0 F T H E H 0 L y s c R l .p T u 1\ E s. n:JI any Jew, but would rather die a thoufand <rimes over, than fujfer their Law to be. changed in the lea.ft. And Arias Montanus, a Perfon extremely fk1lled m the H ebrew,. in lm Preface to the lnterlineary Bible, alfures us, '!'hai as in theft Hebrew Bibles which are without Vowels, we find a certain con.ftant Agreement of all the Manufcripts an,d Prints, and a lzke vVriting in each ; fo in all thofe too that have the .Points added, we have not ob– ftrved the /ea.ft Variation or. Difference of Pointing: Nor IS there any Man can affirm, '{bat he eve~ in any Place Jaw different Exemplars of the Hebrew '!'ext. And mdeed bad the J ews ever corrupted any Parr of it, no doubt they would have done 1t m thofe T exts thor plainly refer to our Savior; and had any Chrif\ians done it, the Jews woulq foon have difcovered the Forgery. But neither of rbefe Things have happ,ened, there– fore to fay the fame is any way corrupted, is falfe. And for the l'{ew Tdtament, it is true, there have in ancient Man ufcripts fo.me various Readings bee11 obferved, but nor fudl as to caufe anv Difpute touching the Sum or Subftance of the Doftrine therein, de– livered, or confiderably (O alrer the Senfe of the Text. Obj. 4 : Bm fuppofe the Originals be pure, how fhall the Unlearned, who are the far greater Part of M•nkind, be fure that the TranOations they have, and caf1 qnly mak~ ufe uf, are well and honeftly do.ne, and do contalll the Word of God? . Anfw. The Word of God is the Doctrine and Revelation pf God's Will, the Sen.fe and Mcani~g, not barely or ftriCl:ly the Words, L etters, and Syll(lbles. This is' con– t•ined exaftly "nd morr purely in the Originals, and in all TranOatio~s, fo far as they agree therewith. Now rhough fome TranOations may exceed others in Propriety, and fiamficant rendering the Originals; yet t~ey generally, (even the moft imperfeCt that w~ know of,) exprefs and hold fonh fo much of the Mind, Will, and Counfd of God, as is fuffi ,·ient, by the Bleffing of God upon 'l confcientious Reading thereof, to ac– quaint a Man with the Myfteries of Salvation, to work in him a true Faith, and bring him to livt gorily, rightroufl:y, and foberly in this prefent World, and to Salvation in the next. !"he Tranflators ge!lerally', as they have been Men qf Learning, fa like– wile hwe they been honeft, and for the moll: Part godly Men, and th!"refore wopld nor, for their own Honor's fake, and' much more far Confcience fake, abufe the W orld witli any wilful talfe Veriions, to lead Souls in~o Error, in a Matter of that Importance: Or, if fome fhould have been fo wicked, others as learned, and of better Principles, would foon have difcovered th~ lmpoflure. Now if we confider how many Men of dif~ fcrcnt l'<rfuafwns, have rranOated the Bible, and harmonioufly agree in all Things of Moment, is it poffible to imagine they fh ould all combine, fq impertinently, as well as wickedl y, to put a Fallacy on Mankind, which every one, that has but beftowed 'I very few Years in the Study of the L anguages, can prefenrly deteCt? ' Obj. 5· How can we think the whole Bible to be of divine Infpirat·ion, when fome Parts of it contradict others ? The divine Spirit cannot be contrary to itfelf; yet is there any Thing more oppofite than the ~wo Evangelifts, in reckoning up our S~vior'~ Genealogy? St. Matthew, chap. i. 16. fays, Jacob begat Jofep/J, the ~cl.ufband of Mary; and St. Luke chap. iii. 2 3· lays, Jofeph, the Son of Eli. .dnfw. The feeming ContradiCtions of Scripture, for they are really nQ more, are aq Argument, that in the Writing of this Book there was no corrupt Defign or Confede– racy to engage the Opinions of Men; and upon a due Scrutiny, there will appear iq them a deep and unrhought-of Cqncor(l, and an unanimous Tendency towards rhe grea~ End of rhe Whole. It is our Inadvertency, or !hallow Apprehenfion, makes us thin~ the Scriprure is at Variance with itfelf. In the two T exts cited, a natural Father is one Thing, a legal Father another: For you muft know, that Jofeph and J11ary wer~ both of one H oufe and Family; he defcended from David by Solomon, !he by Nathan, but in the Poflerity of Zorobabel they were divided into two feveral Families, wher~of one was the royal Race, ;md that Lineage ']ofepb was of, which Matthe"'! follows: Th~ other Family L uke follows, whereof Mary was, whomJ0Jepb marries, and py that mean~ is called the Son of her Father Eli. So rhar here i> no ~optradiftion, bm on the con– trary, an excellent Difcovery of our ;>~vior's Line drawn dowfl op both Sides, whereby it appears, that as he was Jofepl:/s repured Son, fo he had ~ Tirl~ tO be King of rhe Jews; and as he was born of Mary, fo likewife on her Side he defcended from D~vid, iiS was prom1fed of the Mejjias. Bur for reconciling all fuch feeming ContradiCtion~, g ~~
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=