REMARKS ON A SERMON, ABOUT Corrupting the WORD of GOD. PREACHED BY Tho. Gipps, Rector of Bury, On a Public Occasion, July 11. 1696.  
Wherein the DISSENTERS ARE Fully Vindicated Against his  Accusations.  
By J. O. Minister of the Gospel at Oswestry.  COM. ix. 
Thou shalt not bear false Witness against thy Neighbour.  
Et tuus Fronto, non ut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tor testimonium fecit, sed Convicium ut Orator aspersit.  Min. Fel. Octau. p. 92. Edit. Oxon. 
London, Printed for Zachary Whitworth, Bookseller in Manchester, 1697.   

To the Right Honourable WILLIAM Earl of Derby, Lord of Man, and the Isles, etc.  
My Lord,  
IT was a received Maxim in the Roman Judicatories, To Condemn no Man till he were admitted to answer for himself, which being agreeable to the Laws of Natural Justice, and the prevailing Sentiments of Mankind, I doubt not, but will pass with Your Honour, for an equitable Rule of Judgement.  
The Rector of Bury hath Published a horrid Charge against a great Body of People, the Dissenting Protestants, of Corrupting the Word of God, by Printing the Word Ye instead of We in Acts 6.3. and presumes to shelter himself under your Great and Honourable Name, by which he hopes to render it contestable, and to give it a more general Acceptation in the World.  
Now, My Lord, since he Appeals to Cesar, to Cesar he shall go. All the Favour we desire, is a Full and Fair Hearing of our Cause, which will bear the strictest Disquisition of a severe Judicature.  
Our Accuser saith, the first Corruption happened in the Year 1638. when the Presbyterians were in the Ascendant, and that it was then begun, and continued ever since in several Editions to promote the People's Power of setting up their own Teachers.  
But I have clearly Proved, that the Presbyterians were in no Power then; that they are as much against the People's Ordaining Ministers as the Bishops are; that there were far more corrupt Editions of that Place under King Charles II. when the Press was entirely at the Devotion of the Bishops, than in the Year's between 40. and 60. when the Anti-Episcopal Party had the Power of the Press. I can find but Three Corrupt Editions during the long Parliament, and I have met with Three and Thirty under King Charles II. which I humbly Present to your Lordship's wise Consideration, not doubting but the Interests of Truth have the Preference in your Esteem to the insinuating Artifices of officious Servants.  
The Rector, who Honours himself with the Title of your Lordship's Chaplain, knowing its below your Greatness to examine his Matters, and presuming your Lordship would take all upon trust (as one would think a Noble Person might rely much upon the Word of a Chaplain) thought he might impose herein upon your Honour, as no doubt he hath upon many others: But the Duty we own to all, and to Persons of Honour especially, as well as our own necessary Vindication, hath obliged us to Expose the Falseness of his Accusations, and to recommend this true Narrative of the Case to your Lordship's Exact and Impartial Judgement.  
I humbly crave your Lordships Pardon for this Address, occasioned by that of the Rector's, in which he very rudely Prostitutes your Honour to the Patronage of the vilest Calumny.  
I leave him to your Lordship's just Censure, and wish him more Sincere Affection to the Truth, more Deference towards his Superiors, and more Charity towards his Neighbours, especially in a Conjuncture, when our Civil as well as our Religious Interests do so loudly Call for the Exercise of 'em.  
But I must not tyre your Lordship's Patience, and therefore shall only add an Apprecation of all Blessings to your Honour, and beg leave to subscribe myself.  
Right Honourable, Your Lordship's most Humble And most Obedient Servant In our Great Lord and Master JESUS CHRIST. James Owen.   

The PREFACE.  
THESE Papers were occasioned by a Sermon Preached at Christ's Church in Manchester, by Mr. Tho. Gips, Rector of Bury, against Corrupting the World of God. I'll give the Reader an Idea of the Sermon, before I enter on the main Point.  
His Text is in Prov. 30.6. Addition not unto his Words, lest he reprove Thee, and thou be found a Liar.  
