Skip to content

A26962:195

Naked popery, or, The naked falsehood of a book called The Catholic naked truth,…Naked popery, or, The naked falshood of a book called The Catholick naked truth,…

Naked popery, or, The naked falsehood of a book called The Catholic naked truth, or, The Puritan convert to apostolical Christianity, written by W.H. opening their fundamental error of unwritten tradition, and their unjust description of the Puritans, the prelatical Protestant, and the papist, and their differences, and better acquainting the ignorant of the same difference, especially what a Puritan and what a papist is / by Richard Baxter ...Naked popery, or, The naked falshood of a book called The Catholick naked truth, or, The Puritan convert to apostolical Christianity, written by W.H. opening their fundamental errour of unwritten tradition, and their unjust description of the Puritans, the prelatical Protestant, and the papist, and their differences, and better acquainting the ignorant of the same difference, especially what a Puritan and what a papist is / by Richard Baxter ...

Richard Baxter 1615–1691London: printed for N. Simmons, 1677

196, [8] p. · 61k words · Wing B1315 · ESTC R13884

Title page: Princeton Theological Seminary Library copy, digitized by the Internet Archive (opens the Internet Archive in a new tab)

Chapter 4: His own false Description of Papists.

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.

[ Earlier:192–207 of 699

:192p. 81

And doubtless he is wronged by this Charge, that he can nullify all pain, death, Purgatory, and Hell; for I think you will say, that quoad potentiam ordinatam Christ cannot do it, or at least he will not. And were this believed by all the World, no wonder if they willingly obeyed him, and called him, Our Lord God the Pope. For he could conquer any Kingdom, by saving all his Soldiers from hurt and death.

And doubtless he is wronged by this Charge, that he can nullifie all pain, death, Purgatory, and Hell; for I think you will say, that quoad potentiam ordinatam Christ cannot do it, or at least he will not. And were this believed by all the World, no wonder if they willingly obeyed him, and called him, Our Lord God the Pope. For he could conquer any Kingdom, by saving all his Souldiers from hurt and death.

:193p. 81–82

It is enough that he can forgive some part or time of Purgatory Torments, and that (as great Doctors say) he can (and lesser Priests than he) forgive the pains of Hell to a sinner that hath no true contrition for sin (that is, repenteth not out of any Love to God or Goodness) ⟨p. 82⟩but only Attrition and the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution, (that is, repenteth only for fear of Hell, and would sin still if he durst.)

:194p. 82

And though you may hope that there are no Copies of the old Pardons yet to be seen, or any of Tecelius Merchandise now extant, yet the sure History of them is common, and if you deny it, it will be proved to your shame. What a multitude of Writers have better cited your practice and confuted it?

[ Earlier passages Later passages ]

Position

Cited: :195
On this page: :192–207
Section: :175–219
Whole work: 699 passages

Cite

Richard Baxter, Naked popery, or, The naked falshood of a book called The Catholick naked truth,… (London, 1677), ch. 4, p. 82. EEBO-TCP A26962.

Or select words in any passage to make an image of them.

The book

Title as printed: Naked popery, or, The naked falsehood of a book called The Catholic naked truth, or, The Puritan convert to apostolical Christianity, written by W.H. opening their fundamental error of unwritten tradition, and their unjust description of the Puritans, the prelatical Protestant, and the papist, and their differences, and better acquainting the ignorant of the same difference, especially what a Puritan and what a papist is / by Richard Baxter ...Naked popery, or, The naked falshood of a book called The Catholick naked truth, or, The Puritan convert to apostolical Christianity, written by W.H. opening their fundamental errour of unwritten tradition, and their unjust description of the Puritans, the prelatical Protestant, and the papist, and their differences, and better acquainting the ignorant of the same difference, especially what a Puritan and what a papist is / by Richard Baxter ...
Author: Richard Baxter 1615–1691
Place: London
Bookseller: N. Simmons
Year: 1677
Size: 196, [8] p.
Words: 60,859
Catalogue: Wing B1315 · ESTC R13884
Text: EEBO-TCP A26962

Passages: 699
Sections: 22

:202p. 83–84

Answ. At the first line one would have thought you had grown past blushing, and had denied your Latin Prayers, not understood; but you never want one word to help you out in renouncing the whole Sentence: You make me think of that sorry Religion which teacheth ⟨p. 84⟩men, that if one Article in a Vow, among many, be unlawful, they may renounce all Obligation to any thing else that there is Vowed; and so a Knave may be disobliged to all Vows and Covenants, if he will but drop in any thing that is unlawful. Do not your unlearned Multitude join in your Latin Prayers? Do Mass-books, and your daily Masses, all deceive our Eyes and Ears? No, that's not it; what then! must all be desirous to understand it, if they cannot? I rather think the Calumny is, that [his mind and heart may be wholly taken up with worldly desires?] But who was it that put in that into the Charge? was it not your self? We know that you say, There should be some General kind of Devotion and good Desire, though he know not what is said; and a General Belief, called Implicit, which is no Belief of any of the Particulars, and a General Implicit Desire, which is no Desire of any express Particular, being a Faith that is no Faith, and a Prayer which is no Prayer, would make a Religion which is no Religion, if you had no better.

