A27015:281
The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholic religion against popery proving…The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholike religion against popery proving…
The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholic religion against popery proving that popery is against the Holy Scriptures, the unity of the catholic church, the consent of the ancient doctors, the plainest reason, and common judgment of sense it self / by Richard Baxter.The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholike religion against popery proving that popery is against the Holy Scriptures, the unity of the catholike church, the consent of the antient doctors, the plainest reason, and common judgment of sense it self / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed by Abraham Miller for Thomas Underhill, 1657
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.
6. To this end, they must not only know that Peter was at Rome (of which read well Ulricus Velenus in Goldastus) and was Bishop there, but they must know that he was the only Bishop there, or at least the chief, and that Paul was no Bishop there (who is more likely to have been) or else that he was the inferior, and that the Pope is Peters successor and not Pauls; or else succeedeth them both, and hath his infallibility but from one, unless the successors of the rest of the Apostles are infallible too.
6. To this end, they must not onely know that Peter was at Rome (of which read well Ʋlricus Velenus in Goldastus) and was Bishop there, but they must know that he was the only Bishop there, or at least the chief, and that Paul was no Bishop there (who is more likely to have been) or else that he was the inferior, and that the Pope is Peters successor and not Pauls; or else succeedeth them both, and hath his infallibility but from one, unless the successors of the rest of the Apostles are infallible too.
7. If Peter and Paul were Bishops at once of one Church in Rome, then it must be known why they may not have two successors at once; and if there be two, which of them is to be believed when they disagree. But if Peter and Paul were Bishops of two particular Churches in Rome, the one of the Circumcision, the other of the uncircumcision, then it must be known by what right their successors made them one? or whether it were not by a failing or cessation of the Church of the Circumcision, when all Jews were banished from Rome, and so the Church of the uncircumcision only continuing, the Pope be not only Pauls successor.
7. If Peter and Paul were Bishops at once of one Church in Rome, then it must be known why they may not have two successors at once; and if there be two, which of them is to be believed when they disagree. But if Peter and Paul were Bishops of two particular Churches in Rome, the one of the Circumcision, the other of the uncircumsion, then it must be known by what right their successors made them one? or whether it were not by a failing or cessation of the Church of the Circumcision, when all Jews were banished from Rome, and so the Church of the uncircumcision only continuing, the Pope be not only Pauls successor.