THE Argument I am about to treat of is weighty, and not easily compriz'd in one single Discourse. It will there­fore concern me to husband my time as thrif­tily as may be, and chiefly to lay aside all thoughts of further Preface.

The Text is a Negative Precept forbidding all manner of Corrupting the Holy Scriptures, and that under a double Caution:

1. Lest God reprove thee for it, a terrible In­timation.

2. Lest thou be found a Liar, One of the most detestable Sins in the sight both of God and Man. That by His Word is meant the Word of God is manifest from the Verse foregoing— Every Word of God is pure, v. 5. Then it follows— Add not thou unto his Word, i. e. to the Word of God. That we at this day are to understand hereby the written Word or Scriptures is not to be question'd, there being now no other Word of God, 1 Cor. 10. 11. but that which is written for our Instruction, upon whom the ends of the world are come. [Page 2] When the Prophet Agur says, Add not; He must be supply'd thus, neither diminish from the Word. For so the Parallel places in the Mar­gent do warrant, Deut. 4. 2. & 12. 32. Ye shall not add unto the Word, neither shall ye diminish ought from it. Thou shalt not add thereunto neither diminish from it, said Mo­ses to the Israelites: For the Holy Spirit does not always express things to the full, but leaves 'em oft times to be made up out of some other places; hinting here but briefly what elsewhere he more fully sets forth. For which reason therefore I would read the Text thus, Add not thou unto his Word, neither diminish ought from it. And then (as I said) the Text is levell'd against all manner of Corrupting the Word. One Emi­nent Instance of which I shall produce by and by, the chief Reason of my undertaking this Subject. I will confine my self unto the Pre­cept, in handling whereof my method shall be.

1. To lay before you Negatively some Ca­ses, which though they may seem to be, yet are not adding to, nor diminishing from, the Word.

2. I will shew positively when we either add or diminish, or both, contrary to the Pre­cept here given. 1. Negatively, &c. And that in the following eases: It is not an adding unto the Word, when we explain and fill up any Pas­sage of Scripture out of some other places— wherein we find the Truth more fully exprest. [Page 3] For in this consists the very Office and Duty of a Preacher, and Explainer of the Scripture. And this I plead for my sufficient Warrant in taking the liberty of supplying the Text out of other Parallel Places, as you see I have done. 2. It is not diminishing from the Word, when we o­mit the Hebrew Titles of the Psalms; Nor is it adding to the Word when we prefix the Latine Titles to 'em.

There was of late a Gentleman who in de­fence of Nonconformists alledg'd against the establisht Worship. Mr. De Laune in Lr. to Dr. Calamy page 43. ‘That in the Psalms used in the Liturgy are left out the Antient Hebrew Titles, which are (says he) Original and Parts of the H. Scripture, having a tendency to­wards the unfolding the Mysteries therein contain'd.’ And he quarrels at the Latine Titles prefixt thereunto. But it were well if the Dissenters, whose Cause he pleads, would first prove that those Hebrew Titles are Original and Essential Parts of the Holy Scripture, and then if they are so, that they would give us a Reason why in that very Translation, which they approve and make use of, those Original Titles are indeed retain'd, but in the Hebrew Language still in many Psalms and unintelligi­ble to the People; or why the Translation of 'em into plain English, is not always placed at the head of the Psalm, but often cast into the [Page 4] Margent, as if they were something else than Scripture; neither of which ought to be, if these Titles be part of, and so useful towards, the un­folding the Sense of the Psalm. And hereupon I ask whether this is not a sufficient Intimation, that they are not of a Certainty, what they are confidently affirm'd to be, Viz. Original. I would moreover be resolv'd what those My­steries are which those Hebrew Titles do unfold: Whether the Dissenters read 'em to their Con­gregations, and if they do, whether the People are one jot the wiser or understand the Myste­ries of the Psalter, ever a whit the better for 'em. Lastly, I desire to know, why they do not affix 'em, or rather the Translation of 'em to the front of the Psalms. In Metre and like­wise sing 'em: All which ought to be done, if they are es­sential Parts of the Psalms But if they desire to be ex­cused these smaller faults, be it so yet, Aequum est peccatis veniam poscentes reddere rursus.

