythian, Sy- 
 riac, Ethiopic, Gothic, &c. besides the Greek 
 and Latin. And concerning the use and benefit 
 of Translations, it is reduced to these heads: 
 First, because all cannot understand the Origi- 
 nal Tongues ; therefore Translations serve as so 
 many pipes 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 wonderful works of God in their 
 own tongue. Secondly, the wonderful [Q] con- 
 sent of all Translations in all things of moment, 
 though made at several times, and in several na- 
 tions so far distant from one another, joined to- 
 gether only by the same common faith, proves 
 these Books to be of Divine Original, and to 
 have no other author but God, who so wonder- 
 fully preserved them, among so many changes 
 and revolutions, against the fury and malice of 
 
The Considerator considered. 93 
 Satan, and all his instruments, persecuting- ty- 
 rants, and subtil heretics and sectaries, who la- 
 boured either to corrupt or abolish the same. 
 Thirdly, they bear witness to the integrity of 
 the Original Texts, by their consent and har- 
 mony therewith, as is shewed in divers particu- 
 lars, where some would have them to be cor- 
 rupted, as that of [R] Shiloh, Gen. xlix. 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 heretics, or negli- 
 gence of the scribes ; for no considerable mis- 
 takes could pass in all, and so many Translations, 
 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 sense 
 and meaning of the Scripture, as it was under- 
 stood 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 
 learned men deserve all due regard, much more 
 those Translations (which also are often para- 
 phrastical) which represent the sense of so many 
 great and famous ancient Churches: especially 
 those in the Eastern tongues, which, because of 
 their nearness and affinity with the Original, are 
 fittest to express the force and energy of divers 
 words and phrases in Scripture; and, because of 
 
94 The Considerator considered. 
 
 their antiquity and general use, were of greatest 
 authority among- Jews or Christians. This is 
 the sum of what is delivered concerning Transla- 
 tions in general there, or of any in particular 
 elsewhere; with which how that agrees with 
 which our Adversary charges the Prolegomena 
 of correcting the Originals, yea of correcting the 
 Word of God by them, may easily appear. 
 
 IV. Before we come to his reasons against Va- 
 rious 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 pre- 
 sently follow, that the present reading is corrupt 
 or false, or must forthwith be corrected by the 
 Translation. For though there were some differ- 
 ence 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 for- 
 merly read otherwise, unless 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 usual reading upon mere conjectures, 
 unless evident necessity require, Prol. vii. sect. 23. 
 
The Considerator considered. 95 
 
 In omnibus ad Textum Originarium recurren- 
 dum est, nisi ubi plane constat err or em in Tex- 
 tum irrepsisse; ubi verb hoc probari non potest, 
 necessarid ad Textum, ut ad normam, omnes 
 Versiones probandce sunt : nec satis est cum 
 Bellarmino dicere, Ex fontibus, si puri sunt, 
 corrigenda sunt Versiones ; hoc enim supponi 
 debet fontes esse puros, donee contrarium li- 
 quidd probetur secundum regulam Jurisconsult 
 torum : Quilibet prcesumitur esse bonus, donee 
 constet de contrario. Nec tamen ex quibusdam 
 instantiis probatur generalis fontium corruptio, 
 sed tantiim in his locis lapsum esse scribam, 
 quod cum fontis puritate constare potest. So 
 in sect. 22. Primo lectionem Librorum Qrigina- 
 Hum, in vitio cubare clare probandum est ; turn 
 error corrigendus ; sic vera lectione restituta 
 lextus Originarius Versionum regula et norma 
 Jit. To the same purpose sect. 25. Etsi Ver- 
 siones, antique prcesertim, multum conferre 
 possunt, cum erratum in Textum Originarium 
 casu irrepsit ad veram lectionem indagandam f 
 et restituendam ; tamen generaliter loquendo 
 Versiones omnes secundum Textus Originales 
 corrigi, et examinari debent. Nam cum omnes 
 Versiones tanquam rivuli ex Codicibus Origina- 
 riis ut fontibus fiuxerint, necesse est, ut quic-^ 
 quid veritatis in Versionibus inveniatur, Mud 
 a fontibus habuerint. Eatenus enim Versio 
 8 
 
96 The Considerator considered. 
 
 vera did potest quatenus cum Texlu Originario 
 concordet. Sic enim Greg, de Valent. <l Tran- 
 slate vera est cujus sensus a suo fonte non de- 
 viat, sed sententias reddit easdem et aequales, nec 
 ampliores, nec restrictiores," &c. Contradic- 
 tionem itaque plane implicat, qffirmare simpli- 
 city fontem ex Versione corrigendum ; ceque 
 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 Prolego- 
 mena do not equal the Translations with the 
 Text, or make this one end of Translations, 
 thereby to correct the Text ; or as is most invidi- 
 ously expressed, to correct the Scripture : to cor- 
 rect the Word of God. For though it be affirmed, 
 that in some cases Various Readings may be ga- 
 thered 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 
 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, where- 
 in also respect is to be had to the antiquity, mul- 
 
The Consider ator considered. 97 
 
 titude, and goodness of the Copies in the care 
 and exactness of the scribe ; as appears by the 
 rules given about Various Readings, Proleg. vi. 
 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 public authority of the Church, either 
 express or implicit, is necessary. " A recepta 
 lectione non temere recedendum, sed moderate 
 rationes et conjectural proponendse sunt ; et 
 Ecclesiae judicium expectandum," &c. which he 
 translates thus, p. 207. ec that in correcting the 
 Originals we must take the consent of the guides 
 of the Church ;" how truly let any man judge by 
 Avhat we have said. The reason is given in the 
 same Prolegom. vi. sect. 6. That if this were 
 permitted to every man, Pro norma fidei regu- 
 lam Lesbiam haberemus, 8$c. Si enim in decre- 
 tis Principum et Regum aliquid immutare Icesce 
 Majestatis reum efficit, quantum erit crimen 
 aliquid pro libitu mutare in Sacris hisce Scripiis 
 in quibus, ut olim S. Augustinus, de cozlo Rex 
 Regum, et Dominus Dominantium, loquitur ! 
 
 VI. Besides to correct an error crept into the 
 Original is not properly to correct the Original, 
 but to restore the Original to the true reading ; 
 
 VOL. II. H 
 
98 The Considerator considered. 
 
 for no error is part of the Original Text, and 
 therefore when the error can be demonstrated, 
 the true reading is restored, not the Original Text 
 corrected, or the Word of God corrected at 
 man's pleasure, as is no less vainly than falsely 
 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 only the 
 mistakes of the compositor ? And so when the 
 sheet is past the corrector's 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 cor- 
 rect the Word of God ? Who would not think 
 this to be ridiculous ? Yet such is the reason of 
 our Adversary. What is known and confessed 
 to be the Word of God, it must be madness and 
 impiety in any to go about to correct ; but when 
 an error by negligence of the transcriber or prin- 
 ter shall have crept in, and it shall be proved to 
 be an error, must not this be amended or cor- 
 rected, but presently we are guilty of correcting 
 the Scripture or Word of God ? To correct the 
 Original by a Translation, is to alter what is the 
 true reading of the Original by a Translation, 
 that so it may agree with the Translation ; for so 
 our Author would have his reader understand it, 
 
The Considerator considered. 99 
 
 and an ordinary reader will make no other sense 
 of his words ; but is this the same with restoring 
 the true and native reading, and to say, that not 
 only other Copies, but even Translations, may 
 conduce to this end ? 
 
 VII. It is one thing to make use of a Transla- 
 tion 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 and apparent reasons concur, 
 but in this case it is not made equal with, but 
 subservient to, the Text. To equal it with the 
 Text, or to prefer it, is to correct the Text by it 
 in all things wherein they differ ; as some Ro- 
 manists say of the Vulgar Latin, (I say some, for 
 the learnedest among them deny it ; and of those 
 that affirm it, none ever yet attempted it.) But 
 this had been senseless 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, and 
 therefore could never be by us intended. Here 
 is then no altar set up by God's altar, nor any 
 preferring of man's care and wisdom, before the 
 care and wisdom of God ; but the preserving of 
 God's 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 subserviency to his care and pro- 
 
 h2 
 
100 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 vidence. Nor is this to defame the Text, when 
 we labour to preserve the purity of it, and to re- 
 store it to its original integrity, when it can ap- 
 pear the transcribers have failed ; and so to trans- 
 mit 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 than 
 hath been done hitherto by others, I appeal to 
 the judgment of all impartial and judicious 
 readers. 
 
 VIII. We never said, that all differences of 
 the Translation from the Original are to be 
 reckoned for Various Readings ; for it is fre- 
 quently acknowledged that some variation may be 
 by the mistake of the translator, or from para- 
 phrastical expositions, where the sense and not 
 the words are precisely expressed ; where some- 
 thing, it may be, is added, to clear the sense, and 
 some words left out, as not so necessary for 
 the sense ; and some errors may be from the 
 transcribers of the Translations. Proleg. vi. sect. 
 11. Proleg. vii. sect. 23, Proleg. ix. sect. 12. 
 46. &c. But when no other probable cause can 
 be given of the difference, save the variation of 
 the Copy, and a plain reason may be given, why 
 the translator so rendered it, as because of the 
 ambiguity of words unpointed, or the change of 
 letters alike in figure or sound, or transposition of 
 
The Considerator considered. 101 
 letters, and the like ; in these cases, I see no 
 reason why we may not conclude that the trans- 
 lator read in his Copy as he hath rendered, and 
 thence collect a Various Reading from a Trans- 
 lation. 
 
 IX. We do not say, that these readings are 
 of equal authority with those that are gathered 
 out of Original Copies ; nay, it is expressed, 
 Proleg. vi. sect. 8. that they do not pari certitu- 
 dinis gradu incedere ; and therefore it must 
 needs follow, that the present reading of the 
 Original ought not to be altered upon the bare 
 reading of a Translation, but that other pregnant 
 reasons and arguments must concur, as we said 
 before. 
 
 X. To these also we add, that these different 
 readings out of Translations, are of the same 
 nature with those gathered out of Original 
 Copies ; that is, they are only in lesser matters, 
 not in things of any moment or concernment; 
 they are such, whereby our faith and salvation 
 are no way endangered ; such as the Keri and 
 Ketib, &c. Nor do we any where own that rule 
 of Cappellus, That that reading, though by con- 
 jecture only, ubi sensus melior fluit, where the 
 sense and coherence seem to be better, is always 
 to be chosen ; for many times we may conceive a 
 sense, which would better agree with the words, 
 in our apprehension, which yet the words of the 
 
102 The Consider ator considered. 
 Text will not bear, and the sense which the pre- 
 sent reading hath may be maintained, and is 
 followed by more, and better, and ancienter 
 Copies ; and therefore I admit that rule no 
 otherwise than reverend Usher, Epist. ad Cap- 
 pellum, p. 22. " Ubi caetera reperiuntur paria ex 
 Variantibus Lectionibus, ea prseferenda quae sen- 
 sum parit commodiorem, atque antecedentibus 
 et consequentibus cohaerentem." 
 
 XI. These things premised, I say, that Va- 
 rious Readings may be gathered out of Transla- 
 tions, which may conduce to the true sense 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. vi. sect. 9, 10. both by consent 
 of the best divines, and men of greatest skill in 
 the Hebrew, and greatest patrons of the integ- 
 rity of the Hebrew Text, and by [S] apparent rea- 
 son ; 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 Jerom, Beza, Casaubon, Drusius, Schind- 
 ler, De Dieu, Bochartus, Hottinger, Salmasius, 
 besides Brentius, Osiander, Calvin, Musculus, 
 Mercer, &c. how common it is among Commen- 
 tators and others, to gather sometimes out of 
 Translations, how they read in their Copies dif- 
 fering from the present reading. Nor do I re- 
 
The Considerator considered. 103 
 
 member any author of note that generally denied 
 the same, before the late quarrels of Bootius and 
 Buxtorf against Cappellus ; who yet, whilst they 
 grant conjectural Various Readings out of Trans- 
 lations (see Bootius's Vindic. 22. p. 225.) do in 
 effect say as much as their Adversary : only our 
 Author, without any distinction or limitation, ab- 
 solutely denies all, of whatever kind 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. vi. 
 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 bet- 
 ter than learned mountebanks, 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 Usher, though he would 
 exclude the LXX. (how justly we have [T] shewed, 
 Prolegom. ix.) yet grants that, out of other in- 
 terpreters, Various Readings may be gathered. 
 Epist. ad Cappell. p. 22. he saith, " Ex quibus- 
 dam veterum interpretationibus excerpi aliquas 
 posse variantes Hebraici textus lectiones f and 
 
104 The Considerator considered. 
 p. 4. " Cujusmodi votpopotfAotrx ob characterum 
 aut sonorum in vocabulis praecipue Hebraicis si- 
 militudinem, aut levem aliquam a 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 om- 
 nibus,) " nullo nobis constare potest modo, utrum 
 ipsi interpreti an codici quern prae manibus ille 
 habuit, Hebraico ista accepta referenda fuerit dif- 
 ferentia : praesertim si interpres ille ex Judaizan- 
 tium fuerit numero." In the next page he saith 
 the same of Bootius, (though Bootius labours, 
 Vindic. c. 23. to wrest the Primate's words,) 
 " Ex ea tantum versione, quae LXX. nomen 
 prasfert, 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 pu- 
 rity of the Original Texts. 
 
 XIII. But though he, and all others that say 
 the same with him, must pass with our Author 
 among learned mountebanks, and not be thought 
 worthy any answer ; yet, with his good leave, I 
 will mind him of some of those places instanced 
 
The Considerator considered. 105 
 
 in the Prolegomena, and appeal to his consci- 
 ence whether he thinks the translators did not 
 read in their Copies as they have expressed in 
 their Translation, Gen. xlvii. ver. ult. these words, 
 nttBPr PfcO hv are rendered by the LXX. an to 
 ax^of ris px€$ts a'uT», in summitatem virgce sues, 
 and so the words are alleged, Heb. xi. 21. and so 
 rendered by the Syriac, the difference arising 
 only from the various pointing of nttOT, which 
 may be rendered either super tectum, or super 
 virgam ; ledum, if we read it ntoft mitta, but 
 virgam, if we read it ntDJD matte. Now, when 
 the LXX. and the Syriac render virgam, and 
 not ledum, 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 ren- 
 der it virgam, and not ledum f Hence there is 
 scarce any expositor but observes this Various 
 Reading out of this Translation. So Isa. ix. 
 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 hpn hakel for hekal, be- 
 cause they render it, tocyy sroiMj citdfac ; where- 
 as, according to the present punctuation, it sig- 
 nifies Exoup*V3-/i, sublevata est. Who will not 
 conclude with this learned man, that they read 
 hakel, rather than hekal, when their Transla- 
 tion agrees with hakel, and not with hekal, and 
 
106 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 the difference is only in a point ? So Exod. xxi. 
 8. The words, w vb ^ttftt are rendered by 
 the LXX. and Jerom, Quce sibi desponsatafuit, 
 which, according to the modern reading, should 
 be, Quce non desponsavit earn. Who will not 
 hence gather, that the LXX. and Jerom read b 
 in their Copy, which signifies sibi, and not tih 
 non, as it is now, seeing b and tfb are in sound 
 and pronunciation the same ? And that they did, 
 de facto, read so, appears by the Masora, which 
 puts the different reading, b in the margin under 
 "p and tfb in the Text. The like may be ob- 
 served in Jerom, and the LXX. in Jos. xv. 47. 
 Isa. xlix. 5. where the Masora also observes both 
 readings : but suppose the Masora had not ob- 
 served the differences, had it not been true, that 
 the Copies had differed ? And could not this 
 variety have been gathered from Jerom 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. viii. 16. QPQ }Tp 
 and with them he taught the men of Succoth. 
 It is clear that the ancient reading was, OJi2 tfch^ 
 
 ° V T T T- 
 
 and with them he tare, or threshed, &c. as he 
 had threatened them, ver. 7. ^fittTn then I will 
 tear, or thresh, LXX. kktIZmev, as v. 7. y.%toi%ou>u). 
 Al. viXowtVy as v. 7. aAouVw. Lat contrivit, as v. 7. 
 
The Consideralor considered. 107 
 
 conteram ; see also the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic. 
 Jos. ix. 4. and made as if they had been 
 
 ambassadors, r. ^Tt^l and they took victuals, 
 or provision, for their journey : LXX. Iwunrl- 
 cotvTO) ?]To^aVavTo. Lat. tulerunt sibi cibaria, 
 so the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic ; so v. 12. Clggffii 
 and v. 11. ftVtt mp. 2 Kings xx. 13. 3^Q#Q r. 
 ITOW LXX. ^ ix*W> ^at. €i ^ iaius es t • so tne 
 Syriac and Arabic ; so our Bishops' Bible, ( and 
 was glad of him ;) so Isa. xxxix. 2. both in the 
 Hebrew, and all Translations. Jerem. xv. 14. 
 ■WTJffiTTl and I will make thee to pass, r. ^nil^rn 
 and 1 will make thee to serve 9 LXX. xoiTtzjovXoovou 
 a. So the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic; so Jer. 
 xvii. 4. both in the Hebrew, and all Translations ; 
 Jerem. xxxi. 32. ED2 Vi^yi / was a husband to 
 them, r. Dl ^F\hv^ I regarded them not; LXX. 
 Tuxixwa, : So the Syriac and Arabic; so the Apos- 
 tle, Heb. viii. 9. Now, let me appeal to any 
 unbiassed man, yea to our Adversary himself, 
 whether in these places they do not think in their 
 consciences, that the LXX. and the other Trans- 
 lators 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 myself 
 
108 The Considerator considered. 
 about, seeing nothing is by him brought that in- 
 fringes our assertion in the least, the controversy 
 being rightly stated. Only one thing I cannot 
 pass by, wherein I cannot but admire his extreme 
 confidence in urging a thing so palpably untrue, 
 and so oft by himself contradicted : " 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 re- 
 membrance 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. 317. 
 " The care of God over his truth, and the fidelity 
 of the Jewish Church will not permit us to enter 
 into the least suspicion that ever there was in the 
 world any Copy of the Bible, differing in the least 
 from those we enjoy — the authors of this insinua- 
 tion cannot produce the least testimony to make 
 it good," p. 319. 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, 
 
The Consider ator considered. 109 
 
 &c. ! Do not all the Various Readings both of 
 the Old and New Testament proclaim the appa- 
 rent untruth of this ? And doth not himself fre- 
 quently confess, that there are varieties amongst 
 Copies ? p. 173. " That in some Copies, and 
 those of good antiquity, there are Divers Read- 
 ings ;" p. 190. " that the Keri and Ketib are Va- 
 rious 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 Tes- 
 tament, especially [U] that in 1 John v. 8. where a 
 verse is left out in many ancient Copies, and ap- 
 pears so to have been by the Fathers that wrote 
 against Arius ? Is there no author of credit, no 
 monument of antiquity, that testifies that some an- 
 cient 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 real confutation of this ? 
 He hath looked through the Prolegomena, as he 
 saith, especially Proleg. vii. which he so much 
 opposes ; he quotes sect. 12. And could he not 
 there find many instances and testimonies of cre- 
 dit to disprove this general assertion? He could 
 not but read there the testimony of Kimchi, Praef. 
 Com. in Proph, Priores : " Viri Synagogae mag- 
 nae, qui Legem nobis in pristinum statum resti- 
 tuerunt, invenerunt differentias in libris, et secuti 
 
1 10 The Considerator considered. 
 
 sunt multitudinem of Ben Chajim, in the Ve- 
 nice and Basil Bibles, who notes the difference of 
 some Copies, besides the Keri and Ketib, which 
 he notes not with a p but with that is another 
 copy. But most evidently is this shewed in Jos. 
 xxi. 36, 37. where two verses were left out in the 
 second Venice Edition and in Jonathan's Para- 
 phrase, and in the margin the Masoretical note is, 
 " that in no ancient and corrected Copies these 
 verses are to be found, nor in the famous copy 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 main- 
 tain that they ought not to be put in, and that 
 the ancient Copies are genuine : yea the number 
 riN 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 sense also, out of an ancient MS. 
 Hebrew Copy at Heidelberg, in 2 Chron. xxvi. 5. 
 and xxxv. 3. which he prefers before the modern 
 reading. 
 
 XV. The like is shewed in the next section 
 out of many places in St. Jerom, an author of 
 good credit in these things. Epist. ad Suriam et 
 Fretel. upon these words, Psal. xxxv. 10. 11 Om- 
 
The Considerator considered. Ill 
 
 nia ossa mea dicunt, Domine/' he saith, " se de- 
 prehendisse in Editione, LXX. bis Domine 
 and after adds : " Multa sunt Exemplaria apud 
 Hebraeos, quce ne semel quidem Dominum ha- 
 bent." But in our modern Copies it is once. In 
 the same Epistle upon those words of Psal. cxxx. 
 4. " Propter legem tuam sustinui te, Domine/' 
 he saith, f f Aquilam legisse, et vertisse 
 
 (p'ofiov, timorem, Theodotionem verd et Symma- 
 chum legisse, PTWl, et vertisse vopov, legem/' 
 where he not only grants the Hebrew Copies to 
 have varied, but also gathers a Various Reading 
 out of the Translation of Aq. Theod. and Symm. 
 yet neither reading is in our present Copies, which 
 read NTin timeberis. The same on Hos. v. 13. 
 
 ••T • 
 
 write, "Alii male legunt, □'ny per CD literamquae 
 transfertur in sylvas, pro :r>T Jareb," which agrees 
 with our Copies: so on Hab. ii. 19. " Sciendum 
 in quibusdam Hebraicis voluminibus, non esse ad- 
 ditum omnis sed absolute spiritum legi." Here 
 we see the word h$ omnis was wanting in some 
 Hebrew Copies in Jerom's time. Much more 
 might be brought of Jerom and others to this 
 purpose. These places, except only the last, our 
 Adversary had read in the Prolegomena, and yet 
 affirms, there never was any Copy 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 con- 
 
 8 
 
112 The Considerator considered. 
 
 trary. Was he in a dream, or were his wits a 
 wool-gathering when he wrote this? Or, having 
 read these things in the Prolegomena, to which 
 no answer could be given, did he write the con- 
 trary 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 in- 
 spection 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, than 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 thing is about the Keri 
 and Ketib, that is, certain marginal notes in the 
 Hebrew Bibles, where the Keri is the word that 
 must be read, placed in the margin, with a "p the 
 Ketib, or word written in the text, marked with 
 a little circle or cipher, to which the points be- 
 longing to the marginal word are put. to inti- 
 mate, that this word, though written in the Text, 
 ought not to be read, but that in the margin ; 
 concerning which I have [W] spoken at large, Pro- 
 leg, viii. sect. 18, 19, &c. ad 27. where is shewed 
 what they are, sect. 18. to what heads they may 
 
The Considerator considered. 113 
 
 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 
 penmen, nor Esdras and his fellows, sect. 22, 23. 
 that the most of them were collected by the post- 
 talmudical rabbins, out of several ancient Copies ; 
 and that they left the common reading in the 
 Text; and put the other, which they judged the 
 better, in the margin ; and that some of them 
 were gathered before the Talmud, sect. 24. that 
 they were not critical 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 
 only 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 critical notes, consisting partly of the 
 Various Readings of the Masorites, and late rab- 
 bins ; and p. 157 he sets it down thus : " That 
 the ITD*! Tip, of which sort are above 800 in the 
 Hebrew Bibles, are Various Lections, partly ga- 
 thered by some Judaical rabbins out of ancient 
 Copies, partly their critical amendments: for 
 
 VOL. II. I 
 
114 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 which he cites in the margin, Proleg. 8. sect 
 23, &c. Answer: In both there is nothing truly 
 related ; but untruth and nonsense jumbled toge- 
 ther. For first he saith, " They are critical notes 
 consisting partly of Various Lections/' which is a 
 kind of contradiction : for if they be critical 
 notes they cannot be either in part or in whole 
 Various Lections. Critical notes are such where- 
 in men give their own judgment upon some read- 
 ing, whether it be true or false, or which reading 
 they like best : Various Readings are the differ- 
 ences of Copies collected and offered to the rea- 
 ders judgment. In the other place he makes 
 them all to be Various Readings, but partly col- 
 lected by some rabbins out of ancient copies, and 
 partly their critical amendments; that is, some of 
 them are gathered out of Copies, others are ga- 
 thered without authority of Copies, grounded 
 only upon their critical faculty in conjecturing. 
 This may be his meaning, or else I cannot make 
 any good sense of his words. Howsoever he ex- 
 plain himself, the charge is no less void of truth 
 than of sense, as the place by him cited will 
 plainly shew to any that will look into it, (for 
 still he never quotes the words,) where it will ap- 
 pear that there is not one word of critical con- 
 jectures, 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. 
 
The Consider ator considered. 1 15 
 XVIII. That which is affirmed of them in these 
 sections is, 1. that Esdras and his fellows were 
 not the authors of these notes, but that they were 
 gathered long after his time, partly before and 
 partly after the Talmud ; that they could not come 
 from Esdras or the Prophets of his times, because 
 these Various Readings (for so they are gene- 
 rally 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 several 
 Copies of the books they had written, and to 
 place one reading in the margin, 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 penmen is no less 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 in- 
 fallibly guided, might have done, and not have 
 left it doubtful which reading was to be followed, 
 or what was the true sense of the Holy Ghost, by 
 noting both the readings, and so leaving all in 
 suspense. This is altogether unbefitting the holy 
 penmen of Scripture : and our Adversary, though 
 he be loth to yield to the truth, yet confesses he 
 is not able to satisfy himself in the original and 
 
 i 2 
 
116 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 spring of this variety. 2. It is proved, sect. 24. 
 that some of these were observed by the talmudi- 
 cal rabbins, being mentioned in the Talmud, as 
 those " de vocibus scriptis et non lectis, et de 
 lectis et non scriptis/' and those which they call 
 obscene, for which these chaste rabbins, who 
 would be wiser than God and more pure than the 
 Holy Ghost, put others which they judged more 
 modest in the margin to be read in the Synago- 
 gues, according to that in the Talmud, Megil. 
 c. 3. " Omnes voces quae in Lege sunt obsccenae 
 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 Ma- 
 sorites to be the authors, they gathered them out 
 of various Copies, or made them out of their 
 own judgments and critical conjectures : where 
 it is concluded, that excepting those which they 
 counted obscene, of which number are ten, which 
 could not proceed from the difference of Copies, 
 but from the boldness and superstition of the 
 rabbins, and excepting and CD^ttTV (which 
 have a peculiar consideration) that all the rest 
 came from variety of Copies, where they noted the 
 one reading in the margin, not daring to change 
 the reading of the Text out of reverence to the an- 
 tiquity of their Copies, but left it as it was, only 
 they joined the points of the marginal word to (hat 
 
The Consider ator considered. 117 
 in the Text, to shew that the word of the margin 
 was to be read, which they judged the better 
 reading. 
 
 XIX. This is the common opinion and judg- 
 ment of the 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 Cappellus, who labours to prove, that the Ma- 
 sorites gathered them not out of private Copies, 
 but by their own critical conjectures; whose opi- 
 nion is disliked, and his arguments answered. By 
 all this it appears most clearly, that our Adversary 
 abuses both his reader, and the author of the Pro- 
 legomena, with palpable untruths, ascribing that 
 to the author of the Prolegomena, which he is so 
 far from holding, that he maintains the clean con- 
 trary. For he proves, that the Keri and Ketib 
 are not critical amendments of the rabbins, but 
 Various Readings of ancient Copies, ( except those 
 before excepted, which he is so far from making 
 critical amendments of the Texts, that he taxes 
 the rabbins for their boldness and superstition 
 therein :) yea, the Adversary himself, though he 
 thus writes, yet in expressive 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,) critical amendments of the rabbins is 
 
1 ] 8 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 not allowed, (in the Prolegomena J for which 
 latter part of his determination we thank the 
 learned author and p. 307. "In the mean time, 
 I cannot but rejoice, that Cappellus's fancy, than 
 which I know nothing more prejudicial to the 
 truth of Grod, 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 argu- 
 ments brought against the divine original of the 
 notes are capable of an easy solution, which he is 
 not at leisure as yet to shew, although he had told 
 us before that he could not satisfy himself about 
 the original 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 
 original than 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 I pass 
 them by here. 
 
 XXI. Before I conclude this chapter, some- 
 thing must be added concerning the notes extract- 
 ed out of Grotius, which the Adversary saith, 
 " are brought as an instance of collecting Various 
 Readings upon conjectures," or rather of {e cor- 
 rections of the Original, when any gross corrup- 
 tions have befallen them," p. 159, 206, 315. 
 
The Consider ator considered. 1 19 
 
 Now, though I might well pass over what is here 
 charged, it being no where acknowledged in the 
 Prolegomena, that the Original Texts are cor- 
 rupted, but the contrary maintained; nor that 
 upon mere conjectures Various Readings are to be 
 gathered, (as we have already shewed,) and there- 
 fore, that these notes out of Grotius could not 
 possibly be brought for any such end : yet, be- 
 cause 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 Poh/glotta, I shall 
 briefly consider what he objects upon this account. 
 This we find 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 critical con- 
 jectures 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 Latin/' In the other place, he saith, 
 " he shall not much concern himself therein, they 
 2 
 
120 The Considerator considered. 
 
 are nothing less than Various Readings of that 
 learned man's own observation, setting aside, first 
 the Various Lections of the LXX, the Vulgar 
 Latin, 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 Occidental Jews, which we have also 
 elsewhere : Fourthly, conjectures how the LXX, 
 or Vulgar Latin read by altering 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 pre- 
 tend to be a Various Lection, unless it belong to 
 the Keri and Ketib, or the difference between the 
 Oriental and Occidental Jews." 
 
 XXII. Answer : I am not ignorant with what 
 an envious eye [X] 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 
 than 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 
 height of learning and depth of judgment dwelt 
 in him, his works proclaim to all learned and 
 moderate men, and will speak to all posterity ; 
 
The Considerate!* considered. 121 
 others have, with more able pens, vindicated him 
 from those obloquies and aspersions, which un- 
 reasonable men have cast upon him. A man he 
 was of that eminency in all kinds of learning*, di- 
 vine and human, of that exact judgment, pru- 
 dence, piety, and moderation, that I believe he 
 hath left but 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) styled o QavpoCa-ioq, 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 in this work, and the rather because 
 he was one that did not extrema sectari, but, 
 without inclining to any party or faction, did pro- 
 pose to himself the search of the naked truth for 
 itself, 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 fitted 
 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 myself, in publishing this 
 
122 The Considerator considered. 
 
 Extract, but shall observe, that our Author will 
 proceed in his usual way of calumnies. For first, 
 he cannot make it appear by any one word in the 
 Prolegomena or Appendix, that this was the end 
 of publishing his notes, as an instance of gather- 
 ing Various Readings by conjectures, when the 
 Text is corrupt, but merely because of his great 
 and general learning, which might make them 
 acceptable to learned and moderate men ; for 
 which cause, I conceived, they might justly de- 
 serve 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 merely upon conjectures, but usually 
 upon some ancient Translations, or testimony of 
 ancient writers., and reasons drawn from the cir- 
 cumstances of the Text : and so for other books 
 of the Old Testament, the most of them are cri- 
 tical notes about the several Translations of 
 others, and about the literal sense and reading of 
 the Text ; scarce one or two of the Keries 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. contra- 
 dicting what he had said, p. 313. and elsewhere, 
 after his usual manner, saith, u they are nothing 
 less than Various Readings of that learned man's 
 
The Considerator considered. 123 
 
 own observation/' and therefore not such conjec- 
 tural Various Readings, as he saith, are brought 
 for instances in the Appendix. Thirdly, that 
 those out of the New Testament, which are far 
 the greater part of that Extract, are Various Read- 
 ings out of several Copies, (not bare conjectures,) 
 with his judgment upon them, and the reasons for 
 it ; and therefore our Author may cease wonder- 
 ing how these few sheets, (which are nothing less 
 than 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 observa- 
 tions amongst them of great use and worth, yet 
 the greater part consisting of Diverse 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 general ; and though there be few of the Hebrew 
 in the Old Testament, yet there are others of the 
 Greek, Septuagint, Symmachus, Theodotion, and 
 Aquila ; the Vulgar Latin, and other Translations ; 
 besides those of the New Testament ; and there- 
 fore the Prolegomena needs no such way, as is by 
 him furnished, 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 
 
124; The Considerator considered. 
 
 maintain all that Nobilius, Lucas Brugensis, Mr. 
 Young, or any others have said in any of their 
 observations, but thinks it enough that in general 
 they are of great use, and acceptable to learned 
 men, who know how to make use of them ; and 
 that to satisfy 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 dross, or 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 sense : whether they ap- 
 prove, or reject, more or fewer, it shall be no 
 offence to him. 
 
The Considerator considered. 125 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 I. Divers Charges upon these Various Readings here exhu 
 hibited in particular. II. The great bulk of them, that 
 they are served twice or thrice over. This calumny an- 
 swered. All those of the Original Texts may be com- 
 prised in two or three sheets. III. Neither all differ- 
 ences whatsoever, nor those out of all books printed or 
 written, here collected. The vast untruth of this charge 
 shewed for the Hebrew. IV. And the Greek. V. The 
 comparing of many Copies useful. VI. Practised by 
 others, and commended by Origen, Jerom, Erasmus, 
 Beza, Camerarius, Nobilius, Stephanus, fyc. VII. The 
 great use of collecting Various Readings out of several 
 Copies. VIII. To prevent future mistakes. IX. Prac- 
 tised by the Jews. X. Approved by Buxtorf. XI. His 
 Critica Sacra now printing at Basil; the title-page 
 sent over. XII. The difference of the Keri and Ketib, 
 in sundry Editions, not by mistake of the printer. 
 XIII. The difference of divers printed Copies shewed in 
 some instances. XIV. The great use of the two Cata- 
 logues of the Keri and Ketib, not twice mentioned to in- 
 crease the bulk. XV. That the Copies are, some of them, 
 the ancientest in the world : They are all sufficiently at- 
 tested. XVI. Of Beza's Copy. XVII. The MS. of 
 Emmanuel College in Cambridge. The Adversary's 
 mistakes: that Morinus is an aspiring Jesuit: that 
 Ben Chajim corrected the impression of Felix Praten- 
 <3fc. XVIII. That divers differences of Copies are 
 omitted: the publisher not bound to give a judgment of 
 those exhibited. XIX. In this Edition, together with 
 
126 The Considerator considered. 
 
 the chiefest Translations, are exhibited the most and 
 ancientest Copies : The MSS. accounted great treasures 
 in private Libraries, now put into evert/ man's hand. 
 
 I. Besides these generals, there are divers things 
 which he finds fault with, in these particular 
 readings here exhibited in the last Volume, which 
 we must consider, before we pass from this head 
 of Various Readings. He is offended with their 
 multitude and great bulk, questions the antiquity 
 and goodness of the Copies, and the fidelity of 
 the collectors ; is angry that they are barely pro- 
 pounded, and no choice made, nor judgment 
 given on them : of all which in order. First, for 
 the bulk, he saith, he was <c startled at this bulky 
 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 
 brood that hath spawned itself over the face of 
 so much paper," as p. 192. yea, r< whatever 
 varying word, syllable, or tittle, could be brought 
 to hand, wherein any books, though but of yes- 
 terday, vary from the common received Copies, 
 though manifestly a mistake, superfluous, or de- 
 ficient, inconsistent with the sense of the place, 
 yea barbarous, is presently imposed upon us as a 
 Various Reading," ibid. So p. 194. " All dif- 
 ferences whatsoever, that could be found in any 
 Copies, printed or otherwise, are equally given 
 
The Consider ator considered. 127 
 
 out ; yea, p. 194. " It is manifest that the design 
 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 ut- 
 most of their negligence, of these later ages of 
 their diligence, the result of all is in this collec- 
 tion of the Appendix," &c. Nay, " to increase 
 the bulk, divers of the same readings are twice, 
 and oftener, mustered over. The Keri and Ke- 
 tib are twice served over, to increase the bulk, 
 and present a face of new variety to the less at- 
 tentive reader," p. 158. and 304,305. yea, " a 
 third time in Grotius," p. 348, 349. " over and 
 over and iC so those of the New Testament are 
 given over again by Grotius and Lucas Brugensis. 
 The collection of them makes a book bigger than 
 the New Testament itself," p. 189, &c. 
 
 II. For Answer : First our Adversary, by 
 these many reiterated expressions, would inti- 
 mate, as if all the last Volume, or Appendix, con- 
 sisted of nothing but Various Readings of the 
 Original Texts, when as the whole Volume con- 
 sists 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 di- 
 vers other Editions of the Hebrew Bibles,) reckon- 
 
128 The Considerator considered. 
 
 ing 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 
 forty old Greek MSS. they are all contained in 
 nine sheets, of which the very names of so many 
 MSS. so often repeated upon necessity of 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 1 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 Septuagint ; wherein are those 
 large notes of Nobilius, that rich magazine and 
 treasury of learning, so accounted by all learned 
 men ; Master Patrick Young's notes upon Te- 
 cla's Septuagint ; the collation of the Venice and 
 Complutense Edition of the Sept. with the Ro- 
 man : whereby the reader hath, in a manner, all 
 the several Editions of the Sept. here presented 
 in one Volume, and may consult them all at plea- 
 sure, with divers other old MSS. divers notes 
 upon the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Samaritan, 
 Persian, Ethiopic, and Vulgar Latin ; of all 
 
The Considerator considered. 129 
 
 which, with the Tables of the proper names ex- 
 pounded, and 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 blind as not to read, though he 
 was in such haste that he could not consider how 
 the calumny did confute itself, 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 col- 
 lated, or any differences collected, save those of 
 the Keri and Ketib, Ben Ascher, and Ben Naph- 
 tali, the Eastern and Western Jews, which our 
 Author himself tells us are in most Editions of the 
 Hebrew Bibles ; only here they are more per- 
 fectly enumerated than 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 Arias 
 
 VOL. II. K 
 
ISO The Considerator considered. 
 
 Mon tan us, and some others, (of whom our Au- 
 thor seems to be one,) that would have the Keri 
 and Ketib to be the same in all Copies whatso- 
 ever ; which labour might deserve, as it hath 
 found amongst learned and ingenious men, 
 thanks and acceptation, rather than 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 be- 
 longing sometime to Leo Modena, written above 
 three hundred years ago ; another more ancient, 
 belonging to [Y]Caius College 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 as it is 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 be- 
 tween the Editions of Erasmus, Beza, the Com- 
 plutense, &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 
 
The Consider ator considered. 131 
 
 among the rest, but not by comparing any print- 
 ed Copy, but as they are in Stephens's 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 con- 
 sult and compare ancient Copies had been here- 
 tofore always accounted good service for pre- 
 serving the original Text, or confirming and re- 
 storing the true reading, is their diligence to be 
 [Z] condemned that have done more than others 
 before them in that kind ? If it were commend- 
 able in some, it cannot justly be blamed in others. 
 Those that have heretofore laboured about any 
 special 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 St. Jerom, as 
 appears frequently in his works ; so did the 
 Complutense divines, Montanus, Erasmus, Beza, 
 Nobilius, Heintenius, Lucas Brugensis, the Lou- 
 vain 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 judgment, pitching upon that reading 
 
 k2 
 
132 The Consider ator considered, 
 
 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 find, 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 
 Latin, in 1540, names many old Copies he had 
 collated, whose Different Readings he put in the 
 margin ; 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 margin 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 judgment, and a great de- 
 fender of the Original Copies and one who spent 
 most of his time in collating old Copies of the 
 Hebrew, Greek, Chaldee, Syriac, and Latin, in 
 that excellent book, his Notationes in loca va- 
 riantia S. Scripturce, reckons up above 100 
 Copies which he compared and used. Heinte- 
 nius and the Louvain divines, as appears by 
 their notes, used all the Copies printed and MSS. 
 
The Consider ator considered. 133 
 
 which they could get, that they might help for- 
 ward a correct and perfect Edition of the Vulgar 
 Latin. 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 several readings, that no error 
 might pass, but the genuine reading might be 
 established. But now it seems the case is al- 
 tered ; 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 " Satan's malice, the negligence of 
 former times, and the diligence of later times, 
 needlessly, yea, to eminent scandal heaped up 
 together : for the result of them all is in this 
 Appendix !" 
 
 VII. But could this Aristarchus see nothing 
 useful 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, et incertus 
 reddi debeat pius et Christianus lector, ut ex 
 earum collatione et examine certior reddatur, 
 quid potissimum sequendum sit, quam si unica 
 duntaxat versio esset ?" and why may we not say 
 the same of the Various Readings of the Origi- 
 nal ? Methinks it shews a special providence 
 over these Books, that notwithstanding some va- 
 riety in smaller matters, all do constantly [A] agree 
 
134 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 in all matters of weight, whether of faith or life, 
 yea, historical and prophetical ; for it will be 
 hard for him, or any other, to find in all this bulky 
 collection any one place which intrenches upon 
 any point of faith or religion, or any other matter 
 of moment; which must needs shew God's won- 
 derful 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 
 casual 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 reveal- 
 ed 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 Co- 
 pies that could be got, which are tendered to every 
 man's view ; and therefore this collection must 
 needs be of great use. Those therefore, that have 
 used their utmost diligence in this kind for pre- 
 serving the truth, are but ill requited for their 
 pains, when their diligence in preserving it is 
 compared to Satan's malice in corrupting it. 
 
The Consider ator considered. 135 
 
 VIII. Let me add, 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 mo- 
 ment; so that I may say with Lucas Brugens. Praef. 
 ad lectorem : Out of these Copies, " Si non ipsi 
 judicium ferre, certe aliis dare, unde aut ferre 
 possint, aut suo quemque momento varietatem 
 aestimare — Non quasi Scriptura sacra erroribus 
 obnoxia sit, quae a prima veritate perfecta veri- 
 tatis regula est, sed quod in codices, sive apogra- 
 pha ipsa, Graeca maxime et Latina, per fre- 
 quentem exemplarium in exemplaria transfu- 
 sionem, nunc librariorum, nunc lectorum osci- 
 tantia, incuria, inscitia, temeritate, labeculae, 
 errata, depravationesque irrepserint, quae aliorum, 
 codicum, sive apographorum collatione, mutari. 
 corrigi, auferri debent." And what he saith of 
 the Vulgar Latin, I know not but may be said of 
 the Original Text. " Emendate imprimi haud 
 posse videtur, nisi collatis variis exemplaribus 
 menda deprehensa eliminetur, sincera lectio admi- 
 nistretur." For as follows, " haeret animi du- 
 bius quid amplectatur, donee ex fontibus, aut ex 
 antiquis aliarum linguarum editionibus, aut ex 
 tractatorum commentariis, aut ex locorum circum- 
 stantiis, aut ex ipsa exemplarium spectata inte- 
 
136 The Considerator considered. 
 
 gritate, aut denique ex his simul omnibus, quod 
 inter exemplaria ipsa discernat, adferatur." Thus 
 far this judicious author,, who in a few words an- 
 swers our Author's whole volume of Considera- 
 tions 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 dif- 
 ferences. Manasseh Ben Israel in his late Edition 
 (much approved by divers) tells us of four Co- 
 pies, that were omnium correctissima, which he 
 compared together; and, when any difference 
 offered itself, his refuge was to the Grammar 
 rules, and the Masora ; and adds, " Correctionem 
 adhibui quam diligentissime, errata turn in punc- 
 tis, turn in literis, atque adeo etiam in ipsis loco- 
 rum aliquorum regulis, quae in exemplaribus hac- 
 tenus editis non pauca reperi, postquam ea dili- 
 ligenter annotavi, fideliter omnia emendavi." 
 Here we see this great rabbi found not a few er- 
 rors crept in, and differences in the Hebrew Co- 
 pies, which he corrected and amended. He might 
 have learned of our Author, that his labour was 
 needless ; there can be no errors in the Text ; 
 that this was presumption to correct the Word of 
 God! 
 
