A27015:52
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
To the reader: To the Literate Romanists that will read this Book.
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.
and the Italians make the Pope the sovereign, and a third party make the Pope and Council conjunct•only, the sovereign, are not here undeniably several Churches specifically different?
and the Italians make the Pope the sovereign, and a third party make the Pope and Council conjunct•only, the sovereign, are not here undenyably several Churches specifically different?
And then you have another deceit for the salving of all this, that increaseth my disaffection. You glory in your present judge of controversies, and tell us it is no wonder if we be all in pieces that have no such judge. And what the better are you for your judge; when he cannot or dare not decide your controversies? No, he dare not determine this fundamental controversy, whether himself or a Council be the sovereign power, for fear of losing the French and those that join with them. So that it must remain but dogma Theologicum ⟨image 19⟩and no point de fide, what is the summa potestas; and yet all that is de fide, even our Christianity and Salvation must be resolved into it? And doth not this directly tend to infidelity? Would you have serious Christians deliver up themselves to such a maze as this for the obtaining of unity? What the better are you for a judge of controversy, in all those hundreds of differences that are among your selves, when your judge either cannot or will not determine them? Are not we as well without him as you are with him? Plain things that are past controversy have no need of your judge! It is no controversy with us whether Christ be the Messiah, whether he rose, ascended and will judge the world: And if we go to darker points, your own judge will say nothing or worse. Why do you cry out so much against expounding the Scripture otherwise then according to the sense of the Church, when your Church will give you no interpretation of them? Do not your expositors differ about many hundred texts of Scripture, and neither Pope nor Council will decide the controversies? These are therefore mere delusions of the world, with the empty name of a judge of controversies. And indeed you sometime show your selves that you have no such high conceit of your Pope (whatever you would make the world believe) as to trust his judgement. Your own Priest Watson tells