Skip to content

A26962:43

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)

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:40–55 of 699

:40p. 16

Q. 10. And do you not hereby, instead of the light burden and easy yoke of Christ, and his Commands which are not grievous, bring Christians under a harder yoke than that which the Jews were not able to bear? When it seemed good to the Holy Ghost in the Apostles to impose but a few and necessary things, Act. 15. 28. And how large a Law is all the Bible, and all your Councils Decrees, and Oral Traditions, set together? Do all your Priests themselves, or one of an hundred, understand them all, or know what they are?

Q. 10. And do you not hereby, instead of the light burden and easie yoak of Christ, and his Commands which are not grievous, bring Christians under a harder yoak than that which the Jews were not able to bear? When it seemed good to the Holy Ghost in the Apostles to impose but a few and necessary things, Act. 15. 28. And how large a Law is all the Bible, and all your Councils Decrees, and Oral Traditions, set together? Do all your Priests themselves, or one of an hundred, understand them all, or know what they are?

:41p. 16

Q. 11. While you pretend a Necessity of your numerous Ceremonies, (as Fasting on Fridays, and such other named by you,) do you not lay a snare of perpetual Division in the Churches? and do you not make as many inconsistent Churches, as there be Societies of Christians that differ (and still will differ) about any of those Traditions or Ceremonies?

Q. 11. While you pretend a Necessity of your numerous Ceremonies, (as Fasting on Frydays, and such other named by you,) do you not lay a snare of perpetual Division in the Churches? and do you not make as many inconsistent Churches, as there be Societies of Christians that differ (and still will differ) about any of those Traditions or Ceremonies?

:42p. 16–17

[ Earlier passages Later passages ]

Position

Cited: :43
On this page: :40–55
Section: :8–65
Whole work: 699 passages

Cite

Richard Baxter, Naked popery, or, The naked falshood of a book called The Catholick naked truth,… (London, 1677), ch. 1, p. 17. 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

:51p. 19–20¶5

5. And there I have desired you to tell us, whether your Grandfather, or his Priest, was Infallible? If yea, how, came he by it more than all those Churches? If not, do you not delude your Relations, by drawing them to build ⟨p. 20⟩their Faith on a fallible man, or upon nothing? Your Relations were not at the Council of Trent, or Florence, or Lateran: How shall they be sure what the Pope and Council agreed on? What Foundation, but the words of your Priest or Grandfather, have you for your assurance? May not one of your Priests lye as well as all the Greek, Abassine, &c. Churches? When Pope Celestine himself falsely urged the Nicene Council for Appeals to Rome, contrary to Augustine and the Carthage Council? Either tell your Readers plainly, that it's you, and such as you, that are the Infallible Foundation of their Faith; or bid them stay, and not go your way, till they are certain what the Pope and his Council say; and that he is a true Pope, and it a true Council, and that they are more Infallible than the major part of Christians. And our Faith can be no stronger than the weakest necessary medium of it, from whence it must arise.

5. And there I have desired you to tell us, whether your Grandfather, or his Priest, was Infallible? If yea, how, came he by it more than all those Churches? If not, do you not delude your Relations, by drawing them to build ⟨p. 20⟩their Faith on a fallible man, or upon nothing? Your Relations were not at the Council of Trent, or Florence, or Laterane: How shall they be sure what the Pope and Council agreed on? What Foundation, but the words of your Priest or Grandfather, have you for your assurance? May not one of your Priests lye as well as all the Greek, Abassine, &c. Churches? When Pope Coelestine himself falsly urged the Nicene Council for Appeals to Rome, contrary to Augustine and the Carthage Council? Either tell your Readers plainly, that it's you, and such as you, that are the Infallible Foundation of their Faith; or bid them stay, and not go your way, till they are certain what the Pope and his Council say; and that he is a true Pope, and it a true Council, and that they are more Infallible than the major part of Christians. And our Faith can be no stronger than the weakest necessary medium of it, from whence it must arise.

