A27015:495
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.
Arg. 1. If the Pope or any other had such a Judicial Decisive Power, then might they oblige us to Believe that there is no God, that Christ is not the Redeemer, that Scripture is not the word of God, ⟨p. 200⟩and so they might cast Faith and Scripture out of the Church: But this is false and abominable; therefore the Pope hath no such Power.
For the consequence, it is manifest, supposing that the Pope should give judgement against God, Christ, or Scripture, then men must (by this Doctrine) be bound to obey it, and forsake God, Christ, and Scripture for the Pope.
Whereunto add a second Argument from a further absurdity: Then either such as renounce God, Christ, and Scripture may be saved, or else God bindeth men (by the Pope) to renounce him and the faith to their own damnation. But both these consequents are false and abominable: Therefore.
I know they will here reply, that we must not suppose that the Pope can err in his judgement, and therefore being infallible, he will certainly make no such false Decision. To which I say, 1. Why then should it be said that God hath given Authority to decide in utramque partem, on either side? Doth God give a man Authority to do that, which he hath promised him and all others that he shall never do: But he will keep him from? This is to make Gods Commissions to be impious, and his Grace to the Pope only to hinder the execution of them in an impious way. Who dare say openly that [God hath given authority to the Pope to judge decisively and obligatorily that there is no God, Christ or Scripture, though he will graciously hinder him from so doing] If the Papists say that they do not say so, I would know then what their judicial power in these matters is? Is it only this, that the Pope hath Power to judge, that there is a God, a Christ, a word of