[Cunningham, dialogue betvireen L,,oiidon,lV60. i.nninghan and ....Freeman. Mtwi54 for Hufomutv^^tf a ColUg^^^tii^, From the COLLECTION OF OXFORD BOOKS made by FALCONER MADAN Bodley's Librarian DIALOGUE BETWEEN Doaor CUNNINGHAM AND Six CHARLES FREEMAN, Bart. [Price Six-Pence.] DIALOGUE BETWEEN Doaof CUNNINGHAM AND ^iv CHARLES FREEM AN, B^tt, CONCERNING Mr.- Kennicott's Method of corredt ing the printed Hebrew Text. LOND q N: Printed for M, Withers, at the Seven-Siars in Fleeijireet. M.DCCLX. K 33 A DIALOGUE BETWEEN Dodor CUNNINGHAM AND Sir Charles Freeman, Bart. (To Sir Chsides, ^tting in his fludy, enters a Footman) "rjyOotman. Dr. Cunningham, Sir. Jf^ Sir Cb. Set a chair, and fhew. the the Dodtor in {Sir Charles rifing and coming forward) Dr. Cunningham, ypur moft obedient. Dr. Cun. Sir Charles, yours. I am glad to find you in this place. Sir Ch. I fuppofe, Dodtor, becaufe you think it is a place I do not much frequent. ¦ Dr. Cun. Pardon me, Sir Charies, not fo j but becaufe it is a propoi to the bufinefs I come about, which is to defire your fub- fcription to Mr. Kennicot — Here is the hft. B —The (O The Univerfity of Oxford 40 /. per ann. for three years — The Univerfity of Cam bridge 20/. The Archbifhop oi Canterbury 20 /. The Chancellor of the Univerfity of Cambridge 20 /. The right reverend the Bifhops 10/. and 5/. each per ann. ior the fame term. Be pleafed to look at it. Sir Ch. (taking and looking at the lifi) A lift of very refpedtable names, Dodtor. I am glad to find the right reverend bench are taking fuch a liking to Hebrew roots j it will, I am in hopes, reverfe the proverb, that they flourifti moft in barren ground : and fuch regard, as they are now paying to the original, will convince the cenfo- rious world that they have not their eyes always bent upon tranflations. Dr. Cun. It is in order for a new tranf lation, Sir Charles. - Sir Ch. Is it fo, Dodtor ? But is this Mr. Kennicot the gentleman who did us fo much fervice in the laft eledtion for Oxfordfkire, in quieting the confciences of our fcrupu- lous voters ? Dr. Cun. The fame. Sir Ch. A clever fellow, and defervea proper encouragement. ;' Dr. Cun. I am glad to hear you fay fo and hope he will meet with it from you. Sir (7) Dr. Cun. But let us not, out of too much fcrupulofity, join with Collins and Aben Am- ram to weaken the authority of the writers of the New Teftament, by, maintaining the infallibility of the tranfcribers of the Old. Sir Ch. But why muft the authority of the New be eftabliftied upon the corruption of the Old ? May not the enemies of. reve lation fay, that we altered the text of the Old, to make it agree with the text of the New ? For this is the chief pretence, the chief authority for corredting the printed Hebrew in the paflages cited from it by the writers of the New -, and it is ftiewn in a book lately publiftied *, that we may allow thefe paflages to be right in the Old Tefta ment, without any danger to the authority of the writers of the New. But if we are to alter the printed Hebrew text, fo as to make it conform to the quotations, how are we to proceed ? The book above-men tioned has ftiewn, that St. fohn cites Zech. ix. 9. difi^erently from St. Matthew ; and Jfa. xl. 3. differently from St. Matthew, Mark, and Luke. What is to be done here ? For the authority of the writers of the New Teftament is equal, yet they cite the » Letters to a friend concerning the LXX tranflation, &c. ( s ) the fame text in very dififerent words : and the Hebrew cannot be made to conform in words apd expreffion to each of them. Ifa. vi. 10. is alfo diff'erently cited by the four Evangelifts and St. Paul. St. Luke in his gofpel differs from himfelf in tht ASis ofthe Apoflles; and St. John, St. Mark, and St, Paul differ from the Hebrew .and LXX, and from each other. St. Matthew and St. Luke, in the ASis, ufe the words of the LXX; the others, as far as can be judged, tranflate for themfelves. How fliall we re concile thefe writers to themfelves ? If the difagreement of the quotations with the Hebrew be a proof of the printed text be ing. corrupted, the difference between the. writers of the New Teftament in citing the fame texts will, by the fame rule, prove that there is a corruption in one or other of their writings. But it appears from a collation of the Greek . MSS of the New Teftament, that -the words of the quota tions are not corrupted in the Greek, text; therefore the difference of thefe writers be-. tween themfelves is no proof of the Greek text being corrupted : and if this difference be no proof of a corruption in the Greek text, why muft the difference of the quota tions ( 3 ) SirCh. A perfon fo highly favoured by my lords the Bifliops, muft have every qua lification rcquifite for the tafk he under takes—It would be a piece of prefumption to queftion it — And yet, Dodtor, I have fome fcruples which Mr. Kennicot has not been fo eff^edtive in quieting; iiay indeed, which his laft book, that lies here upon the table, has rather increafed than filenced. And fince we are in a proper place for fuch affairs, as you at your firft coming in obferved, I will venture to lay them before you ; and hope, that in fo doing, I fliall give no juft caufe of offence, either to you or their Lordftiips. In the firft place then, Mr. Kennicot feems too fond of ufing the incifion knife, and often cuts away found flefti, for no other reafon, as far as I can fee, but to fliew his ik\\\ iij furgery. Then he takes it for granted, that the LXX and the other tranflations are juft and true, in order to bring them as proofs ofthe printed Hebrew text being corrupted : whereas it might be a method as worthy of a critic, to fuppofe the Hebrew true ; and try if, by a fair and regular conftrudtion, it may not be rendered in fuch a manner a? fo avoid the faults laid to the charge of the original B 2 where (4) where it differs from the LXX and other verfions. He feems to make corruptions his game, and hunts for them with the eagernefs of a poacher rather than a fair fportifman, and makes errors in the. text vvhere there arc none, when the Hebrew is fairly conftrued — A record is not to he altered upon every flight furmife and hafty fufpicion. Dr. Cun. I fanfy. Sir Charles, you are led away by the common cry of the inte grity of the prefent Hebrew bible, as if the printed Hebrew copies perfedtly reprefcnt the original writings of Mofes and the pro phets. Mr. Kennicot allows the integrity of the fcriptures, and does not prefume to alter or corredt what Mofes and the pro phets wrote, but what the Scribes and Co py! (Is have depraved and corrupted. Sir Ch. But then, Dodtor, when he al ters and corredts out of his own head, he peremptorily prefumes to give us what Mofes and the prophets wrote, and takes upon him to fay they wrote fo and fo, and no otherwife ; which is to appoint what is fcripture, and what is not. Collating of MSS. and coUedting various readings is one thing, altering the text is another ; efpe cially is) cially when Self is the fole judge — The conjedturer raay err, as well as the fcribe ; and the former may be as averfe to correc tion as the latter, and as afraid to fpoil his critical acumen by a retradtation, as the fcribe his copy by a rafure. Dr. Cun. But why will you deny to one half of the facred volume thc privilege which is granted to the other half? The New Teftament, by collating and publifti- ing the various readings ofthe Greek MSS. is arrived to its prefent perfedtion ; and 'the fame ufeful work Mr. Ken?jicot is attempt ing with regard to the Old. Sir Ch. But I apprehend that the New Teftament has not been fo freely dealt with, as this gentleman fliews us he de figns to deal with the Old. There are no fuch conjedtural emendations, I prefume, in Dr. Mill's edition of the New Tefta ment, as we find in Mr. Kennicot's diflTer- tation. The late Dr. Bentley, a pretty bold critic for the time he lived in, was not permitted to take half the liberties witli the New Teftament Mr, Kennicot does with the Old. And the Univ'erfities and Biftiops rejedted, with one confent, pro- pofals of a lefs dangerous tendency than thofe ( 6 ) thofe they are now unanimoufly encoura ging. Howeve/, Dodtor, I think the EifliOps fliould ifihe out their circular letters to the clergy of their refpedtive diocefes, admo- nifliing them not to take their texts from the Old Teftament, until the fentencest words, and letters now tak^n from the fa cred Hebrew volume fhall be rejiored ; thofe now trarfpofed or altered fhall be corre5led-j thofe now grown obfcure fhall be made clear, and the whole again appear perfeSily worthy ofits DIVINE ORIGIN ; and a new Englifh verjion {fo greatly and fo jufily