of the Kings of Egypt Agag of Amalek Num. 24. 7. 1 Sam. 15. 8. Darius and Artaxerxes of the Kings of Persia This Opinion is very Ancient how despicable soever it seems to the Rector who finding it in some modern Commentators in Pool's Synopsis fancied they were the Authors of it It 's mention'd by Basil as the received Opinion of that Age that the Kings of the Philistines were call'd by the common Name of Abimelech tho' each of 'em had a proper Name by which he was call'd besides And this Account saith he we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by tradition § Basil hom in Psal 33. Gr. edit Paris 1618. 3dly But the Rector is not satisfied with this because he finds no one King of the Philistines so call'd from Isaac's days unto David's Time for about eight hundr'd Years And good Reason for it for he cannot find any King at all of the Philistines so much as mention'd in all that interval of Time We read of the Lord 's of the Philistines in Samson's Time Judg. 16. 5 30. and in the days of Samuel 1 Sam. 5. 8. and 1 Sam. 6. 4. It shou'd seem their Government was Aristocratical by the Nobles as far as we have any Account of it for the Time he mentions And then no wonder he can find no King call'd Abimelech amongst the Philistines In David's Time the ancient Government by Kings is revived and therewith the Name of the ancient Kings perhaps to render the new Government more familiar to the People And it shou'd seem even in David's Time their Kings were little more than titular 1 Sam. 29. 3 4 5 6 7. But whether they had Kings or no between Isaac's and David's Time is not material to the Point in Hand it 's enough that none are mention'd in the sacred History of one Name or another 4thly All that are acquainted with History will own that Pharaoh was a common Name of the Kings of Egypt and it is Evident from Genesis Exodus i. e. two Books of Kings c. And yet we read of no King of Egypt so call'd from that Pharaoh which was drown'd in the Red Sea unto another of the same Name in Solomon's Time for the space of above four hundr'd Years Does it follow therefore that Pharaoh was not a common Name of the Kings of Egypt No more will it follow that Abimelech was not the common Name of the Kings of the Philistines Nothing can be infer'd from the silence of Scripture History about the Continuance of these two Royal Names for so long a tract of Time for it is not the business of the Inspired Historians to give us the Histories of Egypt and Palestine nor are they so much as mention'd but with some respect to the Church of God whose History they professedly handled 5thly It is a very odd Conjecture of his that Abimelech is inserted for Abimelech mention'd in 1 Sam. 21. what an ignorant Fellow doth he make the Pen-Man of this Title to be that he should not only mistake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which have no affinity either in form or sound in substituting Abimelech for Abimelech but which is worse that he shou'd put Abimelech the High Priest of Israel for Achish King of Gath an uncircumcised Philistine The Jews were not such Strangers to their own History or to that of the Philistines their implacable Enemies and near Neighbours as to know no difference between a Holy Priest and a Prophane Prince But suppose some ignorant Hand had put Abimelech for Achish as he Fancies can we imagine the Jewish Church to whom were Committed the Oracles of God to be so careless or perfidious as not to discover and rectify this Error Could it possibly escape the Masorites who observes with the greatest Exactness all the various Readings and Anomalies of the Letters and Vowels This is a new Discovery the Honour of which is reserv'd for our Hypercritical Rector who may in good Time set up for a Corrector of the Masora Perhaps so inquisitive a Man can tell us who Corrupted this Title and it 's well if the poor Dissenter can escape his Censure for here is Abimelech a High Priest expung'd and alter'd into Abimelech his profound Sagacity may discover a Design against Episcopacy in this Corruption also for one of the Great Arguments for the Episcopal Eminency is taken from the Levitical Priesthood 6thly Suppose I shou'd grant unto him that Abimelech is put for Abimelech this might be without any such mistake of Abimelech for Achish as he fancied for Abimelech and Abimelech are used of the same Person 2 Sam. 8. 17. and 1 Chron. 18. 16. Dr. Lightfoot * Vol. I. p. 57. conceives that this Title is Applicable to both the Stories in 1 Sam. 21. both to David's dissembling behaviour before Abimelech who is call'd Abimelech in 1 Chron. 18. 16. and to his changing his Behaviour before Achish the Philistines King for those Kings were commonly call'd by the Name Abimelech Gen. 20. and 26. From the whole it appears that his Cavils against the Title of the 34th Psalm are as groundless as those against the 90th Psalm and farther this Deponent saith not He does not pretend to except against any of the rest tho' he wou'd have all displaced out of the sacred Canon Let 's now review his Argument If some or if any one Title may be justly Question'd then this renders all the rest Suspicious To which I oppose this If some or if any one Title be unjustly Question'd as he has done those of the 34th and 9th Psalm then his Suspicions of all the rest are unjust This Gentleman is a very Suspicious Man he not only unjustly questions one or two of the Sacred Titles but takes occasion to suspect all the rest The Dissenters may well bear the feeble Efforts of his malignant Suspicions since the Divine Pen-Man can't escape them 2dly His next Argument to prove the Titles a Human Addition is taken from those Words tack'd to Psalm 72. 