THE Further Vindication, etc. OF Mr. Owen Considered in a LETTER to a Friend.  
SIR,  
IN Obedience to your Commands, I send you here a short Account of my Thoughts concerning Mr. O's Further Vindication, etc. In the way of Writing he has taken up, he is not (I believe) to be paralleled, having outdone all Men living a Bar and half, except haply two or three of the United Brethren, who have sufficiently exposed Mr. Baxter and Father Alsop. I shall not so much as endeavour to requite him, 
Prov. 26. 4. R. R.  being obliged to the contrary, and having already engaged myself thereto by Promise, which I will religiously observe. For which Reason you must not expect here a particular Answer, or that I should follow him step by step: My Work then as well as Yours would be endless, and it would be difficult for me not to retort some of his ill Language, and discover many of his Misrepresentations or Mistakes, which he is not capable of enduring, nor you willing to be troubled with. All my Design, and I suppose your expectation is, that the whole Argument be laid plain and open unto the view of any one of common Sense. This I propose to myself to do in the Order of the Sermon, and as briefly as I can.  
And first you must remember, that Mr. De  severely taxed the Church of England as guilty of diminishing from the Word of God, by leaving out the Titles of the Psalms in our Liturgy Translation; and that I undertook the defence of this Omission, first from the uncertainty of the Titles being Canonical. Now I submit it to your Judgement or any observant Reader's weighing the Arguments on both sides, as they are to be found in Rem. and in R's on R's, whether Mr. O. (who is Mr. D's Vindicator) has given a convincing Proof of the Certainty of the Titles being Canonical: I say, this is submitted to your Judgement without more ado. This notwithstanding I shall here have occasion to repeat some things, and observe others de novo, which will minister some further satisfaction in this controverted Point.  
Mr. O. 
Vind. p.  has not stuck to pronounce me a Blasphemer, and to give me words of Brass, because I affirmed, many of the Titles were to no purpose at all; nay, he will not allow that my supposed Ignorance can make any Atonement for me, tho' God himself winked at the times of Ignorance. But let us look back unto the Rector's obvious meaning. Mr. D. contended that the Titles unfolded the Mysteries of the Psalms; the Rector denied that they serve to any such purpose at all. 
R. R. p. 15.  Ex. gr. A Psalm, a Song, etc. These Titles unlock no Mysteries that I know of, and if they must needs be called Keys they want Wards. Other Titles are infinitely more Mysterious than the Psalms themselves. It cannot be thought the Holy Ghost meant to give us them as Keys to open the secret Sense of the Psalms; that would be to explain obscurum per obscurius, which I am persuaded the Spirit of God would never have done. When Jesus Christ expounded his Parables, he made 'em clear as the Sun. Besides, whereas the Mysteries of the Gospel are confirmed out of an abundance of Passages in the Psalms, I do not find one Title brought to prove any one Mystery, tho' indeed some Fathers (who delighted, Ludere campo Scripturarum, as Jerom speaks) took a liberty to find out I know not what Mysteries in the Titles.  
But to return, 
R. R. p. 13.  I pleaded formerly that the Chaldee Paraphrase, the Syriack, Arabic, and the LXX Version generally used by the Hellenistical Jews, and the Christians for several Ages differ much from the Hebrew; that Gregory Nyssen observed there was not an entire Agreement between the Christians and the Jews about the Titles, especially of Psal. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, etc. That this Father asserts not the Divine Authority of the Titles but Ecclesiastical Custom. By the way note, that Mr. O. has declined giving any sort of Answer to this Testimony of Nyssen. 
Synop. Crit.  I add, Grotius believed Moses was not the Pen man of the 90th. Psal. Eben Ezra affirms the 6th. Psal. was composed (not by David, as the Title has it, but) in the Captivity by some other Person. Doth it not follow hence, that according to the judgement of these Churches, and these Authors, the Titles are not Canonical, at least not certainly so? And are they to be all damned for so many Blasphemers? It might have sufficed Mr. O. to have let alone the charge of Blasphemy (which I fancy is a little too much) and to have contented himself with ranking me among Dunces, tho' at the same time you see I have some not contemptible Company.  
I do not know any better way to clear this Matter than by considering the Titles of the several Books of Scripture, some whereof are most certainly not Canonical, not one of a certainty such, and some doubtful. The first Section of Moses' Pentateuch is in Hebrew called Beresith, but in the LXX, Genesis, and in our English Translation, The first Book of Moses called Genesis: Are we, Dissenters and all, yea and all Christendom Blasphemers for departing from the Hebrew? The truth is, I do not believe the Author of the Pentateuch divided his Work into Five Sections or Books; but the Church of the Jews, who for convenience entitled each Section from the first word of it, tho' the LXX more judiciously from the principal design and matter contained in those Sections. I prefer the Title of the LXX to that of the Heb. in the Historical part of the Kings. In Heb. we find the First and Second Book of Samuel, in the LXX more properly and truly called the First and Second Book of Kings. Samuel died, 1. Sam. 25. The rest of this and the next Book was not (neither could be) written by Samuel, nor concerning him, but the Kings of Israel (and Samuel himself is I conceive comprehended in Kings) being the Supreme Judge;) The Heb. divides the Psalter into Five Sections. Are we, and the Dissenters all Blasphemers for leaving this Division out of our Translation? If it be answered, that some Heb. Copies have not these Five Sections or Books of the Psalter (which I know not, nor will trouble myself to examine) I ask which are the true and uncorrupted Copies? (for both cannot be) and why do we follow the latter Copies rather than those which are 〈◊〉 in all Men's hands? The Books of the Prophets are thus, entitled, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, etc. and the Apostles Epistles thus, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, etc. I cannot think the inspired Prophets and Apostles set these Titles on the head of their Books or Letters. For they prefixed their Names themselves at the beginning and as part of the Body of those Books and Letters, but the Titles on the top were added for conveniency. There needed no Inspiration to do this. The general Title of 〈◊〉 Books of the New Testament is▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. but is not Canonical, say Grotius and Hammond (and yet they Comment upon it) being added by the Church, when the Inspired Books were put together. That Title, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, is found in all MSS. Copies (says Beza) except one only, which I hope will break no squares. Now Grotius is of Opinion Luke wrote this Epistle, others Barnabas, some Clemens Romanus, Dr. Hammond that the Author is uncertain, this being the very Reason many Churches received not this Epistle into the Canon of a good while. I must not pass the particular Reason which the Latin Churches gave for their rejecting this Epistle to the Heb. sc. because some things were in it favouring the Novatian Heresy, as they then judged. Mr. Pool imputes this to their Ignorance, but challenges them not with Blasphemy: nor did I ever hear that Grotius, Hammond, and the rest who deny Paul to be the Author of this Epistle, were ever censured as Blasphemers.  
