THE Rector of Bury's Reply TO THE Minister at Oswestry's Answer; In a Second Letter to his Friend. SIR, I Was in hopes my former Letter might have Charmed the good Man, and laid that evil Spirit which Torments him. But I am mistaken: Mr. O. is no Changeling, he chooseth still to Scribble for the Diversion rather than the Edification of his Reader, as himself I am told has confessed, and which is manifest in the Answer. It is less to be wondered at, seeing this Itch of Writing scurrilously seems to run in the Blood, as you rightly observed from Eugenius his late Pamphlet. With much ado he has picked up Four Instances out of my Letter, and by the help of misrepresentation, would Skreen himself from the Censure of Wise Men, as if he had only beaten the Rector at his own Weapon. Much good may his Victory do him. I am not, I own, skilled in that Noble Science of Fencing with an Adversary, and instead of Answering his Arguments, abusing him with Contemptuous Language. He informs you, * Title Page. The Rector has effectually acquitted the Dissenters, etc. And this I'll warrant you must pass for Truth, without looking into the Letter or the Answer. Oh, say the Mob, it's a plain case, our Oracle has said it, the Rector is baffled even by his own Confession; whilst the more understanding sort droop, hang the Head, and are ashamed of their Advocate. But how doth he prove this? Why, he sums up the cause, (you may be sure partially enough) he tells, what feats he has done, what Havoc he has made in the Rector's Squadrons (i. e. Arguments,) the most part whereof he has dismounted, trampled under foot, left sprawling on the ground, and weltering in their Blood, whilst the rest being put into disorder were forced to fly and retire with Precipitation; the unhappy General mean while being unable to rally or recruit his broken Forces. Now the pretence for all this boasting is, The Rector not distrusting the Judgement of the Intelligent Reader, would not trouble him with impertinent Repetitions: But left his Squadrons in the Field firm, and in good order, as they were, and (he believed) able to make good their Ground against all Opposition. There was then no necessity of increasing his Troops, which had sustained no considerable loss, that he knows of, nor is he yet sensible there is need of any new Levies. By this time the Metaphor is sufficiently squeezed. The Titles are left out of the Liturgy Psalms, because intended to be Sung. This in good time is agreed upon as a just Defence of the Church of England. But Mr. O. will needs have the Honour of first starting it. Answ. p. 14. 'Tis not worth while to ask why Mr. Delaune's Vindicator should desert and turn on the Church of England's side. This is no good sign of Victory. Nor is it tanti, which of us can lay the best claim to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as it is. But because they say, there is as much right in a Penny as in a Pound, I'll not lose it for lack of demanding. See then Rs. Rs. p. 15. l. 34. which were written before Mr. O's Vindication. So that Mr. Minister is beholden to Mr. Rector for that Plea, if a trifling Truth may be spoken. Hos ego versiculos feci, tulit alter Honorem. I pretend not to a Precedent in Antiquity, or a Rubric in our Church for repeating the Psalms alternately * Yet see Rubrics before Hymns of 5th Nou. 30 Jan. 29 May, and Fire of London. . But I reckon Custom a good warrant for it, which as 'tis esteemed a second Nature in one case, so in another is to be accounted a second sort of Command † 1 Cor. 11. 16. . We cannot transgress it without being Schismatics. Saying the Psalms is a kind of Singing them, being distinguished from reading them by way of Instruction: For they are appointed, as part of our Devotion, which the Custom of our Church has determined unto alternate saying. We have no other Order for Singing the Psalms in Meter, but Custom. That Women may speak in the Church is doubtless true, 1 Cor. 11. 5. where by Prophesying I understand sing. 1 Chron. 25, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7. St. Paul indeed forbids them to speak in the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. but explains himself, 1 Tim. 2. 