A26947:958
A key for Catholics, to open the juggling of the Jesuits, and satisfy all…A key for Catholicks, to open the jugling of the Jesuits, and satisfie all…
A key for Catholics, to open the juggling of the Jesuits, and satisfy all that are but truly willing to understand, whether the cause of the Roman or reformed churches be of God ... containing some arguments by which the meanest may see the vanity of popery, and 40 detections of their fraud, with directions, and materials sufficient for the confutation of their voluminous deceits ... : the second part showeth (especially against the French and Grotians) that the Catholic Church is not united in any merely humane head, either Pope or council / by Richard Baxter, a Catholic Christian and Pastor of a church ...A key for Catholicks, to open the jugling of the Jesuits, and satisfie all that are but truly willing to understand, whether the cause of the Roman or reformed churches be of God ... containing some arguments by which the meanest may see the vanity of popery, and 40 detections of their fraud, with directions, and materials sufficient for the confutation of their voluminous deceits ... : the second part sheweth (especially against the French and Grotians) that the Catholick Church is not united in any meerly humane head, either Pope or council / by Richard Baxter, a Catholick Christian and Pastor of a church ...
London: printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, 1659
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.
he adds, that [yet his doctrine was defiled with a Leprosy of errors, by an affection and lust of Curiosity, or confidence on his wit, expounding Scripture as he list, happily indeed for the most part, but in some few places more acutely then happily, because he regarded not ancient Tradition, and was not versed in the reading of the Fathers; and would not learn from them the Mysteries of the sealed book] And in another place he blames him, that he alway followed the Hebrew and Greek text: And many other Papists by him and others are blamed for the same faults: Andradius, and more of the later plead for it. And yet these men are counted members of your Church, that go against an Article of your new faith and Oath.
he adds, that [yet his doctrine was defiled with a Leprosie of errors, by an affection and lust of Curiosity, or confidence on his wit, expounding Scripture as he list, happily indeed for the most part, but in some few places more acutely then happily, because he regarded not antient Tradition, and was not verst in the reading of the Fathers; and would not learn from them the Mysteries of the sealed book] And in another place he blames him, that he alway followed the Hebrew and Greek text: And many other Papists by him and others are blamed for the same faults: Andradius, and more of the later plead for it. And yet these men are counted members of your Church, that go against an Article of your new faith and Oath.
So Transubstantiation is one of your New Articles in that Oath. Do we make a New one now if we reject it? Or need we be put to prove the Negative? And yet we can easily do it: And Edm. Albertinus (among many others) hath done it unanswerably.
Another of your Articles is, that [it belongeth to your Holy Mother the Church to judge of the true sense of Scripture] And you mean the Roman Church; and that they must judge of it for all the Christian world. Prove this to be the Ancient doctrine if you can. If we reject this Novelty, are we Innovators? or need we prove the Negative? And yet we can do it, and have oft done it at large. Did Athanasius, Basil, Nazianzen, Nyssen, Augustine, Hierom, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and the rest of the Fathers, send to Rome for the sense of the Scriptures which they expound, or did they procure the Popes Approbation before any of them published their Commentaries? You know sure that they did not.