St. John doubtless was the Author of those three Epistles that go under his Name, but not of the Titles also. This Apostle and Evangelist for some special Reasons concealed his Name, when he wrote contrary to the practice of the rest. Nor can I believe any other inspired Person affixed those Titles, it being highly improbable, that John by the Spirit should conceal himself, and another by the same Spirit should discover him. I hope Mr. O. will not call me Blasphemer for this. The meaning of all is, the Church of God did ever take the Liberty of giving Titles unto Books sometines by Conjecture, and sometimes of certain knowledge, as we at this day prefix the Contents before Chapters, and call the Books of Psalms in Metre, The Psalms of David, which is not the Hebrew Title, Or else the Copiers of them did it for obvious Reasons. viz. that holy Men might more readily upon occasion go to such Books, and consult 'em, as they lay in their Closets or Libraries among other Volumes of the Scripture. Briefly the Titles of the Psalms and of the several Books of Scripture must (as I conceive) run the same fate; all must be of a certainty Canonical or none at all can be.  
Mr. O. has himself confessed enough to overthrow the whole Fabric of his elaborate Discourse on this Subject. He acknowledges, 
Vind. p. 47.  It was a prevailing Opinion, that all the Psalms were Penned by David, that August, Chrysost. and Bede, and several Jewish Doctors thought so. What then will become of the Title of the 90th. and of many other Psalms? Were they of a certainty of their Penning, unto whom they are ascribed in the Hebrew Text? Or is the Rector singular in a doubtful Point, when he has so many giving in their Testimony on his side? Tho' by the way I see no great harm in being singular, when the Point is doubtful, but much more I apprehend not that there is any Blasphemy in such Singularity. Besides I pray Sir take notice, how Mr. O. expresseth himself concerning the Title of the 137. Psal. It is not material to us, who composed it, we are satisfied it was divinely inspired. But is it not as material that one Psalm should have a Title to unsold its Mysteries as another? And why will not he give me leave to declare myself thus? It is not material to me what becomes of the Titles, I am satisfied the Psalms themselves were divinely Inspired. I make no reckoning of those Critical Disputes about the 90th. Psal. whether Moses, or David, or any other Inspired Person penned that Psalm, I am content to believe it Canonical. Great then is the power of Truth you see: It will out sometimes even before a Man is ware.  
But after all this, I will now suppose (what I believe you will not grant) that Mr. O. has cleared his Point beyond contradiction, yet still I must condemn Mr. D. (and his Vindicator too) for reflecting on us, because we leave out an essential part of the Psalms in our Liturgy Translation. I argued formerly, 
Ser. p. 4. R. R. p. 15.  The Dissenters translate 'em not all; some part of 'em Translated is thrust out of the Text into the Margin, like a various Reading, or mere conjecture, or as not material; but to this he offers nothing. I added, They leave 'em out of the Metrical Psalms, neither do they sing 'em. But he endeavours to take off this Retort thus, The Titles were not designed to be sung. 
V p. 53.  Good! 'Tis my very Plea in Defence of the Church of England, our Liturgy Translation was designed for singing, but the Titles were not. No, says Mr. O. You read that Translation. I answer, 1. Some negligent Ministers do indeed read 'em; 'tis their Fault, 2. Some conforming Nonconformists will read 'em; 'tis their Crime, 3. Some cannot prevail with their People to bear a part in the rehearsing 'em; 'tis their Unhappiness. But still this Translation is designed not for Reading and Instruction in the Public Worship, but Devotion. For the Order of the Church is that the Psalms in this Translation should be said or sung; said? that is at least repeated alternatim, by Minister and People, which is a species of singing, as we believe. Observe then, they are sung in all Cathedrals, they are repeated in multitudes of Parochial Churches, and Nobleman's Chapels. What would the Man have more? Shall the Infelicity of some Ministers, the Treachery of others, or the Carelessness of another sort be thought sufficient to force the Church to take new measures, and lay aside her Liturgy Translation? I trow not. Besides you should observe further, that if the Titles be Canonical, they ought at least to have been Printed with the Metrical Psalms, tho' not sung: So the Jews did. Briefly here's nothing but Cavil, not a shadow of Answer. But Mr. O. concludes, Their (the Dissenters) not reading the Titles (in the Congregation and out of the other Translation) is an Innocent Omission. Hem! an Innocent Omission? Verily I cannot get this down. If the Titles be an Essential part of the Psalms, and useful to unfold the Mysteries in them, as Mr. O. & Mr. D. will have it, can there be a more Sacrilegious Omission than first not to Translate the Titles exactly, and then neglect the Reading them? Not to make use of the Canonical Key, but to burst violently and blindly into the Chambers of Divine Secrets, like Thiefs and Robbers? Besides a little Justice would have taught Mr. O. that our not Printing the Titles is as innocent an Omission, as their not Reading ' 'em. One might reasonably expect just Weights and Measures. Either let the whole body of Christians throughout the World come under the Charge of being Corrupters of the Psalms, or let the Church of England and the Rector pass in the Crowd as Innocent also. Why should we be made an Example, when even our Accusers themselves are guilty of the same Omission? I leave you then to judge how well Mr. O. has acquitted himself on this first Question.  
