Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

that any of the books of Scripture are not maimed or depraved. That they come to our hands as the apostles and evangelists wrote them, uncorrupted. It is certain by history, that many heretics did deprave and corrupt them, and would have obtruded those copies or corruptions on the churches. And how we shall certainly prove that they did not prevail, or that their copies are false, and ours are true, I know not without the help of history. Mahomet and his followers (more numerous than the Christians) pretend that Mahomet's name was in the Gospel of John as the Paraclete or Comforter promised by Christ, and that the Christians have blotted it out, and altered the writings of the Gospel. And how shall we disprove them but by historical evidence? As the Arians and Socinians pretend that we have added, 1 John v. 7, for the Trinity, so others say of other texts; and how shall we confute them without historical evidence?

III. Therefore we cannot make good the authority of any one single verse or text of Scripture which we shall allege, without historical evidence. Because we are not certain of that particular text, (or words;) whether it have been altered, or added, or corrupted, by the fraud of heretics, or the partiality of some Christians, or the oversight of scribes; for if a custom of setting apart one day weekly, even the first, for public worship, might creep into all the churches in the world, and no man know how, nor when; much more might one, or a few corrupt copies, become the exemplar of those that follow. For, what day all the churches meet, men, women, and children know; learned and unlearned know; the orthodox and heretics know; and they so know, as that they cannot choose but know. But the alterations of a text, may be unknown to all save the learned, and the observing, diligent part of the learned only, and those that they tell it to. And besides Origen (called a heretic) and Jerome, alas! how few of the fathers were able and diligent examiners of such things? Therefore in the case of various readings (such as Ludovicus Capellus treats of in his "Critica Sacra," contradicted in many things by bishop Usher and others,) who are those divines that have hitherto appealed either to the Spirit, or to the proper light of the words, for a decision? Who is it that doth not presently fly to historical evidence? And what that cannot determine, we all confess to be uncer

tain. And if copies and history had delivered to us as various readings of every text, as they have done of some, every text would have remained uncertain to us.

Let none say, that this leaveth the Christian religion or the Scriptures uncertain: 1. Christian religion, that is, the material parts of the Scripture, on which our salvation lieth, hath much fuller evidence, than each particular text or canonical book hath; and we need not regard the perverse zeal for the Scriptures of those men that would make all our Christianity as uncertain, as the authority of a particular text or book is. And therefore God in mercy hath so ordered it, that a thousand texts may be uncertain to us, or not understood (no not by any or many divines,) and yet the Christian faith be not at all shaken, or ever the more uncertain for this: When as he that understandeth not, or believeth not every essential article of the faith, is no Christian. 2. And those books and texts of Scripture, are fully certain by the subservient help of history and usage, which would be uncertain without them. Therefore it is the act of an enemy of the Scriptures, to cast away and dispute against that history which is necessary to our knowledge of its certainty, and afterwards to plead, that they who take in those necessary helps, do make it uncertain: even as if they should go about to prove that all writings are uncertain, and therefore that they make Christ's doctrine uncertain, who rest upon the credit of writings, that is, the Sacred Scriptures.

IV. Without historical notice, how should we know that these books were written by any of the same men that bear their names; as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, &c. Especially when the heretics did put forth the Gospel of Thomas, Nicodemus, the Itinerary of Peter, and many books under venerable names? Or, when the name of the author is not notified to all Christians certainly, either by the Spirit within us, or by the matter? And though our salvation depend not on the notice of the penman, yet it is of great moment in the matter of faith.

V. And how should we be certain that no other sacred books are lost, the knowledge of which would tell us of that which these contain not, and would help us to the better understanding of these? I know that a priori' we may argue from God's goodness, that he will not so forsake his

[ocr errors]

church; as a Jew might have done before Christ's incarnation, that the Gospel should be written, because it is best for the world or church. But when we consider how much of the world and church, God hath forsaken, since the creation, and how dark we are in such prognostics, and how little we know what the church's sins may provoke God to, we should be less confident of such reasonings, than we are of historical evidence, which tells us de facto,' what God hath done. So much of the use of the history, as to the cause of the Scriptures themselves.

[ocr errors]

Next you may observe that the denial of the certainty of human history, and usage, doth disadvantage Christianity in many great particular concernments. As, I. Without it we should not fully know whether 'de facto' the church and ministry died, or almost died with the apostles? And whether there have been any true churches since then, till our own days? Christ's promise indeed tells us much; but if we had no history of the performance of it we should be ready to doubt that it might be yet unperformed; as far as the promise to Adam, (Gen. iii. 15,) and to Abraham, (“ In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,") were till the coming of Christ. Nor could we easily confute the Roman or any heretical usurpation, which would pretend possession since the apostles' days, and that all that are since gone to heaven, have gone thither by their way, and not by ours.

