Remarks on a Sermon About Corrupting the Word of God, Answer

Remarks on a Sermon About Corrupting the Word of God · Answer

THE Diſſenters Vindicated FROM Mr. GIP's Unjuſt Accuſations.

CHAP I. Some General Conſiderations relating to the Charge.

THE Rector of Bury, whoſe Genius leads him to New Diſcoveries, obliged us laſt Summer with a Tentamen Novum (ſo he ſtiles his Diſcourſe) in which he endeavours to prove, That the Diſſenters have no Miniſtry: He now favours us with another, to repreſent 'em in effect, as no Christians, for he Charges them with no leſs a Crime than contributing to the Undermining the Foundation of Christianity. p. 25, 26.

I have already examined his Tentamen, and ſhall now make ſome Remarks upon his Sermon.

He tells us in the Title-Page, That it was Preach'd upon a Publick Occaſion, that is, as I …m inform'd, at the Biſhop's Viſitation. It was Concio ad Clerum, and if he wanted Courage to be his Lordſhip's Remembrancer in the Duties of his high station, one might have expected a Teſtimony from him againſt the ſhameful Scandals of ſome of the Clergy, too notorious to be either palliated or deny'd: Or if he durſt not Expoſe their Immoralties, l…ſt he ſhould ſeem to bewray his own Nest (which he ſeems tender of, p. 22.) was there …o occaſion of exciting his Brethren to greater diligence and application in their ſeveral Provinces. Something of this nature would have ſuited the preſent occaſion, and have become a faithful Diſpenſer of the Oracles of God.

But the Rector had other work to do. His buſineſs was not ſo much with the Auditory that was preſent, as with a ſort of People that were out of hearing, and theſe he comes not to …pprove for open miſcarriages, but to accuſe of ſome ſecret Crimes, which no body but him…lf pretends to know any thing of. All the Concern he had with the Reverend Aſſembly to which he Preach'd, was to endeavour to raiſe in them an ill-natur'd paſſion, (which he miſ…alls Zeal) towards an innocent People, whom he wretchedly miſrepreſents, and renders …s black as Hell.

He Charges 'em with no leſs a Crime than Corrupting the Word of God. p. 2. & 24.

And tho his Diligence and Obſervation has not been a little (as he tells us p. 22.) in ſearch…ng the ſeveral Editions of the Bible, he can find but one inſtance of this Corruption in the whole Bible, and that amounts to no more than the change of one Letter for another, p. 2viz. w into y in Acts 6.3. whom we may appoint, ſo it ought to be; but ſome Editions have it, whom ye may appoint, by an over-ſight of the Printer, who has ſubſtituted a y for a w. This Literal Miſtake might eaſily happen, the upper part of a Roman y being a ſingle v.

Doth not this inquiſitive Man labour under a ſad deficiency of matter to accuſe us of? and is he not hard put to it to ſeek occaſion against us, when he is glad to Muſter up the Errata's of the Preſs, and turn them into Presbyterian Crimes.

This is another Tentamen novum, and the Truth is, all our Authors Productions are like theſe of. Africa, new and monstrous?

I can ſcarce think him ſo Weak, as to believe his own Charge, it is ſo very ſilly and inconſistent, that nothing but the Sin and Malice, which appear in every part of it, can preſerve it from being ridiculous.

However, he would have others believe, That there is a World of Conſequences depending upon theſe two Words we and ye; We refers to the Apostles, and authorizes the Biſhops to appoint Deacons or Pariſ…-Ministers (ſaith he) Ye refers to the People, and gives them the Power of appointing Miniſters. p. 21.

For this Reaſon (affirms he) the Presbyterians have corrupted this place (Acts 6.3.) to advance the Peoples Power to ſet up their own Teachers. (p. 23, 24, 25.)

He is a Man of unparallel'd Confidence, that dare undertake to perſwade the World the truth of this Accuſation, which is ſo notorious a ſlander, that I do not think any degree of Credulity, below that which bids defiance to all our Senſes, can entertain it under any other Notion.

The Preſbyterians, as their very enemies muſt acknowledge, admit none into the Miniſtry without the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, and they take the Deacons in Acts 6. (as I ſhall prove anon) for Ministers of Tables, and not for Ministers of the Goſpel: So that their Principles and Practice are directly oppoſite to the Hypotheſis which he pretends is favoured by this corruption. He acquits the Epiſcopal Party from a deſign'd corrupting of this place, becauſe the Corruption is inconſiſtent with their Principles, p. 24.

By the ſame reaſon he muſt acquit the Presbyterians alſo, or involve himſelf and Party in the ſame guilt.

I do here ſolemnly Proteſt in the Preſence of the Supream Judge, that I never knew any Protestant Diſſenter, Miniſter or Layman, that expreſs'd his Approbation of that corrupt Reading in Acts 6.3. and I believe very few of them ever took notice of it, for moſt Editions of the Bible have it not.

If the Charge exhibited againſt us be falſe, as I ſhall anon demonſtrate beyond Contradiction, our Accuſer is found a liar (to uſe the words of his Text, Prov. 30.6.) and condemn'd out of his own Mouth of One of the most detestable ſins in the ſight both of God and Man, ſo he calls a …ye, p. ….

We plead not guilty to the Charge, and we hope the Rector will not require us to prove a Negative, the Proof lies on his …de. If a bold and malicious Accuſation may paſs for a Crime, who can be innocent? Our Accuſer ought in Juſtice to produce moſt clear and convincing proofs of this Vill…ny, which he has not yet offer'd; his circumstan…ial proof ſhall be conſider'd before we part with him.

It is the manner of ſome men (as he for good reaſons obſerved) to accuſe stoutly— for tho nothing be proved, yet ſomething will stick, p. 5. Which Political Maxim he ſeems to have well digeſted, as will appear in the following Charge, for thus he ſpeaks:

I will not be ſo poſitive as to aver, that it was at Firſt induſtriouſly done, yet I muſt call into Queſtion the Diſſenters, as perſons ſuſpected to have ſecretly contributed to the corruption of this place, at leaſt, to the continuance and encreaſe of it. p. 23.

1. This Accuſation puts me in mind of a form of Accuſation not unlike this in Minucius Foelix, who brings in Cacilius a Heathen, charging the Chriſtians with incestuous mixtures, Thyeſtean Feasts, worſhipping the Head of an Aſs, and the Genitalia of their Priests; and not being able to prove ſo vile a Calumny, he minceth the matter, and ſaith, neſcio an falſa, certe occultis ac nocturnis ſacris appoſita ſuſpicio. i. e. I am not certain but the Report p. 3may be falſe, but their Secret and Night-meetings may be ſufficient to ground a ſuſpicion on.††Min. Foel. Octav. p. 27, 28.

Both theſe Calumniators were viſibly acted by one and the ſame Genius, which enabled them to give an account of Secret Actions, and to turn Suſpicions into Proofs. Only the Pagan is the more honeſt of the two, for he Reports but what he heard **Audio eos turpiſſimae pecudis caput Aſini conſecratum— venerari—al…i cos ſerunt— Ibid.; and ſeems to doubt of the Truth of it, but our Chriſtian Rector glories in being the Diſcoverer of this great Secret, and Reports a Figment of his own Brain, for an Undoubted Truth.

It would make any one but a Man of Mr. G. 's effrontery to bluſh, that a Heathen ſhould out-ſhine him in Candour and Modeſty.

2. If the Diſſenters have ſecretly corrupted this place, how comes he to know it? Did they make him their Confeſſor, and reveal this Secret to him, as the only Perſon fit to be truſted with it? That cannot be, for it would have furniſhed him with a Direct Proof, which he does not pretend to, p. 23. Or deth he dream Dreams, or ſee Viſions? Or perhaps, ſuch a Man as he can Divine, and by a Prophetic Sagacity, tell the Words that we ſpeak in our Bed-Chambers.

But we muſt not be too curious in our Inquiry, how the Rector came to diſcover this Secret Artifice of the Diſſenters, for that alſo is a Secret, which he has not thought fit to publiſh.

The Truth is, this looks like the Tale which the Jewiſh Priests put into the Mouths of the Souldiers that watch'd the Sepulcher of Jeſus Chriſt. Matth. 28.13. Say ye, his Diſciples came by Night, and ſtole him away while we ſlept. If they were aſleep, how could they tell the Diſciples ſtole him away? But it was enough to ſatisfie ſome People, that the thing was ſecretly done, and the Diſciples might well be call'd into question as perſons ſuſpected. The Soldiers were rare Witneſſes in the Caſe, for they were aſleep when the Feat was done, as the Overſeers of the Preſs were, as the Rector affirms, when the firſt Corrupt Edition happen'd at Cambridge, p. 23. Whether the Jewiſh Priests and the Rector have compared Notes together, I know not; but it's no new thing for Good Wits to jump, and concur in abſtruſe Diſcoveries.

3. Had not the Rector examined the Errata of the Preſs, more out of ill will to the Diſſenters, than good will to the Publick, his great diligence and obſervation (which he brags of, p. 22.) might have diſcovered more faults than this one in the ſeveral Editions of the Bible.

But that was not to his purpoſe, and it would have been inconſiſtent with the Point which he chiefly aimed to inſiſt on, p. 20. which was the accuſing of the Presbyterians with Corrupting the Word of God. Had he ſearched for other Errors of the Preſs, many would have occurr'd as conſiderable as this of Ye for We, which he cou'd not with any colour, charge upon the Diſſenters.

It is a thing much to be lamented. That ſeveral Editions of the Holy Bible, eſpecially the ſmaller Volumes, which paſs through more hands than the larger, are very un-correct, and abound with ſuch Errors as are deſtructive of the ſenſe.

It's the Province of ſome of the Biſhops (as I am inform'd) to take care that the ſeveral Editions of the Bible be well done: And I humbly conceive, it were an Undertaking worthy the Suprem… Overſeers of the Hock, at leaſt to depute others to provide wholſome Food for them, by more C…rrect Impreſſions of the Bible.

