A FURTHER VINDICATION OF THE DISSENTERS FROM THE Rector of Bury's UNJUST ACCUSATIONS, WHEREIN His Charge of their being Corrupters of the WORD of GOD, is Demonstrated to be False ●nd Malicious.  
〈◊〉 pretended Justification and Confirmation of it to be Groundless, Weak and Self-condemning.  
●…stles of the Psalms to be Divinely Inspired. The Purity of the Hebrew Copies is Asserted. The Scotch Church and Bibles Defended.  
The Rector Convicted of Corrupting the Word of God, by Adding to it, and Diminishing from it, in several Instances.  
And his unworthy Calumnies of St. Jerom and other Good Men, Detected and Confuted.  
By James Owen, Minister of the Gospel at Oswestry.  Psalm 120. 3. What shall be done unto thee, thou false Tongue? Proverbs 12. 19 The lips of Truth shall be Established for ever, but a lying Tongue is but for a moment. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Metaphr. sub nom. Greg. Nazian. in Eccl. 7.  
LONDON: ●…S. Bridge, for Tho. Parkhurst, at the Bible and Three ●…s in Cheapside near Mercer's Chapel, 1699.   

ERRATA.  
Page 1. Line 1. for had r. hath, P. 7. l. 9 for the r. this Rule, P. 10. l. 22. for he r. we, P. 16. l. 3. for 1638 r. 1658, P. 22. l. 3. a fin. r. takes, P. 28. l. 2. r. Article, P. 31. l. 2. for book r. look, P. 33. l. 7. deal the before Jerusalem, ibid. l. 19 r. Magdeburg. P. 36. l. 8, and 12. for reaping r. ripping, Cut off Fol. 39, and 40. being the Title Page before the Postscript, P. 42. l. 25. for covered r. Coeval, P. 46. l. 2. a fin. r. Full. P. 48. l. 10. for i e. two r. 1st, and 2d, ibid. l. 32. r. observe, P. 49. l. 2. r. 90, P. 50. l. 3. a fin. r. Pol. ibid. l. 7. a fin. r. serves, P. 51. l. 3. r. answer, ibid. l. 3. a fin. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ibid. l. 21. a fin. r. Num: 23. 9 P. 52. l. 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, P. 53. l. 1. for mind r. mine, P. 54. l. 3. a fin. r. misrepresents him, P. 55: l. 27. r. Vilis, l. 9 a fin. r. utique and for ille r. illo, l. 8. a fin. r. ignotus, P. 56. l. 3. a fin. r. Fretell. P. 57 l. 17. r. Psalms about, P. 58. l. 26. for impious r. impure, P. 60. l. 5. a fin. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, P. 61. l. 3. a fin. after not add only, P. 62. l. 19 for ser r. seu, ibid. l. 9 a fin. for fourth r. fifth, P. 63. l. 25. for Coequal r. Coeval, P. 64. l. 3. a fin. r. Judaeos', P. 65. l. 7. deal used, P. 66. l. 12. after Lxx add or, ibid. l. 16. r. Originals, ibid. l. 30. r. inserted, ibid. l. 13. a fin. for of r. by, ibid. l. 9 a fin. r. Argument, ibid. l. 3. a fin. for and r. &, ibid. l. 2. a fin. r. scripturam, P. 67. l. last r. Constabit, P. 68 l. 28. r. pereant, ibid. l. 31. for 2000 r. 6000, ibid. l. 34. r. that of the Hebrew, ibid. l. 17. r. Autolyc, P. 69 l. 10. r. usque and proaem, ibid. l. 16. for these r. this, P. 70. l. 12. a fin. for above r. about ibid. l. 23. r. Cod. regys'.  
There are other Faults of the Press, occasioned by the Author's distance from it, which the Candid Reader is desired to overlook.   

A FURTHER VINDICATION OF THE DISSENTERS FROM Mr. GIPP's Unjust Accusations.  

CHAP. I.  
Containing some Animadversions on his First Chapter.  
IT had been observed of the Authors of the most inconsistent Un-truths, that by often reporting them, they come at last to believe 'em themselves, and with a recollected Effrontery to recommend 'em to the easy World as undoubted and contestable Verities:  
The Reverend Rector of Bury in Lancashire, has given such a discovery of this Spirit as will hardly admit of a Parallel. In a Sermon of his he advanced a vile Charge against the Presbyterians of Corrupting the Word of God by Misprinting ye for we in Acts 6. 3. A Charge so black, so senseless, so inconsistent with their known Principles, so weakly grounded, that none but such as have abandoned the Charity, which is Essential to a Christian, and sacrificed the Reason which constitutes a Man, to the absurdest Prejudices, can entertain it under any other Character, than that of a malicious and silly Calumny. I have fully proved it to be such in my Remarks on his Sermon, and have charitably called upon him to give Glory to God, and consult his own Peace in a dying Hour, by acknowledging his Offence against God, in whose Name he hath published the Vilest of Falsehoods.  
It would have contributed more to his present Reputation and future Comfort, ingenuously to have retracted an uncharitable Presumption, than to have attempted to confirm his Charge, as he calls it, by a Defence of his First Arguments which is so very weak, that it not only convincingly Justifies the Dissenters against his Accusations, but condemns himself to be a Man that can assume the Liberty to affirm any thing, be it never so false and absurd, when it serves to expose an adverse Party. This will evidently appear when I have considered his Defence, and the additional Proofs.  
I desire the Reader to take Notice that it is Matter of Fact, and not any point of Controversy, we are now upon, namely, whether the Presbyterians be Guilty of Corrupting the Word of God? The Rector affirms it in his Sermon, and pretends to confirm it, in his Defence of it. I doubt not but all Men, who have any regard to Truth or commom Honesty, will expect a very clear, direct proof of so High a Charge, against a great Body of sober People, and will not easily take uncharitable Suspicious for evident Proofs.  
Instead of a direct Proof, his Sermon produceth only a circumstantial one. But in his Remarks upon Remarks (as he styles the defence of his Sermon) he pretends to confirm his Charge, for thus his Title-Page runs, The Rector of Bury's Charge exhibited against the Dissenters for endeavouring to Corrupt the Word of God, Justified and further Confirmed.  
When a Charge is Justified and Confirmed, the Proofs are supposed to be Clear and Convincing; but you'll soon find yourselves mistaken if you expect any such thing in the Rectors Remarks. He affirms, with a brazen Coufidence, and confirms with Leaden Arguments, whose main Edge consists in the basest Sort of Railing and Calumny, against the living and the dead, and he gives it the Keenness that such Metal is capable of by the vigorous Application of that Whetstone which he deserves.  
But let's hear how he confirms his Charge.  
1. Above thirty Pages of the sixty four in his Book are on things Foreign to that Charge, which is the main Thing he was to confirm, and a great Part of the rest of his Book is taken up in personal Reflections, which is a clear Evidence he wanted Materials for his chief Point.  
2. He bestows the three first Pages in reflecting on the Ingenious Author, of the Notes upon the Lord Bishop of Salisbury 's four last Discourses.  
I never could certainly tell who was the Author of those Notes which I have not by me, and therefore can say nothing of 'em. If he retorts the Schism upon the imposers of unscriptual Terms of Communion, as the Rector seems to hint, he would do well to answer his Arguments instead of branding him causelessly, and in the rudest Manner with ill Nature, want of good Breeding, etc.  
And now his Hand is in, the Bishop himself can't escape his Censure, whom he takes upon him to correct for his too— gentle Expressions of the Dissenters, and would have had him styled them the Foxes and Firebrands of this Church and Nation, that is he would teach the Judicious and Moderate Prelate to speak the Language of the confident and fiery Author of the Sermons of Allegiance. Here the Rector gives the Dissenters an Instance of his good Nature, and the Bishop of his good Breeding. p. 3.  
3. Rather than want Objects of his Anger, he'll dig into the Graves of the Dead. If he has not the courage to meet their Ghosts (which he is not sure of p. 17.) he dares trample upon their Memories: He gives a Proof of this in the Aspersions he casts on the Reverend Mr. Baldwin, who is now with the Lord. p. 4.  
He has picked up some imperfect Notes of an old Sermon of his, which has so filled his Head, that his Reflections upon it is become the standing Preface to all his late Works. He mentions it in his Tentament Novum, here you find it again, and because you can't have too much of a good Thing, he promise, you shall hear more of it another time.  
4. At length, sensible of his Impertinency, he asks, What's this to the Minister at Oswestry? Indeed nothing at all, however it helps to fill up Paper for want of better Matter.  
But doth he in Earnest think to resolve his Question by this following one, And I also ask, What was it to the Minister at Oswestry, If the Rector of Bury preached a Sermon in Vindication of the Church of England, against the Lancashire Dissenters? The Sermon he preached and which I answered, Charges the Dissenters in General with Corrupting the Word of God, especially those in Cambridge in the year 1638. And affirms that the Corruption has been secretly promoted by that Party ever since; that it has been publicly owned by a Scotch Chameronian: And was all this Charge against the Lancashire Dissenters, who are not so much as mentioned in the whole Sermon? A Man that dare thus boldly Charge the Body of English and Scotch Presbyterians, and then think to come off by saying, his Sermon was against the Lancashire Dissenters, may affirm or deny any thing at his Pleasure. It it a bad Omen to stumble thus at the Threshold. Had the Rector preached a Sermon only against the Lancashire Dissenters (as I hear he has done many) he should never have heard from the Minister at Oswestry. But when he not only Preaches, but publishes an Invective against the whole Body, I judged myself concerned to vindicate Truth and Innocency. Since he is upon ask Questions, I will take the freedom to ask him one, What is it to the Rector of Bury, if I thought fit to Vindicate my Ordination by Presbyters, whilst I allowed the Validity of Episcopal Ordination? I only justified Ordination by Presbytery, but did not condemn that by Bishops. This is the design of my Plea for Scripture Ordination, which one would have thought inoffensive. But the Rector, like the old Donatists, confining the Ministry, Sacraments and Salvation, to those of his own Communion, would needs take upon him to answer my Book. This occasioned my Tutamen Evangelicum; which I had no sooner sent into the Press, but his Sermon came to my Hands: When I had read it over, I was easily persuaded to draw up a few Remarks upon it.  
But the Rector, who is the unhappiest Man in the World at Conjectures, and perhaps one of the boldest in affirming 'em for Truths, would prove from the different Air in the Remarks from Mr. Owen's other Writings that he is but the reputed Father of this spurious Offspring: Who then is the true Father? Why, he believes the Note-Maker was principal in the Remarks, and that they are the Work of a Club of Ministers, and that the Remarkers true Name is Legion, for they are many. p. 5.  
If the poor Rector had not been grievously tormented by the Remarks, he had scarce thought of this frightful Name. He finds himself driven to a Precipice with the bristled Herd in the Gospel, and would fain keep above water, but who can relieve the Animal, whom a Legion pursues?  
To be Serious, I thought he had more Sense than to deny the Remarks to be mine, because they are written in a Style different from my Writings upon other Subjects. Any Author that understands the Laws of Writing, will adapt his Style to the Subject he is upon. If my lines are something pointed, the Rector's infamous detraction, by which he had exposed a vast Body of Protestants to an unjust and public reproach, must be my Apology. I perceive he is a great Stranger to the Dissenters, when he affirms my Remarks to be dressed up with all the gaudy Feathers and Embellishments, which the Wit of the Party could furnish them with. They were wholly dressed up, such as they are, by myself, and the habit they appear in is neither Sordid nor Gay; the Truth and Innocency, they assert, desires not the former, nor needs the latter. A very small degree of Wit will enable a Man to expose the Rector's Defamatory Libel, which has as little of Wit as it has of Honesty. I will not be so Injurious to the Reputation of his Party as to suspect any Man of Wit and Candour among 'em, to have contributed so much as a single Stroke to the Criminatory part of his Sermon, which so resembles the true Father, that not only his Figure, but his very Soul and Spirit are squezed into it. p. 5.  
But the Remarks, in their way to London, took a tour to Manchester. p. 5.  
They did so, for Zachary Whitworth of Manchester undertook the Printing of 'em. I presume the Ministers might read 'em, but I dare affirm, and so will they, that they neither altered them, in whole, or in part, nor added to 'em, except two lines ●n p. 11. and the short Advertisement after the end of my Book. And now for his Satisfaction I have made him my Confessor for this once, if it may be any relief to him to know by whom he suffers, for he seems like a Man desperately wounded, who turns himself every way to behold the Hand that directed the fatal Arrow to his smarting Side.  
Had the Manchester Ministers put themselves to the trouble of answering his Sermon, he would have felt more penetrating Strokes; nor is he so formidable that they need be afraid; or they so despicable, as to be ashamed to own their genuine Productions.  
5. He stuffs p. 6. and 7. with more Invectives against the Dissenters, and indeed he never seems to be so much in his Element as when he is upon that Subject. But at last he comes to the Remarks, p. 8. and gins with the Preface.  
In my Preface, which consisted of four Pages only, I gave a short Account of the Heads of his Sermon, with brief Remarks upon some passages in it, which I judged Exceptionable. He has a long Chapter (Chap. 2.) which takes up near half his Book (from p. 8. to p. 32.) in answer to my short Preface. I told him I would not intermeddle in the Controversy between him and Mr. De Laun, nor will I now: I I only touched upon a few things, concerning which I see no Cause to alter my Sentiments, by what he has offered, to the Contrary. But I will not detain the Reader from the main Poin, by attending his tedious digression about the Titles of the Psalms, and the Corruptions of the Hebrew Text, which I shall consider in a Postcript by itself.   

CHAP. II.  
Being an Answer to the latter Part of his Second Chapter.  
I Called the Rector's affirming the saducees to have rejected all but the Five Book of Moses, a vulgar Error, and gave my Reasons for it out of Josephus and Lightfoot, to whom I refer the Reader, whom I will not detain on this trifling Subject, on which the Rector bestows the best Part of two Pages. He says the Fathers were of another Opinion, and he hopes I will not thrust them into the vulgar Form. p. 27, 28.  
It's certain the Fathers are not free from all the vulgar Errors of the Age, in which they lived; the Story of the Phoenix, springing out of the Ashes of the old One, is mentioned by several Fathers. Clemens Romanus has it, and would prove the Resurrection from it.  
The ingenuous Rector here desires his Reader to mark, how we are advocating for the Samaritans and Sadducees, which in good Time the Dissenters will comprehend also. Some of the Quakers and Anabaptists, the modern saducees and Mahometans (I mean the Socinians), and almost all the Nation of Schismatics and Heretics are in their interests already: The Samaritans and Jews are happily coming into the confederacy. p. 27.  
I advocate no further for them than Dr. Lightfoot, to whose Judgement the Rector promises to stand; thus he speaks, 
* Li. Vol. II. P. 1101, 1102.  It's the received Opinion amongst the Learned, that the Sadducees refused all the old Testament but only the Five Books of Moses: If they mean it absolutely, I must confess my small reading hath not taught so far as to be satisfied in that: But if they mean it with some Qualification, it's very True. In such a qualified Sense, as to say the rest of the Jews refused the third Part of the Bible, i. e. the Hagiographa, viz. Job, Psalms, Solomon's Writings, Daniel, etc. They admitted not the reading of these in the Synagog, not because they undervalved them, but because they counted the rest Sufficient, i. e. the Law and Prophets, which were read every Sabbath. p. 27.  
The Church of England admits not the reading of some Parts of the Bible in the public Congregation, will you therefore say she rejects them?  
2. But be this Matter as it will, the Rector's inference has as little Sense in it, as it has Truth and Charity. If he means, that the Quakers, Anabaptists and Socinians, are in the Interests of the Presbyterians, it is a vile Calumny. If he means that they are Dissenters from the Episcopal Churches, so they are from the Presbyterian also. Though I must tell him, that the Socinians in some of their printed Pamphlets, declare themselves of the Church of England, nor do I hear that they are expelled their Communion, when any of them are disposed to join with her. Nay it's well known that Mr. S. N. a beneficed Parson of the Church of E. is the Author of several of the late Socinian Pamphlets. I mention not this to reflect on the Church of England who disowns this Heresy, and ought not to be charged with the Errors of particular Persons, but as a necessary Vindication of ourselves. I do not know any one Congregation of Dissenters that would tolerate a Socinian in their Communion.  
As to the Samaritans and Jews I know none fit for their Confederacy than the Rector of Bury, who helps them to a Chronological Argument out of our English Bibles to disprove the coming of Christ in the Flesh: For according to our Vossian Rabbi, Christ was not to come until the 6000th Year of the World, and according to our Bible's the World is not yet 6000 years Old.  
Mr. G. in his Sermon called the Scripture, the supreme Rule of Faith, to which I made this Answer, We know no other Rule of divine Faith, but the holy Scripture.  
The Rector undertakes to teach us several Subordinate Rules of Faith, such as Creeds, Catechisms, Decrees of Councils, Testimony of Fathers, Dictates of wise and good Men▪ the Instrustions of Parents, Consent of Adversaries, the Voice of Conscience, Reason, Preaching, Providence, and lastly universal Tradition. p. 29.  
The Industrious Rector has found out no less than Twelve new Rules of Faith, and these may be multiplied into 12000, for every Article of a Creed, every Canon of a Council, every Dictate of a wise and good Man, every Saying of a Father, every Passage in a Sermon, is a Rule of Faith with the Rector. For Instance, we will suppose the Rector a wise and good Man, I hope then you'll receive all his Dictates for so many Rules of Faith, of which you have abundance in his Remarks upon Remarks, and among others, that all our Bible's are Corrupted in very material Things.  
This looks a little Comical, the supreme Rule of Faith is Corrupted, and you must believe it, because the subordinate Rule, the wise and good Rector's Dictates assures us of it, however it is not Impossible but the supreme Rule may be Right and Pure, and the subordinate Rule Crooked and Corrupt. And the Rector will be so Good as to Pardon us, or so Wise as to Instruct us better, if we think so. I now begin to understand the Reason why he is so very Impatient of Opposition; why, all his Dictates are Rules of Faith, and aught to be received for Oracles: But the best on't is, he allows us the Benefit of another Rule of Faith, that is the Light of Reason; what if these two Rules happen to clash? We have known Creeds, Councils, Sermons, etc. to do so; as contrary as they are, they are still Rules of Faith with the Rector.  
Yea the sayings of the Pagan wise Men of Greece, are Rules of Divine Faith to him▪ and but for Universal Tradition he would know no difference between Plato, Seneca, the wise Men of Greece (you may if you please put a wise Man of Gotham among them) and the holy Scripture, for saith he, the excellency of its moral Precepts, the high Strains and noble Flights of Piety, prove not that it was written by inspiration, for then Plato, Seneca, Ignatius, Clement, Romanus, the VII. wise Men of Greece, etc. might lay claim to inspiration.  
Would you think it, that a Protestant Divine, should talk thus ignorantly of the blessed Scriptures? Are the Precepts in Plato and Seneca, as Excellent as those of the Holy Bible? Can he find such high Strains and noble Flights of Piety in Pagan Authors, as in the inspired Writings? A Man that has felt the Power of God's Word renewing, quickening, comforting and strengthening his Heart, will acknowledge the vast Difference between inspired and humane Writings, and resolve his Faith into the Authority of God, who speaks powerfully and feelingly unto our Consciences by his Spirit in the Scriptures, which have Signatures of their Divine Original upon them, that no Book besides can lay claim to.  
Tradition is of Use to beget in us a good Opinion of the Scripture, but he that makes it a Rule of Faith, especially the first and leading Rule (as the Rector seems to do) resolves his Faith into a humane Authority, which can beget but a Humane Faith. Divine Faith is founded upon a Divine Testimony, and a Humane Testimony can produce but a Humane Faith.  

* Vinc. Lerin. adv. haeres.  Lerinensis his Rule about Tradition is, quod omnes ubique & semper. All the Faithful have not at all times and in every Place, transmitted every Book of Scripture as of Divine Authority. The Popish Church pretend Tradition for the Apocrypha, which they receive as Canonical. Few of the People are able to judge of the Rule whether it be True, or False; Ministers may tell 'em of it, suppose they receive their Dictates, which few are able to Examine, they believe with an Implicit Faith, because their Ministers say so; and thus the Subordinate Rule becomes the first and leading Rule.  
Creeds, Canons, Dictates of wise and good Men, and the like, are either agreeable to the Scripture, or they are not. If they be not, they are far from being Rules of Divine Faith, for they are Rules of Error and Falsehood: If they are agreeable to the Scripture, we believe and receive them, because they are Consonant to the Word of God, the only Rule of saving Divine Faith. We will allow 'em to be helps unto our Faith, but judge it very improper to call 'em Rules of Faith.  
I told the Rector, That the laying aside the Un-scriptural Terms of Communion, which have been the fatal Engines of Disunion and Schism, would soon heal us.  
To this he Answers 1, The Experiment has been once made, in the late Times, but without Success, Divisions were increased, etc.  
Things were in a fair way of healing, when the Concessions of King Charles I. were voted satisfactory by the Parliament, had not a Faction in the Army put all out of Course, and governed the Nation, by a very Arbitrary Power, and yet there were very hopeful beginnings of a Coalition— between the moderate Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational Brethren, upon the Principle I mention, between the years 1652 and 1659., as appears by the Worcester-shire Association, as also by those of Cumberland, Westmoreland, Essex, etc. which are to be seen in Print.  
If this Principle did not heal us in those distracting and unsettled Times, it does not follow that it would not do it now in a State of Settlement, and such a Settlement, wherein the Bishops are in Power, under whom the moderate Dissenters would not scruple to Exercise their Ministry, if the offensive Terms were removed out of the way.  
And if ever our unhappy Breaches be healed, it must be upon this Principle, which has been asserted by the Great Men of the Episcopal Communion.  

† Iren. Pref.  Dr. Stillingfleet, the present Biship of Worcester, declares against Vnscriptural Impositions. He that came to take away the Un-scriptural Yoke of Jewish Ceremonies, certainly did never intent to Gall the Back of his Disciples, with another instead of it: And it would be strange, the Church should require more than Christ himself did. What possible Reason can be assigned, why such Things should not be sufficient for Communion with a Church, which are sufficient for Eternal Salvation? Without all Controversy the main Inlet of all the Distractions, Confusions and Divisions in the Christian World, hath been by adding of other Conditions of Church Communion, than Christ hath made.  
My Lord Bacon saith, that the ancient and true Bounds of Unity, are one Faith, one Baptism, and not one Ceremony, one Policy. 
* Resusc. par. 1. p. 129.  The same was the Judgement of King James the I. In non necessariis libertati Christianae locus detur. 
† Is. Casaub. ep. ad Card Peron.  See Mr. Tallents' healing Book of large Foundations, wherein you may find more Testimonies to this purpose.  
2. The Rector perscribes the method of healing us, and that is, to obey them that have the Rule over us in all lawful things, i. e. which are not forbidden by God.  
The meaning is, if I understand him, that Church Rulers have Power to impose Things lawful, i. e. not forbidden, as Terms of Communion, and that it is our Duty to obey such impositions. This Explication permised, I answer,  
1. He ought to prove, that Christ hath Commissioned our Church Rulers to fix un-scriptural Terms of Christian Communion, before he prove it our Duty to obey 'em. Where they have no power to command, I see not our obligation to obey. The grand Commission, saith Dr. Stillingfleet, the Apostles were sent out with, was only to teach what Christ had Commanded them. Not the least intimation of any Power given to impose or require any thing beyond what himself had spoken to them, or they were directed to by the immediate Guidance of the Spirit of God. 
* Iren▪ ubi supra.  It is not whether the things required, be lawful or not,— but whether they do consult for the Church's Peace and Unity, who suspend it vopn such Things? How far the Example of our Saviour, or his Apostles doth warrant such rigorous Impositions? We never read the Apostles making Laws, but of Things supposed necessary.  
2. He ought to show, that all Things not forbidden may lawfully be imposed as Terms of Communion. The use of Oil, Spittle, Salt, Cream, etc. are not forbidden in Baptism, therefore the Rector would submit to the Use of them, if his Rulers think fit to enjoin them, as is done in Popery. Holy Water is not forbidden, nor are any of the Ceremonies used in Popery expressly Prohibited in Scripture, therefore they are lawful to the Rector. You see whither this Hypothesis tends: Sitting at the Lord's Supper is not forbidden, no more is Prostration, the humblest Gesture of Adoration; the Rector would scarce like it, if either of these were rigidly imposed.  
3. Who must judge what is Lawful, what not? If those that obey, we are but where we were; that which appears Lawful to the imposer, may be judged otherwise by conscientious Dissenters, which is our Case: If the imposers only must judge, Popish Rulers will say, it's Lawful to bow to a Crucifix, to a Graven-Image, to adore the Bread in the Eucharist, etc. Let the Rector take which side of the Question he please, he must either acquit the Dissenters or justify the Papists.  
He concludes his Second Chapter, with a Vindication of their reading Apocrypha in the Churches, to the Exclusion of several Parts of Scripture.  
Why do the Dissenters neglect the reading of the Word of God to make way for their Sermons and Expositions? p. 31.  
If any do neglect reading the Scriptures, let 'em bear the blame of it, I know none such. I hope he would not have us lay aside Sermons and Expositions, to fill up the whole time with reading the holy Scripture. They that Expound do also Read, tho' not so much, yet perhaps to more Advantage, by helping the People to understand what they read. And if preaching (which also Explains the holy Scripture) take up most of the time in some Congregations, where less Scripture is read, it cannot be denied but preaching is an Ordinance of God, but so is not the reading of Apocrypha, and therefore this recrimination is impertinent. But saith the Rector, to read the Apocrypha is not to Canonize it.  
I do not say it is; but to comprehend it under the Name of the Holy Scripture, as is done in the Rubric before the Table of Lessons in the Liturgy, and to read it to the total Exclusion of some Parts of Scripture, may tempt ignorant People to think it Canonical.  
Many wise Men, adds he, think the Story of Bell and Dragon to be true. p. 31.  
So the Papists do, and they think it Canonical too. They are Men Wise in their Generation, and the Dictates of Wise Men are a Rule of Faith to the Rector.  
But he is not sure, but it may be a Fiction, or Fable, or in more civil Terms a Parable, and many think saith he, the Book of Job, of this kind, a Parable. p. 31.  
Names of Persons, Countries and Places, don't use to be inserted into Parables, as is done in the Story of Bell and Dragon, as also in the Book of Job, which he invidiously compares to this fabulous Story. The Book of Job is allowed to be Canonical by all Christians, and has all the Characters of a real History, the Names of Places, Persons, etc. his Children, Estate, Losses, Friends, Enemies and his Restoration are particularly described, and he is expressly mentioned by the Holy Ghost in other Places, Ez. 14. 14. James 5. 11. and cited in 1 Cor. 3. 19 I find in Pools Synopsis but two Sorts of People that make the History of Job a Parable, some Ancient Jews and some Modern Anabaptists, but neither one nor tother at present seem to own that Opinion.  
The Rector is a rare Man, he can convert an Apocryphal Fable into a Divine History, and a Divine History into a Parabolical Fable. And that you may not think him singular in this Faculty, he has Papists, Jews and Anabaptists in his Interests.  
He that denies the Book of Job to be a History, may in good Time, turn all Scripture History into a Parable, or a cunninly devised Fable, and when he has served a temporal Interest by it, may brag with the Roman Pontiff, whose Dictates the Rector must own for a Rule of Faith, quantum nobis profuit haec Fabula de Christo.   

