A27015:542
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.
Well! you have heard all the Scripture arguments that Bellarmine had to bring (for he brings no more) to prove the pretended infallibility of the Pope. May I not well say that it is no marvel that they are such ill friends to Scripture, who have no more Scripture (that is, none at all) to befriend the very foundation of their cause? And may I not justly recite again Bellarmines own conclusion lib. 3. de verbo Dei c. 3. and from thence show them that their cause is built upon confessed fraud and vanity [It is agreed between us (saith Bellarmine) that only out of the literal sense of Scripture effectual Arguments are fetched:] But Bellarmine bringeth no one Argument for the Popes infallibility out of the literal sense of Scripture: therefore he bringeth no one effectual Argument from Scripture.
Well! you have heard all the Scripture arguments that Bellarmine had to bring (for he brings no more) to prove the pretended infallibility of the Pope. May I not well say that it is no marvaile that they are such ill friends to Scripture, who have no more Scripture (that is, none at all) to befriend the very foundation of their cause? And may I not justly recite again Bellarmines own conclusion lib. 3. de verbo Dei c. 3. and from thence shew them that their cause is built upon confessed fraud and vanity [It is agreed b•tween us (saith Bellarmine) that onely out of the literal sence of Scripture effectual Arguments are fetcht:] But Bellarmine bringeth no one Argument for the Popes infallibility out of the literal sence of Scripture: therefore he bringeth no one effectual Argument from Scripture.
But yet one other Argument he hath, though not from Scripture, and no more: and that is from a double pretended experience: And his first experience is [That in all the other Patriarchal seats there have been Heretics, but not in that of Rome.] But here 1. Bellarmine must be judge, or the Pope who is a party, before all the Patriarchs can be thus condemned. 2. And what if that were true? Can he say the like of all the Bishops, as well as Patriarchs? If not, they may as well hence prove themselves infallible, as the Pope can do. 3. Whether ever there were in the chair at Rome either Pope Liberius an Arian, Pope Honorius a Monothelte, Pope John denying the immortality of the soul, with abundance more such like, we shall have fitter opportunity to open anon, to the shame of this experiment of Bellarmines.