After some Explication, he saith, The Text is levelled against all manner of Corrupting the Word, p. 2.  
One eminent Instance of which I shall produce by and by, the Chief Reason of my undertaking this Subject.  
The whole Sermon consists of but 28 Pages, and yet he overlooks the Chief Reason of his Undertaking, till he comes to the 20th Page, in these Words, and now I am come at length to the Point I chief aimed to insist on. 'Tis a sign he wanted materials for his Chief Point, when he allows it but so little Room in his Sermon, tho' he had promised to husband his Time as Thriftily as might be, because his Argument could not easily be comprised in one single Discourse, p. 1.  
In handling of it, he promiseth, 1. To lay before us Negatively, what it is not to add or diminish. 2. Positively, what it is.  
1. Negatively, It is not adding, 1. When we explain Scripture, p. 2.  
2. It is not diminishing, when we omit the Hebrew Titles of the Psalms, and here he takes occasion to quarrel with one Mr. De , who it seems had censured this Omission in the Psalms used in the Liturgy, p. 3.  
He calls upon the Dissenters to prove those Hebrew Titles to be Original and Essential Parts of Scriptures.  
I will not enter into this Controversy, but shall only take Notice, that the Titles are as ancient as the Psalms themselves, for aught appears to the contrary, they being in all the Hebrew and Greek Copies that ever I have seen: That the Jewish Church received 'em as Parts of Scripture, and they are most of 'em translated by the LXX, and by Theodotion, Symmachus and Aquila, as also by the Targumist, supposed to be R. Joseph: That they are received in the Christian Church as Canonical Scripture, Jerom translates them in his Version, and they are in the Modern Versions, French, Dutch, British, and in the English Church-Bibles: That some of them are undeniably Canonical, as that of Psalm 18. mentioned in 2 Sam. 22. Others of them must be prefixed by the Renman, or by a Person Divinely Inspired, for they refer to Passages of History not mentioned in the Body of the Psalm. Such are the Titles of Psalm 3. and 30. and 34. and 54. and 56, etc. The Title of the 90. Psalms, Is a Prayer of Moses, the Man of God. He is not mentioned at all in this Psalm, nor is this Psalm mentioned in all his other Writings.  
If the Titles, or any one of them, be Essential Parts of Scripture; the Rector hath helped Mr. De  to a strong Argument, against the omitting of them, viz. that it is a diminishing from the Word of God.  
It had been his Discretion to have omitted this Head of his Sermon; but some People can't but expose their unthoughts-of-fault by an unseasonable and weak attempt to cover them.  
He asks, Why the Titles are not always Translated? The Bishops could best resolve that Question, whose Translation the Dissenters use. His other Questions there, are not worth the Answering, p. 3, 4.  
3. It is not a diminishing from the Word (saith he) when we read some Verses of a Chapter, omitting the rest for that Time, p. 5.  
But what if they be omitted at all Times? As some Chapters and Books are in the Calendar; it seems, according to the Rector's Restriction, a diminishing from the Word of God.  
I leave him and Mr. De  to argue, Whether the Epistles and Gospels do not in divers Places ruin the Scope and Connexion, which is the Subject of this and the two next Pages, p. 6, 7.  
4. It is not adding to the Word (continues he) when several Passages of Scripture, are cast into one Complex Sense.  
Here he falls soul upon Mr. De  again, for affirming that in the Liturgy-Translation of the Psalms, three whole Verses are foisted into the 14th. Psalm.  
To this he Answers, that those Verses are in the Epistle to the Romans, Cap. 3. and in the LXX Translation, which for aught he knows is of as good Authority, as the Hebrew at this Day is, and to be preferred before the Hebrew in this 14th. Psalms, p. 8, 9  
That those additional Verses are in Rom. 3. no Body Questions; and that they were transcribed out of that epistle into the LXX Version, Jerom positively affirms, Prefat. Lib. 16. in Isa. And he adds in the same Place, that these Verses are not in the LXX Translation, and that none of the Greek Interpreters have Commented on them.  
