positively objected to the Church of England that she had left out of the Psalms some Original Parts meaning the Titles when 't is not certain that they are Original The Minister at Oswestry here takes fair leave of his Client and bids him shift for himself as well as he can having no more to say in behalf of Mr. Delaune Only whereas I put the question why the Titles were not all translated into plain English if they were so serviceable to the unfolding the Mysteries contain'd in the Psalms he surlily tells me the Bishops they being the Translators of the Bible into English could best resolve the Question I thank him heartily for this and desire the good People among the Dissenters to think of it Mr. Owen has herein done my Lords the Bishops some Justice before he was aware in acknowledging that the Scriptures being in the English Tongue is owing to their Labours Learning and Piety But 't will be objected that they have not Translated all the Titles True Neither have the Dissenters tho' they had power and opportunity in the Reign of the Long Parliament and Oliver and had more lately Liberty to do it if t were worth the while and a matter of so great moment as Mr. de Laune has made the World to believe If it might not be thought a digression from my present purpose I would observe that the Mysteries in the Psalms as far as I am able to judge are those which relate unto Jesus Christ or those principally but there is not one Title in the Hebrew which is at all useful to the unfolding any of these Mysteries For I do profess that after I am told it is a Psalm a Song a Song or Psalm a Psalm of David a Prayer of Moses a Psalm at the Dedication of Davids House a Psalm for the Sabbath sent to such or such a chief Musician on what Instrument it was to be sung a Golden Psalm a Psalm of Instruction of Degrees c. I am just as wise as I was before as to the Mysteries contain'd in such Psalms The like I affirm of the rest of the Titles 'T was therefore unfair in Mr. de Laune to bear his ignorant and unobserving Readers in hand as if the Titles unfolded the Mysteries of the Psalms To the other Questions I there put the Minister returns but a very sorry and evasive Answer thus They are not worth Answering However he might methinks have diverted his Friends in and about Manchester with a Jest or two They would have taken it for a solid Answer and cry'd him up as the Jews did Herod Act. 12. 22. But to the end the impartial Reader may see that at least some of my Questions were to the purpose and ought to have been reply'd to or else Mr. Delaune left in the lurch undefended and convict of dealing very dishonestly with us I will draw one or two of those Questions into the form of an Argument and then it will be seen whether they are worth Answering or whether Mr. Owen were able to answer 'em so as to vindicate Mr. Delaune or get any advantage of the Rector Setting aside then the Controversie about the Titles which I will now suppose are Cononical Scripture of a certainty yet Mr. Delaune had no Reason to accuse us of leaving them out of our Liturgy Translation which we sing or say because the Dissenters themselves leave 'em out of their Psalms in Meter nor do they sing 'em at their Divine Worship Mr. Delaune therefore had no room to complain of us when the Dissenters were guilty in the same kind It will be time enough to quarrel with us after they shall have amended their own fault In the mean while they are so much the more inexcusable that they have not to this day reform'd what they seem to be perswaded is amiss But the Truth is were it never so manifest and certain that the Titles are essential Parts of the Psalms yet I believe neither the Church of England nor Mr. Delaune nor his Vindicator nor any wise Dissenter would think fit to advise the Singing them or putting them into Meter at the head of the Singing Psalms Mr. Delaune's Exception therefore was nothing but noise and cavil and impertinence which was the thing I design'd and did effectually demonstrate in my Sermon Instead then of saying my Questions Are not worth Answering the Remarker should have done me right and his Client no Injustice by confessing fairly that Mr. Delaune impeach'd the Church of England without cause and that himself was not able to justifie him But he must be excus'd His business and his head lies another way viz. abusing the Rector and Bantering the ignorant and innocent People of his own Party He has been so far from Exercising Charity to his Neighbours that he has not been just to any side no not to himself In plain terms he has bely'd himself and pretended the contrary to what he could not but know sc that those Questions merited an Answer in the Controversie between Mr. Delaune and me 2. In the next place Mr. Delaune excepted against the Establish'd Church That we read some select Portions of Scripture commonly call'd Epistles and Gospels and not the intire Chapters which says he is a curtalling and mangling the Scriptures which thereby become quite another thing than the Evangelists intended in the Gospels or the Apostles in the Epistles altogether ruining the Scope and Connexion in divers Places To this I reply'd That the Dissenters sing some small Portions of Psalms which with them is not curtailing or mangling the Psalms That they read single Chapters into which the inspir'd Pen-men did not divide their Writings as well as not into those shorter Sections call'd Epistles and Gospels that 't is as lawful and perhaps as edifying to read these as whole Chapters that there is often a Connexion between Chapter and Chapter which binders not the Dissenters reading them severally that this is every whit as much disturbing the Scope of those Places as our reading the Epistles and Gospels