JƲlius Coesar reports of the Ancient Gallic Soldiers ^*, that at the first on-set they were more than Men, and at the second less than Women. Such a Champion is the Rector of Bury, who has charged the Dissenters with a Passion exceeding that of a Man, even such as distinguishes the Accuser of the Brethren, but find­ing himself warmly receiv'd, he consults his own Safety by an in­glorious flight, and would shelter himself in such Refuges, as would be generously disdain'd even by those of the weaker Sex, whose Con­duct is influenc'd by any Principles of Vertue and Honour: He is so vain as to compare himself to Scipio Africanus ^†, whose Policy (says he) I thought fit to make use of by carrying the War into the Enemies own Country, and to lay to the Dissenter's Charge a Crime, &c Our renown­ed English Scipio is so fond of his Military Politicks that he cannot for­bear mentioning them again in his Letter. I thought not improper ^‖, says he, to carry the War into the Enemies own Countrey, and tax them with corrupting, Acts 6.3.

Here is a formidable War begun upon us, the Rector declares us all Enemies, because the Note-maker and Mr. Calvin, as he pretends, had broken the Peace, and treats us with all the fierceness and ma­lignity, which he reckons due to Enemies, especially in a time of Publick Hostility.

One or two Persons had displeased him, and instead of engaging them, like another Goliah he assaults the whole Body of English Dis­senters, together with the Church of Scotland. He lays to their charge things they knew not, and makes them Corrupters of the Word of God. He pretends they Printed Ye for We in Acts 6.3. And this he at­tempts to prove by Four Arguments.

1. The first Corruption happen'd in Cambridge in the Year 1638. 2. It favours the Dissenters. 3. The Episcopal Party design'd not to corrupt this Place. 4. A Cameronian urg'd this corrupt Reading. These are the Forces, with which he manages the War, as he calls it. I fully confuted his Arguments in my Remarks on his Corruption-Sermon. Sometime after he Publishes his Remarks on Remarks, where­in he pretends to confirm his Charge, and to recruit his Forces by the Addition of a Story or two, which he tacks to the Cameronian-Story. That Book is full of bitter and indecent Reflections on the whole Tribe of Dissenters. In my further Vindication of the Dissenters, I answe­red all his Four Arguments, expos'd the weakness and invalidity of 'em, which must of necessity affect the Author, and now and then I complain'd of his Injustice, want of Candor, Charity and Truth. The Rector, as I have Reason to believe, being Convicted of the wrong he had done us, and not being able to vindicate his Arguments any longer, Publishes a sort of Letter to a feigned Friend (for real ones he has none in this Controversie) wherein he offers not the least Thing in Defence of his Three first Arguments, nor indeed could he with any colour of Reason, so that Three Squadrons of Mr. Scipio's Army are entirely cut off, nor had he the Courage so much as to attempt to recruit them: Nay, he tamely gives 'em up for Dead; and confesses, ^* that the Life of the whole Arguments put together, depends on the Evidence of those Matters of Fact. If his Cameronian Story, and the two other want Evidence, or do not affect the Dissenters; then by his own Confession, his Three other Arguments want Life. When he brought these doughty Squadrons first into the Field, he took it for granted they had Life and Strength in 'em, but now they are Dead and unserviceable to him, who can help it? He should have ta­ken some Care to cover the Carkasses of his slain Regiments, and not suffer their offensive Remains to infect the Air. But when a Valiant General is reduced to those extremities, as to be able only to take Care of his own Person; he is to be pitied, if not excus'd, for neg­lecting an Act of Piety, to which his Heroick Nature wou'd have ge­nerously [Page 5]dispos'd him. But he is not without some hopes, but the Cameronian-Story may inspire Life into 'em, and give 'em a Resurre­ction; and therefore he labours all he can to support the Credit of it. The Story in short is this. One Collonel Fairfax reported in a Publick House at Rochdale to the Reverend Mr. Piggot and Mr. Milne, that a Scotch Cameronian had Cited this corrupt Place in a Publick Sermon.

To this I answer'd, 1. It is uncertain, whether Collonel Fairfax reported it, for Mr. Milne avers he never was in the Collonel's Company; so that the Report depends on Mr. Piggot's single Testi­mony: And some say, this is not the first Brat, he has impos'd on the World. 2. If the Collonel reported it, it is but a single Evidence, nor does he say he heard the Cameronian himself urge this corrupt Reading, so that what he Deposes, is by hear-say, nor does he Name the Person, Place, or Time. Such a blind Evidence would look ridi­culous in a Court of Justice. 3. I Published an Extract of the Vote of the General Assembly of Scotland, wherein they disown this Cor­ruption, and declare they never heard of any in that Kingdom, that apply'd that Text to prove the People's Power in Ordaining their Ministers. This may ground a just Suspicion, that the Story was invented in Rochdale, at a Publick House, for it is not so much as known in Scotland, nor mention'd by such of the Episcopal Dissenters as have Publish'd abundance of extravagant Stories to reproach the Government there.

These things are enough to invalidate his Cameronian Story with all unprepossess'd Persons, but the Rector, whose Talent lies in col­lecting and improving Stories, wou'd have the World believe Mat­ter of Fact is very true, because

1. 'Tis plain, the Collonel believ'd it, nor would he entertain a Story without good ground, Page 20.

Soldiers and Travellers are not the most exact in examining the grounds of every Story they hear, and perhaps report again over their Liquors to divert the Company. 'Tis plain, that Persons of a more sacred Character can entertain groundless Stories, and entertain their Hearers with them, for want of better Matter to fill up their Hour, though perhaps the Rector is the only Man that borrows mate­rials for his Sermons out of the Can-Office.

