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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by tradition § Basil hom in Psal 33. Gr. edit Paris 1618. 3dly But the Rector is not satisfied with this because he finds no one King of the Philistines so 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 Nobles 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 some 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
Notes upon the Lord Bishop of Salisbury 's four last Discourses I never cou'd certainly tell who was the Author of those Notes which I have not by me and therefore can say nothing of ' em If he retorts the Schism upon the imposers of unscriptual Terms of Communion as the Rector seems to hint he wou'd do well to answer his Arguments instead of branding him causelesly and in the rudest Manner with ill Nature want of good Breeding c. And now his Hand is in the Bishop himself can't escape his Censure whom he takes upon him to correct for his too gentle Expressions of the Dissenters and wou'd have had him styled them the Foxes and Firebrands of this Church and Nation that is he would teach the Judicious and Moderate Prelate to speak the Language of the confident and fiery Author of the Sermons of Allegiance Here the Rector gives the Dissenters an Instance of his good Nature and the Bishop of his good Breeding p. 3. 3. Rather than want Objects of his Anger he 'l dig into the Graves of the Dead If he has not the courage to meet their Ghosts which he is not sure of p. 17. he dares trample upon their Memories He gives a Proof of this in the Aspersions he casts on the Reverend Mr. Baldwin who is now with the Lord. p. 4. He has pick'd up some imperfect Notes of an old Sermon of his which has so filled his Head that his Reflections upon it is become the standing Preface to all his late Works He mentions it in his Tentament Novum here you find it again and because you can't have too much of a good Thing he promise you shall hear more of it another time 4. At length sensible of his Impertinency he asks What 's this to the Minister at Oswestry Indeed nothing at all however it helps to fill up Paper for want of better Matter But doth he in Earnest think to resolve his Question by this following one And I also ask What was it to the Minister at Oswestry If the Rector of Bury preached a Sermon in Vindication of the Church of England against the Lancashire Dissenters The Sermon he preached and which I answered Charges the Dissenters in General with Corrupting the Word of God especially those in Cambridge in the year 1638. And affirms that the Corruption has been secretly promoted by that Party ever since that it has been publickly own'd by a Scotch Chameronian And was all this Charge against the Lancashire Dissenters who are not so much as mention'd in the whole Sermon A Man that dare thus boldly Charge the Body of English and Scotch Presbyterians and then think to come off by saying his Sermon was against the Lancashire Dissenters may affirm or deny any thing at his Pleasure It it a bad Omen to stumble thus at the Threshold Had the Rector preach'd a Sermon only against the Lancashire Dissenters as I hear he has done many he should never have heard from the Minister at Oswestry But when he not only Preaches but publishes an Invective against the whole Body I judged my self concern'd to vindicate Truth and Innocency Since he is upon asking Questions I will take the freedoom to ask him one What is it to the Rector of Bury if I thought fit to Vindicate my Ordination by Presbyters whilest I allow'd the Validity of Episcopal Ordination I only justified Ordination by Presbytery but did not condemn that by Bishops This is the design of my Plea for Scripture Ordination which one wou'd have thought inoffensive But the Rector like the old Donatists confining the Ministry Sacraments and Salvation to those of his own Communion would needs take upon him to answer my Book This occasion'd my Tutamen Evangelicum which I had no sooner sent into the Press but his Sermon came to my Hands When I had read it over I was easily persuaded to draw up a few Remarks upon it But the Rector who is the unhappiest Man in the World at Conjectures and perhaps one of the boldest in affirming 'em for Truths wou'd prove from the different Air in the Remarks from Mr. Owen's other Writings that he is but the reputed Father of this spurious Off-spring Who then is the true Father Why he believes the Note-Maker was principal in the Remarks and that they are the Work of a Club of Ministers and that the Remarkers true Name is Legion for they are many p. 5. If the poor Rector had not been