It is certain, they are not to be found in most of the Greek Copies, Manuscript and Printed, vid. Fr. Luc. Burgs. in Lib. Notat. ad varias Lect. Vulg. Edit.  
I will not Dispute at this time the Authority of the LXX, but if it be as good as the present Hebrew Copy, it is very uncertain what becomes of the Rector's Text, for it is not in my Edition of the Septuagint, Printed at Cambr. 1665 Juxta exemplar Vaticanum, which is one of the best Copies. Thus the Rector by maintaining one absurdity runs himself into more, and by advancing the Septuagint, hath lost his Text.  
We have Reason to believe that the Hebrew Copies were incorrupt in our Saviour's Time, who never charged the Jews with corrupting the Scriptures. And Philo not long after, writes, that even unto his Times, for the space of above 2000 Years, not one Word had ever been changed in the Law of the Hebrews, and that every Jew would sooner die a hundred Deaths, than suffer the Law to be changed in any one Point. Phillip de Egress. fill. Isr. ab Aegypto. This Testimony is cited by Euseb. Praepar. Evang. VIII. 2.  
The Invention of the Masora, in which all the Verses, Words, and Letters of all the Books of the Old Testament are numbered, has been an effectual means to preserve the Purity of the Hebrew Copies. If it be as old as Ezra the Scribe, as the Learned Buxtorf conceives, it renders it impossible that any Corruption should have crept into the Hebrew Copies, vid. Buxt. Tiberias.  
But if it were written after the Talmud, by the Jews of Tiberias about the Year 500 as Elias Levita, Capellus, and others think, it has undeniably secured the Hebrew Copies from all Corruption since that Time. And it is highly improbable, they should be corrupted between Philo's Time, and the Invention of the Masora, according to this latter Hypothesis. For the Hebrew Copies which Jerom had towards the latter end of the Fourth Century were incorrupt, and had not the additional Verses in Psalm 14. Nor can we imagine that the Jews of that Age had degenerated from the Zeal of their Ancestors for the Purity of the Law.  
The Rector himself allows the Masora to be before the Birth of Christ, for saith he, The Jews were Religious to Superstition, as may be thought, counting the very Letters of the Bible to preserve it entire: Hereunto our Lord alludes in Mat. 5.18. p. 13.  
On the other Hand, it's certain we have not a pure Version of the LXX at this Day, as all the Learned agree. And Dr. Lightfoot affirms more than once, that the Translation that goes under the name of the LXX was dressed with more Craft than Sincerity by the first Interpreters, and gives many Instances of it, Vol. 1. p. 401, 402 667. 806. and Vol 1. p. 1004, 1005.  
It is unfair therefore in the Rector to depress the Authority of the Hebrew Copies in favour of the LXX (which differs greatly from 'em) and thereby tempt People to question the Purity of our authorized English Bibles, which are all Translations of the Hebrew.  
We agree with him in the next Head, that  
5. It is not corrupting the Word, when we translate it into Vulgar Tongues, p. 9 to p. 12.  
6. It is not adding to the Word, when a new Prophet arising delivers some further Messages to the Churches, which are affixed to the Canon of the Scripture; so all the following Books of Scripture, notwithstanding my Text, were added to the Canon unto the end of Revelations, where (for aught we yet know) the Book is shut up, p. 12.  
Here he seems uncertain, whether we may not yet expect new Revelation, and a new Canon of Scripture. For our parts we are Content with that we 〈◊〉, and shall leave this Point to be concerted between the Rector and the Quakers.  
2. He shows Positively, when we add or diminish from the Word.  
1. We diminish, when we cast away any, never so little Part of it, p. 13.  
I leave it to Consideration, Whether the Titles of the Psalms be not a little Part of the Word of God, and owned for such in our authorised Bibles.  
But yet Interest has a Bias, adds he, instance M. (he would say Justin Martyr) has charged the Jews with this Practice.  
Justin M. charges them with corrupting the LXX, but not the Original Hebrew, which he ought to have taken Notice of.  
