The considerator considered: or, A brief view of certain considerations upon the Biblia polyglotta, the prolegomena and appendix thereof. Wherein, amongst other things, the certainty, integrity, and divine authority of the original texts, is defended, against the consequences of athiests, papists, antiscripturists, &c. inferred from the various readings, and novelty of the Hebrew points, by the author of the said Considerations. The Biblia polyglotta, and translations therein exhibited, with various readings, prolegomena and appendix, vindicated from his aspersions and calumnies. And the questions about the punctation of the Hebrew text, the various readings, and the ancient Hebrew character briefly handled. / By Br. Walton. D.D.

CHAP. VIII.

I. The Consequences inferred by the Adversary from the va∣rious Readings, on the behalf of Atheists, Papists, Fanatick persons, Mahumetanes. II. He proves none of them. III. The inconsequence shewed. IV. The words of Sixt. Ama∣ma. V. Of Bochartus, Lud. De Dieu, &c. VI. E∣rasmus, The same words used by the Friars against him, which this Adversary uses against the Biblia Polyglotta. VII. No error or mistake is capable of cure by his rules. The words of themselves. VIII. The Adversaries argu∣ment retorted upon himself. He pleads for Papists, Athe∣ists, &c. grants, yea, urges, both the Premisses, onely denies the Conclusion. IX. That he is guilty of what he accuses others. X. Various Readings give no advantage to Pa∣pists, Atheists, Antiscripturists, or Mahumetanes, as is showen in particular.

I. HAving gone over these particulars about various Readings, I might forbear to say any thing more of that Subject, of which enough is said to satisfie any rationall Reader; but because our Adversary doth frequently, from what is said by us, and confessed by him∣self, labour to infer certain false and pernicious Consequences against the certainty and supreme

Authority of Scripture on the behalf of Atheists, Papists, Fanatick Antiscripturists, and M••h••∣metanes, we shall briefly consider the force of those Consequences, whether they do justly fol∣low from any Principle by us acknowledged in the Prolegomena or Appendix. Our Author sometimes seems not to be resolved of the truth of his Consequence. p. 147. he saith, these va∣rious Lections do, at the first view, seem to inti∣mate that the Originals are corrupt. p. 159. They seem sufficient to beget scruples, &c. p. 156. These Prolegomena seem to impair the truth. &c. p. 147. Men of perverse mindes may pos∣sibly wrest these things: Nay, p. 206. he saith, That the Prefacer doth not own those wretched Consequences. Now, if they do but seem suffici∣ent, and if they be wrested by men of perverse mindes, then those Consequences do not necessa∣rily follow: no genuine Consequence can be said to be wrested, nor will he, I hope, joyn with men of perverse mindes. And if the Author of the Prolegomena do not own them, then they ought not to be objected against him, without sufficient proof of the Consequences, which these Considerations do no where afford. But in other places he speaks more positively: p. 205. They are all directed, or by just consequence owned in the Prolegomena. p. 206. That no sufficient se∣curity against the lawfull deriving of them is tendered. p. 161. That they are an engine fitted

for the destruction of that important truth by him pleaded for, and as a fit weapon put into the hands of Atheisticall men, to oppose the whole evidence of truth revealed in the Scripture, &c. p. 207. Great and wise men, (of which himself is one without doubt) do suppose them naturally, and necessarily to flow from them. And therefore, p. 147. he absolutely affirms, They are in brief, the foundation of Mahumetanisme, the chiefest and principall prop of Popery, the onely pretence of Fanatick Antiscripturists, and the root of much hidden Atheisme in the world.

II. Now we know the Rule is, A••••irmanti in∣cumbit probatio, and therefore our Adversary ought to prove and make good his Consequen∣ces, or else he must be accounted a false accuser; yet here we do not find that he offers any thing in this kinde, to prove that they do follow from any Principles in the Prolegomena; but as he substitutes what he pleases, in stead of his Ad∣versaries tenent; so he infers at random any thing that came into his minde, whereby to make them odious to Vulgar Readers. The in∣justice of his Charge may sufficiently appear by what is already said, and therefore I shall onely recapitulate the summe of what is formerly proved, re-inforcing some particulars, and then shew, that the Charge may be upon himself, as being deeply guilty, by his own confession, of what he would impute unto another.