20. the Prayers of David the Son of Jesse are ended which is manifestly False if the Titles of the Psalms be True especially that of Psalm 142. Besides the Psalms that follow the 72. are as truly Prayers as they which go before it Some body then not inspired has either transposed the Psalm or else added to them the foresaid Words being either misplaced or thrust into the Text. The like may have been done at the beginning of the Psalms by prefixing Titles to them * Remarks on Remarks p. 13. The Rector is one of those who Affects to Quarrel with the Holy Scriptures which he seems to read with Design to seek Occasion against them He endeavours to prove Psalm 72. 20. to be manifestly False because more Prayers of David are mention'd afterward This is a very bold Challenge to the inspired Writings Wou'd you think this the Language of a Protestant Minister or of a Porphyrie a
love him It 's evident the Rector neither admires nor loves him for what Reasons he knows best but by what follows one wou'd be apt to think he hates him for he odiously mis-represents in these Words Jerome arguing for the Hebrew against the LXX because forsooth St. Luke Acts 7. 14. agreed not with the Hebrew Text but with the LXX he gives that holy Evangelist this scurvy Character Lucae qui ignotus vilis non magnae fidei in nationibus ducebatur I 'll not English the words because I will pay some deference to the Presbyterian Father And a little after he saith He is unworthy to be believed in any thing be affirms upon this point in Controversie or indeed in any else The transcribing of the whole Passage will set this matter in a true light and convince the Reader how basely the Rector abuses Jerome His Words are these St. Luke who is a Writer of that History and publishes the Book of the Acts of the Apostles for the use of the Gentiles ought not to write any thing that is inconsistent with that Scripture which was already made publick to the Nations For indeed the authority of the LXX Interpreters was for that time only in more repute than that of Luke who was unknown and of no account and in no great estimation or credit among the Nations †Non enim debuit Sanctus Lucus qui ipsius Historiae scriptor est in gentes actuum Apostolorum volumen emittens contrarium aliquid scribere adversus eam Scripturam quae jam fuerat gentibus divulgata Et ubique majoris Opinionis ille duntaxat tempore LXX Interpretum habebatur auctoritas quam Lucae qui ignotis vilis non magnae fidei in nationibus ducebatur Quaest seu Trad. Hebr. in Gen. Is there any thing in these Words that reflects a scurvy Character upon the Holy Evangelist All will own that the Lxx Version was known to the World before St. Luke was and the Gentiles had no way to examine the truth of his Allegations out of the Old Testament but by comparing 'em with their Greek Bibles He was neither known nor esteemed by the generality of the Gentiles until his Writings made him so which were the more esteemed for their agreement with that Version of the Old Testament which they had among them Dr. Lightfoot speaks to the same purpose with Jerome Whereas the New Testament was to be wrote in Greek and come into the hands chiefly of the Gentiles it was most agreeable I may say most necessary for them to follow the Greek Copies as being what the Gentiles were only capable of consulting Jerome doth not say that St. Luke was vilus non magnae fidei but ducebatur he was so accounted in the Nations who at that time were strangers to him and had a greater Veneration for the Lxx than for his Writings And if the Gentiles esteemed him ignotus vilis it was no more than as the Athenians esteem'd St. Paul Acts 17. 18. The Rector may as well condemn St. Luke for saying that St. Paul was accounted a Babbler at Athens as Jerome for affirming that St. Luke was accounted ignotus vilis in nationibus Jerome cou'd not impose upon his Reader when he affirm'd the additional Verses in Psalm 14. were not in the Lxx for he appeals to the Greek Commentators who all set a Mark upon them and pass them by * Denique omnes Graeciae Tractatores qui nobis Eruditionis sui in Psalmos Commentarios reliquerunt hos versiculos veru annotant atque praetereunt liquido confirentes in Hebraeo non haberi nec esse in Lxx Inter. Proaem Hieron in lib. 16. in Isa Nor has the Rector beâ—n able to produce one that hath Commented upon ' em Brugensis saith They are not to be found in most of our Greek Copies both M S. and Printed Vatican and others § Non leguntur in plerisque Graecis exemplaribus tam impressis tam manuscriptis Vaticanis aliis Brug in Pol. Synop. ad Ps 14. Since the Rector excepts against Jerome as a Man unworthy to be believed in any thing I will confirm his Testimony by another of Origen's who saith the Apostle took these Verses ex variis Scripturae locis * Orig. Com. in epist ad Rom. from several places of Scripture by which words its evident that they were not in the Lxx nor in the Hebrew Text in the Fourteenth Psalm in Origen's time who lived above an Age before Jerome was known in the World And this Testimony is the more considerable because Origen had a genuine Copy of the Lxx which he exhibited in his Hexapla and understood the Hebrew which very few of the Fathers did besides him and Jerome Grotius follows Jerome and Origen and affirms that St. Paul took these Verses partly out of the Psalms partly out of Isaiah †Vtitur hic Paulus diversis sententiis tum ex Psalmis rum ex Esaia Grotius in Rom 3. 