 X. To conclude this, let him consult Buxtorf 's 
 Vindic. who will inform him that there are diverse 
 Various Readings in the Hebrew Text in our pre- 
 
The Consider ator considered. 137 
 
 sent 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 mi- 
 nus codicum Hebraicorum variae lectiones obser- 
 ventur, 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 us- 
 que 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, dis- 
 cernendo, et dijudicando) ex Hebraeis aggredi 
 incepit post R. Ren Chajim editorem Ribl. majo- 
 rum Venetorum R. Menachem Louzano in prima 
 parte libri riW T)5£> per Pentateuchum : et op- 
 tandum esset ut illius opera per caeteros quoque 
 libros Biblicos continuasset, vel alius ei succede- 
 ret." Again, Vindic. part 1. c. 12. p. 202. " Op- 
 tandum esset ut quae ab eo tempore sunt ab He- 
 braeis ipsis variae lectiones observatae, ab aliquo 
 colligerentur, ut Christianis etiam innotescerent, 
 prout illarum multae extant in Bibliis majoribus 
 Venetis et Basil. Et nuper etiam R. Menachem 
 Louzano in parte prima libri nnrttl? coilegit ex 
 
138 The Considerator considered. 
 
 multis et probatissimis simul et antiquissimis libris 
 Hebraicis quascunque observare potuitin lege Va- 
 rias Lectiones. Imo si alibi in Bibliothecis quoque 
 Regum, Principum, Urbium, exemplaria He- 
 braica 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, be- 
 sides those already noted,, and this without preju- 
 dice to the purity of the Text ; also wishes that 
 as many Copies as can be procured were com- 
 pared, the different readings gathered, out of 
 which the best might be chosen, and so a more 
 correct Edition might be made than any hitherto. 
 
 XI. This which he then wished to be done by 
 others, is since done by himself : he hath collect- 
 ed 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 I 
 wherein he gives also his judgment 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 some intervening acci- 
 dent 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, 
 
The Consider ator considered. 139 
 
 as it was sent over by himself, for further satisfac- 
 tion of the reader, I shall set down. 
 
 " JOH. BUXTORPII FIL1I CRITICA 
 
 SACRA. 
 
 " Seu Notce in universos Veteris Testamenti li- 
 bros Hebraicos. 
 
 H Quibus Varies eorundem Lectiones, quce vel 
 scribarum sen typographorum, seu etiam 
 correctorum imperitorum, et sciolorum, 
 culpa hactenus irrepserint, partim ex pro- 
 batis codicibus, partim ex Masora, quce 
 vetus est Hebrceorum Critica, ostensa in 
 plerisque locis genuina lectione dijudican- 
 tur. 
 
 " Opus ad novas Editiones in posterum casti- 
 gate edendas, et veteres emendendas utilise 
 simum et necessarium a nemine Christi- 
 anorum hactenus tentatum. 
 
 fi Pramittitur Dissertatio D. V. qua Criticce 
 hujus sacrce origo, progressus, forma, et 
 modus, totiusque hujus operis ratio et usus f 
 plenius explicantur. 
 
 " Accedunt etiam Indices Variarum Lectionum 
 inter Ben Ascher et Ben Naphtali, Orien- 
 talium et Occidentalium" #c. 
 
 XII. To these we might add, that the Keri and 
 Ketib are not the same in all Editions, the num- 
 
1 40 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 ber differing by some hundreds : our Author saith 
 they are the same in all Editions, only in some 
 the number varies by mistake and oversight, 
 p. 296. Rather himself was mistaken and over- 
 seen when he wrote this ! No man that looks 
 upon them can imagine but that they were pur- 
 posely so printed, and that according to the Co- 
 pies which the publishers followed, and not by 
 any mistake either of the printer or publisher. 
 Some Editions have two or three hundred more 
 than others, and can it be supposed that so many 
 words could be added in the margin, 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 marginal word, and all this 
 done by casual mistake ? Credat Judceus Apella; 
 I can hardly think that our Author himself upon 
 deliberation will avouch it any more ! The differ- 
 ence according to some chief Editions 1 have here 
 transcribed out of the Prolegomena, that the 
 reader may judge. 
 
The Consider ator considered. 
 
 141 
 
 
 
 
 
 'fa 
 
 
 
 
 Elias 
 
 o 
 
 454. 
 
 Ci 
 O* 
 
 
 Ker. 
 
 Ker. 
 
 Ker. 
 
 3 
 
 X 
 
 BO 
 
 £ 00 
 
 6 
 
 o 
 
 00 
 
 0 
 
 OJ 
 
 8 9 Is a 5 a 
 
 a a ^ 
 
 03 
 
 3 
 
 OS 
 
 g 
 
 8 
 
 CO 
 
 03 
 
 A3 ° ^ 
 
 h£ ^ • 
 
 . . a 
 
 w 52 
 
 ^ TT ^ 
 
 C u ^ 
 
 a> © o> 
 
 W w 
 
 3 
 
 4-3 
 
 c 
 
 9 ^ H 
 
 JS • ao . 
 
 ~ C3 
 
 CO 05 
 
 C5 • 
 
 «> | 
 
 Si ^ 
 
 H H N 
 
 ; H W 
 
 ^ d °? Oil 
 
 : o 
 
 M 
 
 Hi 
 
 C 
 *£ 
 
 ea 
 
 S — >fl 
 
 bo 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 0* 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 0) 
 
 cc 
 
 Kei 
 
 
 O 
 
 etl 
 
 
 8 
 
 Q- TP 
 
 5b 
 © 
 
 'bb 
 
 "S 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 -s 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 M 
 
 93 
 
 "3 
 
 0 
 
 H 
 
 CO 
 uO 
 
 oo 
 
 © 
 
 5 *> 
 3 — < 
 
142 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 XIII. 1 hope by this our Author will believe 
 there are some differences in the Hebrew Copies, 
 and yet the Copies are not corrupt. When 
 Buxtorf's Bible conies out, whereof part is al- 
 ready printed, this superstitious conceit of the 
 Hebrew Copies not varying in any thing will 
 clearly vanish. In the mean time he may look in 
 Cappellus's 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 only, but in letters and words, 
 and such as are not errors of the printer, but 
 came from the difference of Copies, divers Trans- 
 lations, both ancient and modern, following one 
 reading ~; and divers others, another : As Prov. 
 xxi. 4. Plant, and Steph. have tzpyttn "ti lu- 
 cerna impiorum ; so read the LXX. Chald. and 
 Vulgar Latin. But Bomberg. and Munst. in 
 quarto read 15 for and Munst. in fol. hath 
 ■ftl novate ; and so the Tigurin. and Junius ; the 
 last English translates it, plowing, and the 
 French, labouring. Hos. xiii. 6. the Venice, 
 Steph. Munster in quarto read TNtfN speculabor. 
 But in Plant, it is Assyria, and so the LXX. 
 and the Vulgar Latin read it. 1 Chron. i. 6. 
 Bomb, and Munster in fol. read 3TBT\ with daleth, 
 so Mas. par. Kimchi and Jarchi. But Plant. 
 Steph. and Munst. in quarto read nflH with resh. 
 
The Consider ator considered. 143 
 
 So the LXX. and Vulgar Latin. In the same 
 chapter, ver. 7. Bomb, reads Rodanim, t2PTTt% 
 and the lesser Masora, Kimchi, and Jarchi, say it 
 ought so to be read. But Plant. Steph. and 
 Munst. in fol. and quarto read CD^TH with da- 
 leth. 1 Chron. vi. 41. Plant. Bomb, and Steph. 
 read, mim *tP n« ,butMunster fol. and quart, 
 omits the word rTWT and so does the LXX. 
 the Tigurin. and Castalio, and the later French 
 Translations. Jos. xiv. 2. Steph. and Munst. fol. 
 and quart, read rwS y% so doth the Ti- 
 
 gur. and Castalio, but Plant, and Bomb, leave 
 out I-\rh and so doth the LXX. Junius, the 
 French and English. Josh. xxii. v. ult. after *0 
 Plant, leaves a void space, and notes in the mar- 
 gin, that ~)V testis is to be understood and sup- 
 plied, and this is followed by Castal. the late En- 
 glish, and the French. But Steph. Bomb, and 
 Arias Montanus omit tp, so doth the LXX. 
 Vulgar Latin, and the Tigurin. Those that 
 please may see more in Cappellus, in the place 
 above mentioned ; and if they consult Buxtorf 's 
 Vindic. they may see he dislikes not the collect- 
 ing of such varieties out of Hebrew Copies, nor 
 thinks that they infer the corruption of the He- 
 brew Copies. 
 
 XIV. What he objects about the same Va- 
 rious Readings served twice over, the Keri and 
 Ketib over and over, &c. still shews his candour 
 
 6 
 
144 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 and love of truth. Could he find no reason why 
 theKeri and Ketib were twice enumerated, but 
 to increase the bulk, and present the more va- 
 riety to a less attentive reader ? Read them over 
 and blush. They are first reckoned up accord- 
 ing 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 several 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 again ? Any eye, not 
 blinded with prejudice, might have seen some 
 other benefit arising to the reader : For whereas 
 they are of divers sorts and natures, they are all 
 reduced to their several heads and classes, and the 
 number of each sort examined, and the places 
 quoted together where they are dispersedly men- 
 tioned throughout the Bible ; and withal how 
 many, and which of each sort, are acknowledged 
 by each Edition ; and withal some judgment 
 given of most of them. Thus for example : 
 There are some which are not written in the 
 Text, a void space being left, or only the points 
 without the letters, which yet are to be read as in 
 the margin ; of which sort are thirteen which are 
 there mentioned, and the places mentioned where 
 
The Considerator considered. 145 
 
 they are to be found : some again are written in 
 the Text, but not read, which have no points af- 
 fixed, of which sort are five, 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 
 marginal 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 chaste rabbins seemed obscene, 
 and therefore they put others less offensive in 
 the margin to be read in their stead in the Syna- 
 gogues, of which sort are ten, which are all enu- 
 merated ; with some about servile, some about 
 radical letters ; some by addition, some by de- 
 traction, some by transposition, or change of a 
 letter; some about zvords, &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 Ma- 
 sora, or El. Levita. Now, can our cavilling Ad- 
 versary find no use of all this, but only 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 find 
 
 VOL. II. L 
 
146 The Considerator considered. 
 no benefit, he may forbear to look upon it, and 
 leave it to others that can ; let him find out every 
 difference by the first Catalogue. Nor was this 
 ordering of them the work of Cappellus alone, 
 though he hath laboured more than any other 
 therein. The same was done long before by 
 Elias Lev. and in the Masora ; in many, by 
 Schindler, and Sixtin Amama, whose observa- 
 tions about these things were published long be- 
 fore Cappellus's Critica. That which is added 
 about Grotius, is as void of truth as the rest. Are 
 they given a third time in Grotius's notes, where 
 there are scarce one or two mentioned in the 
 whole Pentateuch, though there are above 
 seventy ? So in the 1st and 2d of Samuel, not 
 above two mentioned among an hundred ; and so 
 for the rest. 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 judgment 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 several judg- 
 ments are given of so many as they took notice 
 of. Now is it no benefit to the reader, to have 
 the judgment of such learned men upon them, 
 but all must be to increase the bulk ? 
 
 XV. As he finds fault with the multitude of 
 
The Consider ator considered. 147 
 
 the Various Readings, so he questions the Copies 
 out of which they are gathered, and the fidelity 
 of the collectors. (c The Copies few or none are 
 of any considerable antiquity," p. 195. e( any 
 book, though but of yesterday,'' p. 192. " he 
 doubts whether these readings be tolerably at- 
 tested to for Various Readings or no/' p. 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 scandal/' p. 195. 
 " Besides, in that MS. Copy of Emmanuel Col- 
 lege, which is only of the Epistles, many Various 
 Readings are quoted, as out of the Gospels and 
 Acts, with Col. Emman. prefigured. And it 
 may be supposed that this mistake goes not 
 alone ; but upon examination of particulars, they 
 will be found not so clearly attested, &c. He 
 doubts not, but upon search, some of these Co- 
 pies will be found no better than that Hebrew 
 MS. of the Psalms, rejected by Arias Montanus, 
 and therefore he earnestly exhorts some of his 
 University to examine these Various Readings, 
 &c." Here we may observe how little our Con- 
 siderator 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 f 1 am sure they are the 
 
148 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 choicest, and some of them the best antiquity in 
 England, yea, some the ancientest that are this 
 day in the world. And I can further aver, that 
 some Copies I laid 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 is said before, with 
 great labour and charge, [Bj sought out, and col- 
 lated by the most reverend Usher, out of the best 
 Libraries, public or private, in England ; and I be- 
 lieve, he was as able to judge of a Copy as ano- 
 ther. What thinks our Author of the [C] Alexan- 
 drian MS. of the New Testament in Greek, pre- 
 served in the King's 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 
 antiquarians conclude, and thereforethis MS. must 
 needs exceed that age. What of the [Dj Codex 
 Claromontanus, and of [E] that which Beza sent to 
 Cambridge, written in the same manner? Most 
 of the rest are of great antiquity. Not to insist upon 
 [F] that Greek MS. of the Chronicles, brought out 
 of Greece by Theodorus, who was Archbishop of 
 Canterb. above a thousand years ago, which is 
 now in Cambridge Library ; nor of [G] that an- 
 cient remnant of Sir Robert Cotton's Greek 
 
The Consider ator considered. 149 
 
 MS. of Genesis, esteemed by learned Usher 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 public 
 Libraries, and may attest for themselves ; he may 
 exhort whom ? e will to examine the Copies and 
 the Various Readings ; if he can find them un- 
 faithfully collected, let him publish it to the world, 
 and not spare us. But how this will be done, 
 unless 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. Beza's 
 is stigmatized by himself: but where had he 
 this, but out of Beza's Epistle to the University, 
 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 judgment on that Copy about 
 the Genealogy of Christ, Prolegom. ix. 65. that 
 in that point it is of no credit : yet why it might 
 not be useful 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 venerandce antiquitatis; 
 and those that please may find it to agree wifh 
 
150 The Consider ator considered. 
 our old Alexandrian MS. and other ancient Co- 
 pies, and with the reading of divers ancient 
 writers of the Church, where our later Copies do 
 rear* 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 discre- 
 pance in it from other Copies in Saint Luke, that 
 to avoid the offence of some (weak persons) he 
 thought fit rather to preserve it than to publish it, 
 (which is all the stigmatizing here boasted of, ) 
 yet he adds, " In hac non sententiarum, sed vo- 
 cum diversitate, nihil profecto comperi, unde sus- 
 picare potuerim a veteribus illis Haereticis fuisse 
 depravatum. Imo multa mihi videor deprehen- 
 disse observatione digna, quaedam etiam sic a re- 
 cepta scriptura discrepantia, ut tamen cum vete- 
 rum quorundam et Graecorum et Latinorum Pa- 
 ir urn scriptis consentiant, quae omnia pro ingenii 
 mei modulo inter se comparata, et cum Syra et 
 Arabica Editione collata, in majores meas Anno- 
 tationes a me nuper emendatas, et brevi (Deo fa- 
 vente) prodituras congessi." Here we see what 
 use Beza made of this Copy, and how he stigma- 
 tizes it ! If he bad thought so basely of it as our 
 Author, he would never have thought it worthy 
 to be presented to such an University, nor they to 
 preserve it as such a rare monument of antiquity. 
 XVII, As for that MS. of St. Paul's Epistles in 
 
The Considerator considered. 151 
 
 [H] Emmanuel College, though there was another 
 MS. in the same College of the Gospels and Acts, 
 whose name was casually omitted in the Cata- 
 logue, 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 de- 
 ceived or abused with any forgery 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 press, 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 can- 
 not forbear to insinuate, that there hath not been 
 fair dealing in this collection, nor to raise suspi- 
 cions, 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 Mo- 
 rinus (now lately dead) was a Jesuit, a petulant 
 Jesuit, p. 207. an aspiring Jesuit, p. 29.). when 
 any one 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 
 
152 The Considerator considered. 
 
 Jesuits ; or, that the Oracles of God were com- 
 mitted to the Jews under the Old Testament, and 
 all the Writings of the New, as we find, Ep. p. S. 
 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 Felix 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's Edition of the New Testament, ga- 
 thered by Stephanus, who corrected that impres- 
 sion ! Here are many mistakes, which shew that 
 he never looked into any Edition of the Venice 
 Bible ; for Felix Pratensis, and Ben-Chajim 
 never joined in one Edition of the Bible ; one was 
 by Felix Pratensis, another by Ben-Chajim : nor 
 are those Various Readings gathered by Ben- 
 Chajim, but were first published by Felix Pra- 
 tensis, as he might have read in Prolegom. iv. 
 sect. 14. or if he will not believe me, let him read 
 Buxtorf 's Bibliolheca Rabbinica, p. 228, &c. and 
 believe his own eyes. I could instance in more of 
 this kind, if I thought it needful, nor should I 
 have mentioned these, if he had not given me this 
 occasion. 
 
 XV11I. He objects, that in these Various Read- 
 ings, " There is no choice made, no judgment 
 
The Consider ator considered. 153 
 
 used in discerning' true from spurious, but all dif- 
 ferences 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, L 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 differ- 
 ences of Copies are not here noted : Secondly, 
 yet I deny not but that there may be divers re- 
 maining, which may come into that number, which 
 I thought fit rather to leave to the reader's judg- 
 ment, than 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 another's judgment; as appears in that which 
 he saith is noted by Lucas Brugensis for a cor- 
 ruption, which yet he knows Robertus Stephanus 
 reckoned among Various Readings; and Beza 
 thought so well of it, that he preferred it before 
 the common reading : nor doth Lucas Brugensis 
 reject it as a corruption, but taxes Beza for pre- 
 ferring this reading upon the authority of one 
 Copy before the common reading; but it seems, 
 if one reading have more reason for it than an- 
 other, the other must presently be a corruption in 
 our Adversary's Logick, and yet it appears, that 
 
J b\ The Considerator considered. 
 
 there are more Copies than 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 than once 
 in the Prolegomena, that every difference of a 
 Copy is not properly a Various Reading. Vide 
 Prolegom. vi. sect. 8. Scribarum ewores, dequi- 
 bus certd constat, inter Varias Lectiones nequa- 
 quam referendi ; and therefore, (though the 
 major part give the denomination to the whole, 
 and all differences in a general sense maybe 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 trans- 
 criber, it shall be no offence at all to me, so it be 
 not done animo calumniandi, without magisterial 
 imposing their conceits upon others, and so that 
 they leave to others the like liberty which they as- 
 sume to themselves. Neither was it incumbent on 
 us, (as our Author cannot but confess, and there- 
 fore answers himself,) to give our judgment upon 
 every reading, which is the best ; we had work 
 enough besides : and therefore those that have so 
 much leisure to cavil and quarrel at every thing, 
 may do well to exercise theircritical faculty herein ; 
 only I wish they may have better success than 
 our Author hath in that specimen of his critical 
 abilities about gviXvatw, 2 Pet. i. 20, 21. p. 19, 
 
The Consider ator considered. 155 
 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 other- 
 wise of. Fourthly, to give the several readings 
 of ancient Copies of note, without passing any 
 judgment of each, is no new thing. In what 
 Edition of the Hebrew Bibles doth he find any 
 judgment 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 Cappellus in his Critica, or by Buxtorf 
 in his Bible now printing ? Arias Montanus brings 
 divers readings of the Greek, Chaldee, and Syriac, 
 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 read- 
 ings out of several Copies, but seldom gives any 
 judgment 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 reader's judg- 
 ment, but subjected all to his own. 
 
 XIX. But our Author might have observed, 
 that the design of the Edition was not only to ex- 
 hibit 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 
 
156 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 he might consult at pleasure. The particular 
 MSS. belonging- to several libraries, either in the 
 Universities or Colleges, or of private persons, 
 who were great gatherers of monuments of anti- 
 quity, 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 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 than appears 
 at present, upon the rising of new Errors and 
 Heresies ; which I confess 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 less useful at 
 present: and therefore it was resolved to give 
 them as they are ; which, considering the many 
 cautions and rules about them, [I] Prolegom. vi. 
 De Variis Lectionibus, to stop the mouth of ca- 
 lumny, and prevent all just cause of offence, I 
 conceived might be justly done. 
 
The Considerator considered. 157 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 I. The consequences inferred by the Adversary from the 
 Various Readings, on the behalf of Atheists, Papists, 
 Fanatical Persons, Mahometans. II. He proves none 
 of them. III. The inconsequence shewed. IV. The 
 words of Sixtin Amama. V. Of Bochartus, Lud. De 
 Dieu, S)X. VI. Erasmus: The same words used by the 
 Friars against him, which this Adversary uses against 
 the Biblia Polyglotta. VII. No error or mistake is 
 capable of cure by his rules. The words for themselves. 
 VIII. The Adversary's argument retorted upon himself. 
 He pleads for Papists, Atheists, fyc. grants, yea, urges, 
 both the premises ; only denies the conclusion. IX. That 
 he is guilty of what he accuses others. X. Various 
 Readings give no advantage to Papists, Atheists, An- 
 tiscripturists, or Mahometans, as is shewn in parti' 
 cular. 
 
 I. Having gone over these particulars about Va- 
 rious Readings, I might forbear to say any thing 
 more of that subject, of which enough is said to 
 satisfy any rational reader ; but because our Ad- 
 versary 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 authority of Scripture, on 
 the behalf of Atheists, Papists, Fanatics, Anti- 
 scripturists, and Mahometans, we shall briefly 
 consider the force of those consequences, whether 
 
158 The Considerator considered. 
 
 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 be- 
 get scruples, &c." p. 156. " these Prolegomena 
 seem to impair the truth, &c." p. 147. " men 
 of perverse minds may possibly wrest these 
 things." Nay, p. 206, he saith, "that the 
 Prefacer doth not own those wretched conse- 
 quences." Now, if they do but seem sufficient, 
 and if they be wrested by meh of perverse minds, 
 then those consequences do not necessarily fol- 
 low : no genuine consequence can be said to be 
 wrested, nor will he, I hope, join with men of 
 perverse minds. And if the Author of the Pro- 
 legomena do not own them, then they ought not 
 to be objected against him, without sufficient 
 proof of the consequences, which these Con- 
 siderations do no where afford. But in other 
 places he speaks more positively : p. 205, " They 
 are all directed," or ec by just consequence 
 owned in the Prolegomena ;" p. 206, " that no 
 sufficient security against the lawful deriving of 
 them is tendered;" p. 161, te that they are an 
 engine fitted for the destruction of that import- 
 ant truth by him pleaded for,and as a fit weapon 
 
The Consider ator considered. 159 
 put into the hands of atheistical men, to oppose 
 the whole evidence of truth revealed in the Scrip- 
 ture, &c. p. 207, " Great and wise men/' {of 
 which himself is one without doubt,) " do sup- 
 pose them naturally, and necessarily, to flow 
 from them." And, therefore, p. 147, he abso- 
 lutely affirms, " They are, in brief, the founda- 
 tion of Mahometanism, the chiefest and prin- 
 cipal prop of Popery, the only pretence of fana- 
 tic Antiscripturists, and the root of much hidden 
 Atheism in the world." 
 
 II. Now we know the rule is, Affirmanti in- 
 cumbit 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 kind, to prove that they do follow from 
 any principles in the Prolegomena ; but as he 
 substitutes what he pleases, instead of his Adver- 
 sary's tenets; so he infers at random any thing 
 that came into his mind, whereby to make them 
 odious to vulgar readers. The injustice of his 
 charge may sufficiently appear by what is already 
 said, and therefore 1 shall only recapitulate the 
 sum of what is formerly proved, reinforcing some 
 particulars ; and then shew, that the charge may 
 reflect upon himself, as being deeply guilty, by 
 his own confession, of what he would impute un- 
 to another. 
 
160 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 III. That no such inference can be made 
 against the certainty, integrity, and supreme au- 
 thority of Scripture, from any thing affirmed in 
 the Prolegomena, may appear, because, as is 
 at large shewed, The Prolegomena do not af- 
 firm the Original Texts to be corrupt, but to be 
 pure and authentic, of supreme authority, the 
 rule of faith and life, and of all Translations. 
 The Various Readings of the Original 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 Pro- 
 legomena, about Various Readings, which he 
 frequently confesseth to be both in the Old Tes- 
 tament 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 oj 
 no moment, contain nothing repugnant to the 
 analogy of faith, and such are by himself al- 
 lowed in the Hebrew and Greek. That the most 
 learned Protestant divines, and best skilled in 
 the Oriental Tongues, and most zealous defen- 
 ders of the Original Texts, have said the same 
 with the Prolegomena, and in some things more ; 
 such as Luther, Calvin, Beza, Mercer, Bren~ 
 tius, Oecolampadius, Pellican, Scaliger, De 
 Dieu, Sixtin Amama, Archbishop Usher, and 
 
The Consider ator considered. 16] 
 
 rn a manner, all others, who would never be so 
 inconsiderate, as to affirm and deny the same 
 thing, or to give back to their adversaries with 
 one hand, what they hare taken from them with 
 the other. And though I have both in Proleg. 
 vi. sect. 2. and in this answer cited divers of their 
 words, yet I shall here add something' more, with 
 their reasons against the consequences here ob- 
 jected, and those of such men whom he cannot in 
 the least suspect of inclining to Rome. 
 
 IV. Sixtin Amama, late Hebrew Professor at 
 Franeker, one whom our Author in his Epist. 
 p. 9, joins with Whitaker, Reynolds, Junius, 
 Chamier, Amesius, and others, ce that have stopt 
 the mouths of Romanists speaking against the 
 Original Texts, and quenched the fire which they 
 would put to the house of God," as he expresses 
 it ; this man, in that excellent book called Anti- 
 barbarismus Biblicus, which is wholly in de- 
 fence of the Hebrew Text, writes thus, lib. 1, 
 " Haud negare ausim, et injuria temporum, et 
 descriptorum incuria, errata quaedam et sphal- 
 mata in Textum Hebraicum irrepsisse. Hoc 
 autem dum admittimus, authoritati Textus He- 
 braici nihil detrahimus ; manet nihilominus Tex- 
 tus authenticus, et omnium versionum norma/' 
 Afterwards he adds, ee ex omnibus variantibus 
 lectionibus proferatur una, unde vel orthodoxse 
 
 VOL. II. M 
 
162 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 fidei, vel pietati, ullum detrimentum inferri possit ? 
 Certe his talibus nullam intervenisse JudaBorum 
 malitiam non tantum hinc apparet quod nullum 
 ex illis Judaicae perfidiae patrocinium exsculpi 
 possit, sed et ex eo quod fontes variarum lectio- 
 num assignari possunt, inter quos primarii sunt,, 
 affinitas soni vel affinitas figures consonantis, vel 
 indifferentia sensus, &c. Quin et illud conside- 
 ration dignum in istis infirmitatis humanae erra- 
 tis et irctgopoZpuci non dormitasse vigilem provi- 
 dentiae divinae oculum, dum cavit diligentissime 
 ne vel minima orthodoxae fidei particula, vel pie- 
 tas, ex eorum usu detrimentum capiat." 
 
 V. To him let us add Bochartus, Minister at 
 Caen, in France, a man no less eminent for his 
 various learning, than for his zeal and piety, in 
 that admirable Work of his, his Geographia Sa- 
 cra, Part I. 1. ii. c. 13, part of whose words I 
 have formerly cited, who writes thus ; " Licet 
 eandem scribis non tribuam aWjuapT>j<nai/ quam 
 scriptoribus sacris, non tamen inde sequitur, quod 
 nonnulli subinde oggerunt, actum esse de fide et 
 salutis doctrina, et in ea nihil essecerti: Quis 
 enim ferat in aliis sic arguentem ? In Livii et 
 Suetonii scriptis quidam errores irrepserunt : ergo 
 in Historia Romana nihil est certi ; et in iis quae, 
 de Hannibale, aut Julio, aut Augusto leguntur, 
 nutat fides ! Aristotelis Graeci codices alicubi sunt 
 mendosi : ergo quid ille scripserit de rebus Phi- 
 
The Consider ator considered 163 
 losophicis certo scire baud possumus ! Quamvis 
 exemplum sit valde dispar ! Nam multo aliter 
 invigilavit Dei Providentia ut Sacrae Scripturae 
 codices praestaret immunes, saltern in iis quae ad 
 fidem et salutem sunt absolute necessaria : unde 
 est, quod ut ut Hebrasi et Graeci codices variant 
 in minutulis, et Sacri Textus interpretes saepe in 
 diversa abeunt, tamen in fidei capitibus, et tb 
 vou8 tok PapuTeVoi?, eadem ubique doctrina occur- 
 rat, non jam dicam in dvToycd<pois 3 sed et in ver- 
 sionibus corruptissimis." What could be more 
 fully said to shew the vanity of our Author's con- 
 sequence ? The same we may read in Lud. de 
 Dieu, a man of great learning", especially in the 
 Oriental tongues, as his works proclaim, Praef. 
 in Animadvers. in Evangel. " Nec est quod 
 quenquam turbet ea codicum lectionumque varie- 
 tas, quasi nihil certi haberet fides Christiana cui 
 inniteretur ; nihil enim deprehendo quod fidei sub- 
 stantiam laederet — Tantum abest ut Erasmum, 
 Camerarium, Bezam, viros pietate et eruditione 
 conspicuos, culpare audeam, quod in suis ad sa- 
 cros libros notis varias lection es observarint, ut 
 contra eos utilem operam navasse credam." Here 
 we see the same arguments which our Adversary 
 brings about the uncertainty of Scripture pro- 
 pounded, and the same answer given which we 
 have given already. They shew the inconse- 
 quence of his argument, and acknowledge the 
 
 >i2 
 
164- The Consider ator considered. 
 great usefulness of gathering Various Readings ; 
 and further (which is to be observed) they do not 
 only allow of Various Readings out of the Origi- 
 nal Texts, but also out of Translations, which 
 they often practise themselves, and sometimes 
 prefer before the common reading, as we have 
 shewed, Pro/eg-, vi. 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 several Works, and 
 in this particular he was railed upon most by ig- 
 norant Friars, 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 several Translations and ex- 
 positions of the ancients ; whereupon as appears, 
 Epist. ad Henr. Rovillum, they cried out, " quasi 
 protinus actum esset de Religione Christiana — 
 vociferantur, ^ tr^lAia^fni/, O ccehim, O terra, 
 corrigit hie Evangelium !" So here they bring in 
 utter incertainty about all sacred truth, Epist. 
 p. 25 ; they correct the Scripture, p. 344 ; cor- 
 red 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 
 
The Consider 'ator considered. 165 
 
 Leus, quae sit ilia lectio quam dictavit Sp. S. et, 
 hanc unam amplexi, quicquid ab hac variat re- 
 jiciemus. Quod si ille non potest ; ex collatione 
 Jinguarum et exemplarium, ex lectione, ex Trans- 
 lationibus celebrium auctorum, nobiscum scrute- 
 tur quse lectio sit maxime probabilis." 
 
 VII. If our Adversary's rule had been re- 
 ceived, that no errors can befal the Text, either 
 by malice, or negligence, there had never been 
 any correct Edition made by any : and if it had 
 been thought unlawful, in any case, to question 
 the common reading, men might have spared 
 their labour, who from time to time, by com- 
 paring Copies and other helps above mentioned, 
 have endeavoured to make exact Editions, both 
 of the Hebrew and Greek, which we see yet was 
 at several times practised both by Jews and 
 Christians ; Ben Ascher, Ben Naphtali, R, Hil- 
 lel, Ben Chajim, Manass. Ben Israel, Buxtorf, 
 Arias Montanus, Erasmus, Stephens, 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 explicit 
 or tacit consent of the Church, receiving them 
 without gainsaying, have been approved and 
 commended. Whereas if nothing must be amend- 
 ed, as nothing must upon our Adversary's supposal, 
 all errors that shall happen are incapable of cure, 
 because we must suppose there can be none, and 
 
166 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 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 depravation of 
 the whole Scripture ; and so the case will be the 
 same with the Roman Church, or the Pope, to 
 whom the Jesuits 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 ori- 
 ginal Texts, Proleg. in Nov. Test. f< Serio re- 
 sponso haud digni sunt, qui aut variasse olim in 
 quibusdam libros, aut ex iis minus emendatos cum 
 cura restitutos, negant." And after ; " Satis sit 
 ejus modi varietates eas esse, ut vel quae neces- 
 sario credenda sunt non evertant, 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 ord- 
 nance overcharged, 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 only grants the same proposition 
 which we do, concerning Various Readings, bul 
 also grants, yea urges, the consequence which 
 Papists, Atheists, &c. would infer thence, ant 
 which not we only, but all sober men utterlj 
 
The Consider ator considered. 167 
 
 deny, only he denies the conclusion. For thus 
 the argument runs, if it be reduced into syllogis- 
 tical form. If there be Various Readings in the 
 Original Texts of Scripture, then the Scripture 
 is uncertain, corrupt, and doubtful, and so can- 
 not be of supreme authority, whereby way is 
 made for Popery, Atheism, §c. But there are 
 Various Headings in the Original Texts of 
 Scripture : Ergo, the Scripture is uncertain 
 and corrupt, 8$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 al- 
 leged, 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 joined 
 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 lays the weight of the cause, which neither 
 our Adversary, nor all the Atheists, Papists, or 
 Antiscripturists in the world are able to over- 
 throw. On the other side our Author not only 
 grants the minor, because it is evident to sense, 
 
168 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 but grants the major too, yea, he urges the con- 
 sequence all along in these Considerations, with 
 much earnestness and vehemency, (which all so- 
 ber Christians abhor and deny.) Now let all men 
 judge, who is guilty of this wretched conclusion, 
 he that grants the proposition, which is so evi- 
 dent that none can deny it, but denies the conse- 
 quence, and gives reasons against it, or he that 
 grants both major and minor, and denies only 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, it is 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 only out of Greek MSS. and tells us, p. 193. 
 * f that they create a temptation, that there is 
 nothing sound and entire in the Word of God/* 
 p. 206. cc that the consequences are lawfully de- 
 rived," p. 207 "that they do naturally and ne- 
 cessarily flow so p. 147. 161, &c. All along 
 throughout his Discourse, he infers from the 
 
The Consider ator considered. 169 
 
 Various Readings in the Appendix of the Bible, 
 (which are all out of the Original Texts, not any 
 gathered out of Translations,) that thereby is in- 
 troduced utter uncertainty about all sacred truth ; 
 so that nothing is more clear than that he makes the 
 consequence of the uncertainty and corruption of 
 the Scripture, to be the necessary product of Va- 
 rious Readings, and therefore that he hath plainly 
 prevaricated, and betrayed the cause which he 
 seemed to contend for ; and his friends, as he 
 makes them, Papists, Atheists, and fanatic per- 
 sons, have cause to thank him for disputing so 
 doughtily on their behalf. And so 1 conclude with 
 that of Seneca, Controv. 3. 1. 4. M Malo est in 
 loco, qui habet rei fortunam, accusatoris invi- 
 diam He is in an ill case, who accuses another 
 of what himself is guilty ; for guilt, as one ob- 
 serves, though it be the effect of some error, yet 
 usually it begets a kind of moderation in men, so 
 as not to be violent in accusing others of that 
 which may reflect upon themselves ; but here we 
 see it otherwise ; and from what root it proceeds, 
 I leave to every man's judgment. 
 
 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, Atheism, fana- 
 tical Antiscripturism, and Mahometanism, men- 
 tioned by him, p. 147. For " Popery he fears 
 
170 The Consider ator considered. 
 the pretended infallible guide, &c. will be found 
 to lie at the door" of the Considerations, p. 161. 
 and p. 202. He doubts not but to hear u news 
 from Rome concerning these varieties, there hav- 
 ing been no such collections as yet made, in the 
 world. Enough they are to fright poor unstable 
 souls, into the arms of an infallible Judge." And 
 p. 207. " We went from Rome under conduct of 
 the purity of the Originals ; I wish none have a mind 
 to return thither again, under pretence of their 
 corruption." How these Various Readings should 
 be any prop, much less the principal pillar of Po- 
 pery, 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 Ori- 
 ginal Texts to be corrupt, so that they can be no 
 sure ground of faith, and therefore that all must 
 fly to an infallible Judge, and rely upon the Vul- 
 gar Latin. 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 Original Texts the 
 authentic rule of all Translations : Vid. Proleg. vii. 
 Besides, let our Author shew that any of the Va- 
 rious 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 v. 7. are some words 
 
The Considerator considered. 171 
 
 left out in many ancient Copies, but there is 
 nothing contrary to the analogy of faith in- 
 serted. That point of the Trinity hath ground 
 enough besides in Scripture, though these words 
 had not been in any copy; and whether they were 
 rased out of some Copies by the Arians, as some 
 of the ancients suppose, or whether left out by 
 casual error of the transcriber in some one Copy 
 from which many others were derived, and that 
 error made use of by the Arians, yet here is 
 nothing against faith affirmed in this place, only 
 an omission of some words in some Copies. Be- 
 sides 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, Came- 
 rarius, Drusius, Heinsius, Grotius, de Dieu, Cap- 
 pellus. 
 
 XI. If it be said, that Papists make use of 
 these Various Lections to decry the Originals, and 
 to set up the Vulgar Latin, or from their uncer- 
 tainty to infer the necessity of an infallible Judge; 
 li it is true there be some that do so, but 
 there are some, and those of the most learned 
 among them, who are stout defenders of the pu- 
 rity of the Original Texts, and prefer them be- 
 fore the Vulgar Latin, as Simeon de Muis, Joh. 
 D'Espieres, and others ; and many among them 
 
172 The Ponsiderator considered. 
 who maintain that the Council of Trent, in de- 
 claring the Vulgar Latin to be authentic, did no 
 way derogate from the Hebrew and Greek Text, 
 but only preferred theVulgar Latin before all other 
 Latin Translations, and meant only, that it con- 
 tained nothing contrary to faith and good man- 
 ners, as Salmer. Serrar. Mariana, Azor, Driedo, 
 Vega, and divers others. 2. Doth our Adversary 
 think that the Papists can justly deduce any such 
 conclusions from the Various Readings? If he 
 think so, then he pleads their cause, and joins 
 hands with them against the Original 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 de- 
 nied, 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 lawful use of it be per- 
 mitted ? All truth is from God, the Author of 
 truth, he needs not men's policies to defend it, 
 much less can it be upheld by untruths. Those 
 pious frauds, when discovered, have proved pre- 
 judicial to the truth for which they were devised. 
 
 XII. He confesseth, p. 206. « That the Pre- 
 facer 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 
 
The Consider ator considered. 173 
 so too. But this Author knows also, that the Pre- 
 facer hath clearly proved, both against the Papist 
 and himself, that the consequence is false and in- 
 valid, 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 inconse- 
 quence of such conclusions from sucli premises as 
 are confessed by himself, than to play fast and 
 loose, or to calumniate them, who granting what 
 cannot be denied, no not by himself, do yet up- 
 hold the authority of the Scripture, and labour to 
 prove that no such things do follow as are by such 
 men surmised. 
 
 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 velitj if the rest 
 of the verse ( et magno mercentur Atridce ) be 
 added to it. It is well known, that the Author of 
 the Prolegomena, when he kept his Act pro Gra- 
 du, at Cambridge, about twenty years ago, main- 
 tained this Question : Pontifex Romanus non 
 est judex infallibilis in controversiis Jidei : And 
 he professeth himself to be still of the same judg- 
 
174 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 merit, and to be rather more confirmed in that 
 persuasion, than any way doubtful 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 
 learnedest 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 Latin, 
 which yet they will not have to derogate from its 
 supreme authority ? 
 
 XIV. For his Atheists, I wish he had con- 
 sidered better his own doctrine, p. 88, 104, 108. 
 1 10, &c. whether the taking away of one chief 
 argument to demonstrate the Divine Original of 
 Scripture, against Atheists and Unbelievers, viz. 
 " the miracles wrought for confirmation of the 
 doctrine, brought down and witnessed to us by 
 the universal 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, than we have to 
 believe those who deny they have any such tra- 
 dition, (that is, Jews, Pagans, and Mahometans;) 
 and that the Alcoran may, upon this ground, 
 
The Consider ator considered. 175 
 
 vie with the Christian Church — Whether the 
 affirming these things gives not more advantage 
 to Atheists, than 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 casual 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 mind of such advantages, and not rather leave 
 the urging of them to Hobbes and his fellows ? 
 Let him remember what Sixt. Amama hath 
 written against this, Antibar. lib. i. which I know 
 he hath read, Prolegom. vi. sect. 5. " Qui ne 
 minimas a Textu Originario variationes dari posse 
 defend unt, in laqueos et nodos inexplicabiles se 
 involvunt, simulque impiis et profanis hominibus 
 (quorum haec aetas feracissima) se ridendos prae- 
 bent, qui facile observent in libris Regum et 
 Chronicorum, et alibi quaedam «?ro^, ut in 2 Reg. 
 xxii. 8. collato cum 2 Chron. xxii. 3. de aetate 
 Ahaziae filii Joram, unde colligunt nullam esse 
 in sacris literis certitudine, nec iisdem fidem ad- 
 hibendam : Quibus facile os obstruitur, cum haec 
 ex variante codicum lectione, non ex ipso textu 
 auToypaipw oriri dicimus, unde consequentia ilia 
 nullum habet robur." 
 
 XV. The like may be said for his fanatic 
 
 6 
 
176 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 Antiscripturists. The certainty and divine au- 
 thority of Scripture hath been made good not- 
 withstanding- such Various Readings, and there- 
 fore no just ground can be hence gathered of re- 
 injecting the Scriptures. He tells us of a Treatise 
 written by somebody, who upon such principles 
 rejects the whole Scriptures as useless. I can 
 say nothing of the book which I have not seen, 
 nor known upon what principle 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 Original of Scripture, 
 and relies only upon its own light and self-evi- 
 dence, which is denied in this case to be suffi- 
 cient by many learned Protestants, do not give 
 greater occasion to those, who brag of their new 
 lights, and daily increase amongst us, to reject 
 all Scripture as useless, than he that allows such 
 Various Readings in the Scripture as we have 
 declared ; and whether the levelling of all dis- 
 cipline and order of government in the Church, 
 and leaving every man to follow his own fancy, 
 against both Old and New Testament, which 
 tell us, That they should seek the Law at the 
 Priest's mouth, and that they who will not hear 
 the Churchy are to be accounted as Publicans 
 and Heathens, have not made way to those An- 
 
The Consider ator considered. 177 
 
 tiscripturists, Familists, and other Sectaries, 
 which swarm among us, and like the locusts 
 that came out of the bottomless pit, have over- 
 spread the land, and darkened the sun ! 
 