Let then the World judge, whether this Author sought not an occasion of quarrel against us and yet found none, except what involves his own Party in the same condemnation. As for the Latine Titles they are (any one may know,) but the first words of every Psalm, and so by consequence undoubted Parts of Scripture, as edifying too as the Hebrew Titles are. In short, that they are borrow'd from the Romanists, Yea the whole He­brew Bi­ble. may be granted and defended too. For so were the Hebrew Titles from the Modern Jews.

[Page 5] 'Tis not, I confess, worth while to take No­tice of such Stuff as this, and I am really asham'd of the Digression. But the Peevishness of an Adversary will sometimes extort a Reply, tho' it deserves it not; and it may be fit now and then to let the Contentious see their own Folly and Frowardness.

I conclude then that the leaving out the Hebrew Titles is no diminishing, nor the affixing the Latine an adding to, the Word of God.

3. It is not diminishing from the Word, when we, intending to feed the flock of Christ with the sincere Milk of the Word, read some few Ver­ses of a Chap. omitting the rest for that time. The foremention'd Writer excepts against the reading the Epistles and Gospels, De L. page 44. telling us, thus. ‘That 'tis a curtailing or mangling the Scrip­tures, that thereby they become quite another thing than the Evangelists intended in the Gospels, or the Apostles in the Epistles, alto­gether ruining the Scope and Connexion in divers places.’ It is the manner of some Men to accuse stoutly, and in the general without offering any one Instance to shew the Truth of their objection. For tho' nothing be prov'd, yet something will stick, and at this rate who can hope to be found innocent?

But it might upon second Thoughts have been remembred, That the Dissenters 'emselves [Page 6] oft-times sing but two, sometimes but one Staff of a Psalm, and yet this is not a curtailing and mangling the Psalms: That the Scriptures were not divided by the inspired Pen-men into Chap­ters, as well as not into these shorter Paragraphs or Sections, which we call Epistles and Gospels; that there is a Connexion many times between Chapter and Chapter, and yet the reading of a single Chapter is not accounted a making the Scripture to become quite another thing than was intended. Loripedem Rectus deridat, Aethio­pem Albus. Surely it might have been remem­bred, that there are two sorts of Senses in every small Section of Scripture.

1. A Relative.

2. A Separate or Independent Sense. The Relative Sense (it's true) cannot be understood without the Neighbouring Parts; but how­ever is not thereby quite ruin'd. In saying so the Gentleman o'reshort himself, and by obje­cting too much, prov'd nothing at all against us. For to omit is not to destroy. And if it be necessary to read as much Scripture at one time, as there is a Connexion between the Parts, then must the Dissenters read many Chapters toge­ther, peradventure whole Books, and sing some of the longest Psalms without Intermissi­on, which is impossible.

Finally then, if the Dissenters can shew any [Page 7] one Epistle or Gospel, wherein the Relative Sense is altogether ruin'd, or the separate Sense in any wise injur'd, I promise then to subscribe to the Objectors judgment in this and all others his rash accusations of us. When O Lord, O when shall we find Truth and Peace and Sincerity upon the Earth? When shall all unnecessary Squabbles cease from among us Men?

4. It is not adding to the Word, when several Passages tending to the same purpose, tho' found in distant places or different Books of Scripture, yet are cast into one complex Sentence or Sen­tences, Ʋbi Su­pra. as it were depending one of another. The so oft mention'd Gentleman Objects; That in the Liturgy Translation of the Psalms, three whole verse are foisted into the 14th Psalm immediately af­ter the 3d v. They run thus ‘Their Throat is an open Sepulchre, with their Tongues have they deceiv'd thee: Poison of Asps is under their Lips, &c. Which (says he,) are not in any of the Original Copies.’ But hold here I pray. Have not the inspired Pen-men of the New Testa­ment quoted some Texts out of the Old from re­mote Places and Authors, twisting 'em together as one entire and complex Passage? Doubtless there are Examples of this kind to be met with; I will content my self with a single one. 1 Cor. 15. 54, 55. Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallow'd up in Victory. O Death, where is thy Sting? [Page 8] O Grave where is thy Victory? And yet this Saying, being borrow'd Part from the Prophet I say, and Part from Hoseah, Isa. 25. 8. is by St. Paul cited as one sin­gle and intire Testimony of Scripture. Hos. 13. 14. In like manner, these three Verses are to be found at least scatter'd up and down in the Book of Psalms, part in the 5th Ps. 9th v. and part in the 140th Ps. 2d and 3d Verses. See Is. 59. 7, 8.