II. Nor could we much better tell de facto,' whether baptism have been administered in the form appointed by Christ, "In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?" Indeed we may well and truly argue a 'priori,' Christ commanded it, ergo the apostles obeyed him: But, 1. That argument would hold good as to none or few but the apostles: And, 2. It would as to them be, though true, yet much more dark than now it is; because, 1. We read that Peter disobeyed his command, in Gal. ii. And, 2. That after he had commanded them to preach the Gospel to every creature, and all the world, Peter scrupled still going to the Gentiles. (Acts x.) And, 3. That when he said to them, "Pray thus, Our Father," &c. yet we never read that they after used that form of words; so when he said to them, Baptize in the name of the Father," &c. yet the Scrip

[ocr errors]

ture never mentioneth that they or any other person, ever used that form of words. But yet usage and history assureth us that they did.

III. Nor have we any fuller Scripture-proof, that the apostles used to require of those that were to be baptized any more than a general profession of the substance of the Christian faith, in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; or of the ancient use of the Christian creed, either in the words now used, or any of the same importance. From whence many would infer, that any one is to be baptized, who will but say that, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," with the eunuch, (Acts viii. 37,) or that Christ is come in the flesh. (1 John iv. 2, 3.)

But historical evidence assureth us, that it was usual in those times, to require of men a more explicit understanding profession of the Christian faith before they were admitted to baptism; and that they had a summary or symbol, fitted to that use, commonly called the Apostles' Creed; at least as to the constant tenor of the matter, though some words might be left to the speaker's will, and some little subordinate articles may be since added. And that it was long after usual to keep men in the state of catechised persons, till they understood that creed. And it is in itself exceeding probable, that though among the intelligent Jews, who had long expected the Messiah, the apostles did baptize thousands in a day; (Acts ii ;) yet where the miraculous communication of the Spirit did not antecede (as it did Acts x,) they would make poor heathens who had been bred in ignorance, to understand what they did first, and would require of them an understanding profession of their belief in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which could not possibly contain much less than the Symbolum fidei,' the apostles' creed.

IV. Nor have we any Scripture-proof, (except by inferring obedience from the precept) that ever the Lord's-prayer was used in words, after Christ commanded or delivered it: whence some infer, that it should not be so used. But church history putteth that past doubt. Other such instances I pretermit.

I think now that I have fully proved to sober, considerate Christians, that the matter of fact (that the Lord's-day was

appointed by the apostles peculiarly for church worship) is certain to us by historical evidence, added to the historical intimations in Scripture, as a full exposition and confirmation of it: and that this is a proof, that no Christian can deny without insufferable injury to the Scriptures and the Christian cause.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER VI.

PROP. 5. This Act of the Apostles' appointing the Lord's-day for Christian Worship, was done by the special Inspiration or Guidance of the Holy Ghost.

THIS is proved, 1. Because it is one of those acts or works of their office, for which the Holy Ghost was promised them.

2. Because that such-like or smaller things are by them ascribed to the Holy Ghost, (Acts xv. 28,) "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us," when they did but declare an antecedent duty, and decide a controversy thereabout. See also, Acts iv. 8; v. 3; vi. 3; vii. 55; xiii. 2. 4; xvi. 6,7; xx. 23. 28; xxi. 11; 2 Tim. i. 14; Jud. xx; Acts xi. 12. 28: xix. 21; xx. 22; 1 Cor. v. 3, 4; xiv. 2. 15, 16; and vii. 40. When Paul doth but counsel to a single life, he ascribeth it to the Spirit of God.

3. And if any will presume to say, that men properly endued with the Spirit, for the works of their commission, did notwithstanding do such great things as this, without the conduct of that Spirit, they may by the same way of proceeding pretend it to be as uncertain, of every particular book and chapter in the New Testament, whether or no they wrote it by the Spirit: For if it be a sound inference They had the promise and gift of the Spirit, that they might infallibly leave in writing to the churches, the doctrines and precepts of Christ: ergo, whatever they have left in writing to the churches, as the doctrine and precepts of Christ, is infallibly done by the guidance of that Spirit.' Then it will be as good an inference 'They had the promise and gift of the Spirit, that they might infallibly settle church-orders for all the churches universally: ergo, What

« AnteriorContinuar »