made us, and his we are;' the verb substantive being included in the pronoun. So Isa. Ixiii. 9. So Isa. Ixiii. 9.as only be in all their afflictions or straits, no straitness; so the the straitness or affliction was to him,' or 'he was straitened or afflicted.' In the first way, God signifieth that when they were in their outward straits, yet he was not straitened from their relief; in the other, that he had compassion for them, was afflicted with them, which, upon the matter, is the same; and the like may be shewed of the rest.

1

:

I confess, I am not able fully to satisfy myself in the original and spring of all this variety, being not willing merely to depend on the testimony of the Jews, much less on the conjectures of late innovators. To the uttermost length of my view, to give a full account of this thing is a matter of no small difficulty. Their venerable antiquity and unquestionable reception by all translators, gives them sanctuary from being cast down from the place they hold by any man's bare conjecture. That which, to me, is of the greatest importance, is, that they appear most of them to have been in the Bibles, then, when the oracles of God were committed to the Jews, during which time we find them not blamed for adding or altering one word or tittle. Hence the Chaldee Paraphrast often follows the ròp which never was in the line, whatever some boastingly conjecture to the contrary: and sometimes the rò 'n. That which seems to me most probable is, that they were collected, for the most part of them, by that bina and was the men of the great congregation.' Some, indeed, I find of late (I hope not out of a design to bring all things to a farther confusion about the original), to question whether ever there were any such thing as the great congregation. Morinus calls it a Judaical figment. Our prolegomena question it. Prol. 8. sect. 22. But this is only to question, whether Ezra, Nehemiah, Joshua, Zachariah, Haggai, and the rest of the leaders of the people in their return from the captivity, did set a Sanhedrim, according to the institution of God, and labour to reform the church and all the corruptions that were crept either into the word or worship of God. I see not how this can reasonably be called into question, if we had not to confirm it the catholic tradition of Jews and Christians. Neither is it

called the great congregation from its number, but eminency of persons. Now on this supposition it may be granted, that the on the books of these men themselves, Ezra and the rest, were collected by the succeeding churches; unless we shall suppose with Ainsworth, that the word was so received from God, as to make both necessary. And if we know not the true cause of its being so given, we have nothing to blame but our own ignorance, this not being the only case wherein we have reason so to do. Our last translation generally rendereth the word in the margin, noting also the word in the line where there is any considerable difference. Those who have leisure for such a work, may observe what choice is used in this case by old and modern translators. And, if they had not believed them to have had an authoritative original beyond the impeachment of any man in these days, they could not fairly and honestly have used both line and margin, as they have done.

What says now our prolegomena, with the appendix unto these things.

1. We have them in the appendix, represented unto us in their own order, according as they are found in the books of the Scriptures; and then over again, in the order and under the heads that they are drawn and driven unto by Capellus; a task that learned man took upon himself, that he might, in the performance of it, give some countenance to his opinion, that they are, for the most part, critical emendations of the text, made by some late Massorites, that came no man knows whence; that live, no man knows where, nor when. Thus, whereas these Keri Uketib have the only face and appearance upon the matter, of various lections upon the Old Testament (for the Jews' collections of the various readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, of the oriental and occidental Jews, are of no value, nor ever had place in their Bible, and may be rejected), the unwary viewer of the appendix is presented with a great bulk of them, their whole army being mustered twice over in this service.

But this inconvenience may be easily amended, nor am I concerned in it. Wherefore, thirdly, for the rise of them it is said, that some of them are the amendments of the Massorites or Rabbins; others, various lections out of divers

-copies. That they are all, or the most part of them, critical amendments of the Rabbins is not allowed; for which latter part of his determination we thank the learned author; and take leave to say that in the former we are not satisfied; Prol. 8. 23-25. the arguments that are produced to prove them not to have been from Ezra, but the most part from post-talmudical Rabbins, are capable of a very easy solution, which also another occasion may discover; at present I am gone already too far beyond my intention, so that I cannot allow myself any farther digression.

