Chapter 2

CHAP. 2.

1 Of the Purity of the Originals. 2 The [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] of the Scripture lost. 3 That of Moses, how, and how long preserved; Of the book found by Hilkiah. 4 Of the [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] of the New Testament. 5 Of the first copies of the originals: the Scribes of those copies not [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩]. What is ascribed to them. 9 The great and incomparable care of the scribes of it. 7 The whole Word of God, in every Tittle of it preserved entire in the copies of the Original extant. 8 Heads of Arguments to that purpose. 9 What various lections are granted in the Original of the old and new Testament. Sundry considerations concerning them, manifesting them to be of no importance. 10. 11. 12. 13. That the Jews have not corrupted the Text; the most probable instances considered.

Sect. 1. Having given an account of the Occasion of this discourse, and mentioned the particulars that are, all, or some of them, to be taken into further consideration, before I proceed to their discussion, I shall by way of Addition, and Explanation to what hath been delivered in the former Treatise, give a brief account of my Apprehensions concerning the purity of the present Original copies of the Scripture, or rather copies of the Original languages, which the Church of God doth now, and hath for many Ages enjoyed, as her chiefest Treasure; whereby it may more fully appear, what it is, we plead for and defend against the insinuations and pretences above mentioned.

Sect. 2. First then, it is granted that the individual [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] of Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles, are in all probability, and as to all that we know, utterly perished and lost out of the world. As also the copies of Ezra. The Reports mentioned by some to the contrary, are open fictions. The individual Ink and Parchment, the Rolls or books that they wrote, could not without a miracle have been preserved from moldering into dust before this time. Nor doth it seem improbable, that God was willing by their loss to reduce us to a nearer consideration of his care and Providence in the preservation of every Tittle contained in them. Had those individual writings been preserved, men would have been ready to adore them, as the Jews do their own [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] in their Synagogues.

Sect. 3. Moses indeed delivered his original copy of the Pentateuch, in a public Assembly unto the Levites, (that is, the sons of Korah) to be put into the sides of the Ark, and there kept for a perpetual monument. Deut. 31. 25, 26. That individual Book was, I doubt not, preserved until the destruction of the Temple. There is indeed no mention made of the Book of the Law in particular, when the Ark was solemnly carried into the Holy place after the building of Solomons Temple; 2 Chron. 5. 4, 5. But the Tabernacle of the congregation continued until then. That, and all that was in it, is said to be brought up: v. 5. Now the placing of the Book by the sides of the Ark, being so solemn an Ordinance, it was no doubt observed. Nor is there any pretence to the contrary. Some think the Book found by Hilkiah, in the days of Josiah, was this [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], or [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] of Moses, which was placed by the sides of the Ark. It rather seems to have been some ancient Sacred copy, used in the service of the Temple, and laid up there; as there was in the second Temple, which was carried in Triumph to Rome. For besides that he speaks of his finding it in general in the house of the Lord, upon the occasion of the work which was then done, 2 Chron. 14. 15. which was not, in, or about the Holy place, where he, who was High Priest, knew full well this book was kept, it doth not appear that it was lawful for him to take that sacred depositum from its peculiar Archives to send it abroad, as he dealt with that Book which he found. Nay doubtless it was altogether unlawful for him so to have done, it being placed there by a peculiar Ordinance, for a peculiar or special End. After the destruction of the Temple, all enquiry after that Book is in vain. The Author of the second Book of Maccabees mentions not its hiding in Nebo by Jeremiah, with the Ark and Altar; or by Josiah, as say some of the Talmudists. Nor were it of any importance if they had. Of the Scripture preserved in the Temple at its last destruction, Josephus gives us a full account: de bello Juda: lib. 7. cap. 24.

Sect. 4. For the Scriptures of the New Testament, it doth not appear, that the [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] of the several Writers of it were ever gathered into one Volume; there being now no one Church to keep them for the rest. The Epistles though immediately transcribed for the use of other Churches: Col. 4. 16, were doubtless kept in the several Churches, whereunto they were directed. From those [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], there were quickly [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], transcribed copies given out to faithful men, whilst the infallible spirit yet continued his guidance in an extraordinary manner.

Sect. 5. For the first Transcribers of the Original copies, and those who in succeeding Ages have done the like work from them, whereby they have been propagated and continued down to us, in a subserviency to the Providence and Promise of God, we say not, as is vainly charged by Morinus, and Capellus, that they were all or any of them [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩], infallible and divinely inspired, so that it was impossible for them in any thing to mistake. It is known, it is granted, that failings have been amongst them, and that various Lections are from thence risen, of which afterwards. Religious care and diligence in their work, with a due Reverence of him, with whom they had to do, is all we ascribe unto them. Not to acknowledge these freely in them, without clear and unquestionable Evidence to the contrary, is high uncharitableness, impiety, and ingratitude. This care and diligence we say, in a subserviency to the Promise, and Providence of God, hath produced the Effect contended for. Nor is any thing further necessary thereunto. On this account to argue (as some do) from the miscarriages and mistakes of men, their Oscitancy and negligence in transcribing the old Heathen Authors, Homer, Aristotle, Tully, we think it not tolerable in a Christian, or any one that hath the least sense of the nature and importance of the Word, or the care of God towards his Church. Shall we think that men who wrote out Books, wherein themselves and others were no more concerned, than it is possible for men to be in the writings of the Persons mentioned, and others like them, had as much Reason to be careful and diligent in that they did, as those who knew and considered that every letter and Tittle that they were transcribing, was part of the Word of the Great God, wherein the eternal concernment of their own souls, and the souls of others did lie. Certainly whatever may be looked for from the Religious care and diligence of men, lying under a loving and careful Aspect from the Promise and Providence of God, may be justly expected from them who undertook that work. However we are ready to own all their failings, that can be proved. To assert in this case without proof is injurious.

