A27015:605
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.
But let that controversy go how it will, I am sure the substance is objectum s•nsus per accidens, though not per se, or that the intellect infallibly judgeth of substance, by the help of the senses apprehension. Otherwise all the forementioned absurdities will follow, and still the Pope and Church will be fallible: For then the Apostles and others that saw Christs Miracles could be sure only of the accidents, and not of the substance. ⟨p. 244⟩Then no man is certain whether it was Christ himself that lived on earth that was crucified, and rose again, or only the accidents of Christ: And then no man knows whether there be a Pope at Rome, or only the accidents of a Pope: and so of the rest. 3. And to the third part of the answer I reply, That if sense be infallible when substances and accidents are inseparable, then it is always infallible: For the accident separated from the subject doth perish. Moreover how shall we know whether substances and accidents are separated or not? If we be sure of that by sense, then sense is still infallible so far: if not, then sense is fallible, because it knows not when it apprehendeth any more then naked accidents. But indeed its a contradiction to talk of accidents that are not subjecti alicujus accidentia.
But let that controversie go how it will, I am sure the substance is objectum s•nsus per accidens, though not per se, or that the intellect infallibly judgeth of substance, by the help of the senses apprehension. Otherwise all the forementioned absurdities will follow, and still the Pope and Church will be fallible: For then the Apostles and others that saw Christs Miracles could be sure onely of the accidents, and not of the substance. ⟨p. 244⟩Then no man is certain whether it was Christ himself that lived on earth that was crucified, and rose again, or onely the accidents of Christ: And then no man knows whether there be a Pope at Rome, or onely the accidents of a Pope: and so of the rest. 3. And to the third part of the answer I reply, That if sense be infallible when substances and accidents are inseparable, then it is alwayes infallible: For the accident separated from the subject doth perish. Moreover how shall we know whether substances and accidents are separated or not? If we be sure of that by sense, then sense is still infallible so far: if not, then sense is fallible, because it knows not when it apprehendeth any more then naked accidents. But indeed its a contradiction to talk of accidents that are not subjecti alicujus accidentia.