I have a ſmall duodecimo Bible by me, Printed at …o…don by Charles Bill, and the Executrix of Thomas Newcomb, 1691. which is abominably faulty. It is right in Act. 6.3. whom we may appoint, and ſo is free from the Corruption charg'd upon the Diſſenters; but has ſeveral others as bad as that. For Inſtance,

Eph. 1.4. According as he hath choſen us— that ſhe ſhould be holy: It ſhould be, that we ſhould be holy. foreign.

p. 4Have ſome Bibles ye for we in Act. 6.3.? So have others ſhe for we in Eph. 1.4. Is this Corruption alſo to be imputed to the Diſſenters?

In a Quarto Edition of the Bible, by Hays at Cambridge 1675. Job 6.21. inſtead of ye are nothing, 'tis Printed, we are nothing. So that we and ye are eaſily miſtaken one for another.

The Rector is a Man of Diligence and Obſervation, and would do well to find out the Author and the Reaſons of this Corruption.

Gal. 5.21 — of the which I the you before— It ought to be —of the which I tell you before.

2 Tim. 1.18. The Lord grant unto him that he may and mercy; inſtead of— find mercy.

Acts 19.26. They be no Goods which are made with hands, It ſhould be read, They be no Gods

Titus 3.2. Put 'em in mind— to be on brawlers, It ſhould be no brawlers.

James 5.12. Let your yea be yea, and your nay, day; It ſhould be read— and your nay, nay.

1 Pet. 2.17. Love the brothergood, for brotherhood.

Heb. 12.13. oul of the way, for out of the way.

Rom. 1.18. who hold we truth (for the truth) in unrighteouſneſs.

Hoſh. 8.6. the Caſt (for the Calf) of Samaria.

—12.11. ſurety (for ſurely) they are vanity.

Iſa. 63.2. —treateth in the Winefat, for treadeth in

Matth. 17.25. Jeſus prevented how, for him.

Act 10.34. God is no reſecter (for reſpecter) of perſons.

—15.2. them (for they) determined that Paul and Barnabas

—27.13. ſort, ly, for ſoftly.

Rom. 2.14. Laws, for Law, foreign.

—2.18. approved, for approvest, foreign.

Jer. 23.36. and the battle (it ſhould be the burthen) of the Lord ſhall ye memion no more.

—16.13. others Gods, for other Gods.

—18.3. on me Wheels, for on the Wheels.

Pſalm. 36.8. fatners, for fatneſs of thy Houſe.

Matth. 20.12. hear of the day, for heat of the day.

I cou'd mention many more Errors of the like nature, which either make no ſenſe, or a corrupt one. But the Rector's Diligence and Obſervation can overlook ſuch little Errors as theſe, as not pertinent to the Deſign he had in hand, which was only to diſcover ſuch Corruptions as may ſeem to concern the Biſhops Intereſt, or give him any occaſion to calumniate the Diſſenters.

Have a care of ſuch Errors as may ſeem to favour the Diſſenters, and to weaken the Biſhops power, and this mighty man of Diligence, Obſervation and Faithfulneſs, p. 22. can eaſily paſs by all the reſt.

p. 5CHAP. II. In which his Arguments are Anſwer'd.

BEFORE we come to his Proofs, we'll take a view of the Charge, and its Aggravations, as they lie ſcattered here and there, in his Epiſtle and Sermon. The ſumm of the Charge is, That he ſuſpects the Presbyterians have corrupted Acts 6.3. in the Year 1638, and ſecretly promoted the Coruption …v…r ſince. p. 22. 23, 27.

The Aggravations follow:

Some People (ſaith he) will doubtleſs be angry, that their foul-play is brought upon the ſtage, and thus openly taxt— Again, "The Error muſt be confeſt, and believ'd a wilful one— "When the Presbyterian Government (or Congregational, I can't tell which) is publickly maintain'd by a Text of Scripture, manifeſtly corrupted, 'tis high time to make the World ſenſible of the Artifice. Epist.

The Adverſaries of Chriſtianity, with deſign to overthrow the whole frame of our Religion, have already endeavoured to take advantage of the numerous and various Lections. What will they ſay, when they obſerve the pureſt Kirk in the World (as is pretended) tampering with, and refining upon the Word of God? Let's not dare to ſuborn any falſe Witneſs whatever, much leſs out of the Word of Truth; let's leave that Vile Artifice to our Adverſaries on both hands. P. 26.

What if one Bible of every Edition thus depraved were burnt, to expoſe the craftineſs of thoſe Circumcellians among us, who to advance their Deſign, do not ſtick. It ſeems, to promote it by Falſhood; and grounding themſelves upon a meer Error of the Preſs, as we will ſuppoſe it was at firſt, deceiving▪ and being deceived, do ly against the Holy Ghoſt, and bring a ſcandal upon the Word of God, and our Holy Religion, p. 27.

Is it poſſible to believe that one unhappy miſtake ſhould be ſo ſucceſsful, as to have got into ſo many Editions, without the helping hand of ſome wily and undermining Schiſmatick? p. 28.

The Charge you ſee, is very black, and repreſents the Diſſenters as the worſt of M…n. That give advantage to the Enemies of Chriſtianity, That undermine the Scriptures of Truth, And promote their Opinions by the vilest Artifice.

But when the Accuſation is duly conſider'd, and the Arguments by which it is ſupp… ed, are impartially examined, they will be found to prove neither more nor leſs, than that the Rector is as deſtitute of Truth as he is of Charity.

But let's hear how he proves his Charge.

He introduces it with this Queſtion, Who then brought in this falſe Reading, (of ye for we in Acts 6.3. p. 23.) And what Party encouraged and promoted it ſince?

To which he anſwers, A clear and ful… Diſcovery would deſerve a Leca…onth. And tho I will not promiſe ſo much, yet ſomething I have to offer towards it, which tho it amounts not to a direct Proof againſt any Perſons, yet I think, may paſs for a good Circumſtantial one.

p. 61. 'Tis obſervable here, That he doth not pretend to a direct Proof, and yet through his whole Diſcourſe would have it taken for granted, That his Accuſation is as true as Goſpel. He would craftily inſinuate a Belief into his Reader, of what he heſitates about himſelf. One while he poſitively charges the Diſſenters with Foul-play, and ſaith, Their Errour muſt be confeſs'd, and believ'd a wilful one. Epiſt. Dedic.

Another while he only queſtions the Diſſenters as perſons ſuſpected to have ſecretly contributed to the corruption of this place, at leaſt to the continuance of it. p. 23.

And in another place he ſaith, They do not ſtick, it ſeems, to promote their Deſign by falſhood, p. 27.

Again, Admit they did not contrive the Corruption of this place, yet now, belike, contribute to the confirming it, p. 24.

Here's a manifeſt inconſiſtency in the Charge, which ſpoils the Credit of the whole Story.

All the Evidence amounts to no more, than that it ſeems to be ſo, and belike it is ſo. And yet with what aſſurance doth he accuſe them of lying againſt the Holy Ghost? p. 27. 'Tis well he is not endued with the plenitude of Apoſtolical power, to inflict upon us the puniſhment of Ananias and Sapphira: But to make up the defect of this power, he moves thoſe in Authority to expoſe the Craftineſs of thoſe Circumcellians among us, who promote their deſign by falſhood, ibid.

By the way, I cannot but Note the new Name he is pleaſed to give the Diſſenters. It ſeems he had read ſomewhere of the Circumcelliones, a barbarous Sect of the Donatiſts, that murther'd ſuch as oppoſed their Opinions, and laid violent hands on themſelves that they might be thought to have ſuffer'd Martyrdom by the hands of the Catholicks.††Aug. de Hocr.

His Tongue is his own to call what Names he pleaſeth, but he knows who ſaith, If any man among you ſeem to be Religious, and bridleth not his Torgue— this man's Religion is vain, James 1.26.

You muſt not wonder that he overlooks a little Rule of Grammar in rendring Circumcelliones Circumcellians, for he does not ſeem to tye himſelf to ſuch Scripture-Rules **Matth. 5.22.2.Matt 5:22Matt 5:2as concern the ordering of our Speech, when his Choler is up againſt the Diſſenters.

He is uncertain whom to fix this Charge upon, whether on a ſ…ngle perſon, or a Party of Men combin'd together to corrupt the Word of God.

He ſeems to point at a ſingle perſon in the following words, Is it poſſible to believe that one unhappy Inſtance ſhould get into ſo many Editions, without the helping hand of ſome wily and undermining Schiſmatick, p. 28. In other places he taxeth the Diſſenters in general, p. 23. Sometimes he makes the Presbyterians the guilty Party. p. 22. 24.

And in another Humour he lays it on the Presbyterians or Corgregational Men, but confeſſeth he can't tell which, Epiſt. Dedic. So that the Accuſation falls upon a ſort of individuum v…gum, which he is to ſeek for.

Thus the Subjects of the Charge are as uncertain as the Evidence of it.

3. All he pretends to, is a ſort of Circumſtantial Proof, as he calls it, and upon this ſandy foundation, he builds his whole Charge, which he aggravates with all the little Rhetorick he is Maſter of.

He ſuggeſts Four Arguments by way of Circumſtantial Proof, which are as follows.

Argument I.

I muſt call the Diſſenters into Queſtion (ſaith he) becauſe the Alteration happened in the Year 1638. Presbytery being then in the Aſcendant, I ſay, juſt in that nick of time when all things were in Preparation, and tended to the Subverſion of Epiſcopacy, Scotland p. 7having already made a Conſpiracy, and bound 'emſelves under a Curſe to Extirpate it; and England, even a great part of the Univerſities 'emſelves, running into the ſame Exceſs of Riot. So that here is a Concurrence of the Circumſtance of Time, and a ſhrewd one too, ſufficient to ground a ſuſpicion upon.

To this I Anſwer:

1. Admit there were a Concurrence of the Circumſtance of time, Will it follow the Corruption was deſigned? May not two Events happen at the ſame time, that have no relation to one another?

