The considerator considered: or, A brief view of certain considerations upon the Biblia polyglotta, the prolegomena and appendix thereof. Wherein, amongst other things, the certainty, integrity, and divine authority of the original texts, is defended, against the consequences of athiests, papists, antiscripturists, &c. inferred from the various readings, and novelty of the Hebrew points, by the author of the said Considerations. The Biblia polyglotta, and translations therein exhibited, with various readings, prolegomena and appendix, vindicated from his aspersions and calumnies. And the questions about the punctation of the Hebrew text, the various readings, and the ancient Hebrew character briefly handled. / By Br. Walton. D.D.

CHAP. IX.

I. The Occasion pretended, of this invective against the Tran∣slators of the Biblia Polyglotta. II. His mistakes about the Arabick. The Publisher of the Arabick, the same with the Publisher of the Biblia Polyglotta. III. IV. The Adversary misreports Mr. Pococks Preface. His contra∣dictions. V. VI The Syriack vindicated from his aspersions; The antiquity of it proved. VII. His carping at the Cam∣bridge Copie VIII. The Samaritane Pentateuch, vindicated. IX. X. XI. His Parodoxes about the Samari∣tane Pentateuch. XII. Set forms of Liturgie proved from the Jews after Esdras his time, and from the Samaritanes in imitation of them. XIII. The Chaldee Paraphrase defended, of Buxtorf, Babylonia. XIV. Of the Vulgar Latine. XV. The Septuagint; the other Translations not taken from it, save part of the Arabick. XVI. Of the Originall Copy of the Septuagint. XVII. Of the Aethio∣pick and Persian. XVIII. The true reason why the

Adversary is so offended with these ancient Translations, they testifie for Liturgie, observation of Festivalls, &c.

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

II. He prefaces his Invective with an ac∣knowledgement

of the usefulnesse of them in some cases, and p. 206 calls the Work, a Noble collection of Translations; but this is, as I said be∣fore, onely as a Shooing-horn to draw on the better this aspersion which he casts upon them afterwards, and therefore I account his commen∣dation to be only, as I observed before out of St. Hierom, Honorifica contumelia, an Honorable reproach. First, he begins with the Ara∣bick, for the Honour he bears to the Reve∣rendly Learned Publisher of it, as he affirms (meaning Master Pocock) or rather indeed, because he thought he might have more colour∣able pretence to vilifie this Translation then some of the other, otherwise he should rather have passed it over, or said least of it, if he had so honoured the Publisher. But here he shews h••w apt he is to mistake or to derogate what he can from the Publisher, when he makes that Learned man the Publisher of the Arabick. I shall not detract from his deserved praise, whom I do esteem as my much honoured friend, but I am sure he will not thank him for making use of any thing by him said or written, against this or any other of the translations, nor assume to him∣self what our Author gives him, to be the Pub∣lisher of the Arabick translation, or any other in this Edition; for upon the request of the Pub∣lisher, he collated the Pentate••ch, not the whole Translation, with two Copies of Saadias his

Translation (which he takes to be the same with that in the Parisian, and in this ••dition) the one a MS. the other Printed in the Constantinopo∣litane Bibles, and noted the differences of them, which he sent to the Publisher, who after they were reviewed, and collated over again for a great part, with the Printed Copy of Saadias, which I had out of Mr. Seldens Library, (for many things were mistaken by some whom he imployed in part of the collation, which himself, being otherwise imployed, had not leisure to re∣view, and therefore desired me that they might be re-examined) I caused to be Printed and pub∣lished with the rest. And upon the like request of the Publisher, that he would make some brief Preface to those Arabick various Readings or differences of these copies, he sent him that which is now prefixed to them, in which, though the Publisher did not concur with him that this Pentateuch is the same with that of Saadias, wherein divers others of great Learning and Judgement did concur with the Publisher, nor did his reasons seem cogent, considering them on the one side, and what was brought by D. H••t∣tinger, now Hebrew Professor at Heydelberg on the other side, in his Analecta, which are fur∣ther urged in his Smegma Orientale, with other reasons which offered themselves; and although the Publisher had formerly inclined to Mr. Po∣cock•• opinion, swayed by his Authority, which he

always did, and doth still very much esteem, and did foresee, and so declared what use might be made of his words by some persons disaffected to the Work, to the defaming of the whole, as I now finde by experience; yet seeing it was only his particular judgement, and every man had liberty to judge of his reasons as he saw cause, (some things also being mollified and al∣tered upon the Publishers Letters, from the first draught) he chose rather to publish it as it is, then to take upon him to determine any thing in it, having also said something of this point, Prolegom. 14. which the Reader may consult, if he please.