Sect. 6. The Jews have a common saying among them, that to alter one letter of the Law is no less sin, than to set the whole world on fire; and shall we think that in writing it, they took no more care than a man would do in writing out Aristotle or Plato, who for a very little portion of the world, would willingly have done his endeavour to get both their works out of it? Considering that the Word to be transcribed was every Tittle and [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] of it the Word of the great God, that, that which was written, and as written was proposed as his, as from him, that if any failings were made, innumerable Eyes of men, owning their eternal concernment to lie in that Word, were open upon it to discover it, and that thousands of Copies were extant to try it by; and all this known unto, and confessed by every one that undertook this work; it is no hard matter to prove their care and diligence to have out gone that of other common scribes of Heathen Authors. The Truth is, they are prodigious things that are related of the exact diligence and reverential care of the ancient Jews in this work, especially when they entrusted a Copy to be a Rule for the trial and standard of other private copies. Maimonides in [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] Chap. 8. 3, 4; tells us that Ben Asher spent many years in the careful exact writing out of the Bible. Let any man consider the 20 things, which they affirm to profane a Book or Copy, and this will farther appear. They are repeated by Rabbi Moses. Tractat. de libro Legis. cap. 10; one of them, is [⟨ in non-Latin alphabet ⟩] if but one letter be wanting; and another, if but one letter be redundant. Of which more shall be spoken if occasion be offered.

Even among the Heathen, we will scarce think that the Roman Pontifices, going solemnly to transcribe the Sibyls verses, would do it either negligently or treacherously, or alter one Tittle from what they found written; and shall we entertain such thoughts of them, who knew they had to do with the living God, and that in and about that, which is dearer to him, than all the world besides. Let men then clamour as they please, and cry out of all men as ignorant and stupid which will not grant the corruptions of the Old Testament which they plead for, which is the way of Morinus; or let them propose their own conjectures of the ways of the entrance of the mistakes that they pretend are crept into the original copies, with their Remedies, which is the way of Capellus, we shall acknowledge nothing of this nature but what they can prove by undeniable, and irrefragable instances, which as to any thing as yet done by them, or those that follow in their footsteps, appears upon the matter to be nothing at all. To this purpose take our sense in the word of a very learned man. Ut in iis libris qui sine vocalibus conscripti sunt, certum constantémque exemplarium omnium, tum excusarum scriptionem similémque omnino comperimus, sic in omnibus etiam iis quibus puncta sunt addita, non aliam cuipiam nec Discrepantem aliis punctationem observavimus; nec quisquam est qui ullo in loco diversa lectionis Hebraicae exemplaria ab iis quae circumferuntur, vidisse se asserat, modo Grammaticam rationem observatam dicat. Et quidem Dei consilio ac voluntate factum putamus, ut cum magna Graecorum Latinorumque ferè omnium ejusdem auctoris exemplarium, ac praesertim manuscriptorum pluribus in locis varietas deprehendatur, magna tamen in omnibus Hebraicis quaecunque nostro saeculo inveniuntur, Bibliis, scriptionis aequalitas, similitudo atque constantia servetur quocunque modo scripta illa sint, sive solis consonantibus constent, sive punctis etiam instructa visantur; Arias Montan. Praefat. ad Biblia Interlin. de varia Hebraicorum librorum scriptione & lectione.

It can then with no color of probability be asserted, (which yet I find some learned men too free in granting) namely that there hath the same Fate attended the Scripture in its transcription, as hath done other Books. Let me say without offence; this imagination asserted on deliberation, seems to me to border on Atheism. Surely the Promise of God for the Preservation of his Word, with his Love and Care of his Church, of whose faith and obedience that word of his is the only Rule, require other thoughts at our hands.

Section 7. Thirdly. We add that the whole scripture entire, as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the Copies of the Originals yet remaining; What varieties there are among the Copies themselves shall be afterwards declared; in them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the Word. These Copies we say, are the Rule, standard and touchstone of all Translations ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried, corrected, amended, and themselves only by themselves. Translations contain the Word of God, and are the Word of God, perfectly or imperfectly according as they express the words, sense and meaning of those originals. To advance any, all Translations concurring, into an Equality with the Originals, so to set them by it, as to set them up with it, on even terms, much more to propose and use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various lections by them, is to set up an Altar of our own by the Altar of God, and to make equal the Wisdom, care, skill and diligence of men, with the wisdom, care and Providence of God himself. It is a foolish conjecture of Morinus from some words of Epiphanius, that Origen in his Octapla placed the Translation of the 70 in the midst, to be the Rule of all the Rest; even of the Hebrew itself, that was to be regulated and amended by it. (media igitur omnium catholica editio collocata erat, ut ad eam Hebraea caeter aeque editiones exigerentur et emendarentur; Exercitationes book 1, chapter 3, page 15.) The Truth is, he placed the Hebrew, in Hebrew Characters in the first place as the Rule and standard of all the rest; the same in Greek Characters in the next place, then that of Aquila, then that of Symmachus, after which, in the fifth place followed that of the 70 mixed with that of Theodotion.