12. That they are not to Teach, or Speak Authoritatively: However they may speak in Prayer and Praise. Is it not lawful for 'em to say Amen? Do not the Dissenters allow them to Sing? In a word, when prejudices are laid aside, Noise and Confusion may be objected against Singing as reasonably, as against saying the Psalms alternatìm. The Quakers will deride the Dissenters Singing David's Psalms, and call it Gibble Gabble, or bouncing and racketing them (in Eugenius his Language) with as much Reason and Justice, as the Dissenters can our saying them alternately. I will be better than my word, and let Mr. O. see, I am able to recruit my Squadrons, though he has not shattered or diminished them: that the Titles of the Psalms are not Essential Parts of them, seems to be the Opinion of Mr. Allix, who Writes, Judgement of the Jewish Church, etc. p. 20. It is by the help of Tradition, that the Ancient Interpreters have added to the Psalms such Titles, as express their Design and their Usage in the Synagogue. One might hope to find shelter under the Wings of this Learned Person, at least to be acquitted of Blasphemy, if not of all Error or mistake. I refused the Arbitration of Jerom, for Reasons, which were not to the Honour of that Father. On th' other Hand, Mr. O. has adorned him with wonderful Encomiums in general. But quid verba audio, cum facta video. If all were true, his particular Faults are not covered thereby. The Rector was forced to Treat him in that manner to satisfy the Reader why he declined his Judgement, who was too Sceptical in the point to be regarded. But Mr. Br. without necessity let fly, and at once mauled and put to the Sword the whole Squadron of the Primitives. B. 4th p. 1025. Nor do I want a very good Precedent for what I did, the Famous Mr. Mede 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Jerom (saith he) is a Man of no Faith with me, when he describes the Opinion of his Adversary, which he would set forth as odiously as possibly could be. He was a Man that cared not what he said, Id. B. 3. p. 748. so it might disparage his Adversaries, as in the case of Vigilantius, and Jovinian; Again, St. Jerom was a most unequal Relator of the Opinion of his Adversary. What Credit he may deserve in this may appear in some fragments of those Authors still remaining, whom he charged with an Opinion directly contrary to that which they expressly affirmed. And yet when he had stated it so, as it must needs be Heresy and Blasphemy whosoever held it, he is found to say he durst not damn it, because Multi virorum Ecclesiasticorum & Martyrum ista dixerunt. Sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic or a—: unriddle me this, & Phyllida solus habeto. That all Ancient versions of Scripture and the Fathers are useful to find the true Reading of Scripture will easily be granted, if you call to Mind what account we all make of the Polyglot Bibles and Primitive Writers. That a Version of less Credit in general may in some particulars be truer than even the LXX. or the Hebrew seems to be the Opinion of Mr. Mede. B. 5. p. 1095, 1096. He observed, that in both the Chronology of Gen. 11. 26, 32. ch. 12. 4. compared with Lu. 7. 4. was mistaken, and Corrected it by the Samaritan Pentateuch. Now though for my own part I believe the Hebrew and LXX are not here faulty for Reasons not proper to be adduced in this place, yet this shows what that good Man's Sentiments were in the Case. Of the same mind is the Learned Dupin. 'Tis not absolutely necessary (saith he) that we should always follow the Samaritan Pentateuch (which he asserts to be an Original and Authentic) nor are we always obliged to follow the Hebrew Text. Complete Hist. of the O. and N. Testam. Part 1. p. 168. But Mr. O. is angry, that (as the Papists send us to the Fathers for the sense of Scripture so) the Rector carries us to them for the Scripture itself. Bless me, thought I when I read this, whither will vain Glory and thirst after Victory drive a Man, and into what Absurdities betray him? This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very fatal. Because, forsooth, we ought not without fear or wit depend on the Father's only for the sense of Scripture, neither are we beholden to them for the Scripture itself. Whence (I beseech you) had we the Scripture, but from our Predecessors in the Faith? The Holy Fathers Principally, whose Writings are so many everlasting Monuments upon Record of their Divine Authority from whom we know, what Books were and what were not written by Inspiration. Whence did we derive this knowledge but from them? It was not brought us by an Angel from Heaven: We have it not by Inspiration, or from an inspired Prophet: It dropped not out of the Clouds, neither were we born with an innate Idea, or Notion of the Divine Scriptures, which are and which are not such. If the examples already produced do not prove Corruptions in the Hebrew Text (I am sure as zealous sticklers for the Hebrew verity as Mr. O. can be, Mede b. 4. p. 961, 990, b. 3. 707, 708. 709. b. 5. 