How would he like it, if the Diſſenters ſhould charge the Epiſcopal Party, of which he is one, with the falſe Readings I mention'd above, and ſhould urge for Proof that the Impreſſion came out in 1691, when the Epiſcopal Party had the Aſcendant, none being admitted to any places of Truſt without Conformity? Would not this way of Arguing look as ſilly as it would be malicious? Would not the Manager of ſuch a ridiculous accuſation, eſpecially in a Publick Sermon, be judg'd ſitter for Bedlam than a Pulpit? This way of Reaſoning, if I may Catachreſtically call it ſo, is the ſame with that of the Rector's.

The above-mention'd Errors of the Preſs were in 91, when the Epiſcopal Party were more in the Aſcendant than the Presbyterians in 38. Here is a concurrence of the circumſtance of time, and yet I am apt to think, the weakeſt Diſſenter in the Land has more Senſe and Honeſty than to charge the Epiſcopal Church with the Errors of the Preſs.

2. But to do him Juſtice, the Rector is ſo kind to the Diſſenters as to Anſwer his own Argument for 'em. His Argument pretends to prove from the circumstance of time, that the firſt alteration of we into ye, was deſign'd: But himſelf acknowledges again and again in other places, that the firſt …ror was an unwilling one; ſo he ſpeaks in the Epiſtle. And in p. 27. he calls it an accide…tal ſlip, an unfortunate overſight, and a meer error of the Preſs. And in Page 28, he calls it, an unhappy miſtake.

So that his Firſt Argument is impertinent, himſelf being Judge. But for further ſatiſfaction, I will add a few Remarks more.

3. He is grievouſly out in his Chronological Hiſtory, for Presbytery was not in the Aſcendant in England in 1638, as he ſuggeſts. Conformity was then at the higheſt, and urged by Arch-Biſhop Lau… and his Faction with great ſeverity.

Many were Suſpended, Deprived and Excommunicated for not reading the Book of Sports, to countenance the Prophanation of the Lord's Day in 1637. I find in a Certificate of the Biſhop of Norwick, towards the latter end of the Year 37, an Account of about Thirty Miniſters Excommunicated and Suſpended**Ruſhw. Collect. Part II. p. 462., by which we may gueſs what was done in other Dioceſes.

In 1638 many more were ſuſpended for not Reading the Common Prayers in their Hoods and Surplices, as Dr. Heylin affirms,††Life of Land, p 365.. This and other things (ſaith he) kept off the greateſt part of the Rigid Calvinists from exerciſing their Gifts, as formerly, in great Market-Towns.

The ſeverities of that time were ſuch, that many were driven to Foreign Countries for ſhelter; ſome to Holland, others to New-England, whither the Arch-Biſhop de…gn'd to purſue 'em, and to Dragoon 'em into the Engliſh Conformity. Take the Hiſtory of Dr. Heylin's own words, It was once under Conſulation of the Chief Phyſicians, to ſend a Biſhop over to them, and back him with ſome Forces to comp…l, if he were not otherwiſe able to perſwade obedience; but the troubles of Scotland ſtrangled this Deſign.§§Life of Laud, p. 369.

The Preſbyterians in 38 were deprived, not only of the Pulpit, but of the Preſs alſo, and therefore it is a very unlikely Story that they ſhould Corrupt the Word of God in that Year.

p. 8Hear the Hiſtorian: Nor was the Arch-Biſhop leſs intent upon all Advantages for keeping down the Genevian Party, and hindring them from Printing and Publiſhing any thing which might diſturb the Church's Peace, or Corrupt her Doctrine. To this End he procur'd a Decree to be Paſs'd in the Star-Chamber, on July 1. 1637. to Regulate Printing, and prevent all Abuſes of it, to the diſturbance of the Church.

The Reader may ſee the Decree at large in Ruſhworth and Heylin. The latter has this Remark on it.(a)(a)Heyl. Ibid. P. 362, 363. By means of this Decree the Arch-Biſhop had ſo provided both at home and abroad, that neither the Patience of the State ſhould be Exerciſed with continual Libels, nor the Church troubled by unwarrantable and outlandiſh Doctrines.

In purſuance of this Decree againſt Printing or Selling Ʋnlicens'd Books, he hindred the Importation of the Geneva Bibles with Notes from Holland, where ſome of them had been Seiz'd by the care of Boſwel, the Reſident at the Hague. In the beginning of 38 he received advertiſement of a new Impreſſion of thoſe Bibles in Holland, deſign'd for England, if the terror of this Decree did not ſtop their coming(b)(b)Laud's Life, P. 364..

B… this it appears what little Credit is to be given to the Rector's Secret History of the Preſbyterians corrupting the Word of God in 3…, when he ſo notoriouſly contradicts the Publick Hiſtory of that Time. He might as well have ſaid, That Epiſcopacy was in the Aſcendant in 1648, as that Preſbytery was ſo in 1638.

But (ſaith …e) all things were in Preparation, and tended to the Subverſion of Epiſcopacy.

The Preparations were ſo Secret, that n e but the Rector can make a Diſcovery o… them, which he hath not yet done, and ſo we leave 'em among the Chimera's of his own Invention.

I know nothing in appearance that tended then to the Subverſion of Epiſcopacy in England, except …ines, Impr…s, Ba…res, and other Severities againſt Conſcientiou… Men (under the odious Name of He…ns) might have ſuch a tendency, by moving the Compaſſions of the People, who are apt … take part with the Perſecuted.

But Scotland, ſaith the Rector, had already made a Conſpiracy, and bound themſelves under a Curſe to Extirpate Epiſcopacy.

Did the Scotch-Conſpiracy depend upon altering of we into ye, in Acts 6.3. in the Cambridge-Edition? Or did the Alteration depend on the Scotch-Conſpiracy? Wa… there another Conſpiracy between the Scotch-Conſpirators and the Cambridge-Printer? Th… Rector, Charitable Man! has the Faith to believe it, but he is not ſo happy as to be abl… to prove it.

How far the Scotch-Govenanters bound themſelves under a Curſe to extirpate Epiſcopacy, pretend not to determine.

This is plain, that the Covenant which they ſubſcribed in 1638, was the ſame in matter of Religion, with the Covenant which was ſign'd long before by King James (the Firſt (b)(b)Laud's Life, P. 364.England) and the whole Kingdom of Scotland. This is expreſly affirmed by K. Charles] in his Proclamation against the Seditious Pradices of ſome in Scotland, Dated at White-Hal… Feb. 27, In theſe Words:

That Covenant in our Dear Father's time, was condeſcended unto by him, and ſ… the Subject (at the humble Petition of the Geteral Aſſembly it ſelf.) permitted by him to Sign it: We ſay it again. That our Covenant was Rejected by them, becauſe Commanded by us; and this is manifeſt, becauſe for Matters of Religion ours agreed in a… things with their own Covenant (c)(c)Ruſh. Collect. Par. 2. p. 831..

I Juſtifie not the Irregularities of that Time, but they were occaſioned by Arch-Biſhop …ua's Innovations, contrary to Arch-Biſhop Spotſwood's Advice.

King Charles I. in the Year 38. Iſſued out a Proclamation, requiring all Perſons to Subſcribe the Old Covenant, in hopes of giving Satisfaction to the Diſcontented Party by that Condeſcention, and by another Declaration of his Pleaſure anent Anulling the Service p. 9Book, Book of Canons, and High Commiſſion, diſcharging the preſſing of the Practice of the Five Articles of Perth But the Peoples Jealouſies of the unlimited Power of their Biſhops were grown then ſo high, that nothing would ſatisfie 'em but the Abolition of that New Order, which had been impoſed upon 'em (as they conceiv'd) contrary to their Old National Covenant, by which they Judg'd themſelves obliged to maintain the Presbyterian Government.

However, the Scotch-Biſhops, after ſome heſitation, did upon Octob. 5. 1638. Sign the Old Confeſſion of Faith (which had been Subſcribed at firſt by K. James, and his Houſhold, in the Year 1580. and afterwards by Perſons of all Ranks, in the Year 1581. by Ordinance of the Lords of the Secret Council, and Acts of the General Aſſembly. And again was Subſcrib'd by all ſorts of Perſons in the Year 1590. with a General Band annex'd, for Maintenance of the true Religion, and the King…s Perſon)

But being ſenſible that this Confeſſion favour'd Presbytery, they Sign'd it with theſe Reſtrictions, viz. That they did not hereby Abjure or Condemn the Epiſcopal Government, and the Five Articles of Perth; and that by adhering to the Diſcipline of the Reformed Kirk of Scotl. they mean not any Immutability of that Presbyterial Government which was A…. 1581(a)(a)Ruſh. Ibid. P. 706..

By this it appears, That the Presbyterian was the Ancient Government of the Kirk of Scotland, to which they were obliged by an Ancient Covernant, long before 38, and that Epiſcopacy was an Innovation upon their First Conſtitution.

I mention theſe things by the by, to vindicate the preſent Establiſhment of the Church of Scotland, as not only agreeable to the Scotch-Inclination, but to the Ancient Scotch-Confeſſion; and therefore agreeable to their Inclinations, becauſe agreeable to their Confeſſion.

The Rector baſely Reflects upon the Act of Settling Presbytery in Scotland (though touch'd by the Royal Scepter) becauſe it makes Presbytery moſt agreeable to the Inclination of the Scotch Nation, which is juſt ſuch another Reaſon (ſaith he) as an Adulterer alſo might give for his Wantonneſs (b)(b)P. 25..

He might more truly have ſaid, which is juſt ſuch another Reaſon as an honeſt Man might give for enjoying the Wife of his Youth, which had been violently detain'd from him, as Michal was from David.

The Words which he reflects on are His Majeſty's own Words, in his Letter of Inſtructions to his Commiſſioner in Scotland; though the Rector would Reproach the Preſbyterians, he ſhould have ſpoken with more reſpect to the King, and not ſo unhandſomly Reflect on His Majeſty's Words, to whom he owes a greater deference.

The Act affirms the Presbyterian Church Government to be agreeable to the Word of God, and moſt conducive to the Advancement of true Piety and Godlineſs. But the Rector wiſely overlooks theſe Words, which would have ſpoil'd his wanton Compariſon.

