Further Vindication of the Dissenters, Postscript

Further Vindication of the Dissenters · Postscript

p. 41THE 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 conſider'd, 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 condemn'd '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 Volumns. 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.

p. 42CHAP. 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 ought 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 inferr'd 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 obſerv'd, 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, &c. 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 cover'd 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'l diſmiſs his Argument as Impertinent.

II. My 2d. Argument was, That the Titles of the Pſalms were receiv'd 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 receiv'd 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 affirm'd, and not prov'd. I challenge him to give us one Inſtance for the confirmation of ſo bold an Aſſertion. The Jews receiv'd 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, ought 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 p. 43Pſalms, as they do in ſeveral modern Tranſlations. Vid. Jun. & Temell. Piſcat Calvin. &c.

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, receiv'd the Titles of the Pſalms in the Apoſtles Time, they muſt needs be Canonical, for the Scripture, as receiv'd by them, is of Divine Inſpiration, as the Apoſtle declares, 2 Tim, 3. 16. But they were receiv'd 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, mention'd in 2 Sam. 22. To the Chief Muſician, a Pſalm of David, the Servant of the Lord, who ſpake unto the Lord the Words of this Song, in the day that the Lord deliver'd 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 Pſalm, 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 prefix'd 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 ſhou'd 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'l 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 Pen-Man, or by a Perſon Divinely inſpired, for they refer to Paſſages of Hiſtory not mention'd 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 Abſalom than to Saul, or others of David's Enemies, but that the Title of the Pſalm directs us to refer them to Abſalom, when David fled before him.

The Title of the 30 Pſalm, 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 cou'd p. 44have 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 Penn'd when David chang'd 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 affirm'd of the other Pſalms I mention'd above, eſpecially of Pſalm 90. A Prayer of Moſes the Man of God.

But ſaith the Rector, tho' Moſes and the Iſraelites be not mention'd 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 wou'd have thought ſo, if the Title had not directed Interpreters to apply it to the State of Iſrael in the Wilderneſs? The Title occaſion'd this Application, and it was not the Application which occaſion'd 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 obſerv'd by the late Learned Arch-Biſhop Sancroft, in a Sermon upon a publick Occaſion on Pſalm 57. 1.

But ſaith our Author, if the Titles refer to Paſſages of Hiſtory not mention'd in the body of the Pſalm, this is a good Argument that they are not Canonical, but the Conjectures of meer 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 mention'd in the body of the Pſalm, it is ſufficient they are mention'd 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 wou'd 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 Pen-Man, or to the Inſtruments of Muſick on which they were ſung, &c. 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 wou'd have render'd 'em more uniform, and given 'em the ſame features, and wou'd not have beſtow'd Titles upon ſome, and left others without.

3dly. It wou'd have look'd 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 expung'd 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, ſhou'd 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.

p. 45CHAP. 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 queſtion'd, then 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 receiv'd ſome Humane Additions, eſpecially at the end of Pſalm 72. Here he puts an Argument into the Mouth of an Athieſt, that if ſome or any one Part of the Scripture may be juſtly queſtion'd (as ſuppoſe the Words at the end of Pſalm 72. which he ſaith are manifeſtly Falſe) then this renders all the reſt Suſpicious.

How wou'd the Rector Anſwer his own Argument? He muſt grant the Conſequence of the Major Propoſition, That if ſome part may be juſtly queſtion'd, 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 queſtion'd, as the Titles of Pſalm 90. and 34. and the laſt verſe of Pſalm 72. He muſt therefore either acknowledge the weakneſs of his Premiſſes, or deny the Concluſion, or yield unto an Athieſt, 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. Pſalm (A Prayer of Moſes, &c.) 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's Time was much longer as appears by the Age of Job, Kohath, Amram, Aaron, Joſhua, Miriam, Moſes, &c. p. 11, 12.

He is ſenſible of the weakneſs of his own Argument, and therefore adds,

It muſt be Confeſs'd, That this Point is bandy'd by learned Men, and ſundry Anſwers are offer'd to the Arguments produced, which I will not trouble the Reader with.