CHAP. III.  
Being an Answer to his Third Chapter.  
IN his Third Chapter, he pretends to Answer my first, in which I observed (p. 1.) That in a Sermon to the Clergy, a Testimony against the shameful Scandals of some of them, would have became a faithful Minister, but that he had other work to do, his Business being to accuse of secret Crimes, and not to reprove for open Miscarriages.  
All the Rector can say for this inexcusable Omission and Partiality is, That he dare undertake to point out as many Scandalous Dissenting Ministers in Lancashire, as we can Clergy Men. p. 35.  
He is a Man of bold Undertaking, but the one and the other are pretty well known in that Country and other Parts of the Nation, which will scarce receive the Dictates of this daring Undertaker against the Evidence of Sense and common Observation. If he knows any Scandalous Dissenting Ministers, let him name the Men, and spare not.  
I added p. 2, 3, 4. that the Corruption in Acts 6. 3. is inconsistent with the Principles of the Presbyterians; that I never knew any that approved of that Corruption; that his Charge amounts to no more than a bare Suspicion that the Dissenters have secretly contributed to the Corruption of this Place; that had not he Examined the Errata of the Press more out of ill Will to the Dissenters, than good Will to the Public, he might have found several other Errors of the Press as considerable as ye for we; as she for he, in Eph. 1. 4. in a Twelve Bible, London 1691. we for ye in Job 6. 21. in a Quarto Edition of the Bible at Cambridg, 1675. and several more I mention there.  
Among all these Particulars, he takes notice only of the last, and to excuse himself, most falsely Affirms, That all I offer in this Chapter, in Vindication of the Dissenters, is, that several Editions of the Bible abound with such Errors as are destructive of the Sense. Judge by this what Credit is to be given to the Rectors Affirmations, But let's hear what he can say to the Errors of the Press, of which I give a Catalogue. He has four Things to offer, p. 32, 33.  
I. He quarrels with an Uncorrected Error of the Press (in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉). And disingenously insinuates as if I were defective in the Greek Tongue. The Rector is grievously at a loss how to make good his Charge, since he fills Paper with such stuff as this.  
II. Tho' he might be justly suspected (saith the Rector), in the Account given of these Erratas, yet I will admit it to be True. A mighty Favour indeed! To admit that for True which he cannot disprove; but his most generous Concessions have a Tincture of his ill Nature, which is as Lazy as it is Suspicious. I refer to the Editions, why is he not at the Pains to Examine them, if he justly suspects my Account? The Truth is, it is not as Easy to disprove, as to impeach one's Veracity. The Rector has an excellent Faculty at the latter, let who will undertake the former.  
III. Such Errors don't establish any Untruth, nor favour any side in the present Controversies, nor has Mr. O. given us one Example of the same Error repeated in several Editions. p. 33.  
Where they make a corrupt Sense, they establish an Untruth, as in Job 6. 21. we are nothing, it should be, ye are nothing. There is we for ye, as in Acts 6. 3. you have ye for we. So that we and ye are easily mistaken one for another. But the Rector seems to have no concern for any Truth, but what respects the Bishop's power. Avoid all Corruption that may prejudice that, and this tender hoofed Creature (it is his own Expression, p. 24.) can easily digest all the rest. It was none of my business to Examine, how often these Errors have been repeated, tho' I told him, Remark p. 13. an Error in one Impression is easily repeated, because the Frames of the Bible are often kept entire, and not broken by half Sheets, as in printing other Books, and so the same set of Frames serves for a second and third Impression, and so forward until the Letters decay and grow useless.  
But this He takes no Notice of.  
iv An Error of the Press deserves not to be taken to task, when no ill Use is made of it.  
I know no Body that has made any ill Use of ye in Acts 6. 3. Nor has he yet been able to produce any one Writer among the Dissenters, that has made Use of it against the Bishops. His Cameronian Story we shall Examine anon.  
Does he know what ill Use may be made by ignorant People of other Errors of the Press?  
I took notice in my Remarks, of his lose and careless way of citing Scriptures, and gave Ten Instances of it in that very Sermon, in which he Charges the Dissenters with a literal Error of the Press, which he can't prove upon them. One might have expected more Exactness from so Critical a Censor.  
To this he Answers, Jesus Christ and St. Paul, did not tie themselves to the very Words of the Scripture in their Quotations, p. 34, 35. nor does Mr. Baxter.  
Jesus Christ and St. Paul, were infallibly acted by the Holy Ghost in their Quotations and had Reasons for their Variation: The Rector is not only destitute of a Spirit of Infallibility, but of such Reasons as may Justify his chopping and changing Texts of Scripture at his Pleasure. He does not pretend to give any Reason why he should mis-quote so many Scriptures within the compass of one short Sermon, nor is the thing Capable of any other but this, that the Rector is a very careless Transcriber of the Scripture  
I believe he cannot produce in Mr. Baxter, or scarce in any other Author so many Texts of Scripture misquoted in one Sermon as there are in his: Much less can he give an Instance of so Supine a Negligence in Mr. Baxter, as to mis-render the Text of his Sermon. This the Rector has done, substituting the singular (Word) add thou not unto his Word, for the plural (Words) add thou not unto his Words.  
I acquitted him from Corrupting the Sense, in this Variation, but gave this necessary Caution, allow Men a liberty of a literal Variation from the Language of the Holy Ghost, the Sense and meaning can't be long secured. This he calls a putrid and ridiculous Remark.  
The Rector 's ye and we in Acts 6. confirms my Remark; the Variation is in one Letter, but the Sense and Meaning is destroyed by it. Suppose a bold Transcriber should write Gods for God, this is a literal Variation, but such as destroys the Unity of the Godhead.   

CHAP. IU.  
Being an Answer to his Fourth Chapter.  
IN this Chapter the Rector endavours to confirm his Arguments to prove the Dissenters guilty of corrupting Acts 6. 3. His Arguments are four, 1st. The Alteration happened in 1638. when Presbytery was in the Ascendant. 2ly. It favours the Dissenters. 3ly. The Episcopal Party designed not to Corrupt this Place. 4ly. A Cameronian urged this Corrupt reading.  
To his first Argument, that the Corruption happened in 38. when Presbytery was in the Ascendant, I answered Three Things, First, That two Events may happen at the same time, that have no relation to one another. Right, saith he, when there is nothing else to be alleged for confirming the Suspicion, but the Turbulence of the Times, the Sway of the Populacy, and the Corruption of this Place: All looked the same way, viz. The Extripation of Episcopacy. p. 36.  
The Times were not Turbulent at Cambridge, where he saith the first Corruption happened, nor was there any Sway of Populacy there in the Year 38. Buck and Daniel, the University Printers at that time, were both Episcopal Men, as I observed in my Remarks, but this he takes no Notice of; is it likely that the Cambridge Episcopal Printers, should conspire with the Scotch Covenanters to root out Episcopacy in that Year?  
I never understood before, that an Error of the Press had an influence for the Extirpation of Episcopacy. The Rector has not produced any one Instance of any English, or Scotch Presbyterians, who made Use of that Error to the prejudice of Episcopacy at that Time. His Cameronian Story is a later Thing, and cannot affect those Times.  
2. I observed, that the Rector had answered his own Argument by acknowledging the first Corruption an unwilling One, an accidental Slip, an unfortunate Oversight, a mere Error of the Press and an unhappy Mistake.  
In answer to this he cries, My Remarks are all of a Third, Lies and Stories, that by the unwilling Error he meant the Presbyterian Government p. 36.  
Be it so, all that can be inferred from it is, that I mistook his Meaning, which a Man may easily do in a Writer, whose Notions are confused and incoherent, and way of Expression muddy and perplexed. But he cannot deny, that he has called it an accidental Slip, an unfortunate Oversight, a mere Error of the Press, and an unhappy Mistake, which is sufficient to overthrow his Argument.  
True saith he, yet unto the two first I added, I am willing to believe, etc.  
The Remarks were just now with him all of a Third, Lies and Stories, and yet in the same Breath, he cannot but acknowledge my Quotations to be True. If they are all Lies and Stories, there is no Truth in them, but some Things are True, by his own Confession; therefore he is inexcusable, for wherein he Judgeth another, he Condemns himself. As Diogenes trampled upon Plato's Pride with a greater Pride, so the Rector exhibits a lying Accusation against my Remarks, that they are all Lies and Stories.  
But he qualified some of his other Concessions, by saying, he was willing to believe, that the first Corruption was an unfortunate Oversight and a mere Error of Press.  
If he is willing to believe this himself, what a disingenuous Thing is it in him to endeavour to persuade others to the Contrary? The design of his Argument is to make People believe the first Corruption in 38. was a designed Thing to root out Episcopacy. Is this the Part of an honest Man Mr. Rector, to persuade the World to believe what's contrary to your own Belief? I hope all your Sermons are not of a Piece with this, you must not blame us for believing as you do, that the Error you Charge us with was an unfortunate Oversight and a mere Error of the Press, and then your Argument is out of Doors: Especially, when you positively Affirm, that it was an accidental Slip, an unhappy Mistake. Thus his first and chief Argument is eternally dismissed by himself, and his Attempts to defend it, do but show the Rector to be as Ill a Man, as he is a Disputant. To be willing to believe us Innocent, and at the same time to endeavour to prove us Guilty, be-speaks a Disposition worse than that of Pilate, who tho' he condemned Jesus Christ, when he had pronounced him Innocent, did not seek for Evidence to prove him Guilty, he contented himself to give an unjust Sentence to please the Jews: But the Rector did not seem to be under the temptation of pleasing his own Party, who were so far from extorting this unjust Sentence from him, that several of them have condemned him for it; yet he has not only passed an unrighteous Judgement upon us, but has done his utmost to load us with an unproved Gild, after he had made our Crime, an accidental Slip, and unhappy Mistake.  
3. I proved, ex abundanti, that Presbytery was not in the Ascendant in England in 38. That conformity was then at the highest, being urged by Arch Bishop Laud and his Faction with great Severity, that many were suspended, deprived and excommunicated for not reading the Book of Sports, in 37.  
I gave an Account of about Thirty Ministers so used in the Bishopric of Norwich. And in 38. many more were Suspended for not using Hoods and Surplices, many were driven to foreign Countries, to Holland, New-England, etc. whither the Archbishop designed to pursue 'em, and to Dragoon 'em into the English Conformity: I proved they were deprived not only of the Pulpit, but of the Press also by a Decree passed in the Star Chamber, July the 1st, 1637. By Virtue of this Decree, several Geneva Bibles with Notes were seized in Holland, and a New Impression designed for England, was stopped from coming over. All this I proved out of Rushworth and Heylyn, by which it appears what little Credit is to be given to his secret History of the Presbyterians Corrupting the Word of God in Thirty Eight, when he so notoriously Contradicts the Public History of that Time.  
To this the Rector Answers, He would not for any Thing be found tripping in this Part of his Argument. p, 37.  
That Mr. Owen blunders about the signification of these Words, being in the Ascendant, which he understands of being in full Power and Authority, as if it were the same with having the Ascendant: And lest you should think him an Ignoramus in the Mathematics, be informs us out of Lyburn, when a Star is said to be in the Ascendant, which is, when having passed the Imum Caeli, and being got into the the Ascendant, it bends its course towards Medium Caeli and the Meridian, i. e. is Ascending.  
I hope you are Edified by this Piece of Learning: A Star is in the Ascendant, when it is got into the Ascendant, and is Ascending: This puts me in Mind of that famous Verse of Battus the Poet, Montibus, inquit, erant, & erant in montibus illis;  
Which you may thus English, in conformity to the Rector: 
The Mountains high he did Ascend,  
Ascending still, he did Ascend.   
His Explications are transcendent Blunders, which would have been more Excusable, if he had not set up for a Teacher of the Mathematics, and involved a learned Author in a tautological Pleonasm.  
The Rectors distinction between being in the Ascedant, and having the Ascendant is a little Nice, he owns Presbytery had not the Ascendant in Thirty Eight, and yet Affirms it was got into the Ascendant. But the happiness is, this Distinction will do him no good, for my Argument proves Presbytery to be so far from the Ascendant in his very Sense, that it makes it to be in the Descendant in England that Year. Episcopacy was never higher, nor Presbytery lower. The Episcopal Power was in its Meridian Altitude, having the High Commission-Court and the Star-Chamber to support it, and an Active Arch-Prelate moving in the highest Orb, whose Influences were as Malignant to the Puritans (the better Part of the Church of England then) as they were favourable to the Men of Ceremony. In a Word, he had the Presbyterians (if any such there were) under his Feet, and made this Climate too hot for them, that they were glad to seek for shelter in the remotest Parts of the Earth. This I have proved out of Heylyn, but the Rector wisely overlooks it. If being under Foot and trampled in the dust be Ascending towards the Meridian, than were the Presbyterians in the Ascendant in Thirty Eight. If bending their Course versus fines terrae, be the same with bending it versus medium Caeli, they must be acknowledged to be in the Ascendant.  
But saith he, That prodigious and terrible blazing Star, the Covenant, that very Year begun to appear in Scotland, and soon drew the Eyes and Inclinations of a great Part of England upon it. p. 37.  
The Covenant appeared in Scotland long before Thirty Eight, and was subscribed by King James I. as I showed in my Remarks. p. 8.  
The renewing of the Covenant in Thirty Eight, proves Presbytery to be in the Ascendant in Scotland, but what is this to England? Presbytery is now in the Meridian in Scotland, I hope the Rector will not say it is so in England. It must be so by his Argument, He undertook to prove Presbytery in the Ascendant in England, It must be so by his Argument, He undertook to prove Presbytery in the Ascedant in England, and his Argument is, it was so in Scotland, as if the State of England and Scotland were always the same. Let's see the Strength of this doughty Argument, the Presbyterian Covenant appeared in Scotland in Thirty Eight, therefore the Presbyterians at Cambridge corrupted the Bible. Did the Scotch Covenant depend upon altering of we into ye at Cambridge, or did the Alteration depend on the Covenant? Was there a Conspiracy between the Scotch Covenanters, and the Cambridge Episcopal Printers.  
Suppose the Covenant drew the Inclinations of some English, this does not prove Presbytery in the Ascendant in England, much less does it prove the Presbyterians Guilty of Corrupting the Word of God. A Man may have Inclinations to Presbytery, and not be a Corrupter of the Word of God—  
Thus the Rector who would not for any Thing be found tripping in this Part of his Argument, is found not only to Trip, but to Stumble and overthrow his Rider, when he affirms Presbytery to be in the Ascendant in Thirty Eight, in England. But suppose Presbytery had been in the Ascendant then, this will not prove the Presbyterians Authors of that Corruption; 1st. It does not favour their Principles. 2ly. Archbishop Laud had guarded the Press against them, as I have proved, nor was the Rector able to Contradict me. 3ly. the Cambridge Printers in Thirty Eight, were Episcopal Men, who ought in Justice to be charged with the Errors of the Press. 4ly. The University of Cambridge was far from being Presbyterian at that time, the Heads of Colleges being all Episcopal, a List of which Mr. Francis Talents communicated to me, which I find agreeing with Mr. Fuller's 
* Church History. . To this the Rector Answers, That Mr. Owen talks like one who knows not Cambridge. Nor had diligence enough to inform himself, and Mr. Talents, he fears is passed his Memory and Judgement not to say his Integrity. p. 37. 39  
Mr. Owen has known Cambridge above twenty Years ago when he was admitted Student there, Mr. Talents Judgement, Memory and Integrity deserves not to be reflected on, since Mr. Fuller in his History of the University of Cambridge fully writes the same thing he mentioned.  
But saith he, besides these sixteen Heads, there are Fellows, Scholars, Noblemen a Follow-Commoners, Persioners and Sisars or Servitors, which make up about 2000, among which there were many that favoured Presbytery, especially in Emanuel, which not long after furnished six Colleges with Heads, and it was called pure Emanuel; from the abundance of Puritans in it. p. 39  
The Rector informs us of what every body knows, that there are a great many Students in Cambridge, and if he can find there five or six Presbyterians among two Thousand Scholars, he thinks he has proved his Charge against that Party of Corrupting the Word of God. This puts me in Mind of a Passage in Lactamius, He saith, that as Diocletian was Sacrificing, and the ordinary Marks in the Entrails of the Sacrifices not appearing, Tages, that were set over the Diviners, said, that their Rites did not succeed, because there were some profane Persons (i. e. Christians) that had thrust themselves into the Assembly. 
* Lactant of the Prim. Pers. Ergl. by Dr. Burnet. p. 75.  This occasioned the last and great Persecution of the Christians under that Emperor and his Colleagues. The Rector is as just to the Furitans, as the Pagan Priests were to the Ancient Christians, their being upon the spot is sufficient to make the one and the other Criminals. Thus St. Paul was Accused for bringing Greeks into the Temple, and the Evidence was, they had seen Trophimus with him in the City. Acts 21. 28, 29.  
I have heard of a certain late Judge, that as he passed a dirty Place in London-Streets, he found a Man sheltering himself under a Belcony from a Shower of Rain. Sir, saith he, to the Man I will have you indicted for this Nuisance. The Man told him, he was a Stranger there, that's nothing, replies the Judge, I have found you on the Premises, and you must Answer for the Nuisance.  
The Rector thinks he has found a few Puritans in Cambridge in Thirty Eight, among near two Thousand Churchmen, and they must be Guilty of the Corruptive Nuisance, because he has found 'em on the Premises.  
But that which spoils all is, the Puritans were Members of the Church of England, and generally of the Episcopal Judgement, nay the Moderate and Pious Bishops could not escape that Nickname, which was applied to all Calvinists in Doctrine, as Dr. Heylyn confesseth. 
† Life of Archbishop Laud. p. 124.  Tho' in strictness the Name was given to the Non-con-formists, which were very few at that time, the Terms of Conformity not being screwed up to the present height.  
But the Heads of Colledgs' were no Puritans, no not Dr. Haldsworth Master of Emanuel, who was put out by the Parliament; and any Man will judge of the State of the University, and indeed of all Societies, by the Governing Party, who have a considerable Influence in their respective Provinces. If Cambridge supplied Trinity College, Oxford, with ten Fellows that were for the Parliament (as he affirms p. 39) It does not follow they were Presbyterians before, for we know its usual for abundance of People to change with the Times; I doubt not but the Rector can Name the Men who took the Covenant and the Engagement; and after all, approved themselves to be right Episcopal-Men. Besides, many of those that were made Fellows at Oxford in the Year 1638. were very Young, and not admitted in Cambridge till after 1648.  
From the whole it appears that Presbytery in Thirty Eight, was not in the Ascendant in England, especially in Cambridge where all the Heads of Colleges were Episcopal.  
Thus I have exposed the weak Vindication of his First Argument from the Circumstance of Time.  
I affirmed the Scotch Covenant and the Presbyterian Government in Scotland to be more Ancient than Thirty Eight, which the Rector cannot deny, but he endeavours to prove from the Fundamental Charter of Presbyter examined, etc. that the Reformation in Scotland was first cast into the Episcopal Platform, and continued so for fifteen Years. p. 40.  
The Pamphlet to which he refers, has been learnedly answered by Dr. Rule in his good old Way defended, to which I refer the Reader.  
The Reformation there was gradually, and with much opposition carried on, as it was here in England, and no wonder, if in such a struggle Esau came forth before Jacob, but certain it is, when they came to some degree of Settlement. Presbytery was set up, and the confession of Faith, in which they promised to adhere to that Government, was signed by King James the I. and his Household, Anno 1580. and by Persons of all Ranks Anno 1581. by Ordinance of the Council, and Acts of the General Assembly. It was subscribed again by all Persons, Anno Domini 1590. with a General Band for maintenance of the true Religion and the King's Person.  
I am still of Opinion (saith he), That the Scotch Kirk put away the Wife of its Youth, I mean Episcopacy, when it reformed from Popery, and joined itself unto an Harlot (I mean Presbytery).  
I think Presbytery as Honest as Episcopacy, and I am sure the Church lost its purity, and degenerated into a Harlot, under the Lordly and Tyrannical Government of Popish Bishops. p. 41.  
What an honourable Character does this Gentleman give to the Reformation, in which not only Scotland, but most of the foreign Protestant Churches are concerned? When they cast off Idolatrous Popish Bishops, they put away the Wife of their Youth; when they put themselves under the Conduct of Protestant Pastors, they joined themselves to a Harlot. In plain English, they lived in chaste Wedlock under Popery, and defiled the Marriagebed, when they became Protestants. This looks more like the Language of a Jesuit than of a Protestant-Minister.  
The Rector, in his Sermon basely reflected upon the ACT of Settling Presbytery in Scotland (tho' touched by the Royal Sceptre), and also upon his Majesty's Words in his Letter of Instructions to his Commissioner in Scotland, both which affirms Presbytery most agreeable to the Inclination of the Scotch Nation, which is such another Reason (faith he) as an Adultrer might give for his Wantomesses. He would fain Palliate this inexcusable Indecency towards the King (which I complained of) tho' he comes off but sorrily.  
1st. This is the first time (saith he), I ever heard of a Presbyterian having any due regard unto a King's Honour, and perhaps it will be the last, if the Commonwealth Principle gets a little more footing among us. p. 41.  
The Presbyterians have approved themselves to be as Good Subjects as any of their Neighbours, both in this and neighbouring Countries; for the neighbouring Countries let him ask the French Protestants, and the persecuted Vaudois: For this, let him consult their Confessions, which assert Obedience and Subjection to the Higher Powers. I have known several Presbyterians who had that regard to a King's Honour, as to quit all their Preferments rather than take the Engagement, to exclude the King when many Episcopal Men submitted to it. It's true, they generally took Part with the Parliament in our unhappy Civil Wars, and so did abundance of Churchmen: But Passive Obedience and Nonresistance in 1688. have eminently justified Forty One.  
If the Republican Principle gets footing, it's amongst some of his Jacobite Brethren, who under Colour of that Principle would promote the Interest of their Old Master. I know not any one Presbyterian who is for a Commonwealth: I confess, they are not for making Princes Absolute, as the Rector is, who declares that the King's Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace, unto which the King is not obliged by the Fundamental Constitution, and that the Prince, in Effect, is the sole sovereign Power, if he pleaseth to usurp and exercise it 
* Serm. of Subjection, by the Rector of Bury, p. 21, 22. .  
2ly. 'Tis no reflection on the King (adds he) to deride the Scots Reason. The Scotch Parliament Reason for the ACT was their Inclination; the King was to please them.  
I say, 'tis a reflection on the King to deride their Reason, when he had approved it, and inserted it into his Letter of Instructions to his Commissioner in Scotland. The Letters of Princes and their Laws confirmed in Parliament, aught to be treated with more Respect, or at least with less Scorn, especially by a Person who not only enjoys his Preferments under His Majesty's Protection, but hath taught us such an entire resignation to the Will of the Sovereign, that he allows us not the Liberty of Petitioning and Addressing him, when we are Aggrieved. Nay, we are bound in Conscience to obey, tho' he should prove a Tyrant, and it's an Act of Grace in him to oblige himself to govern according to the Laws: For he is the sole Sovereign Power, and is accountable to none but God for any Misgovernment. In a Word, he gives the Prince the most Arbitrary Power, and deprives the Subject from asserting his own Privileges 
† Serm. of Subj. p. 13. 21, 22. .  
For such a Man to deride the Acts of his Prince, looks not only Ungrateful and Inconsistent, but may tempt us to suspect, that either he does not believe his own Doctrine, or else that he Calculated it for the Episcopal Meridian; that is, whilst Princes support Episcopacy, which I dare say, is agreeable to his Inclination, we are to honour and obey them; but if they Favour Presbytery we may deride their Letters and Royal Acts. In a Word, whilst the King pleases the Rectors Inclinations he is his Humble Slave, and will allow him an unbounded Power; but if he comply with the Scotch Inclination, our Loyal Rector dare deride the Reason of his Compliance, and ridicule his Royal Wisdom, under pretence of exposing the Scots Reason. 'Tis pity but this Gentleman had been of his Majesty's Council, to advise him how to Pen his Letters, and to instruct him how to Word his Instructions to his Prime Ministers of State.  

