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
Hereunto I reply'd That it were well if the Dissenters would first prove that those Hebrew Titles are Original and essential Parts of the holy Scripture This Mr. de Laune ought to have done before he so roundly and peremptorily challeng'd us with corrupting the Word of God But he did not so much as attempt it Mr. Owen has now endeavour'd to supply that defect tho' at the same time he professes he will not enter into this Controversy But whether he will or no he 's got into it before he 's aware and argues that The Titles are as Ancient as the Psalms themselves for ought appears to the contrary they being in all the Hebrew and Greek Copies that over I have seen That the Jewish Church receiv'd 'em as Parts of Scripture and they are most of 'em translated by the LXX and by Theodotion Symmachus and Aquila as also by the Targumist That they are received in the Christian Church as Canonical Scripture Jerom translates them in his Version and they are in the modern Versions That some of 'em are undeniably Canonical as that of the 18th Psalm mention'd 2 Sam. 22. Others of them must be prefix'd by the Pen-man or by a Person divinely inspir'd For they refer to passages of History not mention'd in the body of the Psalm c.. Vnto all which I answer That the Subscriptions of St. Paul's Epistles are to be found in all the Greek Copies I have seen or heard of save that of Claromont are always translated and taken into our modern Versions and yet the Remarker will not own them for Canonical Scripture It does not then hence follow that the Hebrew Titles are essential Parts of the Psalms no more than that the Subscriptions are Canonical That the Jewish Church receiv'd the Titles and annext them to the Psalms I will not dispute But that they receiv'd them as essential Parts of the Psalms is the Question we receive the Postscripts of St. Paul's Epistles and the very English Contents of the Chapters of the Bibles but we esteem neither Canonical The Subscriptions of St. Paul's Epistles are translated into all or most Languages the Italian Spanish French high Dutch low Dutch English and Scotch I imagin all Christian Churches receive 'em yet not as Canonical Scripture but Ancient Records affixt unto the Epistles when and by whom is not known The like may with Reason be said of the Titles It must be confest that the Subscriptions of the Epistles are not the same in all the ancient M. SS nor in the Syriack and Arabick Versions from whence it is rightly concluded that they were not annext thereunto by any inspired Person And for the very same reason I argue that the Titles of the Psalms are not Canonical Scripture there being great variety to be observ'd in them If we compare the Hebrew the Greek and the Oriental Versions not two of 'em agreeing one with another in their Titles That the Title of the 18th Psalm is to be found 2 Sam. 22. is very true But it does not follow that an inspir'd Person affix'd it unto the 18th Psalm as it now lies in the Collection of Psalms commonly call'd the Psalter of David So that those words as plac'd before the 18. Psalm may in strictness be said not be to Canonical there tho' they be Canonical 2 Sam. 22. Ex. gr Mr. Delaune has accus'd us for foisting 3 Verses into the 14th Psalm and does therefore certainly imply that they are not essential parts of that Psalm tho' no body will deny 'em to be Canonical Scripture in other Places The like may with as good Reason be said of the Title of the 18th Psalm That the other Titles were prefixed by the Pen-men or by some other Divinely inspired Person which is the Question in controversie is not prov'd from that Reason sc because the Titles refer to Passages of History not mentioned in the Body of the Psalms 'T is a great mistake to affirm that the Titles refer to Passages in History not mention'd in the Body of the Psalms as I could easily shew if it were worth the while True there are no particular and very obvious Expressions in many Psalms relating to the Historical Passages to which the Titles refer but there are general ones which gave the Collectors of the Book of Psalms an occasion of affixing those Titles to the Psalms Ex. gr in the 90th Psalm tho' Moses and the Israelites are not mention'd in it yet many Verses of that Psalm and particularly the 9th and the 10th Verse were thought to allude unto the Condition of the Israelites in the Wilderness whose stubbornness God punish'd by cutting their Live short of what in the Course of Nature in those days is supposed to have been the ordinary length of Mans life By such general and obscurer Passages in the Body of the Psalms I do imagin observing Men were induc'd to prefix the Titles Thus Bishop Pearson after the same manner has with great Judgment and Curiosity fixt the Time and the Occasion of all the Treatises and Epistles of St. Cyprian grounding himself upon sundry Passages which he observ'd in them and accordingly the time and occasion is affixt unto the beginning of every Epistle and Treatise in the Oxford Edition But to return to Mr. Owen's Reason The Titles says he refer to Passages of History not mention'd in the Body of the Psalm This is a good Argument if it were true that the Titles were not added by the Pen-men themselves nor by any Divinely inspired Person and that they are not Canonical but the Conjectures of meer Men which is the Reason also I suppose why many Psalms have no Titles at all and many none to any purpose at all some whose Titles are grounded on very dark and doubtful Expressions in the Body of the Psalms and some in the 70. have Titles which the Hebrew Text has not All which variety arises from the ignorance or inobservance of those who prefixt the Titles which would not have happen'd if the Titles had been added by some inspir'd Person Having refeli'd the Remarkers Arguments brought to prove the Titles to be essential Parts of the Psalms I will try what may be said in proof that they are not at least not of a certainty essential Parts of the Psalms In the first Place then I argue that if some or if any one Title may justly be question'd then this renders all the rest suspicious That of the 90th Psalm A Prayer of Moses the man of God seems not to have been added by any Divinely inspir'd Person There are plausible Reasons to be given why Moses did not compose it For thus the Psalmist speaks ver 10. The days of our years are threescore years and ten and if by reason of strength they be fourscore yet is their strength labour and sorrow for it is soon cut off and we fly away Now the Life of Man in Moses's time was much longer than seventy or eighty years
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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