The next is about the Verses interpolated Psal. 14. I remit you to what I have in Sermon and R. R. offered on this Argument, and to inform yourself thence whether Mr. D. did honestly impute it unto us, that we foisted them in, and whether Mr. O. has thoroughly justified him. But I'll in a few words consider Mr. O.'s Vindication of Jerom, whom he would said lick clean, if it were possible. He informs us, who they are that have commended him, and it's confessed he was a great Man, but perhaps his truest Character is, Magnae virtutes, nec minora— In the Point about Bishops it has been often enough laid to his charge, that he says and unsays, and contradicts himself. In the Letters which he exchanged with St. Austin, he maintained the lawfulness of Dissimulation, and endeavoured to excuse Peter and Barnabas. He is believed to have been disgusted for nor being made a Bishop, and on that score depressed the Order as low as he could with any colour of Truth. Nor did he escape the suspicion of— Besides, he was so bend against the LXX. that he blushed not to abuse 'em, choosing to represent 'em by some corrupt Copies, rather than by the known and unquestionable reading. I will give you two Instances. Zach. 12. 10. cited by St. John 19 37. They shall look on him whom they pierced, Jerom's LXX it seems read not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, even as our LXX doth at this day. But Jerom might (if he would have been ingenuous) have taken notice of what he could not be ignorant, that the right reading in the LXX was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as is witnessed by four Fathers more early than himself. Justin M. in his Dialogue against Trypho the Jew. Tertullian likewise frequently. 
De Resurrect. c. 26, 51. De carne Christi c. 24.  St. Cyprian in his 20 Testimony against those People. To whom add Lactantius also, Zach. 13. 4. He makes the LXX speak perfect Nonsense, non sum Prophetes ego, quia Homo genuit me à Juventute meâ. Whereas even in our present LXX we read thus agreeably with the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Finally I observed in R. R. how scandalously he abused St. Luke. No, replies Mr. O. For as Paul is called a Babbler by the Athenians, so was Luke accounted by the Nations an obscure vile Person and of no great credit, not by Jerom, tho' Jerom relates it, as Luke did that of Paul. But there are many differences between the one and the other. Luke was an Inspired Historian, flourished when what he relates of Paul happened, it may be had his Relation from the Apostle himself, and had no Cause to support: But Jerom lived about 350 Years after Luke, Writes what he backs with no Authority or probable proof, and was now calling into question the truth of Luke's History. There is then all the Reason in the World to believe that this Character of Luke, tho' fathered on the Gentiles, was the Issue of Jerom's own Brain, to disparage the LXX and to set up the Heb. Bible. Nor did St. Luke writ the Acts for the use of the Gentiles, as Mr. O. asserts, tho' in time ('tis true) it might fall into their hands. But the Historian addresses it to Theophilus a Christian, Chap. 1. 1. And what if Jerom's Gentes were the Gentile Believers? Did they esteem Luke obscure, vile and of little Reputation? Sure (if this was his meaning) Jerom was not a little mistaken, to speak as softly as I can. Besides can any one believe Luke was less considerable among the unbelieving Nations, than the other Inspired Writers? He was the most learned of 'em all, except perhaps Paul. His Greek (as Critics say) is the purest of all. He was a known Physician, which doubtless commended him to the esteem of the Nations, both Jews and Gentiles as he travelled along with Paul, and that before his Writings were ever published. So that Jerom cannot be sheltered by pretending, not he, but the Nations accounted him obscure, etc. For this Father further affirms, Non debuit, etc. St. Luke ought not to write any thing contrary to the Scriptures, that were then in the hands of the Nations, that is contrary to the corrupt LXX. Here you see, he magisterially declares what the Spirit of God ought not to do. Belike for fear of disobliging them, who as yet had not the Hebrew verity among them. Right Jerom all over. The Inspired Evangelist Luke to serve a small turn must tell a Lie: Or lest he should offend the Nations, must dissemble the Truth, The Hebrew verity, and this without all regard to the Jews, and Jewish Converts, whom he must needs scandalise thereby. Here is Dissimulation with a witness, and made a necessary Duty (non debuit) in an Inspired Penman of Scripture. Whoever is disposed to vindicate Jerom, may go to his Letters written to St. Augustin, and furnish himself with Arguments enough to that purpose. But shall a Man lie for God? Surely Jerom's much Oriental Learning made him mad, I will not say a Blasphemer. In fine, that Jerom framed this Character for Luke in the name of the Nations will appear from what he adds. Hoc generaliter observandum, quòd ubicunque SS. Apostoli & Apostolici viri loquuntur▪ ad populos, iis plerumque Testimoniis abutuntur, quae jam fuerant in Gentibus divulgata. The Holy Apostles and Apostolic Men (neglecting the Hebrew verity) when they speak to the People, make use of those Testimonies, (viz. which Jerom contended were mistaken and false) out of the LXX. which had already been divulged among the Nation's 〈◊〉 Is not this superfine Doctrine? One needs not be Hypercritical to observe hence, that Jerom makes the Apostles and their Companions in Preaching the Gospel to be a Pack of Dissemblers, and guilty of the same pious Frauds and holy Cheats, that he before suggested particularly of Luke. Once more Commenting on Mic. 5. 2. He thus delivers himself, Sunt autem qui asserunt, etc. There are who affirm (I believe no body but himself) that almost in all the Testimonies which are brought out of the Old Testament this Error is committed, either that the Order is changed, or the Words, and sometimes the very sense is different, the Apostles or Evangelists not gathering their Testimonies out of the Book, but trusting to their Memories, which sometimes failed them. Sir, Can you read these Lines without Horror and Amazement? The Spirit of God surely (whereby they wrote) forgot not himself, tho' they did. That which follows from the whole is, that Jerom is not defended. The LXX. as to that Passage in the Acts Chap. 7. was in Jerom's days more correct, than the Hebrew verity now is, and that the LXX. was followed by the Inspired Infallible Apostles, and Apostolical Men, as Jerom acknowledgeth. May it not then be inferred hence as probable, that Paul followed them in his 3d. to the Romans v. 13. etc. and transcribed the Verses out of the then LXX? O! but the Greek Fathers do not Comment on these Verses. Supposing this (for I have 'em not ready at hand, nor leisure to examine them all) the Reason may be, either they Commented on them in other places, or it was an innocent Omission, or else 'tis but a negative Argument and unconcluding. But after all, let us imagine the Three Verses have been interpolated, this is no just Excuse of Mr. D. who accused us for foisting them in. Why may not we do so as well as, and after Paul? And besides they are in the Latin Vulgar Version, which was in use in Jerom's days, and is still in good Credit with Mr. O. You may see more Reasons given to excuse the Church of England. Serm. p. 7. R. R. p. 18. which I will not trouble you with. Here I leave this part of the Controversy to the Judgement of any Man of Understanding, whether Mr. O. has vindicated either Jerom or Mr. D.  
