Animadversions on a treatise entitled Fiat lux, or, A guide in differences of religion,…Animadversions on a treatise intituled Fiat lux, or, A guide in differences of religion,…

There is not any thing else, which Protestants are universally bound to observe in the course of his life, before he went beyond the Seas, but only the offence he took at men's preaching at London against Popery; not, that he was then troubled, if we may believe him, that Popery was ill reported of, but the miscarriage of the Preachers in bringing in the Papal Church hand over-head in their Sermons, speaking all evil and no good of it, and charging it with contradictions, was that, which gave him distaste. He knows himself best what it was that troubled him, nor shall I set up conjectures against his assertions. The triple evil mentioned, so far as it is evil, I hope, he finds now remedied. For my part, I never liked of mens importune diversions from their Texts, to deal with, or confute Papists, ⟨p. 281⟩which is the first part of the evil complained of. I know a far more effectual way to preserve men from Popery, namely, a solid instruction of them in the Principles of Truth with an endeavour to plant in their hearts the power of those Principles, that they may have experience of their worth and usefulness. That nothing but evil was spoken of Popery by Protestants, when they spake of it, I cannot wonder; they account nothing evil in the Religion of the Romanists but Popery; which is the name of the evil of that Religion. Noah Protestants ever denied, but that the Romanists retained many good things in the Religion, which they profess; but those good things, they say, are no part of Popery; so that our Author should not by right, have been so offended, that men spake no good of that, which is the expression of the evil of that, which in its self, is good, as Popery is of the Papists Christianity. The last parcel of that which was the matter of his trouble and offence, he displays by sundry of the contradictions, which Protestants charged Popery withal. To little purpose; ⟨p. 282⟩for, either, the things he mentions, are not by any charged on Popery, or not in that manner he expresseth, or the contradiction between them, consists not in the assertions themselves, but in some additional terms supplied by himself to make them appear Contradictions. For instance, (to take those given by himself) if one say, the Papists worship stocks and stones, another say, they worship a piece of Bread, here is no contradiction.

There is not any thing else, which Protestants are universally bound to observe in the course of his life, before he went beyond the Seas, but only the offence he took at men's preaching at London against Popery; not, that he was then troubled, if we may believe him, that Popery was ill reported of, but the miscarriage of the Preachers in bringing in the Papal Church hand over-head in their Sermons, speaking all evil and no good of it, and charging it with contradictions, was that, which gave him distaste. He knows himself best what it was that troubled him, nor shall I set up conjectures against his assertions. The triple evil mentioned, so farr as it is evil, I hope, he finds now remedyed. For my part, I never liked of mens importune diversions from their Texts, to deal with, or confute Papists,