A27015:650
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 if it be but some things that the Pope is infallible in, then how shall we be sure which be those some? Can we know before he discloseth them, or only ⟨p. 263⟩after? I suppose they will say [It is in all those things which he determineth or declareth] But if that be the rule to know the extent of his infallibility by; then I Every Pope beginneth to be infallible, when he beginneth to Determine or declare, and not before. 2. And then every Pope increaseth in his infallibility, as he increaseth his Decretals or Canons. 3. And then one Pope is much more infallible then others, who have made more decrees then others. 4. And then some Popes were never infallible, who never made any decrees or determinations or expositions at all, so that their cause is lost, if their actual discoveries be the Rule of the extent of their infallibility. And yet I cannot imagine what else they can say that may have any appearance of consisting with their interest.
But if it be but some things that the Pope is infallible in, then how shall we be sure which be those some? Can we know before he discloseth them, or onely ⟨p. 263⟩after? I suppose they will say [It is in all those things which he determineth or declareth] But if that be the rule to know the extent of his infallibility by; then I Every Pope beginneth to be infallible, when he beginneth to Determine or declare, and not before. 2. And then every Pope increaseth in his infallibility, as he increaseth his Decretals or Canons. 3. And then one Pope is much more infallible then others, who have made more decrees then others. 4. And then some Popes were never infallible, who never made any decrees or determinations or expositions at all, so that their cause is lost, if their actual discoveries be the Rule of the extent of their infallibility. And yet I cannot imagine what else they can say that may have any appearance of consisting with their interest.
For it is either a Positive or a Negative infallibility which they mean and ascribe to their Church. If a Positive, then 1. All the foresaid absurdities unavoidably follow; whether they say that they can infallibly teach us all things (and will not) or but some? But if it be a Negative infallibility which they maintain (viz. that the Church shall never teach any false doctrine; Or the Pope shall never deceive us by obtruding any error, though withal he may possibly teach us but part of the truth, yea the necessary truth, yea perhaps teach us none at all) I say, if this be their meaning, then every infant or bird or beast hath as glorious a privilege as the Pope of Rome: For every infant and brute is so infallible; that we are certain they will not deceive the Church by teaching any error.