A Second Admonition to Edward Bagshaw, Part 2 · Section 58 – Section 60
Sect. 58. E. B. So that in effect you do reſolve the Credit of the Holy Scriptures into the truth of Church-hiſtory—which words are ſo contrary to the true Proteſtant doctrine—ſo fully agreeing with the doctrine of the Jeſuits, &c.
R. B. 1. As to agreeing with the Jeſuits fully,36th Untruth. &c. all that know their Writings, know it is an untruth. 2. True Proteſtants uſually ſay the ſame things that I do. Though you may meet with ſome few like your ſelf that do not. 3. I have fully opened in the Preface to the 2d. Edit. &c. of my Saints Reſt, how ambiguous that word [Reſolving into] is, and how far your ſaying is true or falſe. He that enquireth what Laws are in force in England, muſt diſtinguiſh of theſe two Queſtions, 1. Which are the Laws? which are the Statutes in force? what words are falſe Printed, and what right? what Copies moſt perfect? And, 2. What Authority are theſe ſtatutes of?
The Authority of them is all reſolved into the Authority of the King and Parliament. But we that are not ſo wiſe as you,Whether the true Reading and uncorruptneſs of particular Texts be ſufficiently known by the light of the Scripture alone? muſt be beholden to various Copies, Records, Printers, Lawyers, to know which are the Statutes in force? and whether any words be falſly Printed; And if we find ſo many hundred various Readings as be in the Bible, we cannot know in every one which is right▪ and which is wrong, by the bare inſpection of the Book it ſelf.
And, if you have any conſidering faculty left, and your free-will hath the leaſt power to receive any truth, or ſtop you in your errour, me-thinks theſe queſtions ſhould force you into your witts.
Qu. 1. Shall he that by the Book alone can reſolve all theſe doubts, ſee it in the Original, or only in Tranſlations? If in the Original,
2. Shall he ſee the Autographs or only the Tranſcripts? or Impreſſions?
3. If the Autographs be not to be ſeen, but only Tranſcripts, hath God promiſed unerring infallibility to all the Scribes and Printers in the world, or to ſome only, or to none?
4. If to all; where is the promiſe? If to ſome, how ſhall we know them? If to none, may they not all erre?
5. When many Copies ſo much differ as they do, is it not certain that ſome of them erred?
6. Can all Women and Unlearned perſons or Miniſters, judge by the Original Tranſcripts who underſtand not the Original tongues?
7. Muſt he that ſhall be certain ſee all the various Copies, or will it ſerve turn to ſee ſome one only?
8. If he muſt ſee all, who is he or ſhe in the world that can be certain? If they muſt ſee many, who knows how many and which?
9. If they muſt ſee but one Copy, how ſhall he know that it is the Trueſt Copy that falleth into his hands, and that all that differ from that are falſe? Do not corrupt Copies come to other mens hands? Why then might they not do ſo to his?
10. How can he judge of the various Readings of all the reſt of the Copies, which he never ſaw?
11. If a Tranſlation will ſerve him to judge of the various readings in the Original, are they not in the Tranſlation fore-judged of to his hand?
12. Is any man Infallible in Tranſlating? Is there a promiſe of Infallibility to them?
13. Do not the Tranſlations differ?
14. How ſhall men know which Tranſlation is trueſt; (when none is perfect?)
15. Muſt he ſee all Tranſlations that ſhall judge? or will one ſerve (as aforeſaid) And how ſhall he judge of thoſe he ſeeth not?
16. Is it by Inſpiration from Heaven, ſuch as the Prophets had, that the true Reading muſt be known? or to ordinary (at leaſt ſanctified) Reaſon by evidence in the Text it ſelf? If the former, none but Prophets can know it. If the later, you can prove it to a Rational or ſanctified man, from ſome intrinſick evidence. For inſtance ſuppoſe a man never ſaw but two Printed Engliſh Bibles, and was never told which is right by others, and in one is Printed, Heb. 12. 2. he [deſpiſed the ſame] viz. the Croſs, and in the other [he deſpiſed the ſhame] (for ſo two of them do differ:) how ſhall he prove which Printer erred?