If this answers not Expectation, Deut. 32. 33. I add further, That St. Paul in the 3d Chap. to the Romans, has subjoyn'd the 3. Objected Verses, immediately to the 3d v. of the 14th Ps. ‘As it is written (says he,) There is none that doth good, no not one: Their throat is an open Sepulchre & so on to the end of the three objected Verses.’ Surely St. Paul's Epistle to the Rom. may at least excuse, if not justifie, this suppos'd Alteration of the Psalms. It is rather to be feared that the Objector himself had a design upon the Scripture: Whilst he is accusing us for adding thereto, himself is di­minishing from it; and rather than spare us, is calling into Question the great Apostle of the Gentiles for adding to the Word.

But above all, with what Effrontery could this learned Man & skill'd in the Original Languages (as he pretends,) tell his Readers, that those three Verses are not in any of the Original Copies? Per­haps his own Party has hitherto believ'd him, but if they will give me leave, I'll open their eyes [Page 9] in a very few words. For (not to take Notice of that absurd saying Original Copies, which he would or should have said Copies of the Original,) what are we to think of the Greek? That certainly is to be accounted One of the Originals, if there be more than One, as himself seems to intimate. And there I read just as I read in the Liturgy Translation, and as I read in St. Paul. Again I might say with the learned Vossius, that the Greek Copy, for ought I know, is of as good Authority as the Hebrew at this day is, and for my Reasons I send you to his History of the 70 Translation: Only take this a­long with you, that (as has been already noted) St. Paul (which also the other holy Writers of the New Testament generally do in other places) follows the Greek, and not the Hebrew Copy in citing this 14th Psalm, which is no contemptible Argument for the Authority of the 70. Transla­tion. Briefly, we have this further Advantage on our side, that 'tis more Probable the three contro­verted Verses might be left out of the Hebrew Copies, by the carelesness of the Transcribers, than thrust into the Greek by the Translators. 'Tis easier (supposing 'em both honest and sin­cere) for Transcribers to omit, than Translators to add so much together of their own head.

5. 'Tis not adding to, nor diminishing from, nor corrupting the Word, when we Translate it into Vulgar Tongues. All Christians have done [Page 10] so. Yea the Romanists 'emselves in former Ages did so, tho' of late, they have been contrary minded for fear forsooth of mistaking the Word, or cor­rupting it. Anastasius Patr. of Ant. apud Ʋserii Hist. Dogma. Multarum Gentium linguis Scriptura Translata docet falsa esse quae addita sunt. Hie­ron Prae­fat. ad 4. Evang. O Fools and slow of heart! One of the Ancients has affirm'd, that the version of the Scrip­tures into many Languages, is the best way to preserve 'em uncorrupt. Besides, why do they suffer the Word to be Transcribed or Printed at all or in any Lan­guage? Doubtless the Word of God may be corrupted by Transcribing or Printing it, as well as by Translating it. Transcribing we know was, & Printing now a days is the Work often of igno­rant & mechanical Men, who are more liable to mistakes: but Translating is the business of the Learned. Ay, but St. Jerom confest himself subject to mistakes in Translating the Scripture. Very good! and yet he Translated it for the use of the Latine Christians, and his Translation is for the most part read unto this day. Why then may not a Learned Priest or Bishop now a days render it into the Italian, as well as Jerom formerly did into the Latine and Dalmatick? S [...]e. l. 4. c. 33. S [...]z. l. 6. c. 37. phi [...]est. l. 2. c. 6. apud Vissr. ibid. As St. Chrysostom into the Armenian, As Ulphilas into the Gothick, Or as the Ancients did every one into his own Tongue. ‘For it was anciently done into many different Tongues says Hesychius of Jerusalem: Into 72. says Anastasius of Antioch: Into innumerable Tongues says St. Chrysostom: Into the Langua­ges of all Nations of the Earth, that had receiv'd [Page 11] the Faith, says Theodoret: Yea into every Tongue under the Sun says Eusebius.’ In short even at this day, we have a Noble Monument of the Judg­ment and Practice of Antiquity, I mean the Po­lyglot Bibles: So that the Catholick Church in the Primitive Times, might have said as the Jews did, 2d Acts, That they heard and read every one in his own Tongue the wonderful Works and WORDS of God. But setting aside this, that it should be lawful and safe to have the Scripture Translated into Latin only, is to me a strange Paradox. For what Priviledge has God bestow'd on the Latin more than on o­ther Tongues? All certainly one as well as the o­ther are capable of Mistakes and Corruptions. The Hebrew indeed had once the Honour of be­ing the Holy Language and (as I may say,) the immediate Vehicle of the Divine Will. The Greek succeeded next into it's Room. The reason of both is obvious. The Word of God was first directly intended for the Israelites only, therefore first wrote in their Tongue: Afterwards for the whole World, therefore wrote in the most Vulgar and Common Language the Greek. Yet so as that by degrees it was Translated into every Language, Is. 11. 9. to the end, that the Knowledge of the Lord might cover the Earth, as the Waters cover the Sea.

