A27015:496
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.
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 ⟨p. 201⟩God? &c. Why so have others as well he? If they shall dare to say, that matters of faith are not such to us (that is, we be not obliged to believe them) till the Pope have determined them: I answer, What! is no Heathen or Infidel bound to Believe that there is a God, a Christ, a Scripture, till the Pope tell him so? Shall all Infidels be excused in judgement, that had the Gospel preached to them by any other Christians except the Pope or others in his name? Is no man on earth bound to believe in Christ that knows not the Popes mind in the matter? And must men believe in the Pope before they believe in Christ? And must they believe in Christ only because the Pope bids them, or because they first believe in the Pope? I do not think that either the ears of Good Christians, or rational Infidels will relish such doctrine. And what is this Believing in the Pope that must go first? Is it not to take him to be Saint Peters successor, and that Saint Peter was Christs Disciple, who had a promise of infallibility, which is now devolved to the Pope: And must this be believed before men believe in Christ? We must believe what he promised, and who were his servants, before we believe in himself? This is a ground too like the Popish superstructure.