2. Then we diminish when we reject whole Books, as the Sadducees and Samaritans of old did, all but the five Books of Moses, p. 14.  
It is a Vulgar Error, that the Sadducees and Samaritans rejected all the Old Testament, but the five Books of Moses, occasioned by a Passage in Josephus That the Sadducees received the Law only, Antiq. Judas XVIII. 2. Where a he speaks of the written Law in Opposition to the Oral Law, which the Pharisees received. Thus he explains himself, Antiq. Judas XIII. 18.  
Dr. Lightfoot gives Instances of their owning other parts of Scripture, Vol 2. p. 541, 542.  
3. We diminish from the Word, when we lay it aside as not necessary or not the Supreme Rule of Faith, p. 14.  
This implies, as if if there were some other, at least subordinate Rules of Faith▪ What these are, he does not think fit to tell us? We know no Rule of Divine Faith but the Holy Scriptures.  
From the 15th to the 20th Page, he well asserts the Sufficiency, Perspicuity and Supreme Authority of the Scriptures, p. 15. to p. 20.  
Were this Principle practically acknowledged, it would soon heal our Breaches, by disposing Men to lay aside the unscriptural Terms of Christian Communion, which have been the fatal Engines of Disunion and Schism.  
4. We diminish from the Word, when we add any thing to it, p. 20.  
He gives two Instances of this, 1. When any thing is tacked unto the Word not belonging to it, as is the Apocrypha by the Papists, but I hasten, saith the Rector.  
But why in so much hast? You must know he is upon a tender Point, which would not be long dwelled upon. But if he be not in too much haste, I with tell him a Story in his Ear, of a sort of People that leave out a considerable Part of Canonica. Scripture, as the 1st. and 2d. Books of Chronicles, much of Ezekiel, the Song of Solomon, and most of the Revelation, and substitute in the room of it, a great Part of the Apocrypha, and among other Passages the fabulous Story of Bell and Dragon, to be Read in the Public Congregation, for two Months of the Year: Which tempts Ignorant People to fancy the Bible is not complete without the Apocrypha.  
But we must not detain him too long from his Chief Point, to which he is come at length under the next Head.  
2. We both add to the Word and diminish from it, when we altar it, especially so as that it carries quite another Sense, than what was intended by the Spirit of God. And now I am come at length (saith he) to the Point I chief aimed to insist on, p. 20.  
The prosecuting of this Point takes up the eight last Pages.  
Having given this Scheme of the Sermon, we will now follow him to his Eminent Instance of corrupting the Word, the chief Reason of his Undertaking this Subject.   

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 styles 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 Preached upon a Public Occasion, that is, as I ●m informed, 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 denied: 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 approve for open miscarriages, but to accuse of some secret Crimes, which no body but himself pretends to know any thing of. All the Concern he had with the Reverend Assembly to which he Preached, was to endeavour to raise in them an ill-natured passion, (which he miscalls 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 though his Diligence and Observation has not been a little (as he tells us p. 22.) in searching 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, viz. 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 oversight 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 Erratas of the Press, and turn them into Presbyterian Crimes.  
This is another Tentamen novum, and the Truth is, all our Author's 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 authorises 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 People's Power to set up their own Teachers. (p. 23, 24, 25.)  
He is a Man of unparallelled Confidence, that dare undertake to persuade 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 designed 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 Supreme Judge, that I never knew any Protestant Dissenter, Minister or Layman, that expressed 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 condemned 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 Villainy, which he has not yet offered; his circumstantial proof shall be considered before we part with him.  
It is the manner of some men (as he for good reasons observed) to accuse stoutly— for though 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 increase 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 may be false, but their Secret and Night-meetings may be sufficient to ground a suspicion on. 
† Min. Foel. Octau. 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 eos 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 outshine 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 death 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 Bedchambers.  
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 Soldiers that watched the Sepulchre 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 satisfy some People, that the thing was secretly done, and the Disciples might well be called 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 happened 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 Public, 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 chief 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 occurred as considerable as this of Ye for We, which he could 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 informed) 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 wholesome 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 charged 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Have some Bible's 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. soul 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, lie, for softly.  