If the Collonel had good ground for his Relation, why had he not nam'd the Person, Time and Place? There is good Reason, I confess, why these Circumstances should be omitted by the Collonel and the Rector, that we might be put beyond all possibility of detecting the falsity of the Report.

I observ'd that such a blind Evidence, where Persons, Time and Place are not nam'd, wou'd look ridiculous in a Court of Justice, but the Rector good Man, does not pretend to observe the troublesome Forms of Justice in the management of his Charge.

He Answers.

2. Such Testimonies are not sufficient to ground a judiciary definitive Sen­tence upon, yet they are oftentimes believ'd by the Court.

By his own Confession the Rector is an unjust Judge, for he has positively condemn'd us without Evidence. The Design of his Ser­mon, and Vindication of it, is to prove us Corrupters of the Word of God and the Evidence is blind, and wou'd not pass in any Court of Justice, but that of the Rector's, as himself is forc'd to acknowledge. He may Believe and Judge as he pleases, but while he produces no other Evidence to Condemn us by, but what wou'd acquit us in all Courts of Justice; we will take leave to appeal from his unrighteous Sentence, to the sober and rational Sentiments of Mankind.

He wou'd do well to tell us what sort of Faith that is, which Courts of Justice give to a blind Evidence, which he saith, they often Believe. The Papists have brought an implicite Faith into the Church, but the Rector is the first Man that brings an implicite Faith into Courts of Justice. He makes them to believe an Accusation against John a Nokes and John a Stile, that Mr. Some-body has committed a very great Crime, as suppose corrupting the Word of God; but the Deponent knows neither the Man, nor his Name, nor his Countrey, nor the Time when, nor the Place where the Offence was committed; nor can he say any thing of the Matter, but by hear-say. Will any Bo­dy in his sound Mind believe this Evidence?

Surely our Learned Judges are not such Credulous Coxcombs as the Rector makes 'em to be, nor can I think him such a one himself, though for some Reasons he thinks fit to abuse the World; I presume he has more Sense than to believe his own Evidence, but it's no strange thing for Persons, abandon'd to unreasonable and injurious Passions to abuse the very Courts of Justice, that wou'd reduce them to the inoffensive Government of Reason.

But an Evidence (as he proceeds) may be sufficient for private Con­viction, which will not be allow'd of in Publick Forms of Justice, Ibid.

It's hard to understand what he means by Private Conviction. Does he mean by it, that it's lawful to defame a Man upon any blind Evi­dence provided it be done behind his Back and in Private? This is to wound a Man's Reputation in Secret, and inconsistent with the Character of a Citizen of Sion, Psalm 15.

Or does he mean upon such an Evidence, we may entertain a Pri­vate Belief of a Man's being guilty, but can't Publish his Guilt, be­cause the Evidence is not according to the Publick Forms of Justice. Why then had not the Rector contented himself with his Private Faith concerning us, and not Publish'd our pretended Conviction to the World? A Publick Conviction ought to be according to the Publick Forms of Justice by his own Confession, and therefore he is self-con­demn'd for receding from the allow'd Rules of Justice.

The Rector has but one other Refuge left, and if that fails him, his Cameronian Story fastens upon him an indelible Reproach. Paul saith he, accuses some of the Corinthians, and he had it from some of the House of Cloe, whom he mentions not, for disparaging him. His Letters are weighty and powerful, but his bodily Presence is weak and contemptible, 2 Cor. 10.10. Here was neither Person, nor Time, nor Place named, and yet Paul believed the Report, page 20.

To which I Answer.

1. How does the Rector know the Apostle had this Information from some of the House of Chloe? He doth not say so, 2 Cor. 10.10. But the Rector has a singular Faculty in discovering Secret Matters or rather in making bold Conjectures. He finds that those of Chloe had inform'd St. Paul, that there were Contentions at Corinth, when the first Epistle was Written, 1 Cor. 1.11. And therefore he con­cludes, they must be his Informers when he wrote his Second Epistle, which was at least some Months after.

2. It was not necessary to Name Persons, where no question was made of the Matter of Fact, and yet it does not follow, but the Apo­stle knew well enough, who the Persons were. He had good Evi­dence of the Truth of the Report, otherwise he had not mention'd it with so much Assurance. And perhaps, he suppress'd their Names, because he wou'd not expose 'em to Publick Reproach, but by an in­definite Reproof reduce 'em to Repentance, 1 Cor. 4.6.

3. When I saw the Name of St. Paul, I began to hope the Rector was coming to himself, and willing to imitate that great Pattern of Sincerity and Charity, which he so much recommends in one of his Epistles, to which the Rector refers us; 1 Cor. 13. but I soon per­ceiv'd my Error, and found that the Rector had read those Epistles, not with design to Practice that Charity which thinks no Evil, 1 Cor. 13.5. But to draw in St. Paul to his Party to Patronize a false Ac­cusation, tho' the Unhappiness of it is, St. Paul mentions a Matter of Fact that no Body disown'd; that he cou'd have prov'd on the guilty Persons, had they deny'd it; and it never enter'd into Paul's [Page 8]mind to charge the whole Church of Corinth with the supercilious Censures of the few false Apostles, that were there; but our Rector mentions a Fact that no Body knows any thing, of, that he cannot prove, tho' he has left no Stone unturn'd in attempting it, and in Imitation of Haman, not of St. Paul, he imputes the supposed fault of one Person, and that a Scotch-man, to the whole Body of English-Dis­senters.

