Further Vindication of the Dissenters, Treatise – Publishers advertisement

Further Vindication of the Dissenters · Treatise – Publishers advertisement

p. 1A FURTHER VINDICATION OF THE DISSENTERS FROM Mr. GIPP's Unjuſt Accuſations.

CHAP. I.

Containing ſome Animadverſions on his Firſt Chapter.

IT had been obſerved of the Authors of the moſt inconſiſtent Un-truths, that by often reporting them, they come at laſt to believe 'em themſelves, and with a recollected Effrontery to recommend 'em to the eaſie World as undoubted and unconteſtable Verities:

The Reverend Rector of Bury in Lancaſhire, has given ſuch a diſcovery of this Spirit as will hardly admit of a Parallel. In a Sermon of his he advanced a vile Charge againſt the Presbyterians of Corrupting the Word of God by Miſ-printing ye for we in Acts 6. 3. A Charge ſo black, ſo ſenſeleſs, ſo inconſiſtent with their known Principles, ſo weakly grounded, that none but ſuch as have abandon'd the Charity, which is Eſſential to a Chriſtian, and ſacrificed the Reaſon which conſtitutes a Man, to the abſurdeſt Prejudices, can entertain it under any other Character, than that of a malitious and ſilly Calumny. I have fully proved it to be ſuch in my Remarks on his Sermon, and have charitably call'd upon him to give Glory to God, and conſult his own Peace in a dying Hour, by acknowledging his Offence againſt God, in whoſe Name he hath publiſhed the Vileſt of Falſhoods.

p. 2It would have contributed more to his preſent Reputation and future Comfort, ingenuouſly to have retracted an uncharitable Preſumption, than to have attempted to confirm his Charge, as he calls it, by a Defence of his Firſt Arguments which is ſo very weak, that it not only convincingly Juſtifies the Diſſenters againſt his Accuſations, but condemns himſelf to be a Man that can aſſume the Liberty to affirm any thing, be it never ſo falſe and abſurd, when it ſerves to expoſe an adverſe Party. This will evidently appear when I have conſidered his Defence, and the additional Proofs.

I deſire the Reader to take Notice that it is Matter of Fact, and not any point of Controverſy, we are now upon, namely, whether the Presbyterians be Guilty of Corrupting the Word of God? The Rector affirms it in his Sermon, and pretends to confirm it, in his Defence of it. I doubt not but all Men, who have any regard to Truth or commom Honeſty, will expect a very clear, direct proof of ſo High a Charge, againſt a great Body of ſober People, and will not eaſily take uncharitable Suſpicious for evident Proofs.

Inſtead of a direct Proof, his Sermon produceth only a circumſtantial one. But in his Remarks upon Remarks (as he ſtiles the defence of his Sermon) he pretends to confirm his Charge, for thus his Title-Page runs, The Rector of Bury's Charge exhibited againſt the Diſſenters for endeavouring to Corrupt the Word of God, Juſtified and further Confirmed.

When a Charge is Justified and Confirmed, the Proofs are ſuppoſed to be Clear and Convincing; but you'l ſoon find your ſelves miſtaken if you expect any ſuch thing in the Rectors Remarks. He affirms, with a brazen Coufidence, and confirms with Leaden Arguments, whoſe main Edge conſiſts in the baſeſt Sort of Railing and Calumny, againſt the living and the dead, and he gives it the Keenneſs that ſuch Mettal is capable of by the vigorous Application of that Whetſtone which he deſerves.

But let's hear how he confirms his Charge.

1. Above thirty Pages of the ſixty four in his Book are on things Forreign to that Charge, which is the main Thing he was to confirm, and a great Part of the reſt of his Book is taken up in perſonal Reflections, which is a clear Evidence he wanted Materials for his chief Point.

2. He beſtows the three firſt Pages in reflecting on the Ingenious Author, of the Notes upon the Lord Biſhop of Saliſbury's four laſt Diſcourſes.

I never 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.

p. 3He 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 p. 4Gay; 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 …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 to be aſham'd to own their genuine Productions.

5. He ſtuffs p. 6. and 7. with more Invectives againſt the Diſſenters, and indeed he never ſeems to be ſo much in his Element as when he is upon that Subject. But at laſt he comes to the Remarks, p. 8. and begins with the Preface.

In my Preface, which conſiſted of four Pages only, I gave a ſhort Account of the Heads of his Sermon, with brief Remarks upon ſome paſſages in it, which I judg'd Exceptionable. He has a long Chapter (Chap. 2.) which takes up near half his Book (from p. 8. to p. 32.) in anſwer to my ſhort Preface. I told him I would not intermeddle in the Controverſy between him and Mr. De Laun, nor will I now: I I only touch'd upon a few things, concerning which I ſee no Cauſe to alter my Sentiments, by what he has offer'd, to the Contrary. But I will not detain the Reader from the main Poin, by attending his tedious digreſſion about the Titles of the Pſalms, and the Corruptions of the Hebrew Text, which I ſhall conſider in a Poſtcript by it ſelf.

p. 5CHAP. II.

Being an Anſwer to the latter Part of his Second Chapter.

I Call'd the Rector's affirming the Sadducees to have rejected all but the Five Book of Moſes, a vulgar Error, and gave my Reaſons for it out of Joſephus and Lightfoot, to whom I refer the Reader, whom I will not detain on this trifling Subject, on which the Rector beſtows the beſt Part of two Pages. He ſays the Fathers were of another Opinion, and he hopes I will not thruſt them into the vulgar Form. p. 27, 28.

It's certain the Fathers are not free from all the vulgar Errors of the Age, in which they lived; the Story of the Phoenix, ſpringing out of the Aſhes of the old One, is mentioned by ſeveral Fathers. Clemens Romanus has it, and would prove the Reſurrection from it.

The ingenuous Rector here deſires his Reader to mark, how we are advocating for the Samaritans and Sadducees, which in good Time the Diſſenters will comprehend alſo. Some of the Quakers and Anabaptiſts, the modern Sadducees and Mahometans (I mean the Socinians), and almoſt all the Nation of Schiſmaticks and Hereticks are in their intereſts already: The Samaritans and Jews are happily coming into the confederacy. p. 27.

I advocate no further for them than Dr. Lightfoot, to whoſe Judgment the Rector promiſes to ſtand; thus he ſpeaks, **Li. Vol. II. P. 1101, 1102.It's the received Opinion amongſt the Learn'd, that the Sadducees refuſed all the old Teſtament but only the Five Books of Moſes: If they mean it abſolutely, I muſt confeſs my ſmall reading hath not taught ſo far as to be ſatisfied in that: But if they mean it with ſome Qualification, it's very True. In ſuch a qualified Senſe, as to ſay the reſt of the Jews refuſed the third Part of the Bible, i. e. the Hagiographa, viz. Job, Pſalms, Solomon's Writings, Daniel, &c. They admitted not the reading of theſe in the Synagog, not becauſe they undervalued them, but becauſe they counted the reſt Sufficient, i. e. the Law and Prophets, which were read every Sabbath. p. 27.

The Church of England admits not the reading of ſome Parts of the Bible in the publick Congregation, will you therefore ſay ſhe rejects them?

2. But be this Matter as it will, the Rector's inference has as little Senſe in it, as it has Truth and Charity. If he means, that the Quakers, Anabaptiſts and Socinians, are in the Intereſts of the Presbyterians, it is a vile Calumny. If he means that they are Diſſenters from the Epiſcopal Churches, ſo they are from the Presbyterian alſo. Though I muſt tell him, that the Socinians in ſome of their printed Pamphlets, declare themſelves of the Church of England, nor do I hear that they are expell'd their Communion, when any of them are diſpoſed to joyn with her. Nay it's well known that Mr. S. N. a beneficed Parſon of the Church of E. is the Author of ſeveral of the late Socinian Pamphlets. I mention not this to reflect on the Church of England who diſowns this Hereſy, and ought not to be charged with the Errors of particular Perſons, but as a neceſſary Vindication of our ſelves. I do not know any one Congregation of Diſſenters that wou'd tolerate a Socinian in their Communion.

p. 6As to the Samaritans and Jews I know none fitter for their Confederacy than the Rector of Bury, who helps them to a Chronological Argument out of our Engliſh Bibles to diſprove the coming of Chriſt in the Fleſh: For according to our Voſſian Rabbi, Chriſt was not to come untill the 6000th Year of the World, and according to our Bibles the World is not yet 6000 years Old.

Mr. G. in his Sermon call'd the Scripture, the ſupreme Rule of Faith, to which I made this Anſwer, We know no other Rule of divine Faith, but the holy Scripture.

The Rector undertakes to teach us ſeveral Subordinate Rules of Faith, ſuch as Creeds, Catechiſms, Decrees of Councils, Teſtimony of Fathers, Dictates of wiſe and good Men▪ the Inſtruſtions of Parents, Conſent of Adverſaries, the Voice of Conſcience, Reaſon, Preaching, Providence, and laſtly univerſal Tradition. p. 29.

The Induſtrious Rector has found out no leſs than Twelve new Rules of Faith, and theſe may be multiplied into 12000, for every Article of a Creed, every Canon of a Council, every Dictate of a wiſe and good Man, every Saying of a Father, every Paſſage in a Sermon, is a Rule of Faith with the Rector. For Inſtance, we will ſuppoſe the Rector a wiſe and good Man, I hope then you'l receive all his Dictates for ſo many Rules of Faith, of which you have abundance in his Remarks upon Remarks, and among others, that all our Bibles are Corrupted in very material Things.

This look's a little Comical, the ſupreme Rule of Faith is Corrupted, and you muſt believe it, becauſe the ſubordinate Rule, the wiſe and good Rector's Dictates aſſures us of it, however it is not Impoſſible but the ſupreme Rule may be Right and Pure, and the ſubordinate Rule Croked and Corrupt. And the Rector will be ſo Good as to Pardon us, or ſo Wiſe as to Inſtruct us better, if we think ſo. I now begin to underſtand the Reaſon why he is ſo very Impatient of Oppoſition; why, all his Dictates are Rules of Faith, and ought to be received for Oracles: But the beſt on't is, he allows us the Benefit of another Rule of Faith, that is the Light of Reaſon; what if theſe two Rules happen to claſh? We have known Creeds, Councils, Sermons, &c. to do ſo; as contrary as they are, they are ſtill Rules of Faith with the Rector.

Yea the ſayings of the Pagan wiſe Men of Greece, are Rules of Divine Faith to him▪ and but for Ʋniverſal Tradition he wou'd know no difference between Plato, Seneca, the wiſe Men of Greece (you may if you pleaſe put a wiſe Man of Gotham among them) and the holy Scripture, for ſaith he, the excellency of it's moral Precepts, the high Strains and noble Flights of Piety, prove not that it was written by inſpiration, for then Plato, Seneca, Ignatius, Clement, Romanus, the VII. wiſe Men of Greece, &c. might lay claim to inſpiration.

Would you think it, that a Proteſtant Divine, ſhould talk thus ignorantly of the bleſſed Scriptures? Are the Precepts in Plato and Seneca, as Excellent as thoſe of the Holy Bible? Can he find ſuch high Strains and noble Flights of Piety in Pagan Authors, as in the inſpired Writings? A Man that has felt the Power of God's Word renewing, quickning, comforting and ſtrengthening his Heart, will acknowledge the vaſt Difference between inſpired and humane Writings, and reſolve his Faith into the Authority of God, who ſpeaks powerfully and feelingly unto our Conſciences by his Spirit in the Scriptures, which have Signatures of their Divine Original upon them, that no Book beſides can lay claim to.

p. 7Tradition is of Uſe to beget in us a good Opinion of the Scripture, but he that makes it a Rule of Faith, eſpecially the firſt and leading Rule (as the Rector ſeems to do) reſolves his Faith into a humane Authority, which can beget but a Humane Faith. Divine Faith is founded upon a Divine Teſtimony, and a Humane Teſtimony can produce but a Humane Faith.

**Vinc. Lerin. adv. haereſ.Lerinenſis his Rule about Tradition is, quod omnes ubi que & ſemper. All the Faithful have not at all times and in every Place, tranſmitted every Book of Scripture as of Divine Authority. The Popiſh Church pretend Tradition for the Apocrypha, which they receive as Canonical. Few of the People are able to judge of the Rule whether it be True, or Falſe; Miniſters may tell 'em of it, ſuppoſe they receive their Dictates, which few are able to Examin, they believe with an Implicite Faith, becauſe their Miniſters ſay ſo; and thus the Subordinate Rule becomes the firſt and leading Rule.

Creeds, Canons, Dictates of wiſe and good Men, and the like, are either agreeable to the Scripture, or they are not. If they be not, they are far from being Rules of Divine Faith, for they are Rules of Error and Falſhood: If they are agreeable to the Scripture, we believe and receive them, becauſe they are Conſonant to the Word of God, the only Rule of ſaving Divine Faith. We will allow 'em to be helps unto our Faith, but judge it very improper to call 'em Rules of Faith.

I told the Rector, That the laying aſide the Un-ſcriptural Terms of Communion, which have been the fatal Engines of Diſunion and Schiſm, wou'd ſoon heal us.

To this he Anſwers 1, The Experiment has been once made, in the late Times, but without Succeſs, Diviſions were increaſed, &c.

Things were in a fair way of healing, when the Conceſſions of King Charles I. were voted ſatisfactory by the Parliament, had not a Faction in the Army put all out of Courſe, and governed the Nation, by a very Arbitrary Power, and yet there were very hopeful beginnings of a Coalition—between the moderate Epiſcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational Brethren, upon the Principle I mention, between the years 1652 and 1659, as appears by the Worceſter-ſhire Aſſociation, as alſo by thoſe of Cumberland, Weſtmorland, Eſſex, &c. which are to be ſeen in Print.