The Inscription on the Cross was wrote in La­tin. True! But 'twas by the command of Pontius Pi­late, that accursed Crucifier of our Lord, in ho­nour of his own Language, and for the better in­formation [Page 12] of the Romans. His Coun­try Men. Yet who can say that the Evangelists in their Greek, and inspired Histo­ries, continu'd it afterwards in the same Latine Tongue? I never yet somuch as heard of any M. S. or Printed Greek Testament with the Latin In­scription retain'd in it. Moreover we know that as no Hebrew nor Greek, so no Latin Bible is an O­riginal; nor indeed is there any such thing as an Original at this day. All our Bibles, in whatever Language, are either Translations or Transcripts, which is the same thing to our present purpose, both, as I said, being liable to mistakes.

Finally, then the Word of God is his Word, be it in what Language it will, and as much the Word of God in one, as in another, there being (as I have said) no Original at this day. Briefly, one may add or diminish in Transcribing and Printing, as well as in Translating: Therefore either both or neither are to be laid aside.

6. It is not adding to the Word, when a new Pro­phet arising delivers some further Messages to the Churches, which are affixt to the Canon of Scripture. For the Rule in the Text runs thus, Thou shalt not add, speaking unto us Men. Nevertheless God may add to it when ever he pleases, and whatever he thinks fit. So that all the following Books of Scripture were, notwithstanding my Text, added to the Canon unto the end of the Re­velations, where (for ought we yet know) the Book [Page 13] is shut up in these Words. ‘For I certifie unto e­very Man, Rev. 22. 18, 19. that heareth the Words of the Pro­phesie of this Book; if any Man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book: And if any Man shall take away from the Words of the Book of this Prophesie, God shall take away his Part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things, which are writ­ten in this Book.’ Which brings me to the 2. Head; sc. To shew positively when we add or diminish ought from the Word of God. And first of Di­minishing.

1. Then we diminish from the Word, when we cast away any, never so little Part of it. Won­derful was the Care of the Jews herein, and Religi­ous they were to Superstition (as may be thought) counting the very Letters of the Bible to preserve it intire. Mat. 5. 18. Hereunto our Lord alludes— Till Hea­ven and Earth pass away not one jott or tittle shall pass from the Law. Where tho' he is not speaking of the outward Letter as I now am, but of the Intrin­sick and Mystical Truths, which were to be ful­filled in Christ, and ever to remain in force: Yet (however) he suits his Expression unto the Jews Curiosity in keeping the Word from being di­minisht in the least Point.

But yet Interest has a Byas. Dial. cum Tryph. Instance M. has charg'd the Jews home with this Practice instan­cing [Page 14] in several Passages out of Ez. Neh. the Psal. Isa. Jer. and Ezek. that were expung'd, because they seem'd too plainly to point at Jesus Christ. And all the World knows the Papists, in their Ca­techism at least, have assum'd and exercis'd a like expurgatory Power, upon the second Command­ment. Much more,

2. Then we diminish from the Word, when we reject whole Books, as the Sadducees and Sama­ritans of Old did all but the 5. Books of Moses, and as many over Subtil and Wickedly Critical Wits among the Christians have done, calling in­to Question many intire Books of the New Te­stament, and some there are who have endea­vour'd to cashiere 'em all. But,