ARGUMENT II.  
His 2d. Argument to prove the Dissenters Guilty of Corrupting the Word of God, is this, The Corruption in appearance favours the Dissenters, and their Design, against Episcopacy.  
TO this Argument I answered three Things,  
1st. He durst not say, the Corruption favours the Dissenters, for he knows the Contrary: But he slily says it does in appearance favour them; this appearance is only to himself, for I believe no Dissenter ever thought of it. This he takes no notice of.  
2ly. I told him that I knew no Principle of any sober Dissenters, that is favoured by this Corruption. I referred him to the Directory for Ordination, and the Heads of Agreement between the Presbyterians and Congregational Men in (1691.) in both which the Power of Ordination is lodged in the Ministers, and not in the People, to whom they ascribe only the Power of Choosing them, according to this very Text (Acts 6. 3.) and the Rector's concurrent Testimony, if that were of any Validity 
* Tent. Novum. p. 4. .  
He allows the People as much Power in making their Minister as the Dissenters do, and therefore by this Argument, must either acquit them, or condemn himself.  
Here the Water sticks to the Rector, he knows not which way to turn him about, rather than retract his malicious Calumny, like a Man hardoned in Sin, he'll make use of any sorry shift to palliate his Gild, and Expose the Innocent.  
He cannot deny this to be the Judgement of the Dissenters, that Ordination belongs to Ministers, and Election ordinarily to the People. But saith he, among us the Bishop Institutes and Appoints by an Act altogether distinct from Ordination, as we believe was the▪ Case of the Deacons: But among the Dissenters the Pastors Ordain, and the People choose and appoint 'em. p. 43.  
He may believe what he pleases, but the Text mentions no other Appointment of the Apostles, but what was by Prayer and Imposition of Hands, Acts 6. 3, 6. which he cannot deny to be meant of Ordination.  
He disingenuously misrepresents us, when he says the People Choose and Appoint, they Choose indeed, but the Ministers Appoint or Ordain 'em to the Office, which they very rarely or never do Sine Titulo.  
I noted, that the Dissenters could be under no Temptation to Corrupt this Place, the People's power of choosing their Ministers▪ being asserted in this very Text, Acts 6. 3. Look ye out among you, etc. and v. 5. they chose Stephen, etc.  
To this he ridiculously replies, they chose not the Persons immediately into the Office designed them. p. 44.  
The Presbyterians never asserted such an Election, which he cannot but know, though he thinks fit to abuse them. The People's choice does not appoint or establish 'em in their Office, nor oblige the Ministers to ordain 'em, if they judge them not duly qualified.—  
As to his granting the People's power of choosing their Ministers, he says, he is of the same Opinion still, being under no necessity to alter it, that he is sensible of.  
I know not what changes in Opinion, his Necessities may oblige him to, but if his Argument or any other Necessity require it, it seems he can change as there is Occasion.  
It is certain at present he allows the People as much Power in choosing their Ministers as we do: And therefore this Corruption does no more favour us, than it does the Rector, who must either honestly acquit us or condemn himself.  
3ly. I observed farther, that the Dissenters look on the VII. Deacons, as Ministers at Tables, and not of the Word. For proof of this I referred him to the Directory, and inferred that it is not likely they should Corrupt a Text to assert the People's power in making Gospel Ministers, which in their Opinion speaks not of those that Minister in Gospel Mysteries.  
The Rector answers, I can't help these Men's Judgements if they do not; or will not see it, 'tis because there is no light in them. p. 45.  
Nor can I help this Man's Obstinacy who shuts his Eyes against the Light, for the question is not here, whether the Dissenters be in the Right, as to their Opinion of Deacons, but whether or no they take 'em as Ministers of Tables and not of the Word?  
This I proved and he cannot deny it: Now if this be their Notion of Deacons, my Inference holds good, they would not Corrupt a Text to assert the People's power, in making Gospel Ministers which in their Opinion speaks not of those that Minister in Gospel Mysteries.  
His Argument is, the Corruption favours the Dissenters, I answer in the Negative, for which I give this Reason, this Text speaks not of Ministers of the Word in their Opinion, and therefore they would not Corrupt it to assert the People's power in making Ministers. Here he asks us an impertinent Question, why do we not Ordian our Deacons, or Overseers of the Poor as the Apostles did? p. 45.  
We set them not apart by imposition of Hands, for the same Reason that the Church of England Ordains them not. None will say, that we are necessarily obliged to use Imposition of Hands in all cases wherein we find it used in Scripture. Tho' we condemn not those that Ordain their Deacons, as some Dissenters do.  
I have now dismissed his 2d. Argument, and made it appear that the Corruption charged upon us does not only not favour any Principles of ours, but is inconsistent with 'em.  
Before I proceed to his 3d. Argument, I must take notice of a base Suggestion, as if I had not obtained my former Post at Wr. by fair and honest Means, but had betrayed, and by a paltry Trick supplanted Mr. B. my Predecessor, and stepped into his Place, and discovered the Secrets of my inward Friend and Confident, who disclosed his Heart to me as to a Confessor. p. 45.  
I was so far from supplanting and betraying Mr. B. at Wr. that I knew nothing of the Difference between him and the Congregation, which occasioned his Deserting them, until Mr. Tong (now of Coventry) was actually chosen by them, and rended with them, I being then in London. And my Post there has been and is hitherto Charitably to supply 'em, and that mostly to my Charge, until they be settled under a Minister of their own.  
I have often recommended Mr. B. to them, but for some Reasons I find 'em not willing to be farther concerned with him.  
I know of no Secrets he ever Committed to me, and I challenge him or any other Person to mention any Secrets I ever Divulged to his Prejudice. I always respected him for his true Worth, but we never had any great Intimacy or inward Friendship, to make me either his Confident or Confessor.   

ARGUMENT III.  
His 3d. Argument is this, It cannot be that the Episcopal Party designed to Corrupt this Place▪ for that would be to destroy, what their Church Government seems to be built on.  
I Answered, this proves nothing against the Dissenters, nor did they charge the Episcopal Party with any design of Corrupting it, tho' the Press was in their Hands, and strictly guarded against the Puritans in the Year. 1638.  
The Rector according to his wont Ingennity replies, if it were designedly done, or afterwards propagated with design, then because Mr. Owen acquitted us, the Dissenters must confess Guilty. p. 46.  
Is this Candid, because we charitably acquit the Episcopal Party from any Design of Corrupting it, we must therefore acknowledge ourselves Guilty.  
We do not say it was designedly done, nor do I know any body that says so (and unsaith it again in another humour) but the inconsistent Rector. We say the Press was in the Hands of the Church-Party when it was first done, and therefore in Justice they must be charged with the Error of the Press. Had the Press been in Presbyterian Hands, the Rector would have urged it for a Demonstration, that certainly they were Guilty of the Corruption, because it first happened when they had the Power of the Press: But the Press was in Episcopal Hands, therefore the Corruption must be at their Door.  
If one would allow himself the Liberty of Arguing from the same Topics with the Rector, he might retort the Charge of Corrupting this Place on the Episcopal Party, and that designedly too. 1st. The Press was in their Hands in Thirty Eight, when the first Corruption happened. 2ly. It was in their Hands, when most of the rest happened, and who should be Guilty of Corrupting the Place, but those that had Power to do it, without Suspicion? 3ly. The Corruption favours the People's Power in making their own Ministers. Now it's certain, the Episcopal Party take the Deacons in Acts 6. 3. to be real Ministers, which the Dissenters do not: Therefore the Corruption favours their Opinion, and they may be supposed the Guilty Persons. It does not favour the Dissenters Sense of that Place, and it does that of the Episcopalists. 4. It favours a Principle much in Vogue among the Church-Party, especially about Thirty Eight, that all Power is Originally in the People.  
This Principle is asserted by Mr. Hooker, the Oracle of the Episcopal-Men, in his Eccles. Polity, lib. 1. and lib. 8.  
Archbishop Cranmer, saith in the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a Bishop or a Presbyter, needs no Consecration by the Scripture, for Election or Appointing 
* Dr. Stillingfleet, Iren. p. 39  thereto is sufficient.  
And also by Bishop Bilson, and by Mr. Lawson, who expressly Affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or primary Subject of the Power of the Keys is in the whole Church. 
† Polit. Sacra. & Civil. cap. 13.  And by Bishop Andrews, Tortura Torti, p. 42.  
Now who should be suspected to have designedly Corrupted this Place, but that Party who so much advance the Popular Principle?  
Here is Four Arguments to the Rectors Four Arguments, and every one of them as good as his, but far be it from me to Charge either the Episcopal or Dissenting Party with a Design to Corrupt the Word of God. The Error is accidental as many more are, and proceeds from the carelessness of the Corrector (who I hear is usually an Episcopal Minister) as well as the unconcerndness of the supreme Pastors, who ought to depute Persons of Judgement, Diligence and Integrity to Examine the several Editions of the Bible.  
I could easily enlarge upon these Arguments, and make 'em look more Probable than those of the Rectors, if I were under the influences of a malignant Jealousy and a suspicious Un-charitableness as he is, or took pleasure in the sordid Act of exposing a Party to the common Prejudice of Religion, as he doth. But I leave this Artifice to our illnatured Accuser, and only mention these Things, to show the Invalidity of his Arguments, and what an easy Thing it is for a Person, who employs his Talon to so ill an Intention, to form probable Arguments that may ground a Suspicion, that the Episcopal Party are Corrupters of the Word of God: And it would not be impossible to pick up two or three idle Stories, to confirm so malicious a Charge, as the Rector has done, which make up his fourth Argument,   

ARGUMENT IU.  
This 4th. Argument, is deduced from the Cameronian's citing this Corrupt Place in favour of the People's Power, to set up their own Teachers.  
TO this I answered, 1st. The Story concerns not the English Presbyterians. Does our Accuser manage his Evidence with common Honesty? He puts in a Charge against the Body of English Dissenters, and brings in for Guilty a single Scotch Cameronian.  
2ly. The Scotch Evidence is, by hear-say, without Name, Person, Time or Place. He promised a good circumstantial Proof, Serm. p. 23. and he gives us one Divested of all its Circumstances.  
3ly. It's scarce Credible, that a Cameronian should assert a Doctrine contrary to the Presbyterian Principles.  
4ly. Suppose some ignorant Cameronian had been abused, or had abused others by this Corrupt reading— must the Error of one Man be charged on the whole Church of Scotland? And must the Error of one Scotchman be charged on all the English Presbyterians? This is such a piece of Justice, as none will defend, but a Haman, who seeks to be revenged upon all the Jews, because one Mordecai had offended.  
The Rector replies,  
1st. That for Matter of Fact, he thinks it unquestionable, 'tis thus; The honourable Colonel Fairfax, reported this Fact to Mr. Piggot Vicar of Rochdale, in the hearing of several, in particular of Mr. Robert Milne, a Dissenter: And finding several English Bibles, which were sent from private Houses, Corrupted, declared, that he thought the Presbyterians had some knavish Design. A Germane Gentleman in the company pulled a Dutch Testament of Luther's Translation out of his Pocket, wherein he read we, and added, he was certain the Presbyterians in Germany and in Scotland (where he had lately been) were Knaves, and it was well if they were better in England. p. 47.  
This Account does not make the Cameronian-Tale a whit the more Credible, because.  
1st. It it uncertain whether Coll. Fairfax reported it. Mr. Milne who is made a Party to this Story, Affirms he never was in Company with Coll. Fairfax, nor did he see him when he was at Rochdale, being from home that day, so that the Report depends upon the single Testimony of Mr. Piggot, which how far it will pass, I leave to those to judge who know the Man, and the manner of his Conversation.  
2ly. If Coll. Fairfax reported it, it does not at all make it unquestionable, for it is but a single Evidence, nor does he say, he heard the Cameronian himself urge this Corrupt reading, perhaps the Story passed twenty Hands before it reached him; nor does he Name the Person, or Place, or Time, which are shrewd Evidences, that the Story is Spurious. Such a blind Evidence as this, would look ridiculous in a Court of Justice, but serves the Rector's turn, who does not pretend to observe the troublesome Forms of Justice in the Management of his Charge.  
3ly. This Story seems to have been the Entertainment over their Cups (where every thing that is said is not Gospel), for as he tells us, they sent for Bibles from private Houses: One may conclude than they were now at a Public House.  
This confirms the Truth of what I suspected in my Remarks, p. 12. That he had picked up a spurious Story, perhaps in the next Coffeehouse, or Alehouse, and this he legitimates and recommends from the Pulpit, as a Sacred Oracle of God. The Rector must needs Grace the Pulpit, when he borrows Materials for his Sermons out of the Cann-Office.  
4ly. His Germane Gentleman is a Stranger, and wants a Voucher for his Varacity, but by his own Account one may suspect he had been in Scotland assisting at the Barbarous Butcheries there, and Dragooning the Presbyterians into Conformity: However it be, he charges not the Germane Presbyteriaas, no nor the Scotch with Corrupting the Word of God, tho' he compliments 'em with the Title of Knaves. Who he means by the Presbyterians in Germany is doubtful, for there are no Protestant Bishops there of the English Species. If one may judge ex Vngue Leonem, this Germane was a Popish Soldier of Fortune, and condemns all the Germane Protestants for Knaves: Or he was a bigoted Lutheran, and loved the Calvinists as the Rector does the Presbyterians. Is not the Rector ashamed to creep into Alehouses, and there to muster up Red-Coats if not Papists for Evidence against us? He brings for Evidence against the English, a Scotch Cameronian, he brings for Evidence against the Scotch a Germane Papist. Most Noble Rector! Your way of proving Matters of Fact is very Singular, you prove your Cameronian Story by one single Witness, and what he Deposes is by hear-say: You prove the Germane and Scotch Presbyterians to be all Knaves by another single Witness and he an outlandish one. We need not go as far as Germany for Witnesses to prove you Knavish in the Management of your Charge. So much of his Cameronians STORY.  
He has the Impudence to defend his Imputing the unproved Error of one Cameronian to all the English Presbyterians. Thus, saith he, Haman's Offence was revenged upon many Thousands of Persons, and saul's upon Seven of his Children, and the Note-maker fell foul upon the whole Body of the Episcopal Church, for a supposed Fault of my Lord Bishop of Salisbury. p. 48.  
The Jews destroying so many Thousands of Persons, was not to revenge Haman's Offence, but to defend themselves against those that assaulted them, as is expressly affirmed in Esth. 8. 11. and 9 2. The Rector is so taken up with Cameronian Stories, that he is not at leisure to acquaint himself with Scripture History.  
It's true Seven of Saul's Sons were hanged up unto the Lord (to whom they had forfeited their Lives) at the desire of the Gibeonites, whom Saul had destroyed contrary to the Oath of God: But what is this to the imputing of the Error of one Man, whose Name no body knows, to all the Presbyterians of England and Scotland? The Rector is good at proving, I would advise him to pick up some other Story to prove all the Presbyterians of both Nations, to be the Natural Offspring of this Cameronian, and when he has done so, let him play the Gibeonite, and hang them up with the Sons of Saul. 'Tis well we are not at this Man's Mercy; the very Gibeonites contented themselves with Seven of Saul's Sons, but the Rector as if he were of the Remnant of Amaleck, seeks with Haman to revenge the Fault of One upon a whole Party.  
The Note-maker from whom he would borrow a Plea for his Injustice, will do him no Service, for he does not Charge any Personal Fault of the Bishop of Salisbury upon the whole Body of the Episcopal Church. He only take occasion (as far as I remember for its some time since I read him) from the Bishops charging the Dissenters with Schism, to retort it upon the Church, which he thinks Guilty of it.    

CHAP. V.  
Containing a reply to his Fifth Chapter.  
HAVING answered his Four Arguments I offered more Considerations to show the Falsity of the Rectors Charge, as 1st. No Protestant Dissenters have ever urged that corrupt reading in favour of a Popular Government of the Church in their Writings. Let him produce, if he can, any one Argument supported by this false reading in all their Writings.  
All that the Rector pretends to say to this, is, That it is a bold Touch, to be so Positive in a Negative. p. 48.  
Why does not he prove the Affirmative, when I challenge him to it? I will be bold to maintain the Negative, until he has proved the Affirmative, which I am sure he can never do.  
But one Mr. Jolly (as he tells us) some while ago, since Dead, alleged this Corrupt reading at Duckenfield Hall, in discourse with Mr. Ellison Rector of Ashton under Line. p. 48.  
The Rector of Bury and his Brother of Ashton under Line, are well advised in their Reports, the one tells a Story of a Nameless Cameronian in another Kingdom, the other Names his Person, but you must look for him in another World. They are resolved to put us out of all Hopes of being ever able to Examine the Truth of their Tales.  
He tells such another Story (in which no Person are named) of some Gentleman in Bolton, who heard some Dissenters in a dispute about Religion, Cite Acts 6. as the Cameronian did, and appealed to the Scotch Bibles.  
By this last Passage I suspect this Story to have come out of the same Mint with the Former, for very few of the Scotch Bibles are misprinted, as we shall presently make appear.  
'Tis observable that neither Mr. Ellison, nor the Gentleman at Bolton, do say, That these Dissenters urged this Corrupt reading to prove the People's Power in making their own Ministers, only that they read ye for we, which they might ignorantly do (finding it so in their Bibles) and not urge it as an Argument to support an Error.  
Perhaps they might refer to that Place, to prove the People's Power to choose their own Ministers which is there asserted, without this Corrupt reading.  
But suppose they mis-applied this False reading, it was their Ignorance, which no Man will justify.  
Ay, but doubtless they had been furnished with this Argument by some of their Leaders.— p. 49.  
He ought to prove that, before he affirm with such assurance. If any of his Flock should mistake the Sense of any Scripture, he would think it hard to be charged with the Error.  
Let him Name if he can, any of their Leaders that have ever recommended this False reading to their People, and I do promise we shall renounce him as unworthy the Name of a Christian, much more of a Minister.  
But he hath had named unto him one of their Leaders, Mr. R. Baldwin (his Mr. Calvin), who detected and censured this Corruption, in an Ordination Sermon long before his Rectorship.  
And there are some who well remember, that the Reverend Mr. Philip Henry many Years ago in his Exposition of Acts 6. took notice of the Misprinting of ye for we in some Editions, and took Care to rectify it.  
'Tis remarkable here, as he goes on, how the Dissenters more especially appealed to the Scotch Bibles. I believe Mr. Owen will be Wiser than to give a Catalogue of the Corrupted Editions in Scotland, tho' he has in Part promised it. I shall be beholden to him, if he'll be pleased to Answer my Expectation herein. p. 49.  
I am willing to oblige him, if possible, and to perform my Promise, I wrote to the Reverend Doctor Rule, Principal of the College of Edinburgh, who sent me this Account of the Scotch Editions; I shall give it in his own Words— It required some time to search for our Impressions of the Bible. I find there was one in 1673. which is out of Print, I can find no Copy of it. One 1676. Octavo, which in Acts 6. 3. hath we. One 1678. Quarto, hath we. One 1691. Octavo, hath we. One 1694. Twelves, hath we. One 1694. Twelves, being Cann's Bible hath we. One 1694. Quarto, hath we. One 1697. Twelves, hath we. One 1675. Twelve hath ye. One 1686. hath ye: This last was finished in 1688. so that there were none printed here with that Corruption, save two (some speak of a third, but I could not find it) and both these under Episcopacy. Thus far the Doctor; I shall subjoin the Vote of the General Assembly, which he was pleased also to Communicate.  

At Edinburgh, January 15th 1698,  
THE General Assembly of this National Church being informed that the Presbyterians (and particularly these of Scotland) are charged in a Sermon preached by Thomas Gipps' Rector of Bury, now printed and published, as Corrupters of the Word of God, with Design to support the People's Power in setting up Ministers over themselves; And that this Corruption is made by them Acts 6. 3. by causing it to be Printed, Whom ye may appoint over this Business, instead of whom We may appoint: Therefore the General Assembly do unanimously declare, that as they allow no Power in the People, but only in Pastors of the Church to Appoint and Ordain Church Officers, so they disclaim the above mentioned Error of the Press, if any such be found in any Bible's Printed in this Nation, And do declare they do not own any other Reading of that Text, to be according to the Original, but whom We may appoint, etc. Nor do they know, nor can learn, that ever any in this Nation did publicly use or apply that Text to prove the People's Power in Ordaining their Ministers. Extracted by me,  
J. Bannatyne Cls. Syn. National.   
This Vote as Dr. Rule adds, is a full and sufficient Vindication of Scotch Presbyterians from the Aspersion of Corrupting the Word of God, which the Author ye mention doth with no less Ignorance than Falsehood load us with. For, nor only do we abhor such Practices, knowing that the Truth of God is not established by our Lie, But that Corruption of the Text should destroy our Principle about the Authoritative Mission of Church Officers, so far 'tis from affirming it. The Story of the Cameronian Preacher may be looked on as a mere Fiction: For tho' in our Assembly are Ministers and Elders from all Parts of the Nation, none of them do say (tho' publicly and privately spoken to about it) that ever they have heard it.  
I desire the Reader here to observe.  
1st. That the Cameronian Story, with which the Rector has made such a Noise, is not so much as known in Scotland. It seems then to have been contrived in England, and perhaps at Rochdale, with design to furnish the Rector with proper Materials for his Corruption— Sermon. It was Calculated for the Meridian of Manchester, tho' it might indifferently serve for any Part of England. The Episcopal Dissenters in Scotland have published abundance of extravagant Stories to reproach the Establishment there, but can any one imagine they would overlook the Rectors Story, had there been the least Colour for it?  
2ly. It falls out a little unluckily that the two Scotch Editions, that were misprinted, happened under the Bishops there, and that when they were in full Power.  
3ly. Cann's Scotch Edition hath we, as the two English one's have, which I Noted in my Remarks. He was a rigid Brownist, but did not mis-print this Place. So much of the Scotch Editions.  
II. I Remarked that the Dissenters have written several Commentaries on the New Testament, and not one of them have attempted to confirm the Corrupt reading in Acts 6. 3.  
This Observation which clears 'em from Designing to Corrupt that Place, our Author overlooks.  
III. I argued, that had the Corruption been designed in favour of the Dissenters, it would have been promoted when they were uppermost.  
But having examined most Editions between 1640, and 1684. I can find but three Corrupt Editions under the Parliament. And no less than thirty three under King Charles the II. a Table of which I have given in my Remarks. Most of the Corrupt Editions were in that Reign, when the Episcopal Party were uppermost and had the sole Management of the Press.  
To this he saith, 1st. the Dissenters need not when they were uppermost, for they had gained their Point by the Sword. p. 49.  
Was there ever a more impertinent Caviller? His Argument above was, they Corrupted the Word of God, because Presbytery was in the Ascendent, but now they are in the Vertical, he knows not whether they would Corrupt it or no: That is when they had not the Power of the Press he suspects they Corrupted this Place, but when they had the Power of it, he allows they did not Corrupt it.  
His next Answer is more absurd, which is thus,  
2ly. Tho' most of the faulty Editions were set forth in King Charles II. Days, when the Dissenters were undermost, yet they may be supposed to have promoted the Corruption even then. p. 49.  
To Suppose is one Thing, to Prove an other, one may suppose twenty ill Things of the Rector, as that he is unsound in his Principles, secretly Corrupt in his Morals, and a disguised Adversary to the Government, would he like it, that some uncharitable Person should report this? And when he calls upon him to prove it, to come off with telling him, I did but suppose it? In this Manner he serves us, instead of proving, he supposes. He has forgotten the old Maxim of the Schools, supponere non ponit esse.  
3ly. He adds, the Bishops had not in King Charles II. Reign the Management of the Press: It's in the Hands of Patentees, who cannot easily be controlled in their business. The Bishops have no Authority, so much as to Correct the Impressions of the Bible.  
I said, the Bishops and Episcopal Party (p. 15 and 17.) had the Management of the Press, and that he cannot deny. It's certain the Bishops had as much Power over the Press in King Charles II. time, as the Presbyterians had under the Parliament. For the State Printers have always Patents.  
If the Bishops have no Power to Correct the Impressions of the Bible, they may depute able Persons to review 'em, and if they find them faulty, they may Complain to the King, to whom he saith the Printers are answerable, and get 'em punished according to Law.  
Let the Bishop's Power be what it will, it's nothing to the Argument in Hand, which is this, The Dissenters can't be Charged with the Errors of the Press in King Charles II. time, because the Episcopal Party were uppermost, and had the Management of the Press, with which the Dissenters had nothing to do: Except it were in the publishing an Octavo Impression of the British Bible, which was promoted by the Charity and Pains of that great exemplar of Primitive Christianity, Mr. Thomas Gouge, and Corrected by Mr. Stephen Hughes, and Mr. Charles Edward's, two Dissenting Ministers: And this Impression hath we in Acts 6. 3. It was Printed by Bill, Barker, etc. London, 1678. There's another large Octavo Impression of the British Bible, Printed by Bill and Newcomb, London, 1690. and Corrected by Mr. David Jones, a Dissenting Minister, this also hath we in Acts 6. 3. These deserve the more Consideration, because they are the only Impressions of the Bible (that I ever could hear of) Corrected by Dissenting Ministers, and they might have been easily Corrupted without the Knowledge of the Printers (who are Strangers to the British Language) had the Dissenters any design to falsify the Scriptures, as the Rector supposeth. These two Impressions, Corrected by Dissenters, are a sufficient Vindication of them, from the Rector's calumnies.  
Observe this Man's Candour, he suggests, that the Bishops who were uppermost in King Charles II. time, could not Control the King's Printers to prevent Corruptions, and yet insinuates as if the Dissenters, who were undermost, could Control 'em, to make Corruptions in the Bible.  
4ly. Let the Minister, saith he, give us an instance of any other mistake in Printing, whereupon depends any Controversy in Religion, so frequently Committed in so many Presses, and in so many distant Places, Cambridge, Oxford, London, Edinburgh, and it shall suffice. Who can believe an Erratum to be repeated thus often by chance. p. 50.  
1st. I gave a Reason already, why it's very possible an Error in one Edition of the Bible may be easily propagated, because the Frames are often kept entire, which is not done, or very rarely in other Books. I gave this Reason in my Remarks, but he overlooked it, and puts me to the trouble of repeating it.  
2ly. I have proved that the frequent repetition of the Mistake was when the Bishops were in supreme Power, and the Press in the Hands of the Episcopal Party. They therefore must bear the blame of it, who ought to have given us more Correct Editions.  
3ly. Since he puts me upon it, I will give him an instance of a Corruption, a thousand times Worse than a mistake in Printing, whereupon a Controversy in Religion depends, repeated in all the Editions of the Common-Prayer, I have yet met with.  
The words are in the Office of Commination, Cursed is the Man that maketh any carved or melten Image to worship it. These Words are said, to be taken out of Deut. 27. 15. where they are thus, Cursed be the Man that maketh any graven or molten Image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the Hands of the Crafts-Man, and putteth it in a secret Place.—  
In the Liturgy the words, to worship it, are added to the Text, which denounceth a Curse upon such as make an Image for any Religious Ends, as suppose to beget in us good reflections, to be a help to our Devotions, etc. but the Addition restraineth the Curse to the Act or Intention of Adoration. Now there is a Controversy of greater Consequence than that of ye and we, depends upon this Addition, viz. whether it be lawful to use Images (as suppose a Crucifix, etc.) for Religious Ends, provided we done't worship them.  
The Papists say, it's not only lawful, but in some Cases necessary, that they are Laymen's Books and great helps to Devotion: The Protestants affirm according to the Scripture, they ought not to be made at all for the Ends of Religion, much less set up either in the Congregation, or in a secret Place. Deut. 27. 15. Isa. 44. 10. Habb. 2. 18, 19  
This Addition in the Liturgy seems to favour the Popish Doctrine, that we may use Images in our Devotions, provided we done't worship them.  
I am the more Confirmed in this by the Images of Christ and his Apostles, which I find Printed in several of our Common-Prayers, and I doubt not but they are intended as helps to Devotion, and I wish they were not designed as an Introduction to Image Worship in the late Reigns, when projects of that kind were connived at.  
However this be, the making of such Images is against the Scriptures, especially the 2d. Commandment, as is proved at large in the Book of Homilies. It's showed there.  
1st. That no Image of Christ can be made but a LYING IMAGE, because he is God and Man: Nor can any true Image of his Body be made, because it is unknown now of what Form and Countenance he was; and there be in Greece and at Rome, and in other Places, divers Images of Christ, and none of them like to other, and yet every of them affirmeth, that theirs is the True, which cannot possibly be. Therefore as soon as an Image of Christ is made, by and by is a LIE made of him, which by God's Word is forbidden.  
2ly. If an Image of Christ could truly be made, yet it is unlawful that it should be made, yea or that the Image of any Saint should be made, especially to be set up in Temples. Ireneus reproves the Heretics called Gnostics for carrying about the Image of Christ. In the same Homily is proved the unlawfulness of such Images from Leu. 26. Exod, 20. and Deut. 27. and they quote this last Text aright, without the Addition in the Common-Prayer 
* Serm. against Peril of Idolatry, Part 3d. .  
One may justly wonder, that such a public Use of Images should be allowed in our Churches, and no Body that I hear of, reprove or condemn it, tho' all our Episcopal Ministers have subscribed to the Book of Homilies, as containing a Godly and wholesome Doctrine. The having of Images in our Books of public Devotions is as unjustifiable as the setting 'em up in our public Churches, nay the former is in this respect Worse than the latter, because in the latter Case, one Image serves a whole Congregation, but in the former there are as many Images as there are Worshippers with Pictured Common-Paryer-Books in their Hands.  
Christian's should avoid all Occasions and Appearances of Idolatry, but the Rectors Zeal runs another Way. I will not tempt him to execute the fiery Sentence (he passed on the Bible) upon his Common-Prayer, but I will recommend to his Reading the learned and pious Homilies against Idolatry, which mention with Approbation, Epiphanius' renting a painted Cloth; wherein was a Picture of Christ, or of some Saint, affirming it to be against our Religion, that any such Image should be had in the Temple or Church. If this Act of Epiphanius does not raise an Emulation in him to purge his Church of Images, he ought at least to declare against the Corruption of Scripture to which he is accessary, by giving his Assent and Consent to all and every Thing contained in the Liturgy.  
Thus I have gratified his Request, and given him such an Instance as he desires, and yet I will not say, this is a Corruption of which all the Episcopal Party is Guilty, because I believe few of 'em have taken notice of it.  
For a farther Confirmation of his Charge against the Dissenters, he saith, out of Archbishop Laud's Speech that the Puritans expunged part of the XX. Articles of the Church of England, concerning the Power of the Church to decree Rites and Ceremonies.  
'Tis yet Subjudice, whether that Clause was added by some of the Bishop's Friends, or expunged by some of their Adversaries, whether it were the one or tother, it does not concern the Controversy in Hand: Tho' it may seem more probable they were added by some Ceremonious Gentleman, for the Puritans alleged that the Clause was not to be found in the Latin, or English Articles of King Edward VI or Queen Elizabeth, ratified by Parliament. The Archbishop can't say, that this Clause was in the Articles of King Edward VI. but comes off with this sly Answer, That the Articles made in the time of King Edward VI. were not now in Force, and therefore not Material whether that Clause be in or out 
* Heyl. Life of Laud. p. 339. .  
I thought Articles of Religion were not like Acts of Parliament, to be repealed at pleasure. However, one may conclude from Archbishop Laud's Words, that the Clause about Ceremonies was not in the Original Articles of the Reformed Church of England in King Edward VI time: If it had been in, he would have taken notice of it, as he does of all the Editions that had it in Queen Elizabeth's time. If it was to be found in the Records of Convocation, Anno 1562. as the Archbishop saith, it is a sign the Church of England was grown more Ceremonious than it had been in King Edward VI time. Be this Matter as it will, it concerns not us, tho' the Rector according to his wont Justice, reproaches us with it. Remark on Remarks, p. 51. 63.  