The Question about the Three Verses Psal. 14. occasioned a more general one concerning the LXX. and the Hebrew Copies of the Old Testament: The former are by my Adversaries said to have been corrupted; and I granted it, but withal affirmed that so are the Hebrew also. But Mr. O. undertakes to prove they were not corrupted before and in our Saviour's days.  
Here I must premise (because Mr. O. makes such an hideous Outcry against the Rector, as if he were about depriving the Church of the Scriptures, and a Divine Knowledge of the revealed Will of God) that my Argument is not intended, neither looks that way at all, as any fair Adversary would grant. The Truths of Revelation are to be sought for, not out of the Hebrew Text only, nor out of the LXX. only, but out of both, which lend their helping hand to one another, together with all other Ancient Translations, and those numerous Quotations of Scripture which we meet with in the Fathers. And I humbly conceive nothing ministers more advantage unto Atheists, than obstinately to contend that the Hebrew Text is not in the least corrupted, and to strip us of all other means of correcting it. Now Mr. O. attempts to evince his Opinion by Three Arguments.  
I. That the Hebrew Bibles are de facto incorrupt.  
II. That the Jews could not.  
III. Would not corrupt them. The first he confirms thus, Because Christ never charged the Jews with corrupting them. A. If the Hebrew Text was the same in Christ's as in our days (which Mr. O. must acknowledge) than it had been corrupted in Christ's time: This appears afterwards. Besides I retort his Reason thus, the LXX. was not corrupted in the Apostles days, because they never charged that Version with any Corruptions, as they would and ought to have done. As Christ bids his Disciples to search the Scriptures (the Hebrew Copy) So St. Paul commends the Bereans that they searched the Scriptures, and Timothy, that by his Mother and Grandmother he had been trained up in the Knowledge of the Scriptures, viz. in the LXX. for all these were either Gentiles, or Gentile Proselytes, or Hellenistical Jews, and therefore used the LXX. When Origen and Jerom speak thus, That most of the allegations made by Christ and his Apostles out of the Old Testament are still there, they plainly enough confess that some are not, and consequently there must have been a corruption of the Old Scriptures according to these Fathers. On the other hand I●ll give you a better Argument in proof of their Corruption, viz. because they had been corrupted before Ezra's time, who (say most of the Fathers) corrected the Errors that had crept in afore-time, and amended them, as the Hebrews report. 
Synop. in Ez. ●  Now tell me, is it not much more probable, that they were somewhat corrupted between Ezra and Christ? Had God a greater care of the Scriptures under the second Temple, than under the first, when Prophets were common among them? But of this more by and by.  
2. Mr. O. in his Harangue here insinuates that I affirm an Universal Corruption of the Hebrew Copies, but 'tis Mr. O's own fancy not mine; and besides he talks very highly of Providence, even as if there lay an absolute engagement on God, either not to suffer any Corruption, or miraculously to discover it. A Why then has Providence permitted so many various Readins in the New Testament? and why has not God by some extraordinary means told us, whether the latter Period 1 Jo. 2. 23. was written by Divine Inspiration, or added by some Transcriber? The sum is, Providence has taken care that all the material necessary and Essential Doctrines of Religion are still abundantly preserved in the Scriptures, and no false Doctrines therein established, which I take to be true both of the Hebrew, the LXX. and the New Testament. But still in all Ages before Printing, Corruptions of other kinds crept in, and God for Reasons best known to his Wisdom has permitted it.  
3. It must be granted a pious Jew would not purposely Corrupt the Hebrew Text, but others would. That very Talmudical Tale▪ that one Solomon endeavoured to root Jod out of the Text shows that some Jews would have Corrupted the Hebrew Text. You see how unconcluding Mr. O's. Arguments are. In a word, that the Jews would have corrupted the Word of God in the Prophecies pointing at Jesus Christ, is undeniably true from Justin Martyr his Dialogue, wherein he chargeth them with it. It must be allowed thence that they had inclination enough to attempt it, or else the Martyr could in no wise be excused; whether they were successful is to be examined in the next place, and  
1. From the Testimony of Justin and in answer to Mr. O. I affirm,  
1. That Justin Martyr did understand both the Hebrew and Syriac Languages, and so doubtless was acquainted with the Hebrew Bible. For in Apology 2d. He calls himself the Son of Priscus Bacchius born or come from Flavia Neapolis in the Syrian Palestine. Accordingly I find him playing the Critic upon the Etymology of Satanas, Dialog. p. 331. deriving it from the Jewish and Syrian Tongue; Sata, signifying Apostata, & Nas, Serpens. Yea, Mr. O's. instance proves him skilled in the Hebrew; nor was he mistaken when he affirmed, that Israel imported homo vincens virtutem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Virtue, Fortitude, one of the great Attributes of God, which Mr. O's Novice did not consider. And God oft in Scripture makes an Attribute to be as it were his proper Name, 1 Sam. 15. 29. The strength of Israel cannot lie, that is, God cannot. So Jacob as a Prince had power with Fortitude itself, that is, with God. And that Justin by Virtue meant no other than God, may be seen Dial. p. 285. where he so reads the place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. It is not then the LXX. only used in the Synagogues, that Justin Martyr challengeth as corrupted by the Jews, but the Hebrew also. For after he had defended the Version of the LXX. then among the Christians, to have been exactly true in the places before spoken of, and had challenged the Jews (p. 297.) for having erased out of theirs many entire Passages, which foretold the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ God and Man, which places because the Jews denied to belong unto the Scripture, Justin promises to make good his general Charge out of those very Scriptures▪ which the Jews acknowledged to be genuine, and accordingly produces a Passage out of Esdras, two out of Isaiah▪ and that of Psal. 96. 10, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Observations he had made out of the Scriptures, which the Jews read in their Synagogues (p. 298.) And he adds, these Corruptions, or at least one had crept in very lately. To all which Trypho had not a word to say. It hence appears that Justin argues not out of his own single Copies of the LXX. which Mr. O. seems to grant had these Passages, but out of many Copies used in the Jewish Synagogues, which the Father had carefuly examined, and in all likelihood Hebrew Copies too in Palestine of Syria, whereof he was a Native. Nor can we suppose Justin Martyr argued from his own Greek Copy only, but those commonly in the hands of the Christians. He had more sense than so to impose upon himself and Trypho too.  