4. I cannot think St. Paul got his Information in an Ale-House, or from a Soldier of Fortune, or that he wou'd have been so credulous as the Rector's Courts of Justice, who oftentimes believe a sort of blind Evidence, that affects neither Person, Time nor Place. The Apostle had more Wisdom and Honesty, than to receive such malicious Accu­sations. Suppose the Church of Corinth had remonstrated to St. Paul, that they knew of no Person that had disparag'd him, and that they disapprov'd of such a Censure; can any Body imagine but his Candor would have acquitted them, except he could make good his Charge by positive Proof. ‘Those of the Church of Scotland, have disclaim'd the Error of the Press, which the Rector Charges upon them, and affirm they neither know, nor can learn, that ever any in their Na­tion did apply that Error to the People's Power in making Mini­sters.’ But the Rector, charitable Man, stands to his Accusation, and wou'd feign have it pass for Truth, tho' he offers not any thing that looks like the shadow of a Proof.

So much of the Cameronian Fable.

As to his Story of Mr. Jolly's alledging this corrupt Reading, in Discourse with Mr. Ellison at Duckenfield-Hall: ‘I told him, that He and Mr. Ellison are well-advis'd in their Reports; the one tells a Story of a nameless Cameronian in another Kingdom, the other Names his Person, but you must find him in another World, for he was Dead before this Report of him was Publish'd; they are resolv'd to put us out of all hopes of being ever able to examine the Truth of their Tales.’

The Rector answers, There are those that can tell Mr. Owen, there was such a Minister as Mr. Jolly, there is such a Place as Duckenfield-Hall, &c.

How does this prove the thing in Hand? Does it follow, because there was such a Man as Mr. Jolly at Duckenfield-Hall, and suppose engag'd with Mr. Ellison in some Dispute about Church-Government. That he must be a. Corrupter of the Word of God? This is as con­cluding, as the Rector's Argument concerning Cambridge, 1638. He found there as he thought five or six Presbyterians among Two Thou­sand [Page 9]Scholars, therefore they were the Authors of the Corruption in Acts 3.6.

Mr. Ellison's Testimony is a single one, and against a Dead Man, who cannot Answer for himself.

True, saith the Rector, but no Judge, but upon such Testimonies wou'd Decree the Nuncupative Will of a Deceased Person good and valid, p. 21.

No Judge wou'd Decree a Nuncupative Will good upon a single Te­stimony. Our Law requires the Oaths of three Witnesses, if the Estate bequeath'd be considerable; nor doth it admit any Testimony of a Nuncupative Will after six Month, unless it were committed to Wri­ting within six Days after making the said Will, Stat. 19. Car. II. Cap. 3. So careful is the Law to prevent Frauds and Forgeries, respe­cting the Dead. I inquire not, whether there are not more than six Months between the reporting of this Story, and the Time of the pre­tended Dispute, and whether it was Written within six Days after. Be that Matter as it will, Mr. Ellison's single Evidence against the Dead is not legal, as the Rector ignorantly insinuates

I am told, that Mr. Jolly was look'd upon as Presbyterian in his Judgment, and it is not likely he wou'd urge a corrupt Text to vin­dicate an Opinion, that was inconsistent with his Principles.

So much of the Duckenfield-Hall Story.

I shall speak a Word or two to the Bolton-Story, which is this. ‘A Gentleman, now living in Bolton heard some Dissenters cite Acts 6. as the Cameronian did, and they appealed to the Scotch Bible.’

To this I answer'd, that I suspected the Truth of this Story, be­cause few of the Scotch-Bibles are misprinted, as I made it appear by a Catalogue of the Editions, the two that were misprinted there were under the Bishops.

The Rector wisely over-looks this, as he does most of my Book, but according to his usual Modesty; he saith, The Story is an unex­ceptionable Proof of what it was produced for, p. 21.

That part of it that concerns the Scotch-Bibles, I have detected to be false. When a Man is found to falter in one part of a Story, the Credit of the whole is justly suspected.

The Bolton Gentleman is also a single Witness, and Names no Per­sons, nor appears above Board himself Truth needs not sneak into Corners, it dares shew it's Face, and fears no Opposition. There is something of Mystery in it, that this Witness conceals his own Name, and those of the accused Dissenters. I am apt to think they may be alive as well as the Gentleman. I suppose, if they had been Dead, we should have had their Names enroll'd with Mr. Jolly's. But sup­pose these Stories had been true, they cannot affect the whole Body of Dissenters.

I have now answer'd all that the Rector has to say in Confirmati­on of his Charge, and appeal to the World, whether this Man has done us common Justice. All his Four Arguments are dwindled into one, which contains Matter of Fact. He confesses himself, that the Life of the whole Argument put together, depends on the Evidence of those Matters, of Fact which makes his Fourth Argument.

Now since his Matters of Fact want legal Evidence, his Three for­mer Arguments, which he has deserted, are destitute of Life by his own Confession.

Thus all the Forces of this mighty Warrier are routed ^*, and tho' he has made Lies his last Refuge, this also not only fails him, but ex­poses him to the vindictive Stroaks of victorious Truth, whose Tri­umphant Chariot he follows with such a dispirited Aspect, as if he wou'd move the Compassions of the Spectators, and implore the kind Intercessions of his Reader, that his expiring Reputation be not made a Victim to the just Resentments of injur'd Innocence. One while he is content to surrender the Interests of his Reputation to the Dissenters, p. 26. He hopes they'll be so kind to him, as not to condemn him for Fool, or Knave, or Impudent, or Blasphemer, Ibid. Our Scipio An­glicanus cries Quarter, and hopes for Mercy at their Hands, tho' he has injur'd them to the utmost of his Power. He knows the Men, that they are like the Kings of Israel, of a merciful Disposition, but then he ought to make his address with a Rope about his Neck, as the Sy­rian General did before him; humbly acknowledging his Crime, and I dare Promise for 'em, they'll pass a very favourable Sentence upon him. Another while he pretends, he could have answer'd every Pa­ragraph in my Vindication, but to what Purpose? When shall we have an end? p. 26. Who dare Question the Rector's Abilities to Answer my Book, since he gives no Proof of 'em? But to what Purpose should a Man, who is sufficiently bastinadoed procure to himself more blows? It is a wiser part to end the Matter, let him cease his unjust Crimina­tions, and we shall soon make an end; and until he does so, let him expect the Chastisement that is due unto bold and obstinate Calumnia­tors. He complains I give him hard Words, to which I answer in the Words of Vespasian the Emperor, Qui Prior lacessivit seipsum Prae­rogativâ dignitatis privavit. The Rector by publishing so base and groundless a Calumny, and attempting to justifie it against the most convictive Reason, has forfeited the Benefit of those Civilities that are owing to a fair Adversary. He brags he has made War upon us, and then complains of hard blows.