:52p. 20–21¶6

6. I have said so much of this in a small Book, called, [The certainty of Christianity without Popery,] which I entreat you impartially to peruse, where I have also showed the utter uncertainty that Popery would reduce our Christianity to; that I will now only tell you, that after your talk of Tradition, and Church, and Fathers, and Grandfathers, if we had not much more testimony of Tradition for our Religion than you have for Popery, we should think our Faith were very lame. Compare ours with yours: 1. Yours is A pretended Authoritative determination, which rests upon a supposed Inspiration of some Persons, by virtue of a special Privilege peculiar to themselves. 2. It is the Tradition of the minor part of Christians against the major. 3. It rests on the pretended Infallibility of a Pope, which great General Councils have said may be a Heretic, and have deposed divers ⟨p. 21⟩as Heretics, and worse: And upon the Infallibility of General Councils, which by Popes and other Councils are pronounced fallible, unless confirmed by a Pope (who may be a Heretic.) 4. It rests upon a Foundation (viz. the Popes Divine Right of Primacy and Infallibility) which is expressly denied by two of the first four great General Councils, approved to this day; viz. that of Calcedon reciting the sense of that of Constantinople against the said Divine right, affirming, that the Popes Primacy was given him by the Fathers, because Rome was the Imperial Seat. 5. It rests upon an Authority (of Popes and General Councils,) which being at first but the Clergy of one Empire, hath thence claimed the same Power over all the Christian World, which they had got in the Dominions of one Prince. 6. It rests on a Claim downright contradictory to it self, as aforesaid, viz. That we must believe that the Pope hath this Power and Infallibility given him and his Councils, by Christ and his Gospel, before we can believe that there is a Christ and a Gospel authorized and true.

6. I have said so much of this in a small Book, called, [The certainty of Christianity without Popery,] which I intreat you impartially to peruse, where I have also shewed the utter uncertainty that Popery would reduce our Christianity to; that I will now only tell you, that after your talk of Tradition, and Church, and Fathers, and Grandfathers, if we had not much more testimony of Tradition for our Religion than you have for Popery, we should think our Faith were very lame. Compare ours with yours: 1. Yours is A pretended Authoritative determination, which rests upon a supposed Inspiration of some Persons, by virtue of a special Priviledge peculiar to themselves. 2. It is the Tradition of the minor part of Christians against the major. 3. It rests on the pretended Infallibility of a Pope, which great General Councils have said may be a Heretick, and have deposed divers ⟨p. 21⟩as Hereticks, and worse: And upon the Infallibility of General Councils, which by Popes and other Councils are pronounced fallible, unless confirmed by a Pope (who may be a Heretick.) 4. It rests upon a Foundation (viz. the Popes Divine Right of Primacy and Infallibility) which is expresly denyed by two of the first four great General Councils, approved to this day; viz. that of Calcedon reciting the sense of that of Constantinople against the said Divine right, affirming, that the Popes Primacy was given him by the Fathers, because Rome was the Imperial Seat. 5. It rests upon an Authority (of Popes and General Councils,) which being at first but the Clergie of one Empire, hath thence claimed the same Power over all the Christian World, which they had got in the Dominions of one Prince. 6. It rests on a Claim downright contradictory to it self, as aforesaid, viz. That we must believe that the Pope hath this Power and Infallibility given him and his Councils, by Christ and his Gospel, before we can believe that there is a Christ and a Gospel authorized and true.

:53p. 21–22

Now our Tradition is this: For all the Essentials of our Religion, the Sacramental Covenant, and the three expository Symbols, we have the currant Tradition both of the Papists and all the rest of the Christian World: Yea, that every Book that we call Canonical is the true Word of God, not only the Papists but almost all the Christian World confess: And, defacto, that these Books came down from the Apostles, at least that the Gospel was preached by them, we have the Testimony also of Enemies and Persecutors. And are not all these more than the Testimony of one Sect alone? 2. And in this we have as much to confirm us as you have, of the wisdom, piety, care of the Church to preserve the Gospel, and ⟨p. 22⟩much more too; for we have the Piety of all the Churches to plead, and not your Sect alone: And we undertake to prove such a moral Infallibility as is also Natural, viz. That Mans Nature and Interests supposed, it is no more possible for so many Persons and Nations of cross Interests to have agreed in their Testimony for the Gospel, than for all the contentious Lawyers in the Land to have agreed falsely to inform us, that our Statutes were made by such Kings and Parliaments. But a domineering Faction alone might easilier have deceived men.