† Mr. Baxter 's Life. p. 639.  Archbishop Usher, Archbishop Williams, Bishop Morton, Bishop Holdsworth, etc. in a Committee at Westminster, 1641. mention this Article among the Innovations in Doctrine in the Church of England.  
He has a pleasant Digression on these Words of mine, no Dissenters have urged this Corrupt reading in favour of a Popular Covernment in any of their Writings against Bishops and Ceremonies. Remark, p. 14. which he thus reports, No Dissenters have urged this Corrupt reading against Bishops and Ceremonies: And then adds, who ever thought that ye had any thing to do with the Ceremonies? p. 52.  
I spoke of the Corrupt reading as applied to a popular Government, which is evident by my Words. I Note this as an Instance of his Unfairness, and pass by his Reflections.  
I said, That he confidently Affirms, without Proof, that the Scotch Bibles are generally Faulty in this Passage: This is an impudent Slander, saith he, not to be Paralleled except, etc.  
I see the Rector does not love impudent Slanders, when himself is the Subject of 'em; tho' he can be the Author of them to the prejudice of others. Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri nè feceris.  
But I will make it appear that I have not Slandered him. He owns, he said, he had just Reason to suspect the Scotch Editions, but takes no notice of his Saying in another Place, that the Kirk tampers with and refines upon the Word of God, Serm. p. 26. and in p. 25. he saith, the Cameronian Preacher bid the Congregation turn to their Bible, and they should find in Acts 6. 3. whom ye may appoint.  
Let any one judge whether all this does not amount to a confident Affirmation that the Scotch Bibles are Faulty in this Passage. A Man of Truth should not Affirm what he is ashamed to own.  
He vindicates the motion he made in his Sermon to burn the Bible: But why burn the Holy Bible for one single Corruption? Why? Because an Error which appears in Masquerade, and under the Disguise of Scripture being discovered deserves no pity, being of so much the more dangerous Consequence. p. 53.  
This Man knows not how to distinguish between Truth and Error. May not an Error be condemned without sacrificing a whole Volume of Divine Truths to the Flames? It's true, an Error deserves no pity, but the Bible deserves our veneration. The Rector serves the Bible as he has done the Dissenters, condemns the whole, for one Error of the Press.  
Unthinking Soul! He has condemned the Holy Bible to be burnt for one single Corruption, and in the same Discourse has endeavoured to prove that there are several Corruptions in all our Hebrew, and consequently in all our English Bibles which are a Translation of the Hebrew.  
He saith, two Thousand Years are lost in the Chronology of our Hebrew (and so of all our English) Bibles: He affirms that our Bible's are Corrupt in Gen. 11. 12. and in Psal. 96. 10. see his Remarks on Remarks. p. 24, 25, 26. which I shall examine in the Postscript.  
Thus he has in effect condemned all our Bibles to the Fire. The very Papists leave the Original Hebrew and Greek, and their vulgar Version untouched, but the good Rector of Bury has condemned not only the Hebrew, which he says has many Corruptions, but the Latin, Greek, English, etc. Bibles which are all Corrupt in Psal. 96. 10. according to the Rector, so that he has condemned to be Burnt all the Bibles in the Christian World, which according to him have at least a single Corruption, and this is Cause enough why they should be Burnt, as he would have us believe.  
He would do well to tell the World what Religion he is of, for I think all Christians discover an Affection and Tenderness towards the Holy Bible, which in us he mis-interprets for an Affection to Error. The very Jews have a Veneration for the Law and Prophets, the Mahometans for their Alcoran, and so had the Ancient Pagans for their Oracles and Sacred Annals, which they carefully reposited in their Temples, but the Rector of Bury, the most Reverend Rector of Bury would persuade his Superiors to Burn the Holy Bible for one Corruption, and at the same Time endeavours to prove that all our Bible's have several Corruptions. p. 53.   

CHAP. VI  
Being an Answer to his Sixth Chapter, and containing a Vindication of Mr. Baxter and others from the Rector's Calumnies.  
HIS last Chapter has nothing in it of Argument that concerns the main Subject, it consists of Invectives and unjust Reflections upon two worthy Persons, Mr. B. and Mr. P. that are gone to rest, and never that I heard of disturbed his, when they were alive: Nor do my Remarks give him the least Occasion to bespatter the Memories of these Good Men, but they were Dissenters, which is Motive enough to the Pious Rector to embalm their Names with such Perfumes as his Repository produceth.  
He gins with Mr. B. whom he had accused of Corrupting the Word of God, in leaving out the word these in Acts 15. 28.  
I answered, 1st. That Mr. B. does not pretend to Cite the Words of the Decree in Acts 15. 28. but gives the Reason on which it was grounded, had he cited the words of the Text, he would have rendered 'em in the second Person, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon YOU no greater Burden, but he speaks in the third Person, it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and them, to lay upon them.  
The Rector unfairly suppresses part of the Sentence by an, etc. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, etc. and then cries out, what a goodly Remarker is this, to US in the second Person, as if I had mistaken one Person for another. But it is plain by my Words that I refer the second Person to the following Words to lay upon YOU, which he left out with, etc. that this unfair dealing might not appear.  
He fills half a Page with a goodly declamation upon our Ignorance in the English Accidence, and would advise us to go to School again to learn the first Rudiments of all Languages. p, 56.  
I could hearty wish his Defects were no worse than those he untruly charges upon us, but I fear he is yet to learn the first Rudiments of all Religion, Sincerity and Honesty. I would remit him to the Divinity School to learn the IX. Commandment, not to bear false Witness, but that he is obstinately resolved to burn that Book, which only can teach him this Lesson.  
However my Defence of Mr. Baxter stands good, that he designed not to Cite the very Words of the Text, but to refer to them. This the Rector could not deny, which is enough to justify him against his Charge.  
2ly. If Mr. Baxter had misquoted Scripture, the Rector of all Men living should have held his Peace, for he is notoriously Guilty of this Fault, of which I gave Ten Instances in his Sermon, and he has not been able to deny one of them, only endeavours to excuse it as well as he can. He misquotes his very Text, diminishes and adds to his Quotations at his Pleasure.  
He puts instruction for admonition in 1 Cor. 10. 11. leaves out the words, which I command you, in Deut. 4. 2. puts cover for shall be full, in Isa. 11. 9 reads certify for testify, in Rev. 22. 18, 19 leaves out▪ till all be fulfilled, in Mat. 5. 18. reads seek out seven Men, instead of look ye out among you seven Men, in Acts 6. 3. so that he has corrupted this very Scripture (by leaving out the Words, among you) concerning which he has made such a Clamour, as if the Dissenters had corrupted it.  
There were two Things remarkable in his Sermon about Corrupting the Word of God; the First was his Text, from which he aggravated his Charge, and this he has misquoted; the Second was the Subject of his Charge in Acts 6. 3. and this also he has misquoted, by putting seek for book, and omitting the Words among you: And therefore it ill becomes him to aggravate Mr. B's. omitting the word these.  
3ly. I find Acts 15. 28. in the Book of Homilies (to which the Rector has subscribed) quoted without the words these, In the Acts of the Apostles we read that they sent word to the brethren, Acts 15. 28. that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them, to charge them with no more than with necessary Things. 
* Homil. against Whoredom. I. Part, p. 72. edit. Lond. 1673. Fol.   
If the Omission of the word these be a Corrupting of the Word of God, let him write an Invective against the Homilies of the Church, and retract his Subscription by which he has made himself a Party to this Corruption.  
He charges Mr. B. with Corrupting a Passage in Jerom in his Fifth Dispute, which I have not by me, and therefore can say nothing to it: But if it be misquoted, I believe it was by Accident, and not by Design as he suggests. It's evident that he designedly misrepresented me, in saying I mistook one Person for another, and to cover his Design suppresseth that Part of the Sentence to which I referred; and therefore have little Reason to believe his Accusations of Mr. B. or any body else, and less Reason to believe he has such an Aversion as he pretends, to that he unjustly Charges us with, viz. a designed misrepresentation of Authors. This he is notoriously Guilty of, and which is a great deal worse, he hath Corrupted the Word of God, which I admonished him of in my Answer to his Tentamen Novum, in which you may find both Corruptions; one is in Acts 11. 19 where he reads, the rest preached the Word, etc. instead of they that were scattered abroad— preached the Word, etc. so our Bible's have it according to the Original. This looks like a designed Corruption merely to support his Argument, as the Reader may see in his Tentam. p. 4.  
The other Corruption is of 1 Cor. 5. 4. In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together and my Spirit, etc. so our Bibles. The Rector reads it,— In the Name of our Lord Jesus— and of my Spirit, as if the Construction were in the Name of my Spirit, i. e. by my Authority, intimating that the whole Power of Excommunication was in the Apostle, and none in the Church, contrary to 1 Cor. 5. 13, 14. see his Tentam. p. 17.  
One would think a Man that is Guilty of Corrupting the Scriptures should not so severely aggravate a mis-quotation out of the Fathers, which may happen by the Fault of the Transcriber or Printer, or by the inadvertency of the most vigilant Author, without any Design. But none are more forward to censure a Mote in a Brother's Eye, than those Gentlemen that have a Beam in their own. The Rector is one that doth so in his Charge against Mr. B. and myself.  
He bestows the two next Pages upon a misquoted Passage out of Chrysostom, in my Plea, in which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is misprinted for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Point I treated of was, that Evangelists were unfixed Officers, which is Evident in the New Testament, and is the General Opinion of learned Men, nay the Rector himself can't deny but they were at first unfixed. Tentam. p. 118. For the Confirmation of this received Opinion I quoted Eusebius and Chrysostom as agreeing with him, and by a mistake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the latter, which makes the Negative an Affirmative.  
I, but saith he, if you had cited Chrysostom in the Negative (as you ought) he would not have agreed with Eusebius. p. 57  
I have proved in my Tutam. Evangel. that they do agree, if Chrysostom be cited in the Negative, as I confess he ought. Eusebius saith, they passed into other Countries and Nations: Chrysostom saith, they did not go up and down every where (as the Apostles did) but preached the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila. He adds a little after, that the Evangelists went about.  

* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  It's evident from Chrysostom, that Evangelists went about, but not every where: So did Aquila and Priscilla go up and down, but not every where, as St. Paul and other Apostles did. Aquila and Priscilla are Evangelists in Chrysostom, now it's certain they went up and down, and that as the Apostles helpers in Christ, Rom. 16. 3. Aquila was a Native of Pontus, Acts 18. 2. he lived with his Wife Priscilla sometime at Rome: Afterwards we find them at Corinth, Acts 18. 1, 2. afterwards at Ephesus, Acts 18. 18. 19 1 Cor. 16. 19 and after that we meet them at Rome, Rom. 16. 3. if the Epistle to the Romans was written after the 1 Corinthians, as Doctor Lightfoot Affirms. 
† Vol. I. p. 299. and 313.  When the second Epistle to Timothy was written we find 'em in Asia. 2 Tim. 4. 19 'Tis most undeniable than that Aquila and Priscilla, Chrysostom's Evangelists, went up and down, and that into other Countries and Nations (tho' not every where) and so Chrysostom agrees with Eusebius.  
But suppose Chrysostom should not agree with Eusebius (as it's Evident he doth) this doth not prejudice Eusebius' Testimony, nor my Hypothesis of Evangelists, that they were unfixed Officers, which the Rector himself is forced to acknowledge. I shall not quarrel with him about Chrysostom, whilst he owns my Notion of Evangelists, which if he think fit to retract, I will undertake to maintain without being obliged to Chrysostom.  
He thinks, I have no way to come off from his Charge of Corrupting Chrysostom (for which he is pleased to give me the Character of a Great Rogue) but by pleading Ignorance or Dishonesty. p. 58.  
There is no necessity of either Plea, which are both equally false: But I have a Third, which is a just one, and will pass with Men of Honesty, whose Characteristic is Candour, viz. that the mistake (of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) was by inadvertency or oversight, as we will Charitably hope many of his are; tho' a Man must strain his Charity very hard to think so of his Corrupting the Text of Scripture. It cannot be imagined his Printer would foist whole Words into a Text without the knowledge of the Author, especially where the Corrupt reading is adapted to an Argument which cannot be supported without it. Let the World judge who is the Great R.— he that happens to mistake a Sentence in the Fathers, or he that refines upon the Word of God.  
Ay, but saith he, the Remarker hath Corrupted Rom. 15. 19 for he affirms Tutam. Evangel. p. 124, 125.) that Paul preached the Gospel in Illyricum: Here is a gross and designed Corruption of Scripture to serve a Cause. 'Tis in the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, round about unto Illyricum, q. d. as far as Illyricum, but not in Illyricum, as Mr. Owen aimed to prove. p. 58, 59  
I perceive if a Man does not apply Scripture according to the Rectors mind, he can't escape the Censure of Corrupting it. I did not quote the very Words of the Text, but referred to it, as a Testimony of the Apostles, preaching in Illyricum, as several learned Men have done before me, who were never charged with Corrupting this Place. Peter Martyr explains usque ad, by usque in Illyricum, i. e. into Illyricum, so doth Aretius. 
* Vid. Pet. Mart, and Aret. in loc.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used promiscuously, and signify usque ad, as far as, or unto a Place, sometimes exclusively and often inclusively. Thus the Brethren conducted Paul, Acts 17. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto Athens, i. e. into Athens. So in Acts 20. 4. there accompanied him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as far as Asia, or into Asia, as we well render it. And that must be the meaning, as appears by v. 5. they tarried for us at Troas. It's well if the Rector does not make the Translators of this Place Corrupters of the Word of God, for rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by into.  
I make no doubt but the Apostle preached the Gospel in Illyricum, for he saith, that from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, he fully preached the Gospel of Christ. If he preached at Jerusalem, the terminus à quo, why not at Illyricum, the terminus ad quem, of his Apostolical motion? No Reason can be given why the end of his Progress should be taken exclusively, when the Jerusalem, the beginning of it, is taken inclusively.  
Suppose the Rector should say, he went from Bury, round about unto Manchester; would not any body understand him so, as if he had been in Manchester? Or suppose one should say, King William sailed from England round about unto Holland, you must imagine according to the Rectors Sense of the Words, that he touched only upon the Coasts of Holland, but went not into Holland: In like manner, when the Apostle saith, he preached from Jerusalem unto Illyricum, one would naturally conclude he preached in Illyricum.  
Titus, who was Paul's Companion, and Messenger to the Churches he had planted, We are certain was in Dalmatia; which is part of Illyricum. 
* Ptol. Geogr. Tab. IX, Europe.  Therefore it's highly probable that Paul planted a Church there.  
I find Illyricum mentioned by the Magdebury Historians 
† Eccl. Hist. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 22.  among the Places in which Paul had planted a Church, and they ground their Opinion upon Rom. 15. 19 Ortelius also mentions Illyricum as one of the Places where St. Paul had preached. 
| Discript. Peregrinat. D. Pauli Apost.   
In a Word, the Rector must prove that the Apostle turned back at the very Borders of Illyricum, before he can disprove my Sense of this Text, which is neither singular, nor inconsistent with other Scripture: And if he were able to do this (which he is not) it would amount to no more, than my being mistaken in the meaning of the Words, unto Illyricum.  
As to his Scurrilous Harangue upon Mr. Baxter (for no other Reason but because I called him that Great Man) I will not defile my Paper with it, but leave him to be chastised by the Scorpions in his own Breast, which will sooner or latter find a tender Place in his awakened Conscience. I will only take notice of the Character given Mr. Baxter by Dr. Wilkins, the Rectors late Diocesan. He cultivated, saith he, every Subject he handled, and if he had lived in the Primitive Times, he had been one of the FATHERS of the Church. Another time he said with admiration of him, That it was enough for one Age to produce such a Person as Mr. Baxter. 
* Baxt. Fun. Serm. by Dr. Bates, p. 105. 106.    

CHAP. VII.  
Containing a Recapitulation of some principal Things, with an Idea of the Rector's four Cardinal Virtues, viz. Justice, Truth, Candour, and Charity.  
I Shall sum up what has been largely insisted on, and give the Reader a short and clear View of the whole, by which he may judge what Credit is to be given to the Rector's Charge, and what Sort of Man he is.  
I. I will begin with his iv Arguments, which contain the Proof of his Charge.  
His First Argument (that the first Error happened in 1638. when Presbytery was in the Ascendant) he has (1st.) thrown out of doors himself, by acknowledging it a mere Error of the Press, and an unhappy Mistake. 2ly. I have proved that Presbytery in that Year was undermost in England, and Episcopacy in the Vertical. 3ly. And if it had been in the Ascendant, it will not follow that the Presbyterians were Authors of that Corruption, because, 1st. It does not favour their Principles. 2ly. Archbishop Laud guarded the Press against the Puritans. 3ly. It was in the Hand of Episcopal Men. 4ly. The University of Cambridge, where the first Corruption happened, was under the Government of Episcopal Persons.  
As to his II. Argument, That the Corruption favours the Dissenters, I have proved that it does not favour any Opinion of theirs; that they look on the VII. Deacons in Acts 6. as Ministers of Tables, and not of the Word and Sacraments; and that they ascribe the Power of Ordaining or Appointing Church-Officers unto the Ministers and not to the People.  
In Answer to his III. Argument, viz. That the Episcopal Party would not Corrupt this Place, because it does not favour their Principles; I have showed, that it was Corrupted by them, and that several of 'em have asserted the Popular Principles, yet I will not be so uncharitable as to affirm, that they have Corrupted it on Design to advance these Principles: Tho' it were easy for a Man of the Rector's temper to aggravate the Matter.  
I have sufficiently confuted the Cameronian Story, which makes his iv Argument, and confronted the single Testimony of Coll. Fairfax, (which is against an individuum vagum, without naming Person, Time or Place) with the Vote of the General Assembly of Scotland: And have showed how unjustly he has Traduced the Scotch Editions of the Bible, among which I can find but two that are Faulty, and those under the Bishops there; as it is undeniable the English Corrupt Editions happened when the Press was in the Hands of Episcopal Persons, who in Common Justice must Answer for the Errors of it.  
These Four Arguments are the Sandy-Foundation, on which he builds so heavy a Charge: Now the Foundation failing him, the Superstructure falls on his own Head, and the reputation of this foolish Master-Builder lies buried under the ruins of his Malicious Contrivement.  
II. Having showed the weakness of his Arguments, I will give you a Taste of his Regard to the Word of God. While he is charging us with Corrupting it, he has made the boldest Attempt perhaps of any Man living to undermine it.  
He has endeavoured to expunge all the Titles of the Psalms out of the Sacred Canon. He has affirmed Ps. 72. 20. to be manifestly False. He disparages our English Bibles, which agree with the Hebrew, and would persuade us that they are Corrupted by the Jews in material Things, especially in Ps. 96. 10. and in Gen. 11. 12. He tells us that two Thousand Years are lost in our Scripture-Chronology, so that according to our Hebrew and English Bibles it cannot be proved that Christ is come in the Flesh. He stands convicted of having Corrupted Acts 11. 19 and 1 Cor. 5. 4. to serve a Corrupt Design. He saith that but for Tradition, Plato, Senecae, and the Seven Wise Men of Greece (and it's pity but he were made the Eighth) might lay claim to Inspiration, as well as the holy Scripture.  
III. I will give an Idea of such Virtues as shine forth in his Remarks on Remarks, which render him a very remarkable Man.  
I will show him the Beauties of his own Face in the best Glass with which he has accommodated us, hoping that the charming Reflection of his own Form will not transport him into an Adonic Passion.  
1st. His Justice is so transcendent, that it cannot be confined to that vulgar Rule of suum Cuique No, the Rector has given us a new Rule of Justice, which is alienum Cuique This is a Tentamen Novum in Ethics.  
He has given us an Instance of this new Sort of Justice in his Cameronian Story, which he imputes to the whole Body of Dissenters. I have read of One Haman, who sought to be revenged of all the Jews for One Mordecai's Offence, but this cannot Parallel the Rector's Justice (which scorns to imitate such imperfect Patterns) for Haman could prove Matter of Fact upon Morde●ai, which the Rector has not been able to do upon the Cameronian Preacher; and yet he has the Modesty to Vindicate this piece of Justice by telling us, p. 47. The English Presbyterians are like to bear the Burden of their Brethren in Scotland.  
2ly. His Truth is as remarkable as his Justice. He has advanced and attempted to Confirm a False Accusation against the Dissenters in General, especially the Presbyterians of England and Scotland, that they have Corrupted the Word of God: And yet would have us believe that his Sermon was preached in Vindication of the Church of England against Lancashire Dissenters, who are not so much as named in the whole Sermon. You have another Instance of his Truth, where he says, That, according to Mr. Owen, the People belike ordained the Deacons. Remarks on Remarks, p. 4, 45.  
This is a notorious Un-truth, which may be looked upon as the Offspring of his impregnated Wrath, and we may suppose he is the more fond of this Spurious Brat, because the Say of Fathers are a Rule of Faith to him, (we will suppose of Practice also) and he has quoted a very eminent Father, who, as the Rector saith, cared not what in his Heat he said or wrote for the support of his own Opinion. p. 29. 18.  
The Story he tells of Mr. P. and Mr. B. are farther Evidences of his Regard to Truth.  
3ly. His Candour and Charity are of a Piece with Truth and Justice, for all the Virtues meet in him.  
1st. I will take Notice of his Charity to the Dissenters in General, concerning whom he is convinced, that Meekness and Charity is due unto them, and as a rare Instance of it, he would have 'em styled, the Foxes and Firebrands of the Church and Nation. p. 2, 3.  
He makes it Religious Hypocrisy in us to Style ourselves Ministers of the Gospel, which he and his Brethren seldom or never do, because, I presume, they reckon themselves dignified by more honourable Titles. p. 6.  
He falsely says, That the Socinians and almost all the Nation of Schismatics and Heretics are in the Interest of the Dissenters. If uncharitableness be a Characteristic of Schism, I know no such Schismatic in the three Kingdoms as the Rector is: And if the Obstinate maintaining a single Error in the Foundation denominate a Heretic, what shall we call the Man, who has endeavoured to overthrow the whole Foundation of Religion by charging our Bibles with several material Corruptions, and condemning them to be Burnt for a single One? p. 28.  
2ly. We will give some Instances of his Charitable and Candid Temper towards particular Persons, whom he abuseth without the least provocation.  
He gins with Jerom, that great Light of the Latin Church, of whom he saith, he is unworthy to be believed in any Thing, that he cared not what in his Heat he said or wrote. In plain English, he makes a Great R—gue of him, and yet at the same time makes such another of Mr. B— r, for reaping up the Faults of the Ancient Fathers. I perceive Mr. B's. Fault was that he intruded into the Rector's Province, whose proper Privilege it is to revile the Ancient Fathers, tho' he denies not but Mr. B's. Reports are True, but I have proved his Character of Jerom to be False. p. 18, 61.  
In a Word, Mr. B. either did well or ill in reaping up the Faults of the Fathers; if well, why does the Rector with so much malignity censure him for it? If ill, who does he imitate, him? p. 18, 61.  
He reflects on the Reverend Mr. Talents, as if he wanted Integrity, tho' he can't disprove his Account of Cambridge in 1638, which Mr. Fuller justifies. Here the Rector makes bold to step into the Throne of the Omniscient, whose Prerogative it is to judge of Men's integrity, Rom. 14. 10, 11, 12. He knows who has done so before him, when he passed the same Censure on upright Job. chap. 1. v. 9 p. 39  
He reflects on his Majesty's Words, 
* Serm. p. 25.  and hopes to Excuse it, by telling us, he derided only the Scotch-Reason, 
† Rem. p. 41, 42.  tho' he knows the King had approved of it, and inserted it into his Letter of Instructions to his Commissioner in Scotland. This is an Instance of his Loyalty, for which his Three Sermons of Subjection have made him Famous in the Northern-Climate.  
He reproaches the late Reverend Mr. P. as if be had Married his Wife without Consent of Parents, which I am informed is most False. Mr. Robert Milne of Rochdale affirms, He often heard Mrs. P's. Parents declare to his Father, who was a Neighbour and Relation unto them, that they had not only given free Consent, but withal expressed a great deal of Satisfaction in the Marriage, and looked on it as a very gracious and merciful Providence. p. 60.  
I am informed the Class-Rigister, a Copy of which the Rector saith is in his Hands, contains a Vindication of Mr. P. who being accused of an irregular and clandestine Marriage, produced a Certificate of the Consent of Parents. If this be so, The Rector is guilty of the basest disingenuity to revive a malicious Accusation against a Man in his Grave, and to suppress his Compurgation, whereby his Innocency was cleared. Mrs. P. affirms, and will take it upon her Oath, if there be occasion, that she had her Parents Consent, and that Morning before she was Married to Mr. P. she had both Father and Mother's blessing, and in the Evening they were both entertained and welcomed by her Parents.  
He quarrels with an innocent Passage in the Reverend Mr. O. H's. Family Altar, the design of which is to persuade Persons to keep up the Worship of God in their Families. It's well if the Rector in his Parochial Visitations be as forward to oblige his Parishioners to Pray in their Families, as he is to ridicule a judicious Discourse upon the Subject of Family Prayer. It puts me in Mind of the Jews Treatment of the Christians, of which Just. Martyr gives this Account, tho' one should speak Ten Thousand Words never so well, if he happens to say the least Thing that does not please you, because it's either not understood, or not carefully heeded, you overlook the abundance of Things that are well spoken, and get some little Word by the end, and fasten upon it the most impious Constructions. 
| Just. Mart. adv. Tryphon.   
The Rector serves Mr. O. H. much after the same Manner, he overlooks all the good Things in Mr. H's. excellent Book, the very Subject of which is recommending to every Devout Christian, and has picked out one Sentence in it to make Sport with, which is this, God is the Author of all Topography and Geography, as well as Genealogy and Chronology. p. 37.  
Any one but the Candid Rector would have overlooked a Passage of this kind in a popular Discourse of Practical Religion, wherein Ministers Study not all the exactness of Expression. But he is One of Just. Mart. Critics, who seeks Occasion to reproach more useful Men than himself. The words are capable of a fair Construction. Why may not God be called the Author of Geography, as Hipparchus calls Homer, hujus peritiae primarium Authorem *, the first and Chief Author of Geography? Tho' Homer has not written professedly of that Subject, but there are a great many Descriptions of Places scattered up and down in his Poems, and so there are in the Scripture. The Great Bochart hath written a very Learned Book of Sacred Geography. †  
It's certain the first Book extant that Treats of Geography, Genealogy and Chronology is the Bible, of which I hope the Rector will not deny God to be the Author.  
FINIS.    