is that those Paragraphs of Scripture have two senses a Relative and an Independent sense that tho' the Relative sense cannot be understood without its neighbouring Parts yet it is not ruin'd thereby to omit for a time is not ruining the Scope nor doing it the least Injury That the independent Sense however is still safe that by the Rule imply'd in this Objection the Dissenters who are not very fond of reading any at all will be oblig'd to read many Chapters together happily whole Books and to sing the 119. Psal at once And what says the Remarker to all this He suggests that we omit reading some Scriptures even whole Chapters and Books as he gathers from our Kalender which seems to be a diminishing from the Word of God This is nothing to the Defence of Mr. Delaune but a Digression from the Argument in hand which is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
veteri Romano sequitur à ligno eoquo modo affertur à Sancto Cyprian Just Mart. Tertulliano Sancto Leone Papa in hymno Ecclesiastico Regnavit à ligno Deus Besides this most ancient Father and Martyr and the most Learned too of all others in and before his time has produced a great many Examples of the like kind and not a few whole Periods or smaller Sections intirely expung'd which the Jews then living and disputing with him were not able to deny or any ways palliate So that all the pretended Care of the Jews notwithstanding the Hebrew Copy had been corrupted early in the Second Century and according to Vossius soon after the Destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian and remains so unto this present time I must not pass over Vossius's main Argument but will represent it in very few words He shews that the Ancient Jews believed their Messiah would come about the 6000 Year from the Creation and that they expected him about the time when Jesus was born those two Periods being coincident It follows hence 1. That they believ'd the World 6000 years old at the Birth of Jesus 2. That the Ancient Hebrew Copies reckon'd 6000 years from Adam to Jesus else the Jews could not have been in expectation of the Messiah when Jesus was born if their Chronology had then been the same as it is this day 3. From the whole it must be confest that the Modern Hebrew Copies are corrupted the World according to them being at the Birth of Jesus but about 4000 years old The 2000 years wanting in the present Hebrew are supply'd in a great measure by the Seventy's Copy in the Chronology of the Patriarchs the Remainder are made good out of the Intervals of the Judges of Israel and the Reigns of the Persian Kings which the Jews have shorten'd and drawn the Christians into their Error Hereunto may be added another Observation near of kind unto the former St. Luke Chap. 4. 35 36 v. affirms Sala was the Son of Cainan Cainan the Son of Arpbaxad But Gen. 11. 12 v. Sala is reckon'd the immediate Son of Arphaxad and Cainan quite left out in the Hebrew Copy whereas the Vatican Seventy agrees with St. Luke which is a Demonstration that the Jews have corrupted the Hebrew By this one Artifice of theirs are lost 130 years I expect here the Remarker or the Note-maker will for the sake of the Hebrew give the Holy Evangelist such another Character as upon the like occasion their Friend Jerom did That Corruption of Psal 22. 16. v. is known and acknowledg'd by all The Jews read it thus As a Lion instead of They pierced my hands and my feet So the Evangelist Mark 15. 24. and the Seventy more truly have it the difference is but the half of a very small Letter sc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is less than that between Y and W and the Epenthesis of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is common among 'em in other Cases But after all this it was nothing to me or to my Argument in the Sermon whether the Jews corrupted the Seventy only or the Hebrew also or both I 'll suppose it was the Seventy only which is all Mr. O. contends for yet still my Bill of Indictment laid against the Jews must be found For the Scripture is the Word of God in whatever Language 't is written They who would excuse the Jews for Corrupting the Seventy only and not the Hebrew in good time will defend the Corrupting the English Version only and not the Original Greek But if the latter Defence will not bring off the false Cameronian neither will the former justifie the faithless Jews I wish then the Jews the Scotch Presbyterians and Mr. O. in the name of his Brethren in England to concert these Matters among ' emselves for the Good of Christendom The Rector briefly noted that the Samaritans and Sadducees rejected all but the Five Books of Moses and the Minister calls this a Vulgar Error let us see on what Grounds Mr. Owen pleads that whereas Josephus affirms The Sadducees to have receiv'd the Law only the Historian in another place explains himself as if he meant The written Law in Opposition to the Oral In proof whereof he sends me back unto the 13th b. and 18 Chap. I am there and read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But now I will shew that the Pharisees having receiv'd from the Fathers many things as legal which were not written in the Law of Moses deliver'd them unto the People And for this cause the Sadducees rejected them alledging that those things only were to be accounted Legal which were written sc in the Laws of Moses but that they ought not to observe the Traditions of the Fathers I will not insist upon this that some Learned Men have thought the Prophetical Books of Scripture were by the Sadducees reckon'd among the Oral Traditions of the Fathers nor will I deny tho' there be reason to doubt that Josephus's Passage in his Eighteenth Book is to be understood in the same Sense as that in the Thirteenth Book and that they explain one another However this be he speaks only of the Traditions added unto the Laws of Moses which the Sadducees rejected but not a Syllable concerning the Prophetical Writings which whether the Sadducees rejected or not remains still to be examin'd Mr. O. assures us 't is a Vulgar Error But Mr. Pool in his Synopsis informs me 't was the constant Opinion of the Fathers and never contradicted til Scaliger and Drusius of late advanc'd the contrary Opinion I hope the Minister will not thrust down the Fathers into the Vulgar Forme The Sadducees in all Probability would never have deny'd the Resurrection if they had entertain'd a just esteem of the Prophetical Books Hence our Lord overlooking all the other more plain and convincing Testimonies in the Prophetical Writings singl'd out that of Moses Exod. 3. 