The naked truth. Or, the true state of the primitive Church / By an humble moderator [i.e. H. Croft].

  • Herbert Croft
Date:
[Printed in the year 1675]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The naked truth. Or, the true state of the primitive Church / By an humble moderator [i.e. H. Croft]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    14/84 page 2
    | Dei. baptized him on this, and had the Eunuch departed this Life in the fame in- tant that: Phikp parted from him, I believe I have better aflurance that this faith would have faved the Eunuch, than any Man hath that he ever was taught more: See. 1 fobn 4.2. Every {pirit that confeffeth that Fefus Chrift come inthe Flefh, is of God: butthe more the better ftill | grant, though no more neceflary. Hatt thou more Faith, have it tothy felf before God, bappy 1 he who condemneth not himfelf inthe thing which be alloweth; happy is he who is thankfulto God for having received much, aid defpifeth not him that hath received little: God difpenfeth his gifts and graces according to his free Will and.Pleafure, nor doth he require moreof any Man than according to the proportion he hath given, no more-fhould we. | : Nothing hath caufed more mifchief in the Church than the eftablifhing new and many Articlesof Faith, and requiring allto affent unto them. I am wil- ling to believe that zealous men endeavoured this with pious. intentions to pro- mote that which they conceived Truth; but by impofing it on the. diffenters, caufed furious Warrs, and lamentable Blood-fhed among Chriftians, Brother Fighting againft Brother, and Murthering each other. Can there be any thing more irrational than to endeavour to promote the truth of the Gofpel contrary to the Laws of the Gofpel ? to break an evident Commandment to eftablifha doubtful Truth? I fay, doubtful to him on whom it isimpofed, though feeming clear to him that impofes it. If it were fully exprefs’d in Scripture-words , there would need no new Expreffion, no new Article; if it be not fullyex- prelt in Scripture, but deduc’d from Scripture-Expreflions, then what one Man thinks clearly deduc’d, another may think not fo; I mean, not another ignorant and weak, . butas learned, andas-able. What more common thanin Divinity and Philofophy Shools? One-cryes, this is a clear Demonftration ; ano- ther cryes, no fuchmatter,butflatly deniesit. * Mens underftandings are as va- riousas their Speech or their Countenance, otherwife it were impoffible there alfe, Papifts, Lutherans, Calviniffs, all in fach Oppofition one againft another, all believing Scripture, yet fo differing in the deductions from Scripture. Truly I think. him very defeétive in Charity, however he abound in Faith, 1° who thinks all Papifts, or Lutherans, or Calvinifts malitioufly or wilfully > Reafon, than thatno Manmfhould be forc’d to believe, for no Man can be fore’d to believe ; you may force a Man to fay thisor that, but not to believe it, Firft, asto Reafon: If youbring a Man an evident Demonftration, and he hath a Brain to tnderltand your Demonftration, he can’tbut affent toit. If you hold-a clear Printed Book with a clear Candle to a Man of clear’ Eyes and able certainly Read; but ‘if the Print be not clear, or the Candle ear, or he not Learnedto Read, can your force make him read?
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image
    No text description is available for this image