III. That no such Inference can be made against the certainty, integrity, and supreme Au∣thority of Scripture, from any thing affirmed in the Prolegomena, may appear, because, as is at large shewed, The Prolegomena do not af∣firm the Originall Texts to be corrupt, but to be pure and authentick, of supreme authority, the rule of faith and life, and of all Translations. The various Readings of the Originall Texts do not infer the corrupting of the Text, but may well stand with the purity and authority thereof. That our Author affirms the same with the Pro∣legomena, about various Readings, which he fre∣quently confesseth to be both in the Old Testament and the New. And as for those various Readings out of Translations which he would not allow, they are of the same nature with those which he allows out of the original copies: for the Prolegomena say they are in matters of no moment, contain nothing repugnant to the Analogie of saith, and such are by himself allowed in the Hebrew and Greek. That the most learned Protestant Divines, and best skilled in the Orientall Tongues, and most zealous defenders of the Originall Texts, have said the same with the Prolegomena, and in some things more, such as Luther, Calvin, Beza, Mer∣cer, Brentius, Oecolampadius, Pellican, Scaliger, De Dieu, Sixtin. Amama, Archbishop Usher, and in a manner, all others, who would never be so in∣considerate, as to affirm and deny the same thing,

or to give back to their adversaries with one hand, what they had taken from them with the other, and though I have both in Prol••g. 6. Sect. 2. and in this answer cited diverse of their words, yet I shall here adde something more, with their rea∣sons against the Consequences here objected, and those of such men whom he cannot in the least suspect of inclining to Rome.

IV. Sixtin. Amama, late Hebrew Professor at Froneker, one who our Author in his Epist. p. 9. joyns with Whitaker, Reynolds, Junius, Chamier, Amesius and others, that have stopt the mouths of Romanists speaking against the Origi∣nall Texts, and quenched the fire which they would put to the house of God, as he expresses it, This man in that excellent book call'd Antibar∣barismus Biblicus, which is wholy in defence of the Hebrew Text, writes thus lib. 1. Haud nega∣re ausim, & injuria temporum, & descriptorum incuria, errata quaedam & sphalmata in Textum Hebraicum irrepsisse. Hoc autem dum admitti∣mus, authoritati Textus Hebraici nihil detrahi∣mus, manet nihilominus Textus Authenticus, & omnium versionum norma. Afterwards he addes, ex omnibus variantibus lectionibus pro••e∣ratur una, unde vel Orthodoxae fidei, vel pietati ullum detrimentum inferri possit. Certe his tali∣bus nullam intervenisse Judaeorum malitiam non tantum hinc apparet quod nullum ex illis Juda∣icae perfidiae patrocinium exsculpi possit, sed &

ex eo quod fontes variarum lectionum assignari possunt, inter quos primarii sunt, affinitas soni vel affinitas figurae consonantis, vel indifferentia sensus, &c. Quin & illud consideratione dignum in ist is infirmitatis humanae erratis & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non dormitasse vigilem providentiae divinae oculum, dum cavit diligentissime ne vel minima orthodoxae fidei particula, vel pietas ex eorum usu detri∣mentum capiat.

V. To him let us adde Bochartus, Minister at Cane in France, a man no lesse eminent for his various learning, then for his zeal and piety, in that admirable Work of his; his Geographia sacra part 1. l. 2. c. 13. part of whose words I have formerly cited, who writes thus; Licet eandem scribis non tribuam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quam scriptoribus sacris, non tamen inde sequitur, quod nonnulli subinde oggerunt, actum esse de fi∣de & salutisdoctrina, & in ea nihil esse certi: Quis enim ferat in aliis sic arguentem? In Li∣rii & Suetonii scriptis quidam errores irrepse∣runt: ergo in Historia Romana nihil est certi; & in iis quae de Hannibale, aut Julio, aut Au∣gusto leguntur, nutat fides. Aristotelis Graeci codices alicubi sunt mendosi: ergo quid ille scri∣pscrit de rebus Philosophicis certo scire ha••d possumus. Quamvis exemplum sit valde dispar. Nam multo aliter invigilavit Dei Providentia ut sacrae Scripturae codices praestaret immunes, sal∣tem in iis quae ad fidem & salutem sunt absolute