The ſame Statute Eſtabliſheth the Confeſſion of Faith, containing the Sum and Subſtance of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, and revives the Presbyterian Church Government and Diſcipline, which had been Ratified and Eſtabliſhed by the 114 Act, Ja. 6. Parl. 12. Anno. 1592. and thereafter receiv'd by the general Conſent of the Scotch Nation(c)(c)Hist. of the late Re…col. in Scotl. P. 252, 253.. It the Scotch Inclination be agreeable to the Word of God, their ancient Confeſſion of Faith, and the old Laws of the Kingdom, I hope it's a little more juſtifiable than the wanton Inclinations of an Adulterer.

I crave the Reader's Pardon for this Digreſſion, occaſion'd by the Rector's Impertinent Reflection upon the Church-Government of Scotland.

I have done with his first Reaſon, when I have noted the laſt Words of it — And England, even a great part of the Ʋniverſities, were running to the ſame exceſs of Riot. I preſume he means they were not well affected to Epiſcopacy.

Preſbytery is exceſs of Riot with this Gentleman. I remember the time when not running into exceſs of Riot was Crime enough to bring a Man under Suſpicion of being a Presbyterian. Whether the Ʋniverſities have improved in Morals ſince they were rid of Presbytery, I p. 10will not preſume to Determine, but the Corruption of Manners which too many bring with them thence, is no great Demonstration of it.

But it will not be amiſs to take a view of the ſtate of Cambridge in 1638, when and where the firſt Corruption happened. It was far from being Presbyterian or Puritan.

Six of the Heads of Colledges were fully in the Intereſts of Archbiſhop Laud, viz.

Dr. Conſins, Mr. of Peterhouſe; Dr. Laney, Mr. of Pembroke-Hall; Dr. Martin, Mr. of Queens Colledge; Dr. Paſch, Mr. of Clare-Hall; Dr. Beal, Mr. of St. John's; Dr. Stern, Mr. of Jeſus.

Theſe were all High Men for Biſhop Laud, and were afterwards put out by the Parliament.

The Six following were more moderate, but fully for the King, and Church of England, viz.

Dr. Collins, Regius Profeſſor, Provoſt of King's Colledge; Dr. Samuel Ward, Profeſſor of Divinity, and Mr. of Sidney Colledge; Dr. Holdſworth, Mr. of Emanuel; Dr. Brownrig, Mr. of Catharine-Hall; Dr. Comber, Mr. of Trinity; Dr. Smith, Mr. of Magdalen. All theſe were put out by the Parliament, only Dr. Smith died about the beginning of 1643.

The Three following were not put out by the Parliament, but were far from being look'd upon as Puritans or Presbyterians, viz.

Dr. Bainbrig, Mr. of Chriſt's Colledge; Dr. Love, Mr. of Bennet Colledge; Dr. Eden, a Civilian, Mr. of Trinity-Hall.

Dr. Badgecroft, Mr. of Caius Colledge, was a Perſon of little Note, but whether he Died in his Place, or was put out, I cannot learn.

This State of Cambridge was communicated to me by the Learned and Judicious Mr. Francis Tallents, who was a Student then in 38.

By this it appears what a ridiculous Story it is, that the Ʋniverſities were running into the ſame Exceſs of Riot with Scotland in 1638. But I proceed to his 2d Argument, viz.

Argument II.

The Corruption in appearance favours the Diſſenters and their Deſign againſt Epiſcopacy. If then any, they may be ſuſpected for being willing to have it at leaſt continued and propagated.

I Anſwer:

1. He durſt not ſay, the Corruption favours the Diſſenters, for he knows the contrary; but he ſlily ſays, it does in appearance favour 'em. This appearance is only to himſelf, for I believe no Diſſenter ever thought of it.

2. I know no Principle of any ſober Diſſenters that is favoured by this Corruption.

It is the profeſt Principle of the Presbyterians, That no man ought to take upon him the Office of a Miniſter of the Goſpel, until he be lawfully called, and Ordained thereunto by the Preſbytery. See the Directory for Ordination.

Both Presbyterians and Congregational-Men, whom he disjunctively accuſeth, have declared their United Judgment about the Miniſtry in the Heads of their Agreement (Printed at London 1691) in which they Unanimouſly declare for the Election and Ordination of ſuch as undertake the Miniſterial Office, the former they aſcribe to the People; the latter to the Elders or Paſtors. Chap. 2. Of the Miniſtry.

p. 11This then is the pernicious Principle which he fancies the Diſſenters would ſupport by corrupting Act. 6.3. viz. that Ordinarily the People have power to chooſe their own Miniſters. This I confeſs is aſſerted by the Ʋnited Brethren.

And cou'd they be under any Temptation to corrupt a Text of Scripture to aſſert a Principle that may be juſtified by expreſs Scripture, and is aſſerted in this very place without any corrupt Reading? Act. 6.3. Wherefore, Brethren, look ye out among you Seven Men of honeſt report, full of the Holy Ghoſt and Wiſdom, whom we may appoint over this buſineſs.

Here the People chooſe the Deacons, the Apoſtles by Impoſition of Hands and Prayer, Ordain or Appoint the Perſons ſo choſen.

The Rector himſelf, in another Mood, allows this p…wer to the People, or Multitude of Believers. For thus he ſpeaks, The Apoſtles commanded the People to chooſe ſeven men, Act. 6.3. So St. Peter exhorted them to chooſe one**Tent. Novum, p. 4. Again, The choice of the Perſons to be p…eſented unto the Apoſtle; was made by the People.††p. 3.

Whether the Rector of Bury were acco…ding to this Apoſtolical practice, choſen by the People, he himſelf beſt knows, and the good People of Bury may do well to conſider.

Behold here our Accuſer aſſerts the very Principle, in favour of which he pretends the Presbyterians or Corgr…gational Men (for he knows not which) have corrupted the Word of God.

Now ſuppoſe a peeviſh Recriminator ſhould retort the Charge upon him, and ſay, there is ſhrewd ſuſpicion that the Rector of Bury hath contributed to the corrupting of Act. 6.3. at leaſt to the continuance and encreaſe of it, §§Serm. p. 23.; becauſe it is done in favour of the Popular Principle he maintains; what can the Rector ſay for himſelf? He ſtands condemned out of his own Mouth. If his Argument be good againſt the Diſſenters, it's good alſo againſt himſelf. For he allows the People as much Power in making their Miniſters as the Diſſenters do. Either then let him honeſtly acquit his Brethren, or condemn himſelf. They are conſcious to their own innocency; let him, who is acquainted with the ſecret practices of the Preſs, come off as well as he can.

3. The altering of we into ye in Act. 6.3. cannot be imputed to the Diſſenters, or to any Deſign of theirs to aſſert the Peoples power of ſetting up their own Miniſters, p. 25. becauſe the Seven Deacons in Act. 6, 3. were no Miniſters of the Word and Sacrament, in the Judgment of the Diſſenters. They have all along pleaded. That the Deacons in Act. 6. were Miniſters of Tables, and not of the Word. Is it likely they ſhould 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?

It belongs not to the Office of Deacons (ſaith the Westminster Aſſembly) to Preach the Word or adminiſter the Sacraments, but to take ſpecial care in diſtributing to the neceſſities of the Poor. See their Advice to the Parliament concerning Church-Government, in the Directory.

Argument III.

On the contrary it cannot (ſaith our Accuſer) with any colour of reaſon be imagined that the Epiſcopal Party deſign'd to corrupt this place, p. 24.

Anſwer.

This proves nothing againſt the Diſſenters, nor do they charge the Epiſcopal Party with any deſign of corrupt…ng it, tho the Preſs was in their hands, and ſtrictly guarded againſt the Puritans, when it was firſt done, if it was in the Year 1638, as he ſuppoſes.

p. 12Nor will any one of ſence (adds he) believe that the Epiſcopal Party, were willing to have that thruſt out of the Scripture, upon which their Church Government ſeems to be built; or to ſubſtitute in its room what in appea…ance, overthrows their Polity, ibid.

I never underſtood before, that the Epiſcopal Government was built on this Act of the Apoſtles in ordaining Deacons. Doubtleſs the Epiſcopal Party will reckon themſelves highly obliged to this Maſter-Build…r, who hath ſupported the Foundations of their Go…rnment by ſo ſtrong an Argument as is here propoſed, viz. The Ap…ſtles Ordained Dea…s to ſe… …ables, therefore the Church ought to be govern'd by Biſ…ops. But he ſpoils all … …y ſ…ing, That th…ir Church Government ſeems to be built on this Scripture, which, in …lain E…g…ſh, is as much as if he had ſaid, it is not really built upon it. This overthrow… … P…ſon, That it was their intereſt not to corrupt it; ſo that their Cauſe not being really ſ…orted by this Text, they might be the Authors of the Corruption, according to the R…cto…'s way of arguing.

Thus the Epiſcopal Party are more obliged to the Charity of the Diſſenters in acquitting 'em from a deſigned Corruption of this place, than to the ſtrength of the Rector's Argument.

Argument IV.

That Party ought in all Reaſon to be ſuſpected of Foul-Play herein, who under colour of this new Text of Scripture, aſſert and ſupport the new Popular Government of the Church, as ſome of the Presbyterians do at this day.

For Pro…f of this he tells us a Memorable Story (as he calls it) of a Cameronian (one of the moſt rigid Sects of the Scotch Preſbyterians) who Preaching ſome Years ſince, concerning the Peoples Power of ſetting up their own Teachers, urged this corrupt Reading for Proof.

Anſwer.

1. It is a pretty way of proving that the Engliſh Preſbyterians, aſſert the Popular Government of the Church from this Text, becauſe a Scotch Cameronian has done ſo ſome Years ſince.

2. I expected he would have inſtanced in ſome Engliſh Preſbyterians that had aſſerted the new Popular Government, as he calls it, from this falſe reading, which he chargeth on the Diſſenters; but fo… Proof againſt the Engliſh Diſſenters, he ſends us to the Scotch Presbyterians, and to the moſt Rigid amongſt them. Does our Accuſer here manage his Evidence with the leaſt… ſhew of Common Honeſty? He puts in a Charge againſt the Body of Engliſh Diſſenters, and brings in for Guilty, a ſingle Scotch Cameronian.