6. I am the God of thy Father the God of Abraham c. as the most proper and effectual Argument ad Hominem in proof of the Resurrection which the Sadducees on their own Principles cou'd not deny tho' they might have avoided the other But the Remarker sends me to the Learn'd Dr. Lightfoot for further satisfaction herein Vol. 2. pag. 541 542. I am content to stand to this Gentleman's Judgment Dr. Lightfoot then pag. 541. grants that the Samaritans might so reject all the Books of the Old Testament except the Pentateuch as to forbid their being read in the Synagogues Even this Concession alone were I should think sufficient to my purpose The Sadducees and Samaritans forbad the rest of the Scripture to be read in the Publick Congregations If the Hagiographa and Prophets were now by a Positive Order forbid to be read in our Churches we should have Mr. O I question not soon about our Ears as Men that put a
Slur upon the Word of God and question'd its Divine Authority But Dr. L. further adds pag. 542. That it was one Fundamental of the Sadducees Faith That no Article in Religion ought to be admitted which cannot be made out plainly from the Five Books of Moses From hence it appears that they did not believe the other Books of Scripture to be of equal Authority with the Pentateuch nor sufficient of themselves to establish any Doctrine of Faith Now whereas the Doctor argues and proves out of his Rabbins that the Sadducees and Samaritans us'd and read and believ'd all the other Books as well as the Pentateuch and that they were not ignorant of 'em nor accounted 'em Tales and of no value and again that those Books were known to 'em and of Authority among ' em All this I readily grant for they doubtless highly esteem'd the rest of the Scripture and â—inâ—d it in confirmation of any Doctrine reveal'd by Moses as we Christians do the Primitive Fathers tho' uninspir'd I have been longer on this trivial Subject than I intended Only let the Reader mark how the two Ministers are here Advocating for the Samaritans and Sadducees as they before undertook the Protection of the other Jews In good time the Dissenters will comprehend these also Some of the Quakers and Anabaptists the Modern Sadducees and Mahometans I mean the Socinians and almost all the Nation of Schismaticks and Hereticks are in their Interests already The Samaritans and Jews are happily coming into the Confederacy 7. The Rector laid down this Observation also We diminish from the Word when we lay it aside as not necessary or not the Supreme Rule of Faith Hereunto Mr. O. answers This implys as if there were some other at least subordinate Rules of Faith We know no other Rule of Divine Faith but the Holy Scripture The Man thinks verily he has caught me now But I am not afraid to say there are many subordinate Rules of Faith and do pretend here to teach him them because he seems to be ignorant of them I reckon then that whatsoever confirms or illustrates any Doctrine is a Subordinate Rule of Faith for whatsoever doth make manifest is Light Eph. 5. 13. Such are the ancient Creeds Catechisms Decrees of Councils Testimony of Fathers Consent of Adversaries the Instructions of Parents the Dictates of Wise and Good Men the Voice of Conscience the Light of Natural Reason the Preaching of the Word the Intimations of Providence and lastly Universal Tradition every one of which when it administers Light to the Divine Truths contain'd in the Word of God are Subordinate Rules of Faith But of all these Universal Tradition may on very good Grounds be accounted a Rule For I ask Mr. Owen why he believes the Scripture to be Divinely inspir'd but because 't is transmitted unto us as such by Universal Tradition The Excellency of its Moral Precepts the high Strains and noble Flights of Piety which we meet with there renders it worthy every good Man's Acceptation true but they prove not that 't was written by Inspiration For then Plato and Seneca St. Ignatius and St. Clemens Romanus the Seven Wise Men of Greece and Mr. O. may reckon himself the eighth if he please and a thousand other celebrated Authors might lay claim to Inspiration The Miracles reported in Scripture to have been wrought by the Authors or Divine Writers of the Books do not evince 'em to have been written by Inspiration until it be first made out that those Writers did work those Miracles and this cannot be proved at this time of day but by Tradition So then it is the Universal Testimony of the Church in conjunction with that vein of intrinsick Goodness and Piety running through all the Holy Scriptures which convinces us that they were deliver'd by Persons inspir'd and authoriz'd thereto by God Tradition therefore is at least a Subordinate Rule of Faith and confirms the Divine Authority of the Books of Scripture Another perhaps would affirm it the first and leading Rule But I give Mr. O. liberty to assign it which place he pleases