Section 8. The various Arguments giving Evidence to this Truth that might be produced, are too many for me now to insist upon; and would take up more room than is allotted to the whole discourse, should I handle them at large and according to the merit of this cause. 1. The Providence of God in taking care of his Word, which he hath magnified above all his name, as the most Glorious Product of his Wisdom and Goodness, his great concernment in this world, answering his promise to this purpose; Secondly. The Religious care of the Church (I speak not of the Romish Synagogue) to whom these Oracles of God were committed. Thirdly. The care of the first Writers in giving out Authentic Copies of what they had received from God, unto many which might be Rules to the first transcribers. Fourthly. The multiplying copies to such a number, that it was impossible any should corrupt them all, willfully or by negligence. Fifthly. The preservation of the Authentic copies: first in the Jewish Synagogues, then in Christian Assemblies, with Reverence and diligence. Sixthly. The daily Reading and studying of the Word by all sorts of Persons ever since its first writing, rendering every Alteration liable to immediate observation and discovery, and that all over the world: with, Seventhly. The consideration of the many millions that looked on every Tittle and letter in this Book as their inheritance, which for the whole world they would not be deprived of; And in particular for the old Testament (now most Questioned) Eighthly. The care of Ezra and his companions, the men of the great Synagogue, in restoring the Scripture to its purity, when it had met with the greatest trial that it ever underwent in this World considering the paucity of the Copies then extant. Ninthly. The care of the Masoretes from his days and downward, to keep perfect, and give an account of every syllable in the Scripture, of which see Buxtorfius: Commentary Masora: with 10; The constant consent of all copies in the world, so that as sundry learned men have observed, there is not in the whole Mishna, Gemara, or either Talmud, any one place of Scripture found otherwise read, than as it is now in our copies. 11. The security we have that no mistakes were voluntarily or negligently brought into the Text before the coming of our Savior who was to declare all things, in that he not once reproves the Jews on that account, when yet for their false Glosses on the word he spares them not. 12. Afterwards the watchfulness which the two nations of Jews and Christians, had always one upon another, with sundry things of the like importance might to this purpose be insisted on. But of these things I shall speak again if occasion be offered.

Section 9. Notwithstanding what hath been spoken, we grant that there are, and have been various Lections in the old Testament and the new; For the old Testament the Qere and Ketiv; the various Readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali; of the Eastern and Western Jews evince it. Of the [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] I shall speak peculiarly afterwards: They present themselves to the view of every one that but looks into the Hebrew Bible. At the End of the great Rabbinical Bibles (as they are called) printed by Bomberg at Venice, as also in the Edition of Buxtorfius at Basel, there is a Collection of the various Readings of Ben Asher, and Ben Naphtali; of the Eastern and Western Jews; We have them also in this Appendix. For the two first mentioned, they are called among the Jews, one of them, Rabbi Aaron the Son of Rabbi Moses of the Tribe of Asher; the other Rabbi Moses the Son of David, of the Tribe of Naphtali. They flourished, as is probable among the Jews, about the year of Christ 1030, or thereabouts; and were Teachers of great renown, the former in the West or Palestine, the latter in the East, or Babylon. In their exact consideration of every letter, point, and accent of the Bible wherein they spent their lives, it seems they found out some varieties; Let any one run them through as they are presented in this Appendix, he will find them to be so small, consisting for the most part in unnecessary accents of no importance to the sense of any word, that they deserve not to be taken notice of. For the various Readings of the Oriental, or Babylonian, and Occidental or Palestine Jews, all that I know of them, (and I wish that those that know more of them would inform me better) is that they first appeared in the Edition of the Bible by Bomberg under the care of Felix Pratensis, gathered by Rabbi Jacob Ben Hayyim who corrected that impression. But they give us no account of their Original. Nor (to profess my ignorance) do I know any that do, it may be some do; but in my present haste, I cannot inquire after them. But the thing itself proclaims their no importance, and Cappel the most skillful and diligent improver of all Advantages for impairing the Authority of the Hebrew Text, so to give countenance to his Critica Sacra, confesses that they are all trivial, and not in matters of any moment. Besides these, there are no other various lections of the old Testament. The conjectures of men, conceited of their own Abilities to correct the word of God, are not to be admitted to that Title. If any other can be gathered, or shall be hereafter out of ancient copies of credit and esteem, where no mistake can be discovered as their cause, they deserve to be considered. Men must here deal by instances not conjectures. All that yet appears, impairs not in the least the Truth of our Assertion, that every Tittle and letter of the Word of God, remains in the copies preserved by his merciful Providence for the use of his Church.

Section 10. As to Jews, besides the mad and senseless clamor in General for corrupting the Scriptures, three things are with most pretence of Reason objected against them. 1. The [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]Tikkun Sopherim; or correctio scribarum, by which means it is confessed by Elias, that 18 places are corrected. But all things are here uncertain, uncertain that ever any such things were done; uncertain who are intended by their Sopherim; Ezra and his companions most probably; nor do the particular places enumerated discover any such correction; They are all in particular considered by Glassius, book 1. Tract 1; but the whole matter is satisfactory determined by Buxtorfius in his letters to Glassius, printed by him, and repeated again by Amama, Antibarbari Biblici book 1. page 30. 31. Because this thing is much insisted on by Galatinus, to prove the Jews corrupting of the Text, it may not be amiss to set down the words of that great Master of all Jewish learning.