To answer briefly. Ezra and his companions might be the collectors of all those in the Bible but their own books; and those in their own books might be added by the succeeding church. The oriental and occidental Jews, differ about other things as well as the Keri and Ketib. The rule of the Jews, that the Keri is always to be followed, is novel; and therefore the old translators might read either, or both, as they saw cause. There was no occasion at all why these things should be mentioned by Josephus, Philo, Origen : Hierome says, indeed, on Isa. xlix. 5. that Aquila rendered that word, to him,' which is written with 5 and , not and 1. But he makes it not appear that Aquila read not as he translated, that is, by the p. And for what is urged of the Chaldee and LXX, making use of the Keri and Ketib, it is not intended that they knew the difference under these names, but that these differences were in their days. That the word now in the margin was in the line until the days of the pretended Massorites, is not to be said nakedly but proved, if such a novel fancy expect any credit in the world. That the Judaical Rabbins have made some alterations in the text of their own accord, at least, placed words in the margin, as to their consonants, supplying their vowels in the line where they ought not to have place; that there were various lections in the copies after the Talmud, which have been gathered by some obscure Jews, no mention being made of those collections in the Massora, or any of their grammarians, is the sum of the discourse under consideration. When all this, or any part of it, is proved by testimony, or evident reason, we shall farther attend unto it.

In the mean time I cannot but rejoice, that Capellus's fancy about these things, than which I know nothing more

pernicious to the truth of God, is rejected. If these hundreds of words were the critical conjectures and amendments of the Jews, what security have we of the mind of God, as truly represented unto us, seeing that it is supposed also, that some of the words in the margin were sometimes in the line; and if it be supposed, as it is, that there are innumerable other places of the like nature, standing in need of such amendments, what a door would be opened to curious pragmatical wits, to overturn all the certainty of the truth of the Scripture, every one may see. Give once this liberty to the audacious curiosity of men, priding themselves in their critical abilities, and we shall quickly find out what woful state and condition the truth of the Scripture will be brought unto. If the Jews have made such amendments and corrections of the text, and that to so good purpose, and if so much work of the like kind yet remain, can any man possibly better employ himself, than, with his uttermost diligence, to put his hand to this plough. But he that pulleth down a hedge, a serpent shall bite him.

CHAP. VIII.

The proper use The state of the

Of gathering various lections by the help of translations. and benefit of translations. Their new pretended use. originals on this new pretence. Of the remedy tendered to the relief of that state. No copies of old differing in the least from those we now enjoy, from the testimony of our Saviour. No testimony, new or old, to that purpose. Requisites unto good translations. Of the translations in the Biblia Polyglotta. Of the Arabic. Of the Syriac. Of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Of the Chaldee paraphrase. Of the vulgar Latin. Of the Seventy. Of the translation of the New Testament. Of the Persian. Of the Ethiopian ̧ The value of these translations as to the work in hand. Of the supposition of gross corruption in the originals. Of various lections out of Grotius. Of the Appendix in general.

BECAUSE it is the judgment of some, that yet other objections may be raised against the thesis pleaded for, from what is affirmed in the prolegomena about gathering various lections by the help of translations, and the instances of that good work given us in the appendix, I shall close this discourse with the consideration of that pretence.

The great and signal use of various translations, which hitherto we have esteemed them for, was the help afforded by them in expositions of the Scripture. To have represented unto us in one view the several apprehensions and judgments of so many worthy and learned men, as were the authors of these translations, upon the original words of the Scripture, is a signal help and advantage unto men inquiring into the mind and will of God in his word. That translations were of any other use formerly, was not apprehended. They are of late presented unto us under another notion: namely, as means and helps of correcting the original, and finding out the corruptions that are in our present copies, shewing that the copies which their authors used, did really differ from those which we now enjoy and use. For this rare invention we are, as for the former, chiefly beholden to the learned and most diligent Capellus, who is followed, as in sundry instances himself declares, by the no less learned Grotius. To this purpose the scene is thus laid: it is supposed of old there were sundry copies of the Old Testament differing in many things, words, sentences, from those we now enjoy. Out of these copies, some of the ancient translations have been made. In their translations they express the sense and meaning of the copies they made use of. Hence, by considering what they deliver, where they differ from our present copies, we may find out (that is, learned men who are expert at conjectures may do so) how they read in theirs. Thus may we come to a farther discovery of the various corruptions that are crept into the Hebrew text, and by the help of those translations amend them. Thus Capellus. The learned author of our prolegomena handles this business, Prol. 6. I do not remember that he expressly any where affirms that they had other copies than those we now enjoy; but, whereas (besides the Keri and Ketib, the various readings of Ben Asher, and Ben Naphtali, of the east and western Jews), there are, through the neglect, oscitancy, and frailty of the transcribers, many things befallen the text, not such failings as happening in one copy, may be easily rectified by others, which are not to be regarded as various lections, nor such as may be collected out of any ancient copies, but faults, or mistakes, in all the copies we enjoy, or have ever been known, by the help and use of translations,