3. The Scotch Evidence is by Hear-ſay, without ſo much as naming the Perſon, Time or Place, nor producing any Vouchers for the Proof of it. He promiſed us a good circumſtantial proof, p. 23. and he gives us one diveſted of all its circu…ſtances.

He picks up a ſpurious Story, p…rhaps in the next Coffee-Houſe or Ale-Houſe, that carries not the leaſt Evidence of Truth with it, and this he legitimates as far as his Word will go, and recommends from the Pulpit as a ſacred Oracle of God.

I will not lay the B…at at the Rector's Door, but ſince he is an Undertaker for it, he ought to produce the true Father, leſt he tempt ſuch as know him not, to ſuſpect he is the Man.

I have more Charity for him (as little as he hath for us) than to impute the Origina… of the Fable unto him; but he cannot be excuſed from taking up a reproach againſt hi… Neighbour, which is inconſiſtent with the Character of a Citizen of Zion, Pſal. 15.3.

4. It is ſcarce Credible, That a Cameronian Preſbyterian ſhould aſſert a Doctrine directly contrary to the Preſbyterian Principles. It's well known none is admitted into the Miniſtry in Scotland, without the laying on of the hands of the Preſbytery.

p. 135. Suppoſe ſome ignorant Cameronian had been abuſed by that corrupt reading (which we have no reaſon to believe on the Rector's word) and if he had abuſed others by a wrong Quotation, muſt the Error of one Man be charg'd upon the whole Church of Scotland? And muſt the Error of one Scotch-m…n be charg'd upon all the Engliſ… P…eſb…te…ians? This is ſuch a piece of Justice, as none will defend, but a Hama…, who ſ…l…s to be reveng'd of all the J…rs, becauſe one N… …c…l had offended.

Thus I have Examined his Four Circumſta…tial Pr…fs, which app…ar to be as ſilly as they are malicious.

He ſuggeſts one thing more in a Ma…ginal Note, which I had almoſt over-…ooked.

The Corruption (ſaith he) crept in firſt in the year 1638, in a Bible Printed at Carbridge by Tho. Buck and Reger Da…id, Printers to the Univerſity; the latter of which was indeed the Manager of the Preſs, and in the Intereſt of that Presbyterian Party.

1. Whether R. Da…iel was in the Intereſt of the Preſbyterian Party, I know not; but I have no cauſe to believe it, becauſe he affirms it. He hath made his Word too cheap already to be taken for an Oracle.

A Gentleman**Mr. F. Tallents of Salop. that was in Cambrilge in 36, and continued Fellow of a Colledge till … aſſures me he knew Tho. …uck very w…l, and gives this Character of him, that he wa… an Eminent, Grave Church-…f-England Man, and one of the Ornaments of it, and the Principal Manager of the Preſs. The ſame Gentleman tells me, he knew Roger Daniel alſo, but he was never Reputed to be a Puritan, nor is it likely, that Mr. Buck would bring in a perſon of the Puritan Principles.

2. But ſuppoſe he were a Presbyte…ian, (which is not very likely, conſidering what a wa…chfull Eye Arch-Biſhop Laud had upon the Printing-Preſſes at that time) may not a Man be a Presbyterian without being a corrupter of the Word of God? We have proved already, that the Corruption of Act. 6.3. favours the Presbyterians, no more than it doth the Epiſcopal Party.

3. He acquits R. Da…iel by a kind of Self-Contradiction from a d…ſign'd Corruption of the place, for he himſelf acknowl…dges the firſt Corruption to be an Overſight, a meer Error of the Preſs, and an accidental Slip, p 27.

4. I find a Cambri…ge Edition of the Bible in Twelves, in the Year 1648. by R. Daniel, which hath we, and not ye, in Acts 6.3. Whom we may appoint. This is a clear Evidence, That Daniel's Edition in 38, was not deſignedly Corrupted, for then he would have repeated it in a time when the Preſs was in the Power of the Anti-Epiſcopal-Party.

It's true, the Error has been repeated ſince in ſeveral Impreſſions of the Engliſh Bible, but without any Influence or Connivance of the Diſſenters, as he unworthily Suggeſts.

An Error in one Impreſſion is ca…ly propagated, becauſe the Frames of the Bible are often kept intire, and n…t 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.

p. 14CHAP. III. More Conſiderations to ſhew the Falſity of the Rector's Charge.

1. NO Proteſtant Diſſenters have ever Vindicated that Corrupt Reading, or urged it in favour of a popular Government of the Church, in any of their Writings againſt the Biſhops and Ceremonies.

Let him Examine all that has been written ſince 1638, to 1696, and Produce, if he can, any one Argument Supported by this Falſe Reading. Had the Diſſenters deſignedly Corrupted this place to favour their Deſign againſt Epiſcopacy, the Corruption would have appear'd one time or other in ſome of their Polemic Diſſertations.

2. The Diſſenters have Written ſeveral Commentaries and Annotations on the Holy Bible, perhaps more than the Epiſcopal Party, and many of them have written on Acts 6.3. and not one of them have attempted to Confirm the Corrupt Reading of it. Mr. Baxter's Second Edition reads, Whom we may appoint: So do the Continuators of Mr. Pool; ſo doth Du-Veil on the Acts, though he was an Anabaptiſt, as I am inform'd. Mr. Clark, in his Quarto Edition of the New Teſtament hath ye, but by a miſtake of the Printer, for his Marginal Notes are not corrupt, and the Error is rectified in his Fol. Edit. Printed at Lond. 1690. That latter Edition hath we.

3. Had the Corruption been deſign'd in favour of the Diſſenters, it would have been promoted when they were uppermoſt, and had the power of the Preſs.

I have taken a little Pains to examine the Editions of moſt Years between 1640, and 1660, when the Anti-Epiſcopal Party were in the Aſcendant, and I find 'em generally right in Acts 6.3.

For more Satisfaction to the Inquiſitive Reader, I will exhibit the Editions of each Year, which are as followeth:

The Impreſſion of the Bible in

1638 London, by Robert Barker, Octavo, hath we, (and not ye) in Acts 6.3.

1639 London, by Barker hath we.

1639 London, by Barker and Bill, we.

1639 Cambr. by Th. Buck and Roger Daniel, we.

1640 Lond. by R. Barker, Twelves, we.

1642 Amſterdam, with Beza and Jun. Notes, Folio, we. This Edition is much Miſ-Printed.

1642 Edinburgh, by Eva… Tyler, 24. we.

1642 Lond. by Barker, Octavo, we.

1643 Cambr. by the Printers to the Univer. we.

1643 Amſterd. Fol. with the Geneva Notes we.

1644 Amſterd. Twelves, we.

1646 Amſterd. by Bentley, we.

1646 Lond. by the Aſſigns of J. Bill, and C. Barker, we.

1646 Lond. by the Comp. of Stationers, we.

1647 Lond. by Barker and the Aſſigns of Bill, we.

1647 Lond. by the Company of Stationers, we.

1648 Lond. by Will. Bentley, we.

1648 Lond. by the Comp. of Stationers, we.

p. 151648 Lond. by R. Barker and Aſſigns of J. Bill, we.

1648 Lond. by Evan Tyler, we.

1648 Cambr. by R. Daniel, Twelves, we.

1649 Lond. by the Comp. of Stationers, we.

1649 Lond. by the Company of Stationers, Octavo, we.

1649 Lond. by the Company of Stationers, Quarto, with Geneva Notes, we.

1650 Lond. by Roger Norton, Octavo, we.

1650 Lond. by the Comp. of Stat. la…ge Oct. we.

1651 Lond. by the Comp. of Stationers, we.

1651 Lond. by Roger Norton, Octavo, we.

1652 Lond. by the Company of Stationers, Octavo, we.

1652 Lond. by J. Field, Printer to the Parliament of England, Twelves, we.

1653 Lond. by J. Field, Printer to the Parl. Twelves, we.

1653 Lond. by Field, 24. we.

1653 Lond. by Evan Tyler, we.

1653 Lond. for Giles Calvert, we.

1653 Lond. by J. Field, Parl. Print. we.

1654 Lond. by Evan Tyler, we. 24.

1655 Lond. by Norton, we.

1655 Lond. by E. T. for the Society of Stat. we.

1656 Lond. by H. Hills, and J. Field, Twelv. we.

1656 Lond. by Jo. Field, one of his Highneſs's Printers, 8vo. we.

1657 Lond. by James Fleſher, we.

1657 Cambr. by Jo. Field, large 8vo, ye.

1657 Cambr. by R. Daniel, ye.

1658 Cambr. by Jo. Field, one of his Highneſs's Printers, Twelv. we.

1658 Cambr. by Jo. Field, one of his Highneſs's Printers, 24. we.

1659 Cambr. by Jo. Field, large Fol. ye.

By this Table of Editions it appears, That moſt Impreſſions from 40 to 60 are right. I cou'd yet find but three Editions that have ye in Acts 6.3. during the whole time of the Long Parliament, which I have noted in the Year 1657, one by Field, the other by Daniel, and a third by Field, 59. Theſe muſt be accidental, becauſe Fleſher's Edition of 1657 is right, and Field and Daniel are right in the Editions of other Years.

All which makes it very Evident, the Presbyterians had no deſign to falſifie the Sacred Text.

4. Several Editions in King Charles the Second's time, when the Biſhops, and not the Diſſenters had the Management of the Preſs, are Corrupt, and have, whom ye may appoint, in Acts 6.3.

I will preſent the Reader with the true and falſe Editions in two diſtinct Tables, from the Year 1660, to this preſent Year 1696.