defired) be made; left, by unluckily pitching upon fome corrupted pafllage for their text, they ^ build up error upon error ; and. thus inju- dicioufly contribute td the difejieem of that very book, whofe credit and efieem they are labouring to ejiablifh. Dr. Cun. You feem difpofed to jeft, Sir Charles. Sir Ch. Not I, indeed, Dodor ; ludere cum f acris is a levity was never laid to my charge, whatever other I may be guilty of I am perhaps thoughf as much too fcru- pulous, as I think Mr. Kennicot is too for ward and hafty. Dr. ( 9 ) tions from the printed Hebrew be made a proof of a corruption in the Hebrew text''? We feem here to want a foluti on, which Jhall recommend itfelf to the approba tion of all chriftians. Dr. Cun. But Mt. Kennicot has given one yery fignal proof— in one word, which is printed in the Hebrew, not only in a fenfe different from that given of it by two apoftles, biit alfo in a fenfe fubverfive of the argument which they build upon that very difference. St. Peter and St. Paul appeal to the Jews concerning the refur- redtion of Chrift— ttjat David prophefied of the refurreSlion of fome one holy perfon, who was fo die, yet not to fee corruption. This, ' fay they, we declare to be fulfilled in Jefus Chrift. But if we refer now to the text of the xvith Pfalm, we fliall find the word to be therfe (and authorized by the Mafora) what will totally invalidate the argument of thefe Apoftles. It is there printed 1»1'Dn ; which word, in every other place, is naturally and juftly rendered plurally tby faint's. And yet, if the word here fignified originally thy faints, the pro phecy of a particular refurredtion would C . then » See Letters concerning the LXX tranflation, &c. ( IO ) then vanifli— the plural affirmation would bc untrue— and both Pefer and P^«/ would be found falfe witneffes in the caufe of God, But furely thefe Apoftles have not, can not have impofed upon, the world, cither wilfully or ignorantly. If the former; where is their honefty? If the latter? where Is their infpiration ? Sir Ch. This tragical exclamation was begun in his firft Difl"ertation, p. 49^—8* is repeated here ; and to make the moft of this inftance, it is. three or four times ferved up and new garniftied, without taking the leaft notice of the aofwer returned to it > an anfwer as fair and* fatisfadtory, as his concealment of it is foul and fufpicious, and muft appear fo to every candid perfon. If this inftance be (as Mr. Kennicot fays it is) of no fmall moment- — a very fignal proof ^ why not lay the anfwer made to it before the reader, and leave him to judge of its validity ? If the anfwer were weak, what harm in expofing it ? If ftrong and fuffi cient, where is the honefty in concealing it? But I am now able to fay fomething farther to this inftance, St. Peter {ASis u 20.) cites Pfalm Ixix, 25. as predictive of the fate of Judas -, « Let his habitation be' '' defolate. ( II ) " defolate, and let no man dwell therein." But if we refer to the Hebrew text, we fliall find the leading words univerfally pliiral: " Let their habitation be defolate, ** and let none dwell in their tents." Yet St. Peter applies the plural -affirmation to one particular perfon, i;/^. Judas, And St. Paul quotes the 2 ad verfe of the fame Pfalm plural {Rom. xi. 9.) " Let their tar " ble be made a fnare, and a trap, and a " ftumbling-block, and a recompence un- " to them." Thefe two verfes are evi dently fpoken of the fame perfons. If the Hebrew ofthe 25th verfe is to be fuppofed corrupted from fingular to plural, in com plaifance to St. Peter, we leave St. Paul in the lurch; for then the 22d verfe muft be read in the fingular number : and the con^ text will not fuffer us to make the 25th verfe fingular, and let the other remain plural. St. Paul too {Rom. x. 15.) quotes Ifa. lii. 7. in the plural, where the Hebrew text and LXX read it fingular. " How " beautiful ' upon the mountains are the •' feet of him that bringeth good tidings " (Hfib. ntt^:iD Gr. EuayyEx/^o^eyaJ that « publifhefh { Heb. V'O^ti ) » peace, that c( bringeth good tidings (Heb. 1K^:ia) of C 2 " good.'" ( 12 ) " good." The parallel place in Nahum ii. I. is alfo fingular in the Hebrew and LXX. But the Apoftle gives it thuS: " How beautiful are the jfeet of them that " preach the gofpel of peace, of them that *• preach the gofpel of good