3. We diminish from the Word, when we lay it aside as not a Necessary, or not the Supreme Rule of Faith. This is to diminish from it's Au­thority. Some either Weak or Hypocritical Chri­stians in Times of Old deliver'd up their Bibles to their Persecuters, and for so doing were Brand­ed with that disgraceful Name of Traditors, Traitors. And yet questionless they had, or might have had, the usual Excuses at hand, which are currant now a days. ‘That they had the Light within 'em, to guide 'em into all Truth, That they had other Lights without 'em, The Writ­ings of Holy and Learned Men, The assi­stance of Bishops and Priests and the infallible [Page 15] Popes, The daily Conversation of the Faith­ful, and the Decrees of Councils to direct and instruct 'em: Moreover, that the Truths and Mysteries of the Gospel (whatever became of of the written Word) might be transmitted by Oral Tradition unto Posterity; and upon the whole matter, that there was no necessity of the written Word of God.’ But these new Pre­texts, notwithstanding the Church, condemn'd their Treachery: All which shews that in the Judgment both of the Church, and of the Perse­cuters too, neither the Light within, nor the Writings of Holy Men, nor the Decrees of Coun­cils, nor the Infallibility of the Popes, nor Oral Tradition, nor all of 'em, were sufficient to up­hold the Doctrine of Christianity; and this de­monstrates the necessity of the written Word of God, & that 'tis the only Necessary and Supreme Rule of Faith.

There is a pernicions Law among the Ro­manists, forbidding the People to Read the Scrip­ture, which is a great Diminution of at least the Honour, the Sufficiency and Perspicuity of the Word.

'Tis pretended that it was found, Council. Trid. Bel­larmin. &c. certissimo Experimento, that ignorant and malicious Men did improve it unto Errours and Heresies by mi­staking or depraving its meaning. But this is a meer shift to palliate the Injury done to the [Page 16] Word of God, contrary to the sense and practice of all Antiquity. For our Predecessors in the Faith, I mean, the Ancient Fathers, this Obj. notwithstanding, were wont constantly to call upon all the Faithful without distinction to read the Word, telling 'em, ‘It was not like Plato's Philosophy, or Pythagoras's Cryptical Discipline, calculated for the Meridian of a few of the Wiser Sort; but fitted and design'd for all to read and to understand, for the Wise and for the Unwise, for Kings of the Earth & for all People, for Souldiers and for Lawyers, for Monks and for Citizens of the World, for Priests and Laymen, for Husbandmen and Mariners, Artificers and Labourers, for Young Men and Maidens, Old Men and Children, and in a word for all Qualities, Ages, Sexes, Fortunes and Degrees of Men whatever; to be read in Publick and in Private, and at all times, as well at Home as Abroad, in the Church, and in the Fields, and in the Desarts, and in Journeys, & in a word in every place.’

Shall I, by the way, crave leave to offer you a Demonstration (of my own for any thing that I know) against our Adversaries certissimum Ex­perimentum, and that out of the Scripture it self too, because I am now pleading in its behalf. See then the second Epistle of Peter 1 chap. 19. v. We have also a more sure word of Prophesy where­unto [Page 17] ye do well to take heed as unto a Light that shi­neth in a dark place, compar'd with the 16. v. of the 3 d chap. of the same Epistle, As also in all his Epistles, our beloved Brother Paul has written speak­ing in 'em of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unstable and un­learned wrest, as they do all the other Scriptures unto their own Destruction. Out of which Passages I argue thus: See 4th Col. 16. & 17. Acts 11. v. ‘That which Peter the first Pope or Bi­shop of Rome (and Paul too) commended and encourag'd the People to, (sc. to take heed or to give attendance unto the reading of the Word, although it was known by most cer­tain Experience, that some wrested it to Errour and Heresy, and to their own Destruction) that ought not now be deny'd the People, because forsooth there be at this day also some among us that wrest it to their own Destruction: That which was not a competent Reason unto Peter, cannot be a sufficient Warrant unto his Succes­sors, to deprive the People of the Holy Scrip­tures: What Peter could not, would not, do, the Popes at this time of day cannot, should not, presume to do.’

But above all, to advance a Supreme Infalli­ble and Independent Authority in the Church, not Subordinate, yea Superiour, to the Scripture, with liberty even to contradict it, is certainly a diminishing of the Word, that is, its Soveraignty. [Page 18] The Power of the Word is like God himself, nec parem fert nec superiorem.

The Scripture is the intire body of the Divine Law, who then shall dare to Diminish ought from it, or thwart its Definitions? He that touches the apple of Gods Eye: He claims (as I may say) a share in the Legislative, yea, and makes him­self Superior even to God himself.