III. I shall not therefore go about to dis∣cusse or determine that Question, whether it be the same which Saadias the Jew translated out of Hebrew into Arabick, yet in Hebrew Cha∣racters, (though it seems scarcely credible, that those Christian Churches in the East should use a Translation made by a Jew in their publike as∣semblies) yet I cannot but observe how our Adversary doth misreport & wrong the Learn∣ed Author of that Preface, in reciting his words and opinions, whom yet he seems to magnifie, and therefore it is the lesse to be wondered that he deals so with others, whom he labours what he can to vilifie: for he makes him to write things neither true, nor agreeing to common sence, but untrue, and contradictory to them∣selves:

For p. 322. he saith, That he, (viz. Mr Pocock) tells us, This Translation is a Cento made up of many ill suited pieces, there being no Translation in that Language extant of the Old Testament, which is a plain contradiction; for if there be no Translation in the Arabick extant, how came this to be extant, and why doth he call it an Arabick Translation, if there be none in that Language? and why doth he speak, pag. 324. of other Arabick Translations, if there be none at all? Mr. Pocock indeed saith, That it is not all made by one Author, nor all immedi∣ately out of the Hebrew; but some out of the Hebrew, some out of the Syriack, and part out of the LXX. but he was not so devoid of com∣mon sence, as to say there was none at all. I looked among the Errata, but could not finde any Error noted there: nor can he say, that there is no other Translation in the Arabick but this, and that this was his meaning, for himself tells us of divers others Translations: and he could not but see in the Prolegom. 14. mention made of divers Translations made by Christians since they were in subjection to the Mahumetanes, who propagated the Arabick Tongue where they came, as that by the Bishop of Sevil in Spain anno 700. and two other famous ones, the Alexandrian or Aegyptian, which Gab. Si••∣nita published in the Paris Bible, and the Antiochian, used in that Patriar••h••••••, as was

shewed out of the Psalter. Nebiense, and others, of both which MSS. Copies are remain∣ing in the Vatican, as Cornelius à Lapide in∣forms us, who made use of both. All that Mr. Pocock saith out of Abulfeda is onely, that there was no Arabick version out of the Hebrew before his time in Arabick letters, not denying but that there were Arabick Translations out of the LXX. and the Syriack long before, and that there might be also some out of the Hebrew into Arabick but not in Arabick Characters. Again he makes Mr. P••cock say, that the anci∣entest part of that Translation was made about the year 950. which he doth no where affirm, but onely saith that the Pentateuch, which he ascribes to Saadias, was about that time, which is not denied, if it be his; but when any of the other parts were translated, he saith 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 Constanti∣nopol. Pentateuch (which the Jews used in their Translations) into Arabick, by one who might change some words. But what is this to a Tran∣slation or Interpretation? Was the Pentateuch translated into Arabick, when the Hebrew let∣ter was changed into Arabick? Besides he no

where makes the Interpreter to have been a Mahumetane, or Samaritane, as this Author misreports him, but to be R. Saadias a Jew, but that he who transcribed, or put it into Ara∣bick Characters, might change some words, to comply the better with Mahumetanes, under whom those Christians lived. And lastly Mr. Pocock tells us, that these things he cannot affirm upon certain and undoubted grounds, but onely upon probable reasons. Thus modestly he writes. whereas this Author speaks confidently of things which he never understood. Now if any desire to know what use may be of this Arabick version, what Copies we used? what Translations there are? he may peruse if he please Proleg. 14. where he shall not find any such use, either of this, or any other Translation as our Adversary feigns, viz. to Correct the Originalls, or as he elsewhere expresses it, to correct the Word of God.