Rom. 2.14. Laws, for Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
— 2.18. approved, for approvest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Jer. 23.36. and the battle (it should be the burden) 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 could 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 Bishop's 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 Bishop's power, and this mighty man of Diligence, Observation and Faithfulness, p. 22. can easily pass by all the rest.   

CHAP. II. In which his Arguments are Answered.  
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 sum of the Charge is, That he suspects the Presbyterians have corrupted Acts 6.3. in the Year 1638, and secretly promoted the corruption ●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 taxed— Again," The Error must be confessed, and believed a wilful one—" When the Presbyterian Government (or Congregational, I can't tell which) is publicly maintained 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 Falsehood; and grounding themselves upon a mere Error of the Press, as we will suppose it was at first, deceiving▪ and being deceived, do lie 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 Schismatic? 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 considered, 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 though I will not promise so much, yet something I have to offer towards it, which though it amounts not to a direct Proof against any Persons, yet I think, may pass for a good Circumstantial one.  
1. '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 Error must be confessed, and believed 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 falsehood, 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 falsehood, 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 murdered such as opposed their Opinions, and laid violent hands on themselves that they might be thought to have suffered Martyrdom by the hands of the Catholics. 
† 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 rendering Circumcelliones Circumcellians, for he does not seem to tie himself to such Scripture-Rules 
* Matth. 5.22.2.  as 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 combined 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 Schismatic, 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 Rhetoric 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 having 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 Readins I mentioned 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 Public Sermon, be judged 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 abovementioned 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 designed: 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 accidental slip, an unfortunate oversight, and a mere 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 Archbishop Lau● and his Faction with great severity.  
Many were Suspended, Deprived and Excommunicated for not reading the Book of Sports, to countenance the Profanation 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 guests 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 Archbishop deigned to pursue 'em, and to Dragoon 'em into the English Conformity. Take the History of Dr. Heylin's own words, It was once under Consolation of the Chief Physicians, to send a Bishop over to them, and back him with some Forces to compel, if he were not otherwise able to persuade 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.  
Hear the Historian: Nor was the Archbishop less intent upon all Advantages for keeping down the Genevian Party, and hindering them from Printing and Publishing any thing which might disturb the Church's Peace, or Corrupt her Doctrine. To this End he procured a Decree to be Passed 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) Heyl. Ibid. P. 362, 363.  By means of this Decree the Archbishop 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 Vnlicensed Books, he hindered the Importation of the Geneva Bibles with Notes from Holland, where some of them had been Seized 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, designed for England, if the terror of this Decree did not stop their coming 
(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 Public 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 Chimeras of his own Invention.  
I know nothing in appearance that tended then to the Subversion of Episcopacy in England, except ●ines, Impr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 s, Battledores, and other Severities against Conscientious 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 signed long before by King James (the First 
(b) Laud's Life, P. 364.  England) and the whole Kingdom of Scotland. This is expressly 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 itself.) 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) Rush. Collect. Par. 2. p. 831. .  
I Justify not the Irregularities of that Time, but they were occasioned by Archbishop aluas Innovations, contrary to Archbishop 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 Condescension, and by another Declaration of his Pleasure anent Anulling the Service Book, Book of Canons, and High Commission, discharging the pressing of the Practice of the Five Articles of Perth But the People's Jealousies of the unlimited Power of their Bishops were grown then so high, that nothing would satisfy 'em but the Abolition of that New Order, which had been imposed upon 'em (as they conceived) contrary to their Old National Covenant, by which they Judged 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 Household, 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 Subscribed by all sorts of Persons in the Year 1590. with a General Band annexed, for Maintenance of the true Religion, and the King's Person)  
But being sensible that this Confession favoured Presbytery, they Signed 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) 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 touched by the Royal Sceptre) 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) 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 detained 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 unhandsomely 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 spoiled 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 received by the general Consent of the Scotch Nation 
(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, occasioned 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 Universities, 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 Universities have improved in Morals since they were rid of Presbytery, I will 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 Colleges were fully in the Interests of Archbishop Laud, viz.  