ADVERTISEMENT.  
WE find ye for we, in Matt. 20. 22. of a fair Octavo Bible, Printed at Oxford 1679. ye are able, instead of we are able.   

THE POSTSCRIPT, Being an Answer to the Rector's 2d. Chapter, wherein he endeavours to prove the Titles of the Psalms to be no Parts of Scripture, and the Hebrew Bibles to have been Corrupted in very material Things.  
IN pursuance to my promise, I will now examine his Digression, about the Titles, or Inscriptions of the Psalms, and the Purity of the Hebrew Text, of which our English Bibles are a Translation.  
I must here premise, that the Difference between the Rector and me about the Hebrew Titles, and Copies is no point of Controversy between the Episcopal Party and the Dissenters, but I oppose a bold Paradox of his, which he endeavours to maintain against the Common Sentiments of learned Protestants, and the more moderate Papists.  
I shall begin with the Titles of the Plalms, which because he finds 'em omitted in the Liturgy Translation of the Psalms, he attempts to exclude out of the Sacred Canon. We agree that they are very Ancient, but he is of Opinion they are humane Additions, and that some of 'em are False: I affirm, and undertake to prove that they are of equal Authority with the rest of the Psalms, and to be admitted for Canonical Scripture. Before we enter upon the debate of this Point, let it be considered, 1st. That the Rector's Opinion is very singular, and has few or no Patrons in the Christian World at this Day. He has not hitherto been able to produce any one Protestant Writer, or Christian Commentator that has condemned 'em as Spurious and Un-canonical. A wise Man is not Ambitious of being thought singular, especially in a doubtful Point, least of all in an Error, and that of such a Nature as strikes at the Authority of any Part of the inspired Volumes. 2dly. Tho' the Titles of the Psalms, be but a small Part of Scripture, and several of 'em obscure, and hard to be understood, we must not therefore expunge them out of the Divine Canon, to which we must neither add nor diminish. Every Word of God ought to be equally precious to us, as being an Emanation from the same Fountain of un-erring Wisdom and Truth: Even the more abstruse, and seemingly less useful Parts of Scripture must be received with the same Veneration, which is paid to those that are more plain, and do more sensibly concern us. 3dly. If the Titles be Parts of the Holy Scripture, as I shall prove immediately, the Rector stands convicted by his own Sermon of being a Corrupter of the Word of God, for he endeavours to diminish from it.  
In prosecuting this Subject, 1st. I will vindicate my Arguments to prove the Titles of the Psalms to be Canonical. 2dly. I will answer his Objections to the Contrary.  

CHAP. I.  
Vindicating my Arguments for the Titles of the Psalms.  
THE Rector having challenged us to prove the Titles to be Original and Essential Parts of Scripture, I proposed a few Arguments for the Affirmative without Design of entering into this Controversy, as being foreign to his Charge: These he pretends to Answer, which I shall now Vindicate.  
I. My first Argument was this, That they are as Ancient as the Psalms themselves, for aught appears to the Contrary, they being in all the Hebrew and Greek Copies that ever I have seen, and that they are most of 'em Translated by the LXX. and by Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila, as also by the Targumist.  

* Remarks upon Remarks, p. 9  To this he answers, That the Subscriptions of St. Paul's Epistles are to be found in all Greek Copies save that of Claromont, and are always Translated into our modern Versions, and yet the Remarker will not own them for Canonical Scripture.  
Nothing can be inferred from these Subscriptions in prejudice of my Argument, because, 1st. They are not in all Greek Copies, as Grotius and Beza with many others have observed, and the Rector is forced to confess; but can he produce any Copy of the Hebrew Psalms that wants the Titles? The constant Consent of all Hebrew Copies bespeaks 'em not only ancient but original Parts of Scriptures.  
2. The Postscripts of St. Paul's Epistles are not the same in all ancient Manuscripts, and therefore saith Grotius, they are of no Authority, because they are not in all ancient Copies, nor the same in those that have 'em, and they are different in the Syriac and Arabic Copies: 
† Nullius sunt Authoritatis, quia nec in omnibus exemplaribus apparent, etc. Grot. ad fin. Ep. ad Rom. Vid. Est. in loc.  But the Titles of the Psalms are the same in all our Hebrew Copies, and so they were in those which Jerom used, which is an Argument they were not added, but are covered with the Text. When the Rector has produced the like Variety in the Hebrew Copies concerning the Titles, as is to be found in the Greek Manuscript concerning the Subscriptions, he does something to the Purpose, in the mean Time we'll dismiss his Argument as Impertinent.  
II. My 2d. Argument was, That the Titles of the Psalms were received by the Jewish Church, and are by the Christian Church, as Canonical Scripture; they are Translated by the Jewish Doctors into Greek, and by Jerom into Latin, and they are in the modern Versions.  
To this he Answer, That the Subscriptions of Sr. Paul's Epistles are Translated in the modern Languages, and all Christian Churches receive them yet not as Canonical Scripture: So the Jews received the Titles, but not as Essential Parts of Scripture, but as we do the Postscripts, and the Contents of the Chapters.  
I. That the Jewish Church received 'em, but not as essential Parts of Scripture is barely affirmed, and not proved. I challenge him to give us one Instance for the confirmation of so bold an Assertion. The Jews received the Titles and the Body of the Psalms alike, we do not find that they made any difference in Point of Authority between the one and the other, they that affirm they did, aught to prove it.  
2dly. We reject the Contents of Chapters and the Postscripts of St. Paul's Epistles from being Canonical, but he cannot prove the Jews did so by the Titles of the Psalms. They formerly received them as Parts of Scripture, and they do so still in our modern Hebrew Bibles, in which several of the Titles make the first Verse of the Psalms, as they do in several modern Translations. Vid. Jun. & Temell. Piscat Calvin. etc.  
3dly. It's true, the Postscripts are Translated in the modern Languages, but most Commentators wholly overlook 'em, or censure them as no Parts of Scripture: But both Jewish and Christian Commentators explain the Titles of the Psalms, as they do other Scriptures, which is a clear Evidence they take 'em for Canonical.  
I will confirm this 2d. Argument with another, which puts this Matter beyond all Contradiction.  
If the Jewish Church, to whom were committed the Oracles of God, received the Titles of the Psalms in the Apostles Time, they must needs be Canonical, for the Scripture, as received by them, is of Divine Inspiration, as the Apostle declares, 2 Tim, 3. 16. But they were received by the Jewish Church in the Apostles Time, and long before, for they were in the Copy which the LXX. used, who translated some, and transcribed others, that still agree with several of those in our Hebrew Bibles. They are to be found in the Syriac Version (I mean that out of the Hebrew) which is generally ascribed to the Age in which the Apostles lived, tho' Gabriel Sioni●a refers it to Solomon's Time.  
And they are Translated by Theodotion, Symmachus and Aquila, in the next Age after the Apostles. Therefore they were received in the Jewish Church in the Apostolical Age, and consequently are of Divine Inspiration.  
III. I added, that some of the Titles are undeniably Canonical, as that of Psalm, 18th, mentioned in 2 Sam. 22. To the Chief Musician, a Psalm of David, the Servant of the Lord, who spoke unto the Lord the Words of this Song, in the day that the Lord delivered him from the Hand of all his Enemies, and from the Hand of Saul.  
It does not follow, saith the Rector, that an inspired Person affixed it unto the 18 Psalm. So that those Words as placed before the 18 Psalms, may in strictness be said not to be Canonical there, tho' they be Canonical, 2 Sam. 22. p. 10.  
What a miserable shift is this poor Man put upon to avoid the Evidence of Truth? The Title of this Psalm is Canonical and not Canonical, Scripture and no Scripture, inspired, and not inspired: It's Canonical with him in one Part of the Bible, it's a humane Addition in another. He does not pretend to give any Reason for so bold a Suggestion; only you must believe, it is so because it is so. However, it is enough to my Purpose that he allows the Words of the Title to be Canonical in 2 Sam. 22. There you have the Psalm and a Canonical Title prefixed to it by his own Confession. Hence it evidently follows, that some Psalms have Canonical Titles: And if some be Canonical, the Titles of all the rest must be so, for no Reason can be given, why some should be Divine, and others Humane, since all are equally Ancient, and of the same date, for any thing can be made appear to the Contrary.  
If the Words be Canonical in 2 Sam. 22, they are undeniable so in Psalm 18. until the Rector can prove them added by an un-inspired Person, which he'll never be able to do with all the help that F. Simon, or any of that Tribe can afford him.  
iv My 4th Argument was, That other Titles must be prefixed by the Penman, or by a Person Divinely inspired, for they refer to Passages of History not mentioned in the body of the Psalm. I instanced in Psalm, 3. and 30. and 34. and 54. and 56. and 90.  
To this he answers, Tho' there be no particular and very obvious Expressions relating to historical Passages, there are general Ones, which gave the Collectors of the Book of Psalms occasion of affixing those Titles to them. p. 10.  
The general Expressions he talks of could never have directed 'em to such particular Events as some Titles refer to. As for Instance, in Psalm 3. No general Passages there can be applied more to Absalon than to Saul, or others of David's Enemies, but that the Title of the Psalm directs us to refer them to Absalon, when David fled before him.  
The Title of the 30 Psalms, is a Psalm or Song at the Dedication of the House of David. There is not one Passage in this Psalm that the most observing Man could have applied to this Occasion, rather than any other joyful Event, if the Holy Ghost had not prefixed this Inscription.  
The like may be said of Pslam 34. which was Penned when David changed his behaviour before Abimelech, as the Title assures us, but there is nothing in the body of the Psalm but what might be equally applied to other deliverances.  
The same may be affirmed of the other Psalms I mentioned above, especially of Psalm 90. A Prayer of Moses the Man of God.  
But saith the Rector, tho' Moses and the Israelites be not mentioned in Psalm 90. yet many Verses of that Psalm, particularly the 9th and 10th, were thought to allude to the Condition of the Israelites in the Wilderness, whose Stubbornness God punished by cutting their Lives short, i. e. reducing 'em to Seventy or Eighty Years.  
True, it alludes to the Condition of the People in the Wilderness, but who would have thought so, if the Title had not directed Interpreters to apply it to the State of Israel in the Wilderness? The Title occasioned this Application, and it was not the Application which occasioned the Title, as he without Reason imagines. Here, as in many other Psalms, the Title is a Key that opens the design and meaning of the Holy Ghost in the body of the Psalm, as we find well observed by the late Learned Archbishop Sancroft, in a Sermon upon a public Occasion on Psalm 57 1.  
But saith our Author, if the Titles refer to Passages of History not mentioned in the body of the Psalm, this is a good Argument that they are not Canonical, but the Conjectures of mere Men, which is the Reason (I suppose) why many Psalms have no Titles at all, and many have none to any Purpose at all. p. 11.  
1st. Tho' the historical Passages be not mentioned in the body of the Psalm, it is sufficient they are mentioned in the Title, and that there is nothing in the Psalm that is inconsistent with it, nay the whole sweetly agrees therewith, and is better understood by the help of the Title, that leads us to the Scope and Occasion of it, which otherwise would be more obscure, and not so intelligible.  
2dly. Several Psalms have no Titles at all, and that's an Argument they are not additional Conjectures, for the same Hands might have given Conjectural Titles to all, as well as to some Psalms, at least such Titles as refer to the Penman, or to the Instruments of Music on which they were sung, etc. but such Psalms as the Jews found without Titles in their Hebrew Bibles, they left without, and they remain so to this day; a sign the Titles are not Conjectures of Men, but the Dictates of the Holy Ghost. It had been an easy thing for bold Conjecturers to have added some sort of Titles to such as are without, and had the Wit of Man the ordering of the Matter, it would have rendered 'em more uniform, and given 'em the same features, and would not have bestowed Titles upon some, and left others without.  
3dly. It would have looked more modest in the Rector to have said, we understand not the Use of many Titles, than boldly, if not blasphemously to affirm, that many are to no Purpose at all. There are many obscure Passages in the Holy Scriptures which we understand not, are they therefore to no Purpose at all? Must they be expunged out of the sacred Oracles? It's well, if the Prophecies of Ezechiel, and John the Divine fall not under the Censure of this Corrupting expunger, for being abstruse and obscure. It's no wonder that a Man who dares thus reproach the Spirit of God, the Author of the Titles of the Psalms, should make no Conscience of reviling his Brethren. We know who said, to what Purpose is this waste? I doubt it is to little Purpose, to Reason with one who is not afraid to Charge the Spirit of God with Impertinencies. It will prove but a sorry Excuse to say he does not take the Titles of the Psalms for Parts of Scripture, he aggravates his Sin by excluding 'em first out of the Canon, and when he has done by exposing 'em to Scorn and Contempt. In like manner do the Deists treat other Parts of Holy Writ, which they think they may safely Ridicule, because they don't believe 'em divinely inspired.   