V. In the next place he falls upon the Syriack, that noble, ancient, Oriental treasure, made 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 un∣true. Sometimes it varies in some words (of no importance) from our modern Hebrew Co∣pies, which shews (as learned Hottinger ob∣serves)

some various or different Reading be∣tween that Copy and ours, but none ever doubted that it was out of the Hebrew. Then he questions the Antiquity of it, He knows not when, where, nor by whom it was made, if he will be ignorant of these things, who can help it? otherwise he might have learned of those that have spent more time in the search of these things then himself. That the constant opinion and tradition of the Eastern Churches is, that it was either made in the age the Apostles lived in, or not long after, I mean that which they call the simple Edition (which is by us followed) which alone were enough to prove the antiqui∣ty of it, as Bootius (as great an assertor of the Hebrew Text, as our Adversary can be) Vindic. c. 19. p. 183. proves, when he saith, it were intole∣rable boldnesse, and no lesse foolish, not to give credit to them in this business, then if any Syrian or Per∣sian, who never had been in Europe, and were altogether ignorant of the Latine (as he pur∣poses them to be of the Syriack tongue who question the antiquity of the Translation) and had never seen or read any Latine book, should question whether the vulgar Latine Translation of the New Testament, of which he had never heard but by report, were of that antiquity, which they of the Latine Church ascribe unto it, and by constant Tradition have alwayes done, and should affirm it was made many ages after. And

their rashnesse, as he there addes, 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 Mopsueste∣nus, Polychronius, Procopius, Gazaeus, and others, who lived some of them in the fourth Century, do often mention and commend a Greek Translation then in use, which was made out of the Syriack. He saith further, That there can be no place for doubting in this matter, because the Syrians have many Fathers of their own Nation, some since, others long before Diodorus, who wrote in their own Syriack language, and quote many places out of the Syriack Translation of the Old Testament, made out of the Hebrew, which agree verbatim with that which we have, of which he is most cer∣tain, by those many instances which he could give out of that great Syriack MS. called Catena Syriaca in Evangelia, which he had among many other Syriack books, out of the Library of that famous and Reverend Ʋsher.

VI. The great antiquity of this Version is also proved Proleg. 13. out of the ancient Writers which mention it, Saint Basil, Saint Chrysostome, Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Eusebius, and others, mentioned in the ancient Greek Scho∣liast, besides Jacobus Syrus, (who was present at the Nicene Councel) and Ephraim Magnus, who do both mention this Syriack Translation, and

commented upon it in Syriack. Besides it must needs be of great antiquity, when that other and later Syriack Translation was made out of the LXX. above a thousand years ago, as ap∣pears by Masius in Jos. who had some Syriack books of that Translation written before that time, and some Syriack Copies of the New Te∣stament are now remaining in the Duke of Florences Library (as I had from one residing there, who perused the same MSS.) which appear to have been written above a thousand years a∣go, of which with other Arguments, those that please may read Prolegomena 13. The Ad∣versary further tells us, That in many places it evidently followed another corrupt Translati∣on, and that it passed through the hands of men ignorant and suspicious, against whose frauds and folly by reason of the paucity of Copies we have no relief: but for proof of all we have not a word, nor any testimony, nor any instance of any Translation it followed at all, much lesse of any corruption, but all this you must take upon his word, against the judgement of all learned men, who have some of them spent more years in this Translation, then he ever spent dayes, and therefore what credit his bare ipse dixit may have, let any wise man judge.

VII. Lastly, having nothing to say against this Translation in particular, he falls upon the Scribe of that Cambridge MS. which we 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 anci∣ent Translation depended upon any addition made by a Transcriber, who lived, it may be, a thousand years after: by which reason he might reject the Greek Text of the New Testament, because in some old MSS. some such prayers and ejaculations may be found added by the Scribes of those Copies.

VIII. Thirdly, He falls foul upon the Samari∣tane Pentateuch and Version, p. 327. and 260. He labours first to prove what no body denies, That their Pentateuch cannot vie with the Hebrew Text, p. 329. when as he could not but read Proleg. 11. that it is there expresly affirmed, that their Pentateuch is not authentick, and that there are some wilfull corruptions in it, as that about mount Gerazim, and that it cannot stand in com∣petition with the Hebrew. Then he proceeds and tells us, that all is uncertain about them and their Pentateuch, that it were no hard task to manifest the uncertainty of what is fixed upon the Originall of this Pentateuch in the Prolegom. or to inforce those conjectures which he opposeth, but it is not in his present work, nor that he knows of ever will be. In the mean time I hope what is said in the Prolegomena may stand firm, till it be impugned or confuted, which I do not fear to be done by our Author in hast. Yet though

I do not love to spend time about frivolous ex∣ceptions; some things there be which I cannot well passe by without notice.