If this Principle did not heal us in thoſe diſtracting and unſettled Times, it does not follow that it would not do it now in a State of Settlement, and ſuch a Settlement, wherein the Biſhops are in Power, under whom the moderate Diſſenters wou'd not ſcruple to Exerciſe their Miniſtry, if the offenſive Terms were removed out of the way.

And if ever our unhappy Breaches be healed, it muſt be upon this Principle, which has been aſſerted by the Great Men of the Epiſcopal Communion.

††Iren. Pref.Dr. Stillingfleet, the preſent Biſhip of Worceſter, declares againſt Ʋn-ſcriptural Impoſitions. He that came to take away the Un-ſcriptural Yoke of Jewiſh Ceremonies, certainly did never intend to Gall the Back of his Diſciples, with another inſtead of it: And it would be ſtrange, the Church ſhould require more than Chriſt himſelf did. What poſſible Reaſon can be aſſign'd, why ſuch Things ſhou'd not be ſufficient for Communion with a Church, which are ſufficient for Eternal Salvation? Without all Controverſy the main In-let of all the Diſtractions, Confuſions and Diviſions in the Chriſtian World, hath been by adding of other Conditions of Church Communion, than Chriſt hath made.

p. 8My Lord Bacon ſaith, that the ancient and true Bounds of Unity, are one Faith, one Baptiſm, and not one Ceremony, one Policy. **Reſuſc. par. 1. p. 129.The ſame was the Judgment of King James the I. In non neceſſariis libertati Chriſtianae locus detur. ††Iſ. Caſaub. ep. ad Card Peron.See Mr. Tallents's healing Book of large Foundations, wherein you may find more Teſtimonies to this purpoſe.

2. The Rector perſcribes the method of healing us, and that is, to obey them that have the Rule over us in all lawful things, i. e. which are not forbidden by God.

The meaning is, if I underſtand him, that Church Rulers have Power to impoſe Things lawful, i. e. not forbidden, as Terms of Communion, and that it is our Duty to obey ſuch impoſitions. This Explication permiſed, I anſwer,

1. He ought to prove, that Chriſt hath Commiſſion'd our Church Rulers to fix un-ſcriptural Terms of Chriſtian Communion, before he prove it our Duty to obey 'em. Where they have no power to command, I ſee not our obligation to obey. The grand Commiſſion, ſaith Dr. Stillingfleet, the Apoſtles were ſent out with, was only to teach what Chriſt had Commanded them. Not the leaſt intimation of any Power given to impoſe or require any thing beyond what himſelf had ſpoken to them, or they were directed to by the immediate Guidance of the Spirit of God. **Iren▪ ubi ſupra.It is not whether the things required, be lawful or not,—but whether they do conſult for the Churches Peace and Unity, who ſuſpend it uopn ſuch Things? How far the Example of our Saviour, or his Apoſtles doth warrant ſuch rigorous Impoſitions? We never read the Apoſtles making Laws, but of Things ſuppoſed neceſſary.

2. He ought to ſhew, that all Things not forbidden may lawfully be impoſed as Terms of Communion. The uſe of Oyl, Spittle, Salt, Cream, &c. are not forbidden in Baptiſm, therefore the Rector wou'd ſubmit to the Uſe of them, if his Rulers think fit to enjoyn them, as is done in Popery. Holy Water is not forbidden, nor are any of the Ceremonies uſed in Popery expreſly Prohibited in Scripture, therefore they are lawful to the Rector. You ſee whither this Hypotheſis tends: Sitting at the Lords Supper is not forbidden, no more is Proſtration, the humbleſt Geſture of Adoration; the Rector would ſcarce like it, if either of theſe were rigidly impoſed.

3. Who muſt judge what is Lawful, what not? If thoſe that obey, we are but where we were; that which appears Lawful to the impoſer, may be judged otherwiſe by conſcientious Diſſenters, which is our Caſe: If the impoſers only muſt judge, Popiſh Rulers will ſay, it's Lawful to bow to a Crucifix, to a Graven-Image, to adore the Bread in the Euchariſt, &c. Let the Rector take which ſide of the Queſtion he pleaſe, he muſt either acquit the Diſſenters or juſtify the Papists.

He concludes his Second Chapter, with a Vindication of their reading Apocrypha in the Churches, to the Excluſion of ſeveral Parts of Scripture.

Why do the Diſſenters neglect the reading of the Word of God to make way for their Sermons and Expoſitions? p. 31.

If any do neglect reading the Scriptures, let 'em bear the blame of it, I know none ſuch. I hope he wou'd not have us lay aſide Sermons and Expoſitions, to fill up the whole time with reading the holy Scripture. They that Expound do alſo Read, p. 9tho' not ſo much, yet perhaps to more Advantage, by helping the People to underſtand what they read. And if preaching (which alſo Explains the holy Scripture) take up moſt of the time in ſome Congregations, where leſs Scripture is read, it cannot be denied but preaching is an Ordinance of God, but ſo is not the reading of Apocrypha, and therefore this recrimination is impertinent. But ſaith the Rector, to read the Apocrypha is not to Canonize it.

I do not ſay it is; but to comprehend it under the Name of the Holy Scripture, as is done in the Rubrick before the Table of Leſſons in the Liturgy, and to read it to the total Excluſion of ſome Parts of Scripture, may tempt ignorant People to think it Canonical.

Many wiſe Men, adds he, think the Story of Bell and Dragon to be true. p. 31.

So the Papiſts do, and they think it Canonical too. They are Men Wiſe in their Generation, and the Dictates of Wiſe Men are a Rule of Faith to the Rector.

But he is not ſure, but it may be a Fiction, or Fable, or in more civil Terms a Parable, and many think ſaith he, the Book of Job, of this kind, a Parable. p. 31.

Names of Perſons, Countries and Places, don't uſe to be inſerted into Parables, as is done in the Story of Bell and Dragon, as alſo in the Book of Job, which he invidiouſly compares to this fabulous Story. The Book of Job is allow'd to be Canonical by all Chriſtians, and has all the Characters of a real Hiſtory, the Names of Places, Perſons, &c. his Children, Eſtate, Loſſes, Friends, Enemies and his Reſtoration are particularly deſcribed, and he is expreſly mention'd by the Holy Ghoſt in other Places, Ez. 14. 14. James 5. 11. and cited in 1 Cor. 3. 19. I find in Pools Synopſis but two Sorts of People that make the Hiſtory of Job a Parable, ſome Antient Jews and ſome Modern Anabaptiſts, but neither one nor 'tother at preſent ſeem to own that Opinion.

The Rector is a rare Man, he can convert an Apocryphal Fable into a Divine Hiſtory, and a Divine Hiſtory into a Parabolical Fable. And that you may not think him ſingular in this Faculty, he has Papiſts, Jews and Anabaptiſts in his Intereſts.

He that denies the Book of Job to be a Hiſtory, may in good Time, turn all Scripture Hiſtory into a Parable, or a cunninly deviſed Fable, and when he has ſerv'd a temporal Intereſt by it, may brag with the Roman Pontiff, whoſe Dictates the Rector muſt own for a Rule of Faith, quantum nobis profuit haec Fabula de Chriſto.

p. 10CHAP. III.

Being an Anſwer to his Third Chapter.

IN his Third Chapter, he pretends to Anſwer my firſt, in which I obſerved (p. 1.) That in a Sermon to the Clergy, a Teſtimony againſt the ſhameful Scandals of ſome of them, wou'd have became a faithful Miniſter, but that he had other work to do, his Buſineſs being to accuſe of ſecret Crimes, and not to reprove for open Miſcarriages.

All the Rector can ſay for this inexcuſable Omiſſion and Partiality is, That he dare undertake to point out as many Scandalous Diſſenting Miniſters in Lancaſhire, as we can Clergy Men. p. 35.

He is a Man of bold Ʋndertaking, but the one and the other are pretty well known in that Country and other Parts of the Nation, which will ſcarce receive the Dictates of this daring Ʋndertaker againſt the Evidence of Senſe and common Obſervation. If he knows any Scandalous Diſſenting Miniſters, let him name the Men, and ſpare not.

I added p. 2, 3, 4. that the Corruption in Acts 6. 3. is inconſiſtent with the Principles of the Preſbyterians; that I never knew any that approv'd of that Corruption; that his Charge amounts to no more than a bare Suſpition that the Diſſenters have ſecretly contributed to the Corruption of this Place; that had not he Examin'd the Errata of the Preſs more out of ill Will to the Diſſenters, than good Will to the Publick, he might have found ſeveral other Errors of the Preſs as conſiderable as ye for we; as ſhe for he, in Eph. 1. 4. in a Twelves Bible, London 1691. we for ye in Job 6. 21. in a Quarto Edition of the Bible at Cambridg, 1675. and ſeveral more I mention there.

Among all theſe Particulars, he takes notice only of the laſt, and to excuſe himſelf, moſt falſly Affirms, That all I offer in this Chapter, in Vindication of the Diſſenters, is, that ſeveral Editions of the Bible abound with ſuch Errors as are deſtructive of the Senſe. Judge by this what Credit is to be given to the Rectors Affirmations, But let's hear what he can ſay to the Errors of the Preſs, of which I give a Catalogue. He has four Things to offer, p. 32, 33.

I. He quarrels with an Uncorrected Error of the Preſs (in foreign). And diſingenouſly inſinuates as if I were defective in the Greek Tongue. The Rector is grievouſly at a loſs how to make good his Charge, ſince he fills Paper with ſuch ſtuff as this.

II. Tho' he might be juſtly ſuſpected (ſaith the Rector), in the Account given of theſe Errata's, yet I will admit it to be True. A mighty Favour indeed! To admit that for True which he cannot diſprove; but his moſt generous Conceſſions have a Tincture of his ill Nature, which is as Lazy as it is Suſpicious. I refer to the Editions, why is he not at the Pains to Examin them, if he juſtly ſuſpects my Account? The Truth is, it is not as Eaſie to diſprove, as to impeach ones Veracity. The Rector has an excellent Faculty at the latter, let who will undertake the former.

III. Such Errors don't eſtabliſh any Untruth, nor favour any ſide in the preſent Controverſies, nor has Mr. O. given us one Example of the ſame Error repeated in ſeveral Editions. p. 33.

Where they make a corrupt Senſe, they eſtabliſh an Untruth, as in Job 6. 21. we are nothing, it ſhould be, ye are nothing. There is we for ye, as in Acts 6. 3. p. 11you have ye for we. So that we and ye are eaſily miſtaken one for another. But the Rector ſeems to have no concern for any Truth, but what reſpects the Biſhops power. Avoid all Corruption that may prejudice that, and this tender hoofed Creature (it is his own Expreſſion, p. 24.) can eaſily digeſt all the reſt. It was none of my buſineſs to Examin, how often theſe Errors have been repeated, tho' I told him, Remark p. 13. an Error in one Impreſſion is eaſily repeated, becauſe the Frames of the Bible are often kept intire, and not broken by half Sheets, as in printing other Books, and ſo the ſame ſet of Frames ſerves for a ſecond and third Impreſſion, and ſo forward until the Letters decay and grow uſeleſs.

But this He takes no Notice of.

IV. An Error of the Preſs deſerves not to be taken to taſk, when no ill Uſe is made of it.

I know no Body that has made any ill Uſe of ye in Acts 6. 3. Nor has he yet been able to produce any one Writer among the Diſſenters, that has made Uſe of it againſt the Biſhops. His Cameronian Story we ſhall Examin anon.

Does he know what ill Uſe may be made by ignorant People of other Errors of the Preſs?

I took notice in my Remarks, of his looſe and careleſs way of citing Scriptures, and gave Ten Inſtances of it in that very Sermon, in which he Charges the Diſſenters with a literal Error of the Preſs, which he can't prove upon them. One might have expected more Exactneſs from ſo Critical a Cenſor.

To this he Anſwers, Jeſus Chriſt and St. Paul, did not tie themſelves to the very Words of the Scripture in their Quotations, p. 34, 35. nor does Mr. Baxter.

Jeſus Chriſt and St. Paul, were infallibly acted by the Holy Ghoſt in their Quotations and had Reaſons for their Variation: The Rector is not only deſtitute of a Spirit of Infallibility, but of ſuch Reaſons as may Juſtify his chopping and changing Texts of Scripture at his Pleaſure. He does not pretend to give any Reaſon why he ſhould miſ-quote ſo many Scriptures within the compaſs of one ſhort Sermon, nor is the thing Capable of any other but this, that the Rector is a very careleſs Tranſcriber of the Scripture

I believe he cannot produce in Mr. Baxter, or ſcarſe in any other Author ſo many Texts of Scripture miſ-quoted in one Sermon as there are in his: Much leſs can he give an Inſtance of ſo Supine a Negligence in Mr. Baxter, as to miſ-render the Text of his Sermon. This the Rector has done, ſubſtituting the ſingular (Word) add thou not unto his Word, for the plural (Words) add thou not unto his Words.

I acquitted him from Corrupting the Senſe, in this Variation, but gave this neceſſary Caution, allow Men a liberty of a literal Variation from the Language of the Holy Ghoſt, the Senſe and meaning can't be long ſecured. This he calls a putid and ridiculous Remark.

The Rector's ye and we in Acts 6. confirms my Remark; the Variation is in one Letter, but the Senſe and Meaning is deſtroy'd by it. Suppoſe a bold Tranſcriber ſhould write Gods for God, this is a literal Variation, but ſuch as deſtroys the Ʋnity of the God-head.

p. 12CHAP. IV.

Being an Anſwer to his Fourth Chapter.