Section 11. Ad tertium quaesitum tuum, de Tikkun Sopherim, 18 voces hanc censuram subiisse Masora passim notat. Recensio locorum in vestibulo libri Numerorum, et Psalm 106. Utrobique non nisi 16 recensentur, sed in Numeri 12. 12. duo exempla occurrunt, ut notat Rabbi Solomon. Deest ergo unus locus mihi, quem ex nullo Judaeo hactenus expiscari potui, nec magnus ille Mercerus eum invenit. Galatinus hoc thema non intellexit, et aliena exempla admiscet Sic et alii qui corruptiones ista esse putant. Nec ullum hactenus ex nostris sive Evangelicis sive Catholicis vidi, qui explicarit, quae fuerint Scribae isti, et quales [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] ipsorum. Quam antiquae hae notae de Tikkun sint, liquido mihi nondum constat. Antiquior ipsarum memoria est in libro [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] qui ante Talmud Babilonicum fertur conscriptus. Dissentiunt tamen Hebraei; de ejus autore et tempore. In Talmud neutro ulla plane istius Tikkun mentio fit, cum alias [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] longe minoris negotii in Talmud commemoretur. Si aliter ista loca fuissent aliquando scripta, Onkelos et Jonathan id vel semel expressissent. Nec Josephus reticuisset, qui contrarium Hebraeis adscribit, nullam scilicet unquam literam mutatam fuisse in lege ab Hebraeis popularibus suis, book 1. contra Appionem. Talmudistae in Leviticus 27. versu ultimo diversis locis notant, nec Prophetae ulli licitum fuisse vel minimum in Lege mutare vel innovare. Quomodo ergo Scribae quidam vulgares hanc audaciam sibi arrogassent, textum sacrum in literis et sensu corrigere? In silentio itaque omnium, in aurem tibi dico, Sopherim hosce fuisse ipsos autores sacros, Mosen et Prophetas, qui nunquam aliter scripserunt, quam hodie scriptum legitur. At sapientes Hebraeorum nasutiores, animadvertentes inconvenientiam quandam in istis locis, scripserunt, aliter istos autores loqui debuisse, et secundum cohaerentiam propositi textus, sic vel sic scribere, sed pro eo maluisse sic scribere, et id sic efferre, ut illud hodie in textu est. Veluti Genesis 18. 22. lectum scriptum, et Abraham adhuc stabat coram Domino. Itane? ubi legitur, inquiunt sapientes, quod Abraham venerit ad Dominum, et steterit coram eo; Contrarium dicitur in praecedentibus, DEUS scilicet venit ad Abraham, et dixit ad eum: Num ego celo ab Abrahamo et cetera. Clamor Sodomae et Gomorrhae magnus est et cetera. Ideoque Moses scribere debuit. Et Dominus adhuc stabat coram Abrahamo. At ita serviliter de DEO loqui non decuit Mosen, unde [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] correxit et mutavit stylum sermonis, honoris majoris causa, et dixit: Et Abraham adhuc stabat et cetera. Hinc Rabbi Salamo adjicit [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] scribendum ipsi (Mosi) erat, (Seu) scribere debebat, Et Dominus stabat; non quod aliter sic scripserit antea, et postea id ab aliis Scribis correctum sit, aut corruptum. Hinc Rabbi Aben Ezra. ad aliquot loca irridet nasutos, inquiens, nullo Tikkun opus fuisse, id est, nihil esse, quod nasuti isti sapientes putarint, autorem debuisse aliter ibi loqui vel scribere. Vide et eum Job. 32. 3. Habes Mysterium prolixe explicatum, in quo et multi Hebraeorum impegerunt. Thus far Buxtorfius.

Section 12. The [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] are insisted on by the same Galatinus; but these are only about the use of the letter [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] four or five times; which seem to be of the same rise with them foregoing.

13. Section. But that which makes the greatest cry at present is the corruption of Psalm 22:17; where instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which the 70 translated [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] they digged or pierced, that is, my hands and feet, the present Judaical copies, as the Antwerp Bibles also, read [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]as a Lion, so depraving the Prophecy of our Saviour's suffering, they digged or pierced my hands and my feet; leaving it no sense at all; as a Lion my hands and my feet. Simeon de Mues upon the place, pleads the substitution of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] for [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to be a late corruption of the Jews; at least that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] was the Qere, and was left out by them. Johannes Isaak, book 2, to Lindanus: professes that when he was a Jew, he saw [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in a book of his Grandfather's: Buxtorf affirms one to have been the Kethib, the other the Qere, and proves it from the Masora; and blames the Antwerp Bibles for printing [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in the line. With him agree, Genebrard, Pagninus: Vatablus, Mercer, Rivet, etcetera. Others contend that Cari, as a Lion, ought to be retained; repeating [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the verb [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] they compassed me about; affirming also that word to signify to tear, rent, and strike, so that the sense should be, they tare my hands and feet as a Lion. So Voetius de insolubilibus Scripturae. But that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] cannot be here rendered sicut leo, most evince, partly from the anomalous position of the prefix [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] with Kamatz, but chiefly from the Masora, affirming that that word is taken in another sense than it is used, Isaiah 38:13; where it expressly signifies as a lion: The shorter determination is, that from the radix [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] by the Epenthesis [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉], and the change which is used often of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] into [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] (as in the same manner it is, Ezra 10, and the last) in the third person plural, the preterperfect tense of Kal, is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉]perfoderunt, they digged, or pierced through my hands and my feet; but to what purpose is this gleaning after the vintage of Mister Pococke to this purpose, in his excellent Miscellanies.

Section 14. The place of old instanced in by Justin Martyr, Psalm 96 verse 10. Where he charges the Jews to have taken out those words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] from the wood; making the sense, the Lord reigned from the wood, or the Tree, so pointing out the death of Christ on the Cross, is exploded by all: For besides that he speaks of the 70, not of the Hebrew Text, it is evident that those words were foisted into some few copies of that Translation, never being generally received, as is manifested by Fuller Miscellanies: book 3, Chapter 13. And it is a pretty story, that Arias Montanus tells us, of a learned man (I suppose he means Lindanus) pretending that those words were found in an Hebrew Copy of the Psalms of Venerable Antiquity beyond all exception here in England; which Copy coming afterwards to his hand, he found to be a spurious, corrupt novel Transcript, wherein yet the pretended words were not to be found: Arias Montanus Apparatus de variis lectionibus Hebraicis and Massora: And I no way doubt, but that we want opportunity to search and sift some of the copies that men set up against the common reading in sundry places of the New Testament, we should find them, not one whit better, or of more worth than he found that copy of the Psalms.