It wou'd 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 cou'd not but find the Anſwers of the Learned **Vid. Pool. Synop. in Pſal. 90. 10.Ps 90:10, which doubtleſs he wou'd have refuted if he had been able. Judge how fairly Mr. G. deals with the Scriptures, he p. 46picks 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 ſhou'd 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 foreign, 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's Time, and I cou'd 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 hundr'd ſixty one Years**Vid. Lampad. Mellif. Hiſt. par. 3. p. 234..

Parr ††Fall. worth.of Aberbury in Shropſhire, was about a hundr'd and fifty Years when he dyed, and but for Change of Air and Diet in his old Age, might have lived longer. I have heard it affirm'd by ſome that live near that Place, that he did Penance for a Baſtard Child in Aberbury Church, when he was a hundr'd and twenty Years Old. Marſ…y Stent, who liv'd within three Miles of Oſweſtry, was about a hundr'd and twenty Years Old when ſhe dy'd. Mr. St. Nicholas, a Miniſter not far from Coventry was near a hundr'd Years of Age, and I hear he preached within two Years of his Death. Paul the Hermite lived a hundr'd and thirteen Years, as Jerom ||In vit. Paul. Erem.tells us. The Ethiopians generally liv'd a hundr'd and twenty Years, and ſome beyond, as Herodotus affirms§§Thal. lib. III..

The Rector therefore may as well quarrel with the 90th Pſalm it ſelf 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 Countrey 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 miſ-repreſents, 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 Pen-Man 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.Ps 90, who flouriſhed about the ſame Time with Gregery Nyſſen. The Targum, Syr. and Arabit Verſions aſcribe it to Moſes.

p. 47Indeed ſome who allow this Title to be Authentic, conceive that David is the Author, and that it is accomodated 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.Ps 89.

That which led 'em to this Error was a prevailing Opinion that all the Pſalms were pen'd 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 call'd 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 Emperours. 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 call'd in that Interval of Time, ſave one of the Kings of Iſrael, Judg. 9. 6. nor is the Achiſh King of Gath any where call'd 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 call'd Reuel, 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 enter'd upon their Government, and they were call'd 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 mention'd by Baſil, as the received Opinion of that Age, that the Kings of the Philiſtines were call'd by the common Name of Abimelech, tho' each of 'em had a proper Name by which he was call'd beſides: And this Account, ſaith he, we have foreign, by tradition §§Baſil. hom. in Pſal. 33. Gr. edit. Pariſ. 1618.Ps 33.

3dly. But the Rector is not ſatisfied with this, becauſe he finds no one King of the Philistines ſo call'd from Iſaac's days unto David's Time, for about eight hundr'd Years. And good Reaſon for it, for he cannot find any King at all of the Philiſtines ſo much as mention'd 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 ſhou'd ſeem their Government was Ariſtocratical, by the p. 48Nobles, as far as we have any Account of it, for the Time he mentions: And then no wonder, he can find no King call'd 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 ſhou'd 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 mention'd 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, &c. And yet we read of no King of Egypt ſo call'd from that Pharaoh which was drown'd in the Red Sea, unto another of the ſame Name in Solomon's Time for the ſpace of above four hundr'd 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 infer'd 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 mention'd 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 mention'd in 1 Sam. 21. what an ignorant Fellow doth he make the Pen-Man of this Title to be, that he ſhould not only miſtake foreign for foreign which have no affinity either in form or ſound, in ſubſtituting Abimelech for Abimelech, but, which is worſe, that he ſhou'd 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 Prophane 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? Could it poſſibly eſcape the Maſorites, who obſerves with the greateſt Exactneſs all the various Readings, and Anomalies of the Letters and Vowels? This is a new Diſcovery, the Honour of which is reſerv'd 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, expung'd, and alter'd 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 ſhou'd 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 call'd Abimelech in 1 Chron. 18. 16. and to his changing his Behaviour before Achiſh, the Philiſtines King, for thoſe Kings were commonly call'd 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 wou'd have all diſplaced out of the ſacred Canon.

Let's now review his Argument, If ſome, or if any one Title may be juſtly Queſtion'd, then this renders all the reſt Suſpicious: To which I oppoſe this, If p. 49ſome, or if any one Title be unjuſtly Queſtion'd (as he has done thoſe of the 34th and 9th Pſalm), then 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 Pen-Man can't eſcape them.

