thing be more evident against his design than his own testimony? It was the work of the grammarians to know these things, therefore not to invent them; did they invent the radical and servile letters? Surely they also then invented the tongue; for it consists of letters radical and servile, of points and accents; and yet this is also ascribed to them by Aben Ezra. But it is well that Morinus hath at length lighted upon R. Jehuda Chiug: his opinion before was collected out of Kimchi, Ephodius, Muscatus, and others. But what says he now himself; for aught appears by what we have quoted by Morinus, he is like to prove a notable witness of the antiquity of the points. It may be well supposed that Morinus writing on set purpose against their antiquity would produce that testimony which in his whole author was most to his purpose; and yet he fixes on one, wherein this ancient grammarian, who lived about the years of Christ 1150 or 1200, gives us an account of the points with their names, without the least intimation of any thing to the impeachment of their divine original; so also the same Aben Ezra on Psal. ix. 7. tells us of one Adonim Ben-lafrad, who long before this R. Jehuda, found for in an ancient copy. And, therefore, when Morinus comes to make the conclusion of his argument, discovering it seems himself the folly of the pretence, that the points were invented by the grammarians, the last sort of men mentioned by Aben Ezra, he says, 'Procul omni dubio est, et luce meridiana clarius Aben Ezram sensisse omnium vocalium punctationem a Massorithis Tiberiensibus, et grammaticis, qui hos sequuti sunt Originem ducere.' But of these Massorites there is not one word in the premises, nor is any such thing assigned unto them by Aben Ezra; but quite another employment, of making a hedge about the law by their observations on all the words of it; and had he dreamed of their inventing the points, he would sure enough have assigned that work to them; and for the grammarians, his own testimony lies full to the con-trary.

T

And these are the heads of the arguments insisted on by Capellus and others, and by these prolegomena, to prove the Hebrew punctuation to be an invention of the Jews of Tiberias five hundred years or more after the incarnation of Christ. Brevis Cantilena, sed longum Epiphonema.' As

I have not here designed to answer them at large, with the various instances produced to give countenance unto them (nor is it needful for any so to do, until the answer already given to them be removed), so by the specimen given of their nature and kind, the sober and pious reader may easily judge whether there be any force in them, to evert the persuasion opposed by them; grounded on the catholic tradition and consent of the Jews, the uncontradicted reception of them absolutely, without the least opposition all the world over, by Jews and Christians, the very nature of the punctua tion itself following the genius of the language, not arising or flowing from any artificial rules, the impossibility of assigning any author to it since the days of Ezra, but only by such loose conjectures and imaginations as ought not to be admitted to any plea and place in this weighty cause; all attended with that great uncertainty, which without their owning of these points to be of divine original, we shall be left unto, in all translations and expositions of the Scripture. It is true, whilst the Hebrew language was the vulgar tongue of the nation, and was spoken by every one uniformly every where, it had been possible, that upon a supposition that there were no points, men, without infallible guidance and direction, might possibly affix notes and figures, which might, with some exactness, answer the common pronunciation of the language, and so consequently exhibit the true and proper sense and meaning of the words themselves. But when there had been an interruption of a thousand years in the vulgar use of the language, it being preserved pure only 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, not commonly spoken by any, is to build towns and castles of imaginations, which may be as easily cast down as they are erected. Yet unless this be supposed (which with no colour of reason can be supposed, which is yet so by Capellus and the learned author of the prolegomena), it must be granted, that the great rule of all present translations, expositions, and comments, that have been made in the church of God for some hundreds of ́ years, is the arbitrary invention of some few Jews, living in an obscure corner of the world, under the curse of God; in their unbelief and blindness. The only relief in the prole

gomena, against this amazing inference, is, as was said, that ́ the Massorites affixed not the present punctuation arbitrarily (so also Capellus), but according to the tradition they had received. What weight is to be laid upon such a tradition for near a thousand years (above, according to Morinus), is easily to be imagined. Nor let men please themselves with the pretended facility of learning the Hebrew language without points and accents, and not only the language, but the true and proper reading and distinction of it in the Bible. Let the points and accents be wholly removed, and all apprehensions of the sense arising by 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 naked consonants, and we shall quickly see what woful work, yea havoc of sacred truth, will be made amongst them. Were they shut up in several cells, I should scarcely expect the harmony and agreement amongst them, which is fabulously reported to have been in the like case among the LXX.

איש את לשונו על הקהאה בלצריו לא,The Jews say, and that truly

no man can lift up his tongue to read without punctuation.' And, 'si rationi in his et similibus dominium concedamus, toti mutabuntur libri, in literis, vocibus, et sententiis, et sic res ipsa quoque mutabitur;' lib. Cosri. 1. par. 3. p. 28. And thus have I, with all possible brevity, vindicated the position formerly insisted on, from this grand exception, which might be justly feared from the principles laid down in the prolegomena.