1094. have confessed it) I send you then to the Margin for more. In one of these places our Author Writes to A. B. Usher thus, I durst show no such Conceits as these, but to so great an Antiquary, to whom the possibility of Corruption by Writing is so well known, or rather the impossibility to the contrary. How can it be proved, that the Church of the Jews had a greater Privilege than we, especially since Prophecy ceased among them? The Masorethical method was devised since Christ and applied to one Copy only, the best, written by Hillel: Supposing this, yet other Copies might in some things be righter than Hill●'s. He argues else where, the Hebrew is most liable to Corruption; the Letters differing so very little are easily mistaken one for another. There is no security against Corruption, unless the Transcribers were inspired: But whether for these Nineteen Hundred Years past any one Copier has been inspired, who he was, and which is the Copy, Ib. p. 961. and where to be seen tell, me, & eris mihi magnus Apollo. If any Corruption ('tis pleaded) had crept into the Text, the Pen Men of the N. T. would have Corrected it. And what if they did? But we had rather follow the Masorites, saith Mr. M. He afterwards observes several such Emendations, which you may examine at leisure. Is it not then equally probable, that St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, restored the 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Verses, to the 14th Psalm? But we dote on the Masorites, and had rather stoop to the Rabbins than to the Apostle. St. Justin understood the Hebrew, so I argued from his being a Native of Flavia, Apol. 2. in init. a City in Palestine. This Squadron Mr. O. meddles not with: It keeps the Field still as I might say peaceably. But (saith he) the Martyr has mistaken the Etymology of Israel: For it is derived from Sarah; Ish (not Is) signifies vir, and therefore he will not allow Justin to have been skilled in Hebrew. A. 1. Critics take a great deal of Liberty in Etymologies, they are like Heretics in Religion, often broaching new Conceits, which though not always exactly true are not to be ascribed unto their Ignorance, but singularity and a certain Delight they take ludere Campo Philologiae, and to start Paradoxes in that kind of Learning, suiting their Etymologies to the Argument before them. The Martyr doubtless had his Eye upon Gen. 32. 24. where the Person that Wrestled with Jacob is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vir from whence he fancied Israel was derived. For the Eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here appearing in the shape of a Man, and being therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave unto Jacob his own Name (as I shall show) a name suitable to his own Nature, and Typical of it. Justin's Criticism therefore is not contemptible, nor is he to be thought a dunce in the Hebrew on this score. But you'll ask perhaps, why then did not Justin writ Ish? And how comes it to pass that we writ it not Ishrael, but Israel? A. 2. As for Justin you must note the Greeks have no such Letter as sh which therefore they always turn into a simple s, as may be seen in the LXX. and Greek Testament: Ex. Gr. Shimeon in the Hebrew, Gen. 29. 33. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the LXX. and in Lu. 2. 25. and Shem, Gen. 5. 33. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the LXX. and in Lu. 3. 36. So that we need not wonder Justin Martyr Writes Is for vir, tho' the Hebrew writes it Ish. And as for us in English, we very frequently turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into Sin, as if there were no difference between the two Letters. We Writ Simeon, Isaiah, Samuel, Absolom, Ahasuerus, and others, with a Sin in stead of the Shin, from whence I infer that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was Originally but one Letter, tho' afterwards made two, and destinguished by a point on the right Shoulder of Shin, and on the left of Sin. Buxtorf thinks that Shin was the only Ancient Letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, Sin being brought into the Room of Samech, haply after Justin's time. If so then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same Letter in Israel and in Ish. Note again, that the Ephraimites, Jud. 12. 6. could not pronounce Shin, but said Sibboleth instead of Shibboleth: Questionless than they said Is also and not Ish, and so with them there was no such Letter as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor any use of it: 'Tis probable it might be thus about Flavia, which haply occasioned Justin's Etymology. In this variety and uncertainty about the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 'tis hard Justin should be taxed for want of skill in the Hebrew Tongue, tho' he took the Liberty of Starting an uncommon Etymology: But especially considering it was offered in confirmation of the human Nature of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Trypho the Jew had nothing to object against it, one would be apt to believe it was the true one. But, 3. Upon a review of that Passage in Justin Martyr, 'tis very probable the Father hit upon the true Etymology of Israel, which he tells us signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is-ra-el by Contraction. 