IN this Chapter the Rector endavours to confirm his Arguments to prove the Diſſenters guilty of corrupting Acts 6. 3. His Arguments are four, 1ſt. The Alteration happen'd in 1638. when Preſbytery was in the Aſcendant. 2ly. It favours the Diſſenters. 3ly. The Epiſcopal Party deſign'd not to Corrupt this Place. 4ly. A Cameronian urged this Corrupt reading.

To his firſt Argument, that the Corruption happen'd in 38. when Preſbytery was in the Aſcendant, I anſwered Three Things, Firſt, That two Events may happen at the ſame time, that have no relation to one another. Right, ſaith he, when there is nothing elſe to be alledged for confirming the Suſpicion, but the Turbulency of the Times, the Sway of the Populacy, and the Corruption of this Place: All looked the ſame way, viz. The Extripation of Epiſcopacy. p. 36.

The Times were not Turbulent at Cambridge, where he ſaith the firſt Corruption happen'd, nor was there any Sway of Populacy there in the Year 38. Buck and Daniel, the Univerſity Printers at that time, were both Epiſcopal Men, as I obſerv'd in my Remarks, but this he takes no Notice of; is it likely that the Cambridge Epiſcopal Printers, ſhould conſpire with the Scotch Covenanters to root out Epiſcopacy in that Year?

I never underſtood before, that an Error of the Preſs had an influence for the Extirpation of Epiſcopacy. The Rector has not produc'd any one Inſtance of any Engliſh, or Scotch Presbyterians, who made Uſe of that Error to the prejudice of Epiſcopacy at that Time. His Cameronian Story is a later Thing, and cannot affect thoſe Times.

2. I obſerv'd, that the Rector had anſwer'd his own Argument by acknowledging the firſt Corruption an unwilling One, an accidental Slip, an unfortunate Over-ſight, a meer Error of the Preſs and an unhappy Miſtake.

In anſwer to this he cries, My Remarks are all of a Third, Lies and Stories, that by the unwilling Error he meant the Presbyterian Government p. 36.

Be it ſo, all that can be infer'd from it is, that I miſtook his Meaning, which a Man may eaſily do in a Writer, whoſe Notions are confuſed and incoherent, and way of Expreſſion muddy and perplex'd. But he cannot deny, that he has call'd it an accidental Slip, an unfortunate Over-ſight, a meer Error of the Preſs, and an unhappy Miſtake, which is ſufficient to overthrow his Argument.

True ſaith he, yet unto the two firſt I added, I am willing to believe, &c.

The Remarks were juſt now with him all of a Third, Lies and Stories, and yet in the ſame Breath, he cannot but acknowledge my Quotations to be True. If they are all Lies and Stories, there is no Truth in them, but ſome Things are True, by his own Confeſſion; therefore he is inexcuſable, for wherein he Judgeth another, he Condemns himſelf. As Diogenes trampled upon Plato's Pride with a greater Pride, ſo the Rector exhibits a lying Accuſation againſt my Remarks, that they are all Lies and Stories.

But he qualified ſome of his other Conceſſions, by ſaying, he was willing to believe, that the firſt Corruption was an unfortunate Over-ſight and a meer Error of Preſs.

If he is willing to believe this himſelf, what a diſingenuous Thing is it in him to endeavour to perſuade others to the Contrary? The deſign of his Argument is to p. 13make People believe the firſt Corruption in 38. was a deſigned Thing to root out Epiſcopacy. Is this the Part of an honeſt Man Mr. Rector, to perſuade the World to believe what's contrary to your own Belief? I hope all your Sermons are not of a Piece with this, you muſt not blame us for believing as you do, that the Error you Charge us with was an unfortunate Over-ſight and a meer Error of the Preſs, and then your Argument is out of Doors: Eſpecially, when you poſitively Affirm, that it was an accidental Slip, an unhappy Miſtake. Thus his firſt and chief Argument is eternally diſmiſſed by himſelf, and his Attempts to defend it, do but ſhew the Rector to be as Ill a Man, as he is a Diſputant. To be willing to believe us Innocent, and at the ſame time to endeavour to prove us Guilty, be-ſpeaks a Diſpoſition worſe than that of Pilate, who tho' he condemn'd Jeſus Chriſt, when he had pronounced him Innocent, did not ſeek for Evidence to prove him Guilty, he contented himſelf to give an unjuſt Sentence to pleaſe the Jews: But the Rector did not ſeem to be under the temptation of pleaſing his own Party, who were ſo far from extorting this unjuſt Sentence from him, that ſeveral of them have condemn'd him for it; yet he has not only paſſed an unrighteous Judgment upon us, but has done his utmoſt to load us with an unproved Guilt, after he had made our Crime, an accidental Slip, and unhappy Miſtake.

3. I prov'd, ex abundanti, that Preſbytery was not in the Aſcendant in England in 38. That conformity was then at the higheſt, being urged by Arch Biſhop Laud and his Faction with great Severity, that many were ſuſpended, deprived and excommunicated for not reading the Book of Sports, in 37.

I gave an Account of about Thirty Miniſters ſo uſed in the Biſhoprick of Norwich. And in 38. many more were Suſpended for not uſing Hoods and Surplices, many were driven to foreign Countries, to Holland, New-England, &c. whither the Arch-Biſhop deſign'd to purſue 'em, and to Dragoon 'em into the Engliſh Conformity: I prov'd they were deprived not only of the Pulpit, but of the Preſs alſo by a Decree paſſed in the Star Chamber, July the 1ſt, 1637. By Virtue of this Decree, ſeveral Geneva Bibles with Notes were ſeized in Holland, and a New Impreſſion deſign'd for England, was ſtop'd from coming over. All this I prov'd out of Ruſhworth and Heylyn, by which it appears what little Credit is to be given to his ſecret Hiſtory of the Preſbyterians Corrupting the Word of God in Thirty Eight, when he ſo notoriouſly Contradicts the Publick Hiſtory of that Time.

To this the Rector Anſwers, He wou'd not for any Thing be found tripping in this Part of his Argument. p, 37.

That Mr. Owen blunders about the ſignification of theſe Words, being in the Aſcendant, which he underſtands of being in full Power and Authority, as if it were the ſame with having the Aſcendant: And leaſt you ſhould think him an Ignoramus in the Mathematicks, be informs us out of Lyburn, when a Star is ſaid to be in the Aſcendant, which is, when having paſſed the Imum Caeli, and being got into the the Aſcendant, it bends it's courſe towards Medium Caeli and the Meridian, i. e. is Aſcending.

I hope you are Edified by this Piece of Learning: A Star is in the Aſcendant, when it is got into the Aſcendant, and is Aſcending: This puts me in Mind of that famous Verſe of Battus the Poet, Montibus, inquit, erant, & erant in montibus illis;

Which you may thus Engliſh, in conformity to the Rector:

The Mountains high he did Aſcend,

Aſcending ſtill, he did Aſcend.

p. 14His Explications are tranſcendent Blunders, which wou'd have been more Excuſable, if he had not ſet up for a Teacher of the Mathematicks, and involv'd a learned Author in a tautological Pleonaſm.

The Rectors diſtinction between being in the Aſcedant, and having the Aſcendant is a little Nice, he owns Preſbytery had not the Aſcendant in Thirty Eight, and yet Affirms it was got into the Aſcendant. But the happineſs is, this Diſtinction will do him no good, for my Argument proves Preſbytery to be ſo far from the Aſcendant in his very Senſe, that it makes it to be in the Deſcendant in England that Year. Epiſcopacy was never higher, nor Preſbytery lower. The Epiſcopal Power was in its Meridian Altitude, having the High Commiſſion-Court and the Star-Chamber to ſupport it, and an Active Arch-Prelate moving in the higheſt Orb, whoſe Influences were as Malignant to the Puritans (the better Part of the Church of England then) as they were favourable to the Men of Ceremony. In a Word, he had the Presbyterians (if any ſuch there were) under his Feet, and made this Climate too hot for them, that they were glad to ſeek for ſhelter in the remoteſt Parts of the Earth. This I have prov'd out of Heylyn, but the Rector wiſely overlooks it. If being under Foot and trampled in the duſt be Aſcending towards the Meridian, then were the Presbyterians in the Aſcendant in Thirty Eight. If bending their Courſe verſus fines terrae, be the ſame with bending it verſus medium Caeli, they muſt be acknowledg'd to be in the Aſcendant.

But ſaith he, That prodigious and terrible blazing Star, the Covenant, that very Year begun to appear in Scotland, and ſoon drew the Eyes and Inclinations of a great Part of England upon it. p. 37.

The Covenant appear'd in Scotland long before Thirty Eight, and was ſubſcribed by King James I. as I ſhew'd in my Remarks. p. 8.

The renewing of the Covenant in Thirty Eight, proves Preſbytery to be in the Aſcendant in Scotland, but what is this to England? Preſbytery is now in the Meridian in Scotland, I hope the Rector will not ſay it is ſo in England. It muſt be ſo by his Argument, He undertook to prove Preſbytery in the Aſcendant in England, It muſt be ſo by his Argument, He undertook to prove Preſbytery in the Aſcedant in England, and his Argument is, it was ſo in Scotland, as if the State of England and Scotland were always the ſame. Lets ſee the Strength of this doughty Argument, the Presbyterian Covenant appear'd in Scotland in Thirty Eight, therefore the Presbyterians at Cambridge corrupted the Bible. Did the Scotch Covenant depend upon altering of we into ye at Cambridge, or did the Alteration depend on the Covenant? Was there a Conſpiracy between the Scotch Covenanters, and the Cambridge Epiſcopal Printers.

Suppoſe the Covenant drew the Inclinations of ſome Engliſh, this does not prove Presbytery in the Aſcendant in England, much leſs does it prove the Preſbyterians Guilty of Corrupting the Word of God. A Man may have Inclinations to Presbytery, and not be a Corrupter of the Word of God—

Thus the Rector who wou'd not for any Thing be found tripping in this Part of his Argument, is found not only to Trip, but to Stumble and overthrow his Rider, when he affirms Preſbytery to be in the Aſcendant in Thirty Eight, in England. But ſuppoſe Presbytery had been in the Aſcendant then, this will not prove the Preſbyterians Authors of that Corruption; 1ſt. It does not favour their Principles. 2ly. Arch-Biſhop Laud had guarded the Preſs againſt them, as I have prov'd, nor was the Rector able to Contradict me. 3ly. the Cambridge Printers in Thirty Eight, were Epiſcopal Men, who ought in Juſtice to be charged with the Errors of the Preſs. 4ly. The Univerſity of Cambridge was far from being Preſbyterian at that time, the Heads of Colledges being all Epiſcopal, a Liſt of which Mr. Francis Talents communicated to me, which I find agreeing with Mr. Fullers **Church Hiſtory.. To this p. 15the Rector Anſwers, That Mr. Owen talks like one who knows not Cambridge. Nor had diligence enough to inform himſelf, and Mr. Talents, he fears is paſt his Memory and Judgment not to ſay his Integrity. p. 37. 39.

Mr. Owen has known Cambridge above twenty Years ago when he was admitted Student there, Mr. Talents Judgment, Memory and Integrity deſerves not to be reflected on, ſince Mr. Fuller in his Hiſtory of the Univerſity of Cambridge fully writes the ſame thing he mention'd.

But ſaith he, beſides theſe ſixteen Heads, there are Fellows, Scholars, Noble-men a Follow-Commoners, Perſioners and Siſars or Servitors, which make up about 2000, among which there were many that favour'd Preſbytery, eſpecially in Emanuel, which not long after furniſhed ſix Colledges with Heads, and it was call'd pure Emanuel; from the abundance of Puritans in it. p. 39.

The Rector informs us of what every body knows, that there are a great many Students in Cambridge, and if he can find there five or ſix Presbyterians among two Thouſand Scholars, he thinks he has prov'd his Charge againſt that Party of Corrupting the Word of God. This puts me in Mind of a Paſſage in Lactamius, He ſaith, that as Diocletian was Sacrificing, and the ordinary Marks in the Intrailes of the Sacrifices not appearing, Tages, that were ſet over the Diviners, ſaid, that their Rites did not ſucceed, becauſe there were ſome prophane Perſons (i. e. Chriſtians) that had thruſt themſelves into the Aſſembly. **Lactant of the Prim. Perſ. Ergl. by Dr. Burnet. p. 75.This occaſion'd the laſt and great Perſecution of the Chriſtians under that Emperour and his Collegues. The Rector is as juſt to the Furitans, as the Pagan Prieſts were to the Ancient Chriſtians, their being upon the ſpot is ſufficient to make the one and the other Criminals. Thus St. Paul was Accuſed for bringing Greeks into the Temple, and the Evidence was, they had ſeen Trophimus with him in the City. Acts 21. 28, 29.

I have heard of a certain late Judge, that as he paſſed a dirty Place in London-Streets, he found a Man ſheltring himſelf under a Belcony from a Shower of Rain. Sir, ſaith he, to the Man I will have you indited for this Nuſance. The Man told him, he was a Stranger there, that's nothing, replies the Judg, I have found you on the Premiſſes, and you muſt Anſwer for the Nuſance.

The Rector thinks he has found a few Puritans in Cambridge in Thirty Eight, among near two Thouſand Church-men, and they muſt be Guilty of the Corruptive Nuſance, becauſe he has found 'em on the Premiſſes.

But that which ſpoiles all is, the Puritans were Members of the Church of England, and generally of the Epiſcopal Judgment, nay the Moderate and Pious Biſhops cou'd not eſcape that Nick-name, which was applied to all Calviniſts in Doctrine, as Dr. Heylyn confeſſeth.††Life of Arch-Biſhop Laud. p. 124. Tho' in ſtrictneſs the Name was given to the Non-con-formiſts, which were very few at that time, the Terms of Conformity not being ſcrew'd up to the preſent height.