Now our Tradition is this: For all the Essentials of our Religion, the Sacramental Covenant, and the three expository Symbols, we have the currant Tradition both of the Papists and all the rest of the Christian World: Yea, that every Book that we call Canonical is the true Word of God, not only the Papists but almost all the Christian World confess: And, defacto, that these Books came down from the Apostles, at least that the Gospel was preached by them, we have the Testimony also of Enemies and Persecutors. And are not all these more than the Testimony of one Sect alone? 2. And in this we have as much to confirm us as you have, of the wisdom, piety, care of the Church to preserve the Gospel, and ⟨p. 22⟩much more too; for we have the Piety of all the Churches to plead, and not your Sect alone: And we undertake to prove such a moral Infallibility as is also Natural, viz. That Mans Nature and Interests supposed, it is no more possible for so many Persons and Nations of cross Interests to have agreed in their Testimony for the Gospel, than for all the contentious Lawyers in the Land to have agreed falsly to inform us, that our Statutes were made by such Kings and Parliaments. But a domineering Faction alone might easilier have deceived men.

:54p. 22–23¶3

3. Yea, even as to Christs Promise, we can better prove that the Universal Church, or Body of Christians, shall never lose the Faith, than you can prove it of Rome alone, or the Papal Sect. Bellarmine himself dare not say, that Rome shall not cease to be the feat of the Papacy, or shall not be utterly destroyed. And then how can there be a Bishop of Rome, when there is no Rome? But you'll say, that if he dwell at Avignon, he may be called Bishop of Rome? But if he be called so when he is not so, at least when there is no Rome, or no Christian Church there, sure a false Name is not an Essential part of our Religion. If you say, that at Avignon, or Ravenna, or Vienna, he may be S. Peter's Successor, and so the Universal Monarch still. I answer, Then it seems that the Council of Calcedon, as afore-cited, was in the right, (that Romes Privilege was given by the Fathers, because it was the Imperial Seat:) And so that the Pope is not S. Peter's Successor, eo nomine, because he is Bishop of Rome. But if the Bishop of Avignon, or Vienna, might become S. Peter's Successor (who never was Bishop there,) how shall we know that the Bishop of Rome is his Successor now? We have hitherto had no better means to prove it, and deceive the World, than by saying that S. Peter dyed Bishop ⟨p. 23⟩of Rome, where the Pope is Bishop: But S. Peter dyed not Bishop of Avignon. If the Place prove not the Succession, tell us, if you can, what doth? Is it the Election? By whom? Who are those men that have the Power of choosing S. Peter a Successor? You know, I suppose, that the Pope hath been chosen, 1. Sometime by the People, (witness the blood-shed at the choice of Damasus in the Church:) 2. Sometime by the People, and the Neighbour Ordaining Bishops: 3. Sometime by a Synod: 4. Sometime by the Emperors: 5. And lastly, by the Roman Cardinals. If any of these may choose, then we may have four or five lawful Popes, chosen four or five several ways, at once. If only one of these have the Power, S. Peter had no Successors under all the other Elections. So that the Claim will fall rather to Antioch than to Avignon, or any other Town, because they say it was S. Peter's first Bishopric, from which he removed for a greater. If you are driven with poor Mr. Johnson, alias, Terret, to say, that Any way will serve which serveth for the truth of an Election of Princes, &c.