'Tis true presently after he renders Isra 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but it may well be imagined a defect or fault of the M. S. seeing he had before observed, that Israel signified a Man overcoming God. At least (I hope) ●…t will not be denied but that there is a great deal of ingenuity in Justin's Criticisms, and that 'tis likely enough he understood the Hebrew Language. 4. Granting Justin has given us a wrong Etymology of Israel, it will not follow he understood not Hebrew. One might by the same Reason affirm Mr. O. understands neither Greek nor Latin, nor yet English, but Welsh only, because he has mistaken himself sometime or other in all those Languages. But this is manifest, the Martyr frequently quotes the Hebrew as well as the LXX. where there was a different Reading, Dial. p. 360. and gives us the Reason of it, viz. That his Reasoning thence might not be set at naught by the Jews, that various Reading being not concerned in his present Argument with Trypho. By the way than I infer hence, as very probable, that Justin used the same Care and precaution, when he Challenged the Jews with corrupting the Scriptures, that is, had his Eye upon both Texts. But I am surprised that Mr. O. should assert, that in the Word Israel, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 El Justin means no other God, but the God of this World the Devil, which the blundering Rector (elsewhere called blind Bayard) makes to signify the true God. Is the Man possessed? What? The true God gave the name of the Devil unto the Holy Patriarch, and that because he Wrestled with the true God and prevailed? It could never enter into any good Man's Noddle that the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Blessed Jacob with the Devil's name, I will at Adventures affirm the Martyr never thought nor said so. A little after indeed he useth El 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Devil, whom he describes for distinction sake, the Serpent and Satan, but not with reference unto Israel. In short, Just. Dial. p. 355. E. P. he hath by good luck cleared himself, in this matter thus, Israel was his name from above (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Heaven) by which Christ called Jacob Blessing him with his own name, but not with the Devil's surely. I am still of the mind, that with Jerom and in his time the Hebrew read Deut. 32. 8. as the LXX. doth at this day. All Nations but Israel were subjected to the Angels, and governed by them as the Learned believe, which Dr. Scot has well explained and confirmed. Christian Life Par. 2. p. 935. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He farther shows how probably Angels in that Text was changed into Children of Israel. Originally it ran thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sons of God, q. d. Angels, but the Transcribers suspecting Isra to be left out restored it, and so it became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q. d. Children of Israel. Setting this aside, Jerom holding the Doctrine of Angelocracy confirmed from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deut. 32. 8. according to the LXX. saith Mr. O. But this he would never have done contrary to the Hebrew verity, preferring the LXX. to it. His good Friends and Allies the Jews, would con him no thanks for this, as I guess. There is a perfect Agreement (Mr. O. avers it) between the Hebrews and the LXX. in 1 Sam. 17. he knows it to be so, he has consulted the Chapter, and you may depend upon it. But blind Bayard's Eyes once more deceive him, or Mr. O. is taken in the manner once more. What will not some Men say to save their Bacon? Twenty Four Verses of that 17th Chapter in the Hebrew are missing in the LXX. a●… that there is a perfect Agreement between them. Mr. O. might as well acquaint the World that he and I are agreed ●… Besides, let him compare the 16, 17, and 18th Chapters, as I desired him, and then tell me, if the LXX. have not given us a strait and intelligible Narrative of David's Action, whilst in the Hebrew the course of the story is intolerably broken, perplexed and transposed without remedy. Mr. O. sees nothing of this, although I know a Child of twelve Years Old, who t'other day discerning the disorder, asked whether there were two Davids, one Saul's Armour bearer * Chap. 16. , the other that slew Goliath † Chap. 17. , because Saul knew him not, v. 55. I am content Mr. O. should have the Liberty of explaining himself, when he saith, The not reading the Titles of the Psalms is an innocent Omission; which (he pleads) was spoken in excuse of the Parochial Assemblies, and not of the Dissenters (as the Rector mistakes) they do read the Titles. But the matter is not yet mended: His words are * Farther Vind. p. 53. , Now since the Psalms are read not sung in our Parochial