things, (Gr. " hotyysXi^ofievuv"). From thefe inftances it plainly appears that Mr. Kennicot has laid a ftrefs upon his Jignal proof greater than it will bear ; becaufe, as St. Peter applies a plural affirmation to a fingular cafe, and St. Paul a fingular affirmation to a plural one, by changing the words in the original froni plural to fingular, and from fingular to plural, in the inftances above, to accom modate them to their purpofe, even where the LXX was againft them ; St. Peter might do the fame in Pfalm xvi. where the LXX, an approved verfion, had made the change to his hands. Dr. Cun. But it may be, the printed Hebrew text is corrupted in tlie inftances you have produced. Sir Ch. Mr. Kennicot indeed is remark ably happy in fo conftantly finding his con- jedural emendations countenanced by MSS. But till thefe inftances are proved corrup tions, they muft be allowed their proper weight. ( 13 ) weight. And this gentleman fliould not be fo very ready, as he is, to call it petu lance and rage of abufe in every one who happens to differ in opinion from him, fince his opponents may have truth and the glory of God as fincerely at heart as himfelf, though they fliew it in a different way. The foundation upon which Mr. Kennicot builds is the corrupted ftate of the printed Hebrew text. In proof of the cor ruption of the printed text, he has produ ced feveral texts of fcripture. Tht firfi then may be called his plea ; the fecond his evi dence for his plea. If his evidence be not fufficient to fupport his plea, his plea drops of courfe. Two gentlemen have underta ken to crofs-examine his evidence (a prac tice, as you know, allowed in all courts of juftice) and in my poor opinion, they havc done it fo effedtually, that his plea ftands in need of frefli evidence — Dr. Cun. Comings and Bate you mean — a couple of madmen, enthufiafts, followers of Hutchinfon, who, poffeffed with the low dull method of picking myfteries out of letters, have been only able to extraSl the crude non- fenfe of the Cabbala to 1 can't tell what kind of quinteffence : as the incomparable Dr. " . 8 ff^ar ( H) ffdr-^'—' Bifliop of Glpcefier, - 1 mean, has finely faid. Sir Ch. Calling names Is like laying wagers for argumeijt. But what kind of evidence is this In anfwer to what thefe gentlemen have wrote ? They may be fol lowers of Hutchinfon for ought I know : and why not a follower of Hutchinfon as good as a follower of Kennicot j unlefs we are not to examine what Is faid, but only by whom it is faid ? — -But to return to the point : this Comings and Bate, as you call them, have confidered every text Mr. Ken nicot has brought as evidence for the cor rupted ftate of the printed Hebrew text, and, as I think, have to fatisfadtlon fhewn, by a fair conftrudtion of each text accord" ing to the printed Hebrew, that thefe paf- iages of fcripture, fuppofed to be corruptr ed, have no occafion for any of Mr. Ken nicot's emendations, either of thofe ex fua conj eSi urd, or thofe ex fuis manufcripiis. What now was incumbent upon Mr. Ken nicot to have done, but to have difproved their objedtions, laid open their mlfconr .ftrudtions and falfe reafoning, and evinced that the text would not admit of the con- ftrudtions and reafoning which they put upon ( 15) upon them j and therefore that his plea of the cerrupted fiate of tbe printed Hebrew remained in full forqe ? Juftice, candor, mo ral horiefty, truth. and fobernefs, in regard to himfelf as well as his readers aqd op ponents, demanded fuch a behaviour : bcr caufe if what his opponents have alledged in fupport of the printed Hebrew, be valid, his plea Is overthrown, and his attempt Is an Irtipofition upon the publick. Inftea4 of this, here it Is, Introdudt, p. lo, ^ feq. he calls them (in courtly round-about language indtQ^) poor, filly, vaini infignificant fel lows, too hm to be affronted, twits them with being followers of Mr. Hutchinfon ; but ftlles them the reverend Mr. Fowler Comings, and /& r^-y^r^W Afr. Julius Bate at full length, to let you fee he writes with great teriipf r. In one place, fays he may perhaps beftow a word or two upon them, ^hen relents, and thinks he will npt. Doth not this look as If he had met with a nut too hard for his teeth, whlchj though he cannot crack, he will ftill keep mumbling in his mouth ? Dr. Cun. But you overlook what he fays