A26912:320
A defence of the principles of love, which are necessary to the unity and…
A defence of the principles of love, which are necessary to the unity and concord of Christians and are delivered in a book called The cure of church-divisions ... / by Richard Baxter ...
London: printed for Nevil Simmons, 1671
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
EXCEPT. IX. Answered. I must now answer for what I say against the Papists too. I Confess they are separatists or recusants too. But lets hear the Charge? You say [They are very unweighed and rash words, when he says [Show me in Scripture or in Church history that either there ever was de facto, or ought to be de jure such a thing in the World, as the Papists call the Church, and I profess I will immediately turn Papist;] We think none can write thus, but declares a great unsteadiness in his Religion; for none that knoweth Church history but can prove that such a Church as the Roman, hath been near 1300 years actually in being.
EXCEPT. IX. Answered. I must now answer for what I say against the Papists too. I Confess they are separatists or recusants too. But lets hear the Charge? You say [They are very unweighed and rash words, when he saies [Shew me in Scripture or in Church history that either there ever was de facto, or ought to be de jure such a thing in the World, as the Papists call the Church, and I profess I will immediately turn Papist;] We think none can write thus, but declares a great unsteadiness in his Religion; for none that knoweth Church history but can prove that such a Church as the Romane, hath been neer 1300 years actually in being.
Answ. 1. My foregoing words are these, [The Pope hath feigned another thing, and called it the Church, that is, The Universality of Christians headed by himself: Whereas 1. God never instituted or allowed such a Church. 2. Nor did ever the Universality of Christians acknowledge this usurping head.
Now when you say there hath been [such a Church as the Roman] either you mean what I denied [such a Church as they claim and feign] and I described; Or only [such a Church as they are, which is another thing.] If the later, why will you grossly abuse your Reader by such a deceit, which tendeth to tempt him unto Popery? What's that to my words which you seem to contradict? But if you mean the former, and indeed contradict me, then 1. You prevaricate in