Churches, the Titles which are Part of the Scripture ought not to be expunged out of the Reading Psalter— They may and aught to be read as part of the Word of God and therefore should not be left out of the Reading Psalms. But this is not the Controversy between me and the Rector: The not reading of them is an innocent Omission. In short thus, the Titles ought to be read in Parochial Assemblies because the Psalms are read there and not sung, but yet the not reading them is an innocent Omission. Is not this rare stuff? That any thing which ought to be done can be innocently left undone, to speak softly, is a strange Paradox beyond my reach to comprehend. I'll not call it vile, impious and profane: But I cannot Swallow it. At this Rate we may even fling a way our Bibles, renounce all Religion and Morality. As for the Dissenters reading the Titles, I would ask how often, and by what Orders. There is no direction for it in the Reformation of the Liturgy where one ought to expect it. Besides, I have been frequently at Presbyterian Assemblies, where not so much as the Psalms themselves were read, and near a thousand times (I believe) where, though the Psalms were now and then read, yet the Titles were not. Innocent Omission! In short the Dissenters, if one may guests at their Principles by their Practice, do not take themselves absolutely obliged to read the Scripture in their stated Assemblies, but will omit this Ceremony when ever they please to make room for their own Sermons and Lecturing, which justle out the Word of God. And the People Love to have it so: They complain not, if Reading the Word be passed by and neglected: But if there be no Sermon, what outcries will they make, as if they were starved for lack of Bread? And again, when the Word of God is read, they sit like so many dull and lifeless Images till the Minister gins his Harangue: Then they rouse, and listen with wonderful attention, seeming to be unwilling one Word of his Mouth should drop by the way unobserved. Now is it fit these Men should reproach us for reading the Apocrypha now and then, or omitting the Titles of the Psalms? It were to be wished Men would see their own Faults and amend them in stead of quarrelling at our innocent Omissions and Appointments. As to Mr. Baxter's and the Homily's leaving out These in their citation of Acts 15. 28, and (as Mr. O. argues) their being equally concerned in the Accusation, so that either both are, or neither of them ought to be acquitted, I will now in the last place show the contrary, and so conclude. Mr. Baxter's business in the Petition for Peace was in general to prove the unlawfulness of imposing any but necessary things in Religious Worship, which he pretended to make good from Act. 15. 28. quoting it thus— It seemed good to the Apostles and Elders to lay upon them no greater burden than necessary things, and omitting These. Now this Word had it not been suppressed would have put the Reader upon recollecting or searching what those necessary things were in particular; indeed it would have obliged Mr. Baxter himself in Reason to have mentioned them all. But that would have quite spoiled his Argument. For every one than would have perceived at first sight, that the Text speaks only of matters belonging to civil Conversation. But expressing the Passage thus, necessary things indefinitely, the Reader would be apt to run away with the Bait, and take it for granted, that the Apostles appointed nothing in Religious Worship, but necessary things, which is not nor can be proved from this Text. In short, Mr. Baxter's Argument (which indeed is none at all) appeared plausible by the Omission of These, and he is justly suspected to have designed to ensnare his Reader. I know an ingenious Person who was thus deceived by him. But the Author of the Homily cannot justly be taxed with any such fallacious Design. He was urging the particular Duty of abstaining from Fornication as necessary, and proved it from the Text, which among other necessary things forbids Fornication. His Argument is neither better nor worse by his omitting These. Nay, the Turn of the whole Period, as he contrived it, would not admit These to be taken in. It would have been Nonsense to say— These necessary things: Among others they willed them: This latter Word Other in a New distinct Sentence required, that These should be left out in the former. But enough and too much of this trivial Point. Here than I put an end unto my Notes on Mr. Owens' Answer. If you or any Body else should think it worth while strictly to examine all that has passed between him and me throughout this whole Controversy, I again declare I must send you to our former Writings, being loath to give you or myself any unnecessary Trouble. And I am pretty well assured the generality of Readers would not like being teaz'd with the Repetition