It was then an impudent Presumption, crimen laesae Majestatis in the Council of Constance, to take upon 'em to decree with a non-obstante, that tho' the Scripture says, Drink ye all of this, yet the La­ity (to whom also they confess it was spoken) shall not drink thereof. Thus they made the Word of God of none Effect by their Traditions, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, and declared 'emselves above Jesus Christ, that Canon being set above his Word by their own acknowledgment. And thus the Will and the Wisdom of Men took place of the Wis­dom and Will of God.

What shall we then think of those, who equal, nay prefer, the private Spirit of the Pope, and o­thers the Light within 'emselves, before the Word of God? St. Peter and the Believers he wrote to certainly had the Light within, and the Spirit in as great abundance as any at this time of day can pretend: [...] Ep. 1. 19, 20. And yet he tells his Flock— That no Prophesy of Scripture is of any private Interpretati­on: no not of E [...]ter himself. That we have a more sure Word of Prophesy whereunto we do well to take heed.

[Page 19] Tho' he had the Spirit and Light within, tho' he had the Honour and Advantage of seeing Christ Transfigur'd, and hearing the Voice from Heaven, v. 18. saying— This is my beloved Son: Yet for the proof of that very Proposition himself relies and exhorts the Faithful to rely rather on the Word of Prophesy, the Scripture, as a more sure Testimony. Surer than what? Why surer than any private Spirit or private Interpretation, tho' of the Infallible Peter himself: Surer than seeing Christ's Transfiguration: Surer than hearing the Voice from Heaven: Surer than the Light with­in. So that the Light within and all other Lights without were Darkness, unless they took heed to that more sure Word the Light of Gods Word. And yet the private Spirit and Light within, for­sooth, or that Planetary and false Light of Peters Successors without, must in these unhappy days of ours give check to the plain Testimony of Scripture, and be preferr'd before it; As in the use of the Lords Supper, one Part whereof those of the Roman Communion are depriv'd of. The Quakers reject both Sacraments: And the Lords Prayer many Dissenters despise, and other things might be instanced in. In short, what amounts all these spiritual Whymseys to? But the setting up either that more dimn Light at Rome, or the pri­vate Light of every Mans own Breast at home above that more sure Word of Scripture, whereunto we should do well to take heed. This is just such a­nother [Page 20] piece of folly, as if a Man should take his Journey in the night time by the dimnLight of the Moon, or by his own dark-Lanthorne in his hand, refusing the Light of the Sun by Day, which notwithstanding affords a much clearer Light and safer Conduct to the Travel­ler. Lastly,

4. We diminish from the Word even when we presume to add any thing to it. For this is as it were to tax it with some suppos'd Defects and Imperfections, which we, forsooth, would supply.

Now then as for adding to the Word in the first place.

1. We add to it when any thing is tackt un­to the Word not belonging to it. Thus we reckon the Papists to have made bold with the Scrip­ture, thrusting the Apochryphal Books into the Canon of the Old Testament. But I hasten,

2. We both add to the Word and diminish from it, when we alter it, especially so as that it carries quite another Sense than what was in­tended by the Spirit of God. And now I am at length come to the Point I chiefly aim'd to in­sist on. It is to be bewail'd, that so many vari­ous Readings have already been thrust into the Sacred Text, no body knows certainly when, nor where, nor by whom, nor on what Occasion, nor upon what Motive and Design. But I will not trouble you nor my self about this, which is [Page 21] not now to be remedy'd. I will rather advertise you of one of a fresher Date, which yet indeed has not, ought not to have the honour of pretend­ing to a various Lection.

The case in short is this. The Apostles 'emselves had from the beginning exercis'd the Offices of Preaching the Word, of Administring the Sacraments and of Dispensing the Alms gather'd at the Lords Supper. But the Church multiplying and business increasing upon their hands, there happen'd some Occasion of Complaint about the unequal distri­bution of the said Publick Alms. Whereupon the Apostles order'd the multitude, Acts. 6. 3. To seek out Seven Men of Honest report, and full of the Holy Ghost and Wis­dome, whom We (as some of our English Bibles have it or) whom Ye (as others) may appoint over this business. And hence a Question may be started, whether the People or the Apostles did appoint those Seven un­to the Offices aforesaid, and by consequence, whe­ther the People or the Bishops have Authority to appoint the Parochial Ministers. My business here is not to Argue that Point, but to Examin into this various Reading, which I shall do in resolving three Enquiries.