here — ' ' 'Tis poffible writers may not be ca^ fable sf being anfwer ed,. becaufe unintelli gible : ( i6) gible : 'iis poffible, if underftood, they may not be worth anfwering : and 'tis very poffi ble they may fully anfwer themfelves : the weaknefs of their own arguments being a clear confutation of what they meant to efta- hlifh and confirm. Sir Ch. Here is a curious ftring oi poffi-> hies, not to be paralleled except by a ftrap oi probables in p. £j^, where we have an highly probable and two other probables in order to prove a very probable. But 'tis a pity Mr. Kennicot did not inform us which of the three pofftbles is applicable to his two opponents. If Mr. Comings and Mr. Bate be unintelligible, why does he attempt to make an apology for what no one would require at his hand ? If they may be un derftood, why did he not fo far taike no tice of what they have faid, and expofe the weaknefs of their arguments in fuch a manner, as to make his readers judges in the cafe; and not be himfelf both judge and jury ? efpecially In a cafe that concerns us fo nearly as our Bible j in which as every one has an Intereft, every one is at liberty d make his objedtions to any inno vations attempted to be made in it; and thefe objedtions certainly deferve a candid anfwer : t 17) anfwer : if not for the fake of the objedtor, yet for, the dignity of the fubjedt. And had Mr. Kennicot followed the advice of his new reading oiProv. xxvi. 5. "Anfwer " a fool according to thine own wifdom, left *' he be wife in his own conceit:" he niight have filenced the magnificent boaft- ilBgs of the friends of his antagonifts, as if they were poffeffed of conquefl, merely from Being permitted to pafs , without animadver- fion., Befide,. this pretpce; of , writings being uniritelli gible, and fuch like. Is a very ftale artifice. It was pradtifed for a long time In the cafe of Mr. Hutchinfon. When any of you Dodtors were afked, why you did not write lagainft what was advanced by that author : the anfwer was — he is unintelligible. At the laft, when It was perceived he was not only i/itelligible, but adtually underftood, by fo many, that his works were reprinting, maugre all the un derhand oppofition made againft It, then a Vfery worthy and learned D. D. was fet to work, much againft his will, as I have reafon to believe, to controvert in print the conftrudtion of fome leading words, as they were called, to try if that Would put a .ftop to the prcis-^Sit mihi fas au- D dita ( i8 ) dita loqui. Then Mr. Bate could write to be underftood, and was thought worthy of an anfwer, and reply, by a perfon, in every refpedt equal. If not fuperior to Mr. Kennicot — The event of that controverfy Is too well known, for me to add any thing more. Dr. Cun. That great man was grofl^jr abufed — Sir Ch. I agree with you, Dodtor, tho* We may differ by whom. Dr. Cun. But, Sir Charles I can It be fup pofed that the whole bench of Bifliops would concur fo unanimoufly to encourage Mr. Kennicot's undertaking, if they thought the objedtions rnade to It were of any weight— a bench filled with perfons fo emi nently diftinguiflied for their learning, their piety, their — Sir Ch. Truce a little with your argu mentum epifcopale. It is of the baculinum kind ; the Biihops are Lords of parliament, you know, Dodtor. And tho' to fay our prelates arc not flcilled in Hebrew, is, I hope, no fcandalum magnatum, the know ledge of that language, as I am informed, not being required in candidates for holy orders; yet be pleafed, Dodtor, to take no tice, ( 19 ) tice, I do not fay fo : they may each of' them be as hebraically qualified, as a cer tain D. D. In a note to a certain fermon ac-: quaints us the perfon Is, who fills the fta- tion to which the revlfal ofour vulgar tranflation properly belongs — All I fay is, that perhaps they may not have read Mr. Comings and Mr. Bate, and therefore may not be apprifed that any thing fo material, as what they have urged, Is alledged againft. Mr. Kennicot's fcheme. Dr. Cun. They read Comings and Bate I Sir Ch. Scilicet /V Superis labor eft, ea cura Quietos Sollicitat. ! Dr. Cun. But Mr, Kennicot has promifed to anfwer the objedtions of his opponents, only poftpones the confideration of theri^ at prefent. Sir Ch. This is allowing their writings to be Iritelligible, to be worth anfwering, and not to confute