But the Heads of Colledgs were no Puritans, no not Dr. Haldſworth Maſter of Emanuel, who was put out by the Parliament; and any Man will judge of the State of the Univerſity, and indeed of all Societies, by the Governing Party, who have a conſiderable Influence in their reſpective Provinces. If Cambridge ſupplied Trinity Colledge, Oxford, with ten Fellows that were for the Parliament (as he affirms p. 39.) It does not follow they were Presbyterians before, for we know its uſual for abundance of People to change with the Times; I doubt not but the Rector can Name the Men p. 16who took the Covenant and the Engagement; and after all, approv'd themſelves to be right Epiſcopal-Men. Beſides, many of thoſe that were made Fellows at Oxford in the Year 1638. were very Young, and not admitted in Cambridge till after 1648.

From the whole it appears that Preſbytery in Thirty Eight, was not in the Aſcendant in England, eſpecially in Cambridge where all the Heads of Colledges were Epiſcopal.

Thus I have expos'd the weak Vindication of his Firſt Argument from the Circumſtance of Time.

I affirm'd the Scotch Covenant and the Presbyterian Government in Scotland to be more Ancient than Thirty Eight, which the Rector cannot deny, but he endeavours to prove from the Fundamental Charter of Presbyter examin'd, &c. that the Reformation in Scotland was firſt caſt into the Epiſcopal Platform, and continued ſo for fifteen Years. p. 40.

The Pamphlet to which he refers, has been learnedly anſwer'd by Dr. Rule in his good old Way defended, to which I refer the Reader.

The Reformation there was gradually, and with much oppoſition carried on, as it was here in England, and no wonder, if in ſuch a ſtruggle Eſau came forth before Jacob, but certain it is, when they came to ſome degree of Settlement. Preſbytery was ſet up, and the confeſſion of Faith, in which they promiſed to ad-here to that Government, was ſign'd by King James the I. and his Houſhold, Anno 1580. and by Perſons of all Ranks Anno 1581. by Ordinance of the Council, and Acts of the General Aſſembly. It was ſubſcribed again by all Perſons, Anno Domini 1590. with a General Band for maintenance of the true Religion and the Kings Perſon.

I am ſtill of Opinion (ſaith he), That the Scotch Kirk put away the Wife of its Youth, I mean Epiſcopacy, when it reform'd from Popery, and joyn'd it ſelf unto an Harlot (I mean Presbytery).

I think Presbytery as Honeſt as Epiſcopacy, and I am ſure the Church loſt it's purity, and degenerated into a Harlot, under the Lordly and Tyranical Government of Popiſh Biſhops. p. 41.

What an honourable Character does this Gentleman give to the Reformation, in which not only Scotland, but moſt of the forreign Proteſtant Churches are concern'd? When they caſt off Idolatrous Popiſh Biſhops, they put away the Wife of their Youth; when they put themſelves under the Conduct of Proteſtant Paſtors, they joyn'd themſelves to a Harlot. In plain Engliſh, they lived in chaſt Wedlock under Popery, and defiled the Marriage-bed, when they became Proteſtants. This looks more like the Language of a Jeſuit than of a Proteſtant-Miniſter.

The Rector, in his Sermon baſely reflected upon the ACT of Settling Presbytery in Scotland (tho' touched by the Royal Scepter), and alſo upon his Majeſties Words in his Letter of Inſtructions to his Commiſſioner in Scotland, both which affirms Preſbytery most agreeable to the Inclination of the Scotch Nation, which is ſuch another Reaſon (faith he) as an Adultrer might give for his Wantomeſs. He would fain Palliate this inexcuſable Indecency towards the King (which I complain'd of) tho' he comes off but ſorrily.

1ſt. This is the firſt time (ſaith he), I ever heard of a Presbyterian having any due regard unto a Kings Honour, and perhaps it will be the laſt, if the Commonwealth Principle gets a little more footing among us. p. 41.

The Presbyterians have approv'd themſelves to be as Good Subjects as any of their Neighbours, both in this and neighbouring Countries; for the neighbouring Countries let him aſk the French Proteſtants, and the perſecuted Vaudois: For this, let him conſult their Confeſſions, which aſſert Obedience and Subjection to the Higher Powers. I have known ſeveral Presbyterians who had that regard to a Kings Honour, as p. 17to quit all their Preferments rather then take the Engagement, to exclude the King when many Epiſcopal Men ſubmitted to it. It's true, they generally took Part with the Parliament in our unhappy Civil Wars, and ſo did abundance of Church-Men: But Paſſive Obedience and Non-reſiſtance in 1688. have eminently juſtified Forty One.

If the Republican Principle gets footing, its amongſt ſome of his Jacobite Brethren, who under Colour of that Principle wou'd promote the Intereſt of their Old Maſter. I know not any one Preſbyterian who is for a Commonwealth: I confeſs, they are not for making Princes Abſolute, as the Rector is, who declares that the King's Coronation Oath is a voluntary Act of Grace, unto which the King is not obliged by the Fundamental Conſtitution, and that the Prince, in Effect, is the ſole ſovereign Power, if he pleaſeth to uſurp and exerciſe it**Serm. of Subjection, by the Rector of Bury, p. 21, 22..

2ly. 'Tis no reflection on the King (adds he) to deride the Scots Reaſon. The Scotch Parliament Reaſon for the ACT was their Inclination; the King was to pleaſe them.

I ſay, 'tis a reflection on the King to deride their Reaſon, when he had approv'd it, and inſerted it into his Letter of Inſtructions to his Commiſſioner in Scotland. The Letters of Princes and their Laws confirm'd in Parliament, ought to be treated with more Reſpect, or at leaſt with leſs Scorn, eſpecially by a Perſon who not only enjoys his Preferments under His Majeſties Protection, but hath taught us ſuch an intire reſignation to the Will of the Sovereign, that he allows us not the Liberty of Petitioning and Addreſſing him, when we are Aggrieved. Nay, we are bound in Conſcience to obey, tho' he ſhou'd prove a Tyrant, and it's an Act of Grace in him to oblige himſelf to govern according to the Laws: For he is the ſole Soveraign Power, and is accountable to none but God for any Miſgovernment. In a Word, he gives the Prince the moſt Arbitrary Power, and deprives the Subject from aſſerting his own Priviledges ††Serm. of Subj. p. 13. 21, 22..

For ſuch a Man to deride the Acts of his Prince, looks not only Ʋngrateful and Inconſiſtent, but may tempt us to ſuſpect, that either he does not believe his own Doctrine, or elſe that he Calculated it for the Epiſcopal Meridian; that is, whilſt Princes ſupport Epiſcopacy, which I dare ſay, is agreeable to his Inclination, we are to honour and obey them; but if they Favour Presbytery we may deride their Letters and Royal Acts. In a Word, whilſt the King pleaſes the Rectors Inclinations he is his Humble Slave, and will allow him an un-bounded Power; but if he comply with the Scotch Inclination, our Loyal Rector dare deride the Reaſon of his Compliance, and ridicule his Royal Wiſdom, under pretence of expoſing the Scots Reaſon. 'Tis pity but this Gentleman had been of his Majeſties Council, to adviſe him how to Pen his Letters, and to inſtruct him how to Word his Inſtructions to his Prime Miniſters of State.

ARGƲMENT II.

His 2d. Argument to prove the Diſſenters Guilty of Corrupting the Word of God, is this, The Corruption in appearance favours the Diſſenters, and their Deſign, againſt Epiſcopacy.

TO this Argument I anſwer'd three Things,

1ſt. He durſt not ſay, the Corruption favours the Diſſenters, for he knows the Contrary: But he ſlily ſays it does in appearance favour them; this appearance is only to himſelf, for I believe no Diſſenter ever thought of it. This he takes no notice of.

p. 182ly. I told him that I knew no Principle of any ſober Diſſenters, that is favoured by this Corruption. I refer'd him to the Directory for Ordination, and the Heads of Agreement between the Presbyterians and Congregational Men in (1691.) in both which the Power of Ordination is lodged in the Miniſters, and not in the People, to whom they aſcribe only the Power of Chuſing them, according to this very Text (Acts 6. 3.) and the Rector's concurrent Teſtimony, if that were of any Validity **Tent. Novum. p. 4..

He allows the People as much Power in making their Miniſter as the Diſſenters do, and therefore by this Argument, muſt either acquit them, or condemn himſelf.

Here the Water ſticks to the Rector, he knows not which way to turn him about, rather than retract his malicious Calumny, like a Man hardoned in Sin, he'l make uſe of any ſorry ſhift to Paliate his Guilt, and Expoſe the Innocent.

He cannot deny this to be the Judgment of the Diſſenters, that Ordination belongs to Miniſters, and Election ordinarily to the People. But ſaith he, among us the Biſhop Inſtitutes and Appoints by an Act altogether diſtinct from Ordination, as we believe was the▪ Caſe of the Deacons: But among the Diſſenters the Paſtors Ordain, and the People chuſe and appoint 'em. p. 43.

He may believe what he pleaſes, but the Text mentions no other Appointment of the Apoſtles, but what was by Prayer and Impoſition of Hands, Acts 6. 3, 6. which he cannot deny to be meant of Ordination.

He diſingenuouſly miſ-repreſents us, when he ſays the People Chuſe and Appoint, they Chuſe indeed, but the Miniſters Appoint or Ordain 'em to the Office, which they very rarely or never do Sine Titulo.

I noted, that the Diſſenters cou'd be under no Temptation to Corrupt this Place, the Peoples power of chuſing their Miniſters▪ being aſſerted in this very Text, Acts 6. 3. Look ye out among you, &c. and v. 5. they choſe Stephen, &c.

To this he ridiculouſly replies, they choſe not the Perſons immediately into the Office deſign'd them. p. 44.

The Presbyterians never aſſerted ſuch an Election, which he cannot but know, though he thinks fit to abuſe them. The Peoples choice does not appoint or eſtabliſh 'em in their Office, nor oblige the Miniſters to ordain 'em, if they judge them not duly qualified.—

As to his granting the Peoples power of chuſing their Miniſters, he ſays, he is of the ſame Opinion ſtill, being under no neceſſity to alter it, that he is ſenſible of.

I know not what changes in Opinion, his Neceſſities may oblige him to, but if his Argument or any other Neceſſity require it, it ſeems he can change as there is Occaſion.

It is certain at preſent he allows the People as much Power in chuſing their Miniſters as we do: And therefore this Corruption does no more favour us, than it does the Rector, who muſt either honeſtly acquit us or condemn himſelf.

3ly. I obſerv'd farther, that the Diſſenters look on the VII. Deacons, as Miniſters at Tables, and not of the Word. For proof of this I refer'd him to the Directory, and infer'd that it is not likely they ſhou'd Corrupt a Text to aſſert the Peoples power in making Goſpel Miniſters, which in their Opinion ſpeaks not of thoſe that Miniſter in Goſpel Myſteries.

The Rector anſwers, I can't help theſe Men's Judgments if they do not; or will not ſee it, 'tis becauſe there is no light in them. p. 45.

Nor can I help this Mans Obſtinacy who ſhuts his Eyes againſt the Light, for the queſtion is not here, whether the Diſſenters be in the Right, as to their Opinion p. 19of Deacons, but whether or no they take 'em as Miniſters of Tables and not of the Word?

This I prov'd and he cannot deny it: Now if this be their Notion of Deacons, my Inference holds good, they wou'd not Corrupt a Text to aſſert the Peoples power, in making Goſpel Miniſters which in their Opinion ſpeaks not of thoſe that Miniſter in Goſpel Myſteries.

His Argument is, the Corruption favours the Diſſenters, I anſwer in the Negative, for which I give this Reaſon, this Text ſpeaks not of Miniſters of the Word in their Opinion, and therefore they wou'd not Corrupt it to aſſert the Peoples power in making Miniſters. Here he aſks us an impertinent Queſtion, why do we not Ordian our Deacons, or Overſeeres of the Poor as the Apoſtles did? p. 45.

We ſet them not apart by impoſition of Hands, for the ſame Reaſon that the Church of England Ordains them not. None will ſay, that we are neceſſarily obliged to uſe Impoſition of Hands in all caſes wherein we find it uſed in Scripture. Tho' we condemn not thoſe that Ordain their Deacons, as ſome Diſſenters do.

I have now diſmiſs'd his 2d. Argument, and made it appear that the Corruption charged upon us does not only not favour any Principles of ours, but is inconſiſtent with 'em.

Before I proceed to his 3d. Argument, I muſt take notice of a baſe Suggeſtion, as if I had not obtain'd my former Poſte at Wr. by fair and honeſt Means, but had betrayed, and by a paultrey Trick ſupplanted Mr. B. my Predeceſſor, and ſtept into his Place, and diſcovered the Secrets of my inward Friend and Confident, who diſcloſed his Heart to me as to a Confeſſor. p. 45.

I was ſo far from ſupplanting and betraying Mr. B. at Wr. that I knew nothing of the Difference between him and the Congregation, which occaſion'd his Deſerting them, until Mr. Tong (now of Coventry) was actually choſen by them, and rended with them, I being then in London. And my Poſte there has been and is hitherto Charitably to ſupply 'em, and that moſtly to my Charge, until they be ſettl'd under a Miniſter of their own.

I have often recommended Mr. B. to them, but for ſome Reaſons I find 'em not willing to be farther concern'd with him.

I know of no Secrets he ever Committed to me, and I challenge him or any other Perſon to mention any Secrets I ever Divulged to his Prejudice. I always reſpected him for his true Worth, but we never had any great Intimacy or inward Friendſhip, to make me either his Confident or Confeſſor.