 XVI. Lastly, for Mahometanism : 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. iv. 5. 11. And some of his 
 followers pretend that there was something al- 
 tered in John xiv. about the Comforter which 
 Christ promised to send, as if there had been 
 something in that place foretold of Mahomet, 
 which the Christians have rased out and cor- 
 rupted. But doth our Author believe that any 
 Various Readings gathered out of any MSS. or 
 printed Copies, or ancient Translations, do inti- 
 mate any such thing of Mahomet, or favour any 
 part of his impious doctrine ? I am sorry to see 
 any man so transported, as to urge such things, 
 which must reflect upon the most eminent di- 
 vines and chief lights of the Church, in this or 
 former ages, yea, upon himself in a high mea- 
 sure, who affirms the same about Various Read- 
 ings which those do, against whom he makes 
 this inference. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 N 
 
178 The Considerator considered. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 I. The occasion pretended of this invective against the 
 Translations of the Biblia Polyglotta. II. His mis- 
 takes about the Arabic. The Publisher of the Arabic, 
 the same with the Publisher of the Biblia Polyglotta. 
 III. IV. The Adversary misreports Mr. Pocock's Pre- 
 face. His contradictions. V. VI. The Syriac vindi- 
 cated from his aspersions. The antiquity of it proved. 
 VII. His carping at the Cambridge Copy. VIII. The 
 Samaritan Pentateuch vindicated. IX. X. XI. His 
 Paradoxes about the Samaritan Pentateuch. XII. Set 
 forms of Liturgy proved from the Jews after Esdras's 
 time, and from the Samaritans in imitation of them* 
 XIII. The Chaldee Paraphrase defended. Of Bux- 
 torfs Babylonia. XIV. Of the Vulgar Latin, XV. 
 The Septuagint defended : the other Translations not 
 taken from it, save part of the Arabic, XVI. Of the 
 Original Copy of the Septuagint. XVII. Of the Ethio- 
 pic and Persian. XVIII. The true reason why the Ad- 
 versary is so offended with these ancient Translations, 
 they testify for Liturgy, observation of Festivals, fyc. 
 
 I. Before we leave this charge about Various 
 Readings, I must say something of the Transla- 
 tions exhibited in the Biblia Polyglotta ; against 
 which our Author spends his last chapter, upon 
 pretence, that we assign them another use than 
 he allows, viz. That they are the rules by which 
 the Original is to be corrected ; for upon this 
 
The Considerator considered. 179 
 he takes occasion to inveigh against them all, to 
 shew how unfit they are for this end, and further, 
 how unuseful for any other end. Now, though 
 I might well pass 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 Va- 
 rious Readings to be gathered out of them in 
 some cases, and with some limitations, as is above 
 declared, yet we neither make them equal with, 
 much less prefer them above, the Originals, but 
 make them subservient to them ; yet, because un- 
 der colour of this he defames and asperses all 
 the Translations as of no use, nor deserving any 
 esteem, I shall take a brief view of the most ma- 
 terial 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 acknow- 
 ledgment of the usefulness of them in some cases, 
 and p. 206, calls the work, a noble collection of 
 Translations : but this is, as I said before, only 
 as a shoeing-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. Jerom, ho- 
 norifica contumelia, an honourable reproach. 
 
 n2 
 
180 The Considerator considered. 
 
 First, he begins with the [K] Arabic, for the honour 
 he bears to the renownedly learned publisher of 
 it, as he affirms, (meaning Master Pocock,) or 
 rather indeed, because he thought he might have 
 more colourable pretence to vilify this Transla- 
 tion than 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 how apt he is to mistake or to derogate 
 what he can from the publisher, when he makes 
 that learned man the publisher of the Arabic. 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 pub- 
 lisher of the Arabic Translation, or any other in 
 this Edition ; for upon the request of the pub- 
 lisher, he collated the Pentateuch, not the whole 
 Translation, with two Copies of Saadias's Trans- 
 lation, (which he takes to be the same with that 
 in the Parisian, and in this Edition,) the one a 
 MS. the other printed in the Constantinopolitan 
 Bibles ; and noted the differences of them, which 
 he sent to the publisher ; which after they were 
 reviewed, and collated over again for a great part, 
 with the printed Copy of Saadias, which I had 
 out of Mr. Selden's Library, (for many things 
 
The Considerator considered. 181 
 
 were mistaken by some whom he employed in 
 part of the collation, which himself, being other- 
 wise employed, had not leisure to review, and 
 therefore desired me that they might be re-ex- 
 amined,) I caused to be printed and published 
 with the rest. And upon the like request of the 
 publisher, that he would make some brief Pre- 
 face to those Arabic Various Readings or dif- 
 ferences 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 Pen- 
 tateuch is the same with that of Saadias, wherein 
 divers others of great learning and judgment did 
 concur with the publisher ; nor did his reasons 
 seem cogent, considering them on the one side, 
 and what was brought by D. Hottinger, now 
 Hebrew Professor at Heidelberg, 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's 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 find by 
 experience : yet seeing it was only his particular 
 judgment, and every man had liberty to judge of 
 his reasons as he saw cause, (some things also 
 
182 The Considerator considered. 
 
 being mollified and altered upon the publisher's 
 Letters, from the first draught,) he chose rather 
 to publish it as it is, than to take upon him to 
 determine any thing in it, having also said some- 
 thing of this point, Prolegom. xiv. which the 
 reader may consult, if he please. 
 
 III. I shall not therefore go about to discuss 
 or determine that Question, whether it be the 
 same which Saadias the Jew translated out of 
 Hebrew into Arabic, 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 public as- 
 semblies ;) yet I cannot but observe how our Ad- 
 versary doth misreport and wrong the learned 
 Author of that Preface, in reciting his words and 
 opinions, whom yet he seems to magnify, and 
 therefore it is the less to be wondered that he 
 deals so with others, whom he labours what he 
 can to vilify : for he makes him to write things 
 neither true, nor agreeing to common sense, 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 f 
 which is a plain contradiction ; for if there be no 
 Translation in the Arabic extant, how came this 
 to be extant, and why doth he call it an Arabic 
 
 2 
 
The Considerator considered. 183 
 Translation, if there be none in that language ? 
 and why doth he speak, p. 324, " of other Ara- 
 bic 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 He- 
 brew, but some out of the Hebrew, some out of 
 the Syriac, and part out of the LXX. but he was 
 not so devoid of common sense, as to say there 
 was none at all. I looked among- the Errata, but 
 could not find any error noted there : nor can he 
 say, that there is no other Translation in the Ara- 
 bic but this, and that this was his meaning, for 
 himself tells us of divers other Translations : and 
 he could not but see in the Prolegom. xiv. men- 
 tion made of divers Translations made by Chris- 
 tians since they were in subjection to the Ma- 
 hometans, who propagated the Arabic tongue 
 where they came, as that by the Bishop of Se- 
 ville, in Spain, in 700, and two other famous 
 ones, the Alexandrian or Egyptian, which Gab. 
 Sionita published in the Paris Bible, and the 
 Antiochian, used in that Patriarchate, as was 
 shewed out of the Psalter Nebiense, and others, 
 of both which MSS. Copies are remaining in the 
 Vatican, as Cornelius a Lapide informs us, who 
 made use of both. All that Mr. Pocock saith out 
 of Abulfeda, is only, that there was no Arabic 
 Version out of the Hebrew before his time in 
 Arabic letters, not denying but that there were 
 
184 The Considerator considered. 
 
 Arabic Translations out of the LXX. and the 
 Syriac long before, and that there might be also 
 some out of the Hebrew into Arabic, but not in 
 Arabic characters. Again he makes Mr. Pocock 
 say, that the ancientest part of that Translation 
 was made about the year 950, which he doth no 
 where affirm, but only 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 no- 
 thing. 
 
 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 Con- 
 stantinopol. Pentateuch (which the Jews used 
 in their Translations) into Arabic, by one who 
 might change some words. But what is this to 
 a translation or interpretation ? Was the Penta- 
 teuch translated into Arabic, when the Hebrew 
 letter was changed into Arabic ? Besides he no 
 where makes the interpreter to have been a Ma- 
 hometan, or Samaritan, as this Author misreports 
 him, but to be R. Saadias a Jew ; but that he 
 who transcribed, or put it into Arabic characters, 
 might change some words, to comply the better 
 with Mahometans, under whom those Christians 
 lived. And lastly Mr. Pocock tells us, that these 
 
The Considerator considered. 1 85 
 things he cannot affirm upon certain and un- 
 doubted grounds, but only upon probable rea- 
 sons. 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 Arabic Version, what 
 Copies we used,, what Translations there are, he 
 may peruse if he please Proleg. xiv. where he 
 shall not find any such use, either of this, or any 
 other Translation as our Adversary feigns, viz. 
 to correct the Originals, or, as he elsewhere ex- 
 presses it, to correct the Word of God. 
 
 V. In the next place he falls upon the [L] Syriac, 
 that noble, ancient, Oriental treasure, made im- 
 mediately 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 im- 
 portance) from our modern Hebrew Copies, 
 which shews (as learned Hottinger observes) 
 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 igno- 
 norant of these things, who can help it ? Other- 
 wise he might have learned of those that have 
 
186 The Considerator considered. 
 
 spent more time in the search of these things 
 than 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. xix. 
 p. 183, proves, when he saith, u it were intoler- 
 able boldness, and no less foolish, not to give 
 credit to them in this business, than if any Syrian 
 or Persian, who never had been in Europe, and 
 were altogether ignorant of the Latin," (as he 
 supposes them to be of the Syriac tongue who 
 question the antiquity of this Translation,) <f and 
 had never seen or read any Latin book, should 
 question whether the Vulgar Latin Translation 
 of the New Testament, of which he had never 
 heard but by report, were of that antiquity which 
 they of the Latin Church ascribe unto it, and by 
 constant tradition have always done, and should 
 affirm it was made many ages after. And their 
 rashness," as he there adds, " is so much the 
 more detestable, because we have most strong ar- 
 guments to prove the great antiquity of it, as that 
 it must needs be in the third century at least, be- 
 cause Diodorus Tarsensis, Theodorus Mopsues- 
 tes, Polychronius, Procopius, Gazaeus, and others, 
 
The Considerator considered. 187 
 
 who lived some of them in the fourth century, do 
 often mention and commend a Greek Transla- 
 tion then in use, which was made out of the 
 Syriac." 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 Syriac language, and quote 
 many places out of the Syriac 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 Syriac 
 MS. called Catena Syriaca in Evangelia, which 
 he had among many other Syriac books, out of 
 the Library of that famous and reverend Usher." 
 
 VI. The great antiquity of this Version is also 
 proved Proleg. xiii. out of the ancient writers 
 which mention it, Saint Basil, Saint Chrysostom, 
 Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Eusebius, and 
 others mentioned in the ancient Greek Scholiast, 
 besides Jacobus Syrus, (who was present at the 
 Nicene Council,) and Ephraim Magnus, who do 
 both mention this Syriac Translation, and com- 
 mented upon it in Syriac. Besides it must needs 
 be of great antiquity, when that other and later 
 Syriac Translation was made out of the LXX. 
 above a thousand years ago, as appears by Ma- 
 sius in Jos. who had some Syriac books of that 
 
188 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 Translation written before that time ; and some 
 Syriac Copies of the New Testament are now 
 remaining in the Duke of Florence's 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 Pro- 
 legomena xiii. 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 suspi- 
 cious, 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 less of any corruption ; but 
 all this you must take upon his word, against the 
 judgment of all learned men, who have some of 
 them spent more years in this Translation, than 
 he ever spent days, 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 [M] that Cambridge MS. which we com- 
 pared 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 
 
The Consider ator considered. 189 
 years after : by which reason he might reject 
 the Greek Text of the New Testament, because 
 in some old MSS. some such prayers and ejacu- 
 lations may be found added by the scribes of those 
 Copies. 
 
 VIII. Thirdly, he falls foul upon the [N] Sama- 
 ritan Pentateuch and Version, p. 327, and 260. 
 He labours first to prove what nobody denies, 
 <e That their Pentateuch cannot vie with the 
 Hebrew Text," p. 329, when as he could not 
 but read, Proleg. xi. that it is there expressly af- 
 firmed, that their Pentateuch is not authentic, 
 and that there are some wilful corruptions in it, 
 as that about Mount Gerizim ; 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 Original of this Pentateuch in 
 the Prolegom. or to enforce 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 Pro- 
 legomena may stand firm, till it be impugned or 
 confuted, which I do not fear to be done by our 
 Author in haste. Yet though I do not love to 
 spend time about frivolous exceptions; some 
 things there be which I cannot well pass by 
 without notice. 
 
190 The Considerator considered. 
 
 IX. Pag. 261. he saith, "The Samaritans 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, 829. " 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's 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 judgment of all learned men who have 
 written of this subject. That the Priest taught 
 them to fear the Lord, is expressed, 2 King. xvii. 
 28. How this could be done without the Book 
 of the Law, 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 withal they worshipped their idols. That 
 Manasseh, the High Priest's brother, fled thither 
 in Esdras's time, and built a temple on Mount 
 Gerizim, whither divers Priests and other Jews 
 also came, and there worshipped God, and of- 
 fered sacrifices, (though in a schismatical way,) 
 is out of doubt. And how this could be done with- 
 
The Considerator considered. 191 
 
 out the Book of the Law is not to be conceived. 
 That they continued in their idolatry till their 
 Temple was destroyed by Hircanus, is against all 
 ancient records,, which affirm the contrary, Jo- 
 seph, lib. 9. cap. ult. saith, " Postquam Legem, 
 et Dei colendi rationem ab iis, (sacerdotibus a 
 Salmanasare, for so it should be printed, missis) 
 edocti diligenter Deum colere cceperunt, moxque 
 cessavit pestilentia, permanentq; in ea religione." 
 Epiph. Hseres. 3. saith, l( Illos accepta lege hoc 
 unum studuisse, ut idolorum repudiata supersti- 
 tione Summum Deum agnoscerent." The same 
 is affirmed by some rabbins, produced Prolegom. 
 xi. 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 groundless fancy, 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 
 only the Pentateuch ? when as if Hircanus had 
 forced the Pentateuch upon them, he would, with- 
 out doubt, have forced all the rest of the Jewish 
 Canon upon them, and that in the Jews' charac- 
 
192 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 ter. Pardon me, good reader, if thy patience be 
 exercised in confuting such wild fictions, whose 
 very naming is enough to confute them among 
 sober and discreet men, 
 
 X. Of the same stamp is that which follows : 
 <f That it is unknown that any of them are remain- 
 ing at this day, or have been these thousand 
 years : that their Pentateuch was never used by 
 ancient Christians, &c." They were not so few 
 in the times of Zeno and Justinian, but that they 
 durst rebel against those potent Emperors. Ben- 
 jamin in his Itinerary, written about five hundred 
 years ago, found divers Synagogues of them at 
 Damascus, Ascalon, Caesarea, Palestina, Sichem, 
 &c. Peter du Valle, and others, who lately tra- 
 velled in the East, have found divers Synagogues 
 of them still remaining at Sichem, Jerusalem, 
 Gaza, Cairo, and Damascus ; and affirm, that 
 there are some relicks of them still remaining at 
 Cairo, of those Colonies which Ptolemy carried 
 into Egypt. That their chief Priest resides still 
 at Sichem, on Mount Gerizim, where he sends 
 circular letters to the rest about their solemn 
 feasts. Scaliger had (from Eleazar their High 
 Priest at Sichem, and the Samaritans at Cairo, to 
 whom he wrote,) a Type of the Calendar and 
 Compute for the year 1589, which he published 
 both in Samaritan and Hebrew characters, lib. 7. 
 De Emend. See Gassendus in Vita Peirescii, 
 
The Consider at or considered. 193 
 
 p. 157. and Hottinger, Bibliothec. Orient, c. 4. 
 p. 305. I have seen a Samaritan Pentateuch which 
 [O] belonged to one of their Priests at Damas- 
 cus, about four hundred years ago, as appears by 
 what he hath written in that Copy. And notwith- 
 standing 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. xi. 
 where sect. 7. 14, &c. he could not but find Ori- 
 gen, Eusebius, Africanus, Cyril of Alexand. 
 Diodorus Tars. Jerom, Eulogius, Procopius, Epi- 
 phanius, the Greek Scholiast, and other ancient 
 Writers quoted, and their testimonies produced, 
 to prove the Samaritan Copy they used to have 
 been the same with this now extant, by the places 
 they alleged about Chronology, and other contro- 
 verted Texts : yet all these men must not be 
 reckoned among ancient Christians, for no anci- 
 ent 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 Samaritans, than 
 we had formerly from the Scriptures and Jose- 
 phus j which no man that hath read Scaliger or 
 
 VOL. II. O 
 
1 94 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 Morinus will believe. Those that have read them, 
 or the Prolegomena, will find many things con- 
 cerning the Samaritans and their Pentateuch, 
 which could not be found either in the Scripture or 
 Josephus, being matters of fact, done long after 
 Josephus's time, and after the Canon of the Scrip- 
 ture was finished. 
 
 XII. But he is much offended, p. 331. " that 
 from the occasional mention of the Samaritan Li- 
 turgy, and the pretended antiquity of it, the 
 Author of the Prolegomena falls, and not without 
 some bitterness, on those that have [P] laid aside 
 the English Liturgy, or Service Book, and saith, it 
 had not been imprudently done, to reserve a tri- 
 umph over the Sectaries to some more consider- 
 able victory than any is to be hoped from the ex- 
 ample of the Samaritans, a wicked people, for- 
 saken 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. xi. sect. 23. and 
 let any man see, whether it be not the example of 
 the Jews, who used set forms of public 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 Samaritans 
 
 6 
 
The Consider ator considered. 195 
 
 are mentioned in this only ut Judceorum cemuli ; 
 so that the example of the Samaritans proves 
 chiefly the practice of the Jews, whose apes they 
 were in this and other things, and so may 
 well be brought as an argument against our No- 
 vellists. The words are these : Quam ( Liturgiam 
 Samaritanorum ) valde antiquum esse et prope 
 Esdrce temporu in usu fuisse, vel ex ipsis Ju- 
 dceorum formulis, quas paulo post reditum a 
 Babylone, ah Esdra, et sociis ejus compositas 
 fuisse affirmant uno ore omnes Judcei, quasque 
 in hunc usque diem usurpant, colligi potest. 
 Videantur Cappellus in Spicileg. et Seldeni 
 Notce in Eut. Unde Sectariorum nostrorum per- 
 vicacia, et impietas, meritb redarguitur, qui, 
 spretis omnibus publicis Orationum et Liturgia- 
 rum formulis, pter omnes Christi Ecclesias ab 
 ipsis Ecclesice Christians primordiis, et Apos- 
 tolorum temporibus usitatis 3 Liturgiam Eccle- 
 sice Anglicance, omnium per orbem Christianum 
 purissimam, et sanctissimam, damnarunt, et 
 omnibus, fyc. Quorum praxis ab ipsis Judceis 
 eorumque cemulis Samaritanis erroris et novi- 
 tatis arguitur : where we see the argument is 
 drawn chiefly from the Jews; and from the Sa- 
 maritans, only as imitating the Jews. And let 
 the Samaritans be what they will, yet their ex- 
 ample in imitation of the Jews, who were then the 
 only visible Church of Christ, is a strong argu- 
 
 o2 
 
196 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 merit for the use of public set forms of Liturgy, 
 and will more prevail with sober and pious men, 
 than all the pretences of factious Novellists. 
 
 XIII. In the fourth place, the [Q] Chaldee Pa- 
 raphrase comes under censure, (S which is likewise 
 a Cento made up of divers pieces ; some part sup- 
 posed/' ( I say, proved in the Prolegomena, ) 
 44 to be written before Christ, and some part" ( ac- 
 knowledged likewise in the Prolegomena ) (i to 
 be written five hundred years after Christ." The 
 great use of this Paraphrase, among other things, 
 is largely shewed, Proleg. xii. 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 phrases, &c, and our Adversary cannot 
 but acknowledge it : other things likewise con- 
 cerning these Paraphrases, their Authors, Anti- 
 quity, &c. are largely handled in the same Pro- 
 legomena, to which I must refer the reader. He 
 tells us of the bulky collections of Various Read- 
 ings in this Paraphrase ; but he might have ob- 
 served by the Title, that there are not only Va- 
 rious Readings, but also Observations, which take 
 up the greatest part of that collection. And as for 
 Buxtorf s 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 
 
The Consider ator considered. 197 
 
 our own notes on that subject were begun, and 
 would have risen to a greater bulk than the 
 last volume of the Bible would well bear. Where- 
 upon I forbore to print it, but shall willingly com- 
 municate it to any that shall undertake to make it 
 public, and shall further their endeavours therein, 
 it being a book very useful, as 1 conceive, to re- 
 store 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 slightly esteemed it, as 
 our Adversary doth. 
 
 XIV. The [R] Vulgar Latin 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, not- 
 withstanding' its corruption and barbarisms. 
 What esteem it deserves, is declared, Prolegom. 
 x. 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 Latin, but thereby to 
 depress 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 
 
198 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 without prejudice. What the authority, and use 
 of this Translation is with the several questions 
 concerning the same, the reader may find de- 
 clared and debated at large, Proleg. x. 
 
 XV. Now comes the [S] Septuagint, which 
 he saith, must bear the weight of all ; the most of 
 the rest being taken out of it. Of this Transla- 
 tion we have written at large, Prolegom. ix. 
 which for its antiquity, and hoary hairs, is most 
 opposed by all Novellists, though it be proved, in 
 the same Prolegomena, that it was publicly read 
 in the Synagogues for near three hundred years 
 before Christ ; that our Saviour and the Apostles 
 used it, and cited it more frequently than the He- 
 brew Text, and thereby consecrated it to pos- 
 terity ; 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 Syriac,) 
 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 Latin Fathers expounded, 
 illustrated, out of which they instructed the peo- 
 ple, confuted heresies, and maintained the truth ; 
 that this, which we now have, is the same for 
 substance with that anciently used, (though in 
 
The Consider ator considered. 199 
 
 some things, by the injury of time, and frequent 
 transcriptions vitiated ;) which, with all the seve- 
 ral questions and controversies about this Trans- 
 lation, are at large discussed and handled ; to 
 which I must refer the reader, where he shall 
 find all the doubts and questions raised by this 
 Author, or others, resolved, and all their asper- 
 sions cast upon it wiped off. It would be too 
 long to go over the particulars here. Those that 
 amongst our Neoterics have been least favourable 
 to it, have yet highly valued it, as is shewed out 
 of Scaliger, Heinsius, and others. Heinsius saith 
 of it : ee Rarum et incomparabilem thesaurum 
 esse neminem ignorare posse, nisi qui ab omni 
 eruditione alienus git." Aristarch. cap. xv. p. 951. 
 The quarrels and cavils therefore of our Author 
 against it, 1 shall not meddle with now ; all of 
 them, and a great deal more, is related and an- 
 swered in the same Prolegom. ix. only I cannot 
 but observe how he overlashes still, when he af- 
 firms, 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 
 Arabic ; of which, yet, himself formerly told us, 
 the Pentateuch was translated out of the Hebrew, 
 and some part out of the Syriac : as for the rest, 
 viz. the Samaritan Version, the Syriac, Chaldee, 
 and the Vulgar Latin, they are all out of the He- 
 brew, except the Psalms in the Vulgar Latin and 
 
200 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 Ethiopia 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 in- 
 sist upon that Argument against the Septuagint, 
 that the Original Copy was burnt in the Library 
 of Alexandria, in Caesar's time, to prove that 
 there are no true Copies now left ; which childish 
 argument he knew was answered, Proleg. ix. 
 sect. 49. so as might have made any man of com- 
 mon discretion forbear to urge it : for it is shew- 
 ed, and on all hands confessed, that there were 
 thousands of Copies every where extant among 
 the Jews, and read publicly in their Synagogues 
 all the world over, and so had been for some 
 hundred of years before the burning of Ptolo- 
 my's Library ; so that the loss of that Original 
 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, than it can be in- 
 ferred that we have no true Copies of the He- 
 brew and Greek Texts because the first Origi- 
 nals have been lost many ages since, as among 
 other things is there shewed. 
 
 XVII. The Ethiopic and Persian Transla* 
 
The Consider ator considered. 201 
 
 tions, which he falls upon in (he last place, ff are 
 the worst and most corrupt in the world. He can 
 find no use of the Persian, but only to shew that 
 there is such an useless thing* in the world. The 
 Ethiopic 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 
 random. It is sufficient that learned men, and 
 such as are able to judge, do acknowledge the 
 use of them, and thankfully receive the publish- 
 ing of them. The antiquity and use of both, es- 
 pecially of the [TJ Ethiopic, is declared Proleg. 
 xiv. and xv. What is there said and proved, 
 will, I doubt not, overbalance what is by him 
 barely affirmed to the contrary. That the Ethio- 
 pic is now used, and hath been since the conver- 
 sion of that Nation, among the Abyssinians, 
 through those large territories, consisting of many 
 kingdoms, is shewed by good authority, and sun- 
 dry 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 [U] Persian, it is acknowledged 
 in the Prolegomena not to be that ancient Trans r 
 
202 The Considerator considered. 
 
 lation 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 Syriac, not immediately out of the Greek ; 
 yet that it may be useful, is likewise shewed., 
 Proleg. xv. in divers particulars, and that this 
 Copy we have printed was written three hun- 
 dred years ago ; but how long before the Trans- 
 lation itself was made, we cannot determine. 
 How the Jews should have a hand in any of the 
 Translations is a fancy which I think never 
 lodged in any man's breast but his own, nor can 
 he shew any ground for it. It may as well be 
 said, that Turks and Mahometans made all these 
 Translations for the use of Christians. Because 
 the transcriber of the Ethiopic, (as it is rendered 
 in Latin,) makes Saint John Bishop of Constan- 
 tinople, (though it be doubtful whether it may be 
 so rendered, as he might have seen in the anno- 
 tations, and the Ethiopic word is not Constanti- 
 nople, though the learned translator of it into 
 Latin conjectured it might be there meant;) 
 therefore the Ethiopic translator must be illite- 
 rate, and the Translation novel, when as in the 
 Syriac 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 Prole- 
 
The Consider at or considered. 203 
 
 gomena, 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 feigned to himself an 
 adversary when he had none, that so he might 
 have some pretence of depressing the several 
 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 ac- 
 knowledgment of the truth of his affirmations. 
 And although his invectives be groundless and 
 vain, yet I have good ground to believe, that 
 there is something else in the Translations them- 
 selves, (which he is not willing to mention,) 
 which hath caused all this bitterness against them. 
 It appears by these ancient Translations that, 
 what our Sectaries have [W] cried down in the 
 Church of England, as Popish innovations, viz, 
 episcopal government, set forms of Liturgies, 
 observation of festivals besides the Lord's Day, 
 were used (as they are still) in those Eastern 
 Churches, planted by the Apostles, and their Suc- 
 cessors, in Asia and Africa, from the first times 
 of their conversion ; so that what these men 
 would exterminate as Romish and Antichristian 
 novelties have been anciently used by those fa- 
 mous and flourishing Churches, which never pro- 
 
204 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 fessed subjection to the See of Rome. Hinc 
 Ice lachrymce : This is that cordolium of our No- 
 vellists, the practice of the universal Church of 
 Christ all the world over, which condemns their 
 innovations; which argument is of more force 
 with considering men, than all the acute argu- 
 ments drawn only from strength of reason. 
 For to condemn the practice of the Church of 
 Christ in all parts of the world, constantly ob- 
 served in all ages, is insolentissima insania, as 
 Saint Augustine long since [said.] These things, 
 with some other ancient rites, appear in the 
 Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, &c. which 1 doubt were 
 as great motes in our Author's eye, which made 
 him so willing- to quarrel with the Translations, 
 and to cavil without a cause : and thus 1 have 
 briefly run over his invective against the Trans- 
 lations, entreating the reader for more full satis- 
 faction to consult the Prolegomena themselves, 
 and by these specimina which we have given of 
 his candour 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 Cor- 
 ruptions of the Originals which he would there- 
 upon infer. I shall proceed now more briefly 
 to that other principal charge, concerning- the 
 punctuation of the Hebrew Text ; after whicl* 
 7 
 
The Consider ator considered. 205 
 
 we shall add something* about the ancient He- 
 brew Characters, and of the use of the Septua- 
 gint Translation, towards the knowledge of the 
 Hebrew Tongue ; and so put an end to the 
 reader s trouble and our own for the present. 
 
206 'Uie Comideralor considered. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 h The Controversy of the Hebrew punctuation, by whom 
 handled. II. The charge against the Prolegomena* 
 III. No new thing delivered in the Prolegomena about 
 points, nor any thing prejudicial to the certainty and 
 authority of the Hebrew Tex t. IV. V. That the He- 
 brews always had vowels »1N proved. The vowels ex- 
 cluded 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. r flie true leading depends not upon their au- 
 thority. 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 custom or use, 
 proved by the Talmuds and rabbinical writers. The 
 New Testament at first had no accents or notes of dis- 
 tinction, fyc. The Chaldee Paraphrase, Syriac, Ara- 
 bic, had no points at first. XI. What is affirmed in 
 the Biblia Polyglotta about this Controversy. XII. 
 The first occasion of this Controversy about points 
 handled. XIII. XIV. Elias Lev. not the first broacher 
 of the novelty of points. XV. XVI. XVII. Divers, 
 both Jews and Christians, held the same opinion long 
 before Elias. XVIII. Elias's 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 distin- 
 
The Consider ator considered, 207 
 
 guished, whether they be coeve with the lan- 
 guage itself, or of the same antiquity and original 
 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 [X] 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, 
 Lect. 12, and others, but most largely by Bux- 
 torf, both father and son ; and by Lud. Cappel- 
 lus ; by the father, in his Hebrew Grammar ; and 
 by Cappellus, in his Arcanum punctationis re- 
 velatum, printed by Erpenius, at Leyden, in 
 1614; and by Buxtorf the son, in his answer to 
 Cappellus. The chief arguments on both sides 
 are collected, and with addition of some others, 
 presented, Prolegom. iii. sect. 38. to 56. What 
 is charged in the Considerations upon the Prole- 
 gomena in this matter, we have in part set forth, 
 chap. iii. in some particulars, and opposite there- 
 to, what is asserted in the Prolegomena. We 
 shall now more fully discuss what is charged or 
 objected in the one, and what is granted or de- 
 nied in the other ; not that I intend to handle the 
 Controversy at large, which would be actum 
 
208 The Consider ator considered 
 
 agere, and make this short reply swell into a 
 great volume, but as our Author saith, he would, 
 J? h vapofy, briefly consider the heads of things, 
 so I shall briefly take notice of his Considera- 
 tions. 
 
 II. In his Epist. page 19, he saith, " That 
 the solemn espousal of the opinion of the novelty 
 of the Hebrew punctuation in the Biblia Poly- 
 glotta, was one chief occasion of these Considera- 
 tions." The opinion which he opposes, is by him in 
 several places declared, p. 157, " That the He- 
 brew points or vowels, and accents, are a novel 
 invention of some Judaical 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 Transla- 
 tions were extant in the world. Their arbitrary 
 invention p. 208, c. iv. in the contents, and p. 
 217, 218, 293, « the arbitrary inventions of 
 some Jews, and that it is lawful for us to change 
 them at pleasure," p. 250, 258, 217, 218. 
 Hence he deduces these consequences, p. 157, 
 si That the agreement of those Translations, be- 
 fore the supposed invention of the points, with 
 the Original, cannot by just consequence be tried 
 by the present Text, as now pointed and ac- 
 cented." And, " that the whole credit of our 
 reading and interpretation of the Scripture, as* 
 
The Consider ator considered. 209 
 
 far as regulated by the present punctuation, de- 
 pends solely on the faithfulness 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 uncertainty in and about all sacred 
 truth." Epist. p. 25. (( That all things are 
 hereby made doubtful in Scripture, so that no 
 certain truth can be learned from the Scrip- 
 tures/' p. 211 : u yea, they not only make doubt- 
 ful the authority of the Scriptures, but wholly 
 pluck it up by the roots," p. 213. u And there- 
 fore he had rather that this work of the Biblia 
 Polyglotta, and all works of the like kind, were 
 out of the world, than that this one opinion 
 should be received with the consequences that 
 unavoidably attend it." Those consequences 
 are, Epist. p. 9, " We must either turn Papists 
 or Atheists p. 19, f< He dare not mention the 
 desperate consequences that attend this imagi- 
 nation p. 161, !i Either the pretended infal- 
 lible Judge, or the depth of Atheism, will be 
 found to lie 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, 
 
 VOL. II. P 
 
210 The Considerator considered. 
 
 and shall now be made appear, that the same 
 doctrine of the original of points was delivered by 
 the greatest Reformers, the most eminent Pro- 
 testant divines, both at the beginning of the Re- 
 formation, and since ; and the best skilled in East- 
 ern learning, which then were, or 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 maintain- 
 ed, there is no prejudice at all arising to the cer- 
 tainty 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 
 Syriac, Arabic, 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 accord- 
 ing to the true and received reading, and not as 
 they pleased : nor that it is lawful for any to re- 
 ject their reading at pleasure, but that all are tied 
 to it, unless 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 sense of the Holy Ghost; 
 so that the Controversy is only about the present 
 
The Consider ator considered. 211 
 
 points, in regard of their forms, not of their force 
 and signification, which D. Prideaux well ex- 
 presses, sect. 12. Lect. 4. ie Controversia non est 
 de vocalium sono, sed signis, an ista fuerint ab 
 initio qualia nunc habemus ;" and sect. 3. " De 
 sonis, sive rebus substractis, lis non est, sed de 
 figuris et characteribus," &c. In which it is true, 
 the Author of the Prolegomena denies the anti- 
 quity or divine original of the present points ; 
 wherein, as I said, he hath the concurrent judg- 
 ment of the learnedest 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, only propounds 
 what seemed to him most probable. 
 
 IV. First then, for the true stating of the Con- 
 troversy, 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 always noted by points in every word 
 as they are now. Thus Drusius, De recta lee- 
 tione Linguce sanctce, cap. 4. distinguishes: 
 
 p2 
 
212 The Considerator considered. 
 
 €< Vocalium soni literis coaevi sunt, figurae vero 
 posteriores, et post Hieronymi aBtatem." 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 punc- 
 tatos so also D. Prideaux in the place now al- 
 leged, Lect. 12. sect. 3. vowels do, as it were, 
 animate all words, and are as the soul to the body, 
 whereupon they are called vocales, a voce ; be- 
 cause by the help of vowels articulate words are 
 pronounced. This is largely proved, Prolegom. 
 iii. 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, Syriac, Arabic, &c. viz. 
 
 which are yet commonly called matres lec- 
 tionis, because they direct the reading in books 
 not pointed, to which some add n, and St, Je- 
 rome y. 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 sense : 
 For the Hebrews have as many letters as other 
 nations, (for as is shewed, [Y] Prolegom. ii. 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 
 
The Consider ator considered. 213 
 
 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, with- 
 out which, no letters can be pronounced : This 
 would make an Alphabet of such letters as could 
 not at all be pronounced, which were most ab- 
 surd : for as Morinus saith, " quod est sua natura 
 vocalissimum, et per quod csetera redduntur voca- 
 lia, esset mutum." By the help of these letters 
 Origen expressed all the Hebrew Text in Greek 
 letters in his Hexapla : The like hath St. Jerom 
 and divers others of the ancients done, when they 
 express some words or verses in Greek or Latin 
 letters. And why could not Moses and the Pro- 
 phets do the like, as the Jews do at this day, when 
 they express the words of other nations, Latin, 
 Italian, Spanish, &c. in Hebrew letters without 
 points ? 
 
 V. Out of Origen we have some relicks left in 
 [ Z] that ancient G reek MS. of Cardinal Barberini's 
 of the Minor Prophets ; which, collated with the 
 Roman LXX. I have printed in the Appendix ; 
 and have produced some verses, viz. Hos. iii. 2. 
 and xi. L in Proleg. iii. sect. 49. as a specimen 
 how Origen expressed the Hebrew Text in Greek 
 letters, by which it appears that Jod served for 
 (o) sometimes for (*) Aleph for (a) Vau for (u) 
 and (r ( ) and sometimes for (*) Ain for (a) and 
 
214 The Consider alor considered. 
 
 sometimes for (f). Josephus 1. 6. De Bello Jud. 
 calls the letters of the name mrP <pmr\tv\x rlwoipQc, 
 four vowels ; for by Qmwlx he understands 
 vowels in opposition to consonants, called <ru'^<pa>j/a. 
 So St. Jerom frequently, as is observed by Ge- 
 rard Vossius, De Arte Gram. 1. 1. c. 27. and 
 others. {< Verum est quidem hodie vocales in iis 
 quiescere, at olim pro vocalibus fuisse testatur 
 Hieron. qui eas vocales appellat." Epist. 145. 
 <e Docet pro Hosianna dici Hosanna, media vo- 
 cali 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 tD^7tt> 
 with Jod,) " an Salem/' which is written lD^ID 
 without Jod, " et hanc causam reddit, qudd voca- 
 libus in medio literis raro utuntur Judaei." Here 
 it is plain he calls Jod a vowel. <e Idem tradit Heb. 
 Gen. 13. dicit cum 1 scribi, et p£K ablata 
 
 1 litera, quae apud Hebraeos pro (u)legitur." More 
 to this purpose is alleged in the same place, to 
 which I know not what can be answered ; it be- 
 ing as clear as if it were written by a beam of the 
 sun, that Jerom reckoned for vowels. So 
 Zuinglius (misprinted Zuinger in the Proleg.) 
 Prcef. in Esaiam, Vocalibus nunquam caruit 
 ilia lingua. K enim a^e^i^oetu, nunquam 
 eis defuerunt, &c. Beza de recta ling. Grcec. 
 pronunc. Non dubito quin ante puncta vocalia 
 
 1 
 
The Consider ator considered. 215 
 
 ab Hebrceis Grammaticis dhinissimo certe in- 
 vento excogitata, ( quod post Hieron. cetatem 
 contigit,) Aleph idem prorsus illis atque ceteris 
 gentibus sonuerit. This, and a great deal more, 
 those that please may read in those Proleg. all 
 which our Author well knew, but was pleased to 
 pass over in silence, as knowing it would over- 
 throw one part of the foundation, whereupon that 
 fabulous opinion of the antiquity of 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, than in the 
 beginning or end : Unde hcec consuetudo He- 
 brccis, vocalcs in mediis vocibus omittendi ple- 
 rumque, cum initio et fine scepius (not semper, 
 as it is misprinted) adhibeant ; which the 
 reader may find, Proleg. iii. sect. 50. Notwith- 
 standing all this, (which our Author had read in 
 the Prolegomena,) he sticks not to bring the 
 same words, (which we have mentioned out of Je- 
 rom,) to prove that pointed vowels were known 
 to Jerom, Epist. 126. Nee refert utrum Salon 
 an Salim nominetur, cum vocalibus in medio 
 Uteris perrarb utantur Hebrcei Whence he ob- 
 serves, p. 285. " that the Hebrews had the use of 
 vowels, or else he cannot understand his words; 
 for if they did \tyerrarb, they did it sometimes/' 
 He did not, or rather he would not, understand 
 
2J6 The Consider alor considered. 
 
 his words ; for he could not but know, that by 
 vowels, Jerom meant not the modern 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 
 Sale?n without it : and then whether in that place 
 Jerom could mean any thing but Jod by vocatis 
 media. For the vowels which the Hebrews used 
 in St. Jerom's time, they used perrard, very sel- 
 dom, in the middle of words, and most frequently 
 in the beginning and end. And so it is true, they 
 used those vocales Uteres, which were the matres 
 lectionis ; but the puncta vocalia 3 the vowels 
 now used in our Bibles, are used more frequently 
 in the middle, seldom in the end, and never in 
 the beginning of a word, no nor a syllable; for, 
 consona semper syllabam inchoat. Therefore not 
 the puncta vocalia, but the literce vocales, were 
 the only vowels in St. Jerom's time. And con- 
 sequently our Considerator by his own confession 
 cannot understand St. Jerom's words. Besides if 
 our present points had been then in use, there 
 had been then no place left for different pronun- 
 ciation, either pro voluntate lectorum, or pro 
 varietate regionum, as Jerom affirms 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 Maso- 
 rites were the authors of the points, that they 
 
The Consider atov considered. 217 
 
 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 truse sense 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 
 Origen's Hexapla, which also may appear out of 
 the LXX., Jerom, and others that were before 
 the Masorites, they pronounced some letters and 
 vowels otherwise than the Masorites have now 
 pointed them: See Hier. ad Evagr. transcribing 
 Gen. xiv. 18, 19, 20. into Latin 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 Jerom and the LXX. in 
 the Proleg. Yet though the sound and pronun- 
 ciation did sometimes differ, the signification of 
 the words, and the sense and meaning of the Holy 
 Ghost might be the same, as in those places out 
 of Origen and Jerom. Or if the sense be differ- 
 ing, yet there want not rules to try which is the 
 best reading, mentioned Proleg. vi. However, 
 the pointing was not arbitrary, nor doth the true 
 reading depend upon the Masorites. For as it is 
 said, Proleg. iii. sect. 51. Xotandum Jlasorethas, 
 dumpuncla inuencrunt, non novos vocalium so- 
 
2 1 8 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 nos, vel pronunciationem novam induxisse, sed 
 juxta consuetudinem sibi traditam libros sacros 
 punctasse, ideoque lectionem non ab iis pendere 
 licet ipsi apices excogitarint, nec ided lectionem 
 esse veram quia est a Masorethis sed quia ve- 
 rum Sp. S. sensum exprimit, quemque scripto- 
 ribus saci^is dictavit et per eos Uteris consigna- 
 vit. Non enim punctarunt codices pro arbitrio; 
 sed secundum veram et receptam lectionem, 
 quam diligenter poterant, puncta apposuere, &c. 
 And this our Author himself grants, p. 250. where 
 he saith that Elias Levita, who makes the Tibe- 
 rian Masorites the authors of the points, ties all 
 as strictly to the reading- by points, as if they had 
 been by Ezra, and left it not to be altered at every 
 man's pleasure. All which is said in the Proleg. 
 which deny that the Masorites at pleasure point- 
 ed the Text, and, which necessarily follows, that 
 it is lawful for any whatsoever to alter the reading; 
 at pleasure ; which as it proves the charge of our 
 Author to be groundless, so takes away his main 
 arguments against the novelty of the points, viz. 
 That the reading* would depend upon the autho- 
 rity of the rabbins, and that it would be altogether 
 uncertain, and so the authority of the Scriptures 
 would be taken away. For both these are alto- 
 gether vain and groundless, supposing* that the 
 Masorites did not point the words pro arbitrio, 
 but were tied to the common received reading 
 
The Consider ator considered, 219 
 
 which they expressed by their punctuation ; for 
 the Text was generally so read by the Chris- 
 tian Church as it now is, as appears both by the 
 Hebrew Copies among them, and by the Com- 
 ments and Expositions and Translations of the an- 
 cient Writers of the Church. The reading and 
 expositions therefore of Christians are not regu- 
 lated by the Masorites, or depend upon their skill 
 and diligence in punctuation ; for if their punc- 
 tuation had never been, the reading had been the 
 same it is : Nor do they rely upon the Masorites, 
 but upon the Text itself, 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 punctuation, not upon their autho- 
 rity, 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 
 easy reading of the Text. 
 