IX. Pag. 261. He saith, The Samaritanes had not the Book of the Law from the Priest that was sent unto them by the King of Babylon, be∣cause they continued in their Idolatry, and there∣fore probably they had it when they were con∣quered by Hircanus, after their Temple was de∣stroyed, which had stood two hundred years, and p. 262. 327. 329. That there are any of them at this day, or have been these thousand years last, is unknown. That they continued in their Idolatry till Hircanus his time, who subdued them: That their Pentateuch was not used by any ancient Christians, &c. all which Paradoxes are visible untruths, affirmed without any the least proof, yea, against all History, ancient and modern, and against the judgement of all Learned men who have written of this subject. That the Priest taught them to fear the Lord, is expressed, 2 King. 17. 28. How this could be done with∣out the Book of the Jews, is not imaginable, when as it is said, that before that time, they fear∣ed not the Lord, and then it is said, that they feared the Lord, though withall they worshipped their Idols. That Manasseh the High Priests bro∣ther fled thither in Esdras his time, and built a Temple on Mount Gerazim, whither divers Priests and other Jews also came, and there

worshipped God, and offered sacrifices (though in a Schismaticall way) is out of doubt: and how this could be done without the Book of the Law is not to be conceived. That they continued in their Iodolary till their Temple was destroyed by Hircanus, is against all ancient Records, which affirm the contrary, Joseph. lib. 9. cap. ult. saith, Postquam Legem, & Dei colendi rationem ab iis, (Sacerdotibus a Salmanasare (for so it should be Printed) missis) edocti diligenter Deum colere coe∣perunt, moxque cessavit pestilentia, permanent{que} in ea religione. Epiph Haeres. 3. saith, Illos ac∣cepta lege hoc unum studuisse ut Idolorum repu∣diata superstitione summum Deum agnoscerent. The same is affirmed by some Rabbins, produced Prolegom. 11. though out of their innate ha∣tred they forge many calumnies and untruths against them. But that after their Temple was destroyed by Hircanus, that they should then, and not before, receive the Pentateuch, is such a groundlesse fancie, that I could hardly think our Author hoped that any would believe it. Can any man imagine, that for two hundred years they should offer sacrifices, and observe the Law, without any Copy of the Law, and after their Temple was destroyed, when they had no place to worship in, that they should then receive it, and that in a strange Character, and onely the Pentateuch, when as if Hircanus had forced the Pentateuch upon them, he would,

without doubt, have forced all the rest of the Jewish Canon upon them, and that in the Jews Character. Pardon me, good Reader, if thy patience be exercised in confuting such wilde fictions, whose very naming is enough to con∣fute them among sober and discreet men.

X. Of the same stamp is that which follows: 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 any ancient Christians, &c. They were not so few in the times of Zeno & Justinian, but that they durst rebell against those potent Emperors; Benjamin in his Itinerary, written about five hundred years ago, found divers Synagogues of them at Damas∣cus, Ascaelon, Caesarea, Palestina, Sychem, &c. Peter du Valle, and others, who lately travelled in the ••ast, have found divers Synagogues of them still remaining at Sychem, Hierusalem, Gaza, Cayro and Damascus, and affirm, that there are some Reliques of them still remaining at Cayro, of those Colonies which Ptolemie car∣ried into Aegypt. That their chief Priest re∣sides still at Sychem, on Mount Gerazim, where he sends circular letters to the rest about their solemn Feasts. Scaliger had (from Eleazar their High Priest at Sychem, and the Samaritanes at Cayro, to whom he wrote) a Type of the Calen∣dar and Compute for the year 1589▪ which he published both in Samaritane and Hebrew Cha∣racters,

lib. 7. De emend. See Gassendus in vita Peirescii, p. 157. and Hotting. Bibliothec. Orient. c. 4. p. 305. I have seen a Samaritane Pentateuch which belonged to one of their Priests at Dama∣scus, about four hundred years agoe, as appears by what he hath written in that Copy. And not∣withstanding all this, we must believe there are none of them remaining, nor known for these thousand years.