His Sermon, and the Defence of it, abound with the rudest Inve­ctives. But he pretends, that he has engag'd himself by Promise not to Answer a Fool according to his Folly, Prov. 26.4. Which he says, he'll religiously observe, Lett. p. 1. He promises not to give ill Language, (Ibid.) and in the same Breath calls, me Fool. It seems, to call a Man Fool is no ill Language with the Rector, whatever it was in Christ's account ^*. How religiously he observes his Promise, the Rea­der may observe in several Instances. In p. 19. he compares us to Malefactors that have Brow enough to assert their Innocence, when the Halter is about their Necks. In p. 23. he saith, they seem to by of the Humor of that leud Soldier, who excus'd himself thus, that the Commandment is, thou shalt not, but not I shall not. In p. 26. he suggests by way of Query, Whether Mr. O. has not done what in him lies to deserve the Character of a great Rogue, for affirming that the Re­ctor had given him that Character in his R. R. p. 58. to which Mr. O. still appeals. It is true, he does it by a sly Insinuation, and be­cause I take notice of his calling me so, he pretends that I misrepre­sent him, and deserve that Character for so doing. I only mention these things as instances of his Religious Performance of his Promise, not to give ill Language. Naturam expellas furca licet. Can the Ethi­opian change his Skin?

He falls foul on the Note-maker, p. 22. in whom I am not con­cern'd: It wou'd have look'd more honourable in the Rector to have answer'd his Arguments, than to set up for Informer General, to ac­cuse the whole Body of Dissenters of a Crime he can never prove up­on 'em.

In p. 23. he reflects on Mr. Baxter, but not a word of his cor­rupting the Scripture, by leaving out these in Acts 15.28. Since I shew'd him the like Omission in the Homilies of the Church.

He wisely overlooks this Crime, which he had aggravated in the Epistle before his Sermon, and in his Remark upon Remark But now he silently dismisses Mr. B. whom he cannot Condemn without in­volving himself and the Church of England in the same Sentence.

Now suppose a Man of Mr. Gips his Temper, shou'd take up his Arguments against Mr. B. and retort it upon the Church of England; by affirming, that the Church hath cunningly left out the Word (these) merely to support her Proposition, and hath not had the Ingenuity to confess her Error, nor yet the Courage to Palliate it with any excuse ^† no, nor has her Champion, the Courage to do it for her, tho' he has been told of it ^‖. And he is the more concern'd to do it, because he has sub­scribed [Page 12]her Homilies, which the Dissenters have not done, and so made himself accessory to the Corruption.

Though the Rector has disingennously deserted the Church, and left her unvindicated under the odious Imputation of corrupting the Word of God, I will be so just to her, as to acquit her from so black a Charge. It was not the Design of the Compilers of the Homilies, nor of Mr. B. to quote the very Words of Scripture, nor was the Omission of the word these design'd for any ill ends by either of 'em.

I shall now return to the former Part of his Letter, and can't but take notice what an Artist the Rector is in methodizing his Epistle. The principal Controversie between him and me; was, Whether the Dissenters were corrupters of the Word of God? The other about the Titles of the Psalms, and the Corruption of the Hebrew Copies came in accidentally, and therefore I threw it into a Post-script by it self, that it might not interfere with the main Point in debate.

The Rector being sensible that he is quite baffled in the principal Controversie between us, and having nothing material to offer more upon that Subject, begins his Letter with Animadversions on my Post-Script, and comes not to the main point, viz. His charge exhi­bited against the Dissenters of corrupting the Word of God, untill P. 19. and then speaks next to nothing of it. All he has to say to the principal Subject in debate, takes up but Three Pages of his Letter, which consists of Twenty-seven in all. Had he been able to say more to it, to be sure he would have done it, for he still shews his Good-will to the Cause; and would have the World believe the main charge is beyond all Controversie, P. 19. Since he can defend it no longer, he wou'd perswade us to be so good Natured, as to let it pass without any further Controversie; and if we don't, we are like those Malefactors that assert their Innocence, when the Halter is about their Necks, &c. P. 19. If our Accuser had the Honour to be our Execu­tioner, I see we must expect little Mercy at his Hands, We must all undergo the Fate of Saul's Seven Children, who were hung up before the Lord for their Fathers Sin. And it would be no Relief to us to assert our Innocency, for we must bear the Error of the Scotch-Ca­meronian. And if we say, this is hard measure, to Impute the fault of one Man to all Dissenters, the Rector Answers, that this must needs be just, because Saul's offence was Reveng'd upon Seven of his Children. R. R. P. 48. The Rector is a Man that loves to harp upon the same String in all his Composures, and were we to stand at his Bar, I much doubt, whether he would allow us the Benefit of the Clergy; and if such a favour were granted us: I fear we should scarce read our Neck-verse, without being condemn'd for Corrupting the Word of God.

But to return, from this Hanging Digression, to his Animadver­sions, on my Post-Script, wherein I asserted, the Divine Authority of the Titles of the Psalms and the purity of the Hebrew Text.