1. Which of the two Readings is the true one? The Resolution whereof is very easy. The Place ought to run thus— Whom We may appoint over the bu­siness. We the Apostles. In proof of this (if any should doubt it) I ap­peal to all the MSS and Printed Copies of the Greek Testament, I appeal to all the Collections of vari­ous [Page 22] Readings, I appeal to the Bibles into whatever Language Translated, I appeal to all the English Ver­sions and Impressions till of late, and I appeal to the History of the whole Fact here laid down, which supposes it of necessity. The Apostles had had that Business of Distributing the publick Alms in their own hands from the beginning, therefore they (not the People) delegated the Seven to it: Therefore it's not to be read Ye but We. But then the next En­quiry is,

2. When did this Corruption steal first into the Text? Answer, I will not be peremptory in this: But so far as my Diligence and Observation (which has not been a little, and mannaged with all Care & Faithfulness) is able to carry me, I must say, that it crept in first in the Year 1638. In that very Year, there was a Fair Bible in Folio Printed at Cambridge with this Erralum, By Tho. Buck, and Rog. Da­niel Printers to the Ʋniversi­ty: The latter of which was indeed the mannager of the Press, and in the Interest of that Pres­byterian Party. and this is the first time I have yet been able to discover the Corruption.

By the way, here I must beg your favourable Construction of this Remark. It is with the greatest Aversion and infinite Regret, that I am forced up­on this occasion to bewray my own Nest, and to speak out this great Truth to at least the seeming Dishonour of my own Mother University, from whose Breasts I suckt in all that little Knowledge I pretend unto. And this too in the Presence and the Hearing of some of the most Ingenious and Learned Children of her Rival Sister, who has (for ought I can learn) been somewhat happier in this kind.

[Page 23] But, however, as to the Fact so it came to pass, that while the chief Stewards of the Family were otherwise imploy'd, and the inferiour Servants (I think) sleeping, the Enemy sow'd these Tares, which have been growing ever since until now. This may suffice to point at the time when this Error first en­tr'd into our English Bibles, sc. in the Year 38. But,

Who then brought in this false Reading, or what Party among us at least encourag'd and promoted it since?

It is an Enquiry worthy to be made, and a clear and full discovery would deserve an Hecatomb. And tho' I will not promise so much, yet something I have to offer towards it, which tho' it amounts not to a direct Proof against any Persons, yet I think may pass for a good Circumstantial One. To my purpose then,

I will not be so Positive as to Averr, 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, and that upon the following Accompts.

1. Because the Alteration happen'd in the Year 38. 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 Extripate it, and England, even a great part of the Univer­sities [Page 24] '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 on.

2. 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 continu'd and propagated.

3. On the contrary, it cannot, with any Colour of Reason, be imagin'd, that the Episcopal Party design'd to Corrupt this Place, or to Connive at it's Corruption, except they shall be thought Fe­lones de se, and willingly and knavishly to destroy what they endeavour zealously to establish. Satan (as our Lord argues) cannot be thought to cast out Satan, and to throw down his own Kingdom. Nor will any one of Sense 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 Politie.

4. That Party ought in all Reason to be Suspe­cted of foul Play herein, who, admitting they did not at first on set, purpose, contrive the Corruption of this place, yet now, belike, contribute to the Con­firming and Vindicating it, and under the 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 the Proof of which Charge upon 'em, I need [Page 25] only to put you in mind of that memorable Story, which doubtless ye have many of you heard of, how that a Cameronian (one of the most rigid Sects of the Scotch Presbyterians) Preaching some years since concerning the Peoples Power of setting up their own Teachers, & having confirm'd his Point with some Reasons of his own (the Principal where­of was, I guess, that it was most agreeable to the Incli­nation of the Scotch Nation, which is just such a­nother Reason as an Adulterer also might give for his Wantonness.)