2dly. His next Argument to prove the Titles a Human Addition is taken from thoſe Words tack'd 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 mention'd afterward. This is a very bold Challenge to the inſpired Writings. Wou'd you think this the Language of a Proteſtant Miniſter, or of a Porphyrie, a Celſus, or a Julian? To charge any part of the ſacred Scriptures with manifeſt Falſhood is to give the Lye to the God of Truth. Suppoſe we ſhou'd 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 confeſs'd his own Ignorance, than to have charged the Holy Oracles with Falſhood. 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 affirm'd by Hilary ††Prolog. 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 cou'd 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 allow'd to Charge the Divine Scripture with manifeſt Falſhood, 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 Falſhood 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, Halelujah. The 5th at 150, with Halelujah. This diviſion is followed by the Syriac, and Arabic Tranſlators, as alſo by R. David Kimhi. It's mention'd 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, p. 50the Prayers of David are ended, i. e. the Prayers contain'd in this ſecond Book, of which theſe Words are the Concluſion, and then follows foreign 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, &c. 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 Ʋſe of the Church of God, &c.††Jun. & Trem. in Pſ. 72. 20.Ps 72:20

5thly. We may read the Words thus, the Prayers of David are fulfilled, or conſummated. foreign is thus rendred in ſeveral Places. Targ. completae ſunt Orationes Davidis filii Iſſai. According to this reading the Senſe is plain and eaſy. The bleſſings of Chriſts Kingdom, of which this Pſalm treats, contain the Summ 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 anſwer'd. In this Senſe the Hebrew Doctors underſtood the Place, as Muis repreſents them. When the Meſſias comes, and the Things prophecied in this Pſalm come to paſs, then ſhall the Prayers of David be fulfilled||Cum venerit Meſſias, & 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 Falſhood, 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 wou'd expunge a whole Verſe out of our Bibles, for no other Reaſon but becauſe he either cou'd 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 Countrey, tho' I can't tell whether the Rector knows him or no: This Man I have taken foreign 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. foreign Jeremy compoſed this p. 51Song. 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 infer'd 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. Pſalm, nor is it material for us to know, while we are ſatisfied he was divinely inſpired. Some conceive it was pen'd 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 pen'd after the return from the Captivity; and if ſo, it cou'd not be by Jeremiah, who was dead before.

3dly. The Addition of foreign was not in the Ancient Copies of the LXX, as Hilary aſſures us, for thus he ſpeaks, It ſeem'd 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 cou'd never have happen'd, 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, &c. 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 ſhou'd ſerve other Gods, the Chaldee Paraphraſe tranſfers the Guilt 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 reckon'd 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 rendred 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, foreign, &c. And adds, To me it ſeems great Raſhneſs to alter the Inſcriptions, p. 52which were in being in the Time of Ptolomy, 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. Pſalm 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 Poyſons, 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 follow'd 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 Aſcention of Jeſus Chriſt unto the Father||Hier. ibid..

Theodores alſo applies this Title to Jeſus Chriſt. foreign— 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.Ps 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.

foreign, &c. The Dedication of the Houſe, the Renovation of the human Nature, which our Lord Christ perfected, when he dyed for us, and deſtroy'd Death, and gave us hope of a bleſſed Reſurrection**Theod. in Pſal. 29. Gr.Ps 29.

To the ſame purpoſe ſpeaks Baſil, foreign, &c. 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 foreign, 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.Ps 44.

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 Meter 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 ought to be expung'd 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 prefer'd 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 publick 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 aſk'd us in his Sermon, why they are not done into Engliſh? I anſwer'd, the Biſhops could beſt reſolve the Queſtion, whoſe Tranſlation we Uſe. The Rector is pleaſed p. 53with this Conceſſion of Mind, and wiſhes the Diſſenters to take Notice, That the Scriptures being in the Engliſh Tongue is owing to the Biſhops 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 Biſhops 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, &c. Had no 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, &c. Tranſlations, when they agreed better with the Text than that which was call'd 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 deſign'd 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 Rubrick 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 expung'd out of the reading Pſalter. They can't be well Sung, nor were deſign'd for that End, and therefore are left out of the Singing Pſalms; but they may and ought to be read, as Part of the Word of God, and therefore ſhou'd 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.

p. 54CHAP. 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 deceiv'd, &c. Theſe he thinks are left out of the Hebrew Copies by the Careleſneſs of the Tranſcribers, rather than thruſt into the Greek by the Tranſlators; and St. Paul in Rom. 3. has ſubjoyned 'em immediately to the 3d. Verſe of the 14th. Pſalm.