grievously tormented by the Remarks he had scarce thought of this frightful Name He finds himself driven to a Precipice with the bristled Herd in the Gospel and wou'd fain keep above water but who can relieve the Animal whom a Legion pursues To be Serious I thought he had more Sense than to deny the Remarks to be mine because they are written in a Stile different from my Writings upon other Subjects Any Author that understands the Laws of Writing will adapt his Style to the Subject he is upon If my lines are something pointed the Rector's infamous detraction by which he had exposed a vast Body of Protestants to an unjust and publick reproach must be my Apology I perceive he is a great Stranger to the Dissenters when he affirms my Remarks to be drest up with all the gaudy Feathers and Embellishments which the Wit of the Party cou'd furnish them with They were wholly drest up such as they are by my self and the habit they appear in is neither Sordid nor Gay the Truth and Innocency they assert desires not the former nor needs the latter A very small degree of Wit will enable a Man to expose the Rector's Defamatory Libel which has as little of Wit as it has of Honesty I will not be so Injurious to the Reputation of his Party as to suspect any Man of Wit and Candor among 'em to have contributed so much as a single Stroke to the Criminatory part of his Sermon which so resembles the true Father that not only his Figure but his very Soul and Spirit are squez'd into it p. 5. But the Remarks in their way to London took a tour to Manchester p. 5. They did so for Zachary Whitworth of Manchester undertook the Printing of ' em I presume the Ministers might read 'em but I dare affirm and so will they that they neither alter'd them in whole or in part nor added to 'em except two lines â—n p. 11. and the short Advertisment after the end of my Book And now for his Satisfaction I have made him my Confessor for this once if it may be any relief to him to know by whom he suffers for he seems like a Man desperately wounded who turns himself every way to behold the Hand that directed the fatal Arrow to his smarting Side Had the Manchester Ministers put themselves to the trouble of answering his Sermon he would have felt more penetrating Strokes nor is he so formidable that they need be afraid or they so despicable as
Lord the work of the Hands of the Crafts-Man and putteth it in a secret Place In the Liturgy the words to worship it are added to the Text which denounceth a Curse upon such as make an Image for any Religious Ends as suppose to beget in us good reflections to be a help to our Devotions c. but the Addition restraineth the Curse to the Act or Intention of Adoration Now there is a Controversy of greater Consequence than that of ye and we depends upon this Addition viz. whether it be lawful to use Images as suppose a Crucifix c. for Religious Ends provided we don 't worship them The Papists say it 's not only lawful but in some Cases necessary that they are Laymen's Books and great helps to Devotion The Protestants affirm according to the Scripture they ought not to be made at all for the Ends of Religion much less set up either in the Congregation or in a secret Place Deut. 27. 15. Isa 44. 10. Habb 2. 18 19. This Addition in the Liturgy seems to favour the Popish Doctrine that we may use Images in our Devotions provided we don 't worship them I am the more Confirm'd in this by the Images of Christ and his Apostles which I find Printed in several of our Common-Prayers and I doubt not but they are intended as helps to Devotion and I wish they were not designed as an Introduction to Image Worship in the late Reigns when projects of that kind were conniv'd at However this be the making of such Images is against the Scriptures especially the 2d Commandment as is prov'd at large in the Book of Homilies It 's shew'd there 1st That no Image of Christ can be made but a LYING IMAGE because he is God and Man Nor can any true Image of his Body be made because it is unknown now of what Form and Countenance he was and there be in Greece and at Rome and in other Places divers Images of Christ and none of them like to other and yet every of them affirmeth that theirs is the True which cannot possibly be Therefore as soon as an Image of Christ is made by and by is a LYE made of him which by God's Word is forbidden 2ly If an Image of Christ cou'd truly be made yet it is unlawful that it should be made yea or that the Image of any Saint shou'd be made especially to be set up in Temples Ireneus reproves the Hereticks call'd Gnosticks for carrying about the Image of Christ In the same Homily