XI. That no ancient Christians made use of their Pentateuch, is like the rest. The Author had read the contrary proved, Prolegom 11. where Sect. 7. 14. &c. he could not but finde, Origen, Eusebius, Africanus, Cyril of Alexand. Diodorus Tars. Hierom, Eulogius, Procopius, Epiphanius, the Greek Scholiast, and other ancient Writers quoted, and their testimonies produced to prove the Samaritane Copy they used to have been the same with this now ex∣tant, by the places they alledged about Chrono∣logie, and other controverted Texts, yet all these men must not be reckoned among ancient Christians, for no ancient Christians made use of it. It is strange, if any thing can be strange, in such an Adversary, that he should so boldly affirm such things, which are so easily detected, and so plainly confuted. He also saith, that there is no more in Scaliger or Morinus disco∣vered about the Samaritanes, then we had for∣merly from the Scriptures and Josephus, which

no man that hath read Scaliger or Morinus will believe. Those that have read them, or the Prolegomena, will finde many things concerning the Samaritanes and their Pentateuch, which could not be found, either in the Scripture or Josephus, being matters of fact, done long after Josephus his time, and after the Canon of the Scripture was finished.

XII. But he is much offended, p. 331. That from the occasionall mention of the Samaritane Liturgie, and the pretended antiquity of it, the Author of the Prolegomena falls, and not with∣out some bitternesse, on those that have laid aside the English Liturgie, or Service Book, and saith, it had not been imprudently done▪ to reserve a triumph over the Sectaries to some more consider∣able victory then any is to be hoped from the ex∣ample of the Samaritanes, 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. 11. Sect. 23. and let any man see, whether it be not the example of the Jews, who used set forms of publike prayer, from the time of Esdras, and who were certainly the people of God, to whom the promises were made, from whom the Ar∣gument is drawn against our modern Sectaries,

and that the Samaritanes are mentioned in this, onely ut Judaeorum aemuli; so that the example of the Samaritanes, proves chiefly the practice of the Jews, whose Apes they were in this and other things, and so may well be brought a•• an Argument against our Novellists. The words are these: Quam (Liturgiam Samaritanorum) valde antiquam esse & prope Esdrae tempora in usu fuisse, vel ex ipsis Judaeorum formulis, quas paulo post reditum à Babylone, ab Esdra, & sociis ejus compositas fuisse affirmant uno ore omnes Judaei, quasque in hunc usque diem usurpant, colligi potest. Videantur Capellus in Spicileg. & Seldeni Notae in Eut. Ʋnde Sectariorum nostrorum pervicacia, & impietas merito redarguitur, qui spretis omnibus publicis Orationum et Liturgia∣rum formulis, per omnes Christi Ecclesias ab ipsis Ecclesiae Christianae primordiis, & Apostolorum temporibus usitatis, Liturgiā Ecclesiae Anglicanae, omnium per orbem Christianum purissimam, & sanctissimam, damnarunt, & omnibus, &c. Quo∣rum praxis ab ipsis Judaeis eorumque aemulis Sa∣maritanis erroris & novitatis arguitur: where we see the Argument is drawn chiefly from the Jews; and from the Samaritanes, only as imita∣ting the Jews. And let the Samaritanes be what they will, yet their example in imitation of the Jews, who were then the onely visible Church of Christ, is a strong argument for the use of publike set forms of Liturgie, and will more

prevail with sober and pious men, then all the pretences of factious Novellists.

XIII. In the fourth place, The Chaldee Pa∣raphrase comes under censure, which is likewise a Cento made up of divers pieces; some part sup∣posed, (I say, proved in the Prolegomena) to be written before Christ, and some part (acknow∣ledged likewise in the Prolegomena) to be written five hundred years after Christ. The great use of this Paraphrase, among other things, is largely shewed, Prolegom. 12. Sect. 17, 18, 19. in con∣firming the integrity of the Hebrew text, proving sundry main Articles of the Christian Faith against the Jews, explaining many obscure places, and dark Paraphrases, &c. and our Adversary cannot but acknowledge it: other things like∣wise concerning these Paraphrases, their Authors, Antiquity, &c. are largely handled in the same Prolegomena, to which I must refer the Reader. He tells us of the bulkie collections of various Readings in this Paraphrase; but he might have observed by the Title, that there are not onely various Readings, but also Observations, which take up the greatest part of that collection. And as for Buxtorfs Babylonia, which he talks of by hear-say, it is true, his Son sent it me to be Printed among other things in this Bible, with a short Preface of his own, but it came too late, after our own Notes on that subject were begun, and would have risen to a greater bulk

then the last Volume of the Bible would well bear. Whereupon I forbore to Print it, but shall willingly communicate it to any that shal under∣take to make it publike, & shall further their en∣deavours therein, it being a Book very usefull, as I conceive, to restore that ancient Translation to its purity, (though I conceive there is much done already in our last Volume to that purpose) And I think that Learned Author would never have taken such pains therein, if he had so sleightly esteemed it, as our Adversary doth.