Answ. At the first line one would have thought you had grown past blushing, and had denyed your Latine Prayers, not understood; but you never want one word to help you out in renouncing the whole Sentence: You make me think of that sorry Religion which teacheth ⟨p. 84⟩men, that if one Article in a Vow, among many, be unlawful, they may renounce all Obligation to any thing else that there is Vowed; and so a Knave may be disobliged to all Vows and Covenants, if he will but drop in any thing that is unlawful. Do not your unlearned Multitude join in your Latine Prayers? Do Mass-books, and your daily Masses, all deceive our Eyes and Ears? No, that's not it; what then! must all be desirous to understand it, if they cannot? I rather think the Calumny is, that [his mind and heart may be wholly taken up with worldly desires?] But who was it that put in that into the Charge? was it not your self? We know that you say, There should be some General kind of Devotion and good Desire, though he know not what is said; and a General Belief, called Implicite, which is no Belief of any of the Particulars, and a General Implicite Desire, which is no Desire of any express Particular, being a Faith that is no Faith, and a Prayer which is no Prayer, would make a Religion which is no Religion, if you had no better.

:204p. 84–85

Answ. What is a Man but his Wit? The Word (wholly) craftily put in by your self, enableth you also to renounce this Charge: For we all confess that your Doctors commonly hold, that this one Article must be believed, [That the Church is to be believed and obeyed,] and that's one Particular. But I pray tell us if you can: 1. Dare your Church say that every word revealed must be believed Explicitly of necessity to Salvation? No: 2. And have they in any General Council determined what those Particular Articles are that are so necessary, (since you departed from the sufficiency of the Creed?) ⟨p. 85⟩Or do not your Doctors, without any Decree of the Church, use to debate it as a free opinion? 3. And do they not differ among themselves, as all in pieces about the Point? And do not your chief Learned School-men cited at large by Fr. a Sancta Clara on our Articles hold that the Particular Belief of Christ himself, or the supernatural Articles of the Creed are not of necessity? And I know not of any one thing that you are agreed to be necessary, besides the Belief that the Church, (that is, the Pope and his Council) are Infallible, or to be believed and obeyed; and it is a Learned School Doctor and Jesuit Fran. Albertinus Corol. p. 250. that justifieth a Countryman that should believe a falsehood if twenty Bishops tell it him, and that the Command of Faith doth oblige to believe falsehood, it being not per se, but per accidens, &c. And I think the old man is now among you at London, (Fr. a Sancta Clara,) who having cited abundance of Doctors against the necessity of believing in Christ or any Supernatural Point, or in some cases knowing the Law of Nature and the Decalogue, saith p. 20. [To speak my sense freely, I think that the Common People committing themselves to the instruction of the Pastors, trusting their knowledge and goodness, if they be deceived, it shall be accounted invincible ignorance, or probable at least: So Herera; which excuseth from fault: Yea, some Doctors give so much to the Instruction of Doctors on whom the care of the Flock lieth, that if they teach hic & nunc that God would be hated, that a rude Parishioner is bound to believe them. See abundance more in him cited, Deus, Nat. Grat. Probl. 15, and 16. And that you may know that this opinion is not rare, he addeth, p. 123.

Answ. What is a Man but his Wit? The Word (wholly) craftily put in by your self, enableth you also to renounce this Charge: For we all confess that your Doctors commonly hold, that this one Article must be believed, [That the Church is to be believed and obeyed,] and that's one Particular. But I pray tell us if you can: 1. Dare your Church say that every word revealed must be believed Explicitely of necessity to Salvation? No: 2. And have they in any General Council determined what those Particular Articles are that are so necessary, (since you departed from the sufficiency of the Creed?) ⟨p. 85⟩Or do not your Doctors, without any Decree of the Church, use to debate it as a free opinion? 3. And do they not differ among themselves, as all in pieces about the Point? And do not your chief Learned School-men cited at large by Fr. a Sancta Clara on our Articles hold that the Particular Belief of Christ himself, or the supernatural Articles of the Creed are not of necessity? And I know not of any one thing that you are agreed to be necessary, besides the Belief that the Church, (that is, the Pope and his Council) are Infallible, or to be believed and obeyed; and it is a Learned School Doctor and Jesuite Fran. Albertinus Corol. p. 250. that justifieth a Countryman that should believe a falshood if twenty Bishops tell it him, and that the Command of Faith doth oblige to believe falshood, it being not per se, but per accidens, &c. And I think the old man is now among you at London, (Fr. a Sancta Clara,) who having cited abundance of Doctors against the necessity of believing in Christ or any Supernatural Point, or in some cases knowing the Law of Nature and the Decalogue, saith p. 20. [To speak my sence freely, I think that the Common People committing themselves to the instruction of the Pastors, trusting their knowledge and goodness, if they be deceived, it shall be accounted invincible ignorance, or probable at least: So Herera; which excuseth from fault: Yea, some Doctors give so much to the Instruction of Doctors on whom the care of the Flock lyeth, that if they teach hic & nunc that God would be hated, that a rude Parishioner is bound to believe them. See abundance more in him cited, Deus, Nat. Grat. Probl. 15, and 16. And that you may know that this opinion is not rare, he addeth, p. 123.