CHAP. II.  
Containing an Answer to his Objections against the Titles of the Psalms.  
HAVING vindicated my Arguments for the Titles, I shall now consider the Rector's Objections against them.  
1st. His first is this, If some or any one Title may be justly questioned, than this renders all the rest Suspicious: and here he Questions the Titles of the 90 and 34 Psalms, how justly we shall consider presently. p. 11.  
But suppose one or two might be justly suspected to be a Humane Additon, must all the rest be so? The Rector thinks he may justly Question some Things in the Genealogies and Chronology of the Old Testament of our English Bibles, does it follow therefore that all our Scripture-Genealogies and Chronology are suspicious? It must be so according to the Rector's Logic: Thus by attempting to overthrow one Part of Scripture, he levels his Argument in effect against the whole. He tells us in p. 13. That the Book of Psalms has received some Humane Additions, especially at the end of Psalm 72. Here he puts an Argument into the Mouth of an Atheist, that if some or any one Part of the Scripture may be justly questioned (as suppose the Words at the end of Psalm 72. which he saith are manifestly False) than this renders all the rest Suspicious.  
How would the Rector Answer his own Argument? He must grant the Consequence of the Major Proposition, That if some part may be justly questioned, the whole is suspicious, for it is his own Argument against the Titles of the Psalms. He argues (absurdly enough) à parte ad totum. He cannot deny the Minor, for he affirms that some part of Scripture may be justly questioned, as the Titles of Psalm 90. and 34. and the last verse of Psalm 72. He must therefore either acknowledge the weakness of his Premises, or deny the Conclusion, or yield unto an Atheist, that all the Scriptures are suspicious. He can't deny the Conclusion, without exposing the Reputation of a Scholar, nor can he yield it in consistency with that of a Christian: Therefore he must confess the weakness of his Argument, that if one Title be questionable, all the rest are suspicious.  
The Rector here treats the Psalms with the same Justice which he has given the Dissenters; he condemns them all for the supposed Act of One (as in the Story of the Cameronian) and he condemns all the Titles for the sake of one or two, which he thinks fit to Question, as follows.  
The Title of the 90. Psalms (A Prayer of Moses, etc.) seems not to have been Composed by Moses, for the Age of Man in v. 10. is said to be between Seventy and Eighty Years, now the Life of Man in Moses' Time was much longer as appears by the Age of Job, Kohath, Amram, Aaron, Joshua, Miriam, Moses, etc. p. 11, 12.  
He is sensible of the weakness of his own Argument, and therefore adds,  
It must be Confessed, That this Point is bandied by learned Men, and sundry Answers are offered to the Arguments produced, which I will not trouble the Reader with.  
It would have been more honest in him, not to have troubled his Reader with this Argument (which he calls Arguments) produced out of Pool's Synopsis, where he could not but find the Answers of the Learned 
* Vid. Pool. Synop. in Psal. 90. 10. , which doubtless he would have refuted if he had been able. Judge how fairly Mr. G. deals with the Scriptures, he picks up any trifling Objection against 'em, and takes no Notice of the Answers to it, which he will not trouble his Reader with. He is willing to trouble him with perplexing prejudices against the Word of God, but will not trouble him with such Things as may Confirm his Faith.  
I will in a few Words dispatch this Objection.  
1st. Dr. Hamond conceive; that Moses speaks not of the Age of Man as such, but of the short Lives of the Israelites in the Wilderness, where all perished from twenty years Old and upward (except Caleb and Joshua) some at Seventy, others at Eighty, which Year, it should seem by the Words of Moses (Psalm 90. 10.) few exceeded in that State of Pilgrimage.  
2dly. If Moses speaks of the Age of Man, as most Interpreters do think he doth, he must be understood of the ordinary Measure of Man's Life, which is between Seventy and Eighty. He must not be taken strictly, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that this is the ordinary Length of Man's Age, which not many exceed. The Rector has found Nine or Ten that lived beyond Eighty in Moses' Time, and I could Name as many more since that Time that lived above Fourscore Years. Historians report of Johannes de Temporibus, One of the Live-guard to Charles the Great, that he lived three hundred sixty one Years 
* Vid. Lampad. Mellif. Hist. par. 3. p. 234. .  
Parr 
† Fall. worth.  of Aberbury in Shropshire, was about a hundred and fifty Years when he died, and but for Change of Air and Diet in his old Age, might have lived longer. I have heard it affirmed by some that live near that Place, that he did Penance for a Bastard Child in Aberbury Church, when he was a hundred and twenty Years Old. Marshy Stint, who lived within three Miles of Oswestry, was about a hundred and twenty Years Old when she died. Mr. St. Nicholas, a Minister not far from Coventry was near a hundred Years of Age, and I hear he preached within two Years of his Death. Paul the Hermit lived a hundred and thirteen Years, as Jerom 
| In vit. Paul. Erem.  tells us. The Ethiopians generally lived a hundred and twenty Years, and some beyond, as Herodotus affirms 
§ Thal. lib. III. .  
The Rector therefore may as well quarrel with the 90th Psalm itself that asserts Man's Age to be Fourscore Years, as he doth with the Title of it, which applies this Measure to the Israelites in the Wilderness: For there is scarce a Country in which one may not find several Old People that live beyond Fourscore.  
He adds, that several Authors in Pool's Synopsis deliver their Opinion very cautiously, verisimile est Mosem hunc Psalmum composuisse, say they, 'Tis but likely then at most.  
These several Authors in Pool, to which the Rector refers, are but two, Muis and Mollerus, and these he misrepresents, for thus they speak, Verisimile est Mosen, occasione ab cerumnis & miseriis Israelitarum in deserto sumpta, hunc Psalmum composuisse. It is likely that Moses composed this Psalm upon the Occasion of the Troubles and Distresses of Israel in the Wilderness.  
Their Verisimile refers to the Occasion, not to the Penman of the Psalm, but our Candid Author leaves out the middle Words, as not to his purpose. Judge by this what Credit is to be given to his Quotations.  
Gregory Nyssen, saith he, reckons this Psalm among those which had no Title according to the Jews.  
If Gregory Nyssen saith so, whom I have not by me, it's likely he speaks of some of the Greek Translations: sure I am, the Hebrew Copies and the LXX. Version have the same Title with that in our English Bibles, and so they had in Jerom's Time 
* Hierom. in Psal. 90. , who flourished about the same Time with Gregery Nyssen. The Targum, Syr. and Arabit Versions ascribe it to Moses.  
Indeed some who allow this Title to be Authentic, conceive that David is the Author, and that it is accommodated to Moses and the State of the Church under him. Theodoret mentions some that were of that Opinion, some saith he, do say, That great David wrote it, but that he adapted it to Divine Moses 
* Theodor. in Psal. 89. Secund. Gr. .  
That which led 'em to this Error was a prevailing Opinion that all the Psalms were penned by David, which is certainly a great mistake, 2 Chron. 29. 30. Austin, Chrysostom, Bede, and several Jewish Doctors were of this Opinion 
† Vid. Hotting. The saur. Philoleg. lib. 2. Sect. 3. .  
Thus I have vindicated the Title of the 90th Psalm, against the Rector's trifling Exceptions.  
In the next Place he Questions the Title of the Psalm, 34. A Psalm of David, when he changed his Behaviour before Abimelech, who drove him away, and he departed. The King of Gath here meant is called Achish, 1 Sam. 21. 10. and not Abimelech, from whence the Truth of this Title may be doubted. We are told indeed that Abimelech was a common Name of the Kings of the Philistines, as Caesar was of the Roman Emperors. But I am not satisfied with this. For I read but of one, at most two successive Philistine Kings of that Name, Gen. 20. and 26. This was in Abraham and Isaac's days, but to fancy that the Name of Abimelech was continued among the Philistine Kings unto the days of David about eight hundred Years is not very likely, we meeting not with any one King so called in that Interval of Time, save one of the Kings of Israel, Judg. 9 6. nor is the Achish King of Gath any where called Abimelech, except in this Title. That which might give Occasion to this Mistake, is the mention that is made of Abimelech the High Priest in 1 Sam. 21. whose Congress with David takes up the nine first Verses of that Chapter. p. 12, 13.  
To all this I answer,  
1st. It was usual in ancient Times for great Persons to have two Names, so had Shem, who according to many, is called Melchizedek 
| Light. Vol. 1. p. 12.  So had Joseph, Gen. 41. 45. Jetkro is called Revel, Exod. 2. 18. and 3. 1. Gideon, Jerubbaal, Judg. 7. 1. Eliakim has a new Name upon his Advancement, 2 Kin. 23. 34. So had Daniel and his three Companions. It was usual with Princes, especially in the Eastern Countries to assume new Names, when they entered upon their Government, and they were called afterwards indifferently by either of both Names. Thus Achish seems to be the Name of the King of Gath, when a private Person, and Abimelech a Name he might assume upon his Advancement to the Throne, to conciliate the good Will of his Subjects, for Abimelech implies that a King should be a Father to his People.  
2dly. Abimelech seems to have been the common Name of the Philistine Kings (when they had any) as Pharaoh was of the Kings of Egypt, Agag of Amalek, Num. 24. 7. 1 Sam. 15. 8. Darius and Artaxerxes of the Kings of Persia. This Opinion is very Ancient, how despicable soever it seems to the Rector, who finding it in some modern Commentators in Pool's Synopsis, fancied they were the Authors of it. It's mentioned by Basil, as the received Opinion of that Age, that the Kings of the Philistines were called by the common Name of Abimelech, tho' each of 'em had a proper Name by which he was called besides: And this Account, saith he, we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by tradition 
§ Basil. hom. in Psal. 33. Gr. edit. Paris. 1618. .  
3dly. But the Rector is not satisfied with this, because he finds no one King of the Philistines so called from Isaac's days unto David's Time, for about eight hundred Years. And good Reason for it, for he cannot find any King at all of the Philistines so much as mentioned in all that interval of Time. We read of the Lord's of the Philistines in Samson's Time, Judg. 16. 5, 30. and in the days of Samuel, 1 Sam. 5. 8. and 1 Sam. 6. 4. It should seem their Government was Aristocratical, by the Nobles, as far as we have any Account of it, for the Time he mentions: And then no wonder, he can find no King called Abimelech amongst the Philistines. In David's Time the ancient Government by Kings is revived, and therewith the Name of the ancient Kings, perhaps to render the new Government more familiar to the People. And it should seem even in David's Time, their Kings were little more than titular, 1 Sam. 29. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. But whether they had Kings or no between Isaac's and David's Time is not material to the Point in Hand; it's enough that none are mentioned in the sacred History of one Name or another.  
4thly. All that are acquainted with History will own that Pharaoh was a common Name of the Kings of Egypt, and it is Evident from Genesis, Exodus, i. e. two Books of Kings, etc. And yet we read of no King of Egypt so called from that Pharaoh which was drowned in the Red Sea, unto another of the same Name in Solomon's Time for the space of above four hundred Years. Does it follow therefore that Pharaoh was not a common Name of the Kings of Egypt? No more will it follow that Abimelech was not the common Name of the Kings of the Philistines. Nothing can be inferred from the silence of Scripture History about the Continuance of these two Royal Names, for so long a tract of Time, for it is not the business of the Inspired Historians to give us the Histories of Egypt and Palestine, nor are they so much as mentioned but with some respect to the Church of God, whose History they professedly handled.  
5thly. It is a very odd Conjecture of his, that Abimelech is inserted for Abimelech mentioned in 1 Sam. 21. what an ignorant Fellow doth he make the Penman of this Title to be, that he should not only mistake 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which have no affinity either in form or sound, in substituting Abimelech for Abimelech, but, which is worse, that he should put Abimelech the High Priest of Israel, for Achish King of Gath, an uncircumcised Philistine? The Jews were not such Strangers to their own History, or to that of the Philistines, their implacable Enemies, and near Neighbours, as to know no difference between a Holy Priest and a Profane Prince.  
But suppose some ignorant Hand had put Abimelech for Achish, as he Fancies, can we imagine the Jewish Church, to whom were Committed the Oracles of God, to be so careless or perfidious as not to discover and rectify this Error? Can it possibly escape the Masorites, who observes with the greatest Exactness all the various Readins, and Anomalies of the Letters and Vowels? This is a new Discovery, the Honour of which is reserved for our Hypercritical Rector, who may in good Time set up for a Corrector of the Masora. Perhaps so inquisitive a Man can tell us who Corrupted this Title, and it's well if the poor Dissenter can escape his Censure, for here is Abimelech, a High Priest, expunged, and altered into Abimelech; his profound Sagacity may discover a Design against Episcopacy in this Corruption also, for one of the Great Arguments for the Episcopal Eminency is taken from the Levitical Priesthood.  
6thly. Suppose I should grant unto him that Abimelech is put for Abimelech, this might be without any such mistake of Abimelech for Achish as he fancied, for Abimelech and Abimelech are used of the same Person, 2 Sam. 8. 17. and 1 Chron. 18. 16. Dr. Lightfoot 
* Vol. I. p. 57  conceives that this Title is Applicable to both the Stories in 1 Sam. 21. both to David's dissembling behaviour before Abimelech, who is called Abimelech in 1 Chron. 18. 16. and to his changing his Behaviour before Achish, the Philistines King, for those Kings were commonly called by the Name Abimelech, Gen. 20. and 26.  
From the whole it appears, that his Cavils against the Title of the 34th Psalm, are as groundless as those against the 90th Psalm, and farther this Deponent saith not. He does not pretend to except against any of the rest, tho' he would have all displaced out of the sacred Canon.  
Let's now review his Argument, If some, or if any one Title may be justly Questioned, than this renders all the rest Suspicious: To which I oppose this, If some, or if any one Title be unjustly Questioned (as he has done those of the 34th and 9th Psalm), than his Suspicions of all the rest are unjust. This Gentleman is a very Suspicious Man, he not only unjustly questions one or two of the Sacred Titles, but takes occasion to suspect all the rest. The Dissenters may well bear the feeble Efforts of his malignant Suspicions, since the Divine Penman can't escape them.  
2dly. His next Argument to prove the Titles a Human Addition is taken from those Words tacked to Psalm 72. 20. the Prayers of David the Son of Jesse are ended, which is manifestly False, if the Titles of the Psalms be True, especially that of Psalm 142. Besides the Psalms that follow the 72. are as truly Prayers as they which go before it. Some body then, not inspired, has either transposed the Psalm or else added to them the foresaid Words, being either misplaced or thrust into the Text. The like may have been done at the beginning of the Psalms by prefixing Titles to them. 
* Remarks on Remarks, p. 13.   
The Rector is one of those who Affects to Quarrel with the Holy Scriptures, which he seems to read with Design to seek Occasion against them. He endeavours to prove Psalm 72. 20. to be manifestly False, because more Prayers of David are mentioned afterward. This is a very bold Challenge to the inspired Writings. Would you think this the Language of a Protestant Minister, or of a Porphyry, a Celsus, or a Julian? To charge any part of the sacred Scriptures with manifest Falsehood is to give the Lie to the God of Truth. Suppose we should not be able to reconcile this Verse to other Passages of the Psalms, does it follow it is not reconcilable? It had been more modest in the Rector to have confessed his own Ignorance, than to have charged the Holy Oracles with Falsehood. There are many seeming Contradictions in the Scripture, which learned Men have taken as much Pains to reconcile, as the Enemies of Truth have done to aggravate and expose, to the Reproach and Prejudice of Christianity. I will imitate the former (as the Rector has done the latter) and Vindicate this Text from his ignorant or malicious Exceptions.  
1st. It's generally thought that the Psalms were collected into the Order we have 'em by Ezra, the Scribe, and an inspired Prophet. This is affirmed by Hilary 
† Prologue. in Psal.  Athanasius 
| In Synops.  and Jerom 
§ In ep. ad Sophron.  And if so, it becomes us not to Quarrel with the Order of the Psalms whosoever the Gollector was, they have been received by the Jewish and Christian Church, as digested into the present Order.  
2dly. The modern Hebrew Copies have this Verse, so had the Copy which the LXX. Interpreters used, for it is Translated by them, as it is by Jerom, which is an Evidence it was in the Ancient Copies. If the Rector could have produced any one Copy in which this Verse was wanting it might have given some colour to his Exceptions; but if Men may be allowed to Charge the Divine Scripture with manifest Falsehood, where we find a perfect Harmony in the Hebrew Copies, Ancient and Modern, I tremble to think what an Advantage is given to the Enemies of Christianity, which swarm among us, and seek all Occasions to Reproach the Scriptures. The Rector has been so kind to 'em as to furnish them with one Instance of a manifest Falsehood in them, for which Piece of Service, they can't but reckon themselves highly obliged to him.  
3dly. It is True, there is a seeming inconsistency between this Verse, that affirms the Prayers of David to he ended, and the several Prayers in the following Psalms, but it is to be observed, that the Ancient Jews divided the Psalms into five Books, the 1st. Book ending at Psalm 41, with Amen, Amen. The 2d. at 72, with Amen, Amen, and the Verse which the Rector Questions. The 3d at Psalm 89, with Amen and Amen. The 4th at 106, with Amen, hallelujah. The 5th at 150, with hallelujah. This division is followed by the Syriac, and Arabic Translators, as also by R. David Kimhi. It's mentioned by Jerom, Austin, and several others. If we allow this Division of the Psalms, which I find also in our Hebrew Bibles, the Sense is clear, the Prayers of David are ended, i. e. the Prayers contained in this second Book, of which these Words are the Conclusion, and then follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the third Book of the Psalms, as it is in several of our Hebrew Copies.  
4thly, The learned Grotius conceives that these words refer to the Collection of the Psalms made by David. Finitur hic Collectio Psalmorum ab ipso Davide facta, etc. The Collection of Psalms made by David (saith he) ends here, those that follow are added by Asaph, and others, and last of all by Ezra; tho' there are amongst these some that are composed by David, but after this Volume of Collections was finished 
* Grot. in loc. ex Pool. Synops. . Junius and Tremellius speak to the same purpose. The end of those Prayers (i. e. Psalms and Hymns) which David gathered together into this Book, and placed in this Order for the Use of the Church of God, etc. 
† Jun. & Trem. in Ps. 72. 20.   
5thly. We may read the Words thus, the Prayers of David are fulfilled, or consummated. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is thus rendered in several Places. Targ. completae sunt Orationes Davidis filii Issai. According to this reading the Sense is plain and easy. The blessings of Christ's Kingdom, of which this Psalm treats, contain the Sum of David's Prayers and Desires, which are Fulfilled and Consummated in the Glory of Christ's Kingdom.  
This Sense well agrees with the scope of this prophetical Psalm, especially with the foregoing Verse, Psalm 72. 19 let the whole Earth be filled with his Glory, Amen, Amen. Then it follows Verse, 20. The Prayers of David the Son of Jesse are ended, or fulfilled, q. d. when this is accomplished, I have my Prayers fulfilled and answered. In this Sense the Hebrew Doctors understood the Place, as Muis represents them. When the Messiah comes, and the Things prophesied in this Psalm come to pass, then shall the Prayers of David be fulfilled 
| Cum venerit Messiah, & haec contigerint quae hoc carmine praedicuntur, enimvero tunc implebuntur Orationes seu Vota Davidis. Muis in loc. .  
This is sufficient to Vindicate this Scripture from that manifest Falsehood, with which the Rector boldly Charges it. Both Jewish and Christian Expositors receive this Verse with the same Veneration as they do the rest of the Psalm, and they Comment upon it, instead of expunging it out of the Canon. It's a new way of explaining Difficulties and reconciling seeming Contrarieties, to say the Text is manifestly False. Let the World judge whether this Man be not a Corrupter of the Word of God, who would expunge a whole Verse out of our Bibles, for no other Reason but because he either could not reconcile it with other Scriptures, or was not willing to have it reconciled, that he might have a colourable Argument against the Titles of the Psalms.  
He allows in his Sermon (p. 2.) that we Corrupt the Word of God, when we Diminsh from it: And tho' he maliciously Charges the whole Body of Dissenters with Corrupting the Word of God, he has not been able to Name any one Person that has Corrupted it: But I can Name unto him a Person that has done so, and that is one Mr. Thomas Gipps, the Author of Remarks upon Remarks. The Person is well known in his Country, tho' I can't tell whether the Rector knows him or no: This Man I have taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the very Fact, Corrupting the Word of God by Diminishing from it not only the Titles of the Psalms, but a whole Verse, e. g. Psalm 72. 20. He can't deny the Fact, for he has published it to the World under his Hand, he has no way by which he can hope to come off but by justifying what he has done, and for that he is furnished with as good a Stock of Impudence as most Men living, for he will not Blush to Affirm that some Things in the Bible are manifestly False, when it serve to make his Notions seemingly True.  
III. But I proceed to his 3d Argument against the Titles.  
There are Titles added to very many Psalms in the LXX. Version, which are not to be met with in the Hebrew, e. g. Psalm 137. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jeremy composed this Song. I ask then, is this Title Divinely inspired? and yet Jerom Translates and Comments upon it. p. 13.  
I Answers,  
1st. The LXX. Interpreters have added and diminished in abundance of Places besides the Titles of the Psalms. It were easy to give hundr'ds of Instances of this kind. Nothing can be inferred from hence but that the Greek Interpreters took too Great a Liberty of varying from the Original Text.  
2dly. It is uncertain who composed the 137. Psalms, nor is it material for us to know, while we are satisfied he was divinely inspired. Some conceive it was penned by David prophetically, as Isajah wrote of the Burning of the Temple, Isa. 64. 11. So did Asaph of the Destruction of the City and Temple, Psalm 79. and 74. Dr. Hamond is inclined to think it might be penned after the return from the Captivity; and if so, it could not be by Jeremiah, who was dead before.  
3dly. The Addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in the Ancient Copies of the LXX, as Hilary assures us, for thus he speaks, It seemed good to some to prefix the Names of Jeremiah, Haggai and Zechariah to the superscriptions of some Psalms, but none of these are to be found in the Authentic Copies of the LXX. Version 
*— Horum nihil in authenticis LXX. Translatorum Libris ita editum reperiatur. Hil. in Psalm. prol. .  
iv His last Reason is, The Oriental Versions, the Syr. Arab. and Chaldee Paraphrase often wants Titles, frequently change 'em, and sometimes add Titles, where Hebrew and Greek have none, which could never have happened, if they had been Canonical Scripture.  
The Chaldee Paraphrase on the Pentatuch by Onkelos, and that on the Prophets by Jonathan, which are thought to be written about the Times of Christ, are not of that Authority as to bring the Hebrew Copy in question, where they differ from it. I confess they have their Use, both for confirming the Purity of the Hebrew Text, as in Gen. 3. 15. and the Illustration of it, as in Gen. 4. 8. but especially in Controversies against the Jews, where they bear Testimony to the Messiah, as in Gen. 49. 10. Isa. 45. 17, etc. but where they differ from the Hebrew (as they do in a great many Places) we ought to prefer the Fountain before the Streams. In the more obscure Places they follow the LXX. Version, as Munster observes 
† Praefat in Jonam. , and therefore can be of no greater Authority than the LXX. They are not without some Jewish Fables, as in Num. 21. 19 In some Places they depart from the Fountain of Truth, the Hebrew Text, as in Num. 23. 3. and in Deut. 4. 28. and 28. 64. where it is foretold that the Israelites should serve other Gods, the Chaldee Paraphrase transfers the Gild of this upon the Heathen. A great deal of this Nature will occur to the observant Reader.  
The Targum, or Paraphrase on the Hagiographa, among which the Jews reckoned the Psalms, was made about the Year of Christ, 600, and is of less Authority than the two Former. This also varies from the Hebrew Text in multitudes of Places besides the Titles of the Psalms.  
The Syriac, which is Ancient, tho' in many Places it follows the Hebrew, yet in others it differs from it, in several of which it follows the LXX.  
The Arabic Version generally follows the Syriac 
| Prolegom. in Pol. Synop. , and therefore deserves no particular consideration.  
So that this Argument of the Rector proves nothing in Prejudice of the Titles of the Psalms, without affecting other Parts of Scripture, which are differently rendered in the Oriental Versions. Thus our Author by attempting to destroy the Titles of Psalm, has produced an Argument which equally depreciates the Authority of most, if not all the Books of the Old Testament, Theodoret Censures some who thought the Inscriptions of the Psalms to be False, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And adds, To me it seems great Rashness to alter the Inscriptions, which were in being in the Time of Ptolemy, who reigned in Egypt after Alexander, and were Translated by the LXX. Elders into the Greek Tongue, as was the rest of the Holy Scripture 
* Theod. proefat. in Psalm. .  
The Rector adds, that there is not one Title in the Hebrew which is at all useful to the unfolding any Mysteries relating to Jesus Christ. p. 15.  
This is confidently spoken after his Manner, but the Ancient Fathers were of another Mind. They apply the Title of the 22d. Psalms to Jesus Christ. To the Chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, i: e. the Morning Hind, so Jerom explains it, Jesus Christ, saith he, is the only Hind or Deer who destroys Serpents and takes away Poisons, as is Evident by the Contexture of the whole Psalm 
† Sed nos cervum— nullum alium nisi Christum intelligimus, sicus-totius Psalmi contextus ostendit. Hieron. in Psal. Tom. VIII. .  
He is followed by the greatest part of our modern Learned Commentators, The LXX. render it, for the Morning Assumption, and this, saith the same Learned Father, signifies the Mystery of the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ unto the Father 
| Hier. ibid. .  
Theodores also applies this Title to Jesus Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— The Morning Assumption is the appearance of our Saviour, who did shine as the Morning upon them that sat in Darkness, for the Lord is the true Light 
§ Theod. in Psal. 22. .  
They apply the Title of the 30th Psalm (a Psalm— at the Dedication of the House of David) to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Dedication of the House, the Renovation of the human Nature, which our Lord Christ perfected, when he died for us, and destroyed Death, and gave us hope of a blessed Resurrection 
* Theod. in Psal. 29. Gr. .  
To the same purpose speaks Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The Spiritual meaning signifies the Assuming of a Human Body by the Divine Word, and the Title refers to the Dedication of that House which was built a new, and in a wonderful manner 
† Basil. in loc. .  
They apply 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Greek Title of several Psalms (we render the Hebrew Chief Musician) to the Resurrection and the End of the World 
| Vid. Basil. hom. in Psal. 44. and 45. and 48. .  
Had the Rector been as conversant with Jesus Christ, as the Ancient Fathers were, he might have found him even in the Titles of the Psalms.  
Others of them direct us to the Author, Occasion, Intention and Use of the Psalm, which greatly contribute to the right Understanding of it. Some others refer to the Meeter and Instruments, on which they were to be Sung: These the Hebrew Doctors confess their Ignorance of. But it does not follow, if some of them be unintelligible to us, that all aught to be expunged out of the Canon. There are several other Things in the Holy Scripture hard to be understood, which must not therefore be rejected: And many of the Titles are easy and plain, and are therefore Translated into English.  
If the Titles are Original and Essential Parts of Scriptures, as I have clearly proved, the Rector is yet to Account, why they are left out of the Liturgy-Psalms, and why a more imperfect Version of the Psalms comes to be preferred to the more Correct, which came out in King James the I. his Time. The new Translation which is in our English Bibles, and has the Titles, is never read in the Congregation; and the old imperfect Translation, which varies in several Places from it, and in some is contrary to it (as in Psalm 105. 28.) is constantly used in our public Assemblies. And it is more unaccountable yet, that we must give our Assent and Consent to the unperfect Translation, when we have a better in our Bibles: These are Mysteries the Rector is perhaps better able to unfold, than he is the Mysteries concerning Jesus Christ in the Titles of the Psalms.  
He asked us in his Sermon, why they are not done into English? I answered, the Bishops could best resolve the Question, whose Translation we Use. The Rector is pleased with this Concession of Mind, and wishes the Dissenters to take Notice, That the Scriptures being in the English Tongue is owing to the Bishop's Labours, Learning and Piety.  
We think not the worse of any good Thing, because it comes to us through the Hands of the Bishops, for whose Learning and Piety we have a just Esteem: And yet as to this Point I must crave his Pardon for that slip of my Pen, in calling the present English Version, the Bishop's Translation, for I don't find one Bishop among the XLVII. Translators nominated by King James the I. It's True, some were made Bishops afterwards, and it's as True, that some others, as Mr. Lively, Dr. Reynolds, etc. Had not great Zeal for imposed Ceremonies. Several of them were fellows of Emanuel in Cambridge, which the Rector saith, was a Nursery of Puritans. In their Instructions they were to use Tindals, Matthews, the Geneva, etc. Translations, when they agreed better with the Text than that which was called the Bishop's Bible. 
* Full. Ch. hist. lib. 10. Sect. 3.  I wish the Rector do not quarrel with his Bible for having some Strokes of the Geneva, or Presbyterian-Translation.  
But, saith he, the Dissenters leave the Titles out of their Psalms in Meter, nor do they Sing 'em.  
It's very True, nor were they designed to be Sung, as all will Acknowledge, and it's Plain that some of 'em are Directions about the Manner of Singing, which the Jews themselves are Ignorant of. But it does not follow that because they are left out of the Psalms in Meter, that they ought to be left out in the Prose also? Many Passages of Scripture are improper to be Sung, must we not therefore read them? And I am apt to think the Reason why they were left out of the Liturgy-Psalms was because they were intended to be Sung, as they are still in Cathedrals, and the Rubric allows it in Parish Churches: Now since the Psalms are Read and not Sung in our Parochial Assemblies, the Titles which are Part of Scripture, ought not to be expunged out of the reading Psalter. They can't be well Sung, nor were designed for that End, and therefore are left out of the Singing Psalms; but 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 'em is an innocent Omission, but the Rector's Attempt of thrusting 'em out of the Holy Canon is vile and impious.   

CHAP. III.  
Being a Vindication of Jerom, and of the Purity of the Hebrew Text in Psalm 14. with a short Account of Isaac Vossius, whom the Rector follows in advancing the LXX. Version above the Hebrew Copies.  
THE Rector has two or three Pages in his Sermon to Vindicate the three additional Verses in the Liturgy-Translation of the Psalms, in Psalm 14. after Verse the 3d. which run thus, Their Throat is an open Sepulchre, with their Tongues have they deceived, etc. These he thinks are left out of the Hebrew Copies by the Carelessness of the Transcribers, rather than thrust into the Greek by the Translators; and St. Paul in Rom. 3. has subjoined 'em immediately to the 3d. Verse of the 14th. Psalm.  
To this I answered out of Jerom, that these additional Verses were Transcribed out of the Epistle to the Romans, into the LXX, that they were not in the Authentic Copies of the LXX, and that none of the Greek Interpreters have Commented upon them.  