Dr. Consins, Mr. of Peterhouse; Dr. Laney, Mr. of Pembroke-Hall; Dr. Martin, Mr. of Queen's College; 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 College; Dr. Samuel Ward, Professor of Divinity, and Mr. of Sidney College; 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 looked upon as Puritans or Presbyterians, viz.  
Dr. Bainbrig, Mr. of Christ's College; Dr. Love, Mr. of Bennet College; Dr. Eden, a Civilian, Mr. of Trinity-Hall.  
Dr. Badgecroft, Mr. of Caius College, 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 Talents, who was a Student then in 38.  
By this it appears what a ridiculous Story it is, that the Universities 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 professed 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 Judgement 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.  
This 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 United Brethren.  
And could 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 presented unto the Apostle; was made by the People. 
† p. 3.   
Whether the Rector of Bury were according 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 increase 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 People's 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 Judgement 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 People's 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 designed to corrupt this place, p. 24.  
Answer.  
This proves nothing against the Dissenters, nor do they charge the Episcopal Party with any design of corrupting it, though 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.  
Nor will any one of sense (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 appearance, 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-builder, who hath supported the Foundations of their Government by so strong an Argument as is here proposed, viz. The Apostles Ordained Dea●●●s to se●●●●ables, therefore the Church ought to be governed by Bishops. But he spoils all 〈◊〉 ●y s●●ing, That th●ir Church Government seems to be built on this Scripture, which, in ●lain English, 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 supported 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 IU.  
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 People's 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● show 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 circumstances.  
He picks up a spurious Story, perhaps in the next Coffeehouse or Alehouse, 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 Original 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.  
5. 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 charged upon the whole Church of Scotland? And must the Error of one Scotch-m●n be charged upon all the English P●esb●te●ians? This is such a piece of Justice, as none will defend, but a Hama●, who s●●l●s to be revenged of all the J●●rs, because one N●●●●●c●l had offended.  
Thus I have Examined his Four Circumstantial Proofs, which appear to be as silly as they are malicious.  
He suggests one thing more in a Marginal 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 Roger 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. Talents of Salop.  that was in Cambrilge in 36, and continued Fellow of a College till 〈◊〉 assures me he knew Tho. ●uck very w●●l, and gives this Character of him, that he wa● an Eminent, Grave Church-of- 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 Presbyterian, (which is not very likely, considering what a watchful Eye Archbishop 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 designed Corruption of the place, for he himself acknowl●dges the first Corruption to be an Oversight, a mere 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 than 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 calmly propagated, because the Frames of the Bible are often kept entire, 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.   

CHAP. III. More Considerations to show 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 appeared 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 Duveil on the Acts, though he was an Anabaptist, as I am informed. 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 designed 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 Misprinted.  
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.  
1648 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' 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' Printers, Twelv. we.  
1658 Cambr. by Jo. Field, one of his Highness' 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 could 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 falsify the Sacred Text.  
4. Several Editions in King Charles the Second 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.  
1675. 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 could 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.  
1670. 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 Octavos 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 aught 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 24s, 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.  
Therefore 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 easy as he can. I will not intrude upon his Province, to inquire 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 Master's Printers, to get sober and conscientious Correctors.  
I am of this Gentleman's mind, That some effectual course should be taken to rectify 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 Critic, or designing Adversary, who may take occasion to pick quarrels with 'em, and demand Judgement 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 threatening 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 showed 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. IU. 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 merely to support their Proposition. Mr. B. who drew up the Petition and since has been publicly charged 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.  
He that will make Silence an Argument of Gild, 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 mere 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, though 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, merely because imposed, but imposed because necessary under present Circumstances.  
Had the cited the very words of the Text, he would have rendered '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. citys 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 Italic 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 looked more generous in this Criminator, to have answered 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 examined the truth of it. For thus he gins 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 perused the Petition itself, it would have cured his Ignorance concerning the distance of time.  