ARGƲMENT III.

His 3d. Argument is this, It cannot be that the Epiſcopal Party deſign'd to Corrupt this Place▪ for that would be to deſtroy, what their Church Government ſeems to be built on.

I Anſwer'd, this proves nothing againſt the Diſſenters, nor did they charge the Epiſcopal Party with any deſign of Corrupting it, tho' the Preſs was in their Hands, and ſtrictly guarded againſt the Puritans in the Year. 1638.

The Rector according to his wonted Ingennity replies, if it were deſignedly done, or afterwards propagated with deſign, then becauſe Mr. Owen acquitted us, the Diſſenters muſt confeſs Guilty. p. 46.

Is this Candid, becauſe we charitably acquit the Epiſcopal Party from any Deſign of Corrupting it, we muſt therefore acknowledge our ſelves Guilty.

We do not ſay it was deſignedly done, nor do I know any body that ſays ſo (and un-ſaith it again in another humour) but the inconſiſtent Rector. We ſay the Preſs was in the Hands of the Church-Party when it was firſt done, and therefore in Juſtice p. 20they muſt be charg'd with the Error of the Preſs. Had the Preſs been in Presbyterian Hands, the Rector wou'd have urged it for a Demonſtration, that certainly they were Guilty of the Corruption, becauſe it firſt happen'd when they had the Power of the Preſs: But the Preſs was in Epiſcopal Hands, therefore the Corruption muſt be at their Door.

If one would allow himſelf the Liberty of Arguing from the ſame Topicks with the Rector, he might retort the Charge of Corrupting this Place on the Epiſcopal Party, and that deſignedly too. 1ſt. The Preſs was in their Hands in Thirty Eight, when the firſt Corruption happen'd. 2ly. It was in their Hands, when moſt of the reſt happen'd, and who ſhould be Guilty of Corrupting the Place, but thoſe that had Power to do it, without Suſpicion? 3ly. The Corruption favours the Peoples Power in making their own Miniſters. Now it's certain, the Epiſcopal Party take the Deacons in Acts 6. 3. to be real Miniſters, which the Diſſenters do not: Therefore the Corruption favours their Opinion, and they may be ſuppoſed the Guilty Perſons. It does not favour the Diſſenters Sence of that Place, and it does that of the Epiſcopaliſts. 4. It favours a Principle much in Vogue among the Church-Party, eſpecially about Thirty Eight, that all Power is Originally in the People.

This Principle is aſſerted by Mr. Hooker, the Oracle of the Epiſcopal-Men, in his Eccleſ. Polity, lib. 1. and lib. 8.

Arch-Biſhop Cranmer, ſaith in the New Teſtament, he that is appointed to be a Biſhop or a Preſbyter, needs no Conſecration by the Scripture, for Election or Appointing **Dr. Stillingfleet, Iren. p. 39.thereto is ſufficient.

And alſo by Biſhop Bilſon, and by Mr. Lawſon, who expreſly Affirms that the foreign or primary Subject of the Power of the Keys is in the whole Church.††Polit. Sacra. & Civil. cap. 13. And by Biſhop Andrews, Tortura Torti, p. 42.

Now who ſhould be ſuſpected to have deſignedly Corrupted this Place, but that Party who ſo much advance the Popular Principle?

Here is Four Arguments to the Rectors Four Arguments, and every one of them as good as his, but far be it from me to Charge either the Epiſcopal or Diſſenting Party with a Deſign to Corrupt the Word of God. The Error is accidental as many more are, and proceeds from the careleſsneſs of the Corrector (who I hear is uſually an Epiſcopal Miniſter) as well as the unconcerndneſs of the ſupreme Paſtors, who ought to depute Perſons of Judgment, Diligence and Integrity to Examine the ſeveral Editions of the Bible.

I cou'd eaſily enlarge upon theſe Arguments, and make 'em look more Probable than thoſe of the Rectors, if I were under the influences of a malignant Jealouſy and a ſuſpicious Un-charitableneſs as he is, or took pleaſure in the ſordid Act of expoſing a Party to the common Prejudice of Religion, as he doth. But I leave this Artifice to our ill-natured Accuſer, and only mention theſe Things, to ſhew the Invalidity of his Arguments, and what an eaſy Thing it is for a Perſon, who imploys his Talent to ſo ill an Intention, to form probable Arguments that may ground a Suſpicion, that the Epiſcopal Party are Corrupters of the Word of God: And it wou'd not be impoſſible to pick up two or three idle Stories, to confirm ſo malicious a Charge, as the Rector has done, which make up his fourth Argument,

p. 21ARGƲMENT IV.

This 4th. Argument, is deduced from the Cameronian's citing this Corrupt Place in favour of the Peoples Power, to ſet up their own Teachers.

TO this I anſwer'd, 1ſt. The Story concerns not the Engliſh Presbyterians. Does our Accuſer manage his Evidence with common Honeſty? He puts in a Charge againſt the Body of Engliſh Diſſenters, and brings in for Guilty a ſingle Scotch Cameronian.

2ly. The Scotch Evidence is, by hear-ſay, without Name, Perſon, Time or Place. He promiſed a good circumſtantial Proof, Serm. p. 23. and he gives us one Diveſted of all it's Circumſtances.

3ly. It's ſcarce Credible, that a Cameronian ſhould aſſert a Doctrine contrary to the Presbyterian Principles.

4ly. Suppoſe ſome ignorant Cameronian had been abuſed, or had abuſed others by this Corrupt reading—muſt the Error of one Man be charged on the whole Church of Scotland? And muſt the Error of one Scotch-Man be charged on all the Engliſh Presbyterians? This is ſuch a piece of Juſtice, as none will defend, but a Haman, who ſeeks to be reveng'd upon all the Jews, becauſe one Mordecai had offended.

The Rector replies,

1ſt. That for Matter of Fact, he thinks it unqueſtionable, 'tis thus; The honourable Collonel Fairfax, reported this Fact to Mr. Piggot Vicar of Rochdale, in the hearing of ſeveral, in particular of Mr. Robert Milne, a Diſſenter: And finding ſeveral Engliſh Bibles, which were ſent from private Houſes, Corrupted, declared, that he thought the Presbyterians had ſome knaviſh Deſign. A German Gentleman in the company pull'd a Dutch Teſtament of Luther's Tranſlation out of his Pocket, wherein he read we, and added, he was certain the Presbyterians in Germany and in Scotland (where he had lately been) were Knaves, and it was well if they were better in England. p. 47.

This Account does not make the Cameronian-Tale a whit the more Credible, becauſe.

1ſt. It it uncertain whether Coll. Fairfax reported it. Mr. Milne who is made a Party to this Story, Affirms he never was in Company with Coll. Fairfax, nor did he ſee him when he was at Rochdale, being from home that day, ſo that the Report depends upon the ſingle Teſtimony of Mr. Piggot, which how far it will paſs, I leave to thoſe to judge who know the Man, and the manner of his Converſation.

2ly. If Coll. Fairfax reported it, it does not at all make it unqueſtionable, for it is but a ſingle Evidence, nor does he ſay, he heard the Cameronian himſelf urge this Corrupt reading, perhaps the Story paſſed twenty Hands before it reach'd him; nor does he Name the Perſon, or Place, or Time, which are ſhrew'd Evidences, that the Story is Spurious. Such a blind Evidence as this, would look ridiculous in a Court of Juſtice, but ſerves the Rector's turn, who does not pretend to obſerve the troubleſome Forms of Juſtice in the Management of his Charge.

3ly. This Story ſeems to have been the Entertainment over their Cups (where every thing that is ſaid is not Goſpel), for as he tells us, they ſent for Bibles from private Houſes: One may conclude then they were now at a Publick Houſe.

This confirms the Truth of what I ſuſpected in my Remarks, p. 12. That he had pick'd up a ſpurious Story, perhaps in the next Coffee-Houſe, or Ale-Houſe, and this he legitimates and recommends from the Pulpit, as a Sacred Oracle of God. The p. 22Rector muſt needs Grace the Pulpit, when he borrows Materials for his Sermons out of the Cann-Office.

4ly. His German Gentleman is a Stranger, and wants a Voucher for his Varacity, but by his own Account one may ſuſpect he had been in Scotland aſſiſting at the Barbarous Butcheries there, and Dragooning the Presbyterians into Conformity: However it be, he charges not the German Presbyteriaas, no nor the Scotch with Corrupting the Word of God, tho' he complements 'em with the Title of Knaves. Who he means by the Presbyterians in Germany is doubtful, for there are no Proteſtant Biſhops there of the Engliſh Species. If one may judge ex Vngue Leonem, this German was a Popiſh Soldier of Fortune, and condemns all the German Proteſtants for Knaves: Or he was a bigotted Lutheran, and lov'd the Calviniſts as the Rector does the Presbyterians. Is not the Rector aſhamed to creep into Ale-Houſes, and there to muſter up Red-Coats if not Papiſts for Evidence againſt us? He brings for Evidence againſt the Engliſh, a Scotch Cameronian, he brings for Evidence againſt the Scotch a German Papiſt. Moſt Noble Rector! Your way of proving Matters of Fact is very Singular, you prove your Cameronian Story by one ſingle Witneſs, and what he Depoſes is by hear-ſay: You prove the German and Scotch Presbyterians to be all Knaves by another ſingle Witneſs and he an out-landiſh one. We need not go as far as Germany for Witneſſes to prove you Knaviſh in the Management of your Charge. So much of his Cameronians STORY.

He has the Impudence to defend his Imputing the unproved Error of one Cameronian to all the Engliſh Presbyterians. Thus, ſaith he, Haman's Offence was reveng'd upon many Thouſands of Perſons, and Sauls upon Seven of his Children, and the Note-maker fell foul upon the whole Body of the Epiſcopal Church, for a ſuppoſed Fault of my Lord Biſhop of Salisbury. p. 48.

The Jews deſtroying ſo many Thouſands of Perſons, was not to revenge Haman's Offence, but to defend themſelves againſt thoſe that aſſaulted them, as is expreſly affirm'd in Eſth. 8. 11. and 9. 2. The Rector is ſo taken up with Cameronian Stories, that he is not at leiſure to acquaint himſelf with Scripture Hiſtory.

It's true Seven of Saul's Sons were hang'd up unto the Lord (to whom they had forfeited their Lives) at the deſire of the Gibeonites, whom Saul had deſtroy'd contrary to the Oath of God: But what is this to the imputing of the Error of one Man, whoſe Name no body knows, to all the Presbyterians of England and Scotland? The Rector is good at proving, I wou'd adviſe him to pick up ſome other Story to prove all the Presbyterians of both Nations, to be the Natural Off-ſpring of this Cameronian, and when he has done ſo, let him play the Gibeonite, and hang them up with the Sons of Saul. 'Tis well we are not at this Man's Mercy; the very Gibeonites contented themſelves with Seven of Saul's Sons, but the Rector as if he were of the Remnant of Amaleck, ſeeks with Haman to revenge the Fault of One upon a whole Party.

The Note-maker from whom he wou'd borrow a Plea for his Injuſtice, will do him no Service, for he does not Charge any Perſonal Fault of the Biſhop of Salisbury upon the whole Body of the Epiſcopal Church. He only take occaſion (as far as I remember for it's ſome time ſince I read him) from the Biſhops charging the Diſſenters with Schiſm, to retort it upon the Church, which he thinks Guilty of it.

p. 23CHAP. V.

Containing a reply to his Fifth Chapter.

HAVING anſwer'd his Four Arguments I offered more Conſiderations to ſhew the Falſity of the Rectors Charge, as 1ſt. No Proteſtant Diſſenters have ever urged that corrupt reading in favour of a Popular Government of the Church in their Writings. Let him produce, if he can, any one Argument ſupported by this falſe reading in all their Writings.

All that the Rector pretends to ſay to this, is, That it is a bold Touch, to be ſo Poſitive in a Negative. p. 48.

Why does not he prove the Affirmative, when I challenge him to it? I will be bold to maintain the Negative, until he has prov'd the Affirmative, which I am ſure he can never do.

But one Mr. Jolly (as he tells us) ſome while ago, ſince Dead, alledg'd this Corrupt reading at Duckenfield Hall, in diſcourſe with Mr. Elliſon Rector of Aſhton under Line. p. 48.

The Rector of Bury and his Brother of Aſhton under Line, are well adviſed in their Reports, the one tells a Story of a Nameleſs Cameronian in another Kingdom, the other Names his Perſon, but you muſt look for him in another World. They are reſolved to put us out of all Hopes of being ever able to Examine the Truth of their Tales.

He tells ſuch another Story (in which no Perſon are named) of ſome Gentleman in Bolton, who heard ſome Diſſenters in a diſpute about Religion, Cite Acts 6. as the Cameronian did, and appeal'd to the Scotch Bibles.

By this laſt Paſſage I ſuſpect this Story to have come out of the ſame Mint with the Former, for very few of the Scotch Bibles are miſ-printed, as we ſhall preſently make appear.

'Tis obſervable that neither Mr. Elliſon, nor the Gentleman at Bolton, do ſay, That theſe Diſſenters urged this Corrupt reading to prove the Peoples Power in making their own Miniſters, only that they read ye for we, which they might ignorantly do (finding it ſo in their Bibles) and not urge it as an Argument to ſupport an Error.

Perhaps they might refer to that Place, to prove the Peoples Power to chuſe their own Miniſters which is there aſſerted, without this Corrupt reading.

But ſuppoſe they miſ-applied this Falſe reading, it was their Ignorance, which no Man will juſtify.

Ay, but doubtleſs they had been furniſhed with this Argument by ſome of their Leaders. —p. 49.