themfelves ; which breaks his threefold cord of pofjibles he had fo nicely twifted together. And it is but half a promife I think neither. But then, Dodtor, he fhould not have brought thofe texts again upon the carpet as ma terial proofs of the corruption of the printed Hebrew text, when his two op- D 2 poreents ( ao > popefits had -offered -arguments to inv^i- date. the charge of corruption in general,. and to maintain the Integrity of thefe texts, in particular. He owns the demolition of th notion cf the integrity of the printed: Hebrew text mufi be the foundatim of ail the particular correBions propofed: That this notion, tho' it fhould be in faB utterly indef enfible, may require fome confiderable attention, becaufe it is grown venerable by age, and has been long maintained with thk warmefi efforts of miftaken zeal. Amphora ccepit .. Infiitud : cur rente rotd. cur urceus exit ? . This Is candid and fair ; why does he then cancel all this," in a fubfequent page or two, by faying, he doth not mean to infult thi patience of the reader with every remark ihat has been made, with ihings of little or no confequence to his . infir uSiion or enter tainment — that if is paying an ungraciouk compliment to his own time, as well as ts that of the public, could he think himfelf jufiified in writing anfwers to all those who may chance to think fhemfelves confidera-^ ble enough to be affronted, and capable of com- fofing a pamphlet of remarks ?' Mr. Com ings and Mr, Bate are 'all thofe, that I know of, who have confidered and controverted ¦•' "" the (21 > the fubjedt in print ; and every remark, and objedtion, wWch they have miide, tend to the maintenance ef the integriiyi of. And to the fitting aftde, his pretended proofs of imsaginary corruptions in the printed Hebrew text ; and therefore are of copfequence to the inftrudtion of the rea der. And yet, tho' he allows. i'i'^ notion of the integrity of the printed Hfbrew text may require fome coiifideraHe attention ; he paysi no manner of attention .to what they have fakl in defence of It, but produces again the fame proofs they have objedted to as In fufficient, and treats them and their - ob jedtions with an air of fyaugbfinefs and con tempt, as is fhe> way, when men find them-f filves incapable of anfwering to tbe purpofe^ Is not this infulting the patience of his rea- derj and paying a very ungracious compU-' ment to his time ? Had- It not been more ia*isfa^ory to the reader to have fliewn himfelf capable of anfwering the two large pamphlet's he fo grievoufly complains of, than to have troubled him with fuch vain babling?. He acknowledges, that, the en quiry fhould be, whether any arguments have been offered sufficient to invalidate the charge of corruptions, and firmly to main- "" > ¦','•' tain ( 22 ) tain the notion ofthe integrity of the printed Hebrew text — and yet refufes to anfwer the arguments which have been offered for that purpofe, and defires the reader will be fo 'courteous as to take his word," that tbey are not fufficient. And after all his profeffions of what he will, or may do hereafter, iie puts him oflT, near the con clufion of his book, with the fprlorn hope, of. If I fhould ever find leifure and inclina tion to fake notice of all the objeSlions of my antagonifis. And yet wheii I confider he is poffeffed of a weapon that will qut any knot, I wonder to find him fo fby about the matter. Should his opponents offer a word in every refpedt fimilar to one ob jedted to by him — he will anfwer, this is defending one blunder by another. Should they appeal to the rules of grammar and the language, in vindication of a word or fentence thruft forcibly out of the printed text — then his plea Is, that, till the Hebfew MSS are examined we cannot te fure of all the principles of the language. The very grammar is not yet compleatly fettled, be caufe what is as yet done has been planned upon the printed copies : and we mufi great ly err, if we forra pronouns, fix thc anoma lies ( 23 ) lies of verbs, and fettle the bowids of right and wrong in grammar, without a previous examination of Hebrew MSS, becaufe no-, thing but MSS can afcertain tbe genuine idioms of an ancjent dead language : and yet this candid gentleman, tho' he would, preclude his opponents from defending, thinks himfelf at liberty to raife objedtions againft the