* Rem. on Rem. p. 18.  The Rector here protests against Jerom, as unfit to be a Witness in this Case, and says, he cared not what in his Heat he said or wrote for the Support of his own Opinion.  
1st. Why does he not Protest also against the Greek Interpreters for not Commenting on those Verses, or Produce some that have? If none of the Greek Interpreters before Jerom's Time have Commented on them, as they did on the rest of the Psalm, it is a very clear Evidence that either they were not in their Copies of the LXX. or that they looked upon them as an Addition to the Psalm.  
2dly. I doubt the Rector measures this Holy Man by himself. Indeed some have thought him too sharp in his Eristical Writings, but the Rector perhaps is the first Man that ever questioned his Veracity and Honesty. A Man that in his Heat cares not what he saith or writes, is certainly a very ill Man. It may be the Rector had this venerable Pattern in his Eye when he published his Sermon about Corrupting the Word of God. He owns himself in a Heat, Serm, p. 27. and then he was at Liberty to say or write what he pleased, in imitation of St. Jerom, to support his own Opinion, or expose a Party.  
But the mischief on't is, he misrepresents Jerom as much as he does the Dissenters. All Men but the Rector will acknowledge Jerom to be one of the greatest Lights of his Age. Austin, his Cotemporary, saith his Divine Eloquence did shine as a Lamp from East to West 
† Aug. come. Julian. 1. 7.  Cassian calls him, Catholicorum magistrum— the Master of Orthodox Catholics, whose Writings shine as Divine Lamps through the whole World. 
| Joh. Cassian. count Nestor.  Sulpicius Severus after the highest Encomium of him for the Merit of his Faith, his eminent Virtues, and incomparable Skill in the learned Languages, adds, concivit odia perditorum 
§ Dialog. 1.  he stirred up the hatred of some wretched Fellows against himself: Heretics hated him (saith he), because he constantly opposed them, the Clergy hated him, because he Censures their vicious Lives; but all good Men admire and love him.  
It's evident the Rector neither admires, nor loves him, for what Reasons he knows best, but by what follows, one would be apt to think he hates him, for he odiously misrepresents in these Words.  
Jerome arguing for the Hebrew against the LXX, because forsooth, St. Luke, (Acts 7. 14.) agreed not with the Hebrew Text but with the LXX, 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.  
And a little after he saith, He is unworthy to be believed in any thing be affirms, upon this point in Controversy, or indeed in any else.  
The transcribing of the whole Passage will set this matter in a true light, and convince the Reader how basely the Rector abuses Jerome.  
His Words are these, St. Luke, who is a Writer of that History, and publishes the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, for the use of the Gentiles, ought not to write any thing that is inconsistent with that Scripture, which was already made public to the Nations: For indeed the authority of the LXX Interpreters was for that time only in more repute than that of Luke, who was unknown, and of no account, and in no great estimation or credit among the Nations 
† Non enim debuit Sanctus Lucus, qui ipsius Historiae scriptor est, in gentes actuum Apostolorum volumen emittens, contrarium aliquid scribere adversus eam Scripturam quae jam fuerat gentibus divulgata. Et ubique majoris Opinionis ille duntaxat tempore LXX Interpretum habebatur auctoritas quam Lucae qui ignotis & vilis, & non magnae fidei in nationibus ducebatur. Quaest. seu Trad. Hebr. in Gen. .  
Is there any thing in these Words that reflects a scurvy Character upon the Holy Evangelist? All will own that the Lxx Version was known to the World before St. Luke was, and the Gentiles had no way to examine the truth of his Allegations out of the Old Testament, but by comparing 'em with their Greek Bibles. He was neither known nor esteemed by the generality of the Gentiles, until his Writings made him so, which were the more esteemed for their agreement with that Version of the Old Testament which they had among them. Dr. Lightfoot speaks to the same purpose with Jerome. Whereas the New Testament was to be wrote in Greek, and come into the hands chief of the Gentiles, it was most agreeable, I may say, most necessary for them to follow the Greek Copies, as being what the Gentiles were only capable of consulting.  
Jerome doth not say, that St. Luke was vilus & non magnae fidei, but ducebatur, he was so accounted in the Nations, who at that time were strangers to him, and had a greater Veneration for the Lxx than for his Writings. And if the Gentiles esteemed him ignotus & vilis, it was no more than as the Athenians esteemed St. Paul, Acts 17. 18. The Rector may as well condemn St. Luke for saying that St. Paul was accounted a Babbler at Athens, as Jerome for affirming that St. Luke was accounted ignotus & vilis in nationibus.  
Jerome could not impose upon his Reader, when he affirmed the additional Verses in Psalm 14. were not in the Lxx, for he appeals to the Greek Commentators, who all set a Mark upon them, and pass them by 
* Denique omnes Graeciae Tractatores, qui nobis Eruditionis sui in Psalmos Commentarios reliquerunt, hos versiculos veru annotant, atque praetereunt, liquido confirentes in Hebraeo non haberi, nec esse in Lxx Inter. Proaem. Hieron. in lib. 16. in Isa. .  
Nor has the Rector be●n able to produce one that hath Commented upon 'em.  
Brugensis saith, They are not to be found in most of our Greek Copies, both M S. and Printed, Vatican, and others 
§ Non leguntur— in plerisque Graecis exemplaribus, tam impressis, tam manuscriptis, Vaticanis & aliis. Brug. in Pol. Synop. ad Ps. 14. .  
Since the Rector excepts against Jerome as a Man unworthy to be believed in any thing, I will confirm his Testimony by another of Origen's, who saith, the Apostle took these Verses ex variis Scripturae locis 
* Orig. Com. in epist. ad Rom. , from several places of Scripture, by which words its evident, that they were not in the Lxx, nor in the Hebrew Text in the Fourteenth Psalm in Origen's time, who lived above an Age before Jerome was known in the World. And this Testimony is the more considerable, because Origen had a genuine Copy of the Lxx, which he exhibited in his Hexapla, and understood the Hebrew, which very few of the Fathers did, besides him and Jerome.  
Grotius follows Jerome and Origen, and affirms, that St. Paul took these Verses partly out of the Psalms, partly out of Isaiah 
† Vtitur hic Paulus diversis sententiis, tum ex Psalmis, rum ex Esaia. Grotius in Rom 3. 10. in Pol. Syn. , and this is the received Opinion of the Learned,  
But saith the Rector, Jerome confesseth the Verses are in vulgata Editione quae Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) dicitur, & in toto orbe diversa est; and adds, I do not well understand him, but it seems the Copies then in ordinary use had the said Verses, though Jerome's had 'em not, if he is to be credited, Remark on Remark, p. 18.  
I will charitably relieve the Rector's ignorance, and help him to understand what Jerome means by his versio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or vulgar Version. It was a most corrupt Version of the Lxx, but the true Copy, saith St. Jerome, is to be found in Origen's Hexapla, and is faithfully translated by me into the Latin Tongue, and is used at Jerusalem, and in the Eastern Churches, and remains pure and incorrupt in the Books of the Learned 
§ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ipsa est quae & Lxx, sed hoc interest inter utramque quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro locis & temporibus, & pro voluntate scriptorum corruptae editio est. Hieron. ad Sun. & Tretell. Tom. III. .  
This is the Version to which Jerome appealed, and of which he affirms, that it had not the interpolated Verses in Ps. 14. This genuine Version was publicly used in the Eastern Churches, and at Jerusalem, which was but 35 Furlongs, or about 4 Miles 1/2 distant from Bethlehem, where Jerome lived (Just. Mart. Apol. 2.) and therefore any body might easily disprove him, had he misrepresented matter of Fact.  
Now let any Man judge what an indecent thing it is in our Rector to blacken Jerome's Memory with the Imputation of the most impudent and most foolish Lie, which Thousands of that Age could have detected, and he wanted not Adversaries that would have sufficiently exposed him upon such an occasion. His Friend Rufinus would have aggravated a Crime of this Nature, and made the World sensible of it long ago.  
But whence is all this Spite at poor Jerome? The Rector is a Man that cannot suppress (tho' he endeavours it) the reasons of his Resentments. He calls Jerome, before he was ware, the Presbyterian Father. These Presbyterians are a sad sort of People, the very mention of their Name puts the Rector into a visible Disorder, and raises such a Commotion in his Spirits, as if he were haunted by a Legion of Presbyterian Ghosts. His hatred to them is such, that he cannot forbear spitting his Venom at every body that seems to favour their Principles.  
This is Father Jerome's fault, which the Rector cannot forgive him. He hath proved Bishops and Presbyters were one and the same in the Apostles times, and that the difference between them was by Ecclesiastical Custom, and not by Divine Disposition. 
* Hier. Comment. in Ep. ad Tit.   
It's well if St. Peter, St. Paul and St. John fall not under his displeasure, as Presbyterian Fathers, for Jerome brings his Proofs out of their Epistles. I presume the Candid Reader will not believe the Rector when he charges the Presbyterians with lying and abusing Scripture, for Jerome himself, the Presbyterian Father, can't escape his Censure.  
He is very angry with me (p. 19) For endeavouring to make my Party believe he designed to depress the Authority of the Hebrew Copies. Surely, this Minister, saith he, never considers what he writes.  
It's well if the Rector considers what he does, in giving occasion to this Charge, which I shall abundantly confirm. He saith in his Sermon, p. 9 That it is more probable the Three controverted Verses might be left out of the Hebrew Copies, by the carelessness of the Transcribers, than thrust into the Greek by Translators.  
Here he evidently depresseth the Authority of the Hebrew Copies, and prefers the Lxx before them: Nay, By this Rule we must receive all the Additions of the Lxx (which are exceeding many) as Canonical, and suppose 'em left out of the Hebrew Copies by the carelessness of the Transcribers, e. g. they add a whole Psalm at the end of the Psalm about David's Victory over Goliath: They add a Verse concerning the Knives of Stone with which the Israelites were Circumcised at Gilgal, that they were laid up in Timnath-Serah, and afterwards in Joshua's Grave, Josh. 21. 42. and 24. 30. They add to Exod. 24. 10. Instead of they saw the God of Israel, they read, they saw the place where God stood. They add a whole Paragraph at the end of Joshua, Joshua 24. 33. They have a long Verse in Job 1. 9 in which they represent Job's Wife scolding at her Husband. They add to the end of Job 42. 17.  
I could instance in some Hundreds of Additions to, and Variations from the the Hebrew Text. Now all these must be admitted to the prejudice of the Hebrew Copy, and of our English Bibles (which have 'em not) according to the Rector's way of reasoning.  
The Rector obstinately asserts the Authority of the Lxx, which he is inclined to believe to be divine; vindicates the additional Verses in the fourteenth Psalm, against the Hebrew Bibles that have them not; professedely charges our Hebrew Text with several Corruptions, and those in things very material (which I shall consider presently) and yet confidently tells us, 'twas never in his thoughts to depress the Hebrew, p. 19  
Sure the Rector does not expect to be believed in what he says. If charging the Bible with gross Corruptions be not a depressing of it, what is? He would have it burnt for one Corruption, and yet the charging it with many Corruptions is no depression to it. We will suppose the Rector at this time had an eye to the Presbyterian Father, and did not care what he said or wrote.  
I told him, If the Lxx be of as good Authority as the Hebrew, it's uncertain what becomes of the Rector's Text, Prov. 30. 6. for it is not in my Edition of the Lxx. Cambr. 1665.  
Here he mightily triumphs that he has found his Text in the Lxx, and (p. 20.) charges me with lying, and want of sincerity and honesty.  
These are words of Course with the Rector, and signify no more than that he is a Man of good breeding, and has a Sett of mannerly expressions, with which he accommodates his friends upon all Occasions.  
It's true, the Text is in the Lxx, but not in its proper place. I looked into the end of the Proverbs, where it ought to be, and not finding it there, concluded it was not in my Septuagint Bible. I have met with it since in Prov. 24. inserted between the 22 and 23 verses, with the addition of 13 or 14 verses more of Pro. 30. The rest of the Chapter, and the beginning of the 31st Chap. to verse 10. I cannot yet find. This Omission and Dislocation is an evidence that our Copies of the Lxx (which are of divine Authority to the Rector) are very imperfect, and may ground a Conjecture, that these Verses were thrust into that place by some ignorant hand, which has made bold with the Lxx in abundance of other places. I find them misplaced not only in the Roman, but also in the Alexandrian Copy.  
It's being rightly placed in the Complutensian and Frankford Editions which the Rector takes notice of (p. 20.) is no Argument that it was in the Ancient Copies of the Lxx, for the Complutensian Bibles, are a new and mixed Version, partly from Origen's Additions out of Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus, 
| Walt. Prolegom. ad Polygl. ix. 28. .  
The Frankford and other Germane Editors have taken the liberty to change and transpose the Order of some Books, Chapters and Verses that they might adapt them to the Hebrew Text, as Dr. Walton observes, 
† Ibid. 29. .  
He suggests that Isaac Vossius has abundantly proved the Hebrew Copy corrupted, and that with much Learning and Judgement.  
I know not how the Rector comes to espouse the Notions of Isaac Vossius, who unworthily disparages our Hebrew Bibles, not only contrary to the Sentiments of his Learned and more Judicious Father Gerhard Vossius, but to the received Opinion of most Protestant Writers, who have with great Learning and Judgement asserted the Purity of the Hebrew Text against the Papists.  
Lindanus, P. Galatinus, Canus, Jacobus Christopolitanus, Gord. Huntlaeus, and many more of the Popish Doctors, have endeavoured to enervate the Purity of the Hebrew Text, in favour of the Latin Version, which the Papists prefer above the Original.  
Among ourselves, Isaac Vossius, and a few more (among whom the Rector seems ambitious to make some little Figure) have deserted the Protestant Doctrine, and conspired with the Romanists to expose the Hebrew Text, as impious and corrupt; for what reasons and ends they know best.  
It will not be much for the Rector's Reputation to lick up Vossius' Spittle, whose Judgement bore no proportion to his great reading, as may appear by the following Passages, which I shall transcribe out of him.  
That Book, saith he, of the Hebrew Bible, is dumb, which no man is able to read or understand, because one half of it is maimed; neither has it any Vowels, but what were given it by the enemies of Christianity 
* Codex ille mutus est, quem nec legere, ne dum intelligere, quisquam sciat. Is. Vos. Resp. ad Nup. Crit. .  
In another place he passes this arrogant Censure on the Learned Translators of the Hebrew Bible.  
I could produce whole Chapters, especially out of the more obscure Books of the Holy Scripture, as Ecclesiastes, Job, Hoshea, and others, in which you will not find so much as one Verse rightly understood, and rendered by the Interpreters of our Age 
| In quibus ne unicus quidem occurrat versiculus, qui à nostri saeculi Interpretibus rectè acceptus & redditus fuerit. De Sibyl. Orac. cap. 13. p. 270. .  
If no Man be able to read or understand the Hebrew Bible, how comes Vossius to understand it? And if he does not understand it, how knows he that the Interpreters of our Age have not Translated aright? If he does understand it, why had he not given us a right Translation of those whole Chapters that are misrendred?  
He repeats his bold Assertion, The Hebrew Book is mute, as being destitute of true Vowels, and tho' we had Vowels, even this would not enable us to Translate it, since we have utterly lost the signification of the words, and the sense which arises from them; even the Jews themselves do not deny this difficulty of interpreting. Resp. ad Obj. p. 325.  
If our Hebrew Bibles be such useless Things as Is. Vossius makes them, it's hard to determine what they are good for: It's well if his admirer Mr. G. does not condemn them to the Flames (as he has done some of our 
* Serm. p. 27.  English Bibles) for the Corruption he finds in them, and their being unintelligible at the best, if we may believe his Friend Vossius, for whose profound Judgement he has so great a Veneration.  
The same Vossius thus reflects on Dr. Lightfoot's Horae Hebraicae & Talmudicae, on 1 Cor. which the learned World justly admires. He seems to me, saith he, to be less faulty who would expound the Gospels out of the Alcoran than out of the Talmud. And a little after he Charges him (as justly as the Rector does the Dissenters with Corrupting the Word of God) with preferring the Authority of the Talmud to that of the Gospel in the Explication of Scripture 
† Voss. Resp. ad Obj. p. 331. 332. .  
He commends Charles the Great for laying aside the Gothick, Saxon and French Languages, and for propagating with his Empire the Latin Tongue, and assigning it the chief Place, 
| Ibid. p. 340.  non in Sacris modo, not only in Religious but in Civil Actions also.  
He calls those that defend the Hebrew Bibles Asellos cassos jumine & intellectu, Asses void of Judgement and Understanding, girt with a Professors Gown, and carrying for their Shield the Masoretic Bible with all its Points 
§ Epist. ad Andr. Colu. .  
Thus much I thought fit to Advertise the Reader concerning Isaac Vossius, whose great Judgement the Rector applauds, and subscribes to in his Opposition to the Hebrew Bible.  
He that makes our Hebrew Bibles to consist in dumb Letters, which no Man can read, much less understand, that Censures the Interpreters of his Age as not rendering so much as one Verse aright in whole Chapters, that speaks favourably of the Use of the Latin Tongue in Religious Worship, is not the most excellent Pattern for a Protestant Minister to follow; but the Rector is of Age to choose his own Masters.   

CHAP. IU.  
Being a Vindication of my Arguments for the Purity of the Hebrew Text.  
I Briefly hinted at two or three Arguments for the Purity of the Hebrew Copies, which. I will now improve and vindicate from the Rector's Exceptions.  
I. I affirmed the Hebrew Copies to have been incorrupt in our Saviour's Time, because he never Charged the Jews with Corrupting the Scriptures.  
The Rector takes no Notice of this Argument, but he saith afterwards (p. 22.) many Corruptions might steal into the Hebrew Text, and designedly be thrust into it before Christ's Time.  
He dare not say, there were any thrust into it, but he slily insinuates there might be: He deals here with the sacred Text, as he has done with Dissenters, he brings it under Suspicion, when he wants direct Proof.  
If the Jews before the Birth of Christ had designedly Corrupted the Holy Bible, doubtless we should have heard of it in the History of the New Testament. We are told there that the Oracles of God were Committed to them, Rom. 3. 2. They were made the Conservators of the Divine Writings, which were concredited to them.  
Had they betrayed so great a Trust, and perfidiously falsified the Holy Scriptures, can we imagine that Christ and his Apostles would have overlooked so horrid a wickedness, attended with a train of the most fatal Consequences? Jesus Christ was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was in all his House: Moses as a Servant, but Christ as a Son over his own House. Moses his Fidelity consisted in his Care to transmit the Divine Laws pure and incorrupt to the People as he received them in the Mount: Had these Laws been Corrupted by the wickedness of after Ages, doubtless the Lord Jesus would have restored 'em to their Original Purity. It cannot be conceived that the Son should be less concerned for the Laws of his House than the Servant had been. One great end of his Appearance was to Reform the Corruptions of the Jewish Church, and would he leave their very Laws Vnteformed? He came into the World to bear Witness unto the Truth, and can we think he would have overlooked the Falsehoods of that Book which is the Standard of Truth, had any been thrust into it, as the Rector supposes? He who reproves the Jews for lesser Sins, would never have Connived at so great an Abomination, as the Corrupting of the Hebrew Copies.  
He censures their Corrupt Glosses upon the Law, and Vindicates it from them. Mat. 5. much more would he have noted the Corruptions of the Original Text.  
He bids his Disciples search the Scriptures, hear the Scribes and Pharisees sitting in the Seat of Moses, who was read in the Synagogues every Sabbath day. It's not likely that he would have recommended the Study of corrupted and depraved Scriptures unto his Followers without a necessary Caution against the Errors of them.  
From the whole its Evident that the Scripture of the Old Testament was not Corrupted before the Birth of Christ, nor were they Corrupted after, as appears by the Testimonies which Christ and his Apostles cite out of 'em, which are all for Substance to be found in Moses and the Prophets, as they are cited by them.  
Thus Origen and Jerom anciently argued for the Purity of the Hebrew Text, If the Jews Corrupted the Scriptures (say they), they did it either before or since the coming of Christ: Not before, because Christ and his Apostles do not Charge 'em with it; not after, because the Allegations made by Christ and his Apostles out of the Old Testament are all, or most of 'em still to be found there 
* Orig. lib. 8. in Isa. ut refert Hieron. in Cap. 6. Isa. .  
II. I urged the Testimony of Philo, who flourished about the XLth. Year of Christ: He writes that even unto his Time for the space of above 2000 Years, not one Word had been Changed in the Writings of Moses.  
To this the Rector answers, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I rendered Word, sometimes signifies Sentence, or an entire Proposition. 'Twas the Laws of Moses the Jews were careful of, and not the Words, Syllables or Letters, according to Philo in this Place.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is usually rendered Word by all Interpreters, and that's the Primary and most proper Signification of it, and any one would so render it here that has no design to expose the Scripture, and does not study to elude such plain Testimonies as assert its Purity. He grants that the Jews, according to Philo, changed not any Sentence of the Law: But who knows not that the change of one Word, yea of one Letter (as in the instance of ye and we) often altars a whole Sentence? If Words might be changed, whole Sentences might as easily be perverted. Philo argues a minore ad majus, that the Ancient Jews were so far from changing the Law of Moses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— that they removed, or changed not one Word of what he had written.  
The Rector prevaricates when he saith, 'twas the Law of Moses they were careful of, and not the Words: Doubtless they were careful of both, and Philo saith, they changed not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not one Word, with what confidence then dare the Rector affirm they were not careful of the Words? He confesses they were careful of the Laws, he would do well to tell us how the Laws could be preserved without the Words.  
It does not follow hence saith he, that there was no Alteration in any Word or Point; this might happen (tho' the Jews did it not wilfully) for any thing Philo offers to the contrary. p. 21.  
Truth is constant to itself, but the Rectors notions are inconsistent: He told us above that many Corruptions might be designedly thrust into the Text before Christ's Time, and now he saith, the Jews altered not a Word wilfully. This he delivers as his own Sense in a Parenthesis, and not as Philo's.  
It's evident the Rector strains the Signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to elude the Force of Philo's Testimony for the Purity of the Hebrew Text. It's true it signifies a Sentence sometimes, but we ought not to recede from the primary and literal Signification of Words without necessity.  
The Jews were careful not only of the Sentences, but were Religious to Superstition in counting the very Letters of the Bible to preserve it entire, as the Rector told us in his Sermon, p. 13. but now he is inclined to think they took no Care of the Words, Syllables or Letters, but only of the Sentences of the Law, as he explains Philo.  
I leave it to such as can to reconcile the Rector to himself.  
Certain it is, that the Jews had of Old, and still have, such a Zeal for their Law, that the very Words, Syllables and Letters were preserved by them with no less Care than the Sentences of the Law.  
We have a memorable Story in Jerome, which whether True or False shows what a Zeal the Jews of that Age had for the Words and Letters of the Law. The Story is this. Joab slew his Master, because he did the Work of the Lord deceitfully, when he read Deut. 25. 19 Thou shalt blot out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Male of Amalek, when he ought to have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Memory of Amalek. 
* Hieron: in Isa. 6.  The Letters of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are the same in both readings, all the difference lies in the Points or Vowels.  
The Jewish Rabbis say, that he who makes the least Alteration in the Bible commits the inexpiable Sin: And they add, that if any One out of Ignorance, or Malice should change One Word therein, the whole World would be in danger of Perishing, and returning into its primitive Chaos: And they give this Reason for their Opinion (which they endeavour various ways to confirm) that the World was Created for the Sake of the Holy Scripture: If any one therefore should Corrupt the Scripture, the World must needs Perish 
† Polan. Syntag. ex Talm. lib. 1. cap. 37. p. 211. .  
This Confirms Philo's Testimony, and explains the meaning of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Rector has weakly endeavoured to perplex: But I shall have Occasion presently to speak more of their Care of the very Words, and Letters of the Law, agreeable to this Testimony of Philo.  
III. I argued from the Masora, which I affirmed to have been a effectual means to preserve the Purity of the Hebrew Text, and renders it impossible that any Corruption should have crept into them.  
All that the Rector hath to say to this Argument is, That 'twas no hard matter for cunning Rabbis to alter Words and Letters, and still to keep the just Number of them, as ye and we in Acts. 6. 3. where still remains the same Number of Words and Letters.  
The Rector discovers himself to be a perfect Stranger to the Masora, which tells us not how many Words and Letters are in every Book, but the Genuine Writing and Reading, where any diversity Occurs, as also when Words are written Fully with quiescent Letters, especially 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and when defectively without them: They note when a Word gins, ends, or is to be found in the Middle of a Verse: They observe all the peculiar Constructions of it, with the Ambiguous Significations; they remark also the Vowels and Accents: They take notice of the greater and lesser Letters, and of those that are inverted and symbolically Pointed; nay they have entered down how often every Letter of the Alphabet is contained in the whole Scripture. All this and much more the learned Reader may find in Buxtorf's Tiberias or Commentary upon the Masora, by which its Evident the Hebrew Copies could not be Corrupted after the Masora was Written. This is acknowledged both by Jews and Christians that understand the Masora.  
Elias Levita, a learned Jew, who tho' he differs from his own Country Men about the Time of the Masora (which he thinks was invented at Tiberias after the Year 500) yet he owns it in concurrence with other Rabbis to be an effectual Conservatory of the Purity of the Law. I will give you his own Words. 
* Elias Leu. in Buxt. Tiber. p. 6.  After this Work which the Authors of the Masora performed, it is impossible that any Change or Corruption should happen to any of our Bibles; hence it is that our Rabbins of blessed Memory have not said in vain, that the Masora is the hedge of the Law.  
The same is affirmed by Christian Writers, vid. Buxtorf. Tiberiad. Capnion. ser Reuchlin. in speculo Oculari. Ariam Montan. in praefat. Bibl. Brixian. in Arca Noe. Nich. Fuller. Miscellan. III. 13.  
His Instance of ye and we in Acts 6. 3. is very Impertinent, for if the Letters w and y were reckoned up in the Acts, the false reading ye would make a y supernumerary and lesson the Number of w's.  
Even those that plead against the Purity of the Hebrew Text, will readily acknowledge it was not Corrupted since the Invention of the Masora, and therefore have no way to avoid this Argument but by affirming (with Elias Levita) that the Masora is a late Invention of the Jews at Tiberias, about the Year 500; and that the Scripture was Corrupted either before or by those Jews who drew up the Masoretic Notes and invented the Vowels. This way the Popish Doctors and Vossius go. But the Rector deserting his learned Friends, ignorantly affirms the Masora could not preserve the Bibles in Purity. He is willing to believe they are Corrupted, and that no Art or Care of Man (no not the admirable Invention of the Masora) could possibly prevent it.  
However, he is so kind to us, as to tell us, That he does not affirm, that the Hebrew was Corrupted in any material Thing till after the destruction of Jerusalem. p. 22.  
He should have informed us, what immaterial Corruptions were got into the Bible before the destruction of Jerusalem, and what material Ones after.  
Nevertheless, adds he, it might have been Corrupted before the Fifth Century, when the Masora is said to be invented. Rem. ibid.  
Here he seems to allow that the Bible has not been Corrupted (at least in any Thing that is Material) after the penning of the Masora in the Fourth Century. He would or should have said the Sixth Century, for the Masora, according to Elias Levita was Penned after the Year 500 
† Buxt Comment. Masoret. p. 12.  But the Rector who affects to contradict himself, acknowledgeth in another Place (Serm. p. 13.) that the Masora was before the Birth of Christ, for (saith he) the Jews were Religious to Superstition, as may be thought, counting the very Letters of the Bible to preserve it entire: Hereunto our Lord alludes, in Matt. 5. 18.  
Our Author is so variable, that one knows not where to find him.  
One while the Masora was before the Birth of Christ (i e. Since Ezra's Time) another while it was invented in the Fifth Century. In one Humour he would have us believe the Jews were Religious to Superstition, to preserve the Bible entire; in another Humour, they designedly Corrupted it; in another Mood, they altered not a Word wilfully. The Rector should blame no Body for differing from him, since he can't agree with himself.  
Conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipse.  
He gravely concludes, 'tis but lately since the Christians received the Hebrew Bible from the modern Jews, who may very well be suspected to have made bold with it in prejudice to the Christian Religion. p. 22.  
Had the Christians not Hebrew Bibles till of late Years? Were there not Hebrew Bibles in the Hands of the Ancient Jews, who many of 'em became Christians? The Apostles were Jews, I hope he'll not say they had no Hebrew Bibles, or that they received them of the modern Jews.  
But perhaps he means the present Copies of the Hebrew Bible, and that these are come from the modern Jews. This is boldly affirmed, and if we call upon him to prove it, he must have recourse to F. Simons help, who tho' he has endeavoured to weaken the Authority of our Hebrew Bibles, yet is forced to Confess the Antiquity of the Copy that goes under R. Hillel's Name, which the Jews affirm to be Written by R. Hillel himself, some Years before the Birth of Christ. So doth Cunaeus de Repub. Hebr. and Schickard de jure Reg. Hebr. who are quoted by F. Simon, but he himself thinks it was Written by some Jewish Rabbi of that Name since the Invention of the Hebrew Points by the Doctors of the School of Tiberias, because he finds it Pointed and Accented. So that according to his Confession it may be above 1000 Years Old: And if the Hebrew Vowels be Coequal with the Letters (as I think the Judicious and Learned Buxtrof hath effectually proved) the Hillelian Copy, with which our modern Copies agree, may be as Old as the Jews affirm, and written by the Ancient and Famous Hillel, who flourished about 60. Years before the Birth of Christ.  
Doubtless there are many Ancient Copies of the Hebrew Bible in several Christian Libraries, for which we are not obliged to the modern Jews.  
I remember Vossius saith he saw seven hundred Manuscript Copies of the Hebrew Bible in one Library. The Rector perhaps can tell what Jewish Doctors they were borrowed of.  
But suppose our present Hebrew Copies had come from the modern Jews, it does not follow they made bold with them in Prejudice to Christianity, as the Rector suspects. This suspicious Gentleman ought to show us wherein they have Corrupted them.  
Had they falsified the Scripture in Prejudice of Christianity, doubtless they would have expunged the Chief Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ: But that they have not done, for those Places wherein the Greek and Latin Bibles differ from the Hebrew, seldom concern the Christian Faith, and the Hebrew Copies do often make more against the Jews than the Greek and Latin Versions; as for instance, in Psalm, 2. 12. receive discipline, so the Greek and Latin, from which nothing can be directly urged against the Jews; but the Hebrew, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 kiss the Son, is an invincible Argument against them. Have the Jews Corrupted their Copies that they might give a more express Testimony to the Son of God?  
That the Hebrew Copies are not depraved by the modern Jews is evident from their Agreement with those which Jerom used. It's apparent to any one that will be at the Pains to compare them, that wherein our Copies differ from the LXX, they generally agree with that which Jerom used, as far as we have any Account of it in his Writings.  
The Learned Solomon Glassius, Professor of the Holy Tongues at Jena, speaks of a very Ancient Manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in their College, curiously Written in Royal Parchment. This he carefully examined for the greatest Part, and could not observe it to vary from other Copies in the least tittle, but that some Words were omitted at the first writing, which upon the review were supplied 
*— Ne punctulo quidem à Codicibus aliis discrepare, animadvertere potui. Philol. Sacrae lib. 1. tract. 1. p. 23. .  
iv I will add one other Argument for the Purity of the Hebrew Text. If the Jews neither could nor would have Corrupted the Hebrew Copies, it follows that they have not Corrupted them.  
1st. They could not Corrupt all the Hebrew Copies, if they had been never so desirous, for there was a pure Copy in every Synagog in the World besides those in the Hands of Christians. Now, is it possible that so many Copies in distant Countries and Places should be all Corrupted, and not one left to detect the Fraud? It is very absurd to fancy a general Conspiracy between the Jewish Doctors to falsify all their Bibles, and that in such Texts where they had no Interest to serve, and in the mean Time to leave the great Prophecies concerning Jesus Christ untouched? Had such a piece of Villainy been attempted, I doubt not but the World had rung of it long ago. That watchful Providence which hath preserved the Holy Scriptures from the destructive Rage of Persecutors, and the corrupting Attempts of cunning Heretics, 
† Niceph. Eccl. hist. iv 21.  would doubtless have raised up some Instruments to assert the Purity of the Divine Law; nay rather than so hellish a Combination should take Effect, I question not but among the very Actors themselves some would have been influenced by the sovereign Director of humane Intellects, to detect and oppose so Vile a Practice. To fancy such an universal Corruption of the Hebrew Copies, is to dream that the World is governed without a Providence, and that the chiefest Objects of its peculiar Care, the Scripture and the Church, are left in the Power of restless and malicious Adversaries.  
Justin Martyr takes notice of the providential Care of Heaven in preserving the Holy Bible in the Jewish Synagogues for the Use of the Christian Church. It must be assigned to the Divine Providence, saith he, that our Religion is at this Day preserved among the Jews, to whom because we would not give Occasion to reproach us by Producing the Scriptures out of our Church, we choose rather to produce 'em out of the Synagogue, of the Jews, etc. 
| Servari autem etiam nunc apud Judaeos nostram Religionem. Dei erga nos est providentiae. Serm. ad Gent. .  
Austin thinks it very Incredible, That the Jewish Nation, scattered far and wide through the World, could conspire together to write a Lie, and while they envy the Benefit of the Scripture unto others, should deprive themselves of the Truth— God forbidden that any sensible Man should believe the most perverse and malicious Jews to be ever able to Effect so much, in so many Copies, and those dispersed far and wide 
§— Absit ut prudens aliquis vel Judaeus cujuslibet perversitatis, atque malitiae tantum potuisse credat in codicibus tam multis, & tam longè lateque dispersis. Aug. de Civ. Dei. XV. 13. .  
Jerom laughs at the Silliness of those who think the Hebrew Copies falsified. Austin calls the Jews Capsarios nostros, qui studentibus nobis Codices portant. 
* Aug. in Psam, 40. al. 41.  They are Library-keepers, and Book-carriers to the Students in Christianity.  
2dly. As they could not, so we have reason to believe, they would not impose upon us, for they were Religious even to Superstition in preserving the Scripture entire, as the Rector hath noted. What our Saviour saith, that one jot or one. tittle should in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfiled, has been made good. The Jews themselves were of the same Mind: Their own Expositions, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, will attest to this Truth as to both those Words that our Saviour hath, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it's little to be doubted, that our Saviour means the letter Jod, concerning which, the Jerusal. Talmud hath this Passage, Sanh. fo. 20. col. 3. The Book of Mishneh Torah (Deuteronomy) came prostrate to complain that Solomon sought to root Iod out of it (viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he shall not multiply Wives) The holy blessed God saith to it, Solomon and a thousand such as he shall fail, but a Word of the Law shall not fail.  
About 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies one of those little apiculi that distinguish between Hebrew Letters, they have several Passages. Tanchum Fol. 1. He that makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 destroys the World. See several Instances of this used in the learned Author. Li. vol. 1. p. 374. 375.  
The Jews used the greatest Care and Caution imaginable in Transcribing the Law. They examined all Copies with a most Religious diligence. If there were but two or three Faults in every Leaf, one may mend and read them in Private, say the Masters, but if there were more Faults, such a Bible was not allowed for private Use. Li. ibid.  
In every Synagogue they had a true Copy, and it was their Care every where to have their Bible as purely Authentic as possible, as may be seen by the curious Rules that are given to that purpose in Massech. Sopherim, etc. Thus far Dr. Lightf. in whom you may see much more to the same purpose.  
The modern Jews retain the Zeal of their Ancestors for the Purity of the Divine Law, Rom. 10. 2. Act. 21. 20. They have the most Religious regard to their Bible, they never put it in an unclean Place, nor touch it with defiled Hands, and if it happens to touch the Ground; they keep a public Fast, to obviate the Judgement which such an Accident portends.  
If a Copy had but one Corruption, it was not admitted into the Synagog, but to be buried in an Earthen Vessel, and never to be used, but in extreme Necessity a poor Man might teach his Children to read in it, but must not bring it into the Synagog, nor apply it to any other Use. To this unparallelled Vigilancy and Care is owing the perfect Harmony and surprising Consent of the Manuscript Copies of the Hebrew Bible throughout the World at this Day. No one Copy, written by a Jew, can be produced (as learned Hebricians have affirmed) that has the least disagreement with their other Copies, except it be in some Masoretic Notes, and in the Keri's and Kethibs. It were well if the Christians in their Editions of the Bible did imitate the great Diligence of the Jews, whose exemplary Zeal, and curious Circumspection in revising and correcting their Bible's inexcusably condemns the general remissness of Christian Printers. Maimon. in Polan. ubi supra.   