Chapter 2.

1. Of the purity of the originals. 2. The original manuscripts of Scripture are lost. 3. That of Moses: how and how long it was preserved; of the book found by Hilkiah. 4. Of the original manuscripts of the New Testament. 5. Of the first copies of the originals: the scribes of those copies were not infallible. What is attributed to them. 9. The great and incomparable care of the scribes. 7. The whole Word of God, in every detail of it, preserved entirely in the copies of the original still in existence. 8. Lines of argument to that purpose. 9. What variant readings are acknowledged in the original of the Old and New Testament. Various considerations about them, showing them to be of no importance. 10. 11. 12. 13. That the Jews have not corrupted the text; the most probable examples considered.

Section 1. Having given an account of the occasion for this discussion and mentioned the specific matters that are, all or some of them, to be examined further, before I proceed to discuss them I will, by way of addition and explanation to what was presented in the earlier treatise, give a brief account of my understanding concerning the purity of the present original copies of Scripture — or rather, copies in the original languages — which the Church of God now possesses and has enjoyed for many ages as her greatest treasure. This will make it clearer what it is we are arguing for and defending against the insinuations and claims described above.

Section 2. First, it is granted that the individual original manuscripts of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles have, in all probability and as far as we know, completely perished and been lost from the world. The same is true of the copies of Ezra. Reports to the contrary are obvious fabrications. The actual ink and parchment — the rolls or books they wrote — could not have been preserved from crumbling to dust by now without a miracle. It does not seem unlikely that God was willing, by their loss, to draw us to a closer appreciation of His care and providence in preserving every detail contained in them. Had those individual writings been preserved, people would have been ready to worship them, just as the Jews worship their own Torah scrolls in their synagogues.

Section 3. Moses indeed delivered his original copy of the Pentateuch in a public assembly to the Levites (that is, the sons of Korah) to be placed beside the Ark and kept there as a permanent record. Deuteronomy 31:25-26. I have no doubt that individual book was preserved until the destruction of the Temple. There is indeed no specific mention of the Book of the Law when the Ark was solemnly carried into the Holy Place after the building of Solomon's Temple (2 Chronicles 5:4-5). But the Tabernacle of the congregation continued until then. That, along with everything in it, is said to have been brought up (verse 5). Since the placing of the book beside the Ark was such a solemn ordinance, it was no doubt observed. There is no evidence to the contrary. Some think the book found by Hilkiah in the days of Josiah was this original manuscript of Moses that had been placed beside the Ark. It more likely seems to have been some ancient sacred copy used in the Temple services and stored there — just as there was one in the second Temple, which was carried in triumph to Rome. For besides the fact that he speaks of finding it generally in the house of the Lord during the work being done at that time (2 Chronicles 34:15), which was not in or around the Holy Place where he, as High Priest, knew full well the book was kept, it does not appear that it was lawful for him to remove that sacred deposit from its designated archives and send it out, as he did with the book he found. In fact, it was certainly unlawful for him to have done so, since it had been placed there by a specific ordinance for a specific purpose. After the destruction of the Temple, all searching for that book is pointless. The author of the second Book of Maccabees does not mention its being hidden at Nebo by Jeremiah along with the Ark and Altar, or by Josiah as some of the Talmudists say. Even if they had mentioned it, it would be of no importance. Of the Scripture preserved in the Temple at its last destruction, Josephus gives us a full account: de bello Juda: lib. 7. cap. 24.

Section 4. As for the Scriptures of the New Testament, it does not appear that the original manuscripts of the various writers were ever gathered into one volume, since there was no longer one central church to keep them for the rest. The epistles, though immediately copied for the use of other churches (Colossians 4:16), were no doubt kept in the individual churches to which they were directed. From those originals, certified transcribed copies were quickly given out to faithful men while the infallible Spirit still continued His guidance in an extraordinary manner.

Section 5. As for the first transcribers of the original copies and those who in later ages did the same work from them — by which those copies have been passed down to us under the providence and promise of God — we do not say, as Morinus and Capellus falsely charge, that they were all or any of them infallible and divinely inspired, so that it was impossible for them to make any mistake. It is known and granted that failures have occurred among them, and that variant readings have arisen from this, which I will discuss later. All we attribute to them is religious care and diligence in their work, with a proper reverence for Him with whom they had to do. To refuse to acknowledge this freely in them without clear and unquestionable evidence to the contrary is extreme uncharitableness, impiety, and ingratitude. This care and diligence, we say, working under the promise and providence of God, has produced the result we are contending for. Nothing more is needed. On this basis, to argue (as some do) from the mistakes and errors of men — their carelessness and negligence in copying the old pagan authors Homer, Aristotle, Cicero — we consider intolerable for any Christian, or anyone who has the least understanding of the nature and importance of the Word, or of God's care for His Church. Should we think that people who copied books in which they and others had no deeper stake than it is possible for people to have in the writings of the persons mentioned and others like them, had as much reason to be careful and diligent as those who knew and considered that every letter and detail they were copying was part of the Word of the great God, on which the eternal destiny of their own souls and the souls of others depended? Whatever may be expected from the religious care and diligence of people living under the loving and watchful protection of God's promise and providence may justly be expected from those who undertook this work. However, we are ready to acknowledge all their failures that can be proved. To assert failures in this case without proof is unjust.