necessaria: unde est, quod ut ut Hebraei & Graeci codices variant in minutulis, & Sacri Textus interpretes saepe in diversa abeunt, tamen in fidei capitibus, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, eadem ubi∣que doctrina occurrat, non jam dicam in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sed & in versionibus corruptissimis. What could be more fully said to shew the vanity of our Authors consequence? The same we may read in Lud. de Dieu, a man of great learning, especially in the Orientall tongues, as his works proclaim, Praef. in animadvers. in Evangel. Nec est quod quenquam turbet ea codicum lectio∣numque varietas, quasi nihil certi haberet fides Christiana cui inniteretur, nihil enim deprehendo quod fidei substantiam laederet—Tantum abest ut Erasmum, Camerarium, Bezam, viros pietate & eruditione conspicuos, culpare audeam, quod in suis ad sacros libros not is varias lectiones obser∣varint, ut contra eos utilem operam navasse cre∣dam. Here we see the same Arguments which our Adversary brings about the uncertainty of Scripture propounded, and the same answer gi∣ven which we have given already. They shew the inconsequence of his Argument, and ac∣knowledge the great usefulnesse of gathering various Readings, and further (which is to be observed) they do not onely allow of various Readings out of the Originall Texts, but also out of Translations, which they often practise themselves, and sometimes prefer before the

common Reading, as we have shewed Proleg. 6. Sect. 9.

VI. I will mention one more, Erasmus, whom our Author names as the first and chiefest that laboured in this kind, p. 189. and Epist. p. 21. whose pains likewise he tells us were ca∣lumniated by some in his time. He wrote indeed a whole Volume of Apologies for his severall Works, and in this particular he was railed up∣on most by ignorant Friers, who used the same words, which are now taken up by this Author against us, for the same thing. He compared divers Copies of the new Testament, to make his Edition the more perfect, and severall Transla∣tions and expositions of the Ancients, whereup∣on as appears, Epist. ad Henr. Bovillum, they cryed out, quasi protinus actum esset de Religi∣one Christiana—vociferantur, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, O coelum, O terra, corrigit hic Evangelium. So here they bring in utter incertainty about all sa∣cred truth, Epist. p. 25. they correct the Scripture, p. 344. correct the word of God, p. 180. And Annot. 1: in Leum, In answer to Lee, object∣ing the same thing, he saith, Ostendat nobis suo digito Lens, quae sit illa lectio quam dictavit Sp. S. & hanc u••am amplexi, quic∣quid ab hac variat rejiciemus. Quod si ille non potest, ex collatione linguarum & exemplari∣um, ex lectione, ex Translationibus celebrium au∣ctorum nobiscum scrutetur, quae lectio sit maxime probabilis.

VII. If our Adversaries rule had been recei∣ved, that no errors can befall the Text, either by malice, or negligence, there had never been any correct Edition made by any: and if it had been thought unlawfull, in any case to question the common Reading, men might have spared their labour, who from time to time, by com∣paring Copies and other helps above mentioned, have endevoured to make Exact Editions, both of the Hebrew and Greek, which we see yet was at severall times practised both by Jews and Christians; Ben Ascher, Ben Naphtali, R. Hil∣lel, Ben Chajim, Manass. Ben Israel, Buxtorf, Arias Montanus, Erasmus, Steven, Beza, and others, who altered and amended what they found by mistake had crept into the com∣mon or vulgar Copies; and whose labours, ei∣ther by explicite or tacite consent of the Church, receiving them without gainsaying, have been approved and commended: whereas if nothing must be amended, as nothing must up∣on our Adversaries supposall, all errors that shall happen are uncapable of cure, because we must suppose there can be none, and so consi∣dering that errors will now and then happen (notwithstanding all possible diligence) as all men, even himself, do grant, a plain way is open∣ed to the utter corruption and deprivation of the whole Scripture, & so the case will be the same with the Romane Church, or the Pope, to whom

the Jesuites affix infallibility, whereby all the errors are become incurable, though never so palpable, because it must be supposed they are subject to none. I conclude this with that speech of Heinsius, a great defender of the Originall Texts, Proleg. in Nov. Test. serio responso haud digni sunt, qui aut variasse olim in quibusdam libros, aut ex iis minus emendatos cum cura resti∣tutos negant. And after. Satis sit ejusmodi varieta∣tes eas esse, ut vel quae necessario credenda sunt, non ever tant, vel quae non credenda sunt, non do∣ceant.