XIV. The Vulgar Latine scapes the lash pret∣ty 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 Barbarismes. What esteem it deserves, is declared, Prolegom. 10. Sect. 12. but what he writes in preferring it before the rest, is I doubt, not so much out of his esteem of the Vulgar Latine, but thereby to depresse the worth of the rest, which the Vulgar Reader must needs think to be very bad, when this, which Vulgar Divines so cry out against, is preferred before them all. He may enjoy his Opinion, but he must leave others to judge of them as they see cause, who look upon them without prejudice. What the Authority, and Ʋse of this Translation is with the severall questions concerning the same, the Reader may

finde declared and debated at large, Proleg. 10.

XV. Now comes the Septuagint, which he saith, must bear the weight of all; the most of the rest being taken out of it. Of this Transla∣tion we have written at large, Prolegom. 9. which for its antiquity and hoary hairs, is most opposed by all Novellists, though it be proved, in the same Prolegomena, That it was publikely read in the Synagogues for neer three hundred years be∣fore Christ; That our Saviour and the Apostles used it, and cited it more frequently then the Hebrew Text, and thereby consecrated it to po∣sterity: 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 Sy∣riack) was used in the Church, nor is any other used in the Greek Church to this day. That this was that which the Greek and Latine Fathers expounded, illustrated, out of which they in∣structed the people, confuted Heresies, and main∣tained the Truth: That this which we now have, is the same for substance with that ancient∣ly used, (though in some things, by the injury of times, and frequent transcriptions vitiated) which, with all the severall questions and con∣troversies about this Translation are at large

discussed and handled, to which I must refer the Reader, where he shall finde all the doubts and questions raised by this Author, or others, resol∣ved, and all their aspersions cast upon it wiped off. It would be too long to go over the par∣ticulars herein. Those that amongst our Neo∣tericks have been least favourable to it, have yet highly valued it, as is shewed out of Scaliger, Heinsius, and others. Heinsius saith of it: Ra∣rum & incomparabilem thesaurum esse neminem ignorare posse, nisi qui ab omni eruditione alienus sit, Aristarch. cap. 15. p. 951. The quarrells and cavills therefore of our Author against it, I shall not meddle with now; all of them, and a great deal more, is related and answered in the same Prolegom. 9. onely I cannot but observe how he overlashes still, when he affirms that most of the Versions in the Biblia Polyglotta are evidently taken out of it, which he cannot with any colour affirm of any but the Arabick, of which yet himself formerly told us, the Penta∣teuch was translated out of the Hebrew, and some part out of the Syriack, as for the rest, viz. the Samaritane Version, the Syriack, Chaldee, and the Vulgar Latine, they are all out of the He∣brew, except the Psalms in the Vulgar Latine, which seem to be out of the LXX. Though it may be here and there in some words they may agree with the LXX. yet this gives not the least colour to affirm that they were taken out of it.

XVI. Besides we may observe upon what weak grounds he goes, when he sticks not to insist upon that Argument against the Septuagint, that the Originall Copy was burnt in the Library of Alexandria in Caesars time, to prove that there are no true Copies now left, which childish ar∣gument he knew was answered Proleg. 9. 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 confest, that there were thousands of Copies every where extant among the Jews, and read publickly in their Syna∣gogues all the world over, and so had been for some hundred of years before the burning of Pto∣lomies Library, so that the losse of that Origi∣nall Copy (though it may be justly doubted whether it perished in that conflagration or no, as is there shewed) can no more prove that suc∣ceeding ages have not the true Copy of it, then it can be inferred that we have no true Co∣pies of the Hebrew and Greek Texts because the first Originalls have been lost many ages since, as among other things is there shewed.

