A27015:388
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.
The Major is unquestionably true among true Christians. For the proof of the Minor I shall only give you three instances of the Popish Doctrine, because I intend not to be too particular, left I be too large.
The first is, their affirming the Scripture both to be insufficient to discover the whole doctrine of faith, as being but one part of Gods Word, and Tradition the other part, and also to be no Word of God at all to us, till the Pope and his Clergy do authoritatively determine it so to be; or that we cannot know the Scripture to be Gods word, but upon the Authority of the Churches determination. But of this I have spoken before, and shall do more in another dispute.
The second instance that I give is, Their changing Christs most express institution, by withholding the Cup in the Lords Supper from the people, and giving them but half the Sacrament. I am not now disputing about the efficacy or inefficacy of one half, so delivered; but proving the intolerable Arrogancy of the Papists that dare set up the will of man above Gods Word, and give power to the Pope to change Christs Institutions; and not only to add but to diminish, and expressly to contradict Christ, and forbid what he commandeth. I know they pretend that it was but to the twelve Apostles that Christ gave the Cup, and not to the Laity: True, nor the bread neither: but then if he intended that none but the Clergy have the Cup, why may they not as well say so of the Bread? But do not these deceivers know? 1. That Christ gives this reason of his administering the Cup [Drink ye All of it: For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of sins?] So that if this reason hold to others, if his blood be shed for the sins of others as well as for the Clergy, then the command extendeth to others [Drink ye all of it.] And do they not know that Luke further intimateth this in his narration of the words of Christ [This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you?] So that those whom it is shed for (and we may discern to be Believers) it may be applied to. 2. And do they not know that Paul delivereth the doctrine both of the Bread and Cup, as from the Lord, to the whole Church of Corinth,