The true Editions that have whom we may appoint, are as follows:

1660. Lond. by Hills and Field, large Octavo, we.

1662. Cann's Bible we.

1663. Cambr. J. Field, Quarto, we.

1664. Cann's Bible with References hath we, though a very Corrupt Edition.

1666. Cambr. by J. Field, Quarto, we.

1669. Lond. by Bill and Barker, we.

1669. Savoy, by Bill and Barker, large Octavo, we.

1669. Lond. by Barker, we.

1669. Lond. by Bill and Barker, Octavo, we.

1670. Cambr. by J. Hays, Quarto, we.

1673. Lond. by Barker and Bill, Octavo, we.

p. 161675. Oxford, Quarto, we.

1675. Lond. by the Aſſigns of Bill and Barker, large Octavo, we.

1675. Cambr. by J. Hays, Quarto, we.

1676. Lond. by Chr. Barker, Quarto, we.

1677. Cambr. by J. Hays, Quarto, we.

1678. Lond. by Bill, Barker, Newcomb and Hills, Octavo, we.

1679. Oxford, Quarto, we.

1680. Cambr. by J. Hays, Quarto, we.

1681. Edingburgh, by the Heir of Andr. Anderſon, Printer to the King, Quarto, we.

1682. Oxford, Octavo, we.

1683. Oxford, Quarto, we.

1684. Lond. Bill, Newcomb and Hills, we.

1684. Oxford, Fol. we.

1685. — Twelves, we, and another 24. we.

1686. — we.

1687. Lond. by Bill, Hills and Newcomb, we.

1687. Oxford, we.

1688. Lond, by Bill, Hills and Newcomb, we.

1688. Oxford, 24. we.

1689. Oxford, we.

169…. Lond. Chr. Bill, and Tho. Newcomb, large Octavo, we.

1691. —by Bill and Newcomb, Twelves, we.

1691. —by Bill and Newcomb▪ Octavo, we.

1692. —by Bill, and the Executrix of Tho. Newcomb, we.

1693. —by Bill, we.

169…. —by Bill, and the Executrix of Newcomb, we.

1694. —by Bill, Newcomb and Hills, we

1695. —by Bill, Newcomb and Hills, we.

1695. Oxford— we

1695. London the New Teſtament; with Mr. Baxter's Notes, we.

1696. —by Bill and others, we.

1696. —by Chr. Bill, and Executrix of Tho. Newcomb, we.

It's obſervable here, 1. That Two Editions of Came, which is all I have ſeen of his, have We. He was a rigid Bromnist, but did not miſ-print this place.

2. Mr. Baxter's Edition of the New Teſtament, for which he was Fined and Impriſoned, hath We. His very Enemies cou'd not charge him with corrupting the Sacred Text.

3. The Scotch Edition in 1681, hath We; ſo hath a former Edition which I noted in 1642, and three more by Evan Tyler, the Scotch Printer in 53, 54, 55. Theſe are all the Scotch Editions I have yet ſeen, by which we may judge of the reſt: Tho he confidently affirms, without the leaſt Proof, That the Scotch Bibles are generally faulty in this paſſage p. 28. And, That the Scotch Kirk …p…rs with, and refines upon the Word of God. P. 26. But perhaps, I may give a more full account of the Scotch Bibles hereafter.

I will ſubjoin an Account of ſuch faulty Editions as I have met with from 1660 to 1696, which are as followeth:

1660. London, by John Field. ye may appoint, Act. 6.3.

1661. Cambridge, by J. Field, large 8vo. ye

1663. London, by Bill and Barker — ye

1665. —by J. Bill and Chr. Barker, ye.

1666. —by Bill and Barker, ye.

1668. —by Bill and Barker, ye.

1668. Savoy, by Bill and Barker, ye.

p. 171670. Savoy by the Aſſigns of John Bill and Chr. Barker, ye.

1671. — by the Aſſigns of J. Bill and Chr. Barker, ye (large 8vo.)

1671. Oxford, ſmall 8vo. ye.

1672. Savoy, by the Aſſigns of Bill and Barker, 12. ye.

1672. London, by the Aſſigns of Bill and Barker, 24. ye.

1673. — by Bill and Barker. 24. ye.

1673. — by the Aſſigns of Bill and Barker, 8vo. ye.

1674. — by the Aſſigns of Bill and Barker, ye.

1675. — by the Aſſigns of Bill and Barker, 12. ye.

1676. — by Bill and Barker, 12. ye.

1676. — by the Aſſigns of Bill and Barker, 24. ye.

1677. — by the Aſſigns of Bill and Barker, ye.

1678. — by Bill, Barker, Newcomb and Hills, ye.

1679. — by Bill, Newcomb and Hills, large 8vo. ye.

1679. — by Bill, Newcomb and Hills, 12. ye.

1680. Oxford, 8vo. ye.

1680. London, by the Aſſigns of Bill, Newccomb and Hills, ye

1681. Oxford, ſmall 8vo. ye.

1681. London, by Bill, Newcomb and Hills, ye. 8vo.

1681. — by Bill, Newcomb and Hills, 24. ye.

1682. — by Bill, Newcomb and Hills, ye.

1682. — by Hills and Newcomb, ye.

1682. — by the Aſſigns of Jo. Bill, Tho. Newcomb and Henry Hills, large 8vo. ye.

1683. — by Hills and Newcomb, ye.

1683. — by the Aſſigns of Bill, and by Hills and Newcomb, ye.

1684. — by the Aſſigns of Bill, and by Hills and Newcomb, ye.

1685. — by the Aſſigns of J. Bill, and by Hills and Newcomb, ye.

1686. — by Charles Bill, H. Hills and Tho. Newcomb, ye.

1687. — by Ch. Bill, Hills and Newcomb, ye.

1689. Oxford, large 8vo. ye.

1691. — 12. ye.

Obſerve in theſe Editions:

1. They are all Octavo's or Duodecimo's of the larger or ſmaller ſize, but where the contrary is expreſſed.

2. I find no leſs than Thirty Eight Editions that are faulty in Act. 6.3. Our Author tells us That upon Examination he hath found the firſt accidental ſlip repeated ſince in at leaſt half a dozen Impreſſions of the Bible here in England, p. 27. And in another place he ſaith, His Diligence and Obſervation has not been a little, and managed with all care and faithfulneſs in examining this point, P. 22. If his Faithfulneſs be no greater than his Diligence and Obſervation, I doubt it's very little. Wonderful Diligence! to be able to diſcover about Six or Seven faulty Impreſſions in near Forty.

3. I can meet but with two faulty Editions in King William's Time, and both in Oxford. which, he ſays, has, for ought he can learn, been ſomewhat happier, in this kind, than her Siſter Cambridge, P. 22. But in this alſo, he is ſomewhat miſtaken, as he is in his other accounts: For I find Five Oxford Editions that are faulty. And I hope, he will not ſay, That Preſbytery was in the Aſcendant when theſe Corruptions happened there.

4. Different Editions by the ſame hand do vary, ſome having we, others ye, which is an evidence the Corruption is accidental. Bill and Barker's Edition in Octavo, 1673, hath We; another Edition by Bill and Barker in 24's, 1673, hath Ye. So in 1678, and in 1687.

5. From the whole it appears, that moſt of the Corrupt Editions were in K. Charles the II's time, when the Epiſcopal Party were in the Aſcendant, and had the ſole Management of the Preſs.

p. 18Therefore let the Rector lay the Saddle on the right Horſe, and when he has done, let him try his Skill, by another Tentamen novum, to make it fit as eaſie as he can. I will not intrude upon his Province, to enquire into the Reaſons of multiplying Corrupt Editions in that Reign, in which Debauchery and Corruption of Manners were in the Aſcendant, which might render it a little difficult for the Masters Printers, to get ſober and conſcientious Correctors.

I am of this Gentleman's mind, That ſome effectual courſe ſhould be taken to rectifie not only this (which is all his concern) but other miſtakes of the Preſs; but we differ in the Method of curing theſe Evils.

He recommends to thoſe in Authority, the burning of one or more Bibles thus depraved, as a proper Remedy, P. 27, 28.

I confeſs, I love not the burning of the Holy Bible, eſpecially for one literal miſtake, becauſe by the ſame Rule, all our Bibles might be in danger of the Flames, for it will be very difficult, if not next to impoſſible, to find one Bible without a literal fault. And it is not fit the Sacred Scriptures ſhould be obnoxious to the Fiery Zeal of every peeviſh Critick, or deſig…ing Adverſary, who may take occaſion to pick quarrels with 'em, and demand Judgment againſt 'em for every Miſdemeanour of the Preſs.

Tell it not in Gath! That a Son of the Church, and a Proteſtant Divine, ſhould make a Motion for the burning of Bibles, at this time of day, when our Popiſh Adverſaries are threatning us, and ready to add more Fuel to the Fire, to conſume all the reſt.

But I leave this Incendiary to walk in the light of his own Fire, and to warm himſelf at the Sparks that he hath kindled.

I humbly conceive, the moſt proper means of obtaining more Correct Bibles, would be the employing of perſons of greater Diligence and Obſervation, and of greater Care and Faithfulneſs than the Rector hath ſhew'd in examining the Errata of the Preſs.

Had he evidenced as good an Intereſt in theſe qualifications, as he pretends to, p. 22. he might have bid Fair for the Office of a Corrector of the Preſs, which would have enabled him to ſerve his Generation to better purpoſe, than he can do by Publiſhing Calumnies in the Name of God.

CHAP. IV. Vindicating Mr. B. and Exhibiting Ten Inſtances of the Rector's corrupt way of Citing the Holy Scriptures.

IN his Epiſtle he accuſeth him alſo with corrupting the Word of God.

His Words are theſe, — Nor is this (of Act. 6.3.) the only Inſtance of this kind. In the Diſſenters Petition for Peace above Years ſince, Act. 15.18. (it ſhould be 28.) is thus cited — To lay upon you no greater burden than neceſſary things, that ſmall word theſe being cunningly left out meerly to ſupport their Propoſition. Mr. B. who drew up the Petition and ſince has been publickly charg'd for thus abuſing the Scripture, though he forgot not to acquaint us, with the moſt trivial, yea, ridiculous Paſſages of his Life, yet had not the ingenuity to Confeſs his Error, nor yet the courage to palliate it with any Excuſe.