10. in Pol. Syn. and this is the received Opinion of the Learned But saith the Rector Jerome confesseth the Verses are in vulgata Editione quae Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur in toto orbe diversa est and adds I do not well understand him but it seems the Copies then in ordinary use had the said Verses though Jerome's had 'em not if he is to be credited Remark on Remark p. 18. I will charitably relieve the Rector's ignorance and help him to understand what Jerome means by his versio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vulgar Version It was a most corrupt Version of the Lxx but the true Copy saith St. Jerome is to be found in Origen's Hexapla and is faithfully translated by me into the Latine Tongue and is used at Jerusalem and in the Eastern Churches and remains pure and incorrupt in the Books of the Learned § 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ipsa est quae Lxx sed hoc interest inter utramque quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro locis temporibus pro voluntate scriptorum corruptae editio est Hieron ad Sun Tretell Tom. III. This is the Version to which Jerome appeal'd and of which he affirms that it had not the interpolated Verses in Ps 14. This genuine Version was publickly used in the Eastern Churches and at Jerusalem which was but 35 Furlongs or about 4 Miles 1 2 distant from Bethlehem where Jerome lived Just Mart. Apol. 2. and therefore any body might easily disprove him had he mis-represented matter of Fact Now let any Man judge what an indecent thing it is in our Rector to blacken Jerome's Memory with the Imputation of the most impudent and most foolish Lie which Thousands of that Age could have detected and he wanted not Adversaries that would have sufficiently exposed him upon such an occasion His Friend Rufinus would have aggravated a Crime of this Nature and made the World sensible of it long ago But
which appears Lawful to the imposer may be judged otherwise by conscientious Dissenters which is our Case If the imposers only must judge Popish Rulers will say it 's Lawful to bow to a Crucifix to a Graven-Image to adore the Bread in the Eucharist c. Let the Rector take which side of the Question he please he must either acquit the Dissenters or justify the Papists He concludes his Second Chapter with a Vindication of their reading Apocrypha in the Churches to the Exclusion of several Parts of Scripture Why do the Dissenters neglect the reading of the Word of God to make way for their Sermons and Expositions p. 31. If any do neglect reading the Scriptures let 'em bear the blame of it I know none such I hope he wou'd not have us lay aside Sermons and Expositions to fill up the whole time with reading the holy Scripture They that Expound do also Read tho' not so much yet perhaps to more Advantage by helping the People to understand what they read And if preaching which also Explains the holy Scripture take up most of the time in some Congregations where less Scripture is read it cannot be denied but preaching is an Ordinance of God but so is not the reading of Apocrypha and therefore this recrimination is impertinent But saith the Rector to read the Apocrypha is not to Canonize it I do not say it is but to comprehend it under the Name of the Holy Scripture as is done in the Rubrick before the Table of Lessons in the Liturgy and to read it to the total Exclusion of some Parts of Scripture may tempt ignorant People to think it Canonical Many wise Men adds he think the Story of Bell and Dragon to be true p. 31. So the Papists do and they think it Canonical too They are Men Wise in their Generation and the Dictates of Wise Men are a Rule of Faith to the Rector But he is not sure but it may be a Fiction or Fable or in more civil Terms a Parable and many think saith he the Book of Job of this kind a Parable p. 31. Names of Persons Countries and Places don't use to be inserted into Parables as is done in the Story of Bell and Dragon as also in the Book of Job which he invidiously compares to this fabulous Story The Book of Job is allow'd to be Canonical by all Christians and has all the Characters of a real History the Names of Places Persons c. his Children Estate Losses Friends Enemies and his Restoration are particularly described and he is expresly mention'd by the Holy Ghost in other Places Ez. 14. 14. James 5. 11. and cited in 1 Cor. 3. 