To this I anſwer'd 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 Authentick 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 look'd 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 queſtion'd 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 publiſh'd 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 miſ-repreſents 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. com. Julian. 1. 7. Caſſian calls him, Catholicorum magiſtrum—the Maſter of Orthodox Catholicks, whoſe Writings ſhine as Divine Lamps through the whole World. ||Joh. Caſſian. cont 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 ſtir'd up the hatred of ſome wretched Fellows againſt himſelf: Hereticks 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 wou'd be apt to think he hates him, for he odiouſly miſ-repreſents in theſe Words.

p. 55Jerome 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 Controverſie, 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 publick 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 chiefly 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 eſteem'd 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 cou'd not impoſe upon his Reader, when he affirm'd 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.Ps 14.

p. 56Since 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 ††Ʋtitur hic Paulus diverſis ſententiis, tum ex Pſalmis, rum ex Eſaia. Grotius in Rom 3. 10. in Pol. Syn.Rom 3:10, and this is the received Opinion of the Learned,

But ſaith the Rector, Jerome confeſſeth the Verſes are in vulgata Editione quae Graece foreign) 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 foreign, 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 Latine Tongue, and is uſed at Jeruſalem, and in the Eaſtern Churches, and remains pure and incorrupt in the Books of the Learned §§foreign Ipſa eſt quae & Lxx, ſed hoc intereſt inter utramque quod foreign pro locis & temporibus, & pro voluntate ſcriptorum corruptae editio eſt. Hieron. ad Sun. & Tretell. Tom. III..

This is the Verſion to which Jerome appeal'd, and of which he affirms, that it had not the interpolated Verſes in Pſ. 14. This genuine Verſion was publickly 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 miſ-repreſented 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 aware, 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 Venome at every body that ſeems to favour their Principles.

This is Father Jerome's fault, which the Rector cannot forgive him. He hath prov'd 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.

p. 57**Hier. Comment. in Ep. ad Tit.Its 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 careleſneſs 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 careleſneſs of the Tranſcribers, e. g. they add a whole Pſalm at the end of the Pſalm about David's Victory over Goliah: They add a Verſe concerning the Knifes 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 cou'd 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 inclin'd 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 believ'd in what he ſays. If charging the Bible with groſs Corruptions be not a depreſſing of it, what is? He wou'd 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 ſignifie 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 look'd 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. incerted 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 p. 58cannot 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 miſ-placed not only in the Roman, but alſo in the Alexandrian Copy.

Its 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 mixt Verſion, partly from Origen's Additions out of Theodotion, Aquila and Symmachus, ||Walt. Prolegom. ad Polygl. ix. 28..

The Frankford and other German 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 prov'd 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 Judgment 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 Latine Verſion, which the Papiſts prefer above the Original.

Among our ſelves, 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's Spittle, whoſe Judgment 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 rendred by the Interpreters of our Age||In quibus ne unicus quidem occurrat verſiculus, qui à noſtri ſaeculi Interpretibus rectè acceptus & redditus fuerit. De Sibyll. 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.

p. 59If 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 Judgment 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 wou'd 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 Iumine & intellectu, Aſſes void of Judgment and Underſtanding, girt with a Profeſſors Gown, and carrying for their Shield the Maſoretick Bible with all it's Points§§Epist. ad Andr. Colv..

Thus much I thought fit to Advertiſe the Reader concerning Iſaac Voſſius, whoſe great Judgment 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 chuſe his own Maſters.

CHAP. IV.