of the same things over again: I am sensible it would be to very little purpose. I remain then, Your Affect. and very Humble Servant. T. G. FINIS. THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER. EVery Body almost has taken notice of the strange Confusion that is in the 1 Sam. 16, 17, 18, Chapters. There came to my hands very lately the following Essay, which pretends to restore them to their Natural Order, and gives a Conjecture how possibly this Confusion might have happened. In the Absence of the Author of the foregoing Letter, there being so near an Agreement in the Argument, I have made bold to add this as an Appendix, the rather because the said Author seems to believe, the difficulties, wherewith these Chapters are perplexed, to be insuperable and without Remedy. That the Course of the History of David, in 1 Sam. 16, 17, 18, Chapters is disordered, every one sees, and the Septuagint for that Reason (as I fancy) in their Version, or some Transcriber, has entirely expunged Twenty four Verses out of the 17. Chapter, and Eight out of the 18. by which means they made the story very easy and intelligible, and discharged it of all the difficulties, which appear in our Bibles at this Day. But 'tis very hard me thinks to imagine how Four and twenty, and Eight Verses, could have been interpolated in the sacred Text, seeing they contain a piece of the History, which no where else is so much as hinted at. I therefore choose of the two, to believe rather that the parts of the Narrative have been transposed, which therefore I am endeavouring to restore unto their right Order. But first let us take a view of the Disorders in these three Chapters, as we now have them in the Hebrew Text and our English Version. 1. In the 17th Chapter we have an Account of David's Family and Pedigree, which is to be found immediately before in the 16th Chapter, and without any necessity repeated here. Whereas on the contrary, if we invert the Order of these two Chapters, the Repetition of them is necessary, as any one that considers will confess. 2. In the 17th Chapter David is employed in the meanest Offices by his Father Jesse, viz. tending the Sheep; and Snubed by his Eldest Brother Eliab, as too Ambitious and Aspiring, though Chapter 16. he had been in the presence of his Father and Brethren Anointed Saul's Successor, and the designed King of Israel. Neither of which I am persuaded aught nor would have been done after David's Anointing. 3. In Chapter 17. Saul calls David Youth, unfit to enter the Lists with the Giant, not knowing what it was to Fight; and especially 'tis observable, that the King again after the Fight, calls him Young Man and Stripling, tho' Chapter 16. David had sometime before been Anointed King, and advanced to be Saul's Armour-Bearer, and was then known to be a Man of War, and prudent in Matters. All which suppose that he was beyond a Stripling, in the 16th Chapter, and much more in the 17th. 4. In the 17th Chapter Saul seems not to have known David's Pedigree and Family, and therefore inquires after it: Probably he knew not his Name, for he never calls him David, but only Youth, Stripling and Young Man. Whereas all this was well known unto Saul before, Chapter 16. 5. In the 18th Chapter, the 6, 7, & 8. Verses are manifestly broken off from the 17th Chapter, which they ought immediately to follow, but are interrupted with Five Vers●s, the last whereof acquaints us, that Saul employed David in business of Importance, set him over the Men of War: That David behaved himself Wisely, and got the Favour of the People and of the Courtiers, which must needs have happened after Saul's Triumphant Return from the slaughter of the Philistines, which nevertheless we see is postponed to the 6, 7, & 8. Verses. These things being so I should think yet, with Submission, that the Course of the story should lie in the following Order, whereby all the forementioned inconvenience are avoided. I would then immediately after the 15th Chapter read the 17th, (all but the 15th Verse,) and the 6, 7, & 8. Verses of the 18th Chapter, which make up a complete account of Saul's Expedition against the Philistines that Year, and his Triumphant Return home. But whereas in the 8th Verse of that 18th Chapter it is said, that Saul was displeased, because the People ascribed more unto David, than unto the King, and says he, What can David have more, but the Kingdom? Therefore in the next place, I would read Verse the 15th of the 17th Chapter— But David (observing that Saul was angry, and himself in all likelihood, defeated of the Promise of Saul's Daughter) went and returned from Saul to feed his Father's Sheep at Bethlehem. Now God among other Reasons, to punish Saul's breach of Promise unto David, and to recompense David another way, sent Samuel to Anoint him Saul's Successor: I would in the next place, then read the 16th Chapter entirely to the end. The latter part whereof is an Account how David returned to Court, to Play upon his Harp and thereby to refresh Saul, when the Evil Spirit vexed him, as also how he was made Saul's Armour-Bearer. All this happened unto David, because it was then well known, that David was a Skilful Player on the Harp (we may suppose he had in the Camp frequently diverted the Soldiers with his Instrument) and also that he was a Valiant Man, a Man of War, and prudent in such matters, (for he had given proof of his Courage and Conduct before in the War with the Philistines) When David with his Harp, Chapter 16. 