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
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
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
Affirmative whereas in all the Editions I have seen or can hear of 't is in the Negative non facit and Jerom's Argument requires it should be so Nor could it be the slip of Mr. B.'s Amanuensis or Printer as any one may know who will look into the Design of the Author in that Place And now my hand 's in it may not be improper here to take the Remarker once more to Task by demanding a Reasonable Account why he having in his Plea corrupted St. Chrysostom has not yet satisfied the World in that particular He has indeed endeavour'd it in the Defence of c. p. 147. but very poorly as I will now make to appear His first Excuse is that 't is but a Syllabical Mistake And he says true 't is no more yet 't is of such a Nature that it quite overthrows the sense and opinion of the Fathers changing it from a Negative to an Affirmative Proposition He might every whit as well have altered that Text wherewith he adorns the Title-page of his Remarks and turn'd the Negative Precept into a Positive one thus Thou shalt bear false witness against thy Neighbour and then have argu'd 't is but a Syllabical Mistake I am apt to think the latter Syllabical mistake of the Commandment would have suited the Remarks much better than the true Reading I having demonstrated that he has more than once born false witness against the Rector 2. He imputes the Error unto the Transcriber and neglect of correcting it in the Errata's This will not pass muster good Mr. Owen The matter you were proving will not bear it as I told you long since and you could not gain say it For tho' your Memory be never so good and mine so bad yet as you have reliev'd mine I 'll rub up yours You had affirm'd in your Plea as I observed to you formerly that Evangelists were extraordinary Church Officers such as were not Resident and fixt in one place but past from one City or Province to another You endeavour'd to make out this first from Eusebius who writes that the Evangelists 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then you add with whom agrees Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In English thus according to Eusebius Did pass over into other Countries and Nations And according to Chrysostome They did go up and down every where Now St. Chrysostome says They did not go up and down every where If then you had cited Chrysostome in the Negative as you ought he would not have agreed with Eusebius and so instead of confirming your Point by this Father's Testimony you would have confuted it Your Design therefore necessitated you to corrupt that Place in St. Chrysostome that you might confirm your Point by a second Testimony In a word by discharging your own fault upon the Amanuensis or Printer you have cover'd one piece of foul play with another 3. Mr. Owen would vindicate his Innocence by alledging That he lay under no Temptation of altering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because He needed neither Eusebius nor Chrysostom's Testimony to confirm his Opinion For the Acts and Epistles of Paul make it evident That 's to say Mr. O. wrote a Plea for Scripture Ordination and in this part of his Argument and in this Place produc'd not a Word of Scripture but only two Authorities out of the Fathers which yet he now pretends he had no need of that is he had no need of the only proofs he produc'd For tho' now in his Defence he tells us that it is evinc'd from Scripture yet in his Plea he not so much as intimated any such thing He boasts of his many Hundred Quotations And had he no need or did he intend to make no use of them to what purpose then did he cite ' em Indeed indeed Friend this is a very idle and Boyish excuse and deserves a Rod rather than a Confutation 4. I will confess he has in part accounted for his leaving 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Chrysostome having at length sound one Edition without it tho' 't is one of the worst and does him as much harm as good for in aggravates his altering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That very Edition of Donat Veron whence he transcrib'd his Testimony having this Passage of Chrysostome in the Negative Lastly he contends he has Chrysostome on his side without that alteration This I shall hereafter examin at present I submit it to the Judgment of the Learned whether this is sufficient to justifie him We sometimes pardon those that steal for necessity but certainly punish wanton Offenders It being now manifest that Mr. Owen must have purposely corrupted St. Chrysostome and that he has not been able in any tolerable manner to clear himself from this Charge I crave leave of the Reader to let him know what some Dissenters have frankly own'd which is to the purpose following That if Mr. Owen is indeed guilty of the Crime laid against him He is a Great Rogve they supposing I believe at the same time that he would certainly aequit himself If he has acquitted himself I am content to bear the reproach if not let his Peers see to it whether they have pronounc'd a just Sentence upon him and will give him his due Title of Honour for the future He has no shift that I can imagin but fairly to plead Ignorance and that he knew not the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the mischief is as he cannot truly I believe so neither would he willingly plead Ignorance in so small a piece of knowledge He had much rather I am perswaded his Honesty should be call'd into question than his Abilities and would chuse to pass for a Cunning R rather than an innocent Ignoramus In short I would advise him to be sincere for once to acknowledge what he cannot deny nor palliare viz. that he was under a Temptation to corrupt St. Chrysostome Let not the Old Diverb affright him I promise to absolve him provided he will do so no more which is a Penance I fear he 'l never be prevail'd with to submit unto For as I was th' other day dipping in the Remarker's Tutamen Evang. or Defence of Scripture Ordination I chopt upon Pag. 124 125. and found him thus arguing Where doth Luke mention Paul's Preaching the Gospel in Illyricum which we are sure he did before his imprisonment at Rome Rom. 15. 19. Here is a gross and design'd corruption of Scripture to serve a Cause 'T is in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in English Round about unto Illyricum as if he had said as far as Illyricum but not in Illyricum as Mr. Owen aim'd to prove I expect no other defence for this his shameless falsifying the Holy Scripture but that 't is a Syllabical mistake that 't was the Transcriber's