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 affirm'd the Hebrew Copies to have been incorrupt in our Saviour's Time, becauſe he never Charg'd 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 Chriſts 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 ſhou'd 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.

p. 60Had they betray'd ſo great a Truſt, and perfidiouſly falſified the Holy Scriptures, can we imagine that Chriſt and his Apoſtles wou'd have overlook'd 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 wou'd have reſtored 'em to their Original Purity. It cannot be conceiv'd that the Son ſhou'd be leſs concern'd 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 wou'd he leave their very Laws Ʋnteform'd? He came into the World to bear Witneſs unto the Truth, and can we think he wou'd have overlook'd the Falſhoods 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, wou'd 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 wou'd 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 wou'd have recommended the Study of corrupted and depraved Scriptures unto his Followers without a neceſſary Caution againſt the Errors of them.

From the whole it's 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 Chang'd in the Writings of Moſes.

To this the Rector anſwers, that foreign, which I render'd Word, ſometimes ſignifies Sentence, or an intire Propoſition. 'Twas the Laws of Moſes the Jews were careful of, and not the Words, Syllables or Letters, according to Philo in this Place.

foreign is uſually render'd Word by all Interpreters, and that's the Primary and moſt proper Signification of it, and any one wou'd ſo render it here that has no deſign to expoſe the Scripture, and does not ſtudy to elude ſuch plain Teſtimonies as aſſert it's 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 alters a whole Sentence? If Words might be chang'd, 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, foreign—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 p. 61changed not foreign, 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 wou'd do well to tell us how the Laws cou'd be preſerv'd 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 it ſelf, 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 alter'd 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 foreign 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 intire, 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 ſhews 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 foreign the Male of Amalek, when he ought to have read foreign the Memory of Amalek.**Hieron: in Iſa. 6.Isa 6 The Letters of foreign are the ſame in both readings, all the difference lies in the Points or Vowels.

The Jewiſh Rabbies 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 ſhou'd change One Word therein, the whole World wou'd be in danger of Periſhing, and returning into it's 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 ſhou'd 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 foreign, which the Rector has weakly endeavour'd 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 affirm'd to have been a effectual means to preſerve the Purity of the Hebrew Text, and renders it impoſſible that any Corruption ſhou'd have crept into them.

All that the Rector hath to ſay to this Argument is, That 'twas no hard matter for cunning Rabbies 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 p. 62quieſcent Letters, eſpecially foreign and foreign, and when defectively without them: They note when a Word begins, 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 enter'd down how often every Letter of the Alphabet is contain'd 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 it's 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 Countrey 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 Rabbies to be an effectual Conſervatory of the Purity of the Law. I will give you his own Words. **Elias Lev. in Buxt. Tiber. p. 6.After this Work which the Authors of the Maſora perform'd, it is impoſſible that any Change or Corruption ſhou'd 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 affirm'd 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 reckon'd up in the Acts, the falſe reading ye wou'd 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 Maſoretick Notes and invented the Vowels. This way the Popiſh Doctors and Voſſius go. But the Rector deſerting his learned Friends, ignorantly affirms the Maſora cou'd 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 ſhou'd 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 wou'd or ſhou'd have ſaid the Sixth Century, for the Maſora, according to Elias Levita was Pen'd 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 intire: Hereunto our Lord alludes, in Matt. 5. 18.

Our Author is ſo variable, that one knows not where to find him.

p. 63One 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 wou'd have us believe the Jews were Religious to Superſtition, to preſerve the Bible intire; in another Humour, they deſignedly Corrupted it; in another Mood, they alter'd not a Word willfully. The Rector ſhou'd 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 receiv'd 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 no 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'l not ſay they had no Hebrew Bibles, or that they receiv'd 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 affirm'd, and if we call upon him to prove it, he muſt have recourſe to F. Simons help, who tho' he has endeavour'd 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 Co-equal with the Letters (as I think the Judicious and Learned Buxtrof hath effectually prov'd) 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 hundr'd Manuſcript Copies of the Hebrew Bible in one Library. The Rector perhaps can tell what Jewiſh Doctors they were borrow'd 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 ſhew us wherein they have Corrupted them.

Had they falſified the Scripture in Prejudice of Chriſtianity, doubtleſs they would have expung'd 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 urg'd againſt the Jews; but the Hebrew, foreign 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 Salomon Glaſſius, Profeſſor of the Holy Tongues at Jena, ſpeaks of a very Ancient Manuſcript of the Hebrew Bible in their Colledge, curiouſly Written p. 64in Royal Parchment. This he carefully examin'd 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 cou'd nor wou'd have Corrupted the Hebrew Copies, it follows that they have not Corrupted them.