As to the First of these, the Rector does not pretend to Answer my Arguments for the Divine Authority of the Titles, or to Vindi­cate his own against it; and the Reason of this omission is obvious: For where he thinks he has any thing, that he can take Advantage of he lays hold on it. He says, P. 2. That I give him Words of Brass, by pronouncing him a Blasphemer, for saying that many of the Titles were to no Purpose at all. I did not expresly call him so, but what I said I say again. ‘That it wou'd have look'd more modest in him, to have said, we understand not the use of many Titles; than boldly, if not Blasphemously, to Charge the Spirit of God with Impertinencies, Vind. P. 44.’ And in another Place to say, that Psalm, 72 20. Is manifestly false if the Title be true, R. R. P. 13. Many would call this Blasphemy, but I do not. It is a very poor Shift, by which he would mollifie his Words, the Titles are to no Pur­pose at all; that is, they are not useful to unfold Mysteries, Let. P. 2. To no Purpose, and to such a Purpose are very different things; such as do not unfold Mysteries may be useful to other Ends.

But they are more mysterious, says he, than the Psalms themselves; and the Spirit of God would not explain, Obscurum per Obscurius. All are not so, and those that are obscure to us, might be otherwise to the old Hebrews.

Greg. Nyssen observed (as the Rector adds) that there was not an entire Agreement between, the Christians and the Jews about the Titles, which Mr. O. has declin'd to Answer to, P. 3. You see, tho' the Rector cannot Answer my Arguments, nor defend his own, he studies every little Advantage. I told him, I had not Greg, by me, tho' I see nothing in him as he represents him, that makes against my Ar­gument. There is not an entire Agreement, between the Greek Bible which was in the Hands of the Christians, and the Hebrew Bible to this day, in many more things than the Titles of the Psalms, and yet we receive the Hebrew Bible as Divinely inspir'd; and so we do the Titles of the Psalms.

But, if the Rector cannot defend his old Arguments, he hath found out a new one, which is this: The Titles of the several Books of Scripture, are not Canonical; and the Titles of the Psalms must run the same fate, P. 3, 4, 5. And why so good Sir?

1. The Titles of the Books of Scripture, are acknowledg'd to be human Additions; I never met with any Author, Jewish or Chri­stian, that affirms them to be Canonical; but the Titles of the [Page 14]Psalms, are reputed Canonical, by the Christian and Jewish Doctors; and commented upon by them as such, whereas they rarely take notice of the Titles of the Books of Scripture, except it be now and then, to tell us that they bear such Titles.

2. The Titles of the Books of the old Testament, in our Hebrew Bibles are put by themselves, as distinct from the rest of the Books; and are made the running Titles in the top of the Leaves. But, the Titles of the Psalms are made part of the Psalms themselves, in all our Hebrew Bibles, in which the Title, if there be any to the Psalm, is always the first Verse.

3. All the Books of the Bible have Titles, but so have not all the Psalms; If they had been human Additions, it had been as easie to have given a Title to each Psalm, as to each Book of the Bible, but the ancient Jews, who durst not add to the Word of God, would not prefix Titles to those Psalms, which originally had none.

The Books of the Prophets, as he goes on, are thus entitled, the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, &c. I cannot think the Inspir'd Prophets set these Titles on the head of their Books.

Here the Rector thinks aright, for the Title he mentions is to be found only in the English Translation; the Hebrew and Greek Bibles which he had not diligence enough to consult, have no more than Isaiah.

He nibbles at a concession of Mine, that it was a prevailing Opi­nion, that all the Psalms were pen'd by David, what then, demands he, will become of the Title of the 90. Psalm? P. 5.

I obviated this Query in the very next Line, out of Theodoret, who says, David wrote it, but adapted it to Moses. ‘I told the Rector that I presum'd the Titles were left out of the Liturgy Psalms, because they were design'd to be Sung. Vind. P. 53.’ 'Tis my very Plea in Defence of the Church of England ^*, saith he: But you must thank me for it, Mr. Rector, for you thought of no such Plea in your Sermon, but call on the Dissenters, to prefix the Titles to the Singing Psalms, if they be part of Scripture. I objected, that in the Parish Churches, the Psalms that want Titles are read. True, saith the Rector, 'tis the fault of some, the crime of others, the unhappiness of others, who cannot prevail, with their People to bear a part in the rehaersing of them; for the order of the Church is, that they be said or sung, said, that is at least repeated alternatim, by Minister and People, which is a Species of singing. P. 6.

If the order be say or sing, First, how can it be a Fault, a Crime, [Page 15]to say the Psalms and not to sing them, the Rubric allows both, and therefore both are lawful. No wonder the Rector charges us with Crimes he cannot prove, since he doth so by his own Brethren, he makes 'em Criminals for doing what the Rubric bids 'em do.

Secondly, I thought saying and singing, being mention'd disjunctively, were different things, but with the Rector, saying is a Species of sing­ing. Does not this Man Ridicule the Rubric of the Church, by make­ing it speak Non-sense? say or sing, that is, according to the Rector's Exposition, sing or say. This looks like defaming the Common-Prayer, for which I remit him to the Censure of his Ordinary.

Thirdly, I never yet cou'd see any Rubric or Canon for reading the Psalms alternatim, Authors make mention of alternate singing, which was us'd with great variety in ancient Times.

^* Basil saith, the Congregation was divided into two Parts, and sung alternately one to another.

^† Chrysostom seems to allow the People no part in singing, but the ecchoing out, of the last Word of the Verse, [...] —, He that singeth, singeth alone, and all the rest Eccho forth the last Words. And it may be, this is the meaning of the Council of Laodicea, Can. 15. Wherein they forbid all singing in the Church, except by the Regular Singers.