CHAP. VII.

Of the " Their nature and original. The difference is in the consonants. Morinus's vain charge on Arias Montanus. The senses of both consistent. Of the great congregation. The spring and rise of these various readings. The judgment of the Prolegomena about them; their order twice over in the Appendix. The rise assigned to them considered. Of Capellus, his opinion, and the danger of it.

We are not as yet come to a close. There is another thing agitated in these prolegomena, and represented in the appendix, that may seem to derogate from the universality of

my assertion, concerning the entire preservation of the original copies of the Scripture. The 'n or the scriptio and lectio, or scriptum and lectum, is that which I intend. The general nature of these things is known to all them that have looked into the Bible. One word is placed in the line, and another in the margin; the word in the line having not the points or vowels affixed to it that are its own, but those that belong to the word in the margin; of this sort, there are in the Bible eight hundred and forty, or thereabouts; for some of the late editions, by mistake or oversight, do differ in the precise number. All men that have wrote any considerations on the Hebrew text, have spoken of their nature in general; so hath the author of these prolegomena. As to our present concernment, namely, to manifest that from them no argument can arise to the corruption of the original, the ensuing observation concerning them may suffice.

1. All the difference in these words is in the consonants, not at all in the vowels. The word in the margin owns the vowels in the line as proper to it; and the vowels in the line seem to be placed to the word whereunto they do not belong, because there is no other meet place for them in the line where they are to be continued, as belonging to the integrity of the Scripture.

Morinus, to manifest his rage against the Hebrew text, takes from hence occasion to quarrel with Arias Montanus, and to accuse him of ignorance and false dealing; De Heb. Text. sincer. Excer. 1. cap. 4. p. 40.

The pretence of his quarrel he makes to be, that Arias affirms the greatest part of these various lections to consist in some differences of the points; for which purpose, he cites his words out of his preface to his collection of various lections. Maxima in his lectionibus varietatis pars in hujusmodi punctorum discrepantia consistit, ut toto hujus Mazzoreth sive variarum lectionum volumine demonstratur.' Whereunto he subjoins, 'Mira assertio ne una quidem in punctis sita est. Catalogum plurimorum ipse ad finem præfationis adtexuit. Et varietates omnes sunt in literis, nulla in punctis. Confidentius scribo omnium variarum lectionum quas Judæi appellant Keri et Ketib de quibus agit Arias nulla prorsus ad puncta pertinet. Iterum confidentius, &c.' Would not any man think but that the man had made

here some great discovery, both as to the nature of the ', as also to the ignorance of Arias, whom he goes on to reproach as a person unacquainted with the Massora, and with the various lections of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, of the east and western Jews, at the end of the Venetian Bibles; which Bibles he chiefly used in the printing of his own. And yet, on the other hand, men acquainted with the ability and great deserving of Arias, will be hardly persuaded, that he was so blind and ignorant, as to affirm the greatest part of the variety he spoke of, consisted in the changing of vowels, and immediately to give instances, wherein all he mentions consists in the change of consonants only. But what if all this should prove the ignorance and prejudice of Morinus? First, to his redoubled assertion about the difference of the Keri and Ketib in the consonants only, wherein he speaks as though he were blessing the world with a new and strange discovery, it is a thing known lippis et tonsoribus,' and hath been so since the days of Elias Levita; what then intended Arias Montanus to affirm the contrary; 'hic nigri succus loliginis, hæc est ærugo mera;' he speaks not at all of the 'p, but merely of the anomalous pointing of words, in a various way from the genius of the tongue, as they are observed and reckoned up in the Massora: of other varieties he speaks afterward; giving a particular account of the Keri Uketib, which, whether he esteemed various lections or no, I know not. Non si te capuis æques.'. But all are ignorant who are not of the mind of an aspiring Jesuit.

That the difference in the sense, taking in the whole context, is upon the matter very little, or none at all; at least, each word, both that in the line, and that in the margin, yield a sense agreeable to the analogy of faith.

Of all the varieties that are found of this kind, that of two words, the same in sound, but of most distinct significations, seems of the greatest importance; namely i and N fourteen or fifteen times, where not,' is in the text; the margin notes to him,' or 'his,' to be read. But yet, though se seem contrary one to the other, yet wherever this falls out, se agreeable to the analogy of faith ariseth fairly from word. As, to give one or two instances: Psal. c. 3. The hath made us, and not we ourselves.' Keri in the margin is his,' giving this sense; he hath