23. had refreshed Saul and the Evil Spirit was departed from him, I cannot but think the King entered into some Discourse with him, therefore I would here go to the 18th Chapter and first Verse, to the end of the fifth— And it came to pass when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, etc.— And David went out whither soever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely: And Saul set him over the Men of War, and he was accepted in the sight of all the People and also in the sight of Saul 's Servants. Lastly, hence I skip to the 9th Verse— And Saul (being jealous of David who was thus become popular and perhaps having some secret Intelligence by this time, that he had been Anointed to succeed in the Throne) Eyed David from that day and forward. This Jealousy brought again the Evil Spirit upon Saul, so that in the very next the 10th Verse 'tis said— And it came to pass on the Morrow (of that day when Saul began first to Eye David) that the Evil Spirit from God came upon Saul, etc. The story afterward is regular. It will (I foresee well enough) be asked how all this disorder could happen in the sacred History? Whereunto I Answer, that the matter of Fact seems to me so evident both from the perplexity of the Narrative, as it lies at present in our Bible, and from that perfect Agreement which must be confessed to be in the parts of the story thus put together, that I reekon this not a sufficient Objection. Besides, if I may be allowed to account for this, as the Learned do for other smaller Corruptions, I need not despair of guessing at a probable way how this might come to pass. Thus. The two greater Sections, which make up the 16th and 17th Chapters as they now stand in our Bibles, might have been written upon two different Rolls or lose Parchments, & so easily misplaced or mistaken by the Copier, taking up one for the other. The Reader afterwards observing David, who Chapter 16th was entered into Saul's Service, was now chap. 17. (not Body knows how, for no account is given of it) at home again with his Father at Bethlehem, noted in the Margin from a Neighbouring place— But David went and returned from Saul to feed his Father's Sheep at Bethlehem, which by degrees slipped from the Margin into the Text here. Again, a Transcriber observing there was no express mention of any Discourse between Saul and David, except that in Chapter 17. 32. & Verse 58. concluded, that the five first Verses of the 18th Chap. should be placed immediately after the 17th Chapter, as they now stand in our Bibles. Such kind of Accounts as these Critics are wont to give of other mistakes, why may not this that I have now offered pass as probable, at least Possible. I cannot admit of the Prolepsis, which the inspired Penmen of the History would never have fallen into after such a gross manner as renders the whole story extremely confused, and impossible to be clearly understood. In a word, the Thread of the History is so often broken, that it seemed necessary to restore the parts to their Natural Order, wherein I do believe they were first written. But supposing the Sacred Historian fell so often into the Prolepsis, yet it may be be granted (I hope) that we have gained thus much by this Attempt, that the genuine Order of time, when things successively happened, is here discovered and rendered easy to be understood, which I am Principally concerned for. But as for the explanations of several Difficulties in this History, which the Critics in the Synopsis, who do not insist upon the Prolepsis have furnished us with, I shall in the last place show, that they are weak, forced, and have no probability at all in them. It is said upon Chapter 17. 55, 58. that David was not then sufficiently known unto Saul, because he frequently went from Court home to feed his Father's Sheep: Therefore the King enquired of him and of his Family. A. It is incredible Saul should suffer his Armour-Bearer to retire so often to feed Sheep, or frequently dispense with his Absence, who was to be constantly at hand to Play upon the Harp, when ever the Evil Spirit came upon Saul. Besides, if David frequently went home, he frequently returned unto Court, and so was better known unto the King. It is said, Saul was taken up with the weighty Affairs of the Kingdom, so that altho' he formerly knew David and his Family, ch. 16. 