OF THE DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES;
For my own part, I must confess that I shall as soon believe a poor, deluded, fanatical Quaker, pretending to be guided by an infallible Spirit, as their pope with his whole conclave of cardinals, upon the terms here laid down by Morinus.
But, to let these men pass for a season, had this leprosy kept itself within that house which is thoroughly infected, it had been of less importance; it is but a further preparation of it for the fire. But it is now broken forth among Protestants also; with what designs, to what end or purpose, I know not, — Θεος οιδε, “God Knows” and the day will manifest.” To declare at large how this is come about, “longa esset historia,” — too long for me to dwell upon; some heads of things I shall briefly touch at. It is known to all that the reformation of religion and restoration of good learning were begun and carried on at the same time, and mostly by the same persons. There was, indeed, a triumvirate among the Papists of men excellently skilled in rabbinical learning before the Reformation.
Raymundus Martinus, Porchetus de Sylvaticis, and Petrus Galatinus, are the men; of the which the last dedicated his book to Maximilian the emperor, after that Zuinglius and Luther had begun to preach. Upon the matter, these three are but one: great are the disputes whether Galatinus stole his book from Raymundus or Porchetius, saith Morinus, and calls his work “Plagium portentosum, cui vix simile unquam factum est.” (Exerc. 1, cap. 2.) From Raymundus, saith Scaliget (Epist. 2:41), mistaking Raymundus Martinus for Raymundus Sebon, but giving the first tidings to the world of that book. From Raymundus also saith Josephus de Voysin, in his prolegomena to the Pugio Fidei; and from him Hornbeck, in his proleg, ad Jud. I shall not interpose in this matter. The method of Gaiatinus and his style are peculiar to him, but the coincidences of his quotations too many to be ascribed to common accident. That Porchetus took his “Victoria adversus impios Judaeos” for the most part from Raymundus, he himself confesseth in his preface. However, certain it is Galatinus had no small opinion of his own skill, and, therefore, — according to the usual way of men who have attained, as they think, to some eminency in any one kind of learning, laying more weight upon it than it is able to bear, — he boldly affirms that the original of the Scripture is corrupted, and not to be restored but by the Talmud; in which one concession he more injures the cause he pleads for against the Jews than he advantageth it by all his books beside. Of his גלי יזייא of Rabbi Hakkadosh there is no more news as yet in the world than what he is pleased to acquaint us withal. At the same time, Erasmus, Reuchlin, Vives, Xantes Pagninus, and others, moved effectually for the restoration of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. But the work principally prospered in the hands of the first reformers, as they were all of them generally skilled in the Hebrew, — some of them, as Capito, Bibliander, Fagius, Munster, to that height and usefulness that they may well be reckoned as the fathers and patriarchs of that learning. At that time lived Elias Levita, the most learned of the Jews of that age, whose grammatical writings were of huge importance in the studying of that tongue. This man, as he was acquainted with many of the first reformers, so he lived particularly with Paulus Fagius, as I have elsewhere declared. Now, in one book which in those days he published, called “Masoreth Hammasoreth,” he broached a new opinion, not much heard of, at least not at all received, among the Jews, nor, for aught that yet appears, once mentioned by Christians before, namely, that the points or vowels, and accents, used in the Hebrew Bible were invented by some critical Jew or Masorete, living at Tiberias about five or six hundred years after Christ. No doubt the man’s aim was to reduce the world of Christians to a dependence on the ancient Rabbins for the whole sense of the Scripture. “Hinc prima mali labes.” Here lies the first breach in this matter. The fraud being not discovered, and this opinion being broached and confirmed by the great and almost only master of the language of that age, some even of the first reformers embraced his fancy.