printed Hebrew text, from rules of grammar built upon the printed copies. The leaft appearance of prejudice and parti ality, you will allow, Dodtor, ought careful ly to be avoided In fuqh an undertaking as this : and yet what can favour more rank of, both, than his making the MSS that fa-?, vour the printed Hebrew the latefl and the worft ; and thofe that countenance his con- jefiural emendations, the oldefi and the beft : tho' the fixing the age of MSS Is a very uncertain • affair, and liable to much miftake ? How prejudicate is the aflertion that where the Chaldee paraphrafe differs from the prefent Hebrew text, 'there if may fill preferve the dignity of an ancient para- phrafe ; .but where it is found to agree wifh the prefent Hebrew text, there we may fairly prefume that this agreement bas been occafioned by wilful alterations of the pa raphrafe ( 24 ) raphrafc in conformity to the text f So that the value of the tranflations and MSS are to be afcert^ined by thfeif difagreement witji' tbe prefent Hebrew text,' which Is furely carrying the notion of the corruption ofthe text to as grfriat' a length, as the fautors of its integrity ean cart'y the contrary opinion. And a partiality ib glarirtg is rio very pro- mifing qualificatlbh in a 'perfon from whom* v^ are to expedt a nfevir edition 6i the He-* brew Bible. For if the falfe notion of the integrity of the Hebrew text has thtis tnlC-' led the tranfcribers ' and corf edtofs of the Chaldee pataphraie, the falfe notion of' the cdrruption of the Hebrew text may be aW tended with as bad confeqiiences ; as hU-' man nature is obferved to be the fame in" all ages.' And-\vhat Mr. Kenfiicot'iappoits to have biaflfed fbriher editors, may with- " out oflfence be fuppofed to have the fame eff^edt upon others. Efpecially as he has" Afewni in his 'laft book, m the cafe of' Walton, &c, how much fo»jething (to which' every one may give what name he chufeS)' will warp the judgment, and like a gift, blind fhe eyes )f the ^ wife, and pervert the' ntprds of the righteo'us. Who, that was not eaten up with the zealof corredting, would" ^ lay (25) ky f) ,Sbrt concerning him by the mOuth of D^- vid : " For it Is written in the hook of " Pfalms, Let his habitation be defolate, *' and let no man dwell therein : and his ^'¦bifhoprick let another take :" and from thefe latter words he argues that One muft be oWalned (In his place)' to be a witnefs , wi,th them of Chrift's refurredtionl But if thefe flatter words be the imprecations of ¦DaviH's -enemies upon David, then will they make a Jtidas of David, and prophets of his enemies. 'If this.; be: not zeal without knowlege, I know not what is. I St'. Peter fays, this fcripture is that which the Holy Ghofi by the mouth of David fpaKe before concerning Judas. ls/[t. '^Kennicot fays it was fpoken by the mouth of the' enemies, of David, concerning David — :And, no doubt, expedts his word will be taken before St. Peters, Pray " Dodtor obferve - the different - treat ment he gives to whatever makes foi: his .fcheme, and whatever oppofes it : ;he con- •trafts them, as Ovid does the two arrows of Cupid, §^od facit, auratum eft, & cufpide fulget acuta : ^ ' ^cod fugat, obtufum eft, & babet in arim- dine plwmbum. When (27 ) When the JLXX ver|ion agrees with the printed Hebrew iji^any, of thofe places he is pleaf(£d to pronounce corrupted, we muft_ then beUeve the LXX, In fuc^ places, to have been conformed .tO.tbe corrupted He brew; but muft not dare to fuppofe that the, Hebrew MSS,., which .agree with the LXX, where that verfion differs from the printed Hebrew, were affimilated to thp, LXX. This would be very abfurd. We muft ftate the real merit of the Greek ver fion. from its oppofition to the printed He brew, which, fhews its perfedtion and in tegrity; whereas, on the contrary, its agree- Rient with the printed text Is a fure critCr rion of its corruption. When it declares in favour of any of his conjcdiural emendar tions, then it Is made the moft of, and is pompoufly produced as a moft unexpeptl- oniable witnefs; when it difcoijntenances them, then it is made nothing of, an4 thruft opt of fight, as if hp were afhamed to be feen in its. company. Be pleafed to tupa to p. I BB'-'-Prov. xv. zQ^-^The Greek {and fo the Syriac) verfion feems to have preferved tbe true reading, vix. oi Son for Man, Page 189. Prov. xviii. 