XVII. The Aethiopick and Persian Transla∣tions, which he falls upon in the last place, are the worst and most corrupt in the world. He can find no use of the Persian, but onely to shew that there is such an uselesse thing in the world. The Aethiopick is the Novel endeavour of an illiterate person. He knows not whether some of them be

in use now in the world, he is sure that it were well that they be not; had he not seen them, he could not have imagined any had been so bad. He thinks some Jews had a hand in one for money. Thus some men shoot their bolts at randome. It is sufficient that learned men, and such as are able to judge, do acknowledge the use of them, and thankfully receive the publishing of them. The antiquity and use of both, especially of the Aethiopick, is declared Proleg. 14. and 15. What is there said and proved, will I doubt not overba∣lance what is by him barely affirmed to the con∣trary. That the Aethiopick is now used, and hath been since the conversion of that Nation, among the Abyssines, through those large Ter∣ritories, consisting of many Kingdomes, is shew∣ed by good authority, and sundry reasons, a∣gainst Scaliger. Our Author knows not whe∣ther it be any where used, but I think there is scarce any besides himself that doubts it, that doth not shut his eyes against the clear light. Concerning the Persian, it is acknowledged in the Prolegomena not to be that ancient Transla∣tion mentioned by Theodoret and others of the Ancients, of which it may be doubted whether any part of it be extant: as also that it was made out of the Syriack, not immediately out of the Greek, yet that it may be usefull, is like∣wise shewed, Proleg. 15. in diverse particulars, and that this Copy we have Printed, was written

three hundred years ago, but how long before the Translation it self was made, we cannot determine. How the Jews should have a hand in any of the Translations is a fancie which I think never lodged in any mans breast but his own, nor can he shew any ground for it. It may as well be said, that Turks and Mahu∣metanes made all these Translations for the use of Christians. Because the Transcriber of the Aethiopick, (as it is rendred in Latine) makes Saint John Bishop of Constantinople (though it be doubtfull whether it may be so rendred, as he might have seen in the Annotations, and the Aethiopick word is not Constantinople, though the learned Translator of it into Latine conjectured it migh be there meant) therefore the Aethiopick Translator must be illiterate, and the Translation novel, when as in the Syriack, our Author could distinguish between the Scribe and the Translator, and not impute the error of the one to the other. And as for the antiquity, it is one thing to say, another thing to prove: let him answer the reasons in the Prolegomena, or bring better of his own, and we shall believe him, otherwise his bare autho∣rity will not be sufficient to command assent a∣gainst reason.

XVIII. By this which we have said it appears, that as our Author hath ••eigned to himself an Adversary when he had none, that so he might

have some pretence of depressing the severall Translations, so that which is said by him, we might well have passed by, but that our silence would have been by him interpreted as an ac∣knowledgement of the truth of his affirmations. And although his invectives be groundlesse and vain, yet I have good ground to believe, that there is something else in the Translations them∣selves (which he is not willing to mention) which hath caused all this bitternesse against them. It appears by these ancient Translations that what our Sectaries have cried down in the Church of England, as Popish innovations, viz. Episcopall Government, set forms of Liturgies, Observation of Festivalls, besides the Lords day, were used (as they are still) in those Eastern Churches planted by the Apostles and their Suc∣cessors in Asia and Africk, from the first times of their conversion, so that what these men would exterminate as Romish and Antichristian Novelties have been antiently used by those fa∣mous and flourishing Churches, which never pro∣fessed subjection to the See of Rome. Hinc illae lachrymae: This is that Cordolium of our No∣vellists, the practice of the universall Church of Christ all the world over, which condemns their innovations; which Argument is of more force with considering men, then all the acute argu∣ments drawn onely 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. These things with some other ancient rites appear in the Syriack, Arabick, Aethiopick, &c. which I doubt were as great motes in our Authors eye, which made him so willing to quarrel with the Translations, and to cavil without a cause: and thus I have briefly run over his invective against the Tran∣slations, intreating the Reader for more full satisfaction to consult the Prolegomena them∣selves, and by these Specimina which we have given of his candor and love of truth, to judge of the rest of his Discourse. And thus we have done with the main Charge, the principal Subject of his Book, the Various Readings, and the Corruptions of the Originalls, which he would thereupon infer. I shall proceed now more briefly to that other principall Charge, concerning the Punctation of the He∣brew Text; after which we shall adde some∣thing about the ancient Hebrew Characters, and of the use of the Septuagint Translation, towards the Knowledge of the Hebrew Tongue, and so put an end to the Readers trouble and our own for the present.