Gregory the Great, forbids any to sing in the Church but the Infe­rior Orders, as the Sub-Deacons, &c. Lib. 4. c. 88. Perhaps he had an Eye to this Canon. Dionysius, who goes under the Name of the Areopagite, says, that the Bishop with the whole Ecclesiastical Order sing the Sacred Hymns, Eccles. Hierarch. c. 3. It seems the People were wholly excluded from the Publick Praises. The way of singing alternately is very ancient, some derive it from Moses and Miriam, Exod. 15.21. And Miriam answered them, &c. But it is uncertain how Miriam and the Women of Israel sung, whether they sung in their Dances, the very same Words that Moses and the Men of Israel sung, or whether they sung the first Verse of Moses's Song by way of Intercalation, as the Burden of that Song; and it may be [...] an­swer'd, signifies no more than she said, in which Sense the Word Answer is us'd in the New Testament, Matth. 11.25. But its evi­dent here, that it was different from the Manner of reading the Psalms with us, for Miriam and the Women sung the first Verse of Moses Song, and with us the Minister reads the first Verse of the Psalm, which the People neither Read nor Sing.

It should seem by Josephus, that the Levites only sung in the Tem­ple [Page 16]at Jerusalem ^*. The Essenes, as Philo affirms, had one chief Singer, who sung alone until he came to the last Words, then all the People join'd with him ^‖.

This way of Singing by Parts was used by the ancient Heathens, as appears by that in Homer ^†, who represents the Muses singing alternately.

The first Man that appointed Antiphons or Responsory Singing in Constantinople was Chrysostom, in Emulation of the Arians, as So­crates affirms. Eccl. Hist. VI. 8.

Nicephorus ascribes the Invention of Antiphons to Ignatius, who in a Vision heard the Angels praising the Trinity in Responsory Hymns, which he thereupon introduc'd into the Church of Antioch. Eccl. Hist. XIII. 8.

But be this matter as it will, there is no Precedent that ever I could meet with for Reading the Psalms alternately, nor cou'd I ever find either Canon or Rubric for it in the Church of England. And if there be neither, it looks like a piece of Will-Worship, that can neither be warranted by the Laws of God nor Man. It seems nei­ther decent nor orderly, nor agreeable to the Apostle's Rule, that a Woman should not speak in the Church: And in our Parish-Churches, they speak as loud as the Men. If Reading be Teaching or Preach­ing, as some Doctors of the Church have affirm'd, particularly the present Bishop of Derry, our Reading Women usurp the Office of Teachers in the Church, and thereby strengthen the Hands of the Quaker's Women-Preachers. This way of Reading the Psalms, fills the Congregation with a confus'd noise, that the Ignorant that cannot Read, understand not one Word that is said. Cyprian Condemns tumultuous Lopuacity in our Devotions.

Non passim ventilare preces nostras inconditis vocibus, nec Petitionem, commendandum modestè Deo, tumultuosâ Loquacitate jactare, De Orat. Dom.

I affirm'd, ‘That the not Reading of the Titles (in the Parochi­al Assemblies which I had mention'd a little before) was an Inno­cent Omission, but the Rectors attempt to thrust 'em out of the Ho­ly Canon was Vile and Impious.’

The Rector applies this Omission to the Dissenters, and cries Hem! An [Page 17] on Innocent Omission? no, saith he, 'tis a Sacrilegious Omission, Lett. P. 7. This blind Combatant, by attempting to wound his Enemies as he calls them, Stabs his own Friends, and makes them guilty of a Sacrilegious Omission: The Dissenters do read the Titles of the reading Psalms.

The Rector proceeds in the next Place to consider the Hebrew Copies, which he says are much corrupted, and because St. Jerom asserts the Purity of 'em; he persecuttes him with the same malignity as he does the Dissenters. I rebuk'd him in my Vind. for his indecent Usage, of so Holy and Learned a Father, and so eminent a Champion for the Christian Cause, against all sorts of Opposers, I refer the Reader to his Character, and my Defence of him against the Rector's Calum­nies, Post-Script C. 3. He severely Censures Mr. Baxter, both in his R. R. P. 61. and in his Lett. P. 23. For exposing the Infirmi­ties of the Fathers, to whose Zeal and Learning, we owe our Religion un­der God; and yet flings all the dirt on St. Jerom, one of the most eminent of 'em, which Malice and Rage and intemperate Zeal, (they are his own Words of Mr. Baxter) could furnish him with. He treats him more basely than ever Ruffinus, his profess'd Adversary has done. His Great Name in the Christian World is too venerable to suffer any Diminution by the Rector's self-condemning reflections, and needs not any Apology of mine. Therefore I will consider what he has to offer against the Purity of the Hebrew Bibles, which he wou'd have us believe are corrupted in material Things.

The Truths of Revelation, says he, are to be sought for not out of the Hebrew Texts only, nor out of the Lxx. only, but out of both together, with all other antient Translations, and the numerous quotations of Scripture in the Fathers. P. 11. The meaning of this Harangue, is, that there might be patch'd up a compleat Bible or a perfect System of reveal'd Truths out of the Hebrew, Lxx. other Translations and Quotations of the Fathers; but none of these alone contain all Truths of Revelation. The Papists send us to the ancient Fathers for the Sense of Scriptures, but the Rector remits us to them for the Scriptures themselves. He wou'd do well to favour the World with a Compleat Collection of the Truths of Revelation, out of all these Stores, which are inaccessible to the Unlearned, and he is the more oblig'd to do it because he has condemn'd our Corrupt Bibles to be burnt.

I offer'd four Arguments for the Purity of the Hebrew Copies, which I vindicated and confirm'd.