He ought to prove that, before he affirm with ſuch aſſurance. If any of his Flock ſhou'd miſtake the Senſe of any Scripture, he wou'd think it hard to be charged with the Error.

Let him Name if he can, any of their Leaders that have ever recommended this Falſe reading to their People, and I do promiſe we ſhall renounce him as unworthy the Name of a Chriſtian, much more of a Miniſter.

But he hath had named unto him one of their Leaders, Mr. R. Baldwin (his Mr. Calvin), who detected and cenſured this Corruption, in an Ordination Sermon long before his Rectorſhip.

p. 24And there are ſome who well remember, that the Reverend Mr. Philip Henry many Years ago in his Expoſition of Acts 6. took notice of the Miſ-printing of ye for we in ſome Editions, and took Care to rectify it.

'Tis remarkable here, as he goes on, how the Diſſenters more eſpecially appealed to the Scotch Bibles. I believe Mr. Owen will be Wiſer then to give a Catalogue of the Corrupted Editions in Scotland, tho' he has in Part promiſed it. I ſhall be beholden to him, if he'l be pleaſed to Anſwer my Expectation herein. p. 49.

I am willing to oblige him, if poſſible, and to perform my Promiſe, I wrote to the Reverend Doctor Rule, Principal of the Colledge of Edinburgh, who ſent me this Account of the Scotch Editions; I ſhall give it in his own Words—It required ſome time to ſearch for our Impreſſions of the Bible. I find there was one in 1673. which is out of Print, I can find no Copy of it. One 1676. Octavo, which in Acts 6. 3. hath we. One 1678. Quarto, hath we. One 1691. Octavo, hath we. One 1694. Twelves, hath we. One 1694. Twelves, being Cann's Bible hath we. One 1694. Quarto, hath we. One 1697. Twelves, hath we. One 1675. Twelves hath ye. One 1686. hath ye: This laſt was finiſhed in 1688. ſo that there were none printed here with that Corruption, ſave two (ſome ſpeak of a third, but I cou'd not find it) and both theſe under Epiſcopacy. Thus far the Doctor; I ſhall ſubjoyn the Vote of the General Aſſembly, which he was pleaſed alſo to Communicate.

At Edinburgh, January 15th 1698,

THE General Aſſembly of this National Church being informed that the Presbyterians (and particularly theſe of Scotland) are charged in a Sermon preached by Thomas Gipps Rector of Bury, now printed and publiſhed, as Corrupters of the Word of God, with Deſign to ſupport the Peoples Power in ſetting up Miniſters over themſelves; And that this Corruption is made by them Acts 6. 3. by cauſing it to be Printed, Whom ye may appoint over this Buſineſs, inſtead of whom We may appoint: Therefore the General Aſſembly do unanimouſly declare, that as they allow no Power in the People, but only in Paſtors of the Church to Appoint and Ordain Church Officers, ſo they diſclaim the above mentioned Error of the Preſs, if any ſuch be found in any Bibles Printed in this Nation, And do declare they do not own any other Reading of that Text, to be according to the Original, but whom We may appoint, &c. Nor do they know, nor can learn, that ever any in this Nation did publikly uſe or apply that Text to prove the Peoples Power in Ordaining their Miniſters. Extracted by me,

J. Bannatyne Cls. Syn. National.

This Vote as Dr. Rule adds, is a full and ſufficient Vindication of Scotch Presbyterians from the Aſperſion of Corrupting the Word of God, which the Author ye mention doth with no leſs Ignorance than Falſhood load us with. For, nor only do we abhor ſuch Practices, knowing that the Truth of God is not eſtabliſhed by our Lie, But that Corruption of the Text ſhou'd deſtroy our Principle about the Authoritative Miſſion of Church Officers, ſo far 'tis from affirming it. The Story of the Cameronian Preacher may be look'd on as a meer Fiction: For tho' in our Aſſembly are Miniſters and Elders from all Parts of the Nation, none of them do ſay (tho' publickly and privately ſpoken to about it) that ever they have heard it.

p. 25I deſire the Reader here to obſerve.

1ſt. That the Cameronian Story, with which the Rector has made ſuch a Noiſe, is not ſo much as known in Scotland. It ſeems then to have been contrived in England, and perhaps at Rochdale, with deſign to furniſh the Rector with proper Materials for his Corruption—Sermon. It was Calculated for the Meridian of Mancheſter, tho' it might indifferently ſerve for any Part of England. The Epiſcopal Diſſenters in Scotland have publiſhed abundance of extravagant Stories to reproach the Eſtabliſhment there, but can any one imagine they wou'd overlook the Rectors Story, had there been the leaſt Colour for it?

2ly. It falls out a little unluckily that the two Scotch Editions, that were miſ-printed, happen'd under the Biſhops there, and that when they were in full Power.

3ly. Cann's Scotch Edition hath we, as the two Engliſh ones have, which I Noted in my Remarks. He was a rigid Browniſt, but did not miſ-print this Place. So much of the Scotch Editions.

II. I Remark'd that the Diſſenters have written ſeveral Commentaries on the New Teſtament, and not one of them have attempted to confirm the Corrupt reading in Acts 6. 3.

This Obſervation which clears 'em from Deſigning to Corrupt that Place, our Author overlooks.

III. I argued, that had the Corruption been deſign'd in favour of the Diſſenters, it wou'd have been promoted when they were uppermoſt.

But having examined moſt Editions between 1640, and 1684. I can find but three Corrupt Editions under the Parliament. And no leſs than thirty three under King Charles the II. a Table of which I have given in my Remarks. Moſt of the Corrupt Editions were in that Reign, when the Epiſcopal Party were uppermoſt and had the ſole Management of the Preſs.

To this he ſaith, 1ſt. the Diſſenters need not when they were uppermoſt, for they had gain'd their Point by the Sword. p. 49.

Was there ever a more impertinent Caviller? His Argument above was, they Corrupted the Word of God, becauſe Presbytery was in the Aſcendent, but now they are in the Vertical, he knows not whether they wou'd Corrupt it or no: That is when they had not the Power of the Preſs he ſuſpects they Corrupted this Place, but when they had the Power of it, he allows they did not Corrupt it.

His next Anſwer is more abſur'd, which is thus,

2ly. Tho' moſt of the faulty Editions were ſet forth in King Charles II. Days, when the Diſſenters were undermoſt, yet they may be ſuppoſed to have promoted the Corruption even then. p. 49.

To Suppoſe is one Thing, to Prove an other, one may ſuppoſe twenty ill Things of the Rector, as that he is unſound in his Principles, ſecretly Corrupt in his Morals, and a diſguiſed Adverſary to the Government, wou'd he like it, that ſome uncharitable Perſon ſhould report this? And when he calls upon him to prove it, to come off with telling him, I did but ſuppoſe it? In this Manner he ſerves us, inſtead of proving, he ſuppoſes. He has forgotten the old Maxim of the Schools, ſupponere non ponit eſſe.

3ly. He adds, the Biſhops had not in King Charles II. Reign the Management of the Preſs: It's in the Hands of Patentees, who cannot eaſily be controul'd in their buſineſs. The Biſhops have no Authority, ſo much as to Correct the Impreſſions of the Bible.

I ſaid, the Biſhops and Epiſcopal Party (p. 15 and 17.) had the Management of the Preſs, and that he cannot deny. It's certain the Biſhops had as much Power over the Preſs in King Charles II. time, as the Presbyterians had under the Parliament. For the State Printers have always Patents.

p. 26If the Biſhops have no Power to Correct the Impreſſions of the Bible, they may depute able Perſons to review 'em, and if they find them faulty, they may Complain to the King, to whom he ſaith the Printers are anſwerable, and get 'em puniſhed according to Law.

Let the Biſhops Power be what it will, it's nothing to the Argument in Hand, which is this, The Diſſenters can't be Charg'd with the Errors of the Preſs in King Charles II. time, becauſe the Epiſcopal Party were uppermoſt, and had the Management of the Preſs, with which the Diſſenters had nothing to do: Except it were in the publiſhing an Octavo Impreſſion of the Britiſh Bible, which was promoted by the Charity and Pains of that great exemplar of Primitive Chriſtianity, Mr. Thomas Gouge, and Corrected by Mr. Stephen Hughes, and Mr. Charles Edwards, two Diſſenting Miniſters: And this Impreſſion hath we in Acts 6. 3. It was Printed by Bill, Barker, &c. London, 1678. There's another large Octavo Impreſſion of the Britiſh Bible, Printed by Bill and Newcomb, London, 1690. and Corrected by Mr. David Jones, a Diſſenting Miniſter, this alſo hath we in Acts 6. 3. Theſe deſerve the more Conſideration, becauſe they are the only Impreſſions of the Bible (that I ever cou'd hear of) Corrected by Diſſenting Miniſters, and they might have been eaſily Corrupted without the Knowledge of the Printers (who are Strangers to the Britiſh Language) had the Diſſenters any deſign to falſify the Scriptures, as the Rector ſuppoſeth. Theſe two Impreſſions, Corrected by Diſſenters, are a ſufficient Vindication of them, from the Rector's calumnies.

Obſerve this Man's Candor, he ſuggeſts, that the Biſhops who were uppermoſt in King Charles II. time, could not Controul the King's Printers to prevent Corruptions, and yet inſinuates as if the Diſſenters, who were undermoſt, cou'd Controul 'em, to make Corruptions in the Bible.

4ly. Let the Miniſter, ſaith he, give us an inſtance of any other miſtake in Printing, whereupon depends any Controverſy in Religion, ſo frequently Committed in ſo many Preſſes, and in ſo many diſtant Places, Cambridge, Oxford, London, Edinburgh, and it ſhall ſuffice. Who can believe an Erratum to be repeated thus often by chance. p. 50.

1ſt. I gave a Reaſon already, why it's very poſſible an Error in one Edition of the Bible may be eaſily propagated, becauſe the Frames are often kept intire, which is not done, or very rarely in other Books. I gave this Reaſon in my Remarks, but he overlook'd it, and puts me to the trouble of repeating it.

2ly. I have prov'd that the frequent repetition of the Miſtake was when the Biſhops were in ſupreme Power, and the Preſs in the Hands of the Epiſcopal Party. They therefore muſt bear the blame of it, who ought to have given us more Correct Editions.

3ly. Since he puts me upon it, I will give him an inſtance of a Corruption, a thouſand times Worſe than a miſtake in Printing, whereupon a Controverſy in Religion depends, repeated in all the Editions of the Common-Prayer, I have yet met with.

The words are in the Office of Commination, Curſed is the Man that maketh any carved or melten Image to worſhip it. Theſe Words are ſaid, to be taken out of Deut. 27. 15. where they are thus, Curſed be the Man that maketh any graven or molten Image, an abomination unto the Lord, the work of the Hands of the Crafts-Man, and putteth it in a ſecret Place.—

In the Liturgy the words, to worſhip it, are added to the Text, which denounceth a Curſe upon ſuch as make an Image for any Religious Ends, as ſuppoſe to beget in us good reflections, to be a help to our Devotions, &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 p. 27it 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.

p. 28For 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.

'Tis 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 Ʋſher, 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 Reflections.

I ſaid, That he confidently Affirms, without Proof, that the Scotch Bibles are generally Faulty in this Paſſage: This is an impudent Slander, ſaith he, not to be Parallel'd except, &c.

I ſee the Rector does not love impudent Slanders, when himſelf is the Subject of 'em; tho' he can be the Author of them to the prejudice of others. Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri nè feceris.

But I will make it appear that I have not Slander'd him. He owns, he ſaid, he had juſt Reaſon to ſuſpect the Scotch Editions, but takes no notice of his Saying in another Place, that the Kirk tampers with and refines upon the Word of God, Serm. p. 26. and in p. 25. he ſaith, the Cameronian Preacher bid the Congregation turn to their Bible, and they ſhou'd find in Acts 6. 3. whom ye may appoint.

Let any one judge whether all this does not amount to a confident Affirmation that the Scotch Bibles are Faulty in this Paſſage. A Man of Truth ſhou'd not Affirm what he is aſham'd to own.

He vindicates the motion he made in his Sermon to burn the Bible: But why burn the Holy Bible for one ſingle Corruption? Why? Becauſe an Error which appears in Maſquerade, and under the Diſguiſe of Scripture being diſcover'd deſerves no pity, being of ſo much the more dangerous Conſequence. p. 53.

p. 29This Man knows not how to diſtinguiſh between Truth and Error. May not an Error be condemn'd without ſacrificing a whole Volume of Divine Truths to the Flames? It's true, an Error deſerves no pity, but the Bible deſerves our veneration. The Rector ſerves the Bible as he has done the Diſſenters, condemns the whole, for one Error of the Preſs.

Unthinking Soul! He has condemn'd the Holy Bible to be burnt for one ſingle Corruption, and in the ſame Diſcourſe has endeavour'd to prove that there are ſeveral Corruptions in all our Hebrew, and conſequently in all our Engliſh Bibles which are a Tranſlation of the Hebrew.

He ſaith, two Thouſand Years are loſt in the Chronology of our Hebrew (and ſo of all our Engliſh) Bibles: He affirms that our Bibles are Corrupt in Gen. 11. 12. and in Pſal. 96. 10. ſee his Remarks on Remarks. p. 24, 25, 26. which I ſhall examine in the Poſtſcript.

Thus he has in effect condemn'd all our Bibles to the Fire. The very Papiſts leave the Original Hebrew and Greek, and their vulgar Verſion untouch'd, but the good Rector of Bury has condemn'd not only the Hebrew, which he ſays has many Corruptions, but the Latin, Greek, Engliſh, &c. Bibles which are all Corrupt in Pſal. 96. 10. according to the Rector, ſo that he has condemn'd to be Burnt all the Bibles in the Chriſtian World, which according to him have at leaſt a ſingle Corruption, and this is Cauſe enough why they ſhou'd be Burnt, as he wou'd have us believe.

