A27015:528
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.
3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His first proof (lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3.) is from Luk. 22. [Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired, &c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.] Doth this Text say that the Pope of Rome is infallible? Yes, if you will take Bellarmines word. And first he tells us that (among themselves) there are three several expositions given of this Text; and it is but one of the three that will serve their turn: Good still! And how shall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on, is the right? Let any impartial man peruse his reasons, and make his best of them: For indeed there is no reason in them. But on the contrary I shall presume to tell them, why I suppose that this Text doth not talk of the Popes infallibility. 1. Because here is never a word either of the Pope, or of Rome, or of Infallibility. 2. Because the thing here promised is expressly restrained to one individual person, Simon. 3. The thing here promised was about Peters personal Faith, and not about infallibility in judging. For 1. In that respect that Satan desired to sift Peter, in that respect Christ promised the not failing of his Faith. But it was in ⟨p. 215⟩respect of his personal Faith, and not his Cathedral judgement that Satan is here said to desire to sift him: Therefore, &c. 2. It is expressly said to be [his Faith] that should not fail: But his Faith, is not his tongue or Cathedral sentence: words be not Faith.
3. But let us examine the particular proofs from Scripture that they bring His first proof (lib. 4. de Pontif. cap. 3.) is from Luk. 22. [Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired, &c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith faile not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.] Doth this Text say that the Pope of Rome is infallible? Yes, if you will take Bellarmines word. And first he tells us that (among themselves) there are three several expositions given of this Text; and it is but one of the three that will serve their turn: Good still! And how shall we know that this one which Bellarmine hit on, is the right? Let any impartial man peruse his reasons, and make his best of them: For indeed there is no reason in them. But on the contrary I shall presume to tell them, why I suppose that this Text doth not talk of the Popes infallibility. 1. Because here is never a word either of the Pope, or of Rome, or of Infallibility. 2. Because the thing here promised is expresly restrained to one individual person, Simon. 3. The thing here promised was about Peters personal Faith, and not about infallibility in judging. For 1. In that respect that Satan desired to sift Peter, in that respect Christ promised the not failing of his Faith. But it was in