A27015:677
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.
Argu. 19. The infallibility of the Pope or Roman Church, was never acknowledged by the Ancient Churches, or Fathers, for six hundred years after Christ: Therefore it is not now to be received.
Argu. 19. The infallibility of the Pope or Romane Church, was never acknowledged by the Ancient Churches, or Fathers, for six hundred years after Christ: Therefore it is not now to be received.
The Antecedent is so fully proved by our Writers, and so easily discernible by those that read the writings of those times, that there needs not any more to be said. That which I shall produce to this purpose, shall be anon to prove the following point and this together. In the mean time I refer them to Bishop Jewell, Chamber, Bishop Usher, Doctor White, who with many more have fully proved this.
The Antecedent is so fully proved by our Writers, and so easily discernable by those that read the writtings of those times, that there needs not any more to be said. That which I shall produce to this pupose, shall be anon to prove the following point and this together. In the mean time I refer them to Bishop Jewell, Cham•er, Bishop Ʋsher, Doctor White, who with many more have fully proved this.
Argu. 20. If the Pope be not the Authorized judge of Scripture, nor our faith to be resolved into his judgement (or the judgement of his Church) then is he not the Infallible judge of Scripture, and of controversies about matters of faith. For he that is no judge can be no infallible judge: nor doth he need infallibility to qualify him for a work which he was never called to, nor doth at all belong to him. It is not the Pope as a private Doctor, or as the Bishop of a particular Church, which is made by them the subject of infallibility, but the Pope as the supposed head of the Catholic Church authorized to interpret Scripture, and to judge of all controversies of faith, into whose judgement (at least with his Clergy) our faith, they think must be resolved. If therefore we can prove the nullity of the subject we do thereby prove the nullity of the Adjunct. And this leads us up to the third Question, which we have now to deal with.