Only I ask whether this Minister of the Gospel who pretends to be a Teacher of others and a Guide of the Blind was ever yet able to give a solid Reason of his own Faith and of the Hope that is in him He can never do it without the help of Tradition The Rector added under this Head some things concerning the Sufficiency Perspicuity and Supreme Authority of the Scripture which this Critick being it seems in a better humour than ordinarily that Generation of Men are is pleas'd out of his great Condescension to declare Are well Asserted But I must confess I like not the Rector one jot the better for this Commendation and yet wish I could in any measure return his Complement and let him know that he has said any one thing well and wisely in his Remarks Master said those vile and Hypocritical Pharisees and Herodians we know that thou art true and teachest the way of God in Truth c. when at the same time they had a design upon Jesus Christ to puzzle and insnare him with a cramp Question So my Adversary here notwithstanding his Commendations has something against the Rector Some Men can never be pleas'd and the Remarker is one of that number I perceive Tell me says he is it lawful to Impose indifferent things His words are Were this Principle practically acknowledg'd it would soon heal our breaches c. As who should say did we once lay aside Vnscriptural Terms of Communion and thereby Practically acknowledg the Sufficiency Perspicuity and Supreme Authority of the Scriptures all would be well in a trice an end then would be put to our Divisions Verily if this would do the feat I would embrace it with both arms I 'd do any thing for the purchase of so valuable a Blessing But how comes this wise Seer to look so far before him as to assure us of this good issue the experiment has been once made already but without success Time was when Episcopacy was exploded and the Unscriptural Terms of Communion here complain'd of laid aside but were our breaches soon healed It was so far from that that they were not healed at all nor ever will be upon the Presbyterian and Congregational Principles Our Division were increas'd and multiply'd Schisms and Heresies grew to be as numerous as the Heads of Hydra In short I know no way of healing our Breaches but that every Man should obey them that have the Rule over 'em in all lawful things q.d. which are not forbidden by God For why should any one presume to scruple or call that unclean which the Lord has not made so They are much more superstitious who abhor a Surplice than they who wear it I lastly observ'd that We diminish from the Word when we add any thing to it I mention'd the Apocrypha which the Romanists insert
these Men's Judgments if they do not or will not see it 't is because there is no Light in them I appeal to the Law and to the Testimony of the Scripture in this and the eighth Chapters I will not repeat the Evidence I only ask why do they not Ordain their Overseers of the Poor as the Apostles did by their own confession I can imagine no other reason but because it is against their inclinations and looks like a Ceremony To◠conclude this Argument The Remarker suggests as if I were not according to my own Principle that is of the People's chusing their own Ministers rightly invested with the Rectory of Bury I have already accounted for this in the Pref. to Tent. nov The Remarkers Business is not to argue soberly but to cavil I advise him in the mean time to examin his own breast whether he obtain'd his former Post at Wrexham by fair honest means to ask himself the Question Whether he did not betray and by a paultry trick supplant Mr. Barnet his Predecessor and step into his Place whether he did not discover the Secrets of his inward Friend and Confident who disclos'd his heart to him as to a Confessor I might moreover tell Mr. Owen that time was when the Presbyterians decreed it Lawful for a Minister to take a Presentation from a Patron This Conclusion was made in the Provincial Meeting at Preston July 6. 1647. as I find it Registred in the fifth Meeting of the second Classis at Bury July 22. of the same Year But the Case it seems is alter'd they have now quitted this Principle I imagin unto the Independents who have requited them with submitting in ordinary unto the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery A Man cannot tell where to find these People Herod and Pontius Pilate are at length Friends how long 't will continue time must shew I am told there are some Dissenters or Nonconformists among 'em already My third Argument was to this purpose that the Episcopal Party can not be imagin'd to have designedly corrupted this Place nor to have conniv'd at it since for that would be to destroy what their Church Government seems to be built on Hereunto the Minister replies That this proves nothing against the Dissenters who do not charge the Episcopal Party with it But I return If it were designedly done or at least if it were afterwards countenanced and propagated with design as I shall once more prove by and by then because Mr. Owen has acquitted us the Dissenters must confess Guilty And if Bishops are as we contend properly the Apostles Successors if the Deacons as has been said were Ministers of the Word and Sacrament then I am not absurd nor singular in hinting at an Argument for Episcopacy from this Text as others before me have done But because this Man of Grammar once more gives us a Cast of his Office and quarrels at the word Seems which says he is as much as if I had contradicted my self and by saying Seems to be built had confest it was not really built upon it I must again shew what an unhappy Critick and Puny Grammaticaster he is Let him then turn to Act. 15. 