The Rector touches at the first, over looks the Second and Third, and splits the Foruth into Two.

My first was, ‘That the Hebrew Bible was incorrupt in our Savi­our's [Page 18]Time, because he never charg'd the Jews with corrupting the Scriptures.’

No more, answers he, do the Apostles Charge them with corrupting the LXX. P. 11. I don't say the LXX. was corrupted at that Time, there were Authentick incorrupt Copies of it even in Origen's Time. They were corrupted, saith he, before Ezra's Time, (according to most of the Fathers) and therefore much more between Ezra and Christ, P. 12.

Clemens Alexandrinus and most of the Fathers say, that the Scrip­tures were lost, not corrupted in Babilon, and restored by a Spirit of Inspiration by Ezra ^*. The same is affirm'd by Ireneus and Eusebius ^† Admitting they were corrupted before Ezra's Time, of which there is no certainty, it does not follow they were corrupted after, because the Masora, which was invented in Ezra's Time, was an effectual means to preserve the Purity of them; this was my Third Argument, but the Rector takes no notice of it. Besides, the Captivity cured the Jews of their Idolatrous Disposition, and made them more Zea­lous for the Purity of the Law, as appears in the History of the Maccabees. He saith in his R. R. P. 22. the Hebrew Bibles were not corrupted in any material Thing till after the Destruction of Je­rusalem, and now they were corrupted before the Birth of Christ.

This Man cannot for his Life agree with himself. He overlooks several things in the Confirmation of my First Argument, with my Second and Third, and hopps to the Fourth Argument; That the Jews, neither could nor would corrupt the Hebrew Bibles.

‘I prov'd they could not, because there was a Pure Copy in every Synagogue in the World, besides those in the Hands of the Chri­stians, which wou'd soon have detected an attempt of that kind. I Quoted Austin and Jerome in confirmation of the Argument; and I added that the watchful Providence of God wou'd not have suffer'd such an attempt to prosper.’

He Answers only to this last Part of my Argument. That Provi­dence has permitted various readings in the New Testament, p. 12. So it has in the old also, but what is this to the Jews making bold with the Scrip­ture in prejudice to Christianity and corrupting them in very material Things, as the Rector affirms, R. R. P. 22. The various readings of Ben. Asher and Ben. Napthali are of uncertain Original, and Capellus himself, a more skilful improver of what may seem to impair the Authority of the Hebrew Text; confesses that they are trivial, and not in matters of any Moment.

The Rector excepted against the Purity of the Hebrew from Justin [Page 19]Martyr, who charg'd the Jews with corrupting the Scriptures.

I prov'd, that Justin Martyr speaks of the Greek Versions of the Bi­ble, and quoted his Words at large. This the Rector cannot deny, but saith he, the Father examined not only the Copies used in the Jewish Synagogue ( i. e. those of the LXX.) but in all likelihood He­brew Copies too, p. 14.

Justin no where mentions any Corruption of the Hebrew, but he ex­presly mentions the corrupting of the LXX. nor does the Rector; but suppose he examin'd the Hebrew Copies; He cannot affirm it, though he thinks he was acquainted with the Hebrew and Syriack. If I should grant he understood the Hebrew, it does not prove the Cor­ruption of the Hebrew Text. But it is more probable he did not understand the Hebrew, because he mistakes the Etymology of Israel, which he derives from Isra a Man and el Strength, q. Homo vincens Virtutem. The Rector defends this Etymology, and saith by virtu­tem he means God the Strength of Israel, 1 Sam. 15.29. p. 13.

He betrays his own Ignorance of the Hebrew, by vindicating Ju­stin's skill in it, for Isra does not signifie a Man in Hebrew. Ish sig­nifies a Man, but Israel is from [...] dominatus fuit praevaluit, and [...] God, as Moses explains it, Gen. 32.28. [...], be­cause as a Prince thou hast Power with God, as we well render it. Ju­stin explains what he means by El [...] Power, no other God but the God of this World, for he makes Jacob's Victory over the Angel a mysterious Representation of Christ's Victory over Satan, [...], the Devil came to him, which is that Power which is call'd the Serpent and Satan.

^* Justin's [...] signifies the Devil, which the Rector by an unpa­rallell'd Blunder makes to signifies the true God, where he reads [...], he only quotes the Text of the LXX, but does not pro­fessedly give the Signification of Israel, as he does in this Place.

The Rector deserts his Vossian Argument of the Corruption of the Hebrew Chronology. He propos'd it out of Vossius, and made the best Improvement he cou'd of it, R. R. p. 25, 26. But now he is not at leisure to vindicate it, so that Vossius must shift for himself. And whereas the Rector positively affirm'd Two. Thousand Years to be lost in the Chronology of our Hebrew Bible, and that the World must be Six Thousand Years Old when Christ came; I suggested, ‘That he cannot prove that Christ is come in the Flesh, without re­jecting the Authority of our English Bibles in Point of Chronolo­gy.’ The Rector Answers: He can prove it by the LXX, or he will [Page 20]suppose the Hebrew Chronology right, and then it is not necessary to fol­low the Jewish Principle of Six Thousand Years, p. 15.

If the Rector prove it by the LXX, he renounces the Authority of our English Corrupt Bibles in Point of Chronology, which I said he must do by his Principle: If he admits the Hebrew Chronology, he rejects the LXX. I perceive he is unresolv'd which of the Two Chronologies to follow, but let him at his leisure chuse which he pleases, he still confirms my Argument. As to the Instance of Cai­nan in Luc. 3. if the Rector be not satisfied with what Dr. Light­foot offers, whom he does not fairly answer, let him consult Pol. Syn. Crit. or Gregory of Oxf. his [...], or Dr. Fowler the present Bishop of Glocester.