Anſwer.

That great Man was not at leiſure to take notice of, nor diſpoſed to Anſwer every trifling Accuſer. This Accuſation is as groundleſs as it is malicious, and therefore Mr. B. might eaſily paſs it over in ſilence.

p. 19He that will make Silence an Argument of Guilt, would have Condemned the moſt Innocent Perſon that ever was, Matth. 26.63.

Mr. B. urged that Text to prove that the Apoſtles impoſed only neceſſary things, and did not make unneceſſary things neceſſary, by meer Impoſition, his Words are theſe:

The Apoſtles and Elders, Act. 15.28. declare unto the Churches, that it ſeemed Good to the Holy Ghoſt and them, to lay upon them no greater burden, than neceſſary, things; impoſing them becauſe antecedently neceſſary (for that is given as the reaſon of their Selection and Impoſition) and not only making unneceſſary things neceſſary, by Impoſition, for then the Impoſition had been unneceſſary, tho it was not a ſimple, unchangeable neceſſity, yet it was a neceſſity by accident, pro tempore & loco, antecedent to the Impoſition of that Aſſembly— Petit. for Peace. p. 20. Lond. 1661.

Here I deſire the Reader to obſerve:

1. That Mr. B. does not pretend to make a full Recital of the Words of the Decree, but to give the Reaſon upon which it was grounded, and that is, the neceſſity of the things impoſed. They were not neceſſary, meerly becauſe impoſed, but impoſed becauſe neceſſary under preſent Circumſtances.

Had the cited the very words of the Text, he would have rendred 'em in the ſecond perſon, It ſeemed Good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden But he ſpeaks in the 3d perſon, It ſeemed Good to the Holy Ghost and them, to lay upon them— referring to the History, and not to the very words of the Decree.

The Rector may as well quarrel with him for not mentioning the Canons of the Council, v. 29. (which he had no occaſion to repeat) as for leaving out the word theſe, which evidently points at them.

When Mr. B. cites the Words of Scripture, he does it in a different Character, as may be ſeen in that very Page in 1 Cor. 11.19. which he there quotes in Italick Letters; but he refers to Acts 15.28. without changing the form of the Letters, by which 'tis apparent, he did not deſign to tranſcribe the very words of the Text.

It's ha…d meaſure to Charge a Man, who only refers to a Text of Scripture, or gives the ſenſe of it, with corrupting the Word of God, becauſe he has not tranſcribed the whole …oſe.

2. It would have look'd more generous in this Criminator, to have anſwer'd Mr. B's Argument from this place againſt unneceſſary Impoſitions, than to blemiſh the Reputation of a dead Man. But it's eaſier to revile a Man than to confute him.

3. I have reaſon to ſuſpect the Rector took up this Calumny at ſecond hand from Dr. Hook, to whom he refers in the Margin, and never examin'd the truth of it. For thus he begins the Charge— In the Diſſenters Petition for Peace above years ſince. He could not tell how many years ſince▪ and therefore left a blark, to be filled up by any body that would do him that kindneſs. Had he perus'd the Petition it ſelf, it would have cured his Ignorance concerning the diſtance of time.

Beſides he cites the Text out of the Petition thus— To lay upon you no greater burden than neceſſary things. Whereas if he had taken the Words out of the Petition it ſelf, he muſt have exhibited them as I have above— to lay upon them no greater burden—

One may ſee by this what little truſt is to be given to this man's Accuſation, who takes up any ſilly Calumny, and reports it again for truth, without once examining whether it be ſo or not: But that is inconſiſtent with the Deſign he had in hand, which was to Calumniate stoutly in hopes ſomething might ſtick.

4. But ſince the Rector ſo roundly Charges others with corrupting the Word of God, it will not be amiſs to take notice how he treats it himſelf.

I will obſerve a few of his own Quotations, which I ſhould have over-look'd, if he had not thus unjuſtly accuſed his Brethren of that which he is notoriouſly guilty himſelf.

Qui alterum incuſat probri, ipſum ſe intueri oportet.

Thou art inexcuſable, O Man — for wherein thou judgeſt another, thou condemneſt thy ſelf, for thou that judgeſt doest the ſame things, Rom. 2.1.

I confeſs, I love not recriminations, but when a Man is ſo quick-ſighted, as to behold a p. 20mote in his brothers Eye, 'tis an act of Charity to help him to a Glaſs that may diſcover unto him ſome of the beam in his own Eye.

If he pleaſe to re-view the Scripture-Quotations in his own Sermon, he'l find many of 'em not exactly rendred. He would reckon it unfair did we go about to aggravate its Overſights, and charge him with poyſoning the fountain-head, refining upon the Word of God, lying againſt the Holy Ghost, &c. He would ſay, theſe were hard Words; and yet this is the Language he gives the Diſſenters for a litteral fault, which he cannot prove upon them.

Inſtances of his careleſs and looſe way of citing the Scriptures.

I. His very Text from which he takes occaſion to aggravate his Charge againſt us of Corrupting the Word of God, is corruptly rendred by him, Prov. 30.6. Add thou not unto his Word, ſo the Rector. It ſhould have been, Add you not unto his Words, in the pl. So it is in our Engliſh Bibles, &c. ſo it is in the Original Hebrew foreign verbis ejus. Here is a litteral fault, and ſuch as ſubſtitutes the ſingular number for the plural, in our Rector's very Text. He that ſo grievouſly cenſures others for a litteral fault, ſhould tell by what Authority he makes bold to alter (or to uſe his own Dialect, to corrupt) the very Text of his Sermon.

He repeat; the Text in the ſame manner, in P. 1. and 2. and therefore cannot charge the Preſs with this Error.

It's true the variation does not corrupt the ſenſe; but allow Men a liberty of a litteral variation from the Language of the Holy Ghoſt, the ſenſe and meaning cannot be long ſecur'd.

II. The firſt Scripture that occurs after the Text and Context, is 1 Cor. 10.11. written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the World are come: So he reads it, (p. 1.) but in our Engliſh Bibles it is thus— written for our admonition upon whom— Here he changes admonition into instruction, tho the Original he foreign, and properly render'd admonition by our Tranſlators both here, and in Eph. 6.4. Titus 3.10.

III. His next Allegation is from Deut. 4.2. Ye ſhall not add unto the Word, neither ſhall ye diminiſh ought from it. It ought to be thus read, Ye ſhall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither ſhall ye diminiſh ought from it. Here he leaves out the Words which I command you, without which the ſenſe is imperfect. He condemns Mr. B. for leaving out the word theſe, and himſelf leaves out but four Words together, and thoſe alſo eſſential to the ſentence he p…oduceth.

IV. Having compar'd his Text with Deut. 2. and 12.32. he enlargeth his foundations, and ſaith, for which reaſon therefore I would read the Text thus, add not thou unto his Word, neither diminiſh ought from it, p. 2.

He may read it as he pleaſes, but thoſe Words, neither diminiſh ought from it, are an addition to that Text, which ſaith add not. Muſt we tack to every Text what is ſaid in other Scriptures more fully, and make that explanatory addition an eſſential part of the Text? And when we have thus fill'd it up from parallel Scriptures, ſhall we pretend it ought to be read thus? This would create as many various Readings, as there are parallel Texts.

Unhappy Solomon! Hadſt thou liv'd in our days to conſult a Man wiſer than thy ſelf, he wou'd have taught thee to have put this Saying in a better form, and to write it thus, add thou not unto his word, neither diminiſh ought from it. However, thou can'ſt not but take …t kindly, that he ſupplies in Reading, the defect of thy Writing.

Our Hebrew Bibles have ſeveral Keri's and Cethib's, in which the Marginal Reading va…es from the Writing in the Text, as the Maſorites have obſerved: But this new Keri, or Reading eſcaped their Obſervation. It's to be hoped the Learned World will take notice of it in the next Edition of the Maſora.

We have all read theſe Words, neither diminiſh ought from it, in Deut. 4.2. but a Man may ſooner read out his Eyes, than read the words in the Rector's Text, as it lies in our Bibles.

p. 21And therefore to help you to the True Reading of this place, you muſt make a Thankful Purchaſe of the Rectors Sermon for your Inſtruction.

V. He thus cites Iſa. 11.9. That the knowledge of the Lord might cover the Earth, as the Waters cover the Sea. Our Bibles have it thus, The Earth ſhall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the Waters cover the Sea.

Here alſo he not only changes the Conſtruction of the former part of this Sentence, but ſubſtitutes one word for another, viz. might cover, inſtead of ſhall be full. The Heb. foreign which we render ſhall be full, will not admit of the Rector's Tranſlation. Schindler (in his Lexic. Pentaglot.) mentions four ſignifications of foreign but not one to the Rector's purpoſe.

Nor will the Lxx's Tranſlation relieve him, for that has foreign, which anſwers our Engliſh filled, And I do not find that the other Gr. Verſions do vary from the Lxx upon this Text. Vid. Frag. Veter. Interp. Graec. in Iſa. 11.

The Rector therefore abuſes this Scripture in the two Inſtances which he condemns in others, viz. diminiſhing and adding. He diminiſhes, by expunging thoſe words, ſhall be full; and adds of his own, the words, might cover.

VI. He thus quotes Rev. 22.18, 19. I certifie to every man, &c. p. 13. Our Engliſh Bibles have it, I testifie unto every man—And the Gr. foreign, ought to be ſo rendred. It ſhould ſeem the Rector wanted his Spectacles, and by a miſtake of the Letter read certify, for teſtify.

VII. He tells us that We diminiſh from the Word, when we caſt away any, never ſo little part of it p. 13. And thus he cites Matth. 5.18.— Till Heaven and Earth paſs away, not one jor, or tittle ſhall paſs from the Law.

Our Bibles render the Verſe thus—Till Heaven and Earth paſs, one jot or one tittle ſhall in no wiſe (foreign) paſs from the Law, till all the fulfilled. Here he leaves out the little word (one) which is repeated in the Text, and the weighty words, in no wiſe; and over-looks the Concluding words, till all be fulfilled.