But, I say, having prov'd his Point as he thought (no matter to us how) at length bid his Audience not to believe him, but to turn to their Bible, and so sent them incontinently to the 6. Act. 3. v. where they might find their Character in these Words— Whom YE (the Multitude of Believers) may appoint over this Business. But whether this be a good Character, or has on it the stamp of Divine Authority, let the World judge by what has been already said. For a Conclusion then I would crave leave to address,

1. Unto all the Faithful in general; Men, Bre­thren and Fathers suffer me to entreat you in a few words, with all diligence, to preserve the Word of God pure and uncorrupt. If once the Fountain­head be poyson'd, the Streams will be so too, and from thenceforth we shall never be able to distin­guish between the Doctrines and Will of God, and the Inventions and Inclinations of Men. The Ad­versaries of Christianity, with design to overthrow [Page 26] the whole Frame of our Religion, have already endeavour'd to take advantage of those numerous and various Lections, which in times of darkness and ignorance heretofore stole into the Greek Te­stament (as I find it taken notice of in a Learned Preface to a late Edition) what then will they say, Printed at Oxford Theater Anno 1675. when they observe the purest Kirk in the World (as is pretended) tempering with, and refining up­on, the Word of God at this time of day? But let not us, to serve a Cause, or to draw the simple Peo­ple into our Interests, let not us (I say) dare to sub­orn any false Witness whatever, much less out of the Word of Truth. Let us leave that vile Artifice to our Adversaries on both hands. Truth needs not such feeble Supports, but is indeed very much dis­parag'd and weaken'd thereby. The brightest Truth will receive prejudice when we go about to establish it by a Lie, much more Points in Con­troversy, when they are varnish'd and washt over with false and fading Colours. 'Tis our Interest there­fore, as well as our Duty— To lay aside all Guile and Hypocrisie, and to feed our Flocks with the sincere Milk of the Word. 1 Pet. 2. 1, 2. To put away Lying, and to speak e­very Man Truth with his Neighbour. Eph. 4. 25. Let us take to our selves the Example of St. Paul—We are not (says he reflecting upon the Corinthian Schismaticks) as many which corrupt the Word of God: 1 Cor. 2. 17. But as of Sincerity, but as of God in the sight of God, speak we in Christ. And once more he saith— We have renounced the hid­den things of Dishonesty, c. 4. 2. not walking in Craftiness, nor hand­ling [Page 27] the Word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the Truth. The Apostle not obscurely hinting in these Words, that the Separatists at Corinth did so.

2. But above all, and with all Submission, I would beg of those, who are in Authority and do humbly propose, that some effectual course be ta­ken to make amends for this at first (I am willing to believe) unfortunate oversight committed (I am asham'd to repeat where) and to vindicate this Place in the Acts from the Injury it has suffer'd these Fifty Years past, and upward. How it may in some measure be repair'd is not hard to tell. I have heard of a whole Impression of the Bible condemn'd to be burnt, because the Negative Par­ticle of a Commandment was casually left out. What then if one of every Edition thus deprav'd, or at least one for all, were serv'd after the same manner in perpetuam rei Memoriam, and to expose the craftiness of those Circumcellians among us, who to advance their design, do not stick, it seems, to promote it by Falshood; and grounding 'emselves upon a meer Errour 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.

To Conclude, I may happily seem too Warm and Zealous in this matter. Doubtless, some will think so. But upon Examination, having found the first accidental slip repeated since in at least half a dozen Impressions of the Bible here in Eng­land, [Page 28] and having now just Reason to suspect the Scotch Bibles generally faulty in this Passage; I can­not Imagine, but it has been a good while under­hand countenanc'd and abetted: For is it Possible to believe, that One unhappy mistake should be so successful, as to have got into so many Editions without the helping hand of some wily and un­dermining Schismatick.

But principally, whereas now it begins to be avow'd for good and vendible Ware, expos'd and sold publickly in the Market, can any One conti­nue to believe it still an Unwilling and Excusable Error? Or rather, is it not fit to be treated as Coun­terfeit and for bidden Commodities are? That is, in plain terms (as I said) cast into the Fire.

Moreover (for any thing I can foresee) it may, if not timely prevented, plead Prescription, and set up for Authentic, at least, for a various Lecti­on, whereby the Popular Government of the Church, may, in a few more Years, gain an Appea­rance of Divine Authority, and the Scot's Inclina­tion be thought Apostolical Institution.

All which consider'd the Warmth I have shew'd upon this Occasion (if any before accounted it such) will now, I hope, be allow'd Reasonable and not Unserviceable to the Word and to the Church of God, to this Part of it especially among us, by Law Divine & Human Establish'd. And long may it be so to the Glory of God, & to the Edification of the Church in Peace & Love in Truth & Unity. Amen.