Section 6. The Jews have a common saying among them that to alter one letter of the Law is no less a sin than to set the whole world on fire. Should we think that in copying it, they took no more care than a person would take in copying Aristotle or Plato — someone who, for a very small portion of the world, would gladly have tried to destroy both their works? Considering that the Word to be copied was, in every detail and letter of it, the Word of the great God; that what was written and as it was written was presented as His, as coming from Him; that if any mistakes were made, countless eyes of people who staked their eternal destiny on that Word were watching to catch them; and that thousands of copies were available to check it against — all of which was known to and admitted by everyone who undertook this work — it is not hard to prove that their care and diligence surpassed that of ordinary scribes copying pagan authors. The truth is, the accounts of the exact diligence and reverent care of the ancient Jews in this work are astonishing, especially when they entrusted a copy to serve as a standard for testing other private copies. Maimonides in his work, chapter 8, sections 3-4, tells us that Ben Asher spent many years in the careful, exact copying of the Bible. Let anyone consider the twenty things they say will profane a book or copy, and this will become even clearer. They are listed by Rabbi Moses in his Treatise on the Book of the Law, chapter 10. One of them is if even one letter is missing, and another is if even one letter is added. More will be said about this if the occasion arises.

Even among the pagans, we would hardly think that the Roman Pontifices, going solemnly to copy out the Sibyl's verses, would have done it either negligently or dishonestly, or would have changed one detail from what they found written. Should we hold such thoughts about those who knew they were dealing with the living God, and doing so in and about what is dearer to Him than all the world besides? Let people complain as they wish and call everyone ignorant and stupid who will not grant the corruptions of the Old Testament that they argue for (which is the approach of Morinus), or let them propose their own guesses about how the mistakes they claim have crept into the original copies supposedly got there, along with their remedies (which is the approach of Capellus). We will acknowledge nothing of this kind except what they can prove by undeniable and irrefutable examples — which, as far as anything yet done by them or those who follow in their footsteps, turns out to be nothing at all. To this end, take our position in the words of a very learned man: Ut in iis libris qui sine vocalibus conscripti sunt, certum constantemque exemplarium omnium, tum excusarum scriptionem similemque omnino comperimus, sic in omnibus etiam iis quibus puncta sunt addita, non aliam cuipiam nec Discrepantem aliis punctationem observavimus; nec quisquam est qui ullo in loco diversa lectionis Hebraicae exemplaria ab iis quae circumferuntur, vidisse se asserat, modo Grammaticam rationem observatam dicat. Et quidem Dei consilio ac voluntate factum putamus, ut cum magna Graecorum Latinorumque fere omnium ejusdem auctoris exemplarium, ac praesertim manuscriptorum pluribus in locis varietas deprehendatur, magna tamen in omnibus Hebraicis quaecunque nostro saeculo inveniuntur, Bibliis, scriptionis aequalitas, similitudo atque constantia servetur quocunque modo scripta illa sint, sive solis consonantibus constent, sive punctis etiam instructa visantur; Arias Montan. Praefat. ad Biblia Interlin. de varia Hebraicorum librorum scriptione & lectione.

It cannot then be asserted with any appearance of probability (which I find some learned men too freely granting) that the same fate has befallen Scripture in its copying as has befallen other books. Let me say without offense: this idea, asserted after careful thought, seems to me to border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of His Word, together with His love and care for His Church (of whose faith and obedience that Word is the only rule), demands better thinking from us.

Section 7. Thirdly, we add that the whole Scripture, complete as given by God without any loss, is preserved in the copies of the originals still in existence. What variations there are among the copies themselves will be discussed later. In them all, we say, every letter and detail of the Word is found. These copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations, ancient or modern. By these copies all translations are to be examined, tested, corrected, and amended — and the originals themselves are only to be judged by themselves. Translations contain the Word of God and are the Word of God, perfectly or imperfectly, according to how well they express the words, sense, and meaning of the originals. To elevate any or all translations together to equality with the originals — to set them alongside it so as to place them on the same level with it, and even more to use them as tools for correcting, amending, or altering anything in the originals or for gathering variant readings from them — is to set up an altar of our own beside the altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men with the wisdom, care, and providence of God Himself. It is a foolish conjecture of Morinus, based on some words of Epiphanius, that Origen in his Octapla placed the translation of the Seventy in the middle to be the standard for all the rest — even of the Hebrew itself, which was supposedly to be corrected and amended by it. (media igitur omnium catholica editio collocata erat, ut ad eam Hebraea caeteraeque editiones exigerentur et emendarentur; Exercitationes book 1, chapter 3, page 15.) The truth is, he placed the Hebrew in Hebrew characters in the first position as the rule and standard of all the rest; the same in Greek characters in the second position; then that of Aquila; then that of Symmachus; after which, in the fifth place, followed that of the Seventy mixed with that of Theodotion.