18. yet he had forgot him, ch. 17. especially being often troubled with the Evil Spirit. A. Saul was not at that time troubled with the Evil Spirit, it is manifest. If he had been often troubled with it, yet he lost not his Memory and Understanding thereby, ch. 18. 10, 11. ch. 19 9, 10, 11. David at the Combat with Goliath was but Stripling twenty years old haply, for he was but 30 at Saul's Death, 2 Sam. 5. 4. so that there could not be sufficient time between Saul's making him his Armour-Bearer and the Combat, for Saul to have forgot David. In a word, Princes in their Consulations about the Affairs of State, are wont to confer with their Principal Officers and Ministers, of whom doubtless David the Armour-Bearer was one, at least had frequent Occasions to attend his Master, and lastly, being often admitted into Saul's Presence to Play upon the Harp, it is Morally impossible Saul could in a little time forget him and his Father's House. It is said Princes are not wont to know their Servants, especially who have Merited at their Hands; therefore Saul made himself strange unto David, ch. 17. 55, 58. tho' otherwise he could not choose but know him. A. Saul had no reason to dissemble his knowledge of David. David had obliged him by refreshing him with his Harp, and scaring away the Evil Spirit. But then Saul had rewarded him with the Honourable Office of Armour-Bearer. That which make Princes to forget, or to pretend to forget their Subjects is, when they cannot, or will not recompense them. But this was not the case. Again David had slain Goliath, and occasioned thereby the total defeat and overthrow of the Philistines; this was a noble and deserving exploit. Right! But this was not the time, nor was it to any purpose at present to hid his former knowledge of David; For all David's pretence now unto a further reward of his Services, was his successful Combat and slaughter of the Giant, and preservation of the Armies of Israel thereby. As to the reward of this Action, it mattered not whether Saul had or had not been acquainted with David formerly: Still the reward was due, though Saul had never before seen or known him. It is said, David's Face was changed and his Beard grown, so that Saul knew him not again. A. How could David's Beard be grown, who was as yet but a Youth, a Stripling, and a Beardless Boy, ch. 17. It is said, he appeared now before Saul like a Shepherd, and not in his Courtly Habit, so that Saul knew him not. A. 'Tis as easy to say, he appeared at first, ch. 16. before the King in his Shepherd's Garb, which Saul might easily know again. It is finally said that Saul only enquired after the Lineage of David; for he knew his Person well enough. A. If Saul knew and remembered David's Person, he could not have been ignorant of his Pedigree, Tribe and Family, which were well known unto Saul when he made him Armour-Bearer, ch. 16. 18, 19, 22. To conclude, many Incongruities in this story are not at all endeavoured to be accounted for: Those excuses, wherewith some of 'em are palliated, seem so trivial, weak and ill grounded, that I am hereby farther and more firmly convinced that the order of the story has been some way or other disturbed and ought some way or other to be rectified. Whether I have contributed any thing thereunto, I leave to the Judgement of other Men. There are two or three Observables more in the Order of the story, as 'tis found in our Bibles, which ought not to be forgot. David was Anointed, and then advanced to be Saul's Armour-Bearer, ch. 16. God questionless designing hereby to make way for his succeeding Saul in the Throne. But David, tho' there had happened no disgust between him and the King, returned to keep his Father's Sheep, Ch. 17. 15. and Jesse entertained him, which was (as much as in them lay) to defeat the Purpose of God, and expect another way than what God had appointed for his attaining the Crown. Ch. 17. It might also be asked, why did not the Armour-Bearer present himself to his Master, make a tender of his Service according to his Office? Whence was it, that he needed to be introduced into the King's Presence by some Courtier, and was received as a mere Stranger. With what Face could Eliab Challenge Saul's Armour-Bearer with Pride and Naughtiness of Heart for attending his Master in the War. In a word, is it likely the King's Armour-Bearer should appear in the Field with his Shepherd's Habit, ch. 17. As yet then he had been neither Anointed, nor taken into Saul's Service, but was a mere Shepherd, and by Consequence the 17th Chapter ought to be before the 16th, at least is before it in the Order of time, though the 16th by a bold Prolepsis was put first by the Historian. THE END.