VIII. But now as I have cleared the Proleg. and Appendix, from these consequences of the Adversary, so his Argument, like a piece of Ordnance overchanged, recoils with full strength upon himself; nor can all the Sophistry in the world free him from the Guilt which he charges upon us. For he not onely grants the same Proposition which we do, concerning various Readings, but also grants, yea urges the Conse∣quence which Papists, Atheists, &c. would in∣fer thence, and which not we onely, but all so∣ber men utterly deny, onely he denies the Con∣clusion. For thus the Argument runs, if it be reduced into Syllogisticall Forms. If there be various Readings in the Originall Texts of Scripture, then the Scripture is uncertain, corrupt and doubtfull, and so cannot be of Su∣preme authority, whereby way is made for Pope∣ry,

Atheisme, &c. But there are various Rea∣dings in the Originall Texts of Scripture: Er∣go the Scripture is uncertain and corrupt, &c. This Conclusion we both deny, as false and im∣pious, and therefore one or both the Propositi∣ons from which it is inferred, must needs be false. The Minor is granted by the Author of the Prolegomena, as it is also by the Author of the Considerations in the places alledged, and by all men that will believe their eyes. But the Ma∣jor or the Consequence is denied by the Prole∣gomena, and by all that have not joyned hands with Papists, Atheists, &c. who do utterly deny that any such inference can be made from the various Readings, but that the authority and cer∣tainty of the Scripture is still the same, which the Author of the Prolegomena not only affirms, but proves and gives Reasons for it; and upon this he layes the weight of the cause, which neither our Adversary, nor all the Atheists, Papists, or Antiscripturists in the world are able to o∣verthrow. On the other side our Author not onely grants the Minor, because it is evident to sence, but grants the Major too, yea he urges the consequence all along in these Considera∣tions, with much earnestnesse and vehemency, (which all sober Christians abhor and deny.) Now let all men judge, who is guilty of this wretched Conclusion, he that grants the Pro∣position, which is so evident that none can deny

it, but denies the Consequence, and gives Rea∣sons against it, or he that grants both Major, and Minor, denies onely the Conclusion.

IX. If it shall be said, that the Considerations do sometimes deny, that various Readings infer the uncertainty and corruptions of the Scri∣pture. I answer, its true, that sometimes he seems to deny any such inference. But when he is in hot prosecution of his Adversary, he af∣firms the clean contrary, as appears by his whole second Chapter of the Considerations, and Chap. 7. Sect. 6. where he denies any difference in Copies, either wilfully or by negligence. And the third Chapter of his Considerations is wholly spent against the various Readings of the New Testament, which are onely out of Greek MSS. and tells us, p. 193. that they create a temptation that there is nothing sound and entire in the word of God p. 206. that the Consequences are lawfully derived. p. 207. that they do naturally and necessarily flow: so p. 147. 161. &c. All a∣long throughout his Discourse, he inferres from the various Readings in the Appendix of the Bible, (which are all out of the Originall Texts, not any gathered out of Translations) that thereby is introduced utter uncertainty about all sacred truth, so that nothing is more clear then that he makes the Consequence of the uncer∣tainty and corruption of the Scripture, to be the necessary product of various Readings, and

therefore that he hath plainly prevaricated, and betrayed the cause which he seemed to contend for; and his friends, as he makes them, Papists, Athiests, and Fanatick persons, have cause to thank him, for disputing so doughtily on their behalf. And so I conclude with that of Seneca Controv. 3. l 4. Malo est in loco, qui habet rei fortunam, accusatoris invidiam. He is in an ill case who accuses another of what himself is guilty; for Guilt, as one observes, though it be the effect of some error, yet usually it be∣gets a kind of moderation in men, so a•• not to be violent, in accusing others of that which may reflect upon themselves, but here we see it is otherwise, and from what root it proceeds, I leave to every mans judgement.

X. Having shewed the no consequence of the uncertainty and corruption of the Scripture, from various Readings, I shall not need to stand long upon the Particulars of Popery, Atheisme, fanaticall Antiscripturisme and Ma∣humetanisme▪ mentioned by him, p. 147. For Po∣pery he fears the pretended infallible guide &c. wil be found to lie at the doore of the Considerations. p. 161. and p. 202. He doubts not but to hear news from Rome concerning these varieties, there having been no such collections as yet made in the world. Enough they are to fright poore unstable souls, into the arms of an infallible Judge. And p. 207. We went from Rome under conduct of the