Section 8. The various arguments giving evidence to this truth that could be produced are too many for me to cover now. They would take up more room than is allotted for this entire discourse if I were to handle them at length and as the importance of this cause deserves. 1. The providence of God in taking care of His Word, which He has exalted above all His name, as the most glorious product of His wisdom and goodness — His great concern in this world — answering His promise to this purpose. Secondly, the religious care of the Church (I am not speaking of the Roman synagogue) to whom these oracles of God were entrusted. Thirdly, the care of the original writers in distributing authentic copies of what they had received from God to many people, which could serve as standards for the first copyists. Fourthly, the multiplication of copies to such a number that it was impossible for anyone to corrupt them all, whether deliberately or through negligence. Fifthly, the preservation of authentic copies: first in the Jewish synagogues, then in Christian assemblies, with reverence and diligence. Sixthly, the daily reading and studying of the Word by all kinds of people ever since it was first written, making every alteration subject to immediate detection and discovery throughout the whole world. Along with this, seventhly: The consideration of the many millions who regarded every detail and letter in this book as their inheritance, which they would not be deprived of for the whole world. And specifically for the Old Testament (now most questioned), eighthly: The care of Ezra and his companions, the men of the Great Synagogue, in restoring Scripture to its purity when it had faced the greatest trial it has ever undergone in this world, considering how few copies existed at that time. Ninthly, the care of the Masoretes from his days onward, to keep a perfect account of every syllable in Scripture (on this, see Buxtorfius: Commentary on the Masora). Along with, tenthly: The constant agreement of all copies in the world, so that, as various learned men have observed, there is not a single passage of Scripture found in the entire Mishnah, Gemara, or either Talmud that is read differently than it is in our copies today. 11. The assurance we have that no mistakes were deliberately or carelessly introduced into the text before the coming of our Savior, who was to declare all things, given that He never once rebukes the Jews on that account — even though He does not spare them for their false interpretations of the Word. 12. Afterward, the vigilance that the two communities of Jews and Christians have always kept over one another, along with various other considerations of similar importance, could be pressed into service for this purpose. But I will speak of these things again if the occasion arises.

Section 9. Despite what has been said, we grant that there are and have been variant readings in both the Old Testament and the New. For the Old Testament, the Qere and Ketiv, the variant readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, and those of the Eastern and Western Jews prove this. I will speak specifically about the Qere and Ketiv later. They present themselves to the view of anyone who merely glances at the Hebrew Bible. At the end of the great Rabbinical Bibles (as they are called) printed by Bomberg in Venice, and also in the edition of Buxtorfius at Basel, there is a collection of the variant readings of Ben Asher and Ben Naphtali, and of the Eastern and Western Jews. We have them also in this Appendix. Regarding the first two mentioned, they are known among the Jews as: one of them, Rabbi Aaron the son of Rabbi Moses of the tribe of Asher, and the other, Rabbi Moses the son of David of the tribe of Naphtali. They flourished, as is probable among the Jews, around the year 1030 AD, and were teachers of great reputation — the former in the West, or Palestine, the latter in the East, or Babylon. In their exact examination of every letter, point, and accent of the Bible, in which they spent their lives, it seems they discovered some variations. Let anyone look through them as they are presented in this Appendix, and he will find them to be so small — consisting for the most part of unnecessary accents with no bearing on the meaning of any word — that they do not deserve to be noticed. As for the variant readings of the Oriental (or Babylonian) and Occidental (or Palestinian) Jews, all I know about them (and I wish that those who know more would inform me better) is that they first appeared in the edition of the Bible by Bomberg under the supervision of Felix Pratensis, gathered by Rabbi Jacob Ben Hayyim who corrected that printing. But they give us no account of their origin. Nor (to confess my ignorance) do I know anyone who does. Perhaps some scholars do, but in my present haste I cannot track them down. But the thing itself declares their lack of importance, and Cappel — the most skillful and determined exploiter of every opportunity to undermine the authority of the Hebrew text, in order to support his Critica Sacra — admits that they are all trivial and do not concern matters of any significance. Besides these, there are no other variant readings of the Old Testament. The guesses of people who are confident in their own ability to correct the Word of God are not to be given that title. If any others can be gathered, or are gathered in the future, from ancient copies of credit and reputation, where no scribal mistake can be identified as their cause, they deserve to be considered. People must deal here with actual examples, not guesses. Everything that has appeared so far does not weaken in the least our assertion that every detail and letter of the Word of God remains in the copies preserved by His merciful providence for the use of His Church.

Section 10. As for the Jews, besides the reckless and senseless accusations in general about them corrupting the Scriptures, three things are objected against them with the most appearance of reason. 1. The Tikkun Sopherim, or correction of the scribes, by which means it is claimed by Elias that eighteen places were corrected. But everything here is uncertain: uncertain whether any such things were ever done; uncertain who is meant by their Sopherim (most probably Ezra and his companions). Nor do the specific passages listed reveal any such correction. They are all individually examined by Glassius (book 1, Tract 1), but the whole matter is satisfactorily settled by Buxtorfius in his letters to Glassius (printed by him, and repeated again by Amama, Antibarbari Biblici book 1, pages 30-31). Because Galatinus insists heavily on this point to prove the Jews' corruption of the text, it may be worth quoting the words of that great master of all Jewish learning.