3. Yea, even as to Christs Promise, we can better prove that the Universal Church, or Body of Christians, shall never lose the Faith, than you can prove it of Rome alone, or the Papal Sect. Bellarmine himself dare not say, that Rome shall not cease to be the feat of the Papacy, or shall not be utterly destroyed. And then how can there be a Bishop of Rome, when there is no Rome? But you'll say, that if he dwell at Avignion, he may be called Bishop of Rome? But if he be called so when he is not so, at least when there is no Rome, or no Christian Church there, sure a false Name is not an Essential part of our Religion. If you say, that at Avignion, or Ravenna, or Vienna, he may be S. Peter's Successor, and so the Universal Monarch still. I answer, Then it seems that the Council of Calcedon, as afore-cited, was in the right, (that Romes Priviledge was given by the Fathers, because it was the Imperial Seat:) And so that the Pope is not S. Peter's Successor, eo nomine, because he is Bishop of Rome. But if the Bishop of Avignion, or Vienna, might become S. Peter's Successor (who never was Bishop there,) how shall we know that the Bishop of Rome is his Successor now? We have hitherto had no better means to prove it, and deceive the World, than by saying that S. Peter dyed Bishop ⟨p. 23⟩of Rome, where the Pope is Bishop: But S. Peter dyed not Bishop of Avignion. If the Place prove not the Succession, tell us, if you can, what doth? Is it the Election? By whom? Who are those men that have the Power of chusing S. Peter a Successor? You know, I suppose, that the Pope hath been chosen, 1. Sometime by the People, (witness the blood-shed at the choice of Damasus in the Church:) 2. Sometime by the People, and the Neighbour Ordaining Bishops: 3. Sometime by a Synod: 4. Sometime by the Emperours: 5. And lastly, by the Roman Cardinals. If any of these may chuse, then we may have four or five lawful Popes, chosen four or five several ways, at once. If only one of these have the Power, S. Peter had no Successors under all the other Elections. So that the Claim will fall rather to Antioch than to Avignion, or any other Town, because they say it was S. Peter's first Bishoprick, from which he removed for a greater. If you are driven with poor Mr. Johnson, alias, Terret, to say, that Any way will serve which serveth for the truth of an Election of Princes, &c.

:55p. 23–24¶3

then still we may have four Popes at least. I doubt you must be forced to say as some, that it is the acceptance of the Universal Church, which must prove who is the Universal Monarch. 1. But some must be Electors, before it comes to acceptance. And who hath the Power of Electing? And 2. what if now the major part of the Church should prefer the Bishop of Constantinople? I hope you are not so ignorant of Cosmography as not to know that the Greek Church when they first preferred the Bishop of Const. was far greater than the Latin. 3. And I suppose you know that it is not near half the Christian World that now accepteth of the Pope as their Governor. 4. And I pray you do but get the Pope to suspend his claim till the Church Universal ⟨p. 24⟩accept him, and we shall not be troubled with him: For how shall they signify their acceptance? If in a General Council, you know how they of Constance, Basil, and Pisa, are reviled by the Pope and those that now go for your Church, for pretending to a power to depose and choose Popes; and how Eugenius the fourth prevailed against such a Deposition. And if these Councils were not your Universal Church representative, where shall we think to find it?

then still we may have four Popes at least. I doubt you must be forced to say as some, that it is the acceptance of the Universal Church, which must prove who is the Universal Monarch. 1. But some must be Electors, before it comes to acceptance. And who hath the Power of Electing? And 2. what if now the major part of the Church should prefer the Bishop of Constantinople? I hope you are not so ignorant of Cosmography as not to know that the Greek Church when they first preferred the Bishop of Const. was far greater than the Latine. 3. And I suppose you know that it is not near half the Christian World that now accepteth of the Pope as their Governour. 4. And I pray you do but get the Pope to suspend his claim till the Church Universal ⟨p. 24⟩accept him, and we shall not be troubled with him: For how shall they signifie their acceptance? If in a General Council, you know how they of Constance, Basil, and Pisa, are reviled by the Pope and those that now go for your Church, for pretending to a power to depose and chuse Popes; and how Eugenius the fourth prevailed against such a Deposition. And if these Councils were not your Universal Church representative, where shall we think to find it?