 VII. Against this we have a main objection, 
 p. 292, 293. " That while the Hebrew language 
 was the vulgar tongue of that nation, and was spoken 
 by every one uniformly every where, it had been 
 possible upon a supposition that there were no 
 points, that men without infallible guidance and 
 direction might affix notes and figures which 
 might with some exactness answer the common 
 pronunciation of that language, and so conse- 
 
220 The Considerator considered 
 
 quently exhibit the true and proper sense and 
 meaning of the words themselves. But when 
 there had been an interruption of 1000 years in 
 the vulgar use of that language, and being pre- 
 served only pure in one book, to suppose that the 
 true and exact pronunciation of every letter, tittle, 
 and syllable, was preserved alive by oral tradition, 
 not written any where, nor commonly spoken, is 
 to build castles in the air." After, he saith, f *'that 
 the relief is insufficient, to say the Masorites af- 
 fixed not the present punctuation arbitrarily, but 
 according to the tradition they had received. 
 What weight is to be laid upon such a tradition 
 for near 1000 years, (above, according to Mori- 
 nus,) is easy to be imagined. Nor let men please 
 themselves with the pretended facility of learning 
 the Hebrew language without points and ac- 
 cents, and not only the language, but the true 
 and proper reading and distinction of the Bible ; 
 let the points and accents be wholly removed, and 
 the restraint and distinction of the words as now 
 pointed, and then turn in the drove of the learned 
 Critics of this age upon the noted consonants, and 
 we shall quickly see what woful work, yea havock 
 of the sacred truth will be made among them ; 
 were they shut up in several 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." 
 
The Consider ator considered. 221 
 
 VIII. To this we answer, t. That though the 
 Language ceased to be vulgar for 1000 years, 
 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 
 at 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 pronunciation of 
 it to others, which they did successively from age 
 to age, (as we see in the Greek and Latin, which 
 have for a long time ceased to be vulgar ; and yet 
 the knowledge of the tongues, and the true read- 
 ing 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 
 scholars, and their 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 faci- 
 litate 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 read- 
 
 9 
 
222 The Considerator considered. 
 
 ing and sense of the Scriptures, to point and ac- 
 cent 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 Jews 
 might point the Bible as well as their predeces- 
 sors might have done whilst the language was 
 common. This is a clear truth to any common 
 understanding, and not to build castles in the air. 
 2. The true reading was not continued by oral or 
 unwritten tradition after the tongue ceased to be 
 vulgar, but by the written Text, which was al- 
 ways preserved entire among them; and the 
 reading depended not upon tradition otherwise 
 than the reading of all books in other languages, 
 which depends upon the oral instruction of mas- 
 ters 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 Sa- 
 maritan Pentateuch, Chaldean Paraphrase of the 
 Pentateuch and Prophets, and the Syriac Tran- 
 slation of the Bible, continued above a thousand 
 years before they were pointed ; (and the Sama- 
 ritan is not yet pointed, as is certainly known and 
 confessed by all ;) which shews plainly how the 
 
The Considerator considered. 223 
 Hebrew Text might be continued, and the trne 
 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 pretended to be in the Hebrew unpointed. And 
 that the true reading might be preserved above a 
 thousand years is not against all reason, but very 
 reasonable to suppose ; since we see the same 
 done in the Samaritan, Syriac, and Chaldee, for a 
 longer time, and the same may be said of the 
 Arabic, though not for so long a time after the 
 Alcoran was written. 
 
 IX. 3. The certain reading of the Text by dili- 
 gent practice and use may be attained without 
 points, though with more difficulty than if it we're 
 pointed, as hath been heretofore shewed by Mar- 
 tinius, Cappellus, and others. One that is 
 wholly ignorant of the Hebrew tongue, having 
 some Translations, as the LXX. or Vulgar La- 
 tin, 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 itself, and the pro- 
 per sense and meaning in connexion with others ; 
 and may by degrees find out where the transla- 
 tor varied from the Text, and where he was mis- 
 
224 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 taken. Thus, among others, Clenard learned the 
 Arabic without any master or instructor, when 
 that language was scarce known in Europe, by 
 the Nebiense Psalter, where the Arabic is with- 
 out any pointed vowels, by comparing it with 
 other Translations in that Psalter. And so Er- 
 penius, the great restorer of the Arabic in these 
 parts, professes of himself, that, proprio Marte, he 
 [A] first got the knowledge of the Arabic tongue, 
 without any teacher, out of Arabic books not 
 pointed; such as the Arabic Gospel, printed at 
 Rome, the Nebiense Psalter, Avicen, and other 
 authors ; and if this were done in the Arabic, I 
 know no reason why it may not be done in the 
 Hebrew. In the Chaldee and Syriac, (which 
 seem to be dialects of the Hebrew,) the same was 
 done before points for them were devised. Elias 
 Levita, Galatinus, Scaliger, and others testify of 
 their knowledge, that children are taught to read 
 Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, Turkish, and Persian 
 books, without points ; and that they have 
 seen them read very readily. It is true, it is 
 more difficult to read without points, but yet at- 
 tainable ; for our Author is much mistaken when 
 he says, that men may please themselves with a 
 pretended facility of reading the Hebrew without 
 points, I know none that thinks it so very easy : 
 Nay, it is freely acknowledged that it was with 
 more difficulty attained before the points were 
 
The Consider ator considered. 2Td 
 
 devised, and thereupon the faculty of true and 
 distinct reading was accounted no ordinary mat- 
 ter among the rabbins, 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 help 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 ac- 
 cents were taken away, yet by the help of some 
 Translations, and by diligent care and study, one 
 might as well attain to the true reading of the 
 Hebrew, as Clenard and Erpenius did of the 
 Arabic : And that if divers 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 sense of 
 the Scriptures, than is to be found among some 
 congregations at this day, whose harmony in ex- 
 pounding the Scripture, is little better than 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 
 
 VOL. II. Q 
 
226 The Considerator considered. 
 
 by the antecedents and consequents ; so that in 
 the context, as they are parts of a sentence, the 
 reading which is in itself ambiguous, is deter- 
 mined to one sense and meaning. This is shewed 
 at large in Proleg. xiii. sect. 50, 51, where an 
 instance is given, sect. 51, out of Exod. xviii. 15, 
 where the words unpointed are ambiguous, and 
 capable of diverse senses 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 join hands; who 
 from the ambiguity of some words unpointed 
 would prove the Text to be ambiguous. He in- 
 stances in IlH, which unpointed is capable of 
 eight significations, which is fully answered, Pro- 
 leg, vii. sect. 24. But if, notwithstanding the 
 antecedents and consequents, some words do still 
 remain doubtful, as it is in the Greek, and in all 
 languages, yet the use and custom 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 am- 
 biguity, though without points, from the time of 
 Moses to Esdras, why might it not likewise be 
 continued and preserved as well after Esdras's 
 time as it was before ? Experience, as I have 
 said, shews it in other tongues, as the Chaldee, 
 
The Considerator considered. 227 
 
 Syriac, Arabic, &c. which had no points at first, 
 yet were read without ambiguity. The Tal- 
 muds, and other rabbinical writings, are daily 
 read both by Jews and Christians without points. 
 Punctuation facilitates the reading. He that 
 understands not the Hebrew, may read it with 
 points ; he that is exercised in the tongue may 
 read it without them. There is no colour why 
 the Chaldee Paraphrase, the Syriac Bible, the 
 Alcoran, might be read, and the true sense cer- 
 tainly known before they were pointed ; and why 
 the Hebrew Text cannot, but must be subject to 
 such uncertainty. The New Testament was not 
 at first written with accents, notes of aspiration, 
 distinction, by comma and colon, &c, as is shewed, 
 Proleg. iii. sect. 45, and appears by ancient 
 MSS. our Alexandrian, and others; and is 
 granted generally. Whereupon, in the Complu- 
 tense Edition, it is printed without accents, that 
 it might better represent the aCroy^tpou 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 doubtful, and capable of divers senses ; and 
 that the distinctions do sometimes alter the sense, 
 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 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 hinder the certainty of the New Testament, why 
 should the want of the points hinder the cer- 
 tainty of the Old ? Therefore D. Prideaux, Lect. 
 xii. sect. 17, saith, " Lection is certitudo compa- 
 rari potest absque punctis ex attenta praxi, et 
 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, et Rabbinicis, 
 quae multa sunt, sine punctis tradita est, sine 
 punctis Jegitur, et publice in Scholis exponitur ; 
 neque quisquam est qui incerta illic omnia con- 
 queratur; et tu mihi reclamas Hebraea scripta 
 sine punctis incerta esse, neque te protinus ab 
 ipsa rerum experientia convinci refellique sen- 
 tias !'* To these I will only add what Buxtorf 
 senior saith of the uncertainty of the Chaldee 
 unpointed, which may be as truly said and ap- 
 plied to the Hebrew unpointed, Thesaur. Gram. 
 1609, p. 614. " Incerta in voce per se extra 
 sententiam posita non in continuata et perfecta 
 sententia, &c. Arbitrarium est ; sed ei, qui igno- 
 rantiae tenebris obductus, nigrum arbitratur esse 
 album, et pro arbitrio de coloribus judical. Non 
 cujuscunque arbitrium, sed conveniens sentential 
 ratio, sed certa constansque analogia Grammatica 
 veram lectionem moderatur." These things con/- 
 sidered, most of our Adversary's reasons, espe- 
 
The Consider ator considered. 229 
 
 cially that which is the principal, about the un- 
 certainty of the Text are answered ; all which are 
 at large handled in the Prolegom. iii. but these 
 he prudently passeth over, because if they had 
 been mentioned by him, the whole fabric of his 
 building had fallen to the ground. 
 
 XI. That which we affirm there about this 
 controversy, 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 completing of 
 the Talmud. Thirdly, but, after five hundred 
 years after Christ, invented by some learned Jews 
 for the help of those who were ignorant of the 
 Hebrew tongue, whom they would teach, by this 
 means, to read the Hebrew Text as distinctly and 
 exactly as themselves ; that so, after they had 
 taken out of the people's 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 publicly, which, before the 
 invention of those points, could be done only by 
 a few learned men. Fourthly, as for other mat- 
 ters, though probably affirmed, I do not insist 
 much ; as who they were ; how many ; one or 
 more ; in what place they lived ; (whether at Ti- 
 berias, or elsewhere ;) or where they met about 
 
230 The Considerator considered. 
 
 this work ; what the precise and exact time was, 
 when the punctuation was made ; whether the 
 sixth, seventh, or eighth age after Christ : in 
 which things, because of the great defect of any 
 certain historical monuments among the Jews 
 for those times, all being involved in great ob- 
 scurity and darkness, by reason of their disper- 
 sions and banishments, it is hard to determine 
 any thing with certainty ; though it be most pro- 
 bable, 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 controversy, and the certainty of the 
 Scriptures without points, it will be needful fur- 
 ther to add something concerning the first occa- 
 sion of this controversy, which is briefly shewed, 
 Prolegom. iii. sect. 38, to be this : That though 
 the controversy be in itself grammatical, or phi- 
 lological, yet it had its rise from a question 
 theological. For when, at the beginning of the 
 Reformation, divers questions arose about the 
 Scripture and the Church ; the Romanists ob- 
 serving that the punctuation of the Hebrew Text 
 was an invention of the Masorites, they thereupon 
 inferred, that the Text without the points might 
 be taken in divers senses, and that none was tied 
 to the reading of the rabbins ; and therefore con- 
 cluded, that the Scripture is ambiguous, and 
 
The Consider ator considered. 231 
 doubtful, without the interpretation and testi- 
 mony of the Church ; so that all must fly to the 
 authority of the Churchy and depend upon her 
 for the true sense 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 be well main- 
 tained, though the Text were pointed, instead of 
 denying the consequence, which they might well 
 have done, thought fit rather to deny the assump- 
 tion, and to maintain, that the points were of 
 divine original ; whereby they involved themselves 
 in extreme labyrinths, engaging themselves in de- 
 fence of that which might be easily proved to be 
 false ; and thereby wronged the cause which they 
 seemed to defend. Others, therefore, of more 
 learning and judgment, knowing that this posi- 
 tion of the divine original of the points could not 
 be made good, and that the truth needed not the 
 patronage of an untruth, would not engage them- 
 selves therein ; but granted it to be true, that the 
 points were invented by the rabbins ; yet denied 
 the consequence, maintaining, notwithstanding, 
 that the reading and sense of the Text might be 
 certain without punctuation, and that therefore 
 the Scripture did not at all depend upon the au- 
 thority of the Church. And of this judgment 
 were the chief Protestant divines, and greatest 
 
232 The Considerator considered. 
 
 linguists that then were, or have been since, in 
 the Christian world ; such as I named before : 
 Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Musculus, 
 Brentius, Pellican, Qecolampadius, Mercer, Pis- 
 cator, P. Fagius, Drusius, Schindler, Martinius, 
 Scaliger, De Dieu, Casaubon, Erpenius, Sixt. 
 Amama, Jac. and Ludov. Cappellus, Grotius, &c. 
 And among ourselves, Archbishop Usher, Bishop 
 Prideaux, Mr. Meade, Mr. Selden, and innume- 
 rable others, whom I forbear to name ; who con- 
 ceived it would nothing disadvantage the cause, 
 to yield that proposition, for that they could still 
 make it good, that the Scripture was in itself 
 a sufficient and certain rule for faith and life, not 
 depending upon any human authority to support 
 it. 
 
 XIII. Amongst those who undertook to assert 
 the divine original 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 know- 
 ledge of that tongue. This man in his Hebrew 
 Grammar, edit 1. brought divers arguments to 
 prove his opinion : and said more for it than 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 embrace 
 his opinion, and to take it for granted ; and the 
 
The Consider ator considered. 233 
 
 rather, because it seemed to make more against 
 the Romanists than 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 
 judgment. 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 pub- 
 lishing of it, till he had better considered of the 
 whole matter. After this, Lud. Cappellus, He- 
 brew Professor at Saumur, a man of great learn- 
 ing and worth, as his writings speak him, pub- 
 lished his Arcanum punctationis revelatum, 
 which was set out by Erpenius at Leyden, in 
 1624. Wherein he largely handles the whole 
 controversy, answered all Buxtorf's arguments 
 to the full, and brought such convincing reasons 
 to the contrary, that few who read this book with- 
 out prejudice, but subscribed to his opinion ; as 
 Erpenius, Ger. Vossius, Rivet, Sixt. Amama, 
 Spanhemius, Festus Hommius, Cotterius, &c. as 
 appears by some of their Epistles, printed in his 
 Defensio Criticce. Yea, divers that formerly 
 were strongly against his opinion, being con- 
 vinced by evidence in his reasons, joined with 
 them ; as Mr. Eyres, late Prebendary of Ely, a 
 man of great skill in this kind of learning ; Ar- 
 
234 The Considerator considered. 
 
 nold Bootius, a man of great knowledge in the 
 Hebrew, and a violent opposer of Cappellus's 
 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 succeeded his father in the place of 
 Hebrew Professor at Brasil, out of piety to his 
 father, as is by himself in his Vindic. ingenuously 
 confessed, undertook to answer Cappellus, (who 
 had formerly opposed and confuted his opinion 
 about the ancient Hebrew letters,) though not 
 without more sharpness and animosity than 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 perform- 
 ed, I leave to every man's judgment. For my 
 own part, (though he be my worthy and much 
 honoured friend, with whom 1 have for divers 
 years had friendly intercourse by Letters, not- 
 withstanding our difference of judgment in this 
 and other matters,) yet I cannot assent to his opi- 
 nion ; nor do I find upon perusal of his book, 
 that he hath clearly answered Cappellus's argu- 
 ments, but that they stand firm and unshaken ; 
 nor brought any argument for his opinion, which 
 is not answered by Cappellus ; though I believe 
 he hath said as much out of his Hebrew learn- 
 ing, (wherein I think he hath not many fellows 
 
The Consider ator considered. 23 j 
 
 this day living,) as possibly might be alleged. I 
 know that there are [B] some learned men of good 
 note, who partly drawn by Buxtorf 's authority, 
 and partly out of fear, lest the Romanists should 
 take advantage by this concession, and partly by 
 their too much adhering to rabbinical tenets, 
 and partly because they never seriously studied 
 the controversy, nor weighed the arguments of 
 both sides in the even balance of an unbiassed 
 judgment, but taking things upon trust without 
 examining the grounds, as the generality of 
 men do in all kinds of learning, have followed 
 Buxtorf 's opinion. Yet upon inquiry, it will be 
 found that the most of those of greatest judgment, 
 both in Divinity and Eastern Learning, which 
 this age hath produced, are of contrary opinion. 
 And I must profess, that having occasion, by 
 reason of this Work of the Bible, to be acquaint- 
 ed 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 than ordinary in these mat- 
 ters that are not of the same judgment, which I 
 have asserted in the Prolegomena. 
 
 XIV. This is the true history of the rise and 
 original of this controversy ; which though it be 
 mentioned in the Prolegomena, yet our Author 
 takes no notice of, but tells another story of it, 
 which we shall briefly consider. He tells us, 
 
236 The Considerator considered. 
 
 p. 248. and Epist. p. 15, 16. " That Elias Levita, 
 the most learned of the Jews of that age, was ac- 
 quainted with many of the first Reformers, and 
 lived particularly with P. Fagius ; that in his 
 Masora Hammat. he broached an opinion not 
 much heard of before, at least not at all received 
 among the Jews, nor for aught 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 Ti- 
 berias about five or six hundred years after Christ; 
 and that no doubt the man's 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 broached and confirmed by 
 the great and almost only master of that language, 
 of that age; some even of the first Reformers 
 embraced this fancy. Perhaps Zuinglius had 
 spoken to it before. After a while the poison of 
 this error beginning to operate, the Papists wait- 
 ing at the mouth of the Reformers, like the ser- 
 vants of Renhadad 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 
 
The Comiderator considered. 237 
 
 Fagius ■ that he maintained the Tiberian Maso- 
 rites to have been the authors of the points, and 
 proved the same by divers arguments ; that di- 
 vers of the first Reformers were of the same opi- 
 nion with him : so for all the rest, as it wants all 
 probability of truth, so it may be as easily reject- 
 ed, as it is affirmed. 
 
 XVI. For that Elias Levita 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. sect. 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 An- 
 gelus Politianus, Joh. Picus Mirandula, that mi- 
 racle of his time, Lyra, Paulus Burgensis, be- 
 sides Raimundus, the Author of Pugio Jidei, 
 who lived about 1200 years after Christ. Poli- 
 tian thus writes of Pic. Mirand. MiscelL cap. 
 14. "Novitias sunt istae notae, quibus nunc pro 
 vocalibus utuntur Hebraei, ut idem et comperit, 
 et ostendit, Joh. Picus Mirandulanus, unus om- 
 nium prorsus ab omni parte beatissimus, in opere 
 singulari et admirando, quo Psalmos a LXX 
 versos, isto notarum praecipue argumento, docet 
 Hebraicae veritati respondere." Besides there 
 lived divers in the same time with Elias, who 
 
238 The Consider alar considered. 
 
 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's ar- 
 guments or authority, but convinced by the evi 1 - 
 dence of the things, as Calvin, Mercer, Masius, 
 Boderianus, Jos. Scaliger, Casaubon, Ar. Mon- 
 tanus, 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 
 original. I doubt it would be hard for him to 
 name any Christian writer that did absolutely af- 
 firm the same before that time. 
 
 XVII. Nor was Elias the only man among the 
 Jews that held this opinion ; for besides the tacit 
 acknowledgment of the whole nation, shewed by 
 their practice in their Synagogues, using a Copy 
 of the Law, without points, to represent the 
 ccvToyfxQov of Moses, which was as themselves 
 confess unpointed ; and the testimony drawn from 
 the ancient cabbalists, and talmudists, who draw 
 none of their mystical 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, 
 7 
 
The Considerator considered. 239 
 
 Cozri, Ab. Ezra, Jehuda Chiug, and others, 
 who expressly affirm that the whole punctuation 
 was the work of the Tiberian Masorites, and 
 upon any doubt in punctuation fly to them ; and 
 give this reason of their readings, that the Tibe- 
 rian Masorites did so point and read it. 
 
 XVIII. So thatElias broached this opinion, aim- 
 ing hereby to reduce the world of Christians to a de- 
 pendence on the ancient rabbins, is a mere winter 
 story without any ground or reason. For Elias 
 held the points to be part of the oral Law, deli- 
 vered on Mount Sinai, and continued by tradi- 
 tion, till the points were written and affixed to 
 the Text by the Masorites : and therefore our 
 Author observes elsewhere, p. 250. " That Elias 
 tied all as strictly to the reading by points, as if 
 they had been done by Ezra/* Elias therefore 
 did not hold the reading and sense of the Scrip- 
 ture, or the matter of the punctuation to depend 
 upon the rabbins, but only the present forms and 
 figures ; and how could he imagine to draw 
 Christians to a belief of that which he did not be- 
 lieve himself, or to a dependance upon the rabbins 
 for the whole sense of the Scripture which himself 
 did not hold ? And nothing more shews the va- 
 nity of this fancy, than that those Christians that 
 held the same opinion with Elias, do utterly deny 
 that they depend upon the rabbins ancient or 
 modern for the sense of the Scripture. Luther 
 
240 The Considerator considered. 
 
 was far from this ; who, as our Author cites him 
 within a few lines, writes, that the Jews had cor- 
 rupted the Bible by their points and distinctions; 
 and Calvin shews, how little he esteemed the au- 
 thority of the rabbins on Zach. xi. 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 professed to depend upon the rab- 
 bins for the true sense and reading of the Scrip- 
 ture. As groundless 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 judgments, as to be led by the autho- 
 rity of a Jewish rabbin ! 
 
 XIX. It remains therefore, that the true ori- 
 ginal of this question was, as I have shewed, the 
 controversy arising in the beginning of the Re- 
 formation 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 ques- 
 tions about the Scripture and the Church were 
 not then raised. And that which begun the quar- 
 
The Consider aior considered. 24-1 
 
 rel doth still continue it : some out of fear, lest 
 they should yield any thing disadvantageous to the 
 cause they maintain, holding the points to be of 
 divine original, and among those some embracing 
 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 Epist. p. 18. 
 is offended at Dr. 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 admi- 
 rable, himself falls in with them, and maintains 
 the same opinion :" as if we must measure the 
 truth of docrine, 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 groundless those fears are, and knowing 
 that the truth must not be denied, though some 
 pervert it to a wrong end, grant what they see 
 cannot be denied about the original of the points, 
 yet maintain the same conclusion about the cer- 
 tainty and authority of Scripture, upon better 
 and more solid grounds ; and so doth Dr. Pri- 
 deaux in that Lecture, where he maintains the 
 certainty and authority of the Scripture, and sa 
 yields nothing to the Papists, though he grants 
 the points to be the invention of the Masorites. 
 
 VOL. II. R 
 
242 
 
 The Consideralor considered. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 I. The Adversary's candour and ingenuity in reciting the 
 arguments against the antiquity of points, leaving 
 out some of the chief, and perverting the rest. II. The 
 first argument passed by, which is from the testimony 
 of the chief Protestant Divines and Linguists of this 
 age\ Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Pellican, Oecolam- 
 padius, JBeza, Mercer, P. Fagius, Chamier, Vossius, 
 Drusius, De Dieu, Schindler, Martinius, Scaliger, Gro- 
 ttos, Schickard, Casaubon, Erpenius, Sixt. Amama, 
 Mayer, Bootius, Spanhemius, Rivet, F. Hommius, 
 Archbishop Usher, Bishop Prideaux, Mede, Eyres r 
 fyc. III. The last argument omitted also in the Consi- 
 derations from other Eastern Tongues, Syriac, ChaL 
 dee, Arabic, Samaritan, Persian, fyc. IV. Postet- 
 lus's testimony. V. The argument from the un- 
 pointed Copy used in the Synagogues to represent the 
 ctv7oy(d<pov of Moses vindicated, VI. This argument 
 drew the Reverend Usher and Bootius to this opinion. 
 VII. The argument from the LXX. and other ancient 
 Translations perverted by the Adversary. VIII. The 
 other arguments briefly recapitulated. Aben Ezra's 
 words vindicated. IX. The Adversary s new argument. 
 X. XI. Answered. XII. XIII. Other new arguments 
 answered. XIV. Another argument. XV. Answered 
 out of his own words. XVI. The Tiberian Masoriles 
 denied, and yet acknowledged by the Adversary. 
 
 I. This question concerning the points is hand- 
 led by our Adversary chiefly, Chap. iv. and v. of 
 the Considerations ; though also, by the by, in 
 
The Consider ator considered. %A3 
 
 some other places he hath some passages about 
 the same, wherein I shall not need to handle all 
 the arguments pro and con, having done that 
 already, Proleg. iii. sect. 38, 39, &c. — 56, to 
 which I must remit the reader. I shall only re- 
 ply to what he answers to the arguments in the 
 Prolegomena, and briefly examine what he pre- 
 tends to be added by himself de novo, to prove 
 this rabbinical 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 pessima fide, and is far from 
 that candour and truth which he professes : for 
 he leaves out divers of the chief arguments, to 
 which he could give no colourable answer ; and 
 for the rest, he either propounds them by half, 
 leaving out that wherein the force of the argu- 
 ment chiefly consists, or perverts the setose, and 
 spoils them in his rehearsing of them ; so that I 
 may say of them, as the poet did of his verses, 
 ef Quern recitas meus est, O Fidentine, libellus, 
 At male dum recitas, incipit esse tuus." 
 The arguments are mine which he pretends to 
 confute ; but, by his relating them, he makes 
 them his own ; for, as he delivers them, 1 own 
 them not. I shall therefore desire the reader to 
 suspend his judgment till he have compared them 
 as they are laid down in the Considerations, and 
 as they are delivered in the Prolegomena ; and 
 
 r2 
 
244 The Consider 'ator considered. 
 
 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 can- 
 did 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 
 1 conceive are fittest to judge of these matters. 
 Now of these he takes no notice at all, but uses 
 a prudent pretention, because he knew their 
 names and authority would spoil his whole de- 
 sign, and wipe off all his imputations of making 
 the Scripture uncertain, or introducing of Popery, 
 Atheism, &c. They are Calvin, in Zach. xi. 7 ; 
 Luther, ad finem libri Schem Ham ; Zuinglius, 
 Praef. in Esaiam ; Pellican. Praef. in Pentat. ; 
 P. Fagius, (whom our Adversary reckons, and 
 that justly, among the restorers of the Hebrew 
 tongue, and calls one of the patriarchs and fa- 
 thers of that learning, Epist. p. 15.) Ad Tar- 
 gum, Genesis xlvii. 24 ; Mercer, the oracle of his 
 times for Hebrew learning, and one of exact 
 judgment too in other learning, (which two, as 
 some observe, seldom meet in one subject,) in 
 Genesis xvi. 13, and xviii. 3, and Job xxvi. 6, 
 and Amos ii. 12, Annot. in Targ. Mai. 2; Beza, 
 Lib. de recta pronunciat. ling, Graec. edit, anno 
 
The Considerator considered. 245 
 
 1587; Piscator, Schol. ad Genesis x v. 8; Cha- 
 mier. Panstrat. Lib. iv. c. 12, n. 15 ; Vossius, De 
 Arte Gram. Lib. i. c. 31, et Lib. ii. c. 8 ; Dm- 
 si us, Ad loca difficile Pent. c. 25, et de recta lect. 
 lingua? sanctae, c. 4, Martinius, Technol. Lud. de 
 Dieu, Gram. Lib. i. c. 7 ; Schindler, frequently 
 in his Lex. Pentaglot. I will add the words of 
 some. Joseph Scaliger, a man admired by most, 
 Epist. 243, which is to Buxtorf the father, writes 
 thus : " De apicibus vocalibus HebiEeorum, tarn 
 mihi constat rem novam esse, quam eos falli qui 
 natos una cum lingua putant, quo nihil stultius 
 dici potuit aut cogitari. Quis enim negat Ara- 
 bismi puncta recens esse inventum, id est, multis 
 annis post obitum impostoris Mahometis ? Ho- 
 die tamen pueri Turcarum, Arabum, Persarum, 
 et omnium denique Mahumedanorum, sine punc- 
 tis legere discunt. Eodem modo, Samaritani et 
 Judaei sine ullis punctis, in synnagogis, suis h 
 TocTg tKpfyocis legunt, &c." The noble Grotius 
 was no whit inferior to Scaliger in any kind of 
 learning, who writes thus,, in Matthew v. 18, 
 " Libros veteres etiam post Esdram sine punctis 
 vocalibus scribi solitos, quod ita perspicuis argu- 
 ments a viris harum rerum doctissimis demon- 
 stratum est, ut id amplius inficiari non nisi perti- 
 nacium sit." Schickard, a man much versed in 
 all Jewish and rabbinical learning, one who was 
 at first a stout defender of the points, ( strenuus 
 
246 The Considerator considered. 
 
 licet primd punctorum patronus, for so the words 
 should be, Prolegom. iii. sect 50,) yet after- 
 wards, when he was of a riper judgment, speak- 
 ing of the points and accents, Lib. ii. De jure 
 Regio Hebraeorum, p. 41, saith, " Quod nil tale 
 uspiam appareat in antiquis libris Judaeorum, et 
 valde miratur superesse qui vocalium antiquita- 
 tem serio credunt." For he thinks, "non serid, 
 sed ad ostendendam eruditionem Rabbinicam, vel 
 aciem ingenii, vel contradicendi studio ita scrip - 
 sisse, &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 add Is. Casaubon, Erpenius, Sixtin Amama, 
 Mayer, Arnold Bootius, a bitter enemy of Cap- 
 pellus's Critica, Spanhemius, Rivet, Festus Hom- 
 mius, Cotterius, &c. as appeareth by their Epis- 
 tles to Cappellus. Amongst ourselves, I could 
 name those of chief account for Eastern learning, 
 now living, public Professors, and others ; whose 
 names I forbear, lest the Adversary in his next 
 invective should fall upon them as rudely as 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 Usher, and 
 Mr. Selden ; both whom I have often heard de- 
 clare themselves for this opinion ; D. Prideaux, 
 JLect. xiL in Vesper Comit. 1627, who mentions 
 
The Considerator considered. 247 
 
 also three more sometime of that University, 
 sect. 4, " Qui in istis studiis versatissimi, Rob. 
 Wakefieldus, Jacobus Cappellus, et Sixtin. ab 
 Amama ; qui tres ultimi ( saith he ) superiores 
 duas sententias ( de punctorum antiquitate J sum- 
 ma cum eruditione et acumine conati sunt refel- 
 lere." I might add others, as Mr. Mede, Mr. 
 Eyres, late Prebendary of Ely, &c. This argu- 
 ment, though inartificial, yet of great weight, 
 our Author touches not ; because he would have 
 it believed that the opinion is singular, and main- 
 tained by a few, and that el the generality of 
 learned men in these matters are not infected (as 
 he saith) with this leaven V* 
 
 III. As he leaves out the first, so he wholly 
 omits the last ; and yet he would have you be- 
 lieve, that he propounds and answers all the ar- 
 guments 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 Arabic, Chaldee, Syriac, Samaritan, &c. none 
 of which at first had points, nor hath the Sama- 
 ritan 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 Syriac, Chaldee Paraphrase, 
 and is so clear for the Samaritan, that scarce any 
 
248 The Considerator considered. 
 
 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 
 punctuation for that language. In all these lan- 
 guages they have the same letters which of old 
 stood for vowels in the Hebrew ; nor have they 
 in the Arabic, that copious language, since the 
 invention of points, any more than three, which 
 serve for all vowels, Phatha, Damma, and Kes- 
 ra, by which, with a few general 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 dis- 
 tinctly read and understand their Translations of 
 the Bible, and their other books, and attain the 
 sense without ambiguity and uncertainty. And 
 none ever doubted but that the Chaldee Para- 
 phrase of Onkelos and Jonathan, written about 
 our Saviour's time ; the ancient Translation of 
 the Syriac, written in the first or second century 
 after Christ ; as also the Alcoran among the Ma- 
 hometans ; were read at first, as they are now, 
 (though not with so much facility,) and yet it is 
 certain that the points were added to them all 
 after the invention of the Hebrew points ; yea, 
 though points be now added to them all, except 
 the Samaritan, yet neither that, nor the Arabic 
 or Syriac, have yet any notes at all of accents ; 
 5 
 
Tlie Considerator considered. 249 
 
 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 Latin, 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. Jerom, and old 
 inscriptions, that the Greek anciently had no ac- 
 cents. Angel. Politian, Miscel. c. lviii. and lxxx. 
 mentions some verses of the Sibyls, and the 
 Hymns of Callimachus, written without accents. 
 Our Alex. MS. of the LXX. ; that New Testa- 
 ment of Beza, in Cambridge Library ; that of 
 the Vatican, and other old MSS. are without ac- 
 cents ; and the authors of the Complutense Edi- 
 tion give this reason why they printed the New 
 Testament without accents, because the uvroypz- 
 <pov was so written. Yet we know how useful 
 accents are to distinguish words of ambiguous 
 sense, which differ only 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 as yet they have no accents, some 
 of them ; then the same might be done in the He- 
 brew, by the help of the same letters, Aleph, Jod, 
 and Vau 3 those matres lectionis. I could not 
 yet find in any of the patrons of points any satis- 
 factory answer to this argument; and if our Au- 
 
250 The Consiclerator considered. 
 
 thor could have given any, I suppose he would 
 not have passed it over without answer more than 
 the rest. 
 
 IV. He tells us out of Postellus, that in Je- 
 ronVs time the Samaritans had points, because he 
 saith, " That the Samaritan and Hebrew letters 
 differ only jiguris et apicibus, Prolog, in lib. 
 Reg." But he might also have read in Postellus, 
 that the Hebrews had no points, though in his 
 dotage, when he was infatuated with rabbinical 
 and cabalistical fancy, and fell into divers fana- 
 tical and heretical 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 Jerom for 
 the Samaritan points is as much to the purpose 
 as our Author's proof out of the same Jerom for 
 the Hebrew points, because he speaks of vowels, 
 and saith, vocalibus in medio perrard utuntur : 
 when as it is as clear as the sun (as is already 
 shewed) to any that reads Jerom's words, and is 
 so proved, Prolegom. iii. sect. 49, that by the 
 apices he means, Literarum ductus et summi- 
 tates, as when he saith, that 1 and l apice tan- 
 turn differunt, and in the same place by vowels 
 he means Aleph, Vau, and Jod, which he ex- 
 pressly calls vowels, and saith they are not so 
 frequently used in the middle of words, as in the 
 beginning and end. 
 
The Consider ator considered. 251 
 
 V. We see what arguments he wholly omits. 
 Let us now see how he deals with the rest ; and 
 how faithfully he propounds them I will instance 
 but in one or two : Considerations, chap. 5. sect. 5. 
 p. 267. He there propounds the argument urged.. 
 Prolegom. iii. sect. 4L " The constant practice 
 of the Jews in preserving in their Synagogue one 
 Book, which they almost adore, without points, 
 is also alleged to the same purpose ; for what do 
 they else hereby, but tacitly acknowledge the 
 points to have a human original?" Thus our 
 Author. Now let us see how it is propounded in 
 the Prolegomena. Secundd, ex praxi Jwdierna 
 Judceorum in Synagogis ab ultima antiquitate 
 observata idem evincitur, ubi volumina sacra, 
 quce populo publice prceleguntur, sine punctis, 
 accentibus, vel versuum distinct ionibus exarata 
 sunt, ut secundum morem antiquis temporibus 
 usitatum Mosis ipsum auTo^apef, quod in area 
 servatum erat, adumbrarent : And after, Hoc 
 volumen non punctatum volunt ipsum Mosis 
 volumen in area Dei jussu servatum referre, 
 quod (fatentibus plerisque eorum doctoribus ) 
 erat punctis destitutum, imb ponunt quidam 
 eorum Mosis cevo, extra controversiam Jiguras 
 vocalium et accentuum nondum fuisse } et hac de 
 causa librum ilium in Synagogis hodie sine 
 notis in Mosaici exemplaris memoriam scribi : 
 In hanc rem Rabbinorum testimonia prqfert D. 
 
 7 
 
252 The Considerator considered. 
 
 Buxtorf, 8gc. Imo probat D. Buxtorf ex Epho- 
 dceo et aliis librum legis punctatum apud eos 
 profanum esse, etiamsi punctationem eraserint, 
 et quod liber, in quo versus per duo puncta dis- 
 tinguuntur, prof anus est, 8gc. 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 ar- 
 gument lies in this, not that the Jews use a book in 
 the Synagogue unpointed, ( which is all our Ad- 
 versary propounds,) but that they use one special 
 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 profaned, and not fit for that use. Let 
 any man of common reason judge, whether the 
 argument be truly related by him ; and 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 lies. Buxtorf is more ingenuous ; 
 
The Consider ator considered. 2j3 
 
 for he confesses that this argument proves that 
 the avToygoc<pov of Moses was without points, but 
 not that the ctvToygxQov of Ezra 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 Bux- 
 torf. 
 
 VI. This argument I have heard the reverend 
 and learned Usher 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 Cappellus's Critica, and some- 
 times a stiff defender of the antiquity of points,) 
 yet confesseth, " that it doth sufficiently prove 
 the novelty of points." Epist. contra Cappell. de 
 Text. Hebr. Auctorit. sect. 46. I should tire 
 myself and the reader, if I should go over the 
 rest of the arguments. I shall only desire the 
 reader, who would be further satisfied, to com- 
 pare them, as they are in the Prolegomena, with 
 our Author's answer ; and if he find any one of 
 them either truly related, or fully answered, I 
 will publicly 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 find 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 
 
254 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 this short reply, (as [if] it was intended,) to swell 
 into a great volume. 
 
 VII. Yet for a further proof of his candour 
 and love of truth, I shall exercise the reader's 
 patience with one specimen more. An argument, 
 sect. 46. is drawn from the ancient Translations, 
 the Greek, Chaldee, Syriac, &c. Ex quibus per- 
 spicuum est ob defectum punctorum voces quas- 
 dam ambiguitate laborasse * unde aliter inter- 
 pretati sunt versionum istarum authores, quam 
 hodieinpunctatiscodicibus legimus ; cum, si olim 
 punctati fuissent, ambiguitas nulla fuisset ; nec 
 aliter legissent illi quam in hodiernis exempla- 
 ribus legimus. Hoc passim observarunt viri 
 docti in Commentariis suis, aliisque scrip- 
 tis ; et multa exempla ex LX.X aliisque inter" 
 pretibus colligunt, ubi ecedem Uteres ( sublatis 
 punctis J tarn ipsorum versioni quam lectioni ho- 
 diernce inservire possint. Of this divers in- 
 stances are brought. Here we see the argument 
 is, That divers words without points were am- 
 biguous, and capable of diverse senses, and that 
 the same may be read, as the interpreters ren- 
 der them, if the Copies were not pointed, whereas 
 they are now read in another sense, as the Co- 
 pies are now pointed, there being no change at 
 all in the letters, but only in the points. Now 
 how doth our Adversary propound this argument ? 
 p. 281. " It is further pleaded, that the ancient 
 
The Consider ator considered. 255 
 
 Translations, the Greek, Chaldee, Syriac, do 
 manifest that, at the time of their composing, the 
 points were not invented. And that because it is 
 evident in sundry places that they read otherwise, 
 or the words with other points, (I mean as to the 
 force and sound, not figure of them,) than those 
 now affixed/' Thus he propounds it, and then 
 answers with a scoff, "That the differences would 
 as well prove they had other consonants, that is, 
 that in their Copies they used, they had other let- 
 ters and words than ours, as other vowels.'' 
 Who sees not here a plain and wilful falsifying 
 of the argument? for the argument is not drawn 
 from all places where the Translators read other- 
 wise than is now read in the Hebrew Copies, but 
 only from such places where the same word with 
 the same letters (being unpointed) might be read 
 and rendered both as they translated it, and as it 
 signifies according to the present punctuation ; 
 or that the word consisting of the same letters 
 being without points was ambiguous, or capable 
 of two significations, of which the one was fol- 
 lowed by the translator, the other by the punctu- 
 ators. Now our Author never mentions that 
 wherein 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 punctu- 
 ation, when as, if it had been pointed, the am* 
 
256 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 biguity 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 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 
 differ from the present pointed Copies ; but not 
 when only the words unpointed agree with their 
 rendering it, by reason of the ambiguity without 
 points. Buxtorf confesses, this argument seemed 
 to be invincible, Achilleum ; but as our Adver- 
 sary propounds it, it is stramineum, and merely 
 ridiculous; for it is well known and granted 
 often, that these Translations, especially that of 
 the LXX., differ in many places, where the rea- 
 son 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 argu- 
 ments, as that from the Samaritans 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 
 
The Considerator considered. 257 
 silence of all the ancients, Jerom, Origen, Euse- 
 bius, Epiphanius, Josephus, all skilled in Hebrew 
 antiquities, who never mention the name of any 
 point or accent, though they had often occasion 
 to mention them, as is proved by instances in Je- 
 rom ; to which no answer is given, but a bare 
 denial 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 vowel or accent, (as 
 is acknowledged by Buxtorf himself,) though 
 there was occasion, yea a necessity, to have men- 
 tioned them in some places which are there in- 
 stanced in, if there had been any then known ; to 
 which no answer is given, but a bold general de- 
 nial that they had no occasion ! That, before the 
 age of the Tiberian Masorites, there is no men- 
 tion of any points, by any writer, Jew or Chris- 
 tian, 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 an- 
 cient cabalists draw all their allegories and mys- 
 teries 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 than the letters, for 
 their mystical expositions, as we see in the later 
 vol. n. S 
 
258 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 cabalists which have been since the invention of 
 points : (which argument also is quite omitted 
 by the Adversary :) that the Keri and Ketib, 
 which are confessed by all to be for the most part 
 Various Readings gathered out of ancient He- 
 brew 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 than the letters, and so 
 more Various Readings might have been gathered 
 out of them than from the difference of the let- 
 ters : that, in the same Keries and Ketibs, the 
 vowels or points belonging to the marginal word 
 or the Keri, are put under the word in the Text, 
 or the Ketib, to admonish the reader, that the 
 word in the margin must be read, and not the 
 word in the Text : and divers other the like 
 things, which were most absurd to ascribe to the 
 sacred penmen, who, if they had been the Au- 
 thors of the points, would have put the true read- 
 ing, (which they could not be ignorant of,) into 
 the Text, with its own proper points, and not 
 have placed it in the margin 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 
 punctuation) are altogether unworthy to be as- 
 cribed to the Spirit of God. That the names of 
 the points and accents are all of a late original, 
 
The Consider ator considered. 259 
 
 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 public 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, divers of 
 them apparently superfluous ; and yet, in this 
 plenty, divers 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 brevity's sake ; 
 yet I cannot but take notice once more of our 
 Author's sincere dealing in relating our argu- 
 ments. Aben-Ezra's words, to prove the punctu- 
 ation by the Tiberian Masorites, are brought, 
 Proleg. iii. sect. 4. In his Comment on Exod. 
 xxv. 42. he saith, that some of the first pointed, 
 Copies, pointed by the Tiberian Masorites, were 
 extant in his time. Vidi ego libros, quos exami- 
 naverint sapientes Tiberiadis, et de quibus ju- 
 raverunt quindecim ex senioribus eorum, quod 
 diligenter considerarent omnem dictionem, om- 
 nem punctationem, et unamquamque vocem, pie- 
 nam et defectivam ; Et ecce scriptum erat Jod 
 in dictione JTttft^fi sed non sic inveni in libris 
 Hispanice et Gallite, nec in ultramarinis. These 
 
 s2 
 
260 The Considerator considered. 
 
 words he recites thus, p. 270. " Nothing can be 
 spoken more directly contrary to what is intend- 
 ed, than that which is urged out of Aben-Ezra 
 in Ex. xxv. 42. where he affirms that he saw 
 some books examined in all the letters and the 
 whole punctuation by the wise men of Tiberias, 
 namely, to try whether it were done exactly ac- 
 cording to the pattern they had." Here we see 
 he adds that which makes the words seem to con- 
 tradict 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 mean- 
 ing of Aben-Ezra is plain, that they examined 
 every word, letter, and point, whether all were 
 rightly pointed according to the true and com- 
 mon pronunciation or reading, which our Adver- 
 sary 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 Copy, after it was finish- 
 ed ; as we know it is usual for those that are care- 
 ful, 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 public. If he may be allowed thus to add and 
 detract and change what he pleases, he may easily 
 make any argument worth nothing, and to prove 
 
 5 
 
The Consider ator considered. 261 
 
 the contrary to what it is brought. Thus he falsi- 
 fies 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 original. Here he refers 
 us to Buxtorf ; and I do likewise refer the Reader 
 to Scaliger, Sixtin Amama, Dr. Prideaux, Vos- 
 sius, and others ; especially to Cappellus's Punc- 
 tationis Arcanum; and also to the Prolegomena; 
 where, whether Buxtorf's argument be all an- 
 swered, let the reader judge. Something more 
 our Author pretends to add, 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 Gram- 
 mars must be made after the language, and 
 gathered by observations out of the language, 
 which are reduced to rules of art t 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 gene- 
 ral 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 xcere contrived and made. Noio that this 
 could not be, he proves by two reasons. 1 . Be- 
 
262 The Considerator considered. 
 
 cause there are so many words anomalous, irre- 
 gularly pointed, contrary to the analogy of 
 Grammar, which they might have made all re- 
 gular 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 catholic rules, by which 
 they or their masters proceeded in the fixing of 
 these points ; nor do any footsteps of that 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 par- 
 ticular instances out of the punctuations already 
 made. 
 