22. " Whofg t' Jindfth a wife, findeth a good thing" — E 3 wbie.1? ,( 25 )• which he prefumes fhouki be, « He thaf *^ findeth a gooi? wife. Sec. — This reading derives a ftrong confirmation from obferving that the epithet for gooj> is found uniform-: ly in the Gr, Syr» Ar. and vulg. verfions. Now be pleaffed to go back to pag, r^i Jofhua xxii. 34, Not a word here of th© LXX verfion, becaufe it has not the.^cr*^ he IS for inferting, and in that refpedt agrees wdth the printed ^^brew : tho' it diflfer* from it fo much in the whole verfe that, according to his rule,- either ?>^or the Jfe- ^r^'K; muft be more corrupted than he" is pleafed to take notice of. Turn forward to p. 372. Jfd, Iiii. 9. and p. 375. JoJ^, ajxiv. 1 9. No mention now of the LXX, &c. The printed Hebrew muft not enjoy the fame privilege his conjedlures above dkJ, and derive a ftrong confirmation from ob-r. ferving that the Greek verfion, &c. agree with it. No I thefe verfions havd all feeea corrupted ; corrupted in conformity to the corrupted Hebrew; tho' there is not fo much as a fihgle MS to lend him its friend ly aid, and efpoufe his conjeaural altera, rations: but if his former good genius has mM^t ^m,^ MS cr t\yo may perhaps 1 29 ) BeFeafter be difcovered which fhall read juft as ho conjeBur^s. Dr. Cb?. This is not ebnjeMuring, Sir Gbarlet, but cor^efking upon the evidence of the CONTEXT. And ihave not other ancient authors- been corredted upon con- edture alfo ? And -have not the learifted thought many fuch corrcdtions to be very fktisfadtory ? ' - SirCh. Some have,- and fbriie hate not;' Po€tor. Gonje^uring began with prophane authors, and I wifli it had ended there* Fuit bacfapieritid quondam, ' Publica pri'vatis fecernere, fecra prof ahis, ' And it might be as well if this was thought wifdom ftill. A conjedture, tho* wrong, in a prophane author, is of little confequence ; not fo in the Hebrew bible, Befidf s, who can ftop others from conjec turing, unlefs Mr. Kennicot Is to have a patent, and be ma^de conjedturer-general fbr his life ? — What evidence the context gives to his propofed corredllons of the texts above, muft be left to abler heads than mine : but I may venture to fay that' this fpirit of partiality, in making any t'hing evidence for" his conjedlures, and allowing RQthing, Iiot even the concurrence of the tranft^ ( 30 ) tranflations and of MSS, .tobc evidence fdr the printed text where he thinks ,fit to al ter it, would be looked Upon as a very fufpicious condudt in his opponents. But all is candid, fair, open, and right in Mr. Kennicot — ^icquid dicit laudatur, id rur- _. fumfi negat, laudatur Jd queque, --^ ¦ ¦ J When projofals of a public kind are of fered, and objedtions made to them, it Is not -ufual to accept the propofals till the «j)bjedlIons are.anfweped. And If they are accepted without a previous examination of. the objedtlpns, we fufpedt that fome pri vate jobb is carrying on under the preteijce ^i public utill|ty. Yet you, Dodtor, ^fk me rto'fubfcribe towards carrying a fcheme into:'e3^ecutIon, the utility and neceflity of which' have heen called In queftion, and the proofs in fupport of the fcheme have been one by one examined and fhewn in fufficient, without even the leaft attempt made by the propofer of the fcheme, to invalidate a fingle objedtion. Befides, the book, I mentioned above, corroborates fome of Mr. Bate's objedtions, and produces other, which in my judgment are fufii, cient to fliew the futility of Mr. Kennicot'^ proofs for the corruptions of the printed ^ Hebrew (31 ) Hebrew text; and moreover has proved the fpurioufnefs of the fkekels, the only vouchers for the antiquity of the Sama ritan charadter ; and confequently the au thority of the Samaritan pentateuch, the Kthiop which this gendeman Is now la bouring to wafh, muft fall to the ground. Dr. Cun. I prefume thes, I muft not hope to be favoured with your fubfcrlp- tlon. Sir Ch. I do not pofitively fay I will not fubfcribe ; I have? no objedtion to col lating MSS, tho' I have to bold and arbi trary alterations of the text; but think, Dodtor, it will be prudence to poftpone it till Mr. Kennicot gives a better account of himfelf and his fcheme, than he has yet done : and pardon me, if I add, It would have looked as well In my Superiors If they had done the fame. FINIS. 3 9002 08844 1432