3. It must be confessed it is a wonder that even after Justin had thus noted these Corruptions, the Christians should not have amended them. But I can produce Mr. O. a like Instance, which must be acknowledged parallel. All the Hebrew Copies that we have (as far as I can learn) and mine in particular has that of Psal. 22. 16. As a Lion, instead of They pierced; and I have consulted Pagnine, who renders it tanquam Leo, though in the Margin he has foderunt. And though all agree that they pierced is the true Reading, and though some seem to have found a few Copies in Hebrew which have it so, yet for the two Ages last passed, wherein Learning has superabounded they have not corrected this Erratum. Our beloved Jews doubtless will not suffer us; and we haply are as unwilling as they, lest the Infallibility of the Hebrew Text to a title, like that of the Roman Church, should come to nothing, for this Change would be an open acknowledgement of its Corruption. Let then Mr. Fuller call me Foulmouth, and Mr. O. Blasphemer, I am still of Opinion, and do aver upon the Authority of J. M. that the Hebrew Copies the Jewish LXX. and both have received some Corruptions. But to return, If the places had been found in any of the Hebrew Copies in the days of Justin, it had been an easy matter for Tryph● and the Jews to have appealed to the Original Hebrew Verity for their Justification, and retorted upon J. Martyr, that the Christians rather had been the Authors of the foremention'd Interpolations, for the support and advancement of their Religion. They might the more confidently have done this, if J. M. had not understood the Hebrew.  
The Chronological Argument I will not meddle with; I must either Transcribe Vossius, or waste more Time and Paper than is needful, since any one may have the entire Argument at the Fountain Head; but to treat of it in short, as Mr. O. has done, and overlook the most, and the best of the Arguments, would be to small purpose. Only remember that Vossius establishes the Chronology of the LXX. by the Testimony of Josephus, between whom there is a very near Agreement: And all the World knows that Josephus was a learned Man, a saithful Historian, a Jewish Priest and Interpreter of the Law, and therefore could not be very much mistaken in this matter. But whereas Mr. O. suggests p. 70. that upon this Principle of 6000 Years we cannot prove Christ is yet come, I reply 1. It may upon that very Principle be proved, if we will admit (as we ought) the LXX. into our assistance. 2. Supposing the Hebrew Chronology right, it is not necessary for us to follow the Jewish Principle of 6000 Years; it's sufficient to say, (let what will become of the Chronology whether it be 4 or 6000 Years) that the time of Christ's Appearance in the Flesh was come in the days of Augustus Cesar, when both Jews and Samaritans were big with expectations of him, and thereby acknowledged the time to be fulfilled. Which time, if they believed to be 6000 Years it is not unlikely, but they corrupted the Hebrew Chronology, to justify their not Believing and Crucifying Him.  
The Instance of Cainan, Luke 3. in Christ's Genealogy, left out of the Hebrew, is so clear, that one might justly admire good Authors should so toil and sweat, to avoid Luke's Testimony, and all for the sake of the Hebrew Verity. I can give a plausible Reason, why the Jews might leave Cainan out of the Heb. viz. Because thereby they would disparage and overthrow Luke's Genealogy, and spoil his credit among the Nations. As for other Additions unto the LXX. 'tis nothing to the Point. It is confessed the LXX. has been corrupted: But 'tis— (I will not say Blasphemy) to impute Corruption unto that place, which has received Testimony from the Spirit of God by the Pen of Luke. But says Dr. Lightfoot, Luke must follow the Heathen's Bibles in his Quotations. That is, Luke an Inspired Penman (debet, as Jerom before him) must leave the Hebrew Verity, and transcribe out of a corrupt Version of the Scriptures. Some haply would think this not far off Blasphemy; but I will not reflect so severely on that worthy and learned Gentleman. 2. The Doctor, adds, Luke was but a Copyer and not a Corrector But he was an Inspired Copyer, and aught by the Hebrew Verity to have amended, at least not have followed the Corrupt LXX. Ay but, the Gentiles well acquainted with the LXX would then have called Luke 's veracity into Question. A. So they did, if Jerom is to be believed; however, Luke ought not, doubtless did not value this. Let God be true, but every Man a Lyar. Shall an Inspired Writer value his own veracity above the Truth of God's Word? The Dr. confesses, Luke in the rest was a Faithful Transcriber. Very good, I think so. And why not in this? Or how can a Man believe him in any thing, who was unfaithful in one, or two? Here is a curious Principle, upon which Jerom's lawfulness of Dissimulation, and the Papists pia frauds, and officious Lies may be vindicated, and differs very little from that Maxim of Jerom, Quod ubicunque SS. Apostoli & Apostolici viri loquuntur ad populos, iis plerumque testimoniis abutuntur, quae jam fuerant in Gentibus divulgata. The Apostles it seems were very cautious of offending the Gentiles, but not of scandalising the Jews, and the Jewish Proselytes, by this unfaithful representation of the History of the Jewish Church and Christ's Genealogy.  