 X. This objection, at least in part, was made 
 long since by Buxtorf the elder, and the answer 
 given long ago by Cappellus in his Arcanum, lAu 
 c. 10, 11. 19, &c. and lately in the Prolegom. iii. 
 sect. 54. For the first, about words anomalous, 
 he may find, among other things, this answer 
 given : That they were so pointed by the Ma- 
 sorites, non consilio, sed casu, by casual 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 succeed- 
 
The Considerator considered. 263 
 
 ing Masorites, supposing out of reverence to their 
 predecessors, whose diligence and learning they 
 so admired, that no error could befal them, ga- 
 thered and noted ; conceiving that some great 
 mysteries lay hid in these anomalous punctua- 
 tions, like as about some letters, as Mem clau- 
 sum in medio, Is. ix. 7. and JViin medium in 
 fine, Job xxxviii. 1, (of which, Prolegom. iii. and 
 viii. 7.) which were at first, casual mistakes of 
 the scribes, as is thought by the learnedest Pro- 
 testant divines, observations were made by those 
 that came after ; as if they had been purposely so 
 written by the sacred penmen, to signify some 
 great mysteries. Besides, it may be answered, 
 that the former Masorites pointed these words 
 irregularly, according to that reading and pro- 
 nunciation which they were taught by their Mas- 
 ters, (whose words they accounted as oracles,) 
 though against the analogy of Grammar ; and 
 that the following Masorites, finding such ano- 
 malous punctuation, left all as they found them, 
 only 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 several persons, at several 
 times ; some distinguishing the verses by two 
 points, which seems to have been the first work ; 
 others adding points to signify vowels ; others. 
 
261 The Considerator considered. 
 
 accents ; others gathering- observations out of 
 what was done by those before them. 
 
 XI. To the second, there are general Gram- 
 mar rules in every tongue, and a particular Gram- 
 mar analogy in each particular tongue, before it 
 be reduced into rules. These, no doubt, were 
 considered by the Masorites in their punctuation ; 
 and accordingly they pointed the Text according 
 to such rules for the reading, and pronunciation, 
 as they were taught by their masters ; and in- 
 vented the names and figures of the vowels and 
 accents, which they have left to posterity ; though 
 the later Grammarians herein differ from the an- 
 cienter about the names, nature, number, and 
 use. The way and manner how it is most like 
 they proceeded, is excellently set down by Cap- 
 pellus, Arcan. lib. i. c. 17, 18. Some general 
 rules, which may be called grammatical, when 
 they went about this work, they devised and 
 agreed upon ; which, by succeeding Grammari- 
 ans, were perfected and reduced into a body. 
 And though it be generally thought that no He- 
 brew Grammar was made above five or six hun- 
 dred 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 Grammarian ; which was not long 
 after the Masorites had completed their work, as 
 some observe ; so that the rules which the Maso- 
 
The Consider ator considered. 265 
 
 rites observed or made in their punctuation, are 
 expressed in the Grammars which were made 
 after their punctuation. Besides, if this argument 
 were of any force, it might prove the Chaldee 
 Paraphrase, the Syriac, Arabic, Persian, &c. to 
 have been always pointed, and the points coeve 
 with the languages ; which yet is denied by all 
 that are skilful 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 Sy- 
 riac 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 Muns- 
 ter was the first that reduced that tongue into 
 grammatical rules. And if it be said that they 
 pointed the Paraphrase according to the punctua- 
 tion of Ezra and Daniel, which they suppose to 
 have been always pointed, I deny that those few 
 Chapters could give direction for the punctua- 
 tion of the Paraphrase, or the whole Chaldee 
 tongue, (of which a small part is expressed in 
 those Chapters.) Neither can this be said of the 
 other tongues, the Arabic, Syriac, &c. of which 
 Grammars were made long after the punctua- 
 
266 The Considerator considered. 
 
 tion ; and yet it is granted, that their points 
 were not coeve with the languages. Let our Ad- 
 versary, therefore, shew how the Grammars of 
 those tongues were made after the punctuation, 
 and so he may answer his own objection about 
 the Hebrew. 
 
 XII. He objects further, p. 255, 256, ec That 
 if the punctuation had been by the Masorites, 
 they would have falsified and corrupted the Pro- 
 phecies of Christ ; which they might easily have 
 done, by placing the points and accents so as to 
 pervert the sense and coherence of the words, as 
 in Is. liii. where, according to the present punc- 
 tuation, they make incomparably more for the 
 Christian faith, than any ancient Translations/' 
 This is answered before, where it is shewed, that 
 the Masorites did not point the Text, pro arbi- 
 trio, as they pleased, (as our Author would make 
 us say ;) but according to the true and accus- 
 tomed reading, to which they were tied. This 
 argument is brought in the Prolegom. vii. to 
 prove that these Jews did not, de industria, cor- 
 rupt the Hebrew Text ; because then they would 
 have corrupted those places concerning Christ, 
 or where the chief mysteries of Christian re- 
 ligion 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 
 
The Consider ator considered. 267 
 
 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 Josephus saith, they would rather die a 
 thousand deaths, than wilfully falsify the least 
 tittle. 
 
 XIII. Again, p. 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 build castles 
 in the air, &c." But to this we have already an- 
 swered at large ; and shewed that the knowledge 
 of the tongue, and the true reading continued 
 among the Priests and Scribes after it ceased to 
 be vulgar, who might with as much ease point 
 the Text, (it being the same to them as when it 
 was vulgar,) as they might have done whilst it 
 was commonly spoken by the people ; and that it 
 was not continued by oral 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, p. 225, 226, 
 &c. (for we must find out his reasons, as they are 
 here and there scattered, without any method.) 
 This he is sorry that others y out of their respect 
 
 6 
 
268 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 to the rabbins have passed by. It is taken from 
 the consideration of the persons supposed to be 
 the authors of the punctuation, 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 than this story, viz. That men, 
 1. who were no part of the Church, or people of 
 God, possessors only 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. Under 
 the special curse and vengeance of God. 4. 
 Feeding themselves with vain fables, and mis- 
 chievous devices against the Gospel, 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 mon- 
 strous figments, yea, for the most part idolaters 
 and magicians, #c. should be the authors of so 
 great and excellent a work, of such unspeaka- 
 ble usefulness, &c. This argument he spends 
 near 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 
 
The Considerator considered. 269 
 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 usefulness 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 
 punctuation to be so excellent and complete a 
 work, but that it might be much bettered, and 
 made more useful ; 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 useful in 
 other languages, and 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 fur- 
 ther for answer than the objector's 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 found to be other- 
 wise, and that it cannot be thought reasonable 
 that so many men, living in so many several ages, 
 at such vast distance one from another, who some 
 
270 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 of them, it may be, never heard of the names of 
 other some of them, should conspire to cozen 
 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 
 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 several ages, and at such vast distances, and 
 should conspire together to cozen 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 wit- 
 nesses for the divine original of points, as he af- 
 firms, notwithstanding what is said against them, 
 why might they not also be meet witnesses in tes- 
 tifying and declaring the common and received 
 reading, then in use, and in expressing it by their 
 punctuation ? 
 
 XVI. I may add, that notwithstanding all that 
 is said of them, they were most zealous, (in their 
 greatest apostasy and infidelity,) about the letter 
 of the law, and the true reading of it, even to 
 superstition, and so continue : they did never 
 harere in coriice more than since their rejection 
 by God. And though generally they be men of 
 
The Consider ator considered. 27 1 
 
 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 material by whom, or when, the 
 points were fixed, or at what place they lived, so 
 it be granted they were not of divine original, nor 
 known till after the Talmud ; yet notwithstand- 
 ing our Author's declamation, it is most probable 
 that the Tiberian Masorites were the first inven- 
 tors, and more probable than any thing by him 
 said to the contrary ; nay, though he denies that 
 ever there were any such men in rerum natura, 
 as we have seen already, p. 243, yet, forgetting 
 what he hath said, and contradicting himself as 
 usual, he tells us, p. 223, " that there was for- 
 merly a School of the Jews, and learned men, fa- 
 mous at Tiberias is granted/* and, p. 240. " The 
 Tiberian Masorites (the supposed inventors of the 
 points) were men living after the finishing of the 
 last Talmud." And, p. 271. he cites and approves 
 that saying of Azarias, ie who ascribes the resto- 
 ration of the points to their use, after they had 
 been disused, to the Tiberian Masorites." And 
 p. 270. " That by receiving the punctuation 
 from the Tiberians, the continuation of it in that 
 
272 The Considerator considered. 
 
 School, not the invention of it, is intended by 
 Aben-Ezra;" so that it seems, that these Tiberian 
 Masorites, who never were in rerum natura, and 
 lived no man knows where, nor when, are found 
 out at last to have a School at Tiberias, and to 
 have continued and restored the punctuation there, 
 though they invented it not ! 
 
The Considerator considered. 213 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 I. The consequences, inferred from the novelty of punctua- 
 tion, 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, Sfc. out of the New Testa- 
 ment. IV. The consequences, Sfc. cannot be proved by 
 the Adversary, nor by any Papists, Atheists, fyc. V. 
 A challenge to them all, to prove their consequences, 
 from the novelty of the punctuation, 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 were invented, and 
 fixed to the Text, by the Masorites, then the 
 reading and sense of the Scripture becomes un- 
 certain and arbitrary, and the supreme author 
 rity 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 sense of the Scripture, 
 or fly to an infallible judge, and turn Papists', 
 or else turn plain Atheists, or fanatic Anti- 
 scripturists, by rejecting the Scripture altoge- 
 ther. These are his inferences, p. 147, 161, and 
 Epist. p.9, and 25. But the invalidity of this argu- 
 
 VOL. II. T 
 
274 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 merit is already shewed at large in what we have 
 premised in the foregoing Chapter, as also Pro- 
 legom.Wx. sect. 5. 31. For it is proved that the 
 reading and sense is the same before and after 
 the punctuation, 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, *» 1 N , which were used 
 as vowels before the invention of points, as in 
 other Eastern languages ; and that, where they 
 were wanting, the connection of the words, with 
 the antecedents and consequents, together with 
 the continued custom and use, did determine the 
 sense, 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 usual reading con- 
 tinued always among them, and derived from the 
 sacred penman, and that it is not lawful now for 
 any to alter or reject the present reading at plea- 
 sure, unless a better reading can be clearly 
 proved, or that some error hath crept in, con- 
 trary to the ancient writing; — all these conse- 
 quences vanish to nothing. 
 
 II. Now for proof of these consequences our 
 Author brings nothing, though qffirmanti incum- 
 bit probatio, but takes these things for granted, 
 which the Prolegomena do utterly deny, as alto- 
 
The Considerator considered. 275 
 
 gether false and untrue, viz. 1. That there are 
 no vowels among the Hebrew twenty-two let- 
 ters, and so that the Hebrew had no vowels be- 
 fore the invention of points. 2. That the Ma* 
 sorites did point the Text, as they pleased, and 
 so that the reading according to the present 
 punctuation depends merely upon the skill and 
 fidelity of those rabbins. 3. That it is lawful 
 for any to alter the reading at pleasure, and to 
 accept or reject the points, as no part of the 
 Text 4. That it zoas not possible to continue 
 the true reading and sense 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 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, than that this our 
 opinion should be received with the consequences 
 which unavoidably attend it;" and p. 244. " that 
 he would labour to the utmost to have the punc- 
 tuation taken out of the Bible, if it were the in- 
 vention of the Masorites, nor should he (in its 
 
 t 2 
 
276 The Consider ator considered. 
 
 present station) make use of it any more. 3 ' Thus 
 do violent men run from one extreme to another : 
 either he must have the punctuation to be of di- 
 vine authority, or else he must labour to the ut- 
 most 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 im- 
 plicit faith, as oracles ! Our opinion of the points 
 hath been and is already received amongst most 
 of those that excel in this kind of learning, and 
 among the most eminent and judicious Protestant 
 divines, who are best able to judge of things of 
 this nature; nor will it find the less acceptance 
 among learned and judicious men, because of his 
 hot passionate declaiming 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 heaviest sink to the 
 bottom ; and are indeed no better arguments than 
 that of him in Scaliger, who would prove that by 
 laying a wager which he could not make good by 
 sound reason ! If he be so earnest to have the 
 Hebrew points taken away, (supposing they be 
 not of divine original,) 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. iii. sect. 45. and in 
 
The Consider ato r considered. 217 
 
 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 now is, 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 Original Copies which were written first with- 
 out 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 than 
 hath been said already; when from the Various 
 Readings he would have inferred the same conse- 
 quence on the behalf of Papists, &c. It is enough 
 to shew the vanity of this surmise, that the great- 
 est and learnedest defenders of the Protestant 
 cause, and of the authority of the Original Texts, 
 have been, and are of this judgment. What some 
 Romanists infer upon this principle is nothing, 
 unless 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. iii. sect. 51, where this in- 
 ference which some of that Church make of the 
 ambiguity of Scripture unpointed, and that in- 
 stance of Morinus, in the word which with- 
 
278 The Considerator considered. 
 
 out points may be read eight several ways, 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 ambigu- 
 ous ; as Simeon de Muis, Joh. de Espieres, and 
 others. And although many of them argue 
 against the Scripture in general, 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 controversy 
 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 allege all places according to 
 the common reading of the Hebrew, or the Vul- 
 gar Latin. Let our Adversary, therefore, name 
 any place in particular, where the ambiguity 
 of the Text without points makes for them or 
 against us, or where they have advantage upon 
 this ground in any particular case controverted ; 
 or else this consequence will appear a mere cavil. 
 
 V. I do, therefore, appeal to all rational men, 
 and do challenge our Adversary with all the rab- 
 ble of those he mentions, as joining with him in 
 this inference, all the Papists, Atheists, fanatic 
 persons, &c. in the world, to make good their 
 
The Considerator considered. 279 
 
 consequence of the uncertainty of Scripture from 
 that opinion of the punctuation, as it is declared 
 and limited in the Prolegomena, viz. That if the 
 points were fixed by the Masorites to the He- 
 brew Text (that is, as the case is stated,) un- 
 derstanding only the forms and figures of the 
 points, not the force and virtue of the vowels 
 and accents themselves, which is acknowledged 
 to have always been ; and that they did neither 
 point the Text at pleasure, but according to the 
 true reading commonly received to which they 
 were tied ; not 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 un- 
 certain, and cannot be a sure rule for faith and 
 life : This consequence if they can prove, I will 
 retract my opinion and acknowledge my error : 
 But if our Adversary cannot prove it, I expect he 
 should do the like. 
 
 VI. But now as it was observed before about 
 the Various Readings, so here the same may be 
 observed about this question of the points, that 
 the Adversary unawares pleads the cause of them 
 whom he would seem to oppose, and whilst he 
 would make others guilty of promoting Popery, 
 Atheism, &c. himself is most deeply guilty by his 
 own arguments. For he grants the consequence 
 which they urge, to be necessary and true, as 
 
280 The Considerator considered. 
 will appear, if it be brought into a Syllogism, 
 which runs thus. If the points and accents be 
 not of divine original, but affixed by the Maso- 
 rites to the Text, then the Scripture is uncer- 
 tain, capable of divers senses, 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 original. Ergo / 
 
 The conclusion of the Syllogism 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 deny the major or the con- 
 sequence, and lay the weight of the cause upon 
 it ; which all the Papists, Atheists, and Conside- 
 rators in the world, are never able to prove. The 
 Adversary on the other hand, 1. denies the mi- 
 nor, which his opposites may with more proba- 
 bility make good, than he can the contrary, they 
 having not only the learned of their own Church, 
 but also the best learned Protestants (as I have 
 said) affirming the same with many strong rea- 
 sons, which to any man unbiassed will seem more 
 concluding than those brought for the other 
 opinion. And 2. he grants the consequence, yea 
 proves it as well as he can, (which all sober 
 
The Considerator considered. 281 
 Christians, and all that have not joined hands 
 with Papists, Atheists, &c. deny,) from which 
 that conclusion inevitably follows ; that the Scrip- 
 ture is uncertain, and therefore of no authority 
 in matters of faith, &c. ! Let all men, there- 
 fore, judge who it is that pleads 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 unexcus- 
 able before God and man, by betraying the cause 
 which he pretends to defend, and by doing that 
 himself of which he unjustly accuses another. 
 
28& The Consideralor considered. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 I. II. The charge, that all our knowledge of the Hebrew is 
 derived from the Septuagint. III. Answered. IV. 
 This, if it were true, makes nothing against the He- 
 brew Text. V. The last charge, that the present He- 
 brew character was brought in by Esdras, who used 
 the Assyrian, and left the old character to the Sama- 
 ritans. The authority of the Hebrew Text the same it 
 was, because Esdras did this by Divine authority. The 
 Greek manner of writing changed in the New Testa- 
 ment since the Apostles' times. VI. By whom this 
 question hath been handled. VII. Buxtorf not abso- 
 lutely for the present character, though he argues for 
 it. VIII. His modesty, and the Adversary's confidence. 
 IX. Arguments for the antiquity of the Samaritan 
 character. All that can be brought in a matter of 
 fact, of such antiquity. Testimonies of ancient writers, 
 Eusebius, Saint Jerom, Bede. X. Both the Talmuds, 
 diverse rabbins. XI. The shekels or ancient coins of 
 the Kings of Israel stampt with Samaritan characters. 
 XII. The exceptions of the Adversary. XIII. An- 
 swered. XIV. His fancy about the Samaritan letters 
 confuted. XV. The fiction of a twofold character ex- 
 ploded. XVI. XVII. His other exceptions answered, 
 XVIII. The true character of the Considerations. Ad- 
 vice to the Adversary if he thinks fit to reply, XIX. 
 The Conclusion, 
 
 I. We have gone through the chief heads of our 
 Adversary's charge ; the Various Readings and 
 the pointing of the Hebrew Text. We shall 
 
The Consider ator considered. 283 
 with more speed pass 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 Samaritan Characters 
 to be the old Hebrew letters ; of which now we 
 shall speak briefly. 
 
 II. For the first p. 206. He saith, " That 
 the Author of the Prole g. 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, Praef. ad Opusc. Samarit." 
 The same is twice mentioned in his Epistle, p. 
 10, and 26. which he disproves by the example 
 of Jerom, who had his knowledge of the Hebrew 
 tongue by the help of Hebrews, and by the Ti- 
 berian Masorites, who pointed the Text accord- 
 ing to the tradition of them that spake the lan- 
 guage in its purity, and could not have the know- 
 ledge of it from the Seventy. 
 
 III. For answer, first, why doth not our Ad- 
 versary 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 hein- 
 ous crimes with which he charges the Prolego- 
 ?nena, affirming elsewhere, p. 1, 52, 160. " that 
 had not these tenets been published with the 
 Biblia Polyglotta, thereby to gain authority by 
 
284 The Considerator considered. 
 
 that work, he would not have meddled with 
 them ?" Now this, I am sure, is no where in the 
 Prolegomena, or in the Biblia Poh/glotta. And 
 if this be not, why will he upon the words of Mo- 
 rinus, (a petulant Jesuit, as he will make him,) 
 why, I say, will he accuse any upon such a man's 
 testimony as his, whom he calls in his railing 
 rhetoric, " an infamous person, a barking dog," 
 &c. when as he could find no such thing in the 
 Biblia Polyglotta ? But the truth is, Morinus 
 doth not say, that this opinion of Cappellus is 
 approved in the Biblia Poh/glotta, (which our 
 Adversary very well knew,) but that " in a disser- 
 tation, or preface to an introduction to the read- 
 ing of the Oriental Tongues, he approves that 
 opinion of Cappellus. " Now what is this to the 
 Biblia Poh/glotta f and yet the Author of the 
 dissertation doth neither in that dissertation, nor 
 any where else, wholly subscribe to Cappellus's 
 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 juv o) 
 linguce Hebrcece cognitio. There is some dif- 
 ference between nulla, and exigua; the former 
 he never said, for he knows, and frequently af- 
 firms, that though the Hebrew ceased to be vul- 
 garly spoken after the return from Babylon, yet 
 there remained always, among the priests and 
 
The Considerator considered. 285 
 
 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 only 
 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, save that of the 
 LXX. and therefore, as Clenard and Erpenius 
 attained the Arabic by the Translations out of 
 that tongue in the Nebiense Psalter, and other 
 Arabic 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 knowledge of the Hebrew would be little, 
 without this Translation. And no question but 
 Origen in his Hexapla, and Jerom in his Trans- 
 lation, made great use of that Translation to this 
 end ; though I know very well, that Jerom made 
 use also of divers Jewish rabbins, and amongst 
 others, of some Tiber ian doctors of note, as him- 
 
286 The Considerator considered 
 
 self affirms, who were not long before those Ti- 
 berians that pointed the Hebrew 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, Arnold Bootius, in his furious invective 
 against Cappellus, 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 He- 
 brew Text were endangered ; which if he could 
 with any colour have made good, 1 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 the 
 Hebrew Text; which, among others, is reckoned 
 by our Adversary in the first place, p. 205. viz. 
 " That the present Hebrew character is not that 
 used by God himself, and in the old Church be- 
 fore the captivity of Babylon ; but it is the Chal- 
 dean, the other being left to the Samaritans." 
 The same is also mentioned, Epist. p. 7. This 
 [C] question is handled at large, Proleg. iii. 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 
 
The Considerator considered. 2S7 
 
 character to have been the Assyrian, and that the 
 old Hebrew Character was left to the Samaritans ; 
 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 au- 
 thority of the Hebrew Text suffers nothing by this 
 change of the character, but that it is in this re- 
 spect the same it was before : no more, nor so 
 much as the change of the Greek character, and 
 of the manner of writing in capital letters, with- 
 out accents, spirits, or distinctions of words or 
 sentences, as the first Copies of the New Testa- 
 ment were written, (as we have elsewhere shewed, 
 Prolegom. hi. sect. 45. and Chap. 11. of this 
 Treatise,) into that form which is now in use, de- 
 rogates from the Greek Text of the New Testa- 
 ment ; 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 JBiblia Polyglotta amongst his English 
 readers, for whose misinformation these Consi- 
 derations were contrived ; unless he thinks with 
 some superstitious Jews, that there is some pecu- 
 liar sanctity in the form or fashion of the charac- 
 
288 The Considerator considered. 
 ter. Nevertheless, 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 add something by way of an- 
 swer. 
 
 VI. This question hath been so clearly and 
 fully handled by Scaliger, Drusius, Vossius, Cap- 
 pellus 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 junior 
 wrote 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. that this opinion is not so absurd, or apparently 
 false, as Scaliger, Drusius, and other great He- 
 bricians would have it ; but that it may be pro- 
 bably defended. To this Dissertation of his Cap- 
 pellus wrote an answer, 1645, (which I conceive 
 began the quarrel between these two learned 
 men, which hath since been continued with too 
 much eagerness about other matters,) wherein all 
 his arguments are answered, and the contrary 
 reasons urged and defended, with that evidence 
 
The Considerator considered. 289 
 and clearness that Buxtorf hath not made any 
 reply since that time, that I have seen ; though 
 he hath since written against Cappellus upon 
 other subjects ; being, it may be, convinced of 
 the error of that opinion, which he thought for- 
 merly 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 pe- 
 remptory in a question, which, as it plainly ap- 
 pears, he never seriously considered, not sticking 
 (after his usual manner) to call this opinion a fic- 
 tion, and a mere fable, though it be in a manner 
 demonstrated, and hath as clear and evident ar- 
 guments for it, as any thing of this nature is ca- 
 pable 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 ruins of Jerusalem, and other 
 places, stamped by the Kings of Israel before the 
 Captivity ; besides reasons and the authority of 
 most, if not of all the best skilled in Jewish anti- 
 quities, and Hebrew learning , of later times ; as is 
 shewed at large in the [D] same Prolegomena, 
 and appears by the figures of the coins themselves, 
 which are engraven, and printed in the Appara- 
 tus to the Biblia Polyglotta, in a Tract of the 
 ancient Hebrew coins. 
 
 VII. Buxtorf confesseth, sect. % " that though 
 both opinions have their patrons, yet the business 
 
 VOL. II. U 
 
290 The Considerator considered. 
 
 is brought to that pass, 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 kind, 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 exqui- 
 site Hebrew learning, hath drawn the most unto 
 that opinion. He adds withal, sect. 4. " Equi- 
 dem cum nemine super hac re acrius contendere, 
 aut disceptare mihi est propositum." And sect. 5. 
 confesseth ingenuously, that he dares not hope, 
 " se hoc assecuturum, ut omnibus satisfaciat, ul- 
 timamque literarum Hebraicarum antiquitatem, 
 dvotfAp^TriToos probet ac persuadeat, &c." only 
 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 sceptics that doubt of all things, or plain 
 asses, as Scaliger and Drusius had styled them. 
 Yet here is one who is so confident and peremp- 
 tory, that he dares style that opinion which is 
 generally held by most learned antiquaries, a 
 mere fable and a fiction ; hereby verifying that 
 saying, Qui pauca videt, citd 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 pro- 
 pounded, Prolegom. iii. which I shall not need 
 
The Consider ator considered. 291 
 
 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 Samaritans is al- 
 ready answered in its proper place.) I shall only 
 recapitulate what is largely handled in the Prole- 
 gomena concerning these characters. 
 
 IX. All the arguments that can be brought to 
 prove a matter of fact, especially of such anti- 
 quity, can be no other than testimonies, especially 
 of ancient and credible writers, who might best 
 know the truth, the remaining relics and monu- 
 ments of such characters; with the judgment 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 testimony both of 
 Christians and Jews : of Christians, Eusebius, 
 Jerom, and Bede, men best skilled, of any in 
 their times, in Jewish and other antiquities; who 
 affirm it as a thing certainly known, and not to 
 be doubted of, that Esdras changed the old cha- 
 racter into that we now use, leaving the other to 
 the Samaritans; whose testimonies, especially 
 Jerom's, is so express, and the thing so fre- 
 quently affirmed in his works, that they admit no 
 evasion ; as appears in the [E] same Prolegomena, 
 where all the subterfuges, brought to evade the 
 
 u2 
 
292 The Considerator considered. 
 
 force of the words, are plainly confuted 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 con- 
 trary. 
 
 X. To the testimonies of ancient Christians, 
 we have added the testimonies of both the Tal- 
 muds, which with the Jews are of sacred and un- 
 questionable authority. The Babylonish Tract. 
 Sanhedr. sect. 2. The Jerusalem Tract. Megil. 
 sect. 1. affirming that the Law was first given, 
 ■my Scriptura Hebrcea, and afterwards, 
 
 in the days of Esdras, it was written, rYHTOfc* 
 nrOl Scriptura Assyriaca; as also the testimo- 
 nies both of ancient and modern rabbins ; (who 
 though some of them, especially of the latter, that 
 they may maintain the antiquity of the present 
 character against the Samaritans, feign, among 
 other things, that Moses's avroy^ov was written 
 in the modern character, which they call sacred ; 
 and that the rest of the Copies for common use 
 were written in the common character, which is 
 retained by the Samaritans ; and that the use of 
 the sacred character was only restored by Esdras, 
 after it had been long disused ;) yet all agree in 
 this, that the present Samaritan characters were 
 anciently used among the Jews, and that some 
 Copies were written in them ; which testimony of 
 
The Considerator considered. 293 
 
 the Jews against themselves, in a matter which, 
 they think, tends to the disparagement of their 
 character, is an undeniable proof, that only the 
 evidence of truth forced this confession from 
 them. 
 
 XI. But above all, that of the shekels, or an- 
 cient coins, heretofore, and lately, digged up 
 about Jerusalem, and other adjacent places, 
 stampt on the one side with Aaron's rod, and the 
 other with the pot of Manna, and the inscription 
 of ml^X^m Hierusalem sancta on the 
 
 one side, and Z;VV"fif ZV m 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. Arias Montanus, and Pos- 
 tellus, having got some of these coins, esteemed 
 them as great treasures and undoubted proofs of 
 the ancient Jewish coins, and also of their 
 weights. That they were coined by the Samari- 
 tans, cannot be imagined, because they were 
 never possessed of Jerusalem, nor would have 
 given the title of Sancta to that city, which they 
 did abominate ; and that they were before the 
 Captivity, Arius Montanus, Postellus, and others 
 collect from the name of Israel ; which was the 
 common name of all the Tribes before the defec- 
 tion and carrying away of the Ten Tribes, when 
 they were styled Jews, and not before, from Juda 
 
294 The Comiderator considered. 
 
 the chief of the remaining Tribes. To this we 
 shall add one thing more: either the present He- 
 brew character is borrowed from the Chaldee ; or 
 else we must hold that, of the Eastern languages, 
 the Syriac and Arabic have each his distinct pro- 
 per 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 groundless tra- 
 dition, and a mere fable ; that Eusebius spake 
 only upon report, and as for Jerom, 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, unless se- 
 conded by very good evidence. To that of the 
 shekels, that we are in the high road 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 only were so, or that the Bible was 
 written with them, and those now in use un- 
 known ? Then to salvq|fte credit of the coins, 
 he will answer one conjecture with another. The 
 Samaritan letters are (if he may so say) plainly 
 preternatural, a studied invention in their frame 
 and figure, fit to adorn when extended, or great- 
 £ned by way of engraving and embossing any 
 
The Considerator considered. 295 
 
 thing that shall be put upon them, or cut in ; that 
 we may think they were invented for that pur- 
 pose, 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 proba- 
 ble, because Clemens tells us of three sorts of 
 characters among the Egyptians ; one for things 
 of common use ; another, hierographic, used by 
 the priests in their sacred writings ; and the other 
 hieroglyphic, which was also of two sorts, simple, 
 and symbolical : and seeing it was not unusual 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 groundless tradition and a 
 mere fable, which is supported with the testimo- 
 nies of such grave and learned authors, both an- 
 cient and modern, confirmed by both Talmuds, 
 and chief rabbins, and by real monuments, and 
 ocular demonstrations, which, like Memnon's sta- 
 tue, speak aloud for the truth of this assertion, 
 and upon such slight conjectures, as are by the 
 Adversary produced, shew a high degree of rash- 
 ness. Eusebius not only affirms this change of 
 the character, but also gives one chief reason 
 
296 The Considerator considered. 
 
 why : That the Jews might have nothing com- 
 mon with the Samaritans, whom they hated cane 
 pejus et angue. Jerom, he saith, supposing this 
 to be false, might be mistaken : nay, 1 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 infer that because he was 
 mistaken in some other things, that therefore he 
 was mistaken in this, is the way to decry all human 
 testimony at once. All histories and records are 
 by this means made useless ; for if they mistake 
 in some things, they must be believed in nothing ; 
 and so our Author, because in his Treatise he 
 mistakes in many things, (as 1 believe he will not* 
 I am sure he cannot, justly deny,) therefore he 
 must not be believed in any thing ! I confess he 
 that willingly affirms untruth in some things, de- 
 serves not to be believed in any thing : but that he 
 who mistakes in some things through inadver- 
 tency, 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 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 
 
The Considerator considered. 297 
 
 either by them, or by any that embrace 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 kind of answer, 
 though absurd and foolish hath been found out, 
 rather than they would wholly deny their au- 
 thority. And though the Talmuds be full of fa- 
 bles, yet by his own rule, if that which they af- 
 firm be attested by other good evidence, as here 
 it is, in this case their testimony ought to be of 
 weight. But the answer serves for all: Euse- 
 bius, Jerom, the Talmuds, the rabbins are all 
 deceived, their reports fabulous, and the she- 
 kels are forged and feigned ! Here is a ready 
 way to answer all arguments of this kind, to de- 
 ny all authority, and to say, that all is false 
 and fabulous. But this is a sign of a despe- 
 rate 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 men- 
 tioned ; but to infer thence that all are forged, 
 and that there is no way to distinguish between 
 those that are true, and those that are counter- 
 feit, is as if one should say, that all the old Roman 
 coins, which are daily found and digged up 
 amongst us, are counterfeit, because some such 
 
298 The Considerator considered. 
 
 have been counterfeited. See Proleg. iii. sect. 
 35. 
 
 XIV. But that he may not seem to deny all 
 without some shew of reason, he brings in a con- 
 jecture to answer, as he calls it, a conjecture. 
 But 1. the proof from the coins is not a bare con- 
 jecture, but as clear a demonstration, as in things 
 of this nature can be had. 2. His conjecture is 
 a groundless fancy, which none could ever have 
 hit on besides himself : he tells us the letters of 
 the sides are preternatural, which what it means, 
 I believe himself can hardly explain. I never 
 heard before of this distinction of letters, into na- 
 tural and preternatural : Are there some letters 
 natural ? 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 universal character by nature, and so they 
 might have spared their pains that have studied 
 so much for the inventing of an universal cha- 
 racter for the use of all nations. Preternatural 
 characters then must be such as proceed from 
 some error in nature, as monsters are said to be 
 prceter intentionem natura, productions wherein 
 nature fails, and comes short of her end. The 
 Samaritan character then it seems, is some mon- 
 strous character, framed besides nature's inten- 
 tion : and if so, why may there not be also some 
 
The Considerator considered. 299 
 
 characters supernatural, used by angels and spi- 
 rits, notwithstanding what Duretus writes against 
 them, De Unguis totius universi, and Bangus 
 De liter arum Angelicarum vanitate, such it may 
 be, as Liber Enochi, in Dr. Dee, [FJ written by 
 direction of his spirits ! Here is new doctrine of 
 letters not heard of before. These Samaritan 
 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 
 emboss vessels and coins ? I had thought that 
 'preternatural 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 than in 
 other letters ; or what studied invention is there in 
 them ? they seem to me to be 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 several Alphabets, printed Proleg. ii. and 
 that make as fair a shew. I have seen coins 
 both with these letters before the Captivity, and 
 others stampt with the modern letter since the 
 Captivity ; and, in my poor judgment, there is 
 no more adorning in the one, than in the other. 
 
300 The Considerator considered. 
 
 This preternatural character, I doubt, will prove 
 nothing else but the preternatural issue of a 
 misguided fancy, or of one willing to frame and 
 coin any thing, rather than to submit to clear 
 truth ! 
 
 XV. But yet there might be some other cha- 
 racter 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 com- 
 mon for other uses, and in which the Samaritans 
 writ their Pentateuch ; which he would confirm 
 by the practice of the Egyptians, that had diverse 
 sorts of characters. Of the Egyptian characters 
 I have spoken at large, Proleg. ii. and that de- 
 vice of Azarias taken up by some others, the bet- 
 ter to uphold their opinion of the modern letters, 
 is proved to be a groundless conceit, Proleg. iii. 
 That among the Heathens they used some secret 
 character which was counted sacred, thereby to 
 hide their profane mysteries from vulgar know- 
 ledge, 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 merely 
 devised to avoid the force of this argument, with- 
 out any ground either in Scripture, or any an- 
 cient writer ; nay, against both, and against clear 
 
The Considerator considered. 301 
 
 reason, as is there shewed ; to which place I re- 
 fer the reader, where the vanity of this twofold 
 character is sufficiently 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 mere fancy, 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 let- 
 ters, is incredible. Besides, they had their Bi- 
 bles, and that in their own character only ; 
 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 impro- 
 bable 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 J e ws 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 ; (Ma- 
 yerus only excepted, whose reasons are examined, 
 Proleg. iii.) And this they could not choose but 
 
302 The Considerator considered. 
 
 do, (though they kept the language for two hun- 
 dred years in Egypt,) because they lived dispersed 
 over Assyria, under their several lords and mas- 
 ters, whose servants and vassals 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 for- 
 got 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 than the other, as being in daily use among 
 them : yet it is not denied, but that as the know- 
 ledge 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 lit- 
 tle knowledge of any other character than 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 Considerator considered. 303 
 the verse in Hebrew, and then the same in the Chal- 
 dee. 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 find be- 
 fore that time. Besides, the Copies they had 
 were much depraved, and had suffered much, 
 (as this Author acknowledge^,) 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 
 real testimony, is from the coins, 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 Chal- 
 dee Paraphrases, or some of the Apocryphal 
 Books, where no occasion was given to mention 
 such things. These, among other things, were 
 6 
 
304 The Considerator considered. 
 
 preserved among them by tradition ; 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 Sa- 
 maritans, laying aside the old letters, because of 
 their difficulty, he, together with the new, intro- 
 duced also the points to facilitate their reading." 
 The latter part of which speech, as we deny upon 
 grounds formerly shewed, so the other we re- 
 ceive, that Esdras laid aside the old letters, (not 
 because of their difficulty, for they appear rather 
 to be easier than the other,) but because the 
 Jews had been more used to the Chaldee, and 
 that they might not seem to have communion with 
 the Samaritans, (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 material 
 passages which contained any thing worth the 
 observing; entreating the reader, who desires 
 more full satisfaction, to have recourse to the 
 [G] Prolegomena and Appendix themselves. By 
 
The Consider ator eonsidered. 303 
 
 \vhat hath been now observed, sufficient warn in*' 
 is given to the reader, not to be too credulous, 
 or to take any thing- upon trust without exami- 
 nation or trial ; and by these speeimina of his 
 candour and love of truth, 1 desire him to judge 
 of the rest of his Discourse. If he shall think 
 lit 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 what- 
 soever comes from them ; yet if he think lit to 
 draw this saw r of contention further, or as he 
 threatens in diverse places to make further dis- 
 coveries ; I shall advise, 1. That he would be 
 careful to state the controversy truly, and relate 
 the arguments faithfully and entirely, and not 
 lamely, much less to pervert them ; and to that 
 end, as Saint Jerom wished, Advers. Errores Job. 
 Hierosol. f - Ut verbis meis sensum meum loqua- 
 tur," that he would deliver my opinion in my 
 own words ; (as 1 have done his ;) and not substi- 
 tute what he pleases, or make his own consccta- 
 ries his adversary's opinions. 2. That he would 
 proceed scholastically, and keep close to the point 
 in hand ; forbearing extravagant popular decla- 
 mations. 3. That he would lay aside all passion 
 and prejudice; for as Aristotel. in Eiench. o^y^on-i? 
 « Juuoivtou <p'j>.o>rlic§<xi tx ttz-stoc. Or if he cannot 
 
 VOL. II. X 
 
306 The Consider alar considered. 
 
 but write in haste and in heat, yet that he would 
 review and weigh his own conceptions ; avoiding 
 rash and precipitate censures ; 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 de- 
 liberation. 4. That he would not join promis- 
 cuously what is said by other authors, either Ro- 
 manists or Protestants, with what is said in the 
 Prolegomena as if all that they affirm were to be 
 charged upon the Prolegomena. For by not dis- 
 tinguishing what is said by each, but by jumbling 
 all together, it is cunningly insinuated to the un- 
 wary reader, as if all held the same. For I am 
 not to answer for any thing, but what is said in 
 the Prolegomena. 
 
 XIX. These rules if he shall observe, I shall 
 promise to deal in like manner with him, if any 
 rejoinder shall be found needful. But if he shall 
 persist in the way he hath begun, I shall think 
 silence the best answer, having better employ- 
 ments, 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, than the Glory of 
 God, in the preserving of his sacred truth, both 
 in the Originals, and ancient Translations, both 
 for the true reading, and right sense or meaning, 
 pure and entire to posterity, against both the 
 
The Considerator considered. ;->07 
 casual mistakes that may happen in some, and 
 the wilful corruptions and falsifications of Secta- 
 ries and Heretics, which never more boldly, nor 
 in greater numbers than now, endeavoured to de- 
 prave or corrupt it, either in the letter, or sense, 
 or both. And though these weak endeavours be 
 attended (as it hath been the fate of all public 
 works of this nature) with obloquy in some emu- 
 lous and contradicting spirits, yet I shall think it 
 sufficient that I have had the general approba- 
 tion 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 invec- 
 tives shall be buried in oblivion : For, 
 
 " Pascitur in vivis livor, post fata quiescit ; 
 " Tunc suus ex merito quemque tuetur honos." 
 
 THE END OF THE CONSIDERATOR CONSIDERED. 
 
 x2 
 
SOME 
 
 OBSERVATIONS 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 PRECEDING VINDICATION, 
 CHIEFLY WITH A VIEW 
 
 TO 
 
 REFERENCES UPON THE SUBJECT, 
 
 BY 
 
 THE COMPILER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 MEMOIRS OF DR. WALTON, &c. 
 