28. There he 'l read It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and unto us and Chap. 25. 27. It seemeth unreasonable c. Was this as good as to say It was not good to the Holy Ghost c. or it was not unreasonable to send a Prisoner to Rome and not signifie the Crimes laid to his Charge Several other Examples of this kind I could produce out of Scripture and human Authors were it worth the while I only note that Tully in an hundred places uses videtur when he intends to affirm Thus Horace Tres mihi conviva propè dissentire videntur Poscentes vario multum diversa palato Dissentire videntur pro dissentiunt as the following words evince Lastly there is not a more common way of disputing than the Opponents ushering in their Arguments thus Videtur quod sic They do not thereby mean to intimate that what they are about to prove true is false The Remarker then and his Assistants have made a fearful stumble here and run their heads against the Authority of Scripture and all good Authors Nay I will confute them out of Mr. Owen's own mouth Pref. pag. 2. Which says he meaning our omitting to read some Books of Scripture seems to be a Diminishing from the Word of God i e. According to Mr. Owen's Criticism is not diminishing from it why then does he retort it upon us as if it were My fourth and last Argument was deduc'd from the Cameronians citing this corrupt Place in favour of the People's Power of appointing over themselves their own Teachers and Ministers The Minister objects That the Story concerns not the English Presbyterians that he expected I would have instanc'd in some English Presbyterians who have made use of this false Reading that the Scotch Evidence is but hear-say that 't is scarce credible a Cameronian should assert a Doctrine directly contrary to the Presbyterian Principles that the Error of one Man ought not to be charged upon all In answer to all this I say 1. That for the matter of Fact I think it unquestionable 'T is thus The Honourable Colonel Fairfax reported this Fact unto the Reverend Mr. Piggot Vicar of Rochdale in the hearing of several Persons then present in particular of Mr. Rob. Mills a Shop-keeper in Rochdale and a known Dissenter After Mr. P. had satisfy'd 'em about the true Reading of the place in the Original The Company then at Rochdale consulted several English Bibles which they sent for from private Houses and found them corrupted in like manner whereupon Col. Fairfax declar'd that he thought the Presbyterians had some Knavish Design A German Gentleman then in the Company with them pull'd a Dutch Testament of Luther's Translation out of his Pocket wherein he read We and then added he was certain the Presbyterians in Germany and in Scotland where he had lately been were Knaves and it was well if they were better in England Mr. Owen demanded a particular Account of this Fact and I have given it him These latter Circumstance I would have bury'd in oblivion had not my adversaries importunity forc'd me to make 'em thus publick 'T is Mr. O. they are beholden to for it 2. The English Presbyterians are like to bear the Burden of their Brethren in Scotland As they deal with us they should be content to be dealt with themselves They have no colour of Complaint when they duly consider what they have done unto us 3. I promise him presently an Example of an English Dissenter who has made use of this false Reading 4. I am apt to believe almost any thing even Contradictions of a Cameronian But the Comfort is this is not one The Cameronian pleaded not against Ordination by the hands of the Presbyteries as Mr. Owen like a
Job who was 't is thought contemporary with Moses liv'd 140 years even after his Afflictions and at length died being old and full of days Chap. 42. 16 17. Levi liv'd 137 years Exod. 6. 16. â—â—â—â—th lived 133 years 〈◊〉 18. Amram 137. ver 20. Aaron was 123 years old when he dy'd Numb 33. 39. Joshua dy'd being 110 years old Chap. 24. 29. Miriam according to Isaaeson see Numb 20. 1. was 129 years old Caleb 85. Josh 147. 10. and was alive Judg. 1. 15. And Jethro Heb 11. 24 Exod. 2. 11 c. Act. 7. 23. Exod. 7. 7. Chap. 18. must needs have been an 100 years old and upwards Yea Ehud the Judge an Age or more after Joshua lived to be above 100 years old having govern'd the Israelites eighty years Judg. 3. 39. But above all this Moses the Man of God the suppos'd Pen-man of this Psalm was eighty years old when he was sent unto Pharaoh Act. 7. 23 30. This must be before he could Pen the Psalm He afterwards attain'd unto the 120th year and then dy'd His Eyes were not dim nor his natural force abated Deut. 34. 7. It is not then likely that Moses was the Author of this Psalm because the Body of the Psalm does not at all agree with the times wherein that Man of God flourish'd and himself had no occasion of complaining of the shortness and labour and sorrow of our days including himself It must be confest that this point is bandy'd by Learned Men and sundry Answers are offer'd to the Arguments produc'd which I will not trouble the Reader with only let it be consider'd that several Authors in Mr. Pool's Synopsis deliver their Opinion very cautiously Veri simile est Mosem hunc Psalmum composuisse say they 'T is but likely then at most I add Greg. Nyssen reckons this Psalm among those which had no Title according to the Jews And Basil says David wrote it and adds that it wants an Inscription tho' he himself gives it one Of the 91. Psalm likewise he notes that it had obtain'd a right Inscription implying that Inscriptions were Human Additions I 'll produce one other Instance 'T is the Title of the 34. Psal A Psalm of David when he changed his behaviour before Abimelech who drove him away and he departed The King of Gath here meant is call'd Achish 1 Sam. 21. 