17. Do all the Men and Women that are Godly actually know the true and uncorrupt copies and readings, by the Book it ſelf without mans teſtimony? Or what is the name of that one Man or Woman in the World that you know, who without ever hearing it from man, could tell all the true readings from the falſe, or could tell that the Canticles or Eccleſiaſtes or the Book of Jonas were Canonical, and that the Book of Baruck, Wiſdom, and Pauls Epiſtle to the Laodiceans, and Clemens to the Corinthians, were not. Do you know his name, that ever knew this by Reading the Bible only, without being ever told it by any? If not, and if it be ſine quâ non to mens receiving of the Bible it ſelf, that ſome one brings it to their hands; judge how wiſely and fairly you deal with poor ſouls to talk at ſuch a confident and yet confuſed rate.
And, 18. Let me ask you one queſtion more; Is it neceſſary to Salvation that men be able to read? Hath God promiſed it to all or moſt that ſhall be ſaved? Faith cometh by hearing, as the moſt ordinary way of old: And he that will Preach the Goſpel to moſt Nations under Heaven, muſt Convert more than can read, or but a few. And if you Preach the Goſpel to a Congregation that cannot read, do you recite all the various readings in the Hebrew and Greek to them? If not, can they judge of that they never heard? If you do, are they ever the wiſer as to know of themſelves which of them is the right?
19. But if you ſay that you ſuppoſe not only Grace but great Learning and Study to diſcern theſe things, how cometh it to paſs that the moſt Learned, Studious and Godly men do ſtill ſo much differ about the various Readings? (as Lud. Capellus, Vſher, Heinſius, Bootius, De Dieu, and others.) And how come the Churches in the Ages next the Apoſtles to leave out ſo many Books of the Canon as many of them did, while others received them? And Luther, Althamar and others, to ſet no more by James's Epiſtle than they did? And ſo many Godly men long, and yet, to receive much of the Apocrypha?
20. How durſt you that ſpeak ſo hardly of the Jeſuits, honour them ſo much as to make your ſilly ones believe, that their doctrine in this is no worſe than mine, when in ſo many Books, I have left that at large which may confute you?
And you (wiſely) ask me to tell you whether I will take the Jeſuits into my Communion, becauſe they hold the ſame with the Arminians with whom I will communicate! ſo they hold the ſame with all Chriſtians, that there is a God, and a Chriſt and the Scripture true? But it is not for this that I renounce their Communion, but for ſome things elſe. Will you communicate with none that holdeth any thing (yea any errour) which the Jeſuits hold? Or did you dream that the Arminians hold all that the Jeſuits hold? Or did you dream that the Arminians hold all that the Jeſuits hold? Sir, I am aſhamed to ſpend time-upon ſuch triflings?
Sect. 59. E. B. The former Non-conformiſts thought there was no poſſibility of ſalvation for a Papiſt—But you tell us that you affect not the honour of this Orthodoxneſs.A lame deceitful recital, and 17. Crime, Cruel judging millions unknown without a Call.
R. B. It is confutation enough of ſuch an accuſer to recite the words which he accuſeth; which are [Vnleſs you do (as Mr. Perkins doth to make it good) be ſo charitable to all the millions elſe among them, as not to call them Papiſts, except they practically hold the moſt pernicious opinions of their Councils and Divines. I confeſs I affect none of the honour of that Orthodoxneſs which conſiſteth in ſentencing Millions and Kingdoms to Hell whom I am unacquainted with.] So that I diſtinguiſh of Papiſts properly ſo called who practically hold all the Popiſh errours, and Nominal Papiſts that call themſelves ſuch or are called ſo by others, who know not or practically hold not the pernicious part of their errours: Theſe latter I refuſed to undertake to judge to Hell, and conſequently to damn all in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, &c. who are called Papiſts. And if this accuſer be more valiant, and dare damn them all, I do not wonder that he dare damn me for not damning them: For he that can eat and digeſt an Oxe, will never ſtick at one crumme more. But he ſhould not be alſo ſo cruel to the Reader as to put him to read my words twice over, becauſe he diſmembers them, to make them ſeem to have ſome loathed ſenſe.
Sect. 60. E. B. p. 19. The former Non-formiſts ſaid, The filth of nature cannot be ſufficiently ſpoken of?—But you, &c.
R. B. 1. When you tell us in what common Confeſſion of theirs they ſay ſo, I ſhall try whether you ſay any truer than in the reſt. 2. Reader, I anſwered him on this point before, by no leſs than twenty inſtances, proving that Nature may be too ill ſpoken of, And he ſaith nothing to any of them, but ſings over his old ſong again. Is not this a fine man to diſpute with?