A26962:52
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 ...
London: printed for N. Simmons, 1677
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.
4. Do you not confess that all other Churches may err besides the Roman? And their plea of Tradition you account invalid: Your Book called [Considerations on the Council of Trent, by R. H.] p. 40. saith, [All Conciliary Definitions are not only Declarations and Testifications of such Apostolical Traditions as were left by them evident and conspicuous in all Christian Churches Planted by them; but are many times Determinations of Points deduced from, and necessary consequents to, such clear Traditionals, whether written or unwritten. 2. If the Acts of General Councils were only such Declarations of Apostolical Tradition, yet it is possible that some particular Church, may in time, depart from such a Tradition entrusted to them; else how can any Church become Heretical against any such Tradition?]
4. Do you not confess that all other Churches may erre besides the Roman? And their plea of Tradition you account invalid: Your Book called [Considerations on the Council of Trent, by R. H.] p. 40. saith, [All Conciliary Definitions are not only Declarations and Testifications of such Apostolical Traditions as were left by them evident and conspicuous in all Christian Churches Planted by them; but are many times Determinations of Points deduced from, and necessary consequents to, such clear Traditionals, whether written or unwritten. 2. If the Acts of General Councils were only such Declarations of Apostolical Tradition, yet it is possible that some particular Church, may in time, depart from such a Tradition entrusted to them; else how can any Church become Heretical against any such Tradition?]
Do you not at this day accuse the Greek Church, the Muscovites, the Armenians, the Jacobites, Syrians, Copts, Abassines, the Protestants, &c. as having departed from, or corrupted the first Tradition? And how small a part of the Universality of Christians are the Papists? And if the greater part of Christians may so forsake the Apostolical Tradition, why may not the Pope of Rome and his Council? How shall we be sure of their exemption from such danger? You tell us over and over of our receiving this and that from our Fathers and Grand-Fathers? And is that a certain Proof that it is Apostolical? Why is it not so then with all the rest, the Abassines, the Armenians, &c. and the Majority of Christians? But of this I have spoken in the former Treatise.