10. and not Abimelech from whence the Truth of this Title may be doubted We are told indeed that Abimelech was a common Name of the Kings of the Philistines as Caesar and Augustus were of the Roman Emperors But I am not satisfy'd with this For I read but of one at most two Successive Philistine Kings of that name Gen. 20. 2. Chap. 26. 8. Kings of Gerar. This was in Abraham and Isaac's days But to fancy that the name of Abimelech was continu'd among the Philistine Kings unto the days of David about 800 years is not very likely we meeting not with any one King so call'd in all that interval of time save one of the Kings of Israel Judg. 9. 6. who had no other name besides Nor is the Achish King of Gath any where call'd Abimelech except in this Title Now that which might give occasion unto this mistake in the Title of his Psalm was that in the said first of Sam. 21. there it mentior made of Ahimelech the High Priest of the Israelites whose Congress with David takes up the nine first Verses of that Chapter and may with some appearance of Reason therefore be said to have occasioned that Error in the Title of putting Ahimelech for Achish That the Book of Psalms has receiv'd some humane Additions may be argu'd from those words rack'd to the 72. Psalm at the end The Prayers of David the Son of Jess are ended which is manifestly false if the Titles of the Psalms are true there being very many Prayers of David which follow in this Book of Psalms If any stress should be laid upon the Distinction between Prayers and Psalms I reply that the 142. Psalm is call'd a Prayer of David and the Original word is the same in both sc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 differing only in number Besides the Psalms that follow the 72 are as truly Prayers as they which go before it Some body then not inspir'd has either transpos'd the Psalms or else added to them the foresaid Conclusion of the 72. Psalm being either misplac'd or thrust into the Text. It is not then impossible but the like may have been done at the beginning of the Psalms by prefixing Titles unto them There are Titles added to very many Psalms in the 70 Version which are not to be met with in the Hebrew For Example Psal 137. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeremy compos'd this mournful Song in the name of the Captives at Babylon as any one will grant that considers the Subject matter of the Psalm and compares it with the state of the Israelites in Jeremiah's time I ask then is this Title Divinely inspir'd And yet Jerome translates it and comments upon it as he does upon other of the Seventy Titles Lastly the Oriental Versions the Syriack and the Arabick and the Chaldeâ— Paraphrase oft-times want Titles frequently change 'em and sometimes add Titles when neither the Hebrew nor the Greek lay claim to any at all which could never have happen'd if they had been Canonical Scripture Theodoret seems to believe the Inscriptions Canonical as being found so he says in the Psalms when the Seventy Translated 'em into Greek But Gregory Nyssen who flourish'd half a Century before him observes That among the Christians who used the Seventy Translation some Psalms have the Inscription of the Prophet but not among the Hebrews that sometimes the first Sentence of the Psalm so I understand him is put into the Place of the Title both with the Christians and the Jews after the manner of our Liturgy Translation that the Jews rejected the Titles of some Psalms which the Christians receiv'd He reckons 12 of this kind viz. 2 3 4 5 6 8 32 42 70 73 90 103 Psalms None of which it should seem had at that time among the Jews any Inscription tho' at this day all but the Second have He no where pleads for the Divine Authority of the Titles How could he when there was such a disagreement between the Jews and Christians about ' em He also speaks as if some Titles were receiv'd by Ecclesiastical Custom but 't is hard to determine at this time of day which are by Divine Inspiration and which by Custom From the whole some will be apt to conclude that the Hebrew Titles are not essential Parts of the Psalms but the Conjectures and Additions of uninspired Persons I for my share am of that Opinion All must confess that they are not Canonical Scripture of a certainty which was all I insisted on in the Sermon and therefore that Mr. Delaune did unworthily when he
and is meer cavil and shuffling It betrays the weakness of Mr. Owen's Defence of Mr. Delaune Our omitting Chapters and Books will not vindicate Mr. Delaune's unjust Accusation of us about reading the Epistles and Gospels As for the rest of my Reply to Mr. Delaune the Remarker puts me off with this slight Answer I leave him and Mr. Delaune to argue c. But Mr. Delaune is long since dead where and when we shall meet God only knows I am pretty sure not in this World Mr. Owen perhaps with the help of our Lancashire Exorcists will undertake to bring Mr. Delaune back again Why not They who can cast out Devils 't is probable can raise the Dead One Miracle is as easily wrought as another yet still the mischief is tho' these Wonder-workers should conjure him up again as the Woman of Endor did Samuel I am not sure the Rector would have the courage to meet him In plain terms Mr. O. has declin'd the Cause being as little able to make good the Objection laid against us as the Accuser himself was 3. Mr. Delaune tax'd the establish'd Church That in the Liturgy Translation of the Psalms three whole Verses are foisted into the 14th Psalm immediately after the third Verse Hereunto I return'd That the inspir'd Pen-men of the New Testament had done the same 1 Cor. 15. 