Doubtleſs the words left out here, are a little part of the Scripture; and therefore by his own Doctrine he diminiſheth from the Word.

VIII. He thus gives the words of Acts 6.3. Seek out ſeven Men of honeſt Report, and full of the Holy Ghost, &c. p. 21.

Our Authorized Bibles have it thus, Look ye out among you ſeven Men—Here he puts ſeek for look (foreign) perhaps this alſo was an Overſight in Reading: But why he ſhould leave out thoſe words, among you, I can give as little Reaſon, as he can in charging Mr. B. with abuſing the Scripture, in leaving out (theſe) when he did not pretend to cite the very words of the Text, as the Rector here doth.

But I hope he'll have the Ingenuity to confeſs his Error, or the Courage to palliate it with an Excuſe, (Epiſt.) the want of which he blames in Mr. B.

IX. He exhorts his Brethren to lay aſide all guile and hypocriſies, 1 Pet. 2.1. P. 26.

The Text runs thus—Laying aſide all malice, and all guile and hypocriſies, and envies, and evil ſpeakings.

How he comes to ſkip over all malice, and to begin with guile, I do not pretend to give a Reaſon; tho' perhaps ſome may tell him, That his Sermon is ſo full of malice againſt the Diſſenters, that he was not willing this troubleſome word ſhould ſtare him in the face, and create any uneaſineſs of thought to him, in his warm purſuit of that Party.

X. I will inſtance in one other Text, which he thus renders, 2 Pet. 3.16. Which they that are Ʋnstable and Ʋnlearned wreſt, as they do all the other Scriptures, to their own deſtruction.

In our Bibles the words are thus, Which they that are Ʋnlearned and Ʋnſtable wreſt, as they do alſo the other Scriptures, &c.

Here he not only perverts the Order of the Holy Ghoſt, in the words, Ʋnlearned and Ʋnstable; but for alſo the other Scriptures, (foreign) he reads all the other Scriptures.

Thus we have tra…'d him in his Scripture-Quotations, in which one might have expected more Exactneſs from ſo Critical a Cenſor.

p. 22To declame with ſuch bitterneſs againſt Innocent Men, as Corrupters of the Word of God, and in the ſame Breath to cite the Scriptures ſo Corruptly, evidences more of Hatred to the Presbyterians, than of Affection to the Word of God.

I will not ſay he had any Deſign to Corrupt theſe Scriptures: I believe it was an Overſight, which is culpable enough in a Man of his Character, without being aggravated.

The Rector, of any man, ſhould be charitable in his Cenſures of others, who while he is unjuſtly charging the Diſſenters with one falſe reading, has made himſelf undeniably guilty of Ten. Ton to One is great Odds, and yet our Accuſer would be thought a warm and zealous defender of the Scriptures, for theſe Epithets he gives himſelf, p. 27.

If ever poor Man has made work for Repentance, the Rector has done ſo in this Sermon (if I may abuſe the Word by calling a Libel by that name) the chief deſign of which is to load his Brethren with a Crime not to be named among Chriſtians. He tells us, that the Chief Reaſon of his undertaking, was to tax the Diſſenters with corrupting the Word of God. Epiſt. & p. 2. Nay, he ſaith, it is the point he chiefly aimed to inſiſt on, p. 20.

Now let the World judge, what a vile thing it is, to accuſe a Conſiderable Party of Sober Chriſtians, of the moſt impious practices, without the leaſt Proof to ſupport the Charge.

A good Name is better than precious Ointment, and rather to be choſen than great Riches, Eccl. 7.1. Pro. 22.1. therefore he that robs me of it, deprives me of that which is more valuable than Gold and Silver. For this Reaſon, a falſe teſtimony was Capitally puniſh'd by the old Roman Laws, Aul. Gell. xx. 1. And God himſelf has levelled one of the Ten Commandments againſt this Wickedneſs. He that ſaid, Thou ſhalt not kill, Thou ſhalt not commit adultery, hath alſo ſaid, Thou ſhalt not bear falſe Witneſs.

Men may talk of Religion, and of their Zeal for the Word of God, but when the Tongue is ſet on fire of Hell, and full of deadly poyſon, they'll ſcarce convince the World that they have any great ſhare of the one or the other.

Can any thing be more inconſiſtent, than at the ſame time, to bleſs God even the Father, and to curſe (or reproach) men which are made after the ſimilitude of God? Can there be a greater Inſtance of this, than for a Man to aim at the reviling of his Neighbours as the Chief Point he drives at in Preaching the Word of God.

He that violates the Laws of Truth in his own words, may be preſum'd to have no great regard to the Truth of Gods Word.

'Twas a ſaying of Pythagoras, that the Gods had granted unto Men two amiable Bleſſings, foreign to embrace the truth, and to do good.**Aelian. Hiſt. Var. xii, 59.

Truth and Goodneſs are Divine Perſections, and the contrary to them are the diſtinguiſhing Characters of the moſt degenerate Spirits.

I leave it to impartial Judgments to conſider how far the Rector has declined a Conformity to the Divine Pattern, and imitated the Accuſer of the Brethren, whoſe Prime Qualities are Lying and Malignity.

I have now done with him, and will only offer him this wholſome Counſel at parting, in requital of the Wrong he hath done us.

If he expects a well-grounded-Peace in a Dying-Hour, I would adviſe him in a penitent manner to ask forgiveneſs, (1.) Of God, in whoſe Sacred Name he delivered this Scandalous Figment. (2.) Of his Brethren the Diſſenters, whoſe Reputation he would have mortally wounded, if the poiſon'd Arrow of a Falſe Tongue could have done it. (3.) Of his Dioceſan, and that Publick Aſſembly, in whoſe Ears he Publiſhed this Calumny; and (4.) Of that Honourable Lord, under whoſe Name he preſumes to ſhelter himſelf††Epiſt., while he diſcharges Volleys of Reproaches againſt a Multitude of Innocent People, whoſe only Defence is the Armour of Righteouſneſs.

When he has proceeded thus far in the Duty of a Penitent, he ought to make what reaſonable ſatisfaction he is able, to the injured Party. The Diſſenters deſire no Damages, p. 23for the Prejudices he has violently endeavour'd to have done them: All the Reparation they demand, is no more than what himſelf muſt needs judge reaſonable, that is, That he will burn his Sermon.

This he cannot juſtly except againſt, for he himſelf hath condemn'd whole Bibles to be burnt for one Corruption of the Sacred Text p. 27, 28., and if this be a righteous ſentence (as he thinks it is) he cannot but think it highly equitable, That his Sermon ſhould be caſt into the fire, which contains Ten Corruptions of the Sacred Text, beſides the corrupt Deſign of the whole, to Libel his honeſt Neighbours.

This may ſerve as a Touchſtone to try the ſincerity of his Zeal to the Word of God, and it's Purity. If it be ſuch as he pretends, he'll make no difficulty of expiating his Crime by ſuch a cheap ſacrifice as this. For if he can ſacrifice a Bible in revenge of the Diſſenters for one imaginary fault of theirs, he'll chearfully ſacrifice a poor Sermon in revenge of himſelf for no leſs than Ten real faults of his own; for you muſt not be ſo uncharitable, as to think him fonder of his own Productions, than of the Inſpir'd Writings.

I ſhall conclude with ſome of the firſt words of his Epiſtle, in which he tells the World, That he has been perſwaded by ſome private friends to Publiſh his Sermon.

It does not concern us to know who theſe private friends were; perhaps, upon ſecond thoughts, he may take them for private foes, that would tempt him to expoſe his blind ſide to the World, by making Publick a falſe Accuſation, which had it been ſuppreſs'd within thoſe Walls, where it was deliver'd, might have paſs'd for a Secret Oracle with ſome Credulous People, and left the injured Party under the Imputation of a baſe Reflection, without any poſſible Relief.

I cannot imagine that either his Ordinary, or the ſober part of the Clergy would ever perſwade him to Publiſh a Calumny, ſo vile in its nature, ſo inconſiſtent in its parts, ſo weakly managed, ſo maliciouſly applied, and ſo viſibly ſupported by ungrounded ſuſpicions, and fabulous Narratives.

But whoever they are, and whatever ends they had, in procuring a Publication of the Sermon, we reckon our ſelves obliged … them, for putting us in a capacity to vindicate our ſelves.

Though, when all is done, the thanks is principally owing to the Rector himſelf, whoſe Singular Good-Will to the Diſſenters, inclin'd him to an eaſie compliance with the agreeable Requeſt of his private friends.

Some Jeſuits have aſſerted, That it's only a Venial Sin to calumniate falſly, to maintain their own honour, and to ruine the Credit of thoſe they take for their Enemies. They have in many caſes notoriouſly practiſect accordingly,§§Myſt of Jeſuitiſm. P. 361.371. & p. 366.370.390.422..

Though the Rector does not profeſſedly eſpouſe this Principle, yet his blind Zeal hath notoriouſly betray'd him into the ſame Practice.

Perhaps, he'll be angry, that his foul-play (to uſe his own words) is brought upon the ſtage and thus openly, but juſtly, taxt. Epiſt.

It is no more my diſpoſition than his, to expoſe any man's mistake, whilest it keeps in Doors, and contains it ſelf within any bounds of modeſty and privacy, ibid. But when the ſacred Laws of Truth are boldly and openly violated, and the Wounds of the Church are made to bleed afreſh, by ſuch as ſhould apply healing Remedies, it's high time to un-deceive the World, to aſſert the Intereſts of Religion, and to expoſe the ſubtle Artifices of deſigning Men

FINIS.

Advertiſement.

LEST the Rector ſhould Glory over-much in his Mighty Diſcovery, it is thought convenient to Acquaint the World, That his Mr. Calvin (alias the Reverend Mr. Roger Baldwin) Detected and Expoſed the ſelf-ſame Miſtake, long before this Author, in an Ordination-Sermon, as ſundry then preſent, are ready to teſtifie.

End of the text · James Owen, Remarks on a Sermon About Corrupting the Word of God (1697)