A27015:824
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.
How will you approve of such reasoning as your own in other cases! What if ten men that have been at a fight, come home and tell you, which side had ⟨p. 354⟩the better? though they are all fallible, may they not possibly give you such infallible proof of what they say, as may make it certain? What if all the Lawyers in the Land are fallible men, yea and all other men in the Land; and do not know all things, nor all that should be known about the Laws? Doth it follow that these fallible men, may not infallibly know themselves and infallibly prove to others, even by certain humane testimony, uncapable of deceit, that this or that is indeed a statute Law of the Land made by King and Parliament? Do all men hold their lands and lives by Law, and so many dye at the Gallows by Law, and yet is it uncertain whether they be the Laws indeed or not, and all because the men that say so, are not infallible (and all are dead that saw them made!) Why but a man may be certain of many a thing that yet is not infallible in all things, nor in all that he ought to know. Your argument therefore is strong against your selves, who resolve mens saith into humane credit, but its nothing against us, who resolve it into Gods veracity, and teach not men to take all upon trust from our bare words. It is sufficient that God is infallible when we persuade them to believe, and that we can infallibly prove to them that the Scripture is Gods word, and what it containeth in the points of necessity to salvation. We can without infallibility in all other matters, infallibly prove to them what God requireth them to Believe and Do as Necessary to Salvation. It is the infallibility of our proofs▪ and not of our bare words, that is necessary to mens belief. But the Papists expect their misled flock should take their bare word, and so make the faith of their followers, a humane faith; and to blind the business they pretend ⟨p. 355⟩to a certain infallibility as if their sayings were Divine.
How will you approve of such reasoning as your own in other cases! What if ten men that have been at a fight, come home and tell you, which side had ⟨p. 354⟩the better? though they are all fallible, may they not possibly give you such infallible proof of what they say, as may make it certain? What if all the Lawyers in the Land are fallible men, yea and all other men in the Land; and do not know all things, nor all that should be known about the Lawes? Doth it follow that these fallible men, may not infallibly know themselves and infallibly prove to others, even by certain humane testimony, uncapable of deceit, that this or that is indeed a statute Law of the Land made by King and Parliament? Do all men hold their lands and lives by Law, and so many dye at the Gallows by Law, and yet is it uncertain whether they be the Laws indeed or not, and all because the men that say so, are not infallible (and all are dead that saw them made!) Why but a man may be certain of many a thing that yet is not infallible in all things, nor in all that he ought to know. Your argument therefore is strong against your selves, who resolve mens saith into humane credit, but its nothing against us, who resolve it into Gods veracity, and teach not men to take all upon trust from our bare words. It is sufficient that God is infallible when we perswade them to believe, and that we can infallibly prove to them that the Scripture is Gods word, and what it containeth in the points of necessity to salvation. We can without infallibility in all other matters, infallibly prove to them what God requireth them to Believe and Do as Necessary to Salvation. It is the infallibility of our proofs and not of our bare words, that is necessary to mens belief. But the Papists expect their misled flock should take their bare word, and so make the faith of their followers, a humane faith; and to blind the business they pretend