1ſt. They cou'd 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 ſhou'd be all Corrupted, and not one left to detect the Fraud? It is very abſur'd 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 untouch'd? Had ſuch a piece of Villany been attempted, I doubt not but the World had rung of it long ago. That watchful Providence which hath preſerv'd the Holy Scriptures from the deſtructive Rage of Perſecutors, and the corrupting Attempts of cunning Hereticks,††Niceph. Eccl. hiſt. IV. 21. wou'd doubtleſs have raiſed up ſome Inſtruments to aſſert the Purity of the Divine Law; nay rather than ſo helliſh a Combination ſhou'd take Effect, I queſtion not but among the very Actors themſelves ſome wou'd have been influenced by the ſovereign Director of humane Intellects, to detect and oppoſe ſo Vile a Practice. To phancy ſuch an univerſal Corruption of the Hebrew Copies, is to dream that the World is govern'd without a Providence, and that the chiefeſt Objects of it's 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 wou'd not give Occaſion to reproach us by Producing the Scriptures out of our Church, we chuſe rather to produce 'em out of the Synagogue, of the Jews, &c.||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, ſcatter'd far and wide through the World, cou'd conſpire together to write a Lye, and while they envy the Benefit of the Scripture unto others, ſhou'd deprive themſelves of the Truth— God forbid that any ſenſible Man ſhou'd 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, at que malitiae tantum potuiſſe credat in codicibus tam multis, & tam longè late que 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 cou'd not, ſo we have reaſon to believe, they wou'd not impoſe upon us, for they were Religious even to Superstition in preſerving the Scripture intire, as the Rector hath noted. What our Saviour ſaith, that one jot or one. tittle ſhou'd in no wiſe paſs from the Law, till all be fullfilled, 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. foreign 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. p. 65The Book of Miſhneh Torah (Deuteronomy) came proſtrate to complain that Solomon ſought to root Iod out of it (viz. foreign he ſhall not multiply Wifes) 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 foreign, which ſignifies one of thoſe little apiculi that diſtinguiſh between Hebrew Letters, they have ſeveral Paſſages. Tanchum Fol. 1. He that makes foreign a foreign or foreign a foreign 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 examin'd 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 allow'd 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 Authentick as poſſible, as may be ſeen by the curious Rules that are given to that purpoſe in Maſſech. Sopherim, &c. 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 publick Faſt, to obviate the Judgment 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 ſurprizing 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 affirm'd) that has the leaſt diſagreement with their other Copies, except it be in ſome Maſoretick 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 Bibles inexcuſably condemns the general remiſneſs 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. Martyn, who charg'd the Jews with Corrupting the Scriptures. To this I anſwer'd, 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. expreſly mentions their Corrupting the Lxx, and no where ſpeaks of their Corrupting the Hebrew Copies.

p. 66His Words are theſe, I wou'd have you know that they (the Jews) have expung'd out of the Tranſlation of the Elders that were with Ptolomy many intire Texts, in which is clearly foretold that this Crucified one ſhou'd be God and Man, and that he muſt be hanged on a Tree and dye for us**Ac quod illi multos & integros locos illarum ex tranſlatione eorum, qui cum Ptolomaeo fuere Seniorum ſuſtulerint, &c. 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 alter'd Iſa. 7. 14. which in the Lxx. is, behold a Virgin (foreign) ſhall bring forth; this they alter'd into foreign—behold a Young Woman ſhall bring forth: And ſo it is to this Day in Aquila's Verſion, which the Jews prefer'd to that of the Lxx. It does not appear that they had chang'd the Original, foreign but the Controverſy was, whether it ought to be render'd foreign a Virgin, with the Lxx, foreign a Young Woman, as Aquila had corruptly render'd 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 owe it to the ſpecial Providence of God that the Original have been preſerved intire, 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 wou'd have let Juſtin know that their Hebrew Bibles were intire. 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 Vertue 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 it ſelf, 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 foreign had been ſtruck out by the Jews, and that the Place ſhou'd 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. &c. as Flam. Nobilius aſſitms. p. 25.