purity of the Originalls, I wish none have a mind to return thither again, under pretence of their corruption. How these various Readings should be any prop, much lesse the principal Pillar of Popery, I cannot see, nor doth our Author prove. His meaning it may be is, that Papists do hence infer the Scripture to be uncer∣tain, and the Originall Texts to be corrupt, so that they can be no sure ground of faith, and therefore that all must flie to an infallible Judge, and rely upon the vulgar Latine. But these grounds we have already taken away, and pro∣ved, that notwithstanding such various Rea∣dings, the Scriptures are still the certain rule of faith, and the Originall Texts the authentick rule of all Translations: v. Proleg. 7. Besides, let our Author shew that any of the various Readings, by us collected, contain any thing against either faith or good life, or make for the Romanists in any of the Controversies between them and us; let him instance in any if he can. In that place of 1 John 5. 7. are some words left out in many ancient Copies, but there is nothing contrary to the Analogy of faith in∣serted. That point of the Trinity hath ground enough besides in Scripture, though these words had not been in any copy; and whether they were razed out of some Copies by the Arrians, as some of the Ancients suppose, or whether left out by casuall error of the Transcriber in some

one Copy from which many others were deri∣ved, and that error made use of by the Arrians, yet here is nothing against faith affirmed in this place, onely an omission of some words in some Copies. Besides how can it be imagined that these various Readings should make way for Popery, when the first and chief Collectors of them were the chief opposers of Popery? as this Author affirms, p. 189. where he reckons up Stephanus, Beza, Camerarius, Drasius, Heinsius, Grotius, de Dieu, Capellus.

XI. If it be said, that Papists mak•• use of these various lections to decry the Originalls, and to set up the vulgar Latine, or from their uncertainty to infer the necessity of an infalli∣ble Judge. 1. It is true there be some that do so, but there are some, and those of the most lear∣ned among them, who are ••••out defenders of the purity of the Originall Texts, and prefer them before the vulgar Latine, as Simeon de Mins, Joh. D' Espieres, and others; and ma∣ny among them who maintain that the Councel of Trent, in declaring the vulgar Latine to be authentick, did no way derogate from the He∣brew and Greek Text, but onely preferred the vulgar Latine before all other Latine Translati∣ons, and meant onely, that it contained no∣thing contrary to faith and good manners, as Sal••er. Serrar. Mariana, A••or, Driedo, Vega, and divers others. 2. Doth our Adversary

think that the Papists can justly deduce any such Conclusions from the various Readings? If he think so, then he pleads their cause, and joyns hands with them against the Originall Texts; if no, Why doth he urge their deducti∣ons against us? 3. Though some men pervert and abuse the Truth to bad ends, must the Truth therefore be denied, because a bad use is made of it? There never wanted those who per∣verted the Scripture to their own destruction; but is the Scripture the worse, or must not the lawfull use of it be permitted? All truth is from God, the Author of Truth, he needs not mens policies to defend it, much lesse can it be up∣held by untruths. Those pious frauds, when disco∣vered, have proved prejudiciall to the Truth for which they were devised.

XII. He confesseth, p. 206. That the Pre∣facer doth not own these wretched Consequences, but he knows full well who think them to be just. It is true, he knows some Romanists and others think so, and it seems our Author thinks so too. But this Author knows also, that the Prefacer hath clearly proved, both against the Papist and himself, that the Consequence is false and invalid, and that neither of them have just cause to think so; and therefore, that this ought not to be by him objected. It had been a more Christian practice for him to shew the Inconsequence of such Conclusions from such Premisses as are con∣fessed

by himself, then to play fast and loose, or to calumniate them, who granting what cannot be denied, no not by himself, do yet uphold the Authority of the Scripture, and labour to prove that no such things do follow as are by such men surmized.

XIII. His uncharitable intimation, as if the design of the Publisher of the various Readings were to return to Rome again, to an infallible Judge, reflects upon the chief defenders of the Protestant Profession against the Errors of Rome, and the Supposition is as true as the Position, in that flower of his discourse, (twice repeated, p. 161. and 282. (Hoc Ithacus velit) if the rest of the verse, (magno mercentur Atreidae) be added to it. It is well known, that the Au∣thor of the Prolegomena, when he kept his Act pro Gradu, at Cambridge, about twenty years ago, maintained this Question; Pontifex Ro∣manus non est judex infallibilis in controversiis fidei? And he professeth himself to be still of the same Judgement, and to be rather more con∣firmed in that perswasion, then any way doubt∣full of it. And what news can we expect from Rome concerning these various Readings, when the same thing is not new with them, as appears by the Notes of Lucas Brugensis, Nobilius, and others, which far exceed in bulk any thing that we have done, and wherein more MSS. were used: which labours of theirs have ever been of

high esteem among the Learnedst Protestants, as well as those of their own party. And how can they justly object these various Readings against us, when far more have been observed by themselves in the Vulgar Latine, which yet they will not have to derogate from its su∣preme Authority?