OBSERVATIONS, 
 
 P. 2. [A] " a reverend author." Dr. Walton here 
 alludes, I presume, to a passage in a sermon preached 
 before the King-, Sept. 2, 1623, by Dr. G. Warburton, 
 (afterwards dean of Wells,) and published in that year. 
 *' Inter duos latrones hod'il crucifigiiur Ecclesia 
 Christi, (Hieron.) The Church of Christ, as Christ 
 himselfe, is at this day crucified betweene two theeves ; 
 her peace disturbed on both sides. On the one side 
 are the Jesuites, and their adherents ; a strong and 
 impetuous faction in the Church of Rome, that main- 
 taine those transalpine tenets most injurious to Chris* 
 tian monarchs, the pope's supremacie over kings, his 
 power of deposing, of killing them, of acquitting sub- 
 jects of their naturall liege allegiance, and absolving 
 traytors for the murther of their prince. On the other 
 side, certaine scrupulous brethren of our owne, in- 
 flamed with a precipitate zeale against our corruptions, 
 as they call them, both in doctrine and discipline, have 
 with their clamorous libels, most repleat with unthank- 
 fulnesse to God for his mercies to this land, with slander 
 to our ecclesiasticall government, and with prejudice 
 to the civil state, kindled a strange fire of contention 
 in this nationall Church." Serm. pp. 35, 36. 
 
OBSERVATION &C. 
 
 P. 4. [B] " that magnificent work." See Le Long', 
 Biblioth, Sac. cap. 1. Bib. Polygl. Antverp. Bowyer 
 on the first printed Polyglots, Orig. of Printing, p. 129. 
 And Dibdin's Introduct. to the Classics, 3d edit. vol. i. 
 p. 8. et seq. where several curious particulars of this 
 wonder of the world, as it has been called, are related. 
 
 P. 5. [C] " that splendid work of the Parisian 
 Bible.' 1 Compare Le Long, ut supr. Bowyer, p. 132. 
 and Dibdin, p. 11. 
 
 ibid. [D] " the last English translation." See the 
 preceding Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Dr. 
 Walton, ch. 3. p. 101, et seq. *> 
 
 Ibid. [E] " one — passed hy and not employed in the 
 worfc? The learned but very conceited and injudicious 
 Hugh Broughton. See Lewis's Essay on the English 
 Versions of the Bible, 2d edit. p. 297. And a Vindi- 
 cation of our Authorized Translation, 1819, p. 69. 
 
 P. 8. [F] " a late pamphlet" The Vindication of 
 the Hebrew and Greek Texts, published in 1659, by 
 Dr. John Owen, dean of Christ Church, Oxford, during 
 the Usurpation of Cromwell. Nothing' can be adduced 
 more explanatory of this controversy, than the obser- 
 vation of a gentleman who has very recently given to 
 the world Memoirs of the Life, &c. of Dr. Owen. 
 " The progress of Hebrew literature has discovered, 
 that the fears, entertained by Owen, respecting the 
 doctrines of the Polyglot, were wholly groundless : 
 and his language, that those who asserted that the 
 Scriptures had suffered in the same manner with other 
 books, bordered on atheism, was rash and improper ; 
 as the event has proved. He disclaims all personal 
 motives in the considerations he was led to throw out 
 on the Polyglot ; professes not to have been acquainted 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 313 
 
 with Walton, and but little with his chief coadjutors ; 
 and pretends to no profound acquaintance with the de- 
 partment of literature, to which the Prolegomena and 
 
 Appendix of the Polyglot proper ly belong" And 
 
 yet he scrupled not to impugn assertions, which those 
 Prolegomena and that Appendix contain! — " It is un- 
 necessary now," the learned biographer of Dr. Owen 
 proceeds, " to canvass his objections. His fears mag- 
 nified his expectations of danger, and multiplied his 
 difficulties ; and neither the cause of sacred learning, 
 nor his own fame, would have suffered, had he never 
 written a sentence on the subject. He was not al- 
 lowed to pass unanswered. Walton immediately pub- 
 lished an able, but ill-tempered reply, The Consi- 
 derator Considered, &c. It cannot be concealed, 
 and ought not to be denied, that Walton had greatly 
 the better of his antagonist in this controversy. He 
 possessed eminent learning, great critical acumen, and 
 all that patient industry which was necessary for the 
 successful prosecution of his very arduous undertaking. 
 These qualifications, combined with abundance of lei- 
 sure, with the assistance of learned associates, and 
 with enthusiastic devotedness to the cause which he 
 espoused, enabled him to bring his original work to a 
 perfection that left all its predecessors far behind, and 
 to meet any antagonist, with advantages, of whose im- 
 portance he was sufficiently aware. The time and ta- 
 lents of Owen had been chiefly devoted to very differ- 
 ent pursuits. In doctrinal, exegetical, and controver- 
 sial theology, he had then but few equals, and no supe- 
 rior. In these departments he shone with distinguished 
 lustre, and to their cultivation he had consecrated all 
 ihe faculties and ardour of no ordinary mind. Hi» 
 
314 
 
 OKSKK\ ATION.S, &C 
 
 public labours, and numerous writings, must have left 
 him but little time or inclination for the dry pursuits of 
 verbal criticism ; and, on this account, it would have 
 been better had he left the subject to others. But, 
 while I freely concede the palm of victory in this con- 
 test to Walton, it is impossible to compliment the 
 spirit, with which he fought for and achieved it. He 
 never condescends so much as to name Owen, although 
 the work which he answers was not anonymous. He 
 breathes a tone of defiance and contempt, alike un- 
 called for and unsuitable; but probably dictated as 
 much by the political changes in prospect, as by per- 
 sonal dislike of Owen. The Ex-Vicechancellor of Ox- 
 ford, though not then a son of the Church of England, 
 a title to which Walton attached no ordinary import- 
 ance, was not unworthy to be named with the most 
 learned of her progeny ; and even the Editor of the 
 Polyglot was not entiled to school him as a dunce." — 
 I pause again, with submission to the biographer 
 of Dr. Owen, to observe, that a man professing 
 no profound acquaintance with the literature which 
 another critically illustrates, and yet deliberately as- 
 saulting and depreciating it, can hardly earn, in such 
 a vain endeavour, a name of higher import than a 
 dunce; and therefore such an one can be treated by him, 
 whose labours he insults and misrepresents, only as a 
 blunderer who surely deserves to be schooled, or as a 
 trifler provoking derision. There was at one time a 
 fierce defender of Dr. Owen against the attack of Dr. 
 Walton, who considered the latter as not to be com- 
 pared, in point of criticism, with the former ; of whose 
 aid, in his narrative of this controversy, Mr. Orme has 
 not availed himself! This person was Mr. Joseph 
 
OBSERVATlOiNiS, &C. 
 
 315 
 
 Cooper, who published a vehement dissertation, en- 
 titled " Domus Mosaicae Clavis, sive Legis Sepimen- 
 tum ; in quo punctorum Hebraicorum adstruitur anti- 
 quitas ; eaque omnia, cum accentualia turn vocalia, 
 ipsis Uteris fuisse cogeva, argumentis, undique petitis, 
 demonstratur. Quae ver6 in contrarium ab Elia Levita 
 primipilo, Ludovico Cappello, D. Doctore Walto?w, 
 &c. adducuntur, multa cum fidelitate examini subjici- 
 untur et diluuntur, &c." 8vo. Lond. 1673. No won- 
 der then, that this critic, speaking of Cappellus, boldly 
 says, " cujus rationes Buxtorfius junior expendit et 
 eonfutavit;" next of Dr. Walton, " cujus sententiam 
 Bibliorum Polyglottorum, quo jure quave injuria Pro- 
 legomenis insertam, disputatione plant nervosa expug- 
 navit Dr. Owen;' and then of Dr. Prideaux, " quern 
 una cum Ludovico Cappello, et Doct. Walton, argu- 
 mentorum turn pondere, turn numero, obrutum in hoc 
 quali quali tractatulo invenire licet !" Thus overwhelm- 
 ing these three unfortuate scholars, he is not content 
 that the reader should witness their extinction with any 
 other sentiment than that of detestation; for he says, 
 M Habetis tandem, lectores candidi, natales horrencli 
 istius monstri, quod, ohstetricante Elia Levita, 2)ri- 
 mitus natum Lud. Cappellus, Johannes Prideauxius, 
 et Brianus Waltonus, cum aliis e nostris, postrnodum 
 educdrunt, &c." Praef. ad Lectorem. Instead of 
 citing other presumptuous passages from this forgot- 
 ten yet learned volume, I will copy a few words more 
 from the biographer of Dr. Owen. " His [Walton's] 
 remarks on the motives and designs of Owen are bit- 
 ter and unchristian, and only reflect dishonour on him- 
 self. And surely the man, who, after enjoying the 
 favour of Cromwell, had the ingratitude to erase his 
 
316 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 acknowledgment of it, and to insert the name of 
 Charles, from whom his work had derived no benefit, 
 (though it afterwards procured a bishopric for its au- 
 thor,) has not the highest claims to credit for Christian 
 simplicity and sincerity." Memoirs of Dr. Owen, &c. 
 By William Orme, 8vo. London, 1820, pp. 271, 272, 
 273. In answer to these concluding remarks of Mr. 
 Orme, I refer the reader to Dr. Walton's own publica- 
 tion, and the vast importance of the subject, in the 
 preceding pages of this volume ; and next to the ac- 
 count, given by Dr. Walton himself, in the Memoirs 
 of his Life and Writings which I have brought toge- 
 ther, respecting the alleged favour of Cromwell, re- 
 specting also the concern which Charles the Second 
 appears to have shewn for the Polyglot, and respect- 
 ing other matters connected with this subject, hitherto 
 suppressed, or overpassed ; which may lead the reader 
 to a different conclusion than that made by Mr. Orme. 
 See the first volume of this work, pp. 82, 83, 84. 
 
 P. 12. [G] " Archbishop Usher, Bishop Prideaux, 
 &c." Of these learned men LTsher was the only one, 
 who lived to witness the completion of the Polyglot. 
 
 P. 28. [H] " not impeached or prejudiced there- 
 by? It has been abundantly shewn, that by Various 
 Headings the sacred text has not only been not 
 prejudiced, but been cleared and vindicated. " I am 
 forced to confess with grief," says the great Bentley, 
 " that several well-meaning priests, of greater zeal 
 than knowledge, have often by their own false alarms 
 and panic both frighted others of their own side, and 
 given advantage to their enemies. What an uproar 
 once was there, as if all were ruined and undone, when 
 Cappellus wrote one book against the antiquity of the 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 Hebresv points, and another for various lections in 
 the Hebrew text itself I And yet time and experience 
 have cured them of their imaginary fears ; and the 
 great author in his grave has now that honour univer- 
 sally, which the few only of his own age paid him when 
 alive. The case is and will be the same with the 
 learned Dr. Mill. For what is it, that Whitby so in- 
 veighs and exclaims at I The doctor's labours, says 
 he, make the whole text precarious ; and expose both 
 the Reformation to the Papists, and religion itself to 
 the Atheists. God forbid ! We'll still hope better 
 things. For surely those Various Readings existed 
 before in the several exemplars. Dr. Mill did not 
 make and coin them ; he only exhibited them to our 
 view. If religion, therefore, was true before, though 
 such Various Readings were in being ; it will be as 
 true, and consequently as safe still, though every body- 
 sees them. Depend on't ; no truth, no matter of fact, 
 fairly laid open, can ever subvert true religion." Phil. 
 Lips. P. I. §. 32. " As to what our Deists allege 
 from the great number of Various Readings, if they 
 had but as little learning, or at least ingenuity, as they 
 pretend to piety, they would acknowledge them to be 
 of no consequence to the substance of religion. They 
 appear plainly to be the effect of human frailty, inac- 
 curacy, and mistake, in transcribing or translating, and 
 what might escape the best and most diligent writer. 
 And no one surely will pretend, that Divine Provi- 
 dence was under any obligation miraculously to con- 
 tinue the infallibility of the authors of Holy Writ 
 down to every librarian and amanuensis, to prevent 
 their making mistakes. Such objections would make 
 one imagine, that there is nothing to be urged against 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &c. 
 
 the genuineness of the Scriptures, but what will, tipoii 
 due examination, add strength to their authority, and 
 end in the praise of them. For the multitude of Va- 
 rious Readings are so far from arising from any de- 
 sign, or contrivance, to vitiate or falsify the text, that 
 notwithstanding Manuscripts have been collected from 
 the most distant parts of the world ; and the most dili- 
 gent search every where made for them ; and more of 
 them met with than of any other books, as the constant 
 use of those writings made them to be oftener tran- 
 scribed, and all of them collated with the most religious 
 exactness ; there is not any one point of faith or mo- 
 rality, which is not to be found in the very worst Copy, 
 and as capable of being proved by the most inaccurate 
 as the most correct. (See Cappellus, as he is quoted 
 by Dr. Walton, Proleg. cap. vi. § 2.) Which is a 
 sufficient demonstration that there has been no collu- 
 sion, no interpolating, no designed alteration ofCopieSi 
 And as for the native and genuine sense of the Scrip- 
 tures, 'tis so far from being the more precarious from 
 the number of Various Readings, that 'tis rendered 
 the more clear and certain from them ; (Walton, Pro- 
 leg, cap. vi. §. 5.) the only difficulty being to find out 
 the true reading from the false, which is not so great, 
 as may be imagined, to a skilful and able critic ; the 
 observation of a very few rules being all that is neces- 
 sary, as Dr. Walton has sufficiently shewn, Proleg* 
 cap. vi. § 0." Dr. A. Young's Historical Dissertation 
 on Idolatrous Corruptions in Religion, vol. 2. p. 242, 
 et seq. " Bene egit Waltonus de Variis Scripturce 
 S. Lectionibus capite vi ; et optandum foret, ut hoc 
 caput legeretur ab omnibus, qui laborem Codwunt 
 Gonferendontm vel non necessarium, vel aded noxium. 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 319 
 
 indicant. Probavit suam sententiam non solum ex 
 experientia, b. e. ex dissensu Codicum antiquioribus 
 et recentioribus teniporibus observato, sed etiam ex 
 virorum doctissimorum testimoniis, itemque eorum, 
 qui acerriuii textus Hebrsei defensores fueruut. Re- 
 movit inanem periculi timoreru ex Codicum collatioue 
 timeudi textus iutegritati. Regulas quoque dedit, 
 Proleg. cap. vi. §. 6. de judicandis Variis Lectionibus, 
 sed, quod nolim negare, non satis subtiles, neque ac- 
 curate definitas* Nam illud, ceteris paribus, aut, non 
 temejr , mag nam habet ambiguitatem. Sed de his vi- 
 dendi sunt alii in bis regalis definiendis magis accu- 
 rati ; inprimis S. R. EliNESTl in Instit. Interpret is- 
 Nov. Test. Nam qua? leges judicio super Variis Lec- 
 tionibus Nov. Test, scribuntur, eas quoque in Vet. 
 Test, servandas esse non dubito. Igitur nihil dicain 
 ad has a Waltono allatas regulas emendandas vel illus- 
 trandas." Prsef. I. A. Dathe in Waltoni Prolegom. 
 Lips. 1777, pp. xxxviii, xxxix. Dr. Walton, we 
 find, agreed with Usher, rather than with Cappellus, 
 in a rule of the greatest importance respecting Va- 
 rious Readings ; w hich they, who study the HoW 
 Scriptures, should carefully observe. See the Con- 
 siderator considered, chap. vi. §. 10. I venture to re- 
 commend a learned Discourse, illustrating the use, 
 value, and improvement of Various Readings, preached 
 before ihe University of Oxford, October 18, 1761, 
 by W. Worthington, D.D. chaplain to the Archbishop 
 of York; and published at the request of the vice- 
 chancellor and heads of houses. It is indeed most 
 worthy to be reprinted. 
 
 P. 34. [I] " Hohbess Leviathan:' About the time, 
 when Dr. Walton published the Vindication of his 
 7 
 
^ OBSERVATIONS, &c. 
 
 Polyglot, the authors who had written against the per- 
 nicious publication of Hobbes were numerous ; and 
 they are afterwards noticed in an account of Hobbes** 
 Life, which yet details not all of them. One of the 
 most eminent was Dr. Seth Ward, afterwards Bishop 
 of Salisbury. We are infinitely obliged to those who 
 have detected the sophistry of Hobbes, and the ten- 
 dency of his maxims to corrupt morals ; especially as 
 some have spoken highly of his style in later times, 
 who have either wholly overlooked, or not sufficiently 
 deprecated, the danger both of his religious and politi- 
 cal principles. 
 
 P. '39. [K] " Various Readings, &c." See the pre- 
 ceding note, H. 
 
 Ibid. [L] " the novelty of the Hebrew punctuation " 
 See Dathe's Prsef. in Waltoni Prolegom. p. xxix. 
 <c Quae Wal tonus contra punctorum vocalium et accen- 
 tuum antiquitatem attulit argumenta, eadem sunt quibus 
 Cappelltjs earn contra Buxtorfitjm impugnavil. 
 Est haec temporum nostrorum felicitas, quod contro- 
 versia ilia, qua? olim tanta animorum vehementia ab 
 utraque parte agitata est, jam quidem partim mode- 
 rates, partim felicius, disceptatur. Schultensius 
 quidem primus fuit, quod ego sciam, qui ostendit neutri 
 parti victoriam posse concedi." The Arcanum punc- 
 tationis revelaium of Cappelltjs " contains almost 
 all the arguments, which have beensince used against the 
 antiquity of the Hebrew points ; and they are stated so 
 fully and clearly, that the subject appeared to be ex~ 
 hausted in the first essay of it. But as the opinion, 
 that the Hebrew points were of modern origin, was 
 likely, when first advanced, to be regarded as an in- 
 fringement even of the text, Cappelltjs had the 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 321 
 
 precaution to send his work in manuscript to be exa- 
 mined by Buxtorf, who returned it with the request 
 that it might not be printed. Cappellus then sent 
 it to Erpenitjs, professor of the Oriental languages 
 at Leyden, who so approved of it, that with the per- 
 mission of the author he printed it at Leyden in 1624. 
 Buxtorf made no reply to it: and as he died about 
 five years afterwards, he left it to be answered by his 
 son, who uas likewise professor in the University of 
 Basel. But many years elapsed before the younger 
 Buxtorf had prepared an answer to Cappellus. 
 In the mean time Johannes Morinus, one of the 
 Fathers of the Oratory at Paris, attacked the antiquity 
 of the Hebrew letters in his Exercitationes ecclesias- 
 tics, printed at Paris in 1631. And as the antiquity 
 of the letters appeared more important, perhaps also 
 more defensible, than the antiquity of the points, the 
 younger Buxtorf made his first essay in a defence 
 of the Hebrew letters, entitled Dissertatio de litera- 
 rum Hebraicarum antiquitate. The precise year when 
 this treatise was first published is not known : but in 
 1645 it received an answer from Cappellus, in his 
 Diatriba de veris et antiquis Hebrceorum Uteris, in 
 which Cappellus contended, as Morinus had al- 
 ready done, that the true and the ancient letters of the 
 Hebrews were no other than the Samaritan. In 1648 
 the younger Buxtorf made his reply to Cappellus, 
 on the subject of the points, in a work entitled, Trac- 
 tatus de punctorum vocalium et accentuum in libris 
 Veteris Testamenti Hebraicis origine, antiquitate t et 
 authoritate, oppositus Arcano punctationis revelato 
 Ludovici Cappelli. To this work Cappellus 
 prepared an Answer, entitled, Arconi punctationis 
 vol. ii. Y 
 
322 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 Vindic'm. But he died before the publication of it : 
 and his son, to whom it was left in manuscript, did not 
 publish it, till many years after the death also of his 
 opponent Buxtorf. This controversy about the an- 
 tiquity of the Hebrew letters and points must be care- 
 fully distinguished from another, in which Cappellus 
 and the younger Buxtorf were likewise engaged, on 
 the integrity of the Hebrew text : for the two contro- 
 versies, though in some measure connected, and fre- 
 quently confounded, rest on totally distinct grounds. 
 In the opinion, that the Hebrew or Chaldee character 
 was not used by the Jews till after the Babylonian Cap- 
 tivity, and that the present system of vowel points was 
 introduced in a still later age, the most distinguished 
 Hebrew scholars, with a very fevj exceptions, have sided 
 with Cappellus." Bishop Marsh VTheological Lec- 
 tures, P. II. Lect. x. The critics were at first greatly 
 divided upon the subject of the Hebrew points. The 
 list of those, who sided with Cappellus, has been 
 given by one who differed from him ; and a splendid 
 list it is. It is more full than any which Dr. Walton 
 has brought forward, in the Considerator considered ; 
 and therefore is here cited. It contains the great 
 names of Elias Levita, Lewis Cappel, Thomas Er- 
 jienius, Isaac Casaubon, J. /. Scaliger, Isaac Vossius, 
 J, Drusius, Arnold Boate, Andrew Rivet, Lewis de 
 Dieu, Hugh Grotius, Frederick Spanheim, Festus 
 Hommius, Theodore Beza, John Selden, Brian Wal- 
 ton, Andrew Sennert, James Basnage, F. Burmann, 
 Richard Simon, Philip a Limborch, Stephen Morin, 
 C. Vitringa, J. le Clerc, C. A. Heumann, and others. 
 See Dissert. Critica de Litteris, &c. Heb. ab Andr. 
 Chr. Petersen, p. 34. §. vi. To these I may add J. B. 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 323 
 
 L'Advocat, C. F. Houbigant, Bishop Lowtb, and Dr. 
 Kennicott. At the same time, it must be observed, 
 several men of great learning have also illustrated 
 and defended the opinion of Cappellus's opponent. 
 But of these some have lost their temper, and so be- 
 trayed the weakness of their cause. This may surely 
 be said of Wasmuth, in his Vindicice S. Hebrcece ; of our 
 countryman, Joseph Cooper, in his Domus Mosaics 
 Clavis, (mentioned in the preceding- note F. p. 315 ;) 
 and of several minor critics, at home and abroad, who 
 have raged furiously both against Walton and Cappel- 
 lus. Great Britain, however, has not wanted men of 
 less irritability, who have strenuously defended the 
 Hebrew vowel-points. Such have been Mr. Thomas 
 Boston, Mr. Peter Whitfield, and Dr. James Robert- 
 son ; the production of the first bearing the following 
 description : Tractatus Stig?nologicus, Hebrceo-Bibli- 
 cus. Quo accentuum Hebrceorum doctrina iraditur, 
 variusque eorum in explananda S. Scriptura usus ex- 
 ponitur y &c. Amst. 1738 ; of the second, On the He- 
 brew Points, Liverpool, 1748 ; and of the last, Disser- 
 tatio de genuina punctorum vocalium Hebraicorum 
 anliquitate, Edinb. 1770. 
 
 P. 50. [M] " Concerning the purity and authority 
 of the Original Texts, &c." The observation of Dathe, 
 upon what Dr. Walton has here noticed, is worthy of 
 great attention. " Quanquam ver6 textus originarios 
 a corruptione, quae nimirum sit omnium Codicum su- 
 perstitum, liberos esse defendit Waltonus, eosque 
 puros et integros ad nostra usque tempora pervenisse ; 
 tamen hanc eorum integritatem non restrigendum esse 
 recti monet, adunam tantum Mam textus Hebrcei (nam 
 
 y 2 
 
324 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 de textu Grseco non amplius disputatur) recensionem, 
 qua Masorethica vocari solet. Sed quemadmodum 
 librorum Nov. Test, integritas non ex paucorum Codd. 
 sed ex omnium quotquot supersunt collatione probatur, 
 ita etiam de libris Vet. Test, debebat judicari, nee 
 eorum integritas ex Judaeorum criticorum diligentia, 
 caeteroquin non contemn end a, tan turn demonstrari. 
 Quod faciunt ii, qui conatus virorum doctissimorum, 
 in conferendis codicibus Hebraeis susceptos, impro- 
 bant, contemnunt et tanquam periculosos rejiciunt. 
 Quanquam hujus erroris vanitatem Waltonus jam 
 in praecedenti capite ostenderat, cum de Var. Lectt. 
 earumque colligendarum necessitate ageret, tamen 
 denud ei probandum erat, cum textus originalis inte- 
 gritatem defenderet, huic nullo modo obstare senten- 
 tiam de Variis Lectionibus ; Prol. viii. §. 12, 13, 14, 
 plures esse in Codice Hebrceo diversas Lectiones, qudm 
 sint a Judceis observata; Jud&orum scribas minimi 
 habuisse privilegiurn avaptap-iWas - , et propterea Maso- 
 rethicam textus Jlebrai recensionem non opus esse 
 perfectissimum, consummatissimum, quod novas Codi- 
 cum collationes inutiles reddat et minus necessarias ; 
 neque Hieronymum, out Eusebium, sape de dis- 
 sensu Codicum Hebrccorum loquentes, eum integritati 
 Scriptures Sacrce periculosum judicasse, §. 13, 14. 
 Quae cum Waltonus etiam ad Nov. Test, transtu- 
 lerat, §. 15, 16, subjungit tandem disputationem ad- 
 versus duQevrlav Versionis Vulgatae a Pontificiis as- 
 sertam, lectu non indignam." Praef. in Waltoni Pro- 
 legom. pp. xlii, xliii. 
 
 P. 54. [N] This letter has been published sepa- 
 rately ; and is also found in Dr. Parr's Collection of 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 325 
 
 Archbishop Ushers Letters, pp. 569 — 579 ; and in the 
 third volume of Cappellus's Critica Sacra, edited by 
 J. G. Scharfeuberg, Hal. Madg. 1786, pp. 635—659. 
 
 P. 62. [O] " Arnold Bootius, &c." See some no- 
 tices of this critic in the Memoirs of Dr. Walton, pp. 
 60, et seq. Many of his letters to Archbishop Usher 
 are preserved in Dr. Parr's Collection, fol. London, 
 1686. 
 
 P. 66. [P] " that they made more frequent use of 
 the Greek LXX. than the Hebrew" See the Con- 
 siderator considered again, chap. ix. §. 15. " The 
 Septuagint was publicly read in the synagogues for 
 near three hundred years before Christ : our Saviour 
 and the Apostles used it, and cited it more frequently 
 than the Hebrew text." See also Dr. Prideaux's 
 Connect, of the Old and New Test. P. II. B. I. 
 4e That there was a translation of the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures into Greek, made in the time that the Ptolemies 
 reigned in Egypt, is not to be doubted : for we still 
 have the Book, and it is the same which was in use in 
 our Saviour's time ; for most of those passages which 
 the holy penmen of the New Testament do, in the 
 Greek Original of it, quote out of the Old Testament, 
 are now found verbatim in this Version." And Dr. 
 Mill, on Hebrews xiii. 25. " Scripture Veteris Tes- 
 tamenti, non secundum Hebraicam veritatem, quam 
 vocant, sed LXX. Interpretum, (in hac Epistola,) 
 perpetuo citatae : et quidem iis in locis, in quibus si 
 reponerentur Hebraea, non modo periret vis argumen- 
 tations Apostolicae, sed ne quidem ullus foret argu- 
 mentation locus." 
 
 P. 92. [Q] " the wonderful consent of all Trans- 
 lations" See Dr. Brett's Dissertation on the Ancient 
 
326 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 Versions of the Bible, 2d. edit. pp. 141, et seq. This is 
 his conclusion, p. 144. " We have reason to admire and 
 adore the Providence of God ; that notwithstanding- the 
 Holy Scriptures have been dispersed into almost all the 
 nations of the world, and translated into most lan- 
 guages ; have been transcribed by Christians of many 
 different persuasions and opinions ; and that beside 
 the various readings which have proceeded from over- 
 sights, or ignorance, or rashness, there are some 
 which may seem to have been made to serve the par- 
 ticular opinions of a party ; yet not any article of 
 faith, any doctrine or duty, any promise or threatening 
 has been affected thereby, or rendered precarious by 
 any various reading or corruption." 
 
 P. 93. [RJ "asthatofShiloh,&c." Some learned 
 men have bestowed more labour, than was requisite, in 
 confuting the strained and frivolous interpretations of 
 this passage by modern Jews. Ancient and very 
 learned expositors among the Jews did not dispute the 
 sense of this illustrious prophecy ; but admitted, that it 
 referred to the time of our Lord's coming into the 
 world. Onkelos thus paraphrased the verse. There 
 shall never be wanting a ruler out of the house of 
 Judah, nor a chief judge out of his son's sons, until 
 Messiah shall come, to whom the kingdom belongs ; and 
 the nations shall hear or obey him. See Critical Notes 
 on Scripture, 8vo. London, 1747, p. 8. See also An 
 Address to the Jews, by John Xeres, containing his 
 reasons for leaving the Jewish and embracing the 
 Christian religion, 8vo. London, 1710, pp. 30, 31. 
 Our countryman Mede has written an admirable dis- 
 course on this text, Serm. 4to. edit. 1642, pp. 144, 
 et seq. 
 
OBSERVATIONS, 
 
 327 
 
 P. 102 [S] " and by apparent reason." See what 
 is before cited upon this subject in the notes H and 
 M. 
 
 P. 103. [TJ " how justly toe have shelved, Proleg. 
 ix." I must refer the reader particularly to the 18th 
 section of that chapter of the Prolegomena. See also 
 Dathe's extensive remarks on this chapter, Praef. in 
 Prol. pp. xlvi. et seq. He opens, justly, at variance 
 with Dr. Walton, " De Versionibus Graecis, praecipue 
 LXXII seniorum, copiose egitWALTONUS cap. ix. 
 sed, quod ad banc inprimis attinet, non ita, ut om- 
 nibus, quae super ea scripserit, possim assentiri. Ni- 
 mirum defendit historiain seu potius fabulam Aristeae 
 de origine hujus versionis, quam nostra aetate nemo 
 credit, &c." 
 
 P. 109. [U] " especially that in 1 John v. 8." Mean- 
 ing the omission of the seventh verse; in favour of the 
 genuineness of which, notwithstanding the severe cas- 
 tigation of Achdeacon Travis for defending it by Pro- 
 fessor Porson, and notwithstanding the consent of many 
 critics, both at home and abroad, to give it up, there 
 is not so weak a body of testimony as some are content 
 to believe. Some existing MSS. though few, contain 
 it. Manuscripts, known to have existed, have been 
 authentically stated to contain it. Of the very numerous 
 MSS. in various libraries, yet uncollated, who shall say 
 how many of them want it I Not a few of the Christian 
 Fathers maintained it. Selden appears to have support- 
 ed it. Mill defended it. Bentley indeed read a lecture 
 at Cambridge to prove it spurious ; but, says Whis ton, 
 his learned contemporary, " he dares not now wholly 
 omit it in the text of his edition of the New Testament, 
 which he has promised, but not yet performed." But 
 
328 
 
 OBSERVATION'S, &C. 
 
 let Bentley speak for himself on the subject of this 
 verse, though his edition certainly did not appear : 
 " What will be the event about the said verse of John, 
 I myself know not yet ; having not used all the old 
 copies that I have information of. But by this you 
 see, that in my proposed work the fate of that verse 
 will be a mere question of fact. You endeavour to 
 prove, (and that's all you aspire to,) that it may have 
 been writ by the Apostle, being consonant to his other 
 doctrine. This I concede to you; and if the fourth 
 century knew that text, let it come in, in God's name : 
 but if that age did not know it, then Arianism in its 
 height was beat down without the help of that verse : 
 and let the fact prove as it will, the doctrine is un- 
 shaken." Lett, to some unknown correspondent, Bent- 
 ley's Epist. ed. Burney, 1807, p. 238. Just and satisfac- 
 tory as the concluding remark is, and proper as are the 
 observations which precede it, still the verse ought not 
 yet entirely to be given up. The lost MSS. of Stephens 
 may yet again meet the critical eye; and MSS. at 
 present only known to exist, as well as many at present 
 undiscovered, may compensate future examination with 
 the desired discovery. I will only add, that among the 
 many critics who have impugned, or maintained, the 
 authenticity of this verse, I have not yet found one, not 
 even the sagacious Porson himself, who has named or 
 referred to a fellow-labourer in the contest, the Rev* 
 T. Dawson ; who is the author of Disceptatio Epis- 
 tolaris de Ccelestibus Testimoniis, 1 John v. 7. In 
 qua, ex binis Manuscriptis eximiis, indubio evincitur 
 duQevTioi istius versiculi, &C." The author appears to 
 have been an amanuensis of Dr. Cave, and the tract is 
 worth reading. 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 329 
 
 P. 112. [W] " concerning which, I have spoken at 
 large, Proleg. viii." See Dathe's Praef. in Prolegom. 
 p. xliv. " In cap. viii. distincte et accurate egit Wal- 
 tonus de Masora, hoc est, de iis, quae Judaei Critici 
 ad textus Hebraei lectionem emendandam el conser- 
 vandam fecerunt. In historia quidem hujus Critics 
 Judaicae secutus est inprimis Buxtorfium, ex cujus 
 Tiberiade, seu Clave Masorcs, epitomen dedit, quam 
 tirones cum fructu legent. In judicio ver6 super his 
 laboribus Judaeorum ad S. textus conservationem sus- 
 ceptis, Cappelli et Morini amplexus est senten- 
 tiam. Qui plures auctores nosse cupit, qui cum uni- 
 verse de Masora scripserunt, turn de singulis ejus par- 
 tibus, evolvat Wolfium in Biblioth. Hebr. torn. ii. 
 pag. 460, seqq. et torn. iv. pag. 207, seqq." 
 
 P. 120. [X] " that incomparably learned man, &c." 
 With the character which Dr. Walton here gives Gro- 
 tius, in regard to his earnest study for the peace of the 
 Church, and his endeavour to close up rather than to 
 make wider the breaches and wounds of Christendom, 
 compare what Dr. Hammond has said of him in his 
 letter to Mr. Smith, Mem. of Dr. Walton, p. 257. 
 
 P. 130. [Y] " belonging to Caius College in Cam- 
 bridge." Dr. Kennicott has described the contents of 
 this MS. See his account of the Hebrew MSS. in 
 England, disposed under every Book of the Old Tes- 
 tament, at the end of his State of the Printed Hebrew 
 Text of the Old Testament considered, Oxf. 1759. 
 
 P. 131. [Z] " is their diligence to be condemned^ 
 •&c." No, says a greater critic than Walton himself : 
 *' It has been the common sense of men of letters, that 
 numbers of Manuscripts do not make a text precarious, 
 but are useful, nay necessary, to its establishment and 
 
330 
 
 OBSERVATIONS', &C 
 
 certainty. And as Scaliger, Casaubon, Heinsius, &c. 
 when they designed to publish a correct edition of an 
 author, first laboured to procure all the Manuscripts 
 they could hear of, as the only means that promised 
 laudable success ; so Stephanus, Junius, Curcellaeus* 
 Walton, Fell, and Mill, proceeded in the same method" 
 Bentley, Phil. Lips. §. 32. 
 
 P. 133. [A] " all do constantly agree, &c." See 
 the preceding note Q. Blackwall, in his Sacred 
 Classics, has cited this fine passage in the Gonsiderator 
 with much approbation, and made it the text of his own 
 remarks upon the subject, vol. 2. pp. 336, et seq. 
 
 P. 148. [B] " sought out, and collated by the most 
 reverend Usher." See what has been said of this col- 
 lection, Mem. of Dr. Walton, pp. 79, 182. 
 
 Ibid. [C] " the Alexandrian MS. of the New Testa- 
 ment, &c." The Alexandrian Manuscript, containing 
 both the Old and the New Testament is now preserved in 
 the British Museum. Dr. Woide, of the Museum, many 
 years since, printed from it an accurate fac-simile edition 
 of the New Testament ; and carried the age of it to the 
 latter part of the fourth century ; though Michaelis has 
 placed it at least two centuries later. Mr. Baber, of 
 the same national establishment, has with no less exact- 
 ness and splendour already given to the world from this 
 venerable Manuscript the whole of the historical and 
 prophetical books ; and is proceeding with the re- 
 mainder of the Old Testament. I noticed the exertions 
 of this learned and indefatigable scholar in the Me- 
 moirs of Dr. Walton, p. 256, but to a less extent than 
 they have attained. As to the age of the Alexandrian 
 MS. we have already seen the difference of opinion be- 
 tween Woide and Michaelis. Semler thinks that it was 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 331 
 
 written in the seventh century. But certainty cannot 
 be obtained. The Vatican MS. contends with the 
 Alexandrian the estimation also of age. I will subjoin 
 an observation or two of Ernesti ; " Antiquissimi pu- 
 tantur Vaticanus et Alexandrinus, Uteris uncialibus 
 continentibus scripti : in quibus tamen magnus est 
 eruditorum dissensus, utri primse partes debeantur ; 
 aliis pro Vaticano pugnantibus, aliis pro Alexandrine 
 De hoc inprimis videndi editores Versionis LXX. 
 Anglicani Proleg. T. II. e. I. propos. XV. s. de illo 
 Zaccagnius 1. c. p. 56. de utroque Wetstenius in Pro- 
 leg. N. T." Ernesti, Inst. Interpr. Nov. Test. ed. 
 Lips. 1809. pp. 193, 194. Montfaucon and Blanchini 
 pronounce the Vatican MS. of the fifth century. 
 
 Ibid. [D] " the Codex Claromontanus." Believed 
 to be written in the seventh or eighth century. 
 
 Ibid. [E] " that which Beza sent to Cambridge." 
 Of this Manuscript also, as of the Alexandrian, the 
 age is disputed. It has been carried as high as the 
 second century, and has also been consigned to the 
 seventh ; but that it was not written beyond the fifth 
 century, is the opinion to which most deference has 
 been shewn. 
 
 Ibid. [F] " that Greek MS. of the Chronicles:* 
 See Dr. Walton's collation of this MS. in the sixth 
 volume of his Polyglot; where he describes it thus : 
 " Liber Chronicorum MS. antiquus in Bibliotheca 
 Publica Cantabrigiensi, qui erat quondam Theodori, 
 Archiep. Cantuariensis anno 668, cum Editione Ro- 
 mana collatus." 
 
 Ibid. [G] " that ancient remnant of Sir Robert 
 Cotton's MS. of Genesis. ,y Dr. Walton considers this 
 as the most ancient of all his MSS. See his account 
 
332 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 of the collation of it by Usher and Young, as well as 
 by himself, Bib. Polygl. vi. 109. Grabe pursued the 
 same kind of collation with this MS. as Dr. Walton 
 had done ; which remained in the Bodleian Library 
 unpublished till the year 1778 ; when Dr. H. Owen 
 accurately printed it, viz. Collatio Codicis Cotto- 
 niani Genesecos cum Editione Romana a viro clarissimo 
 Joh. Ern. Grabe jam olim facta, nunc demum sumrna 
 cura edita. See what Dr. Walton says of the loss of 
 the remainder of the Pentateuch, Genesis alone being 
 6aved. Memoirs of his Life and Writings, p. 289. 
 This most valuable MS. of Genesis, however, has, 
 since the times of Walton and Grabe, nearly perished. 
 " The Book of Genesis in the Cottonian Library, 
 which was written in large Greek capitals, without dis- 
 tinction of words, and had the history painted on most 
 of the pages, is almost all destroyed by the late un- 
 fortunate fire, [ml731;] and the leaves of what re- 
 mains, and consequently the writing in a just propor- 
 tion, are contracted into a less compass." Casley s 
 Catalogue of the King's MSS. 1734, Pref. pp. viii, ix. 
 This learned librarian gives a specimen of the MS. 
 on the eleventh of his plates, at the close of the Cata- 
 logue. But Mr. Astle, in his Origin and Progress of 
 Writing, has presented a specimen of this MS. in his 
 third plate, (1st edit. p. 71,) made while the writing 
 was in its original state, and before the parchment was 
 contracted by the fire ; adding that the MS. contained 
 one hundred and sixty-five folia, and two hundred and 
 fifty most curious paintings, twenty-one of which were 
 engraven by the Society of Antiquaries of London. 
 It is said to have belonged to Origen. See Casley, 
 p. ix. and Astle, p. 71. However, it has certainly been 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 333 
 
 considered the oldest Greek MS. not only in England, 
 but in Europe. 
 
 P. 151. [H] " that MS. of St. PauVs Epistles in 
 Emmanuel College" Collated in the Polyglot. See 
 Bib. Polvffl. vol. vi. Variantes Lectiones Greece Nov. 
 Test. " Codex praestans ob antiquitatem, minutis 
 characteribus descriptus." Walton. " A 1 Cor. xi. 7. 
 ad xv. 56. estmutilus; item ab Heb. xi. 27. ad finem 
 Epistolae ; deest praeteraea primuni caput prioris Petri, 
 quartum primae Joannis, ejusdem secunda tota ac ter- 
 tia cum Epistolae Judae." Wetstein. 
 
 P. 156. [I] " Prolegom. vi. De Variis Lectionibus ." 
 See the note H. pp. 316, et seq. 
 
 P. 180. [K] " the Arabic Translation.'" See Prof. Am- 
 nion's notes upon Ernesti: Collectiones adcuratae Ver- 
 sionum Arabicarum cum discrimine aetatis institute non- 
 dum exstant. Vid. Storrius de Evangeliis Arabicis, Tu- 
 bing. 1775, &c." Ernesti Inst. Interp. N. T. edit. 1809, 
 p. 227. M We know not of any more ancient Translation 
 of the Bible into the Arabic language, than one that was 
 madeby Saadias Gaon, a Jew of Babylon, about A. D. 900. 
 But there have been several Translations made since, 
 into that language, both by Jews and Christians. The 
 Eastern Christians have, I think, all of them, some 
 Arabic Translation of the Scriptures, both of the Old 
 and New Testament, made for the use of their people, 
 since that became the vulgar language amongst them. 
 These are mostly made from the Septuagint, or from 
 the Syriac, and are neither very ancient, or of any 
 considerable authority. The best use to be made of 
 them is, that they may serve to illustrate some difficult 
 passages. Among the Arabic Translations, made by 
 Christians, there is one printed in the Polyglots both 
 
334 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 of Paris and London. Both the author, and the time 
 when it was writ, are uncertain." Brett on the An- 
 cient Versions of the Bible, 2d. edit. p. 130. 
 