He wou'd do well to tell the World what Religion he is of, for I think all Chriſtians diſcover an Affection and Tenderneſs towards the Holy Bible, which in us he miſ-interprets for an Affection to Error. The very Jews have a Veneration for the Law and Prophets, the Mahometans for their Alcoran, and ſo had the Ancient Pagans for their Oracles and Sacred Annals, which they carefully repoſited in their Temples, but the Rector of Bury, the moſt Reverend Rector of Bury wou'd perſuade his Superiours to Burn the Holy Bible for one Corruption, and at the ſame Time endeavours to prove that all our Bibles have ſeveral Corruptions. p. 53.

p. 30CHAP. VI.

Being an Anſwer to his Sixth Chapter, and containing a Vindication of Mr. Baxter and others from the Rector's Calumnies.

HIS laſt Chapter has nothing in it of Argument that concerns the main Subject, it conſiſts of Invectives and unjuſt Reflections upon two worthy Perſons, Mr. B. and Mr. P. that are gone to reſt, and never that I heard of diſturb'd his, when they were alive: Nor do my Remarks give him the leaſt Occaſion to beſpatter the Memories of theſe Good Men, but they were Diſſenters, which is Motive enough to the Pious Rector to embalm their Names with ſuch Perfumes as his Repoſitory produceth.

He begins with Mr. B. whom he had accuſed of Corrupting the Word of God, in leaving out the word theſe in Acts 15. 28.

I anſwered, 1ſt. That Mr. B. does not pretend to Cite the Words of the Decree in Acts 15. 28. but gives the Reaſon on which it was grounded, had he cited the words of the Text, he wou'd have render'd 'em in the ſecond Perſon, it ſeem'd good to the Holy Ghoſt, and to us, to lay upon YOU no greater Burthen, but he ſpeaks in the third Perſon, it ſeem'd good to the Holy Ghoſt and them, to lay upon them.

The Rector unfairly ſuppreſſes part of the Sentence by an, &c. It ſeem'd good to the Holy Ghoſt and to us, &c. and then cries out, what a goodly Remarker is this, to US in the ſecond Perſon, as if I had miſtaken one Perſon for another. But it is plain by my Words that I refer the ſecond Perſon to the following Words to lay upon YOƲ, which he left out with, &c. that this unfair dealing might not appear.

He fills half a Page with a goodly declamation upon our Ignorance in the Engliſh Accidence, and wou'd adviſe us to go to School again to learn the firſt Rudiments of all Languages. p, 56.

I cou'd heartily wiſh his Defects were no worſe than thoſe he untruly charges upon us, but I fear he is yet to learn the firſt Rudiments of all Religion, Sincerity and Honeſty. I wou'd remit him to the Divinity School to learn the IX. Commandment, not to bear falſe Witneſs, but that he is obſtinately reſolved to burn that Book, which only can teach him this Leſſon.

However my Defence of Mr. Baxter ſtands good, that he deſigned not to Cite the very Words of the Text, but to refer to them. This the Rector could not deny, which is enough to juſtify him againſt his Charge.

2ly. If Mr. Baxter had miſ-quoted Scripture, the Rector of all Men living ſhould have held his Peace, for he is notoriouſly Guilty of this Fault, of which I gave Ten Inſtances in his Sermon, and he has not been able to deny one of them, only endeavours to excuſe it as well as he can. He miſ-quotes his very Text, diminiſhes and adds to his Quotations at his Pleaſure.

He puts inſtruction for admonition in 1 Cor. 10. 11. leaves out the words, which I command you, in Deut. 4. 2. puts cover for ſhall be full, in Iſa. 11. 9. reads certify for teſtify, in Rev. 22. 18, 19. leaves out▪ till all be fulfilled, in Mat. 5. 18. reads ſeek out ſeven Men, inſtead of look ye out among you ſeven Men, in Acts 6. 3. ſo that he has corrupted this very Scripture (by leaving out the Words, among you) concerning which he has made ſuch a Clamour, as if the Diſſenters had corrupted it.

p. 31There were two Things remarkable in his Sermon about Corrupting the Word of God; the Firſt was his Text, from which he aggravated his Charge, and this he has miſ-quoted; the Second was the Subject of his Charge in Acts 6. 3. and this alſo he has miſ-quoted, by putting ſeek for book, and omitting the Words among you: And therefore it ill becomes him to aggravate Mr. B's. omitting the word theſe.

3ly. I find Acts 15. 28. in the Book of Homilies (to which the Rector has ſubſcribed) quoted without the words theſe, In the Acts of the Apoſtles we read that they ſent word to the brethren, Acts 15. 28. that it ſeemed good to the Holy Ghoſt and to them, to charge them with no more than with neceſſary Things.**Homil. againſt Whoredom. I. Part, p. 72. edit. Lond. 1673. Fol.

If the Omiſſion of the word theſe be a Corrupting of the Word of God, let him write an Invective againſt the Homilies of the Church, and retract his Subſcription by which he has made himſelf a Party to this Corruption.

He charges Mr. B. with Corrupting a Paſſage in Jerom in his Fifth Diſpute, which I have not by me, and therefore can ſay nothing to it: But if it be miſ-quoted, I believe it was by Accident, and not by Deſign as he ſuggeſts. Its evident that he deſignedly miſ-repreſented me, in ſaying I miſtook one Perſon for another, and to cover his Deſign ſuppreſſeth that Part of the Sentence to which I refer'd; and therefore have little Reaſon to believe his Accuſations of Mr. B. or any body elſe, and leſs Reaſon to believe he has ſuch an Averſion as he pretends, to that he unjuſtly Charges us with, viz. a deſigned miſ-repreſentation of Authors. This he is notoriouſly Guilty of, and which is a great deal worſe, he hath Corrupted the Word of God, which I admoniſhed him of in my Anſwer to his Tentamen Novum, in which you may find both Corruptions; one is in Acts 11. 19. where he reads, the reſt preached the Word, &c. inſtead of they that were ſcatter'd abroad— preached the Word, &c. ſo our Bibles have it according to the Original. This looks like a deſigned Corruption meerly to ſupport his Argument, as the Reader may ſee in his Tentam. p. 4.

The other Corruption is of 1 Cor. 5. 4. In the Name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt when ye are gathered together and my Spirit, &c. ſo our Bibles. The Rector reads it,— In the Name of our Lord Jeſus—and of my Spirit, as if the Conſtruction were in the Name of my Spirit, i. e. by my Authority, intimating that the whole Power of Excommunication was in the Apoſtle, and none in the Church, contrary to 1 Cor. 5. 13, 14. ſee his Tentam. p. 17.

One wou'd think a Man that is Guilty of Corrupting the Scriptures ſhou'd not ſo ſeverely aggravate a miſ-quotation out of the Fathers, which may happen by the Fault of the Tranſcriber or Printer, or by the inadvertency of the moſt vigilant Author, without any Deſign. But none are more forward to cenſure a Mote in a Brothers Eye, than thoſe Gentlemen that have a Beam in their own. The Rector is one that doth ſo in his Charge againſt Mr. B. and my ſelf.

He beſtows the two next Pages upon a miſ-quoted Paſſage out of Chryſoſtom, in my Plea, in which foreign is miſ-printed for foreign. The Point I treated of was, that Evangeliſts were unfixed Officers, which is Evident in the New Teſtament, and is the General Opinion of learned Men, nay the Rector himſelf can't deny but they were at firſt unfixed. Tentam. p. 118. For the Confirmation of this receiv'd Opinion I quoted Euſebius and Chryſoſtom as agreeing with him, and by a miſtake foreign is put for foreign in the latter, which makes the Negative an Affirmative.

I, but ſaith he, if you had cited Chryſoſtom in the Negative (as you ought) he wou'd not have agreed with Euſebius. p. 57.

I have proved in my Tutam. Evangel. that they do agree, if Chryſoſtom be cited in the Negative, as I confeſs he ought. Euſebius ſaith, they paſſed into other Countries and Nations: Chryſoſtom ſaith, they did not go up and down every where (as the Apoſtles p. 32did) but preach'd the Goſpel as Priſcilla and Aquila. He adds a little after, that the Evangeliſts went about.

**foreign. in Eph. 4. foreign.Eph 4It's evident from Chryſoſtom, that Evangeliſts went about, but not every where: So did Aquila and Priſcilla go up and down, but not every where, as St. Paul and other Apoſtles did. Aquila and Priſcilla are Evangeliſts in Chryſostom, now it's certain they went up and down, and that as the Apoſtles helpers in Chriſt, Rom. 16. 3. Aquila was a Native of Pontus, Acts 18. 2. he lived with his Wife Priſcilla ſometime at Rome: Afterwards we find them at Corinth, Acts 18. 1, 2. afterwards at Epheſus, Acts 18. 18. 19. 1 Cor. 16. 19. and after that we meet them at Rome, Rom. 16. 3. if the Epiſtle to the Romans was written after the 1 Corinthians, as Doctor Lightfoot Affirms.††Vol. I. p. 299. and 313. When the ſecond Epiſtle to Timothy was written we find 'em in Aſia. 2 Tim. 4. 19. 'Tis moſt undeniable then that Aquila and Priſcilla, Chryſoſtom's Evangeliſts, went up and down, and that into other Countries and Nations (tho' not every where) and ſo Chryſoſtom agrees with Euſebius.

But ſuppoſe Chryſoſtom ſhou'd not agree with Euſebius (as it's Evident he doth) this doth not prejudice Euſebius's Teſtimony, nor my Hypotheſis of Evangeliſts, that they were unfixed Officers, which the Rector himſelf is forced to acknowledge. I ſhall not quarrel with him about Chryſoſtom, whilſt he owns my Notion of Evangeliſts, which if he think fit to retract, I will undertake to maintain without being obliged to Chryſoſtom.

He thinks, I have no way to come off from his Charge of Corrupting Chryſoſtom (for which he is pleaſed to give me the Character of a Great Rogue) but by pleading Ignorance or Diſhoneſty. p. 58.

There is no neceſſity of either Plea, which are both equally falſe: But I have a Third, which is a juſt one, and will paſs with Men of Honeſty, whoſe Characteriſtic is Candor, viz. that the miſtake (of foreign for foreign) was by inadvertency or over-ſight, as we will Charitably hope many of his are; tho' a Man muſt ſtrain his Charity very hard to think ſo of his Corrupting the Text of Scripture. It cannot be imagined his Printer wou'd foiſt whole Words into a Text without the knowledge of the Author, eſpecially where the Corrupt reading is adapted to an Argument which cannot be ſupported without it. Let the World judge who is the Great R.—he that happens to miſtake a Sentence in the Fathers, or he that refines upon the Word of God.

Ay, but ſaith he, the Remarker hath Corrupted Rom. 15. 19. for he affirms Tutam. Evangel. p. 124, 125.) that Paul preach'd the Goſpel in Illyricum: Here is a groſs and deſign'd Corruption of Scripture to ſerve a Cauſe. 'Tis in the Original foreign, round about unto Illyricum, q. d. as far as Illyricum, but not in Illyricum, as Mr. Owen aim'd to prove. p. 58, 59.

I perceive if a Man does not apply Scripture according to the Rectors mind, he can't eſcape the Cenſure of Corrupting it. I did not quote the very Words of the Text, but refer'd to it, as a Teſtimony of the Apoſtles, preaching in Illyricum, as ſeveral learned Men have done before me, who were never charg'd with Corrupting this Place. Peter Martyr explains uſ que ad, by uſ que in Illyricum, i. e. into Illyricum, ſo doth Aretius. **Vid. Pet. Mart, and Aret. in loc.foreign and foreign are uſed promiſcuouſly, and ſignify uſque ad, as far as, or unto a Place, ſometimes excluſively and often incluſively. Thus the Brethren conducted Paul, Acts 17. 15. foreign, unto Athens, i. e. into Athens. So in Acts 20. 4. there accompanied him foreign, as far as Aſia, or into Aſia, as we well render it. And that muſt be the meaning, as appears by v. 5. they tarried for us at Troas. It's well if the Rector does not make the Tranſlators of this p. 33Place Corrupters of the Word of God, for rendering foreign (which is the ſame with foreign) by into.

I make no doubt but the Apoſtle preach'd the Goſpel in Illyricum, for he ſaith, that from Jeruſalem and round about unto Illyricum, he fully preached the Goſpel of Chriſt. If he preached at Jeruſalem, the terminus à quo, why not at Illyricum, the terminus ad quem, of his Apoſtolical motion? No Reaſon can be given why the end of his Progreſs ſhou'd be taken excluſively, when the Jeruſalem, the beginning of it, is taken incluſively.

Suppoſe the Rector ſhou'd ſay, he went from Bury, round about unto Mancheſter; wou'd not any body underſtand him ſo, as if he had been in Mancheſter? Or ſuppoſe one ſhou'd ſay, King William ſail'd from England round about unto Holland, you muſt imagine according to the Rectors Senſe of the Words, that he touched only upon the Coaſts of Holland, but went not into Holland: In like manner, when the Apoſtle ſaith, he preached from Jeruſalem unto Illyricum, one wou'd naturally conclude he preach'd in Illyricum.

Titus, who was Paul's Companion, and Meſſenger to the Churches he had planted, We are certain was in Dalmatia; which is part of Illyricum. **Ptol. Geogr. Tab. IX, Europ.Therefore it's highly probable that Paul planted a Church there.