CHAP. V.  
Containing an Answer to the Rector's Objections against the Purity of the Hebrew Text.  
HAVING vindicated my Arguments for the Purity of the Hebrew Copies, I shall now consider what the Rector can say against it.  
I. His first Exception to the Purity of the Hebrew is taken out of Just. Martin, who charged the Jews with Corrupting the Scriptures. To this I answered, with Corrupting the Greek, but not the Hebrew. For this the Rector very scornfully demands my Reason. p. 24.  
My reason is, because Just. Mart. expressly mentions their Corrupting the Lxx, and no where speaks of their Corrupting the Hebrew Copies.  
His Words are these, I would have you know that they (the Jews) have expunged out of the Translation of the Elders that were with Ptolemy many entire Texts, in which is clearly foretold that this Crucified one should be God and Man, and that he must be hanged on a Tree and die for us 
* Ac quod illi multos & integros locos illarum ex translatione eorum, qui cum Ptolomaeo fuere Seniorum sustulerint, etc. Just. in Dial. cum Tryphon. .  
When he speaks of the Holy Scriptures indefinitely, we are to understand him of the Lxx, Version, which was the only Scripture most of the Fathers were acquainted with. He tells the Jews (among other Corruptions) they had altered Isa. 7. 14. which in the Lxx. is, behold a Virgin (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) shall bring forth; this they altered into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— behold a Young Woman shall bring forth: And so it is to this Day in Aquila's Version, which the Jews preferred to that of the Lxx. It does not appear that they had changed the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Controversy was, whether it ought to be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Virgin, with the Lxx, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Young Woman, as Aquila had corruptly rendered it 
† Vos autem (saith he) and in his mutare expositiones Seniorum vestrorum qui fuere apud Ptolomaeum, Aegyptiorum Regem, audetis, dicontes non habere Scripturum sicut illi verterunt sed ecce juvencula in utero concipiet. Just. ibid. .  
The Rector asks, is it no Fault to Corrupt the Lxx? Yes, doubtless, it is the height of Wickedness to Corrupt the Word of God in any Version; but we own it to the special Providence of God that the Original have been preserved entire, by which all Translations are to be examined, and the Corruptions of 'em detected.  
But, saith the Rector, if the Corruption had been only in the Lxx, they would have let Justin know that their Hebrew Bibles were entire. p. 24.  
The Charge being only about Corrupting the Greek Bibles, they had no Occasion to speak of the Hebrew; and it should seem Justin himself was a Stranger to that Language, for he saith Israel signifies homo vincens Virtutem, Isra is a Man, and El is Virtue or Stength, according to Justin. A Novice in the Hebrew knows how to correct this Etymology. Nay the very Hellenists, or the Grecizing Jews that lived without the borders of their own Land, were generally unacquainted with the Hebrew, his Friend Vossius affirms that after the Captivity the Hebrew was lost in Palestine itself, and then no wonder the Jew that discourses with Justin makes no mention of the Purity of the Hebrew Bibles, to which he might be as great a Stranger as Justin himself.  
II. The passages objected by Justin (as the Rector adds) are still wanting in our Hebrew Bibles, for instance, Psalm, 96. 10. say among the Heathen the Lord hath reigned, but Justin tells Trypho that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been struck out by the Jews, and that the Place should run thus, the Lord hath reigned from the Wood or Cross. These Words, from the Cross, are not in the Hebrew or Lxx. at this Day. The Hebrew Copy in Jerom's days wanted the same Words, and they are to be found in Austin, Cyprian, Tertull. etc. as Flam. Nobilius assitms. p. 25.  
Here the Rector advances a bold Charge against the Catholic Church, as consenting at least to the Corrupting of God's Word, and that in an illustrious Prediction of the Manner of Christ's Death, whom they had so little a regard to (according to the Charitable Rector) as to neglect the restoring so famous a Prophecy to its due Place in the Bible, and that after they were told of the Corruption of Just. Martyr. This is a very severe Charge against the whole Generation of the Righteous. You see the Dissenters have a great deal of good Company that suffer with them under the Rector's unjust Criminations of being Corrupters of the Word of God.  
It must be confessed that Justin's Copy of the Lxx. had the Words, from the Wood, and this was followed by some of the Fathers, but the more Correct Copies had 'em not. That they were not Originally in the Lxx. will appear, if we consider,  
1. That Jerome, who translatrd both the Hebrew and Lxx into Latin, takes no notice of them, which doubtless he would have done, if they had been either in the Hebrew or Greek Copies: he had the genuine Copies of the Lxx, out of Origen's Hexapla. It may be therefore presumed, that Justin Martyr found these words in some corrupt Copy of the Lxx, which Jerome calls versio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we observed before.  
2. The Latin Version, which all allow to be Ancient, has 'em not: No more are they to be found in the Alexandrian or Roman, or any other Copies of the Lxx at this day; nor in the Arab, Ethiopic (which follow the Lxx in most things) nor in the Syriac or Chaldee Paraphrase. Have the Jews been able to corrupt all the Copies of these Versions, that were in the hands of Christians? Did the Christians treacherously deliver up all the Greek and Latin Bibles, which were innunterable, to be corrupted by the Jews? If we should suppose 'em to be able to alter their own Hebrew and Greek Copies, is it pessible they should be able to falsify all the Bibles through the whole Christian World? Credat Judaeus Apella!  
3. Is it likely that such a clear Prophecy concerning the Cross of Christ had been overlookt in the New Testament, where several more obscure ones are Cited, and applied to his Passion? There's scarce a circumstance of his Sufferings but the Evangelists apply some Old-Testament-Prophecy to it, and they usually note, that such an Event happened for the fulfilling of the Scriptures. Now had there been such a Prediction as this upon Record, that the Lord should reign from the Wood, it is highly probable, That Christ and his Apostles would have taken notice of it, as they do of those that are more dark and abstruse. This Omission is a plain Evidence, That it was not in the Bible in Christ's and the Apostle's time; and if not then, it never was in the Hebrew Bible, which the Rector allows was not corrupted in any material thing before the Destruction of Jerusalem.  
4. Mr. Nich. Fuller, who has a learned Dissertation upon this Subject, conceives, that some Christian, observing that these Words, the Lord reigneth, treated of the Kingdom of Christ, added in the Margin by way of Explication, from the Wood, which the next Transcriber, taking it for a various Reading, boldly inserted into the Text, and so it might easily spread into more Copies, than the few the Rector mentions, as ye and we in Acts 6. 3. hath done. Mr. F. quotes Faber, saying, that these words are not de Hebraica veritate, but added by Christian Devotion.  
I will conclude with Fuller 's Censure, An verò os aliquod impurum dicere ausit, etc. But dare any foul mouth affirm, that either those Versions (Gr. & Lat.) or the Catholic Church (which hath approved them for so many Ages) have conspired in so horrid a wickedness with the perfidious enemies of Jesus Christ? Full. Miscell. Theol. lib. 3. cap. 13.  
III. The Rector believes upon Vossius 's Judicious Authority, that the Hebrew Chronology is corrupted, his Argument is this, The Jews believed their Messiah would come about the 6000 Year from the Creation; that the World was 6000 Years old when Christ came; that the Ancient Hebrew Copies reckoned 6000 Years from Adam to Jesus, else the Jews could not have expected the Messiah when Jesus was born, if their Chronology had been the same as it is this day; from the whole it must be confessed, that the Modern Hebrew Copies are corrupted, the World, according to them, being at the Birth of Jesus but about 4000 Years old. p. 25 & 26.  
The Rector barely proposes this Argument, but neither explains nor attempts to prove the parts of it. I'll briefly examine each of them.  
1. It cannot be proved that the Ancient Jews expected their Messiah about the 6000 Year of the World. Vossius endeavours to prove it from a Talmudical Tradition, which the Jews ascribe to Elias, and Vossius believes to be Elias the Prophet.  
The Tradition of the house of Elias is this, The World shall last Six Thousand Years; two Thousand Years before the Law, two Thousand Years of the Law, and two Thousand Years of the time of the Messiah; but for our iniquities, which are many, those Years are passed and lapsed. Mundus constrabit, etc. In Tract. Sanhedr.  
Is. Vossius gins these 6000 Years from the Flood, and so reckons forward to the Birth of Christ; but he ought to begin from the Creation, for the Tradition speaks of the Age of the World, that it should last six thousand Years, alluding to the six days of the Creation, accounting 1000 to answer each day. His reason for reckoning from the Flood, is taken from 2 Pet. 3. 6. who calls the Old World, the World that then was. This is nothing to the point in hand, for the Question is not whether the Antediluvian World may be so called, but whether Elias intended to exclude that State of the World, or the time before the Flood, from being concerned in this Tradition. This neither is, nor can be proved. Now if we reckon the 6000 Years from the beginning of the Creation, it's co-incident with the Chronology of our Hebrew Bibles, which make the World about 4000 Years old when Christ was born, and so doth this Tradition, for it assigns 2000 years before the Law, and 2000 years under the Law, at the end of which it makes the Messiah to come.  
The Truth is, This is a Rabbinical Figment, and no Prophecy of Elias, as Vossius affirms without proof. Perhaps the Author might be some Talmudic Doctor of that Name. It gives a false account of the time before the Law, which was about 2450 Years, and of the time under the Law, which was about 1500 Years, and not 2000 as he affirms. Some have calculated the Duration of the World by this pretended Prophecy, and have been so vain as to affirm, that the Last Judgement will be at the end of 6000 Years from the Creation, grounding their Opinion upon this Rabbinical Tradition.  
Besides, the Jews acknowledge that the time of the Coming of the Messiah is already past, tho' he be hid from them for their sins: This is inconsistent with their defalking 2000 Years from the Chronology of the Hebrew Bible, that they may persuade the World the time of his appearance is not yet come.  
They are sensible enough, that the time of the Messiah's coming is lapsed, whatever some of them may say to the contrary; and therefore they pronounce a solemn Curse upon the Computers of Times, Malè pereunt (say the Talmudists) qui temporum articulos suppetunt quibus venturus est Messiah. Let their Bones rot (says R. Jonathan) who compute the times of the end.  
2. It can't be proved that the World was 2000 years old when Christ came. According to the Hebrew Copies, which I have proved incorrupt, the World was about 4000 years old when the Son of God was manifested in the Flesh. There is no reason why we should esteem the Greek Chronology before the Hebrew Bibles. It's absurd to prefer a Translation to the Original, the Streams to the Fountain. Even those that follow the Lxx Chronology, do not make the World 6000 Years old when Christ came. Theophilus' Antiochen and the Oriental Church reckon about 5507 from the Creation to the Birth of Christ. Ad Antolyc, lib. 3. Nicephorus reckons 5505. Eccl. Hist. I. 10.  
We are sure the Greek Chronology has been either corrupted very early, or falsified by the Lxx Translators, for it makes Methuselah to live 14 Years after the Flood; hence came that famous Question, where to lodge him all the time of the Flood.  
Some held (as St. Austin observes) that he was with his Father Enoch, who was translated. This they held (adds he) as being loath to derogate from the Authority of those Books, which the Church hath entertained into more renowned Authority, and thinking that the Books of the Jews, rather than these, do mistake and err. For they say, it's not credible, that the Lxx Interpreters, which translated at one time, and in one sense, could err, or would lie or err, where it concerned them not; but that the Jews, for envy they bear us— have changed some things in their Books, that the Authority of our might be lessened.  
This is their Opinion, his own he gives a little after, Let that Tongue be rather believed, out of which a Translation is made into another by Interpreters. And in the next Chap. (chap. 14.) The Truth of things must be fetched out of that Tongue, out of which that that we have is interpreted. Aug. de Civit. Dei, xv. 11. 13, 14.  
It is true; the Fathers generally followed the Greek Chronology, and how could they do otherwise, since few of 'em were able to read the Bible in Hebrew.  
3. The ancient Hebrew Copies did not reckon 6000 Years from Adam to Jesus, as the Rector affirms. They reckoned, as we do now, as appears by the Copy which Jerom used, of which he gives this account, That where the Greek Translation saith the patriarchs before the Flood were so many years above two hundred years old, when they begat such a Son, the Hebrew Copy s●ith they were so many years above one hundred years old. So that the 100 years which are added to the lives of the Antediluvian Patriarches in the Lxx Version (which make about 600 Years in all) were not in the Ancient Hebrew Copies. Sciendum quod utque ad, etc. Hieron, in quoest. seu Tradit. Hebr. proem.  
But saith the Rector out of Vossius, The Jews could not have expected the Messiah when Jesus was born, if this Chronology had been the same as it is this day.  
Doubtless that Chronology was the same, and they had just reasons to expect the Messiah then, for Daniel's Weeks were at an end; the Sceptre was departed from Judah; John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah had awakened their expectations.  
Vossius' main Argument (as the Rector calls these) being answered, what follows is of less Consideration: however, I will make some short reflections on his two last Arguments, which are as follows:  
IU. Cainan the Son of Arphaxad, mentioned Luke 4. 35, 36. is left out in Gen. 11. 12. which is a demonstration saith the Rector, that the Jews have corrupted the Hebrew.  
This Argument has been judiciously answered by several Learned Pens, as the Reader may see in Pool, to whom I remit him. Sin. Crit. in Luc. 3.  
I shall only take notice of what Doctor Lightfoot says to it. He affirms it added to Moses' Text by Interpreters, for these reasons: 1. No reason can be given why it should be left out of the Hebrew Text. 2. But a probable reason may be given why it should be added in the Greek, The Jews esteemed the Seventy Souls that went into Egypt, beyond the Seventy Nations of the World. This arrogant Doctrine must needs expose 'em to hatred and danger amongst the Gentiles. To avoid this, the Interpreters added another Cainan, and five souls to those Lxx in Jacob's retinue. They took care that the Gentiles should not in the Greek Bibles find exactly the Lxx Nations in Gen. 10. but 72 or 73, (if we reckon Elisa also) as also not 70 but 75 souls that went down into Egypt.  
The same craft they used in Deut. 32. 8. which they read, according to the number of the Angels of God, whence the comparison between the 70 souls and the 70 Nations took its rise.  
3. Nothing more usual with them than to add according to their pleasure, Gen. 10. 2. Elisa is added, and v. 22. another Cainan among the Sons of Sem. So that they have added two Cainans to the Original Text, one the Son of Noah, the other the Son of Arphaxad, and Grandson of Noah. Gen. 46. 20. they have added five grandchildren to the Sons of Joseph, and in v. 27. they reckon up 7 grandchildren to him. Shall we believe the Greek or Hebrew Bibles? Let Reason and the Nature of the thing judge. If these 5 were with Joseph, when Jacob and his Family went down into Egypt (and if they were not, why are they numbered among those that went down into Egypt) then must Manasseh at the age of 9 or 10 at the most, be a Grandfather Ephraim at 8 or 9 But how comes St. Luke to follow the 70, and to insert this additional Cainan? To that the Dr. answers,  
1. Luke wrote to the Gentiles, and therefore must follow the Heathens Bible in his Quotations. 2. In the Genealogies he was to be a Copier, and not a Corrector. If he had not inserted it, the Gentiles, who were only capable of consulting the Gr. Copies, might have called his Varacity in question; as to the other part of the Genealogy, which had been extracted out of Tables and Registers not familiarly known, Luke is a faithful Transcriber. Thus Judas mentions Michael striving with Satan; and the Apostle names James and Jambres (2 Tim. 3. 9) they do not deliver these as certain things, but refer to the common Tradition.  
3dly. Aristeas and Josephus say, when the Greek Translation ●…, Demetrius commanded that according to their Custom, they mo●… Curses upon any that should by addition, or alteration, or diminution ●… any Change in it. 4thly. He followed the Lxx. to show that there was not a distinction as was imagined between Jews and Gentiles, and that he mi●… for't the Gentiles concerning their coming in. See more in the learned A●… 1. p. 488, 490. Vol. II. p. 401, 402, 404.  
V The Rector has one other Corruption to Charge the Hebrew Copie●… Psal. 22. 16. As a Lion, instead of, they pierced my Hands and Feet, So ●… 15. 24. and the Lxx. This Place (if it be a Corruption) has not been ●…ted in all Hebrew Copies, the Jews themselves being Witnesses. R. Jacob Be●… the restorer of the Masora (in Bibl. Venet.) ingenuously confesses that he ●… the reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they pierced in some Copies, Johan. Isaac Levita, ●… Jew became a Christian, affirms the same of a Hebrew Psalter that was h●… fathers. Several Hebrew Bibles have both readings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text and ●… Margin, and Grotius acknowledges both to be Ancient, so doth Dr. Hamm●… observes (as Glassius did before him) that the Chald. joins both readings ●…dring the Place, mordentes sicut leo manus meas 
* Duplex fuit antiquitus lectio. Grot. in loc. . Our English Translator the marginal reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they have pierced, as being at Liberty to choose eit●…, and the Jews themselves in other Places prefer the Keri, or margina●… Of the two readings here no wonder the modern Jews should prefer that wh●… most to favour their Cause. The famous and indefatigable Dan. Bomberg, ●…ned himself in publishing the noble Venetian Edition of the Masoretic Bible have restored the marginal reading into the Text, but the Jew that corr●… Press, diverted him from his Intention, by threatening to hinder the Sale o●… among his Countrymen. The learned Glassius, who was a great Cri●… Hebrew Tongue, saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Lion, aught to be rendered (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pierced, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the 3d. plur. praeter in Kal of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in an A●… form, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being inserted, as is usual in other Words, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put in the end for Ezr. 10. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they had taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He refers to more Examples of t●… kind, as in Jer. 50. 11. and he calls this Letter, as Brixianus and others ●… before him, not Jod but a diminutive Vau, which is therefore thus Writte●… clarè invat clavorum Christi stigmara: To signify the Marks of the Nails i●… Hands and Feet. Hence it is written in Codregiis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had been ●… of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it in Jer. 50. 11. four several Times, and so it is used in other Plac●….  
Thus I have Vindicated the Hebrew Bibles, and our English Bibles, which Translation of 'em, from the Corruptions with which the Rector hath thou●… reproach them. I desire the Reader to consider whether this Gentleman d●… be Credited in Reflections upon the Dissenters, who so vilely Reflects on th●… Bibles, which he would have us believe are Corrupted by the Jews in materia●… especially in Ps. 96. 10. Gen. 11. 12. and in the Chronology, in which above Years are lost. So that according to these Corrupt Bibles we cannot prove tha●… is come in the Flesh, for the World must be 6000. Years old when Christ ●… come (if we may believe the Rector) but according to our English Bibles but above 4000 Years old when he was Born. In short, the R●… brought us to this pass, either we must reject the Authority of our English ●… Point of Chronology) or deny that Christ is come in the Flesh. Christ ●… come till the World was 6000 Years old, as the Rector tells us, and accordi●… our English Bibles, it is not 6000 Years old to this Day. Mr. Gippes is a ●…tron to the Christian Cause, which is as much obliged to him as the Dissenters Speak out your Mind, sweet Sir shall we burn our Corrupt Bibles 
| Serm. p. 27.  that ma●… in Jesus Christ? Or shall we deny his Coming, to save our Bibles? You ●… you please, good Mr. Rector, but I am satisfied the Church of England, and t●… the Dissenters, will neither renounce their Christianity, nor their ●… 
† Vid. Glass. de Script. still.   
FINIS.