 P. 185. [L] " the Syriac Translation." See what 
 Dr. Walton presently says of the simple edition, as it 
 is called, of this Version, and also of Bootius; and then 
 compare the following observations of Cappellus and 
 his commentator. " Unde nobis certo probabit, [Boo- 
 tius,] earn suam sibi ah initio habuisse Translationem, 
 ex ipsis Hebraicis factam ? An, quia jam talis exstat 
 Versio quaedam Syriaca, quae magis videtur ex Hebraeo 
 quam ex Graeco t£v LXX. facta? Esto talis ea sit, 
 unde nobis demonstrabit Bootius, hodiernam istam sta- 
 tim ab initio fuisse, ac non quarto aut quinto post 
 Christum seculo exortam esse, &c." Here the com- 
 mentator interposes : " Utrumque hoc falsum est. 
 Bootius quidem sequutus fabulosas Syrorum narra- 
 tiones de antiquitate Versionis Syriacae simplicis, ut 
 vulgd vocant, quae inserta est Bibliis Polyglottis Pari- 
 siensibus et Londinensibus, sic errabat, ut earn ad 
 aetatem Christi et Apostolorum referret. Cappellus 
 autem ignorabat, praeter illam seculo post Christum 
 natum quarto antiquiorem, quae ex Hebraeo expressa 
 est, verum ita, ut aut ipsi auctores ejus passim aber- 
 rantes ab Hebraeo sequerentur Versionem Graecam, 
 aut post hos alii (conf. J. D. Michaelis Biblioth. Orient. 
 P. xviii. p. 180) illam ex hac interpolarent, exstare 
 alias Versiones Syriacas recentiores, e Versione Graeca 
 ductas, sed, si particulas quasdam nostra aetate in lu- 
 cem prolatas exceperis, nondum editas, de quibus di- 
 ligenter disserit J. G. Eichorn, &c Scharfenberg, in 
 L. Capp. Critica Sacra, vol. 3. 537. " Causa tradi- 
 tionis de antiquitate hujus Versionis adeo remota, vi- 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 335 
 
 detur quterenda esse in defectu testimoniorum histo- 
 ricoruin, quo tenipora Origeni proxima non laborant. 
 Neque tainen prorsus destituuntur testimoniis histo- 
 ricis, qui originem ejus in fine seculi I. aut initiis II. 
 ponunt, quse legi possunt apud sentential hujus defen- 
 sors, Pocockium in Pro:/, ad Comment. inJoelem, et 
 Waltonum Prolegom. xiii." Dathe, Praef. in Psalt. 
 Syriacuni, Hal. I76S. p. xxiii. " Versio ipsa adpel- 
 latur simplex, literalis ; et jam ante schisma Eutychi- 
 anuin et Nestorianum, forte sec. II. facta est." Prof. 
 Ammon, Not. in Ernesti, &c. p. 222. Such are the 
 opinions of foreign critics upon the Syriac Version. 
 That this Version was made in the second, or between 
 the second and fourth century, has indeed in later 
 times been the general opinion. I will add the judi- 
 cious and valuable observation upon it only of one of our 
 own countrymen. " The language most commonly used 
 among the Christians of the East, next to the Greek, 
 is the Syriac. It is properly a dialect of the ancient 
 Chaldee, which the learned divide into different dia- 
 lects ; 1. into that of Babylon, which is the Chaldean 
 language in its purity ; 2. into that of J erusalem, which 
 is what was used by the Jews after their return from their 
 Captivity at Babylon ; 3. into that of Antiochia, which 
 was used by the Christians of Coniagena, and some 
 other provinces bordering upon Syria, when this was 
 the native language of the country. This last is that 
 which is now more particularly called the Syriac lan- 
 guage. And into this language were both the Old and 
 New Testament translated ; if not before the death of 
 St. John the Apostle, yet certainly very soon after. 
 And the learned, who have examined this Version, and 
 compared it with the Original both of the Old and 
 
 5 
 
336 OBSERVATIONS, &C 
 
 New Testament, tell us, that of all the ancient Ver- 
 sions, which are now consulted by Christians for the 
 better understanding the Holy Scriptures, as well of 
 the New Testament as of the Old, none can better 
 serve this end than this Old Syriac Version, when care- 
 fully consulted and well understood. And to this pur- 
 pose the very nature of the language assists much ; for 
 it having been the mother tongue of those who wrote 
 the New Testament, and a dialect of that in which the 
 Old was first given to us, many things of both are more 
 happily expressed in this Version than can well be done 
 in any other language." Brett on the Ancient Versions 
 of the Bible, 2d. ed. pp. 127, 128. 
 
 P. 188. [M] " That Cambridge MS." See the Pre- 
 face to the Variantes in Syriaca Versione Vet. Test. 
 Lectiones, by Dr. Herbert Thorndike, in the sixth vo- 
 lume of Dr.Walton's Polyglot. 
 
 P. 189. [N] See the very valuable Preface of Cas- 
 tell, prefixed to a collation of the Samaritan Penta- 
 teuch, in the sixth volume of Dr. Walton's Polyglot; 
 entitled, Edm. Castelli, S. T. B. Prcefatio deAni- 
 madversionum Samariticarum in totum Pentateuchum, 
 ab eo collectarum, scopo atque usu. Dr. Walton's Po- 
 lyglot gives also the Samaritan version, that is, in the 
 language commonly spoken among the Samaritans, 
 very different, in consequence of corruption by foreign 
 innovations, from the Samaritan Pentateuch itself, 
 which is Hebrew in Samaritan characters. The sense 
 of both is nearly the same ; and one Latin version is 
 found in the Polyglot for both, with occasional notes 
 of variation at the bottom of the column. See more of 
 the Samaritan Pentateuch, in bishop Marsh's TheoK 
 Lectures, P. II. Lect. x. pp. 86, etseq. and Lect. xk 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C, 
 
 337 
 
 pp. 93, et seq. Among the adversaries of the Sama- 
 ritan Pentateuch, one has endeavoured to degrade the 
 Latin version, of which I have just spoken, not with- 
 out a subsequent very ill-judged reflection upon the 
 " doctissimi Angli" as he calls them. I will cite a 
 part of his censure : " Ultima causa libri Samaritani 
 negligenter admodum habiti ea nobis semper visa est, 
 quod misera ac nimis jejuna versio Latina Pentateu- 
 chi Samaritani alterius, illius scilicet, qui idiomate Sa- 
 maritano conscriptus est, in utrisque Bibliis Polyglot- 
 tis, [Paris, et Londin.] qua profecto parum desiderii, 
 librum ipsum propius pernoscendi, in eruditorum ani- 
 viis excitare poterat /" Exercitationes Historico- 
 Criticae in utrumque Samaritanum Pentateuchum : 
 auctore F. J. Schwarzio, 4to. Wittembergae, 1756." 
 Praef. p. vi. Now the very reason, which Professor 
 Schwarz assigns as uninviting to further investigation, 
 would, to a scholar of any spirit, one should think, be 
 that which would not only invite, but urge him on, to a 
 nearer acquaintance with the original ; unless, indeed, 
 Professor Schwarz was the only eruditus competent 
 to have made such a discovery of defect in the version 
 adopted both by Morinus and Walton ; and unless at 
 his appalling words the whole body of the eruditi were 
 then only to be awakened as to Samaritan research, or 
 to be for ever fallen. I must refer the reader upon the 
 subject of the Samaritan Pentateuch to Walton's own 
 excellent Prolegomena, cap. xi. And for the rescue 
 of this Pentateuch from the charges of its adversaries, 
 with other valuable remarks upon it, to bishop Marsh's 
 Theological Lectures, L. xii. pp. 141, et seq. 
 
 P. 193. [O] " which belonged to one of their priests. 
 VOL, ir. Z 
 
338 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 in Damascus." See the Memoirs of Dr. Walton, pp. 
 185, et seq. 
 
 P. 194. [P] " that have laid aside the English 
 Liturgy" See the Memoirs of Dr. Walton, p. 
 137. 
 
 P. 196. [Qj " the Chaldee Paraphrase." See the 
 address to the reader by Mr. Samuel Clarke, one of 
 Dr. Walton's principal assistants, prefixed to his 
 Variae Lectiones et Observationes in Chaldaicam 
 Paraphrasing in the sixth volume of the Polyglot ; and 
 also Dr. Walton's original description of his intended 
 edition, Mem. p. 38. 
 
 P. 197. [R] " the Vulgar Latin." Dr. Walton 
 says, that he thought this version should have felt the 
 displeasure of his adversary most, because so magnified 
 by the Church of Rome. I will subjoin a very judi- 
 cious observation upon this point. " Latina S. Scrip- 
 tural Versio, quae inde ab Hieronymi aetate Communis 
 seu Vulgata dici consuevit, nimio, quod Pontificii illi 
 staluunt, pretio, apud nostrates fere in contemptum est 
 adducta. Sed linguae Hebraicae, quae diu jam in con- 
 suetudine esse desiit, usum earn haud vulgarem prae- 
 stare, justi rerum aestimatores concedunt omnes atque 
 fatentur. Etenim ut male interdum Hebraica Latine 
 converterit, et vocabulis eos subjecerit sensus, qui con- 
 texto sermoni minus sint accomodati; tamen ipso 
 saepius errore prodest, et verborum Hebraicorum eas 
 significationes indicat, quas alioquin aegre essemus 
 cognituri." E. A. Frommanni, Theol. Doct. Opusc. 
 Philolog. Cob. 1770, vol. 1. p. 177. 
 
 P. 198. LS] " the Septuagint" Dr. Brett, in his 
 Dissertation on the Ancient Versions of the Bible 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 339 
 
 affords a fine comment on this text of Walton, 2d. 
 edit. pp. 44, et seq. and pp. 67, et seq. 
 
 P. 201. [T] " the Ethiopic: 1 Ernesti thus de- 
 scribes the Ethiopic Version of the New Testament. 
 " ^Ethiopicam commemorare creditur Chrysostomus, 
 in Homil. in Jo. 2. Itaque ea, quae nunc exstat, ipso 
 antiquior putatur. Sed ex illo loco nihil certi potest 
 colligi. iEthiopes quidem S. Frumentio tribuunt, 
 cojus aetas in Constantini M. tempora incidit. Earn 
 h Graeco factam defendit cel. Michaelis de Var. 
 Lect. N. T. §. 24, 25. Nam quod pluribus locis cum 
 Latino consentit, causa esse potest haec, quod ea a 
 Teffa Tzione, monasterii iEthiopici monacho, Romas 
 1548-9, edita est e Codice lacunoso, et a Latino sup- 
 pleta et interpolata, adjuvante Mariano Victorio Rea- 
 tino, et alio perito. Repetita in Poly glottis Lond. 
 etiam vitiosior facta est." Inst. Tnterpr. N. T. 
 P. III. c. iv. §. 7. No better Ethiopic Version 
 could be procured, when Dr. Walton published the 
 Polyglot. This Version is generally believed to have 
 been made in the fourth century. Of other parts 
 of the Sacred Writings in the Ethiopic Tongue, and 
 printed in the London Polyglot, see the Memoirs of 
 Dr. Walton, pp. 78, 167, 171, 250. I refer the reader 
 also to Professor Bode's Evangelium secundum Mat' 
 thaum ex Versione JEthiopici Interpretis in Bibliis 
 Poly glottis Anglicanis editum, &c. Hal. 1749 ; to his 
 Novum Testamentum, from the same Version, after- 
 wards published; and to his Fragmenta Vet, Test, 
 ex Vers. JEthiop. Interpr. et alia qucedam Opuscula 
 JEtliiop. ex JEthiop. ling, in Lat. 1756. 
 
 Ibid. [U] " the Persian." See what is said of the 
 Persian Pentateuch, Memoirs of Dr; Walton, pp. 52, 
 
 z2 
 
340 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 77, 226. and of the Gospels, ibid. pp. 78, 231. And par- 
 ticularly the elaborate and curious Preface of the oriental 
 critic named in the preceding note, to his Evangelium 
 secundum Matthceum ex V ersione Persici Interpretis 
 in Bibliis Poly glottis Anglicanis editum : Ex Persico 
 idiomate in Latinum transtulit, simulque de Persica 
 IV. Evangeliorum Versione generatim prcefatus est 
 C. A. Bodius, 1750. It may gratify the oriental 
 scholar to be informed that, in the Library of Em- 
 manuel College, Cambridge, a Copy of the four Gos- 
 pels in the Persian language is preserved ; and is thus 
 described by the late Sir William Jones : '* It is writ- 
 ten in a hand uncommonly bold and clear : in one or 
 two of the alternate pages the Persian is expressed in 
 European letters, and, by the pronunciation of the 
 words, I should suppose that the book was written in 
 India, where, it is to be wished, that the Persian Gos- 
 pels were more common." 
 
 P. 203. [W] " what our Sectaries have cried 
 down? Compare the conclusion of Dr. Walton's Con- 
 sideralor considered ; and see the Memoirs of his Life 
 and Writings, p. 137. 
 
 P. 207. [X] " hath been long disputed." See what 
 is before said in the note H. p. 320, on the Hebrew 
 points. 
 
 P. 212. [Y] " as is shewed Prolegom. ii." It 
 should be added, from the sixth to the twelfth section. 
 
 P. 213. [Z] " that ancient Greek MS. of Cardinal 
 Barberinis." Collated in the sixth volume of Dr. 
 Walton's Polyglot, pp. 131—137. 
 
 P. 224. [A] " he first got the knowledge of the 
 Arabic tongue" He appears to have been much in- 
 debted also for this kind of knowledge to our learned 
 countryman, William Bed well, one of our authorized 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C 341 
 
 Translators of the Bible. See the Memoirs of Dr. 
 Walton, p. 106. 
 
 P. 235. [B] " some learned men of good note." 
 Most of the Protestants at the time espoused the cause 
 of Buxtorf. 
 
 P. 286. [C] " this question is handled at large, 
 Proleg. iii. sect. 29 — 38." To what is there discussed 
 may be added some observations of later and very dis- 
 cerning critics upon a subject so important, in unison 
 or at variance with Dr. Walton, or in moderation of 
 the dispute. " The ancient Hebrew alphabet was not 
 written in the present Hebrew character, but in a let- 
 ter pretty much the same as the present Samaritan. 
 Buxtorf and Lightfoot were not of this opinion ; but 
 it has been abundantly proved by Scaliger, Casaubon, 
 Grotius, Vossius, Bochart, Father Morin, Brerewood, 
 Cappellus, and Walton. Bishop Walton has proved 
 it, beyond contradiction, from some ancient Jerusalem 
 coins, called shekels. The Rabbins, Talmudists, Chris- 
 tian Fathers, Origen, and St. Jerom, all believed that 
 there had been a change of the Hebrew letters. St. 
 Jerom asserts it very expressly. Spauheim and Dr. 
 Allix took the other side of the question ; but they 
 have answered only a small part of the arguments 
 against them. This change of the Hebrew letters was 
 made by Ezra, after the rebuilding of the Temple, 
 when he wrote out a new Copy of the Law." Shuck- 
 ford, Connection of Sacred and Profane History, vol. 
 1. pp. 254, 255. Compare the sixth and following sec- 
 tions of this chapter of Dr. Walton's Considerator. 
 " In controversia ilia, quae complurium virorum doc- 
 torum calamos exercuit, utrum literse Hebraeorum ho- 
 diernal, quae quadratae vocantur, an Samaritanae an- 
 
342 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 tiquae sint, Waltonus eorum partibus accedit, qui 
 pro his pugnant. Utraque sententia non destituitur 
 rationibus, aliis gravioribus, aliis levioribus. Qui eas 
 breviter et summatim collectas legere velit, evolvat 
 Carpzovium in Critica S. cap. v. sect. vi. p. 225, 
 seqq. ubi utriusque sententia? defensores, recentiores 
 etiam, qui post Walton um in liac palaestra decerta- 
 runt, larga raanu citatos inveniet. Sed fuerunt etiam, 
 qui hanc controversiam parum momentosam judica- 
 rent. In quibus est Gussetitjs, qui sub finem disser- 
 tationis Lexico suo praemissae dicit ; inanem esse sus- 
 picionem terrori panico similem, qua ex ilia literarum 
 commutatione integritati Codicis Sacri aliquid dero- 
 gari vereatur : Idem pr or sits evenisse in Uteris Gra~ 
 cis etLatinis; CAPITALES, qua vocantur, permutatas 
 esse in librorum descriptione cum VERSALIBUS, neque 
 quemquam judicare propterea libros Gracos et Lati- 
 nos magis mendosos ad nos venisse : Et tandem addit, 
 idem forte in hac controversia evenisse, quod in adagio 
 est vizpi xoenys oTEvokoyeTv ; forte enim, inquit, Mosaica 
 literarum figures, nec hce nec ilia erant, sed diversce 
 quadam, ex quibus alii has quadratas sensim finxe- 
 runt amore simplicitatis, alii Samaritanas, quarentes 
 ex mult iplicit ate flexuum vel ornamentum vel distinc- 
 tionem majorem* Idem fere in mentem venit Dey- 
 lingio, qui in Observatt. S. P. III. Obs. xxv. 
 §. 20. dicit, sibi nec quadratas Hebraorum lit eras 
 quales nunc in usu sunt, nec Samaritanas, antiquissi- 
 mas et primavas videri, propter inconstantiam in scri- 
 bendo et mutabilitatem, cui omnium linguarum liters 
 sint obnoxi<e. Legerat forte idem in R. Simonis 
 Hist. Crit. V. T. lib. i. cap. 13. p. 79. cujus verba 
 heec sunt: Je remarquerai seulement, qitune bonne par- 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 343 
 
 lie des caracteres Samaritains et des Caldeens, qiton 
 nomme aujourdhui Hebreux, semblent avoir tte les 
 memes dans leur oriyine, mais quil leur est arrive, ce 
 qui arrive d' ordinaire aux autres langues, dont les ca- 
 racteres changent avec le terns et quand elles passent 
 d'un lieu en un autre. Atque huic sententise ego 
 quoque accedere null us dubito, non solum propter alla- 
 tas rationes, sed etiam propter summam difficultatem, 
 qua ejusmodi solennis quasi literaruui antiquarum ab- 
 rogatio, et no varum surrogatio, inter Judaeos per tot 
 regiones dispersos perficienda fuisset. Unde vero, di- 
 cat aliquis, constans ilia antiquitatis traditio, Judaeo- 
 rum, Hieronymi, Eusebii, de Esra mutatae Samariticas 
 Scripturae in Assyriacam sen Chaldaicam auctore ? 
 Ad hanc objectionem non deest, quod respondeam. 
 Venit ilia traditio a Judaeis mendacibus, qui omnibus 
 suis institutis divinam solent originem affingere, atqne 
 inprimis Esram eorum auctorem jactare ad majorem 
 eis fidem conciliandam atque auctoritatem. Non mi- 
 rum igitur videri debet, Hieronymum hac de muta- 
 tione loqui tanquam de re certa et fidei indubitatae, 
 cum totus, quoad linguas Hebreae cognitionem, pen- 
 deret ab ore Judaei sui magistri Tiberiensis. Non te- 
 mere a me hujus impudentiae Judaeos accusari, testis 
 est famosa ilia Synagoga Magna, cujus praesidem etiam 
 Esram fuisse mentiuntur, a quo, et centum et viginti 
 ejus assessoribus, omnia, quae ad rem sacram pertinent, 
 ordinata fuerunt et instituta. Sed dudum hoc com- 
 mentum explosum est adeo ab eis, qui in admittendis 
 Judaeorum traditionibus minime sunt difficiles. Hanc 
 mediam quasi viam, ad devitandas in alterutram 
 partem aberrationes, iugressus etiam est Schulten- 
 sius in Instit. Ling. Hebr, p. 15, seqq. prae aliis dig- 
 
344 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 nus, qui de 'hoc argumento legatur." Dathe, ixi 
 Prolegom. Walton, pp. xxvii, xxviii, xxix. Dathe 
 is again employed in refuting the idea of Esdras or 
 Ezra (for the name is the same) setting forth a copy 
 or canon of Holy Writ, pp. xxxiii, xxxiv. But besides 
 this disagreement with Dr. Walton in the chapter be- 
 fore us, and not allowing the authority of modern 
 Jewish testimony that Ezra laid down any rules at all, 
 Dathe objects to another assertion of Dr. Walton re- 
 specting the Hebrew language, which may here be 
 properly noticed, as it also finely cautions the reader 
 against another modern Jewish notion. '■' Laudes 
 linguae Hebraeae recensuit Waltonus, quas ego quo- 
 que lubenter ei tribuam, modd omittatur ex eis sanctitas, 
 quae ei propter peculiares rationes prae omnibus aliis 
 linguis propria sit. Quamvis enim meritd dignitas 
 eximia et principatus quidam huic linguae concedendus 
 sit, quod primaeva est omniumque aliarum mater, ta- 
 men sanctam earn dicere nolim ex ratione a Waltono 
 allata ; quod divina religionis mysteria hac lingua tra- 
 dita sunt. Etenim Novi Testamenti libri longe ple- 
 niori Dei cognitione et perfcctiore nos instruunt, cul- 
 tum Deo praestandum longe faciliorem praescribunt, de 
 aetema felicitati homini per et propter Christum expec- 
 tanda longe clarius et apertius loquuntur, quam illi 
 Veteris Testamenti Hebraice scripti. Graeca igitur 
 lingua potius sancta et sanctissima esset dicenda, si, 
 propter res sanctas lingua aliqua enunciatas et scriptas, 
 ea sancta dici meretur. Nimirum haec est opinio ista Ju- 
 daica, excogitata ab hac gente in contemptum omnium 
 aliarum nationum, et inprimis in contumeliam reli- 
 gionis Christianae. Satis nota est gentis Judaicae su- 
 perbia et fastus, quo scse omnibus aliis gentibus long£ 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 345 
 
 praestantiorem esse jactat. Non mirum igitur, si et 
 majoruin suorum linguam unice aptam esse contendunt 
 tradendis religionis mysteriis; ita enim simul libros 
 Christianos sanctissimos, et dogmata quae tradunt, una 
 cum auctore eorum divino, rejiciunt, contemnunt, con- 
 viciantur. Hinc non satis caute admissum esse judico 
 ex Judaismo illam lingua Hebrcece sanctitatem, et 
 parum perite defensam a Christianis philologis pleris- 
 que contra eos, qui earn in dubiam vocarent. Equidem 
 non dubito, quin boni illi viri istam sententiam ea 
 qua digna est detestatione rejecissent, si anguem in 
 herba latentem agnovissent. Sed pia ilia superstitio, 
 qua a Judaeis praeceptoribus suis erga linguam Hebraeam 
 imbuti fuerunt, effecit, ut nihil de maligno Judaeorum 
 consilio in his laudibus, quas linguae Hebraeae tribue- 
 rent, suspicarentur. Sed primus, quantum scio, illud 
 detexit, et pro merito cum indignatione rejecit, A. 
 Schultensius in Praef. Comm. ad Proverbia Salo- 
 monis. Eundem deinde errorem, et plures alios, qui 
 ex illo provenerunt, castigavit Frommannus in Dis- 
 sertatione de opinata lingua Hebrcece sanctiiate fcecunda 
 errorum matre" Dathe, in Proleg. pp. xxiv, xxv. 
 The dissertation of Frommannus is extremely curious 
 and important ; and is divided into the following dis- 
 cussions, after delivering in section 1. some remarks 
 upon the title of the sanctity in question. Sect. 2. 
 M Nomen linguae sanctae quod initium habuerit, do- 
 cetur." Sect. 3. " Causae hujus appellationis derivan- 
 tur ex Judaeorum superbia et inimico in Evang. 
 animo/' Sect. 4. " Sanctitas linguae Heb. a Christianis 
 philologis nonnullis imprudenter approbata. Sect. 5. 
 " Momentum opinionis de sanctitate linguae Heb." 
 Sect. 6. U Declarantur crrores ab hac opinione nati,, 
 
346 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 in judicanda natura ling. Heb. universe." Sect. 7, 
 " Errores in historia ling. Heb." Sect. 8. u Errores 
 in grammatica ling Heb. et quidem ratione literarum 
 Hebraicarum." Sect. 9. " Errores grammatici ratione 
 significationum vocum Heb. constituendaram.' , Sect. 
 10. " Errores grammatici ratione universes dicendi 
 forma? Heb." 
 
 Reverting to the former part of this note, the obser- 
 vation of bishop Marsh may here close the subject, that 
 is, the antiquity of the Hebrew letters ; the latest and 
 most useful work upon which, he says, is Josephi 
 Dobt*owsky de antiquis Hebrceorum cJiaracteribus Dis- 
 sertatiOy Pragce. 1783. " This tract contains in a 
 short compass a perspicuous statement of all the ar- 
 guments both for, and against, the antiquity of the 
 Hebrew letters ; and the conclusion which the author 
 deduces is, that not the Hebrew, but that the Sama- 
 ritan was the ancient alphabet of the Jews, That the 
 present Hebrew or Chaldee character was not used by 
 the Jews before the Babylonish captivity is an opinion, 
 which is now almost universally received, and the truth 
 of it seems no longer disputable But it is still a 
 question whether the Samaritan letters, in the form in 
 which we now find them in Manuscripts of the Sama- 
 ritan Pentateuch, were the letters used by the Jews 
 before the Babylonish Captivity." Theol. Lect. P. II. 
 p. 135. I venture to add to that which respects 
 the biblical text, already stated in this long note, 
 the following sound and masterly remarks. "If God 
 has graciously given us his revealed word, let us 
 not repine that he does not put it out of our power 
 to abuse it, but has given it oh precisely the same 
 conditions as all his other bounties. Nor let us hastily 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 34? 
 
 suppose that the evil of a corrupted text is irreme- 
 diable, or that it impairs the authority of Scripture. 
 We see in the natural world, that the effects of guilt 
 in one age may be counteracted by the virtues of 
 another. So it is with the Bible. The marginal notes 
 and the vowel system have done much towards restor- 
 ing the text, and facilitating the interpretation, of 
 the Old Testament ; and our gratitude is therefore 
 due to the Great Synagogue of Ezra, the Tiberian 
 Masorites, or whoever else were their authors. The 
 labours of Mill and Griesbach have also been in- 
 valuable in correcting the text of the New Testam e t. 
 These are indeed cheering and glorious monuments of 
 the possibility of recovering the sacred book from its 
 corruptions." Whittaker's Historical and Critical En- 
 quiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
 1819. p. 177. 
 
 P. 289. [D] " in the same Prolegomena." Namely, 
 sect. 30. 
 
 P. 291. [E] " in the same Prolegomena. 1 ' Namely, 
 sect. 31. 
 
 P. 299. [F] " as Liber Enochi, in Dr. Dee, written 
 by direction of his spirits r It is worth noting of this 
 strange person, that " Meredith Lloyd asserted, that 
 John Dee's printed book of spirits was not above the 
 third part of what was writ." Aubrey's Anecdotes, 
 vol. 2. p. 311. And yet a folio, respecting the opera- 
 tions of them and Dr. Dee, was published by Meric 
 Casaubon ! 
 
 P. 304. [G] " entreating the reader, who desires 
 more full satisfaction, to have recourse to the Prolego- 
 mena and Appendix themselves" It may be useful 
 then to detail the component parts of these important 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C 
 
 productions, the Prolegomena and Appendix to Dr 
 Walton's Polyglot Bible. 
 
 PROLEGOMENA. 
 
 I. De linguaram natura, origine, divisione, numero, 
 mutationibus, et usu. 
 
 II. -De literis, sive characteribus, ipsarum usu mira- 
 bili, origine et inventione prima, et diversitate in Un- 
 guis praecipuis. 
 
 III. De lingua Hebraica, ejus antiquitate, conserva- 
 tione, mutatione, praestantia et usu, characteribus an- 
 tiquis, punctisque vocalibus, et accentibus. 
 
 IV. De Bibliorum Editionibus praecipuis. 
 
 V. De Bibliorum Versionibus. 
 
 VI. De Variantibus in Scriptura Lectionibus. 
 
 VII. De Textuum Originalium integritate et aucto- 
 ritate. 
 
 VIII. De Masora, Keri et Ketib, Variis Lectioni- 
 bus Orientalium et Occidentalium, Ben Ascher et Ben 
 Naphlali ; et de Cabala. 
 
 IX. De Versione Gragca LXXII. Interpretum, 
 aliisque Graecis Versionibus. 
 
 X. De Versione Vulgata Latina. 
 
 XI. De Pentateucho Samaritano, ejusque Ver- 
 sionibus. 
 
 XII. De lingua Chaldaica, et Versionibus Chal- 
 daicis. 
 
 XIII. De lingua Syriaca, et Versionibus Syriacis. 
 
 XIV. De lingua Arabica, et Versionibus Arabicis. 
 
 XV. De lingua iEthiopica, et Versionibus iEthio- 
 picis. 
 
 XVI. De lingua Persica, et Versionibus Persicis. 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C 
 
 349 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. Tractatus de Codicum Hebraeorum Variis Leo 
 tionibus, quae Keri et Ketib dicuntur ; eorum origine, 
 numero, &c. Item de Variantibus Lectionibus Orien- 
 talium et Occidentalium, Ben Ascher et Ben Naphtali, 
 cum singularum catalogis, parascharum item et haph- 
 tararum tabulis. 
 
 II. Chaldaicae Paraphrases Editionis nostrae cum 
 ilia in Bibliis Regiis Collatio, ubi discrepantiae anno- 
 tantur, cum annotationibus et observationibus doctis- 
 simis. 
 
 III. Syriacae Versionis Vet. Test, cum aliis vetust. 
 Codd. Syr. MSS. Usserianis, Pocockiano, et Canta- 
 brigiensi, Collatio, cum notis et observationibus circa 
 loca variantia. 
 
 IV. Pentateuchus Samaritanus cum Textu Hebraico 
 collatus, discrepantiae omnes collectae, loca etiam in 
 quibus Text. Samar. cum Versione ruv o convenit, 
 utrumque vero ab Heb. differt. 
 
 V. Annotationes et Observationes doctissimae ad 
 Textum et Versionem Samarit. spectantes. 
 
 VI. Notae et observationes doctissimae in Psalmos, 
 Cantic. Canticorum, et Nov. Test. Versionis ^Ethio- 
 picae. 
 
 VII. Annotationes in Pentateuchum Persicum, et 
 in Quatuor Evangelia Persica. 
 
 VIII. Arabica Versio Pentat. cum R. Saadiae Ver- 
 sione, tarn quae in Codd. MSS. quam quae in Bibliis 
 Constantinopolitanis extat, collata. 
 
 IX. Flam. Nobilii Notae in Graec. LXXII. Edi- 
 tionem Romanam, in quibus ex antiquis Ecclesia; 
 scriptoribus, etlibris tarn MSS. quam impressis, Heb. 
 
350 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 Graec. Samarit. Lat. Syr. Chald. &c. textus expfi- 
 catur vel confirmatur ; quibus varia a Nobilio praeter- 
 missa ex scholiis Romanis, Jo. Drusio, et aliis, vel 
 Latine tan turn ab ipso ex Graecis scrip toribus citata, 
 ipsis scriptorum verbis adductis, adjecimus. 
 
 X. Editio Romana LXXIL Interpretum cum aliis 
 Editionibus hodiernis, Veneta et Complutensi, ex qui- 
 bus reliquae profluxerunt, et cum quibusdam MSS. ex- 
 emplaribus collata ; omniaque loca variantia collecta. 
 
 XI. Ejusdem Collatio cum aliis MSS. vetustissi- 
 mis, Cottoniano per Genesin, Cantabrigiensi per libros 
 Chronicorum, Rupifucaldiano per Esaiam, Card. Bar- 
 berini per Minores Prophetas. 
 
 XII. Andr. Masii Notae in Josuam cum asteriscis, 
 obelis, lemniscis, hypolemniscis, &c. ex vetustiss. ex- 
 emplari Syriaco, ante mille annos exarato, collectae. 
 
 XIII. Lovaniensium Theologorum Collationes Vulg. 
 Lat. Vet. Test, cum aliis exemplaribus, item cum 
 Textu Hebr. Versionibus Chald. Graec. Syr. et Latinis 
 Ecclesiae Patribus. 
 
 XIV* Patricii Junii Annotationes quas paraverat 
 ad MS. Alexandrini Editionem, in quibus Codicem 
 ilium antiquiss. cum Textu Hebr. et veteribus Eccle- 
 siae scriptoribus, aliisque Graecis Editionibus, confert. 
 
 XV. Ex viri summi Hugonis Grotii Annotatis in 
 universam Scripturam Excerpta de Locis Variantibus, 
 cum ejusdem de singulis judicio. 
 
 XVI. Variae Lectiones Graecae N. Test, tsim quas 
 collegerat Rob. Stephanus ex XVI. Codicibus MSS. 
 quam ex plurimis aliis vetustissimis exemplaribus col- 
 lectae, et in unum corpus digestae. 
 
 XVII. Lucae Brugensis libelli duo de Graecis et 
 Latinis Varietatibus Evangeliorum, et Lovan. Theo- 
 
 8 
 
OBSERVATIONS, &C. 
 
 351 
 
 log. Collationes Vulg. Lat. Nov. Test, cum Textu 
 Grsec. Syr. et Latinis scriptoribus. 
 
 XVIII. In Syriacam Versionem N. Test. Notse 
 Mart. Trostii, ex variis Codicibus collectae, cum aliis 
 quibusdam a nobis nuper adjectis. 
 
 XIX. Propriorum nominum, Hebraicorum, Grae- 
 corum, Chaldaicorum, explicatio. 
 
 XX. Rerum et verborum per totam Scripturam In- 
 dex, secundum libros, capita, et versus. 
 
 To this description of a never-failing theological and 
 critical treasury, I will only add the concluding eulo- 
 gium of Dathe upon the Prolegomena, as published in 
 a separte form ; earnestly recommending it to the at- 
 tention of every biblical and oriental student. " Videor 
 mihi jam satisfecisse officio praefandi libro, cujus lec- 
 tionem non possum non philologiae S. studiosis vehe- 
 menter commendare, licet hinc inde qusedam sint, quae 
 post auctoris tempora accuratius sunt excussa, aut ple- 
 nius tractata. Habebunt sane tirones in hoc libro com- 
 pendium utilissimum, ex quo omnium eorum, qua ad 
 Criticam S. utriusque Testamenti pertinent, notitiam 
 sibi acquirer e possunt, quam deinde adjunct a recentio- 
 rum scriptorum lectione eofelicius augebunt. Quod UT 
 A MULTIS FIAT, IN REI CHRISTIANS UTILITATEM 
 ETIAM ATQTJE ETIAM OPTO." 
 
 THE END. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 A a 
 
INDEX 
 
 or 
 
 PRINCIPAL PERSONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 
 
 (The first Figures denote the Volumes ; the second, the Pages.) 
 
 A. 
 
 Abbot, George. His Comment upon Jonah, with Hebrew 
 criticisms, I. 119. One of our Translators of the autho- 
 rized Bible, ibid. 
 
 Adams, Sir Thomas. Founder of an Arabic Professorship 
 at Cambridge. I. 236. Letter from the Heads of Col- 
 leges at Cambridge to him. I. 236, 237. His high re- 
 putation. I. 237. Published at his cost Mr. Wheelock's 
 Persian Gospels. I. 241. 
 
 Additions to the London Polyglot. Proposals of several. 
 I. 321, etseq. by Mr. Clarke. I. 321. by Father Simon. 
 I. 322. by Dr. Mawer. I. 326. by Mr. Peatt. I. 332. 
 by Dr. A. Clarke. I. 334. 
 
 Afternoon Preachers. Another name for Lecturers in the 
 time of the Great Rebellion. I. 17- What they were, 
 ibid. Why unacceptable to Dr. Walton. I. 16, 17. 
 
 Aglionby, John. An excellent linguist. I. 122. One of 
 our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 
 A a 2 
 
356 INDEX. 
 
 Ainsworih, Henry. His Oriental learning. I. 124. Blamed 
 by Frommannus. ibid. 
 
 Alexandrian MS. Gr. of the Bible. Intended to be col- 
 lated and published by Dr. Tho. Smith. I. 256. The 
 New Testament actually published by D. Woide. ibid. 
 The Old Testament now passing through the press under 
 the care of the very learned and vigilant Mr. Baber. 
 ibid, and II. 330. Examined by Mr. Huish, one of Dr. 
 Walton's assistants. I. 272. Declared by Dr. Bentley 
 to have been collated by Huish with great exactness. 
 
 I. 273. Intended to be collated and published by P. 
 Young. I. 287. Further account of this MS. II. 148, 
 330. 
 
 Alley, Bishop. Author of a Hebrew Grammar 1.99. 
 Andrewes, Bishop. A great linguist. I. 102. One of our 
 
 Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. His scriptural 
 
 criticism. I. 103. 
 Apocryphal Books. Different opinions upon the English 
 
 Translation of them. 1. 118. Specimen of Dr. Ward's 
 
 translation of the past assigned to him. I. 119. 
 Appendix to the London Polyglot. No private or new 
 
 opinions in them. II. 26, 27. Contents of it described. 
 
 II. 349. 
 
 Arabic Versions of Scripture. II. 180, 199, 333, 334. 
 
 Arnold, Mr. Inaccurately places, in the Preface to his 
 Critical Commentary on the Book of Wisdom, Dr. Du- 
 port, the Greek Professor, as one of the Translators of 
 the Apocryphal Books. I. 118, 119. 
 
 Articles exhibited against Dr. Walton. Founded on false- 
 hood. I. 18. 
 
 Assemblies of People Very judicious remarks of Lord 
 Digby upon such as are irregular and tumultuous. I. 
 13. >*#W /. 
 
 Authorized English Translation of the Bible. Perspicuity 
 
INDEX. 357 
 
 t>f the language, opposed to modern alterations of it. I. 
 13*2. No necessity for a new Translation. I. 134, 
 135. 
 
 B. 
 
 Bacon, Lord. Poems on his death. I. 302. 
 
 Baker, Samuel. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 309. 
 Chaplain to Bishop Juxon. ibid. Imprisoned and de- 
 prived of his preferments in the Great Rebellion. I. 
 310. 
 
 Baro, Peter. His Prelections upon Jonah. I. 113. Hebrew 
 criticisms in the work. ibid. 
 
 Basmurico-Coptica Fragmenta Vet. et Nov. Test. No- 
 ticed. I. 171. 
 
 Baxter, Richard. His account of some particulars at the 
 Savoy Conference. I. 136. Defends his use of the 
 word nation. I. 297. Laments being deceived, as he 
 says, by Archbishop Sterne's promising countenance. 
 I. 297, 298. 
 
 Beckhis, M. F. His publication of the Targum upon the 
 
 Chronicles. I. 324, 325. 
 Bedell, Bishop. A profound Hebrew scholar* I. 124. 
 Bedwell, William. The principal Arabic scholar of his 
 
 time. I. 106. One of our Translators of the authorized 
 
 Bible, ibid. Taught Pocock. ibid. And Erpenius. ibid. 
 
 Made collections of Eastern learning. I. 107. Assisted 
 
 the studies of Dr. Lightfoot. ibid. 
 Bentham, Bishop. Skilled in the Hebrew language. 1. 100. 
 Bentley, Dr. Richard. Declares the Alexandrian MS. to 
 
 have been collated by Mr. Huish with great exactness. 
 
 I. 273. 
 
 Beza, Theodore. His MS. Codex N. T. II. 148, 331. 
 Bible. See Polyglot and Translation. 
 
358 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Bilson, Bishop. A master of languages. I. 122. The re- 
 viewer of our authorized Translation of the Bible, ibid. 
 
 Bodley, Sir Thomas. An Oriental scholar. I. 123. 
 
 Bois, John. An eminent Hebrew as well as Greek scholar. 
 I. 121. One of our Translators of the authorized Bible, 
 ibid. His Collation of the Evangelists and Acts. ibid. 
 Fine biblical and classical criticism displayed in that book. 
 I. 121, 122. 
 
 Books. None free from opposition. II. 8. 
 
 Bootius, or Boate, Arnold. His opinion of the projected 
 London Polyglot. I. 60, 61. Censured by Cappellus, 
 I. 61. Sends his treatise against Cappellus to Arch- 
 bishop Usher. I. 198. Writes of proceeding further in 
 his rash warfare. I. 200. Gently replied to by Arch- 
 bishop Usher. I. 201. Not satisfied with Archbishop 
 Usher's moderation, in his letter to Cappel, upon the 
 subject of the controversy between them. I. 202. 
 
 Brett, Richard. Skilled and versed to a criticism in He- 
 brew, Chaldee, Arabic, and Ethiopic. I. 117. One of 
 our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. Translator 
 also of some Greek historical fragments into Latin, to 
 which he prefixed verses in Oriental languages. I. 114. 
 
 Broughton, Hugh. His impotent attack upon the received 
 English Version of the Bible. I. 92. His Oriental 
 learning. I. 124. Waat of judgment, ibid. Blamed 
 by Frommannus. ibid. 
 
 Byng, Andrew. Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cam- 
 bridge. I. 117. One of our Translators of the autho- 
 rized Bible, ibid. 
 
 C. 
 
 Caius College, Cambridge. Hebrew MS. belonging to it. 
 II. 329. 
 
INDEX. 359 
 
 Calvin, John. Dangerous political notions maintained by 
 
 him. I. 73, 74. 
 Cnlvinistical Tends disclaimed by Arckbishop Usher. I. 203, 
 
 et seq. 
 
 Cappellus, or Cappel, Lewis. His controversy with Arnold 
 Bootius, or Boate. I. 61, 200, 201. With Buxtorf. I. 
 200- II. 32 L. Receives from Archbishop Usher his 
 famous letter upon this subject. I. 202. His opinion 
 of the Hebrew points. II. 320, et seq. 
 
 Casaubon, Meric. Dr. Walton's acknowledgment of in- 
 tended service from him. I. 313. His affecting letter to 
 Archbishop Usher relating to his distress, and to his 
 MSS. in the Great Rebellion. I. 314. Relieved by Sel- 
 den. ibid. 
 
 Castell, Edmund. Appointed to consider of a new English 
 Version of the Bible. I. 90. Agrees that our authorized 
 Version is the best of any of the Translations. I. 
 91,92. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 163. Some ac- 
 count of him and his works. I. 163, et seq. Slow sale 
 of his Lexicon. I. 174. Destruction of many copies, 
 ibid. Observations on the publication of the two vo- 
 lumes of the Lexicon. I. 174, 175. His benefactors. 
 I. 175. His property. I. 176 His bequests, ibid. 
 His curious copy of Schindler, with his MSS. notes in 
 Sidney College Library. I. 176, 177. Author of poems, 
 entitled Sol Angliae, &c. I. 177. And of an Oration 
 upon the Arabic Language. I. 177, 178. Remarks upon 
 his Lexicon. I. 179. His preferments. I. 164. His 
 labours and losses. I. 164, 165, 168, 169. Pious wishes 
 expressed in behalf of him. I. 166. Worked at the Poly- 
 glott sixteen or eighteen hours a day. I. 167. Speaks of 
 Dr. Walton's indefatigable diligence, ibid. Considers 
 his own generosity slighted. I. 168. Mentions the sums 
 he had expended on his Lexicon. I. 169. Makes his 
 condition known to the king. ibid. His zeal for Oriental 
 6 
 
UGO INDEX. 
 
 and biblical learning. I. 170, 171. Small returns of aid 
 which recommendatory letters produced for his Lexi- 
 con. I. 173, 
 
 Cawton, Thomas. A distinguished Oriental scholar and 
 promoter of the Polyglot. I. 318. 
 
 Chaderton, Laurence. A great Hebrew scholar. L 112, 
 113. One of our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 
 Chaldee Paraphrase. Account of it. II. 296. 338. De- 
 fended. II. 296, et seq. 
 
 Charles, King, I. Declares against Popish innovations. I. 
 15. Not the author of the EIK^N BAZ1AIKH. I. 138, et 
 seq. 
 
 Charles, King, II. Accepts the dedication of Dr. Walton's 
 Polyglot. I. 82. Would have aided the progress of it 
 with money, if the means had not been wanting in his 
 exile, ibid. 
 
 Cheshire Petition. In behalf of the Liturgy of the Church 
 of England. I. 151, et seq. 
 
 Church of England. Assaulted by Romanists and Secta- 
 ries. II. 2. 
 
 Chronicles. Ancient Greek MS. of the Book of Chroni- 
 cles. II. 148. 331. 
 
 Chylinsky, S. His Lithuanian Translation of the Bible. 
 I. 172. Approbation of it at Oxford, ibid. 
 