To the Corruption, noted, Psalm 22. 16. Mr. O. replies, and mentions several Hebrew Copies, which read, they pierced. Very well, and is not this a fair Confession, that the Hebrew Copies have in this place generally been corrupted? And I ask, how shall the true Reading be adjusted, but by the Testimony of the LXX? For the Passage is not once cited in the New Testament. It is no wonder (Mr. O. says) the Jews should prefer that Reading which favours their Cause. Right, but 'tis wonder upon wonder to me, the Christian Sticklers for the Hebrew Verity, should continue it still in the Text, for fear, (I suppose) of offending the Jews, without any regard to the Christians, and to the Truth. Or, rather as Mr. O's. Story of the Famous Dan. Bomb. for fear of losing the Sale of their Bibles so corrected; for which Reason he might better be styled Infamous.  
I add again that Passage, Deut. 32. 8. According to the number of the Angels, even Jerom himself thus reads it. Quatuor ventos coeli; quatuor arbitror Angelicas potestates, quibus principalia Regna commissa sunt, juxta illud quod in Deuter, legimus, Quando dividebat altissimus, Gentes, quando separabat filios Adam, constituit Terminos populorum, juxta numerum Angelorum Dei. It must then be confessed, that this was the true Reading in Jerom 's time, but not so now. The Hebrew Copies therefore at this day are here corrupted, if Jerom may be credited.  
Once more, take notice, that there is, at this day, a Corruption of the Hebrew Text, in the 1 Sam. 2. 17. Where it plainly discovers itself, the Course of the Story being intolerably perplexed and transposed, as any one will discern, reading the latter end of the 16th, the whole 17th, and beginning of the 18th Chapter. But I will not enlarge on this, nor trouble you with those lame Solutions of this Difficulty, which I meet with in the Synopsis; all of 'em devised to salve up the Credit and Infallibility of the Hebrew Verity; whereas the most expedite and Satisfactory Way, if Men could lay aside Prejudices, is to correct the place by the LXX.  
Moses blessing the several Tribes of Israel, Deut. 33. 6. Thus speaks of Reuben in the Hebrew: Let Reuben live and not die, and let his men, (his posterity) be few. For tho' our Translators have helped the place by adding the Negative (which indeed ought to be there, else Moses Curses that Tribe, instead of Blessing it) yet it is not in the Hebrew, as is acknowledged by our Translators, putting the Negative not, in a different Character. Here, again, the Critics in the Synopsis take a deal of Pains to patch up the Hebrew Verity, but without any Satisfaction to me, I do profess.  
But let us now take a view of Jerom, who will appear not so tied and so firmly persuaded of the Incorruption of the Hebrew Text, as Mr. O. is, Commenting on that Passage, Gal. 3. 13. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. He delivers himself thus, Ex quo mihi videtur, etc. From whence it seems to me, either that the ancient Hebrew Copies read the words otherwise, than at present, or the Apostle expressed the Sense of the Scriptures, not the Words, or (which is rather to be thought) that the Name of God was after the Passion of Christ, by some body added to the Hebrew, and to our Bibles, that he might disparage us, who bolieve in Christ (as if) accursed of God.  
Again, on Micah 5. 2. He observes that many Cities or Villages, eleven in number, are reckoned up, (Jos. 15. 60.) in the LXX, tho' not in the Hebrew, and amongst the rest, Ephratah, or Bethlehem, which belonged to the Tribe of Judah, whence Christ sprang, Matth. 2. 6. He than adds, sive d● veterihus erasum sit militia Judeorum. etc. We know not certainly, whether it was struck out of the Ancient Copies through the Malice of the Jews, lest Christ should hence appear to have sprung from the. Tribe of Judah, or whether it was added by the LXX. But enough, and more (I hope) than needed on this Point.  
Having, I suppose, made good my Assertion, that the Hebrew Bibles have been corrupted in all Ages▪; I now return to the main Business. When I had been in the Sermon on the Defensive, and had vindicated the Church of England, from Mr. D's. frivolous Objections; and having at that time (it was a time of Peace among us) met with a Pamphlet in great Vogue at Manchester, Entitled, Notes on the B. of S. etc. And another in M. S. called a Sermon, in both which, we were vilely, Maliciously, and Causelessly traduced; and so the Peace being broken, I thought it not improper to carry the War into the Enemies own Country, and to let 'em see, it was possible to give 'em a Diversion, Briefly, I taxed them with that Corruption, Acts 6. I argued conjecturally, and from Circumstances, but principally from Matter of Fact. And because Mr. O. was not content with one, and that a Scotch Instance too, I then proved 'em to have countenanced and supported the Corruption by two other Overt Acts, which rendered my other Conjectures the more probable, and the main Charge 〈◊〉 against them beyond all Controversy. The life of the whole Argument put together, depends on the Evidence of those Matters of Fact, which, whether Mr. O. has vindicated the united Brethren from, is now to be considered. But first, take notice, it ought not to surprise you, that my Circumstantial Proofs are made so little account of. Even Malefactors have Brow enough to stand out to the last gasp against such Evidence, and to assert their Innocence, when the Halter is about their Necks, and sometimes against positive Witness also.  