The Rector thinks, that the true Reading of Deut. 32.8. ought to be according to the number of Angels, because Jerom read it so, p. 17.

Jerom translated the LXX. into Latin, and sometimes reads accord­ing to the Hebrew Verity, sometimes according to the LXX. He ar­raigns the 1 Sam. 2.17. which he saith is Corrupted, and to be Corrected by the LXX, p. 17, 18.

I have consulted the Place, and find a perfect Agreement between the Hebrew and the LXX. The Poor Man's fancy is so vitiated with Ideas of Corruption, that if he do but look into the Hebrew Text, it appears corrupt and impure unto him. He has dwelt so long upon this Subject, that he can scarce think of any thing else but Corrupti­on, Corruption. The Thought is natural enough, if he apply'd it to the proper Subject, namely to his own Writings, and not to the in­spired Volumes. He has found another Corruption in Deut. 33.6. where the Hebrew wants not, He adds, That the Criticks take a great deal of Pains to patch up the Hebrew Verity, but without any Satisfaction to me, I profess, p. 18.

I despair of satisfying this hypercritical Man, but for the Satisfacti­on of the Reader, I will take notice of two Things. 1. The Hebrew is, [...] Let his Men be a Number, which may be apply'd to a great Number, as well as a small, and so the Reading will be, Let his Men be many, and thus it agrees with the LXX, [...]. Let me add, that [...] may be rendred Dead Men, so some translate the Word in Isa. 41.14. [...] ye Dead Men of Israel, and so the Reading will be, Let thy Dead Men be few. If [...] be rendred few, as it is by our Translators, and the Words are a Bles­sing and not a Curse, as he pretends they must be, if not be left out. 2. Not is frequently omitted in the Hebrew, and to be supply'd from the foregoing Sentence, as in Isa. 28.27, 28. and 23.4. Psalm 91.4, [Page 21]5. and 9.18. I desire the Learned Reader to consult these places in the Hebrew, many more might be mention'd to the same Purpose. It may be the Rector will say, these also are Corrupted.

He takes notice that Jerom speaks doubtfully of two other Places in the Old Testament, as if they were Corrupted, p. 18.

But Jerom does not positively affirm, as the Rector doth; by how much he was more Learned than the Rector, he was so much the more Modest. Jerom saith, We know not certainly, whether it was struck out of the ancient Copies, or added by the LXX. The Rector saith with a daring boldness, I have made good my Assertion, that the Hebrew Bibles have been Corrupted in all Ages, p. 19.

The Rector has a singular faculty in making good his Assertion, without either vindicating his own Arguments, or answering mine to the contrary. The Truth is, his Assertion is so very bad, that a more accomplish'd Artist than himself, wou'd be at a loss how to make it good. It puts me in mind of a Story or King James the first, as some of his Nobles were exercising themselves at leaping, lays the King pleasantly to 'em, you talk of leaping, I wou'd leap over yon­der Wall, and pointed at a high Wall that was near 'em; Yes, Sir, says a Parasite that stood near him, I believe your Majesty cou'd leap over it: Hold Man, reply'd the King, I did not say I cou'd leap over it, but I wou'd do it, that is, if I were able. The Rector shews his good Will to confirm his Assertion, and has made some feeble attempts in his R. R. to attack the Masora, the Fence of the Law ^*, but the Wall is too high to be leap'd over, and too strong to be broken down, and therefore in his Letter he wisely declines it, lest he shou'd break his Shins, and be forced to a dishonourable Retreat.

But is he in earnest, when he says the Hebrew Bibles have been cor­rupted in all Ages? And has he made this good ? It seems all Ages are comprehended in the Time of Ezra and Justin Martyr for he mentions no more; and he has not prov'd, that they were corrup­ted then. Our Bibles must be Corrupt indeed, if every Age has been practising upon 'em. According to the Rector, it has been the Work of every Age to Corrupt the Bible. It's well, if he allows us any sound part in it, for that which has been always in the Cor­rupting, must be a very Corrupt Thing at last. The Rector swou'd at least have paid as much deference to the Holy Bible, as he wou'd to the Prophane Works of Homer and Virgil, which none will say, have been corrupted in all Ages. It's a little unlucky, that this Man cannot quarrel with the Dissenters, but he must quarrel with the Bi­ble [Page 22]also. He might have left the sacred Volumes alone, though he were dispos'd to reproach us. However he has one Consolation, that he is not singular in his Hypotheses, for he has Mahometans, Papists and Deists in his Interest, who unanimously charge our Scrip­tures with material Corruptions.

I shall add one thing more, and I have done. The Rector's Letter which bears Date, April 8. 1699. came not to my Hands, until Aug. 16. nor did I hear any thing of it, before I saw it. I presume the Rector design'd it for the Private Ʋse of his Friend, of whose Can­did Acceptance he was well assur'd, and not for such ill-natur'd Peo­ple, as will take nothing upon Trust, but Critically examine his weak Reasonings, and vindicate themselves from his unjust Criminations. He publish'd his Letter, as Aristotle did some of his Books, concern­ing which he saith, I made 'em Publick, as if I had not made 'em Pub­lick ^*. He told us above, that his blind Evidence of the Cameronian Story may be sufficient for Private Conviction, though not to be allow'd in Publick Forms of Justice, p. 20. Perhaps this Epistle, which manifest­ly recedes from the Laws of Justice, was design'd for Private Convicti­on. However, since it came accidentally to my Hands, and no re­turn is made to it by his Ʋtopian Friend, I have been so kind to the Rector, lest he should think himself slighted; as to Answer his Let­ter with all the plainness and faithfulness, which may seem necessary to regulate his Faith towards the Scriptures, and Charity towards his Brethren.