Here the Rector advances a bold Charge againſt the Catholick Church, as conſenting at leaſt to the Corrupting of God's Word, and that in an illuſtrious Prediction of the Manner of Chriſts Death, whom they had ſo little a regard to (according to the Charitable Rector) as to neglect the reſtoring ſo famous a Prophecy to it's 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 follow'd 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,

p. 671. That Jerome, who tranſlatrd both the Hebrew and Lxx into Latine, 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 preſum'd, that Juſtin Martyr found theſe words in ſome corrupt Copy of the Lxx, which Jerome calls verſio foreign, as we obſerv'd before.

2. The Latine 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 Latine Bibles, which were innunterable, to be corrupted by the Jews? If we ſhou'd ſuppoſe 'em to be able to alter their own Hebrew and Greek Copies, is it peſſible they ſhould be able to falſifie 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 over-lookt 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 happen'd for the fulfilling of the Scriptures. Now had there been ſuch a Prediction as this upon Record, that the Lord ſhou'd reign from the Wood, it is highly probable, That Chriſt and his Apoſtles wou'd 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 incerted 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, &c. But dare any foul mouth affirm, that either thoſe Verſions (Gr. & Lat.) or the Catholick 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 believ'd their Meſſiah wou'd 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 cou'd 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 prov'd 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 paſs'd and lapſed. Mundus conſtrabit, &c. In Tract. Sanhedr.

p. 68Iſ. Voſſius begins theſe 6000 Years from the Floud, 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 ſhou'd laſt ſix thouſand Years, alluding to the ſix days of the Creation, accounting 1000 to anſwer each day. His reaſon for reckoning from the Floud, 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 call'd, but whether Elias intended to exclude that State of the World, or the time before the Floud, from being concern'd in this Tradition. This neither is, nor can be prov'd. 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 Judgment 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 perſwade the World the time of his appearance is not yet come.

They are ſenſible enough, that the time of the Meſſia'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 prov'd that the World was 2000 years old when Chriſt came. According to the Hebrew Copies, which I have prov'd incorrupt, the World was about 4000 years old when the Son of God was manifeſted in the Fleſh. There is no reaſon why we ſhou'd 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 Floud; hence came that famous Queſtion, where to lodge him all the time of the Floud.

Some held (as St. Auſtin obſerves) that he was with his Father Enoch, who was tranſlated. This they held (adds he) as being loth 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, its not credible, that the Lxx Interpreters, which tranſlated at one time, and in one ſenſe, could err, or would lye or err, where it concern'd them not; but that the Jews, for envy they bear us—have chang'd ſome things in their Books, that the Authority of our might be leſſen'd.

This is their Opinion, his own he gives a little after, Let that Tongue be rather believ'd, out of which a Tranſlation is made into another by Interpreters. And in the next Chap. (chap. 14.) The Truth of things muſt be fetch'd out of that Tongue, out of which that that we have is interpreted. Aug. de Civit. Dei, xv. 11. 13, 14.

p. 69It is true; the Fathers generally follow'd the Greek Chronology, and how cou'd 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 reckon'd, 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 Patriarches before the Floud 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 Patriarchs in the Lxx Verſion (which make about 600 Years in all) were not in the Ancient Hebrew Copies. Sciendum quod ut que ad, &c. Hieron, in quoeſt. ſeu Tradit. Hebr. proem.

But ſaith the Rector out of Voſſius, The Jews cou'd 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 Scepter was departed from Judah; John the Baptiſt, the forerunner of the Meſſiah had awakened their expectations.

Voſſius's main Argument (as the Rector calls theſe) being anſwer'd, what follows is of leſs Conſideration: however, I will make ſome ſhort reflections on his two laſt Arguments, which are as follows:

IV. Cainan the Son of Arphaxad, mention'd 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 anſwer'd 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's 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 us'd 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 Grand-ſon of Noah. Gen. 46. 20. they have added five Grand-children to the Sons of Joſeph, and in v. 27. they reckon up 7 Grand-children 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 numbred among thoſe that went down into Egypt) then muſt Manaſſeh at the age of 9 or 10 at the moſt, be a Grand-Father 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 call'd 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 Jude 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.

p. 703dly. Ariſteas and Joſephus ſay, when the Greek Tranſlation page missing, Demetrius commanded that according to their Cuſtom, they mopage missing Curſes upon any that ſhou'd by addition, or alteration, or diminution page missing any Change in it. 4thly. He follow'd the Lxx. to ſhew that there was not a diſtinction as was imagined between Jews and Gentiles, and that he mipage missing fort the Gentiles concerning their coming in. See more in the learned Apage missing 1. p. 488, 490. Vol. II. p. 401, 402, 404.