To the Cameronian Instance, all that is offered of moment (if that be so) is Coll. Fairfax heard not the Camer. Urge the corrupt Reading, and that perhaps the Story passed twenty Hands, before it reached the Colonel. But perhaps it passed not above one, and it is plain the Colonel believed it, and we ought not to think him so Easy and Credulous, as to entertain a Story without good Ground. Besides, in the more large Account, I have of the Story, the Reporter is mentioned by the Colonel, with Honour and Respect, whom he styles a Gentleman, and perhaps inclinable to the Cameronian Faction, yea, perhaps that Gentleman might urge it by way of Dispute with the Colonel. What abundance of things may one surmise? But Mr. O. Pleads, Person, Time and Place, are not named, that therefore the Evidence is blind, and would look ridiculous in a Court of Judicature. The proper Answer hereunto, is, that tho' such Testimonies in Courts of Justice, are not accounted sufficient to ground a Judiciary Definitive Sentence upon, yet are they not Ridiculous, but ofttimes believed by the Court. An Evidence may be sufficient for private Conviction, which will not be allowed of, in public Forms of Justice.  
St. Paul accuses some of the Corinthians (and he had it from some of the House of Cloe, whom he mentions not, and through how many Hands it passed, we know not) for disparaging him. His Letters are weighty and powerful, but his bodily Presence is weak and contemptible. Here was neither Person, nor Time, nor Place named, and yet Paul believed the Report. But the Reason of the colonel's not naming Person, Time, and Place, is obvious. For not thinking any use would be made of the Story, and neglecting to put down these Circumstances in his Memorials. He easily let 'em slip out of his Memory. The Faith of Men is at a low Ebb, if the want of these Circumstances must damn all Reports as Ridiculous, and especially, when they are but of yesterday.  
To the Information of Mr. Ellison, he pleads that Mr. Jolly is dead, and thereby we are put out of all hopes of being able to examine the Truth. I question not, but you see this is mere shifting. If Mr. O. doth really suspect the▪ Veracity of Mr. Ellison, let him (for he has the means) inquire into some of the Circumstances, which will in a good measure clear the rest. There are those in and about Manchester, who can tell him there was such a Dissenting Minister as Mr. Jolly, that there is such a Place as Duckenfield hall, whether Dissenters were wont to resort, and I doubt not, but it may be proved, that Mr. E. and Mr. J. were then engaged in some Disputes about Church Discipline, and Government. And if so, there is no Reason to reject Mr. Ellison's Testimony, as a mere devised Tale. Will any one say this Evidence is a blind one? Would it not be admitted in a Court of Justice? No Judge but upon such Testimonies, would decree the Nuncupative Will of a deceased Person, Good and Valid.  
As to that Story from the Bolton Gentleman, it is an unexceptionable Proof of what it was produced for. My Business was not to show, upon what particular Point this falls Reading was alleged either at Duckenfield, or in this Dispute, whether about People's making, or choosing their own Ministers, but that it has been urged in favour of the Popular Government, and the various Reading can concern nothing else. Nor was the Question between Mr. O. and me, whether any Dissenting Ministers, but any Protestant Dissenters had ever urged the Corrupt Reading, Rem. p. 14. And if these Dissenting Disputants were so ignorant, as they are suspected to be (for they shall be called Ignorant when the Cause requires it, tho' at other times they are the most knowing Persons) can it with Reason be thought, but that the Argument was put into their Mouths by some of their Leaders? Whether Laymen or pretending Ministers, is of no moment in this Case.  
Upon the whole Matter, it is, I hope, manifest, that the Dissenters, if they did not contrive the Erratum, were justly charged with owning it, seeing they have endeavoured to improve it unto their own Advantage. If they did not beget it, they have at least Fathered it, and why should we refuse 'em the Child, which (right, or wrong, concerns not us) they lay claim unto, and no body else has a mind to, especially when it was in requital for spiteful and groundless Reflections, cast on us by the Note-maker without Provocation: For requital seems to Mr. O. a just Reason for thus doing. Now then, if we must yet dwell upon that Expostulation, who began, and who justly requited? You will find this resolved at the entrance of R. R. And yet without any Defence against that part of my Apology, we are still told. The Note-maker doth not charge any Personal Fault of the Bishop of S. on the whole body of the Episcopal Church, Vindic. p. 22. But see here how Prejudice and Partiality will blind a Man; for he immediately subjoins, that the Note-maker retorts the Schism upon the Church, which the Bishop of S. had supposed the Dissenters guilty of. Now I think the Episcopal Church is here charged with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supposed Fault, that is, taxing the Dissenters with Schism. He should have let us (at least of Manchester) alone; for there the Storm was to fall, whatever the Title Page says it was in usum Sarum. Nor should he have left his Subject, and Reproached us with Atheism, Socinianism, Perjury, etc. What's this to Schism? Or was it for the Service of the Government, to discourage Men from. Submitting to it? I observe this, because these Men are so apt (like our Dragoons last among us) to accuse every body of Jacobitism, that stands in their way, when as none more effectually promote it than they. And if some shall be esteemed Perjured for the Alteration of their former Principles, what shall we think of a multitude of Dissenters, who, if they did not swear 〈◊〉 unto K. J. yet solemnly promised it? Read Father Alsop's Speech to the late King, in the Name, and at the Head of a Body his Brethren, and you will be forced to say, they are, if not false Swearers, yet egregious Liars, departing from their public and declared Protestations, which I think comes pretty near the Fault, others are (I think unjustly) accused of. But I dismiss the Note-maker.  
There remains now the Case of Mr. B. and Mr. P. The former's Greatness was alleged as sufficient excuse, why he vouchsafed to make no Answer to his Accuser; but the Goliath looked scornfully on little David, and made no reckoning of him. He had leisure to uncover the nakedness of the Fathers, but none to hid his own; to revile them, but to commend himself. And for his greater Honour to interweave the whole History of the Times and public Transactions with his own; which (as I take it) was too assuming and arrogant. Thus his Life swelled into a prodigious and intolerable length. 'Tis observable that whoever adored him and embraced his Seutiments, with what Laurels he was wont to adorn their Temples as well as his own; but if any Man dared to gainsay him, or refused to truckle unto his Dictates, they were sure to be Thunderstruck by this J. O. M. For which Reason the Ancient Father's Infirmities were so imprudently exposed to the dishonour of Christianity. Though we own our Religion under God to their Zeal and Learning. For these and the like Reasons, it was, that some Men of his own Fraternity have rewarded him, as he had served others. Doubtless you have seen that Pamphlet, etc.  