I find Illyricum mentioned by the Magdebury Hiſtorians ††Eccl. Hiſt. Cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 22.among the Places in which Paul had planted a Church, and they ground their Opinion upon Rom. 15. 19. Ortelius alſo mentions Illyricum as one of the Places where St. Paul had preached.||Diſcript. Peregrinat. D. Pauli Apoſt.

In a Word, the Rector muſt prove that the Apoſtle turned back at the very Borders of Illyricum, before he can diſprove my Senſe of this Text, which is neither ſingular, nor inconſiſtent with other Scripture: And if he were able to do this (which he is not) it wou'd amount to no more, than my being miſtaken in the meaning of the Words, unto Illyricum.

As to his Scurrilous Harangue upon Mr. Baxter (for no other Reaſon but becauſe I called him that Great Man) I will not defile my Paper with it, but leave him to be chaſtiſed by the Scorpions in his own Breaſt, which will ſooner or latter find a tender Place in his awakened Conſcience. I will only take notice of the Character given Mr. Baxter by Dr. Wilkins, the Rectors late Dioceſan. He cultivated, ſaith he, every Subject he handled, and if he had lived in the Primitive Times, he had been one of the FATHERS of the Church. Another time he ſaid with admiration of him, That it was enough for one Age to produce ſuch a Perſon as Mr. Baxter.**Baxt. Fun. Serm. by Dr. Bates, p. 105. 106.

p. 34CHAP. VII.

Containing a Recapitulation of ſome principal Things, with an Idea of the Rector's four Cardinal Vertues, viz. Juſtice, Truth, Candor, and Charity.

I Shall ſum up what has been largely inſiſted on, and give the Reader a ſhort and clear View of the whole, by which he may judge what Credit is to be given to the Rector's Charge, and what Sort of Man he is.

I. I will begin with his IV. Arguments, which contain the Proof of his Charge.

His Firſt Argument (that the firſt Error happened in 1638. when Preſbytery was in the Aſcendant) he has (1ſt.) thrown out of doors himſelf, by acknowledging it a meer Error of the Preſs, and an unhappy Miſtake. 2ly. I have proved that Preſbytery in that Year was undermoſt in England, and Epiſcopacy in the Vertical. 3ly. And if it had been in the Aſcendant, it will not follow that the Presbyterians were Authors of that Corruption, becauſe, 1st. It does not favour their Principles. 2ly. Arch-Biſhop Laud guarded the Preſs againſt the Puritans. 3ly. It was in the Hand of Epiſcopal Men. 4ly. The Univerſity of Cambridge, where the firſt Corruption happened, was under the Government of Epiſcopal Perſons.

As to his II. Argument, That the Corruption favours the Diſſenters, I have proved that it does not favour any Opinion of theirs; that they look on the VII. Deacons in Acts 6. as Ministers of Tables, and not of the Word and Sacraments; and that they aſcribe the Power of Ordaining or Appointing Church-Officers unto the Miniſters and not to the People.

In Anſwer to his III. Argument, viz. That the Epiſcopal Party wou'd not Corrupt this Place, becauſe it does not favour their Principles; I have ſhewed, that it was Corrupted by them, and that ſeveral of 'em have aſſerted the Popular Principles, yet I will not be ſo uncharitable as to affirm, that they have Corrupted it on Deſign to advance theſe Principles: Tho' it were eaſy for a Man of the Rector's temper to aggravate the Matter.

I have ſufficiently confuted the Cameronian Story, which makes his IV. Argument, and confronted the ſingle Teſtimony of Coll. Fairfax, (which is againſt an individuum vagum, without naming Perſon, Time or Place) with the Vote of the General Aſſembly of Scotland: And have ſhewed how unjuſtly he has Traduced the Scotch Editions of the Bible, among which I can find but two that are Faulty, and thoſe under the Biſhops there; as it is undeniable the Engliſh Corrupt Editions happened when the Preſs was in the Hands of Epiſcopal Perſons, who in Common Juſtice muſt Anſwer for the Errors of it.

Theſe Four Arguments are the Sandy-Foundation, on which he builds ſo heavy a Charge: Now the Foundation failing him, the Superſtructure falls on his own Head, and the reputation of this fooliſh Maſter-Builder lies buried under the ruins of his Malicious Contrivement.

II. Having ſhew'd the weakneſs of his Arguments, I will give you a Taſt of his Regard to the Word of God. While he is charging us with Corrupting it, he has made the boldeſt Attempt perhaps of any Man living to undermine it.

He has endeavour'd to expunge all the Titles of the Pſalms out of the Sacred Canon. He has affirm'd Pſ. 72. 20. to be manifeſtly Falſe. He diſparages our Engliſh Bibles, which agree with the Hebrew, and wou'd perſuade us that they are Corrupted by the p. 35Jews in material Things, eſpecially in Pſ. 96. 10. and in Gen. 11. 12. He tells us that two Thouſand Years are loſt in our Scripture-Chronology, ſo that according to our Hebrew and Engliſh Bibles it cannot be prov'd that Chriſt is come in the Fleſh. He ſtands convicted of having Corrupted Acts 11. 19. and 1 Cor. 5. 4. to ſerve a Corrupt Deſign. He ſaith that but for Tradition, Plato, Senecae, and the Seven Wiſe Men of Greece (and it's pity but he were made the Eighth) might lay claim to Inſpiration, as well as the holy Scripture.

III. I will give an Idea of ſuch Vertues as ſhine forth in his Remarks on Remarks, which render him a very remarkable Man.

I will ſhew him the Beauties of his own Face in the beſt Glaſs with which he has accommodated us, hoping that the charming Reflection of his own Form will not tranſport him into an Adonic Paſſion.

1ſt. His Juſtice is ſo tranſcendent, that it cannot be confined to that vulgar Rule of ſuum Cui que No, the Rector has given us a new Rule of Juſtice, which is alienum Cui que This is a Tentamen Novum in Ethicks.

He has given us an Inſtance of this new Sort of Juſtice in his Cameronian Story, which he imputes to the whole Body of Diſſenters. I have read of One Haman, who ſought to be reveng'd of all the Jews for One Mordecai's Offence, but this cannot Parallel the Rector's Juſtice (which ſcorns to imitate ſuch imperfect Patterns) for Haman cou'd prove Matter of Fact upon Morde…ai, which the Rector has not been able to do upon the Cameronian Preacher; and yet he has the Modeſty to Vindicate this piece of Juſtice by telling us, p. 47. The Engliſh Presbyterians are like to bear the Burthen of their Brethren in Scotland.

2ly. His Truth is as remarkable as his Juſtice. He has advanced and attempted to Confirm a Falſe Accuſation againſt the Diſſenters in General, eſpecially the Preſbyterians of England and Scotland, that they have Corrupted the Word of God: And yet wou'd have us believe that his Sermon was preach'd in Vindication of the Church of England againſt Lancaſhire Diſſenters, who are not ſo much as named in the whole Sermon. You have another Inſtance of his Truth, where he ſays, That, according to Mr. Owen, the People belike ordain'd the Deacons. Remarks on Remarks, p. 4, 45.

This is a notorious Un-truth, which may be look'd upon as the Off-ſpring of his impregnated Wrath, and we may ſuppoſe he is the more fond of this Spurious Brat, becauſe the Sayings of Fathers are a Rule of Faith to him, (we will ſuppoſe of Practice alſo) and he has quoted a very eminent Father, who, as the Rector ſaith, cared not what in his Heat he ſaid or wrote for the ſupport of his own Opinion. p. 29. 18.

The Story he tells of Mr. P. and Mr. B. are farther Evidences of his Regard to Truth.

3ly. His Candor and Charity are of a Piece with Truth and Juſtice, for all the Vertues meet in him.

1ſt. I will take Notice of his Charity to the Diſſenters in General, concerning whom he is convinced, that Meekneſs and Charity is due unto them, and as a rare Inſtance of it, he wou'd have 'em ſtyled, the Foxes and Firebrands of the Church and Nation. p. 2, 3.

He makes it Religious Hypocriſy in us to Style our Selves Miniſters of the Goſpel, which he and his Brethren ſeldom or never do, becauſe, I preſume, they reckon themſelves dignified by more honourable Titles. p. 6.

He falſly ſays, That the Socinians and almoſt all the Nation of Schiſmaticks and Hereticks are in the Intereſt of the Diſſenters. If uncharitableneſs be a Characteriſtic of Schiſm, I know no ſuch Schiſmatic in the three Kingdoms as the Rector is: And if the Obſtinate maintaining a ſingle Error in the Foundation denominate a Heretic, what ſhall we call the Man, who has endeavour'd to over-throw the whole Foundation of Religion p. 36by charging our Bibles with ſeveral material Corruptions, and condemning them to be Burnt for a ſingle One? p. 28.

2ly. We will give ſome Inſtances of his Charitable and Candid Temper towards particular Perſons, whom he abuſeth without the leaſt provocation.

He begins with Jerom, that great Light of the Latin Church, of whom he ſaith, he is unworthy to be believ'd in any Thing, that he cared not what in his Heat he ſaid or wrote. In plain Engliſh, he makes a Great R—gue of him, and yet at the ſame time makes ſuch another of Mr. B—r, for reaping up the Faults of the Ancient Fathers. I perceive Mr. B's. Fault was that he intruded into the Rector's Province, whoſe proper Priviledge it is to revile the Ancient Fathers, tho' he denies not but Mr. B's. Reports are True, but I have proved his Character of Jerom to be Falſe. p. 18, 61.

In a Word, Mr. B. either did well or ill in reaping up the Faults of the Fathers; if well, why does the Rector with ſo much malignity cenſure him for it? If ill, who does he imitate, him? p. 18, 61.

He reflects on the Reverend Mr. Tallents, as if he wanted Integrity, tho' he can't diſprove his Account of Cambridge in 1638, which Mr. Fuller juſtifies. Here the Rector makes bold to ſtep into the Throne of the Omniſcient, whoſe Prerogative it is to judge of Men's integrity, Rom. 14. 10, 11, 12. He knows who has done ſo before him, when he paſſed the ſame Cenſure on upright Job. chap. 1. v. 9. p. 39.

He reflects on his Majeſties Words,**Serm. p. 25. and hopes to Excuſe it, by telling us, he derided only the Scotch-Reaſon, ††Rem. p. 41, 42.tho' he knows the King had approv'd of it, and inſerted it into his Letter of Inſtructions to his Commiſſioner in Scotland. This is an Inſtance of his Loyalty, for which his Three Sermons of Subjection have made him Famous in the Northern-Climate.

He reproaches the late Reverend Mr. P. as if be had Married his Wife without Conſent of Parents, which I am inform'd is moſt Falſe. Mr. Robert Milne of Rochdale affirms, He often heard Mrs. P's. Parents declare to his Father, who was a Neighbour and Relation unto them, that they had not only given free Conſent, but withall expreſſed a great deal of Satisfaction in the Marriage, and look'd on it as a very gracious and merciful Providence. p. 60.

I am inform'd the Claſs-Rigiſter, a Copy of which the Rector ſaith is in his Hands, contains a Vindication of Mr. P. who being accuſed of an irregular and clandeſtine Marriage, produced a Certificate of the Conſent of Parents. If this be ſo, The Rector is guilty of the baſeſt diſingenuity to revive a malicious Accuſation againſt a Man in his Grave, and to ſuppreſs his Compurgation, whereby his Innocency was cleared. Mrs. P. affirms, and will take it upon her Oath, if there be occaſion, that ſhe had her Parents Conſent, and that Morning before ſhe was Married to Mr. P. ſhe had both Father and Mother's bleſſing, and in the Evening they were both entertain'd and wellcomed by her Parents.

He quarrels with an innocent Paſſage in the Reverend Mr. O. H's. Family Altar, the deſign of which is to perſuade Perſons to keep up the Worſhip of God in their Families. It's well if the Rector in his Parochial Viſitations be as forward to oblige his Pariſhoners to Pray in their Families, as he is to ridicule a judicious Diſcourſe upon the Subject of Family Prayer. It puts me in Mind of the Jews Treatment of the Chriſtians, of which Juſt. Martyr gives this Account, tho' one ſhou'd ſpeak Ten Thouſand Words never ſo well, if he happens to ſay the leaſt Thing that does not pleaſe you, becauſe it's either not underſtood, or not carefully heeded, you overlook the abundance of Things that are well ſpoken, and get ſome little Word by the end, and faſten upon it the moſt impious Conſtructions.||Juſt. Mart. adv. Tryphon.

p. 37The Rector ſerves Mr. O. H. much after the ſame Manner, he over-looks all the good Things in Mr. H's. excellent Book, the very Subject of which is recommending to every Devout Chriſtian, and has pick'd out one Sentence in it to make Sport with, which is this, God is the Author of all Topography and Geography, as well as Genealogy and Chronology. p. 37.

Any one but the Candid Rector wou'd have over-look'd a Paſſage of this kind in a popular Diſcourſe of Practical Religion, wherein Miniſters Study not all the exactneſs of Expreſſion. But he is One of Juſt. Mart. Criticks, who ſeeks Occaſion to reproach more uſeful Men than himſelf. The words are capable of a fair Conſtruction. Why may not God be call'd the Author of Geography, as Hipparchus call's Homer, hujus peritiae primarium Authorem *, the firſt and Chief Author of Geography? Tho' Homer has not written profeſſedly of that Subject, but there are a great many Diſcriptions of Places ſcatter'd up and down in his Poems, and ſo there are in the Scripture. The Great Bochart hath written a very Learned Book of Sacred Geography. †

It's certain the firſt Book extant that Treats of Geography, Genealogy and Chronology is the Bible, of which I hope the Rector will not deny God to be the Author.

FINIS.

ADVERTISEMENT.

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