XIV. For his Atheists, I wish he had consi∣dered better his own doctrine, p. 88. 104. 108. 110. &c. whether the taking away of one chief Argument to demonstrate the Divine Originall of Scripture, against Atheists and Ʋnbelievers, viz. The miracles wrought for confirmation of the doctrine, brought down and witnessed to us by the Ʋniversall tradition of the Church of Christ, and the affirming that we have no more reason to believe there were any such miracles upon the tradition of the Church of Christ, then we have to believe those who deny they have any such tra∣dition (that is, Jews, Pagans, and Mahumetanes) and that the Alcoran may upon this ground, vi•• with the Christian Church. Whether the affirm∣ing these things gives not more advantage to Atheists, then to affirm that there are various Readings in Scripture, in matters that do not concern Faith or Salvation, nor in any thing of weight, by the casuall mistakes of Transcri∣bers? This I am sure gives no advantage in the least; and if Atheists will pervert and abuse the truth upon such Principles, why will our Au∣thor,

(who would not be reckoned amongst them) put them in minde of such advantages, and not rather leave the urging of them to Hobbs and his fellows. Let him remember what Sixt. Amama hath written against this, Antibar. lib. 1. which I know he hath read, Prolegom. 6. Sect. 5. Qui ne minimas a Textu originario va∣riationes dari posse defendunt, in laqueos & nodos inexplicabiles se involvunt, simulque impiis & prophanis hominibus (quorum haec aetas feracissi∣ma) se ridendos praebent, qui facile observent in libris Regum & Chronicorum, & alibi, quaedam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ut in 2 Reg. 22. 8. collato cum 2 Chron. 22. 3. de aetate Ahaziae filii Joram, unde colligunt nullam esse in sacris literis certitudinē, nec iisdem fidem adhibendam; Quibus facile as obstruitur, cum haec ex variante codicum lectione, non ex ipso textu 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 oriri dicimus, unde consequentia illa nullum habet robur.

XV. The like may be said for his Fanatick Antiscripturists. The certainty and divine au∣thority of Scripture hath been made good not∣withstanding such various Readings, and there∣fore no just ground can be hence gathered of re∣jecting the Scriptures. He tells us of a Treatise written by some body, who upon such Principles rejects the whole Scriptures as uselesse. I can say nothing of the book which I have not seen, nor known, upon what Principles it proceeds; if our Author think his Arguments to be

good, let him produce them, and I doubt not but they will be quickly answered. In the mean time he may please to consider, whether he that rejects all other proofs for the Divine Originall of Scripture, and relies onely upon its own light and self-evidence, which is denied in this case to be sufficient by many Learned Protestants, do not give greater occasion to those, who bragg of their new Lights, and daily increase amongst us, to reject all Scripture as uselesse, then he that allows such various Readings in the Scri∣pture as we have declared? And whether the le∣velling of all discipline and order of Government in the Church, and leaving every man to follow his own fancie, against both Old and New Testa∣ment, which tell us, That they should seek the Law at the Priests mouth, and that they who will not hear the Church, are to be accounted as Publicans and Heathens, have not made way to those Antiscripturists, Familists and other Secta∣ries, which swarm among us, and like the Locusts that came out of the bottomless pit, have overspread the land, and darkened the Sun.

XVI. Lastly, for Mahumetanisme; It is true, Mahomet accuseth the Jews of corrupting the Old Testament, and the Christians for corrupt∣ing the New, and saith, that he was sent of God to reform all, Surat. 4. 5. 11. and some of his followers pretend that there was something al∣tered in Joh. 14. about the Comforter which

Christ promised to send, as if there had been something in that place foretold of Mahomet, which the Christians have razed out and cor∣rupted. But doth our Author believe that any various Readings gathered out of any MSS. or Printed Copies, or ancient Translations do inti∣mate any such thing of Mahomet, or favour any part of his impious doctrine? I am sory to see any man so transported, as to urge such things, which must reflect upon the most eminent Di∣vines, and chief Lights of the Church, in this or former ages, yea, upon himself in a high mea∣sure, who affirms the same about various Read∣ings which those do, against whom he makes this inference.