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,…

and, 400 years after them, Austin the Monk. Of these stories we shall speak particularly afterwards. But this quite spoils the whole market in hand; this is not a FIRST receiving of the Gospel, but a second and third at the best; and if that be considerable, then so ought the Proposition to be laid: These Nations a second and third time, after the first from another place, received the Gospel from Rome; but this will not discharge that bill of following Items, with is laid upon it. What ever ⟨p. 43⟩then there is considerable in the place or persons, from whence, or whom, a Nation, or People, receive the Gospel, as far as it concerns us, in these Kingdoms; it relates to Jerusalem and Jews, not Rome and Italians. Indeed, it had been very possible, that Christian Religion might have been propagated at first from Rome into Britany, considering, what, in these days, was the condition of the one place, and the other; yet things were so ordered, in the Providence of the Lord, that it fell out otherwise; and the Gospel was preached here in England, probably, before ever St. Paul came to Rome, or St. Peter either, if ever he came there. But yet, to prevent wrangling about Austin and the Saxons, let us suppose that Christian Religion was first planted in these Nations by Persons coming from Rome, if you will, men sent by the Pope, before he was born, for that purpose: What then will follow? Was it the Popes Religion they taught and preached? Did the Pope first find it out, and declare it? Did they baptize men into the name of the Pope? or, Declare that the Pope was crucified for them? You know whose ⟨p. 44⟩arguings these are, to prove men should not lay weight upon, or contend about, the first ministerial Revealers of the Gospel; but rest all in Him who is the Author of it, Christ Jesus. Did any come here and preach in the Popes name, declare a Religion of his Revealing, or resting in him as the fountain and source of the whole business they had to do? If you say so, you say something which is near to your purpose, but certainly very wide from the Truth. But because it is most certain, that God had not promised, originally, to send the rod of Christs strength out of Rome, I shall take leave to ask, Whence the Gospel came thither? or, to use the words made use of once and again by our Author, Came the Gospel from them, or came it to them only?

and, 400 years after them, Austin the Monk. Of these stories we shall speak particularly afterwards. But this quite spoiles the whole market in hand; this is not a FIRST receiving of the Gospel, but a second and third at the best; and if that be considerable, then so ought the Proposition to be laid: These Nations a second and third time, after the first from another place, received the Gospell from Rome; but this will not discharge that bill of following Items, with is laid upon it. What ever