54 55 v. that is had put distant Passages of Scripture together and cited 'em as one single and intire Testimony That St. Paul had borrowed these very three objected Verses at least from other Psalms and Books of the Old Testament and inserted them with the other Parts of the Psalm into Rom. 3. 10. v. c. The which I suppose is sufficient to justifie us And what has the Minister reply'd unto all this Why just nothing at all He has not so much as taken the least notice of it so as to vindicate Mr. Delaune's groundless clamour against us that 's out of doors Ne'rtheless something he has to say against the Rector which whether it be to the purpose is no matter 't will make a noise among his Party and that 's all He acquaints us then from Jerome That the said three Verses were transcrib'd out of Romans into Psal 14. that they are not in the LXX and that none of the Greek Interpreters have commented upon them My Answer hereunto is 1. That this is nothing to the Argument before us It acquits us from the charge of Mr. Delaune It was not the Church of England then which foisted those three Verses into Psal 14. Besides we have the Authority of St. Paul and of the Primitive Church to warrant our continuing them in Psal 14. 2. As for Jerome I do here protest against him as unfit to be a Witness in this Case He too warmly espous'd the Defence of the Hebrew Text against the LXX and manifestly betray'd his Partiality He car'd not what in his heat he said or wrote for the support of his own opinion Let any one consult his Hebrew Questions and Traditions on Genesis and it may be he 'l be of my mind Here arguing for the Hebrew against the LXX because forsooth St. Luke Act. 7. 14. agreed not with the Hebrew Text but with the Septuagint 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 This only I say He who sticks not to revile the inspir'd Evangelist after this manner is unworthy to be believ'd in any thing he affirms upon this Point in Controversie or indeed in any else 3. I would desire to know when and by whom those three Verses were transcrib'd out of St. Paul into the 14th Psalm 'T was done before St. Paul was born for any thing I know 4. Whereas Jerome affirms as Mr. Owen tells me that these Verses are not in the LXX Translation I ask where then did Jerome find 'em and how came he to enter into the Dispute about ' em Looking into the Place Jerome I find confesses the Verses are in vulgatâ Editione quae Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur in toto orbe diversa est I do not well understand him but it seems the Copies of the Scripture then in ordinary use whence Eustochium argu'd had these Verses and Jerome acknowledges there was a Greek Edition call'd the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or vulgar which had the said Verses in it tho' Jerome's had 'em not if he is to be credited But by whom and when these Verses were put into this vulgar Edition of the Seventy Jerome says not The Vatican Copy Mr. Owen confesses to be one of the best that has these three Verses I dare not then believe that the Seventy Translation in Jerom's days was without ' em Be this as it will 't is manifest that the Church of England added 'em not to Psal 14. that St. Paul made no scruple to join distant Places of Scripture to one another and how this should become so heinous a Crime in us to follow those Examples Mr. Owen is yet in arrear to account for in behalf of Mr. Delaune Mr. Delaune moreover asserted That the three Verses are not in any of the Original Copies whereas if there be many as is imply'd in those words the Greek must be one as I noted and there they are And I further acquaint the Remarker that they are in the Arabick and Aethiopick Versions also Of this the Minister has ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quidem not one Syllable Only because I took occasion hereupon to offer unto consideration whether the Greek Copy be not as good as the Hebrew at this day is and grounded my self upon the Judgment of the Learned Isaac Vossius he endeavours to make his Party believe I design'd to Depress the Authority of the Hebrew Copies Surely this Minister never considers what he writes If I had affirm'd roundly which I did not that the Seventy's Version is as good as the Hebrew this would not have been any disparagement unto the Hebrew tho' it would be an advancement to the Seventy Except Mr. Owen thinks that the Commendation of one Man is the reproach of another I don't think it any dispraise unto St. Matthew if in answer to Jerom's foremention'd disparagement of St. Luke one should affirm that St. Luke's Writings are of as good Credit as St. Matthew's In short tho' I am inclin'd to believe the Seventy to be of Divine Authority 't was never in my thoughts to depress the Hebrew So that it were sufficient for me to justifie the choice of my Text tho' it were to be found in the Hebrew only It has I do believe among them who are as ignorant as himself past for a current Piece of Wit when he thus speaks If the Seventy be of at good Authority as the present Hebrew