V. The Rector has one other Corruption to Charge the Hebrew Copiepage missing Pſal. 22. 16. As a Lyon, inſtead of, they pierced my Hands and Feet, So page missing 15. 24. and the Lxx. This Place (if it be a Corruption) has not been page missing ted in all Hebrew Copies, the Jews themſelves being Witneſſes. R. Jacob Bepage missing the reſtorer of the Maſora (in Bibl. Venet.) ingenuouſly confeſſes that he page missing the reading foreign or foreign they pierced in ſome Copies, Johan. Iſaac Levita, page missing Jew became a Chriſtian, affirms the ſame of a Hebrew Pſalter that was hpage missing fathers. Several Hebrew Bibles have both readings foreign in the Text and page missing Margin, and Grotius acknowledges both to be Ancient, ſo doth Dr. Hammpage missing obſerves (as Glaſſius did before him) that the Chald. joyns both readings page missing dring the Place, mordentes ſicut leo manus meas **Duplex fuit antiquitus lectio. Grot. in loc.. Our Engliſh Tranſlator the marginal reading foreign they have pierced, as being at Liberty to chuſe eitpage missing, and the Jews themſelves in other Places prefer the Keri, or marginapage missing Of the two readings here no wonder the modern Jews ſhould prefer that whpage missing moſt to favour their Cauſe. The famous and indefatigable Dan. Bomberg, page missing ned himſelf in publiſhing the noble Venetian Edition of the Maſoretic Bible have reſtor'd the marginal reading into the Text, but the Jew that corrpage missing Preſs, diverted him from his Intention, by threatning to hinder the Sale opage missing among his Country-men. The learned Glaſſius, who was a great Cripage missing Hebrew Tongue, ſaith that foreign as a Lyon, ought to be renderd (as foreign pierced, and that foreign is the 3d. plur. praeter in Kal of foreign but in an Apage missing form, foreign being inſerted, as is uſual in other Words, and foreign put in the end for Ezr. 10. 44. foreign they had taken for foreign He refers to more Examples of tpage missing kind, as in Jer. 50. 11. and he calls this Letter, as Brixianus and others page missing before him, not Jod but a diminutive Vau, which is therefore thus Writtepage missing clarè inuat clavorum Chriſti ſtigmara: To ſignify the Marks of the Nails ipage missing Hands and Feet. Hence it is written in Codregiis foreign as if foreign had been page missing of foreign as it in Jer. 50. 11. four ſeveral Times, and ſo it is uſed in other Placpage missing.

Thus I have Vindicated the Hebrew Bibles, and our Engliſh Bibles, which Tranſlation of 'em, from the Corruptions with which the Rector hath thoupage missing reproach them. I deſire the Reader to conſider whether this Gentleman dpage missing be Credited in Reflections upon the Diſſenters, who ſo vilely Reflects on thpage missing Bibles, which he wou'd have us believe are Corrupted by the Jews in materiapage missing 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 thapage missing is come in the Fleſh, for the World muſt be 6000. Years old when Chriſt page missing 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 Rpage missing brought us to this paſs, either we muſt reject the Authority of our Engliſh page missing Point of Chronology) or deny that Chriſt is come in the Fleſh. Chriſt page missing come till the World was 6000 Years old, as the Rector tells us, and accordipage missing our Engliſh Bibles, it is not 6000 Years old to this Day. Mr. Gippes is a page missing 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 mapage missing in Jeſus Chriſt? Or ſhall we deny his Coming, to ſave our Bibles? You page missing you pleaſe, good Mr. Rector, but I am ſatisfied the Church of England, and tpage missing the Diſſenters, will neither renounce their Chriſtianity, nor their page missing

††Vid. Glaſs. de Script. ſtyl.FINIS.

End of the text · James Owen, Further Vindication of the Dissenters (1699)