Besides he citys 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 itself, 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 overlooked, 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 thyself, for thou that judgest dost the same things, Rom. 2.1.  
I confess, I love not recriminations, but when a Man is so quicksighted, as to behold a mote in his brother's 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 review the Scripture-Quotations in his own Sermon, he'll find many of 'em not exactly rendered. He would reckon it unfair did we go about to aggravate its Oversights, and charge him with poisoning the fountainhead, refining upon the Word of God, lying against the Holy Ghost, etc. He would say, these were hard Words; and yet this is the Language he gives the Dissenters for a literal fault, which he cannot prove upon them.  
Instances of his careless and lose 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 rendered 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, etc. so it is in the Original Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verbis ejus. Here is a literal 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 literal 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 literal variation from the Language of the Holy Ghost, the sense and meaning cannot be long secured.  
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, though the Original he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and properly rendered 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 aught from it. It ought to be thus read, Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught 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 compared 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 aught from it, p. 2.  
He may read it as he pleases, but those Words, neither diminish aught 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 filled it up from parallel Scriptures, shall we pretend it ought to be read thus? This would create as many various Readins, as there are parallel Texts.  
Unhappy Solomon! Hadst thou lived in our days to consult a Man wiser than thyself, he would 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 aught from it. However, thou canst 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 aught 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.  
And 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 citys Isa. 11.9. That the knowledge of the Lord might cover the Earth, as the Waters cover the Sea. Our Bible's 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render shall be full, will not admit of the Rector's Translation. Schindler (in his Lexic. Pentaglot.) mentions four significations of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not one to the Rector's purpose.  
Nor will the Lxx's Translation relieve him, for that has 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 certify to every man, etc. p. 13. Our English Bibles have it, I testify unto every man— And the Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, aught to be so rendered. 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 citys Matth. 5.18.— Till Heaven and Earth pass away, not one jor, or tittle shall pass from the Law.  
Our Bible's render the Verse thus— Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 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 overlooks 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, etc. p. 21.  
Our Authorized Bible's have it thus, Look ye out among you seven Men— Here he puts seek for look (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 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 Unstable and Unlearned wrist, as they do all the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.  
In our Bible's the words are thus, Which they that are Unlearned and Unstable wrist, as they do also the other Scriptures, etc.  
Here he not only perverts the Order of the Holy Ghost, in the words, Unlearned and Unstable; but for also the other Scriptures, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 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.  
To declaim 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. Tun 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 chief 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 punished by the old Roman Laws, Aul. Gell. xx. 1. And God himself has leveled 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 poison, 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 presumed to have no great regard to the Truth of God's Word.  
'Twas a saying of Pythagoras, that the Gods had granted unto Men two amiable Blessings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Judgements 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 wholesome 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 poisoned Arrow of a False Tongue could have done it. (3.) Of his Diocesan, and that Public 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, for the Prejudices he has violently endeavoured 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 condemned 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 its 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 cheerfully 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 Inspired Writings.  
I shall conclude with some of the first words of his Epistle, in which he tells the World, That he has been persuaded 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 Public a false Accusation, which had it been suppressed within those Walls, where it was delivered, might have passed 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 persuade 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 ourselves obliged 〈◊〉 them, for putting us in a capacity to vindicate ourselves.  
Though, when all is done, the thanks is principally owing to the Rector himself, whose Singular  to the Dissenters, inclined him to an easy compliance with the agreeable Request of his private friends.  
Some Jesuits have asserted, That it's only a Venial Sin to calumniate falsely, to maintain their own honour, and to ruin the Credit of those they take for their Enemies. They have in many cases notoriously practisect accordingly, 
§ Mist 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 betrayed 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, taxed. Epist.  
It is no more my disposition than his, to expose any man's mistake, whilst it keeps in Doors, and contains itself 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 overmuch 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 selfsame Mistake, long before this Author, in an Ordination-Sermon, as sundry then present, are ready to testify.