is proved the unlawfullness of such Images from Lev. 26. Exod 20. and Deut. 27. and they quote this last Text aright without the Addition in the Common-Prayer * Serm. against Peril of Idolatry Part 3d. One may justly wonder that such a publick Use of Images shou'd be allow'd in our Churches and no Body that I hear of reprove or condemn it tho' all our Episcopal Ministers have subscribed to the Book of Homilies as containing a Godly and wholsome Doctrine The having of Images in our Books of publick Devotions is as unjustifiable as the setting 'em up in our publick Churches nay the former is in this respect Worse than the latter because in the latter Case one Image serves a whole Congregation but in the former there are as many Images as there are Worshippers with Pictur'd Common-Paryer-Books in their Hands Christians shou'd avoid all Occasions and Appearances of Idolatry but the Rectors Zeal runs another Way I will not tempt him to execute the fiery Sentence he passed on the Bible upon his Common-Prayer but I will recommend to his Reading the learned and pious Homilies against Idolatry which mention with Approbation Epiphanius's renting a painted Cloth wherein was a Picture of Christ or of some Saint affirming it to be against our Religion that any such Image shou'd be had in the Temple or Church If this Act of Epiphanius does not raise an Emulation in him to purge his Church of Images he ought at least to declare against the Corruption of Scripture to which he is accessary by giving his Assent and Consent to all and every Thing contain'd in the Liturgy Thus I have gratified his Request and given him such an Instance as he desires and yet I will not say this is a Corruption of which all the Episcopal Party is Guilty because I believe few of 'em have taken notice of it For a farther Confirmation of his Charge against the Dissenters he saith out of Arch-Bishop Laud's Speech that the Puritans expung'd part of the XX. Articles of the Church of England concerning the Power of the Church to decree Rites and Ceremonies 'T is yet Sub-Judice whether that Clause was added by some of the Bishops Friends or expung'd by some of their Adversaries whether it were the one or t'other it does not concern the Controversy in Hand Tho' it may seem more probable they were added by some Ceremonious Gentleman for the Puritans alledged that the Clause was not to be found in the Latine or English Articles of King Edward VI. or Queen Elizabeth ratified by Parliament The Arch-Bishop can't say that this Clause was in the Articles of King Edward VI. but comes off with this sly Answer That the Articles made in the time of King Edward VI. were not now in Force and therefore not Material whether that Clause be in or out * Heyl. Life of Laud. p. 339. I thought Articles of Religion were not like Acts of Parliament to be repealed at pleasure However one may conclude from Arch-Bishop Laud's Words that the Clause about Ceremonies was not in the Original Articles of the Reformed Church of England in King Edward VI. time If it had been in he would have taken notice of it as he does of all the Editions that had it in Queen Elizabeth's time If it was to be found in the Records of Convocation Anno 1562. as the Arch-Bishop saith it is a sign the Church of England was grown more Ceremonious than it had been in King Edward VI. time Be this Matter as it will it concerns not us tho' the Rector according to his wonted Justice reproaches us with it Remark on Remarks p. 51. 63. †Mr. Baxter 's Life p. 639. Arch-Bishop Vsher Arch-Bishop Williams Bishop Morton Bishop Holdsworth c. in a Committee at Westminster 1641. mention this Article among the Innovations in Doctrine in the Church of England He has a pleasant Digression on these Words of mine no Dissenters have urg'd this Corrupt reading in favour of a Popular Covernment in any of their Writings against Bishops and Ceremonies Remark p. 14. which he thus reports No Dissenters have urg'd this Corrupt reading against Bishops and Ceremonies And then adds who ever thought that ye had any thing to do with the Ceremonies p. 52. I spoke of the Corrupt reading as applied to a popular Government which is evident by my Words I Note this as an Instance of his Unfairness and pass by his
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 Psalms 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 Sioniâ—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 have applied to this Occasion rather than any other joyful Event if the Holy Ghost had not prefixed this Inscription The like may be said of Pslam 34. which was 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