From the whole you will learn (as also by Mr. O's. and the Note-makers Writings) what liberty these patiented, peaceable, mortified, and sanctify'd Men: These are the usual Characters they give one another) take in spitefully reviling their Adversaries, though in the main of their own Persuasion; No wonder then if they treat us as barbarously. And if you want another example of this, I send you to the Confutation of Mr. Williams, by Mr. Alsop, and to the History of the Union, where no quarter is given to these Gentlemen, who (especially Father Alsop) are (as we speak) handled without Mittens; But if a Church of England Man meddles with any of 'em they seem to be of the Humour of that lewd Soldier, who excused himself thus, that the Commandment is thou shalt not, but not, I shall not— The Author of the said Pamphlet may venture to deliver many sad Truths of Mr. B. but the Rector must not. The sum is, and my design was to note, that Mr. B's. Greatness ought not to be his Protection; nor did he truly deserve that Epithet. A Man ought not to be commended at adventures. All that can be said of him with respect to Greatness, is, that He was a person of very good natural Parts, but of no Improvements proportionable to them. Thus much I have to say on my own behalf for speaking and writing as I did, when just Occasion was offered me.  
The same Motive drew in Mr. P. he was a Passable Man, and that's all that can be said of him truly: but to make an Hero of him, and to tell the World he shined among us, tanquam inter Stellas Luna minores, to carry his Character higher than it really deserved, and for want of Materials to guests at some excellencies, which he was so far from meriting, that the contrary must needs be allowed against him, is an Artifice of advancing the credit of a Party, which ought not to be endured, and none but desining Men will engage themselves in. What I took notice of, was his Marrying without the Woman's Parents consent, and producing a Diploma or Testimonial of taking his Degree at Cambridge.  
Hear then my Evidence. A Gentleman of my Parish who knew him well, acquainted me with both above Twenty years ago, and ofttimes since, occasionally in Discourse. When therefore I read his Life; I went immediately to the Register of the Class, where I found, That Mr. L. was accused, Aug. 15. 1650. for having consummated a Marriage between Mr. P. and one S. S. Clandestinly and Irregularly, therefore the said Mr. P. and Mr. L. are appointed to appear again at the next Meeting. Septemb. 12. ditto, Mr. P. is appointed to bring in a Certificate under the hand of his own, and his Wives Parents, testifying their consent to the Marriage, that the Class (a● the same time) hath received satisfaction, and acquiesceth in the acknowledgement of Mr. P. and Mr. L. concerning their irregular Proceed in the late Clandestine Marriage of Mr. P. Then November 14. ditto Mr. P. brought in his Certificate concerning Parent consent to the Marriage. No Man alive laying these things together, but would have concluded the Marriage was made without the Consent of S. S' Parents, especially when the other Report proved true beyond all Controversy. As for Mrs. P. and R. M's Testimony to the contrary, there is still one defect in them; we are not told that Mr. P's consented to the Marriage before its consummation, and this is the more to be suspected, because the Marriage was consummated Clandestinely and Irregularly, under an Hedge in an Alehouse, or without Banns asked, I know not which, but I am sure not by an Ordained Minister, contrary to the Law of the Land. But why all this, if their Parents had consented beforehand? Besides, it was Two Months or ever Mr. P. produced a Certificate of Parent's consent, which makes it probable his Parents consented not before the Marriage, but were drawn to it with difficulty, when there was no other remedy. Finally Mr. P. acknowledged himself guilty of some Irregularity or other, which is sufficient to the general Design of my Argument. However in the next place that Mr. P. took not Degree in the V of C. proves true you see beyond any Contradiction or Apology offered to the contrary. And if my Relator was in the right in one Story, why should I question the other? I avoid here speaking openly or further aggravating Mr. P's fault; for I will not dwell upon so foul a Miscarriage, though one might take the advantage here to expose both the guilty Party and his Vindicator too. But I have utterly resolved against it, and so dismiss the Matter of Fact as now taken pro confesso.  
Here than you have an Instance of Mr. O's dealing with Arguments by halves, which fault he falls into almost in every Page, and in some Pages more than once; But we must bear with him in this, his Design being (as to me seems) only to Write a satire and deride the Rector, let the Points in Question shift for themselves as they can. Much good may it do him. I am at his Service, and when he has reviled me as much as he's able, I am persuaded he'll never make the World believe; I am either Fool, or Knave, or Impudent, or a Blasphemer, the Dissenters themselves (that know me) being Judges: For to them I am content to surrender the Interests of my Reputation. I will only speak of one Passage in the Vindication and so conclude. He acquaints his Reader p. 32. that I give him the Character of a great Rogue. Really, if I did so, I were no manner of way to be excused. What I said in R. R. p. 58. Was, That the Dissenters have themselves owned, 
The Corrupting St. Chr.  that if Mr. O. is indeed guilty of the Crime laid against him, he is a great Rogue, and in the Margin I declared the Expression to be none of mine. Now, Sir, I am content to be the Rogue myself, if I am guilty of calling him so. But if without any colour he has in this thing charged me falsely, and robbed me of my Reputation, among all those that shall read his Vindication, and not consult my R. R. which I am persuaded one Reader of 100 will not do, than I leave it to any Man's Judgement, whether he has not done what in him lies to deserve that Character which I never did, nor will give him.  
Finally, I take leave to tell you, (I do it with some Confidence) that there is scarce one Paragraph (and they are numerous) but I could easily detect in it some material Defect or other, and effectually answer it; but to what purpose? When shall we have an end? It would have been hard to undertake so particular a Reply, without falling into hard words, which is the thing I have carefully declined. I am not sensible that I have given him any ill Language, or Cause of Exasperation, except haply it be in this one thing, that I refuse to scold with him.  
I hope both he and you will forgive me this wrong.  
And remain yours, T. G. April 8. 1699.  
FINIS.