Perhaps Zuinglius had spoken to it before; justly I know not. After a while, the poison of this error beginning to operate, the Papists, waiting on the mouths of the reformers, like the servants of Benhadad on Ahab, to catch at every word that might fall from them to their advantage, began to make use of it. Hence Cochlaeus (lib. de Auth. Scripturae, cap. 5.) applauds Luther for saying the Jews had corrupted the Bible with points and distinctions; as well he might, for nothing could be spoken more to the advantage of his cause against him. Wherefore other learned men began to give opposition to this error; so did Munster, Junius, and others, as will be shown in the ensuing discourse. Thus this matter rested for a season. The study of the Hebrew tongue and learning being carried on, it fell at length on him who undoubtedly hath done more real service for the promotion of it than any one man whatever, Jew or Christian; I mean Buxtorfius the elder. His Thesaurus Grammaticus, his Tiberias, or Commentarius Masorethicus, his Lexicons and Concordances, and many other treatises, whereof some are not yet published, evince this to all the world. Even Morinus saith that he is the only man among Christians that ever thoroughly understood the Masora; and Simeon de Muis acknowledgeth his profiting by him and learning from him. Other Jews who undertake to be teachers know nothing but what they learn of him. To omit the testimony of all sorts of learned men, giving him the pre-eminence in this learning, it may suffice that his works praise him. Now, this man, in his Tiberias, or Commentarius Masorethicus, printed with the great Rabbinical Bible of his own correct setting forth at Basil, anno 1620, considereth at large this whole matter of the points, and discovereth the vanity of Elias’ pretension about the Tiberian Masoretes. But we must not, it seems, rest here; within a few years after, to make way for another design, which then he had conceived, Ludovieus Cappellus published a discourse in the defense of the opinion of Elias (at least so far as concerned the rise of the punctuation), under the title of “Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum.” The book was published by Erpenius, without the name of the author. But the person was sufficiently known; and Rivetus not long after took notice of him, and saith he was his friend, but concealed his name. (Isag. ad Scrip. 1, cap. 8.) This new attempt immediately pleaseth some. Among others, our learned professor, Dr Prideaux, reads a public lecture, on the vespers of our Comitia, on that subject; wherein, though he prefaceth his discourse with an observation of the advantage the Papists make of that opinion of the novelty of the points, and the danger of it, yet upon the matter he falls in wholly with Cappellus, though he names him not. Among the large encomiums of himself and his work, printed by Cappellus in the close of his “Critica Sacra,” there are two letters from one Mr Eyre here in England; in one whereof he tells him that without doubt the Doctor read on that subject by the help of his book, as indeed he useth his arguments and quotes his treatise, under the name of “Sud Hanisebhoth Hanaegalah.” But that, I say, which seems to me most admirable in the Doctor’s discourse is, that whereas he had prefaced it with the weight of the controversy he had in hand, by the advantage the Papists make of the opinion of the novelty of the points, citing their words to that purpose, himself in the body of his Exercitations falls in with them, and speaks the very things which he seemed before to have blamed. And by this means this opinion, tending so greatly to the disparagement of the authority of the originals, is crept in amongst Protestants also. Of the stop put unto its progress by the full and learned answer of Buxtorfius the younger (who alone in this learning, in this age, seems to answer his fathers worth) unto Cappellus, in his discourse, “De Punctorum Yocalium Antiquitate,” I shall speak more afterward. However, it is not amiss fallen out that the masters of this new persuasion are not at all agreed among themselves. Cappellus would have it easy to understand the Hebrew text, and every word, though not absolutely by itself, yet as it lies in its contexture, though there were no points at all. Morinus would make the language altogether unintelligible on that account. The one saith that the points are a late invention of the Rabbins; and the other, that without them the understanding of the Hebrew is εκ των αδυνατων: though they look diverse ways, there is a firebrand between them. But we have this brand brought yet nearer to the church’s bread-corn in the Prolegomena to the Biblia Polyglotta, lately printed at London. The solemn espousal of this opinion of the Hebrew punctuation in that great work was one chief occasion of the second discourse, as you will find it at large declared in the entrance of it. I dare not mention the desperate consequences that attend this imagination, being affrighted, among other things, by a little treatise lately sent me (upon the occasion of a discourse on this subject) by my worthy and learned friend Dr Ward, entitled “Fides Divina;” wherein its author, whoever he be, from some principles of this nature, and unwary expressions of some learned men amongst us, labors to eject and east out as useless the whole Scripture or Word of God. I should have immediately returned an answer to that pestilent discourse, but that upon consideration I found all his objections obviated or answered in the ensuing treatises, which were then wholly finished. And this, as I said, was the first way whereby the poison of undervaluing the originals crept in among Protestants themselves.
Now, together with the knowledge of the tongues, the use of that knowledge in critical observations did also increase. The excellent use of this study and employment, with the fruits of it in the explanation of sundry difficulties, with many other advantages, cannot be easily expressed. But as the best things are apt to be most abused, so in particular it hath fallen out with this kind of learning and study.
Protestants here also have chiefly managed the business. Beza, Camerarius, Sealiger, Casauben, Drusius, Gomarus, Ussher, Grotius, Heinsius, Fuller, Dieu, Mede, Cameron, Glassius, Cappellus, Amama, with innumerable others, have excelled in this kind. But the mind of man being exceedingly vain. glorious, curious, uncertain, after a door to reputation and renown by this kind of learning was opened in the world, it quickly spread itself over all bounds and limits of sobriety The manifold inconveniences, if not mischiefs, that have ensued on the boldness and curiosity of some in criticizing the Scripture, I shall not now insist upon; and of what it might yet grow unto I have often heard the great Ussher expressing his fear. Of the success of Grotius in this way we have a solid account weekly in the lectures of our learned professor; which I hope he will in due time benefit the public withal. But it is only one or two things that my present design calls upon me to remark.