Christians receiv'd the Hebrew Bible from the Modern Jews who may very well be suspected to have made bold with it in prejudice to the Christian Religion And whether it be fit we should build upon the bare Testimony of the Jews only deserves some consideration For therefore it was that in my Sermon I spoke not of the ancient Hebrew Copies but of that which we have at this day from the later Jews In short I says he will not dispute at this time the Authority of the Septuagint Nor will the Rector call into question the Purity of the Hebrew 't is not necessary to decide the Controversie between Mr. Delaune and me Whatever becomes of the Seventy or the Hebrew 't is false what he put upon us The Church of England foisted not those three Verses into Psal 14. But if we had first done it we are excusable the Psalm being thus put together by St. Paul Mr. Delaune then ought not to have vilify'd us for foisting them into that Psalm Men who will take the liberty of misrepresenting others in such nasty Expressions deserve to be told of their own Faults in more cleanly Language 4. The Rector observ'd from Rev. 22. 18 19. That the Canon of Scripture is there for ought we yet know shut up I exprest my self thus cautiously for ought we yet know because the Passage alledg'd properly refers unto the Book of the Revelations tho' the Learned sometimes accommodate it unto the whole Scripture But the Critick at Oswestry would insinuate as if the Rector expected more Revelations still and an enlargement of the Canon And is Mr. Owen certain we shall not have more Divine Revelations before the end of the World I expect 'em as little as he but 't is one thing to suppose it possible and another to look for it as probable or promis'd God has indeed ty'd our hands Thou shalt not add but he has not ty'd his own whatever this Solomon of our Age deems to the contrary God we know added to his own Word even after Agur had warn'd us not to add thereunto and he may if he please once more add unto it after 't is forbidden unto us in St. John what he will do is another Question I am as well content with what we have already as the Minister can be But as Agur doubtless thought it possible God might add unto his own Word as he did afterwards so 't is not impossible but he may yet add thereunto for ought I know or the Remarker himself dares affirm If he or his Revisor at Manchester know that God will send us no more Revelations than what we have already receiv'd they might do well to assure the World of it by the Spirit of Prophesie and so contradict ' emselves in the same breath If any Sort of Men should presume to add unto the Canon of Scripture I know none more likely than those who make such mighty boasts of the Spirit of God They have made one pretty good step towards it already They who dispossess Daemoniacks will in good time heal all manner of bodily Diseases remove Mountains also and throw 'em into the Sea Who then shall make any difficulty of entertaining their Doctrines as the Oracles of God The Rector laid down this other Rule Then we diminish from the Word when we cast away never so little of it Upon which Words the Minister has the following Remark I leave it to consideration whether the Titles be not a little part of the Word of God and own'd for such in our Authoriz'd Bibles That has been consider'd already but if they are own'd for Parts of the Word of God in our Authoriz'd Bibles then we of the Church of England do more especially own 'em we cannot then be accused of casting them away But if to leave 'em out of the Liturgy Translation be a casting 'em away then the leaving 'em out of the Singing Psalms is the same These tender-hooft-Creatures who are convinc'd that the Titles are part of the Psalms and ought to be inserted into every Translation yet against the Dictates of their own Conscience prefix 'em not neither demand 'em to be prefix'd unto the Singing Psalms Who ever hereafter can believe that they have any Conscience at all Or rather is it not to be suspected that they have two Consciences with the one accusing us and with the other excusing themselves for the same thing On this head I instanc'd in the Jews whom Justin Martyr disputing with Trypho charg'd with corrupting and expunging out of the Scripture several Places which pointed at the Messias Ay says the Minister with corrupting the Seventy but not the Original Hebrew which he ought to have taken notice of And why so sweet Sir I demand your Reason Is it because 't is no Fault to corrupt the Seventy Or because the Places were intire in the Original Hebrew Text This latter cannot be a Reason because it is not true that the Places objected by Justin against the Jews were then intire in the Original Hebrew For the Jews doubtless would have vindicated themselves and not have suffer'd that Scandal to pass so smoothly and unanswer'd They would have let Justin know that their Hebrew Bibles were intire in all the Places by him alledg'd or else that they never belong'd unto the Scripture It must be confest then the Hebrew Copy was corrupted in St. Justin Martyr's days the several Passages by him mention'd to be thrust out of Scripture being then and still are wanting in the Hebrew Text as well as in the Seventy For instance that Father produces Psal 96. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Say among the Heathen the Lord hath reigned But Justin tells Trypho that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been struck out by the Jews and that the place originally ran thus The Lord hath reigned from the Wood or Cross But if they had been in the Hebrew can any one think Trypho so dull as not to have told Justin as much Nor are these words from the Cross found in the Hebrew or Seventy at this day The reason of the Jews Knavery herein is obvious viz. because those words from the Wood were an illustrious Prediction of the manner of Christ's Death and by consequence a plain Testimony of his being the Messiah the brightness of which Evidence they were not able to behold and therefore raz'd out the words In short the Cross of Christ was to them a stumbling block in the Prophesie as well as in the accomplishment Lastly the Hebrew Copy in Jerom's days wanted the same words From the Wood He took no notice at all of 'em either in his Version or in his Commentaries In Mr. Pool's Synopsis I find many Arguments against Justin charging the foresaid Corruption upon the Jews but they are of no weight if it be considered that Faminius Nobilius in his Scholia on this Place writes thus Apud Sanctum August in Psalterio