Section 11. Ad tertium quaesitum tuum, de Tikkun Sopherim, 18 voces hanc censuram subiisse Masora passim notat. Recensio locorum in vestibulo libri Numerorum, et Psalm 106. Utrobique non nisi 16 recensentur, sed in Numeri 12:12 duo exempla occurrunt, ut notat Rabbi Solomon. Deest ergo unus locus mihi, quem ex nullo Judaeo hactenus expiscari potui, nec magnus ille Mercerus eum invenit. Galatinus hoc thema non intellexit, et aliena exempla admiscet Sic et alii qui corruptiones ista esse putant. Nec ullum hactenus ex nostris sive Evangelicis sive Catholicis vidi, qui explicarit, quae fuerint Scribae isti, et quales ipsorum. Quam antiquae hae notae de Tikkun sint, liquido mihi nondum constat. Antiquior ipsarum memoria est in libro qui ante Talmud Babilonicum fertur conscriptus. Dissentiunt tamen Hebraei; de ejus autore et tempore. In Talmud neutro ulla plane istius Tikkun mentio fit, cum alias longe minoris negotii in Talmud commemoretur. Si aliter ista loca fuissent aliquando scripta, Onkelos et Jonathan id vel semel expressissent. Nec Josephus reticuisset, qui contrarium Hebraeis adscribit, nullam scilicet unquam literam mutatam fuisse in lege ab Hebraeis popularibus suis, book 1. contra Appionem. Talmudistae in Leviticus 27 versu ultimo diversis locis notant, nec Prophetae ulli licitum fuisse vel minimum in Lege mutare vel innovare. Quomodo ergo Scribae quidam vulgares hanc audaciam sibi arrogassent, textum sacrum in literis et sensu corrigere? In silentio itaque omnium, in aurem tibi dico, Sopherim hosce fuisse ipsos autores sacros, Mosen et Prophetas, qui nunquam aliter scripserunt, quam hodie scriptum legitur. At sapientes Hebraeorum nasutiores, animadvertentes inconvenientiam quandam in istis locis, scripserunt, aliter istos autores loqui debuisse, et secundum cohaerentiam propositi textus, sic vel sic scribere, sed pro eo maluisse sic scribere, et id sic efferre, ut illud hodie in textu est. Veluti Genesis 18:22 lectum scriptum, et Abraham adhuc stabat coram Domino. Itane? ubi legitur, inquiunt sapientes, quod Abraham venerit ad Dominum, et steterit coram eo; Contrarium dicitur in praecedentibus, DEUS scilicet venit ad Abraham, et dixit ad eum: Num ego celo ab Abrahamo et cetera. Clamor Sodomae et Gomorrhae magnus est et cetera. Ideoque Moses scribere debuit. Et Dominus adhuc stabat coram Abrahamo. At ita serviliter de DEO loqui non decuit Mosen, unde correxit et mutavit stylum sermonis, honoris majoris causa, et dixit: Et Abraham adhuc stabat et cetera. Hinc Rabbi Salamo adjicit scribendum ipsi (Mosi) erat, (Seu) scribere debebat, Et Dominus stabat; non quod aliter sic scripserit antea, et postea id ab aliis Scribis correctum sit, aut corruptum. Hinc Rabbi Aben Ezra. ad aliquot loca irridet nasutos, inquiens, nullo Tikkun opus fuisse, id est, nihil esse, quod nasuti isti sapientes putarint, autorem debuisse aliter ibi loqui vel scribere. Vide et eum Job 32:3. Habes Mysterium prolixe explicatum, in quo et multi Hebraeorum impegerunt. Thus far Buxtorfius.

Section 12. The same Galatinus also insists on certain other marks, but these concern only the use of a single Hebrew letter four or five times, and they seem to originate in the same way as the ones discussed above.

Section 13. But the issue that raises the greatest outcry at present is the corruption of Psalm 22:17, where instead of the reading that the Seventy translated as "they dug" or "pierced" — that is, my hands and feet — the present Jewish copies, as well as the Antwerp Bibles, read "as a lion," thus corrupting the prophecy of our Savior's suffering ("they dug or pierced my hands and my feet") and leaving it with no sense at all: "as a lion my hands and my feet." Simeon de Mues, commenting on the passage, argues that the substitution was a late corruption by the Jews — or at least that the correct reading was the Qere and was left out by them. Johannes Isaak (book 2, to Lindanus) testifies that when he was a Jew, he saw the reading "pierced" in a book belonging to his grandfather. Buxtorf affirms that one reading was the Kethib and the other the Qere, and proves it from the Masora. He blames the Antwerp Bibles for printing the wrong reading in the main text. With him agree Genebrard, Pagninus, Vatablus, Mercer, Rivet, and others. Others argue that the reading "as a lion" should be kept, supplying the verb "they surrounded me" from earlier in the verse, and also claiming that the word can mean to tear, rend, and strike, so that the sense would be: "they tore my hands and feet as a lion." So argues Voetius in his work on the difficult passages of Scripture. But most scholars demonstrate that the word cannot be rendered as a lion here, partly from the unusual form of the Hebrew prefix with a certain vowel, and chiefly from the Masora, which states that this word is used in a different sense than it has in Isaiah 38:13, where it expressly means as a lion. The simpler conclusion is that from the Hebrew root, through certain well-known letter additions and changes that occur regularly in the third person plural of the past tense, the resulting word means "they pierced" or "they dug through" my hands and my feet. But what use is this gleaning after the harvest of Mr. Pococke's treatment of the subject in his excellent Miscellanies?

Section 14. The passage long cited by Justin Martyr — Psalm 96:10 — where he accuses the Jews of having removed the words "from the wood," making the sense "the Lord reigned from the wood" or the tree, thus pointing to the death of Christ on the cross, is rejected by everyone. For besides the fact that he is speaking of the Seventy, not of the Hebrew text, it is clear that those words were inserted into a few copies of that translation and were never generally accepted, as is demonstrated by Fuller in his Miscellanies (book 3, chapter 13). And it is an interesting story that Arias Montanus tells us about a learned man (I assume he means Lindanus) who claimed that those words were found in a Hebrew copy of the Psalms of ancient and unquestionable authority here in England. But when this copy later came into his hands, he found it to be a fake, corrupt, recent transcript in which the supposed words were not even to be found (Arias Montanus, Apparatus de variis lectionibus Hebraicis and Massora). I have no doubt that if we had the opportunity to search and examine some of the copies that people set up against the standard reading in various places of the New Testament, we would find them not one bit better or more valuable than he found that copy of the Psalms.