19. I find in Pools Synopsis but two Sorts of People that make the History of Job a Parable some Antient Jews and some Modern Anabaptists but neither one nor 'tother at present seem to own that Opinion The Rector is a rare Man he can convert an Apocryphal Fable into a Divine History and a Divine History into a Parabolical Fable And that you may not think him singular in this Faculty he has Papists Jews and Anabaptists in his Interests He that denies the Book of Job to be a History may in good Time turn all Scripture History into a Parable or a cunninly devised Fable and when he has serv'd a temporal Interest by it may brag with the Roman Pontiff whose Dictates the Rector must own for a Rule of Faith quantum nobis profuit haec Fabula de Christo CHAP. III. Being an Answer to his Third Chapter IN his Third Chapter he pretends to Answer my first in which I observed p. 1. That in a Sermon to the Clergy a Testimony against the shameful Scandals of some of them wou'd have became a faithful Minister but that he had other work to do his Business being to accuse of secret Crimes and not to reprove for open Miscarriages All the Rector can say for this inexcusable Omission and Partiality is That he dare undertake to point out as many Scandalous Dissenting Ministers in Lancashire as we can Clergy Men. p. 35. He is a Man of bold Vndertaking but the one and the other are pretty well known in that Country and other Parts of the Nation which will scarce receive the Dictates of this daring Vndertaker against the Evidence of Sense and common Observation If he knows any Scandalous Dissenting Ministers let him name the Men and spare not I added p. 2 3 4. that the Corruption in Acts 6. 3. is inconsistent with the Principles of the Presbyterians that I never knew any that approv'd of that Corruption that his Charge amounts to no more than a bare Suspition that the Dissenters have secretly contributed to the Corruption of this Place that had not he Examin'd the Errata of the Press more out of ill Will to the Dissenters than good Will to the Publick he might have found several other Errors of the Press as considerable as ye for we as she for he in Eph. 1. 4. in a Twelves Bible London 1691. we for ye in Job 6. 21. in a Quarto Edition of the Bible at Cambridg 1675. and several more I mention there Among all these Particulars he takes notice only of the last and to excuse himself most falsly Affirms That all I offer in this Chapter in Vindication of the Dissenters is that several Editions of the Bible abound with such Errors as are destructive of the Sense Judge by this what Credit is to be given to the Rectors Affirmations But let 's hear what he can say to the Errors of the Press of which I give a Catalogue He has four Things to offer p. 32 33. I. He quarrels with an Uncorrected Error of the Press in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And disingenously insinuates as if I were defective in the Greek Tongue The Rector is grievously at a loss how to make good his Charge since he fills Paper with such stuff as this II. Tho' he might be justly suspected saith the Rector in the Account given of these Errata's yet I will admit it to be True A mighty Favour indeed To admit that for True which he cannot disprove but his most generous Concessions have a Tincture of his ill Nature which is as Lazy as it is Suspicious I refer to the Editions why is he not at the Pains to Examin them if he justly suspects my Account The Truth is it is not as Easie to disprove as to impeach ones Veracity The Rector has an excellent Faculty at the latter let who will undertake the former III. Such Errors don't establish any Untruth nor favour any side in the present Controversies nor has Mr. O. given us one Example of the same Error repeated in several Editions p. 33. Where they make a corrupt Sense they establish an Untruth as in Job 6. 21. we are nothing it should be ye are nothing There is we for ye as in Acts 6. 3. you have ye for we So that we
or since the coming of Christ Not before because Christ and his Apostles do not Charge 'em with it not after because the Allegations made by Christ and his Apostles out of the Old Testament are all or most of 'em still to be found there * Orig. lib. 8. in Isa ut refert Hieron in Cap. 6. Isa II. I urged the Testimony of Philo who flourished about the XLth Year of Christ He writes that even unto his Time for the space of above 2000 Years not one Word had been Chang'd in the Writings of Moses To this the Rector answers that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which I render'd Word sometimes signifies Sentence or an intire Proposition 'T was the Laws of Moses the Jews were careful of and not the Words Syllables or Letters according to Philo in this Place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usually render'd Word by all Interpreters and that 's the Primary and most proper Signification of it and any one wou'd so render it here that has no design to expose the Scripture and does not study to elude such plain Testimonies as assert it's Purity He grants that the Jews according to Philo changed not any Sentence of the Law But who knows not that the change of one Word yea of one Letter as in the instance of ye and we often alters a whole Sentence If Words might be chang'd whole Sentences might as easily be perverted Philo argues a minore ad majus that the Ancient Jews were so far from changing the Law of Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they removed or changed not one Word of what he had written The Rector prevaricates when he saith 't was the Law of Moses they were careful of and not the Words Doubtless they were careful of both and Philo saith they changed not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one Word with what confidence then dare the Rector affirm they were not careful of the Words He confesses they were careful of the Laws he wou'd do well to tell us how the Laws cou'd be preserv'd without the Words It does not follow hence saith he that there was no Alteration in any Word or Point this might happen tho' the Jews did it not wilfully for any thing Philo offers to the contrary p. 21. Truth is constant to it self but the Rectors notions are inconsistent He told us above that many Corruptions might be designedly thrust into the Text before Christ's Time and now he saith the Jews alter'd not a Word wilfully This he delivers as his own Sense in a Parenthesis and not as Philo's It 's evident the Rector strains the Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to elude the Force of Philo's Testimony for the Purity of the Hebrew Text. It 's true it signifies a Sentence sometimes but we ought not to recede from the primary and literal Signification of Words without necessity The Jews were careful not only of the Sentences but were Religious to Superstition in counting the very Letters of the Bible to preserve it intire as the Rector told us in his Sermon p. 13. but now he is inclined to think they took no Care of the Words Syllables or Letters but only of the Sentences of the Law as he explains Philo. I leave it to such as can to reconcile the Rector to himself Certain it is that the Jews had of Old and still have such a Zeal for their Law that the very Words Syllables and Letters were preserved by them with no less Care than the Sentences of the Law We have a memorable Story in Jerome which whether True or False shews what a Zeal the Jews of that Age had for the Words and Letters of the Law The Story is this Joab slew his Master because he did the Work of the Lord deceitfully when he read Deut. 25. 19. Thou shalt blot out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Male of Amalek when he ought to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Memory of Amalek * Hieron in Isa 6. The Letters of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same in both readings all the difference lies in the Points or Vowels The Jewish Rabbies say that he who makes the least Alteration in the Bible commits the inexpiable Sin And they add that if any One out of Ignorance or Malice shou'd change One Word therein the whole World wou'd be in danger of Perishing and returning into it's primitive Chaos And they give this Reason for their Opinion which they endeavour various ways to confirm that the World was Created for the Sake of the Holy Scripture If any one therefore shou'd Corrupt the Scripture the World must needs Perish †Polan Syntag. ex Talm. lib. 1. cap. 37. p. 211. This Confirms Philo's Testimony and explains the meaning of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Rector has weakly endeavour'd to perplex But I shall have Occasion presently to speak more of their Care of the very Words and Letters of the Law agreeable to this Testimony of Philo. III. I argued from the Masora which I affirm'd to have been a effectual means to preserve the Purity of the Hebrew Text and renders it impossible that any Corruption shou'd have crept into them All that the Rector hath to say to this Argument is That 't was no hard matter for cunning Rabbies to alter Words and Letters and still to keep the just Number of them as ye and we in Acts. 6. 3. where still remains the same Number of Words and Letters The Rector discovers himself to be a perfect Stranger to the Masora which tells us not how many Words and Letters are in every Book but the Genuine Writing and Reading where any diversity Occurs as also when Words are written Fully with quiescent Letters especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when defectively without them They note when a Word begins ends or is to be found in the Middle of a Verse They observe all the peculiar Constructions of it with the Ambiguous Significations they remark also the Vowels and Accents They take notice of the greater and lesser Letters and of those that are inverted and symbolically Pointed nay they have enter'd down how often every Letter of the Alphabet is contain'd in the whole Scripture All this and much more the learned Reader may find in Buxtorf's Tiberias or Commentary upon the Masora by which it's Evident the Hebrew Copies could not be Corrupted after the Masora was Written This is acknowledged both by Jews and Christians that understand the Masora Elias Levita a learned Jew who tho' he differs from his own Countrey Men about the Time of the Masora which he thinks was invented at Tiberias after the Year 500. yet he owns it in concurrence with other Rabbies to be an effectual Conservatory of the Purity of the Law I will give you his own Words * Elias Lev. in Buxt Tiber. p. 6. After this Work which the Authors of the Masora perform'd it is impossible that