 Clarke, Samuel. Appointed to consider of a new English 
 Version of the Bible. I. 90. Agrees that the authorized 
 Version is the best of any of the Translations. I. 91, 
 92. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 243. Inferior 
 only to Pocock in Eastern learning, ibid. Superior 
 beadle of law at Oxford, ibid. His especial services to 
 Dr. Walton. I. 243, 244. His character by Castell. I. 
 244. His modest letter to Dr. Lightfoot, when the Poly- 
 glot was finished. I. 245. Intended to print the Tar- 
 gum upon the Chronicles, from the Cambridge MS. with 
 his own translation. I. 245. Intended an additional 
 
INDEX. 
 
 361 
 
 volume, as a supplement to the Polyglot. I. 24G. His 
 MSS. in the Bodleian Library, t 246, 247. His pub- 
 lications. I. 247, 248. His proposed additional volume 
 to the London Polyglot. I. 321, 322. 
 
 Clergy of the Church of England. The unmerciful treat- 
 ment of them by the rebels. I. 295. 
 
 Clergy, London. Apply to King Charles I. on the subject 
 of their tithes, with the consequence. I. 5. 
 
 Clerke, Richard. Profoundly skilled in Hebrew. I. 104. 
 One of our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 Specimens of his criticisms. I. 105. 
 
 Codex Claromontanus MS. II. 148. Its age. II. 331. 
 
 Cohen de Lara, David. His works noticed. I. 172, 173. 
 
 Committees. In the time of the Great Rebellion, assembled 
 to insult and oppress the loyal Clergy. I. 21. 
 
 Committee of Reformation. Exert themselves in the Uni- 
 versity of Oxford, by persecuting those who followed 
 May-Games. I. 277. Break garlands, take away fiddles 
 from musicians, and put morice-dancers to the rout. 
 I. 277, 278. 
 
 Communion. Table. Under the east-window, explained by 
 the Canons and Constitutions of 1640. I. 14, 15. 
 
 Considerations. (Dr. Owen's.) Published against the Lon- 
 don Polyglot. II. 8. What they are. II. 8, 9. Occasion 
 and motives of them. II. 20. Untruth in them. II. ibid, 
 et seq. Sinister ends in them. II. 22. Dangerous asser- 
 tions in them. II. 24, 25. Groundless fears and jealou- 
 sies in them. II. 29. 
 
 Cooper, Joseph. A fierce enemy of Dr. Walton on the sub- 
 ject of the Hebrew points. II. 315. His vanity in regard 
 to Cappellus, Prideaux, and Walton, ibid. 
 
 Cotton, Sir Robert. His Greek MS. of Genesis. II. 149. 
 Account of it. II. 331. 
 
 Coverdale, Miles. His skill in Hebrew. I. 98, 99. 
 
:JG*2 index. 
 
 Council of State in the time of Cromwell. Not believed to 
 have advanced any money in aid of the Polyglot. 
 I. 59. 
 
 Critici Sacri. The paper for the publication of this work 
 exempted by Oliver Cromwell from duty. I. 60. 
 
 Cromwell, Oliver. Granted to Dr. Walton an exemption 
 from duty to all the paper for the work. I. 59. Granted 
 the same to the Critici Sacri. I. 60. Wished to extort 
 from Dr. Walton a dedication of the Polyglot. I. 84, 85. 
 Ordered Archbishop Usher to be buried in Westminster 
 Abbey. I. 182. Threw two-thirds of the expence upon 
 the relations of the archbishop, behaving like a paltry 
 undertaker, rather- than a liberal public governor, ibid. 
 
 Cudworth, Dr. R. Supposed to be an assistant to Dr. 
 Walton. I. 49. Appointed to consider of a new English 
 Version of the Bible. 1. 90. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dakins, Mr. Skilled in the original languages of the Bible. 
 I. 119. One of our Translators of the authorized Bible, 
 ibid. 
 
 Dathe, J. A. Prefixed, to a republication of Dr. Walton's 
 
 Prolegomena to the Polyglot, a very valuable Preface. 
 
 I. 75. Extracts from it. II. 318, et seq. His eulogium 
 
 upon the Prolegomena. II. 351. 
 Davies, Bishop. Assisted in translating the Bible from the 
 
 Original into both the Welch and English tongue. I. 100. 
 Davis, Sir Thomas. Letters from Aleppo to Archbishop 
 
 Usher. I. 184, et seq. 
 Dedication to King Charles II. of the London Polyglot. 
 
 I. 340, et seq. 
 Dee, Dr. His book of Spirits. II. 347. 
 Dering, Sir Edward. His vapid jokes. I. 22. 
 
INDEX. 36'3 
 
 DEspagne, Jean. Courts the notice of Cromwell with an 
 attempt to depreciate the authorized English Version of 
 the Bible. I. 89, DO. Title of his work. I. 90. 
 
 Digby, Lord George. His memorable speech upon the pe- 
 tition presented by the notorious anarchist, Isaac Pen- 
 nington, against Church government. I. 12. 
 
 Drake, Richard. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 310. 
 Chancellor of the Church of Salisbury. I. 311. 
 
 Duport, Dr. James. Mistaken by Mr. Arnald and Dr. 
 Gray as one of our Translators of the Bible. I. 119. 
 
 Duport, Dr. John. One of our Translators of the Bible. 
 
 I. 119. 
 
 E. 
 
 Editors of the Bible, Calumniated. II. 3. et seq. 
 
 Edward, King, VI. Hebrew learning in England during 
 his reign. I. 98, 99. 
 
 Etxut Ba<r»*»x»}. Written by Bishop Gauden. I. 138, et seq. 
 
 Elizabeth, Queen. Hebrew Learning in England during 
 her reign I. 100, et seq. Complimented for her know- 
 ledge of Eastern tongues. I. 100. 
 
 Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Codex MS.Epist. S. Pauli. 
 
 II. 151, 333. 
 
 Ephrem Syrus. I. 187, 194. 
 
 Erpenius, Thomas. Obliged to W. Bedwell for instruction 
 in the Arabic tongue. I. 106, 107. His printed books, 
 if they had not been previously sold, intended for the 
 public library at Cambridge. I. 193. His manuscripts 
 there. I. 193, 194. 
 
 Ethiopic Version, Of the Old and New Testament. I. 327. 
 II. 201, 339. 
 
 Ether idge, Dr. A physician, and eminent Hebrician. 
 I. 100. 
 
36 A INDEX. 
 
 Evangelical Preachers. Distinctive expression adopted by 
 the puritanical master of a college in Cambridge. I. 279. 
 
 Eyre, or Eyres, William. Meditates a kind of Polyglot 
 Bible in the reign of James the First. I. 125. His letter 
 upon the subject. I. 125, 126. Refers to some similar 
 design which had been entertained by Mr. Lively. 1. 125. 
 
 F. 
 
 Fern, or Fearne, Henry. An assistant in the Polyglot. 
 I. 301. In what way. ibid. His education and prefer- 
 ments. I. 301, 302. First who wrote in defence of King 
 Charles I. ibid. Driven from his benefice, ibid. De- 
 fends the Church of England. I. 303, 304. Bishop of 
 Chester. I. 303. His publications, ibid. His character. 
 I. 304. 
 
 Ferrar, Nicholas. His plans of a Polyglot. I. 72. 
 Frommannus, E. A. His excellent cautions in respect to 
 
 rabbinical learning. I. 223. In respect to the Hebrew 
 
 tongue. II. 345. 
 Fuller, Nicholas. A great Oriental critic. I. 125. 
 Fuller, William. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 304. In 
 
 what way. I. 305. Dean of Ely. ibid. A good linguist. 
 
 ibid. Suffers for his loyalty, ibid. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gataker, Thomas. A profound Hebrew critic. I. 125. 
 
 Gauden, Bishop. Called by Baxter the most constant 
 helper of his party at the Savoy Conference. I. 136. His 
 acute pen, called by Baxter his hitter pen, in remarks 
 upon the English Liturgy. I. 136, 137. Certainly the 
 
INDEX. 
 
 author of the Emuv Bao-tXtxu, or the Meditations frequently 
 ascribed to King Charles the first. I. 138, 139. His own 
 letters on the subject, preserved in the Library at Lam- 
 beth Palace. I. 139, et seq. 
 
 Gtll, Dr. His idle attack, in 1650, upon the authorized 
 Translators of the English Bible. I. 93. His other ob- 
 jections in 1059. I. 94. Lewis's character of him. ibid. 
 
 Greaves, John. An accomplished Persic and Arabic scho- 
 lar. I. 128. His Persian Lexicon, and Letter to Arch- 
 bishop Usher. I. 196, 197. 
 
 Greaves, Thomas. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 225, et 
 seq. His particular aid. I. 226, 227. His preferments, 
 I. 229. Dispossessed of his fellowship in the Great Re- 
 bellion, ibid. His high character, ibid. His Oration 
 upon the Arabic Language, ibid. His Oriental MSS. 
 I .230. 
 
 Gregorie, or Gregory, John. A profound Oriental scholar. 
 
 I. 98, 127. His Notes on Scripture. I. 98. 
 Grotius, Hugo. Dr. Hammond's opinion of him. I. 260. 
 
 Concerning notes from his works. II. 118, 119. His 
 
 character by Dr. Walton. II. 120, 121. 
 Gunning, Peter. His testimony as to the declarations of 
 
 Archbishop Usher upon certain Calvinistical points of 
 
 doctrine. I. 206, 207. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hales, John. His Oration upon the death of Sir Thomas 
 
 Bodley. I. 123. 
 Halts, William. Clerk of Henry the 8ths hauaper, well 
 
 skilled in Hebrew. I. 100. 
 Hammond, Henry. A master of Oriental languages. 1. 124. 
 
 Letters respecting Archbishop Usher. I. 199, et seq, 
 
306 INDEX. 
 
 An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 282. In what way. ibid. 
 His account of the Magdalene College MS. of the New 
 Testament, ibid. His notice of Dr. Walton in the Pre- 
 face to his Paraphrase on the Psalms. I. 283. His edu- 
 cation and preferments, h 283, 284. Deprived of his 
 preferments, and imprisoned. I. 284. Bishopric of Wor- 
 cester designed for him at the Restoration, ibid. His 
 death, ibid. His character and works. I. 285. Vindi- 
 cation of his Paraphrase on the New Testament from the 
 reflections made by Le Clerc in his Supplement to the Pa- 
 raphrase. I. 285, 286. 
 
 Hard{e, Claude. Dr. Walton records literary obligation to 
 him, and in a curious manner. I. 316, 317. 
 
 Harding, Dr. Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. I. 
 118. One of our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 
 Harlow, Sir Robert. His illiberal behaviour, I. 22. 
 
 Harrison, Thomas. Eminently skilled in Hebrew. I. 116. 
 One of our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 
 Heath, Richard. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 268. In 
 what way. ibid. Accomplished in the Eastern tongues, 
 ibid. Presented by Dr. Walton with a copy of the Poly- 
 glot. I. 269. 
 
 Hebrew alphabet and character. The question concerning 
 them discussed. II. 286, 287, 341, et seq. 
 
 Hebrew Language. Formerly part of the education of la- 
 dies. I. 100, 101. Useful observations respecting it. 
 II. 344, 345, 346. 
 
 Hebrew Professorships. Founded at both our Universities 
 by Henry VIII. I. 97. 
 
 Hebrew Punctuation. Maintainers of the novelty of it. 
 II. 322. Of the antiquity of it. II. 323. See also 
 Punctuation. 
 
 Hebrew Tex t. Authority of it. II. 286, etseq. 
 
 Hebrew Types. Observations on the use of them in this 
 country. I, 113, et scq. 
 
index. 367 
 
 Heidegger, J. H. Republished Dr. Walton's Prolegomena 
 
 to the Polyglot with a Preface. I. 75. 
 Henri/, King, VIII. Hebrew learning in England during 
 
 his reign. I. 95. Hebrew Professorships founded by 
 
 him. I. 97. 
 
 Hobbes, John. His Leviathan exposed. II. 319, 320. 
 Holland, Dr. T. Skilled in Hebrew. I. 117. His Sermon 
 
 ibid. One of our Translators of the authorized Bible. I. 
 
 116. 
 
 Hooker, Richard. Deputy Regius Professor of Hebrew at 
 Oxford. L 123. 
 
 Hooper, Bishop, the Martyr. Skilled in Hebrew. I. L>9. 
 
 Horsley, Bishop. His Translation of Hosea. L 131. 
 
 Hudson, Dr. Keeper of the Bodleian Library. I. 265. 
 
 Huish, Alexander. An assistant in the Polyglot, of 
 the highest class. I. 269. His valuable services, 
 ibid. His Hymn from the Alexandrian MS. I. 271. 
 His education and preferments, I. 274, 275. A great 
 sufferer in the civil war. I. 275. Driven from place to 
 place. I. 276. Deprived of his preferments and impri- 
 soned, ibid. Liberated and restored to what he had 
 lost, with addition, ibid. His Lectures on the Lord's 
 Prayer, ibid. 
 
 Hyde, Thomas. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 261, et 
 seq. His important aid. I. 261, 262. Reliques of the 
 ancient Persian tongue addressed to him. I. 262. His 
 observations on the ancient Persian language. I. 262. 
 The pupil of Wheelock. I. 263. His preferments. 1.263, 
 264. Of his writings. I. 264. His letter to the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury. I. 265, 266. Skilled in the Chi- 
 nese tongue. I. 266, 267. Eminently learned in other 
 Oriental languages. I. 267. His valuable publications, 
 ibid. Other works designed by him for the jmmn*. 
 1.268 
 
INDEX. 
 
 I. 
 
 Jacob, Henry. A prodigy of Oriental as well as philolo- 
 gical learning. I. 128. 
 
 James, King, I. Hebrew learning in England during his 
 reign. I. 124, et seq. 
 
 1 John v. 8. The genuineness of this verse considered. II. 
 327,328. 
 
 Johnson, John. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 311. Re- 
 commended as chaplain to the English merchants at 
 Aleppo. I. 312. 
 
 Judgments. Accidents so called, and by whom. 1. 154, 
 155. 
 
 K. 
 
 Keri and Ketib. What they are. II. 112, 113, 139, 140, 
 et seq. 
 
 Kilby, Dr. R. A profound Hebrician. I. 117. One of 
 our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 
 King, Geoffry. Regius Professor of Hebrew 
 
 bridge. I. 117. One of our Translators of the autho- 
 rized Bible, ibid. 
 
 Knatchbull, Sir Norton. His excellent Annotations upon 
 difficult texts in the New Testament. I. 286. 
 
 L. 
 
 Ladies. Formerly instructed in Hebrew. I. 100. 
 Lambeth Library. The books therein sent to Cambridge. 
 I. 239. Restored to their old abode, ibid. 
 
INDEX. 369 
 Langbaine, Gerard. An excellent linguist. I. 127» 
 Laud, Archbishop. His remarks on church-ceremonies. 
 
 I. 14. His account of Lecturers. I. 17. 
 Layfield, Dr. A great Hebrew critic. I. 106. One of 
 
 our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. Referred 
 
 to by the learned Gataker with confidence, ibid. 
 Lecturers. Description of them in the time of King Charles 
 
 the First. I. 16, 17. 
 Levelling System. In the time of the Great Rebellion. I. 
 
 308. 
 
 Lightfoot, John. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 220, et 
 seq. His particular exertions in aid of it. I. 66, 221* 
 His triumphant speech upon the progress of it. ibid. 
 His rabbinical Miscellanies. I. 222. Commended by 
 Otto, or Otho, in his Lexicon Rabbinico-Theolog. I. 
 223. His advice to that lexicographer. I. 223. His 
 preferments. I. 224. Afterwards one of the Assembly 
 of Divines, ibid. Once misled by them. ibid. His 
 learned and valuable works. I. 225. 
 
 Lithuanian Version of the Bible. See Chylinsky. 
 
 Liturgy of the Church of England. Bishop Gauden's re- 
 marks upon it. I. 136, 137. Cheshire Petition in be- 
 half of it. I. 151, et seq. Lord Clarendon's remarks 
 upon it. I. 156, 157. The set form of it illustrated. II. 
 194. Cried down by sectaries. II. 203, 338. 
 
 Lively, Edward. Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cam- 
 bridge. I. 107. One of our Translators of the autho- 
 rized Bible, ibid. Appealed to by the greatest critics. 
 I. 107, 108. Interesting description of his great quali- 
 fications as a Translator, and of his death, by Dr. Play- 
 fere. I. 108, et seq. Intended a complete Hebrew 
 Grammar. I. 108. His Annotations on some of the 
 Prophets. I. 107, 110. His Chronology. I. 110. 
 
 Loftus, Dudley. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 248, et 
 seq. Well skilled both in the Eastern aud Western 
 vol. II. Bb 
 
370 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 tongues. I. 248. Regarded and promoted by Arch- 
 bishop Usher. I. 249. His particular aid to the Poly- 
 glot. I. 250. Assists Dr. Castell also. I. 251. Cha- 
 racter of his immense learning by Castell. ibid. His 
 Oriental publications. I. 251, 252. His MSS. I. 252, 
 253. 
 
 Lowth, Bishop. His Translation of Isaiah. I. 130, 131, 
 132. 
 
 M. 
 
 Malignant. Observations on the use of this word in the 
 
 Great Rebellion. I. 24. 
 Manuscript Psalter. Hebrew and Latin, Trinity College, 
 
 Cambridge. I. 192. 
 Mary t Queen. Hebrew learning in England during her 
 
 reign. I. 98. 
 
 Masorites. Their method of pointing the text of Scrip- 
 ture. II. 216, et seq. 
 
 Mawer, Dr. John. His notice of the birth-place of Dr. 
 Walton. I. 3. His proposal of additions to the Lon- 
 don Polyglot. I. 326, et seq. 
 
 May-Games. Decried by the Puritans. I. 277. Occupy 
 the attention of the Committee for reforming the Uni- 
 versity of Oxford, ibid. Downfall of them, a publication 
 so called. I. 278. Description of the publication, ibid. 
 
 Mayne, Dr. Jasper. His description of the degenerate 
 sons of the University of Oxford in 1646. I. 28. His 
 fine address to the members of the University. I. 29. 
 
 Mtde, Joseph. A profound Hebrew critic. I. 125. 
 
 Merchant-Taylors" School. Cultivation of Hebrew learning 
 there. I. 102. 
 
 Mercurius Rusticus. A loyal publication in the time of 
 
 8 
 
INDEX. 371 
 
 the Great Rebellion, conducted by Dr. Bruno Ryves. I. 
 308. 
 
 Michaelis, J. D. Differed from Bishop Lowth upon the 
 subject of conjectural emendations. I. 131. 
 
 Mill, Dr. John. His collations of the New Testament no- 
 ticed. I. 79. Original letter respecting the death of 
 this valuable scholar, ibid. 
 
 Milton, John. His indignation against the Assembly of 
 Divines. I. 181. 
 
 Minsheu, John. His Dictionary the first book printed, in 
 this country, by subscription. T. 87. 
 
 Mulcaster, Richard. The teacher of Bishop Andrewes, and 
 skilled in Oriental learning. I. 102, 
 
 N. 
 
 Neale, T. Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Presented to 
 Queen Elizabeth his Translation of the Prophets from the 
 Hebrew. I. 101. 
 
 Newcome, Archbishop. His Translation of Hosea. I. 130. 
 
 New England Bibles. I. 172. 
 
 Norris, William. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 316. 
 Fellow of Peter House, Cambridge, ibid. 
 
 O. 
 
 Oriental Learning. Successful cultivation of it in this 
 country from the time of Henry VIII., to the time when 
 Dr. Walton flourished. I. 94, et seq. Its progress in 
 the reign of Elizabeth. I. 101. Cultivated in Public 
 Schools, as well as in both Universities. I. 101, 102. 
 Skill in the Oriental tongues at Cambridge, in the time 
 b b 2 
 
372 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 of the Great Rebellion, greatest in King's College. I. 
 241. 
 
 Original Text of Scripture, The purity and authority of 
 it finely illustrated. II. 328. 
 
 Overal, Bishop. Admitted by Archbishop Usher to have 
 been right in doctrine upon the points of Grace, Free- 
 will, Election, and Reprobation ; that he also agreed with 
 him ; and that he did not approve the doctrine of Ge- 
 neva. I. 205, 207, 209. 
 
 Owen, Dr. John. Published a tract against the London 
 Polyglot. I. 73, 74. Ventured beyond his knowledge. 
 
 I. 74. Castigated and refuted by Dr. Walton, ibid. 
 His little skill in Oriental learning. II. 30. His quarrel 
 against the editors of the London Polyglot. II. 36. His 
 attack upon the work exposed and overthrown. . pas- 
 sim. Account of the controversy between him and Dr. 
 Walton, by his own biographer. II. 312. Allowed to 
 have no profound acquaintance with the learning which 
 he dared to traduce. II. 313, 314. Schooled as a dunce. 
 
 II. 314. 
 
 Oxford. The retreat of the loyal and learned Clergy in 
 the Great Rebellion. I. 26. Description of her degene- 
 rate sons in 1646. I. 28. Fine address to the members 
 of the University in that year also. I. 29. 
 
 P. 
 
 Pace, Dr. R. Hebrew scholar and critic. I. 95. His pub- 
 lication, ibid. Commended by Erasmus. I. 96. 
 
 Parliamentary Preachers. Their abuse of the regular 
 Clergy. I. 307. Their grimaces, ibid. 
 
 Pennington, Isaac. A notorious anarchist, and factious 
 lord-mayor of London. I. 11. Presents a petition 
 
INDEX. 
 
 373 
 
 against church- government, which was exposed and ridi- 
 culed by Lord Digby. ibid. 
 Persian Language* Remarks on the ancient and modern, 
 L 262, 263. 
 
 Persian Versions of Scripture, II. 201, 339, 340. 
 
 Petr<eus,T. His Versions of Scripture. I. 171. 
 
 Philpot, the martyr. A learned Hebrician. I. 99. His 
 publications, ibid. 
 
 Pierce, Thomas. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 276, 
 277. In what manner. I. 277. A chorister, demy, 
 fellow, and president of Magdalene College, Oxford, ibid. 
 Ejected from his fellowship in the Great Rebellion, ibid. 
 A poet and a wit. I. 278. A smooth preacher. I. 279. 
 Dean of Salisbury, ibid. Strong lines, written by him, 
 descriptive of the dominant faction in his time. I. 280. 
 A zealous son of the Church of England. I. 280. 
 Wood's general excellent character of him. I. 281. His 
 numerous publications. I; 282. 
 
 Playfere, Dr. Thomas. Extraet from his interesting Ser- 
 mon upon the death of the great Oriental scholar, Mr. 
 Edward Lively. I. 108, et seq. 
 
 Pocock, Edward. His fine testimony to the excellence of 
 the authorized English Version of the Bible. I. 93. An 
 assistant in the Polyglot. I. 215, et seq. His prefer- 
 ments, ibid. Makes an edition of the Syriac New Tes- 
 tament complete, ibid. A master of many Oriental 
 tongues. I. 216. Letter from Dr. Walton to him. I. 
 
 217. Deprived of his canonry of Christ Church. I. 
 
 218. Restored to it. ibid. His works. I. 218. His 
 share in the Polyglot. I. 58. 218, et seq. His Oriental 
 MSS. I. 220. 
 
 Points, Hebrew. See Punctuation. 
 
 Pohjglot Bible, the London. First description of it. I. 
 31. Approbation of the description by learned and emi- 
 nent men, I. 44. Encouraged by the Council of State. 
 
374 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 I. 45, 46. Propositions concerning it. I. 48. Public 
 letter respecting both the description and the proposi- 
 tions. I. 51. Original specimen of the work. I. 51, 52. 
 61. Great subscriptions to the work. I. 60. Adver- 
 tisement to subscribers delivered with the first volume of 
 the London Polyglot. I. 68. Ineffectual opposition to 
 the work. I. 71. When finished. I. 72. Prohibited 
 by the papal interdict. I. 75. Languages used in it. I. 
 
 76. Title of it. ibid. Description of the volumes. I. 
 
 77, et seq. The vast utility of the treasures contained in 
 the work. I. 78, 79. Concerning the dedication of it. I. 
 81. Of the cancelled parts of the Preface. I. 85. Al- 
 tered parts in the Critical Apparatus. I. 85, 86. Refu- 
 tation of a slander respecting the printing of this Poly- 
 glot. I. 86. Considered, not quite correctly, as the first 
 book printed by subscription in England. I. 87. The 
 first prompters of it by their line of study, and their re- 
 marks. I. 94, 125, 126. Additions to it proposed. I. 320. 
 Dedication of it to King Charles the Second. I. 340, et 
 seq. Generally approved. II. 37. More performed in 
 it than in any former edition. II. 6,7. Usefulness of it. 
 II. 7, 8. 
 
 Pope, the. His infallibility opposed at Cambridge by Dr. 
 Walton. I. 8. 
 
 Popish Innovations, Unjustly charged upon the Church 
 
 of England. I. 15. 
 Prideaux, Bishop. Often appealed to by Dr. Walton upon 
 
 points of Hebrew criticism. I. 127. II. 12, etseq. 
 Prolegomena to the London Polyglot. No private or new 
 
 opinions in them. II. 26, 27, 91, 92. Defended. II. 
 
 77, et seq. Contents of them described. II. 348. 
 
 Finely eulogized by Dathe. II. 351. Twice republished, 
 
 I. 75. 
 
 Protestants, Unjustly charged with a plot against the 
 original Texts of Scripture. II. 9, etseq. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 375 
 
 Punctuation, Hebrew. The controversy upon this subject. 
 
 II. 206, et seq. 242, et seq. 273, et seq. 
 Puritans. Eagerly pronounced every accident an especial 
 
 judgment, I. 154, 155. Their hatred of May-games and 
 
 customs, I. 278. 
 
 R 
 
 Rabbinical learning. Observations upon it. I. 223. 
 Strongly commended by Dr. Lightfoot. ibid. Excellent 
 cautions respecting it by E, H. Fromm annus. I. 223, 
 224. 
 
 Rainolds, or Reinolds, Dr. An excellent linguist. I. 116, 
 One of our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 
 Reformation of the Universities by the Puritans, In put- 
 ting down May-games at Oxford. I. 277, 278. In ad- 
 vising at Cambridge the buying in impropriations, and 
 sending abroad those whom they called evangelical 
 preachers. I, 279. 
 
 Richardson, Dr. John, Bishop of Ardagh. Apparently con- 
 sidered as one of the original assistants in the London 
 Polyglot. I. 62. Archbishop Usher's letter to him. 
 ibid. His notes on the Old Testament. I. 63. 
 
 Ross, Hugh. His disingenuous conduct in regard to his 
 publication, pretending a necessity for a new Translation 
 of the Bible. I. 134. 
 
 Ryv€s 9 Bruno, An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 4, 306. 
 And in the business of the London Tithes, ibid. A 
 noted preacher, ibid. Curious representation of his 
 parishioners as to his doctrine. I. 307, Deprived of 
 his benefices, ibid. Cruelly used in the Great Rebel- 
 lion. I. 308. At length, Dean of Windsor. I. 309. 
 
376 
 
 INDEX, 
 
 s. 
 
 Samaritan letters. Antiquity of them. II. 291, et seq. 
 Ancient coins stamped with them. II. 293. Pretences 
 urged against them exploded and confuted. II. 298, et 
 seq. 
 
 Samaritan Pentateuch. I» 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 194. 
 II. 189, et seq. 336, 337. 
 
 Sanderson, Robert. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 298. 
 In what way. ibid. Character of him and his sermons, 
 ibid. His fondness of antiquities. I. 298, 299. Shewn 
 particularly when he was a bishop. I. 299. His prefer- 
 ments. I. 300. His losses, ibid. Preferred to the see 
 of Lincoln, ibid. His regard for the Church of Eng- 
 land expressed in his will, ibid. 
 
 Saravia, Adrian, Skilled in several languages. I. 103. 
 The teacher of the great Oriental scholar, Nicholas Ful- 
 ler, ibid. Answered objections of the Puritans against 
 an English Version of the Psalms. I. 103, 104. One of 
 our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 
 Sclater, Dr. W. His fine character of Professor Wheelock 
 in a Sermon at his funeral. I. 234, et seq. 
 
 Scudamore, Lord. The great friend of the loyal Clergy, 
 during their sufferings in the Great Rebellion. I. 210, 
 297. 
 
 Seaman, Mr. His Turkish New Testament. I. 171. An 
 
 assistant to Dr. Castell. ibid. 
 Sectaries. Their abuse of the Liturgy of the Church of 
 
 England. II. 203, et seq. and 340. 
 Sedgivick, Obadiah. His efforts to excite rebellion. I. 23. 
 
 And to eject the regular Clergy. I. 25. 
 Selden, John. His curious Letter to Francis Tayler. I. 40, 
 
 41. A great friend to the design and progress of 
 
INDEX. 377 
 
 the London Polyglot. I. 45, 50, 316. His kindness to 
 Meric Casaubon. L 316. His correspondence with Arch- 
 bishop Usher. I. 184, 196. 
 
 Septuagint Version of Scripture. II. 198, et seq. 325, 328. 
 
 Sheldon, Gilbert. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 290. In 
 what way. ibid. Denied the Pope to be Antichrist. I. 
 291. His preferments. I. 291, 292. His liberality and 
 charity, ibid. 
 
 Shepreve, John. A great linguist. I. 97. 
 
 Sherlock, Bishop. The method of arguing, which he has 
 adopted in his Trial of the Witnesses, found in an old 
 forgotten tract. I. 278. 
 
 Sherman, Dr. John. A zealous promoter of the Polyglot. 
 I. 318. 
 
 Shiloh, The prophecy respecting Shiloh illustrated. II. 326. 
 
 Shirwode, Robert. Hebrew scholar and critic. I. 95. His 
 publication, ibid. 
 
 Simon, Father. His proposed Polyglot. I. 322. 
 
 Smith, Miles. A most profound Oriental scholar. I. 117. 
 One of our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 
 Smith, Thomas. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 255, et 
 seq. In what way. ibid. A great Oriental scholar. I. 
 256. Curious letter to him from Dr. Hammond. I. 257, 
 258. His death. I. 261. 
 
 Smith, Dr. Thomas. Chaplain to the English Ambassador 
 at Constantinople. I. 256. His intention to collate and 
 publish the Alexandrian MS. ibid. Author of many va- 
 luable works, ibid. 
 
 Spalding, Robert. Accomplished in Hebrew learning. I. 
 116. Tutor of the celebrated Gataker. ibid. One of 
 our translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 Spelman, Sir Henry. Just encomiun upon him. 1. 238. 
 Sterne, Richard. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 293. In 
 what way. ibid. His preferments. 1. 294. His loyalty, 
 ibid. His great sufferings for it. I. 294—296. Attended 
 
378 INDEX. 
 
 Archbishop Laud on the scaffold. I. 297. Relieved by 
 Lord Scudainore. ibid. Taught a school, ibid. Bishop of 
 Carlisle, and Archbishop of York. ibid. His promising 
 countenance noticed by Baxter, with the lamentation that 
 he was not a correct physiognomist. I. 297, 298. 
 
 Stokes, David. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 255. In 
 what way. Ibid. His Exposition of the twelve Minor 
 Prophets, ibid. 
 
 Syriac Commentary upon the greater part of the Old and 
 New Testament. I. 195, 196. 
 
 Syriac Versions of Scripture. II. 185, et seq. 334, 335, 
 336. Of the Pentateuch. I. 194, 195. Old Testameut 
 from the Greek, distinguished with marks and stars. I. 
 187. Parcels of the New Testament. I. 187, 194. 
 
 T. 
 
 Talmud, Difference of its readings. II. 65. 
 
 Tar gum upon the Chronicles. I. 321, 324, 325, 326. 
 
 Tayler, Francis. His version of the Jerusalem Targum. 
 
 I. 39. Letter to him from Selden. I. 40. 
 Teigh, or Tighe, Robert. A profound linguist. I. 106. 
 
 One of our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. 
 ®to?, 1 Tim. 16. This reading illustrated and defended, 
 
 I. 272—275. 
 
 Thome, William, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. 
 I. 124. 
 
 Thorndike, Herbert. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 209, 
 et seq. His preferments. I. 209, 210. Deprived of 
 them in the Great Rebellion. I. 210. Relieved by Lord 
 Scudamore. ibid. Restored to his fellowship, ibid. 
 Slanderously said to be popishly affected. I. 210, 211. 
 His excellent character. I. 211. His opinion of the 
 Church of Rome. I. 212,213. His works. I. 213. His 
 
INDEX. 379 
 
 letter to Archbishop Usher on the subject of the Poly- 
 glot. L 214. His testimony as to the declarations of 
 Archbishop Usher upon certain Calvinistical points of 
 doctrine. I. 205, 206. 
 1 Timothy iii. 16. A reading in this verse considered. I. 
 272, 273. 
 
 Tithes, London. Unjustly withheld from the Clergy. I. 4. 
 Exceptions of Parishioners to the demands of the 
 Clergy. L 10. 
 
 Tonstall, Cuthbert. Pronounced a good Hebrician. I. 98. 
 
 Translation of the Bible. A new one in English projected 
 in 1652. I. 89. Revived in 1656-7. I. 90. Consulta- 
 tions upon the subject. L 90, 91. The present autho- 
 rized Translation then allowed to be the best exstant. I. 
 91. Singly, as well as jointly, so allowed to be by Dr. 
 Walton, ibid. Fine remark upon the general correct- 
 ness of it by Dr. Walton. I. 92. Some objections 
 against it by the Puritans and others. I. 93. New illus- 
 trations of the authorized English Translation. I. 94, 
 et seq. 
 
 Translations of the Scriptures. Uses of them. II. 92, 99* 
 Not equalled to the Original, but subservient to it. II. 
 96. Wonderful consent of all of them. II. 325, 326, 330. 
 
 Translators of the authorized English Bible. Calum- 
 niated II. 5. 
 
 Turner, Dr. P. A physician, and distinguished Hebrew 
 and Arabic scholar. I. 127. 
 
 Tyndal, William. His skill in Hebrew, and justness of 
 translation, commended by distinguished Oriental scho- 
 lars. I. 98. 
 
 U. 
 
 Various Readings of the Bible. Calumniated. II. 14. 
 Illustrated and defended. II. 59, et seq. Distinguished. 
 
380 INDEX. 
 
 II. 80, 81. In what case they may be gathered out oi 
 Translations. II. 100, et seq, False consequences in- 
 ferred from them. II. 158, et seq. The great utility of 
 them. II. 3L6, et seq. 
 
 Udall, John. Published a translation of Martinius's Hebrew 
 Grammar, with Additions. I. 123. 
 
 Vicars, or Viccars, John. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 
 254, et seq. In what way. I. 254. A different person 
 from him of the same name, presently mentioned, of cant- 
 ing memory, ibid. An Oriental scholar, cited by critics 
 of our own and other countries, ibid. His Decapla in 
 Psalmos. ibid. 
 
 Vicars, John. Of Hudibrastic fame. I. 16. Launches out 
 into much praise of Lecturers at the opening of the 
 Great Rebellion, ibid. 
 
 Usher , Archbishop. His approbation of the projected Lon- 
 don Polyglot. I. 45. Transmits to Cappellus, atSaumur, 
 the first sheet of the London Polyglot. I. 67. His Colla- 
 tions of MSS. of the New Testament. I. 79, 182. II. 148, 
 330. An assistant in the Polyglot. I. 179, et seq. Perhaps 
 formed his intimacy with Dr. Walton at Oxford. I. 180. 
 Placed by Dr. Walton at the head of his literary benefac- 
 tors. I. 182. His curious letters upon Oriental and bib- 
 lical criticism. I. 183, et seq. Disdained to join the 
 Assembly of Divines. I. 181. Affecting letter to him 
 from Meric Casaubon. I. 316. Letters to him from Sir 
 Thomas Davis at Aleppo. I. 184, et seq. to and from Dr. 
 Samuel Ward. I. 192, et seq. from Mr. J. Greaves. I. 
 197. from Dr. Arnold Boate. I. 198, etseq. to and from 
 Dr. Hammond. I. 199, et seq. His Various Readings of 
 the New Testament. I. 199. Lent by him to Dr. Ham- 
 mond, ibid. Offers to send Bootius a book of Mr. Eyres, 
 which would ease him of much trouble in his projected 
 contest with Cappellus. I. 201, 202. Receives from 
 Bootius a refusal of this favour. I, 202. Disclaimed 
 
INDEX, 381 
 
 notions which defended or propagated Calvinism. I. 203. 
 Extract from his Sermon, when bishop of Meath. I. 203, 
 
 204. His declarations on Calvinistical points, attested 
 by Dr. Walton, Mr. Thorndike, and Mr. Gunning. I. 
 
 205, et seq. 
 
 Vulgar Latin Version of Scripture. II. 197, et seq. and 
 338. 
 
 W. 
 
 Wakfield, or Wakefield, Robert. Oriental scholar and critic. 
 I. 96, 97. Pronounced one of the first masters in Eng- 
 land of Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic. I. 97. His publi- 
 cations. I. 97, 98. 
 
 Wakfield, or Wakefield, Thomas. Hebrew Professor at 
 Cambridge. I. 97. 
 
 Walton, Brian. Born at Seymour, or Seamer, in Cleveland. 
 I. 3. First of Magdalen College, Cambridge, ibid. Next, 
 of Peter House, ibid. Master of a school in Suffolk, 
 ibid. Rector of St. Martin's Orgar, London, ibid. 
 Conducts the business of the London tithes. I. 4. 
 His collections and treatise on the subject. I. 6, 7. In- 
 stituted to the rectories of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, Lon- 
 don, and of Sandon, county of Essex. I. 7. Chaplain to 
 the king. I. 8. Prebendary of St. Paul's, ibid. Opposes 
 at Cambridge the infallibility of the Pope. ibid. Loses 
 his first wife. I. 9. Account of her. ibid. Some of his 
 London Parishioners unjustly represent him. I. 10. Ex- 
 hibit articles against him. I. 11. What those articles 
 were. I. 14. Dr. Walton defends the Church of England 
 against the charge of Popish innovations. I. 15. Refuses 
 a lecturer at the charge and election of his parishioners. 
 I. 16, 17. Taken into custody as a delinquent. I. 20. 
 Insulted in giving his testimony before a committee, by 
 Isaac Pennington, I. 22. Supplanted at Sandon by an 
 
382 INDEX, 
 
 « f able preaching minister," the term for a parliamentary 
 priest. I. 24. Dispossessed of both his rectories. I. 25. 
 Supposed, with little reason, to have written a pamphlet at 
 Oxford. I. 27. Formed at Oxford the design of his Po- 
 lyglot, ibid. Incorporated D. D. there. I. 28. Returns 
 from Oxford, to the house of Dr. Fuller in London, with 
 collections for his Polyglot. I. 29. Submitted his plan 
 to many bishops. I. 30. Circulation of his proposals. 
 
 I. 31. His letter to Archbishop Usher. I. 62. Descrip- 
 tion of his Introduction to the reading of the Oriental 
 Tongues. I. 69, 70. Editions of it. 70, 71. Vindicate* 
 his Polyglot against the attack of Dr. J* Owen. I. 74, 75. 
 
 II. passim. Dedicated his Polyglot to King Charles II. 
 not to Cromwell. I. 82. Thanks the king for the noble 
 answer he returned on the application made for that pur- 
 pose, ibid. Informs his Majesty of his original deter- 
 mination. I. 83. Refers to witnesses of it. ibid. Ex- 
 poses the subtilty of Cromwell, ibid. Threatened with a 
 suppression of his work. I. 84. Delivered both from the 
 extortion of a dedication to Cromwell, and from any fury 
 of the Usurper, ibid. Statement of his alteration of the 
 passage as to Cromwell's grant in regard to the paper. 
 I. 84, 85. Appointed to consider of a new English Ver- 
 sion of the Bible. I. 90. Agrees that the authorized 
 Version is the best of any of the Translations. I. 91, 
 92. He and his assistants acquired their Oriental learn- 
 ing in the age of James the first. I. 126. Consecrated 
 bishop of Chester. I. 135. One of the Commissioners at 
 the Savoy Conference, ibid. Speaks in favour of Baxter. 
 1.136. His reception at Chester. I. 148, et seq. Acci- 
 dents stated to have occurred on his coming to Chester. 
 I. 155, 156. His concurrence with other bishops upon 
 the settlement of the Liturgy. I. 156. His death. I. 157. 
 His funeral. I. 158. His monument. I. 158, et seq. 
 His library. I. 160, 161, His testimony as to the decla- 
 
INDEX. 383 
 ration3 of Archbishop Usher upon certain Calvinistical 
 points of doctrine. I. 205, 207. His additions to P. 
 Young's notes. I. 288, 289. Acknowledges the intended 
 service of Dr. Meric Casaubon. I. 313. Records literary 
 obligation to Claude Hardie in a curious manner. I. 316, 
 317. And to many other sholars. ibid. His Vindication 
 of the Polyglot, now republished. I. 75. II. 1, et seq. 
 His Prolegomena to the Polyglot republished. I. 75. His 
 Reasons for writing the Vindication of his Polyglot. II. 
 17, 18. Severely, but not justly, censured by a recent 
 biographer of Dr. John Owen. II. 314, 316. 
 
 Warburton, Dr. G. Curious extract from his sermon 
 preached before King James the first. II. 311. 
 
 Ward, Samuel. A biblical and Oriental critic. 1. 120. One 
 of our Translators of the authorized Bible, ibid. Specimen 
 of the manner in which he proceeded with his share of the 
 Translation, ibid. The friend of Archbishop Usher, ibid. 
 His Adversaria in Sidney College, Cambridge. I. 120. 
 His collation of ancient versions of part of Genesis. I. 
 121. His Letters to Archbishop Usher. I. 192, et seq. 
 
 Wheelock, Abraham. His letter upon the design of the 
 London Polyglot. I. 55. An assistant in it. I. 230, et 
 seq. His particular services. I. 231. Account of his 
 Persian Gospels. I. 231, 232. His preferments, ibid. 
 His circumstances not easy. I. 232. His letter to the 
 Vice-chancellor of Cambridge. I. 232, 233. Fine cha- 
 racter of him by Dr. Sclater. I. 234, et seq. His Per- 
 sian Gospels completed for the press by Mr. Pierson, and 
 published at the charge of Sir T. Adams. I. 241. His 
 edition of Bede. I. 242. His Anglo Saxon Lexicon MS. 
 British Museum. I. 243. 
 
 White, Dr. Joseph. His disapprobation of Mr. Pratt's 
 Prospectus of a New Polyglot. I. 333. 
 
 Whole Duty of Man, Inquiries as to the author of that 
 work. I. 293. 
 
384 INDEX. 
 
 Worthington, Dr. His interesting account of Dr. Castell 
 
 and his labours. I. 164, etseq. and 171. 
 Wilkins, Dr. David. His publication of the Targum upon 
 
 the Chronicles. I. 246, 324, 325, 326. 
 Willet, Andrew. An eminent biblical critic. I. 104. 
 
 Y. 
 
 Young, Patrick. The use of his notes for the Polyglot. I. 
 64, 286. Account of him. I. 28G, 287. Intended to 
 collate and publish the Alexandrian MS. I. 287. Pub- 
 lished the Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, ibid. 
 His death in 1652. I. 288. Dr. Walton's description of 
 his notes, obtained after his decease. I. 288, Dr. Wal- 
 ton's additions to them. I. 288, 289. 
 
 Printed by R. Gilbert, St. John's Square, London.